In Addition to: "Shaktism, only for Siddhis"; Westernization of Hinduism; Alienation; TANTRA

[Aupmanyav]

.. most traditions of Hinduism look down upon sex because of lust or love, as it falls into the realm of Samsara.

I would not say that. Sex is a necessity, at the right age, in the right quantity, by the right method. It is one of the 'purusharthas' (a should do thing). It does not even hinder spiritual quest (most Hindu sages being married, some with more than one wife, and children). Only when the balance is lost in life, then only sex becomes a curse. In samsara, it is OK to do samsaric things.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The dawns (Ushasah),

अचेति केतुरुषसः पुरस्ताच्छ्रिये दिवो दुहितुर्जायमानः l http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv07067.htm, Verse 2
acheti keturuṣhasaḥ purastācchriye divo duhiturjāyamānaḥ l
Eastward is seen the Banner of the Morning, the Banner born to give Heaven's Daughter glory.

and this:

करत तिस्रो मघवा दानुचित्रा नि दुर्योणे कुयवाचं मर्धिश्रेत l http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv01174.htm, Verse 7
karat tisro maghavā dānucitrā ni duryoṇe kuyavācaṃ mṛdhiśret
Maghavan made the three that gleam with moisture, and to his home brought Kuyavāc to slay him.
(Because Kuvaya is one of the demons of darkness, the lovely dawn full of hope and the sun bringing the waters would come only when Kuvaya is killed)

 

[Chakra]

I would not say that. Sex is a necessity, at the right age, in the right quantity, by the right method. It is one of the 'purusharthas' (a should do thing). It does not even hinder spiritual quest (most Hindu sages being married, some with more than one wife, and children). Only when the balance is lost in life, then only sex becomes a curse. In samsara, it is OK to do samsaric things.

Dear sir,
As far as I have been told, sex is only supposed to be done for begetting children, and that is it. Now, I don't know if this is a Vaishnava POV only. If anyone agrees with this statement please let me know.
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

Dear sir,
As far as I have been told, sex is only supposed to be done for begetting children, and that is it. Now, I don't know if this is a Vaishnava POV only. If anyone agrees with this statement please let me know.
Regards

As far as I know it is indeed a Vaishnava POV, and only in some Vaishnava schools at that. Course I could be wrong. I'm actually not sure about the Brahmin community.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Dear sir,
As far as I have been told, sex is only supposed to be done for begetting children, and that is it. Now, I don't know if this is a Vaishnava POV only. If anyone agrees with this statement please let me know.
Regards

I personally have issues with the "sex for procreation only" stance. Not only within Hinduism, but within many religions.

To me, sex is a natural expression people have with another person (or multiple people, if that is what they want); it's not just for the purpose of propagating the human race. To deny it would be to deny a basic human need. Now I'm not saying that we should go around and screw everything in sight just because we can. There should be some restraint, but likewise it shouldn't be completely restricted.

Besides, as far as people have told me, illicit sex is generally frowned upon by Vaishnavites in general, but Gaudiya (especially ISKCON) is the major one that really enforces sex for procreation only.

 

[Poeticus]

Dear sir,
As far as I have been told, sex is only supposed to be done for begetting children, and that is it. Now, I don't know if this is a Vaishnava POV only. If anyone agrees with this statement please let me know.
Regards

Regardless of whether it is a sectarian POV or not, the fact remains that pleasure-in-moderation is a valid pramāṇa (and yes, I used Aup-dada's signature for help ).

 

[Chakra]

Okay, well I suppose it is only for Vaishnavas, since they emphasize Bhakti and Moksha over Kama and Artha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As far as I have been told, sex is only supposed to be done for begetting children, and that is it. Now, I don't know if this is a Vaishnava POV only.

As far as I know it is indeed a Vaishnava POV, and only in some Vaishnava schools at that. Course I could be wrong. I'm actually not sure about the Brahmin community.

Axlyz, this is not even the Vaishnava POV. The husband and wife are perfectly entitled to carnal pleasures within the limits of 'dharma', lust is not advocated and nor is use of force, keeping in view each other's health, enjoyment, and other responsibilities; and the whole society is notified of their relationship at the time of marriage. There is no bar on marriage of bhaktas among followers of Madhvacharya, Ramanujacharya or Vallabhacharya (Vallabha himself was married and had children). Of course, sex in olden times resulted in children. Now with the use of contraceptives the situation is advantageous to both, men and women. They say 'Ek nari, Brahmachari'. One does not even loose Brahmacharya by sex in marriage. And, Vinayaka, brahmins have no special problems in this. There is record of rishi-patnis asking their husbands for sexual satisfaction (Sage Kashyapa). Don't take Hindus to be Victorians. Kama is one of the 'purusharthas'. These are the mantras chanted at the time of marriage:

Who offered this maiden? to whom is she offered?
Kama (the god of love) gave her to me, that I may love her
Love is the giver, love is the acceptor
Enter thou, the bride, the ocean of love. Kama Sukta

I take thy hand in mine, yearning for happiness
I ask thee, to live with me, as thy husband
Till both of us, with age, grow old. RigVeda (Surya 10.85)

I am the sky, you are the earth. I am the thought, you are the speech. I am the fire and you are the fuel. I am the song, you are the verse. I am the ocean, you are the shore. I am the strength but you are the beauty. I am the Purush, and you are my Prakriti.

 

[Poeticus]

Axlyz, this is not even the Vaishnava POV (may be Prabhupada made it so). The husband and wife are perfectly entitled to carnal pleasures within the limits of 'dharma', lust is not advocated and nor is use of force, keeping in view each other's health, enjoyment, and other responsibilities; and the whole society is notified of their relationship at the time of marriage. There is no bar on marriage of bhaktas among followers of Madhvacharya, Ramanujacharya or Vallabhacharya (Vallabha himself was married and had children). Of course, sex in olden times resulted in children. Now with the use of contraceptives the situation is advantageous to both, men and women. They say 'Ek nari, Brahmachari'. One does not even loose Brahmacharya by sex in marriage. And, Vinayaka, brahmins have no special problems in this. There is record of rishi-patnis asking their husbands for sexual satisfaction (Sage Kashyapa). Don't take Hindus to be Victorians. Kama is one of the 'purusharthas'. These are the mantras chanted at the time of marriage:

Who offered this maiden? to whom is she offered?
Kama (the god of love) gave her to me, that I may love her
Love is the giver, love is the acceptor
Enter thou, the bride, the ocean of love. Kama Sukta

I take thy hand in mine, yearning for happiness
I ask thee, to live with me, as thy husband
Till both of us, with age, grow old. RigVeda (Surya 10.85)

I am the sky, you are the earth. I am the thought, you are the speech. I am the fire and you are the fuel. I am the song, you are the verse. I am the ocean, you are the shore. I am the strength but you are the beauty. I am the Purush, and you are my Prakriti.

... As I said: pleasure-in-moderation is a valid pramāṇa.

 

[Chakra]

Axlyz, this is not even the Vaishnava POV (may be Prabhupada made it so). The husband and wife are perfectly entitled to carnal pleasures within the limits of 'dharma', lust is not advocated and nor is use of force, keeping in view each other's health and enjoyment, and the whole society is notified of their relationship at the time of marriage. There is no bar on marriage of bhaktas among followers of Madhvacharya, Ramanujacharya or Vallabhacharya (Vallabha himself was married and had children). Of course, sex in olden times resulted in children. Now with the use of contraceptives the situation is advantageous to both, men and women. They say 'Ek nari, Brahmachari'. One does not even loose Brahmacharya by sex in marriage. And, Vinayaka, brahmins have no special problems in this. There is record of rishi-patnis asking their husbands for sexual satisfaction (Sage Kashyapa). Don't take Hindus to be Victorians. Kama is one of the 'purusharthas'. These are the mantras chanted at the time of marriage:

Who offered this maiden? to whom is she offered?
Kama (the god of love) gave her to me, that I may love her
Love is the giver, love is the acceptor
Enter thou, the bride, the ocean of love. Kama Sukta

I take thy hand in mine, yearning for happiness
I ask thee, to live with me, as thy husband
Till both of us, with age, grow old. RigVeda (Surya 10.85)

I am the sky, you are the earth. I am the thought, you are the speech. I am the fire and you are the fuel. I am the song, you are the verse. I am the ocean, you are the shore. I am the strength but you are the beauty. I am the Purush, and you are my Prakriti.

Dear sir,
Thank you for correcting me. I would like to say that I am not against having sex for pleasure (only with your married partner). However, for Bhaktas like us, devotion to God should be primary. Why, when one is completely devoted to God and his service, simple things like sex seem to be insignificant. This is my POV; I do not claim that this is supported by Shastra or anything. I should also point out that my comment was related to the olden times. If the couple wanted to have sex, they would have to accept a child since there were no contraceptives. Now in the modern age, we have contraceptives, which makes it possible to have sex for pleasure and not worry about having a child. This was not the case in the past, where couples could not have sex simply for pleasure without expecting a child. Also, I believe that Diti only asked to have sex with Kashyapa because she wanted more children because all of her other children had been killed by the Devas. Correct me if I am wrong.

