Question: I want to give up lust, but I always have lusty thoughts. How can I renounce lust?

My Answer: You ask how it might be possible to renounce lust. It is impossible. I am sorry.

Even the gods cannot get free from lust. Even Brahmā became confused by it and began to pressure the goddess Vāk for intercourse. Even the greatest yogī (Śiva) has to contend with it – he had to burn the god of lust with his third eye, thus disturbing his meditation.

Nara-nārāyaṇa Ṛṣi, however, is noteworthy, for conquering lust is effortless for him. Nara-Nārāyana is Viṣṇu with his devotee. This is the key. I will try to explain it.

Lust is a permutation of love. When love is directed mainly upon one’s own gratification, it is “lust.”

Lust is a permutation of love.

Although sex is a very powerful way to explore lust, Sex is not inherently identical to lust. Krishna, for example, is extremely sexually active – but there is not even an atomic iota of lust in any of that sexual activity. Why? Because lust is the thirst to please oneself. There is no “thirst” in Krishna’s sexual activity, no sense of “need” or “emptiness to fill.” Krishna’s playful activities are not a search for happiness, they an expression of happiness. They are not attempts to fill a void of happiness, but are endeavors to share a surplus of it. His sexual activity is not an attempt to gratify himself, it is an endeavor to share his surplus bliss with other entities and thus please them.

Lust is undefeatable, but in the face of love, it disappears. This happens because love is the natural state of existence, and lust is a permutation that occurs only when existence is projected into some unnatural condition.

Lust only exists when a person feels emptiness and dissatisfaction inside; for lust is the endeavor to fill up that emptiness and remove that dissatisfaction. If we were completely satisfied, happy and effortlessly blissful – there would be no seed of lust.

So, never concentrate on “renouncing lust” – it will be a hopeless battle. Don’t try to take this enemy head-on. You can’t fight it head on, you have to cause it to surrender. Surrender to it is another option, but it never manages to fill the emptiness inside, so surrender to it is not a wise option. Better to make it surrender to you!

You can’t fight it head on, you have to inspire it to surrender!

But how?

The true self has svānanda (inherent bliss) in abundance. And the true self has an eternal, effortless relationship with the Supreme Self. This relationship facilitates Supreme Love, which causes an exremely abundant, overflowing happiness and joy, prema-ānanda. Try to realize this. It will cause lust to surrender to you.

Lust will begin to slacken as you begin to grasp the first hints of the first hints of the first hints of prema (Supreme Love). Eventually it will simply stop fighting, because it too becomes delighted by the Supreme Love, and wants to become involved in it, as a servant of that love.

Renunciation is hopeless.

So, don’t try to renounce lust, or anything else for that matter. Renunciation is hopeless. The ātmā is so small and dependent. Trying to renounce things and be independent from them is extremely difficult, painful, and almost surely doomed to failure since it is ultimately impossible for an ātmā to be absolutely self-sufficient. Instead of breaking yourself in this impossible battle, try to gain more and more cognizance of your true self, your eternal nature as a conscious being, your relationship to the Supreme Consciousness, and the divine love that is possible in that relationship.

Then lust will go away without effort, and merely as a side-effect.

Thus we see that people with a lot of prema, a lot of divine love, are very often very, very simple, minimalist, “renounced” people – because they have no wants or desires, because the prema satisfies them so completely. But it is a mistake to take this by-product of prema as if it were the main goal.

Try for renunciation: be prepared to fall on your face forever.

Try for prema: renunciation happens as a matter of fact, without effort, and very naturally and wholesomely.

– Vraja Kishor dās
www.vrajakishor.com

29 thoughts on “How Can I Give Up LUST? (Is Krishna Lusty?)

  1. Hari Hari.

    So, what kind of sexual activities does Krishna involves in?

    And, when you say, it’s expression of sharing without lust, so self-realized jiva can also indulge in sexual activities to make pleasure to others?

    thx. ys n.d.

