dharmAviruddho bhUteSu kAmo'smi - Gita 7.11

balaM balavatAM cAhaM kAmarAgavivarjitam |
dharmAviruddho bhUteSu kAmo 'smi bharatarSabha || Bhagavad-gItA 7, 11 ||

I always found the interpretation of the second half of this verse to mean that KRSNa represents sex for progeny to be artificial. There is really no need to take kAma only in the sense of sexual desire rather than as desire in a more general sense; and concerning the question of whether sexuality in accordance with dharma implies sex only for the sake of progeny is something that can only be settled by a study of the dharma-zAstras. There is an injunction that a married twice-born male should always approach his wife for sexual intercourse during what was considered her fertile period (not doing so would, in fact, be sinful), but I do not think that there are any strict bans on the couple cannot have sexual intercourse at other times, though there may well be restrictions. I do not have any citations at hand and would have to look into it.

While some commentators interpret the verse as you outline above, it is not a fact that they all do so. ZaGkara, for example, does not say anything explicit about sexuality in his commentary on this verse. When explaining kAmarAga in the second pAda, he says, kAmas tRSNAsannikRSTeSu viSayeSu and rAgo raJjanA prApteSu viSayeSu. In other words, kAma is desire for remote sense objects, and rAga is delighting in acquired sense objects.

Commenting on the last half of the verse, the AcArya says, kiM ca dharmAviruddho dharmeNa zAstrArthenAviruddho yaH prANiSu bhUteSu kAmo yathA dehadhAraNamAtrAdyartho 'zanapAnAdiviSayaH kAmo 'smi he bharatarSabha. So, the kAma, the desire for remote objects, which is not opposed to dharma is one concerned with eating, drinking, etc. which have the purpose of merely maintaining the body and so forth.

ZaGkara, then, does not read this as a statement that KRSNa represents sex life that has progeny as its aim. His explanation that kAma in accordance with dharma is desire aimed at keeping body and soul together is quite reasonable and, in my opinion, fits much better than the more restricted sexual interpretation. Now, where sex life for progeny or for pleasure fits into this is another discussion. I personally do not see why it would necessarily be against dharma that a person who, when deprived of sexual activities, lack balance and mental stability in life engage in sex not for the sake of progeny.

Sincerely,
Elpis

grhasthasyartu gaminah (SB 7.12.11)
"Grihasthas copulate in the woman's fertile days."
evam vyathAyah prajayA na ratyA -
"Sex is only allowed for prajA, progeny, not for rati, sexual pleasure". (S.B. 11.5.13)
grhasthasyApyritau gantuh (SB 11.18.43)
"The grihastha approaches the wife during her fertile season."

"As the yogi matured, the desire or need for sex apart from procreation was rendered vestigial, not through moral proscriptions but through gradually deepening sensual and supersensual fulfillments. Too much sex, more than once per lunar cycle, proved sublimatively non-ecological and diminished the yoga, or union with life's nourishing harmonies. The yogi would lose his or her fulfillment, and desires would arise forthwith."

(Excerpt from Eros, Consciousness and Kundalini: Deepening Sensuality Through Tantric Celibacy and Spiritual Intimacy (pgs. 16-18) by Stuart Sovatsky)

The Bhagavata (cant remember where, it could also be the Manu Samhita) also speaks of the higher type of grihastha being the ritu gami (once a month only) and the lower type being the parva gami (once a fortnight).

I am a aware that there are passages to this effect. It would be interesting, though, to go through the dharma-zAstras and get a fuller picture of this issue. I am sure that it is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Consider for example this passage from the upaniSads:

The type of miracles the Vedas are made of - withdrawing semen once passed and speaking while kissing.......

Stranger things happen in the purANas.

Anyway, I do not see how your posting contribute anything substantial to the discussion. I am sure that you understood that I did not intend to enter into a discussion about miracles in the vedas, but just wanted to point out that there is more to be said about sex life in the context of the zAstras than merely "once a month only for procreation." Sure, you can try to discredit the passage by making fun of it, but beyond whatever incredible things the passage speaks of (and, really, the passage is not that miraculous: the withdrawal of the semen is done only symbolically when the man sucks back his breath from the mouth of the woman) there is the undeniable fact that someone, an author of an upaniSad even, felt that there was room for sex life that does not lead to pregnancy and offspring.

I for my part cannot see any constructive and practical tip in the quotation from the Upanisads you inserted.



So it should.

I did not realize that you were looking for practical tips. I have no practical tips to offer, sorry. But to repeat myself: I cited this particular passage to show that the zAstras contain statements that differ from "once per month only for procreation." There is nuance there, it is not all black and white. This seemed to me a constructive contribution to the discussion; if it was not, I apologize.

I don't need any practical tips, thanks. The solution offered in your quote is so bizarre that it harms the credibility of the point its trying to make that it is OK to have illicit sex. Do you have the Sanskrit text at hand by chance?

Is it really that much more bizarre than the rituals concerning conception and pregnancy? I personally do not see the credibility being harmed; the procedure for securing pregnancy is similar, see the next passage in the upaniSad.

By the way, I am not arguing that it is okay to have illicit sex, but rather trying to gain a clearer picture of what illicit sex really is.


atha yAm icchen na garbhaM dadhIteti tasyAm arthaM niSThAya mukhena mukhaM sandhAyAbhiprANyApAnyAd indriyeNa te retasA reta Adada iti | aretA eva bhavati ||

Here is Hume's translation:

What rituals might that be? You refer to the Iskcon ritual? Are those practises to be found in the shastras anyway? No Vaishnava I met in India outside of Iskcon has ever heard of such - equally bizarre - practises.



I am not a Sanskrit expert but where is there any mention of penile penetration in this text? Are you sure the translation is OK?

I do not know what rituals ISKCON employ when it comes to procreation and pregnancy. But there are Brahmanic rituals in this regard and these are the ones that I had in mind. And yes, I am sure they are described in the zAstras.


Yes, it is okay. tasyAm arthaM niSThAya means "having placed the penis in her." The word artha can be used to refer to the male organ of copulation, the "membrum virile," as Monier-Williams puts it.

As a Gaudiya Initiate I accept the Bhagavat and the Gosvamis books as quintessential. Personally I am not in favour of trying to find all kinds of practical or theoretical alternatives by browsing through endless Upanisads and Puranas, like the GM and Iskcon. shastram anantam bahulas ca vidyam - "there is no end to the shastras and different sciences." The Gosvamis have distilled the essence from the shastras on the order of Mahaprabhu. nana shastra vicaranaika nipunau sad dharma samsthapakau. The Bhagavat is very clear on the parameters of sexuality, as I quoted thrice, earlier in this thread. shastram bhagavatam pramanam amalam.

It seems to me that Elpis is making a welcome addition to the discussion of sexuality in India, showing that even in the Vedanta and Dharma-shastra it is given broader scope than that provided by the few scriptures that have canonical status in orthodox Vaishnavism. When talking about the Gita, it is perfectly legitimate to cite those texts, especially since "dharma" and "kama" are broad concepts.

Of course, from a purely objective point of view, sexuality for non-procreative purposes, such as in the Kama-shastra, is taken as one of the four goals of life.

Though I appreciate Advaita's attempt to limit the scope of discussion to the orthodox Vaishnava texts, comments about "practical tips" seem outside the range of polite response.

You misunderstand. My bringing up the words 'practical tip' was not at all aimed at Elpis personally.

Practical tips hai meeri pas .....

I understand and respect your position. But since the discussion was sparked by my comments on Bhagavad-gItA 7.11 and its interpretation, I was under the impression that the discussion was not confined to the BhAgavata-purANa and the books of the gosvAmins.

The Gita is included in the Gaudiya/Goswami canon. Visvanath Cakravartipad comments on Gita 7.11 : dharmAviruddhah sva bhAryAyAm putrotpatti mAtropayogi. "Nor contrary to dharma means in one's own wife, only for procreation of a son."

pardon for budding in here. Your point Advaitadas, about only procreation for a son seems really strict. It seems to me that the writings of enlightened masters like the six goswamis are still in the language that reflects what people are accustomed to understand. For instance in another time period, the idea of "only procreation with ones wife might be , only procreation with a consentual partner or, only with ones consentual partner for the consecration of sacred union of love. The part that says wife or offspring may be circumstantial to what peoples expression of sacred is.

So it seems Elpis is using shastra to show the numbers of possibilities of what sacred unions could have taken place between Krishna's parts and parcels.

I hope I am reading the exchange correctly, sorry if I missed the boat.

Yes, these are the principles, but I wonder what precentage of Vaishnavas around the world follow this strictly. And out of those who follow strictly, how many gets frustrated, tyrannical, envious, sour and proud of their "renunciation".

Sexual energy is a very strong thing and most people, especially in the West are constantly agitated from the outside and from the inside as well. It sounds very easy: "No sex apart from procreating because the Vedas say that". But the practical realization of this principle is where most renunciates fail and have failed in ancient times, as we can read in the Puranas.

Before I moved to the temple at the age of 19 I asked the temple president: "Will you be able to support me with some practical methods to overcome sexual urge?" "Of course", he said. When I already moved into the temple, I went to him to receive the deep method for overcoming lust. His answer was: "Wear kaupins, that will control 70% of your desires." Needless to say, I was a bit disappointed....

It is not my point. I have quoted three Bhagavata texts and one Gaudiya Vaishnava Acarya's tika.



If you refer to unwedded love, is uncommitted sex 'sacred'? I think the commitment of a marriage vow is what makes sex sacred, not just mutual consent which might well be a one-night stand. All religions and cultures, independently from each other, have therefore promulgated the sacred commitment of marriage. It is to guarantee the offspring the care of two responsible parents. That is sacred sex.



