Madhurya-Bhava: What exactly is acceptable?

[Astravalon]

I sure hope the following isn't too uncomfortable a subject for y'all - if it is I won't be offended if it needs to be deleted from the forum.

Okay, there's this one thing that has been pretty much giving me fits over the last few days, and that is the apparent contradiction in viewpoints I'm finding in how one is supposed to feel for Krishna in the mood of madhurya bhava.

As you likely already know, madhurya bhava is the type of love for Krishna that one would have for a lover or spouse. However, I'm finding contradictory views on whether or not this kind of love should contain elements of sexual desire or lust.

One of meanings of the world "lust" is simply "sexual desire", which generally accompanies romantic love. In that light, it doesn't have to dominate the love, but it's definitely there to some degree. I had thought this was one of the things that set madhurya bhava apart from the other, more platonic bhavas.

Poet-saints like Mirabai and Andal express this mood in their writings, yet to hear how some speak against this sort of sentiment, I can only wonder at how those ladies reached the status of "saint", given their sensually-charged (some call it "lusty") approach to loving God.

In my initial surprise at the anti-"lust" writings I had come across, I blogged a rather controversial post about it. While I felt better after that (it felt more like I was writing a term-paper than a blog, lol!), it's still nagging me. It's gotten to the point where the closeness I felt for Lord Krishna is starting to unravel because I now am questioning whether the love I have for Him was worthy, since it was in the same category as how one would feel for a lover/spouse and all that goes with that. I feel like Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden - I ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and now I just want to hide from the Lord completely.

My former ignorance of this issue was such bliss! And I don't even know why I feel I need validation on any of this -- I'm a die-hard maverick when it comes to my spiritual journey. In the end I'll make my peace with it that will probably leave any devotees that might be looking on shaking their heads in frustration, but I would still love to hear others' insights on this, just as food for thought. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has had to deal with this.

:help:



.

 

[ratikala]

dear irideesence ,

I sure hope the following isn't too uncomfortable a subject for y'all - if it is I won't be offended if it needs to be deleted from the forum.

Okay, there's this one thing that has been pretty much giving me fits over the last few days, and that is the apparent contradiction in viewpoints I'm finding in how one is supposed to feel for Krishna in the mood of madhurya bhava.

As you likely already know, madhurya bhava is the type of love for Krishna that one would have for a lover or spouse. However, I'm finding contradictory views on whether or not this kind of love should contain elements of sexual desire or lust.

not lust ! ,....... pure affection , extreme love , fear of sepperation

One of meanings of the world "lust" is simply "sexual desire", which generally accompanies romantic love. In that light, it doesn't have to dominate the love, but it's definitely there to some degree. I had thought this was one of the things that set madhurya bhava apart from the other, more platonic bhavas.

no sence of self , only sence of the beloved .

Poet-saints like Mirabai and Andal express this mood in their writings, yet to hear how some speak against this sort of sentiment, I can only wonder at how those ladies reached the status of "saint", given their sensually-charged (some call it "lusty") approach to loving God.

you are right in knowing that this is not a subject for open discusion .

In my initial surprise at the anti-"lust" writings I had come across, I blogged a rather controversial post about it. While I felt better after that (it felt more like I was writing a term-paper than a blog, lol!), it's still nagging me. It's gotten to the point where the closeness I felt for Lord Krishna is starting to unravel because I now am questioning whether the love I have for Him was worthy, since it was in the same category as how one would feel for a lover/spouse and all that goes with that. I feel like Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden - I ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and now I just want to hide from the Lord completely.

it is part of learning that there are much deeper levels of understanding ,

My former ignorance of this issue was such bliss! And I don't even know why I feel I need validation on any of this -- I'm a die-hard maverick when it comes to my spiritual journey. In the end I'll make my peace with it that will probably leave any devotees that might be looking on shaking their heads in frustration, but I would still love to hear others' insights on this, just as food for thought. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has had to deal with this.

:help:



.

what is acceptable ?

humility , loving devotion

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I am a Tantric so this is my view. Madhurya bhava is hard to understand. It is a high path for the very pure minded. If you read the Gita Govinda for most it would seem like lust and not even like the love between a husband and wife it is much more passionate then that, more like the desire between two people who are having an affaire and could only meet once a week at a motel. The all they can think about is being in the arms of their lover. That is the intensity of the feeling of the desire for God. Ramakrishna who practiced this and many other types Sadhana showed and explained the meaning of this. He used to say that if you feel the desire of a cheating spouse for their lover, a miser for their money and a alcoholic for their drink. Realization of God is at hand.

