{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe14/sbe1457.htm","path":"hin/sbe14/sbe1457.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe14/sbe1457.htm","text":"1. A Br\u00e2hmana who always carries water (in his pot), who always wears the sacred thread, who daily recites the Veda, who avoids the food of S\u00fbdras, who approaches (his wife) in the proper season, and offers sacrifices in accordance with the rules (of the Veda, after death) never falls from Brahman's heaven. 1\n2. The Veda (says), 'Manu divided his estate among his sons.' 2\n3. (A father may, therefore, divide his property) equally among all, without (making any) difference; 3\n4. Or the eldest may receive the most excellent chattel. 4\n5. (For) the Veda says, 'Therefore, they distinguish the eldest by (an additional share of the) property. 5\n6. Or the eldest may receive (in excess) one part out of ten; 6\n7. (And) the other (sons) shall receive equal shares. 7\n8. While the father lives, the division of the estate takes place (only) with the permission of the father. 8\n9. The (additional) share of the eldest is, (according to the order) of the four castes, a cow, a horse, a goat, and a sheep. 9\n10. If there are sons born of wives of different castes (varna), they should make ten portions of the ancestral property and take four (shares), three, two, (and) one, according to the order (of the castes). 10\n11. But if a legitimate son of the body (aurasa) is born, the (other) sons of equal caste shall obtain one third share (of the estate). 11\n12. If there is a son of equal caste and a son of 12\na wife of the next lower caste, the son born of the wife of the next lower caste may take the share of the eldest, provided he be endowed with good qualities.\n13. (A son) who possesses good qualities becomes the protector of the rest. 13\n14. One must know a son begotten by (the husband) himself on a wedded wife of equal caste (to be) a legitimate son of the body (aurasa). 14\nNow they quote also (the following verse): 'From the several limbs (of my body) art thou produced, from my heart art thou born; thou art \"self\" called a son; mayest thou live a hundred autumns.' 15\n15. The (male child) born of a daughter, after an agreement has been made, (one must know to be) the son of an appointed daughter (putrik\u00e2putra); any other (male offspring of a daughter they call) a daughter's son (dauhitra).\n16. Now they quote also (the following verse): 'The son of an appointed daughter should offer the first funeral cake to his mother, the second to her father, and the third to his father's father.'\n17. He who is begotten, by another man, on the wife of a deceased man, of a eunuch, or of one (incurably) diseased, after permission (has been given), is called the son begotten on a wife (kshetraga). 17\n18. Such a (son begotten on a wife) has two fathers and belongs to two families; he has a right to perform the funeral oblations, and to inherit the property of (his) two (fathers). 18\n19. Now they quote also (the following verse): The son of two fathers shall give the funeral cakes (to his two fathers, and pronounce) two names with each oblation, and three cakes shall serve for six persons; he who acts thus will not err.'\n20. He (is called) an adopted son (datta) who, being given by his father and his mother, or by either of the two, is received in the place of a child. 20\n21. He (is called) a son made (kritrima) whom (a mail) himself makes (his son), with the (adoptee's) consent (only), and who belongs to the same caste (as the adopter). 21\n22. He is called a son born secretly (g\u00fbdhagga) who is secretly born in the house and whose (origin is) afterwards (only) recognised. 22\n23. He is called a son cast off (apaviddha) who, being, cast off by his father and his mother, or by either (of them), is received in the place of a child. 23\n24. If anybody approaches an unmarried girl without the permission (of her father or guardian), the son born by such (a woman is called) the son of an unmarried damsel (k\u00e2n\u00eena). 24\n25. If one marries either knowingly or unknowingly a pregnant bride, the child which is born of her is called (a son) taken with the bride (sahodha). 25\n26. He (is called a son) bought (kr\u00eeta) who, being purchased from his father and his mother, or from either of them, is received in the place of a child. 