Marriages of GODS

[sahana]

Hi My friend says it is common among gods to marry sister ..that is brother sister marriage is seen among gods - is this true ?

 

Can some one share your knowledge in this ? Is there any example in hinduism or in Hindu gods where a brother has married his sister? Is it possible ?

 

Please explain if it is true ... if this question is wrong please ignore

[ARJ]

 

Hi My friend says it is common among gods to marry sister ..that is brother sister marriage is seen among gods - is this true ?

 

With friends like this who needs enemies ?

 

it is common among gods to marry sister.

[paarsurrey]

Hi

 

It is not possible, in my opinion. Maybe it is only mythical or imaginary.

 

God is one- the Creator of heaven and earth. He needs not to marry. He needs no wife, no father, no mother, brother or sisters. I think it is illogical in real terms.

 

This is what I sincerely believe with rational and reasonable arguments; others could believe differently. There is no compulsion in religion whatsoever.

 

Have a good day and enjoy your time. May God bless you!

 

Thanks

[Gaea]

 

God is one- the Creator of heaven and earth.

 

 

Correct. I see that you may not be of Hindu/Hindu-like descent so it might make things clearer if there is some explanation about "gods". "Gods" as Hindus call them is actually a misnomer. The way I understand it, so-called "gods" or "demigods" perform the same function as Christian/Islamic "Angels". In this case the original poster is (probably) not referring to GOD as you are talking about, but the denizens of heaven (entities that have great power and have had a birth of some shape and form and have been created by the One True God)

[paarsurrey]

 

Correct. I see that you may not be of Hindu/Hindu-like descent so it might make things clearer if there is some explanation about "gods". "Gods" as Hindus call them is actually a misnomer. The way I understand it, so-called "gods" or "demigods" perform the same function as Christian/Islamic "Angels". In this case the original poster is (probably) not referring to GOD as you are talking about, but the denizens of heaven (entities that have great power and have had a birth of some shape and form and have been created by the One True God)

 

Hi

 

Thanks for your post.

 

You are right, I don't have any Hindu background, neither one necessarily has to.

 

I think only the physical life existing in couples has been endowed with giving birth to children- a sort of extension of life.

 

The Angels are also only Spiritual beings- not existing physically; they don't give birth to children and hence need no spouses, they exist as long as ONE-On High wills them to be. They need not get married hence. I think there must be some metaphoric sense which they have misunderstood and taken it as physical , and hence their dilemma.

 

In my opinion, it is being mythical and has no rational explanation. Kindly quote from the revealed scriptures for the claims and reasons in this connection.

 

Thanks

[ARJ]

 

denizens of heaven (entities that have great power and have had a birth of some shape and form and have been created by the One True God)

 

Probably Krishna is one of them, he married princess Rukhmini & so many women, he cannot be GOD, how can anyone in human avatar be GOD ? You are very much correct. Thank you.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Hi My friend says it is common among gods to marry sister ..that is brother sister marriage is seen among gods - is this true ?

 

Can some one share your knowledge in this ? Is there any example in hinduism or in Hindu gods where a brother has married his sister? Is it possible ?

 

Please explain if it is true ... if this question is wrong please ignore

 

Dear Sahana, you are talking about an Incest relationship. There is no example in Hinduism where such relationship is entertained coz we dont depend on a Adam and Eve story where the question arises what next? what next? Moreover there are examples where a wife has been abandoned for just desiring a Kinnara (Jamadagnis wife-Parashurams mother). This question is not wrong, for you want to know something coz extra marital relationships in Mahabharat may have confused you. None born to Pandu were called Pandavas and None born to Dhritarashtra were called Kauravas and Draupadi had 5 husbands.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Probably Krishna is one of them, he married princess Rukhmini & so many women, he cannot be GOD, how can anyone in human avatar be GOD ? You are very much correct. Thank you.

 

Why cant anyone in Human Avatar cannot be God? You are totally incorrect. If a period of time allowed polygamy and Krishna had many wifes, how can he be blamed for it and say that it was incorrect based on the current monogamy belief. The 'Bhagavad Gita' is itself enough to prove his stature of God. He never yearned for a position. He was a down-to-earth person. He was a chariotter to Arjuna inspite of his immense powers and knowledge. Krishna cannot be compared to any other Avatara. His life shows the perfect path to the future generation of Kaliyuga (the present we are living in). The balance he has maintained within the Grihastashram is unquestionable. A perfect Grihasta. When you remember Krishna, the first reverence that comes to your mind is the creator of the Bhagavad Gita and later the rest. He inspite of not being a Brahmana was having the knowledge more than any Brahmana possessed and he not only preached but preached what he practised. None can match a Krishna. He is a godly human with great qualities. All we can do is try to adhere atleast some of his great qualities in our daily life. Have you heard about the Grihastas Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, A Lahiri Mahashaya??

[thehat]

 

Probably Krishna is one of them, he married princess Rukhmini & so many women, he cannot be GOD, how can anyone in human avatar be GOD ? You are very much correct. Thank you.

 

Yeah I think you're right. But then Krishna married 16108 wives, gave them their own palaces and expanded Himself in to each of those palaces and lived with His wives simulatenously.. or at least something like that.

He must be a really powerful angel or human to do that?!

I can't think of any angels or humans with more wives than Him.

Hmm, I would think that only God could marry such a large number of women like that and expand Himself into each of the palaces of his different wives.

 

Also is Lord Indra the King of Heaven an angel too? He's married and has had children right?

Also Lord Shiva has a wife and child too?

 

Why can't God have wives or children again? Can't God do anything he wants? What kind of God can't get married or have children, that's silly. God should be able to do anything a typical person can do, and do it more perfectly. Whether God has use for wives or children noone can really say, but we can see in different scriptures accounts of Gods marrying and having children.

Even in the case of Lord Krishna who is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead through purview of Gaudiya Vaishnava lense (I refer to this school as this is the only one I'm aware of who worships Lord Krishna as supreme), there are accounts of Supreme God marrying and having children. Why can the Supreme God not do this?

Supreme God is supreme enjoyer?

[srikanthdk71]

 

Also is Lord Indra the King of Heaven an angel too? He's married and has had children right?

Why can't God have wives or children again? Can't God do anything he wants? What kind of God can't get married or have children, that's silly. God should be able to do anything a typical person can do, and do it more perfectly. Whether God has use for wives or children noone can really say, but we can see in different scriptures accounts of Gods marrying and having children.

Even in the case of Lord Krishna who is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead through purview of Gaudiya Vaishnava lense (I refer to this school as this is the only one I'm aware of who worships Lord Krishna as supreme), there are accounts of Supreme God marrying and having children. Why can the Supreme God not do this?

Supreme God is supreme enjoyer?

 

This infact is a Great Question. The answer is simple. When god was given a form, it was a male form. Purusha. Why leave females behind? So the female forms were given and tagged with their male counterparts. This is the main reason for confusion and reason for many Advaita,Dvaita,Visistadvaita beliefs to be born. It finds mention only in Puranas and the elaborated form of Vedas. Not in any Upanishads which is a refined form. Vishnu-Lakshmi, Brahma-Saraswati, Shiva-Parvati are the various energies of the same Brahman ie., the supreme conciousness. Supreme God is not a supreme enjoyer coz the formless is just a devine energy.

[thehat]

"Supreme God is not a supreme enjoyer coz the formless is just a devine energy."

 

If God has no form how does he hear your prayers without ears? Also, how does He see you without any eyes?

I don't accept God is formless or impersonal.

Even we can learn from Bhagavad-gita that the formless energy conception is confused as just the brahmajyoti effulgence of the Lord.

 

Why can God not be the supreme enjoyer? I assert that the Lord is free to enjoy, and is the Greatest enjoyer of all. Where we fail in trying to enjoy, he succeeds without fail.

