Love, Lust & Dharma: What Ancient India Really Thought About Relationships
- 17 hours ago
- 9 min read
Turns out our ancestors didn’t swipe right — they had eight official ‘match types’ long before Tinder.
When we talk about marriage today, we imagine a grand wedding — families in control, rituals sealing the deal. But here’s the twist: ancient India was way more flexible (and fun!) about love, lust, sex, and marriage than we think.
The Sanskrit texts — Manu Smṛti, Mahābhārata, Kāmasūtra, Purāṇas — didn’t just “tolerate” arranged marriages. They mapped out eight forms of marriage, live-in partnerships, casual unions, even one-night stands.
And they had a whole vocabulary for each type — some praised, some tolerated, some condemned.
Let's deep dive into Love, Lust & Dharma: What Ancient India Really Thought About Relationships?
The Eight Classic Marriages
Manu Smṛti (3.20–21) lists them:
brāhmaś caiva daivaś cāivārṣaḥ prājāpatyas tathā ।āsuro gāndharvaś caiva rākṣasaḥ paiśācaś ca aṣṭamaḥ ॥
Translation:“The eight forms of marriage are: Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Prājāpatya, Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa, and Paiśāca.”
Four (Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Prājāpatya) = top-tier dharmic.
Three (Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa) = accepted but lower.
One (Paiśāca) = condemned.
Marriage (vivāha) was never just a contract or about belonging to each other. It was and as seen as karmic duty, bond, and responsibility.
Epic Examples Show the Spectrum of Love, Lust & Union
Rāmāyaṇa: Daśaratha had three queens (arranged → Brāhma/Prājāpatya). Rāvaṇa’s Mandodarī was arranged, but his abductions of Sītā/Vedavatī = Rākṣasa.
Mahābhārata: Arjuna had arranged marriages (Chitrāṅgadā) and love elopement (Subhadrā). Bhīma married Hidimbā by consent. Draupadī had polyandry with five Pāṇḍavas — approved, accepted by Vyāsa.
Purāṇas: Śiva married Satī (arranged) and later Pārvatī (arranged with love element).Kṛṣṇa eloped with Rukmiṇī (Rākṣasa in form, Gandharva in spirit), won Satyabhāmā in swayamvara, married Jāmbavatī after battle, and accepted 16,100 wives freed from Narakāsura.
Clearly, multiple marriages, love marriages, even unusual unions were all part of the narrative.
Beyond Marriage: The Other Categories of Unions
Adhivedana: husband remarries if first wife barren/sick (Manu 9.81).
Niyoga: sanctioned levirate for heirs (Gautama Dharmasūtra 18.4–11).
Kāma-saṅga: casual, consensual passion (Kāmasūtra 2.1–2.9).
Vyabhicāra: adultery defined as trespass/manipulation, exploitation, coercive, non-consensual, not all love outside rituals. Here’s the nuance — adultery in Dharmaśāstra wasn’t about “sex outside marriage.” It was trespassing into another person’s marriage or union or relationship or their rights, it was about manipulation, seduction. It was about being a sex-addict or nymphomaniac. It was about harbouring bad intentions for physical or psychological manipulation, coercion or deceit. The term Vyabhicāra is also used for the one greedy for money, or authority or power or resources and when one uses physical or psychological manipulation, coercion or deceit.
Manu 8.352:
paradāra-abhimarśas tu sarva eva vivarjitaḥ ।mānasaḥ sparśa-saṃbhāṣā gamanaṃ cāpi pañcamaḥ ॥
“Approach to another man’s wife is forbidden in thought, touch, speech, messages, and union.”
Stricter than your WhatsApp privacy settings!
What About Hell? (Raurava & Tāmisra Narakas)
Bhāgavata Purāṇa (5.26.6–7): adulterers fall into Raurava Naraka.
Garuḍa Purāṇa (Pretakhaṇḍa 5.49–50): para-strī-saṅga (taking another’s wife) → torment.
Garuḍa Purāṇa (2.40.11–13): deceitful sexual conduct → Andha-Tāmisra Naraka.
But here’s the nuance: these are aimed at non-consensual, exploitative or deceitful sex or rape or sexual harassment. A consensual Gandharva Sanga/Union/Marriage wasn’t classed as hell-worthy. Many commentators read the narakas as psychological states or Vrittis — guilt, betrayal, social ruin — not literal fire pits.
