Arranged Marriage

[suchandra]

Since it is an obligation in Vedic society that it is the duty of a father and mother to arrange for the marriage of their sons and daughters, what is the present understanding - the pros and cons in general about this custom? How are Vaishnava societies implementing marriage by arrangement?

 

From Wikipedia, "An arranged marriage is a marriage arranged by someone other than the persons getting married, curtailing or avoiding the process of courtship. Such marriages are not uncommon in the Middle East, South Asia, parts of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee. Other groups that practice this custom include the Unification Movement, and royal families."

 

 

Marriage By Arrangement - Results of one Social Science Study

Submitted by MarriageDebate.com From "Parents and Children at Odds In Defining Mr. or Mrs. Right," Washington Post, April 14, 2008:

 

...In a study involving Dutch, American and Kurdish students, psychologists in the Netherlands found that...young people invariably considered [their] potential mate's attractiveness the most important quality, whereas parents uniformly paid more attention to the suitors' social background or group affiliation -- race, religious background and social class...

 

...Parents and offspring clash, the researchers argued, because their genetic self-interests, while overlapping, are not identical.

 

The reason young people care so much about intellectual and physical attractiveness, the scientists suggested, is that these characteristics are markers of genetic fitness. By contrast, they said, parents care about group affiliations because parents are primarily interested in whether an incoming member of the family is likely to make a good parent -- and a good all-around team player...

 

Historian Stephanie Coontz argues that the researchers did not draw a clear enough distinction between love and marriage. Evolution might play a big role in shaping the reproductive drive, she says, but it would be a mistake to think that the institution of marriage has primarily been about either love or reproduction.

 

Until very recently, Coontz contends, children and parents were rarely in conflict about whom to marry -- they both agreed that marriage was not about love, but about social and economic ties...

 

Nearly everyone in the West -- and growing numbers of young people elsewhere in the world -- believes in the ideal of marrying for love, an idea that would have been ludicrous and dangerous a century ago, said Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage." Coontz traces the change in attitudes about marriage to the fact that growing economic self-reliance has made it less likely that people need to marry for money...

 

Intellectual and physical attractiveness are not incompatible with being dutiful, although traditional (and morally sane) societies do happen to privilege being dutiful over intellectual and physical attractiveness. Short-lived Hollywood marriages should be reason enough to believe that privileging duty over intelligence and beauty is the correct ordering of priorities.

 

It is the duty of a father and mother to arrange for the marriage of their sons and daughters. That is the obligation in Vedic society. Sons and daughters should not be allowed freedom to intermingle with the opposite sex unless they are married. This Vedic social organization is very good in that it stops the promulgation of illicit sex life, or varna-sankara, which appears under different names in this present day. Unfortunately in this age although the father and mother are anxious to get their children married, the children refuse to get married by the arrangement of the parents. Consequently, the number of varna-sankara has increased throughout the world under different names.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 4.27.8

 

 

[kimfelix]

I am not quite sure what is meant by a Vedic society. Does that mean a society based on Dharma Shastras like the Manu Smriti? There are a number of injunctions given by Manu that are no longer acceptable and for that reason it has more or less been set aside today. In fact, some parts of Manu are clearly unjust and immoral. Perhaps arranged marriages are another of those customs. Economic and social change means that the rules governing society must also change.

[bhaktajan]

 

I am not quite sure what is meant by a Vedic society. Does that mean a society based on Dharma Shastras like the Manu Smriti? There are a number of injunctions given by Manu that are no longer acceptable and for that reason it has more or less been set aside today. In fact, some parts of Manu are clearly unjust and immoral. Perhaps arranged marriages are another of those customs. Economic and social change means that the rules governing society must also change.

Let me refresh your memory:

The Manu samhita enumerates marriage arrangement(s), ie: Brahma-marriage, Kshatriya-marriage, gandarva-marriage, etc.

 

The arranged marriage descibed in the above opening Post is a Brahma-marriage-- arranged by the parents and/or the family Guru.

 

The omitted aspect of arranged marriage is that it is meant for every party's mutual happiness.

 

Of course, we have experience where the parents have ulterior motives or are just hillbilly goobers with out any culture nor a fruitfull future worth waiting around for.

 

The only complaint about an arranged marriage is "Stupid/Foolish/Inconsiderate/Doltish Parents" whose judgement is flawed.

 

The 50% of marriages that end in divorce almost all have no such "arranged marriage by parrents" status.

 

Could you consider that the marriages that started with introductions by friends or a dating service ---which ended in divorce an "arrainged" hooking up?

 

I guess that if your marriage, that was not arranged, fails --then you could still stay friends with your parents --unless they 'nag' you with the abmonishment, "I told you so."

 

But most parents want life to be better for their kids than it was for themselves. And most parrents are too busy keeping up with the Jones to have any idea how to find mates for their kids.

 

How can devotees find mate? I'm afraid that their are very few ways to do that.

 

What economic change? Enlisting into the army? Un-employment checks?

Happiness is a count of the cash receipts after the guests leave.

 

"Economic and social change means that the rules governing society must also change"

 

Nicely said. What is it that you mean to say? During any economic depression there is still the wealth holders of the country who are still without anxiety.

 

Poor parental guidance steers children toward war, unhappiness, prison, and world-class stupidity.

 

"For evil to flurish all that is required is for good men to do nothing"

 

May you all find good mates and teach your children well.