This is what Swami Vivekananda has to say about the Gopis who exemplify this attitude of Madhurya bhava.

He is the simple Krishna, ever the same Krishna who played with the Gopis. Ah, that most marvellous passage of his life, the most difficult to understand, and which none ought to attempt to understand until he has become perfectly chaste and pure, that most marvellous expansion of love, allegorised and expressed in that beautiful play at Vrindâban, which none can understand but he who has become mad with love, drunk deep of the cup of love! Who can understand the throes of the lore of the Gopis — the very ideal of love, love that wants nothing, love that even does not care for heaven, love that does not care for anything in this world or the world to come? And here, my friends, through this love of the Gopis has been found the only solution of the conflict between the Personal and the Impersonal God. We know how the Personal God is the highest point of human life; we know that it is philosophical to believe in an Impersonal God immanent in the universe, of whom everything is but a manifestation. At the same time our souls hanker after something concrete, something which we want to grasp, at whose feet we can pour out our soul, and so on. The Personal God is therefore the highest conception of human nature. Yet reason stands aghast at such an idea. It is the same old, old question which you find discussed in the Brahma-Sutras, which you find Draupadi discussing with Yudhishthira in the forest: If there is a Personal God, all-merciful, all-powerful, why is the hell of an earth here, why did He create this? — He must be a partial God. There was no solution, and the only solution that can be found is what you read about the love of the Gopis. They hated every adjective that was applied to Krishna; they did not care to know that he was the Lord of creation, they did not care to know that he was almighty, they did not care to know that he was omnipotent, and so forth. The only thing they understood was that he was infinite Love, that was all. The Gopis understood Krishna only as the Krishna of Vrindaban. He, the leader of the hosts, the King of kings, to them was the shepherd, and the shepherd for ever. "I do not want wealth, nor many people, nor do I want learning; no, not even do I want to go to heaven. Let one be born again and again, but Lord, grant me this, that I may have love for Thee, and that for love's sake." A great landmark in the history of religion is here, the ideal of love for love's sake, work for work's sake, duty for duty's sake, and it for the first time fell from the lips of the greatest of Incarnations, Krishna, and for the first time in the history of humanity, upon the soil of India. The religions of fear and of temptations were gone for ever, and in spite of the fear of hell and temptation of enjoyment in heaven, came the grandest of ideals, love for love's sake, duty for duty's sake, work for work's sake.And what a love!

I have told you just now that it is very difficult to understand the love of the Gopis. There are not wanting fools, even in the midst of us, who cannot understand the marvellous significance of that most marvellous of all episodes. There are, let me repeat, impure fools, even born of our blood, who try to shrink from that as if from something impure. To them I have only to say, first make yourselves pure; and you must remember that he who tells the history of the love of the Gopis is none else but Shuka Deva. The historian who records this marvellous love of the Gopis is one who was born pure, the eternally pure Shuka, the son of Vyâsa. So long as there its selfishness in the heart, so long is love of God impossible; it is nothing but shopkeeping: "I give you something; O Lord, you give me something in return"; and says the Lord, "If you do not do this, I will take good care of you when you die. I will roast you all the rest of your lives. perhaps", and so on. So long as such ideas are in the brain, how can one understand the mad throes of the Gopis' love? "O for one, one kiss of those lips! One who has been kissed by Thee, his thirst for Thee increases for ever, all sorrows vanish, and he forgets love for everything else but for Thee and Thee alone." Ay, forget first the love for gold, and name and fame, and for this little trumpery world of ours. Then, only then, you will understand the love of the Gopis, too holy to be attempted without giving up everything, too sacred co be understood until the soul has become perfectly pure. People with ideas of sex, and of money, and of fame, bubbling up every minute in the heart, daring to criticise and understand the love of the Gopis! That is the very essence of the Krishna Incarnation. Even the Gita, the great philosophy itself, does not compare with that madness, for in the Gita the disciple is taught slowly how to walk towards the goal, but here is the madness of enjoyment, the drunkenness of love, where disciples and teachers and teachings and books and all these things have become one; even the ideas of fear, and God, and heaven — everything has been thrown away. What remains is the madness of love. It is forgetfulness of everything, and the lover sees nothing in the world except that Krishna and Krishna alone, when the face of every being becomes a Krishna, when his own face looks like Krishna, when his own soul has become tinged with the Krishna colour. That was the great Krishna!

