karthik_v

Originally posted by jndas:

Just be honest and ask yourself if a Sri Vaishnava saint such as Viraraghavacharya, who wrote a commentary on the Bhagavatama, thought it was a pure revealed scripture, or if he thought he was commenting on useless interpolated texts.

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?

It is primarily the Advaita school that raises these arguments, because they cannot reconcile the personalistic teachings of the Puranas with their impersonal philosophy. It is an easy way to avoid dealing with conflict.

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.

Originally posted by jndas:

Vishnu Purana states all names of devas to actually be names refering to Vishnu, the source of all vibhutis. Madhva accepts the same conclusion. Thus the Vedic verses glorifying Indra and others are actually prayers to Vishnu, who is the oppulence behind the controling function of Indra.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-17-2002).]

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?

Originally posted by shvu:

No, Gaudapada never mentions Krishna or the BG anywhere in the Kaarikas. Perhaps Shankara refers to the BG in the Kaarika Bhaashya, which I can check.

 

While the BG does not mention Buddhism and Jainism, it mentions the Brahma-suutras which refer to Buddhism and Jainism.

 

Cheers

 

 

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

Originally posted by shiva:

Bashams writings should be taken with a grain of salt.

Fact: almost all knowledge of ancient Indian society, has been gained from the writings of itinerent chinese monks.

They were visiting India on pilgrimage to the Buddhist schools and holy sites.

 

The rest is speculation,it is a fact that very little information is available for the empirical researcher on ancient India.

 

The Indus valley civilization is the society that was dominant during the time of the Kuruksetra war. The script has yet to be deciphered.

To make any pronouncements about ancient texts while having a tiny amount of actual data to support your view is comical.

 

This is the path of the modern scholar, he has to carve out a niche of authority, leading him to make unfounded pronouncements of authenticity without sufficient data to make it comprehensive or realistic.

 

Indian history is shrouded in mystery to the mundane scholar due to the fact that there is very little data that is not religious.

 

Anything a mundane researcher comes up with is little more then useless, up until recently it wasn't even known that the indus valley civilization existed all over the Indian sub-continent.

 

Yet the scholars feel free to make "authoritative" statements.

Only an ignorant person would take them seriously.

 

[This message has been edited by shiva (edited 05-17-2002).]

Dear Shiva prabhu,

Nice post. Many valid points.

Originally posted by shvu:

There is no reference to the BG before the time of Shankara [8th century].

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.

Originally posted by Ram:

Basham is establishing multiplicity of authorship on the basis of what he thinks is a contradiction. I am countering that to say that none of the traditional schools perceive any contradiction.

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.

What I am doing is to prove that his translation is wrong because he is using words which are not there in the original. As an example, highest perfection is not there in the original. But he is using the term. As he is making basic mistakes, I consider him unworthy of debate. So I am pointing him to acharyas who have translated accurately and presented that the subject flows seamlessly as the Lord speaks. What is wrong with that ?

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.

As for as your argument that bhagavan is used by jains and buddhists to refer to their gurus - the term guru is used in the software world to refer to some one who is an expert in some technology. Based on this you may feel free to conclude that gurus in ancient times were experts in computers or that the gurus of software industry are self-realized - . The lesson is that you should see the usage in context.

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.

Prappatti is an act of bhakti - whether it is to guru or God. I dont know what is the term the buddhists use to describe surrender to guru. But this is the principle of bhakti as per Vedanta. So what is your problem with that ?

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

Originally posted by jndas:

Actually I said they were all the same lila. At one point in time, Radha wanted to have a marriage with Lord Krishna, so the gopis arranged it in secret, kind of like a game.

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?

Originally posted by jndas:

Maybe the words "sri bhagavan uvaca..."

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.

Originally posted by J N Das:

This isn't true at all. There are references to brahmanas from other areas such as Puri, etc., found through the Puranas as well.

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.

Show me a Vaishnava acharya who has rejected the Srimad Bhagavatam. The fact is the Bhagavatam does not contradict the shruti, thus there is no question of it being rejected.

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.

This is because Ramanuja wanted to establish his system of philosophy with pramanas acceptable to other schools at his time. To Sri Vaishnavas Vishnu Purana is absolute truth and there is no a single word of untruth in it. And the songs of the Alvars are equal, if not superior to the Vedas.

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.

The placement of erotic sculpture in temples has a specific subtle function which we will discuss in another thread, as it will go of the topic here.

That would be great. I will correct my perception, if you can show that they have a specific purpose other than education.

Aurobindo interprets such texts as the awakening of the Kundalini, which is in line with the yoga-darshana.

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.

Originally posted by Karthik_v:

I also added outside of GV.

 

J N Das responds:

So to you the Bhagavata Purana is a Gaudiya text? What more can be said.

May be you misunderstood. I meant if any acarya outside of GV has established SB as supreme. I didn't mean SB is GV.

The commentators have all commented on the same text of Bhagavatam, some with one additional verse, some missing one or two verses.

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.

But what is your logic? On what grounds do you accept Brahma Vaivarta Purana, which indologists would consider more interpolated than the Bhagavata? And if something is pointed out from Brahma Vaivarta Purana, then perhaps that will also be an interpolated text for you?

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.

No one is suggesting we all have to suddenly become detached from matter, but we should clearly know that all sense enjoyment causes suffering and ignorance (as per Yoga shastras statement). Knowing this, shouldn't we have compassion for our own selves and try to protect ourselves from future suffering and ignorance?

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.

Because you assume to know the inner heart of the sannyasi (i.e. you know they have become attracted to a 5 star hotel). And you make a general statement which really has no verifiable data that can be analysed, and which you have no direct experience of except through rumour. In other words, it is really unrelevant to the topic as to whether the scriptures advise one to engage in sex for procreation or not. Further more, no one is speaking of sannyasa, but only regulated sex for procreation. Thus the topics are not at all connected. And finally, if one wants to analyze the unreliable data you have, then you should take into account all the hundreds of thousands of grihastha devotees who have followed the regulation of "no illicit sex" and see what its impact was on their consciousness and life. If you don't have such relevant data on hand, then your statement about five or six sannyasis, whom you think became attached to a luxory hotel, is just stupid.

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.

Kapali Shastry is a tantrik, thus his views are quite partial. He has written some very great books, but is personally responsible for single handedly remolding the entire teachings of Aurobindo from Yoga-darshana to tantra. Now their lines teachings really have little to do with yoga-darshana or aurobindo for that matter. Especially the writings of M.P. Pandit and others.

Your point is valid. Accepted.

This is primarily because he held a ritual seat, and his followers were not made, they were born. It is a caste based religion that does not make disciples or followers, and which has no real mission in delivering the general society from ignorance.

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.

They will think Swamiji must be having some ulterior motives in telling me this. Swamiji must not have understood the scriptures as well as I did. Swamiji was just following the dogma of his religious cult.

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.

Originally posted by ram:

The following quote is from your post presenting Bhashyam's argument :

 

All these prove that Anu Gita, as it is in line with chapters 1 and 2 of BG, was original and all the other chapters of BG were later interpolations."

 

So it is sufficient for me to establish that the first two chapters of Bhagavad Gita establishes Krishna's divinity and bhakti, which I do in my post. Then Anu Gita, as it is in line with chapters 1 nad 2 of BG, cannot be said to skirt Krishna's divinity and bhakti. Please read my post thourougly and let me know two things :

 

1. does it answer his arguments ?

2. who is the joker ?

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-16-2002).]

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

Originally posted by J N Das:

Which, if we accept the Srimad Bhagavatam as a revealed scripture, means "under the guidance of the guru for procreation."

That is where the contention is

It seems your are limiting your choice of schools to those of Iyengars and Iyers. This is just an absurb statement. There are plenty of schools that accept Srimad Bhagavatam as a revealed scripture, and many acharya's have written commentaries on it, beginning with Sridhar Swami, who is respected and quoted by both Vaishnava's and advaitis alike.

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.

Ramanuja did not quote from Bhagavatam because Vishnu Purana establishes his school's prayojana-jnana better.

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.

We should really decide if we want to accept Kama-sutra as our shastra over that of Srimad Bhagavatam. Certainly no saint has taken this stand, and it really isn't that beneficial for us to do so either.

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?

Or maybe you have just misunderstood the conclusions of the Puranas as well. Srimad Bhagavatam also describes Lord Krishna's intimate rasa-lila, yet it establishes our personal dharma as one of regulation under the guidance of the guru. We need to go beyond casual reading, where we see only what we want to see - ignoring everything else that doesn't fit our preconceived conclusions.

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.

On one hand you will say the Rig Veda is all symbolism, then you will switch and try to use it literally as evidence for supporting carnal sex. See how Sri Aurobindo interprets those passages.

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.

Yet a few days ago the stance was that absolutey no scripture or acharya has taught such a thing. Now we have shown the Bhagavatam does teach this, and the answer is, "The Bhagavatam must therefore be false." You are too confident of what you think the Puranas teach. Don't be a grasshopper, jumping from one book to another, little here, little there. If tomorrow I show you a verse from Brahma Vaivarta Purana stating the same thing, what will be your next stance? It is also false? Of course I think the answer will be, "There is absolutely no such statement in Brahma Vaivarta Purana." If that would be your next statement, then you should first be pretty confident of what is in the text, so that there are no surprises.

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.

Has any acharya quoted from kama-sutra? Or have there at least been instuctions that, "Grihasthas should follow the kama-sutra." Simply because a text is in sanskrit does not make it of value. We can tell obscene words in sanskrit as well, that does not make them mantras.

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.

We have seen that those sannyasis who were indoctrinated against sex just fell down. Barring one or two, others are very political too.

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?

And they should be encouraged to moved forward towards Krishna, by gradually offering everything as a sacrifice to Him, ultimatley including themselves.

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.

Originally posted by Karthik_k:

The marriage hymns of Rg veda state that a man and a woman bound in marriage should satisy each other sexually.

 

Reply from J N Das: Which can be done through procreation.

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.

This is another incorrect statement. Even advaiti sadhus such as Swami Shivananda of Hrishikesh have instructed their grihastha disciples to observe various levels of brahmacharya within marriage. It is actually one of his fundamental teachings.

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.

Originally posted by J N Das:

That there are references to the 18 Puranas by name in various other Puranas is sufficient proof for the authenticity of the Bhagavatam.

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?

Originally posted by J N Das:

None of these are contradictions. In one pastime Radha secretly married Lord Krishna, though she was already married to someone else.

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.

Originally posted by shvu:

Karthik,

 

There are multiple recensions of the BG. The Kashmiri BG has some verses different from the standard version. Also, the Brahma-sutra reference in the BG is 13.4 in some editions and 13.5 in other editions. While variations may be minor, it still goes to show that the BG is not free of interpolation, per se. If the Mahabharata was reworked time and again, it is possible the BG also was, at an earlier point of time.

 

The Shukla Yajur is also available in two recensions, Kanva and Maadhyandina. Among other differences, some verses of the Brhadaaranyka are different between these two recensions. Kanva is more prominent in South India with the other one being common the North. Shankara et al., commmented on the Kanva recension.

 

Cheers

 

 

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.

Originally posted by Ram:

If Anu Gita is in line with Gita's 1 st and 2 nd chapters, then it must also talk of Krishna's divinity and bhakti. It is paradoxical to say that Anu Gita is in line with the first two chapters of the Gita and say that it does not talk of divnity of the Lord and bhakti.

 

The first two chapters address the moral dilemma relevant to the battlefied. Is it not ridiculous that the Anu Gita which is no where connected to the battlefield talks of the same topics ?

 

I dont mind continuing the discussion. But can we call it Bhashyam's jokes ?

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?

Originally posted by ram:

Karthik, does this not establish that sex is for the purpose of procreation ? Is this verse from Srimad Bhagavatham ?

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?

Originally posted by jndas:

This is perhaps the reason the acharyas have warned against unqualified people reading the intimate pastimes of Sri Sri Radha and Krishna. They end up concluding it is more or less just ordinary sex, apparently quite applicable to you and me. In reality it is another realm of existence which we have no experience of.

 

Those who are liberated are able to relish the spiritual pastimes between Krishna and Radha. The rest of us just think, "Hey, why can't we do that too."

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]

Originally posted by Theist:

I was just trying to show that what we think of as sex in this world is not the same as sex in the spiritual world.Trying to impose our conceptions onto the Divine Couple is a useless endeavor.

Here sex is driven by urge.Urge is driven by hormones.One caught up in this conception of sex can't possibly have a clue as to what "sex" is between the Divine Couple.

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.