parents and marriage

swamy swarna swamyswarna at YAHOO.COM
Thu Apr 4 11:42:18 CST 2002

hari om. Shri sadananda has correctly clarified the
limitation of the sphere of influene of each law. What
is a law or a rule for the benefit of the society
should not be mixed up at the adhyatmic level. While
all the matter is made up of electrons, protons and
neutrons, different combinations of them do have
diferent properties in the physical realm and we have
to abide by those laws in that realm.

Sagotra was prohibited only from the genetic point of
view, though that word was not used by the ancient

And laws regarding marriage and incest etc., were made
by society for preserving peace and tranquility.
Suddenly if all the people in the whole known world
were to perish except for two, one male and one
female, I would certainly advocate that they forget
all the rules of marriage etc. and breed as many
children as possible and encourage inbreeding between
them till a sizable community develops.

Pl. forgive me if I have shocked the sensibility of
any reader. We are discussing theoretical and
philosophical questions. In practice, one has to
follow the social rules and regulations.

swamy sv

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at YAHOO.COM>
> --- Prasad Balasubramanian <besprasad at LYCOS.COM>
> wrote:
> > Om namO nArAyaNa.
> >
> >   I've the following questions. I had asked a few
> > based on "prajayA
> > hi manushyaH pUrNaH". These are more are less
> > related to that.   Any
> > references to the parent child relationship in
> > shruti ?   Why does shruti say "mAtru devO BavaH"
> > and "pitru devO BavaH" ?   Arent they
> > maya too ?
> Yes they are maaya and so are you and putting
> namaskaaram is also part of the maaya too.  If you
> have realized the fact that it is all maya, you have
> solved the problem.  If it is just heresay for you
> as
> 'scripture says so' and not 'I realize it is so',
> then
> until that realization comes it is as real as the
> fruit on your hands.  Vyavahaara satyam is real in
> its
> sphere of reference.
> It is like as a modern student of science, you know
> all matter is nothing but assemblage of electrons.
> protons and neutrons.  If everything is the same
> then
> why not eat  garbage and throw the food. Yet food is
> food and garbage is garbage and we donot get things
> mixed up even though we know both are fundamentally
> the same. One is yvavahaara and another is
> paramaarthika.  If we understand correctly there is
> no
> confusion.
> >   When its brahman everywhere, hows marriage
> > meaningful ?
> Iron is differnt from gold - one is precious and
> other
> is not yet both are made up of the same substratum.
> Same way - wife is different, daughter is different
> son is different and father is different.  There is
> no
> mixing up of things at vyavahaara level even though
> the substratum is the same, as your pay check is
> different and mine is different.
>  If people
> > belonging to the same gOthras themselves cannot
> get
> > married , then
> > what about the fact that all the rishis are
> > (from) one single
> > brahman ? In which case how can getting married be
> > justified ? Is
> > this a reason why elders advise that we shouldnt
> try
> > to figure out
> > the rishi mUlam ?
> >
> I think you are mixing up too many things here.
> Sagotram is not advised only considering the fact
> that
> they are comes from the same gene structure.  It is
> one way it was recognized in olden days to avoid
> getting married with the same genes. By that you get
> better off-springs.
> All is Brahman is a fundamental postulate.  Similar
> to
> all life forms evolved from unicellular living
> entities.  But  that does not justify getting
> married
> to monkeys and dogs etc. I am just giving an extreme
> analogy. The substratum is the same for all - the
> assemblage is different for each.  Since the
> marriage
> is in the realm of vyavahaara, it is important to
> recognize what combinations are compatible from ones
> cultural and traditional point.
> Not inquiring about Rushi muulam is advised form
> differnent perspective.  This is becuase every saint
> was a sinner in the past.  By giving importance to
> the
> past one looses the correct perspective of the
> greatness of the saint on hand.  One can study his
> history and learn from that if he could evolve,
> there
> is also chance for me to evolve too.  But otherewise
> digging ones past will hinder ones learning from his
> sat sangh.
> Hari OM.
> Sadananda
> > Prasad
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list