Guest guest Posted December 11, 1998 Report Share Posted December 11, 1998 > > Please offer my obeisances to your wife. She is obviously a rare soul. No > wonder you became attracted to her. Thank you. I just came across the pages where Arjuna's getting married to Lady Saubadhra has been described. Ghee..! He seems not to be getting married to her for the reason of performing the religios codes! Nor Krsna seems to be condemning him as an anymal for it. Arjuna got another "set" of motivations... Boy, I am not really alone in this world for hving "sinister" reasons for getting married to my "Lady Saubadhra". Feels a bit relaxing, at least. ys mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 1998 Report Share Posted December 11, 1998 >[Text 1909167 from COM] > >> But the major problem >> arises when there is no compatibility at all. > >How do you define compatability? Considering that both the husband and wife >are devotees, there is a lot they have in common to begin with. And their >purpose is also common, to serve Krishna. If they are incompatible, it >means their incompatibilities are due to an unwillingness to serve Krishna. > >If someone is unwilling to serve Krishna, is that the fault of sannyasis? > >ys KKdas This is the obvious hypocrisy of the vomitrocious feminist doctrine: when it comes to doing service, they are transcendental spirit souls, but when it comes to marrriage and fulfilling their duty as a mother and wife, they need compatibility charts. Maybe they should call another Inernational Women's PowWow to figure it out. Ys. JMd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 1998 Report Share Posted December 11, 1998 > >[Text 1909167 from COM] > > > >> But the major problem > >> arises when there is no compatibility at all. > > > >How do you define compatability? Considering that both the husband and > >wife are devotees, there is a lot they have in common to begin with. And > >their purpose is also common, to serve Krishna. If they are > >incompatible, it means their incompatibilities are due to an > >unwillingness to serve Krishna. > > > >If someone is unwilling to serve Krishna, is that the fault of sannyasis? > > > >ys KKdas > > This is the obvious hypocrisy of the vomitrocious feminist doctrine: when > it comes to doing service, they are transcendental spirit souls, but when > it comes to marrriage and fulfilling their duty as a mother and wife, they > need compatibility charts. Maybe they should call another Inernational > Women's PowWow to figure it out. > > Ys. JMd If you refer your comment particularly to me, let me explain something, though I have no hope anything can get through your immunization against opinion of others. I was doing astrology quite successfuly for many years until I joined ISKCON and my Guru Maharaja recommended me to stop it. So I have some insight what astrology is about and how can be utilized, and my realization that it is not the main factor deciding about my material nor spiritual life. I married my husband without any compatibility chart simply because we found it unnecessary, and we had our yajna vivaha done according to the Vedic injunctions. I am a happy mother of 15 month old son that was conceived with more than 50 rounds and got all necessary samskaras until now. My husband is studying so all the responsibility for raising our child and taking care of the entire household lies on my sholders and, I have to admit, it is not always easy. However, I am trying to conduct my duties as a mother and wife to the best of my capacities. Above all I am not a feminist, though some of you may have the oposite impression because I like to ask questions during the lectures and open forums where I know I can get answers that can broaden my thinking horizons and help me to progress in my spiritual life. And as long as my husband does not object it, I do not really mind whether you address me hypocrit, feminist or prostitute. That's all for the explanation of the "obvious hypocrisy of the vomitrocious feminist doctrine." If you still feel sick, I wish you better day tomorrow. Your servant, Viraja dasi PS Is it your business to find stool even in places where there is no question of contamination? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 1998 Report Share Posted December 12, 1998 > > > This is the obvious hypocrisy of the vomitrocious feminist doctrine: when > it comes to doing service, they are transcendental spirit souls, but when > it comes to marrriage and fulfilling their duty as a mother and wife, they > need compatibility charts. Maybe they should call another Inernational > Women's PowWow to figure it out. > > Ys. JMd This is the obvious hypocrisy of the vomitrocious GHQ doctrine: when it comes to men doing service, they are transcendental spirit souls, but when it comes to women, it is all bodily concept. Maybe they should call another Inernational GHQ's PowWow to figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1998 Report Share Posted December 15, 1998 At 02:06 AM 12/15/98 +0000, you wrote: >[Text 1936274 from COM] > >> > The point is that partners who are incompatible can stay married if >> > their marriage is based on duty. >> >> I can agree only if the duties were conducted equally by both partners. > >If you can agree only if both partners conduct their duties equally, then >there is no room for exemplary ladies like Mandodari. > >Is this apologism for all the ad hoc marriages arranged between incompatable people? In Australia numerous marriages arranged without practically any consultation with either party have almost invariably failed to the great distress of many families. Devotees with negligible career or relationship skills were invariably faced with dealing in the economic realities of a mainstream society which they had foolishly rejected in their wide eyed fundamentalism. The reality of an incompatable marriage is so disheartening that the enthusiasm for devotional life is also negatively effected. Stoka Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 1999 Report Share Posted January 5, 1999 Re: compatibility, match, marriage... > > On 07 Dec 1998, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > > > So what are the necessary and sufficient ingredients for a > > > long marriage? Some devotees replied: > > Love and friendship? > And confidence, and respect? > Compromise by BOTH partners. > It obviously has to do with maturity, communication, and other intangibles such as mutual goals, philosophies, interests, etcetra. I am definately going to do in-depth interviews with my family to try and discern this great science. While I would agree that all of these suggestions are certainly valuable components to successfful marriages, I wish to point out that all of them refer to INDIVIDUAL or personality qualifications. This is, of course, our Western cultural tendency to attribute everything to individual traits, ignoring the social and ecological factors. What is therefore conspicuously missing in the above suggestions are the SOCIAL dimensions that contribute to successful marriages: such as *families* without histories of divorce, community resources, kinship networks, cultural mores, historical conditions, etc. > ...lived in societies (US and Sweden) where divorce was easy to obtain and not stigmatised. So what are the necessary and sufficient ingredients for a long marriage? While laws certainly can have a constraining effect on cultural practices, enduring traditions do not necessarily run parallel to the legal system. You can have divorce laws for many years "on the books" without people employing them in a popular fashion. For example, the American slaves were legally "freed" in 1865, but the reality was that not until 1965, ***100 years later*** could Afro-American practically enjoy anything close to the equal rights of citizenship. Similarly, divorce laws were extant for many years, but it was not until the 1960's that divorce became more socially acceptable, as well as a feasible option (for women especially) to take. Krishna Kirti insists that marriage is ALL about DUTY. Even admitting the importance of DUTY in a marriage -- and it is certainly important. It is not EVERYTHING. How important is duty? That depends. Even in Krsna's time, Vedic culture, there were *Gandharva* or *LOVE* marriages. That's pure rajas -- sweet, hot ***PASSION***. When there is a predominance of passion, goodness becomes eclipsed. That means little or no sense of DUTY. "Why did we marry? Because we LOVE each other." Who cares for your DUTY?! Duty means the end of love, according to many couples' conceptions. Admittedly, such marriages have about a 50/50 chance of making it in the long run. But just see what a little passion can do.... Without any passion, there's no attraction. Over time, this theoretical but otherwise impossible idea of DUTY thus smothers in ignorance. DUTY is not blind. Ultimately, some degree of goodness must develop for the marriage to last, but I think KKd has become **obsessed** (that's the influence of PASSION, BTW) with his particular conception of DUTY. Goodness means full in KNOWLEDGE and therefore performing one's activities as a matter of DUTY means understanding the why's of doing such and such and not in another way. If someone professes to be a teacher of DUTY, he had better know what he's talking, otherwise, how can he say anything? It is precisely KKd's narrow conception of DUTY that disturbs me and probably many others on the conference. It somehow seems oppressive. I have never met any such creature who acts out of such sterile DUTY as he proposes. Could he please define DUTY for us we can get a clearer