does shastra exactly say dat a gal cannot b elder 2 da guy she marries???

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Sangom,

You would agree that not all display the same level of maturity in the way they conduct their affairs. That being the case if they are allowed to have their say, there would be undesirable consequences in the society. That is the reason laws are framed to impose control upon people when they lack self control. This forced control is a way of simulating self control. The taboos serve the same purpose, that of strongly dissuading people from indulding in them. In the same way you don't question a legal injunction, you do not question a moral injunction which are more timeless and are framed for peace and harmony of the society.

There is really no need to cite the shastras to validate this rationale though I am sure that the dharmashastras would have not sanctioned such practices.

Also I did not say that respect for someone younger should not be there but if you allow sexual attraction as a basis of love towards the older women, you are unknowingly undermining your control over self. This is because nothing is going to prevent you from questioning and taking the next logical steps of an even greater taboo, say falling in love with your teacher or guru and so on. The problem is once you take the first steps towards immorality you are inextricably caught in it. I think that is the reason moral laws are and should be strongly dissuading.

Dear Shri Sravna,

Legal injunctions are neither timeless nor unchangeable. They can be and are, changed to suit the requirements of the ever-changing world - of course, after necessary and appropriate deliberations in Parliament and the public. Dharmasastras are stuck in time. So, it is not possible to accept the comparison of the two.

When you say that permission to marry girls older than oneself by a man, will engender, nourish and manifest as falling in love with guru, teacher, etc., (perhaps you have withheld some others), does it not appeal that insistence on marrying boys older than them will have done the same mischief in the minds of girls? On the other hand, if boys marrying only girls younger to them is the rule, it will encourage them to fall in love with their students, . . .why, even to younger sisters, if one goes by your logic. (And, as you know, in ancient Egyptian aristocracy, this was the rule.) So, very sorry, Sravna, kindly justify sastras with a bit more logically stronger argument.

 

[sravna]

srvana,

what is wrong with sex? having a lot of it?

after all have we forgotten that we are from the land of khajuraho. see our temple architecture. don't all of them glorify sex.

maybe if there is more sex in the world, there will be less wars?

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

What is wrong with having alcohol and a lot of it? And any other source of intoxication for that matter? Only when people know to use them in moderation it is not unhealthy. There is nothing wrong in the act of sex. But I believe that instead of glorifying it we would be demeaning it if we are indiscriminate in the using of it.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

Legal injunctions are neither timeless nor unchangeable. They can be and are, changed to suit the requirements of the ever-changing world - of course, after necessary and appropriate deliberations in Parliament and the public. Dharmasastras are stuck in time. So, it is not possible to accept the comparison of the two.

When you say that permission to marry girls older than oneself by a man, will engender, nourish and manifest as falling in love with guru, teacher, etc., (perhaps you have withheld some others), does it not appeal that insistence on marrying boys older than them will have done the same mischief in the minds of girls? On the other hand, if boys marrying only girls younger to them is the rule, it will encourage them to fall in love with their students, . . .why, even to younger sisters, if one goes by your logic. (And, as you know, in ancient Egyptian aristocracy, this was the rule.) So, very sorry, Sravna, kindly justify sastras with a bit more logically stronger argument.

Dear Shri Sangom,

Shastras do not encourage marrying younger sisters and one is not encouraged to marry one's students too as in the reverse way i.e., for the student it would be marrying one's guru. The point is, not sanctioning marriage with older women is based on a certain argument just as there are arguments for other pronhibitions and allowances on some sound logic, for overall good of the society in mind.

