Where do I stand on the Sahajiya question nowadays?

I have had a number of inquiries lately from people who have read my old articles related to sexuality and Radha Krishna devotion. Some of my responses are given here.

In a recent discussion https://jagadanandadas.blogspot.com/2020/05/priti-sandarbha-5-6-perishable-means.html

As you may know from our discussions, I have tried to align my "Sahajiyaism" with the orthodoxy, and it is precisely the area where the battle is drawn.

The idea of personal relationships between devotees NOT being material or mundane is precisely what motivated me to investigate the idea of human erotic relations and to try to understand them in a way that made them transformed by devotional consciousness into a positive spiritual action.

Now this is not customarily accepted in Vaishnava circles, but if you look at the general argumentation about what lessons we are to take from non-dualistic statements in shastra, it is that they are intended to deny the material side of things without offering the spiritual side of the equation. So in that I am agreed with the conservative view about material or mundane relations.

However, love between two Krishna conscious devotees who are cultivating madhura-rasa is devotional association and desirable, and their lovemaking activity "therapeutically treated" or "dovetailed" can in multiple ways be a positive way of enhancing devotion.

etat saṁsūcitaṁ brahmaṁs tāpa-traya-cikitsitam |
yad īśvare bhagavati karma brahmaṇi bhāvitam ||
āmayo yaś ca bhūtānāṁ jāyate yena suvrata |
tad eva hy āmayaṁ dravyaṁ na punāti cikitsitam ||
evaṁ nṛṇāṁ kriyā-yogāḥ sarve saṁsṛti-hetavaḥ |
ta evātma-vināśāya kalpante kalpitāḥ pare ||

O Brahmin, it has been indicated that the remedy of the threefold miseries is activity (karma) that has been transformed by consciousness (bhāvitam) of God, who is Brahman and Bhagavan.

O good soul, does not a thing, applied therapeutically (cikitsitam), cure the disease that was caused by that very same thing?

Thus when all a man's activities are imagined (kalpitāḥ) in relation to the Supreme, the very activities that caused his perpetual bondage become the destroyer of the material self [produced from karma] (ātma-vināśāya). (1.5.33-35)

[The words ātma-vināśāya in the last verse here are interpreted by Sridhara as karma-nivṛttaye (the cessation of works), by Jiva Goswami as the destruction of the self produced of all kinds of karmas (ātma-śabdo’tra karma-jāti-paraḥ) [See Bhakti Sandarbha 221 on my blog).

Teachings about yukta-vairāgya and phalgu-vairāgya are the same. Bhagavad-gitā 3.5 is about controlling the senses while remembering their objects, being a mithyācarī or hypocrite. But the Vaishnava recognition of Krishna's human pastimes of love of Radha offer an opportunity to dovetail human love in bhakti. This is far greater than merely using marriage as a way of satisfying material desires, it is an active way of loving as a way of remembering and glorifying Radha and Krishna's love.

The fact that our acharyas have chosen to leave the obvious message only on the level of implication is problematic and for that reason, this teaching is kept mostly secret. But if it is to be accepted, then the implications are significant, especially in the realm of male-female relations. However, I would strongly recommend caution, since the warnings of scripture are not to be ignored.

Thus marriage is a sacrament, a holy or sacred state, not only because of the reproductive function or to appease the degraded temptation of carnal pleasure, but because the potential for love is real through remembering Radha and Krishna, chanting their names, and generally engaging in the intimate loving association of a devotee as a way of coming closer to Them.

Interestingly, this is the subject of today's Prīti Sandarbha talk, which I am about to do. As important as the act itself is the character of the agent.

अनाशी परमार्थश्च प्राज्ञैरभ्युपगम्यते। 

तत्तु नाशि न सन्देहो नाशिद्रव्योपपादितम् ॥ इति।

Intelligent people accept only that which is imperishable can be the supreme goal. Undoubtedly that which is accomplished by perishable objects is perishable. (VP 2.14.21-24)

एतद्दृष्टान्तेन पूजादिमयभक्तेरपि तादृशत्वं नानुमेयम्। अपूर्ववद्भक्तेर्निष्पाद्यत्वाभावात्।

By this example [of yajña, given in the series of verses and ending in the one quoted above] one should not infer that bhakti in the form of worship, etc., is also perishable. ...

Therefore, not taking shelter of the Supreme Controller will be the limitation (upādhi) placed on [yajña, whereby it is not the ultimate goal]. It is comparable to violence committed without any injunction being the condition that makes it sinful.

In other words, if one takes shelter of Radha and Krishna, how can love between two sādhakas be sinful or mundane?

sāttvikaḥ kārako'saṅgī rāgāndho rājasaḥ smṛtaḥ |
tāmasaḥ smṛti-vibhraṣṭo nirguṇo mad-apāśrayaḥ ||

A detached agent is sāttvika, one blinded because of attachment is rājasika, and one whose memory has been lost is tāmasika; but the agent who works under My shelter is free from the material guṇas. (11.25.26) BhaktiS 136*

Anyway, these ideas are not so popular as they have not been expressed openly by any acharyas in our line, and so that is what makes me a Sahajiya.