compatibility, match, marriage...

[Guest guest]

Re: compatibility, match, marriage...

> > On 07 Dec 1998, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

> > > So what are the necessary and sufficient ingredients for a

> > > long marriage?

 

Some devotees replied:

> > Love and friendship?

> And confidence, and respect?

> Compromise by BOTH partners.

 

> It obviously has to do with maturity, communication, and other intangibles

such as mutual goals, philosophies, interests, etcetra. I am definately going

to do in-depth interviews with my family to try and discern this great

science.

 

While I would agree that all of these suggestions are certainly valuable

components to successfful marriages, I wish to point out that all of them

refer to INDIVIDUAL or personality qualifications. This is, of course, our

Western cultural tendency to attribute everything to individual traits,

ignoring the social and ecological factors.

 

What is therefore conspicuously missing in the above suggestions are the

SOCIAL dimensions that contribute to successful marriages: such as *families*

without histories of divorce, community resources, kinship networks, cultural

mores, historical conditions, etc.

 

> ...lived in societies (US and Sweden) where divorce was easy to obtain and

not stigmatised. So what are the necessary and sufficient ingredients for a

long marriage?

 

While laws certainly can have a constraining effect on cultural practices,

enduring traditions do not necessarily run parallel to the legal system. You

can have divorce laws for many years "on the books" without people employing

them in a popular fashion. For example, the American slaves were legally

"freed" in 1865, but the reality was that not until 1965, ***100 years

later*** could Afro-American practically enjoy anything close to the equal

rights of citizenship. Similarly, divorce laws were extant for many years, but

it was not until the 1960's that divorce became more socially acceptable, as

well as a feasible option (for women especially) to take.

 

Krishna Kirti insists that marriage is ALL about DUTY. Even admitting the

importance of DUTY in a marriage -- and it is certainly important. It is not

EVERYTHING.

 

How important is duty? That depends.

 

Even in Krsna's time, Vedic culture, there were *Gandharva* or *LOVE*

marriages. That's pure rajas -- sweet, hot ***PASSION***. When there is a

predominance of passion, goodness becomes eclipsed. That means little or no

sense of DUTY. "Why did we marry? Because we LOVE each other." Who cares for

your DUTY?! Duty means the end of love, according to many couples'

conceptions.

 

Admittedly, such marriages have about a 50/50 chance of making it in the long

run. But just see what a little passion can do.... Without any passion,

there's no attraction. Over time, this theoretical but otherwise impossible

idea of DUTY thus smothers in ignorance. DUTY is not blind.

 

Ultimately, some degree of goodness must develop for the marriage to last, but

I think KKd has become **obsessed** (that's the influence of PASSION, BTW)

with his particular conception of DUTY. Goodness means full in KNOWLEDGE and

therefore performing one's activities as a matter of DUTY means understanding

the why's of doing such and such and not in another way. If someone professes

to be a teacher of DUTY, he had better know what he's talking, otherwise, how

can he say anything?

 

It is precisely KKd's narrow conception of DUTY that disturbs me and probably

many others on the conference. It somehow seems oppressive. I have never met

any such creature who acts out of such sterile DUTY as he proposes.

Could he please define DUTY for us we can get a clearer idea of what he means?

 

Respectfully,

Srila dasa

 

> Well, since Krsna-kirti used the example of his in-laws (who happened to be

Indians), I'm sure many of us have similar examples from our own Western

non-devotee families of origin to share too. My parents were married for 41

years until my father's death 3 years ago and my children's paternal

grandparents have never divorced either

 

> No divorces on my maternal side. On my paternal side , none of my

grandfathers 6 children divorced, and of his 23 grandchildren, 21 got married

and only one got a divorce, then remarried and is going on 20 years.