Guest guest Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 This isn't specifically related to the Goddess (or maybe it is?) but since everyone here has such great insight, I thought I'd put the question out there. There are many contradictions in Hinduism, which is one of his great assets (in that it fosters openness and critical thought), but these contradictions are also a great source of confusion sometimes. For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. At the same time, we have the oldest 'manual' in the world that deals with sex as pleasure. So, is this 'wrong' in Hinduism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 If your last paragraph refers to the Kama Sutra, I think I understand where you are trying to go with that, but you've got a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison. In my understanding, the Kama Sutra isn't a Hindu religious text, but a how-to book compiled in approximately the second century C.E. So perhaps you could contrast Yogananda's (1893-1952) teachings with those of other contemporary teachers. However, I'm not sure even that will get you where you are trying to go; there is no one authoritative voice for Hinduism, and so no single " Hindu " view on sexuality. As food for thought: From -- http://gurujiamrita.tripod.com/KAMAKHYA_TOLD_AMRITA.htm Kamakhya told Amrita: " In the olden days enjoying sex was a proper aim of life and so Kama was sacred. Kama was the God of Love, same as Siva, with Rati, myself, happiness of sexual union, being his wife. Use of erotic rituals used to be performed to pleasure me. [...] This method of worship is available to every one. It is the easy path to me. My name means sex desire. I am the source of all life. " [....] I am life in every one, not only the elite. I love fun, I am very sexual [....] I am in everyone as erotic desire. I am accessible to everyone who has passion for sex. [....] " , " sd " <salharmonica wrote: > > For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. > > At the same time, we have the oldest 'manual' in the world that deals with sex as pleasure. So, is this 'wrong' in Hinduism? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 It all depends on where one is coming from. Chandogya Upanisad praises the man who limits his sexual intercourse and procreates with every sexual act. In Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, Soma is equated with semen, therefore wasting semen is considered like wasting ambrosia. Chandogya Upanisad equates the sexual act with the Vedic sacrifice itself, elevating it to very sacred status. The Vedantic view is, generally speaking, that sexual energy is destructive, and is generally about denial of the body as part of the illusion that separates us from God. The Tantric view, however, is varied on the subject, but generally sees the body as part of the manifestation of God and therefore a tool to be used rather than renounced (again, it depends utterly on the tradition, as this view can vary wildly). The concept of maithuna also often has nothing to do with sex, and can often refer to a concept rather than an act, with the act being used as clever subterfuge. But brahmacarya is even interpreted varying ways in the Vedas and Upanisads - either as total celibacy, or as sexual activity only with one's spouse at certain times of day (so, a kind of control that precludes multiple sex partners and indulging the sexual impulse at any time), and in that sense the status is conferred to both spouses. So brahmacarya does not necessarily preclude sex (though this may be argued against passionately by renunciants). Some of the Tantras go so far as to say that brahmacaris will never attain liberation, and that celibacy and renunciation in general is a terrible fallacy. So as you can see, there are many differing views, enough to go around for any perspective! Generally speaking sexual energy is seen as a powerful force that can be used for self liberation, whether through denial or direction. But it has been exploited, certainly, by those who want to attract large numbers of devotees who desire self-indulgence without having to bother with actual self-mastery. But I agree, there is no single " Hindu " view on anything. Just about everything is debatable, which is part of the tradition itself. jai MAA kamakhya -kulasundari p.s. - I just saw msbauju's quote of Amritananda re: Kamakhya. This is his own revelation of Kamakhya and as I'm not a devotee of Amritananda it may go without saying that his interpretation is somewhat different than my own understanding. -- Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir www.kamakhyamandir.org On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM, sd <salharmonica wrote: > > > This isn't specifically related to the Goddess (or maybe it is?) but since > everyone here has such great insight, I thought I'd put the question out > there. There are many contradictions in Hinduism, which is one of his great > assets (in that it fosters openness and critical thought), but these > contradictions are also a great source of confusion sometimes. > > For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I > understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously > ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT > only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to > engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. > > At the same time, we have the oldest 'manual' in the world that deals with > sex as pleasure. So, is this 'wrong' in Hinduism? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Here is an interesting article on the idea of brahmacarya, written by a sannyasin (I don't know who the sannyasin is who wrote this, but I found the article to be interesting, as it gives a variety of perspectives) http://soulcurrymagazine.com/sc/sex-brahmacharya-understand-it.html On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Kulasundari Devi < sundari wrote: > It all depends on where one is coming from. > Chandogya Upanisad praises the man who limits his sexual intercourse and > procreates with every sexual act. In Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, Soma is equated > with semen, therefore wasting semen is considered like wasting ambrosia. > Chandogya Upanisad equates the sexual act with the Vedic sacrifice itself, > elevating it to very sacred status. > > The Vedantic view is, generally speaking, that sexual energy is > destructive, and is generally about denial of the body as part of the > illusion that separates us from God. The Tantric view, however, is varied on > the subject, but generally sees the body as part of the manifestation of God > and therefore a tool to be used rather than renounced (again, it depends > utterly on the tradition, as this view can vary wildly). The concept of > maithuna also often has nothing to do with sex, and can often refer to a > concept rather than an act, with the act being used as clever subterfuge. > > But brahmacarya is even interpreted varying ways in the Vedas and Upanisads > - either as total celibacy, or as sexual activity only with one's spouse at > certain times of day (so, a kind of control that precludes multiple sex > partners and indulging the sexual impulse at any time), and in that sense > the status is conferred to both spouses. So brahmacarya does not necessarily > preclude sex (though this may be argued against passionately by > renunciants). Some of the Tantras go so far as to say that brahmacaris will > never attain liberation, and that celibacy and renunciation in general is a > terrible fallacy. So as you can see, there are many differing views, enough > to go around for any perspective! > > Generally speaking sexual energy is seen as a powerful force that can be > used for self liberation, whether through denial or direction. But it has > been exploited, certainly, by those who want to attract large numbers of > devotees who desire self-indulgence without having to bother with actual > self-mastery. > > But I agree, there is no single " Hindu " view on anything. Just about > everything is debatable, which is part of the tradition itself. > > jai MAA kamakhya > -kulasundari > > > p.s. - I just saw msbauju's quote of Amritananda re: Kamakhya. This is his > own revelation of Kamakhya and as I'm not a devotee of Amritananda it may go > without saying that his interpretation is somewhat different than my own > understanding. > > -- > > Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir > www.kamakhyamandir.org > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM, sd <salharmonica wrote: > >> >> >> This isn't specifically related to the Goddess (or maybe it is?) but since >> everyone here has such great insight, I thought I'd put the question out >> there. There are many contradictions in Hinduism, which is one of his great >> assets (in that it fosters openness and critical thought), but these >> contradictions are also a great source of confusion sometimes. >> >> For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I >> understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously >> ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT >> only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to >> engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. >> >> At the same time, we have the oldest 'manual' in the world that deals with >> sex as pleasure. So, is this 'wrong' in Hinduism? >> >> >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 With all due respect, most people (especially men) need a relationship. Most of us need a partner; those rare souls who have no interest in families or sex are'nt trying to avoid it. It's similar to those who are avoiding alcohol because they are alcoholics, and those who just dont like to drink. If you want to have sex, try being as unselfish a lover as possible. Consider how denying desires can lead to frustration and anger; will that make us more spiritual? ________________________________ sd <salharmonica For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Hmmmmm, one of the basic tenets of hindu way of life is holding true to one's duties. Duty when young is to study/learn. Duty when married is to be responsible and satisfy the needs at home. This covers supporting family needs, performing religious duties, helping others through donations. Most sacred among these is to lead an harmonious life. Generally, this is all that will be said. Typically, if a man does all the above and stays constantly away from home (religious or work related), the elders will say, " When there is a wife is at home, what are doing in the temple? " Which means that one has a duty to satisfy the wife's needs as well. This does not mean that a man does not have needs. Key to a married couples' contribution to religious (within) and social well being (without) is the marital bliss. I will hazard a guess that the members of this group are adults and say that as adults, we know how the marital bliss arrives at home. Satisfying coitus followed by what usually follows - progeny. Nobody is born pious. Everyone has to go through the usual aspects of growing up in life. There is a stage, when the carnal needs should be given into. There is a stage, when spiritual being raises over the carnal. Even at that stage, for someone in wedlock, sex is not proscribed for any religious duties, except during certain religious events, which require to be celibate for short periods of time. In most of the religious duties, the man and wife are to take part together. It is better to be " satisfied " than to be distracted during the ceremonies. What was said about pleasure was most probably on " I'm happy to see you, " and " wham, bam, thank you ma'm, " type of situations. As long as one goes home for dinner and dinner is not the sole purpose of going home, nobody, not even a great ascetic, can object to it. , " sd " <salharmonica wrote: > > This isn't specifically related to the Goddess (or maybe it is?) but since everyone here has such great insight, I thought I'd put the question out there. There are many contradictions in Hinduism, which is one of his great assets (in that it fosters openness and critical thought), but these contradictions are also a great source of confusion sometimes. > > For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. > > At the same time, we have the oldest 'manual' in the world that deals with sex as pleasure. So, is this 'wrong' in Hinduism? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 jai gurudev i think its an adult choice.so it depends on the discretion of the person. om shakti gopal On 9/23/09, Jason Frost <frostdancer2000 wrote: > > > > With all due respect, most people (especially men) need a relationship. > Most of us need a partner; those rare souls who have no interest in > families or sex are'nt trying to avoid it. It's similar to those who are > avoiding alcohol > because they are alcoholics, and those who just dont like to drink. > If you want to have sex, try being as unselfish a lover as possible. > Consider how denying desires can lead to frustration and anger; will that > make us more spiritual? > >-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\ +++++++ TRUTH PATH DESTINATION GOAL REAL ADIGURU SALVATION KARMA DESTINY AND ALL THAT EXISTS IS ONLY SUPREME NATURE SUPREME ENERGY DIVINE MOTHER ADI SHAKTI MAHAKAALI MAHALAXMI MAHASARASWATI LALITA TRIPURA SUNDARI KULKUNDALINI PARMESHWARI SHE IS THE ONLY BEING IN EXISTANCE AND WE ARE ALL PART OF HER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 But that's my question...I agree with what you've said, but since Hinduism advocates denying desires, is sex for pleasure wrong under our 'dharma.' As I said, one of the reasons I started thinking about this at this point is because I've been reading Yogananda's work, and while his teachings are profound and I have great admiration for him, his whole 'sex for pleasure is wrong' idea does not mesh with me. Particularly because...well, he never was sexually active, so how would he honestly know whether it interferes with enlightenment? , Jason Frost <frostdancer2000 wrote: > > With all due respect, most people (especially men) need a relationship. > Most of us need a partner; those rare souls who have no interest in > families or sex are'nt trying to avoid it. It's similar to those who are avoiding alcohol > because they are alcoholics, and those who just dont like to drink. > If you want to have sex, try being as unselfish a lover as possible. > Consider how denying desires can lead to frustration and anger; will that make us more spiritual? > > > ________________________________ > sd <salharmonica > > For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 That last paragraph was awesome!!! :-) , " ganpra " <ganpra wrote: > > Hmmmmm, one of the basic tenets of hindu way of life is holding true to one's duties. > > > > > What was said about pleasure was most probably on " I'm happy to see you, " and " wham, bam, thank you ma'm, " type of situations. As long as one goes home for dinner and dinner is not the sole purpose of going home, nobody, not even a great ascetic, can object to it. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Thanks so much for your insights, everybody- the replies to my post were all great. It seems like we're on the same page regarding this issue- in that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' regarding sexuality in Hinduism. Like I said, the main reason I started thinking about this issue now is because i've been reading Yogananda, and although I admire him greatly, he seems to think that even householders can reach enlightenment only through 'ascetism.' And I would say having sex with your spouse only once or twice in the course of the entire marriage is asceticism. And I've wondered, how do ascetics (especially ones like Yogananda, who took that path in their teens)- really KNOW that sexuality leads away from enlightenment (I understand how abusing sexual energies would do so, but not lovemaking with your life partner)? It's not as though they've had the experience. Although I think asceticism definitely has its place, I'm more inclined to adopt the worldview of enjoying earthly things as part of the Divine Mother (and trust me, I struggled a lot with my own opinions regarding the 'rightness' of sex for pleasure, considering what the 'sexual revolution' has done to American society). After all, why would She give us a body if she didn't want us to enjoy it? The ascetic view of going 'beyond' the body seems to me a form of rejection of one of Her most complex creations. There's also an element of sexism in it I think, since body, earth, are feminine. Also, considering the sexual imagery that abounds in India (Khajurao temples), I always think it strange that Indians tend to think of sexuality has something horrific. I think they top Christian fudnamentalists when it comes to that topic. Also...even though one of Hinduism's assets is that it has no 'rules,' this fact has also been a huge negativity, because of the confusion it creates, and the leeway it gives for people to just invent rules of their own. Although, I guess that's what people in every religion have done at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I think it has to do with the fact that there are so many different schools of thought in Hinduism, because there are so many different people. And Yogananda had the weight of scripture and the experiences of many liberated souls behind him. We can't say that just because it doesn't agree with us or we don't agree with it, that a teaching is automatically false or wrong or misinformed or incomplete. As you said in your original post, this is the beauty of our religion! On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:13 AM, sd <salharmonica wrote: > > > Thanks so much for your insights, everybody- the replies to my post were > all great. It seems like we're on the same page regarding this issue- in > that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' regarding sexuality in Hinduism. > > Like I said, the main reason I started thinking about this issue now is > because i've been reading Yogananda, and although I admire him greatly, he > seems to think that even householders can reach enlightenment only through > 'ascetism.' And I would say having sex with your spouse only once or twice > in the course of the entire marriage is asceticism. And I've wondered, how > do ascetics (especially ones like Yogananda, who took that path in their > teens)- really KNOW that sexuality leads away from enlightenment (I > understand how abusing sexual energies would do so, but not lovemaking with > your life partner)? It's not as though they've had the experience. > > Although I think asceticism definitely has its place, I'm more inclined to > adopt the worldview of enjoying earthly things as part of the Divine Mother > (and trust me, I struggled a lot with my own opinions regarding the > 'rightness' of sex for pleasure, considering what the 'sexual revolution' > has done to American society). After all, why would She give us a body if > she didn't want us to enjoy it? The ascetic view of going 'beyond' the body > seems to me a form of rejection of one of Her most complex creations. > There's also an element of sexism in it I think, since body, earth, are > feminine. > > Also, considering the sexual imagery that abounds in India (Khajurao > temples), I always think it strange that Indians tend to think of sexuality > has something horrific. I think they top Christian fudnamentalists when it > comes to that topic. > > Also...even though one of Hinduism's assets is that it has no 'rules,' this > fact has also been a huge negativity, because of the confusion it creates, > and the leeway it gives for people to just invent rules of their own. > Although, I guess that's what people in every religion have done at some > point. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 oh no- I didn't mean to imply it's wrong. Just wrong for me personally. ;-) And just that particular aspect. And also, I think as someone may have pointed out beforehand. Language has changed so much over the centuries, it's difficult to know what was meant when they were written versus how we interpret them. That kind of brings me (in a roundabout way) to the issue of Lord Krishna. It's known that Krshna had many lovers, and was Dionysus-like in someways. I'm by no means an authority on Krishna consciousness, but it seems from what I've read that indulging in sensual activities is a big no-no. But how do you reconcile this with Krishna's own practices regarding women? , Kulasundari Devi <sundari wrote: > > I think it has to do with the fact that there are so many different schools > of thought in Hinduism, because there are so many different people. And > Yogananda had the weight of scripture and the experiences of many liberated > souls behind him. > We can't say that just because it doesn't agree with us or we don't agree > with it, that a teaching is automatically false or wrong or misinformed or > incomplete. > > As you said in your original post, this is the beauty of our religion! > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:13 AM, sd <salharmonica wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks so much for your insights, everybody- the replies to my post were > > all great. [....] I started thinking about this issue now is > > because i've been reading Yogananda, and although I admire him greatly, he > > seems to think that even householders can reach enlightenment only through > > 'ascetism.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Please read Bhagwan Osho's " From sex to superconciousness " . It is very beautiful. A must read. http://books.google.ca/books?id=EsZdbPuDVlEC & dq=from+sex+to+superconsciousness & p\ rintsec=frontcover & source=bl & ots=52TpxLqCAa & sig=AxwIJKEuOooywrcb7gvQgyRzI1U & hl=e\ n & ei=T2K6SpzPE4aUtgf84anuDg & sa=X & oi=book_result & ct=result & resnum=3#v=onepage & q= & \ f=false Priya ________________________________ sd <salharmonica Thanks so much for your insights, everybody- the replies to my post were all great. It seems like we're on the same page regarding this issue- in that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' regarding sexuality in Hinduism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Krishna cavorting with the gopis is an interesting subject, as during this play when he was stealing their clothes, etc., if you look at the timeline in the Sri Bhagavata Purana, he was much younger than usually depicted. Essentially a child. So it was childish play, not erotic play, and reflected the pure love that devotees can have for God - like that for a child, regardless of his antics. However, later poetry and scriptures place Krishna's play with the gopis when he is older, showing another side of the passion of devotion. The rasa lila should be seen in terms of pure divine passion, not ego-based lust, if it is to be understood within the tradition. Hence, one can't just go sleeping around and say that they're being like Krishna! His relationship with Radha, explored in other texts such as the Srimad Bhagavatam (not to be confused with the Srimad Devi Bhagavatam), is considered the perfection of the union of devotee and divinity. Their love-making expresses the perfect union between the atman and brahman, no longer separate but united in perfect love, and also expresses the pain of separation. They are childhood friends who long for each other and become lovers, as they can't help themselves. Again, this is the inescapable attraction between the devotee and divinity. Krishna had many wives, as was considered common behavior for kings of that era, so we shouldn't look at that side of his behavior as strange, since it was normative. So our modern disagreement with the practice, however valid for our time, can't be much of a factor if we're trying to understand it on its own terms. Taking Radha as his lover would also be considered normative for the time - kings had many concubines and lovers at the time. Krishna taking a lover that is a divine lover shows that he is not an ordinary king just following his lust. Radha was already married, so Krishna couldn't marry her. Their relationship symbolizes in this way the longing that we feel for the divine, and the pain of separation that is necessitated by incarnation (which in turn is part of the process of achieving moksha). It also shows the way the divine longs to unite with us, as well (also reflected in the process of darshan - which is not only one-way worship, but a two-way connection and recognition of divinity). Of course, there is also the view that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu, and Radha was an incarnation of Lakshmi, therefore they were destined to be together, regardless of all other constraints. Proponents of this view tend to believe that all of Krishna's wives were incarnations of Laksmi, as well, therefore he was not being unfaithful to his true wife (which is Laksmi)! Ha. There are other ways of looking at it, as well - this is just one view. I'm not bothering to get into much of a critical view, but just trying to give a basic explanation. There are also many, many versions of the stories of deities like Krishna and Rama, each with a different take on similar narratives. It's good to be familiar with various versions and to find the one that resonates with you the most. There is room for them all. jai MAA kamesvari -kulasundari Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir www.kamakhyamandir.org On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM, sd <salharmonica wrote: > > > oh no- I didn't mean to imply it's wrong. Just wrong for me personally. ;-) > And just that particular aspect. And also, I think as someone may have > pointed out beforehand. Language has changed so much over the centuries, > it's difficult to know what was meant when they were written versus how we > interpret them. > > That kind of brings me (in a roundabout way) to the issue of Lord Krishna. > It's known that Krshna had many lovers, and was Dionysus-like in someways. > I'm by no means an authority on Krishna consciousness, but it seems from > what I've read that indulging in sensual activities is a big no-no. But how > do you reconcile this with Krishna's own practices regarding women? > > <%40>, > Kulasundari Devi <sundari wrote: > > > > I think it has to do with the fact that there are so many different > schools > > of thought in Hinduism, because there are so many different people. And > > Yogananda had the weight of scripture and the experiences of many > liberated > > souls behind him. > > We can't say that just because it doesn't agree with us or we don't agree > > with it, that a teaching is automatically false or wrong or misinformed > or > > incomplete. > > > > As you said in your original post, this is the beauty of our religion! > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:13 AM, sd <salharmonica wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks so much for your insights, everybody- the replies to my post > were > > > all great. [....] I started thinking about this issue now is > > > because i've been reading Yogananda, and although I admire him greatly, > he > > > seems to think that even householders can reach enlightenment only > through > > > 'ascetism.' > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 <<<but since Hinduism advocates denying desires, is sex for pleasure wrong under our 'dharma.' >>> whoever gave you that idea? <<<As I said, one of the reasons I started thinking about this at this point is because I've been reading Yogananda's work, and while his teachings are profound and I have great admiration for him, his whole 'sex for pleasure is wrong' idea does not mesh with me. Particularly because...well, he never was sexually active, so how would he honestly know whether it interferes with enlightenment?>>> Neither I find Yogananda's kriya-miracle-yoga-ism profound, neither it is backed by wisdom of scriptures nor by backing of long line of masters, as someone here seem to suggest. It originated from a Bengali office worker who received it from a mystic babaji,. It is much like a hindu form of catholicism, steeped in irrationality and nonsense, devoid any deep insight into life and existence. Lahiri mahasaya was per haves one of the first pioneers of spiritual business scam. But even if you are not ready to believe the above and find it offensive (like most people these days), you must understand yogananda's thought should not be the compass of understanding the so called " Hinduism " , but even the much narrower area of yoga-darshana. --- On Wed, 23/9/09, sd <salharmonica wrote: sd <salharmonica Re: hinduism and kama Wednesday, 23 September, 2009, 7:43 PM But that's my question...I agree with what you've said, but since Hinduism advocates denying desires, is sex for pleasure wrong under our 'dharma.' As I said, one of the reasons I started thinking about this at this point is because I've been reading Yogananda's work, and while his teachings are profound and I have great admiration for him, his whole 'sex for pleasure is wrong' idea does not mesh with me. Particularly because...well, he never was sexually active, so how would he honestly know whether it interferes with enlightenment? , Jason Frost <frostdancer2000@ ...> wrote: > > With all due respect, most people (especially men) need a relationship. > Most of us need a partner; those rare souls who have no interest in > families or sex are'nt trying to avoid it. It's similar to those who are avoiding alcohol > because they are alcoholics, and those who just dont like to drink. > If you want to have sex, try being as unselfish a lover as possible. > Consider how denying desires can lead to frustration and anger; will that make us more spiritual? > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > sd <salharmonica@ ...> > > For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. > Now, send attachments up to 25MB with India Mail. Learn how. http://in.overview.mail./photos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 jai gurudev in vama-marga panch makar also includes maithuna-sex for salvation. so its a debate which may be never ending. om shakti gopal On 9/23/09, sd <salharmonica wrote: > > > > Thanks so much for your insights, everybody- the replies to my post were > all great. It seems like we're on the same page regarding this issue- in > that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' regarding sexuality in Hinduism. > > Like I said, the main reason I started thinking about this issue now is > because i've been reading Yogananda, and although I admire him greatly, he > seems to think that even householders can reach enlightenment only through > 'ascetism.' And I would say having sex with your spouse only once or twice > in the course of the entire marriage is asceticism. And I've wondered, how > do ascetics (especially ones like Yogananda, who took that path in their > teens)- really KNOW that sexuality leads away from enlightenment (I > understand how abusing sexual energies would do so, but not lovemaking with > your life partner)? It's not as though they've had the experience. > > Although I think asceticism definitely has its place, I'm more inclined to > adopt the worldview of enjoying earthly things as part of the Divine Mother > (and trust me, I struggled a lot with my own opinions regarding the > 'rightness' of sex for pleasure, considering what the 'sexual revolution' > has done to American society). After all, why would She give us a body if > she didn't want us to enjoy it? The ascetic view of going 'beyond' the body > seems to me a form of rejection of one of Her most complex creations. > There's also an element of sexism in it I think, since body, earth, are > feminine. > > Also, considering the sexual imagery that abounds in India (Khajurao > temples), I always think it strange that Indians tend to think of sexuality > has something