idea of what he means? Respectfully, Srila dasa > Well, since Krsna-kirti used the example of his in-laws (who happened to be Indians), I'm sure many of us have similar examples from our own Western non-devotee families of origin to share too. My parents were married for 41 years until my father's death 3 years ago and my children's paternal grandparents have never divorced either > No divorces on my maternal side. On my paternal side , none of my grandfathers 6 children divorced, and of his 23 grandchildren, 21 got married and only one got a divorce, then remarried and is going on 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 1999 Report Share Posted January 7, 1999 >[Text 1993768 from COM] > >On 7 Dec 1998, Krishna Kirti wrote: >>Most marriages in India are still arranged. Even my own marriage was >>arranged within 24 hours. And my main criteria WAS that my wife be a >>devotee. Materially, we aren't compatible. But because we are both >devotees, our marriage works. >Arranging such a consequential thing as a marriage in the space of 24 hours >(what to speak of 60 mins) sounds like a pretty spur-of-the-moment, passionate >program to me, nothing short of Russian roulette. 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. It's certainly admirable that Krsna Kirti and Urmila Prabhus take their vows so serioucly even though they consider themselves incompatible materially speaking. However, 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 1999 Report Share Posted January 7, 1999 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 1999 Report Share Posted January 7, 1999 > > > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 1999 Report Share Posted January 7, 1999 COM: Krishna Kirti (das) HDG (Baltimore, MD - USA) wrote: > [Text 1994755 from COM] > > > > > What do you mean by "DUTY* anyway? Define your terms. > > C'mon Prabhu, if you need THAT defined, we really can't discuss this issue > anymore. Actually, I think it is important to define terms. If we aren't talking about the same thing when we use a term, then even though we may be in agreement in principle, we may never see that we are because we are talking about different things when we use the same word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 1999 Report Share Posted January 7, 1999 > My grandmother recently told me the > following: > > "I took me [marriage] vows only once, and that's all I'm going to take > them." (And she's still married.) Was her marriage arranged in 24 hours by church authorities? If you are going to use your grandmother as an authority(which is probably a good idea), then you should also take into consideration the circumstances proceeding her taking that vow. Duty is not blind. If we are committed to duty, then we should not be rash about how we apply it. Measure twice, cut once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 1999 Report Share Posted January 7, 1999 > My grandmother recently told me the > following: > > "I took me [marriage] vows only once, and that's all I'm going to take > them." (And she's still married.) Was her marriage arranged in 24 hours by church authorities? If you are going to use your grandmother as an authority(which is probably a good idea), then you should also take into consideration the circumstances proceeding her taking that vow. Duty is not blind. If we are committed to duty, then we should not be rash about how we apply it. Measure twice, cut once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 1999 Report Share Posted January 7, 1999 > > > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 1999 Report Share Posted January 10, 1999 Srila ji. I beg to differ. I don't see KK's arrogance on this point, I think he's speaking his realisations, humbly from his convictions. You don't need to jump on him so fast, all opinions are valuable. ys MMDASBR > One last point: I might also add that your condescending attitude > throughout this discussion indicates something less than speaking from the > platform of wisdom; pride and arrogance denotes *passion*. One who boasts > about his discharge of "duty" is NOT in the mode of *goodness*. > > Srila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 >> Arranging such a consequential thing as a marriage in the space of 24 hours(what to speak of 60 mins) sounds like a pretty spur-of-the-moment, passionate program to me, nothing short of Russian roulette. On 07 Jan 1999, Madhava Gosh replied: > I think that the compatibilty considerations often were much broader than the individuals narrow interests. The compatabilities of entire families was taken into consideration. Precisely. An Indian (viz, "Vedic") marriage is much more a family affair than simply two individuals taking personal vows. It is not just a matter of some *abstract* sense of DUTY but a *relational* obligation. When