    Like

    1. All of the kāmarūpa līlā of Krishna is sexual in form (that’s what kāma-rūpa means). All the mādhurya-rasa līlā.

      A self-realized jīva realizes the self in connect with Krishna. The self-realized jīva wants to express love towards Krishna primarily, for Krishna is the root of the self. They want to participate in the mādhurya-līlā, the kāmarūpa līlā. They don’t “indulge” in anything. They do make all service and efforts to please others since everyone is connected to Krishna, but their primary concern is Krishna.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thanks for your answer. So, this kama-rupa, or sexual in form looks externally like what we know in material world as sexual intercourse ? No keep the motives aside, just this aspect. Is Sri Krsna having actually sex? In the most litteral meaning possible? And Yes, who exactly with?

        2) Ok, so between liberated jivas, let’s say in Vaikhunta, when they are playing role of husband and wife, there is no sex right? Also, in the meaning of question 1).

        Thanks, ys n.d.

        Like

        1. Why do you think all the śaktis manifest in female form? Yes, Krishna is the original kāmadeva. This is why Gauḍīyas meditate on Krishna using Kāma gāyatrī and kāma bīja (“klīṁ”). Kāma and his consort Rati are in awe of Krishna’s sexual art. All the gopīs are his confidants in this play. Of all the gopīs Śrīmatī Rādhārānī is the supreme and most excellent.

          2) Why no sex? Do Devaki and Vasudeva not have sexual intercourse? Then where do the children come from? Where do all these boys and girls (gopas and gopis) come from – storks?

          Like

          1. Thanks.

            1) Can we say Srimati Radharani is most excellent, because despite she has the biggest attraction and affection to Sri Krsna, is pushing other gopis to enjoy with Him? So she is putting herself to the last place?

            2) As far from what I remember from BG,SB,CC, etc. sometimes it happens that “baby is made” just by the thought…I was thinking, also some demigods work like that…and how about Lord Brahma? His body is made from the intelligence, so I thought that he is just imagining that, and it happens like that… Also, for Devaki, Vasudeva, I thought that little Krsna was not “born” but manifested somehow using His internal potency yoga-maya…And the third thing, I remember SP’s statement, that in Vaikhunta there is no sex, there is so much ecstasy from the service, association with Lord, etc. that there is no sex. So Prabhupada meant in this case, no sex between jivas only? So Lord Narayan would have sex with Srimati Laksmi? or also with other queens? But probably not with the “ordinary” jiva females right? As far I understand, they are not so much attached to Vishnu to escape from their husbands during the night… 😛

            3) I am quite confused, but in the good way. I think this topic is quite interesting, and important. Of course, we can say this is quite intimate, but as far as this is the highest pastime, I think one who wants to know and appreciate Sri Krsna to the highest possible level (at our stage – and also, I am not saying we would ever know Him perfectly – because He also doesn’t know Himself), can ask such questions, of course with the humility and reverence..

            Like

          2. 1) She’s the most excellent because she is the most excellent. She rarely puts herself to last place. She usually puts herself forward (and so does everyone else) because she is simply the best. She is the most beautiful, most sensitive, most intelligent, most artistic, most expert, most wise, etc.

            2) Brahma made some children directly, but required sexual reproduction to get the universe populated. So he created the prajapati and he himself wanted to act as a prajapati with Vāk as his wife, but she did not want it.

            What about Devaki and Vasudeva’s other children?

            Where is that statement of Prabhupāda? We cannot know the meaning of statements without knowing their context. In Vaikuṇṭha there is no lust. But there is sex.

            Jīvas can become nitya-siddha. They can have any relationship with Krishna, including mādhurya-rāsa in sambhoga-bhava (direct union). There is no bar.

            3) I totally agree

            Like

  2. Well written… but it seems philosophically self-annulling.

    If the Creator is the quintessential expression of every attribute found in creation (ie. the Creator of beauty if infinitely more beautiful than His creation), then it would be rational that the attribute of lust be quintessentially found in its Creator.

    If God is “Love,” and He created us to love Him…then yes, God has a divine “need” that only we can fulfill. Otherwise there would be no sense in the command to Love God with “all your heart, soul, strength and mind.”

    The All-Attractive One seduces us with His qualities and potencies so that we might complete the reciprocal quality of divine Love. This reciprocity of His own divine Love satisfies the divine’s longing…

    Since an eternal and infinite God can only “satisfy” an equally transcendent person, our devotional love transcends us. In fact, our devotional love for God is but a “means” through which the divine Love returns back to Godhead.

    If God wants for us to “desire” him with such devotion…then obviously God has a need to be filled. If God created humans with the “need” for Him…then in some way we cannot comprehend, God must also quintessentially “need” us.

