krishnas relations immoral?

March 16, 2005

i heard a negative comment today from someone today about krishna being an immoral god as he had 16 thuosand wives and ellicit relations with rhada. can anyone explain the nature of his relations, why he had so many wives, and did his relations with rhada involve sex? just curious as vedas talk about abstaining from sex.

March 16, 2005

for 2 reasons.

1. It is to conserve the semen because it is the vital force that is responsible for arising the kundalini and realizing the atma.

2. Sex is a way to become attached to this world, and lose sense of who you truly are in this way.

Neither of which applies to Krsna, as he is already God himself. He has no attachments to this world, he is already God so he doesn't need to realize his atma. He can do whatever he wants.

Few people ever understand the REASONS why something is or isn't done. But these are the reasons, I believe, why sex is usually abstained from in most religions. Whether the true meaning in most religions is lost or not, these are the original reasons why sex is discouraged.

As for Krsna having 16,0000 wives, it's because he freed 16,000 gopis from a demon, and they were considered outcasts in society due to suspect purity. So Krsna married them all. Perhaps it symbolizes that Krsna does not belong to one, he belongs to all, and is everyone's spouse, best friend, father, etc.

Pankaja_Dasa · March 16, 2005

Krishna is the Supreme Enjoyer. First of all you have to accept Krishna as Godhead. I can sense that you do not. As devotees we don't jump to these pastimes. Read Gita 1st of all and give up your Mayavadi.

www.asitis.com

You cannot understand Krishna and at the same time be offensive to Him.

March 16, 2005

Objectively speaken I have to say that Vaishnavism and Krishna are famous for its double standards. In this way there is always an excuse to explain and justify everything.

Picture this:

whenever he acts "normal " it is said: "wow great, he acts as a normal beeing to show us the way , Krishna acts according to shastra. He is an example for us, blablaba "

whenever he lies, cheats, violates shastra the answer is : wow, great, he can do that. He is God himself and this is all transcendental stuff blabla ".

whenever this inconsistence is shown, the answer usually is : " only advanced souls will understand this etc."

Ganeshprasad · March 17, 2005

Jai Ganesh

There is no double standard, yes it is very difficult to fathom Lord Shree Krishna,and he is not bound by any laws otherwise how can he be God?

people tend to forget he is only 5years old when he performed rasa lila.

He gave shelter to 16000 women prisoners,they prayed to him to be accepted as his wives.

there is no double standard he accept any one who surrender on to him.

What is that saying?do as i say not as i do, because he is god and we are his.

Jai Shree Krishna

March 17, 2005

any krsna pastime,if read attentively in detail is perfectly according vedic morality...

maybe you have read stories from non bonafide sources... read directly srimad bhagavatam 10th canto

March 17, 2005

Hare Krishna,

i heard a negative comment today from someone today about krishna being an immoral god as he had 16 thuosand wives and ellicit relations with rhada. can anyone explain the nature of his relations, why he had so many wives, and did his relations with rhada involve sex? just curious as vedas talk about abstaining from sex.

This is based on the idea that KRISHNA possesses a material body. Krishna does not possess a material body. HIS(Krishna) body is transcendental ie HIS body is made of PURE TRUTH(SAT), PURE CONSCIOUSNESS(CHIT) and PURE BLISS(ANANDA). HE is PURE SPIRIT no matter which avatara HE takes.

Just like Narasimha AVATARA that apparently came out of pillar to save Prahlada, just like Vamana avatara that apparently was born through ADITI and grew so BIG so as to swallow all creation, So is KRISHNA apparently born through DEVAKI. HE DOES NOT possess material BODY in any of these AVATARAS.

So how can one blame such a GOD of SEX etc unless the person is an ignoramus and has no idea what he is talking about.

March 17, 2005

thanks all, these answers make much more sense. if i had the words to say the same thing to the person who made the comment i would have, but i didnt know how to say it.

maadhav · March 18, 2005

<< So Krsna married them all. >>

yes, and because they all lovingly requested krishna to marry them.

March 18, 2005

HI,

My view is... Krsna may have married 16000 women. But I dont think it says anywhere there was sex involved.

It need not even be a physical marraige. I think in todays world, people look at marraige and sex as the same thing. Marraige without sex is unthinkable, thought the other way round seems to be the norm.

Is it not possible to be so much in love with a person that you feel like you are married to him/her and feel like that person is around you all the time?

We feel sort of like it when we fall in love with a girl/guy in this mundane world ( havent all of us felt that?), then cant we imagine how strong that feeling can be when you have decided to fall in love with god?

I think the marraige being talked about is not physical but spiritual or in the mind. If someone cannot fathom that kind of a relation, too bad for that person. Nothing can be done about it.

I dont like the answer that "Krsna is god, so he can do anything". That sounds like blind belief to me (not necessarily a bad thing, after all blind beleif in god..whats wrong with that). That is exactly the kind of answer that a non-beleiver needs to target my faith. My answer to anyone who questioned the 'marraiges' would be what I said above.

March 23, 2005

***** There is no double standard ********

True and false. True for the wise and false for the unwise.

Narada, on watching Lord's ras leela says that: people who read this account of 16000 wives will not be lusty anymore.

How so? Do the HK's realise? Do they realise when they try to pull down Siva by saying that he looses semen at the sight of Mohini?

The wise will not as they understand, what Yajnavalkya says "All love their wives on account of love of the Self."

And now realise that if God was not the self of all would anyone love anyone else? Does one desire or love a dead woman, except in memory?

Lord is the life, the self and the existence and Lord is the pure Love. So, whomever you love truly that love is for the Lord. Without Lord's presence within, no love will be there.

Siva burned Kama Deva but reinstalled Kama Deva in everyone's heart, including in his own heart. And then Siva is everyone's heart, including Kama Deva's. For stories Kama Deva is shown as if a different personality but he is none but Siva's desire, which has been transcended and made pure.

That is the aim. Do not love bodies. Love the Atma. And there is ONE BIG ATMA.

Lord is everyone's Self. All wives and all husbands while loving their respective partners love Lord.

This is what Rishi Yajnvalkya said long ago. And I have seen HK's deriding BR. U. and the sage.

The personalities are many to suit many moods but the root is ONE.

OM Namah Sivayya

Rajashekhar · March 23, 2005

"Objectively speaken I have to say that Vaishnavism and Krishna are famous for its double standards. In this way there is always an excuse to explain and justify everything.

Picture this:

whenever he acts "normal " it is said: "wow great, he acts as a normal beeing to show us the way , Krishna acts according to shastra. He is an example for us, blablaba ""

Very well put. The lovers of Rama and Krishna defend their "god" with their double standards constantly. When Krishna marries many wives, it is Krishna Leela. If a modern Sheikh maintained a huge harem, it would be 'sick'.

One statement I have heard from Vaishnavas is that one "should listen to Krishna's advice but follow Rama's example", since even staunch Vaishnavites believe that Krishna's dalliances with Radha and all other women was disgusting. But I disagree with that statement too. Follow Rama and throw out my wife if she is falsely accused of something? No way!

March 24, 2005

******* Follow Rama and throw out my wife if she is falsely accused of something? No way! *************

Rajsekhar ji,

Do things happen as per your sweet will? Please realise these purna personalities totally abided by Lord's will and thus they became Lord.

I know this will invite abuses from many. But who is bothered?

March 24, 2005

******* Objectively speaken I have to say that Vaishnavism and Krishna are famous for its double standards. In this way there is always an excuse to explain and justify everything. ************

Raj Sekhar ji,

It is none of my business but i still feel impelled to intervene.

Are Vaisnavas outside the Lord? Are Shaivas outside the Lord. Or are Christians outside?

These are all perspectives of samr thing. AS Ganesh ji says: two sides of the same coin.

But i will support you when Ganesh ji says Lord is not Nirguna as He cannot be less than his unlimited sagun manifestations.

Nirgun does not mean devoid of qualities as we understand. But nirgun means that which cannot be defined and thus limited. That is why the only proper definition is neti neti.

And also Brahma Sutra has a definition:

Brahman is that from which proceeds the functions of creation, maintenance and destruction. Brahma sutra does not say that creation, maintenance and destruction are functions of Brahman.

And though using nirgun word itself may be limiting to some extent but vac has that limitation. Lord is beyond vac. Moreover, SB uses the word nirgun to describe "Brahman".

Rajashekhar · March 24, 2005

[Raj Sekhar ji,

[it is none of my business but i still feel impelled to intervene.]

Please feel free to intervene as many times as you want. This is a discussion group.

[Are Vaisnavas outside the Lord? Are Shaivas outside the Lord. Or are Christians outside?

[These are all perspectives of samr thing. AS Ganesh ji says: two sides of the same coin.]