Table: Modern vs Ancient Categories
Modern Category | Ancient Equivalent | How Texts Saw It | Epic Example |
Arranged marriage | Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Prājāpatya | Legitimate, Highly Praised | Daśaratha’s queens |
Love marriage | Gāndharva-vivāha | Legitimate, passion-driven | Arjuna–Subhadrā |
Extra-marital (long-term, sincere) | Gandharva in spirit | Legitimate if stable | Śantanu–Satyavatī |
Extra-marital (short fling) | Kāma-saṅga | Recognized, tolerated, accepted | Kṛṣṇa–Gopīs |
Extra-marital (Cheating, manipulative) | Vyabhicāra | Condemned | Indra–Ahalyā |
One-night-stand | Kāma-saṅga | Accepted in Kāmasūtra | Menakā–Viśvāmitra |
Live-in (stable, long-term) | Gandharva-saṅga | Like Gandharva, no ritual | Śiva–Pārvatī |
Live-in (romantic, fair, short-term) | Kāma-saṅga | Passionate, transparent | Urvāśī–Purūravas (Ṛgveda 10.95) |
Live-in (exploitative) | Vyabhicāra | Condemned | Indra–Ahalyā |
Polygyny | Adhivedana/Rājadharma | Accepted for kings | Daśaratha, Kṛṣṇa |
Widow surrogacy | Niyoga | Approved | Vyāsa & Ambikā/Ambālikā |
Case Studies of Love, Lust & Union in Short
Śantanu & Satyavatī (Mahābhārata Ādi 100.22):
satya-vatīṃ mahīpālo dṛṣṭvā rūpeṇa bhūṣitām ।Śantanu, already married, passionately wed Satyavatī. → Gandharva in spirit.
Kṛṣṇa & the Gopīs (Bhāgavata 10.29.4):
tāḥ śrutvā veṇu-nādaṃ te kṛṣṇasyākṣiptabhāvanāḥ ।The rāsa-līlā = kāma-saṅga in social terms, divine play in theology.
Menakā & Viśvāmitra (Mahābhārata Ādi 71.33):Indra sent Menakā to seduce the sage. Brief passion, daughter Śakuntalā born. → one-night kāma-saṅga.
Indra & Ahalyā (Rāmāyaṇa Bāla 48.17):Indra disguised as her husband. Deception → vyabhicāra, punished by curse.
Similarities
Plurality of models: Just as modern society recognizes many relationship forms (arranged, love, casual, long-term, live-in), ancient India had eight vivāhas, niyoga, adhivedana, and kāma-saṅga.
Centrality of consent: Gandharva-vivāha and kāma-saṅga both recognize mutual choice, just as modern love marriage or live-ins do.
Polygyny & flexibility: Multiple simultaneous unions were socially accepted for rulers, much like modern acceptance of serial marriages or blended families.
Contrasts
Ritual vs. non-ritual: Ancient categories insisted that marriage = dharmic validity; non-marital unions were tolerated but not praised. Modern societies often value love and companionship over ritual sanction.
Social stability vs. personal freedom: Dharmaśāstra prioritized varna order, inheritance, and ritual continuity; modern frameworks prioritize individual happiness and compatibility.
Vyabhicāra’s scope: In Dharmaśāstra, adultery was about trespass (another’s spouse, non-consensual, coercion, manipulation), not simply “sex outside arranged marriage.” Today, “adultery” is primarily about breaking exclusivity agreements.
A Note for the “One-and-Only” Preachers
Monogamy isn’t a medal if your partner is miserable. Ancient India never said “stick to one person and torture them for life.” Dharma was about balance, care, and responsibility — not ownership. So if you brag “I belong to one and only one” but spend your days gaslighting, neglecting, or making marriage a jail cell, that’s not virtue, that’s adharma in designer packaging. The Shāstras saw union as service and growth, not a hostage situation. Remember: being a good, authentic, genuine partner counts more than being a single partner.
A Note for the Players
Let’s get this straight: the ancients weren’t giving a free pass to flings without responsibility. When you twist Gandharva-vivāha into an excuse for ghosting, gaslighting, or hopping partner to partner, that’s not love, that’s straight-up Vyabhicāra. And the texts were brutal on that — not just Raurava Naraka brutal, but socially, karmically, spiritually condemned. The Shāstras respected passion with honesty and commitment; they condemned passion used as manipulation. So if you’re only hunting for Sanskrit labels to sugarcoat bad behavior, sorry — you don’t get “epic romance” points, you get the “Indra fooling Ahalyā” award. And trust me, that’s not a flex.
A Note for the “Live-in is Western” Crowd
Let’s bust a myth: live-ins aren’t imported from the West — they’re as Indian as the Gāndharvas. Ancient texts openly spoke of Gāndharva-vivāha (love by consent) and even taught intimacy as an art in universities through the Kāmasūtra. Yes, the art of love was once curriculum, not taboo. So before dismissing live-ins as “against Indian culture,” ask: do you want young adults to learn about relationships from mindful live-ins… or from sketchy porn hubs at 2 a.m.? Because pretending intimacy doesn’t exist doesn’t protect society — it only pushes people into wrong marriages, broken bonds, or secret extra-maritals. Our ancestors taught skills in love; and if we are not teaching them then let them explore, understand and learn by living-in together before getting into a legal bond of marriage.
So, What’s the Takeaway Today?
Ancient India wasn’t prudish. It allowed arranged marriages, love marriages, different types of unions, polygyny, even widow surrogacy.
Intention > ritual. Was the union sincere? Transparent? Or manipulative? That’s how dharma judged it.
Modern parallels exist. Live-in = Gandharva in spirit. One-night stand = Kāma-saṅga. Cheating/manipulation = Vyabhicāra. Don't forget forcing someone to marry or to stay married is Vyabhicāra too.
Stigma is new. Divorce, remarriage, and multiple marriages weren’t alien; they were handled within dharmic frameworks and were accepted in one's lifetime.
So the next time someone says “live-in is un-Indian” or “extra-marital = sin,” you can tell them:
“Actually, the Sanskrit texts had a whole menu card for relationships. The real question isn’t ritual/legality — it’s dharma, intention, and consent.”
Jai Shivay,
Prakriti
References
Patrick Olivelle (trans.), Manu’s Code of Law (OUP, 2005)
Olivelle, Yājñavalkya Smṛti (MLBD, 2019)
Olivelle, Dharmasūtras (MLBD, 2000)
Bibek Debroy (trans.), The Mahābhārata (Penguin, 2010)
Śrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa (MLBD ed., 2016)
Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa (Critical Edition, Baroda, 1960)
Garuḍa Purāṇa, Pretakhaṇḍa (various editions)
Sir Richard Burton & F. F. Arbuthnot (1883) - The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana.
Here’s a comparative table showing Vyabhichāra (व्यभिचार) "usage/meaning" across different contexts with the closest English equivalents:
Context | Meaning in Sanskrit Usage | Closest English Equivalents |
Vedic / Ritual | Deviation from prescribed rule or sacred injunction | Deviation, Nonconformity, Aberration |
Dharmaśāstra (Law / Ethics) | Sexual misconduct, especially adultery; breach of duty or morality | Adultery, Infidelity, Transgression, Corruption, Moral lapse |
Nyāya & Vedānta (Logic / Philosophy) | Inference error; when a reason (hetu) fails to pervade the conclusion (hetu-vyabhichāra) | Fallacy, Invalidity, Incongruence, Logical defect |
Alaṅkāra Śāstra (Aesthetics / Drama) | Temporary, fluctuating emotions that support the dominant mood (vyabhichārī-bhāva) | Transitory emotion, Auxiliary feeling, Subsidiary affection |
General Sense | Going astray, deviating from the norm or truth | Deviation, Aberration, Defection, Going astray |
Yoga Sutras | That which creates Klishta (Bad) Sanskaras and Vrittis | Driven by sick, bad, Adharmic psychological patterns |
Key Insight:
In ethical/dharmic texts, it leans toward moral/dharmic corruption / adultery.
In logic, it is purely technical (fallacy, incongruence).
In aesthetics, it softens to transitory supporting emotions.
In general speech, it means straying, wandering off, deviating.
Examples of Different Marriage/Union Types in Epics and Purāṇas
Rāmāyaṇa
Daśaratha (father of Rāma)
Had three principal wives (Kausalyā, Kaikeyī, Sumitrā).
This is a case of polygyny through arranged marriages (Brāhma/Prājāpatya).
Rāvaṇa
His chief queen was Mandodarī, but he had many wives and concubines.