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

What is wrong with having alcohol and a lot of it? And any other source of intoxication for that matter? Only when people know to use them in moderation it is not unhealthy. There is nothing wrong in the act of sex. But I believe that instead of glorifying it we would be demeaning it if we are indiscriminate in the using of it.

sravana,

how can you compare sex and alcohol? sir one is a natural act of affirmation between two people. under normal circumstances, it is induced by the feeling of love between two people. i see nothing wrong in sex between a couple if they are consenting adults, to as many times a day as they desire. there is nothing filthy, irreligious or morally wrong with that. i think so.

re alcohol,it is a drug, with its numerous side effects. consumed under controlled conditions, governed by societal norms of good behaviour and culture, imbibing in forms such as wine or beer over a lengthy period of time, does not give cause to the foolish and bully behaviour, as seen in tamil movies.

here the drinker appears to gulp a whole glass in one stretch. sure enough it is going to cause damage. the proper way to consume, is to 'SIP', and extend the period of consumption, say a glass, to atleast an hour that way you enjoy your drink, and do not indulge in drunken behaviour as seen in indian movies.

i am yet to see a drunken person behaving the way depicted in tamil movies in real life - particularly in toronto where i would say, a vast majority indulge in alcohol.

 

[Gans_tk]

Shri Gans,

The point is why should the girl be younger than the boy always? After all no girl or no boy today will prefer to marry a person who is unreasonably elder, say by 10 or 15 years. But it so happens that two people prefer each other even if the girl is one or two years elder; it could even be a difference of months or days, as between classmates. What rational objection can there be for such pairs getting married - in terms of reproductive problems, sexual problems or anything else which will impinge upon the course of their lives?

Dear Sangom,


I would like to share the excerpts from Vishnu Puranam where Sage Ourva briefly explains the Jathakarma, Namakarna, Vivahadhi Samskaarangall to King Sagara. While covering the Nithya, Naimithiga and Kamya karmas, it has been stated that bride’s age must be at least 3 years lesser than groom’s age.
For woman, her husband is God to her. Whatever Sin, wife commit, 100% it goes to her husband; however, 50% of the virtue earned by her husband will be credited to her automatically.

As per the saying every scientific invention has philosophical background. On striking the relationship between Philosophy and Physics, in my opinion, maturity of gene & better handling of responsibilities takes importance in deriving at this norm. The purpose of marriage is for vamsa vridhdhi (to develop the generation). We need to remember Balya-vivah (early marriage) was practiced at those times. Some of the marriages happen even before the girl attains age. A groom having lesser age might not have attained the maturity which will make them to wait longer period to have the baby. Also, it could have planned that women should have their children early in life (older at age might more likely her baby will suffer a birth defect).

The procedure & processes were defined, diligently practiced and effectively controlled within the sect, religion, etc. Exceptions might be there in few cases.

In the current world, things are significantly different and we see paradigm shift.

Will share if I get more information on this.

Regards,
Ganapathy Subramaniam T K (Gans)

 

[sravna]

sravana,

how can you compare sex and alcohol? sir one is a natural act of affirmation between two people. under normal circumstances, it is induced by the feeling of love between two people. i see nothing wrong in sex between a couple if they are consenting adults, to as many times a day as they desire. there is nothing filthy, irreligious or morally wrong with that. i think so.

re alcohol,it is a drug, with its numerous side effects. consumed under controlled conditions, governed by societal norms of good behaviour and culture, imbibing in forms such as wine or beer over a lengthy period of time, does not give cause to the foolish and bully behaviour, as seen in tamil movies.

here the drinker appears to gulp a whole glass in one stretch. sure enough it is going to cause damage. the proper way to consume, is to 'SIP', and extend the period of consumption, say a glass, to atleast an hour that way you enjoy your drink, and do not indulge in drunken behaviour as seen in indian movies.

i am yet to see a drunken person behaving the way depicted in tamil movies in real life - particularly in toronto where i would say, a vast majority indulge in alcohol.

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

The problem is one of addiction as both can drive you out of control. Any temptation has the potential to make you an addict if you have the weakness for it. When you are addicted you are not using your mind and become dangerous to others. The situation gets a lot worse if you grant such acts a blanket moral licence.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Shastras do not encourage marrying younger sisters and one is not encouraged to marry one's students too as in the reverse way i.e., for the student it would be marrying one's guru. The point is, not sanctioning marriage with older women is based on a certain argument just as there are arguments for other pronhibitions and allowances on some sound logic, for overall good of the society in mind.

