Srila Prabhupada on the Third Sex:
“I Do Not Know Exactly…”
By Amara Das Wilhelm

In this article we will closely examine statements made by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada about homosexuality and the third sex. In general, Srila Prabhupada rarely discussed this topic, and the few times he did were always in relation to heterosexuals or people “in the ordinary course of life.” At the same time, he curiously speaks about the homosexual and transgender “eunuch” class of India in a positive and accommodating way. How these two apparently contradictory approaches toward homosexuality can be reconciled is one of the questions this article hopes to address.

It should first be mentioned that Srila Prabhupada’s negative statements about homosexuality were made during the1970s in private and casual meetings with his intimate disciples. Many of the quotes were initial reactions to news stories that the public was hearing about for the first time such as “College Openly Discusses Homosexuality” or “Christian Priests Perform Homosexual Marriage.” It is also important to note that Srila Prabhupada was born in 1896 and raised and educated in Victorian, British-ruled India during the early 1900s. For practically all of his life, the subject of homosexuality was considered to be unspeakable and deviant. The act itself was punishable under Indian law by threat of life imprisonment. Srila Prabhupada’s reaction to such news stories was hardly, therefore, surprising; in fact, it was completely typical for a man of his time and generation.

There is much controversy and debate within Hinduism as to whether or not the guru should be considered completely infallible and “all-knowing.” Some adherents of the faith accept this premise to be true under all circumstances, while others consider the guru perfect in spiritual topics, but not necessarily in mundane or material ones. Although I do not wish to debate this controversy here, it is important to note that Srila Prabhupada himself admitted, “I do not know exactly,” when struggling to define the homosexual and transgender “eunuch” class of India. Similarly, in all of his many books, Srila Prabhupada mentions homosexuality only once, very briefly, and in regard to characters that were not even homosexual by nature. This being said, I leave it to the reader to decide whether or not Srila Prabhupada was completely “all-knowing” and infallible in regard to his knowledge about homosexuality and other topics involving the third sex. In either case, a real guru never wants his disciples to follow him foolishly or “blindly”—he expects them to use their intelligence and apply his teachings in a thoughtful, constructive way.

In Hinduism, it is considered impossible to fully understand the minds and activities of pure devotees who have completely surrendered to God. Such people are believed to be under the potency of yogamaya—a powerful spiritual influence that determines exactly what they do or do not know. These devotees are not omniscient in the way that the supreme Lord is, because even eternally liberated devotees like Arjuna or Mother Yasoda are not fully cognizant of all things at all times. (This is explained by Srila Prabhupada himself in his Bhagavad-Gita As It Is 4.5, purport.) Nevertheless, whatever such devotees say or do is always a humble attempt to please the supreme Lord to the best of their ability.

It is by no means the purpose of this article to criticize or find fault with the transcendental, spiritual teachings of my gurudeva. On the contrary, I hope to defend him from unscrupulous persons who are unable to differentiate between relative social expressions and eternal spiritual truths. I also hope to demonstrate in this chapter that Srila Prabhupada’s understanding and usage of words such as “homosex” and “eunuch” were actually quite different from our own. Unfortunately, many of his quotes have been taken out of context by so-called followers and misused to demean gay and lesbian people—often making them feel unwelcome or even excluded from Krsna consciousness altogether. I cannot think of anything more contrary to the mission of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who both desired to distribute Krsna consciousness compassionately to everyone without restriction. Keeping this in mind, I humbly attempt to address this issue rationally and with no intended offense.

