०४ ऋतुसङ्गमनम्

One should observe the rule of approaching (one’s wife) during the period of her season,—ever attached to his own wife. In consideration of her he may approach her with a desire for sexual intercourse, except on the sacred days.—(45)

उक्तो विवाहः । तस्मिन् निर्वृत्ते समुपयाते दारत्वे तद् अहर् एवेच्छयोपगमे प्राप्ते तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते ।

• न विवाहसमनन्तरं तद् अहर् एव गच्छेत्, किं तर्हि ऋतुकालं प्रतीक्षेत । गृह्यकारैस् तु “अत ऊर्ध्वम् अक्षारलवणाशिनौ ब्रह्मचारिणाव् अधःशायिनौ स्यातां । त्रिरात्रं द्वादशरात्रं संवत्सरं वा” (आश्ग् १.७.११) पठितम् । तत्र सत्य् अपि संवत्सरस्यान्तरापतिते¹ ऋतौ गमनं नास्ति । एवम् अस्मात् कालाद् ऊर्ध्वम् असत्य् ऋतौ गमनं नास्ति । एवम् एते स्मृती अविरोधिन्यौ भवतः । त्रिरात्रादीनां तु विकल्पः अत्यन्तरागपीडितयोर् गमनम्, दैयवतोर् तु ब्रह्मचर्यम् ।

• ऋतुर् नाम स्त्रीणां शोणितदर्शनोपलक्षितः शरीरावस्थाविशेषो गर्भग्रहणसमर्थः काल उच्यते । उपलक्षणत्वाच् च दर्शनस्य निर्वृत्ते ऽस्मिन् वक्ष्यमाणकालानुवर्ती भवत्य् एव । तस्य काल ऋतुकालः । साहचर्याद् वा काल एव ऋतुः । तथा च समानाधिकरणसमासः । ऋतुकाले ऽभिगन्तुं व्रतम् अस्येत्य् ऋतुकालाभिगामी । व्रते इति णिनिः (पाण् ३.२.२०) यथा स्थण्डिलशायी अश्राद्धभोजीति । स्याद् भवेद् इत्य् अर्थः । यद्य् अप्य् अस्तिपरा विधिविभक्तिस् तथाप्य् उपगमव्यापारं निदधाति, अभिगामी स्याद् अभिगच्छेद् इत्य् अर्थः । न ह्य् अनुपगच्छन्न् अभिगामी भवति ।

• कीदृशं पुनर् एतद् व्रतम् । किम् ऋताव् अभिगन्तव्यम् एव, अथर्ताव् एव गन्तव्यम् इति । एतद् उक्तं भवति । किम् अयं नियम उत परिसंख्येति । ननु च व्रतम् इति शास्त्रतो नियम उच्यते । तत्रैव चायं णिनिः । अतः परिसंख्या कथम् आशङ्क्यते ।

• उच्यते । परिसंख्यायाम् अपि शास्त्रीयत्वं नियमरूपता च विद्यत इति दर्शयिष्यामः ।

• कस् तर्ह्य् अन्योर् विशेषः ।

• विधिविशेषो नियमः ।

• अथ विधिः कः ।

• यः शब्दः कर्तव्यताबोधकः “अग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात् स्वर्गकामः” इति । न ह्य् अग्निहोत्रस्यैतद् वचनम् अन्तरेणान्यतः कुतश्चित् कर्तव्यतावगमः । नियमः पुनर् यत्रादृष्टसिद्ध्यर्थस्य वचनम् अन्तरेण पाक्षिकी प्राप्तिः । यथा “समे यजेत” इति दर्शपौर्णमासादियागविधानाद् देशमात्रम् आक्षिप्तम् । न हि कश्चिद् देशम् अनाश्रित्य यागप्रयोगः संभवति । द्विविधश् च देशः, समो विषमश् च । यत्र यदा तावत् समे यजेत तदैतद् वचनम् अनुवाद एव । यदा त्व् इच्छाया निरङ्कुशत्वाद् विषमे यियक्षति तदैतद् वचनं समदेशं विदधद् अर्थवत्, विहिते समे विषमस्यानाश्रयणम् अविधानात् । एतत् सामर्थ्यात् तन्निवृत्तिः । विधिनिबन्धने ह्य् अनुष्ठाने किम् इत्य् अविहितं क्रियेत । तत्करणे हि न यथाचोदितानुष्ठानसिद्धिः ।

• इदं चात्र स्मार्तम् उदाहरणम् । “प्राङ्मुखो ऽन्नानि भुञ्जीत” । भुञ्जानस्य यदृच्छया यां कांचिद् दिशम् आश्रित्य भोजनं प्राप्तम् । तत्र कदाचित् प्राची कदाचिद् इतरा या काचित् प्राप्ता । तत्र यदा प्राची न तदेतरा, यदेतरा न तदा प्राचीति । तत्राप्राप्तिपक्षे विध्यर्थं वचनं “प्राङ्मुखो ऽन्नानि भुञ्जीत” इति । तत्रातिक्रमाच् छास्त्रार्थं जहाति ।

• एवम् इह यदृच्छयोपगमनम् ऋताव् अनुपगमनम्, पक्षे विधीयमानम् उपगमनम् अननुष्ठीयमानम्², शास्त्रातिक्रमकारितां जनयेत् । यथान्ये शास्त्रविहितार्था अतिक्रम्यमाणाः प्रायश्चित्तहेतवो भवन्ति तथानुगमनम् ।

• अथर्ताव् अनृतौ च गमने रागतः प्राप्ते वचनम् ऋताव् उपेयाद् इति, तदैवं वचनं मृग्यते- ऋताव् एवोपेयाद् अनृताउ न गच्छेत् । यथा “पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्याः” इति क्षुत्प्रतिघातेनार्थेन शशकादिष्व् अपि पञ्चनखेषु भक्ष्यता प्रसक्ता तद्व्यतिरिक्तेष्व् अपि वानरादिषु । न च तत्र पर्यायेणैव प्रवृत्तिः । युगपत् तत्र चान्यत्र च प्रसक्तौ “पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्याः” इति वचनम् इतरपरिसंख्यानार्थं संपद्यते³ । एवम् इह परिसंख्येति ।