I know that, I did not say it is easy or even that it is possible for most Vaishnavas. Identification with the material body is deeply rooted indeed. For a sincere devotee who is surrendered to Guru and Krishna everything is possible. It is often more a question of unwillingness than inability. The point is that the highest standard was given by the Vaishnava Shastras and that torchlight must be passed on to the younger generations of devotees unaltered. I know the reality on the ground is much less ideal....



I know for a fact that I myself, and many others with me, are more agitated, nervous and angry while non-celibate than while celibate.



It is not just some scriptural dogma. It is common sense. Which farmer goes around with his gunny bag of seeds, throwing them on the asphalt road? They will not sprout there, it is a waste of the seeds. Following the law of nature, seeds are to be sown on fertile ground. It is proven by the fact that those who have alternative types of non-procreative sex must resort to chemicals like the pill or to condoms, neither of which grow on the trees. Then there is periodical abstention, which leads to no limit of anxiety whether that gamble and calculation of infertile days will actually work or not. Sex-for-procreation only is common sense, not scriptural dogma. Promoting or establishing anything less than that as the standard is the beginning of the end.

1.Really...I thought you invented that point and only inserted that into the archarya's writing to pass it off as authoritative...forgive me for misunderstanding.




2.I disagree. I think to call a bond of mutual consent a one-night stand is just our society's judgement. All religions and cultures promulgating the sacred committment of marriage is based on the practicallity of creating some form of sanctification to prevent proper protection from nonsanctified behaviors of lusty individuals who will not care properly for the object of our lust. This is only a convention based on the habits of the norm. There are those who do not fit the norm and there are other considerations due to time, place and circumstance. Anthropologists feel that at one time women were free to mate with whichever man they wanted and stayed with a man as long as it took to nurture the child properly and perhaps could mate with another man during the growth of one child. And nowadays, the marital laws regarding same sex marriage is changing which obviously changes how a child is raised. We can't superimpose heterosexual union psychology on same sex couples because same sex unions have different needs and their psychology of sex can be different. Even today there exist an aboriginal tribe where no man or woman belongs as property to anyone in the tribe, so it seems this is an exception to the all religions and cultures you mentioned. And I don't think where that did develop was independent of each other because simple archaeological research shows how differnt cultures evolve out of other ones and the spreading of ritual and custom is in that way.



3.Sure I agree that it is good to pass on an unaltered version of the highest standard and then we do the best we can to reach that. But it is the unaltered version that the renunciates in our line developed to help us to rise above the trapping of the senses for the type of mediation they prescribed for the culture and time they appeared in. The eternal dharma is the worship of Mahaprabhu and his sankirtana movement. Not the rules and regulations on celibacy that his associates prescribed for that society present. I am sure there is benefit even in this time, but it is just not the only way for all time past present and future. Lord Bramha was not a renunciate was he? Was everyone a renucnciate that passed knowledge of Krishna from the time of the creation to now. It seems more recent. Maybe becasue Kali Yuga is so bad that it is necessary in general to control the senses, but does it need to look the same for everyone? Towards the end of kali yuga, I doubt anyone will be celibate but everyone will still chant.

There have been primitive tribes everywhere at all times, also in India. We speak of civilised, responsible behaviour.



Have you been raised by step-parents, or have you ever been a step-parent? Good luck, you'll know what it means to follow the law of nature. One birth, one partner.



You mean being raised by two mothers or two fathers? Now that is a mentally healthy and balanced upbringing. A child needs a mother and a father.



As I said, we speak of civilisation, not of aboriginal tribes. Children need a personal relationship with their biological father and mother.



We were not discussing total abstention, but non-procreational sex. I did not say everyone must be celibate. It would be the end of the human race......

The Bhagavad-gItA is more than just a part of the gauDIya canon. Regarding VizvanAtha Cakravartin's interpretation, then, as I pointed out in an earlier post, it does not seem reasonable to impose such a specific interpretation on the verse, although the idea presented by VizvanAtha may be in conformity with what some dharma-zAstras expound. ZaGkara's interpretation is, in my eyes at least, much better. As Jagadananda pointed out above, kAma and dharma are broad concepts, and to gain an understanding of what the author of the GItA meant by them and how verse 7.11 really implies about sexuality, we will have to examine dharma-zAstras and other texts outside the gauDIya canon; I do not think that it is sufficient to merely cite VizvanAtha.

Well, there is freedom of faith I suppose. Apart from Visvanatha there is Baladeva, who says the same in his Gita 7.11 tika, plus SB 7.12.11, 11.5.13 and 11.18.43. Five is a crowd I suppose. Beyond the sectarean boundaries, I still find it hard to see how one can philosophise beyond the absolute facts of nature and the confrontation with the universal fact that seed [sperm] is naturally going to fertilize ovum, unless one wants to speak while kissing and - through breathing excercises - retract the semen which is already in the uterus. Or unless one takes the easy, modern way of the pill and/or condoms.........

Why is the behaviour of "primitive" tribes not responsible? They may not conform to our standards of civilization, but that does not mean that their societal structure is inferior, irresponsible or even less complex. Aborigine tribes, for example, have an extremely complex system of kinship. I am not saying that we should adopt their customs -- that would obviously not work -- but they have lived this life for 40,000 years or more, and there is some merit to it as well as something to be learned from it.

Nothing wrong with aboriginal tribes per se, but Kalkiji was speaking here about customs of having children raised within a commune, without them having personal contacts with their personal parents or women making babies with other men while the child of the previous one is not yet raised and I responded to this alone, not to the entire culture of aboriginal tribes.

Dharma artha kama and moksa are rejected by the Acaryas (na dharmam nAdharmam sruti niruktam) and by the Bhagavata (dharma projjhita kaitavo'tra paramo etc.) I could probably fill an entire page of this thread with quotes from the Gosvamis books that rejected the four purusharthas.

This was already established before the discussion began. I am well aware of VizvanAtha and Baladeva's interpretation of Bhagavad-gItA 7.11 and the passages from the BhAgavata-purANa you cited; I merely argued that when the question is viewed in a broader context things are not as clear-cut as that and that it is not necessarily reasonable to take the opinions VizvanAtha and Baladeva to be indicative of what the author of the Bhagavad-gItA meant in 7.11.

Oh well, then Visvanatha Cakravarti and Baladeva Vidyabhusana are wrong. Very well then, how about Narada Muni (who spoke SB 7.12.11), Chamasa Rishi (SB 11.5.13) and the Lord Sri Krishna Himself (SB 11.18.43, yes the same fellow who spoke that misunderstood verse Gita 7.11)?

Sankara offers a general explanation, while Sridhara and others who followed his interpretation decided to focus on a specific aspect of kAma.

Is there a controversy here?

Yes, if you accept the wider view but not the narrower one.

Would be interesting to track down all the things devotees often do that are dharma-aviruddha. That would give this a context.

For example, it says in the Bhagavata:


Perhaps someone would be kind enough to look up what the TIkAkAras have to say on the prescribed kriyA of a gRhastha. I just have a gut feeling that most of us are not very true to our prescribed dharmas regardless of our stand in regards to that one principle...

Elpis, you could amuse us by posting in a good selection of vedic and true Aryan gRhastha-kriyA. I would also be interested in knowing what the Gosvamins have prescribed as the obligatory dharmas of a gRhastha. Indeed, I would be interested to know whether such a presentation is there at all. We are not going to get a very balanced outlook on the Azrama if we put together a patchwork quilt from pieces all around the zAstra, such as the TIkA on 7.11 you have been reviewing. There should be a wholistic picture for us to have something meaningfully applicable in our lives.

OK here is Shankaracarya's tika of the phrase dharmAviruddha bhutesu in Gita 7.11

kiM ca – dharmAviruddhaH | dharmeNa zAstrArthenAviruddho yaH prANiSu bhUteSu kAmaH, yathA deha-dhAraNa-mAtrAdy-artho’zana-pAnAdi-viSayaH, sa kAmo’smi |

According to my meager Sanskrit knowledge this means: "The desire in living entities that is not contrary to religious scripture, like eating and drinking simply for maintaining the body. Such desire am I."

This is a pretty far cry from the bizarre text from the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, with retracting passed semen and speaking to the beloved while kissing her. Actually Shankar is even more strict than Visvanatha and Baladeva. The latter two at least allowed sex for procreation, Shankar only allows eating and drinking.

I read a few women's magazines regularly and a very common topic there is how to rekindle your or your partner's sex desire. Lack of interest because of various reasons (work, stress, a small baby, routine, age, etc.) is not at all uncommon in the West, even though there is so much sexual provocation in advertisement, music and films. Maybe the surest way to keep the interest is to forbid or restrict sex, just like in ISKCON/ bigger Gaudiya world. (Just a joke)

Some reflections on the discussion so far:

Can we really speak about farming when millions of seeds are thrown to produce just one plant? I would rather call pregnancy a miracle and gift of God. If sex is merely a biological function aimed at procreation, how do you explain the fact that even if the timing is right and both the man and woman are fertile, the chance of pregnancy is less than 40 percent? Or that 20 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriages? Why a woman's sex desire increases in her thirties when her fertility drastically decreases and the fertility "window"could be open no more than once or twice a year?

I don't know either.

I have great respect for the sanctity of marriage, but am not convinced that society that imposes such unrealistically high standard of sexual behavior (sex only for procreation) is that civilized. The artificial means of birth control may be unknown there, but there will be (sadly) a lot of of hypocrisy, infanticide, prostitution, repression of women, child abuse (a girl of 12 or 13 may be biologically ready to become a mother but is still a child), and I don't believe that in the time of the Goswamis it was any better.