Positive Comments

“Eunuchs” as Part of Vedic Society

Srila Prabhupada: (After asking a disciple what “eunuchs” were called in the West and not getting a satisfactory answer). “I do not know exactly, but such people, they have their own society, and their means of livelihood is that whenever there is some good occasion…marriage or childbirth, like that, so, they go there and pray to God that this child may be very long-living. In this way they make some prayer… They are dancing. Yes. They are chanting Hare Krsna.”
(Tape no. 67—002, April 5, 1967)

Srila Prabhupada: (Describing the nartaka dancers at Lord Caitanya’s birth ceremony.) “Eunuchs also take advantage of such ceremonies [householder ceremonies, especially marriages and births] to receive charity. That is their means of livelihood. Such men never become servants or engage themselves in agriculture or business occupations; they simply take charity from neighborhood friends to maintain themselves peacefully.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta 1.13.106, purport)

Comments: Srila Prabhupada’s benign and favorable remarks about the “eunuchs” of India are quite astonishing when we consider his derogatory comments about male homosexuality in general. Is he aware that the “eunuchs” of India are predominantly homosexual by nature? This is an important question to study.

There is no doubt that the “eunuch” or hijra class of northern India is to a large extent comprised of homosexual and transgender people who are biologically male yet live their social lives as women. In Neither Man nor Woman: The Hijras of India by Serena Nanda, a PhD graduate of New York University who spent many years studying the hijra class of India, it is stated: “The hijra role is a magnet that attracts people with many different kinds of cross-gender identities, attributes, and behaviors —people whom we in the West would differentiate as eunuchs, homosexuals, transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and transvestites.”

It is a well-known fact that the “eunuch” class is commonly misunderstood in India. Nanda writes: “There is a widespread belief in India that hijras are born hermaphrodites [intersexed] and are taken away by the hijra community at birth or in childhood, but I found no evidence to support this belief among the hijras I met, all of whom joined the community voluntarily, most often in their teens.” Did Srila Prabhupada have a clear view about the nature of “eunuchs”? He is certainly unable to provide a lucid definition of them in his conversation with Hayagriva dasa. He mentions that they are “neither male nor female” and also agrees that they are both male and female, yet insists that they are such “by nature” and not merely through castration. Nor is he satisfied with the answer that they are “asexual.” Frustrated, he admits that he “does not know exactly.”

In truth, the so-called eunuch class of India is a heterogeneous group comprised of homosexuals, transgenders, transsexuals, transvestites, and some intersexed people. While in northern India they sometimes castrate themselves due to social persecution and former Islamic influences, in South India they do not. Was Srila Prabhupada aware of the correlation between the sexually ambiguous “third-sex” class of India and the homosexual/transgender subcultures of the West? There have been many instances when it was necessary for Srila Prabhupada’s disciples to explain certain aspects of Western culture to him, and this could easily have been such a case. Either way, Srila Prabhupada definitely included such sexually ambiguous people within Vedic society and characterized them as bestowing blessings, offering prayers, dancing, and chanting Hare Krsna. This is hardly a negative or demonic view of a class of people known to be predominantly homosexual!

On Transsexuals and Gay Relationships

Srila Prabhupada: (To an aspiring disciple considering a transsexual operation.) “First of all, you decide whether you are male or female, then be one or the other. Then, you may enter our temple anytime you like. But sometimes man, sometimes woman, that is not proper. Such awkward things cannot be allowed. It will be disturbing to others. Anyway, continue to chant Hare Krsna as much as possible.”
(Letter, June 10, 1975)

Tripurari Swami: “Although my Guru Maharaja [Srila Prabhupada] frowned on homosexuality in general, he was also very practical, flexible, and compassionate. One of his earliest disciples was a gay man who once related how he had ultimately discussed his sexual orientation with Srila Prabhupada. He said that at that point Srila Prabhupada said, ‘Then just find a nice boy, stay with him and practice Krsna consciousness.’ I also had the experience of meeting a transsexual who explained her sexual orientation and confusion to Srila Prabhupada before committing to an operation. She told me that Prabhupada told her, ‘Just pick one or the other [sex] and stick with it.’ Those who knew him well would have expected him to say something like this in both of these incidences. Again, he was very flexible and compassionate.”
(Sanga: Vol. V, no. 13)

