Srimad Bhagavatam SB 7.14.3-4

"SB 7.14.3-4: A gṛhastha must associate again and again with saintly persons, and with great respect he must hear the nectar of the activities of the Supreme Lord and His incarnations as these activities are described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other Purāṇas. Thus one should gradually become detached from affection for his wife and children, exactly like a man awakening from a dream."

I don't agree with this...I think one should learn to see God in their wife and children and strengthen their affection for them. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, I dunno. I just ran into this trying to find out what the Bhagavatam was all about and this was the first line I saw. What do you think???

 

This is an aspect of the very old Vedic tradition that holds that there are generally four stages in a man's life...Vedic texts are generally addressed toward men...bramachari, or celibate student until early 20's or so; grhastha, or married householder up until 50 or so; vanaprastha, retired and contemplative life after age 50 to 60 but still in the company of one's family; and sannyasa, in old age, complete and final renunciation of all attachments, including family, with the remainder of life devoted only to spiritual pursuits.

How much real-life relevance this has in present times is very individual and depends on many factors...personally, I take it as meaning that at least a mental concept of renunciation is important because truly, all that a person has can be taken away in an instant.

 

But if you learn to love everyone/thing as God, than you will know that what you love can't actually be taken away. He is everywhere at all times and if you can learn that and see it first hand, no problem right?

 

I think its, if you love all things as God is in them....then you are not attached to any one particular thing or set of things...nothing is "mine" everything is "His"...I believe that's what it is saying...but someone correct me if I am wrong...

 

^Mmm yes that's what I think

 

Nicole, you're right on...its saying that everything belongs to God and that a person in worldly life needs to gradually develop this awareness by hearing from saintly persons.

Our material mental conditioning is to think in terms of "I, Me, Mine" and that attitude is what the Vedic scriptures and traditions were intended to correct...these attitudes are deeply ingrained and it takes time to work them out.

 

Both SvgGrdnBeauty and Spook are right.

It's all about the need to develop detachment on one hand, and un-conditional love on the other. The sage, Krishna says, loves all equally.
But don't worry - you can love Krishna and love others too.
You don't need to become a renunciant or an ascetic to come to know Krishna.
An inner detachment from dependency on others though is a good thing.

With reading the Bhagavatam in general, perhaps just dipping in at random may prove more confusing than helpful. If you want to get the overall feel of it, try reading canto one. A good many things in the later cantos are, as Spook pointed out, more to do with the life of ancient or medieval India than to-day's world.

 

I was reading this old George Harrison interview (from 2001) and I thought this was kind of appropriate for this thread:
"
ncantataa asks: Mr. Harrison, I was wondering if you might tell us a bit about your ideas on love. Romantic love, that is. I recall you having written some of the Beatles' most beatiful love songs. It would be interesting to hear how your religious attitudes have impacted your beliefs concerning romanticism.

george_harrison_live: Well, the lover that we miss is actually God.

george_harrison_live: The beauty that you see within each other is actually God.

george_harrison_live: So, Krishna was the greatest romanticist. He had girlfriends on every corner!

george_harrison_live: I can't seperate the two -- a beautiful girl is the divine mother, a beautiful man is the manifestation of potential. "

 

which is why we all come to the hinduism section of hipforums... to associate with all the saintly persons

 

Here we must be very clear of the difference between love and atachment.

All our worldly relationships are attachment, not love. If you truly loved your wife, you would be very happy for her if she left you for someone better. Instead you weep and are enraged. That is attachment, not love.

Of course we must love our family. But don't love them as something other than you! See your own self in all, then there is no fear of attachment, for attachment is only to something other than oneself.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Bhaskar, that all wordly love is attachment. I have somehow, one way or another, found unconditional love. For six years now(that is starting in 8th grade) our relationship has been based entirely on pure love and trust. And all of this time without a single major disagreement. No matter what happens between us, it will be excepted. I do believe that love like this is rare, and that it is unselfish, meaning to me that it is a spark of Divine love. By loving unconditionaly, is that not the same thing as love for the Lord?

 

I think its like if you love God that lives within them (The friend behind all friends...)...When a disciple asked Paramahansa Yoganandaji if they should not get married to stay on the spiritual path...he said it is not necessary as long as you are both working together in true and unselfish love...if it is real love and marriage ...that there was nothing wrong with it... I have seen even a video of him giving a marriage ceremony.....it was quite cool. If you see your love for your girlfriend as love for God....who lives within her (and verily all of us) ...then I think this is fine (again someone correct me if I am mistaken)....

 

I know that's addressed to Bhaskar, but I hope you won't mind my commenting here.
Love for a human being is one thing, love of God is another.
One is temporary, the other eternal.
Humans come and go - that's in the nature of things. They can die, they can go away. We love a person unconditionally we say - but usually, a microscopic examination such as is necessary if one is an aspirant on the path of yoga, will reveal any number of conditions that actually do exist. Everything here in this life is conditioned. Even in parent/child relationships, there is no absolute un-conditionality. Although thats probably as close as human relations ever come to un-conditional love in the ordinary course of events.

But the thing is that love of the Divine is quite different from ordinary love. It sounds strange to say perhaps, but it really has very little of the emotional about it. It can and does express itself through the emotions at some stages, but this prem itself is something else. It is like an inner ananda or bliss which is completely non-dependent upon anything except the Divine. It is something which exists at a higher level than the ordinary consciousness.
In the Vaishnava path, it is said that Prem, Divine love, can only be attained in stages. It is rare to find a being who can jump over these stages - although such people do appear now and then. But they are rare.

God is the totality of all existences (and more than that), so to love God is to love all; 'all beings exist in Me' says Krishna.
The very reason the sage is able to have equality to all is because he doesn't see only the separate, outer people, but the Divine in them.

It is quite natural though to become attached to whatever you give your love to. If you love humans or one human you get attached to them. If you love the Divine you get attached to the Divine. And in the latter case the results go far beyond the consequences of worldly human love in any form.

 

I understand.

 

Supposing she was not trustworthy, supposing she did not trust you, supposing she did not love you in return, supposing hse was outright mean to you, demanding all your time and money, always selfish... would you still love her? If so it is unconditional.

 

If you get attached to the divine, you discover the divinity to be your own self, you true nature. Then there is no more question of attachment.

 

Well Bhaskar, I really couldn't say. Most likely no though, after a while. It's jsut that that isn't the way it is, so what harm is there? I like looking for little sparks of the Divine in things, I truly do believe that life comes along with a lot of innocent pleasures that can do no damage as long as you are thankful and can see the Divine in them. And what if you make all of these sensual pleasures offerings to Him?

 

No problem, love your wife in that way, and when she died, you still be laughing, loving and living... all that went away was a form... your wife was always the goddess, that IS EVERYWHERE AND EVERYTHING. wohooo!


I think the passage is about not showing affection specially towards your wife and kids... but towards God, thus you cover those passing forms called "wife" and "kids" It is the same as Buddha saying don't be attached.

 

Ultimately yes. But at earlier stages of the path it's better to be attached to the Divine than worldly things. That helps fix the mind on Him, and move closer to realization.

 

Not better, essential.