"Once a month for procreation" sounds more like an attempt for controlling by natural means the birth rate of a huge population confined in a less huge area with limited resources.


Indranila/ Blue Sapphire/ Син Сапфир

(Sorry if multiple signatures are against board etiquette, but as one of the few women here I just couldn't help it)

It is not as simple as that, either right or wrong. The interpretation of VizvanAtha and Baladeva makes perfect sense within a certain framework, no doubt about that. What I am doing is trying to take things out of that frame and view them from a different perspective. You, on the other hand, are trying to pull everything back into the frame. We think differently and thus we never really connect. I am not sure how to remedy this situation.

The BhAgavata-purANa was written centuries after the Bhagavad-gItA. Its author(s) had KRSNa speak verse 11.18.43, but does that necessarily enlighten us about what the author of the Bhagavad-gItA had in mind when composing verse 7.11 of that work?

I already cited ZaGkara's commentary earlier in this thread and gave some comments there.

I am sure that you are right.


I agree that there is a need for a broader picture, something that I also acknowledged when I said that a deeper understanding of Bhagavad-gItA 7.11 had to be based on a study of the dharma-zAstras, etc. I am leaving for Boston in a week and have many things to do, but I will see if I can dig up some things.

So are you suggesting that man was primitive at one time before modern homosapiens. I don't necessarily disagree but is that your view based on all the shastra you quote. Doesn't vaisnava sampradaya put faith in the idea of 4 yuga cycles where in the beginning man was more god conscious and later digressed as kali youga approached? So if you do believe this, are the skeletal remains that archaeoligists find the remains of the humans in Satya yuga or more primitive sort like they constantly say. And so where do your primitives fit, before Satya Yuga? And then I suppose Krishna felt that man was in sin and flooded everything, but set up an arc where Lord Bramha boarded two of every animal and thus commenced the Satya Yuga when the ark landed on Mt. Ararat? I have always been confused how it all fits, so maybe you can help me since you know about the primitives. Especially the part about them being un-vedic, therefor uncivilized.


This is such a sad biased statement that you make. So the problems of step parenting becasue it is challenging in this modern world means it is unnatural. Maybe that is why it worked much better before modern civilization force a bunch of restrictive laws that all humans had to follow. Perhaps there are problems with so-called civilization that primitves did not have.



I would correct that by saying that we need close relationship with parenting and care of men and woman role models which is provided in aboriginal cultures that do not follow stict laws of relationship owning. Anthropologist have noted that these cultures are healthy and no one is killing each other over relatinship feuds like we do. they also are not building bombs to kill each other.



I knew I should have rephrased that point I made about Bramha but I left it alone. My point is not that the original progenitors never had sex, because duh, how did we get here. But if you are claiming that they all followed strict rules of only once a month for procreation, number one, I doubt it because I think if Krishna did mean that, he spoke that in latter days of the creation circa Gita, and number two, only for procreation means that you are grihasta-bramacari and you are practicing almost the same level of renunciation as the never once a monthers. Only for procreation is a high level of renunciation, i wouldn't put it down. I doubt very much that it was ever mentioned, in the beginning or followed if it was. I think it is a lot of assumption to think that the torch holders of the lineage were all of the highest caliber like that like from Bramha onward. Notice how the only time in the sampradaya that the world is writing books about questioning the celibacy of certain proclaimed vairagis is post Bhaktivinoda Thakkur. That is becasue it was only shortly thereafter that tv and other forms of communciation was invented and so now it is easy to see everyone's muck. No one can hide in some kutir somewhere. Everyone's colors are shown.

Can you not read English, Kalki? I said, in the box you yourself quoted, at all times. Don't jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth.



Kalki, are you any type of parent at all or just an armchair philosopher? Step parents have not produced the stepchild and therefore naturally dont have a loving bond with them. They may try their best to love the child, but cannever do so fully like the biological parent, regardless of time, place or cultural context. These are natural facts.



You are of the Day Care culture, in which feminists, out of greed or ambition, dump their children instead of raising them themselves? A mother is only meant to carry and not to care for the child? Were you raised yourself like that?



Anthropologist my ass. They are probably childless philosophers like your good self. Parents and children naturally need each others' love and presence. And what does building bombs have to do with parenting? Aboriginals are all peaceniks or so? Spears and arrows are better than bombs? Hate is hate, violence is violence, be it with sticks and stones or with bombs.



That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in my life. You refer to Bhaktisiddhanta's blasphemous campaign against the sadhus of the 20th century? He saw it on TV or so, in 1910s India? Or A C Bhaktivedanta Swami had a TV set in his home in Calcutta in the 1940s perhaps? Is it even on Iskcon TV in 2004, how the sadhus have illicit sex? In Europe TV only started in 1950, and it was only for the super rich. Only in the 1960s was there TV for everyone, in the west that is. In India TV got big only in the 1990s. Grow up, Kalki, get real. Gossip has always been there, you dont need TV, radio, telex or so for that. Letter exchange was also possible, in all ages, as communication.

All in all, you are not reading my posts thoroughly. I have earlier acknowledged that the reality on the ground looks otherwise, but it is our duty to pass down the ideal standard to the new generations and not to find all kinds of excuses, twist other meanings out of the shastras and go into denial, like ostriches.

Funny becasue I would make that claim of you. I think that I have addressed the points you have made and not taken one part and blown it out of proportion like you have to win a debate. I have been addressing as your quote above says, the validity of our duty to pass down the ideal standard to new generations. I am though claiming that the idea that it is the highest ideal and anything less is primitive and uncivilized can be challenged. I have said that there is validity to celibacy once a month or forever because it is for the purpose for withdrawing the senses is to mediate properly without agitation. While it seems you may be quoting the highest ideal from sastra which you take as absolute and are willing to challenge it only in that is unrealistic for everyone to hold that standard, I guess I would like to challenge the validity of the ideal not only with regard to the ability to hold the standard, but whether or not that standard stated is absolute and not just a principle created by a stauncho or an extremely rare individual who no one can follow his footsteps in the same way. I question that the only way to carry Sri Krishnas message is by the hgihest ideal of celibacy or once a month for procreation. I think that thought is more supportive of the idea always think of Krishna and never forget in a poetic way more than a physiological standard. If everyone accepted it as the highest ideal and no one tried to kill themselves over keeping the standard, than I wouldn't be questioning much, but I am questioning whether we understand that 7.11 verse properly based on the unrealistic lengths the renuciate world has gone to and by noticing non renunciate cultures having many redeeming qualities comparable to the excellence of Vedic culture, not just primitive and backwards like you are claiming. I might be trying to see Mahaprabhu as the culmination of the highest transcendence in ecstatic love of God rather than the culmination of the line of celibates and once a monther torch bearers of India since the time the world began.

And here are my comments on your comments and why don't you comment on my whole post rather than just select parts? :



I realize you meant at all times and not just one time. It doesn't change the meaning of my post. Sorry you thought I was trying to get you on such a point which I don't even know what point that would be. And here is the rest of the point that I was making which I am interested in hearing your wisdom on:



And then you say:

No I am not a parent, but I have experience with community where step parenting works and have been involved in co-counseling for situations that are different than the norm. I don't agree that in all cases the natural parent has more love for a child than a step parent. Both situations of bonds are governed by karma. In the case of a mother abusing her son, a step parent or one who adopts the child may be able to have a more compassionate heart. There may be some karmic rift born into the situation of a natural birth between parent and child and so naturally it can be rectified within the family or without the same structure. We all find our way according to the Lord's arrangement. You ask me if I was a step child or a parent at all, but I ask you if you were ever abused by your family. Would you know what that might be like?



that isn't even what I meant or said that a mother should only carry and not care. I said : Did I ever say carry not care, I said the opposite.


On some level I agree. Violence does rule the slaying of a human or animal or bug whether fly swatter, arrow/spear, or atom bomb. But there is a difference in degree. Karma has three stages. It is the seed, the watering, and the full born fruit. So it is the cause of the action, the meditation on the reaction, and the physcial carrying out of what is premeditated. I bring this up because it takes so much more hatred and premediation to kill a whole nation than with a bomb than one person with a bow and arrow, but both happen in only a second. One is more destructive. It is like the difference in intensity of making an offensive to a small devotee or a mahabhagavat thus disturbing the whole sanga as well. Aborignals are perhaps quite wise to stay within a realm that too much damage is done. The native americans knew intuitively to leave uranium in the ground when they discovered it but the government forced them to mine it for the sake of bombs. Perhaps their karma from killing tribes men with bow and arrow gave them the karma to be part of the bomb making world, but they also showed resistance to let that karma manifest.



Not exactly. Funny how you think I am imagining the Gaudiya Math watching tv. I said tv and other forms of communication. What I meant was that Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta after him made a jump in utilizing the printing press for mass distribution and Henry David Thoreao(sp?) received his first Gita by this brihat mrdanga effort. Bhaktisiddhanta was probably one of the first vaisnava acrayas to be photographed and this was something substantial for the people who relished photographs over paintings. Perhaps Bhaktivinoda was photographed too, I can't remember but the point is that it wasn't happening before that time. And so Bhaktivedanta Swami greatly utilized the airplane for preaching everywhere and also the media and radio and thus managed to open temples everywhere. None of this "communicatio or tv" or other forms of technology had been used by the tradition prior becasue it simply wasn't available. Sure gossip was arround for a long time but it didn't cross the waters fast or probably circulate well within India even until these mass communcation methods were employed. Neither was mass preaching possible without these methods and now even the babajis have websites courtesy of the ex-Iskconers. Is this so outlandish for you to accept.

