Gaudiya Repercussions > Lusty feelings for Radha-Krishna?

Subal

Apr 8 2005, 03:15 AM

QUOTE

was free from the mundane lusty connotations of the English word.

Aren't we supposed to be developing lusty feelings for Radha Krishna? Isn't that what attracted the gopis? The erotic nature of Radha Krishna's love is what first attracted me and still does. I thought that's what those descriptions were meant to do. That's the kind of spiritual world I want to live in. Or are we to have a lustless spiritual world where everyone walks around like some kind of half dead celebate?

Chanahari

Apr 8 2005, 08:02 AM

Once even our orthodox ACBS said that "Brahmacharis should fall in love with Srimati Radharani".

What is lust anyway?
That's what the American Heritage Dictionary says:

QUOTE

1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2a. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power. b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
3. Obsolete Pleasure; relish.

The meanings 2. and 3. are acceptable attitudes towards Radha-Krishna for even the most restrictive celibates, I think. The desire for pleasure can't be really given up - if something, that's the nature of the living beings. Even if someone thinks: "I will accept immense suffering for Krishna's pleasure", he/she doesn't do that with the goal of suffering - he/she does that because he/she expects/gets more pleasure from Krishna's enjoyment than he/she loses by accepting that immense suffering.

evakurvan

Apr 8 2005, 03:40 PM

QUOTE

Aren't we supposed to be developing lusty feelings for Radha Krishna? Isn't that what attracted the gopis? The erotic nature of Radha Krishna's love is what first attracted me and still does. I thought that's what those descriptions were meant to do.

This point sort of reminds me of something I asked before elsewhere. Perhaps Subal and others would like to share their thoughts.

How does one practise this abstention from 'looking at sex' when one at the same time is visualizing / meditating on the often incredibly graphic and descriptive love sports of the Divine Couple. Sure these are meant to be taken as transcendental affairs dissasociated from mundane sex, but what does that really mean non-theoretically. How is sadhana on these passtimes to be dissasociated from the material associations and images they evoke.

Subal

Apr 8 2005, 06:04 PM

QUOTE

How does one practise this abstention from 'looking at sex' when one at the same time is visualizing / meditating on the often incredibly graphic and descriptive love sports of the Divine Couple. Sure these are meant to be taken as transcendental affairs dissasociated from mundane sex, but what does that really mean non-theoretically. How is sadhana on these passtimes to be dissasociated from the material associations and images they evoke.

I don't think it's a matter of abstaining from "looking at sex" as much as looking at it differently. What is the difference between abusive sex, casual sex and sex between two consenting adults in a committed loving relationship? It's a difference in the quality of the sex. Sex involving Radha Krishna is by nature spiritual, beyond time and space, and totally loving. That would involve a more complete union between the two as they become one and the manjaris are able to experience this union via identification with Radha more completely than if they were to have sex with Krishna directly. It's mostly a matter of perspective. I really don't worry about it because I think sex is good, material or spiritual, as long as it's loving, safe, consentual, etc. ISKCON has propagated a far too dualist view. Remember, Krishna is all there is. Nothing is material if we have the vision to see it spiritually. Couples should enjoy as much sex in as many different ways as they care to without all the guilt. Sex is a gift from God who happens to be a very sexy guy.

Chanahari

Apr 9 2005, 10:13 AM

Let's transcendentalize our sex lifes!

It may not be the answer Evakurvan expected, as she is one of the few of us who still accept the four regulations as described by Prabhupada.

Homer

Apr 9 2005, 10:28 AM

The flower breathing its perfume into space, without thought, is more perfect than the yogi who denies his own nature.

evakurvan

Apr 9 2005, 11:22 AM

I see those 4 principles as mysterious tips that help deepen sadhana. I do not dismiss them as mere moralisms. I do not see the people who follow them as necessarily self-denying sexual dysfunctionals or inherent asexuals.

I do not see them as too old to care anymore either. I think we have quite a peculiar perception of ageing.

If people's relationship to the principles is a sado-masochistic one of punishment / reward - guilt / pride, I suppose that is not too positive. This mode of relating to them is probably more common among those with Judeo-Christian binary backrounds, but I do not know, and I rarely like to say things like that.

Elsewhere the answer I got to my question was a quote about who is and who is not allowed to meditate on those pastimes. But that was not my question. I think people who meditate on these pastimes and are qualified, probably would benefit from pondering this too. I would like to know how one experiences phrases like "Krna touches Radha's breast," non-literally.

