Jahnava Nitai Das

Though externally it looks quite trivial, in reality it is not such a small difference of opinion. Otherwise why have acharya's such as Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya spent so much effort debating the conclusions of advaita (absolute oneness with God)? The path of bhakti accepts the supreme position of Lord Krishna over the individual living entitiy; the jiva-atma is eternally inferior and subserviant to the paramatma. Only then does the process of surrender and bhakti become relevant. To deny the dependence of the jiva on Paramatma is to deny the opportunity of eternal bhakti to the Lord. Some schools of advaita go as far as to condemn the personal form of Lord Krishna as a product of maya. They conclude that when Brahman is covered by ignorance in the mode of goodness (sattva-guna) it becomes an avatara such as Krishna. Devotees of Lord Krishna can never accept such a concept, as they understand from the scriptures that Krishna is eternally situated in transcendence, beyond the gunas of maya. Krishna declares Himself to be the controller of the maya-shakti in the Gita (mayadhyakshena prakriti), and throughout the Gita He establishes His eternal supreme position. The path of bhakti, which according to the Bhagavatam is the eternal nature of the soul, cannot be followed sincerely without acknowledging the eternally supreme position of Lord Krishna and the eternal dependence of the Jiva Atma on Him. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-17-2002).]

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. If you have any doubt, read his commentary. Show me in his commentary where he says the Bhagavatam is interpolated, or show me where he says the Bhagavatam is not truth. Why would he waste his time commenting on every single word of the Bhagavatam, if it was just interpolation? There is no traditional basis to your argument. You want us to believe that the Bhagavatam is regarded merely as a useful reference as long as it doesn't contradict shruti, but these acharya's who have commented on it have only sung its unlimited glories. They do not bring up such statements, that the Bhagavatam could differ from shruti. 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.

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.

Maybe the words "sri bhagavan uvaca..."

