Palghat Iyer boys not getting brides... discussion from facebook PI group

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sravna,

Right and Wrong is just opinions!LOL

No Renuka, they are really separate from each other and one needs to discriminate the right from the wrong. But what is true is your notion of right may be different from my notion of right. So it is the perceptions that are different. But I think in reality I think they are not just dependent on views.

 

[sarang]

Rules can be created even in a vacuum; only the amendments after the rules are violated or found to be unimplementable.

It is not necessary that someone has committed the crime which is included in the law book.

A rule can not be created if the "crime" had not taken place!LOL

 

[sravna]

Rules can be created even in a vacuum; only the amendments after the rules are violated or found to be unimplementable.

It is not necessary that someone has committed the crime which is included in the law book.

You are right Shri.Sarang. All that is said in the scriptures were not based on actual experiences. That is the beauty that many do not appreciate or find it difficult to accept.

 

[vgane]

Rules can be created even in a vacuum; only the amendments after the rules are violated or found to be unimplementable.

It is not necessary that someone has committed the crime which is included in the law book.

It may turn out to be a chicken and egg story ...For example the various types of sins mentioned in Garuda purana--Are they true or are they fictional..I think they are true and that is the reason there are different types of punishments

Tho' at a theoretical level we can say that we can have a law also for a crime that is not committed

 

[renuka]

It may turn out to be a chicken and egg story ...For example the various types of sins mentioned in Garuda purana--Are they true or are they fictional..I think they are true and that is the reason there are different types of punishments

Tho' at a theoretical level we can say that we can have a law also for a crime that is not committed

Even in fiction the thought existed.

Hence if someone thought of it to start with that means that the "crime" existed in his mind!

So whoever wrote that rule even if it did not happen he had thought of it and hence also 'committed' the act in his mind.

Karma is thought, word and deed and not just deed alone.

Just say I think in my mind that I want to hit someone till he/she is black and blue but I do not carry out my thought nevertheless I am still "guilty" in my thoughts and mind.

 

[sravna]

Even in fiction the thought existed.

Hence if someone thought of it to start with that means that the crime existed in his mind!

So whoever wrote that rule even if it did not happen he had thought of it and hence also 'committed' the act in his mind.

Karma is not only thought, word and deed.

Just say I think in my mind that I want to hit someone till he/she is black and blue but I do not carry out my thought nevertheless I am still "guilty" in my thoughts and mind.

Dear Renuka,

That is the problem when you do not see the totality. You tend to misinterpret. The seers had thought of the crime but not with the intention of harming others but with the intention of preventing others being harmed by such a crime.

 

[renuka]

Rules can be created even in a vacuum; only the amendments after the rules are violated or found to be unimplementable.

It is not necessary that someone has committed the crime which is included in the law book.

Ok I will tell you one interesting true case of a person who has the 'power' to lift anyone without even touching him/her.

There is some rumour that he practices some black magic so one day he flung someone away from his path by just staring at the person and that person fell and injured himself.

Now tell me..is this a crime?

Technically he did not touch the victim..so there is no grounds for any complain to be made.

Has anyone written a rule that causing injury to anyone by just staring at him and throwing him off is a crime??

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

That is the problem when you do not see the totality. You tend to misinterpret. The seers had thought of the crime but not with the intention of harming others but with the intention of preventing others being harmed by such a crime.

Nope..whatever said and done..the thought existed and imagination ran wild too!LOL

BTW the topic is about "contact"and everyone feels contact is an insult!LOL

BTW in the past many had "maintained" Devadasis too...so I do not think that everyone in the past was an Uttaman.

 

[sangom]

You are right Shri.Sarang. All that is said in the scriptures were not based on actual experiences. That is the beauty that many do not appreciate or find it difficult to accept.

After such a long time, it is pleasing to read the highlighted sentence! I also say the same thing—much of our scriptures is pure imagination and/or fantasy

Here, the sages imagined, like many 'suspecting' husbands of even today, that their young and beautiful wife (in those days even princesses could be obtained by learned brahmins as "dakshinaa" after great yAgAs performed by the kings) were likely to enjoy sex with the young and virile bachelor disciples and framed rules. BTW, have you heard about the punishment for this "guruthalpagaH"?

 

[renuka]

After such a long time, it is pleasing to read the highlighted sentence! I also say the same thing—much of our scriptures is pure imagination and/or fantasy

Dear Sangom Ji,



BTW let me guess the answers that will come forth!

The answer will be:

It is not a direct experience but a revelation that came to the spiritually evolved mind..direct experience is only for less evolved minds! LOL

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Sangom Ji,



BTW let me guess the answers that will come forth!

