Marriage for divorced women

[Guest guest]

Hello all,Is there any reason why divorced women should not remarry?I have been told that a divorced woman cannot do some of the wedding rituals such as fera (circling the holy fire).I would be interested in your thoughts on this.Yours in Sewa,Bijal

[Guest guest]

Dear Bijal

 

There are no philosophic grounds for treating divorced women in

this manner!

 

Such issues arise due to earlier Social conditioning and taboos.

 

 

Hindu society is a allowed to evolve; such taboos should be overruled

as outdated.

 

regards

 

 

 

 

 

Ramakrishna

[Ramakrishna ] On Behalf Of Bijal

17 April 2010 15:09

ramakrishna

[sri Ramakrishna] Marriage for divorced women

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello all,

 

 

 

 

 

Is there any

reason why divorced women should not remarry?

 

 

I have been

told that a divorced woman cannot do some of the wedding rituals such as fera

(circling the holy fire).

 

 

 

 

 

I would be

interested in your thoughts on this.

 

 

 

 

 

Yours in

Sewa,

 

 

Bijal

[Guest guest]

I am not an expert, but my thoughts are that as we still are a male dominated society these rules were made by men which is why men do not have any restrictions in anything, be it divorce or being widowed. We still suffer from a lot of superstitions and as we all know how meaningless superstitions are.

 

My view is that we are our own boss and as long as we use our brain power and do what is best for us we should go ahead and take action. We should bear in mind that we draw our destiny in quite a few ways, none of the people who make these illogical rules will come and help us if we follow their advice.

 

Thanks.The Princess of Faith

 

 

 

Bijal <b_7_ukramakrishna Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 10:09:29 AM[sri Ramakrishna] Marriage for divorced women

 

 

Hello all,

 

Is there any reason why divorced women should not remarry?

I have been told that a divorced woman cannot do some of the wedding rituals such as fera (circling the holy fire).

 

I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

 

Yours in Sewa,

Bijal

[Guest guest]

One has to note that the concept of second marriage simply did not exist. So

philosophically, the idea of going through life's phases was so ingrained

that the idea of going through a life phase again simply did not exist. For

example, one wouldn't consider going through the study phase again after

completing the marriage/householder/grihasta phase for men. They would go

straight into vanvas/renunciation phase. Similarly, if a woman was widowed,

that was it, the phase was over, you move on to the next phase. That said,

there are serious variances in practises across India.

 

Some castes would be reduced in status if they allowed widow remarriage. In

particular, Jain castes such as Leva Patidar, Mesari Bhavasar allowed widow

remarriage, and this was actually one of the reasons why these castes were

lower on the hierarchy. There is documented evidence on groups such as

Rajbansis of Darjeeling Terai, Umar Banya caste of United Provinces, some

Jat tribes. There have been documented evidence that widow remarriage was

quite common across the sub continent with references from Poona, Madras,

North East, etc. but mainly in lower caste tribes such as Chamars, Bhangis,

Gujjars, Ahirs, Rajputs and artisan castes.

 

The prohibition against widow remarriage was primarily an upper caste

phenomena, and any children emerging from such a remarriage were considered

to be illegitimate. My personal sense is that this was more due to the

property and wealth rights rather than religious sanction. For example,

looking at the Dayabhaga and Mitakshara schools of Hindu Law (1), a woman

could inherit only if there were no sons. And crucially, if she did inherit,

then the estate will remain with her (and thus with the family) only till

she is " chaste " i.e. unmarried. This idea was overruled in the case of Har

Saran Das v. Nandi in 1889 in the Allahabad High Court where the provisions

of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act of 1856 were applied for the first time.

And the widow post remarriage managed to keep hold of property that belonged

to her first late husband.

 

Vrihaspati's quote, " of him whose wife is not deceased half the body

survives. How then should another take his property while half his person is

alive " is the crucial point. Marriage results not in 2 bodies joined

together but the birth of One dual body. Another textual reference is with

the Yajnayavalka Smriti, and I quote:

 

Wife (widow), daughter, father, mother, brother, their sons, gotraja (of the

same family), bandhus, disciple and Brahmacharias of the same school, each

succeeding one is heir in the absence of the person immediately preceding

him in the order of enumeration-this is the law in respect of the

inheritance to the property of a sonless deceased person of whatever caste.

 

Virat Manu's quote:

 

The widow of a childless man, keeping unsullied her husband's bed, and

persevering in religious observances, shall present his funeral oblation and

obtain his entire share.

 

Katyayana's quote on this issue:

 

Let the childless widow, keeping unsullied the bed of her Lord, and abiding

with her venerable protector, enjoy with moderation the property until her

death. After her let the heirs take it.

 

A survey (2) carried out in Mathura and Saharanpur in the mid 1960's found

that nearly 30% of women remarried, mainly lower castes, while upper caste

widow remarriage was only 7%. Another good survey was done in the 1990's by

Sarah Lamb (3) confirms the idea which I propounded at the beginning, that

it was considered to be a normal phase of life.

