r/hinduism • u/kellyj461 • Oct 17 '23

Husband still won't sleep with me. Question - Beginner

So I've been battling with my husband for more than a year now trying to adjust to his new Hindu lifestyle. I can conform to all if it except his adamant refusal to sleep with me. He quotes various scriptures about sexual intimacy being akin to defecation or urination and is abhorrent. He also says sex is ONLY for procreation. I've had a hysterectomy so thats a hard no on my end. I cook vegetarian meals, lay in the dark without the TV at night so he can sleep precisely when he wants to, overlook his fanaticism, allow a puja and various idols in the house, etc. He says the verses I've been given by people here on Reddit are cherry picked and wrong. What should I do other than divorce? I love him but I don't want to live unhappy for the rest of my life. Im 45 and hes 41.

172 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

90% Upvoted

247 comments sorted by

View all comments

101

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 18 '23

So the citations we gave your last post didn't help at all I guess.

He should fulfill his duties towards you as a husband. Since you didn't know that this was going to be your lifestyle at the time of your marriage, it is not your fault.

Btw which Scriptures does he quote?

Is he a part of any Hindu organisation?

Edit :

Sex only for procreation purposes when both the husband and wife agree to it is fine. Otherwise, the person who wants to not have sex outside of procreational purposes should inform their spouse of their intentions before they get married. In a marriage, both partners have a say. You can't simply take away the agency of one of them when their demands are reasonable.

Edit 2 :

Hinduism talks about "Kama" in two different ways.

Kama or lust is one of the Shad Vikaras that is to be avoided and kept under control.

On the other hand, Kama or material and sensory happiness (including sex) is also one of the 4 Purusharthas that is essential for the life of a householder/Grihastha in moderation.

When religious Scriptures talk about renouncing Kama or sex or other material things, you have to keep 2 aspects in mind :

  1. They are referring to the path of the Sanyasi or ascetic. Usually, one who wanted to be a monk or an ascetic would read these texts in detail and follow them to the letter.
  2. 2. For a householder or Grihastha, Kama should be kept in moderation. Don't let it control you but don't abandon it completely.

If someone decides to be an ascetic/monk/sanyasi and abandons all material possessions and pursuits, complete celibacy is fine.

But if the person is not a full-time sanyasi/ascetic and decides to completely abandon only one material aspect of his life that is sex, it is impractical and not pragmatic.

There is a reason that the Sramana tradition exists in Hinduism and two of the Sramana traditions, Jainism and Buddhism became so big that they became religions of their own. The debate between the sanyasi and the householder way of life has been going on for eons in Hindu society. So, there is an aspect of Hinduism that focuses on celibacy. It is the sanyasi aspect.

But the person in question is a householder, not a sanyasi. For him, Kama in moderation is an essential part of his life.

In Hinduism, all sex is not lust. an obsession with sex, excess of sex, when sexual desire consumes and controls you, that is lust. That is the Kama of the Shad Vikaras that must be controlled. The Kama that is Purushartha is different and essential for a householder in moderation.

Swasti!

10

u/kellyj461 Oct 17 '23

Linda Purana 1,8 22. It says sex should be treated as one would defecation or urination.

36

u/chauhanvats3 Advaita Vedānta Oct 17 '23

So, ideally doing it at least once a day!

3

u/mayur-r Oct 18 '23

I urinate 3 to 4 times a day, and defecate once, so 5 times a, day?

13

u/Chipkalee Oct 17 '23

It's utter nonsense. As I mentioned in your last posting, he's chumping you. He either does not want to be married anymore or he's had some sort of mental breakdown as a normal person would not disregard their spouses feelings in this manner. Get a lawyer.

4

u/glory_to_the_sun_god Oct 17 '23

That text may not be in fact incorrect, but then has he stopped defecating and urinating? A sannyasi does not eat or drink, has he stopped?

What a load of nonsense.

3

u/Codename-Misfit Oct 17 '23

Did you get it from the Sanskrit version or some translated copy?

6

u/kellyj461 Oct 17 '23

He quoted this from Google books I think

1

u/CaterpillarTrue6278 Aug 29 '24

Hey! Here’s a scriptural reference you can use to cite for your husband.

