Stable Marriage or a Stepford Wife?

[Guest guest]

> > > > Is it not that the wife must be inferior in all respects to the

> > > > husband?

> > >

> > > Could you unpack this statement prabhu? What do you mean by 'all

> > > respects'?

> >

> > From the story of Sita devi we learn that She had to be married to

> > someone who was superior to her in physical strength. This, and many

> > other examples, suggests that husband should be superior to his wife in

> > as many aspects as possible.

> >

> >

> > > Also, how in this day and age would you ascertain this to be

> > > the case?

> >

> > Dharma means the intrinsic nature of something. Dharmic laws are

> > tailored according to this eternal nature and are thus eternally

> > applicable.

>

> The yuga Dharma changes according to the yuga, does it not - a Dharmic

> truth is therefore not always eternally applicable -

 

The yuga dharma is ONLY in relationship to worship of Lord Krsna NOT

relations between men and women or anything else. So there is no comparison

here. For example in SB 7.11.25-29 Naradamuni gives the dharma of women. He

doesn't say it is only for a particular yuga but not another.

 

Also Srila Prabhupada has said that the edicts of Manu are for eternity not

a particular yuga.

 

"Srila Prabhupada: Yes, he was a great brahmana politician, and it is by his

name that the quarter of New Delhi where all the foreign embassies are

grouped together is called Canakya Puri. Canakya Pandita was a great

politician and brahmana. He was vastly learned. His moral instructions are

still valuable. In India, schoolchildren are taught Canakya Pandita's

instructions. Although he was the prime minister, Canakya Pandita maintained

his brahmana spirit; he did not accept any salary. If a brahmana accepts a

salary, it is understood that he has become a dog. That is stated in the

Srimad-Bhagavatam. He can advise, but he cannot accept employment. So

Canakya Pandita was living in a cottage, but he was actually the prime

minister. This brahminical culture and the brahminical brain is the standard

of Vedic civilization. The Manu-smrti is an example of the standard of

brahminical culture. You cannot trace out from history when the Manu-smrti

was written, but it is considered so perfect that it is the Hindu law. There

is no need for the legislature to pass a new law daily to adjust social

order. THE LAW GIVEN BY MANU IS SO PERFECT THAT IT CAN BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL

TIME. IT IS STATED IN SANSKRIT TO BE TRI-KALADAU, WHICH MEANS "GOOD FOR THE

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE." SSR 6

And Manu gives many laws regarding relations between men and women.

 

 

>

> Sita and Lord Ram did not appear in a Kali Yuga.

>

> Srila Prabhupada married lady disciples to men disciples without checking

> if the man was physically stronger than the woman - or running an IQ test

>

 

Rather he recommended astrological compatibility. But said in the case of

devotees it was not necessary because if persons were KC then the marriage

would go well. So considering how many marriages failed we are led to

believe there are very few devotees in ISKCON. I recently heard a tape where

SP said we should not call ourselves devotees-that is only for advanced

persons. We can however call ourselves (aspiring) servants of Lord Krsna.

Hence, compatibility via jyotish is there for those like us who are not yet

devotees but only aspiring servants.

 

 

 

>

> The eternal truth about marriage that does not change in any Yuga is that

> there should not be divorce.

 

 

 

 

 

Manu Smriti gives different criteria for when a man can reject his wife (and

vice versa). Whether rejection is the same as divorce I am not in a position

to say. Such rejection was also rare as all concerned parties were careful

about contracting marriages so that separations were rare. The following is

quoted from a different text I wrote:

 

"Because of the male desire to dominate SB 3.23.3-6 & 9.3.10p (which females

ignore at their own risk) the rules of engagement (dharma) are much

different. For example a woman cannot have many husbands but in Vedic

culture a man could have more than one wife. Is it discrimination? No. It is

recognizing the nature of men and women; the natural tendencies of the male

and female archetype.

 

"So while a female is dependent and in need of protection from a male

relative the situation is different for men. They are independent and do not

have to tolerate shrewish wives (Manu Smriti 9.77, 80-81). This doesn't

mean that men can act against dharma and mistreat women (Manu Smriti

3.51-59; 8.29, 275; 9.82, 95, 118, 200).

 

"Both men and women have their own prescribed duties (dharma) to perform to

satisfy Lord Krsna in order to advance spiritually. If both parties in a

marriage do their duties then it is a happy marriage. If one party fails in

their duty this is not a good reason for giving up on progressing in

spiritual life. However, because of the different nature and dharma of the

male and female how they cope when the opposite number is delinquent is not

always the same.

