Prior to commencing, I should like to make it quite clear, that the opinions I'll
be expressing in the following paragraphs are not to be regarded as being
representative of any views, teachings, dogmas, or beliefs of any particular
Christian church. And not to be interpreted as a campaign for homosexualism,
lesbianism, or identity politics. These opinions are to be regarded as my
personal views; nothing more nor nothing less.
Furthermore, they are not to be construed as any criticism of the core beliefs
( e.g., metempsychosis ) of the multifarious traditions and philosophies generally
known as Hinduism, or to be precise Sanâtana Dharma ( q.v. ).
They are mentioned here solely to facilitate my criticisms of your erroneous
teachings that have the effect of vilifying Christians, homosexuals et al.
The principal assertions that you made, in your booklet, are, in part, as follows:
"Hormones, chromosomes and the entire physical make-up of people are
determined ... at the time of death ... the type of body they will take on
in their next live". And that, "In the case of homosexuals, such
individuals in their previous lives were somehow or other attached to the
male form. And at the time of death, they were thinking of the male form.
Thus, they got male bodies in this life ... That is why sometimes it
seems like these people are freaks of nature". And that they'll
have "...sex even with pigs and dogs ... without any "hang-ups". You also
assert that they "should appreciate the fact that they are not women
trapped in men's bodies", and "such desires are apart from himself
... he can try to rid his mind of them ... or he can give in to them. The
choice is his", And, to support your assertions, you quote from the
antiquated "urning theory".
You also assert that "The soul transmigrates from a baby body to a boyhood
body, and then migrates into a young man's body ... a middle-aged
body", and then into "the body of an old man". You conclude by
interpolating a few generalized borrowings from human biology to legitimize
your vague assumptions: "All the cells have changed, the bones have changed,
the whole body is different. This is a scientific fact".
In conclusion, you assert that: "Religious leaders are teaching religiosity
rather than real religion", and they "are simply misleading people",
and "They are not teaching the truth". ( sic ) op. cit.
Your assertions outlined above, are based solely upon your personal opinions,
rather than verifiable facts, and laced with a soupçon of scientific
terminology, viz.,"hormones, chromosomes", and put forth under
the veneer of "scientific fact (s) ". One could very well consider
it Machiavellian, if it were not for the ingenuousness of style.
This response is put forward for your perusal and reply, for which I'm
accustomed to expect no acknowledgment, as has been the situation, on several
occasions; for the past seven years. But more particularly for both your
followers and readership, to evaluate, whether or not, the above assertions are
indeed "scientific fact (s) ". But first and foremost, for them to
consider the spiritual and intellectual integrity of their leader, to whom they
have entrusted their souls.
THE LIBIDO AND
TAXONOMIC CONCEPTS.
Your assertions, regarding human sexuality, are extremely oversimplified, and
polarized. These are the facts as I perceive them from the anatomical and
physiological perspectives. The anatomical structures of the male and female
genitalia, at the nuts and bolts level, clearly indicates the specific
physiological functions; i.e., both the penis and vagina are totally
'design perfect', and totally 'compliant and complimentary' of the heterosexual
mode. Or alternatively, one could say: 'the anatomical structures dictate the
physiological expressions of the mode of heterosexual sex'; these are, in part,
the biological facts as I understand them. However, notwithstanding, these self
evident biological facts, statistical data ( v.i., ) demonstrate, a
noticeable divergence from propensity for the heterosexual mode. The taxonomic
concept, at the pragmatic level, isn't always in accord with the anatomical
designs, particularly during the periods of the upper levels of excitation and
intensity. Unfortunately, rhythmic sympathetic impulses - that generate spasmodic
peristaltic contractions - abandon the conscience, and may not always culminate
( ejaculari ) in conforming to the physiological functions of the
anatomical structures; in uniformity with the heterosexual mode.
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
OTHER PERSPECTIVES.
Your booklet failed to acknowledge psychological, considerations of homosexuals
that may have offset their sexual modes. Perhaps effects induced by early
formative influences, e.g., dysfunctional relationships between parental figures
and/or siblings, or hormonal imbalances or genetic anomalies, of which I'll
provide more details later ( v.i. ) with evidential supports from leading
specialists in the field. My responses, to the above in toto, will be formulated
from psychological, philosophical, theological, sociological perspectives, as well
as textual comparison of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ with your assertions regarding
the Hindu doctrine of transmigration. And, of course, your insipid ( or rather
idée fixe ) anti-Christian and anti-clerical compulsions, of whom you
relentlessly refer to as "so-called Christians".
TWO THEORETICAL MODES.
