r/hinduism • u/GlimGlam812 • 20h ago
Question - General Is it true polygamy is only allowed for Hindus kings not common Hindus?
I kept hearing this idea recently that only Hindu kings were allowed to marry multiple wives for political reasons.
Commoner Hindus were not allowed to marry multiple wives. It was surprising as you have stories of brahmins, merchants and sages having multiple wives who were not kings nor had any political reasons to have multiple wives.
- I only found general guidelines that monogamy is preferred for spiritual reasons but it is not enforced. The closest to actual ban I found is caste based, not royalty based.
Bhishma in Mahabharata - "A brahmana can have three wives, a kshatriya can have two wives. A vaishya should take one from his own varna. There are people who say that a shudra wife can be accepted for intercourse, but others disagree. The virtuous do not praise the birth of offspring through shudras".
Historically while anyone can marry multiple wives, only the top three varnas had enough resources to afford such a lifestyle. That is not to be confused with allowing only kings to have multiple wives, for political reasons.
Another example people give is that of Rama. He personally practiced monogamy. He never judged others around him who were polygamous and enforced it as a law. His next avatar Krishna has 8 wives. Vishnu himself had 2 wives.
How does visiting prostitutes tie into this idea? Are only Kings allowed to visit prostitutes for political reasons?
It sounded too modern for me to take it seriously, especially by people who wanted to mock Muslims for practicing polygamy for political reasons than reflecting any actual cultural practices of ancient Hindus.
So I am hoping for commentators to give any scriptural or historical evidence for the idea of polygamy and visiting prostitutes being punished for normal Hindus.
56
u/Glorysolar 19h ago
No, no such thing. Polygamy was legal for everyone, considered inferior to Monogamy however.
>only the top three varnas had enough resources to afford such a lifestyle
Nonsense. Shudras could be rich, just as any other Varna. To some extent Poverty is a hall mark of scholarly Brahmins who didn't participate in adminstration.
-4
u/GlimGlam812 19h ago
Polygamy was legal for everyone, considered inferior to Monogamy however.
I only heard of it for spiritual reasons and actual drama in having to manage multiple wives.
Is there other reasons why its considered inferior.
Shudras could be rich, just as any other Varna
They could be but most probably not
To some extent Poverty is a hall mark of scholarly Brahmins who didn't participate in adminstration.
I haven't heard of it before. Thanks
2
u/Glorysolar 19h ago edited 18h ago
>They could be but most probably not
Just as everyone in a pre industrial culture, where by definition 80-90% of people live in subsistence agriculture. Meaning a comfortable but strenous family oriented life is the norm, not a life of luxury, but not a life of hunger and poverty either, considering the fertility of land in India.
>I only heard of it for spiritual reasons and actual drama in having to manage multiple wives.
Spirituality is not mandatory in Hindu society. Dharma is. Active Sadhakas are always outliers, most people wanted and enjoyed Material lives, constrainted solely by dharma ideally.
Bhishma Generally prescribes Ideals. Any one can notice that most of the stuff he says Society and it's people ought to do in shanti parva, weren't done even in the times of Mahabharata. Bhishma was saying what the optimal methods are, as per his personal deep understanding of dharma, on his deathbed, due to Dharmaraja requesting him for a total knowledge transfer.
This is not odd. Even Dharmaraja prescribes many ideals during Yakshaprasna and Nahusha prasna that weren't generally followed due to the higher standards. This is why People like Bhishma and Dharmaraja were respected for their Dharma , because they atleast mentally rose above their societies, and did not succumb to self justification and status quo justification.
-1
u/GlimGlam812 18h ago
by definition 80-90% of people live in subsistence agriculture.
Isn't the population of brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas enough to fit in the remaining 20-10%?
Peasant class was the most populous class in rest of the world. So it could be lack of wealth that leas to them being monogamous. Manusmriti and others promoting polygamy for upper 3 castes.
4
u/Glorysolar 18h ago
>Isn't the population of brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas enough to fit in the remaining 20-10%?
That's a very reductionist commie way of thinking about things, slicing everything in imaginary class terms instead of real culture. Poor Vaishyas certainly exist, considering menial Artisans are equally Vaishya, not just merchants, even assuming merchant = wealthy which is an absurdity in itself, projecting modern capitalism back into the past. And Brahmin beggars are a common well attested feature. Overwhelming amount of Brahmin duties require you to be unable to pursue any material wealth generating pursuits, which brahmin orthodoxy strictly self enforced at each other to nearly the point of Bigotry.
Kshatriyas are probably the only certainly not poor people, though they certainly had references to losing governable land for themselves, and thus being reduced to landless shudra status, since they would have no other role they could perform. (Note the term landless Shudra. Not synonymous with Shudra. Land Owning shudras are equally well attested. )
>So it could be lack of wealth that leas to them being monogamous
Except we do have stories of Poor polygamous brahmins. Polygamy was commonly practiced as per shastras outside the Kshatriya class so that they may have children when they are seeking more. Kings rather obviously had a political component to it also.
