karthik_v

Originally posted by Theist:

Here is a factoid, an informational tid bit that kind of relates.

Those experienced in mere astral travel describe sex there also.But it can be experienced just by purposeful contact.The erotic componet is due to the intention of the two involved.

 

So what to speak of that 12 dimensional reality.Beyond our imagination.I don't think we really have a clue.

 

But for sure if you want to enjoy sex with a physical body a physical body you will get.

 

Krsna is so kind.

Prabhuji, is there a shastric basis to the claim that sex in spiritual world is not physical but through intent alone? I think references from scriptures will be more relevant here than experiences of NDE travellers. If you see BVP or KR, there are very vivid descriptions of purely physical sex between Radha and Krishna or Rama and Sita respectively. I am unaware of any mention of sex by intent alone. Even old commentators seem to agree that Radha and Krishna made love deploying the various rules of Kamasutra.

I am not denying that by Krishna's grace anything is possible, but that is not relevant here, I feel.

Originally posted by J N Das:

But that isn't Krishna's opinion. He states one who is attached to enjoyment cannot know Him:

 

bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam

tayapahrta-cetasam

vyavasayatmika buddhih

samadhau na vidhiyate

[bg. 2.44]

 

"In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Lord does not take place."

 

Srila Prabhupada's lecture on this verse:

 

Prabhupada: Yes. Here is very important thing. The exact Sanskrit word is,

 

bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam

tayapahrta-cetasam

vyavasayatmika buddhih

samadhau na vidhiyate

Thanks prabhuji. I just highlighted in bold, a portion of Srila Prabhupad's translation. Is Krishna suggesting that one can attain Him, even after enjoying material life, provided he is not obsessed with them and bewildered by them?

There is atleast one another verse, 7:11, where Krishna talks of sex directly:

balam balavatam caham

kama-raga-vivarjitam

dharmaviruddho bhutesu

kamo 'smi bharatarsabha

Translation by SP: I am the strength of the strong, devoid of passion and desire. I am sex life which is not contrary to religious principles, O lord of the Bharatas [Arjuna].

Another person raised a pertinent question - what is dharmic sex? Is sex within marriage considered dharmic? If so, what is the shastric basis for restrictions? I think this question needs to be answered satisfactorily. There are several instances in puranas where many devotees enjoyed sex and wealth, yet became liberated. Arjuna himself enjoyed them, yet became Krishna's friend. If we insist that sex is an impediment to liberation, how do we explain all these?

Is sex itself spiritual?

I am curious about verse 7:11. Could it be that sex itself is one of the means to attain Krishna or Supreme? Is that why it has been dealt with very favarobly by many great saints of the past and condemned by none [before GV]? Is that why, puranas have very vivid descriptions of love making between Krishna and Radha or Rama and Sita? If we insist that sex is an impediment to liberation then we have to answer another question: Why then, did great acaryas describe sex in such a detail and that too for common people?

Originally posted by jndas:

Please see this article:

 

"Sex in the spiritual world."

http://www.indiadivine.com/tattva11.htm

Hari Bol J N Das prabhuji,

Thanks for the link and I read it in full. But, I am afraid that I may not agree with it. There is an attempt to portray that sex in spiritual world is not a physical process as is in this material world. It is being stated that sex in spiritual world occurs through a mere exchange of glance or singing.

In Ramayana and other puranas, including Brahma Vaivarta purana, there are very lucid and candid depictions of sex. Those depictions are exactly the same as we experience in this material world. For example, the love-making between Krishna and Radha is described in such detail that one cannot really pretend that it takes place by a mere glance. Similarly, Kamba Ramayana describes the state of arousal of Sita and again that leaves no doubt whatsoever.

So, the claim in that link contradict what is actually written in our puranas. Also, soma is depicted as an intoxicant. If you read old Tamil sages like Tirumular, he describes it as the third eye. Interestingly, Rk veda denotes moon also by the same name and I have read in old Tamil works that moon and soma are used figuratively to depict the third eye. Some recent commentators like Sri Aurobindo also interpret the same way.