Your writings suggest that you are wholly incognizant on the subject of
homosexuality; a multifarious and complex subject. For example, nowhere in your
article is there the slightest indication of the most fundamental difference
between the ego conscious modes of sexuality. Firstly, the ego-syntonic
mode, which is indicative of the bilateral symmetry, of the libidinal [ Not to
be confused with the 'libidinous' which is quite different ], impulse, and the
conscious ego state, and the impulses and drives, from the source of primal
( or rudimentary ( q.v., )) energy, q.e. the 'id'. And secondly,
the ego-dystonic mode, that suggests a rejection, by the individual, of
the libidinal cerebral impulse correspondingly compelled, idem as the
ego-syntonic by the impulses and drives from the 'id'.
THE MASCULINE AND
FEMININE MODES.
Additionally, you failed to recognize the Jungian unconscious masculine and
feminine components. These classical universal psycho sexual components - or
"archetypes" as Jung called them [ C. G. Jung, 'The Collected Works',
vol.9, pt.1 'The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious', ch.vi 'Conscious,
Unconscious, and Individuation' p.284. ] - are present in both sexes. Firstly,
the 'anima', the feminine component in the male personality. Secondly, the
'animus', the masculine component in the female personality. Your assumptions
appears to have been formulated solely from the perspective of the overt effeminate
persona, with emphasis upon the 'anima' without acknowledgement of the
'animus'; a gross misconception indeed. This has the effect of effeminating
all homosexuals; in the eyes of your readership.
Your assumptions also fail to acknowledge, and understand those, i.e.,
ego-syntonic homosexuals, whose inherited libidinal impulse are directed
towards an exclusive sexual propensity for others of their own sex, and
furthermore, you ignore the fact that their propensity for the opposite sex would
be contrary to organization and criterion of their own individual psycho-sexual
consciousness. In like manner, propensity of the ego-syntonic
heterosexual towards the same sex, would customarily be contrary to their
libidinal impulse; although not always clearly categorized as such at the
pragmatic level, e.g., the theoretical "bisexual" mode, perhaps expressed
in an isolated ( or exclusive ) male environment, thus: 'facultative homosexuality',
transitory experimental teenage mutual masturbation; or generally faute de
mieux.
In their article, 'Sex in Australia: Homosexual experience and recent homosexual
encounters', Professor Andrew E. Grulich,
Ph. D.,
et al, suggested:
"Overall, 8.6% of women and 5.9% of men reported some homosexual
sexual experience in their lives (p<0.001); these figures fell to 5.7% and
5.0% respectively (p=0.106) when non-genital sexual experience was excluded.
1.9% of men and 1.5% of women reported homosexual experience in the past year.
Men who reported homosexual experience reported more same-sex partners than did
women (means 31.6 and 3.2, p<0.001), and men and women who identified as
homosexual or "bisexual" reported more sexual partners in total than those who
identified as heterosexual.
Sex in Australia: Homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters
( Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, April 2003 ).
The above data summarizes a marked divergence of sexual activity, taken from a
sample, that theoretically represent sexual experiences ( or modes ) within the
population; that may not necessarily be rationalized within a static 'homosexual
context'; but perhaps in a transient oscillatory context. It's reasonable to
assume that there is present an indubitable preference for one or the other.
BIOPHYSICS vs. SOPHISTRY.
Your assertion that the "entire physical make-up of people are determined"
at the "time of death", as to the type of body they'll "take on in their
next live" ( I assume that you mean 'lives' ), seems an extravagant
assumption unrelated to any scientific facts, reasons for which I'll
outline in the following two paragraphs:
Firstly, the "physical" ( corpus or corporis ), is
biologically related to properties of energy, matter et cetera, and quite
unrelated to "make-up" which, from a psychological perspective, may be
defined as a total integration of traits to form the individual's character,
etc. These traits, in your assumption, form an incomprehensible
composition. There are three perspectives, in your single assertion, that form
a mixture of the 'biological', 'psychological', and the 'sophistical', which
would require a very clever synthesis, for your assertion, to form at least, an
arguable system of scientific facts.
Secondly, the facts, as I understand them are: The corpse including its
"hormones" and "chromosomes", are customarily disposed of by burial, cremation,
or by some other course of action ( e.g., as a cadaver for studies in
pathologic anatomy ). The corpse, including its tissue, integumentary system,
chemical, and cellular compositions, have ceased to exist. This rules out the
generational transmission theory, of hereditary traits, because an hypothetical
interdependency factor, between the dead ( or destroyed ) hereditary-carrying
genes, with the supposed body "... in their next live"; is not
within the ambit of scientific facts. To fit this into your
"scientific" suppositions would necessitate some very fanciful
manipulations.
'STATEMENTS OF SOPHISTRIES' OR
'STATEMENTS OF SCIENTIFIC FACTS'?
Your assumption that homosexuals "...got male bodies in this life",
because "...at the time of ( their ) death" they were "thinking
of the male form", is a 'statement of sophistries' rather than a statement
of "... scientific fact (s) ". An assumption as to what an homosexual
( or anyone else ) supposedly thought prior to death is, in my opinion,
unadulterated conjecture. An individual's sex, as I understand it, is determined
by the sex chromosomes, i.e., the Y-chromosome gene, the Testes
Determining Factor ( TDF ), of the male sex; designated as XY. The female sex
chromosome configuration, designated as XX, which could develop into male, if
the TDF passes across to one of the X chromosomes. And if the TDF gene were
absent from the male XY chromosome pair, it could develop into a female.