All in all am I really as stupid as you claim I am. I don't claim to be bright. I am jsut searching for answers. Why don't you help my peabrain out by commenting on the part of the posts that you ignore like where does your non-once a month non- celibate primitive culture fit in with the Goswamis understanding of when Krishna first spoke to Viviswan so on and so forth straight through Satya Yuga to present. It is something I don't understand so help me out instead of battling me for some false claim that I think Bhaktisiddhanta watched TV or changing your words from all times to one time.

By the way are you homophobic and think women are degraded like sudras? I get the feeling that you are from things you say. I am sure you would have the same sastric quotes that Iskcon would use and I would disagree with them all, so lets not go there if that is the case.

And lastly I don't agree with : In all ages? Did they write letters in Satya Yuga. I thought that their minds were so strong that to mediate on the lord all they had to do was do some mediation and the form of the Lord was there without doing elaborate mantras pujas and so forth. So this would imply such a high level of Mind that telepathy amongst each other was probably the norm. Many scientists would claim as well that it was the natural progression from telepathy to body language to sounds to words to language to written language to internet debate. Funny becasue the aboriginis of Austrailia are said to still communicate telepathically. It seems once again primitives have a lot in common with the most advanced civilizations. Perhaps they are the Luddites of the world who have preserved the wisdom of the Golden Age of mankind and are quickly dying out to due the influence of kaliyuga. But in the coming of the new golden age, we have an opportunity to usher in the ancient wisdom born in our minds through the chanting of the holy names of God.

Kalki and Elpis.
As a Gaudiya Vaishnava I accept the tenets of the Bhagavat and the Goswamis, both on the authority of Guru and Gauranga. It is quite useless to debate with persons who do not accept these tenets and resort to anthropology and whatnot. It would result in me committing the 8th namaparadha and I am already making enough namaparadha as it stands. If either of you are willing to limit the parameters of this debate to an undisputed authority of the Bhagavat and the Gaudiya Vaishnava Acaryas I am delighted to resume the discussion.
ityalam
adwaitadas

I think I will bow out since it is really your debate with Elpis. But frankly I think that is sketchy that you ignore my points about allowing scripture to be viewed in current times, examples of technology being used in brihat mrdanga, and an illustration of karma all becasue you don't like that I brought up anthropology for one point and asked you to show me where your conception of primitive man fits with the yuga cycles.

I guess my points are further away from what a heavy duty sastra battle so I was just using a little common sense questioning to balance it out. It looks like you don't know how to fit primitive man in with the paramaters of vaisnava sastra and commentators so maybe I can split thread in order to search for information that any person that you may preach to should want to know. Unless you are trying to cultivate a regime of zombie like devotees.

Since I think I am venturing to the realm of tit for tat, I am gonna get out of here...

I don't see why scriptures written 400 or more years ago cannot be reinterpreted in accordance with the broader understanding coming from the sciences.

My problem with quoting shastra in general is that we often don't really know why a certain injunction is given. Why, really, are prohibitions against sexuality so strong? Though I feel strongly that a devotee should lead an ethical and moral life, I don't see how a normal married sex life would disrupt that. When Raghunath Das was told "yathA yukta (dharmAviruddha) viSaya bhuJjo (kAma) anAsakta hoiyA", what exactly did that mean?

Actually, it is rather surprising that the lines "dharmAviruddho bhUteSu kAmo'smi" have brought so little commnetary. This is probably because the section 7.7-12 is a kind of vibhUti-yoga sequence, like the tenth chapter of the Gita, rather than a specific practical teaching. In this light, it could be understood as "I am the force of desire in all creatures, where such desire is not unnatural."

Dharma here could be understood in its wider sense as the true inherent nature of a thing. This might be seen, for instance, as a condemnation of homosexuality (to use an example of something traditionally considered an "unnatural" act), or bestiality. But there are many other possible interpretations.

Zaehner, as is often the case, seems to have hit this nail squarely on the head by quoting a very relevant and insightful passage from Mahabharata: Shankara...confines desire to the craving for what one does not possess (?). This is plainly to whittle away Krishna's words... In MBh 14.13.9-17 Krishna explains to Yudhisthira, a natural sannyasi if there ever was one, just how He is desire--

140130091 kAmAtmAnaM na prazaMsanti loke
140130092 na cAkAmAt kA cid asti pravRttiH
140130093 dAnaM hi vedAdhyayanaM tapaz ca
140130094 kAmena karmANi ca vaidikAni
140130101 vrataM yajJAn niyamAn dhyAnayogAn
140130102 kAmena yo nArabhate viditvA
140130103 yad yad dhyayaM kAmayate sa dharmo
140130094 na yo dharmo niyamas tasya mUlam
140130111 atra gAthAH kAmagItAH kIrtayanti purA vidaH
140130113 zRNu saMkIrtyamAnAs tA nikhilena yudhiSThira
140130121 nAhaM zakyo 'nupAyena hantuM bhUtena kenacit
140130123 yo mAM prayatate hantuM jJAtvA praharaNe balam
140130125 tasya tasmin praharaNe punaH prAdurbhavAmy aham
140130131 yo mAM prayatate hantuM yajJair vividhadakSiNaiH
140130133 jaGgameSv iva karmAtmA punaH prAdurbhavAmy aham
140130141 yo mAM prayatate hantuM vedair vedAntasAdhanaiH
140130143 sthAvareSv iva zAntAtmA tasya prAdurbhavAmy aham
140130151 yo mAM prayatate hantuM dhRtyA satyaparAkramaH
140130153 bhAvo bhavAmi tasyAhaM sa ca mAM nAvabudhyate
140130161 yo mAM prayatate hantuM tapasA saMzitavrataH
140130163 tatas tapasi tasyAtha punaH prAdurbhavAmy aham
140130171 yo mAM prayatate hantuM mokSam AsthAya paNDitaH
140130173 tasya mokSaratisthasya nRtyAmi ca hasAmi ca
140130175 avadhyaH sarvabhUtAnAm aham ekaH sanAtanaH

In this world, men do not commend a man whose very self is desire, and yet there can be no progress (pravritti) without desire, for the gift of alms, the study of the Veda, ascetic practice, and the Vedic sacrificial acts are all motivated by desire. Whoever knowingly undertakes a religious vow, performs sacrifice or any other religious duty, or engages in teh spiritual exercise of meditation without desire does all this in vain. Whatever a man desires, that is to him his duty (dharma). It cannot be sound to curb one's duty.

This is the song which knowers of ancient lore celebrate as having been sung by Desire. Listen to me, Yudhisthira, I will recite it to you in full—

"I (Kama) cannot be slain by any being whatever, since he is wholly without the means. If a man should seek to slay me, putting his trust in the strength of a weapon, then do I appear again in the very weapon he uses. If a man should seek to slay me by offering sacrifices and paying all manner of fees, then do I appear again as the "self that dwells in all action" in moving things. If a man should seek to slay me by means of the Vedas and the ways of perfection prescribed in the Vedanta, then do I appear as the "stilled, quiet self" in unmoving things. If a man should seek to slay me by steadfastness, a very paladin of truth, then do I become his very nature, unaware of me though he is. If a man should seek to slay me by ascetic practice, strict in his vows, then do I appear again in his very ascetic practice. If a man should seek to slay me, wise and bent on liberation, then do I dance and laugh before him as he abides in the bliss (rati) of liberation. Of all beings, I alone cannot be slain, eternal as I am."

(Still Zaehner) This may not be immediately recognizable as the Krishna of the Gita, but it is all of one piece with Krishna as he is described throughout the Epic.

Other commentaries:

Radhakrishnan "Desire as such is not evil. Selfish desire requires to be rooted out. The desire for union with the Divine is not wrong. Chandogya Upanishad 8.3 refers to desires as essentially real (satya) though overlaid by what is unreal (anrita). Our desires and activiteis, if they are expressive of the spirita within us and derive from the true spiritual personality, become a pure overflowing of the Divine will."

Gandhi: "Kama undivorced from dharma" means the desire for moksha, or the desire to end the sufferings of creatures. If we desire to end the suffering of others, our suffering too will end. In Sanskrit, the desire to end the sufferings of others is described as mahA-svArtha, supreme self-interest. It means interest in the moksha of all creatures. Anyone who feels such a desire would be striving hard for his own moksha."

Sivananda follows Sankara: "I am the desire which is in accordance with the teachings of the scriptures or codes prescribing the duties of life (dharma-shastra). I am the desire for moderate eating and drinking, etc., which are necessary for the sustenance of the body and which help one in the practice of yoga."

Jnaneswari: "Krishna said, In all creatures I am that desire through which dharma becomes their highest aspiration. This desire, through the channel of feeling, generally follows the path of the senses, but is not allowed to work against dharma. Leaving the wrong road of forbidden actions, it follows the path of prescribed duties and travels with the help of the torch of discipline. When desire follows the proper direction, a person fulfills his duty and participates in worldly life with the freedom he gains at the holy place of liberation. This desire causes the vine of the entire creation to grow on the arbor of the greatness of the Vedas, until it sends forth new foliage with the fruits of action and reaches the absolute. The Father of Yogis said, I am this restrained desire, the source of all created objects."

Tripurari Swami: "I am love that is righteous." Krishna also identifies himself with love that is in accordance with natural law. While love by nature is lawless, Krishna advocates the taming of material love. The effect of this is the awakening of the soul and its prospect for love on the spiritual plane, real love arising out of self-sacrifice. Although love is lawless, in material life, its unbridled pursuit amounts to ignoring obvious laws of nature, which in the least render such love unenduring. Scripture points this out and advocates that material love be redirected in order that it be fulfilled. When love is fully spiritualized, it transcends scripture."

