There is zero tolerance for homosexuality in ISKCON and most of the other gaudiya institutions frown on it. I think Tripurari Maharaja had a more lenient approach to it. In general, while ACBS did not reject homosexuals, obviously they were not condoning marriages and relationships. Basically, a don't ask don't tell approach to living in the temple. It's not like you saw gay couples in any of these institutions openly hanging out and holding hands or in anyway showing affection. Geez, even married couples did not show affection. I have witnessed many situations where devotees were smashed by their gurus because they expresses a pubic affection (hand holding, hugs, kisses, glances, smiles).
I think the overarching issue is that none of these institutions have a right to demonize and be critical of gay life or dictate how a couple expresses affection and chooses to live. The Puranas and other scriptural texts are FULL of stories of inappropriate and over-sexed characters that "spill their seed" and "fall" form their positions as so-called warnings to those who are practicing a bhakti lifestyle. They urge that you dovetails those feelings with god by surrendering wholesale your senses to the pleasure of god. When that leaves you craving for human contact and a "real" relationship with a real person you can see, talk to and engage with, you are immediately viewed as fallen or impure.
As far as I know, the story of Butler's sanyassi rejection goes as such: He felt that he could not effectively preach to women unless he was married himself. Instead of choosing a homely wife that would not "agitate his senses" and disturb him, he went for his disciple's asian ex-wife who happened to be a yoga instructor. Of course no sane person would see there to be a logical link between preaching to women and maintaining celibacy. They are independent life choices. If you are fixed in your celibacy and are preaching a message of devotion to a promiscuous village deity, well then, sure, but in general, spirituality and practices like celibacy should not inhibit one from talking to women.
Obviously it wholly negates the concept of us not being the body if you are so disturbed by women that you cannot preach and instruct them in morality and god consciousness unless you marry and have sex. The learned man, in this case does distinguish between different bodies and recognizes the power of human sexuality. Butler was obviously shooting himself in the foot when he chose to marry. It pretty much negated his stance of not being the body and remaining stalwart and fixed in his celibacy and focus on his preaching and his god and guru.
Tusta krishna also broke off his sannyas, following in the footsteps of his bodgrother, Siddhaswarupananada Paramahamsa.
The main point is not weather there is some bits of truth here and there within the teachings of any number of these guru's, it's that they are teaching based on a highly questionable and flawed philosophical and scriptural system that seems to reinvent itself when convenient to accommodate just about any indiscretion and contradiction. This is called "making shit up as you go along".
I can only assume, that in full-fledged hare krishna style, Vashnava Dasi, Wai Lana, was offered to Siddhaswarupananda as a "loyal servant and partner". I doubt there was much in the way of a courtship, dating, seeing a movie or two or any real formality about it all. It was just a offering of "property" to the guru in the form of a woman deluded by her devotion and no doubt excited at the prospect of becoming a guru's wife. Both her and her kids were almost instantly elevated to superstar status within their cult.
To this day, there is literally no footage of the couple. The illusion is that they stayed young, I assume. They no longer teach, lecture or interact with the public in anyway. They are basically hidden from view and all that exists is a scientology-like afterglow.
The Science of Identity Foundation gives the vibe of something that is grounded in science and evidence and is progressive. Nothing can be further from the truth. You will be met with pictures of a young guru who you can never see, you can watch some old tapes form the 80s though. You will be told to chant some mantra and when you ask what the mantra means, you will be told it's a song about a cow-herding god who plays with young village girls and promotes genecide and uses repeated violence to solve social issues... And then you will be told that by doing this thing called "mantra meditation", your problems will melt away and you will realize that you are not your body and that you need to surrender to that 1980s version of Jagad Guru if you ever hope to make it out of this shit-hole life you have... very scientific and far reaching education going on here. And while you're at it, vote for Tulsi!
I think the overarching issue is that none of these institutions have a right to demonize and be critical of gay life or dictate how a couple expresses affection and chooses to live. The Puranas and other scriptural texts are FULL of stories of inappropriate and over-sexed characters that "spill their seed" and "fall" form their positions as so-called warnings to those who are practicing a bhakti lifestyle. They urge that you dovetails those feelings with god by surrendering wholesale your senses to the pleasure of god. When that leaves you craving for human contact and a "real" relationship with a real person you can see, talk to and engage with, you are immediately viewed as fallen or impure.
As far as I know, the story of Butler's sanyassi rejection goes as such: He felt that he could not effectively preach to women unless he was married himself. Instead of choosing a homely wife that would not "agitate his senses" and disturb him, he went for his disciple's asian ex-wife who happened to be a yoga instructor. Of course no sane person would see there to be a logical link between preaching to women and maintaining celibacy. They are independent life choices. If you are fixed in your celibacy and are preaching a message of devotion to a promiscuous village deity, well then, sure, but in general, spirituality and practices like celibacy should not inhibit one from talking to women.
Obviously it wholly negates the concept of us not being the body if you are so disturbed by women that you cannot preach and instruct them in morality and god consciousness unless you marry and have sex. The learned man, in this case does distinguish between different bodies and recognizes the power of human sexuality. Butler was obviously shooting himself in the foot when he chose to marry. It pretty much negated his stance of not being the body and remaining stalwart and fixed in his celibacy and focus on his preaching and his god and guru.
Tusta krishna also broke off his sannyas, following in the footsteps of his bodgrother, Siddhaswarupananada Paramahamsa.
The main point is not weather there is some bits of truth here and there within the teachings of any number of these guru's, it's that they are teaching based on a highly questionable and flawed philosophical and scriptural system that seems to reinvent itself when convenient to accommodate just about any indiscretion and contradiction. This is called "making shit up as you go along".
I can only assume, that in full-fledged hare krishna style, Vashnava Dasi, Wai Lana, was offered to Siddhaswarupananda as a "loyal servant and partner". I doubt there was much in the way of a courtship, dating, seeing a movie or two or any real formality about it all. It was just a offering of "property" to the guru in the form of a woman deluded by her devotion and no doubt excited at the prospect of becoming a guru's wife. Both her and her kids were almost instantly elevated to superstar status within their cult.
To this day, there is literally no footage of the couple. The illusion is that they stayed young, I assume. They no longer teach, lecture or interact with the public in anyway. They are basically hidden from view and all that exists is a scientology-like afterglow.
The Science of Identity Foundation gives the vibe of something that is grounded in science and evidence and is progressive. Nothing can be further from the truth. You will be met with pictures of a young guru who you can never see, you can watch some old tapes form the 80s though. You will be told to chant some mantra and when you ask what the mantra means, you will be told it's a song about a cow-herding god who plays with young village girls and promotes genecide and uses repeated violence to solve social issues... And then you will be told that by doing this thing called "mantra meditation", your problems will melt away and you will realize that you are not your body and that you need to surrender to that 1980s version of Jagad Guru if you ever hope to make it out of this shit-hole life you have... very scientific and far reaching education going on here. And while you're at it, vote for Tulsi!