Polygamy in a Spiritual Society

[suchandra 1]

Polygamy seems to have been a normal situation in vedic culture - successful grhasthas and vedic kings like Maharaja Bharata ( had three wives), Vasudeva, Krishna's father ( had 16 wives) or Lord Ramacandra's father ( had three wives ) or King Citraketu (had many wives), could easily maintain such big families, whereas nowadays to maintain a family with one wife is a great achievement.

 

"I have received your letter of 1/24/73 concerning polygamy and feel that this policy must be strictly prohibited within our society. If it is not it shall only cause chaos, as what was possible under the system of pure Vedic Culture is impossible at the present time." (Letter to Karandhara, Melbourne 10 February 1973)

 

"First let us understand that polygamy cannot be permitted in our society. Legally it is impossible and neither are there many of our devotees who are prepared to assume the responsibility for many wives. Therefore as I have suggested previously as they do in Christian religion they have so many convent where the women stay and they receive protection. The point is that the women must be protected and it is the duties of the leaders of our society to see that this is carried out." (Letter to Satsvarupa, Melbourne 10 February 1973)

 

"After conferring with my various GBC representatives I have concluded that polygamy must be strictly prohibited in our society. Although it is a Vedic institution still there are so many legal implications. Neither are many of our men fixed up enough to tend for more than one wife. Polygamy will simply increase the sex life and our philosophy is to gradually decrease the sex life till eventually there is no sex life." (Letter to Rupanuga, Sydney 14 February 1973)

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

It's interesting to note that the *first* reason given by His Divine Grace is the legal ramifications. The other points are valid, but it *does* seem that the legal consideration was foremost.

 

The Mormon church used to endorse polygamy. They changed their stance a long time ago, and now only Mormon splinter groups "openly" practice polygamy.

 

I'm not intimately familiar with that history, but a lot of it seems to be based on the legal climate in the USA. I seem to remember hearing/reading that the polygamy issue (and abandoning the practice) was tied to statehood for Utah (where many Mormons live and where the church is based).

 

It was enough that Srila Prabhupada was introducing a radically-different culture from the prevailing one--the last thing the movement needed was to be branded outlaws right off the bat (though the shady reputation did eventually come for other reasons).

 

 

Polygamy seems to have been a normal situation in vedic culture - successful grhasthas and vedic kings like Maharaja Bharata ( had three wives), Vasudeva, Krishna's father ( had 16 wives) or Lord Ramacandra's father ( had three wives ) or King Citraketu (had many wives), could easily maintain such big families, whereas nowadays to maintain a family with one wife is a great achievement.

 

"I have received your letter of 1/24/73 concerning polygamy and feel that this policy must be strictly prohibited within our society. If it is not it shall only cause chaos, as what was possible under the system of pure Vedic Culture is impossible at the present time." (Letter to Karandhara, Melbourne 10 February 1973)

 

"First let us understand that polygamy cannot be permitted in our society. Legally it is impossible and neither are there many of our devotees who are prepared to assume the responsibility for many wives. Therefore as I have suggested previously as they do in Christian religion they have so many convent where the women stay and they receive protection. The point is that the women must be protected and it is the duties of the leaders of our society to see that this is carried out." (Letter to Satsvarupa, Melbourne 10 February 1973)

 

"After conferring with my various GBC representatives I have concluded that polygamy must be strictly prohibited in our society. Although it is a Vedic institution still there are so many legal implications. Neither are many of our men fixed up enough to tend for more than one wife. Polygamy will simply increase the sex life and our philosophy is to gradually decrease the sex life till eventually there is no sex life." (Letter to Rupanuga, Sydney 14 February 1973)

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Also, the Mormons were persecuted (including being killed) for their beliefs (including polygamy).

 

 

It's interesting to note that the *first* reason given by His Divine Grace is the legal ramifications. The other points are valid, but it *does* seem that the legal consideration was foremost.

 

The Mormon church used to endorse polygamy. They changed their stance a long time ago, and now only Mormon splinter groups "openly" practice polygamy.

 

I'm not intimately familiar with that history, but a lot of it seems to be based on the legal climate in the USA. I seem to remember hearing/reading that the polygamy issue (and abandoning the practice) was tied to statehood for Utah (where many Mormons live and where the church is based).

 

It was enough that Srila Prabhupada was introducing a radically-different culture from the prevailing one--the last thing the movement needed was to be branded outlaws right off the bat (though the shady reputation did eventually come for other reasons).

[Kulapavana 0]

Legal considerations aside, polygamy is not something many Western women would accept, and for most men it is merely a chance for more sense gratification. Thus it really serves no useful purpose today. Slavery is accepted by the Vedas as well, but no one is calling for it's return.

 

Originally the purpose of polygamy was to avoid giving your daughter away to an unworthy man, just because there was no other option. Today the society is completely different and some Vedic social models simply are not useful.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Today the society is completely different and some Vedic social models simply are not useful.

 

I'm not so sure of that. I *am* pretty sure the whole jealous "shot my old lady 'cause I caught her messing around with another man" paradigm that seems prevalent in the West is not very useful, though.

[suchandra 1]

 

Legal considerations aside, polygamy is not something many Western women would accept, and for most men it is merely a chance for more sense gratification. Thus it really serves no useful purpose today. Slavery is accepted by the Vedas as well, but no one is calling for it's return.

 

Originally the purpose of polygamy was to avoid giving your daughter away to an unworthy man, just because there was no other option. Today the society is completely different and some Vedic social models simply are not useful.

One of the biggest concerns in todays female mind is to have a materially secure situation when managing a household - everything else is a lie. Woman actually don't like to go to work in jobs and give their kids away to some kindergarden/nurse/relatives/friends. But why womanly emancipation in the world of work became such a huge global topic? Todays average mens salary is far too low in order to properly finance an adequate family situation and to properly raise kids and educate them. Since at no time of world history there were more rich men than today these rich men should be given the chance to have as many kids and wives they like - instead of spending their billions with private jets and golfing, taking care of bigger families.

The same might be true for Vaishnava grhasthas, when Prabhupada would have commented on what happened with his gurukulas, he would have surely agreed that materially rich grhasthas to have real big families and maintain nice gurukulas with private teachers, etc. instead of closing the whole thing - no gurukulas in Europe, except one in London, financed by the Royals of UK, but what looks rather like a Hindu school with no harinam program.

[stonehearted 0]

Here’s something about polygamy I thought you all might find interesting. This was excerpted from a tract called “The Marriage System of Bengal,” written by Kedarnath Datta (Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura) around 1857.

“Polygamy is the bane of native [indian]society—a curse that enslaves many of the softer sex. The Kulina Brahmins are inseparable companions of polygamy. In their society it is as firmly advocated as is American slavery in the Southern States. The Kulina women are no better off than the African blacks. But an African black has many advocates around: he has a voice in the “Anti-Slavery League,” whilst a Kulina Brahmini has no zealous friend to tell of her sorrows and relieve them. The legislature ought to hear the cries of the people as far as their interest is concerned. Reform in everything is sought for and as the first movement we desire the removal of polygamy by an enactment.”

[stonehearted 0]

Here's an article I wrote years ago in response to something by a Godbrother who advocates polygamy. I've deleted the other devotee's name because it's unnecessary.

Lord Ramachandra’s Example: “Only One Wife”

*** prabhu’s lengthy response to Prtha’s complaints about polygamy seems to miss one important source: a verse and purport in the Ninth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Chapter 10, verse 54 says, “Lord Ramacandra took a vow to accept only one wife and have no connection with any other women. He was a saintly king, and everything in His life was good, untinged by qualities like anger. He taught good behavior for everyone, especially for the householders, in terms of varnasrama-dharma. Thus He taught the general public by His personal activities.”

