PDA

View Full Version : Is sex allowed only preocretive purposes in Sri Vaishnavism?



orlando
12 May 2006, 09:23 AM
Namaste all.
In the post Question about the 4th principle in ISCKON Shri ram wrote:This so called charge against the 4th principle in ISKCON is equally applicable to Srivaishnavas as well, where it is an unwritten rule.
Shri Arjuna replied:In most cases an "unwritten" rule is an imagined one.
This is not a kinda secret teaching, but a rule of conduct, which either is present in Vaishnava-dharma or absent from it.

Dharma is clearly put in Shastras. Since this "4th principle" is absent from Vedas and Dharma-shastras, it has to be at least written down in Vaishnava scriptures.
Till now the only reference is a verse from Bhagavata, which was told in regard of materialists and NOT devotees.

Thus, most probably it simply doesn't exist as a rule.

Also, i strongly doubt that all Shrivaishnavas will agree with what U said

My questions is:if a married Shri Vaishnava makes love (which is very different from making sex) with his/her partner even for not procreative purposes,is this considered a sin its-self?

Regards,
Orlando.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 10:27 AM
Namaste,

I am also very much interested to see any scriptural proofs of either position — of course from Vaishnava canon, especially Agamic and Upanishadic.

orlando
12 May 2006, 11:20 AM
I don't know if the following may be useful in the discussion.
It is Brhadaranyaka Upanishad.
I-iv-1: In the beginning, this (universe) was but the self (Viraj) of a human form. He reflected and found nothing else but himself. He first uttered, '‘ am he'’ Therefore he was called Aham (I). Hence, to this day, when a person is addressed, he first says, ‘It is I,’ and then says the other name that he may have. Because he was first and before this whole (band of aspirants) burnt all evils, therefore he is called Purusha. He who knows thus indeed burns one who wants to be (Viraj) before him.
I-iv-2: He was afraid. Therefore people (still) are afraid to be alone. He thought, ‘If there is nothing else but me, what am I afraid of ?’ From that alone his fear was gone, for what was there to fear ? It is from a second entity that fear comes.
I-iv-3: He was not at all happy. Therefore people (still) are not happy when alone. He desired a mate. He became as big as man and wife embracing each other. He parted this very body into two. From that came husband and wife. Therefore, said Yajnavalkya, this (body) is one-half of oneself, like one of the two halves of a split pea. Therefore this space is indeed filled by the wife. He was united with her. From that men were born.


Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
12 May 2006, 11:34 AM
The following verses are from Atharva Veda.
VII.36.The eyes of us two shine like honey, our foreheads gleam like ointment. Place me within thy heart; may one mind be in common to us both!
VII.37.I envelope thee in my garment that was produced by Manu (the first man), that thou shalt be mine alone, shalt not even discourse of other women!

Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
12 May 2006, 12:25 PM
Namaste all.
Finally I found the answer.Sex between married Sri Vaishnava is not allowed only for procreative purposes.Vishnu Purana is the sacrest and most important purana for Sri Vaishnavas.I found the answer in Sri Vishnu Purana,Book 3,capitolo 11.
By http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp085.htm
SAGARA again said to Aurva, "Relate to me, Muni, the fixed observances of the householder, by attending to which he will never be rejected from this world or the next."

Aurva replied to him thus: "Listen, prince, to an account of those perpetual observances, by adhering to which both worlds are subdued. Those who are called Sádhus (saints) are they who are free from all defects; and the term Sat means the same, or Sádhu: those practices or observances (Ácháras) which they follow are therefore called Sadácháras, the institutions or observances of the pious 1.' The seven Rishis, the Manus, the patriarchs, are they who have enjoined and who have practised these observances. Let the wise man awake in the Muhúrtta of Brahmá. (or in the third Muhúrtta, about two hours before sunrise), and with a composed mind meditate on two of the objects of life (virtue and wealth), and on topics not incompatible with them. Let him also think upon desire, as not conflicting with the other two; and thus contemplate with equal indifference the three ends of life, for the purpose of counter- acting the unseen consequences of good or evil acts. Let him avoid wealth and desire, if they give uneasiness to virtue; and abstain from virtuous or religious acts, if they involve misery, or are censured by the world 2.

.......................
"After eating his evening meal, and having washed his feet, the householder is to go to rest. His bed is to be entire, and made of wood: it is not to be scanty, nor cracked, nor uneven, nor dirty, nor infested by insects,


p. 309

nor without a bedding: and he is to sleep with his head either to the east or to the south; any other position is unhealthy. In due season a man should approach his wife, when a fortunate asterism prevails, in an auspicious moment, and on even nights, if she is not unbathed, sick, unwell, averse, angry, pregnant, hungry, or over-fed. He should be also free from similar imperfections, should be neatly attired and adorned, and animated by tenderness and affection. There are certain days on which unguents, flesh, and women are unlawful, as the eighth and fourteenth. lunar days, new moon and full moon 20, and the entrance of the sun into a new sign. On these occasions the wise will restrain their appetites, and occupy themselves in the worship of the gods, as enjoined by holy writ, in meditation, and in prayer; and he who behaves differently will fall into a hell where ordure will be his food. Let not a man stimulate his desires by medicines, nor gratify them with unnatural objects, or in public or holy places. Let him not think incontinently of another's wife, much less address her to that end; for such a man will be born in future life as a creeping insect. He who commits adultery is punished both here and hereafter; for his days in this world are cut short, and when dead he falls into hell. Thus considering, let a man approach his own wife in the proper season, or even at other times."

Regards,
Orlando.

Jalasayanan
12 May 2006, 12:27 PM
Manu Smriti Chap 3


45. Let (the husband) approach his wife in due season, being constantly satisfied with her (alone); he may also, being intent on pleasing her, approach her with a desire for conjugal union (on any day) excepting the Parvans.
46. Sixteen (days and) nights (in each month), including four days which differ from the rest and are censured by the virtuous, (are called) the natural season of women.
47. But among these the first four, the eleventh and the thirteenth are (declared to be) forbidden; the remaining nights are recommended.
48. On the even nights sons are conceived and daughters on the uneven ones; hence a man who desires to have sons should approach his wife in due season on the even (nights).
49. A male child is produced by a greater quantity of male seed, a female child by the prevalence of the female; if (both are) equal, a hermaphrodite or a boy and a girl; if (both are) weak or deficient in quantity, a failure of conception (results).
50. He who avoids women on the six forbidden nights and on eight others, is (equal in chastity to) a student, in whichever order he may live.

This is what is said on Conjugal Union. Many try to take sloka 45 out of context (ignoring the other parts) and declare Conjugal union is only for Love

Whereas, Smritikaraka clearly proceeds in further slokas about the results of conjugal union. No where he had mentioned it can be made for entertainment, but he has categorically mentioned the results as "for Procreative purposes". Hence we can safely conclude, for srivaishnavas conjugal union is only for procreative purposes only

Jalasayanan
12 May 2006, 12:42 PM
Further in Chap 4



13. A Brahmana, who is a Snataka and subsists by one of the (above-mentioned) modes of life, must discharge the (following) duties which secure heavenly bliss, long life, and fame.
14. Let him, untired, perform daily the rites prescribed for him in the Veda; for he who performs those according to his ability, attains to the highest state.
15. Whether he be rich or even in distress, let him not seek wealth through pursuits to which men cleave, nor by forbidden occupations, nor (let him accept presents) from any (giver whosoever he may be).
16. Let him not, out of desire (for enjoyments), attach himself to any sensual pleasures, and let him carefully obviate an excessive attachment to them, by (reflecting on their worthlessness in) his heart.

Of course, this is meant only to Brahmanas

More restrictions are given


43. Let him not eat in the company of his wife, nor look at her, while she eats, sneezes, yawns, or sits at her ease.
44. A Brahmana who desires energy must not look at (a woman) who applies collyrium to her eyes, has anointed or uncovered herself or brings forth (a child).
Thus love making as said in English is different from love making for Brahmans as such

As I am not a master of rules made for other varnis, I think I should abstain from making comments on them

If you have any doubts pls do buzz me

TruthSeeker
12 May 2006, 01:00 PM
Read this article
http://www.trsiyengar.com/id26.html

It specifically states:

And according to Srivaishnava Siddhantam Sex is only for a Progeny to serve the Lord Sriman Narayanan, and nothing more to it!

You cant even aspire for a child other than for a reason to serve Lord Narayana through the child.

orlando
12 May 2006, 01:08 PM
Namaste all.
Shri Jalasayanan,of course there are different rules for different varnas.A brahmana must have much self-control.A kshatriya is made for a life of pleasure,marry more than one wife,etc.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 05:20 PM
Manu Smriti Chap 3
This is what is said on Conjugal Union. Many try to take sloka 45 out of context (ignoring the other parts) and declare Conjugal union is only for Love
Whereas, Smritikaraka clearly proceeds in further slokas about the results of conjugal union. No where he had mentioned it can be made for entertainment, but he has categorically mentioned the results as "for Procreative purposes". Hence we can safely conclude, for srivaishnavas conjugal union is only for procreative purposes only

45. Let (the husband) approach his wife in due season, being constantly satisfied with her (alone); he may also, being intent on pleasing her, approach her with a desire for conjugal union (on any day) excepting the Parvans.

From this it is very clear that sex is also for enjoyment and ultimately for mutual love.

This is confirmed by Shruti: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad even gives directions how to PREVENT procreation while enjoying sex!