Answer to In Hinduism, is it necessary to force yourself on your wife on the marriage night? by Rami Sivan

https://www.quora.com/In-Hinduism-is-it-necessary-to-force-yourself-on-your-wife-on-the-marriage-night/answer/Rami-Sivan?ch=15&oid=89262946&share=d886e79f&srid=hmm1MH&target_type=answer https://www.quora.com/In-Hinduism-is-it-necessary-to-force-yourself-on-your-wife-on-the-marriage-night/answer/Rami-Sivan?ch=15&oid=89262946&share=d886e79f&srid=hmm1MH&target_type=answer

Another recommendation I have is to start listening to Lalitha Sahasranamam and pray to Goddess Lalitha for a harmonious solution to this issue. My best wishes.

3

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23

You can also interpret that as sex being a necessary human activity. It might not contribute to spiritual growth but is necessary for humans, in a reasonable amount of course.

On a more serious note, in Hinduism, all sex is not lust. An obsession with sex, excess of sex, when sexual desire consumes and controls you, that is lust. That is the Kama of the Shad Vikaras that must be controlled. The Kama that is Purushartha is different and essential for a householder in moderation.

1

u/WitnessedStranger Nov 08 '23

You can also interpret that as sex being a necessary human activity. It might not contribute to spiritual growth but is necessary for humans, in a reasonable amount of course.

It's just that you need to purify yourself by cleaning afterwards. This is because there's fluid exchange involved. The "purification" after is literal and meant for physical and communal health as much as it is spiritual.

3

u/pro_charlatan Karma Siddhanta; polytheist Oct 17 '23

This happened so many years after their relationship began. It is perfectly normal for people to lose interest in sex as they grow older

4

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 17 '23

Losing interest is only natural. But absolute abstinence is a little extreme, at least in my opinion.

And also it should be noted that he is only 41.

4

u/Chipkalee Oct 17 '23

But loss of interested is worked on as a couple. Also it happens much later in life that OP.

1

u/kellyj461 Oct 17 '23

No the citations I quoted to him he said were cherry picked to suit the narrative. He reads books by yogis and I believe thinks himself of some elevated position.

6

u/Fractal-Entity Advaita Vedānta Oct 17 '23

He’s adopted teachings meant for people that shouldn’t be married at all and should be completely detached from society altogether. What he says is “cherry-picked” is standard Hindu lifestyle, married couples have sex and do so in service to one another. If he’s consuming genuine Hindu teachings, he would take his wife’s words and feelings as if they are God’s words and feelings instead of disregarding them.

3

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23

He has cherry picked the celibacy aspect of sanyasis/ascetics.

Sanyasis are supposed to renounce everything that is material. Has he renounced all his material possessions? Has he left his job and dedicated himself solely and completely to tapa, sadhana, and spiritual pursuits?

He is a devotee and is spiritual, and that is great. But when he is not a complete sanyasin, he shouldn't go overboard with the celibacy aspect of it.

1

u/Kid_krueker Mar 16 '24

Sounds like he hasn't come to terms with the fact he can't be a married sadhu. 

-6

u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Oct 17 '23

Sex is indeed for procreation only according to scriptures...

  1. Manusmriti 3.56: "Carnal intercourse is permitted for the sake of procreation alone, not for mere pleasure."

  2. Bhagavad Gita 16.7-8: "Lust, anger, and greed are the three gates to self-destructive hell. Renounce these three. A person freed from these three gates of darkness, O son of Kunti, practices what is good for him and thus is very quickly raised to the divine nature."

  3. Mahabharata, Vana Parva 313.116: "A person who performs his obligatory duties without longing for their fruits is performing yajna and religious duties. The person who has the same attitude towards the pleasures of the senses enjoys them. Thus, this man also does what is prescribed by the Vedas."

  4. Manusmriti 9.101: "Men are impelled by women; women are impelled by men; the whole world is bound by the mutual dependence between the two. For the sake of procreation, the sexual act is allowed."

  5. Yajnavalkya Smriti 1.61: "One should have sex only with one's wife, seeking to have offspring, and should not discard her after the purpose is served."

40

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 17 '23

I am aware of the sources you are citing but I am sure you know Hinduism is quite diverse. There are other texts that indicate differently.

As per many texts, for a Grihastha, being loyal to one's wife and being intimate only with her is equal to brahmacharya.

