Pranam
Intro: Who said that our scriptures are not scientific?. See for yourself.
This topic arose to me when I was going through the US Brahmins PERUNGULAM
sp 2010 ARTICLE IN THE SAME TITLE. Today marriages are cross-countried. A
man and a woman is enough. Heart shall match which was the original VEDIC
WORDS . But while there is no taboo in marriage between any man and woman,
there are advocated science princtiples in vedas why a lady shall be
chosen and vice versa. for a man too. There are numerous personalities in
our puranas. They teach us what happened in between them; or if everything
was positive they adduce the reasons as to WHY?. Food is a criteria;
rituals and one;s habits and privacy is a criteria; hence selective
marriages are helpful. We find GREATER NUMBER OF DIVORCE IN UNFORESEEN LOVE
MARRIAGES OF THE SAME PLACE IN DIFFERENT EARTH AS THESE SCIENCES WERE
FLOATED. oN THE CONTRARY CROS-COUNTRIED MARRIAGE WENT SO STRONG WITH THE
BONDAGE OF LOVE BECAUSE it surpassed and accepted all the conditions stated
herein. Caste is our creation and not that of Vedas. Now going into the
long descrikptions in one shot.
1 Sahodara (सहोदर).—a uterine brother, brother of whole blood; जनन्यां
संस्थितायां तु समं सर्वे सहोदराः (*jananyāṃ saṃsthitāyāṃ tu samaṃ sarve
sahodarāḥ*) Manusmṛti 9.92; सहोदरा कुङ्कुमकेसराणां भवन्ति नूनं कविताविलासाः
(*sahodarā kuṅkumakesarāṇāṃ bhavanti nūnaṃ kavitāvilāsāḥ*) Vikr.1.21.
2 Sahōdari —[noun] a woman or girl as she is related to the another child
or other children of her parents; a sister.
3 Saha+ udaram= the mother whose DNA transmitted in all the deliveries
, whose Y chromosome , may even be many that of Fathers'. SIBLINGS are
from one stomach of a lady who are only related as brothers and sisters;
their DNAs will find similarities in many factors. X determined the
relation even if the mother begot through many sources. Thus all the
pandava children are only brothers and sisters as came through one UDARAM
DRAUPADI. And where the progeny between the saha udaras have no mutational
possibilities outside, must possess only the same X and the similar Y,
which amounts to decaying and inferior quality generations, (marked as
sinful) as the generations advance. On the contrary, the relationships
between the saha udarams cross matched , deviates and branches out of the
MUTATIONS INTO THE STRING SOCIETY PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY.
4 In Hindu society, the term gotra means clan. It broadly refers to
people who are descendants in an unbroken male line from a common male
ancestor or patriline. Gotra can be used as surname but it is different
from surname and is strictly maintained because of its importance in
marriages among Hindus and especially among high Hindu-castes.
Pāṇini defines gotra for grammatical purposes as apatyam pautraprabhrti
gotram (IV. 1. 162), which means "the word gotra denotes the progeny (of a
sage) beginning with the son's son." When a person says "I am
Kashyapa-gotra," he means that he traces his descent from the ancient sage
Kashyapa by unbroken male descent.
According to the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad 2.2.6, Gautama and Bharadvāja,
Viśvāmitra and Jamadagni, Vashishtha and Kaśhyapa, and Atri are seven sages
(also known as Saptarishi); the progeny of these eight sages is declared to
be gotras. This enumeration of eight primary gotras seems to have been
known to Pāṇini. The offspring (apatya) of these eight are gotras and
others than these are called gotrâvayava.
As a Rigvedic term, gotra simply means "cow shelter" and more generally
"stable, enclosure". The narrowed meaning "family, lineage kin" (as it were
"herd within an enclosure") is younger, first recorded around the mid 1st
millennium BCE (e.g., Chandogya Upanishad). These "lineages" as they
developed during that time meant patri-lineal descent among Brahmins (the
Brahmin gotra system), warriors and administrators in Kshatriyas and
ancestral tradesmen in Vaisyas.
There exists another theory about gotra: sons of rishi and disciples of the
gurukul would have same gotra. It is believed that they possess similar
thought and philosophy. People of same gotra can be found in different
castes.
5 Verse 3.5 [Marriageable Girls] sknada puranam: : 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)
(*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. { meaning of
matching kula and Gotra; it does not mean narrow blendinds; but an Indian
can marrry an american since THERE IS NO SAPINDA; end}
6 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.’ ( The DNA changes totally after the seventh
generations}.
‘*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.’ { But MANY MARRIAGES SINCE 1600 HAD TAKEN PLACE
SIMILARLY AND TODAY IN tv SERIALS ALL HUSBANDS ARE ADDRESSED AS “MAMA”. }
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. ( HENCE ONE MAY
ARGUE SO WHAT IF SAHODARAS MARRY AS Egypt queen did?)
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.
78 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.( Kula karma (action) vibaga**😊** )*
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.
9 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.
‘*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.’
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—
1. who is one’s own and his father’s *sapiṇḍā*,
2. who is one’s own *sapiṇḍā*, but not the *sapiṇḍā* of his father,
3. 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.
10 For the same reasons there are four kinds of ‘father’ also—
1. the progenitor, the husband of the mother;
2. the owner of the ‘field, *i.e*. the mother’s husband, who is not the
progenitor;
3. the owner of the ‘seed’, *i. e*. the progenitor, who is not the
husband of the mother;
4. 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*’
11 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).
12 Another question raised is why should the mother’s *asapiṇḍā*, who is
included in the mother’s *asagotrā* implied by the *eha* in the text, be
mentioned separately?—
The ‘mother’s *Sapiṇḍā*’ has got to be so mentioned for the purpose of
excluding the girl born in the family of the father of one’s step-mother,
who is one’s own ‘*asapiṇḍā*’, as also the ‘*asagotrā*’ of the mother, but
is the ‘*sapiṇḍā*’ of the mother; so that if the text had excluded only the
‘mother’s *asagotrā*,’ the said girl would he marriageable; she becomes
excluded, however, by the condition that she should *not* he his *Another’s
sapiṇḍā*’.
It goes on to raise a. further question that the phrase ‘*asagotrā ca pituḥ*’
need not be taken to include the father’s ‘*asapiṇḍā*’ also, as the latter
is already included under the term ‘father’s *asagotrā*’.—
The answer to this is that the separate exclusion of the ‘father’s
*sapiṇḍā*’ is necessary in view of the following case:—
Devadatta’s father, Yajñadatta, is the adopted son of his father,
Bhānudatta,—a girl is born in the family of Yajñadatta’s
*progenitor-father*,—this
girl would be *asagotrā* of Devadatta’s ‘father’ (adoptive), and also ‘
*asagotrā*’ of his ‘mother’:—
thus there would be a likelihood of Devadatta marrying this girl;—and
this becomes precluded by taking the ‘ca’ to mean the ‘*father’s asapiṇḍā*’.
If this had not been intended by Manu, he would have said ‘*one’s own
asagotrā*’ (‘*asagotrā ca yātmanaḥ*’). Thus the upshot of all this is that
the girl to be married should be ‘*asapiṇḍā* and *asagotrā*’ of his Mother,
and also ‘*asapiṇḍā* and *asagotrā* of his Father’.
*13 Comparative notes by various authors*
*Gautama* (4. 2-5).—‘Marriage should he performed with persons not
belonging to the same *Pravara*;—above the Seventh grade among his paternal
relations;—also beyond persons of the same *seed*;—and above the fifth
grade among maternal relations.’
*Vaśiṣṭḥa* (8. 1, 2).—‘He should marry a girl who has no common Ṛṣi (as her
ancestor).........; nor one who is in the seventh grade among his paternal
and in the fifth grade among his maternal relations.’
*Bodhāyana* (2. 1. 38).—‘If he unknowingly marries a girl who is of the
same *gotra* as his mother, he should maintain her as his mother; if he has
got a child from her, he should perform the following expiation.........’
*Viṣṇu* (24.9-10).—‘He should obtain a wife who is not the same *gotra* as
himself nor with the same *Pravara-ṛṣis*; and who is beyond the fifth grade
of his maternal, and beyond the seventh grade of his paternal relations.’
*Viṣṇu* (*Aparārka*, p. 82).—‘Those who marry within the seventh and fifth
grades, and the children of such marriages, become outcasts and Śūdras.’
