Guest guest Posted February 23, 1999 Report Share Posted February 23, 1999 Hare Krishna. > >>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 2.71 > > If we see our wife as our possession, as our inferior, certainly it is not > transcendental. If we see our wife as a servant who is serving Krsna and our > service is to keep her protected, why can't that be transcendental? > > This whole thing of celibacy is transcendental and married life isn't is a very > material concept of transcendence. Transcendence is not limited by material > circumstance. Exellent quote, Madhava Gosh Prabhu. But the path of transcendence is a gradual process, so until the full surrender to Krishna the relations between husband and wife are based more or less on material compatibility and affection. We have good, er I mean bad statistics of marriages in ISKCON, which were based on 'transcendental' compatibility. Most of them resulted in divorces. How can someone, who knows that he is not trascendental, claim to be transcendental. Is'nt it a kind of duplicity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 1999 Report Share Posted February 23, 1999 WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) wrote: > [Text 2116022 from COM] > > On 22 Feb 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > > > we can't deny there is affection to other > > > person we are married for, even on the bodily platform. So when > > > it's > > > there what to do ? We can't say that's transcendental. > > > > > Why not? > > > Ghosh, you must have a little smirk on your face saying this, don't you? To become desireless means not to desire anything for sense gratification. In other words, desire for becoming Krsna conscious is actually desirelessness. To understand one's actual position as the eternal servitor of Krsna, without falsely claiming this material body to be oneself and without falsely claiming proprietorship over anything in the world, is the perfect stage of Krsna consciousness. One who is situated in this perfect stage knows that because Krsna is the proprietor of everything, everything must be used for the satisfaction of Krsna. Arjuna did not want to fight for his own sense satisfaction, but when he became fully Krsna conscious he fought because Krsna wanted him to fight. For himself there was no desire to fight, but for Krsna the same Arjuna fought to his best ability. Real desirelessness is desire for the satisfaction of Krsna, not an artificial attempt to abolish desires. The living entity cannot be desireless or senseless, but he does have to change the quality of the desires. A materially desireless person certainly knows that everything belongs to Krsna (isavasyam idam sarvam [iso mantra 1]), and therefore he does not falsely claim proprietorship over anything. This transcendental knowledge is based on self-realization -- namely, knowing perfectly well that every living entity is an eternal part and parcel of Krsna in spiritual identity, and that the eternal position of the living entity is therefore never on the level of Krsna or greater than Him. This understanding of Krsna consciousness is the basic principle of real peace. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 2.71 If we see our wife as our possession, as our inferior, certainly it is not transcendental. If we see our wife as a servant who is serving Krsna and our service is to keep her protected, why can't that be transcendental? This whole thing of celibacy is transcendental and married life isn't is a very material concept of transcendence. Transcendence is not limited by material circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 1999 Report Share Posted February 24, 1999 > > > Exellent quote, Madhava Gosh Prabhu. But the path of transcendence > is a gradual process, so until the full surrender to Krishna the > relations > between husband and wife are based more or less on material > compatibility and affection. We have good, er I mean bad statistics > of marriages in ISKCON, which were based on 'transcendental' > compatibility. Most of them resulted in divorces. Again, transcendence is something other than material. If someone thought "transcendental" compatability meant you could disregard material compatibility, then I say they had a misconception of what transcendental was. A husband /wife relationship may or may not be transcendental. The point I have been driving at is that it is not automatically to be considered that it is not transcendental. The guru / disciple relationship can be a transcendental relationship, but we have so much bad statistics that it can be just as material as the relationship between a husband and a wife. Neither relationship is automatically transcendental, nor is it automatically not transcendental. > How can someone, who knows that he is not trascendental, claim > to be transcendental. Is'nt it a kind of duplicity? TRANSLATION This person is puffed up because of his achievements, thinking, "I am the best." He does not deserve to approach the shelter of Lord Visnu's lotus feet, which are worshiped by all saintly persons, for he is impudent, thinking himself greatly important. PURPORT If a devotee thinks that he is very much advanced in devotional service, he is considered puffed up and unfit to sit beneath the shelter of the Lord's lotus feet. Again, this instruction by Lord Caitanya is applicable: >>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 6.17.14 If one thinks that he has become very advanced in devotion, then that is very dangerous. Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, guru more murkha dekhi' karila sasana: [Cc. Adi 7.71] "My spiritual master saw Me a great fool. Therefore he has chastised Me, that ‘Don't try to read the Vedanta. Chant Hare Krsna.' " He presented Himself like that. Is Caitanya Mahaprabhu murkha? But that is the conception, advanced devotee. They never think that they are very highly advanced devotees. What is advanced devotee? What devotion we can offer to Krsna? He's unlimited. He's kindly accepting our little service. That's all. Don't be proud of becoming a great devotee. That is the cause of falldown. >>> Ref. VedaBase => The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 11, 1972 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 1999 Report Share Posted February 24, 1999 On 23 Feb 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > A husband > /wife > relationship may or may not be transcendental. The point I have been driving > at is > that it is not automatically to be considered that it is not transcendental. I am sorry if I misunderstood anything previously stated. The foregoing I agree with. I very much look up to transcendental marriage relationships of which there are definitely many, i.e., Brahma-Sarasvati, Shambhu-Parvati, Laxsmi-Narayana, Vyasa-?, Prahlada-wife, Pandavas-Draupadi, etc., etc. I do not know if there are any on this planet right now but it doesn't mean they are not bhaktas either. On the other hand I don't see any use for any pretentious, envious, duplicit, arrogant, "celibate" or sannyasi (male or female). They are farther away from transcendental life and are just a botheration to material life. Banish them to outer space or something would ya?! 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.