Dr. Jayanti P Sahoo and Dr. Aparna Dhir Khandelwal
‘लड़की लोगों के लिए पूरी दुनिया सोचती है, बस यह नहीं पूछते कि वो क्या सोच रही है’
(A dialogue from the movie ‘Pagglait’ released in 2021)
Passing through the 21st century, women feel more confident and independent in terms of thoughts, choices, and finances but when it comes to the institution of marriage why our own traditional women happily adopting live-in culture or by-pass their legally wedded partner. From the land of Ṣṛī Rāma and Devī Sītā, why we found bitterness in relations that too specifically in the institution of marriage? These unanswered questions are drilling our society’s conventional foundation and polluting our new generation’s minds for happily accepting western culture. Numerous issues that are yelling and can be heard from our own neighbourhood stories are touching big figures in the form of pending cases from lower to higher courts.
It’s a wake-up call now, to understand why these issues are on rise. It is not about giving equality to women but to understand their priorities of life too as equable members of the family/society.
When we address the institution of marriage philosophically, we take metaphysical, epistemological, logical, and ethical aspects into account. So far as the metaphysical aspect is concerned, it considers the objective truth. It starts with a realistic model with idealistic parameters where two conscious beings entered a relationship that is permanent, eternal, and everlasting. The authoritativeness is claimed through the texts which justifies the truth. The institution of marriage was highly-value-loaded and based on customary morality. The values are taken from the scriptures starting with the Śruti and followed by Smriti texts such as Rāmāyana and Māhābhārat, Purāṇas, and also the Āgamika texts.
चक्रवाकेव दम्पती
पति-पत्नी में चकवा-चकवी के समान परस्पर प्रेम हो।
(अथर्ववेद 14.2.64)
पुरुषो ह जायां वित्त्वा कृत्स्नतरमिवात्मानं मन्यते
पुरुष पत्नी पाकर स्वयं को अधिक पूर्ण मानता है।
(ऐतरेय आरण्यक 1.3.5)
सन्तुष्टो भार्यया भर्ता भर्त्रा भार्या तथैव च। यस्मिन्नेव कुले नित्यं कल्याणं तत्र वै ध्रुवम्॥
हे गृहस्थो! जिस कुल में भार्या से पति प्रसन्न और पति से भार्या सदा प्रसन्न रहती है, उसी कुल में निश्चित कल्याण होता है।
(मनुस्मृति 3.60)
Rāma is treated as Maryādā Purūśotaṁ and Sitā is treated as the most pious woman. And in real-life situations, the husband treats himself as Rāmachandra and his wife as Sitā. The relationship between Rāma and Sitā is based on the sacrifice made by Rāma to keep his father’s promises and Sitā equally followed the path of Svadharma or Patnī Dharma. Both are doing their duties in order to retain the metaphysical boundaries of the institution of marriage. Respect, keeping promises, sacrificing individual interests for social interests, and retaining family values are essential conditions upon which the institution of marriage is built.
There is no problem so far as the metaphysical explanation of marriage is concerned. The problem arises where the epistemological aspect is concerned. Though it appears to be good, the inside story is different. No more universal values exist.
The categorical imperatives of Immanuel Kant (German Philosopher) are very much practiced and followed to retain the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Initially, it is love, faith, and trust but after entering that relationship it becomes a moral obligation.
The perceptual analysis of marriage is a problematic area. The Chārvāka theory of perception cannot bring the truth of the institution of marriage. Nor even the Nyāya theory of perception which will provide a logical and rational explanation of the whole thing cannot provide us with the truth.
