12

Polygamy in Vedas

Krishna Yajur Veda 6.5.1.4

therefore as one goes many follow; therefore one becomes superior among many; therefore one wins many wives

Polygamy in Ithihas:

Mahabharata Adi Parva 1.160.36

"Vaisampayana said, "On hearing these words of the Brahmana, his wife said,

...

There is no sin in this. For a man polygamy is an act of merit, but for a woman it is very sinful to betake herself to a second husband after the first.

Mahabharata Anusasana Parva 13.47

It has been laid down, O grandsire, that a Brahmana can take four wives, viz., one that belongs to his own order, one that is a Kshatriya, one that is a Vaisya, and one that is a Sudra, if the Brahmana wishes to indulge in the desire of sexual intercourse.

Many smritis allow Brahmin to have 4 wives, for a Kshatriya three, for a Vaishya 2 and for Shudra one. Now, is there any scripture which condemn polygamy?

Aupakarana Abhibhaa
  • 1,994
  • 4
  • 20

3 Answers3

8

The scripture that comes closest to recommending monogamy is the Āpastamba Dharmasūtra:

Praśna II, Paṭala 5, Khaṇḍa 11

  1. 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.

The very next verse, however, recommends taking another wife if the first wife cannot produce sons or if she's not fit:

  1. If a wife is deficient in one of these two (qualities), he shall take another, (but) before he kindles the fires (of the Agnihotra).
Say No To Censorship
  • 30,811
  • 17
  • 131
  • 257
1

Polygamy was allowed. Hence a man may marry multiple women.

The rule of thumb is -- A man can marry only to his equal or lower intellectual order women. All other forms are disallowed.

In below passage, it has been said by Bhishma that, Brahmana can marry all the other divisions, Kshatriya can marry all but Brahamana. Vaishya can marry Vaishya & Shudra. Shudra can marry only Shudra. In general, for the Dvija divisions, marrying a Shudra is not preferred and may result in expiation [particularly to Brahamana]

A Brahmana can take three wives. A Kshatriya can take two wives. As regards the Vaisya, he should take a wife from only his own order. The children born of these wives should all be regarded as equal. 2 Of the three wives of a Brahmana, she taken from his own order should be regarded as the foremost. Similarly, of the two wives permitted to the Kshatriya, she taken from his own order should be regarded as superior. Some say that persons belonging to the three higher orders may take, only for purposes of enjoyment (and not for those of virtue), wives from the lowest or the Sudra order. Others, however, forbid the practice. The righteous condemn the practice of begetting issue upon Sudra women. A Brahmana, by begetting children upon a Sudra woman, incurs the liability of performing an expiation. [AnushAsana parva]

Above passage states the eligibility of a man belonging to particular division to marry a woman of certain division. But IMO, it implicitly also suggests that, multiple wives are allowed.

Opposite form, i.e. the "polyandry" is forbidden.

iammilind
  • 19,793
  • 7
  • 62
  • 145
0

Polygamy for men is allowed :

But there are very strict rules - regarding how many wives, the order of varna to marry in order to avoid varna-sankara (a higher varna man can marry a lower varna woman, but not other way), how to treat them (go to naraka if one wife is given preference over other), how to divide wealth of inheritance for sons (according to both varna & seniority) etc. And polygamy is illegal in many countries nowadays.

For women it is not allowed :

Once is the partition of the inheritance made, once is a maiden given in marriage, and once does a man say,' I will give; each of those three acts is done once only.

