Vedic Marriage and Modern Divorce

In the Vedic conception of marriage, which is the social model used by ISKCON, marriage is not simply a commitment or contract between two people - it is a contract between two people and the community.

Especially when people are married in the temple in front of the Deities, the spiritual master, the sacred fire, and the devotional community.

Later on, if they decide to get divorced they are not simply breaking their commitment with each other, they are breaking their contract with the community - effectively they are excommunicating themselves from the community.

I can hear the cries already - "but what about if someone is in an abusive relationship, one with no love, if one person cheats, or leaves the other person involuntarily?"

The situation is no doubt complicated, but what I see overwhelmingly in ISKCON divorces is an overly individualistic mentality - one that does not take into account the wider effects and obligations. This is incompatible with Vedic social structure. Utterly incompatible.

There is a place where you can do whatever you want - it's called the "rest of the world". If you want to stay in ISKCON then you better work hard to make your marriage work, because when you divorce you are choosing excommunication. You just chose whatever you chose over the community. Whether you initiated the divorce or contributed to the breakdown of the relationship through your behaviour leading up to it.

Sometimes things are just inevitable. Your partner discovers they're gay, or develops a completely different value structure based around eating meat, drinking alcohol and going to discos. In this case they absolute hate being around you and file for divorce.

However, sometimes both parties stay in the community, still trying to be devotees.

People will probably still accept you. You probably won't be shunned, but what you've just done has undermined the whole social structure, the entire social contract.

You can pretend that your divorce is your own private affair and has no impact on everyone else, but the reality is that you have not simply divorced one person, broken the contract with that one person - you have broken your contract with every single person in that community.

I'm sure there are situations where such a thing is warranted. If you are trapped in an abusive relationship where your life is in danger, for example. In that case you'd probably balance up excommunication with execution and risk the excommunication. However, most situations that I see are not like that.

It's always very sad when things get to an irreconcilable point, especially when children are involved. Make no mistake about it, however. If I ever were to divorce my wife I would be breaking my social contract not simply with her and with our son, but with the local devotional community and the entire ISKCON society - each and every member.

Full stop.

A couple of years ago I spoke on this point at Vrajadhama and Bhakticandrika's engagement, held at Atma:

So why do we have this engagement ceremony? Why are they doing this? What are they doing?

They’re making a public commitment. They’re not just making a public commitment to each other, they’re making a public commitment to all of us. Because life is not just about “me”, and life is not just about “you”. Life is about all of us, and we all, because we’re all interrelated, we all have a duty to each other, and especially in family life. Family is the basis of human society. Community, human community needs continuity, it needs stability.

So when you enter into this kind of relationship, it’s not just about “what do I want to get out of this? What do I want?” It’s actually about “what can I do for others?” It’s not even about “what can I do for this other person?” It’s about “what can we do together? What can we together do for everyone else?” Now if we begin to live from that platform, instead of thinking “What can everyone do for me? What can I do for myself?” If we begin to live from the platform of “What can I do for others?” then the whole relationship becomes different. Instead of “What can I get out of this other person?” it becomes “what can we together do for others?”, and that makes for such a difference in the relationship.

So the commitment is not simply the two of them to each other, but it’s a commitment to all of us. It’s a commitment to contributing to stability and continuity. Community needs stability, and it needs continuity. We need to create a stable community, a stable society, so that people can have a stable situation in which they can pursue spiritual realization. You know when you’re so disturbed and there are so many disturbances, and you don’t know what’s happening from one day to the next, and your future is so uncertain - it’s very difficult to concentrate on anything higher than just getting through the day. But if we can have a stable situation underlying us for our practice, then we can apply ourselves to that practice, and we can make advancement, we can make progress.

So the duty of those who come together in this way is to provide that stability, and making this public commitment in this way to all of us also helps them with their commitment to each other, because they can realize as they go through it that “it’s not just about us, it’s about everyone, and the public commitment that we’ve made.”

It’s called the “Edison method”. Thomas Edison was a famous inventor, and what he would often do is call a press conference, and he would announce a wonderful new product that was coming out. Then after making that announcement in the press conference he would go into his lab and invent it.

So by making a public commitment like this, it helps to achieve your goals, and to be committed to your goals.

There is another aspect to it, as well.

