Sadhnaa and Marriage - 1

[Guest guest]

Erica,s question made me think. The answer of svcs quoting Manu

Smrithi made me post. The questions, which arise about sadhnaa and

marriage, are

 

1. Is marriage a hindrance or an aid to Sadhnaa?

 

2. Do married woman have a role as an individual in Sadhnaa?

 

I have been married for thirty years. My wife and myself are serious

Upasakas.My message is in the light of our experience and on the

basis of discussions with many holy men and our Gurus over a period

of years.

 

1. Somehow because most of the Saints in the recent past have been

renunciates, it is often assumed that you have to be a renunciate to

attain self-realisation. Marriage is often portrayed as an obstacle.

 

If you look it from the historical point of view this was not how

Hinduism viewed things in the past. In the Vedic and Puranic age all

the Rishis were married men/women. The four stages of life was given

as

1. Brahmacharya.

2.Grahastha

3.Vanaprastha

4.Sannyasa

All the Maharishis reached a stage of Vanaprastha. They lived in the

forest with their wives.

 

Again Saints or Gods who never got married like Bhishma or Hanumanji

were Nithya Brahmacharis and not Sannyasins. In fact many Hindus

believe that Sannyasa is against Hindu Dharma.

 

Things changed with the founding of Buddhism. Hinduism adapted Ahimsa

and Renunciation from Buddhism. The ten orders of Sannyasins called

DasaNamis (Giri, Puri, Saraswathi etc.) were enunciated by Adi

Sankaracharya in the 6th or 8th century.

 

Marriage does entail taking on additional responsibilities as a

wife/husband, father/mother. Until and unless we have discharged our

duties as a mother/father we cannot proceed on Vanaprastha. Some

people feel that these responsibilities are obstacles to attainment

of Self/God realisation. Against this, it is also a fact that a

husband/wife can be a great help in achieving the ultimate goal.

 

We have great Maharshi couples like

 

Lopamudra and Agastya.

Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya

 

who were both great saints. Maa Lopamudra was the Guru of Maharshi

Agastya. Maa Maitreyi defeated Yajnavalkya in a discussion as a

result of which he was to become her slave. But she chose to marry

him.

 

Again in Hinduism one achieves Self/God realisation depending on

his/her karma. This karma is as a result of deeds in the past lives

and also the present life. This makes it highly individualistic. We

talk about sadhnaa or Upasana at the individual level. Ones life

partner does not play a major role in this.

 

We have saint Meera whose husband was very bad or sant Tukaram whose

wife was a terror.

 

I think we can safely say that as per the Hindu religious history and

what we gleam from the life histories of saints that marriage per se

has not prevented anyone from achieving self/God realisation.

 

About the second question of whether married woman has a role as an

individual in Sadhana, in my opinion the answer is yes.

 

To be continued

[Guest guest]

Thank you very much to all for the mixed answers on this very

sensitive topic. I hope that we continue on this path of respect

towards one another. It warms my heart.

 

I agree with Sankar on this. While I can not quote saints nor texts,

I feel in my heart that I was not put here to serve only one man. I

feel I am here to serve all, and to serve God as best I can. How is

it that, because I am in a woman's body now, I do not have the same

spiritual responsibilities as someone who happens to be in a man's

body? Why do women have to serve their husbands, while men do not

have to serve their wives?

 

I do not believe that God sees us as men and women. I believe that

it is we who see ourselves as thus. The soul has no gender.

 

It is true that we must live here on this earth (for now at least)

and to some of the rules. However, I feel that taking

abuse and neglect are not part of "the rules". When do we draw the

line between honoring our marriage and honoring ourselves?

 

With love,

Erica

[Guest guest]

I am in 100% agreement with Erica on this subject, but dont agree

when she points out this topic is "serious". Of course it is, but

like other topics in Sadhna.I have to add only two points to what

Erica and the originater of the discussion said.These are as follows:-

1.Even an Atheist, if he or she is married and has offsprings to

rear, as far as they lead and honest and truthfull life...can attain

Godhood. Thus marriage(honest one of course)too is a Sadhna.. an

austreecity.

2.Sankaracharya said,( probably Erica wished to quote it)

"NARI NARKASYA DWARAM"---- Sanskrit

( Nari = female;Narka = Hell; sya = Of; Dwaram = Gate.simply meaning

that "females" are gateway to Hell)

After having studied so much, having been amongst and with the

ladies for 24years,I agree to this 100% true. If you consider

yourself, at any point of time, that you are in havens, then kindly

dont touch,see or look at a female, because she would lead you to

Hell; on contrary, if for any moment you consider yourself to be

residing in a hell of mesh,torcher,agony amongst materialistic

atmosphere, run for the gate or doorway, that is a female. Now it is

upto you to first locate where you are...then if the need be, find

for "gate".

love

[Guest guest]

Thank you all for your contributions on this topic. Shankar, I agree

with what you say.

However, the other day, I just came across something in Manu Shastra,

and posted it. Guess that's a mistake. What you say is right...

 

India has been subjected to various centuries of ruthless invasion by

Mughals, British, Portuguese etc. We do not know if the Manu Shastra

available today is the original text or not.

