It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Marriage in the view of Hindu

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:55 AM
I know i will be flamed for this thread but never mind.
For the Hindu lawmaker, marriage is above all a social institution, whose exclusive purpose is the propagation of the species and preservation of the social order, community, even the nation itself. The Hindu makes a clear distinction between erotic enjoyment in all its forms, which is part of the harmonious development of the individual, and marriage whose sole aim is the family and the continuation of the species. Marriage results not from love but from careful choice, which takes account only of the heredity, stability, and happiness of the children.

Momentary pleasures do not require an institution such as marriage, which can only lose dignity if viewed in such a light. Marriages of love, chance, or accident, which can be broken by divorce, is countenanced today by many Westerners, are from the Hindu point of view absurd and immoral, a sort of legalized prostitution. The Western notion of marriage has no moral or social counterpart in Hindu society. Marriage is not merely the legitimizing of sexual relations but an important institution, whose exclusive purpose is offspring – the continuation of the species under the best possible conditions of heredity and environment.

Love with all its fantasies is an essential achievement for the individual, but marriage is quite different. The sexophobic fanaticism of the Christian world and its extraordinary taboos were needed to give a sacred character to a marriage in which the child’s heritage is not even considered. The institution of marriage on such a basis has no meaning, and the consequent systematic mismatching of aptitudes is producing an ever-increasing number of ill-adapted beings in the modern Western world, lacking the basic virtues of the various groups.
So we can say that 'marriage' isn't for everyone.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:48 AM
reply to post by deepankarm

Great post OP. One thing I want to mention though. Many Hindus today, educated under the Macaulay doctrine (where they don't know anything about who they really are, and what Indian culture really is) are terribly Victorian in their social mindsets and behavior. This sex-phobia and 'akward propriety' is an import, not natural Indian culture. Yet most Indians don't know it as Macaulay was successful beyond belief with his educational un-doing of Hindus - and most westerners rightly see Indians as being sexually-awkward exactly due to this. There is no way to undo the past (British and Mughal colonization) but just understanding this distinction between marriage (and its purpose) in Hindu culture and sensual love (much celebrated in Hindu art, poetry, songs etc) says a lot...

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:51 AM
Another thing to add:
Divorce rates among those marrying for 'love' is over 40% within the first three years (in India), whereas it's very low among those who rightly treat it as a logistical & cultural merger, with love growing as a result, not the other way around.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 10:03 AM
I'm not a Hindu, but I had some idle questions if you care to answer.

Would this view of marriage tend to concentrate wealth? So the poor would marry the poor and the rich would marry the rich?

I agree that physical love can develop after people are married. I think personality would be a better basis for marriage than social/family objectives or infatuation. Maybe psychiatrists could match people together. If man and wife absolutely don't like each other then the children suffer as well.
edit on 25-2-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

log in