Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000
My dear by society I mean PROOF . U urself said in Canada and USA pictures need to be supplied to immigration office ...........what does that mean ? Proof , right ? Dont gather the whole 'SOCIETY" ..a very vague term , But at least two witnesses and photographer or priest who marries is needed or no ? Who will recognise a marraige not done in front of witnesses .............it will just be a private thing betweeen man and woman then ....whether they r putting sindoor or just tying a holy thread or exchanging a ring or simply sleeping with each other and 'feeling married in their heart' .who knows ? And see the society they r showing ........traditional Marathi society in Mumbai ...........where I hail from . No one will recognise the marraige ARMAN did ..on some lakeside in front of an idol with sindoor ...........just one pinch of sindoor ........nothing else , a smile and DONE ? How RIDICULOUS is that ? If Sindoor is marraige , Manav had put sindoor in Shravnis maang too .....was that a marraige ? Then Next day he had put sindoor in Archnas maang in temple .was THAT a marraige ? Or is putting sindoor today a marraige ? ALL 3 r most categorically nOT MARRAIGES . Hindu marraiges r done in Vedic way or court way ............the amount of people doesnt matter but witnesses have to be there . They divorced in front of thousands of people and r marrying in front of none ..........how stupid is that ? From DIVORCEE status Manav and Archna r going towards NOT PROPERLY MARRIED STATUS . If they live like this , it will be LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP , bas .NO MARRAIGE .
And yes , I REPEAT .............MANGALSUTRA IS MAIN IN MARATHI MARRAIGE . We dont recognise sINDOOR FILLING .KUNKU Is APPLIED BETWEEN EYEBROWS BUT MANGALSUTRA IS MAIN .
Kools: you mistook me. I wasn't saying court marriages or witnesses are not required..I was simply implying that as you said for vedic marriage the requirement isn't sindoor, mangalsutra or anything...simply the marriage needs to happen in front of the FIRE. And that is true for any vedic marriage...be it maharastrian or people from UP or from esatern region...and that the sindoors, mangalsutra are add-on and was incorporated as part of region to 'mark' the women as some-ones property - not a original marriage ritual. Infact, in the original marriage (which only takes place for about 30 mins for the phreas and the 7 vows - in many regions both the groom and the bride need to wear unstitched 'cloth' implying marriage of the 'soul") and nothing else. In fact, the sindoor on the Forehead represent 'Blood" and nothing else. Mangalsutra also is symbolic (which I think I know, but can't confirm), because again as I said these are add on to the actual ritual.
Also, in vedic wedding there is no concept of divorce like that in the muslim region (you will agree, right). So, besically Archan and Manav are married, because they 2 accept each other as husband and wife. Also, Shravani is Manav wife too - as She accepts herself as Manav wife😆) right. Vedic society allows men and in some cases women to marry multiple times, but once married - marriage is for life. So, if you look at the marriage purely from vedic perspective the marriage between 2 are done and well - instances are people to marry in mandir - tell me if the priest or the crowd gathered can true be witnesses to such a marriage when no one knows the groom or the bride? How is that valid - but many young people elop and marry tooo- and society accept it - please give a publicied example where Indian socity said that marriage wasn't valid? I haven't seen one. Yes, I agree if these people want to separate they go thru the legal channel because of the very nature of the marriage?
One other point - in the excavation of Mahenjo-daro and Harrapa there were many ornaments found -then why isn't any ornament resemble that of a mangal sutra? I am sure people married the same way then? My point here is that for vedic marriage to happen 2 people need to accept it in front of the fire and accept the vows - done. Nothing else is needed.
Now, lets come to this age. It is important that the marriage be recognition to a certain extend. For that to happen people u know should witness it or signing court docs. - its a NEED to safeguard the women specially - but not a REQUIREMENT for a VEDIC marraige - but if both bride and the groom londly claim they are married - I am not sure how a vedic Sadhu will say its not.
Now, in all my search I haven't come across anything different. If you have any research on it, please share I could REALLY LIKE TO LEARN - I find HINDUSIM extremely interesting and complex! Specially , if you have any reseach on marathi wedding that implied (and is different from other Indian weddings) the significants of mangal sutra - I am simply interested .
My purpose of the psot was to some extend let others know what I thought I know - at the end we take away a lot from these discussions and taking away a wrong implication of the marriage ritual might not be health for all of us in the wrong run. We learn a lot from our on-line collegues who are experts in different areas and forum like these facilitate these extremely, turning these into learning tools that goes a long way than any class-room method....remenber younf=g and impressionable people we have in this forum.
My main purpose was to show that VEDIC marriage doesn't require much and is rich in symbolisim.
BUT, EVERYONE IN THIS AGE AND TIME, MAKING MARRIAGE LEGALLY VALID IS VERY IMPORTANT TO SAFE GUARD ANYONE'S FUTURE - and in THIS I AGREE FULLY WITH KOOLS.
Seher Hone Ko Hai
Cricket