    “Lust” then becomes the drive…in fact, it is the necessary impetus between the human and the divine person. Lust is not evil… only its selfish perversion. Lust is the impetus that joins one person with another for the purpose of conscious unification.

    In fact, there is no greater feeling than to know that someone “lusts” us. To be desired by someone special is sometimes more satisfying than consummating a union. But that’s another topic.

    Like

    1. I have two comments to make in reply to this thoughtful comment.

      (1) You say, “If the Creator is the quintessential expression of every attribute found in creation…”

      The Original Consciousness (“Creator”) is NOT the quintessential expression of every attribute found in creation. Some attributes found in creation are created by us, and some manifest a LACK of the Original Consciousness. Light, for example, creates shadows – but it would be impractically esoteric to say that light is therefore dark. Darkness is the LACK of light, created by the intervention of another entity.

      (2) You say something along the lines that God needs should lust, because lust is the most powerful feeling. Gauḍīyas embrace this, which is why we call Krishna’s līlā “kāmarūpa” (“with the form of lust”). I tried to give some explanations towards this in the post, by mentioning that lust itself becomes attracted to pure love and becomes its servant. Then it loses the essence of what lust is (an huger from emptiness) but retains the intensity and allure. Krishna is indeed hungry, but it is not hunger from emptiness, it is hunger from fullness. It is a different kāma (lust) than what we experience in our separated state of existence.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We disagree, since God is the progenitor of everything. We even disagree on what “makes” shadows and its congruence with Light… For instance you say that Light “creates shadows,” which is an impossibility. A shadow is created when there is something blocking light…but never mind, I appreciate your response and share a tremendous amount of respect for Srila Prabhupada. Hare Krishna.

        Like

        1. Please consider this śloka of Śrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa (2.9.34)

          ṛte ’rthaṁ yat pratīyeta
           na pratīyeta cātmani
          tad vidyād ātmano māyāṁ
           yathābhāso yathā tamaḥ

          “Things that appear worthless are things that appear disconnected from me. The appearance of disconnection is done by my māyā. It is just like how a light can cause darkness.”

          It is māyā which can stand between the light and the individual. But māyā only does so in response to our will for it to happen. So ultimately it is the will of the individual which casts him or her into shadow.

          God is the progenitor of other progenitors, not simply of dead stones. So not everything is created directly by God. Many, many things are created by us and our ignorance.

          Like

          1. Thank you!
            Please consider what God says in the Holy Bible- Isaiah 45:7-
            “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”
            Ultimately everything is created by God, whether “directly” or “indirectly.” Everything is sustained by God’s Word… Everything requires God’s will… including this conversation. God’s will is inescapable, regardless of the “agent” that makes something happen.
            Have you ever heard of the term: “The Buck Stops Here?”
            The “Buck” begins and ends with God- and most of the time for reasons that transcend us.
            When God appeared to Moses through a Burning Bush- God said to Moses:
            “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” (Exodus 4:11)
            To ascribe the ability to “create” to a creature outside of God’s creative essence is to steal the ultimate “glory” from God.
            Whenever humans try to mold a god according to what is palatable to them, they create an Idol.
            God is God- and all the glory goes to Him, regardless of the “agent” who seems to create it.
            God bless you!

            Like

          2. The quotes you give from the bible are not out of harmony with the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and Gauḍīya siddhānta, but your current interpretation of them may be, and likely this interpretation is shared by a majority of Christians (though I am not sure, because Christianity is not a significant focus for me).

            They are not out of harmony because if “A leads to B, and B leads to C” then we can also say that “A leads to C.”

            But your interpretation of it will be misleading and wrong if you think “A leads directly to C.” And this is quite important when both A and B are conscious individuals with freewill, as is the case here.

            The result of this misinterpretation is very alarming. Since C, for example, might be something like torture of innocent children, or brutal gang rape. If you think that A leads directly to these instances “C” you will wind up with a very strange, disgusting concept of “God.”

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Hare Krsna Prabhu

    please accept my humble obeisances

    i just want to know at what stage can we start to think about raganuga sadhana bhakti?

    Especially when we read in CC that only by raganuga bhakti one can attain Vraja.