Furthermore, the scientific community is producing very impressive research
results, rousing widespread interest in the theory of genetics giving rise to
variations to sexual behaviours in human, as well as other species, e.g.,
the fruit fly, or as it is known among scientists, the drosophila melanogaster (
'δροσοσφιλος
μελανογαστερ'
= 'dew-loving black belly' ), which is a popular multicellular two-winged
insect ( or organism ) for research studies in genetics; and developmental
biology. Essential to development of the fruit-flies' anatomical and
physiological sexual functions, is the fruitless gene ( fru ), that catalyses
the ribonucleic acid ( RNA ), from the deoxyribonucleic acid ( DNA ) frame for
synthesis of protein development. Mutation of the original expression of the
fru's allelomorphs may damage or reverse sexual orientations. Research results
from studies on the fru gene suggests a theoretical correlation with the genetics
of human gender organization.
"The fruit fly is a model organism whose basic cellular functions
are very similar to what they are in people ... It wouldn't surprise me to learn
that human sexual behaviors also have underneath them a basic circuitry in the
nervous system that mediates attraction and mating."
(
Stanford Report, 4 August, 2004 ).
Professor Baker ( et al., ) research results substantiates the theory in
support of genetics giving rise to variations to sexual behaviours. I believe
your assumptions, that homosexuals' supposed thoughts, in an assumed
pre-existence, the decisive factor of sex orientations; is contradictory
to chromosomal and hormonal activities. They are as different as chalk from
cheese. Thereby, your statement of " ... scientific fact (s)" fades into
sophistic 'statements of belief'. Masquerading sophistries as "... scientific
fact (s) " are gross deceptions, and it goes without saying, are totally at
odds with any reputable scientific research, of a kind like:
Professor D. H. Hamer, Ph. D., a specialist in Molecular Therapeutics, and
discoverer of the genetic links to sexual orientation ( 1993 ), suggests that
'homosexuals possess an Xq28 genetic marker on their X chromosome'; and
that 'there is a link between this marker and homosexuals':
"...gay men had more homosexual male relatives through maternal than through
paternal lineages, and linkage analysis of gay male siblings, which found
significantly increased sharing of Xq28 DNA markers"
( ''Science',
July 1993 ).
Your view that they ( homosexuals ): 'sometime seem like' "...freaks of
nature", is a quirky description reminiscent of early 20-century circus
sideshows. This description - absent from medical lexicons - is banal as well
as meaningless. Perhaps there is some confusion, in your mind, between
"... freaks of nature", and 'Congenital Developmental Anomalies' ( or
'defects' ) e.g., the mutated gene called: Phosphatase and Tensin
Homologue ( PTEN ) perhaps instrumental as a regulator, and suppressor, in the
process of one of the particular kinds of mitosis ( theoretically, a
quadruple somatic cell division of the nucleus ).
Professor Charis Eng, Ph. D., is a clinician and scientist specializing in
Clinical Cancer Genetics, and Cancer Genomic Medicine. In an interview with
Elise Ritter, she linked the Phosphatase and Tensin homologue gene ( PTEN )
with Neurofibromatosis ( Also known as 'Proteus syndrome' ( PS )). She was asked:
"Where did you get the idea that Proteus syndrome, one of
the diseases Joseph Merrick afflicted with, could be caused by a mutated
PTEN gene?" Professor Eng replied: "As a clinician as well as scientist,
I noted that the unusual tissue growth of Proteus syndrome was slightly
reminiscent of other disorders caused by germline ( in every cell of the body )
PTEN mutation that we were studying, such as Cowden syndrome and
Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome ( BRRS )".
Discovery Health Channel, ( 6 March, 2008 ).
There is a clear distinction between your: 'statement of belief', "freaks
of nature" ( presumable 'Congenital Developmental Anomalies' ),
"...scientific fact (s)" and homosexuality, the four of which
are, in the context of your arguments, theoretically and effectually incompatible.
Thereby your 'statement of belief' slips into the category of unadulterated
conjecture.
INSULARISM AND CONTEMPORARY
SECULAR THINKING.
Your views on 'homosexuality' are at variance with all the principal United
States Mental Health associations who declassified 'homosexuality' as no longer
a psychiatric disorder. The
The American Psychiatric Association
withdrew 'homosexuality' from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders ( DSM ); in 1973. Two years later, the
The American Psychological
Association passed a resolution supporting this action; in 1975.
The American Psychiatric Association, sent a
letter
( 13 June, 2006 ) to the Pentagon ( Department of Defence ( DoD )), requesting
removal of 'homosexuality', from the status of psychiatric disorder. Thereby,
your opinions, by your own volition, are isolated from contemporary secular
thinking.