 

Best wishes,

[srikanthdk71]

 

"Supreme God is not a supreme enjoyer coz the formless is just a devine energy."

 

If God has no form how does he hear your prayers without ears? Also, how does He see you without any eyes?

 

Even the corpse has a mouth, ear and eyes. Can it hear/see or say? So, there is an experiencer who experiences through the sense organs. That experiencer can experience even without the sense organs ie., can hear/see/say without the physical body. The physical realm is the lower form than the astral and the causal. The realm which regulates all these three states is that supreme conciousness. These realms are downward compatible. Hence you can perceive only those species which are inferior to you. In the same way the supreme conscious can perceive all the realms of reality.

 

 

I don't accept God is formless or impersonal.

Even we can learn from Bhagavad-gita that the formless energy conception is confused as just the brahmajyoti effulgence of the Lord.

 

Nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita you can learn this. Maybe it is confusing to you and the storybooks are more convincing.

 

 

Why can God not be the supreme enjoyer? I assert that the Lord is free to enjoy, and is the Greatest enjoyer of all. Where we fail in trying to enjoy, he succeeds without fail.

Best wishes,

 

Enjoyment is still undefined. Right now, it seems that sense gratification to eyes, nose etc may be your definition of enjoyment. The knowlegde of that Enjoyer/Experiencer in you is the true enjoyer and you can only satisfy that by proper spiritual knowledge. Happiness lies not outside you. But you feel it within you. Where is that you? Try and you will find out the core of all happiness.

[ARJ]

 

He never yearned for a position.

antavat tu phalam tesam

tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam

devan deva-yajo yanti

mad-bhakta yanti mam api

BG 7:23

 

He was a down-to-earth person.

Now would a down-to-earth person say only by worshipping Me a devotee can reach My supreme planet & not by worshipping demigods ? isn't this egoistic ?

 

What happens to people who don't believe in Krishna ? Is it Krishna doesn't love the non-beleivers (kafirs) ?

[Amlesh]

 

antavat tu phalam tesam

tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam

devan deva-yajo yanti

mad-bhakta yanti mam api

BG 7:23

 

Now would a down-to-earth person say only by worshipping Me a devotee can reach My supreme planet & not by worshipping demigods ? isn't this egoistic ?

 

What happens to people who don't believe in Krishna ? Is it Krishna doesn't love the non-beleivers (kafirs) ?

 

That's the thing that those Hare Krishna guys and you not seem to understand.

 

Buddy, if that you've not understood that then when will you decipher the complex matters he spoke.

 

To be true when I first came to this Forum I thought that I'll have a thorough discussion of the Gita. But unfortunately it is never the case. Discussions in Audarya have not still held a proper indepth exploration of that text so far.

 

Unsurprisingly, it's true. Why, unsurprisingly, because the Gita itself says so. And many of the monkeys in Iskcon do not even understand that the Gita is a Supreme Secret meant to be revealed only when decided by the Supreme. They have made that philosophy look like secular.

 

At the very end Krishna says to Arjuna: “Now I have taught you that wisdom which is the secret of secrets.

 

Arj beta go and read the Gita deeply each and every answer is there.

[thehat]

 

Even the corpse has a mouth, ear and eyes. Can it hear/see or say? So, there is an experiencer who experiences through the sense organs. That experiencer can experience even without the sense organs ie., can hear/see/say without the physical body. The physical realm is the lower form than the astral and the causal. The realm which regulates all these three states is that supreme conciousness. These realms are downward compatible. Hence you can perceive only those species which are inferior to you. In the same way the supreme conscious can perceive all the realms of reality.

 

You did not answer the question. If God has no lips how can he talk to you? If God has no eyes how can see you?

If God has no ears how can he hear you?

I accept the point your alluding to that the living entity or soul is the being that is enjoying via the sense organs. But still you must explain why God the supreme soul is without form?

Do you accept that the soul has a spiritual form consisting of legs arms etc?

 

You say the supreme consciousness is that which is in control of this physical realm. This is I accept and am not doubting. However you must explain why this supreme consciousness is without form.

 

Nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita you can learn this. Maybe it is confusing to you and the storybooks are more convincing.

 

BG 7.24: Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

A bit of the purport says as follows: Those who are worshipers of demigods have been described as less intelligent persons, and here the impersonalists are similarly described. Lord Krishna in His personal form is here speaking before Arjuna, and still, due to ignorance, impersonalists argue that the Supreme Lord ultimately has no form. Yamunacarya, a great devotee of the Lord in the disciplic succession of Ramanujacarya, has written two very appropriate verses in this connection.

I don't know which Bhagavad-Gita you read? Maybe it was you who read the story book?

There is no need to be rude with snarky comments I'm not trying to fight with you.

 

Enjoyment is still undefined. Right now, it seems that sense gratification to eyes, nose etc may be your definition of enjoyment. The knowlegde of that Enjoyer/Experiencer in you is the true enjoyer and you can only satisfy that by proper spiritual knowledge. Happiness lies not outside you. But you feel it within you. Where is that you? Try and you will find out the core of all happiness.

I'm not sure what you're getting at now. You've certainly strayed from the original theme.

But if you can only satisfy the true enjoyer or the soul with spiritual knowledge, how can you do so if it is originally without form? Wouldn't the soul require some sort of ear to hear?

And doesn't the soul treat the material body as a vehicle in one sense, at least in the material world until it is in its true original form? For example, it may be that the eye may not desire to see a naked lady the soul does. But doesn't the soul fulfil this desire to see a naked lady by utilizing the material eye?

Similarly in order to feed the soul spiritual knowledge in the material world, don't we engage our material senses in that very process of acquiring the knowledge in the first place?

I understand what you are describing. Yes we are spirit soul. But it is the nature of the spirit soul to want to enjoy isn't it?

My understanding is that we are originally spirit soul encased in this material body.

 

Now coming back to the original theme, if God doesn't enjoy - he must be pretty damn bored wherever He is. Sorry, wherever this God thing is.

Do you think this concept of enjoyment is totally lost on this God thing?

I think this God thing enjoys in his original personal form which is sac-cid-ananda.

Otherwise if this God thing has no form and is just some glowing effulgence what can it do? At most it can blind our eyes?

[Gaea]

oh dear... i started something that wasn't intended. Let's stick to the original post shall we? Do gods (demigods, angels, etc) marry? I can't think of any, unless you count the consorts of Brahma, Visnu and Siva. Do they engage in incest? I think not. I'll look for the reference, but certainly in Mahabharata it was not considered proper for one to marry another who had a common ancestor less than 7 generations apart. (My source might be mixed up here - i'll look for it).

[thehat]

 

oh dear... i started something that wasn't intended. Let's stick to the original post shall we? Do gods (demigods, angels, etc) marry? I can't think of any, unless you count the consorts of Brahma, Visnu and Siva. Do they engage in incest? I think not. I'll look for the reference, but certainly in Mahabharata it was not considered proper for one to marry another who had a common ancestor less than 7 generations apart. (My source might be mixed up here - i'll look for it).

 

Very sorry Gaea! Yes devas (gods/demigods/angels etc) do marry. I can think of one example at the top of my head - Lord Indra and his wife.

I don't know about incest, this I don't think I've come across in reading so far.

There's heaps though, just can't type the names as they're hard for me to pronounce let alone spell.

[ARJ]

 

Arj beta go and read the Gita deeply each and every answer is there.

Books like Bhagavad Gita, Koran, Bible are superannuated.

 

some scientists & not pedants like ISKCONITES & paarsurrey have concluded that 'Shiva' has possibleness.

 

you expect people to believe this Krishna second coming & third coming & fourth coming non-sense ?

[Amlesh]

 

Books like Bhagavad Gita, Koran, Bible are superannuated.

 

Those books only through history gave great people for great causes.

