Niyog by Ved Vyas - Page 3

Originally posted by: rimi10

Very informative thread I must say as I had no idea of this ritual. Nevertheless I have my own doubts whether such kind of practice can be termed as something related to Dharma.

Only a true Yogi can perhaps enlighten me in this case and unfortunately none of them exist anymore in this Kaliyug.

Originally posted by: varaali

I am not claiming to be a yogi or anything, but what is it that you wanted to be enlightened about?

We are discussing this thing cause we are not able to think how these things happened with all the rules in place...Because Without passion and lust a man cannot do such an act...But when these dharm was written and said to be done by yogis...It can be possible for the true yogi to do the same without any lust and passion...And after all ved vyas or the rishis who performed these acts had divine powers and ved vyas was incarnation of God not a mere human being...He can do these acts without passion...

All Satyavati wanted was her bloodline to sit on the throne...

but i think she was quite of a hypocrite as she asked shantanu her self respect and position in the kingdom as she wanted to be queen and raj mata and wanted her sons to inherit the thorne. So she did not wnat bhishma to sit on the thorne because by doing so she would be a daasi after shaantanu's death...

but she did not think about same self respect and position of amba? because now no one is ready to marry amba now...she has been like a tainted woman because bheeshma disrupted her swayamvar (on Satyavati's orders)...couldnt satyavati at least now ask bhishma to get married to amba? she was just staying calm n composed in front of amba...and she is allowing the destruction of another lady's life..in order to safeguard her own..

satyvati of star plus mahabharat i am not liking her one bit..

I think we have to ask Ved Vyas for his actual intention towards the same...😉

Like people are saying here that it is not possible for a man to perform this act without lust/pleasure, then the basic rule of the act has been violated, and the act itself is then faulty and against dharma. No?

Originally posted by: VirManForLife

Like people are saying here that it is not possible for a man to perform this act without lust/pleasure, then the basic rule of the act has been violated, and the act itself is then faulty and against dharma. No?

There is a difference between passion /lust and being aroused. the animals consumate just to create a new offspring...there is no passion or lust involved. so i think the way to get it done and maybe ved vyas did by being aroused but not thinking of ambalika n ambika for the arousal. just doing the act n getting away with it...

Lot of valid points raised here! Lets see if we can get some common ground. It is clear that for a man to perform sexual arousal is a must unlike in a woman who could participate in the act passively. So perhaps the practice could have been that the 3rd person did the act (with arousal of course) but without any sense of attachment or emotions. whatever transpired would have to be purely physical with no emotions attached. Hope that makes some sense .

Originally posted by: lovesunshine

There is a difference between passion /lust and being aroused. the animals consumate just to create a new offspring...there is no passion or lust involved. so i think the way to get it done and maybe ved vyas did by being aroused but not thinking of ambalika n ambika for the arousal. just doing the act n getting away with it...

Originally posted by: peridot.

I see I just about wrote something similar 😆

😉