Polyamory is Not Polygamy

Recently a particular post courtesy the degenerate left caused something of a hullaballo in yon hallowed digital halls of Internet Hindus. While  Sringara topics are nothing new on ICP, perhaps nothing heralds the Death of Romance more than polyamory.

Many of challenges facing Indic society (and indeed World Society) today are being attributed to irresponsible or unromantic or “unperforming” men. But the reality is it takes two hands to clap. Although we have been very empathetic to the plight of the modern woman, as seen in this article explaining Why Gentlemen Matter (useful for redpill champions), both modern men AND modern women are responsible for the current state of things. Whether modernity (or post-modernity) is itself the issue is another matter, but at the root of this is Selfishness.

It is this selfishness that is preyed upon by marketers the world over. Contrary to the “performance” theory causing certain phenomena, it is the role of marketing and image-shaping. This too is a type of psywar. After all, what better way to break morale than from within. But defeatism achieves nothing. Even fighting only the enemy you wish, achieves nothing. It’s only when you understand that what faces your civilization in fact faces the entire world, that you begin to understand why degeneracy such as polyamory (or bollywood amory) is promoted to begin with. A polygamous past (polygyny and polandry) is reinterpreted to suit exigencies of the present. No society better represented the cesspool of social engineering than the Soviet Union.

It is also why Post-Modern Society is a Bastard Society. But the response to this cannot be promotion of adharmic Nazi eugenics. As we’ve adduced evidence here, Fascism is just Socialism for Nationalists, resulting in social engineering again. Therefore, the true traditionalist rejects these Western constructs and paradigms, and studies his own tradition through its own lens. This means understanding exactly why the Puranas had such gender-bending stories (but don’t promote transgenderism) and why Polyandry and Polygamy could be practiced without promoting Polyamory.

Readers, please note: None of this is to encourage polyandry or polygyny, but to explain why they existed and were accepted in previous eras—but are not necessarily the ideal, and were certainly not polyamory. The simple reason why polygamy or even remarriage existed in previous times is not all souls are at the level of selflessness of Sita & Rama. Most “modern” people—whatever they may protest— do not even have control over their loins let alone their hearts. Not all individuals are spiritually evolved enough to only take one spouse in a life. Rather than feeling a need to serve a spouse (yes, this applies to both spouses…), most take a spouse to serve a need…and especially a feeling. But that isn’t a basis to change the definitions of Dharma, based on devas (lower case d) or even Draupadi. We must consider the Devas (capital D, i.e. the Trimurthi).

Brahma married only Sarasvati, Vishnu only Lakshmi, & even Shiva only married Parvati upon realizing she was the reincarnated form of his first wife Sati. Brahma did not “marry his daughter” Sarasvati, but married his other half. Being the Creator, he had the dilemma of having to create her physical form from his mind. But his story is echoed by the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad where the Supreme Being has to divide itself into halves—resulting in a man and women in eternal embrace.

Comparisons to Krishna or Rajas or rich merchants of previous eras ignores the fact that the vast majority of Hindu men were permitted to take only 1 wife (with a second only permitted if the first were barren). Kings and rich merchants are not always spiritual beings, and as for the case of Krishna, he had to marry all the women who did tapas to gain a husband “like Rama”. Hence Vishnu had to marry them in a future avatar to fulfill their boons. Other cases only saw multiple wives only when some unfortunate girl could not find a husband. Maharana Pratap married many wives, not a few of whom wished to be rescued from the clutches of Mughals. Through him, they had the protection of a valiant King.

maharanapratap

As for the Pandavas, they are neither here nor there, because these cases of polyandry exist/existed for a specific necessity. In the case of the Pandavas, it was because of Draupadi’s previous request for the boon of the perfect husband (no such man exists) and her desire for her husband in a previous life to make love to her in 5 different physical forms (resulting in a curse). Finally, there is the additional fact that the Pandavas themselves were so loyal to each other (with none of the younger 4 desiring his own kingdom) because all were amsa-avataras of Indra himself. Though born to different Devas, they were all the same soul (which is why they acted in such unison). Draupadi herself was Indra’s wife Sachi—and there is even a tradition showing the spiritual granularity of it all that states that when each husband sired a son on Draupadi, it was only that corresponding portion of Sachi’s soul which was activated in Draupadi at that time.

