If material love is only illusion...?

[atma 0]

This is a real situation, a woman that I know is in a dilemma. Somehow for some time she's been strugling materially. Working hard she hardly managed to pay her bills. Out of the blue this 70 years old man is showing interest on her and wants a relationship. He is quite well off and would be able to take care of her nicely. She is much younger than him and have no emotional or physical attachment to him. If material love is only an illusion, shouldn't she just go for it and be practical? Give some happiness to the old man and get material security?

Any opinions on this?

 

[shvu 1]

 

If material love is only an illusion...

Can you explain this?

 

Thanx

[atma 0]

It is said in the sastras that in this material world is not love, only lust. Real love is only for God. So-called love here is just for the satisfaction of the senses and is temporary. That in a very short version. The pandits out there can elaborate.

[Audarya lila 0]

I think your friend needs to be true to herself. Honesty is always the best policy. As devotees, we are interested in dedication and should try to purge ourselves of the tendency toward exploitation and renunciation.

 

Here's a question for you. Do you think your friend will truly be 'better off' if she uses this gentleman to improve her material conditon? There is probably more to this than that, but I would suggest that your friend try her best to be a good and honest person - from there the rest will follow naturally.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[amanpeter 0]

Originally posted by atma:

This is a real situation, a woman that I know is in a dilemma. Somehow for some time she's been strugling materially. Working hard she hardly managed to pay her bills. Out of the blue this 70 years old man is showing interest on her and wants a relationship. He is quite well off and would be able to take care of her nicely. She is much younger than him and have no emotional or physical attachment to him. If material love is only an illusion, shouldn't she just go for it and be practical? Give some happiness to the old man and get material security?

Any opinions on this?

I believe that any open honest relationship between two adults is acceptable, but it is always better to follow one's heart. Life itself is a hard struggle for most, if not all, of us. Should your friend choose to enter into some mutual agreement with this man, I would advise her to consult a lawyer and have the complete terms of their arrangement clearly defined legally on paper, for the benefit of both parties. Who knows, maybe love will come later. Then again, her Prince Charming may show up at any moment. Personally, I wish I'd married when I had the chance. Growing old alone, without ever having had children, just doesn't seem right somehow.

 

 

 

------------------

No offense meant to anyone...

[Bhaktavasya 0]

 

May I first of all, may I submit that it would be more correct to say that there is no love in material consciousness, but for those who are cultivating a spiritual life, spiritual consciousness, there is indeed love between 2 humans. Now the question is does this 70 year old man have at least deep affection and compassion for this woman and if so why can't he help her in her predicament without making marriage a prerequisite. I believe that neither of them will be satisfied or at peace with themselves if it is more of a material arrangement than a mutually loving relationship. Although it is very difficult to struggle with paying bills constantly (which I can relate to with personal experience), it is (in my opinion) better to be alone in this world and have no one but Krishna at the end of the day to 'take your troubles to' than to make a compromise with the hopes that life will become a little bit easier (once the money problems are solved) when in fact a whole new set of problems arise. She may become resentful that she has to pay attention to this man, (especially if he insists on amourous attention and she has no love or attraction for him).

Because she is young, I would advise her to wait and maybe Krishna (knowing the heart's desire) may bring a nice devotionally inclined man into her life to help her share life's burdens as well as the joys.

[shvu 1]

 

I am no pundit, and although I could be wrong it is very unlikely that any scripture calls love (material) as an illusion. It just does not make sense. Material love is temporal because it is limited to the body, spiritual love is permanent as it is not limited to the body, etc, etc are what I have read and heard. Many people here have families and love their family members. How is that an illusion? If someone is realized/liberated, for such a person there is no more material love. Thus the question of illusion does not arise there either. So in all cases, I fail to see how material love is an illusion.

 

As long as there is love between 2 entities (material or otherwise), it is as real as can be (to them, at least).