A relevant post from the Bhakti List. I think this clearly shows the concept that Bhagavatam is a "Gaudiya" book as being baseless. By Bharat Asur Dear BhAgavatottama- While we are eagerly awaiting the arrival of Sri Krishna this year,Mani suggested I should give a short write-up about the various commentaries on Srimad Bhagavatham which has been the source book for so many Vaishnava Sampradayas in the past.In summarising the facts available,my main sources are Pandit Baldev Upadhyay's series of volumes on Bhagavata Darsan, and Sri N.Raghunathan's superb translation and notes on Srimad Bhagavatham. There is a saying in Sanskrit <vidyAvatAm BhAgavatE parIksha> -it is the touchstone of one's learning. Hence it has attracted a host of commentators through the centuries,belonging to all schools of Krishna worshippers. 1.SrIdhara swamI - "BhAvArtha-dIpikA" This is the oldest and most influential commentary available today,though he himself refers to an earlier commentary by ChitsukhAchArya.He was a Nrisimha upAsaka and advaitin.He also wrote commentaries on Sri VishNu PurANam and GItA.His philosophical leanings haven't prevented AchAryAs of other schools from praising his commentary.In fact excepting where they differ,most of them have simply repeated his words.Sri Chaitanya had great regard for him .It is narrated by Sri NAbhAdAs in his BhaktamAl,that SrIdhara wrote the commentary at the command of his guru ParamAnanda at KASI,and as a test it was placed before Lord BindumAdhava with other books,and after a 'prahara' the curtain was removed to find SrIdhara's work right on top of the other works. SrIdhara's period is considered to be 1300-1350 AD (VISISHTADVAITA COMMENTARIES) 2.SudarSana SUrI - "Suka-pakshIyam" This is a short commentary by Sri Sruta-prakASikAcharya. It was later elaborated by - 3.VIrarAghava - "BhAgavata-ChandrikA" He was the son of SrISailaguru belonging to SrIvatsa gotra and belonged to the 14th cent.This is a very detailed commentary where every single word of the original text is explained. (DVAITA COMMENTARY) 4.Vijayadhvaja - "Pada-RatnAvalI" The founder of Dvaita schoolSri Ananda TIrtha has written a work called "BhAgavatha-tAtparya-nirNaya" which is not a regular commentary.Hence his follower Vijayadhvaja wrote a full commentary in which he has acknowledged his debt to the works of Sri AnandatIrtha and another AchArya Vijaya- Tirtha(whose work is not extant).The text is conspicuous for its substantial additions,as well as variant readings. (VALLABHA SAMPRADAYA ) 5.VallabhAchArya - "SubodhinI" Sri Vallabha belongs to the SuddhAdvaita school.His commentary,excepting touching upon a few earlier Skandhas,is almost totally on the DaSama Skandha.The commentary is simple and totally devotional.Another AchArya of this school Giridhar MaharAj has also written a commentary which goes much deeper into the individual sectors and elaborates and supplements the earlier book. (NIMBARKA or HAMSA SAMPRADAYA) 6.SukadEvAchArya - "SiddhAnta-pradIpa" He was a follower of SrI NimbArka,the founder of the school,and his commentary is comprehensive,while others of the school have written commentaries on specific sections like RAsa-LIlA. (CHAITANYA SAMPRADAYA or GAUDIYA VAISHNAVISM) 7.SanAtana GOswAmI - "Brhad-vaishNava-tOshiNI" While sri Chaitanya considered SrIdhara's commentary as adequate,some of his followers wrote various commentaries,of which this is the oldest and considered the most authoritative.It however deals with the DaSama Skandha only. 8.JIva GOswAmI - "Krama-Sandarbha" He was the son of Roopa and nephew of SanAtana GoswAmI- who were the immediate disciples of Sri Chaitanya.He was a geat scholar and he wrote the commentary in seven sections,each called a "sandarbha",of which this was the seventh. 9.ViSvanAtha ChakravarthI - "SArArtha-DarSinI" He has written a simple commentary in which he has put together the gist of the commentaries of SrIdhara SwAmI,Prabhu Chaitanya and his guru. while he is generally in sympathy with the school sometimes he takes an independent stand. Out of the above main works,with the exception of Brhad-VaishNava-tOshiNI,the other eight were published together from VrndAvan in 1958.I have seen a copy in Madras Sanskrit college library. But it is not generally available. There were many other commentaries on SrImad BhAgavatham which are referred to here and there.For example JIva GOswAmI mentions works like,Hanumad-BhAshya, VAsanA-BhAshya,SambandhOkti,Vidvat-kAmadhEnu,Tattva- DipikA,BhAvArtha-DIpikA,Paramahamsa-PriyA and Suka-Hrdayam. There was a great devotional poet called SrIHari who was a brahmin belonging to KASyapa gOtra,and who lived on the banks of GOdAvarI.He wrote a poem of 5000 SlOkas as a commentary on the first half of DaSama Skandha.Called "Hari-bhakti-rasAyanam" its date is taken to be 1759 AD.While being a commentary it is also an independent imaginative work. To show that both these could be possible simultaneously let us see this example: As is well-known,while VasudEva carried the baby Krishna to Gokula on his head,the deep and roaring Yamuna suddenly became shallow to allow his passage. While narrating this incident the poet reasons within himself:why did she suddenly come down to the level of Vasudeva's throat or waist or knee at various places? Because she knew that the baby Krishna had already started wondering how He would be able have water-sports with the Gopis in the future if the river was so deep;and so in order to set His mind at rest she gave a preview of her ability to adapt herself to circumstances!- <AgAdhE jalE-syAh katham vAmbu-kElir mamA-grE vidhEyE-ti SankAm pramArshtum kvachi-jjAnu-daghnA kvachi-nnAbhi-daghnA kvachit-kanTha-daghnA cha sA kim tadAnIm ?> EmberumAnAr TiruvaDigaLE SaraNam!

This isn't true. One does not become detached simply because the body is no longer fit to enjoy. Your attachment will be greater. This is why regulation is essential from the young age, and sadhana is essential to purify the heart.