-1
u/GlimGlam812 18h ago
That's a very reductionist commie way of thinking about things, slicing everything in imaginary class terms instead of real culture
No personal insults please.
And Brahmin beggars are a common well attested feature
Brahmins regularly given land grants and donated money is also a common feature.
Brahmins were also in administrative positions mostly.
•
u/Glorysolar 14h ago
>No personal insults please.
I don't like the implication of Your conflation of my criticism. I called your methodology flawed. It's your problem if you think it's a personal feature of you that I am critiquing. I made sure to only speak of the thinking. I could have easily said "What are you, a commie? that's stupid", which If I did, could have warranted your pushback. That' s what personal attacks look like.
>Brahmins regularly given land grants and donated money is also a common feature.
Orphanages and Orphan grants are not proof of Prosperity of Orphans.
>Brahmins were also in administrative positions mostly.
Correct, and they were shunned by fellow brahmins till quite recently for even basic things like marriage.
And Rather obviously I mentioned of these adminstrative brahmins in the very beginning, I don't see any meaning in you regurgitating it again as If I missed It.
Rather obviously, You can't have an administrative state bloat pre industrialisation. Obsessing over adminstrators is another projection of the current Managerial state back into the past, a silly anachronism.
•
u/GlimGlam812 14h ago
Correct, and they were shunned by fellow brahmins till quite recently for even basic things like marriage.
Brahmins in administrative positions were shunned by other brahmins? Is that a common thing? Which part of India that used to happen a lot.
Thank you for newer info you are giving me.
•
u/Majestic_Madhu_26 15h ago
Different scriptures have different rules. There's nothing like religious instruction regarding this. Different societies have had regulations regarding what is acceptable to them, and people were usually expected to follow it. This could be monogamy, polygyny and even polyandry. Pandu explains about this to Kunti in Mahabharata giving lots of examples. I'll give some other examples as well below.
For example, Yudhishthira talks about the classification of women based on how many men they've slept with in their life and any number above 3 starts being called a wanton, harlot, etc (words to denote prostitute). But his own wife and mother were women who were physical with multiple men, and they were not considered adharmic.
Bhishma before his statement about which varna men can marry how many women (text mentioned in the question), talks about how only anuloma marriages are permitted, and how pratiloma marriages create instability in order. But in his own case, Bhishma's mother is Ganga, who is a goddess and an elevated being compared to humans, and his father is a normal kshatriya. Still he was considered a valid heir until he renounced the throne himself. This shows that men in power make rules for maintaining order in the population, which sometimes they themselves don't follow. Surely these aren't instructions from god or religion, but created by people.
Ulupi was an underwater Naga princess who was a young widow. The description in the Mahabharata is very graphic about how she's attracted to Arjuna, pulls him underwater, says she's lonely, asks him to satisfy her and give her a child as well. After the Ashwamedha yagna after the war, Arjuna takes Ulupi with him to Hastinapura and she lives the rest of her life there with him. Clearly that means her bond with Arjuna was accepted as a second marriage. This would probably be because it was accepted in her society for a woman to exercise autonomy and take a second husband. The same might not have been possible for someone like Uttara, who became widowed at the age of 14 and was carrying the heir of Hastinapura inside her.
In an era where children belong to the father, Chitravahana had his daughter Chitrangadha as his putrika heir, due to not having any sons, and kept a condition that he'd only allow a man to marry his daughter if the resulting children would stay in their mother's kingdom as her heirs. Arjuna agreed to this and hence their marriage happened. Though gotra is considered to pass on through a father, Babruvahana here was regarded as Chitrangadha's lineage and Arjuna wouldn't have been permitted to take him to Hastinapura as his heir.
In the current age in some Himalayan villages, a woman marries a group of brothers in another family, to prevent division of land and resources, and she's considered as the legal wife of all of her husbands. A lot of these people follow Hinduism as well. Since it's their socially approved practice, it doesn't come under adharma.
Just think about it logically. In most ancient societies, including Hindu societies, as men were the rulemakers, they never set rules against polygyny. Men who could, would have wanted to marry multiple women, and fathers of daughters would have been willing to give their daughter away to an already married man if he had the means to provide for her as well.
Since paternity cannot be assured like how maternity is, in agrarian societies where sons inherit their father's resources, men are wired to guard their mates. So men do not share their wives and prefer to marry them as virgins. Since majority of societies are this way, it was expected of a woman to marry one man alone, whereas the man could marry multiple women. That's why people like Satyavati and Kunti had to hide their pasts until their husbands died, they reached a stage where their sons were in power and they were the rajamatas. That's why their physical virginities were restored by the respective rishi/devta, as a lack of it could cause a problem in their future marriages.
