Taking The Sin Out Of Sex - Comments on the editorial

Taking The Sin Out Of Sex

Insightful and incisive at the same time. I think it is a foregone conclusion that people in general in America (if not the West in toto) have outgrown such notions of sex being intrinsically evil. The attitude is much more one of avoiding the pitfalls of sexual activity such as unwanted pregnancies and STDs, one of which can kill you, and if you cheat on your spouse then just don't get caught. Its not that there are no more taboos, hence the public outrage over child pornographers. Incest will always be taboo on account of the genetic consequences.

One must consider this: Have people in general ever been very good at controlling their sexual urges, despite religious doctrine that prescribes strict codes of conduct?

What prompted me to post this article is its recapitulation of what is now accepted wisdom, principally the recurring theme: "body-mind duality --> sex is evil."

Since we were weaned on "You are not this body" as PRINCIPLE #1 of our spiritual indoctrination, where do we stand philosophically?

Second, what is the fundamental source of this discomfort with sexuality? Is there some deeper meaning to this that goes beyond philosophical misunderstanding?

Third, has not the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction? What about the trend to find spiritual meaning in sexuality itself? What is our thinking about the old "orgasm=transcendental experience" metaphor/fallacy?

Fourth, what about the "middle way"? Is it just a tactic meant to wean us from the sex addiction? Or is it fudging the issue by engaging in a kind of experiential dilletantism that is the equivalent of being a spiritual jack of all trades, master of none?

Fifth, what does our traditional Vaishnava debate--that of the Sahajiya Tantric approach to sexuality and that of our various orthodoxies--have to contribute or learn from the current debate(s)?

bangli

Well, Vaishnava shastras say that sex is the strongest binding force in this material world. What about that?

Sri Caitanya's views on sex and sensuality are too well known for the ascetics.

"In this connection the punishment He gave to his disciple Chota Haridasa for begging rice of Madhavi, an old woman, who was also one of His foremost devotees, is usually pointed out. Chota Haridasa had gone to Madhavi to beg for good quality rice at the instance of Bhagavan Acarya, who had invited Sri Caitanya to have His meal at his house.

When Sri Caitanya came to know of this. He ordered that Chota Haridasa must never be admitted to His presence. Svarupa Damodara and other intimate companions of Sri Caitanya felt that the punishment was too severe for Chota Haridasa to bear. They, therefore, begged that he might be forgiven. Sri Caitanya replied, "I cannot bear the sight of a vairagi, who has conversed with a woman. Better you attend to your business and stop idle talks. If you again plead with Me for Chota Haridasa, you will not find Me here." The pleadings of Paramananda Purl, a brother disciple of Sri Caitanya's guru Isvara Purl, whom He respected greatly, also failed to soften Him. Chota Haridasa waited for a year, hoping that Sri Caitanya might yet show mercy on him. But finding Him inexorable, he went to Prayaga and gave up his life in the holy waters of Triveni so that he might serve Him in the next life. When his end was related to Sri Caitanya, He commented with light heart, "This is the penalty for looking at a woman."" By Kapoor

The God-given/divine gift argument is so anthropomorphic and open to all kinds of extrapolation. For instance, "God" also gave cannabis sativa, magic mushrooms, datura, opium poppies, etc., so should they also be appreciated with "gratitude and delight"? If not, what distinguishes intoxicants from sex? Both give pleasure, both relieve stress.

If the "divine gift" requires monogamy, pills, or sheaths of rubber in order to remain divine, there is an obvious man-made component to it. If there is no objection to the man-made part of this equation, then television, video games, and any other thing that gives pleasure can also be be counted as God-given, which certainly they are for all things come from God...but they are not equal in terms of how they can be offered back to God, nor accepted with gratitude.

I don't blame a former Anglican for taking sex as a divine gift, for their theology is based on the idea of a single life in the here-and now and an afterlife of angels and trumpets (when most would prefer angels offering a little crumpet).

Or take food as another God-given source of pleasure. I was reading CC this morning and came across a verse that had Dasa Goswami reproaching himself despite eating only enough to maintain body and soul (prANa raksA lAgi). Although he is the topmost example, the attitude exhibited is probably the only one supported in the bhakti sastras.

Can a Vaisnava ever exult in enjoying the body? While we have been witness to all kinds of unfortunate behavior and now have a better understanding of the depth of our modern samskaras, I don't think a tenet of accepting sex, or any other physical pleasure, as a divine gift can sit comfortably. The Vaisnava poet rebukes himself for knowingly drinking poison. Sans that level of realization, there is no need for imitation, but there is also no need to move the goal posts. It seems modern man is dedicated to removing angst at any cost, but angst is good, it serves a purpose.

Scott Peck gives the example of guilt and compares it to carrying around a set of golf clubs--you are meant to have a full set but you shouldn't be loaded up with 50 clubs. If a sadhaka carries around too heavy a sense of guilt or if s/he displays repulsion to sex or the body but does not have the corresponding level of attraction to Radha-Krsna, then something is amiss and needs to be dealt with at that level. Perhaps in the pendulum swing they'll come back to accept sex or pleasure with too much gusto but hopefully balance will eventually be found without any need to rewrite the teachings of Mahaprabhu and his followers.

But yet when He was married he was very romantic with His wife.

Braja's points are excellent. I want to point out, however, that there are different norms and rules for different ashrams. Choto Haridas was not rejected for perceived sexual transgressions per se, but because of the perceived transgression as a vairagi. Had he been a householder he would not have been ousted like that at all. But anyway, vairagi or grihastha, pumsah striya mithuni bhavam etam tayor mitho hridaya granthim ahuh (SB 5.5.8) For both man and woman the mutual attachment is a knot in the heart and that is not the way forward to Godhead, I would say. Attachment is never good. For persons who have realised that they are not the body, sexuality is really a silly illusion.

Reference?

It is generally agreed that the liberated soul is beyond the moral law. (Vedanta Sutra 3.4.16ff)

From the Mukta-carita--

---

With that, I started moving toward Champakalata, but Madhumangala laughingly dissuaded me by saying, "O comrade! It is not at all proper for a perfected mystic like yourself to touch another man's wife!"

Momentarily stopped by his words, I answered, "But friend, close contact between male and female adepts is permitted if the purpose is that of attaining the supreme ecstasy together. This has been stated by the divine seer Narada:

'In order to attain the greatest ecstasy,
one should take refuge in those of the same type.'"

---

Raghunatha certainly seems aware of such goings-on.

I wonder if GALVA are?

Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association