    Jaya Jaganatha Das

    Like

    1. Only when you have a specific greed for a specific type of intimate relationship with krishna, that is when rāgānugā sādhana starts to become relevant. This greed can come at any stage.

      Like

  4. “All of the kāmarūpa līlā of Krishna is sexual in form” – please define sex. Sexuality simply means polarization, two poles of one energy. No problem. Sexual intercourse is a problem. I remember only learning that all Krishna does in rasa lila is dance. And this Prabhupada explains after saying that we should not in fact discus this matter, following the example of Caitanya. So, why are we discussing it, and is now rasa lila more than just a dance?

    Like

    1. So, why are you discussing it?
      When you sort that out, then please read the Bhāgavatam carefully. What to speak of Krishna, even Viṣṇu is described as engaging in sexual intercourse with māyā-śakti to create the universe as their child. When you feel it is appropriate for you, read about Krishna carefully in Bhāgavatam, and then in the explanations of Bhāgavatam given by the Gauḍīyas, especially Śrī Krishnadās Kaviraja and the Six Goswamis. Then you won’t have any more questions like this.

      Like

      1. Well, pardon my ignorance, but you are supposed to be a lecturer here, and me an ignorant audience. A link would be more helpful and effective, rather than patronizing. Basically, I still have no idea what are you talking about, in spite of your ‘explanation’. Your text seem too much like an original investigation, rather then Gaudiya teachings I am familiar with. For the last 25 years I have never heard any ISKCON lecturer even remotely considering intercourse for Vishnu-tattva. If you do not call this an original investigation ( which is in fact an euphemism ) but only your thoughts that you wish to share, then have in mind that ideas like this are like sharing a grenade in the crowd. You are only to expect provocative questions, and you are expected to provide profound answers.

        Like

        1. Please just subtract whatever came across as patronizing in my reply, with my apologies. The remainder is good advice. (a) Don’t discuss something you aren’t comfortable discussing. (b) Study Bhāgavatam carefully – for example, study how Maitreya explains the creation of the universe to Vidura, in 3rd Canto and you will see that the idea of sexuality in Godhead is ubiquitous, even to Viṣṇu. (c) If you aren’t familiar with the sexuality of Krishna you simply haven’t studied Bhāgavatam sufficiently or read much of the Gauḍīya explanations of it. So, if you feel comfortable, read 10th Canto deeply, with the help of Śrī Viśvanātha’s commentary, and also look at books like Gītā Govinda, Krishna-karṇāmṛta. Govinda-līlāmṛta. Etc. Etc.

          Like

          1. Are you reading it or using some software to search for a word like “sex”?

            Sweet. It would not take me two days if I was using software, right? But thanks for the tip, it opened my eyes. Why am I reading it again? Why am I doing your homework? You never provided a single line of evidence, and I should go find it myself. That is not exactly what I call service… You are the one who was supposed to have done reading, and should be using software to find valid arguments and present them to us. But wait, you wrote so many arguments already. We should just refer to your other messages. Let’s just do that.

            All of the kāmarūpa līlā of Krishna is sexual in form (that’s what kāma-rūpa means). All the mādhurya-rasa līlā.

            It depends on which Vaishnava you take as authority.

            Bhakti Pramode Puri Goswami says:
            “There are two types of ragatmika-bhakti: (1) kamarupa (conjugal relationship …) and (2) sambandha-rupa (relationship in which one identifies as Krishna’s parent or friend).” Tripurari Swami shares this simple division.

            Sridhar Maharaja writes:
            “In his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, Srila Rupa Goswami has mentioned sambandha-rupa and kama-rupa, the two types of Ragatmika-bhakti, or devotion rendered by the Eternal Associates of the Lord, headed by the residents of Vraja. In sambandha-rupa the Lord’s Associates cooperate according to their fixed relative positions of dasya, sakhya,vatsalya or madhura, whereas in kama-rupa they come forward to serve any necessity that is demanded of them. They are ready to serve any and every desire of the Absolute.”

            So, although kama-rupa is of a sentiment same as madhurya, Sridhar Maharaja sees kama-rupa in a broader sense. Like if fixed positions, including madhurya, mean that one has a preferred choice of relationship, including madhurya being preferred, while in kama-rupa there is no personal preference, there is an eagerness to satisfy any desire of Krishna.