Where is the evidence that sex is only for procreation? None is there.
But there are evidences for the opposite, both in Shruti and Smriti.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 05:30 PM
Read this article
http://www.trsiyengar.com/id26.html
It specifically states:
And according to Srivaishnava Siddhantam Sex is only for a Progeny to serve the Lord Sriman Narayanan, and nothing more to it!

You cant even aspire for a child other than for a reason to serve Lord Narayana through the child.

And AGAIN no scriptural proof is provided :)

A personal opinion of some brahmana or pandita is not a standard of Hindu Dharma or Vaishnava Dharma in particular! There are certain Scriptures of Vaishnavism which should be referred to.

BTW, this line (just previous) is contradicting the next sentence:
"So be cautious in choosing your partner for your sex and sexual pleasures."
Thus, sex pleasures are OK? :)

P.S. I have contacted Mr. TRS Iyengar and he agreed with my position: see his reply in the end of current thread.

Jalasayanan
12 May 2006, 05:34 PM
45. Let (the husband) approach his wife in due season, being constantly satisfied with her (alone); he may also, being intent on pleasing her, approach her with a desire for conjugal union (on any day) excepting the Parvans.

From this it is very clear that sex is also for enjoyment and ultimately for mutual love.

1. being constantly satisfied with her limits conjugal union with others
2. being intent on pleasing her does not talk about enjoyment
I do not understand how it clearly says something for you whereas for others it results in opposites

More over, I had also furnished about taking this sloka out of context and defining other aspects. No where conjugal union is said to be for enjoyment but subsequent slokas makes it clear that it is only for procreation

No where evidence points out conjugal union is for enjoyment. On the contrary, man as asked to restrict their desire even in grihastaashrama which includes conjugal union.

Further, as BYS suggested, request you not to use SEX often. There are so many alternatives

orlando
12 May 2006, 05:38 PM
This is confirmed by Shruti: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad even gives directions how to PREVENT procreation while enjoying sex!
Namaste all.
Shri Arjuna,I agree with you.
At http://www.advaita.it/library/brihadaranyaka.htm there is the whole Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.I didn't still read it completely.Please could you tell me which are the exact verses that give directions how to prevent procreation while enjoying sex?
Regards,
Orlando.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 05:47 PM
Namaste all.
Shri Arjuna,I agree with you.
At http://www.advaita.it/library/brihadaranyaka.htm there is the whole Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.I didn't still read it completely.Please could you tell me which are the exact verses that give directions how to prevent procreation while enjoying sex?

Easily :)
Brihadaranyaka, Khilakanda, VI.4.10

There are plenty verses in Shruti (especially in Atharvana-samhita) speaking of sexual delight. And nowhere (am i wrong?) in the whole Vedic canon it is said that "sex is only for procreation."

orlando
12 May 2006, 05:59 PM
Namaste all.
VI.4.10 is deleted in that link.
I found ………………….. instead of the verses!Please could you write a link where I may find the missing verses of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad,VI-iv.
Even verses 3,5,9,11,21,22 and 23 are missing in that site,

orlando
12 May 2006, 06:00 PM
By http://www.advaita.it/library/brihadaranyaka.htm
VI-iv-1: The earth is the essence of all these beings, water the essence of the earth, herbs of water, flowers of herbs, fruits of flowers, man of fruits, and the seed of man.
VI-iv-2: Prajapati thought, ‘Well, let me make an abode for it’, and he created woman.
VI-iv-3: …………………
VI-iv-4: Knowing verily this, Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, Naka, the son of Mudgala, and Kumaraharita said, ‘Many men -Brahmanas only in name – who have union without knowing as above, depart from this world impotent and bereft of merits’.
VI-iv-5: …………………..
VI-iv-6: If man sees his reflection in water, he should recite the following Mantra: ‘(May the gods grant) me lustre, manhood, reputation, wealth and merits’. She (his wife) is indeed the goddess of beauty among women. Therefore he should approach this handsome woman and speak to her.
VI-iv-7: If she is not willing, he should buy her over; and if she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with the hand and proceed, uttering the following Mantra, 'I take away your reputation’, etc. She is then actually discarded.
VI-iv-8: If she is willing, he should proceed, uttering the following Mantra: ‘I transmit reputation into you’, and they both become reputed.
VI-iv-9: …………………..
VI-iv-10: …………………..
VI-iv-11: …………………..
VI-iv-12: If a man’s wife has a lover whom he wishes to injure, he should put the fire in an unbaked earthen vessel, spread stalks of reed and Kusa grass in an inverse way, and offer the reed tips, soaked in clarified butter, in the fire in an inverse way, saying, ‘Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy Prana and Apana – such and such. Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy sons and animals – such and such. Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy Vedic rites and those done according to the Smriti – such and such. Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy hopes and expectations – such and such’. The man whom a Brahmana with knowledge of this ceremony curses, departs from this world emasculated and shorn of his merits. Therefore one should not wish even to cut jokes with the wife of a Vedic scholar who knows this ceremony, for he who has such knowledge becomes an enemy.
VI-iv-13: If anybody’s wife has the monthly sickness, she should drink of three days out of a cup (Kamsa). No Sudra man or woman should touch her. After three nights she should bathe, put on a new cloth, and be put to thresh rice.
VI-iv-14: He who wishes that his son should be born fair, study one Veda and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in milk, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.
VI-iv-15: He who wishes that his son should be born tawny or brown, study two Vedas and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in curd, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.
VI-iv-16: He who wishes that his son should be born dark with red eyes, study three Vedas and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in water and he and his wife should eat with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.
VI-iv-17: He who wishes that a daughter should be born to him who would be a scholar and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked with sesame, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a daughter.
VI-iv-18: He who wishes that a son should be born to him who would be a reputed scholar, frequenting the assemblies and speaking delightful words, would study all the Vedas and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked with the meat of a vigorous bull or one more advanced in years, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.
VI-iv-19: In the very morning he purifies the clarified butter according to the mode of Sthalipaka, and offers Sthalipaka oblations again and again, saying, ‘Svaha to fire, Svaha to Anumati, Svaha to the radiant sun who produces infallible results’. After offering, he takes up (the remnant of the cooked food), eats part of it and gives the rest to his wife. Then he washes his hands, fills the water-vessel and sprinkles her thrice with that water, saying. ‘Get up from here, Visvavasu, and find out another young woman (who is) with her husband.’
VI-iv-20: He embraces her saying, ‘I am the vital force, and you are speech; you are speech, and I am the vital force; I am Saman, and you are Rik; I am heaven, and you are the earth; come, let us strive together so that we may have a male child.’
VI-iv-21: …………….
VI-iv-22: ……………..
VI-iv-23: …………..
VI-iv-24: When (the son) is born, he should bring in the fire, take him in his lap, put a mixture of curd and clarified butter in a cup, and offer oblations again and again with that, saying, ‘Growing in this home of mine (as the son), may I maintain a thousand people ! May (the goddess of fortune) never depart with children and animals from his line ! Svaha. The vital force that is in me, I mentally transfer to you. Svaha. If I have done anything too much or to little in this ceremony, may the all-knowing beneficent fire make it just right for me – neither too much nor too little ! Svaha.’
VI-iv-25: Then putting (his mouth) to the child’s right ear, he should thrice repeat, ‘Speech, speech’. Next mixing curd, honey and clarified butter, he feeds him with (a strip of) gold not obstructed (by anything), saying, ‘I put the earth into you, I put the sky into you, I put heaven into you, I put the whole of the earth, sky and heaven into you’.
VI-iv-26: The he gives him a name, ‘You are Veda (knowledge)’. That is his secret name.
VI-iv-27: Then he hands him to his mother to be suckled, saying, ‘Offering Sarasvati, that breast of thine which is stored with results, is the sustainer of all, full of milk, the obtainer of wealth (one’s deserts) and generous, and through which thou nourishest all who are worthy of it (the gods etc.) – transfer that here (to my wife, for my babe) to suck’.
VI-iv-28: Then he addressed the mother: ‘You are the adorable Arundhati, the wife of Vasistha; you have brought forth a male child with the help of me, who am a man. Be the mother of many sons, for you have given us a son’. Of him who is born as the child of a Brahmana with this particular knowledge, they say, ‘You have exceeded your father, and you have exceeded your grandfather. You have reached the extreme limit of attainment through your splendour, fame and Brahmanical power.’

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 06:29 PM
1. being constantly satisfied with her limits conjugal union with others
2. being intent on pleasing her does not talk about enjoyment
I do not understand how it clearly says something for you whereas for others it results in opposites

R^itukAlAbhigAmI syAt svadAranirataH sadA
parvavarjaM vrajec cainAM tad-vrato ratikAmyayA // Mn_3.45 //

Here is the original passage. The word "rati" clearly refers to "enjoyment" and not just to copulation. "Nirata" is: nirata mfn. pleased , satisfied , delighting in , attached or devoted to , quite intent upon , deeply engaged in or occupied with (loc. instr. or comp.)

Ur objections are unsubstantiated.


More over, I had also furnished about taking this sloka out of context and defining other aspects. No where conjugal union is said to be for enjoyment but subsequent slokas makes it clear that it is only for procreation

Subsequent shlokas doesn't prove that it is ONLY for procreation — unless U use some other logic system unknown to me :D


No where evidence points out conjugal union is for enjoyment.

Upanishads and Vedas aren't enough for U?