The choice left with us is an existential one. The witness consciousness of Advaita Vedanta will be able to address the problem and will also provide the path to resolve the gap between appearance and reality. In the 21st century relationships are going bitter day by day. There is neither Sat nor Cid nor Ananda. The relationships are based on value-loaded compromises. But these values have also changed with the passage of time. The conditionality has changed. The institution of marriage does recognize the work done by women but mostly the appreciation or the motivation is found to be negligible towards women. Whereas, it is often seen that man is the one who goes beyond family interest and communicates with the larger domain and thereby transcends himself, the woman accepts passivity and stagnation often. In other words, it can be said that the conditionality has never brought reciprocity between them. The substantial change in the social conditioning of the women have not reached to its highest level as still she is not considered as a complete individual by the society. The society always treats a man as a productive worker that enlarges his existence. The reason is that most of the time these relationships are based on the satisfaction of our biological desires and once the joy is over and the two married beings come into real-life, bitterness takes its place. The expectations are many but the mechanical lifestyle has created a gap. ‘Problems are many and vary from family to family, individual to individual, society to society, and culture to culture.’ There are many taboos imposed upon women inside the institution of marriage. The woman is the sufferer so also the man. Both parties suffer because of the conditionality they have created, as Buddha said.
Though the institution was started with the appreciation of the role of women it reaches a level where in most cases, matrimonial families don’t consider their daughter-in-law’s priorities or creativities as their own like those of their sons. For example- if a son wants to continue his studies, job, his passion even after marriage there’s no such pressure of fulfilling marriage obligations but at the same time if a daughter-in-law wants to pursue her studies, job, creative talents then there is always a question ‘who will take care of the family?’. Also, buying a property or a car or investing in funds or shares is generally not being discussed even in front of educated daughters-in-law of the family. Research tells us that men and women are often still exposed to different expectations from a young age. Women are often expected to be communal, which is typically reflected in caring for and nurturing others. There is more pressure on them to be “kin keepers” who manage relationships within the family and the community. Men are traditionally expected to be more agentic from a young age — rational, strategic, and assertive — even if this results in being less cooperative and considerate. But Today’s young men have a greater sense of shared responsibility for domestic life. Young men are realizing they have to do more at home than they traditionally did, and they want to do so. Of course, it might also be that men today are more inclined to expect and want their wives to work, both for income and for their wives’ professional fulfilment. Then from where the problem comes in? It actually happens because of the mindsets of the members of the family or society that treats a woman as an object which will not resolve the problem. The time has come not to prove who is right and who is wrong. Ethics will create more gaps as ethics is invoked by both sides.
Co-existent and Interdependence Model of Śūnyata doctrine
Since its inception, no one has ever put a serious reflection on the institution of marriage. The time has come to address the problem of not creating a negative set of ideas that revolves around biological desire but working through the Svatahpramanyavada model of Advaita Vedantic and the co-existent and interdependence model of Nagarjuna’s Śūnyata doctrine so that we can re-establish the traditional values. Diversity in Indian tradition is cherished. It reminds us of the Śūnyata doctrine of Nagarjuna which provides eight no’s
Nagarjuna in his Mādhyamika Karikā has described Śūnya as the symbol of the inexpressible. His analysis of Śūnya consists of ‘eight Nos’, such as:
Anirodham anūtpādam anūchedam asāsvatam /
Anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam //MK
What is needed is acceptance, recognition, respect, assimilation, and care for each other so we can save the institution of marriage. This relationship demands human touch. Nobody should work in bad faith (Jean-Paul Sartre- knowing the truth and hiding the truth). If both treat each other as subjects and work for each other, not through the conditionality given by Buddha to understand sufferings (as understood by Hinayana), but through interdependence and co-dependence theory which add happiness (Nagarjuna Concept of Śūnyata). We can create relational wealth by understanding each other, surrendering our egos, and sharing and caring for each other. We can work through human desire. CAN WE??-Let’s begin our journey!
Dr. Jayanti P Sahoo, HOD & Associate Professor, Philosophy, JDM College, University of Delhi, Delhi &
Dr. Aparna Dhir Khandelwal, Assistant Professor, School of Indic Studies, INADS, Dartmouth, USA
Vedic WAVES 