CHAPTER IX MARRIAGE
This is the most {{inportant|important}} of all {{samskāres|samskāras}}. Throughout the ages for which literary tradition is available in India marriage has been highly thought of. The several words that are employed to denote the idea of marriage indicate one or more of the elements of the {{samskāra|samskāra}} of marriage. Such words are udvāha ( taking the girl out of her parental home ), vivāha ( taking the girl away in a special way or for a special purpose i. e. for making her one’s wife ), pariṇaya or pariṇayana (going round i. e. making a pradakṣiṇā to fire), upayama (to bring near and make one’s own), and {{panigrahana|pāṇigrahaṇa}} ( taking the hand of the girl). Though these words express only one component element of the rite of marriage they are all used in the {{sāstras|śāstras}}1 to indicate the totality of the several acts that go to make up the ceremony of marriage. The word ‘vivāha’ occurs in the Tai. S. VII. 2. 87 and Ait. Br. (27.5). In the {{Tāṇdya|Tāṇḍya}}2 {{Mahābrābmaṇa|Mahābrāhmaṇa}} VII. 10.1 it is said that “heaven and earth were once together but they became separate ‘; then they said let us bring about a marriage, let there be a {{co-ope ration|co-operation}} between us’.”
Before dwelling upon the various aspects of marriage, the question, whether our authorities point to a state of society when there was no institution of marriage, but there was only {{promisouity|promiscuity}}, requires to be considered. The Vedic works contain no indications about a society in which the relations of the sexes were promiscuous and unregulated. In the {{Mabā. bhārata|Mahābhārata}},3 however, Pāṇḍu is made to state to his queen Kuntī that women in former ages were under no control, indulged themselves as they liked and that they left off one man and went after another, that this state of things continued to his (Pāṇḍu’s ) day in the country of Uttara Kuru, that it was {{Śretaketu|Śvetaketu}}, son of Uddālaka, who for the first time stopped all this license and laid down the rule that if a woman proved false to her husband or if a husband was false to a chaste wife, very grave sin would be incurred. In the Sabhāparva (31. 37-38 ) it is said that through the favour of Agni women in {{Mābiṇmati|Māhiṣmatī}} did what they liked and could not be restrained. These passages cannot be relied upon for proving {{promisouity|promiscuity}} of intercourse. In the first place, the country of Uttara Kuru is more or less mythical. This passage rather gives expression to what the poet imagined about remotest ages and not what he knew was the real state of society thousands of years before him. The theory of an original state of promiscuity once advanced by {{Reveral|several}} sociologists has now ceased to be respectable (vide Mrs. M. Cole in ‘Marriage, past and present’ p. 10). []
Marriage-Purposes of
The purpose of marriage, even according to the Ṛgveda, was to enable a man, by becoming a householder, to perform sacrifices to the gods and to procreate {{song|sons}}. The verse in Ṛg. X. 85. 36 shows that the husband took a woman as a wife for ‘{{gārbapatya|gārhapatya}}’. Ṛg. V. 3. 2., V. 28. 3 speak of the co-operation of husband and wife in the worship of gods. Ṛg. III. 53, 4 contains the emphatic assertion ’the wife herself is the home’ ({{jāyed-astam|jāyed astam}}). In later literature also the same statement occurs. A wife was called “jāyā’, because the husband was born in the wife as a son (Ait. Br. 33. 1). The Śat. Br. V. 2. 1. 10 says ’the wife {{ons|is}} indeed half of one’s self; therefore as long as a man does not secure a wife so long he does not beget a son and so he is till then not complete (or whole); but when he secures a wife he gets progeny and then he becomes complete’.4 {{Tho|The}} Ait. Ār. (I. 2. 4 ) says ’therefore a man, after securing a wife, regards himself as more complete’. When Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 12 forbids taking a second wife if the first is endowed with progeny and the performance of religious rites, it indicates that the main purposes of marriage are two,5 viz. the wife enables a man to perform religious rites and is the mother of a son or sons who were supposed to save a man from hell. Manu (IX. 28 ) states that on the wife depend the procreation of sons, the performance of religious rites, service, highest pleasure, heaven for oneself and for one’s ancestors. So these three viz, {{dharnasampatti|dharmasampatti}}, prajā (and consequent freedom from falling into hell ) and {{ruti|rati}} (sexual and other pleasures) are the principal purposes of marriage according to the smṛtis and {{niba ndbas|nibandhas}}. Yāj. I. 78 is to the same effect. Jaimini (VI. 1. 17 ff) establishes that husband and wife have to perform {{saorifices|sacrifices}} together and not separately and Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 16-17 emphatically says that there can be no separation between husband and wife, for since marriage they have to perform religious acts jointly.6
Marriage is a composite rite comprising several subordinate elements which have to be done in a certain order and the last of which is seeing the constellation of the seven sages; it (rite ) brings about the status of a woman as a person’s wife.7 []
Choosing a Bridegroom
The first consideration is : how to choose a bridegroom and what qualifications make a person a very desirable bridegroom, {{Agy. gṛ.|Āśv. gṛ.}} (I. 5. 2) says ‘one should give a maiden’8 (in marriage ) to a man endowed with intelligence’. The Āp. gṛ. (3.20 ) remarks “the accomplishments of a bridegroom are that he must be endowed with good family, a good character, auspicious characteristics, learning and good health”. Baud. Dh. S. IV. 1.12 states ‘a maiden should be given in marriage to one who is endowed with good qualities and who is a {{colibate|celibate}} (till then)’. Even the Śakuntalā (IV) echoes the words of Baudhāyana ’the best idea is to give one’s daughter to a man endowed with good qualities’. {{Yanna|Yama}} quoted in the Sm. C. (I. p. 78) says ‘one should seek for seven qualities in a bridegroom viz. good family, good character, bodily appearance, fame, learning, wealth and support (of relatives and friends ); the other matters need not be considered’. {{Bphat-parāśara|Bṛhat-parāśara}} (p. 118 Jīv. ed.) enumerates eight qualities in a bridegroom viz. {{oaste|caste}}, learning, youth, strength, health, support of many (friends &c.), {{ambi. tions|ambitions}} ( arthitva ), and possession of wealth.
Marriage and good family
Aśv. gṛ. (I. 5. 1) and others place kula (a good family ) in the forefront in the case of both the bride and the bridegroom.9 ‘One should first examine the family ( of the intended bride or bridegroom ) as it has been said above (in the Āśv. Śrauta sūtra IX. 3).’ The Āśv. Śrauta reads ’those who on their mother’s as well as their father’s side through ten {{generations|genera-tions}} are endowed with learning, austerity and meritorious works or whose pure {{brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa}} lineage can be traced on both sides (for ten {{gonera. tions|genera-tions}}) or according to some on the father’s side.’ Manu regarded a good family as the most important from the eugenic point of view. In IV. 244 he says ‘one who desires to raise his family to excellence and eminence should always enter into marriage alliances with the best and avoid alliance with the low’; and adds (III. 6-7) that ten kinds of families even though richly endowed with cattle, wealth &c, should be avoided in marriage viz, in which the samskāras are not performed, in which there is no male progeny, which are devoid of Veda (study), which have hairy members, that suffer from piles or consumption or indigestion or epilepsy, white or black leprosy. Manu ( III. 63-65 ) explains under what circumstances good families are reduced to a bad state. Hārita states that the offspring is in accordance with the (qualities of the) family of the parents. The {{Hargacarita|Harṣacarita}} ( IV) gives expression to the view that generally the wise look to good family first even though there may be other qualities in the bridegroom. Manu II. 238, however, allows a man to marry a girl even from an inferior or bad family provided she is a jewel among women. []
Yāj. (I. 54-55 ) emphasizes the importance of a good family famed for ten generations and freedom from diseases that are hereditarily transmitted and adds that the bride groom must be young, intelligent, a favourite among the people and his virility must be carefully tested. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 55 quotes Nārada ({{stripumsa|strīpuṁsa}}) who mentions some characteristics of the virile man and enumerates fourteen varieties of impotent persons ( verses 11-13). Kātyāyana10 mentions what defective bridegrooms are to be avoided viz. the lunatic, one guilty of grave sins, leprous, impotent, one of the same gotra, one bereft of eyesight or hearing, an epileptic and adds that these defects are to be avoided even among brides. The Mahābhārata observes ‘friendship and marriage should take place between those alone whose wealth is similar and whose learning (i, e. the learning in whose families) is of equal status, not between opulent (well-off) and the poverty-stricken’.11 []
Though Manu and Yāj. indicate that impotent persons are not eligible for marriage, yet such persons rarely {{unmarried|unmarried}}. Their marriages were held valid by Manu, Yāj. and others and their sons (by niyoga) took property as if they were aurasa sons. Vide Manu IX. 203 and Yāj. II. 141-142.
The Saṁskāraprakāśa (pp. 752-754 ) contains a long discussion on the question how from bodily characteristics one can find whether a man will live long or what his prospects would be. These are passed over for want of space.
Selection of the Bride
Rules for the selection of the bride are far more elaborate than those for selecting a bridegroom, though in some respects they are the same (such as about the necessity of good family, about the absence of diseases &c.). Vide Vas I. 38, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 11, Kāmasūtra III. 1. 2.12 Even the Śat. Br. (I. 2. 5. 16 ) gives expression to the then view that broad hips and slender waists make women attractive. {{Āýv. gr.|Āśv. gṛ.}} I. 5. 3 says13 ‘one should marry a girl who is endowed with intelligence, beauty, a good character and auspicious {{characteristios|characteristics}} and who is healthy’. Śān. gṛ. I. 5. 6 and Manu III. 4 and Yāj. I. 52 also require that the girl should be possessed of auspicious {{characteristios|characteristics}} (or indications). These (lakṣaṇas) are of two kinds, bāhya ( visible or bodily characteristics ) and {{ābbyantara|ābhyantara}} (invisible). Āp. gṛ.14 (III. 21 ) states a commonsense rule: ‘a girl on whom his mind and eyes are riveted will bring him happiness (or prosperity ), he should pay no heed to other things; this is the view of some’. The Kāmasūtra quotes the view of Ghoṭakamukha ‘he should proceed to marry a girl on taking whom as his wife he would regard himself as blessed and would not be blamed by his friends (or persons in a similar station in life )15 Manu III. 8 and 10, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 12-16 say that one should not marry a girl having tawny hair or having an excessive limb (such as a sixth finger) or a deficient limb, who is {{bairless|hairless}} or very hairy, who is talkative and has yellowish eyes; but should marry a girl who has limbs void of any defect, {{whoso|whose}} gait is like that of a swan or an elephant, the hair on whose head or body is of slight growth and whose teeth are small, whose body is delicate. The Viṣṇu-purāṇa ( III. 10. 18-22 ) adds that the girl must not have a marked growth of hair on her chin or lip, her voice must not be hoarse or like that of a crow; her legs and ankles must not be very hairy, there should be no dimples on her cheeks when she laughs, she should not be very dwarfish or very tall &c. Manu III. 9 and {{Ap. gp.|Āp. gṛ.}} (III. 13 ) say that the girl to be married must not bear names of the lunar mansions ( such as Revatī, Ārdrā &c.), trees or rivers, she must not bear a mleccha name or that [] of a mountain, of a bird, of a snake or of a slave or a name that is terrific.
Choosing a Bride
Āp. gṛ. (III. 14 ) and Kāmasūtra III, 1. 13 mention that a girl should not be chosen, the penultimate letter of whose name is r or l (such as Gaurī, Śāli, Kamalā). Nārada16 ( {{strl pumseyoga|strīpuṁsayoga}} 36 ) says that defects of girls are as follows:when they suffer from long-standing or disgusting diseases, when they are devoid of a limb or have already had connection with another man, when they are wicked or have their minds fixed on another; and Āp. gṛ. (III. 11-12 ) states other defects of girls viz, one should not choose a girl who is asleep or weeps or has left the house when persons come to see whether she can be chosen. Vide Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa 34. 76-77 for guṇas and defects of girls as ‘brides’.
{{Bhār.gf.|Bhār. gṛ.}} I. 11 says that there are four inducing reasons17 for marrying a particular girl viz. wealth, beauty, intelligence and family. If all four cannot be secured, wealth may be neglected (as the least important of all ); then beauty may be neglected if there is intelligence and good family, but there is a difference of view as to the latter two, some preferring intelligence to family and others family to intelligence. Mānava gṛ. (I. 7.6–7) adds a fifth inducement for marriage, viz. vidyā (learning) after beauty and before prajñā. Vide also Vārāha gṛ. 10.
Some of the {{gļhyasūtras|gṛhyasūtras}} propose a peculiar mystical method of selecting a bride. The Āśv. gṛ. (I. 5. 3) after stating that one should select a girl endowed with good characteristics (lakṣaṇas ) proceeds ’lakṣaṇas are very difficult to discern and therefore prescribes (I. 5.5-6) that eight lumps of different kinds of earth should be taken respectively from a field that yields two crops a year, from a cow-stable, from a {{vedl|vedi}} ( {{sacrifi cial|sacrifi-cial}} altar, after sacrifice is performed), from a pool of water that does not dry up, from a gambling place, from a place where four roads meet, from a barren ‘spot, and from a burial ground; then he should recite over the lumps the formula’ {{ṛta|ṛta}} (right) has been born first in the beginning; truth is founded ( or fixed) in {{ṛta|ṛta}}; may this girl attain here that for which she is born; may what is true be visible;’ then he says to the girl ’take one of these’. According as she chooses the lump, it may respectively be deemed that she will have offspring rich in food (if she chooses the lump of the earth taken from the field of two crops a year &c. ), or rich in cattle, or rich in spiritual lustre or rich in everything, or addicted to gambling, or wandering in different directions or poor, or that she will bring death to her husband ( if she takes the lump of the earth from the burial ground). The Gobhila gṛ. II. 1. 4-9 speaks of these lumps and adds that a ninth lump may be formed by mixing up the earths of all eight varieties and that if she takes up any one of the four lumps of earth from an altar, furrow, a pool or a cow-stable or (according to some ) the ninth lump, she may be selected. The Laugākṣi gṛ. 14. 4-7 contains the same rules as in Gobhila. Āp. gṛ.18 (III. 15-18) prescribes a somewhat different method. []
If both sides agree, the bridegroom (or his friends) should place in one lump of earth several kinds of seeds (such as rice, barley &c.); he should take (a lump having in it) the dust from an altar, a third having a clod from a ploughed field, a lump having cowdung inside and (a fifth having) a clod of earth from a cemetery and keeping them before the girl ask her to touch one of them (the five ). If she touches any one of the first four, that is an indication of future prosperity (of the nature of the object touched ), but the last ( viz. clod of earth from cemetery ) is objectionable. The Vārāha gṛ. 10 and Bhār, gṛ. I. 11 speak of only four lumps of earth viz. from a field, from an altar, from a cow-stable, and from a cemetery and say that one should not marry a girl who takes up the lump of cemetery earth. Mānava gṛ. (I. 7. 9-10) speaks of eight lumps but substitutes a lump of earth where dūrvā grows and a lump from under a tree filled with fruit for earth from a pool of water and one from a gambling place and adds that the eight lumps should be placed in a temple and if the girl takes up the lump from a cemetery or from a barren spot or from where four roads meet she should not be married. Many digests like the Gṛ. R. (pp. 13-22) contain long quotations which dilate upon the indications about the auspiciousness or otherwise of girls from their several physical features. []
Gaut. IV. 1, Vas. 8. 1, Mānava gṛ. I. 7.8, Yāj. I. 52 and several others say that the girl must be younger ( yavīyasī ) than the bridegroom and the Kāmasūtra ( III. 1. 2) recommends that she must be younger than the bridegroom by at least three years. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 52 explains ‘yavīyasī’ as meaning ‘younger in age and smaller in stature’ (than the bridegroom). What the age of marriage was will be discussed a little below.
Gaut. IV. 1,19 {{Vag.|Vas.}} 8, 1, Yāj. I. 52, Manu (III. 4 and 12) and others say that one should marry only a girl who is a virgin and of the same caste. How far widow-marriages and intercaste marriages were allowed would be discussed later on.
The Mānava gṛ. I. 7.8, Manu III. 11 and Yāj. I. 53 require that the girl to be chosen must not be brotherless. This requirement which has been not in force for centuries has a long history behind it. In Ṛg. I. 124, 7 it is said20 ‘as a brotherless maiden {{compos|comes}} back towards her male relations (her father’s family)…so the dawn reveals objects (or {{ber|her}} beauty ).’ In the Atharvaveda I. 17.1 {{wo|we}} read ’like brotherless women let them sit still with their splendour gone. Both these passages are quoted and explained in the Nirukta III. 4-5. In ancient times when a man had no son, he could make his daughter do for a son (i. e. she herself became {{putrikā|putrikā}}) and stipulate with the person marrying her that the son born of her would be his ( i. e, the girl’s father’s ) son and would offer piṇḍas as a son to his maternal grandfather. The result would be that the son of such a girl would not offer piṇḍas to his father and would not continue the line of his father. Ṛg. III. 31. 1 (a very obscure and difficult verse ) has been explained by the Nirukta ( III. 4) as referring to the practice of declaring a daughter to be one’s son21. []
Therefore, brotherless maidens were not chosen as brides and the Ṛg. speaks of spinsters growing old in their parental home ( Ṛg. II. 17, 7). Vas. Dh. S. 17. 1622 refers to Ṛg. I. 124, 7 and quotes a verse about a brotherless girl. Such a daughter at whose marriage the father made the stipulation stated above was called putrikā and according to Gaut. 28. 17 some23 teachers went so far as to say that a daughter became a putrikā by the mental resolve of the father alone ( without there being an express agreement with the bridegroom ). It is therefore that Manu (3. 11 ) ordains that one should not marry a girl that has no brother, as there is the danger of her being a putrikā, The Nirukta (III. 5) quotes another24 Vedic passage *one should not marry a brotherless woman, for she becomes the son of him (her father)’ and remarks that in this passage there is a direct prohibition against marrying a brotherless maiden ( while in the passage of the Atharvaveda it is indirect, being involved in a simile) and it is also expressly said that she becomes the son of her father. In medieval times this prohibition against marrying a brotherless girl gradually was ignored and in modern times the pendulum has swung the other way, a brotherless girl being a coveted prize if her father be rich. In course of time popular feeling changed and no girl could remain unmarried if she wanted heavenly worlds. There is an interesting story in the Śalyaparva chap. 52 of the daughter of Kuṇigarga who, when told by Nārada that an unmarried woman could not secure heaven, married for one day {{Sșogavat|Śṛṅgavat}} and then went to heaven.
There are further restrictions about choosing a girl for marriage. The rule was that a man should marry a girl of the same caste. So far there is what is called endogamy (i. e, rule requiring marriage within a certain large community ). But within this large community there were certain groups which were prohibited for marriage to a person belonging to another group of the same caste or community ( i. e. the principle of exogamy operated within the large community itself). The Hir. gṛ. I. 19. 2, Gobhila gṛ. III. 4. 4, Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 15 require that the bride to be chosen must not belong to the same gotra as that of the bridegroom. They are all silent about the sameness of pravara. Gaut. IV. 2., Vas. Dh. S. VIII. 1, Mānava [] gṛ. I. 7.8, Vārāha gṛ. 9, Śaṅkha25 Dh. S. forbid marriage with a girl whose pravara ( or ārṣeya ) is the same as that of the bridegroom; but they say nothing about the prohibition against the sameness of gotra. It is somewhat remarkable that some of the gṛhyasūtras like Āśv. and Pār. say not a word about sameness of gotra and pravara. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 9, Vaik. III. 2. Yāj. I. 53, Nārada ({{stripuṁsa|strīpuṁsa}}, verse 7), Vedavyāsa II. 2 and many others {{probibit|prohibit}} sameness of gotra as well as of pravara, Gobhila gṛ. III. 4. 5, Manu III, 5, Vaik. III. 2 and Āp. Dh. S. II. 5, 11, 16 require that the bride must not be a sapiṇḍa or blood relation of the mother of the bridegroom; while Gaut. IV. 2, Vas. VIII. 2, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 10, Vārāha gṛ. 9, Śaṅkha Dh. ( quoted above ), Yāj. I. 53 and others restrict the {{prohibi tion|prohibition}} against marrying a sapiṇḍa girl to seven degrees on the father’s side and five degrees on the mother’s side. There were others like the Vedavyāsa-smṛti which not only prohibited marriage with a girl who had the same gotra as the bridegroom’s, but prohibited marriage with a girl whose mother’s gotra was the same as the bridegroom’s.
All these prohibitions against marrying a sagotra, sapravara or {{sapinga|sapiṇḍa}} girl are extremely important, as the following considerations will show. It is a canon of the {{Pūrvamināmsā|Pūrvamīmāṁsā}} that if there is a seen ( dṛṣṭa ) or easily perceptible reason for a rule stated in the sacred texts, it is only recommendatory and a breach of such a rule does not nullify the {{prinoipal|principal}} act. But if there is an unseen (adṛṣṭa ) reason for a rule and there is a breach of such rule, the principal act itself is rendered invalid and nugatory thereby. The rule about not marrying a woman who is {{disessed|diseased}} or who has superfluous or deficient limbs has a seen reason viz, marriage with such a girl causes unhappiness ( if she is diseased) or comment ( if she has deficient limbs). Therefore, if a person marries such a girl the marriage is perfectly valid. But there is no seen or easily perceptible reason for the prohibition against marrying a sagotra or sapravara girl. Therefore, such rules go to the root of the matter and are obligatory and, if there is a breach of them, the marriage is no marriage, it is null and void. So even if a person goes through a ceremony of marriage with a girl who is a sagotra or sapravara or sapiṇḍa ( within prohibited degrees) she does not in law become his wife at all.26 []
Age of Marriage
The question of the age of marriage for men and women will now be considered. This is a very interesting and {{instruotive|instructive}} study. The age of marriage for both sexes has varied considerably from age to age, from province to province and also from caste to caste even at the same time.27 As regards men there is {{po|no}} special rule as to the age before which a man was obliged to marry. A man could remain celibate all his life, while at least in medieval and modern times marriage has been {{abso lutely|abso-lutely}} necessary for {{evory|every}} girl. A man was to marry after he had finished his Vedic studies; but the period of Vedic study was fluctuating (i. e. it could be 12, 24, 36, 48 years or as much time as was necessary to master one Veda or a portion of it). Usually twelve years were devoted to brahmacarya in ancient times and as upanayana ordinarily took place in the 8th year (for brāhmaṇas) a man would ordinarily be 20 years old or more at the time of marriage. It is therefore that Manu (IX. 94) {{romarks|remarks}} that a man of thirty may marry a girl of twelve years or a man of 24 who is in a hurry to become a householder may marry a girl of eight. Basing on this the Viṣṇupurāṇa28 (III. 10. 16 ) says that the ages of the bride and bridegroom should be in the ratio of 1 to 3. Aṅgiras says that the bride should be two, three, five or more years younger. In [] the Mahābhārata29 Gautama is prepared to give his daughter in marriage to Uttaṅka if he could be a youth of 16 years.
Age of Marriage for girls
In another place the Mahābhārata (Sabhā 64. 14 and Vanaparva 5. 15 ) uses the simile of a maiden not liking a husband of 60 years. That shows that girls were sometimes married to even old men of 60 in those days as rarely in modern times also. In the Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana 44. 14) the respective ages of the bridegroom and bride are recommended as 30 and 10 or 21 and 7; while the Udvāhatattva (p. 123) and S. Pr. p. 766 quote a verse from the Mahābhārata that a man of 30 should marry a girl of 16 (but from the metre and context it appears that sodaṣa-varṣām' as printed should be daśa-varṣām`).
In the Ṛgveda there are no clear statements about the exact age when girls were married. But there are indications that many girls were married at a sufficiently mature age (at least they were not married at the tender age of eight). We have already seen (p. 435 ) that brotherless girls often remained unmarried till old age. One of the benevolent deeds30 of the Aśvins is that they bestowed a husband on Ghoṣā who was growing old in her father’s house. Vide also Ṛg. I. 124.7, II. 17. 7, and {{Atharve. veda|Atharvaveda}} I. 17. 1. In Ṛg. X. 27. 12 it is said ‘when a bride is fine looking and well adorned, she by herself seeks her friend from among men. That shows that girls were grown-up enough to select their husbands. Some of the {{verges|verses}} in the marriage hymn (such as {{Rs.|Ṛg.}} X, 85.26-27, 46 ) indicate31 that married girls could not have been child-wives, but must have been grown-up. On the other hand in Ṛg. I. 116. 1 it is said that the Nāsatyas (Aśvins ) bestowed a wife on Vimada who was an arbhaga ( of tender age ).32 But all that is meant seems to be that Vimada was a mere boy as compared with his rival kings who had come as suitors. The two {{vorges|verses}} Ṛg. I. 126. 6-7 ( which are rather too naive ) indicate that girls were married before they had attained puberty. In Ṛg. I. 51. 13 Indra is said to have given to old Kakṣīvat a wife named Vṛcayā who is styled `arbhā’(young).33 But that word is only used in contradistinction to the word ‘mahate’ (grown old ) applied to Kakṣīvat [] and conveys no idea of her exact age. On the whole one may conclude that in the period of the Ṛgveda girls were probably married at any age ( either before puberty or after puberty ) and sometimes remained spinsters all their life. The other Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas do not shed much light on the question of the age of marriage for girls. In the Chān. Up. Uṣasti Cākrāyaṇa is described as dwelling in the Kuru country with his wife, who is said to have been ‘āṭikī’ which Śaṁkara explains as a mere undeveloped girl :34
Coming to the ancient {{gshya|gṛhya}} and dharma sūtras, it will be seen from several considerations that girls were married just before the time of puberty or immediately after it. Among the several requirements of the bride to be chosen several {{gphys|gṛhya}} sūtras lay down that she must be a ’nagnikā’. Vide Hir. gṛ. I. 19. 2, Gobhila gṛ. III. 4. 6, Mānava gṛ. I. 7. 8, Vaik. VI. 12.35 The word nagnikā is variously explained by the commentators. {{Mātṇdatta|Mātṛdatta}} on Hir. gṛ, explains that nagnikā means ‘one whose menstrual period is near’ i. e, one who is fit for intercourse. Aṣṭāvakra, the commentator of the Mānava gṛ., explains nagnikā as ‘one who has not yet experienced the impulses and emotions of youth’ or ‘one who looks pretty even without clothes’ (taking the word along with ‘śreṣṭhām’ that follows). The Gṛhyāsaṁgraha36 ( {{wbich|which}} is much later than the Gobhila gṛ.) explains’ nagnikā’ as one who has not yet reached puberty. These varying explanations of the word ’nagnikā’ are due to the fact that when some {{smftis|smṛtis}} and commentators wrote child marriages were not in vogue, while they were in vogue when and where others flourished. []
Vas. Dh. S. 17. 70 says ’the father should give away his daughter while she is still nagnikā through fear of her attaining puberty ( while unmarried ).’ This shows that, according to Vas, nagnikā must have been a girl of tender years or one that had not attained puberty.
There is another very important indication. Most of the gṛhyasūtras prescribe that the married couple should be celibate for at least three nights after marriage ( if not for a longer period ). For example, the Pār. gṛ. (I. 8 ) says37 the married pair should (after marriage) not partake of kṣāra and lavaṇa for three nights, should sleep on the ground ( and not on a cot, for the same period ) and should not have intercourse for a year, twelve nights, six nights, three nights in the last resort’. Vide for a similar rule Āśv. gṛ. I. 8. 10, Āp. gṛ. 8. 8-9, Śān. gṛ. I. 17. 5, Mānava gṛ. I. 14. 14, Kāṭhaka gṛ. 30. 1, Khādira gṛ. I. 4. 9 and others. Such an injunction against intercourse for three nights after marriage would have been uncalled for and extremely inappropriate if girls had been usually married when they were only eight to ten years old. Such injunctions by so many authors presuppose that girls must have generally been very near puberty or past puberty at the time of marriage. Haradatta who belongs to about the 12th century A. D. expressly says38 that (in his days ) in certain countries intercourse was commenced immediately after marriage and that such a usage being opposed to Āśv. gṛ. I. 8. 10 should not be followed ( but continence should be observed at least for three days after marriage). This shows that so late as 1200 A. D. in several countries the marriageable age of girls must have been at least about 14.
In most of the gṛhyasūtras there is a rite called ‘caturthīkarma’ (rite on 4th day after marriage). Vide Gobhila II. 5, Śān. gṛ. I. 18-19, Khadira gṛ. I. 4. 12-16, Pār. gṛ. I. 11, Āp. gṛ 8. 10-11, Hir. gṛ. I. 23-24 &c. This rite has been described above (pp. 203-204) and corresponds to the garbhādhāna of later writers (e. g. Yāj. I. 11). [] As cohabitation is expressly mentioned in connection with this rite performed on the fourth day after marriage it follows that girls must have generally been quite grown-up at the time of marriage.
In some of the gṛhyasūtras and smṛtis a slight {{prāyascitta|prāyaścitta}} (purificatory ceremony) is prescribed if the bride has menstruation during the progress of the marriage ceremonies. Vide Baud. gṛ. IV. 1. 10, Kauśika sūtra 79. 16, Vaik. VI. 13, Atri ( ed. by Jīv. part I. p. 11 ).
Gautama39 (18. 20-23) says ‘a girl should be given in marriage before she attains the age of puberty. He who {{begleots|neglects}} it commits sin. Some declare that she should be given in marriage before she begins to wear clothes. A marriageable girl (who is not given in marriage by her father &c.) should allow three monthly periods to pass and afterwards unite herself to a blameless man of her own will and give up the ornaments received from her father (or her family)’. This passage establishes that even before Gautama (i. e. 500 or 600 B. C.) there were people who advocated marriages of infant girls that did not care to put on clothes (i. e. who had no sense of shame if they went about without clothes ), that Gautama disapproved of this view, that he only prescribed that the marriage of girls should take place before puberty and he was not horrified if girls got themselves married sometime after puberty. But it is clear that no blame attached to the girl married after puberty or to the husband; the idea, however, had arisen even then that the father or guardian incurred blame or sin by not getting a girl married before puberty. Manu (IX. 89-90) goes so far as to say “A maiden may rather stay in her father’s house even till her death, though she may have attained puberty ; but the father should never give her to one who is devoid of good qualities. A maiden after attaining puberty may wait for three years ( to see if she is given away by her father or brother &c.) but after this period she should seek a husband who is similar to her.’ Anuśāsanaparva 44. 16 is to the same effect. Baud. Dh. S. IV. 1. 14 and Vas. V. Dh. S. 17. 67-68 give the same rule as in Manu IX. 90.
But both add ( Vas. 17,70-71 and Baud. Dh. S. IV.1.12) that the father or guardian incurs the sin of destroying an embryo at each appearance of menses as long as the girl is unmarried. Yāj I. 64 and Nārada (strīpuṁsa, verses 25-27) state the same rule.
On account of this change in popular beliefs and {{senti: ments|senti-ments}} it came to be recommended that a girl must be married early and may be given even to one40 who is devoid of qualities (in spite of Manu IX 89 ). Vide Baud. Dh. S. IV, 1.12 and 15.
So we see that from about 600 B, C. to about the beginning of the {{Christian Ere|Christian Era}} it did not matter at all if a girl was married a few months or few years after puberty. But by about 200 A. D. (when the {{Yaj. smrti|Yāj. smṛti}} was composed) popular feeling had become insistent on pre-puberty marriages. The reasons for this change are not quite clear. But it is possible to hold that it was due to the following circumstances. Buddhism had spread far and wide during these centuries with its encouragement of the institution of monks and nuns. There was laxity of morals among nuns. A further reason may be adduced viz. that girls had generally ceased to study anything, though some of them certainly did study in the times of Pāṇini and Patañjali, and so society did not like girls to remain doing nothing. From the times of the Ṛgveda (X. 85. 40-41) there was a mystical belief that Soma, Gandharva and Agni were the divine guardians of a girl and the Gṛhyāsaṁgraha (quoted in the com. on Gobhila gṛ. III. 4.6 ) says that Soma enjoys a girl first, then Gandharva enjoys her when her breasts develop and fire when she {{mensturates|menstruates}}. Therefore, a feeling arose that a girl must be married even before she develops any distinct signs of femininity. Saṁvarta41 (verses 64 and 67) gives expression to this idea. Further, since marriage came to be looked upon as the upanayana in the case of women, naturally the age for upanayana (5th year) came to be looked upon as the proper age for marriage. Vide Saṁskārakaustubha quoted below. It came to be believed that there was no hope of heaven for a woman who died unmarried.
In the Śalyaparva42 chap. 52 we have the story of a girl, daughter of Kuṇi Garga, who practised severe penance till she reached old age and yet was told by Nārada that if she died unmarried she would not go to heaven. The woman induced Śṛṅgavat of the Gālava family for a day previous to her death to marry her by the promise of giving him half of her merit (puṇya). The Vaik.43 (V. 9), while describing the ceremony of funeral rites in cases of distress, mentions the curious practice of finding out a male of the same caste for a girl, who dies unmarried though of the age of puberty, with whom a sort of marriage is gone through and the girl is then cremated. Whatever the reasons may be, this tendency to bring down the age of marriage for girls was accentuated in the first five or six centuries of the Christian era. The Laugākṣi44 gṛ. ( 19. 2 ) says ‘brahmacarya for girls lasts till the 10th or 12th year’. The Vaik. (VI. 12 ) says that a brāhmaṇa should marry a brāhmaṇa girl who is a nagnikā or gaurī and defines nagnikā as a girl over eight years but less than ten and gaurī as one who is between ten and twelve and has not had menstruation, Aparārka (p. 85 ) quotes the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa to the effect that nagnikā is one who is ten years old. Vide Sm. C. quoting Saṁgraha. Parāśara, Yāj. and Saṁvarta go even beyond this. Parāśara45 ( VII. 6-9) says ‘a girl of eight is called gaurī, but one who is nine years old is a rohiṇī; one who is ten years old is a kanyā; beyond this (i. e, after 10 years ) she is a rajasvalā. If a person does not give away a maiden when she has reached her 12th year, his pitṛs have to drink every month her menstrual discharge. The parents and also the eldest brother go to hell on seeing (an unmarried ) girl reaching the state of a rajasvalā’.
Parāśara adds that the brāhmaṇa who marries such a girl should not be spoken to or admitted to dinner in the same row (as other {{brāhmaṇas|brāhmaṇas}}) and that he becomes the husband of a vṛṣalī. On the other hand the Vāyupurāṇa ( 83. 44 ) extols the marriage of a gaurī by remarking that her son purifies 21 ancestors on his father’s side and 6 male ancestors on his mother’s side. Saṁvarta ( verse 65-66) has the same two verses as Parāśara (VII. 6 and 8) and winds up (verse 67) by saying that the marriage of a girl of eight is highly commended. The same four verses (Parāśara VII. 6-9) occur in {{Bșhad-Yama|Bṛhad-Yama}} ( Ānan. ed. ) chap. 3. 19-22, but the order is different. Aṅgiras (vv. 126-128, Ānan. ed.) has the same verses. Kāśyapa as quoted in the Gṛ. R. (p. 46 ) says that a girl is called gaurī when she is seven, a kanyakā when she is ten and kumārī when she is twelve. It will be noticed that the smṛtis of Vaikhānasa and Kāśyapa differed from Parāśara as to the definition of gaurī. Further the three smṛtis make marriage of a girl after puberty an extremely sinful act and condemn not only the parents but also the husband, while Baud. prescribed only a slight prāyaścitta for the father alone even if there was menstruation during the marriage rites. Mārīci46 (quoted in Pār. M. I. 2. p. 177) said that choosing a bride who was five years old was best. Even Manu ( 9.88 ) recommended an early marriage if a very desirable bridegroom was available. Rāma and Sītā are said to have been respectively 13 and 6 at the time of marriage (Āraṇyakāṇḍa 47, 10-11). But this passage appears to be an interpolation. In the Bālakāṇḍa47 it is expressly stated that Sītā and her sisters enjoyed in private dalliance with their respective husbands immediately after marriage. If this is true then Sītā could not have been only 6 at the time of marriage.
The rule that {{brāhmana|brāhmaṇa}} girls were to be married between 8 to 10 years became general from about the 6th or 7th century and continued down to modern times. During the last two or three decades the marriageable age of girls owing to several causes, particularly the ravages of plague and the economic condition of the middle {{cladres|classes}}, has risen very high and marriages of girls even of poor {{brābmanas|brāhmaṇas}} hardly ever take place before 16 and have to be postponed to the age of 20 and beyond. [] Besides the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929, as amended by Act 19 of 1938) has fixed the minimum age limit for girls at 14 and persons getting their daughters married before the completion of 14 years are liable to be punished in a criminal court under the Act. There is no reason to laugh at ancient Indian writers for the low age of marriage they advocated. Child marriages were common in all countries of Europe. Even in England the age limits for boys and girls were recognised by the law only at 14 and 12 respectively until 1929, when the lowest marriageable age for both was fixed at 16 (19 and 20 Geo, V. Chap. 36).
Besides it must be remembered that when marriages of girls of tender years took place they were purely a sacrament. There was no question of consummation which took place only after puberty. Sages condemned intercourse even with one’s wife before she attained puberty.48 Winternitz in * Die Frau,’ p. 135 refers to a work of F. J. Furnivall on Child Marriages, Divorces &c’ between 1560-66 A. D. in England from which it is clear that marriages of children of 9 or 10(and rarely of even 2 or 3 years) took place in England only about 300 years ago.
These rules about the proper age for the marriage of girls affected only {{brāhmaṇas|brāhmaṇas}}. Sanskrit poets and dramatists always depict that the heroines in their works are grown-up at the time of marriage and even Bhavabhūti imagines that Mālatī, the heroine of his romantic drama of Mālatīmādhava, was so grown-up that it was practically a case of love at first sight. Vaik. (VI. 12 ) requires a brāhmaṇa bride to be a nagnikā or gaurī, but does not prescribe the same qualification for a kṣatriya or vaiśya bride. In the Harṣacarita princess Rājyaśrī is described as quite grown-up at the time of her marriage which was consummated on the very day of marriage (vide the last para, of the 4th Ucchvāsa ). The Saṁskāra-prakāśa49 expressly says that there is no prohibition against marrying a girl who has passed the age of puberty for kṣatriyas and others. Even in Paurāṇic times grown-up unmarried girls must not have been unheard of. The Gṛ. R. p. 83 quotes a passage from the Brahmapurāṇa where the injunction to observe complete {{deli baoy|celibacy}} for one year, 12 days, 6 days or 3 days is construed as respectively referring to girls whose ages were 8, 12, 16 or 20 at the time of marriage.50
Inter-caste Marriages
Another important question is inter-caste marriages. It has already been shown ( pp. 50-58 ) how anuloma marriages were allowed, while {{pratiloma|pratiloma}} unions were condemned and how it was supposed that numerous sub-castes arose from such mixed marriages.
It is the contention of several eminent scholars (e. g. Senart in his. ‘Caste in India’ translated by Ross p. 124 ) that caste as implied in modern usage and in its strict sense did not exist in the times of the Ṛgveda and the other Vedic Saṁhitās. We have seen, however, that the four {{varpas|varṇas}} had been recognized in the times of the Saṁhitās and that ideas of superiority and inferiority due to being of a particular varṇa had become quite prevalent. But the practices as to marrying outside one’s varṇa and taking food had not become {{an rigid|as rigid}} and cast-iron as they became in medieval times. A few clear examples of inter-caste marriages may be cited from the Vedic Literature. The Śat. Br. (IV. 1. 5, S. B. E. vol. 26, pp. 272-275) narrates the story of the old and decrepit sage {{Oyavana|Cyavana}} who was a Bhārgava ( descendant of {{Bbṛgu|Bhṛgu}} ) or Āṅgirasa to Sukanyā, the daughter of king Śaryāta, a descendant of Manu. The Śat. Br. ( XIII. 2. 9. 8,51 S. B. E. vol. 44, p. 326 ) quotes a half verse from the Vāj. S. ( 26. 30 ) and then remarks ’therefore he does not anoint (as king) the son of the vaiśya woman. This suggests that a king might marry a vaiśya girl, but her son would not have the Vedic coronation ceremony performed on him. Verses 17-19 of the Ṛgveda V. 61 are interpreted by the Bṛhad-devatā (V. 50 ) as referring to the marriage of the brāhmaṇa sage Śyāvāśva to the daughter of king Rathavīti Dārbhya. The story of Kavaṣa Ailūṣa who was styled ‘dāsyāḥ putra’ ( either meaning the son of a dāsī or used as a term of abuse ) by the sages has been mentioned above ( at p. 36).
Turning to the dharma and gṛhya sūtras, the matter stands thus. Some of the gṛhya sūtras (like Āśv., Āp.) do not expressly say anything about the varṇa of the bride. The Āp. Dh. S.52 (II. 6. 13. 1 and 3) requires that one should marry a girl of the same varṇa, who was not given before to another and marriage with whom is in accordance with śāstra and says that by contravening these rules sin is {{inourred|incurred}}. So he condemns mixed marriages. The Mānava gṛ. I. 7. 8 and Gaut. IV. 1 require that one should marry a girl of the same varṇa and are silent about marriages with a bride of another varṇa. But Gautama knew of such marriages and enumerates the names of several sub-castes due to mixed marriages (IV. 14-17) and he includes among those who are unfit to be invited at a śrāddha dinner a {{brābmapa|brāhmaṇa}} who is the husband of a woman of the śūdra caste (15.18). Manu (III. 12), Śaṅkha and Nārada53 (strīpuṁsa, v. 4) say that the best course is to marry a girl of one’s own caste. This is said to be pūrva kalpa (the foremost or the best procedure). Many also speak of a less advisable course (anukalpa, as it is called ) viz. that a brāhmaṇa may take as wife a woman of any caste, a kṣatriya may marry a woman of his own caste or a vaiśya or a śūdra woman, a vaiśya may marry a vaiśya or śūdra woman and a śūdra only a śūdra woman. This is stated by Baud. Dh. S, I. 8. 2, Śaṅkha, Manu III. 13, {{Vippu Dh. S.|Viṣṇu Dh. S.}} 24. 1-4. Pār. gṛ. I. 4 and Vas. Dh. S.54 I. 25 inform us that some teachers allowed a dvija to marry a śūdra woman but without Vedic mantras. But {{Vasiṣtba|Vasiṣṭha}} himself condemns it severely by saying ‘one should not do so (i. e. marry a śūdra girl), for by doing so the degradation of the family is certain and loss of heaven after death’. Though the Viṣṇu Dh. S, and Manusmṛti state that a dvijāti may marry a śūdra girl, that is not their own view, but they simply voice practices and sentiments prevalent in their time, since both denounce the marriage of a {{brābmapa|brāhmaṇa}} with a śūdra girl in the most un-measured terms. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 26. 5-6 (S. B. E. vol. 7 p. 112 ) says that the union of a dvijāti with a śūdra woman can never produce religious merit; it is from carnal desire alone that he marries her being blinded by lust; and that {{dvijāti|dvijāti}} men who thus marry śūdra women quickly degrade their families and progeny to the status of śūdras’. The ancient editor of the Manusmṛti did not tolerate such marriages (though he gave expression to the common trend of view in III. 12-13) and condemns a dvijāti’s marriage with a śūdra woman in the strongest language (III. 15-19, Manu III. 15 being the same as Viṣṇu Dh. S. 26.5) ‘a brāhmaṇa by having intercourse with a śūdra woman goes to hell and by procreating a son on her he loses his status as a {{brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa}}’. Yāj. I. 57 allowed a brāhmaṇa or kṣatriya to marry a girl of his own varṇa or of the varṇas next in order, but laid it down as his emphatic opinion that ‘a dvijāti should not marry a śūdra girl’. It appears however that prevailing public opinion and practice was too much for both Manu and Yāj.; for, both declare ( Yāj. II. 125 and Manu IX. 152-153 ) that when a brāhmaṇa has sons from wives of the four varṇas, the son of a {{brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa}} wife takes four shares (out of 10 in which his wealth is to be divided ), the son of a kṣatriya wife takes three, of a {{vaibya|vaiśya}} wife two and of a śūdra wife one. Yāj. ( I. 91-92 ) recognises the marriage of a {{brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa}} with a śūdra and says that the son of such a union is a ‘pāraśava’ Manu III. 44 also recognises the marriage of a śūdra girl with one of a higher class by saying that she holds the hem of the garment of a bridegroom of a higher class.
This shows that the ancient smṛtis ungrudgingly recognised marriages between a {{brābmapa|brāhmaṇa}} and a kṣatriya or a vaiśya girl. But opinion was not unanimous about the marriage of a dvijāti with a śūdra woman. Such marriages took place, but were looked upon with disfavour and often condemned with severity. Anuloma marriages were frequent enough till the 9th or 10th century A. D., but became rare later and for the last several hundred years they hardly ever took place or they were not at all recognized as valid by the communities concerned. The epigraphic records furnish well authenticated instances of inter-caste marriages. The Vākāṭakas were {{brāhmaṇas|brāhmaṇas}} (their gotra being Viṣṇuvṛddha). The Poona plates of Prabhāvatiguptā (E. I. vol. 15 p. 39 ) establish that she was a daughter of Candragupta II. (first quarter of 5th century A. D.) of the Imperial Gupta dynasty and became the chief queen of the king Rudrasena II of the Vākāṭaka line. The Tālaguṇḍa pillar inscription of the Kadamba king Kākusthavarman ( E. I. vol. 8 p. 24) recites that the founder of the Kadamba family was Mayūraśarman, a {{brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa}}, who being exasperated with the Pallavas of Kāñcī took up the sword. His descendants have names ending in varman (as kṣatriyas should have, according to Manu II. 32 ). The inscription mentions that Kākusthavarman ( who was 4th in descent from Mayūraśarman) got his daughters married to Gupta and other kings. In the Ghaṭotkaca Inscription of Yaśodharman and Viṣṇuvardhana (A. S. W. I. vol. 4, p. 140 ) we are told that Soma, a brāhmaṇa and ancestor of Hastibhoja, minister of the Vākāṭaka king Devasena, gave his heart to wives born in {{brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa}} and kṣatriya families. The Tipperah copper-plate grant of a chieftain called Lokanātha (E. I. vol. 15, p. 301 ff) dated in the 44th year ( probably of the Harṣa era i. e. about 650 A. D.) says that Lokanātha’s ancestors belonged to the Bharadvāja gotra (p. 306) and that the maternal grand-father of Lokanātha was Keśava who is said to have been a pāraśava (p. 307), while Keśava’s father Vīra was a brāhmaṇa (dvijasattama). Virūpādevī, a daughter of the famous Vijayanagara king Bukka I (1268-1298 A. D. ), was married to a {{brāhmana|brāhmaṇa}} named Brahma or Bommaṇṇa Woḍeya, who was the Governor of the Araga province ( E. I. vol. 15,p.12). Vide also E. I. vol. 18, p. 87 ( dated 894 of the Vikrama era ) for Pratīhāra kings being descended from a {{brāhmana|brāhmaṇa}} Haricandra and the latter’s kṣatriya wife; the Ātpur Inscription of Śaktikumāra dated in saṁvat 1034 (977 A. D.) which states that the founder of the Guhila dynasty was a brāhmaṇa Guhadatta, whose descendant Bhartṛpaṭṭa married a Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess.
Classical Sanskrit Literature also yields certain well known instances of inter-caste marriages. The Mālavikāgnimitra of Kālidāsa shows that Agnimitra, a son of Senapati Puṣyamitra of the Śuṅga dynasty and a brāhmaṇa, married Mālavikā who was a kṣatriya princess. In the Harṣacarita of Bāṇa (Ucchvāsa I towards end) we are told by Bāṇa himself that among the friends and companions of his wanderings there were his two pāraśava brothers Candrasena and Mātṛṣeṇa (i.e. step-brothers from a śūdra wife of his father). Rājaśekhara, teacher of king Mahendrapāla of Kanoj, says in his Karpūramañjarī ( I. 11 ) that his accomplished wife Avantisundarī was descended from the Cāhuāṇa (modern Chavān) family (i. e. from a kṣatriya family ).
It is extremely difficult to say when exactly inter-caste marriages even between dvijātis came to be prohibited by the [] smṛtis and writers of digests. Viśvarūpa55 on Yāj. III. 283 ( not later than first half of 9th century ) {{olearly|clearly}} suggests that in his day a {{brahmana|brāhmaṇa}} could marry a kṣatriya girl. Medhātithi on Manu III. 14 suggests that about 900 A. D. at the latest marriages of {{brahmanas|brāhmaṇas}} with kṣatriya and vaiśya girls took place rarely in his day, but not with śūdra women; and the {{Mito|Mit.}} on Yāj. does not at all say that though marriages among {{dvijātis|dvijātis}} (anuloma ones) were allowed by Manu and Yāj, they had entirely ceased to be regarded as valid by its time. Many of the medieval digests and writers like the Sm. C. and Hemādri quote verses stated to be from the Āditya-purāṇa or Brahma-purāṇa on matters forbidden in the Kali age ( and so called Kalivarjya) among which inter-caste marriages are included.
The {{Āpagtambalo17|Āpastamba}} smṛti (in verse ed. by Jīvānanda I, p. 549, chap. IX) says that by marrying a girl of another caste a man incurred the sin of mahāpātaka and had to undergo the penance of 24 {{kṛoohras|kṛcchras}}. The Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa (113. 34-36 ) narrates the story of king Nābhāga who married a vaiśya girl by the {{rākṣaga|rākṣasa}} form of marriage and who consequently incurred sin.
The state of the law as to inter-caste marriages in British Indian courts may be briefly {{indiosted|indicated}} here. By the Special Marriage Act ( III of 1872 as amended by Act XXX of 1923 ) both anuloma and {{pratiloma|pratiloma}} marriages are validated if they are registered and solemnized according to the procedure prescribed by the Act. But if a marriage is not so solemnized under that Act, but under the general rules of Hindu Law, then all {{pratiloina|pratiloma}} marriages are invalid throughout British India, [] but anuloma56 marriages have been recognised as valid by some High Courts in India; the Allahabad High Court, however regards all anuloma marriages even as invalid.
The next restriction that the girl to be married must not be a {{sapiṇda|sapiṇḍa}} of the bride-groom has now to be considered. Sapiṇḍa relationship is of special importance in three matters, viz. marriage, inheritance and {{āśauca|āśauca}}57 (impurity on birth and death). The prohibition against marriage with a {{sapiṇda|sapiṇḍa}} girl applies to all varṇas including the {{śūdra|śūdra}}.58 There are two schools about the meaning of sapiṇḍa, one represented by the {{Mitāksarā|Mitākṣarā}} and the other by {{Jimūtavahana|Jīmūtavāhana}} (author of the {{Dāyabhāga|Dāyabhāga}}). Both are agreed that a sapiṇḍa girl cannot be married, but they differ as to the meaning of the word. We shall first understand one interpretation of sapiṇḍa. The locus classicus is the commentary of Vijñāneśvara on Yāj. I. 52-53 a substantial portion of which is translated here : ** ‘{{asapiṇ. dām|asapiṇḍām}}’ (in Yāj. I. 52 ) means a woman who is not a sapiṇḍa and sapiṇḍa means one who has the same piṇḍa i. e. body (or particles of the body). Sapiṇḍa relationship (between two persons ) arises from (their) being connected by having {{partioles|particles}} of the same body. Thus, the son has sapiṇḍa relationship with his father by reason of the ( fact that ) particles of the father’s body {{oontinue|continue}} in him (the son). Similarly ( there is sapiṇda {{rela tionship|rela-tionship}}) with the paternal grandfather and the like (of the grandson and the like) because through his (the grandson’s) father particles of the body of the grandfather continue in (or are connected with) him (the grandson). Similarly (the son has sapiṇḍa relationship) with his mother because particles of the mother’s body continue in him. Thus (a person has sapiṇḍa relationship) with his mother’s father through his mother; so (one has {{sapiṇdatā|sāpiṇḍya}}) with one’s mother’s sister or mother’s brother also by reason of the connection with (or continuity of) particles of the same body (viz. the body of the maternal grandfather). So also (a person has {{sapiṇdatā|sāpiṇḍya}}) with the paternal uncle, the paternal aunt and the like. Similarly the wife has sapiṇḍa relationship with the {{busband|husband}} because she produces ( with the husband) one body (viz. their son).59 In the same way brother’s wives (are {{sapiṇdas|sapiṇḍas}}) of each other, because they produce one body ( viz. their respective sons ) with their respective husbands who are produced from one body (viz. their {{husbands’|husbands’}} father). In this manner wherever the word sapiṇḍa {{ooours|occurs}}, there one has to understand connection with (or continuity of) particles of the same body either {{direotly|directly}} or {{mediately|mediately}}.60 On the word ‘asapiṇḍām’ it was explained that sapiṇḍa relationship arises immediately or mediately by reason of the {{conneo tion|connec-tion}} with particles of the same body; this may prove to be too wide a statement, since in this beginningless {{saṁsāra|saṁsāra}}, such a {{rela. tionship|rela-tionship}} might exist in some way or other between all men;61 therefore ( the sage Yājñavalkya) states ‘after the fifth on the mother’s side and after the 7th on the father’s side’. After the fifth on the mother’s side i. e. in the mother’s line and after the 7th on the father’s side i. e. in the father’s line sapiṇḍa relationship ceases. These words ( viz sapiṇḍa … … {{ceases|ceases}}) are to be taken as understood ( in the text of Yāj.). Therefore the word ‘sapiṇḍa’ though it applies everywhere (i. e. to a very wide circle of persons ) by the expressive (i. e. literal) power of its component parts, is restricted to a certain definite sphere, like the words {{’nirmanthya’|‘nirmanthya’}}62 and {{‘pankaja’|‘paṅkaja’}}. And so the six ( ascendants ) beginning with the father and the six descendants beginning with the son and the man himself as the seventh ( in each case ) are sapiṇḍas; wherever there is a divergence of the line, the counting shall be made until the seventh in descent is reached including him (i, e. the ancestor ) from whom the line diverges; in this way the computation is to be made everywhere. And so the fifth ( if a girl ), who stands in the fifth generation when a computation is made beginning with the mother and going up to her ( mother’s ) father, mother’s paternal grandfather &c., is styled in an indirect way ‘fifth from the mother’s side’ (by Yāj.). In the same way the seventh from the father’s side’ (in Yāj.).is she who is the seventh in degree (from an ancestor) when computation is made beginning from the father and proceeding up to the father’s father and so on”. . According to this explanation of the Mitākṣarā63 the following rules about prohibition based on sāpiṇḍya follow: (1) In computing degrees the common ancestor is to be included; (2) regard is to be had to the {{father|father}} and mother of the bride and bridegroom both; (3) if computation is made from the mother’s side of either the proposed bride or bridegroom, they must be beyond the fifth degree (i. e. they must be 6th or further on) from the common ancestor and if it is made through the father of either, they must be beyond the seventh from the common ancestor ( i. e. they must be eighth &c.). This last postulates four different classes of cases, viz. descent from a common ancestor may be traced through the fathers of both bride and bridegroom or through the mother of both, or through the mother of the bridegroom and the father of the bride or through the father of the bridegroom and the mother of the bride. The method of computing degrees is entirely different from the English method as is made clear by the remarks of the Mit. translated above. The rules require that both must be beyond sapiṇḍa relationship as defined and limited above. For example, tracing descent through the fathers of both bride and bridegroom, if the bride is 8th from the common ancestor ( called {{kūļastha|kūṭastha}} in dharmaśāstra works ) and the bridegroom is 6th, there can be no marriage, as though the bride is beyond the limits of sapiṇḍa relationship to the common ancestor, the bridegroom being 6th from the {{kūṭastha|kūṭastha}} has sapiṇḍa relationship with the {{kūṭastha|kūṭastha}}. These rules apply according to the Mit. only where the ancestors married women of their own varṇa. But if an ancestor married a brāhmaṇa girl and also a kṣatriya girl and a question arose about the eligibility of marriage among descendants of these two wives, then prohibition based on sapiṇḍa relationship extends up to only three degrees (and not seven or five ).64 []
It should not be supposed that these rules of the Mit. are universally observed. The texts themselves are in conflict, Further, the customs and usages as to prohibited degrees for marriage are so divergent in the various parts of India and among the hundreds of castes and sub-castes that it is impossible to state any rule as universally or even generally applicable. A few examples of conflict among the smṛtis are cited by the Mit. itself. Vas. Dh. S. (8.2) says ‘(he may marry ) the fifth on the mother’s side and 7th on the father’s side’, while Yāj. as interpreted by the Mit. makes it necessary that the girl to be eligible must be 6th from the common ancestor traced through the mother and 8th when traced through the father. Paiṭhīnasi says ’the girl must be beyond three degrees on the mother’s65 side and five degrees on the father’s side’. These two are explained away by the Mit. by saying that these texts do not authorise a marriage with a girl who is distant from the common ancestor by a lesser number of degrees than those propounded by Yāj. but they only prohibit marriage with girls who are nearer in degrees than those stated in those texts. But this reconciliation of the conflict among the smṛtis is not at all satisfactory.