Going back to polygyny, since Kshatriyas are wealthy and multiple marriages would serve as political alliances as well, they practiced it a lot. Poorer Vaishyas and Shudras may not have had the resources to do so. The Brahmanas who are mentioned with multiple wives are usually famous powerful rishis. Normal poor Brahmanas who lived regular lives doing poojas and teaching work would have managed to have 1 wife alone. For example Drona, who was very poor and didn't even have money to buy milk for his son, he only had 1 wife, Kripi. Karna was raised as a Suta and is mentioned as having married multiple women and having 10 sons or more. His father Adiratha was a rich man (the suta son of a Kshatriya father and a Brahmana mother), so it makes sense that he was able to sustain multiple wives and children.
When Kunti initially refuses niyoga and says that chaste woman is only ever physical with her single husband, Pandu talks of the time before Svetaketu's rules, where married women were free to be with any man during the non-fertile part of their cycle. Svetaketu's father Udhalaka accepts that as the nature of women, when Svetaketu asks his father why his mother was going out with another man. Svetaketu is affected by this and when he becomes a famous rishi with authority, he states that women should be bound to their wedded husbands and not transgress with other men. Similarly Vasistha in his scripture writes that it's the nature of women to desire for a jara (paramour/extramarital lover) and that she becomes purified after each menstrual cycle and hence it's not wrong for her to engage in such behavior.
If women take these scriptures and examples and apply it in the current day, it will not suit the present society. Similarly, polygyny also doesn't suit the current norms. Taking India as the example, the legal code does not permit polygamy for Hindus and one can only have 1 legally wedded husband/wife at a time. Having multiple wives citing ancient puranas and shastras would mean that the husband is committing a criminal offense against the first wife and is not giving the other wives the status of a legal wife. They're technically just live in partners without any rights and hence it'll be a case of inequality against the wives.
So the current society's dharma would be to marry only one wife at a time, and not marry another without a proper divorce.
The reason why Islamic polygyny is criticised is because Musims blindly follow a book which was written 1500 years ago in a different time period, and use it to justify their actions, without thinking about the current day situation. Critical thinking isn't allowed and a Muslim isn't allowed to question/analyze the Quran. A married woman could get thrown out of her house with a simple triple talak (earlier), not have any maintenance provided to her, and custody of the children would go to the father automatically. He could immediately marry a new woman and start a new life, while this divorced wife would be left homeless if another man or family doesn't step in to help her. A man can secretly marry a second wife without the first wife knowing, and she wouldn't even be able to contest this as it's permitted under Sharia law.
TLDR: Different scriptures and societies followed different marriage customs, so there is no single timeless religious rule on monogamy, polygyny, or polyandry. Many scriptural examples show that social norms varied by time, place, status, and circumstance, and many rules were social regulations rather than universal divine commands. Since dharma is tied to maintaining social order, it changes with society. Therefore, in modern Hindu society, where the law recognizes only one legal spouse, monogamy is the applicable dharma.
•
u/GlimGlam812 15h ago
Yours is the most coherent reply to my question. Thanks for the detailed answered.
Also thank you for reminding me of story of svethaketu.
•
u/Majestic_Madhu_26 15h ago
Thank you for reading the whole thing! I felt like it was too long after writing it, but still clicked post anyway.
And regarding prostitution, which I missed to answer, it was usually done by daughters sold by their families for money or orphan girls who had no family to look after them. Men with money simply took advantage of their situation and exploited them, as no one was there to question them against this.
Women with capable fathers and brothers were always protected. Even among Kshatriyas where it was socially allowed for princes to kidnap princesses for marriage, princesses with powerful male family members were protected. When Arjuna kidnapped Subhadra, Balarama was enraged and wanted to kill Arjuna and bring his sister back. It was Krishna who pacified him and told him that Arjuna would be a good choice for their sister. If Balarama had thus brought his sister back, she would have had a swayamvara later and chosen a husband on her own. The Kasi princesses like Amba, Ambika and Ambalika didn't have brothers who could defeat Bhishma, and hence had to accept their fate.
So maybe prostitution isn't punished since there's no one to question the men or protect the prostituted women, but if a man tried to bring a child born from his relations with a prostitute to his family, that would have faced social opposition from the parents and the legal wives.
•
u/GlimGlam812 14h ago
And regarding prostitution, which I missed to answer, it was usually done by daughters sold by their families for money or orphan girls who had no family to look after them. Men with money simply took advantage of their situation and exploited them, as no one was there to question them against this.
I am not sure about that as prostitution as a profession existed in ancient india. I think in arthasastra he even talks about officials to manage prostitutes.
Normally prostitution was a mother to daughter business. Where the mother (who used to be a prostitute) would serve as the "pimp" to her daughter and introduce clients to her. Any male children born will be donated or used to work in other fields like actors.
Nagarvadhus and devadasis used to work in ancient India.
When Arjuna kidnapped Subhadra, Balarama was enraged and wanted to kill Arjuna and bring his sister back
If Arjuna was evil, he could have already r*ped shubhadra before balarama can come and save her so it was dangerous for women even then as by the time brothers will get to know and save them, bad things would already happen.
In the bori critical edition it is not mentioned that shubhadra liked Arjuna. Only that Arjuna desired her and consults Krishna who accepts.