            It is not a philosophy that strikes me here, but the people, I could not find anyone from ISKCON. So, who is your authority? In my eyes, this makes you the first one, at least known to me, to deal with these matters from the standpoint I was supposed to share. You are directly interpreting Rupa Goswami. And what you say just does not add up. I cannot recognize your conclusions in anything I have heard from ISKCON members, so you must understand my concern here. If you do, then the only decent thing to do is to hesitate no more, but promptly put all this correspondence to an end by providing evidence in a form of a verse showing that madhurya lila means hardcore sex. My opinion is that you see things that do not exist.

            2) Why no sex? Do Devaki and Vasudeva not have sexual intercourse? Then where do the children come from?

            They had it in the material world only, right?

            What to speak of Krishna, even Viṣṇu is described as engaging in sexual intercourse with māyā-śakti to create the universe as their child.

            Provide the verse describing Visnu in the sexual intercourse. And not from Kama-sutra, please. Unlike you, I provided verses from CC about impregnation by a glance that you bluntly ignored.

            Don’t discuss something you aren’t comfortable discussing.

            If you think sex, oh, the bar is open. It is not sex I am not comfortable with. I don’t mind if Vishnu is having an orgy, for me it would be still business as usual, I would have to deal with same practical problems. Not even the ‘original investigation’ part is a problem for me. It is only expected for us to follow authorities or dogma without questioning, to
            speed up and protect our own advancement, that is practical. Questioning authorities may be seen as heresy. Well, I don’t mind even that. In fact, blind faith may be useful internally, but externally, devotees may, and at some point will certainly be challenged. Having that in mind, it is useful to have a tradition of critical thinking, for the sake of apologetics. So, I don’t mind you having a different, original opinion. Problem is that your opinion does not make sense. Problem is that you have followers. Problem is that we are someone’s acharyas, too. So freedom of having an original investigation comes with a responsibility.

            and you will see that the idea of sexuality in Godhead is ubiquitous, even to Viṣṇu.

            Why are you “explaining” things that everyone knows? Krishna says “I am legitimate sex”, does it get any more explicit? Nobody questions sexuality. It is your rendering of the word that is in question.

            read 10th Canto deeply… Gītā Govinda, Krishna-karṇāmṛta. Govinda-līlāmṛta. Etc. Etc

            In short, “read everything and you will see that I am right”. Wow.

            Vṛndāvana Krishna kisses the gopīs with his mouth, not with his eyes

            I hope you do not mean kisses are the intercourse?

            Even if Śrīla Prabhupāda said “there is no sex in the spiritual world” we can’t understand the meanings of these words without context.

            So, the context is that Srila Prabhupada never knew about Govinda Līlāmṛta, and we should correct his confused “no sex” nonsense. No problem. Give us your purport on Govinda Līlāmṛta and make sure not to let us wander what you mean by “sexual”.

            Since Śrīla Rūpa Goswāmī has described it as Lust-like (“Kama Rūpa”)

            Btw, this is academic understanding:
            कामरूप kāmarūpa adj. assuming any shape at will
            कामरूप kāmarūpa adj. protean
            कामरूप kāmarūpa m. god
            कामरूप kāmarūpa n. shape assumed at will

            But that aside, in another text you say: “Romantic Absorption (Kāmarūpā)”. Then why lust here? Why not just desire, and suspending all personal desires in favor of Krishna’s? Romance is also fine, it is sensual, erotic, pure and innocent. Intercourse is something else. Romance means hugs and kisses – and that is all we know from authorities describing Krishna’s pastimes. “Hugs and kisses” or “xoxo” is even a phrase common in a modern correspondence, as something sweet and innocent, acceptable in public. Not only it is reasonable for us to accept that concept of a romance, it is something that the rest of the world is familiar with for quite a while. Platonic love can tolerate hugs and kisses. So what makes a difference then? Let me be graphic here: nothing below the waist. And why so in Vaikuntha? Because below the waist there are animal chakras. Your concept of Krishna is similar to the one of Pan, a half goat indeed, chasing nymphs all over the forest. I dare not think of your explanation of kamadhenu.

            But it cannot mean there is no kāma-rūpa līlā.

            And it doesn’t. But it also does not mean that madhurya lila is what you say it is. Where you see kama, you read sexual and I read romantic. And when you say sexual, you mean genital and I mean sensual. So, what inspired you to introduce genital sex into the spiritual world?

