with the Commentary of Medhatithi 66 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 72 из 350Следующая ⇒

The word ‘marriage’ denotes the taking hold of the hand, which forms the principal factor in the ceremony. To this effect we have the assertion — ‘marriage is taking a wife, i.e., the taking hold of the hand;’ and in this work also marriage is spoken of as ‘the sacrament of taking hold of the hand’ (verse 43 below). The offering of parched grain and such other rites are the subsidiary details (of Marriage); and all this may be learnt from the Gṛhyasūtras,

Later on (in verse 8) we read — ‘one shall not marry a maiden with golden hair, &e., &c.;’ — and from the use of the term ‘maiden’ there it is clear that marriage is a sacrament for maidens, and not for any and every woman; and we are going to explain later on that in the present context the term ‘maiden’ stands for the female who has had no intercourse with a male.

‘Of the same caste as himself’ — i.e., belonging to the same caste.

‘Endowed with signs,’ — The term ‘signs’ stands for the colour of the complexion, lines on the body, moles and such other marks which are indicative of unwidowed life, offspring, wealth, and so forth, — which may be learnt from the science of Astrology. — ‘Endowed’ — i.e., equipped — ‘with these signs;’ i.e., bearing auspicious marks. Even though indicators of evil are also called ‘signs,’ yet since what is mentioned here is, that one should marry a girl with these signs, it follows that what is meant is the girl with good, auspicious, signs. In fact, the term, ‘lakṣaṇa,’ ‘sign,’ is used in ordinary parlance in the sense of desirable signs; e.g., men and women are spoken of as ‘endowed with signs’ which means that they bear auspicious marks.

What we have to consider in this connection is the question of title (Who is entitled to marry?).

Since the Injunction of marriage enjoins a sacrament, a consecration, it comes to be performed just like the Laying of Fire; and just as the Laying of Fire serves, through the Āhavanīya and other fires, the purposes of compulsory and voluntary acts, and hence it comes to be performed for the bringing into existence of the Āhavanīya, &c., as subsidiary to those acts, — so the Marriage also brings into existence the ‘Wife,’ and through her serves the fulfilment of the visible and unvisible ends of man. For example, when desire for sexual intercourse arises in man, there arises the possibility of his having recourse to any and every woman; but intercourse with maidens and wives of other men being prohibited, the said desire comes to be accomplished only through one’s own married wife [The married wife thus serves a visible end]. Then again, there is the saying that ‘every religious act shall be done by the husband and wife together,’ which shows that it is only as accompanied by his wife that man is entitled to the performance of religious acts; and thus it is clear that the accomplishment of the invisible (transcendental) purposes of man also is dependent upon the wife.

In connection with this subject, some people make the following observations: — “As just described, persons, with their sexual desire aroused, have, of their own accord, their marriages done for the purpose of accomplishing their visible ends; and after they have married, they happen to perform certain religious acts; and in this case, the marriage might thus turn out to be of use in the fulfilment of religious acts. But in a case where a man’s desire for intercourse with women has entirely ceased, there is no marriage at all; — there being no marriage, the man is not entitled to the performance of religious acts; — in the absence of such title, the non-performance of acts shall involve no sin; — consequently, there need be nothing reprehensible in the conduct of the man who does not take to the Householder’s life and does not perform any religious acts conducive to the ends of man.”