 

What matters in the case of your friend is, what does she want? If she wants to have a relationship, she can always find someone younger. if she does not mind a 70 year old, then she can have a relationship with him. It just depends on what she wants. The question of love being an illusion does not seem to be relevant here, at least to me.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

So in all cases, I fail to see how material love is an illusion.

If the entire material world is an illusion, that would pretty much include love for the by-products of matter as well.

 

Something can be real and illusory at the same time. The Vaishnavas consider the world to be illusory, but not false.

 

 

[JRdd 0]

Srila Prabhupada said that a girl will develop love for her husband by serving him. Other stuff about love in this world: even animals have it for their own, like cats with their kittens. Cows and elephants will cry for their babies. More on love: He also said that a mother's love is the closest thing to unconditional love in this world.

 

JR

[dubeyrakesh 0]

Mr Das,

You said that the material world is an illusion. This is same as Hinduism calling this life as mithya or a lie. Which is again same as what is shown in the movie "The Matrix" in which the director tries to show that this world is nothing but a externally controlled system. But simply stating things/facts is not enough. In its vast literature does Hinduism provide facts/figures to "prove" this lie. Otherwise for the layman, the director of The Matrix is better than Hinduism literature.

 

I really wonder, why does our literature just state so many things without providing facts and figures. It results in it being made fun of, rather than being respected.

 

Thanks,

Rakesh Dubey.

 

 

[dubeyrakesh 0]

I think that on Religion level, only Hinduism states that this material world is a illusion. Christainity or Islam dont indicate that. Thats precisely why these religions are "prospering" but Hinduism is not. These religions at the most teach ways and means to live THIS life more happily/satisfactorily. In other words followers of these religions LIE to self that this life is not a lie and live happily in this lie.

I also believe this - the founders of these religions did nothing but LIED big trying to hide the TRUE LIE and gave birth to a HAPPIER/SUPERIOR RELIGION.

So A R Rehman achieved material success (and may be "mental satisfaction") in this LIE when he embraced Islam. He may be TRULY respecting his religion and admire its power/miracles but all this is hidden within a LIE.

I believe that there cannot be multiple Supreme Powers. Its either "Ishwar" or "Allah" or "God"/"Jesus".

The learned people may like to throw some light.

Thanks all,

Rakesh Dubey

 

 

[Gauracandra 1]

To some degree I think it is true that the Judeo-Christian conception of God does focus more on matter than spirit. Eastern philosophies often are very esoteric. But the Bible itself is very "earth" based. I have often believed that to some degree the philosophies do dictate economic development. In the Judeo-Christian view, there was once a heaven on earth, and many believe that through works, man may one day be in that heaven on earth again. Eastern philosophies tend to focus less on the temporary, the world of matter, and more on the eternal, the world of spirit. As such they emphasize renunciation of matter to come closer in contact with spirit. An in depth study of the various philosophies I think would show this. For instance, which religious group is the richest per capita in the U.S? Its the Mormons. There are a number of structural and historical reasons for this. But if you were to study their philosophy it would be very clear why this is so.

 

Gauracandra

[atma 0]

My friend is telling me that if women have to be always protected and now her karma is giving her this older man for her protection, why not to take it? Not feelings involved now but maybe if he is kind to her she may get attached to him. Marriage is not in the cards yet, just the beginning of a relationship. Attachment will be there anyhow to him or to somebody else. The point here is that feelings shouldn't be important because is something temporary and based in lust. What about all the arranged marriages in Asia and the middle east? The couples don't know each other and the families arrange everything mostly because of economical considerations. In the name of forming a family and companionship they get married when the real issue is having legal sex.

[animesh 0]

Is it a must that we should find the answer to this question in shastras only? Can't we use our experience?

[animesh 0]

Her decision will very much affect her future life. You have written that she should be practical. Agreed. Now the question is, "What will be practical decision for her? To marry the person or not to marry him?" Very often because of current problems, we take some decision which solves the problem temporarily but gives us much more problems in future. The question is what decision will make her future better. There are both advantages and disadvantages in marrying that person. The advantage is that her financial problems will be solved. But there is disadvantage also. Once her financial problems are solved, won't she latter on feel that she should have married someone with whom she can have attachment? (As you have written, she has no emotional attachment with this person). Also, can this man be really trusted? Why is he interested in her? Is he really trying to help her or is he just taking advantage of her situation? What about other people in that man's family? Will they accept her? The answer to this situation is not simple. Pros and cons have to be weighed. And, I do not think that she can alone take the correct decision because she must be affected so much by her financial problems that she would not think of anything other than solving these problems; she may not be able to think about the future. So somebody who is really concerned about her should talk to her and help her in reaching the proper decision.

[animesh 0]

>> ... and now her karma is giving her this older man for her protection, why not to take it?

 

I can very well understand her sentiments. Very often people make these statements when they are very very sad. They start thinking that there is only bad luck in store for them. And they should not even expect anything better.

But personally I DO NOT agree that just because she is having financial problems, we should start thinking that she must have done some bad karmas in this or previous life and she should reap the consequences. Being poor is not being a sinner.

[JRdd 0]

Animesh makes a lot of sense. And since experience was called for, I would like to add that just because marriages are still arranged in some countries doesn't mean it should be imitated, and certainly it does not necessarily mean these marriages are good. Wives are often still seen as commodities in India, and their families are sucked dry for large dowries. Many wives are treated as slaves in the home of the in-laws, and thrown out or even doused with gas and flames when they are no longer wanted. If the man was attached to his wife, if he saw her as a person rather than someone to use/abuse (and vice versa) these things would not go on. Arranged marriages were properly done with precision astrology and it is very hard to find a truly qualified astrologer in these modern times.

 

I believe the attraction between man and woman is innate because it helps them to initiate a contact which at its best, if they are devotees, can create a bond of mutual commitment to helping one another over the rocky mounds of this material existence. Arranged marriages, on the other hand, may be too coldly calculating, and, as in the scenario described by Animesh, may fail or badly backfire in time. There has to be something binding them other than money. Something deeper. The ultimate being Krsna as the center.

 

ys, JR

[leyh 0]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

May I first of all, may I submit that it would be more correct to say that there is no love in material consciousness, but for those who are cultivating a spiritual life, spiritual consciousness, there is indeed love between 2 humans. Now the question is does this 70 year old man have at least deep affection and compassion for this woman and if so why can't he help her in her predicament without making marriage a prerequisite. I believe that neither of them will be satisfied or at peace with themselves if it is more of a material arrangement than a mutually loving relationship. Although it is very difficult to struggle with paying bills constantly (which I can relate to with personal experience), it is (in my opinion) better to be alone in this world and have no one but Krishna at the end of the day to 'take your troubles to' than to make a compromise with the hopes that life will become a little bit easier (once the money problems are solved) when in fact a whole new set of problems arise. She may become resentful that she has to pay attention to this man, (especially if he insists on amourous attention and she has no love or attraction for him).

Because she is young, I would advise her to wait and maybe Krishna (knowing the heart's desire) may bring a nice devotionally inclined man into her life to help her share life's burdens as well as the joys.

Dear Bhakthavasya:

You state that it would be more correct to say that:"there is no love in material consciousness, but for those who are cultivating a spiritual life, spiritual consciousness, there is indeed love between 2 humans."Does this mean that those who do not engage in spiritual practice do not know how to love? There are many non-spiritual practioners and even atheists who I'm sure have done selfless and compassionate things for people that they've felt love for.

Maybe it would be more corrrect to say that the completition and perfextion of love is achieved through spiritual practice. I feel that it seems inaccurate to say that love can only be manifested by spiritual cultivators.Yours Very Sincerely.

 

 

[Guest guest]

The difference between the Kevaladvita or Absolute Monism of Sri Sankaracarya and the Suddhadvaita or Pure Monism of Sri Vallabhacarya, that is a Vaisnava philosophy is:

 

1) Aaccording to Sri Vallabhacaya, the world being a modification of the Ultimate Reality is as real as the Ultimate Reality. A gold ornament is not less gold (or) less real than the ingot of gold. So, material love is real

2) According to Sri Sankaracarya (ie Kevaladvita) the Ultimate Reality is incapable of any modification, so the world is merely an appearance and not a reality. So, material love is not real.

 

The viewpoint of most of Gaudiyas in this thread is quite closely to mayavada than to any other Vaisnava-darsana, as they believe that nothing in this world has any real value.

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

He also said that a mother's love is the closest thing to unconditional love in this world.

There however, exists a very important condition that the love is for her own child and not for all the children in the world. Tha father loves his child for the same condition too. "This child is my child". The condition, "mine" makes all the difference.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu 1]

According to Sri Sankaracarya (ie Kevaladvita) the Ultimate Reality is incapable of any modification, so the world is merely an appearance and not a reality. So, material love is not real.

Which happens only after Mukti. Until then the world with all worldly feelings are completely real.

 

Talk about the world being an illusion, material love being an illusion, etc is moot. The people who taught such philosophies are very clear that it should be taught only to a person who satisfies certain pre-requisite conditions [sadhana chatushtaya]. In fact, Shankara says in his upadesha sAhasri that the disciple must be a 100% Mumukshu. He should desire for nothing else, except liberation. Only such a person should be taught the ultimate truth. The BG says the same thing and this was posted sometime back here.

 

Unfortunately, today philosophy has become public property and everyone knows something in bits and pieces. This has resulted in all this confusion, for half knowledge is worse than no knowledge.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 06-06-2001).]

[animesh 0]

The material world may be real or illusory based on one's perspectives. A person who is not at all afraid by problems in this life (no matter how severe they are) and who has realized his identity with Brahm will feel that this world is illusory. But for everyone else this world is very real. If somebody really has realized his oneness with Brahm, then he will himself understand this world to be an illusion; nobody needs to explain this to him. If we have to explain to somebody that the world is an illusion, this means that, for that person, it is real.

IMO, the solution to the situation posted by atma can never be found by knowing whether the world is real or not.

[shvu 1]

IMO, the solution to the situation posted by atma can never be found by knowing whether the world is real or not.

 

IMO, too.

 

Her problem is real and has to be solved. There is no question of it being an illusion. Instead of resorting to karma and philosophical talk (they won't help to solve a real life problem such as hunger), she should understand what she wants in life and act accordingly. If one does not find a way out, then one can take the philosophical/religious angle to find consolation (opiate) like lots of people do. Not until then.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 06-06-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, today philosophy has become public property and everyone knows something in bits and pieces. This has resulted in all this confusion, because half knowledge is worse than no knowledge.

 

This is an evident result of the mixed world the we are living now. Eastern people have the tendency to consider themselves as 100% spiritual and philosophical, while westerns use to believe that they are 100% material. When they are mixed in a consumption society easterns adopt a material-philosophical way of life accepting all bits and pieces of the materialist society remaining with some of their philosophical conceptions, while westerns adopt a philosophical-material way of life accepting all bit and pieces of the philosophical society remaining with most of their material conceptions.

 

 

[amanpeter 0]

Originally posted by shvu:

There however, exists a very important condition that the love is for her own child and not for all the children in the world. Tha father loves his child for the same condition too. "This child is my child". The condition, "mine" makes all the difference.

 

Cheers

Good point Shvu! Ideally, the devotee `dovetails` this propensity to a personal concept of God in the most intimate relationship, thus feeling that they belong exclusively to each other. As this connection becomes more clear, faith gets firmer and the individual begins to actually see his/her beloved everywhere in everyone. Such Divine Love expands into selfless unity whereas mundane love narrows to become restrictive and selfish, based on material bodies and their various clumps; which include not only families, but religions, cultures, etc.

 

------------------

No offense meant to anyone...