"MIND", "DESIRES", AND
'MISTAKEN IDENTITIES'.
Your opinion that they ( homosexuals ) are "...mistakenly identifying
themselves as the mind and desires" is an idiosyncratic collage groundless,
of even reductionist assumptions, about psycho-neurophysiological facts.
Precisely, who or what, are these 'entities', apart from the "mind" and "desires"
that 'mistakenly identifies'. Can you demonstrate your cognizance of the subject
by mounting - not a description - but a deducible or defensible argument, of
these 'entities' in a contemporary psychological frame; rather than referring to
Karl Heinrich's ( 1825 – 1895 ) antiquated Victorian "urning theory".
'GENDER-IDENTITY
DISORDER' ( GID ).
The inclusion of the irrelevant topic: 'transsexualism' q.e.,
'Gender-Identity Disorder' ( GID ), into your subject-matter concerning
'homosexuality', is particularly baffling. Diagnosed GID is, in an abbreviated,
and generalized framework, an anomalous relationship between the brain ( within
the anterior pituitary gland q.l. ), gender identity ( within the
hypothalamus stria terminalis ( BSTc ) q.l. )), and the
anatomical-physiological principles of the genitalia i.e., the penis and
vagina ( with the limbic system within the rhinencephalon ). Diagnosed GID, as
I understand it, is unrelated to clinically diagnosed signs, and symptoms, of
chromosomal aberrations; or established histories of psychiatric disorders. Quite
clearly, it's not a fact "...that
they are not women trapped in men's bodies", but rather, they are sufferers
of a diagnosable condition ( GID ) characterized by inappropriateness, and
persistent discomfort, of their anatomic genitalia. 'Gender-Identity Disorder'
and 'homosexuality' are as different as chalk from cheese.
You assert that:
"...homosexuals who say they feel like women trapped in men's bodies are
mistakenly identifying themselves", and that they "...should appreciate
the fact that they are not women trapped in men's bodies".
Your unqualified 'diagnoses' q.l., are based upon your own unschooled
opinions, rather than from knowledge gathered from the scientific community;
your opinions are based on false reasoning. This is not 'mistaken identity',
as you 'misdiagnose', but rather a clinically diagnosable biological disorder,
quite unrelated to the 'theory of identity', which belong to the field of
psychology. An approximate comprehensible explanation on this subject ( from the
biological perspective ), as I understand it, suggest a rapid multiplication by
Gonadotroph cells, that are released from the adenohypophysis for
the follicle-stimulating hormone ( FSH ) for mature ova, and spermatozoa production
in the testes. This, quite clearly, has no bearing upon 'mistaken identity'.
Professor Louis
Gooren, Ph. D., ( Asian Journal of Andrology, ( s.a. ) ), who
specialises in Gender Problems and Psychoneuro-endocrinology, and who is the
Netherlands' leader in the field of endocrinology; suggests:
"The stria terminalis also appears to be indicated in gender identification.
Studies have shown that male-to-female transsexuals tend to have female-normative
cell proliferation in the central subdivision of the bed nuclei of the stria
terminalis ( BSTc ), whereas a female-to-male transsexual was found to have
male-normative BSTc cell proliferation. It is thought this is mediated by
diminished and excessive androgen levels respectively in utero and neonatally"
( sic ).
The
Health Report, Gender Dysphoria ( ABC Radio National, 4 September, 2000 ).
AN HYPOTHETICAL
TREATMENT RÉGIME.
Diagnosed Gender-Identity Disorder ( GID ) may require intensive assessment,
by specialist health care professionals - psychologists, surgeons,
anaesthetists, social workers, et alii, who may consider the patient
a suitable candidate for uro-genital and reconstructive-plastic surgery;
i.e., Gender Reassignment Surgery. Hypothesized procedures ( not to be
considered as formal surgical procedures, but solely as hypothesized treatment
régimes ), for male patients, may involve: v.g. mammary prosthetic
silicone implants, orchidectomy, penectomy, labiaplasty, et cetera; and
endocrine therapy viz., hormone as a testosteronal inhibitor, and an
hormonal steroid ( estrogen ) to promote female secondary sex characteristics.
Similarly, female patients may also: undergo procedures v.g. bilateral
mastectomy, total or perhaps radical ( qq.v. ) hysterectomy, bilateral
salpingo-oophorectomy, phalloplasia, testicular prostheses implants, etc.,
and androgenic steroid to promote masculine characteristics. These surgical
procedures, although hypothetical, will suffice for the purpose for comprehension,
and both defining and separating diagnosed Gender-Identity Disorder ( GID )
discussion from the entirely separate categories, of 'homosexuality',
'transvestism', 'crossdressing', and so-called "transgenderism". My suggestions
were intended to demonstrate the incongruousness of your teachings with academic
and clinical medicine, as well as being at variance with the World Health
Organisation ( WHO ), or Organisation Mondial de la Sante ( OMS ), who
acknowledged, and designated, GID as a diagnosable disorder; in 1992.