Full detail here - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm

ram
  • 8,076
  • 2
  • 30
  • 57
  • 6
    @Ajay Did you see Draupadi yourself? No? Then where did you hear about her, from Mahabharata, Yes ? The same Mahbharata says Draupadi was 'born' from FIRE and was 16-years old. The same Mahabharata says she is a combination of 5 shakthis and that she would do Agni-Pravesh before starting to live with each of the 5 brothers, thus assuming a 'pure' body each time. If you think these are not true, then you should also think Draupadi herself is not true. When the source of knowledge is the same book, you cannot decide which part to believe and which part not to believe based on your own intellect. – ram Jun 07 '17 at 05:06
  • @Ajay, and that is what I said in my answer too - that it's not allowed. – ram Jun 09 '17 at 04:19
  • 1
    "When the source of knowledge is the same book, you cannot decide which part to believe and which part not to believe based on your own intellect. –" true therefore refute the claim until evidence is given. – Wikash_ Jul 30 '20 at 10:58
  • @Wikash_, the evidence is given, but you just haven't bothered to verify it. just like a doctor's headache medicine. You don't have time/interest to study biology research behind it, so you just trust him instead. – ram Jul 30 '20 at 20:24
  • 1
    Trust can be built via a scientific process of checking and verifying unlike your statements that are just based upon belief e.g. no proof given. Many people in India pray to their gods for protection yet the covid virus is spreading rapidly in India, strange isn't it? @ram – Wikash_ Jul 30 '20 at 23:10
  • @Wikash_, all statements of scientists are just based upon belief i.e. no proof given. Many people in America pride themselves on being rational/scientific, yet they refuse to wear masks and are against vaccines, and USA has the highest no. of cases, strange isn't it? – ram Jul 30 '20 at 23:16
  • 1
    that is because people do not follow the rules surrounding covid. Also, many things are still unknown surrounding the spread of the virus. "all statements of scientists are just based upon belief i.e. no proof given" NO! They are based upon repetition to get similar results under the same circumstances. Also, by using peer review they remain independent. – Wikash_ Jul 31 '20 at 07:22
  • @Wikash_, that is because people do not follow the rules of religion. Experiments of rishis are also repetitive, replicate-able, and peer-reviewed. You just haven't bothered to learn Sanskrit or read any of their published scriptures. – ram Jul 31 '20 at 18:47
  • 1
    "Experiments of rishis are also repetitive, replicate-able, and peer-reviewed". Wow if that were the case Hinduism would be factual instead of a religion. Anyway, can you show me a peer reviewed article of a rishi? Btw Sanskrit has nothing to do with this a translation can be used. "that is because people do not follow the rules of religion" yes that could be a reason. @ram – Wikash_ Aug 01 '20 at 08:27
  • @Wikash_, Hinduism is factual. You are just ignorant about it. But I'm not suprised, cos even in America, ignorant people say 'vaccines cause autism'. See Brahma Sutras - all rishis peer-reviewed all opposing view points. – ram Aug 01 '20 at 08:33
  • 1
    I again ask you to show me the peer reviewed articles. @ram – Wikash_ Aug 01 '20 at 12:45
  • @Wikash_, i did show you. if you don't want to read, not my problem. – ram Aug 01 '20 at 18:59
  • 1
    in this topic you mean? I do not see anything. Your reluctance to give proof is telling.@ram – Wikash_ Aug 02 '20 at 08:25
  • @Wikash_, Brahma Sutras. Your reluctance to read & verify the given proof is telling. – ram Aug 02 '20 at 10:05
  • 1
    So you have some books, good. Do you have any other proof beyond that? Do you think Hansel and Gretel were real too? You seem to rely a lot on some books. @ram – Wikash_ Aug 03 '20 at 07:23
  • @Wikash_, so you have some articles, good. Do you have any other proof beyond that? Do you think articles on the onion satire website are real too ? You seem to rely a lot on some articles. – ram Aug 03 '20 at 09:01
  • 1
    There is loads of proof: archeologistst have found numerous objects and still do. Geophysists have lots of information found in rocks, fossils, ground etcetera. Yet you have nothing to show for. @ram – Wikash_ Aug 03 '20 at 10:28
  • There are 336 verses in total. Could you add specific verses in the answer body itself? Otherwise it would be difficult for the reader to find out the reference. – TheLittleNaruto Jun 19 '21 at 16:02
  • 1
    @Wikash_ why do you insists on applying the rules of a modern science-system to system stemming from ancient times? Even though both modern and ancient knowledge may be scientific and factual, you can't apply verification rules of either systems on the other, because it will fail. In other words, modern science simply CAN'T be verified as factual in a different timeline, unless someone (or a group of ‘peers’) is around with the knowledge/intellect to verify all of it. The same applies to the knowledge left behind by Rishis and other sages. That doesn't make it false or unscientific though... – Gabe Hiemstra Dec 24 '21 at 17:30