In his purport, Srila Prabhupada explains this further: “Eka-patni-vrata, accepting only one wife, was the glorious example set by Lord Ramacandra. One should not accept more than one wife. In those days, of course, people did marry more than one wife. Even Lord Ramacandra’s father accepted more wives than one. But Lord Ramacandra, as an ideal king, accepted only one wife, mother Sita. When Mother Sita was kidnapped by Ravana and the Raksasas, Lord Ramacandra, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, could have married hundreds and thousands of Sitas, but to teach us how to be faithful He was to His wife, He fought with Ravana and finally killed him. The Lord punished Ravana and rescued His wife to instruct men to have only one wife. Lord Ramacandra accepted only one wife and manifested sublime character, thus setting an example for householders. A householder should live according to the ideal of Lord Ramacandra, who showed how to be a perfect person.”

Srila Prabhupada makes abundantly clear in this purport his desire that we establish daivi-varnasrama-dharma by marrying only one wife and remaining faithful to her throughout our lives. Since *** invests much in dates, let’s note that this volume was published in 1977. ***’s research shows that, in the abstract, we should have little objection to the kind of polygamy practiced by men with qualifications similar to King Dasarath. We should also note, however, that even Dasarath’s household was not perfectly peaceful. If men less qualified than he try to care for more than one wife, we can expect just the sorts of problems we have experienced over the years.

In fact, our godbrothers’ attempts at “polygamy” were really meant for increasing their sense gratification, regardless of their attempts to rationalize their behavior. I know of no such arrangements in which the “wives” were all equally satisfied with the results over the long run. In the conversation *** cites as Srila Prabhupada’s “last and final instruction on the matter,” Srila Prabhupada says another wife would be allowed “f the woman allows husband.” He imposed the same restriction on acceptance of the sannyasa ashram by his married disciples. This shows the wife’s importance in the family and underscores Srila Prabhupada’s assertion that both husband and wife should be faithful.

In trying to introduce spiritual culture to the world, we need to be bold, as Srila Prabhupada showed by his own example. We must also be humble and honest enough to acknowledge the limits of our actual understanding of varanasrama’s cultural manifestations, as well as the limits of our understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s desires. Otherwise, we risk minimizing his significance and missing the richness of genuine spiritual culture.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

I'm not so sure of that. I *am* pretty sure the whole jealous "shot my old lady 'cause I caught her messing around with another man" paradigm that seems prevalent in the West is not very useful, though.

 

you mean that Manu-samhita goes easy on unfaithful wives?

[stonehearted 0]

This was a response to ***'s reply to my earlier article:

 

Srila Prabhupada’s Desire: No Sense Gratification

I have no intention of becoming embroiled in a tit-for-tat argument with *** prabhu about the propriety of polygamy; however, I do want to respond to a few problems I found in his reply to my article, “Lord Ramachandra’s Example.”

First, it should be clear to anyone who reads my article carefully that it does not disparage polygamy, either as a principle or in its correct practice. It argues for careful consideration in argument. That’s all. In the article to which I responded, *** simply ignored any views other than his own. As I teach even my first-year college students, any successful argument must take into consideration other sides of an issue, including any questions or objections that may be raised. ***’s didn’t, and I simply wanted to point out that if we intend to include this practice in our understanding of establishing varnashrama-dharma, we should do so carefully. “We must also be humble enough to acknowledge the limits of our actual understanding,” is what I actually said. I stand fast by my advocacy of humility.

Further, anyone who reads my article can also see that nowhere in it do I attack ***’s character or his motives for repeating Srila Prabhupada’s words. I met *** when he lived in <st1:city w:st="on">Los Angeles</st1:city> and never had any impression of him except that he is a serious, sincere devotee. And since an interlocutor’s character is an important element of classical rhetoric, maybe I should mention my own track record: I have been a faithful disciple since early 1970 and a faithful husband to my wife for 26 [now over 34] years. Ask anyone who knows me.

Since *** finds it appropriate, however, to question my motives, let me deal with that section of his recent article first. He asks, “Are you trying to create a generation of young prostitutes so you can enjoy them?” Not at all. I’m strictly monogamous, and at 51 [i'm now 60] I’m done with sex and headed in the other direction. I’m probably more upset than *** is that so many of our devotees’ daughters aren’t properly situated; many of them were my students. Moreover, as far as I know, no one has ever before suggested such a flaw in my character. I find it insulting to Srila Prabhupada, to my vaishnavi wife, and to my godbrothers’ daughters. More to the point, though, such character attack, although it’s certainly his prerogative to indulge in it, weakens ***’s argument.