26\n27. He (is called the son) of a twice-married woman (paunarbhava) who is born of a re-married female, (i.e.) of one who, having left an impotent man, has taken a second husband. 27\n28. He (is called) a self-given (son, svayamdatta) who, abandoned by his father and his mother, gives himself (to a stranger). 28\n29. He who is begotten by (a man of) the first twice-born (caste) on a female of the S\u00fbdra caste (is called) a Nish\u00e2da.\n30. (He who was begotten by the same parents) through lust (is called) a P\u00e2rasava. Thus (the various kinds of) sons (have been enumerated). 30\n31. Now they quote also (the following verses): 'They declare the legitimate son, the son of an appointed daughter, the son begotten on a wife, the adopted son and the son made, the son born secretly and the son cast off, (to be entitled) to share the inheritance.' 31\n32. 'They declare the son of an unmarried damsel and the son received with the bride, the son bought, 32\nlikewise the son of a twice-married female, the son self-given and the Nish\u00e2da, to be members of the family.'\n33. Aupagandhani (declares that) the first among them alone (is entitled to inherit, and a member of his father's family). 33\n34. 'Now, O Ganaka, I jealously watch my wives, (though I did) not (do it) formerly; for they have declared in Yama's court that the son belongs to the begetter. The giver of the seed carries off the son, after death, in Yama's hall, Therefore they carefully protect their wives, fearing the seed of strangers.'\n35. 'Carefully watch (the procreation of your) offspring, lest strange seed fall on your soil. After death the son belongs to the begetter; through carelessness a husband makes (the procreation of) a son useless.'\n36. Let them carefully protect the shares of 36\nthose who are minors, as well as the increments (thereon).\n37. Granting food, clothes, (and shelter), they shall support those who are incapable of transacting legal business, 37\n38. (Viz.) the blind, idiots, those immersed in vice, the incurably diseased, and so forth, 38\n39. Those who neglect their duties and occupations; 39\n40. But not the outcast nor his offspring. 40\n41. Intercourse with outcasts shall not take place.\n42. But he shall support an outcast mother, without speaking to her.\n43. The daughters shall obtain the ornaments of their mother, (as many as are) presented according to the custom (of the caste), or anything else (that may be given according to custom). 43\n44. Women do not possess independence. 44\n45. Now they quote also (the following verse): Their father protects (them) in childhood, their husband protects (them) in youth, and their sons protect (them) in old age a woman is never fit for independence.' 45\n46. The Veda declares, 'Therefore women are considered to be destitute of strength and of a portion.' 46\n47. Those (women) who strive (to do what is) agreeable to their husbands will gain heaven. 47\n48. But for a violation (of their duty towards the husband) a Krikkhra penance (must be performed). 48\n49. (For violating it) with a S\u00fbdra (a woman) shall perform a lunar penance (k\u00e2ndr\u00e2yana);\n50. (For violating it) against the order of the castes with a Vaisya and so forth, she shall perform a Krikkhra or an (Atikrikkhra) penance.\n51. For male (offenders, i.e.) Br\u00e2hmanas and so forth, a year's chastity (is prescribed). 51\n52. Let him burn a S\u00fbdra (who commits adultery with an \u00c2ryan) in a straw-fire. 52\n53. Now they quote also (the following verses):\n224:1 3. Vasishtha VIII, 17.\n224:2 Taittir\u00eeya Samhit\u00e2 III, 1, 9, 4.\n224:3 Colebrooke V, Dig. XL. Govinda points out that this rule refers to sons equal by caste, origin, and virtue.\n224:4 Colebrooke, loc. cit.; Vishnu XVIII, 37.\n224:5 Taittir\u00eeya Samhit\u00e2 II, 5, 2, 7. See also the discussion on this text, \u00c2pastamba II, 6, 14, 10-13.\n224:6 Colebrooke, loc. cit.; Vasishtha XVII, 43.\n224:7 Colebrooke, loc. cit.; Gautama XXVIII, 8.\n224:8 Colebrooke V, Dig. XXII; D\u00e2yabh\u00e2ga II, 8. In C.'s Digest p. 225 the first clause is omitted and connected with the following S\u00fbtra. Govinda agrees with G\u00eem\u00fbtav\u00e2hana.\n225:9 Colebrooke V, Dig. XLIX. The rule is an explanation of the term varam r\u00fbpam, 'the most excellent chattel,' in S\u00fbtra 4. The meaning probably is, as the Digest states, that among Br\u00e2hmanas it is usual to give to the eldest a bull, among Kshatriyas a horse, and so forth.