  • @GabeHiemstra - yes.. the only thing missing today is knowledge of the language (Sanskrit) - all experiments/claims are no different between scriptures or scientific papers. – ram Dec 24 '21 at 18:08
  • 1
    @Wikash_ "the scientific method provides a very good way of determining the truth " The same can be said regarding Hinduism. "One can argue that Hinduism is nothing more than mythology " The same can be said about modern science in a different timeline, like, the history, or the future. Anyway, I think you're trolling in the wrong place. – Gabe Hiemstra Dec 24 '21 at 23:26
  • 1
    @GabeHiemstra I am not a troll and I do not understand your point. Modern science evolves and improves itself. From my point of view Hinduism is mostly a repition of yuga's (and thus events) yet people have a hard time predicting the future going off on scriptures alone but I digress from the post of TS. – Wikash_ Dec 24 '21 at 23:30
  • 1
    Well forgive, but when you're bringing up Hindu stories and the matrix in one sentence on a serious discussion forum, one might suspect trolling. Anyway, like I said, both views can be said about both modern science and Hinduism. It depends on the timeline. If no one's around to verify the facts or understand the details, or if supportive evidence is simply missing, than modern science could just as well be regarded as mythological fiction. And Hinduism could have the same scientific background as modern science. If you believe in repeating yugas, you should understand this. – Gabe Hiemstra Dec 24 '21 at 23:36
  • @GabeHiemstra - Wikash_ is a sour-grapes-fox who thinks Hinduism is different from Science because he has not bothered to verify any of the claims made in scriptures by following the rigorous tapasya. As I've mentioned numerous times before, falsifiability is not a registered trademark of "science". Mods, I think we have had enough of his repeating trolling. He adds nothing of value to this site other than whining 'no proof', he's like an anti-vaxxer. – ram Dec 25 '21 at 02:27
  • 1
    @GabeHiemstra. I agree: if supportive evidence is missing science is also a belief but if there is no supporting evidence it should not be called science. Going back to the topic I do not understand why women have a disadvantage when it comes to having more than 1 partner. – Wikash_ Dec 25 '21 at 23:33
  • 1
    @mar thanks for your compliments! I still do not understand why men and women are treated differently when it comes to polygamy. – Wikash_ Dec 25 '21 at 23:35
  • @Wikash_ - I still do not understand why men can roam around with a shirt and women can't. I still do not understand why women get pregnant and men can't. I still do not understand why men's sperm count is in the millions and women release just one egg per cycle. There are many things we don't understand. Instead, understand that even if the roles were reversed, some buddhi jeevi like yourself would say he doesn't understand those roles. It's like asking why does the sun rise everyday. You can keep asking. The answer will always be - it do be like that sometimes. – ram Dec 26 '21 at 10:00
  • 1
    @mar there are many women who roam around with a shirt. Moreover, women have 1 egg per cycle due to their biology. So there is an answer to this. Yet for a religion that upholds women it is strange that they cannot exercise the same rights as men. – Wikash_ Dec 27 '21 at 07:58
  • @Wikash_ - typo in earlier comment - why men can roam around WITHOUT a shirt. "due to their biology" - For a scientific/liberal/atheist viewpoint that treats everyone as equals, it is strange that women cannot have the same biology as men. – ram Dec 28 '21 at 17:37
  • 1
    @mar men roam around with and without shirts that is no biggy. As for the same biology men and women are more alike then you think. Both genders have nipples for example. Tell me why god has made nipples for men. – Wikash_ Dec 28 '21 at 19:46
  • @Wikash_ - so why does society frown upon women roam around topless ? "As for the same biology men and women are more alike then you think" - why aren't they exactly the same ? Why do we need two genders at all ? Why can't men make milk from those nipples ? – ram Dec 28 '21 at 23:12
  • 1
    @mar you did not answer my question. God had made men according to his image: a reflection of himself but why is that reflection imperfect? Nipples have no use for men so again I ask you why did god made those for men? – Wikash_ Dec 29 '21 at 06:58
  • @Wikash_ - you did not answer my question. Why do we need two genders at all? Why do many men go balding but most women dont' ? Why are women shorter in general ? Your scientific biology is causing too much discrimination and division. Ask science to make just one gender. – ram Dec 30 '21 at 18:26
  • 1
    @mar stop avoiding my question. Your asking a bunch of new ones. Men go balding due to the sensitivity of dht. Two genders are needed because the diversity in genes can increase leading to a better survival rate. Women are generally shorter due to genetics. Can you now answer my question? – Wikash_ Dec 31 '21 at 09:14
  • @Wikash_ - you are only answering one level of the question. Why do men have sensitivity to DHT ? Why is better survival rate needed ? Why do women have 'short-height' genetics ? – ram Dec 31 '21 at 09:15
  • 1
