Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Since she can not take to formal renunciation in ISKCON, I would suggest to wait, say for a year, and review the situation then (possibly with a help of a good astrologer or a member of her immediate family;-)

> If she marries she will be lost in maya, but she is not mature to renounce

Are the only options you are see for this girl marriage in maya, or a false renunciation? A sense gratifier or a hypocrite? Are there no other options for her?
(btw, this made me laugh. It immediately reminded me of many brahmacaris Ive known...including myself...a little impersonal, too immature to renounce and ready to jump into sense gratifying marriage...)

> Her tendencies urge her to marry

Therefore I would encourage her to marry. Its the natural position for 99% of human beings. If she really is very serious about spiritual life as you say and has the character for it, I would encourage her to go to India (Vrindavan or Mayapur) for a few months before she gets married and do some serious sadhana, study, and reflection on the direction she wants her life to take. After all, its her decision in the end and the best we can do is to assist her make an informed decision. If she wants to spend time in Vrindavan, I can give you the contact of a senior devotee who is great for such type of people to talk to.

[quote][cite] diyourself:[/cite]There is a girl being very serious about spiritual life but trending on the impersonal way. Her tendencies urge her to marry and have children but the impersonal philosophy tells her that its all or nothing. If she marries she will be lost in maya, but she is not mature to renounce. Its about to create havoc because she is on that age that she has to take a decision. What counseling or preaching you would recommend?[/quote]

Spiritual life is a very long distance race - it is not 100 meters dash. If she is sincere, family life will actually be a tremendous help in her journey. And if it takes a long time... well... it ALWAYS takes a long time...

Most of the greatest Acharyas came through the married or Grhasta Ashram including Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Prabhupada, Prema or love of God has never been dependant on any Ashram. One can achieve the highest stages of devotion in any and all stages of human life.

Brahmachari or Brahmachirini the student stage is a very important stage because it allows one to be free of most mundane responsibilities and it allows one to focus on study, sadhana, parikram to the holy places, extensive association with sadhus. Once a person gets married much of your free time is taken away and is spent on maintaining married life (children, responsibilities, money, food, housing etc etc). So it is wise to hold off as long as one can so you can maximise the student life and build a solid devotional base.

If one does not have a strong solid devotional base or devotional creeper then they will have trouble in any ashram and maya will have her play with them. When someone says its all or nothing and is saying that marriage is maya means they have still not understood the Gaudiya Vaisnava philosopy. Maya is not just in the Grhasta Ashram! Maya is where you take her. Krishna Consciousness is a position of the heart, it is love and devotion and it is measured in your attachment for Radha and Krishna it is not about changing your cloth or Ashram they are actually two separate things.

From what I can hear this person needs another few years in the student stage to consolidate their learning and to fully realise the goal of Krishna Consciousness, then at that point they can choose the Ashram that will best support their tendencies and nature and for most us 99.999% of us that means married life. If they cannot hold off and must get married then they need to learn that Grhasta or married life is no impediment to spiritual life as long as they remain focused on their Krishna Consciousness.

What is mine to renounce? If nothing is mine (nirmama) then where is there question of renouncing? Everything belongs to Krishna -- always did and always will -- including me (.... and when you have thus learned the truth you will know that all beings are My parts and parcels, they are within Me and they are Mine.")

Very true Hashama but that is a realised position, after life times of attachments to the things that do not belong to us, it takes time to renounce the attachments.

The false ego identifies this is "I" and this is "Mine" and the false ego is one of the hardest nuts to crack.

thank you all for your insights. The only thing I told her so far is you can find realized souls with ten sons and I put the example of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, but again she is not so much into our tradition, she actually belongs to Sivananda ashram although appreciating other tendencies. So far I gathered as an argument to help her predicament:

1. that brahmacari is normally a stage of life followed by married and then complete renunciation
2. she should amass as much of that in her life before jumping into married life
3. Maya is not just in the grhasta ashram, you could be in maya being a perfect renounced

> you could be in maya being a perfect renounced

When one is perfectly renounced, he renounced Maya as well. You probably mean that one can be in maya in every asram.

In my experience, many so called renunciates are actually very attached to the respect they get from others (position) and their false egos are very strong. Family life is good for humility and grinds down our false ego. But Advaitins are often not interested in such values.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]> you could be in maya being a perfect renounced

When one is perfectly renounced, he renounced Maya as well. You probably mean that one can be in maya in every asram.[/quote]
I meant perfectly following the rules and regulations externally but internally still trapped by subtle enjoyment like the respect etc that comes from the masses or feeling superior for example.

> I meant perfectly following the rules and regulations externally but internally still trapped by subtle enjoyment

Gita 3.6-7: "One who restrains the senses of action but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender. On the other hand, if a sincere person tries to control the active senses by the mind and begins karma-yoga [in Kruc0u803 su803 nu803 a consciousness] without attachment, he is by far superior."

" very serious about spiritual life but trending on the impersonal way. Her tendencies urge her to marry and have children but the impersonal philosophy tells her that its all or nothing. "

As for me, I also was told by many (now I understand that they are so-called) teachers that Atman, Brahman is highest supreme (and I didn;t knew of Paramatma and Bhagavan), and they were telling: "I am Brahman", "You are Brahman" (chant "Brahman-asmi", "So-aham" - I am that etc) etc. But I found that Brahman actually means Krishna, so we can only claim to be part-and-parcle of (Para)Brahman. And that Brahman even has own abode - Brahmaloka sanatana - eternal Vaikuntha planet(s). So that is destination of those who can realize Brahman as Supreme Person. But still better is Paramatma realization, and even better is concept of Bhagavan. And also in impersonal philosophy of Buddha one can find that there is also some devotion to Buddha, actual followers of Him become His devotees, not trying to become God (Buddha). And Shankaracarya changed nirvana into nirguna (Brahman), so in impersonal philosophy one can come through buddhism (or whatever) to Shankaracarya, but even Shankara said: bhaje Govinda (perform bhakti for Govinda, Bhagavan, become Govinda-bhakta) - give up impersonal speculation and surrender to Krishna (Govinda). Shankara is in one of 4 (plus fifth is from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) bona-fide vaishnava sampradayas, though there are many so-called followers of Shankara, mayavadis, and they are much more dangerous then Shankara (even buddhists are not so dangerous than so called Vedas followers who reject Vedas but externally accepting them), he was not so offensive as those. He didnt say that Krishna is impersonal, but still we consider that he is covered personalist, though he preached impersonalism (against buddhism):
"Our business is to present the will of Kuc0u7771 u7779 u7751 a, not that of any mundane speculator like the politician, philosopher or scientist, for they have very little knowledge of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a, despite all their other knowledge. When Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a says, man-manu257 bhava mad-bhakto mad-yu257 ju299 mu257 u7743 namaskuru [Bg. 18.65], etc., we, unlike the so-called scholars, do not say that Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a and His inner spirit are different. Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a is absolute, and there is no difference between Ku7771 u7779 u7751 as name, Ku7771 u7779 u7751 as form, Ku7771 u7779 u7751 as qualities, Ku7771 u7779 u7751 as pastimes, etc. This absolute position of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a is difficult to understand for any person who is not a devotee of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a in the system of paramparu257 (disciplic succession). Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svu257 mu299 s, without perfect knowledge of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a, try to banish or kill Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gu299 tu257 . Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gu299 tu257 is known as Mu257 yu257 vu257 da-bhu257 u7779 ya, and Lord Caitanya has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad-gu299 tu257 from the Mu257 yu257 vu257 du299 point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gu299 tu257 will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead." (Bhagavad-gu299 tu257 As It Is, Preface) http://vedabase.net/bg/preface/en

