The Vivaha (Marriage Ceremonies)

JaneSmith105

Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
362
Reaction score
0
Points
16
(i) The Importance of Marriage

The Vivaha is the most important of all the Hindu Samskaras. The Grhyasutras generally begin with it, because it is the origin and centre of all domestic sacrifices. They presuppose that every man, in his normal conditions, is expected to marry and run a home. Even before them, in the Vedic period, to which only a few of the Samskaras can be traced back in their ceremonial form, the marriage ceremonies were developed and they have found literary expression in the Rgveda1 and the Atharvaveda.2 A sweet home, a lady love and fondlings in the house-these were coveted objects for the Vedic Aryans. Therefore, marriage received great importance even in early times. When religious consciousness developed, marriage was not only a social necessity but became a religious duty encumbent upon every individual. Marriage was regarded as a sacrifice3 and one who did not enter the married life was called "one without sacrifice," a contemptible term, indeed, for the Vedic Hindus. The Taittiriya Brahmana says, "He, indeed, is without sacrifice who has got no wife." It again adds,4 "He is himself a half man, the second half is wife." When the theory of Three Debts5 evolved, marriage gained even greater importance and sanctity, as it was through marriage that one could pay off one's ancestral debt, by producing children.

During the Upanisadic times, the Asrama theory was established. The advocates of this theory maintained that one should proceed Asrama by Asrama, that is, a man should first live the life of a student, then he should enter the married life, after this he should lead a retired life and in the last Asrama he should give up all worldly attachments and become a religious wanderer. The married life was regarded essential for the growth of personality and no time of antipathy was attached to it.

In the time of the Smrtis the Asrama system was believed to be divinely ordained, and it was thought to be the sacred duty of every person to respect it. From the Grhyasutras and the Dharmasutras we learn that the number of Naisthika Brahmacharis was very much limited and majority of young men accepted the life of the householder. The Smrtis entirely endorse the Asrama system and emphatically prescribe that a man should marry after his student life. Manu6 enjoins, "Having spent the first fourth part of his life in the house of his guru, the second fourth in his own house with his wife, the third part in forests, one should take Sanyasa in the fourth part, casting away every worldly tie. " Harita7 is of the same opinion:

"One who spends his life in the said manner, having conquered all the worlds, attains the world of Brahma." According to Daksa,8 the order of the first three Asramas cannot be changed. None is more sinful than one who trangresses this rule. The Smrtis highly praise the life of a householder. They call it the best Asrama and regard it as the centre and prop of the whole social structure. "Just as all creatures exist depending on air, so do all he Asramas depend upon the householder. Because the householder supports the three orders by means of knowledge and food, so his order is the highest. One who longs for imperishable heaven and happiness in this world, should uphold the Grhastha-Asrama ...."9 Quite in keeping with these ideas, a man who did not marry was held in low scale. An anonymous quotation by Apararka on Yajnavalkya10 says, "O, King, a man, he may be a Brahmana. Ksattriya, a Vaisya or a Sudra, who is without a wife, is not fit for religious act."

For several reasons marriage was held in high esteem among ancient peoples. Doubtless, in rude pastoral, and even agricultural times, economic and social causes were at the basis of this esteem. Large family was a blessing. Marriage was a family affair rather than a personal one; indeed the generation of offspring was the supreme motive of every union to the end that a man's house or family might not die out. Then religious motives were equally operative in assigning such a great regard to marriage. Worship of ancestors and gods was dependent on progeny, which could be obtained only through marriage. In later development of Hinduism, the last idea became more prominent than the social and economic ones.

Other ancient peoples also held marriage in high esteem. Among the people of Israel it was respected for the same reasons as among the Hindus.11 "Later on in the age of the Messianic prophesies, marriage gained an added sanctity from the precious possibility that the fruit of the union might be the promised messiah of the Jews, its long desired saviour from oppression." In Greece also marriage was highly respected and looked upon as a sacred ceremony.12 "By means of such union family was perpetuated, the inheritance of property provided for and the worship of ancestral gods continued. Therefore, celebacy was regarded a serious offence, a crime against the household gods. So strong was the feeling in Athens that a law was enacted enjoining the first magistrate of the City to see to it that no family became extinct."13 And in Sparta Plutarch tells us that a man who did not marry lost certain rights and was not treated by younger men with that respect so scrupulously accorded by Spartan youths to their elders."4 Like ancient peoples the Romans looked upon marriage as a sacred and important act and stamped celebacy with public disapproval, since it was disadvantageous alike to the state, which needed supporters, and to the family which needed sons to continue its domestic worship.

But a contrast is presented by the Christian views regarding marriage. There can be no reasonable doubt that the view of the early Christian Fathers concerning the marriage bond was profoundly influenced by the opinions of St. Paul. The doctrines of this

great leader are so familiar that only a brief reference need be made to a few of the more influential of them. He writes: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and every woman have her own husband."15 But this doubtful sanction is promptly followed by the words: "But I speak this by permission and not of commandment. ... For I would that all men were as myself. ... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot content, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn."16 There is no tint in Paul's writing, nor does it clearly appear in the works of the later Church Fathers that marriage is a spiritual as well as a physical union and that the latter should be impossible without the former. "Obviously these pronouncements show scant appreciation of the uplifting and strengthening influence of a true marriage, of its power to quicken and deepen all worthy emotions. Thus it is that the reading of the marital views of the later Church Fathers is a distasteful task from which the student willingly turns."16a But it should be noted that this was a reaction against the corrupt Roman society where sexual relations were very loose and which led to the physical as well as spiritual downfall of the Romans.

