Dharmic Sex

[Guest guest]

Sri Krishna says in BG that He is sex life that is not contrary to religious principles. In my understanding, Srila Prabhupada purports that one should have sex only once a month when the wife is fertile and the time is auspicous and only for the purpose of begetting Krishna Conscious children.

 

I know some who believe that such restrictions would give a fatal blow to the marriages. There are others who believe that this is more restrictive standard than the vedic system. I would like to learn the opinion of the erudite members of this group.

[karthik_v]

SP did state, as quoted in Lilamruta part II that sex is only for procreating KC children and is allowed only once in a month. But, he hasn't given any shastric reason for that. If we look at other schools like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva etc., they don't have any such restriction. So, I am not sure that there is any shastric basis to this.

 

But, all schools agree that sex is a barrier we need to transcend, for realization. So, perhaps, SP was meaning this when he said that we should restrict sex for only begetting KC children. But, I don't think that he applied this rule to all and sundry. An example is the first marriage he conducted in America between Michael (Mukunda) and Jan (Janaki). They lived together and were very hip. SP intiated them and after they helped him clean up the kitchen, he asked them what are they going to do now that they are initiated. They are bound to follow the 4 regulative principles. So, naturally living together is rejected. Mukunda is perplexed and asks SP if there isn't any love in KC. SP smiles and answers "Yes, there is. So, I am asking, why don't you marry"?

 

Now, SP was even willing to initiate people, though by the strict interpretation they weren't following 4 regulative principles then. That is because, as a guru, he was telling his audience what is ideal, but applying it to the individuals according to their state of development.

 

So, I think SP was talking of sex once a month only, as an ideal. Not a standard that everyone should pretentiously follow. But, at the same time, many in ISKCON do emphasise on this, and I disagree with that.

 

Sex needs are individualistic and varies from one couple to another. I haven't seen any objection in the scriptures I have read, to a couple enjoying sex between themselves. Artificial restrictions are dangerous. We can also see from very old temple engravings that they portray positions from Kamasutra and Koka shastra. If our vedic ancestors had thought that sex was bad, they wouldn't have done it. Even if you read Valmiki or Kamba Ramayana, there are vivid descriptions of beauty that can be sexually arousing. Again proof that sex was not debarred in our ancient society. Kamba Ramayana, in particular vividly describes how Sita is aroused upon seeing Rama. If we look at ancient Tamil Sangam literature, again, sex is given prominence and not suppressed.

 

Even if we go by SB, Kamini and Prathishta-asha are the toughest obstacles to overcome. So, how is it possible for someone to overcome the desire for sex, if he is still attached to earning in dollars and getting a green card?

 

Great acharyas advocated abstinence only for those taking to ascetic order, not for grahasthas. Atleast, there is no shastric basis for restricting sex to grahasthas.

[karthik_v]

Also, Muslim and British rule in India could have brought about rigid attitudes towards sex.

[jijaji]

Great discussion....

 

 

------------------

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

SP did state, as quoted in Lilamruta part II that sex is only for procreating KC children and is allowed only once in a month. But, he hasn't given any shastric reason for that. If we look at other schools like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva etc., they don't have any such restriction. So, I am not sure that there is any shastric basis to this.

 

In the marriage ritual, there are mantras to chant before one has union with wife. And this is for all schools of vedic system. I dont know on what sastra these mantras are based. (I'm referring to the one where you touch the forehead and then the chest with kumkum and chant)

 

But, all schools agree that sex is a barrier we need to transcend, for realization. So, perhaps, SP was meaning this when he said that we should restrict sex for only begetting KC children. But, I don't think that he applied this rule to all and sundry. An example is the first marriage he conducted in America between Michael (Mukunda) and Jan (Janaki). They lived together and were very hip. SP intiated them and after they helped him clean up the kitchen, he asked them what are they going to do now that they are initiated. They are bound to follow the 4 regulative principles. So, naturally living together is rejected. Mukunda is perplexed and asks SP if there isn't any love in KC. SP smiles and answers "Yes, there is. So, I am asking, why don't you marry"?

 

Now, SP was even willing to initiate people, though by the strict interpretation they weren't following 4 regulative principles then. That is because, as a guru, he was telling his audience what is ideal, but applying it to the individuals according to their state of development.

 

Srila Prabhupada was always considerate and found a position for everyone in his bhakti movement. We should see what rules apply to whom and what is the basis of the rules.

 

So, I think SP was talking of sex once a month only, as an ideal. Not a standard that everyone should pretentiously follow. But, at the same time, many in ISKCON do emphasise on this, and I disagree with that.

