7

Attested images shows that,

A) Krshn had sexual intercourse with the gopinis during the Raas Leela

B) Krshn had sexual intercourse with Rukmini Who had just attained puberty and the rapture led to Rukmini fainting post intercourse

Sources are taken from from Brahma Vaivarta puran Krishna Janma Khanda pg 233 and Chapter CXII https://t.co/1DpCoH6Kfu?amp=1

Here are the images enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here

25
  • 3
    First of all - Did you see Krishna ? Did that 'atheist' 'Anamika' - see Krishna ? If not, then how do you know he existed ? Does he blindly believe the Puranas saying that Krishna exited ? Does he randomly believe books written by strangers ? Does he believe Harry Potter existed ? What he says is similar to this "I do not believe Harry Potter existed, but I'm pretty sure he didn't wear brown glasses" – ram Jan 8 at 21:56
  • 1
    That's what nastikas, mlechhas and anaryas do. She doesn't believe in the existence of Keshava but she believes that He did all these things. They won't believe that He showed the Vishvaroopa therefore He must not be a human but they'll believe that He stole the Gopinis' clothes so He must be an immoral man. – Rishita Ghosh Jan 9 at 7:38
  • 5
    The way to derail these pseduo-intellectuals/atheists/rational/scientists - is to shut them down using their own tools before the argument even starts. 1. If they believe in Krishna's existence, deride them as andh-bhakts for believing in a random book written by a random stranger some random no. of years ago. 2. If they do not believe in Krishna's existence, praise them profusely for being scientific, then deride them for discussing the morning routines of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and point them to reddit.com/r/nongolfers @hanugm – ram Jan 9 at 9:44
  • 1
    @ram An atheist can counter, "Well, I don't believe in Krishna's existence but I am more bothered about kind of literature religions have been feeding to their followers. These excerpts ain't showing whether Krishna existed or not but showing licentiousness (on which the text has agreed) of a sacrosanct figure of a religion." – Mr. Sigma. Jan 9 at 12:28
  • 1
    @Mr.Sigma., It is very easy to counter that argument - Tell the atheist to read the ENTIRE scripture before cherry picking which parts to whine about. The same scripture talks about Krishna killing demons to save innocents, Krishna maintaining complete Truth and Celibacy despite 'lying' and being 'married' etc. The text has NOT agreed on licentiousness - that is a half-baked translation and understanding that is common with the woke retards. – ram Jan 9 at 22:45
5

The Purana is using sexual imagery to describe the relationship between Bhakta and God. There is no need to read the imagery literally.

I am adding this material in response to the request in the comment for a credible commentary. There are available three explanations of the Rasalila episode (also given in Srimad Bhagavatam).

'Critics have not been wanting who have cavilled at the moral stature of Krishna for his questionable relationship with the Gopis and the propriety of a devotional text like the Bhagavata including in itself such highly erotic episodes and graphic descriptions. So various attempts have been made to get over these difficulties by several theories, some of which are as follows:

(1) The whole episode of Krishna and the Gopikas is symbolical and not factual. The Gopikas stand for the soul (Jivatman) and Krishna for the Supreme Soul (Paramatman), and the intense aspiration of the former for the latter is depicted through sexual love. The Jiva in this philosophy is taken as the Prakriti of the Lord and therefore depicted as female. In this theory historicity of the events described is either denied or overlooked, and only a symbolic meaning is attached to the events.

(2) The Bhagavata states that Krishna was only a boy of ten or elevan at that time. So the highly erotic descriptions of the relationship between him and the Gopikas, who are depicted as ladies of mature years, are only poetic exaggerations of some innocent pastoral sports of Krishna with boys and girls of the cowherd community, among whom he spent his boyhood days. The eroticism superimposed on these should be taken only as an aberration of decadent sectaries. Here historicity is accepted in modified form and the existence of any ethical problem is denied.

(3) According to the third theory, while historicity is accepted, it is maintained that the Gopikas were devoid of bodily consciousness and they met Krishna at a spiritual level. Therefore there is nothing carnal about it, as the descriptions are of purely mystical significance. In support of this, reference is made to the Bhagavata verse X.33.38, which states that while the Gopikas were away engaged in Rasalila, their people found them at home also. This mystic element is also hinted at in the very beginning of Rasalila in the statement that Krishna took part in it assuming his Yogamaya or Mystic Power (Bhagavata X.20.1)'.