Adi-karta dasa: “In his early brahmacari days [Upendra dasa] had the honor of being Srila Prabhupada’s personal servant for a couple of years. And I had the honor of being his close friend from 1975 until his death. Upendraji was always one to speak from the heart. He related to me once something that he said Srila Prabhupada told him in a private conversation. Upendra was bemoaning his fate as a homosexual in the Hare Krsna movement, and (according to him) Srila Prabhupada—perhaps tired of his endless moaning—advised him to ‘just find a nice boy then, and settle down!’ This was in a private conversation (not recorded), and what actually transpired was that Upendraji got married to a woman instead, some time later. But he did tell me this anecdote, I can vouch for that. And Upendra was, in my experience, an honest and honorable man. Srila Prabhupada was an absolutely sacred memory for him, the most meaningful thing in his entire life, and it’s hard for me to imagine he would ever make up something and pass it off as ‘Prabhupada said…’”
(Letter, June 28, 2001)

Comments: These statements indicate that, at least on a personal level, Srila Prabhupada was open to considering issues like crossing genders or gay relationships at a time (the mid-1970s) when such topics were still very controversial and not well understood. Srila Prabhupada was expert in preaching Krsna consciousness according to time and circumstance; he was always willing to employ new ideas and methods, or even to break away from the standard tradition, if these would help spread Lord Caitanya’s mission more effectively.

On Sexual Differences

Srila Prabhupada: "It is said that by modern medical treatment, a male can be transformed into a female, and a female into a male. The body, however, has no connection with the soul. The body can be changed, either in this life or the next. Therefore, one who has knowledge of the soul and how the soul transmigrates from one body to another does not pay attention to the body, which is nothing but a covering dress. Panditah sama-darsinah. Such a person sees the soul, which is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord. Therefore he is a sama-darsi, a learned person."
(Srimad Bhagavatam 9.1.33, purport)

Syamasundara dasa: “[May, 1976] One morning in Hawaii, I was standing by Srila Prabhupada’s window overlooking his private garden when a senior disciple named Siddhasvarupa dasa came in. He began complaining about all of the ‘pretty boys’ and homosexuals in ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada just let him vent, not saying much of anything. After some time Siddhasvarupa left, not getting the reaction he had wanted. Prabhupada sat at his desk for a while. I was feeling really angry toward Siddhasvarupa but also self-conscious about my own sexuality. Prabhupada sat there quietly and in deep thought. He then looked over at me briefly and said, ‘What is the difference if a person is held in this material world by a gold chain, or by a silver chain?’ I replied, ‘I don’t know, Srila Prabhupada.’ He continued, “I am glad that Siddhasvarupa is chanting and reading my books, but he is always focusing on everyone else and not on the Supreme Person. That is the important thing.’”
(Ashe Journal, Vol. II, No. 4)

Comments: Srila Prabhupada rarely made an issue out of homosexuality. Rather, he viewed it simply as another material attachment, just as heterosexuality itself is a material attachment. He often commented, “Sex is sex,” and was not interested in establishing one type of lust above another. His focus was entirely on encouraging everyone to hear and chant about Krsna and making sure that all types of persons felt welcome at his temples. In the early days of the Krsna consciousness movement, Srila Prabhupada initiated many gay and lesbian disciples and none of them have ever complained about being treated differently, or loved any less, by His Divine Grace.

Accommodating All Members Of Society

Srila Prabhupada: “Even to date there are many prostitutes in great cities of India who are sincere devotees of the Lord. By tricks of chance one may be obliged to adopt a profession which is not very adorable in society, but that does not hamper one in executing devotional service to the Lord. Devotional service to the Lord is uncheckable in all circumstances. It is understood herewith that even in those days, about five thousand years ago, there were prostitutes in a city like Dvaraka, where Lord Krsna resided. This means that prostitutes are necessary citizens for the proper upkeep of society. The government opens wine shops, but this does not mean that the government encourages the drinking of wine. The idea is that there is a class of men who will drink at any cost, and it has been experienced that prohibition in great cities encouraged the illicit smuggling of wine. Similarly, men who are not satisfied at home require such concessions, and if there is no prostitute, then such low men will induce others into prostitution. It is better that prostitutes be available in the marketplace so that the sanctity of society can be maintained. It is better to maintain a class of prostitutes than to encourage prostitutes within society. The real reformation is to enlighten all people to become devotees of the Lord, and that will check all kinds of deteriorating factors of life.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 1.11.19, purport)

Srila Prabhupada: “In all communities in human society—including the brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaishyas, sudras, candalas, etc.—and in the animal kingdom—including the cows, dogs, goats, etc.—everyone has his part to play. Each is to work in cooperation for the total benefit of all society, which includes not only animate objects but also inanimate objects like hills and land…. Another hint we get from this statement is that the candalas, or the untouchables, are also not to be neglected by the higher classes and should be given necessary protection. Everyone is important, but some are directly responsible for the advancement of human society, and some are only indirectly responsible. However, when Krsna consciousness is there, then everyone’s total benefit is taken care of.”
(Krsna book, Vol. I, pp. 245-246)

Comments: In these two passages Srila Prabhupada explains that everyone should be accommodated in society, including those considered lower class or less important. Even if we accept the notion that nonprocreative people are less important than those who procreate, still, they are not to be excluded or neglected by society in any way. Similarly, the modern idea that lower class people such as prostitutes, their clients, people who take intoxication, etc., should only be punished, imprisoned or rejected by society is not a Vedic principle. Rather, as explained by Srila Prabhupada, everyone should be cared for, allotted a place according to his or her ability in life and gradually elevated through the process of Krsna consciousness.

Negative Comments

In the comments below, Srila Prabhupada discusses homosexuality in a negative way. He discourages it as a practice for his disciples, most of whom, of course, were heterosexual. He stresses that procreative sex within marriage is the only acceptable option for them and that “homosex,” as he called it, was unnatural and degraded behavior for people “in the ordinary course of life.” Many of his comments mirror the popular social views of his time, and some have even since been proven untrue, such as the statements that homosexuality is caused by overindulgence with women, or that there is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It should also be noted that in these negative comments, Srila Prabhupada discusses homosexuality entirely as a behavioral “choice” and not as an inherent nature or “third sex.”

Homosexuality is a Mental Illness

Social researcher: “But homosexuality is a sickness. It’s an illness. Just like if a person can’t see, would you punish him for not seeing? You can’t punish a person for being homosexual. That our society says.”

Srila Prabhupada: “Well, anyway, the priestly class is sanctioning homosex. They are allowing homosex…When you go to a physician or doctor for treatment, the physician does not place his prescription for opinion of other patients: ‘Now I am prescribing this medication for this gentleman, now give me your opinion.’ Does he do that? All the patients, what will they think? The physician is the perfect person. Whatever he has written as prescription, that is all…What is the use of such opinion?”

Social researcher: “You don’t think the patients have any mind of their own?”

Srila Prabhupada: “They have mind, but that is deprecated mind. Just like madman, he has got mind, but what is the value of that mind? You are not going to take opinion of a madman. He has mind, but he is a madman. His knowledge has been taken away. The mind being, what is called, in disordered condition, there is no value of his opinion.”
(May 21, 1975, Perth)

Comments: In this conversation, Srila Prabhupada describes homosexuality as a “disordered condition” and compares homosexuals to “madmen with deprecated minds.” The notion of homosexuality as an acquired mental illness or type of insanity was quite common at the turn of the previous century. In his treatise The Reason for the Present Disasters, published in India in 1911, Pandit Madhavacarya writes, “These evil practices (homosexuality) are spreading among young men today like an infectious disease. If these tendencies were removed from their hearts by good education, they could become healthy, disease-free, good-charactered heroes…” Hakim Hasan, author of a very popular medical book published at the turn of the century in Lahore, India, goes even further when describing lesbians: “These illicit (lesbian) relations develop so fast that in a couple of months the poor woman starts looking as if she suffers from tuberculosis. [Unless saved by her husband] the woman loses her health and finds a place in the grave.” (Do Shiza)

In modern times, major health organizations no longer classify homosexuality as a disease or mental illness. This is based upon decades of research and study, including the diagnosis of thousands of homosexual patients. “In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.” (The American Psychological Association Public Interest, revised version, July 1998)

In Vedic literature also, homosexuality is not described as an acquired disease or mental illness but rather as a third and separate category of gender known as tritiya-prakriti. The Sushruta Samhita (an important Vedic medical text) specifically describes how the sex of the living entity (whether male, female, or third sex) is determined in human beings during the earliest moments of conception and not as the result of some disease.

