On October 31 Jagadānanda Dās posted a blog in a reaction to my blog of October 5. His mundane intellectual superimpositions on transcendental śāstra have been dealt with many times by yours truly and others, but as he continues to try to defy the ācāryas and śāstra by denying that sex is for procreation, here’s an updated and extended catalog of what the ācāryas and śāstras have to say on it:
"As one in his list of definitions of what a Vaiṣṇava is, Jīva Gosvāmī in his Bhakti-sandarbha (202) cites the Skanda-purāṇa's instructions of Mārkaṇḍeya to Bhagīratha:
yathā skānde mārkaṇḍeya-bhagīratha-saṁvāde -
dharmārthaṁ jīvitaṁ yeṣāṁ santānārthaṁ ca maithunam
pacanaṁ vipramukhyārthaṁ jneyās te vaiṣṇavā narāḥ
atra śrī-viṣṇor ājnā-buddhyaiva tat tat kriyata iti vaiṣṇava-padena gamyate
"Those people for whom the purpose of life is religion, for whom the purpose of sexual intercourse are children, and for whom the purpose of cooking is to serve the brāhmaṇas, go by the name of 'Vaiṣṇava'."
Thus those, who act in awareness of the orders of Viṣṇu, are understood as Vaiṣṇavas. The essence of the thought here is that a Vaiṣṇava would not do something that wouldn't be pleasing to Viṣṇu, and since sexual intercourse for mere enjoyment isn't something that can be offered, a Vaiṣṇava would not unnecessarily engage in it. Then, the Bhāgavata-purāṇa repeats the concept in three locations, describing the suitable period for sexual union:
"The householder have sexual intercourse only in the fertile season." S.B. 7.12.11
gṛhasthasyāpy ṛtau gantuḥ
"However [though brāhmacarya was described], the householder may approach his wife for intercourse in the fertile season." S.B. 11.18.43
evaṁ vyavāyaḥ prajayā na ratyā imaṁ viśuddhaṁ na viduḥ sva-dharmam
"In the same way [as with other injunctions giving room for sensual indulgence], sexual intercourse should not be for the sake of lust, but for the sake of progeny. Regardless, people do not understand such pure sva-dharmas." S.B. 11.5.13
The theme is brought up in Bhagavad-gita (7.11):
dharmāviruddho bhūteṣu kāmo'smi bharatarṣabha
"I am that lust, O greatest of the Bharatas, that is not contrary to dharma."
The commentaries prominent in the Gauḍīya line of thought, namely those by Śrīdhara Svāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, read as follows:
śrīdharaḥ -- dharmeṇāviruddhaḥ sva-dāreṣu putrotpādana-mātropayogī kāmo’ham iti
viśvanāthaḥ -- dharmāviruddhaḥ sva-bhāryāyāṁ putrotpatti-mātropayogī
baladevaḥ -- dharmāviruddhaḥ svapatnyāṁ putrotpatti-mātra-hetuḥ
Śrīdhara: "I am lust that is not contrary to dharma, suitable only for bestowal of progeny in one's wife."
Viśvanātha: "Not contrary to dharma means suitable only for the birth of progeny in one's wife."
Baladeva: "Not contrary to dharma means for the sole cause of the birth of progeny in one's wife."
Hence, begetting children with one's duly wedded wife is the desired application for sexual desire.
Further, in Bhagavad Gītā 10.28, Kṛṣṇa says prajanaś cāsmi kandarpaḥ “Of progenitors I am Cupid.”
Śrīdhara Swāmī comments:
prajanaḥ prajotpatti-hetu kandarpaḥ kāmo’smi na kevalaṁ sambhoga-mātra-pradhānaḥ kāmo mad-vibhūtir aśāstrīyatvāt
“I am the desire that is only for making children, the desire for sex for just pleasure is not scriptural.”
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī comments :
kāmānāṁ madhye prajanaḥ prajanayitā putrotpatty-artho yaḥ kandarpaḥ kāmaḥ so’ham asmi ca-kāras tv artho rati-mātra-hetu-kāma-vyāvṛtty-arthaḥ
“Of desires I am the desire for making children only. ca means it excludes sex just for pleasures.”
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa comments :
prajanaḥ santānotpādakah kandarpaḥ kāmo’ham rati-sukha-mātra-hetuh sa nāham iti ca-śabdāt
“I am the desire for just making children, but I am not the desire for mere sexual pleasures.”
Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, citing Padma-purāṇa (5.9.44-47), praises a householder's abstinence except for the sake of begetting progeny as the equivalent of brāhmacarya:
ṛtu-kālābhigāmī yaḥ sva-dāra-nirataś ca yaḥ
sarvadā brahmacārīha vijneyaḥ sa gṛhāśramī
"One who is devoted to his own wife and approaches her for intercourse in the period suitable for fertilization is known always as a brahmacārī even though he may be in the householder-āśrama." (HBV 11.156)
iti matvā sva-dāreṣu ṛtumatsu budho vrajet
yathokta-doṣa-hīneṣu sakāmeṣv anṛtāv api
"Thinking this way, even if his wife is willing during unseasonable times, the intelligent person will approach her only in her fertile period. when she is free of detrimental effect, as has been explained before." 11.173
This is just śāstra. Now comes yukti (common sense): If sex were not for procreation, then why do women get pregnant of it each time? And why does one apply artificial tricks to avoid that, items of contraception that do not grow on the trees?
As for our professor's argument that sex is LOVE, the following from the śāstras and ācāryas (this is really kid stuff, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to understand):
kṛṣṇendriya prīti dhare tār prem nāma
Caitanya Caritāmṛta: “ The desire to satisfy one’s own senses is called kāma (lust) and the desire to please Kṛṣṇa’s senses is called prema (love)."
kāma andhatama prema nirmala bhāskar (CC)
Let then not our friend, who was twice initiated into the sannyāsa-order of life, come with self-styled ahangropāsana theories like ‘our sex is love for Kṛṣṇa’ or ‘ it’s the same as Kṛṣṇa’s’, because the first quote I made from Caitanya Caritāmṛta is also confirmed at the end of the Bhāgavat’s Rāsa-līlā: naitat samācarejjātu manasāpi hyanīśvara ‘ Not even in one’s mind should one imitate the intimate pastimes of the Lord’ vināśatyaciran mauḍhyāt ‘ You quickly perish from such foolishness’ yathā rudro’bdhijaṁ viṣam ‘ As you can also not imitate lord Shiva’s drinking poison from the ocean’. It’s only that he knows it. In Holland we say – a warned man counts for two.’
As for svarūpa-siddha bhakti, Brajabhūṣaṇa dāsji patiently explained (in my blog of August 22, 2008), quoting from Viśvanātha's ṭīkā of Bhagavad Gītā 9.27, that as soon as overall surrender has taken place, everything is done for Kṛṣṇa’s sake. If the progeny does not show interest in bhakti, that is between Kṛṣṇa and the child – the parent can only have the best – devotional – intentions.
The 1960s' western sexual revolution-generation is turning 60 and frankly, I think it's pathetic to see a 60-year old, who has known Vaiṣṇava siddhanta for 40 years, speak of lust as love like this.
By the way, I don't agree that undue loss of seed is mass murder, as no doctor or scientist can perceive the soul in any of the millions of sperm cells released during an ejaculation. Many times a woman does not get pregnant even if approached on a fertile day.
Anyway, my final comment to Jagat and his faith-fellows is this: If illicit sex would lead to enlightenment, the whole world would have been enlightened from day 1.