That is right Shvu. Theist, the first mention of Jesus appears atleast 80 years after his supposed crucification. None of the Hebrew chroniclers, who were contemporaries of his supposed period, even make a mention of Jesus, though they write in detail about even trivial things. It is unthinkable that Jews would ignore someone they hated so much. No mention in Pilate's or Roman epigraphs either. The first numismatic portrayal of Jesus happens 150 years after his supposed crucification. To me it looks like that Jesus was created 80 years after his crucification and became a cult figure another 70 years down the line.

Even if you take NT, it is so self-contradictory, that it actually negates the existence of Jesus. The narratives of the 4 disciples, who made the cut contradict each other, even on such crucial events as his crucification. Likewise, a very, very bad Rabbi friend of mine, very convincingly argued, by presenting the narratives of Jesus' foremost disciples, that they had never been to Palestine and hence NT is humbug.

I have no problem in accepting Jesus on faith, more so because an acarya like SP accepted him. But, I will always use this to taunt missionaries. If the west can reject Mahabharat or vedas as historical, despite the convincing astronomical evidences, I will reject Jesus who has no basis whatsoever. Fair enough?

Sirona, the church has had an occasional good man, but he was like an oasis in the desert. Mostly, the Christian saints were rogues of the lowest order. Just take this century for example. Pius XII, was the ultimate rogue but is on his way to sainthood. Mother (my left foot) Teresa, was another rogue of the lowest order, but hyped up by the media and again on her way to sainthood.

Originally posted by Pritesh01:

In Srimad Bhagavatam 5.17.12, Srila Prabhupada explains that people have sex in the spiritual world and there is no possibility of conception there. How is sex possible between different persons in the spiritual world and how can they be Krishna conscious at the same time?

Because there is no injunction against sexual enjoyment in any scripture. Even in this material world, you can enjoy sex to your heart's content and still be Krishna conscious.

Puranas and Itihasas were written for the common audience who required no qualifications to listen to them. Most of them contain very vivid description of sex that you will get goose pimples upon hearing them. If the original authors had thought that sex would impede spiritual progress, they wouldn't have had such narratives in the first place. In fact, I would argue that those narratives also served an educational purpose and helped the public perceive sex as not something ugly but sacred. By presenting a vivid description of love-making between Krishna and Radha, deploying the rules of Kamashastra, the authors were educating the common public.

There is a major difference between semitic religions, Taoism and Hinduism. Those religions, except, Taoism, considered sex one sided and something to be oppressed. Taoism treated that mechanically, devoid of sensuality. Hindu smritis are the only onles that treat sex very sensually, without shame or guilt and according equality to both the male and the female. Advocacy of oppression of sex within marriage is something untenable.

Originally posted by shvu:

For someone to be a devotee, he has to atleast assume,

 

1. There was a Krishna.

2. Krishna was an incarnation of God.

3. The BG is authentic scripture free of any interpolation.

 

 

Let me go from point # 3 backwards. One can certainly say with authority that BG is without interpolation because we don't have 2 conflicting recensions. Interpolations always result in multiple recensions, as can be seen in the case of Ramayana or Mahabharata. So, any historian who claims that BG was interpolated should substantiate sucha claim by producing 2 conflicting recensions. The same for vedas too. Every Indologist is at loss to explain as to why they have been preserved intact, in every corner of India. Generally, they avoid discussing that as it would sabotage their very existence.

Now a theist has a strong case. He can certainly argue that while puranas were interpolated, BG and vedas were untouched as they were the spoken words of God and revelations respectively. This doesn't prove that to be so, but their stance is intrinsically stronger than that of Indologists. Otherwise, nothing on earth can explain as to why these were preserved in the original form everywhere. As a corollary, this lends credence to a theist's argument that Krishna is Supreme. This again, is not a proof, but inherently stronger and more logical than the argument of Indologists.

Very nice points Leyh prabhuji. I said something on similar lines, but your words are more apt. Avinash prabhuji and J N Das prabhuji, thanks for the references. I will present the 3rd argument tomorrow. Till then other viewpoints on argument # 2 are welcome.

Personally, I don't believe that gurukula is a great idea. A child should grow up in family where he or she gets all warmth. Oh, I am talking of the traditional Indian family here, which still remains a reality in India. To entrust a child to the care of a teacher and go about distributing books is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Such a child doesn't necessarily become more spiritual. In all likelihood, he/she will grow up as an insecure individual. How many gurukulis became sannyasis or great grahastha devotees?