This is not a motivated question.

Perhaps this should be moved to the sexual dysfunction thread or another one.

Dhyana

Apr 9 2005, 01:32 PM

QUOTE (evakurvan @ Apr 9 2005, 11:22 AM)

If people's relationship to the principles is a sado-masochistic one of punishment / reward - guilt / pride, I suppose that is not too positive. This mode of relating to them is probably more common among those with Judeo-Christian binary backrounds, but I do not know, and I rarely like to say things like that.

Elsewhere the answer I got to my question was a quote about who is and who is not allowed to meditate on those pastimes. But that was not my question. I think people who meditate on these pastimes and are qualified, probably would benefit from pondering this too. I would like to know how one experiences phrases like "Krna touches Radha's breast," non-literally.

This is not a motivated question.

Perhaps this should be moved to the sexual dysfunction thread or another one.

I have split the texts above into a new thread. Let's keep the sexual dysfunction thread for sexual dysfunctions

- like these guilt/pride issues you have mentioned. In this thread we can continue discussing the issue of transcendental lusty feelings, meditation on Radha-Krishna's erotic pastimes, as it could be or should be.

If the discussion later veers into the "dysfunctional", we can always move the texts there.

Subal

Apr 9 2005, 03:37 PM

QUOTE

I would like to know how one experiences phrases like "Krna touches Radha's breast," non-literally.

It shouldn't be taken "non-literally." It means he's touching her breast in a loving, erotic manner and they both like the way it feels. One can meditate on that experience and enjoy transcendental pleasure without guilt.

Homer

Apr 9 2005, 04:05 PM

QUOTE (Subal @ Apr 9 2005, 11:37 PM)

QUOTE

I would like to know how one experiences phrases like "Krna touches Radha's breast," non-literally.

It shouldn't be taken "non-literally." It means he's touching her breast in a loving, erotic manner and they both like the way it feels. One can meditate on that experience and enjoy transcendental pleasure without guilt.

This is where I have difficulty.

How can one say that we should or should not see something in a particular way? Especially when we are speaking of our relationship with the Supreme and His friends.

I always become suspicious when someone tells others what to think – no matter how fluently.

evakurvan

Apr 9 2005, 04:06 PM

I do not mind it's all good I was just asking for any thoughts. Almost anything anyone says will be that way unless they always answer: Think whatever you want!! It is human to have opinions or else we are inhuman!!

Sure we can say these pastimes represent loving lovemaking but I don't know. I am also wondering what is the understanding of those who do not see these pastimes as loving material sex.

Homer

Apr 9 2005, 04:30 PM

QUOTE (evakurvan @ Apr 10 2005, 12:06 AM)

I do not mind it's all good I was just asking for any thoughts. Almost anything anyone says will be that way unless they always answer: Think whatever you want!! It is human to have opinions or else we are inhuman!!

Sure we can say these pastimes represent loving lovemaking but I don't know. I am also wondering what is the understanding of those who do not see these pastimes as loving material sex.

Many appear to not have their own opinions and this is why some are able to make a living by telling others what to think either through books or by decree.

evakurvan

Apr 9 2005, 04:33 PM

editted by evakurvan

Homer

Apr 9 2005, 04:39 PM

QUOTE (evakurvan @ Apr 10 2005, 12:33 AM)

editted by evakurvan - off topic!

Opinions require courage. Letting other discourage us indicates co-dependency.

Oneiros

Apr 10 2005, 04:18 AM

Since this thread is on lusty feelings, I thought that I would post the following link (scroll down to the bottom):

'Obscene' comments on Hindu deity lands writer in trouble.

Tapati

Apr 10 2005, 06:55 AM

I have to agree, the Goddess Saraswati is one hot chick.

I do think it is important to get consent before touching Her, though.

No means No!

Chanahari

Apr 10 2005, 08:33 AM

QUOTE (Tapati @ Apr 10 2005, 07:55 AM)

I have to agree, the Goddess Saraswati is one hot chick.

Just wait until the complainer doesn't find Gaudiya Repercussions!

Chanahari

Apr 10 2005, 08:41 AM

QUOTE (evakurvan @ Apr 9 2005, 05:06 PM)

Sure we can say these pastimes represent loving lovemaking but I don't know. I am also wondering what is the understanding of those who do not see these pastimes as loving material sex.