HINDU TRADITION OF
TRANSVESTISM ( SAKHIS ).
I suggest you examine 'transvestism' within the Hindu religious tradition of
Sakhis, but tread very cautiously, particularly regarding any
homophobic campaigns, or any other contemporary arguments, whether they be for
proselytizing purposes ( for your brand of Hinduism ), vilifying Christians,
or identity politics et cetera. An excellent study on the subject would
be: 'Transsexualism, Gender, and Anxiety in Traditional India,' by
Professor Robert P. Goldman, Ph. D., Research Scientist,
in Integrative Biology at the University of Texas; at Austin.
THE METAPHYSICAL vs. THE MECHANISTIC.
You claim:
"This is a very great science. People have to try to understand it as a
science. This is not a belief. People must understand the reality of how the mind
affects the gross body and how activities of the present body affect the mind."
Your claim is, in my opinion, incoherent because of the inconsistency of your
assertion by failing to define and differentiate between "reality",
"mind", and "gross body". Firstly, 'reality', as I understand it,
is measurable by objective scientific standards of the physical world, whereas
the "reality", in your claim, is simply and solely, interpretable
constructs extrapolated from your personal subjective opinions regardless of
reliable empirical facts and data of the physical world. Secondly, your assertion
that: "... the mind affects the gross body" is a contradiction of terms.
Your use of the word "affects" in your argument hasn't any biological
meaning without a qualifier to correlate the abstract mind with the physical body.
Thirdly, your metaphorical use of the term "mind" to explain
neurophysiological activities of the "gross body", at the zenithal
'organismic level', is a juxtaposing of contrasting theoretical frames:
viz., the metaphysical and mechanistic, e.g., interactionism,
psychophysicalism, and materialism, subjective idealism; respectively.
All things considered, it would appear that your notions of a "very great
science", "reality", "mind", "gross body", and your confusion between "science"
and "belief", absent of a synthesis, are indeed; an odd assortment of sophistries.
BUTLERISM vs. THE BHAGAVAD-GÎTÂ.
You assert that:
"The soul transmigrates from a baby body to a boyhood body, and then
migrates into a young man's body. A person who used to live in a young
body now lives in a middle-aged body. And a person who used to live in
a middle-aged body now lives in an old body ... all the cells have changed,
the bones have changed, the whole body is different. This is a scientific
fact".
Your assertion, or "scientific fact", claiming that four supposed
occurrences of a person's "transmigration (s) " take place from between
their "baby body" through to their "old body" is in conflict with
the Hindu doctrine of 'Transmigration' ( 'samsãra' ). This doctrine,
as I understand it, is defined in Hinduism as a 'principle' ( 'Âtman' )
that supposedly passes from one body after death; and enters into another body'.
Your assertion contradicts the text of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ itself, and
your former spiritual master; the late Swami Prabhupada ( v.i. ).
The Bhagavad-Gîtâ says:
Chapter 2, Text 13.
( Sanskrit ):
dehino ′smin yathâ dehe
kaumâram yauvanam jarâ
tathâ dehântara-prâptir
dhÎras tatra na muhyati.
( English transliteration ):
dehinah - of the embodied; asmin -
in this; yathâ - as;
dehe - in the body;
kaumâram - boyhood; yauvanam -
youth; jarâ - old age; tathâ - similarly;
deha-antara - of transference of the
body; prâptih - achievement; dhîrah
- the sober; tatra - thereupon; na -
never; muhyati - is deluded.
The above transliteration doesn't indicate a transference ( deha-antara )
between boyhood ( kaumâram ), youth ( yauvanam ) and old age
( jarâ ), but a transfer at death ( tathâ
dehântara-prâptir ); i.e., 'mrtyuh'.
Prabhupada said:
"... the same spirit soul is there and
does not undergo any change. This
individual soul finally changes the
body at death and transmigrates to
another body..." ( sic )
ibid.
Thereby, your claims, are in conflict with both your own text ( Bhagavad-
Gîtâ ), and Prabhupada.
Furthermore, on your own admission, you have exhibited unsubstantial and negligent
claims, in asserting that: Firstly, "the soul transmigrates" four times, within the
individual living body during its life cycle; rather than at death. And secondly,
that "cells" of the human organism "change" and are "different"
during the individual life period.
The definitional contradistinctions between "change" ( permutãtio ),
and "renewal" ( renovatio. ) may appear to be a moot point, or even
pedantic, to the less discerning, but to the more circumspect, there is a refined
arguable distinction that favours "renewal", rather than "change",
due to quadruple somatic cell divisions ( mitosis ) of the nucleus, that
result in two genetically similar offsprings which differs, quite considerably,
from cell "change".
This quite clearly
belong to the realm of the scientific, i.e., the 'body'.