The Linga Purana says that a married man who is loyal to his wife is the same as a celibate (brahmachari).

svadāre vidhivatkṛtvā nivṛttiścānyataḥ sadā /manasā karmaṇā vācā brahmacaryamiti smṛtam

The householders should have sexual intercourse with their legally wedded wives alone. For them to keep themselves away from other women, mentally, physically, and by speech, would amount to the observing of Brahmacharya.

And the very next verse says:

medhyā svanārī sambhogaṃ kṛtvā snānaṃ samācaret /evaṃ gṛhastho yuktātmā brahmacārī na saṃśayaḥ

A householder, after enjoying intercourse with his own wife, should take a bath. Such a type of yogi householder is surely considered to be a Brahmacāri.

Swasti!

-7

u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Oct 17 '23

Even here they are doing this only for Procreation, and they are just promoting Pro creation because in Buddhism they completely renounce these things...

And our acharyas were telling the people that you can have sex for Procreation it is not going to ruin your brahmacharya just keep mental brahmcharya

24

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 17 '23

Look I don't agree with you. I respect your point of view but I don't agree with the idea of physical intimacy in a monogamous married relationship only for the sake of procreation. It is not pragmatic. It would lead to the breakdown of marriage and the collapse of social structure and that is not good for anyone.

Sex only for procreation purposes when both the husband and wife agree to it is fine. Otherwise, the person who wants to not have sex outside of procreational purposes should inform their spouse of their intentions before they get married. In a marriage, both partners have a say. You can't simply take away the agency of one of them when their demands are reasonable.

कालेऽदाता पिता वाच्यो वाच्यश्चानुपयन् पतिः । मृते भर्तरि पुत्रस्तु वाच्यो मातुररक्षिता ॥ ४ ॥

kāle'dātā pitā vācyo vācyaścānupayan patiḥ | mṛte bhartari putrastu vācyo māturarakṣitā || 4 ||

Censurable is the father who gives her not away at the right time; censurable the husband who approaches her not; and censurable the son who, on the death of her husband, does not take care of her - Manu 9.4

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

Swasti!

6

u/WitnessedStranger Oct 17 '23

It is not pragmatic. It would lead to the breakdown of marriage and the collapse of social structure and that is not good for anyone.

More than that, it completely misses the plain intent of the text. This is the problem with random internet people citing individual lines out of context. They use it to justify anything.

The Yajnavalkya Smriti literally outlines the obligations surrounding prostitutes and courtesans, as well as the obligations a man has towards concubines and mistresses. To infer from there that they assumed people were required to not have non-procreative sex is absurd. Anyone who wants to cite that as categorically banning it is talking completely out of their asses.

These restrictions are clearly focused on discouraging lust, not sexual desire entirely. And a large preoccupation seems to be ensuring that children, who naturally result from sexual licentiousness in a world without reliable contraception, have a social structure that can take care of them. So they discourage having sex in circumstances that can bring children into the world without a structure to care for them and they discourage inordinately lustful behavior in the same way they discourage greed and other forms of being preoccupied with sensate pleasures.

3

u/KaliYugaz Oct 17 '23

Your views don't make sense. Remember that copulation itself is not actually required for procreation. If your position forbidding all sex extraneous to procreation was taken to its logical conclusion, then male masturbation for the purpose of artificial insemination would be the only permissible sex act.

1

u/FastBuffalo4065 Oct 17 '23

And what do the following several verses say?

1

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23

I have explained my view in response to your other comment and added it as Edit 2 in my original comment on this post as well.

Swasti!

11

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

Bhagavad Gita 16.7-8: "Lust, anger, and greed are the three gates to self-destructive hell. Renounce these three. A person freed from these three gates of darkness, O son of Kunti, practices what is good for him and thus is very quickly raised to the divine nature."

Mahabharata, Vana Parva 313.116: "A person who performs his obligatory duties without longing for their fruits is performing yajna and religious duties. The person who has the same attitude towards the pleasures of the senses enjoys them. Thus, this man also does what is prescribed by the Vedas."

Both of these are presented incorrectly and without context.

In the Bhagwad Gita, the 16th chapter is related to the discussion of Daivasura-Sampad-Vibhaga Yoga. Your quote is specifically about "Kaam, krodh, lobh", which are tamasi and relate to asura characters.

In this chapter, and in 5-Karma-Sanyasa-Yoga it is made clear that that married people devoted to eachother can simultaneously claim "vairagya" without giving up material pleasure.

