Question 2

QUESTIONER: WHAT WILL BE THE POSITION OF CHILDREN IN A MARRIAGE WHICH HIS LOVE AS ITS BASIS? WHERE WILL THEY BELONG? AND WILL THEY NOT BECOME A SOCIAL PROBLEM? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

So many problems seem to loom up if love becomes the basis of marriage. But they loom up only because we see things through the screen of our old concepts and beliefs. The day we accord love its highest value, the idea that children belong to individuals, to parents, will become meaningless. Really, children don't belong to individuals; they really never belong to them. There was a time when the father was un. known, only the mother was known. That was the age of matriarchy, when the mother was the head of the family and descent was reckoned through the female line.

You will be surprised to know the word "father" is not that old; the word "uncle" is much older. "Mother" is an ancient word, while "father" is very new. The father really appeared on the scene when we institutionalized marriage; he was not known before. The whole male population of a tribe was father-like; only the mother of a child was known. The whole tribe was loving to its children, and since they belonged to none they belonged to all.

It is not right to say that ownership of children by individuals, by parents, has been good for children. True good will happen when children belong to a whole commune or society.

You ask what the position of children will be when we will make love the basis of marriage. Will not they become a social problem? No, they will not be a social problem then. They are a social problem tight now, when we have left them at the mercy of a few individuals, be they parents or relations. And in view of the new vista of future possibilities opening up before us, it is certain that the old foundations of our society are not going to last any longer.

For instance, in the old world a father was a must for a child to be born, it will not be so in the future. In fact, he has already become redundant. Now my sperm can be preserved for thousands of years after my death. and it can give birth to a chill even ten thousand years after me.

Then in the future, even the mother, who has so far been so indispensable, will not be needed for the birth of a child. Soon science is going to find ways and means -- we are at the doorstep of its consummation -- when a mother will not need to carry the burden of a baby in her womb for nine months. A machine, an instrument like the test tube will do the job better. All the facilities that are available to a baby in the mother's womb will be provided to him, and he will be better provided for in a test tube or whatever we will call it. And then it will be difficult to know the parentage of a child. Then the whole social structure will have to be changed. Then all women will play mothers and all men will play fathers to children who will grow up under the collective care of the community. For sure, everything is going to change.

What I am saying has become necessary because of the way science is currently developing throughout the world. But we don't understand it because we continue to think in out old ways, which are out of date. Now when a child is born to you, you consult the best possible physician about his health and upkeep; you don't think that, being his father or mother, you can treat your child medically too. In the same way you go to a good tailor to have clothes made for him; you don't sew them yourself because you happen to be his parent. Likewise, with the deepening of your understanding you will want your child to be born with the help of much healthier sperm than your own, so that he is not retarded physically or mentally, so that he is endowed with a healthy body and an intelligent mind. So you would want to secure the best sperm available for the birth of your child.

On her part, a would-be mother would not like to drag on for nine months with a baby in her womb when facilities will be made available to grow a child externally in a better and healthier manner. The function of parents, as it is today, will then cease to be necessary. And with the cessation of the function of parents, how will marriage itself exist? Then the very basis of marriage will disappear. Technology on one hand and the science of man's mind on the other, are heading towards a point when individual claim on children will come to an end.

This does not mean that all man's problems will end with this radical change in the social structure. Every new experiment, every change we make brings its own problems with it. It is not a great question that problems as such should cease to be -- man will always have problems -- the great question is that we should have newer and greater problems to deal with than what we now have. The real question is that our problems of today should be better than those we had yesterday.

It is not that with the abolition of marriage every conflict between man and man, between man and woman will disappear for good. But, for sure, the conflicts that arise from marriage -- and they are more than enough -- will go. However, newer conflicts and newer problems will arise and it will be a joy to deal with them. To live on this planet problems will always be needed, because it is through our struggle with problems that we grow and mature.

In this connection it is necessary to take notice of a particular problem which comes our way again and again. The problem is that we get used to putting up with the problems of the social system we are given to live in. And so we are afraid of facing those new and unfamiliar problems that are likely to come with a better and higher social system -- even if such a system becomes necessary and feasible. And thus we get stuck with a decadent and dying system, and that is what makes for our real difficulty, our real problem. But it is the task of intelligence to understand that if newer and better problems are available, in the wake of change, it is right to go for the change and to grapple with those problems and solve them.

I hold that so long as love does not bloom fully in a man's life he will not attain to the glory and grandeur of life, he will remain lackluster. A life devoid of love is dull and dreary; it is a veritable desert. And I think that a life full of problems, full of energy and glow, is far more preferable to a life that is dull, dreary and dead. I would like to conclude this discussion with a small anecdote.

A little bunch of wildflowers lived sheltered in the crevices of an old city wall. Winds and storms failed to disturb them since they were well protected by the high wall and its crevices. For the same reason, the sun's rays could not burn them nor could the rains ruin them.

There was a rosebush in the neighborhood of this little bunch of wildflowers. The presence of gorgeous roses made the wildflowers feel inferior and ashamed of their own existence. So one fine morning the wildflowers prayed to God, "So long we have lived as faceless flowers; now please turn us into roses."

God said in answer, "Why get into unnecessary troubles? The life of a rose is very hard. When there is a storm, it shakes it to its roots. And when it blooms, there is already someone around to pluck it. You live a well-protected life, don't forsake it."

But the wildflowers insisted, "We have long lived a sheltered life; we now want to live dangerously. Please make us roses for twenty-four hours."

Other wildflowers pleaded, "Don't be crazy. We have heard that a few of our ancestors had to suffer terribly because of this very craze to become a rose. Our racial experience says we are okay as we are, we should not try to be roses.'l

But the little plant again said, "I want to gossip with the stars; I want to fight with the storms; I W Int to bathe in the rains. I am determined to become a rose."

At long last God yielded and one fine morning the little bunch of wildflowers became a rose. And immediately its saga of trials and tribulations began. Storms came and shook its roots. Rains came and it was drowned in water. The midday sun burned its petals and made it suffer immeasurably. At all times it was exposed to dangers from all sides. Once again other elderly wildflowers gathered round the newborn rose and said, "We had told you so; you did not listen. Don't you see how secure you were in your old life? Granted it had its problems, but they were old and familiar problems, and we were used to them. It was okay. Do you see what a mess you have made of your life?"

To this the new rose said, "You are fools. I say that it is far better to be a rose just for twenty-four hours and live dangerously than to live in lifelong security as little wildflowers protected by a high wall. It was great to breathe with the storms and fight with the winds. I was in contact with the sun and I had a dialogue with the stars. I have achieved my soul and I am so fulfilled. I lived fully and I am going to die fully. As far as you are concerned you live a life of living death."

But going back to the world does not make any difference to Krishna: he can easily go back if it becomes necessary. He will remain himself in every situation -- in love and attachment, in anger and hostility. Nothing will disturb his emptiness, his calm. He will find no difficulty whatsoever is coming and going. His emptiness is positive and complete, alive and dynamic.

But so far as experiencing it is concerned it is the same whether you come to Buddha's emptiness or Krishna's. Both will take you into bliss. But where Buddha's emptiness will bring you relaxation and rest, maybe Krishna's emptiness will lead you to immense action. If we can coin a phrase like "active void", it will appropriately describe Krishna's emptiness. And the emptiness of Buddha and Mahavira should be called "passive void". Bliss is common to both but with one difference: the bliss of the active void will be creative and the other kind of bliss will dissolve itself in the great void.