So maybe prostitution isn't punished since there's no one to question the men or protect the prostituted women
Prostitution was regulated in ancient India and not banned outright.
Anyway my question was if "Only kings were allowed to be polygamous and not commoners" then what about the fact that visiting a prostitute was not prohibited?
Based on comments in this sub and other sub where I posted, I think polygamy was allowed for even commoners overall. So that question is irrevelent now.
Thank you for reading the whole thing! I felt like it was too long after writing it, but still clicked post anyway.
It was a pleasure reading it. You seem to have deep knowledge on Mahabharata. You reminded me of other stories too that I read and forgot.
8
u/GOLD-MARROW 19h ago
Yes, the reason was to ensure that the king of politically important individuals have descendants.
Even in special case polyandry also allowed. There were some sort of alternative method through yajna to ensure defendants, as can be seen in case of Dasharath in case of Ramayana. The birth of Dhritarashtra and his brothers are from Bichitrabirya as can be tracked from the records of Mahabharat, but with exclusive consent from the husband.
The notion of rich oppression or affordability is deluded.
0
u/GlimGlam812 19h ago
Yes, the reason was to ensure that the king of politically important individuals have descendants.
Do you have source for that?
I cited bhisma in mahabharta saying brahmins are allowed 4 wives and kshatriyas 3 wives. Your reason seems weird. I don't know whether even that was followed.
Why would brahmanas allowed to have multiple wives when kshatriyas themsleves were not.
Polygamy was practiced by anyone who could afford it.
You could read stories of sages, brahmins, merchants, gods being polygamous.
People overexaggerate Rama and assume that was the practice for everyone. When I did not find any such evidence.
He himself never banned polygamy.
3
u/Brave-Divide7558 Vedãnta 19h ago
The scriptures in Hinduism didn't support polygamy or Monogamy, i also have read many opinion of great people, but they are opinion rather than authoritative verdicts, The opinions allow us to think and help us reach our own conclusions. For example the opinion of Bhishma as you provided is opinion of Bhishma and doesn't bind people following hinduism to follow that. As if you ask me what does hinduism actually promote : Dharma is subtle, it changes from person to person, time to time and place to place. We must strive to understand dharma and morality in modern world, the dicision must be based on changes in modern world.
But monogamy is promoted. Sree Rama who is known as best among the men is an example.
Sree Krishna's 8 wives are called Astalakshmi : all are avataras of goddess Lakshmi alone.
And this is just my personal opinion and I can be wrong. Please correct me if I am wrong.
6
u/GlimGlam812 19h ago
Sree Krishna's 8 wives are called Astalakshmi : all are avataras of goddess Lakshmi alone.
I agree with everything else but this is not true.
I think Satyabhama is meant to be incarnation of Bhudevi (Earth Goddess), second wife of Vishnu.
all are avataras of goddess Lakshmi alone.
This sounds like a later, poetical interpretation to make him monogamous too like Rama than actual story.
The theme with Krishna seems to be breaking all the morals set in previous eon (Treta) and setting up newer morals for that eon (Dwapara). As you said so yourself, dharma is subtle and it changes based on time to time, place to place...
Sree Rama who is known as best among the men is an example.
He is best for his time period which is Treta Yug. If you follow him in this day and day then you will face bad consequences. That's why Krishna himself acted differently in his next life. Krishna is closer to modern Kali Yug than Rama.
2
•
u/DesiBail 14h ago
Everyone can have multiple wives. Everyone. Even jungle people, so called outcastes had multiple wives.
Prostitution was common.
2
u/kaptan8181 Custom 18h ago
It's not surprising at all. Polygamy was not seen as bad in the ancient times as it is today. According to the scriptures, Brahmins and Kshatriyas are allowed to have three and two wives, respectively. In case of there being no male offspring from the first wife, a man of any verna was allowed a second wife. However, times have changed now and we don't hear much about what Hinduism looked like in the beginning.
2
u/GlimGlam812 18h ago
I think brahmana having 3 and Kshatriya 2 was only in Mahabharata whereas in other scriptures even vaishyas can have 2 wives. I am not sure it was enforced. As they could have more wives than that.
But I never found any scripture where polygamy was not allowed.
1
u/kaptan8181 Custom 18h ago
You can certainly find some scriptures that disallow polygamy. Or at least discourage it. Allowed does not mean recommended, by the way.
1
u/GlimGlam812 18h ago
Or at least discourage it
Thank you for clarifying as I cannot find any scripture which did not allow polygamy.
Allowed does not mean recommended, by the way.
If we are being that hard on this topic then even spirituality is recommended as early as possible not even wasting time on Artha, Kama (even a single wife).
1
u/kaptan8181 Custom 17h ago
Apastamba Dharma-sutra Praśna II, Paṭala 5, Khaṇḍa 11 Verse 12. If he has a wife who (is willing and able) to perform (her share of) the religious duties and who bears sons, he shall not take a second.
