Guest guest Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Dear Maharajas and Prabhus, Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada in his books and preachings says all forms of sex (except for purposes of procreation, and that too once a month) is ILLICIT. My humble question is this: Are there any quotes in the vast body of vedic literature which illustrates the above DIRECTLY? Also, in the scriputres, is sex with in marriage (for purposes other than procreation) is defined as ILLICIT? Yours sincerely, C Sivakumar. Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger. http://messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, sevatula dasa wrote: > Srila Prabhupada in his books and preachings says all > forms of sex (except for purposes of procreation, and > that too once a month) is ILLICIT. > > My humble question is this: Are there any quotes in > the vast body of vedic literature which illustrates > the above DIRECTLY? Also, in the scriputres, is sex > with in marriage (for purposes other than procreation) > is defined as ILLICIT? All four of the major sins that devotees refrain from are mentioned in Srimad-bhagavatam, 1.17.38, as well as Manu-smrti (5.56). Illicit sex as defined by Srila Prabhupada seems to be based on the norms of various dharma-sastras he often cited, and on the spirit of such lawbooks. See Manu-smrti, 3.45-48, 9.70, etc., or peruse others if you want more details. However, it is truly much more important to recognize that all sex life (licit or illicit) is antithetical to bhakti--in principle--and thus always dangerous, even for the most pious householders. Srimad Bhagavatam 7.9.45, 5.5.7-8, 7.15.47, 2.2.12, 7.5.30, and in Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 22.87 and Antya-lila 6.227 are notable among the innumerable references from sastra that may be generally helpful in this regard. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hare Krishna, PAMHO. AGTSP. I have had the same question but haven't been successful in finding any scriptural evidence. I look fwd to hearing from learned members. If there is no scriptural evidence, I'm not sure how the guru-sadhu-sastra (gss) principle applies - I had raised this topic earlier but got no replies. I hope some senior devotees will throw some light. Some personal thoughts: Immature application of the principles on sex laid out by Srila Prabhupada and Gaudiya acharyas, I think actually leads to chaos. This is a very strong principle and requires a great level of purity, maturity and conviction on both sides (man and woman), and without these I think it reduces to a case of artificial repression of the senses, which is actually condemned by Lord Krishna in the Gita and also discouraged by our acharyas. Ofcourse, this does not mean that there need be no effort to control the senses. One has to have the standards in mind, but at the same time try to meet those standards in a gradual way under the able guidance of a bonafide guru. Also, principles of such strict celibacy are also more difficult for those devotees who are staying outside the temple communities and are sometimes devoid of good association (and consequently slacken in their practice). For such people and I have pratical experience of seeing many devotee-friends, fanatical application of principles actually leads to terrible results. And, this is probably one of the main reasons for the high divorce rate within the Krishna conscious (Gaudiya Vaishnava) devotee community. Married couples do not evaluate where they stand and try to fanatically apply the principles without mutual understanding and thus contributes to break-ups. This is not only a phenomenon in the west, but also affecting Indians, who usually hold on to marriages come what may. Books that talk about strict celibacy principles, I strongly feel should be given out (sold) carefully and not to anyone and everyone. Many young people take up Krishna consciousness, and without proper guidance try to apply whatever is said in the books with blind faith and end up facing terrible consequences. People, in general need to purify themselves by samskaras and once they become purified they can be gradually made to raise their standards. People of various cultural backgrounds come to take up the pratices of Krishna consciousness. Most of them have led a very sinful life before taking up KC and thus require a lot of purification. These people, in my opinion should be encouraged by senior devotees to raise to the standards, but at the same time reminded of the dangers of artificial repression. Once I was asking a friend of mine from a different Vaishnava sampradaya (about the once-in-a-month sex) and he said he wasn't sure if such a principle was given to a common man on the street (read as "sinful neophytes"), although he was sure that such principles were strictly followed by the residents of say, a mutt. I don't think the other extreme, when laymen are oblivious of such principles is good either. A balance has to be struck. For example, a person who has chanted regularly for a few years and followed the regulative principles can be encouraged to follow the stricter principles of celibacy. I would like to see more discussions