Remarriage

[Guest guest]

>

>>A woman who remarries has no incentive to preserve her former

>>husband's DNA.

 

That is a very clinical, almost robot-like assessment. Did whoever write

that have any children? A mother doesn't look at taking care of her

children as "preserving her husband's DNA". How impersonal. Your children

are human beings whom you have taken care of since their very first,

completely helpless days and you love them because they are their own

persons. If you're a devotee, you hopefully also love and care for them

because they are parts and parcel of Krsna and because you want to raise

them to be Krsna bhaktas and bhaktins.

 

The whole discussion about removing the opportunity for some other young

woman to procreate seems odd too. Certainly in the west that is not a

common scenario. Single women marry single men, single women marry

divorced men, divorced women marry single men, divorced women marry

divorced men etc etc. and in all those situations people seem to procreate

quite liberally.

 

In India it should be even easier for the single women - as there are more

men than women around (due to selective abortions of female fetuses, female

infanticide etc.). So from a purely biological standpoint (giving everyone

the chance to pass on their DNA), the women would need to have children

with multiple men.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

In text 1949318 Vijaya Venugopala dasa wrote:

 

>> I suspect that a geneticist would agree with the following assessment:

>> A woman who remarries has no incentive to preserve her former

>> husband's DNA.

 

> You mean the business of step-fathers, step-mothers and so on? Hey, why

do

> you need a geneticist to teach these common sense things? We know how

> Dhruva Maharaja was treated by his father once he got a new, young wife!

 

It is true that often the transmission of one's own genes is all that

matters (and in the case of a female the preservation of her current mate's

genes). I recently saw a documentary in which a male lion that had just

become the new head of a family kills all the cubs without the objection of

the females. The lion then went off to have offspring with all the females.

It is also true that this behaviour manifests in human beings in different

degrees. There are instances of step-parents killing their step-children,

or abusing them, or molesting them, or being indifferent to them. But I

think that all this is related to a lower, animal, nature.

 

In normal human beings what is mainly transmitted are values, not genes

(otherwise giving birth would suffice without having to bother raising the

kids--sometimes for up to thirty years). I don't know what happens

elsewhere but around here parents, and also step-parents, are mostly

concerned with transmitting education, traditions, human feelings,

religious principles and an appreciation of life. In other words they want

their offspring to have better opportunities in life than what they

themselves had. The gene-thing is not an issue.

 

I am sure that sometimes step-parents (and even natural parents) have to

struggle with feelings of jealousy or indifference but the standard seems

to be other. Just for the record, a friend of mine, a successful architect,

got married to a woman that had three kids already. He found in her

qualities that overweight the "burden" of the three kids. As a matter of

fact he is very happy with the arrangement and even jokes that he found a

"ready to go" family.

 

The main point here is to avoid incurring in a misplaced sense of "vedic"

puritanism. Realities like step-parenting can be presented to abuse or

discredit others, and also to perpetuate a "sacred that thou" mentality. I

find that a family with its own kids is ideal, but this in no way precludes

the validity or even the superiority--on a case by case basis--of other

arrangements like step-parenting. Often we see devotee families with the

"original" father and mother that are a complete mess (financially,

psycologically, educationally, emotionally or professionally) but who try

to justify their situation with some "spiritual" argument. Come on!

 

Vijaya Venugopala dasa relates the case of Dhruva Maharaja. I prefer the

case of Sri Krsna Himself who lived "happily" in a "Krsna-conscious"

environment in spite of having not one, but two step-parents. If this

example seems "too elevated" then let me refer to the case of countless

people, karmis, who act like step, foster and adoptive parents assisting

those in need with their time and money. If the "gene" principle was the

only thing at work such humanitarian attitude wouldn't manifest. So they

may have a thing or two to teach us all in this regard.

 

Your servant

Radha Krsna dasa

Mexico City

[Guest guest]

On 19 Dec 1998, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> >>A woman who remarries has no incentive to preserve her former

> >>husband's DNA.

 

> That is a very clinical, almost robot-like assessment.

 

Sometimes, that's not inappropriate.

 

> Did whoever write that have any children?

 

I wrote it. [You responded to Vijaya Venugopala prabhu, who quoted

it from my message.] No, I don't have any children.

 

> A mother doesn't look at taking care of her

> children as "preserving her husband's DNA". How impersonal.