we speak of DUTY, we must first ask, "DUTY to *whom*?" DUTY (Webster's 3rd Intl): 1) "conduct due to parents or superiors; respectful or obedient behavior." [more definitions to follow]. Or to parapharse Canakya, "The root of DUTY lies in RESPECT to *elders*." "OBEDIENCE is based upon *respect*." Thus, if they are few or no respectful seniors, where is the question of DUTY? Welcome to America and the wild West, the culture where youth is worshiped and elders are neglected, where we talk of RIGHTS and cringe at any mention of DUTY. Is it any wonder why? If we want to establish VAD and generate some genuine sense of DUTY in society, then start there by addressing the problem at the root. It is extremely difficult to promote a sense of individual DUTY in a society devoid or lacking in respect for its elders. That is the sad fact. We are profoundly shaped by our social environments. This is the unfortunate reality we live in. Therefore, Prabhupada proposed as the solution a comprehensive program - VARNASRAMA-DHARMA(!). DHARMA means far more than "performing one's *individual* DUTY. DHARMA, coming from its root verb DHR means to "nourish" or "sustain." VAD provides the social environment that will facilitate and promote proper execution of one's individual DUTY. It is not an abstract, autonomous individualistic conception, "DUTY." DUTY to *WHOM*? It is *relational* and interdependent. Therefore, Prabhupada continually stressed the value of good association and exemplary role models. Every principle is always applied within a *context*, and a progressive society (such as VAD) provides that context. Srila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 >> Arranging such a consequential thing as a marriage in the space of 24 hours(what to speak of 60 mins) sounds like a pretty spur-of-the-moment, passionate program to me, nothing short of Russian roulette. On 07 Jan 1999, Madhava Gosh replied: > I think that the compatibilty considerations often were much broader than the individuals narrow interests. The compatabilities of entire families was taken into consideration. Precisely. An Indian (viz, "Vedic") marriage is much more a family affair than simply two individuals taking personal vows. It is not just a matter of some *abstract* sense of DUTY but a *relational* obligation. When we speak of DUTY, we must first ask, "DUTY to *whom*?" DUTY (Webster's 3rd Intl): 1) "conduct due to parents or superiors; respectful or obedient behavior." [more definitions to follow]. Or to parapharse Canakya, "The root of DUTY lies in RESPECT to *elders*." "OBEDIENCE is based upon *respect*." Thus, if they are few or no respectful seniors, where is the question of DUTY? Welcome to America and the wild West, the culture where youth is worshiped and elders are neglected, where we talk of RIGHTS and cringe at any mention of DUTY. Is it any wonder why? If we want to establish VAD and generate some genuine sense of DUTY in society, then start there by addressing the problem at the root. It is extremely difficult to promote a sense of individual DUTY in a society devoid or lacking in respect for its elders. That is the sad fact. We are profoundly shaped by our social environments. This is the unfortunate reality we live in. Therefore, Prabhupada proposed as the solution a comprehensive program - VARNASRAMA-DHARMA(!). DHARMA means far more than "performing one's *individual* DUTY. DHARMA, coming from its root verb DHR means to "nourish" or "sustain." VAD provides the social environment that will facilitate and promote proper execution of one's individual DUTY. It is not an abstract, autonomous individualistic conception, "DUTY." DUTY to *WHOM*? It is *relational* and interdependent. Therefore, Prabhupada continually stressed the value of good association and exemplary role models. Every principle is always applied within a *context*, and a progressive society (such as VAD) provides that context. Srila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 >> Arranging such a consequential thing as a marriage in the space of 24 hours(what to speak of 60 mins) sounds like a pretty spur-of-the-moment, passionate program to me, nothing short of Russian roulette. Bhaktavatsala commented: >Again, nice one prabhu. I like your thoughts, consistently. Keep it up. Dear Bhaktavatsala Prabhu, Thanks for your appreciative remarks. It's good to know that I am not alone in my thoughts. After all, *morality* (ie, the issues we're attempting to discuss) is a *socially reinforced* phenomenon. Consequently, a socially-accepted sensibility of what constitutes proper moral behavior validates our identity within a group. From such positive interactions and validated feelings arise the consciousness that we belong in a particular group and share a common understanding. Thus we can subordinate ourselves and sacrifice personal interests for the sake of the greater whole to which we identify. We feel obligated by some sense of *DUTY.