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 06:37 PM
Namaste all.
VI.4.10 is deleted in that link.
I found ………………….. instead of the verses!Please could you write a link where I may find the missing verses of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad,VI-iv.
Even verses 3,5,9,11,21,22 and 23 are missing in that site,

This is really ridiculous! People start censoring Shruti... Kaliyuga... :(

Sanskrit original of 6 chapter is here: http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/1_veda/4_upa/brupsb6u.htm

English is here: http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/brihadaranyaka.htm

9
If a man desires his wife with the thought: "May she enjoy love with me," then, after inserting the member in her, joining mouth to mouth and stroking her organ, he should utter the following mantra:
"O semen, you have been produced from my every limb, especially from my heart through the essence of food you are the essence of the limbs. Bring this woman under my control, like a deer pierced by a poisoned arrow."
10
Now, the wife whom he desires with the thought: "May she not conceive"—after inserting the member in her and joining mouth to mouth, he should inhale and then exhale, repeating the following mantra:
"With power, with semen, I reclaim the semen from you."
Thus she comes to be without semen.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 07:33 PM
Here is what Sri Subramunia Swami, a Guru of Shaiva-siddhanta's Nandinatha-parampara, writes:

"The purpose of sexual union is to express and foster love's beautiful intimacy and to draw husband and wife together for procreation. While offering community guidance, Hinduism does not legislate sexual matters. Aum.
Sexual intercourse is a natural reproductive function, a part of the instinctive nature, and its pleasures draw man and woman together that a child may be conceived. It also serves through its intimacy to express and nurture love. It is love which endows sexual intercourse with its higher qualities, transforming it from an animal function to a human fulfillment. Intensely personal matters of sex as they affect the family or individual are not legislated, but left to the judgment of those involved, subject to community laws and customs. Hinduism neither condones nor condemns birth control, sterilization, masturbation, homosexuality, petting, polygamy or pornography. It does not exclude or draw harsh conclusions against any part of human nature, though scripture prohibits adultery and forbids abortion except to save a mother's life. Advice in such matters should be sought from parents, elders and spiritual leaders. The only rigid rule is wisdom, guided by tradition and virtue. The Vedas beseech, "May all the divine powers together with the waters join our two hearts in one! May the Messenger, the Creator and holy Obedience unite us." Aum Namah Sivaya."

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_mandala-15.html

In Tirumantiram, a Shaiva-siddhanta Tamil holy text, it is written:

"19 PARIYANGA YOGA

825: Pleasures of Sex Union Will Abide
If Breath Control is Properly Practiced
Anointing her body with unguents diverse
Bedecking her tresses with flowers fragrant
Do you enjoy the damsel in passion's union;
If you but know how to shoot
Prana breath through the Spinal Cavity
Your enjoyment never ceases.
826: If Breath is Controlled Delicious Enjoyment
For Partners in Sex Union Results
When they seek enjoyment
The breath stands still;
The full breasted damsel and the goodly man
Stand in union exalted;
As liquid silver and gold
Their passion's emissions
In rapture commingles.
827: Duration of Enjoyment Lengthens
If Breath is Controlled
In the copulatory yoga that is practised
By the hero and the heroine
Upward they drive the coach of breath
That has its wheels in regions right and left;
There they collect the waters of the heaven
And never the organs tiring know."

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/tirumantiram/TantraThree.html

Of course, these references are Shaiva (non-Tantric) and not Vaishnava — but they represent orthodox Hindu viewpoint.

sarabhanga
13 May 2006, 11:50 PM
Arjuna,

You demanded scriptural references, which were immediately supplied from Manu Smriti ~ and Manu is certainly valid for ALL orthodox Sampradayas.

This thread is responding to the question, "Is sex allowed only for procreative purposes in Shri Vaishnavism?".

You seem to be refusing to read the whole passage from Manu in its context, and you have merely picked at a couple of words taken out of context (just as was predicted by Jalasayanan) and then denied that any proper reference was ever given!

Shri Vaishnava is the most orthodox of all Vaishnava Sampradayas, and the words of Manu should be sufficient for them.

The opinions of Shaiva-Siddhanta are quite irrelevant here!

Arjuna
14 May 2006, 03:44 AM
Arjuna,
You demanded scriptural references, which were immediately supplied from Manu Smriti ~ and Manu is certainly valid for ALL orthodox Sampradayas.
This thread is responding to the question, "Is sex allowed only for procreative purposes in Shri Vaishnavism?".
You seem to be refusing to read the whole passage from Manu in its context, and you have merely picked at a couple of words taken out of context (just as was predicted by Jalasayanan) and then denied that any proper reference was ever given!
Shri Vaishnava is the most orthodox of all Vaishnava Sampradayas, and the words of Manu should be sufficient for them.
The opinions of Shaiva-Siddhanta are quite irrelevant here!

Namaste,

1. I cannot see how from mentioned passages of Manu-smriti it comes that sex is only for procreation. If U see, please explain.
It simply talks more about procreation and implies that enjoyment is also OK. I have read the context and even provided original verse to show that my interpretation is accurate. If U may prove otherwise, please.
2. I have provided a reference from Brihadaranyaka, which complements Manu extract. Which again proves that sexual act is not only for procreation. Isn't Brihadaranyaka a sufficient orthodox authority?
3. Saiva Siddhanta Church holds rather orthodox positions in Dharma matters, and accepts Smriti authority. I mentioned it only to illustrate what is the orthodox view.

Hope this clarifies the issue ;)

I deem U are wrong in this case for one more reason:
The same Manu-smriti says: na mAMsabhakShaNe doSho na madye na ca maithune. Would U insist that it speaks here of procreation (which is a duty and not pleasure), telling that there is no sin in it? And then Smriti adds that abstinance brings benefit! In the context it appears that sex is acknowledged primarily as a means of procreation, but as enjoyment it is allowed (in frames of Smarta-dharma). In other words, Manu-smriti accepts both values of sexual act, which is in accordance with Shruti (as demonstrated with Brihadaranyaka passage).

Expect Ur reply on this.

orlando
14 May 2006, 05:30 AM
Namaste all.
Again Sri Vishnu Purana,Book 3,capitolo 11.
By http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp085.htm
SAGARA again said to Aurva, "Relate to me, Muni, the fixed observances of the householder, by attending to which he will never be rejected from this world or the next."

Aurva replied to him thus: "Listen, prince, to an account of those perpetual observances, by adhering to which both worlds are subdued. Those who are called Sádhus (saints) are they who are free from all defects; and the term Sat means the same, or Sádhu: those practices or observances (Ácháras) which they follow are therefore called Sadácháras, the institutions or observances of the pious 1.' The seven Rishis, the Manus, the patriarchs, are they who have enjoined and who have practised these observances. Let the wise man awake in the Muhúrtta of Brahmá. (or in the third Muhúrtta, about two hours before sunrise), and with a composed mind meditate on two of the objects of life (virtue and wealth), and on topics not incompatible with them. Let him also think upon desire, as not conflicting with the other two; and thus contemplate with equal indifference the three ends of life, for the purpose of counter- acting the unseen consequences of good or evil acts. Let him avoid wealth and desire, if they give uneasiness to virtue; and abstain from virtuous or religious acts, if they involve misery, or are censured by the world 2.

.......................
"After eating his evening meal, and having washed his feet, the householder is to go to rest. His bed is to be entire, and made of wood: it is not to be scanty, nor cracked, nor uneven, nor dirty, nor infested by insects,


p. 309

nor without a bedding: and he is to sleep with his head either to the east or to the south; any other position is unhealthy. In due season a man should approach his wife, when a fortunate asterism prevails, in an auspicious moment, and on even nights, if she is not unbathed, sick, unwell, averse, angry, pregnant, hungry, or over-fed. He should be also free from similar imperfections, should be neatly attired and adorned, and animated by tenderness and affection. There are certain days on which unguents, flesh, and women are unlawful, as the eighth and fourteenth. lunar days, new moon and full moon 20, and the entrance of the sun into a new sign. On these occasions the wise will restrain their appetites, and occupy themselves in the worship of the gods, as enjoined by holy writ, in meditation, and in prayer; and he who behaves differently will fall into a hell where ordure will be his food. Let not a man stimulate his desires by medicines, nor gratify them with unnatural objects, or in public or holy places. Let him not think incontinently of another's wife, much less address her to that end; for such a man will be born in future life as a creeping insect. He who commits adultery is punished both here and hereafter; for his days in this world are cut short, and when dead he falls into hell. Thus considering, let a man approach his own wife in the proper season, or even at other times."

Of course Shri Vishnu Purana is more authoritative than Manu Smrti!
Vishnu Purana was wrote by Srila Vyasadeva Bhagavan.Manu Smrti was wrote by Manu.
Vishnu Purana is the sacrest and most important purana for Sri Vaishnavas.
Regards,
Orlando.

Singhi Kaya
14 May 2006, 07:17 AM
Namaste BoG,

Thanks for all the quotes and to others as well. I think it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that sex as an expression of love and enjoyment is very much in tune hinduism in general unless it becomes adultry or some such asurik activity. However each sampradaya has it's own interpretation of sastras, I'm not yet sure what should be the Sri-Viashnava interpretation, on the face of it the 4th principle looks an overdone. I think at this point one needs to take guidance from direct masters and ask for openion. If you find overwhelming number of sri-vaishnavas following 4th principle then there isn't much way I'm afraid:) .
You can then question yourself for suitability of the path etc.

