0

Is it true that a Brahamin man can remain unmarried (and be celibate) his whole life ? (While for men of other castes marriage is mandatory) .

In Hindu scriptures ,I find many Brahman men remaining unmarried as it was considered a normal like - Aswathama , Kripacharya , Kanva , Parashara , Kapil and many others.

While for other caste , remaining unmarried was exception and it was highlighted eg- Bhisma.

Is there anywhere written in any scripture that a Brahman man can remain unmarried ?

river
  • 6,675
  • 1
  • 8
  • 26
  • No! That is false. In ancient time, all Rishi were married. Look at Ramayana for reference. Marriage was/is mandatory for all Varna. – TheLittleNaruto Dec 01 '22 at 12:36
  • @TheLittleNaruto I think Rishi Kapila (founder of Sankhya Yoga) was unmarried. (Couldn't find name of his wife) . Parashara was also perhaps unmarried . He had Gandharva Vivah with Satyavati , but he abandoned her , restoring her virginity ( thus he no longer can be considered her husband). Also Parashara didn't have planned marriage with her ,he just got lustful towards her , thus married her , then abandoned her. – river Dec 01 '22 at 13:06
  • abandoning happened later for some xyz reasons. But they did got married. – TheLittleNaruto Dec 01 '22 at 13:24
  • @TheLittleNaruto Couldn't find the name of Rishi Kapil's wife or information about his married life. Also why was Parashara unmarried despite being of sufficient age ? I can't find the name of his wife or children .He only married Satyavati because he encountered her and got lustful . Why his parents didn't find wife for him ? Doesn't make any sense to me , why was he bachelor for so long ? He was perhaps born much earlier . – river Dec 01 '22 at 13:30
  • @TheLittleNaruto I can be wrong though (about Brahmin man remaining unmarried ) as Suka too was adamant on reamining unmarried but his father Ved Vyas insisted him to get married. And he (Suka) got married. – river Dec 01 '22 at 13:34
  • 1
    Yes. Those brahmins who dedicate their lives to serving their gurus remain unmarried – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Dec 01 '22 at 14:17
  • Whoever didn't get married, those cases would only be an exception. – TheLittleNaruto Dec 01 '22 at 14:22
  • 1
    @TheLittleNaruto I don't think you're correct. Any Brahmin man who does Brahmacharya, as ordained by the Manusmriti, is celibate. Furthermore, it is urged by many Puranas like the Srimad Bhagavatam to not marry and become an ascetic. – HariharaVishnumShivah Dec 01 '22 at 16:46
  • @TheLittleNaruto charvaka is also known as lokayata, because of many people being exception. – YOu will not know Dec 02 '22 at 04:59
  • 1
    Could you please make the question clearer, are you asking about R̥ṣis in the Veda and Upaniṣads? Or are you asking of Brāhmaṇas generally. Because if you are asking the latter case, there are many Brāhmaṇas in history who remained celibate and unmarried their whole life. Ādi Śaṅkarācārya is one example, but there are lots of examples of Brāhmaṇas in history being brahmacārī for their whole life. A brāhmaṇa who is take saṃnyāsa early in life, is not supposed to marry. Renunciates don't marry, there is no lack of Brāhmaṇa renunciates. And there have been renunciates of other varṇas as well. – Bingming Dec 02 '22 at 07:00
  • Here, I mean those renunciates who hadn't married before renouncing as there are many renunciates who take renunciation after marriage too. – Bingming Dec 02 '22 at 07:06
  • 1
    According to vyasa smriti prathamoadhyaya, a dwija can opt to remain a naishtika brahmachari, thereby it is not specific to Brahmanas only – Athrey Dec 02 '22 at 13:03
  • Yastuupanayanaadetadaamrityorvratamaacharet, sa naishtiko brahmachaari Brahma saayujyamaapnu- yaat/ Thus from the upanayana to the end of one’s life’s termination, if a dwija could abide by the naishtika brahmachari vrata is certain to accomplish Brahma saayujya! – Athrey Dec 02 '22 at 13:03
  • Yes. See Brahma Sutras – Swami Vishwananda Dec 05 '22 at 06:59
  • @SwamiVishwananda Could you please quote the verse and maybe write it in the answer. – river Dec 06 '22 at 14:28
  • 1
    III.4.40 tadbhūtasya tu nātadbhāvaḥ, jaiminerapi, niyamātadrūpābhāvebhyaḥ But for him who has become that [entered the highest āśrama i.e. saṁnyāsa], there can be not becoming that (i.e. reverting to a lower āśrama), according to Jaimini also, on account of restrictions, absence of texts sanctioning reversion and absence of good precedence. Which simply means that one who has taken saṁnyāsa, he/she cannot revert back to the stage of worldly person of go to a lower āśrama, as that is rejected by Śruti, Smr̥ti, Pūrva Mīmāṁsā sūtras. There exist no cases of reversion. Check III. 4. 41-42 – Bingming Dec 06 '22 at 17:19
  • 1
    So, considering a person takes saṁnyāsa, just early in his/her life before even marrying, there is no case where he/she can marry exactly, and if he/she does marry or do anything that is restricted to the lower āśramas, that is just unpardonable. For a naiṣṭhika brahmacārī, there is no option of marrying or engaging in non-celibate acts. – Bingming Dec 06 '22 at 17:21
  • 1
    For an upakurvāṇa brahmacārī, it's a different case, since he/she would give up celibacy after completing his/her studies, marry and then enter the gr̥hstha āśrama. But for a naiṣṭhika, it's just no-no, they have to remain celibate after their vow of brahmacarya for their whole life, there is no loopholes. – Bingming Dec 06 '22 at 17:26
  • It is blasphemous to say such things about Parashara Maharishi. It is possible to procreate without feeling lust - such procreation is not counted under gandharva vivaha (whose sole motivation is lust). going back to tapasya after such union is also not considered as abandonment - because matsyagandhi did not have to go through 10 months of pregnancy, 16 years of raising the child etc. - cos their son veda vyasa appeared instantly (avatar) as a 16 year old brahmachari. – ram Apr 24 '23 at 12:46
  • @mar Parashara was lustful as far I remember. He got attracted towards Satyavati and asked her to unite with him . It was Satyavati who insisted that she will unite with him only when he gave her a son. Yes, It was not gandharva vivah but a lustful union. Lust was only from the side of Parashara so , it can't be counted as gandharva vivah either. Also Parashara restored virginty of Satyavati . Also satyavati remarried , so, yeah , it was not gandharva vivah just transactional sex. Maybe because of this Parashara got remorseful . My point is valid - Parashara was unmarried. – river Apr 24 '23 at 15:40
  • @mar Yeah , It was not gandhava vivah (parashara and satyavati) because in gandharva vivah lust should be from both the side. I think it was some buying of women vivah (I can't recall the name of this type of vivah) . And this type of vivah is forbidden for brahmans. So, Maybe because of this parashara got remorseful and went to meditation. – river Apr 24 '23 at 15:44
  • @river - no he was not. mahabharat mentions how he retained his brahmacharya despite union. kunti begot sun from surya without physical sex. rishis and devas do not need to be lustful to procreate. – ram Apr 28 '23 at 22:07
  • @mar I know , Rishis and Devatas know many ways to have child. But Parashara did have sex . This is why he restored the virginity of Satyavati. – river Apr 29 '23 at 18:53
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? What are the difference between various types of brahmacharis? – Adiyarkku Apr 30 '23 at 01:56
  • @river - he didn't have to restore it. kunti did not have her virginity restored because it was not lost in the first place. – ram Apr 30 '23 at 08:17

0 Answers0