Srimad Bhagavata, Skanda X, Prologue by Swami Tapasyananda

There is a fourth explanation given by the famous sage Sri Suka in Bhagavata.

'..Sri Suka does not explain away the facts but expounds their significance as follows:

"Divine personages are found to overrule the rules of Dharma (ethics) and do actions apparently of a shocking nature. But just as no impurity affects fire which consumes everything, nothing causes blemish to such persons of immense potency. But lesser men should not imitate them in these respects even in mind. If they do so foolishly, they will perish, as one will do if one drinks poison following the example of Rudra. The instructions of godly persons are valid; so are some of their actions too. A wise man will follow only such of their actions as are consistent with their words. It is admitted that for enlightened men without an ego-sense, there is no selfish gain to be attained by any actions and no evil to be warded off by abstinence from them. What good or evil can then affect the Supreme Lord Krishna who is the Master of all beings - Devas, men, animals and the rest? By devotion to His holy feet the great sages derive that Yogic power by which they become free from the bondage of all action. How can there be any bondage or sin for the Universal Being who has assumed a body out of His own will, and by devotion to whom great sages derive their spiritual excellence? He who permeates all beings, including the Gopikas and their husbands, and directs the minds and senses of everyone - even He out of sportive intention has assumed a body as Krishna. For bestowing His blessings on all beings he has assumed a body, and He sports with that body in ways that will interest and attract men to Him. By Krishna's mystic power the inhabitants of Vraja found their women in their homes all the time, and had no occasion to be displeased with Krishna."'

Bhagavata X.33.30-38 translated by Swami Tapasyananda

I do not like Sri Suka's explanation. The actions of the Supreme Being must match his instructions. I find the other three explanations more likely.

0
4

Yes

Bhagavan Krishna engaged in sexual intercourse with gopis.

Several scriptures do mention it, including the references from the Brahma Vaivarta purana you mentioned.

The answer has been completed. But wait.....

One need to understand it in detail. It is a Leela performed by Krishna. Scriptures clearly say that (Rasa) Leela shouln't be imitated by humans. Parikshit asked the question of violating human dharma by lord Krishna and you can find the explanation in this answer.

In short,

One who is not a great controller should never imitate the behavior of ruling personalities, even mentally. If out of foolishness an ordinary person does imitate such behavior, he will simply destroy himself, just as a person who is not Rudra would destroy himself if he tried to drink an ocean of poison

Hence, a Leela, in this context, should not be categorized as an adharma by Krishna. It is surely an adharma for humans to immitate.

It is surely a dharmic activity by Krishna since he lives as the overseeing witness within the gopīs and their husbands and he needs to show kindness towards his devotees in whatever aspect they pray for

Material activities never entangle the devotees of the Supreme Lord, who are fully satisfied by serving the dust of His lotus feet. Nor do material activities entangle those intelligent sages who have freed themselves from the bondage of all fruitive reactions by the power of yoga. So how could there be any question of bondage for the Lord Himself, who assumes His transcendental forms according to His own sweet will? He who lives as the overseeing witness within the gopīs and their husbands, and indeed within all embodied living beings, assumes forms in this world to enjoy transcendental pastimes.

[34-35, Chapter 33: The Rāsa Dance, Canto 10: The Summum Bonum, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam]

It is also important to note that Krishna is a Naishtika Brahmachari [1], [2]. In order to understand the profoundness of this leela, purity is needed. Else people may understand Krishna-Gopi love differently. We can understand it from the following words of Vivekananda