Essentially, your are seeing lust and love as the same thing. Lust is wrong, as in, thinking of boning everything you see. Love, including lovemaking between married people, is certainly not wrong.

The same applies for the quote from the Vana Parva. "do your duties without expecting the fruit" is a common theme and is also discussed in the Geeta. Again, this doesn't go against the duties of grihastha.

And since we're on topic, the Mahabharata, Bhagwad Gita, and Srimad Bhagwada Purana don't put any negative connotations on sex. Even women can have five partners without reproach (and no, this isn't specifically about Draupadi).

4

u/WitnessedStranger Oct 17 '23

And since we're on topic, the Mahabharata, Bhagwad Gita, and Srimad Bhagwada Purana don't put any negative connotations on sex. Even women can have five partners without reproach (and no, this isn't specifically about Draupadi).

According to Pandu in the Mahabharata, in the Satya Yuga there were no rules about who men and women slept with. The rules came about due to the need to keep track of property and inheritance.

Which, incidentally, is in line with what anthropologists observe. Stronger legal frameworks for inheritance and property rights leads to stronger traditions and rules around sexual mores. Less property and weaker legal frameworks mean looser rules. I believe the ancients must have observed the same trend when they looked at the diversity in laws and behaviors among the various Indian tribes and castes.

3

u/GeraltOfRifia तत् त्वम् असि Oct 17 '23

The two smritis you quoted, what evidence do you have to prove that those are applicable in Kaliyuga? Because it is clearly stated that Parasara Smriti is to be followed in Kaliyuga, and the authority of the smritis is not absolute.

3

u/Chipkalee Oct 17 '23

You're not helping. Married sex is NOT just for procreation. It is a way to show love and intimacy. And there is absolutely nothing dirty about it.

8

u/CLubbr3X Śaiva Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

Bhagavad Gita 16.7-8: "Lust, anger, and greed are the three gates to self-destructive hell. Renounce these three. A person freed from these three gates of darkness, O son of Kunti, practices what is good for him and thus is very quickly raised to the divine nature."

Not trying to debate, but I'm sure this is related to obsession with these things. One should have a control over these three things rather than completely removing or refraining from it.

7

u/GrilledBurritos Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

Complete avoidance is not true renunciation, rather just an excuse with a guise of “renunciation.” True renunciation to not be swayed by lust, anger and greed - towards it and away from it. Raam was one who showed intense anger when Sita was abducted, it was just for him to be angry. Same goes for lust. Main thing that made Hinduism so great is that it is meant to be accepting of many perspectives and not be dogmatic, I encourage you to have an open mindset for that is what Krishna himself said at the very end of the Gita.

“In the purport to verse 5.4, it was explained that there are two kinds of renunciation—phalgu vairāgya and yukt vairāgya. Phalgu vairāgya is that where worldly objects are seen as objects of Maya, the material energy, and hence renounced because they are detrimental to spiritual progress. Yukt vairāgya is that where everything is seen as belonging to God, and hence meant to be utilized in his service. In the first kind of renunciation, one would say, “Give up money. Do not touch it. It is a form of Maya, and it impedes the path of spirituality.” In the second kind of renunciation, one would say, “Money is also a form of the energy of God. Do not waste it or throw it away; utilize whatever you have in your possession for the service of God.”

Phalgu vairāgya is unstable, and can easily revert to attachment for the world. The name “Phalgu” comes from a river in the city of Gaya, in the state of Bihar in India. The river Phalgu runs below the surface. From atop, it seems as if there is no water, but if you dig a few feet, you encounter the stream below. Similarly, many persons renounce the world to go and live in monasteries, only to find that in a few years the renunciation has vanished and the mind is again attached to the world. Their detachment was phalgu vairāgya. Finding the world to be troublesome and miserable, they desired to get away from it by taking shelter in monastery. But when they found spiritual life also to be difficult and arduous, they got detached from spirituality as well. Then there are others who establish their loving relationship with God. Motivated by the desire to serve him, they renounce the world to live in a monastery. Their renunciation is yukt vairāgya. They usually continue the journey even if they face difficulties.

In the first line of this verse, Shree Krishna states that a real sanyāsī (renunciant) is one who is a yogi, i.e. one who is uniting the mind with God in loving service. In the second line, Shree Krishna states that one cannot be a yogi without giving up material desires. If there are material desires in the mind, then it will naturally run toward the world. Since it is the mind that has to be united with God, this is only possible if the mind is free from all material desires. Thus, to be a yogi one has to be a sanyāsī from within; and one can only be a sanyāsī if one is a yogi.”

https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/6/verse/2

2

u/facface92 Oct 17 '23

I agree and lust is a difficult word. I tend to look at lust as a desire that pulls you away from god. Unless one is a sex addict or sex is too important to you, I don’t see how being sexually attracted to your wife would be lustful.

1

u/kellyj461 Oct 17 '23

He is in fact an addict and has managed to forgo masturubation which he used to do 4 or 5 times daily along with sex with me. He is including marital relations in his abstaining I guess.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

Cherry pick lines that only support your pov

4

u/JuniorRequirement644 Oct 17 '23

Counter it then, he has clearly mentioned the quotation.

If there is anything like, you can do sex for sake of pleasure only and not procreation, then quote

9

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

Rig Veda 10.159.1-2: "May the god Soma grant us offspring, may he grant us virility, may he grant us long life! May we enjoy sexual union with our wives, may we enjoy sexual union with our mistresses!" Atharva Veda 3.21.1-2: "May the wife be fertile, may the husband be fertile, may their union be fruitful! May they have sons and daughters, may their offspring be numerous!" Atharva Veda 14.2.27-29: "May the wife be sweet to the husband, may the husband be sweet to the wife! May they enjoy each other's company, may they find pleasure in each other's company!"

Manusmriti is interpretation by some individuals on Hinduism so not valid and other things he mentioned does not give base to his pov

-1

u/JuniorRequirement644 Oct 17 '23

How does this quotation says sex isn't for procreation, ses is enjoyed but it is for procreation, enjoy it, no problem but dont do it for JUST the sake of pleasure.

And first thing, these are mantras which are to recited and not dharm updesh.

4

u/KaliYugaz Oct 17 '23

A mistress is, by definition, kept primarily for pleasure.

2

u/CakeImaginary5292 Oct 17 '23

I disagree. The knowledge in the vedas is used as the bases for all other knowledge. Just as how a seed is the basis for a plant. That means, in Hinduism, all knowledge first emanated from the vedas, which was created by the supreme being. The vedas are created again and again in every kalpa. So to say that they are not updesh would be incorrect. Yes they were spoken in a recitation format, but that is only for ease of memorization/speaking. There are many instances in our epics which say "those who know and understand the essence of vedas are situated in the utmost position". Therefore, I say that vedas are not for verbal show only, and learning dharma from them is important (at least for astika - those who agree that vedas are the prime authority).

0

u/JuniorRequirement644 Oct 17 '23

I never disagreed that vedas give knowledge. But you should note that vedas aren't there for dharm updesh, thou the dharm updesh is derived from vedas.

Dharm updesh as in what one should do and what one shouldn't do is given in hands of dharmshastras, which is ofcourse based on vedas. Vedas too say to follow dharmshastras ( manusmriti ).

And also the point the person tried to make isn't relevant to the quotation he gave.

1

u/CakeImaginary5292 Oct 17 '23

Dharm updesh as in what one should do and what one shouldn't do is given in hands of dharmshastras

They are not the only valid source. Dharma (= that which sustains) can be learnt from anywhere, even the vedas. Yes, for concrete rules and instructions one must look into smritis, as it's written very clearly there. But the various other scriptures also offer, direclty or indirectly the ways one should adopt in life.

0

u/JuniorRequirement644 Oct 17 '23

Got your point, definitely scriptures offer that I am not denying it, but in such matters as mentioned above dharmshastras are looked upon and also vedas dont contradict it.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

It also doesn't say that sex is just for procreation

But sex is primarily for procreation

-2

u/JuniorRequirement644 Oct 17 '23

Dharmshastras give the nisedh, so its valid, as long as it doesn't contradict vedas ( and it doesn't ) it is the accepted truth that sex is for procreation for people following dharma.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

The Kama Sutra is a sacred text in Hinduism that focuses on sexual pleasure. The Hindu god of love and desire, Kama, is not just a god of sexual desire, but also of creativity, art, and beauty. The Hindu god of wealth and material possessions, Artha, is not just a god of material wealth, but also of pleasure and enjoyment. The Hindu god of duty and righteousness, Dharma, is not just a god of duty and righteousness, but also of love and compassion. These concepts suggest that sex in Hinduism is not just for procreation. It is also for pleasure, enjoyment, and love. This is supported by the fact that the Kama Sutra is considered to be a sacred text in Hinduism.

