karthik_v

Many Vaishva saints have written commentaries on Ramayana. Is it accepted as the Supreme book? There is no doubt that Sri Vaishnavas accept SB as holy, but the question is do they accept it as the Supreme text? Applying the same yardstick, the advaita school should have raised a bogey against Isopanisad and Svetasvatara upanisad, which they didn't.

Here is from the English translation of BG 5:26 of Sankara bhasyam. The word vidita-atmanam is translated as who have known the Self, i.e. who have full realization. ALB translates this as highest realization. Also in BG 5:28 vigateccha-bhaya-krodho yah sada mukta eva sah, Sankara's bhasyam is translated as such a person has no realization to seek thereafter. Can some Sanskrit expert comment please? For a lay person like me, if these 2 translations are correct, then ALB's translation is in line with Sankara's bhasyam. Please note that this doesn't validate ALB's stance though, as I have shown from SU that multiple paths to Supreme can be discussed in the same scripture.

Thanks J N Das prabhuji for the wonderful response. Another question: Does this mean that Indra etc., are not seperate personalities. That is what I understand from the writings of Sri Aurobindo. It is tough to paraphrase him, but he goes like this: Whenever vedas address Indra, they are actually referring to a particular form of energy of the One Supreme that manifests in the perception of the seers. Is the definition of VP similar?

Thanks. Please update us on Sankara's Kaarika bhashya. Where do Brahma sutras refer to Buddhism/Jainism?

Dear Shiva prabhu, Nice post. Many valid points.

Shvu, Thanks for the link. I thought that there is a reference to BG in the writings of Gaudapada, who preceded Sankara by about 75 years.

I can go with your argument, because I too trust the acaryas. But an indologist doesn't trust them. Many of them feel that Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva were giving their interpretation of the texts to establish their schools. Many of the indologists approach ancient texts through linguistics. Just because previous acaryas saw no contradiction doesn't mean an indologist shouldn't. You also cannot forget the fact that only 4 commentaries existed on BG before the 14th century CE. An indologist may argue that BG was not important enough till then for many people to analyze it. Which acarya? Many schools have interpreted BG differently. For example, I have heard that even direct translation of the words by SP and those of Sankara are different at times. In fact, I have read a criticism on Dvaita.org where they found several faults with SP's translation of BG. I am not in a position to take a stance, as I don't have any expertise in Sanskrit. Perhaps, someone who is an expert in Sanskrit can say if Basham's translation was incorrect. I have requested Shvu for the link to Sankara bhashyam. Let us see. Irrelevant. RV also uses the term bhagavan to signify Indra et. al.. You have to establish that BG pre-dates Jaina and Buddhist works and that their usage of this term is corrupted. That is why I asked if there is any reference to BG in the works that existed before 7th century CE. Have you ever come across any reference to BG in the suttas or any Jaina work? They criticized varnasrama bitterly, yet all their criticism only refer to the vedas. I wonder as to why they don't even mention BG which actually codifies varnasrama. Some of the suttas also refer to Brahadaranyaka upanisad while criticizing, but no mention of BG. However, Vedic literature uses the term bhagavan to address very specific persons who are in the category of brahman like Krishna, Siva etc. Which vedic literature? Please define specifically. RV uses it to refer to Indra and Nasatya. It doesn't use it for Rudra [shiva] interestingly. Swami Dayananda Saraswati said that actually Indra, Rudra etc., all refer to the same Supreme by different names and even gave a very convincing set of arguments. You can read a summary in David Frawley's writings. I don't know if you will swallow that, because that clashes with puranic depictions of Indra. And Janardana only to Krishna. How do the indologists justify using these terms for an "ordinary charioteer" ? ALB never said Krishna was just a charioteer. I showed Tiruvalluvar's usage of the term protector to refer to the king. So, that alone doesn't establish divinity. Prapatti is not an act of bhakti in all circumstances. I don't know what you mean when you use the term vedanta. are you referring to vedanta sutras or upanisads? If so, is there any direct mention of bhakti in those works? Even supposing there is, there have been several clearly established usage of surrender sans bhakti. So, that again doesn't establish divinity.

J N Das prabhuji, Thanks for the nice compilation. Very informative. Of course, this doesn't mean that those sampradayas accept SB as the Supreme book

OK. that means it is the same lila presented in parts in 3 books. Makes sense to me. It would be the equivalent of having Ramayana split into 2 books one before His exile and one after. Viewed in isolation, they make sound like talking of 2 different persons. What about the mention of Radha being married to Krishna's uncle and Krishna actually being her nephew? Is that accepted by Vaisnava acaryas?