[suchandra]

 

Let me refresh your memory:

The Manu samhita enumerates marriage arrangement(s), ie: Brahma-marriage, Kshatriya-marriage, gandarva-marriage, etc.

 

The arranged marriage descibed in the above opening Post is a Brahma-marriage-- arranged by the parents and/or the family Guru.

 

The omitted aspect of arranged marriage is that it is meant for every party's mutual happiness.

 

Of course, we have experience where the parents have ulterior motives or are just hillbilly goobers with out any culture nor a fruitfull future worth waiting around for.

 

The only complaint about an arranged marriage is "Stupid/Foolish/Inconsiderate/Doltish Parents" whose judgement is flawed.

 

The 50% of marriages that end in divorce almost all have no such "arranged marriage by parrents" status.

 

Could you consider that the marriages that started with introductions by friends or a dating service ---which ended in divorce an "arrainged" hooking up?

 

I guess that if your marriage, that was not arranged, fails --then you could still stay friends with your parents --unless they 'nag' you with the abmonishment, "I told you so."

 

But most parents want life to be better for their kids than it was for themselves. And most parrents are too busy keeping up with the Jones to have any idea how to find mates for their kids.

 

How can devotees find mate? I'm afraid that their are very few ways to do that.

 

What economic change? Enlisting into the army? Un-employment checks?

Happiness is a count of the cash receipts after the guests leave.

 

"Economic and social change means that the rules governing society must also change"

 

Nicely said. What is it that you mean to say? During any economic depression there is still the wealth holders of the country who are still without anxiety.

 

Poor parental guidance steers children toward war, unhappiness, prison, and world-class stupidity.

 

"For evil to flurish all that is required is for good men to do nothing"

 

May you all find good mates and teach your children well.

 

Thanks for writing this all together. I'm also quite sure that although vedic marriage is arranged by the parents, if the girl didn't wanted to marry a boy selected by the parents, the girl was never forced. There was no pressure for the girl to take a decision. It were proposals and when both boy and girl were agreeing to the arrangement of the parents then only they got married. Although it must be said that in the present age of advanced kali-yuga this system is quite vulnerable for all kind of abusive behaviour.

 

"Indoctrination" is the crime here

Texas polygamist sect is accused of indoctrinating girls

 

 

 

By MICHELLE ROBERTS, Associated Press Writer

 

 

SAN ANGELO, Texas 18 April 2008 - Girls in the west Texas polygamous sect enter into underage marriages without resistance because they are ruthlessly indoctrinated from birth to believe disobedience will lead to their damnation, experts for the state testified Friday at a custody hearing for 416 youngsters. The renegade Mormon sect's belief system "is abusive. The culture is very authoritarian," said Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist and an authority on children in cults.

But under questioning from defense lawyers who lined up in the courtroom aisles to have a turn at each witness, the state's experts acknowledged that the sect mothers are loving parents and that there were no signs of abuse among younger girls and any of the boys. The testimony came on Day 2 of an extraordinary mass hearing over an attempt by the state of Texas to strip the parents of custody and place the children in foster homes away from the compound inhabited by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

A witness for the parents who was presented by defense lawyers as an expert on the FLDS disputed the state's contention that a bed in the retreat's gleaming white temple was never used to consummate the marriages of underage girls to much older men. Instead, W. John Walsh testified, it is used for naps during the sect's long worship services. "There is no sexual activity in the temple," Walsh said.

The children were seized this month in a raid on the desert compound because of evidence of physical and sexual abuse, including the forcing of underage girls into marriage and childbearing. Texas District Judge Barbara Walther boiled it down this way: "The issue before the court is: Can I give them back?" Attorneys for the children and the parents appeared to be trying to show in cross-examination that their children were fine and that the state was trying to tear families apart on the mere possibility that the girls might be abused when they reach puberty several years from now.

Only a few of the children are teenage girls. Roughly a third are younger than 4 and more than two dozen are teenage boys. But about 20 women or more gave birth when they were minors, some as young as 13, authorities say. The judge controlled the hundreds of lawyers with a steelier hand Friday than she did the day before. Under cross-examination, state child-welfare investigator Angie Voss conceded there have been no allegations of abuse against babies, prepubescent girls or any boys.

But her agency, Child Protective Services, contends that the teachings of the FLDS — to marry shortly after puberty, have as many children as possible and obey their fathers or their prophet, imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs — amount to abuse. "This is a population of women who appear to have a problem making a decision on their own," Voss said. In response, the FLDS women, dressed in long, pioneer-style dresses with their hair swept up in braids, groaned in chorus with their dark-suited attorneys.

Walsh disputed that young girls have no say in who they marry. "Basically, they're into match-making," he said of the sect, adding that girls who have refused matches have not been expelled. "I believe the girls are given a real choice. Girls have successfully said, 'No, this is not a good match for me,' and they remained in good standing," he said. Perry testified that the girls he interviewed said they freely chose to marry young. But he said those choices were based on lessons drilled into them from birth.

"Obedience is a very important element of their belief system," he said. "Compliance is being godly; it's part of their honoring God." Perry acknowledged that many of the adults at the ranch are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy when he played with them. When asked whether the belief system really endangered the older boys or young children, Perry said, "I have lost sleep over that question."