horrific. I think they top Christian fudnamentalists when it > comes to that topic. > > Also...even though one of Hinduism's assets is that it has no 'rules,' this > fact has also been a huge negativity, because of the confusion it creates, > and the leeway it gives for people to just invent rules of their own. > Although, I guess that's what people in every religion have done at some > point. > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\ +++++++ TRUTH PATH DESTINATION GOAL REAL ADIGURU SALVATION KARMA DESTINY AND ALL THAT EXISTS IS ONLY SUPREME NATURE SUPREME ENERGY DIVINE MOTHER ADI SHAKTI MAHAKAALI MAHALAXMI MAHASARASWATI LALITA TRIPURA SUNDARI KULKUNDALINI PARMESHWARI SHE IS THE ONLY BEING IN EXISTANCE AND WE ARE ALL PART OF HER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Hinduism does not deny desires ( including sex) . In fact pursuit of " kama " ( desire ) is a purushartha and is a legitimate aim for grahasthas only. In fact Grahastha ashram is the platform for pursuit and fullfilment of all desires. Regards Rohit ________________________________ Saikat Maitra <singhi_kaya Thursday, 24 September, 2009 3:06:38 PM Re: Re: hinduism and kama <<<but since Hinduism advocates denying desires, is sex for pleasure wrong under our 'dharma.' >>> whoever gave you that idea? <<<As I said, one of the reasons I started thinking about this at this point is because I've been reading Yogananda's work, and while his teachings are profound and I have great admiration for him, his whole 'sex for pleasure is wrong' idea does not mesh with me. Particularly because...well, he never was sexually active, so how would he honestly know whether it interferes with enlightenment? >>> Neither I find Yogananda's kriya-miracle- yoga-ism profound, neither it is backed by wisdom of scriptures nor by backing of long line of masters, as someone here seem to suggest. It originated from a Bengali office worker who received it from a mystic babaji,. It is much like a hindu form of catholicism, steeped in irrationality and nonsense, devoid any deep insight into life and existence. Lahiri mahasaya was per haves one of the first pioneers of spiritual business scam. But even if you are not ready to believe the above and find it offensive (like most people these days), you must understand yogananda 's thought should not be the compass of understanding the so called " Hinduism " , but even the much narrower area of yoga-darshana. --- On Wed, 23/9/09, sd <salharmonica@ > wrote: sd <salharmonica@ > Re: hinduism and kama Wednesday, 23 September, 2009, 7:43 PM But that's my question...I agree with what you've said, but since Hinduism advocates denying desires, is sex for pleasure wrong under our 'dharma.' As I said, one of the reasons I started thinking about this at this point is because I've been reading Yogananda's work, and while his teachings are profound and I have great admiration for him, his whole 'sex for pleasure is wrong' idea does not mesh with me. Particularly because...well, he never was sexually active, so how would he honestly know whether it interferes with enlightenment? , Jason Frost <frostdancer2000@ ...> wrote: > > With all due respect, most people (especially men) need a relationship. > Most of us need a partner; those rare souls who have no interest in > families or sex are'nt trying to avoid it. It's similar to those who are avoiding alcohol > because they are alcoholics, and those who just dont like to drink. > If you want to have sex, try being as unselfish a lover as possible. > Consider how denying desires can lead to frustration and anger; will that make us more spiritual? > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > sd <salharmonica@ ...> > > For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. > Now, send attachments up to 25MB with India Mail. Learn how. http://in.overview. mail.. com/photos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Pranam. Just wanted to share this story of Krishna with you all. Subhadra, Krishna's younger sister was quite disgusted with Krishna's promiscousness. But, because of her love for him never said anything. Krishna knew of her thoughts and feelings but acted as if He knew nothing. Subhadra had the practice of going to an Amba temple which was on the other bank of the river Yamuna. Once, during the rainy season, she wanted to pray at the Amba temple. But, the Yamuna was swollen with flood water and she wasn't able to cross the river. Disheartened, she came back home. Krishna, seeing her downcast face, asked her what the matter was. She explained her predictment to Him. Krishna smiled and said, " Subhadra, have no worries. You will have darshan of Amba today, I promise. " Subhadra was taken aback and asked Him how she was to cross the Yamuna. And Krishna replied, " Go to the bank of the Yamuna and say 'If my brother, Krishna is a true Bhramacharin, then may the river Yamuna let me cross.' Do not worry, sister. What I have said is true. The river will let you pass. " Disbelieving, Subhadra went and did as Krishna said. And lo, behold, the river did open up a path for Subhadra. Only then did Subhadra understand her brother. With Love Shankaree Let my every word be a prayer to Thee, Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee, Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image, Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee, Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet; Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do, Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee. " From Verse 27 of Shri Aadi Shankara's Saundaryalahari ________________________________ Kulasundari Devi <sundari Thursday, 24 September, 2009 3:09:46 Re: Re: Hinduism and Kama Krishna cavorting with the gopis is an interesting subject, as during this play when he was stealing their clothes, etc., if you look at the timeline in the Sri Bhagavata Purana, he was much younger than usually depicted. Essentially a child. So it was childish play, not erotic play, and reflected the pure love that devotees can have for God - like that for a child, regardless of his antics. However, later poetry and scriptures place Krishna's play with the gopis when he is older, showing another side of the passion of devotion. The rasa lila should be seen in terms of pure divine passion, not ego-based lust, if it is to be understood within the tradition. Hence, one can't just go sleeping