In the modern age, I think that couples should be able to have sex for pleasure. Even Madhvacharya has written something about how a man should think of Vasudeva when having sex, either for pleasure or to procreate.

No Vaishnava Acharya has ever prohibited marriages. In fact, all of the main Vaishnava acharyas married with the exception of Sri Madhvacharya. Dhanurdasa (disciple of Ramanuja) was madly in love with his wife before, but after he got the darshan of Sri Ranganath, he devoted his entire life to the service of Ramanuja and the deities. Both partners eagerly listened to Ramanuja, their guru, and their love life was secondary. I would assume that all Sri Vaishnava couples would want to follow in their footsteps.

Correct me if I am wrong and forgive me if I may have offended you.

With this final note, I would like to remain outside of this discussion. Please carry on with the original topic. :bow:
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dear Axlyz, for a house holder, fulfilling the responsibilities of his ashrama (Grihasthashrama) also is 'dharma'. The Gods are pleased if the duties are fulfilled. See the story of 'Dharmavyadha' in SrimadBhagawatham. Well, Vishwamitra and Urvashi sported with each other for pleasure without a desire for children. Shakuntala is just what happened. You see, even with contraceptives, I would think about how tired my wife is at the end of the day, and how has been the day with her before thinking of sex, I would not act like a Bonobo chimpanzee. To care of her is my 'dharma', as taking care of me is her 'dharma'.

 

[Chakra]

I stand corrected.
I guess I still have a lot to learn before I get married.

 

[Vinayaka]

Personally, I think the message gets distorted because of not fully recognising the two paths (renunciate, householder) as quite separate. When teachings for the renunciate get mingled into householder stuff, problems inevitably ensue.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hare-krishnas do not mind marriage (as far as I think). Both can worship Krishna, and couples do. It may even help their marriage.

 

[atanu]

Personally, I think the message gets distorted because of not fully recognising the two paths (renunciate, householder) as quite separate. When teachings for the renunciate get mingled into householder stuff, problems inevitably ensue.

I agree that this is the single most important reason. I will like to add that gurus have given upadesha as per level of particular shishya. But these upadesha-s when read from books may not make the context clear.

 

[Vinayaka]

I agree that this is the single most important reason. I will like to add that gurus have given upadesha as per level of particular shishya. But these upadesha-s when read from books may not make the context clear.

This is also why the close Guru-sishya (in this case I mean sannyasin) was oral. It was kept secret that way. I'm sure there are secret rules to renunciates. Then when people put it in books, people not quite ready started applying it. So then you get this thing similar to a child trying to understand calculus, or a pre-teen not yet into puberty trying to figure out what the fuss is all about. It's basically impossible.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram MV ji

ok , you asked for thoughts ?

may I be so bold as to suggest looking at things a little differently ?

please may I request all reading to give fair thought to a different approach
this is not the entire of my thoughts on the subject m more thoughts for consideration before we jump to the obvious conclusions .....

The following is an article by Mr. Nick (who is a writer/member for/of the Hindu American Foundation). The article, The Westernization of Hinduism and its Alienating Consequences, analyzes concerns of what he (who, BTW, is a half-White & half-Indian American of the Lokayata philosophy who self-identifies as a Hindu; just pointing it out to provide socio-cultural context) sees with "Western/Anglican Hinduism".

.....firstly I have to ask what is ''Western /Anglican Hinduism'' ??? ...OK I understand that the west is prety confused and through its eclecticism seems to be confusing it self still further by over complicating and over analising , this is prehaps a product of the ego thinking it self to be highly inteligent and praisworthy interlectualy ???

but as far as I see it it is far more simple , here it seens to be implied that the Gita has been promoted by the British (or the westerner) as it is .....1. mono theistic , ..and ...2. closer to christianity than Tantrism (due to its elements of renunciation etc, ...)