            Here is my inspiration:
            Prabhupad: Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.33 Honolulu, June 1, 1976
            “So the point is that here the sex life is the highest pleasure, and in the spiritual world there is no sex.”

            Here Prabhupad does not mean romance. Sex is perverted in a material world, so it is genuine in the spiritual. If it is a reflection here, there must be some genuine origin. By sex, he means again “nothing below the waist”. Speaking of reflection, this is illustrated in the parable of the banyan tree. In the material world, that tree is an upside-down reflection of the spiritual. The topmost material enjoyment is the lowest spiritual. I gave you the reference SB 3.15.20 about the enjoyment with the opposite sex in Vaikuntha, but no sexual intercourse. If it is that despicable even for jivas in Vaikuntha, how on Earth did you promote it to the highest pastime of Vishnu? If you were right, we would already have posters of Kamarupa Divine Couple and home altars to worship. Just consider the message of our present madhurya lila iconography – it is innocent. Your explanation opens the door to sahajiya and tantra. And that also I don’t mind – people should get what they deserve. I mind the nonsense of the idea, and my friends reading it.

            You may note some shift of a tone in this message. That was intended to call you to alert: for quite some time you are not giving me explanations, but a ride. And that is not nice. So, let’s try to bring this back to academic level, with profound and precise answers and references. If a single verse was provided, I would recognize your point immediately.

            Like

          2. My brother, all I say is that if you believe that Krishna has no sexual activity, you have not read much about Krishna’s līlā. It is very simple, please don’t make a big deal of it.

            I am certainly not your guru, so why are you making such effort to reconcile your understanding of my teachings with your understanding of your guru’s teachings? Save yourself the trouble and focus on your guru’s teachings, and I sincerely pray that will serve you well.

            If you think you must save me from my rabid deviations, maybe that is biting off more than you should chew. You are not my guru, so save your time.

            If you think you must save my readers from my wild worlds, I think you have an inefficient strategy. A more efficient strategy is to form your own preaching outlet and attract people do it by the self-effulgent demonstration of its superior efficacy.

            SB 3.5.26

            kāla-vṛttyā tu māyāyāṁ
             guṇa-mayyām adhokṣajaḥ
            puruṣeṇātma-bhūtena
             vīryam ādhatta vīryavān

            The word vīrya means “semen.” He gave her is “semen” and he is very manly (vīryān).

            The context is provided in the surrending verses. He felt lonely. He saw her beauty. He woke her up. He gave her his semen. The world was born.

            Krishna says “kāmo’smi” – I am lust.

            Kāmarūpa means “lust-like” – Śrī Rūpa says so directly in BRS 1.2.283-4

            sA kAmarUpA sambhoga triSNAM yA nayati svatAm |
            yad asyAM kriSNa-saukhyArtham eva kevalam udyamaH || 283 ||

            “This kāmarūpā has the thirst (tṛṣṇā) for sexual union (sambhoga), but purely for the sake of Krishna’s happiness.

            AshAM prema-visheSo ‘yaM prAptaH kAmapi mAdhurIM |
            tat-tat-krIDA-nidAnatvAt kAma ity ucyate budhaiH || 284 ||

            “The wise call it kāma because it emulates the external form of lust.”

            I would not like to continue any argument with you. You are welcome to try to understand what I am saying. You are welcome to dislike it. That is beyond my control and none of my business. I respect your independence.

            Your servant,
            Vraja Kishor

            Like

        2. Also, Śrīla Prabhupāda always uses the word “impregnates” to describe Viṣṇu’s interaction with Māyā. This is because of how Maitreya describes it in Bhāgavatam. Viṣṇu impregnates Māyā with jīva and kāla śakti, and this causes the universe to be born.

          Like

          1. So, I am rereading 3rd Canto, as instructed. So far this is what I have found:

            SB 3.15.20 Purport: In other words, there is enjoyment of the association of the opposite sex, but there is no sexual relationship. The residents of Vaikuṇṭha have a better standard of pleasure, so there is no need of sex pleasure.

            Also:

            CC Ādi 5.69 Purport: In His form as Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu the Lord impregnates material nature by His glance.

            CC Madhya 20.272 Purport: Simply by His glance, material nature is impregnated with all living entities.

            Emphasis on “glance”.