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 3/Lectures from Colombo to Almora/The Sages of India - Wikisource

 

[Marble]

I'm no Vaishnava, but in my understanding when in that bhava lust arises in the imperfect practioner, it is a symptom that deeper levels of personality come to the sureface and can be cleaned.
When practised proper under the guidance of a competent master, the source of lust is dried out.
It is like fighting fire with fire - instead of surpessing this part of human personality, it is used & the energy of ordinary lust is transformed into pure selfless love.
But that is only my personal (very limited) understanding.

 

[Astravalon]

You guys, thank you soooo much for your replies! I know
this subject can be a tricky one and I wish I could tell you
how blessed I am that you chimed in!

I am a Tantric so this is my view. Madhurya bhava is hard to understand. It is a high path for the very pure minded. If you read the Gita Govinda for most it would seem like lust and not even like the love between a husband and wife it is much more passionate then that, more like the desire between two people who are having an affaire and could only meet once a week at a motel. The all they can think about is being in the arms of their lover. That is the intensity of the feeling of the desire for God. Ramakrishna who practiced this and many other types Sadhana showed and explained the meaning of this. He used to say that if you feel the desire of a cheating spouse for their lover, a miser for their money and a alcoholic for their drink. Realization of God is at hand.

The above parts that I bold-faced describe exactly what I
had been experiencing.

I do have a touch of OCD, so maybe I’ve been over-thinking
all of this and ended up misapplying the word “lust” to my
experience (though the term can mean different things).
Maybe it just feels lusty in contrast with the kind of love I
was used to having towards God previously, which was more
of a generalized, impersonal-ish kind of love.

It is like fighting fire with fire - instead of surpessing this part of human personality, it is used & the energy of ordinary lust is transformed into pure selfless love.

This makes alot of sense. A good analogy might be from
when I was in my high-school choir, and the choir director
insisted that we sing loudly, even if we weren't sure of the
notes, because this way, if we sung a wrong note, she would
know it and be able to correct it.

Since entering my original post, I did come across a couple
of other items that also helped me not freak out so much
(emphases mine):

"If we make our friendship with Krishna, it will never break.
If we make our master Krishna, we will never be cheated. If
we love Krishna as our son, He will never die. If we love
Krishna as our lover, He will be the best of all, and there will
be no separation. Because Krishna is the Supreme Lord, He
is unlimited and has an unlimited number of devotees. Some
are trying to love Him as lover or husband, and therefore
Krishna accepts this role. In whatever way we approach
Krishna, He will accept us." —Raja Vidya, Chapter 8

"God is willing to reveal Himself according to our
expectations. All rasas are there in Krishna. We can enjoy
loving pleasure with Krishna in any rasa, and Krishna is
ready to respond in any rasa. The gopis came to Krishna out
of lust, but their lust became purified. Try to approach
Krishna in some way or another. Kamsa was also Krishna
conscious, but he thought of Krishna as an enemy.
Nonetheless he was liberated. So what to speak of those
who are in love with Krishna?" ~Srila Prabhupada
​

I take these to mean nothing comes as a shock to God; if
what I bring into my relationship with God ends up being
somehow insufficient, God can -- and will, like the choir
director above -- transform it into that which He desires; it’s
the stuff of spiritual growth. No, it may not be what the next
guy thinks is “correct”, but since when did everyone agree 100%
on these sorts of things? And who can see into the
human heart in order to micromanage it better than the Lord
Himself?

I guess I had almost forgotten how effective letting go and
letting God can be by getting myself caught up in words and
details (like I said, OCD, lol!!), things which only He can sort
out the most effectively. He’s the Potter, I’m just the clay!

Thanks again for your responses, you helped to stop what
would likely have been a spiritual train-wreck, lol! ♥


.

 

[metalnun]

As a fellow lover of God, I have wrestled with this issue (madhurya-bhava and what is "acceptable") myself in the past and can sympathize. I recall many years ago in college when I attended the Hare Krishna sangha, when I was still very new to the idea of a Personal God, having rejected Christianity at age 12. Krishna certainly made the idea very attractive. I recall being told at the time, that the one form of lust that is acceptable is "lust for Krishna." "Well that's nice," I thought, although at the time it did not mean a whole lot to me as our relationship was just beginning... Later as I fell more deeply in Love I found my feelings went beyond the "acceptable" limits imposed by religion, and I did have some concern over it, but ultimately His Love just blew all those concerns away and I abandoned myself to Him completely and stopped caring what anybody else thought about it.