Under questioning, Perry also conceded the children would suffer if placed in traditional foster care. "If these children are kept in the custody of the state, there would have to be exceptional and innovative programmatic elements for these children and their families," he said. "The traditional foster care system would be destructive for these children." At that, dozens of FLDS parents applauded.

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, said courts have generally held that a parent's belief system cannot, in itself, justify a child's removal. He said, for example, that a parent might teach his child that smoking marijuana is acceptable, but only when he helps the child buy pot does he cross the line. "The general view of the legal system is until there is an imminent risk of harm or actual harm, you can't" take the children, Volokh said. The raid was prompted by a call from someone identifying herself as a 16-year-old girl with the sect. She claimed her husband, a 50-year-old member of the sect, beat and raped her. Investigators have yet to identify her among the children seized. Jeffs is in prison for being an accomplice to rape. He was convicted in Utah last year of forcing a 14-year-old into marrying an older man.

Walsh testified that the renegade Mormon sect did not promote underage marriages until imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs took over as the sect's "prophet.He encourages marriage," Walsh said. "In some ways, he's indifferent to their age."

[raghu]

 

I am not quite sure what is meant by a Vedic society. Does that mean a society based on Dharma Shastras like the Manu Smriti? There are a number of injunctions given by Manu that are no longer acceptable and for that reason it has more or less been set aside today. In fact, some parts of Manu are clearly unjust and immoral. Perhaps arranged marriages are another of those customs. Economic and social change means that the rules governing society must also change.

 

Arranged marriages are not unjust and immoral. Allowing your children to find their mates using their baser instincts is.

 

Parents in Vedic society arrange the marriages of their children to secure lasting relationships that will further the religious culture of the family. It is called good parenting.

 

Almost every culture has at one time or another had a standard of arranged marriages. It is not unique to Vedic culture.

[kimfelix]

Raghu, I wasn't referring to arranged marriages as unjust and immoral. But Manu does advocate child marriage, does not allow remarriage for widows and he advocates forbidding the lowest castes from mixing with the rest of society. For these reasons it is hard to regard the Manu Smriti as a scripture or an authority on social issues.

[Gaea]

 

Raghu, I wasn't referring to arranged marriages as unjust and immoral. But Manu does advocate child marriage, does not allow remarriage for widows and he advocates forbidding the lowest castes from mixing with the rest of society. For these reasons it is hard to regard the Manu Smriti as a scripture or an authority on social issues.

 

Depends on time and circumstance. Child marriage is not acceptable now because society has changed - simple.

 

Not so many years ago in Britain very young girls married much older men, and was not considered paedophilia, because it was socially acceptable.

 

One cannot read the Manu Samhita with the spectacles of the 21st century because times have radically changed.

 

At the time of law making there may have been very, very good reasons for those rules, who is to say they were wrong for the time? You can only say they're wrong because of modern conditioning. Certainly you don't complain about some modern laws (although there are of course some that are very questionable right now) but in 1000 years they may change radically.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Raghu, I wasn't referring to arranged marriages as unjust and immoral. But Manu does advocate child marriage, does not allow remarriage for widows and he advocates forbidding the lowest castes from mixing with the rest of society. For these reasons it is hard to regard the Manu Smriti as a scripture or an authority on social issues.

 

That is Yuga Bheda. In Treta and Krita Yugas, people were stronger, taller and lived longer. Therfore, their bodies may have been more compatible with the demands of child marriage. In Kali Yuga, where people are not so perfect in physicality, problems arise.

 

People in the lower castes often eat meat and have other such habits. Therfore, it is adviced to not mix with them. But certainly, if a lower caste person is a Vishnu Bhakta, I will have no problems in falling at his Lotus Feet.

[raghu]

 

Raghu, I wasn't referring to arranged marriages as unjust and immoral. But Manu does advocate child marriage, does not allow remarriage for widows and he advocates forbidding the lowest castes from mixing with the rest of society. For these reasons it is hard to regard the Manu Smriti as a scripture or an authority on social issues.

 

As someone else pointed out, judging an ancient text by modern values will leave you unsatisfied with almost everything whose origins are pre-industrial. One can take issue with Bhagavad-gita on the same grounds - in the 9th chapter it lists women among the various "pApa-yonayH" and you may not like that. And study of shrutis were restricted to twice-born males - this is discrimination and modern people won't like that either. And so on and so forth.

 

I don't recall what Manu says about ideal marriage age. In societies whose life expectancy was no more than 30-40 years, the idea of being married young is certainly out of the ordinary. I don't know why you consider forbidding widows to marry an "injustice." This custom is still followed in many orthodox families today, and the women of those communities will spit at the thought of remarriage, just as they would at the idea of divorce. As far as members of low castes "mixing" with the rest of society - I really am not sure what specifically you are referring to. My recollection was that Manu prescribed an attitude of respect by non-brahmanas towards brahamans. However, the same Manu also prescribes very strict discipline for brahmanas and condemns hypocritical and non-practicing brahmanas. So it's really not black and white, now is it?

 

There should be an attitude of humility when questioning ancient cultures and their values. Post-modern culture is more socially dysfunctional by any objective measure. I fail to see what makes us enlightened enough to condemn strictures against widow remarriage, for example.

[kimfelix]

It is not so much an ancient culture I am criticising as the status of the Manu Smriti as an authoritative text. I would agree that it is interesting as a reflection of an earlier society but that is not the same as accepting it as scripture or as authoritative in any way.