around and say that they're being like Krishna! His relationship with Radha, explored in other texts such as the Srimad Bhagavatam (not to be confused with the Srimad Devi Bhagavatam), is considered the perfection of the union of devotee and divinity. Their love-making expresses the perfect union between the atman and brahman, no longer separate but united in perfect love, and also expresses the pain of separation. They are childhood friends who long for each other and become lovers, as they can't help themselves. Again, this is the inescapable attraction between the devotee and divinity. Krishna had many wives, as was considered common behavior for kings of that era, so we shouldn't look at that side of his behavior as strange, since it was normative. So our modern disagreement with the practice, however valid for our time, can't be much of a factor if we're trying to understand it on its own terms. Taking Radha as his lover would also be considered normative for the time - kings had many concubines and lovers at the time. Krishna taking a lover that is a divine lover shows that he is not an ordinary king just following his lust. Radha was already married, so Krishna couldn't marry her. Their relationship symbolizes in this way the longing that we feel for the divine, and the pain of separation that is necessitated by incarnation (which in turn is part of the process of achieving moksha). It also shows the way the divine longs to unite with us, as well (also reflected in the process of darshan - which is not only one-way worship, but a two-way connection and recognition of divinity). Of course, there is also the view that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu, and Radha was an incarnation of Lakshmi, therefore they were destined to be together, regardless of all other constraints. Proponents of this view tend to believe that all of Krishna's wives were incarnations of Laksmi, as well, therefore he was not being unfaithful to his true wife (which is Laksmi)! Ha. There are other ways of looking at it, as well - this is just one view. I'm not bothering to get into much of a critical view, but just trying to give a basic explanation. There are also many, many versions of the stories of deities like Krishna and Rama, each with a different take on similar narratives. It's good to be familiar with various versions and to find the one that resonates with you the most.. There is room for them all. jai MAA kamesvari -kulasundari Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir www.kamakhyamandir. org On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM, sd <salharmonica@ > wrote: > > > oh no- I didn't mean to imply it's wrong. Just wrong for me personally. ;-) > And just that particular aspect. And also, I think as someone may have > pointed out beforehand. Language has changed so much over the centuries, > it's difficult to know what was meant when they were written versus how we > interpret them. > > That kind of brings me (in a roundabout way) to the issue of Lord Krishna. > It's known that Krshna had many lovers, and was Dionysus-like in someways. > I'm by no means an authority on Krishna consciousness, but it seems from > what I've read that indulging in sensual activities is a big no-no. But how > do you reconcile this with Krishna's own practices regarding women? > > <% 40. com>, > Kulasundari Devi <sundari > wrote: > > > > I think it has to do with the fact that there are so many different > schools > > of thought in Hinduism, because there are so many different people. And > > Yogananda had the weight of scripture and the experiences of many > liberated > > souls behind him. > > We can't say that just because it doesn't agree with us or we don't agree > > with it, that a teaching is automatically false or wrong or misinformed > or > > incomplete. > > > > As you said in your original post, this is the beauty of our religion! > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:13 AM, sd <salharmonica@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks so much for your insights, everybody- the replies to my post > were > > > all great. [....] I started thinking about this issue now is > > > because i've been reading Yogananda, and although I admire him greatly, > he > > > seems to think that even householders can reach enlightenment only > through > > > 'ascetism.' > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Well, it seems that what I need to take away is this- Hinduism is basically a religion that promotes a balanced spiritual and worldly life, and everyone's road to balance is different. I just found this quote yesterday, a Hindu proverb, and I love it: " There are hundreds of paths up the mountain, all leading in the same direction, so it doesn't matter which path you take. The only one wasting time is the one who runs around and around the mountain, telling everyone else that their path is wrong. " I loved the Krishna stories, by the way. And the explanations of them. But still, even though it was the norm to have many wives and lovers, isn't indulging in sex with them still a form of sense indulgence, whicn Krshna consciousness is against? On the other hand, when I read the river story about Krshna's younger sister, it seems to say, passionate lovemaking are part of divine worship. So, I guess, again, it's best to go by the mountain analogy. ALSO- Sorry to break my own vow (and hopefully this doesn't annoy the moderator), but since I seemed to have started a fire with my Osho comment ;-p, I thought I should explain my story. A few years ago, I was going through a tough time and I started reading Osho's books, never having heard of him before. I was mesmerized, and I became not exactly obsessed, but I was quoting him frequently...and his words were always in my mind. I especially loved his books on freedom and creativity. But then I read all that stuff about him, how he supposedly exploited people, and mind-controlled his followers, and I was devastated. Sorry for the bad analogy, but it was like that time I found out my favorite musician once beat his wife. Yes, all of you are right to say take the work as is, who cares what Osho's personal issues were? But at the same time, how can you take someone who strays so far from his own path seriously? It seems like hypocrisy from him, no? Just my thoughts. Oh- little tidbit, for the poster who said Osho has nothing to do with Hinduism. I walked into a Barnes and Noble one time and on their Hinduism shelf, there was nothing but an entire shelf of Osho books, which was...um...interesting. And to go back to the Divine Mother, which is the reason this group exists, I just found an amazing book entitled, " Shakti: Realm of the Divine Mother " by Mataji Vanamali. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 From what I understand in terms of Hinduism, there is nothing wrong with " indulgence " as there is " over indulgence. " To use a personal (and I hear rather common) anecdote, it is perfectly okay to eat one bowl of ice cream a day, but eating the entire container, daily, might be too much. The same could likely be said for sexuality under the right context. So, moderation is key. Five years ago, I think someone from this group once told me in a moment of my own overworked, guilty conscience, that, " God/dess likes to have fun too - people just sometimes forget that! " What is " over indulging " can, like others have already established in this thread, depend on what school of thought, tradition, guru, and other factors you look at. In my years of observing this group, I have seen many interesting debates on the subject of pleasure, whether it be sexual or other forms of kama. To cite one that more or less marked my first days in the group, I have seen one person suggested, " the less pleasure the better, " while seeing those who would find that a bit too fixated on the pleasure (or lack thereof) principle; no pun intended. Both sides stem from an authentic tradition honoring the Sanatana Dharma, but have different interpretations of what defines " moderate, acceptable indulgence " and what constitutes as " over indulgence. " One person was from a conservative Shaivite tradition and the other a relatively " liberal " Shakta way. Nonetheless, both were authentic to their ways. This debate will likely happen again, and that is okay, too. And regardless of what I have just stated, I do not want anyone taking it as an " excuse " to be promiscuous, or go one way or another (not saying it will happen; just making the disclaimer!). I present this to show how schools of thought, seeking to exemplify the ethical, ever devoted aspirant, could come to different methods to pursue this goal. I believe a very important part of understanding the Sanatana Dharma is also understanding ourselves and where we stand. We need a guru on the way, sure, but we are still seeking avenues to understanding ourself, realizing ourself, and eventually - hopefully - finding positive, spiritual growth. Jai Ma! Sincerely, Christina/Arya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 jai gurudev sanatan dharma has 4 main pillars : dharma artha kaam moksha we all know what each means. om shakti gopal On 9/24/09, rohit kumtha <rohitkumtha wrote: > > > > Hinduism does not deny desires ( including sex) . In fact pursuit of " kama " > ( desire ) is a purushartha and is a legitimate aim for grahasthas only. > > In fact Grahastha ashram is the platform for pursuit and fullfilment of all > desires. > > Regards > Rohit > > ________________________________ > Saikat Maitra <singhi_kaya <singhi_kaya%40.co.in>> > <%40> > Thursday, 24 September, 2009 3:06:38 PM > Re: Re: hinduism and kama > > > <<<but since Hinduism advocates denying desires, is sex for pleasure wrong > under our 'dharma.' >>> > > whoever gave you that idea? > > <<<As I said, one of the reasons I started thinking about this at this > point is because I've been reading Yogananda's work, and while his teachings > are profound and I have great admiration for him, his whole 'sex for > pleasure is wrong' idea does not mesh with me. Particularly because...well, > he never was sexually active, so how would he honestly know whether it > interferes with enlightenment? >>> > > Neither I find Yogananda's kriya-miracle- yoga-ism profound, neither it is > backed by wisdom of scriptures nor by backing of long line of masters, as > someone here seem to suggest. It originated from a Bengali office worker > who received it from a mystic babaji,. It is much like a hindu form of > catholicism, steeped in irrationality and nonsense, devoid any deep insight > into life and existence. Lahiri mahasaya was per haves one of the first > pioneers of spiritual business scam. > > But even if you are not ready to believe the above and find it offensive > (like most people these days), you must understand yogananda 's thought > should not be the compass of understanding the so called " Hinduism " , but > even the much narrower area of yoga-darshana. > > --- On Wed, 23/9/09, sd <salharmonica@ > wrote: > > sd <salharmonica@ > > Re: hinduism and kama > > Wednesday, 23 September, 2009, 7:43 PM > > > > But that's my question...I agree with what you've said, but since Hinduism > advocates denying desires, is sex for pleasure wrong under our 'dharma.' > > As I said, one of the reasons I started thinking about this at this point > is because I've been reading Yogananda's work, and while his teachings are > profound and I have great admiration for him, his whole 'sex for pleasure is > wrong' idea does not mesh with me. Particularly because...well, he never was > sexually active, so how would he honestly know whether it interferes with > enlightenment? > > , Jason Frost <frostdancer2000 wrote: > > > > With all due respect, most people (especially men) need a relationship. > > Most of us need a partner; those rare souls who have no interest in > > families or sex are'nt trying to avoid it. It's similar to those who are > avoiding alcohol > > because they are alcoholics, and those who just dont like to drink. > > If you want to have sex, try being as unselfish a lover as possible. > > Consider how denying desires can lead to frustration and anger; will that > make us more spiritual? > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > sd <salharmonica@ ...> > > > > For example, our view on sexuality has always confused me. From what I > understand, sex is considered sacred between the husband and wife (obviously > ascetics aren't going to be having sex) and an act to be celebrated- BUT > only for the purpose of procreation. Swami Yogananda has stated that to > engage in sexual relations for pleasure is wrong. > > > > Now, send attachments up to 25MB with India Mail. Learn how. > http://in.overview. mail.. com/photos > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.