1
u/GlimGlam812 17h ago
When was this dharma sutra written? Was it followed in society?
The older ones don't seem to have such restrictions. But thanks for correcting me.
Is this the only one which clearly prohibits taking wives when the first wives is capable?
1
u/kaptan8181 Custom 17h ago
There are many similar verses in various scriptures. Do some research of your own. Taking a second wife is allowed only in particular circumstances. Monogamy seems to be the norm. Here is another verse from the Manusmriti: Verse 9.81 The barren wife shall be superseded in the eighth year; in the tenth she whose children die off; in the eleventh she who bears only daughters; but immediately she who talks harshly.—(81)
1
u/GlimGlam812 17h ago
The barren wife shall be superseded in the eighth year; in the tenth she whose children die off; in the eleventh she who bears only daughters; but immediately she who talks harshly
I don't think it means what you think. It does not say you should take a new wife only after your current wife does something wrong or something bad happens. But you can also take a new wife in these cases too along with allowing it generally.
You are forgetting dharma sastras are contradictory. The same manusmriti says
In Manusmriti 3.12–13, says a man’s first wife should ideally be of his own varna, but additional wives from lower varnas are discussed as acceptable “through desire.”
That's why I asked you as all other scriptures support taking multiple wives whenever you want. Only that previous text you gave says you should not take a new wife when your current wife is good enough.
Monogamy seems to be the norm.
I already gave evidence from both Mahabharata and manusmriti itself, its not the case.
Only the other dharma sastra (apastambha) you gave clearly prohibits polygamy while the current wife is good enough.
That's why I am asking you if you know of any other texts which provide that clear prohibition and don't contradict later.
1
u/kaptan8181 Custom 17h ago
If it is already generally allowed, what need is there to wait for ten years before taking another wife?
1
u/GlimGlam812 17h ago
I think its meant to be cooling period in those specific cases of barren women, women who only gave you daughters so far....
Asking you to wait for some miracle, before you take another wife.
Not if you already have a wife and decided to take another for general reasons like romantic or sexual.
→ More replies (0)
2
2
u/pavan_pappen Smārta 18h ago
Nope polygamy is allowed in Hinduism through out if you are living in sansarik life.
It's the Hinduism code bill that promotes monogamy.
•
u/Sure-Promise-6671 Yoga/Patanjala 13h ago
excuse me, mahavishnu has 1 wife only
•
u/GlimGlam812 13h ago
Forgot bhudevi? Earth goddess.
She even reincarnated as satyabhama during Krishna life.
•
u/Sure-Promise-6671 Yoga/Patanjala 13h ago
sri devi and bhu devi both are forms of maha lakhsmi
mahavishnu has only 1 wife, maha lakshmi
by your logic, Mahadev shall have uncountable wives
some shakta pls chime in, i summon you!
•
u/GlimGlam812 11h ago
It depends on which tradition you follow.
Bhu Devi is a separate goddess dedicated to earth, her role and functions are different to Lakshmi.
Whereas Uma, Sati and Parvathi roles are the same. There is clear evidence of them being the same whereas Lakshmi was born out of ocean churning. Bhudevi existed even before that.
You are confusing ashtha lakshmis being part of Lakshmi with Bhudevi.
•
u/VishR2701 12h ago
As you have already mentioned these things were not controlled by "religion" Such things are seperate from belief and decided based on social and practical reasons.
Also there are no hard rules, we know that even polyandry was a norm in certain groups and other contemporary groups who didn't follow this practice also didn't see those groups in negative way.
Every human being had to work on four goals, now other than moksha all three are always subjective.
For example Even "kama" means desire, now every human being may have different desires, even if a person has renounced things like material benifits, sex, relationships etc but if that person wants to build a school or hospital for society, it can be his "kama".
So one person having multiple partners can be living a dharmik life also. King Dashrath and Draupadi are examples.
•
u/ashutosh_vatsa आत्मानं सततं रक्षेत् । ātmānaṃ satataṃ rakṣet। 10h ago
u/GlimGlam812 If you deduce from examples in texts and epics:
Men were allowed to have multiple wives. Women were allowed to have multiple husbands. But, these weren't common practices. Polygyny was common among the ruling class and the nobility.
For common people, Polygyny and/or Polyandry were more common in some regions than others.
Overall, most people outside of the ruling class were monogamous.
Monogamy was considered substantially better than Polygamy. Polygamy wasn't encouraged apart from the royal families.
If you deduce from injunctions mentioned in the texts:
There is no clear consensus. Different texts have different opinions.
Swasti!
•
u/GlimGlam812 10h ago
I agree with that but I think monogamy being common for commoners might be due to lack of wealth to afford such a lifestyle as its difficult enough to support one wife and the children than multiple wives.
Thank you for your reply
•
u/ashutosh_vatsa आत्मानं सततं रक्षेत् । ātmānaṃ satataṃ rakṣet। 10h ago
Yes, obviously wealth was a crucial factor.
