०५ स्त्रीधनम्

The girl’s father, if wise, should not accept even a small consideration; by accepting a consideration, through greed, the man becomes a child-seller.—(51).

आसुरे शुल्कप्रतिषेधो ऽयम्, उत्तरत्र च कन्यार्थसंग्रहोपादानात् । विद्वान् ग्रहदोषज्ञः । कन्यापिता स्वल्पम् अप्य् अर्थं धनं न गृह्णीयात् । गृह्णानो ऽपत्यविक्रयदोषेण युज्यते । कः पुनर् एषः शुल्को नाम । आभाषणपूर्वं वराद् गृहीतम् । यत्र तूच्चनीचपणापणो भवति, कन्यागुणापेक्षमूल्यव्यवस्था, स क्रय एव । इह तु महागुणाया अपि कन्यायाः स्वल्पं धनम् । अनाभाषणपूर्वं वा ग्रहणम् । न विक्रयस्यैष धर्म इत्य् अतो विक्रयाध्यारोपेण निन्द्यते ॥ ३.५१ ॥

This verse prohibits the receiving ‘of consideration’ in connection with the ‘Āsura’ form of marriage; that this is so, is indicated by the fact that later on (in 54) the acceptance of a dowry for the bride is permitted.

‘Wise’—i.e., knowing the impropriety of accepting the gift.

The girl’s father shall not accept even a small present; by accepting it, he becomes tainted with the sin of child-selling.

“What is it that is called ‘Śulka,’ ‘consideration?’”

It is what is received from the bridegroom on stipulation. When there is a bargaining, carried on in consideration of the good or bad qualities of the bride,—it is a case of pure ‘selling;’ what is referred to here is the acceptance of even a small present—though the bride is possessed of most excellent qualities,—that also without any stipulation.

This (acceptance of unequal price) is not a condition of ‘sale’ proper; the act is only deprecated by being described as being of the nature of ‘selling.’—(51)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 851), which deduces from the word ‘lobhena,’ ‘through greed,’ the conclusion that if something is received without greed on the part of the father, it is not the ‘price,’ but only an honorific present to the bridegroom; and in support of this it quotes Manu 3.54;—in Vyāvahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 761);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 232);—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 151).

Baudhāyana (1.11.21).—‘Those persons who, deluded by greed, give away their daughters for a consideration, are soul-sellers, sinful and grave sinners, and up to their seventh generation, they fall into hell.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.13.11).—‘In connection with marriage, a gift to the girl’s guardian has been prescribed with a view to securing a special end, and for a righteous purpose; therefore one should present to the girl’s guardian a chariot and a hundred cows; which present joins the couple in wedlock; the applying of the name selling to such giving of the girl is a mere declamation; because the acceptance of the present is for a righteous purpose.’

051 No father who knows (the law) must take even the smallest gratuity for his daughter; for a man who, through avarice, takes a gratuity, is a seller of his offspring.

Those relations who, through folly, live upon the bride’s properties—even the bride’s conveyances and clothes—are sinners and fall into the lowest state.—(52)

पूर्वस्यैव शेषः¹ । स्त्रीनिमित्तानि धनानि, कन्यादाने वराद् यानि गृह्यन्ते । ये बान्धवाः पित्रादयः मोहाद् उपजीवन्ति । यथोक्तं “ज्ञातिभ्यो द्रविणं दत्वा” (म्ध् ३.३१) इति । सुवर्णरजतादि धनम् । नारीयानानि । यानम् अश्वादि । वस्त्रं वा । एतावन्मात्रम् अपि न जातूपजीवनीयं वासो यानादि, किं पुनर् बहु । उपजीवतां फलम् आचष्टे । ते पापाः शास्त्रप्रतिषिद्धसमाचरणाद् अधोगतिं नरकं यान्ति । अथ वा स्त्रीधनानीति नवमे दर्शयिष्यति । तानि ये मोहाद् उपजीवन्ति बान्धवाः, पिता तत्पक्षाश् च भर्ता भर्तृपक्षाश् च । एवं यानादि । एवं वस्त्रम् । स्त्रीणाम् बुद्धौ संनिधानाच् छाब्दः संनिधिः कल्प्यते यथा “राजपुरुषः कस्य । राज्ञः” इति ॥ ३.५२ ॥

This verse is supplementary to the foregoing verse.

‘Bride’s properties’—i.e., those properties that are received from the bridegroom for the sake of the bride; ‘the relations’—fathers and others—‘who, through folly, live upon’ them;—as described above (in verse 31)

‘The’ property here spoken, of is that in the form of gold and silver.

‘Bride’s conveyances’—such as the horse and the rest.

‘Clothes;’—even such paltry things as clothes and conveyances should not be lived upon,—what to say of more valuable properties?

The text proceeds to describe what befalls those who do live upon such properties,—they are ‘sinners—and by doing what is prohibited in the scriptures—‘they fall into the lowest state’—i.e., into hell.

Or, ‘bride’s properties’ may be taken in the sense, in which it is going to be described in Discourse 9 below. Those who, through folly, live upon those properties;—the ‘relations,’ in this case, would stand for the girl’s father and his kinsmen, as also the husband and his relations. Similarly, with ‘conveyances’ and ‘clothes the ‘clothes’ also those belonging to the bride; this connection being assumed on the basis of the proximity of the term ‘bride’ (in the compound term ‘bride’s conveyances’); just as in the case of the use of expression, ‘royal servant,’ if some one asks, ‘whose?,’—this is taken to mean ‘of what king?’—(52)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 851), which deduces from the word ‘lobhena,’ ‘through greed,’ the conclusion that if something is received without greed on the part of the father, it is not the ‘price,’ but only an honorific present to the bridegroom; and in support of this it quotes Manu 3.54;—in Vyāvahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 761);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 232);—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 151).

Āpastamba-Smṛti (9.27).—[Reproduces Manu’s words, only substituting ‘svarṇam yānāni’ for ‘nārīyānāni.’]

052 But those (male) relations who, in their folly, live on the separate property of women, (e.g. appropriate) the beasts of burden, carriages, and clothes of women, commit sin and will sink into hell.

Some people declare that the bovine pair are the “consideration” (to be accepted) in the Ārṣa form of marriage. This is not true; for small or large, the act becomes a ‘selling’ all the same.—(53)

स्त्रीगवी च पुंगवश् च गोमिथुनम् । केचिद् आहुर् एतद् आदेयम् इति । मनोस् तु मतं मृषैव तत् मिथ्या । नादेयम् इत्य् अर्थः । अल्पो ऽप्य् एवम् । अल्पसाधनो ऽल्पः । एवं महान् भवति । तावान् एव विक्रयः ॥ ३.५३ ॥

‘Bovine pair’—i.e., a cow and a bull.

Some people declare that this ‘consideration’ should be accepted.

Manu’s opinion, however, is that ‘this is not true;’ i.e., it should not be accepted.

‘Small’—i.e., accomplished by small means; similarly with ‘large.’ It is ‘selling’ all the same.—(53)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 489), which adds the following explanation:—The ‘gomithuna,’ ‘bovine pair,’ (given by the bridegroom in the Ārṣa marriage) has been called by some people the ‘price’ paid for the girl;—but ‘this is not true,’—i.e., it cannot be regarded as the ‘price’, as it does not posses that character; the ‘price’ of a thing is always an indefinite factor; as is found in every sale-transaction, the price can never be definitely fixed; that which suffices for buying a thing is called its ‘price’; and this varies with time and place. In the present case, however, the amount is definitely fixed; it is the ‘Ārṣa’ marriage when only the ‘cow-pair’ is given, neither more nor less. Thus there being no real buying in this case, the Ārṣa marriage must be regarded as lawful.

Madanapārijāta (pp. 155-156) takes the verse somewhat differently: It says that if the ‘cow-pair’ given by the bridegroom is taken by the bride’s father himself, then it is a clear case of ‘selling’ the girl; but there would be nothing wrong if the present were accepted by him on behalf of the bride, as is clear from the next verse.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 849) quotes it in support of the view that the ‘cow pair’ given in the Ārṣa marriage is not the ‘price’; though it must come to be so regarded if it is taken through greed, as has been made clear by Verse 51 above.

This verse is also quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 759) in support of the view that the Ārṣa marriage involves no ‘selling’ of the girl,—and it reproduces the arguments adduced by Parāśaramādhava (above).

It is quoted in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 479), which has the same note as Parāśaramādhava (above); but makes things clear by reading ‘Kriyate tāvataiva saḥ’, which lends itself to the desired interpretation much more easily than the reading ‘vikrayastāvadeva saḥ,’ which calls the transaction pure ‘selling’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 231), which explains ‘mṛsā’ as ‘false,’ and declares that the marriage is unrighteous, in as much as it involves ‘selling’, the cow-pair being the price and not mere śulka or ‘fee.’

Mahābhārata (13.80.20-21).—[Reproduces Manu’s words and adds]—‘though this has been done by some persons, yet it is not the Eternal Law; because such action is found, in many cases, to he due to greed.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.36).—‘Therefore, when the present of a chariot and a hundred cows is made, it is known as selling.’ Apastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.13.11).—[See under verse 51.]

Mahābhārata (13.45.20).—(Same as Manu.)

053 Some call the cow and the bull (given) at an Arsha wedding ‘a gratuity;’ (but) that is wrong, since (the acceptance of) a fee, be it small or great, is a sale (of the daughter).

In the case of girls whose relations do not appropriate the bride’s gift, it is not “selling;” It is only a means of honouring the maidens and is entirely harmless.—(54)

किं वराद् धनाधिगमो विक्रयो भवति । नेति ब्रूमः । ज्ञातयः कन्यायाम् अधिकृताः स्वार्थम् आददते गृह्णन्ति तदा स विक्रयः । अर्हणं कन्यार्थे धनग्रहणं कन्यानां तद् अर्हणं पूजनं भवति । बहुमानः कन्यानाम् आत्मनि भवति- “ईदृश्यो वयं यद् धनं दत्वा विवाह्यामहे” । अन्यत्रापि पूज्या भवन्ति “सुभगा एताः” इति । आभरणादि वा तेन धनेन कर्तव्यम् अतो ऽभ्यर्हिताः शोभावत्यो भवन्ति । आनृशंस्यम् अपापत्वं केवलं न स्वल्पो ऽप्य् अधर्मगन्धो ऽस्ति । अतो ऽनेनार्थवादेन कन्यार्थं धनग्रहणं विधीयते ॥ ३.५४ ॥

The question being—“Does the mere act of receiving gifts from the bridegroom make the marriage a sale?”—our answer is that it is not so; it is when the ‘relations’ of the bride,—i.e., those in charge of her—accept gifts for themselves, then alone it is ‘selling.’

‘Means of honouring’:—The receiving of presents on behalf of brides becomes a means of honouring them; it raises the girls in their own estimation; they come to think that ‘we are so good that we are being married after receiving proper presents;’ they rise in the estimation of the people also, who look upon such brides as very ‘handsomely fortunate.’ Or, when out of the presents received ornaments are made for them, and they are decked in them, they look beautiful.

‘Harmless’—it involves no sin; i.e., there is not the slightest taint of sin in this act.

What this exaggerated statement indicates is that the accepting of presents on behalf of the bride is permitted.—(54).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 850) in support of the view that if the ‘cow-pair’ given by the bridegroom in the Ārṣa marriage is accepted, not in greed,—then it is to be looked upon only as a means of honouring the bride, and not as a ‘price’ paid for her. It explains the word ‘ānṛśaṃsyam’ as ‘not sinful.’

Madanapārijāta (p. 156) also quotes it in support of the view that if the ‘cow-pair’ is accepted on behalf of the bride, there is nothing wrong in it,—the verse being explained as follows—That ‘consideration’ which is accepted on behalf of the bride, constitutes the ‘honouring’ of the girl, and as such is not sinful;—i.e., the ‘consideration’ thus received should be handed over to the girl.

It is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 100), which explains ‘ānṛśaṃsyam’ as ‘honest dealing’;—in Saṃskā raratnamālā (p. 479) winch explains ‘ānṛśaṃsyam’ as ‘not sinful—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 233), which explains the meaning as ‘what is received as fee for the girl, that is only a present to the bride,’—and is ‘ānṛśaṃsyam’, ‘nothing sinful.’

Mahābhārata (Anuśā. 81.1-2; also 13.46.1-2).—‘People learned in ancient lore quote the words of Prācetasa to the effect that in cases where the relations do not appropriate anything for themselves, it is not selling, it is only a method of honouring the girls, and as such, entirely harmless and righteous; the whole of the present received should he made over to the girl.’

054 When the relatives do not appropriate (for their use) the gratuity (given), it is not a sale; (in that case) the (gift) is only a token of respect and of kindness towards the maidens.

These shall be honoured and adorned by their fathers and brothers, husbands and brothers-in-law, who are desirous of their own welfare.—(55)

न केवलं वराद् आदाय दातव्यं² कन्याबन्धुभिर् अपि तु तैर् अपि दात्व्यम् । पितृभिः साहचर्यात् पितृशब्दः पितामहपितृव्यादिषु वर्तते । ततो बहुवचनं । व्यक्त्यपेक्षं वा बहुवचनम् । एवं पतिभिः श्वशुरादिभिर् व्यक्त्यपेक्षं वा । देवराह् पत्युर् भ्रातरः । पूज्याह् । पुत्रजन्माद्युत्सवेषु निमन्त्रणपूर्वकमानाश्रयबहुमानम् आदरेण भोजनादिना पूज्याः । भूषयितव्याः । वस्त्राद्यलंकारेणाङ्गलेपनादिभिर् मण्डयितव्याः । अत्र फलं बहुकल्याणम् ईप्सुभिः । कल्याणं कमनीयं पुत्रधनादिसंपदरोगतापरिभव इत्यादि बहुशब्दात् सर्वम् ईप्सुभिर् आप्तुम् इच्छुभिः प्राप्तुकामैः । फलार्थी विधिर् अयम् ॥ ३.५५ ॥

The bride’s relations are not only to receive presents for her from the bridegroom; they themselves shall make presents to her.

‘Fathers’—through association, the term ‘father’ here includes the grandfather, uncle, etc., also; hence the plural number; or, the plural number may be explained as referring to several individual brides.

Similarly, ‘husbands’ may stand for father-in-law, &c. or, it may refer to several individual girls.

‘Brothers-in-law’—the husband’s brothers.

‘Shall be honoured’—during rejoicings in connection with the birth of sons, &c., they should be invited, welcomed and received with honour and feasting.

‘Shall be adorned’—should be decked with clothes, ornaments, unguents, and so forth.

The effect of all this is next indicated—‘welfare what is desirable, i.e., being endowed with children, wealth, &c., good health, freedom from troubles, and so forth: Those who are desirous of all this—i.e., of obtaining all this (should do what is said above).

The injunction contained in this verse has been set forth for the purpose of indicating this reward.—(55)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 506), in support of the view that the wife, whether young or old—should always be respected, ‘worshipped’; but it adds that this does not apply to the unchaste wife, for whom one should provide just enough to keep her body and soul together.

Yājñavalkya (1.82).—‘Women should be honoured with ornaments, clothes and food, by their husbands, brothers, fathers, parental relations, mothers-in-law, fathers-in-law, brothers-in-law and maternal relations.’

Mahābhārata (Anuśā.) (also 13.46.3).—‘Women should he honoured and fondled by their fathers, brothers, fathers-in-law and brothers-in-law—if these are desirous of their own welfare.’

055 Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own) welfare.

Where women are honoured, there the gods rejoice; where, on the other hand, they are not honoured, there all rites are fruitless.—(56)

देवता रमन्ते तुष्यन्ति प्रसीदन्ति । प्रसन्नाश् च स्वामिन एवाभिप्रेतेन फलेन योजयन्ति । यत्र तु न पूज्यन्ते तत्र सर्वाः क्रियाः यागहोमदानाद्या देवताराधनबुद्ध्या चोपहारादयो याः क्रियन्ते ऽफलास् ता इत्य् अर्थवादः ॥ ३.५६ ॥[^१२१]

‘The gods rejoice’—are satisfied, pleased; and being pleased, they bestow upon the master of the house desirable rewards.

‘Where they are not honoured, all rites are fruitless’—; sacrifices, libations and charities,—gifts made with the motive of pleasing the gods,—all such acts, though done, become fruitless.

This is a commendatory exaggeration.—(56)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 506);—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 417) as explaining the reason why women should be honoured;—and in Aparārka (p. 17).

Mahābhārata (Anuśā. 46.5-6).—‘O king, women should be always honoured and fondled; where women are honoured, there the gods rejoice; where they are not honoured, there all rites are fruitless.’

056 Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.

Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers.—(57)

(Note: the above is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

Vivādaratnākara (p. 417.) explains ‘jāmayaḥ’ as ‘ladies of the family; sisters, daughters-in-law, and so forth’.

Mahābhārata (Anuśā. 46.6).—‘Where the ladies are aggrieved, that family becomes doomed.’

057 Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers.

The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by magic.—(58)

(Note: the above is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 506); in Vivādaratnākara (p. 417);—and in Aparārka (p. 107), which explains ‘Jāmayaḥ’ as, ‘bhaginyaḥ’ and adds that it includes the daughter, daughter-in-law and others.

Mahābhārata (Anuśā. 46.7).—‘Houses cursed by women are as if struck down by malignant spirits; such houses neither shine nor prosper; and they are devoid of all prosperity—O king.’

058 The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by magic.

Hence men who seek (their own) welfare, should always honour women on holidays and festivals with (gifts of) ornaments, clothes, and (dainty) food.—(59)

(Note: the above is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

‘Satkāreṣu’—‘On holidays’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, and Rāghavānanda);—Reading ‘Satkāreṇa’, Nārāyaṇa explains it as ‘by kind speech’.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 418);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 506).

Mahābhārata (Anuśā. 46.15).—‘The women are like the Goddess of Wealth: they should be respected by the man desiring his own welfare; when loved and fondled, woman becomes the veritable Goddess of Prosperity.’

059 Hence men who seek (their own) welfare, should always honour women on holidays and festivals with (gifts of) ornaments, clothes, and (dainty) food.

In that family, where the husband is pleased with his wife and the wife with her husband, happiness will assuredly be lasting.—(60)

(Note: the above is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 421);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p, 506).

060 In that family, where the husband is pleased with his wife and the wife with her husband, happiness will assuredly be lasting.

For if the wife is not radiant with beauty, she will not attract her husband; but if she has no attractions for him, no children will be born.—(61)

(Note: the above is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

(verse 3.61-62).—These verses are quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 421).

Mahābhārata (Anuśā. 46.4).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Mahābhārata (Anuśā. 46.4).—[See the whole of Adhyāya 46 of Anuśāsana Parva.]

061 For if the wife is not radiant with beauty, she will not attract her husband; but if she has no attractions for him, no children will be born.

If the wife is radiant with beauty, the whole house is bright; but if she is destitute of beauty, all will appear dismal.—(62)

(Note: the above is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

(verse 3.61-62).—These verses are quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 421).

062 If the wife is radiant with beauty, the whole house is bright; but if she is destitute of beauty, all will appear dismal.

By low marriages, by omitting (the performance of) sacred rites, by neglecting the study of the Veda, and by irreverence towards Brahmanas, (great) families sink low.—(63)

(Note: the above is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 589) as enumerating the causes leading to the degradation of families;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 232).

Baudhāyana (1.5.82).—‘By the omission of sacrifice and of marriage, and by the rejection of Veda, the family ceases to be a family; also by the ill-treating of the Brāhmaṇa.’

063 By low marriages, by omitting (the performance of) sacred rites, by neglecting the study of the Veda, and by irreverence towards Brahmanas, (great) families sink low.

By (practising) handicrafts, by pecuniary transactions, by (begetting) children on Sudra females only, by (trading in) cows, horses, and carriages, by (the pursuit of) agriculture and by taking service under a king.—(64)

(Note: the above is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 589) as setting forth further causes for the degradation of a Brāhmaṇa family;—also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 676) to the same effect;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 208), which explains that the selling of ‘cows’ and ‘horses’ is what is meant here.

**(verses 3.64-66)
**

Baudhāyana (1.5.84).—‘Through cows, houses and conveyances, through agriculture and through serving the king, families cease to be families; as also those that are devoid of the Veda; those families on the other hand that are rich in the Veda,—even though possessed of little wealth, come to be numbered among families and acquire great fame.’

064 By (practising) handicrafts, by pecuniary transactions, by (begetting) children on Sudra females only, by (trading in) cows, horses, and carriages, by (the pursuit of) agriculture and by taking service under a king,

By sacrificing for men unworthy to offer sacrifices and by denying (the future rewards for good) works, families, deficient in the (knowledge of the) Veda, quickly perish.—(65)

(Note: the above is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 676) as setting forth the causes of the degradation of families; and it explains ‘mantrataḥ’ as ‘vedaiḥ’, ‘in Veda’;—also to the same effect, in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 589);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 208).

**(verses 3.64-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.64].

065 By sacrificing for men unworthy to offer sacrifices and by denying (the future rewards for good) works, families, deficient in the (knowledge of the) Veda, quickly perish.

(Note: the following is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

But families that are rich in the knowledge of the Veda, though possessing little wealth, are numbered among the great, and acquire great fame.—(66)

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Verses 57—66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query—are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.”—Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 590), as describing the conditions leading to the elevation of a family.

**(verses 3.64-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.64].

066 But families that are rich in the knowledge of the Veda, though possessing little wealth, are numbered among the great, and acquire great fame.