This isn't true at all. There are references to brahmanas from other areas such as Puri, etc., found through the Puranas as well. 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. The original Sridhara Swami had no connection with Puri Shankara Mutt. This is the usual indologists merging of multiple individuals into one. 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. 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. Aurobindo interprets such texts as the awakening of the Kundalini, which is in line with the yoga-darshana. So to you the Bhagavata Purana is a Gaudiya text? What more can be said. Supremacy of a text is irrelevant in this discussion. The scriptures give advice on dharma. One such scripture, the Bhagavata, has been cited advising one to engage in sex only for procreation. Your response is that it is a Gaudiya book. The commentators have all commented on the same text of Bhagavatam, some with one additional verse, some missing one or two verses. 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? It is applicable for everyone to try. 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? 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. Sex is negative, as it is the binding force to the material world. Renouncing it is what is done gradual. (i.e. we don't need to gradually understand the negativity of it, it factually is negative). Like all mundane activities, it can be dovetailed in the service of the Lord, by raising Krishna consciouss children, and thereby the sacrifice involved purifies us of many of the negative impressions on our consciousness (karma-vasanas). Karma-vasanas are the inclination for mundane activity (utayah karma-vasanah), thus without regulation and purification through sacrifice (and samskara) we are creating a very inauspicious future for ourselves. 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. There are no initiations in Shivananda Ashram. He simply instructed his followers to live a "divine life", which included sadhana, tapas, etc. Sadhus act for the benefit of other's. Their instructions are not so that they can get some material gain. 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. Some may be satisfied with a few rituals, once in awhile chanting gayatri (very, very rarely), doing a couple pada-pujas to the guru when he comes to town, etc., but there are other spiritual organizations whose aim is to transform society (and the individual) with the light of spiritual knowledge. Those who are ready to live the divine life will make sacrifices and by such offerings of their self, they will experience higher states of spiritual consciousness. Others may be content with performing punya-karma, attaining heaven, and just doing their "duty", which in reality just means going to the office and paying the bills. If you see someone hurting themself, destroying their future and burrying themselves in ignorance, if you sit and tolerate it silently, you are performing himsa to that soul. Saints such as Prabhupada, due to their compassion for us, told us directly that our so called religious life is just leading us to hell. Some won't be able to understand this. 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. At some point we will wake up and realize it is all for our own self interest.

In South India Radha Kalyanam is a very common festival.

That there are references to the 18 Puranas by name in various other Puranas is sufficient proof for the authenticity of the Bhagavatam. Srila Prabhupada answers this doubt in his purport to the first verse of Srimad Bhagavatam, quoting Sri Sridhara Swami, the original commentator of the Bhagavatam: "Some Mayavadi scholars argue that Srimad-Bhagavatam was not compiled by Sri Vyasadeva. And some of them suggest that this book is a modern creation written by someone named Vopadeva. In order to refute such meaningless arguments, Sri Sridhara Svami points out that there is reference to the Bhagavatam in many of the oldest Puranas. This first sloka of the Bhagavatam begins with the Gayatri mantra. There is reference to this in the Matsya Purana, which is the oldest Purana. In that Purana, it is said with reference to the Gayatri mantra in the Bhagavatam that there are many narrations of spiritual instructions beginning with the Gayatri mantra. And there is the history of Vrtrasura. Anyone who makes a gift of this great work on a full moon day attains to the highest perfection of life by returning to Godhead. There is reference to the Bhagavatam in other Puranas also, where it is clearly stated that this work was finished in twelve cantos, which include eighteen thousand slokas. In the Padma Purana also there is reference to the Bhagavatam in a conversation between Gautama and Maharaja Ambarisa. The king was advised therein to read regularly Srimad-Bhagavatam if he desired liberation from material bondage. Under the circumstances, there is no doubt about the authority of the Bhagavatam. Within the past five hundred years, many erudite scholars and acaryas like Jiva Gosvami, Sanatana Gosvami, Visvanatha Cakravarti, Vallabhacarya, and many other distinguished scholars even after the time of Lord Caitanya made elaborate commentaries on the Bhagavatam. And the serious student would do well to attempt to go through them to better relish the transcendental messages." None of these are contradictions. In one pastime Radha secretly married Lord Krishna, though she was already married to someone else. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-16-2002).]