 

 

some scientists & not pedants like ISKCONITES & paarsurrey have concluded that 'Shiva' has possibleness.

 

Why blame the book then, those who doubt Shiva are the greatest hyperbolic nonsense. But, what to do, we need to accept different views and opinions.

 

 

you expect people to believe this Krishna second coming & third coming & fourth coming non-sense ?

No, I don't expect anything.

 

Those who do that are those Anti-Pragmatic Iskonites.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Now would a down-to-earth person say only by worshipping Me a devotee can reach My supreme planet & not by worshipping demigods ? isn't this egoistic ?

 

You take it in the layman sense, it appears what you say is correct. But that is not spiritual sense. Whenever and whereever Krishna says me, he refers to the me of you, I and all of us. Read the whole Bhagavad Gita again with this sense. You will find the inner meaning.

 

 

What happens to people who don't believe in Krishna ? Is it Krishna doesn't love the non-beleivers (kafirs) ?

 

When you read the Bhagavad Gita in the above said sense, there will be question of believers and non-believers for that supreme consciousness is the same within all of them. It applies to all and not only Krishna in the gross sense. There is a bit of arguement between the Advaitins and Dvaitins only on this point. Moreover, even Jesus Christs teachings tell you the same. It appears that Christ pointed towards him(his gross body) and said 'I am the Saviour' but the spiritual sense is quite different.

[srikanthdk71]

 

I accept the point your alluding to that the living entity or soul is the being that is enjoying via the sense organs. But still you must explain why God the supreme soul is without form?

Do you accept that the soul has a spiritual form consisting of legs arms etc?

 

You say the supreme consciousness is that which is in control of this physical realm. This is I accept and am not doubting. However you must explain why this supreme consciousness is without form.

 

Any form is a bound entity. It has a boundry. The question arises what is that which is apart from the boundry? Is is not god? It god can be bound and finite, then he is not god. He should be unbound and infinite. The maximum a man can think of is the Space. Mans mind has natural tendancy to think till that point. 'Akashaat Vaayuh, Vaayor Agnih, Agniraapah, Aaapah Prithivi, Prithiviyor Aushadeebyah'. Look here, it starts from Akasha. That is the max a mind can think. To think above that, mind needs practice. Meditation. You can really find the core of creation and also you will find that it exists within and without. So, soul doesnt consist of anything finite such as arms and legs. It is infinite and infinite should be formless.

[srikanthdk71]

 

BG 7.24: Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

 

A bit of the purport says as follows...

 

Below is the Shankara Bhashya for the above. I find that this is more realistic and convincing to all (Hindus/non Hindus/Krishna believers/non believers)

 

The unintelligent, unaware of My supreme state which is immutable and unsurpassable, think of Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest.

 

Abuddhayah, the unintelligent, the non-discriminating ones; ajanantah, unaware; mama, of My; param, supreme; bhavam, state, My reality as the supreme Self; which is avyayam, immutable, undecaying; and anuttanam, unsurpassable; manyante, think; mam, of Me; as avyaktam, the unmanifest, the invisible; apannam, that has become; vyaktim, manifest, visible, at present [At present, after being embodied as an Incarnation.]-though I am the ever well-known God. They think so because they are unaware of My reality.

[srikanthdk71]

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at now. You've certainly strayed from the original theme.

But if you can only satisfy the true enjoyer or the soul with spiritual knowledge, how can you do so if it is originally without form? Wouldn't the soul require some sort of ear to hear?

And doesn't the soul treat the material body as a vehicle in one sense, at least in the material world until it is in its true original form? For example, it may be that the eye may not desire to see a naked lady the soul does. But doesn't the soul fulfil this desire to see a naked lady by utilizing the material eye?

Similarly in order to feed the soul spiritual knowledge in the material world, don't we engage our material senses in that very process of acquiring the knowledge in the first place?

I understand what you are describing. Yes we are spirit soul. But it is the nature of the spirit soul to want to enjoy isn't it?

My understanding is that we are originally spirit soul encased in this material body.

 

Now coming back to the original theme, if God doesn't enjoy - he must be pretty damn bored wherever He is. Sorry, wherever this God thing is.

 

Do you think this concept of enjoyment is totally lost on this God thing?

I think this God thing enjoys in his original personal form which is sac-cid-ananda.

Otherwise if this God thing has no form and is just some glowing effulgence what can it do? At most it can blind our eyes?

 

First of all you have totally misunderstood and misinterpreted the concept of soul and god. All you know is that 'We have sense organs. God should also have.How can he sense anything without it'. The answer is simple.

 

1. Soul is not conditioned by senses. Sense organs are conditioned by the soul.(hope you understood this)

2. God need not have sense organs to experience. When HE is everything. He need not experience anything special. He is you and me. He need not experience you and me seperately.

3. What is it that lights up your eyes, hears in your ears, taste in your tongue, say via the vocal chords? It is just one. Where is that ONE within you. Well, find it out for yourself. You can. In a second, you will be a Gnani.

 

You say that you understand that we are the spirit soul encased in the physical body. Exactly. The true nature of that spirit soul is happiness and enjoyment. It comes out through these sense organs little by little when encased in this body. But what is your true nature. It is abundant.

[ARJ]

 

Whenever and whereever Krishna says me, he refers to the me of you, I and all of us.

I think youve not read The Bhagavad Gita 'As it is'.

 

Here's what Srila Prabhupada has to say on the verse no. 23.

 

'When Srila Prabhupada came to Melbourne for Ratha-yatra in 1974, he heard about our worshiping of Ganesha and performing puja to him, and called for Jayadharma Prabhu and myself to come to his room. Jayadharma Prabhu was the Australian general manager of Spiritual Sky at the time. Srila Prabhupada told us immediately to stop this worship of Ganesha, adding:

 

"Our ISKCON properties are NOT for demigod worship, our devotees are to exclusively worship Radha-Krishna, Gaura-Nitai, and Balarama, Subhadra, and Jagannatha, and to also celebrate other various Vishnu-tattva's like Lord Ramachandra, etc., though, our main focus is worshiping Radha and Krishna.

 

"We always offer proper respects to all the demigods. We must always know however, that no demigod is equal to or above the Supreme Lord.

"Our ISKCON temples are known as Hare Krishna or Radha-Krishna temples, this is what we want people also in India to understand. Even on our Spiritual Sky incense packet there is Radha-Krishna."

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." (Bhagavad-gita 7:23.)

So obviously, our worship of Ganasha at Spiritual Sky incense factory came to an abrupt end.

 

Hari Bol, All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

Your fallen servant,

Gauragopala dasa'

 

http://namahatta.org/en/node/8448

 

No where in Bhagavad Gita 'As it is' it is mentioned that Krishna is referring to the me of you, I and all of us.

 

 

From the above it is clear that Krishna is the only Supreme being, He is the one who's created everything including me, so I should worship only HIM (there's no HER) & you're saying Krishna is referring to the me of you, I and all of us.

[srikanthdk71]

 

I think youve not read The Bhagavad Gita 'As it is'.

Here's what Srila Prabhupada has to say on the verse no. 23........

 

I have read it. But found that it has more glorification to the manifest than the reality of the unmanifest. Given a practical thought, it is told in the gross sense. Some may like it but for those like me who search for more, it wouldnt be convincing like Advaita may not be convincing to the Author of the book you have mentioned. The 'As it Is' book surely does not contain any material what I said coz it is based on a school of taught.

 

Now coming to the YOU, ME and Krishna factor. Let me convince you in your own point of view. You say,

 

Krishna is the Supreme Being=Brahman/Conciousness

Krishna created You/Her and Me - From where did he create? The answer is simple. It cannot be from anything outside him or else he is subject to finity. So he has to create You and Me from Himself. Now, tell me, who is you, me and Krishna? Arent we the same?