    @mar men have a higher sensitivity to dht due to their genetic make up. I did not say a higher survival rate is needed but a diverser gene pool leads to a better adaption to the environment thus increasing the survival rate. Women have shorter height because from the hunter gatherer society height was not an important factor in gathering and nurturing which were typical female roles of our female ancesters. Can you now answer my question? – Wikash_ Dec 31 '21 at 09:49
  • @Wikash_ - why is men's dht genetic makeup different ? why is increasing survival rate important ? – ram Jan 03 '22 at 16:05
  • 1
    @ram that is because men needed a different role when it comes to hunterers and gatherers. Men needed more muscle, stamina and endurance for hunting for food. Survival rate is important in the sense that the adaption to the gene pool usually develops due to a better adaptation to the environment. It is an observation that evolution takes place in alle organisms around the world. Can you now answer my question? – Wikash_ Jan 03 '22 at 20:47
  • 1
    @ram we can do this forever but it would be nice if just answer my question. – Wikash_ Jan 04 '22 at 01:15
  • @Wikash_ - WHY did men need a different role/muscle/stamina, and why not women ? you're just saying gene adaption leads to survival, but you didn't answer WHY survival is important ? – ram Jan 07 '22 at 01:25
  • 1
    @ram like I said we can do this forever. Can you just answer my question? As for your questions: Women could also have done this role but as they were mostly concerned with raising younglings this would not be efficient. Also, giving birth to younglings can require a different body structure less suited for hunting for food. Survival is an important characteristic for all species of life: this an observation. Almost all decisions and adapations to genes are related to survival that is why it is important as this is a basis for lots of decisions. – Wikash_ Jan 07 '22 at 07:40
  • @Wikash_, you still have not answered WHY survival is important and WHY women have to give birth, why not men ? WHY were women concerned with raising younglings and not men ? All you are doing is stating facts everyone knows, but you're yet the answer the single question I've asked since the beginning. Once you answer that, I can answer yours. – ram Jan 09 '22 at 18:07
  • 1
    @mar sure I will answer it. Survival is important since we notice that almost every descision is concerned with it. Almost all actions are directed towards hunting food, shelter, sleep, mate selection etc. Women give birth due to the fact that their body is better suited for it. The reason for this is that their genetics is suited better for this role. The underlying reason for this is the genetics due to the ancestors of the humans. The role division comes from them. Can you now answer my question? – Wikash_ Jan 10 '22 at 08:15
  • 1
    Can you just answer the question? You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid answering it. Is it because you do not know? – Wikash_ Jan 10 '22 at 20:28
  • 1
    Let me guess your answer: you seem to be everything you can to avoid answering why survival is important and why women give birth. Is it because you do not know? – Wikash_ Jan 10 '22 at 20:30
  • @Wikash_ - "Women give birth due to the fact that their body is better suited for it". WHY is it that WOMEN's bodies are better suited to give birth and not MEN's bodies ? Survival is important since we notice that almost every descision. You're not answering WHY survival is important, you're simply re-phrasing the definition of importance. You are still beating around the bush and are yet to answer the fundamental question I've asked since the beginning. You seem unable to answer this basic question, most likely because you do not know (and are unwilling to accept that) – ram Jan 13 '22 at 23:19
  • @Wikash_ - you seem to be everything you can to avoid answering why survival is important and why women give birth. That's the question I'm asking YOU. The question you asked me is different. – ram Jan 13 '22 at 23:22
  • 1
    I have told you several times. Women give birth and are are designed for this due to GENETICS. Survival is important becase we OBSERVE that every decision is directed towards survival. So my answers are OBSERVATION and GENETICS. Now please answer my question. – Wikash_ Jan 14 '22 at 07:34
  • 1
    It seems like you enjoy avoiding the question at hand. So answer it already. I think I know why you won't answer. You do not know and that is telling. It seems like your god does some strange contradicting things and that is by itself interesting for a being which is perfect. – Wikash_ Jan 14 '22 at 09:37
  • @Wikash_, "GENETICS" - what is genetics ? It's like saying "Women are designed that way because of their design". "OBSERVATION"? It's like saying "Survival is important because we see it happening". Death also happens on an equal rate as survival (everyone who was born dies), so why don't you say everything is directed towards Dying? If you are smart enough, you'll realize that YOU are the one avoiding answering my ONLY question question since the beginning, and if you are even smarter you'll realize the ending/answer is quite near. – ram Jan 14 '22 at 17:21
  • 1