\n225:10 Vasishtha XVII, 48-50; Vishnu XVIII, 2-40 where the several cases that can arise have been fully worked out.\n225:11 I translate according to the reading of K., M., and the two MSS. of the commentary, aurase t\u00fbtpanne savarn\u00e2s [\u00b0nas, M., K.] tritty\u00e2msahar\u00e2h [\u00b0y\u00e2msam haret, K.] The other MSS. omit the last two words of the S\u00fbtra. The sense of the S\u00fbtra seems to be, that subsidiary sons of equal caste obtain a third of the estate when a legitimate son of the body is born to their father; see also K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana V, Dig. CCXVIII. Govinda gives the following explanation: aurasah savarnaputr\u00e2s ka vakshyante | aurasah savarn\u00e2y\u00e2m samskrit\u00e2y\u00e2m svayam utp\u00e2ditah [S\u00fbtra 14] | tasminnutpanne savarn\u00e2s trit\u00eey\u00e2msahar\u00e2 bhaveyuh | sarvam dhanag\u00e2tam tredh\u00e2 vibhagya tesh\u00e2m ekam shodasa samp\u00e2dya tr\u00een dv\u00e2vekam iti kalpayet || 'The legitimate son and the sons of equal caste will be described (below). He is called a legitimate son who is begotten by the husband himself on a wedded wife of equal caste. When such a one is born, the (other) sons of equal caste shall obtain one third share. Dividing the whole property into three parts, and making one of them sixteen (?), he shall give three, two, one.'--Govinda.\n225:12 Colebrooke V, Dig. CLVII; D\u00e2yabh\u00e2ga IX, 15.\n226:13 Colebrooke, loc. cit.\n226:14 Colebrooke V, Dig. CXCVI; Vasishtha XVII, 13. The verse is found in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata and elsewhere.\n226:15 Colebrooke V, Dig. CCXIII; Vasishtha XVII, 15-17.\n226:17 Colebrooke V, Dig. CCXXXVII; D\u00e2yabh\u00e2ga II, 60; Vasishtha XVII, 14.\n227:18 Colebrooke Dig., loc. cit.\n227:20 Vasishtha XVII, 28.\n227:21 Colebrooke V, Dig. CCLXXXIV; Gautama XXVIII, 32.\n227:22 Vasishtha XVII, 24.\n227:23 Vishnu XV, 24-25.\n227:24 Colebrooke V, Dig. CCLXI; Vasishtha XVII, 21-23. It must be understood that the father must belong to the same caste as the girl.\n228:25 Vasishtha XVII, 27.\n228:26 Colebrooke V, Dig. CCLXXXI; Vasishtha XVII, 30-32.\n228:27 Vasishtha XVII, 18-20.\n228:28 Vasishtha XVII, 33-35.\n228:30 Colebrooke V, Dig. CCXCIII. Govinda points out that the P\u00e2rasava is, according to Baudh\u00e2yana, the offspring of a S\u00fbdr\u00e2 concubine, not of a S\u00fbdr\u00e2 wife. But see also above, I, 9, 17, 4.\n228:31 Colebrooke V, Dig. CLXXX; Vasishtha XVII, 25.\n228:32 Colebrooke V, Dig. CLXXIX; Vasishtha XVII, 26.\n229:33-34. Aupagandhani is one of the ancient teachers of the White Yagur-veda, mentioned in the lists incorporated in the Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana XIV, 5, 5, 21; 7, 3, 26. The legends of the White Yagur-veda frequently mention king Ganaka of Videha, and assert that that philosopher king had frequent and intimate intercourse with Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya and other teachers of the Veda which \u00c2ditya revealed. It seems to me, therefore, highly probable that Govinda is right in taking the vocative ganaka in S\u00fbtra 34 as a proper name, and in asserting that the verse belongs to a conversation between Aupagandhani and Ganaka. This explanation, which possibly may be based on an ancient tradition of Baudh\u00e2yana's school, is certainly preferable to Haradatta's statement on \u00c2pastamba II, 6, 13, 7, that these verses express the sentiments of a husband who had neglected to watch his wives, and later learned that he would not derive any spiritual benefit from their offspring. In the text of S\u00fbtra 34 I read with the Dekhan MSS. and \u00c2pastamba, loc. cit., \u00eershy\u00e2mi, instead of ishy\u00e2mi, which M. and the commentary give.\n229:36 Colebrooke V, Dig. CCCCLII; Vasishtha XVI, 8, 9. 'The p. 230 increments, i.e. the proper interest. Thus the money of minors shall bear interest,'--Govinda.\n230:37 Colebrooke V, Dig. CCCXXVIII; D\u00e2yabh\u00e2ga V, 12; Vyavah\u00e2ramay\u00fbkha IV, 11, so; Vasishtha XVII, 52-54.\n230:38 Colebrooke and May\u00fbkha, loc. cit. 'The expression \"and so forth\" includes hunchbacks and other (disabled) persons.'--Govinda. Vyasanin, 'immersed in vice,' may also mean 'afflicted by calamities,' and is perhaps intended to be taken both ways.\n230:39 Colebrooke and May\u00fbkha, loc. cit. Akarminas, 'those who neglect their duties and occupations,' I.e. those who though able (to fulfil their duties are) indolent.