http://vedabase.net/sb/2/5/39/
"u346 ru299 mad Bhu257 gavatam 2.5.39
.. brahmalokau7717 '97 the spiritual planets; sanu257 tanau7717 '97 eternal.
.. The spiritual planets, however, are eternal. ..
Sometimes Satyaloka, the planet in which Brahmu257 resides, is also called Brahmaloka. But the Brahmaloka mentioned here is not the same as the Satyaloka planetary system. This Brahmaloka is eternal, whereas the Satyaloka planetary system is not eternal. And to distinguish between the two, the adjective sanu257 tana has been used in this case. According to u346 ru299 la Ju299 va Gosvu257 mu299 , this Brahmaloka is the loka or abode of Brahman, or the Supreme Lord. .... u346 ru299 la u346 ru299 dhara Svu257 mu299 , therefore, rightly commenting on /this Bhagavad-gu299 tu257 (9.11/ verse, says that the Brahmaloka mentioned here is Vaikuu7751 u7789 ha, the kingdom of God, which is sanu257 tana, or eternal, and is therefore not exactly like the material creations described above. "

So if impersonalist is attached to impersonal Brahman (usually they talk of Brahman), these (above) might be useful.

"http://vedabase.net/iso/introduction/en1"
"Krishna is accepted as the highest authority by all classes of men. I am speaking first of the two classes of transcendentalists. One class of transcendentalists is called impersonalistic, Mayavadi. They are generally known as Vedantists, led by Sankaracarya. And there is another class of transcendentalists, called Vaishnavas, like Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Vishnu-svami. Both the Sankara-sampradaya and the Vaishnava-sampradaya have accepted Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sankaracarya is supposed to be an impersonalist who preached impersonalism, impersonal Brahman, but it is a fact that he is a covered personalist. In his commentary on the Bhagavad-gita he wrote, "Narayana, the Su-preme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this cosmic manifestation." And then again he confirmed, "That Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana, is Krishna. He has come as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva." He particularly mentioned the names of His father and mother. So Krishna is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all transcendentalists. There is no doubt about it. " (Sri Isopanishad, Introduction )

"There are two parties '97 namely, the theists and the atheists. The theist, who accepts the Supersoul, finds the spiritual cause through mystic yoga. The Suc0u257 u324 khyite, however, who merely analyzes the material elements, comes to a conclusion of impersonalism and does not accept a supreme cause '97 whether Bhagavu257 n, Paramu257 tmu257 or even Brahman. Instead, he is preoccupied with the superfluous, external activities of material nature. Ultimately, however, both parties demonstrate the Absolute Truth because although they offer opposing statements, their object is the same ultimate cause. They are both approaching the same Supreme Brahman, to whom I offer my respectful obeisances." "Although the impersonalists and personalists fight with one another, they focus upon the same Parabrahman, the same Absolute Truth. " (u346 ru299 mad Bhu257 gavatam 6.4.32 http://vedabase.net/sb/6/4/32/)

"The great sage Narada travels everywhere. He goes to the demons and the demigods and is equally respected. He is consequently described herein as surasuredya, worshiped both by demons and by demigods. For Narada Muni, the door of every house is open. Although there is perpetual animosity between the demons and demigods, Narada Muni is welcomed everywhere. Narada is considered one of the demigods, of course, and the word devarshi means "the saintly person among the demigods." But not even the demons envy Narada Muni; therefore he is equally worshiped both by demons and by demigods. A perfect Vaishnavas position should be just like Narada Munis, completely independent and unbiased."(Srimad Bhagavatam 4.31.3 http://vedabase.net/sb/4/31/3/en1)

In this matter the lady in question should marry a spiritually minded person who can assist her in her journey. Do not make the mistake of Joining any Ashrams in India Coming alone as all are exploitation centres. Better to be in ones own position and fight maya as Sri Chaitanya says

Anirudh Das