I only want to say that this matter finally rest in the hands of sri-vaishnava acharyas. We can form our openions which can be convincing to us~indeed may be true, but should be of sceondary importance when still a practioner of the tradition.

My own understanding is to try to stay above medevial sectarianism of the sanatana dharma and get out the best. However those who want to follow the most orthodox interpretations should be free to do so. If someone is happy with sex only once in a month or so, what's the issue:) ? We should not be trying to prove that they are wrong unless it is only for a certain person in a proper context.

My humble openion on this matter.

sarabhanga
15 May 2006, 01:20 AM
Manu Smriti, III:

6. In connecting himself with a wife, let him carefully avoid the ten following families, be they ever so great, or rich in kine, horses, sheep, grain, or (other) property,

7. (Viz.) one which neglects the sacred rites, one in which no male children (are born), one in which the Veda is not studied …

If only love or personal enjoyment was being considered here, then the various material riches that could be gained by a marriage would important; and the importance of bearing male children is second only to keeping the sacred rites!

20. Now listen to (the) brief (description of) the following eight marriage-rites used by the four castes (varna) which partly secure benefits and partly produce evil both in this life and after death.

21. (They are) the rite of Brahman (Brahma), that of the gods (Daiva), that of the Rishis (Arsha), that of Pragapati (Pragapatya), that of the Asuras (Asura), that of the Gandharvas (Gandharva), that of the Rhashasas (Rakshasa), and that of the Pisakas (Paisaka).

22. Which is lawful for each caste (varna) and which are the virtues or faults of each (rite), all this I will declare to you, as well as their good and evil results with respect to the offspring.

Thus introducing a description of the various marriages and their resulting offspring ~ not the only reason for marriage, but the primary reason for spiritual purposes.

23. One may know that the first six according to the order (followed above) are lawful for a Brahmana, the four last for a Kshatriya, and the same four, excepting the Rakshasa rite, for a Vaisya and a Sudra.

24. The sages state that the first four are approved (in the case) of a Brahmana, one, the Rakshasa (rite in the case) of a Kshatriya, and the Asura (marriage in that) of a Vaisya and of a Sudra.

25. But in these (Institutes of the sacred law) three of the five (last) are declared to be lawful and two unlawful; the Paisaka and the Asura (rites) must never be used.

26. For Kshatriyas those before-mentioned two rites, the Gandharva and the Rakshasa, whether separate or mixed, are permitted by the sacred tradition.

27. The gift of a daughter, after decking her (with costly garments) and honouring (her by presents of jewels), to a man learned in the Veda and of good conduct, whom (the father) himself invites, is called the Brahma rite.

28. The gift of a daughter who has been decked with ornaments, to a priest who duly officiates at a sacrifice, during the course of its performance, they call the Daiva rite.

29. When (the father) gives away his daughter according to the rule, after receiving from the bridegroom, for (the fulfillment of) the sacred law, a cow and a bull or two pairs, that is named the Arsha rite.

30. The gift of a daughter (by her father) after he has addressed (the couple) with the text, 'May both of you perform together your duties,' and has shown honour (to the bridegroom), is called in the Smriti the Pragapatya rite.

31. When (the bridegroom) receives a maiden, after having given as much wealth as he can afford, to the kinsmen and to the bride herself, according to his own will, that is called the Asura rite.

32. The voluntary union of a maiden and her lover one must know (to be) the Gandharva rite, which springs from desire and has sexual intercourse for its purpose.

33. The forcible abduction of a maiden from her home, while she cries out and weeps, after (her kinsmen) have been slain or wounded and (their houses) broken open, is called the Rakshasa rite.

34. When (a man) by stealth seduces a girl who is sleeping, intoxicated, or disordered in intellect, that is the eighth, the most base and sinful rite of the Pisakas.

A marriage based only in mutual desire, with intercourse performed for its own sake, with no consideration of potential offspring, is the Gandharva rite; and this is certainly declared to be lawful for all Varnas.

36. Listen now to me, ye Brahmanas, while I fully declare what quality has been ascribed by Manu to each of these marriage-rites.

37. The son of a wife wedded according to the Brahma rite, if he performs meritorious acts, liberates from sin ten ancestors, ten descendants and himself as the twenty-first.

38. The son born of a wife, wedded according to the Daiva rite, likewise (saves) seven ancestors and seven descendants, the son of a wife married by the Arsha rite three (in the ascending and descending lines), and the son of a wife married by the rite of Ka (Pragapati) six (in either line).

39. From the four marriages, (enumerated) successively, which begin with the Brahma rite spring sons, radiant with knowledge of the Veda and honoured by the Sishtas (good men).

40. Endowded with the qualities of beauty and goodness, possessing wealth and fame, obtaining as many enjoyments as they desire and being most righteous, they will live a hundred years.

41. But from the remaining (four) blamable marriages spring sons who are cruel and speakers of untruth, who hate the Veda and the sacred law.

And those four “blameable marriages” are the Asura, Gandharva, Rakshasa, and Paisaka, marriage rites.

42. In the blameless marriages blameless children are born to men, in blamable (marriages) blamable (offspring); one should therefore avoid the blamable (forms of marriage).

It is clear that the traditional spiritual importance of the union of a man and a women is in their conception and consequent production of a child (especially a male heir).

45. Let (the husband) approach his wife in due season, being constantly satisfied with her (alone); he may also, being intent on pleasing her, approach her with a desire for conjugal union (on any day) excepting the Parvans.

46. Sixteen (days and) nights (in each month), including four days which differ from the rest and are censured by the virtuous, (are called) the natural season of women.

47. But among these the first four, the eleventh and the thirteenth are (declared to be) forbidden; the remaining nights are recommended.

48. On the even nights sons are conceived and daughters on the uneven ones; hence a man who desires to have sons should approach his wife in due season on the even (nights).

49. A male child is produced by a greater quantity of male seed, a female child by the prevalence of the female; if (both are) equal, a hermaphrodite or a boy and a girl; if (both are) weak or deficient in quantity, a failure of conception (results).

50. He who avoids women on the six forbidden nights and on eight others, is (equal in chastity to) a student, in whichever order he may live.

60. In that family, where the husband is pleased with his wife and the wife with her husband, happiness will assuredly be lasting.

61. For if the wife is not radiant with beauty, she will not attract her husband; but if she has no attractions for him, no children will be born.

The main purpose of marriage (i.e. sexual relations) in traditional Hindu Dharma is the best possible conception of children and the best raising of a perfect heir to the sacred inheritance of both families.


Hindu marriage is a sacred vow that only makes sense in the context of procreation.

You can say what you like about Shaiva Siddhanta, but the correct position for all Shri Vaishnavas is that sexual intercourse is intended primarily for procreation.

Sex is certainly not intrinsically wrong or sinful; but, for those who understand the true position of sex and marriage in the context of Dharma, to engage in sexual relations without thought of procreation is surely Adharma.

sarabhanga
15 May 2006, 01:53 AM
And since Manu Smriti 5.56 has also been cited out of context …

Manu Smriti, V:

3. Righteous Bhrigu, the son of Manu, (thus) answered the great sages: Hear, (in punishment) of what faults Death seeks to shorten the lives of Brahmanas!

4. Through neglect of the Veda-study, through deviation from the rule of conduct, through remissness (in the fulfillment of duties), and through faults (committed by eating forbidden) food, Death becomes eager to shorten the lives of Brahmanas.

7. Rice boiled with sesamum, wheat mixed with butter, milk and sugar, milk-rice and flour-cakes which are not prepared for a sacrifice, meat which has not been sprinkled with water while sacred texts were recited, food offered to the gods and sacrificial viands,

8. The milk of a cow (or other female animal) within ten days after her calving, that of camels, of one-hoofed animals, of sheep, of a cow in heat, or of one that has no calf with her,

9. (The milk) of all wild animals excepting buffalo-cows, that of women, and all (substances turned) sour must be avoided.

So that non-ritual meat-consumption must surely be avoided.

22. Beasts and birds recommended (for consumption) may be slain by Brahmanas for sacrifices, and in order to feed those whom they are bound to maintain; for Agastya did this of old.

23. For in ancient (times) the sacrificial cakes were (made of the flesh) of eatable beasts and birds at the sacrifices offered by Brahmanas and Kshatriyas.

26. Thus has the food, allowed and forbidden to twice-born men, been fully described; I will now propound the rules for eating and avoiding meat.

27. One may eat meat when it has been sprinkled with water, while Mantras were recited, when Brahmanas desire (one’s doing it), when one is engaged (in the performance of a rite) according to the law, and when one's life is in danger.

31. The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices, that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.

32. He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others.

33. A twice-born man who knows the law, must not eat meat except in conformity with the law; for if he has eaten it unlawfully, he will, unable to save himself, be eaten after death by his (victims).

34. After death the guilt of one who slays deer for gain is not as (great) as that of him who eats meat for no (sacred) purpose.

36. A Brahmana must never eat (the flesh) of animals unhallowed by Mantras; but, obedient to the primeval law, he may eat it, consecrated with Vedic texts.

37. If he has a strong desire (for meat) he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour, (and eat that); but let him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason.

38. As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births.

39. Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).

40. Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences.

41. On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed.

42. A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.

43. A twice-born man of virtuous disposition, whether he dwells in (his own) house, with a teacher, or in the forest, must never, even in times of distress, cause an injury (to any creature) which is not sanctioned by the Veda.