Early in his article, *** misstates my comments. Regarding the June 28, 1977 conversation, *** says I’m “reading things that just aren’t there and putting words in SP’s mouth that he didn’t say.” This is simply not true. Even in Ameyatama’s quotation in this most recent article, right where he tries to prove I’m making things up, Srila Prabhupada says, “If the woman allows husband, ‘He likes.’ . . .” I didn’t say this; Srila Prabhupada did. His main point here is, as *** points out, that a chaste wife who is properly protected ought not to object. But Srila Prabhupada does say that a second wife would be permitted “If the woman allows.” *** says, “I only read that SP says the wife must not mind very much if her husband takes more than one wife.” Then read it again, more carefully this time, prabhu, because you seem to have missed a sentence. “If woman allows.” One more time—those are not my words, but Srila Prabhupada’s own. *** should read his own article more carefully, or at least be careful enough to edit out what he doesn’t want us to see.

He says I claim the Ninth Canto purport says “that Srila Prabhupada does NOT want us to take more than one wife.” That is just not what I write there. What I do say is that it expresses his desire that his male disciples accept only one wife and remain faithful to her.

He claims that I see this verse “as some sort of absolute dictum that is so strong and powerful that it totally overpowers and over shadows [sic]” all instructions that favor polygamy. But that’s not what I say, either. Nowhere do I even imply that it nullifies any other instruction. One could make a case that instructions in Srila Prabhupada’s books should carry more weight than comments made in his room, on a walk, or even in a letter. I read a letter to a godbrother named Sadhanananda in which Srila Prabhupada wrote that devotees say, “Srila Prabhupada has said this, or said that.” This is another form of cheating, he said. “If it is not in my books,” he wrote, “I did not say it.” I won’t make such a case. I will, however, present some of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions in the matter, from his books and other sources, to show that this is not an isolated statement that runs counter to his real desire.

In the purport to SB 4.26.4, Srila Prabhupada writes, “One should be satisfied with his married wife, for even a slight deviation will create havoc.” Then he continues, “A Krishna conscious grihastha should always remember this. He should always be satisfied with one wife and be peaceful simply by chanting the Hare Krishna mantra.” In a 1972 Bhagavatam lecture in <st1:city w:st="on">Los Angeles</st1:city>, he said, “So to become <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> conscious means immediately--that is the test--immediately he will become free from lust and greediness. If he's not free from lust and greediness, he is making a show; he's not <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> conscious. This is the test. If one is actually advanced in <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> consciousness, then these two symptoms will be visible in his character: no more lusty, no more greediness. He should be satisfied with one wife or one husband. Why hankering after others? That is lusty. That means it is not on the stage of <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> consciousness; it is in the material platform.” In a 1974 Bhagavatam class, he said, “a person should be so nicely trained up that the one wife with religious, by performing religious ceremony, is given to him, he should be satisfied with her, not to see other women, adulteration. This is Kali-yuga.” In 1975 he told us, “If anyone can maintain a family--family means one wife and one or two children--then he is to be considered very expert, successful,” and in 1976 he said, “Tapasya begins with brahmacarya, life of celibacy, or accepting one wife only. That's all.” Years before, in 1971 he said, “We recommend our students not to have illicit sex. We don't stop sex, but regulate. . . . What is the difficulty? No illicit sex means don't be cats and dogs. Be married man and have one wife, one husband, and be satisfied.”

In 1974, he wrote Sukadeva prabhu, “No, devotees are not allowed more than one wife. Devotees should have no wife if possible, but those who cannot maintain celibacy, they can marry one wife. At the present moment people are so unfortunate they cannot maintain even one wife. First of all at the present moment they are not married and remain mostly unmarried. So for such persons even one wife is a great burden. Under the circumstances how one can think of more than one wife? This is stupidity.” There are more, but this just shows that, although I don’t claim this one purport supersedes all others, it is also not an isolated instruction.

