Manava Dharmashastra 3.25

3.25

kṣatriyādiviṣayeyaṃ smṛtirna brāhmaṇaviṣayā, rākṣase virodhāt | na hi vadhabhedane brāhmaṇaḥ kartumarhati | asyācaraṇāsya kṣatriyādiviṣayatayopapatteḥ | pañcānāṃ tu vivāhānāṃ prājāpatyātprabhṛti trayovivāhā dharmyāḥ | dvau na kartavyau paiśācaścāsuraśca | prājāpatyaḥ kṣatriyādīnāmaprāpto'pi vidhīyate | rākṣaso'pi vaiśyaśūdrayoḥ | āsurapaiśācayoḥ pratiṣedhaḥ | iyamatra vyavasthā | brāhmaṇasya ṣaḍvivāhāḥ | tatra brāhmaḥ sarvataḥ śreṣṭhastato nyūnau daivaprājāpatyau tābhyāmapyārṣastato'pi gāndharvastato'pyāsuraḥ | yeṣāmayaṃ śloko brāhmaṇaviṣayo'pi teṣāṃ rākṣaso'pi brāhmaṇasya kṣatriyavṛttāvavasthitasya bhavati | vikarmasthasyāpi vadhabhedanābhyāṃ prāyaścittīyate| na tu rākṣaso na vivāha iti te manyante | tatra brāhmaṇasya śreṣṭhyaṃ phalenaiva darśitam | niṣedhābhāvena cetareṣāṃ trayāṇāṃ nyūnatā phalāpacayavacanādeva | āsurasya punarvaiśyaśūdrayorvidhānena parisaṃkhyā brāhmaṇakṣatriyayoḥ pratīyate | ṣaḍiti ca vidhānam | ato vikalpaḥ | sa ca vyavasthayā | itarāsaṃbhavena tasyāśrayaṇaṃ tulyam | vikalpo hi vrīhiyavavadanekavivāhavidhānena ca samuccayāsaṃbhavādeva siddhaḥ | sati vā saṃbhave kriyeta cettathāpi dharmāpatyayornyūnaphalo'sau | atha kṣatriyasya rākṣaso mukhyaścaturbhiḥ ślokairavikalpena vidhānāt | catura ityanenāsūragāndharvapaiśācā api, rākṣasaṃ kṣatriyasyaikamityanena te pratiṣiddhāḥ | ato vikalpitāḥ, na mukhyāḥ | prakṛtāpekṣatvācca rākṣasaikavidhiḥ | prājāpatye nāsti parisaṃkhyānam | ataḥ prājāpatyo'pi kṣatriyasya rākṣasatulyaḥ | evaṃ vaiśyaśūdrayorapi prājāpatyau nityavadāmnātau na pratiṣiddhaḥ | āsurapaiśācau tu tayorvihitapratiṣiddhau | rākṣaso'pyarākṣasānityanena pratiṣiddhaḥ 'trayo dharyyā' ityanena vihitaḥ |
brāhmaṇasya paiśāco naivāsti, kṣatriyādīnāṃ brāhmādaivārṣā iti sthitam |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The law laid down in this verse pertains to the Kṣatriya and the rest, not to the Brāhmaṇa; for if it referred to the latter, there would be an inconsistency regarding the ‘Rākṣasa’ forms; as the Brāhmaṇa can never do the ‘killing and wounding’ (which are inevitable in that form), which acts are possible only for the Kṣatriya and others.

‘Of the five’— Forms of marriage, beginning with the ‘Prājāpatya’—three are lawful, and two—i.e., the Paiśāca and the Āsura—should never be adopted.

Though the ‘Prājāpatya’ has not been mentioned in connection with the Kṣatriya and others, yet it is here specially enjoined for them; so also the ‘Rākṣasa’ for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra. It is the Āsura and the Paiśāca that are interdicted.

The conclusion on this point is as follows:—For the Brāhmaṇa there are six forms of marriage; of these the ‘Brāhma’ is the best of all; inferior to that are the ‘Daiva’ and the ‘Prājāpatya;’ inferior to these is the Ārṣa, then the ‘Gāndharva,’ then the ‘Āsura.’

There are some people who regard this verse as pertaining to the Brāhmaṇa also. According to these, the ‘Rākṣasa’ form is permissible for that Brāhmaṇa who may have adopted the profession of the Kṣatriya. They argue that, even though the Brāhmaṇa may have abandoned his own functions and taken to those of other castes, if they do some ‘killing and wounding’ in connection with marriage, he may become liable to the performance of expiatory rites for doing those acts; but that would not deprive the ‘Rākṣasa marriage’ of the character of ‘marriage.’

That the ‘Brāhma’ is the best form of marriage has been shown by its results (described in versus 37, et seq.). As for the other three, though they have not been interdicted under any circumstances, yet their inferiority is deduced from the fact that the results following from them are of an inferior type. As regards the ‘Āsura’ form, since it has been specifically prescribed for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, it implies the exclusion of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya from it. And yet we have the distinct injunction of six forms as permitted for the Brāhmaṇa (in 23 above). From all which it follows that there is option; but it is an option with the restriction that one is to have recourse to the second option only in the event of the first option being impossible. Fur-ther, that an option is intended, is clearly established by the fact that several forms of marriage are permitted, and yet a combination of all is impossible; just as, in the case of Vrīhi and Yava, we admit an option, because both are sanctioned, and yet they cannot be combined. Thus, then, when other forms are possible, if one were to adopt the ‘Āsura’ form, its results, in regard to spiritual merit and the character of the offspring, would be inferior.

As regards the Kṣatriya, the ‘Rākṣasa’ form is the best; as it had been enjoined absolutely without any option by all the four verses. Verse 23 permits four forms for the Kṣatriya, which means that the ‘Āsura,’ the ‘Gāndharva,’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ also are permitted; while those latter have been interdicted by the assertion that the Rākṣasa alone is for the ‘Kṣatriya,’ (24). Hence it follows that these latter forms are optional, not primary. In consideration of the context, it is clear that the injunction is for the ‘Rākṣasa’ form only. But, since there is no definite exclusion of the ‘Prājāpatya’ form, this latter also is equal to the ‘Rākṣasa,’ for the Kṣatriya.

Similarly, for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also, the ‘Prājāpatya,’ which has been mentioned as permitted in all cases, is not prohibited. The ‘Āsura’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ are both ‘permitted’ and ‘prohibited’ for them; the ‘Rākṣasa’ also has been interdicted by the phrase, ‘excepting the Rākṣasa’ (23), while it is permitted by the assertion that ‘three are lawful’ (25).

It is for the Brāhmaṇa only that the ‘Paiśāca’ is not permitted, and for the Kṣatriya and the rest, the ‘Brāhma,’ the ‘Daiva’ and the ‘Ārṣa’ are not permitted at all.—(25)