More recently I was quite suprised to stumble across writings by a very famous Vaishnava swami which stated that madhurya-bhava is ONLY permitted for the purest of souls, namely the gopis in Vrindaban, and forbidden to the rest of us, and furthermore, that He did NOT actually make love to the gopis, as He and they were only children at the time. umkay, whatever. [the same sex-negative stance that we find in all other fundamentalist traditions...]

From where I stand now it makes no difference what the swamis say.

The thing is, we (people like iridescence and myself) are madly, passionately in Love with the Lord, who is all-attractive and utterly gorgeous, and that Love cannot be restrained by religion or other peoples' opinions as to what is "acceptable." We simply cannot help ourselves. Who can resist Him? And why should we?! If our feelings are "unacceptable" there isn't much we can do about it, other than offer them up to Him! surrender EVERYTHING to Him.

My teacher, Mark Whitwell of Heart of Yoga, whose teacher Krishnamacharya was a vaishnava bhakti, says that the play of Radha and Krishna is a picture of the relationship of the soul with God, which is a private and utterly passionate affair forbidden by religion/society. We participate in this affair through the union of opposites in asana, pranayama and tantra, as well as chanting mantra.

 

[Jainarayan]

I've always given this some thought too, but in light of what Swami Vivekananda says, I think the conflict arises from the veils of maya and avidya.

Sri Swami Sivananda says:

A Caution: Madhurya Bhava is absolutely different from conjugality of earthly experience. One should not be mistaken for the other. Earthly conjugality is purely selfish and is undertaken only because it gives pleasure to one's own self. But in love for God it is because it gives pleasure to God and not for the sake of the devotee. Divine love is not selfish. It is born of sattva. But earthly lust is born of rajas and attachment to bodies. Earthly conjugality is the outcome of egoisitc self-regarding egoistic feeling, while divine communion is the outcome of other-regarding feeling devoid of egoism. Strong selfishness is the root of worldly passion; divine love is the product of loss of egoism. This is the greatest difference between lust (kama) and divine love (prema). The two are related as darkness is related to light. No development of earthly affection, however perfect it may be, can lead one to supreme joy of divine communion. Lust lurks in the heart due to the passion that burns in the core of things. Divine love is unknown to the man of the world, however religious he may be. The secret of divine love cannot be understood, and should not be tried to be understood, so long as man is only a man and woman only a woman. The austere transformation of the human into the divine is the beginning of true love for God. Bhakti Yoga

 

[Marble]

More recently I was quite suprised to stumble across writings by a very famous Vaishnava swami which stated that madhurya-bhava is ONLY permitted for the purest of souls, namely the gopis in Vrindaban, and forbidden to the rest of us, and furthermore, that He did NOT actually make love to the gopis, as He and they were only children at the time.

I'm not a Vaishnava, but I believe that one has to have made a certain progress before undertaking Madhurya-Bhava Sadhana.
Because when one is not fit, the attempt to develop this bhava will only result in strengthening one's sexuality.
Devotion, meditation and guidance by a Guru are absolutely necessary.

I have never heared that Krishna, Radha and the gopis were just kids.
My idea is that Radha and the other gopis were married young women, and their love for Krishna was so strong that they did not care about the rules and regulations of society any more, they run away from home and husbands to meet Krishna.

 

[Astravalon]

As a fellow lover of God, I have wrestled with this issue (madhurya-bhava and what is "acceptable") myself in the past and can sympathize. I recall many years ago in college when I attended the Hare Krishna sangha, when I was still very new to the idea of a Personal God, having rejected Christianity at age 12. Krishna certainly made the idea very attractive. I recall being told at the time, that the one form of lust that is acceptable is "lust for Krishna." "Well that's nice," I thought, although at the time it did not mean a whole lot to me as our relationship was just beginning... Later as I fell more deeply in Love I found my feelings went beyond the "acceptable" limits imposed by religion, and I did have some concern over it, but ultimately His Love just blew all those concerns away and I abandoned myself to Him completely and stopped caring what anybody else thought about it.