Dear Sravna,

Since you seem to be so sure, why not you edify all of us by spelling out those "certain arguments", though arguments, as a principle, cannot be as effective as principles. [For example, I can well "argue" that every male should marry a female who is at least 2 years elder to him (man of 28 and woman of 30) so that both of them reach the plateau of sexual urge more or less at the same time.]

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Since you seem to be so sure, why not you edify all of us by spelling out those "certain arguments", though arguments, as a principle, cannot be as effective as principles. [For example, I can well "argue" that every male should marry a female who is at least 2 years elder to him (man of 28 and woman of 30) so that both of them reach the plateau of sexual urge more or less at the same time.]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Of course, but I would rephrase what you said as 'arguments not based on principles are not very effective'. I am very much a beginner in my understanding of the significance of what our scriptures and shastras say but with a strong conviction that they have got it right. There are stalwarts of the past, and may be in the present who have attempted the task of edifying and whose sole task was that. It is the veil of maya that is preventing the message from getting across.

 

[KRS]

Dear sravana Ji,

You said: "that they have got it right"

What is the 'it' in your statement?

Regards,
KRS

 

[sravna]

Dear sravana Ji,

You said: "that they have got it right"

What is the 'it' in your statement?

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

By 'it' I mean all of what they said.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sravana Ji,

So, 'what all they said', starting from Rg Veda, through all the Vedanta, Ithihasas, Puranas and the Shastras, all of it that you have so far read, word for word is 'correct?'.

So, I assume then you think that what Adi Shankara said, as opposed to what Acharyal Ramanuja said as well as Madhwacharyal said were all correct?

Regards,
KRS

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri Sravana Ji,

So, 'what all they said', starting from Rg Veda, through all the Vedanta, Ithihasas, Puranas and the Shastras, all of it that you have so far read, word for word is 'correct?'.

So, I assume then you think that what Adi Shankara said, as opposed to what Acharyal Ramanuja said as well as Madhwacharyal said were all correct?

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva all tried to present all that was said in vedas etc. in a coherent manner with its underlying soundness, and in my opinion sankara most brilliantly succeeded in that task.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sravana Ji,

Great! So you are saying that there were three interpretations of what the Vedas said, and in your opinion, Adi Shankara's interpretation was the most brilliant.

May I ask you, why?

Regards,
KRS

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri sravana Ji,

Great! So you are saying that there were three interpretations of what the Vedas said, and in your opinion, Adi Shankara's interpretation was the most brilliant.

May I ask you, why?

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

It is because I think it is very difficult if not impossible for anyone to refute the philosophy of advaita or monism and also the extremely neat concept of maya as a veil over brahman responsible for the lower reality. Everything else neatly falls into place once the above two are taken as truths.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sravana Ji,

Then why would such erudite scholars like the Ramanuja and Madhwa Acharyals, who knew all the sciptures, including Adi Shankara's postulation reject his thesis? Is it because they did not understand what he promoted?

If I am not mistaken, Acharya Ramanuja was trained in Advaitha. So, in your opinion, both him and the Madhwacharyal were wrong?

Regards,
KRS

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravana Ji,

Then why would such erudite scholars like the Ramanuja and Madhwa Acharyals, who knew all the sciptures, including Adi Shankara's postulation reject his thesis? Is it because they did not understand what he promoted?

If I am not mistaken, Acharya Ramanuja was trained in Advaitha. So, in your opinion, both him and the Madhwacharyal were wrong?

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

It is all about the insights one has about something. Ramanuja's and madhva's were different from those of sankara's. The fact that such great scholars rejected sankara's philosophy doesn't make sankara wrong. The point is, were they successful in their attempts? As I said my view is, sankara's philosophy remains unassailable.