The Vaishnavas etc are not outside the Lord. I don't remember making that statement or implying it. As Brahma Suthras explain, if God is not all-pervading, then He is a limited God; this means that He is no God. I don't know what you imply by saying 'two sides of the same coin', but when someone sees falsity in something, he/she should speak up. Anyway, if you explain how you felt compelled to make this statement, I will understand better.

[Nirgun does not mean devoid of qualities as we understand. But nirgun means that which cannot be defined and thus limited. That is why the only proper definition is neti neti.

[And also Brahma Sutra has a definition:

[brahman is that from which proceeds the functions of creation, maintenance and destruction. Brahma sutra does not say that creation, maintenance and destruction are functions of Brahman.]

Guna means attribute. Nirguna is one without attributes. The Neti-Neti line of thought does arrive at this conclusion.

The old-time philosophers understood the one problem with Nirguna Brahman: that a Nirguna Brahman cannot create, just has to be inert. Therefore they came up with the concept of Ishvara, or Saguna Brahman. Ishvara generally means Lord, although mostly it signifies Shiva. It is Ishvara that creates, sustains and destroys.

And, of course, later they went a little further and made Ishvara just an all-pervasive but inert Lord and created the concept of Shakti, His Power, who is responsible for the translation of an inert Shiva into an Ishvara that is capable of creation, sustenance and destruction (I am quoting Shankara here).

March 24, 2005

Namaskar Rajsekhar ji

Nice to be discussing and not arguing.

My Guru has taught me: whatever books, scriptures, and logical thoughts may say, the Lord is the nearest thing to one. Even nearer and more direct than an apple on the palm. Seeing the apple involves senses and interpretations.

Whereas, you always feel "I am" without requiring any help from senses. This "I" is the Lord. With our samskaras we convert "I" to "I am this" and there starts the problem.

So, my Lord teaches me to meditate on I, which is not different from OM and actually is more direct. This I is Shiva.

***** Anyway, if you explain how you felt compelled to make this statement, I will understand better *******

You agreed that nothing is outside Lord. If Vaishnavas disturb you then why? If Saivas disturb Vaishnavas then why? Who is disturbed? The real "I", or the ego "i"?

And finally, where is the ego from? Did Rajsekhar create it for himself? So, who is disturbing you and why?

I feel that going above the ego is the ultimate. And Rudra Deva helps his children in this (sometimes painfully).

I also feel that Rama is unequalled. He is an example of poise, calmness, and dhriti in the face of trouble. What did he enjoy in his earthly life?

Please do not judge with earthly perceptions. And also please do not judge influenced by what overzealous Vaishnavas say. Your actions are reactions to overzealous efforts of some others. And reaction is not good.

Lord has said that He loves the wise. And I felt that you would be able to overcome reactive tendencies. Thats why I intervened. May be you are already above that. I am not sure.

And from your post I can make out that you know better than many as to why Lord Rama is Lord. But disturbing other peoples sensitivity is not a good idea.

Ha. Ha. I am acting holier than thou, whereas I also disturb others and get disturbed in the process.

Anyway nice to be knowing you.

Om Namah Sivayya

March 24, 2005

******* And, of course, later they went a little further and made Ishvara just an all-pervasive but inert Lord and created the concept of Shakti, His Power, who is responsible for the translation of an inert Shiva into an Ishvara that is capable of creation, sustenance and destruction (I am quoting Shankara here). **********

I do not think that this is fully ok. The pure consciousness and its energy are not two different things. Similary, the Mind thus created (Indra) and its expansion (Vishnu) are not separate either.

March 24, 2005

******* The old-time philosophers understood the one problem with Nirguna Brahman: that a Nirguna Brahman cannot create, just has to be inert. *********

Is really anything created? What motive?

Ganeshprasad · March 24, 2005

Jai Ganesh

Re

(***** There is no double standard ********

True and false. True for the wise and false for the unwise.)

This is what happens when one does not know the true picture.

Re

(How so? Do the HK's realise? Do they realise when they try to pull down Siva by saying that he looses semen at the sight of Mohini?)

it is sad infect both the camp are guilty on this,in Siva puran there are some bad stories about Vishnu, how much is overjelious followers interpolate here, i do not know, all i know is such stories are not for me to read and score cheep points.

Re

(This is what Rishi Yajnvalkya said long ago. And I have seen HK's deriding BR. U. and the sage.

The personalities are many to suit many moods but the root is ONE.)

I agree.

OM Namah Sivayya

Jai Shree Krishna,

Rajashekhar · March 24, 2005

Om Namah Sivayya wrote:

_________