2:2, 2:11? An indologist may counter that the term Bhagavan has been used in puranas to denote Shiva, Narada and even Indra at times. Is ther any place in Chapters 1 & 2 where Krishna talks of Himself as the personal form of the Supreme personality of Godhead? We have seen other arguments on why Basham is wrong, but this is not a very strong one.

Please let me explain this one. The oldest languages in India are Sanskrit, Pali and Tamil. Of this only Sanskrit and Tamil have had continuous tradition till date. Tamil literature, both spiritual and otherwise, describes the practices of Iyers and Iyengars in detail. These have been dated to the period before the Christian era by both the theists and indologists. So, it looks strange to me that the Azhwars don't even mention SB. Other languages such as Bengali, Hindi, Telugu, Oriya etc., are of much later origin and they cannot give much information about the mores of the ancient days. I didn't say that they reject SB in toto. Only those parts that vary from vedas or agamas. I admit that I don't have exact details on hand. I can get them though. Once I do, I will share with you. Even in the writings of other SV acaryas, when they have to establish a point, they still go by shrutis. I haven't seen them establish a point using VP or pasurams. Especially if they are debated. That would be great. I will correct my perception, if you can show that they have a specific purpose other than education. I think you are right. Though I can't recall the exact words, I think this is what he says. I just received a mail from a friend, a scholar in Tirumantiram and he says that Tirumular also uses sex as a very metaphoric term to signify the awakening of the kundalini. He has given a detailed explanation showing that my understanding was wrong. Much of it requires a deep knowledge of classical Tamil, so I will not post them. That means your earlier on Patanjali was correct and my understanding wrong. Since Tirumular was a disciple of Patanjali, their philosophies, though different in words, must have conveyed the same subtle principle. I take back my arguments on those three. May be you misunderstood. I meant if any acarya outside of GV has established SB as supreme. I didn't mean SB is GV. Perhaps, we should have a detailed discussion on this. It is worth knowing what the differences are between the texts. It is quite possible that the indologists blow a few differences out of proportion. It is worth investigating. I didn't say that I accept something just because it is in BVP. I was just asking you if I misinterpreted anything in BVP. Perfectly valid. If it is done only out of compassion and after evaluating the level of the disciple, it is the most commendable. But, that is not the case always. It is common to find a youngster start going to ISKCON/GV and within months he will form extreme perceptions. Virtually in all cases, this doesn't last. After the initial enthusiasm is gone, they slowly dilute their stance. But, in the intervening period, they go through a lot of stress. Their family members too. Also, to be very honest, the same sannyasis who indoctrinated the young ones against sex, never indoctrinated them against making money. I find this incongruous. I wouldn't want to discuss this in an open forum. May be I can email you with details I would be really, really surprised to find hundreds of thousands of grihastha devotees who have followed the regulation of "no illicit sex" in ISKCON. ISKCON has faced one of the highest divorce rates, doesn't have a strong family base. Just look at the ISKCON temples in the USA. How many second generation American devotees do you find. Hardly any. If really the experiment of grihastha devotees who have followed the regulation of "no illicit sex" had worked, we should find many second generation American devotees in the congregation, as SP had many American grahastha devotees here. Virtually all of the congregation is made up of Indians. The only americans are the old timers. there is an occasional college kid though. Your point is valid. Accepted. That depends on our world view. May be everyone cannot be delivered with the same medicine Normally paramacarya doesn't bother to criticize other organizations, but once he responded to a pointed question about Arya samaj's initiation process. He said that those things are very short-lived. He said that your birth is due to your karma and that anyone cannot be initiated. He said that even if you do enthusiastically, most people will go back to their old ways. I don't agree with him that birth alone decides your varna, but his general criticism seems valid when we see that so many problems have afflicted ISKCON and so many fell down. A follower of Sankara mutt may ask us: "What is the big deal in SP initiating so many unqualified people? It hardly lasted a decade? While it made headlines in the 60s, now the very mention of ISKCON is associated with scandals. Even most of the initiated have fallen down. On the other hand, traditional organizations like Sankara mutt bring about a steady change. If not change, they remain forever for those who are really qualified to attain liberation". We may not have a counter to that. I don't think that way at all. Whatever little I have gained spiritually due to the mercy of SP. But, I have grave reservations on some points - that is it.