--Govinda.\n230:40 Colebrooke and May\u00fbkha, loc. cit.; Burnell, D\u00e2yabh\u00e2ga 49. 42, Gautama XXI, 15, and note.\n230:43 Colebrooke V, Dig. CXXX; Vasishtha XVII, 46. 'S\u00e2mprad\u00e2yikam (literally \"customary\") qualifies (the word) ornaments; s\u00e2mprad\u00e2yikam (means) what is obtained according to custom; what is given to their mother by the maternal grandfather and grandmother, that (is called) s\u00e2mprad\u00e2yikam. \"Or anything else,\" (viz.) presented according to custom, (e.g.) a bedstead and the p. 231 like, a couch, and an outer garment, and the like. So much and nothing else shall the daughters receive.'--Govinda.\n231:44 Vasishtha V, s. All the MSS. of the text read na str\u00eesv\u00e2tantryam vidyate, while the text given by the two copies of the commentary has na str\u00ee sv\u00e2tantryam vindate. Govinda asserts that the S\u00fbtra is intended to forbid the independent action of women with respect to things inherited. The correct view probably is that with this S\u00fbtra the topic of the duties and rights of women begins, and that the rule contains a general maxim.\n231:45 Vasishtha V, 2.\n231:46 Colebrooke V, Dig. CXXXI. The text is in great confusion. The Dekhan and Gugar\u00e2t MSS., except K., read, na d\u00e2yam nirindriy\u00e2 hyad\u00e2y\u00e2s ka striyo mat\u00e2 iti srutih; K. has, tasm\u00e2t[n]nirindriy\u00e2 hy. st. m. i. sru. || tasm\u00e2t striyo nirindriy\u00e2 ad\u00e2y\u00e2d\u00eer api p\u00e2p\u00e2t; while M. and the I. O. copy of the commentary have, tasm\u00e2nnirindriy\u00e2 ad\u00e2y\u00e2s ka striyo mat\u00e2 iti srutih [s\u00fbtih, M.] The Telugu copy is mutilated, and reads n\u00e2dayantiriti srutih. Though the reading of the Dekhan MSS. is supported by Mitramisra V\u00eeramitrodaya, fol. 209, p. I, 1. 3, it is certainly not the original one, for there is no verb by which the accusative 'd\u00e2yam' is governed. Mitramisra's attempt to make it depend on 'arhati' in the verse quoted in S\u00fbtra 45 is futile, because, according to the usage of the S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ras, a S\u00fbtra may be completed by a verb taken frost another original aphorism of the author, but cannot be connecter with a portion of a quotation taken from some other work. This same principle, of course, applies not only to S\u00fbtras, but to the writings of all other authors, whether Indian or European. The reading of K., M., and of the I. O. copy of the commentary is not open to the objection just mentioned, and therefore preferable. But it seems to me highly probable that, nevertheless, it is not p. 232 quite genuine; for the word 'tasm\u00e2t,' with which it begins, is not required, because its sense is already expressed by the following hi,' and because the S\u00fbtra apparently contains half an Anushtubh Sloka, which the insertion of tasm\u00e2t destroys. It is also easy to see how it came to be inserted. Every Yagurved\u00ee who read the passage would be reminded of the analogous passage of the Taittir\u00eeya Samhit\u00e2 VI, 5, 8, 2, 'tasm\u00e2t striyo nirindriy\u00e2 ad\u00e2y\u00e2d\u00eer api p\u00e2p\u00e2t pumsah upastitaram,' which in K. has actually been inserted after our S\u00fbtra. In the Vedic Mantra 'tasm\u00e2t' is required, and is certainly the genuine reading. Hence it seems to have been transferred into Baudh\u00e2yana's text, possibly by the mistake of some scribe who, according to the habit of his kind, took a marginal reference to the beginning of the Vedic passage for a correction of the text. In my opinion it must be thrown out. The sense of the half verse remains exactly the same. It corresponds to Manu IX, 18. According to Govindasv\u00e2min and others its object is to show that women are incapable of inheriting, and the word d\u00e2ya, 'portion,' must be taken in the sense of 'a share of the inheritance.' For a full discussion of this point, I refer to the Introductory Note on Book I, Chapter II, Sect. 14 of West and Miller's Digest of H. L. C., third edition.\n232:47 Vishnu XXV, 15, 17; Vasishtha XXI, 14.\n232:48-50. Vasishtha XXI, 6-13.\n232:51 Govinda points out that this rule refers to adultery with women of equal caste, and thinks that the word 'chastity' indicates that Krikkhra penances are to be performed; Vasishtha XXI, 16, 17; Vishnu LIII, 2. But see Gautama XXII, 29.\n233:52 Vasishtha XXI, 1, 5.","title":"SBE 14: Baudh\u00e2yana: Prasna II, Adhy\u00e2ya...","type":"page"}