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

Do not waste your time upon little details. Take up the framework, the essence of the life. There may be many historical discrepancies, there may be interpolations in the life of Krishna. All these things may be true; but, at the same time, there must have been a basis, a foundation for this new and tremendous departure. Taking the life of any other sage or prophet, we find that that prophet is only the evolution of what had gone before him, we find that that prophet is only preaching the ideas that had been scattered about his own country even in his own times. Great doubts may exist even as to whether that prophet existed or not. But here, I challenge any one to show whether these things, these ideals — work for work's sake, love for love's sake, duty for duty's sake, were not original ideas with Krishna, and as such, there must have been someone with whom these ideas originated. They could not have been borrowed from anybody else. They were not floating about in the atmosphere when Krishna was born. But the Lord Krishna was the first preacher of this; his disciple Vyasa took it up and preached it unto mankind. This is the highest idea to picture. The highest thing we can get out of him is Gopijanavallabha, the Beloved of the Gopis of Vrindaban. When that madness comes in your brain, when you understand the blessed Gopis, then you will understand what love is. When the whole world will vanish, when all other considerations will have died out, when you will become pure-hearted with no other aim, not even the search after truth, then and then alone will come to you the madness of that love, the strength and the power of that infinite love which the Gopis had, that love for love's sake. That is the goal. When you have got that, you have got everything.

I answered only Part A of the question.

3
  • I did not add about the previous lives of Gopis and their wish to participate in Rasa Leela inorder to avoid extraneous answer. – hanugm Jan 9 at 5:49
  • 2
    @iruvar Avoid attacking any personality in comments. Refer CoC – Pandya Jan 11 at 15:15
  • 1
    @Pandya, to set the record straight, I do not recall initiating an attack on anyone. My original comment was to the effect that Vivekananda is selectively being quoted on this site. To which the user ram, who has a track record of seeking out argument and baiting people, directed a digressive spiel on rationality at me. I am happy ignoring unsolicited comments if you guys can do a better job of handling flags and policing the site. Handing out a one-week ban to a repeat offender such as user ram amounts to no more than a slap on the wrist. – iruvar Jan 11 at 17:47
2

All those Krishna-Gopi episodes happened when Krishna's age was LESS than 11 ie before he left braja.

Mahābhārata/Harivaṃśa & Śrīmad Bhāgavata DO NOT describe sexual intercourse in these episodes . They describe love,passion & desire of Gopis for the young boy Krishna.

Brahmavaivarta Purāṇa is a later purana which had left handed tantric influence(which is explained in the other answers) and it was composed in the late 15-16th century where this act is described. Studies In The Puranic Records On Hindu Rites And Customs by RC Hazare

3
  • 3
    The Vamachara Tantras, you are referring to, never mention to indulge in sexual congress for pleasure. Sexual congress is recommended only in certain rituals. So was Krishna depicted to be performing any ritual with the Gopis? If not there is no connection between his acts and the Tantras. Also it is not for every layman to understand what those rituals are and why the procedures. A little knowledge about something can be dangerous. Also, if Vyasa Rishi composed the Brahmavaivarta Purana in 15th-16th century when did he compose the Mahabharata and the other Purana you mentioned? which century? – Rickross Jan 10 at 10:51
  • 1
    @Rickross agreeing with you that were High Level concepts of Sentimental Unions, which were Non physicals, Himitatives, and many times was like a Pretending to but there was no real touching and all was a Transcendence without real body involvement. Other bodies did. Not the physical one. Nowhere almost to be found in post Vedantic texts. That's why I doubt the genuinity of many answerers sources. These are Western New Age to justify chaotic usage of sex and misuse Tantra forever.Sources:Myself a Kapalini initiated by Shaivites and Shakta serious Indians.I mean that. Can not tell you more here – user22667 Jan 12 at 3:50
  • 1
    Rasaleela, a devotional and romantic act, has nothing to do with Tantras. Tantras deal with higher knowledge not with something like Rasalila. If you want to save Krishna's image then do it as per your capabilities why shoot guns from Tantras' shoulders? You can't blame Tantras for Rasalila. That's ridiculous. @hindustudent-TheWhiteHindu – Rickross Jan 12 at 5:51
2

A better translation of the aforesaid Brahma Vaivarta Purana verses.