( 'σϖμα' ) which conforms to empirical observation. The 'spirit'
( πνευματικóν the root
definition being: 'breath' or 'breeze' ) is that by extension the 'life
principle' which the body ( 'σϖμα' ) depends, whereas the 'soul'
( ψυχη ), is the immortal immaterial part of the individual as
opposed to the intellectual and analytical. All things considered, both your
interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ, and understanding of scientific
facts are sadly wanting.
REINCARNATION AND THE ARYAN
HEREDITARY CASTE SYSTEM ( JATI ).
You teach the precarious doctrine of 'transmigration' ( reincarnation ) which is
synonymous with 'pantheism' ( παν = all,
Θεος= God ), a theory which favours God
( Deitastatis ) and the material universe
( κοσμος ) correlative, i.e.,
the universe is God, or God is the universe.
Seems prima facie to be a plausible theory, very appealing, particularly
to the undiscerning, the adherents in the new age movement ( or neo-paganism );
and to some indiscriminate Christians. But exploring into the deeper implications,
one will discover some very complex unresolvable issues, e.g., the
dichotomy between the inexhaustible infinite Creater ( 'Yahweh ‘
asher yihweh' ), and the mortal psychophysical organism 'mankind' =
homo
( ανθρωπος
σαρξ κ. σωμα ); and the universe
( κοσμος ). They are as different as
chalk from cheese. Vis à vis, they are incongruous. How could you hope to
succeed in providing a rationale for this dichotomy when centuries of Hindu
scholarship have failed? And furthermore, 'transmigration' is nowhere to be
found in the Vedas ( ca. 1500 - 800 BC ); the oldest document in
Hinduism ( 'Sanâtana Dharma' ( q.v. )). Transmigration was
introduced later in the Chândogya Upanishad ( 900 - 800 BC q.v., )
and the Bhagavad-Gîtâ ( 400 - 300 BC q.v. ); without theological
considerations.
Allied to transmigration is the theory of Karma ( or Karman ), which was
introduced into northern India, during the Aryan invasion and conquest ( 1500 BC
to 500 BC q.v. ). Caucasian Brahmins assert lineage to those aggressive,
illiterate, nomadic invaders; from the south of Russia and Central Asia. Karma
is, as I have said in earlier correspondence, an élitist ( 'varna' =
'colour' or 'jâti' = 'family lineage', 'rank' ) racist based caste
system. This was one of the principal tools to maintain socio-economic control,
by the conquerors ( Aryans ) over the conquered; the aboriginals ( mistakenly
designated "Dravidians" ).
The doctrine of Karma served two purposes. Firstly in providing an explanation
as to the 'why (s)' underlying the apparent mundane inconsistencies with
human life. Secondly, by supporting the 'why (s)' with the means for their
inclusion viz., the 'how (s)' into religious dogma, to serve as an
exploitative tool imposing social stigma and economic constraints to subjugate the
Shûdra ( the labouring caste ) for exploitative control by the upper
class - i.e., the Brahmin priests ( q.v. ).
For centuries, this system was upheld to maintained the status quo of the
hierarchical system of class division ( BBC Homepage, 5 March, 2008 ), or 'caste'
( jati ); viz., the Brãhmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya,
Shûdra, and Dalits ( Untouchables ). Although it was rejected by Siddhartha
Gautama the Buddha ( circa 563 to 483 BC ), Jesus Christ ( 5 BC to
26 AD q.l. ) ( see: Luke 4.18, Col. 3.22-4.1, and Eph. 6.5-9 ), and
outlawed by the Indian Government in 1947; one hundred and eighty million Dalits
continue to be
discriminated against
today ( BBC World News, 14 October, 2006 ). The doctrine of karma supposedly
rationalises life's inequalities; but has never been substantiated.
Notwithstanding this prolonged caste system of cruel oppression on the Indian
subcontinent, you, similar to Prabhupada, continue to justify the perpetuation
of this pitiless dogma and practice. You assert:
"... your situation is due to your own making. It's your fault. You're the
one who made your present existence by your past activities" ( sic ).
( 'Understanding Karma', Science of Identity Foundation, 1995, p.6 ).
Likewise, Prabhupada said:
"There are different rules and regulations for different castes or
divisions of society, and if a person is able to follow them, he will be
automatically raised to the highest platform of spiritual realization."
( The Bhagavad-Gïtâ, 16.22 p.764 ).
"SO-CALLED MODERN SOCIETY IS PROVIDING ...
STIMULUS FOR PEOPLE TO BECOME HOMOSEXUALS".
"Religious leaders are teaching religiosity rather than real religion",
they "are simply misleading people","They are not teaching the
truth", and "so-called modern society is increasingly providing the
unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals".