on this topic, although I'm not sure if this is the right forum. I leave it to Krishna prabhu to decide. in your service, Aravind. New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Dear Prabhus, PAMHO. AGTSP. Perhaps in this connection we can take some advice from the old saying that "you can't see the forest for the trees", which refers to the tendency to get caught up in details and thereby missing the big picture. As has been previously suggested, the evolution of consciousness from materialistic to perfectional stage is gradual. Still, there are some standards of behavior which everyone is advised to maintain including those pertaining to sex life. I think that Arvind Prabhu has a point that it is impractacal suggest that everyone worldwide adopt celibacy when at this moment sex is being promoted like never before and sex addiction is strongest. I think the big picture that Prabhupada talks about is that sex life should be restricted to marriage - no "free sex", and that marriage is ultimately about family life and not just about the sex life. In Kali Yuga, the very institution of marriage is threatened by overly focusing on sex life: as soon as there is some disturbance in the sex life then there is divorce. Also, modern society has made arrangements to avoid the responsibility of marriage life (children) in so many ways by preventing pregnancy, or by abortion - the ultimate act of irresponsibility. On an individual level, however, especially for those who are serious about attaining bhakti that is uncontaminated with material lust one must be prepared to give up sex life alltogether at some point. But for general society, there should be four ashramas and family life should be encouraged during the grhasta ashrama and not this family-less sex life that is so promoted now. Below are some interesting quotes from Prabhupada on the subject of sex: So that sex life facility is there automatically by nature. So why there is forbidden, “Not this sex life, not that...” Just like we forbid, no illicit sex, that without marriage, there is no sex. One may argue, “What is the difference, married sex and not-married sex? The business is the same.”No, there is some meaning. This restriction mean to bring him to the position of the daivé sampat, sattva-saàçuddhiù. The purpose is to bring him to the platform of daivé sampat. If he becomes like cats and dogs, then he cannot attain this daivé sampat. If there is rules and regulation, restriction following, then gradually he will come to the platform of daivé sampat. And what is the purpose of daivé sampat? Daivé sampad vimokñäya: [bg. 16.5] “If you develop your daivé sampat, then you become fit for vimokñäya, for liberation.” What is that liberation? Liberation means janma-mrtyu-jarä-vyädhi [bg. 13.9], liberation from these four things: no more birth, no more death, no more disease, no more old age.So people are unaware, and they are not interested what is vimokñäya, what is nibandhäya. Exactly like cats and dogs, they are after these four principles of material body. So this Kåñëa consciousness movement is trying little bit. Success or no success does not matter. As we are servant of Kåñëa, it is our duty to present the real thing. Now you accept, not accept. That is not my business. I can request you that you accept this principle and be liberated from these sufferings of material life. Janma-måtyu-jarä-vyädhi. But we have become careless. “Never mind I shall again take my birth, again die, I shall become dog.” In this Hawaii sometime I was speaking in the university. So when I was speaking like that, one student said, “What is the wrong there if I become dog?” Yes, he flatly said. “I shall forget everything.” So this is the university education, that one is not afraid of becoming a dog. He thinks that “This is also very good.” So where is the humanity? Where is the human civilization? People are gone so down-trodden, so fallen. Therefore it is very, very difficult to raise them. Therefore Caitanya Mahäprabhu said, and the sästras say, that people in this age are so fallen. It is very difficult to raise them by properly giving education. They will not take education. They will not be able. Therefore He has recommended, harer näma harer näma harer nämaiva kevalam, kalau nästy eva nästy eva nästy eva... [Cc. Ädi 17.21]. So we are trying our best. So only request is, those who do not comply with our rules and regulation at least, they may chant Hare Krishna wherever they may remain. That is my request. Thank you very much. (end)Bhagavad-gitä 16.6 [by following the basic restriction, ie. restrict sex to marriage, then one will have a better chance at gradually developing spiritual life.] Maharaja Pariksit to Kali: Where illicit sex is indulged, prostitution, you can remain there; and sünä,” means unnecessary killing animals, slaughterhouse, “you can remain there. And brothel and liquorhouse, striyaù sünä päna, where intoxication is indulged, you can remain there. And gambling.” Päna dyüta. Dyüta means gambling. “You can remain in these places.” So it was very difficult for Kali to find out such place because Mahäräja Parékñit’s time the kingdom was so nice that there was no brothel, no slaughterhouse, no