The other day I was reading Madison magazine. I don’t know if anyone here reads Madison magazine? I don’t - generally I don’t read Madison magazine, but this particular Madison magazine - I was waiting - OK, wait a minute, let me tell you how it happened.

I was waiting for the bus down in Adelaide St, and this particular Madison magazine, the cover jumped out at me, and it’s not because it had a picture of Angelina Jolie on the cover. She’s on the cover of practically every magazine this month - or at least the ones that Jennifer Aniston isn’t on. So what it was, actually, that jumped out at me was a headline that said: “Married versus Living Together: Who’s happiest?”

These are the kinds of things that I like to think about, and I was particularly intrigued to know - what did they have to say about that? I didn’t really want to saunter up to the stand and pick up the magazine in case someone coming from the class saw me reading it. So I waited until we were in Stafford, at Woolworths, where I was sure we wouldn’t run into anyone - but actually we did, we ran into Lou. Anyway, the Supersoul goes with us wherever we go - we can’t escape it.

Anyway, I picked up that magazine and I just flicked through the article, and one thing jumped out at it me, and it said: “Statistically it’s proven that people who don’t live together before they get married, have longer marriages.” That’s what it said. And then they gave their interpretation, or a little bit of their commentary on that. They said: “This is because people who don’t live together before they get married, these days especially, they often don’t do so because of cultural or religious reasons, and those same cultural or religious reasons often preclude divorce as an option.”

I think there is some validity in that, but at the same time I think that is a little bit of a disempowering view to take of it. I think a more positive and empowering view of that can be understood from a principle that we find in the science of Yoga, and that is something that Krishna explains about the yogi in the second chapter of Bhagavad-gita, where He says: “sama sukha-dukham dhiram”

In this particular verse He says:

yam hi na vyatayanyete
purusa purusarsabha
samo-dukha-sukham dhiram
so’mrta vaya kalpate

That the yogi, he is “samo-sukha-duhkam dhiram” - he is equanimous. He is the same - sama means “same” - dukha-sukham - dukha means misery and sukha means happiness. He is the same in both misery and happiness. This is this universal principle. This is something that doesn’t change. The rituals might change, the society might change, but let me tell you this - this is something that doesn’t change. This is an eternal principle: If you cannot regulate attachment, you will not be able to regulate aversion - and these two things are the two sides of the same coin. Attachment and Aversion. The two functions of the mind. If you watch what your mind does as you go around - your mind is always saying: “I like that. I don’t like that. I like it. I don’t like it.” Things that you like, the mind says: “Go. Go. Get it. Get it.” The things that you don’t like the mind says: “Get away. Get away. Give it up.”

“Sankalpa Vikalpa” it is called. So the yogi has to learn to control the impulse towards attachment or engagement. Our society today glorifies the uncontrollable whirlwind romance, you know, it’s kind of like: “I was just swept off my feet. I just couldn’t help myself. I just had to get up on the couch and jump up and down. I was madly in love.” That’s kind of celebrated - you know?

But there is another saying: “Easy come, easy go”. If he can’t control his mind on the way in, he’s not going to be able to control his mind on the way out - and wherever there is attachment or attraction there will always be aversion, that will always come. That is the nature of this world. Whenever there is some attraction, some desire, some attachment - there will always come a time where there will be aversion, there will be repulsion. So if we can’t regulate ourselves and control ourselves when the attachment comes, then we certainly won’t be able to control ourselves when the aversion comes. If we can’t control ourselves when kama, or lust, comes, then we won’t be able to control ourselves when krodha, or anger, comes.

So I think that persons who, for whatever reason - because of their own realization, their own control, their own understanding, or even by social tradition - if they can control, if they can learn to control on the outset - then when the difficult times come, and the mind starts pushing them to come apart, they will also find it a lot easier to control that. And then if they also have the understanding that “it’s not just about us and what we think and what we feel”, but “we have a duty to all these people around us, to the whole society, to the whole community” then that commitment that they are making now to all of us, that commitment will push them together. It will help to hold them together. So by doing it in this way they get the support of the whole community, behind them, to help them in their endeavour, together, to serve - to serve the community.

So that is something about the concept behind this engagement ceremony that we are doing tonight. As I said there is no formal ritualistic ceremony for this in the ancient Vedic tradition, so we are creating one as we go, because the Vedic culture is always relevant to our situation.