Which, if we accept the Srimad Bhagavatam as a revealed scripture, means "under the guidance of the guru for procreation." 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. Ramanuja did not quote from Bhagavatam because Vishnu Purana establishes his school's prayojana-jnana better. The logic you follow on this point is faulty. How many commentaries on Vishnu Purana are there by Gaudiya acharyas? How many verses are even cited? Maybe a few, nothing much. Does this indicate that Gaudiya's do not accept Vishnu Purana? Certainly it does not mean this. But Srimad Bhagavatam establishes the prayojana-jnana of the Gaudiya school perfectly, and is thus focused on in that school. 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. 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. It is a great sin to misuse one's semen, for it not only affects us, but affects the lives of living entities waiting for their chance at birth. Thus when the Bhagavatam tells us to receive guidance from the guru, and when the Bhagavatam tells engage in sex for procreation, it is for our own welfare. 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. Again, the Bhagavatam does describe Krishna's intimate pastimes with the gopis; yet for us conditioned souls, it establishes surrender to the guru and sex for procreation as the regulations to follow. There is no contradiction in the teachings of the Puranas. The confusion comes when we want to imitate the Lord instead of following His instructions, or bhagavata-dharma. 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 immediate 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. 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. It has nothing to do with dogma or lack of reason, but rather it is imposing preconceived conceptions onto the scriptures. The fact that you are willing to reject the Bhagavatam because it doesn't confirm your stance is ample proof. First, we all know of the countless troubles and curses experienced by so many rishis of our Puranas. Though many were saintly and elevated, many were still conditioned souls subjected to the influence of their karmas. That some have done carnal things, yet still had been able to be purified through divine sanga is a credit to the path of self realization. To take them as our example to imitate is a great mistake, as we certainly do not possess the divine qualifications that they did. You are confused about the teachings of Patanjali. His yoga system begins with yama and niyama, the fourth step of which is brahmacharya: tatra ahimsa-satyasteya-brahmacharyaparigraha yamah (Yoga Sutras 2.30) "Yama consists of nonviolence, truthfulness, avoidance of theft, brahmacharya (celibacy), and nonpossessiveness." Swami Prabhavananda, of the Ramakrishna Mission comments on this verse: "...Sex is inseparable from attachment, attachment is an obstacle to spiritual knowledge." I quote this only to show that it is a fundamental teaching of Vedanta that material enjoyment leads one to bondage. Patanjali goes on to explain the evils of not following these five yamas: vitarka himsadayah krita-karitanumodita lobha-krodha-moha-purvaka mridu-madhyadhimatra duhkhajnananantaphala iti pratipaksha-bhavanam "The obstacles of yoga - such as acts of violence, untruth, theft, greed, and lust - may be directly created or indirectly caused or approved, they may be motivated by greed, anger or self-interest, they may be small or moderate or great, but they never cease to result in pain and ignorance. One should overcome distracting thoughts by remembering this." Thus for one's ultimate welfare, one should regulate these activities which bring one suffering and ignorance, for they destroy the path of yoga. Again, this is a fundamental principle. Further, the third niyama of Patanjali is tapas, or austerity, self-control and discipline: shauca-santosha-tapah-svadhyayeshvara-pranidhanani niyamah And of course, the fifth limb of yoga is pratyahara, withdrawing the senses from sense objects. These works need to be studied under the guidance of a guru and not as recreational reading. He establishes kama (lust) as the all-devouring sinful enemy of the soul. He states that lust is insatiable and cannot be extinguished, just as fire cannot be extinguished by pouring fuel on it. He has spoken quite clearly on the dangers of sex and all material enjoyment. He further establishes that one must become free from attachment, fear and anger to attain Him: vita-raga-bhaya-krodha man-maya mam upasritah. He states that those who are attached to bhoga and aishvarya cannot develop spiritual determination (vyavasayatmika-buddhi) which is essential for advancing in spiritual life. Certain teachings are so obviously true, that they don't require being taught. Krishna does not speak to Arjuna about the evils of child molestation, homosexuality, or poking people's eyes out with sharp sticks. Why? Because Arjuna is a civilized human and thus doesn't require such absurd teachings. The divine culture is already engrained in him. Saints such as Srila Prabhupada are just advising people, for their own welfare, to engage in sex for procreation. It really isn't a huge sacrifice or artificial supression. If we want to advance spiritually we should be willing to make at least the most insignificant sacrifices. Any less and there really is little point. Your arguments are weak and going in a tangent. And they should be encouraged to moved forward towards Krishna, by gradually offering everything as a sacrifice to Him, ultimatley including themselves. The paths of pravritti marga (the path of eternal bondage) and nivritti marga (the path of liberation) are certainly opposite and noncompatible. It is like trying to drink poison and amrita at the same time. Those who seriously want to attain Krishna in this life should be encouraged to gradually regulate and purify their life through disciplines and sadhana. Not artificial renunciation, but voluntary acceptance of gradual austerity for eventual purification. Which can be done through procreation. 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. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-16-2002).]

