Hindu Marriage Ritual: Kanyadaan - Page 2

Hindu tradition has always recognized a variety of ceremonies as valid marriages, several of which have no kanyādāna. In other words, "random people" have always contracted marriages according to personal tastes, and Hinduism has given a veneer of religion to whatever society was already doing. The alteration of Hindu traditions by critical thinking is not a threat; rather, it is the salvation of a religious identity that would otherwise become obsolete.

Ancient Hindu law books list eight types of valid marriage ceremonies: Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Prājāpatya, Gāndharva, Āsura, Rākṣasa, and Paiśāca.

• The Paiśāca type is illegal under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, as it is the explicitly non-consensual violation of a sleeping or drugged female.
• Rākṣasa marriage would be illegal in its original form, abduction of an unwilling female, but legal in its modern form, elopement followed by willing cohabitation.
• Āsura marriage, buying the bride from her family as an alternative to kanyādāna, unambiguously objectifies her.
• Gāndharva marriage has no kanyādāna, no priest, no witnesses - just mutual consent between the couple.
• In Prājāpatya marriage, there is no kanyādāna because the bride remains a member of her parental family.
• Ārṣa marriage exchanges the bride for a pair of cattle instead of doing uncompensated kanyādāna; a cow was essential for a family's survival, and a wife was even more essential.
  
• Daiva marriage designates the bride as dakṣiṇā rather than dāna, as her family invites a scholar to perform a ceremony for them, and rewards him with the bride as a token of gratitude.
• Only in Brāhma marriage is there kanyādāna: the bride's family yields her to a worthy groom without receiving anything, simply to fulfil their duty as parents.

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 affirms the validity of any consensual marriage ceremony that accords with the tradition of either party to the marriage. It does not require kanyādāna at all. The only ritual that makes marriage legal is saptapadī, and even that is optional, as the law declares that if the ceremony includes saptapadī, the marriage takes effect when the seventh step is completed. If there is anyone insisting that kanyādāna is integral to Hindu marriage, that battle was lost 68 years ago.

Several people commenting in this topic have singled out the bride's father as the one giving her away. As far as I know my community's traditions, kanyādāna is always performed by an opposite-sex married couple. The father is ineligible to perform this ritual in the absence of his wife (although in an emergency, he is permitted to use an areca nut to represent his like-minded wife). The bride's relatives may invite any respected married couple (related or unrelated to her) to perform kanyādāna, without implying that the bride is anyone's property to be given away.

Finally, I would like to point out that the words used for kanyādāna do not use the names Lakṣmī and Viṣṇu/Nārāyaṇa. The words are "asmai Śrīdhara-rūpiṇe varāya mama Śrī-rūpiṇīṃ kanyāṃ" - to this selected one representing the Bearer of Śrī, my girl who represents Śrī. Thus, the bride is equated with Śrī - excellence or distinction, not material prosperity per se, and she is given to the groom because he is worthy of bearing that honour.

I see nothing wrong with giving the groom to the bride in the same manner, or giving two brides to each other, or two grooms to each other. If Hindu tradition has something good to offer, let any couple take the benefit of it.

Originally posted by: devashree_h

@bold: absolutely true, people are too hung up on the word Daan and do not understand that the ritual is mere symbolism of the Father giving away his daughter.

@red: Should we take our rituals so lightly that anyone and everyone can decide what works for them or doesnt?

Traditions and practices are an integral part of many religions, including ours. However, it is important to remember that these practices are not set in stone and can vary from person to person, and from one community to another. I firmly believe that these practices and rituals have some deeper meaning and helps in fostering sense of community. However, they are not an end in themselves, but rather a means to an end.

In this sense, the beauty of Hindu religion lies in the fact that we are free to interpret and practice our traditions in our own way unlike many other religions. We can choose which practices work best for us, based on our personal preferences, cultural background, and spiritual needs. Many people often confuse but we can be an atheist and still identify as a Hindu.

For example, some people may choose to fast during certain times of the year, while others may prefer to focus on daily prayer and meditation. Some may find comfort in visiting a temple or participating in religious festivals, while others may prefer to worship in private.

The Hindu religion is unique as it is not codified in the same way as many other religions. While some religions have a centralized authority that dictates and enforces religious law and doctrine, Hinduism has always been more decentralized and diverse.

That is probably the reason why, despite enduring centuries of colonization, subjugation, and foreign rule, the Hindu community has continued to grow and thrive.

Lets keep it that way and we will do fine 😊

Originally posted by: sxursaep

I don't find anything wrong with the rasam. In our family we believe that in this rasam when father gives his responsibility to the groom, the bride accepts the Gotra of her new family and that's it. Some people have got their sentiments hurt because they over thought about the word "daan". Growing feminism has led to people suspecting each and every other ritual/beliefs but I feel people should come out of their mindset that everything but injustice is done to women always.😊

What mindset is this? Its a fact that india is the country with one of the most crimes and injustice against women. How is fact a "mindset". Its also a fact that regressive thinking and culture and rituals leads and adds to these injustice

In your very post you talk about father giving his responsibility to groom. But why is a grown daughter a responsibility but a grown son not? Why is a man needed for responsibility of other grown up person? After all, the son is also starting a new life and needs help and support but there is no son daan?

