parents and marriage

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at YAHOO.COM
Thu Mar 28 04:59:39 CST 2002

--- Prasad Balasubramanian <besprasad at LYCOS.COM>
> 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

>   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.

> Prasad

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list