Hinduism has many proscriptions for familial relations — the rakhi festival is one example, and filial piety in general is another. It is said in Hindu mythology that when Lord Ganesha was asked to race against his swifter brother thrice around the universe, that he instead walked around his parents three times, hands clasped in reverence.

There are also many examples in mythology of friendship — for instance, in the Mahabharata, there is the bond between the warrior Arjuna and Lord Krishna. In the other great Hindu epic, the Ramayana, the brotherly love and friendship between Rama and Lakshmana is deep and profound.

But most important to our lives as college students in a co-ed school is the subject of romantic relationships. It’s a touchy subject, especially since the vast history of Hinduism seems to consider marriage as the only legitimate romantic interaction. Lord Vishnu may be married to Lakshmi, but I doubt that prior to marriage they went on a first date, followed by a candlelit dinner. And even the most romantic courtship in the epics, that between Sita and Rama, was just a matter of stringing a bow.

It’s not clear how this old attitude about romantic relationships as solely marriage translates into the present — the more important question is, should they? Or should we disregard them and pursue what we want? I’m inclined to disregard them, since today’s society is different from that of the epics. But at the same time, there’s a feeling of obligation to considering what our ancestors thought and felt. Considering how much time college students spend thinking about romantic interactions, this is clearly an issue that Hinduism has left unaddressed.

Family, friendship, and romance — how do you feel about the relationships in your life, and how do your personal beliefs affect that?

P.S. I’m not familiar with any scriptural advice on any of these matters, so do comment if you feel you’ve read something relevant.

Related posts:

1. Question of the Week: Are Hindu Epics Literature, History, or Scripture? Ram Navami was this past Friday, and for that reason,...
2. A Post-Valentine’s Day Thought In light of the fact that Valentine’s Day was yesterday,...
3. Why am I a vegetarian? I don’t know why I am a vegetarian. I was...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

• “Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.’ The law, known as Section 377 of India’s penal code, has long been viewed as an archaic holdover from colonialism by its detractors…
• “Thursday’s decision applies only in the territory of India’s capital city, but it is likely to force India’s government either to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or change the law nationwide, lawyers and advocates said…
• “India’s society is generally unwelcoming of homosexuality except in the most cosmopolitan circles. It is not uncommon for gay men and women to marry heterosexuals and have families, while carrying on secret relationships with members of the same sex…” I know of a few real examples of this myself!

I was curious to hear more opinions on the matter, not just on the specific decision but on the prospect of gay rights in India and how various religious communities are responding.

From the comments on www.sepiamutiny.com:

• “We have not yet heard the last word on this one.  The Mullahs and Bishops of India have not yet spoken.  The views of Hindu religious leaders don’t count any way in the Indian media, but I think they are neutral on this issue… The BJP and VHP can’t speak for Hindus in India.  Their voice doesn’t carry the same weight in the media or in the larger Hindu community, compared to the voices of Mullahs among Muslims.  The voices that carry a little bit of weight among ordinary Hindus in India are those of Hindu religious leaders who are seen as ‘apolitical’.  The Kanchi Acharya, Puttaparthi Sai Baba, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Baba Ramdev, Sundara Chaitanyananda, Mata Amritanandamayi et al.  My point was that these acharyas are largely neutral to the issue.” (As an interesting aside, in late 2004, the VHP contended that gay sex causes bodily injury; this was refuted quickly by the Delhi High Court.)

• “While the penalty imposed by Section 377 goes up to life sentence, there is nothing close to it in Manusmriti, the most popular Hindu law book of medieval and ancient India. ‘If a man has shed his semen in non-human females, in a man, in a menstruating woman, in something other than a vagina, or in water, he should carry out the ‘painful heating’ vow.’ Thus, this peculiar vow, involving application of cow’s urine and dung, was meant not only for homosexuals but also errant heterosexuals.  The penalty is even milder if the homosexual belongs to an upper caste. As Manusmriti puts it, ‘If a twice-born man unites sexually with a man or a woman in a cart pulled by a cow, or in water, or by day, he should bathe with his clothes on.’  Since Manusmriti was written at a time when bath generally meant taking a dip in a river or a lake with other members of the same gender, the penalty of making a homosexual bathe without taking off his clothes was probably designed to avoid the embarrassment of his being sexually aroused in public.  In another indicator of the liberal Hindu heritage, Kama Sutra, a classic written in the first millennium by Sage Vatsyayana, devotes a whole chapter to homosexual sex saying ‘it is to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts.’ Besides providing a detailed description of oral sex between men, Kama Sutra categorizes men who desire other men as ‘third nature’ and refers to long-term unions between men.  I find it interesting that folks who cry foul about Manusmriti’s views on women, then use the same ‘liberal Hindu heritage’ text to support the argument for gay sex. So now maybe Manu may not be all that bad!”