 

[pviyer]

Kunjuppu sir says

pray please do not be so hard on yourself.

just imagine a situation, where your [COLOR=#da7911! important][COLOR=#da7911! important]child[/COLOR][/COLOR] is in love and wants to [COLOR=#da7911! important][COLOR=#da7911! important]get [COLOR=#da7911! important]married[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR].

Also let it be, that everything about the [COLOR=#da7911! important][COLOR=#da7911! important]couple[/COLOR][/COLOR] is to your satisfaction ie same caste, different gothram, great jobs, wonderful [COLOR=#da7911! important][COLOR=#da7911! important]families[/COLOR][/COLOR], really attractive looking both of them etc etc.

except that the girl is one day older than the boy.

My response is that it is true that children fall in love which throws the conventions followed by the parents upside down. This is happening in society for some centuries now and we have reached a point of time when Indian givernment is planning to legalize homsexuality, next comes homosexual marriage, next comes what not. Every society has to define a goal- what is the goal is not answered in simplistic terms but we as sanathana dharma followers know what it is. The world has an origin in a way, where we have no idea at this moment. We must investigate the reason marriage was introduced in society by rishis. Is there a logic to permanant contracts rather than more convenient contracts. The truth in this matter is known only by the knowledge of rishis- this is our belief. You may disagree with me , thats fine, but disagreement is also a matter of belief not as a consequence of hard core revealed knowledge. If the latter case were true , there would be no need for discussions - it is just explaining the process where I can also see truth as it. Frankly speaking, I am not in agreement that love is blind.
when people love
1. they notice that the partner can actively participate in the role expected of him/her in marriage- eg ability to have children or have chemistry with them or whatever other criteria varies from individual to individual
2. compatible in thought processes etc
Its not blind love certainly and not -"yes this second i realized she is for me". There is an analysis session which follows the infatuation phase. The only problem is that when attraction to an individual is too strong, analysis takes up a selfish direction where it looks for positives and loopholes when something objectionable is found. In the worst order of things - you have girls who fall in love with "men who are nothing short of rogues" or men falling for the most "fallen women". But the average individual is peppered with that maturity that they quietly filter out undesirable qualities. I am sure that before a boy and a girl have come to a point where they decide to marry, they know their birthdays and age- in case of mature slow lovers. We are not concerned with immature lovers as they have to lift their socks. The parents need to make sure that their children grow with discipline and make sure that unacceptable things dont happen. If we explain that the shastras dont accept such marriages, that in anycase such acts lead to unacceptable precedents in society, that the respect for womenhood itself will be in question. For example how do you trust a teenage boy under the care of a more mature sisterly woman(I dont mean the boy's actual sister)? I agree that these are conventions in society. But the society has been built brick by brick. You cant remove an important concept one day and not expect the structure to collapse. if there is a change to be done in an area, it requires a change in process. Firstly the success criteria and the role of men and women need to be understood in a marriage so that the marriage can work. Shastras may not be eternal but we need to move towards a soceity which is working well, before making important changes in marriage. Marrying an elder woman is an important concept as this has a potential to change the gender roles in a marriage, and at present society is ill equipped to handle this change. we dont live in the middle east 7 th century when a man marrying a woman 10 years older could still dominate her. Mark my words I am not saying that men should dominate their wives in marriage, I dont. But there are subtle topics of gender roles in a marriage which is out of scope for this thread. I am not even saying that gender roles are cast for ever. But there must be a scientific process of change not based on our romantic reformist heart, but first take the society to a stable state. This is not the case now.
I see too many divorces and I can state a fact that in many families of all castes where there were never any (non negotiable) disagreements between partners we are seeing plenty and plenty of divorces. This is a society in transition and it needs to settle down. If I allow things to run around in my society along the direction of this society which is in a confused state, by the time the system stabilizes, it will be too late to bring up the lot of my descendants.
One can see that there are possible effects of such unconventional marriages , elders have prohibited it among brahmins in most of India, shastras have injunctions against it. So this is definately not the time to accept such marriages. All this accidental love concept is not true, discipline is the key word. certain habits and certains actions are not to be agreed. The children in principle know it and wouldnt violate it but temptation should not shake their own thinking and allow important conventions to be thrown to a wind.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

I was going through some of the posts about Vaidyanatha dikshithyam and Samshepa Dharmasasthra. If I am not mistaken these books were written by scholars to justify our traditional beliefs and practices by quoting the relevant material from different Dharma Sasthras. They do not qualify as a seperate Dharma Sasthra or Smiriti.