 

The prohibition on widow remarriage can be unjust particularly when it exists alongside the custom of child marriage. In 1921 there were 329,000 widows in India under the age of 15 who were not allowed to remarry; when Gandhi and other reformers campaigned against this prohibition the Manu Smriti was cited by their opponents to support traditional practice. To force girls to live their whole lives as widows, in many cases prevented from ever having children, is certainly unjust. According to the Mahabharata not harming any being with thought, word or deed is the highest dharma. On this basis I would argue that the prohibition on widows' remarrying is contrary to dharma.

 

In Chapter 10 of the Manu Smriti, verses 47 to 55 insist that persons of the lowest castes be excluded from living in the village (v51) and that they must be identified by wearing marks on their clothing that show their low status. Up until the 1930s those born in the lowest castes were forbidden from entering many Hindu temples or even walking on the roads leading to temples.

 

I don't think there are many who would want to see a return to this type of 'Vedic society' and the issue of arranged marriages is one that might be considered in the same category. There is a grey area between arranged and forced marriage with varying degrees of pressure being applied.

 

The question on the Manu Smriti is whether it is to be regarded as a historical document that reveals to us the nature of ancient social customs or whether it is to be regarded as an authoritative text that dictates how society today should be structured.

[Gaea]

 

It is not so much an ancient culture I am criticising as the status of the Manu Smriti as an authoritative text. I would agree that it is interesting as a reflection of an earlier society but that is not the same as accepting it as scripture or as authoritative in any way.

 

The prohibition on widow remarriage can be unjust particularly when it exists alongside the custom of child marriage. In 1921 there were 329,000 widows in India under the age of 15 who were not allowed to remarry; when Gandhi and other reformers campaigned against this prohibition the Manu Smriti was cited by their opponents to support traditional practice. To force girls to live their whole lives as widows, in many cases prevented from ever having children, is certainly unjust. According to the Mahabharata not harming any being with thought, word or deed is the highest dharma. On this basis I would argue that the prohibition on widows' remarrying is contrary to dharma.

 

In Chapter 10 of the Manu Smriti, verses 47 to 55 insist that persons of the lowest castes be excluded from living in the village (v51) and that they must be identified by wearing marks on their clothing that show their low status. Up until the 1930s those born in the lowest castes were forbidden from entering many Hindu temples or even walking on the roads leading to temples.

 

I don't think there are many who would want to see a return to this type of 'Vedic society' and the issue of arranged marriages is one that might be considered in the same category. There is a grey area between arranged and forced marriage with varying degrees of pressure being applied.

 

The question on the Manu Smriti is whether it is to be regarded as a historical document that reveals to us the nature of ancient social customs or whether it is to be regarded as an authoritative text that dictates how society today should be structured.

 

Again, I would agree with that keeping young widows from leading happy lives is wrong - presently. In other yugas, we cannot say because outlook and attitude in life was completely different. Might seem distasteful now but attitudes can change vastly.

 

I agree with you that this can no longer be considered a law-making text in today's society. Maybe in the next Sathya Yuga

[raghu]

 

It is not so much an ancient culture I am criticising as the status of the Manu Smriti as an authoritative text. I would agree that it is interesting as a reflection of an earlier society but that is not the same as accepting it as scripture or as authoritative in any way.

 

Even other authoritative smritis like Bhagavad-gita and Bhagavata Puranam contain material that is overtly patriarchical. You could similarly object to their status as authoritative texts when they contain material that is not compatible with modern, egalitarian sentiments on gender relations.

 

Manu Smriti is originally an authoritative source, but like many smritis the currently available recensions may have some interpolations, and I am not sure how much of what we have of it today is the authentic words of Manu. Of course, being authoritative is not the same thing as being popular or acceptable to the masses (or for that matter, to the English-educated intelligentsia). But other texts refer to Manu and traditionally Hindus have accepted it. And traditionally, Hindus do frown on widow remarriage, because the Hindu worldview stresses fidelity to one's spouse and satisfaction with whatever sense gratification one is allotted in life, rather than repeated seeking of newer opportunities for sense gratification within the context of religious ritual.

 

 

The prohibition on widow remarriage can be unjust particularly when it exists alongside the custom of child marriage. In 1921 there were 329,000 widows in India under the age of 15 who were not allowed to remarry;

 

Certainly one could argue that restricting one's desire for sense gratification is unjust. Wouldn't a young widow be happier by being able to get remarried again? The answer to the question is largely based on what values you have, which in turn is based on what you consider real.

 

I don't remember the original context in which Manu forbids remarriage. My copy appears to have gone missing. But your initial objection was to widow remarriage while now you seem to be solely concerned with widow remarriage in the context of child marriage. Of course, that is really a different concern. When I hear of child marriages in the context of young girl + old man it certainly strikes me as unfair to the girl. But then again, those were not the norm in Vedic society, now were they? I am inclined to believe that the root problem should be fixed, rather than blaming the consequences of allowing such problems to exist in the first place.

 

There may be other rationale for forbidding widow remarriage. Traditionally, Hindu males would not accept one as a wife if she had already been the wife of another. Now, you may argue that this is unjust. But if a man is seeking marriage, he certainly has a choice as to what he wants in a wife. If the parents of a girl fail to mention that she was previously married, and a man took her hand in marriage with wrong understanding of her background, would you feel that to be just? Certainly in that context I could understand a prohibition against widow remarriage.