Even the case of the sons of Dasaratha is instructive. While traditionally we hear that Rama was Vishnu, Lakshmana was Adi Sesha, and Bharat and Shatrughna Sudarsana and Panchajanya respectively, Valmiki simply states that Mahavishnu divided himself into four portions, with Lakshmi ostensibly doing the same. Rama was naturally the largest portion (1/2), Lakshmana (1/4) and Bharata and Shatrughna (1/8 each), and marrying their corresponding portions of Lakshmi (i.e. Sita, Urmila, Mandavi, & Shrutakeerthi).

Simple minded arguments from simple minds such as this one don’t give license to deprecate or destroy traditional morality. If you do not want to live a certain traditional way in ‘modern society’—that is fine. But do not call it “dharmic” saying “traditional morality is Victorian”. Nor should the shameless pedants justifying “alternative lifestyles” as ok’d by dharmasastra be taken for “acharyas” when they are merely sellout poets lusting for lucre. Could all these live under the auspices of a “Dharmic society”—sure. But also remember, with the freedom of expression also comes the freedom of association…

Regardless, rather than gender defining the relationship—it is the relationship which necessitates the defining of gender. It is why we often find male gods with a female form (Vishnu as Mohini) and female gods with a male form. The soul itself carries no gender. When the soul divides into halves, gender becomes necessary for a romantic relationship to take place—real romance reaches its peak with the physical potential for a couple to conceive a child. But gender alone can’t become the basis for limiting someone or her freedom. Trust doesn’t mean putting someone in a box or cage (or in chains or chastity belts). Trust means setting someone free—because you know no matter where they are, what they’re doing, or whom they’re interacting with, that person will never betray you—physically or emotionally or spiritually. Rather than freedom being equated to polyamory, it is in monogamy that there is true freedom (the freedom to love as deeply as you please in perfect security, rather than the conditions placed on single serving “love” of constant insecurity—seen in polyamory).

Leave aside monogamy for a second, mono-amory (when genuine) doesn’t ask the question “did he love his first wife more?” let alone “first girlfriend or current mistress”.  Polyamory doesn’t solve the problem of someone you romantically love dearly, loving someone else more than you. After all, if someone has to be rescued or someone needs a kidney—whom will it be? This is the question polyamory proponents never cover…That this concept of “modern romance” could even be considered “real romance” only shows just how far the language and the culture has fallen. When definitions change, society approaches its downfall. Real freedom is not experiencing every fleeting desire…

That is why Acharya Chanakya writes

Sukhasya moolam dharmah Dharmasya moolamarthah |

Arthasya moolam rajyam Rajasya moolam indriyavijayam ||

The Root of Happiness is Dharma. The root of Dharma is Artha. The Root of Artha is Rajyam [Power]. The root of Power is Victory over the Senses [1,129]

If someone can be replaced—was it really love at all? This is something Modern Girls need to think about.The question is whether we as human beings prove ourselves worthy of trust—even when faced with the highest of temptations. That is the barrier that all couples face and must ultimately overcome.

If the freedom of women has waxed and waned over the ages, it is because men must bear fault for most of it—but not all of it. The reality is, cheaters are not always men, and as Tolstoy explored in Anna Karenina, good men are often punished for their unconditional love (and no ladies, they didn’t make you do it). Being badgered over tfr may be irritating, but it doesn’t justify slandering your own like this shalya did (with clinical precision). Attributing certain social phenomena to such things is a sign either of stupidity or complicity—or probably both. But the reality is much simpler: in a time when doing bad feels good, chasing after what is forbidden becomes popular. And this applies to boys and girls brought up in any religion. They chase after what they are forbidden to have. And it works both ways only with differing consequences.