I think the ideal school is like what Aurobindo ashram or Chinmaya mission run. They run regular school, all students are day scholars and parents interact closely. Parallelly, they impart vedic teachings. Only such schools can attract children of responsible parents. Most of those kids practice atleast part of what they learn.

Originally posted by shvu:

I don't know. I asked this question earlier on this thread, this morning. Also, is the Bhagavad Gita praised in any Purana? Strangely, the Bhagavatam does not mention BG at all (Not very sure, though).

 

Cheers

Hope somebody answers the first part. I don't know if Bhagavad Gita is praised in any purana, but certainly the acaryas of various schools have used it to establish their principles. and this includes Sankara and Ramanuja as well. None of them even suggested that any part of BG is unreliable. That is worth noting.

Not directly related, but I thought the readers may find the views of this Sri Vaishnava acarya interesting [produced from Bhakti list]:

I will quote now verbatim from AgnihOthram Sri RaamAnuja TatachAr's monograph on the Eternal relevance of VedAs dealing with the role of women in Hindu Society :

In the early years of marriage , love has a sexual importance. But with the advance of years, it mellows into a great attachment and affection. No one can disturb this mutual love. Marriage is not made for sexual purpose , BUT FOR A REAL UNITED LIFE ....

The VedAs say that the wife is the only friend of her husband....Their comradeship is strengthened by day-to-day movements .She never claims superiority over her husband and she is never treated as inferior by her husband.She is the mistress of the house ....

She is a real friend and closely follows her husband in the good and bad of domestic life and takes keen interest in his welfare.She also advises him at times. Smruthi following the direction given by the Vedas states clearly that it is the duty of a wife to correct the mistake of her husband " .SitA piraatti did just that in a famous pasage in Srimadh RaamAyaNam in Her conversation with HanumAn in AsOka Vanam.

AgnihOthram TatachAr swamy points out a special Vedic term : Purandhi and explains its significance . According to the VedAs , women are more intelligent

than men (i.e) she is a purandhi.In AsvanEdhA , there is a prayer that women must be " purandhi". By that term , Women's superior intelligence is indicated. " According to the VedAs , Woman is a karma yogi . She does duty for duty's sake.She sacrifices her individual pleasure and pain and serves the family . The early life of all children depend on the care of the mother. She brings them up as intelligent

and pious ones . The stability of her integrity is brought out in one MantrA , which points out that women are to be strong as a rock in the family so that the family can survive . Her integrity not only keeps the family in a high order , but it overcomes all enemies as well ".She is the queen of her husband's house .She maintains the customs and traditions of the house strictly , with vigilance .The house may be built by bricks and wood , but it is not the real house.In fact , the wife is only the real house. VedAs never confine a woman to

the house.Many brilliant women have reached out with their husbands and attained a spiritual status equal to or higher than that of their husbands , who are revered as Manthra dhrushtAs of the various Veda Manthrams .

The names of the women Rishis (RishikAs or Lady seers ) are etched in the annals of the Veda manthrams .None of the Rishis or the Rishi pathnis are recognized as the composers of the Veda manthrAs , but as samhithAkarthAs , who assisted in the collection of the Veda manthrams thru the power to "see " them as manthra dhrushtAs .

Angirasa , Gautama , VasishtA , ViswAmithrA , Bhrugu , Athri , Marici , KasyapA , AgasthyA and BharadhvAjaa belong to the rich set of Rishis in this category .

Every Veda manthram has a Rishi or RishikA , Chandas and DevathA . We invoke them prior to the recitaion of the individual mathrAs of the different VedAs . Each of these Rishis have a distinguished wife well versed in scholarship , AchAram and anushtAnam . These rishikAs or Lady Seers took an important part in SamaadhikaraNam . YajnavalkyA's wife and her tight questioning of her husband gave birth to a great Upanishad . There are abundant reference to the RishikAs in the Tenth Canto of Rg Vedam besides the other Cantos .

LopamudhrA is one such RishikA as the wife of AgasthyA , known for his command over Sanskrit and Tamil. The meaning of the word "LopamudhrA " is one , who is totaly absorbed in herself (i-e)., she is one of the BrahmavAdhini RshikAs.Two manthrAs of

the Rg Vedam ( Canto I.179.1-2) are attributed to her .