ददर्श रुक्णिी देवीमतीव नवयौवनाम्। रत्नपर्यङ्कमारुह्य शयानां सस्मितां मुदा।।४॥ अप्रौढां च नवोढां तां नवसंगमलज्जिताम्। अमूल्यरत्ननिर्माणभूषणेन विभूषिताम्॥५॥ सुचारुकबरीभारां मालतीमाल्यभूषिताम्। दृष्ट्वा कृष्णं भीष्मकन्या सहसा प्रणनाम् सा॥६॥

" Rukmiņi who was quite youthful was found there lying on the bed of gems and smiling delight-fully. She was adult, had been just wedded and was therefore feeling shy of the first union. She was adorned with the best of gem-studded ornaments and her hair do looked simply charming; which was decorated with the garlands of jasmine flowers. The daughter of Bhīşmaka suddenly fiddling Krşņa before her offered her salutation to him. "

तां संप्राप्य जगन्नाथो रत्नतल्पे उवास सः। शुभक्षणे च शुभया स रेमे रामया सह॥७॥ सुखसंभोगमात्रेण मूर्छामाप मुदा सती। तस्यां जज्ञे कामदेवो भस्मीभूतश्च शंभुना॥८॥

"Finding her there, Krsņa the lord of the universe, sat on the bed and started enjoying conjugal pleasures, the damsels was fainted; the god of love Cupid had been reduced to ashes by lord Siva."

The Atheists will never understand the Truth about Bhagavan Krishna expounded in the Vedas and the Upanishads.

These are excerpts from 𝐆𝐨𝐩𝐚𝐥𝐚 𝐓𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢 𝐔𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐝 of the 𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐯𝐚 𝐕𝐞𝐝𝐚 2.42 onwards

ॐ एकदा हि व्रजस्त्रियः सकामाः शर्वरीमुषित्वा सर्वेश्वरं गोपालं कृष्णमूचिरे । उवाच ताः कृष्ण

" Once the passionate cowherd women of Vraja spent the night with the cowherd Krishna, who is the Supreme Lord of all. In the morning, they engaged in a conversation with him as follows: "

अमुकस्मै ब्राह्मणाय भैक्ष्यं दातव्यमिति

" [The gopîs said:] To which brahmana should food be given? "

दुर्वासस इति ।

[Krishna answered:] To Durvåså.

कथं यास्यामो जलं तीर्खा यमुनायाः । यतः श्रेयो भवति

" [The gopîs said:] How will we be able to cross the Yamunå’s waters to achieve our goal?(as Durvasa Muni was living on the other side of the river) "

कृष्णेति ब्रह्मचारीत्युक्त्वा मार्ग वो दास्यति ।

" [Krishna answered:] Just say that Krishna is a brahmacårî, and the river will give way. "

यं मां स्मृत्वाऽगाधा गाधा भवति । यं मां स्मृत्वाऽपूतः पूतो भवति । यं मां स्मृत्वाऽव्रती व्रती भवति । यं मां स्मृत्वा सकामो निष्कामो भवति। यं मां स्मृत्वाऽश्रोत्रियः श्रोत्रियो भवति ।

" By remembering me, one can find the bottom of the unfathomable. By remembering me, an impure person is purified. By remembering me, one who is unregulated adopts a regulated life. By remembering me, one who is filled with desire becomes desireless. By remembering me, one unlearned in the Vedas becomes learned. "

यं मां स्मृत्वाऽगाधतः स्पर्शरहितापि सर्वा सरिद्गाधा भवति।श्रुत्वा तद्वाक्यं हि वै रौद्रं स्मृत्वा तद्वाक्येन ती. तत्सौर्यां हि वै गत्वाश्रमं पुण्यतमं हि वै नत्वा मुनि श्रेष्ठतमं हि वै रौद्रं चेति ।

" As soon as they heard these words, the gopîs remembered the fiery tempered son of Rudra (Durvåså) and, doing as Krishna had told them, crossed over the Yamunå. Upon their arrival at that great sage’s most sanctified hermitage, they offered him their obeisances. "

दत्त्वास्मै ब्राह्मणाय क्षीरमयं घृतमयमिष्टतमं हि वै मृष्टतमं हि तुष्टः स्नात्वा भुक्त्वा हित्वशिषं प्रयुज्यानं ज्ञात्वादात् ।

" They gave the brahmana a most desirable sweet rice pudding with clarified butter. Durvåså happily ate the sweet rice, then gave the girls his remnants and blessed them before giving them permission to return. "

कथं यास्यामो तीर्खा सौर्याम् ।

" [The gopîs asked Durvåså:] How can we cross the Yamunå to get back? "

स होवाच मुनिर्दुर्वासनं मां स्मृत्वा वो दास्यतीति मार्गम् ।

" [The sage said to the gopîs:] Think of me as having eaten nothing but dürvå grass and the river will make a path for you. "

तासां मध्ये हि श्रेष्ठा गान्धर्वी ह्युवाच तं तं हि वै तामिः ।

" The best among the gopîs, Gåndharvî, spoke to the sage after considering several questions with the other gopîs. "

एवं कथं कृष्णो ब्रह्मचारी । कथं दुर्वासनो मुनिः ।

" [Gåndharvî asked:] How can Krishna be called a brahmacårî? And how can you be said to be a fasting sage? "

तां हि मुख्यां विधाय पूर्वमनुकृत्वा तूष्णीमासुः ।

" Having made Gåndharvî their spokeswoman, the other gopîs simply stood behind her and remained silent. "

शब्दवानाकाशः शब्दाकाशाभ्यां भिन्नः । तस्मिन्नाकाशस्तिष्ठति । आकाशे तिष्ठति स ह्याकाशस्तं न वेद । स ह्यात्मा । अहं कथं भोक्ता भवामि । रूपवदिदं तेजो रूपाग्निभ्यां भिन्नम् । तस्मिन्नग्निस्तिष्ठति । अग्नौ तिष्ठति अग्निस्तं न वेद । स ह्यात्मा । अहं कथं भोक्ता भवामि । रसवत्य आपो रसायां भिन्नाः । तास्वापस्तिष्ठन्ति । अप्सु भूमिर्गन्धभूमिभ्यां भिन्ना । तस्यां भूमिस्तिष्ठति ।भूमौ तिष्ठति । भूमिस्तं न वेद । स ह्यात्मा । अहं कथं भोक्ता भवामि ।

" [Durvåså answered:] Sound is the quality present in space. The åtmå is distinct from both sound and space. Space is situated in that åtmå, and the åtmå is in space. That very same space, however, does not know the åtmå. Since I am verily that åtmå, how can I be considered an enjoyer? Touch is the quality associated with the air. The åtmå is distinct from both touch and air. The air is situated in that åtmå, and the åtmå is in the air. The air, however, does not know the åtmå. Since I am verily that åtmå, how can I be considered an enjoyer? Form is the quality present in fire. The åtmå is distinct from both form and fire. Fire is situated in that åtmå, and the åtmå is in fire. Fire, however, does not know the åtmå. Since I am verily that åtmå, how can I be considered an enjoyer? Flavor is the attribute of water. The åtmå is distinct from both flavor and water. Water is situated in that åtmå, and the åtmå is in the water. The water, however, does not know the åtmå. Since I am verily that åtmå, how can I be considered an enjoyer? Scent is the attribute of the earth. The åtmå is distinct from both scent and earth. The earth is situated in that åtmå, and the åtmå is in the earth. The earth, however, does not know the åtmå. Since I am verily that åtmå, how can I be considered an enjoyer? "

इदं हि मनसैवेदं मनुते । तानिदं हि गृह्णाति ।

" It is the mind alone that considers itself the enjoyer of sense objects, because it alone grasps them. "

यत्र सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्र कुत्र वा मनुते । कथं वा गच्छतीति । स ह्यात्मा । अहं कथं भोक्ता भवामि ।

" In the realization that everything has become the self alone, how can the self think itself the enjoyer, and of what? Where indeed will the self go? In consideration of this, how could I, being that self, be the enjoyer of the sense objects? "

अयं हि कृष्णो यो हि प्रेष्ठः शरीरद्वयकारणं भवति ।

" This very Krishna who is your most dearly beloved, is the cause of both bodies. "

द्वा सुपर्णा भवतो ब्रह्मणोऽहं संभूतस्तथेतरो भोक्ता भवति । अन्यो हि साक्षी भवतीति । वृक्षधर्मे तौ तिष्ठतः । अतू भोक्तभोक्तारौ । पूर्वो हि भोक्ता भवति । तथेतरोऽभोक्ता कृष्णो भवतीति ।