 

"It would be impossible in such a short letter to do justice to such a

complex and multifaceted topic. However, I would suggest that a close

reading of the Manu-smriti will give a lot insight into the actual laws of

Dharma involved. And a close reading of classics (the full versions) such as

Valmiki Ramayana, Mahabharata and Puranas will show case studies of how

these principles are applied in real life. For instance Sumantra tells us

that because of her shrewish nature the father of Kaikeyi rejected the

mother of Kaikeyi and evicted her from his home (Valmiki Ramayana

1.35.18-27). This shows how Manu's dictum (Manu Smriti 9.77, 80-81) of how

to deal with a hostile and shrewish wife is applied.

 

 

 

 

 

> This is what Srila Prabhupada stressed. He

> did not blame the women, but "You Americans".

 

 

 

 

"In the modern day, the wife is never submissive, and therefore home life is

broken even by slight incidents." SB 9.3.10p

 

About some of his own female disciples Srila Prabhupada said:

 

"Another difficulty is that in modern civilization everyone is independent

spirited. The girls are no longer very much humble and submissive to their

husbands. " Letter to Gopala Krsna Prabhu (now Swami -- I wonder why?) who

was wanting to get married to a devotee girl, November 26, 1969.

 

"Generally, separation between husband and wife is due to womanly behavior;

divorce takes place due to womanly weakness." Full quote below:

 

"Thereafter Sati left her husband, Lord Siva, who had given her half his

body due to affection. Breathing very heavily because of anger and

bereavement, she went to the house of her father. This less intelligent act

was due to her being a weak woman."

 

PURPORT

 

"According to the Vedic conception of family life, the husband gives half

his body to his wife, and the wife gives half of her body to her husband. In

other words, a husband without a wife or a wife without a husband is

incomplete. Vedic marital relationship existed between Lord Siva and Sati,

but sometimes, due to weakness, a woman becomes very much attracted by the

members of her father's house, and this happened to Sati. In this verse it

is specifically mentioned that she wanted to leave such a great husband as

Siva because of her womanly weakness. In other words, womanly weakness

exists even in the relationship between husband and wife. Generally,

separation between husband and wife is due to womanly behavior; divorce

takes place due to womanly weakness. The best course for a woman is to abide

by the orders of her husband. That makes family life very peaceful.

Sometimes there may be misunderstandings between husband and wife, as found

even in such an elevated family relationship as that of Saté and Lord Siva,

but a wife should not leave her husband's protection because of such a

misunderstanding. If she does so, it is understood to be due to her womanly

weakness." SB 4.4.4

 

In the case of Siva and Sati mentioned above we notice that Lord Siva was a

highly qualified personality yet his wife still chose to disobey him. I

mention this because it is sometimes said by the purvapakshina (anti-

thesis) that "you be Arjuna and I'll be Draupadi" as if her good behavior is

dependent on his and of course forgetting the reason why she should act

chaste-her mission of going back to Godhead by pleasing Krsna through her

service to her husband. In the above example this claim of the purvapakshina

is obliterated because only Krsna could be a more exalted husband than Lord

Siva and still Siva's wife created a disturbance. If Lord Siva wasn't good

enough what to speak of other men.

 

Manu Smriti 9.10 directly says that women cannot be forced to be chaste

(pativratas), it is something they must want to do either by nature or by

training from parents especially by older women. We hear in Ramayana how

Sita on several occasions explained how she was trained by her parents to be

chaste. And how Arundhati wife of Vasista was trained on the order of Lord

Brahma by Savitri (wife of Surya) and other celestial ladies to be a

superlative pativrata.

 

 

 

 

>Thus a properly religious

> man who is married to a domineering woman must take second place. This is

> to fulfill the higher religious principle of no separation, and

> especially, no divorce.

 

Manu Smriti 9.77, 80-81 indicates that a man should quickly reject a

domineering and shrewish wife. And Lord Visnu (Brahma-vaivarta Purana,

Prakrti-khanda 6) has this to say about the man who is dominated by a woman:

 

"In the house where the woman acts like a man or where the man is controlled

by a woman, one's spiritual life is fruitless and the place becomes

inauspicious. For one whose wife is harsh in speech and action and who loves

to quarrel, the forest is more favorable than the home. Since it is easy to

get water, fruits, and peace in the forest, it is considered more auspicious

than being with a mean wife. Those who are puppets in the hands of their

wives are never sanctified, even by cremation. A henpecked husband is not

liable to receive the results of any auspicious activities that he performs.