I'm reminded of the Christian allegoric interpreation of Solomon's Song of Songs (is that how it is called in English?), which, in all its sensuosity, was told to mean the relationship between God and the Church (in some 900 years before its founding

).

Tapati

Apr 10 2005, 09:04 AM

Ah, The Song of Songs, yes!

From our wedding:

Stamp me in you heart,
Upon your limbs,
Sear my emblem deep
Into your skin.

For love is as strong as death,
Harsh as the grave.
Its tongues are flames, a fierce
And holy blaze.

Endless seas and floods,
Torrents and rivers
Never put out love's
Infinite fires.

Those who think that wealth
Can buy them love
Only play the fool
And meet with scorn.

Dhyana

Apr 10 2005, 01:09 PM

QUOTE (Tapati @ Apr 10 2005, 06:55 AM)

I have to agree, the Goddess Saraswati is one hot chick.

I do think it is important to get consent before touching Her, though.

No means No!

The problem with Goddess Sarasvati, though, is that she is famous for twisting words. She is the one who takes a Bhagavatam verse, say, Hiranyaksa's insulting Varahadeva, proposes an alternate splitting of the Sanskirit compounds, and voila! it turns out that Hiranyaksa was actually praising Varahadeva, not insulting...

A male eager for love and who knows something about Sarasvati might thus not be inclined to take her No for a No!

Oneiros

Apr 10 2005, 01:13 PM

QUOTE (Tapati @ Apr 10 2005, 01:55 AM)

No means No!

For all I know, she could very well have said "Yes!" or "Sure, you can touch!" or "Yes, baby!" or "Oh, yes! Your warm hands feel so good against my shapely stone body!"

How do you get the consent of a statue? I remember an incident in the Danish temple. A group of devotees (I was one of them) was discussing some plans for the temple. At one point, one devotee said, "This is Gaura-Nitai's temple, we should ask what they want." It is one of those statements which, in the temple context, seems to be deep and meaningful, but which is, in reality, utterly idiotic. How are two metal statues to have an opinion about anything? And even if they did have an opinion about what we were discussing, how are they going to express it? Sure enough, all the devotees found Gaura-Nitai on their side, citing various incidents and passages to back up their claim. The whole thing was just so silly...

Oneiros

Apr 10 2005, 01:39 PM

QUOTE (Dhyana @ Apr 10 2005, 08:09 AM)

The problem with Goddess Sarasvati, though, is that she is famous for twisting words. She is the one who takes a Bhagavatam verse, say, Hiranyaksa's insulting Varahadeva, proposes an alternate splitting of the Sanskirit compounds, and voila! it turns out that Hiranyaksa was actually praising Varahadeva, not insulting...

A male eager for love and who knows something about Sarasvati might thus not be inclined to take her No for a No!

Tapati

Apr 15 2005, 08:50 AM

If you can't get the consent, then you can't claim the consent. So I'd have to say, consensual sex with statues is impossible.

Now if the statue come to life and moves, and gives consent, then you're in business. Just don't expect anyone to believe you.

talasiga

Apr 15 2005, 01:14 PM

Braja erotica is not genitally focused. Genital references in poetry and other aestheto-religious writings are metaphorical. Yes, thats right - it is not non-genital sex that is the metaphor but the other way round.

Krishna and the Gopis can feel orgastic ecstasy simply by touching their fingertips together. Every part of their divine rupa has the same capacity as every other part.

Celibacy (and I am not a full time celibate and nor do I condone artificial celibacy) can be an opportunity for us to unleash our orgastic capacity in the absence of genital stimuli. When we begin to feel ecstasies as powerful as sexual orgasm in relation to other areas of our feeling being we begin to reflect the nature of being in Braja.

In one sense, lust for Radha-Krishna is a craving for a rhapsodic state of being, one in which sexual activity, as we currently know it, does not monopolise our access to bliss.

Ultimately, true or "pure" devotion really only begins when we are already in that bliss. This is when we can surely love Radha-Krishna for who they are rather than for what they can give us. This is why the pure devotees are said to be in Braja.

Oneiros

Apr 16 2005, 10:35 PM

QUOTE (Tapati @ Apr 15 2005, 03:50 AM)

If you can't get the consent, then you can't claim the consent. So I'd have to say, consensual sex with statues is impossible.

