Manava Dharmashastra 3.4

3.4

satyāmapi vedavratasamāptau guruṇā'numataḥ abhyanujñātaḥ snāyāt | snānaśabdena gṛhyoktasaṃskāraviśeṣo lakṣyate, brahmacāridharmāvadhiḥ | yathā cātra lakṣaṇā tathā prāgvyākhyātam | tadahareva gṛhyakāroktaṃ kaṃcinmadhuparkapūjāvihitasaṃskāraṃ prāpya samāvṛtto 'gurukulātpitṛgṛhaṃ pratyāgata' ityanuvādaḥ | udvahetetyetadvidhiśeṣametatsarvaṃ prāptameva na tu samāvartanaṃ vivāhāṅgam | tena yaḥ pitṛgṛha evādhītavedastasya samāvṛttyasambhave'pi bhavatyeva vivāhaḥ | kecitsamāvartanaṃ vivāhāṅgaṃ snānaṃ manyante | "ktvāśrutyā bhedapratipattiriti" cedevaṃ tarhi samāvartanaṃ vivāhāṅga snānasaṃskāraṃ vakṣyati | saviśeṣaṃ hi tatra snānamāmnātameva "snātakenetyādi" | athavā yamaniyamatyāgābhiprāyaṃ samāvṛttivacanam | samāvṛttaḥ prāktanīmevāvasthāṃ niyamarahitāṃ pratipanna ityarthaḥ | viśeṣābhiprāyaṃ ca niyamatyāgavacanam | brahmacāriṇo hi sātiśayā yamaniyamā na tathottareṣām | yathāvidhīti svadharmeṇetivat | udvaheta dvijo bhāryām | udvaheteti vivāhavidhiḥ | saṃskārakarma vivāho, bhāryāmiti dvitīyānirdeśāt | "na ca prāgvivāhād bhāryā siddhā'sti yasyā vivāhasaṃskāraḥ kriyeta, cakṣuṣa ivāñjanasaṃskāraḥ | kiṃ tarhi nirvartyate vivāhena ?" yathā yūpaṃ chinattīti, chedanādayaḥ saṃskārā yasya kriyante sa yūpaḥ, evaṃ vivāhenaiva bhāryā bhavatīti | -vivāhaśabdena pāṇigrahaṇamucyate | taccātra pradhānam | evaṃ hi smaranti "vivāhanaṃ dārakarma pāṇigrahaṇamiti" | ihāpi vakṣyati (ślo0 43 ) "pāṇigrahaṇasaṃskāra" iti lājahomādyaṅgam | tacca gṛhyādakhilaṃ jñātavyam | "nodvahetkapilāṃ kanyāmiti" ( ślo. 8 ) kanyāgrahaṇātkanyāyā ayaṃ saṃskāro, na strīmātrasya | kanyāśabdaścātra prakaraṇe'pravṛttapuṃsaṃ prayogāyāṃ yoṣita varttata iti vakṣyāmaḥ| savarṇām samānajātīyām | lakṣaṇānvitām | 'lakṣaṇāni' avaidhavyaprajādhanasūcakāni varṇarekhātilakādicihnāni jyotiḥśāstrāvagamyāni, taiḥ 'anvitāṃ' yuktāṃ, śubhalakṣaṇānvitāmityarthaḥ | yadyapyaniṣṭasūcakamapi lakṣaṇaṃ' bhavati kiṃtu sūcakaireva śastaistādṛśīṃ vivāhayet, ataḥ praśastalakṣaṇā lakṣaṇavatī draṣṭavyā | abhipretasūcaka eva lakṣaṇaśabdo loke prayujyate | salkṣaṇo'yaṃ puruṣaḥ sulakṣāṇā strīti yā śubhalakṣaṇā saivamucyate |
tatrādhikāracintā kartavyā | saṃskāravidhitvādevādhānavadanuṣṭhānalābhāt yathaiva hyādhānamāhavanīyādidvāreṇa nityakāmyakarmopayogi tadaṅgāhavanīyādinirvṛttyarthamanuṣṭhīyate, evaṃ vivāho'pi, asyāpi bhāryānirvartakatvena dṛṣṭādṛṣṭapuruṣārthopayogitvāt | tathāhi khedātpuṃsaḥ strīmātraviṣayāyāṃ pravṛttau prasaktāyāṃ kanyāparadāraniṣedhātsvadāreṣu kāminaḥ khedanivṛttiḥ | "sahadharmaścaritavyaḥ" iti tayā saha sarvadharmeṣvadhikārādadṛṣṭapuruṣārthasiddhirustadadhīnā |
atra kecinmīmāṃsante | "rāgiṇaḥ pūrvoktena prakāreṇa dṛṣṭasiddhayarthaṃ vivāhaṃ svataḥ kurvanti | teṣāṃ ca kṛtavivāhānāṃ sambhavetsa dvijātikarmavidhitvena karmānuṣṭhānasiddhayartho vivāhaḥ | yasya kathaṃcitstrīniṣṭhā nivṛttāṃ, na tasya vivāhaḥ | asati vivāhe karmānadhikārādanadhikṛtasya cānanuṣṭhāne doṣābhāvātpuruṣārthānuṣṭhānānyananuṣṭhito'nāśramiṇo' pyavasthānamaviruddham |"
tadetadasat | yathaiva kāmaḥ puruṣārthastathaiva dharmo'pi puruṣārthatve prayojakaḥ | sarvo'pi puruṣārthasiddhayarthaṃ pravartate | yadi caitadevaṃ syātsaṃvatsaramanāśramī bhūtvetyādi nopapadyeteti | nipuṇaṃ caitadāśramavikalpāvasare ṣaṣṭhe nirṇeṣyāmaḥ |
yādṛśī kanyā voḍhavyā tāmidānīṃ darśayati |

The twice-born person, having, on being permitted by the Preceptor, “bathed” and “returned” according to rule, shall take a wife of the same caste as himself, who is endowed with signs.—(4).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Even on the completion of the observances relating to Vedic Study, the Boy shall “bathe” only when ‘permitted by the Preceptor.’ ‘Bathing’ here stands for a peculiar sacrament prescribed in the Gṛhyasūtras, as the limit for the observances of the Religious Student. Why the term ‘bathing’ is used in this figurative sense we have already explained above.

‘Having returned’—i.e., having gone through a particular consecratory. rite consisting of the offering of the Madhuparka, etc., as laid down in the Gṛhyasūtra, and having returned from the Preceptor’s home to his Father’s home.

All this has been mentioned as supplementary to the Injunction contained in the term ‘shall take,’ being already known from other sources. The ‘return’ spoken of here is not a part of the ‘marriage.’ Hence for him who has learnt the Veda in his Father’s house, though there can be no ‘Return,’ yet marriage is done.

Some people take the ‘Return’ to mean that Bath which forms part of the marriage rites. Against this view it might be argued that the participial ending ‘ktvā’ (in ‘snātvā’) clearly indicates that the two (Bath and Return) are entirely different. But that ceremony of ‘Return’ which coṇsists in ‘bathing’ and which forms part of the marriage rite, is going to be described later; where a particular form of ‘Bathing’ with its details is found laid down, [Hence the ‘Return’ mentioned, in the present verse cannot be regarded as part of Marriage.]

Or, the term ‘Return’ may be taken as intended to connote the renouncing of restraints and observances. In that case, ‘returned’ would mean ‘having resumed the former condition free from all restraint.’ Special stress is laid upon the renouncing of restraints in this connection, because the observances and restraints imposed upon the Religious Student are exceptionally hard, which is not the case with the other subsequent stages of life.

‘According to rule’—this is to be construed like the term ‘in strict accordance with his duties’ (of the preceding verse).

‘The twice-born person shall take a wife’—‘Shall take’ constitutes the injunction of marriage. Marriage is a sacramental rite, a refining process, as is indicated by the Accusative ending in ‘bhāryām.’

“But before marriage there does not exist such a thing as wife for whom the refinement could be effected in the same manner as ornamentation by collyrium is done to the Eye. In fact, it is by means of marriage itself that the wife is brought into existence.”

In the case of the sacrificial post, we find such injunctions as the ‘sacrificial post shall be cut,’ and that same piece of wood becomes the post on which the refining process of cutting, &c., has been performed. Exactly in the same manner it is by means of the refining process of marriage performed upon her that the person becomes a ‘wife.’

The word ‘marriage’ denotes the taking hold of the hand, which forms the principal factor in the ceremony. To this effect we have the assertion—‘marriage is taking a wife, i.e., the taking hold of the hand;’ and in this work also marriage is spoken of as ‘the sacrament of taking hold of the hand’ (verse 43 below). The offering of parched grain and such other rites are the subsidiary details (of Marriage); and all this may be learnt from the Gṛhyasūtras,

Later on (in verse 8) we read—‘one shall not marry a maiden with golden hair, &e., &c.;’—and from the use of the term ‘maiden’ there it is clear that marriage is a sacrament for maidens, and not for any and every woman; and we are going to explain later on that in the present context the term ‘maiden’ stands for the female who has had no intercourse with a male.

‘Of the same caste as himself’—i.e., belonging to the same caste.

‘Endowed with signs,’—The term ‘signs’ stands for the colour of the complexion, lines on the body, moles and such other marks which are indicative of unwidowed life, offspring, wealth, and so forth,—which may be learnt from the science of Astrology.—‘Endowed’—i.e., equipped—‘with these signs;’ i.e., bearing auspicious marks. Even though indicators of evil are also called ‘signs,’ yet since what is mentioned here is, that one should marry a girl with these signs, it follows that what is meant is the girl with good, auspicious, signs. In fact, the term, ‘lakṣaṇa,’ ‘sign,’ is used in ordinary parlance in the sense of desirable signs; e.g., men and women are spoken of as ‘endowed with signs’ which means that they bear auspicious marks.

What we have to consider in this connection is the question of title (Who is entitled to marry?).

Since the Injunction of marriage enjoins a sacrament, a consecration, it comes to be performed just like the Laying of Fire; and just as the Laying of Fire serves, through the Āhavanīya and other fires, the purposes of compulsory and voluntary acts, and hence it comes to be performed for the bringing into existence of the Āhavanīya, &c., as subsidiary to those acts,—so the Marriage also brings into existence the ‘Wife,’ and through her serves the fulfilment of the visible and unvisible ends of man. For example, when desire for sexual intercourse arises in man, there arises the possibility of his having recourse to any and every woman; but intercourse with maidens and wives of other men being prohibited, the said desire comes to be accomplished only through one’s own married wife [The married wife thus serves a visible end]. Then again, there is the saying that ‘every religious act shall be done by the husband and wife together,’ which shows that it is only as accompanied by his wife that man is entitled to the performance of religious acts; and thus it is clear that the accomplishment of the invisible (transcendental) purposes of man also is dependent upon the wife.

In connection with this subject, some people make the following observations:—“As just described, persons, with their sexual desire aroused, have, of their own accord, their marriages done for the purpose of accomplishing their visible ends; and after they have married, they happen to perform certain religious acts; and in this case, the marriage might thus turn out to be of use in the fulfilment of religious acts. But in a case where a man’s desire for intercourse with women has entirely ceased, there is no marriage at all;—there being no marriage, the man is not entitled to the performance of religious acts;—in the absence of such title, the non-performance of acts shall involve no sin;—consequently, there need be nothing reprehensible in the conduct of the man who does not take to the Householder’s life and does not perform any religious acts conducive to the ends of man.”

This, however, is not right. Religious acts are as much conducive to the fulfilment of man’s purpose as sexual desire is. In fact, every man engages in activity only for the accomplishment of some purpose of his. If this were not so (i.e., the entrance into the Householder’s state were not essential), then there would be no room for such assertions as ‘desisting for a year from entering into the Householder’s state, &c., &c.’ We shall explain this fully under Discourse VI, in connection with the question of option regarding the Life-stages.—(4)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The text proceeds to show what sort of maiden should be married.