The following diagrams illustrate the application of the rules of sapiṇḍa relationship according to the Mitākṣarā. In all of them A represents the common ancestor and the letters S and D represent respectively sons and daughters. According to the Mit. computation has to be made from ( and inclusive of ) the common ancestor in all cases and both the bride and the bridegroom have to be beyond the prohibited degrees.66
No. 1
A
|
S (2)
|
S (3)
|
S (4)
|
D (5)
|
S (6)
|
S (7)
|
S (8)
Here a valid marriage might take place between S(8) and D(8) because sapiṇḍa relationship for both is traced through their fathers and both are removed from the common ancestor A by more than seven degrees or generations.
No. 2
A
|
D (2)
|
S (3)
|
D (4)
|
D (5)
|
D (6)
Here a valid marriage may take place between S (6) and D (6) because sapiṇḍa relationship of both is in this case traced through their mothers and they are both removed from the common ancestor by more than five degrees.
No. 3
A
|
S(2)----S(2)
| |
S(3) S(3)
| |
D(4) S(4)
| |
D(5) D(5)
| |
S(6) S(6)
Here a marriage may take place between S (6) and D (6) because their sapiṇḍa relationship is to be traced through their mothers and both are removed from the common ancestor by more than five degrees. But a marriage cannot take place between S (7) and D (7) as the sapiṇḍa relationship of D (7) is to be traced through her father and she is not more than 7 degrees from the common ancestor.
No. 4
A
|
S(2)----S(2)
| |
S(3) S(3)
| |
D(4) S(4)
| |
D(5) D(5)
| |
S(6) S(6)
| |
S(7) D(7)
Here a marriage cannot take place between D (6) and S (6) as the sapiṇḍa relationship in the latter’s case is to be traced through his father and he is not more than seven degrees removed from the common ancestor, though D (6) whose sapiṇḍa relationship is to be traced through her mother is more than five degrees from the common ancestor. According to Bālambhaṭṭa and some others marriage will take place as D(6) is beyond five degrees ( tracing through her mother), though S(6) is within 7 degrees (tracing descent through his father) and so is not outside sapiṇḍa limits.
All these four examples are taken from the Dharmasindhu (III Pūrvārdha p. 226-227). No. 3 illustrates what is called sapiṇḍa relationship by ‘frog’s leap,67 Just as a frog leaps from one spot to another leaving intervening objects untouched, so in this example No. 3, there is sāpiṇḍya between D(5) and D(5), but S(6) and D(6) are left unaffected by sāpiṇḍya ( as relationship is traced through the mothers of both ), while sāpiṇḍya reverts to affect D(7) and S(7). The maxim of ‘frog’s leap’ is a very ancient one, being exemplified by the Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali.68
The rules about prohibition of marriage on the ground of sapiṇḍa relationship, particularly where cognates (persons connected through females) were concerned, have not been observed in numerous instances over wide areas from very ancient times. One striking illustration is the question whether a man can marry his maternal uncle’s or his paternal aunt’s daughter, particularly the former. On this point opinion has been sharply divided from ancient times. Āp. Dh. S. 1. 7. 21. 8 includes among patanīya actions (mortal sins) sexual intercourse with the uterine relations ( mothers and sisters ) of one’s parents and their children. This would prohibit marriage with one’s maternal uncle’s or paternal aunt’s daughter. Baud. Dh. S. I.69 1. 19-26 notes that there were five practices peculiar to the south viz. eating in the company of one whose upanayana has not been performed, to eat in the company of one’s wife, to eat stale food, to marry the daughter of the maternal uncle or of a paternal aunt and there were five practices peculiar to the north. Then he proceeds to state the argument that those who follow the practices mentioned by him in countries other than those where they prevail incur sin, that Gautama (XI. 20) holds this last argument to be wrong and then Baud. states his own view that one should pay no heed to either set of practices, as both are opposed to smṛtis and the views of śiṣṭas.
Marriage with maternal uncle’s daughter
From this it is clear that a marriage with one’s maternal uncle’s daughter or paternal aunt’s daughter was in vogue in the south ( below the Narmadā probably) long before the Baud. Dh. S. (i. e. several centuries before the Christian era ) and that North India did not go in for such marriages and that orthodox sūtra writers like Gautama and Baudhāyana reprobated such practices. Manu (XI. 172-173 ) forbids such marriages " on approaching (for carnal intercourse ) the daughter of one’s father’s sister or of one’s mother’s sister or of mother’s full brother, a man must undergo the penance called ‘cāndrāyana’. A wise man should not take as his wife (any one of ) these; they are not fit to be wedded because they are (sapiṇḍa ) relatives, for by {{wodding|wedding}} them one sinks low ( i. e. falls into hell or loses caste)”. Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 16 quotes a verse from Śatātapa70 prescribing the penance of cāndrāyaṇa for marrying one’s maternal uncle’s daughter or a girl having the same gotra as one’s mother’s gotra (i. e. maternal grandfather’s gotra ) or a sapravara girl and a text of Sumantu forbidding marriage with the daughter of the brother of one’s mother or step-mother. It would be seen that all these relatives are third from the common ancestor and so are very much within the prohibition against marrying a sapiṇḍa, whatever be the number of prohibited degrees for marriage that are accepted. Kumārila in his Tantravārtika while discussing the scope and validity of sadācāra ( on Jaimini I.3.7) enumerates many lapses from good conduct attributed to great men and heroes of the past and tries to explain away those violations of good conduct. The charge brought against Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa) and Arjuna, the central heroes of the Mahābhārata, is that they respectively married Rukmiṇī and Subhadrā who were their maternal uncle’s daughters ( this being forbidden). Kumārila makes very scathing remarks against this practice71 prevalent among southerners and then refutes this charge by saying that although in the Mahābhārata (Ādiparva 219. 17–18) Subhadrā is described as the daughter of Vasudeva and sister72 of Kṛṣṇa, she was really not so, but that she was Vāsudeva’s mother’s sister’s daughter or was the daughter’s daughter of the sister of the father of Vasudeva’s mother (or step-mother Rohiṇī ).73 Kumārila argues that such female cousins one degree or several degrees removed are often spoken of as sisters. Vide my notes to the Vyavahāramayūkha pp. 200-202 where this matter is fully explained. This reply of Kumārila well illustrates the method of dealing with inconvenient texts adopted by {{mīmāṁsakas|mīmāṁsakas}} like Kumārila when the texts run counter to their cherished views. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 254 quotes Manu XI. 172 and verses of Saṁvarta prescribing the penance of Parāka for carnal intercourse with one’s maternal uncle’s daughter.74 Medhātithi on Manu II. 18 refers to this practice as prevalent in some countries, and says it is opposed to the rule of Gautama (IV. 3 ) about prohibition on the ground of sāpiṇḍya and explains how such practices might have arisen. Persons making love to the handsome daughters of their maternal uncles married them for fear that they might otherwise be punished by the king; it may be that others literally following the words of Manu IV. 178 held by the practice which their forefathers resorted to for fear of punishment.75 Among medieval writers, some condemn this practice, others justify it. Aparārka (pp. 82-84 ) after a lengthy discussion condemns marriage with maternal uncle’s daughter. The Nirṇayasindhu also does the same (p. 286 ).
Among those who support marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter the most prominent are the Sm. C. ( I. pp. 70-74) and the Par. M. (1. 2. pp. 63-68). They both admit that there are passages of Manu, Śatātapa, Sumantu (all quoted above) and others condemning marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter, yet they say that there are passages of the Veda and some smṛtis in support of it and śiṣṭas (learned and respectable persons ) observe this practice and so such marriages are sadācāra and not forbidden. They rely upon two Vedic passages; one is from the Śat. Br. I. 8. 3. 6 (S. B. E. vol. XII. p. 238 ) " thus the separation ( of the eater and the eaten ) is effected in one and the same act; hence from one and the same man spring both the enjoyer (the husband) and the enjoyed ( the wife); for now kinsfolk live sporting and rejoicing together saying ‘in the fourth or third man (generation ) we shall unite’. And this is so in accordance with that (separation of the spoons )."76 The mention of the union in the third generation is understood by the Sm. C. as referring to the marriage of a person with his maternal uncle’s or paternal aunt’s daughter. Viśvarūpa also refers to this passage ( on Yāj. 1.53), but he does not draw the inference that such marriages are authorized by the Veda. Another Vedic verse is relied upon by the Sm. C. and Par. M and other works. It is a verse from a Khila sūkta ‘Come, O Indra, by commended paths to this our sacrifice and partake of your portion. They (the priests ) have offered the fat seasoned with ghee that is thy portion, as the maternal uncle’s daughter or the paternal aunt’s daughter (is one’s lot in marriage )’77 This verse is referred to by Viśvarūpa on Yāj.( I. 53 ) but his explanation of it is different viz. that it really indicates one out of four different alternatives as regards prohibited degrees for marriage.78 Aparārka (p. 83) on Yāj. I. 53 reads the latter half somewhat differently and so interprets it as to spell out of it a prohibition against marrying a maternal uncle’s daughter. This text is quoted in I. L. R. 7 Mad. 548 at p. 550. The Smṛticandrikā relies upon a passage of the Caturviṁśatimata that allows a marriage of persons who are third or fourth in descent from a common ancestor on both sides (on the mother’s or father’s side ). There is also a text of Bṛhaspati which prescribes that the practices of the countries, castes and families should be guarded (or enforced) by the king as they have been in vogue from past times, otherwise the subjects become inflamed and among such practices he instances ‘Brāhmaṇas in the south marry the maternal uncle’s daughter.79 So there is smṛti authority for such marriages. Besides southern śiṣṭas deeply read in the Vedas and acting according to the meaning of the Veda practice marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter. Here both Sm. C. and Par. M. are on very firm ground. The Smṛtimuktāphala of Vaidyanātha says ‘among the Āndhras śiṣṭas deeply read in the Vedas follow the practice of mātulasutā-pariṇayana and among the Draviḍas respectable people allow marriage of a person with a girl who is fourth in descent from the common ancestor’.80 Among several castes in the Deccan and the Madras Presidency, not only is marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter allowed, but it is highly commended. Even certain brāhmaṇa castes like the Deśastha brāhmaṇas of the Karṇāṭaka and Karhāḍā brāhmaṇas observe this practice in modern times. The Saṁskārakaustubha (pp. 616-620 ) and the Dharmasindhu support mātulasutā-pariṇayana.
Both the Sm. C. and Par. M. say that though the Vedic passage from the Śatapatha is a mere arthavāda ( a laudatory statement) in praise of a Vedic act, yet on the analogy of the words ‘he holds ( the samidh ) above the sruc) for gods’, which are construed by Jaimini ( III. 4. 15 ) as a vidhi (as a positive rule) on account of their apūrvatva ( not being known from any other source ), these words of the Śatapatha are also to be construed as a vidhi ( of the marriage with maternal uncle’s daughter ).81 The Sm. C. also presses into service the Vedic verse ( Ṛg. X. 16, 5 ) addressed by Yami to Yama. But that mantra does not clearly refer to cross-cousin marriages.
The smṛti passages that condemn cross-cousin marriages are explained in a peculiar manner by the Sm, C. and the Par, M. When a woman is married in one of the four forms, brāhma &c., she passes into the gotra of her husband, becomes a sapiṇḍa in the husband’s family and so she is {{severed|severed}} from her father’s family (as to gotra and sapiṇḍa relationship); but when a woman is married in the āsura, gāndharva and other forms, she does not pass over into the gotra of her husband, but remains in the gotra of the father and her sapiṇḍa relationship with her father and brother continues. Therefore the son of such a woman, if he marries the daughter of his mother’s brother, would be marrying a girl who is a sagotra and sapiṇḍa of his mother. The Sm. C. and the Par. M. and other works say that the smṛti texts forbidding marriage with maternal uncle’s daughter refer to a person whose mother was married in the gāndharva, āsura and the other two forms, but not to a person whose mother was married in the brāhma and the three other approved forms. This is the reasoning of the Sm, C. and the Par. M.82
These rules about prohibition on the ground of sapiṇḍa relationship cause great difficulties in modern times, when owing to the rapid spread of co-education and the rise in the marriageable age of girls, love marriages have become somewhat frequent. Lovers do not stop to consider such (to them ) trivial matters as sapiṇḍa relationship, but the law is often inexorable. The narrowing of the limits of sapiṇḍa relationship is permitted by the authors of commentaries and digests only on the ground of immemorial family, caste or local usage. For example, the same authors, who hold that marriage with the maternal uncle’s daughter is sanctioned by Vedic texts and custom, condemn and forbid marriage with one’s paternal aunt’s daughter or with one’s maternal aunt’s daughter (vide below ). There are a few verses cited from the smṛtis which favour the narrowing down of sapiṇḍa relationship. For example, the Caturviṁśatimata83 states’ According to Śākaṭāyana there is no blame in marrying a girl who is 7th or 6th or 5th (from the common ancestor); similarly Manu, Pārāśarya, Yama and Aṅgiras say that one may marry a girl who is third or fourth (from the common ancestor) on both sides (i. e. from her father’s side or mother’s side). Whoever enters into such marriage alliances by relying on the usage of his country or of his family is always entitled to associate with people and this is seen from the Veda’. Parāśara (as quoted in the Nirṇayasindhu and other works ) says a man who is himself fourth or fifth (from the common ancestor ) may according to Parāśara’s view marry a girl who is 4th or 6th (from the common ancestor ), but one who is himself fifth cannot marry a girl who is also fifth (from the common ancestor). The Saṁskārakaustubha, the Sāpiṇḍyadīpikā and a few digests hold these verses authoritative and allow such marriages provided they are in accordance with local or family usage. As against this the following facts have to be remembered. One of the maxims of interpretation is that where there is conflict between smṛti texts, the preferable rule is to follow the opinion of the majority.84 Gaut., Manu, Yāj, Mārīci and numerous other smṛtikāras are opposed to these dicta. The second rule is that Manu has the highest authority among smṛtis and that smṛti which is opposed to the dicta of Manu is not commended.85 The above passages are opposed to the words of Manu on sapiṇḍa relationship and about marrying a maternal uncle’s daughter ( Manu V. 60, III. 5, XI. 171-172). A third point about the above texts is that several eminent works like the Nirṇayasindhu and the Dharmasindhu86 hold that some of these verses are baseless and not genuine and that they really refer to persons adopted or persons descended from wives of different castes of the same common ancestor; and lastly even those works that support such narrowing of sapiṇḍa relationship for marriage do not advocate it for all and sundry, but only where there is a local or family usage to that affect. Therefore, marriages among persons who are 3rd or 4th or 5th from the common ancestor cannot be regarded as valid in general, but only on the ground of usage. The following diagram will furnish some examples of the narrowing down of sapiṇḍa relationship.
A ( common male ancestor)
|
D(2)----S(2)
| |
D(3) D(3)
| |
D(4) S(4)
|
S(5)
Here ordinarily there can be no valid marriage between D (4) and S (4) or S (5) because they are both not beyond even the fifth degree from the common ancestor ; but if the verses of the Caturviṁśatimata and Parāśara be followed the marriages are valid. It should be noted that even under the Special Marriage Act ( III of 1872) marriage between D (4) and S (4) or S (5) will not be valid according to the 2nd proviso to sec. 2. The Nirṇayasindhu87 was not prepared to concede that such marriages, though not the best, were at least allowable as inferior (anukalpa). The Dharmasindhu88 stated that only in calamities when one is unable to secure a girl one may enter into a marriage where sapiṇḍa relationship is narrowed down, but that those who can secure another girl should not go in for it, as the sin of incest would be incurred. Such marriages did not take place except during the last few years and so the courts have not yet pronounced on their validity. The preceding remarks are made by way of caution only and it is quite possible that courts may find out some way to uphold the marriages when they come before them many years after their celebration. But it is well to remember that the validity of such marriages in castes that have no usage to that effect is, to say the least, doubtful.
There is a great89 deal of discussion in the smṛtis and nibandhas on the gotra of a woman. Āśv. gṛ. I. 8. 12 is interpreted by some as laying down that husband and wife become of one gotra one year after marriage. Laghu Hārīta appears to refer to this and also proposes an option that she takes up the husband’s gotra immediately after marriage. Yama 86 and Likhita 25 say that after marriage on the 4th night a bride becomes one with her husband as to gotra, piṇḍa and āśauca ; while Yama 78 and Likhita 26 state that she loses her father’s gotra on taking the seventh step. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 254 has a long note on this subject, states that there are two views and finally reaches the conclusion that a woman retains her father’s gotra even after marriage for piṇḍadāna, if she was a putrikā or was married in the Āsura and the following forms ; but if she was married in the brāhma and other approved forms, there was an option viz. piṇḍa may be offered to one’s mother by one’s father’s gotra or by her father’s gotra according to family usage. Vide also Aparārka pp. 432, 542, Sm. C. I. p. 69.
Both of them allow a person’s marriage with his paternal aunt’s daughter. Certain inscriptions at Nāgārjunikoṇḍa (of about the 3rd century A. D.) establish that the king Siri Virapurisadata, son of Siri Chāntamūla who had performed the Vājapeya, Aśvamedha and other sacrifices, married a daughter of his paternal aunt ( E. I. vol. 20 at p. 4). There are other authors, however, who, while allowing marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter, disallow it with a paternal aunt’s daughter. For example, the Nirṇayasindhu says that, though it follows from the same Vedic passages that one’s paternal aunt’s daughter may be married, yet such a marriage should not be contracted as it is hateful to the people, as there are no other passages laying down the advisability of such marriages.90 Similarly the Sm. C. (I. p.71 ) and Par. M.( I. 2. p. 65 ) say that though marriage with one’s mother’s sister or mother’s sister’s daughter also should be allowed on the same grounds as those urged in favour of the marriage with the maternal uncle’s daughter, yet it is forbidden since it is condemned by śiṣṭas and is hateful to the people and both again rely on Yāj. I. 156.91
Another and a very striking instance of the limits of sapiṇḍa relationship not being observed is the practice among certain sections of even brāhmaṇas ( such as some Deśasthas in Karṇāṭaka and Mysore ) marrying their own sister’s daughter (i.e. their own niece ). Vide Mandlik’s Hindu Law p. 425. In Ramangavḍa v. Shivāji, the Bombay High Court held that marriage with one’s sister’s daughter was invalid among brāhmaṇas; but in that case no custom as to the validity of such marriages was alleged.92 In Vellanki Ramakrishna v. Kotagiri Subbamma 13 Mad. 830 at p. 834 it is stated that in the Velama caste a man may marry his sister’s daughter.
On account of these divergences about the limits of prohibited degrees for marriage it appears that the remarks of the Saṁskārakaustubha (p. 620) and of the Dharmasindhu (p. 228) are most sensible and practical. They say that even in the Kali age93 those, in whose families or countries the limits of sapiṇḍa relationship are narrowed down and marriage with the maternal uncle’s daughter has been in vogue for ages, may do so, that they incur no blame by such marriages, that others (among whom there is no such custom) may without blame invite such persons for śrāddhas and may take girls from their families in marriage and that the passages quoted by Hemādri forbidding their being invited at śrāddhas only apply to those who marry a maternal uncle’s daughter even though they have no such family or local usage.94
Another question is how far sapiṇḍa relationship holds good in the case of girls belonging to the family from which one’s step-mother comes. The Udvāhatattva (p. 118), the Nirṇayasindhu (p. 289), the Sam. Pr. (pp.695-699), Saṁskāra Kaustubha (pp. 621-630) and the Dharmasindhu (p. 230) deal with this matter. They all rely on a text of Sumantu “95 ‘all the wives of one’s father are mothers, the brothers of these are one’s maternal uncles, their sisters are one’s mother’s sisters, the daughters of these are one’s sisters and the children of these latter are one’s sister’s children; otherwise there would be saṁkara ( confusion)’. Two interpretations are placed on this, one view (and that is held by most ) is that this lays down sāpiṇḍya only with the persons specifically mentioned, while another view (this is held by the Sam. Pr.) is that there is sāpiṇḍya for four generations from the father of one’s step mother. According to the first view96 a man cannot marry the daughter or grand-daughter of his step-mother’s brother or sister, but his own daughter can marry the son of his step-mother’s brother; while according to the second view the latter marriage also would contravene the rule about this extension (atideśa) of sāpiṇḍya.
Marriages with certain girls were forbidden by certain writers on the ground of what is called ‘viruddhasaṁbandha ‘, although there is no question of sapiṇḍa relationship in such cases. The Gṛhya-pariśiṣṭa97 ( quoted in the Nirṇayasindhu p. 289) prescribes ‘one should marry a girl with whom there is no viruddhasaṁbandha, e.g, the daughter of one’s wife’s sister or the sister of one’s paternal uncle’s wife (these should not be married), Viruddhasaṁbandha (incompatible relation ) occurs where the standing of the proposed bridegroom and the bride would resemble that of father or mother to the other (or of brother and sister). In modern times such marriages take place as a matter of course and no court would declare them to be invalid. Vide I. L. R. 20 Mad. 283 and I. L. R. 43 Mad. 830 where marriage with one’s wife’s sister’s daughter was held to be valid, among brāhmaṇas as well as śūdras in the Telugu and Tamil districts, relying on Mandlik’s Hindu Law pp. 484-485 and other authorities. In Rāmchandra v. Gopāl 32 Bom. 619 at pp. 630-631 the court approves of the decision in 20 Mad. 283 and holds that the dicta as to viruddha-saṁbandha are only recommendatory.
About the sapiṇḍa relationship of the adopted son as regards āśauca and śrāddha a good deal is said in many works such as Sam. K. (pp. 182-186 ), Nirṇayasindhu (pp. 290-291 ), the Vyavahāramayūkha, the Saṁ. Pr. (pp. 688-694 ), Saṁ. R. M. (pp. 453-456 ). Sāpiṇḍya for āśauca and śrāddha will be dealt with later on. As to sāpiṇḍya for marriage in the case of adoption there is great divergence of views. The Sam. Pr. (p. 690) says that the son given in adoption has sāpiṇḍya for seven generations with his genitive father and for three generations with the adoptive father (pp. 693-694 ).98 The Sam. K. appears to hold, after quoting several views, that if the upanayana of the adopted boy was performed in the family of birth, then he has sāpiṇḍya with the genitive family for seven generations. But if the ceremonies from jātakarma to upanayana are performed in the adoptive family then he has sāpiṇḍya in the adoptive family for seven generations, but only for five generations if only upanayana is performed in the family of adoption. The Nirṇayasindhu gives its own view that there is sāpiṇḍya in both families for seven generations. The Vyavahāramayūkha holds ( following Gautama IV. 3 ) that in the case of kevala dattaka (the ordinary adopted son) sapiṇḍa relationship extends to seven degrees in the adoptive father’s family and five degrees in the adoptive mother’s family.99 The Dharmasindhu follows the Sam. K. generally but it makes one significant remark. It says that several writers hold that in the case of dattaka, sāpiṇḍya is to be observed for a lesser number of degrees (than seven or five ) in both families.100 The Saṁ. R. M. (p. 454 ) says that the limits of sāpiṇḍya spoken of as applying to an adopted person extend to his children also.101 As the limits of sāpiṇḍya for marriage are very much narrowed down when marriage with one’s maternal uncle’s daughter or one’s niece is allowed, on the other hand certain communities extend such limits too much. The Deśastha brāhmaṇas of the Mādhyandina śākhā in the Deccan do not marry a girl whose father’s gotra is the same as the gotra of the bridegroom’s maternal grandfather.
Marriage in mother’s original gotra
Manu III. 5 lays down ’that girl who is not a sapiṇḍa of the mother (of the bridegroom) and who is not a sagotra of the father (of the bridegroom) is commended in the case of twice-born classes’. Many commentators and digests like Kullūka, the Madana-pārijāta (p. 132), the Dīpakalikā, the Udvāhatattva (p. 107 ) understand the word ‘asagotrā’ (in Manu III. 5 ) after ‘mātuḥ’ also, and thus forbid marriage with a girl whose gotra is the same as that of one’s mother (i. e, of one’s maternal grandfather). Medhātithi102 on Manu III. 5 quotes a text of Vasiṣṭha which prescribes the penance of cāndrāyaṇa for marrying a girl who has the same gotra as the bridegroom’s mother ( i.e. his mother’s father) and abandonment of her. Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 16 quotes a similar verse from Śatātapa. Kullūka, the Sm. C. (I. p. 69 ), Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 16, the Gṛ. R. (p. 10), Udvāhatattva p. 107 and other digests quote a verse of Vyāsa ‘some do not desire for marriage a girl who has the same gotra as one’s mother; but one may marry without question (or fear) a girl when her birth and name (as connected with one’s mother’s original gotra ) are unknown’. A woman on marriage loses her original gotra and passes over into the gotra of her husband; so the words ‘sagotrā’ of the mother simply mean “having the same gotra as one’s mother once had in her maiden state’. The Sm. C. (I. p. 69 ) takes this verse to refer only to a woman who was made an appointed daughter (putrikā) by her father. Halāyudha also holds the same view. But other writers do not approve of this ( vide the Gṛ. R., p. 10). The Nirṇayasindhu103 (III. pūrvārdha p. 302 ) forbids marriage with a girl who is sagotrā of one’s mother, but the Sam. K. (p. 693 ) and the Dharmasindhu both say, after quoting a text of Satyāṣāḍha, that this restriction applies only to those who study the Mādhyandina śākhā.
Meaning of Sapiṇḍa in Dāyabhāga
Another word for sapiṇḍa is that interpretation which is offered by the Bengal school represented by the Dāyabhāga and Raghunandana who differ from the Mitākṣarā in the interpretation of the word ‘sapiṇḍa’. In this system the word ‘piṇḍa’ is taken to mean ’the ball of rice’ that is offered in śrāddhas to deceased ancestors &c. (while under the Mit. interpretation ‘piṇḍa’ means body or particles of body ). Sapiṇḍa means ‘one who is connected with another through oblations of food’. The author of the Dāyabhāga propounds his theory with reference to inheritance and he himself says that with reference to āśauca104 sapiṇḍa relationship is to be differently understood. Further Jīmūtavāhana does not set forth his theory of sapiṇḍa relationship with reference to marriage. His theory is that in matters of inheritance the guiding principle is the spiritual benefit ( upakārakatva ) conferred on the deceased through oblations of food, and he relies on Manu (IX. 106) for this proposition. For his sapiṇḍa theory he principally relies on two passages, Baud.105 Dh. S. I. 5. 113-115 and Manu IX. 186-187, Baudhāyana’s words are ’the paternal great-grand-father, the paternal grandfather, the father, the man himself, his full brothers, his son, grandson and son’s son from a woman of the same varṇa: all these participating in undivided dāya (heritage ) are called sapiṇḍas. Those who participate in divided dāya are called sakulyas. Thus issue of the body existing, wealth goes to them; on failure of sapiṇḍas, the sakulyas’. The text of Manu (IX. 186-187) is ‘To three, libations of water must be given; towards three piṇḍa proceeds; the fourth is the giver of these (of water and piṇḍas ), there is no fifth properly (concerned in this). Whoever is the nearest among sapiṇḍas, his becomes the wealth of him (who dies). After him the sakulya becomes (the heir) &c. Jīmūtavāhana’s explanation of this text is as follows: ‘A man when living offers piṇḍas to his three male ancestors ; but when he himself dies, his son performs the sapiṇḍīkaraṇa106 śrāddha for him, he is made one with the pitṛs and he then begins to participate along with his father and grandfather in the three piṇḍas offered by his son to the latter’s three ancestors. Thus those to whom he offers piṇḍas and those who offer piṇḍas to him are called, since they share in undivided oblations, avibhaktadāyāda sapiṇḍas. Several objections can be raised against the theory of Jīmūtavāhana. In the first place he assigns the meaning of piṇḍa to the word dāya in Baudhāyana’s passage for which there is no warrant. Baudhāyana really means that those enumerated by him are called sapiṇḍas who take undivided wealth i. e. who constitute an undivided family. In the next place on his interpretation the word sapiṇḍa has to be interpreted in entirely different ways for āśauca and marriage. Besides he himself is not sure of his ground, since he says that although learned men may not approve of his theory that spiritual benefit is the guiding principle in taking property by inheritance they must admit that the order of heirs as stated by him relying on Manu IX. 186-187 is the proper one.107
The following table illustrates the sapiṇḍas expressly so stated by the Dāyabhāga where P stands for the propositus, S for son and F for father :
GGF (F12) - S13 - S14 - S15
GF (F8) - S9 - S10 - S11
F (F4) - S5 - S6 - S7
P
|
S1 - S2 - S3
Śrīkṛṣṇa, a commentator of the Dāyabhāga and author of Dāyakramasaṁgraha, and Raghunandana, author of Smṛtitattva, and others elaborate these rules. The Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Guru Govind Shaha Mandal108 v. Anand Lal Ghose Mazumdar gives an elaborate statement of the several sapiṇḍas. But as those rules have reference only to succession, they are passed over here. Raghunandana in his work on marriage called Udvāhatattva109 quotes the famous verse of the Matsyapurāṇa, ’the fourth and (two beyond him) among ascendants are partakers of lepa ( the leavings of the boiled rice that become attached to the hand of him who offers piṇḍas ), the father and the rest( i. e. two more beyond him ) are partakers of the piṇḍa; he who offers the piṇḍa to them is the seventh ; sāpiṇḍya extends to seven generations and refers the readers to his Śuddhitattva for elucidation. Raghunandana does not give any definition of sapiṇḍas for marriage, but discusses the conflict about the several texts such as ‘7th on the father’s side and 5th on the mother’s side’. He expressly says (p. 110 of Udvāhatattva) that the words ‘who is not a sapiṇḍa of one’s mother’ are still applicable even if several females intervene between the common ancestor and the girl proposed to be married. He then adds a special rule that descendants of what are called pitṛbandhus and mātṛbandhus also are forbidden if they are within 7 degrees and 5 degrees respectively from these bandhus. The pitṛbandhus110 of a person are his paternal grand-father’s sister’s sons, his paternal grandmother’s sister’s sons and his father’s maternal uncle’s sons; while mātṛbandhus are a person’s mother’s father’s sister’s sons, mother’s mother’s sister’s sons, mother’s maternal uncle’s sons. These two latter may be illustrated by two diagrams.
Paternal Line
Father's maternal grandfather
|
Father's paternal --- Father's maternal uncle
aunt (S1) |
Grandfather = Grandmother (father's grand-maternal-mother's sister)
| |
Father S2
|
A (bridegroom)
N. B. Here S1, S2 and S3 are the three pitṛbandhus of A, the bridegroom, and they are the starting points for calculating prohibited degrees among paternal cognates. In the ascending line only the descendants of the common ancestors are excluded. For example, S1 is a pitṛbandhu and his descendants up to 7 degrees are excluded; but S1’s father is not a bandhu of the bridegroom; therefore S1’s father’s sister may be married by the bridegroom. Under this rule the 6th descendant (a girl) of S1 will be ineligible for marriage with A: but she will be 9th from A’s grandfather’s father who is the common ancestor. So it will be seen that this goes far beyond the limits of sāpiṇḍya generally prescribed and there is no valid reason assigned for this.
Mother’s Line
Maternal great-grandfather (mother's maternal grandfather)
|
Mother's paternal --- Mother's maternal uncle (S3)
aunt (S1) |
Maternal grandfather = Maternal grandmother (mother's mother's sister)
| |
Mother S2
|
A (bridegroom)
N. B.–Here S1, S2 and S3 are mātṛbandhus of the bridegroom. The maternal great-grandfather is the starting point in calculating prohibited degrees in the mother’s paternal line. In the mother’s maternal line the starting points are S2 and S3. In the ascending lines of the mātṛbandhus the descendants of only the common ancestor are excluded. For example, the girl descended from S3’s maternal ancestors may be married by the bridegroom and so also a girl descended from the paternal ancestor of S2 or S1.
Another rule propounded by Raghunandana is that even within prohibited degrees a valid marriage may be contracted if three gotras intervene. In the case of girls descended from pitṛbandhus and mātṛbandhus the computation of gotra must be made from them. For want of space it is not thought advisable to illustrate this by citing several examples. But one example is given to illustrate this rule.
A (common ancestor)
|
D(1)----S(1)
| |
D(2) S(2)
| |
D(3) S(3)
| |
D(4) S(4)
Here according to the Bengal school S(4) can marry D(4) because three gotras intervene between her and the common ancestor, although S4 is only 5th in descent from the common ancestor; for according to the Bengal school it is not necessary that both the bridegroom and the bride be beyond the limits of sapiṇḍaship, but only the bride need be so; while according to many writers of the Mitākṣarā school both must be beyond the limits of sapiṇḍaship from the common ancestor.111
The Dāyabhāga does not rely upon any Vedic passages for its theory of sapiṇḍa relationship. The Mit. (on Yāj. I. 52 ) relies upon three Vedic passages only in propounding the theory of sapiṇḍa relationship viz. “indeed the man himself is born from himself (as son, Ait. Br. 33. 1)’; ’thou art born again (or reproduced ) in the offspring’ (Tai. Br. 1.5.5) and ’this body is made of six kośas ( sheaths ); three are derived from the father, three from the mother ; bones, muscles and marrow from the mother’( Garbhopaniṣad). These passages at the most say that particles of the bodies of the parents continue in their offspring; but they do not say anything about the meaning of sapiṇḍa or the limits of the sapiṇḍa relationship for marriage or inheritance. Even in the Ṛg. the words ‘jñāti’ and ‘bandhu’ which occur in the dharmasūtras (e. g. Āp. Dh. S. I. 3.10. 3, I. 5. 11-17. and Gaut. II. 44, IV. 3 and 5, VI. 3) frequently occur (vide Ṛg. VII. 55. 5 and X. 85. 28 for jñāti and Ṛg. I. 113, 2, V. 73. 4, VII. 72. 2, VII. 67. 9 for bandhu). All that we can say is that both meanings of sapiṇḍa were implicit in the word piṇḍa from the earliest times and that the sūtra writers were conscious of both meanings.
As to the grounds on which marriages between near sapiṇḍas were prohibited various theories have been advanced by anthropologists. Vide Westermarck in his ‘History of Human marriage’( ed. of 1921, vol. II. pp. 71-81 ) and Rivers on ‘Marriage of cousins in India’ in J. R. A. S. for 1907 pp. 611-640. Some think that the prohibition was due to the abhorrence which men in the primitive times felt for incest. To me it appears more probable that in India at least the prohibition was due to two causes; firstly, the observed fact that, if near relatives marry, their defects are transmitted with aggravation to their offspring and secondly the fear that, if marriages between near relatives by blood were allowed, there may be clandestine love affairs and consequent loss of morals and it would be difficult to secure husbands for girls who would be living under the same roof with several near or distant cousins.
The Par. M. I. part 2, p. 59 expressly says that only such a girl who is not a sapiṇḍa of the bridegroom within the prohibited degrees on any of the two theories of sāpiṇḍya (viz. by connection with particles of the body or with the balls of rice ) is eligible for marriage.
The question what support Vedic Literature lends to the two interpretations of the word sapiṇḍa may now be briefly discussed here.
The word piṇḍa occurs112 in the Ṛgveda (I. 162. 19 ) and the Tai. S. IV, 6, 9, 3 where it seems to mean ‘a part of the body of the sacrificial animal thrown into fire as an offering’. Here it is clear that the word piṇḍa is not used in the sense of ‘ball of rice’. But in the Tai, S. II, 3.8.2 and in the Śat, Br. II. 4. 2. 24 the word piṇḍa means ‘ball of rice’ offered to the Manes. The Nirukta III. 4 and 5 twice employs the words ‘piṇḍadānāya’ (for offering balls of rice). But the word sapiṇḍa hardly ever occurs in the Vedic literature and we have no means of judging in what sense it was used in the Vedic literature. In the dharmasūtras the word sapiṇḍa occurs frequently and the dharmasūtras show a close connection between offering piṇḍa and the taking of inheritance ( vide Gaut. 14. 13, 28. 21, Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 14. 2, Vasiṣṭha IV. 16-18, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 40).
It was shown above (pp. 436-37 ) that some sages prohibit marriage with a sagotra girl while others prohibit it with a sapravara girl. A number of sages and works like Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 9, Yāj. I. 53, Nārada (strīpuṁsa, verse 7) require that the girl to be married must not be a sagotrā nor a sapravarā. Therefore it is necessary to understand the meaning of gotra and pravara. A detailed treatment of the topics of gotra and pravara would extend to a large treatise. Only a few salient points can be gone into here. The subject of gotra and pravara in the Vedic Literature has been treated at length by me in the J. B. B. R. A. S. (New series vol. II. for 1935 ). Only the conclusions there drawn will be set out here.
Marriage - meaning of gotra
The word gotra in the Ṛg. means ‘cow-stable’ or ‘herd of cows’ in a few passages (I. 51.3, II. 17. 1, III. 39. 4, III. 43, 7, IX. 86.23, X. 48.2, X. 120.8). By a natural metaphor ‘gotra’ was applied to a cloud (in which waters are pent up as cows in a cow-stable) or to a cloud demon and also to a mountain range or peak which conceals water-yielding clouds. Vide Ṛg. II. 23. 3 (where Bṛhaspati’s car is styled ‘gotrabhid’), Ṛg. X. 103.7(=Tai. S. IV. 6. 4.2, Atharvaveda V. 2. 8. and Vāj. S. 17. 39), Ṛg. VI. 17. 2, X. 103. 6. In some of these verses it is possible to take ‘gotra’ in the sense of ‘fort’. In some cases ‘gotra’ probably means only " assemblage’ (samūha) e. g. Ṛg. II. 23. 18, VI. 65. 5. From this last sense of ‘assemblage’ the transition to the meaning of ‘a group of persons’ is both easy and quick. There is no positive instance of the word ‘gotra’ being unchallengeably used in the sense ‘descendants of a common patriarchal ancestor’ in the Ṛgveda; but the conception underlying the idea of gotra was, it is plain, quite familiar even in the age of the Ṛgveda. In the Atharvaveda V. 21. 3113 the word ‘viśvagotryaḥ’( belonging to all families) occurs. Here the word ‘gotra’ clearly means a group of men connected together’ (by blood). The Kauśika sūtra IV. 2 quotes a mantra in which gotra undoubtedly means ‘a group of persons’.
Several passages of the Tai. S. show that descendants of great sages were called after those sages. In Tai. S. I. 8. 18. 1 it is said ’the Hotṛ is a Bhārgava’ ( descendant of Bhṛgu ). The commentator explains that this is so only in the Rājasūya. It is quite possible that in those days descent was traced through teacher and pupil as well as through father and son. But there being a very few occupations only it is most probable that the son generally learnt from his father the lore of the latter. In Tai. S. VII. 1. 9. 1 we read therefore ‘one does not find (or know) two Jāmadagniyas (in succession) who are poor (or grey haired )’. From this it is clear that in the times of the Tai. S. Jamadagni was regarded as a very ancient sage, that several generations of Jamadagni’s descendants had passed away by that time, that they were all known as Jāmadagnyas (or-gniyas) and that no two descendants were found to be poor (or grey-haired ) in succession.
[[P480]] In numerous mantras of the Ṛgveda the descendants of well-known sages are denoted by the plural form of the names of those sages. In Ṛg. X. 66.14 we read ’the Vasiṣṭhas have raised their voices like their father’. In Ṛg. VI. 35. 5 the Bharad-vājas are referred to as Aṅgirases. According to Aśv. Śrauta-sūtra Bharadvāja is a gotra falling under the Aṅgirogaṇa. In the Brāhmaṇa Literature there are ample indications that priestly families had come to be formed into several groups named after their (real or supposed) founders and that such families differed in details of worship according to the group they belonged to. The Tai. Br. (I.1.4) prescribes that the consecration (ādhāna) of the sacred Vedic fires is to be performed for Bhṛgus or Aṅgirases with the mantra ‘bhṛgūnām (or aṅgi-rasām) tvādevānām vratapate vratenā-dadhāmi,’ that for other brāhmaṇas with the words ‘ādityānām tvā devānām vratapate’ &c. The Tai. Br. II. 2. 3 speaks of the ‘Aṅgirasi prajā’ (people of the Aṅgiras group). The Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa 114 prescribes that the camasa (cup) made of udumbara was to be given as dakṣiṇā to a sagotra brāhmaṇa.’ The Kauṣitaki Br. 115 (25. 15) says that one who has performed the Viśvajit sacrifice (in which everything that the sacrificer owned was gifted away) should stay for a year with a brāhmaṇa of the same gotra. The Ait. Br. (30. 7) contains the story of Aitasa and his son Abhyagni and it is stated that the Aitaśāyanas Abhyagnis are the most sinful of the Aurvas. In the Kauśītaki Br. where the same story occurs it is said that the Aitaśāyanas became lowest among Bhṛgus, as they were cursed by their father. According to Baudhāyanaśrauta-sūtra the Aitaśāyanas are a sub-section of Bhṛgugaṇa. Śunaḥśepa, when he was accepted as a son by Viśvāmitra, came to be called Devarāta and the Ait. Br. (33.5) says that the Kāpileayas and Babhravas were affiliated to Devarāta. According to Baud. śrauta-sūtra Devarāta and Babhru are sub-sections of Viśvāmitra gotra. Śunaḥśepa is said to have been an Aṅgirasa by birth (Ait. Br. 33.5). 116 So this makes it clear that gotra relationship was by birth in the times of the Ait. Br. (and not from teacher to pupil). In the Upaniṣads the sages when expounding the knowledge of brahma
[[P481]] addressed their pupils by the gotra names e. g. by the Bhāra-dvāja, Gārgya, Āśvalāyana, Bhārgava and Kātyāyana gotras in Praśna I. 1, Vaiyāghrapadya and Gautama in Chāndogya V. 14. 1 and V. 16. 1; Gautama and Bharadvāja, Viśvāmitra and Jamadagni, Vasiṣṭha and Kāśyapa in Bṛ. Up. II. 2. 4. All this shows that the system of gotras with several sub-sections was well established in the times of the Brāhmaṇas and the ancient Upaniṣads. But the gotras are in these works referred to in connection with sacrifices or education. There is hardly any distinct reference in these to gotra or sagotra in relation to marriage. In the Lāṭyāyana-śrauta-sūtra 117 VIII. 2. 8 and 10 it is prescribed that one who has given away everything in the Viśvajit sacrifice should stay three nights with niṣādas and may partake of their jungle diet and then again three nights with ‘jana’ and then the sūtra gives several views about the meaning of ‘jana’ one of which, that of Dhānañjapya, is that ‘jana’ means a person with whom (i. e, with whose daughter) marriage is possible while one who is sagotra is called ’ samāna-jana’. This clearly proves that long before the Lāṭyāyana-śrautasūtra marriage with a sagotra had been forbidden. Besides several of the gṛhya and dharma sūtras prohibit marriage with a sagotra girl. It is impossible to hold that this was a new conception that arose only about the time of these sūtras. Therefore, it must be supposed that prohibition as to sameness of gotra in marriage had its origin long before the period of the sūtras in the times of the Brāhmaṇa works (if not earlier).
Gotra was of supreme importance in several fundamental matters and it largely entered into several practices of the ancient Aryans. A few examples may be given here. (1) In marriage sagotra girls were forbidden, vide above pp. 436-37. In the Lājāhoma at marriage two offerings were to be made by all except Jāmadagnyas, who had to make three (Aśv. gṛ. I. 7. 8-9).
(2) In matters of inheritance the wealth of one dying without issue went to his near sagotras (Gaut. 28.19).
(3) In śrāddha the brāhmaṇas to be invited should not belong as far as possible to the same gotra as the person invi-ting (Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 4, Gaut. 15. 20).
[[P482]] (4) In pārvaṇa sthālīpāka and other pākayajñas, all were to cut off oblations from the middle and fore-half of the havis, but for Jāmadagnyas (who are pañcāvattins) they were to be cut off from the middle, the fore-part and the hind part (vide Aśv. gṛ. I. 10. 18-19). 118
(5) In offering water to a preta (a person recently dead) his gotra and name were to be repeated (Aśv. gṛ. IV. 4. 10).
(6) In the caula ceremony tufts of hair were to be left in accordance with the gotra and practice of the family (Khādira gṛ. II. 3. 30).
(7) At the time of performing one’s daily samdhyā prayer, one has to repeat even in modern times one’s gotra and pravara, the Vedaśākhā and sūtra which one studies.
As regards śrauta sacrifices a few interesting examples may be given. Jaimini establishes that sattras (sacrificial sessions extending over 12 days and more) could be performed only by brāhmaṇas and that among brāhmaṇas the Bhṛgus, Śūnakas and Vasiṣṭhas are not entitled to perform them (VI. 6. 24-26). Those of the Atri, Vadhryaśva, Vasiṣṭha, Vaiśya (Vainya?), Śaunaka, Kaṇva, Kāśyapa and Saṁkṛti gotras took Nārāśaṁsa as the second prayāja, while others took Tanūnapāt as the second (vide Śabara on Jaimini VI. 6. 1).
The conception of pravara is closely interwoven with that of gotra from very ancient times. The two have to be studied together. ‘Pravara’ literally means ‘choosing’ or ‘invoking’ (prārthanā). 119 As Agni was invoked to carry the offerings of a sacrificer to the gods by taking the names of the illustrious ṛṣis (his remote ancestors) who in former times had invoked Agni, the word pravara came to denote one or more illustrious ṛṣis, ancestors of a sacrificer. A synonym of pravara is ārṣeya or ārṣa (as in Yāj. I. 52). Pravara entered into several domestic ceremonies and practices according to the gṛhya and dharma sūtras. For example:
(1) a bride was to be chosen whose father’s pravara was not the same as that of the bridegroom’s father. Vide above p. 437.
[[P483]] (2) In upanayana the girdle (mekhalā) was to have one, three or five knots according to the number of ṛṣis constituting the boy’s pravara (vide Śāṅ. gṛ. II. 2).
(3) In Caula the tufts of hair to be left on the head depended on the number of sages constituting the pravara of the boy’s family (Āp. gṛ. 16.6).
The mass of material on gotra and pravara in the sūtras, the purāṇas and digests is so vast and so full of contradictions that it is almost an impossible task to reduce it to order and coherence. The learned author of the Pravara-mañjarī (which is the leading work on the subject) wrote in despair ‘Here, in the parts of sūtras that have been quoted there is a great diver-gence in the order (of the names of pravaras) of the texts of the several sūtrakāras, this being specially so in the text of Āśvalāyana (śrauta)-sūtra. Thus, though divergence is clearly established, yet following the order of the texts of the majority of writers such as Baudhāyana, Āpastamba and Kātyāyana we shall declare (the rules) about marriage or no marriage’. 120
Marriage-gotra and pravara
We have first to understand what gotra in the sūtras and digests means and how it is inter-related to pravara. Among the sūtras that treat of gotra and pravara the śrauta sūtras of Āśvalāyana (Uttaraṣaṭka VI, khaṇḍas 10-15), Āpastamba (24th praśna) and Baudhāyana (B. I. ed. vol. III pravarādhyāya at end) are the most important. The Pravaramañjarī (p.5) has a verse to the effect that Baudhāyana’s pravarādhyāya is the best on the subject.
The Śrautasūtra of Satyāṣāḍha Hiraṇyakeśi (21st praśna) has a section on this subject, which is the same as Āpastam-baśrauta with a few omissions and variations. The Baudhā-yanaśrauta-sūtra says 121 ‘Viśvāmitra, Jamadagni, Bharadvāja, Gautama, Atri, Vasiṣṭha and Kāśyapa are the seven sages and Agastya is the eighth; the progeny of these eight sages is declared to be gotra’. These seven sages are probably derived from what is stated in the Bṛ. Up. II. 2. 3-4 (=Sat. Br.
[[P484]] XIV. 5. 2.6) where these very seven sages are enumerated as those intended in the śloka ’ arvāg-bilaścamasa 122 &c.’ quoted there. The same work (Baud. śrauta) states that there are thousands, tens of thousands and arbudas (millions of millions) of gotras, but the pravaras are only 49. Besides the sūtra works, some purāṇas like the Matsya (chap. 195-202), the Vāyu (chap. 88 and 99, Anan. ed.), Skanda III. 2 (Dharmāraṇya kāṇḍa) contain elaborate enumerations of gotras and pravaras. The Mahābhārata sets out at length the subdivisions (such as Madhuc-chandas, Devarāta) of Viśvāmitragotra in Anuśāsanaparva 4. 49-59. Digests like the Smṛtyarthasāra (pp. 14-17), the Sam. Pr. (pp. 591-680), the Sam. K. (pp. 637-692), the Nirṇaya-sindhu, the Dharmasindhu, the Balambhaṭṭi contain a vast material on this topic. There are also special works like the Pravaramañjarī on this topic. The general conception about gotra is that it denotes all persons who trace descent in an unbroken male line from a common male ancestor. When a person says ‘I am Jamadagni-gotra’ he means that he traces his descent from the ancient sage Jamadagni by unbroken male descent. As stated by Baud, cited above, from very ancient times these male founders were supposed to be eight. This enumeration of eight primary gotras seems to have been known to Pāṇini. Patañjali says ’there were eighty thousand sages who observed celibacy. The accepted opinion is that the spread of progeny was due to eight sages includ-ing Agastya. The offspring (apatya) of these eight are gotras and others than these are called gotrāvayava’, 123 Pāṇini
[[P485]] defines gotra for grammatical purposes as ’ apatyam pautra-prabhṛti gotram’ (IV. 1. 162), which means ’the word gotra denotes (in my work on grammar) the progeny (of a sage) beginning with the son’s son’. For example, the son of Garga would be called Gārgi, but the grandson would be called Gārgyaḥ and the plural Gārgaḥ would denote all descendants of Garga (downwards from Garga’s grand-son). But this definition is a technical one in grammar and is meant to indicate how derived (taddhita) words are to be formed by means of termina-tions. Even Pāṇini makes use of this technical sense only in the apatyādhikāra, but elsewhere in his work he uses the word gotra in the popular sense as comprehending all descendants of a common male ancestor. Vide the Kāśikā on Pāṇini II. 4. 63, IV. 2. 39 and IV. 3. 80. The Sam. Pr. (pp. 591-592) lucidly explains 124 this. That a man belongs to a particular gotra is known by him only from tradition, from his father and other elders or from people about him, just as he knows that he is a brāhmaṇa from the same source 125. Medhātithi on Manu III. 5. 194 has a very lucid and interesting discussion on this topic. His argument is: just as, though all persons are men, some are called brāhmaṇas, so among brāhmaṇas certain persons are known by immemorial usage (or convention) as belonging to certain gotras like Vasiṣṭha and the sūtra-kāras lay down that a certain gotra has certain pravaras; so the word gotra is applied to Vasiṣṭha and other sages by rudhi (by convention or long-standing usage). It cannot be supposed that a person called Parāśara was born at a certain time and then his descendants came to be called Parāśaras. In that case the Veda would not be anādi (beginningless), as it is sup-posed to be, since it mentions Parāśara, Vasiṣṭha &c. So gotra is anādi like the brāhmaṇa caste and the Veda. The word is also secondarily used to denote a person, who is very illustrious on account of his learning, wealth, valour or generosity,
who thereby gives a name to his descendants and then becomes the founder of the family. This is laukika gotra. But this is not the meaning of gotras which brāhmaṇas have. The secondary meaning may apply to the word gotra when used in the case of kṣatriyas’.126 The Mit. on Yāj. I. 53 says ‘gotra is that which is known from tradition handed down in the family.’127
{{Eao|Each}} gotra is associated with one, two, three or five sages (but never four or more than five) that constitute the pravara of that gotra.128 The gotras are arranged in groups, e. g. there are according to the {{Āśvaldyana-srauta-sūtra|Āśvalāyana-śrauta-sūtra}} four sub-divisions of the Vasiṣṭha gaṇa, viz. Upamanyu, {{Parasara|Parāśara}}, {{Kundina|Kuṇḍina}} and Vasiṣṭha (other than the first three). Each of these four again has numerous sub-sections, each being called gotra. So the arrangement is first into gaṇas, then into pakṣas, then into individual gotras. The first has survived in the Bhṛgu and {{Angirasa gane|Aṅgirasa gaṇas}}. According to Baudh. the principal eight gotras were divided into pakṣas. The pravara of Upamanyu is Vasiṣṭha, Bharadvasu, Indrapramada; the pravara of the {{Parisara|Parāśara}} gotra is Vasiṣṭha, Śāktya, Pārāśarya; the pravara of the {{Kundina|Kuṇḍina}} gotra is Vasiṣṭha, Maitrāvaruṇa, Kauṇḍinya and the pravara of Vāsiṣṭhas other than these three is simply Vasiṣṭha. It is therefore that some define pravara as ’the group of sages that distinguishes the founder (lit. the starter) of one gotra from another’.129
Meaning of ārṣeya or pravara
Though the word pravara does not {{occur|occurs}} in the Ṛgveda, the word ‘ārṣeya’ occurs therein and the system of pravara goes back almost to the Ṛgveda. Ṛg. IX. 97. 51 has ’thereby may we acquire wealth and ārṣeya resembling Jamadagni’s.’ Sometimes the idea of invoking Agni is conveyed without using [] the word pravara or ārṣeya. In Ṛg. VIII. 102. 4130 it is said ‘I invoke Agni just as Aurva, {{Bhṛgu|Bhṛgu}} and Apnavāna did.’ It is remarkable that these are three of the five pravara sages of the Vatsa-Bhṛgus according to Baudh. (3). Ṛg. I. 45. 3 has ‘o Jātavedas ({{Agoi|Agni}}), give {{beed|heed}} to the summons of Praskaṇva, as in the case of Priyamedha, Atri, Virūpa and {{Angiras|Aṅgiras}}.’131 In Ṛg. VII. 18. 21 it is said ’they who from house to house gladdened thee, being desirous of thee, viz. Parāśara, {{Satayātu|Śatayātu}} and Vasiṣṭha, will not forget the friendship of a liberal patron (like thee)’.132 It deserves to be noted that this mantra mentions Parāśara (who in later mythology is the grandson of Vasiṣṭha and son of {{Sakti|Śakti}}), {{Satayātu|Śatayātu}} (who is {{Sakti|Śakti}} according to Sāyaṇa), and Vasiṣṭha. Parāśara, Śakti and Vasiṣṭha constitute the pravara of Parāśara gotra (according to Āśv. and Baudh). In the Atharvaveda (XI. 1. 16, XI. 1. 25, 26, 32, 33, 35, XII. 4. 2 and 12, XVI. 8. 12-13) ārṣeya means ‘descendants of sages or those who are related to sages’. In the Tai. S. both ārṣeya and pravara occur in the sense of the sūtras. In the Tai. S. II. 5. 8. 7 (which refers to the recitation of the {{Sāmidbeni|Sāmidhenī}} verses) we read “he says ‘choose (or invoke) ye the fire called havyavāhana’; he chooses him (the fire) of the gods; he chooses the ārṣeya; in so doing he does not depart from the relationship (by blood) and doing so serves for continuity. He chooses the later ones beginning from the remoter ones”. In this passage ‘ārṣeyam’ appears to be used in the sense of ‘one or more illustrious ancestors of the sacrificer’ and reference is made to one of the two modes of mentioning the sages constituting the pravara. ‘Ārṣeya’ may also be taken here as an adjective (qualifying Agni), the meaning being ‘he invokes Agni by the names of the illustrious ancestor sages of the yajamāna’. In one mode the remotest ancestor is named first in a taddhita (derivative) formation, then his descendant and so on, the sage nearest the sacrificer being mentioned last. For example, the pravara of Bhṛgu Vatsa is ‘{{Bhargava-cyavana apnavinaurya-jāinadagnyeti’|Bhārgava-Cyāvanāpnavānaurva-Jāmadagnyeti}}’. This method is employed by the Hotṛ priest when he invokes fire as the divine Hotṛ with the pravara-mantra ‘{{Agne mahān-asi brāhmaṇa bharata deveddha|Agne mahān asi brāhmaṇa bhārata deveḍḍha}}’ [] (vide Tai. S. II. 5. 9, and Śat. Bṛ. I. 4. 2, Āśv. Śr. I. 2. 27-I. 3. 6).
In the other mode the affix ‘vat’ is used after the name of each pravara sage and the remotest one is mentioned last (e. g. Jamadagnivat, Urvavat, Āpnavānavat, Cyavanavat, Bhṛguvat). This mode is employed by the {{adhonryu|adhvaryu}} when he chooses the Hotṛ priest.133 The Tai. S. II. 5. 11. 9 appears to refer to one (i. e. 2nd) mode. The Kauṣītaki brāhmaṇa explains the purpose of taking the names of ancestors ‘as the gods do not partake of the offering of him who has no list of (illustrious) ancestors, therefore he pronounces the ārṣeya of the {{saorificer|sacrificer}}.’134 The Ait. Br. (34. 7) has an interesting passage on pravara. When a brāhmaṇa is initiated for a sacrifice, that fact is announced in these words ‘a brāhmaṇa has been initiated for a sacrifice. How is the initiation of the kṣatriya to be announced? The reply of the Ait. Br. is ’even in the case of the kṣatriya the announcement is to be in the same form (viz. a brāhmaṇa has been initiated); but with the pravara of the family priest. Therefore they should proclaim the kṣatriya’s initiation as a sacrificer with the ārṣeya of his family priest and should invoke Agni with the pravara of his family priest’.135 The Āśv. Śr. (Uttaraṣaṭka VI. 15. 4-5) and Baudh. Śr. (pravarapraśna 54) say that in the case of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas the pravara of their purohita was to be employed or the pravara ‘{{Mānava-Aila Paurūravaga’|Mānava-Aila-Paurūravasa}}’ or simply ‘{{Manuyat|Manuvat}}.’ The origin of that rule is to be found in the above passage of the Ait. Br. There is another similar passage in the Ait. Br. (35.5).
The Śat. Bṛ. [] I. 4. 2. 3-4136 shows that the illustrious ancestors to be invoked were supposed to be related as father and son and not by apostolic succession.
The Mahābhārata says that the {{origioal|original}} gotras were only four viz. {{Angiras|Aṅgiras}}, Kaśyapa, Vasiṣṭha, Bhṛgu.137 The verses are rather abruptly introduced in the epic and there is nothing to show on what this statement was based and it appears that it is due to the imagination of the writer. Baudh. as shown above states that the original gotras are eight. But it is remarkable that Bhṛgu and {{Angiras|Aṅgiras}} (whose divisions and sub-divisions are many) are not included by him in these eight. Therefore, it appears that even Baudhāyana is not correctly stating the number of original gotras. Gautama and Bharadvāja are stated to be two out of the original eight, but both of them instead of being separately dealt with are grouped under the comprehensive {{Angirasagana|Āṅgirasagaṇa}}. So even Baudh. is not to be implicitly followed. The Bālambhaṭṭī mentions eighteen principal gotras (eight as in Baudh. plus ten more some of which are names of {{mythicai|mythical}} kings138). Baudh. himself says that there are millions of gotras and in the Baudh. Pravarādhyāya there are over 500 names of gotra and pravara sages; while the Pravaramañjarī quotes a verse that ’there are three crores of them’139 and ‘so the gotra system is difficult to comprehend’, and it mentions about 5000 gotras. Therefore, as the Smṛtyarthasāra says the nibandhas endeavour to place the innumerable gotras under groups and distribute them among 49 pravaras (mentioned by Baudh.).140
Some idea of these [] gotras and their distribution among the pravaras is given below. The appendix under note No. 1144 collects together the 49 pravara groups.
The Bhṛgugaṇa and the {{Angirogana|Āṅgirogaṇa}} are very extensive. The Bhṛgus are of two sorts, Jāmadagnya and non-Jāmadagnya. The Jāmadagnya Bhṛgus are again twofold, Vatsas and Bidas (or Vidas); the non-Jāmadagnya Bhṛgus are fivefold viz. Ārṣṭiṣeṇas, Yāskas, Mitrayus, Vainyas and Śunakas (these latter five are called kevala Bhṛgus). Under each of these sub-divisions there are many gotras, on the names and number of which the sūtrakāras are not agreed. The pravara of Jāmadagnya Vatsas is constituted by five sages according to Baudh. and by three according to Kātyāyana. The pravara of the Bidas and the Ārṣṭiṣeṇas also has five sages.141 These three (viz. Vatsas, Bidas and Ārṣṭiṣeṇas) are styled {{pañcāvattin|pañcāvattins}} (Baud.5) and they cannot inter-marry (the reason will be explained below). The five non-Jāmadagnya Bhṛgus have each of them numerous sub-divisions. These divisions of Bhṛgus are given here according to Baudh. Āp. has only six of them (and not seven as he excludes Bidas from this group). According to Kātyāyana, Bhṛgus have twelve sub-divisions (vide Saṃ. Pra. p. 625).
The {{Angirogana|Āṅgirogaṇa}} has three divisions, Gautamas, Bharadvājas and {{kevalāngirases|kevalāṅgirasas}}; out of whom Gautamas have seven sub-divisions, Bharadvājas have four (Raukṣāyaṇas, Gargas, Kapis and Kevala-Bharadvājas), and {{Kevala-Angirases|Kevalāṅgirasas}} have six sub-divisions and each of these again is sub-divided into numerous gotras. This is according to Baudh. Other sūtrakāras differ as to the subdivisions. Atri (one of the eight primary gotras) is subdivided into four (Atris proper, Vādbhūtakas, Gaviṣṭhiras, Mudgalas). {{Visvāmpitra|Viśvāmitra}} is sub-divided into ten, which are further sub-divided into 72 gotras. Kaśyapas are sub-divided into Kaśyapas, Nidhruvas, Rebhas, and Śāṇḍilas. Vasiṣṭha has four sub-divisions (Vāsiṣṭhas with one pravara only, Kuṇḍinas, Upamanyus and Parāśaras) which are further sub-divided into 105 gotras. Agastya has three sub-divisions (Agastyas, Somavāhas and Yajñavāhas), the first of which is further sub-divided into twenty gotras. []
When it is said that marriage with a sagotra or a sapravara girl is forbidden, each of these is separately an obstacle to marriage. Therefore, a girl, though not sapravara, may be yet sagotra and so ineligible for marriage or though not sagotra may yet be sapravara and not eligible. For example, the gotras of Yāska, Vādhūla, Mauna, Mauka are different, yet a marriage between persons belonging to these gotras is not possible, because the pravara of all these is the same, viz. ‘{{Bhārgava-Vaitahavya-Sāvetasa-iti’|Bhārgava-Vaitahavya-Sāvetaseti}}’.142 So also though the gotras Sāṃkṛti, Pūtimāṣa, Taṇḍi, Śaṃbhu and Śāṃgava are different, there can be no marriage between them as the pravara is the same, viz. ‘{{Angirasa, Gaurivita, Samkftya’|Āṅgirasa, Gaurīvita, Sāṃkṛtya}}’ (acc. to Āśv. Śrauta). When it is said that samāna pravaras cannot marry, sameness may be due to only one sage being the same in the pravaras of two gotras or there may be two or three or more sages that are common. The general rule is that if even one sage is the same143 in the pravaras of two different gotras, then they are sapravara, except in the case of the Bhṛgu group and the group of {{Angirases|Aṅgirasas}}. In these two latter unless there are at least three sages common (when the pravara is constituted by five sages) or at least two sages are common (when pravara consists of only three sages), there is no sāpravaratva and no bar to marriage. It will be noticed that among the five pravara sages of the Vatsas, Bidas and Ārṣṭiṣeṇas quoted above there are three sages that are common and so they cannot inter-marry.
Though the vast majority of gotras have three pravara sages, a few have only one pravara sage or two sages or five. Those who have only one sage are Mitrayus (pravara Vādhryaśva according to Āśv.), the Vāsiṣṭhas (other than Kuṇḍina, Parāśara and Upamanyu) have only one pravara Vāsiṣṭha, the Śunakas have one pravara Gṛtsamada (according to Āśv.) or Śaunaka or Gārtsamada (according to Baudh. 9); the Āgastis have one pravara Āgastya (according to Āp. Śr. 24. 10. 9); Āśv. optionally allows three pravaras to Mitrayus (Bhārgava-Daivodāsa-Vādhryaśva) and to Śunakas (viz. Bhārgava- [] Śaunahotra-Gārtsamada) and Āp. also allows to Āgastis three pravaras (Viz. Āgastya-Dārdhacyuta-Aidhmavāha-iti). According to Āp. and the purāṇas, Dhānayantas have two pravaras (Vaiśvāmitra-Pauraṇa-iti), Aṣṭakas Lohitas have two (Vaiśvāmitra-Aṣṭaka-iti), and Śāṇḍilas also have two (Daivala-Asita-iti). But he says that according to some the latter have three pravaras also (Kāśyapa-Daivala-Asita-iti), while Baudhāyana gives four optional groups of three sages each for Śāṇḍilas (Baud. 43). For {{Vāri-Dhāpayantas|Vāri-Dhānayantas}} Āśv. prescribes three only (Vaiśvāmitra-Devarāta-Paurana) and also for the Aṣṭakas. According to Baudh. the Vatsas, Bidas and Ārṣṭiṣeṇas (among the Bhṛgus) have five pravara sages; so also among {{Angirases|Aṅgirasas}}, the Kaumaṇḍas, Dīrghatamasas, Raukṣāyaṇas and Gargas have five pravara sages, though the last have optionally three also.
The Āp. śr.144 (24. 5. 6) says ’the sages to be invoked were to be three and they were to be seers of mantras’. It is therefore that the number of pravara sages is limited; there was no such requirement for a gotra and so gotras multiplied to an unlimited extent.
There are certain families that are dvigotras (i. e. have two gotras). Āśv. uses the word “{{dvipravācanaḥ|dvipravacanāḥ}}” for them.145 They are principally three viz. Śauṅga-śaiśiris, Sāṃkṛtis and Laugākṣis. From a Śuṅga, a sub-division of Bharadvāja gotra, was born a son to the wife of a Śaiśiri, a sub-division of Viśvāmitra (by niyoga); the son, therefore, came to be called Śauṅga-Śaiśiri. Therefore Śauṅga-Śaiśiris cannot marry in both Bharadvāja and Viśvāmitra gotras. Their pravaras are given below.146 They have to select one pravara sage from one gotra and two from the other gotra or two from the first and three from the other. A pravara of four sages is not allowed nor of one beyond five. For the other dvigotras, the Saṃ. K. (pp. 682-686), {{Nirpayasindhu|Nirṇayasindhu}} p. 300 ff. may be consulted. In the case of the adopted son also, on the analogy of the Śauṅga-śaiśiris, [] both gotras and the pravaras of both gotras have to be considered and the dictum of Manu (IX. 142) that ’the son given does not share the gotra and inheritance of the genitive father and the svadhā (śrāddhas etc.) of the giver ceases’, is restricted only to matters of inheritance, śrāddha and the like and does not apply to marriage.147
A few words must be said about the gotra and pravara of kings and other kṣatriyas. It appears from the Ait. Br. quoted above (p. 488) that in the case of kṣatriyas the pravara of their purohita was employed in religious acts where pravara had to be recited. This leads to the inference that most kṣatriyas had forgotten their gotras and pravaras by that time. The Śrauta sūtras allow148 an option to kṣatriyas (to kings according to Āśv.). They may employ the pravara of their purohitas or all kṣatriyas may employ the same pravara viz. ‘Mānava-Aila-Paurūravasa iti’. Medhātithi on Manu III. 5 states that the distinctions of gotras and pravaras concern primarily brāhmaṇas alone and not kṣatriyas and vaiśyas and quotes Āśv. Śr. (I. 3) in support. The Mit. and other nibandhakāras rely on the first alternative mentioned in the sūtras and say that in marriages of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas the gotras and pravaras of their purohitas should be considered, as they have no specific gotras of their own149. This is carrying the doctrine of atideśa (extension) too far or with a vengeance. The Saṃ. K. (pp.689-690) assigns reasons for this attitude of the Mit. but they are not satisfactory. Ancient literature and epigraphic records show that kings had gotras of their own. In the Mahābhārata it is said that when Yudhiṣṭhira [] went to the court of Virāṭa in the guise of a brāhmaṇa and was asked by the king to state his gotra he said that he was of the Vaiyāghrapadya gotra (Virāṭa-parva 7. 8-12).
That this was the gotra of the Pāṇḍavas also follows from the fact that in the {{Bhismatarpaṇa|Bhīṣmatarpaṇa}}150 that is performed on the eighth day of the bright half of Māgha, Bhīṣma’s gotra is given as Vaiyāghrapāda or -padya and pravara as Sāṃkṛti. Jaimini (VI. 6. 12-15) establishes that the Kulāyayajña was to be performed jointly by a king and his purohita (and so they could use different pravaras it appears). The Pallavas of Kāñci had Bhāradvāja as their gotra (vide E. I. vol. I p. 5). The Cālukyas are often described as ‘mānavya-gotra’ (vide E. I. vol. VI. p. 339). In a copper-plate grant of {{Jayacan. dradeva|Jayacandradeva}} (dated saṃvat 1233 i. e. 1176 A. D.) the donee was a kṣatriya described as Rāuta-śrī-Rājyadharavarman of the Vatsa gotra and of five pravaras viz. {{Bhargava-Cyavana Apnayāna-Aurva-Jāmadagoya|Bhārgava-Cyāvanāpnavāna-Aurva-Jāmadagnya}}.151 In the {{Garra|Garrā}} (Bundelkhand) plate of the Candella king Trailokyavarma of Kālañjara a village is granted to Rāuta Sāmanta of the Bhāradvāja gotra in recognition of his father’s death in battle with the Turuṣkas (E. I. vol. 16, p. 274).
In many inscriptions and copper-plate grants hundreds of donees with their gotras and pravaras occur and it would be an interesting study to compare the latter with the material derived from the sūtras and nibandhas. For example, vide E. I. vol. 19, pp. 115-117 and 248-250 for about 205 donees and their gotras in the plates of Bhāskaravarman, E. I. vol. 14, p. 202ff (500 donees with gotras in the time of Candradeva Gāhaḍavāla, saṃvat 1150), E. I. vol. 13 p. 237, E. I. vol. 8 pp. 316-317 (śake 1346), E. I. vol. 9 p. 103 (32 donees with gotras, pravaras, śākhās &c.), E. I. vol. 12 pp. 163-167 (120 donees with gotras, Śake 1508), Gupta Ins. No. 55 Chammak plate of Pravarasena &c. Even the Buddhists kept the system of gotras (vide E. I. vol. 10, Lüder’s list, No. 158).
According to Āp. Śr. the vaiśyas had152 a single pravara ‘Vatsapra’, while according to Baudh. they had three, viz. [] ‘{{Bhalandana-Vatsapra-Manktila’|Bhālandana-Vātsapra-Māṅkila}}’. They could also employ the pravara of their purohitas. The Saṃ. Pr. (p. 659) says that Bhālandana is the gotra of vaiśyas.
If a person does not know his own gotra and pravara he should take those of his ācārya (teacher of Veda), according to Āp.153 Though he takes his teacher’s gotra, it is only the teacher’s daughter that is forbidden to him in marriage and not other girls of the same gotra as the ācārya’s. Both Saṃ. K. and Saṃ. Pr. (p. 650) quote a verse that when one does not know one’s gotra one should call oneself of Kāśyapa gotra. This is so when he does not know even his teacher’s gotra. The Sm. C. (śrāddha section p. 481) says that this is so even when one does not know the gotra of one’s maternal grand-father (i.e. he should offer piṇḍa with Kāśyapa gotra to his maternal grand-father).
The word gotra also came to mean any family name (surname). In the inscriptions we find this usage very often. For example, in the Bannahalli plate of the Kadamba king Kṛṣṇavarma II (E. I. vol. VI, p. 18) a śreṣṭhin (a merchant) is said to have been of the Tuthiyalla gotra and pravara. The Reḍḍi king (a śūdra) Allaya Vema of {{Rajalımundry|Rajahmundry}} was said to have been of the Polvola gotra (E. I. vol. XIII. p. 237, of śake 1356).
A few interesting matters about pravaras are noted below. It is noteworthy that even as to the same gotra, there is great divergence among the sūtrakāras about the sages constituting the pravara e. g. as to {{Sāndilyagotro|Śāṇḍilya-gotra}}, Āśv, gives two groups of the sages ‘Śāṇḍila-Asita-Daivala-iti’ or ‘Kāśyapa-Asita-Daivala-iti’, but Āp. states his own view that there are only two sages in the pravara viz. ‘Daivala-Asita iti’ and that some say they are three, Kāśyapa-Daivala-Asita-iti; while Baudh. states four groups, ‘Kāśyapa-Avatsāra-Daivala-iti, Kāśyapa-Avatsāra-Asita-iti; {{Saṇdila-Asita-Daiyala-iti|Śāṇḍila-Asita-Daivala-iti}}; {{Kāøyapa-Avatsāra sāndila iti|Kāśyapa-Avatsāra-Śāṇḍila-iti}}.” No adequate reasons can be given why even at so early an age as the sūtras, not only the order of the names in the pravara, but the very names in the pravara and their number should have varied so much. Baudh.154 (pravarādhyāya sec. 44) notes that [] the {{Laugākṣis|Laukākṣis}} (or Laukākṣis) are Vāsiṣṭhas by day and Kāśyapas by night and their pravaras also show this double relationship. The Smṛtyarthasāra says that this picturesque description of them has reference to the prayājas and the like i. e. by day they follow the procedure of prayājas peculiar to Vāsiṣṭhas and by night that peculiar to the Kāśyapas.
Among the gotras there are names of mythical kṣatriyas and kings like Vītahavya and Vainya and among the names of pravara sages many legendary kings like Māndhātṛ, Ambarīṣa, Yuvanāśva, Divodāsa appear. Vītahavya figures even in the Ṛgveda as closely connected with the Bhṛgus (Ṛg. VI. 15. 2-3). In the Mahābhārata it is narrated that Vītahavya, being a king, attacked Divodāsa, whose son Pratardana pursued Vītahavya, whereupon Vītahavya took shelter with Bhṛgu and that when Pratardana asked Bhṛgu whether there was any kṣatriya in the hermitage, Bhṛgu replied that there were all brāhmaṇas and that by this Vītahavya became a brāhmaṇa (Anuśāsana chap. 30).
Similarly the pravara of the Hārītas is either ‘{{Angirasa Ambarisa-Yauvanāśva-iti|Āṅgirasa-Ambarīṣa-Yauvanāśva-iti}}’ or ‘{{Māndbātr-Ambarisa-Yauvunāśva iti|Māndhātṛ-Ambarīṣa-Yauvanāśva-iti}}’. These are mythical royal sages. Among155 the Bhṛgus is a sub-division called Vainya which is further subdivided into Pārthas and Bāṣkalas. The story of Pṛthu who milked the earth is well-known (Droṇa-parva 69); he is called ‘ādirāja’ in Anuśāsana 166. 55. The Vāyupurāṇa in several places narrates that some kṣatriyas became the pravaras of brāhmaṇas. Vide chap. 88. 72-79, (about Viṣṇuvṛddha,156 who was descended from Purukutsa, whose son was Trasadasyu), chap. 88. 6-7, 92. 6, 99. 158-161, 99. 169-170 (Anan. ed.) for other examples157. How and why kṣatriya names were adopted as brāhmaṇical pravaras is obscure and difficult to understand. If one may hazard a guess, it is probably due to the fact that the purāṇas retain very ancient traditions of times when there were no water-tight varṇas and that ancient kings were learned in the [] Vedic lore and maintained śrauta fires also, became famous as sages in whose name fire was to be invoked to carry offerings to Gods even by brāhmaṇas who came ages after them.
The connection of gotra and pravara may be stated thus: Gotra is the latest ancestor or one of the latest ancestors of a person by whose name his family has been known for generations; while pravara is constituted by the sage or sages who lived in the remotest past, who were most illustrious and who are generally the ancestors of the gotra sages or in some cases the remotest ancestor alone.
It has been seen (pp.437-38) that marriage between parties that are sagotra or sapravara is no marriage and the woman does not become the man’s wife. What were the consequences of such a void union? Baudh.158 (pravarādhyāya 54) says that if a man has intercourse with a sagotra girl he should undergo the penance of cāndrāyaṇa, after that he should not abandon the woman, but should only maintain her as if she were a mother or a sister; if a child is born it does not incur sin and it should take the gotra of Kaśyapa. Aparārka quotes (p. 80) Sumantu and another smṛti to the effect that if a person inadvertently marries a sagotra or {{samāpa-pravara|samāna-pravara}} woman he should give up intercourse with her, should maintain her and undergo cāndrāyaṇa.159 But if he knowingly marries a sagotra or sapravara girl the penance was heavier (viz. that for incest) and if he has intercourse with her or begets a child from her he loses his caste and the child will be a cāṇḍāla160. The rule of Baudh. that there would be no blemish and the child will be of Kaśyapa gotra is restricted to inadvertently marrying such a girl.161 The Saṃ. Pr. quotes a verse of Kātyāyana to the effect that if a marriage is gone [] through with a sagotra, the girl may be again given in marriage to another. But the Saṃ. Pr. gets rid of that inconvenient text by saying that it does not apply to the present age. So the poor girl for no fault of hers had to pass her whole life in enforced celibacy, being neither an unmarried woman nor a widow.162
Questions about the validity of sagotra or sapravara marriages have not yet come before the courts; but it is likely that in the near future courts will have to deal with such cases. If a marriage takes place under the Special Marriage Act of 1872 (as amended in 1923) no difficulty will arise; but recently several marriages have been celebrated under the old śāstric procedure between persons who are sagotra or sapravara. Upon the strict letter of the dharmaśāstra texts such marriages are absolutely void. But it seems that the legislature should intervene and declare sagotra and sapravara marriages valid. Whatever may have been the case thousands of years ago when there were no means of communication and when there were small communities, the prohibition of sagotra relationship had some plausibility and real feeling of close kinship about it; but now the prohibition has become meaningless. A man from Kashmir may marry a girl from Madras and the parents of both may have the same gotra. Granting for argument that the gotra sage was a common ancestor, one does not know how many generations have intervened between that remote ancestor and the intending spouses and particles of the ancestor’s body, if they have survived at all in the intending spouses of the same gotra, must be in the present generation in the most attenuated state. The prohibitions based upon gotra and pravara are said by orthodox people to be prescribed upon unseen ({{adreta|adṛṣṭa}}) grounds and so they argue that they must be held to be absolute and not admitting of any evasion by any one calling himself a Vedic Hindu. One may be permitted to reply to these people that when almost everybody has given up the ancient cult of the śrauta and gṛhya fires and when hundreds of other innovations in ancient practices have been accepted without demur, there is hardly any justification for sticking to this one remnant of ancient practices. As a matter of fact many brāhmaṇas now do not remember their pravara themselves but have to be told by the priests what their pravara is. Certain prohibitions against [] marriage between near sapiṇḍa relations may be respected on account of their universal acceptance. Even the Special Marriage Act of 1872 prescribes that there can be no marriage between parties when they trace descent to a common ancestor who is the great-grandfather or great-grandmother (or who is nearer even than these) of any one of them.
Sagotra relationship is in one direction wider than sapiṇḍa relationship and narrower than it in another so far as marriage is concerned. A man cannot marry the daughter of any sagotra, however distant the sagotra may be. Similarly even an adopted man cannot marry the daughter of a sagotra of his genitive father for two reasons, firstly because, though on adoption he becomes severed from his natural family for inheritance and offering of piṇḍa (vide Manu IX. 142), his other relationships with the natural family remain intact; and secondly because Manu (III. 5) says that the girl must not be a sagotra of the bridegroom’s father and so even if by adoption a man goes into another gotra, it is the father’s gotra that is to be considered). Sapiṇḍa relationship prohibiting marriage extends only to seven or five generations, but prohibitions on the ground of sagotra relationship extend to any number of generations. On the other hand sapiṇḍas may be either of the same gotras i. e. (sagotra) or of a different gotra (i.e. bhinnagotra). Thus up to a certain limit sapiṇḍas include both sagotras and bhinnagotras. The latter are called bandhus by the Mit.; they are all cognate relations and have an important place in inheritance. We have seen (pp. 436-37) that sagotra marriages were totally forbidden in the sūtras (in the śrauta sūtras like Lātyāyana śrauta and in gṛhya and dharma sūtras). A passage of the Śat. Bṛ. (quoted above at p. 461) is relied upon by Professors Macdonell and Keith (Vedic Index vol. I. p. 236) for holding that marriages within the third and fourth degrees on both maternal and paternal sides were allowed in the days of the Śatapatha and that therefore a man could marry in those days his paternal uncle’s daughter. This latter is a startling proposition. The passage in the Śat. Bṛ. is no doubt expressed in general words (‘one may be united in the third or fourth generation’). But that passage is generally applicable even if only a marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter or paternal aunt’s daughter is meant. The passage does not expressly allow paternal cousins’ marriages. The dharma-sūtras prohibit sagotra marriages. Both the learned Professors, as most western scholars do, probably hold that [] the Śatapatha is not separated from the sūtras by more than a few centuries. If a paternal uncle’s daughter had been eligible for marriage in the times of the Śatapatha, but became forbidden in the times of the sūtras we shall have to suppose that an usage died out from one end of the country to another and an opposite usage became prevalent throughout within a few centuries. The smṛtis are not afraid of stating ancient practices which they themselves do not accept (i. e. niyoga). The smṛtis do not say that marriages with paternal uncle’s daughters were ever allowed anywhere. So it appears that the Śatapatha is not referring to marriage with paternal uncle’s daughter, but to marriage with maternal uncle’s or paternal aunt’s daughter. It must however be pointed out that Aparārka (pp. 15, 63), the Sm. C. (I. p. 12), Pār. M. I. part 1 p. 133 and other digests quote a passage from the Brahmapurāṇa163 that sagotra and sapiṇḍa marriages are forbidden in the Kali age. It may be argued with some force that this implies that sagotra marriages once took place. But there are various ways of explaining this. It is possible that in the purāṇa the word gotra is not used in the technical sense, but only in the sense of family or surname. Among śūdras there is no gotra in the strict sense, but they also do not marry a girl who is believed to be of the same family, though the exact relationships or generations are not known. Besides it has been shown above that if a woman was a putrikā or married in the Gāndharva or {{Āgura|Āsura}} form she retained the gotra of her father and the son of the putrikā would have the gotra of his maternal grand-father and yet being of a different family his marriage with the {{daugther|daughter}} of a sagotra of the maternal grand-father might have taken place in ancient times and was forbidden in the Kali age by the purāṇa. Similarly the implied reference to marriages of sapiṇḍas as taking place in former ages has probably marriage with maternal uncle’s daughter in view. When in the kalivarjya texts it is said ’these dharmas are declared to be prohibited by the sages in the Kali age’ (vide Vyavahāra-mayūkha p. 242), it is not proper to argue that everyone of the practices forbidden in the kali age was valid in former ages. All that is meant seems to be that most of them were allowed in former ages and these along with others enumerated are not to be practised in the Kali age, just [] as when in a crowd many have umbrellas and a few have not, a speaker still says with reference to the whole crowd ‘chatriṇo gacchanti’ (here go persons with umbrellas).
There are certain other prohibitions about marriage. The Smṛtimuktāphala164 quotes a verse of Hārīta that ‘one should not give one’s daughter in exchange to another’s son and receive that other’s daughter in marriage for one’s son, one should not give two daughters to the same man (at the same time), nor should one give one’s two daughters to two persons who are brothers’. But these dicta will now certainly be held as merely recommendatory. Besides there is no objection in India in modern times to marrying the deceased wife’s sister, though even in England the deceased wife’s sister could not be married until 1907 (when the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act, 1907, 7 Edw. 7 chap. 47 legalised such marriages).
The next question is as to who have power to arrange for the marriage of a girl and to give her away. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (24. 38-39) specifies the order of persons who are entitled to exercise this right of guardianship in marriage ’the father, the paternal grand-father, a brother, a kinsman, a maternal grand-father and the mother are the persons, by whom the girl may be given away in marriage. In the absence of the preceding one (the right) devolves upon the next in order, in case he is able’. Yāj. (I. 63-64) gives a slightly different order viz. he omits the maternal grand-father and adds that the right can be exercised only when the guardian is not affected by lunacy and similar defects and that in the absence of these the girl should perform svayamvara (i. e. choose a husband herself). Nārada165 [] ({{stripursa verges|strīpuruṣa verses}} 20-22) gives the order as father, brother (with father’s consent), paternal grand-father, maternal uncle, agnates, cognates, mother (if sound in mind and body), then distant relations, then the maiden may perform svayamvara with the king’s permission.
To give away a girl in marriage was not only a right but was rather a heavy responsibility, as (Yāj. I. 64) and others declare that if a girl is not got married by the guardian at the proper time the latter incurs the sin of the murder of an embryo. The practice of svayamvara is well known from the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, but it was confined mostly to the princely families. Manu (IX. 90–91) required a girl to wait for three years after she became marriageable before she could choose her husband herself. But Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 40 says that a girl should wait only for three monthly periods after she attains puberty and that after that period she has full power to dispose of herself in marriage as she thinks best.
There are no rules in the smṛtis as to who is to arrange the marriage of a male, since in ancient times they did not contemplate the marriages of minor males.
The mother has been put low in the order of guardians probably because of the dependent status assigned to women and because of the fact that in the ceremony of kanyādāna she cannot personally engage but has to get it done through some male relative. The courts in modern India, however, have held that the mother is entitled to select a husband for her daughter even when the girl’s paternal grand-father is living, though the actual gift may be made by a male. Vide Bai Ramkore v. Jamnadas, I. L. R. 37 Bom. 18, where Yāj. I. 63 is interpreted as only laying down who are to make a gift of the girl and as not intended to take away altogether the mother’s right of selecting a bridegroom in favour of even distant relations. Vide also Indi v. Ghania (I. L. R. 1 Lahore 146), Jawani v. Mula Ram (I. L. R. 3 Lahore 29, where it was held that, after the father, the mother of a girl has the preferential right to select a bridegroom for her and that she is under no obligation to consult the girl’s paternal kindred such as a paternal uncle), Raṅganāiki v. Ramanuja I. L. R. 35 Mad. 728, (where all the authorities are examined). The Dharmasindhu states the important proposition that ‘when the girl performs svayamvara or when the mother is to give away the girl in marriage, the girl or mother should perform the Nāndīśrāddha and the principal saṃkalpa is to be pronounced by her and the rest of the [] rite is to be performed through a brāhmaṇa.’166
Nārada states the general rule that if anything is done by one who is afflicted with lunacy or similar defects, what he does is as if not done, so a marriage settled even by the father if he is a lunatic need not be performed. If an unauthorized person (like a maternal uncle) were to give away a girl in marriage though her father is alive and fit, what is the result? The digests state167 that if the marriage has been completed by the performance of saptapadī, it cannot be set aside merely on the ground of the want of authority in the giver, since marriage rites are the principal matter and the authority to give is a very subsidiary matter, the absence of which cannot affect the principal matter. But before the marriage takes place a person who wants to give away a girl, though persons better qualified exist, can be prevented from doing so. Courts in modern India have followed these rules, relying on the doctrine of ‘factum valet quod fieri non debuit’ (what ought not to be done when done is valid) and holding that when once a marriage is duly solemnized and is otherwise valid, it is not rendered invalid because it was brought about without the consent of the proper guardian for marriage or in contravention of an express order of the court. Vide Khushalchand v. Bai Mani (I. L. R. 11 Bombay 247) and Bai Diwali v. Moti (I. L. R. 22 Bom. 509).
A few words must be said about the sale of girls in marriage. We read in the {{Maitrayapiya s.|Maitrāyaṇīya S.}} I. 10. 11 ‘she indeed commits falsehood (or sin) who being purchased by her husband roams about with other males.’168 There is another passage of the Veda relied upon along with the above by the pūrvapakṣa (the plausible view-point) in Jaimini (VI. 1. 10-11) which denies that women have a right to [] take part in Vedic sacrifices, viz. ‘one should give to the daughter’s father a hundred (cows) plus a chariot’. Jaimini replies (VI. 1. 15) that ’the giving of a hundred with a chariot is not for purchasing a bride, but it is only a duty and a hundred must be offered as a present (whether the girl is beautiful or not).169 This shows that, even if some girls were purchased for marriage in the times of the Maitrāyaṇīya S., there was a popular revulsion of sentiment about this practice and the sale of girls was severely condemned by the time of the sūtrakāras. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13. 10-11) also makes interesting remarks on this point170 “there is no gift and the incidents of purchase about one’s children; in marriage the gift ordained by Veda to be made to the daughter’s father in the words ’therefore one should give a hundred (cows) besides a chariot to the girl’s father and that (gift) should be made to belong to the (married) couple’ is due to the desire (of the father to give a status to the daughter and her sons) and is meant as a fulfilment of duty (and not as a sale transaction). The word ‘purchase’ applied to such a transaction is merely figurative, since the relationship (as husband and wife) arises (not from the so-called purchase but) from dharma.” Vas. Dh. S. (I. 36-37) quotes the two passages of the Veda (from Mait. S. and the other about the gift of one hundred cows) in support of the Mānuṣa (i. e. Āsura) form of marriage. The Nirukta VI. 9171 while explaining Ṛg. I. 109. 2 (‘O Indra and Agni, I have heard you to be greater donors than a partially fit son-in-law or a brother-in-law’) remarks that “the word ‘{{vijāmātā|vijāmātṛ}}’ means among the southerners the husband of a woman who is purchased; what is meant is that he is a [] bridegroom who is deficient and not endowed with all good qualities.” So Yāska implies that in the south girls were sold for substantial sums of money to persons who (either because they were old or wanting in some qualities desirable in a good bridegroom) were therefore really deficient as bridegrooms.
In the Nirukta (III. 4) while discussing the several views about the obscure verse of the Ṛgveda III. 31. 1 (sāsad-vahnir &c.) one of the reasons assigned for the view that women do not inherit is that gift, sale and abandonment in the case of women exist, but not in the case of men, to which some reply that these (gift, sale &c.) can be made of males also as is seen in the story of Śunaḥśepa (in the Ait. Br. 33, Tai. S. V. 2. 1. 3, Tai. Br. I. 7. 10).
These passages lead to the inference that in ancient times girls were sometimes purchased for marriage, as was the case in many other countries. But gradually public feeling entirely changed and not only was the sale of daughters by the father or brother severely condemned, but even taking of presents by them was looked down upon. Āp. Dh. S. has already been quoted above (note 1174). The Baudh. Dh. S. (I. 11. 20-21)172 quotes two verses ’that woman who is purchased with wealth is not declared to be a legally wedded wife (a patnī); she is not (to be associated with the husband) in rites for the gods or manes and Kaśyapa declares that she is a dāsī (slave girl). Those, who, blinded by greed, give their daughters in marriage for a fee (śulka), are sinners, sellers of their own selves and perpetrators of great sin and they fall into hell &c.’ In another place Baudh. says ‘he who gives his daughter (in marriage) by sale (as a chattel) sells his merit (puṇya)’. Manu (III. 51, 54-55) strikes173 a tender note about daughters when he says ‘a father should not take even the smallest gratuity for his daughter; if he takes a gratuity through greed he becomes the seller of his child; when relations do not take for themselves wealth given by the bridegroom as gratuity (but hand it over to the girl) there is no sale (of the girl); the wealth so taken is for [] honouring the maidens and is only taken from the bridegroom out of loving concern for them. Fathers, brothers, husbands and brothers-in-law desiring their own welfare should honour women and should give them ornaments’. Manu (IX. 98) further recommends that ’even a śūdra should not take a gratuity when giving his daughter (in marriage), since in taking a gratuity he clandestinely sells his daughter’. Yāj. III. 236, Manu XI. 61 include the sale of children among upapātakas. The Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana 93. 133 and 94. 3) condemns the taking of a gratuity for giving a girl and Anuśāsana (45. 18-19) speaks of gāthās of Yama contained in dharma-śāstras ‘whoever sells his son for a price, or gives a daughter for the sake of his own livelihood in return for a gratuity, would fall into a most horrible hell called Kālasūtra’. Verse 23 of the same chapter says ’even a stranger cannot be sold, what of one’s own children’. Verse 20 (= Manu III. 53) condemns even the Ārṣa form of marriage as a sale because a pair of cattle is therein taken by the girl’s father. In Kerala or Malabar it is believed that the great teacher Śaṃkara laid down 64 ācāras, among which are prohibition of the sale of girls, prohibition of satī &c. Vide I. A. vol. IV, pp. 255-256 and also Atri v. 389 and Āp. (in verse) IX. 25 (ed. by Jīvānanda). This practice, however, persisted till modern times. For example, in an inscription dated about 1425174 A. D. from Paḍaivīḍu (North Arcot District) we find an agreement signed by the representatives of Karṇāṭa, Tamil, Telugu and Lāṭa (South Gujarat) brāhmaṇas that they would give up taking gold for their daughters and get them married by the simple kanyādāna (the Brāhma form) and that the father who accepted gold and the bridegroom who paid gold were to be punished by the king and were to be excommunicated from the brāhmaṇa caste. The Peshwā175 issued orders (about 1800 A. D.) addressed to the brāhmaṇas of Wai (in the Satara District) forbidding them to take money for giving their daughters in marriage and prescribing fines for the father [] who took money, for the giver and the intermediary who brought about the marriage. Among certain castes and among the śūdras even now money or money’s worth is often taken when a daughter is married, but generally the money is meant as a provision for the girl and for defraying the expenses of the girl’s father.
The question of the sale of girls in marriage has been from the remotest ages bound up with the question of the father’s power over his children. Ṛg. I. 116. 16176 and I. 117. 17 refer to the story of Ṛjrāśva who was deprived of his eye-sight by his father because the former gave a hundred rams to a she-wolf. The verses refer to some natural phenomena under a metaphorical garb and cannot be used for drawing the inference that a father could in law deprive his son of eye-sight at his will. The story of Śunaḥśepa (Ait. Br. 33) shows that in rare cases the father did sell his son. The passage of the Nirukta about the power to sell, to gift away or to abandon daughters has been already cited (p. 505). The Vas. Dh. S.177 (XVII. 30-31) says ‘Śunaḥśepa is an example of the son bought’ (one of the twelve kinds of sons). The same sūtra (XVII. 36-37) defines the apaviddha kind of son as ‘one, who being cast off by his parents, is accepted (as a son) by another.’ Manu IX. 171 also defines the ‘apaviddha’ in the same way. Vas. Dh. S. (XV. 1-3) propounds the absolute power of the parents over their children in the words ‘man produced from seed and uterine blood springs from the father and the mother; (therefore) the parents have power to give, to sell or to abandon him; but one should not give nor accept an only son’. Here Vas. states the right of patria potestas several centuries before Justinian, who makes the vain boast (Institutes, Lib. I. Tit. IX. 2) that ’no other people have a power over their children such as we have over ours’. Manu (VIII. 416) and the Mahābhārata178 (Udyoga 33. 64) both state that the wife, the son and the slave are without wealth and that whatever they acquire belongs to him whose they are. Manu (in V. 152) says that ‘gift (by the father of the bride) is the source of (the husband’s) ownership (over her)’. But gradually the [] rigour of the father’s power was lessened by other competing considerations such as the ideas that the son was the father himself born again, and that the son conferred great spiritual benefit on the souls of the father and his ancestors by the balls of rice offered in śrāddha. So gradually the father’s power over the son became restricted. Kauṭilya (III. 13) gives the interesting information that mlecchas incur no blame by selling or pledging their children, but an ārya cannot be reduced to the state of slavery. Yāj. II. 175 and Nārada (dattāpradānika 4) both forbid the gift of one’s son or wife. Kātyāyana179 says that though the father has powers of control over the wife and the son, he has not the power to sell or make a gift of his son. Yāj. (II. 118-119) modified the rule about the son’s acquisitions also. Manu VIII. 389 prescribes a fine of 600 paṇas for abandoning one’s mother, father, wife or son when they are not sinners. Vide Yāj. II. 237, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 113-114, Kauṭilya III. 20 (p. 199) for a similar provision. Manu (VIII. 299–300) restricted a man’s power to award corporal punishment for misconduct to his wife, son or slave to striking with a rope or a thin piece of bamboo.
One question discussed by dharmaśūtra writers is whether one has ownership over one’s wife and children. In Jaimini180 (VI. 7. 1-2) it is decided that in the Viśvajit sacrifice where one is to give away all that one has, one cannot give away one’s parents and other relatives as one can make a gift only of what one is master of. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 175 says ’though one cannot make a gift of one’s wife or child to another, one is still owner of them.’ The Vīramitrodaya181 (vyavahāra p. 567) is of the same opinion. On the other hand the Tantraratna (of Pārthasārathimiśra) says that the word gift with reference to the son and the like is used only in a secondary sense viz. that of passing to another the power of control over the son [] or the daughter. The Vyavahāramayūkha is also of the same opinion.
A few words may be said about infanticide. Westermarck in his ‘Origin and Development of Moral Ideas’ vol. I. (1906) pp. 393-413 furnishes an exhaustive account of this practice in ancient and modern times among barbarous and civilised communities from various countries, e. g. in Sparta (for the purpose of securing strong and healthy fighters), among the Rajputs (from family pride and fear of the crushing burden of expenses at marriage).182 He is wrong in saying that in the Vedic times infanticide or exposure of children was practised. Ṛg. II. 29. 1183 is of no use on this point; it says ‘cast off from me sin as a woman who secretly gives birth to a child (casts it off).’ This is not a reference to infanticide of children born in wedlock, but refers to the exposure of a child by an unmarried woman which is clandestinely practised everywhere and as regards which even in England a very lenient attitude is shown as manifested by the passing of the Infanticide Act (12 and 13 Geo. V. Chap. 18). The most important passage on which some European scholars like Zimmer and Delbrück rely upon for this proposition is Tai. S. VI. 5. 10. 3 ’they go to the avabhṛtha184 (the final sacrificial bath); they keep aside the sthālīs (pots) and take up the vessels for vāyu: therefore they (the people) keep aside the girl when she is born and lift up (i. e. greet with pride and joy) the son’. This simply refers to the fact that a daughter was not greeted as much as the son. It has nothing to do with exposure or infanticide. That passage only expresses the sentiment contained in the Ait. Br.185 (33.1) ‘[] the wife is indeed a friend, the daughter is distress (or humiliation), the son is light in the highest heaven.’
The Mahābhārata (Ādi. 159. 11) in a similar vein says ’the son is one’s self, the wife is one’s friend, but the daughter is indeed a difficulty.’ But all the same the Gṛhyasūtras like Āp. (15. 13) call upon the father to greet his daughter also with a mantra when he returned from a journey, the difference being that in the case of the son there is kissing of the son’s head and muttering of certain mantras in his right ear. Manu (IX. 232) advises the king to award death sentence to him who kills a woman, a child or a brāhmaṇa. Manu IX. 130 (= Anuśāsana 45. 11) expressly says that ‘just as the son is one’s own self, so is the daughter like the son; how can another person take the wealth (of the deceased) when his daughter who is his own self is there to take it?’ Nārada186 (dāyabhāga v. 50) reasons that both the son and the daughter continue the line of the father and therefore in the absence of the son the daughter succeeds as heir. Bṛhaspati exclaims ’the daughter is born from the limbs of the parents as much as the son; when she is alive how can another take her father’s estate’? Bāṇa, who as a great poet had unparalleled sympathy with the emotions and feelings of the average man, makes even the king Prabhākaravardhana say about his daughter what every Indian father has felt for thousands of years ’this rule of law laid down by some one viz. that one’s own children (daughters) sprung from one’s body, fondled on one’s knees and whom one would never forsake, are taken away all of a sudden by persons (husbands) who till then were quite unfamiliar. It is on account of this sorrow that although both (son and daughter) are one’s own children the good feel sorrow when a daughter is born and who offer water in the form of tears to their daughters at the very time of their birth’. A daughter was not greeted at birth, not because the father had no love for her, but because [] he felt that a daughter meant a source of anxiety all her life to him. It was the great concern felt for a daughter’s well-being in life and her character that made the parents anxious that no daughter be born to them. Society expected a very high moral rectitude from women and treated lapses of men with leniency. This is finely expressed in the Rāmāyaṇa (Uttara-kāṇḍa 9. 10-11). Ancient literature did not everywhere treat women with scorn and contempt. It has already been shown how highly the wife was regarded even in the most ancient days as a man’s half. Ṛg. III. 53. 4 speaks of the wife as a haven of rest (jāyed-astam). The Chān. Up.187 looks upon the sight of a woman in a dream as very auspicious and as prognosticating success in religious rites already undertaken. Manu (III. 56 = Anuśāsana 46. 5), though he has said, as will be shown later on, some very hard things about women, was not unmindful of the honour due to them and says in a chivalrous spirit ‘where women are honoured there the gods love to reside; where they are not honoured, there all religious acts come to nought.’ Maidens were regarded as pure (vide p. 296 above) and auspicious. When the king passed through his capital it was customary to greet him with fried grain showered by maidens (Raghuvaṃśa II. 10). The Śaunaka-kārikā188 (ms. in Bombay University Library folio 22 b) includes a maiden among the eight objects which were auspicious. The Droṇaparva (82. 20-22) mentions numerous objects which Arjuna looked at and touched as auspicious when starting for battle, among which well-decked maidens are mentioned. Gobhila-smṛti II. 163 says that one that sees on rising from bed in the morning among others a woman whose husband is living is free from all difficulties. The Vāmana-purāṇa (14. 35-36) mentions several objects which are auspicious when one is about to leave home, among which figure brāhmaṇa maidens. Vide Sm. C. I. p. 168.
Some remarks must be made about the times auspicious for marriage. In the marriage hymn (Ṛgveda189 X. 85. 13) the [] words occur ’the cows are killed on the Aghas and (the bride) is carried away (from her father’s house) on the Phalgunīs’. The cow was killed in Madhuparka which was offered to the bridegroom on the day of marriage. Or this may be a reference to the giving of cows by the bridegroom to the bride’s father (as in the form later called ārṣa). So it appears probable that this is a reference to marriage being performed on the day when the moon was in conjunction with the constellation of Aghā (i. e. Maghā). The two Phalgunīs follow immediately after the Maghā nakṣatra. There is an echo of this in the Āp. gṛ. III. 1-2 which says ‘cows are accepted on the Maghās and (the bride) is carried (to the bridegroom’s house) on the Phalgunīs’. This means that the marriage (probably in the ārṣa form) is celebrated on the Maghās and the bride goes from her father’s house on the next day after marriage or after one day more. The Āśv. gṛ. (I. 4. 1) says190 that ‘in the northward passage of the sun, in the bright half of a month and on an auspicious lunar mansion, caula, upanayana, godāna and marriage are to be performed and that according to some teachers marriage may be celebrated at all times’ (not necessarily in northward passage &c). The Āp. gṛ. (2. 12-13) prescribes that all seasons except the two months of Śiśira (i. e. Māgha and Phālguna) and the last of the two months of summer (viz. Āṣāḍha) are fit for marriage and all nakṣatras which are declared to be auspicious (or holy). Āp. gṛ. further191 adds (3. 3) ‘a father who desires that his daughter should be dear (to her husband) should give her in marriage on the Niṣṭyā (i.e. Svāti constellation); thus she becomes dear (to her husband), she does not return (to her parent’s house); this is a procedure based upon the Brāhmaṇa passage.’ The Brāhmaṇa passage is Tai. Br. I. 5. 2. The Baudh. gṛ. (I. 1. 18-19) is the same172 as Āp. gṛ. about months and adds that the nakṣatras for marriage are Rohiṇī, Mṛgaśirṣa, Uttarā Phālgunī, Svāti; while Punarvasu, [] Tiśya (Puṣya), Hasta, Śravaṇa and Revatī are suitable for other ceremonies of an auspicious character.
The Mānava gṛ. (I. 7. 5) says that the nakṣatras Rohiṇī, Mṛgaśiras, Śravaṇa, Śraviṣṭhā (Dhaniṣṭhā) and the Uttarās (i. e. Uttarāṣāḍhā, Uttarā Phālgunī and Uttarā Bhādrapadā) are fit for marriage and for taking the bride from her parent’s house and whatever other (nakṣatra) is declared to be auspicious. Kāṭhaka gṛ. 14. 9-10 and Vārāha gṛ. 10 are similar. The Rāmāyaṇa192 (Bālakāṇḍa 72. 13 and 71. 24) speaks of marriage being performed on Uttarā Phālgunī, of which Bhaga is the deity. The Mahābhārata also speaks of marriage on a nakṣatra presided over by Bhaga (Ādiparva 8. 16). The Kauśika-sūtra (75. 2-4) makes an approach to modern practice when it prescribes that marriage should be celebrated after the full moon of Kārtika and up to the full moon of Vaiśākha or one may do as one likes but should avoid the month or half month of Caitra.193
Medieval digests introduce many detailed rules derived from astrology which it is not possible to set out here. A few only will be indicated. The Udvāhatattva (p. 124) quotes Rājamārtaṇḍa194 and Bhujabalabhīma to the effect that all months are auspicious for marriage except Caitra and Pauṣa and that when a girl is very much grown-up one should not wait for auspicious seasons, but she should be given away on any day when the moon and the zodiacal sign rising at the moment of marriage are favourable, and that one should go into questions of auspicious ayana, month, day &c. up to only the tenth year of girls. The Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 460) says that as there is conflict among the dicta of sūtra and smṛti [] writers about months one should follow the usage of one’s country. One should not celebrate the marriage of the eldest son with the eldest daughter of a man in the month of Jyeṣṭha (or on Jyeṣṭhā nakṣatra) nor should one celebrate a marriage in the month of birth or on the day of birth or nakṣatra of birth (of the eldest son or daughter). Wednesday, Monday, Friday and Thursday are the best days of the week, but the Madanapārijāta says that any day is good if the marriage is celebrated at night.195 In marriage the moon must be in a strong position for girls. One should avoid Jupiter being the 4th, 8th or 12th from one’s rāśi (zodiacal sign in which the moon was at the time of birth). The Nirṇayasindhu quotes a verse that when the girl has reached puberty, then one should not wait till Jupiter is favourable, but marriage should be performed even when Jupiter is 8th from the zodiacal sign of birth, propitiatory rites however being performed for Jupiter.196 Upanayana and marriage cannot be performed when Jupiter is in the zodiacal sign called Leo (Siṃha), but this applies only to the tract between the river Godāvarī and the Ganges.197 From the nakṣatra and zodiacal sign at the time of birth (in the case of both the girl and the bridegroom) certain astrological calculations were made in eight ways198 called kūṭas. They were Varṇa, Vaśya, Nakṣatra, Yoni, Graha (planets governing the twelve rāśis), Gaṇa, Rāśi, and Nāḍī, each later one of which was more powerful than each preceding one and marks (guṇa) from 1 to 8 were respectively assigned to each of these if the conditions laid down were satisfied. Two of these viz. gaṇa and nāḍī are attached great importance even now among brāhmaṇas and other classes also and so they may be illustrated here, though very briefly. The 27 nakṣatras are arranged in three groups of nine each, each group being assigned to Devagaṇa, Manuṣyagaṇa and Rākṣasagaṇa as follows:
[]
| Devagaṇa | Manuṣyagaṇa | Rākṣasagaṇa |
|---|---|---|
| Aśvinī | Bharaṇī | Kṛttikā |
| Mṛgaśiras | Rohiṇī | Āśleṣā |
| Punarvasu | Ārdrā | Maghā |
| Puṣya | Pūrvā | Citrā |
| Hasta | Uttarā | Viśākhā |
| Svāti | Pūrvāṣāḍhā | Jyeṣṭhā |
| Anurādhā | Uttarāṣāḍhā | Mūla |
| Śravaṇa | Pūrvābhādrapadā | Dhaniṣṭhā |
| Revatī | Uttarābhādrapadā | Śatatārakā |
If the bride and bridegroom are born on nakṣatras that belong to the same class out of these three groups it is the best thing but if their nakṣatras of birth belong to different groups, then the rules are: it is middling if their nakṣatras belong to the deva group or the human group respectively, or if the bridegroom’s nakṣatra being of the devagaṇa or rākṣasagaṇa, the bride’s is of the manuṣyagaṇa, while if the nakṣatra of the bride is of the rākṣasagaṇa group and the bridegroom’s of the manuṣya type, then death would result. Similarly if the nakṣatras of the pair respectively belong to the deva and rākṣasa groups, there would be quarrels and enmity between the two.
For the purpose of nāḍī the nakṣatras are divided into three groups of nine each, ādyanāḍī, madhyanāḍī and antyanāḍī, as follows:
| Ādyanāḍī | Madhyanāḍī | Antyanāḍī |
|---|---|---|
| Aśvinī | Bharaṇī | Kṛttikā |
| Ārdrā | Mṛgaśiras | Rohiṇī |
| Punarvasu | Puṣya | Āśleṣā |
| Uttarā | Pūrvā | Maghā |
| Hasta | Citrā | Svāti |
| Jyeṣṭhā | Anurādhā | Viśākhā |
| Mūla | Pūrvāṣāḍhā | Uttarāṣāḍhā |
| Śatatārakā | Dhaniṣṭhā | Śravaṇa |
| Pūrvābhādrapadā | Uttarābhādrapadā | Revatī |
If the nakṣatras of the intended pair belong to the same nāḍī, then that portends death and so there is to be no marriage in such a case. The respective nakṣatras of birth in the case of the two should belong to different nāḍīs.
[] The anxieties of the {{girls’|girl’s}} father did not end here. If after the marriage was settled but before it actually took place any relative in any of the two families died, then the marriage agreement was to be broken off according to some writers, but Śaunaka199 mercifully states a more sensible and reasonable rule viz, if the father or mother or paternal grand-father or paternal grand-mother or paternal uncle, brother or unmarried sister of the intended bride or bridegroom dies, or the bridegroom’s first wife or his son from another wife dies, then only it is pratikūla and the marriage should not be performed, but the death of any one else presents no obstacle.
If before the rites of marriage begin (i. e. before the performance of nāndiśrāddha), the mother of the bride or of the bride-groom has her monthly illness then the marriage has to be postponed till she becomes pure (till the fifth day after the illness).
Forms of marriage: From the times of the gṛhya sūtras, dharmasūtras and smṛtis the forms of marriage are said to be eight, viz. Brāhma, Prājāpatya, Ārṣa, Daiva, Gāndharva, Āsura, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca (vide Āśv. gṛ. I. 6, Gaut. IV. 6-13, Baudh. Dh. S. I. 11, Manu III. 21 = Ādi-parva 73. 8-9), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 18-19, Yāj. I. 58, Nārada (strīpuruṣa, verses 38-39), Kauṭilya III. 1, 59th prakaraṇa, Ādi-parva 102. 12-15 (they are described but not named); some of these arrange the first four differently, e. g. Āśv. gṛ. arranges them as Brāhma, Daiva, Prājāpatya and Ārṣa, while Viṣṇu arranges them as Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa and Prājāpatya; Āśv. gṛ. I. 6 places Paiśāca before Rākṣasa. The Mānava gṛ. speaks of only two Brāhma and Śaulka (i. e. Āsura), probably because these two were the forms most current. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 5. 11. 17-20—II. 5. 12. 1-2) speaks of only six, omitting Prājāpatya and Paiśāca; while Vas. Dh. S. I. 28-29 expressly says that there are only six forms of marriage viz. Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Gāndharva, Kṣātra and Mānuṣa (the last two being the same as Rākṣasa and Āsura). It is impossible for want of space to set out the various definitions of the several forms given by the several authors. There is general agreement on the special characteristics of each and it is sufficient to point out these as given in Manu III. 27-34.
[] The gift of a daughter, after decking her (with valuable garments) and honouring her (with jewels &c.), to a man learned in the Vedas and of good conduct, whom the father of the girl himself invites, is called Brāhma. When the father gives away his daughter after decking her (with ornaments &c.) to a priest, who duly officiates at a sacrifice, during the course of its performance, it is the Daiva form.200 When there is a gift of one’s daughter, after taking one pair of cattle (a cow and a bull) or two pairs only as a matter of fulfilling the law (and not as a sale of the girl), that is named the ārṣa form. The gift of a daughter, after the father has addressed (the couple with the words ‘may both of you perform your religious duties together’) and after he has honoured the bride-groom (with Madhuparka &c.), is declared to constitute the Prājāpatya form. Yāj. I. 60 calls this ‘kāya’, because in the Brāhmaṇa works ‘ka’ means ‘Prajāpati’. When the girl is given away at the father’s will after the bride-groom gives as much wealth as he can afford to pay to the relatives of the girl and to the girl herself, that is called the Āsura form. The union of a girl and the bride-groom by their mutual consent is known as Gāndharva, which springs from the passion of love and has intercourse as its purpose. The forcible abduction of a maiden from her house, while she weeps and cries aloud, after her kinsmen have been slain (or beaten), wounded and their houses or fortresses are broken open, is called the Rākṣasa form. When a man has intercourse with a girl stealthily while she is asleep or intoxicated or disordered in mind (or unconscious), that is the Paiśāca form, which is the basest and the most sinful of all forms.
In the first four forms there is the gift of the girl (kanyādāna) by the father or other guardian to the bride-groom. The word ‘dāna’ here is used in a secondary sense (as stated above on p. 504) viz. in the sense of transfer of the father’s right of guardianship and control of the maiden to the husband. All gifts are to be made with water in the case of brāhmaṇas as stated by Manu [] (III. 35) and Gaut. V. 16-17.201 Similarly in all the four forms where there is kanyādāna the girl is to be well dressed and decked with ornaments. The essence of the brāhma form is that the girl is given without receiving anything from the bride-groom, who is invited and honoured by the girl’s father. It is called brāhma either because brahma means the holy Veda and this mode being sanctioned by the most ancient texts it is the holiest and best form, or brahma means dharma and being the best of all forms it is called brāhma (vide Smṛtimuktāphala part I. p. 140). In the ārṣa form a pair of cattle is received from the bride-groom and it is somewhat inferior to the brāhma form. But the pair is given not as a price (i. e. there is no purchase), but because that is one way of effecting a marriage laid down by the śāstras (vide the passage quoted above at p. 504 ’therefore one should give a hundred cows &c’ and Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 11, which is opposed to Vas. Dh. S. I. 36) and the gift is made to show one’s regard for the girl (vide Manu III. 53-54). The daiva form is only appropriate to brāhmaṇas as only202 a brāhmaṇa could officiate at a sacrifice. It is so called because the bridegroom is engaged at the time in rites for the gods and it is inferior to the brāhma inasmuch as in it there is some trace of benefit to the father (that the priest may do his best in the rite for the gods). Govindasvāmin on Baudh. Dh. S. says ’the bride is in this form part of the sacrificial fee’. In all forms of marriage the husband and wife have to perform all religious acts together, as forcibly put by Āp. Dh. S.203 (’there is no separation between husband and wife, since from the time of taking the hand of the wife there is joint performance of all religious actions’). But in the Prājāpatya the words used indicate according to the commentators (vide Saṃ. [] Pr. p. 852 and Haradatta on Gaut. IV. 5) one or more of several things, viz. that the husband will remain a house-holder all his life and will not become a recluse while the wife is living or that he will not marry another wife i. e. it will be a strictly monogamous marriage which is defined in Hyde v. Hyde (1866), P. and M. p. 130 as ’the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’ (p. 133), or that he will associate the wife with himself not only in sacrifices but also in works of charity (like building tanks, wells &c.). This form is inferior to brāhma in that the father, as it were, makes a special stipulation with the bride-groom, while in the brāhma there is no such special stipulation, but the bride-groom promises that he will not break faith with his wife in the matter of the three puruṣārthas, dharma, artha, kāma.204
In the āsura form there is practically a sale of the girl for money or money’s worth and so it is not approved. The ārṣa is distinguished from āsura in this that in the latter there is no limit to what is taken from the bride-groom, while in the former a pair of cattle is offered as a matter of form. In the gāndharva there is no gift by the father; on the contrary the father’s authority is set at naught by the girl for the time being. Marriage was a sacrament according to ancient sages, and its principal purposes as stated above (pp. 428–29) were the acquisition of merit by the performance of religious duty and of progeny. In the gāndharva form the principal object was gratification of carnal desires and so it is held inferior to the first four forms and is disapproved. This kind of marriage is so called because it is prompted by mutual love and the Gandharvas were known to be libidinous, as the Tai. S. VI. 1. 6. 5 (strikāmā vai Gandharvāḥ) and Ait. Br. V. 1 state. In this form at least the girl’s feelings are consulted. In the rākṣasa and the paiśāca, there is no gift by the father and both are or may be against the wish of the girl. The forcible carrying of the girl is the essence of the rākṣasa (even if there is no fight because the girl’s father takes no retaliatory steps in fear of the abductor’s strength). It is called rākṣasa because rākṣasas (demons) are known from legends to have been addicted to cruel and forceful methods. The paiśāca is so called because in it there is action like that of piśācas (goblins) that are supposed to act stealthily by night.
[] It is not to be supposed that when ancient sages held that rākṣasa and paiśāca were forms of marriage, they legalized marriage by capture or stealth. What they meant was that these were the means of securing205 wives and that there are not really eight kinds of vivāhas, but rather there are eight ways in which wives may be secured. It is for this reason that Vātsa says that if a fine girl cannot be secured by any means she may be approached even in private by stealth and married. The sages condemned in no measured terms the paiśāca. From the fact that Āpastamba and Vasiṣṭha both ignore the Paiśāca and Prājāpatya it may be inferred that these two had ceased to be recognised by their time and that the other sages enumerated them only because they appeared in ancient works and for the sake of completeness of treatment. Vasiṣṭha (17. 73) expressly repudiates the idea that legal wifehood can arise by forcible seizure of a girl ‘if a damsel’206 has been abducted by force and not wedded with sacred texts she may lawfully be given to another man (in marriage); she is just as good as a maiden’. The smṛtis out of regard for the future welfare of the girl preferred to blink at the wrong done, but insisted upon the abductor or stealthy seducer performing the rites of homa and saptapadī in order to confer on the girl wronged the status of a legally married wife. But if the wrong-doer was unwilling to do this they recommended that the girl may be given to another in marriage and pronounced very heavy punishments for the abductor or seducer of a girl (vide Manu VIII. 366 and Yāj. II. 287-288). Sir Gooroodas Banerjee207 rightly expresses surprise at Macnaughten’s saying that fraud was legalised by the Hindu Law in the case of the paiśāca form. Manu VIII. 366 says that if a man has intercourse with a girl of his own caste with her consent, he will have to give a fee to the father if the latter so desires and [] Medhātithi208 adds that if the father does not desire money the lover will have to pay a fine to the king, that the girl may be given to him or if she has lost her love for him, she may be given to another and if the lover himself wants to discard her he should be forced to accept her (as a wife). Nārada (strīpuruṣa, verse 72) similarly says that if a man has sexual intercourse with a maiden who is a consenting party, then there is no offence, but he must marry her after decking her (with ornaments) and treating her with honour.
The Sm. C. and other digests state that in the gāndharva, āsura, rākṣasa and paiśāca homa and saptapadī are necessary and they quote Devala and the Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa in support. The Mahābhārata (Ādi. 195. 7)209 expressly says that even after svayamvara religious rites had to be performed. Kālidāsa in Raghuvaṃśa VII describes how after the svayamvara of Indumatī the principal religious rites of madhuparka, homa, going round the fire, pāṇigrahaṇa took place. Since Āśvalāyana first speaks of eight forms and then prescribes the performance of homa and saptapadī, he implies that these are necessary in all forms.
In numerous mantras of the {{Rgveda|Ṛgveda}} the descendants of well-known sages are denoted by the plural form of the names of those sages. In Ṛg. X. 66. 14 we read the {{Vasiṣtbas|Vāsiṣṭhas}} have raised their voices like their father’. In Ṛg. VI. 35. 5 the {{Bharad. vājas|Bharadvājas}} are referred to as {{Angirases|Āṅgirases}}. According to {{Aśv. Srauta sūtra|Āśv. Śrauta-sūtra}} Bharadvāja is a gotra falling under the {{Angirogana|Āṅgirogaṇa}}. In the Brāhmaṇa Literature there are ample indications that priestly families had come to be formed into several groups named after their (real or supposed) founders and that such families differed in details of worship according to the group they belonged to. The Tai. Br. (1. 1. 4) prescribes that the consecration ({{adhāna|ādhāna}}) of the sacred Vedic-fires is to be performed for {{Bbṭgus|Bhṛgus}} or {{Angirases|Āṅgirases}} with the mantra ‘{{bhrgūṇām (or angi rasām) tvādevānām vratapate vratena-dadhāmi,’|bhṛgūṇām (or aṅgirasām) tvā devānām vratapate vratenā-dadhāmi,’}} that for other brāhmaṇas with the words ‘{{ādityānām tvā devānām vratapate’ &o.|ādityānām tvā devānām vratapate’ &c.}} The Tai. Br. II. 2. 3 speaks of the ‘{{Angirasi prajā|Āṅgirasī prajā}}’ (people of the {{Angiras|Aṅgiras}} group). The {{Tāpdys|Tāṇḍya}} Brāhmaṇa114 prescribes that the camasa ({{oup|cup}}) made of udumbara was to be given as dakṣiṇā to a {{Bagotra brahmana|Bhṛgugotra brāhmaṇa}}.’ The {{Kausitaki|Kauṣītaki}} Br.115 (25. 15) says that one who has performed the Viśvajit sacrifice (in which {{everytbing|everything}} that the sacrificer owned was gifted away) should stay for a year with a brāhmaṇa of the same gotra. The Ait. Br. (30.7) contains the story of {{Aitasa|Aitaśa}} and his son {{Abhyagni|Abhyāgni}} and it is stated that the {{Aitaśāyanas Abhyagnis|Aitaśāyanas-Abhyāgnis}} are the most sinful of the Aurvas. In the Kauṣītaki Br. where the same story occurs it is said that the Aitaśāyanas became lowest among {{Bhrgus|Bhṛgus}}, as they were cursed by their father. According to {{Baudhāyanaśrauta-sutra|Baudhāyana-śrauta-sūtra}} the Aitaśāyanas are a sub-section of {{Burgugana|Bhṛgugaṇa}}. {{Sunaḥsepa|Śunaḥśepa}}, when he was accepted as a son by Viśvāmitra, came to be called Devarāta and the Ait. Br. (33.5) says that the Kāpileyas and {{Babhravas|Bābhravas}} were affiliated to Devarāta. According to {{Baud. srauta-sūtra|Baud. śrauta-sūtra}} Devarāta and Babhru are sub-sections of {{Visvāmitra gotra|Viśvāmitra-gotra}}. {{Sunaḥsepa|Śunaḥśepa}} is said to have been an {{Angirasa|Āṅgirasa}} by birth (Ait. Br. 33.5).116 So this makes it clear that gotra {{relationebip|relationship}} was by birth in the times of the Ait. Br. (and not from teacher to pupil). In the Upaniṣads the {{søges|sages}} when expounding the knowledge of {{brahma|brahman}} addressed their pupils by the gotra names e. g. by the {{Bhāra dvija|Bhāradvāja}}, Gārgya, {{Āśvelayana|Āśvalāyana}}, Bhārgava and Kātyāyana gotras in Praśna I. 1, Vaiyāghrapadya and Gautama in Chāndogya V. 14. 1 and V. 16. 1; Gautama and Bharadvāja, Viśvāmitra and Jamadagni, Vasiṣṭha and Kaśyapa in Bṛ. Up. II. 2. 4. All this shows that the system of gotras with several sub-sections was well established in the times of the Brāhmaṇas and the ancient Upaniṣads. But the gotras are in these works referred to in connection with sacrifices or education. There is hardly any distinct reference in these to gotra or sagotra in relation to marriage. In the {{Lātyāyana-srauta-sūtra|Lātyāyana-śrauta-sūtra}}117 VIII. 2. 8 and 10 it is prescribed that one who has given away everything in the Viśvajit sacrifice should stay three nights with {{niṣadas|niṣādas}} and may partake of their {{junglo|jungle}} diet and then again three nights with ‘jana’ and then the sūtra gives several views about the meaning of ‘jana’ one of which, that of {{Dhānañjapya|Dhānañjayya}}, is that jana’ means a person with whom (i. e. with whose daughter) marriage is possible while one who is sagotra is called ‘samāna jana’. This clearly proves that long before the {{Latyāyana.|Lātyāyana-}}śrautasūtra marriage with a sagotra had been forbidden. Besides several of the {{gļhya|gṛhya}} and dharma sūtras prohibit marriage with a sagotra girl. It is impossible to hold that this was a new conception that arose only about the time of these sūtras. Therefore, it must be supposed that prohibition as to sameness of gotra in marriage had its origin long before the period of the sūtras in the times of the Brāhmaṇa works (if not earlier).
Marriage-meaning of gotra
Gotra was of supreme importance in several fundamental matters and it largely entered into several practices of the ancient Aryans. A few examples may be given here. (1) In marriage sagotra girls were forbidden, vide above pp. 436-37. In the {{Lājākomna|Lājāhoma}} at marriage two offerings were to be made by all except Jāmadagnyas, who had to make three (Āśv. gṛ. I. 7. 8–9).
(2) In matters of inheritance the wealth of one dying without issue went to his near sagotras (Gaut. 28. 19). []
(3) In {{grāddha|śrāddha}} the brāhmaṇas to be invited should not belong as far as possible to the same gotra as the person inviting (Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 4, Gaut. 15. 20).
(4) In pārvana {{athalipaka|sthālīpāka}} and other {{pūkayajñas|pākayajñas}}, all were to cut off oblations from the middle and fore-half of the havis, but for Jāmadagnyas (who are {{pañcāvaltins|pañcāvattins}}) they were to be cut off from the middle, the fore-part and the hind part (vide Āśv. gṛ. I. 10. 18-19).118
(5) In offering water to a preta (a person recently dead) his gotra and name were to be repeated (Āśv. gṛ. IV. 4. 10).
(6) In the caula ceremony tufts of hair were to be left in accordance with the gotra and practice of the family ({{Khadira gp.|Khādira gṛ.}} II. 3. 30).
(7) At the time of performing one’s daily {{samdhya|saṃdhyā}} prayer, one has to repeat even in modern times one’s gotra and pravara, the Vedaśākhā and sūtra which one studies.
As regards {{srauta|śrauta}} sacrifices a few interesting examples may be given. Jaimini establishes that sattras (sacrificial sessions extending over 12 days and more) could be performed only by brāhmaṇas and that among brāhmaṇas the Bhṛgus, {{Sunakas|Śunakas}} and {{Vasiṣthas|Vāsiṣṭhas}} are not entitled to perform them (VI. 6. 24-26). Those of the Atri, {{Vadhryaśva|Vādhryaśva}}, Vasiṣṭha, {{Vaisya ( Vainya?)|Vainya}}, {{Saunaka|Śaunaka}}, Kapya, Kaśyapa and {{Samkfti|Sāṃkṛti}} gotras took {{Nārasamsa|Nārāśaṃsa}} as the second {{prayāja|prayāja}}, while others took Tanūnapāt as the second (vide Śabara on Jaimini VI. 6. 1).
The conception of pravara is closely interwoven with that of gotra from very ancient times. The two have to be studied together. ‘Pravara’ literally means ‘choosing’ or ‘invoking’ ({{prarthana|prārthanā}}).119 As Agni was invoked to carry the offerings of a sacrificer to the gods by taking the names of the illustrious ṛṣis (his remote ancestors) who in former times had invoked Agni, the word pravara came to denote one or more illustrious ṛṣis, ancestors of a sacrificer. A synonym of pravara is ārṣeya or ārṣa (as in Yāj. I. 52). Pravara entered into several domestic ceremonies and practices according to the gṛhya and dharma sūtras. For example:
(1) a bride was to be chosen whose father’s pravara was not the same as that of the bridegroom’s father. Vide above p. 437. []
(2) In upanayana the girdle (mekhalā) was to have one, three or five knots according to the number of ṛṣis constituting the boy’s pravara.(vide Sāṅ. gṛ. II. 2).
(3) In Caula the tufts of hair to be left on the head depended on the number of sages constituting the {{pravard|pravara}} of the boy’s family (Āp. gṛ. 16. 6).
The mass of material on gotra and pravara in the sūtras, the purāṇas and digests is so vast and so full of contradictions that it is almost an impossible task to reduce it to order and coherence. The learned author of the {{Pravara-madjart|Pravaramañjarī}} (which is the leading work on the subject) wrote in despair ‘Here, in the parts of sūtras that have been quoted there is a great divergence in the order (of the names of pravaras) of the texts of the several {{sūtrakāras|sūtrakāras}}, this being specially so in the text of Āśvalāyana (śrauta)-sūtra. Thus, though divergence is clearly established, yet following the order of the texts of the majority of writers such as {{Baudbāyana|Baudhāyana}}, Āpastamba and Kātyāyana we shall declare (the rules) about marriage or no marriage’.120
We have first to understand what gotra in the sūtras and digests means and how it is inter-related to pravara. Among the sūtras that treat of gotra and pravara the śrauta sūtras of Āśvalāyana ({{Uttaraṣatka|Uttaraṣaṭka}} VI, {{kbandas|khaṇḍas}} 10-15), Āpastamba (24th praśna) and Baudhāyana (B. I. ed. vol. III pravarādhyāya at end) are the most important. The Pravaramañjarī (p.5) has a verse to the effect that Baudhāyana’s pravarādhyāya is the best on the subject.
The Śrautasūtra of {{Satyāṣadha Hiranyakegi|Satyāṣāḍha Hiraṇyakeśi}} (21st praśna) has a section on this subject, which is the same as {{Āpastam. basrauta|Āpastamba-śrauta}} with a few omissions and variations. The {{Baudhāyanaśrauta-sūtra|Baudhāyana-śrauta-sūtra}} says121 “Viśvāmitra, Jamadagni, Bharadvāja, Gautama, Atri, Vasiṣṭha and Kaśyapa are the seven sages and Agastya is the eighth; the progeny of these eight sages is declared to be gotra’. These seven sages are probably derived from what is stated in the {{Bļ.|Bṛ.}} Up. II. 2. 3-4 (={{Sate|Śatapatha}} Bṛ. [] XIV. 5, 2. 6) where these very seven sages are enumerated as those intended in the śloka ‘{{srvāg-bilascamasa|arvāg-bilaścamasa}}’122 &c. quoted there. The same work (Baud. śrauta) states that there are thousands, tens of thousands and {{arbudas (millions of millions )|arbudas (100 millions)}} of gotras, but the pravaras are only 49. Besides the sūtra works, some purāṇas like the Matsya (chap. 195–202), the Vāyu (chap. 88 and 99, Ānan. ed.), Skanda III.2 ({{Dharmāranya kapda|Dharmāraṇya-khaṇḍa}}) contain elaborate enumerations of gotras and pravaras. The Mahābhārata sets out at length the subdivisions (such as {{Madhuc. chandas|Madhucchandas}}, Devarāta) of {{Viśvāmitragotra|Viśvāmitra-gotra}} in {{Anuśāsanaparva|Anuśāsanaparva}} 4. 49-59. Digests like the {{Smṛtyartbasāra|Smṛtyarthasāra}} (pp. 14-17), the {{Sam. Pr.|Saṃ. Pra.}} (pp. 591-680), the {{Sam. K.|Saṃ. Kau.}} (pp. 637-692), the {{Nirnayasindhu|Nirṇayasindhu}}, the Dharmasindhu, the {{Bāļambhatti|Bālambhaṭṭī}} contain a vast material on this topic. There are also special works like the {{Pravaramañjarl|Pravaramañjarī}} on this topic. The general conception about gotra is that it denotes all persons who trace descent in an unbroken male line from a common male ancestor. When a person says ‘I am Jamadagni-gotra’ he means that he traces his descent from the ancient sage Jamadagni by unbroken male descent. As stated by Baudh. cited above, from very ancient times these male founders were supposed to be eight. This enumeration of eight primary gotras seems to have been known to Pāṇini. Patañjali says ’there were eighty thousand sages who observed celibacy. The accepted opinion is that the spread of progeny was due to eight sages including Agastya. The offspring (apatya) of these eight are gotras and others than these are called gotrāvayava’.123 {{Pāçini|Pāṇini}} [] defines gotra for grammatical purposes as ‘{{apatyam pautra prabhști gotram|apatyaṃ pautraprabhṛti gotram}}’ (IV.1. 162), which means ’the word gotra denotes (in my work on grammar) the progeny (of a sage) beginning with the son’s son’. For example, the son of Garga would be called Gārgi, but the grandson would be called Gārgyaḥ and the plural Gārgāḥ would denote all descendants of Garga (downwards from Garga’s grand-son). But this definition is a technical one in {{grainiar|grammar}} and is meant to indicate how derived (taddhita) words are to be formed by means of terminations. Even Pāṇini makes use of this technical sense only in the apatyādhikāra, but elsewhere in his work he uses the word gotra in the popular sense as comprehending all descendants of a common male ancestor. Vide the {{Kāsikā|Kāśikā}} on Pāṇini II. 4. 63, IV. 2. 39 and IV. 3. 80. The {{Sam. Pr.|Saṃ. Pra.}} (pp. 591-592) lucidly {{uxplains|explains}}124 this. That a man belongs to a particular gotra is known by him only from tradition, from his father and other elders or from people about him, just as he knows that he is a {{brābmapa|brāhmaṇa}} from the same source125. Medhātithi on Manu III. 5. 194 has a very lucid and interesting discussion on this topic. His argument is: just as, though all persons are men, some are called brāhmaṇas, so among brāhmaṇas certain persons are known by immemorial usage (or convention) as belonging to certain gotras like Vasiṣṭha and the sūtra-kāras lay down that a certain gotra has certain pravaras; so the word gotra is applied to Vasiṣṭha and other sages by rūḍhi (by convention or long-standing usage). It cannot be supposed that a person called Parāśara was born at a certain time and then his descendants came to be called Pārāśaras. In that case the Veda would not be anādi (beginningless), as it is supposed to be, since it mentions {{Parāāgra|Parāśara}}, Vasiṣṭha &c. So gotra is anādi like the {{brābmaṇa|brāhmaṇa}} caste and the Veda. The word is also secondarily used to denote a person, who is very illustrious on account of his learning, wealth, valour or generosity, [] who thereby gives a name to his descendants and then becomes the founder of the family. This is laukika gotra. But this is not the meaning of gotras which brāhmaṇas have. The secondary meaning may apply to the word gotra when used in the case of kṣatriyas’.126 The Mit. on Yāj. I. 53 says ‘gotra is that which is known from tradition handed down in the family.’127 {{Eao|Each}} gotra is associated with one, two, three or five sages (but never four or more than five) that constitute the pravara of that gotra.128 The gotras are arranged in groups, e. g. there are according to the {{Āśvaldyana-srauta-sūtra|Āśvalāyana-śrauta-sūtra}} four sub-divisions of the Vasiṣṭha gaṇa, viz. Upamanyu, {{Parasara|Parāśara}}, {{Kundina|Kuṇḍina}} and Vasiṣṭha (other than the first three). Each of these four again has numerous sub-sections, each being called gotra. So the arrangement is first into gaṇas, then into pakṣas, then into individual gotras. The first has survived in the Bhṛgu and {{Angirasa gane|Aṅgirasa gaṇas}}. According to Baudh. the principal eight gotras were divided into pakṣas. The pravara of Upamanyu is Vasiṣṭha, Bharadvasu, Indrapramada; the pravara of the {{Parisara|Parāśara}} gotra is Vasiṣṭha, Śāktya, Pārāśarya; the {{pravard|pravara}} of the {{Kundina|Kuṇḍina}} gotra is Vasiṣṭha, Maitrāvaruṇa, Kauṇḍinya and the pravara of {{Vasisthas|Vāsiṣṭhas}} other than these three is simply Vasiṣṭha. It is therefore that some define pravara as ’the group of sages that distinguishes the founder (lit. the starter) of one gotra from another’.129 []
Meaning of ārṣeya or pravara
Though the word pravara does not {{occur|occurs}} in the Ṛgveda, the word ‘ārṣeya’ {{ocours|occurs}} therein and the system of pravara goes back almost to the Ṛgveda. Ṛg. IX. 97. 51 has ’thereby may we acquire wealth and ārṣeya resembling Jamadagni’s.’ Sometimes the idea of invoking Agni is conveyed without using the word pravara or ārṣeya. In Ṛg. VIII. 102. 4130 it is said ‘I invoke Agni just as Aurva, {{Bhṛgu|Bhṛgu}} and Apnavāna did.’ It is remarkable that these are three of the five pravara sages of the Vatsa-Bhṛgus according to Baudh. (3). Ṛg. I. 45. 3 has ‘o Jātavedas ({{Agoi|Agni}}), give {{beed|heed}} to the summons of {{Praskanya|Praskaṇva}}, as in the case of Priyamedha, Atri, Virūpa and {{Angiras|Aṅgiras}}.’131 In Ṛg. VII. 18.21 it is said ’they who from house to house gladdened thee, being desirous of thee, viz. Parāśara, {{Satayātu|Śatayātu}} and Vasiṣṭha, will not forget the friendship of a liberal patron (like thee)’.132 It deserves to be noted that this mantra mentions Parāśara (who in later mythology is the grandson of Vasiṣṭha and son of {{Sakti|Śakti}}), {{Satayātu|Śatayātu}} (who is {{Sakti|Śakti}} according to Sāyaṇa), and Vasiṣṭha. Parāśara, Śakti and Vasiṣṭha constitute the pravara of Parāśara gotra (according to Āśv. and Baudh). In the Atharvaveda (XI. 1. 16, XI. 1. 25, 26, 32, 33, 35, XII. 4. 2 and 12, XVI. 8. 12-13) ārṣeya means ‘descendants of sages or those who are related to sages’. In the {{Tai. 8.|Tai. S.}} both ārṣeya and pravara occur in the sense of the {{sātras|sūtras}}. In the Tai. S. II. 5. 8.7 (which refers to the recitation of the {{Sāmidbeni|Sāmidhenī}} verses) we read “he says ‘choose (or invoke) ye the fire called {{havyavāhuna|havyavāhana}}’; he chooses him (the fire) of the gods; he chooses the ārṣeya; in so doing he does not depart from the relationship (by blood) and doing so serves for continuity. He chooses the later ones beginning from the remoter ones”. In this passage ‘{{ārgeyam|ārṣeyam}}’ appears to be used in the sense of ‘one or more illustrious ancestors of the sacrificer’ and reference is made to one of the two modes of mentioning the sages constituting the pravara. ‘Ārṣeya’ may also be taken here as an adjective (qualifying Agni), the meaning being ‘he invokes Agni by the names of the illustrious ancestor sages of the yajamāna’. In one mode the remotest ancestor is named first in a taddhita (derivative) formation, then his descendant and so on, the sage nearest the sacrificer being mentioned last. For example, the pravara of Bhṛgu Vatsa is ‘{{Bhargava-cyavana apnavinaurya-jāinadagnyeti’|Bhārgava-Cyāvanāpnavānaurva-Jāmadagnyeti}}’. This method is employed by the Hotṛ priest when he invokes fire as the divine Hotṛ with the pravara-mantra ‘{{Agne mahān-asi brāhmaṇa bharata deveddha|Agne mahān asi brāhmaṇa bhārata deveḍḍha}}’ (vide Tai. S. II, 5. 9, and Śat. Bṛ. I. 4. 2, {{AŚy. Śr.|Āśv. Śr.}} I. 2. 27-I. 3. 6). In the other mode the affix ‘vat’ is used after the name of each pravara sage and the remotest one is mentioned last (e. g. Jamadagnivat, Urvavat, Āpnavānavat, Cyavanavat, Bhṛguvat). This mode is employed by the {{adhonryu|adhvaryu}} when he chooses the Hotṛ priest.133 The Tai. S. II. 5. 11. 9 appears to refer to one (i. e. 2nd) mode. The Kauṣītaki brāhmaṇa explains the purpose of taking the names of ancestors ‘as the gods do not partake of the offering of him who has no list of (illustrious) ancestors, therefore he pronounces the ārṣeya of the {{saorificer|sacrificer}}.’134 The Ait. Br. (34.7) has an interesting passage on pravara. When a brāhmaṇa is initiated for a sacrifice, that fact is announced in these words ‘a brāhmaṇa has been initiated for a sacrifice’. How is the initiation of the kṣatriya to be announced? The reply of the Ait. Br. is ’even in the case of the kṣatriya the announcement is to be in the same form (viz. a brāhmaṇa has been initiated); but with the pravara of the family priest. Therefore they should proclaim the kṣatriya’s initiation as a sacrificer with the ārṣeya of his family priest and should invoke Agni with the pravara of his family priest’.135 The Āśv. Śr. ({{Uttara patka|Uttaraṣaṭka}} VI. 15. 4-5) and Baudh. Śr. ({{pravarapraśna|pravarapraśna}} 54) say that in the case of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas the pravara of their purohita was to be employed or the pravara ‘{{Mānava-Aila Paurūravaga’|Mānava-Aila-Paurūravasa}}’ or simply ‘{{Manuyat|Manuvat}}.’ The origin of that rule is to be found in the above passage of the Ait. Br. There is another similar passage in the Ait. Br. (35.5). The {{Sat. Br.|Śat. Bṛ.}} [] I. 4. 2. 3-4136 shows that the illustrious ancestors to be invoked were supposed to be related as father and son and not by apostolic succession.
The Mahābhārata says that the {{origioal|original}} gotras were only four viz. {{Angiras|Aṅgiras}}, Kaśyapa, Vasiṣṭha, Bhṛgu.137 The verses are rather abruptly introduced in the epic and there is nothing to show on what this statement was based and it appears that it is due to the imagination of the writer. Baudh. as shown above states that the original gotras are eight. But it is remarkable that Bhṛgu and {{Angiras|Aṅgiras}} (whose divisions and sub-divisions are many) are not included by him in these eight. Therefore, it appears that even Baudhāyana is not correctly stating the number of original gotras. Gautama and Bharadvāja are stated to be two out of the original eight, but both of them instead of being separately dealt with are grouped under the comprehensive {{Angirasagana|Āṅgirasagaṇa}}. So even Baudh. is not to be implicitly followed. The {{Bālambhatti|Bālambhaṭṭī}} mentions eighteen principal gotras (eight as in Baudh. plus ten more some of which are names of {{mythicai|mythical}} kings138). Baudh. himself says that there are millions of gotras and in the Baudh. Pravarādhyāya there are over 500 names of gotra and pravara sages; while the Pravaramañjarī quotes a verse that ’there are three crores of them’139 and ‘so the gotra system is difficult to comprehend’, and it mentions about 5000 gotras. Therefore, as the Smṛtyarthasāra says the nibandhas endeavour to place the innumerable gotras under groups and distribute them among 49 pravaras (mentioned by Baudh.).140 Some idea of these [] gotras and their distribution among the pravaras is given below. The appendix under note No. 1144 collects together the 49 pravara groups.
The Bhṛgugaṇa and the {{Angirogana|Āṅgirogaṇa}} are very extensive. The {{Burgus|Bhṛgus}} are of two sorts, Jāmadagnya and non-Jāmadagnya. The Jāmadagnya Bhṛgus are again twofold, Vatsas and Bidas (or Vidas); the non-Jāmadagnya Bhṛgus are fivefold viz. Ārṣṭiṣeṇas, Yāskas, Mitrayus, Vainyas and Śunakas (these latter five are called kevala Bhṛgus). Under each of these sub-divisions there are many gotras, on the names and number of which the {{sūtra kāras|sūtrakāras}} are not agreed. The pravara of Jāmadagnya Vatsas is constituted by five {{gages|sages}} according to Baudh. and by three according to Kātyāyana. The {{prayura|pravara}} of the Bidas and the Ārṣṭiṣeṇas also has five sages.141 These three (viz. Vatsas, Bidas and Ārṣṭiṣeṇas) are styled {{pañcāvattin|pañcāvattins}} (Baud.5) and they cannot inter-marry (the reason will be explained below). The five non-Jāmadagnya Bhṛgus have each of them numerous sub-divisions. These divisions of Bhṛgus are given here according to Baudh. Ap. has only six of them (and not seven as he excludes Bidas from this group). According to Kātyāyana, Bhṛgus have twelve sub-divisions (vide Saṃ. Pra. p. 625).
The {{Angirogana|Āṅgirogaṇa}} has three divisions, Gautamas, Bharadvājas and {{kevalāngirases|kevalāṅgirasas}}; out of whom Gautamas have seven sub-divisions, Bharadvājas have four (Raukṣāyaṇas, Gargas, Kapis and Kevala-Bharadvājas), and {{Kevala-Angirases|Kevalāṅgirasas}} have six sub-divisions and each of these again is sub-divided into numerous gotras. This is according to Baudh. Other {{sūtrakāras|sūtrakāras}} differ as to the subdivisions. Atri (one of the eight primary gotras) is subdivided into four (Atris proper, Vādbhūtakas, {{Gavisthiras|Gaviṣṭhiras}}, Mudgalas). {{Visvāmpitra|Viśvāmitra}} is sub-divided into ten, which are further sub-divided into 72 gotras. Kaśyapas are sub-divided into Kaśyapas, Nidhruvas, Rebhas, and {{Sandilas|Śāṇḍilas}}. Vasiṣṭha has four sub-divisions (Vāsiṣṭhas with one {{pravare|pravara}} only, {{Kundinas|Kuṇḍinas}}, Upamanyus and Parāśaras) which are further sub-divided into 105 gotras. Agastya has three sub-divisions (Agastyas, Somavāhas and Yajñavāhas), the first of which is further sub-divided into twenty gotras. []
Marriages-sagotra and sapravara
When it is said that marriage with a sagotra or a sapravara girl is forbidden, each of these is separately an obstacle to marriage. Therefore, a girl, though not sapravara, may be yet sagotra and so ineligible for marriage or though not sagotra may yet be sapravara and not eligible. For example, the gotras of Yāska, Vādhūla, Mauna, Mauka are different, yet a marriage between persons belonging to these gotras is not possible, because the pravara of all these is the same, viz. ‘{{Bhārgava-Vaitahavya-Sāvetasa-iti’|Bhārgava-Vaitahavya-Sāvetaseti}}’.142 So also though the gotras {{Saṁksti|Sāṃkṛti}}, Pūtimāṣa, {{Tandi|Tāṇḍi}}, {{Sambu|Śambhu}} and {{Samgava|Śāṃgava}} are different, there can be no marriage between them as the pravara is the same, viz. ‘{{Angirasa, Gaurivita, Samkftya’|Āṅgirasa, Gaurīvita, Sāṃkṛtya}}’ (acc. to Āśv. Śrauta). When it is said that samāna pravaras cannot marry, sameness may be due to only one sage being the same in the pravaras of two gotras or there may be two or three or more sages that are common. The general rule is that if even one sage is the same143 in the pravaras of two different gotras, then they are sapravara, except in the case of the {{Bbṛgu|Bhṛgu}} group and the group of {{Angirases|Aṅgirasas}}. In these two latter unless there are at least three sages common (when the pravara is constituted by five sages) or at least two sages are common (when pravara consists of only three sages), there is no sāpravaratva and no bar to marriage. It will be noticed that among the five pravara sages of the Vatsas, Bidas and Ārṣṭiṣeṇas quoted above there are three sages that are common and so they cannot inter-marry.
Though the vast majority of gotras have three pravara sages, a few have only one pravara sage or two sages or five. Those who have only one sage are Mitrayus (pravara Vādhryaśva according to Āśv.), the Vāsiṣṭhas (other than Kuṇḍina, Parāśara and Upamanyu) have only one pravara Vāsiṣṭha, the Śunakas have one pravara Gṛtsamada (according to Āśv.) or Śaunaka or Gārtsamada (according to Baudh. 9); the Āgastis have one pravara Āgastya (according to Āp. Śr. 24. 10. 9); Āśv. optionally allows three pravaras to Mitrayus (Bhārgava-Daivodāsa-Vādhryaśva) and to Śunakas (viz. Bhārgava- [] Śaunahotra-Gārtsamada) and Āp. also allows to Āgastis three pravaras (Viz. Āgastya-Dārdhacyuta-Aidhmavāha-iti). According to Āp. and the purāṇas, Dhānayantas have two pravaras (Vaiśvāmitra-Pauraṇa-iti), Aṣṭakas Lohitas have two (Vaiśvāmitra-Aṣṭaka-iti), and Śāṇḍilas also have two (Daivala-Asita-iti). But he says that according to some the latter have three pravaras also (Kāśyapa-Daivala-Asita-iti), while Baudhāyana gives four optional groups of three sages each for Śāṇḍilas (Baud. 43). For Vāri-Dhānayantas Āśv. prescribes three only (Vaiśvāmitra-Devarāta-Paurana) and also for the Aṣṭakas. According to Baudh. the Vatsas, Bidas and Ārṣṭiṣeṇas (among the Bhṛgus) have five pravara sages; so also among Aṅgirasas, the Kaumaṇḍas, Dīrghatamasas, Raukṣāyaṇas and Gargas have five pravara sages, though the last have optionally three also.
The Āp. śr.144 (24. 5. 6) says ’the sages to be invoked were to be three and they were to be seers of mantras’. It is therefore that the number of pravara sages is limited; there was no such requirement for a gotra and so gotras multiplied to an unlimited extent.
There are certain families that are dvigotras (i. e. have two gotras). Āśv. uses the word “{{dvipravācanaḥ|dvipravacanāḥ}}” for them.145 They are principally three viz. {{Sauöga-saisiris|Śauṅga-śaiśiris}}, {{Sarkṛtis|Sāṃkṛtis}} and Laugākṣis. From a Śuṅga, a sub-division of {{Bberadvāja|Bharadvāja}} gotra, was born a son to the wife of a Śaiśiri, a sub-division of Viśvāmitra (by niyoga); the son, therefore, came to be called Śauṅga-Śaiśiri. Therefore Śauṅga-Śaiśiris cannot marry in both Bharadvāja and Viśvāmitra gotras. Their pravaras are given below.146 They have to select one pravara sage from one gotra and two from the other gotra or two from the first and three from the other. A pravara of four sages is not allowed nor of one beyond five. For the other dvigotras, the Saṃ. K. (pp. 682-686), {{Nirpayasindhu|Nirṇayasindhu}} p. 300 ff. may be consulted. In the case of the adopted son also, on the analogy of the Śauṅga-śaiśiris, [] both gotras and the pravaras of both gotras have to be considered and the dictum of Manu (IX. 142) that ’the son given does not share the gotra and inheritance of the genitive father and the svadhā (śrāddhas etc.) of the giver ceases’, is restricted only to matters of inheritance, śrāddha and the like and does not apply to marriage.147
A few words must be said about the gotra and pravara of kings and other kṣatriyas. It appears from the Ait. Br. quoted above (p. 488) that in the case of kṣatriyas the pravara of their purohita was employed in religious acts where pravara had to be recited. This leads to the inference that most kṣatriyas had forgotten their gotras and pravaras by that time. The Śrauta sūtras allow148 an option to kṣatriyas (to kings according to Āśv.). They may employ the pravara of their purohitas or all kṣatriyas may employ the same pravara viz. ‘Mānava-Aila-Paurūravasa iti’. Medhātithi on Manu III. 5 states that the distinctions of gotras and pravaras concern primarily brāhmaṇas alone and not kṣatriyas and vaiśyas and quotes Āśv. Śr. (I. 3) in support. The Mit. and other nibandhakāras rely on the first alternative mentioned in the sūtras and say that in marriages of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas the gotras and pravaras of their purohitas should be considered, as they have no specific gotras of their own149. This is carrying the doctrine of atideśa (extension) too far or with a vengeance. The Saṃ. K. (pp. 689-690) assigns reasons for this attitude of the Mit. but they are not satisfactory. Ancient literature and epigraphic records show that kings had gotras of their own. In the Mahābhārata it is said that when Yudhiṣṭhira [] went to the court of Virāṭa in the guise of a brāhmaṇa and was asked by the king to state his gotra he said that he was of the Vaiyāghrapadya gotra (Virāṭa-parva 7. 8-12). That this was the gotra of the Pāṇḍavas also follows from the fact that in the {{Bhismatarpaṇa|Bhīṣmatarpaṇa}}150 that is performed on the eighth day of the bright half of Māgha, Bhīṣma’s gotra is given as Vaiyāghrapāda or-padya and pravara as Sāṃkṛti. Jaimini (VI. 6. 12-15) establishes that the Kulāyayajña was to be performed jointly by a king and his purohita (and so they could use different pravaras it appears). The Pallavas of Kāñci had Bhāradvāja as their gotra (vide E. I. vol. I p. 5). The Cālukyas are often described as ‘mānavya-gotra’ (vide E. I. vol. VI. p. 339). In a copper-plate grant of {{Jayacan. dradeva|Jayacandradeva}} (dated saṃvat 1233 i. e. 1176 A. D.) the donee was a kṣatriya described as Rāuta-śrī-Rājyadharavarman of the Vatsa gotra and of five pravaras viz. {{Bhargava-Cyavana Apnayāna-Aurva-Jāmadagoya|Bhārgava-Cyāvanāpnavāna-Aurva-Jāmadagnya}}.151 In the {{Garra|Garrā}} (Bundelkhand) plate of the Candella king Trailokyavarma of Kālañjara a village is granted to Rāuta Sāmanta of the Bhāradvāja gotra in recognition of his father’s death in battle with the Turuṣkas (E. I. vol. 16, p. 274).
In many inscriptions and copper-plate grants hundreds of donees with their gotras and pravaras occur and it would be an interesting study to compare the latter with the material derived from the sūtras and nibandhas. For example, vide E. I. vol. 19, pp. 115-117 and 248-250 for about 205 donees and their gotras in the plates of Bhāskaravarman, E. I. vol. 14, p. 202ff (500 donees with gotras in the time of Candradeva Gāhaḍavāla, {{samal|saṃvat}} 1150), E. I. vol. 13 p. 237, E. I. vol. 8 pp. 316-317 (śake 1346), E. I. vol. 9 p. 103 (32 donees with gotras, pravaras, śākhās &c.), E. I. vol. 12 pp. 163-167 (120 donees with gotras, Śake 1508), Gupta Ins. No. 55 Chammak plate of Pravarasena &c. Even the Buddhists kept the system of gotras (vide E. I. vol. 10, Lüder’s list, No. 158).
According to Āp. Śr. the vaiśyas had152 a single pravara ‘Vatsapra’, while according to Baudh. they had three, viz. [] ‘{{Bhalandana-Vatsapra-Manktila’|Bhālandana-Vātsapra-Māṅkila}}’. They could also employ the pravara of their purohitas. The Saṃ. Pr. (p. 659) says that Bhālandana is the gotra of vaiśyas.
If a person does not know his own gotra and pravara he should take those of his ācārya (teacher of Veda), according to Āp.153 Though he takes his teacher’s gotra, it is only the teacher’s daughter that is forbidden to him in marriage and not other girls of the same gotra as the ācārya’s. Both Saṃ. K. and Saṃ. Pr. (p. 650) quote a verse that when one does not know one’s gotra one should call oneself of Kāśyapa gotra. This is so when he does not know even his teacher’s gotra. The Sm. C. (śrāddha section p. 481) says that this is so even when one does not know the gotra of one’s maternal grand-father (i.e. he should offer piṇḍa with Kāśyapa gotra to his maternal grand-father).
The word gotra also came to mean any family name (surname). In the inscriptions we find this usage very often. For example, in the Bannahalli plate of the Kadamba king Kṛṣṇavarma II (E. I. vol. VI, p. 18) a śreṣṭhin (a merchant) is said to have been of the Tuthiyalla gotra and pravara. The Reḍḍi king (a śūdra) Allaya Vema of {{Rajalımundry|Rajahmundry}} was said to have been of the Polvola gotra (E. I. vol. XIII. p. 237, of śake 1356).
A few interesting matters about pravaras are noted below. It is noteworthy that even as to the same gotra, there is great divergence among the sūtrakāras about the sages constituting the pravara e. g. as to {{Sāndilyagotro|Śāṇḍilya-gotra}}, Āśv. gives two groups of the sages ‘Śāṇḍila-Asita-Daivala-iti’ or ‘Kāśyapa-Asita-Daivala-iti’, but Āp. states his own view that there are only two sages in the pravara viz. ‘Daivala-Asita iti’ and that some say they are three, Kāśyapa-Daivala-Asita-iti; while Baudh. states four groups, ‘Kāśyapa-Avatsāra-Daivala-iti, Kāśyapa-Avatsāra-Asita-iti; {{Saṇdila-Asita-Daiyala-iti|Śāṇḍila-Asita-Daivala-iti}}; {{Kāøyapa-Avatsāra sāndila iti|Kāśyapa-Avatsāra-Śāṇḍila-iti}}.” No adequate reasons can be given why even at so early an age as the sūtras, not only the order of the names in the pravara, but the very names in the pravara and their number should have varied so much. Baudh.154 (pravarādhyāya sec. 44) notes that [] the {{Laugākṣis|Laukākṣis}} (or Laukākṣis) are Vāsiṣṭhas by day and Kāśyapas by night and their pravaras also show this double relationship. The Smṛtyarthasāra says that this picturesque description of them has reference to the prayājas and the like i. e. by day they follow the procedure of prayājas peculiar to Vāsiṣṭhas and by night that peculiar to the Kāśyapas.
Among the gotras there are names of mythical kṣatriyas and kings like Vītahavya and Vainya and among the names of pravara sages many legendary kings like Māndhātṛ, Ambarīṣa, Yuvanāśva, Divodāsa appear. Vītahavya figures even in the Ṛgveda as closely connected with the Bhṛgus (Ṛg. VI. 15. 2-3). In the Mahābhārata it is narrated that Vītahavya, being a king, attacked Divodāsa, whose son Pratardana pursued Vītahavya, whereupon Vītahavya took shelter with Bhṛgu and that when Pratardana asked Bhṛgu whether there was any kṣatriya in the hermitage, Bhṛgu replied that there were all brāhmaṇas and that by this Vītahavya became a brāhmaṇa (Anuśāsana chap. 30).
Similarly the pravara of the Hārītas is either ‘{{Angirasa Ambarisa-Yauvanāśva-iti|Āṅgirasa-Ambarīṣa-Yauvanāśva-iti}}’ or ‘{{Māndbātr-Ambarisa-Yauvunāśva iti|Māndhātṛ-Ambarīṣa-Yauvanāśva-iti}}’. These are mythical royal sages. Among155 the Bhṛgus is a sub-division called Vainya which is further subdivided into Pārthas and Bāṣkalas. The story of Pṛthu who milked the earth is well-known (Droṇa-parva 69); he is called ‘ādirāja’ in Anuśāsana 166. 55. The Vāyupurāṇa in several places narrates that some kṣatriyas became the pravaras of brāhmaṇas. Vide chap. 88. 72-79, (about Viṣṇuvṛddha,156 who was descended from Purukutsa, whose son was Trasadasyu), chap. 88. 6-7, 92. 6, 99. 158-161, 99. 169-170 (Anan. ed.) for other examples157. How and why kṣatriya names were adopted as brāhmaṇical pravaras is obscure and difficult to understand. If one may hazard a guess, it is probably due to the fact that the purāṇas retain very ancient traditions of times when there were no water-tight varṇas and that ancient kings were learned in the [] Vedic lore and maintained śrauta fires also, became famous as sages in whose name fire was to be invoked to carry offerings to Gods even by brāhmaṇas who came ages after them.
The connection of gotra and pravara may be stated thus: Gotra is the latest ancestor or one of the latest ancestors of a person by whose name his family has been known for generations; while pravara is constituted by the sage or sages who lived in the remotest past, who were most illustrious and who are generally the ancestors of the gotra sages or in some cases the remotest ancestor alone.
It has been seen (pp.437-38) that marriage between parties that are sagotra or sapravara is no marriage and the woman does not become the man’s wife. What were the consequences of such a void union? Baudh.158 (pravarādhyāya 54) says that if a man has intercourse with a sagotra girl he should undergo the penance of cāndrāyaṇa, after that he should not abandon the woman, but should only maintain her as if she were a mother or a sister; if a child is born it does not incur sin and it should take the gotra of Kāśyapa. Aparārka quotes (p. 80) Sumantu and another smṛti to the effect that if a person inadvertently marries a sagotra or {{samāpa-pravara|samāna-pravara}} woman he should give up intercourse with her, should maintain her and undergo cāndrāyaṇa.159 But if he knowingly marries a sagotra or sapravara girl the penance was heavier (viz. that for incest) and if he has intercourse with her or begets a child from her he loses his caste and the child will be a cāṇḍāla160. The rule of Baudh. that there would be no blemish and the child will be of Kāśyapa gotra is restricted to inadvertently marrying such a girl.161 The Saṃ. Pr. quotes a verse of Kātyāyana to the effect that if a marriage is gone [] through with a sagotra, the girl may be again given in marriage to another. But the Saṃ. Pr. gets rid of that inconvenient text by saying that it does not apply to the present age. So the poor girl for no fault of hers had to pass her whole life in enforced celibacy, being neither an unmarried woman nor a widow.162
Questions about the validity of sagotra or sapravara marriages have not yet come before the courts; but it is likely that in the near future courts will have to deal with such cases. If a marriage takes place under the Special Marriage Act of 1872 (as amended in 1923) no difficulty will arise; but recently several marriages have been celebrated under the old śāstric procedure between persons who are sagotra or sapravara. Upon the strict letter of the dharmaśāstra texts such marriages are absolutely void. But it seems that the legislature should intervene and declare sagotra and sapravara marriages valid. Whatever may have been the case thousands of years ago when there were no means of communication and when there were small communities, the prohibition of sagotra relationship had some plausibility and real feeling of close kinship about it; but now the prohibition has become meaningless. A man from Kashmir may marry a girl from Madras and the parents of both may have the same gotra. Granting for argument that the gotra sage was a common ancestor, one does not know how many generations have intervened between that remote ancestor and the intending spouses and particles of the ancestor’s body, if they have survived at all in the intending spouses of the same gotra, must be in the present generation in the most attenuated state. The prohibitions based upon gotra and pravara are said by orthodox people to be prescribed upon unseen ({{adreta|adṛṣṭa}}) grounds and so they argue that they must be held to be absolute and not admitting of any evasion by any one calling himself a Vedic Hindu. One may be permitted to reply to these people that when almost everybody has given up the ancient cult of the śrauta and gṛhya fires and when hundreds of other innovations in ancient practices have been accepted without demur, there is hardly any justification for sticking to this one remnant of ancient practices. As a matter of fact many brāhmaṇas now do not remember their pravara themselves but have to be told by the priests what their pravara is. Certain prohibitions against [] marriage between near sapiṇḍa relations may be respected on account of their universal acceptance. Even the Special Marriage Act of 1872 prescribes that there can be no marriage between parties when they trace descent to a common ancestor who is the great-grandfather or great-grandmother (or who is nearer even than these) of any one of them.
Sagotra relationship is in one direction wider than sapiṇḍa relationship and narrower than it in another so far as marriage is concerned. A man cannot marry the daughter of any sagotra, however distant the sagotra may be. Similarly even an adopted man cannot marry the daughter of a sagotra of his genitive father for two reasons, firstly because, though on adoption he becomes severed from his natural family for inheritance and offering of piṇḍa (vide Manu IX, 142), his other relationships with the natural family remain intact; and secondly because Manu (III. 5) says that the girl must not be a sagotra of the bridegroom’s father and so even if by adoption a man goes into another gotra, it is the father’s gotra that is to be considered). Sapiṇḍa relationship prohibiting marriage extends only to seven or five generations, but prohibitions on the ground of sagotra relationship extend to any number of generations. On the other hand sapiṇḍas may be either of the same gotras (i. e. sagotra) or of a different gotra (i. e. bhinnagotra). Thus up to a certain limit sapiṇḍas include both sagotras and bhinnagotras. The latter are called bandhus by the Mit.; they are all cognate relations and have an important place in inheritance. We have seen (pp. 436-37) that sagotra marriages were totally forbidden in the sūtras (in the śrauta sūtras like Lātyāyana śrauta and in gṛhya and dharma sūtras). A passage of the Śat. Bṛ. (quoted above at p. 461) is relied upon by Professors Macdonell and Keith (Vedic Index vol. I. p. 236) for holding that marriages within the third and fourth degrees on both maternal and paternal sides were allowed in the days of the Śatapatha and that therefore a man could marry in those days his paternal uncle’s daughter. This latter is a startling proposition. The passage in the Śat. Bṛ. is no doubt expressed in general words (‘one may be united in the third or fourth generation’). But that passage is generally applicable even if only a marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter or paternal aunt’s daughter is meant. The passage does not expressly allow paternal cousins’ marriages. The dharma-sūtras prohibit sagotra marriages. Both the learned Professors, as most western scholars do, probably hold that [] the Śatapatha is not separated from the sūtras by more than a few centuries. If a paternal uncle’s daughter had been eligible for marriage in the times of the Śatapatha, but became forbidden in the times of the sūtras we shall have to suppose that an usage died out from one end of the country to another and an opposite usage became prevalent throughout within a few centuries. The smṛtis are not afraid of stating ancient practices which they themselves do not accept (i. e. niyoga). The smṛtis do not say that marriages with paternal uncle’s daughters were ever allowed anywhere. So it appears that the Śatapatha is not referring to marriage with paternal uncle’s daughter, but to marriage with maternal uncle’s or paternal aunt’s daughter. It must however be pointed out that Aparārka (pp. 15, 63), the Sm. C. (I. p. 12), Pār. M. I. part 1 p. 133 and other digests quote a passage from the Brahmapurāṇa163 that sagotra and sapiṇḍa marriages are forbidden in the Kali age. It may be argued with some force that this implies that sagotra marriages once took place. But there are various ways of explaining this. It is possible that in the purāṇa the word gotra is not used in the technical sense, but only in the sense of family or surname. Among śūdras there is no gotra in the strict sense, but they also do not marry a girl who is believed to be of the same family, though the exact relationships or generations are not known. Besides it has been shown above that if a woman was a putrikā or married in the Gāndharva or {{Āgura|Āsura}} form she retained the gotra of her father and the son of the putrikā would have the gotra of his maternal grand-father and yet being of a different family his marriage with the daughter of a sagotra of the maternal grand-father might have taken place in ancient times and was forbidden in the Kali age by the purāṇa. Similarly the implied reference to marriages of sapiṇḍas as taking place in former ages has probably marriage with maternal uncle’s daughter in view. When in the kalivarjya texts it is said ’these dharmas are declared to be prohibited by the sages in the Kali age’ (vide Vyavahāra-mayūkha p. 242), it is not proper to argue that everyone of the practices forbidden in the kali age was valid in former ages. All that is meant seems to be that most of them were allowed in former ages and these along with others enumerated are not to be practised in the Kali age, just as when in a crowd many have umbrellas and a few have not, a speaker still says with reference to the whole crowd ‘chatriṇo gacchanti’ (here go persons with umbrellas). []
Prohibitions about Marriage
There are certain other prohibitions about marriage. The Smṛtimuktāphala164 quotes a verse of Hārīta that ‘one should not give one’s daughter in exchange to another’s son and receive that other’s daughter in marriage for one’s son, one should not give two daughters to the same man (at the same time), nor should one give one’s two daughters to two persons who are brothers’. But these dicta will now certainly be held as merely recommendatory. Besides there is no objection in India in modern times to marrying the deceased wife’s sister, though even in England the deceased wife’s sister could not be married until 1907 (when the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act, 1907, 7 Edw. 7 chap. 47 legalised such marriages).
The next question is as to who have power to arrange for the marriage of a girl and to give her away. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (24. 38-39) specifies the order of persons who are entitled to exercise this right of guardianship in marriage ’the father, the paternal grand-father, a brother, a kinsman, a maternal grand-father and the mother are the persons, by whom the girl may be given away in marriage. In the absence of the preceding one (the right) devolves upon the next in order, in case he is able’. Yāj. (I. 63-64) gives a slightly different order viz. he omits the maternal grand-father and adds that the right can be exercised only when the guardian is not affected by lunacy and similar defects and that in the absence of these the girl should perform svayamvara (i. e. choose a husband herself). Nārada165 ({{stripursa verges|strīpuruṣa verses}} 20-22) gives the order as father, brother (with father’s consent), paternal grand-father, maternal uncle, agnates, cognates, mother (if sound in mind and body), then distant relations, then the maiden may perform svayamvara with the king’s permission. To give away a girl in marriage was not only a right but was rather a heavy responsibility, as (Yāj. I. 64) and others declare that if a girl is not got married by the guardian at the proper time the latter incurs the sin of the murder of an embryo. The practice of svayamvara is well known from the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, but it was confined mostly to the princely families. Manu (IX. 90–91) required a girl to wait for three years after she became marriageable before she could choose her husband herself. But Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 40 says that a girl should wait only for three monthly periods after she attains puberty and that after that period she has full power to dispose of herself in marriage as she thinks best.
There are no rules in the smṛtis as to who is to arrange the marriage of a male, since in ancient times they did not contemplate the marriages of minor males.
The mother has been put low in the order of guardians probably because of the dependent status assigned to women and because of the fact that in the ceremony of kanyādāna she cannot personally engage but has to get it done through some male relative. The courts in modern India, however, have held that the mother is entitled to select a husband for her daughter even when the girl’s paternal grand-father is living, though the actual gift may be made by a male. Vide Bai Ramkore v. Jamnadas, I. L. R. 37 Bom. 18, where Yāj. I. 63 is interpreted as only laying down who are to make a gift of the girl and as not intended to take away altogether the mother’s right of selecting a bridegroom in favour of even distant relations. Vide also Indi v. Ghania (I. L. R. 1 Lahore 146), Jawani v. Mula Ram (I. L. R. 3 Lahore 29, where it was held that, after the father, the mother of a girl has the preferential right to select a bridegroom for her and that she is under no obligation to consult the girl’s paternal kindred such as a paternal uncle), Raṅganāikī v. Ramanuja I. L. R. 35 Mad. 728, (where all the authorities are examined). The Dharmasindhu states the important proposition that ‘when the girl performs svayamvara or when the mother is to give away the girl in marriage, the girl or mother should perform the Nāndīśrāddha and the principal saṃkalpa is to be pronounced by her and the rest of the [] rite is to be performed through a brāhmaṇa.’166 Nārada states the general rule that if anything is done by one who is afflicted with lunacy or similar defects, what he does is as if not done, so a marriage settled even by the father if he is a lunatic need not be performed. If an unauthorized person (like a maternal uncle) were to give away a girl in marriage though her father is alive and fit, what is the result? The digests state167 that if the marriage has been completed by the performance of saptapadī, it cannot be set aside merely on the ground of the want of authority in the giver, since marriage rites are the principal matter and the authority to give is a very subsidiary matter, the absence of which cannot affect the principal matter. But before the marriage takes place a person who wants to give away a girl, though persons better qualified exist, can be prevented from doing so. Courts in modern India have followed these rules, relying on the doctrine of ‘factum valet quod fieri non debuit’ (what ought not to be done when done is valid) and holding that when once a marriage is duly solemnized and is otherwise valid, it is not rendered invalid because it was brought about without the consent of the proper guardian for marriage or in contravention of an express order of the court. Vide Khushalchand v. Bai Mani (I. L. R. 11 Bombay 247) and Bai Diwali v. Moti (I. L. R. 22 Bom. 509).
A few words must be said about the sale of girls in marriage. We read in the {{Maitrayapiya s.|Maitrāyaṇīya S.}} I. 10. 11 ‘she indeed commits falsehood (or sin) who being purchased by her husband roams about with other males.’168 There is another passage of the Veda relied upon along with the above by the pūrvapakṣa (the plausible view-point) in Jaimini (VI. 1. 10-11) which denies that women have a right to [] take part in Vedic sacrifices, viz. ‘one should give to the daughter’s father a hundred (cows) plus a chariot’. Jaimini replies (VI. 1. 15) that ’the giving of a hundred with a chariot is not for purchasing a bride, but it is only a duty and a hundred must be offered as a present (whether the girl is beautiful or not).169 This shows that, even if some girls were purchased for marriage in the times of the Maitrāyaṇīya S., there was a popular revulsion of sentiment about this practice and the sale of girls was severely condemned by the time of the sūtrakāras. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13. 10-11) also makes interesting remarks on this point170 “there is no gift and the incidents of purchase about one’s children; in marriage the gift ordained by Veda to be made to the daughter’s father in the words ’therefore one should give a hundred (cows) besides a chariot to the girl’s father and that (gift) should be made to belong to the (married) couple’ is due to the desire (of the father to give a status to the daughter and her sons) and is meant as a fulfilment of duty (and not as a sale transaction). The word ‘purchase’ applied to such a transaction is merely figurative, since the relationship (as husband and wife) arises (not from the so-called purchase but) from dharma.” Vas. Dh. S. (I. 36-37) quotes the two passages of the Veda (from Mait. S. and the other about the gift of one hundred cows) in support of the Mānuṣa (i. e. Āsura) form of marriage. The Nirukta VI. 9171 while explaining Ṛg. I. 109. 2 (‘O Indra and Agni, I have heard you to be greater donors than a partially fit son-in-law or a brother-in-law’) remarks that “the word ‘{{vijāmātā|vijāmātṛ}}’ means among the southerners the husband of a woman who is purchased; what is meant is that he is a [] bridegroom who is deficient and not endowed with all good qualities.” So Yāska implies that in the south girls were sold for substantial sums of money to persons who (either because they were old or wanting in some qualities desirable in a good bridegroom) were therefore really deficient as bridegrooms. In the Nirukta (III. 4) while discussing the several views about the obscure verse of the Ṛgveda III. 31. 1 (sāsad-vahnir &c.) one of the reasons assigned for the view that women do not inherit is that gift, sale and abandonment in the case of women exist, but not in the case of men, to which some reply that these (gift, sale &c.) can be made of males also as is seen in the story of Śunaḥśepa (in the Ait. Br. 33, Tai. S. V. 2. 1. 3, Tai. Br. I. 7. 10).
These passages lead to the inference that in ancient times girls were sometimes purchased for marriage, as was the case in many other countries. But gradually public feeling entirely changed and not only was the sale of daughters by the father or brother severely condemned, but even taking of presents by them was looked down upon. Āp. Dh. S. has already been quoted above (note 1174). The Baudh. Dh. S. (I. 11. 20-21)172 quotes two verses ’that woman who is purchased with wealth is not declared to be a legally wedded wife (a patnī); she is not (to be associated with the husband) in rites for the gods or manes and Kaśyapa declares that she is a dāsī (slave girl). Those, who, blinded by greed, give their daughters in marriage for a fee (śulka), are sinners, sellers of their own selves and perpetrators of great sin and they fall into hell &c.’ In another place Baudh. says ‘he who gives his daughter (in marriage) by sale (as a chattel) sells his merit (puṇya)’. Manu (III. 51, 54-55) strikes173 a tender note about daughters when he says ‘a father should not take even the smallest gratuity for his daughter; if he takes a gratuity through greed he becomes the seller of his child; when relations do not take for themselves wealth given by the bridegroom as gratuity (but hand it over to the girl) there is no sale (of the girl); the wealth so taken is for [] honouring the maidens and is only taken from the bridegroom out of loving concern for them. Fathers, brothers, husbands and brothers-in-law desiring their own welfare should honour women and should give them ornaments’. Manu (IX. 98) further recommends that ’even a śūdra should not take a gratuity when giving his daughter (in marriage), since in taking a gratuity he clandestinely sells his daughter’. Yāj. III. 236, Manu XI. 61 include the sale of children among upapātakas. The Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana 93. 133 and 94. 3) condemns the taking of a gratuity for giving a girl and Anuśāsana (45. 18-19) speaks of gāthās of Yama contained in dharma-śāstras ‘whoever sells his son for a price, or gives a daughter for the sake of his own livelihood in return for a gratuity, would fall into a most horrible hell called Kālasūtra’. Verse 23 of the same chapter says ’even a stranger cannot be sold, what of one’s own children’. Verse 20 (= Manu III. 53) condemns even the Ārṣa form of marriage as a sale because a pair of cattle is therein taken by the girl’s father. In Kerala or Malabar it is believed that the great teacher Śaṃkara laid down 64 ācāras, among which are prohibition of the sale of girls, prohibition of satī &c. Vide I. A. vol. IV, pp. 255-256 and also Atri v. 389 and Āp. (in verse) IX. 25 (ed. by Jīvānanda). This practice, however, persisted till modern times. For example, in an inscription dated about 1425174 A. D. from Paḍaivīḍu (North Arcot District) we find an agreement signed by the representatives of Karṇāṭa, Tamil, Telugu and Lāṭa (South Gujarat) brāhmaṇas that they would give up taking gold for their daughters and get them married by the simple kanyādāna (the Brāhma form) and that the father who accepted gold and the bridegroom who paid gold were to be punished by the king and were to be excommunicated from the brāhmaṇa caste. The Peshwā175 issued orders (about 1800 A. D.) addressed to the brāhmaṇas of Wai (in the Satara District) forbidding them to take money for giving their daughters in marriage and prescribing fines for the father [] who took money, for the giver and the intermediary who brought about the marriage. Among certain castes and among the śūdras even now money or money’s worth is often taken when a daughter is married, but generally the money is meant as a provision for the girl and for defraying the expenses of the girl’s father.
The question of the sale of girls in marriage has been from the remotest ages bound up with the question of the father’s power over his children. Ṛg. I. 116. 16176 and I. 117. 17 refer to the story of Ṛjrāśva who was deprived of his eye-sight by his father because the former gave a hundred rams to a she-wolf. The verses refer to some natural phenomena under a metaphorical garb and cannot be used for drawing the inference that a father could in law deprive his son of eye-sight at his will. The story of Śunaḥśepa (Ait. Br. 33) shows that in rare cases the father did sell his son. The passage of the Nirukta about the power to sell, to gift away or to abandon daughters has been already cited (p. 505). The Vas. Dh. S.177 (XVII. 30-31) says ‘Śunaḥśepa is an example of the son bought’ (one of the twelve kinds of sons). The same sūtra (XVII. 36-37) defines the apaviddha kind of son as ‘one, who being cast off by his parents, is accepted (as a son) by another.’ Manu IX. 171 also defines the ‘apaviddha’ in the same way. Vas. Dh. S. (XV. 1-3) propounds the absolute power of the parents over their children in the words ‘man produced from seed and uterine blood springs from the father and the mother; (therefore) the parents have power to give, to sell or to abandon him; but one should not give nor accept an only son’. Here Vas. states the right of patria potestas several centuries before Justinian, who makes the vain boast (Institutes, Lib. I. Tit. IX. 2) that ’no other people have a power over their children such as we have over ours’. Manu (VIII. 416) and the Mahābhārata178 (Udyoga 33. 64) both state that the wife, the son and the slave are without wealth and that whatever they acquire belongs to him whose they are. Manu (in V. 152) says that ‘gift (by the father of the bride) is the source of (the husband’s) ownership (over her)’. But gradually the [] rigour of the father’s power was lessened by other competing considerations such as the ideas that the son was the father himself born again, and that the son conferred great spiritual benefit on the souls of the father and his ancestors by the balls of rice offered in śrāddha. So gradually the father’s power over the son became restricted. Kauṭilya (III. 13) gives the interesting information that mlecchas incur no blame by selling or pledging their children, but an ārya cannot be reduced to the state of slavery. Yāj. II. 175 and Nārada (dattāpradānika 4) both forbid the gift of one’s son or wife. Kātyāyana179 says that though the father has powers of control over the wife and the son, he has not the power to sell or make a gift of his son. Yāj. (II. 118-119) modified the rule about the son’s acquisitions also. Manu VIII. 389 prescribes a fine of 600 paṇas for abandoning one’s mother, father, wife or son when they are not sinners. Vide Yāj. II. 237, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 113-114, Kauṭilya III. 20 (p. 199) for a similar provision. Manu (VIII. 299–300) restricted a man’s power to award corporal punishment for misconduct to his wife, son or slave to striking with a rope or a thin piece of bamboo.
One question discussed by dharmaśūtra writers is whether one has ownership over one’s wife and children. In Jaimini180 (VI. 7. 1-2) it is decided that in the Viśvajit sacrifice where one is to give away all that one has, one cannot give away one’s parents and other relatives as one can make a gift only of what one is master of. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 175 says ’though one cannot make a gift of one’s wife or child to another, one is still owner of them.’ The Vīramitrodaya181 (vyavahāra p. 567) is of the same opinion. On the other hand the Tantraratna (of Pārthasārathimiśra) says that the word gift with reference to the son and the like is used only in a secondary sense viz. that of passing to another the power of control over the son [] or the daughter. The Vyavahāramayūkha is also of the same opinion.
A few words may be said about infanticide. Westermarck in his ‘Origin and Development of Moral Ideas’ vol. I. (1906) pp. 393-413 furnishes an exhaustive account of this practice in ancient and modern times among barbarous and civilised communities from various countries, e. g. in Sparta (for the purpose of securing strong and healthy fighters), among the Rajputs (from family pride and fear of the crushing burden of expenses at marriage).182 He is wrong in saying that in the Vedic times infanticide or exposure of children was practised. Ṛg. II. 29. 1183 is of no use on this point; it says ‘cast off from me sin as a woman who secretly gives birth to a child (casts it off).’ This is not a reference to infanticide of children born in wedlock, but refers to the exposure of a child by an unmarried woman which is clandestinely practised everywhere and as regards which even in England a very lenient attitude is shown as manifested by the passing of the Infanticide Act (12 and 13 Geo. V. Chap. 18). The most important passage on which some European scholars like Zimmer and Delbrück rely upon for this proposition is Tai. S. VI. 5. 10. 3 ’they go to the avabhṛtha184 (the final sacrificial bath); they keep aside the sthālīs (pots) and take up the vessels for vāyu: therefore they (the people) keep aside the girl when she is born and lift up (i. e. greet with pride and joy) the son’. This simply refers to the fact that a daughter was not greeted as much as the son. It has nothing to do with exposure or infanticide. That passage only expresses the sentiment contained in the Ait. Br.185 (33.1) [] ’the wife is indeed a friend, the daughter is distress (or humiliation), the son is light in the highest heaven’. The Mahābhārata (Ādi. 159. 11) in a similar vein says ’the son is one’s self, the wife is one’s friend, but the daughter is indeed a difficulty.’ But all the same the Gṛhyasūtras like Āp. (15. 13) call upon the father to greet his daughter also with a mantra when he returned from a journey, the difference being that in the case of the son there is kissing of the son’s head and muttering of certain mantras in his right ear. Manu (IX. 232) advises the king to award death sentence to him who kills a woman, a child or a brāhmaṇa. Manu IX. 130 (= Anuśāsana 45. 11) expressly says that ‘just as the son is one’s own self, so is the daughter like the son; how can another person take the wealth (of the deceased) when his daughter who is his own self is there to take it?’ Nārada186 (dāyabhāga v. 50) reasons that both the son and the daughter continue the line of the father and therefore in the absence of the son the daughter succeeds as heir. Bṛhaspati exclaims ’the daughter is born from the limbs of the parents as much as the son; when she is alive how can another take her father’s estate’? Bāṇa, who as a great poet had unparalleled sympathy with the emotions and feelings of the average man, makes even the king Prabhākaravardhana say about his daughter what every Indian father has felt for thousands of years ’this rule of law laid down by some one viz. that one’s own children (daughters) sprung from one’s body, fondled on one’s knees and whom one would never forsake, are taken away all of a sudden by persons (husbands) who till then were quite unfamiliar. It is on account of this sorrow that although both (son and daughter) are one’s own children the good feel sorrow when a daughter is born and who offer water in the form of tears to their daughters at the very time of their birth’. A daughter was not greeted at birth, not because the father had no love for her, but because [] he felt that a daughter meant a source of anxiety all her life to him. It was the great concern felt for a daughter’s well-being in life and her character that made the parents anxious that no daughter be born to them. Society expected a very high moral rectitude from women and treated lapses of men with leniency. This is finely expressed in the Rāmāyaṇa (Uttara-kāṇḍa 9.10-11). Ancient literature did not everywhere treat women with scorn and contempt. It has already been shown how highly the wife was regarded even in the most ancient days as a man’s half. Ṛg. III. 53. 4 speaks of the wife as a haven of rest (jāyed-astam). The Chān. Up.187 looks upon the sight of a woman in a dream as very auspicious and as prognosticating success in religious rites already undertaken. Manu (III. 56 = Anuśāsana 46.5), though he has said, as will be shown later on, some very hard things about women, was not unmindful of the honour due to them and says in a chivalrous spirit ‘where women are honoured there the gods love to reside; where they are not honoured, there all religious acts come to nought.’ Maidens were regarded as pure (vide p. 296 above) and auspicious. When the king passed through his capital it was customary to greet him with fried grain showered by maidens (Raghuvaṃśa II.10). The Śaunaka-kārikā188 (ms. in Bombay University Library folio 22 b) includes a maiden among the eight objects which were auspicious. The Droṇaparva (82. 20-22) mentions numerous objects which Arjuna looked at and touched as auspicious when starting for battle, among which well-decked maidens are mentioned. Gobhila-smṛti II. 163 says that one that sees on rising from bed in the morning among others a woman whose husband is living is free from all difficulties. The Vāmana-purāṇa (14. 35-36) mentions several objects which are auspicious when one is about to leave home, among which figure brāhmaṇa maidens. Vide Sm. C. I. p. 168.
Some remarks must be made about the times auspicious for marriage. In the marriage hymn (Ṛgveda189 X. 85. 13) the [] words occur ’the cows are killed on the Aghas and (the bride) is carried away (from her father’s house) on the Phalgunīs’. The cow was killed in Madhuparka which was offered to the bridegroom on the day of marriage. Or this may be a reference to the giving of cows by the bridegroom to the bride’s father (as in the form later called ārṣa). So it appears probable that this is a reference to marriage being performed on the day when the moon was in conjunction with the constellation of Aghā (i. e. Maghā). The two Phalgunīs follow immediately after the Maghā nakṣatra. There is an echo of this in the Āp. gṛ. III. 1-2 which says ‘cows are accepted on the Maghās and (the bride) is carried (to the bridegroom’s house) on the Phalgunīs’. This means that the marriage (probably in the ārṣa form) is celebrated on the Maghās and the bride goes from her father’s house on the next day after marriage or after one day more. The Āśv. gṛ. (I. 4. 1) says190 that ‘in the northward passage of the sun, in the bright half of a month and on an auspicious lunar mansion, caula, upanayana, godāna and marriage are to be performed and that according to some teachers marriage may be celebrated at all times’ (not necessarily in northward passage &c). The Āp. gṛ. (2. 12-13) prescribes that all seasons except the two months of Śiśira (i. e. Māgha and Phālguna) and the last of the two months of summer (viz. Āṣāḍha) are fit for marriage and all nakṣatras which are declared to be auspicious (or holy). Āp. gṛ. further191 adds (3. 3) ‘a father who desires that his daughter should be dear (to her husband) should give her in marriage on the Niṣṭyā (i.e. Svāti constellation); thus she becomes dear (to her husband), she does not return (to her parent’s house); this is a procedure based upon the Brāhmaṇa passage.’ The Brāhmaṇa passage is Tai. Br. I. 5. 2. The Baudh. gṛ. (I. 1. 18-19) is the same172 as Āp. gṛ. about months and adds that the nakṣatras for marriage are Rohiṇī, Mṛgaśirṣa, Uttarā Phālgunī, Svāti; while Punarvasu, [] Tiśya (Puṣya), Hasta, Śravaṇa and Revatī are suitable for other ceremonies of an auspicious character. The Mānava gṛ. (I. 7. 5) says that the nakṣatras Rohiṇī, Mṛgaśiras, Śravaṇa, Śraviṣṭhā (Dhaniṣṭhā) and the Uttarās (i. e. Uttarāṣāḍhā, Uttarā Phālgunī and Uttarā Bhādrapadā) are fit for marriage and for taking the bride from her parent’s house and whatever other (nakṣatra) is declared to be auspicious. Kāṭhaka gṛ. 14. 9-10 and Vārāha gṛ. 10 are similar. The Rāmāyaṇa192 (Bālakāṇḍa 72. 13 and 71. 24) speaks of marriage being performed on Uttarā Phālgunī, of which Bhaga is the deity. The Mahābhārata also speaks of marriage on a nakṣatra presided over by Bhaga (Ādiparva 8. 16). The Kauśika-sūtra (75. 2-4) makes an approach to modern practice when it prescribes that marriage should be celebrated after the full moon of Kārtika and up to the full moon of Vaiśākha or one may do as one likes but should avoid the month or half month of Caitra.193
Medieval digests introduce many detailed rules derived from astrology which it is not possible to set out here. A few only will be indicated. The Udvāhatattva (p. 124) quotes Rājamārtaṇḍa194 and Bhujabalabhīma to the effect that all months are auspicious for marriage except Caitra and Pauṣa and that when a girl is very much grown-up one should not wait for auspicious seasons, but she should be given away on any day when the moon and the zodiacal sign rising at the moment of marriage are favourable, and that one should not go into questions of auspicious ayana, month, day &c. up to only the tenth year of girls. The Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 460) says that as there is conflict among the dicta of sūtra and smṛti [] writers about months one should follow the usage of one’s country. One should not celebrate the marriage of the eldest son with the eldest daughter of a man in the month of Jyeṣṭha (or on Jyeṣṭhā nakṣatra) nor should one celebrate a marriage in the month of birth or on the day of birth or nakṣatra of birth (of the eldest son or daughter). Wednesday, Monday, Friday and Thursday are the best days of the week, but the Madanapārijāta says that any day is good if the marriage is celebrated at night.195 In marriage the moon must be in a strong position for girls. One should avoid Jupiter being the 4th, 8th or 12th from one’s rāśi (zodiacal sign in which the moon was at the time of birth). The Nirṇayasindhu quotes a verse that when the girl has reached puberty, then one should not wait till Jupiter is favourable, but marriage should be performed even when Jupiter is 8th from the zodiacal sign of birth, propitiatory rites however being performed for Jupiter.196 Upanayana and marriage cannot be performed when Jupiter is in the zodiacal sign called Leo (Siṃha), but this applies only to the tract between the river Godāvarī and the Ganges.197 From the nakṣatra and zodiacal sign at the time of birth (in the case of both the girl and the bridegroom) certain astrological calculations were made in eight ways198 called kūṭas. They were Varṇa, Vaśya, Nakṣatra, Yoni, Graha (planets governing the twelve rāśis), Gaṇa, Rāśi, and Nāḍī, each later one of which was more powerful than each preceding one and marks (guṇa) from 1 to 8 were respectively assigned to each of these if the conditions laid down were satisfied. Two of these viz. gaṇa and nāḍī are attached great importance even now among brāhmaṇas and other classes also and so they may be illustrated here, though very briefly. The 27 nakṣatras are arranged in three groups of nine each, each group being assigned to Devagaṇa, Manuṣyagaṇa and Rākṣasagaṇa as follows: []
| Devagaṇa | Manuṣyagaṇa | Rākṣasagaṇa |
|---|---|---|
| Aśvinī | Bharaṇī | Kṛttikā |
| Mṛgaśiras | Rohiṇī | Āśleṣā |
| Punarvasu | Ārdrā | Maghā |
| Puṣya | Pūrvā | Citrā |
| Hasta | Uttarā | Viśākhā |
| Svāti | Pūrvāṣāḍhā | Jyeṣṭhā |
| Anurādhā | Uttarāṣāḍhā | Mūla |
| Śravaṇa | Pūrvābhādrapadā | Dhaniṣṭhā |
| Revatī | Uttarābhādrapadā | Śatatārakā |
If the bride and bridegroom are born on nakṣatras that belong to the same class out of these three groups it is the best thing but if their nakṣatras of birth belong to different groups, then the rules are: it is middling if their nakṣatras belong to the deva group or the human group respectively, or if the bridegroom’s nakṣatra being of the devagaṇa or rākṣasagaṇa, the bride’s is of the manuṣyagaṇa, while if the nakṣatra of the bride is of the rākṣasagaṇa group and the bridegroom’s of the manuṣya type, then death would result. Similarly if the nakṣatras of the pair respectively belong to the deva and rākṣasa groups, there would be quarrels and enmity between the two.
For the purpose of nāḍī the nakṣatras are divided into three groups of nine each, ādyanāḍī, madhyanāḍī and antyanāḍī, as follows:
| Ādyanāḍī | Madhyanāḍī | Antyanāḍī |
|---|---|---|
| Aśvinī | Bharaṇī | Kṛttikā |
| Ārdrā | Mṛgaśiras | Rohiṇī |
| Punarvasu | Puṣya | Āśleṣā |
| Uttarā | Pūrvā | Maghā |
| Hasta | Citrā | Svāti |
| Jyeṣṭhā | Anurādhā | Viśākhā |
| Mūla | Pūrvāṣāḍhā | Uttarāṣāḍhā |
| Śatatārakā | Dhaniṣṭhā | Śravaṇa |
| Pūrvābhādrapadā | Uttarābhādrapadā | Revatī |
If the nakṣatras of the intended pair belong to the same nāḍī, then that portends death and so there is to be no marriage in such a case. The respective nakṣatras of birth in the case of the two should belong to different nāḍīs. []
The anxieties of the {{girls’|girl’s}} father did not end here. If after the marriage was settled but before it actually took place any relative in any of the two families died, then the marriage agreement was to be broken off according to some writers, but Śaunaka199 mercifully states a more sensible and reasonable rule viz, if the father or mother or paternal grand-father or paternal grand-mother or paternal uncle, brother or unmarried sister of the intended bride or bridegroom dies, or the bridegroom’s first wife or his son from another wife dies, then only it is pratikūla and the marriage should not be performed, but the death of any one else presents no obstacle.
If before the rites of marriage begin (i. e. before the performance of nāndiśrāddha), the mother of the bride or of the bride-groom has her monthly illness then the marriage has to be postponed till she becomes pure (till the fifth day after the illness).
Forms of marriage
From the times of the gṛhya sūtras, dharmasūtras and smṛtis the forms of marriage are said to be eight, viz. Brāhma, Prājāpatya, Ārṣa, Daiva, Gāndharva, Āsura, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca (vide Āśv. gṛ. I. 6, Gaut. IV. 6-13, Baudh. Dh. S. I. 11, Manu III. 21 = Ādi-parva 73. 8-9), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 18-19, Yāj. I. 58, Nārada (strīpuruṣa, verses 38-39), Kauṭilya III. 1, 59th prakaraṇa, Ādi-parva 102. 12-15 (they are described but not named); some of these arrange the first four differently, e. g. Āśv. gṛ. arranges them as Brāhma, Daiva, Prājāpatya and Ārṣa, while Viṣṇu arranges them as Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa and Prājāpatya; Āśv. gṛ. I. 6 places Paiśāca before Rākṣasa. The Mānava gṛ. speaks of only two Brāhma and Śaulka (i. e. Āsura), probably because these two were the forms most current. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 5. 11. 17-20—II. 5. 12. 1-2) speaks of only six, omitting Prājāpatya and Paiśāca; while Vas. Dh. S. I. 28-29 expressly says that there are only six forms of marriage viz. Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Gāndharva, Kṣātra and Mānuṣa (the last two being the same as Rākṣasa and Āsura). It is impossible for want of space to set out the various definitions of the several forms given by the several authors. There is general agreement on the special characteristics of each and it is sufficient to point out these as given in Manu III. 27-34. []
The gift of a daughter, after decking her (with valuable garments) and honouring her (with jewels &c.), to a man learned in the Vedas and of good conduct, whom the father of the girl himself invites, is called Brāhma. When the father gives away his daughter after decking her (with ornaments &c.) to a priest, who duly officiates at a sacrifice, during the course of its performance, it is the Daiva form.200 When there is a gift of one’s daughter, after taking one pair of cattle (a cow and a bull) or two pairs only as a matter of fulfilling the law (and not as a sale of the girl), that is named the ārṣa form. The gift of a daughter, after the father has addressed (the couple with the words ‘may both of you perform your religious duties together’) and after he has honoured the bride-groom (with Madhuparka &c.), is declared to constitute the Prājāpatya form. Yāj. I. 60 calls this ‘kāya’, because in the Brāhmaṇa works ‘ka’ means ‘Prajāpati’. When the girl is given away at the father’s will after the bride-groom gives as much wealth as he can afford to pay to the relatives of the girl and to the girl herself, that is called the Āsura form. The union of a girl and the bride-groom by their mutual consent is known as Gāndharva, which springs from the passion of love and has intercourse as its purpose. The forcible abduction of a maiden from her house, while she weeps and cries aloud, after her kinsmen have been slain (or beaten), wounded and their houses or fortresses are broken open, is called the Rākṣasa form. When a man has intercourse with a girl stealthily while she is asleep or intoxicated or disordered in mind (or unconscious), that is the Paiśāca form, which is the basest and the most sinful of all forms.
In the first four forms there is the gift of the girl (kanyādāna) by the father or other guardian to the bride-groom. The word ‘dāna’ here is used in a secondary sense (as stated above on p. 504) viz. in the sense of transfer of the father’s right of guardianship and control of the maiden to the husband. All gifts are to be made with water in the case of brāhmaṇas as stated by Manu [] (III. 35) and Gaut. V. 16-17.201 Similarly in all the four forms where there is kanyādāna the girl is to be well dressed and decked with ornaments. The essence of the brāhma form is that the girl is given without receiving anything from the bride-groom, who is invited and honoured by the girl’s father. It is called brāhma either because brahma means the holy Veda and this mode being sanctioned by the most ancient texts it is the holiest and best form, or brahma means dharma and being the best of all forms it is called brāhma (vide Smṛtimuktāphala part I. p. 140). In the ārṣa form a pair of cattle is received from the bride-groom and it is somewhat inferior to the brāhma form. But the pair is given not as a price (i. e. there is no purchase), but because that is one way of effecting a marriage laid down by the śāstras (vide the passage quoted above at p. 504 ’therefore one should give a hundred cows &c’ and Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 11, which is opposed to Vas. Dh. S. I. 36) and the gift is made to show one’s regard for the girl (vide Manu III. 53-54). The daiva form is only appropriate to brāhmaṇas as only202 a brāhmaṇa could officiate at a sacrifice. It is so called because the bridegroom is engaged at the time in rites for the gods and it is inferior to the brāhma inasmuch as in it there is some trace of benefit to the father (that the priest may do his best in the rite for the gods). Govindasvāmin on Baudh. Dh. S. says ’the bride is in this form part of the sacrificial fee’. In all forms of marriage the husband and wife have to perform all religious acts together, as forcibly put by Āp. Dh. S.203 (’there is no separation between husband and wife, since from the time of taking the hand of the wife there is joint performance of all religious actions’). But in the Prājāpatya the words used indicate according to the commentators (vide Saṃ. [] Pr. p. 852 and Haradatta on Gaut. IV. 5) one or more of several things, viz. that the husband will remain a house-holder all his life and will not become a recluse while the wife is living or that he will not marry another wife i. e. it will be a strictly monogamous marriage which is defined in Hyde v. Hyde (1866), P. and M. p. 130 as ’the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’ (p. 133), or that he will associate the wife with himself not only in sacrifices but also in works of charity (like building tanks, wells &c.). This form is inferior to brāhma in that the father, as it were, makes a special stipulation with the bride-groom, while in the brāhma there is no such special stipulation, but the bride-groom promises that he will not break faith with his wife in the matter of the three puruṣārthas, dharma, artha, kāma.204
In the āsura form there is practically a sale of the girl for money or money’s worth and so it is not approved. The ārṣa is distinguished from āsura in this that in the latter there is no limit to what is taken from the bride-groom, while in the former a pair of cattle is offered as a matter of form. In the gāndharva there is no gift by the father; on the contrary the father’s authority is set at naught by the girl for the time being. Marriage was a sacrament according to ancient sages, and its principal purposes as stated above (pp. 428–29) were the acquisition of merit by the performance of religious duty and of progeny. In the gāndharva form the principal object was gratification of carnal desires and so it is held inferior to the first four forms and is disapproved. This kind of marriage is so called because it is prompted by mutual love and the Gandharvas were known to be libidinous, as the Tai. S. VI. 1. 6. 5 (strikāmā vai Gandharvāḥ) and Ait. Br. V. 1 state. In this form at least the girl’s feelings are consulted. In the rākṣasa and the paiśāca, there is no gift by the father and both are or may be against the wish of the girl. The forcible carrying of the girl is the essence of the rākṣasa (even if there is no fight because the girl’s father takes no retaliatory steps in fear of the abductor’s strength). It is called rākṣasa because rākṣasas (demons) are known from legends to have been addicted to cruel and forceful methods. The paiśāca is so called because in it there is action like that of piśācas (goblins) that are supposed to act stealthily by night. []
It is not to be supposed that when ancient sages held that rākṣasa and paiśāca were forms of marriage, they legalized marriage by capture or stealth. What they meant was that these were the means of securing205 wives and that there are not really eight kinds of vivāhas, but rather there are eight ways in which wives may be secured. It is for this reason that Vātsya says that if a fine girl cannot be secured by any means she may be approached even in private by stealth and married. The sages condemned in no measured terms the paiśāca. From the fact that Āpastamba and Vasiṣṭha both ignore the Paiśāca and Prājāpatya it may be inferred that these two had ceased to be recognised by their time and that the other sages enumerated them only because they appeared in ancient works and for the sake of completeness of treatment. Vasiṣṭha (17. 73) expressly repudiates the idea that legal wifehood can arise by forcible seizure of a girl ‘if a damsel’206 has been abducted by force and not wedded with sacred texts she may lawfully be given to another man (in marriage); she is just as good as a maiden’. The smṛtis out of regard for the future welfare of the girl preferred to blink at the wrong done, but insisted upon the abductor or stealthy seducer performing the rites of homa and saptapadī in order to confer on the girl wronged the status of a legally married wife. But if the wrong-doer was unwilling to do this they recommended that the girl may be given to another in marriage and pronounced very heavy punishments for the abductor or seducer of a girl (vide Manu VIII. 366 and Yāj. II. 287-288). Sir Gooroodas Banerjee207 rightly expresses surprise at Macnaughten’s saying that fraud was legalised by the Hindu Law in the case of the paiśāca form. Manu VIII. 366 says that if a man has intercourse with a girl of his own caste with her consent, he will have to give a fee to the father if the latter so desires and [] Medhātithi208 adds that if the father does not desire money the lover will have to pay a fine to the king, that the girl may be given to him or if she has lost her love for him, she may be given to another and if the lover himself wants to discard her he should be forced to accept her (as a wife). Nārada (strīpuruṣa, verse 72) similarly says that if a man has sexual intercourse with a maiden who is a consenting party, then there is no offence, but he must marry her after decking her (with ornaments) and treating her with honour.
The Sm. C. and other digests state that in the gāndharva, āsura, rākṣasa and paiśāca homa and saptapadī are necessary and they quote Devala and the Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa in support. The Mahābhārata (Ādi. 195. 7)209 expressly says that even after svayamvara religious rites had to be performed. Kālidāsa in Raghuvaṃśa VII describes how after the svayamvara of Indumatī the principal religious rites of madhuparka, homa, going round the fire, pāṇigrahaṇa took place. Since Āśvalāyana first speaks of eight forms and then prescribes the performance of homa and saptapadī, he implies that these are necessary in all forms.
The smṛtis contain several views about the suitability of these eight to various varṇas. All are agreed that the first four, brāhma, daiva, ārṣa and prājāpatya, are the approved forms (praśasta or dharmya). Vide Gaut. IV. 12, Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 12. 3, Manu III. 24, Nārada (strīpuṃsa, verse 44) &c. Most say that each preceding one out of the first four is superior to each succeeding one and that thus brāhma is the best (vide Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 12. 4, Baudh. Dh. S. I. 11. 11). Almost all are agreed that paiśāca is the worst. Manu III. 23-26 refers to several views. One view is that the first four (brāhma &c.) are the proper forms for brāhmaṇas (Baud. Dh. S. I. 11. 10, Manu III. 24). Another view was that the first six (out of the eight i. e. all except rākṣasa and paiśāca) are allowed to brāhmaṇas and the last four to kṣatriyas, and the gāndharva, Āsura and paiśāca to vaiśyas and śūdras (Manu III. 23). A third view was that prājāpatya, gāndharva and āsura may be resorted to [] by all varṇas and paiśāca and {{āsurs|āsura}} should not be resorted to by any one of any varṇa (Manu III. 25 = Anuśāsana 44. 9-10), but in another verse (III. 24) Manu allows āsura to vaiśyas and śūdras.210 Manu mentions the view that the gāndharva and rākṣasa are proper (dharmya) for a kṣatriya or a mixture of these two viz. where the girl loves the bride-groom, but her parents or guardians disapprove or cause obstacles and the lover takes away the girl after a fight with her relations (Manu III. 26 and Baudh. Dh. S. I. 11. 13). Baudh. Dh. S.211 (I. 11. 14-16) recommends āsura and paiśāca to vaiśyas and śūdras and assigns the interesting reason for this: ’the vaiśyas and śūdras do not keep their wives under restraints, they having to do the work of ploughing and waiting upon (the other varṇas)’. Nārada (strīpuruṣa, verse 40) says that gāndharva is common to all varṇas. The Kāmasūtra (III. 5. 28) first speaks of the brāhma as the best (following the view of the dharmaśāstra writers) and then, true to its own particular subject, gives its own opinion that gāndharva is the best (Kāmasūtra III. 5. 29-30).
The gāndharva form was very much in vogue among royal families. In the Śakuntala,212 Kālidāsa gives expression to this practice. In the Mahābhārata213 Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna who was in love with Subhadrā that carrying away by force one’s lady-love is commended in the case of valiant kṣatriyas. In the Sañjan plates of Amoghavarṣa (dated śake 793) it is stated that Indrarāja married the daughter of the Cālukya king at Kaira by the rākṣasa form of marriage (E. I. vol. 18, p. 235 at p. 243). Another and a very famous historic example of the rākṣasa form is the forcible abduction after a most dashing and valiant fight by Pṛthvirāja Cohan of the daughter of [] Jayacandra, the king of Kanoj.214 It is said that the daughter of Jayacandra was a consenting party; in that case this would be a mixture of the two forms of gāndharva and rākṣasa (compare Manu III. 26).
The {{svayaivara|svayaṃvara}} very often spoken of in the dharmaśāstras was practically the gāndharva as stated by the commentary Vīramitrodaya.215 It had several varieties. The simplest form of svayamvara occurs when, as described by Vas. Dh. S. 17. 67-68, Manu IX. 90, Baudh. Dh. S. IV. 1. 13, a girl, who attains puberty and whose father does not find a proper husband for three years, herself seeks her husband (or after three months from puberty according to Gaut. 18. 20, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 25. 40-41). Yāj. I. 64 also recommends svayamvara to every girl when there is no parent or other guardian who can find out a worthy husband for her. When a girl chose her own husband as above she had to return all ornaments given to her by her parents or brother and the husband who married her had to pay no śulka (dowry) to the father as the latter lost his power over her by not giving her away in time (vide Gaut. 18. 20 and Manu IX. 92). This simple svayamvara was applicable to girls of all castes. Sāvitrī indulged in this kind of svayaṃvara, when she went about in a chariot to find out a suitable husband for herself. But the svayaṃvaras described in the two great epics are often most elaborate and spectacular affairs and were confined to royal families. The Ādiparva says that kṣatriyas commend svayamvara and resort to it, but they prefer a girl who is carried off after subduing her relatives. Bhīṣma carried off the three daughters of the king of Kāśi and got two of them (Ambikā and Ambālikā) married to his ward Vicitravīrya.216 The svayamvara of Sītā or Draupadī did not depend upon the will of the bride, but the bride was to be given in marriage to whomsoever showed a certain skill as a warrior. In the case of Damayantī it was a real choice of her husband by her (Vanaparva 54 ff.) though she chose Nala in a vast and splendid assembly of royal suitors. Kālidāsa also [] gives us a fine description of the svayaṃvara of Indumatī in the Raghuvaṃśa. Bilhaṇa in his Vikramāṅkadevacarita (canto IX) gives a description of the historic svayaṃvara of Candralekhā (or Candaladevī) daughter of the Śilāhāra prince of Karahāṭa (modern Karad), when she chose Ahavamalla or Vikramāṅka, the Cālukya king of Kalyāṇa (latter half of 11th century). Such a svayaṃvara, it appears, was thought to be unsuitable to brāhmaṇas according to the Ādiparva.217 In the Kādambarī (Pūrvabhāga, penultimate para) Patralekhā says that svayaṃvara is ordained in the Dharmaśāstras.218
The Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 12. 4 makes a general statement that the progeny of a couple partakes of the character of the form in which they were married219 (i. e. if the marriage is in the best or in an approved form the son is good; if the marriage is in a condemned form, the son bears a low character). Manu (III. 39-42) expands the same idea by stating that sons born of marriages in the brāhma and other three forms are full of spiritual eminence and are endowed with beauty, virtues, wealth, fame and very long life, while sons of marriages of the other four forms are cruel, are liars, haters of the Veda and of dharma. Some sūtras and smṛtis state how many generations are rendered holy by a son born in one of the first four forms. For example, Āśv. gṛ. (1. 6) says that a son born of parents married in the brāhma, daiva, prājāpatya or ārṣa forms respectively brings purification to twelve descendants and twelve ancestors on both sides (i. e. his father’s and mother’s), to ten descendants and ten ancestors on both sides, to eight descendants and ascendants on both sides and to seven descendants and ascendants. Manu (III. 37-38) and Yāj. (I. 58-60) put the matter somewhat differently. According to them the son of a brāhma marriage brings purification to ten paternal ancestors, to ten male descendants and to himself (in all 21), of the daiva marriage to seven paternal ancestors and seven male descendants, of the prājāpatya marriage to six male ancestors, to six male descendants and to himself (in all 13), of the ārṣa marriage to three male ancestors and three male descendants. Gaut. [] (IV. 24-27) has similar provisions. Commentators like Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi explain that these verses are not to be taken literally. They merely praise the extreme desirability of the brāhma form. Viśvarūpa, however, alternatively proposes that one may accept the texts of the holy sages as literally true, following the dictum of Śabara that there is nothing too heavy (or impossible) for a holy text.220 One may laugh at these texts about the virtues of the several forms of marriage, but they are really intended to emphasize the high importance to the future of the race and to society of noble ideals of marriage, of morals and of a decent and peaceful mode of life.
The forms of marriage have their roots deep down in the Vedic Literature. Ṛg. X. 85 gives expression to a marriage in the brāhma form (there is kanyādāna and so forth). The āsura form (by payment of money) is referred to in Ṛg. I. 109. 2 and Nirukta VI. 9 (quoted above in note 1175). The gāndharva form or svayaṃvara is indicated by Ṛg. X. 27. 12 (quoted above p. 439) and Ṛg. I. 119. 5. The story of Śyāvāśva narrated in the Bṛhaddevatā (1. 50) in connection with Ṛg. V. 61 makes an approach to the daiva form. It is related in the Bṛhaddevatā that Ātreya Arcanānas who officiated as a priest at a sacrifice for king Rathavīti asked for his son Śyāvāśva the hand of the king’s daughter.
In modern times two forms are in vogue, the brāhma and āsura. In the brāhma form it is a gift of the girl pure and simple; in the āsura form it is like the sale of the bride for pecuniary consideration paid to the father or other guardian for his benefit. If this element of pecuniary consideration paid to the guardian exists, its effects cannot be undone by the form of a gift being gone through.221 The gāndharva form is said to be obsolete now, yet in some cases before the courts it has been held that it is still in vogue.222 There can be no gāndharva if the girl is a minor. Further if a widow remarries, that marriage [] will be ordinarily regarded as gāndharva, because there will be no gift of a kanyā (as she is a widow) and because she herself will generally arrange such a marriage.
Before proceeding to set out in detail the ceremonies of marriage, it would be best to analyse the contents of Ṛgveda X. 85, which is a marriage hymn redolent of the highest ideal of marriage and conjugal felicity and several verses of which are recited even now in the marriage rites. The hymn refers to a mythical marriage of Sūryā, daughter of Savitṛ, with Soma and the important features of the marriage, though not arranged in a regular sequence in the hymn, are: the two Aśvins went to ask for Sūryā as a bride for Soma223 (verses 8-9); Savitṛ agreed to give her (v. 9); the bride-groom was treated with honour, presents were made to him and cows were killed for (or presented to) him; Soma took hold of her hand with the verse (36) ‘I224 take thy hand for prosperity (or love) so that you may grow to old age with me thy husband; the gods, Bhaga, Aryaman, Savitṛ, the wise Pūṣan have given thee to me for performing the duties of a house-holder’; the bride is a gift by her father in the presence of gods and the fire (v. 40-41); the girl passes from the dominion and control of her father and becomes united with her husband (v. 24); the bride is blest as follows: ‘may you stay here together, may you not be separated, may you compass all life (long life), happy in your own house and playing with your sons and grandsons; O Indra! make her endowed with worthy sons and prosperity; bestow on her ten sons and make her husband the eleventh (male); may you be queen over your father-in-law, mother-in-law, over the husband’s brother and sister’ (vv. 42, 45-46).225 Among subordinate items it is noteworthy that Raibhyā was sent along with Sūryā as her friend (anudeyi) to make her time not hang heavy on her hands [] (v. 6) when she first went to her husband’s family (just as in modern times in Western India some woman accompanies the bride for a few days as {{patharākhin|pātharākhiṇa}} ‘one who guards’), that even a female servant accompanied Sūryā.226
In connection with the rites of marriage it is necessary to observe that the greatest divergence prevailed from very ancient times. Āśv. gṛ. (I. 7. 1-2) says ‘various indeed are the observances of (different) countries and villages; one should follow those in marriages; what, however, is common (to all or most) that we shall declare’. Similarly Āp. gṛ. (2. 15) declares ‘people should understand from women (and others) what procedure is (to be observed according to custom)’ and the commentator Sudarśanācārya notes that certain rites like the worship of planets, {{ankurāropaña|aṅkurāropaṇa}} and the tying of {{pratigara|pratisara}} (the marriage string or ribbon round the wrist) are usual and are performed with Vedic mantras, while others like Nāgabali, Yakṣabali and the worship of Indrāṇī are performed without Vedic mantras. The Kāṭhakagṛhya 25. 7 allows usages of countries and families to be observed in marriage and the commentators mention several such usages. As the gṛhya-sūtra of Āśvalāyana contains perhaps the shortest account of marriage rites and as that sūtra is probably the most ancient among the gṛhya-sūtras I shall set out below the entire ceremony of marriage from that sūtra. Then a few important details from other gṛhya-sūtras will be added and it will be pointed out how in modern times a marriage is celebrated, particularly among higher classes. It must be remembered that there is not only great divergence as to the number of separate ceremonies that constitute the saṃskāra of marriage, but the sequence of even the most important ceremonies is different in the several sūtras and the mantras also are different (though some like Ṛg. X. 85. 36 are common to all). It is remarkable that out of the 47 verses of Ṛg. X. 85, the Āp. Mantrapāṭha employs as many as 29 (most of which are quoted in connection with marriage). The main outlines of the marriage saṃskāra show a remarkable continuity for several thousand years from the times of the Ṛgveda down to modern times.
The Āśv. gṛ. (I. 7. 3-I. 8.) deals with all the marriage rites as follows†: Having placed to the west of the fire (that is [] kindled on the altar as described already) a mill-stone and to the north-east (of the fire) a water jar, he should offer sacrifice (with the sruva), while the bride takes hold of him (touches his right hand). Standing with his face turned to the west, while the bride is sitting and has her face turned to the east, he should seize only her thumb with the mantra ‘I take hold of thy hand for happiness’ (Ṛg. X. 85. 36 quoted in note 1228), if he desires that only male children be born to him; he may seize her other fingers if he is desirous of female children; he may seize her hand on the hair side together with the thumb if he be desirous of both (male and female children). Leading her thrice round the fire and the water jar so that their right sides are turned towards (the fire &c.) he murmurs227 ‘I am ama (this), thou art sā (she), thou art sā, I am ama; I am heaven, thou art the earth; I am the sāman, thou art the ṛk. Let us both marry here. Let us beget offspring. Dear to each other, bright, having well disposed minds, may we live for a hundred years!’ Each time he leads her round (the fire) he makes her tread on the stone with the words ’tread on this stone; be firm like a stone; overcome the enemies; trample down the foes.’228 Having first poured clarified butter over her joined hands, the bride’s brother or some one who is in the place of brother pours fried grain twice over the bride’s joined hands, three times in the case of those whose gotra is Jamadagni (i. e. if the bridegroom is of that gotra). Then he pours clarified butter over what has been left of the havis (sacrificial material or offering) and over what has been cut off (separated from the aggregate). This is the rule about the portions to be cut off (in every case where there is avadāna).229 With the following verses (recited by the bride-groom) [] viz. “to god Aryaman the girls offered sacrifice; may he the god Aryaman loosen her from this (i. e. her father’s) and not from that place (the bride-groom’s), svāhā! to god Varuṇa the girls have offered sacrifice; may he, god Varuṇa &c. To god Pūṣan the girls have offered sacrifice, to Agni; may he, god Pūṣan &c.; with these (the bride) should sacrifice (the fried grain) without opening her joined hands, as if they were the spoon called sruc. Without going round the fire the bride sacrifices fried grain a fourth time silently with the neb of the sūrpa (winnowing basket) towards herself. Some230 lead the bride round each time after fried grain has been poured out, so that the two last oblations do not follow immediately after each other. Then he loosens her two locks of hair if they are made up (that is if her hair has been bound round on two sides with two tufts of wool), (the right one) with the mantra “I release thee from the fetter of Varuṇa’ (Ṛg. X. 85. 24) and the left one with the following mantra (Ṛg. X. 85. 25). Then he causes her to step forward in a north-eastern direction seven steps with the words ‘may you take one step for sap, second step for juice (or vigour), third step for the thriving of wealth, fourth step for comfort, fifth step for offspring, sixth step for seasons, may you be my friend with your seventh step! May you be devoted to me; let us have many sons, may they reach old age’.231 Bringing the heads of the two (bride and bride-groom) together, he (the ācārya) sprinkles [] their heads with water from the water jar. And the bride should dwell that night in the house of an old brāhmaṇa woman whose husband and children are alive.232 When she (the bride) has seen the Pole star, the star Arundhatī and the seven sages (the constellation of Ursa Major), let her break her silence and say ‘may my husband live and may I secure offspring’.233 If (the newly married couple) have to make a journey (to their home in another village), let him cause the bride to mount a chariot with the verse ‘may Pūṣan lead thee from here holding thy hand’ (Ṛg. X. 85. 26); he should make her ascend into a boat with the hemistitch ‘carrying stones (or the river called Aśmanvatī) flows; get ready’ (Ṛg. X. 53. 8) and let him make her descend from the boat with the following hemistich; if she weeps let him pronounce the verse ’they weep for the living’ (Ṛg. X. 40. 10). They constantly carry the nuptial fire in front. At pleasing places, trees and cross roads, let him mutter ‘may no way-layers meet us’ (Ṛg. X. 85. 32). At every dwelling place (on the way) let him look at the onlookers with the mantra ’this newly married bride brings good luck’ (Ṛg. X. 85. 33). He should make her enter his house with the verse ‘here may happiness increase unto you through offspring’ (Ṛg. X. 85. 27). Having kindled with fuel sticks the nuptial fire and having spread to the west of it a bull’s hide with the neck turned towards the east and the hair outside he makes oblations, while she (the bride) is sitting (on that hide) and takes hold of him, with the four verses (one oblation with each verse) ‘may Prajāpati create offspring to us’ (Ṛg. X. 85. 43-46); and then he partakes of curds with the verse ‘may all the gods unite our hearts’ (Ṛg. X. 85. 47) and gives the remaining (curds) to her or he besmears the heart (of both) with the rest of the ājya (with part of which he had already sacrificed). From that time they should not eat kṣāra234 and lavaṇa, should observe celibacy, wear ornaments and sleep on the ground (not on cots) for three nights or twelve nights or for a year according to some (teachers); thus (those [] teachers say) a ṛṣi will be born as a son (to them). When he has fulfilled these observances he should give the bride’s shift to a brāhmaṇa who knows the Sūryā hymn (Ṛg. X. 85) and food to brāhmaṇas. Then he should cause the brāhmaṇas to pronounce auspicious words.
In this description of the saṃskāra of marriage there are three parts. There are certain rites that are preliminary, there are then a few rites that are of the essence of the saṃskāra viz. pāṇigrahaṇa, homa, going round the fire and the saptapadī, and there are certain rites like the seeing of the Pole star &c. that are subsequent to the central rites. The essential rites are mentioned by all sūtrakāras, but as to the preceding and subsequent rites there is a great divergence in the details. Even as regards the essential rites the sequence in which they take place differs. For example, the Āśv. gṛ. (I. 7. 7) describes going round the fire before saptapadī, while the Āp. gṛ. describes saptapadī (IV. 16) before the act of going round the fire (V. 1). The Gobhila gṛhya (II. 2. 16), the Khādira gṛ. (I. 3. 31), and Baudh. gṛ. (I. 4. 10) describe pāṇigrahaṇa after saptapadī while many other sūtrakāras describe it before saptapadī. Then again there are many acts reference to which is altogether omitted in the Āśv. gṛ., e. g. there is no reference to madhuparka (which is mentioned in Āp. gṛ. III. 8, Baudh. gṛ. I. 2. 1, Mānava gṛ. I. 9) nor to kanyādāna (which is referred to in Pār. gṛ. I. 4 and described in detail in Mānava gṛ. I. 8. 6–9). Āśv. probably omitted express mention of kanyādāna, because in defining the first four forms he uses the word ‘dadyāt’ while in the last four there is no kanyādāna and Āśv. wanted to describe ceremonies that were common to all forms.
Taking as many gṛhya sūtras as I could read, the following is a fairly exhaustive list of the different matters described in the saṃskāra of marriage. A few notes are added against those that are deemed important.235
Vadhūvara-guṇaparīkṣā: (examining the suitability of a girl or a bride-groom). This has been dealt with already (vide pp. 429-436 above).
Varapreṣaṇa: (sending persons to negotiate for the hand of the girl). The ancient custom seems to have been to send [] some person or persons (Ṛg. X. 85. 8-9) to the father of the girl for asking her in marriage. The same was the practice in the sūtras. Vide Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 6. 1-4 (where Ṛg. X. 85. 23 is the mantra recited when sending them), Baudh. gṛ. I. 1. 14-15, Āp. gṛ. II. 16 and IV. 1-2 and 7. Even in medieval times, particularly among kṣatriyas, the bride-groom was the first to seek for the hand of a girl. In the Harṣacarita, prince Grahavarmā of the Maukharī race sent messengers for the hand of princess Rājyaśrī, sister of Harṣa.236 In modern times among the brāhmaṇas and many other castes, the girl’s father has to seek a bride-groom, though among the śūdras and several other castes the old practice is retained.
Vāgdāna or Vāg-niścaya: (settling the marriage). This is described by Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 6. 5-6. Medieval works like the S. R. M. pp. 529-533 describe this ceremony at great length.
Maṇḍapa-karaṇa: (Erecting a pandal where the ceremonies are to be performed). Pār. gṛ. I. 4 says that marriage, caula, upanayana, keśānta and simanta are to be performed outside the house in a pandal. Vide Saṃ. Pr. pp. 817-818.
Nāndi-śrāddha and Puṇyāhavācana: These are referred to by Baudh. gṛ. I. 1. 24; most of the gṛhyasūtras are silent about these. Vide for these pp. 216, 218 above.
Vadhūgṛhāgamana: (bride-groom’s going to the bride’s house). Vide Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 12. 1.
Madhuparka: (reception of the bride-groom at the bride’s house). Āp. gṛ. III. 8, Baudh. gṛ. I. 2. 1, Mānava gṛ. I. 9 and Kāṭhaka gṛ. 24. 1-3 prescribe this. Vide below chap. X for madhuparka. Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 12. 10 appears to refer to two madhuparkas, one before marriage and one after marriage (when the bride-groom returned to his own house). The commentator Ādityadarśana on Kāṭhaka gṛ. 24. 1 refers to the opinion of some that madhuparka should be offered at the close of the marriage, but states his own view that in all countries it is offered before marriage.
Snāpana, Paridhāpana and Saṃnahana: (making the bride bathe, put on new clothes and girding her with a string or rope of darbha). Vide Āp. gṛ. IV. 8 and Kāṭhaka gṛ. 25. 4. Pār. gṛ. [] I. 4 refers only to the putting on of two garments, Gobhila gṛ. (II. 1. 17-18) refers to bathing and putting on a garment, Mānava gṛ. (I. 11. 4-6) refers to paridhāpana and saṃnahana. Strangely enough Gobhila gṛ. II. 1. 10 speaks of the sprinkling of the girl’s head with the best of surā (wine), which the commentator explains as water.
Samañjana: (anointing the bride and bride-groom). Vide Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 12. 5, Gobhila gṛ. II. 2. 15, Pār. gṛ. I. 4, in all of which Ṛg. X. 85. 47 is cited as the mantra with which anointing or sprinkling is done.
Pratisarabandha: (tying an amulet string on the bride’s hand). Vide Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 12. 6-8; Kauśika sūtra 76. 8.
Vadhūvara-niṣkramaṇa: (the coming out into the pandal of the bride and bride-groom from the inner part of the house). Pār. gṛ. I. 4.
Parasparasamīkṣaṇa: (looking at each other). Vide Pār. gṛ. I. 4, Āp. gṛ. IV. 4, Baudh. gṛ. I. 1. 24-25. Pār. gṛ. I. 4 says that the bride-groom recites Ṛg. X. 85. 44, 40, 41 and 37 at this time. Āp. gṛ. IV. 4 and Baudh. gṛ. say he recites Ṛg. X. 85. 44. The Āśv. gṛ. pariśiṣṭa I. 23 says that first of all a piece of cloth is held between the bride-groom and bride and that at the proper astrological moment it is removed and then the two see each other. Laghu-Āśvalāyana-smṛti (15. 20) also says the same. This practice is observed even now. When the interposed cloth is held between the bride and bride-groom verses called maṅgalāṣṭakas are repeated by brāhmaṇas, the last of which verses is ’tad-eva lagnaṃ sudinaṃ tadeva’ &c.
Kanyādāna: (the gift of the bride). Vide Pār. gṛ. I. 4, Mānava gṛ. I. 8. 6-9, Vārāha gṛ. 13. The Āśv. gṛ. pariśiṣṭa sets out the procedure about the kanyādāna which is the same even now. The Saṃ. K. p. 779 notes about half a dozen different methods of uttering the formula in kanyādāna. It is in this rite that the father of the girl says that the bride-groom should not prove false to the bride in dharma, artha and kāma and he responds with the words ‘I shall not do so’ (nāticarāmi).237 This is done even now. []
Agnisthāpana and homa: (establishing the fire and offering of ājya oblations into fire). Here there is great divergence about the number of āhutis and the mantras to be recited. Vide Āśv. gṛ. I. 7. 3 and I. 4. 3-7, Āp. gṛ. V. 1 (16 āhutis with 16 mantras), Gobhila gṛ. II. 1. 24-26, Mānava gṛ. I. 8, Bhāradvāja I. 13 &c.
Pāṇigrahaṇa: (Taking hold of the bride’s hand).
Lājāhoma: (Offering of fried grain into fire by the bride). Vide Āśv. gṛ. I. 7. 7-13, Pār. gṛ. I. 6, Āp. gṛ. V. 3-5, Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 13. 15-17, Gobhila gṛ. II. 2. 5, Mānava gṛ. I. 11. 11, Baudh. gṛ. I. 4. 25 &c. Āśv. gṛ. says that the bride makes three offerings of fried grain when mantras are repeated by the bridegroom and a fourth is made of the remaining lājas by the bride silently. Some others speak of only three offerings by the bride.
Agnipariṇayana: (the bride-groom going in front takes the bride round the fire and water jar). It is while doing this that he utters the words ‘amoham asmi’ &c. (vide Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 13. 4, Hir. gṛ. I. 20. 2 &c).
Aśmārohaṇa: (making the bride tread on a mill-stone). These three are done thrice viz. lājāhoma, then agnipariṇayana and aśmārohaṇa, one after another.
Saptapadī: (taking seven steps together). This is done to the north of the fire; there are seven small heaps of rice and the bride-groom makes the bride step on each of these seven with her right foot beginning from the west.
Mūrdhābhiṣeka: (sprinkling holy water on the head of the bride and of the bride-groom according to some and on the head of the bride only according to others). Āśv. gṛ. I. 7. 20, Pār. gṛ. I. 8, Gobhila gṛ. II. 2. 15-16 &c.
Sūryodīkṣaṇa: (making the bride look towards the sun). Pār. gṛ. I. 8 speaks of this and employs the mantra ’tac-cakṣur’ (Ṛg. VII. 66. 16 = Vāj. S. 36. 24).
Hṛdayasparśa: (touching the bride’s heart with a mantra). Pār. gṛ. I. 8, Bhār. gṛ. I. 17, Baudh. gṛ. I. 4. 1.
Prekṣakānumantraṇa: (addressing the spectators with reference to the newly married bride). Mānava gṛ. I. 12. 1 (which employs Ṛg. X. 85. 33). Pār. I. 8 employs that verse for reciting over the bride.
Dakṣiṇādāna: (gifts to the ācārya). Pār. gṛ. I. 8, Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 14. 13-17 (both prescribe a cow as the fee in the case of [] brāhmaṇas, a village in marriages of kings and nobles, a horse in marriages of vaiśyas &c.). Gobhila gṛ. II. 3. 23, Baudh. gṛ. I. 4. 38 speak of only a cow.
Gṛhapraveśa: (entering the bride-groom’s house).
Gṛhapraveśanīya homa: (sacrifice on entering the bride-groom’s house), Śāṅ. gṛ. I. 16. 1-12, Gobhila gṛ. II. 3. 8-12, Āp. gṛ. VI. 6-10.
Dhruvārundhati-darśana: (pointing out the Pole star and Arundhatī to the bride at night on the day of marriage). Āśv. gṛ. I. 7. 22 speaks of the seven sages in addition, Mānava gṛ. I. 14. 9 speaks of the same three and adds Jīvantī, Bhār. gṛ. I. 19 speaks of Dhruva, Arundhatī and other nakṣatras, Āp. gṛ. VI. 12 (only Dhruva and Arundhatī), Pār. I. 8 (only Dhruva). According to Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 17. 2, Hir. gṛ. I. 22. 10 both the bride and the bride-groom remain silent till night. According to Āśv. gṛ. only the bride does so. Gobhila gṛ. II. 3. 8-12 describes Dhruvārundhatī-darśana before gṛhapraveśa.
Āgneya Sthālīpāka: (mess of cooked food offered to Agni). Vide Āp. gṛ. VII. 1-5, Gobhila II. 3. 19-21, Bhār. gṛ. I. 18, Hir. gṛ. I. 23. 1-6.
Trirātravrata: (keeping for three nights after marriage certain observances). Vide Āśv. above p. 530 for the observances which are enumerated by almost all sūtrakāras. Āp. gṛ. VIII. 8-10, Baudh. gṛ. I. 5. 16-17 contain the interesting injunction that the newly married pair should sleep on the ground on the same bed for three nights, but should interpose between them a staff of udumbara wood anointed with perfumes and wrapped round with a garment or a thread and that on the fourth night it should be removed with the verses Ṛg. X. 85. 21-22 and thrown into water.
Caturthīkarma: (rite on the fourth night after marriage). This has been described above (pp. 202-204).
In the medieval digests certain other ceremonies are mentioned and they are observed in modern times also. A few of them will be noted below. Here again the order is not the same in all works. The Dharmasindhu p. 265 refers to this divergence.
Sīmāntapūjana: (honouring the bride-groom and his party on their arrival at the bride’s village). This is done before vāgniścaya in modern times. Vide Saṃ. K. p. 768; Dharmasindhu III. p. 261. []
Gaurī-Hara-pūjā: (worship of Śiva and his consort Gaurī). Saṃ. K. p. 766, S. R. M. p. 534 and 544, Dharmasindhu p. 261 (notes that there are several views as to when kanyādāna takes place) describe this. Images of Gaurī and Hara are to be made of gold or silver or pictures of them on a wall &c. or on a piece of cloth or stone are to be drawn and worshipped by the intending bride after puṇyāhavācana and before kanyādāna. Vide Laghu-Āśvalāyana 15. 35.
Indrāṇī-pūjā: (worship of Indrāṇī, the consort of god Indra). Vide Saṃ. K. p. 756, S. R. M. p. 545. This seems to have been comparatively an ancient practice as Kālidāsa in Raghuvaṃśa VII. 3 seems to refer to it (’there was absence of disturbers of svayamvara on account of the presence of Śacī’). Probably Śacī was worshipped before the svayaṃvara began.
Taila-haridrāropaṇa: (Applying turmeric powder to the bride-groom’s body from what is left after the bride’s body has been so treated). Vide Saṃ. K. p. 757, Dharmasindhu III. p. 257.
Ardrākṣatāropaṇa: (mutual showering of wet unbroken rice grains by the bride and bride-groom). In a vessel of some metal like silver a little milk is poured and clarified butter is sprinkled over it and unbroken wet rice grains are poured therein. The bridegroom applies milk and ghee to the joined hands of the bride twice and thrice places rice grains in the joined hands of the bride so that her añjali becomes filled up and twice sprinkles ghee over her joined hands. Some other person does the same to the joined hands of the bride-groom and the bride’s father places a golden piece on the joined hands of both. Then the bride-groom places his joined hands on those of the bride whose father then repeats a mantra and raises her up; she then pours the rice over the head of the bridegroom who follows her in the same way. This is done thrice by each and then lastly by the bride (i. e. seven times in all). Then the priest sprinkles on their heads water with an udumbara twig together with durvā grass after reciting verses ‘Āpo hi ṣṭhā &c. (Ṛg. X. 9. 1-3)’. Then the couple make a tilaka mark on each other’s forehead, garland each other and tie a thread with a turmeric piece on each other’s hand (which is variously called ‘kaṅkaṇa-bandhana’ or ‘kautuka-bandhana’). Vide Saṃ. Pr. pp. 828-829, S. R. M. p. 556. Kālidāsa in Raghuvaṃśa VII describes ardrākṣatā-ropaṇa as the last of the rites of marriage and in VIII. 1 speaks of the kautuka. []
Maṅgalasūtra-bandhana: (tying a string having golden and other beads on it round the neck of the bride). This is now regarded as the most important ornament which no woman will part with as long as her husband is alive. But the sūtras are entirely silent about it. Among the earliest references is one from Śaunaka smṛti238 (ms. in Bombay University Library, folio 39 b). The Laghu-Āśvalāyana smṛti 15. 33 also prescribes it and the mantra to be employed when doing so. Gadādhara on Pār. gṛ. I. 8 says that maṅgala-sūtra should be worn and garlands be placed round their necks by the bride and bride-groom, though the sūtra of Pāraskara is silent on the point. The Baudh. gṛ. śeṣa sūtra V. 5 in describing ‘arkavivāha’ speaks of māṅgalya-sūtra to be tied to the plant. It is not clear whether it means the same as the maṅgalasūtra now tied by married women round their necks. About the nose-ring or nose ornament to which all women whose husbands are living attach the greatest importance in modern times, the sūtras, smṛtis and even the early digests are entirely silent. Dr. Altekar in his recent work ‘Position of Hindu women in Hindu Civilization’ pp. 362-64 holds from the evidence of the sculptures throughout India that ’the nose-ring was unknown throughout the whole of India during the entire Hindu period’ (i. e. till about 1000 A. D.). Mr. P. K. Gode in Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. XIX (for 1939) pp. 313-34 adduces evidence to show that a nose ornament was known to literary works from at least about 1000 A. D.
Uttarīyaprānta-bandhana: (Tying turmeric pieces and betel-nut on to the end of the upper garments of both and making a knot of their two garments together). Vide Saṃ. K. p. 799, S. Pr. p. 829.
Airiṇīdāna239: (Presenting the mother of the bride-groom with several gifts in a large wicker-work basket with lamps [] lighted and requesting her and the relatives of the bride-groom to treat the bride affectionately). Vide Saṃ. K. p. 811, Dharmasindhu p. 267. A basket of bamboo (vaṃśa) is used probably to symbolize the continuity of the family (vaṃśa) of the bride-groom. This is done when the bride is about to leave the father’s place to go to the bride-groom’s place after marriage.
Devakotthāpana and Maṇḍapodvāsana: (taking leave of the deities that had been invoked before the ceremonies began and taking down the pandal). Saṃ. K. pp. 532-533, S. R. M. pp. 555-556.
Two interesting questions arise viz. when can a marriage be said to be final and irrevocable and what would happen if a marriage is brought about by force or fraud.
Manu says (VIII. 168) ‘what is given by force, what is enjoyed by force, also what has been caused to be written by force and all other transactions done by force, Manu has declared void;’ and in VIII. 165 he places fraudulent transactions on the same footing as those brought about by force. There is great difficulty in applying these dicta to marriages. We saw above that Vas. Dh. S. (17. 73) and Baudh. Dh. S. declare that if a girl has been carried off by force and has not been wedded with the repetition of sacred texts she may be given to another man in marriage. Viśvarūpa (p. 74) and Aparārka (p. 79) add a gloss that this can be done only after she has undergone a prāyaścitta. From this it appears that if the marriage rites (like saptapadī) have been performed, the ancient law-givers would not have declared the marriage null and void even if the girl had been carried away by force or married by fraud. In modern works on Hindu Law the proposition is stated240 that ‘a marriage, though performed with the necessary ceremonies, may be set aside by the court, if it was brought about by force or fraud.’ This opinion is based on what was said in some decided cases e. g. Aunjona Dasi v. Prahlada Chandra (6 Bengal L. R. 243 at p. 254), Venkatacharyulu v. Rangacharyulu I. L. R. 14 Mad. 316 at p. 320, Mulchand v. Bhudhia I. L. R. 22 Bom. 812. But in none of these cases was a marriage duly solemnized by the performance of the rites of pāṇigrahaṇa, going round the fire and saptapadī, set aside. There are mere [] obiter dicta in these cases to the effect that a marriage may be set aside by the court for force or fraud.
The Vas. Dh. S. (17. 72) goes so far as to observe ‘when a girl has been promised in marriage (and the promise has been confirmed) with water, if the intended bride-groom dies, but the Vedic mantras have not been recited, that girl still belongs to her father (and may be given to another)’. Kātyāyana241 has a similar verse ‘if after choosing a girl as his bride, a man dies (or is unheard of) the girl after the lapse of three monthly periods may marry another’. And another verse of the same author says that ‘if a person after giving a gratuity for a girl and strīdhana to her goes abroad, the girl may be kept unmarried for a year and then may be given to another’. Manu (VIII. 227) says ’the Vedic mantras recited in the marriage rite are a sure indication of wife-hood; but their completion should be understood by the wise as occurring on taking the seventh step’. Aparārka p. 94 (on Yāj. I. 65) quotes a similar verse from Nārada (strīpuruṣa v. 3). The Udvāhatattva p. 129 quotes Yama to the same effect. So it follows that the marriage becomes complete and irrevocable the moment the saptapadī rite is performed, but before that rite is gone through there is a locus pœnitentiae or a power to resile from what has been undertaken. Before the saptapadī is performed, if the bride-groom dies, the bride is still a maiden and not a widow and can be married again.242 The most essential ceremonies of marriage are the homa and saptapadī. The Droṇaparva243 says that promise of a daughter and giving a daughter with water are not certain means of knowing wife-hood but saptapadī is known to be the completion of marriage. If any of the other ceremonies are wanting that would not vitiate the marriage. In I. L. R. 12 Cal. 140, it has been held that the vṛddhi-śrāddha is not an essential ceremony and its absence would not vitiate marriage. []
Even the Kāmaśūtra244 quotes the unanimous opinion of the ācāryas that marriages celebrated before fire as a witness cannot be revoked. In the case of śūdras there are no Vedic mantras and so in their case the completion of marriage will be determined according to custom. The digests like Gṛ. R. say (p. 57) that in the case of śūdras the marriage will be complete when the śūdra girl holds the fringe of the garment of the bride-groom.
Manu (IX. 47) declares ‘once is the partition of inheritance made, once is a maiden given in marriage’. This rule really means that once the ceremony of marriage is completed by saptapadī, the marriage is irrevocable and the girl cannot thereafter be given to any one else. But if a girl is only promised in marriage and if a more worthy suitor subsequently presents himself, then the father may commit breach of promise and give her in marriage to another. Vide also Manu (IX. 71 and VIII. 98). Yāj. I. 65 states the rule and the exception: ‘A girl is given only once; a person who after having promised to give, deprives that man of her, is liable to the punishment of a thief; but if a more worthy suitor approaches, the father may deprive the former (suitor) of her (hand) though promised’. The Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana 44. 35) says that up to pāṇigrahaṇa any one may ask for the hand of a maiden (even though promised before to another). Nārada (strīpuruṣa vv. 30 and 32) contains similar provisions.245 Conversely, if a man agrees to marry a girl and subsequently discovers defects in her or if she is diseased or already deflowered or given by practising fraud he may refuse to marry her. Vide Manu IX. 72. If a guardian gives away a girl without declaring the defects of a girl (and they are subsequently discovered) the guardian should be fined in the highest amercement (according to Yāj. I. 66 and the lowest, according to Nārada, strīpuruṣa v. 33). Aparārka246 (p. 95) and others add that the defects referred to must be latent and not apparent or patent to view. If a suitor repudiates a girl who is free from defects he should be fined in the highest amercement and if he falsely accuses her of defects he should be fined one hundred paṇas (Yāj. I. 66 [] and Nārada, strīpuruṣa v. 34). Nārada adds that ‘he who abandons a faultless girl should be punished and should be made to marry the same girl’.247
Some of the smṛtis and digests are very much exercised over the question of the bride having menstruation while the marriage ceremonies are in progress and homa is about to be performed. Atri248 (Jīvānanda part 1, p. 11, chap. V) prescribes that having made the girl bathe with the Haviṣmatī (with a verse in which the word havis occurs, probably Ṛg. X. 88. 1 or VIII. 72. 1) and to put on other garments and having offered an āhuti of clarified butter with the verse ‘Yuñjate manaḥ’ (Ṛg. V. 81. 1) the ceremonies should be proceeded with. The Smṛtyarthasāra (p. 17) first quotes two verses (the same as Atri’s) and proposes an alternative method viz. that the bride and the bride-groom should stay separate from each other for three days and on the fourth day after ceremonially bathing themselves should perform the homa in the same fire.
-
एवमुपयमनपाणिग्रहणशब्दवत्परिणयनशब्दोऽपि दण्डिन्यायेनैव कर्मसमवाये {{Trag avaa|प्रयुज्यन्ते}} । {{STR|स्मृ. च.}} p. 91. ↩︎
-
{{a t ereat at mangert foran fra Foreira|द्यौश्च ह वा इयं च पृथिवी च सह आस्तां ते वियती अब्रूताम्}}… VII. 10. 1. ↩︎
-
Vide {{sau|Śānti}} chap. 122 (chap. 113 of cr. ed. Poona ). Some of the verses may be quoted ‘अनावृताः किल पुरा स्त्रिय आसन् वरानने । कामचारविहारिण्यः स्वतन्त्राश्चारुहासिनि ॥ ४ … {{etg Tairseauft ada|एष धर्मः पुरा दृष्टः स च}} । ७; {{Free|Vide}} आदि. ३१. ३७-३८ {{Tratament aliuawaan:|माहिष्मत्यां स्त्रियः स्वच्छन्दचारिण्यः}} …॥ ↩︎
-
{{अों हवा एष आत्मनो यज्जाया तस्मापापज्जायां न विन्दते नैव वापपजायते अस! हितावद्भवति । अथ यदेष जापां विग्यतेऽथ प्रजायते वहि दिसों भवति । शतपथना.|अर्धो ह वा एष आत्मनो यज्जाया तस्माद्यावज्जायां न विन्दते नैव तावत्प्रजायते असर्वो हि तावद्भवति । अथ यदैव जायां विन्दतेऽथ प्रजायते तर्हि हि सर्वो भवति । शतपथब्रा.}} V. 2. 1. 10. Vide {{par|Pār.}} VIII. 7. 2, 3. also. The words {{arut or grey streptat|अर्धो वा एष आत्मनः यत्पत्नी}} occur in T. S. VI. 1. 8. 5. {{Tra goat orat fara preterari Area|तथा जायाया जायात्वं यदस्यां जायते पुनः}} । आ. ध. सू. I. 2. 5. {{De operarentoft TET|धर्मप्रजासंपन्ने दारे}} । विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 24. 66 ; {{अर्थ|अर्धं}} भार्या मनुष्यस्य भार्या श्रेष्ठतमः सखा । भार्या मूलं त्रिवर्गस्य भार्या मूलं तरिष्यतः ॥ आदिपर्व 74. 40; आम्नाये {{स्मतितन्त्रे च लोकाचारे च दरिभिः|स्मृतितन्त्रे च लोकाचारे च दर्शिभिः}} । {{शरीरा स्मृता भार्या yourgonnent FATH Trafa|शरीरार्धं स्मृता भार्या पुण्यापुण्यफलेषु}} quoted by अपरार्क p. 740. ↩︎
-
{{AUTFITR are fita|धर्मप्रजासंपन्ने दारे न}} । {{37. u.|आ. ध. सू.}} II. 5. 11. 12; the Mit. on Yāj. I. 78 quotes this and remarks ‘{{Aur TTTF E T F : quia ArmureOTT …gera ere|अत्र च दारकर्मणः फलं धर्मप्रजासंपत्तिः … प्रयोजिकेति}}’. ↩︎
-
{{remeth farm prohi are o fat gi|धर्मप्रजासंप्रयुक्ते दारे न}} । {{34. w.|आ. ध. सू.}} II. 6. 13. 16-17. ↩︎
-
स च सप्तर्षिदर्शनान्तः समुदायः स्त्रीत्वनिवर्तकः {{saptarṣidarśanāntaiḥ|svasvīkārahetuḥ}} संस्कारः विवाहः । Sm. C. III, p. 20; विवाहसंस्कारः स्वत्वसंपादकं कर्म विवाहः। रघुनन्दन in {{udaahatattva|udvāhatattva}}. ↩︎
-
{{GREAT af T EKI|बुद्धिमते कन्यां प्रयच्छेत्}} । {{Sp. 5. I. 5.2|आश्व. गृ. I. 5. 2}} ; {{Turgurat mat FREE TE ottotit.|बन्धुमतीं कन्यामस्पृष्टमैथुनां दद्यात्}} । {{v.|बौ.}} IV. 1. 20; {{pystHOTTW: yaratiro fa Tra|कुलाचारित्र्यरूपसंपन्नाय विद्यावते दद्यात्}} । {{smrt. T. I. 3. 20|आप. गृ. I. 3. 20}}; {{Tapaht FFTFT ofiarcatoreri arty: Hapa:|तस्मात् सत्कुले जाताय बुद्धिमतेऽरोगिणे दद्यात्}} । Śaṅkha IV ({{gaid|said}} by अनसूया); {{कुलशीलंपुर्यशश्च विद्या वित्तं च समाधाचा एतान्गुणान्सत परीक्ष्य|कुलं शीलं वपुर्यशश्च विद्या वित्तं च समाधाय एतान्गुणान्सप्त परीक्ष्य}} कन्या देया बुधैः ॥ {{Siqaretage|स्मृतिचन्द्रिका}} I. p. 78. ↩︎
-
{{H attara Arga: pagasira gurit AC|कुलमये परीक्षेत यथा पुरस्ताद्गुणाः इति}} । {{T*. J. I. 5. 1|आश्व. गृ. I. 5. 1}} ; {{379. . . IX. 3. is.|आश्व. श्रौ. सू. IX. 3}} is. {{Arga: Fat For FRESAT frontalet goster THOTE HUATT wproti trag: rogareis.|येषां मातृतः पितृतश्च दशपुरुषीः समनुष्ठिता विद्यातपोभ्यामित्याचक्षते ते महात्मानो महावंशा ब्राह्मणा इत्येके पितृत इत्येके}} These qualifications were laid down for those who were to {{partako|partake}} of the {{camais|soma}} offering in Rājasūya. {{SM TESETT: 951 PATIENTER|सदाचारः स्मृतिवेदाविरोधेन}} quoted in {{*#41797|स्मृतिमुक्ताफले}} p. 689; प्रायेण च {{सत्त्पप्यन्येषु|सत्स्वप्यन्येषु}} वरगुणेष्वभिजनमेवाद्रियन्ते धीमन्तः । {{हर्षच.|हर्षचरिते}} IV. ↩︎
-
{{A*: vaa: 987 for your friTTT:|उन्मत्तः पतितः कुष्ठी क्लीबः सगोत्र एव च । अन्धो बधिरो मूर्छालुस्त्याज्या}} । {{metin ATTI fen:|षण्ढोऽथ पातकी। अन्धो बधिरः। एते तु}} । {{aint Eti|पतिताः}} । {{faar:|विवाहे}} । {{haero|स्मृतिचन्द्रिका}} I. p. 59; the text of {{amą|नारद}} (ed, by Jolly, {{preto|स्त्रीपुंस}} v. 37) is {{JPA ofan Tut Tutoreg #EXT:|उन्मत्तः पतितः क्लीबो दुष्टश्चासाध्यरोगवान् ।}} कन्यादोषौ च {{पो पूर्वाधेष दोषगणो परे|तौ पूर्वेण दोषगणौ परौ}}। ↩︎
-
{{Tehte pot fater gelir ā ri s t forange|सखित्वं च विवाहश्च तुल्यशीलश्रुतेषु च । न}} {{ayefaguti:|तुल्यश्रुतवित्तानां}} । आदिपर्व 131. 10; compare {{putere|उद्योगपर्व}} 33. 117 {{Firme T op Tai Frati व्यवहार कर्धा च|विवाहश्च विवादश्च समैरेव सह}}। ↩︎
-
तस्मात्कन्यामभिजनोपेतां मातापितृमतीं {{विर्षायभूतिन्यूमवयस|विभवाय भूतिन्यूनावयसं}} {{प्रस्तां|प्रशस्तां}} प्रभूतमातापितृपक्षे रूपशीललक्षणसंपन्नाम् {{अन्यूनाधिकाधिनदन्तामलकर्णकेशाक्षिस्तनीमरोगिमकृतिशरीरा तथाविध एव भुतपात्र|अन्यूनाधिकाङ्गीमविनष्टदन्तनखकर्णकेशाक्षिस्तनीमरोगिणीं प्रकृतिशरीरां तथाविध एव भूतिमान्}}… Kāmasūtra III. 1. 2. ↩︎
-
{{बुद्धि|बुद्धि}}रूपशीललक्षणसंपन्नामरोगिणीमुद्वहेत् । {{377*. T. I. 5. 3|आश्व. गृ. I. 5. 3}} ; {{Frystos … … TI #74. 33. III, 20|बुद्धिरूप…संपन्नामिति । आप. गृ. ३. २०}}. ↩︎
-
{{WE HRVATSFUFACTURER|यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषोरभिप्रायः}} स्यात्तामुद्वहेत् । {{3119. .|आप. गृ.}} III. 21. This is quoted by the {{Thare|Mitākṣarā}} on Yāj. I. 52. The Kāmasūtra III, 1 .14 has the same rule in the same words. The {{EMV|स्मृतिमुक्ताफले}} I. 11 quotes a verse to the same effect {{their & THOTT TANUT ETT Haiserad a quati तो विद्यारपुण्यलक्ष्मीकांकिक्षानेम करिष्यति|यस्यां तु मनसो रतिस्तस्यामृद्धिर्भविष्यति । तां विद्यात् पुण्यलक्ष्मीकां य इच्छेद् भूतिमात्मनः}}। This makes attractiveness more important in a woman even than knowledge. In the Mālatīmādhava (Act. II) {{Komandaki|Kāmandakī}} ascribes the words {{what #**0 to Aāgiras|‘यत्र भावस्तत्र बन्धः’ इति}} to {{Aāgiras|Āṅgirasa}} ‘{{TETET वारकर्मणि पराय माल गीतचापमयोंशिरसा पस्यो ममवापोहबन्धस्तस्याधिरिति’|वरकर्मणि परायणं मनसः…पत्युः मनोऽनुकूलबन्धः तस्यां कार्यः इति’}}’. ↩︎
-
{{a fer WHAT Hoa # partitur aut pare OK #:|यं लब्ध्वा नापरं मन्येत न च मित्रजनैर्निन्द्येत स विवाहः श्रेष्ठः । इति}} Ghoṭakamukha in Kāmasūtra III, 1. 9. ↩︎
-
{{दीपकुत्सितरोगार्ता व्यका संसहमैथुना|दीर्घकुत्सितरोगार्ता व्यङ्गा संसृष्टमैथुना}}। {{खाम्यगतभाषाच कन्यादोषाः प्रकी dan n ang|स्वाम्यगतभावा च कन्यादोषाः प्रकीर्तिताः इति नारदः}} ( in {{strīpuṁsayoga|strīpuṁsayoga}} 36 ). ↩︎
-
{{eft ftuar nga Am pularata h a याचिसदस्येसतो रूप प्रज्ञायां चतुपान्धवे च विषदते । बान्धवसदस्येदित्येक माहुरमझम Ft TF: I NETTUN I. 11.|चत्वारि विवाहकारणानि धनं रूपं प्रज्ञा बान्धव इति । यद्यसति सर्वेषां धनं परिहरेत् ततो रूपं प्रज्ञायां बान्धवे च विवदन्ते । बान्धवमये इत्येके प्रज्ञामये इत्यपरे । इति भारद्वाजगृह्यसूत्रम् I. 11}}. ↩︎
-
{{gifage 76 metrum Tremati paraftiff संसथानि वेद्या पासून क्षेत्राल्लोष्ट शकरमशानलोटसमिति। पूर्वेषासपस्पर्शने पालिसपछि vuhoitwa|अविप्रतिपत्तौ बीजानि संभाव्य एकलोष्टे संस्थाप्य वेद्याः पांसून् क्षेत्राल्लोष्टं शकृत् श्मशानलोष्टमिति। पूर्वेषां चतुर्णामन्यतमस्पर्शने फलिसमृद्धा स्यात्}} । {{TT. 7. 3. 15-18|आ. गृ. ३. १५-१८}}. ↩︎
-
{{TEFY: pat prin fazaararagar angitt.|सवर्णां पूर्वीं अविवाह्यासोत्रामपि}} । {{IV. 1|गौ. ध. सू. IV. 1}}; {{Fat ifa …… STATUSA i Agsti rai ravata i arh|यवीयसीं …असमानार्षेयाम् । असगोत्रां यवीयसीम्}} । {{VIII. 1.|वसिष्ठ VIII. 1}}. ↩︎
-
{{Ta jo planait avonta fra U 19 Tr at stat HURT TOUT À torta sk:|अभेव योषणा वृक्ते पतिभ्यो जनयेव च । न्यर्यमा चिकिते न शश्वत्}} । {{#.1. 124. 7|ऋ. I. 124. 7}}. The {{HFTTFTT|स्मृतिचन्द्रिका}} p. 747 quotes this Vedic verse, Yāska’s Nirukta thereon and Vas. also. {{WITTET SAT.|अथर्ववेद}} I. 17, 1. The Nirukta (III. 4) reads {{TT Tratora firgla gere|अयं ते अभ्रातर इव योषा}} and explains {{wat werk #artitut foretag हतवर्माना|इव योषा हतवर्चसः}}. ↩︎
-
{{HAFT TOT FETHA : TIPS|अशास्ता दुहिता पुत्रभावम्}}…॥ निरुक्ते III. 4. ↩︎
-
तृतीया पुत्रिका। विज्ञायते अभ्रातृका पुंसः पितॄनभ्येति प्रतीचीनं गच्छति पुत्रत्वम् । तत्र श्लोकः । अभ्रातृकां प्रदास्यामि तुभ्यं कन्यामलंकृताम् । अस्या यो जायते पुत्रः स मे पुत्रो भवेदिति । वसिष्ठ 17. 15-17. The sūtra विज्ञायते is an echo of the {{oxplanation|explanation}} of the Nirukta III. 5 and the verse quoted also {{ocours|occurs}} in the Viṣṇupurāṇa 15. 5. ↩︎
-
{{3ITHUA T e rim.|अभिसंधिमात्रात्पुत्रिकेत्येकेषाम्}} । {{rim.|गौ. ध. सू.}} 28. 17. ↩︎
-
{{prieten at a HICHOT 79TARAFATU: PTH: foran gang:|मातृहीनां नोपयच्छेत अभ्रातृकां हि पुत्रिकां प्रकल्पयन्ति}} । Nirukta III. 5. Prof. Rājvāḍe in his translation of {{tbo Virukta|the Nirukta}} in Marathi regards this passage (Nir. III. 5) as interpolated, but his reasons are quite unconvincing. Mit. on Yāj. I. 53 quotes as a text of the Bhāllavins. ↩︎
-
{{ETEK OD 9714. 7. &. II. 6. 11-16 quotos pr a r Arm PUT THATTA ATO yrirt.|असमानार्षेयां कन्यामुपयच्छेत् । शाङ्खलिखित II. ६. ११-१६ quotes Sm. C. …}} The words ārṣeya, arṣa and pravara {{moun|mean}} the same thing. Manu is silent about the {{probibition|prohibition}} against marrying a sapravara girl. ↩︎
-
{{HitHR HEKTŮ TE a rema: @dui, que seus 9695 श्लोक, तदतिक्रमे विवाहस्वरूपानितिरेव । अतः सगोत्रादिविषाहः कृतोप्यकृत एव । …… एवं सगोत्राया न भार्यात्वम् । यस्तु हीनक्रियादिप्रतिषेधः (मद ३-७), तस्य दृष्टदर्शनमूल punereda formei, 27879 wri AUTO on|यत्र दृष्टं प्रयोजनं तत्र स्तुतिः, यत्वादृष्टं स विधिः । … तदतिक्रमे विवाहस्वरूपानिष्पत्तिरेव । अतः सगोत्रादिविवाहे कृतोऽप्यकृत एव । … एवं सगोत्राया न भार्यात्वम् । यस्तु हीनक्रियादिप्रतिषेधः (मनु ३-७), तस्य दृष्टप्रयोजनमूलत्वेन स्तुतित्वम् । अतः}} Medhātithi on Manu III. 11; {{Frauer-WHITE समवरासु भार्यात्वमेव नोत्पद्यते ।रोगिण्याविषु तु भार्यास्व उत्पनेपि वृक्षविरोध एव|तथा च सगोत्रायां सप्रवरायां च भार्यात्वमेव नोत्पद्यते। रोगिण्यादिषु तु भार्यात्वे उत्पन्नेऽपि दृष्टविरोध एव}}। {{मि pregnancies|मिताक्षरा}} on Yāj. I. 53, {{vido|vide}} also {{aritua|अपरार्क}} pp. 140-141, मदनपारिजात p. 28. Compare what St. Paul {{gays|says}} ’the things that are seen are {{tomporary|temporal}}, but the things that are not seen are eternal’ 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians chap. IV. 18. ↩︎
-
In Z. D. M. G. vol. 46 pp. 413-426 (Dr. Jolly) and vol. 47 pp. 143-164 ( Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar’a reply ) there is an interesting discussion about the marriageable {{nge|age}} of girls in ancient India. ↩︎
-
{{Pierlot rufe Fit: progi foregg Top|त्रिगुणां वयसा कन्यामुद्वहेत् द्वित्रिगुणां वा}} III. 10.16; {{rorant मोपयच्छेद दीपी कन्या स्वदेहता। स्ववाद हित्रिपनाविन्यूना कन्यो सहबदेव|नोपयच्छेत वर्षीयांसि कन्यां स्वदेहतः। द्वाभ्यां त्रिभिर्वा}} … {{अङ्गिारद|अङ्गिरस्}} quoted in {{Fra nce (oria|स्मृतिचन्द्रिका (संस्कार}} p. 125). ↩︎
-
{{पुषा पोशवर्षों हि पचय भविता भवान् । ददानि परमी कन्यां च स्वा ते दहिवर|यदा षोडशवर्षो हि भविता भवान् । दद्यां कन्यामिमां च त्वा ते दयितां}} । {{अनुशासनपर्व}} 56. 22-23. ↩︎
-
{{allra forretara iritat que ha femrah#|जुजुरुषो नासत्योत वव्रिं प्रामुञ्चतं}}… Ṛg. I. 117. 7. ↩︎
-
सम्राज्ञी श्वशुरे भव सम्राज्ञी श्वश्र्वां भव । {{ननान्दरि|ननान्दरि}} सम्राज्ञी भव सम्राज्ञी अधि देवृषु ॥ Ṛg. X. 85. 46. ↩︎
-
{{orfina ftware arat harga mer**|अर्भागाय विमादाय जायां}}… Ṛg. I. 116. 1. ↩︎
-
{{saari PER T are afrad T HE|अर्भामहते Kakṣīvate Vṛcayām}}… Ṛg. I. 51. 13. ↩︎
-
{{मटचीहतेषु कुरुषुण्वाटिक्या सह जाययोषस्तिई चारायण इम्यग्रामे प्रवाणक FI Jirata|मटचीहतेषु कुरुष्वाटिक्या सह जाययोपस्तिर्ह चाक्रायण इभ्यग्रामे प्रद्राणक उवास}} । Chān. Up. I. 10. i. {{sint|Śaṅkara}} explains {{fefur gerunfaat TOTO|आटिक्या undeveloped girl}}. ↩︎
-
{{तान्यामनुज्ञातो भार्यामुपयच्छेत् सजातो भमिका ब्रह्मचारिणीमसगोत्राम्|ताभ्यामनुज्ञातः भार्यामुपयच्छेत् सवर्णां नग्निकां ब्रह्मचारिणीमसगोत्राम्}}। {{fog. T. I. 19.2|Hir. gṛ. I. 19. 2}}, ‘{{Thiararti…Agafavorei Feren #gareadi|मातृदत्तः…आसन्नार्तवाम् मैथुनार्हामित्यर्थः}}’ on it. ‘{{… पीयसी ननिका श्रेष्ठाम्|…यवीयसीं नग्निकां श्रेष्ठाम्}}।’ Mānava gṛhya I. 7. 8. Dr. Bhandarkar shows that in many {{M88.|MSS}} of the Hir. gṛ. and as handed down by oral tradition among the vaidikas of the Hir. {{dakba|śākhā}} the reading is {{avant|savarṇāṁ}} (i. e. the girl {{sbould|should}} be of the same caste and not a nagnikā). Vide ZDMG vol. 47. pp. 143-46. ↩︎
-
{{met operat ruw het aanheft per ut sedy ननिकाम्|प्राप्तयौवना तु नग्ना भवति तस्मात्तां नग्निकाम्}} । {{अप्रासा (जसो गोरी मा रजसिरोहिणी|अप्राप्तरजसं गौरीं}} । {{अग्यचिता भस्कन्याकुचहीमा ममिका|अव्यञ्जितस्तनीं कन्यां नग्निकाम्}} । Gṛhyāsaṁgraha quoted by com. on Gobhila gṛhya III. 4.6. ↩︎
-
{{PERATUITO F : rugat FT a fayreutat TEETTT… PATTEIT:|अक्षारलवणाशिनौ स्यातां त्रिरात्रं ब्रह्मचारिणौ अधः शयीयाताम्… संवत्सरं द्वादशरात्रं षड्रात्रं त्रिरात्रमन्ततः}}। Pār. gṛ. I. 8. ↩︎
-
{{great fo: Fit gri garter for TramART - o TTR|अथेदानीं देशधर्मेण सद्य एव}}… । on Āp. gṛ. I. 7. 2, on which Haradatta also says ‘सद्य एव व्यवायो देशधर्मः। गार्ह्ये तु ब्रह्मचारिणौ त्रिरात्रमिति ब्रह्मचर्यं विहितं तत्र चोक्तमेव कुर्यात् न देशधर्ममिति सिद्धम् ।।’. ↩︎
-
{{vita ante Frigoriferiadite fas ****a erti Teri sfera|प्रदानं प्रागृतोः । अपृयच्छन् दोषी । प्राग्वा वाससः प्रतिपत्तेरित्येके । त्रीनृतून् प्रतीक्षेत कुमारी}}… । {{. 18. 20-23|Gau. Dh. S. 18. 20-23}}. ↩︎
-
{{Furore et ft Taraftong is a great paratT.|गुणहीनाय दद्यात् न त्वेनां गृहे वासयेत्}}… । {{TOTT # wauara get gorerate wu|दद्याद्गुणवते कन्यां नग्निकां ब्रह्मचारिणे}}… ॥ Baud. Dh. S. IV. 1. 12 and 15. ↩︎
-
{{AASTA FIAT ***** I ur ou la तुपावकः|सोमो भुङ्क्तेऽथ गन्धर्वो वह्निस्तु तत्पश्चात्}}…। …तस्माद्विवाहयेत्कन्यां यावन्नर्तुमती भवेत् । विवाहो ह्यष्टवर्षायाः कन्यायास्तु प्रशस्यते ॥ verses 64 and 67, quoted by Sm. C. I. p. 79 and Gṛ. R. p. 46. {{ग्रीणापमयनस्थानापको विवाह इति सचिवावस्थायां विवादस्पोधिवत्वात्|स्त्रीणामुपनयनस्थानापन्नो विवाह इति शैशवावस्थायां विवाहस्यौचित्यात्}} । {{संस्कारको|Saṁskārakaustubha}} p. 699; ‘उपनयनं स्त्रीणामविवाहात्’ इति हारीतः quoted in Saṁskāra. (Saṁ.) p. 136. ↩︎
-
असंस्कृतायाः कन्यायाः… ॥ Śalya 52. 12. ↩︎
-
{{ada at Tatarhurrat Orta ŚHT SHTETI I TRET FATTEET|अथ चेद्रजस्वला कन्या मृता स्यात्तां सजातिना}}… ॥ Vaik. V. 9. ↩︎
-
{{TETRA wa Farfroi eta|स्त्रीणां तु दशमे वर्षे}}… Laugākṣi gṛ. 19. 2. {{TETOTt wragroff Ft TF Trat|ब्राह्मणो नग्निकां गौरीं वा}}… {{The warpiar el correo TÊ yait etame Tigritia HATT|अष्टवर्षा भवेन्नग्निका दशवर्षा भवेद्गौरी द्वादशवर्षा भवेद्रोहिणी}} ॥ Vaik. VI. 12 ; {{F ra i grad Tema raahtera utofa:itagora a aa ar va oferi futet|नग्निका दशवर्षा स्याद्गौरी द्वादशवार्षिकी}}… Sm. C. I. p.80. ↩︎
-
माता चैव पिता चैव ज्येष्ठो भ्राता तथैव च । त्रयस्ते नरकं यान्ति दृष्ट्वा कन्यां रजस्वलाम् ॥ यस्तां समुद्वहेत्कन्यां ब्राह्मणोऽज्ञानमोहितः । असंभाव्यो ह्यपाङ्क्तेयः स विप्रो वृषलीपतिः ॥ Parāśara VII. 8-9. The Sm. C. (I. pp. 73 and 81 ) quotes vv. VII. 6-9 as from Parāśara. ↩︎
-
{{THAT PUTATET TAATEERT|पञ्चवर्षा भवेद्गौरी}}… । {{gartref art Wormu TUT|दशवर्षा तु कन्यका}}… ॥ quoted in Pār. M. I. part 2 p. 177.; {{Fram portat af HATI TETOT|त्रिंशद्वर्षः षोडशवर्षी}} quoted by Saṁ. Pr. p. 768. ↩︎
-
{{fararfirurgia praf reHITI TAT graanpraf poft PCT|विहारशीला रहसि}}…॥ {{Vill Toate|Bālakāṇḍa}} 71. 16-17 (in 3 vol. with Tilaka com. ). ↩︎
-
{{miastaicelli DUTERTE:|अप्रौढां चेद्गच्छति}}…॥ Śātātapa in Dharmasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 234. ↩︎
-
{{sfrenato Thai ratat migrant mayai wWRTTARE श्चिाद्रापलीपतिय इति । अचमाडणपदोपादानाइयाणस्वार्य रजस्वलापरिणपन fait riretoral party UTAHITI HEATHIET|क्षत्रियादीनां रजस्वलाविवाहे… न दोषः। अब्राह्मणपदोपादानाद्ब्राह्मणस्यैव रजस्वलापरिणयने}}… Saṁskāraprakāśa p. 771. ↩︎
-
{{a fare am pafton i qu 97 FOTEL, PUT T HE पुमान|संवत्सरं ब्रह्मचर्यं चरेत्… यदि कन्या अष्टवर्षा भवेत्। अष्टवर्षा स्यात्कन्या}}… Gṛ. R. p. 83. ↩︎
-
{{ET SIT ore parafita funt if|तस्माद्राजन्यं वैश्यापत्यं नाभिपिञ्चति}} । Śat. Br. XIII. 2. 9.8. This verse has been quoted above in note 83. ↩︎
-
{{Fuigduranterat que en: guretat Fif:|सवर्णापूर्वशास्त्रविहितां}}… । {{Wr. 4. II. 6. 13. 1 and 3|Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 1 and 3}}. ↩︎
-
{{प्रामाणक्षत्रियविशा वाणा परियो। सजातिः श्रेयसी भार्या सजातिश्च uff: forts OTTOTIEF fortsat Q7|ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्रा भार्या न विद्यते । सजातिः श्रेयसी भार्या सजातिश्च पतिः स्त्रियाः}} ॥ Nārada ({{strīpuṁsa|strīpuṁsa}} verses 4-5 ). ↩︎
-
तिस्रो {{बामणस्य|ब्राह्मणस्य}} भार्या {{वर्णाहपूज्येण|वर्णानुपूर्व्येण}} द्वे राजन्यस्य एकैका वैश्यशूद्रयोः। एकां शूद्रामप्येके मन्त्रवर्जं {{तहत्|तद्वत्}} । तथा न कुर्यात् । अतो हि ध्रुवं कुलापकर्षः प्रेत्य चास्वर्गः। वसिष्ठ I. 24-27. ↩︎
-
{{HISTOT TERTUTET HTET TEHTI Pray on Or|विज्ञानेश्वरस्तु सवर्णायाः}}… Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 283; ननु च द्विजातीनां {{शूमापुत्रो|शूद्रापुत्रो}} नास्त्येव तद्विवाहप्रतिषेधात् । सत्यम् । {{स्मृत्यर्थभ्रान्त्या त Tarmout for mere rafin:|स्मृत्यर्थभ्रान्त्या तु शूद्रोद्वाहे कृते सति}}… Mitākṣarā on Yāj. II. 129; {{hufaharirotto निवृतेर्थतः कृतापा पुमः शूवानिवृत्तिरसवर्णानिवृत्तेरनित्यत्वं ज्ञापयति । अनित्यत्वे चापदि सपाया अलाभे भवति चायमवगमः शूखा न घोढण्या इतरे तु घोढये|असवर्णोढानां निवृत्तेः सवर्णासु कृतायां पुनः शूद्रोढा निवृत्तिरस वर्णानिवृत्तेरनित्यत्वं ज्ञापयति। अनित्यत्वे चापदि सवर्णाया अलाभे भवति चायमवगमः शूद्रा न वोढव्या इतरे तु वोढव्ये}}। Medhātithi on Manu III. 14. ↩︎
-
Vide Bai Lakṣmi v. Kālīānsiṅg 2 Bom. L. R. 128 ( marriage between Rajput male and a brāhmaṇa woman held to be invalid); Bai Kāshī v. Jamnādās 14 Bom. L. R. 547 (marriage between a brāhmaṇa woman and śūdra male was held to be void); Munnīlāl v. Śiāmā I. L.R. 48. All. 670 (marriage between a śūdra male and a vaidya female held to be invalid). Vide Bai Gulāb v. Jīvanlāl I. L. R. 46 Bom. 871, Nathā v. Mehtā Choṭālāl I. L. R. 55 Bom, 1 ( marriage of a brāhmaṇa male with a śūdra female was held valid); Nalinākṣa v. Rājanīkānta 35 C. W. N. 726. Vide Padmā Kumārī v. Sūraj Kumārī I. L. R. 28 All 458. ↩︎
-
{{Ha arrestonta guro a far fulaust|सपिण्डता तु पुरुषे सप्तमे विनिवर्तते}}… Dharmasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 284, ↩︎
-
पञ्चमात्सप्तमादूर्ध्वं मातुतः पितृतः क्रमात् । सपिण्डता निवर्तेत सर्ववर्णेष्वयं विधिः ॥ Śātātapa quoted in Dharmasindhu p. 108. The printed Śātātapa (Jīvānanda section 7 p. 108 ) reads ‘पञ्चमीं मातृपक्षाच्च पितृपक्षाच्च सप्तमीम् । गृह्णन्विप्रो न दोषभाक् ॥’; Mit. on Yāj. I. 53; {{for शुद्धिचिन्तामणौ च माझे सर्वेषामेव पर्णानां विज्ञेया सातपौरुषी। सपिण्यता तता पवारस Arar at’ forority|शुद्धिचिन्तामणौ च ब्राह्मे ‘सर्वेषामेव वर्णानां विज्ञेया सातपौरुषी । सपिण्डता ततः पश्चात्…}}’ Dharmasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 284. The word {{stray|anvaya}} in the Mit. means ‘connection or continuity.’ ↩︎
-
The words ‘{{. UT 979T RETETYT TCTT1977|एवं पल्या पत्युश्च एकशरीरारम्भकत्वेन}}’ are translated differently by Golap Chandra Sarkar in his Hindu Law (7th ed. of 1936 ) pp. 81-82 as ‘similarly arises the sapiṇḍa relationship of the husband with the lawfully wedded wife by reason of their (together) forming one body’(i. e. one person, hence the wife is called half the body of the husband). The learned author thinks that his translation is the correct one and others went wrong in translating as in the passage above. His translation can not be accepted for several reasons. In the first place, it is opposed to the explanation of the Bālambhaṭṭī ‘{{SITTHwafa TOTEU artit Tutarref:|एकशरीरावयवान्वयद्वारेण}}’ (i. e. particles of the bodies of the husband and wife continue in or are concerned with one body, the son, that is produced by them both). That husband and wife are one is a pleasant fiction but here Vijñāneśvara is stressing the physical continuity of particles. The husband and wife though said to be one are still two bodies. No one says that their bodies become physically one. Besides the objection that if they do not beget a son, the husband and wife will not be sapiṇḍas is not sound. Rules and principles are laid down for generality of cases and regard is to be had to their capacity to produce a son. The Dharmasindhu (III. pūrvārdha. p. 280) shows that G. C. Sarkar is wrong ‘{{Tento rochtaart CITRATE 49 go पौत्रादिषुसाक्षात् परंपरा पा शुक्रशोणितादिरूपेणावस्यूताः । पचपिपल्या पत्यासह भ्रात पत्नीनां च परस्परं नैतत्संभवति तथापि आधारवेकशरीरावयवान्दयोऽस्येव|एकस्य शरीरस्य अवयवाः पुत्रादिषु पौत्रादिषु साक्षात्परम्परया शुक्रशोणितादिरूपेणावस्थिताः। एवं च पत्न्या पत्या सह भ्रातृपत्नीनां च परस्परं नैतत्संभवति तथापि आधारैः एकशरीरावयवान्वयोऽस्त्येव}}’ ।। A woman’s husband’s brother’s wife is the receptacle (ādhāra ) for a son who is procreated by the husband’s brother and his wife, the former of whom has particles of his father whose particles continue in the husband of the woman. ↩︎
-
There is direct continuity of particles of the bodies of the parents in the son and there is mediate connection of particles between grandparents and grandchildren and so on. ↩︎
-
As the world proceeded from the Creator every one has in his body parts of the Creator. In the Tai. Up. II. 6 we have ‘{{some Fut forta… Hawai|सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति}}’ and also in Chāndogya Up. VI. 2. 3. This is relied upon for limiting sāpiṇḍya in Pār. M. I. 2. p. 59. The words ‘{{mātuḥ|mātuḥ}}’ and ‘{{pituḥ|pituḥ}}’ of Yāj. are repeated in the Mit. and explained as ‘mātṛsantāne’ and ‘pitṛsantāne’ respectively and the Mit. adds that in Yāj. I. 53 (latter half ) we have to understand the words ‘sāpiṇḍyaṁ nivartate’ (sapiṇḍa relationship ceases). ↩︎
-
The word ‘{{pankaja|paṅkaja}}’ literally means ‘springing from mud’ and may apply to every water plant, but it is restricted by usage ( rūḍhi) to a lotus plant i. e. the wide literal or etymological (yaugika) meaning of the two parts ‘paṅka’ (mud) and ‘ja’ (springing from ) is restricted by popular usage to a single plant springing from mud. ‘{{Nirmanthya|Nirmanthya}}’ is the word used for producing fire by friction. Literally the word means ‘what is to be churned’. ↩︎
-
Vide extract (text) from the Dharmasindhu in appendix. ↩︎
-
{{a F arrara Ferreira eta a frutti…foryou #ITIVE for fat|अतश्च भिन्नजातीयानां ब्राह्मणादीनां}}… Mitākṣarā on Yāj. I. 53; the Dharma. S. p. 109 explains differently the statement of Paiṭhīnasi. ‘{{P HYTTESTATO ATTREFOyu माक्षणादीमा क्षत्रियादिसपिण्डविषये पा पूर्वोक्तानि मेयामि नवकल्प प्रति भ्रमितव्यम् for forang|त्रिपुरुषपर्यन्तं सापिण्ड्यमिति पैठीनसिनोक्तम्। ब्राह्मणादीनां क्षत्रियादिसपिण्डविषये वा पूर्वोक्तानि ज्ञेयानि नानुकल्पे प्रतिभ्रमितव्यम्}}’ Dharmasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 285; the Sm. C. pp. 138-140 gives these explanations. ↩︎
-
{{vaig fhga u FRÁ Higa: faqamUTET, raise #rga? पशातीत्य च पितृत इति च पैठीनसिना तदप्यनिषेधार्थ न पुनस्तत्वाप्स्यमिति सर्व Farat:|पञ्चमीं सप्तमीं चैव मातुतः पितृतस्तथा। मातुः सपिण्डा वर्ज्याः पञ्चमीं चातीत्य पितृत इति च पैठीनसिना तदप्यनिषेधार्थं न पुनस्तत्प्राप्त्यर्थमिति सर्वमविरुद्धम्}}। Mitākṣarā on Yāj. I. 53; the words of {{arganyra: foru:|Paiṭhīnasi ‘तृतीयः}} are ‘{{ACE 8. 2|Vasiṣṭha 8. 2}} (the preceding being ‘{{TCUT ….. urut paraa|…कन्यां समुद्वहेत्}}’). The {{fafafar|Dharmasindhu}} (III. pūrvārdha pp. 284-285) collects together more such passages, holds that they are not to be construed as allowing an option, but as referring to descendants one of whose ancestors had been adopted or where the descendants of one ancestor trace descent through a brāhmaṇa wife and a kṣatriya wife. Saṁ. Pr. (pp. 612-613) also quotes passages similar to those in the Dharmasindhu, but seems to hold that there is an option due to family or local usages. Vide S. K. pp. 707-718. ↩︎
-
The {{TETET|स्मृतिरत्नावली}} quoted in the {{T T|स्मृ. च.}} (p. 116) is quite explicit {{farat fupra FTTTT WATOTT mūkafat PT कन्यकाम्|विवाहयेत्सपिण्डां तु सप्तमीमुत्सृज्य कन्यकाम्}}। ↩︎
-
{{Furat: vt turn area THTRONaryfers Tarta कम्पयोपों पुत्रो तयोः संतती पितवारकस्वारसापिण्डपमनुपर्तत इतीद मण्डकालतिसापिण्डपम्|यतः कुत्रचित् त्यक्त्वा कुत्रचित् सापिण्ड्यम्। यथा एकस्य कन्यायाः पुत्रः तयोः संततौ पितृद्वारकत्वात्सापिण्ड्यमनुवर्तत इतीदं मण्डूकप्लुतिसापिण्ड्यम्}}। {{watery|Dharmasindhu}} III. {{gut|pūrvārdha}} p. 227; {{T T muut HTTS #T argaret qururasamt: * gati e foafer a recorrer H HUEVT.|तथा च मण्डूकप्लुतिन्यायेन सापिण्ड्यं प्रवर्तते। यत्रैकस्यैव पितुः कन्ये द्वे तयोरेकस्याः पुत्रः अपरस्या दुहिता तयोर्विवाहे न सापिण्ड्यम्।}} {{anique gara: Hafaritarai ha a f eret i faufeierny III gat p. 283.|आर्षेयेण सपिण्डानां क्वचित् सापिण्ड्यं न भवति। Dharmasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 283}} The {{Saṁ. Pr.|Saṁ. Pr.}} p. 617 refers to this. ↩︎
-
{{Hopefitsfummer:|मण्डूकगतयोऽधीयन्ते}}। {{Tur sogar sorprendente e n un primer:|तत्र मण्डूकान् प्लवस्वेति वक्तव्ये}}… {{Agrarea|Mahābhāṣya}} vol. I. p. 44 and vol. III. p. 25. ↩︎
-
{{garu forefataforeremputati via Farrarna varor1#:|पञ्चधा विप्रतिपत्तिर्दक्षिणतस्तथा उत्तरतः}}। {{यतदछपतेन सह भोजनं प्रिया संह भोजन पर्युषितभोजन मातलपिम्पसहितुगमममिति|यदन्यत्र पञ्चानां सहभोजनं स्त्रिया सह भोजनं पर्युषितभोजनं मातुलपितृष्वसृदुहितृगमनमिति}}। … {{इतरदितरस्मिन्कर्षमण्यतीतादितरस्मिन्|इतरदितरस्मिन् कुर्वन् दुष्यति इतरदितरस्मिन्}}। … {{मिष्येतदिति गोतमः|मिथ्यैतदिति गौतमः}}। {{उभयं ष wifida frafrafare|उभयं चैव नाद्रियेत शिष्टस्मृतिविरोधात्}}… Baud. Dh. S. I. 1. 19-26. ↩︎
-
{{praec:|मातुलसुतां}}… {{Angritat te tipar for श्वान्द्रायणं चरेत्|उद्वाह्य चान्द्रायणं चरेत्}}… {{Sumantuḥ|सुमन्तुः}}… {{पितृपल्या सर्वामातरसभातरोमालास्तरमुता मावलसतास्व FAIT T OT PAITTEE ON WT4. 8. . II. 5. 11. 18.|पितृपल्याः सर्वा भगिन्यः मातरः तत्सुता भगिन्यः तत्सुता मातुः भगिनीसुता च}}… quoted by Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 16. ↩︎
-
{{FATEMENT arco arrarorutn qrufati sve o fata # a partit p. 204.|दाक्षिणात्यानां मातुलसुतोद्वाहोऽपि शिष्टविगर्हित एव}}… Tantravārtika p. 204. ↩︎
-
Vasudeva had a son Pṛthā and a daughter Pṛthā (who being given in adoption to Kunti was called Kuntī). Vide Viṣṇupurāṇa III. 1-3. The son of Pṛthā (Kuntī) was Arjuna. Subhadrā is described in the Ādiparva as the daughter of Vasudeva and sister of Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa). If these words are literally understood she would be Arjuna’s maternal uncle’s daughter. ↩︎
-
{{qurt searca regra erorganet watteretter शायाश्च निजबान्धारण्याम्मातृण्वनीया सुभदा तस्य मातृपितृस्वनीयादुहिता वेति परिणयाम्य. UNITAT Parameramai p. 210.|…सुभद्रायाः …मातृष्वस्त्रीया सुभद्रा…मातृपितृष्वस्त्रीयदुहिता वेति परिणेयाम्यनुमीयते}}… Tantravārtika p. 210. ↩︎
-
{{मातुलानी तथा श्व, सता चे मावलस्य च । एता मत्वा बियो मोहात्पराकेण विशुध्यति|मातुलस्य सुतां गत्वा…पराकेण विशुध्येत्}}। Saṁvarta quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 254. ↩︎
-
{{Fant FUTUTE THIRMAYI U ATOM*THTHAT IT भयादूढवन्तः कन्यागमनदण्डो माभूदिति । भन्ये त्वविद्वांसो ‘येनारप पितरो याता: स्यस्य TUTTHU Trear watafa GTVT: I AUT. OD AF II. 18.|…येनार्य पितरो याताः तेन यायात्सतां गतिम्’ इति}}… Medhātithi on Manu II. 18. ↩︎
-
{{FAIR TT a incet TAREFATI goyaar pran dari हिचतुर्थे पुरुष तृतीये संगच्छामहे इति विदेष दीग्यमाना जारया आसते । एतस्मादु तत् ।|तस्मादु एकस्मिन् यज्ञे जायापत्योः…हि चतुर्थे पुरुषे तृतीये संगच्छामहे इति विदेव दीव्यमाना जाया आसते । एतदु तत्}}। Śat. Br. I. 8. 3. 6; {{Tit gert goa FUTE I was i ntegrasigrah at परिणयममुक्तं भवति । तपोः कूटस्थमारम्य तृतीयत्वात् । संगच्छामहे विषहामहे इत्यर्थः|ततः परं गोत्रं भवति। अनेन मातुलसुतायाः परिणयनमुक्तं भवति । तयोः कूटस्थमारभ्य तृतीयत्वात् । संगच्छामहे विवाहामहे इत्यर्थः}}। Sm. C. I. p. 72. ↩︎
-
Vide Aufrecht’s Ṛgveda vol. II. p. 672. The verse is {{sprea हीन्द पथिभिरीळितभिर्यज्ञामिमं नो भागधेयं जुषस्व । तृप्ता जर्मातुलस्येव योषा भागस्ते पैतृष्यसेयी पामिव|आ याहीन्द्र पथिभिरीडितेभिर्यज्ञमिमं नो भागधेयं जुषस्व । तृप्तां जुहुर्मातुलस्येव योषा भागस्ते पैतृष्वसेयी वपामिव}}॥. Aufrecht reads तृप्ता जुहुः for {{तुतां जहः|तृप्तां जहुः}}. This occurs also in the {{Atharvaveda|Atharvaveda}} (XIV. 31 ed. by Roth, though some MSS omit it), where the reading is जुहुः for जहुः Aparārka reads ‘{{तृप्ता जहुर्मातुलस्येष ते तर भायः पैतृपसेयीमपामियोपः|तृप्तां जहुर्मातुलस्येव ते तव भागः पैतृष्वसेयीमपामिवोपः}}।’. The text as printed in Aparārka seems to be corrupt. Aparārka takes जहुः as meaning त्यक्तवन्तः and adds {{यथा पैदुग्यसेयीं भगिनी भार्या faramarqoiret saat &o.|यथा पैतृष्वसेयीं भगिनीं भार्यार्थं न गृह्णन्ति तथा}}… (p. 89). ↩︎
-
{{taraft gitus TTTTTTT: papais i FFATE THATE 17971 पत्रमे मातृत: सप्तमे पितृत इति द्वितीयः । उभयतः पशम इति तृतीयः । चतुर्थेपीति चतुर्थः । पूर्णः पूर्वः भेयान । जीविषपश्चात्यः कल्पः|चत्वारः कल्पाः भवन्ति। पञ्चमे मातृतः सप्तमे पितृत इति प्रथमः। … उभयतः पञ्चम इति तृतीयः। चतुर्थेऽपीति चतुर्थः। पूर्वः पूर्वः श्रेयान्। जीविष्यतः पश्चात्यः कल्पः}}… {{ए च वरचतुर्थे म विवादः|न च वरचतुर्थेऽपि विवाहः}}। {{मन्त्रवों cara merata: four on|मन्त्रवर्णो हि}}… Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 53. ↩︎
-
{{gram garat ya ang dat:! et refren: 45: yrasour N … TOT Tremor dataory Un EI TEFT Fat|देशजात्यनुसारेण गुणाः…ये देशाचाराः…कुलधर्माः… तथैव ते पालनीयाः प्रजा क्षुभ्यति नान्यथा}}… Bṛhaspati quoted in {{furre|Sm. C.}} I. p. 70, {{TETTHET|Par. M.}} p. 67. ↩︎
-
{{Amargra av sig Utarardigrant: ifta ar TEAT दिक्षितपरिणयनमाचरन्ति|आन्ध्रेषु शिष्टा वेदविदः मातुलसुतापरिणयनमाचरन्ति}} । {{दक्षि तथाविधा शिक्षा पतादिविवाहमाचरन्ति|द्रविडेषु तथाविधाः शिष्टाः चतुर्थादिविवाहमाचरन्ति}} । {{मतिम.|Smṛtimuktāphala}} ( Āhnika p. 131 ). ↩︎
-
Jaimini’a sūtra is {{feftat rostera|विधौ च वाक्यशेषः}} III. 4. 15. This is not commented upon by Śabara ; but the Tantravārtika, which notices this fact, assigns several reasons for this omission and explains it as follows: in the {{agnihotre|agnihotre}} there is a passage {{TURPIENTAU UNTY anti vir oft|‘अधस्तात्समिधं धारयन्ननुद्रवेत् उपर हि देवेभ्यो धारयति’}} In the homa for {{pitṛs|pitṛs}} the samidh is held below the sruc in which the havis has been placed ; in this passage it is said that when the oblation is to be offered to the gods the samidh is to be held over the sruc (in which the oblation is placed before being thrown into the fire). Here though the particle ‘hi’ (showing reason) is employed and though, the present ‘dhārayati’ is used (and not the potential as is usual in vidhis), it is not a mere arthavāda but a vidhi. So also in the Śat. Br. there is a vidhi about mātula-sutā pariṇayana.’ {{Hata tuttoA माप्तम् । न चाप्राप्त हेतुवनिगवेन वर्तमानापदेशेन वाहवदितं शक्यम् । पिध्ये होमे अधस्तात् पुग्दण्डस्य समिद्धारपिशव्या देवेन पुनरूपरिष्टादिति|… न चाप्राप्तं हेतुवन्निगदेन वर्तमानापदेशेन वा विधातुं शक्यम्। पित्र्ये होमे अधस्तात् स्रुग्दण्डस्य समिद्धारणं विहितं दैवे च पुनरुपरिष्टादिति}}। Tantravārtika p. 899. ↩︎
-
{{alifafrat # Tin fuani ara h : | HUT AT ण्डेयपुराणम्मामादिषु विवाहेषु या खूना कन्यका भवेत्|ब्राह्मादिषु विवाहेषु या प्रोढा कन्यका भवेत्}}। {{भर्तृगात्रेण कर्तण्या तस्याः पिण्डोवक क्रिया गान्धर्वादिविवाहेषु पिलगोत्रेण धर्मवित्|भर्तृगोत्रेण कर्तव्या तस्याः पिण्डोदकक्रिया । गान्धर्वादिविवाहेषु पितृगोत्रेण धर्मवित्}}। … {{एतेन माढलमुताविवाहविषयेपि Faure: UCTANT: | एतेन मातुलसुताविवाहविषयेऽपि व्यवस्था उक्ता}}। {{murft afwana retra t o progetto नितेरभावात् तदक्षमाहवासतिस्मृतिसदाचारात् । न मामादिविवाहोदजविषयाणि|ननु ब्राह्मादिविवाहोढासुतायाः भर्तृगोत्रत्वात् पितृगोत्रापगमेन तत्सपिण्डानां मातुलसुताविवाहः। न गान्धर्वादिविवाहोढजाविषयाणि}}। {{परा. #1. I.2. p. 63-64.|Par. M. I.2. pp. 63-64}}. ↩︎
-
{{aftur poffunt turi Talent qu:|पञ्चमीं सप्तमीं चैव हित्वा}}… {{टायनः|शाकटायनः}} । {{तृतीया पायाधीषा पक्षयोरुभयोरपि|तृतीयां च चतुर्थां च}}… {{विवाहयेन्मनुः माह पाराशर्योहिरा यमः|विवाहयेन्मनुः प्राह पाराशर्योऽङ्गिरा यमः}}। … {{स्यादेवाचतत्मदृश्यते|स्याद्वेदाच्च तत्प्रदृश्यते}} । इति {{चतु Fāgramma vedere at et grila|Caturviṁśatimata quoted in Nirṇayasindhu}}… ↩︎
-
{{विरोधी या वाक्यानां प्रामाण्य तत्र भूयसाम् । मुल्यममाणसवेतन्याय एष प्रवर्तते|विरोधे तु वाक्यानां प्रामाण्यं तत्र भूयसाम्। तुल्यप्रमाणत्वे चैष न्याय एष प्रवर्तते}} ॥ quoted in {{मलमासता|Malamāsatattva}} p. 767. ↩︎
-
{{घेदार्थोपनिषद्धृत्यात्माधान्यं तमनुस्मृती। मन्नर्थविपरीता पा स्मृतिः सा म प्रशस्यते|वेदार्थोपनिबद्धत्वात्प्राधान्यं तु मनुस्मृतेः। मन्वर्थविपरीता या स्मृतिः सा न प्रशस्यते}}। Bṛhaspati quoted by Aparārka on Yāj. II. 21 and Kullūka on Manu I. 1. ↩︎
-
{{a Tuin erat Tū: TWATTT:|अत्र यानि वचनानि}}… {{moriam नेषु|तेषु}} कानिचिन्निर्मूलानि कानिचिद्दत्तकसापत्न्यादिसंबन्धविषयतया {{विषाणो क्षत्रियावि Finquaurat Oranfagra faufarhFYATRI|विजातीयक्षत्रियादिभार्यासुतानां}}… {{fara III gato p. 228|Dharmasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 228}}. {{येषां कले देशे चानुकल्पत्वेन सापिण्डयसङ्कोचः परंपरया समागतस्तेषां सापिणापसोचेन विवाहो न दोषाय स्वकुलदेशविरुद्धन सापिण्ड्यसङ्कोचन विवाहे दोषो भवत्येव|येषां कुले देशे चानुकल्पत्वेन सापिण्ड्यसङ्कोचः परम्परया समागतस्तेषां सापिण्ड्यसङ्कोचेन विवाहो न दोषाय स्वकुलदेशविरुद्धेन सापिण्ड्यसङ्कोचेन विवाहे दोषो भवत्येव}}। {{धर्मसिन्धु III, पूर्वार्थ|Dharmasindhu III, pūrvārdha}} p. 228 summarizing the view of the {{संस्कारकौस्तुभ|Saṁskārakaustubha}}. ↩︎
-
…Nirṇayasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 285. ↩︎
-
{{arū a Poraret FFÈT#ra MTH कार्यों गुरुतल्पाविदोषस्मृतेः|आर्षेयसापिण्ड्ये विवाहः न कार्यः गुरुतल्पादिदोषस्मृतेः}}। {{सापिण्ड्यसोचवाक्यानामशक्तविषयत्वस्य स्पष्टत्वात्|सापिण्ड्यसङ्कोचवाक्यानामशक्तविषयत्वस्य स्पष्टत्वात्}}। {{whern|Dharmasindhu}} III {{gatu|pūrvārdha}} p. 229. ↩︎
-
{{Hent rostredt|ऊर्ध्वं संवत्सरात्}} । Āśv. gṛ. I. 8. 12 ; Nārāyaṇa notes ‘ऊर्ध्वं संवत्सरात् व्रतान्ते एकगोत्रौ संपद्यते । पितृगोत्रं विहाय पतिगोत्रं भजत इत्यर्थः।’, {{संवत्सरे ग्यतीतेत वोत्रं नीयते पुनः त्रिःपरिग्रहणादमे दयालम्भनात्तथा । स्वामिगोत्रण कर्तव्या पिण्डदानो वकक्रिया|संवत्सरे व्यतीते तु गोत्रं नीयते पुनः त्रिरात्रपरिग्रहात्}}…॥ Laghu Hārīta v. 62-63; {{विवाहे चैव निवृत्ते चतुर्थेहनि रात्रि|विवाहे चैव निर्वृत्ते चतुर्थेऽहनि रात्रौ}}। {{एकर सा गता भः पिण्डे गोत्रे च सूतके|एकत्वं सा गता भर्तुः पिण्डे गोत्रे च सूतके}} । {{स्वगोत्राव प्रश्यते नारी विधाहात सप्तमे पदे भर्तृगोत्रेण कर्तव्या arquerat: forera|स्वगोत्राद्भ्रश्यते नारी विवाहात्सप्तमे पदे। भर्तृगोत्रेण कर्तव्या दानपिण्डोदकक्रिया}} 25-26 and Yama 86, 78. The words {{gevat… Eh|ऊर्ध्वं संवत्सरात्…एकत्वम्}} are quoted by Mit. on Yāj. I. 254 and the verse {{FTTTTTTT|स्वगोत्राद्भ्रश्यते}} is quoted by the Aparārka on Yāj. I. 254. ↩︎
-
{{Tun Fateh Tereta TFT UTCerro tarefae yr arte affa fuerator TareTTERAIT refii feratering|एवं पितृष्वसुः सुताया अपि विवाहः सिद्धः तथापि लोकविद्विष्टत्वान्न कार्यः}}… {{III, gar& p. 286|Nirṇayasindhu III, pūrvārdha p. 286}}. The half verse ‘{{अस्वर्ग्यं लोकविद्विष्टं…|अस्वर्ग्यं लोकविद्विष्टं…}}’ is Yāj. I. 156. ↩︎
-
{{महच यदि मातुरसपिण्यतया मातुलसुता परिया.तथाविधा मातृण्वसा सह हिताच किमिति न परिणेया|यद्येवं मातुरसपिण्डतया मातुलसुता परिणेया तर्हि तथाविधा मातृष्वसा भगिनी च किमिति न परिणेया}}। {{उच्यते । सत्यम् । नमः शानतो न परिणेयेति किं तु लोक विषद्रत्वात्|उच्यते। सत्यम्। न शास्त्रतो न परिणेयेति किं तु लोकविद्विष्टत्वात्}}। {{यश्च धर्यमपि लोकविरुद्ध जानुष्ठेयम्|यश्च धर्ममपि लोकविरुद्धं नानुष्ठेयम्}}। {{यदुक्त मनुना। अस्वये लोकविद्विष्ट wancarater fra|यदुक्तं मनुना ‘अस्वर्ग्यं लोकविद्विष्टं धर्ममप्याचरेन्न तु’}} । Sm. C. I. p. 71, vide {{fyras ( m p. 131 )|Smṛtimuktāphala (Āhnika p. 131)}} for almost the same words ↩︎
-
Vide Printed Judgments (of the Bombay High Court ) for 1876 p. 73. ↩︎
-
The {{Sm. C.|Sm. C.}} I. p. 72 and the Nirṇayasindhu (p. 367) include mātṛsapiṇḍavivāha among Kalivarjya. ↩︎
-
{{अतः सिद्धमेतत् । कलावपि येषां कुले देशेऽनुकल्पस्वेन सापिण्डसंकोचा परंपरया समागतः तेषां तादृशसंकोचेन विषाहे न दोषः । अस्ति च भार्यात्योत्पत्तिः । अन्येषां हैः सह ध्यपहारे नैष दोषः । स्वयं तु कुलदेशविरुद्धसापिण्ड्यसकोचेन विवाहे भवत्येव दोषः। मच भार्यात्वोत्पत्तिः। दृश्यन्ते हि स्वयं सापिण्ड्यसंकोचेन विधाहमकुर्वन्तोऽपि तादृशसंकोचेना. सफजातविषाभ्यः कुलेन्यः कन्याः स्वीकुर्वन्तस्त रकुलीनान श्राद्धादी भोजयन्तश्च बहका शिष्टाः । अत एष मातलकन्योहाहिना हेमाद्रादौ श्राद्धनिषेधोपि स्वकुलदेशपरंपरयामागत सापिण्डयसंकोचेन कृतविवाहविषय एवेति बोध्यम्|अतः सिद्धमेतत्। कलावपि येषां कुले देशेऽनुकल्पत्वेन सापिण्ड्यसंकोचः परंपरया समागतः तेषां तादृशसंकोचेन विवाहे न दोषः। अस्ति च भार्यात्वोत्पत्तिः। अन्येषां तैः सह व्यवहारे नैव दोषः। स्वयं तु कुलदेशविरुद्धसापिण्ड्यसंकोचेन विवाहे भवत्येव दोषः। न च भार्यात्वोत्पत्तिः। दृश्यन्ते हि स्वयं सापिण्ड्यसंकोचेन विवाहम् अकुर्वन्तोऽपि तादृशसंकोचेन सजातविवाहेभ्यः कुलेभ्यः कन्याः स्वीकुर्वन्तस्तत्कुलीनान् श्राद्धादौ भोजयन्तश्च बहवः शिष्टाः। अत एव मातुलकन्योद्वाहिनां हेमाद्र्यादौ श्राद्धनिषेधोऽपि स्वकुलदेशपरम्परयानागतसापिण्ड्यसंकोचेन कृतविवाहविषय एवेति बोध्यम्}}। Saṁskārakaustubha p. 620. ↩︎
-
{{पितृपल्या सर्वा मातरस्तद्धातरो मातुलासनगिन्यो मातृस्वसारस्तदुहितरब भगिभ्यस्तदपस्यानि भागिमेयानि । अन्यथा संकरकारिणः स्युः । समस्तु|पितृपत्न्यः सर्वा मातरस्तद् भ्रातरो मातुलास्तद्भगिन्यो मातृष्वसारस्तद्दुहितरश्च भगिन्यस्तदपत्यानि भागिनेयानि। अन्यथा सङ्करकारिणः स्युः। सुमन्तुः}}. There are various readings in this passage in all works. Sm. C. I. p. 70 and Par. M. I. 2. p. 64 also quote it. Vide note 1081 where Sumantu is somewhat differently quoted by Haradatta. ↩︎
-
{{अत्र यापद्वचनं वाचनिकमिति न्यायेन परिगणितेन्वेष सापिण्डन तुसतमा. feu afara w r ot agn: 1. fit. p. 621.|अत्र यावद्वचनं वाचनिकमिति न्यायेन परिगणितेष्वेव सापिण्ड्यं न तु तत्सन्तानादिष्वपि इति बहूनां मतम् । Saṁ. K. p. 621.}} For the maxim ‘yāvadvacanaṁ vācanikam’ vide Śabara’s Bhāṣya p. 1324 (on Jaimini V. 3. 12) and p. 1339 (on Jaimini V. 4. 11). ↩︎
-
{{TT ….. wanarurgraag 1 … … qua : fogargard विषबासंबन्धः । यथा भार्यास्वहिता पितृध्यपत्नीस्वसा चेति परिशिष्टोक्तः (आपलायन गणपरिशिष्ट 22)। निर्णयसिन्धुपौधायनः । मातुः सपत्न्या भगिनी तत्सुता च विषर्जयेत। Fageaiutat i mater ialay p. 231; ‘ragargard Tour तेम भ्रातभगिनीसाम्ये स्वताचारादिसाम्यपि नोद्वादः ……तथा पितुष्पपत्नीस्वहः सुता #fit #AT AIR. 4. P. 725|…अविरुद्धसंबन्धां च …यथा भार्यायाः स्वसारं पितृव्यपत्नीस्वसारं चेति}} (Āśvalāyana Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa 22) … {{मातुः सपत्न्या भगिनीं तत्सुतां च विवर्जयेत्|मातुः सपत्न्या भगिनीं तत्सुतां च विवर्जयेत्}}। Bodhāyana in Dharmasindhu p. 231; ‘…तेन भ्रातृभगिनीसाम्ये स्नुषाचारादिसाम्येऽपि नोद्वाहः … तथा पितृव्यपत्नीस्वसुः सुता…’ Sam. Pr. p. 725. ↩︎
-
{{fara qarquear friositat AEI ….. por face पिण्यान्वयेन सापिण्ड मानिरस्त तथाप्यगत्या दत्तकस्य प्रतिग्रहीत्रासह तदेवाश्रयणीयम्|जनककुले सापिण्ड्यसद्भावेऽपि… प्रतिग्रहीतृकुले सापिण्ड्यान्वयेन सापिण्ड्यमानिर्दिष्टं तथाप्यगत्या दत्तकस्य प्रतिग्रहीत्रा सह तदेवाश्रयणीयम्}}। Sam. Pr. pp. 693-694. ↩︎
-
{{अत्र च केवलदसकस्य पालकपितृकुले सातपौरुष मातृकुले च पाचपौर FIORI TETTHEE|अत्र च केवलदत्तकस्य पालकपितृकुले सातपौरुषं मातृकुले च पञ्चपौरुषं सापिण्ड्यम्}} (p. 119, my edition). ↩︎
-
{{केचित्तु दत्तकमवेशे कुलयेपि सर्वथा न्यूनमेव सापिण्डपमित्याहुः|केचित्तु दत्तकप्रवेशे कुलद्वयेऽपि सर्वथा न्यूनमेव सापिण्ड्यमित्याहुः}}। Dharmasindhu p. 161. ↩︎
-
{{पारसस्य इसकस्य यथा सापिण्डपमुक्त संततेरपि तथैव तर बोग्यम्|औरसस्य दत्तकस्य यथा सापिण्ड्यमुक्तं तत्संततेरपि तथैव तद्बोध्यम्}}। Saṁ. R. M. p. 454. ↩︎
-
{{परिणाय सगोत्री तु समानमरा तथा कृत्वा तस्याः समुत्स, द्विजश्चान्द्रायण wita #1 A107ky TN 9 Higurat T I 8 quoted in Hure|परिणीय सगोत्रां तु समानप्रवरां तथा। कृत्वा तस्याः समुत्सर्गं द्विजश्चान्द्रायणं चरेत्}}॥ a text of Vasiṣṭha quoted in Medhātithi. Manu III. 5 presents various readings, viz. ‘{{Era hya,’ For Ayer’, ‘दारकर्मण्यमैथुने|दाराकर्मण्यमैथुने}}’. Vide Medhātithi thereon. ↩︎
-
{{माझादिविवाहोढासुताना सर्वषो मातृगोत्रत्वं न पय॑म् , किंतु मास्यन्दिनीया FTAT I HTET Frame framan alat pemer I nt. p. 693; ’ higi पर्जन माध्यन्दिनीयानामेव मातृगोत्रं माध्यन्दिनीयानामपुत्रायाश्चेति सत्यापादोक्तरिति E ls property III, quia p. 302.|ब्राह्मादिविवाहोढासुतानां सर्वेषां मातृगोत्रत्वं न वर्ज्यम्, किंतु माध्यन्दिनीयानामेव। … मातृगोत्रपरिवर्जनं माध्यन्दिनीयानामेव मातृगोत्रं माध्यन्दिनीयानामपुत्रायाश्चेति सत्याषाढोक्तेरिति}} … Saṁ. K. p. 693; Dharmasindhu III, pūrvārdha p. 302. ↩︎
-
{{Apren da a AECITE * T*cap.|अत्र च सपिण्डशब्दः}}… Dāyabhāga chap. 11. sec, 32; {{च सपिण्डत्वं सफुल्यत्वं च वायग्रहणार्थमुक्तम् ।…… अशौचाप तु पिण्डलेपभुजामपि तहत्तपिण्डलेपभोक्तत्वेन सपिण्डत्वं मार्कण्डेयपुराणे निर्दिष्टं यथा-पिण्डलेपजश्चान्ये पितामह famer I 973 FAT r grafit: * Et Araator fa i st r egui i TTT|अतश्च सपिण्डत्वं सकुल्यत्वं च दायग्रहणार्थमुक्तम्। … अशौचादौ तु पिण्डलेपभुजामपि तद्दत्तपिण्डलेपभोक्तृत्वेन सपिण्डत्वं मार्कण्डेयपुराणे निर्दिष्टं यथा - पिण्डलेपभुजश्चान्ये पितामहपितामहाः। प्रपितामहपर्यन्तं सापिण्ड्यं सप्तपौरुषम्॥ इति मार्कण्डेयपुराणे}}… Dāyabhāga chap. 11 sections 39-41 (Jīvānanda’s ed.). The passage occurs in Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa 28. 3-4 and also in Śrāddhacandrikā 112. 17-18. ↩︎
-
{{arama Paras Park Frauf war: forfat: in questo एतामविभक्तवापादान् सपिण्डानाचक्षते। विभक्तदायादानसकुल्यानाचक्षते । सत्यजेषु grat prut I FTOVERT hori.U. CI. 6. 113-115|लेपभाजश्चतुर्थाद्याः पित्राद्याः पिण्डभागिनः। पिण्डदः सप्तमस्तेषां सापिण्ड्यं साप्तपौरुषम्॥ एतानविभक्तदायादान् सपिण्डानाचक्षते। विभक्तदायादान् सकुल्यानाचक्षते। सति त्वङ्जेषु तद्गामी}}… quoted in Dāyabhāga XI. 37. The text printed in the Ānandāśrama ed. is slightly different. ↩︎
-
In the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa rite four piṇḍas are made, one for the deceased person whose sapiṇḍīkaraṇa is to be effected and three for that person’s three paternal ancestors and the piṇḍas are mixed up, thereby indicating that from being a mere preta (one belonging to the region of the unredeemed dead) he becomes one of the pitṛs and dwells in pitṛloka, {{7EYTU:fonary for uit TICAT I ferat afetua स्यैव दानात् यश्च जीवन यत्पिण्डदाता स सूतः सन् सपिण्डनात् तत्पिण्डभोक्ता एवं च सति मध्यस्थितः पुरुषः पूर्वेषां जीवन् पिण्डदाता स मतः तत्पिण्डभोक्ता च परेषां जीवता पिण्डसं. प्रदानभूत आसीत् मृतैश्च तैः सह दौहित्राविदयापिण्डभोक्ता अतो येषामयं पिणदाता ये पास्प पिण्डदातारा ते अविभक्तपिण्णरूपं दायमदन्तीत्यविभक्तदायावा: सपिण्डाः|…यश्च जीवन् यत्पिण्डदाता स मृतः सन् सपिण्डनात् तत्पिण्डभोक्ता …अतो येषामयं पिण्डदाता ये चास्य पिण्डदातारस्तेऽविभक्तपिण्डरूपं दायमदन्तीत्यविभक्तदायादाः सपिण्डाः}}। Dāyabhāga chap. XI. 1. para 38. ↩︎
-
{{saritetet feryat mana gargas, aun TUTTA purune # l uta frazatori gra*|विद्वद्भिर्न रोच्यते तथापि मन्वादि वचनबलादेतावानेव}}… Dāyabhāga XI. 6. para 38. ↩︎
-
5 Bengal Law Reports p. 15. ↩︎
-
Vide pp. 117-118 of the Udvāhatattva for a summary of the rules about sāpiṇḍyanivṛtti about pitṛbandhu and mātṛbandhu he says ‘{{एवं पितुबन्धुमभूति संबन्धपटकाना सताना संततिः सप्तमीपर्यन्ता नोहाहा । …… एवं मातृबन्धुप्रभृतिसंबन्ध पटकाना पचानां संततिः पशमीपर्यन्ता नोछाया । एवं च मनुषचने …… पदसपिण्डेति प्रधयुक्त तत्सपिण्डकन्यापरंपराजाताया भपि पञ्चमीसप्तमीपर्यन्ताया निषेधार्थम्|एवं पितुबन्धुप्रभृतिसंबन्धषट्कानां सप्तानां सन्ततिः सप्तमीपर्यन्ता नोद्वाह्या। … एवं मातृबन्धुप्रभृतिसंबन्धषट्कानां पञ्चानां सन्ततिः पञ्चमीपर्यन्ता नोद्वाह्या। एवं च मनुवचने …‘मातुः सपिण्डा’ इति पृथग्युक्तं तत्सपिण्डकन्यापरम्पराजाताया अपि पञ्चमीसप्तमीपर्यन्ताया निषेधार्थम्}}। Udvāhatattva p. 110. ↩︎
-
{{पितुः पितृष्वसुः पुत्राः पितुर्माता सुता। पितुर्मातुलघुनाब पिज्ञेयाः पितृ. पान्धवा माता पितृवसः पुत्रा मातुर्मानुष्वासः सुता: । भातुर्मानुलपुत्राय विज्ञेया मात पान्धवाः|पितुः पितृष्वसुः पुत्राः पितुर्मातृष्वसुः सुताः। पितुर्मातुलपुत्राश्च विज्ञेयाः पितृबान्धवाः॥ मातुः पितृष्वसुः पुत्रा मातुर्मातृष्वसुः सुताः। मातुर्मातुलपुत्राश्च विज्ञेया मातृबान्धवाः॥}} Śātātapa according to Madanapārijāta p. 674 and Baudhāyana according to Par. M. ↩︎
-
The Dharmasindhu summarizes the views of Gauḍa writers: {{बन्धुभ्य इति पशमीनिर्देशात् पितापितब्यसपत्रात्सप्तमी मातःपितृण्वसुपुत्राच पञ्चमीमपि स्यजेत् । एवमन्ययाधुषु शेयम् । तत्रापि त्रिगोत्रास्पयेऽर्षागपि विवाहं कुर्यात् पक्ष्यमाणवच्च मात् । त्रिगोत्रगणना चमातामहगोत्रापेक्षया नहु स्वापेक्षया अन्यथा पितुः पितामहरित दोहित्रीपुत्री परिणेगा स्यात् । षवा मातामहगोत्रापेक्षया निमीत्रान्तर्गतेन विवाहमसङ्ग इति FUPUTETT narrar: Pp. 283-284, whero a passage of TFE is quoted ( Continued on next page ) from auto’s druratan ’ TOTECATE ITSURATCHHATTima firartet विषाया। असंबद्धा भवेन्माता पिनेषोदकेन पासा विवाया द्विजातीनां त्रिगोत्रान्तरिताच Ora TEFATO ’ Tho farfuriy notes that southern writers ( dakgipatya ) do not subscribe to this viow about thrce gotras intervening being an exception to spindya in marriage. The FTCTTST P. 710 also notos the view of Salapapiabout त्रिगोत्रान्तरिता which means ‘मूलपुरुषगोत्राचवर्ध गोत्रोत्पति। forefarretarynot three sot rreth ST P: i Fr Perhat Te Writers (dxkṣinats noia que|…त्रिगोत्रान्तरितां कन्यामुद्बहेन्मनुरब्रवीत्। त्रिगोत्रान्तरितां कन्यामुद्बहेच्छाकटायनः}}’… The Dharmasindhu notes that southern writers (dākṣiṇātya) do not subscribe to this view about three gotras intervening being an exception to sāpiṇḍya in marriage. The Sam. Pr. p. 710 also notes the view of Śālāpāṇi about trigotrāntaritā which means ‘मूलपुरुषगोत्राच्चतुर्थगोत्रोत्पत्तिः’. ↩︎
-
{{TROETKETI FESTETT ET FAITI HAFTU Fa: | ur ā TIETITYTUT Fortia matema l a m|पिण्डानां प्रहितेतनेन}}… Ṛg. I. 162. 19 and Tai. S. IV. 6. 9. 3. The word sagotra is equal to samāna-gotra as stated by Pāṇini VI. 3.85 and sapiṇḍa and sapravara are similarly formed. ↩︎
-
{{ayen: autor:|विश्वगोत्र्याः}}… Atharvaveda V. 21. 3. ↩︎
-
सगोत्राय ब्रह्मणे देयः सोमपीथस्याविदोहाय । ताण्ड्य. 18. 2. 12. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
ब्राह्मणे समानगोत्रे वसेद्यत्समाने गोत्रेऽन्नाद्यं तस्योपाप्तयै संवत्सरं चरेदधः संवेश्य । कौषतिाक ना. 25. 15. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
आङ्गिरसो जन्मनास्याजीगर्तिः श्रुतः कविः । ऋषे पैतामहान्त्तन्तोर्मापगाः पुनरेहि माम् ॥ ऐ. बा. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
विवाह्यो जनः सगोत्रः समानजन इति धानंजप्यः । लाट्यायनश्रौत VIII. 2. 11. H. D. 61 ↩︎ ↩︎
-
मध्यात्पूर्वार्धाच्च हविषोऽवद्यति । मध्यात्पूर्वार्धात्पश्चार्धादिति पञ्चाषत्तिनाम् । आश्व. गृ. I. 10. 18-19. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
समानप्रवराः त्र्यार्षेयः प्रवरः … प्रब्रियते इति कर्म-म्युत्पन्न इति प्रवरमञ्जरीकारः । सं. प्र. p. 598. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
अत्रोदाहृतेषु सूत्रकाण्डेषु सूत्रकाराणां पाठक्रमव्यत्यासो महानस्ति विशेषतश्चाश्वलायनसूत्रपाठे । …. एवं भेदे सिद्धे सत्यपि बौधायनापस्तम्बकात्यायनादीनां बहूनां पाठक्रमानुसारेण विवाहाविवाहौ वक्ष्यामः । प्रवरमञ्जरी p. 72 (ed. by Chensalrao). ↩︎ ↩︎
-
विश्वामित्रो जमदग्निर्भरद्वाजोऽथ गौतमः । अत्रिर्वासिष्ठः कश्यप इत्येते सप्त ऋषयः । तेषां सप्तर्षीणामगस्त्याष्टमानां यद्यत्यं तद्गोत्रमुच्यते । बौ. औ. प्रवराध्याय 54 ; and गोत्राणां तु सहस्राणि प्रयुतान्यर्बुदानि च । ऊनपञ्चाशदेवैषां प्रवरा ऋषिदर्शनात् ॥. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
Vide Nirukta XII. 38 for another interpretation of the verse अर्वाग्बिलश्वमस &c. In the Nirukta ’the seven sages’ are explained either as ‘seven rays of the Sun’or as ’the seven indriyas’. The Br. Up. explains the ‘seven sages’ as the pranas (the two ears, eyes, the two holes of the nose and the tongue) and identifies them with the seven sages, Viśvāmitra and others. The Atharva-veda X. 8. 9 reads the verse as ‘तिर्यग्विलश्वमस &c. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
अष्टाशीतिः सहस्राणि ऊर्ध्वरेतसा मृर्वाणां बभूवुस्तत्रागस्त्याष्टमैर्ऋषिभिः प्रजनोऽभ्युपगतः । तत्रभवतां यदपत्यं तानि गोत्राणि अतोन्ये गोत्रावयवाः । महाभाष्य vol. II. p. 233 on the sutra गोत्रावयवात् (पा. IV. 1. 78). The आप. ध. सू. (II. 9.23. 3-5) quotes passages from a purana about two sorts of 80000 sages (one group desiring offspring and the other not so desiring). याज्ञ. III. 186-187, सभापर्व 11. 54 contain somewhat similar verses. सभापर्व 11. 54 is ‘अष्टाशीतिसहस्राणि ऋषीणामूर्धरेतसाम् । प्रजावतां च पञ्चाशदृषीणामपि पाण्डव ॥१. The reference to fifty sages having progeny is probably to the pravara sages, just as Baud. speaks of 49 pravara groups. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
अत्र गोत्रभूतमपत्यमनन्तरमपि न तु पाणिनेरिव पारिभाषिकं पौत्रप्रभृत्येव । तथात्वे प्रमाणाभावात् । …… अपत्याधिकारादन्यत्र लौकिकस्यैव गोत्रस्य ग्रहणमिति भाष्य-कैयटपद्द्मञ्जर्यादिषु स्थितम् । सं. प्र. pp. 591-92. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
यथैव समाने पुरुषत्वे ब्राह्मणत्वादिविशेषः, एवं समाने ब्राह्मणत्वे वसिष्ठादि-गोत्रभेदः प्रतिगोत्रं च समानार्षेयाणि । स्मरन्ति च सूत्रकारा गोत्रभेदसंबन्धेन प्रवरान् यस्यैतगोत्रं तस्येमे प्रवरा इति। गोत्रभेदस्तु तद्गोत्रजैरेव स्मर्यते वयं पराशरा वयसुपमन्यव इति। यद्यपि गोत्रवत्प्रवरानपि स्मरन्ति तथापि बहुत्वात्कदाच्चिद्विस्मरेयुरिति गोत्रमुपलक्षणीकृत्य प्रवरस्मृतिरुपनिषद्धा । गोत्रं तु स्मरन्ति । न च तस्य किंचिदुपलक्षणमस्ति य एवंरूपस्तस्येदं गोत्रमिति । मेधा० on मनु III. 5. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{TEIR HAR I S istrert faune agitarraneuralar at a se curava I ….. Tiporat ator (Tropoforoarrara:) गोत्रप्यपदेशो शुक्तः तानि हि मुख्यामि गोत्राणि रूविरूपेण तत्र गोत्रशब्दः प्रवर्तते । नहि तेषा गोप्रवे एतशक्षणमस्ति आदिपुरुषः संज्ञाकारी गोत्रमिति । अनादित्वादतोत्राणां ब्राह्मणा दिजातियत् । म हि पराशरजन्मत आर्व पाराशरग्यपदेशः केषांचितामणानाम् । एवं सति आदिमत्तावेदस्य प्रसज्यते। …… महि पथा प्राणो नित्य गोत्रं स्मरति एवं क्षत्रियादयः। Threat toe het, sago" ETC UTA PORT on . III. 194.|तस्मान्नास्ति गोत्रलक्षणम् । सङ्केतस्य चानिमित्तत्वाद् ब्राह्मणत्वादिजातिवद् रूढिशब्द एव गोत्रशब्दः । … तद्विपरीतं लौकिकं गोत्रम् (विद्याशौर्यादिभिः) प्रख्यातिपुरुषस्य यदपत्यं तस्य गोत्रव्यपदेशो युक्तः तानि हि गौणानि गोत्राणि रूढिरूपेण तत्र गोत्रशब्दः प्रवर्तते । नहि तेषां गोत्रत्वे एतल्लक्षणमस्ति आदिपुरुषः संज्ञाकारी गोत्रमिति । अनादित्वादतो गोत्राणां ब्राह्मणादिजातियत् । न हि पराशरजन्मत आरभ्य पाराशर्यव्यपदेशः केषांचिद् ब्राह्मणानाम् । एवं सति आदिमत्ता वेदस्य प्रसज्यते । … नहि यथा ब्राह्मणो नित्यं गोत्रं स्मरति एवं क्षत्रियादयः । तेषां तु लौकिकं गोत्रं सगोत्रत्वात् सगोत्रवत् । मेधातिथि on मनु. III. 194.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{T AHTI AUTHT ON . I. 53 ; nisi TOEGTATRA मेव यश धादिगोत्रपरिगणनं तदपि प्रसिद्धिमूलकमेष । सं. म. p. 592.|गोत्रं वंशपरम्पराप्रसिद्धम् । Mit. on Yāj. I. 53; याज्ञवल्क्यादिगोत्रपरिगणनं तदपि प्रसिद्धिमूलकमेव । सं. प्र. p. 592.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{एक प्रणीते बोणीते श्रीन वणीले म चतरो वृणीते न पाति पणीत इति famna i sar. . . 24. 6. 7.|एकं वृणीते द्वौ वृणीते त्रीन् वृणीते न चतुरो वृणीते न पञ्चाति वृणीते इति श्रुतेः । आप. श्रौ. सू. २४. ६. ७.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{HOT: fit *** surat EMOT prete: 1977. #1. I. part 2 p. 70. This is quoted in the E ** p. 111.|गोत्रस्य प्रवर्तकस्य यदृषिसमूहकं व्यावर्तकः स प्रवरः । स्मृ. च. I. part 2 p. 70. This is quoted in the उ. त. p. 111.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{sturtyruar ai wit F REMF.|स्तुषे नरां द्युम्नेभिरौर्वेव भृगवो यथा ।}} Ṛg. VIII. 102. 4. According to the Anukramaṇī this is a sūkta of a bhārgava named Prayoga. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{प्रियमेधषदत्रिवजातवेदो विरूपबत् । अधिरस्वामहिवत प्रस्कण्वस्य सुधी TE# #. I. 45. 3.|प्रियमेधवदत्रिवज्जातवेदो विरूपवत् । अङ्गिरस्वन्महिव्रत प्रस्कण्वस्य श्रुधी हवम् ॥ Ṛg. I. 45. 3.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{TERAPITOT TETETT: ATTATEAT:|पराशरः श॒तयातुर्वसिष्ठः ।}} Ṛg. VII. 18. 21. Śatayātu may literally mean ‘one who is master of a hundred magic tricks,’ or ‘on whom a hundred magic tricks were practised’. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
This rule is stated in Āp. Śrauta (24. 5. 8) and Baudh. Śrauta (pravarādhyāya 2) ‘{{HFraigaona salavat garde quint: Fiste:’|अध्वर्युर्वत्प्रत्ययान् परस्तादर्वाचः प्रवृणीते’}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{24 TOHATHEUTTATU T Harfare a prerafa aparan FYRIE 1 Blorare wr. III, 2.|न ह्यनार्षेयस्य देवा हविरश्नन्तीति तस्माद्यजमानस्यार्षेयं प्रवृणीते । कौषीतकि ब्रा. III. २.}} After the words {{HÊ HET 3 we WITH|अग्ने महाँ असि ब्राह्मण भारत}} are recited, the invoking of the Ārṣeya of the sacrificer by the Hotṛ priest takes place and then the remaining words of the formula {{ay af faa|देव ईडित}} &c. are uttered. This is shown by the Tai. S. itself (II. 5. 7. 8) and by the Śat. Bṛ. I. 4. 2. 2-5. Agni is styled by ṛṣi names such as Bhārgava, Cyavana &c. because fire was kindled by these ancient sages and oblations were thrown into it by them. The Adhvaryu recites the mantra {{sro Star 17 y ah17 all|अग्निर्देवो दैवो होता देवान् यक्षद्विद्वान्श्चिकित्वान्मनुष्यवत्}} and then recites the pravara of the yajamāna with ‘vat’ added to each name and then proceeds {{T T a wary wreTOTT NET YTT HITTT:|स देवाँ आवक्षत् स यज्ञं च कृणोत्}} (vide Śat. Bṛ. I. 5. 1. 8-13, Āp. Śr. II. 16. 5-11). It is on account of this that the {{Samskararatnamxla|Saṃskāraratnamālā}} (p. 416) explains pravara as {{afirma wirefract wantedat Fit|अग्निगुणीभूतर्षिवाचको मन्त्रः प्रवरः}}. The names of the ancient illustrious sages become the attributes of Fire that is invoked by the hotṛ. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{अर्थाःयं प्रवणीते । …… परस्तावक प्रणीते परस्ताधर्वाच्या प्रजाः प्रजा यन्ते । ज्यापसस्पतय उ चैवैतं निहुते। इदं हि पितवारोऽथ पुत्रोथ पौत्रस्तस्मात्परस्तादक भवणीते । शतपथ I. 4. 2. 3-4; compare कात्यायनीत III. 2. 7-11 अथ प्रणीते निर्देवो दैयो होता देवान्पक्षद्विश्चिकित्वान्मनुष्यजरतपदमुक्वमवविति यजमानायाण्या परस्तावाश्चि त्रीणि । यावन्तो था मन्त्रकृतः । पुरोहितायेण पा । क्षत्रियवैश्य योश्च नित्यम् । मनुवदिति वा सर्वेषाम् ।|अथार्षेयं प्रवृणीते । … परस्तादर्वाक् प्रवृणीते परस्ताद्ध्यर्वाच्यः प्रजाः प्रजायन्ते । ज्यायांसस्पितर उ चैवैतं निह्नुते । इदं हि पिताग्रेऽथ पुत्रोऽथ पौत्रस्तस्मात्परस्तादर्वाक् प्रवृणीते । Śatapatha I. 4. 2. 3-4; compare Kātyāyana Śr. III. 2. 7-11 अथ प्रवृणीतेऽग्निर्देवो दैव्यो होता देवान्यक्षद्विद्वाँश्चिकित्वान्मनुष्यवद्भरतवदमुवदमुवदिति यजमानायार्षेयान् परस्तादर्वाचस्त्रीन् । यावन्तो वा मन्त्रकृतः । पुरोहितप्रवरेण वा । क्षत्रियवैश्ययोश्च नित्यम् । मनुवदिति वा सर्वेषामविशेषम् ।}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{मलगोत्राणि चत्वारि समुस्पलानि पार्थिव । अङ्गिराग कश्यपश्चैव धसिष्ठो भएरेष च। कर्मतोम्यानि गोत्राणि समुत्पनानि पार्थिव । नामधेयानि तपसा तामि च ग्रहण सवाम् । शान्तिपर्व 297. 17-18.|मूलगोत्राणि चत्वारि समुत्पन्नानि पार्थिव । अङ्गिराः कश्यपश्चैव वसिष्ठो भृगुरेव च । कर्मतोऽन्यानि गोत्राणि समुत्पन्नानि पार्थिव । नामधेयानि तपसा तानि च ग्रहणं कुरु ॥ Śāntiparva 297. 17-18.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{अथ संग्रहहुक्तसंग्रह उच्यते । जामदग्न्यो वीतहन्यो चैन्यो गृत्समदाहयः । वायचो गौतमाख्यश्व भरवाजाहपः कपिः॥ हारतो मोदल्यकण्वो विसपो विष्णुवृद्धका। त्रिविश्वामित्रकोच धसिष्ठः कश्यपाडयः ॥ अगस्त्यश्वेति मुनयोबष्टादशगणा: स्मता । बाळम्भही on मिता. on पा. I. 53 (p. 176, ed. by Gharpuro).|अथ सङ्ग्रहोक्तसङ्ग्रह उच्यते । जामदग्न्यो वीतहव्यो वैन्यो गृत्समदोऽङ्गिराः । वामदेवो गौतमाख्यश्च भरद्वाजाह्वयः कपिः ॥ हारीतो मौद्गल्यकण्वो रैभ्यो विष्णुवृद्धकः । तथा विश्वामित्रकौत्स वसिष्ठः कश्यपाख्यकः ॥ अगस्त्यश्चेति मुनयोऽष्टादश गणाः स्मृताः । Bālambhaṭṭī on Mit. on Yāj. I. 53 (p. 176, ed. by Gharpure).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{‘गोत्राणां कोटिसंख्यात्रितयमितिमता दुर्घहत्वाच तस्मात् । प्रवरमारी P..|‘गोत्राणां कोटिसंख्यात्रितयमिति मता दुर्ग्रहत्वाच्च तस्मात् ।’ Pravaramañjarī.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{मुनिप्रणीतप्रवरूनपञ्चाशता वयम् । अनन्ताम्यपि गोत्राणि वर्गाकस्याभिद महे ॥ सरपसार p. 15.|मुनिप्रणीतप्रवरैरूनपञ्चाशता वयम् । अनन्तान्यपि गोत्राणि वर्गशस्तानिदं ब्रुवे ॥ Smṛtyarthasāra p. 15.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{eta HT: 18 carft: qatt ma facurala r a होता जमदानधर्वधवममानवज्यपनवभूषदित्यध्वर्युः । पो. (3); इत्येते पिदास्तेषां पश्चाःया प्रवरो भवति भार्गवच्यावनामवानोर्ववेदेति होता विश्वदूर्ववदमवानवचयवनषद् Turarti . (4); stredoret praeguamentai 3740 (also 1.5.)|‘अथ वत्सास्तेषां पञ्चार्षेयः प्रवरो भवति भार्गवच्यावनाप्नवानौर्वजामदग्न्येति होता जमदग्निवदूर्ववदप्नवानवच्च्यवनवद्भृगुवदित्यध्वर्युः।’ बौ. (३); ‘इत्येते बिदास्तेषां पञ्चार्षेयः प्रवरो भवति भार्गवच्यावनाप्नवानौर्ववैदेति होता वैदवदूर्ववदप्नवानवच्च्यवनवद्भृगुवदित्यध्वर्युः।’ बौ. (४); आर्ष्टिषेणानां पञ्चार्षेयः प्रवरो भवति (also बौ. ५).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{3120147 says ‘TramAPATFITTINTIFraidyti 1997- Traraarai wrotararea lal; vide also frias. 1. p. 68, Titta p. 138.|Āśvalāyana says ‘यस्कानां वाधूलानां मौनानां मौकानां च विवाहः । भार्गववैतहव्यसावेतसेति समानप्रवरत्वात् ।’; vide also Smṛtyarthasāra p. 16, Nirṇayasindhu p. 138.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{gaqrestaureerittspartiaurasPrere: camera असमानप्रवर्विधाहः । एक एव ऋषिर्यावत्प्रवरेण्यनुवर्तते । तावत्समानगोत्रत्वमन्यत्र भृग्वनि HT TOTTELY wat reg Frazarafaretag i Teater staran y prowa . ( TAX74414 ).|यद्येकगोत्रयोरेकप्रवरसाम्येऽप्यसाम्यप्रसङ्गः तस्मादसामानप्रवरविवाहः । एक एव ऋषिर्यावत्प्रवरेष्वनुवर्तते । तावत्समानगोत्रत्वमन्यत्र भृग्वङ्गिरोगणात् ॥ भृगुष्वङ्गिरस्सु च पञ्चार्षेये त्रिषु समानत्वे समानप्रवरत्वम् । त्र्यार्षेये द्वयोः समानत्वे । (from Smṛtyarthasāra).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{singuna #ont pufie curat sota eft fald 13174. ***. 24. 5-6.|त्रीन्वृणीते मन्त्रकृतो वृणीते इति विज्ञायते । आप. श्रौ. सू. २४. ५-६.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{अथ य एते द्विमवाचना: यतच्छोडशेशिरयः । भरद्वाजाह शुकः कसा $TITUT: 1 31728. si. (Uttarasatka VI).|अथ य एते द्विप्रवचनाः शौङ्गशैशिरयः । भरद्वाजश्च शुङ्गः कङ्कश्च शैशिरिः । आश्व. श्रौ. (Uttaraṣaṭka VI).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
According to Āśv. the pravara of Śauṅga-Śaiśiri is Bhāradvāja-Śaiśira-Bābhravāyaneti. According to others it is Āṅgirasa-Bārhaspatya-Bhāradvāja or they are only Śaiśiri; vide Saṃ. Pr. p. 644 and Saṃ. K. p. 682. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{उक्त च पारिजाते संग्रहे-द्वचामुण्यायणका ये च दत्तकक्रीतकादयः । गोत्रद्वये प्यवाह्याः शौजशैशिरयो तथा तथा नारायणवत्तौ। दत्तक्रीतादीनां जनकपालकयोगोत्र निषेधः शौगौशिरस्य प्रदर्शनार्थवादिति । सं. को. p. 688; विधाहे तु दत्तकमात्रेण बीज प्रतिग्रहीत्रोः पित्रीगोत्रप्रवरवर्जन कार्यम् । प्रघरमर्यादिनिधन्धेषु तनिषेधोक्तः । सं. को. p. 1823; compare सं. म. pp. 666-657, संस्काररत्नमाला pp. 451-456 (where the rules about marriage, adauca and offering of pinda as to adopted 8008 are considered ).|उक्तं च पारिजाते सङ्ग्रहे-द्व्यामुष्यायणका ये च दत्तकक्रीतकादयः । गोत्रद्वयेऽप्यवाह्याः शौङ्गशैशिरयोर्यथा ॥ तथा नारायणवृत्तौ । दत्तक्रीतादीनां जनकपालकयोर्गोत्रनिषेधः शौङ्गशैशिरस्य प्रदर्शनार्थवादिति । सं. कौ. p. 688; विवाहे तु दत्तकमात्रेण बीजिप्रतिग्रहीत्रोः पित्रोर्गोत्रप्रवरवर्जनं कार्यम् । प्रवरमञ्जरीनिबन्धेषु तन्निषेधोक्तेः । सं. कौ. p. 1823; compare Saṃ. Pra. pp. 656-657, Saṃskāraratnamālā pp. 451-456 (where the rules about marriage, aśauca and offering of piṇḍa as to adopted sons are considered).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{पुरोहितप्रवरो राज्ञाम् । अथ यदि सार्ट प्रवृणीरन मानषेलपौरूरवति । आश्च. औः, अथ क्षत्रियाणाम् । यह सार्ट प्रवृणीरनेक एवैषां प्रवरः मानबैठपौरूरवसेति । पुरुरषो वदिहावन्मदिति। आप. श्री. 24. 10. 11-12; क्षत्रियाणां ध्यायः प्रबरो भवति मानदेवपोखरपसेति होता पुरू … … मनुवदिस्यध्वर्युः । …… क्षत्रियवैश्यानां पुरोहितप्रवरो भवतीति विज्ञायते । बौ. (प्रवराभ्याय 52-54).|पुरोहितप्रवरो राज्ञाम् । अथ यदि सार्षेयं प्रवृणीरन् मानवैलपौरूरवसेति । Āśv. Śr.; अथ क्षत्रियाणाम् । यद्यु सार्षेयं प्रवृणीरन्नेक एवैषां प्रवरो मानवैलपौरूरवसेति । पुरूरवोवदिलावन्मनुवदिति । Āp. Śr. 24. 10. 11-12; क्षत्रियाणां त्र्यार्षेयः प्रवरो भवति मानवैलपौरूरवसेति होता पुरूरवोवदिलावन्मनुवदित्यध्वर्युः । … क्षत्रियवैश्यानां पुरोहितप्रवरो भवतीति विज्ञायते । Baud. (Pravarādhyāya 52-54).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{यद्यपि राजन्यविशां प्रातिस्विकगोत्राभावात्मपराभावस्तथापि पुरोहितगोत्रप्रवरी पेदितव्यो। तथा च ‘यजमानस्यार्षयान् प्रवृणीते’ इस्युक्त्वा ‘पौरोहित्यान्राजन्यविशा प्रणीते त्याहाश्वलायनः । मिता. on या. I. 52. The quotation is from आश्व. श्री. I. 3. The मिता• passage is quoted in the उहाहतस्व p. 111.|यद्यपि राजन्यविशां प्रातिस्विकगोत्राभावात्सप्रवराभावस्तथापि पुरोहितगोत्रप्रवरौ वेदितव्यौ । तथा च ‘यजमानस्यार्षेयान् प्रवृणीते’ इत्युक्त्वा ‘पौरोहित्यान् राजन्यविशां प्रवृणीते’ इत्याहाश्वलायनः । Mit. on Yāj. I. 52. The quotation is from Āśv. Śr. I. 3. The Mit. passage is quoted in the Udvāhatattva p. 111.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
The mantra in the Bhīṣmatarpaṇa is {{धैयात्रपादगोत्राय सांकृतिप्रवराय च। गङ्गापुत्राय भीष्माय प्रदास्येहं तिलोदकम् । अपवाय पदाम्येतत्सलिलं भीष्मपर्मणे ।|वैयाघ्रपादगोत्राय सांकृतिप्रवराय च । गङ्गापुत्राय भीष्माय प्रदास्येऽहं तिलोदकम् । अर्घ्यं ददाम्येतत्सलिलं भीष्मवर्मणे ।}} Smṛti. C. I. p. 198; vide also Dharmasindhu pp. 509-10. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{TET 1937: I DA TI fotora: 1 sny. 24. 10. 16; वैश्यानां ध्यायः प्रबरो भवति भालन्दनवासप्रमाक्तिलेति होता। माक्तिलबहस्सप्रषज manufacturint. (*1959 53).|वात्सप्र इति वैश्यस्य । एक एवैषां प्रवरः । Āp. Śr. 24. 10. 16; वैश्यानां त्र्यार्षेयः प्रवरो भवति भालन्दनवात्सप्रमाङ्किलेति होता । माङ्किलवद्वात्सप्रवद्भलन्दनवदित्यध्वर्युः । (Baud. pravarādhyāya 53).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{purtaFyrratugtarantararfuri ngofta i 3r. 1. 24. 10. 17.|अथ यस्यार्षेयान् प्रवृणीत आचार्यार्षेयान् प्रवृणीते । Āp. Śr. 24. 10. 17.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{F r ārsaffror ** Tintat sarf: “TTya 1554 THRther gar $75497 HITTAA 97. (PATTEOTT 44). THE काश्यपैनित्यं लौगाक्षीणामनम्बयः । अहर्ष सिष्ठोक्तिस्तु प्रयाजाल्यादिगोचरा ॥ स्मृत्यर्थसार p. 16, stu piagra HATAT: laat 9: I a-anta-pracara… HURT: Truf: aut serta i transfer 1 HIT. 1. 24. 6. 1-2 and 7-8.|अथ लौकाक्ष्यस्त एते दिवा वसिष्ठा भवन्ति नक्तं काश्यपाः। तेषां द्वयार्षेयः प्रवरो भवति वासिष्ठकाश्यपेति होता काश्यपवद्वसिष्ठवदित्यध्वर्युः। (Baudhāyana pravarādhyāya 44).}} The Kāśyapas have no permanent marriage relationship with the Laugākṣis. The statement about being Vasiṣṭha by day refers to prayājas and the like. (Smṛtyarthasāra p. 16, Āp. Śr. 24. 6. 1-2 and 7-8). ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{FT: gut erfaqt saronggeti rahat of agrofa ciati 67. (gaur 8).|अथ वैन्यास्तेषां द्वे गोत्रे भवतः पार्था बाष्कलाश्चेति। (Baud. 8).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
The pravara of Viṣṇurājagotra is {{आशिरसपोरकुत्सत्रासदस्यवेति|Āṅgirasa-Paurukutsa-Trāsadasyaveti}} (vide Baudh. sec. 20). ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{अम्बरीषरतु नामानिर्षिरूपस्तस्य चात्मजः । पुषदश्वो विरूपस्य तस्य पुषो स्थीतता एवं क्षत्रप्रस्तावै पुनश्चारिसः स्मृताः। स्थीतराणां प्रवरा: क्षात्रोपेता दिजातयः। 88. 6-7.|अम्बरीषस्तु नाभागिर्वैरूपस्तस्य चात्मजः । पृषदश्वो विरूपस्य तस्य पुत्रो रथीततः ॥ एवं क्षत्रप्रसूता वै पुनश्चाङ्गिरसः स्मृताः । रथीतराणां प्रवराः क्षत्रोपेता द्विजातयः ॥ Vāyu Purāṇa 88. 6-7.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{सगोत्रां गस्वा चान्द्रायणं चरेबते परिनिष्ठिते ब्राह्मणी न त्यजेन्मातृवद्भगिनी पत् गर्भो न दुग्यति कश्यप इति विज्ञायते । धौ. (प्रयराध्याय 54 ).|सगोत्रां गत्वा चान्द्रायणं चरेत् व्रते परिनिष्ठिते ब्राह्मणीं न त्यजेन्मातृवद्भगिनीवद्वा । गर्भो न दुष्यति काश्यप इति विज्ञायते । Bau. (Pravarādhyāya 54).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Titulta ari g auti aur i Fam FC ETFIETTEESTER चरेत् ॥ ……त्यागश्वोपभोगस्य न तु तस्याः। यथाह सुमन्तुः । मातुलसुतां पैतृण्वसेयी समा भार्षगोत्रांच परिणीय चान्द्रायणं चरेत् । परित्यज्यना पियादिति । एतच्चामतिपूर्षे घेदित ज्यम् । अपरार्क p. 80. The vorse परिणीय is ascribed to ज्ञातातप by सं. प्र. P. 680 and other writers; Urra is quoted in a p. 111.|सगोत्रां चेदमत्योपयच्छते समानप्रवरां वा । तां परित्यज्य शुद्ध्यै चान्द्रायणं चरेत् ॥ … त्यागश्चोपभोगस्य न तु तस्याः । यथाह सुमन्तुः । मातुलसुतां पैतृष्वसेयीं समानार्षगोत्रां च परिणीय चान्द्रायणं चरेत् । परित्यज्यैनां बिभृयादिति । एतच्चामतिपूर्वे वेदितव्यम् । Aparārka p. 80. The verse परिणीय is ascribed to Jñātātapa by Saṃ. Pra. p. 680 and other writers; Uśanas is quoted in Udvāhatattva p. 111.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{FATHTTast parretora TI TIETTa var orogram frat e prefer#|सगोत्रामभिगम्यैवं तस्यामुत्पाद्य सन्ततिम् । चण्डालत्वमवाप्नोति ब्राह्मण्यादेव हीयते ॥}} quoted in Saṃ. Pra. p. 680 and Udvāhatattva p. 112. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{I 1995 TRT Samen metai onezaregregatirea मजेद ॥ भोगतस्ता परित्यज्य पालयेजननीमिव । अज्ञानादेन्दः शुभ्यनिभिर्गर्भस्त कश्यपः । F UATT p. 16.|अज्ञानादुद्वहेत्कन्यां समानप्रवरां यदि । एकगोत्रप्रसूतां वा तया सह न संवसेत् ॥ भोगतस्तां परित्यज्य पालयेज्जननीमिव । अज्ञानादेनसः शुद्धिर्विज्ञेयो गर्भरूय काश्यपः । Smṛtyarthasāra p. 16.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{fara: potit TTTT ciutarts at 150 # # #91 परणभूषणा। इति कात्यापनीयं सगोत्रोहाया पुनर्विवाहस्मरणं सयुगान्तरविषयम् । सं. म. P. 681.|विवाहे वितते पश्चात्सगोत्रत्वं तु भाषितम् । दत्तापि सा हरेदन्यैः सह पाणिग्रहादिभिः ॥ इति कात्यायनीयं सगोत्रोद्वाहायाः पुनर्विवाहस्मरणं तद्युगान्तरविषयम् । Saṃ. Pra. p. 681.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{trafai sa: 1 EI #Parerer pateret TITUNTUT I Arhut our ont point trop|असपिण्डा च या मातुरसगोत्रा च या पितुः । सा प्रशस्ता द्विजातीनां दारकर्मणि मैथुने ॥}} quoted in Aparārka pp. 15 and 63 &c. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{TETT 92 5147 HAFA TETETIT #t: y eter TT VOTE.|नैकस्मै द्वे कन्ये दद्यान्नादेया कन्यका बुधैः। न सोदरयोरेकस्मिन् काले द्वे कन्ये दद्यात्। (Parāśara-Mādhavīya p. 148)}}; vide also Sm. C. I. p. 725-26 quoting similar verses; Saṃ. Pra. p. 694 quotes almost the same verse as Parāśara-Mādhavīya. We know from the Mahābhārata Ādiparva that Bhīṣma carried off the three daughters of the king of Kāśi for his protégé Vicitravīrya and got two of them married to him. Similarly the Sinda chief Cāvuṇḍa appears to have married Lakṣmidevī and Siriyādevī, the two daughters of Kalacurya Bijjala, at the same time (E. I. vol. 20 pp. 109, 111, dated śake 1109). ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{पिता श्यात्स्वर्य कन्या भ्राता पामते पितः । पितामहो मातुलश्च सकुल्या पान्धवास्तथा माता स्वभावे सर्वेषी प्रकृती यदि वर्तते । तस्यामप्रकृतिस्थायां वयः कन्यो समा 19: 1 yr ar TRATTAT T arta i 20 AT ai katru THIETTU ICE (HIGH 20-22).|पिता दद्यात्स्वयं कन्यां भ्राता वानुमते पितुः । पितामहो मातुलश्च सकुल्या बान्धवास्तथा ॥ माता त्वभावे सर्वेषां प्रकृतौ यदि वर्तते । तस्यामप्रकृतिस्थायां दद्युः कन्यां सजातयः ॥ यदि त्वेतन्न कश्चित्स्यात् कन्या कुर्यात् स्वयंवरम् । (Nārada Strīpuruṣa 20-22).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{कन्यास्वयंवरे भावहरखे च ताभ्यामेव नान्दीमा कार्य तन्त्र माता कम्पा वा Fry AUTOFTHÁ 9797 F WOUETT Fairy III a p. 251. These words are taken from the guitarra; vide foafery III yetu P. 806.|कन्यास्वयंवरे मातृदाने च ताभ्यामेव नान्दीश्राद्धं कार्यम्। तत्र माता कन्या वा मुख्यसङ्कल्पं पठेत् । शेषं ब्राह्मणद्वारा कारयेत् । Dharmasindhu III p. 251. These words are taken from the Nirṇayasindhu; vide Nirṇayasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 306.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{पदित विषाहो निवसस्तदा प्रधानस्य निष्पारवेनाधिकारवैकल्याण तस्य पुनराबत्तिरिति । उदाहसरव p. 127; पदि तु सप्तपदीविवाहहोमादि मधानं जातं सदा tenuto igrafia I TOT CETAT:Parte III mi p. 307 ; vido also a. C. AT. p. 497 to the same effect.|यदि तु विवाहो निवृत्तस्तदा प्रधानस्य निष्पन्नत्वेनाधिकारवैकल्यान्न तस्य पुनरावृत्तिरिति । Udvāhatattva p. 127; यदि तु सप्तपदीविवाहहोमादि प्रधानं जातं तदा न निवृत्तिः । Dharmasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 307; vide also Sm. C. Saṃskāra p. 497 to the same effect.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{मतं सत्यं यज्ञोऽसतंबी अवता पषा करोति या पत्रः क्रीता सत्पपा *** I HAI. #. I. 10. 11.|अनृतं सा करोति या पत्या क्रीता सती अथान्यैश्चरति । Maitrāyaṇīya S. I. 10. 11.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{747 on . VI. 1. 10 puts the grow view as ‘*9# श्रियः । पित्रा विक्रीयन्ते भी क्रीयन्ते : …… विक्रयो हि भूयते ‘शतमतिरथं दुषितमते qur, &c. and on . VI. 1. 11 he says PTT a pauranta that matura’. THATOTTI . VI. 1. 15 ; 7 ‘7 *41 puta arsi a CITTATTE I …… farget pene gra starfaru Fittalaxituat Fiat 1|Śabara on Jaimini VI. 1. 10 puts the pūrvapakṣa view as ‘न स्त्रीणामधिकारः । पित्रा विक्रीयन्ते हि स्त्रियः क्रीयन्ते च । … विक्रयो हि श्रूयते ‘शतमतिरथे दुहितृमते दद्यात्’ &c. and on Jaimini VI. 1. 11 he says ‘विक्रीता हि सा परार्था भवति’. Śabara on Jaimini VI. 1. 15; ‘न विक्रयः स्यात् कर्मसंयोगात् । … धर्ममात्रं हि तदिति गम्यते ।’}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{H TUTOETFT a proat fara grega Pro *Att rurat सस्मात् हितमतेऽतिर शतं देयं तन्मिथुया कुर्यादिति तस्यां क्रयशब्दः संस्तुतिमानं धर्माधि संबन्धा । आप. य. पत्र. II. 6. 13. 10-11.|न दानविक्रयौ पुत्राणां विद्येते । विवाहस्तु दुहितृमतेऽतिरथेन शतं देयम् । तन्मिथुयाः कुर्वीत इति दानं काम्यं धर्मार्थं च । तस्माद्दुहितृमतेऽतिरथेन शतं देयं तन्मिथुया कुर्यादिति तस्यां क्रयशब्दः संस्तुतिमात्रं धर्माद्धि सम्बन्धात् । Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 10-11.}} The words {{सन्मिथुया कुर्यात|सन्मिथुया कुर्यात्}} are translated in S.B.E. II. p. 132 as ’that gift he should make bootless (by returning it to the giver)’. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Min tittat et PHRITTA OTET FUTOTTI (. I. 109. 2)… अभोपं दिषादातरो वा विजामातः असुसमासाजामातुः । विजामाता इति शश्चत् दाक्षि os aratarum I NEFATH rr Israt i fra VI. 9.|अधो॒पं हि द॑दि॒वांसं॒ न वि॒जामा॑तुरु॒त वा॑ घा स्या॒लात् (Ṛg. I. 109. 2)… अशृणवं हि द्विषा दातृतरो वा विजामातुरसुममाप्ताज्जामातुः । विजामाता इति शवत् दाक्षिणात्या आमनन्ति । विकृतजामातेति वा । Nirukta VI. 9.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Sporate TRT at an art pr #gett rautati T सा पिड्ये वासीं तो कश्यपोग्रवीत् ॥ धुल्केन ये प्रयच्छन्ति स्वमुतां लोभमोहिताः । आत्मवि कपिणो पापा महाकिल्मिषकारका ॥ पतन्ति नरके घोरे प्रन्ति चासतम कुलम् । बौ. ध. स. 1. 11. 20-22 ; u taraut ga fastite u: ORTOTT Treat entai .. II. 1. 79.|क्रीता द्रव्येण या नारी सा न पत्नी विधीयते । न सा दैवे न सा पित्र्ये दासीं तां कश्यपोऽब्रवीत् ॥ शुल्केन ये प्रयच्छन्ति स्वसुतां लोभमोहिताः । आत्मविक्रयिणः पापा महाकिल्विषकारकाः ॥ पतन्ति नरके घोरे घ्नन्ति चासप्तमं कुलम् । Bau. Dh. S. I. 11. 20-22; यः कन्यां धनविक्रीतां यः करोति स पापात्मा पुनर्विक्रीतविक्रयः । Bau. Dh. S. II. 1. 79.}} ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
-
Vide South Indian Inscriptions (ed. by Hultzsch, 1890) No. 66. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Vide un TFHRT, Trent No. 145, pp. 121-122 (of first odi tion) and No. 470 p 425 (of tbe 2nd edition of 1930). The most important portion is set out here’s w a ter oft eru 457 विवाह करनये, जो कन्येचा ऐवज घेईल स्याजपासून दुप्पट व जो देईल त्याने कम्पेये पापास रुपये दिले असतील तितके व मध्यस्ती करून पेका घेईल तो ऐवज त्याजपावण सरकारात घेतला जाईल. याप्रमाणे ज्ञातीस जमीदार व धर्माधिकारी उपाये जोशी पाटील कुलकर्णी यांस निथून ताकीद करावी’|Vide Peshwa Diaries, Vol. IX No. 145, pp. 121-122 (of first edition) and No. 470 p. 425 (of the 2nd edition of 1930). The most important portion is set out here: ‘आपण कन्येचा ऐवज घेऊन विवाह करिता, जो कन्येचा ऐवज घेईल त्याजपासून दुप्पट व जो देईल त्याने कन्येचे बापास रुपये दिले असतील तितके व मध्यस्थी करून पैका घेईल तो ऐवज त्याजपासून सरकारात घेतला जाईल. याप्रमाणे ज्ञातीस, जमीनदार व धर्माधिकारी उपाध्ये जोशी पाटील कुलकर्णी यांस लिहून ताकीद करावी.’}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Feet Aura EWT* Forena FITI|श॒तं मे॒षान्वृ॒क्ये॑ च॒ख्षदा॑न॒मृज्राश्वं॒ तं पि॒तान्धं च॑कार ।}} Ṛg. I. 116. 16. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Hafturas ieguista maria! …… Se het : 1 & Arar fugareT TUI THE|शुनःशेपः क्रीतः पुत्रो भवति । … यः परित्यक्तः स्यात्स सोऽपविद्धः । मातापितृभ्यामुत्सृष्टोऽपविद्धः ।}} XVII. 30-31 and 36-37. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
Śabara on Jaimini VI. 1. 12 quotes the verse {{vya TAR STY trutura Tua|भार्या पुत्रश्च दासश्च त्रय एवाधनाः स्मृताः}}, which is almost the same as Manu VIII. 416. Compare Nārada VIII. 41. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{सुतस्य तदाराणां वशित्वं स्वशासने। विक्रयेव दाने च वशित्वं न सते foa: 1|सुतस्य तु दाराणां वशित्वं तु स्वशासने । विक्रये चैव दाने च वशित्वं न सुते पितुः ॥}} Kātyāyana quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra p. 132) and Vy. Ma. III p. 219. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{para paratura TETOTU: FUITGATEUTETTUTTI|विश्वजिता यजेत सर्वस्वं दद्यात् । न भूमिं दद्यात्सर्वा प्रति अविशिष्टत्वात् ।}} Jaimini VI. 7. 1-2. Śabara says that parents, wife etc. cannot be given away as one has no ownership over them. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Bayaranor #gi Farmor grosor i remena प्रतिश्तेषु स्वत्वस्य सजावात् । मिता. on या. II. 175%; अत एक पुशकन्यादानादिविधपो syraf que osman p orqiararout: 1 SHTABIIY p. 567 (Jiv. व्यवहार); गवावाविष भार्यायो स्वस्वाभावेन तस्यामुपमेऽपस्ये तवभावात् । ग्य. म. p. 92 (my edition).|अदानप्रतिषेधोऽपि विक्रीणानस्य पुत्रस्य । तेषु च भार्यापुत्रादिषु प्रतिषिद्धेषु स्वत्वस्य सत्वात् । Mit. on Yāj. II. 175; अत एव पुत्रकन्यादानादिविधयोऽप्युपपद्यन्ते । अन्यथा स्वत्वनिवृत्तिरूपत्यागासम्भवात् । Vīramitrodaya p. 567 (Jīv. vyavahāra); गवाश्वादिवद्भार्यादौ स्वत्वाभावेन तस्यामुत्पन्नेऽपत्ये स्वत्वाभावात् । Vy. Ma. p. 92 (my edition).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
Vide Tod’s ‘Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan’ (Calcutta edition) vol. I. pp. 659-665 (for infanticide among Rajputs), ‘Indian Infanticide’ by J. C. Browne (1857), Dr. John Wilson’s ‘History of the suppression of infanticide in Western India’ (1885) in which he refers at length to a prize-essay of Dr. Bhau Daji, written in 1844. Winternitz ‘Die Frau’ pp. 24-26. Vide the Female Infanticide Prevention Act VIII. of 1878 (in India). ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{STYunua grr Furie garage at IT for at METAT Tegal eta|अ॒वभृ॒थं य॑न्ति॒ स्थालरिप॒दध॑ते॒ वा॒य॒व्या॑नि॒ वोत्षि॑ञ्चन्ते॒ तस्मा॒त् स्त्रियं॑ जा॒तां प॒रा॒स्य॑न्त्युत्पुमांसं॑ हरन्ति}} Tai. S. VI. 5. 10. 3. The Nirukta III. 4 quotes this last sentence. Vide Vedic Index, vol. I. p. 487 for references to the views of Zimmer and others. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{FÅTT Tr Eva ft fent vune i Trh ratai.|कृपणं वै दुहिता ज्योतिर्हि पुत्रः परमे व्योमन् ।}} Ait. Br. 33. 1. The Mahābhārata says ‘{{FUT #ret ENT PARTI E|आत्मज ह्यात्मनः पुत्रो दुहिता कृपणं परम्}}’ (Ādiparva 159. 11). Compare Manu IX. 134-136 ‘{{#raf 4: 5970: # oror FAT FT Cat got art|यथैवात्मा तथा पुत्रः पुत्रेण दुहिता समा।}}’ ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{na PU puramamarai|यथा पुत्रस्तथा दुहिता सन्तानाय}} (Nārada Dāyabhāga 50); {{sprata imara wa Uri Anar Magro 9: A TU ###: *|अङ्गादङ्गात्संभवति पुत्रवद्दुहिता नृणाम्। तस्यां सत्यां कथमन्यो हरेद्धनम्॥}} (Bṛhaspati quoted by Mit. p. 743); {{I gat yraf नाभिमता मे स्थितिरिय पदासपूतान्यालालितान्यपरित्याराग्यपत्यकान्यकाण्ड एषा Traditional … … garu Farasta (474a: iga FAKTE ***q may swf fing: Final Tita|इयं च खलु केनापि स्थितिर्निर्मिता यदात्मसम्भूतान्युरसि लालितान्यपरित्याज्यान्यपत्यान्यकाण्ड एवापरिचिता हरन्ति … एतेन च दुःखेन दह्यमानाः साधवोऽपि धिक् कुर्वन्ति यदुभयोरपि लोकयोर्दुःखदानदक्षां दुहितृजन्मताम्।}} (Harṣacarita 4th Ucchvāsa). Rāmāyaṇa (Uttarakāṇḍa 9. 10-11) has: {{suma 97. 16 has atai yra …… goro wafura gra 9977 HATTET!|कन्यानां किल सन्ततं परगृहे वासोऽनभिज्ञातता।}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{fare for a ny mira parte de 1997 firearg much that i f sofre L Farrafa o uraira|यदा कर्मसु काम्येषु स्त्रियं स्वप्नेषु पश्यति । समृद्धिं तत्र जानीयात्तस्मिन् स्वप्ननिदर्शने ॥}} Chān. Up. V. 2. 8-9. This passage is the basis of Kau. Up. III. 2. 4. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{For: Tofie: TT TTS AT: ITTARIT ITU ORAT: ATT MERYE # 12 TITAT.|कन्या रोचनमाज्यं च दधि पात्रं च काञ्चनम्। अक्षतादर्शने चैव शङ्खश्चाष्टौ सुमङ्गलम् ॥}} Śaunaka-kārikā. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{sare great opport heyral: 1 *. X. 85.13 and spor XIV. 1. 13. strana 75. 8 quotes these words. Afinat Tun Fayeftrat EUWE I 3779. T. 3. 1-2.|अघासु हन्यन्ते गावोऽर्जुन्योः पर्युह्यते ।}} Ṛg. X. 85. 13 and Atharva XIV. 1. 13. Kauśikasūtra 75. 8 quotes these words. {{Afinat Tun Fayeftrat EUWE I 3779. T. 3. 1-2.|मघासु गावः प्रोच्यन्ते फल्गुनीषु व्यूह्यते । Āp. Gṛ. S. 3. 1-2.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{ye Y FATOTO raro para rerer: Fra APAE f a#1311**. V. I. 4. 1-2; F TOHTO 1.8.5 is to tho gaino effect.|उदगयन आपूर्यमाणपक्षे पुण्ये नक्षत्रे चौलोपनयनगोदानविवाहाः । सर्वेषु कालेष्वित्येके ।}} Āśv. Gṛ. I. 4. 1-2; Pāraskara Gṛ. I. 4. 5 is to the same effect. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{of W heat far farrara at faceret for fast wait * o acesta a portaat prut i sig. T. 3. 3. The words of…ayfa occur in d. T. I. 5. 2. TATI. I. 12. quotes tbo m orar..|तां प्रिया स्यादिति कामयते निष्ट्यायां दद्यात् । प्रियैव भवति न पुनरागच्छति विज्ञायते हि ब्राह्मणम् । Āp. Gṛ. 3. 3.}} The words {{of…ayfa|निष्ट्यायां दद्यात् … प्रियैव भवति}} occur in Tai. Br. I. 5. 2. Kathaka I. 12 quotes the mantra … ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{मघा पय महाबाहो तृतीये दिवसे प्रभो। फल्गुन्यामुत्तरे राजस्तस्मिन्वैवाहिक कुरु ॥ उत्तरे दिवसे ब्रह्मन फल्गुनीभ्यां मनीषिणः । वैवाहिक प्रशंसन्ति भगो पत्र प्रजापतिः । 970E 71.24 and 72. 13.|मघा ह्यद्य महाबाहो तृतीये दिवसे प्रभो । फल्गुन्यामुत्तरे राजंस्तस्मिन्वैवाह्यं कुरु ॥ उत्तरे दिवसे ब्रह्मन् फल्गुनीभ्यां मनीषिणः । वैवाहिकं प्रशंसन्ति भगो यत्र प्रजापतिः ॥}} Rāmāyaṇa 71. 24 and 72. 13. According to the Āśv. Gṛ. I. 1. 2. Bhaga is the devatā of Uttarā Phālgunī. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{M 341 RETI PETIT: 1 Terantofta i fan art 75. 2-4.|ऊर्ध्वं कार्तिक्या आ वैशाख्याः । यथेष्टं वा । चैत्रं तु वर्जयेत् ।}} Kauśika Sūtra 75. 2-4. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Taarieret i ruta per generatori Sport i prater er कन्या नामकल्यं प्रतीक्षते । अतिवृद्धाच या कन्या कुलधर्मविरोधिनी। अविशुद्धापि सादेया चन्दलग्नबलेन तु । भुजबलभीमे। ग्रहशुद्धिमब्दशुद्धिं शुद्धिं मासायनर्तदिवसानाम् । अर्वाक दशवर्षग्यो मुनयः कथयन्ति कन्यकानाम् । दशवर्षाभ्यन्तरे शुद्धौ पदाग्दादीनां विशेषो. पादानात सर्व तावन्मात्रानियमः । अव विषये ‘मङ्गल्येषु विवाहेतु कन्यासंपरणेषु च। EFATHT: 44 rueftreffer’ ATVETTI . 124.|सर्वमासा विवाहस्य चैत्रपौषविवर्जिताः । अतिरूढा च या कन्या नर्तुकालान्विचारयेत् । अविशुद्धापि सा देया चन्द्रलग्नबलेन तु । भुजबलभीमे । ग्रहशुद्धिमब्दशुद्धिं शुद्धिं मासायनर्तुदिवसानाम् । अर्वाक् दशवर्षेभ्यो मुनयः कथयन्ति कन्यकानाम् । … विवाहेषु च मङ्गल्येषु कन्यासंवरणेषु च । देशकालौ न शोध्याविति बृहस्पतिः । Udvāhatattva p. 124.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{H. T. FT. P. 464 relat: ferrata H aftstra.|Saṃ. Ra. Mā. p. 464 says ‘रात्रौ विवाहो विहितः सदापि’.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{FTTTTT: *9r9r zog forta i Baia walent naar fargarar a fauftfery III Purvārdba p. 304.|प्राप्ते तु द्वादशे वर्षे कन्या यदि रजस्वला । गुरोश्चास्तङ्गतेऽप्येवं विवाहस्तु न दुष्यति ॥ Nirṇayasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 304.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{my: 1 iragarpar afturae 917TI E Thuret de here dugot # … … alitega saa aina gani Pantai #94787 PATE स्थेज्ये न दुष्यति । इति पसिष्ठेन गङ्गागोवान्नरालातिरिक्तवेशे विषाहनतबन्धयोरभ्यतज्ञानात् । #. #. p. 806.|सिंहस्थेऽपि गुरौ कार्यं विवाह व्रतबन्धनम् । गङ्गागोदान्तरं हित्वा शेषं देशेषु दुष्यति ॥ … सिंहस्थेज्ये न दुष्यति । इति वसिष्ठेन गङ्गागोदान्तरालातिरिक्तदेशे विवाहोपनयनयोरभ्यनुज्ञानात् । Ni. Si. p. 306.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
See Saṃ. Kau. p. 773 ff. and Saṃ. Ra. Mā. 519 ff. for kūṭas. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{1979. I feet fantau ATAT Fuat I forgot: att prat भगिनी चाविषादिता । पभिर विपश्च प्रतिकूल पुथैः स्मृतम् । अन्यैरपि विपस्तु #ayatal Furaffany III guru p. 3ii.|प्रतिकूलम् । पितरि जीवति पितामहे वा मातामहे वा । भ्रातरि पितृव्ये वा भगिनी चाविवाहिता । एभिरेव विपन्नैश्च प्रतिकूलं बुधैः स्मृतम् । अन्यैरपि विपन्नैस्तु न प्रतिकूलमुच्यते । Nirṇayasindhu III pūrvārdha p. 311.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
Baudh. Dh. I. 11. 5 {{E HITATATE fa ft F|यज्ञतन्त्रे वितते ऋत्विजे कर्म कुर्वते}}… According to him the girl becomes part of the dakṣiṇā (fee) for officiating. But in the Vedas and Śrauta sūtras a bride is nowhere spoken of as dakṣiṇā. Medhātithi on Manu III. 28 is against the idea of the bride being part of the sacrificial fee. Viśvarūpa also says so; but Aparārka p. 89 holds that the girl is given as fee. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Furtay HTET AU Qi garferga yangi maa V. 16-17.|ब्राह्मे विवाहे हस्त उदकेन।}} Gaut. V. 16-17. Strabo (XV. 1. 54) refers to purchase of a wife in exchange for two oxen. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{RTS Takia 9: 1 … … qrammati at Fim ya अषणात् । …… मन्त्रद्रष्टारो बामणा ऋषयः। ते एनमहम्तीरयार्षः। प्रजोत्पादनेच्छासामा Trata: Fata: # GTA IR ATST984: 1 fermey on T I. 59-60.|ऋत्विजो यजमानाय ददाति स दैवः । … आर्षो गोमिथुनग्रहणात् । … मन्त्रद्रष्टारो ब्राह्मणा ऋषयः । ते एनमर्हन्तीत्यार्षः । प्रजोत्पादनेच्छासामान्यात्कायः । Prajāpatiḥ kaḥ|Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 59-60.}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{1972 Farurit raga IGTPOTTEOTTIE AFTEAEI HOT 9090 auftrag I wr. 4. II, 6. 13. 16-18.|जायापत्योर्न विभागो विद्यते । पाणिग्रहणाद्धि सहत्वं कर्मसु ।}} Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 16-18. About Prājāpatya the Saṃ. Pra. (p. 732) quotes the śloka: {{5 fair are 79T N Foart frog धर्मस्याचरणं सह । ययप्युक्त तथाप्यत्र विशेषोक्तिराममात् । आममान्तरसंप्रानिषेधार्थेति गम्यते । न चात्र तस्यां जीवन्त्या विषाहस्य परिग्रहः । आममान्तरयोगो वा मृतायां भक्तस्त more opta yaratanterreg ITERATURTUI am|सहैव नौ धर्म आचरितव्य इति यद्यपि नोक्तं तथापि विशेषोक्तिराग्रहात् । आश्रमान्तरसम्प्राप्तिनिषेधार्थेति गम्यते । न चात्र तस्यां जीवन्त्यां विवाहस्य परिग्रहः । आश्रमान्तरयोगो वा मृतायां भक्तस्तथेति वा।}} Mit. on Yāj. I. 60; the Saṃ. Pra. p. 852 quotes the first two views as those of Mit. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{ferita i ri amef a rierefter at Is grap on AA VI. 1. 17. The H. (PP. 848 and 852 ) says that these words occur in the $180T RISTE ON TITT.|धर्मे चार्थे च कामे च नातिचरितव्या त्वयेयम्।}} Āśv. gṛ. I. 7. 17. The Saṃ. Pra. (pp. 848 and 852) says that these words occur in the Āśvalāyana Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{A fatuitarahat et RFTET # gurang.|न विवाहार्थमेतद्रूपं विधीयते किं त्वेवं परिणीता भार्या भवति ।}} Medhātithi on Manu VIII. 366; {{ForGTHIET F AITYT 90479 I nfo fire #1 FTTI TU: FUT # 7|प्रसह्य हरणं चैव क्षत्रियाणां प्रशस्यते । इति विवाहाष्टकमध्ये पठितत्वात् ।}} quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta) p. 142; Saṃ. Pra. p. 861; U. T. p. 735; Apastamba allows the gāndharva only to kṣatriyas and others (not to brāhmaṇas). ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{Primer det for a # HTTTT I sprata rare TUT For PUT #TA|बलाच्चेत्प्रहृता कन्या मन्त्रैर्यदि न संस्कृता । अन्यस्मै विधिवद्देया यथा कन्या तथैव सा ॥}} Vas. Dh. S. 17. 73. This is also Āp. Dh. S. IV. 1. 17 and it is quoted and explained by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 69. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
Vide ‘Marriage and strīdhana’ (5th ed. of 1923 p. 94). Macnaughten in his ‘Principles and Precedents of Hindu Law’ p. 60 said so in a note. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{97 prostatiti i gruat yait TETETIT FUTTT: का प्रतिपत्तिः । तस्मा एष देया । निवृत्ताभिलाषा चेकाममन्यत्र प्रतिपाया।…परन्थे for ETHIOT COITUTE Fuq: 1 Herr on E VIII. 367 ; rart o grat HITA ATR 45#: 1 Phente* # gaat naaa #TTE ( Verso 72).|यदि शुल्कं न गृह्णाति ततो राजा दण्डनीयः । कन्यायाः का प्रतिपत्तिः । तस्मा एव देया । निवृत्ताभिलाषा चेत्काममन्यत्र प्रतिपाद्या । … वरश्चेन्निवृत्तस्ततो बलाद्दापयितव्यः । Medhātithi on Manu VIII. 367; यस्तु कामयमानः कन्यां कामयेत स समानजातिः । स चेन्नद्यात्कामं दद्यादलंकृत्य सहोपसर्पयेत् । (Verse 72).}} ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{TESTUFATTOTETTA TUTTI i snique 195.7.|ततो विवाहमकरोत्पाण्डवः कुरुनन्दनः ।}} Ādiparva 195. 7. ↩︎ ↩︎
-
{{न चासराविविवाहेषु समपदादिक्रमणायभावेन पतित्वभार्यात्वयोरनुप पत्तिरिति शङ्कनीयम् । तत्रापि स्वीकारानन्तरमेव संस्कार विधानात् । तथा च देवलः । गान्धर्षा दिविवाहेषु पुनर्वैवाहिको विधिः । कर्तव्यश्च त्रिभिर्वणः समयेनानिसाक्षिका ॥ गृहपरिशिष्टेपि गान्धर्वासुरपैशाचविवाहा राक्षसश्च यः । पूर्व परिण यस्तेषां पश्चाद्धोमो विधीयते । परिणयः पत्तिारावाहिको वियः । पूर्व पारMaccour in स्मृति I. p. 87; the same words occur in the P. 145; vide [TEATT P. 129 also.|न चासुरादिविवाहेषु सप्तपदादिक्रमणाभावेन पतित्वभार्यात्वयोरनुपपत्तिरिति शङ्कनीयम् । तत्रापि स्वीकारानन्तरमेव संस्कारविधानात् । तथा च देवलः । गान्धर्षादिविवाहेषु पुनर्वैवाहिको विधिः । कर्तव्यश्च त्रिभिर्वर्णैः समयेनाग्निसाक्षिकः ॥ गृह्यपरिशिष्टेऽपि गान्धर्वासुरपैशाचविवाहा राक्षसश्च यः । पूर्वं परिणयस्तेषां पश्चाद्धोमो विधीयते । परिणयः पाणिग्रहणम् । इति स्मृतिचन्द्रिकायाम् । Smṛticandrikā I. p. 87; the same words occur in the Parāśaramādhavīya p. 145; vide Udvāhatattva p. 129 also.}} ↩︎
-
{{HEAT FELETTI rufaa ispor TYPUSATiai.|आसुरः पैशाचश्च वैश्यशूद्रयोः। अनियन्त्रितत्वाद्भार्याणां वैश्यशूद्राणां कृषिगोशुश्रूषाद्यपेक्षणाच्च ।}} T. I. 11. 14-16. ↩︎
-
{{Fra faraghaut nefu#: 1 yr arroparent: Fagner Paan: # TIT III.|गान्धर्वेण विवाहेन बह्व्यो राजर्षिकन्यकाः । श्रूयन्ते परिणीतास्ताः पितृभिश्चाभिनन्दिताः ॥}} Śakuntalā Act III. ↩︎
-
{{The prot un faror #TEYI ta TOTTAR stran fog: Il silegu of 219. 22,|प्रसह्य हरणं चैव क्षत्रियाणां प्रशस्यते ।}} Ādiparva 219. 22. ↩︎
-
Vide Imperial Gazetteer of India, vol. II. pp. 314-316 (in 1908); Tod’s Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan Vol. II. p. 834. ↩︎
-
{{एवं मे पतिस्त्वं मे भार्यत्येवं कन्याचरयोः परस्परं नियमयन्धात् पित्राधिकर्वक बाननिरपेक्षापो विवाहः स गान्धर्व इत्यर्थः । …एवं च स्वयंवरोपि गान्धर्व विवाह पर। Ta on TT. I. 61.|‘अद्यप्रभृति त्वं मे पतिस्त्वं मे भार्येत्येवं कन्यावरयोः परस्परं नियमबन्धात् पित्राद्यविकर्तृकदाननिरपेक्षो विवाहः स गान्धर्व इत्यर्थः । … एवं च स्वयंवरोऽपि गान्धर्वविवाह एव पर्यवस्यति ।’ Vīramitrodaya on Yāj. I. 61.}} ↩︎
-
{{स्वयंवर तुराजन्या प्रशंसनयुपयान्ति च। समथ्य तु तामाहायसी धर्म Tru: #sirene 102. 16.|स्वयंवरं तु राजन्याः प्रशंसन्त्युपयान्ति च । प्रमथ्य तु हृतामाहुर्ज्यायसीं धर्मवादिनः ॥}} Ādiparva 102. 16. ↩︎
-
{{न च विमेवधीकारो विद्यते वरणं प्रति । स्वयंवरः क्षत्रियाणामितीयं प्रथिता giat i sig 189. 7.|न च विप्रस्यैवाधिकारो विद्यते वरणं प्रति । स्वयंवरः क्षत्रियाणामितीयं प्रथिता श्रुतिः ॥}} Ādiparva 189. 7. ↩︎
-
{{किमिव कथयामि ते या स्वयं वृतवत्यः पतीन् । यदि वमनर्थक एवं तह i ta: pratiti i rret, quar, para 226 (of iny edition ).|किमिव कथयामि ते याः स्वयं वृतवत्यः पतीन् । यदि वामनर्थक एवं तर्हि धर्मशास्त्रेषु स्वयंवरविधिः पठ्यते । Kādambarī, pūrvabhāga, para 226 (of my edition).}} ↩︎
-
{{TUTTI T UTET 45T RI 14. y. 8. 11. 5. 12. 4.|यथा युक्तो विवाहस्तथा युक्ता प्रजा भवति ।}} Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 12. 4. ↩︎
-
{{RTTATTARCTI parat unitat qurgarh 999 T TAITE गमप्रसङ्गात् । यद्वास्तु फलविधिः । विवाहविशेषस्य फलविशेषापेक्षत्वात् । न चागमानुसारिण्य र्थेऽनुपपत्तिरिति शक्यं धक्तम् । तथा च नैयायिकाःन हि वचनस्यातिभारोस्तीत्याहुः । विश्वरूप on या. I. 58.|न चैतावता फलश्रवणेनार्थवादमात्रमेतदिति शक्यं वक्तुम् । फलार्थिनां प्रवृत्त्यर्थत्वात् । … न चागमानुसारिण्यनुपपत्तिरिति शक्यं वक्तुम् । तथा च नैयायिकाः ‘न हि वचनस्यातिभारोऽस्ति’ इत्याहुः । Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 58.}} The words {{नहि…भारोस्ति|न हि वचनस्यातिभारोऽस्ति}} are from Śabara’s bhāṣya on Jai. III. 2. 3. ↩︎
-
Vide Chunilal v. Surajram 33 Bom. 433 at p. 438; Hira v. Hansji Pema 37 Bom. 295 at p. 299; Kailasanatha v. Parasakthi 58 Mad. 488, 491. ↩︎
-
Vide 12 Mad. 72; 17 Patna 134, 141; but in A. I. R. 1930 Oudh p. 426 it is held that the gāndharva form is obsolete. ↩︎
-
{{FIAT n afar TTETTI ATTET strat HHT AA # #. X. 85. 9.|आशसनं त्वाश्विना वरावभूवुरित्येवंविधम् ।}} Ṛg. X. 85. 9. The word here and in some of the gṛhyasūtras also (e. g. Āp. gṛ. II. 16) means those who ask for the girl on behalf of the bride-groom. ↩︎
-
{{ma rtorare e af 9297 oranguta: 1 * iar efter gard Turmereur : .|गृ॒भ्णामि॑ ते सौभग॒त्वाय॒ हस्तं॒ मया॒ पत्या॑ जर॒दष्टि॑र्यथास॑ । भगो॑ अर्य॒मा स॑वि॒ता पुर॑न्धि॒र्मह्यं॑ त्वाऽदु॒र्गार्ह॑पत्याय दे॒वाः ॥}} Ṛg. X. 85. 36. In the Āp. Ma. Pā. I. 3. 3 the reading is {{9 STERT|प्रजया}} (for worthy progeny) instead of {{#HOTT|सौभगत्वाय}}. ↩︎
-
{{her in t he forefargrunninn geticamaicarotten गुहे। इमा स्वमिन्द्र मीः सुपुत्रो भगांकण । दशास्पा पुत्रानाधेहि पतिमेकादशंधि सम्राशीश्वरे भव सम्राज्ञी वो भव । ननावरसम्राज्ञी भव सम्राज्ञी अधि देश|इ॒हैव स्तं॒ मा वि यौ॑ष्टं॒ विश्व॒मायु॒र्व्यश्नु॑तम् । क्रीड॑न्तौ पु॒त्रैर्नप्तृ॑भि॒र्मोद॑मानौ॒ स्वे गृ॒हे ॥ इ॒मां त्वमि॑न्द्र मीढ्वः सुपुत्रां सुभगां कृणु । दशास्यां पुत्रानाधेहि पतिमेकादशं कृषि ॥ सम्राज्ञी श्वशुरे भव सम्राज्ञी श्वश्र्वां भव । ननान्दरि सम्राज्ञी भव सम्राज्ञी अधि देवृषु ॥}} Ṛg. X. 85. 42, 45-46. ↩︎
-
{{rretaurant TT&IHT peruti|रैभ्यासीदनुदेयी नारशंसी न्यौचनी ।}} Ṛg. X. 85. 6. {{meet moans in and moreret means I.|Raibhyā means ṛk and nāraśaṃsī means sāman.}} † Vide Appendix for text under note 1230. ↩︎
-
Vide the same passage with slight differences quoted on p. 202 in the Garbhādhāna ceremony from the Bṛ. Up. VI. 4. 20; the Tai. Bṛ. III. 7. 1 has the words {{STECATHY FIT THE T TI FTATE TEFTITUTE 791 सह रेतो दधापहै पुसे पुत्राय वेतौ । रायस्पोषाय समजावाय सधीर्यायति ।।|अमोऽहमस्मि सा त्वं सा त्वमस्यमोऽहम् । सामाहमस्मि ऋक्त्वं द्यौरहं पृथिवी त्वम् । ताविह संभवाव प्रजामाजनयावहै पुंसे पुत्राय वेत्तवै । रायस्पोषाय सुप्रजास्त्वाय सुवीर्यायेति ॥}} ↩︎
-
In the Āp. Ma. Pā. I. 5. 1 this mantra is {{BITHÊHATATTHAE … .. 1 HTHas garum: FUFT WW14788 %.|आतिष्ठेममश्मानमश्मेव त्वं स्थिरा भव । … अमित्राणां पृतनायतः सपत्नान् हन्तुमाक्रम ॥}} ↩︎
-
The two portions of lāja (fried grain) poured into the bride’s hands together with the first pouring of ājya (called upastaraṇa) and the subsequent pouring of ājya (called abhighāraṇa) constitute the four avattas or portions cut off from the material for havis. The descendants of Jamadagni are pañcāvattins (vide above p. 490); therefore three portions of lāja are to be poured out (in order to make with upastaraṇa and abhighāraṇa, five avattas). For these terms (avadāna and avatta) vide Śabara on Jaimini I. 7. 2. 7-8. ↩︎
-
The first view requires that leading the bride round the fire, making her tread on the stone and the offering of fried grain are each repeated thrice; so that when the offering prescribed here for the 4th time is made, it follows immediately on the third offering of lājas. Other teachers made the bride first offer lājas, then she was led round the fire. When this was done the 4th oblation of lājas would not come immediately after the third oblation of lājas, but after she went round the fire the third time. The Gobhila gṛ. II. 1. 14 prescribes that the fried grain to be offered into fire is mixed with tendrils of the śamī plant and Kālidāsa (in Raghuvaṃśa VII. 25–26) refers to śamī and lājas. ↩︎
-
This (the act of taking seven steps together) is the most important rite in the marriage saṃskāra. We have to understand ‘{{*|viṣṇustvānvetu}}’ after each sentence. These words occur in all gṛhyasūtras, e. g. vide Āp. M. P. I. 3. 7-14 and Āp. gṛ. 4. 15-16, Sāṅ. gṛ. I. 14. 6, Pār. gṛ. I. 8, Gobhila gṛ. II. 2. 11, Hir. gṛ. I. 21. 1 &c. But there are slight variations as well. For example, Tai. Ār., Mānava, Vārāha and Kauśika substitute {{agra:|ūrje}} for {{574|iṣe}}, while the first three of these and Kāṭhaka and Bhāradvāja add {{fragrant 792 (or foregrura in 1)|prāyaścitte}} after each of the seven clauses. Pāraskara reads {{सखे सप्तपदा|sakhā saptapadā}} for {{सखा सप्तपदी|sakhā saptapadī}}. ↩︎
-
This rule has no application if the bride and the bride-groom belong to the same village. But if they belong to different villages and the newly married couple have to stay somewhere for the night on their journey then this rule applies. ↩︎
-
This indicates that after the homa is finished, the bride is to observe silence till she sees the Pole star. ↩︎
-
For the meaning of kṣāra and lavaṇa see note 723 above. ↩︎
-
Among the principal ceremonies in marriage described by Kālidāsa in the Raghuvaṃśa VII are madhuparka, homa, going round the fire, pāṇigrahaṇa, lājā-homa, and ārdrākṣatā-ropaṇa. ↩︎
-
{{शोभने च दिवसे प्रहधर्मणा कन्या प्रार्थयित प्रेषितस्प पूर्वागतस्पैव प्रधामदूत पुरुषस्य करे सर्वराजकुलसमक्ष दुहितदानजलमपातयत् । हर्षचरित 4th उच्छास.|शोभने च दिवसे ग्रहवर्मणा कन्यां प्रार्थयितुं प्रेषितस्य पूर्वागतस्यैव प्रधानदूतपुरुषस्य करे सर्वराजकुलसमक्षं दुहितृदानजलमपातयत् । Harṣacarita 4th Ucchvāsa.}} ↩︎
-
{{TTT ON TAR VI. 1. 14 days’ quaranten vra: faktum ad namurtarefas.|Śabara on Jaimini VI. 1. 14 says ‘वरस्य पाणिग्रहणात् प्राग्दानमनृतम्’.}} Vide also note 1209 above. {{Tako 15. 27 has het watu THE #71547 a part 1. Acoording to metafe on #7 Ix. 101 the words धर्मेचाच कामेचमातिचरितम्या | occur inभापस्तम्च.|Laghu-Āśvalāyana 15. 27 has ‘धर्मे चार्थे च कामे च नातिचरिष्यामीति वरः प्रतिजानीते ।’ According to Medhātithi on Manu IX. 101 the words ‘धर्मे चार्थे च कामे च नातिचरितव्या’ occur in Āpastamba.}} ↩︎
-
{{ततो मङ्गलसूत्रं च ध्यास्वाभीष्टां च देवताम् । बद्धा कण्ठपदेशे स्याजूषणानि च शक्तितः॥ शौनक, बधीयात्कन्यकाकण्ठे सूत्र मणिसमन्वितम् । माङ्गल्यतन्तुनानेन मन्त्रेण स्यात् HET FOR GETT 15. 33. The Art is Arṣiyaraaraa HostCTII बध्नामि सुभगे सा जीव शरदः शतम् ॥ . ‘सूत्रेऽनुपलब्धमपि वधूवरयोमङ्गलसूत्रं गले माला uirof etc. etapy OD OTTEET I. 1.|ततो मङ्गलसूत्रं च ध्यात्वाभीष्टां च देवताम् । बद्ध्वा कण्ठप्रदेशे स्यात् भूषणानि च शक्तितः ॥ Śaunaka; बध्नीयात्कन्यकाकण्ठे सूत्रं मणिसमन्वितम् । माङ्गल्यतन्तुनानेन मन्त्रेण स्यात्सुदृढं यथा ॥ Laghu-Āśvalāyana 15. 33. The mantra is ‘माङ्गल्यतन्तुनानेन भर्तृजीवनहेतुना । बध्नामि सुभगे त्वां जीव शरदः शतम् ॥’ Gadādhara on Pāraskara gṛ. I. 8: ‘सूत्रेऽनुपलब्धमपि वधूवरयोर्मङ्गलसूत्रं गले मालाधारणमित्यादि’.}} ↩︎
-
{{Margaretende regret der gere: grignagu करकै रुवसंख्पैस्त सुवर्णेन समन्धितः । एतापदेरिणीरूपं कर्तव्यं किल हरिभिः quoted in # , #T. p. 680.|ऐरिणीदानं तु वंशपात्रे पक्वान्नानि संस्थाप्य दीपसहितानि…}} The request to show affection is made as follows ‘{{अवर्षा रिवयं कन्या पुत्रवत्पालिता मया। इदानीं तव पुत्राय वसाहन पाल्यताम्।|इयं कन्या पुत्रवत्पालिता मया । इदानीं तव पुत्राय दत्ता त्वं पालयताम् ।}}’ Appropriate changes are to be made, according to the age of the bride and the relationship of the bridegroom to the principal lady. ↩︎
-
Vide Mulla’s Hindu Law (9th ed. of 1940) p. 504. ↩︎
-
{{After a q: sfoga orgūGEVì rat i rimatutarirea mort परयेदरम् ॥ कात्यापन quoted by अपरार्क p. 94; प्रदाय शुल्कं गच्छेपः कन्यायाः श्रीधर्म HUT I Graf FT **** aut pautta: 8 arga quoted in . t. p. 737.|वरयित्वा तु यः कन्यां मृतः श्रूयेत वा क्वचित् । त्रिमासमात्रमुत्प्रेक्ष्य कन्या वरयेत्परम् ॥ Kātyāyana quoted by Aparārka p. 94; प्रदाय शुल्कं गच्छेद्यः कन्यायाः श्रीधनं तथा । संवत्सरं प्रतीक्षेत कुमारी तां ततः परम् ॥ Kātyāyana quoted in Sm. C. Vyavahāra p. 737.}} ↩︎
-
{{Finn # #191 T rat: grafica i atroTEET Fria ofert A ll To quoted in . . p. 55, aree p. 129 and in F. E. (sport WH ) p. 138, which latter adds a Fraraat afforgofrutta raun KrFATY wafat 1.|पाणिग्रहे मृते बाला केवलं मन्त्रसंस्कृता । सा चेदक्षतयोनिः स्यात्पुनः संस्कारमर्हति ॥ Yama quoted in U. T. p. 55, Aparārka p. 129 and in G. R. (vivāha-khaṇḍa) p. 138, which latter adds ‘अतश्च सप्तपदीगमनात् प्राक् कन्यात्वसद्भावात्पुनर्विवाहेऽधिकारः ।’}} This last remark is made by the Mit. on Yāj. I. p. 82 also. ↩︎
-
{{A T THIRT ERT 1994 # or FORTEUTATT shut me FRUTTI FRUTTAA fost fagr mara FTTH troppo 55, 15–16.|न वाचा न च दानेन भार्यात्वं जायते स्त्रियाः । सप्तपदी च होमे च भार्यात्वं जायते स्त्रियाः ॥ Droṇaparva 55. 15–16.}} ↩︎
-
{{worriente Proiecte Peytu :|अग्निसाक्षिका हि विवाहा न निवर्तन्त इत्याचार्याणाम् ।}} Kāmasūtra III. 5. 13. ↩︎
-
{{कन्यायां इसशुल्कायां ज्यायश्चेिवर आवजेत् । धर्मार्थकामसंयुक्तो वाक्य तत्रावृतं भवेत् ॥ दवा भ्यायेन यः कन्या पराय न वदाति ताम् । अष्टहरो राजा स वय. *** TCT * FREE, WI 30 and 32.|कन्यायां दत्तशुल्कायां ज्यायांश्चेद्वर आव्रजेत् । धर्मार्थकामसंयुक्तो वाक्यं तत्रानृतं भवेत् ॥ दत्त्वा न्यायेन यः कन्यां वराय न ददाति ताम् । अदुष्टश्चेद्वरो राजा स दण्ड्यस्तत्र चोरवत् ॥ Nārada Strīpuruṣa, vv. 30 and 32.}} ↩︎
-
{{कन्यामदः कन्यादोषं स्वयं जानन्धरणाविदितं तस्य च प्रत्यक्षायोग्यमकवयित्वा of era &c. I TEMP. 95.|कन्याप्रदः कन्यादोषं स्वयं जानन् वरेणाविदितं तस्य च प्रत्यक्षायोग्यमकथयित्वा ददाति चेत् &c. Aparārka p. 95.}} ↩︎
-
{{nato a : THE SET: 1 TUFAYS THIS Epstarter ata # ATE (itý# 35).|दोषान्तरं यः कन्यायाः कथयेन्न च तत् तथा । दण्ड्यः स परया दण्ड्या तामेव च सहेत ताम् ॥ (Nārada Strīpuruṣa 35).}} ↩︎
-
{{विवाहे वितते तन्ने होमकाल उपस्थिते । कन्यामृतृमतीं हटा कथं कुर्वन्ति uriya: 11 geneer FHOTOPUT SPUT AT I GOTTATGT na TFT प्रवसते अभिv.|विवाहे वितते तन्त्रे होमकाल उपस्थिते । कन्यामृतुमतीं दृष्ट्वा कथं कुर्वन्ति याज्ञिकाः ॥ स्नापयित्वा तु तां कन्यामर्चयित्वा यथाविधि । हविष्मतीभिर्मन्त्राभिर्हुत्वाज्यं मन्त्रपूर्वकम् ॥}} This is quoted as {{यशपार्च|Yajñapārśva}} in Saṃ. Ra. Mā. p. 500 and Saṃ. Kau. p. 714, while the Parāśaramādhavīya quotes (pp. 146–147) two verses (one of which is the same as part and the other very similar) from Pṛthvīcandrodaya.īcandrodaya. ↩︎