Now I belong to the Apasthamba Sutra group. Some times when I insisted on the importance of the mantras, the Sasthirigal used to ask "Are you a follower of Bhodayana Sutra?" I think may be Bhodayana Sutra lays more emphasis on mantras.

My question is this.

When I am a follower of Apasthamba Sutra why should I follow what is stated in the other Sutras?

Dharmasasthras were written over a period of hundreds of years. They are not uniform. They were often changed to suit the prevailing circumstances. They are often contradictory.

So if I have to go back to my roots, I should be following Apasthmba Sutra. Why should I follow other Smiritis, when my ancestors had decided to follow Apasthmba Sutra?

Why should I follow Vaidyanatha dikshithyam and Samshepa Dharmasasthra which are compilations from different Sutras?

This is a link to Apasthamba Sutra. The introduction is an interesting read.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/dharma/apaintro.asp

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe02/index.htm

 

[Dr.S.Ramanathan]

Adwaitam is the philosophy advocated by all religions initially ( including Islam), then, there had been discussions and deviations,advocating other concepts, whenever rituals overtook the basic concepts, only to return back to Adwaitam.That is Unity in Diversity.
Regarding the main topic of this thread, namely age of boy vs girl for marriage, there is Sastram vs Sampradayam. That the girl should be preferably younger, is based on various considerations like
a girl gets more mature , both physically and mentally than a boy, earlier in age,and hence to be equal in maturity, the boy has to be older.
A woman attains menopause earlier than the man and hence, to retain the man from getting distracted, the girl has to be younger.
In the man dominated world, the girl would look upon her husband with admiration when he is on a job and earning, and as in the earlier days, marriage was celebrated early, the boy has to be older to have started earning etc etc.
Most of these may not be relevant today.
Regards,
Ramanathan.

 

[sangom]

Why should I follow Vaidyanatha dikshithyam and Samshepa Dharmasasthra which are compilations from different Sutras?

Shri Nacchinarkiniyan,

As far as Vaidyanatha... is concerned it is like a compendium of various Dharmasastras and nothing more. It does not express any independent opinion of itself. It serves as a ready reference which gives the different opinions on each topic at one place. I do not know about the other book.

Coming to how far we faithfully even our own sutra is a matter highly debatable. I can't say why your vadhyar brought in Baudhaayana. But the fact is that vadhyars really knowing Baudhaayana, Asvalaayana, Satyaashaadha, etc., are rare now and the trick of the trade is that the grihastas are also equally ignorant. As the grihastas so the purohits!!

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Shri Nacchinarkiniyan,

As far as Vaidyanatha... is concerned it is like a compendium of various Dharmasastras and nothing more. It does not express any independent opinion of itself. It serves as a ready reference which gives the different opinions on each topic at one place. I do not know about the other book.

Coming to how far we faithfully even our own sutra is a matter highly debatable. I can't say why your vadhyar brought in Baudhaayana. But the fact is that vadhyars really knowing Baudhaayana, Asvalaayana, Satyaashaadha, etc., are rare now and the trick of the trade is that the grihastas are also equally ignorant. As the grihastas so the purohits!!

My point was that should we not follow what is laid down in the Sutra we swear to, rather than follow procedures of all the Sutras many of whom are contradictory? As I said we tend to follow that Sutra which conforms our own beliefs. How come no one has come out with a translation of Apasthmba Sutra in Tamil? Or is it there?