Consensual sex with a statue is impossible? I would say that consensual sex with a statue is meaningless, as such an action does not involve two parties that are in a position to agree on anything. A statue is a piece of metal or stone. I do not see that the idea of a statue's consent is meaningful at all. Also, if one should refrain from touching a statue "inappropriately" because one cannot get its consent, then how about keeping a statue in one's home, dressing it in silly clothes, singing songs before it, etc.? Since nobody can get consent for that either, should one then not keep statues and/or worship them? I say that if someone wants to fondle a statue, then let him do it. Why not? It is harmless, so why make a big deal over it? Bringing in issues such as the statue's consent only confuses things, in my opinion.

The Taliban cut fingers off women with painted nails. Yet, somehow, this provoked much less of an outcry than when they decided to blow up statues of the Buddha. Similarly, though less extreme, I know ISKCON devotees who would put the welfare of the temple deity above the welfare of other devotees. And now some people in Bengal get all worked up over a man expressing his desires for SarasvatI and admitting to having fondled a statue of her. Something to think about. It sure is a strange world...

Tapati

Apr 16 2005, 11:19 PM

I have to admit, I was really in love with the Deities in Chicago and I do think it is a sweet concept that God will enter into the form to be directly worshipped.

I don't, however, think He wants the welfare of humans to be neglected in the name of such service. He doesn't need our service in the same direct way that humans need the essentials of life.

Symbols have power in people's lives, and I am not surprised by their reaction. I don't know that it is justifiable, but it's not surprising. Look at how bent out of shape some Americans can get over flag burning, and that's not even a religous symbol!

That piece of cloth is not my country.

Tapati

Apr 18 2005, 06:38 AM

I came across the following story told by another devotee of Kuan Yin named Chen over at ecauldron:

QUOTE

I think it was in Kao-hsiung about the 1970s when a Kuan Yin image was knocked down by a very foul mood policewoman in a temple. This was a small subshrine with an image considered particularly holy because it stood in the Fuzhou temple and was smuggled over during the ousting of the Kuomintang to Taiwan, and has many small miracles associated with it. Anyway, it was a beautiful and expensive piece of porcelain work that got smashed, plus much religious value at the same time.

As you can see the temple authority and some very close minded monks were not amused, and the policewoman after realising what she had done when her mood settled was so horrifed she tried to buy a replacement. Her pay was however meagre to say the least. However, she was so filled with regrets that she spent the next three months practically going hungry and living a very frugal life and finally bought a porcelain statue that looked like the old statue. However, it was of poorer workmanship but that was all she could afford.

Unfortunately for her by the end of the three months a rich businessmen who patronised the temple decided to toss some of his spare cash to buy a much more beautiful image of Kuan Yin and even throw a big ceremony ( all in his name of course ). The lady was a little late as when she was about to donate the statue ceremony was already in its day three of event. She was naturally turned away and was asked to donate the statue to a side shrine or one by the stairwell.

Consigned to her fate ( the new statue was marvellous afterall ) she left the statue on an empty granite altar and was about to leave when an old crone appeared out of virtually nowhere and picked up the statue and charged into the ceremony. There she planted the statue under the new image. The monks and priest were horrified, and were about to chase the old lady out until she grew younger and younger, and before them stood a young woman, who smiled at them, and bowed to the policewoman outside the temple and faded.

This image is now considered to be a very sacred image as it was borne by the hands of Kuan Yin or Lung Nu herself ( because of the policewoman's story the character becomes a little confused between Kuan Yin or Lung Nu, who is the disciple of Kuan Yin ). The policewoman ( who incidentally was the only person to have heard the lady speak to her while bowing) said that the lady introduced herself as Lung Nu, and said that Kuan Yin was ecstatic with this gift. When the policewoman said that her gift was nothing compared to the more beautiful, many times larger statue, Lung Nu said it is not statues or images or temples that matter to Kuan Yin, but rather the heart that does. The policewoman gave her all, and this is very sacred to Kuan Yin.

Oneiros

Apr 18 2005, 12:16 PM

QUOTE (Tapati @ Apr 16 2005, 06:19 PM)

I have to admit, I was really in love with the Deities in Chicago and I do think it is a sweet concept that God will enter into the form to be directly worshipped.