44. Know that the injury to moving creatures and to those destitute of motion, which the Veda has prescribed for certain occasions, is no injury at all; for the sacred law shone forth from the Veda.

45. He who injures harmless beings from a wish to (give) himself pleasure, never finds happiness, neither living nor dead.

46. He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss.

47. He who does not injure any (creature), attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.

48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.

49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

50. He who, disregarding the rule (given above), does not eat meat like a Pisaka, becomes dear to men, and will not be tormented by diseases.

51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

53. He who during a hundred years annually offers a horse-sacrifice, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct).

54. By subsisting on pure fruit and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics (in the forest), one does not gain (so great) a reward as by entirely avoiding (the use of) flesh.

55. “Me he (mam sah)” will devour in the next (world), whose flesh I eat in this (life); the wise declare this (to be) the real meaning of the word “flesh” (mamsah).

56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards.

The intention here is clear ~ there is no sin in eating meat or in sexual relations (for it is only natural for all animals), but those who are intent on Brahmajnana and ultimate Moksha are advised to abstain.

Arjuna
15 May 2006, 03:51 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga,


Hindu marriage is a sacred vow that only makes sense in the context of procreation.
You can say what you like about Shaiva Siddhanta, but the correct position for all Shri Vaishnavas is that sexual intercourse is intended primarily for procreation.

I never rejected this point, it is rather clear that for Smriti main purpose of sex is procreation — but, again, not the ONLY.
Provided passages simply prove this.
So, it's OK to say that Smriti accepts procreation as a main reason of sex/marriage, but it is wrong to say that sexual act is only for procreation!


Sex is certainly not intrinsically wrong or sinful; but, for those who understand the true position of sex and marriage in the context of Dharma, to engage in sexual relations without thought of procreation is surely Adharma.

I haven't seen any passage telling this. But i have shown a passage from Brihadaranyaka (which is more authorative than Manavadharma-shastra) which accepts such a case as lawful.

Arjuna
15 May 2006, 04:06 AM
56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards.
The intention here is clear ~ there is no sin in eating meat or in sexual relations (for it is only natural for all animals), but those who are intent on Brahmajnana and ultimate Moksha are advised to abstain.

Namaste,

Verily for animals sexual act is restricted to procreation alone ;)
Only for humans sex is an aspect of love, and not mere procreation instinct.

I am well aware of Manu-smriti advising to abstain from these three. And still, this verse implies that there is no sin in sex as enjoyment (and this has nothing to do with "all animals") and thus enjoyement — or more precisely, love — is a second (additional acc. to Smriti, but lawful and valid) aim of marriage and sexual act.

Am i wrong?

sarabhanga
15 May 2006, 04:09 AM
Arjuna,

How many times must it be repeated that the whole of this thread has been concerning the opinions of orthodox Shri Vaishnavas? :rolleyes:

For such a question as this, your comments remain completely irrelevant!

No further comment.

Arjuna
15 May 2006, 04:25 AM
Arjuna,
How many times must it be repeated that the whole of this thread has been concerning the opinions of orthodox Shri Vaishnavas? :rolleyes:
For such a question as this, your comments remain completely irrelevant!
No further comment.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

It is not me who selected Manu-smriti to prove my position, but Jalasayanan, a Shrivaishnava.
And it is U who accused me of misinterpretation of Smriti.

I cannot see in which way U proved my position to be wrong...

I will try to find out specific references to Shrivaishnava scriptures. Till then i keep quiet on this theme. Hope i will be able to present exact proofs of my point ;)

kimtadbrahma
15 May 2006, 05:18 AM
Namaste Sarabanga. I am a little surprised to see you citing the Manu Smriti as authoritative. Is that an acceptable position to adopt? There are passages from Manu that must be deemed unacceptable and hence its authoritative status must be questioned (I am thinking of the exclusion of outcastes, child brides and female subservience).

On the issue of sexuality, my understanding has always been that Hinduism as a whole accepts sexual pleasure as one of the goals in life. It is the first of the purusharthas and Hindu dharma accepts it as such. It is only those who have renounced the world and embarked upon the moksha dharma who are advised to practise celibacy or celibate tendencies. That would certainly include the followers of Ramanuja, for Sri Vaishnavism is a part of the nivritti marg. My understanding was that tantric sexuality was something different as it was not primarily for pleasure but as a means of gaining yogic power. In these exceptional circumstances sexuality becomes a part of the moksha dharma.

Hindu dharma has many facets and moksha dharma is but one of these. I suspect that it was Western condemnation of the more liberal Hindu sexual ethics that led to an increase in puritanical attitudes. The erotic carvings found on some Hindu temples are evidence of an alternative morality prevailing in previous ages.

sarabhanga
15 May 2006, 07:20 AM
Namaste KTB,

Those who commit serious crimes are excluded from normal society.

Childhood marriage is only an extension of today's arranged marriage system, and of course there can be no question of sexual contact until the child has reached maturity because the main purpose of sex is supposed to be procreation.

And female subservience? Please explain.

In the majority of Hindu scripture, the power of the Goddess is ultimately subservient to the will of the God. So perhaps you would be inclined to deem all Hindu scripture as unacceptable and of dubious status.

kimtadbrahma
15 May 2006, 08:24 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga. There are a number of passages from the Manu Smriti that I think most Hindus would reject today. Here are a few examples: Ch10.50-51 insists that members of certain castes must wear marks to show what they are and always live by their designated occupations. It also says that they must not be allowed to live in the village but only on its outskirts. So this exclusion is not confined to those who have committed serious crimes but to those who engage in specified professions as well.

In relation to gender roles, there are several passages that most Hindus would, I think, deem to be unacceptable. I would say that child marriage is never acceptable because it removes the element of choice from the partner and imposes the parents' will. Also the idea of a man in his twenties marrying a girl aged between 9 and 12 is not acceptable. Chapter 9 vs 2-3 states that a woman can never be independent. Ch5 vs154 states that a woman must regard her husband as a god even if he is devoid of virtue and committing acts of adultery. I think if you read through chapters 5 and 9 of Manu it is quite clear that women are placed in a position of subservience. I have discussed this with many ladies and they have all agreed that Manu is a book written by men for their own benefit. And the men I have talked to have agreed as well.

The point is that Hindus do not have to accept Manu as authoritative. Gandhi rejected this text because of its being irreconcilable with justice and virtue. He wrote, "It is a crime against God and man to call the union of children a married state and then to decree widowhood for a girl whose so-called husband is dead. But even if the texts ordering child marriage be found to be authoritative, we must reject them in the light of positive experience and scientific knowledge."

My view is that there should be no Sharia in Hindu dharma.

Singhi Kaya
15 May 2006, 08:58 AM
Do anyone think that manu smriti could be altered with time and new verses pushed in~this is a problem with all smartic texts and puranas at times I'm told??

I agree with kimtadbrahma about manu-smriti.

satay
15 May 2006, 09:16 AM
westerners in general, and Christians in particular, have been hitting us on the head with this "manu-smiriti" in debates, in media and elsewhere they get a chance to do so.

Is it possible that this text was corrupted by the invaders? I wouldn't be surprised.

Could the knowledgeable members here start a thread on manu-smiriti and let's discuss it openly and fairly.

sarabhanga
15 May 2006, 10:55 PM
To provide some context (once again) for those who apparently have some constitutional inability to actually read the “Laws of Manu”:

Manu Smriti, X:

45. All those tribes in this world, which are excluded from (the community of) those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman), are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlecchas (barbarians) or that of the Aryans.

46. Those who have been mentioned as the base-born (offspring, apasada) of Aryans, or as produced in consequence of a violation (of the law, apadhvamsaga), shall subsist by occupations reprehended by the twice-born.

47. To Sutas (belongs) the management of horses and of chariots; to Ambashthas, the art of healing; to Vaidehakas, the service of women; to Magadhas, trade;

48. Killing fish to Nishadas; carpenters’ work to the Ayogava; to Medas, Andhras, Kunkus, and Madgus, the slaughter of wild animals;

49. To Kshattris, Ugras, and Pukkasas, catching and killing (animals) living in holes; to Dhigvanas, working in leather; to Venas, playing drums.

50. Near well-known trees and burial-grounds, on mountains and in groves, let these (tribes) dwell, known (by certain marks), and subsisting by their peculiar occupations.

51. But the dwellings of Candalas and Svapakas shall be outside the village, they must be made Apapatras, and their wealth (shall be) dogs and donkeys.

52. Their dress (shall be) the garments of the dead, (they shall eat) their food from broken dishes, black iron (shall be) their ornaments, and they must always wander from place to place.

53. A man who fulfils a religious duty, shall not seek intercourse with them; their transactions (shall be) among themselves, and their marriages with their equals.

54. Their food shall be given to them by others (than an Aryan giver) in a broken dish; at night they shall not walk about in villages and in towns.

55. By day they may go about for the purpose of their work, distinguished by marks at the king's command, and they shall carry out the corpses (of persons) who have no relatives; that is a settled rule.

56. By the king's order they shall always execute the criminals, in accordance with the law, and they shall take for themselves the clothes, the beds, and the ornaments of (such) criminals.


And to clarify the nature of those groups recommended to stay outside the town or village:

8. From a Brahmana a with the daughter of a Vaisya is born (a son) called an Ambashtha, with the daughter of a Sudra a Nishada, who is also called Parasava.

9. From a Kshatriya and the daughter of a Sudra springs a being, called Ugra, resembling both a Kshatriya and a Sudra, ferocious in his manners, and delighting in cruelty.