The Sasthirigal starting talking about Bhodayana when I found some mistake in the marriage procedure and told him how it should be done. We had our own Sasthirigal whom we had an inter-action earlier and discussed the entire procedures. This was the Bride's Sasthirigal. I had done a bit of research on Marriage procedures and mantras. The marriage invitation contained an explanation of all the rituals and also an English translation of the important Mantras.

Of course I could do it because my son also believes in the efficacy of the Mantras and rituals.

 

[kunjuppu]

pviyer,

thank you for your elaborate post. i think i follow your line of thought. after having said it all in so verbosely, i still seek your views on my earlier question to you:

just imagine a situation, where your child is in love and wants to get married.

Also let it be, that everything about the couple is to your satisfaction ie same caste, different gothram, great jobs, wonderful families, really attractive looking both of them etc etc.

except that the girl is one day older than the boy.

Would you be living with your pride intact under this self imposed lakshman rekha and in the process make so many people unhappy?

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Shastras perhaps have not told men not to marry older woman. Practically speaking if you want your day, be discreet in selecting very younger partner. Even then you will find yourself awkward. These days they know too much and hence it is tougher. What are shastras. What was desirable and convenient became shastras. Shastras wanted you to wear dhoti. And there are so many things we do not do according to shastra. That does not mean we should defy shastra. It can always be amended, improved and corrected with acceptance of the community according to times. Gandhiji married a older woman and he also called her "baa", meaning mother. The world is fast changing, there is little difference between man and woman; Soon marriage will be a word you would be looking up in a dictionary or hitting the google.

 

[Nara]

So this is definately not the time to accept such marriages.

Folks, for conservatives no time will be anything other than "this is definitely not the time". If order and discipline is the key we should just have robots for children.

Anyway, I want to make a comment or two about the following. I know that this is not directly related to whether boys can marry older girls, but I am not the one to bring this topic up in this thread, I am just responding to what I consider to be an intolerant view.

.... This is happening in society for some centuries now and we have reached a point of time when Indian givernment is planning to legalize homsexuality, next comes homosexual marriage, next comes what not.

The way chromosomes combine and make babies is so complex that the product often do not conform to the majority in one way or another. Some differences are external, like babies with a sixth finger, or an extra toe, or something worse. Other differences aren't physically visible but nevertheless manifest in unmistakable ways, e.g. extraordinary memory bordering on total recall.

Sometimes, these physical and non-physical differences involve human sexuality. There are babies born with uncertain gender. The majority "normal" people can't handle such ambiguity and the baby is forced into a binary gender system. The majority is not concerned about the emotional turmoil the baby is condemned to face growing up. Sooner or later, biology ripping him out from the inside, inevitably makes him go for the blade and become a she. From then on, she has to live in the periphery of the "normal" majority.

Sexual attraction to the same gender is another such difference, not seen as a physical "abnormality". However much the majority may see this as abnormal, it is quite normal for the ones experiencing such attraction. Also, we must understand that homosexual attraction is nothing new or unique to humans, it has always existed since the dawn of man and it is prevalent in the animal kingdom as well. So, it makes no sense for a liberal and compassionate society to make a sexual act between two consenting adults, a crime.

In a secular state like India, marriage has a legal definition, quite apart from religious definition. From a legal POV, there is no overwhelming state interest to deny the recognition of marriage to a loving couple who want to make a life-long commitment to share the joys and sorrows life has to offer, just because they happen to be of the same gender. The religious conservatives can withhold religious recognition if they like, but they have no moral right to demand that a secular government must also withhold such a recognition.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Dr. S. Ramanathan Ji,

You have said "Adwaitam is the philosophy advocated by all religions initially ( including Islam), then, there had been discussions and deviations,advocating other concepts, whenever rituals overtook the basic concepts, only to return back to Adwaitam.That is Unity in Diversity."

Can you elaborate? All Abrahamic religions advocate Monotheism, not Advaitham (loosely compared to Monism). Where did in Islam, the Quron say that the framework to be followed is Monism, which the subsequent requirements of specific rituals modified it to be Monotheism?

Regards,
KRS