" There are two beautifully plumed birds making their home in this body, which, like a tree, is meant to be felled. The lesser of the two is the fragmentary portion of Brahman who enjoys and suffers; the other is merely an observer. They are thus enjoyer and nonenjoyer. The former is the enjoyer; the latter, the nonenjoyer, is Krishna. "

यत्र विद्याविद्ये न विदाम । विद्याविद्याभ्यां भिन्नो विद्यामयो हि यः कथं विषयी भवतीति ।

" Whereas we understand neither knowledge nor ignorance, he is distinct from both knowledge and ignorance. How can one who is knowledge in essence be a sensualist? "

यो ह वै कामेन कामान्कामयते स कामी भवति । यो ह वै त्वकामेन कामान्कामयते सोऽकामी भवति ।

" A sensualist is one who desires sense gratification with a yearning to enjoy. A nonsensualist is one who desires sense objects without any such motivation. "

जन्मजराभ्यां भिन्नः स्थाणुरयमच्छेद्योऽयं योऽसौ सूर्ये तिष्ठति योऽसौ गोषु तिष्ठति । योऽसौ गोपान्पालयति । योऽसौ सर्वेषु देवेषु तिष्ठति । योऽसौ सर्वैर्देवैर्गीयते । योऽसौ सर्वेषु भूतेष्वाविश्य भूतानि विदधाति स वो हि स्वामी भवति ।

" He is beyond birth and old age, immovable, and unseverable. He is situated in the effulgence of the sun. He resides among the cows, herds the cows, and associates with the cowherds. He is found in and glorified by all the Vedas. He enters into all living beings and brings them life. That person is Krishna, your husband."

To all those fools here who are deriding Krishna as being non existent etc, but who also pose to be great scholars, Krishna has this to say to you:-

Bhagavad Gita 9.11,12

avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto mama bhūta-maheśvaram

" Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be. "

moghāśā mogha-karmāṇo mogha-jñānā vicetasaḥ rākṣasīm āsurīṁ caiva prakṛtiṁ mohinīṁ śritāḥ

" Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated. "

But those rare souls who understand the Tattva as said in Gopala Tapani Upanishad, for them :-

Bhagavad Gita 4.9

janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti tattvatah tyaktva deham punar janma naiti mam eti so 'rjuna

" One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna. "

1
  • Brahma Vaivarta Purana can you provide IAST please @Krsna Dasa? Also some translations are contradictories. Infact Krshna is a Brahmachary. Hence those "conjugal union with Gopis" sounds Grihastic. Excuse me if I tell this to you. No intention to offend you. Second part of the answer I do like it. I am one of those who remove abrahmicism from the translations. Do not hate nor misunderstand me as you once did. Thank you. – user22667 Jan 12 at 4:16
1

Answer: No. Krishna was a Brahmacharya. He could not perform Grihasta duties.

Radha Krishna, like Sita Ram are Spiritual Unions.

Tantric influences of post- modern Usa influences of New Age and interpolated traded texts, did warped the real meanings.

Further considerations:

AtheIndriya Gyaan = Non attached to substance of the senses, true Knowledge , wich overcome the Indriyas like pleasure or pain, is derived by The Devas. By God. Or Gods.

Sources: Sri Swami Sivananda and Bhagavad Geeta Hridayam, Advaitin school, studies and efforts to practices of the teachings.

When not pashu = animal You will be purusha

Answer:

As stated in the

Prema-vivarta: kṛṣṇa-bahirmukha hañā bhoga vāñchā kare.

This is the reason the pure spirit soul falls down to the material world.

Due to his activities under the influence of the three modes of material nature, the living entity takes different positions in different species. Sometimes he is a demigod in the heavenly planets and sometimes a most insignificant creature in the lower planetary systems.

In this regard, Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says,

nānā yoni sadā phire: the living entity passes through various species.

Kardarya bhakṣaṇa kare: he is obliged to eat and enjoy abominable things.