11. From a Kshatriya by the daughter of a Brahmana is born (a son called) according to his caste (gati) a Suta; from a Vaisya by females of the royal and the Brahmana (castes) spring a Magadha and a Vaideha.

12. From a Sudra are born an Ayogava, a Kshattri, and a Candala, the lowest of men, by Vaisya, Kshatriya, and Brahmana) females, (sons who owe their origin to) a confusion of the castes.

16. From a Sudra spring in the inverse order (by females of the higher castes) three base-born (sons, apasada), an Ayogava, a Kshattri, and a Candala, the lowest of men;

17. From a Vaisya are born in the inverse order of the castes a Magadha and a Vaideha, but from a Kshatriya a Suta only; these are three other base-born ones (apasada).

18. The son of a Nishada by a Sudra female becomes a Pukkasa by caste (gati), but the son of a Sudra by a Nishada female is declared to be a Kukkutaka.

19. Moreover, the son of by Kshattri by an Ugra female is called a Svapaka; but one begotten by a Vaidehaka on an Ambashtha female is named a Vena.

36. From a Nishada springs (by a woman of the Vaideha caste) a Karavara, who works in leather; and from a Vaidehaka (by women of the Karavara and Nishada castes), an Andhra and a Meda, who dwell outside the village.


Sutas work with horses and carriages, as charioteers, drivers, carpenters, wheelwrights, grooms, etc. ~ and the horse-master was a special attendant of the king. Sutas were employed as royal heralds or bards, whose business was to proclaim the heroic actions of the king and his ancestors, while driving his chariot to battle, or on state occasions, and who had therefore to know by heart portions of the epic poems and ancient ballads. And traditionally, a Suta was the son of a Kshatriya by the daughter of a Brahmana.

Ambashthas are medical workers, and Manu considers that they began as male offspring from the marriage of a Brahmana with the daughter Vaishya.

Vaidehas provide services for women (including midwifery etc.), and they are traditionally supposed to have come from the marriage of a Vaishya with the daughter of a Brahmana.

Magadhas are traders or merchants, and they are traditionally arisen from the marriage of a Vaishya with the daughter of a Kshatriya.

Nishadas are hunters, fishermen, and ironworkers, and they come from the marriage of a Brahmana with the daughter of a Sudra.

Ayogavas are woodworkers, and they come from the marriage of a Sudra with the daughter of a Vaishya.

Medas slaughter wild animals, and render products (leather, fat, etc.) from corpses, and they come from the marriage of a Vaidehaka and the daughter of a Nishada.

Andhras work in similar occupations, and they come from the marriage of a Vaidehaka and the daughter of a Karavara (a leatherworker, descended from the marriage of a Nishada and the daughter of a Vaidehaka).

Kunkus and Madgus are hunters, born from other such mixed marriages.

Kshattris come from the marriage of a Sudra with the daughter of a Kshatriya.

Ugras come from the marriage of a Kshatriya with the daughter of a Sudra.

Pukkasas come from the marriage of a Nishada with the daughter of a Sudra.

And Kshattris, Ugras, and Pukkasas, all live by hunting burrowing animals (including snakes, rodents, etc.).

Dhigvanas are leatherworkers or woodcutters, and the come from the marriage of a Brahmana with the daughter of an Ayogava.

Venas are drummers, and they are sons from the marriage of a Vaidehaka and the daughter of an Ambashtha.

Candalas come from the marriage of a Sudra with the daughter of a Brahmana.

Svapakas come from the marriage of a Kshattri with the daughter of an Ugra.

And both Candalas and Svapakas work in the disposal of corpses.


And so, Manu declares that charioteers, drivers, carpenters, wheelwrights, grooms, heralds, bards, medical workers, midwives, traders, hunters, fish industries, slaughter-houses, tallow-makers, leatherworkers, foresters and woodcutters, rat-catchers, drummers, corpse-gatherers, funeral and cremation workers, and executioners, should all dwell in certain appropriate places ~ e.g. near well-known trees, near cremation or burial grounds, on hills, in forest groves, or simply outside the village, making themselves known by signs, and peacefully going about their particular vocations.

TruthSeeker
16 May 2006, 12:35 AM
westerners in general, and Christians in particular, have been hitting us on the head with this "manu-smiriti" in debates, in media and elsewhere they get a chance to do so.

Is it possible that this text was corrupted by the invaders? I wouldn't be surprised.

Could the knowledgeable members here start a thread on manu-smiriti and let's discuss it openly and fairly.

The very name Smriti means that it is not supposed to be valid for eternity. Manu Smriti can be assumed to be valid for a particular group of people for a particular period of time. If something in it does not fit with the modern view it may be conveniently bypassed.

TruthSeeker
16 May 2006, 01:02 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga. There are a number of passages from the Manu Smriti that I think most Hindus would reject today. Here are a few examples: Ch10.50-51 insists that members of certain castes must wear marks to show what they are and always live by their designated occupations. It also says that they must not be allowed to live in the village but only on its outskirts. So this exclusion is not confined to those who have committed serious crimes but to those who engage in specified professions as well.


The marks presrcibed therin might be similar to "badges" and "uniforms" used in offices these days, and must not be misinterpreted to prove that Manu Smriti is discriminative.



In relation to gender roles, there are several passages that most Hindus would, I think, deem to be unacceptable. I would say that child marriage is never acceptable because it removes the element of choice from the partner and imposes the parents' will.


But arranged marriage is a general Hindu practice. It cannot be considered as wrong just because westerners think so. Hindus may not have 100% freedom in choosing thier partners, but they also do not have a 50% divorce rate!!




Also the idea of a man in his twenties marrying a girl aged between 9 and 12 is not acceptable. Chapter 9 vs 2-3 states that a woman can never be independent. Ch5 vs154 states that a woman must regard her husband as a god even if he is devoid of virtue and committing acts of adultery. I think if you read through chapters 5 and 9 of Manu it is quite clear that women are placed in a position of subservience.


To some extent, the discrimination against women appears to be there. But we cant guess how society was at that time. It is said that in old times, the average life span of a woman was only about 20-30( one third died during childbirth), while that of men was much higher, and law might have been favourable to them. It is possible though that this part of the text is biased.(atleast it appears so when read literally)



I have discussed this with many ladies and they have all agreed that Manu is a book written by men for their own benefit. And the men I have talked to have agreed as well.


Modern men will definitely feel so, especially when Smritis cannot be fully understood. Were they meant for a literal reading or supposed to be learnt from a guru? The world was not much different a hundred years ago.



The point is that Hindus do not have to accept Manu as authoritative. Gandhi rejected this text because of its being irreconcilable with justice and virtue. He wrote, "It is a crime against God and man to call the union of children a married state and then to decree widowhood for a girl whose so-called husband is dead. But even if the texts ordering child marriage be found to be authoritative, we must reject them in the light of positive experience and scientific knowledge."

My view is that there should be no Sharia in Hindu dharma.

I would not take Gandhi's views, or for that matter any Hindu reformists seriously as they are mainly political. They unnecessarily interfered with the Hindu religion and modified it without basic knowledge. What some people dont realize is that it is not possible to take bits and pieces of religion as valid and then consider the rest as junk. Such a religion is worthless. These reformists and others have imitated the west and condmend practices such as idol worship without any basic knowledge of Hinduism. They rejected portions of the vedas wherever they could not find a meaningful interpretation. Gandhi even said that he would never approve of the actions of Sri Krishna as he married 16000 wives and also indulged in many such immoral things - it is obvious that he had little knowledge of the religion. What are these 16000 wives in reality?


One should pay proper attention to the interpretation and particularly the sukshmarta of the texts rather than to the stUlartha which is often senseless. Every Hindu text is filled with plenty of esoteric meanings and unfortunately they are passed on as stories and often invite criticisms from outsiders and often bypassed by the insiders.

sarabhanga
16 May 2006, 03:36 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

To clarify my position:
Nowhere is it said that sex is ONLY for procreation, and that has been admitted. But Manu, and the majority of Hindu tradition, is clear that the dharmic importance of sexual relations is in procreation ~ especially in the production of male heirs. There is no sin in behaving otherwise, but those who desire spiritual advancement are advised to limit sexual contact to those times and partners best suited for conceiving and raising a perfect (male) child. All of this has been repeatedly explained. And for members of the orthodox Shri Vaishnava Sampradaya, and a thus disciples of Shri Ramanuja, the Laws of Manu would certainly be followed.

Arjuna
16 May 2006, 04:01 AM
Namaste Arjuna,
To clarify my position:
Nowhere is it said that sex is ONLY for procreation, and that has been admitted. But Manu, and the majority of Hindu tradition, is clear that the dharmic importance of sexual relations is in procreation ~ especially in the production of male heirs. There is no sin in behaving otherwise, but those who desire spiritual advancement are advised to limit sexual contact to those times and partners best suited for conceiving and raising a perfect (male) child. All of this has been repeatedly explained. And for members of the orthodox Shri Vaishnava Sampradaya, and a thus disciples of Shri Ramanuja, the Laws of Manu would certainly be followed.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Thank U for the clarification. I have no objections to this.

kimtadbrahma
16 May 2006, 05:15 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga. The passage you quote is exactly that which I was referring to in relation to caste discrimination. I had not misread it at all and I find the passages you quote deeply problematic. Discrimination on the basis of birth is not dharma. The word Apapatra in 10.51 means 'not allowed to use the same plate'. I will never accept that this kind of caste prejudice is dharma, and hence I cannot accept the Manu Smriti as authoritative. We have discussed this very passage, in the same translated version you use, in the Sangh I attend and everyone agreed that it was no longer acceptable and many were of the view that it was adharma. There were at one session almost a hundred people present and everyone agreed that the Manu Smriti should not be used as scripture.

kimtadbrahma
16 May 2006, 05:36 AM
Namaste TruthSeeker. There are so many interesting points you make in response to my earlier post and I wish we could be in the same room to discuss this issue. However, this is not possible at present. I think we basically agree that the Manu Smriti is no longer an appropriate text for modern Hindus. It is perhaps more important to establish how to respond appropriately when this text is cited as a means of attacking Hindu dharma.