My counter-argument: A L Basham's premise is that a scripture can only deal with one path of liberation. This could be true of the semitic religions. But sanatana dharma has always demonstrated many paths in the same scripture. For example Rg veda says: Ekam sad vipra bahauddha vadanti [the truth is One; the sages realize it many ways]. If we assume that BG follows the same premise of RV, then we should not be surprised to find multiple paths to realization in it. We find the same in other upanishads as well. Take Svetasvatara upanishad. In the First adhyaya, while discussing the Conjectures concerning the First cause, the Upanishad declares that the impersonal Brahman is Supreme. Then while in the Third Adhyaya, it declares Shiva to be the One Supreme God beyond the Brahman. If we look at Tirumantiram by sage Tirumular, it deals with both monism and duality in the same breath. Now Basham will have to declare that all Indian scriptures have been interpolated. But, that requires a more credible explanation as to why no conflicting recensions are to be found in most cases. Second, the rivalry between the Shaivites and Vaisnavites from time immemorial is well known. Ancient Tamil poems reveal that. Suppose a treatise gives a Vaisnava viewpoint, why will a Shaivite bother to interpolate his views into that? Assuming he somehow does, why would a Vaishnava incorporate those interpolations in his versions? Given the rivalry, logically we should expect 2 BGs, one with impersonal Brahman as the goal and another with Krishna as the goal. Yet, that is not the case. This is a week argument from Basham.

A L Basham's argument # 3: Take chapter 5 for example. Verses 24 - 28 deal with the ultimate goal of a yogi which is described as Brahmanirvana. The sages who achieve this goal are those dvelve deep within and control their breath and their senses. All taints and imperfections are destroyed in them. Their joy wells up from the Brahman within. Such a sage is truly liberated. Yet verse 29 says that such a yogi, affter attaining Brahmanirvana: "Then he learns to know me..the great Lord of all worlds and then he reaches peace". The last verse couldn't have been written by the same hand that wrote the first 5 verses. First we are told that impersonal Brahman is the goal of the sage, the highest perfection and then the verse 29 takes a u-turn and declares that it a personal God in the form of Krishna. So, I submit that while both arguments can be wrong, both can't be true. Nobody with a sound mind could have compiled verses 24 - 28 and then negated them as an afterthought in verse 29.

Sorry for answering without reading in full. Yet, please tell me where in chapters 1 & 2 the personal divinity of Krishna is established?

Violence ki jai!

Great post Jagat prabhuji. You are absoultely correct. The reason I started this thread is to come up with logical answers for each of his points. Whether or not we like it, it is his views that are taught to kids in schools - even in India - not that of the acaryas. I also get an immense kick deconstructing those Indologists who take pleasure in "disproving" our scriptures

