A symbol of divinity
Most orthodox religious ideologies focus on the idea that the relationship between man and women in the "material world" is a pathway towards re-birth and bondage, and that idea, no doubt, has some elements of truth to it as it immediately increases the demands of our time, attention and labour towards that which seems external to our true self, the unlimited internal.
That being said, I personally believe that this idea prevents the development of a healthy attitude towards relationships and family, two of the most central and fundamental aspects of a successful society. It actually seems to create a pathological stigma towards one of the most important factors in human health and wellbeing, pair bonding and sexuality. This is a problem I have witnessed first hand as a member of "Isckon" which sought to establish the standard of celibacy for all, even the married, and resulted in severely high divorce rates, the tendency towards the cruel treatment of women, and even a history of paedophilia and child abuse. I do not know if all of the above symptoms are merely a result of a pathological attitude towards sex, women, and family. I only know that it seems to happen most in "sex-averse" religious groups.
I personally have concluded that some ideas given in the sastras are intended to be utilized by specific people at a specific point in life wherein the full immersion into the transcendental is possible and beneficial, this usually takes place during the second half of a persons life, or after serious tragedy and hardship. These teachings are not "Mainstream" teachings or societal practices but specific prescriptions for the more adept and skilful yogis who have already pacified and/or subdued the necessity for external relationships, and have settled all of their obligations to their children and partners.
In contrast to the orthodox view, the tantras of the middle and left-hand path gave a different philosophy of relationships which was primarily employed by married householder yogis.
In contrast to the orthodox view, the tantras of the middle and left-hand path gave a different philosophy of relationships which was primarily employed by married householder yogis.
The primary notion is that there exists an inherent sacredness to the love that can be fostered between a couple by the application of the method and wisdom given in the tantras. In the most simplified sense, the wisdom is of the inherent divinity of the body as a microcosm of Shiva/Shakti, and the means is the unique and technical practices of love taught to transform normal relationships into a kind of yoga, which can culminate in the realization of the true Self and nature of Maya(illusion or appearance.) The Tantras suggested that it was possible to achieve enlightenment and enjoyment on a single path, this is a revolutionary thought. We were once demanded to give up the world to attain the self, but the tantras taught to embrace the world to attain the self. I believe the latter view has more potential for the establishment of truly spiritual communities.
To me, such a view on the potential of relationships is far superior to the orthodox way, in terms of its impact on society, as it raises relationships to a divine status. I imagine that the potential for decreasing the frequency of divorce, adultery, and abuse within family systems seems quite promising, and I hope that the future of "Spiritual communities" will be based on the idea of the divinity and holiness of the love between spiritually conscious men and women! Until that time I can only pray for the awakening of others to the truth and beauty contained in the hearts of good and honest men and women.
I want to end with a question for my readers; Do you have negative views or beliefs about sex and relationships? Do you believe they conflict with your spiritual pursuits?
I am very curious to hear from you about how these beliefs affect your life today.
Like, comment, and share!
Until next time...
#Jainitai
Like, comment, and share!
Until next time...
#Jainitai
I agree with what you've written Abi. I believe that your ideas are maturing and reflect a flexibility of mind that like the supple tree that bends in the storm, is essential for weathering the inevitable storms of life. Whether your essays put you in the good books with the powers that be in ISKCON is another matter entirely, and frankly I doubt that they do. Perhaps you have noticed the cold shoulders already? This freedom from the power preserving precepts of orthodoxy is to be encouraged.
ReplyDeleteYou rightly observe that in orthodox Sanatana Dharma there is an emphasis on the monastic life that is practically only for those who are nearing the end of their cycle of birth and rebirth. We are told in the Vedas that those who are near this summit are extremely rare, yet we see so many taking sanyass who are clearly not ready for it, but do so out of pride and the delusion that they have conquered worldly attachment. As you point out this leads to many problems for the individual who has jumped too early; frustration, depression, sexual perversion, avarice, misogyny, political corruption and more.
Perhaps we can theorize that the Shastras were written in Satya Yuga when more individuals were ready to take the final leap, or that God and Gurus have decided that giving a child reading material beyond their years is the right recipe for the emancipation of mankind. Whatever is the case there appears to be a dearth of quality spiritual literature extolling the life of the householder, and so unless we have a householder Guru, or belong to a lineage where the life of a householder is encouraged or even touched on, we are left to make our own way.
This lack of support for the budding Vedantist grappling with the practical limitations of renunciate dogma, may lead us down the garden path. You mention the left hand path of Tantra, which is diametrically opposed to the life of renunciation, and appears libertine in its' recommendations if taken literally, as many in the West do. It acknowledges, rather like Advaita Vedanta that all life is Divine, but unlike Advaita Vedanta does not proscribe profligacy or extol moderation, monogamy and sobriety.
I have had a number of friends who have been on the Vedic path, become emotionally and sexually frustrated, drawn the conclusion that such a life is only practical for those who have already conquered desire, and become Tantrikas. They have gone on to practice a full and colourful sexual life with many partners, only later realising that the Left Hand path has not brought them happiness either, rather they have ended up more miserable than when they began.
This is not to diminish the real potential for all aspects of romantic love as you have touched on, including sex to become Divine Love, but so few on the left Hand path of Tantra have the patience, good karma or wisdom to stay with the same person long enough to sublimate the mundane into the Divine.
So the orthodox path fails to explore the beauty and necessity (for most us) of the household life, and the path that completely dismisses the monastic life appears to always end in misery. Finally all that we are left with is the middle path. This is the path that recognises that the precepts of the Vedas are true, that they set out the markers along the high road to liberation. But it is also the path that realises that a kindergarten student isn't quite ready to complete a PhD. There is indeed a sacredness to the love shared by couples that helps us overcome attachment and prepare us for the final ascent.
This love must become unconditional, and in time, non-sexual, but by satisfying the minds' desire for worldly love, intimacy and companionship those attachments are lessened and we are readied for God.
Thank you for your comment anon! I am no doubt aware of the cold shoulder and lack of interest or support coming from that side, yet my associates who do support me are others who have witnessed the same pitfalls play out heavily in their lives. I am okay with the rejection of the institution, for it truth and the experience of Krishna amongst his sincere devotees that I crave, not social acceptance and status bestowed on the orthodox "Good boy".
DeleteI also I am fully aware of the pitfalls of the "Left-hand" and my teacher always stressed the middle way as well as the prescription to be dedicated to a single partner. I only hint at the extremes because they have more pull towards the centre from the extreme orthodox.
The middle path is a subtle path which seems utilitarian and prescriptive to circumstance rather than a dogma of rituals and/or beliefs(I.e too much dualism drink some non-duality, too much non-duality drink some dualism!) My teacher always said rather than offering the heavy things of Vama tantra just offer yourself.
So I do things like that, my body, my mind, my words, my actions good or bad, that is the offering. Like vasishta explained to Rama in yoga vasishta. It seems that many on the left hand are obsessed with power and assuming the role of Shiva in controlling shakti. But I saw that, and I don't want it. I am just happy to be simple, a simple human being, begging for guru's grace to finally serve in the Nitya-lila and while i am here, I will be natural and joyful under Nitai's shelter!
For some reason, I always believe it is the same anon commenting, if so, my dandavats again and again.
Jai nitai!