• ननु च परिसंख्यां दोषत्रयवतीम् आचक्षते । त्रयो हि तत्र दोषाः प्रादुःष्युः, स्वार्थत्यागः परार्थकल्पना प्राप्तबाधश् च । “पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्याः” इति यदान्वयतः पञ्चनखविषयं भक्षणं प्रतीयते तदा तत्त्यक्तं भवति, तद्व्यतिरिक्तनिषेधपरत्वाद् वाक्यस्य । अश्रुतश् च निषेधः, अतः परार्थकल्पना । अर्थित्वाच् च सर्वविषयं भक्षणं यत् प्राप्तं तस्य बाधः । एवम् एतेन परिसंख्यायां त्रयो दोषाः ।

• नैतत् सारम् । सत्य् अर्थित्वे श्रुत्यर्थासंभवे वाक्यस्यानर्थक्यं मा भूद् इत्य् एतत्परता न विरुद्धा ।

• विधिर् अत्यन्तम् अप्राप्तौ नियमः पाक्षिके सति ।

• तत्र चान्यत्र च प्राप्तौ परिसंख्या नखिष्व् इव ॥ (त्व् १.२.४२)

• किं पुनर् अत्र युक्तम् । “तत्र चान्यत्र च प्राप्तौ” परिसंख्यालक्षणस्य विद्यमानत्वात् परिसंख्येति । ऋताव् अपि गमनं प्राप्तम् अनृताव् अपि । न तु यदर्तौ तदानृताव् इति । यथा सत्य् अर्थित्वे यद्⁴ भोजनं तत्र नियमो ऽश्राद्धम् न पुनर् आहारत्यागेन अश्राद्धम् एव भुञ्जान आस्ते । एवम् इह सति खेदे यद् गमनं तत्र नियमो ऽनृतौ न गच्छेद् इत्य् अवगच्छति । अर्थित्वाच् च गमने प्रसक्ते कालविदानपरतैव युक्ता वाक्यस्य । अन्यथानारब्धो ऽर्थ उपदिष्टः स्यात् । किंचापत्योत्पत्तिविधेः कृतविवाहस्यानुष्टेयत्वाद् ऋतौ च तत्संभवात् प्राप्तम् एव गमनम् । उत्पन्नपुत्रस्य च न द्वितीयपुत्रोत्पादनं वैधम् । अपत्यम् उत्पादयेद् इत्य् एकत्वविवक्षायां विध्यर्थनिवृत्तेः । न च गमनम् एवादृष्टार्थतया शक्यं विधातुम् । संकारविधित्वाधिकारग्रहणात्⁵ कल्पनायाश् चाशक्यत्वाद्⁶ अपत्योत्पत्तिविध्याक्षेपाद् ऋतौ गमनस्य । यदि चात्रर्ताव् उपेयाद् इति तद् अनृतुप्रतिषेधार्थम् । तत्रानुवादः परं परिसंख्या । तत्र ह्य् अर्थान्तरलक्षणयाप्य् अर्थवत्ता भवति ।

• एवं च⁷ कृत्वा गौतमीयेनाविप्रतिपत्तिः । एवं तत्रोक्तम्- “ऋताव् उपेयात् सर्वत्र वा प्रतिषिद्धवर्जम्” इति (ग्ध् ५.१–२) । “सत्वत्र वा” इत्य् एष विकल्पः कामचारानुज्ञानार्थः । न पुनः सर्वदर्ताव् अनृतौ च नियमोपपत्तिः । यदि च पूर्वत्र “ऋताव् उपेयात्” इति नियमः, “सर्वत्र वा” इत्य् अत्रापि स एवोपेयाद् इत्य् अनुप्रयुज्यमानशब्दो नियमार्थः प्राप्नोति एकप्रक्रमत्वात्, न हि⁸ स एव शब्दः पुनर् अनुच्चार्यमाणो भिन्नार्थो भवितुं युक्तः । न चर्तोर् अन्यत्र नियमार्थतोपपद्यते इत्य् उक्तम् । तस्माद् ऋतौ गमनवचनम् अनृतौ प्रतिषेधार्थम् । तत्रानुत्पन्नपुत्रस्य विध्यन्तरान् नियम एव । उत्पन्नपुत्रस् तु यथाकामी ।

• अनृतौ प्रतिषिद्धे गमने भार्येच्छया पुनः प्रतिप्रसूयते पर्ववर्जं व्रजेच् चैनां तद्व्रत इति । तद् इति भार्यायाः प्रत्यवमर्शः । तच्चित्तग्रहणं व्रतम् अस्येति तद्व्रतः । रतिकाम्यया विनाप्य् अपत्यार्थेनोत्पन्नपुत्र ऋताव् अनुत्पन्नपुत्रो वानृतौ सुरतसंभोगेच्छया तद्व्रत एनां व्रजेन् नात्मेच्छयेत्य् अर्थः ।

• अथ वा तच्छब्दो रतिकाम्ययेत्य् अत्राप्य् अपेक्ष्यते,⁹ स्मृतिशास्त्रत्वाद् अस्य । तद् रतिकाम्यया पर्ववर्जम् अन्यत्रापि व्रजेत् । तत्रैवाकारश्लेषो द्रष्टव्यः, अरतिकाम्यया अत्मन इति शेषः । यथा तु व्याख्यातं तथा न किंचिद् अत्राप्रश्लेषेणापि वा¹⁰ तच्छब्दस्य समासोपसर्जनस्यासंबन्धेन । पर्वाणि वक्ष्यति । अमावास्याम् अष्टमीं च पौर्णमासीं चतुर्दशीम् इति । स्वदारनिरतः¹¹ । स्वदारेषु निरतः स्यात् तत्प्रीतिभावनापरः । अथ वा स्वदारेष्व् एव रमते न परदारान् रमयेद् इति परदारप्रतिषेधः । सदा यावज्जीवम् एतद् व्रतं परिपालनीयम् ।

