Monday, 3 September 2018

What does Hinduism say about homosexuality?

Alright, so there are too may answers to this question, and too many speculations as well. Answers on how Hinduism doesn’t condemn homosexuality, and speculations on how there are Gods, Goddesses & charecters who sport queer charecteristics. So let us first review those charecters from Purāņas who are apparently gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual:
  1. Ardhanārīśvara
  • Claimed to be: Transgender
  • Reality : Symbolism of non-duality of Brahman and Brahmaśakti. Advaita and other monistic philosophies propound that Brahman is God while Māyā, also known as Prakřti, Vimarşa, Brahmaśaktī or simply Śakti is potency of God; and both are inseperable and non-dual like fire and heat, sun and sunlight, water and wetness, ice and coldness and so on. In short, Brahman is God and Māyā is essence of God, and this has been illustrated in Śaivite literature as “Ardhanārīśvara” and in Kaula Tańtras as “Kāmakalā” or “Śřńgārakalā”. Given that the very motto of Advaita Vedāńta is “Brahmasatyam Jaganmithyā” (Brahman is truth, phenomenal world is false) and all monistic philosophies stress upon forsaking worldly bondages to pursue the spiritual realm, I do not understand how Ardhanārīśvara represents something as mundane as transgenderism.
2. Mohinī
  • Claimed to be : Vişņu’s Mohinī Avatāra as a transgender; Śiva and Vişņu as a gay couple.
  • Reality : All Purāņas that document the story of Devī Mohinī stress upon the fact that She is the female incarnation of Vişņu. By performing austerities to appease Mahātripurasuńdarī, Vişņu was granted a female form similar to Lalitā Devī as a boon, because no one other than Ādyāśakti can attract the mind of Śiva. Together with Śiva, Mohinī also gave birth to a son Şaşțha, better known as Ayyappa Swami. Now are transgenders and gays capable of giving birth to a child? Also, Śiva was attracted to Mohinī only because She was blessed with the same form as Lalitā Tripurasuńdarī (consort of Sadāśiva). If a man is attracted to his wife, can that be termed as homosexuality?
3. Śikhaņđī
  • Claimed to be : Transman, lesbian.
  • Reality : Śikhaņđī, who was Kāśī’s princess Ambā in previous birth, was born as eldest daughter of Pāńcāla’s king Drupada. She was raised as a son, was married to princess Daśārņa who complained her father that her ‘husband’ was a woman. When Śikhaņđī’s father-in-law king Hiraņyavarņa decided to investigate the matter, she exchanged her gender with a male Yakşa and turned into a man. He not only had sex with women sent by Hiraņyavarņa, but also impregnated his wife and had a son named Kşatradeva. Now, are transmen and lesbians capable of impregnating women, given that neither one woman cannot penetrate another woman, nor can a woman produce sperm cells?
4. Bhaghiratha
  • Claimed to be : Offspring of a lesbian couple, who were widows of Sūryavańśī king Dilīpa who died childless.
  • Reality : No authentic version of Rāmāyaņa confirms the same. The story of a childless Dilīpa’s widows making love to each other and giving birth to a boneless Bhaghīratha is from Bengali version of Rāmāyaņa. Vālmiki Rāmāyaņa confirms that Bhaghīratha was biological son of Dilīpa, and the later even performed coronation of his son before departing to forest in order to perform penance and bring Gańgā on earth. Now, when the authentic version of Rāmāyaņa confirms the fact that Bhaghīratha was biological son of Dilīpa, do we have any good reason to believe in a bogus regional version with no verifiable source?
5. Gopeśvara Mahādeva
  • Claimed to be : Śiva as a transgender, Śiva and Křşņa as a gay couple.
  • Reality : Apparently onece Devī Pārvatī participated in Rāsalīlā of Křşņa and talked about the same with Śiva. The Lord, desirous of participating in Rāsalīlā as well, assumed the form of a Gopī and entered the Rāsamaņđala. First of all, it is a bogus folklore with no scriptural sources. Secondly, Devī Pārvatī is venerated as chastest among all chastes i.e., She never resorts to another man other than Lord Śiva; this one is the most disgusting. Third, the true story of Gopeśvara Mahādeva is from Harivańśa Parva of Mahābhārata, where Gopeśvara Lińga is described to be the spot where Gopas of Vraja would worship Lord Śiva & Devī Pārvatī on Śivarātrī by fasting and making offerings of various articles. On one such instances Křşņa’s foster father Nańdagopa was attacked by a python, and was rescued by Lord Křşņa Himself. Given that all this “Śiva turning into Gopī and having Rāsalīlā with Křşņa” episode is a bogus folklore with no scriptural evidence, on what basis do some people claim Śiva as a transgender and Śiva & Křşņa to be a gay couple?