More recently I was quite suprised to stumble across writings by a very famous Vaishnava swami which stated that madhurya-bhava is ONLY permitted for the purest of souls, namely the gopis in Vrindaban, and forbidden to the rest of us, and furthermore, that He did NOT actually make love to the gopis, as He and they were only children at the time. umkay, whatever. [the same sex-negative stance that we find in all other fundamentalist traditions...]

From where I stand now it makes no difference what the swamis say.

The thing is, we (people like iridescence and myself) are madly, passionately in Love with the Lord, who is all-attractive and utterly gorgeous, and that Love cannot be restrained by religion or other peoples' opinions as to what is "acceptable." We simply cannot help ourselves. Who can resist Him? And why should we?! If our feelings are "unacceptable" there isn't much we can do about it, other than offer them up to Him! surrender EVERYTHING to Him.

My teacher, Mark Whitwell of Heart of Yoga, whose teacher Krishnamacharya was a vaishnava bhakti, says that the play of Radha and Krishna is a picture of the relationship of the soul with God, which is a private and utterly passionate affair forbidden by religion/society. We participate in this affair through the union of opposites in asana, pranayama and tantra, as well as chanting mantra.

Metalnun, this is a breath of fresh air! Thank you for posting this!

Out of a concern for controversy awhile back, I had taken offline (but then re-published), a blog post (more like a cross between a term-paper and a bit of a rant ), on this very subject if you're interested in reading it. It's going to appeal more to those on the liberal end of the issue's spectrum; those of a more conservative persuasion will want to avoid reading it unless they like having their blood-pressure raised, lol! It can be found here.

After discovering the quotes in my previous post here (#5) about how we can approach Krishna by "any rasa", my concerns were put to rest. To borrow from the saying, there are those who say "It can't be done", while others are busy doing it. It has been nothing less than an absolute joy and blessing.


.


.

 

[metalnun]

I'm not a Vaishnava, but I believe that one has to have made a certain progress before undertaking Madhurya-Bhava Sadhana.
Because when one is not fit, the attempt to develop this bhava will only result in strengthening one's sexuality.
Devotion, meditation and guidance by a Guru are absolutely necessary.

I have never heared that Krishna, Radha and the gopis were just kids.
My idea is that Radha and the other gopis were married young women, and their love for Krishna was so strong that they did not care about the rules and regulations of society any more, they run away from home and husbands to meet Krishna.

I agree that Madhurya-Bhava requires a certain amount of spiritual maturity to fully appreciate. At the same time, it is a grace rather than an achievement. The Lord blesses whomever He will with this grace as He pleases.

You say "will result in strengthening one's sexuality" as if that is a bad thing. This, of course, is pervasive throughout most religions and is a whole 'nother topic.

Certainly devotion, meditation and guidance from the Guru are essential.

As for the activities and age of Krishna and the gopis: Back in the early 1980s when I first learned of the Ras Lila, I was told (just as you said) that many of the gopis were married. In that version of the story He and they were young adults and He made love to each of them. This was a picture of God's passionate and intimate love for each of us. There was no question of immorality because being God, He is technically the husband of everyone.

What I read more recently was a commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatan by Swami B. P. in which he stated that sex could not have been involved because Krishna was only 7 years old at the time. In a different commentary he said that sex was clearly not involved because the gopis did not get pregnant (apparently being unaware that Krishna is the ultimate tantric yogi). So the story has changed over the years.

 

[metalnun]

I've always given this some thought too, but in light of what Swami Vivekananda says, I think the conflict arises from the veils of maya and avidya.

Sri Swami Sivananda says:
A Caution: Madhurya Bhava is absolutely different from conjugality of earthly experience. One should not be mistaken for the other. Earthly conjugality is purely selfish and is undertaken only because it gives pleasure to one's own self. But in love for God it is because it gives pleasure to God and not for the sake of the devotee. Divine love is not selfish. It is born of sattva. But earthly lust is born of rajas and attachment to bodies. Earthly conjugality is the outcome of egoisitc self-regarding egoistic feeling, while divine communion is the outcome of other-regarding feeling devoid of egoism. Strong selfishness is the root of worldly passion; divine love is the product of loss of egoism. This is the greatest difference between lust (kama) and divine love (prema). The two are related as darkness is related to light. No development of earthly affection, however perfect it may be, can lead one to supreme joy of divine communion. Lust lurks in the heart due to the passion that burns in the core of things. Divine love is unknown to the man of the world, however religious he may be. The secret of divine love cannot be understood, and should not be tried to be understood, so long as man is only a man and woman only a woman. The austere transformation of the human into the divine is the beginning of true love for God.

