Hare Krishna's and marriage

[Jigar]

Namaste,
can one be a hare Krishna devotee and be married at the same time? Ram was married to Sita, Krishna to Radha, (Lord Jigar[me] to no one) So who are these single hare Kishnas that wear orange and shaved head with ponytail? I believe this dresss code was only stressed to identify oneself to the religiious caste, no?..... So It is not necessary to do? I feel i may have misidentified a caste


Om Karra,
jigar

[atanu]

Namaste,
can one be a hare Krishna devotee and be married at the same time? Ram was married to Sita, Krishna to Radha, (Lord Jigar[me] to no one) So who are these single hare Kishnas that wear orange and shaved head with ponytail? I believe this dresss code was only stressed to identify oneself to the religiious caste, no?..... So It is not necessary to do? I feel i may have misidentified a caste


Om Karra,
jigar


Whenever I press the reputation button, it says: You must spread it before giving it to Jigar again.

Sorry pal. I will try again after sometime.

[Arvind Sivaraman]

Namaste,
can one be a hare Krishna devotee and be married at the same time? Ram was married to Sita, Krishna to Radha, (Lord Jigar[me] to no one) So who are these single hare Kishnas that wear orange and shaved head with ponytail? I believe this dresss code was only stressed to identify oneself to the religiious caste, no?..... So It is not necessary to do? I feel i may have misidentified a caste


Om Karra,
jigar

Om Shirdi Sai Ram.
Namaste Jigar.
In my opinion you must sort out your query with Hare Krishna Devotees (ISKON Members.).
Also you must start searching for a Sadguru who is a selfrealised soul and can lead you to Bramha Gyana.(Meaning, the world is only a maya and Lord Hari's (Your Sadguru's) feet is the only thing which is true.)

[Yogkriya]

This safron clad ponytail sporting Hare krishna dress code is not essential for spiritual advancement. Important is your aim.

[c.smith]

Yes, Hare Krishna's can be married. The interesting thing though is that there is only sex for procreative purposes after an elaborate chanting and prayer session. Whatever happened to intimacy? I guess it is only a form of maya.

[sm78]

... there is only sex for procreative purposes after an elaborate chanting and prayer session.
This is a vedic rite btw, called garbhadhan.



Whatever happened to intimacy? I guess it is only a form of maya.

Though most other Hindu sect will not follow the very orthodox smartic rule of "sex only for procreation", not flatly for all couples anyway. However it must be realized that except for some shakta sects, marriage in Sanatana Dharma is primarily a duty to ancestors, bringing them back to the world and preserving the lineage.

Intimacy Or fun doesn't need marriage. Intimacy is a great aspect of human ralationships, but it must be remembered marriage goes beyond this purpose.

That obviously doesn't mean intimacy and other human & emotional factors needs to be killed. Such a rule can be only followed if both husband & wife are on bramhacharya vow~"sex for procreation only" is verily brahmacharya for grihastas.

[Arjuna]

Though most other Hindu sect will not follow the very orthodox smartic rule of "sex only for procreation"

I thought this topic was already discussed... Please, enough of this misleading propaganda ;). There is NO such Vedic or smartic rule about sex ONLY for procreation, though procreation is indeed essential in social sense according to Vedas and Smriti (at the same time Upanishads – as i remember, Brihadaranyaka – even give prescriptions how to avoid unwanted procreation).

In fact, I have provided good number of references on this theme somewhere on this forum.

Kama is one of 4 Purusharthas which is valid for all grihasthas of all varnas. And verily kAma doesn't mean "sex only for procreation" (procreation is part of grihastha-dharma acc to Smriti). And one doesn't need to reject kAma, artha or dharma in order to achieve Moksha, the supreme goal of everyone.


That obviously doesn't mean intimacy and other human & emotional factors needs to be killed. Such a rule can be only followed if both husband & wife are on bramhacharya vow~"sex for procreation only" is verily brahmacharya for grihastas.

This is not brahmacharya but mere adharma. Lord Krishna said that it is better to follow, even imperfectly, one's one dharma than to perfectly follow another's. Celibacy is brahmacharya of brahmacharins and smarta-sannyasins, but for grihastha brahmacharya includes satisfying wife and having pleasure himself. Smriti does provide certain regulations, but "ONLY for procreation" is a heresy. "MAINLY for procreation" [acc to Smriti] would perhaps be close to truth.

[Haridas]

Namaste
In ISKCON, marriage is allowed. However, primarital sex and sex for pleasure purposes are forbidden. This is because ISKCON is a movement which focuses on spreading the last part of the 4 Vedic life syle-parts (renunciation) over the devotee's whole life.

[Arjuna]

Namaste
In ISKCON, marriage is allowed. However, primarital sex and sex for pleasure purposes are forbidden. This is because ISKCON is a movement which focuses on spreading the last part of the 4 Vedic life syle-parts (renunciation) over the devotee's whole life.

If it is so, could U explain what is the purpose of marriage at all? If pleasure is forbidden, it would be just and sincere to take up sannyasa and live accordingly (and thus follow Dharma) and not to be something in between (not in a sense of vanaprastha though).

In practice this *unorthodox* prescription leads either to suppression (and thus phicological problems, family unhappiness etc.) or to hypocrisy (i know of numerous examples of ISKCON and Gaudiya-math "brahmacharins" having illegal sex, both hetero- and homosexual). That is, to evident adharma. In the best case married couple would simply ignore this awkward "only for procreation" thing and live happily – which again is quite common case.
The question is: what for this strange prescription was invented?

[sm78]

sex "MAINLY for procreation" would perhaps be close to truth.

That's what I was trying to say ;) ~ sorry not an exactly correct word I had chosen.

[sm78]

If it is so, could U explain what is the purpose of marriage at all? If pleasure is forbidden, it would be just and sincere to take up sannyasa and live accordingly (and thus follow Dharma) and not to be something in between (not in a sense of vanaprastha though).

Why r we beating around the same bush ?? There are many purpose's to marriage outside pleasure ~ for which a marriage is actually not needed (rightly practiced in some European countries ;) ).

I agree pleasure cannot be denied in a marriage but reason for entering grihastasrama is not just pleasure and sannyasa asrama is not just all about not having the same!!!

Both ashrams are also about duty's to humanity ~ only the measurement scale is slightly different.

[Arjuna]

Why r we beating around the same bush ?? There are many purpose's to marriage outside pleasure ~ for which a marriage is actually not needed (rightly practiced in some European countries ;) ).
I agree pleasure cannot be denied in a marriage but reason for entering grihastasrama is not just pleasure and sannyasa asrama is not just all about not having the same!!!
Both ashrams are also about duty's to humanity ~ only the measurement scale is slightly different.

Each ashrama has its own dharma defined in Smriti. Different traditions may have their own views of what is dharma, but it doesn't mean that any of these are orthodox, Vedic and smArta ;).
I have no wish to argue on the "true purpose" of marriage or whatsoever. I simply point out that abovementioned statement made by U is wrong. Similarly, whether vegetarianism is "good" or not, is a matter of personal opinion; but saying that acc to Vedas it is a must – would be a lie.