Can't resist posting once more That is where the contention is It is very essential that Iyers [smarthas] and Iyengars [sri Vaishnavas] accept a treatise as bonafide. This is because that these are the 2 sects that have the most continuous tradition. They also retain the oldest references in scriptures as well as epigraphic works. The difference is they both reject SB, if it contradicts the shrutis. I presume that you are referring to Sridhara Swami of Puri Sankara mutt. Please correct me if I am wrong. Not only Sridhara Swami, even Kanchi Paramacarya has quoted from SB. Even Sri Vaishnavas and Smarthas accept many parts of SB as valid. Writing comentary is one thing; accepting that book as Supreme is another. For example, Ramayana is revered by all schools. How many accept that as the Supreme book? Also, the pertinent question is: Did the Advaitins establish their principles using SB as the Supreme scripture? I doubt. So far as I have known, they substantiate their argument only using shrutis. Not that he quoted from VP prolifically either. Such quotes were few. He established his principles using Brahma sutras and not puranas. Puranas were always given secondary importance in Sri Vaishnava tradition. You are absolutely correct. That is not what I suggest either. My contention is transcending sex happens to very few. The rest are better off by enjoying sex within marriage. Why else do you think no acarya ever objected to portraying Kamasutra in temple engravings? I am certainly guilty of casual reading. I will accept your advice without contest. Yet I would also like to hear which other scripture commonly accepted by all schools advocates sexual restraint within marriage. Also, why no acarya criticized Kamashastra depictions in the temples. Prabhuji, of all my weaknesses, hypocrisy isn't one Some verses in RV carry a literal meaning too. Yesterday, I posted one such with the commentary of a Sri Vaishnava acarya. Tonite, I will check Sri Aurobindo's commentary on them as well. I was giving Sayanacarya's interpretation. I also added outside of GV. Is it not true that no school outside of GV considers SB as Supreme? I am not saying that I am all knowledgeable. I am not. Every time someone corrects me, I accept my mistake. I am not saying that SB is false either. My contention is that it is interpolated and not the Supreme book. If you show something from BVP and point out my mistake, I will gladly accept that. In fact, BVP denounces any licentious behaviour. It also concludes by saying: Whoever with due control over his passions and after having avowed the purpose of performing a rite on an auspicious occasion listens to this is released from the sins committed either in childhood or later in all the births. One can interpret the highlighted portion to mean that there should be sexual restraint too. I will agree with that. But, my question is: is it applicable across the board to everyone?. Obviously not, as even as per SB, Kamini and Prathista asha are the 2 things hardest to overcome. Yes. Tirumular gives a set of rules a grahastha should follow while having intercourse with his wife, so that she and he can attain maximum pleasure. These rules are the same as the ones found in Kamasutra. But, I am unaware of any Vaishnava acarya who quoted that, though commentatirs like Kumbha, Samkara Misra, Vanamali Bhatta, Narayana Pandita and Krishna have. This, assuming what is written in the translation by Indologists is true. What we cannot ignore is the fact that no Vaishnava acarya has objected to the depictions of Kamasutra in the temple. Even Kanchi Paramacarya says that sex is a hindrance in attaining realization, but they don't indoctrinate ordinary people in an organized way. So, my understanding is that all acaryas consider sex to be an obstacle. But they also realize that grahasthas ae not in a poition to repress it. That is why they have given silent permission, through depictions in temples. Those repressing may not be indulging in the act of sex, but they definitely keep dreaming of it. Otherwise, they wouldn't get attracted to even lesser material pleasures like politicking. So, repression is even worse. Why do you consider the above argument of mine as incorrect or tangential? Is it possible for a sannyasi, who has transcended sexual desires, to get attracted to a stay in a 5 star hotel? True. The key phrase is gradual. If I am taking very strong stance in this matter it is because ISKCON indoctrinates youngsters into forming negative conceptions of sex and that is not gradual. I will do a detailed write up on this using the commentaries of Sayanacarya, references from Yaskacarya and the conclusions of Kapali Shastry. They have amply demonstrated that these verses clearly talk of enjoying sex as per the rules of Kamashastra. In fact, they even argue that Kamasutra itself has its basis in RV. If we are restricting sex only for procreation, then there is no enjoyment. Ramayana is meant for common grahastha. Rama and Sita enjoyed sex for several years without procreating. I don't know about this acarya. Do they initiate grahasthas and in large numbers? If so, I am skeptical of such organizations. Such organizations, tend to place the control of the disciples' lives in the hands of the guru. Invariably, this leads to downplaying the importance of family and increasing the number of hours a disciple spends in the organization. I would always give more credence to something like Kanchi Sankara mutt, as they don't care about expanding. As I told, even Paramacarya talks of overcoming sexual desires, but they never let this teaching assume the proportions of indoctrination. They make it just a passing remark. A devotee who naturally evolves to that level, grabs it and follows it. Indoctrination, on the other hand, is aimed at a neophyte who has little idea about sex.

Is it not being argued, with valid reasons, that all puranas have been interpolated? If indeed SB is very old, why do you think the Azhwars don't even mention that? Has any acarya before 10th century CE even mentioned about SB? I understand that the very earliest reference to Radha is found in a collection of poems written in a Prakrit, called Gatha Saptasati. It is a lone reference and doesn't describe her in any detail. In Bhagavata Purana, Radha is not Krishna's wife, but His beloved. In Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Radha is depicted as His wife. In Gita Govindam, again She is depicted only as a beloved of Krishna and not His wife. Other commentators like Vanamali Bhatta who followed, depict Her as Krishna's aunt, who remains married to His uncle, but still performs Rasa lila with Krishna who is Her nephew. Now, we can say that all of these are different lilas, but personally that doesn't convince me. I am also considering the opposing argument that holds that there have been many interpolations. This seems to have some validity due to 2 reasons: One, the internal contradictions that I pointed above. Two, other traditional schools such as Advaita, Dvaita and Vishistadvaita don't treat any of these puranas as the Supreme text. If indeed SB is the Supreme text, I wonder why Ramanujacarya or Adi Sankara didn't accept so.