• अतः स्थितम् एतत् । त्रीणि वाक्यान्य् अत्र- ऋतुकालाभिगामी स्याद् इत्य् एतद् एकम् । अनुत्पन्नपुत्रस्य नियमानुवादरूपं द्वितीयम्, भार्याप्रयुक्तस्य पर्ववर्जम् ऋताव् अनृतौ च न सुरतेच्छया । स्वदारनिरत इति तृतीयम् । एषां च पदयोजना- ऋतुकालाभिगामी स्याद् अपत्यार्थम्, रतिकाम्यया तु तद्व्रत एनां व्रजेत्, स्वदारनिरतश् च स्यात् ॥ ३.४५ ॥

Marriage has been described. Marriage having been accomplished, and the wifehood of the girl having been established, one might have the idea that he was entitled to have intercourse with her that same day; hence, with a view to preclude the possibility of this being done, the text proceeds with the following rules.

One should not have recourse to his wife immediately after marriage, on the same day; he should wait for her puberty. In fact, the authors of Gṛhyasūtras have declared that ‘after marriage, for three days or twelve days, or tor a year, the pair should take food without salt, observing continence and lying down upon the ground.’ (Āśvalayana, 1. 8. 10-12.) Hence, if puberty appears in course of the year, there should be no intercourse; similarly, even after the said time, there is to be no intercourse before puberty. In this manner, there is to inconsistency between the present text and the rule laid down by Aśvalāyana. As for the mention of the option of ‘three days,’ etc., what is meant is that, if the pair happen to be very passionate, they might adopt the lesser periods, but others should observe continence (for the full period of twelve months).

‘Season’ is that period of time during which the bodily condition of woman is marked by a flow of blood and indicates her capacity for conception. The actual sight of blood being merely an indication, even after the actual flow has ceased, the time that follows—up to the limit to be described below—is also called the ‘season.’ Or, because of the association of the name ‘season’ with the term ‘period,’ the period itself may be regarded as the ‘season;’ and in this case, we would have the appositional compound (in ‘ṛtukāla’).

The person who has resolved to approach only during the season is culled ‘one who observes the rule of approaching only during the season;’ the affix ‘ṇini’ (in gāmī) having the sense of vote or resolve, according, to Pāṇini 3. 2. 20; just as we have in the case of such terms as ‘sthaṇḍilaśāyī,’ ‘aśrāddhabhojī,’ and the like.

‘Syāt’— should be. Even though the injunctive ending has been added to the root ‘as,’ to be, yet what it enjoins is the act of ‘approaching;’ the phrase ‘abhigāmī syāt’ being equivalent to ‘abhigacchet, ‘should approach;’ specially as, unless one does the act of approaching, he cannot become ‘abhigāmin.’

What sort of ‘rule’ is this? (a) is it that one must approach her during the ‘season?’ (b) or that he should approach her only, during the ‘season?’ That is to say, is the rule restrictive or preclusive?

“Well, the very name ‘vrata,’ ‘vow,’ indicates scriptural restriction; and the verbal affix ‘ṇini’ denotes ‘vow;’ so that why should there be any question of its being preclusive?”

Our answer to this is as follows:—We shall show later on that preclusion also is scriptural in character and restrictive in form.

“What then is the difference between the two?”

Restriction is supplementary to Injunction.

“What is Injunction?”

Injunction is that word which expresses the idea of some act to be done; e.g., in the sentence ‘one desirous of Heaven should offer the Agnihotra.’ With the exception of this sentence, there are no other words which could give us the idea of the Agnihotra as something to be done. We have ‘restriction’ in a case where the partial idea of something to be done for the purpose of a transcendental result is obtained even without the scriptural words; e.g., if we have the injunction ‘one should offer the sacrifice on even ground,’ in connection with the Daśapūrṇamāsa sacrifices, the idea of some place in general where they are to be performed is implied by the nature of the act itself; no sacrifice can be performed, except at some place; and places are of two kinds, even and uneven; now, in the event of the sacrificer happening to select an even spot [merely on the strength of the general injunction of the sacrifice],—the words, ‘should offer the sacrifice on even ground,’ become merely descriptive; but if, by reason of man’s desire being untramelled, some one were to elect to perform his sacrifice on uneven ground, then the words, ‘should offer the sacrifice on even ground,’ become useful by asserting the necessity of adopting even ground; for, when the words clearly enjoin the even ground, the avoiding of uneven ground follows directly from the fact of its not being enjoined; so that the avoiding of uneven ground is obtained from the implication of the injunction of even ground. For every performance being dependent upon injunction, wherefore could there be adoption of what is not enjoined at all? If such were adopted, there would be no accomplishment of the act in due accordance with what has been enjoined.

[ The above being an example of Restriction from Śrauta literature] we have an example from Smārta literature in the shape of the Injunction—‘One should eat food facing the East.’ When a man is going to take food, it is open to him to face any direction he likes; so that at one time he might face the East, at another he might face the West, or any other direction; and when he would face the East, he would not face any other, while when he would face another direction he would not face the East. Hence in the event of the man electing to face another direction, the injunction that ‘one should eat food facing the East’ comes in useful; and by disobeying this, one would be transgressing a scriptural injunction.