What precisely, in your opinion, is the "real religion" that "religious
leaders" are suppose to teach? I don't believe that "real religion", and
"truth", are in your mind; the real issues in question. I believe the real issues
are: Firstly, your personal Hinduized ( q.v., ) assumptions as to what you
think Christian religious leaders ought to be teaching, viz., your
fabrications, machinations, and interpolations of abbreviated forms of selective
generalized Hindu doctrines, and beliefs - inherited from Prabhupada - into
Christianity. Secondly, the presumptuousness of your grandiose monopoly of "truth"
from behind the façade of your assumed epithet "Jagad Guru" ( "teacher of
the whole world" ); accompanied with an over bloated ambition to proselytize rich
westerners, particularly unwary Christians, rather than the poor in the
underdeveloped countries, to your brand of Hinduism, or to be precise: 'Butlerism'.
What is this supposed "stimulus" that society provides "... for people
to become homosexuals". Can you be more specific ( with evidential supports ).
Who are the principal 'providers' of this "stimulus", the government or private
enterprise? Where does the money come from? The government coffers, or from the
private sector? And how many 'people ... became homosexuals' during the
past twelve month period, as a consequence of these alleged 'stimuli'?
Would you consider "teaching the [ whole ] truth", to both your
followers and readership, regarding the Hindu rituals of Šâkta,
whose devotees consume meat, alcohol, and engaging in ritual coitus ( The New
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15 ed, vol. 8, p. 897, 1982 ).
The "so-called modern society", i.e., the United States, of which
you so glibly refer, has allowed you the freedom, and opportunity, to expand and
accumulate considerable wealth, in an insular comfort zone, from where to
disseminate your wearisome and repetitious diatribes on "so-called" this,
"so-called" that; and "so-called" anything else that is different
from 'Butlerism'; all of which are quite irrelevant to international current
events affecting human suffering. You convert your rhetoric into wealth, whilst
"so-called" Christians engage in philanthropy.
"So-called modern society" has also allowed you the freedom for your
pseudo-religious posturing and strutting 'homophobic notions regarding society',
'clergy not teaching real religion or truth', whilst you remain silent on real
moral and ethical issues concerning human life, e.g., the effects of the
current ravages of war and famine. Since May 2003, one hundred thousand
( q.l., ) lives were lost in Iraq ( The Lancet, 2004 );
to which your lectures, and booklets, have responded to with deathly silence.
These concerns are apparently far too large for the "Jagad Guru" ( "teacher of
the whole world" ). Clergy, "So-called modern society", and 'homosexuals'
are a far safer and softer target. Far easier to kill a dragon fly
( Anisoptera ) than a dragon itself; wouldn't you agree? Any teachings -
with the exception of 'Butlerism' of course! - that prioritizes nit-pickings
( of "so-called" this, that; et cetera ); over tragedies effecting
human life is not "real religion" by any criterion.
The economic and social privileges you now enjoy would have been unachievable on
the Indian subcontinent where the national prescribed poverty threshold is set
at $0.40 per day [ World Bank's beneficiary recommendation is $1.0 for all
undeveloped countries ]. An economic sound policy to preach to rich westerners
than to the poor in the underdeveloped countries; wouldn't you agree?
Whilst you occupy your sphere of influence ( whatever that may be ), vilify
homosexuals, et al., more than 300,000,000 ( q.v., ) of India's
population are unemployed, probably existing below the poverty line
(
National Citizens Movement for "Transforming INDIA" ). The aggregate of
seventy three million people, in seventy eight countries, depend on the United
Nations World Food Programme ( UNWFP ),
( Al Jazeera, 12 March, 2008 ). How fare your rice bowl,
cushioned safe and secure in Hawaii ( or "so-called modern society" );
whacking away at homosexuals and other soft targets, with a blind eye on the real
issues concerning human suffering.
LAKSHMANA TEMPLE:
EXPLICIT SEXUAL
SCULPTURES.
Your assertion that "So-called modern society is increasingly providing the
unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals" is incongruous with:
"Religious leaders are teaching religiosity rather than real religion,
( they ) are simply misleading people, they are not teaching the truth".
I suggest that you burrow deeper into the source of your own pseudo-religion
( Butlerism ) for the "truth" by deliberating on the southern walls of the
Hindu
Lakshmana Temple ( 930-950 AD ), dedicated to Lord Vishnu, in the Khajuraho
village ( 385 miles ( 620 kilometres ) southeast of Delhi )), which has explicit
sexual sculptures depicting males engaging in anal intercourse, fellatio, and
zooerasty.
Would you consider those images as pornographic, and as "unwanted stimulus for
people to become homosexuals", 'zoophiles', et cetera ? Juxtaposing
your "so-called modern society ..." etc., argument, with those sculptures;
and their supposed stimulus, would that, in your opinion, influence "people to
become homosexuals"? If you consider your argument correct,
why hasn't the entire population on the Indian subcontinent succumbed to
'homosexuality'? Wouldn't a 1058-year period been sufficient to substantiate your
argument? And why are you, yourself "... not teaching the [ whole ]
truth"; regarding these facts to your readership and followers?