            Like

  5. Hari Hari,

    I asked this one devotee and he sent me this quote, what do You think, or what is your comment?

    “Viṣṇu does not require anything in order to create. He does not require the goddess Lakṣmī in order to give birth to Brahmā, for Brahmā is born from a lotus flower that grows from the navel of Viṣṇu. The goddess Lakṣmī sits at the feet of Viṣṇu and serves Him.

    In this material world sex is required to produce children, but in the spiritual world a man can produce as many children as he likes without having to take help from his wife. So there is no sex there.

    Because we have no experience with spiritual energy, we think that Brahmā’s birth from the navel of Viṣṇu is simply a fictional story. We are not aware that spiritual energy is so powerful that it can do anything and everything. Material energy is dependent on certain laws, but spiritual energy is fully independent.

    Countless universes reside like seeds within the skin pores of Mahā-Viṣṇu, and when He exhales, they are all manifested. In the material world we have no experience of such a thing, but we do experience a perverted reflection in the phenomenon of perspiration.

    We cannot imagine, however, the duration of one breath of Mahā-Viṣṇu, for within one breath all the universes are created and annihilated. This is stated in the Brahma-saṁhitā.

    Lord Brahmā lives only for the duration of one breath, and according to our time scale 4,320,000,000 years constitute only twelve hours for Brahmā, and Brahmā lives one hundred of his years. Yet the whole life of Brahmā is contained within one breath of Mahā-Viṣṇu.

    Thus it is not possible for us to imagine the breathing power of Mahā-Viṣṇu, who is but a partial manifestation of Lord Nityānanda.”

    (Caitanya Caritamrita, Introduction)

    Like

    1. Here Śrīla Prabhupāda says that sex is not required to produce children in the spiritual world. So there is no need for reproductive sex there. “There is no sex there” means (a) there is no lust, (b) there is no need for sex, because (i) there is no hunger for anything, and (ii) there is no need for reproduction. But it cannot mean there is no kāma-rūpa līlā.

      You may think this is my “speculation” and I am not accepting Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words literally. But, we simply can’t understand the meanings of these words without context. The Govinda Līlāmṛta and many other scriptures describe the sexual activity in Vṛndāvana quite directly (without violating principles of personal privacy), so we cannot interpret a gurus statement in a way that would contradict Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāja Goswāmī. If we do, we are misinterpreting. No mater how “literal” it appears to be, if a person’s interpretation of a Gauḍīya guru’s statement makes it contradict Gauḍīya siddhānta then THAT PERSON is “speculating.” We must use our intellect to establish the siddhāntas, that is not “mental speculation.”

      We know of sex as an expression of lust. There is none of that in Vṛndāvan or anywhere in Vaikuṇṭha. But sex becomes a servant of pure love and lust loses possesion of it. We see this in Vrndavana and even elsewhere in Vaikuntha to a less intense extent. That is why Śrīla Rūpa Goswāmī describes Krishna’s relationship with the gopīs as “kāma-rūpa” – these relationships take the appearance of lust, they are sexy, sexual, racey, thrilling, etc. but without any lust.

      Many people are not ready to accept that Krishna is sexy and sexual because they are conditioned with thinking sex to be something evil, dirty, etc. This is an after-affect of Christian morals that have permeated modern culture. In truth Krishna is not just sexual, but he is wildly passionate and observes absolutely no rules whatsoever. But who is ready to understand this? 99.9% of the world will completely misunderstand. And even a vast majority of people trying to become devotees cannot understand it.

      Like

  6. Haribol Vraja Kishor prabhu!
    Thanks for the interesting and enlightening post. It is definitely a subject that needs more discussion and understanding.

    However, I would like to draw your attention to one issue – where you talk about Krishna’s sexual activities. There is a problem in using the word ‘sexual’ activity when referring to the spiritual world. The problem is that the definition of ‘sexual’ primarily relates to physical things and the physical interaction that takes place. Indeed, the Oxford Dictionary defines it as relating to physical attraction or intimate physical contact. In other words, what takes priority is the physical gross matter, the form, not the intention or consciousness behind something. Even though humans may be capable of deeper emotional exchanges in sexual relationships, primarily it is still the physical act that defines sexual activity.

