Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Namaste, Do any of the Hindu religions have a sacred place for romance and relationships like Judaism, Shinto, and Confusianism do? ~Vayu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Realize Hari. Romance with Hari only publicly allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Maha-maya is the place for romance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 From the introduction to Gita Govinda. This is by Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur. <blockquote>The sexual principle is a misunderstood symbol of Reality. It can no more be banished from our consciousness than consciousness itself. The male and female forms are also not the sole and distinctive possessions of this world. There is Reality behind them as well. The soul has a body which is symbolized by the female form and which is absolutely free from any unwholesome material association. "The ascetic’s repugnance to the female form prevents an unprejudiced examination of the female sex that is a necessary factor of our conception of amorous love. This amorous love is the highest subject of human poetry and the most powerful factor in all human activities. Its worthlessness is not established by refusing to recognize it as a part of our nature. It would be much more to the purpose to try to understand what it really is. The Srimad-Bhagavatam is the only book that answers this all-important question. "The worship of Sri Radha-Krsna is held by some modern thinkers to be dangerous, and even immoral. They apparently take exception to the erotic element, which is the prominent aspect of the highest worship of Sri Radha-Krsna. "Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu teaches us that it is obligatory for everyone to pay homage to spiritual amour that characterizes the highest service of the Divine Person. This is the central topic of Srimad-Bhagavatam, which deals with the transcendental service of the Personal Absolute. "Spiritual amour is the highest service to Divinity in His most complete manifestation. The real Nature of Divine Personality can never be fully understood by those who are unable to appreciate the pre-eminent excellence of His service by amorous love. "…The Personality of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is identical with and yet distinct from Sri Krsna. The Activities of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu are, therefore, also identical with and yet distinct from the Amorous Pastimes of Sri Krsna. The Activities of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu appear in the form capable of being received by the conditioned soul without any chance of muddling by his conditioned judgment. "The perfect chant of the Name of Krsna is available to all souls, and it is identical with the amorous service of the spiritual milkmaids of Vraja. This is the sum and substance of the teachings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Conversely, those who do not perform the congregational chant of the name of Krsna in the manner that is free from offence are not in a position to realize the nature of Divine amour. Those who miss such realization remain subject to the abject slavery of mundane lust. "Sri Radhika is not specifically mentioned in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. But in the description of the Circular Amorous Dance, the rasa pastimes, Sri Krsna is represented as leaving the circle of the dancing milkmaids in the company of a female who is more favored than all the rest. The milkmaids who were thus abruptly abandoned in the very midst of the dance praised the genuine devotion of the unnamed female who could induce Sri Krsna to prefer Her sole company to the combined attractions of all the others. "But although the Srimad-Bhagavatam mentions the above incident, the subject is not further developed in that work. This has been explained by the Gosvamis of Vrndavana, the apostles of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, as due to a deliberate resolve on the part of Sri Sukadeva, who is the narrator of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, to avoid disclosing to his miscellaneous audience the ‘hidden matters’ of the scriptures. The ‘hidden matters’ can only be known by the special grace of Sri Krsna and not otherwise. They are not to be divulged to all persons indiscriminately. "This explanation offered by the Gosvamis is not opposed to the open treatment of the same subject by Sri Jayadeva Gosvami and other writers. In spite of the Sri Gita-govinda and its companion works, the subject of the relationship of Sri Radhika to Sri Krsna remains shrouded in impenetrable mystery. No language can convey to the lay reader anything but a misleading idea of the nature of the subject on which Sri Sukadeva maintained such discreet silence. This result is hailed with unmistakable joy by Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami, author of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. Kaviraja Gosvami pertinently observes that no joy can excel that of the narrator of the hidden subject when he realizes that unqualified persons are wholly and automatically barred from all knowledge of the subject. "Sri Sukadeva’s hesitation to divulge the secrets of the Vedas is well founded. The conduct of Sri Jayadeva Gosvami in speaking without reserve is equally in order, if we remember that his book cannot be understood at all by those who are lacking in the highest spiritual culture.</blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Yes, tantric hinduism allows a sacred place for romance. Sadly, some modern Hindus, cut off from the ancient wisdom of Tantra, have denounced the sexual mysteries, and the mystical Union of Shiva and Shakti, which takes places on all levels of being. Yet as you know this mystical romance is known to the Jewish mystics, who celebrate sacred sexuality. Judaism makes romance a part of ones spiritual life. Infact it said during sexual union with one's wife, the Shekinah (presence and power) of God hovers over the bed. This is why Kabbalists do not practice celibacy, but encourage one to get married. In marriage they can develop the spiritual union that is aquired when male and females come together as One flesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 You can not romance with Moha Maya who is Hari Himself until you realize Hari. So realize thyself. Find that you are iamge of Hari first then you will find all sources of enjoyment within Hari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 A marriage without any romance more than often ends in divorce. A husband should treat their wife with flowers from time to time and anniversay gifts, etc. The wife will appreciate it, and it will show you care about your relationship. Also, regular lovemaking is an important part of the One flesh union of husband and life. The Kama Sutra did not come from India, because Indians were sexually naive. It's obvious that before the British invaders, and their prudish Victorian morality, sex was understood by the indians to be a natural and healthy part of marriage life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Marriage is nothing but union of Body and Soul. I am your body You are my soul You are my body I am your soul Who is I? and who is you? what is I and i? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Saraswati Thakur was by no means recommending marriage, what to speak of romance in this world. Romance is for radha-krsna, of which only the perverted form is found here. Saraswati at times mentioned the need for an understanding of the nature of krsna's affairs with the gopis. Especially in the face of the faults found then by the europeans with krsna and his transcendental love life, which they perceived as mundane romance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 There is real romantic love in this world. There are couples who have been married for 50 yrs, who truly love each other and couldn't imagine being with anyone else. It's not like all Jews and Shintos are Romeos, and all Hindus are these unromantic duds, who have no romantic love for their wives and think sex is for procreation only. The Vedic religion is not anti-romance. Kama is a legitimate part of life for the householder. The original poster asked "Do any of the Hindu religions have a sacred place for romance and relationships and the answer is yes. There are Hindu sects that do have a sacred place for married life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Kinda hard to beat the story of Nala and Damayanti, which you'll find in the Mahabharata. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Saraswati Thakur was by no means recommending marriage, what to speak of romance in this world. Romance is for radha-krsna, of which only the perverted form is found here. Saraswati at times mentioned the need for an understanding of the nature of krsna's affairs with the gopis. Especially in the face of the faults found then by the europeans with krsna and his transcendental love life, which they perceived as mundane romance. It is very unfortunate that certain organizations are propagating the myth that sexual union other than for procreating is a sin. This is a huge internal-sin in itself. Love is exchanged between these ontological categories: Bhagawan <--> Bhagawan (e.g., Radha-Krishna, Candravali-Krishna, etc...) Bhagawan <--> Jiva (e.g., bhakti-yoga) Jiva <--> Jiva (conjugal union, parenting, friendship, etc...) If Krishna doesn't want one jiva to love another jiva then there wouldn't be infinite jivas in this universe obviously! However, imitating Krishna by trying to have many sexual relationships out of lust is obviously sinning. But within a conjugal relationship it is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Hindu sects yes, but please don't confuse. Saraswati's is not Hindu religion. Saraswati explained that unfortunately for those who can't imagine living with anyone else, there will be a time of inevitable depature. He was extremely compassionate pointing out the foolishness of romantic human relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Attachment is not love. There are inifinite jivas in this world precisely because of lack of love for krsna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Hindu sects yes, but please don't confuse. Saraswati's is not Hindu religion. Saraswati explained that unfortunately for those who can't imagine living with anyone else, there will be a time of inevitable depature. He was extremely compassionate pointing out the foolishness of romantic human relations. The original poster asked about any Hindu sects, he did not ask just what Gaudiya views were. There is no foolishness in romantic human relations, provided they are within a healthy marriage relationship. Would you rather people were in a loveless marriage than a marriage where the couple is in love? Do you believe the sexual act is to be nothing more than mechinical babymaking? if so, why have sex at all? women should just be artifically inseminated, if sex is nothing more than to get pregnant, and the sex act is just a nasty act that one must endure to get pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Other than devotionaly related, human relations are about usage. Sin is in the exploitation involved. This is the gaudiya view indeed and it was brought up because Saraswati Thakur was extensively quoted. Again, his is not a hindu sect. There is no real love in human relations. Devastating, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 There is no real love in human relations. Devastating, but true. Tell that to the mother who jumps infront of a train to save her little boy on the track. Or the husband who has watched his wife slowly die of cancer, and had his heart torn out in the process. There is love in human relations, it may not always be perfect and it may get distorted by the gunas, but to say there is no sattvic love that shines through the human heart, is just wrong. Perhaps if you didn't shut your heart off to human love, you'd feel it more. Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself. He would not have said that if human love were impossible. Buddha taught us to develop a heart of compassion for all sentient beings. He would not have taught that if it were not possible. Despite the negatives in this world, there is a place of softness and love in every heart, that can be nurtured and experienced, if we open ourselves up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 The zenith of compassion is to end the cause of suffering. Wake up and understand the futility of cultivating relationships in this world. The pain outwheights the joy tremendously. Its compared to a prison. Or a dark well. Free yourself. And don't mislead others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 It is very unfortunate that certain organizations are propagating the myth that sexual union other than for procreating is a sin. This is a huge internal-sin in itself. Love is exchanged between these ontological categories: Bhagawan <--> Bhagawan (e.g., Radha-Krishna, Candravali-Krishna, etc...) Bhagawan <--> Jiva (e.g., bhakti-yoga) Jiva <--> Jiva (conjugal union, parenting, friendship, etc...) If Krishna doesn't want one jiva to love another jiva then there wouldn't be infinite jivas in this universe obviously! However, imitating Krishna by trying to have many sexual relationships out of lust is obviously sinning. But within a conjugal relationship it is perfect. So these gurus are preaching "huge internal sin" with their sex "myths"? Is this just a personal opinion or should we reference some particular sastric conclusions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kripamoya Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 If I am not mistaken, the topic of this thread is "romance". If somebody doesn't believe in it and has a problem with it, then why don't they start a topic called "atmarama" and espouse their "I am an island" conceptions there instead of spoiling the topic about romance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 ROMANCE: Water the root of the plant, then the flower and all the leaves will be nourished perfectly. Pouring water on the flower or the leaves is meaningless. So it is with wife and family. Love God, then all other relationships will be perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Sex is not for procreation only - it is also for emotional bonding between husband and wife. In marriage, we become One Flesh, and the marriage bed is sacred. If sex were for procreation only, this would mean married couples who can't have children for fertility reasons can't have normal marriage relations. They would never be able to consumate their marriage. An absurdity. Stating sex is just for baby-making, makes sex some lifeless, mechanical act, with no love involved. I don't know anyone who goes about getting intimate with their wife, with such a clinical attitude. To make married couples try to feel shameful for engaging in normal sexual relations, is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 The zenith of compassion is to end the cause of suffering. Wake up and understand the futility of cultivating relationships in this world. The pain outwheights the joy tremendously. Its compared to a prison. Or a dark well. Free yourself. And don't mislead others. Do you cultivate a relationship with your parents? with your wife? or husband? what about your children? If you believe it's wong to cultivate a relationship with your spouse or children, please never get married or have kids. Cultivating relationships is a part of a normal family. Dysfunctional families do not cultivate relationships, and the kids grow up with all kinds of problems because they were never properly loved and care for by their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kripamoya Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Sex is not for procreation only - it is also for emotional bonding between husband and wife. In marriage, we become One Flesh, and the marriage bed is sacred. If sex were for procreation only, this would mean married couples who can't have children for fertility reasons can't have normal marriage relations. They would never be able to consumate their marriage. An absurdity. Stating sex is just for baby-making, makes sex some lifeless, mechanical act, with no love involved. I don't know anyone who goes about getting intimate with their wife, with such a clinical attitude. To make married couples try to feel shameful for engaging in normal sexual relations, is wrong. But, these things pretty much go unspoken. Srila Prabhupada said that if a man is satisfied with his wife then there will be no need of prostitutes in society. When speaking of religious concepts, the great gurus always speak of the highest standard. Whether they believed that the masses were actually following those standards in the privacy of their own homes is something else. Romance has to run it's course for better or worse. sometimes it works - sometimes it doesn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 The Srimad-Bhagavatam sanskrit seems quite explicit in verse 11.5.13: http://vedabase.net/sb/11/5/13/en regarding the sex myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts