Manava Dharmashastra 3.27

3.27

ācchādyeti | ācchādanaviśeṣo'bhipretaḥ, anyasyaucityeneva prāptatvāt | utkṛṣṭenācchādanena yathādeśaṃ yathāsaṃbhavaṃ yathāyogyena vāsasā paridhāpya |
arcayitvā | anenālaṃkaraṇakaṭakakaṇikādinā prītiviśeṣasatkāraviśeṣairarcanaṃ kṛtvā | etenācchādanārhaṇena kanyāyā varasya cānyatarasambandhe pramāṇābhāvādubhayopayogaḥ kāryaḥ | śrutaśīlavate| anyepi smṛtyantaroktā varaguṇā draṣṭavyāḥ “yuvā dhīmāñjanapriyaḥ| yatnātparīkṣitaḥ puṃstva” iti|
svayaṃ prāgayācitaḥ| svapuruṣapreṣaṇairāhūyāntikadeśamānāyya varam| yaddānaṃ sa brāhmo dharmo vivāhaḥ| aviśeṣavacano'pi dharmaśabdaḥ pūrvāpekṣitatvāt tatpara eva draṣṭavyaḥ| ‘ayācitalābho'bhyarhaṇāpūrvako brāhmo vivāha’ iti lakṣaṇārthaḥ|
‘‘nanu cedamayuktaṃ strīsvīkārārtho vivāha iti’’|
yāvadvivāhaparyantaṃ caitaddānam| nākṛte vivāhe dānārthanirvṛttiḥ| sa hi tasyāḥ pratigrahakālaḥ| na cāsati pratigrahe dānaṃ parisamāpyate| na svatvanivṛttimātraṃ dānam| para svatvāpattiparyantaṃ hi tat| tathā ca vakṣyati ‘‘teṣāṃ tu niṣṭhā vijñeyā vidvadbhiḥ saptamepade’’ iti| evaṃ vivāhakāla eva kanyā dātavyā| tathā ca gṛhyakārastasminneva kāle brāhmavivāhe kāṇḍikadharmaṃ darśayati| yattu prāgvivāhāddānaṃ tadupasaṃvādanavacanamātram| na hi tasminnakriyamāṇe'bhipretakāle'vaśyaṃ vivāhanirvṛttiḥ| kaścitprāganirūpite na dadyādapi, itaro vā kadācinna pratigṛhṇīyāt| tasmātprāgvivāhādupasaṃvādaḥ kartavyaḥ tadā tvayeyaṃ deyā mayā ceyaṃ voḍhavyeti| yathaivāntaḥkratuḥ sopakriyo'coditatatsiddhārtho'rthādvahiṣkriyate (?)|
ye tu manyante—“yathaiva gavādairdravyasyādṛṣṭārthatayā dīyamānasya mantrapūrvakeṇa pratigraheṇa dānamapi nirvartate—tenaivedamuktaṃ dadyāttriṣu caivaṃ dharmeṣviti—evaṃ ceha pratigrahamantrasthānīyo vivāha iti| tathā ca upayamanaṃ vivāha ityeko'rthaḥ| upayamanaṃ ca svakaraṇam| evaṃ ha sma bhagavānpāṇiniḥ smarati ( pā0 sū0 1|
tadayuktam| svīkṛtāyā vivāho bhāryākaraṇārthaḥ| nānena karmaṇā pratigṛhṇīyāditi vidhirasti| na ca vaivāhikā mantrā pratigrahaprakāśakāḥ, yathā ‘‘devasya tvā pragṛhṇāmīti’’| yattu svakaraṇa iti tanna viruddham| vivāhasyāpyasti svakaraṇarūpatā| dānena svatvamātre pratipanne vivāhena viśiṣṭaṃ svatvaṃ kriyate| neyaṃ gavādidravyavat ‘svaṃ’ yatheṣṭaviniyojyatayā, api tu jāyātvena| viśiṣṭa eva hi svasvāmibhāvo jāyāpatilakṣaṇasambandhaḥ| tathā ca darśayiṣyati| “maṅgalārthaṃ svastyayanaṃ ......vivāheṣu pradānaṃ svāmyakāraṇamiti’’ ( 5| 152) |

‘After having dressed.’—What is meant is a particular form of dressing, ordinary dressing being absolutely necessary (and hence implying no special regard). Hence the. meaning is—‘After having dressed with nice and suitable clothes, such as might be available at the place.’

‘Having worshipped;’—i.e., having done worship with bracelets, armlets and other ornaments, and also special modes of honouring, indicative of great affection.

There is nothing to indicate the connection of the ‘dressing’ and ‘worshipping’ with either the bride only or with the bridegroom only: hence they should be taken as relating to both.

‘Endowed with learning and character.’—This implies also the other qualifications of the bridegroom, mentioned in other law-books; such as ‘intelligent, loved by the people, having his virility carefully tested’ (Yājñavalkya, Ācītra, 55).

‘Himself;’—i.e., not previously requested by him.

‘Invites’ him;—i.e., gets the bridegroom to come, by sending bis own man.

This giving away of the daughter is the ‘Brahma form’ of marriage. Though the term ‘form’ is a general one, yet, in consideration of the context, it has to be taken as standing for marriage.

The upshot of this definition comes to be that ‘when a man obtains a wife without asking for it, and with due honour, it is the Brahma form of marriage.’

“The definition provided in the text cannot be right; as, in reality, ‘marriage’ is for the purpose of accepting a wife [so that the mere ‘giving’ by the father cannot be marriage.]”

The ‘giving’ spoken of in the text is meant to extend right up to the end of the marriage-ceremony; in fact, until the marriage has been performed, the ‘giving’ is not complete; it is at the time of ‘marriage’ that there is ‘acceptance’ of the girl by the bridegroom; and until this acceptance, the ‘gift’ is not complete. Specially, ‘giving’ here does not consist merely in the renouncing of one’s proprietary right; it extends up to the creating of the proprietary right of another person (the recipient). It is in view of this that the author is going to declare later on—‘the learned should regard the seventh step as the final stage of the marriage’ (5.152). Thus, then, it is at the time of marriage that the maiden should be given away; it is for this reason that the author of the Gṛhyasūtra has laid down the rites in connection with the Brāhma marriage as to be performed at the time of the marriage itself.

As for the ‘giving’ before the marriage, this is merely a verbal compact; and if no such compact has been entered into, it is just possible that at the desired time the marriage may not be actually performed; for in the absence of formal agreement, the father of the bride may not give her, or the bridegroom may not accept her. Hence it is necessary that before the actual marriage, a regular contract should be entered into, in some such form, ‘she is to be given by you and accepted by me.’ [Just as an internal sacrifice becomes naturally excluded when it is deficient in some essential factor and does not fulfil the conditions of the injunction.?]

Some people argue as follows:—“When the cow and such other things are given away for the purpose of obtaining a transcendental result, the giving is accomplished merely by the recepient accepting it with the proper texts and the same should be the case with all acts of giving. So that, in the case in question also, marrying occupying the same position as accepting, ‘marriage’ should be regarded as synonymous with acceptance; and the act of accepting consists in making the thing one’a own; as says the revered Pāṇini in Sūtra 1. 3. 56—‘The root yama with the prefix upa in the sense of making one’s own takes the Ātmanepada.’ From this it is clear that marriage is done only for the purpose of receiving the maiden.”

This, however, is not right. In fact, the ‘marriage’ is of the maiden that has been accepted, and it is for the purpose of making her a wife. The Injunction bearing upon marriage is not in the form that—‘one should accept the maiden by means of this rite;’ nor are the sacred texts recited at marriage such as signify the act of accepting; as is the case with such mantras as—‘devasya tvā pratigṛhṇāmi, etc.’

As for what has been said regarding the sense of making one’s own, such a sense is not incompatible with our view. The act of ‘marrying’ also is of the nature of making one’s own. The act of ‘giving’ only brings about the ownership of the recipient; and the act of ‘marrying’ creates a particular form of ownership. Further, the wife is not a ‘property’ in the same sense that the cow and other things are; the latter are property’ in the sense that they may be used in any way one likes, while the maiden married by one can be used only as ‘wife so that the relation between husband and wife is of that of a peculiar kind of ownership; as will be shown later on, under 5. 152.—(27).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The author now describes the exact nature of the several forms of marriage.