… And from a new site to me, www.galva108.org:

• “Welcome to GALVA-108! This website is provided by the Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association, an international organization dedicated to the teachings of Lord Caitanya, the importance of all-inclusiveness within His mission, and the Vedic concept of a natural third gender. Its purpose is to educate Vaishnavas, Hindus and the public in general about the “third sex” as described in Vedic literatures. This knowledge will help to correct many of the common misconceptions that people hold today concerning third-gender people (gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, the intersexed, etc.). In addition to this, GALVA wishes to provide a friendly and positive-oriented place where third-gender devotees and guests can associate together and utilize their time to learn more about Krsna consciousness and advance in spiritual life.”

It is curious that the LGBT persuasion is considered a “third gender” here.  I wonder if that might be demeaning or frustrating to some, since it separates one from a gender that is equally valid.  (I might note here that there is a difference between ’sex’ and ‘gender’: ’sex’ refers to one’s bodily organs; ‘gender’ describes one’s own preferences.)  Still, this “third gender” remains an interesting interpretation of Vedic texts.

* * * * *

From even a brief look into what Hinduism says about homosexuality, it has become clear to me that there is no clear answer.  I guess that is an overused answer in Hinduism – the flexibility and differing opinions can be both reassuring and perplexing.  Moreover, there always seems to be some sort of divide between the philosophical musings of texts (which often explore less than accepted themes) and the rules and values put forth by religious chiefs and family heads.  That is to say, it is one thing if Vatsyayana discusses same-sex intercourse but quite another if your son is exhibiting homosexual tendencies.  In the latter case, I wonder how much of these rules, implicit or otherwise, derive from practicality: people do not want to attract more attention and judgment and therefore discourage ‘abnormal’ practices.  A good example of this is in the recent Bollywood movie Fashion, in which one of the characters is a successful gay designer who chooses to marry a woman to please his mother (the film is quite good in general and is worth the three hours).

One of my favorite examples of homosexuality and Hinduism is from a book (for a teenage audience) I read in the beginning of high school, Born Confused by Tanuja Desai Hidier.  Dimple, an ABCD and rising senior in a New Jersey high school, is (perhaps understandably) surprised to find out that her fob-Indian cousin studying at NYU is a lesbian.  However, she discovers that her parents already know and have passed no judgment whatsoever.  They have, nevertheless, been scouting out Indian boys for her.  It is only after questioning their intentions that she realizes the meaning of ‘jeevan-sathi’: ‘life companion.’  The Hindu (or Indian? correct me if I am wrong) concept of jeevan-sathi implies no specific gender or type of relationship.  It is interesting to note the commonness of this term as opposed to others.  In the English language, we certainly distinguish ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ and words like ‘partner’ or ’spouse’ are meant to be politically correct.

I am eager to hear readers’ perspectives on homosexuality and Hinduism and/or homosexuality in the subcontinent.  How [does it/should it/will it/can it] fit in?  I feel like a particularly biased and uninformed writer on this point because I’ve grown up in a liberal home and community and have little experience with or knowledge of integrating these two themes.  What do you know, and what do you think?

Related posts:

1. The task that faces us Hinduism has always been a geographic faith, tied to South...
2. Gender and Misperceptions I was procrastinating and I happened to see this article...
3. Christianity borrowed from Hinduism? There is an interesting article on About.com on the similarities...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Based on this idea, and based on Aneesh and Madhura’s comments, I have a somewhat related question: To what extent, if any, should attachment play in our lives? Many Hindu scriptures advise us to be detached — but what exactly does this detachment mean? In a Gita Study Group session last Friday, Swami Tyagananda, the Swamiji at the Vedanta Society in Boston, discussed Chapter 2 of the Bhagavad-Gita with us. During our question and answer session, we brought up the idea of detachment multiple times — and the idea that seemed to prevail was that detachment does not, by any means, mean that we should detach ourselves from having goals. Rather, we should be completely focus on higher goals, while still being detached enough not to get overly upset by failure, or overly confident from success. In that way, detachment is more like attachment to a higher purpose.

Still, the idea of attachment to people remains unclear — to what extent should we be attached to others? If the goal is to be detached, should householders (and not just saints) renounce their ties to their families and friends in order to be equally attached to everyone? Or is the ideal householder one that doesn’t renounce these ties, but continually uses them as a way towards spiritual progress…Perhaps the ideal householder is one who, despite being attached to family and friends, is able to love others just as much — and in that way, makes the whole world his own by expanding his definition of family and friends to ultimately include every living creature. Somehow, this is the most appealing idea to me — the idea that it isn’t wrong to be attached to others, as long as we are making the effort to see the God in everyone (not just in those close to us), with the hopes that eventually we will be good enough to love everyone.

