parents and marriage

Hemant reachhemant at ETH.NET
Sat Mar 30 01:00:43 CST 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: "Prasad Balasubramanian" <besprasad at LYCOS.COM>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: parents and marriage

> namasthe,
> Prasad Balasubramanian 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 ?
> kuntimaddi sadananda Wrote:
> ---------------------------
> <<Yes they are maaya and so are you and putting
> namaskaaram is also part of the maaya too.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Whats the meaning  "so are you" here - why do you say that
> I'm Maya. Am I not bramhan ?  Kindly explain.
> Is it not the relationship and the attachments thats maya ?
> Putting namaskaaram - I'm seriously thinking on how it could
> be considered Maya. If everything is bramhan then one doing/saying
> to any other is neither meaningful nor meaningless. Kindly explain this
> too as I'm trying to learn.
> kuntimaddi sadananda Wrote:
> ---------------------------
> <<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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> If I've realized the fact, then its proved that its Maya.
> But still you say that Vyavahaara satyam is real in its
> sphere of reference. Does it mean that anything in
> its sphere of reference is Maya ? And still its to be
> believed as real ?
> Prasad Balasubramanian Wrote:
> -----------------------------
> >   When its brahman everywhere, hows marriage
> > meaningful ?
> kuntimaddi sadananda Wrote:
> ---------------------------
> <<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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Isnt the fact - one metal is more precious and the other is
> not - purely mind generated and we too have been forced to
> believe that fact from our childhood days ? On
> what basis Gold is valued more precious than iron ?
> Is the preciousness of metal not Maya ?
> If I really dont care about  a particular quality
> of metals called "preciousness" which is Maya, then comparing one
> with the other cant make sense to me. But am more appealed to
> the fact that every different metal though is different,
> basically same. They are different only because of Maya.
> With this thinking , I cannot accept that gold is
> better than iron and is different. Which means that something
> at vyavahaarika level is not making sense to me and I'm not able
> to avoid mixing up things at vyavahaarika and paramaarthika level.
> Kindly comment on my thinking. I cannot get iron ornaments to
> my Mother by any chance though : (
>  Extending this concept, how are  wife ,daughter , son and
> father different ? If they've to be different, Am I not taking into
> some maya-ic parameters ?
> Prasad Balasubramanian Wrote:
> -----------------------------
>  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 ?
> >
> kuntimaddi sadananda Wrote:
> ---------------------------
> <<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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I think I might find answers myself If I understand
> the vyavahaara and paramaarthika. I've another question
> with the absense of understanding of the above two.
> Should vyavahaara sathyam and its sphere of reference be
> considered and taken into account always by the seeker ?
> Will a liberated soul still differentiate a humanbeing
> as wife and daughter ? Though that liberated soul
> cannot eat garbage but only edible food.
> kuntimaddi sadananda Wrote:
> ---------------------------
> <<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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Thank you for the explanation.I've a good understanding of this now.
> namaskaaram (with confusions) : )
> Prasad
> See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
> See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar

Namaste All,
           Analogies are a device to illustrate an aspect of the Brahman.
They cannot exhaust the Brahman in its totality and transcendence. But here
we find people pressing this or that analogy with a literal and scholastic
Sankara says "vAco vibhanti nikhilA yadanugraheNa" when referring to the
Brahman.By Whose grace words shine, let us put our sraddha in That alone.
                 with best regards,
                                 alakha niranjana,

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list