HINDUISM'S DEVADASI SYSTEM
OF RELIGIOUS PROSTITUTION.
Whilst you pontificate on: Christian "Religious leaders ... misleading people
... ( and ) not teaching the truth" ( sic ), you remain silent
regarding the Devadasi
( a 'slave of a deity' ( q.v.e.g., Shiva, Vishnu, et al. )).
Devadasi is a religious Hindu practise of child prostitution. The Indian government
is an active member of the United Nations ( U.N. ). It played a key role in drafting
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948
( Dr. Hansa Mehta ), and amongst other member nations,
are committed to eradicate trafficking and sexual exploitation of children.
The central and state governments received a Public Interest Litigation,
from the Supreme Court, New Delhi, in 1990; to establish advisory bodies to
recommend procedures to obliterate this and other forms of child prostitution.
Notwithstanding, government efforts, to eradicate the devadasi form of
child exploitation, this tradition, is still prevalent in many parts of India
today. The rituals of Jogin, and Basavi initiation rituals of
eleven year old ( qq.v. ) children, particularly from the lower
socio-economic sectors; continue to this day. This tradition is on the public
record, Robert A. Morey, Ph. D.,
as continuing in Maharashtra ( no figures were provided ). Figures were provided
by two of the southern states, i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, for
devadasi in their cities: 16,624 and 22,941 ( q.v. ) respectively
( Source:
Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Education
Child Prostitution ( 9.51 ) ). Many of the girls finish up by moving to the
west coast city Mumbai ( formerly Bombay ), and Pune in western India; where they
work as prostitutes. These are the facts of which you chose to remain silent.
CONCLUSION.
Homosexuals, and lesbians, are part of us. John Donne wasn't far from the mark
in saying: "No man is an island, entire of it self; every man is a piece of
the Continent, a part of the main ..."
Devotions upon Emergent Occasions ( 1624 ) 'Meditation XVII'. Many people
experience sense of loneliness, and a strong emotional longing for a loyal and
stable friendship; notwithstanding nationality, colour, culture, or sexual
orientation. Everyone deserves unconditional acceptance, love and effective
support, with an attitude of optimism, rather than condemnatory attitudes.
Regarding: Your booklet titled : '
Understanding Karma ', Published by Science of Identity
Foundation, Sine loco, 1995 .
I am writing to you in response to some comments you made in
the above booklet. These comments include:
1. Your excessive critical stance towards Christians.
2. Imposing upon Christians generic philosophical questions,
and assuming simplistic, unauthenticated replies.
3. Your misuse of Christian Scripture as a springboard to project
your version of 'Orientalism'.
4. Your wildly extravagant claim to be "
teacher of the entire world...distinct from the
(a) teacher of a particular sect, (or) religion ".
5. Your misquoting Jesus to support the Hindu doctrine of 'karma' ,
and 'metempsychosis.'
1. I am curious to learn why you take such hypercritical,
and judgemental stance towards Christians, whom you repeatedly
refer to as: "so-called Christians" ( op. cit .
4, 9). This has the effect of discrediting their moral integrity
in the minds of non-discerning readers. Your assumption suggests an
incorrect designation of the word ' Christian '. Are you
suggesting followers of Christ have, since circa 45 AD
( Acts 11. 26 ), been mistakenly calling themselves Christians
, id est. for the past 1,955 years? Or is the term:
"so-called Christians" a generic label you employ to
describe those who disagree with your teachings? I would be
interested to know the basis, of your assumed moral 'authority'
in making such judgemental pronouncements. Also the criterion you
employed, exempli gratia , the ethical legal codes of
Hinduism or Christianity. Furthermore, your definitive description
of what, you consider, constitutes a 'Christian'.
2. You pose the following generic philosophical,
socio-economic question:
Why is it that if God loves all of us -- His
children -- we see so many disparities and disabilities? ibid . p. 4
You reply with the following dubious quotation, sine loco, anno, vel nomine , representing alleged replies by Christians:
Many so-called Christian teachers who do not actually
have the answer attempt to reply: 'We can't understand God's
dealings. It's a test. It's God's will, you know' and so on.
ibid . p. 4
Your quotation, after a sort, cannot be considered serious
enough to warrant a response, except to acknowledge that it's
jejune, and clearly indicates that you prefer to portray
Christians as intellectually incapable to take occasion, rather
than seeking answers in the literature of the Church, exempli
gratia : De Civitate Dei (Augustine), and Summa
Theologica (Aquinas).
3. You denigrate Christians, by referring to them as "so-called Christians" , whilst making hotchpot use of their material as a springboard,
to surreptitiously advocate Hindu theism, to both rival Christianity,
and to proselytize the unwary to your own form of 'Orientalism'.
I'm puzzled as to why you don't rely upon the catalogue of Hindu
sources, the Vedas and Upanisadic text, rather than misappropriating Judaic-Christian text.
