Do Victorian Morals Apply?

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Recently, in another thread, a God-Uncle of mine criticized another God-Uncle of mine for marrying a woman half his age.

 

Isn't this application of Victorian/Puritan morals to Gaudiya Vaishnavism akin to the Victorian scholars referring to the Lord Sri Krishna as a "debauchee" for His amourous pastimes?

 

Do the Vaishnavas not worship a (Supreme) Person Who is considered to be above all standards of morality?

 

Before you say, "yeah, but He's the Supreme Lord", do the Vaishnavas not also worship "avadhutas", a class of person who is considered to be beyond all moral strictures?

 

Aren't our judgments reflective of a mental pollution (and, in many cases, envy)?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Recently, in another thread, a God-Uncle of mine criticized another God-Uncle of mine for marrying a woman half his age.

 

Isn't this application of Victorian/Puritan morals to Gaudiya Vaishnavism akin to the Victorian scholars referring to the Lord Sri Krishna as a "debauchee" for His amourous pastimes?

 

 

Without a doubt the Vedic morality was quite a bit less strict then what we could call "the morality of our movement", or the morality that Srila Prabhupada introduced.

 

As to question on hand - I dont think it is so much of a moral issue, but rather a practical one. Such a large age difference is usually not very good for a relationship of marriage, especially in our times. Perhaps in this particular case it is different, but as a general rule I find it to be true.

 

One could ask: Is this action conducive to my spiritual development? And that is perhaps the true standart of morality. In this particular case the ansewer to this question is most likely a "No".

[Beggar 0]

Whether or not my statements reveal my personal envy of others is a separate issue than the philosophical (siddhantic) issues that you have raised. First here's one factual issue:

 

 

Isn't this application of Victorian/Puritan morals to Gaudiya Vaishnavism akin to the Victorian scholars referring to the Lord Sri Krishna as a "debauchee" for His amourous pastimes?

By dancing in the dead of night with others wives Krishna also violated Vedic injunctions and was later criticized for by some of the asuric kings that He fought opposed and fought in His later lilas. This illustrates that criticism of His behavior did not begin in the Victorian era.

 

Now as far as siddhantic issues are concerned, I believe that you have revealed your own lack of understanding in your post. Krishna and Srimati Radharani are non-different, sakti and saktiman. The gopis are expansions of Srimati Radharani and they are therefore expansions of Krishna's sakti. It is said in the Vedic aphorism, "the Lord was one and became many". So for His own enjoyment Sri Krishna expanded Himself into gopis and from that absolute viewpoint dance with Himself. Can you say the same thing about any jiva soul, especially a mundane personality?

 

As far as the avadhuta issue is concerned we need not look any further than the relationship of Srila Saraswati Thakur, his disciples and Srila Vamsi das Babaji (who was considered an avaduhuta). Saraswati Thakur originally forbade his young disciples to associated with Babaji Maharaj but eventually allowed some of his disciples to get Babaji Maharaj's association. So who was a qualified "avadhuta" and how to associate with him was given by the guru himself. If you think that Nara Narayana Prabhu is an avadhuta then why not ask your guru about this? First I think you should show him some of the terrible rabid criticisms that Nara Narayana has published against Srila Sridhar Maharaj. Of course there is no reason to actually waste your guru's time with this, because the answer is quite clear.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Thanks for your answers, Prabhus.

 

It seems to me that morality is inescapable in this relative plane. That said, it's best for us not to judge anybody else, but, as Kulapavana Prabhu says, consider what's best for us in our own devotional lives.

 

Perhaps I let my frustration with cbrahma get the best of me in making a somewhat sincere (and somewhat flippant) recommendation to him as to whom he might approach for some guidance.

 

In any case, I understand that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati have written on topics of morality and transcendence. Perhaps, one day, I can gain some deeper understanding of these topics from their holy pens.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

It seems to me that morality is inescapable in this relative plane.

 

It is tempting to apply our own vision of morality on others. Some elements of morality are pretty much universal and not relative (like the do not steal, do not kill, do not sleep with other people's wives) while other principles are highly debatable and very much relative.

 

We should employ some basic criteria to morality, such as: "does it harm or or negatively affect other people?does it harm me?"

 

A classic example of relative morality is prostitution. In Manu-samhita prostitution is not a crime. It is considered a part of social fabric, a safety valve of sorts. Without it some men will bother other people's wives or seduce unmarried girls. Conversly, without it some women may not be faithful in their marriage. Yet today prostitution is seen as a crime or at least an immoral behavior.

 

Morality is inescapable because we are not alone. We live in a society and every society requires structure and rules of morality are part of that structure.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Thanks, Kula-ji. I suppose what irks me is when somebody posits (as some rationalist atheists with whom I've had online discussion do) that there is some sort of absolute morality which is universally applicable. As I've argued with the atheists, yes, murder is universally wrong, because *that's how murder is defined*. However, I point out, the *definition* of what constitutes murder is *not* universal. Some might consider killing a cow or capital punishment to be murder while others might not.

 

 

By dancing in the dead of night with others wives Krishna also violated Vedic injunctions and was later criticized for by some of the asuric kings that He fought opposed and fought in His later lilas. This illustrates that criticism of His behavior did not begin in the Victorian era.

That's a good point. However, I bring up Victorian/Puritan morality because, at least for those of us in the US (or the West, in general (though less-so in France, I understand ), it is that system of morality into which we are conditioned from an early age by our culture (movies, books, even news accounts of events). It tends to be the "baggage" which most of us bring to our understanding of the Krishna Conception.

[Kulapavana 0]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Beggar

By dancing in the dead of night with others wives Krishna also violated Vedic injunctions and was later criticized for by some of the asuric kings that He fought opposed and fought in His later lilas. This illustrates that criticism of His behavior did not begin in the Victorian era.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

This is actually far more interesting then meets the eye. Even some Vaishnavas are somewhat embarassed by Krsna's activities and there is a whole range of perspectives and explanations to those pastimes.

 

The Supreme Spirit stealing us (individual minute spirits) away from our worldly cares and obligations... what can be more beautiful, romantic, and innocent than that?

 

Food for thought

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

The Supreme Spirit stealing us (individual minute spirits) away from our worldly cares and obligations... what can be more beautiful, romantic, and innocent than that?

 

Food for thought

Indeed, when we are truly captivated, all moral considerations disappear. We return to the Eden-like "state of grace" in which we have no knowledge of so-called "good and evil", and our only interest is in pleasing The Beloved.

[gHari 0]

Women make up their minds. It's hard to say "no". I stay away.