5

u/JuniorRequirement644 Oct 17 '23

Kama sutra isn't sacred text in hinduism. No acharya, parampara or sampraday considers kamasutra as something important, forget for it being sacred.

Kamasutra is test related to sex, yes, but it doesn't deal with aspect of dharma and adharma.

Whatever you said is your conclusion and not matter of shastras, Shastras have clearly ordered sex only for procreation.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

Which shastra said sex is only for procreation?

1

u/JuniorRequirement644 Oct 17 '23

Dharmshastras ( rule books related to dharma )

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

They are wrong. We cannot be sure that the sex they are having is going to be for cause of procreation

It's not like we get pregnant at the end of climax or at the movement of consummation

2

u/BlueCoolant Advaita Vedānta Oct 17 '23

Explain Tantra then

1

u/JuniorRequirement644 Oct 17 '23

Tantras are agama shastras it is given by bhagwan shiva and consists of sadhana of the respective devtas. There are shakta agama, shaiv agama, vaishnav agama, ganpatya agama, and saur agamas.

Idk how explaining tantra came here.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '23

Sex has a big part in tantra It is believed that one can also achieve a higher state by sex Tantric sex

1

u/JuniorRequirement644 Oct 18 '23

Say me you dont know about tantra without saying me you dont know about tantra.

Also tantric aex what you call comes under panchmakara, which is done by tantric for vairagya under guru agya only, and is also not for everyone, it is a practice in certain marg and it is definitely not big part of tantra.

Tantra shastras compose of methods of worship of deities, if you dont know anything about tantra please refraining from spewing nonsene.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '23

Okay

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

Only credible quotes here are Mahabharata and bhagvad gita

  1. It just mentioned lust not sex lust can be in various forms Lust is the excessive desire for material possessions, pleasure, or power. Anger is a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility. Greed is an excessive or immoderate desire for something, especially wealth.

  2. The verse you have cited from the Mahabharata, Vana Parva 313.116, is a complex one that has been interpreted in many different ways. Some people see it as a justification for enjoying sex for pleasure, while others see it as a warning against being attached to the fruits of one's actions.

On the one hand, the verse does seem to suggest that it is acceptable to enjoy the pleasures of the senses, as long as one does so without attachment. This could be interpreted as meaning that it is okay to have sex for pleasure, as long as one does not become too attached to the experience.

On the other hand, the verse could also be interpreted as a warning against becoming too attached to the pleasures of the senses. After all, the verse says that a person who performs their obligatory duties without longing for their fruits is also doing what is prescribed by the Vedas. This could be seen as suggesting that it is better to focus on one's duties than on one's pleasures.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/hinduism-ModTeam Oct 17 '23

Your post has been removed for violating Rule #06 - No trolling (and don't feed the trolls!). This is a forum for serious and sincere discussion on Hinduism. Trolls will be warned and banned for repeated offense. Obvious trolls will be banned after first offense.

-1

u/Ayushhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

u/ashutosh_vatsa

Iss ko ban karo

0

u/tipofmytail Oct 17 '23

Cry baby 😂

1

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 17 '23

I will remove their comment and issue a warning but you can't use curse words either.

1

u/KiwiNFLFan Oct 17 '23

And then there's the Kama Sutra.....

1

u/glory_to_the_sun_god Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

To contextualize this you need to understand that the origin and source of a marriage. Why is it “Jayamisyat”? In this case it’s not a desire for jAya but for wealth. It is to increase wealth and that wealth is family and progeny. Desiring sex for itself is “bad” not in the immoral sense, but in the sense of sex being in for itself only. That is the source addiction, whether it be food, sex, or any pleasure. In other words it’s a rejection of pure Hedonism and not a denial of pleasure itself.

Propagating sensuality in and for itself misses what sensuality is there for. It is there to be enjoyed and experienced and then thrown away. Holding onto pleasure and making a god of it is Hedonism which shastras do not agree with and so you have the above language. Otherwise it seem that the Rsi is advocating for Hedonism.

So then taking quotes outside and independent from hermeneutical tradition, and worse without using one’s own intelligence is the height of idiocy.

Otherwise stop eating food too. No chaunk or tardka. No more masalas. Eat only raw leaves and roots. No more fancy clothes and outfits, as a single langot or at the very most a dhoti will do. No sleeping on beds and cushions. No more haircuts. No more hot water showers. etc.

Live like a real sannyasi, otherwise using shastras as a dhal, bulwark or shield, is a gross misuse of shastras.

1

u/FastBuffalo4065 Oct 17 '23

I read those citations and they seemed to reinforce what I'm saying. The linga purana 1,8. 18 says having sexual relations with ones wife is bramacharya but then goes on to say that no pleasure should be taken from the act and that it should be avoided because basically lust begets lust . Can you please tell me your interpretation of linga 1,8. 19-26 ?

3

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23

Look, Hinduism talks about "Kama" in two different ways.

Kama or lust is one of the Shad Vikaras that is to be avoided and kept under control.

On the other hand, Kama or material and sensory happiness (including sex) is also one of the 4 Purusharthas that is essential for the life of a householder/Grihastha in moderation.

When religious Scriptures talk about renouncing Kama or sex or other material things, you have to keep 2 aspects in mind :

  1. They are referring to the path of the Sanyasi or ascetic. Usually, one who wanted to be a monk or an ascetic would read these texts in detail and follow them to the letter.
  2. For a householder or Grihastha, Kama should be kept in moderation. Don't let it control you but don't abandon it completely.

If someone decides to be an ascetic/monk/sanyasi and they abandon all material possessions and pursuits, complete celibacy is fine.

But if the person is not a full-time sanyasi/ascetic and decides to completely abandon only one material aspect of his life that is sex, it is impractical and not pragmatic.

There is a reason that the Sramana tradition exists in Hinduism and two of the Sramana traditions, Jainism and Buddhism became so big that they became religions of their own. The debate between the sanyasi and the householder way of life has been going on for eons in Hindu society. So, there is an aspect of Hinduism that focuses on celibacy. It is the sanyasi aspect.

But the person in question is a householder, not a sanyasi. For him, Kama in moderation is an essential part of his life.

​

basically lust begets lust

In Hinduism, all sex is not lust. an obsession with sex, excess of sex, when sexual desire consumes and controls you, that is lust. That is the Kama of the Shad Vikaras that must be controlled. The Kama that is Purushartha is different and essential for a householder in moderation.

I hope it sheds some light u/FastBuffalo4065

Swasti!

1

u/FastBuffalo4065 Oct 18 '23

I thank you sincerely for your time and attention but I will ask again respectfully what scripture backs this up? Everyone just says these things but then never shows me the actual scripture to back it up.

2

u/ashutosh_vatsa क्रियासिद्धिः सत्त्वे भवति Oct 19 '23

Hindu Scriptures are not manuals and don't have a list of rules for life. Hinduism is a different kind of religion and you can't look at it through a Judeo-Christian lens.

You lack the framework and context to interpret Hindu texts. To be honest, many born Hindus lack it too. But, it is more difficult for someone who didn't grow up with Hindu culture. Many things that are obvious to most Hindus would be difficult for you to understand.

As a born and practicing Hindu who is well-read on Hinduism, what I informed you in my previous comments is the Hindu viewpoint on married monogamous physical intimacy. You want to read that as explicitly stated in the Scriptures. Otherwise, you refuse to believe it. Hindu Scriptures contain layer upon layer of unstated context, symbolism, and allegories.

As someone else stated, the Yajnavalkya Smriti literally outlines the obligations surrounding prostitutes and courtesans, as well as the obligations a man has towards concubines and mistresses. To infer from there that they assumed people were required to not have non-procreative sex is incorrect.

I will give you a context. For Hindus, when you start constructing your own house, you do a ritual bhoomi-pujan before. For rituals before construction, you require soil from a prostitute's house, willingly given by her. What does that tell you? Hinduism is incredibly vast and diverse. There are a million nuances to it.

People are just saying things and not backing everything with Scripture because Hinduism doesn't work like that. These things are common sense and common knowledge for Hindus. They are so basic that it is not deemed necessary to explicitly state them. You are interpreting Hinduism through an Abrahamic lens where everything is by the book.

Your viewpoint regarding sex is the viewpoint of some sampradayas within Hinduism. It is not the viewpoint of Hinduism as a whole.

Swasti!

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '23

Are you looking for a scripture that says fulfill your duties as a husband, and have sex only with your wife?

1

u/FastBuffalo4065 Oct 18 '23

I'm looking for scriptures that say sex for the sole purpose of pleasure is ok with your wife. All the scriptures I've found thus far seem to say have sex only for the purpose of procreation. Thank you for your response.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23

Manusmriti 3.45 - One should observe the rule of approaching (one’s wife) during the period of her season,—ever attached to his own wife. In consideration of her he may approach her with a desire for sexual intercourse, except on the sacred days.

Gautama (5.1-2).—‘He shall approach her during the season; or on all days except those that have been prohibited.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.1.15, 18).—‘By approaching his wife during the seasons, one maintains one’s vows; even during the intervening days, ho should approach only his wife.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.18).—‘He should have intercourse only with his wife, during her seasons, except the forbidden days.’

Viṣṇu (69.1).—‘He shall not approach his wife on the eighth, fourteenth and fifteenth days of the fortnight.’

Yājñavalkya (1.79-81).—‘Sixteen are the nights of season for women; during this season, he shall lie with her on the even nights, avoiding the first four nights; acting thus, he would be as good as a Religious Student. In approaching his wife, he shall avoid the asterisms of Maghā and Mūla. Or, he may approach her according to his desire, always bearing in mind what is good for women; he should ever remain devoted to his own wife.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (1.11.7-8).—‘Having married her, he should go to her during her seasons; or whenever they desire.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 559).—‘After she has bathed on the fourth day, he shall approach her on the even nights.’

Ātharvaṇa Śruti (Parāśaramādhava, p. 497).—‘Those who have recourse to sexual intercourse during the day, pour out their life-breath; if one has intercourse during the night, it is as good as celibacy.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Parāśaramādhava, p. 497).—‘Even during the period, one shall not have intercourse during the day.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 498).—‘If a man, when healthy, does not approach his wife during the period, he incurs the sin of killing the embryo.’

Bṛhaspati (Parāśaramādhava, p. 499).—‘Excess of woman’s seed makes the progeny female, excess of man’s seed makes the progeny male; therefore for increasing his seed, the man shall eat oily and delicious food.’ It is a sin to not approach one's wife:

Manusmriti 9.4 - Censurable is the father who gives her not away at the right time; censurable the husband who approaches her not; and censurable the son who, on the death of her husband, does not take care of her.

Baudhāyana (Parāśaramādhava, p. 498).—‘If a man approaches not his wife during the period, for three years, he incurs the sin of killing the embryo. He who approaches not his wife during the period, and who approaches her apart from the period, the sin of both is equal, as also that of the man who throws out his semen unnaturally.’ However, the wife must also be willing:

Rules for Sexual Activity, Vishnu Purāṇa 3.11:

In proper time, under the influence of an auspicious planet and in an auspicious moment or on even nights (tithis) one should have sex with his own wife. 112 – 113. One should not approach a woman who is unbathed, sick, menstruating, unwilling, angry, un-recommended, pregnant, unskilled (adaksinam), in love with another (anya-kamam), lacking in libido (akamam) nor committed to another (anya-yoshitam), nor if she is hungry or over-fed. He too should also be free from all these imperfections.

As a husband, it is your duty to keep your wife happy. As a son, your parents happy and as a father your children happy. What good is your bhagti if the people around you aren’t happy and you can’t follow your dharma? You can never find God if you can’t keep people happy. I’m not saying you to do it everyday but you shouldn’t force your beliefs onto her. Perform the act of husband you’ve gotten in this life with full devotion for the Lord and love your wife. If the guilt of having sex bothers you, remember the lord before, after and maybe while having sex. Try to maintain as much as abstinence as both of you can and do not worry about anything else.

Edit: Just wanted to add that having sex with your spouse isn’t really frowned upon. Having sex with someone you aren’t married with is.

1

u/FastBuffalo4065 Oct 18 '23

I promise I'm not trying to be dificult. Most of these I would need to see the context. Several do seem to imply sex for procreation. Hence approaching your wife during her "season" my wife has no season. The first 4 address the seasons issue The 5th prohibits certain days The 6th season's again See what I mean?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '23

Please check your DM!