Swami Vivekananda was a celibate monk, so it is not surprising that he had a limited understanding of "earthly conjugality," never having experienced a loving spiritual and sexual relationship in which one loves the other as oneself and delights in their pleasure above one's own. Swami V. promoted the "spirit is good, flesh is bad" duality which is all too pervasive both in the east and the west, and likewise the idea that bramacharya = celibacy, a definition which my teacher, among others, would dispute. Certainly this is the mainstream Vedantic philosophy, but in the tantric tradition we believe that God is manifesting ALL of creation, both physical and spiritual, and that our bodies are holy, and that sex in the appropriate context of loving relationship is sacred. Therefore the male-female mutuality is a manifestation of God's love for us in this world, and the Ras Lila uses our human experience to point us towards a deeper and more profound intimacy with God.

 

[chinu]

Hard steps and long are the paths of love … lol,
Heartly pains and tuff are the punishments of love…lol.
~
Silky lives turns into a big confusion, says love… lol,
In the open market can force you to dance, says love… lol,
Doesn’t hear a single request that’s the justice done in the court of love… lol,
Hard steps and long are the paths of love … lol,
~
Annoying dealings by beloved, to bear in love… lol,
Lonely shacks and lonely are the days and nights of love… lol,
Under fourteen layers is the place of love… lol,
Hard steps and long are the paths of love … lol,
~
Centralized in every heart and every place, says love… lol,
In the whole universe or deep sea, is the impression of my step, says love… lol,
Striking, sweet, and sharp are the memories of love… lol,
Hard steps and long are the paths of love … lol,
~
Spirit of beloved, vanishes the identity of love, says love… lol,
The fire of love, lights the candle of heart, says love… lol,
So just shake like me, on the beates of your heart, says love… lol.
Hard steps and long are the paths of love … lol,

 

[metalnun]

Metalnun, this is a breath of fresh air! Thank you for posting this!

Out of a concern for controversy awhile back, I had taken offline (but then re-published), a blog post (more like a cross between a term-paper and a bit of a rant ), on this very subject if you're interested in reading it. It's going to appeal more to those on the liberal end of the issue's spectrum; those of a more conservative persuasion will want to avoid reading it unless they like having their blood-pressure raised, lol! It can be found ...

After discovering the quotes in my previous post here about how we can approach Krishna by "any rasa", my concerns were put to rest. To borrow from the saying, there are those who say "It can't be done", while others are busy doing it. It has been nothing less than an absolute joy and blessing.




.

I LOVE your blog, and agree 100%. Iridescence, please email me. I've been at this for 20 years and I have some yogic information that you may find extremely useful in your relationship with Him. I would also like to introduce you to some other yogis who are unashamed lovers of God and you would be in good company. May He keep you close.

 

[Marble]

At the same time, it is a grace rather than an achievement. The Lord blesses whomever He will with this grace as He pleases.

:yes:
I think Madhurya Bhava is a gift one gets only after several lives of devotion.

You say "will result in strengthening one's sexuality" as if that is a bad thing.

Not bad, but Kundalini should move upwards, that's the goal of any path.
And this is difficult enough, so when someone not fit tries to cultivate Madhurya Bhava, the Kundalini cannot move upwards because the chakras are still blocked.

Has anyone here read Acting as a Way of Salvation: A Study of Rāgānugā Bhakti Sādhana?

 

[Jainarayan]

Swami Vivekananda was a celibate monk, so it is not surprising that he had a limited understanding of "earthly conjugality," never having experienced a loving spiritual and sexual relationship in which one loves the other as oneself and delights in their pleasure above one's own. Swami V. promoted the "spirit is good, flesh is bad" duality which is all too pervasive both in the east and the west, and likewise the idea that bramacharya = celibacy, a definition which my teacher, among others, would dispute.

That's all well and good, but they didn't come to teach us how to have earthly sex, we know how to do that. They came to teach how to get beyond that. We are, after all, behind the curtain of avidyā and māyā.

Certainly this is the mainstream Vedantic philosophy, but in the tantric tradition we believe that God is manifesting ALL of creation, both physical and spiritual, and that our bodies are holy, and that sex in the appropriate context of loving relationship is sacred. Therefore the male-female mutuality is a manifestation of God's love for us in this world, and the Ras Lila uses our human experience to point us towards a deeper and more profound intimacy with God.