6. Kārtikeya
  • Claimed to be : Son of Śiva and Agni, a gay couple.
  • Reality : In some versions, Śiva deposits His seed on earth, which is carried away by Agni and deposited into the wombs of six Řşipatnīs. Each of them abort their foetuses into Ganges, and Gańgā carries and deposits them to a forest of reeds. There the foetuses turn into infants, are adopted by six Křtikās, are taken back to Pārvatī who merges the six children into one boy with six faces. In other versions, Kārtikeya is born from Pārvatī’s womb and is named thus because the six Křtikās are His baby-sitters. Now given that other than Agni, Bhūdevī, Řşipatnīs, Gańgā, Křtikās and Pārvatī too had their respective roles in birth of Kārtikeya, how do some people ignore them and cherry-pick Agni only? Also, on what basis do they ignore the version in which Kārtikeya is born from Pārvatī’s womb?
7. Bahucarā Devī
  • Claimed to be : Goddess of transgenders.
  • Reality : She is a folk goddess whose worship is restricted to Gujarat and some parts of Rajasthan. According to the folklores, she was born human into a trader’s household, and was married off to a closeted gay man who ditched her on her wedding night to meet and have sex with his male lover. Upon finding out, Bahucarā castrated her husband but agreed to forgive him on the condition that he must become her priestess and worship her till his last breath. Now, this is a folklore with no scriptural sources; hence Hindus except those from Gujarat have no good reason to believe in a folk goddess from another region and consider her lore to be authentic.
8. Aravan
  • Claimed to be : God of transgenders, ‘husband’ of Křşņa.
  • Reality : In Tamil version of Mahābhārata, Aravan is bachelor son of Arjuna from Nāginī Ulupi, who volunteers to be sacrificed during Āyudha Pūjā. However, he desires to get married before he dies and given that no father would offer his daughter to Aravan, Lord Křşņa assumes a female form, marries Aravan, spends a night with him and even mourns his death like a widow mourning her husband. Well, Aravan or Irāvata of authentic versions of Mahābhārata, the son of Arjuna and Ulupi, is killed by demon Alambūśa during the battle of Kurukşetra. Given that the entire “Křşņa marrying Aravan” episode is from a bogus folk version of Mahābhārata, why would anyone reject the authentic Mahābhārata authored by Vyāsadeva and believe the former?
9. Mitrā-Varuņa
  • Claimed to be : Gay couple
  • Reality : In Śatapatha Brāhmaņa, Mitrā & Varuņa are said to meet on full moon and new moon nights in order to implant their seee into one another. This causes the waxing and waning of the moon. Well, Vedas are not to be taken literally as they are esoteric; Mitrā is Dharma while Varuņa is Adharma, and the phenomena of Mitrā-Varuņa as Dharma-Adharma has been explained in the Analysis of Devī Sūktam. Misuese of Dharma results into rise of Adharma, as seen in Mahābhārata; while extremity of Adharma results into rise of Dharma, as seen in Rāmāyaņa. This has been explained by using Mitrā and Varuņa as metaphors, and concerns matters which are spiritual. Yet another example of how some people perverse something spiritual into something so mundane to suit their filthy agenda.
10. Erotic carvings on the walls of Khajuraho temples
  • Claimed to be : Proof of Hinduism approving homosexuality to be normal and spiritually/socially acceptable.
  • Reality : Apart from homosexuality, the erotic carvings of Khajuraho temples also depict besitality i.e. sex between a human and a non-human animal. Okay, so homosexuality is normal, socially & spiritually acceptable, and homosexuals should be allowed to get married and have sex. If that is so, then besitality should also be allowed; it should also be considered normal, accepted socially & spiritually and humans with bestial instincts must be allowed to marry & have sex with animals. Why discrimination against bestial people? After all, love is love; isn’t it?