 

If one needs to have sex only for procreation , then he needs to have sex only at auspicious time of the month and when the woman is fertile. This is generally not more than once or twice.

 

Sex needs are individualistic and varies from one couple to another. I haven't seen any objection in the scriptures I have read, to a couple enjoying sex between themselves.

 

Is there a difference in quality of enjoyment ? Like one having animalistic desires and one having devas like desires.

 

Artificial restrictions are dangerous. We can also see from very old temple engravings that they portray positions from Kamasutra and Koka shastra. If our vedic ancestors had thought that sex was bad, they wouldn't have done it.

 

What is the authority of Kamasutra and Koka shastra ?

 

Even if you read Valmiki or Kamba Ramayana, there are vivid descriptions of beauty that can be sexually arousing. Again proof that sex was not debarred in our ancient society. Kamba Ramayana, in particular vividly describes how Sita is aroused upon seeing Rama.

 

Sita's attraction to Rama is the pastime of the divine couple. As for as SP is concerned, he abstained from discussing the intimate pastimes. I haven't seen that done by other acharyas as well. The reason is one needs to be spiritually qualified to understand these pastimes.

 

If we look at ancient Tamil Sangam literature, again, sex is given prominence and not suppressed.

 

YES. But is it vedic culture ?

 

Even

if we go by SB, Kamini and Prathishta-asha are the toughest obstacles to overcome. So, how is it possible for someone to overcome the desire for sex, if he is still attached to earning in dollars and getting a green card?

 

Valid ?

 

Great acharyas advocated abstinence only for those taking to ascetic order, not for grahasthas. Atleast, there is no shastric basis for restricting sex to grahasthas.

 

Until the contraceptives came, people had sex and also children that come with it. In the modern times, one is having sex without the responsibility of having children - the reason is children have become liabilities rather than assets as in the past.

 

 

I am not fully disagreeing with you. My point is there are many cases of enjoying sex in the vedic literatures within the confines of morality that is different from what we know today - some restricitve and liberal. What is the vedic stand and what is the reason for SP's stand - if it is true that his is more restrictive than the Vedic stand ?

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Oops! I just realized that my response interleaved with Karthik's post. However, it is easy to see which is mine - look for the wiser quotes

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Also, Muslim and British rule in India could have brought about rigid attitudes towards sex.

Possibly - But we cannot say that our acharyas were influenced by the culture.

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by ram:

Possibly - But we cannot say that our acharyas were influenced by the culture.

I disagree with you. Even in Gaudiya Sampradaya, Rupa and Sanatana Goswami had taken Muslim names and served the nawab, till they became renunciates. Now, would you not call that influence? Those were the times of oppression and different schools of Hinduism came up certain responses. So, there was a certain influence.

 

One clear case is women covering their head in the north. This practice finds no mention in any Sanskrit work preceding the 10th century. This came into vogue following the Islamic practice of hijab. We do find that many achryas, during this period, promoted this practice for Hindu women also. Is that not influence? On the other hand, acharyas in places like Kerala, where there was little Muslim influence, never even mention this practice.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

I disagree with you. Even in Gaudiya Sampradaya, Rupa and Sanatana Goswami had taken Muslim names and served the nawab, till they became renunciates. Now, would you not call that influence? Those were the times of oppression and different schools of Hinduism came up certain responses. So, there was a certain influence.

 

One clear case is women covering their head in the north. This practice finds no mention in any Sanskrit work preceding the 10th century. This came into vogue following the Islamic practice of hijab. We do find that many achryas, during this period, promoted this practice for Hindu women also. Is that not influence? On the other hand, acharyas in places like Kerala, where there was little Muslim influence, never even mention this practice.

I agree.

 

[gHari]

During Ratha Yatra last year, a young female stranger started walking beside me, just behind Lord Baladeva's cart. I think I may have been chanting japa as I walked.

 

Surprisingly she began to talk to me asking "What is this about?". I told her that God is coming to visit the people. "Are there any rules in your religion"? I said, "No; just learn to love God".

 

"What is their position on homosexuality"?

I said we only have sex for procreation. "Isn't that difficult?", she replied a little bewildered. "No, it comes naturally when you start to identify with that part of you that lives forever, the soul".

 

She knew it was the truth. She humbled out into a quiet "Thank you" and drifted back into Lord Jagannatha's admirers.

 

While this was likely a unique time and circumstance conversation for a very special fortunate young girl, still I think we can see even the masters preaching in accordance with the requirements of time and circumstance.