Similarly, in the case in question, the act of approaching one’s wife at any time one chooses aṇd not approaching her during the ‘season,’ would make one open to the charge of transgressing the scriptural injunction; as he would, partially (i.e., by not approaching during ‘season,’ and by approaching out of season) be omitting to do what has been directly enjoined; and the act of approaching (out of season) would make him subject to expiation in the same manner as the transgressing of other acts enjoined in the scriptures. When it is open to one to approach one’s wife, through passion, both during ‘season’ and out of it, then we have use for such a direction as ‘one should approach one’s wife only during season, and never out of season,’ Just as the direction ‘five five-nailed animals are edible,’ has its use when it is open to man, under the influence of hunger, to eat the hare, etc., (which are permitted), as well as the monkey and the rest (which are not permitted). In this case, there is nothing to indicate that the two sets of animals may he eaten in turn (as it is possible in the case of the approaching of one’s wife during ‘season’ and also, at another time, ‘out of season’). So that in the case just cited (of the edibility of five five-nailed animals), there is possibility of both (eating of hare, etc., and eating of monkey, etc.) being done simultaneously; and hence we have the direction ‘only five five-nailed animals are edible,’ which serves to preclude the other alternative (of all five-nailed animals being eaten). And thus, in this case, we have Preclusion.

“But they say that Preclusion is beset with three defects: in every case of Preclusion three defects crop up: (1) the renouncing of its meaning, (2) the assuming of a different meaning and (3) the setting aside of what is possible.

(1) Now in the case of the words, ‘five five-nailed animals are edible,’ the idea afforded by it is in the affirmative form—‘five five-nailed animals should be eaten:’ and this is renounced when the words are taken to mean the negativing of the eating of animals other than the five.

(2) Further, no negation is expressed by the words of the sentence; hence, when it is taken as preclusive, a meaning different from its own becomes assumed.

(3) Lastly, it being open to the hungry man to eat all animals, when the sentence is token as preclusive, that which is possible becomes set aside. These are the three defects that beset every case of preclusion.”

There is nothing in all this. If the man is hungry, the eating of animals is already open to him; so that no injunction being needed for that purpose, it is not possible for the sentence to be taken in its direct sense (that certain animals shall be eaten); and hence, in order to guard against the futility of the injunction (if token affirmatively), if it is taken in the negative sense (of preclusion), there can be no incongruity in this. It has been thus declared—‘when what is laid down is what is absolutely unknown, it is a case of injunction; it is a case of Restriction when the course laid down is partially (i.e., optionally) possible; and it is a case of Preclusion when what is laid down is possible, as also something else.’ (Tantravārtika 1. 2. 42).

Now we have to consider what is the right view to take in regard to our text.

Since the present case fulfills the condition of Preclusion that ‘what is laid down is possible, as well as something else,’ it should be taken as a Preclusion. It is possible for the man to approach his wife ‘during the season’ as well as ‘out of season;’ but if the approaching is done ‘daring season,’ then it cannot be done ‘out of season’ at the same time (i.e., both alternatives are not possible at the same time). Just as when the man is hungry, it is open to him to eat at śrāddhas as well as not at śrāddhas; and when the rule says, ‘he should eat not at śrādḍha,’ he simply avoids eating at śrāddhas; and he does not give up all food, seeking thereby to obey the injunction of not eating at śrāddhas;—similarly, when the man has a longing for intercourse, it is open to him to have recourse to it at all times, and we understand the present rale to mean that ‘one should not approach one’s wife out of season.’ The act of approaching itself being already possible by reason of the man himself desiring it, it is only right that the sentence should be taken as laying down the proper time for that act. Otherwise, it would be prescribing something not referred to before at all. Farther, the obeying of the injunction of begetting children is possible only for one who has married; and this begetting is possible only by approaching one’s wife daring ‘season;’ so that the act of approaching daring ‘Beason’ is already rendered possible by all this. Then, again, for one who has already got a child, the act of approaching oue’s wife again for the purpose of begetting a second child cannot be regarded as being done in accordance with the injunction of begetting children, for the injunction being in the form ‘one should beget a child,’ and the singular number in ‘child’ being meant to be significant, the injunction will have been duly fulfilled by the- begetting of the first child. [Thus, then, there would be no point in the present text enjoining the act of approaching one’s wife during ‘season’]. Nor could the approaching be taken as laid down for the purpose of accomplishing a transcendental result; because it is not possible to impose upon it either the character of a sacramental rite, or that of an act for a definite result; specially, as the act of approaching during ‘season’ is already implied by the injunction of ‘begetting a child.’ From all this it follows that the statement that ‘one should approach one’s wife during season’ is meant to prohibit the act ‘out of season;’ so that, in its own(?) form, it is merely re-iterative (of what has been enjoined in regard to the begetting of a child), but in its indirect sense it is a Preclusion. And when thus taken in this indirect sense, the passage comes to serve a distinctly useful purpose.

When it is thus, taken, then this text does not conflict with what has been said in Gautama’s work. In the latter, it is asserted—‘one should approach one’s wife during season, or at all times, with the exception of the sacred days’ (5. 1-2); and here the phrase, ‘or at all times,’ mentions an option, which permits freedom of action; and there would be no point in laying down any such rule as ‘one may do the act at all times, during season as well as out of season;’ and (as the words stand) when the preceding clause is taken as laying down the rule that ‘one should approach one’s wife during season,’ the same verb, ‘should approach,’ being construed with the subsequent phrase, ‘at all times,’ this also would have to be regarded as a rule, occurring as it does in the same context as the preceding rule; specially because, so long as the word is not actually repeated in the text (and is construed with the latter clause only as it stands in the preceding clause), no different meaning can be attributed to it. And it has already been explained that there would be no point in any restriction being imposed, apart from the ‘season.’

From all this it follows that the assertion regarding ‘approaching during season’ is meant to prohibit the act ‘out of season.’ For one who has not yet got a son, the restriction (regarding approaching during season only) is got at from a different injunction (that of begetting a child); but for one who has already got a son might do what he likes (hence the prohibition becomes useful).

The act of approaching the wife out of season having been prohibited, the text proceeds to make an exception in the case of the wife evincing a desire for intercourse—‘In consideration of her, he may approach her, except on the sacred days.’ ‘Her’ refers to the wife. ‘In consideration of her,’—i.e., intent upon pleasing her mind.

‘With the desire for sexual intercourse,’ ‘ratikāmyayā,’ i.e., in consideration of her wishes,—not by one’s own wish—one may approach her with a view to the pleasures of sexual intercourse,—one who has already got a son may do this during ‘season,’ and one who has not got a son may do it out of season.

Or, the pronoun ‘tat’ (in ‘tadvrataḥ’) may be construed with ‘ratikāmyayā;’ such irregular construction being permissible, in view of the work being a text-book of Smṛti. The meaning in this case would be—‘with a view to giving her pleasure, he may approach her at other times also, except on the sacred days.’ And in this case, we might assume the presence of an ‘a,’ the term being ‘aratikāmyayā’—i.e., ‘not with a view to giving pleasure to himself.’ But in the explanation that has been given before, there would be no use for assuming this ‘a,’ nor for construing the pronoun ‘tat’ apart from its context.

The ‘sacred days’ shall be described later on (4. 128) as—‘the moonless day, the eighth day, the full-moon day and the fourteenth day.’

‘Attached to his own wife’—i.e, one should be ever bent upon satisfying her. Or, it may be taken as the prohibition of having recourse to others’ wives, the meaning being—that ‘one should love one’s own wife, and should never make love to the wife of another person.’

‘Ever’—throughout life one should observe this rule.

Thus the conclusion is that the present verse contains three statements.—(1) the first is that ‘one should approach one’s wife during season,’ which only reiterates a rule already laid down elsewhere for one who has not yet got a son; (2) the second statement is that ‘when urged by one’s wife, one should approach her with a view to sexual intercourse, during season as well as out of season, except on the sacred days;’ (3) and the third is that ‘one should be attached to one’s own wife only.’ The verbal construction would be (a) ‘one should approach one’s wife during season,’ for the purpose of begetting children; (b) ‘with a desire for sexual intercourse he should, in consideration of her, approach her;’ (c) ‘he should be attached to his own wife.’—(45)

‘Tadvrataḥ’—‘In consideration of her’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka);—‘careful to keep the said rule regarding the Parvas’ (Nārāyaṇa). The Parvas are described in 4.128.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 497), which adds the following explanation;—‘Ṛtu’, ‘season’, is the name given to the period of sixteen days, counted from the first day of the menstrual flow,—during which the woman is capable of conceiving;—during this ‘season’ one should always approach his wife for the purpose of obtaining a child; and if is only his wife that the man should approach;—but during the ‘season’ the ‘second days’ should be avoided:—even apart from the season,one may approach his wife, when specially desired by her.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 162), which explains ‘tadvrataḥ’ as ‘intent upon begetting a child’; and it is added that what is meant is that ‘one should never omit to approach his wife during her season’.

Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 558) quotes the verse and adds the following notes:—‘Ṛtu’, ‘season’, denotes the woman’s capacity of conceiving; and the time during which the capacity is present is called the ‘period of the season’—‘Tadvrataḥ’ means ‘who is intent upon the approaching’;—this approaching during the period beyond the ‘season’ is sanctioned with a view to guarding the impassioned woman from going astray.

This is quoted in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 724):—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 41), which explains ‘tadvrataḥ’ as ‘bent upon getting a son’, and adds that the implication is that ‘during the period, even though the man may not be keenly desirous of intercourse, yet he should have recourse to his wife for the purpose of begetting a son’, as otherwise he would be incurring a sin.

**(verses 3.45-50)
**

Gautama (5.1-2).—‘He shall approach her during the season; or on all days except those that have been prohibited.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.1.15, 18).—‘By approaching his wife during the seasons, one maintains one’s vows; even during the intervening days, ho should approach only his wife.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.18).—‘He should have intercourse only with his wife, during her seasons, except the forbidden days.’

Viṣṇu (69.1).—‘He shall not approach his wife on the eighth, fourteenth and fifteenth days of the fortnight.’

Yājñavalkya (1.79-81).—‘Sixteen are the nights of season for women; during this season, he shall lie with her on the even nights, avoiding the first four nights; acting thus, he would be as good as a Religious Student. In approaching his wife, he shall avoid the asterisms of Maghā and Mūla. Or, he may approach her according to his desire, always bearing in mind what is good for women; he should ever remain devoted to his own wife.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (1.11.7-8).—‘Having married her, he should go to her during her seasons; or whenever they desire.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 559).—‘After she has bathed on the fourth day, he shall approach her on the even nights.’

Ātharvaṇa Śruti (Parāśaramādhava, p. 497).—‘Those who have recourse to sexual intercourse during the day, pour out their life-breath; if one has intercourse during the night, it is as good as celibacy.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Parāśaramādhava, p. 497).—‘Even during the period, one shall not have intercourse during the day.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 498).—‘If a man, when healthy, does not approach his wife during the period, he incurs the sin of killing the embryo.’

Baudhāyana (Parāśaramādhava, p. 498).—‘If a man approaches not his wife during the period, for three years, he incurs the sin of killing the embryo. He who approaches not his wife during the period, and who approaches her apart from the period, the sin of both is equal, as also that of the man who throws out his semen unnaturally.’

Bṛhaspati (Parāśaramādhava, p. 499).—‘Excess of woman’s seed makes the progeny female, excess of man’s seed makes the progeny male; therefore for increasing his seed, the man shall eat oily and delicious food.’

045 Let (the husband) approach his wife in due season, being constantly satisfied with her (alone); he may also, being intent on pleasing her, approach her with a desire for conjugal union (on any day) excepting the Parvans.

Sixteen days, including the four days that are censured by good men, have been declared to be the normal “season” for women.—(46)

ऋतुलक्षणार्थं श्लोको ऽयम् । वैद्यकादिशास्त्रावगम्यो ऽयम् अर्थो न विधिमूल एव । एवं “युग्मासु पुत्राः” (म्ध् ३.४८) इत्य् एताव् अपि श्लोकौ ।

• षोडशरात्रयस् ताः स्त्रीणां मासि मासि स्वाभाविक ऋतुः । प्रमाणान्तरमूलत्वाच् चाश्रुतम् अपि मासि मासीति गम्यते । स्वभावे भवः स्वाभाविकः स्वस्थप्रकृतीनां यो भवति । व्याध्यादिना कस्याश्चित् प्राप्तकालो ऽपि निवर्तते, घृततिलाध्यौषधोपयोगेन रतिवशेन चाकाले ऽपि संवर्तते । अतः स्वाभाविक ऋतुस् ता रात्रय उच्यन्ते । चतुर्भिर् इतरैः । चत्वार्य् अहानि यानि सद्भिर् विगर्हितानि, प्रतिषिद्धस्त्रीस्पर्शसंभाषणादीनि, तानि च प्रथमशोणितप्रदर्शनात् प्रभृति । अहर्ग्रहणं च सर्वाहोरात्रोपलक्षणार्थम् । तैः सह ॥ ३.४६ ॥

The verse is meant to provide a definition of ‘season;’ and what is stated here is based upon medical science, not upon any scriptural injunctions. Similarly, the two verses beginning with the forty-eighth.

‘Sixteen days,’ in every month, constitute the ‘natural season’ for women. That ‘every month’ is meant, we gather from other sources, though it is not mentioned in this verse.

‘Normal’—what comes by nature; i.e., what happens in the case of women in normal health; in cases of disease and such other causes, the flow is absent even when the time has arrived; and by means of such medicines as butter and sesamum, and so forth, or by excessive sexual intercourse, the flow is brought on even before time. Hence the sixteen days are called the ‘normal season.’

‘Including the four days’—the four days that are censured by all good men, during which the touching of, and conversing with, the woman has been prohibited; these are the four days beginning with the first day on which the flow of blood becomes visible. ‘Day’ stands for ‘day and night.’

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 437) in support of the view that counting from the first day of the menses, sixteen days constitute the ‘season’, of which the first four days are condemned by good men.

Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 539) quotes this verse, and adds that the addition of the term ‘svābhāvikaḥ’, ‘normal,’ indicates that the period may vary, on account of the presence of certain diseases and other causes.

This verse is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 166);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 680), which adds that the specification of ‘night’ implies the prohibition of intercourse during the day;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 38).

**(verses 3.45-50)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.45].

046 Sixteen (days and) nights (in each month), including four days which differ from the rest and are censured by the virtuous, (are called) the natural season of women.

Of these the first four days have been deprecated, as also the eleventh and the thirteenth, the remaining ten days have been recommended.—(47)

तासां रात्रीणां या** आद्याः** प्रथमशोणितदर्शनाच् चतस्रस् ता निन्दिताः, न तत्र गमनम् अस्ति । तिसृषु तावत् स्पर्शो ऽपि नास्त्य् अशुचित्वात् । चतुर्थ्यां तु स्नाताया वसिष्ठवचनात् सत्य् अपि शुचित्वे रतिसंभोगो नास्ति, चतसॄणां गर्हितत्ववचनात् । या चैकादशी या च त्रयोदशी सापि निन्दिता, एवं प्रतिषिद्धगमना¹² । ऋतुदर्शनात् प्रभृत्य् एकादशीत्रदोश्यौ गृह्येते, न चन्द्रतिथी । तासाम् इति निर्धारणविषयत्वेन रात्रीणां संबन्धात् समानजातीयश् च निर्धार्यतया प्रतीयते, कृष्णा गवां संपन्नक्षीरेति । षड्रात्रगमनप्रतिषेधो ऽयम् अदृष्टार्थाः । शेषाः प्रशस्ता दशरात्रयः । षण्णां प्रतिषेधाद् दशसु प्राशस्त्यं सिद्धम् एवानूद्यते ॥ ३.४७ ॥

‘Of these’—days—‘the first four’— beginning from the day on which the blood is first seen—‘have been deprecated,’—i.e., there should be no intercourse on those days. On the first three days, even touching is prohibited, the woman being impure on those days; on the fourth day, when she has bathed,—though, according to the words of Vaśiṣṭha, she is pure—there is to be no sexual intercourse; all the four days being equally deprecated (for that purpose).

‘The eleventh and the thirteenth’ days also ‘have been deprecated,’—i.e., on those days also intercourse has been forbidden. The ‘eleventh’ and the ‘thirteenth’ days are those counted from the first day of the flow; they do not stand for the two dates of the month; because the genitive ending in ‘tāsām,’ ‘of these,’ signifies selection; and, as the pronoun stands for ‘days,’ it must be the same thing (day) that is selected; just as in the expression, ‘of cows, the black one gives most milk.’

This prohibition of intercourse on the said six days is with a view to a transcendental result.

‘The remaining ten days have been recommended,’—(of the sixteen days) six days having been forbidden, the commendation of the remaining ten days follows naturally; and it is this same natural conclusion that is reiterated here.—(47)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 438);—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 559), which adds that the ‘eleventh’ and other numbers refer to the days of the ‘season;’ the eleventh day of the ‘season’ and so forth;—and in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 368) which, for the first quarter, reads tāsāmāpañcataḥ sarvā, which means ‘all days till the fifth’, coming to the same thing—that the first four days are forbidden.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 104); which adds that the ‘eleventh’ and ‘thirteenth’ are meant to be the days of the ‘season’, not of the fortnight;—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 727), which adds that the ‘eleventh’ and ‘thirteenth’ are the days, not of the fortnight, but of the ‘period’;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 682), which has the same note, adding that such is the view of Madanapārijāta;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 38), which says that of the sixteen nights, the first four arc to be avoided;—and in Ācāramayūkha (p. 118).

**(verses 3.45-50)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.45].

047 But among these the first four, the eleventh and the thirteenth are (declared to be) forbidden; the remaining nights are recommended.