Still, I have my doubts about whether this is really how I should be thinking, or whether I am saying it for convenience (since I think that on many levels, I am nowhere near ready to detach myself from my loved ones.) Is the ideal practitioner of detachment one who isn’t close to anyone? Or is the ideal practitioner of detachment one who is infinitely attached to everyone? What do you think?

Related posts:

1. Detachment In the “current question” Saketh posted earlier, he mentioned the...
2. Detachment and College Life When we go away to college, we necessarily become less...
3. The Dark Knight, Continued In a previous post, Saketh argues that the Joker acts...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Of course, religious love is encouraged in any religion — devotion to God, or to any ideal is always seen as positive; and in fact, the Bhakti Yoga claims that this love and devotion can be channeled into a path leading to realization!

The confusion arises when thinking of romantic love — is it encouraged by Hinduism? Or discouraged? Or is it simply not mentioned in our scripture? I don’t think it can be the last category, since many Hindu texts have openly romantic/sexual commentary — the Mahabharata essentially occurs because King Pandu cannot control his desires, and thus dies, according to the curse he was given many years back. Kama Sutra is famous in the Western world as the manual for different positions and other things. And the list goes on. However, what do these references mean? Indian culture makes such topics taboo — and so, I have never been comfortable enough to actually analyze what these things mean.

But in terms of relationships, I think it is important to analyze the reasons behind the relationship. Just as religious devotion is meant to bring us closer to God, so that we can improve as people, I would think that Hinduism’s approach to earthly relationships would be to suggest that our they, too, should serve the same purpose — they should lift us up. So, whether the relationship is a friendship, a romantic relationship, or something else, we should constantly examine why we claim to love others. Are we helping others by spending time with them? What is the basis for our relationships? 

Unfortunately, I don’t know the scriptural basis for any of the conclusions I just mentioned — so if you know or have an opinion on this, please comment and share what you think!

In any case, this idea of making sure that my connections to others are based on something higher than just physical attraction, or fondness of gossiping together, or partying together, has really helped me — after, as it says on the main page of the Swadharma website: talking about these things is the best way to really get to know someone; and to form any meaningful connection, you have to really know the person — their thoughts, not just their physical characteristics. So, this belated Valentine’s Day post is dedicated to all those willing to discuss these things — thanks for letting us really get to know you! 

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Related posts:

1. Question of the Week: Hinduism and Relationships We may all need food, water, and shelter to survive,...
2. Who/What is God? In a post Saketh wrote a while ago, he asked...
3. Can selfless love really exist? Last week, Ameya’s post mentioned Karma Yoga as a stepping...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Sad: “I feel terrible.”

Happy: “Cheer up, friend, don’t worry about it. There are so many other fish in the ocean.”

Sad: “You are correct — what was I thinking! Now I feel better.”

So when we are depressed, we seek something deeper, something warmer than cold logic. This is why listening is usually the soundest advice:

Sad: “I feel terrible.”

Happy: “Why do you feel terrible?”

Sad: “Well…” [and here begins a long introspective journey]

But what if there is no one else to address? What if the problem is so personal (i.e. embarrassing) that the warm feeling of interpersonal contact is just not possible?

Here, most people will either

1. weep without any idea of where to go or
2. turn to spirituality, whether as religious texts or self-improvement papers.

I will here focus on item (2), leaving item (1) to suicide hotlines and qualified professionals.

So we devour spiritual or self-help texts. Upon reading what we find, there is a brief upwelling of energy, and the friction sparks the inner fire again. Seven hours of invincibility. But then, that very evening, the fire dies out again, and frantically we search the texts we had read for that spark. It goes on like this until we learn to cope.

In the title of the blog post, I use the term crush because here in America it is the adolescent’s introduction to the dichotomy of misery and invincibility, and the basic idea can be extended to all of life, on a larger scale. We are attached, both to the avoidance of our misery (“she doesn’t even know I exist”), and to the irrational pursuit of our victories (“I think we made eye contact”). And once it’s all over, the obsession fades, we are a bit wiser, and we avoid this irrational pursuit because we know how nasty the whole thing is.

That is precisely how the sages, great renouncers that they are, feel about materialism. Life is a crush on material objects, and we spend all our days weeping about our losses and gloating about our victories. So just as we learned as adolescents to detach ourselves from the objects of our romantic obsession in order to escape misery, so must we take a step back and detach ourselves from our current crush on material satisfaction in order to find the truth we all seek. Then we can dive back into the world, confident that we no longer have a crush on it.

I thought it would hypocritical of me to write this article without being completely detached myself, but I decided to go ahead with it because it raises an important introspective point.

Related posts:

1. How to be a happy student Philosophy and spirituality are most valuable to us when they...
2. What motivates you? In the morning, when you wake up, why do you...
3. Detachment, attachment, and your loved ones In my most recent post, I wrote about the potential...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.