    The build of women is coded in DNA that is why they can give birth. That is all there is. "Survival is important because we see it happening". Yes that is exactly the reason: we see that almost all decisions are directed towards survival there is nothing more to it. "Death also happens on an equal rate as survival" actually no. Some beings die before they are even born. Also, beings like Hanuman have never died and you believe him to be real. "YOU are the one avoiding answering my ONLY question" well no. Women give birth because this is coded in the DNA for females. – Wikash_ Jan 15 '22 at 00:48
  • 1
    And as for survival it is observed because survival depends on a series of behaviors or actions. And behaviors can be observed. So I answered it. Maybe you do not like the answers but these are just facts. I still have gotten nothing from you regarding male nipples. I still await your answer. Hopefully you can answer it somewhere in my lifetime. – Wikash_ Jan 15 '22 at 00:50
  • "The build of women is coded in DNA that is why they can give birth. That is all there is." - Great. The build of men and women is coded in Shastras in such a way that polygamy is OK for men and not for women. That is all there is. – ram Jan 15 '22 at 20:04
  • "Some beings die before they are even born" - you are assuming birth is different from conception. I don't. All beings that are conceived die. Hence the conception rate and death rate are equal. So I can statistically accurately say all actions of all beings are directed towards the final act of death. "I still have gotten nothing from you regarding male nipples". Men have nipples because Bhagavan created them that way. "So I answered it. Maybe you do not like the answers but these are just facts.". And so have I. Maybe you do not like the answers but these are just facts. – ram Jan 15 '22 at 20:04
  • 1
    @mar Yes I understand god made men this way yet nipples have no function for men. All other body parts have a function. I find that confusing. He might as well left the nipples for men out since they serve no function. Also, the Shastras may have given an advantage for men regarding polygamy but I find this contradicting equality for men and women within Hinduism. Apparently god is cherrypicking equality for the genders. Yet he created them both. I also find this confusing for a being which acts perfectly. – Wikash_ Jan 16 '22 at 19:36
  • ""But I find this contradicting equality for men and women within Hinduism" - that's like saying there should be only 1 gender. why did god create 2 genders ? Or there should only be race in the entire world, or only 1 species. The moment you create TWO, then by definition, they are different in some aspect. Which means by definition, they are not same. Which means by definition, they are not equal. It seems confusing to you because you think everyone should be exactly the same. Which is a silly idea. – ram Jan 16 '22 at 20:06
  • I disagree since the Shastra's put women on a high pedestal. There numerous verses about women being special yet they are a distraction for men created by Brahma (according to one story at least). So the gods in Hinduism act contradicting. I do not know why god created 2 genders yet according to our Shastra's he seems to favor men a lot but also cherrypicks his love for women. Yes, 2 genders, different but also supposedly equal in rights which should be reflected in the Shastra's but does not. – Wikash_ Jan 17 '22 at 11:19
  • @Wikash_ - how can 2 things be Different but have equal rights in Everything ? Can you name any other place in nature or in humans where that holds true ? Every single right offered by a law or country or scripture or religion or even your imagination is only equal upto a certain level, after that they differ according to the recipients. In fact, if the laws are exactly the same, that is the real discrimination which should be avoided. You're advocating men and women must compete in same tournaments. – ram Jan 17 '22 at 23:28
  • I advocate that men and women should earn the same and both be able to vote. That are equal rights. The arya samaj hold women in high regard since in some of the other sects they were not allowed to learn scriptures. If god made women this special he sure has a terrible way of communicating and effectuating this. – Wikash_ Jan 18 '22 at 01:00
  • @Wikash_ - why don't you also advocate that men and women should run in the same 100m race ? why don't you also advocate then men must be able to get pregnant ? THAT is equal rights. If you don't advocate that, then you are being sexist. – ram Jan 18 '22 at 19:43
  • @Wikash_ - that is why Bhagavan gave women the social duty of raising kids and homecare, since it needs not only brains, but also social equipped-ness and empathy. Seems to me like Bhagavan is biased towards women. – ram Jan 19 '22 at 01:45
  • If he is biased towards women then polygamy for women should be no problem. – Wikash_ Jan 19 '22 at 08:17
  • If he is biased towards men then men should be able to get pregnant. It is obvious that Bhagavan is not biased towards either gender, but has divided up responsibilities among them. A wicket-keeper complaining that 'he doesn't get to bowl and keep at the same time because the game is biased against keepers', is a silly player who should be sacked from the team. – ram Jan 19 '22 at 17:05