Harimedia Forum

(I don't know if this is the right place for these comments, but there are questions for Hari at the end)

Interesting topic. While God is strictly speaking neither male nor female, due to human forms and animal forms being creations of God (God existed before male and female forms existed), God may in fact have a preferred gender identity or ego just like we are neither male nor female (spirits in bodies) but may have a preferred gender identity. Strictly speaking we are non material energy/consciousness. God also is energy/consciousness. So we are all neither male nor female but we do take on gender identities or egos for periods of time.

While our current gender identity or preferred gender identity (if we indeed have one) may not last beyond our present body, God's gender identity (if he/she has one) would be something which is not affected by the circumstances we face. If God has a preferred gender identity then I imagine it would be proper to refer to God using either he or she depending on what God's preferred gender identity is.

What do I mean by preferred gender identity? I mean the sexual identity you desire to exist as in your relations with others for emotional and sexual reasons. Having a preferred gender identity is different then taking on a gender identity for a purpose other then pure emotional and sexual gratification. For example if God has a preferred sexual identity as a male but due to some type of necessity acts as a female by using female bodies, it would be appropriate to call God He or Him. And vice versa i.e if God has a preferred gender identity as a female and used male identities and bodies for reasons of necessity then it would be appropriate to call God She or Her.

It is my understanding that God's preferred gender identity is female. We can deduce this from the fact that female bodies are designed to be able to enjoy more sexual pleasure then male bodies. Male bodies look to be designed primarily to service female bodies. Human females unlike other species are designed for the utmost amount of pleasure through their gender. For instance human female breasts. In animal species breasts are utilitarian and are not designed for pleasure and are often either painfull or in the way. In human females breasts are designed for the maximum amount of sensual pleasure for the female. Males of course do not have breasts and that is one way in which human females are better designed for pleasure over males. Another way is the female orgasm and sexual longevity. Females can have multiple orgasms, in fact there is potential for women to have sex continually for hours on end having orgasms after orgasms after orgasms. Men cannot enjoy sex to that degree. Of course neither can all women, but that is not the fault of the female body, the potential is there in all healthy female bodies for unlimited orgasmathons.

So taking these facts into consideration it would appear to be that God created the female body as the ultimate enjoying machine, while the male body was created as a secondary enjoying machine. Taking into account that God would be interested in enjoying as much as possible, it stands to reason that God may indeed have a preferred gender identity as a female.

Like you Hari san, I was educated in gaudiya vaisnava dogma. Unlike most of the gaudiya vaisnavas or ex gaudiya vaisnavas, or any type of vaisnavas that I have encountered, I believe that the true inner esoteric teaching of the gaudiya school is that God's inner ego is that of a female, or has a preferred gender identity as a female. I've noticed a tremendous amount of confusion amongst vaisnavas, not just gaudiya vaisnavas, on the topic of the dual sexuality of God. In fact I find many who strongly believe in a polytheistic conception. Many if not most believe that God is male and that God's female aspect is a different conscious entity from the Male in the same way that we are different conscious entities from God, and in many ways they consider the female "Shakti" or deity of God to be quite inferior to the Male deity in terms of power. She is considered to be under the control of the male deity as a kind of sub deity. They believe that there is some mysterious unknowable way that God can be 2 distinct different conscious entities, with the male aspect dominating over the female aspect, and yet somehow remain the same person to some degree or another. I have found this conception to be the dominant conception amongst vaisnavas in general and gaudiya vaisnavas whom I have corresponded with (a large number), I assume I can use that as an indicator for the beliefs of the vaisnava community as a whole.

That concept of a polytheistic God with the male dominating over the female is completely against the Vedantic and Bhagavat conception which is of a non-dual God. While there is good evidence to support the qualified non-dualism or the "oneness and difference" concept when it comes to God and God's shakti or "energy" ( i.e shakti in the usage=things and people which are not directly "God the person" yet are one with God due to being being comprised of God, yet also different then God due to being a part but not the whole), the Vedantic and Bhagavat teachings on the nature of God's person is that God is non-dual, one being, one all pervading entity. Yet whenever I have mentioned these topics I usually get 2 types of responses; total confusion on the issue or adament polytheism of the above type. The usual confusion comes from misunderstanding the teaching on qualified non-dualism to mean that there is "oneness and difference" between God's male and female aspects. They usually believe that God is the controller of "shakti", and since the female aspects of God are referred to as "Shaktis" therefore they are different and less then the male aspect of God. Whenever I try to explain to them that the word "Shakti has a different meaning depending on it's usage" they don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of God as a female still being the same entity as God as a male, they are cemented into their polytheistic male dominated view of God. Although I have been successful in clearing the minds of some, many others feel I present a heinous heresy, even though I back it up with the authoritative sources they claim to represent.

It is my contention that the spiritual truths presented in the Vedic system are revealed in stages. That as a person advances in realization new ideas are revealed from the same source works which were hidden in plain sight. For the beginner or dilettante God is seen and thought to be portrayed (usually) more in the masculine sense. Emphasis is seen as on the Male deity and His deeds. As realization of Vedantic truth progresses, the neophyte or dilettante will see more of a Male/Female dynamic in God. They will see God as not just Male with female underling, but God as also Female, God as one being taking on Male and Female bodies. As the person progresses on the Vedantic path newer truths are revealed even though they were never really hidden in the first place. What was previously not properly understood becomes clear and the person understands that God has an inner gender identity which transcends whichever body God may use for whatever purpose.

In fact for gaudiya vaisnavas it is much clearer then any other form of vaisnavism. The essential message of Sri Chaitanya's appearence is that God wanted to experience the bliss which was millions of times greater then what He could experience as a male. God needed to take on the mood of a female to experience the ultimate pleasure, this is the core teaching of the gaudiya school. The esoteric teaching is found throughout the gaudiya canon, few see it, many fight against it. Those who fight against it believe that God is more interested in playing with Him/Herself then with having real relations with other people. Ask most any gaudiya vaisnava what they think their ultimate destination will be like and they will tell you that they will be servents to the love play between Radha and Krishna. They see their heaven as a place where God is in love with Him/Her self and everyone else is there to serve that love affair. They don' realize that the true teachings are quite different then that. Vedantic truth is revealed in stages, the final truth is one on one love with God, not as a gofer, as a friend and lover. The Male deity falls into the background as the female asserts Her position, His purpose is to provide a strong masculine father figure for various neophytes and dilettantes on the path. The need for that father figure God wanes as one develops spiritual knowledge and realization, then the true esoteric teachings make themselves known. The real rasa or relationship God desires is exemplified by Radha and Krishna or Shiva and Parvati etc, those are archetypes for a higher reality. She is looking for people to fulfill a role, Radha in separation from us, is forever looking for Her Krishna.

I was wondering if you could relate how you used to conceive of the male and femal dynamic of God, and if it is the same conception you have today, and if not how do you feel about this issue of God's sexual identity and polytheism today?

gangster_of_love wrote: They see their heaven as a place where God is in love with Him/Her self and everyone else is there to serve that love affair.

People might see like that, but the thought falls on its own absurdity. It would mean that we would be greater than God, since we can love someone else, but that God can only love himself.

There is so much confusion about what Gaudiya Vaisnavism is really about, in the world today. Everything is there, but somehow or other people read it as dogma, and miss what it is saying.

In any case, Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy can be seen as a tool to understand reality. It is not reality. There are other tools, and it could of course be discussed which tools are better. Is a swedish hammer better than an american? They are possibly different, but can we reject one as better?

For all I know, Gaudiya Vaisnavism does not speak about God at all, at least not in the western sense. Prabhupada used the word "Godhead", which more appears to indicate a kind of realm than one person sitting on a throne and deciding everything. Krishna plays, and certainly does not make decidions about the creation. How could he, he is just a boy?

Radha and Krishna are two aspects, or personalities of this Godhead. Radha represents the female, Krishna the male. Prabupada says that they are the supreme personalities of this Godhead, so unless we know better, why not?
Of course, what does "supreme" mean?

I can feel pretty sure that if there was to be a voting for the supreme personalities, in Goloka, everyone would vote for Radha and Krishna, and thus they are considered supreme. They are loved by all there. Supreme by love.
How otherwise it all fits togethers in a bigger cosmic scheme, I am pretty that people there does not care much. They care about love, not about deliniating who is the supreme God, or even the concept of it.

Maybe that is too simple. Maybe we want something else. Then there are other places to go to. Earth, of course, is one place to go to, but there are also more subtle "planets". We can go somewhere where Visnu is the supreme God and King, or Jehovah, Allah and for sure there are planets with Queens. We can go there, worship or love, and proclaim the queen supreme.

The Gaudiya Vaisnava ideal is to go where Radha and Krishna are. It is a love planet, not a "worship God" planet. It is a planet where higher and lower and God does not exist. Only love. That is the remarkable thing about that place. You go there if you prefer love over everything else, and just don't care about higher, lower, supreme, subservant, God father, God mother, and all that.

The spiritual world is not so far away as we think. Some want to make us think that we have to enter a kind of spiritual spaceship and travel a very long distance to go there. But that is not true. The spiritual reality is here and now. It is only that we can't see it like that. To reach Radha and Krishna, we have to get into the mood of love of them.

Ok, about who is supreme. Female or Male. If we understand that the spiritual reality is not conceptionally different from where we already are (we are spiritual entities after all), and that what separate us from the spiritual reality is our vision, we are looking at it right now. We can see the spiritual around us, and even though we have a clouded vision, can make conclusions from it. You want to see female as supreme, and of course, that is then what it is. You see a female God. And of course, if you want to conecepts of "female" and "God", that's what you get.

For Gaudiya Vaisnava's, they only want to see Radha and Krishna, surrounded by all their devotees, their fans. It is not that Krishna is in love with himself, he is in love with everyone, and particularly his fans, his devotees. It is not that Radha and Krishna are gods, and in love, but everyone are part of that godhead. Everyone are surcharged with love, and you can't really separate them. It is godhead as a collective. It is not that everyone are "servants" to Radha and Krishna in the material sense. There is really no divisions like that. In some sense, Radha and Krishna are also servants of the same godhead. Everyone are serving the whole as parts.

It is not the only place to go to in the spiritual sky. It is the place for those who want to love Radha and Krishna and everyone else who is there. And if it is more "supreme" than any other place, no one there cares. Of course, they all would say so, that it is the supreme place. And thus it becomes so.

No, females don't enjoy more then males. Both forms enjoy different things, and in what they enjoy, they might have higher capacity than the other form. What men want, and they think females have, is the enjoyment "energy", shakti. They think that if they have it, they would enjoy. But the problem is that you can't get the female shakti without the female person possessing that shakti. Enjoyment comes from loving relationships, not from possessing that shakti and enjoying separately. And even though females, even on earth, possess that enjoying shakti, they don't enjoy on their own, but can enjoy only together with someone else. In that way, the Radha-Krishna stories can teach us that we can't enjoy on our own, only in a loving relationship.

Dear "gangster_of_love"

you said:

God may in fact have a preferred gender identity or ego just like we are neither male nor female

It is true that God may have whatever form He prefers.
In the Vedic literature, God is usually known as Shaktiman, the possesor of energy, which is the male principle, the enjoyer,
and His energy Shakti, is the female principle, or that which serves or give pleasure.

The Gaudiya Vaishnavas see in Krishna (The All Atractive) the original form of the Lord, from whom innumerable othe forms come.

Krishna is the original Lord of love or KAma-deva

The following important verse is found in the BhAgavata PurANa:

jayati jananivAso devakI-janma-vAdo
yadu-vara-pariSat svair dorbhir asyann adharmam
sthira-cara-vrijina-ghnam susmita-zrI-mukhena
vraja-pura-vanitAnAM vardhayan kAma-devam BhP 10.90.48

May that KRSNa who resides in the hearts of all living beings be ever victorious; for though He is their resting place, He becomes manifested in the womb of DevakI.
[This is thus generally accepted as being the truth although it is only an appearance.]
That Lord is served by the best of the members of the Yadu dynasty; he removed the influence of the irreligious with the help of the PANDavas and others who are like his own arms,
killing all the demons through them. He removed the sufferings of all the moving and non-moving creatures and, by the glances from his softly smiling, beautiful face,
caused the quickening of desire (kAma) in the hearts and minds of the womenfolk of the pastures [of Vraja] and the city [of DvArakA], who thus desired for romantic intrigues with him.

This verse has been elucidated in SanAtana’s commentary on his own BRhad-BhAgavatAmRta (2.7.154). He particularly elaborates at length on the use of the word kAma-devam found in the fourth line.

[This verse makes three apparently self-contradictory statements.
The first of these is that] he who resides as the Supersoul in the hearts of all living beings has appeared in the womb of DevakI as her son; for others he remains within, unseen.
Though he likewise remains within DevakI also, he externalizes himself and walks and talks with her.

[The next apparent contradiction is that though] the great powerful heroes of the House of Yadu were all fully dedicated servitors of his and were competent to destroy any number of unruly opponents, He himself removed the oppressive irreligious elements by the strength of his own arms.

[The third such statement is that] even though He removes the sins of all creatures, stationary or moving, He still acts as the paramour of the gopIs, increasing their lusty desires (kAma), i.e., their "sin." Despite this appearance of contradiction, there is actually none: there is no offence on KRSNa’s part because it is the nature of His sweetly smiling beautiful face to set the minds of others aflame. Even so, the gopIs count the glories of his world-enchanting smile, which destroys the effects of material desire (kAma) in the life of family attachments.

This last portion of the verse (vardhayan kAma-devam) can also be taken in this way: "He has become victorious by manifesting in the hearts of the gopIs all those manifold desires that will bring about his own personal pleasure" or "He becomes victorious over material desire (kAma) by...

read more http://spirituality.forumup.de/viewtopi ... tuality#91