Or perhaps it is a fundamental concept found in every single Purana.

The verse is from Srimad Bhagavatam 7.12.11.

Best to stick to spiritual discussions, as opposed to any individuals real or perceived flaws.

It suggests nothing of the sort. The sex life of the material world is a perverted reflection of the spiritual activities of Lord Krishna. It is about as comparable in quality as the soul to matter. How many ancient texts hold freedom from lust, anger and greed as their fundamental themes? The entire Bhagavad Gita revolves around these concepts, lust being the all-devouring enemy of the soul. To take a few elevated passages of the Lord's intimate pastimes with his devotees, which are completely spiritual, and then to justify our own mundane sex life (in a universal manner) just doesn't fit. Its like claiming 2 plus 2 from now on equals minus three. There is no foundation for such a claim. The Bhagavatam on the other hand states a grihastha may approach his wife in season under the order of the guru. This is the same principle of regulation that Srila Prabhupada taught. It is not enough that one is married, but that one must be acting under the guidance of a liberated soul, who can perfectly advise us, keeping our own eternal self interest in mind.

The following verse and commentary by Srila Prabhupada explain the real meaning of dharmaviruddho bhutesu kamo 'smi bharatarsabha. It also establishes that a grihastha should approach his wife at the proper time for procreation. etat sarvam grhasthasya samamnatam yater api guru-vrttir vikalpena grhasthasyartu-gaminah "All the rules and regulations apply equally to the householder and the sannyasi, the member of the renounced order of life. The grhastha, however, is given permission by the spiritual master to indulge in sex during the period favorable for procreation." Prabhupada's Commentary: It is sometimes misunderstood that a grhastha, a householder, is permitted to indulge in sex at any time. This is a wrong conception of grhastha life. In spiritual life, whether one is a grhastha, vanaprastha, sannyasi or brahmacari, everyone is under the control of the spiritual master. For brahmacaris and sannyasis there are strong restrictions on sexual indulgence. Similarly, there are strong restrictions for grhasthas. Grhasthas should indulge in sex life only in accordance with the order of the guru. Therefore it is mentioned here that one must follow the orders of the spiritual master (guru-vrttir vikalpena). When the spiritual master orders, the grhastha may accept sex life. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (7.11). Dharmaviruddho bhutesu kamo 'smi: indulgence in sex life without disobedience to the religious rules and regulations constitutes a religious principle. The grhastha is allowed to indulge in sex life during the period favorable for procreation and in accordance with the spiritual master's order. If the spiritual master's orders allow a grhastha to engage in sex life at a particular time, then the grhastha may do so; otherwise, if the spiritual master orders against it, the grhastha should abstain. The grhastha must obtain permission from the spiritual master to observe the ritualistic ceremony of garbhadhana-samskara. Then he may approach his wife to beget children, otherwise not. A brahmana generally remains a brahmacari throughout his entire life, but although some brahmanas become grhasthas and indulge in sex life, they do so under the complete control of the spiritual master. The ksatriya is allowed to marry more than one wife, but this also must be in accordance with the instructions of the spiritual master. It is not that because one is a grhastha he may marry as many times as he likes and indulge in sex life as he likes. This is not spiritual life. In spiritual life, one must conduct one's whole life under the guidance of the guru. Only one who executes his spiritual life under the direction of the spiritual master can achieve the mercy of Krsna. Yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasadah. If one desires to advance in spiritual life but he acts whimsically, not following the orders of the spiritual master, he has no shelter. Yasyaprasadan na gatih kuto 'pi. Without the spiritual master's order, even the grhastha should not indulge in sex life.

