Dealing with Taboos of Sexuality in the Radha-Krishna tradition Options

[Brainiac]

"But Caitanya Mahaprabhu informs us that one can even have sexual engagement with the Lord. This information is Caitanya Mahaprabhu's unique contribution ... No one, however, has conceived that there can be sexual engagement in the spiritual world. There is not a single instance of such theology anywhere in the entire world ... The impersonalists have no idea; they cannot even conceive that God has form. But Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that not only does God have form, but He has sex life also. This is the highest contribution of Caitanya Mahaprabhu."
-ACBSP, Science of Self-Realization, Chap. 8

[ePiTau]

"But Caitanya Mahaprabhu informs us that one can even have sexual engagement with the Lord. This information is Caitanya Mahaprabhu's unique contribution ... No one, however, has conceived that there can be sexual engagement in the spiritual world. There is not a single instance of such theology anywhere in the entire world ... The impersonalists have no idea; they cannot even conceive that God has form. But Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that not only does God have form, but He has sex life also. This is the highest contribution of Caitanya Mahaprabhu."
-ACBSP, Science of Self-Realization, Chap. 8

If God wouldn't bang the gopis from time to time there would be no cows up there in heaven.
Somebody has to do it. Or, wait a minute. Doesn't the Upanishad say sa aiksati? Maybe for the old Hindoo gentleman sex is just that? "He looked at them", and oops, it happened again . . .

[Dhyana]

That would explain why women need to be so covered. Otherwise some male could look at them and, oopps...

[Brainiac]

The whole 'banging the gopis' all day and night sounds so much like a teenager's wet dream. And then you suddenly realise, oops, it is...

[Aranesque]

Is that it - is that all we can understand from that Lila of Krishna? (I somehow doubt it.)

Also, should we - do you - honestly consider the above employed term, applied to describe the congress of Krishna with His lovers, to be appropriate?

What, I often wonder, is this compulsion to run with the shock-jocks that haunts the forum; are we so deficient in philosophical insight that we need resort to paltry tabloidisms in order to affect the reader (and that to no positive end)?

[syamasundaradasa]

Is that it - is that all we can understand from that Lila of Krishna? (I somehow doubt it.)

Also, should we - do you - honestly consider the above employed term, applied to describe the congress of Krishna with His lovers, to be appropriate?

What, I often wonder, is this compulsion to run with the shock-jocks that haunts the forum; are we so deficient in philosophical insight that we need resort to paltry tabloidisms in order to affect the reader (and that to no positive end)?

Very well put.

I dont really want to slander gv tradition just need help with having faith in myself when it comes to accepting or rejecting some of the bizarre statements in this tradition. I owe so much to krsna and my gurus but some things I am asked to swallow just wont go down and I don't want to feel always that it is my fault because I am full of 4 defects. Some things are just plain stupid and I just can't and won't accept them but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[metamorphosis]

Very well put.

I dont really want to slander gv tradition just need help with having faith in myself when it comes to accepting or rejecting some of the bizarre statements in this tradition. I owe so much to krsna and my gurus but some things I am asked to swallow just wont go down and I don't want to feel always that it is my fault because I am full of 4 defects. Some things are just plain stupid and I just can't and won't accept them but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

So far i have not heard anything that was part of the Iskcon crazed statements, but i did hear crazed stuff from different individuals not representative of the whole. So i would recommend you not to swallow anything that people there say and reject what you see as bad, and accept the good. Sort of a dovetailing into Krishna's service the "accepting and rejecting" program.

[Gerard]

I agree with Aran's remark about tabloidisms - and also syamasundaradasa's one about not throwing away wet, little children - so, did we actually get something positive out of our GV period?

I think the only thing I got out of it was a belief in personal forces that shape cosmos and lives (I was a buddhist before that). And then not personal in the meaning of a sort of superhumans but beings we can't comprehend at all because I think they aren't 3-D. That's why I don't use names anymore.

And perhaps a sense of what bhakti could be.

[Aranesque]

Is that it - is that all we can understand from that Lila of Krishna? (I somehow doubt it.)

Also, should we - do you - honestly consider the above employed term, applied to describe the congress of Krishna with His lovers, to be appropriate?