Some marriages like Mandodarī were arranged royal alliances, but others (like attempts to forcefully take women, e.g., Vedavatī, Sītā) were Rākṣasa-style / abduction.
Mahābhārata
Pāṇḍu
Married Kuntī (arranged by Kuntibhoja) and Mādrī (arranged through the Madra king) → both arranged marriages.
Arjuna
Married Subhadrā through gāndharva-vivāha (mutual consent, elopement).
Married Ulūpī (Nāga princess) through gāndharva as well.
Married Chitrāṅgadā (princess of Maṇipura) by arrangement with her father.
Thus, Arjuna alone had arranged + love marriages in the same lifetime.
Bhīma
Married Hidimbā (a rakṣasī) by mutual consent (gāndharva).
Married Draupadī by swayamvara (technically arranged/choice-based).
Married Vālin’s daughter in other narrations.
Draupadī
Had a unique polyandrous marriage to the five Pāṇḍavas. Considered acceptable by Vyāsa as a karmic destiny.
Other Puranic Examples
Śiva
Married Satī (Dakṣa’s daughter, arranged) and later Pārvatī (Himavat’s daughter, arranged with love element).
Shows remarriage after widowhood.
Kṛṣṇa
Married Rukmiṇī by rākṣasa-vivāha (he abducted her against her brother’s will but with her consent).
Married Satyabhāmā through swayamvara.
Married Jāmbavatī after a war (daiva/arranged).
Had 16,100 wives liberated from Narakāsura (seen as asura-like arranged marriages).
Thus, Krishna embodies all types: arranged, love, abduction, and mass polygyny.
Śantanu (father of Bhīṣma)
Married Gaṅgā (gāndharva/consent).
Later married Satyavatī (fisherwoman) through arranged marriage with conditions.
Vedic Mentions
The Ṛgveda (10.85) mentions marriages (Sūryā’s wedding hymn) that show arranged alliances.
The Ṛgveda (10.18.8) acknowledges widow remarriage (niyoga → levirate).
Many hymns (esp. Ṛgveda 10.40, 10.85) describe unions that resemble both arranged and love marriages.
Smṛti / Śāstra Verses Allowing Multiple Marriages/Unions
Manu Smṛti
“brāhmaś caiva daivaś cāivārṣaḥ prājāpatyas tathā… aṣṭau vivāhāḥ” (3.20–21) - Recognition of eight valid marriage forms implies that all coexisted and a man could contract more than one in his life.
“eka eva tu jāyate dharmapatnī tu brāhmaṇaḥ” (Manu 9.45) - Says a Brāhmaṇa ideally should have one wife, but kings/Kṣatriyas were exceptions.
Yājñavalkya Smṛti (1.63, 1.68)
Explicitly allows kings to have multiple wives, especially for political alliances.
Mahābhārata (Ādi Parva 95.70, Śānti Parva 144)
Declares: “a king may have many wives, but the householder should ideally be monogamous.”
However, many heroes (Arjuna, Krishna, etc.) had multiple marriages without censure.
Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.5.11)
Recognizes all 8 marriages, but prioritizes the first four. No injunction forbids multiple marriages; rather, they are contextual.
Gautama Dharmasūtra (18.1–3)
Allows second marriage if the first wife is barren, diseased, or hostile to dharma.
Kāmaśāstra / Nīti texts (Kāmasūtra 1.5.1–6)
Advises kings and nobles on maintaining multiple wives/consorts (including love marriages).
Synthesis
Itihāsa-Purāṇa heroes (Arjuna, Krishna, Bhīma, Śantanu, Śiva) show multiple marriage/union types within one life — arranged, love (gāndharva), abduction (rākṣasa), symbolic (ārṣa), etc.
Smṛti & Dharmasūtra tradition does not forbid multiple marriages/unions. Instead:
Praises monogamy as ideal (esp. Brāhmaṇa gṛhastha).
Permits polygyny for kings, nobles, and in special conditions.
Recognizes all 8 marriage types, meaning coexistence was socially real.
Summary:
Ancient Indian society (as seen in Vedas, Epics, Smṛtis) permitted multiple marriages/unions — often of different types within the same lifetime. Dharmaśāstras recognize 8 marriage forms and allow polygyny in practice, especially for kings. Epics give numerous examples (Arjuna, Krishna, Śantanu, Daśaratha) where arranged + love + abduction marriages coexisted without being seen as contradictions.
Comments