The demigods and people of earth always criticize him and he is bereft of

fame and glory, so he should be considered dead, though living in the body."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> It is the more intelligent who have to do the necessary to fulfill the

> Dharmic laws. Otherwise where is the evidence of superiority?

 

It is more intelligent to have a proper arranged marriage where the parents

do the arranging and astrological compatibility is looked into so as to

avoid such things as a man married to a shrewish woman. Or, a good girl

married to a bad man.

 

Yours in the service of my eternal master Srila Prabhupada,

 

Shyamasundara Dasa

 

 

PS Here is a text sent to me by a friend.

 

As far as abandonment goes shastra says (notice the context):

 

"If a man forsakes an undefiled undegraded wife in the prime of her youth

he shall be born as a woman in seven successive births and suffer widowhood

each time." [Parasara Smrti 24.]

 

"If a man leaves a wife who is obedient, well-spoken, skilful, virtuous and

the mother of sons, he should be reminded of his duty and [if unrelenting]

should be severely punished by the king. [Narada Srmti 12;95.]

 

Some insights into Adultery:

paradåråbhimar_eßu prav®ttånn®nmahîpati_ |

udvejana karairda__ai_cchinnayitvå pravåsayet ||

 

1. Men who commit adultery with the wives of others, should be severely

punished by the courts of law and afterwards banished.[Manu 8;352]

 

Acts of Adultery: [samgrahana]

The following acts are all considered accessory to adultery and should be

punished;

 

1. Addressing [in a personal manner] the wife of another man at [a lonely

spot such as] a tîrtha, outside the village, in a forest, at a confluence

of rivers.

 

2. Offering presents to a [married] woman.

 

3. Romping with her and touching her ornaments or dress.

 

4. Sitting upon the same seat as a married woman.

 

Exemption to the rule;

The following persons are permitted to converse freely with married women;

 

1. artisans [and merchants]

2. monks

3. entertainers

4. consecrated priests

[Manu 8;352-361.]

 

But only converse, RIGHT!!!

 

Something on rape too:

bålådapahrtå kanyå yadi mantrair na saµsk®tå |

anyasmai vidhivad deyå yathå kanyå tathaiva så ||

 

[vasistha 17;73]

 

Where a damsel is taken by force, but is not solemnly married according to

religious rites, she may be given in marriage to another, for she is

considered as a virgin.

 

yo'kåmåµ düßayet kanyåµ sa sadyo vadhamarhati |

sakåmåµ düßayaµstulyo na vadhaµ pråpnuyånnara_ ||

 

A man who rapes an unwillling maiden should be executed, but a man who

spoils a willling maiden who is his equal, should not undergo such capital

punishment.

[Manu 8.364]

 

 

In the present social conditions in India divorce is considered an anathema

and most Hindu pandits and indeed most orthodox Hindus do not realize that

provision has been made in the sacred law for such occurrences. Although in

medieval and up to recent times no provision was made for it and

subsequently untold suffering resulted from couples being forced by social

pressure to stay together.

 

vidhivat pratig®hyåpi tyajet kanyåµ vigarhitåm |

vyådhitåµ vipra-duß_åµ vå chadnanå copapåditåm ||

 

Though a man may have accepted a damsel in due form, he may abandon her if

she be blemished, diseased, or deflowered, and if she have been given with

fraud. [Manu 9;72]

 

yastu doßavatîµ kanyåm anåkhyåyopapådayet |

tasya tadvitathaµ kuryåt kanyå-dåtur duråtmana_ ||

 

If anybody gives away a maiden possessing blemishes without declaring them,

the bridegroom may annul that contract with the evil-minded giver.

[Manu 9;73.]

 

The bound of marriage can be dissolved if subsequent to the marriage either

party is found to be blemished. The blemishes are; In both parties;

1. Affliction with a chronic or disgusting disease

2. deformity

3. madness

4. inability to have sexual relations and in a girl;

5. loss of virginity [that was not previously declared] and in a

man;

6. committing of a crime for which loss of caste is the penalty.

7. if the groom has forsaken his family.

[Manu 9;72.]

 

When a faultless maiden has been married to a man who has a blemish

unknown before the marriage, and does not take to another man after

discovering it, shall be enjoined to do so by her relatives. If she has no

relations living she may go to live with another man of her own accord.

[Narada 12;96]

 

If the husband went abroad for some sacred duty, the wife should

wait for him eight years, if he went for acquiring learning or fame six

years and if

he went for pleasure three years.

[Manu 9;76]

 

Thereafter she may remarry without incurring any sin or guilt.