If people like a statue, that is fine. I have no objections to people dressing a statue, etc. That is fine. The problem arises when they project their feelings onto a greater scene. "My statue is the lord of the universe!"--silly ideas like that. Anybody is free to give a statue any role in their own lives--be it a belief that it drinks milk at night, that it houses the spirit of Gog and Magog, or whatever--but this should not be imposed on others' reality and feelings. As I see it, to realize that one feels offended at another person's fondling his statue of SarasvatI provides a chance to grow up and understand things better.

QUOTE

I don't, however, think He wants the welfare of humans to be neglected in the name of such service. He doesn't need our service in the same direct way that humans need the essentials of life.

You know me, I doubt that there is a "He" out there who thinks about these things.

QUOTE

Symbols have power in people's lives, and I am not surprised by their reaction. I don't know that it is justifiable, but it's not surprising. Look at how bent out of shape some Americans can get over flag burning, and that's not even a religous symbol!

Flag burning is different. That is a public display of hate, telling another group, "We do not like you!" A man fondling his statue in private is a different affair altogether.

But, yes, symbols have power in people's lives. It is just sad when it takes over so much.

Bhaktavasya

Apr 20 2005, 05:05 PM

This is a little off-topic, but seeing as everyone is talking about statues 'in general', here's a little story of a statue that was given to me by an elderly massage client, who was too old and feeble to come to my home anymore so I paid home visits to him. I noticed a black nude statue, about 10-12 inches in height, with her arms positioned behind her head, in a somewhat sensual, relaxed position, with a slight smile fixed on her carved face. "This statue reminds me of Goddess Kali" I said to him, picking her up appreciatively when I noticed her for the first time. It became an ongoing playful ritual, that I would bow slightly to the statue, in respect, before giving him his massage. Before he died, perhaps intuiting that he was leaving soon, he placed the statue in my hands as I was leaving to go home. "A gift for you" he said, surprising me with the solemn tone of his voice.

I brought the statue home and placed it by my computer, putting a piece of silk scarf around her. This was several years ago, and I was in a 'dark mood' in regards to receiving Hare Krishna visitors (with the exception of my good female friend and godsister who always called before coming over). A godbrother dropped by for an improptu visit and noticed the black statue, then inquired about it. "That's Goddess Kali" I said, somewhat sinisterly on purpose and he almost fled from the room with some excuse while I secretly laughed at his 'fear' of the Goddess.

She went into a box when I moved because she really did freak out some people, then recently I unpacked her and she is standing gloriously by the window on a dresser, looking much more casual and not at all menacing. I don't worship her but once in a while I spontaneously pick her up and dance with her ( a slow Sting ballad).

Bhaktavasya

Apr 27 2005, 05:32 PM

QUOTE (talasiga @ Apr 15 2005, 06:14 AM)

Braja erotica is not genitally focused. Genital references in poetry and other aestheto-religious writings are metaphorical. Yes, thats right - it is not non-genital sex that is the metaphor but the other way round.

Krishna and the Gopis can feel orgastic ecstasy simply by touching their fingertips together. Every part of their divine rupa has the same capacity as every other part.

Celibacy (and I am not a full time celibate and nor do I condone artificial celibacy) can be an opportunity for us to unleash our orgastic capacity in the absence of genital stimuli. When we begin to feel ecstasies as powerful as sexual orgasm in relation to other areas of our feeling being we begin to reflect the nature of being in Braja.

In one sense, lust for Radha-Krishna is a craving for a rhapsodic state of being, one in which sexual activity, as we currently know it, does not monopolise our access to bliss.

Ultimately, true or "pure" devotion really only begins when we are already in that bliss. This is when we can surely love Radha-Krishna for who they are rather than for what they can give us. This is why the pure devotees are said to be in Braja.

Beautifully expressed, Talasiga. It appears that unless there is 'true devotion' for the object of love, then fondling anyone who can't move or speak for one's own pleasure, is creepy indeed. May as well buy a blow-up doll and 'have fun'; not against the law but not 'the highest pleasure'.

hope this hasn't been 'over the top'', as i'm a newcomer again, testing out the waters

Dhyana

Apr 27 2005, 08:04 PM

QUOTE

hope this hasn't been 'over the top'', as i'm a newcomer again, testing out the waters

No, it hasn't been over the top by my standards (I am not too well acquainted with the U.S. Parental Guidance code...). As I understand the policy at GR, sex topics are topics just like all others; what we wish to avoid is too graphic, vulgar or otherwise offending language or manner of presentation.