    In the spiritual world however, all forms, all bodies, are made entirely of pure spiritual energy. They are pure consciousness. This means that every part of that body can act or function in the same way as any other part. Form exists only to create variety and thus expand or increase pleasure and happiness as a function of consciousness. So in the spiritual world simply by holding hands one could be engaging in the deepest and most intimate of loving exchanges. This clearly doesn’t fit our material understanding of sexual activity.

    ‘Sexual’ activity in the spiritual world is really two pure conscious beings i.e. Krishna and the living entity, expressing their natural love for each other. The way this love is expressed is not defined by form (i.e. parts of the body) but by consciousness. Form is not essential – which is completely the opposite of material activities wherein the function or activity is defined by physical form and attributes. Therefore, the scriptures use the term ‘conjugal love’ to describe Krishna’s pastimes with His lovers because the ‘sexual’ relationship in a marriage in our material understanding is (at least theoretically) based on deeper levels of consciousness and awareness rather than simply being about the physical act.

    In conclusion, the term ‘sexual activity’ based on material understandings and definitions is probably not appropriate to describe the intimate loving exchanges in the spiritual world and can certainly create confusion and misunderstandings. I also recall reading Srila Prabhupada categorically saying that there is no sex in the spiritual world. I will try to find where I read that.
    Best wishes,
    Baladeva das

    Like

    1. Dear Baladeva,

      Thank you for your nice comment. Brahma Samhita confirms what you’ve said, “aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya vṛtti manti” (“Any limb can perform as any of the senses.”) and thus even simply by his eyes, Śrī Viṣṇu had intercourse with Śrīmatī Māyādevī and impregnated her with kāla and jīva śakti, to give birth to this world.

      But in Vṛndāvana it is rare that Krishna eats with his eyes, for example. He displays his natural form, and performs his actions most naturally through the parts of the forms naturally dedicated to those actions. Thus in Vṛndāvana we find that Gopīs have real breasts, not simply that their eyes are as good as their breasts and can perform the functions of the breasts, so there is no need for breasts. Every part of the transcendental form has a primary purpose. Vṛndāvana Krishna kisses the gopīs with his mouth, not with his eyes from afar (As Viṣṇu does with Māyā because māyā is somewhat distant from him by nature). He embraces them with his arms, etc. etc… etc.

      Even if Śrīla Prabhupāda said “there is no sex in the spiritual world” we can’t understand the meanings of these words without context. The Govinda Līlāmṛta and many other scriptures describe the sexual activity in Vṛndāvana quite directly (without violating principles of personal privacy). So we cannot interpret a gurus statement in a way that would contradict Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāja Goswāmī. If we do, we are misinterpreting.

      We know of sex as an expression of lust. There is none of that in Vṛndāvan or anywhere in Vaikuṇṭha. But sex becomes a servant of pure love and lust loses possesion of it. We see this in Vrndavana and even elsewhere in Vaikuntha to a less intense extent. That is why Śrīla Rūpa Goswāmī describes Krishna’s relationship with the gopīs as “kāma-rūpa” – these relationships take the appearance of lust, they are sexy, sexual, racey, thrilling, etc. but without any lust.

      Since Śrīla Rūpa Goswāmī has described it as Lust-like (“Kama Rūpa”), I don’t think its fair to say that we can’t describe it in similar ways.

      Like

      1. I agree with all your comments except that I would expand that ‘we know of sex as lust defined through physical attraction and physical contact’. However, in the spiritual world ‘sex’ is not defined through physical contact or attraction but through consciousness in a state of pure love. Therefore, the meaning and definition of sex as we know it does not apply. It is a different activity – and yes, even more intense, exciting, blissful than anything we can experience in a sexual relationship here.

        Also, whilst Krishna uses His eyes to see it is just because of His conscious choice – he does not need to. He likes it and can have more enjoyment this way by creating more variety. Whereas we have no choice in the Material world. My point is that what is fundamental is consciousness not form which is the inverse of everything we know materially. So in trying to understand the difference between lust and love and sexual and loving affairs I think this is useful to think about.

        Like

        1. Yes, but consciousness always generates form to express itself. The way that consciousness interacts is through the forms it manifests. The way that consciousness exhibits sexual love is by manifesting as beautiful adolescent girls (the gopis) and abeautiful adolescent boy (Krishna). Its not abstract.

          Like

Do You have a Comment or Questions?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s