Srila Prabhupada’s statements can be taken in a different light, which is to say that since everyone in this world is attached to illusory sex enjoyment, we can all be considered to be in a “diseased condition.” This condition, however, is measured equally for everyone according to his or her degree of attachment and not on the basis of sexual orientation.

Homosexuality is Caused By Overindulgence

Srila Prabhupada: “If you indulge in more than necessary, then you will be impotent. This homosex is also another sign of impotency. They do not feel sex impulse to woman. They feel sex impulse in man. That means he is impotent. It is impotency. When after enjoying so many women, they become impotent, then they artificially create another sex impulse in homosex. This is the psychology. So people are degraded so much.”
(July 3, 1975, Chicago)

Srila Prabhupada: “This homosex propaganda is another side of impotency. So that is natural. If you enjoy too much, then you become impotent.”
(September 6, 1975, Vrndavana)

Comments: There is no scientific evidence to suggest, even remotely, that excessive indulgence in heterosexual intercourse will cause a person’s sexual orientation to become homosexual. Sexual orientation is much more deeply rooted than that. If such an idea were true, then the reverse situation could be applied and gay men overindulging in sex with other men could gradually develop a taste for women. As stated by the American Psychological Association, “Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience.” It is important to note that in the above quotes, Srila Prabhupada’s definition of “homosex” describes men who have previously engaged in excessive intercourse with women. This is hardly our modern understanding of exclusively homosexual or gay men, and we are therefore left to wonder what type of “homosexual” person Srila Prabhupada is referring to!

In Vedic literature, homosexuals are classified as tritiya-prakriti or third sex by nature, and this means that their “impotency,” or lack of desire for the opposite sex, is inborn and not acquired. Ordinary men who overindulge themselves with women will not “become” homosexual. They may grow physically or psychologically exhausted for some time, but their basic sexual orientation and preferences will not change. In Vedic science, this type of impotent or sexually exhausted man is known as sevyaka (someone whose sexual potency is lost because of too much sex).

There is no mention in Vedic literature of people becoming homosexual due to excessive heterosexual relations, even if the next birth is taken into account. In the fourth canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, for instance, King Puranjana is described as being “too much addicted to sex,” “lusty,” and “overly engrossed in thoughts of his wife,” yet as a result he takes his next birth as a woman and not as a homosexual.

According to some texts like the Mahabharata, heterosexual males who grossly misuse their genitals are born in their next life without them as punishment. These statements, however, refer to people born physically neutered (intersexed) and not to homosexuals, who are born fully endowed.

Finally, it is interesting to note that in both of these statements Srila Prabhupada considers homosexuals to be “impotent.” This agrees with the view shared by most scholars—that words like napumsaka, shandha, and kliba (men who are impotent with women) were used in Sanskrit to refer to homosexuals.

Homosexuals are Irresponsible

Srila Prabhupada: “Nowadays, of course, they are thinking like that, that man should remain independent, and they’ll have homosex, and the woman also independent, and they will make some… This is most immoral things.”
(December 10, 1975, Vrndavana)

Srila Prabhupada: “Now this progeny is bother. It is sense enjoyment, homosex. Progeny, they don’t want. They’re not interested. Only sense gratification.”
(July 3, 1975, Chicago)

Comments: The theory that people become homosexual in order to avoid marital or parental responsibilities is based on the opinion that they could “choose” or decide to change their sexual orientation in the first place (see below). This type of social irresponsibility is a dilemma faced by heterosexuals, and it is unfair to assign it to homosexual people. By their very definition and nature, homosexuals are not inclined to marry the opposite sex and produce progeny. I can’t think of any heterosexual person who would “choose” to become gay for these reasons!