I agree with your point, Bhaktavasya. And with Talasiga's insight (dare I say "realization"?

)

Oneiros

Apr 29 2005, 01:38 AM

QUOTE (Bhaktavasya @ Apr 27 2005, 01:32 PM)

Beautifully expressed, Talasiga. It appears that unless there is 'true devotion' for the object of love, then fondling anyone who can't move or speak for one's own pleasure, is creepy indeed. May as well buy a blow-up doll and 'have fun'; not against the law but not 'the highest pleasure'.

hope this hasn't been 'over the top'', as i'm a newcomer again, testing out the waters

I agree with Dhyana that your posting is not "over the top"--far from it.

Fondling a statue (which is, by the way, not an "anyone," but an "anything") without "true devotion" is creepy? True devotion? What is that exactly? I have never met anyone, devotee or otherwise, who were not, like any human being, selfish and an appropriator. A profound insight of Cioran comes to mind: "Man is forever a proprietor. Not even the saints could escape this mediocrity." How true, how true. A devotee's absorption in RAdhA and KRSNa is an appropriation, plain and simple, and the "true devotion" that you talk about seems to be little more than a way of providing his or her beliefs with some sort of divine validation, a smoke-screen that dresses the appropriativeness and selfishness of man in garments of selflessness and godliness. In this case, the appropriativeness is mental and/or emotional and aimed at something unusual, yet it is still appropriativeness.

There is a powerful passage in Georges Perec's Life: A User's Manual: "Today the room is occupied by a man of about thirty; he is on his bed, stark naked, prone, amidst five inflattable dolls, lying full length on top of one of them and cuddling two others in his arms, apparently experiencing an unparalleled orgasm on these precarious simulacra."

I ask, what is the difference between this and a devotee's appropriation of the divine? The man in Perec's story cuddles inflattable dolls for pleasure and a devotee finds pleasure in imagining that he is rendering service to god. Are the two really so different? Doesn't the two scenarios, though they appear different, flow from the same source? It seems to me that the border between "true devotion" and the "fun" you mention above is porous indeed--elusive, and perhaps even wholly insubstantial.

Creepy--this is relative to the eyes of the beholder. It is not my thing to fondle statues, but I can think of more creepy things than fondling or statue or even getting sexual pleasure through the use of a blow-up doll. The claim of a devotee that such-and-such a person is now in mAyA because of "offenses" is more creepy than a man touching a statue.

The highest pleasure? What is that anyway?

Chanahari

Apr 29 2005, 06:38 AM

QUOTE (Oneiros)

I ask, what is the difference between this and a devotee's appropriation of the divine? The man in Perec's story cuddles inflattable dolls for pleasure and a devotee finds pleasure in imagining that he is rendering service to god. Are the two really so different? Doesn't the two scenarios, though they appear different, flow from the same source? It seems to me that the border between "true devotion" and the "fun" you mention above is porous indeed--elusive, and perhaps even wholly insubstantial.

If there is no God, the two processes are indeed one.

But the existence or non-existence of God is empirically unprovable; there is a tiny, unprovable chance of the Deity really being accessible through the statue - thus the worshipper may really do service (what a weak word!). There is a still lesser chance that the worshipper has really an unselfish attitude (ie. he doesn't worship to enjoy God's grace, but to make God happy), and, as the Divine is present, He/She/It can accept this.

All of these chances are non-existent in the case of a rubber doll. In case a God is existing and present, one may give him/herself toGod, instead of appropiate It (ie. making It his/her own). But the doll? If someone gives himself to a doll, he is certainly crazy, for the doll is not a person - the rubber doll may only be the object of appropiation. There is some chance in the Deity, but not any chance in the doll (that is if one doesn't use a doll as a Deity - in this case, God's is the decision to accept the worship through it.

What a perv I am!)

talasiga

Apr 29 2005, 10:26 AM

QUOTE (Oneiros @ Apr 29 2005, 12:38 PM)

......
The highest pleasure? What is that anyway?

I will leave Bhaktavasya to explain what she meant by 'the highest pleasure' which she wrote in inverted commas.

My interpretation of "highest pleasure" in the context of a discussion of spiritual rhapsody is:

pleasure that is not imprisoned by the path to it

Oneiros

Sep 12 2005, 11:05 PM

QUOTE (Oneiros @ Apr 10 2005, 12:18 AM)

Since this thread is on lusty feelings, I thought that I would post the following link (scroll down to the bottom):

'Obscene' comments on Hindu deity lands writer in trouble.

More on this story:

Trial of poet for 'defiling idol'

zanardi

Sep 13 2005, 06:33 AM

This is an interesting thread! I have found that the concepts of devotion, belief and projection are not that easy to separate from each other. Especially the amount of projection in belief and devotion is a touchy subject. I liked the story of Danish devotees asking Gaur-Nitai deities what they thought about their ideas.
A very telling example. Funny and absurd at the same time. Like having sex with a statue you are devoted to. So many things mixed together.

Milla

Sep 13 2005, 07:51 AM

QUOTE

Krishna and the Gopis can feel orgastic ecstasy simply by touching their fingertips together. Every part of their divine rupa has the same capacity as every other part.

Click to view attachment

zanardi

Sep 13 2005, 11:19 AM

I wonder about these "tingling fingertips". Is it not so, that when one is very much erotically aroused, even us, regular fellows, feel erotic sensations all over the body?

Oneiros

Sep 13 2005, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (Milla @ Sep 13 2005, 03:51 AM)

QUOTE

Krishna and the Gopis can feel orgastic ecstasy simply by touching their fingertips together. Every part of their divine rupa has the same capacity as every other part.

It is funny what the fertile mind comes up with. The same is true for the Heffalump under my bed and his girlfriend, whom I think is a transmogriffed Odder. You should see them when the tips of their noses meet! It is a touch full of power!

I wonder why humans find it necessary to invent things such as KRSNa and the gopIs having the same capacity in every part of their rUpa. There seems to be a need for such mental inventions, which sound beautiful poetically, but ultimately does not mean anything.

Dhyana

Sep 19 2005, 06:04 PM

I have split off the last ten or so posts into a new thread called Devotion, Deconstruction, Mind and Meaning, here:

http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index.php?showtopic=721

talasiga

Sep 24 2005, 10:03 AM

QUOTE

........
I wonder why humans find it necessary to invent things such as KRSNa and the gopIs having the same capacity in every part of their rUpa. There seems to be a need for such mental inventions, which sound beautiful poetically, but ultimately does not mean anything.

Putting aside the metaphysical perspective and taking up a humanistic one, perhaps it is a projection of "a rhapsodic state of being, one in which sexual activity, as we currently know it, does not monopolise our access to bliss". It is human psychology to project innate capacities, feelings, thoughts and attributes which are not currently accessible or acknowledged.

There are various psychotherapeutic approaches to remedy projections, including
* "busting" the patient by blocking his or her avenues and focus for projection and forcing him or her to dive into the source or driver of the projection
* allowing the projection to run its course in the fullest sense by encouraging and guiding the patient to identify every part of the projection as themself.
*focussing on dissolving blocks in the character armour of the patient.

evakurvan

Dec 13 2005, 07:31 AM

In response to Subal's post #4
ha sorry to respond to this so late!

QUOTE

Sex is a gift from God who happens to be a very sexy guy.

There is this Christian cult called The Family and one of their main mottos is: Jesus is a sexy guy.

QUOTE

I don't think it's a matter of abstaining from "looking at sex" as much as looking at it differently. What is the difference between abusive sex, casual sex and sex between two consenting adults in a committed loving relationship? It's a difference in the quality of the sex. Sex involving Radha Krishna is by nature spiritual, beyond time and space, and totally loving... I really don't worry about it because I think sex is good, material or spiritual, as long as it's loving, safe, consentual, etc.

In the context of this, how do you understand Radha Krishna lila. Radha is 14 year old adulteress and Krishna a philanderer who performs love sports with tons of other pubescent girls. This is all done by Yogamaya to make it more exciting of course and one should not apprehend this in material terms.

But in the context of what you say about sex as sanctified within a committed relationship, also in the context of lila meaning exactly what it says it means literally (like you state in post #9), how do you interpret this glorification of adultery and philandering, (or this implicit assumption in the lila that such things are more intense and exciting).

These texts are not meant in the way I am describing them, but to an outsider reading these texts literally, this is what they say. How to understand them internally?

zanardi

Dec 13 2005, 09:06 AM

I have always wondered about one story from the Krsna-book. Krsna steals the gopis clothes and orders them to do obeisances to the river. By doing so they are "mooning" Him. Have I understood the story correctly? Interesting.