On the even days male children are conceived, and female ones on the uneven days; therefore one who desires a son should have recourse to ones wife on the even days of her “season.”—(48)

तासु दशसु या युग्मा रात्रयः षष्ठ्य् अष्टमी दशमी द्वादशी चतुर्दशी षोषशी तासूपगच्छतः पुत्रा जायन्ते ।¹³ अयुग्मासु स्त्रियो दुहितरः । तस्मात् पुत्रोत्पत्तिसिद्ध्यर्थं युग्मासु संविशेद् भजेत मैथुनधर्मेण स्त्रियम् अर्तवे । अनुवादो ऽयम् । अयम् अपि नियम एव- अनुत्पन्नपुत्रस्यायुग्मास्व् अगमनम् ॥ ३.४८ ॥

Among the said ten days, the ‘even days’ are the sixth, the eighth, the tenth, the twelfth, the fourteenth and the sixteenth; and when one has intercourse with one’s wife on these days, sons are born to him.

‘One who desires a son should have recourse to one’s wife on the even days of her season;’—i.e., because ‘female ones’—i.e., daughters are conceived—‘on the uneven days,’—‘therefore’ for the bringing about of the birth of sons, ‘one should have recourse to’—have sexual intercourse with—‘one’s wife, on the even days of her season?’

This is a mere reiteration; and it is also a restrictive rule, the meaning being that ‘one, for whom no sons have been born, should not have intercourse with one’s wife on the uneven days.’—(48)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 438), where ‘yugmāsu’ is explained as ‘even nights’, and ‘samvishet’ as ‘should approach’;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 559), which explains ‘ayugmāsu’ as ‘odd nights’, and ‘samvishet’ as ‘should approach;—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 153) in support of the view that ‘one who desires a son should approach his wife on the even nights of the period, and he who desires a daughter, on the odd nights’; and adds that though the text speaks simply of ‘nights’, yet the act should be done after midnight; and also that the special mention of the ‘night’ clearly indicates that intercourse during the day is forbidden.

Smṛtitattva quotes this verse as describing the results accruing from approaching one’s wife on certain days.

This is quoted in Aparārka (p. 103);—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 722);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 16);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 37);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 680);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 24 b).

**(verses 3.45-50)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.45].

048 On the even nights sons are conceived and daughters on the uneven ones; hence a man who desires to have sons should approach his wife in due season on the even (nights).

A male child is born when the man’s seed is in excess, and a female child when the woman’s (is in excess); when the two are equal, there is born either a non-male or a boy and a girl; when it is weak and small in quantity, there is failure.—(49)

शुक्रं वीर्यं पुरुषस्य रेतः, स्त्रियाः शोणितम् । उक्तं भगवता वसिष्ठेन “शुक्रशोणितसंभवः पुरुषः” इति (वध् १५.१) । स्त्रीबीजाद् अधिके पुंबीजे ऽयुग्मास्व् अपि पुत्रो जायते, युग्मास्व् अपि स्त्रीबीजस्याधिक्ये कन्यैव । अयुग्मास्व् अपि रात्रिषु पुत्रार्थिनो गमनानुष्ठानार्थम् एतत् । यदा परिपुष्टम् आत्मानं वृष्याहारयोगेन समधिकवीर्यं मन्येत स्त्रियाश् च कथंचिद् अपचयं तदा पुत्रार्थी गच्छेद् इत्य् उपदिष्टं भवति । आधिक्यं चात्र न परिमाणतः, किं तर्हि सारतः । समे ऽपुमान् मिश्रीकृते पुंस्त्रियौ । अपुमान् नपुंसकम् इति केचित् । अन्ये¹⁴ साम्य इति पठन्ति । उभयोः साम्ये पुमान् एव । पुंस्त्रियौ वा । गर्भाधान्यां यदा वायुर् द्रवरूपत्वात् संसृष्टे शुक्रशोणिते समं विभजत एकत्र भागम् अन्यत्र तावद् एव तदा यमौ जायेते । तत्र समे विभागे ऽपि स्त्रीबीजाधिक्ये स्त्री, पुंबीजाधिक्ये पुमान् । क्षीणे बीजे सारतः विपर्ययो ऽग्रहणं¹⁵ गर्भस्य नपुंसकोत्पत्तिर् वा ॥ ३.४९ ॥

‘Seed’—the man’s semen, and the woman’s ovule. Says the revered Vaśiṣṭha—‘man is the product of semen and ovule’ (15.1).

When the man’s ‘seed’ is in excess of the woman’s, then, even on the uneven days, a male child is conceived; similarly, on the even days also a female child becomes conceived, if the woman’s ‘seed’ happens to be in excess.

This statement is meant to lead the man seeking for a son to have intercourse with his wife on the uneven days also; the sense of the instruction being that—when the man finds that by the use of aphrodisiacs and strengthening food he has become vigorous in his virility, and that his wife has, for some reason or other, become weak, then he should have intercourse with her, when desirous of getting a son.

The ‘excess’ meant here is not that in quantity, but that in virility.

When the two are equal, there in burn either a non-male, or a boy and a girl, together. ‘Non-male’ stands for the hermaphrodite, according to some people.

Some people read ‘sāmye;’ and it means that ‘in case of equality of both, a non-male is born.’

‘Or a boy and a girl’—When the wind in the womb stirs up the mixed semen and ovula and divides it into two equal parts—a small quantity in -one part, and an equal quantity in another part of the womb,—then twins are born; and in those two equal parts also, in that part where the woman’s seed happens to be in excess the girl is born, while in the other part, where the male’s seed is in excess, the boy is born.

When the seed is weak—in virility—then ‘there is failure;’ either non-conception, or the birth of a hermaphrodite.—(49)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 499), which remarks that in the second line the words are ‘same apumān’;—and in Smṛtitattva (p. 617).

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 160) quotes this verse and adds the following notes:—‘Śukra’ in the man’s case is semen; and in that of the woman, the red ovule;—Vaśiṣṭha has declared that the human body is made up of the semen and the ovule;—if the man’s seed happens to be in excess of the woman’s, then the child is male, even though the sexual intercourse might have taken place on an odd day of the period; but with this difference that the male child born under such circumstances would have an effeminate body;—in the event of the woman’s seed being in excess of the man’s the child is female, even though the intercourse might have taken place on an even day of the period; but in this case the female child would have a masculine body;—and the reason for this mixed character consists in the fact that the effect of the seed, which is the material cause of the child’s body, is more potent than that of the time of conception, which is only a ‘concomitant cause’;—when the two seeds are in equal quantity, the child is either ‘non-male’ i.e., a eunuch, or a boy and girl—i.e., twins,—this latter being caused by the bifurcation of the seed at the time of emission, leading to two portions of it falling on two different parts of the womb.

The verse is also quoted in the Āhnika section (p. 559) of Vīramitrodaya where we find the following notes:—

‘Same’—when the man’s seed and the woman’s are equal—there is born either a non-male, a eunuch, or ‘a boy and girl’;—the seeds being bifurcated into two parts in.equal quantities, twins, consisting of one boy and one girl, are born;—‘Kṣīṇe’—when the seed is weak,—and ‘alpe’—small in quantity, there is ‘viparyaya’—failure of conception.

This is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 16), which adds that if the intercourse takes place on an ‘even’ day but the proportion of the woman’s ‘seed’ is larger, then the child will be a female one, but with masculine features; and if it takes place on an odd day and the proportion of the man’s ‘seed’ is larger, then the child will be a male one, but with feminine features;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 683), which explains ‘apumān’ as ‘sexless’ and there are two children, one male and another female, if the seed become divided;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p, 25a);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 40) which explains ‘Same’ as ‘when there is equality of the two-seeds,’ and adds the same notes as those in the Mayūkha.

**(verses 3.45-50)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.45].

049 A male child is produced by a greater quantity of male seed, a female child by the prevalence of the female; if (both are) equal, a hermaphrodite or a boy and a girl; if (both are) weak or deficient in quantity, a failure of conception (results).

‘By avoiding women on the forbidden days and also on the eight other days, one remains a “religious student” (observing the vow of continence), in whatever stage of life he may happen to be.”—(50)

निन्द्यासु षट्स्व् अन्यासु चानिन्द्यास्व् अप्य् अष्टासु रात्रिषु स्त्रियो वर्जयन् परिहरन् द्वे रात्री अवशिष्टे यदि गच्छति, पर्ववर्जम्, तदा ब्रह्मचार्य् एव भवति ब्रह्मर्यफलं प्राप्नोति । यत्र तत्राश्रमे वसन् । अर्थवादो ऽयम् । न तु वानप्रस्थाद्याश्रमेषु रात्र्यभ्यनुज्ञा जितेन्द्रियत्वविधानात् सर्वाश्रमेषु गार्हस्थाद् अन्येषु वीप्सायाश् चार्थवादतयाप्य् उपपत्तेः । एताश् च रात्रयो वर्ज्या न क्रमेणैव, किं तर्हि यथेच्छया पर्ववर्जं गमनं यथा न भवति तथा रात्रिद्वयम् अभ्यनुज्ञायते । किं पुनर् ब्रह्मचर्यस्य फलम् । विशेषाश्रवणात् स्वर्गः । क्वचित् तु श्रूयते- “न ब्रह्मचारी प्रत्यवैति” इति, स्वल्पैर् अतिक्रमैर् न दुष्यतीति ॥ ३.५१ ॥

‘Forbidden days’—i.e., the six mentioned above.

‘Other eight days’—which have not been forbidden.

He who avoids women on these days, and has recourse to her on the remaining two days—avoiding the sacred days—then ‘he remains a religious student etc.’—i.e., he obtains the fruits of continence.

‘In whatever stage of life he may happen to be,’—this is an exaggeration. Certainly, intercourse with women on two days could never be permitted for the Recluse; for the simple reason that it has been strictly enjoined that one should keep one’s sexual organs in complete check, in all stages of life, except that.of the Religious Student. As for the repetition (in the phrase, ‘yatra tatra’), this is explicable as occurring in an exaggerated statement.

The text does not menu that the fourteen days are to be avoided in the order in which they are mentioned; all that is meant is that one should not think that one may have intercourse whenever one chooses, only leaving off the sacred days; and it is in this sense that only two days have been permitted.

“What is the fruit of continence?”

Since we do not find any particular fruit mentioned (as resulting from continence), it must be taken to be Heaven. But in some places we find it asserted that ‘the student observing the vow of continence never incurs sin;’ which means that he is not tainted by sins accruing from minor transgressions.

‘Yatra tatrāśrame vasan’—‘In whatever life-stage he may be’; i.e., ‘whether he be a householder or a hermit Vānaprastha’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa).—According to Medhātithi, this is a mere arthavāda, and what is said does not apply to any one except the householder;—Govindarāja does not, like Kullūka, restrict the extension to the Hermit (Vānaprastha) only, he includes the Renunciate (Yati) also. Buhler remarks that ‘Kullūka justly ridicules the last opinion’; but Kullūka’s own opinion is only a shade less ridiculous than Govindarāja’s. (See the following note, for a good explanation).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 559), where the foilwing notes are added:—‘Nindyāsu rātriṣu’—on the first four days, the, eleventh day and the thirteeenth day;—‘anyāsu ratriṣu—on any other eight days from among those not forbidden;—if one avoids women,—i.e, approaching them only on two days,—the man remains ‘a continent religious Student’;—i.e., he derives the results obtainable by continence;—‘Yatra tatrāśrame’—i.e., even though he is a Householder, he gets all that is obtainable by the chaste Student.

**(verses 3.45-50)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.45].

050 He who avoids women on the six forbidden nights and on eight others, is (equal in chastity to) a student, in whichever order he may live.