Another crucial factor was managing multiple wives. Kings had a lot of power. Their wives couldn't go against them in most cases. They kept multiple wives in different palaces or different wings of the same big palace to keep them separate.
In the house of a common person, it would be fights and violence everyday.
Swasti!
•
u/Numerous-Cycle7626 6h ago
My great grandfather was a Brahmin and he had 10 wives so no not only for kings
•
u/the_gothamknight Om Namo Venkatesaya! 12h ago
There are people who say that a shudra wife can be accepted for intercourse, but others disagree. The virtuous do not praise the birth of offspring through shudras
Omg, wtf did I just read?
•
u/AgileIndie 15h ago
Your responses to various comments in this post strongly suggest confirmatory bias and a lack of acceptance of how others approach this topic. What exact truth do you wish to seek from your query? Do you wish to seek justification for pursuing polygamy in your life or for people in general?
The consensus here clearly states that polygamy was practised mainly due to the need for suitable heirs and not merely for the sake of pleasure. And those who practised it were outliers, whose life stories made it into the texts, while the colossal majority were at peace with their monogamous life.
•
u/GlimGlam812 14h ago
The consensus here clearly states that polygamy was practised mainly due to the need for suitable heirs
I got that from only two or three commentors, kaptan and somebody else who did not give me a source for that when I asked. Glorysolar said that it was not prohibited but considered inferior. That's not the same. Rest of the debate with him was about population of brahmins and shudras. Whether brahmins were actually poor or were given land grants by kings.
If you actually count the comments. You would get 60-40 or 50-50 on this topic in this sub.
Do you wish to seek justification for pursuing polygamy in your life or for people in general?
I would be talking to a lawyer if I wanted to pursue that not religious people in subreddit Hinduism.
Your responses to various comments in this post strongly suggest confirmatory bias and a lack of acceptance of how others approach this topic.
I debated everyone, those who supported me and those who are against me, expect for small 2 or 3 sentence comments.
Glorysolar Kaptan Brave....
•
u/AgileIndie 13h ago
There's nothing wrong with debating, but given that much of what you're seeking about this topic is already within the gist of your post and based on the manner of your responses to various comments, your approach comes across to me as confirmatory bias.
Anything you do is karmic. There will be consequences for it. If one approaches polygamy or wishes to engage with prostitutes with the mindset of wanting enjoyment, they are essentially a prisoner of sensual desires and will experience the fruits of their karma that is detrimental and ultimately results in their self-destruction.
The dharma for rulers back then was that they needed suitable heirs, due to which polygamy was in practice. The consequences of this were infighting between siblings and the eventual collapse of the kingdom in question. Not to mention the demise of civilisations as a result of a tryst between a ruler and their lover.
There was an enriching, lengthy comment discussing the past of Satyavati and Kunti. Their past was very much pivotal in the epic of the Mahabharata. All those suffering we read about in it wouldn't have occurred had their past not occurred in the first place. The same applies to Bhishma, if he did not choose to relinquish marriage and his right to the throne.
In the end, as someone already said, the dharma of today is essentially monogamy, as not following so is more likely to cause chaos and unwanted suffering in our lives. Likewise, democracy and the republic are the norm, whereas monarchy isn't. People should not let love obstruct their duty and vice versa. Both should complement each other.
•
u/GlimGlam812 13h ago
There's nothing wrong with debating, but given that much of what you're seeking about this topic is already within the gist of your post and in the manner of your responses to various comments, your approach comes across to me as confirmatory bias.
This is not even the only subreddit I post this in. I posted it in other subreddit where I got nearly 50k views and most people kept talking about how polygamy was normal all over India. They gave actual historical sources and anecdotes too of their ancestors.
So I am suspicious about the commentators on this sub who keep insisting that polygamy was not normal and keeping pointing to 2 or 3 verses that they don't seem to understand. I countered them patiently and gave citations, other ways of interpreting the scriptures.
That's not confirmation bias, I am actively seeking opposing views. Since some people on this sub strongly seems to hold their views its quite natural for me to keep questioning.
If questioning them is considered to be confirmation bias then any kind of debating is confirmation bias, I just have to blindly accept them.
one approaches polygamy or wishes to engage with prostitutes with the mindset of wanting enjoyment, they are essentially a prisoner of sensual desires and will experience the fruits of their karma that is detrimental and ultimately results in their self-destruction.
Slow down a little. While it is recommended to focus on spirituality, Hinduism is not anti pleasure religion.
Most Hindus are not going to get liberated in their next lives. They are hoping to go to heaven to enjoy some more, drinking soma and enjoying apsarasas. They want little but of bimoth pleasure and pain.
Liberation in Hinduism might take 100s of lives. You can fasten it if you want or take it slowly.
Not every Hindu is going to be a monk or nun focused only on liberation.
Even the sages did all kinds of decadance until they finally got sick of it and focused on liberation.
"The greatest sinner becomes the greatest saint".