 

8. For one year let a husband bear with a wife who hates him; but after

that let him deprive her of her [share] of the property and cease to live

with her. [Manu 9;77.]

 

But he should still make arrangements for her clothing and food.

 

madyapå'sadhuv®ttå ca pratikülå ca yå bhavet |

vyådhitå vå'dhivettavyå hiµsrårthaghnî ca sarvadå ||

 

She who drinks spirituous liquor, is of bad conduct, rebellious, diseased

(with leprosy), violent, or wasteful of money, may at any time be

superseded by another wife. [Manu 9;80]

 

A barren wife may be superseded in the eighth year, she whose children (all)

die in the tenth, she who bears only daughters in the eleventh, but she who

is **quarrelsome without delay**. [Manu.9.81.]

 

9. If a man is unable to have sexual relations with his wife then she may

divorce him and take another husband.

[Narada 12;18.]

 

10. The five cases of legal remarriage for women are;

a. death of the husband [while the wife is still young, with very

small

children]

b. the husband disappears.

c. husband abandons her and becomes a monk.

d. the husband becomes impotent [while the wife is still young].

e. the husband commits a crime deserving of loss of caste.

 

If the husband is untraceable, dead, renounced the world, impotent or

degraded - in these cases of emergency a woman CAN remarry. [Paråsara

28]

 

11. A woman should wait four years for the return of her husband, if he

fails to return she may remarry.

 

12. The five legal reasons for divorce by men;

a. If the wife squanders his property.

b. If she procures an abortion.

c. If the wife makes an attempt on the husband's life.

d. If the wife continually shows him malice.

e. If the wife slanders her husband.

 

The real issue is how can we abandon someone with whom we should have

developed a deep and caring relationship? Separation allows for

reconciliation. Divorce does not. And how does such divorce affect the

morality of ISKCON as a whole?

 

Another important point is that a devotee who is experiencing difficulty in

following all the regulative principles is not naradhama. Prabhupada

defines what a naradhama husband is:

 

1. He is a non-devotee.

 

2. He is addicted to the four principles of sinful life.

 

3. He is not surrendered to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

Here is the complete reference:

 

SB 7.11.28

 

The word naradhama means "nondevotee." Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu also said,

yei bhaje sei bada, abhakta-hina, chara. Anyone who is a devotee is

sinless. One who is not a devotee, however, is the most fallen and

condemned. It is recommended, therefore, that a chaste wife not associate

with a fallen husband. A fallen husband is one who is addicted to the four

principles of sinful activity-namely illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling and

intoxication. Specifically, if one is not a soul surrendered to the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, he is understood to be contaminated. Thus a chaste

woman is advised not to agree to serve such a husband. It is not that a

chaste woman should be like a slave while her husband is naradhama, the

lowest of men. Although the duties of a woman are different from those of a

man, a chaste woman is not meant to serve a fallen husband. If her husband

is fallen, it is recommended that she give up his association. Giving up

the association of her husband does not mean, however, that a woman should

marry again and thus indulge in prostitution. If a chaste woman

unfortunately marries a husband who is fallen, she should live separately

from him. Similarly, a husband can separate himself from a woman who is not

chaste according to the description of the sastra. The conclusion is that a

husband should be a pure Vaisnava and that a woman should be a chaste wife

with all the symptoms described in this regard. Then both of them will be

happy and make spiritual progress in Krsna consciousness.

 

"Regarding remarriage, no, remarriage should be always discouraged.

Remarriage means encouraging sense gratification. Our mission is to curtail

sense gratification. Three times marrying in a year, this is not good, and

they are doing this." (Letter to: Rupanuga 21 August, 1975)

 

[from page 3 of the very *first* volume of CONVERSATIONS--San Francisco,

April 5-6, 1967 (Is Srila Prabhupada setting a mood from the outset?)]

 

Prabhupada: ...Krsna will say to the gopis that "My dear friends, you have

come to me in the dead of night. It is not very good because it is the duty

of every woman to please her husband. So what your husband will think that

you have come in such dead of night? A woman's duty is not to give up her

husband even he is not of good character or if he is unfortunate, if he is

old, or if he is deseased. Still, the husband is worshiped by the wife...."

 

BEST ALWAYS IS IF THERE'S NO SEPARATION OR DIVORCE. THIS IS THE RULE.(but

where there are rules set, in every circumstance the is a need to handle the

exception. THEN THEY MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE EXCEPTION'S AND NOT ANOTHER

SET OF RULES.)