compatibility, match, marriage...

[Guest guest]

> I don't know why a hastily arranged

> situation between two incompatible individuals should be held up as a

> model for others to follow. Is it not preferrable to try to arrange a

> compatible situation in a careful way, and *then* honor one's vows?

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

Generally, it is supposed to work that way, but the material world is such

that things often don't work the way we want them to.

 

For example, Yayati had to marry Devayani. There was no astrological check

made, there was no discussion with their respective families. The marriage

was pratiloma, Yayati M. personally did not want it. Nonetheless, they did

their duty.

 

That is the whole point behind our Krishna-consciousness movement: "Perform

your duty equipoised, O Arjuna, abandoning all attachment for success or

failure, such equanimity is called yoga." We may like or don't like, we may

be successful or unsuccessful, but we still go about our duties.

 

I do agree with your point that we should as far as possible try to see that

the couples are compatible. But when it doesn't happen that way, then we

have to fall back on duty.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

[Guest guest]

>

>

> 24 hour arrangements don't sound particularly "Vedic". Although material

> considerations are ... well material, it seems like the descriptions of

> marriages arranged back in the "good old days" as well as the quotes from

> Prabhupada on the subject, suggest that these marriages were typically very

> carefully arranged over long periods of time, taking all kinds of

> compatibilities into account. After all such arrangements had been taken

> care of and the families and society were there to support the young

> couple, the couple in turn did its duty by remaining together.

 

I think that the compatibilty considerations often were much broader than the

individuals narrow interests. The compatabilities of entire families was taken

into consideration.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> For example, Yayati had to marry Devayani. There was no astrological check

> made, there was no discussion with their respective families. The marriage

> was pratiloma, Yayati M. personally did not want it. Nonetheless, they did

> their duty.

 

Say what? According to SB 1.12.24 purport

 

Yayäti: The great emperor of the world and the original forefather of all great

nations of the world who belong to the Äryan and Indo-European stock. He is the

son of Mahäräja Nabuña, and he became the emperor of the world due to his elder

brother’s becoming a great and liberated saintly mystic. He ruled over the

world

for several thousands of years and performed many sacrifices and pious

activities recorded in history, although his early youth was very lustful and

full of romantic stories. He fell in love with Devayäné, the most beloved

daughter of Sukräcärya. Devayäné wished to marry him, but at first he refused

to

accept her because of her being a daughter of a brähmaëa. According to sästras,

a brähmaëa could marry the daughter of a kñatriya but a kñatriya could not

marry

the daughter of a brähmana. They were very much cautious about varëa-saìkara

population in the world. Sukräcärya amended this law of forbidden marriage and

induced Emperor Yayäti to accept Devayäné. Devayäné had a girl friend named

Çarmiñöhä, who also fell in love with the emperor and thus went with her friend

Devayäné. Sukräcärya forbade Emperor Yayäti to call Çarmiñöhä into his bedroom,

but Yayäti could not strictly follow his instruction. He secretly married

Çarmiñöhä also and begot sons by her. When this was known by Devayäné, she went

to her father and lodged a complaint. Yayäti was much attached to Devayäné, and

when he went to his father-in-law’s place to call her,

Sukräcärya was angry with him and cursed him to become impotent.

 

Sounds to me , according to Srila Prabhupada's interpretation, that he was in

love with her and there was discussion between the families. Although he was

in

love with her, he initially didn't marry her because of considerations of

duty. It seems to me a clear case of duty being considered prior to the

marriage.

[Guest guest]

On 07 Jan 1999, Krishna Kirti wrote:

 

>> What do you mean by "DUTY* anyway? Define your terms. (Srila)

 

>C'mon Prabhu, if you need THAT defined, we really can't discuss this

issue anymore.

 

In order to discuss ANYTHING demands we speak a common language. Without

clarifying our terms, we're just talking around one another. A vague

definition of *duty* is therefore precisely what lies at the heart of

our misunderstandings, however we perceive it.

 

I thus take your unwillingness to define terms as an avoidance of YOUR

DUTY to be a responsible discussant in this conversation. So much for

your sense of DUTY...

 

Such an attitude suggests your understanding is one-dimensional at best.

Furthermore, we lose credibility when we take the position of owning a

corner on the truth to the exclusion of anyone else.

 

I think the members of this conference all appreciate your good fortune

to have landed upon such an extraordinary marital arranagement. We wish

you well. But as Madhusudani Didi has rightly pointed out, yours is not

the kind of relationship to hold out as the example for everyone else.

It is precisely these sort of unexamined practices and naivete that has

contributed to the deplorable condition of the grhastha asram in ISKCON,

including the phenomena of wife and child abuse, women in general, etc.

 

Define your terms, please, and be a gentleman.

 

Srila dasa