 

In iskcon women and men remarry all the time. Iskcon's own founder referred to this behavior as being akin to prostitution, and indeed many orthodox Vaishnavas frown on this behavior and regard it as very low-class. Manu does not seem to be saying anything in regards to remarriage that isn't already a part of traditional Hindu society.

 

 

According to the Mahabharata not harming any being with thought, word or deed is the highest dharma. On this basis I would argue that the prohibition on widows' remarrying is contrary to dharma.

 

Your argument as stated above is not sensible. By the same token the whole Kurukshetra war would then be regarded as unjust and Arjuna should have been content to let a rapist and murderer remain on the throne of Hastinapur.

 

 

In Chapter 10 of the Manu Smriti, verses 47 to 55 insist that persons of the lowest castes be excluded from living in the village (v51) and that they must be identified by wearing marks on their clothing that show their low status. Up until the 1930s those born in the lowest castes were forbidden from entering many Hindu temples or even walking on the roads leading to temples.

 

I am looking at the online copy at the Sanskrit Documents website. I thought it was pretty obvious that these verses were referring to those born outside of Vedic culture (i.e. not brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas, nor shudras) as made clear in 10.46, not the "lowest castes" (which would imply shudras and vaishyas).

 

Anyway, I have some doubts as to whether these verses are really part of the original Manu or a later interpolation. I really don't know why a text that is concerned with brahminical and Aryan culture would bother itself so much with the occupations of those who are outcaste. If I am a brahmana, why would I want to specify that a Nishada should make his living by fishing? I would rather that a Nishada find some other work that doesn't stink up the place.

 

By the way, the idea that Nishadas were forbidden from entering civilized society is not consistent with the Mahabharata. During the house of wax episode, there is mention of a Nishada woman and her five sons who visited Maharaja Dharmaputra during his last days in the wax palace. If what Manu says was true, wouldn't Dharmaputra have forbidden her to come in? On the contrary, the Pandavas received them also (these were the same Nishadas who were said to have wandered off and gotten lost in the palace in a drunken stupor, and got unknowingly left there when the palace was burnt down and their corpses later mistaken for the Pandavas).

 

 

 

I don't think there are many who would want to see a return to this type of 'Vedic society'

 

I think that it is important to first define Vedic society correctly, without undue reliance on biased scholarship and corrupted texts.

 

 

and the issue of arranged marriages is one that might be considered in the same category. There is a grey area between arranged and forced marriage with varying degrees of pressure being applied.

 

So we are back on the subject of arranged marriages being unjust again?

 

Given the extreme marital dysfunction (as evidenced by a 60% divorce rate) in industrialized countries, I am still inclined to believe that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

 

The question on the Manu Smriti is whether it is to be regarded as a historical document that reveals to us the nature of ancient social customs or whether it is to be regarded as an authoritative text that dictates how society today should be structured.

 

I would go so far as to say that the original uncorrupted Manu Samhita should dictate how society should be structured. But, I realize that is not very politically correct these days.

[kimfelix]

There is an interesting passage in the Karna Parvan of the Mahabharata in which Arjuna quarrels with Yudhishthira and even threatens to kill him. At that point Krishna gives a short talk on dharma that is very instructive. He says that whilst we should not ignore shastra, we must accept that dharma cannot be expounded in terms of rigid rules. He says that dharma is whatever brings benefit to living beings and anything that does this is therefore dharma. We do not have shariya, we use our intelligence and sense of morality. We will not accept cruelty even if it is supported by some smriti text. The text is our servant in our spiritual quest it is not our master.

 

When you take recourse in a theory of interpolation, are you not following the same path in a milder sense? When we find passages that are unjust and give rise to cruel acts, I say that here we must not abide by the text. You say, "That must surely be an interpolation". The language is different perhaps, but essentially we doing the same thing.

 

It is not really a question of 'modern egalitarian ideas' it is about the universal principles of sanatana dharma. This demands that we feel pure compassion for all living beings and that we do whatever we can to help those who are in distress. The smriti rules must be surrendered if they are no longer supporting the great virtues of sanatana dharma.

[bhaktajan]

Vaivasvata Manu (7<SUP>th</SUP> Manu), son of Vivasvan & Grandson of Kasyapa was born approx. 120,000,000 years ago [or 27.5 Maha-yugas ago] —during this time the only "householders" would have been Vaivasvata Manu's relatives (the devatas) and their kids.

The "sanatana-Dharma" that is communicated to us in the Gita and by the purports of Srila Prabhupada and other bonefide acaryas & sadhus must be taken as containing the resolution to the duties of marriage etc.

Simply said, I know. But what I am saying is that in by-gone ages the 'quality of life' was more opulent in a straight-forward and down-to-earth ways.

No <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comKrishna</st1:place> re-establishes in the Bhagavad-gita was lost to humanity by way of the influence of 'time'.

<font face=" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Las Vegas</st1:place></st1:City> Honeymoons nor airplane flights to tropical island hotels while world wars rage on, just wealth and contentment of an agrarian mode and abundance of a whole-ly wholesome type.

<FONT face=Arial>If old men could usurp the young women-folks, then they stole from the younger & stronger men and displayed nothing but bestial lust for sex. No?