*** objects to my saying that his research shows that, “in the abstract, we should have little objection” to polygamy practiced by men as qualified as Dasharath. He’s particularly upset by “little objection” and suggests we should have “NO” objection. He also doesn’t like “in the abstract.” I agree. I’m happy to change it to “In principle, we should have no objection to the kind of polygamy practiced by men with qualifications similar to King Dasharath’s.” Despite ***’s cleverness, I have no desire to obstruct our understanding of varnashrama-dharma, but to encourage careful understanding and even more careful application.

At one point, Ameyatama concedes that, so far, experiments with polygamy have failed. Then he suggests that “most” monogamous marriages have failed as well, so perhaps we should give up on marriage altogether and just couple like animals. I’m sorry he wasted any of his time energy, and space on this unfortunate point. This is a clear case of the logical fallacy called argumentum ad absurdum.

Although *** claims that polygamy is not meant for increasing sex life, Srila Prabhupada seems to have another opinion. In a 1973 letter to Rupanuga, he wrote, “After conferring with my various GBC representatives I have concluded that polygamy must be strictly prohibited in our society. Although it is a Vedic institution still there are so many legal implications. Neither are many of our men fixed up enough to tend for more than one wife. Polygamy will simply increase the sex life and our philosophy is to gradually decrease the sex life till eventually there is no sex life.” Of course polygamy is ideally meant for protecting women. But that’s not its only purpose, as we see in a Srimad-Bhagavatam purport: “A man is allowed to keep more than one wife because he cannot enjoy sex when the wife is pregnant. If he wants to enjoy sex at such a time, he may go to another wife who is not pregnant. These are laws mentioned in the Manu-samhita and other scriptures” (SB4.26.4, purport). And in a Bhagavatam class, he said, “According to Vedic civilization, because man is very aggressive, so he's allowed to accept more than one wife.”

Finally, *** invokes examples different from Lord Ramachandra’s that he seems to think Srila Prabhupada wanted us to follow. Bhima, Arjuna, and other devotees, he points out, had more than one wife. Of course, they were rich kings and perfect devotees. Lord Nityananda had more than one wife, *** says. Maybe, but the example of Nityananda Prabhu’s Srila Prabhupada wants us to follow is his compassion and tireless preaching of the holy names, not his disregard for social conventions. Even Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he says, ignored Lord Rama’s example by remarrying after his first wife’s passing. In fact, He did, but only at the insistence of his widowed mother. He also left his wife at age 24 to go preach all over <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

Ultimately, as evidenced by ***’s title, he suggests we follow the example of Lord Krishna, who had 16,108 wives. However, when Srila Prabhupada discusses the Lord’s household, he doesn’t suggest it as a model for ours, except that, despite lying comfortably next to our wives, we should rise early in the morning, bathe and meditate on <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>. Instead, Srila Prabhupada points out that <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> accepted 16,108 wives to demonstrate His opulence as the full-fledged Personality of Godhead. This is one way <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> shows He is not one of us!

Once more, in case it’s not clear to some, I’m not opposing polygamy. I’m only suggesting that we discuss the issue fully and apply it carefully. In fact, I expect this to be my last article on the subject. I’m much more interested in how we discuss it than in whether *** or anyone else has more wives than I. Neither do I suggest that anyone with an opinion different from mine is an atheist or infected with sinful desires of some sort. I only advocate careful and civil discourse among devotees, especially in public.

 

 

Perhaps we should follow Srila Prabhupada’s example. If necessary, marry one wife or husband, conduct our home lives according to the instructions of our spiritual master, gradually give up all material endeavor and sense gratification, and immerse ourselves in distributing prasadam, protecting cows, and chanting and broadcasting the glories of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s sankirtan movement. After all, Narada Muni testifies that “those who are always full of cares and anxieties due to desiring contact of the senses with their objects can cross the ocean of nescience on a most suitable boat—the constant chanting of the transcendental activities of the Personality of Godhead.”

[suchandra 1]

 

The Kulina women are no better off than the African blacks. But an African black has many advocates around: he has a voice.....

Well, yes, this sounds like a description of the poorest of the poor, this should never be enhanced, something like the situation at Dharavi slums/Mumbai, home to over a million people....

 

 

 

 

 

[Guruvani 0]

Personally, I don't see that the threat of polygamy or the lack thereof is any serious issue surrounding the KC movement.

 

I fail to see why the topic is so contentious as it doesn't affect anyone in the KC movement that I know of.

 

Polygamy probably lost credibility about the same time that Varnashrama society of Bharata varsha became asura varnashrama - caste by birth alone.

 

Not only does it take a qualified man to practice polygamy but it takes qualified women which in this age I doubt there are any women qualified to be the wife of a polygamist.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

you mean that Manu-samhita goes easy on unfaithful wives?

 

Oh, yeah. We strictly follow Manu-samhita.

 

Did you get molten lead poured down your throat the last time you blasphemed a Brahmana? (I'm paraphrasing from a memory of a hear-say, but I think the point is clear).

 

Mahaprabhu's mercy transcends all Vedic injunctions.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

And yet, what we see happening in practice, even amongst the aspiring Vaishnavas is: serial monogamy.

 

Serial monogamy is the pattern in the West. Can anybody honestly say that serial monogamy is in any way preferrable to polygamy?

 

It's pure hypocrisy to be a serial monogamist and condemn the polygamists.

 

 

Personally, I don't see that the threat of polygamy or the lack thereof is any serious issue surrounding the KC movement.

 

I fail to see why the topic is so contentious as it doesn't affect anyone in the KC movement that I know of.

 

Polygamy probably lost credibility about the same time that Varnashrama society of Bharata varsha became asura varnashrama - caste by birth alone.

 

Not only does it take a qualified man to practice polygamy but it takes qualified women which in this age I doubt there are any women qualified to be the wife of a polygamist.

[Guruvani 0]

 

And yet, what we see happening in practice, even amongst the aspiring Vaishnavas is: serial monogamy.

 

Serial monogamy is the pattern in the West. Can anybody honestly say that serial monogamy is in any way preferrable to polygamy?

 

It's pure hypocrisy to be a serial monogamist and condemn the polygamists.

I haven't advocated for either one.

But, if a man gets left to raise children without a wife then I don't see what is his fault if he tried to find another wife to help him with his family and his home.

 

At least serial monogamy is legal.

One of the points against polygamy that Srila Prabhupada was making was that it is illegal.

 

If polygamy was legal around the world then I doubt that Srila Prabhupada would have been so against it.

 

You can't dump all the blame on broken marriages on the man either.

Many women are destroying marriages as well.

 

If a sincere man loses his wife due to no fault of his own then I don't see anything wrong with him finding another wife if he wants one.

 

Otherwise, there would be a big spike in prostitution if men were not allowed to marry again after losing wife.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

One of the biggest concerns in todays female mind is to have a materially secure situation when managing a household - everything else is a lie. Woman actually don't like to go to work in jobs and give their kids away to some kindergarden/nurse/relatives/friends. But why womanly emancipation in the world of work became such a huge global topic?

 

Well, you could argue that material security is their true material hankering, but I've met a number of women who seem to simply want to raise some h*ll and aren't ready to settle down at all. Of course, that attitude could be attributed to their material conditioning.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Oh yeah! I wasn't disagreeing with you, just trying to introduce another consideration.

 

Srila Prabhupada wasn't specifically against polygamy, he was against sense enjoyment in general.

 

It's probably safe to say that many would-be polygamists aren't aspiring for multiple wives out of a sincere desire to "protect" them and encourage them in their spiritual lives, but, rather, to increase their sense-enjoyment.

 

As you say, qualification is key, and, in addition to the women (who, in the West, grow up with the Prince Charming one-true-love ideal), there aren't many men who could harmonize a polygamous marriage.

 

 

I haven't advocated for either one.

But, if a man gets left to raise children without a wife then I don't see what is his fault if he tried to find another wife to help him with his family and his home.

 

At least serial monogamy is legal.

One of the points against polygamy that Srila Prabhupada was making was that it is illegal.

 

If polygamy was legal around the world then I doubt that Srila Prabhupada would have been so against it.

 

You can't dump all the blame on broken marriages on the man either.

Many women are destroying marriages as well.

 

If a sincere man loses his wife due to no fault of his own then I don't see anything wrong with him finding another wife if he wants one.

 

Otherwise, there would be a big spike in prostitution if men were not allowed to marry again after losing wife.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Oh, yeah. We strictly follow Manu-samhita.

 

Did you get molten lead poured down your throat the last time you blasphemed a Brahmana? (I'm paraphrasing from a memory of a hear-say, but I think the point is clear).

 

Mahaprabhu's mercy transcends all Vedic injunctions.

 

I thought that you were making a point that present day intolerance to maritial cheating is a new development, absent from the vedic society practicing polygamy.

 

Manu Samhita as available to us today is just a compilation of rules governing Indian society in the early medieval period. It is much removed from the Vedic period being compiled sometime around first or second century AD.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Well, the Vaishnavas condemn the modern Indian caste system while upholding the ideals of Varnashram Dharma (which are based on merit and temprement and not birth).

 

Similarly, the Vedic ideal of marriage has been perverted by the insincere. It is this perversion against which Thakur Bhaktivinoda is railing, not the Vedic ideal.

 

 

Here’s something about polygamy I thought you all might find interesting. This was excerpted from a tract called “The Marriage System of Bengal,” written by Kedarnath Datta (Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura) around 1857.

“Polygamy is the bane of native [indian]society—a curse that enslaves many of the softer sex. The Kulina Brahmins are inseparable companions of polygamy. In their society it is as firmly advocated as is American slavery in the Southern States. The Kulina women are no better off than the African blacks. But an African black has many advocates around: he has a voice in the “Anti-Slavery League,” whilst a Kulina Brahmini has no zealous friend to tell of her sorrows and relieve them. The legislature ought to hear the cries of the people as far as their interest is concerned. Reform in everything is sought for and as the first movement we desire the removal of polygamy by an enactment.”

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

I guess I didn't make that clear. No, the controlling tendency, selfishness, possessiveness (sp?), intolerance, and lack-of-empathy have always plagued the conditioned jiva souls.

 

What *is* a relatively recent development is this enforced monogamy. Even in the Old Testament, we see plenty of examples of polygamy. In the news every day, I see evidence of the harm of enforced monogamy. Folks have unrealistic expectations of themselves and others. How can we control our senses unless we live a regulated, spiritual life?

 

Thanks for the bit of background regarding Manu Samhita. Good to know!

 

Justice is good, but I'm counting on mercy being higher than justice (or else there is no hope for me)!

 

 

I thought that you were making a point that present day intolerance to maritial cheating is a new development, absent from the vedic society practicing polygamy.

 

Manu Samhita as available to us today is just a compilation of rules governing Indian society in the early medieval period. It is much removed from the Vedic period being compiled sometime around first or second century AD.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Yep. Good article.

 

It's clear from this what Srila Prabhupada wanted our ideal to be (following the example of Lord Rama). It's also clear that accomodations may be made under extraordinary circumstances.

 

The bottom line is: we can debate back and forth regarding the merits of this practice or that, but the key is to always remember that we are all here for the enjoyment of the Lord. If we can see all of our sisters (and brothers) as being for the enjoyment of the Lord, then we will treat them with all the respect which they are due.

 

 

Here's an article I wrote years ago in response to something by a Godbrother who advocates polygamy. I've deleted the other devotee's name because it's unnecessary.

Lord Ramachandra’s Example: “Only One Wife”

*** prabhu’s lengthy response to Prtha’s complaints about polygamy seems to miss one important source: a verse and purport in the Ninth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Chapter 10, verse 54 says, “Lord Ramacandra took a vow to accept only one wife and have no connection with any other women. He was a saintly king, and everything in His life was good, untinged by qualities like anger. He taught good behavior for everyone, especially for the householders, in terms of varnasrama-dharma. Thus He taught the general public by His personal activities.”

In his purport, Srila Prabhupada explains this further: “Eka-patni-vrata, accepting only one wife, was the glorious example set by Lord Ramacandra. One should not accept more than one wife. In those days, of course, people did marry more than one wife. Even Lord Ramacandra’s father accepted more wives than one. But Lord Ramacandra, as an ideal king, accepted only one wife, mother Sita. When Mother Sita was kidnapped by Ravana and the Raksasas, Lord Ramacandra, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, could have married hundreds and thousands of Sitas, but to teach us how to be faithful He was to His wife, He fought with Ravana and finally killed him. The Lord punished Ravana and rescued His wife to instruct men to have only one wife. Lord Ramacandra accepted only one wife and manifested sublime character, thus setting an example for householders. A householder should live according to the ideal of Lord Ramacandra, who showed how to be a perfect person.”

Srila Prabhupada makes abundantly clear in this purport his desire that we establish daivi-varnasrama-dharma by marrying only one wife and remaining faithful to her throughout our lives. Since *** invests much in dates, let’s note that this volume was published in 1977. ***’s research shows that, in the abstract, we should have little objection to the kind of polygamy practiced by men with qualifications similar to King Dasarath. We should also note, however, that even Dasarath’s household was not perfectly peaceful. If men less qualified than he try to care for more than one wife, we can expect just the sorts of problems we have experienced over the years.

In fact, our godbrothers’ attempts at “polygamy” were really meant for increasing their sense gratification, regardless of their attempts to rationalize their behavior. I know of no such arrangements in which the “wives” were all equally satisfied with the results over the long run. In the conversation *** cites as Srila Prabhupada’s “last and final instruction on the matter,” Srila Prabhupada says another wife would be allowed “f the woman allows husband.” He imposed the same restriction on acceptance of the sannyasa ashram by his married disciples. This shows the wife’s importance in the family and underscores Srila Prabhupada’s assertion that both husband and wife should be faithful.

In trying to introduce spiritual culture to the world, we need to be bold, as Srila Prabhupada showed by his own example. We must also be humble and honest enough to acknowledge the limits of our actual understanding of varanasrama’s cultural manifestations, as well as the limits of our understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s desires. Otherwise, we risk minimizing his significance and missing the richness of genuine spiritual culture.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

What *is* a relatively recent development is this enforced monogamy.

 

In Vedic times polygamy was not the only outlet for men's desire for variety. There were "society girls" in all the cities and in many larger villages. There are even Bhagavatam descriptions of them sporting in a swimming pool with the Pandavas during the rajasuya sacrifice (see Krsna Book). Quite frankly this option is much easier to implement today then polygamy. Let's go "vedic" all the way!

[Guruvani 0]

I don't see any reason that the forum members should get all hot and bothered about the topic of polygamy.

Polygamy is absolutely not a major issue in the KC movement and is simply a topic that distracts attention away from the real issues facing the KC movement.

 

Let's talk about something that matters.

Polygamy is one of the most useless and irrelevant topics I have seen in a while.

 

who gives a crap about what fringey householders do?

 

Let's discuss siddhanta and philosophy.

 

These social issues that are irrelevant are just dry, useless discussions.

[stonehearted 0]

I'm with you, KB. This is not an interesting topic for me. It's mainly irrelevant to most devotees' lives, and I've written all I'm going to write on it. I was more interested in the way it was being discussed than in the topic itself.

 

BTW, it's really hot here, and humid! But pretty.

[Guruvani 0]

 

I'm with you, KB. This is not an interesting topic for me. It's mainly irrelevant to most devotees' lives, and I've written all I'm going to write on it. I was more interested in the way it was being discussed than in the topic itself.

 

BTW, it's really hot here, and humid! But pretty.

But Fall is so nice!

Winter gets colder than you might think, but it doesn't start until about the second week of December.

 

Fall.................. so nice!

 

Hey, I have been to Hawaii a few times and after a rain the place is as humid as anything.

 

The temple is sweet isn't it?

 

Hope you can meet Balavanta and some nice devotees here.