This, however, is not right. Religious acts are as much conducive to the fulfilment of man’s purpose as sexual desire is. In fact, every man engages in activity only for the accomplishment of some purpose of his. If this were not so (i.e., the entrance into the Householder’s state were not essential), then there would be no room for such assertions as ‘desisting for a year from entering into the Householder’s state, &c., &c.’ We shall explain this fully under Discourse VI, in connection with the question of option regarding the Life-stages. — (4)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 462) simply as laying down marriage; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 131) as indicating the necessity for marriage; — also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 673); — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 567), as indicating that the ‘Final Bath’ spoken of above (in 1. 245) is meant to be for the purpose of marriage; — on the ground that the Bath is here spoken of in connection with the twice-born person who is going to marry; while we do not meet with any such assertion as ‘Having bathed, he should betake himself to the forest,’ or that ‘having bathed,’ he should bike to Renunciation; — in the same work on p. 585, in support of the view that Marriage is meant to be conducive to the fulfilment of the man’s purpose, the following notes are added: — the term ‘dvija’ serves to show that it is only the twice-born person endowed with the above-mentioned qualifications that is entitled to marriage; and it does not mean that any and every twice-born person is entitled to it; and that this is so is clear from the fact that marriage has been laid down only for one who has had his Initiation and has taken the ‘Final Bath’ of the Studentship. Nor again can the term ‘dvija’ be taken as precluding others; as in that case there would be no marriage for the Śūdra. From all this it follows that the present text should be taken as enjoining a particular act as pertaining to a particularly qualified person. — The term ‘bhāryā,’ ‘wife,’ has been used in view of the future status of the girl; so that the meaning of the injunction comes to be that ‘he should bring into existence a wife by means of the marriage-ceremony.’ — The term ‘Savarṇā,’ ‘of the same caste’ is meant to indicate that such a marriage would be in its principal form: and it does not preclude the marrying of girls of other castes; this is in fact sanctioned by other texts.

The same work quotes the verse again on page 747, as laying down the ‘principal’ wife ordained for man.

Vīramitrodaya again in its ‘Lakṣaṇa’ section (p. 118) quotes the second half of this verse under the ‘the characteristics of women.’

It is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (p. 940) to the effect that ‘Samāvartana’ is another name for the concluding rites of Studentship; — in Aparārka (p. 76) as indicating that the ‘Bath’ is distinct from the Samāvartana ceremony; — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 680); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 403); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 49a.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (8. 1). — ‘The Householder, with anger and joy under control, when permitted by the teacher, should take up a wife of the same grade as himself, younger in age, not having the same sage (as an ancestor), and who has not had intercourse.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 52). — ‘Having gone through his studentship intact, he should marry a qualified girl, one who has not belonged to another man, loving and younger in age, who is not a Sapiṇḍa.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (1. 5. 3). — ‘One should marry a girl who is free from disease and endowed with intelligence, beauty, modesty and other good qualities.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3. 9. 4). — ‘On the completion of his study, he should approach the teacher with presets and then, permitted by him, he should take the Bath.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyāsūtra (2. 6.1-4). — ‘Having finished the Veda,he should take the Bath;...............permitted by the teacher.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (2. 1. 1. 2). — ‘One should take to a wife during the Puṣya-Asterism, — one who is endowed with comendable qualities.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3. 4. 1-3). — ‘The Religious Student, having studied the Veda, and having offered presents to the Teacher, should take a wife, after being permitted by the Teacher.’

Vyāsa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 586). — ‘Having taken the Bath, one should marry a girl of one’s own caste, endowed with good qualities.’

Dakṣa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 586). — ‘Having, with due effort, studied the Veda both verbally and intelligently, he shall marry a girl endowed with good qualities, after having previously taken the Bath.’

VERSE 3.5 [Marriageable Girls]

Section III - Marriageable Girls

असपिण्डा च या मातुरसगोत्रा च या पितुः ।
सा प्रशस्ता द्विजातीनां दारकर्मणि मैथुने ॥५॥

asapiṇḍā ca yā māturasagotrā ca yā pituḥ |
sā praśastā dvijātīnāṃ dārakarmaṇi maithune ||5||

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)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

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.’

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘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 —

who is one’s own and his father’s sapiṇḍā,

who is one’s own sapiṇḍā, but not the sapiṇḍā of his father,

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 —

the progenitor, the husband of the mother;

the owner of the ‘field, i.e. the mother’s husband, who is not the progenitor;

the owner of the ‘seed’, i. e. the progenitor, who is not the husband of the mother;

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).

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?