 

Thanks for the accusation. If you had read the rest of my message,

you would see that I did speak of altruism, minute independence,

etc.

 

> In India it should be even easier for the single women - as there are more

> men than women around (due to selective abortions of female fetuses, female

> infanticide etc.).

 

In caste-conscious and communal India, the above is only true if

a woman happens to belong to a community where excessive dowry

has made abortion or infanticide a reality. There are many

dowry-free, low-dowry, or other communities in India where these

things are still not seen.

 

> So from a purely biological standpoint (giving everyone

> the chance to pass on their DNA), the women would need to have children

> with multiple men.

 

That's not a "purely biological standpoint" -- that's just artificial

egalitarianism. A purely biological standpoint says

"survival of the fittest" (or, as shaastra puts it, "phalguNi

tatra mahataam jiivo jiivasya jiivanam"). Only the fittest (by

whatever appropriate metric) get to pass on their DNA; the rest

don't get that chance.

 

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

On 20 Dec 1998, Radha-Krishna das wrote:

> Vijaya Venugopala dasa relates the case of Dhruva Maharaja. I prefer the

> case of Sri Krsna Himself who lived "happily" in a "Krsna-conscious"

> environment in spite of having not one, but two step-parents.

 

Haribol. The proper modern term for Mother Yashoda and Nanda

Maharaaja is foster parents or adoptive parents, not step-parents.

The two types of situations could not be more different. Additionally,

Yashoda and Nanda had an additional advantage -- they fully believed

that Krishna was their child. Again, that's totally different from

the step-parent situations that arise in this day and age. I'm not

trying to condemn remarried people or step-parents; I'm only saying

that the situations aren't comparable.

 

> If this

> example seems "too elevated" then let me refer to the case of countless

> people, karmis, who act like step, foster and adoptive parents assisting

> those in need with their time and money. If the "gene" principle was the

> only thing at work such humanitarian attitude wouldn't manifest. So they

> may have a thing or two to teach us all in this regard.

 

Yes, there's altruism everywhere, even among animals. However, it's

invariably the exception, not the rule.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

[Guest guest]

In text 1954489 Vijaya Pai wrote:

 

> Haribol. The proper modern term for Mother Yashoda and Nanda

> Maharaaja is foster parents or adoptive parents, not step-parents.

> The two types of situations could not be more different. Additionally,

> Yashoda and Nanda had an additional advantage -- they fully believed

> that Krishna was their child. Again, that's totally different from

> the step-parent situations that arise in this day and age. I'm not

> trying to condemn remarried people or step-parents; I'm only saying

> that the situations aren't comparable.

 

Based on the original posting ("A woman who remarries has no incentive to

preserve her former husband's DNA") I would like to restate my basic point:

That human beings are more into transmitting values instead of DNA. Of

course the DNA thing is there as a starting point but there is much more

than that in civilized parenting. So, step, foster or adoptive parents can

be all examples of commited parenting in which DNA is not involved.

 

The argument that a remarried woman has no incentive to preserve her former

husband's DNA is flawed also because experience has shown that a single

mother, as a norm, looks for relationships that give security to her and

her kid(s), not relationships at the expense of the kids. A mother thinks

of the kids as "hers" not as a bag with someone else's DNA.

 

My concern is seeing that those who have taken the role of step-parents

within the movement are not discriminated against due to some misunderstood

puritanism as we have seen recently with the GHQ. I know devotees who are

step-parents and are doing a very good job.

 

> Yes, there's altruism everywhere, even among animals. However, it's

> invariably the exception, not the rule.

 

If you say that altruism is everywhere, even among animals, then it is the

rule not the exception. But lets forget about animals with their limited

conciousness. I don't have figures here but I know that the U.S. is

considered an altruistic nation. If you take into consideration all the

different types of altruism that people participate in during their lives I

could safely say that altruism is the general norm. But again the point

here is that altruism and humanitarism are triggered by values not DNA.

 

YS RK Mex

[Guest guest]

>

>

> That's not a "purely biological standpoint" -- that's just artificial

> egalitarianism. A purely biological standpoint says

> "survival of the fittest" (or, as shaastra puts it, "phalguNi

> tatra mahataam jiivo jiivasya jiivanam"). Only the fittest (by

> whatever appropriate metric) get to pass on their DNA; the rest

> don't get that chance.