<FONT face=Arial>If so then what is the confusion? If bestial lust for sex is the Status Quo ascribed in a scripture it is to rejected by right thinking men and women.

<FONT face=Arial>If bestial lust for sex is the Status Quo ascribed in a so-called Scripture/Social Structure and it is accepted —it is accepted by tribes that we should not associate ourselves with.

<FONT face=Arial>The concept of 'perversity' is definitively ascribed to the acts of pedophiles and similar miscreants and socio-paths.

[raghu]

 

There is an interesting passage in the Karna Parvan of the Mahabharata in which Arjuna quarrels with Yudhishthira and even threatens to kill him. At that point Krishna gives a short talk on dharma that is very instructive. He says that whilst we should not ignore shastra, we must accept that dharma cannot be expounded in terms of rigid rules. He says that dharma is whatever brings benefit to living beings and anything that does this is therefore dharma. We do not have shariya, we use our intelligence and sense of morality. We will not accept cruelty even if it is supported by some smriti text. The text is our servant in our spiritual quest it is not our master.

 

I agree with the point that one should not blindly follow rules and regulations. When conflict between different dharmas exists, one should go to one's guru and ask what the correct path is to follow. This is precisely what Arjuna did when he submitted himself before Sri Krishna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. If he had made his own decision, citing that "ahimsa is the supreme dharma," then a murderer and rapist would have remained on the throne of Kurukshetra. And then the women's rights groups would instead criticize Gita because it sanctions rape, instead of just criticizing it for being sexist...

 

The problem with today's society is that many people don't follow any rules. They want to remarry because celibacy is inconvenient. They want to divorce because marriage is inconvenient. They want to eat meat because being kind to animals is inconvenient. They want free birth control pills for their children because good parenting is inconvenient. And so on and so forth. How can such people be taken seriously when they cry foul at dharma shastras? They are barely on the level of animal life.

 

 

When you take recourse in a theory of interpolation, are you not following the same path in a milder sense? When we find passages that are unjust and give rise to cruel acts, I say that here we must not abide by the text. You say, "That must surely be an interpolation". The language is different perhaps, but essentially we doing the same thing.

 

As I clearly mentioned earlier, I suggested the possibility of interpolation of certain passages because they were *inconsistent* with certain smritis and seemed illogical and out of character for a brahminical text. I am certainly not pronouncing an authoritative opinion on the subject. I am only trying to suggest an alternative view of the text beyond the myopic one of today's academia which holds that the view of Manu as casteist, sexist, misogynist, racist, and every other -ist that exists is the only politically-correct view. While I do not think that any reading will ultimately satisfy them, I do think they should give some credit to ancient Hindus being more compassionate and empathic. For every questionable verse they quote from Manu, I can quote 10 more smritis suggesting that actual Hindus thought and behaved differently. Is it likely that Manu disagreed with other sages and Puranas? Or is it more likely that Manu's work has suffered over time from the same problems that have plagued the Bible, the Shiva Purana, the Yoga Vasishtha, etc?

 

 

It is not really a question of 'modern egalitarian ideas' it is about the universal principles of sanatana dharma. This demands that we feel pure compassion for all living beings and that we do whatever we can to help those who are in distress. The smriti rules must be surrendered if they are no longer supporting the great virtues of sanatana dharma.

 

I don't know what your concept of "sanathana dharma" is. The idea that the shrutis and smritis are consistent and authoritative is a well known feature of classical Hindu/Vedic culture. The idea that one should submit to a guru when faced with apparent conflicts in one's duties is also a feature of the same culture.

 

I don't agree with the neo-Hindu view that one can pick and choose by himself what duties and what shastras to follow.

[thehat]

Sorry to throw the thread off course here. I just wanted to say one quick thing about having to get married in this social setting..

 

I'm very frightened to get married! Yes I'd like to get married, but to a suitable person. I would like a Krsna conscious wife, vegetarian, intelligent, dutiful/hard working, beautiful, loving, determined etc etc.

But as I've even said to my parents who would probably like to arrange a marriage for me in future, "This is a risky business, you see how I act, and ideals I uphold - where will you find such a wife who has similar behaviour/lifestyle or can surpass it in quality?". A compromise would undoubtedly be expected on my part should I have to marry any typical mary jane.

 

Also I can say that a great majority of the indians i've met living in the west would probably not be so suitable for me (not that I'm exclusive to indians only) . Heck, even if I wasn't related to my family they probably wouldn't be suitable for me.

Say if my parents arranged for me some girl, I wouldn't be suprised if she was eating meats like cow or was more concerned with fashion and partying rather than spiritual life and family life. I see this sort of thing daily.

So what should a young vaishnav do or consider? Wouldn't it be best just to devote life to Krishna fully? But then parents may feel upset. It is kind of an obligation of the son to provide daughter in law for the mother - I don't know why. Something many indian mothers expect..

 

Even I as well as other young indian boys will try and look for our own wife as our elder siblings had done. That also is a very difficult task. There are too many conflicting lifestyles to ones own lifestyle out there. Sure we could marry a typical smart and pretty wife. But what good will it do for the future of our family if she's not cultured, or has no regard for spiritual life?

[suchandra]

 

Sorry to throw the thread off course here. I just wanted to say one quick thing about having to get married in this social setting..