My response is always to agree that its statements are not in accordance with virtue and to explain that for this reason we Hindus do not believe in it. One of the great features of Hindu dharma is that we are not obliged to bow slavishly to some outmoded medieval text; we can move on unhindered by these burdens.

I disagree when you say that reformers 'unnecessarily interfered with Hindu religion and modified it' for in my view that the interference was absolutely necessary. I was talking last week to an elderly member of my community and he was telling how as a child he remembers the outcastes standing at the door of the temple in his village because they were not allowed permission to enter. He was very passionate about this, and said that the great changes in Hindu practice were down to Gandhiji's efforts. Were these changes that Gandhi and Vivekananda campaigned for 'unnecessary interference'? Gandhi also campaigned vigorously to end child marriage and to allow remarriage for young widows against opponents who quoted the Manu Smriti.

Perhaps Gandhi and Vivekananda were influenced by the West, but we must also note that in the 12th century Basavanna, the founder of the Lingayats, campaigned in exactly the same way. Some of his followers were executed for arranging an intercaste marriage and he also sought to interfere with that idea of dharma.

My point is that in terms of caste and gender Hindu dharma was in desperate need of interference and thankfully it has now been done. Surely no one would want to go back to the situation of 100 years ago. I am sorry if any of my words appear to lack respect. That is not my intention.

sarabhanga
16 May 2006, 08:20 AM
The Veda declares that all humanity is derived from a fourfold division of Prajapati (Brahma as Daksha, the primeval God-Man who divides and distributes Himself as both the sacrificial offering and the immortal sustainer of Creation).

Aryan society was created with four perfectly (and essentially) interrelated parts. But how does the manifest diversity of humanity bear any relation to this divine plan?

Manu explains how the historical mixing of different Varnas has created this wide diversity of society.

Each admixture was allocated a particular station and task in the society, depending on their natural aptitude and learned skills (which were always gained from one’s family).

I have shown that the main reason for controlling the dwelling places for all of the restricted groups is their particular means of employment ~ all of which involve regular contact with blood, disease, or corpses, or regularly involve some kind of violence or slaughter.

The ONLY groups totally excluded from Brahmana society are the Candalas and the Svapakas, who both work in the disposal of corpses.

Svapakas come from the marriage of a son begotten by a Sudra from a Kshatriya with a daughter begotten by a Kshatriya from a Shudra. And this improper inbreeding has been punished with socially unacceptable employment and exclusion from “polite” society.

Candalas, the only Jati truly despised by Manu, arise from the rape or seduction of a Brahmana woman by a Sudra, and neither the offending Sudra nor his unfortunate offspring is allowed to dwell within a village.

Manu Smriti was composed by Brahmana fathers mainly for other Brahmanas and for correctly instructing the ruling Kshatriyas, and I trust that you can understand Manu’s logic in his treatment of Candalas and Svapakas.

And the breach of trust is more severe when you understand that Brahmanas and Sudras have traditionally relied on one another, each being without any material means of support.

See also the following post: Manu (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=4330#post4330)

Jalasayanan
16 May 2006, 02:16 PM
To clarify my position:
Nowhere is it said that sex is ONLY for procreation, and that has been admitted. But Manu, and the majority of Hindu tradition, is clear that the dharmic importance of sexual relations is in procreation ~ especially in the production of male heirs. There is no sin in behaving otherwise, but those who desire spiritual advancement are advised to limit sexual contact to those times and partners best suited for conceiving and raising a perfect (male) child. All of this has been repeatedly explained. And for members of the orthodox Shri Vaishnava Sampradaya, and a thus disciples of Shri Ramanuja, the Laws of Manu would certainly be followed.

To substantiate this view, Shrimad Bhagavath Gita 16.21 where in Kama, Kroda and Loba are said to three enterance of Hell and very next stanza calls these three as enterance to Tamas (Darkness, Hell). 16.23 further advices not to desist this teaching

TruthSeeker
16 May 2006, 03:54 PM
I disagree when you say that reformers 'unnecessarily interfered with Hindu religion and modified it' for in my view that the interference was absolutely necessary. I was talking last week to an elderly member of my community and he was telling how as a child he remembers the outcastes standing at the door of the temple in his village because they were not allowed permission to enter. He was very passionate about this, and said that the great changes in Hindu practice were down to Gandhiji's efforts. Were these changes that Gandhi and Vivekananda campaigned for 'unnecessary interference'? Gandhi also campaigned vigorously to end child marriage and to allow remarriage for young widows against opponents who quoted the Manu Smriti.

Perhaps Gandhi and Vivekananda were influenced by the West, but we must also note that in the 12th century Basavanna, the founder of the Lingayats, campaigned in exactly the same way. Some of his followers were executed for arranging an intercaste marriage and he also sought to interfere with that idea of dharma.


People have always misused laws, including the caste system. As I mentioned in another thread, caste system is a purely spiritual classification and discriminating others on the basis of this is very wrong. But it appears that at some point in the past, Hinduism simply lost its direction. I think the primary reason is some influential Brahmins who got the royal patronage became the authorities and controlled the whole faith. Some individuals in the past have certainly objected.

Intercaste marriage has been allowed by Hinduism. A Brahmin male is allowed to marry a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishiya or a Shudra woman - this is made very clear in the story of King Vikramaditya of Ujjain. The father of king Vikramaditya married four women , one from each caste. It is the woman, who is not allowed to marry in such a way - and I dont intend to probe into the reasons. If the caste system were understood to be spiritual or beyond mere racial discriminations, these are perfectly justifiable.

Regarding Gandhi, he did certain things right, and many things wrong. He had the habit of imposing his beleifs on others even when they did not want to. Gandhi has caused a lot of confusion in the country, and a good majority of Indians will support this. Swami Vivekananda never opposed the caste system, and infact supported it. Read his Complete works, though I dont remember the relevant volume. Certainly, the present form of caste system has no intrinsic value. But can you eliminate caste system now? Even if all Brahmnins come forward? Read on...

A sensitive question to ponder now is: Would the "low caste" people now want to give up their own castes? No, because that label brings them many advantages in the form of reservations in colleges and jobs. Even if the Brahmins and others truly want to completely abolish this system, it is no longer possible because those enjoying these reservations are not going to miss them so easily. The caste system is thus bound to go on...it has gone out of hand. What has Gandhi accomplished in this regard? He has stirred a hornet's nest without knowing the consequences. The way to approach this was entirely different and the need was to restore it its original glory. He tried to abolish it and has ensured that it will never be abolished.





My point is that in terms of caste and gender Hindu dharma was in desperate need of interference and thankfully it has now been done. Surely no one would want to go back to the situation of 100 years ago. I am sorry if any of my words appear to lack respect. That is not my intention.

We need to go back 100 years and do it in a different way . The way the caste problem has been addressed has ensured that the corrupted system will live for a much longer period and perhaps for ever.

No one even likes to open the Pandorra's box of caste system because it is so easy to end up offending each other. Whatever you are going to say regarding the caste system is going to be supported by a some people and opposed by others. Samething will hold for the Manu Smriti. We have to objectively discuss every issue with an open mind, and perhaps some solution will surface.

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 03:55 AM
To substantiate this view, Shrimad Bhagavath Gita 16.21 where in Kama, Kroda and Loba are said to three enterance of Hell and very next stanza calls these three as enterance to Tamas (Darkness, Hell). 16.23 further advices not to desist this teaching

Namaste,

1. In the same Gita Krishna says that He is Kama, which is dharma-aviruddha ;)

2. So U admit that Ur previous statement (that sex is ONLY for procreation) was inaccurate?

Jalasayanan
17 May 2006, 11:36 AM
Namaste,

1. In the same Gita Krishna says that He is Kama, which is dharma-aviruddha ;)

2. So U admit that Ur previous statement (that sex is ONLY for procreation) was inaccurate?
Hi

Hope you will read those phrases again after this.

In Gita Krishna does not say, he is Kama which is dharma aviruddha, instead he says he is dharma aviruddha kama, which indicates he disowns kama which is dharma viruddha.

Kama used for procreation is definitely Dharma Aviruddha as many scriptures advice people to have a progeny.

Kama for entertainment falls in Tamas, a gate way for hell. People are adviced not to fall in trap of sensual pleasures

Many a times you are giving me dhimmi attitude

Unlike your idea, contradictory verses does not render each other invalid and it does not throw choices on the readers to choose between the contradictory verses. But reader has to bridge the contradictory verses. Hope you will remember what Ramkish taught you in Vamachara thread on these

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 04:12 PM
In Gita Krishna does not say, he is Kama which is dharma aviruddha, instead he says he is dharma aviruddha kama, which indicates he disowns kama which is dharma viruddha.