Madhusudan Saraswati: dharmo dharma-zAstraM tenAviruddho ’pratiSiddho dharmAnukUlo vA yo bhUteSu prANiSu kAmaH zAstrAnumata-jAyA-putra-vittAdi-viSayo’bhilASaH so’ham asmi | he bharatarSabha ! zAstrAviruddha-kAma-bhUte mayi tathAvidha-kAma-yuktAnAM bhUtAnAM protatvam ity arthaH

"Dharma means the dharma shastras. 'Not contradicting' means 'not specifically been prohibited' or 'propicious to the execution of duties.' I (Krishna) am such desire present in living beings; I am the scripturally sanctioned desires for wife, children, wealth, etc. In other words, those who desire in this way are present within me, who am the personification of such desire that does not contradict the scriptures."

Purushottam (Vallabhi sampradaya): dharmAviruddho dharmena aviruddho bhUteSu kAmo'smi | atrAyaM bhAvaH--laukika-kAmas tu dharma-viruddho'sti, yato'yaM rasaH svAvivAhitAyAm eva bhavati prakaTaH sarva-dharma-viruddha eva | alaukikas tu rasAtmako dharma-rUpa iti bhAvaH |

"The idea is that mundane desire goes against religious principles, because it finds its fulfilment (rasa) in a woman who is not one's lawfully wedded wife, which is clearly against all scriptural injunctions. Transcendental (alaukika) desire is filled with [true spiritual] flavors, the very embodiment of dharma."

Visvanath's interpretation, by the way, is a repetition of Sridhar's commentary. Baladeva repeats the same. Amazing that this interpretation (kAma=sexual desire) appears to be exclusive to our line. I tend to agree that it is unnecessarily narrow.

P.S. Could we try to avoid inflammatory language, like "my ass."

Now here we're getting somewhere. To puzzle the demoniac scientists, Vishnu came in sailing in an Arc, or perhaps Manu, had all the skeletons and other archaeological evidence of past yugas collected and shipped aboard.

So to resume: This statement is found in a vibhUti-yoga section of the Gita, where Krishna is describing his own glories. Desire is one of the glorious and powerful manifestations of the creation and, as Krishna says at the end of chapter 10, wherever such glorious manifestations are to be found, they are He. At least, they are clues pointing to His existence and His glory. As such, the extremely narrow definition of kama here seems displaced. Though sexual desire as procreative act is definitely a miraculous manifestation and a locus of the Divine, surely this cannot be the extent of what is being said here.

The terms used are sufficiently broad to allow our imagination to roam around these great concepts of dharma, artha, kAma and mokSa. I like Tripurari's equation of kAma with ("material") love, which is perfectly legitimate. Krishna is present in worldly love, where such love does not lead to abuse. Where it leads to selfless acts, love is certainly one of the most glorious features of the creation.

This is an insult to mothers everywhere who are working hard to support their children and give them a good life even though they would much rather stay at home.



So this means that if someone has a daughter, or has sex to produce a daughter, that is illicit sex?!?!?!

I disagree with this statement. KRSNa was raised by YazodA and Nanda who were not his biological parents. Did they care less for him on that account? Were they unable to love him fully because of that? Perhaps you should read over BhAgavata-purANa 10.82.39 once more and see what RohiNI and DevakI tells YazodA when they met at KurukSetra. Note the last part of the verse: na satAM paraH svaH, "Good people have no [discrimination between] another['s child] and their own [child]."

Ridiculous. Rupa Gosvami has stated in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu that Yashoda and Nanda Maharaja are more elevated in transcendental vatsalya rasa than Devaki and Vasudeva. This is their eternally liberated transcendental status and has nothing to do with mundane parenting. Besides, Baladeva and Visvanath, whom you unfortunately reject, have said that Nanda and Yasoda are the eternal parents of Krishna anyway, instead of Devaki and Yashoda.

I am wary of the "it has nothing to do with" argument. I think that what is going on between Krishna in his human pastimes has [or is meant to have] a great deal to do with ordinary human activities.

Furthermore, I believe that this is a very significant difference in the way people look at Krishna's lila. yAH zrutvA tat-paro bhavet.

Then you also have sex with other men's wives?

No, not me. But that is an instance where a specific warning is given. I think that when it comes to the other rasas, including marriage, the idea is that they are qualitatively the same, quantitatively more.

And yet, I think that there is latent commentary in the metaphor of passion that was meant to be applied practically. After all, if it did not have meaning in human experience, then it would have no meaning as a metaphor for divine love. In other words, if we had no experience of it as something powerful and all-consuming, then how would it have any meaning to us as a supreme example of love?

Even the warning itself falls into the category of obstacles to be overcome, just like Krishna sends the gopis back when they come in the rasa lila. He is Dharma personified; but they reject him, just like they reject the four-armed Narayan.

I suppose that we may as well stop the discussion here. Your interest seems to be to defeat those whose views differ from yours, not to learn anything or expand your horizons. And, quite frankly, I met enough of your approach and attitude in ISKCON and it does not do anything for me. It saddens me that during this discussion you have not even tried to see things from our perspective. In your attempt to defeat those who think differently, you have been insensitive and have employed harsh words and ridicule. We are who we are, I guess.

You say that you are committing the eighth offence, "To consider the chanting of the Hare Krsna maha-mantra to be one of the auspicious ritualistic mantras mentioned in the Vedas as fruitive activity," when engaging in this discussion. I suspect that you mean the ninth offense, thus placing myself and others in the category of faithless persons. So be it.

Instead of stopping the discussions, we could just agree that the gauDIya interpretation of 7.11 has been rather conclusively defined in the writings of Visvanatha and Baladeva, and then proceed to explore how others have explored the matter.

Though as gauDIyas we will ultimately feel obliged by the interpretations of our very own predecessors, I believe it is only wise to explore different angles to be better educated in the matter of spiritual plurality connected with vaishnavism; after all, we are not the only vaishnavas out there.

In this vein, I would also be interested in discussing how, throughout the history of our tradition, streams of thought from outside our sampradAya have influenced our theology and practices. I'll start a new topic for that.

No I am following the acaryas of my sampradaya. Nowhere have I put in my own speculations. I was quoting Baladeva, Visvanatha, Bhagavat 7th and 11th canto, 5 sacred texts and you chose to reject them. That is your good right, but then as a Vaishnava I say adieu, because Adau ShraddhA - in the beginning there must be faith. If you have no faith in the Bhagavat and in the Vaishnava Acaryas I will be committing the 8th / 9th namaparadha of preaching to the faithless.



We can expand our horizons much further by having discussions within the parameters of sadhu shastra and guru. Within these parameters I am learning every day and have done so for 26 years.



This is a strangely sentimental approach for a heavyweight scholar like your good self. It has nothing to do with Iskcon. I am out of that club for 22 years. It has to do with accepting the authoritiy of the acaryas and the shastras. I am not forcing you, or trying to push you over, like they do in Iskcon. You should not lump every faithful person in with this one hot headed ignorant, childish, fanatic and offensive sect. A mafiosi is a Catholic, but not every Catholic is a mafiosi.



I apologise if you felt personally insulted.

Of course it is not illicit sex to have a daughter. In Vedic thought, having offspring is important because a man gains immortality through his offspring.

prajAm anu prajAyase tad u te martyAmRtam, "In your offspring you are born again; that, O mortal, is your immortality" (TaittirIya-brAhmaNa 1.5.5.6; translated by Patrick Olivelle).

It is, however, especially a son who brings this about, not a daughter, so I imagine that in those days (as well as later times in India) the aim would be a son when a couple tried to have a child. The below passage from the Aitareya-brAhmaNa (7.13) illustrates these Vedic ideas very well. Notice what is said about a daughter. I am afraid that I do not have the Sanskrit at hand; I am citing the translation of Patrick Olivelle.

I certainly agree with this, and I feel that I have acknowledged it during the discussion as well.

INCEST KI JAI!

You should not take the passage as an approval of incest as such. Rather it is a wholesale rejection of the idea of renunciation and a defense of the idea of perpetuation of one's existence through offspring. As an argument in favor of procreation, the Vedic author mentions the obvious truth that any father delights in the birth of a son and later brings up the fact that some animals cohabit even with their mothers or sisters. His point is that procreation is natural in itself and, furthermore, is the natural way to attain immortality. I seriously doubt that he approved of incest as such.

That someone "has no world" is avery strong statement in the Vedic context. The Vedic theologians were not fond of the renouncers.

Your stance here is obviously too strong. I appreciate Jagadananda's comments in this regard. KRSNa and his parents aside, it is unreasonable to say that step-parents cannot have the same affection for a child as its biological parents. Great affection and love can be there even if the biological connection is not. This is what RohiNI and DevakI say to YazodA in the verse from the BhAgavata-purANa that I cited above (10.82.39); I believe that it has relevance to human affairs in addition to its spiritual dimension.

"whom you also reject."

This is a very strong and provocative statement. I have not seen anywhere that Elpis has "rejected" Vishwanath or Baladeva. These two authors have merely repeated Sridhar on 7.11, indicating that they probably did not feel it necessary to think profoundly about that verse at all, but simply agreed, "OK, that'll do."

The capacity to interpret the Gita is granted to anyone with a brain, but someone of Elpis's learning certainly has a legitimate right to attempt an understanding that goes beyond any previous acharya's comment. Perhaps if Vishwanath were here today, he might even agree with Elpis.

If we were writing our own commentary to the Gita, we might present Sridhar's opinion. *** iti svAmi-caraNAH and then add, yad vA, or kiM ca and go on with an extended explanation that expands the scope of understanding. To claim that there is only one interpretation of this line is shallow.

To turn this into a "you are with us or you are against us" kind of issue is unbecoming and unnecessarily aggressive.

Anthropologists, on the other hand, would agree with Advaita, despite his concerns about them.

There are texts and there are traditions based on those texts. Advaita is faithfully representing and defending an authentic tradition as he has painstakingly learned it.

I'm not sure that he is claiming, as some preachers of Gaudiyaism do, that the tradition is a universal truth to be accepted by all. In fact I'm pretty sure he isn't making that claim. Rather he is just defending the integrity and inner logic of the tradition.

His opponents here, on the other hand, are either assuming or claiming that the texts have a universal meaning outside their traditional contexts. Or at least that seems to be where Jagat wants to take the discussion.

I personally have a lot of difficulty with the universalizing, and none with faithfulness to the tradition. Isn't it incredibly presumptuous to see these texts as universal property to be judged by all*? A good example is Jeffrey Kripal's 'Kali's Child'. An attempt at analysing Ramkrishna which was by all accounts a travesty. See Swami Tyagananda's excellent critique on his webpage here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tyag/Home.htm

The problems arise when you don't make it clear what exactly you are trying to do, though I see that Advaita has mostly done this.**

What about the rest of you?

Time to hand out the hats I say!

@@@

* I do this myself so the question is confessional. I make an exception with the Rg Veda, however, which I regard as common property. The Gita certainly has universal acceptance, like the Bible. But just as with the latter one has to remain aware that, for example, Jews and Xtians have very different but equally authentic hermeneutic traditions, so also does a Gaudiya interpretation of the Gita stand on its own apart from the universal view.

** Now after further reflection, I think what Advaita is doing is linking the conservative views of the Gaudiya tradition to his own commonsense conservative views, so in this sense he may universalizing the tradition too. Yet isn't that still more faithful than trying to link the tradition to a modernising liberal worldview?

Perhaps, though, he does need to see that in conflating and defending his personal views with Gaudiya arguments he is de facto 'doing an Iskcon' if unintentionally.

There is nothing conservative about sex-for-procreation only. It is a timeless truth, there is no time or space involved in sheer fertility, and if it were, then why pills, condoms, timely withdrawal, abortion, periodical abstention, anal sex, oral sex, vasectomy, sex with children, yogic retraction of semen, potions, morning after pills etc etc...... Any of this sounds like the Life Divine to you? Any of this sounds like it is in the commentary of Shankaracarya? Semen is made to fertilize ovum, that is sheer common sense and has nothing to do with conservative, liberal, old fashioned, modern, Indian, Canadian, Dutch or Danish, 3000 BC or 2004 or 5004, Gaudiya Vaishnava, Sri Vaishnava, Shankar Sampradaya, Christianity, Islam, Fascism or communism. It is a universal law. Semen fertilizes ovum.......

So I am quite interested in learned devotees like yourself trying to shed light in my inability to understand how archaeological record can be accounted for by the gaudiya understanding of the Satya Yuga. Is it really as simple as how Prabhupada said that the dinosaurs remains are from the previous Kali Yuga ending? It just doesn't seem likely.

So would you be willing to shed some light and other devotees who have a way of seeing it? So the new thread will be called "Where do primitves fit with Satya yuga?"

Bit off topic here, Kalki. Yes a new thread needed.


Advaita, don't worry about the word 'Conservative'. You and I are both conservatives compared to say liberals who want society to 'progress' towards some ill-defined goal.

Yes, yes. Biology. Fertilization. My 2 cents worth on that:

Nowadays people marry late if at all. Older women do not get pregnant as easily as when they were young. It may take lot's of semen. There is still no consensus over women's fertility. No two women are exactly the same. So sex for procreation may have to be many times per month!

Western conservatives and even some feminists now urge women to consider that in choosing big career and postponing marriage to late in life they may be sacrificing motherhood. At the present stage of science, and perhaps always, except in rare cases you cannot 'have it all'.


Jagat, elpis's comments are certainly very interesting, but I think we need to be clear about their status.

To say that they may be a contribution to (a new?) Gaudiyaism seems to me very far-fetched. Surely they are way outside Gaudiyaism...well some of them.

They can have fertility treatment nowadays....

It is not aggressive but defensive. In defense of the tradition that I (and you too, my dear) am initiated in. It is in defense of common sense too (see my post above on sheer fertility).

"you are with us or you are against us"

diksa kale bhakta kore atma samarpana..........

It is rarely successful and, as some ethicists worry, involves the death of many rejected embryos.

We are getting into Catholic Church territory here.

Kalki, Elpis, Jagat............



Both Visvanath and Baladeva give the same purport to 7.11 and there is no other GV tika to it......

Adiyen: I started a thread on liberal/conservative self-definition HERE, so perhaps your could redirect your comment there.

Advaita: I don't think Elpis was "rejecting" Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas because he wasn't rejecting their credibility across the board, merely stating that in this particular issue he found their interpretation narrow. I can personally think of many examples from the Bhagavatam where I do not accept the literal interpretation, or the tika which accepts that interpretation, because they neither fit in with 21st century science or common sense. Does that mean rejection of the Bhagavatam?

My objection is more to your rhetorical style than to the objective content.

Furthermore, I don't think Elpis was necessarily arguing that his citation represented a universal truth, but rather that it was a valid alternative or supplementary interpretation to this verse, for which at least a dozen others have been given. This variety of interpretations enriches our understanding of Krishna's glory, which is the true intention of the text.

When Krishna Das Kaviraj glorifies the hundreds of interpretations given by Mahaprabhu for the atmarama verse, and when kama has at least four or five possible applicable definitions, and dharma at least ten, why are we so rigid about this one-line definition?

Mahaprabhu gives many interpretations to the word kAma in general, in the broadest sense, whereas Baladeva and Vishwanath have given a purport to one specific verse in one specific location (Gita 7.11), pertaining to that kAma which is identical with Krishna in the context of vibhuti yoga. There is another kAma, in Gita 3.36-39, remember?

Exactly. And I am saying that Baladeva and Vishwanath have parroted Sridhar, indicating that they did not give it much thought. So why suddenly our bona fides are judged on whether we accept this as the only possible interpretation or not?

We seem to be repeating ourselves... at least I am.

Yes Mahaprabhu said that those who do not follow (Sridhar) Swami are prostitutes. Am I getting something wrong or missing out on something?

Sridhara: dharmeNAviruddhaH sva-dAreSu putrotpAdana-mAtropayogI kAmo’ham iti

And yet we can give hundreds of examples where Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas have supplemented Sridhar's commentaries, or even contradicted them. Try for instance "avaruddha-saurataH" (BhP 10.33.26).

That may be, but not in the case of Gita 7.11, which is under discussion here. Adding Sridhar Swami to Baladeva, Vishwanath, SB 7.12.11, 11.5.13 and 11.18.43, it's getting pretty crowded in this box!

I think we are running out of new things to add here. Perhaps, Advaita, you could summarize your argument. Elpis, if you do the same, and I also, then we can close this thread. What do you think?

State: What the issue is. What you find objectionable in the opposing view. Your principle evidence. Conclusion.

I am satisfied with the outcome, hope everyone else is.

Advaita is completely correct to subject himself to guru, sadhu and Sastra; the check and balance of our spiritual life. Illicit sex is the most difficult regulative principle to overcome because involved someone else (a wife or a husband) with different level of realizations. If only one of the couple is following this principle the propensity to cheat is increase in the one not following it. If casual sex is promoted implicitly or explicitly as not sinful then it really becomes more difficult to maintain the bow of chastity. If sexual activity is for procreation only, then how should occur?

In the Manu smriti ,

3- 45. Let (the husband) approach his wife in due season, being constantly satisfied with her (alone); he may also, being intent on pleasing her, approach her with a desire for conjugal union (on any day) excepting the Parvans.(non- fertile days)

3-46 Sixteen (days and) nights (in each month), including four days which differ from the rest and are censured by the virtuous, (are called) the natural season of women.

3-47 But among these the first four, the eleventh and the thirteenth are (declared to be) forbidden; the remaining nights are recommended.

3-48 On the even nights sons are conceived and daughter on the uneven ones; hence a man who desires to have sons should approach his wife in due season on the even (nights)

3.49 A male child is produced by a greater quantity of male seed, a female child by the prevalence of the female; if (both are) equal a hemaphodite or a boy and a girl; If (both) weak a deficiency in quantity a failure in conception (results).

3.50 He who avoids women on the six forbidden nights and eight others, is equal (in chastity to) a student (brahmacäré) in whichever order (ashram) he may be.

Why those two are forbidden?


Statements like this sort of pull the rug from under the feet of the authority personified commanding us with such statements.

I would like to know, what is your intention? What is the point?

Don't you believe in the current "The Law of Manu" translation?

The point I was making is that one cannot quote absurd statements and wish to make a serious point.


I'm not so sure I believe in the original. Do you know anything of the authenticity or dating of the modern editions of Manu-samhita?

At any rate, if you were to preach some of the things said in Manu-samhita, you would likely be locked up somewhere real soon; I am not certain whether it'd be a prison or a mental institute, but locked up nevertheless.

In Reference To Your Question, Why those two are forbidden?

It has to do with the Lunar Cycle. The eleventh is ekadasi. The Thirteenth, ?

They say, day 14 when the moon waxed full the peak of fertiliy is very high, in the thirteen that peak is at his lowest.

Well, sadly menstrual cycles don't follow the moon.

For us maybe, but the intended audience probably took such statements in a different way than we do.

Which brings us back to square one: How are we to relate to such statements in the modern age?

Menstrual cycle! Lunar cycle. According to my wife it is. Practice over theory. Anyhow the verse is refering to ovulation cycle, also lunar.

You are the one who have to present evidence of non-bonafide Manu samhita. As preaching from it; varnasrama, no thanks not interested either.

If you are negating how effective sex pre-selection might really be as stated in the Law of Manu, fine. I am personally moved by faith. So be it.

Casual sex is sinful! That simple. From today until the dissolution of the cosmic manifestation. Revisionism no need to apply.

The average menstrual cycle is 28 days, though a healthy cycle may vary anywhere between 21 and 36 days.

If there was any meaningful connection at all between ekAdazI, menstrual cycles and fertility, we would expect all women to menstruate at the same time to keep in pace with the movements of the moon.

Now don't tell me all ladies in your town menstruate at the beginning of the lunar month!



Well, Jiva quotes from Manu-samhita in his Tattva-sandarbha (12), but the quote is nowhere to be found in the text. I am not an expert in Manu-samhita, but in general, I am under the impression that it is considered to be substantially interpolated.

Where would the text, in your opinion, derive its authority? From one of the Manus, perhaps Svayambhuva? That would make the text a pre-Vedic work, and one would expect to see numerous references in the Vedas and related texts to it. I believe that is not the case.



Well, that's an interesting text to deposit your faith in. Do you accept whatever injunctions are given in the modern Manu-samhita as valid codes of religion that basically ought to be followed?

I have a disagreement with Advaita which he might like to consider, which flows from where I said he is conflating his own views with Gaudiya ones.

But it is also my problem with modern Hindu arguments as a whole, and maybe he is just following that. It is this:

Hindus often use atheistic arguments to defend their claimed theistic beliefs. Actually Muslims do this also.

If we are ever going to use the distinction atheist/theist, we need to have some awareness of 2 millenia of western thought on the topic, which deals with the issues at great depth. Recent Catholic teaching on married life, for example, is based on the profound writings of many great thinkers over many centuries like Augustine and Aquinas.

For example: 'Sex is just for procreation'. Yes and human life is just a Darwinian struggle to perpetuate DNA. What does such talk have to do with people who claim to be theists?

In fact theists believe God created Sex and He made it pleasureable for a reason. That reason transcends immediate impersonal Darwinian drives. God also made humans complex emotional entities with powerful needs because God is a person just as we humans are. He is good, He is not the evil creator of a lot of Frankenstein Monsters. So what He has made is good and serves a purpose on many levels. It is obviously difficult for humans to resist the drives they are born with like eating and sex. To be able to completely resist them seems unnatural, or rare. At the same time unrestricted indulgence leads to mental and physical disturbance, so God must want us to find a balance. Again, humans appear to be individuals each with slightly different needs, so the balance we each find may be individual, and attempts to oversimplify the ways for humans to deal with sex may contradict God's purpose for them.

Most Hindu and Muslim religious arguments seem to me to assume an impersonal or irrational God. The difficulty may just be in the translation, but I've yet to read a non-western account of God which doesn't contradict the logical implications of Theism (and so to me they often read as atheistic especially in how they view the human body).

Which is it Advaitaji?

You mean non-procreational? You can procreate casually. In fact, I believe that is quite common.

Citing from Manu:

It seems that nobody came up with this quote yet, so I'll paste it in. Bhakti-sandarbha, anuccheda 202.

Here is Bhaktivedanta's take on the issue:


So according to him, that pleasure-giving substance on the genitalia is there to satisfy the basic Darwinian need for spreading the DNA.

Good example. Pure Dualism. Good 'spiritual' versus 'perverted' 'material' which is subject to impersonal Darwinian forces.

The 'material' is out of God's hands, right? So this 'God' is less powerful, perhaps just a trainee God? Of course no need for God at all in this mechanistic universe. So either irrational or atheistic argument, as I said. (Karma is close to the mechanistic universe proposed by the Xtian Deists who followed the discoveries of Isaac Newton. This belief led directly to atheism when it was realised there was no need for God, even as 'first cause').

Western Xtianity rejected such apparently naive Dualism a millenium ago with the advent of Aquinas' integration of Aristotle (Dualism is the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle's opponent. Here's a recent glimpse of the way these things are being discussed:
http://www.op.org/stlouis/html/cahill.htm ).

BVT was writing at the time Darwinism was the 'next big thing' and he was obviously influenced by it in proposing this scheme. But he was influenced by western theology too, as we know from his biography. The idea he develops of a 'higher and lower' understanding of the purpose of sex suggests the westren theological view, but he doesn't elaborate. This western view has always stressed that all aspects of family life, including sex, are an opportunity to glimpse divine love. Thus they reject crude dualism, what to speak of the nihilism you often hear from Hindus -'Family life is Maya!').

Bhaktivedanta Swami gives the definition of illicit sex in the nectar of intructions purport to text 1. Also in the Bhagavatam 4.27.5 purport he gives instructions to grihastas followers. In Madhya 7.129 purport he points out illicit sex.

Madhava wrote: If there was any meaningful connection at all between ekAdazI, menstrual cycles and fertility,

Manu Samhita: No sex on Ekadasi. On That Day Fertility Of The Woman; Does Not Matter.

Not all Vaisnavas are Gaudiyas. Thank you for that quote by Jiva Goswami.

"abstention brings great rewards" I may add even for ksatriyas.

Do you want to learn the relationship between the moon and fertily? Go to

http://fertilityrhythms.com/

Adiyen, I am but a simple believer. I would love to answer your question, but could you simplify it a bit for poor me?
Madhava, thanks for that quote from Bhakti Sandarbha, I knew that verse but not its location.
To all, earlier in this thread I have given a long list of contraceptive tricks, some of them are pretty appalling arent they? Again, it is not just a question of scriptural dogma, but of sheer common sense and the law of nature.....

There's a simplification.

To rephrase:
Reducing the relationships between human beings to mere biology, saying that's all they are and nothing more, is atheistic.

Would you agree?

I think its the major flaw in your argument which you don't seem to have noticed yet. (Fire away, I've got my body-armour on! )

In my opinion human love is somewhere between the rock bottom of atheism and the zenith of purely realised spirituality. The latter involves realisation that one is not this body, therefore neither male nor female, or even human, but pure spirit. This is the goal of spiritual traditions like our Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya. Naturally it is better to be in the middle class of human lovers than to be a full blown atheist. Atheists, by the way, also enjoy human love. Nevertheless, when one is on the level of human love one must follow the laws of nature. Sorry to come up with the Catholics but they say that sex is 1. for marriage 2. for procreation and 3. an expression of human love between a married man and a married woman. Perhaps Visvanath and Baladeva did not want to elaborate on this in their 7.11 tika, but the bottom line of all this love and romance is ultimately to preserve humanity. Both mentally and physically there must be attraction lest humanity is extinguished. "Go Forth and Multiply Thyself" the Good Lord said.

Hmm?

1. 'If God wants to kill you, no one can save you
If God wants to save you, no one can kill you'


2. Contemporary experience seems to contradict what you say: nowadays more than ever people mate merely for attraction, yet in such decadent societies globally the birth rate is declining. These societies based on attraction are being extinguished. Meanwhile birthrate is still high amongst traditional people. You ignore the importance of a sense of duty.


3. It is not certain that any human society, even the most primitive, mates merely for personal gratification. In fact 'primitive' societies place even more emphasis on kinship obligations than 'advanced' societies do.


All this suggests that Natural Law is not as simple as you say. Aquinas' Natural Theology (Catholic Doctrine) would probably argue that this is evidence that humans contain divine purpose expressed in their concerns for others. Love not only for spouse but for all kin, which is a spark or reflection of divine love, parents as agents of God's love.

In Hinduism there is love of God, but does it speak of God's love for his creatures?

Please explain this in connection with



I cannot get the point.



That is of course not a matter of fertility but of mass use of contraceptives. That is, as you aptly say, decadent society. Result is mass import of immigrants from 'primitive' cultures into Europe and N-America, and, in the very long term, extinction of the anglosaxon race. Watch the primary schools here in W. Europe. All african and arab.....



Agreed. Allow me to remind you that I never introduced conceptions of primitivity in this discussion. This is a relative conception.



anugrahAya bhUtAnAm mAnusam deham Ashritah
bhajate tAdrshih krIrhah yAh shrutvA tat-paro bhavet

At the end of the RAs LiLA, Shukadeva said: "Out of compassion for all living beings the Lord assumed a human figure. When one worships such Plays (with the Gopis) one becomes devoted to Him."
So much love........

Here's an interesting quote Jagat posted in the Kama-sutra thread:

Well it looks like you are saying that the bottom-line reason for humanity's existence is the sex-drive. Even the Gita, as I now recall, says this is atheistic. The reason for humanity's continued existence should be the sweet will of God, nothing else.

In fact, from a theistic perspective what you say may be quite wrong. Here it is suggested that the purpose of sex-drive is social cohesion, kinship, love:

http://www.op.org/stlouis/html/cahill.htm

Nice quote from SB, thanks for it.

Down the anglosaxons! Up the Celts!

Humans procreate as humans - through romance and wedding - and animals procreate as animals - without romance and wedding. Procreation remains the bottom line though.

That was not at all my intention. Sex is the means of survival of the human race, and as illicit sex flourishes, as in the west, the species becomes extinct, as what we witness in the western world nowadays.



The jiva has minute independance. Whities are unconsciously extinguishing themselves through feminism and contraceptives. If the Lord wants us whities to survive there must be a change of culture in time......

