Marriage without children - comment from an observer...

[Guest guest]

>> The point of discussion is whether "marriage without children is

>> abominable", and till now no one has shown a single quote from Srila

>> Prabhupada where he ever states this.

 

Amazingly, still no one has offered such a quote, but they offer the

following:

 

>It is definitely not considered auspicious.

 

Are you so certain that it is "definitely" not considered auspicious? Do you

have any citation from shastra that Rishis who were married and who had no

children were "definitely not considered auspicious"? Or is this

"definitely" just your way of appearing confident in your position without

providing evidence?

 

Please understand that there is a clear distinction between someone unable

to conceive due to sinful reactions affecting them, and two married devotees

observing austerities in grihastashrama to advance in Krishna consciousness.

 

> I think we gave some nice examples, like the one that mother must be

> protected in her old age.

 

Yet there are exceptions for every rule. Sri Chaitanya left his young wife

and took sannyasa at a young age despite it not being recommended in the

scriptures. Exceptions exist, and the culture provides facility for such

exceptions.

 

Vedic society is not the western family of just husband and wife. For

example in my family there are over 30 people living together under one

house, everyone helping each other. When you present arguments that "no one

will be there to protect the wife in old age" it is humorous.

 

In Vedic culture the nephew is also equal to the son, and Srila Prabhupada

criticizes Dhritarashtra for failing to abide by this common understanding

(refer Gita 1.1 purport, Dhritarashtra only considering his direct sons as

his own, whereas Pandavas were not considered "Kurus"). Do you think in an

Indian family where there are 20 to 30 nephews living together that the wife

will be left unprotected in her old age?

 

So such answers show to me that some of the participants don't actually have

all the experience of vedic samskriti that they claim to have. 30 years of

studying Vedic customs and this is the question that comes up, who will take

care of the lady in her old age?

 

And this particular point is the evidence you offered as to why "it is

definitely considered inauspicious" because no one will take care of the

lady in her old age. Yes, you are definite about it. Sure, sounds convincing

to me.

 

This is what happens when you base your conclusions on evidences other than

shastra. Defective judgement results in invalid evidence, though we will

continue to assert its validity blindly.

 

>Here different inauspicious situations are listed and one of them is a

>woman that doesn't have a son.....but if she performs devotional service as

>explained in this chapter of the Bhagavatam she'll be able to go back to

>Godhead.

 

Do you not see the difference between someone being unable to conceive a

child because of sinful reactions and between a devotee grihasta couple not

conceiving a child because of observing austerity based on absorption in

Krishna consciousness? Srila Prabhupada saw the difference between the two.

Just read his letter to Satsvarupa again.

 

Furthermore, is it your understanding that whatever bodily defect we see in

a devotee (such as a devotee being barren), it must indicate they were

sinful people? This is not what our scriptures tell us.

 

>Here Srila Prabhupada says that Hindus used to follow sanatana-dharma. So

>it shouldn't be surprising to find many elements of the sanatana dharma in

>nowadays Hinduism.

 

Likewise it is simple to find countless deviations in modern Hindu customs

and beliefs. Thus the logical conclusion is that citing "Hindu custom and

belief" does not constitute a pramana in shastric discussions.

 

The fact is one of the participants was refering to Hindu customs of the

present as his primary evidence that woman without children are

inauspicious, shouldn't be looked at, that one should bath after seeing

them, etc. At least in an assembly of Vaishnavas such a pramana is without

merit. To proudly declare that one has 30 years experience in "Hindu

customs" whereas other devotees only have experience of reading Prabhupada's

books is certainly a sign someone thinks too much of himself, especially

when they choose to depend on their Hindu experience as pramana rather than

Prabhupada's statement.

 

Your logic is clearly flawed. You say that there are remnants of Vedic

culture in Hinduism, therefore Hindu customs are a valid pramana. It is true

that there are some aspects of Vedic culture within Hinduism, but this does

not validate every Hindu custom and belief. Thus it is useless to cite Hindu

belief, but rather one must cite shastra if anyone here is to take the

statements seriously.