And that's all well and good as a different belief and p.o.v. But can you say that the majority of Hindus are tantrics? As most are not, afaik, the idea of having sex with God(dess) is disturbing, as the o.p. posits. As do I, even as a gay male; especially as a gay male under the influence of avidyā and māyā. In A Handbook of Sri Vaishnavism, it states that homosexuality is just another condition due to karma, but I can't accept that it applies to my relationship with God, who is beyond sexuality.

I'm not condemning or judging anyone's practices or beliefs; I would not be Hindu if I did. I simply pointed out what's been said by saints. Now we have two ways of thinking... mine and yours.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Here is an insignificant contribution:

Mādhurya Bhāva is the highest mellow. It is the highest stage of perfection, where we understand and love Kṛṣṇa as the only male (enjoyer), and understand ourselves as females, existing for His pleasure (enjoyed).

However, we must not confuse the mundane material lust & sex with that unconditional and pure love of Mādhurya Bhāva.

Here are a few pointers, which will help you understand what I am saying.

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmrita Madhya 20.384 states:

krame bālya-pauganda-kaiśoratā-prāpti
rāsa-ādi līlā kare, kaiśore nitya-sthiti​

"Lord Kṛṣṇa exhibits His pastimes of childhood, boyhood and pre-youth. When He reaches pre-youth, He continues to exist eternally to perform His rāsa dance and other pastimes.

He is described in the Brahma-samhitā (5.33) as nava-yauvana:

advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam
ādyam purāna-purusham nava-yauvanam ca
vedeshu durlabham adurlabham ātma-bhaktau
govindam ādi-purusham tam aham bhajāmi​

I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is inaccessible to the Vedas, but obtainable by pure unalloyed devotion of the soul, who is without a second, who is not subject to decay, is without a beginning, whose form is endless, who is the beginning, and the eternal purusha; yet He is a person possessing the beauty of blooming youth.

This nava-yauvana, or pre-youth, is the eternal transcendental form of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa never grows older than nava-yauvana.

A small story (in short):

Kṛṣṇa once had a severe head-ache. Told Narada Muni, "if a devotee gives Me the dust of his/her feet, I will be okay." Narada Muni went around, but no one gave their feet's dust. Who will give their feet's dust to Supreme Lord!?!!

On Kṛṣṇa's advise, Narada approached the Gopis. When Gopis heard that Kṛṣṇa has a terrible headache, they gave their lotus feet's dust without second thoughts.

Narada was extremely surprised! He inquired from Gopis if they were aware what this means? Giving their feet's dust to Supreme Lord means a miserable life in hell - for eternity!

Gopis replied - "if we can give Kṛṣṇa pleasure, even for a moment, we are willing to suffer in hell for eternity!" That is pure love! Devoid of any lust!

How many of us can actually mean that when we say it. Actually give our feet's dust, for Kṛṣṇa's headache, and willingly accept a life in hell - for eternal time?

Mādhurya Bhāva....it is not so cheap!:no:

 

[Astravalon]

I agree that Madhurya-Bhava requires a certain amount of spiritual maturity to fully appreciate. At the same time, it is a grace rather than an achievement. The Lord blesses whomever He will with this grace as He pleases.

I agree. I've been spiritually-inclined for as long as I can remember, and therefore have been growing and learning quite a bit, so if this bhava is the result of 'achievement', maybe that's what triggered it. But it feels more like just the grace of God as it happened rather suddenly (May 21st, 2011 to be exact). Hey -- that means Krishna and my 'anniversary' is coming up!

Swami Vivekananda was a celibate monk, so it is not surprising that he had a limited understanding of "earthly conjugality," never having experienced a loving spiritual and sexual relationship in which one loves the other as oneself and delights in their pleasure above one's own. Swami V. promoted the "spirit is good, flesh is bad" duality which is all too pervasive both in the east and the west, and likewise the idea that bramacharya = celibacy, a definition which my teacher, among others, would dispute. Certainly this is the mainstream Vedantic philosophy, but in the tantric tradition we believe that God is manifesting ALL of creation, both physical and spiritual, and that our bodies are holy, and that sex in the appropriate context of loving relationship is sacred. Therefore the male-female mutuality is a manifestation of God's love for us in this world, and the Ras Lila uses our human experience to point us towards a deeper and more profound intimacy with God.