11. Kāmasūtra
  • Claimed to be : Hindu scripture approving homosexuality.
  • Reality : Scriptures dealing with Vedāńta, such as Vedas, Purāņas, Tańtras dealing with worship of deities & Upaņişats are superior; scriptures dealing with Dharma & righteous code of conduct such as Manusmřti, Apastambha Dharmasutra etc. are mediocre; and finally scriptures like Kāmasūtra & Tańtras dealing with sorcery, which deal with base instincts & sense gratification are most inferior in quality. Hence, one should follow Śāstras dealing with Vedāńta & Dharma while rejecting Kāmaśāstras because Vedāńta directs one to outgrow desires.
Now that the eleven arguments put forth by some people to prove that Hinduism celebrates homosexuality have been debunked, let us see what Dharmaśāstras say regarding homosexuality:
By discharging semen into inhuman females except a cow, into a woman in menses, into others that have no female organs, or into water one should perform the penance of Santapanam.” (Vide Atri Smřti)
One who does not have sex with his wife during her season, and one who has sex with her outside her season, as also one who deposits his semen in a place other than the vagina ––they all incur the same guilt.(Vide Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra)
A man who ejaculates his semen in any place other than the vagina becomes equal to a thief, equal to a murderer of a Brahmin.” (Vide Apastambha Dharmasūtra)
And now comes the most famous of them all- Manu Smřti:
“If a twice-born man commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female, in an ox-cart, or in water, or during the day, he should take a bath along with his clothes.”
“Causing pain to a Brāhmaṇa, smelling at things that should not be smelt, or at wine, cheating and sexual intercourse with a man, all this is declared to lead to loss of caste.”
So, any kind of non-vaginal sex or Sodomy i.e., anal sex, oral sex and masturbation (options gay people and transpersons are left with) are abominations similar to Brahmahatyā, whose punishments are as follows:
"For his purification the slayer of a Brahmana shall make a hut in the forest and dwell in it during twelve years, subsisting on alms and making the skull of a dead man his flag.Or let him, of his own free will, become in a battle the target of archers who know his purpose; or he may thrice throw himself headlong into a blazing fire;Or he may offer a horse-sacrifice, a Svargit, a Gosava, an Abhigit, a Visvagit, a Trivrit, or an Agnishtut;Or, in order to remove the guilt of slaying a Brahmana, he may walk one hundred yoganas, reciting one of the Vedas, eating little, and controlling his organs;Or he may present to a Brahmana, learned in the Vedas, whole property, as much wealth as suffices for the maintenance of the recipient, or a house together with the furniture;Or, subsisting on sacrificial food, he may walk against the stream along the whole course of the river Sarasvati; or, restricting his food very much, he may mutter thrice the Samhita of a Veda.Having shaved off all his hair, he may dwell at the extremity of the village, or in a cow-pen, or in a hermitage, or at the root of a tree, taking pleasure in doing good to cows and Brahmanas.He who unhesitatingly abandons life for the sake of Brahmanas or of cows, is freed from the guilt of the murder of a Brahmana, and so is he) who saves the life of a cow, or of a Brahmana.If either he fights at least three times against robbers in defence of a Brahmana's property, or reconquers the whole property of a Brahmana, or if he loses his life for such a cause, he is freed from his guilt.He who thus remains always firm in his vow, chaste, and of concentrated mind, removes after the lapse of twelve years the guilt of slaying a Brahmana.Or he who, after confessing his crime in an assembly of the gods of the earth Brahnanas, and the gods of men Kshatriyas, bathes with the priests at the close of a horse-sacrifice, is also freed from guilt." (Manusmřti 11:74–83)
So the above are the punishments prescribed for the one found guilty of Brahmahatyā; and given that non-vaginal sex or Sodomy is all that homosexual males & transpersons can participate into, they are accountable for the punishments and penances same as that of Brahmahatyā.

