Marriage without children - comment from an observer...

[Guest guest]

The following is a letter sent to me in regard to our discussion.

 

 

> Hare Krsna

> Dear Mahat-tattva prabhu,

> Please accept my humble obeisances

> All glories to Srila Prabhupada

> As this discussion is going on in the conferences, I like to give some

> inputs as being an Indian (Not out of pride, but for discussion). But I am

> just presenting as observer and not interested to put the same into

> conference. If you like, you may use my points in discussion, without

> referring myself. As the discussion is between senior devotees, I don't

> want to participate.

> Indian culture is based on Vedic culture. Eventhough the Indian culture is

> now disturbed a lot, still the base is Vedic culture. As Guru Maharaj once

> said Vedic culture is based on Vaishnava culture - We should follow Vedic

> culture as long as it is not disturbing our Krsna consciousness. Mostly

> the Vedic culture is favourable for Vaishnavas.

> According to Vedic culture, Son is must. There is no question of avoiding

> children in married life. There was no such concept of "marriage without

> children" in Vedic culture. We can go on discussing why that is so, but if

> we simply accept Vedic instructions (As Srila Prabhupada used to say

> frequently with the example of accepting mother's words on who is father),

> then the society will remain peaceful. Among general mass the necessity is

> stressed based on elevating forefathers (This was discussed in Sanga).

> Some argued with comparision of Demigod worship. But still, we don't find

> any example of exalted Vaishnavas who avoided children in their Grahasta

> life. On the contrary, we find that Maharaj Pandu, dasarath etc, were

> lamenting for children. This shows that in the Vedic culture Children is a

> part of married life. I was really shocked to see that somebody are

> advocating that we are devotees and hence no need to follow that. Let them

> give some example of any previous acharyas or high level devotees who did

> so or who said so. I guess Jeyadeva Gosvami didn't have any children, but

> I am not sure. Eventhen are we in that level?

> Srila Prabhupada once wrote a letter to His female disciple that her

> primary duty in Krsna conscious at that time is to develop her child in

> Krsna Bhakti. You can catch the reference in Vedabase.

> In Indian culture, it is considered highly inauspicious if someone don't

> have children. Women if they are not able to give children, they were

> considered as inauspicious. In Indian Languages (may also be in other

> languages, but I don't know), there is a word for the woman who is unable

> to deliver a son. In Tamil it is Maladi, other languages are also having

> similar word. I don't know the Sanskrit word. Traditionally people even

> used to take bath because of the contamination of seeing such woman. Such

> situation of woman was considered as her previous bad Karma. There are

> various atonements are present even today for such sins. Devotees who are

> not able to produce children (Due to physical problems), then it is a

> different case. If you know the story of Yamunacharya (Ramanujacarya's

> Guru), then it will show an example that woman without children is

> certainly inauspicious (During His arguments against a pandit in King's

> palace). There it says that the woman should have atleast 2 sons (In one

> aspect)

>

> Krsna Conscious means to follow previous acharyas. Even our recent

> Acharyas who are from Grahasta background, had children.

> Still some devotees may argue by put forth many things. Simple question

> can be that then why do you need Grahasta Ashram? Is it simply for sex?

> Responsibility of children keeps the restriction of sex. Otherwise Human

> life is simply animal life. If we say that as because we are devotees (As

> per real definition most of us are not so) we can just be friends, then we

> are just animals. Woman needs protection and the protection is possible by

> her husband and later days by her Son. This was elaborately discussed by

> Srila prabhupada in His lectures about Soceities. Srila Prabhupada said

> that the 16 year boy can travel all over the world, but the 16 year girl

> can not. If they say that we are spirit souls then let them go and hug

> with a tiger without fear.

>

> If man doesn't want children, then he should have remained Naistica

> brahmacari. The basis of family life is Sex life. Sex life without

> children is animalistic propensity. No sex; No children means no need for

> Grahasta Ashram.

>

> There may be some exceptional cases, as you already wrote.

> Other similar points are already given by Prema padmini mathaji.

>

> Still, your basic question of "why marriage without children is

> abominable?" is remain unanswered. It is sure that that is inauspicious.

> But why so? I don't have answers. But that is how Indian culture have

> grown. We can accept the Vedic injunction as it is. Because many such

> subtle aspects can not be easily traced by our mundane intelligency. Even

> the cancer aspect is not much strong. If I happen to meet some highly

> learned panditas who are from traditional background, then I can ask this

> and get back to you with sastric coats.

>

> Hope this can help. By sending this mail, I don't intent to offend any

> Vaisnavas. I just wanted to support your discussion.

>

> Yours humble servant

> xxxxxx