I think the mindset we need to truly change is the fact that people downplay genuine injustice and concerns in a country like india. India is one of the worst places in the world to be a woman, every stat and study confirms this

There is no "mindset", only cold hard facts

Originally posted by: devashree_h

Very true. Even I dont find anything wrong with rasam. Its an act of a father giving away his daughter. That happens in other religions. I dont think performing this ritual demeans a woman in any way. Its celebrates the bond of a father and daughter. And it is also significant because in Hinduism, it is important that you pay the debt of your ancestors. You do that by getting married and having children. And a father marrying away his daughter, is repaying the debt of his ancestors.

In your very post you call a daughter a debt to be repaid and then you say its not demeaning to woman? Why is son not a debt but a daughter is? How is calling a daughter a debt a bond between father and daughter, in fact its the opposite as debt is something which is against your will and which you need to get rid of as soon as possible

I agree with the post above, hinduism is never about following rituals blindly but always questioning them and changing with times

Originally posted by: Harish111

I think the mindset we need to truly change is the fact that people downplay genuine injustice and concerns in a country like india. India is one of the worst places in the world to be a woman, every stat and study confirms this

So how many countries will you put above and below India? Please share the link from where you are drawing this information.

And you feel that those injustices and concerns are due to our Rituals? What is the connection?

Originally posted by: devashree_h

Thank you for elaborating about the word 'Daan'. This is the word that causes people to double think about this ritual. Its sad that Hindus today dont know about their own religion and mis-intrepret it based on false knowledge.

Are Hindus really misinterpreting it? Dude our Gods, from Rama to Krishna to everyone else have always taught about questioning rituals and practice and not blindly following them. They also preached that rituals and practices should not be rigid and should change with time

Rama questioned untouchability which was an established practice people used to blindly follow

Krishna questioned blindly worshipping Indra and suggested more practical practice of looking after cows instead (of course rigid conservatives have interpreted this in another way)

Its rigid conservatives who don't understand the essence of Hinduism at all, Hinduism is never about blindly following traditions or vedas or rituals but always questioning everything, always changing and adapting with times. Our Gods have preached against following traditions blindly, they have emphasised on your deed (karma) over any worship or rituals.

That is true Hinduism and why Hinduism has survived without agressive preaching or forcing others to do rituals

Originally posted by: Harish111

In your very post you call a daughter a debt to be repaid and then you say its not demeaning to woman? Why is son not a debt but a daughter is? How is calling a daughter a debt a bond between father and daughter, in fact its the opposite as debt is something which is against your will and which you need to get rid of as soon as possible

I agree with the post above, hinduism is never about following rituals blindly but always questioning them and changing with times

I never called daughter a debt. Please read my post carefully. I said the karma of a father marrying his daughter away is an act of paying his debt. So rest of the post doesn't stand for the arguement.

Originally posted by: vijay

So how many countries will you put above and below India? Please share the link from where you are drawing this information.

And you feel that those injustices and concerns are due to our Rituals? What is the connection?

This Link puts india at no 3

https://nwrcegypt.org/en/10-most-unsafe-countries-for-women-in-the-world/

This list puts india at no 9 with 5th in terms of partner violence

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-dangerous-countries-for-women

This list by rueters places india at no 1 most unsafe country in the world

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-dangerous-poll-factbox-idUSKBN1JM01Z

In fact you just have to google and look at any list, articles or survey and india is guaranteed to be in the top 10 and above many poor or third world countries

Clearly something is going wrong. And its not the rituals themselves but the mindset behind it. In this thread itself people who are trying to justify saying these are just rituals still use terms like debts or responsibility when it comes to women marrying men.

If someone is considered a debt or responsibility to be given away, the mindset adapts accordingly. In the long run it leads to parents not wanting a girl child, women being seen as inferior and also violence against women when they say no or want to stand up for themselves (how dare an inferior person say no to me or how dare they dream of their own careers)

If such an ancient country after all these years since independence still ranks among the most dangerous to women in the world (when we have made lots of progress in many other indexes including poverty, total economy, employment, education etc) clearly something is lacking and something is going wrong and something needs to change

Claiming everything is hunky dory or that sexism in india is just a mindset or something created by feminists is problematic. In fact such claims has led to us going back on the little progress we had made before as genuine problems are now being dismissed as just feminists seeking attention

Originally posted by: devashree_h

I never called daughter a debt. Please read my post carefully. I said the karma of a father marrying his daughter away is an act of paying his debt. So rest of the post doesn't stand for the arguement.

A debt is a negative thing and also a transactional

thing. Why is marrying a daughter giving away debt but not marrying a son

Originally posted by: Harish111

A debt is a negative thing and also a transactional

thing. Why is marrying a daughter giving away debt but not marrying a son

Marrying and having children is also paying a debt. If you find debt negative and transactional, then you are having issue with Hinduism itself. Remembering Ancestors and keeping them happy in after life is a very basic tenet of Hindusim.