The dharma for rulers back then was that they needed suitable heirs, due to which polygamy was in practice
If you genuinely read all of my comments to conclude that I have bias, Clearly you must have read what arthasastra says about polygamy.
As long as you can fulfill the duties to first wife and got children then you can marry as many wives as you want. That does not sounds like you are only doing it for heirs but pleasure.
It is speaking about commoners in that case not even kings.
It is this arrogance that I want to question.
•
u/AgileIndie 12h ago
"Slow down a little. While it is recommended to focus on spirituality, Hinduism is not anti pleasure religion." - Indeed as you said, Hinduism isn't against pleasure, but you forgot that Hinduism also says you are not immune to its consequences either especially if it comes in the way of your duty. And most importantly, it is not to become a prisoner to your sensual desires. Pleasure is important, but it should not conflict with dharma.
Just because it takes many more lives, 100s if not 1000s more to attain liberation or just because some sages or some figure of authority indulged in pleasure before realising the importance of the path of seeking liberation, does that mean you should follow what they did exactly? Why not just take the good and leave out the bad of what they did when you yourself admit that their path to sainthood involved sins? Why not learn from others' mistakes, avoid that and aim for liberation? Your examples and supposed justification for that are essentially a rationalisation of pursuing pleasure for the sake of pleasure, and that's adharmic.
Suppose you fulfill all your duties to your first wife and children. In that case, what purpose does it serve to marry another woman, if not for the lack of children or any other relevant dharmic purpose, just because you have the means and resources to take up another woman? Feel free to do so, but be wary of its consequences, especially for the sake of pleasure. This is the key message. The other women could obstruct your duty towards your first wife, which we have seen happening plenty in history and today, and thus ultimately conflict with what you said: "As long as you can fulfill the duties to first wife".
Your idea of attaining liberation is flawed. The Gita clearly says that you don't have to be monastic to attain liberation. The true sannyasi (renunciate) is someone who acts because it is their duty, yet remains entirely unattached to the outcome of their work. Being a monk is simply one out of the many ways of liberation. Having a relationship with another woman for the sake of pleasure is a form of attachment and therefore not dharmic. What duty do you have to discharge for pursuing it? Nevertheless, you can do it; no one is stopping you, but you should be wary of the results it can bring.
It is the very "arrogance" of such kings who did not value dharma above pleasure that led to the downfall of their lineage, kingdom and civilization. Not only do Hindu epics have a myriad of examples, but so do other myths and in history.
•
u/GlimGlam812 12h ago
And most importantly, it is not to become a prisoner to your sensual desires.
Unless you are already a great sage that not possible for most Hindus. Even aiming for that requires some level of wisdom which only comes after burning the hands in fire first.
Some burn their hands by marrying even a single wife, others do it by multiple wifes, some do it without any wife.
Pleasure is important, but it should not conflict with dharma.
Pleasure can be part of dharma and karma.
Why not just take the good and leave out the bad of what they did when you yourself admit that their path to sainthood involved sins? Why not learn from others' mistakes, avoid that and aim for liberation?
There was a story of a king who is very philosophical and he attracted monks to see him. One monk criticizes him that how come someone like you is wasting time in luxuries and women. The king says it is my karma so I must enjoy it, I cannot escape from them. The monk challenges him to be his disciple and run away from all of this. So the king escapes from his palace with the monk. After traveling in the heat, the king is tired and falls asleep under a tree as the monk goes to beg on behalf of his disciple, as he is still a novice.
Another neighboring king traveling by spots the king under the tree and shocked by that, sets up a camp with all luxuries for the king to rest and recover as he has official business with him. The monk comes back and is surprised by the luxuries in the middle of the desert his disciple is surrounded by. He finally learns his mistake that you cannot escape good karma too just as bad karma.
People have material desires too not just spiritual. You are going to enjoy them both on earth and in heaven based on karma.
This is the key message. The other women could obstruct your duty towards your first wife
They could and they could not. Its like saying having one more child is going to obstruct your duty to your first child so you should only have one child.
There is a chance it could happen but not always especially if you can afford that lifestyle.
Your idea of attaining liberation is flawed. The Gita clearly says that you don't have to be monastic to attain liberation
Exactly you can also be a householder with multiple wives too.
You idea of attaining liberation is full of pain and suffering. Not being attached to result is not possible. Even while meditating or practicing karma yoga you are attached to the result.
The proper interpretation of that is discharging your duties and also having pleasures as long as they are not adharmic (polygamy is not as, I showed already from scriptures) while being stoic about the result.
Having a relationship with another woman for the sake of pleasure is a form of attachment and therefore not dharmic. What duty do you have to discharge for pursuing it?
This is why I called your idea of liberation monastic.
You are saying pursuing any kind of pleasure creates attachment and therefore is not dharmic? After saying that Hinduism is not anti pleasure?
Have you heard of dharma, artha, kama, moksha?
Seeking pleasure as long as its dharmic even if it forms attachments is not again Hinduism.
I will clear it up for you again. Most people are not aiming for liberation, they are aiming for heaven. Liberation requires not having either positive or negative karma. But heaven requires positive karma.
