Arranging marriages

[Bundokji]

Friends,

I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not allow monks to arrange marriages.

Do we know why?

Thank you

[Sam Vara]

Try this:

MATCHMAKING
◊ The major issue today seems more to center around divorce and the breakdown of marriage rather than arranging marriages. However one should note how these affairs can involve the bhikkhu and how he should guard against becoming too drawn in. (It is also noteworthy that this is considered one of the most serious offences.)

Ven. Udaayin caused this rule to be set down because he involved himself in arranging many marriages and liaisons. When some of these failed, they blamed him for the failure. The offence is summarized:

"Should any bhikkhu engage in conveying a man's intentions to a woman or a woman's intentions to a man, proposing marriage or paramourage — even if only for a momentary liaison — it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community."(Sa"ngh. 5; BMC p.117)
A bhikkhu should not officiate at weddings,[48] except perhaps to chant a blessing afterwards and encourage the newly married couple to lead virtuous and faithful lives together based in generosity, virtue and meditation. He also has to be circumspect when counselling couples. (There is no offence in reconciling a married but estranged couple as long as they are not yet divorced.)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... html#match

[santa100]

Friends,

I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not allow monks to arrange marriages.

Do we know why?

Thank you

Because matchmaking is not really their job.

[Bundokji]

Thank you both for the answer

Before reading the quoted answers, i was thinking of something else, based on Mahāsīla:

"Or he might say: 'Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered by the faithful, earn their living by a wrong means of livelihood, by such debased arts as: arranging auspicious dates for marriages, both those in which the bride is brought in (from another family) and those in which she is sent out (to another family); arranging auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; arranging auspicious dates for the accumulation or expenditure of money; reciting charms to make people lucky or unlucky; rejuvenating the fetuses of abortive women; reciting spells to bind a man's tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands, to make him lose control over his jaw, or to bring on deafness; obtaining oracular answers to questions by means of a mirror, a girl, or a god; worshipping the sun; worshipping Mahābrahmā; bringing forth flames from the mouth; invoking the goddess of luck — the recluse Gotama abstains from such wrong means of livelihood, from such debased arts.'

Numerology and astrology might have been involved in such services. It is strange though that the rule treats marriage and short term affairs with prostitutes in the same way.

[Sam Vara]

Thank you both for the answer

Before reading the quoted answers, i was thinking of something else, based on Mahāsīla:

"Or he might say: 'Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered by the faithful, earn their living by a wrong means of livelihood, by such debased arts as: arranging auspicious dates for marriages, both those in which the bride is brought in (from another family) and those in which she is sent out (to another family); arranging auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; arranging auspicious dates for the accumulation or expenditure of money; reciting charms to make people lucky or unlucky; rejuvenating the fetuses of abortive women; reciting spells to bind a man's tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands, to make him lose control over his jaw, or to bring on deafness; obtaining oracular answers to questions by means of a mirror, a girl, or a god; worshipping the sun; worshipping Mahābrahmā; bringing forth flames from the mouth; invoking the goddess of luck — the recluse Gotama abstains from such wrong means of livelihood, from such debased arts.'

Numerology and astrology might have been involved in such services. It is strange though that the rule treats marriage and short term affairs with prostitutes in the same way.

Well, both will involve you in disputes and recriminations, I guess. And arranging short-term affairs with prostitutes is pimping. Not usually something to inspire faith from the laity.

[Bundokji]

Well, both will involve you in disputes and recriminations, I guess. And arranging short-term affairs with prostitutes is pimping. Not usually something to inspire faith from the laity.

It is pimping if it is done for money, but the link shared by santa shows that Ven. Udaayin did not do it for money, but was rejected for similar reasons to the one you stated. I guess equating the two makes sense from a monastic POV, but for laity, differentiating the two is more essential.

As to the interdependence between the two communities, i was thinking that if marriage serves as curbing over indulgence in sensuality, then using arts that enhances the chances of a successful and happy marriage would not harm, considering that the meditative experiences many monks develop would enable them to understand causality in a more accurate way than ordinary people. The day prince Gautama was born is an auspicious day, and as per legend, a clairvoyant provided accurate descriptions of his destiny and the choices he will have to make.

[Sam Vara]

Well, both will involve you in disputes and recriminations, I guess. And arranging short-term affairs with prostitutes is pimping. Not usually something to inspire faith from the laity.

It is pimping if it is done for money, but the link shared by santa shows that Ven. Udaayin did not do it for money, but was rejected for similar reasons to the one you stated. I guess equating the two makes sense from a monastic POV, but for laity, differentiating the two is more essential.

As to the interdependence between the two communities, i was thinking that if marriage serves as curbing over indulgence in sensuality, then using arts that enhances the chances of a successful and happy marriage would not harm, considering that the meditative experiences many monks develop would enable them to understand causality in a more accurate way than ordinary people. The day prince Gautama was born is an auspicious day, and as per legend, a clairvoyant provided accurate descriptions of his destiny and the choices he will have to make.

The monks I know are usually quite reluctant to do blessings of marriages and new babies. They seem quite reserved about all aspects of family life. The Buddha did, of course, offer advice to a couple who wanted to meet up again post mortem, but that's beyond most monastics' purview.

[Bundokji]

The monks I know are usually quite reluctant to do blessings of marriages and new babies. They seem quite reserved about all aspects of family life. The Buddha did, of course, offer advice to a couple who wanted to meet up again post mortem, but that's beyond most monastics' purview.

It is a shortcoming of mine that i have no contact with monastics in real life. However, from my own little bubble, i am trying to comprehend the interdependence between the two communities, and if there is anything beyond the exchange of generosity of food and requisites in exchange of teaching the dhamma.

Would it be wrong to approach the subject in terms of institutions? For example, the family unit is a main institution for laity whereas monasteries are the institution of monks. In other religions such as Christianity, people go to the church to get married, so it is quite customary for laity to seek the services of clergyman for ceremonial purposes. To be honest, i have never understood why people do that, but if there is a real utility in involving clergy, it would be using their knowledge and expertise in finding a suitable partner.

Would this rule be linked to banning monks from demonstrating their psychic powers before laity? because for such advise to be taken seriously, it has to involve some psychic abilities, or knowledge of ancient arts that are useful for matchmaking. On the other hand, to allow monks to bless the couple is of little utility if they are a bad match. The blessing would still lead to divorce and people would still do it anyway, so it does not seem to affect their faith in that particular instance.

[Sam Vara]

The monks I know are usually quite reluctant to do blessings of marriages and new babies. They seem quite reserved about all aspects of family life. The Buddha did, of course, offer advice to a couple who wanted to meet up again post mortem, but that's beyond most monastics' purview.

It is a shortcoming of mine that i have no contact with monastics in real life. However, from my own little bubble, i am trying to comprehend the interdependence between the two communities, and if there is anything beyond the exchange of generosity of food and requisites in exchange of teaching the dhamma.

Would it be wrong to approach the subject in terms of institutions? For example, the family unit is a main institution for laity whereas monasteries are the institution of monks. In other religions such as Christianity, people go to the church to get married, so it is quite customary for laity to seek the services of clergyman for ceremonial purposes. To be honest, i have never understood why people do that, but if there is a real utility in involving clergy, it would be using their knowledge and expertise in finding a suitable partner.

Would this rule be linked to banning monks from demonstrating their psychic powers before laity? because for such advise to be taken seriously, it has to involve some psychic abilities, or knowledge of ancient arts that are useful for matchmaking. On the other hand, to allow monks to bless the couple is of little utility if they are a bad match. The blessing would still lead to divorce and people would still do it anyway, so it does not seem to affect their faith in that particular instance.

It's an interesting topic, but I'm mostly relying on guesswork here. In Christianity in my part of the world, there is a much stronger interest in civil and state institutions on the part of the Church - at least the established Church, which my wife works for. For example, the head of the Church of England is the King; bishops get ex officio positions in the House of Lords as legislators; and most priests are registrars, licensed to perform legal marriages. The Church has for a long time had an interest in morality and issues like marriage, and clergy used to make pronouncements on issues of ethics. Today, they are less vocal, confining themselves to politically "safe" topics like gender, sexuality, state benefits, and overseas aid. Historically, the Church sort of took over the institution of marriage, sanctifying it and at one time holding a virtual monopoly on marriages. I'm not sure whether this is because politicians thought it would be a good idea to enlist religion in social policies they found desirable, or whether the Church functioned as an independent social force and powerful institution in its own right. Probably a bit of both.

I only know about traditional Buddhist countries second-hand, but the sense I get from books like Jayasaro's biography of Ajahn Chah is that the "social control" and political aspects exercise by the Sangha is more muted. Sure, there is an important link between the Thai monarchy and the Sangha, and monks have even taken to the streets. But monastics don't seem to have such an overt interest in maintaining the family in a particular shape.

Some monasteries do seem to act as community centres, supporting local villages and areas. But there is, I suppose, the issue of monks travelling around. They wouldn't build up much of an understanding of local families, property, and the issues surrounding them. Even in Britain, where ministers stayed in place for many years and got to know the parish extremely well, there never was a tradition of matchmaking. It was the "solemnisation" of marriage which was important, the recognition of God's approval of the institution, rather than the arrangement.

There is an interesting modern angle to this relating to TFS monasteries in the UK. Western lay supporters are very keen to ask monks questions and to seek advice. There are questions about doctrine or philosophy ("If there's no self, what gets reborn...?" etc) mostly asked by men; questions about meditation and practice ("How can I calm the mind...?" etc.) asked by both sexes; and questions about resolving personal and family relationship issues ("How can I tell my daughter she is ruining her life...?"..."Help me stop my husband from drinking...", etc.) which seem to be almost exclusively asked by women.

[Bundokji]

It's an interesting topic, but I'm mostly relying on guesswork here. In Christianity in my part of the world, there is a much stronger interest in civil and state institutions on the part of the Church - at least the established Church, which my wife works for. For example, the head of the Church of England is the King; bishops get ex officio positions in the House of Lords as legislators; and most priests are registrars, licensed to perform legal marriages. The Church has for a long time had an interest in morality and issues like marriage, and clergy used to make pronouncements on issues of ethics. Today, they are less vocal, confining themselves to politically "safe" topics like gender, sexuality, state benefits, and overseas aid. Historically, the Church sort of took over the institution of marriage, sanctifying it and at one time holding a virtual monopoly on marriages. I'm not sure whether this is because politicians thought it would be a good idea to enlist religion in social policies they found desirable, or whether the Church functioned as an independent social force and powerful institution in its own right. Probably a bit of both.

I only know about traditional Buddhist countries second-hand, but the sense I get from books like Jayasaro's biography of Ajahn Chah is that the "social control" and political aspects exercise by the Sangha is more muted. Sure, there is an important link between the Thai monarchy and the Sangha, and monks have even taken to the streets. But monastics don't seem to have such an overt interest in maintaining the family in a particular shape.

Some monasteries do seem to act as community centres, supporting local villages and areas. But there is, I suppose, the issue of monks travelling around. They wouldn't build up much of an understanding of local families, property, and the issues surrounding them. Even in Britain, where ministers stayed in place for many years and got to know the parish extremely well, there never was a tradition of matchmaking. It was the "solemnisation" of marriage which was important, the recognition of God's approval of the institution, rather than the arrangement.

There is an interesting modern angle to this relating to TFS monasteries in the UK. Western lay supporters are very keen to ask monks questions and to seek advice. There are questions about doctrine or philosophy ("If there's no self, what gets reborn...?" etc) mostly asked by men; questions about meditation and practice ("How can I calm the mind...?" etc.) asked by both sexes; and questions about resolving personal and family relationship issues ("How can I tell my daughter she is ruining her life...?"..."Help me stop my husband from drinking...", etc.) which seem to be almost exclusively asked by women.

When i brought up the example about Christianity, i had in mind that Christian priests can be celibates among many denominations. I thought this is the closest it can get to Buddhism. If we take Islam as another example, there is no full time clergy, and celibacy is not encouraged. In fact, having more than one wife is more common among religious Muslims than the secular ones.

What is unique about Buddhism though is the two truths doctrine, which takes visible forms in the two respective communities. By definition, conventional reality is inclined towards assemblies, whereas monasticism and asceticism take the opposite direction. For an ascetic, assemblies are generally bad, by virtue of preferring solitude over company, the forest over assembled bricks (the house), the aggregates without clinging over the aggregates with clinging, and a decaying corpse over an assembled body. As such, the ascetic develops insights about conventions and assemblies, which takes the form of psychic abilities and strong intuitions about its operations.

In Ud 5.5, we have an example of the exceptional intuition of the Buddha, refusing to recite the Pāṭimokkha because "the gathering is not pure", then Ven. Mahā Moggallāna had to use his psychic powers to identify the corrupt member and to kick him out. The moral of the story is: the presence of that corrupt member in the community of monks represented a mismatch, which had to be corrected by removing him from the group. Another lesson to be learned is that this corrupt member might fit in quite nicely with less prestigious group or assembly. Now, what is marriage? it is the assembling of two individuals to form a unit of some sort, where there can be a match of mismatch. All you have to do then it to bring the couples to the presence of a monk of a strong intuition, and he would see if they match up well or not.

When i visited India circa 10 years ago, i met a Hindu ascetic in Varanasi who displayed some mind reading abilities, or possibly very strong intuition as he was able to tell me things while i was thinking about them. At the end, he told me that he can help me find a suitable wife, but i rejected his offer because i am interested in short term affairs. One can only guess that Buddhist monks are more capable that the ascetic in question by virtue of following the lord Buddha, and such abilities can be beneficial to the lay community.

[Sam Vara]

I've known a monk to have some kind of mind-reading powers, but I don't think any I've ever known have given the impression that they would be any good at finding a suitable partner for someone. Many of the younger monks seem to lack worldly wisdom. And they seem to have little interest in the topic of marriage in general.

[justindesilva]

I've known a monk to have some kind of mind-reading powers, but I don't think any I've ever known have given the impression that they would be any good at finding a suitable partner for someone. Many of the younger monks seem to lack worldly wisdom. And they seem to have little interest in the topic of marriage in general.

With my experience in Sri lanka , many monks are ordained at very young ages. And they undergo education in pirivenas (schools run in the temple ) with other lay kids , facing local exams mostly ending in universities . Of course finally the monks end up with pali , sanskrit, and other religion based subjects and most bikkus reaching higher ages have a knowledge of lay life and worldly knowledge .
Listening to their sermons , they have a knowledge in order to advice lay and young people . I have often heard that they relate advise with sutras as with Nakula matha and pitha and are able to advise on lay matters .
Still before a marriage , it has become customary to offer a dana to sangha, along with childbirths. Whether right or wrong there are bikkus who have mastered astrology in comparing horoscopes to find suitability for marriage along with other professional astrologers.
The society now has changed from time of budda, socially and customarily .

[AgarikaJ]

It is a shortcoming of mine that i have no contact with monastics in real life. However, from my own little bubble, i am trying to comprehend the interdependence between the two communities, and if there is anything beyond the exchange of generosity of food and requisites in exchange of teaching the dhamma.

Maybe it would be helpful, to compare the situatiion less with modern Christian clerics, who (in singular) work for a parish, and their main emphasis of their work is interacting with their parish.

Surely a better comparison would be between a Thai monastery and Christian monastics. In both those scenarios, monks would very often be completely separated from any laypeople and spend their days with chanting (singing praise in a choir), in sitting meditation (kneeling contemplation before the cross), walking meditation (around the cloister walkway), saying mantras (with the help of a rosary), do textual study (reading the bible), listen to Dhamma talks (sermons in church).

The very big -- essential -- difference between those two models is, that in a Christian monastery, tradtionally the monks would work for their own upkeep, be it brewing, making wine, tending to animals, or tilling fields.

In Buddhist monasticism however, in the Vinaya monks are specifically forbidden to work for their own upkeep (any connection to alcohol, gardening, killing animals, etc). Instead, they are symbiotically linked to a parish, which needs to give them alms so that they are able to survive, however they are supposed to keep interaction during their daily alms walk to a minimum.

As such, maybe the difference in participating in daily life actions (like a marriage) is not as big as it might seem on first look.

Going back in history, to what we know of ancient Buddhist monasticism in India, the difference becomes even smaller, as those (sometimes giant) monasteries living under royal patronage owned fields, had their own villages and even owned bonded serfs for necessary work.

[Bundokji]

Maybe it would be helpful, to compare the situatiion less with modern Christian clerics, who (in singular) work for a parish, and their main emphasis of their work is interacting with their parish.

Surely a better comparison would be between a Thai monastery and Christian monastics. In both those scenarios, monks would very often be completely separated from any laypeople and spend their days with chanting (singing praise in a choir), in sitting meditation (kneeling contemplation before the cross), walking meditation (around the cloister walkway), saying mantras (with the help of a rosary), do textual study (reading the bible), listen to Dhamma talks (sermons in church).

The very big -- essential -- difference between those two models is, that in a Christian monastery, tradtionally the monks would work for their own upkeep, be it brewing, making wine, tending to animals, or tilling fields.

In Buddhist monasticism however, in the Vinaya monks are specifically forbidden to work for their own upkeep (any connection to alcohol, gardening, killing animals, etc). Instead, they are symbiotically linked to a parish, which needs to give them alms so that they are able to survive, however they are supposed to keep interaction during their daily alms walk to a minimum.

As such, maybe the difference in participating in daily life actions (like a marriage) is not as big as it might seem on first look.

Going back in history, to what we know of ancient Buddhist monasticism in India, the difference becomes even smaller, as those (sometimes giant) monasteries living under royal patronage owned fields, had their own villages and even owned bonded serfs for necessary work.

I think the main difference is that in Christianity, the family structure is not limited to earthly matter, but extends to heaven by virtue of the trinity and the virgin Mary, presenting the saintly in terms of family figures. Buddhist monasticism on the other hand has renouncing the family a prerequisite to ordination, which goes beyond the simple dedication of time and effort to the holy life.

Renouncing the family as an uncompromising prerequisite makes Buddhism closer to ancient philosophy than monotheism, by presenting the gandhabba not a holy spirit, but as some deva pleasuring himself. In ancient philosophy, the whole business of marriage is a rigged lottery, where the guardians of the system restrict the role of impregnating to a certain breed of devas who are sexually active. The meeting of the three conditions (union of the mother & father, the mother is in her season, and a gandhabba is present) manifests in the human neurotic experience, being conflicted by either trying to find his origins in heavens, or in the animal kingdom.

This is why, the rule did not seem to make a distinction between marriage and prostitution, because in monotheism, marriage is essential to the begetting of children. Also one can only imagine monks who attained the first knowledge of remembering their past lives how would they view this state of affairs, but the best outcome for interfering in the business of matching couples would be the production of sages, and how would be kammically useful to their biological parents - as with Ven. Sariputta who converted his biological mother before passing into parinibbana.

The custom of seeking sages in the wombs of humans is alive and kicking in Vajrayana Buddhism. We hear stories of Tibetan monastics who use clairvoyance to identify where one of their senior Lamas got reborn, so they can bring him back to the monastery.

[AgarikaJ]

I think the main difference is that in Christianity, the family structure is not limited to earthly matter, but extends to heaven by virtue of the trinity and the virgin Mary, presenting the saintly in terms of family figures.

Good point! This is indeed another important difference between Christianity and Theravada.