Now the following questions might arise:

What about lesbians and bisexuals?
Well, no penile penetration is involved in case of lesbians while bisexual individuals may have persons of the opposite gender as themselves as their partners. So they can be exempted.

What about heterosexual individuals who practice Sodomy?
They will be accounted for the same punishments and penances which have been mandated for Brahmahatyā. Sexual orientation does not save one from the outcomes of Sodomy.

Is there any way out?
Yes of course.
LGBT people are queer by birth itself, which is but a result of deeds of one’s pastlife; the root of all problems is Sodomy. So if homosexuals realise that sexual intercourse is a procreational (and not recreational) act between a man and a woman desirous of having children, lead the life of celibates i.e., abstain from sex and dedicate themselves in the worship of their Işțadevatā, then they will be at peace and will be honoured by both society as well as religion.

The above answer is meant for those homosexual individuals who identify themselves as theist Hindus. The Trilokas (Svargaloka, Martyaloka & Pātāla) are jurisdictions of Lord Trivikrama; we humans are denizens of Martyaloka, and hence it is our duty to abide by the laws mandated by Śrīman Nārāyaņa. He is our King, and we are His subjects. If we disobey Him, then Lord Puruśottama has right to punish us.
We all will have to face Dharmarāja at Yamaloka one day. Dear Hindu homosexuals, today you might cite distorted examples give by mischief-makers like Dr. Devdutt Pattanaik, Ruth Vanita, Lakshminarayan Tripathi and Simran Sheikh; but my dear friends, Yamarāja and his Pārşadas do not recognise any of these modern day scholars and their nonsensical interpretations as authority above Śrīman Nārāyaņa. So if you are a true Hindu, by every means you should forsake these people and abide by Dharma. You must have performed some Pūņyas by virtue of which you have been assigned birth into human specie instead of some animal or plant. Don’t waste it after temporary pleasures of Sodomy; utilise it to wash away your pastlife sins by worshiping ypur Işța and attain the grace of God, for that is the ultimate purpose of human life. 
It is because of the conspiracy of invaders against Hinduism that Hindu homosexuals are more interested in Sodomy and other mundane sense gratifications instead of performing penances and worship of God. Remember, you loose your Hindu identity if you try to imitate the Western world where homosexuals have been brainwashed into believing Sodomy to be the only purpose of life.

If Hinduism was so much in favour of homosexuality, there would have been instances of gay/lesbian marriages in Purāņas and manuals of gay/lesbian marriage ceremonies in Dharmaśāstras. Is there any?

To those who still think otherwise, I openly challenge them to give references of gay/lesbian marriages from Purāņas and also the description of the rituals followed.

And finally to answer the question, Hinduism doesn’t condemn homosexuals; Sanātana Dharma condemns Sodomy. Seperate Sodomy and Homosexuals, and they will be like any one of us.


I believe that there are a number of Hindu homosexuals who are religious, but are uncomfortable with Manusmřti. I don’t blame them, given that anti-Hindus have defamed Manusmřti at great extents. But my friends, Smřtis are no “later day” texts, and are approved even in the Purāņas:

"न देवता भवेन्नृणां देवतानां च दैवतम् ।
करिष्यत्यवताराणि शंकरो नीललोहितः ।
श्रौतस्मार्त्तप्रतिष्ठार्थं भक्तानां हितकाम्यया ।
उपदेक्ष्यति तज्ज्ञानं शिष्याणां ब्रह्मसंज्ञितम् ।" (Kūrma Purāņa 1:30:33-34)

In Kaliyuga, Śańkara Nīlalohita, will incarnate for the purpose of establishing rites of the Śrauta (Vedic) and Smārta (based on Smriti scriptures), with the desire for the welfare of His devotees. He will teach His disciples the knowledge of Brahman.

This is a reference of Lord Śiva incarnating as Śrī Ādi Śańkarācārya Bhāgavadpada and establishing Advaita Vedāńta based on Vedas & Smārta Mata based on Smřtis.

So don’t pay heed to those mischief-makers who falsely condemn Manusmřti. It is a valid Śāstra approved by Mahādeva Himself, and no anti-Hindu can overrule that.

Best wishes of Janmāşțamī to all.
Hare Křşņa _/|\_