This also shows the importance of not losing the narrative on Love. Contrary to twenty-something anime fanbois, writing on Romantic Love or showcasing it (in Dharmic context) is not “sybaritic nonsense“, but rather an intelligent rejection of Bollywood. Do a check on who were the Action Heroes in the 90s & who were the Romantic Heroes in the 90s, and you’ll have your answer on the psychology behind this. If you leave space uncontested, don’t be surprised if you start losing it. But winning it doesn’t occur through rhetoric or bravado, but in defeating the strategy. The complete man is both warrior & lover.

Main Yoddha Bhi Hoon!

The question for modern women is whether they are indeed worthy of the the love they claim to seek, for the suffering of both men and women are linked to the nature of their behaviour.  Most men are content to sink to the bottom of uncommitted barrel (hence MGTOW). Unjust divorce laws and 498-A did not occur in a vacuum, and are the karmic result of man’s unjust treatment of woman throughout the ages. But as one can see from the more equitable rules of the Vedic period—where women had much more freedom—all too many ladies later were no longer as trustworthy, resulting in their later societal restriction. This is not a justification, but an explanation of the strict moral standards of a different time.

The times and laws have obviously changed, even the letter of Dharmashastra (hence the differing Dharmasutras), but the Principle remains the same. If the illimitable Shiva-Shakti is the goal, then women too cannot always blame men (however deserving)  for their illimitable pigheaded chauvinism, as it is the standard of Shiva’s wife Sati that inspired trust and freedom in the first place. No self-respecting man will ever consent to be cucked or even chumped. The love women feel they are born to give, men reciprocate (assuming they ever do so) only after careful consideration and complete trust. If women wish to gain that trust, they must prove worthy of it. It is true that much of the selfishness of men is inborn or due to baser instincts. But much of it is also due to the first or second-hand experience in the school of hardknocks.

Ending hypocrisy is indeed a two way street. If women are fed up with Neanderthals, to gain the evolved men they want in the post-modern era, they need to first reject the inner Carrie Bradshaw. That is the difference between Surpanakha and Shakti (the true Divine Feminine). When this is the case, men no longer need worry of humiliation and are no longer petty and small-minded about helping a woman achieve her full potential. Because what matters then is not capabilities, but intentions. All this starts first with character. And the foundation of good character is Achara.

There are of course still more polyamory advocates who argue “character be damned!”. For these degenerates, it is the height of “sophistication” to be able to love beyond number (or beyond species!) or beyond gender—be it the 3 genders one finds in many languages classified as “Indo-European” or the new “genders” being invented every day by SJW’s. But neuter gender perfectly aligns with the concept of atman (which has no gender). And the true beauty of love is found in the complementary male-female relationship. Some sages even speak of couples exchanging genders in the peaks of ecstasy out of love for each other, or each one becoming both. But none of this is meant to justify transgenderism or polyamory or who knows what. Rather, it’s meant to show the distinction between consciousness and matter. When we take material form,  it comes with its own rules. A soul splits into a male half and a female half per the Upanishads itself.

And when material form is taken,we must observe the rules of material existence: Dharma.

To give another analogy: As Rama wished to show his appreciation for Lakshmana’s exemplary service as younger brother by being Balarama’s younger brother his next life, would it be so surprising that the same Vishnu might want to show his love for Lakshmi’s life as Sita by repaying this devotion in a future life…hence a possible Mohini avatar? All this may be too gender bending for our 1 dimensional binary thinkers, but it does begin to explain how traditional morality can be at harmony with the gender transcending nature of Divine illimitability.

It also explains why “indologists” and “mythologists” can’t create perverted readings of the Sacred Puranas to misinterpret Dharmasastra or question gender as a biological reality (which it is). If you want to learn the correct interpretation of our Dharmic culture and religion, learn from actual Dharmacharyas…not online simulacra. Consciousness may be illimitable and without form, but matter comes with its own rules when we take form.

sitaram

Male – Female. Husband – Wife. Sita – Ram

Contrary to the policy of hippies, this transcending of gender and “everything being maya” doesn’t mean all the rules go out the door. It simply means that mithya and maya come with their own rules that have to be observed to prevent matsya nyaya. Loving “everyone” doesn’t mean you’re actually loving more. You are merely lusting more while loving less and less. If you romantically love everybody, then you truly love nobody. Nobody is responsible for you and you are responsible for nobody. As in the novel Brave New World, if someone dies, people merely pop a few soma pills, and the party goes on….”zip, zip”. [3, ]

Polyamory is a stepping stone to the cementing of every degeneracy known to man. Even promiscuity goes from being voluntary to forced. Even the sacred word “mother” becomes profane. Childbearing is seen as dirty, and pleasure the highest good (when in fact, it is a means of control). After all, if you can’t bear pain, then you will prefer a pleasant slavery.