 

I'm very frightened to get married! Yes I'd like to get married, but to a suitable person. I would like a Krsna conscious wife, vegetarian, intelligent, dutiful/hard working, beautiful, loving, determined etc etc.

But as I've even said to my parents who would probably like to arrange a marriage for me in future, "This is a risky business, you see how I act, and ideals I uphold - where will you find such a wife who has similar behaviour/lifestyle or can surpass it in quality?". A compromise would undoubtedly be expected on my part should I have to marry any typical mary jane.

 

Also I can say that a great majority of the indians i've met living in the west would probably not be so suitable for me (not that I'm exclusive to indians only) . Heck, even if I wasn't related to my family they probably wouldn't be suitable for me.

Say if my parents arranged for me some girl, I wouldn't be suprised if she was eating meats like cow or was more concerned with fashion and partying rather than spiritual life and family life. I see this sort of thing daily.

So what should a young vaishnav do or consider? Wouldn't it be best just to devote life to Krishna fully? But then parents may feel upset. It is kind of an obligation of the son to provide daughter in law for the mother - I don't know why. Something many indian mothers expect..

 

Even I as well as other young indian boys will try and look for our own wife as our elder siblings had done. That also is a very difficult task. There are too many conflicting lifestyles to ones own lifestyle out there. Sure we could marry a typical smart and pretty wife. But what good will it do for the future of our family if she's not cultured, or has no regard for spiritual life?

If you're a Vaishnava you're above the law of having to obey your parents' arrangement of marrying you with a meat-eating non-Vaishnava girl. Tell them this. This is no sin to reject this arrangement. Rather it is very sinful by your parents to be so neglectful not to honour the needs of their Vaishnava son. So far any marriage between a meat-eater and vegetarian doesn't last for long and especially for Indians to not respect if their son is a vegetarian is a disgrace.

[thehat]

 

If you're a Vaishnava you're above the law of having to obey your parents' arrangement of marrying you with a meat-eating non-Vaishnava girl. Tell them this. This is no sin to reject this arrangement. Rather it is very sinful by your parents to be so neglectful not to honour the needs of their Vaishnava son. So far any marriage between a meat-eater and vegetarian doesn't last for long and especially for Indians to not respect if their son is a vegetarian is a disgrace.

 

Oh I understand what you're saying perfectly, so true. For their record, they weren't actually setting me up I was just telling them about the current condition. They are good parents, they respect me and I respect them. It may be so that a Vaishnava is above the law of parents, but I will always respect their wishes and at least try to fulfill their needs as crazy as they may be. I was primarily trying to stress the general difficulty that is prevalent when trying to find a wife in this current setting.

[suchandra]

 

Oh I understand what you're saying perfectly, so true. For their record, they weren't actually setting me up I was just telling them about the current condition. They are good parents, they respect me and I respect them. It may be so that a Vaishnava is above the law of parents, but I will always respect their wishes and at least try to fulfill their needs as crazy as they may be. I was primarily trying to stress the general difficulty that is prevalent when trying to find a wife in this current setting.

 

Sorry - misunderstood, you said above, " I'm very frightened to get married!",

what you say now is rather the opposite, you're not frightened at all to marry a meat-eating girl.

[thehat]

Oh no I wouldn't be frightened. I'd be disapointed/saddened. If I had to marry a meat eating girl I'd hold the notion in my head that she may stop the habit and pray that she stopped. How about yourself? Are you married to a woman who matches your ideals, or should you decide to marry what would you desire out of the partner?

[kimfelix]

Raghu, I am sorry I have not responded earlier to your thoughtful words. I am speaking on behalf of western academics or the norms of Western society. Not at all. I am trying to base my views on the eternal virtues that are sanatan dharma. So much of what you say here is not addressed towards myself and I have no desire to defend modern society. Apologists for modernity may be critics of the Manu Smriti, but to therefore presume that a critic of Manu is an apologist for modernity is a logical fallacy.

 

The critics of the smritis are not exclusively modern. In the 12th century, Basavanna, the great acharya of the Vira Shaivas, utterly condemned any sort of distinction being made on the basis of caste and gender. He arranged for a marriage between a Brahmin and an outcaste. When the king discovered that this had taken place he had the parents of the couple dragged to death through the streets in order to prevent varna-samkara and to uphold what he understood to be dharma. So this is not a view that has only recently appeared.

 

The idea of consulting a guru on all matters is not one that is too widespread in Sanskrit texts. Wise men are certainly to be consulted but we must be careful and I would be very reluctant to surrender my own judgement to any other individual. Experience of the world suggests that this is far too risky and the experiences of ISKCON would surely confirm that. In the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata, Chapter 171 I think, Bodhya says that this gurus are Pingala, the osprey, the snake, the antelope, the arrow maker and the young girl. This is the example I would choose to follow, adding yourself to my list of course.

[raghu]

 

Raghu, I am sorry I have not responded earlier to your thoughtful words. I am speaking on behalf of western academics or the norms of Western society. Not at all. I am trying to base my views on the eternal virtues that are sanatan dharma. So much of what you say here is not addressed towards myself and I have no desire to defend modern society. Apologists for modernity may be critics of the Manu Smriti, but to therefore presume that a critic of Manu is an apologist for modernity is a logical fallacy.