RoamasA the wife of SvanyA , VisvavArA belonging to the Athri family , AangirasI Sarasvathi of Angirasa family , ApAlA of the Athri family , YamI Vaivasvathi , SraddhA , Vasukra pathni , GhOshA , SooryA , IndrANi , Urvasi , Sarama , Joohu , VagAmbhruNi and PoulOmi Sachi are well known RshikAs , who are revered and are associated with individual Rg Veda ManthrAs .

In the concluding posting , I will describe selected Rg Veda manthrAs linked to the individual RishikAs to illustrate the importance of Vedic Women , who are

models for us even today . The women in many

Indian households along the length and breadth of Bharatha Varsham have imbibed these rich and resonant values in their bone and blood and keep their family strong and righteous .

Originally posted by shvu:

Here.

 

btw, It is not an argument.

 

Cheers

 

 

Thanks Shvu. I read through that link and here is what is said: Next to the Bhagavadgita, in importance, comes the Anu-Gita which occurs towards the end of the Mahabharata epic. This Gita is supposed to be a tentative answer which Krishna gave to Arjuna, on the latter’s request to hear the contents of the Bhagavadgita once more. Krishna’s reply meant that it was impossible to summon again that power of the Absolute, by which the wisdom of the Bhagavadgita was spoken. He, however, agreed to give Arjuna a substitute which goes by the name of Anu-Gita. The contents of the Anu-Gita are not so inspiring as those of the Bhagavadgita and they touch upon the usual themes of Sankhya and Vedanta, which we shall have occasion to discuss elsewhere.

The highlighted portion is more of speculation and doesn't constitute a definite answer unless, it is stated so in Anu Gita itself. Do you have any idea if it is stated in Anu Gita?

J N Das Prabhuji and Avinash Prabhuji,

Nice points and I agree.

Originally posted by J N Das:

The whole story of Arjuna again becoming conditioned by maya (i.e. confused) and needing further enlightenment is quite doubtable, for Krishna states, "Knowing this nothing further remains to be known."

Do you consider Anu Gita to be an interpolation? Many schools think so and even A L Basham considers it to be an interpolation, though he argues that BG itself is a later interpolation than AG, though his argument is not substantiated. What has been the stance of Vaishnava acaryas on AG?

Originally posted by Pritesh01:

Hare Krishna

All glories to Srila Prapupada.

The entire purpose of the battle of Kurukshetra was so that the Bhagavad-gita could be spoken and to establish the principals of relegion. This was Krishnas arrangment. The supreme being, situated as the supersoul within everyones heart, is fully capiable of halting the war for two hours or two millennium if He so desired. For us this concept is not so difficult to understand. But for a demonic atheist, who is so puffed up with pride due to his mundane "knowledge" gathered through imperfect senses, it is easy to understand why he is bewildered. There are always going to be people who denounce God. Such mudhas are hardly worth our energy. I do not mean to be offensive. Please forgive me if anyone takes offense to my statement. I just baffles me how such a "learned" person could be so foolish

Pritesh Prabhuji,

Indologists do not necessarily have a strong case when they denounce traditions. Often times, their arguments are very weak. But, we should not forget that they are in a position to influence the society. They are the university professors and it is their writings that every child reads. So, we should systematically repudiate their statements if we are keen on establishing the rich ideals of Sanatana dharma. I hope you might have heard of a banker from Maharashtra by the name Shrikant Talageri. He systematically deconstructed Michael Witzel of Harvard university and in the process also showed how shaky other indologists from Oldenberg downwards have been. As a result, Witzel is at the receiving end on many forums. This has had tremendous effect in disproving Aryan invasion theory. While Witzel has not been capable of selling a single book, Talageri put up his book on the net for free and also sold it by thousands. The same with Koenraad Elst, David Frawley, K D Sethna and Jim Shafer. So, we have to create a systematic model for taking on these indologists, which I am sure we can. In that process we will learn a lot too. Ignoring them doesn't help.

Originally posted by Shvu:

According to one source I have, Krishna says it is impossible for him to summon that absolute power that delivered the BG once again and so he settles for something else.

Interesting. I have never heard this. What is the source of this argument?

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

The Lord states that we achieve that which we meditate upon. That is the destination we will arrive at. So if you are Christian, then when you pass away, you will go to Jesus as he is your Lord. And if you Hindu heaven will manifest to you in a specific manner as well. That’s how I read it.

I really pity the Moslems. What will they meditate upon? Where will they go? How sad?

A L Basham's argument # 2:

"Only chapters 1 and 2 are related to the context of Kurukshetra war. The remaining chapters are out of context. The moral quandary of Arjuna is directly answered with verse 38 of chapter 2. These 2 chapters pose the moral dilemma of whether to fight or not and Krishna gives a convincing answer in these 2 chapters. So, only these 2 chapters formed the original BG.

There is further evidence to this. In the Asvamedha parvan of Mahabharat, there is an Anu Gita. This describes events that happened long after Mahabharat. Here the Pandavas are ruling peacefully. Krishna visits them and Arjuna tells him that he has forgotten all that taught by Krishna in the battlefield and requests Him to repeat them. Krishna says that He can't repeat everything and adds "I already declared the highest Brahman to you". Then He gives a discourse that talks about Brahman, guna and Samkhya philosophy. Yet there is not one reference to Bhakti. Nor is there any mention of Krishna's divinity.

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."

[This message has been edited by karthik_v (edited 05-13-2002).]

Ram prabhu argues that time stopped while Krishna addressed Arjuna. J N Das prabhu argues that it didn't take more than 45 minutes or so for the entire conversation. Both could be possibilities. In either case we need exact references in support. I personally believe that it is possible to recite the Gita in less than an hour.

Assuming (for argument's sake) that time didn't stop, still there is reason to believe that the armies wouldn't have started the battle, keeping with dharma. Krishna and Arjuna were talking in the middle of the battlefield, between the 2 armies. Obviously, Arjuna was unwilling to start the war. So, one can argue that Bhisma, Drona etc., wouldn't have started the war against an unwilling opponent. This practice finds mention in other itihasas too. For example, when Rama injures Ravana, Ravana is in no mood to fight. Rama stops fighting as well and allows Ravana to go away. Even as late as 10th century CE, remnants of this dharma was practised in India. When Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Mohammad of Ghori [no, not the prophet], Ghori is demoralized. He stops fighting and is scared as a rabbit. But PRC lets him go magnanimously. Aristobulus recalls something very similar w.r.t. Alexander the [not so] great. When Alexander climbs the walls of the fortress to fight the Malis, the enemies pierce his breastplate and Alexander is badly injured. Malis stop fighting right away, though that enabled Alexander to get away.

So, it doesn't seem so remote when it comes to Kurukshetra war.

I Seattle, we recited BG in group once and it took 1 hour 40 minutes. Most of us didn't know Sanskrit. ne person who is conversant with Sanskrit said that he recites the whole BG once a week and it takes him just 1 hour.

Originaly posted by Karthik:I have presented only one argument so far. I will wait till tomorrow and others have nothing more to contribute to that argument, then I will present my second.

Avinashji responds:Nooooooooooooo. You can't present another argument now. You wrote that Dhristdyumna had not blew his conch shell. But, Gita says that he did. So, that argument is wrong.

I was referring to A L Basham's argument and not my response to that. When I said I will other arguments, I meant the other arguments of ALB.

I acknowledged that I was wrong about the blowing of conch shell after you pointed out. Perhaps, you missed my response.

Also, it will be better if we get back to the original subject of this thread I have presented only one argument so far. I will wait till tomorrow and others have nothing more to contribute to that argument, then I will present my second.

Originally posted by theist:

The horses also were thirsty but there was no water close by.So Arjuna took one arrow and invoking Varuna shot it into the ground.Thus he brought forth a beautiful lake filled with sweet water.Water birds saw the lake and collect in the sky above.

An unrelated question, but I would appreciate if anyone can give an explanation. In Rk veda, Indra is the master of rains. From this I presume that he controls Varuna as well. Then why is that all the prayers are made to Varuna if rains are needed and not to Indra?

Originally posted by Jagat:

It seems that every day there is a documentary on TV about Muslims. I turn on the radio -- on the local Catholic channel -- and I get an explanation of the five pillars of Islam. Last night, there was a program about Islam in the US on PBS. The CBC has been running stuff on Palestine wall-to-wall for months. TV5, the international French network, had a documentary on the Haj that they have already shown about three times over the last year.

 

Most of this publicity seems to be curious and neutral, rather than negative and sensational. There has never been so much information about Islam available, ever. And most of its positive!

It is called Wahhabi funds from Saudi Arabia, Jagat Prabhuji. How many journalists can resist the temptation of sponsorship by a rich Arab sheikh? How many media barons will let go an oppurtunity to strike a deal with a rich Arab oil rig owner?

I was reading up on late Prof.Basham's writings on Bhandarkar edition's work. This is what they did: They collected all the manuscripts available, in full or in part, from every corner of India, Nepal, Burma, Indonesia and Ceylon. Then they came up with a final edition after excluding every verse they thought had the slightest chance of having been interpolated. The Mahabharat they produced thus had 70,000 verses as compared to the maximum of about 100,000 verses. Basham himself admits that not all the remaining 30,000 verses were necessarily interpolated. This lends credence to the argument of J N Das that interpolations were fewer as compared to the original verses.

Let me also point out to some of the verses deleted by Bhandarkar. The verses that talked of Huns were deleted as it was felt that the Huns didn't come to India before 450 CE. I would call it over assuming. While the earliest recorded arrival ofHuns is 450 CE, one cannot rule out their having come before that. After all, Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization's seals were found in Sumeria and ancient Tamil nadu's seals were found in Rome, though there are no other epigraphic records.

Dear Jijaji,

I have a lot of respect for many of your posts. But your recent personal attacks on J N Das were a climbdown. When I met him 4 years ago, I was very amazed that a young American could sacrifice everything and work for the poorest children in Tamilnadu, without knowing one word in Tamil. That is not very easy to do. You will certainly agree with me that J N Das allows every kind of criticism. I have differed with him many times, but he never took offense.

You are knowledgeable and have a great sense of humour. You will also agree that it is not an easy job to run and moderate a web site, cook prasadam for poor children, teach them Bhagavad Gita, help with their studies all single-handedly as J N Das does. A person like him deserves a lot more credit than any of us has ever given.

I am sure that your future posts will be based more on philosophy than on personal attacks. That would be befitting your calibre.

Originally posted by Avinash:

Dear Karthik,

It is written in Gita that Bhisma blew his conchshell first. Then others blew their conch shells. It is written that all the five Pandavas and also Dhrstdyumna blew conch shells before Krsna commenced His teachings.

Thanks for correcting me Avinashji. Then this brings up an interesting question. After the conch shells were blown by both sides, why didn't the war start? Why did the armies wait till Krishna finished speaking? Can anyone eloborate on it?

Originally posted by Avinash:

Don't you think that a fact is a fact even if it is offensive?

It is. I mentioned that to show that Kambar's version varies only in nuances.

Originally posted by J N Das:

What position does Kamba take on the "maya-sita" found in some Puranas (i.e. that Sita was never kidnapped by Ravana, but an illusory sita was manifested by Agni Deva, and that was taken)?

This doesn't find a mention in Kamba Ramayana. If I remember correctly, this is not found in Valmiki's either. I think, this was first told by Madhvacarya. Both Valmiki and Kambar preceded Madhvacarya.

Originally posted by J N Das:

And one other question. Where does Vedanta Deshika quote from Kamba Ramayana, and to what extent?

I need to check on that. I am not sure whether it is Vedanta Desikar or Manavala Mamuni who quoted from Kambar. I read that on Bhakti List in a post by a very knowledgeable Sri Vaishnava. I will try to get the exact information.

Dear Shiva prabhuji,

It is not true that advaitins are anti-Bhakti. If you read the teachings of Kanchi mutt, you will realize that you are wrong. I showed you that Svetasvatara upanishad tells you the very opposite of SB. So, I am not for blindly accepting that Shiva is a demi god. Can you quote better references and establish that? Honestly you haven't convinced me that SP/GV/ISKCON are justified in attacking Shaivism/advaita while glorifying Christianity/Islam.