Well, I’m in a phase of readjusting my beliefs so currently I’m probably not sure what exactly my question is. Let me also start with the observation that I’m probably biased by not knowing enough about Hinduism. For a long time my main source of reference has been ISKCON, which in my opinion presents a bowdlerized version of Hinduism, leaving out most of the Goddess stuff, which, in my view, is what makes Hinduism fundamentally different from Abrahamic religions.
For a long while, I’ve been into Advaita Vedanta, but lately I’ve come to wonder whether it isn’t merely a reflection of the "virtuous male" shielding himself from the temptress who is woman. In the Bhagavatam, women are often presented as temptresses who cause calamities for their men, but I know far too little so I cannot judge to what extent Hindu societies are actually misogynistic, but it has come to my attention anyway.
For example, personally, I don't think it's right that men and women have to sit separately in temples. I know it's a cultural difference, but generally in churches, men and women who are not related by blood do sit together without inevitably falling over each other sexually in a public sacred place.
Coming back to the topic of belief, Gaudiya Vaishnava teaches that Radha is the Shakti of Krishna, but I have a hard time imagining anything about it.
For example, assumed a musician writes a song, then he may say that this or that woman was his "muse" or inspiration, but the song was written by the musician himself, and not by the woman. It is "only" in his head that the woman inspired him to write it. She may not even be aware that she inspired him. (I know, one may also reverse the roles, but there are probably many more [famous] male musicians in the world than female ones).
You may also turn this concept around, in the sense that woman is "virtuous" and her self-control is "threatened" by a seductive man (and she doesn’t give in), but this constellation seems pretty rare to me, as if women had inherently fewer dispositions or opportunities to exercise self-control.
With regard to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, there is also a "heretic" counterpart called Vaishnava Sahajiya which seems / seemed to be sort of a "sex cult". Maybe I’m wrong but the point of Vaishnava Sahajiya seemed to be actual physical union, whereas in whereas in Gaudiya Vaishnava it’s "all in your head" and you experience bliss by sublimation, by enjoying devotional arts et cetera. However, experiencing "it" through sublimation seems to be "good" from a Vaishnava perspective, whereas physical union seems "bad". However, as far as "bliss" is concerned, somebody who sublimates their desires may claim to experience the same happiness as somebody who has actual sex. Maybe I basically misunderstood Shakti, but I wonder whether it can be established which kind of bliss is the "true" one. Gaudiya Vaishnava claims that sublimation is the true way, whereas from a point of Shakti it all seems the same, at least to me, which is an answer I’m not very satisfied with.
These are currently my thoughts. Hope this makes a bit of sense. Don’t hesitate to correct me wherever I’m wrong.