liquor shop and no gambling club. This is räjarñi. So you could not find. Lecture in Vrindavana SB 6.2.4 September 8, 1974 [Herein, illicit sex is likened to prostitution or a brothel rather than sex life within a marriage even if it doesn't end in a pregnancy. ] And without marriage, that is not civilized life, because in the animal society there is no marriage. But in any form of civilized society there is marriage. Everyone has got sex appetite. Therefore, marriage is allowed by the Vedic system. And Kåñëa says in the Bhagavad-gétä that dharmäviruddho kämo 'smi, “Käma, lust, which is not against religious principles, that is I am.”So marriage is essential. So far our society is concerned, we don't allow anybody to remain in our society as friends, girlfriend or boyfriend. No. They must be married. And these boys and girls, after being married, they are preaching nicely Kåñëa consciousness. All my students who are married, they are doing preaching work more than sannyäsé. Yes. In the Kali-yuga, practically it is forbidden. Sannyäsaà pala-paitåkam kalau païca vivarjayet, açvamedhaà gavälambhaà. Lecture at the marriage in New Delhi, November 17, 1971 [Again, the focus here seems to be to contain the "sex appetite" within a marriage.] [MODERATOR NOTE: Great posting, but please edit the text when copy-cut-pasting text with diacritics. This website does NOT support diacritics - you have to change them manually or else we get a lot of illegible characters] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Thanks for the quotes. But, I couldn't find direct evidence in SB and CC, although I have to admit I haven't looked at the dharma sastras. If you can kindly post from them, I'll appreciate. A few comments (I'm also making some general points, maybe not pertinent to what you have said, but to the topic being discussed, just to get people thinking - needless to say, I maybe completely wrong):mpt (AT) myuw (DOT) net wrote: All four of the major sins that devotees refrain from are mentioned in Srimad-bhagavatam, 1.17.38, as well as Manu-smrti (5.56). >>The four sins talk about prostitution, which I believe is generally understood as sex outside marriage. They don't brand sex within marriage as a "sin". Unlike other three sins, sexual attraction is natural for a human being. Srila Prabhupada and other great acharyas say that also. It is just that the energy has to be channelized for Krishna conscious purposes. That, atleast is the standard. Illicit sex as defined by Srila Prabhupada seems to be based on the norms of various dharma-sastras he often cited, and on the spirit of such lawbooks. See Manu-smrti, 3.45-48, 9.70, etc., or peruse others if you want more details. >>So, assuming there is no direct evidence for once-in-a-month sex, I believe we should take Srila Prabhupada's statement as a general guideline (similar to many other Vaishnava principles) and not as an absolute must for anyone and everyone (and thus knowingly or unknowingly encourage artificial repression). Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. However, it is truly much more important to recognize that all sex life (licit or illicit) is antithetical to bhakti--in principle--and thus always dangerous, even for the most pious householders. >>What you have said is a very lofty thing, but often tough to practice. I believe by licit, you mean sex that is not for procreation but within marriage. Even that, I believe, on a practical level, has to be dealt on a case-by-case basis. Each individual (or couple) is unique and has to be guided by a senior householder. Limited sex besides that used for procreation is certainly not dangerous, atleast when compared to the mass fall-downs that happen because of artificial repression and cause confusion in the society. It is the latter which devotees should be cautioned more about than the former. The word 'fall-down' has become so commonplace that many devotees no longer take it seriously. Because, they know from various lectures that they have heard that "even if I fall down, I'm still considered a saint, so, how does it matter?". Atleast in Indian society, people were not familiar with this concept of fall-down. But, they nevertheless have faithfully followed the general guidelines on sex laid out by the vedic scriptures and by great acharyas such as Sankaracharya from time immemorial. The householders knew what they were supposed to do and this resulted in stable societies, where marriage don't break up. In our temples, there is so much emphasis on brahmacharya (for householders), but rarely have I heard anything said on the dangers of divorces. Didn't Srila Prabhupada emphasize against marriages breaking up? In our Krishna-conscious community, we over-emphasize on quickly applying the principles, and some people do raise to the standards, but then they fizzle out. Even the great Yamunacharya, who spit at the thought of sex, Srila Prabhuapada says that he did so after enjoying sex in various ways before getting frustrated (SB 7.9.45). What to speak of us!. Such approach only yields short-term results. If the community has to become exemplary, I think devotees, in general (I'm not advocating that everyone gets married, because I know there are some exalted souls who can practice celibacy without agitation) should be encouraged to produce Krishna conscious children and lead a happy Krishna conscious family life, one based on mutual understanding. in your service, Aravind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 (Regarding the question of where illicit sex as described by Prabhupada is clearly defined in sastra:) On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Aravind Mohanram wrote: >> PAMHO. AGTSP. I have had the same question but haven't been successful in finding any scriptural evidence. I look fwd to hearing from learned members. If there is no scriptural evidence, I'm not sure how the guru-sadhu-sastra (gss) principle applies - I had raised this topic earlier but got no replies. I hope some senior devotees will throw some light. . . .>> > > Some personal thoughts: Okay, here’s mine: “If you try for outstanding, you get first-class. If you try for first-class, you get third-class. If you try casually, you fail.” Someone told me Prabhupada said this, but I haven’t seen any such reference. > Immature application of the principles on sex laid out by Srila Prabhupada and Gaudiya acharyas, I > think actually leads to chaos. This is only one reason Srila Prabhupada constantly stresses the importance of advancing beyond kanistha-adhikara as soon as possible. Until one recognizes the urgency of this need and acts accordingly, one remains utterly vulnerable to a host of equally destructive anarthas, especially offenses. >> This is a very strong principle and requires a great level of purity, maturity and conviction on both sides (man and woman),>> What about homosexuals? They’re more vocal than actually numerous, but they do exist, and they suffer from sex desire at least as much as everyone else does. >> and without these I think it reduces to a case of artificial repression of the senses, which is actually condemned by Lord Krishna in the Gita and also discouraged by our acharyas. Ofcourse, this does not mean that there need be no effort to control the senses. One has to have the standards in mind, but at the same time try to meet those standards in a gradual way under the able guidance of a bonafide guru. >> This isn’t a principle taught by Srila Prabhupada. He didn’t encourage people to gradually become civilized; he instead insisted that those awarded the human were already equipped to follow the regulations enjoined upon them, and that they should therefore act like civilized human beings instead of irresponsible cats and dogs. Generally, Prabhupada was unbending in his insistence that candidates for pure bhakti must be free from at least the four gross sinful activities—and this is one of many authoritative qualifications that distinguishes his Divine grace from less worthy “teachers,” including some who pass as Vaisnavas. The scriptural passages I mentioned earlier indicate that what from the platform of bodily absorption might appear to be dogmatic hyper-orthodoxy on the part of Srila Prabhupada, is in fact his compassionate determination to keep only that which is truly essential in focus—practically. However, this is appreciable mostly to those submissive enough to have been consequently relieved of their gross sinful inclinations, as well as to eternally liberated souls who never had to deal with the temporary bodily nightmares fools like us undergo. It is imperative to remember, first and foremost—we are NOT this material body. Everything about Krsna consciousness becomes confusing if we forget this, overwhelmed by Maya’s ubiquitous and constant encouragement to compete with Krsna. Conversely, everything about Krsna consciousness falls naturally into it’s logical place when we recognize what, and who, we really are. In plain terms, it’s very simple for those who are straightforward. >>Also, principles of such strict celibacy are also more difficult for those devotees who are staying outside the temple communities and are sometimes devoid of good association (and consequently slacken in their practice). >> Yes, this is extremely important. Association is much more widely available than one’s inclination to seek it out. Moreover, people usually don’t properly take full advantage even of whatever association Krsna has already sent them. That said, judicious association really is the key to our advancement; but as in all things, there are positive and negative aspects of association. In my view, people often can, and do, practically nullify the good association they take--by failing to consider carefully enough the effects of whatever bad association they also accept, whether circumstantially or otherwise. Such consideration is practically a part of the anartha-nivrrti process and its logic is the basis of the various prohibitions in sastra. It’s grounded in the extremely subtle (and hence, abstruse) principles of Sankhya philosophy as found in Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-bhagavatam, and allied smrtis. These ancient teachings always have vital relevance to everyone’s daily life, even if only a few can easily see just how this is so. >>For such people and I have pratical experience of seeing many devotee-friends, fanatical application of principles actually leads to terrible results. And, this is probably one of the main reasons for the high divorce rate within the Krishna conscious (Gaudiya Vaishnava) devotee community. Married couples do not evaluate where they stand and try to fanatically apply the principles without mutual understanding and thus contributes to break-ups.>> Honesty is the only remaining leg on the bull of religiosity. No one can benefit from good association without it. One who isn’t honest with himself can hardly be honest with others, including one’s own spiritual master. A Braja poet once wrote: “If you jam the door shut, how will Hari enter your heart’s temple?” Of course, Srila Prabhupada doesn’t teach fanaticism either. One simply has to sincerely apply the good guidance received from pure devotees, and everything will work out fine, even if one is riddled with anarthas due to a sinful background. Such people have an undeniable disadvantage, but tivra-bhakti as recommended by the Srimad-bhagavatam (2.3.10)—especially sincere chanting—has such tremendous potency that it wipes all such inauspiciousness away (12.3.45) very quickly, just as deer flee from a lion’s roar. >> This is not only a phenomenon in the west, but also affecting Indians, who usually hold on to marriages come what may. >> Not anymore, baba. Sangat sanjayate kamah. Monkey see, monkey do (cf. Bhagavatam, 5.14.30). >>Books that talk about strict celibacy principles, I strongly feel should be given out (sold) carefully and not to anyone and everyone. Many young people take up Krishna consciousness, and without proper guidance try to apply whatever is said in the books with blind faith and end up facing terrible consequences. >> Anyone who reads those books carefully will find that it is essential to accept a guru, for this and other reasons. Our books teach about the very guidance you’re suggesting. Srila Prabhupada also advised that it is better to give mostly kirtana and prasadam to the masses. In 1977, he even said not to open any more temples, to focus on restaurants instead. Practically, we’ve seen that temples with restaurants flourish and even make new devotees. >> People, in general need to purify themselves by samskaras and once they become purified they can be gradually made to raise their standards. >> This sort of thing is recommended in Visnu Purana; when Maharaja Sagara asked Aurva Muni how ordinary people can develop the adhikara for bhakti, the sage replied pretty unambiguously (3.8.9): varnasramacaravata purusena parah puman | visnur aradhyate pantha nanyat tat-tosa-karanam || 9 || “One can worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viñëu, by proper discharge of the principles of varëa and äçrama. There is no alternative to pacifying the Lord by execution of the principles of the varëäçrama system.” Srila Prabhupada cited this verse regularly, especially when he saw the kinds of problems you’ve mentioned, even among his followers. Suresvara prabhu told me that when he and Hare Krsna dasi compiled their book of Srila Prabhupada's instructions on Varnasrama-dharma, they realized that Prabhupada intended these instructions mostly for his Western disciples, who mostly fell down. >>People of various cultural backgrounds come to take up the pratices of Krishna consciousness. Most of them have led a very sinful life before taking up KC and thus require a lot of purification. These people, in my opinion should be encouraged by senior devotees to raise to the standards, but at the same time reminded of the dangers of artificial repression. >> Yes. However, the bhakti process (chiefly, sravana/kirtana) is itself the perfection, and essential source, of all punya. Both pancaratra marga and bhagavata marga are necessary. Of the two, however, the latter is most important, especially the sankirtana element. Sri Harinama is the most merciful form of the Lord; even sinful demons can be delivered if they chant sincerely under the guidance of pure devotees (cf. Bhagavatam, 2.4.18). And anyone, anywhere, can always chant sincerely. >> Once I was asking a friend of mine from a different Vaishnava sampradaya (about the once-in-a-month sex) and he said he wasn't sure if such a principle was given to a common man on the street (read as "sinful neophytes"), although he was sure that such principles were strictly followed by the residents of say, a mutt. I don't think the other extreme, when laymen are oblivious of such principles is good either. A balance has to be struck. >> The balance is automatic; by default, everyone has a conditional nature, and acts according to it. Our practical need is to discriminate honestly and carefully, and to then act accordingly (Srimad-Bhagavatam, 11.21.2): sve sve ’dhikare ya nistha sa gunah parikirtitah | viparyayas tu dosah syad ubhayor esa niscayah || 2 || “Steadiness in one’s own position is declared to be actual piety, whereas deviation from one’s position is considered impiety. In this way the two are definitely ascertained.” Such consciousness is the defining characteristic of human status, which isn’t just a matter of biological taxonomy. One should do what one is uniquely qualified for, and not try to act as if in possession of someone else’s qualifications. Lord Krsna repeats this important principle several times in Bhagavad-gita. Since this kind of metaphysical discrimination (like its corresponding applications) is necessarily quite subtle--and hence fairly subjective--sastra provides us with ground rules that are as objective as they are comprehensive. An individual simply has to do what is thus enjoined upon him or her (Gita 16.24), progressively (acaraty atmanah sreyah), and under the guidance of mahajanas. This profound topic is much bigger than may initially be evident (and may even be growing!), but it is also very crucial to both individual and social well being. I hope this is helpful. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Eric Bott wrote: > Below are some interesting quotes from Prabhupada on the subject of sex: > > So that sex life facility is there automatically by nature. So why there is forbidden, "Not this sex life, not that..." Just like we forbid, no illicit sex, that without marriage, there is no sex. One may argue, "What is the difference, married sex and not-married sex? The business is the same." > No, there is some meaning. This restriction mean to bring him to the position of the daivé sampat, sattva-saàçuddhiù. The latter phrase can be translated as "purification of one's existence." Since one's spiritual existence is by nature always pure, this can only refer to purification of one's *material* existence--a very important requirement for Krsna consciousness. Srila Prabhupada elaborates below on the initial passage in which Krsna mentions this and other godly qualities, in Bhagavad-gita, chapter 16: >>The purpose is to bring him to the platform of daivé sampat. If he becomes like cats and dogs, then he cannot attain this daivé sampat. If there is rules and regulation, restriction following, then gradually he will come to the platform of daivé sampat. And what is the purpose of daivé sampat? Daivé sampad vimokñäya: [bg. 16.5] "If you develop your daivé sampat, then you become fit for vimokñäya, for liberation." What is that liberation? Liberation means janma-mrtyu-jarä-vyädhi [bg. 13.9], liberation from these four things: no more birth, no more death, no more disease, no more old age.>> It's worth noting here that later on, Krsna says that realization of brahman, also a characteristic of moksa, is a prerequisite to bhakti (18.54). > So people are unaware, and they are not interested what is vimokñäya, what is nibandhäya. Exactly like cats and dogs, they are after these four principles of material body. So this Kåñëa consciousness movement is trying little bit.> Outside of ISKCON, it's hardly possible to find any serious emphasis on factually renouncing sinful life--even in various, well-established, religious organizations. Apart from Srila Prabhupada, practically all others compromise instead, as if they don't realize that such restrictions are the most objective and definite indicators possible of genuine spiritual realization (cf. Gita, 2.54-55). Arjuna said: O Kåñëa, what are the symptoms of one whose consciousness is thus merged in transcendence? How does he speak, and what is his language? How does he sit, and how does he walk? The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O Partha, when a man gives up all varieties of desire for sense gratification, which arise from mental concoction, and when his mind, thus purified, finds satisfaction in the self alone, then he is said to be in pure transcendental consciousness. >> Therefore Caitanya Mahäprabhu said, and the sästras say, that people in this age are so fallen. It is very difficult to raise them by properly giving education. They will not take education. They will not be able. Therefore He has recommended, harer näma harer näma harer nämaiva kevalam, kalau nästy eva nästy eva nästy eva... [Cc. Ädi 17.21]. So we are trying our best. So only request is, those who do not comply with our rules and regulation at least, they may chant Hare Krishna wherever they may remain.>> Hmmm. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Aravind Mohanram wrote: > Hare Krishna, > > Thanks for the quotes. But, I couldn't find direct evidence in SB and CC, although I have to admit I haven't looked at the dharma sastras. If you can kindly post from them, I'll appreciate. > Perhaps the more essential issue here is actually whether or not we can accept the authority vested in the acarya to the extent that Gaudiya-siddhanta has traditionally demonstrated. >A few comments (I'm also making some general points, maybe not pertinent to what you have said, but to the topic being discussed, just to get people thinking - needless to say, I maybe completely wrong)> Yes, that’s always possible. You may actually find the dharma-sastras to be more satisfying; they're especially meant for those who prefer everything spelled out in legalese. As its second verse indicates, Srimad-bhagavatam is actually meant for advanced spiritualists, who naturally connect all the dots, and who therefore understand sastra mainly through the mercy of the bonafide spiritual master--as Krsna recommends. In defining illicit sex as he does, Srila Prabhupada give the essential purport of the sastras, and those with no personal