In my case, I think I'm something of a mix between the celibates and the tantrics. Maybe I'm a tantric celibate -- tantric in spirit, celibate in practice. At the risk of giving TMI, I could live a nun's life and be perfectly happy (actually, I'm one of those relatively rare folks who prefers it that way). I would bet my bottom dollar that God designed me this way because He wanted me all to Himself (gosh that's so romantic!!!! I'm getting goosebumps, lol! ).

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

Amen! When I stopped trying define what I have going on with the Lord as "religion" and started viewing it as a relationship, the concerns I previously had (and which drove me to post this thread in the first place) vanished. It was like a disjointed shoulder clicked back into place again. I really no longer feel the need for validation from a particular religion before proceeding however I sense the Lord wants me to proceed, opting to surrender to Him rather than to others and what they say about Him (huge difference). Now when I ask questions, it's more out of curiosity, not the need for 'permission' to approach Krishna as He and I see fit. It's almost like I see others who believe in Krishna as my in-laws -- I like to know how they view things, but I'm not about to let them dictate what goes on between Krishna (my spouse) and I in the privacy of our own room. That goes for gurus, pastors, priests, and rabbis too.... they're just the in-laws ... I love 'em dearly, but there are boundaries I will uphold.

:yes:
I think Madhurya Bhava is a gift one gets only after several lives of devotion.

Maybe that explains it, though I don't feel as though I lived more than one life of it, lol!


.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

One more story:

One person came to a very exalted saint - Gaura Kishoredās Bābāji Maharāj. Gaura Kishoredās Bābāji Maharāj was such an exalted devotee, that Srimati Rādhā Rani would come and speak with him regularly. That is an indication of the level of his devotional & spiritual platform.

This person told Bābāji Maharāj, "I have developed a deep Love for God."

Bābāji Maharāj replied - "Can a woman get pregnant, without associating with a male?"

When this person left, some persons close to Bābāji Maharāj asked him of this reply.

Gaura Kishoredās Bābāji Maharāj said: Just like a woman cannot be pregnant without associating with a male, similarly, it is just not possible to to develop Love for God, without associating with the devotees of the Lord."

 

[Astravalon]

One more story:

One person came to a very exalted saint - Gaura Kishoredās Bābāji Maharāj. Gaura Kishoredās Bābāji Maharāj was such an exalted devotee, that Srimati Rādhā Rani would come and speak with him regularly. That is an indication of the level of his devotional & spiritual platform.

This person told Bābāji Maharāj, "I have developed a deep Love for God."

Bābāji Maharāj replied - "Can a woman get pregnant, without associating with a male?"

When this person left, some persons close to Bābāji Maharāj asked him of this reply.

Gaura Kishoredās Bābāji Maharāj said: Just like a woman cannot be pregnant without associating with a male, similarly, it is just not possible to to develop Love for God, without associating with the devotees of the Lord."

Such a beautiful picture! One of my favorites.

I suppose in my case it can go a couple of ways: I have associated with people who love God all my life (not necessarily in the Hindu context, but surely lovers of God can be found outside of that context as well as within). So that could be how my deep love for God evolved. If not, this love for God is a direct gift of God Himself (I'm more inclined to see it that way). At any rate, I think it's one of those instances where you'll have folks saying "it can't be done" while, right under their noses, others are doing that which they say can't be done.

Here's another story, to which I totally can relate: The Hot Milk of Religious Indignation






.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Swami V. promoted the "spirit is good, flesh is bad" duality which is all too pervasive both in the east and the west,

Swami Vivekananda was a disciple of Ramakrishna who is seen all over India as one of the most Important teachers of Tantra who has ever lived.

He also said "I respect marriage as highly as non-marriage." many times. To the monk he would talk about celibacy and to the family man marriage.

and likewise the idea that bramacharya = celibacy, a definition which my teacher, among others, would dispute. Certainly this is the mainstream Vedantic philosophy, but in the tantric tradition we believe that God is manifesting ALL of creation, both physical and spiritual, and that our bodies are holy, and that sex in the appropriate context of loving relationship is sacred. Therefore the male-female mutuality is a manifestation of God's love for us in this world, and the Ras Lila uses our human experience to point us towards a deeper and more profound intimacy with God.

As a Tantric myself. I have big problems with the way Tantra is talked about in the west. Most is not Tantra but Neo-Tantra and not the real thing. What you are talking about is Vamachara which is just a small part of Tantra. Yet, it is talked about most. For obvious reasons I can get my nuts off and be a spiritual Giant. There is just much more to it then that.