What, I often wonder, is this compulsion to run with the shock-jocks that haunts the forum; are we so deficient in philosophical insight that we need resort to paltry tabloidisms in order to affect the reader (and that to no positive end)?

Very well put.

I dont really want to slander gv tradition just need help with having faith in myself when it comes to accepting or rejecting some of the bizarre statements in this tradition. I owe so much to krsna and my gurus but some things I am asked to swallow just wont go down and I don't want to feel always that it is my fault because I am full of 4 defects. Some things are just plain stupid and I just can't and won't accept them but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Thank you, Syamasundara. (Hang on to that Baby.)

I imagine that your need to critically examine the tradition without resorting to slander is probably consonant with the desire of most who find themselves awake to the more extraneous, culturally alienating and superstitious aspects of GV...

I venture that perhaps - and I'm not trying to stir up trouble here - but, just perhaps, our numbers (at GR) are so meagre precisely because we have failed to build a comfortable enough landing space for souls sensitive to what they may feel, after years of devotional practice in a specialised area, to be a psychologically and spiritually jarring environment...

Readjustment is a 'gradual process'.

[Chanahari]

I'd say that those "banging" statements had some vibe of that unprocessed sexual frustration and guilt endured while within Iskcon - just look how long-standing and dangerous those effects can be! It makes serious, adult and educated men speak like teenage boys driven crazy by their hormones, when they hear about the personalities their suchlike feelings are associated with. Not very conducive to philosophical insight, but - oh well, that is not something that is enforced or expected here.

Aran, you are on to something with your last post.

[Brainiac]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with mockery of GV. Otherwise, one may as well take issue with the very existence of this forum, in which many members (mainly former Vaishnavas) have mocked and continue to mock GV beliefs routinely, the severity of which can be very profound. And also, when it takes place in a section of this forum entitled 'Freedom From Faith', it can be expected that members will be prone to discussing the after-effects of the GV experience on their lives (if not faith as an entire construct) and revisiting some of it's more sillier aspects.

Everyone has their own schtick, or angle. Women, for instance, will have cause to take issue with the anti-women schemata exemplified by some oppressive and territorial individuals in ISKCON. Homosexuals will similarly have cause to take issue with anti-homosexuality statements by the Founder as well as current attitudes that pervade throughout the organisation. And so on and on with all the topics; guru falldowns, financial irregularities, literary irregularities, etc., each issue catching the attention of people who feel that it resonates most with their experience. A part of my schtick fits in very well with the topic of this thread, the 'sheer stupidity' of ideas that circulate within the community of devotees, that may have been engendered either in the statements of the Founder or even within the recommended texts. 'Sheer stupidity' does not only exist within the minds and tongue-slips of the more eccentric types, but is also endemic (read: written in stone) within the scripture. So no, I don't see any problem with openly laughing at the naked Emperor.

It is not for anybody else to sit and comment on whether any such statements can be taken as indicative of "lack of realisation" or whatever, as that is a private matter that is up to the individual to choose to reveal or talk about. Similarly, it is not of my concern whether anyone gained any positive experiences within ISKCON; that is also up to the individual to talk about and there are already several threads there for one to go and register their appreciations if they have any, or politely discuss the Emperor's nakedness in hushed tones. There's always one.

Frankly I feel irreverence is a breath of fresh air. You can't fail to find something funny in grown men trying very hard to become little girls and have sex with God.

[Ananda]

While I may not agree with some tones in the comments that provoked the discussion, I am also uneasy over terms like slander, which imply our acceptance of certain holy premises, on which a negative view would be considered slander. Many old taboos break down only to unveil a deeper dimension beneath the surface, and the more we pamper them, the less likely we are to get to the bottom of things. I don't think mocking for the sake of mocking is of much worth, but when there's an actual point that's being made, let's give a bit of leeway in the way of language people choose to use as long as the point is relevant to the issue itself.

In the case of GV and sexuality in their mythos, the whole of Radha-Krishna-lila has clearly featured in the capacity of erotic poetry in the courts of the kings of yore, whose court-poets (such as Jayadeva and Vidyapati) composed several of the seminal Radha-Krishna narratives, and have since ascended to the position of supreme devotees in the eyes of the tradition. In that, I believe the Radha-Krishna-lila has served a noteworthy role as a vicarious outlet for the sexuality of the aristocracy of the times, in the very same classical Sanskrit cultural environment in which works like Ananga-ranga and Kama-sutra developed.