Pentagram

Dec 13 2005, 01:10 PM

QUOTE (zanardi @ Dec 13 2005, 10:06 AM)

I have always wondered about one story from the Krsna-book. Krsna steals the gopis clothes and orders them to do obeisances to the river. By doing so they are "mooning" Him. Have I understood the story correctly? Interesting.

And then you get The Moonies!!!

Whata religion. Krishna can chew betel nuts, have sex with an underage girl he is not married to, then moves miles away and has many wives. The only time he spent in prison was when he was born.

And the founder of ISKCON came from a broken marriage, hey its all lila, its not meant to be read that way.

Hmm, if I get caught speeding I will tell the police that their instruments may record I was travelling at 100MPH, but they shouldn't read it that way.

Dhyana

Dec 13 2005, 05:04 PM

QUOTE

Whata religion. Krishna can chew betel nuts, have sex with an underage girl he is not married to, then moves miles away and has many wives. The only time he spent in prison was when he was born.

But the Six Gosvamis will tell you that he was only eight at the time of those excesses in the forests of Vrndavana, so no penetration could be there, thus making the whole thing beyond reproach.

Hmmm. Wonder why they didn't think in this connection that Krishna is Krishna and always has his full powers when he needs them... as they are fond of pointing out in other contexts.

I remember many years ago reading an otherwise quite positive news article about the HK movement, where the writer ended: "But how on earth did these followers of an amorous god like Krishna get talked into total celibacy?"

zanardi

Dec 13 2005, 09:09 PM

The answer is obvious: it never happened! It was just another one of these fantastic tales they are so fond of telling to others.

Homer

Dec 13 2005, 09:38 PM

QUOTE (Dhyana @ Dec 14 2005, 01:04 AM)

QUOTE

Whata religion. Krishna can chew betel nuts, have sex with an underage girl he is not married to, then moves miles away and has many wives. The only time he spent in prison was when he was born.

But the Six Gosvamis will tell you that he was only eight at the time of those excesses in the forests of Vrndavana, so no penetration could be there, thus making the whole thing beyond reproach.

Hmmm. Wonder why they didn't think in this connection that Krishna is Krishna and always has his full powers when he needs them... as they are fond of pointing out in other contexts.

I remember many years ago reading an otherwise quite positive news article about the HK movement, where the writer ended: "But how on earth did these followers of an amorous god like Krishna get talked into total celibacy?"

I have seen eight-year olds getting it on. A devotee friend had a gathering in Sydney and these kids were doing it in the back room. You should have seen the reaction of the fanatical devotee mother! The mother was so militant stanch that she eventually burned out and left her husband and three children and ended up with a guy she met in a disco joint!

She was probably a lot happier.

Homer

Dec 13 2005, 09:39 PM

QUOTE (zanardi @ Dec 14 2005, 05:09 AM)

The answer is obvious: it never happened! It was just another one of these fantastic tales they are so fond of telling to others.

You need the magic eye ointment, prabhu.

Homer

Dec 13 2005, 09:41 PM

QUOTE (Pentagram @ Dec 13 2005, 09:10 PM)

QUOTE (zanardi @ Dec 13 2005, 10:06 AM)

I have always wondered about one story from the Krsna-book. Krsna steals the gopis clothes and orders them to do obeisances to the river. By doing so they are "mooning" Him. Have I understood the story correctly? Interesting.

Whata religion. Krishna can chew betel nuts, have sex with an underage girl he is not married to, then moves miles away and has many wives. The only time he spent in prison was when he was born.

This is one of the very reasons I thought KC was cool. An enjoying God - made sense to me, for a while.

evakurvan

Dec 14 2005, 01:11 AM

QUOTE

I would think twice before talking of Krishna lila in the way I am doing here, if I were in a forum for Vaishnavas.

I am the one who brought up speaking of Radha Krishna lila in that way. I do not think my bringing this up is what so ever disrespectful to Vaisnavas. I think fears of appearing disrespectful destroy true discussion. If it is disrespectful I would only be disrespecting myself.

I did not bring it up for the sake of cheap jokes. If people use it only as a springboard for wisecracks and the usual obvious rhetoric against GV, and nothing beyond that, then it is kind of underwhelming.

Although understandable and part of free speaking.