The answer will be:

It is not a direct experience but a revelation that came to the spiritually evolved mind..direct experience is only for less evolved minds! LOL

I think you are the only Vidhvaan in this Forum who can have detail debate with a member, understand his inputs and derive your conclusions, enough to taunt his responses..LOL!!

 

[renuka]

I think you are the only Vidhvaan in this Forum who can have detail debate with a member, understand his inputs and derive your conclusions, enough to taunt his responses..LOL!!

Dear Ravi,

LOL!


There is another reigning Vidhwan who even though is a Brahamcharin but yet knows about married life and children much better than any married person and that too find faults with present day marriage system.

Do you really think I come close anywhere to that Vidhwan?

No way yaar...I am nothing next to that Vidhwan.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear RR ji,

Not many girls would like to marry a man who never had a girlfriend in his life..cos either he could be:

1)Not easy to deal with..hence no girl liked him

2)Gay

Does it mean that, ladies who married a guy who never had girl friend relationship and lots of related experiences in life before marriage, lived/living unhappy, unsatisfied and miserable family life?

Your reasons are Wrong...The reason most probably might be -

1) Girls had multiple NB boy friends..So they want a guy who too had a girl friend so that both will be of same type.

2) Girls lost their virginity in their fantasy with Ex boy friend/friends and feel guilty to marry a guy who never indulged in premarital sex.

 

[renuka]

Does it mean that, ladies who married a guy who never had girl friend relationship and lots of related experiences in life before marriage, lived/living unhappy, unsatisfied and miserable family life?

Your reasons are Wrong...The reason most probably might be -

1) Girls had multiple NB boy friends..So they want a guy who too had a girl friend so that both will be of same type.

2) Girls lost their virginity in their fantasy with Ex boy friend/friends and feel guilty to marry a guy who never indulged in premarital sex.

Dear Ravi,

Having a boyfriend or girlfriend before marriage does not always mean sex before marriage.

You see the legal definition of sexual intercourse means the whole act of sex(base 4).

In most pre marital relationships not all people indulge in everything so as long the full act had not happened..technically the person is still a virgin even though he/she could have gone base 2 or base 3.

So when a person is 'safe' on technical grounds what is there to fear??

BTW no one feels guilty of even murder these days..so why the fuss??

From what is generally noted those living in this present age and never been in a relationship most of the while are fussy guys!

 

[sarang]

Yes, we have the anti superstition law here in maharashtra; I can claim that the evil eye caused the injury. Proof is not necessary if can be provided by corroboration, monetary gain, statements of rational experts and reference to tantra texts.

Anyway modern science will soon come to accept that thought forces can do good or evil to self and others.

Ok I will tell you one interesting true case of a person who has the 'power' to lift anyone without even touching him/her.

There is some rumour that he practices some black magic so one day he flung someone away from his path by just staring at the person and that person fell and injured himself.

Now tell me..is this a crime?

Technically he did not touch the victim..so there is no grounds for any complain to be made.

Has anyone written a rule that causing injury to anyone by just staring at him and throwing him off is a crime??

 

[sarang]

Colossal and deliberate misunderstanding. Experience does not validate scriptures. Scriptures educate and guide us for a healthy spiritual life.

After such a long time, it is pleasing to read the highlighted sentence! I also say the same thing—much of our scriptures is pure imagination and/or fantasy

 

[sravna]

Colossal and deliberate misunderstanding. Experience does not validate scriptures. Scriptures educate and guide us for a healthy spiritual life.

Well said.

 

[Raji Ram]

........ It is something that I think is unthinkable with brahmin boys at least till recently

I too hope and pray so, Sir!

 

[auh]

This topic of BB not getting BG surfaces in many different threads with different titles, much like the nirguna brahman projecting itself in many forms... !

 

[Raji Ram]

First the discussions were about Iyers not minding the subsects; then Iyers and IyengArs accepting each other;

then advice to widen the search within brahmins like mAdhvAs, gurukkaLs, chOziyars etc. Since most of the

professional girls want to settle down well before their wedding, their marriageable age has slowly increased to

30 from 21! But..... boys are considered 'OLD' once they cross 30 mark! :sad:

 

[kannanpadmanabhan]

This topic of BB not getting BG surfaces in many different threads with different titles, much like the nirguna brahman projecting itself in many forms... !

Going back to the age difference between bride and groom, I would like to understand what the tradition says about that. Nowadays the preferred pattern is that groom is just around 1 to 3 years elder.

What is the traditional view on whether bride can be older than the groom? Is it prohibited by sastras?
I have, on the contrary, heard versions (authentic or not I do not know ) that even Seetha was older than Rama.

Can members help me understand what tradition and sastras say on this?

Thanks

Kannan