Marriage without children - comment from an observer...

[Guest guest]

> [Mahatattva pr. wrote:] Don't mind Prabhu, but letters are very often

> instructions given to a particular person in particular circumstances. My

> believe is that Srila Prabhupada's instruction to HH Satswarupa Goswami is

> an exception whereas the general rule is that those who marry should have

> children.

 

Which is exactly what I have said, namely that there are exceptions and that

it is foolish to demand all devotees that they must have children or

otherwise they are not following your undefined "Vedic Culture". 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.

 

> I am sure that his upbringing was characterized by many aspects of Vedic

> culture. Though Srila Prabhupada made it clear that nowadays Hinduism is a

> speculation he also many times said that Vedic culture or system is now

> called Hinduism.

 

If you seriously believe Hinduism to be the same as Vedic culture then not

much can be said. Hinduism is so polluted with speculation and distortion

that it is pointless to cite it as an evidence in debate or discussion

amongst devotees.

 

The fact that two individuals here have rejected Srila Prabhupada's letter

of instruction in favour of their own "Hindu experience" over the past 30

years is quite interesting. Neither have cited from any shastra, but they

just demand we believe them because its the Hindu way. Sorry, I'm not

interested.

 

>[basu-Ghosh pr. writes:] it seems to me that it's this "Ram Lakshman Das" -

>whoever he is (he should identify himself: who is he? I'm here in India

>for 30 years in ISKCON and don't know him, and... he's instructing us on

>what Srila Prabhupada taught!)

 

Yes, I admit I am a nobody, certainly unqualified in spiritual life. Never

the less, sometimes gold (and knowledge) can come even from a dirty place.

 

But it is unfortunate that some people in debate resort to belittling the

other party while enumerating their own superb credentials when they fail to

defeat them with logic, argument or citation from shastra. We've seen such

tactics for the last 30 years in ISKCON and they continue. "Who are you to

question such and such, you are a nobody, offender, not initiated, neophyte,

junior devotee, etc." This is the last resort of those unable to defend

their stance logically. It betrays weakness in ones own argument, and anger

in one's inability to counter others statements.

 

It is odd you would demand me to "identify myself" when you are the one fond

of quoting "unamed anonymous observers". My name and my city of residence

are mentioned in the "" header. If you want the names of my

forefathers, my gotra, and my caste, I can email them to you as well, but I

don't think the rest of the Krishna Katha readers are interested.

 

>I find that he's the fanatic: he's not trying to understand the general

>principle, but is basing his entire understanding on the instructions of

>one letter, and ignoring a whole slew of SP quotes from the database.

 

None of the quotes you have provided state anything about "married life

without children being abominable". You simply provided numerous quotes

about the importance and purpose of a son - a point that is not in debate.

We all agree that the purpose of a son according to karma-khanda is to

deliver the forefathers from hell.

 

The fact that you have provided many copy and paste quotes from the folio

does not mean any of them were relevant to the point being discussed, namely

"Is married life without children abominable?"

 

Remember, it is accepted by all here that the general rule is that married

people will have children. Thus there is no reason for you to try to present

it as though I disagree with this.

 

My position is that there will be exceptions, and they are not violating

Vedic culture by this, as they are acting perfectly in line with their

acharya's teachings. Such a view is clearly supported by Srila Prabhupada's

letter to Satsvarupa.

 

>Your explanations are cool-headed and to the point, and philosphically

>correct.

 

Yes, anyone who agrees with you is philosophically correct. Don't mind the

fact that you have not provided any scriptural quotations to substantiate

your view. Your sole cited evidence is that you have 30 years experience of

Hindu culture in India. Congratulations to you. I can match you with that as

well, but it is irrelevant here where discussions should be based on shastra

and acharya.

 

Your evidence is that Hindu ladies don't like to even look at people who are

barren as they are inauspicious to look at and sinful. Do you seriously fail

to see the ludicrous nature of applying such a view to devotees of Lord

Hari?

 

I asked before but didn't receive any answer:

 

When you see a devotee who is barren (unable to bear a child), do you feel

you have become polluted by seeing them and should take a bath (because they

are "sinful")?

 

Or do you feel you have been purified by seeing a bhakta who chants the

names of Lord Krishna?

 

This simple answer will make it clear whether you are actually following

Hinduism or Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

If you consider yourself purified by seeing such devotees, then your entire

argument of citing the popular Hindu belief was pointless and invalid.

 

If you consider yourself impure by seeing them, then you are not presenting

our Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta, where it is a great offense to consider the

bodily defects of a bhakta.

 

>As I just wrote to one godbrother - who I know for the past 30+ years of my

>being in ISKCON, there are exceptions to every rule. Srila Prabhupada had

>certain reasons for giving certain instructions to individual devotees, but

>he was also careful when giving "standing instructions" on social

>situations based on the clear teachings of vedic literatures.

 

Srila Prabhupada also instructed that all of his letters should be xeroxed

and sent to every ISKCON center for all the devotees to study and apply.

Your view that his letter is somehow irrelevant is simply because it doesn't

agree with your viewpoint. I'm sure if you found a letter saying "all

married devotees must have children" you would be citing it's unparalleled

importance. This is the unfortunate style of debate and discussion we have

in ISKCON.