 

I would recommend to anyone that in this case, they should just trust the doctor. He knows the source of our bondage and attachment to the material whirlpool; and he knows what we must do and not do to become free from our fixation with material 'pleasure'.

 

He takes the box away from the child so it can discover that the toy is a lot more fun to play with than the box that it came in.

 

Merry Christmas,

 

gHari

[karthik_v]

Is there a difference in quality of enjoyment ? Like one having animalistic desires and one having devas like desires.

 

But, why do we even classify desires into animalistic and deva-like? For example, when Indra had sex with Ahalya, it was very much lusty and cheap. Likewise, books like Kamasutra talk of the positions adopted by Indrani. So, I find this classification artificial.

 

What is the authority of Kamasutra and Koka shastra ?

 

Tough question. But, they are found in all ancient temple engravings. If they were not authoritative, how did they get in and why nobody objected?

 

Sita's attraction to Rama is the pastime of the divine couple.

 

Rama and Sita were divine couple. And the very fact that Kamban vividly describes the sexual attraction between them also shows that our ancestors didn't feel anything wrong with sex. Asexual Gods and sexually super-charged Prophets seems to be a semitic notion.

 

Until the contraceptives came, people had sex and also children that come with it. In the modern times, one is having sex without the responsibility of having children - the reason is children have become liabilities rather than assets as in the past.

There is some truth to this, but we don't know if there were any contraceptive methods practised traditionally. Perhaps some Ayurvedic expert can answer this. India didn't face epidemics like Europe, till they came in, but even then until 18th century India's population was a mere 50 million. So, there may have been methods.

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by gHari:

No, it comes naturally when you start to identify with that part of you that lives forever, the soul

gHari Prabhu:

 

That was an excellent point.

 

Merry Christmas and a very happy new year to you!

[karthik_v]

Check out on the thread Tamil Traditions, started by Gauracandra to know if ancient Tamil culture was vedic.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

And the very fact that Kamban vividly describes the sexual attraction between them also shows that our ancestors didn't feel anything wrong with sex.

Madhva himself only accepts Valmiki Ramayana (mula-ramayana) as authoritative. Nevertheless, other texts can shed light on the nature of society at the time they were written.

 

One thing we should keep in mind is that most of our history (including religious history) really refers to the period of Kali yuga, which is a time of social and religious corruption. For example, several thousand years ago the brahmanas became so degraded that Vishnu Himself had to incarnate as Lord Buddha to stop their violence against animals. Just because something is a few thousand years old, or just because it is a temple or sanskrit book, does not indicate it is anything in connection with sat-dharma. The Bhagavatam defines sat-dharma as follows:

 

manvantarani sat-dharma

 

"Sat dharma is the injunctions given by Manu."

 

If we want to understand the Vedic view of anything, then we should take reference from the teachings of Manu. Other texts, sculptures, buildings, etc., regardless of how many thousands of years old, are heavily influenced by the present age of Kali and therefore lack much of the authority we turn to them for.

[jijaji]

karthik_v..... I find you to be a very interesting fellow.

I have enjoyed reading some of your postings lately....

 

Merry Christmas.

 

jijaji

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Hare Krishna J N Das Prabhuji:

They do this across the board, making it a general prescription. I tend to disagree with that.

 

 

Haribol! Even pure devotion is very high for everyone. It does not mean that we should not speak about it. Srila Prabhupada himself spoke about sex being only for procreation in public addresses. We cannot criticize the followers for speaking it - in fact we should appreciate them for their subordination to guru. The two "negative" fallouts of public preaching of sexual abstinance are :

 

1. the preachers falling down after all their flaunting of celibacy

2. unqualified followers failing in their marriages because of artificial renunciation and incompatibility between couples

 

But both of these are social results. Not spiritual. While there is a need for proper counselling, it cannot challenge the original teachings from a spiritual stand point.

 

All your arguments wrt to temple art, Kama sutra or Koka shastra can establish only one point. That Srila Prabhupada's teachings were more restrictive than some of the medieval values with respect to sex. Karthik - the best you may achieve is establishing that the vedic times were more liberal than what Srila Prabhupada taught. I dont even know if you can establish that.

 

I leave two questions :

 

1. Is Srila Prabhupada's stand more restrictive ?

2. If so, how and why ?

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by ram:

 

And I have shown cases where he was not demanding that of every one of his followers.

 

 

They should be commended for repeating what SP taught. And, the highest truth should certainly be told and not hidden. But, what is dangerous is selective indoctrination. And that happens with regards to sex in case of many speakers. I haven't come across too many speakers asking their audience to desist from earning money. SB considers that too to be a stumbling block in devotion, does it not? I do see an emerging pattern that is selective and that is dangerous.

 

 

Wrong understanding. I have written that SP was cautious about applying it to his followers. Read again what I posted.

 

 

I don't know if SP's stand was more restrictive. Every school of sanatana dharma recognizes sex as a barrier in spiritual progress. So, did SP. But, we don't know what the vedas themselves state regarding sex. I have only been reading translations of vedas and they don't seem to talk of restrictions. In my opinion, abstinence from sex itself seems to be of a more recent develpoment, say from the 6th century AD. So, it is possible that the view of all these schools on sex itself could be of a more medieval origin and different from what the vedas state.

[atma]

 

Good points here from all sides. A few months back I expressed my concern about the negative style of preaching of some devotees and how affects everybody. Check "SB class, relationships, etc".

 

I don't know much about shastra but by my own experience of living in different parts of the world and especially in India it was understood that the couples live and sleep together. All the Indian devotees have no problem with that, it was the foreigners the ones with problems trying to separate the grihasthas all the time. For the Indians it was the most natural thing to share the bed with the wife and be a normal couple.

Before my own marriage the indian ladies (ISKCON devotees) adviced me to please my husband at all times not questions asked.

Shastra or not that is the standarn in India, devotees or not, villagers or with education. If we read the Bhagavatam we learn that kings and sages do have sex with their wives and "enjoy for thousands of years" and after they satisfied their desires at their hearts content they go for renunciation because they know that if they did it artificially and before time it was useless.

 

In my humble opinion Srila Prabhupada set the ideal but how many can do it?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

And I have shown cases where he was not demanding that of every one of his followers.

When Srila Prabhupada first came to America, he was quite lenient with the newcomers in regards to rules and regulations. They were not very civilized or disciplined. They would light their cigarettes on the arati lamp, etc. He tried to get them attached to Krishna through chanting and hearing. Later he introduced the rules and regulations more strictly. I don't think there is a case of Srila Prabhupada being so lenient with disciples at a later date. Once ISKCON was established, he made it a point that the rules and regulations he gave must be followed.

 

[Gauracandra]

In my humble opinion Srila Prabhupada set the ideal but how many can do it?

I think the acharya sets a very high standard because the teachings are to be carried out for the future. With such a high standard set, even then we have deviated a number of times... Now, if Srila Prabhupada had set more lenient restrictions, would we have done better or worse?

 

I think the high standards are like a bright torch lit in the darkness. They give us something to move towards. If the light were dim, we might not see the direction nearly as well. Still, it is understandable that many will have problems meeting these standards. Jahnava Nitai wrote a real good article a while back which states that we are never to measure ourselves against one another, but only against a saint. If we don't meet such a high standard, I don't think we should feel bad. Forget about other bhaktas, but objectively look where we stand against a saint. If we come up short, no big deal, simply work gradually to improve. The main thing is that often there are people who are spiritually immature who don't know how to properly preach. They don't measure against a saint for the purpose of spiritual advancement, but rather measure people against one another. This will not help anyone. My two cents.

 

Gauracandra

[Avinash]

For example, while VR states that Ravana grabbed Sita when he abducted her, Kamban finds even this thought repulsive. So, in KR, Ravana doesn't even touch Sita.

 

I don't think Valmiki did anything wrong in writing that Ravana had grabbed Sita. If Ravana had really done that, then it was quite correct on the part of Valmiki to mention that. As an example, terrorist attacks are bad. But, if some terrorist attack happens somewhere, then there is nothing wrong if it is reported in some newspaper. Facts are not always sweet.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

One point that deserves to be mentioned is that the Goswami's instruction, and Prabhupada's, was that one should first get people attached to Krishna's service, and then later introduce rules and regulations. Krishna states in the Gita that one can give up lower tastes by experiencing a higher taste. Without actually experiencing spiritual enjoyment, how can you expect someone to give up material enjoyment? That is false renunciation. If one first becomes attached to Krishna's service (and experiences the resultant spiritual happiness) then rules and regulations become natural for one to follow.

[karthik_v]

Hare Krishna J N Das Prabhuji:

 

Originally posted by jndas:

Madhva himself only accepts Valmiki Ramayana (mula-ramayana) as authoritative. Nevertheless, other texts can shed light on the nature of society at the time they were written.