People Choose to Become Homosexual

Srila Prabhupada: “I am very sorry that you have taken to homosex. I do not know why you have taken to such abominable activities.”
(Letter, May 26, 1975, Hawaii)

Comments: In this letter to one of his disciples, Srila Prabhupada expresses regret and puzzlement over his disciple’s homosexuality as if it were a matter of “choice.” Of course, one may choose whether or not to be sexually active, but that will not change his or her basic sexual orientation. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries people generally assumed that everyone was heterosexual by nature. Homosexuality was simply a “vice” or “tendency” that had to be resisted and was “curable” by the practice of abstinence or marriage to the “right girl or boy.”

According to the American Psychological Association, “Human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can voluntarily be changed. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, plays a significant role in determining a person’s sexual orientation.” (APA Public Interest, revised version, July, 1998)

Vedic scriptures such as the Manusmriti, Narada-smriti, and Sushruta Samhita also confirm that homosexuality, transgender identity, and intersex conditions are inborn and not simply matters of “choice.”

There is No Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom

Srila Prabhupada: “These rascals should understand that they have created problems on account of their animalistic, less-than-animalistic civilization. There is no limit of sense gratification. The sense gratification, homosex, they are supporting. Just see. Just see. At least, in animal society there is no homosex.”
(August 25, 1971, London)

Srila Prabhupada: “The world is degrading to the lowest status, even less than animal. The animals also do not support homosex. They never have sex life between male to male. They are less than animal. People are becoming less than animal. This is all due to godlessness.”
(May 25, 1972, Los Angeles)

Srila Prabhupada: “They have got homosex? Dogs, hogs, I don’t think.”
(July 16, 1975, San Francisco)

Srila Prabhupada: (Upon hearing about documented homosexual behavior among seagulls.) “Oh, seagull. They are doing the same business, and after his advancement of civilization, he is doing the same business. This is the advancement of civilization. The dog and cat, they are having sex on the open street, and now they are talking of homosex in the school and colleges for education.”
(May 11, 1975, Perth)

Comments: These quotes are interesting because initially Srila Prabhupada defends his stance against homosexuality by citing that it does not exist within the animal kingdom, a common argument put forth by many during the early to mid-1900s. Later on he states that he doesn’t “think” there is, and finally, when evidence is presented to him documenting homosexual behavior among seagulls, he turns the argument around and criticizes people for behaving like animals.

As a matter of scientific fact, there has been considerable well-documented evidence to demonstrate both mating and long-term pairing behavior between animals of the same sex since the 1970s. This research involves a wide variety of animal species including seagulls, penguins, lions, dolphins, chimpanzees, and many others. In his book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, author Bruce Bagemihl documents over 450 animal species that regularly engage in a wide variety of same-sex behavior including displays of tenderness and affection, courting dances, pair-bonding, sexual encounters, embracing and mounting one another, mating, nest-building, same-sex child-rearing, exhibitions of transgender behavior, and even animals that physically change from one sex to the other! Bagemihl writes: “On every continent, animals of the same sex seek each other out and have probably been doing so for millions of years…Amid this incredible variety of different patterns, one thing is certain: the animal kingdom is most certainly not just heterosexual.”

Homosexuality Should Not Be Openly Discussed

Srila Prabhupada: “They are discussing in the university homosex. Just see. They are not even fourth-class men; they are animals, producing so many animals, that’s all, dogs and hogs.”
(May 14, 1975, Perth)

Srila Prabhupada: “How degraded the human society is becoming. And the (high school) children, they are discussing (homosexuality).
(May 9, 1975, Perth)

Srila Prabhupada: “In India still, if there somebody hears about homosex… Homosex is there but nobody will support publicly.”
(May 25, 1972, Los Angeles)

Srila Prabhupada: “There are so many scientists, philosophers, now everywhere. And they are discussing on sex philosophy, homosex philosophy, Darwin’s theory. All third class, fourth class.”
(May 18, 1975, Perth)