motives can appreciate this directly--again, chiefly by practically surrendering to such a Vaisnava just as the sastras again advise (cf., Bhagavata, 7.5.30-32). Others will probably remain disappointed with this, as per the transcendental system. They may interpret it as a mere cop-out, especially if they also favor a generally more smarta mindset. Bhagavatam, 11.3.43-48 may be enlightening in this regard. The sastra’s ultimate intent, on which Srila Prabhupada’s standards are clearly based and which he practically always emphasized, is explicated quite clearly in Bhagavatam, 11.5.11: “In this material world the conditioned soul is always inclined to sex, meat-eating and intoxication. Therefore religious scriptures never actually encourage such activities. Although the scriptural injunctions provide for sex through sacred marriage, for meat-eating through sacrificial offerings and for intoxication through the acceptance of ritual cups of wine, such ceremonies are meant for the ultimate purpose of renunciation.” Prabhupada quotes a similar verse from Manu-smrti in his purport: “It may be considered that meat-eating, intoxication and sex indulgence are natural propensities of the conditioned souls, and therefore such persons should not be condemned for these activities. But unless one gives up such sinful activities, there is no possibility of achieving the actual perfection of life.” Srila Prabhupada’s well defined principles follow from this ideal, as per his prerogative as the acarya. However, as a point of interest, he further mentions (ibidem): “In the Kriya-vidhana it is explained that sex is permitted only during the vamadeva sacrifice, or the garbhadhana-samskara for begetting of religious children.” Perhaps even this reference is still too cryptic for a certain kind of person. I suspect such persons have difficulty seeing how so many trees can make up something else called a “forest.” One should be able to see what all these instructions actually aim at, and one should proceed in that direction by exercising serious, God-given, and discriminate, personal volition. However, in addition to developing some ability to ascertain fundamental implications, the essential spirit, and ultimate purpose of the sastras, the most progressive point in this discussion is that one should also practically recognize the prerogative Krsna gives to the acarya (11.17.27); juniors especially, and inferiors in general, should submissively accept a bona-fide acarya’s judgements on dharma as final, as enjoined in Vana-parvan, 313.117: “Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the çästras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahäjanas advocate.” Of course, our founder-acarya is Srila Prabhupada, and this group is primarily meant his teachings. > >>The four sins talk about prostitution, which I believe is generally understood as sex outside marriage. > Again, ultimately in practical devotional service, definitions come from one's bonafide guru, who practically is the arbiter of all meaning. Ordinary conditioned souls, who feel that this isn't objective, or whose interest is more theoretical, are governed by the regulations of kaitava-dharma. Such persons are called karmis (i.e., nondevotees), even though another possible conclusion of this discussion is that, strictly speaking, most of them are actually vikarmis (i.e., sinful). > It is just that the energy has to be channelized for Krishna conscious purposes. That, at least is the standard. > Once again, it is the bonafide guru who sets such standards and directs his disciples how to act, since such is the prerogative awarded to his Divine grace by Krsna. We don’t have the prerogative to set such standards, although we may therefore choose any other bonafide acarya whose opinions are more to our liking. Srila Prabhupada’s standards are already clear, and with all due respects I don’t think you’re representing them here. > “Illicit sex as defined by Srila Prabhupada seems to be based on the norms of various dharma-sastras he often cited, and on the spirit of such lawbooks. See Manu-smrti, 3.45-48, 9.70, etc., or peruse others if you want more details.” > > >>So, assuming there is no direct evidence for once-in-a-month sex, I believe we should take Srila Prabhupada's statement as a general guideline (similar to many other Vaishnava principles) and not as an absolute must for anyone and everyone (and thus knowingly or unknowingly encourage artificial repression). Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. > I'll be happy to correct you if you wish. I think you're wrong. Why should we introduce essentially nondevotional ideals into a forum of devotees? People who regularly study Srila Prabhupada's books while following his process strictly--and especially those who associated extensively with his Divine grace personally--simply don't come up with such dubious notions. > However, it is truly much more important to recognize that all sex life (licit or illicit) is antithetical to bhakti--in principle--and thus always dangerous, even for the most pious householders. > > >>What you have said is a very lofty thing, but often tough to practice. I believe by licit, you mean sex that is not for procreation but within marriage.> No, that is not what I mean, as it’s quite clear that that isn’t what Srila Prabhupada meant either. What I said (citing some sastric reasons I said it) may be lofty or not, but reality is what it is. That we will continue in samsara as long as we cultivate sexual attachments is a given, at least among those who can accept the spirit as well as the letter of the law. With due empathy, I recognize that this may pose a big problem for those of us who are overwhelmed by sex desire and periodically fall down, but that problem definitely isn’t caused by Krsna’s choices. > Even that, I believe, on a practical level, has to be dealt on a case-by-case basis. Each individual (or couple) is unique and has to be guided by a senior householder.> Okay. The bonafide guru, who may indeed be a householder (there are several grhastha gurus in ISKCON), guides one in the details of bhakti principles, and their practical application. Of course, all ISKCON gurus must accept Srila Prabhupada’s standards, since he is their predecessor guru. This discussion group is meant primarily for those who follow Srila Prabhupada's teachings on Gaudiya Vaisnavism. I don’t think it’s very ethical for an independent person to use such a forum for propagating his own views. Here it’s worth mentioning that there aren’t very many things that Srila Prabhupada consistently reacted to as strongly as he did to people twisting and misinterpreting his own instructions—largely because such behavior indicates a rascal. > Limited sex besides that used for procreation is certainly not dangerous, at least when compared to the mass fall-downs that happen because of artificial repression and cause confusion in the society. It is the latter which devotees should be cautioned more about than the former. >> I respect your right to voice any opinions, even if I don’t agree with them, but I question whether this one is really appropriate here, because Srila Prabhupada never taught what you’ve said above. Like it or not, *any* sex is going to cement us into a false ego--the cause of all suffering; similarly, *any* sex desire (and even its most subtle traces) is evidence of envy, ultimately the only possible cause of that false ego. So materially, sex is the cause of all causes. It simply has to go--sooner or later; until it does, we suffer commensurate to the degree we exercise our sexual volition, and we try to enjoy this envious business only at our own risk. This isn’t an insurmountable problem if somebody is too attached to apply to follow Srila Prabhupada requested (cf. Gita 3.31), provided one is humble and honest. However, to deny that one’s inability is a problem at all merely ignores reality and smells dubious. Moreover, the complacence thereby nourished actually misleads others while it contaminates society through indirectly encouraging cultivation of mundane attachments--by creating an erroneous assumption that we’re all okay and don’t actually have a great d! eal more work to do. That’s the tenth namaparadha, and a few others as well—what to speak of bad karma. If you don’t believe this, I’m not going to preach to you, but the fact remains that Srila Prabhupada doesn’t think casual sex within marriage is harmless. All throughout his books there are too many references to mention which debunk that notion (e.g., Bhagavatam, 11.5.11, pp): “Therefore, since all the Vedic scriptures are meant for knowing Krsna (vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah [bg. 15.15]), the ultimate goal of the Vedas cannot be any type of absorption in the material senses, either licit or illicit. The Vedic regulations governing married sex life are actually meant to prevent sinful illicit sex. However, one should not foolishly conclude that a lusty attraction to his wife’s naked body is the perfection of self-realization and Vedic elevation. The actual perfection of spiritual life is to become free from all material desires, nivåtti, and to fix the mind on Krsna.” > Atleast in Indian society, people were not familiar with this concept of fall-down. > I think you chose the right tense. Nowadays many Indians can’t even understand that licit sex is also a problem. >But, they nevertheless have faithfully followed the general guidelines on sex laid out by the vedic scriptures and by great acharyas such as Sankaracharya from time immemorial. The householders knew what they were supposed to do and this resulted in stable societies, where marriage don't break up. In our temples, there is so much emphasis on brahmacharya (for householders), but rare! > ly have I heard anything said on the dangers of divorces. Didn't Srila Prabhupada emphasize against marriages breaking up? > Yes he did, and I wholeheartedly sympathize your objection to it as well (NB, however--a constructive approach usually works best), because in most cases it’s simply hypocrisy. >> In our Krishna-conscious community, we over-emphasize on quickly applying the principles, and some people do raise to the standards, but then they fizzle out. > That’s only normal and expected (Gita, 7.3). We’re selling diamonds, after all; not everybody can afford them. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.