 

I appreciate that you think you are basing your views on "the eternal virtues that are sanatan dharma." However, I do not know what your concept of "sanatan dharma" is, and as it seems less than obvious that it is based on any extrinsic source, I would just like to remind you (as I was trying to do earlier) that your values upon which you judge "right" from "wrong" are less objective than you might think. American libertarianism, which is the forerunner of post-modern humanism, holds that the rights of individuals are God-given and inalienable, and that this is self-evident. However, the reality is that this view developed as a result of historical events and did not have the status of objective truth until recently. From this comes the humanist ethos that officially frowns upon class and caste differences and emphasizes personal freedoms over divinely created duties/responsibilities. This in turn colors the view of many individuals who try to approach Vedic civilization, as it obviously has in your case. That is not intended to be dismissive either; my observation is that many secular Hindus have the same problems that you do. All of you are coming in with a completely different set of values and worldview which is itself the product of relatively recent developments in culture and history originating primarily in Western Europe and North America. I don't see how much of Vedic culture will make sense to you if you cannot put aside the assumptions inherent in that worldview.

 

 

The critics of the smritis are not exclusively modern.

 

I agree with this. But then I would ask why your views on "sanatana dharma" seem to have more in common with the critics than in the followers. What is sanatana dharma to you??

 

 

In the 12th century, Basavanna, the great acharya of the Vira Shaivas, utterly condemned any sort of distinction being made on the basis of caste and gender. He arranged for a marriage between a Brahmin and an outcaste. When the king discovered that this had taken place he had the parents of the couple dragged to death through the streets in order to prevent varna-samkara and to uphold what he understood to be dharma.

 

I do not think you really wanted me to comment on this, but I will do so anyway from the perspective of someone who does believe in upholding dharma. Please note that what I know of this incident is limited, and my comments are based solely on how you have represented this to me.

 

In the first place, I agree that the King's punishment seems cruel and unusual. This is not just my personal view, but also a view based on numerous statements in the smritis about how a king should protect all of his subjects, even right down to helpless animals. I cannot understand why, on one hand, a king should give protection to animals, and yet he cannot give protection to people who engage in mixed-caste marriages. In the bhAgavata, mahArAja parIkShit found Kali engaged in the most abominable activity of torturing a cow and a bull and yet still spared Kali when the latter surrendered himself. There would have been no need for any punishment because the loss of the man's reputation as a brahmana would have been sufficient.

 

Secondly, I will also state that Basavanna was misguided in trying to arrange a marriage between a brahmana and an outcaste. You cannot overlook differences simply by ignoring them. A brahmana has specific duties and responsibilities towards society and among them include the performance of sacrifice which requires a very qualified wife. Practically speaking I can say based on observation that people who marry outside of their culture have to give up some of that culture in order to make the marriage survive. But when that culture involves being a teacher and an example for others to follow, then Basavanna was doing a disservice to society at large by destroying such a person through a mixed marriage.

 

Marriage is a sacrament for promoting a God-centered society. It is not an arrangement for people to simply gratify their senses. Leaders must be grown from infancy; they cannot just learn to be brahmanas, kshatriyas, etc once they are teenagers or adults. Nature and nurture, you see. That is why the varnAshrama system is traditionally birth-based. Birth affords the only measureable prerequisite for determining how a child should be trained. Otherwise it would be subjective for one to determine whether one should be a brahmana, a kshatriya, etc. A brahmana is accorded a great deal of respect as per our dharma-shastras, but those same dharma-shastras place extremely high expectations on him. He can't fulfill those expectations if he is not raised as a brahmana from birth, which means having brahmana parents who can also lead by example.

 

 

The idea of consulting a guru on all matters is not one that is too widespread in Sanskrit texts. Wise men are certainly to be consulted but we must be careful and I would be very reluctant to surrender my own judgement to any other individual. Experience of the world suggests that this is far too risky and the experiences of ISKCON would surely confirm that. In the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata, Chapter 171 I think, Bodhya says that this gurus are Pingala, the osprey, the snake, the antelope, the arrow maker and the young girl. This is the example I would choose to follow, adding yourself to my list of course.

 

The experience of iskcon shows the problems in an idealistic, but non-vedic "birth does not matter, brahmana by conduct alone" tradition. This is a response to the corrupted birth-based Vedic system in which children of twice-born families were no longer being educated in the traditional gurukula system.

 

But as far as consulting a *qualified* guru when one is faced with ethical dilemmas, that is very clearly supported by texts like bhagavad-gItA. Right knowledge cannot be generated de novo. It must be transmitted from one who has it to one who does not. Arjuna had also learned Vedas as a child, but when faced with the prospect of having to kill his kith and kin in order to unseat a murderer on the throne, he was confused about how to proceed. One has to be taught spiritual science just as one is taught any other science. And sometimes one has to be taught again as Arjuna was. You may see this as surrendering your independent judgement. But if the guru is qualified and the shishya is sincere, then the guru will defeat the shishya's doubts and transform his faith into conviction.

[RadheRade1657]

Hmmm... I'm not really all that big on arranged marriages, myself... I don't think Radharani is either:

"I throw ashes at all laws, made by man or god.

I am born alone, with no companion.

What is the worth of your vile laws that failed me in love and left me with a dumbskull?

My wretched fate is so designed that He is absent for whom I long.

I shall set fire to this house and go away."

--Radharani in ShreeKrishna Kirtan