Comments: It was an unspoken rule during the Victorian Era that homosexuality should be neither mentioned nor discussed. Indeed, the “unspeakable sin that had no name” was only assigned the term “homosexuality” during the late 1800s with the advent of modern psychology and even then its usage was considered shocking. To put this in context, it should be remembered that homosexuality was punishable by torture and death within the British Empire up until 1858 and by threat of life imprisonment after that. It is little wonder that few would dare to express any interest in the topic and that this “social silencing” fostered a great deal of ignorance. This gradually changed during the mid-twentieth century in the Western world, although much less so in India. Under this environment one should not be surprised that Srila Prabhupada, along with other people of his time, knew very little about homosexuality and gay people in general.

Nowadays, society is much more familiar with homosexuality. People are willing to openly discuss the topic and deal with it more rationally. According to the American Psychological Association, “Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice. Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality—whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Fears that access to such information will make more people gay have no validity—information about homosexuality does not make someone gay or straight.”

Gentlemen Should Not Associate With Homosexuals

Srila Prabhupada: “Yes. We hate to mix with you (a man reported to be homosexual). No gentleman tries to mix with loafers. Even in America, they don’t like to live with the Blacks. Crows will not like to live with the ducks and white swans. And white swans will not like to live with the crows. That is natural division. ‘Birds of the same feather flock together.’”
(January 11, 1977, Allahabad)

Comments: Naturally, if a person believes that homosexuals and other classes of men are degraded, sinful, and mentally disordered, he will not like to associate or mix with them. A “loafer” is a derogatory term once used to describe people who were rejected and excluded from participating in ordinary and upper-class society (outcastes). This was a common practice of the nineteenth-century world; however, most societies today share the opinion that people should be viewed individually on their own personal merit and not with prejudice as part of a collective group or class.

Homosexual Marriage is Shocking

Srila Prabhupada: “Now the priestly order is supporting homosex. I was surprised. They are going to pass a resolution for getting married between man to man. The human society has come down to such a degraded position. It is astonishing.”
(May 25, 1972, Los Angeles)

Srila Prabhupada: “They are marrying man to man, what to speak of marriage. Sodomy. Homosex. They are supporting homosex. So degraded, and still they say, ‘What we have done?’ They do not know what is degradation, and they are priest. They are teaching others. They do not know what is the meaning of degradation.”
(September 28, 1972, Los Angeles)

Srila Prabhupada: “So they are passing, ‘Yes, you can have homosex with man.’ They are getting man-to-man marriage. You know? They are performing the marriage ceremony between man to man in the open church. What class of men they are? And they are priest. Just see. Such degraded persons…”
(May 13, 1975, Perth)

Comments: One should not be surprised that Srila Prabhupada was shocked to learn of homosexual marriage when it was first openly practiced in the West, especially since he held such a low opinion of “homosex” between ordinary males or females. Although he had never heard of such a thing before, it was not without precedence. In the Kama Sutra (2.9.36) it is stated, “There are also third-sexed citizens, sometimes greatly attached to each other and with complete faith in one another, who get married together.”

Srila Prabhupada often mentioned that complete celibacy was nearly impossible in this day and age, and certainly this statement is no less true for gays and lesbians than it is for heterosexuals. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest that homosexuals unable to practice celibacy would be better situated in committed, monogamous relationships than if abandoned altogether to engage in unbridled sexual behavior.

Homosexuality is a Modern-Day Occurrence

Srila Prabhupada: “In India there are some such low-class (homosexual) men, but not (lesbian) women, never women. This is very low class.”
(Conversation with Govinda dasi, Montreal)

Comments: Many people of the Victorian Era believed that homosexuality did not previously exist in ancient cultures because they were restricted from access to material that openly discussed the topic. Nowadays, however, there is a wide range of historical evidence and literature revealing homosexuality as a common practice in every region of the ancient world including India. Srila Prabhupada most likely made this statement (about there never being lesbian women in India) because during his time much of the information about homosexuality was either omitted or censored from books. Another point to consider is that during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, lesbian women in India were forced to hide underground from public view and therefore Srila Prabhupada would not have seen them.