This is an interesting thread to me. I just went through all 7 pages of it (about 4 were boring fighting...) looking for some juice. I get juice when people have the gut to apply the big long quotes, tika this and tika that to their own lives. I didn't find much... A very few of you touched on applying the sastra to time place and circumstance, but if anything discourages me about the way gaudiya siddhanta is presented by numerous groups, it is the over dependence upon authority. I have studied (not as well as many of you) this philosophy and gotten out of it some essential teachings about bhakti. I have deep faith in them. But what do you do with that, how do you live in the world? Why can't we act freely, with some trust in ourselves to apply the sublime teachings to our lives? Isn't that what it's all about? In reply to one of Advaita's earlier points, please pass on to the future generations a realistic approach to these sublime teachings, not dogma. How does dogma that has not served one generation of devotees help the next? It seems that all camps have taught this fear, this second guessing of our gut and deference to sastra. I say this leads to lack of REALIZATION.

I have to say that Advaita's postings, while totally familiar in nature to the hellfire and brimstone, heavily sastric laden preaching I heard (and preached) in ISKCON lacks the realism of being a 21st century aspiring gaudiya. Maybe for him, this is not a problem. However, I think it can be easily said that sexuality is probably the biggest debatable, misunderstood, and confusing subject for aspiring gaudiyas and the many that have applied Advaita's preaching have come up short of that standard. So what to do with this fact. [By the way, over-emphasizing something like semen mixed w/ ovum=babies does not negate the reality that people have a hard time keeping the semen from meeting the ovum.] Since it can be easily demonstrated that this is the fact, why are the masses so rigidly hanging on to quotes? What's wrong with practical experience? There is a great wealth of it out there, devotees who have fought tooth and nail for the ideal and failed. Maybe we can quote these people (myself included) as great teachers in how to live with oneself despite the fact that we didn't measure up to what we thought we must measure up to. I would propose that there is a lot of realization, modern sastric wisdom to be had from people who have applied the teachings of a wholly different world to their lives in a modern technologically advanced life in a very "unnatural" world.

Respects to all.

Your comments are thoughtful and very welcome, 'Mud', but you are missing something vital if you assume that Advaita respresents a certain perspective (I'd rather not name it). I think this is because, as you say, your experience with 'Gaudiyaism' comes entirely from a western group, who I'm afraid don't really represent core Gaudiyaism at all, rather an odd hybrid from the fringe.

It's one of the more frustrating things about this 'Gaudiya Discussions' that people drop in from all directions to discuss it, while having learnt from an unorthodox source. The archives of this website bear this out.

Gaudiyaism is the living cultural tradition of millions of Bengali and Manipuri followers of the traditions begun by Sri Chaitanya and his contemporary followers, as well as a few Brajbasi and Orissan Chaitanyites. It was not reformed by Sri Bhaktivinoda because it was not corrupted. It has remained fully alive for centuries in much the same way it still exists in Bangladesh, parts of Bengal, Manipur, Orissa, and in Sri Radhakunda in Braj which is the goal of all true Gaudiyas just as Mecca is the goal of Muslims.

Advaita may seem to be prescribing something for 'aspiring Gaudiyas' in the west. But in fact I think you will find that he is simply explaining and defending the beliefs of the millions of existing Gaudiyas as he has found from living among them for several decades. Whether or not such beliefs and practices are for western aspiring devotees may be a matter for debate. But this thread began by questioning the beliefs of the Gaudiyas themselves, whether they are faithful to their authorities and sources. Advaita is demonstrating that they are.

Like you, I find Advaita's comments about the supposed 'natural' nature of those beliefs a bit unconvincing, and I've suggested a western alternative in a similar mode. But that's really a different issue.

You might also note that traditional Gaudiya beliefs exist within a specific ethnic culture. It's been one of my main contentions here that Gaudiya beliefs and lifestyle will suffer or even fail without the specific (Bengali, Brajbasi, Orissan, Manipuri) supporting culture they emerged in. Jagat disagrees, and we've been debating this for... eons.

My view is that 'western Gaudiyaism' makes about as much sense as 'western Shinto'.

That isn't to dismiss the idea outright, but that's how difficult I think it will be to achieve.

If you look around on some of the other threads you'll see these ideas discussed in a different way, try 'Mathew Fox', for example.

I'll have to agree with you there, Brajamohanji.

I didn't see Advaitadas advocating that as an unconditional must for all Westerners. It seemed to be more of a theological debate to me. We cannot get rid of those quotes, which form a part of our theology, no matter what. We may seek to reinterpret them, but we cannot do away with them altogether.

Thanks for your comments adiyen,

While I understand what you are saying, I don't feel that just because the history of my involvement with Gaudiyaism originates with ISKCON that my take on everything is western. I think your post points out something I'm trying to get at. There is this tendency to point to old as better, tradition as superior to modern, Indian as superior to American. My point is not at all to promote a "western" understanding of the philosophy of the Gaudiya's, it is to consider a modern perspective. A realistic perspective. We live in a global culture, Gaudiyaism has come west and it probably would have been inevitable if ACBV Swami didn't do it. Call it perverted or distorted or whatever, that's not my point. My point is that there are white gaudiya's, brown, black, and the global culture affects us all, I would argue even the one's in India. As modernity eats away at every culture, even what you say is an unchanged (that could probably be argued) gaudiya culture I think it is valuable to be open to adjustment, and gaudiya's of all shapes and sizes should feel empowered to make those adjustments to their lives without being overly hung up on the tradition. All said, this is entirely an individual thing.

Madhava - I don't advocate giving up the reference, the rooting in sastra and theology. Just an overdependence upon it that builds fear of USING it, taking advantage of it, REALIZING it for me, for now, for my life.

Really, this whole thing, like many other debates seems to me to break down to liberal versus conservative ideologies. I find that conservatives in any religion tend to look to the past, the original and fantasize about living that again. Often times, that original is very difficult to put your finger on, maybe it doesn't exist. You may call everyone after Bhaktivinoda a distortion of Gaudiyaism, but maybe they were just people with liberal ideology...? I guess I should check out that conservative vs. liberal thread.

Mud,

1. What is conservative about fertility?
2. What is your progressive version or solution of it?
3. When have I mentioned hellfire and brimstone?
4. "You may call everyone after Bhaktivinoda a distortion of Gaudiyaism, but maybe they were just people with liberal ideology...?"

There were hundreds of acaryas after Bhaktivinoda, some with 'liberal' (whatever that may be) ideas, while others were following the foundational acaryas. Whom are you referring to?

Or a question of sincerity and conscience.........

What is the meaning of "brahmin" here and what does cooking for a particular caste have to do with bhakti that would merit this sloka being including in a work entitled Bhakti Sandarbha?

Well, there is the phenomena that when women live in close quarters with one another their menstrual cycles all start to coincide. I wonder why that is?

Perhaps the ancient proponant of the idea that menstrual cycles coincide with lunar cycles observed that all the women in his/her household were menstruating around the time of full or new moon or something. Who know?

Serving the brAhmaNas is one of the traditional dharmic deeds one might engage in. Among the varNas, brAhmaNas are thought of as the closest to viSNu, so serving the brAhmaNas is considered meritious.

Yet so many brahmins are and always have been non-devottees.
Why wouldn't it say cooking for vaishnavas instead?

On the topic of cycles and such....

can anyone read the small writing on this seasonal yantra here?
http://ignca.nic.in/ex025017.htm

I notice the words vipra-mukhya-artham, "for the sake of chief brahmins", in this verse. Surely the word mukhya refers to qualified brahmins, not just to any old Bannerjee.....

Or otherwise, "primarily for the sake of brahmins".

What do you have against the old Bannerjee?

Ok, so when do I come over for prasad?

I'm entering this thread a little late so I will only address the basic issue.

Is sex outside of procreation good or bad ?

1. Clearly there are prohibitions in various sastras.

2. On the other hand the goal of life is to enter into the highest realm where sex for pleasure is the central activity or at least the activity which life revolves around in madhurya rasa, the erotic sentiment is the rasion d'etre of rasa lila.

So in and of itself sex for pleasure is not only good, but in fact it is the highest good in the highest realm.

What is the purpose of discouraging sex for pleasure in the sastra if it is good ?

This gets to the root of the purpose of the sastra, the sastra has as it's sole purpose the elevation of the conditioned soul to the level of self realization, the re integration of our conscious awareness with the supreme consciousness, direct communion with the Supreme soul.

Therefore since sexual enjoyment is the cause of obsessive behavior it can reduce the amount of time needed to develop the ability to commune directly with the Supreme.

Just like if you are overweight and need to go on a diet, some foods are so delicious that "you can't eat just one", for instance if you are on a diet and you have a weakness for ice cream, everytime you eat ice cream you can't just eat a small amount, the pleasure is so great that you eat as much as you can, this keeps you from losing weight, so the recommendation is not to take that first spoonfull because it is so pleasurable you cannot control yourself.

This is the approach of the sastra, you need to "lose weight" i.e eliminate the conditioned state of your mind, sex leads to obsession with more sex, which leaves you leading your life revolved around trying to satisfy that craving.

But in the end sex for pleasure is good, and not only good but the central feature of life, while it is discouraged for those who have yet to attain to self realization, for those who have attained self realization there are no prohibitions, the prohibitions are only for a very specific reason and class of person.

As far as trying to be demanding of others that they follow the sastric injunctions, it is a given that society is comprised of people with different abilities to renounce sense enjoyment, therefore it is only a very tiny sector of society that will ever be practicing these standards.

In vedic society as a whole sexuality for pleasure is the norm, recognizing this as the reality of society the brahmanas shouldn't make the sexual abstinence clause the focus of their guidance, just like we see with the catholic church and their stance on birth control, it leads to the mass derision of their authority by the mass of catholics.