A second facet, all too often overlooked, is the tantric aspect of a dual sexual deity, and in particular the supreme male in whose supersexual exploits with his female emanations and companions the whole of cosmic meaning culminates. This is a very definite undercurrent seen in both the abundance of tantric source-works from which GV authors borrowed aspects of their theology, as well as in many other Vrindavan traditions (the Vallabha-sampradaya and Radha-vallabhis in particular come to mind), seen in its full bloom in the so-called apa-sampradayas of sahajiya fame that have their roots every bit as deep and far in the pages of history as the so-called Gaudiya orthodoxy.

Reformers such as Bhaktisiddhanta have sought to conceal these overtly clear aspects of the whole Radha-Krishna tradition, evidently in an attempt to preserve the "theological pristinity" of these narrations the tradition holds sacred and of the greatest universal importance. This is, however, a slant brought about by the construction of extensive theological frameworks atop an older and more libertine tradition, and as such I question the idea of taking these constructions as a central consideration in our approach and attitudes toward classical Sanskrit poetry and Puranic lore, whether it's Radha-Krishna or any other of your gods of choice in action.

It seems evident to me that the whole of the erotic narrative surrounding Krishna has played a number of "mundane" roles in culture and society from the very days of its written origins, and the more we convolute its natural fullness with theological apologetics, the further away we will be from anything that holds fundamental value in our understanding of the entire tradition.

Then, to rephrase Gaurasundara's original in light of the above:

"The whole 'sexual union with the gopis' all day and night sounds so much like the fantasies of an Indian aristocrat of yore or an emerging tantric sadhaka. And then you suddenly realise, oops, it is..."

Would that be more acceptable, philosophically adept, psychologically astute, and politically correct? And how different is it in its central import from what was said before?

[ePiTau]

ok then, lovingly inserted

[Ananda]

ok then, lovingly inserted

And here's a position I want to add atop all that vaguery of where I stand on this:

I believe Gaurasundara is wrong in his assumption that these were the fantasies of teenagers, as the teenagers of the times were not at a level of male sexual and psychological "maturity" we could fairly consider comparable to contemporary youth and their fantasies. I also don't think they used the term "banging"* back in the days, rather they were fond of clandestine poetic expressions such as "loving insertion" and the such, the likes of which are found all across the more "confidential" of narratives. The stories themselves certainly were fantasies in their own right, and catered to a whole society with their respective psychological and cultural needs, especially in the realm of approaching sexual taboos from an acceptable cultured angle.

While there may be a bit of repetition in the above, we all know that repetition of loving insertions is the mother of enjoyment, so please bear with me here.

* While I believe there are indeed a number of terms — in both classic kama-shastra and in the erotic poetry specific to gods — that could be translated as something akin to "banging", the cunning linguists of the day steered clear of openly vulgar expression, a tone the word "banging" would hold in contemporary language. This of course doesn't change the fact of the act of coitus serving as a central aspect and climax of the said narratives.

[Aranesque]

Ananda, as one would expect, your post (# 12) is intelligent, well-balanced and scholarly...

I agree with much of what you say, and consider your approach in matters philosophical to be user friendly (I am, again, thinking of our prospective 'readjuster') in both form and content.

And yes, at least to my mind, that would have been a more acceptable way of discussing the emergence of the Radha-Krishna tradition(s); I am a member of Sunthar Visuvalingam's Abhinavagupta forum, and such subjects - he has a particular fascination with what he terms Transgressive Sacrality - are not at all uncommon there.

[Ananda]

I agree with much of what you say, and consider your approach in matters philosophical to be user friendly (I am, again, thinking of our prospective 'readjuster') in both form and content.

Thank you Aran.

We need to remember that Gaurasundara is our resident tantric somesuch, and as such it's in his nature to try and break the shell of conditioning by reaching for the polar extremes. In the classic left-hand tantric approach, you would employ anything from human skulls to graveyards to copious liquor to copulative gang-bang retreats, and shock the hell out of everyone else while you sought the cosmic pinnacle. That's one way to shake the status quo and penetrate one layer deeper beneath the material sheath so central to all of this.

[Dhyana]

Frankly I feel irreverence is a breath of fresh air. You can't fail to find something funny in grown men trying very hard to become little girls and have sex with God.

Yep, yep. Now if we try to do as Ananda has suggested, to break the taboo to see what deeper level of truth it might contain, then one level that is evident for me would be, for the male practitioner, to break out of the superiority straitjacket the culture of that day put him in.

To yearn to be a woman in that culture is comparable with the European medieval saints putting the worms eating them alive back onto their open wounds if they fall off.

Plus the forest -- not the village where you stay in the bounds of your privileged position and where everybody scrutinizes your every move. And breaking the rules. Making yourself effectively impossible in the society.

It goes against your self-preservation instinct. It is quite something to ask of an aspiring bhakta. It might bring about an encounter with another aspect of oneself.

[Brainiac]

"Gaurasundara"? How wonderfully reminiscent.

Regarding teenagers, it seems that no one has (as yet) got the tongue-in-cheek reference to the transcendental teenaged autocrat who is ever inviting the fallen conditioned souls to associate with him in his eternal hydro-pornographic mood. And, by the way, I was not the originator of the term that has so offended the sensibilities of some, so lets have some balance here and less rush to comment on "readjustment" and such.

On matters of doctrine and such, there's only so much dancing one can do on the outer petals of the Yogapith. One has to wonder about the causes that led to the formulation of a religious tradition devoted almost entirely - at it's very core - to the constant contemplation of "loving insertion". What does that say about the psychology of individuals, who not only experience an irresistible attraction to this, but also go a great way in making this a priority of their pursuits? Sometimes it seems that the construction of layer upon layer of intricate theology to explain this, even that which is meant to assist the individual in understanding the reasons for and causes of his attraction, actually seems to serve the purpose of removing oneself further and further away from the embarrassment of having to admit and confess to what it actually is at the end of the day.

[ePiTau]

"Gaurasundara"? How wonderfully reminiscent.

Regarding teenagers, it seems that no one has (as yet) got the tongue-in-cheek reference to the transcendental teenaged autocrat who is ever inviting the fallen conditioned souls to associate with him in his eternal hydro-pornographic mood.

Oh no, I was as always constantly totally aware of this fact. In fact, teenage? Wasn't it acarya-wise stated he was merely eight years old and therefore no banging was physiologically even possible and therefor only the bad, I repeat, evil, section would insinuate mundane sex (disgusting).

And, by the way, I was not the originator of the term that has so offended the sensibilities of some, so lets have some balance here and less rush to comment on "readjustment" and such.

I used it without much thinking (possibly w/o any at all). That's probably why it caused such a stir. But as always, as far as I can see the best of you valiant heroes remain unshaken.

[Aranesque]

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail - Mark Twain

--

You know, if I'm honest, sometimes I feel exasperated by GR and wonder what the hell I'm doing on here...

Oh well, I expect new members - especially those fuzzy-minded, non-valiant pussies who still enjoy a wee bit of spiritually erotic asphyxiation, and show no desire for our 'fresh air' and trenchant atheistic splendour - are not much of a priority around these parts; we few are much happier sounding off to one another...Revelling in how shocking we can be in this cold, dark, but wonderfully draughty, little corner of the internet...

 flasher.jpg ( 14.17K ) Number of downloads: 0


---


OH - if you can stomach to read another word by such a prude - allow me to add, by way of an afterthought to my above exchange with Ananda, that I believe it would be rash to discount the contribution of Siddhanta Saraswati and his lineage in regards to the evolution of the Krishna conception outright...

One may (quite legitimately, in my opinion) regard his movement away from what may be considered the more 'mixed' roots of Radha Krishna lore, towards a purely 'spiritualised' (no doubt for many - 'sanitised' *) philosophy which, having shed its outer garments, sports afresh in the hearts of those who follow in his wake, as an important innovation in Applied Theology.

* I am thinking here, specifically, of the fact that important sections of the Gaudiya canon itself were deemed by him as unsuitable for general consumption.