>

 

In an age when men have no sense of duty and leave women with children without

means of support, the fittest women may be those who remarry in order to

secure economic stability for their children. It is either that or take

roles

traditionally thought of as male, i.e. being the breadwinner, so that their

children may survive.

 

Of course, divorce is to be avoided, and remarriage is perhaps not ideal,

but

we have to face reality as it is, not as we wish it to be. Anyone advocating

that children should perish in order that some Dwarpara Yuga standard of

excellence can be mindlessly adhered to in Kali Yuga, really need to examine

whether their idealism is misguided.

 

Of course, within my own experience, I am observing the recent remarriage of

a

man and woman, both with children from previous marriages. The man abandoned

his own children after his wife kicked him out for being a chronic alcoholic.

The woman has 2 children. Although she gets food stamps, just the other

night

her daughter was at my door begging for food, as the couple is so self

absorbed

in their own sense gratification that they can't feed the children. In this

case

remarriage was ill advised.

 

On the other extreme, I can see the example of where a women left her

"devotee"

husband who was making his money dealing drugs, and wanting to live in a

vehicle with his wife and 3 children, all of whom he beat. She remarried and

has been in a stable , productive realtionship for almost 15 years, doing

lots

of temple service.

 

As Ajamila said, you do need to look at individual cases.

[Guest guest]

> > "........... And if the mother, either she becomes prostitute or marries

> > for the second time in the presence of elderly children, she is enemy.

> > Rna-karta pita satrur mata satrur vyabhicarini.

>

> Madhava Gosh prabhu has already observed that this refers only to women

> who marry when they have grown children. Additionally, if we aim for

> consistency, we should note the first part of the quote (not translated

> above): "R^iNa-karta pita shatrur" -- a father who takes a loan is an

> enemy. Clearly this is not to be taken as an absolute, since even the

> prapitamaha took a loan from Kuvera to

> finance His wedding to Padmaavati. Additionally, who could afford a home

> in this day and age without a mortgage? Nevertheless, it's a good point

> in general to remind us about the ills of debt (think about that the next

> time you're tempted to let a credit card bill slip.).

>

 

 

I share this understanding. These codes from Canakya Pandita

(or whomever for that matter) are of the relative truth. It

is not true that anybody who speaks nicely to me is my enemy

in reality, and that every wife who happens be beautiful

is actually the enemy of her husband. What about beautiful

wife who always speaks pleasingly and nicely to her husband!?

I guess, that's accepted from the vedic point of view.

 

I take these codes as simply a kind of wornings, "Be careful,

this is the material world, don't get too relaxed with it."

 

 

Re. re-married mother with children, that she becomes an

enemy to her children, is also something relative and

individual. Sometimes yes, sometimes not. Like in the case

of any other relationship in this world that we may have

(father, mother, children, brothers, sisters, gurus, disciples,

friends, teachers,...). But it is the disturbing when these

"codes" are taken by some "adorents" to be of the absolute

meaning, and thus applied as such (on others and for others,

it is the usual patern of course).

 

Especially in this time and circumstances. What is that more

"vedic" solution there for single mothers with kids? To

go on job working from morning to evening to earn the money,

and leave children home to take care of themselves (or to

drop them in some kindergarten)? And when she's home after

job, she is finished enough to be able to give some proper

attention to the children.

 

The expectation from the husband-less women with children

to not remarry in the circumstances when strong families

conditions were intact, was one thing. To force the same

on a single mother with children in nowadays situation

(no big family nor a godly varnasrama society there to

shelter her and her children) would be simply an awful thing

from someone who got no much sense of responsibility and real

life situations.

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

In text 1960714 Vijaya Pai wrote:

 

>> If you say that altruism is everywhere, even among animals, then it is

the

>> rule not the exception.

 

> I don't see why you say that; there's left-handedness everywhere,

> but it's still the exception. Most people are right-handed, and

> most people act for their own good almost all of the time.