* The ultimate WHOLE, of course, is Krsna, the Supreme Personality of the Absolute Truth. Madhusudani Didi wrote: > 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 preferable to try to arrange a compatible situation in a careful way, and *then* honor one's vows? I think we can find some moral consensus on this conference, after all. Hear, hear! Krsna manifests Himself through the association of devoteees. Such "association with like-minded souls" is also what Thakura Bhaktivinode recommended as the most congenial environment for our progresssive spiritual advancement. Practicing Krsna consciousness in good association is better than doing it alone; but better to do it alone than being in association that tends to make one unduly disturbed. But how can anyone remain isolated without becoming pathological or underdeveloped? We are social beings by nature. Therefore, best to choose our association wisely. But associate we must. If it is not *eka-patni-vrata* (one wife/husband for life), then it will be *serial monogamy* -- one spouse after another. My point is that this is not merely a matter of personal choice (KKd's idea of DUTY), but it is a *cultivation*, a culture. What kind of atmosphere are we providing for that (Vedic) culture to thrive in is the essential question we should collectively address. Otherwise, each one of us will do as we individually see fit to do. I submit that this is a crippled idea of morality at best. Morality is a social challenge as much as it is an individual mandate for change. Indeed, the social precedes and preponderates the individual. Prabhupada stated that 90% of our Krsna consciousness is derived from *association.* That's a pretty powerful (if not overwhelming) influence, if you ask me. DUTY is therefore primarily *relational*. Hare Krsna. Srila das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 >> Arranging such a consequential thing as a marriage in the space of 24 hours(what to speak of 60 mins) sounds like a pretty spur-of-the-moment, passionate program to me, nothing short of Russian roulette. Bhaktavatsala commented: >Again, nice one prabhu. I like your thoughts, consistently. Keep it up. Dear Bhaktavatsala Prabhu, Thanks for your appreciative remarks. It's good to know that I am not alone in my thoughts. After all, *morality* (ie, the issues we're attempting to discuss) is a *socially reinforced* phenomenon. Consequently, a socially-accepted sensibility of what constitutes proper moral behavior validates our identity within a group. From such positive interactions and validated feelings arise the consciousness that we belong in a particular group and share a common understanding. Thus we can subordinate ourselves and sacrifice personal interests for the sake of the greater whole to which we identify. We feel obligated by some sense of *DUTY.* The ultimate WHOLE, of course, is Krsna, the Supreme Personality of the Absolute Truth. Madhusudani Didi wrote: > 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 preferable to try to arrange a compatible situation in a careful way, and *then* honor one's vows? I think we can find some moral consensus on this conference, after all. Hear, hear! Krsna manifests Himself through the association of devoteees. Such "association with like-minded souls" is also what Thakura Bhaktivinode recommended as the most congenial environment for our progresssive spiritual advancement. Practicing Krsna consciousness in good association is better than doing it alone; but better to do it alone than being in association that tends to make one unduly disturbed. But how can anyone remain isolated without becoming pathological or underdeveloped? We are social beings by nature. Therefore, best to choose our association wisely. But associate we must. If it is not *eka-patni-vrata* (one wife/husband for life), then it will be *serial monogamy* -- one spouse after another. My point is that this is not merely a matter of personal choice (KKd's idea of DUTY), but it is a *cultivation*, a culture. What kind of atmosphere are we providing for that (Vedic) culture to thrive in is the essential question we should collectively address. Otherwise, each one of us will do as we individually see fit to do. I submit that this is a crippled idea of morality at best. Morality is a social challenge as much as it is an individual mandate for change. Indeed, the social precedes and preponderates the individual. Prabhupada stated that 90% of our Krsna consciousness is derived from *association.* That's a pretty powerful (if not overwhelming) influence, if you ask me. DUTY is therefore primarily *relational*. Hare Krsna. Srila das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.