Shvu, thanks for pointing out that BG has multiple recensions. Could you please write in detail as to what these different recensions are and how they differ, if time permits? I know typing from a book is quite arduous, as compared to copying & pasting from a CD. But, it will help the discussion if you can. Regarding Shukla Yajur, I was reading from the writings of Witzel that the differences are only eith regards to the phonetics, as Shakalya defined a few rules. Otherwise, he agrees that the vedas are a tape recording from the days of compilation/composition.

I don't know from where you got the idea that Anu Gita is in line with the 1st and 2nd chapters of BG. A L Basham doesn't state so anywhere. Please read his remarks again. Even to call someone a joker, you need to have fitting responses. Otherwise, we end up as jokers. An Indologist can very well argue that BG itself is of a very late interpolation, perhaps as late as 8th century CE. No work written before that even mentions BG. None of the writings of Azhwars even mention BG. If BG is indeed the words of Krishna and also a prime scripture, how come all Azhwars are oblivious to its existence? The same Azhwars are also completely oblivious to the existence of SB. I wonder as to why such proponents of Bhakti will ignore a treatise like SB which glorifies Vishnu through out. Even Adi Sankara makes no mention of SB, though he comments on Vishnu Purana. Even Ramanujacarya makes no mention of SB, though he also references VP. Are these some indications that SB was compiled as late as 10th century CE? If an Indologist poses this question, may I know how you will respond? You can sure ignore him, but that doesn't mean you have convinced many unbiased readers. Also, are you aware of some contradictions in the different puranas, even regards the relationship between Radha and Krishna? In some, they are married, in some they are not. In some, Radha is married to Krishna's uncle. How do I reconcile with these contradictions?

Yes, if we take Srimad Bhagavatam alone as an authority, then it establishes that sex is for procreation alone. In that case, we should reject all the puranas, itihasas and even Rg veda, because they all describe passionate sex not necessarily for procreation. One cannot claim that he accepts Rg veda, Ramayana, BVP, Andal etc., and still claim that sex is for procreation alone. So, here we have 2 sets of scriptures - a majority saying nothing against sex and SB saying it is for procreation alone. We also have countless treatises on kamashastras written over ages and depicted in all temples. If you read Tiruppavai, it has very vivid descriptions of a Andal's arousal as she is sexually attracted to Vishnu. How do you reconcile with this? Then, you may also want to ponder over as to why no school, not even Sri Vaishnavas, places such importance on SB. In fact Sri Ramanujacarya didn't even quote from that once. It is your choice, though at the end of the day. When dogma takes over, facts and reason go for a six. I also understand that this is often a sensitive matter and many people may be quite upset with my views. that is precisely the reason why I didn't post verses from BVP or KR which are even more vivid and sensuous. I will conclude my views on this thread with one last observation: Our scriptures contain many examples where even rshis enjoyed very carnal sex and still attained liberation. I would suggest that you read Patanjali or Tirumular and both even treat sex as one of the ways for realization. Yet, the same scriptures also talk of dharmic sex - which is not defined anywhere. Even in BG, Krishna doesn't say that He is sex which is used for procreation. He says that He is sex that is not against dharma. In the same BG, there are verses where He almost defines what dharma is. He talks of defending one's family, kingdom etc., yet doesn't even hint that sex for pleasure within marriage is adharmic. So, in my opinion, any interpretation claiming so is a stretch. A truly realized person transcends sex as well as all material pleasures. He doesn't repress any of them. Are you still attracted to paper boats and lullabys? Even SB says that kamini and pratishta asha are the toughest to overcome. So, indoctrination against sex is wrong. We have seen that those sannyasis who were indoctrinated against sex just fell down. Barring one or two, others are very political too. None of that is a sign of transcendence. The general population is light years away from going back to Krishna. They are, as Abhi pointed out, better off being genuine. They should enjoy sex within marriage and paralelly pursue bhakti. The marriage hymns of Rg veda state that a man and a woman bound in marriage should satisy each other sexually. I urge you to read RV. One of the words used there is described at length in 2 books - Kamasutra and BVP. Both say that a man should deploy 16 steps for satisfying his wife and the woman should do 22 things to satisfy the man. In BVP, Krishna did 16 of those things to satisfy Radha and Radha responded by doing 19 of those things. To me all these are clear signs that there is no restriction on sex within marriage. In fact, commentaries on BVP by other Vaishnavas even agree that Radh's love-making correspond to the rules of sound and rhythm as defined in KS. Above all, one needs to answer as to why no school outside of GV ever placed any restriction on sex within marriage. Anyway, I conclude my contribution to this thread and will go to other threads. Hari Bol.

