Kisari Mohan Ganguli - The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa

268. I expand this verse. After kriya bhavati patratwam is understood. Kriya includes the diverse objects for which persons solicit alms or gifts. Upansuvratam is maunam parivrajyam.

269. It is said that food or other things, when given to an undeserving person, feels grief. What Yudhishthira asks is who the proper person is unto whom gifts may be made.

270. All these acts should be performed with purity of intention and according to the ordinances of the scriptures. For example, sacrifices should not be performed with vanity or pride. The Vedas should not be studied without faith. Children should not be procreated from lust, etc.

271. Such words are unseizable and unintelligible for their depth of meaning. Women are equally unseizable and unintelligible.

272. The sense is this: women agitate the hearts of those that treat them with respect as of those that treat them with disdain. The commentator explains that Pujitah dhikkritahva tulyavat vikaram janayati.

273. All living creatures are virtuous, for they are capable of progressing towards godship by their own acts.

274. Pura has little force here, implying 'first'. In the first place, know that I have come to thee,

275. Ladies spoke in Prakrita and not in Sanskrit. The latter is refined, the former is unrefined. Hence Indra's surprise at hearing Sanskrit words from the lady's lips.

276. The adana ceremony was a rite in course of which friends and kinsmen had to make presents unto the person performing the ceremony. The investiture with the sacred-thread, marriage, the rite performed in the sixth and the ninth month of pregnancy, are all ceremonies of this kind.

277. It would be curious to see how the commentator Nilakantha seeks to include within these five the eight forms of marriage mentioned by Manu. The fact is, such parts of the Mahabharata are unquestionably more ancient than Manu. The mention of Manu is either an instance of interpolation or there must have been an older Manu upon whose work the Manu we know has been based. The Asura and the Rakshasa forms are unequivocally condemned. Yet the commentator seeks to make out that the Rakshasa form is open to the Kshatriyas. The fact is, the Rakshasa was sometimes called the Paisacha. The distinction between those two forms was certainly of later origin.

278. Thus, there was no difference, in status, in ancient times, between children born of a Brahmana, a Kshatriya or a Vaisya mother. The difference of status was of later origin.

279. Nagnika is said to be one who wears a single piece of cloth. A girl in whom the signs of puberty have not appeared does not require more than a single piece of cloth to cover her. The mention of Nagnika, the commentator thinks, is due to an interdiction about wedding a girl of even ten years in whom signs of puberty have appeared.

280. When a father happens to have an only daughter, he frequently bestows her in marriage upon some eligible youth on the understanding that the son born of her shall be the son, for purposes of both Sraddha rites and inheritance, not of the husband begetting him but of the girl's father. Such a contract would be valid whether expressed or not at the time of marriage. The mere wish of the girl's father, unexpressed at the time of marriage, would convert the son into a son not of the father who begets him but of the father of the girl herself. A daughter reserved for such a purpose is said to be a putrikadharmini or 'invested with the character of a son.' To wed such a girl was not honourable. It was in effect an abandonment of the fruits of marriage. Even if dead at the time of marriage, still if the father had, while living, cherished such a wish, that would convert the girl into a putrikadharmini. The repugnance to wedding girls without father and brothers exists to this day.

281. For understanding the meanings of Sapinda and Sagotra see any work on Hindu law civil or canonical.

282. These verses are exceedingly terse. The commentator explains that what is intended is that under the third and fourth circumstances the giver of the girl incurs no sin; under the second, the bestower of the girl (upon a person other than he unto whom a promise had been made) incurs fault. The status of wife, however, cannot attach simply in consequence of the promise to bestow upon the promiser of the dower. The relationship of husband and wife arises from actual wedding. For all that, when the kinsmen meet and say, with due rites, 'This girl is this one's wife,' the marriage becomes complete. Only the giver incurs sin by not giving her to the promised person.

283. Hence, having promised to wed such a one, she is at liberty to give him over and wed another whom she likes.

284. In consequence of that boon no one incurs sin by retracting promises of bestowing daughters upon others in view of more eligible husbands.

285. Hence, no one should bestow his daughter upon a person that is not eligible, for the offspring of such marriage can never be good and such a marriage can never make the daughter's sire or kinsmen happy.

286. One of the most important rites of marriage is the ceremony of circumambulation. The girl is now borne around the bride-groom by her kinsmen. Formerly, she used to walk herself. All gifts, again, are made with water. The fact is, when a thing is given away, the giver, uttering the formula, sprinkles a drop of water upon it with a blade of Kusa grass.

287. Hence, what Savitri did at the bidding of her sire could not be against the course of duty or morality. The Burdwan translator has misunderstood the second line of this verse, while K.P. Singha has quietly dropped it.

288. Dharmasya refers to the true or correct or eternal Aryan usage, Pradanam is khandanam, from da, to cut The sense is that the grant of liberty to women is an Asura practice.

289. Hence, no one should wed, led by desire alone. Nor should the maiden be permitted to choose for herself. She may be guided in her choice by improper considerations connected with only carnal pleasure.

290. The property is divided into five parts, two of which are taken by the daughter under such circumstances and three by the son.

291. I expand the verse for making it intelligible, by setting forth the reasons urged by Hindu lawyers and noticed by the commentator.

292. Valatah vasyam implies only those whose consent is obtained by force. Hence, such cases as those of Krishna abducting Rukmini and Arjuna abducting Subhadra, are excluded from this denunciation.

293. The maiden may herself accept ornaments. That would not convert the transaction into a sale.

294. Swalpa-kaupinah literally is covered with a small piece of cloth, hence, capable of being easily seduced.

295. i.e., he should not acquire for storing. He may acquire to spend in sacrifices and gifts or for maintaining himself and his family.

296. i.e., if the Brahmana, led by affection for any other wife, disregards the wife belonging to his own order and shows preference for those of the other orders, he then incurs the liability of being regarded as a Chandala that has come to be numbered among Brahmanas.

297. The sense of this verse seems to be this: If a Brahmana takes in succession three spouses all belonging to his own order, the son born of his first wife shall take the share that is allotted to the eldest; that born of the second wife shall take a share next in value; and that born of the youngest wife shall take the share allotted to the youngest. After such especial shares are taken, the residue of the property is to be distributed unto equal shares each of which shall be taken by each of the children. If this interpretation be correct, it would appear that the contention waged some years ago in Bengal, that the scriptures do not allow a person the liberty of taking more than one spouse from his own order, falls to the ground. Upon other grounds also, that contention was absurd, for Kshatriya kings often took more than one Kshatriya spouse.