Funny how one must absolutely take classes to “learn how to properly appreciate wine”, but the same cannot be done to properly appreciate life!—especially married life! Which is more important: pairing the right wine with the right food?—or pairing the right female with the right male? It seems ‘modern’ Hindus aren’t the only ones with their priorities out of whack.

That modern science can do “wonders” isn’t license for licentiousnessAll of this is not to judge many modern Indians (women and men alike), who have had a number of partners (not at the same time) or even a number of spouses. It’s to explain why your situation is different from these shameless polyamory advocates who are in effect saying “anything goes”. Draupadi was married due to special circumstances—and married to each of those men. Women who have had multiple lovers or husbands over time for whatever reason don’t amount to Anais Nin. Life isn’t always simple and not every woman (or man) is lucky in love (though it does explain why arranged marriage with consent has some logic to it). The point isn’t to judge those of you who were unlucky (or perhaps were confused by society and changing social standards), but to reassert what the traditional standards are in the first place. If even a righteous brahmana like Charudatta married a courtesan like Vasantasena, the latter had to reject all other men and show herself of deserving of such a good man. And of course, as the Valmiki Ramayana explains, even Rama had to show himself worthy of Sita by stringing the divine bow of Shiva.

Finally, one cannot simply point to custom—be it history polygyny among Rajputs or polyandry among Paharis to justify your carnality. The case of polygyny has been explained, and as for the Paharis (some communities among them at least), it’s understandable if skewed gender ratios often result in society adapting to certain circumstances. But that is why the ultimate guide for any society isn’t custom or ritual or tradition, but Dharma (virtue). It is not that custom or ritual or tradition do not matter, only whatever of these might be Dharma in a given circumstance or Yuga, may no longer be when the circumstances change. It is also why Dharma is not rooted in a frozen rna or Rta. Rather, Dharma upholds the moral order Rta which is ultimately the expression of Truth (Satya). That is why truth—rather than a given order—must triumph. This is because it allows us to understand the the reality of a given situation or context, and provide guidance to ensure harmony within it.

We get in life what we deserve. It may be difficult to reconcile traditional morality with divine illimitability (or for that matter, modern degeneracy), but the reality is, it is possible. Just as men have Nara Dharma, there is a Dharma for Naari too. For those who arrogate the right to interpret our sacred texts to justify their unsacred agendas, even if you don’t worship the Divine Feminine, it is important to understand how it drives the internal logic of Dharma. Shakti worship when correctly done, makes women more feminine but also makes men more masculine. By understanding the greatness of the female, a male recognises the need for his own qualities, which then resonate even  more.

Even if a man refuses to believe in “shakti”, the concept reminds Dharmic men that simply because women take on a more delicate and vulnerable form does not give license for physically stronger men to become tyrants. Whatever a particular set of circumstances may demand for harmony, She is his equal half. Shakti is the reminder that if man does not behave properly with Durga, he will get Kaali. But ladies, remember too, that Kaali sits astride the corpse of Shiva. The inauspicious form that Kaali takes does not justify becoming the very selfish and asuric forces Kaali is meant to devour.

Polyamory is not love, but rather, only license to lust. If you wish to degrade yourself in such degenerate definitions as “polyamory”—that is your business. Just don’t compare it with polyandry (which comes with marital duties) or polgyny—and certainly do not call it “Dharma”.

DharmaMandir

References:
  1. Chaturvedi, B.K.Chanakya Neeti.Diamond: New Delhi.2015
  2. Gurumurthy, Swaminathan http://vskkerala.com/society-was-the-source-of-knowledge-for-deendayalji-s-gurumurthy/
  3. Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: Harper. 2006

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *