०२ दारयोग्यता

She who is not a “sapiṇḍa” of one’s mother, not of the same “Gotra” as his Father, and who is not born of (unlawful) intercourse—has been recommended for marriage.—(5)

“Three kinds of sapiṇḍā have got to be excluded—

To the first category belongs the girl who is one’s own sapiṇḍā as being the sapiṇḍā of his father, who is the married husband of his mother;—to the second category belongs the girl who is not the sapiṇḍā of that ‘father’ who is only the supporter (not the progenitor), and is one’s own and his natural father’s (progenitor’s) sapiṇḍā,—and who thus is his own sapiṇḍā, but not that of his supporter-‘father’;—and to the third class belongs that girl who is the sapiṇḍā of the supporter-‘father’, but not one’s own sapiṇḍā. All this diversity is based upon the fact that in the case of the ‘adopted’ son (in whose case the supporter-father and the progenitor-father are different), the son’s body (piṇḍa) does not contain the constituent elements of the body of the father.

For the same reasons there are four kinds of ‘father’ also—

Of these the ‘progenitor’, husband of the mother, and the ‘seed-owner’ both transmit the constituents of their body to the child; and on that ground the sāpiṇḍya ‘consanguinity’; of these two Fathers to the Aurasa and Kṣetraja sons would be direct; while that of the ‘field-owner’ (the second kind of ‘father’) would be only indirect, through the field (i.e., the body of his wife); the bodies of the husband and wife having been declared to bo one.—Now the girls that fall within these three kinds of ‘consanguinity would become excluded by the test that ‘one should marry a girl younger than himself, who is not his sapiṇḍā’ (Yājñavalkya 1. 52). But the Sapiṇḍā of the Supporter (adoptive) father would not be the Sapiṇḍā of the adopted son, and as such she would not he excluded by the said text. Hence it becomes necessary to find out a text excluding the ‘father’s Sapiṇḍā;’ and such a text is found in Manu 3. 5 (the present verse). This text clearly implies that the girl who falls within seven degrees of the ‘Sāpiṇḍya’ of the Secondary Father (not the progenitor) is to be avoided; in this sense the term pituḥ, being taken in its etymological sense of one who supports, pāti iti pitā, includes the adoptive, father also.”

मातुर् यासपिण्डा पितुश् च यासगोत्रा सा दारकर्मणि प्रशस्ता । सपिण्डग्रहणं मातृबन्धूपलक्षणार्थम् । मातुर् हि सापिण्ड्यं स्त्रीणां स्मृत्यन्तरे तृतीयपुरुषावधि । न तु त्रिभ्य ऊर्ध्वं मातृबन्धुभ्यो विवाह इष्यते, किं तर्हि, पञ्चमाद् ऊर्ध्वम् । एवं हि गौतमः पठति- “ऊर्ध्वं सप्तमात् पितृबन्धुभ्यो मातृबन्धुभ्यः पञ्चमात्” इति (ग्ध् ४.३–५) । तेन यथाश्रुतिसमन्वयाभावात् सापिण्ड्याभावः स्मृत्यन्तरवशेन मातृसंबन्धितया व्याकरणीयः । तेनैवम् उक्तं स्यात् मातुर् अन्वयजा जाया¹ न भवति । अवधिश् च गौतमीय एव । तेन मातामहमातामहयोर्² ऽन्वये जाता सा पुत्रसंततेर् बान्धवसामीप्यात् पञ्चमीं यावन् न विवाहयितव्या । अतो मातृष्वसृतद्दुहितॄणां प्रमातामहसंततिजानां³ च सर्वासां प्रतिषेधः, बन्धुत्वाविशेषात् ।

• असगोत्रा च या पितुः । गोत्रं वसिष्ठभृगुगर्गादिवंशः स्मर्यते । समानगोत्रा वसिष्ठा न वसिष्ठैर् विवहन्ते न गर्गा गर्गैः । वासिष्ठे तु मातृसगोत्राया अपि प्रतिषेधः-

• परिणीय सगोत्रां तु समानप्रवरां तथा ।

• कृत्वा तस्याः समुत्सर्गं द्विजश् चान्द्रायणं चरेत् ।

• मातुलस्य सुतां चैव मातृगोत्रां तथैव च ॥

गौतमेन तु पठ्यते- “असमानप्रवरैर् विवाहः” इति (ग्ध् ४.२) । तत्र गोत्रसमत्वे सत्य् अपि प्रवरभेदश् चेद् युज्यते विवाहः । तद् अयुक्तम्, यतः स्मृत्यन्तरे ह्य् उभयं निषिध्यते- “असमानार्षगोत्रजाम्” (य्ध् १.५३) इति । आर्षं प्रवर इत्य् एको ऽर्थः । कथं पुनर् गोत्रभेदे समानार्षेयत्वम् । किम् इति न भवति यदि स्मर्यते । श्रुतिस्मृतिप्रमाणको ऽयम् अर्थो न प्रत्यक्षगोचरो येन विरोधः स्यात् । के पुनर् अमी प्रवरा नाम । अत्यल्पम् इदम् उच्यते । इदम् अपि वक्तव्यम्- किं पुनर् एतद् ब्राह्मणत्वं नाम, तथा कतरद् एतद् गोत्रं नाम । यथैव समाने पुरुषत्वे ब्राह्मणत्वादिविशेषः, एवं समाने ब्राह्मणत्वे वसिष्ठादिगोत्रभेदः, प्रतिगोत्रं च समानार्षेयाणि । यस्यैतद् गोत्रं तस्य तैः शब्दैः प्रवराश्रयणं कर्तव्यम् । एवं विवाहनिषेधे ऽपि । स्मरन्ति च सूत्रकाराः गोत्रभेदसंबन्धेन प्रवरान्- “यस्यैतद् गोत्रं तस्येमे प्रवराः” इति । गोत्रभेदस् तु तद्गोत्रजैर् एव । स्मर्यते- “वयं पराशरा वयम् उपमन्यवः” इति । यद्य् अपि गोत्रवत् प्रवरान् अपि स्मरन्ति, तथापि बहुत्वात् कदाचिद् विस्मरेयुर् इति गोत्रम् उपलक्षणीकृत्य प्रवरस्मृतिर् उपनिबद्धा । गोत्रं तु स्मरन्ति । न च तस्य किंचिद् उपलक्षणम् अस्ति- य एवंरूपस् तस्येदं गोत्रम् इति । एतावत् तत्र स्मरणम् । यावद्गोत्रं संततिसमानजातीयत्वम्⁴ ।

• एष च गोत्रप्रवरभेदः ब्राह्मणानां न राजन्यविषाम्⁵ । तथा हि कल्पसूत्रकारः- “पौरोहित्याद् राजन्यवैशयोः” इति । यद्य् अपि गोत्रविशेषव्यपदेशे सति प्राप्तप्रतिषेधेनापि प्रवराधिकारे वचनम् इदम् उपपद्यते, किं तु न तेषां गोत्रस्मरणम् अस्ति । कस् तर्हि क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् विवाहे ऽपि बन्धूनाम् अवधेर् नियमः ।

• उच्यते । सर्ववर्णविषयम् एतत् “ऊर्ध्वं सप्तमात् पितृबन्धुभ्यः” (ग्ध् ४.३) इति । इहाप्य् असगोत्रा, चशब्दाद् असपिण्डा । तथा चानुवर्त्यमानः सपिण्डशब्दः पूर्ववद् बन्धुसंबन्धोपलक्षणार्थः । तेन पितृष्वसुर् अन्वयस्त्रीणाम् अन्यासां च प्रपितामहसंततिस्त्रीणां आ सप्तमात् पुरुषात् प्रतिषेधः सिद्धो भवति । सप्तमपुरुषावधयः सपिण्डाः स्मर्यन्ते ।

• अन्ये तु गोत्रं वंशम् आहुः । न तत्रावध्यपेक्षा । यावद् एतज् ज्ञायते वयम् एकवंशा इति तावद् अविवाहः । अस्मिन्न् अपि पक्षे असपिण्डा चेत्य् अनुवर्तते । तेन पूर्ववत् पितृष्वस्रादिदुहितॄणां प्रतिषेधः । अस्मिंस् तु पक्षे समानार्षगोत्राणां प्रतिषेधो दुर्लभः । न हि तत्रैतद् अस्ति वयम् एकवंश्या इति ।

• उच्यते । ऐतिहासिकेन तद्दर्शनेन समर्थयन्ते । तत्र हि वर्णयन्ति । “ऋषिर् वसिष्ठादिर् आद्यो वंशस्य कर्ता तद्गोत्रास् ततः प्रसूताः प्रवराः” इति तत्पुत्रपौत्रास् तपोविद्याद्यतिशयगुणयोगेन प्रख्याततमाः । स्मृत्यन्तराद् एष एव नियमः ।

• इदं त्व् अत्र निरूप्यं यद् एतत् समानप्रवरैर् इति तत्र नामधेयतस् तावत् समानत्वं न संख्यातः । नामधेयसमानत्वे च किं यत्र सर्वाण्य् एव समानानि तत्र प्रतिषेध उतैकस्मिन्न् अपि समाने । तत्र यदि समुदितानां प्रवरत्वम्, तत्र समाने कस्मिंश्चिद् भिन्ने ऽन्यस्मिन्न् अन्यः समुदायः संजात इत्य् असमानप्रवरत्वाच् च प्रतिषेधः । एवं चोपमन्यूनां पराशराणां च स्याद् विवाहः । भिन्नं तयोर् गोत्रम् । एक उपमन्यवः अपरे पराशराः, पूर्वेण च न्यायेन प्रवरभेदः । उपमन्यूनां वासिष्ठभारद्वाजैकपाद् इति प्रवराः । पराशराणां वासिष्ठगार्ग्यपाराशर्येति । अथैकैकस्य प्रवरत्वम् एकस्मिन्न् अपि समाने प्रतिषेधः । तद् यथा माषा न भोक्तव्या, मिश्रा अपि न भुज्यन्ते ।

• किं पुनर् अत्र युक्तम् । एकैकस्य प्रवरत्वम् । तथा हि सामानाधिकरण्यं दृश्यते । एकं वृणीते द्वौ वृणीते त्रीन् वृणीत इति प्रतिपन्न एकः । तत्साम्ये ऽप्य् आहैषाम् अविवाह इति ।

• द्विजातिग्रहणम् उपलक्षणार्थम् । शूद्रस्यापि आ सप्तमात् पितृतः पञ्चमान् मातृत⁶ इत्य् अस्ति । दारकरणं दारक्रिया दारकर्म । तत्र प्रशस्ता प्रशंसया विहितेत्य् अर्थः । मैथुनी । मिथुने भवा मैथुनी, न मैथुनी अमैथुनी । पितुर् इति संबध्यते, पितृबीजाद् एवोत्पन्ना जातमात्रा । नियोगो विहितस् तत उत्पन्नाया नास्ति पूर्वोक्तविशेषणैर् निषेधः । अतः पृथङ् निषिध्यते अमैथुनीति । ततो नियोगोत्पन्ना कामतो न विवाह्या, मैथुनीत्वात् ।

• अन्ये तु अमैथुने इति पठन्ति । धर्मार्थे दारकर्मणि प्रशस्ता, न मैथुने । स्तुतिश् चेयं न प्रतिषेधः । ईदृशी योढा सा सत्य् अपि मैथुने धर्मार्थैव भवति ॥ ३.५ ॥

The text proceeds to show what sort of maiden should be married.

‘She who is not a sapiṇḍa of one’s mother, and who is not of the same gotra as his Father, has been recommended for marriage.’ The term ‘sapiṇḍa’ indicates the relations on the mother’s side. According to another Smṛti, women are called the “mother’s sapiṇḍa” only up to three steps of relationship. But, as a matter of fact, marriage with relatives on the mother’s side is permitted beyond not the third, but the fifth, step of relationship. Says Gautama (4—3 and 5)—‘Beyond the seventh step of relationship on the Father’s side and beyond the fifth step on the mother’s side.’ Thus, inasmuch as the term ‘sapiṇḍa’ cannot be taken here in its literal sense (of relation within three steps of relationship), it has to be explained, in accordance with other Smṛtis (such as Gautama), as standing for ‘mother’s relation.’ The meaning thus comes to be—‘She who is not born of the mother’s family;’ and the limit of relationship is to be taken as prescribed by Gautama. So that one should not marry the girl who is descended either from his maternal grandfather or great-grandfather, up to five steps downwards, on account of the closeness of relationship among the descendants of these. Hence the mother’s sister, the daughter of the mother’s sister, as also those descended from the maternal great-grandmother, all these become excluded, on the ground of all of them being ‘relations.’

‘She who is not of the same gotra as his Father—The term ‘gotra’ has been declared to stand for the descendants of

Vaśiṣṭha, Bhṛgu, Garga and the rest.—‘Of the same gotra’ means belonging to same gotra. That is, a ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ girl cannot be married by a ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ boy; nor the ‘Garga’ girl by a ‘Garga’ boy.

In the Vaśiṣṭha (Dharmaśāstra), there is prohibition also of the girl belonging to the same gotra as one’s mother. It says—‘If the twice-born person marries a girl of the same gotra or the same Pravara as himself, he shall renounce her and perform the penance of the Cāndrāyaṇa; so also if he has married the daughter of his maternal uncle, or a girl of the same gotra as his mother.’

Gautama says—‘There is marriage between parties not having the same Pravara’ (4.2); so that if the Pravara is different, there may be marriage, even though the gotra happen to be the same.

This, however, is not right; because another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya) has prohibited both—‘one should marry a girl born of a different gotra and Ṛṣi’ (Acāra, 53),—where ‘Ṛṣi’ stands for ‘pravara.’

“But how can a girl be born of the same Ṛṣis when her gotra is different?”

Why may this not be possible when the Smṛti distinctly speaks of it? This subject is one that falls entirely within the purview of Śruti and Smṛti, and is beyond our perception; so that there could be no incongruity (in what is directly asserted in the Smṛti).

“What are ‘pravaras,’ after all?”

Well, you are asking too little; you might as well ask—‘What is a Brāhmaṇa?’ ‘What is a gotra?’ In fact, just as the generic character of ‘man’ being equally present in all men, the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and the rest constitute the particular species included under that generic character,—exactly in the same manner, the generic character of ‘Brāhmaṇa’ being common among a number of men, ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ and the rest come in as specific sub-divisions; and related to each ‘gotra’ there are a few names of ‘Ṛṣis;’ and the person who belongs to a certain ‘gotra’ has to connect himself with these Ṛṣi-names, which are called his ‘pravara.’ This same is the meaning of the term ‘pravara’ in connection with the prohibition of marriage.

The writers of Sūtras have mentioned the pravaras along with each distinct gotra, in such words as—‘such and such are the pravaras of the person belonging to such and such a gotra.’ As for the distinct gotras, these are duly remembered by the persons born in those gotras themselves—‘we belong to the ‘Parāśara-gotra,’ ‘we belong to the Upamanyu-gotra,’ and so forth. Though, like.their gotra, people remember their pravaras also, yet inasmuch as the number of pravaras is large, it was thought that people might forget them, and hence the Smṛtis were written for the purpose of mentioning the pravaras connected with each of the gotras. As for the gotra, save that people themselves remember it, there is no other indicative in the form that ‘he who is like this and that belongs to such and such a gotra. All that has been declared in connection with gotra is that persons belonging to the same gotra must belong to a common stock and a common caste.

This diversity of Gotra and Pravara is found only among Brāhmaṇas, not Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas. Say the authors of the Kalpasūtra—‘that of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya is determined by that of their priests.’ On the ground of this Kalpasūtra-statement occurring in the section dealing with Pravara, it might be construed to be a denial of pravara only, which might be understood to apply to those two castes also by reason of particular gotras having been mentioned in relation to them. But, in reality, there are no gotras mentioned in connection with them.

“Under the circumstances, what sort of restriction would there be on the point of relationship, in connection with marriages?”

Our answer is as follows:—The rule of Gautama (4. 3), that ‘it should be beyond the seventh step among the relations on the father’s side,’ is common to all castes (and this would supply the necessary limitation).

In the present verse also the term ‘not of the same gotra’ means ‘who is not a Sapiṇḍa;’ and, just as the term ‘sapiṇda,’ in the preceding phrase, so the same term here also, would be taken as standing for ‘relations;’ and in this way we secure the exclusion of girls descended from the father’s sister, as also of other girls descended from one’s great-grandfather, up to the seventh step. And it is only persons up to the seventh step of relationship that have been called ‘sapiṇḍa.’

Others have explained ‘gotra’ to mean family. And in this case, there is no need for any limit; there can be no marriage among parties who know each other as ‘belonging to the same family.’ In accordance with this view also the term ‘asapiṇḍā’ has to be construed twice over; so that, as before, the daughter of the father’s sister and Others become excluded.

“But, according to this view, the exclusion of girls belonging to the same gotra and having the same pravaras becomes difficult. As among these there is no such idea as that ‘we belong to the same family.’”

The answer to the above is that this difficulty is sought to be explained by a reference to tradition. There is a tradition that ‘Vaśiṣṭha and others like him are the prime progenitors of families, and persons descended from them and belonging to their gotra are the Pravaras, who were their sons and grandsons endowed with excellent austerities and learning and vastly famous.’ [ And in this sense ‘persons belonging to the same gotra and having the same pravaras’ may be regarded as ‘belonging to the same family.’] In other Smṛtis also we find the same rule.

The following facts, however, have to be borne in mind in this connection:—In the phrase, ‘having the same pravaras,’ the sameness is in regard to the names, not the mere number, of Pravaras; and the question arises, whether the prohibition applies to all cases where al the Pravara-names are the same, or only to those where even one name, happens to be common. If the whole set of names constitutes the ‘pravara,’ then there is no ‘sameness of Pravara’ in a case where a few names are common but others are different, and hence the ‘set of names’ in the two cases becomes different; so that the prohibition would not apply to such a case; and marriage could take place between the Upamanyus and the Parāśaras, whose gotras are different,—one belonging to the Gotra of Upamanyu, and the other to the gotra of Parāśara,—but there is difference in their. ‘pravaras,’ in the Sense noted above; because for the ‘Upamanyu gotra’ the Pravaras are ‘Vaśiṣṭha, Bharadvāja and Ekapāt,’ while for the ‘Parāśara gotra’ they are ‘Vaśiṣṭhya, Gārgya and Parāśarya.’ If, on the other hand, only one name constituted the ‘Pravara’—and not the whole set, then the prohibition would apply to even such cases where a single name happens to be common. E.g., when it is said ‘Māṣa grains should not be eaten,’ one ceases to eat even mixed Māṣa grains.

What, then, is the right view?

The right view is that single names constitute ‘pravara; it is in accordance with this that we find such usage as ‘ekam vṛṇīte,’ ‘dvau vṛnīte,’ ‘trīn vṛnīte,’—where there is co-ordination between ‘one,’ ‘two’ and ‘three’ with the ‘Pravara;’ and it is said that ‘there should be no marriage even when, one pravara-name is common.’

The mention of the ‘twice-born person’ is merely indicative; as for the Śūdra also there is no marriage up to seven grades of relationship on the father’s aide, and five on the mother’s side.

‘Marriage’—i.e., taking to wife.

‘Recommended’—enjoined with commendation.

‘Who is not born of (unlawful) intercourse,’ i.e., who is born directly from her lawful father. ‘Niyoga’ (begetting of offspring by the widow) having been permitted, the girl who would be born under that form would not be excluded by the foregoing qualifications; hence she is separately excluded by the term ‘who its not born of unlawful intercourse;’ which means that one should not voluntarily marry a girl born, of ‘Niyoga,’ because she is born of unlawful intercourse.

Others read ‘Amaithune’ (for ‘Amaithunī), and explain it to mean that the girl described has been recommended as an associate at religions functions, and not for sexual intercourse.

And such a prohibition would be by way of eulogy; the sense being—‘if one marries a girl with these qualifications, she fulfills his religious functions, even though there be no sexual intercourse.’

‘Asapiṇḍā ca yā mātuḥ—asagotrā ca yā pituḥ’—Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda hold the first ‘ca’ to mean that the ‘sagotrā’ of the mother also is excluded; this exclusion is supported by Vaśiṣṭha as quoted by Medhātithi;—according to Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, the second ‘ca’ connects the ‘asapiṇḍā’ with ‘pituḥ’ also. But there appears to be no point in this as the father’s ‘asapiṇḍā’ would be already included under the father’s ‘asagotrā’. Medhātithi appears to have been conscious of this, as he adds that the term ‘sapiṇḍa’ here stands for ‘relations’ [see Trans. p. 26, ll. 3-4, which should be as follows, and not as it appears there—“In the present phrase ‘asagotrā ca pituḥ’, the particle ‘ca’ excludes the fathers sapiṇḍā also.”]

‘Amaithunī’—This is the reading adopted by Medhātithi, to whom Buhler wrongly attributes the reading ‘maithune’ (‘for conjugal union’), which is the reading of Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Kullūka, the last however explaining it to mean ‘(she is recommended) for the Firelaying, child-begetting and other acts to be performed by the husband and wife jointly.’—Medhātithi notes a third reading ‘amaithune’, and explains it to mean that ‘the girl is recommended as an associate at religious functions, and not for sexual intercourse, though he does not consider this satisfactory.—Medhātithi’s reading ‘amathunī’ has been explained by him to mean ‘not born of unlawful intercourse’, and added for the purpose of excluding the girl horn of Niyoga. Though Nandana also adopts this same reading, he explains it as one ‘who has had no sexual intercourse.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 81) in support of the view that the girl to be married should be one who is ‘asapiṇḍā’ on both the paternal and the maternal sides; it adds that ‘asagotrā’ alone would preclude the father’s ‘sagotrā’ also (the gotra of the man being the same as his father’s); the word ‘pituḥ’ has therefore been added with a view to the ‘putrikāputra’.—Such a girl is ‘recommended’—for ‘dārakarma’—such rites as cannot be performed without a wife and for ‘maithune’, i.e., such rites as can he done only conjointly by the pair, e.g. the Pākayajña, and the like,—‘asapiṇḍā ca yā mātuḥ’ is meant to preclude the marrying of the daughter of the maternal uncle, she being the man’s ‘mother’s sapiṇḍā’.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 468), where the following explanation is added—‘who is asapiṇḍā of the mother, as also her asagotrā—who is asagotrā of the father, and also his asapiṇḍā,—is recommended for all acts to be performed by the couple’.—It raises the question that the separate mention of the ‘mother’ is superfluous; as the wife has no ‘piṇḍa’ or ‘gotra’ apart from the husband; so that the ‘asapiṇḍā’ and ‘asagotrā’ of the ‘mother’ would be the same as those of the ‘father’;—and supplies the answer that in the case of the Gāndharva and some other forms of marriage, the bride being not given away by her father, she retains her gotra and piṇḍa; so that her ‘sapinda’ and ‘asagotra’ would not be the same as those of her husband.

In connection with this verse a peculiar point of view has been set forth by ‘some people’ in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 691):—

“Three kinds of sapiṇḍā have got to be excluded—

1. who is one’s own and his father’s sapiṇḍā,
2. who is one’s own sapiṇḍā, but not the sapiṇḍā of his father,
3. who is not one’s own sapiṇḍā, but is the father’s sapiṇḍā.

To the first category belongs the girl who is one’s own sapiṇḍā as being the sapiṇḍā of his father, who is the married husband of his mother;—to the second category belongs the girl who is not the sapiṇḍā of that ‘father’ who is only the supporter (not the progenitor), and is one’s own and his natural father’s (progenitor’s) sapiṇḍā,—and who thus is his own sapiṇḍā, but not that of his supporter-‘father’;—and to the third class belongs that girl who is the sapiṇḍā of the supporter-‘father’, but not one’s own sapiṇḍā. All this diversity is based upon the fact that in the case of the ‘adopted’ son (in whose case the supporter-father and the progenitor-father are different), the son’s body (piṇḍa) does not contain the constituent elements of the body of the father.

For the same reasons there are four kinds of ‘father’ also—

1. the progenitor, the husband of the mother;
2. the owner of the ‘field, i.e. the mother’s husband, who is not the progenitor;
3. the owner of the ‘seed’, i. e. the progenitor, who is not the husband of the mother;
4. and the supporter, i.e. the adoptive father.

Of these the ‘progenitor’, husband of the mother, and the ‘seed-owner’ both transmit the constituents of their body to the child; and on that ground the sāpiṇḍya ‘consanguinity’; of these two Fathers to the Aurasa and Kṣetraja sons would be direct; while that of the ‘field-owner’ (the second kind of ‘father’) would be only indirect, through the field (i.e., the body of his wife); the bodies of the husband and wife having been declared to bo one.—Now the girls that fall within these three kinds of ‘consanguinity would become excluded by the test that ‘one should marry a girl younger than himself, who is not his sapiṇḍā’ (Yājñavalkya 1. 52). But the Sapiṇḍā of the Supporter (adoptive) father would not be the Sapiṇḍā of the adopted son, and as such she would not he excluded by the said text. Hence it becomes necessary to find out a text excluding the ‘father’s Sapiṇḍā;’ and such a text is found in Manu 3. 5 (the present verse). This text clearly implies that the girl who falls within seven degrees of the ‘Sāpiṇḍya’ of the Secondary Father (not the progenitor) is to be avoided; in this sense the term pituḥ, being taken in its etymological sense of one who supports, pāti iti pitā, includes the adoptive, father also.”

This view is not accepted by the author of Vīramitrodaya himself, who takes Manu’s text to mean the exclusion of the girl who is one’s Sapiṇḍā or Sagotrā either through his father or through his mother.

Smṛtitattva (II, p. 106) quotes this verse, explaining daṛa-karma as ‘the act of making a wife’ i.e., the, taking of a wife.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1. 53, p. 34) in the sense that the sagotrā girl is to be excluded.

Vidhānapārijāta (p. 690) quotes this verse and adds that the second ‘ca’ excludes the father’s ‘Sapiṇḍā’ also. Here also we have a reproduction of the discussion found in Parāśaramādhava (see above).

The verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 133), which adds the following explanatory notes:—The meaning of this is as follows—The girl who is not-sapiṇḍā of the mother,—and also her not-sagotrā, which is implied by the first ‘ca’—is recommended, i.e., is fit for being married. The purport of all this is as follows—Twice-born men are entitled to marry girls belonging to the same caste as themselves, as also those belonging to lower castes; the marriage with a girl of the same caste is the principal or primary form of it, while that with a girl of a different caste is only secondary;—for the married man two kinds of acts have been enjoined—sacrifices and intercourse; and in the text the former set of acts is spoken of by the term ‘dāra-karma’, and the latter set by the term ‘maithuna’

Having explained the verse, Madanapārijāta also raises the question why the Sapiṇḍā and Sagotrā of the Mother should be mentioned apart from that of the Father, and deals with it in a somewhat different manner from that in Parāśaramādhava or Vidhānapārijāta. Its answer is that the separate mention is meant to meet the following case—Devadatta has for Ids mother the adopted daughter (of his grandfather), who has been ‘appointed’ by her adoptive ‘father’;—hence Devadatta does not inherit the gotra of his Progenitor-father;—now the husband of the aforesaid adopted daughter (i. e. the progenitor of Devadatta) has adopted a daughter, who is the Sapiṇḍā of her adoptive father (Devadatta’s Progenitor), but not the Sapiṇḍā of Devadatta;—thus Devadatta might marry the adopted daughter of his progenitor. This contingency has been prevented by the separate exclusion of the ‘Mother’s Sapiṇḍā; as the girl, though not the Sapiṇḍā of Devadatta or his adoptive Father, would still be the Sapiṇḍā of his mother, whose piṇḍa is one with that of her husband, (the adoptive father of the girl concerned).

Another question raised is why should the mother’s asapiṇḍā, who is included in the mother’s asagotrā implied by the eha in the text, be mentioned separately?—The ‘mother’s Sapiṇḍā’ has got to be so mentioned for the purpose of excluding the girl born in the family of the father of one’s step-mother, who is one’s own ‘asapiṇḍā’, as also the ‘asagotrā’ of the mother, but is the ‘sapiṇḍā’ of the mother; so that if the text had excluded only the ‘mother’s asagotrā,’ the said girl would he marriageable; she becomes excluded, however, by the condition that she should not he his Another’s sapiṇḍā’.

It goes on to raise a. further question that the phrase ‘asagotrā ca pituḥ’ need not be taken to include the father’s ‘asapiṇḍā’ also, as the latter is already included under the term ‘father’s asagotrā’.—The answer to this is that the separate exclusion of the ‘father’s sapiṇḍā’ is necessary in view of the following case:—Devadatta’s father, Yajñadatta, is the adopted son of his father, Bhānudatta,—a girl is born in the family of Yajñadatta’s progenitor-father,—this girl would be asagotrā of Devadatta’s ‘father’ (adoptive), and also ‘asagotrā’ of his ‘mother’:—thus there would be a likelihood of Devadatta marrying this girl;—and this becomes precluded by taking the ‘ca’ to mean the ‘father’s asapiṇḍā’. If this had not been intended by Manu, he would have said ‘one’s own asagotrā’ (‘asagotrā ca yātmanaḥ’). Thus the upshot of all this is that the girl to be married should be ‘asapiṇḍā and asagotrā’ of his Mother, and also ‘asapiṇḍā and asagotrā of his Father’.

This verse is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 196);—in Gotra-pravara-nibandha-kadamba (p. 131), which adds the following notes:—In as much as the text forbids only the ‘sapiṇḍā’ of the mother, it follows that the sagotrā of the mother is not forbidden;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 184), which adds the following explanation:—The girl who is not ‘sapiṇḍā’ either of the bridegroom or of his mother, and who is not the ‘sagotrā’ of the bridegroom or his father, is commended for the purpose of marriage;—in OodādharUpaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 223), which adds the following notes—‘Dārakarmaṇi’, in the rite that makes a ‘wife’,—‘maithune’, in the act of intercourse which is consummated conjointly by man and woman;—the sense is that the said girl is commended not only for cooking and such other acts as are done by the woman alone, but also in that joint act which is done by both conjointly; according to Kalpataru, ‘maithune’ means ‘in the begetting of the lawful son by means of sexual intercourse’.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 477), in support of the view that not only the girl, but her family also should be carefully examined;—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 588);—in Aparārka (p. 84);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 508);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 204).

Gautama (4. 2-5).—‘Marriage should he performed with persons not belonging to the same Pravara;—above the Seventh grade among his paternal relations;—also beyond persons of the same seed;—and above the fifth grade among maternal relations.’

Vaśiṣṭḥa (8. 1, 2).—‘He should marry a girl who has no common Ṛṣi (as her ancestor)………; nor one who is in the seventh grade among his paternal and in the fifth grade among his maternal relations.’

Bodhāyana (2. 1. 38).—‘If he unknowingly marries a girl who is of the same gotra as his mother, he should maintain her as his mother; if he has got a child from her, he should perform the following expiation………’

Viṣṇu (24.9-10).—‘He should obtain a wife who is not the same gotra as himself nor with the same Pravara-ṛṣis; and who is beyond the fifth grade of his maternal, and beyond the seventh grade of his paternal relations.’

Viṣṇu (Aparārka, p. 82).—‘Those who marry within the seventh and fifth grades, and the children of such marriages, become outcasts and Śūdras.’

Yājñavalkya (1.53).—‘The girl who is free from disease, has a brother, and does not belong to the same gotra or the same Ṛṣis, and who is above the fifth and seventh grades of relationship on the maternal and paternal sides respectively.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3.4.4,5).—‘The girl who does not belong to the same gotra, and who is not his mother’s sapiṇḍa.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (37).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Śātātapa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 590).—‘First of all there should be purity regarding gotra and pravara, and then that regarding the fifth and seventh grades of relationship.’

Baudhāyana (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 590).—‘One born of a woman of the same gotra as her husband is a Caṇḍāla.’

Śātātapa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683).—‘If one marries the daughter of his maternal uncle, or a girl who is of the same gotra as his mother, or of the same pravara,—he should renounce her and perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance.’

Sumanta (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683, Aparārka, p. 80).—‘Having married the daughter of his father’s sister, or that of his mother’s sister, or one who is of the same gotra as his mother, or of the same pravara,—one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa; he shall give her up, but support her.’

Sumanta (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 702).—‘Girls are unmarriageable up to the seventh grade on the father’s side, and up to the fifth grade on the other sides.’

Vyāsa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683).—‘Some people hold that one should not marry a girl who has the same gotra as his mother.’

Kāṭhaka Gṛhya (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683).—‘One should not marry a girl who has the same gotra and the same pravara as his father, nor one who is of the same gotra as his mother.’

Kātyāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 684).—‘One should avoid a girl who, as regards his father, is of the same gotra or of the same pravara; but as regards his mother, only one who has the same gotra (the sameness of pravara in this latter case does not matter).’

Pāraskara (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 702).—‘Jñāti-relationship extends to the seventh grade, or to the tenth.’

Yājñavalkya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 702).—‘From the seventh or the tenth grade extends the Jñāti-relationship.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘On the father’s and on the mother’s side, the sapiṇḍatā (consanguinity) ceases beyond the seventh and the fifth grades of relationship respectively.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 703).—‘One should select a girl who has no pravara- sage in common with him,—avoiding seven grades on the father’s and five on the mother’s side.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704).—‘In marriage one should avoid three grades on the mother’s side and five grades on the father’s.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704).—‘One shall select a girl who has been found to be endowed with the three qualifications, and he should avoid seven grades on his father’s, and five on his mother’s side.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 407).—‘Within the seventh and the fifth grades of relationship from the father and the mother respectively—a girl is unmarriageable; as also one who has the same gotra or pravara.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘The householder shall marry a girl who is in the fifth grade on his mother’s side and in the seventh on the father’s.’

Ślokavaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘One should marry the girl who is the seventh on his father’s side and fifth on his mother’s side.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘O king, the householder shall marry, in the proper form, a girl who is fifth on his mother’s side and seventh on his father’s side.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704),—‘One shall acquire rightfully a wife, who is not born of the same gotra or the same pravara as himself,—and who happens to he the fifth on mother’s and seventh on the father’s side.’

Manu and Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704).—‘Sapiṇḍatā ceases in the seventh grade.’

Chaturviṁshatimata (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 704).—‘On both sides, one should marry the girl in the third and the fourth grades.’

Saṭtṛṁshanmata (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 704).—‘Manu has declared that one may marry the girl who is in the third grade on the mother’s side and in the third grade on the father’s side.’

005 A damsel who is neither a Sapinda on the mother’s side, nor belongs to the same family on the father’s side, is recommended to twice-born men for wedlock and conjugal union.

In female connection one should avoid these (following) ten families,—even though they be great and rich in the possession of cattle, goat and sheep and grain.—(6).

वक्ष्यमाणस्य प्रतिषेधस्य निन्दार्थवादो ऽयम् । समृद्धिः संपत्तिः । धनं विभवः । महान्त्य् अपि प्रकृष्टान्य् अपि । धनविशेषणार्थम् आह गोऽजाविधनधान्यतः । तृतीयार्थे तसिः । गोऽजाविधनेन च धान्येन च । धनग्रहणं गोऽजादीनां विशेषणार्थम् । धनरूपा ये गोऽजादयः । कूटसंपन्नता हि धान्यं । स्त्रीसंबन्धो विवाहः ।स्त्रीप्राप्त्यर्थं संबन्धः स्त्रीसंबन्धः ॥ ३.६ ॥

This verse is a deprecatory exhortation, supplementary to the Prohibition coming later.

‘Rich’ denotes prosperity.

‘Possession’—property.

‘Though great’—high.

The possessions are farther specified—‘in the possession of catlle, &c., &c.’ The affix ‘tas’ in ‘gojavidhanadhānyataḥ’ has the force of the Instrumental; the construction being—‘gojāvidhanena-dhānyena.’ The term ‘possession’ has been added for the purpose of qualifying ‘cattle’ etc., the sense being ‘cattle and the rest, which constitute possession.’

‘Grain’ stands for property in the shape of kūṭa (?)

‘Female-connection’—i.e., Marriage—the compound being construed as ‘the connection for the purpose of obtaining a female mate.’—(6)

(verses 6-7)

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (1.5.1).—‘First of all, one should examine the family—on the father’s as also on the mother’s side, etc., etc.’

Yājñavalkya (1.54).—‘[The girl should be selected] from a Śrotriya family of which ten generations are well known, which is expansive and which is not beset with the defect of an infectious disease.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (36).—‘One shall not marry a girl whose father is not known.’

Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 587).—‘In connection with the marriage of Brāhmaṇas, what should be heeded is the family.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 588).—‘The following are the fourteen families in which one should not marry: (1) One should avoid such Brāhmaṇa-families as have their Pravaras unknown, and also (2) the family of hereditary (professional) priests; (3) a family of which the members are too tall; (4) that of which the members are too short; (5) that of which the members are of too pronounced a complexion; (6) the family of which several members have a limb wanting; (7) that of which several members have too many limbs; (8) that of which the members suffer from dyspepsia; (9) that of which the members suffer from leucoderma, or (10) leprosy and such other diseases; (11) that of which the members are too lascivious; (12) that of which the members are given up entirely to Tāntric practices; (13) the Family of which the members suffer from epilepsy or (14) from paleness.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 589)—‘[Such objectionable families are to be avoided, because] the offspring is of the same nature as the family.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 84).—‘The following families are to be avoided even though they he not outcasts: In which there, has been lucoderma, or leprosy, or dropsy or pthisis or other infectious deseases, in which members have been shortlived or suffering from piles; of which the Gotra and Pravara Ṛṣiṣ are not known, or that, in which the Veda is unknown or one which has the same Ṛṣis. The first six are to ho avoided because the offspring takes after the family; of the unknown Gotra-Pravara is to he avoided because such a family would he unlit for sacrificial performances; and one in which the Veda is unknown is to be avoided, because it would he unfit, for divine rites; one having the same Ṛṣis as the man himself is to he avoided because it is the same family. For these reasons one should examine seven generations on the father’s side and live on the mother’s side and then select as his wife a girl who has not attained puberty, is endowed with superior qualities and has a brother. He shall always select one who is fully qualified as regards family, the asterism under which she has been born, and learning and wisdom.’

006 In connecting himself with a wife, let him carefully avoid the ten following families, be they ever so great, or rich in kine, horses, sheep, grain, or (other) property,

Such families as—(1) that in which the sacred rites have been abandoned, (2) which is male-less, (3) which is devoid of the Veda, (4) members of which are woolly and subject to (5) piles, (6) phthisis, (7) dyspepsia, (8) epilepsy, (9) leucoderma, and (10) leprosy.—(7)

हीनास् त्यक्ताः क्रिया यस्मिन् कुले जातकर्मादयः । संस्कारा न क्रियन्ते, नित्याश् च पञ्चयज्ञादयः । निष्पुरुषं स्त्रीप्रसु । यत्र प्रायेण कन्या जायन्ते न पुमांसः । निश्छन्दः वेदाध्ययनवर्जितम् । रोमशार्शसम् । द्वन्द्वैकवद्भावेन कुलद्वयं निर्दिष्टम् । बहुदीर्घैर् बाह्वादिषु लोमभिर् युतम् । अर्शांसि गुदेन्द्रियगतान्य् अधिमांसनिबद्धानि, तानि हि रोगरूपत्वात् पीडाकराणि । क्षयो राजयक्ष्माव्याधिः । आमयावी मन्दाग्निर् यस्य भुक्तम् अन्नं सम्यङ् न जीर्यति । अपस्मारः स्मृतिभ्रंशाद्युपघातकृत् । श्वित्रं शरीरगता च्छेदवती श्वेतता । कुष्ठं प्रसिद्धम् । सर्व एते व्याधिविशेषवचनाः शब्दा रोमशाद् आरभ्य मत्वर्थीयप्रत्ययान्ता निर्दिष्टाः । पूर्वैर् व्याख्यातृभिर् दृष्टमूलतास्य प्रतिषेधस्य वर्णिता । मातुः कुलं द्विपदो ऽनुहरन्ति । ततो हीनक्रियादीनां या प्रजा सापि तच्छीला स्यात् । व्याधयश् च संक्रामन्ति । एवं हि वैद्यके पठ्यते- “सर्वे संक्रामिणो रोगा वर्जयित्वा प्रवाहिकाम्” ॥ ३.७ ॥

‘That in which the sacred rites’—the natal and other sacraments—‘have been abandoned’—neglected; i.e., in which the consecratory rites as also the compulsory ‘Five Sacrifices,’ etc., are not performed.

‘Male-less’—productive of females; i.e., in which, aṣa rule, only female, not male, children are born;

‘Devoid of the Veda’—destitute of Vedic study.

‘Romaśārśasam’—This copulative compound mentions two kinds of families. ‘Romasha,’ ‘woolly,’—i.e. the members of which have their arms and limbs covered with much and long hair. ‘Piles’—fleshy protuberances in the anus, which being a disease, are extremely painful.

‘Phthisis’—the disease of consumption.

‘Dyspepsia’—slow-digestion: by which the food eaten is not properly digested.

‘Epilepsy’—leading to loss of memory and other cognate troubles.

‘Leucoderma’—white spots on the body, with holes.

‘Leprosy’—is well-known.

All these words—beginning with ‘romasha’—are names of particular diseases, and are to be taken as ending in possessive affixes.

Older commentators have explained that the prohibition. herein contained is based entirely upon ordinary visible considerations: As a matter of fact, bipeds inherit the peculiarities of their mother’s families; hence, children born of mothers belonging to families that have ‘abandoned the sacred rites,’ etc., etc, would be prone to the same defects;

and diseases ace apt to be infectious; works on medicine having declared that ‘all diseases, with the sole exception of’ Diarrhoea, are infectious.’—(7)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 588), where ‘hīnakriyam’ is explained as ‘devoid of the performance of such acts as the sacrifice and the like;’—‘Niṣpuruṣam’ as ‘that in which females are the sole survivors—‘niśchandaḥ’ as ‘devoid of Vedic study;’—also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 477), which has exactly the same explanation of precisely the same words.

Aparārka (p. 84) quotes this along with the preceding verse;—and adds the following explanations:—‘Hīnakriyam’ means ‘devoid of the proper performance of the Conception and other Sacramental Rites,’—‘Niṣpuruṣam’ means ‘a family in which girls alone are born,’—‘Niśchandaḥ’ is ‘devoid of Vedic study,’—‘lomasham’ is ‘that members whereof have their body covered with inordinately prominent hairs,’—and ‘arshasam’ means ‘suffering from piles.’—It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 204) which adds the following explanations:—‘Hīnakriyam,’ not engaged in the performance of sacrifices and other religious acts;—‘Niṣpuruṣam,’ without a male master—‘Niśchandaḥ’ devoid of Vedic learning—‘romasham,’ hairy,—‘arshasam’, suffering from the particular disease, piles,—all these qualifications pertain to the children of the family;—and in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 508), which has the following notes;—‘Hīnakriyam’, not performing the prescribed duties, i.e., not avoiding prohibited acts,—‘Niṣpuruṣam’, devoid of male progeny,—‘arshasam’ family in which the disease runs hereditary.

**(verses 6-7)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.6].

007 (Viz.) one which neglects the sacred rites, one in which no male children (are born), one in which the Veda is not studied, one (the members of) which have thick hair on the body, those which are subject to hemorrhoids, phthisis, weakness of digestion, epilepsy, or white or black leprosy.

He should hot marry a maiden with tawny hair, nor one with superfluous limbs, nor one who has disease, nor one who has either no hair or too much hair, nor one who is garrulous, nor one with reddish eyes.—(8)

पूर्वः कुलाश्रयः प्रतिषेधः । अयं तु स्वरूपाश्रयः । यस्या कद्रुवर्णाः⁷ कनकवर्णा वा केशाः सा कपिला । अधिकाङ्गी षडङ्गुलिः । रोगिणी बहुरोगा दुष्प्रतिकारव्याधिगृहीता च । भूम्नीनिः⁸ मत्वर्थीयो नित्ययोगे वा । अलोमिका अकेशा । लोमानि केशा अप्य् उच्यन्ते । बाहुमध्ये जङ्घाद्वये वा सर्वलोम्नाम् अभावः । वाचाला स्वल्प एव वक्तव्ये बहुलं परुषं च भाषते । पिङ्गला अक्षिरोगेण मण्डलाक्षी कपिलपिङ्गलाक्षी वा ॥ ३.८ ॥

The prohibition in the preceding verse was with regard to the family of the bride; while that in the present verse pertains to her body.

The girl whose hairs are of either tawny or golden colour is called ‘kapilā.’

‘With superfluous limbs’—e.g., having six fingers.

‘Who has disease’—who is suffering from many diseases, or is overtaken by some incurable disease;—the possessive affix having the sense of many or Of permanence.

‘Who has no hair’—‘loman’— standing for hairs in general also. What the present qualification has in view, however, is the entire absence of hair in the arm-pits and between the thighs.

‘Garrulous’—who talks much and disagreeably, when it is necessary to speak very little.

‘With reddish eyes’—Whose eyes are red, on account of some disease.—(8)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 731) in support of the view that one should not many a girl with defects;—it explains ‘vācāṭā’ as ‘garrulous’ and ‘piṅgalā’ as ‘with reddish eyes.’

Smṛtitattva (II, p. 149) quotes it and adds that the defects here described do not deprive the girl, if married, of the character of the ‘lawful wife,’ as visible (physical) defects can mean only physical disabilties, and cannot affect the nonphysical spiritual or moral character of anything.

The verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Lakṣaṇa, p. 120), where ‘rogiṇī’ is explained as ‘suffering from epilepsy and such diseases,’ and ‘vācāṭām’ ‘as one who talks much of improper things,’—and not simply as ‘garrulous’, which is the explanation of the same author in another place [Saṃskāra-prakāśa, p. 731, see first note above];—also in Aparārka (p. 78) to the effect that one should not many a girl who is not endowed with the proper marks;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 74);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 510), which explains ‘kapilām’, as ‘of the colour of red lice,’ and ‘piṅgalā’ as ‘of the colour of fire:’—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 200), which explains ‘vācāṭā’ as ‘garrulous,’ and piṅgalā’ as ‘with tawny eyes;’—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 50a).

(verses 3.8-9)

Viṣṇu (24.12-16).Not one who is diseased or with excessive limbs; or with deficient limbs; nor one who is too pale, or too talkative.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 3).—‘One who is free from disease and has a brother.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (34).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 731).—‘Too hort (short?), too tall, too thin, too fat, with tawny eyes, too pale,—such girls should not he accepted.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 731).—‘The wise man shall not marry a girl who hears signs of a beard, who has a masculine appearance, whose voice is cracked, who speaks insinuatingly, whose voice is like the crow’s, who looks on without, winking, whose eyes arc defective;—he shall not marry her whose thighs arc hairy, whose ankles are high, in whose, cheeks there are dimples;—he shall, not marry a girl whose skin is rough, who is pale, who is diseased, or with red eyes, or with lean hands and feet,—or one who is dwarfish, or too tall, or one whose eye-brows arc joined: nor one whose teeth have many holes, nor one with a frightful face.’

Āpastamba (Vīramitrodaya-Sarṃskāra, p. 532).—‘One named after an asterism, or after a river, or after a tree is not commended; one should avoid one whose name contains the consonants r or l or gh or jh or ḍh or ḍh or bh.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Satṃskāra)—‘In selecting a wife one should avoid one named after a Veda, or a river, or a mountain or a Gandharva, or an asterism, or a tree, or a creeper.’

008 Let him not marry a maiden (with) reddish (hair), nor one who has a redundant member, nor one who is sickly, nor one either with no hair (on the body) or too much, nor one who is garrulous or has red (eyes),

Nor one bearing the name of an asterism, or a tree, or a river; nob one having her hame after a low caste or a mountain; nor one named after a bird, a serpent or a slave; nor one with a hame inspiring terror.—(9)

ऋक्षं नक्षत्रम्, तन्नामिका, आर्द्रा ज्येष्ठा इत्यादि । वृक्षनाम्नीं शिंशपा आमलकीति । नदी गङ्गा यमुना, तन्नाम्नी । ऋक्षाणि च वृक्षाश् च नद्यश् चेति द्वन्द्वः तासां नामानीति षष्ठीसमासः । ततो द्वितीयेन नामशब्देनोत्तरपदलोपी समासः । अन्त्यनामिका बर्बरीशबरीत्यादि । पर्वता विन्ध्यमलयादयः । पूर्ववत् समासात्मकप्रत्ययः । पक्षिनाम्नी शुकी सारिका । अहिः सर्पस् तन्नाम्नी- व्याली भुजङ्गी । प्रेष्या दासी चेटी दरनी⁹ । बिभिषणं नाम भयजनकम्, डाकिनी राक्षसी ॥ ३.९ ॥

‘Asterism’ is constellation; one who bears the name of one of these; such as ‘Ārdrā,’ ‘Jyeṣṭhā,’ and the like.

‘Bearing the name of a tree’—such as ‘Śiṃśapā,’ ‘Āmalakī,’ and so forth.

‘River’—the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā; she who bears these names.

The term “ṛkṣavṛkṣanadī” is to be expounded as a copulative compound; which with the following term ‘nāman’ forms a genitive Tatpuruṣa compound; and these, along with the term ‘nāman’ repeated, form a Bahuvrīhi compound; the repeated term ‘nāman’ being dropped.

‘Having her name after a low caste’— such as ‘Barbarī’

‘Śabarī’ and the like.

‘Mountains’— such as the Vindhyā, the Himalaya, and the rest.

This compound (‘parvatanāmikām’) also is to be expounded as the former; and has the ‘ka’ affix added to it.

‘Named after a bird’— snch as ‘Śukī’ ‘Sārikā,’ and the like.

‘Serpent,’ snake; one who is named after it; such as ‘Vyālī,’ ‘Bhujaṅgī.’

‘Slave’— such names as ‘Dāsī,’ ‘Bālī.’

‘Inspiring terror’—that which causes fear; such as Ḍākinī,’ ‘Rākṣasī.’

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 732), where ‘ṛkṣa’ is explained as ‘asterism;’—and ‘antya’ as ‘mleccha;’—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 149) to the same effect as the preceding verse;’—in Vīramitrodaya (Lakṣaṇa, p. 120), where ‘antya’ is explained as ‘antyaja,’ i.e., cāṇḍāla;—in Aparārka (p. 78) as indicating the unmarriageability of girls with the wrong type of names;—in Samkāramayūkha (p. 74);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 510), which explains ‘antya’ as bearing a Mleccha name;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 201), which explains ‘ṛkṣa’ as ‘nakṣatra,’ ‘antya’ as ‘mleccha,’ and ‘bhīṣaṇā’ as terrifying;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 50a).

**(verses 3.8-9)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.8].

009 Nor one named after a constellation, a tree, or a river, nor one bearing the name of a low caste, or of a mountain, nor one named after a bird, a snake, or a slave, nor one whose name inspires terror.

One should marry a female with a faultless body, bearing an agreeable name, having her gait like that of the swan or the elephant, having fine hair on the body and the head, and fine teeth, and with tender limbs.—(10)

अव्यङ्गाङ्गीं¹⁰ ।** **अव्यङ्गान्य् अङ्गानि यस्या सैवम् उच्यते । अव्यङ्गशब्दो ऽवैकल्यवचनः, प्रवीणोदारादिशब्दवद् यद्य् अपि¹¹ व्युत्पाद्यते ऽविकलान्य् अङ्गानि यस्येति, अतश् चाङ्गशब्दस्य द्वितीयस्यावयविनि शक्तौचित्येन, संस्थानस्य परिपूर्णता साव्यङ्गशब्देनोच्यते । सौम्यं मधुरं नाम । “स्त्रीणां सुखोद्यम्” (म्ध् २.३३) अत्र दर्शितम् । हंस इव वारण इव गच्छति । यादृशी हंसानां हस्तिनां च विलासवती मन्थरा गतिर् यस्याः । तनुशब्दो नाल्पवचनः किं तर्ह्य् आनुपरिमाणे¹² वर्तते । तन्वङ्गी सोच्यते या¹³ नातिस्थूला नातिकृशेति । मृदूनि सुस्पर्षाकठिनापरुषाण्य् अङ्गानि यस्याः सा । ताम् उद्वहेत् स्त्रियं कन्याधिकारात् कन्याम् ।

• यद्य् एवं नालोमिकाम् इत्यादिप्रतिषेधो ऽनर्थको ऽस्माद् एव विधानात् या नैवंरूपा तस्या अविवाह्यता सिद्धा ।

• सत्यम् एवम् । एक एवार्थो द्वाभ्यां विधिमुखेन प्रतिषेधमुखेन चोद्यमानस् तु स्पष्टो बुध्यते ।

• कन्याशब्दश् चात्र प्रकरणाद् अननुभूतसंभोगासु स्त्रीषु प्रवर्तते । तथा च वसिष्ठः- “अस्पृष्टमैथुनां सदृशीं भार्यां विन्देत” (वध् ८.१) इति । न चान्येन संस्कृतान्येन पुनः संस्कर्तुं शक्या, कृतस्य करणाभावात् । अतश् चोढाया अप्रवृत्तभर्तृसंयोगायाः कथंचित् स्वैरिणीत्वे भर्तृप्रवासादिना नान्येन विवाहो ऽस्ति सत्य् अपि कन्यात्वे । तथा चेदृशी वसिष्ठोक्तिर् मध्ये पठिता । अन्यत्राप्य् उक्तम्- “अनन्यपूर्वां यवीयसीं भ्रातृमतीं स्त्रियम् उद्वहेत” इति (च्ड़्। य्ध् १.५२) ॥ ३.१० ॥

One whose body is free from defects is called ‘avyaṅgāṅgī;’ the term ‘avyaṇga’ standing for freedom from defects; just like such other words as ‘pravīṇa,’ ‘udāra,’ and the rest. Since the term ‘avyaṅga,’ etymologically, means ‘free from defects in the limbs,’ the second ‘aṇga’ must be taken as standing for the whole body; hence the epithet ‘avyatiya’ denotes fulness or comeliness of the bodily form.

‘Saumya,’ ‘agreeable’—it has been laid down in this book that the names of women should be sweet-sounding and easy to pronounce.

She who moves like the swan or the elephant. That is, one whose gait is as elegant and languid as that of the swan or the elephant.

The term ‘tanu,’ ‘fine,’ here does not stand for ‘small;’ it means moderate. Just as the girl who is neither fat nor leau is called ‘tanvaṅgī,’ ‘one with a fine body.’

‘Mṛdvaṇgī is one whose limbs are tender, not hard or rough.

Such a female ‘one should marry.’ ‘Female’ here must be taken to stand for the maiden, as it is the maiden that is being spoken of in the context.

“If that is so (if this verse also refers to the maiden), then the prohibition contained in verse 8 regarding ‘one who has no hair, &c.,’ is superfluous; as the positive injunction, contained in the present verse, implies that ‘one who is not as here described should not be married.’”

True, that is so; the same fact when stated by means of two verses—affirmatively in one and negatively in the other—becomes clearly understood.

In the present context, the term ‘maiden’ is used in the sense of a woman who has not experienced sexual intercourse. Says Vaśiṣṭha—‘One should acquire a wife who has had no sexual intercourse and who is similar to himself.’ But one who has been ‘consecrated’ (by marriage) by one man is no longer capable of being ‘consecrated’ by another; as there can be no doing of what has been already done. So that, if a girl has been married, and her husband goes away before she has had intercourse with him,—if she happens to be a loose woman, she cannot be married to another person, even though she is still a ‘maiden’ (in the technical sense); and it is such a maiden that is mentioned in the words of Vaśiṣṭha quoted above. In another work also it is said—‘One should marry a female, never before married by another person, who is younger than himself and has brothers’ (Yājñavalkya, Ācāra 52).—(10)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 731) as setting forth the external signs of a marriageable girl;—also in Vīramitrodaya (Lakṣaṇa, p. 118) to the same effect;—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 132) as setting forth the external signs; and for the internal signs it refers to Āśvalāyana who has prescribed the following method;—eight balls should be made of clay brought from eight different places, and after some incantations have been uttered over them, the girl should be asked to pick up one of them; (1) if she picks up that made of clay from fields with rich corn growing, it is a sign that she would have progeny rich in grains; (2) if she picks up that of clay brought from the cattle-shed, she will be rich in cattle; (3) if that of clay from the altar, she will be an expounder of Brahman;—(4) if that of clay from a lake that is never dry, she will be endowed with all riches; (5) if that from the gambling den, she will be crafty;—(6) if that from the road-crossing, she will be inclined to wander about; (7) if that from barren soil, she will be unlucky; (8) and if that from the crematoriuûi, she will destroy her husband.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 78);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 74) as laying down the external signs of a marriageable girl;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 509) which explains ‘tanulomakeśadaśanā’ as ‘one the hair on whose chest is scanty, and whose hair and teeth are fine’;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 200);—and in Nṛsiṃha-prasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 50a).

‘Putrikādharmaśaṅkayā’—‘For fear of her having the character of the Appointed Daughter’ (Medhātithi);—‘For fear (in the former case) of her being an Appointed Daughter, and (in the latter) of committing a sin’ (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa, Rāghavānanda, and ‘others’ in Medhātithi). Govindarāja adopts Medhātithi’s explanation so far as this phrase is concerned; but he gives a somewhat different explanation of the first half of the verse, which according to him, would mean ‘one should not marry a girl who has no brother, or whose father is not known’,—the two contingencies being independent; while according to Medhātithi, the second clause (‘whose father is not known’) is subordinate to the former,—the meaning being that the doubt regarding the girl being an ‘appointed daughter’ would arise if there were no brother, and if the father were not known; for he adds “if the father is known, there is no fear of the girl being an Appointed Daughter, as he will himself declare whether or not she has been ‘appointed’.”

According to Medhātithi, therefore, in the translation of the verse, we should have ‘and’ instead of ‘or’.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 474), which adds the following notes:—He shall not many a girl with regard to whom it is not known whether or not her father has the intention of making her an ‘appointed daughter;’—the sense is that where there is no fear of this, one may marry the girl, even though she has no brother. The clause ‘na vijñāyeta vā pitā’ (which, according to this explanation, means ‘the intentions of whose father are not known’) implies that it is possible for the daughter to be ‘appointed’ even without the Father making an agreement to that effect with the bridegroom;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 82), which adds that this implies that the daughter can be ‘appointed,’ even without express agreement and declaration.

The verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 746), where it is explained as meaning that ‘one should not marry a girl with regard to whose father it is not known whether or not he has the intention of making her an Appointed Daughter’; and it adds that it is shown by this that according to all the sages a daughter can become ‘appointed’ even without being openly declared to be so;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 414), which explains the meaning to be that one should not marry the girl with regard to whom it is not known if her father intends to ‘appoint’ her; and adds the same note as Saṃskāramayūkha.

Madanapārijāta (p. 136) quotes this verse and reproduces the same explanation as above, and deduces the conclusion that ‘one should marry the girl in whose case there is no fear of this.’

Vidhānapārijāta (p. 699) quotes the verse and adds that ‘in a case where there is no fear of the father having an intention of making the girl an Appointed Daughter, one may marry the girl, even though she may have no brother.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 80) as indicating that it is possible for a daughter to be ‘appointed’ secretly; without her being married under that expressed agreement;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 181), which adds the same note as Saṃskāraratnamālā.

Laghu-Āśvalāyana (15. 2).—‘After due examination, ho shall select a girl who is horn of a good family, has a pleasing face, nice limbs, nice clothes and of agreeable looks, who has beautiful eyes and is handsome.’

Śātātapa. (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 731).—‘One shall select a girl who has the voice of the swan, complexion like the clouds and eyes of the tawny colour of honey.’

Āpastamba (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra).—‘One shall marry a girl who has relations, good character, and auspicious marks, and who is free from disease.’

010 Let him wed a female free from bodily defects, who has an agreeable name, the (graceful) gait of a Hamsa or of an elephant, a moderate (quantity of) hair on the body and on the head, small teeth, and soft limbs.

The wise man shall not mabry one who has no brother, or whose father is not known; for fear of her having the character of the “appointed daughter.”—(11)

यस्या भ्राता नास्ति तां न विवहेत् । पुत्रिकाधर्मशङ्कया पुत्रिकात्वशङ्कया । पुत्रिकाधर्मः कदाचिद् अस्याः कृतो भवेत् पित्रेत्य् अनया शङ्कया अनेन संदेहेन ।

• कथं चेयं शङ्का भवति ।

• यदि न विज्ञायेत पिता, देशान्तरे प्रोषितो मृतो वा । सा च मात्रा पितृसपिण्डैर् वा दीयते । प्राप्तकाला पितर्य् असंनिहित एतैर् अपि दातव्येति स्मर्यते । स्मृतिं चोत्तरत्र दर्शयिष्यामः । पितरि तु संविज्ञयमाने नास्ति पुत्रिकात्वशङ्का । स हि स्वयम् एवाह “कृता वा न कृता वा” इति । वाशब्दश् चेच् छब्दार्थे द्रष्टव्यः । यदि पिता न विज्ञायेत तदा कन्यका न वोढव्या ।

• अन्ये तु स्वतन्त्रम् एतत् प्रतिषेधद्वयम् आचक्षते । यदि¹⁴ पिता न विज्ञायेत,¹⁵ अननेयं जातेति, गूढोत्पन्नायाः प्रतिषेधः । एवं च संबन्धः । यस्या भ्राता नास्ति तां पुत्रिकात्वशङ्कया नोपयच्छेत । न विज्ञायेत¹⁶ इत्य् अत्र पुत्रिकाशङ्कयेत्य् एतन् न संबध्यते ।

• अस्मिन् प्रकरणे यत्र नास्ति दृष्टगतः प्रतिषेधः यथा “असपिण्डा च” (म्ध् ३.५) इत्य् अत्र श्लोके, तदतिक्रमे विवाहस्वरूपानिर्वृत्तिर् एव । अतः सगोत्रादिविवाहः कृतो ऽप्य् अकृत एव । विध्यवगमरूपत्वाद् आधानवद् विवाहस्य विध्यतिक्रमरूपाद् अपगमात्¹⁷ । यथाधानविधौ यत् किंचिद् अङ्गं न ज्ञातं तदभावे नाहवनीयादिनिवृत्तिः, एवं सगोत्रादिकाया¹⁸ न भार्यात्वम् । तस्मात् त्याज्यैव कृततादृशसंस्कारप्रतिरूपिकापि¹⁹ । तत्रभवन्तो वसिष्ठादयः प्रायश्चित्तम् अपि स्मरन्ति तादृशविवाहे । यद्य् अपि कर्मण एव तदङ्गप्रतिषेधातिक्रमे वैगुण्यम्, न साक्षात् पुरुषस्य दोषः, तथापि वाचनिकं प्रायश्चित्तम् । अथ वा सगोत्रागमनं निषिद्धम् । तदर्थे व्यापारे प्रवर्तमाने यद् उक्तं तत् प्रायश्चित्तं भवेत् ।

• यस् तु हीनक्रियादिप्रतिषेधस् तस्य दृष्टदर्शनमूलत्वान् निर्वर्तते विवाहः, भवत्य् असौ भार्या, नास्ति तस्यास् त्यागः । एवमर्थ एव “महन्त्य् अपि” (म्ध् ३.६) इति पूर्वस्मात् प्रतिषेधाद् भेदः स्तवनार्थं पठितः । एवम् एव च शिष्टसमाचारः । कदाचित् कपिलादिरूपां उपयच्छति न सगोत्राम् ॥ ३.११ ॥

She who has no brother,—such a girl one should not marry,—‘for fear of her having, the character of the appointed daughter;’ i.e., by reason of her being an ‘appointed daughter;’ i.e., by reason of there being the doubt that the girl’s father might have performed those rites that would have made her an ‘appointed daughter.’

“Why should such a doubt arise at all?”

Such a doubt would arise if the girl’s father is not known, having died or having gone away to a foreign country. Under such circumstances, the girl is given away in marriage either by her mother or by other members of her father’s family. Since it is laid down that when the girl has reached the marriageable age, if her father happen to be absent, she shall be given away in marriage by the said relations.’ The exact rule on this point we shall quote later on. If the father is known, however, there is no fear of the girl being an ‘appointed daughter as he will himself declare whether or not she has been ‘appointed.’

‘Or’ in the text should be taken in the sense of ‘if;’ the sense being that ‘if the father is not known, the girl should not be married.’

Others have taken the two clauses as formulating two independent prohibitions: (a) ‘If the father is not known’—i.e., if it is not known from whom she is born; this being a prohibition of marrying the girl of unknown parentage;—and (b) the next prohibition is to be construed as ‘one should not marry the girl who has no brother, for fear of her being an appointed daughter.’ They further point out that the latter phrase, ‘for fear of her being an appointed daughter,’ cannot be construed with the clause, ‘if her father is not known.’

In the whole of this section on Marriage, wherever the prohibition is not based upon grounds that are not perceptible—e.g., ‘one should marry a maiden who is not his father’s sapiṇḍa,’ etc., (when the grounds of interdiction are trascendental, not perceptible, as in the case of the prohibition of marriage with a diseased girl, etc.),—if the prohibition is disobeyed, the ‘marriage’ itself remains unaccomplished. Hence, if one happens to marry a girl belonging to the same gotra as himself, the marriage, even though performed, would be as good as not performed; and this for the simple reason that the character of ‘marriage’ is determined by scriptural injunction,—just like the character of the ‘Fire-laying’ rite; and, hence, a transgression of the injunction means the non-accomplishment of -the Rite. In the case of Fire-laying, it is found that if there is omission of any subsidiary detail, the Āhavanīya’ and other ‘Fires’ are not accomplished; similarly, a girl that belongs to the same ‘gotra’ as a man can never become the ‘wife’ of that man. Hence it has been ordained that such a girl, even though she may have gone through the sacramental rites, shall be given up. Further, in connection with such marriages, Vaśiṣṭha and other revered writers have prescribed specie lexpiratory rites. Even though, in reality, what each a marriage involves is only a discrepancy in the Rite caused by the transgression of one of the interdictions relating to a subsidiary detail,—and it does not involve any sin on the part of the man,—yet the Expiratory Rite has to be performed, in view of its being directly enjoined by the scriptures. Or, we may take it thus that what is prohibited is ‘intercourse’ with a girl of the same ‘gotra,’ and the Expiatory Rite relates to the series of acts perpetrated by the man (in the form of the marriage-ceremonies.)

As regards the prohibition of marriage with girls belonging to families that may have dropped the sacred rites and so forth,—it is based upon perceptible grounds; and, hence, when such girls are married, the ‘marriage’ is duly accomplished, the girl actually becomes the man’s ‘wife,’ and she shall not be given up. It is in view of this fact that in verse 6, we have the laudatory epithet ‘even though they be great,’ which draws a line of distinction between the two sets of prohibitions. Such also is the custom among all cultured people: they do occasionally marry girls ‘with tawny hair,’ etc., but never one that belongs to the same gotra.—(11)

Gautama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 474).—‘According to some people the daughter becomes appointed by the mere intention of the father (to that effect); hence as there could always be a suspicion regarding this, one should not marry a girl who has no brother.’

Yājñavalkya (1.53).—‘One who has a brother and is free from disease, etc.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (36).—[Reproduces Manu],

Likhita (51)—[Reproduces Manu].

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 531).—‘One shall marry a girl who has her father, mother and brother and is endowed with all suitable qualities, etc., etc.’

011 But a prudent man should not marry (a maiden) who has no brother, nor one whose father is not known, through fear lest (in the former case she be made) an appointed daughter (and in the latter) lest (he should commit) sin.

For ‘twice-born men’ a girl of equal caste has been recommended for the first marriage-sacrament. For those, however, who take to it through mere desire, these (following) should be regarded as preferable in due order.—(12)

“उद्वहेत द्विजो भार्याम्” (म्ध् ३.४) इति सत्य् अपि द्वितीयानिर्देशे भार्यायाः प्रधानत्वे गुणकर्मत्वे च²⁰ विवाहस्य विवक्षितम् एकत्वम्, अनुवादगतोद्देश्यत्वात्, यथा यूपं छिनत्तीति । यस्यान्यतः स्वरूपम् अवगतं तस्यान्यत्र कार्यान्तरविधानार्थम् अनूद्यमानस्य यथावगतस्वरूपस्यैवानुवादो भवति, यथा गृहं संमार्ष्टीति, पूर्वावगतिसापेक्षत्वाद् अनुवादस्य । निर्ज्ञातसंख्याका हि ग्रहा, “दश एतान् अध्वर्युः प्रातःसवने ग्रहान् गृह्णाति” इत्यादिवाक्यैः, कार्यं चवगतं ग्रहैर् जुहोतीति । अतो ऽवगत्यन्तरापेक्षत्वाद् ग्रहशब्दस्य न विवक्ष्यते संख्या । इह तु भार्यालक्षणो ऽर्थो नान्यतः सिद्धो ऽस्माद् एव वाक्याद् अवगन्तव्यो ऽतो यथाश्रुति प्रतीयते, प्रातिपदिकार्थवत् संख्यापि विवक्षितेति । पञ्चमे चैतद् विस्तरतस् तर्केण वक्ष्यते ।

• स्थितायां संख्याविवक्षायां द्वितीयस्याः कृते ऽपि पाणिग्रहणे न भार्यात्वम् । यथा सत्य् आवहनीये न द्वितीय आहवनीयः । इष्यते च क्वचिन् निमित्ते भार्यान्तरपरिग्रहस् तदर्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते । एतद् एवाभिप्रेत्य गौतमीये पठितम्- “धर्मप्रजासंपन्ने दारे नान्यां कुर्वीत, अन्यतरापाये तु कुर्वीत” (=आप्ध् २.११.१२) इति ।

• सवर्णा समानजातीया । सा तावद् अग्रे प्रथमतो ऽकृतविजातीयदारपरिग्रहस्य²¹ प्रशस्ता । कृते सवर्णाविवाहे यदि तस्यां कथंचित् प्रीतिर् न भवति, अथ वापत्त्यार्थो²² व्यापारो न निष्पद्यते तदा कामहेतुकायां प्रवृत्ताव् इमा वक्ष्यमाणाः सवर्णावराः श्रेष्ठाः शास्त्रात् तु ज्ञातव्याः । अत एकत्वस्य सवर्णानियमस्य चायम् अपवादः ।

• ननु च सवर्णाविवाहे पारतन्त्र्यं प्रतीयते । न सवर्णाया बहुत्वं ।

• एकत्वसंख्यातिक्रमस् तावत् प्रतीयते । असवर्णाभ्यनुज्ञानेनाप्य् अतिक्रान्तं चेत् कः सवर्णाया निषेधकः । तथा गौतमेनाविशेषेणैव पठितम्- “अन्यतरापाये तु कुर्वीत” ( = आप्ध् २.११.१२) इति । उत्तरश्लोके “सा च स्वा च” इति सवर्णाविवाहो ऽस्ति ॥ ३.१२ ॥

In verse 4, we had the words ‘the twice-born person should take a wife,’ where the wife has been spoken of by means of a word ending in the Accusative, which makes the wife th e primary, and the marriage the secondary, object; and yet the singular number (in ‘wife’) is meant to be duly significant; since it forms part of the predicate of the sentence; just as we have in the case of the assertion, ‘he cuts the sacrificial post.’ In the case of a thing whose character is determined and known from other sources,—if such a thing happens to be referred to in connection with the Injunction of some other act, it is always understood to be referred to exactly in the form in which it has been known; e.g., in the case of the injunction, ‘wash the cup;’ and this for the simple reason that all ‘references’ are based upon wḥat is previously known. Thus, in connection with the ‘cups,’ their number is already known from such statements as ‘at the morning-extraction the Adhvaryu takes up ten cups;’ their use also is already known from the statement, ‘libations are poured with the cups;’ hence, in the subsequent statement, ‘wash the cup,’ no significance is attached to the singular number in the word ‘cup,’—this statementbeing construed in connection with what is already known about it. In the present instance, on the other hand, the thing concerned—the ‘wife’—is one whose character has not been determined anywhere else; in fact, it is only from the present text that we derive our knowledge of what the ‘wife’ is: hence, we understand it exactly as it is here described; so that due significance is to be attached to the number, just as much as to the basic noun itself. All this we shall discuss with detailed arguments under discourse V.

Thus then, due significance being attached to the (singular) number (in the word ‘wife,’ as used in verse 4),—if one happens to marry a second time, even though the marriage-rites might be duly performed, she does not become a ‘wife;’ just as when one Āhavanīya is already there, the second fire, even though duly kindled, does not become ‘Āhavanīya.’ But, under certain circumstances, the taking of a second wife is considered desirable; and it is in connection with this second marriage that we have the rules propounded in this and the following verses. It is in view of this that Gautama has said—‘If one’s wife is endowed with virtue and offspring, one should not take another; in the event of failure on either of the two points, one may have another.’

‘Of equal caste,’—i.e., of the same caste.

‘For the first,’—first of all; i.e., for one who has not taken a wife from a different caste; ‘has been recommended.’

Having married a girl of his own caste, if the man finds that she does not inspire his love; or if the act of child-begetting is not fulfilled,—then there comes about the man’s desire for another wife; and then these—going to be mentioned below—‘are to be regarded as preferable’— superior—on the strength of the scriptures.

This, then, is an exception to the rule regarding having only one wife, as also to that of having a wife from one’s own caste.

Objection:— “The restriction appears to be upon the taking of a second wife from one’s own caste; as the plurality (of wives) does not appear to be sanctioned regarding girls of one’s own caste.”

Answer—All that the present text permits is the exceeding of the number ‘one.’ And, if what is sanctioned is the exceeding of it by means of marrying a girl of a different caste,—what is there that would prevent one’s marrying (again) a second girl of his own caste? It is for this reason that what Gautama has declared applies equally to all—‘if there is failure in regard to either of the two, one may take another wife.’ In the following verse also we read, ‘she and one of his own caste,’ where also the second wife from one’s own caste is permitted.—(12).

This verse is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 209);—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 143) as providing permissible substitutes for the proper ‘wife’;—it explains ‘avarāḥ’ (which it reads in place of ‘varāḥ’) as jaghanyāḥ, ‘lower’;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 98), which adds the following notes:—There are three classes of Marriage—(1) for Dharma, (2) for offispring and (3) for physical pleasure; that for offspring is obligatory, and for this one should have a girl of the same caste as himself; and in that for Pleasure, or for avoiding the sin of not entering the second life-stage, one may have girls of other castes, even a Śūdra girl; in the former also, if no girl of the same caste is available, girls of other castes may be taken.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 747), which adds the following explanations:—The term ‘varṇa’ stands for caste;—‘agre’ means the first marriage;—the term ‘dvijāti’ indicates also persons born of the Śūdra through mixed marriages, ‘natural’ as well as ‘inverse—‘praśastā’ means that she is recommended as the first and best alternative for taking a wife for the purposes of (1) enjoyment, (2) begetting a son and (3) helping in religious acts (these three being ‘dārakarma’ the function of the wife).

This is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 493), where we have the following notes:—‘Agre’ means ‘at the first marriage of the Accomplished Student.’;—‘dārakarmaṇi’—for the performance of the Agnihotra and other rites;—‘Savarṇā’—‘she who has the same caste as the bridegroom’ is recommended;—i.e., the Brāhmaṇī for the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriyā for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya for the Vaiśya. Having, for the sake of religious acts, married a girl of the same caste, if one is desirous of ha ving more wives for purposes of physical enjoyment, he may marry girls of lower castes (‘avarāḥ’) in due order;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 205), which says that the implication of the text is that after one has married a girl of the same caste, he may marry others of other castes also, but they will be less and less desirable in order; this means that for the sake of Dharma one should marry a girl of the same caste.

**(verses 3.12-13)
**

Baudhāyana (1. 8. 2-5)—‘For the Brāhmaṇa there are four wives, in the order of the castes; for the Kṣatriya, there are three; for the Vaiśya, two; for the Śūdra, one.’

Viṣṇu (21. 1-1).—[Same as above.]

Viṣṇu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 191).—‘For the twice-born, the Śūdra wife can serve no spiritual purpose; the only purpose she can serve is that of lust and hence she has been permitted only for one who is blinded by lust.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 57).—‘In the order of ṭhe castes, there are three wives for the Brāhmaṇa, two for the Kṣatriya and for tho Vaiśya; for the Śūdra, there is only the wife of the same caste.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 24-25).—‘In the order of the castes, there are three wives for the Brāhmaṇa, two for the Kṣatriya, one each for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra;—according to some people, the Shíidra girl may also he married, but without mantras.’

Pāraśara (1.4. 8-1.1).—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, there are three wives, in the order of the castes;—two for the Kṣatriya;—one for the Vaiśya;—for all, the Śūdra wife also, hut without mantras.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 747,).—‘For all men the first alternative is to have a wife of the same caste as oneself.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 748).—‘In the order of the castes, the Brāhmaṇa may have four wives; the Kṣatriya, three; the Vaiśya, two; the Śūdra, only one, the Śūdra.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 748).—‘In the event of his not obtaining a girl of the same caste as himself, the Brāhmaṇa may beget, a son on a Kṣatriya wife, or on a Vaiśya wife, or according to some, on a Śūdra wife.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 748).—‘Apart from the Brāhmaṇa wife, there are three wives, in the descending order of the castes; for the Śūdra girl, there are (apart from the Śūdra husband), three husbands in the ascending order of the castes; for the Kṣatriya there are two wives, in addition to the one of his own caste; for the Vaiśya only one; for the Vaiśya girl there are two husbands and for the Kṣatriya, one only—in addition to that of her own caste.’

012 For the first marriage of twice-born men (wives) of equal caste are recommended; but for those who through desire proceed (to marry again) the following females, (chosen) according to the (direct) order (of the castes), are most approved.

For the Śūdra, the Śūdra girl. alone has been ordained to be the wife; for the Vaiśya, she as also the girl of his own caste; for the Kṣatriya, those two as also the girl of his own caste; and for the Brāhmaṇa those three as also the girl of his own caste—(13).

वर्णभेदे सति सवर्णानियमः । यथैव ब्राह्मणस्य क्षत्रियादिस् त्रयो भवन्ति एवं शूद्रस्य जातिन्यूना रजकतक्षकादिस्त्रियः प्राप्ताः । अतः सवर्णेयम् उच्यते । उत्कृष्टजातीया तु पूर्वत्र क्रमग्रहणाद् अप्राप्ता ।

• सा च शूद्रा स्वा च वईश्या वैश्यस्य । ते च वैश्याशुद्रे स्वा च राजन्यस्य । एवम् अग्रजन्मनो ब्राह्मणस्य । ब्राह्मणक्रमेण²³ निर्देशे कर्तव्ये शूद्रप्रक्रमेण निर्देशः पूर्वोक्तम् एवार्थम् उपोद्बलयति । यद् उक्तम् “विकल्प आनुपूर्व्येण नावश्यं समुच्चयः” ॥ ३.१३ ॥

There being a distinction of castes, ‘one’s own caste’ constitutes the (upward) limit. Just as for the Brāhmaṇa, there are Kṣatriya and other wives, so it would seem as if for the Śūdra also there would be wives belonging to the lower orders of ‘washer-woman and carpenter.’ In order to preclude this possibility, the text lays down the restriction that the Śūdra can have a wife from his own caste only. A wife of the higher caste is precluded by the qualifying phrase, ‘in due order,’ in the preceding verse.

‘She’—i.e., the Śūdra woman—‘and girl of his own caste’—i.e., the Vaiśya woman—‘for the Vaiśya.’

‘Those two’—the Vaiśya woman and the Śūdra woman,—‘and the girl of his own caste’— ‘for the Kṣatriya.’

Similarly, ‘for the Brāhmaṇa.’

The right order would appear to be that the verse should begin with the ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ but it begins with the ‘Śūdra’ which only goes to lend strength to the aforesaid notion (that a wife of the higher class is not permitted).

In this connection, it has been declared that ‘what is meant by the text is that there should be option in order, and not a combination of all (the several kinds of wives).’—(13)

Hopkins compares this with the Mahābhārata 13, 47. 8.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 404) as an amplification of what has been declared in the latter half of the preceding verse;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 740) along with the preceding verse; and in Aparārka, (p. 88), which adds that what is stated hero is permissible only in the case of people moved by lust, and not of those who are subject to righteousness; so that these are to be regarded as ‘inferior—‘Kramaśaḥ’ (verse 12) in due order, not in any topsy-turvy ‘order—in Smṛtikaumudī (p. 3), which observes that the eva in ‘śūdraiva’ is meant to preclude marriage of the ‘inverse’ order;—i.e., where the bridegroom’s caste is lower than that of the bride;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 206), which adds that this pertains to marriage for pleasure’s sake.

(verses 3.12-13)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.12].

013 It is declared that a Sudra woman alone (can be) the wife of a Sudra, she and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Vaisya, those two and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Kshatriya, those three and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Brahmana.

Under no circumstance whatsoever has a Śūdra wife been ordained for the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya,—even though these be placed in peril.—(14)

यद्य् अप्य् अत्यन्तरूपवती शूद्रा, विप्रराजन्यौ च वीरप्रकृती दशमीम् अपि दशाम् अश्नुवीयातां तथापि शूद्रां नाधिवोढारौ । अत्रार्थवादः । कस्मीम्श्चिद् अपि वृत्तान्ते न क्वचिद् इतिहासोपाख्याने ऽप्य् उपदिश्यते वर्ण्यते । आपदि गरीयस्याम् अधिकायाम् आपदि ।

• पूर्वत्रानुज्ञातानेन प्रतिषिद्धा अतो विकल्पः ।

• ननु च शास्त्रलक्षणयोर् एकविषयसंनिपाते षोडशिग्रहणाग्रहणवद् विकल्पो युक्तो न तु रागलक्षणायाः प्रवृत्तेर् निषेधेन । न च शूद्रा शास्त्रलक्षणा । केवलं रागतस् तत्र प्रवृत्तिर् अप्रतिषिद्धेति पूर्वशास्त्रस्यार्थः । निषेधस् तु शास्त्रलक्षण इत्य् अविवाह्यैव शूद्रा । एतद् एवाभिप्रेत्य याज्ञवल्क्येन पठितम् “यद् उच्यते द्विजातीनां शूद्रादारोपसंग्रहः । न तन् मम मतम्” इति (य्ध् १.५६) ।

• अत्रोच्यते । सर्वत्रोपदेशानर्थकतयैव विकल्प आश्रीयते । यदि चात्यन्तम् एव शूद्राप्रतिषेधः स्यात् तदा क्षत्रियवैश्ये एव प्रतिप्रसूयेयाताम् आपद्य् अभ्यनुज्ञाने । प्रतिप्रसवशास्त्रम् (म्ध् ३.१३) अयं च प्रतिषेधः- द्वयम् अपि व्यर्थं स्यात् सवर्णाया नियमेन सिद्धत्वात् । तद् इदम् अनुज्ञातं प्रतिषेधश् च स्वं स्वं विरुध्यमाने विकल्प्येते²⁴ ।

• ननु च विकल्पे कामचारः । तस्य च प्रतिप्रसवत एव सिद्धेः²⁵ प्रतिषेधो वक्तव्यो नैव ।

• न यथाकामतः क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् विवाह एवं शूद्रायाः, अन्यत्रापदो गरीयाः²⁶ ।

• इदं तु प्रतिपत्तुं युक्तं यत् सवर्णानियमेनासवर्णानिवृत्तेर् अर्थतः कृतायाः पुनः शूद्रानिवृत्तिर् असवर्णानिवृत्तेर् अनित्यत्वं ज्ञापयति । अनित्यत्वे चापदि सवर्णाया अलाभे वा भवति चायम् अवगमः “शूद्रा न वोढव्या इतरे तु वोढव्ये” ॥ ३.१४ ॥

Even when the Śūdra girl is extremely handsome, and the Brāhmaṇa or Kṣatriya bridegroom is in the ‘tenth stage’ of his life,—he should never marry the Śūdra girl.

On this point, a descriptive phrase is added—‘under no circumstance whatsoever’—i.e., in no story at all—‘has been ordained’— described.

‘In peril’—Even in the greatest distress.

In the preceding verse, the Śūdra wife has been permitted, and here she is prohibited. Hence there should be option.

“Option is permissible only when there is possibility of the two courses being adopted at one and the same time, and both courses are equally sanctioned by scriptural injunctions; and it cannot be permitted when a course of action is open to one only under the influence of passion, while it is prohibited by scripture. In the case in question, the taking of a Śūdra wife is not sanctioned by scripture, it is possible only under the influence of passion; and all that the foregoing verse means is that the marriage of a Śūdra girl under the influence of passion is not entirely prohibited; the prohibition, on the other hand (contained in the present verse), is purely scriptural. Hence the conclusion is that the Śūdra girl should not be married at all. It is in view of this that Yājñavalkya (Ācāra, 56) has declared.—‘It is said that twice-born persons may take Śūdra wives; but that is not my opinion.”’

Our answer to the above is as follows:—In all cases, option is admitted only in view of the likely futility of the injunction (of one or the other coarse of action). If the Śūdra-wife were absolutely prohibited, then the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya girls alone would have been mentioned as permitted (to the Brāhmaṇa) in times of peril; and in that case, the counter-exception (mentioned in 13), as also the prohibition (contained in 14), would both be superfluous; as the marrying of the girl of one’s own caste would have been already secured by the restrictive rule. Thus, then, since there is a clear incompatibility between the sanction (in 13) and the prohibition (in 14), the two should be regarded as optional alternatives.

“The presence of an option means that the agent may do what he likes; and, as the marrying of the Śūdra girl (if one wishes to do so) would be already secured by the counter-exception (in 13), there would be no need for putting forward the prohibition (in 14) [as the not-marrying of the Śūdra girl is already deduced, from the general rule of marrying within one’s own caste].”

But the marrying of the Śūdra girl has not been left entirely to the wish of the agent, in the way in which the marrying of Kṣatriya and Vaiśya girls has been; in fact, it has not been permitted, except in times of very great distress.

From all this the following conclusion appears the right one to adopt:—The general rule regarding marrying a girl of one’s own caste having already indicated, by implication, the impropriety of marrying girls of other castes,—that the Śūdra girl should have been prohibited again (in 14), already shows that the rule regarding not marrying girls of other castes is not absolute; and since this rule is not absolute, it follows that in times of difficulty, or in the event of not finding a girl of his own caste, while the Śūdra girl shall never be married, those of the other two castes may be married.—(14).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495) as countenancing the view that it is better by far that the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya should avoid a Śūdra wife altogether, even though he he overpowered by lust;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 144), where the prohibition herein contained is explained as referring to the first, marriage;—and ‘āpat’ is explained as ‘the contingency of not finding a girl of the same caste’;—and it adds, on the strength of the next verse, that what is here said is applicable to the Vaiśya also.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 749) quotes the verse and explains ‘vṛttante’ as ‘in a story.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 87), which adds that though the verse mentions only the ‘Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya’ it does not mean that it is permissible for the Vaiśya; all thaí is meant is that for the two higher castes it is specially reprehensible;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 205), which says that this prohibition is meant for the first marriage, as is clear from the foregoing verses.

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.13].

014 A Sudra woman is not mentioned even in any (ancient) story as the (first) wife of a Brahmana or of a Kshatriya, though they lived in the (greatest) distress.

Twice-born men, marrying, through infatuation, a girl of the low caste, quickly reduce their families, along with their offspring, to the position of the Śūdra.—(15).

पूर्वस्य प्रतिषेधस्य शेषो ऽयं निन्दार्थवादः । हीनजातिः शूद्रैव, तस्या एव प्रकृतत्वात्, ससंतानानि शूद्रताम् इति निगमनात् । त एते द्विजातयः मोहाद् धनलोभजाद् अविवेकात् कामनिमित्तत्वाद् वा कुलानि शूद्रतां गमयन्ति । तस्यां जाताः पुत्राः शूद्रा भवन्त्य् एवं तत्पुत्रपौत्रा इति । अथ उच्यते ससंतानानीति । संतानो ऽपत्योत्पत्तिप्रबन्धः पुत्रपौत्रादिः ॥ ३.१५ ॥

This is a deprecatory exhortation, supplementing the foregoing prohibition.

‘Of the lout caste’—i.e., of the Śūdra caste; the Śūdra girl being the subject of consideration; and further, because the statement ends with the assertion that the families along with offspring are reduced to the position of the Śūdra.

‘The twice-born men, through infatuation’—i.e., on account of folly arising from greed for wealth, or from lust,—‘reduce their families to the position of the Śūdra.’ That is, sons born of that wife become Śūdras, and so also grandsons and great-grandsons descended from them. Hence, it is added—‘along with their offspring’—the term ‘offspring’ standing for the line of descendants, consisting of sons, grandsons, &c.—(15).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495) its prohibiting the marrying of a Śūdra wife by the twice-born;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 750);—and in Aparārka (p. 87).

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.13].

015 Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.

One who marries a Śūdra girl becomes an outcastk,—according to atri and to the son of Utathya; according to Śaunaka, by the birth of a son; and according to Bhṛgu, by having children from her (alone).—(16).

शूद्रां विन्दति परिणयति शूद्रावेदी स पतति पतित इव । अत्रिर् उतथ्यस्य तनयः पुत्रस् तयोर् एतन् मतम् इत्य् उपस्करः । अयं तावद् अर्धश्लोकः पूर्वप्रतिषेधशेषः । शौनकस्य सुतोत्पत्त्या । शास्त्रान्तरम् इदम् । अभ्यनुज्ञाय शूद्रायाम् ऋताव् उपगमनं निषेधति सुतोत्पत्तिर् ह्य् ऋतौ युग्मासु रात्रिषु भवति । ऋतौ शूद्रां न गच्छेद् इत्य् अर्थः । तदपत्यतया भृगोः । इदम् अपि स्मृत्यन्तरम् । तान्य् एव शूद्रोत्पन्नान्य् अपत्यानि यस्य स तदपत्यः, तद्भावस् तदपत्यता । भृगोर् एतन् मतम् । ऋताव् अप्य् उपपन्नतरासु जातापत्य उपेयात् । पतितत्ववचनं चात्र निन्दैव न त्व् अस्य पतितधर्मता “पतत्स्योदकम्” इत्यादि (म्ध् ११.१८२) । एतच् च वक्ष्यामः ॥ ३.१६ ॥

‘Śūdrāvedi’ is one who acquires—i.e., marries—a Śūdra girl.

‘Becomes an outcasts’—i.e., as good as an outcaste.

Such is the opinion of Atri, and of Utathya’s son. The authorities have been mentioned with a view to inspire respect.

The first half of the verse is supplementary to the prohibition contained in the preceding verse.

‘According to Śaunaka, by the birth of a child.’ This is an entirely different rule. It presumes that marriage with a Śūdra girl is permitted, and then prohibits intercourse with her during her ‘courses’; ‘birth of a son’ is possible only by having intercourse on the even days of the woman’s period. Thus the meaning is that ‘one should not have intercourse with his Śūdra wife during her courses.’

‘According to Bhṛgu, by having children from her.’ This also is a distinct rule by itself. ‘Tadapalya’ is one who has only such children as. are born of his Śūdra wife; and the character of such a man is called ‘tadapatyatā.’ This is the opinion of Bhṛgu; which means that ‘after one has begotten children from wives of the more respectable castes, he may have intercourse with the Śūdra wife.’

The mention of ‘outcaste’ here is only meant to indicate degradation; it does not mean that the man is to be actually treated as an ‘outcaste,’ as described under 11.182. All this we shall explain later on.—(16).

According to Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nandana and Rāghavānanda, the meaning of this verse is as translated. According to Nārāyaṇa’s explanation, the translation would read as follows (rendered by Buhler):—“A man of the family of Atri who weds a Śūdra female, becomes an outcaste; one of the race of Utathya’s son, on the birth of a son; and one of Śaunaka’s or Bhṛgu’s race, by having no other but Śūdra offspring.’ Buhler adds—“It ought to be noted that, according to Kullūka alone, the three classes refer to Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas respectively. Rāghavānanda particularly objects to the opinion.”

Burnell ??tes that the rule attributed here to Gautama (Utathya’s ???n) is not found in the Sūtras of Gautama, where we find only a general statement regarding the unlawful character of Śūdra offsprings of twice-born men. And Hopkins says the same thing in regard to the Smṛti of Atri.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 750); neither of which provides any explanation of this rather obscure verse;—in Aparārka (p. 88), which explains the meaning to be that “according to Atri and Gautama, the Brāhmaṇa marrying a Śūdra girl ‘falls’ by the mere act of marriage; according to Śaunaka, by begetting a son on her; and according to Bhṛgu, when a grandson is born from her;”—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 361), which notes that this and the next verse are only meant to deprecate the marrying of a Śūdra girl, ‘in the improper order’;—and in Smṛti-candrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 208), which adds the following notes:—The Brāhmaṇa marrying a Śūdra girl becomes degraded,—this is the opinion of Atri and of the ‘son of Utathya,’ i.e. Gautama;—hence according to these authorities the Brāhmaṇa should never marry a Śūdra girl;—according to Śaunaka, however, degradation results, not from marrying, but from begetting a child on a Śūdra wife,—hence according to him, the man should avoid the Śūdra wife during the ‘periods—according to Bhṛgu again, even the begetting of a child does not lead to degradation, what leads to it is the circumstance that the Brāhmaṇa has no children except those from his Śūdra wife,—so that according to Bhṛgu only so long as he has not got a child from his Brāhmaṇa wife shall the Brāhmaṇa avoid his Śūdra wife during the periods’.

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.13].

016 According to Atri and to (Gautama) the son of Utathya, he who weds a Sudra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth of a son, and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sudra female, alone).

Having placed a Śūdrā woman on his bed, the Brāhmaṇa goes to perdition; and having begotten a son by her, he falls from Brāhmaṇahood itself.—(17).

अर्थवादो ऽयम् । यदि पुत्रम् उत्पादयति तस्यां ततो ब्राह्मण्याद् एव हीयते । अपत्यस्याब्राह्मणत्वम् इति निन्दैव । सुतम् इति च पुल्लिङ्गनिर्देशात् सुतोत्पत्तेर् इत्य् अत्र समानसंहितत्वे ऽपि पुत्रोत्पत्तिर् एवाभिप्रेता । तथा च दर्शितं “युग्मा रात्रयो वर्ज्याः” इति ॥ ३.१७ ॥

This is a laudatory exaggeration.

If on the Śūdra wife he begets a son, he falls from Brāhmaṇahood itself i.e., the son becomes a non-Brāhmaṇa. This also is a deprecatory exaggeration.

‘Son’—is in the masculine gender. So that (in the preceding verse also) the term ‘begetting of children,’ ‘sutotpattyā,’ should be taken to refer to the male child; even though in the compound the word can be taken both ways—either as ‘sutā’ in the Feminine, or as ‘suta’ in the Masculine. It is with this view that we have pointed out above that what is prohibited is intercourse with the woman on the even days of her ‘period’ (as it is only by intercourse on those days that a male child is born).—(17).

Hopkin’s remarks—“A significant alteration in the Mahābhārata 13.47.9 makes the last part of this verse read—‘He is nevertheless purified by a ceremony known in law’.”—One fails to see what is ‘significant’ in this, when Hindu law bristles with expiatory ceremonies in connection with much more heinous offences than the marrying of a Śūdra wife.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.265, p. 1326) as meant to indicate the gravity of the offence, and as laying down the actual irrevocable loss of Brāhmaṇahood;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495) as prohibiting the marrying of the Śūdra by the twice-born;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 750);—in Aparārka (p. 87);—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 361);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 208), which notes that what this forbids is the marrying and begetting of child on a Śūdra wife before a Brāhmaṇa wife.

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.13].

017 A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.

If the rites performed by one in honour of deities, Pitṛs and Guests are dominated by her (his Śūdra wife), then the Pitṛs and the Gods do not eat of them; and the man does not go to heaven.—(18)

सार्वकालिको ऽयं निषेधः । यदि कथंचिच् छूद्रापि व्युह्यते तदैतानि कर्माणि तत्प्रधानानि न कर्तव्यानि । न च तया सह त्रैवर्णिकस्त्रीवद् धर्मे ऽधिकाओ ऽस्तीत्य् अर्थः । भार्यात्वाद् अधिकारे प्राप्ते निषेधो ऽयम् । अतः स्वधर्मे धनं विनियुञ्जानस्य न तदीयानुज्ञोपयुज्यते, यथा द्विजातिस्त्रीणाम् । अन्यत्र त्व् अर्थकामयोः साप्य् अनतिचरणीयैव । प्रेष्यावत् तत्कर्मोपयोगो न निषिध्यते, श्राद्धादाव् अवहननादिकार्ये तत्र न दोषः स्यात् । परिवेषणादि न कारयितव्या ।

• तत्र दैवं कर्म दर्शपूर्णमासादि, देवतोद्देशेन च ब्राह्मणभोजनम्, “व्रतवत्” इत्य् (म्ध् २.१८९) अत्र यथा व्याख्यातम् । पित्र्यं श्राद्धोदकतर्पणादि । आतिथेयम् अतिथेर् आराधनं भोजनपाद्यादि ।

• ननु च “सजात्या स्थितयान्यया” (म्ध् ९.८७) इत्य् अस्त्य् एव²⁷ प्रतिषेधः ।

• नैव । “स्थितया” इति तत्र श्रूयते । ऋतुमत्यां सवर्णायां कथंचिद् वासंनिहितायां प्राप्नोति क्षत्रियावैश्यावत् । अपि च नासाव् अधिकारे प्रतिषेस्हः, किं तर्हि आज्यावेक्षणादौ । पत्न्यावेक्षितम् आज्यं भवतीत्य् अङ्गत्वेनोपादीयते । पत्नीत्य् अत्र क्रत्वर्थेषु यथा कयाचिद् उपात्तया सिद्धिर् अनियमेन प्राप्ता । यथा बह्वीषु सवर्णासु यया कयाचित् सवर्णया क्रियते, एवम् असवर्णयापि मा कारीत्य् एवमर्थो ऽसौ प्रतिषेधः । प्राधान्यम् अधिकारित्वात् ।

• नाश्नन्ति पितृदेवास् तम् इति कर्मनैष्फल्यम् आह । न च स्वर्गं स गच्छति । यद्य् अप्य् अतिथिर् अश्नाति तत्फलं स्वर्गादि न भवतीति । स्वर्गग्रहणम् अतिथिपूजाफलोपलक्षणार्थम्, अनुवादश् च “धन्यं यशस्यम्” (म्ध् ३.१०६ [९६]) इत्यादि ॥ ३.१८ ॥

This prohibition pertains to all times.

Even if a Śūdra girl happens to be married, the rites, herein mentioned, should not be performed in a manner by which she might dominate them. That is to say, the Śūdra wife is not entitled to participate in the husband’s religious acts, in the manner in which wives of the three higher castes arc.

Since she is a ‘wife,’ it might be thought that she is so entitled; and it is in view of the possibility of such notion being entertained that we have the present prohibition. The meaning thus is that when one is going to spend his wealth over some religious act, he need not seek her consent, in the way he seeks that of his wives of the twice-born castes; in other cases, however—such as the expenses incurred for seeking prosperity and obtaining pleasure,—she is not to be disregarded. That she should be employed, like a servant, during the performance of Śrāḍdha, &c., is not prohibited; e.g., there would be no harm if she were to thresh corn and so forth; but she should not be made to serve food and do such other acts.

‘Rites in honour of deities’ are (1) the Daśa-pūrnamāsa and other sacrifices, and (2) the feeding of Brāhmaṇas in honour of Deities, as already explained by us under 2.180.

‘Rites in honour of Pitṛs’—i.e., Śrāddhas and offering of water-libations.

‘Rites in honour of guests’—i.e., the reception and feeding of guests, and offering them water for washing their feet, and so forth.

“The prohibition here put forth is already implied by the rule that wives of one’s own caste should not be superseded by other wives.”

Not so; because the rule speaks of the wife of the same caste being actually present. Hence people might he led. to argue as follows—“If the wife of the Brāhmaṇa’s own caste happens to be in her courses, or absent, then his Śūdra wife may preside over the rites, just like his Kṣatriya and Vaiśya wives; further, the prohibition contained in the rule referred to pertains, not to her title to preside, but simply to the act of examining the clarified butter and so forth, which are done by the wife in accordance with the rule that the clarified butter used at sacrifices should be such as has been examined by the wife; and, as the rule simply mentions the general name ‘wife,’ it may be taken to mean that the act may be done by any wife that has been obtained.”

And it is with a view to prevent this being done,—and of wives of different castes doing the said acts in the same way in which they are done by any one wife from among several wives of the same caste,—that we have the present prohibition.

The ‘domination,’ by the wife is due to her being entitled to the act.

‘The deities and the Pitṛs do not eat of it;’—this means that the acts become futile.

‘He does not go to heaven;’—i.e., if the guest takes food, the householder fails to attain Heaven, which he would attain as the result of his having fed his guests. ‘Heaven’ here stands for all those rewards that have been described as proceeding from the ‘honouring of guests,’ and it is a reference to all that has been said under 3. 106.—(18).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 88), which explains it to mean that ‘she should not be allowed to take a prominent part in the offerings made to the Gods and Pitṛs;’—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 206), which explains ‘tatpradhānāni’ as ‘at which the Śūdra wife presides.’

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.13].

018 The manes and the gods will not eat the (offerings) of that man who performs the rites in honour of the gods, of the manes, and of guests chiefly with a (Sudra wife’s) assistance, and such (a man) will not go to heaven.

There is ho expiation for him who has drunk the moisture of the mouth of a Śūdra woman, who has been tainted by her breath, and who has begotten children on her.—(19).

अर्थवादो ऽयम् । वृषल्याः फेनो वृषलीफेनो वक्त्रासवः, स पीतो येन । पलाण्डुभिक्षितादिवत् परनिपातः । पाठान्तरम्²⁸- वृषलीपीतफेनस्य । पीतः फेनो यस्येति विग्रहः वृषल्या पीतफेनः । “तृतीया” (पाण् २.१.३०) इति योगविभागात् समासः । पीतः फेनो वानेनेति विग्रहे वृषल्या इति षष्ठीसमासः (पाण् २.२.८) । अर्थस् तु सर्ववृत्तिष्व् एक एव । संप्रयुज्यमानयोर् अधरपरिचुम्बनाद्य् अवश्यंभावि तेन च सहचारिणा धर्मेण मैथुनसंबन्धो लक्ष्यते । प्रकरणाच् च विवाहप्रतिषेधशेषो ऽयं न पृथग्वाक्यम् । तत्त्वे हि चुम्बनादिवर्जं नियोगधर्मो बहुमतः स्यात् । तस्माद् गच्छञ् छूद्रां चुम्बनादिपरिवर्जनेन²⁹ न किंचिच् छास्त्रार्थम् अनुलङ्घते³⁰ ।

• तस्यां चैव प्रसूतस्य ऋतौ तु गच्छत इत्य् अर्थः । निष्कृतिः शुद्धिर् नास्ति इति निन्दातिशयो ऽयम्³¹ ॥ ३.१९ ॥

This is an exaggerated exhortation.

‘Vṛṣalīphena’ is the moisture of her mouth; he by whom this has been drunk is ‘vṛṣalīphenapīta;’—the past participial adjective ‘pīta’ being put last by the analogy of such compounds as ‘palāṇḍubhakṣita,’ and so forth.

If we adopt the other reading ‘vṛṣalīpītaphenasya,’ then the compound ‘pītaphenaḥ’ is to be expounded as ‘pītaḥ pheno yasya;’ and this, with the term ‘vṛṣalī’ taken as an Instrumental Tatpuruṣa,—according to Pāṇini 2. 1. 30. (the sense being ‘the moisture of whose mouth has been drunk by a Śūdra woman’). Or, ‘pītaphena,’ expounded as above, might be taken as forming a Genetive Tatpuruṣa with ‘vṛṣalī.’

The meaning is the same in all cases. When the husband and wife lie together, the touching of their lips, etc., are inevitable. Hence, what the word of the text indicates is sexual intercourse, by mentioning something that is concomitant with it.

From the context it is clear that this verse is supplementary to the foregoing prohibition, and it is not an independent assertion. If it were an independent assertion, we should have the prohibition of kissing only, and the other forms of intercourse would become sanctioned; so that, by having intercourse with a Śūdra woman, only if one avoids kissing, he would not be transgressing any scriptural injunction.

‘Who has begotten children on her’—i.e., who has had intercourse with her during her ‘courses.’

‘Expiation’—purification there is none. This indicates a high degree of deprecation.—(19).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495) along with the preceding four verses;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 75), where ‘phenapītasya’ is explained as ‘pītamukhāsavasya’, ‘he who has drunk wine from the mouth.’

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.13].

019 For him who drinks the moisture of a Sudra’s lips, who is tainted by her breath, and who begets a son on her, no expiation is prescribed.