what is the difference between love and lust?

[Guest guest]

is being in love wrong?????? is it considered sense gratification? being in love feels good, so, is it sense gratification? i hope not, but i just really want to know. i am reading the Gita and it is always emphasizing the sense gratification is wrong

[bhaktachris]

bhagavad-gita 3.37......ACBS Prabhupada.....

 

When a living entity comes in contact with the material creation, his eternal love for Krsna is transformed into lust, in association with the mode of passion. Or, in other words, the sense of love of God becomes transformed into lust, as milk in contact with sour tamarind is transformed into yogurt.

 

Just a little bit of powerfull knowledge from Prabhupada above, now a little bit of my interpretations.

 

 

All conditioned souls entraped in bodies try to satisfy their senses, for we are trying to be happy. But since this love that we feel is actually lust (our trying to satisfy sense gratification) we are unsuccesfull and therefore the lust in turn is transformed into anger in frustration.

 

So when a human "loves" another they are cooperating to try to satisfy their personal senses. "you scratch my back i'll scratch yours" But with analictical thinking we can understand that Prabhupada is right this so called love is actually lust. We need to try to develope real love which would be in connection to the supreme person, Krsna/God.

 

And the best way to do that is CHANT HARE KRSNA AND BE HAPPY!

[Guest guest]

Love always deepens and grows, while lust demands immediate satiation. Love brings genuine satisfaction, but lust leads to confusion and madness.

[Guest guest]

true love is to be totally dedicated to fulfill the desires of the lover without any personal interest

 

lust is to exploit others for our self gratification

 

there's infinite gradations between these two positions

[ShegavichaRana]

both the terms mean the same.

[Priitaa]

Nah, I've even heard Westerners (famouns ones too) say sex and love are not the same thing.

 

Similarly, various types of sense gradification and love would not be considered the same thing.

[REASWARAN]

I dont claim to be a pundit- but I have read a bit and have had the privilege of being at lectures on the B Gita by several eminent swami's. My understanding is that the "attachment" to the sense objects is seen as being undesirable for a person who is seeking realisation. To put it more clearly, it is not the act of sex that becomes an obstacle -but it is the attachment to that act. If a seeker were to engage in an act of sex (hopefully with his legally wedded partner) and then carry on with his worldly work WITHOUT thinking more about the act, ie relliving the experience, expecting that the next time would be as pleasurable etc, then my understanding is that he is not faced by an obstacle as he is constantly living in the present -"mindfulness" as the buddhists call it. The moment you are living only in the present your mind does not take into cognizance past memories and future expectations- you have achieved the mental state that the Geeta mandates. The error therefore lies not in the acts themselves but in attachment to the acts.

[yasodanandana]

"For a Westerner both the terms mean the same."

 

we are westerners, not animals!!!!

[Priitaa]

 

I dont claim to be a pundit- but I have read a bit and have had the privilege of being at lectures on the B Gita by several eminent swami's. My understanding is that the "attachment" to the sense objects is seen as being undesirable for a person who is seeking realisation. To put it more clearly, it is not the act of sex that becomes an obstacle -but it is the attachment to that act. If a seeker were to engage in an act of sex (hopefully with his legally wedded partner) and then carry on with his worldly work WITHOUT thinking more about the act, ie relliving the experience, expecting that the next time would be as pleasurable etc, then my understanding is that he is not faced by an obstacle as he is constantly living in the present -"mindfulness" as the buddhists call it. The moment you are living only in the present your mind does not take into cognizance past memories and future expectations- you have achieved the mental state that the Geeta mandates. The error therefore lies not in the acts themselves but in attachment to the acts.

 

 

Sorry, but that's not what Prabhupada meant. Now, one could say its better then meditating on lust, though its not the highest instructions, as those of Srila Prabhupada. He was never vague, leaving us to 'read between the lines' or figure anything out. No. He came out with clear cut insturctions. He said no sex even in marriage (sex for procreation, not recreation), except to bring Krishna conscious chlidren into the world. Not to avoid pregnancy, but to try to get pregnant! Only once a month. Plus chanting of 50 rounds earlier that day. Then when there is pregnancy, no more sex until baby is born, 6 months old minimum, and another chlid is desired.

 

Many can't do this and thats fine. Simply, instead of trying to water down the process, we need to accept we aren't advanced enough to do it.

[REASWARAN]

Not being an ISKCON member, I am not familiar with Prabhupada's teachings. However, the Gita has several eminent teachers in India- and what I have stated is the gist of those teachings. If you want more information on this you could try to read Swami Chinmayananda's comments on the BG or the contemporary Swami Anubhavananda's comments.

[bhaktachris]

Hare Krsna,

 

Another Bhagavad-gita? no thanks. The Only Bhagavad-gita i will read is the one translated by our preeminent Acarya, A.C.BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI. Not by Bhaktivedanta's disiple even, just the one that Prabhupada read himself, called bonafide and AS IT IS. AS IT IS means as Krishna Himself gave to us, thankyou very much! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kulapavana]

Source: www.ananova.com

Published: November 24, 2003 Author:

Story filed: 20:12 Monday 24th November 2003

 

Love 'as addictive as cocaine'

 

Love could be as addictive as cocaine or speed, scientists have said.

 

According to Dr John Marsden, head of the National Addiction Centre at the Maudsley Hospital in London, when you are attracted to someone your brain releases the drug dopamine, giving the same reaction that taking cocaine or speed would create.

 

"Attraction and lust really is like a drug. It leaves you just wanting more," he said.

 

However like the drugs - the first flush of love is temporary.

 

"Scientific research reveals the first flush of love lasts only between three and seven years," he added.

 

The findings, which will appear in a BBC documentary next month, also investigate the link between people's smells, facial features and genes.

 

"Being attracted to someone sparks the same incredible feelings no matter who you are. Love really does know no boundaries," he said.

 

He explained that when we are attracted to someone part of the brain which processes emotions is fired up causing the heart to pound three times faster than normal and causes blood to be diverted to the cheeks and sexual organs, which causes the feeling of butterflies in the stomach.

 

"It might look like we are all after the perfect partner to wine and dine but underneath all that our animal

 

Dr Marsden's research also revealed that, "sex is booby-trapped" to make people bond with their partner.

 

"Your body has evolved over millions of years with one aim - to go forth and multiply, so while having kids may not be on the agenda just yet your body has a few tricks up its sleeve to drag you in that direction," he said.

 

According to the research the more people have sex together, the more likely they are to bond.

 

"We all know you can have sex without falling in love but if you have enough sex with the same person there's a good chance you will hit the body's booby trap which is there to tip you head over heels into love," he said.

 

"So your body goes all out to make you bond with your partner and that makes love highly addictive and the withdrawal sucks."

[Priitaa]

 

Not being an ISKCON member, I am not familiar with Prabhupada's teachings. However, the Gita has several eminent teachers in India- and what I have stated is the gist of those teachings. If you want more information on this you could try to read Swami Chinmayananda's comments on the BG or the contemporary Swami Anubhavananda's comments.

 

 

I do not know much about Anubavananda, but I do know about Chinmayananda, and he is an impersonalist at best. Vaishnavism is not impersonalism, but Personalism. In other Gitas we are told that God is formless and that our goal should be to 'merege' and become one with God. The minute we read such things, it should be recognized these versions of the Gita are not correctly translated, and are not for Vashnava's who want a Personal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krishna, eternally. Check out http://www.asitis.com

[Priitaa]

 

is being in love wrong?????? is it considered sense gratification? being in love feels good, so, is it sense gratification? i hope not, but i just really want to know. i am reading the Gita and it is always emphasizing the sense gratification is wrong

 

 

The feeling of love has its source in Krishna. It came from Him, and we by nature are His children, so we inherit some of His qualities. However, material energy has contaminatd us and so we often confuse lust and love. But to be in love is not necessarily sense gradification. Because we are not pure devotees, changes are, it is mixed. But if we omit love from our life, what do we have? We become cold and hard hearted. Impersonalists in a way. So its not about giving up love, but about peeling away the layers of false love which is lust and/or selfishness, to find beneath it, love. Genuinely caring for the person as an individual and not merely as a sex partner, but as a unique soul. From there we increase it and learn how to develop love of God/Krishna. Matter of fact, I am pretty sure there I put a quote like that (from Prabhupada) in the thread I started called "Love."

[Guest guest]

I am afraid I cannot agree with you. The scriptures are subject to several interpretations and each one chooses that which appeals to him most- which I suppose is decided by one's own internal make up. I recognise that ISKCON has different interpretations from the traditional masters and it does appeal to a sect of people. So be it.

But an offhand statement that "not correctly transalated" is a very immature view point for sanskrit is after all a language of communication and any dictionary could tell you the literal meaning. Interpretaions as i said earlier can differ and appeal to different types of people. But would strongly recommend a more tolerant attitude towards other schools of spirituality -intolerance has a habit of developing towards fanaticism.

[REASWARAN]

I am afraid I cannot agree with you. The scriptures are subject to several interpretations and each one chooses that which appeals to him most- which I suppose is decided by one's own internal make up. I recognise that ISKCON has different interpretations from the traditional masters and it does appeal to a sect of people. So be it.

But an offhand statement that "not correctly transalated" is a very immature view point for sanskrit is after all a language of communication and any dictionary could tell you the literal meaning. Interpretaions as i said earlier can differ and appeal to different types of people. But would strongly recommend a more tolerant attitude towards other schools of spirituality -intolerance has a habit of developing towards fanaticism.

 

Sorry for the repeat- I had not logged in earlier

 

[REASWARAN]

No quarrel here. Every one must decide for himself or hereself on which is most suited for him/her. The only point I would like to make here is that accepting one guru is not tantamount to running down others - You are all devoted to Prabhupada- good for you - I am sure you all have chosen well after due process of thought.

But please do remember that others have also done so and they may reached other schools of teaching -as valid for them as yours is for you. Open mindedness is a sign of spiritua maturity and offhanded rejections only indicate lack of progress.

[Priitaa]

I read over and over a misunderstanding, so I'd like to clear it up.

 

It is not that because we believe in Srila Prabhupada we therefore think there is no other pure devotee somewhere walking this earth planet. That is not our overall belief system in the least. There can be many pure Vaisnava's on the planet, tons. With that said however, once a person finds such a pure soul, they don't waste time looking for another and another and yet another pure deovtee to learn from. They instead are simply thankful they found even one and therefore surrender unto him, not promoting other gurus even tho they may be pure, but placing their focus on the one Krishna sent their way. Simultaneously, for one to be a bonafide guru they must possess all scriptural qualities of one who fits in that category and not simply because they wrote their own translation of various Sanskrit literatures. Thanks.

[Guest guest]

even if i am agree on what is the best bhagavad gita available, yours is not a good approach.. explain things and preach

[bhaktachris]

The song of God is heard from God/Krsna. He says to surrender to Him, the personality of God. He says surrender to...."me".

 

THAT is hearing bhagavad-gita, to hear it as Krsna spoke it. Prabhupada translated the sanskrit as Krsna spoke it, therefore it is called bhagavad-gita AS IT IS. That is very significant, listen to what ever bhagavad-gita you want but if you want to hear it AS IT IS then the choice is clearly only one.

[REASWARAN]

Absolutely. Once you find the guru who is right, you must stick to him. I have no quarrel with that point of view.

[REASWARAN]

Let me clarify matters here a bit. The Bhagvad gita is only one. There are several commentators. So there is no concept of which is the "better" BG. Maybe we should talk in terms of which is the commentator more appropriate for a devotee. Now then what is it you would like me to explain ? it would be easier if there were specifics- for the general concepts would take a book to go into.

[Priitaa]

Yes, there are many commentators. As long as they are qulified, no problem. I will let Prabhupada explain it, as he explains it best. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

---

 

"Bhagavad-gita is also known as Gitopanisad. It is the essence of Vedic knowledge and one of the most important Upanisads in Vedic literature. Of course there are many commentaries in English on the Bhagavad-gita, and one may question the necessity for another one. This present edition can be explained in the following way. Recently an American lady asked me to recommend an English translation of Bhagavad-gita. Of course in America there are so many editions of Bhagavad-gita available in English, but as far as I have seen, not only in America but also in India, none of them can be strictly said to be authoritative because in almost every one of them the commentator has expressed his own opinions without touching the spirit of Bhagavad-gita as it is.

 

The spirit of Bhagavad-gita is mentioned in Bhagavad-gita itself. It is just like this: If we want to take a particular medicine, then we have to follow the directions written on the label. We cannot take the medicine according to our own whim or the direction of a friend. It must be taken according to the directions on the label or the directions given by a physician. Similarly, Bhagavad-gita should be taken or accepted as it is directed by the speaker Himself. The speaker of Bhagavad-gita is Lord Sri Krsna. He is mentioned on every page of Bhagavad-gita as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavan. Of course the word bhagavan sometimes refers to any powerful person or any powerful demigod, and certainly here bhagavan designates Lord Sri Krsna as a great personality, but at the same time we should know that Lord Sri Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as is confirmed by all great acaryas (spiritual masters) like Sankaracarya, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Nimbarka Svami, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and many other authorities of Vedic knowledge in India. The Lord Himself also establishes Himself as the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Bhagavad-gita, and He is accepted as such in the Brahma-samhita and all the Puranas, especially the Srimad-Bhagavatam, known as the Bhagavata Purana (krsnas tu bhagavan svayam). Therefore we should take Bhagavad-gita as it is directed by the Personality of Godhead Himself." SP's B.Gita Introduction

 

 

"Yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau. If one has strong faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead and as much faith in the guru, yatha deve tatha gurau, then the revealed scriptures become manifest. It is not the education. It is not the scholarship. It is faith in Krsna and guru. Therefore Caitanya-caritamrta says guru-krsna-krpaya paya bhakti-lata-bija. Not by education, not by scholarship, never says. Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, guru-krsna-krpaya, by the mercy of guru, by the mercy of Krsna. It is a question of mercy. It is not a question of scholarship or opulence or richness. No. The whole bhakti-marga depends on the mercy of the Lord. So we have to seek the mercy. Athapi te deva padambuja-dvaya-prasada-lesanugrhita eva hi, janati tattvam... Prasada-lesa, lesa means fraction. One who has received a little fraction of mercy of the Supreme, he can understand. Others, na canya eko 'pi ciram vicinvan. Others, they may go on speculating for millions of years. It is not possible to understand. So Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Therefore we are presenting because we are presenting Bhagavad-gita as it was understood by Arjuna. We do not go to Dr. Radhakrishnan, this scholar, that scholar, this rascal, that ra... No. We do not go. That is not our business. That is parampara.

So Arjuna here says, bhagavata, "What I heard from that personality, Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavan." Bhagavan means full of six opulences. I've described it many times. So here is the direct hearer, listener. He says bhagavata. How you can say that Krsna is not Bhagavan--ordinary person? How you can say? One who heard the message, he says directly. This is called parampara system. This is called parampara. Evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh. So if we understand Bhagavad-gita, as Krsna..., as Arjuna understood. that is perfect. That is Bhagavad-gita As It Is. And if you try to understand Bhagavad-gita as some rascal commentator says, then you are reading somebody else; rubbish. There's no meaning. You're simply wasting your time. He may be such scholar, such big politician, like this. In our country, big politician, they have commented; big, big yogis, they have commented; big, big scholars they have... They're all useless. Take it: useless. If you read such commentary of Bhagavad-gita, it is simply waste of time. If you actually want to study Bhagavad-gita, then as Arjuna understands. Arjuna directly listened from Krsna.

 

So in Bhagavad-gita Arjuna says, after understanding Bhagavad-gita from Krsna, he said, "You are Parabrahma." Param brahma param dhama pavitram paramam bhavan. Bhavan. Bhavan means "Your Lordship.You are Parabrahma, the Supreme Brahma." He's the Supreme Brahma. Brahma means spirit and brahma means the greatest. So he has explicitly explained that spirit soul, we are all spirit soul, every one of us. But He is the supreme spirit soul, param. Param means the supreme. He's not ordinary. So He comes as ordinary, not ordinary, as human being, but He is the supreme human being. That is the difference. Supreme human being. But one who cannot understand, one who thinks, "Oh, Krsna is like us. He has got also two hands, two legs, one head. We have got also. He is like me," he is a mudha, rascal. Therefore it is said in the Bhagavad-gita, avajananti mam mudhah: "These rascal fools, they deride." Manusim tanum as... Param bhavam ajanantah, "They have no knowledge of the param bhavam." So the param bhavam, that is understood by the devotees. That is the difference. Budha bhava-samanvitah, Krsna has said. Budha bhava-samanvitah. Param bhavam, this bhava... Bhava means assimilation--"Oh, Krsna is so great." This is called bhava. That is real understanding, when you understand really this bhava stage. Bhava-bhakti. Bhava-bhakti. Simply engaged in Krsna's service. Param bhavam. Person who has not come to this stage of bhava, he cannot understand Krsna. Param bhavam ajanantah. The bhava stage comes.

 

Everyone can attain that bhava stage. There is process. This process is described by Rupa Gosvami how to come to the bhava stage. Bhava stage means just prior to perfection. One must come to the bhava stage, next stage is perfection. Next stage is full perfection. So how to come to this bhava stage, that is Rupa Gosvami has described, adau sraddha. First of all little faith. Just like many outsider also come here, "What these people are doing, these Krsna consciousness men? So let us see." So sraddha. That is called sraddha. Sraddha, real sraddha means complete faith. That is described by Caitanya-caritamrta. Sraddha-sabde visvasa kahe sudrdha niscaya. One who has got this much faith, strong faith, that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, this faith, not flickering, firm faith, "Yes, Krsna is the Supreme Personality..." That is called sraddha. That is beginning of sraddha. If you have got still doubt, then you have not come to the stage of sraddha even. Superfluous. You may come, but when you actually believe that "Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and if I engage myself in Krsna's service, I am perfect"--two things--that is sraddha. And the more you increase this sraddha you become advanced. The beginning is this sraddha. Adau sraddha.

 

So how this sraddha, this faith can be increased? Sadhu-sanga. If you keep yourself associated with the devotees, then this sraddha can be increased. If you simply believe, "Yes, Krsna is Supreme Personality," but you do not live with the sadhus or devotee, then it will drop. It will finish. So just to keep the standard, the temperature right, you must keep always yourself warm. " SP lecture, SB 1. 15.30, LA Ca., Dec 8, 73

[Guest guest]

ok chris... this is an explanation

[ShegavichaRana]

have emotions. and yes, exceptions make the rule perfect.