 

I am left-handed and happen to know some "lefty" trivia. One in ten persons

is left-handed, and one in five of the overachievers of this world is

left-handed. Clinton is a lefty (and an overachiever of sorts), so is

George Bush and the previous president of Mexico. We can then say that

lefties are not an exception but part of the rule of over-achievers--that

20% are lefties. Left-handed people don't consider ourselves an exception

(any lefty out there to back me up?) but simply normal people who use their

left hand more often. [ex.cep.tion, 1. an excepting or being excepted;

ommision; exclusion. 2. a person or thing omitted or excluded; case to w

hich a rule, general principle, etc. does not apply... --Webster.]

 

I think that altruistic behaviour is the rule for the simple reason that

people live in society and what is good for society is good for everyone.

The most developed countries are also the most altruistic ones (not as a

consequence but as a cause--because charity begins at home). So I find that

even if there isn't any specific DNA at stake (other that humankind's own)

people are ready to share their wealth, time, love and skills for the

benefit of others (and sometimes even for the benefit of dolphins, panda

bears and white coyotes). This brings me back to the original point, that

in step-parenting you can find plenty of values and that it should not be

considered an exception to be discriminated against, as what GHQers

recently tried to do with women in general.

 

Lets say that the GHQ decides to go after "lefties" once they finish their

Women agenda. They will start a new secret conference and their main point

will be that left-handedness is demoniac and will have some quotes to

support it. An ambidexter member later decides to leak the information to

VNN and an open discussion develops. Symphatetic quotes will state that in

Kali-yuga the devotee and the demon live in the same body and so being

Krsna-conciouss is the important issue. Some will approve that one can even

be a leader in ISKCON in spite of being left-handed. GHQers will stick to

their point that left-handedness is not Vedic (and an exception) and that

lefties should be kept under close watch and away from leadership

positions. Well, left-handedness may not be very Vedic (whatever it may

mean) but it is real life and it can also be Krsna-conciouss. The same

applies to women in leadership positions and to good step-parenting,

without any need for discrimination.

 

YS RK Mex

[Guest guest]

On 28 Dec 1998, Radha-Krishna das wrote:

> In text 1960714 Vijaya Pai wrote:

> > I don't see why you say that; there's left-handedness everywhere,

> > but it's still the exception. Most people are right-handed, and

> > most people act for their own good almost all of the time.

 

> I am left-handed and happen to know some "lefty" trivia. One in ten persons

> is left-handed, and one in five of the overachievers of this world is

> left-handed. Clinton is a lefty (and an overachiever of sorts), so is

> George Bush and the previous president of Mexico.

 

So is Ross Perot; as a result, the '92 US election was between

3 lefties. However, I guess we weren't really talking about

southpaws, so we'll leave that part aside.

 

> I think that altruistic behaviour is the rule for the simple reason that

> people live in society and what is good for society is good for everyone.

> The most developed countries are also the most altruistic ones (not as a

> consequence but as a cause--because charity begins at home).

 

Yet those same countries also suffer from insider trading,

corporate welfare, environmental apathy, offshore hedge funds, etc.

Henry Ford started one of the largest charitable foundations in the

world, but he also did a lot of business with the Nazis. Bill Gates

just gave $100 million for immunization, but his money comes from

exploiting the masses through a monopoly (additionally, that gift

was only equal to 2 days worth of his stock appreciation). The

amount of philantrhopy in this world may be great, but it is

exceeded tremendously by the amount of misanthropy. As a result,

it's somewhat hard to consider altruism anything more than an

exception.

 

> Lets say that the GHQ decides to go after "lefties" once they finish their

> Women agenda.

 

Hey, I think that lefties are pretty strange too -- they write (and

sometimes eat) with the dirty hand! However, slippery slope arguments

are rarely convincing, so we can only expect for now that the lefties

will be left in peace.

 

YS VP Tex

[Guest guest]

In text 1971105 Vijaya Pai wrote:

 

> So is Ross Perot; as a result, the '92 US election was between

> 3 lefties. However, I guess we weren't really talking about

> southpaws, so we'll leave that part aside.

 

Maybe you forgot that you are the one who brought up that subject originally,

not me.

 

> Yet those same countries also suffer from insider trading,

> corporate welfare, environmental apathy, offshore hedge funds, etc.

 

Still many people from India, Mexico, etc., emigrate to those nasty countries

to get an education and better opportunities in life. Come on.

 

Let's spare the conference unresolved arguments each time more distanced from

the original point--Remarriage in ISKCON's varnasrama.

 

YS RK Mex