This is possible interpretation, but there are other equally possible, including that Kama as such is not against Dharma.


Kama used for procreation is definitely Dharma Aviruddha as many scriptures advice people to have a progeny.
Kama for entertainment falls in Tamas, a gate way for hell. People are adviced not to fall in trap of sensual pleasures

This is Ur view. Shruti and Dharma-shastras clearly accept sexual enjoyment as one of four Purusharthas, and this was shown already. Purushartha is not a way to hell ;).
And again U ignore the existence of love, which includes Kama and verily doesn't "fall in tamas."

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 11:25 AM
Let us explore purushartha.

Dharma - Artha - Kama - Moksha

Artha and Kama both can be within the perview of Dharma and can be Dharma Avirrudha. I need not to explain this much. If your view of Kama that indicates it is totally falling in Dharma, there is no point in regulating it. Why Veshyas relationship is considered Adharma? Why para Stri realtionship is excluded? Why Rajasvala stri is excluded? Why conjugal relationship is excluded by Manu on few occasions? Why Day time is banned for Humans for conjugal relationship? All these shows, Kama as such falling in exclusions can be dharma Aviruddha.

As 5 great perceptors agreed, Love is important, no doubt and it is purely human Dharma; however, there must be limitations of conjugal relationship lest it is a gate way to hell. Gita clears this doubt.

When desire (here I talk only about Dharma Aviruddha desires) has to be controlled (this idea runs equally in all religions) only method by which conjugal relationship desire is controlled is procreation. If Arjuna knows any other methods of limiting this Dharma Aviruddha desire, we will accept it as long as it does not contradicts Veda. Enough Said.

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 02:38 PM
Let us explore purushartha.
Dharma - Artha - Kama - Moksha
Artha and Kama both can be within the perview of Dharma and can be Dharma Avirrudha. I need not to explain this much. If your view of Kama that indicates it is totally falling in Dharma, there is no point in regulating it. Why Veshyas relationship is considered Adharma? Why para Stri realtionship is excluded? Why Rajasvala stri is excluded? Why conjugal relationship is excluded by Manu on few occasions? Why Day time is banned for Humans for conjugal relationship? All these shows, Kama as such falling in exclusions can be dharma Aviruddha.

Actualisation of Kama may be adharmic (for example, a sexual act with an immature person or a rape), but Kama itself is Divine. It is not Kama that creates adharma, but human ego-mind.


As 5 great perceptors agreed, Love is important, no doubt and it is purely human Dharma; however, there must be limitations of conjugal relationship lest it is a gate way to hell. Gita clears this doubt.

Limitations are marital relationships (as per Smriti). Shruti nowhere describes coition as a gate way to hell. And Gita as well.
Kama as a "door to hell" is an egoistic desire and verily not sexual act (since Shruti accept sexual act as sacred).


When desire (here I talk only about Dharma Aviruddha desires) has to be controlled (this idea runs equally in all religions) only method by which conjugal relationship desire is controlled is procreation.

This is truely ridiculous statement.
If a desire is dharmAviruddha, what is a need to control it? If Krishna says such desire is He, U imply one has to control Krishna? Where does Krishna says that sexual desire is to be "controlled by procreation"?

A dharma of any grihasthi is to keep his wife happy, which includes sexual satisfaction. And if they love each other (which should be the case), sexual act is an act of love.

Views U express are Gandhist and not Hindu :p

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 05:06 PM
If a desire is dharmAviruddha, what is a need to control it?

Desire sometimes may be dharmic like earning more money etc, however, it should be within certain limits. Same is applicable to Conjugal relationship also. Smritis limit the conjugal relationship extensively in terms of days and period.

If krishna says he is Dharma Aviruddha Kama he means he represents Dharma Aviruddha Kama, this is not swarupa aikiya where in limiting Dharma aviruddha kama will result in limiting Krishna. Better you learn the basics. Enough Said!

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 05:19 PM
Actualisation of Kama may be adharmic (for example, a sexual act with an immature person or a wrape), but Kama itself is Divine. It is not Kama that creates adharma, but human ego-mind.

Ridiculous statement. If human ego mind is the reason, rape without egoistic mind would be dharmic. :p . Better think and post.

If actualisation is Adharmic the means is also Adharmic. Hence, Kama could be Dharmic as well as Adharmic.


Limitations are marital relationships (as per Smriti). Shruti nowhere describes coition as a gate way to hell. And Gita as well.
Shruti is silent on these factors hence we have to depend upon smritis for this. No where Shruti indicate every sexual activity is divine. Gita categorically indicates Kama is a gate way to hell.


Kama as a "door to hell" is an egoistic desire and verily not sexual act (since Shruti accept sexual act as sacred).
Shruti accept sexual act is sacred and so do I, as long as it is within a limit. As far as limitation is concerned, shruti is silent hence we look for such limitations in smritis. What smriti says is equally valid as shruti.


A dharma of any grihasthi is to keep his wife happy, which includes sexual satisfaction. And if they love each other (which should be the case), sexual act is an act of love.
No one denies this. However there must be a limit. When looked upon what is the limit, we get procreation as the answer.

I trust you will never be satisfied unless I agree with your Kaula view that sex is a matter of enjoyment and it has to freely availed. I am sorry, I am not subscribing to it, and neither does any Sri Vaishnavas. See you in some other thread

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 05:33 PM
If human ego mind is the reason, rape without egoistic mind would be dharmic.

Rape won't occur without egoistic mind, for it is unnatural.


Shruti accept sexual act is sacred and so do I, as long as it is within a limit. As far as limitation is concerned, shruti is silent hence we look for such limitations in smritis. What smriti says is equally valid as shruti.
No one denies this. However there must be a limit. When looked upon what is the limit, we get procreation as the answer.

"We" do not get it as an answer, it is U who impose such view.
India is approaching a demographic catastrophe due to such so called "dharma" (which is not based on Shruti though).
Procreation is to be limited in fact — one-two children are more than enough. Which woman will be happy with having sex twice in her life!?

Kama as a Purushartha is not procreation. Procreation is an animal instinct and social need, and nothing more.


I trust you will never be satisfied unless I agree with your Kaula view that sex is a matter of enjoyment and it has to freely availed. I am sorry, I am not subscribing to it, and neither does any Sri Vaishnavas. See you in some other thread

This view is NOT Kaula specifically. Shruti accepts sex as an enjoyment, and i have given a proof from Brihadaranyaka (which U ignored) ;)

Arjuna
20 May 2006, 12:20 PM
As for the Srivaishnava Dharma and Sadhachara Nirnaya, sex is limited only to the Grahasthassram and no where it is stated it is a sin to have sex with a ligitimate life partner. More so, it is the duty bound act for the married couples to respect each others needs and urge, and show mutual love and affection. No doubt, this act increases the bondage and affection, if they are truly enjoy the onness.

Ofcourse, if the Lord has given the facility to make things fit to one's desire, then why should there be an argument over this? Yes, it is not for him/her to sink in the act all the time but to develop a sense of service to the Lord and also for a progeny.

It is not at all a sin; it is an act to create a progeny as well as love and certainly Srivaishnava Philosaphy is not holding any different view on this. However, the late comers like ISKON, are the mixture of many cultural blends and can even be called a cocktail Vaishnavites and they never can say their words stands for Srivaishnava!

But Visishtadhvaitham is the one genuinley based on the Vedic reliance and spread from the time immemorial and rekindled by the sages and saints of different sagas; the latest one to preach in these lines are of Sri Ramanuja & Swami Desikan. Though there is no total ban or negative command given on this subject, it is a widely accepted and considered a legitimate issue to every Grahastha to perform the act.

TRS Iyengar
http://www.trsiyengar.com/

atanu
08 June 2006, 06:02 AM
Ofcourse, if the Lord has given the facility to make things fit to one's desire, then why should there be an argument over this? Yes, it is not for him/her to sink in the act all the time but to develop a sense of service to the Lord and also for a progeny.

It is not at all a sin; it is an act to create a progeny as well as love ----
TRS Iyengar
http://www.trsiyengar.com/


This is the logical, dharmic and most acceptable view. This was already summarised by Shri Sarabhanga some posts above and agreed by Arjuna.

There is no sin anywhere and in any act, if Jiva renounces doership truly (and not with mere words). Now to get settled in the jnana of non-doership one has to contemplate on God/Self continously. And often the beginning of carnal desire that precedes the so called love play (which is actually lust play instigated by erotic literature/films/visuals etc) is antipathic to meditation.

It is known that even Shankara got lost with 100 wives of a dead king and his devotees had to bring him back. At the same time, Shankara would not be admitted into the annals of sarvajnani without this knowledge.


So, everything depends on the context. There is no sin however. There is only distraction and concentration.

Bhava dasa
09 June 2006, 09:56 AM
My questions is:if a married Shri Vaishnava makes love (which is very different from making sex) with his/her partner even for not procreative purposes,is this considered a sin its-self?

Do you mind me asking what your definition of "love" is?

Arjuna
07 October 2006, 06:09 PM
Do you mind me asking what your definition of "love" is?

What was obviously meant is that sexual love is not equivalent to mere sexual act. The first is an expression of pure feeling, the second just a gratification of a physiological urge (which is similar to scratching one's nose or urinating).

Atman
14 May 2007, 08:13 AM
For Krsna Consciousness children yes, but the ideal yogi is a celibate, who does not engage in sex.