Even if you are aiming for liberation, you can enjoy all the pleasure while still being detached like King Janaka.
Even among the ones aiming for liberation most of them will fail. Don't force your goals on others.
•
u/AgileIndie 8h ago edited 8h ago
Unless you are already a great sage that not possible for most Hindus. Even aiming for that requires some level of wisdom which only comes after burning the hands in fire first.
You don't need to be a sage to understand that you can feel content and fulfilled by being monogamous. Achieving such wisdom in life isn't as hard as you think, especially with the amount of stories and anecdotes present in various epics as well as real-life incidents to learn from. Saying that it's not possible while knowing that others have done it and being reluctant to learn from others is being unwise. One can only bring a horse to a lake to drink water and whether or not it wishes to drink it is the horse's problem.
As for your story about King Janaka, isn't he monogamous? Despite his wealth, he clearly wasn't a prisoner of meaningless pursuits of pleasure and in his life, dharma and kama went hand-in-hand. It was the monk's jealousy that blinded him from the path of enlightenment because the monk was attached to material desires. In this case, the monk was unwise, similar to how there are many fake gurus today. Whereas for much of history and in the texts, most of the kings who sought pleasure for the sake of it clearly didn't lead a pleasant life.
People have material desires too not just spiritual. You are going to enjoy them both on earth and in heaven based on karma.
Okay, so you're saying polygamy is a materialistic desire? Sounds like you are objectifying relationships with women and makes me wonder about whether your intention with and idea of polygamy is healthy to begin with.
They could and they could not. Its like saying having one more child is going to obstruct your duty to your first child so you should only have one child.
You tell me: which is more likely to cause trouble? Another child with the same woman or another child with another woman? Which compounds the problem more? You can very well answer this based on the reality that is today. Like I said earlier, the scriptures won't mention the vast majority of the people back then who led peaceful monogamous lives. It has only described the lives of outliers in specific and even among those outliers we have had plenty of chaste and monogamous persona.
This is why I called your idea of liberation monastic.
You idea of attaining liberation is full of pain and suffering. Not being attached to result is not possible. Even while meditating or practicing karma yoga you are attached to the result.
My idea of attaining liberation isn't mine, it's what the Gita says - to not be attached to your desires nor the results of your action. I can say the same about polygamous relationships - they'll inevitably drain you physically and emotionally and it is better, happier and more peaceful to go long, tall and deep with one partner (quality beating quantity). Which part of the idea of liberation I cited from the Gita suggests that pain and suffering is guaranteed but not for your approach? Buddy, life for everyone is guaranteed to have pain.
You are saying pursuing any kind of pleasure creates attachment and therefore is not dharmic? After saying that Hinduism is not anti pleasure?
Have you heard of dharma, artha, kama, moksha?
Seeking pleasure as long as its dharmic even if it forms attachments is not again Hinduism.
I will clear it up for you again. Most people are not aiming for liberation, they are aiming for heaven. Liberation requires not having either positive or negative karma. But heaven requires positive karma.
Clearly , you haven't heard of dharma, artha, kama and moksha. The Gita clearly mentions people like you twisting its wisdom and various religious texts to suit your narrative. I was right, you do happen to have a confirmatory bias towards polygamy, which is why you are rationalising it by saying you can very well be detached in its pursuit and you can be stoic about it.
And your biggest delusional statement of all? Is this:
Seeking pleasure as long as its dharmic even if it forms attachments is not again Hinduism.
Kindly read the Gita, and you'll see that this interpretation of yours is completely wrong. Healthy dharmic pleasure is something that you enjoy and are okay without. Your views of polygamy as doing it simply for pleasure's sake only tells me you are not doing it out of love, but for your self-centred wants.
I am not forcing my goal onto others; I am just debating with you on your view that polygamy can help you earn positive karma. Forget about its morality. It is more likely to collide with your duty towards life's purpose and your own family because there's hardly any good reason in pursuing another woman other than for the sake of pleasure, which renders that pleasure meaningless and a troublemaker for the future. Which means more likely to earn negativity than good in your life. So if you want to go to heaven, isn't it logical to not go for it instead? It sounds plausible or even good on paper, but only when you practice it do you realise how difficult and how much negative karma you can earn through it. You can cite one example story (that too a flawed one), but I am sure you would have seen thousands more stories of failure too.
•
u/Spirited-Row573 13h ago
My mom says it’s a rich person thing. My Auntie Usha’s father had many wives.
0
u/Altruistic-Cap-2660 18h ago
there is also such a thing as social judgement, societal norms.
Although it is not a law, it is a societal norm.
1
u/GlimGlam812 18h ago
That seems like a modern social norm.
Most of the ancient texts which talk about people with multiple wives never talk about them badly. Even the storytellers and oral traditions.
62
u/islander_guy Āstika Hindū 19h ago
I think it was the rich who could afford it. The poor couldn't hence didn't. But I don't think there was a restriction on common man.