(ii) The Origin

Such an important occasion as marriage naturally attracted much attention of the people and many and various ceremonies gathered round it. But for fully understanding the development of the marriage ceremonies it is necessary to know how and under what circumstances they arose. The circumstances, in which the institution of marriage originated, conditioned the nature of marriage rituals. The word "marriage" has a reference to "a union of the male and female which does not cease with the act of procreation but persists after the birth of offspring until the young are capable of supplying their own needs."17 It is evident that sexual instinct itself could not have brought about permanent relationship between man and woman. Nor that the aboriginal man had that glimmering conception of that ideal love which to-day binds a pair together in

the strongest of human ties. The weakness of the savage female also was not responsible for marriage tie, because she was as strong and capable of self-defence as the male. The source of marriage is to be sought for elsewhere. We can look for it in the utter helplessness of the new-born offspring and he need of both the mother and the young for protection and food during a varying period of time. So it appears that marriage has its source in the family, rather than the family in marriage, and the very roots of the permanent union of the sexes are found in parental duties. It was the natural desire of woman for sufficient protection during the critical period of her confinement and for adequate protection of the child in its helpless state of infancy that drove her to select a permanent companion in life. In this selection she was very cautious, as she fully considered the fitness of the man and arrived at a mutual understanding before she gave herself away to him. The love making and other means of enticement were there that helped in effecting the union.17a The desire for a son, the protection of wife and children, the need of running a home and the ideal of dome-tic felicity are duly reflected in the marriage ceremonies.
 

JaneSmith105

Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
362
Reaction score
0
Points
16
(iii) Pre-marital Stage

Now we have to consider the evolution of marriage in ancient periods of Indian history, though the marriage ceremonies of the Hindus presuppose a monogamous union. The Rgvedic society emerges with a well established home which could not have been possible in the pre-marital stage of sexual relation. There is no instance of promiscuity proper in the Vedic literature. The only reference to it is found in the Mahabharata.18 There it is stated that women were free in early primitive times and they could have sexual relation with any body they liked, even though they were married. This revolting custom, however, was abolished by Svetaketu, son of Uddalaka. This story, at most, proves that the Aryans had passed through a stage of society when such intercourse was tolerated in society. Temporary sexual relations also are not to he found either in the Vedas or in the Grhyasutras. The marriage as described in them was meant to he regular and permanent. The only instance of marriage by periodical contract is supplied in the story of Urvasi and Pururavas in the Rgveda.19 This form of marriage, however,was not current in the Rgvedic times and must have been a recollection of ancient times, when temporary marriages were in vogue.

(iv) Marriage Proper

It is a mistake to suppose that sexual relation in the early society was promiscuous. The great anthropologists with their vast and intimate knowledge of primitive culture have arrived at the conclusion that the sexual relation between man and woman in ancient times was not promiscuous. Westermarck remarks: 'It is not of course impossible that among some peoples intercourse between the sexes may have been almost promiscuous. But there is not a shred of genuine evidence for the notion that promiscuity even formed a general stage in the history of mankind…. Although polygamy occurs among most existing peoples, and polyandry among some, monogamy is by far the most common from of human marriage. It was so among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge. Monogamy is the form which is generally recognized and permitted. The great majority of peoples are, as a rule, monogamus, and other forms of marriages are usually modified in a monogamous direction."20 Almost the same observations are made by Howard21 on the topic: "In a progressive society monogamy is the natural and usual form of marriage. Other forms of marriage are degradation or retrogression to the primitive conditions. Promiscuity never creates the home, nor engenders those noble sentiments of self-sacrifice and self-denial that have helped to uplift the human race. The Vedic hymns and the Grhyasutras celebrate a regular marriage for a life-long companionship. The Hindu Samskaras recognize the fulfledged marriage bereft of savage waywardness on the part of man and woman.

(v) The Forms of Marriage

After we have considered the general state of sexual relation, we have to see how a young man and a young woman were united to lead the life of a householder. The Smrtis22 have recognized eight methods through which it was clone. These are Brahma, Daiva, Arsa, Prajapatya, Asura, Gandharva, Raksasa and Paisacha. Though many of these methods can be it aced back to the Vedic period, they have not been mentiond as such in the per-Sutra literature. To the majority of the Grhyasutras the eight methods are unknown. The Manava Grhyasutra23 refers to the Brahma and Sulka (Asura) only. So does the Varaha. The Asvalayana24 is the only Grhyasutra that mentions all the eight methods. The omission, however, does not mean that these methods were not current before, or even during, the composition of the Grhyasutras. They were, more or less, a social problem beyond the proper scope of the ritual literature. When every thing was settled about marriage, the particular rite was required to solemnize it.

The Smrtis have divided the eight methods into two groups, Prasasta or approved and Aprasasta or disapproved.25 The first four are Prasasta, the rest are Aprasasta. The first four methods were regarded praiseworthy. among which the first was the best. the fifth and the sixth were tolerated and the last two were forbidden. But all of them were legalized . At. present the only two forms, Brahma and Asura are recognized. The more objectionable the method the more primitive it was though some of them were current side by side. They will be dealt with in their ascending order.
 
Top