Saint, my left foot, Xavier! Damn the church. I don't know if many of you have heard anything about the Inquisition of Goa. Goa is a small state in western India. During the Portugese regime, the Vatican ordered that the heathen and foul Hindus be converted to Christianity by force. So, those Hindus who refused were put in a boat and then the boat was surrounded by Portugese ships and then set afire. The Christian missionaries and Portugese army raped the Hindu women in the churches. Nobody knows if Jesus really lived. Everything in Bible is drawn from Old Testament and Buddhism. But, the history of church itself has been the most sordid and racist. It has been worse than Islam in that sense.

In principle, I agree that sex can bind one to the material world. But my only contention is that transcending sex happens to very few individuals, who aren't bothered by anything else material too. What I am against is indoctrination of ordinary people against sex. I also don't claim that sex becomes spiritual just because we are married. One impression I get from the puranas is that the seers considered it best for most people to lead a grahastha life and enjoy sex within marriage. Perhaps, they are nowhere near liberation. Also, I don't know if we can categorically state that sex is just a material afliction. This is due to 2 reasons: One, the description of sex life of the Supreme as found in the scriptures is passionate. So, it suggests that our sex life, though lesser in quality, is the same as that found in spiritual world. Two, many ancient works, in Tamil and Sanskrit, have explored sex as a path to liberation. Does it not suggest a spiritual place for sex?

I have some questions here: Do any of these puranas themselves stipulate any qualification for hearing or reading them? Has any acarya before GV stipulated such qualifications? Is it not true that all puranas were part of the realm where lay public listened to them, through kathas? I am just putting the pieces together and reasoning. On one hand, we have puranas and itihasas depict sex very positively and on the other hand we have temple sculptures that depict Kamashastras. Does it not actually corroborate what I say? I recall a verse from Atharva veda that calls out to everyone, be they men or women, Brahmana or Shudra, to come out and listen to the hymns. Is this not another point that supports the argument that scriptures themselves don't talk of any qualification on the part of the reader? [if needed, I can look up to the verse]

My reading of the puranas, sometimes in original and sometimes translation, tells me that even in the Divine couple, be it Rama and Sita or Krishna and Radha, sex is driven by urge. I am not denying that the urge itself is qualitatively superior - nevertheless it is there. And the sexual process - that is where we disagree - is intensely physical and not mere intent as you suggest. In fact, I haven't come across even one instance of sex by intent alone in any puranas while I have seen many references to intensely physical love making. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong, with references. So, I am not trying to impose our conceptions on the Divine couple, but only presenting what is written in the books by great devotees. On the other hand, I feel that those who claim that love making between the Divine couple is not physical and just an intent are speculating or even skirting the whole issue due to some puritanical mindset or even prudishness, more so because I haven't been shown any references. Even if some references are shown, still one has to address the case of countless references that describe very physical and intense love-making between the Divine couple. So, my case is that the sages who wrote those puranas didn't feel there was anything wrong in portraying sex between the Divine couple. Also I would argue that they didn't find anything wrong in enjoying sex within marriage. Just to strengthen my argument, please allow me to present one quote from a translation of Brahma Vaivarta purana chapter 15 Krishna Janma Kanda. Here Narayana is describing the love making of Krishna and Radha: Krishna pulled Radha with both His arms to His breast and stripped her of her clothes. Then He kissed Her in 4 different ways. In the combat of love making the bells in Radha's girdle were torn off. The colour of Her lips were wiped off by Krishna's kisses, the leaves drawn with sandal paste on her breasts were rubbed off by His warm kisses and caress, her hair came loose and the vermillion marks on her forehead disappeared. Then Radha mounted Krishna and made love to Him in reversed coitus (a position in which the woman takes up the dominating role). The red lac on her feet was rubbed off and she had goose-flesh all over her body. She felt as if She were going to swoon in pleasure and couldn't make out between day and night. Then Krishna made love to Her in 8 different positions and tore Her body to shreds biting and scratching. The bells in Radha's girdle made sweet sounds as Krishna made love to Her and after a while, swooning in pleasure, unable to bear any more, Radha ceased from the combat of love making. I have given the translation of Nirad Chaudhuri. There many more verses that are even more vivid in description. I simply don't understand how someone can state that these verses are not straightforward descriptions of passionate and very physical love-making.