However this theorising overlooks the simple fact that the Bhagavad Gita (which ever language it is read in !) is the Yuga Dharma for this age dillivered by Bhagavan Sri Krsna himself , therefore has been existant for 5000 years , ..dispite the fact that these quasi interlectuals seem to think that they can date the Gita by identifying the style of sanskrit the existing or known copies are written in ??? and come up with a false date which suits to fit their prevailing theories .....

so please forget the theorised age of the Gita and rely upon the word of Sri Bhagavan
...''where ever there is a decline in religosity I my self will manifest '' ...and this he did to usher in Kali yuga , thus the Dharma as spoken by Sri Krsna is the Yuga dharma of this age , .....and many indiginous indians practiced this Yuga Dharma before the arival of the Muslims , before the arival of the Portugese , the French or the British , ..and before Victorian sencibilities were introduced to India during the Raj ....

Quote:
To the degree that such indoctrination was possible, is exactly what occurred in India. British values by and large were adopted by the new Indian elite, and even those who sought to “recover” their heritage did so after having been through Christian and British education. It is these thinkers, people like .............. it is difficult to find a Hindu thinker of this period with major national or international influence who was not steeped in British ideas.

Poppycock ....they did what any person who wanted to better them selves and their society would do and took advantage of an advantagious international education

In this group you’ll find those who critique common Hindu social customs, particularly caste. This itself is not unique, as Hindu leaders had done it for centuries prior to the British.

here I agree , ...

however there is much I do not agree with and think that we should think carefully before adopting what might at first seem plausable , ....(because we wish it to be plausable to further our bigoted opinions of some historical figures ?)

just because the author is half American half Indian it gives him no more insight to pre victorian India , than it does you or I , if we wish to study it .

But at this point, they began to talk about Hinduism as being “scientific,” and criticize folk Hindu practices as “superstitious” or “backwards,” all buzzwords adopted from British education and missionary texts.

I hate to say it but there are some practices that appear barbaric and superstitious to a vaisnava , we dont need missionarys to pinpoint these differences , they existed allready before the arival of the british and the missionaries ....

In the coming years, Roy’s intellectual heirs would elevate the Bhagavad Gita to the level of scriptural authority held by the Vedas and Upanishads (Shruti texts) where it remains today, despite it belonging to a class of texts with traditionally lower grade of authority (Smriti texts).

I have nothing against tantrikas practicing what they will but I have everything against this devisive belittling of the Yuga Dharma and the suggestion that it was implanted by the divisiveness of outsiders ??? or that various Indian schollars were acting merely as puppets in their deception .

as far as I am concerned some coments put forward here constitute an apradha .

Some scholars (for example Prem Saran in Tantra: Hedonism in Indian Culture, and Agehananda Bharati in “The Hindu Renaissance and its Apologetic Patterns”) attribute this increase in stature to the “Pizza effect” in which the Western world takes interest of a product of Eastern culture, which then consequently gets popular in the East. It should be remembered that the Bhagavad Gita was one of the first Hindu texts to be translated into English, and was more popular in the West than other works of Hindu scripture. Indeed, Gandhi read it in England in English originally.

frankly does it matter which language it is read in , isnt it better that it is read ? ...and what is most important sinserely studied .

recent trends, counter to the original Westernization trend can also be attributed to the Pizza effect. The popularity of the Western interpretations of Tantra and Yoga in India are some such examples.)

''pitza effect '' ? ....what is this ? .....many toppings , ..sellect your own ? .. a sure
recipy for desaster !.....better we concentrate on mastering one thing , let a vaisnava stick to his texts and let a tantrika stich to his , and christians should be good christaians and none should denegrate another , and just because one in ignorance does the wrong thing it dosent sanction us to do the same !

JayaB ... I believe the following from Mr. Nick's article will help you finally get an answer that is not only not speculation, but rather factual as to why Shaktism, and more specifically Tantra, got and/or still gets negative press:

I dont nececarly think that these theories stand up , and think that it would be wise to question very caerfully before supposing them to be more than speculation intended to back personal opinion .

Thoughts ? Agree ? Disagree ? Want to go bowling next Friday ? Maybe learn breakdancing or teach Poeticus skiing since he has always wanted to ski ?

there you have my thoughts , ..
and I allways wished I had learnt to play the mrdanga

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram axlyz ji

Dear sir,
As far as I have been told, sex is only supposed to be done for begetting children, and that is it. Now, I don't know if this is a Vaishnava POV only. If anyone agrees with this statement please let me know.
Regards

Technicaly yes , that way a child is conceived in the correct consciousness and not by accident ,

but in moderation and respectfully within marraige is permitted but one should be aware that the concequences of sex is ofspring and this should be carefully conscidered .

 

[Poeticus]

Poppycock

Ratiben just went ...

... all over my OP.​

 

[Chakra]

Wait, why is Poeticus called MV. I don't understand. Can someone explain?