Homosexual Behavior is Demonic

Srila Prabhupada: “It appears here [a narration in which demons, later revealed to be attracted to women, attempt to approach Lord Brahma for sex] that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode in the creation of the demons by Brahma. In other words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 3.20.26, purport)

Comments: If one takes this narration from the Bhagavatam in context, he will read that the so-called homosexual demons mentioned herein are not actually homosexual at all. This is proven when they become completely enamored by the beautiful form of a woman at the end of the tale. Srila Prabhupada, however, uses this narration to condemn homosexuality, and we are therefore left to wonder what type of “homosexuality” he is referring to. He appears to be condemning the opportunistic or aggressive type of “homosexuality” that occurs in prisons, for instance, when females are not available. If this is true, then Srila Prabhupada’s condemnation of “homosex” as a degraded act between ordinary males becomes more reasonable.

Conclusion

After carefully analyzing Srila Prabhupada’s statements on homosexuality, it is apparent that he understood and used this word quite differently than we do today. While Srila Prabhupada used the word in a Victorian sense to denote deviant and unnatural same-sex behavior between otherwise ordinary males or females, homosexuality today is understood in much more scientific and neutral terms—as a naturally inherent sexual orientation. This modern definition and understanding comes closer to the Vedic concept of tritiya-prakriti, or people of the third sex.

It is not entirely clear how much Srila Prabhupada knew about the Vedic third sex and to what extent he recognized its homosexual and transgender qualities. Certainly, his inability to offer a lucid definition of such people (“I do not know exactly…”) indicates that he knew very little about them and their nature. This is not surprising, however, if we take into account the time and background in which he lived. Nevertheless, Srila Prabhupada definitely included third-sex people as a part of Vedic culture and spoke of them in a positive way. Likewise, his personal dealings with homosexuals and transgenders were always completely warm and encouraging.

As a Vaishnava sannyasi and renunciate, Srila Prabhupada often spoke in a negative way about all material sex life regardless of whether it was homosexual or heterosexual. His compassion and kindness for others was administered equally because his message was the same for everyone—give up all material attachments and exchange them for love of God (Krsna).

Unfortunately, Srila Prabhupada’s negative statements against homosexual behavior are often dramatically emphasized while his positive comments about all-inclusiveness and the recognition of a third sex in Vedic society remain virtually unknown or ignored. The result of such inept and counterproductive “preaching” is that many sincere and aspiring gay Vaishnavas feel demonized, misunderstood, alienated, discouraged, and otherwise unwelcome to associate with devotees and participate in spiritual life. Surely this was never Srila Prabhupada’s intention for making such comments, and anyone who knew him and how carefully he dealt with others would be aware of this.

As a gesture of healing, therefore, I would like to conclude this chapter with a pertinent pastime from Srila Prabhupada’s biography, Srila Prabhupada-Lilamrta, in which he expresses regret for any unintentional offenses that may have been committed during the course of his preaching. In this particular instance, Srila Prabhupada is apologizing for possible offenses made to his Godbrothers.

When Srila Prabhupada was lying on his deathbed during his final days in 1977, a very saintly devotee and dear friend, Srila Narayana Maharaja, came to visit. Srila Prabhupada said to him, “I didn’t waste a single moment. I tried my best, and it has been successful to some extent.” Srila Prabhupada’s voice was choked with emotion. “If we work conjointly,” he continued, “then as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, Krsna consciousness would spread to every town and village in the world.” He continued, “Sankirtana has great possibilities. My life is coming to an end. It is my desire that you all forgive me for my mistakes. My Godbrothers, when you are preaching at times there are some disputes, some misunderstandings. Maybe I also committed some offenses like that. Please ask them to forgive me.” Srila Narayana Maharaja then said, “They are all trivial things. In this worldwide preaching, if some little things go wrong here and there, what difference does it make? It is all right. Whatever you have done, you have done for the well-being of the entire human society. There is no individual interest. Everything was done in the interest of God.”