That is true. Valmiki Ramayana is the original and authentic description of the divine avatar of Lord Rama. Any other version, which deviates from VR isn't authentic. But, from my reading of Kamba Ramayana, I don't think it deviates from VR. In fact, it treats Rama and Sita with more deference, as KR was written during the era of Bhakti movement. It was written around 9th century AD. For example, while VR states that Ravana grabbed Sita when he abducted her, Kamban finds even this thought repulsive. So, in KR, Ravana doesn't even touch Sita. It is with that kind of reverence that Kamban approached Ramayana. Also, we should remember that Ramanujacarya, another Sri Vaishnava acarya from Tamilnadu, had no objection to KR. Instead KR parayanam (recital) is regularly done in all Sri Vaishnava temples of Tamilnadu. That is why I was referring to KR. There is also a legend that Sri Rama himself ratified Kamban's version.

 

One thing we should keep in mind is that most of our history (including religious history) really refers to the period of Kali yuga, which is a time of social and religious corruption. For example, several thousand years ago the brahmanas became so degraded that Vishnu Himself had to incarnate as Lord Buddha to stop their violence against animals. Just because something is a few thousand years old, or just because it is a temple or sanskrit book, does not indicate it is anything in connection with sat-dharma.

Very valid. I agree completely.

 

The Bhagavatam defines sat-dharma as follows:

manvantarani sat-dharma

"Sat dharma is the injunctions given by Manu."

If we want to understand the Vedic view of anything, then we should take reference from the teachings of Manu. Other texts, sculptures, buildings, etc., regardless of how many thousands of years old, are heavily influenced by the present age of Kali and therefore lack much of the authority we turn to them for.

I have read that there are many recenssions of Manu, though I haven't read any of them. J N Das prabhu, could you kindly enlighten us on this? I agree that many forms of art etc., in this age may be corrupted versions, but, what makes me wonder is why no acarya ever objected to erotic depictions in our traditional temples. I haven't heard of any objections either from the acaryas of any Vaishnava sampradaya or Advaita sampradaya.

 

Also, when we look at ancient Tamil literature, there is an explicit treatment of sex and no acarya has ever objected to any of them either. In fact, they were patronised by them. Even if we look at the engravings in Mahabalipuram, which depict themes from Mahabharata and which were scuplted around 1300 years ago, we find a lot of eroticism.

 

I do see a pattern when I look at many of the art and literary forms of the past. They all have eroticism inter-woven with spiritual messages. And, I am not aware of any acarya objecting to them. Instead, these works constituted the mainstream worship in temples.

 

Of course, I must clarify another point here. Readers shouldn't think that I am advocating some Osho kind of approach towards sex. Every acarya has stated that sex is a barrier that we need to transcend to realize the Supreme. My only question is can everyone do that? Obviously not. So, artificial renunciation is more suicidal. A person who is attached to his car, cannot claim that he is beyond sex.

 

As gHari prabhu pointed out, the best course is to take the advice of a bonafide guru, as his teachings are tailor-made for the initiated disciple. That is why I showed the example of SP, who while indicating as to what the highest ideal is, applied it to the individuals as per their merit. For example, he encouraged George Harrison to chant the holy name in every concert. He did not ask him to shave his head and join the temple. SP knew the position of the devotee and according to the nature of the devotee, applied the ideals to him. And that is what makes a bonafide guru.

 

The point I was hinting at was that some speakers, in ISKCON, often disproportionately over-emphasise on the need to renounce sex. They do this across the board, making it a general prescription. I tend to disagree with that.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"In my humble opinion Srila Prabhupada set the ideal but how many can do it?

------

 

the fact is that some families are breaking, the 99% of the initiates does not respect the principle as said by srila prabhupada, this principle is making extremely (maybe unnecessarily) difficult to take initiation and inspires a sectarian mood

 

to you all, what is the solution ?

[Guest guest]

EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD IS GIVEN TO ALL EARTHLY BEINGS BY GOD. YOU DO WHATEVER PLEASES YOU. YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX 5 TIMES A DAY - GO FOR IT. YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX ONCE A MONTH - GO FOR IT. YOU WANT TO ABSTAIN FROM SEX FULLY - THEN YOU ARE HINDERING THE CREATIVE PROCESS INSTILLED IN EACH LIVING BEING CREATED BY GOD.

 

COME ON PEOPLE, DON'T TRY TO GO AGAINST THE NATURAL PROCESS. DON'T TRY TO HINDER THE PROCESSES THAT GOD CREATED. HAVE SEX, MAKE BABIES, BRING TO LIFE ANOTHER HUMAN. DON'T USE CONTRACEPTIVES. LET NATURE TAKE IT'S COURSE.