*Yājñavalkya* (1.53).—‘The girl who is free from disease, has a brother,
and does not belong to the same *gotra* or the same Ṛṣis, and who is above
the fifth and seventh grades of relationship on the maternal and paternal
sides respectively.’
*Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra* (3.4.4,5).—‘The girl who does not belong to the same
*gotra*, and who is not his mother’s *sapiṇḍa*.’
*Laghu-Śātātapa* (37).—[Reproduces Manu.]
*Śātātapa* (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 590).—‘First of all there should be purity
regarding *gotra* and *pravara*, and then that regarding the fifth and
seventh grades of relationship.’
*Baudhāyana* (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 590).—‘One born of a woman of the same
*gotra* as her husband is a Caṇḍāla.’
*Śātātapa* (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683).—‘If one marries the daughter of his
maternal uncle, or a girl who is of the same *gotra* as his mother, or of
the same *pravara*,—he should renounce her and perform the Cāndrāyaṇa
penance.’
*Sumanta* (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683, Aparārka, p. 80).—‘Having married the
daughter of his father’s sister, or that of his mother’s sister, or one who
is of the same *gotra* as his mother, or of the same *pravara*,—one should
perform the Cāndrāyaṇa; he shall give her up, but support her.’
*Sumanta* (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 702).—‘Girls are unmarriageable up to the
seventh grade on the father’s side, and up to the fifth grade on the other
sides.’
*Vyāsa* (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683).—‘Some people hold that one should not
marry a girl who has the same *gotra* as his mother.’
*Kāṭhaka Gṛhya* (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683).—‘One should not marry a girl who
has the same *gotra* and the same *pravara* as his father, nor one who is
of the same *gotra* as his mother.’
*Kātyāyana* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 684).—‘One should avoid a girl who,
as regards his father, is of the same *gotra* or of the same *pravara*; but
as regards his mother, only one who has the same *gotra* (the sameness of
*pravara* in this latter case does not matter).’
*Pāraskara* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 702).—‘*Jñāti*-relationship extends
to the seventh grade, or to the tenth.’
*Yājñavalkya* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 702).—‘From the seventh or the
tenth grade extends the *Jñāti*-relationship.’
*Devala* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘On the father’s and on the
mother’s side, the *sapiṇḍatā* (consanguinity) ceases beyond the seventh
and the fifth grades of relationship respectively.’
*Paiṭhīnasi* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 703).—‘One should select a girl who
has no *pravara-* sage in common with him,—avoiding seven grades on the
father’s and five on the mother’s side.’
*Paiṭhīnasi* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704).—‘In marriage one should
avoid three grades on the mother’s side and five grades on the father’s.’
*Hārīta* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704).—‘One shall select a girl who has
been found to be endowed with the three qualifications, and he should avoid
seven grades on his father’s, and five on his mother’s side.’
*Nārada* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 407).—‘Within the seventh and the fifth
grades of relationship from the father and the mother respectively—a girl
is unmarriageable; as also one who has the same *gotra or pravara*.’
*Vaśiṣṭha* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘The householder shall marry a
girl who is in the fifth grade on his mother’s side and in the seventh on
the father’s.’
*Ślokavaśiṣṭha* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘One should marry the
girl who is the seventh on his father’s side and fifth on his mother’s
side.’
*Viṣṇu-purāṇa* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘O king, the householder
shall marry, in the proper form, a girl who is fifth on his mother’s side
and seventh on his father’s side.’
*Śaṅkha* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704),—‘One shall acquire rightfully a
wife, who is not born of the same *gotra* or the same *pravara* as
himself,—and who happens to he the fifth on mother’s and seventh on the
father’s side.’
*Manu and Viṣṇu* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704).—‘*Sapiṇḍatā* ceases in
the seventh grade.’
*Chaturviṁshatimata* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 704).—‘On both sides, one
should marry the girl in the third and the fourth grades.’
*Saṭtṛṁshanmata* (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 704).—‘Manu has declared that one
may marry the girl who is in the third grade on the mother’s side and in
the third grade on the father’s side.’ KR IRS 30622
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoot28to8Rhco6-wFOinurULhgdimUrTADGPGvL80WEwqw%40mail.gmail.com.
