Forms of Marriage and Unions

The text mentions various forms of marriage and unions. The two forms avaha and vivaha are the most approved of them, invariably mentioned together. It is not very certain whether these are two ceremonies of one single form or two different forms. The parents arrange avaha-vivaha. The parties to the marriage are young and chaste (kumara kumarika). Upon marriage the wife goes to live with her husband’s family. The following case will make some of the points of this marriage clear.^[1]

The monk udayi sees an unmarried youth (kumarakam va apajapatim) and an unmarried girl (kumarika va aptikam). He praises the girl in the presence of the youth’s parents. Udayi says, “The girl is of such and such a family (amukassa kulassa). She is beautiful (abhuirrupa), charming (dassaniya), lovely (pasadika), learned (pandita), accomplished (vyutta), wise (medhavini), clever (dakkha), and industrious (analasa). She is suitable for the youth. “The youth’s parents reply, “They (the girl’s family) do not know us who and what we are. If you will induce them to give her we may convey the girl to the youth.”^[2]

Then the monk Udayi praises the boy in the presence of the girl’s parents. He uses the same words of praise and advises that the girl is suitable for the youth. The girl’s parents say to Udayi, “They do not know us, who and what we are, nor do they know how much is the girl’s property. If you will beg (yacapeyya), we may give the girl to the youth. “Thus Udayi brings about “leading” (avaha) of the bridegroom by the bride’s family and “leading away” (vivaha) of the bride and the marriage takes place (vareyyani pi vatapeti).^[3]

A number of points are remarkable. Firstly, the individual opinions of the girl and youth are conspicuously absent, although compatibility is suggested by imputation of identical qualities to both the parties. Secondly, the families of both the parties are unknown to each other. Thirdly, it is the status and position in society of the families on both sides which are of importance. It is presumed that the families must be equal. Their relationship is not equal when the marriage is being arranged but the youth’s family is superior. Their way of appealing to the monk to bring about the marriage proves this. While the youth’s parents would like to induce the girl’s parents, the latter would beg them to arrange the marriage. The girl’s parents have an additional obligation to pay dowry (vatthu), while the youth’s parents have to establish only the status and position. Fourthly, the arrangement of the marriages was done through an intermediary, in this case a monk. Lastly, avaha literally means the leading of the bride (by the bride’s family) and vivaha leading her away (by the bridegroom’s family). The marriage is “virilocal.” But the point is important enough to give the form its nomenclature.

The term mata-pitaro has been translated as parents; however, it appears that it may not necessarily refer to the mother and father only. It is perhaps of some significance that the parties to marriage are not son and daughter (puttadara) but youth and a girl (Kumara and Kumarika). This interpretation of mata-pitaro is compatible with the meaning which we have assigned to it earlier. Therefore, we may presume that the marriage was arranged by the parents, not only of their son’s and daughter’s but also all the charges under them within the extended family.

The occurrence of another reference to avaha-vivaha can be seen in one of the Buddha’s utterances. Contrasting supreme perfection to avvha-vivaha, the Buddha says, “There is no reference to the question either of birth (jati vada), gotta (gotta vada) or the prestige (mana vada), which says that you are held as worthy as I or you are not held worthy as I, “It is in the talk of marriage (avaha-vivaha) that reference is made to these things.”^[4] The emphasis is here once more on the status and prestige in connection with avaha-vivaha. This time, however, status is expressed in terms of birth and gotta.

Yet another reference to avaha-vivaha is made when a setthi of Rajagaha, invites the Buddha for a meal. Anathapindika, the husband of the host’s sister, mistakes the preparations for the meal with those for great sacrifice, invitation to a king and a (avaha-vivah).^[5] This suggests that avaha-vivaha involved considerable expense, particularly in the case of the rich.

The text mentions ten forms of marriage, all in one place.^[6] Some of these are: (1) When a woman is bought with money (dhanakkhita). (2) When a woman stays of her own accord with a man (chandavasini). (3) When a man gives her money (bhoga vasini). (4) When a man gives her clothes (patav asini). (5) When an ablution of water is performed (odapattakani). The woman lived with her lover of her own will, is the nearest we get to a free and willing union. The union may not be temporary in the case of dasi and Kammakari but in these cases the special position of the woman was a prerequisite to the union. It is noticeable that not all dasis and Kammakaris entered into union by virtue of their position; if anything, these forms of marriage may show the strength of the authority-obedience relationship between the master and the servant.

It seems that the above do not exhaust all forms of marriage.^[7] Thus: The beautiful daughter of an ex-courtesan (ganaki) is asked by some disciples of ajivikas coming from a distant village for their son. However, at first the ex-courtesan refuses to give her daughter in marriage, but the intervention of the monk Unayi settles the agreement. The proposal is acceptable only on the fourth time. The marriage is described in the following manner: “That ganaki gave her daughter to the disciples of the ajivikas.”^[8]

It is noticeable that in this case, the family of the bridegroom made the proposal and not the intermediary, the monk was the intermediary in this case as well, but mediated only when the refusal occured. There is no mentioning of avaha-vivaha, but the marriage was signified by the proposal deyyami and its compliance, adasi. The aspect of giving is denoted by both the terms, presumably because in this form of marriage it was the girl’s family who had a bargaining position.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vinaya.III.135.

[2]:

Ibid., amje na janati ke va ime kassavati kismim viya kumarikaya vatthum.

[3]:

Ibid., III.135.

[4]:

Digha Nikaya.I.99.

[5]:

Vinaya.III.154-55.

[6]:

Ibid., III.139-40.

[7]:

Ibid., III.135-36.

[8]:

Ibid., III.136, atha kho sa ganaki tesam ajivika savakanam dhtaram adasi.