In regards to touch being the source of all sufferings, the Bhagavatam establishes a similar view: yan maithunadi-grihamedhi-sukham hi tuccham kanduyanena karayor iva duhkha-duhkham tripyanti neha kripana bahu-duhkha-bhajah kandutivan manasijam vishaheta dhirah "Sex life is compared to the rubbing of two hands to relieve an itch. Grhamedhis, so-called grhasthas who have no spiritual knowledge, think that this itching is the greatest platform of happiness, although actually it is a source of distress. The kripanas, the fools who are just the opposite of brahmanas, are not satisfied by repeated sensuous enjoyment. Those who are dhira, however, who are sober and who tolerate this itching, are not subjected to the sufferings of fools and rascals."

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."

The Bhagavatam instructs us further on this matter: nayam deho deha-bhajam nr-loke kastan kaman arhate vid-bhujam ye tapo divyam putraka yena sattvam suddhyed yasmad brahma-saukhyam tv anantam “My dear sons, there is no reason to labor very hard for sense pleasure while in this human form of life; such pleasures are available to the stool-eaters [hogs]. Rather, you should undergo penances in this life by which your existence will be purified, and as a result you will be able to enjoy unlimited transcendental bliss.” Human life is meant for tapas, not for sense enjoyment.

ye hi samsparsha-ja bhoga duhkha-yonaya eva te ady-antavantah kaunteya na teshu ramate budhah "An intelligent person does not take part in the sources of misery, which are due to contact with the material senses. O son of Kunti, such pleasures have a beginning and an end, and so the wise man does not delight in them." This verse of the Gita is very significant. It explains that all our sufferings are due to "touch". Sense pleasure is the source of suffering in the material world. Those who are wise prefer to focus their consciousness towards Krishna, rather than become entangled in more suffering through sense enjoyment. Again, I make the point that just by marriage sex does not magically become something divine. It is still the same material sense enjoyment that leads one to further suffering. These are really fundamental principles of Vedanta, so I don't understand how they are difficult to accept.

[Note: If you use double spaces between paragraphs it will make it easier for others to read.]

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 In the beginning it has been said that you make your determination that "In this life I shall execute Krsna consciousness in such a way that after leaving this body I enter into the spiritual world and go directly to Goloka Vrndavana, Krsnaloka." This is called vyavasayatmika buddhih. Niscayatmika means determination. But He says that persons who are attached, bhoga, material enjoyment, aisvarya, material opulence: bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam [bg. 2.44]. Those who are too much attached to material enjoyment and material sense gratification, material opulence, tayapahrta-cetasam, and those who have become bewildered or mad after it, tayapahrta-cetasam, vyavasayatmika buddhih, they cannot have such determination. They will fail to have such determination. Therefore, according to Vedic civilization, there is voluntary renunciation. So this renunciation is recommended. If we simply remain in material opulence and enjoyment, that will be our disqualification for entering into the kingdom of God. Too much attachment, too much increasing of material civilization means that next life is very much dark. Bhogaisvarya. God. Too much attachment, too much increasing of material civilization means that next life is very much dark. Bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam [bg. 2.44]. Just like the other day I was explaining, raja-putra ciram jiva. "Oh, the son of royal order, you live forever. Because you do not know, next life is very dark for you. Because you do not cultivate any Krsna consciousness. You have got money, and you are enjoying sense enjoyment, and as soon as this body will be finished, no more your control. Then you are completely under the control of material nature, and you'll have to accept a body as you have done in this life, because this life is preparation for the next life."

Please see this article: "Sex in the spiritual world." http://www.indiadivine.com/tattva11.htm

iha yasya harer dasye karmana manasa gira nikhilasv apy avasthasu jivan-mukta sa ucyate "Anyone who, by his actions, mind and words, lives only for the transcendental loving service of the Lord, is called a liberated soul, even though he may appear to be in a condition of material existence."

Unfortunately today they seem to be imbibing the Hindi TV serials on Star Plus more than anything from the Rig Veda.

This section of Padma Purana is known as Gita Mahatmya, and in goes into great deal explaining the power and potency of each chapter of the Gita (thus it has at least 18 chapters, plus perhaps some general descriptions). It was translated and published in English by some devotee of ISKCON, but I don't have a copy on hand. The stories are very nice (it explains a story for each chapter, where someone did sadhana with that chapter of Gita, and the result).