 

Finally, to answer the original question, I have been unable to find any

good reason behind this prohibition other than to make some guesses. The

marriage was supposed to be eternal and thus even if the spouse died, the

marriage still survives. Rest of the rot relating to eating meat and and and

seems to be just a way to keep the women down. Even the High Court

(Matungini Gupta v. Ram Rutton Roy, Calcutta High Court, ILR 19, Cal. 289)

was not able to find any documentary reference to any extant Hindu

scriptural law which forbade women from remarrying. There is also no

reference whatsoever that I could find about widow's not being able to do

any religious ceremony.

 

Pandit Vidyasagar, that brilliant man, went after customs, not law or

scripture. Another brilliant Christian lady of India did huge things for

widows (3). But the problem seems to be still there, there are tons of

widows rotting in the various dharmashala's along the rivers of India. I

totally agree with all the respondents on this email chain. They should be

encouraged to do what they want, including remarry.

 

References:

1. http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/4/363

2. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2060356

3. http://www.mukti.org.nz/panditaramabai.html

 

________________________________

 

Ramakrishna

[Ramakrishna ] On Behalf Of Princess ratna

17 April 2010 19:37

Ramakrishna

Re: [sri Ramakrishna] Marriage for divorced women

 

 

 

 

I am not an expert, but my thoughts are that as we still are a male

dominated society these rules were made by men which is why men do not have

any restrictions in anything, be it divorce or being widowed. We still

suffer from a lot of superstitions and as we all know how meaningless

superstitions are.

 

My view is that we are our own boss and as long as we use our brain

power and do what is best for us we should go ahead and take action. We

should bear in mind that we draw our destiny in quite a few ways, none of

the people who make these illogical rules will come and help us if we follow

their advice.

 

Thanks.

The Princess of Faith

 

 

________________________________

 

Bijal <b_7_uk

ramakrishna

Sat, April 17, 2010 10:09:29 AM

[sri Ramakrishna] Marriage for divorced women

 

 

 

Hello all,

 

Is there any reason why divorced women should not remarry?

I have been told that a divorced woman cannot do some of the wedding

rituals such as fera (circling the holy fire).

 

I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

 

Yours in Sewa,

Bijal

[Guest guest]

Hari Om RamakrishnaDear Devotees,Pranam,Any religion has two parts - one is called (1) Smriti, which is valid for the period when the religion was either established by a human (includes all religions except Hinduism) or re-established (Hinduism - religion of eternity) and the other is called (2) Sruti, which is eternally valid. These things about divorce etc. (e.g. caste system) belong to the Smriti part and hence the Hindus always use discrimination to evaluate their applicability which makes them the least fanatic. All other religions promotes fanaticism in various levels because the followers of those religions do not evaluate them and

persecute those who do. In Islam we find Maluana Jalaluddin Rumi, who updated their holy book by extracting the Sruti part from Quaran and wrote "I have extracted the marrow of Quaran and left the dry bones for the dogs" as the introduction.I do not have the full details but I know that there was one Ekhart, a German Christian, who tried the same but he was issued with a death penalty. Fortunately he died before being punished. Sri Ramakrishna had said "the currency which was valid in Mughol period is not valid in the British period" although both may be made from the same metal. Sri Ramakrishna gave the status of His Guru to a woman and worshipped His wife. Sarada Muth is not under the control of RK Muth. The only thing is that woman must know what is their real role and follow the example of the Holy Mother in shaping their lives instead of simply becoming "female chauvinists"

Wah Guru Ki FatehUtpal Chakrabarty Princess ratna <rajraniranRamakrishna Sent: Sun, 18 April, 2010 4:37:00 AMRe: [sri Ramakrishna] Marriage for divorced women

 

 

 

I am not an expert, but my thoughts are that as we still are a male dominated society these rules were made by men which is why men do not have any restrictions in anything, be it divorce or being widowed. We still suffer from a lot of superstitions and as we all know how meaningless superstitions are.

 

My view is that we are our own boss and as long as we use our brain power and do what is best for us we should go ahead and take action. We should bear in mind that we draw our destiny in quite a few ways, none of the people who make these illogical rules will come and help us if we follow their advice.

 

Thanks.The Princess of Faith

 

 

 

Bijal <b_7_uk (AT) (DOT) co.uk>ramakrishnaSat, April 17, 2010 10:09:29 AM[sri Ramakrishna] Marriage for divorced women

 

 

Hello all,

 

Is there any reason why divorced women should not remarry?

I have been told that a divorced woman cannot do some of the wedding rituals such as fera (circling the holy fire).

 

I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

 

Yours in Sewa,

Bijal

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

One's life, marriage, divorce everything happens with the circumstance one is in. Marriage ritual in all religions is the oath of commitment for being with each other as man and wife in all circumstances. The circumstances which leads to the breaking the commitment of life time relationship, has nothing to do with gender. Usually both are equally involved, directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowlingly, in the process of separating and reaching the decision to separate and live apart.

 

Now comes the next marriage, yes, the same commitment oath will be helpful in staying in the marriage institution, taking circling of holy fire if helps in strengthening the faith in the commitment, surely one should do so, be it a man or a woman. The ritual could be helpful in forgetting the old life, misery and pain that one went through in terms of emotions (be it a man or a woman) and have a sense of starting a new life with the marriage rituals of holy fire. Nothing wrong in it, for man or a woman.

 

--- On Sun, 4/18/10,