Marriage without children - comment from an observer...

[Guest guest]

Special thanks to another anonymous observer. I would like to offer the

following comments to his/her views.

 

> 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.

 

It is the duty of a king to produce a son to inherit the kingdom and uphold

dharma for the citizens. Such examples do not fit the situation of the

common devotee. The fact that many, many people in Vedic culture had

children does not establish that no one in the history of Vedic culture did

not have children in married life.

 

Going by logic, if we can find a single example of a rishi or devotee who

was married and did not have children, this would defeat your thesis that

married life MUST include having children. If you are willing to be honest

and accept defeat if such an evidence is presented, then I will begin

listing devotees and rishis who were grihastas but who had no children. But

first answer whether you will be honest and accept that your stance is wrong

if such a case is produced.

 

Unfortunately the usual answer is, "they were great liberated souls, so they

are exceptions." If such a speculative answer is offered then there is no

point in providing evidence. On what basis does one decide whom one can and

cannot follow. According to you we should follow people like Pandu, but not

other saintly people? Whether Pandu is actually the great example for

devotees to follow is highly debatable.

 

> 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?

 

First you claim there is no instance, then you "guess" that maybe Jayadeva

Gosvami fits the category. Then you guess again that maybe he is on an

advanced level of bhakti and therefore his case doesn't count. What system

of logic is this? This is just a speculative game. I can give 1001 people

who didn't have children and you can just keep replying that you "guess"

that they don't count because we aren't on their level. But Pandu's case

counts for us? Why? Are we on his level? Since there is no system of logic

being followed it becomes pointless to discuss in such a manner. Everything

is based on one's whims of what they want to choose and what they don't want

to accept. You base your whims on your Indian upbringing which you think is

"Vedic". I base my stance on Srila Prabhupada's direct instruction to

Satsvarupa maharaja.

 

You should understand that your position is impossible to defend because it

is fanatic and absolute. You suggest that every single married person MUST

have a child, otherwise they are violating some undefined "Vedic culture"

which you suggest is more or less your upbringing. To counter such a claim,

one need to only show a single saintly person in the Vedic history that did

not have a child yet was married.

 

Srila Prabhupada's statement (see full quotation at bottom) on the other

hand is that married life does not mean that one "must" have sex or try to

produce children. In other words the majority of people may produce

children, but if one or two people decide to observe some extra austerity

then they are in no way violating "Vedic culture", nor are they sinful, nor

are they inauspicious as your hindu grandmother would suggest.

 

> 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.

 

Another case of a completely irrelevant quotation. Srila Prabhupada told a

disciple >>who had a child<< that her duty was to fully take care of her

child and treat him as her shalagrama. Yes, anyone who has a child must make

it their prime responsibility to properly raise that child in Krishna

consciousness. This says nothing about whether or not every single person in

married life must make it their prime goal to conceive a child. When

refering a pramana it should be precisely relevant. The fact that both

sentences have the word "child" does not mean they are in any way related.

 

> 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.

 

According to karma-kanda shastras, a person who is barren (unable to

conceive a child) was a very sinful person.

 

Simple question:

 

If you saw a devotee who was barren (i.e. unable to conceive a child) would

you consider that person as: 1) very inauspicious, 2) very sinful, or 3) the

only auspiciousness in this inauspicious material world.

 

Your Hindu grandmother would choose 1 and 2, but one who is educated in

shastra (as all those who have received diksha should be) would understand

correctly that such a saintly devotee was the only auspiciousness in this

material world. Anyone who takes the name of the Lord on his lips is fit to

deliver others from inauspiciousness. By seeing such a manifestation of the

Lord's mercy, we all become freed from our past sinful reactions.

 

As to why that devotee is unable to conceive a child, that is a mystery only

the Lord Himself can know. The workings of the Lord and His devotees are

very mysterious. Only foolish people assume they understand the workings of

the Lord and his devotees and state a barren devotee to be a paapi.

 

> 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.

 

No one has denied that the majority of grihastas will conceive children,

thus you may list a million and one devotees who did have children but it

does not prove your point. The point is whether Grihasta devotees MUST have

children. To this Srila Prabhupada has replied very clearly in his letter to

Satsvarupa Maharaja, "No."

 

> Is it [marriage] simply for sex? Responsibility of children keeps the

> restriction of sex. Otherwise Human life is simply animal life.

 

If one is having children just to keep his sex life restricted, then he is

an animal and is not qualified to raise a child. I seriously hope no sincere

devotee holds such a foolish position. Conceiving a child is meant for no

purpose except its own. The purpose of conceiving a child is to conceive a

child. Devotees do not conceive children to keep their sex life restricted.

 

I have seriously never heard a more terrible statement. Children are not

by-products of our restricted sex-life. Sex-life is the by-product of our

raising children. We have sex because we want to raise a Krishna conscious

child. Not that we raise a Krishna conscious child because we want to have

sex and unfortunately the by-product is a child. I hope all can see the

difference between these two views.

 

That sex life which is performed for the prime-purpose of raising a Krishna

conscious child, and performed under the guidance of the spiritual master's

instructions is religious sex-life. All other sex-life, even if it is

restricted to once a month, is sinful.

 

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

> brahmacari.

 

According to who's expert opinion? Your own?

 

Do you seriously think life is so simple to analyse, that in one sentence

you can determine the purpose of marriage and the best Krishna conscious

future for all devotees universally?

 

Do you understand what could be some of the reasons why someone would get

married but not produce children? Have you thought it through?

 

Do you completely understand the duties of one in the brahmachari ashrama,

and whether the only duty is one's ability to remain celibate?

 

Do you believe that just because one can remain celibate, they should

therefore remain in the brahmacari ashrama?

 

Life is full of a multitude of duties which we must perform according to our

acquired nature. It is ignorance to ignore all of these aspects and just

proclaim that all celibates should remain in the brahmacari ashrama.

 

>The basis of family life is Sex life.

 

Such a view is very ignorant. You claim yourself to be a follower of Vedic

culture, you boldly declare your cultured upbringing in a South Indian

family following Vedic dharma, yet you don't understand that the basis of

family life is duty? You think the basis of family life is sex? This is

ignorance. Sex is only a byproduct of fulfilling your duty to your

forefathers.

 

It is sad how many devotees in discussion will proclaim how they are raised

in an indian family, or that they have been studying hindu samskriti for X

number of years, but they are ignorant about the most basic things and think

married life is simply about sex.

 

Such proclamations about oneself are really not necessary in logical

discussion or debate as we can judge your words on their own strength, not

on the strength of your self-recommendation. I'm sure everyone here has many

wonderful qualifications, but it is not necessary to list them before making

each point. Whether one is born a brahmana or chandala, if their words are

in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings then they are in line with the

Vedic teachings.

 

>Sex life without children is animalistic propensity.

>No sex; No children means no need for Grahasta Ashram.

 

Someone who does not understand the import of the ashramas (beyond the

obvious distinction of sex/no sex) really has little valuable knowledge to

offer. More so when such opinions are offered anonymously, established

solely based on Hindu popular belief of the modern times. Don't forget that

it is also the great hindu tradition and belief that all Gods are one and

equal, a point that is about as far as one can be from our Acharya's or the

Vedic conclusion. Thus claims of something being right because it is part of

Hindu custom is irrelevant.

 

To conclude the anonymous friend offers us a mindless sound bite meant to

replace rational thinking:

 

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

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

 

Particularly what Vedic injunction have you cited "as it is"? The only

evidence you have provided to your view is that you are brought up in a

traditional Hindu family. Add to this the fact that your view is in sharp

contrast to Srila Prabhupada's own injunction:

 

"If the husband and wife can voluntarily restrain by powerful advancement

of Krishna Consciousness. That is the best method. It is not necessary

that because one has got wife, therefore you must have sex life. The whole

scheme is to avoid sex life as far as possible. And if one can avoid it

completely then it is a great victory for him." - Letter, Srila Prabhupada

to Satsvarupa

 

Dear anonymous observer, can you please go through the above instruction by

Srila Prabhupada systematically and logically and compare it to what you

wrote. Do you believe that Srila Prabhupada violated the unamed "Vedic

injunction as it is" that you alluded to in your email? The above letter was

written to a husband and wife who had no children. We may either accept that

Srila Prabhupada has deceived them for some reason, or we can accept that

Srila Prabhupada was speaking a factual truth (though perhaps not many

people would be able to apply and follow it). The fact that Srila Prabhupada

wanted his letters to be xeroxed and sent to all the ISKCON centers in the

world for guiding all of the devotees suggests that Srila Prabhupada always

spoke truth in his letters.