Tāra janma adhaḥ-pāte yāya: in this way his whole life is spoiled. Without the protection of an all-merciful Vaiṣṇava.

the conditioned soul cannot get out of the clutches of māyā.

As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (manaḥ ṣaṣṭhānīndriyāṇi prakṛti-sthāni karṣati),

the living entity begins material life with his mind and the five knowledge-acquiring senses, and with these he struggles for existence within the material world.

These senses are compared to rogues and thieves within the forest. They take away a man’s knowledge and place him in a network of nescience.

Thus the senses are like rogues and thieves that plunder his spiritual knowledge. Over and above this, there are family members, wife and children, who are exactly like ferocious animals in the forest. The business of such ferocious animals is to eat a man’s flesh.

The living entity allows himself to be attacked by jackals and foxes (wife and children), and thus his real spiritual life is finished. In the forest of material life, everyone is envious like mosquitoes, and rats and mice are always creating disturbances.

Everyone in this material world is placed in many awkward positions and surrounded by envious people and disturbing animals. The result is that the living entity in the material world is always plundered and bitten by many living entities. Nonetheless, despite these disturbances, he does not want to give up his family life, and he continues his fruitive activities in an attempt to become happy in the future. He thus becomes more and more entangled in the results of karma, and thus he is forced to act impiously. His witnesses are the sun during the day and the moon during the night. The demigods also witness, but the conditioned soul thinks that his attempts at sense gratification are not being witnessed by anyone. Sometimes, when he is detected, he temporarily renounces everything, but due to his great attachment for the body, his renunciation is given up before he can attain perfection.

Krishna speech reflects what He did. Logic

Source: http://krishna.com/topic-term/sex-licit-and-illicit

The other sources are indeed Vaishnava practicioners and Students.

0

On the basis of Srimad Bhâgavatam, Brahmavaivarta Purâna & Garga Samhitâ, the answer is YES. However I would refrain from quoting exact verses from the sources cited due to decency reasons.

Argument : Srimad Bhagâvatam doesn't explicitly mentions sexual activities taking place. Counterpoint : True, but there is mention of the clothes of the gopikâs falling down below their waists, their braids becoming dishevelled, looking towards Sri Krishna with side-glances & splashing water at Krishna while in the Râspanchâdhyâya sections- all point towards the erotic angle. Brahmavaivarta Purâna & Garga Samhitâ provides a greater erotic description of the Râslilâ. Even the Harivamsa also gives a hint of eroticism in Râslilâ.

Argument : How can it be possible ? Sri Krishna's age was only 11 at that time. Counterpoint : That was the age of Sri Krishna's physical body which He had assumed for His purpose. The Brahmavaivarta Purâna mentions that on the eve of Râslilâ, He appeared before the gopikâs as a 16 years old lad, blooming with youth. Besides, if you can believe that He could kill Pûtanâ as a infant, then why you can't digest the fact that He was sensual at the age of 11?

Argument : Brahmavaivarta Purâna is interpolated. Counterpoint : Even if we accept the facts that the statements of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas that the word अनयाराधितो कृष्ण refer to Srîmâti Râdhâ, still it is impossible to create out an entire deity equipped with specific procedures of worship, mantra, yantra & attendant deities on the basis of a single word. If you accept Srîmâti Râdhâ, then you must accept the validity of texts like Brahmavaivarta Purâna, Sanatkumâra Tantra, Narada Pancharâtra, Râdhâ Tantra & other texts that mention Her.

Argument : Sri Krishna was a brahmachârî. Counterpoint : If that was the case, then who were the fathers of Pradyumna & Shâmba ?

Argument : How could He have sex with women married to others ? Counterpoint : This dilemma is also mentioned by Parîkshita & Sri Krishna Himself in the Bhâgavatam to which the gopikâs replied that Sri Krishna is the omnipresent Paramâtman Himself & thus by serving Him, everyone including the husbands of the gopikâs are also served automatically(तस्मिन् तुष्टे जगत् तुष्टम् ).

This entire unease over the incident of Râslilâ is due to the prudish mindset of Indians towards sex. The Sanskrit literature is filled with words & similies for erotic concepts but Hindus(& other Indians) continue to cling to the Victorian mindset regarading sex.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .