What is marriage according to Vedas?

Posted on by

I’ve to share a few relevant Mantras/Hymns/Riks in regard to marriage in the Vedas. This is is indeed a very noble vision of marriage and should be emulated by all wise people:


Rig-Veda says, “Wife is verily a home” (1-66-5, 1-77-3 and 3-54-4). After marriage the girl can attend and address Vidhata (Assembly regarding religious and spiritual matters) and Sabha (Assembly regarding social, economics and political matters) and should conduct as per Rta (cosmic Laws of necessity) and Dharma (Rig Veda 10-85-26 to 42 and 47.   Atharav Veda. 14-1-20 , 22. 14-2-64 , 71). She is the mistress and ruler of the house. Virtuous, noble, educated wife of an unimpeachable character and conducts devoted to her husband with body mind and soul enjoy the highest bliss. Atharva Veda 14-1-20 enjoins the wife to go to husband’s place and become the mistress of the house.   However, for those who do not have faith in the permanent truths and cosmic laws of necessity (Rta) of the Vedas and prefer to follow non divine vocations by resorting to bribery, magic, miracles, adulteration of food, the Vedic metaphysics is silent about the marriage institution for them.   Out of six kinds of marriages mentioned in Rig Veda like Brhama Vivah, Gandharva Vivah, Asura Marriages based on use of force and any kind of pressure are not advised in Rig Veda. Bigamy, polygamy and polyandry is not advised to Arayans (noble persons).

Rig-Veda 6-64-6 says, at the time of marriage the woman should preferably choose a man who likes her most and is delighted to see her. Parents should give freedom to the young girl to choose her life partner through the institution of Svayamvara, which literally means self choosing of a husband (R.V 5-47-6 and 1-71-8).   The path-finders found highly ethical and divine principles in regard to the institution of marriage. God is present when sex is resorted to for the purposes of procreation only in socially recognised marriages. A number of socially recognised marriages have been mentioned. Love marriage is considered superior to arranged marriage. Parents should encourage those young men and women who love each other and want to get married. This kind of Marriage is Brahma Vivah (marriage blessed by God).   There is no mention anywhere that marriages should be within the same Varna . More emphasis is on the same level of intelligence, ability and the proficiency in Vedic education. Both degree holders should preferably marry each other but their children could be assigned different Varna based on merit, aptitude and capacity. There is no mention of 4 Varnas (Brahamin, Kshatriya, Vaisha and Shudra) by birth in the Vedas.

Marriages arranged by parents are also contemplated. However, the institution of svayamvara where the bridegroom has to fulfill certain conditions of expertise, strength, power, knowledge etc., is to be fulfilled as prescribed by the parents of the bride, before finally getting married. This clearly shows the great importance Vedic rsis and munnies gave to women. No dowry system is mentioned anywhere. Vedas leave no doubt those male female relationships are more on the principle of co-equal relationship of the cosmos i.e. between Purusha (the Supreme Reality) and Prakrti (Supreme Mother) and thus provide divinity and sanctity to the institution of marriage.

For more details on Marriage, Four divine Varnas and Fifth non divine Avarna , Ideal Vedic Society etc, kindly refer to Glimpses of Vedic Metaphysics. The book is also accessible through Google, Yahoo and lulu.com. Please search for Vedic Metaphysics.

14 thoughts on “What is marriage according to Vedas?”

  1. And sannyasa (or bekh) is the ancient concept of divorce minus alimony or child support. In today’s times divorce is more ethical than sannyasa because current divorce laws recognize the ongoing financial needs of the ex-spouse and children. I think it should be compulsory for married men with children who opt for sannyasa or any sort of tyagi lifestyle to first legally divorce their wives so that at least the government can require them to still contribute towards the financial welfare of their children and ex-spouse if needed. It’s only fair.
  2. Radhe Radhe ! Well Trishul, acc to the present Hindu Law, if a guy takes sannyas, or even if he doesn’t, after two years or so of absenteeism, the wife naturally gets a divorce (if she wills it, under the grounds of ”desertion”). Same applies to a husband also. So she can get married. Now, the alimony / maintenance etc in Hindu as well as Catholic Law, is proportional to the man’s / woman’s income. In the case of sannyas, the man ”claims” that his income is zero. Hence the Q of alimony etc falls apart. Now, his claim may or may not be false. How would you decide ? Also, acc to Indian Law, as soon as a man takes sannyas, he relinquishes all rights to property, money etc. He can dispose of this how he wants BEFORE taking sanyas. Once he declares sanyas (tyagi), all wealth goes to his ”survivor / inheritor”, just as it would were he dead. In this case, also, the woman and children get all. So also the Q of alimony / maintenance does not arise.
  3. What about if and when the tyagi/sannyasi/bheki acquires wealth and properties from sisyas? Can the ex-wife and children claim any of that? Have you heard of any such cases? What happens if the family was poor and relied solely on the income from the father’s job to survive? Is he not required by law to keep working and sending money to his children? It seems that a lot of men (or women in some cases too) could just use the excuse of tyagi to escape their responsibilities to family – (as we are seeing amongst bidesi bhakta gana to some extent as well).
  4. Radhe Radhe ! (Oh How i wish all of us would start our comments like this – please ………..) Yes, i was expecting this Q. The answer is ”Yes, if the wife has not filed for divorce, she is entitled to the money, provided he dies without a will or nomination. Same applies to the inheritors”. However, if such money belongs to an organization, and he is merely th e one handling th e money, then it is treated as property of the organization. To make the picture more clear, let’s say that ‘sanyasi’ is treated as any ordinary man would be if he decides to live separately – for whatever reason – and not pay anything for the upkeep of his family. The wife would have to file for divorce, and fight acase, wherein the court would order th eman to pay for maintenace in proportion to his income. Now the status of ”babajis” and the so-called ”brahmacharis” ( i prefer to simply call them saffroners) – since they hv NOT taken sannyas – and could hv been married before they became such and such, is the same as a ‘deserter’ in the eyes of the Indian constitution. However if they hv no bank balance / account – then again, the law cannot make them pay. Neither do they forfeit their previous wealth, since they hv not taken sanyas. i know the instance of an extremely famous babaji who went to his previous place to sell part of his land to pay fo r his daughter’s wedding. This means the law is treating him as aman who has given up his source of income. Likewise after his death, his wife and children will be the inheritors of his present collection, provided of course, he does not will it to any one else. Suppose any man decides not to earn from a certain time, the law of ademocratic country can’t force him to do so.
  5. Radhe Radhe Trishul ! i know whatu r driving at, and i support you. However, i don’t think there is any democratic country that can bring to book a deserter or irresponsible man non-conscious of his duties choosing tramping or pan-handling as his vocation. That is why today the educated Indians look down on deserters – yes that is the only word for these guys. hardly anyone i know ( in my educated circle comprising of mixed religions) respects such men and women. The only difference between teh ordinary deserter and these guys in uniform is, that the latter is merely making a shrewd career-move. please don’t laugh, but a few years back, the prestigious Times of India had actually mentioned IGM on their ”Career Consultancy” page named ”Ascent” and had in all seriousness stated the various lucrative careers these orgs offer to one with ”spiritual aptitude”. They had written in all solemnity, but i found it hilarious. The terms and vocational vocabs they had used !! And the remunerations mentioned !! OMK ! i rolled in lafter ! And noone protested even !!!
  6. Radhe! Radhe! Well I know one democratic country that can and DOES force the man with no money to pay child support to ex-wife and kids, the US. At the time of divorce a fixed amount of monthly child support is agreed upon for all divorced couples with children under 18 yrs of age. The father MUST pay that amount EVERY month. If for some months he misses, that goes into “arears” and he has to pay whatever has built up over time. At some point if the amount is not paid, he will again be brought to court and thrown in jail. I know a lal kapda walla who this happened to. My policy is that any male taking to the path of bhakti should be sterilized first. 😈
  7. Radhe Radhe!
    My policy is that any male taking to the path of bhakti should be sterilized first.
    I agree that Brahmacharya is pretty difficult, but not impossible to follow!
    a few years back, the prestigious Times of India had actually mentioned IGM
    In Ramcharitmanas, Tulasidas-ji has commented up tto “In Kaliyuga, the sannyasis build big big houses.” But today, we see sanyasis are pretty fastest growing spiritual entrepreneurs… 😆 I’m sure many business leaders would be envious of them! 😆 They too should dream to become yukta vairāgis! 😆
  9. Radhe! Radhe! Castration? Ouch! You are even more hardcore than I am. 😆 Viswajeet, brahmacharya is not the issue here. The issue is bringing children into the world that one is either unprepared or unwilling to support. I couldn’t care less whether people have sex or not. Big deal. The big deal is when irresponsible people bring jeevs into this world and then OTHER people, or the Government has to support those children because the fathers (or sometimes mothers) are either unable or unwilling to. Sterilization of men is the answer. India Gandhi had it right. 😈
  10. OTHER people, or the Government has to support those children because the fathers (or sometimes mothers) are either unable or unwilling to.
    What supports the children is neither parents nor Govt. In truth, it’s actually their destiny to be supported! Krishna supports them! In Kaliyuga, I must say this—for we see even those alive who do not know even if they ever had any parents… I fully agree that irresponsible people shouldn’t beget jeevs into this world! If they have some ambitions in life which require them to leave their family responsibilities sooner or later, they should prefer a brahmacharic bachelor life! Rupa Gosvami, although he had to enter grihasta life (by parental &/or societal obligations, I suppose), before renouncing, he gave a quarter of his life savings to family. And later also the second quarter, which he kept for emergency, he gave to his family only. The rest half we all know he donated to vaishnavas. ➡ A perfect & balanced renunciate!
  11. “If they have some ambitions in life which require them to leave their family responsibilities sooner or later, they should prefer a brahmacharic bachelor life! ” The cultures, sub-cultures, communities and religious groups that I have lived amongst that promote lifelong celibacy as an ideal are quite dysfunctional. Rather, an informed and healthy approach to sexuality based on scientific evidence and basic common sense regarding human nature and hormones is preferred.

  14. Pingback: Quora

Comments are closed.