 

Nontheless what we do know is that Ramana Maharshi lived in the

previous century, and what he said are available to us unedited, and

unblemished.

So let's see what Maharshi said about grihasta.

 

Q. How does a grihasta fare in the scheme of Moksha?

 

A. Why do you think yourself to be a grihasta? If you go out as a

sannyasi, the thought that you are a sannyasi will haunt you. You

will be only substituting one thought by another. The mental

obstacles are always there. They even increase in new surroundings.

There is no help in the change of environment. The mind is the

obstacle. Therefore why change the environment.

 

The environment never abandons you, according to your desire. Look at

me. I left home. Look at yourselves. You have come here leaving

the home environment. What do you find here? Is this different from

what you left?

 

------------------------

 

Solitude is in the mind. One may be in the thick of the world and

maintain serenity of mind : such an one is in solitude. Another may

be in a forest, but still unable to control his mind. He cannot be

said to be in solitude. A man attached to desires cannot get

solitude wherever he may be. A detached man is always in solitude.

 

--------------------

 

Shankar , I would also like to add another example to the list of

examples you gave.

i.e King Janaka (Sita's father) was one of the greatest renunciates.

Though he was married, and was a a great king of a great land, he was

considered a great sanyasin.

The reason is, renunciation, or sanyasa is not of the external world.

True sanyasa is renunciation of the ego.

 

One may have conquered the entire Earth, but when asked if has

conquered his mind, he'll hang down his head in shame.

 

Marriage is something external, and is internal. Thus even

if one's spouse is a terror as in Meera's or Tukaram's case or is an

aid as in Yajnavalkya's case, one can attain Liberation only if one

has control over one's own mind.

 

On another occasion someone asked Ramana Maharshi if women could also

do sadhnaa. ( I cannot trace the exact text, so i'm writing his

teachings in my own words). He replied that sadhnaa can be done by

anybody. The gender of male or female belongs only to the body. But

Liberation is something which is beyond all physical or mental

constraints. So what stops a woman from doing sadhna?

In fact, on another occasion, he also pointed that, animals could

also perform . There was a dog in Virupaksha cave (the cave

that Maharshi lived in before coming to Skandashramam and

Ramanashraman), that lived with the Maharshi, and performed Tapas

everyday. It ate only sattwic food, and never ran behind female dogs.

Maharshi pointed out the dog to his disciples and said that the dog

is a yogi, who is currently in a dog's body.

 

Thus only the physical morphologies of animals, humans change, but

the basic nature is same. Saadhnaa is for all irrespective of age,

sex, nationality, caste, creed or race, for it is the same Divine

that resides in all.

 

Hari Aum !!!

[Guest guest]

I write here as a layman from the knowledge gained through years of

reading & listening and not by studying any text.

 

While I agreee with Erica that God doesn't see us as men and women, I

cannot to her argument that the woman is not supposed to

serve only one man. Definitely, by serving a husband a woman not only

serves him but also the whole generation thereafter.

 

'Happening to be in a man's body or woman's body' is neither our

choice nor accidental. There is a design for all what happens in this

world and elsewhere. Who is the designer? The designer like a

playwright has alotted each one a role.

 

In a disciplined army the General decides and the soldiers carry out

his orders. Are the soldiers serving the General? Each one carries

out his/her duty to attain the common goal.

 

Umakanth

[Guest guest]

-Dear Erica,

 

I agree with you. Someone posted about women should serve their

husbands and then they move up spiritually with their husbands, but

if the husbands move down, the wives do too. I want to ask this

person, WHO SAYS THIS and where did you get your information?

 

We are not living in the stone ages. Women today (at least those

here in the United States) have so many duties and responsibilities

in raising a family, being a wife, working outside the home, and

trying to keep body and soul together, that this idea of "serving the

husband" indeed seems old and antiquated and totally out of the times

we are in!!!!

 

It sounded patriarchal and like men have the more important job of

spiritualty, and women are to serve them, like they were some type of

objects. Perhaps the poster did not mean it as such, but it sure

came off sounding that way to me!!!!!!

 

Kathy

-- In , "sugarandbrine" <sugarandbrine> wrote:

> Thank you very much to all for the mixed answers on this very

> sensitive topic. I hope that we continue on this path of respect

> towards one another. It warms my heart.

>

> I agree with Sankar on this. While I can not quote saints nor

texts,

> I feel in my heart that I was not put here to serve only one man. I

> feel I am here to serve all, and to serve God as best I can. How is

> it that, because I am in a woman's body now, I do not have the same

> spiritual responsibilities as someone who happens to be in a man's

> body? Why do women have to serve their husbands, while men do not

> have to serve their wives?

>

> I do not believe that God sees us as men and women. I believe that

> it is we who see ourselves as thus. The soul has no gender.

>

> It is true that we must live here on this earth (for now at least)

> and to some of the rules. However, I feel that taking

> abuse and neglect are not part of "the rules". When do we draw the

> line between honoring our marriage and honoring ourselves?

>

> With love,

> Erica