Manava Dharmashastra 6.89.3

6.89.3

rāpanaye jananādi śuddhakālāvyasthe ca saṃpādayato na nityakarmātikramaḥ syāt | tataśca kenārthena mṛtāviśuddhau kleśamādadhyāt | "tadapi vihitameveti" cet | evaṃ tāvanmātrasyātikramo na punarvidhisahasrasya | athocyeta--"kasya punārvidherayaṃ vyāpāro yadadhikṛtatvasaṃpattyarthamadhikṛtaḥ syāmiti puruṣeṇa yatnaḥ kartavya ityupadiśati | etāvadagnihotrādividhayaste yasyāgnāyastadviṣayāṃ kartavyatāṃ gamayanti, na tvagnīnāmutpattiṃ prayuñjate | agnayo'pi kāmyeṣu lipsayā pravarttamānena tadadhikārasiddhayarthamādhīyante | tathāhi teṣu jāteṣvāhitāgnitve yāvajjīvaśrutayaḥ | bhāryāvataścādhāne'dhikāraḥ | yathaivādhikāriṇamātmānaṃ kartumagnīnādhatte, evaṃ bhāryāmapyupayacchate | ato na kasyacidvidherartho vihato yadi nāgnihotrādiṣvadhikāro janayitavyaḥ | na ca vivāhavidhireva svārthakartavyatāmavagamayati, nityāgnihotrādiśrutivatsaṃskārakarmatvādadhikāraśravaṇābhāvācca" | atra pūrve vahanti | ṛṇatrayāpākaraṇaśrutirasti "jāyamāno brāhmaṇastribhirṛṇavāṃ jāyate" ityādi | eṣā śrutirjātamātranibandhanā | na cātra janma dvitīyamupanayanākhyamabhipretam, prāktanastiryaksamānadharmatvāt | janmani sati yāvatā kālenādhikārāvagamo bhavati tadeva ṛṇaśrutyā parigṛhyate | tataśca viduṣaḥ sataḥ satyadhikāre yaḥ kanyāṃ yācamāno na prāpnuyādyāvatsarvataḥ palitastasya vānaprasthādāvadhikāraḥ | sa hyetanniścinoti-yauvana eva kanyā sarvathā yācyate, kathayanyanye--kṛṣṇakeśasyaivādhānaṃ śrutam, bhāryābharaṇaṃ varjayitvā na sarvataḥ palitenādhātavyamiti śrutyarthaṃ vyācakṣate |

In answer to this, the following arguments may be put forward:—“Of what particular injunction would it be the meaning that ‘for the sake of acquiring the title to the performance of religious acts, the agent shall make an effort to accquire that title’? All the Injunctions that there are pertain to the performance of the Agnihotra and other rites, and all that they lay down is that the acts therein specified ought, to be performed, and they do not urge the bringing into existence of the Fires. These fires are kindled, in connection with the voluntary acts, by the man who undertakes them through desire for the rewards to be obtained from them; and it is only when these Fires have been thus kindled that the man becomes ‘one who has laid the Fires,’ and hence subject to the injunctions relating to the lifelong performance of the Agnihotra rites. Then again, it is only the man with a wife that is entitled to the ‘laying of fire’; so that the man would desire to marry a wife in the same manner as he lays the Fires for the purpose of acquiring the title to the performance of religious acts. So that the sense of no Injunction is offended if one omits to acquire the title to the performance of the Agnihotra and other rites [simply because there is no such Injunction as that one shall acquire this title ]. Nor does the Injunction of Marriage itself indicate that marriage shall be performed; because the act of Marriage is a sanctificatory or sacramental rite, just like the Vedic rites of the obligatory daily Agnihotra and other rites; specially as no rewards are mentioned in connection with it.”

In answer to this the ancients offer the following explanation: There is a direct Vedic text laying down the paying off of the ‘three debts’—‘When the Brāhmaṇa is born, he is born beset with three debts &c. &c.’; and this text becomes applicable to the man as soon as he is born; this ‘birth’ can not refer to the second ‘birth’ in the form of ‘Initiation’; as in that case, the man would be as good as an animal, prior to his ‘Initiation’. In fact the exact time referred to by the passage speaking of the ‘debts’ is that at which the man, having been born, comes to realise his responsibilities. Thus then, after the has accquired learning and thus become entitled to marry, if after having sought for a bride, he fails to obtain one and becomes grey, he would certainly be entitled to proceed to the stage of the Hermit. In fact, such a man comes to the following conclusion—‘all through my youth I have been seeking for a bride;—they say that Fire-laying has been enjoined for only such men as have their hair still black;—and by the man of grey hairs Fire is not to be laid except in the event of his wife having died,—such is the meaning that they attribute to the Vedic Injunction’.

Others have offered the following explanation:—Marriage does not stand on the same footing as Property. Without some property living is impossible, as it is on property that man lives; but in the absence of the wife living is not impossible; so that the wife is not as essential as property; and the act of marrying a wife is prompted soley by considerations of religious acts (which cannot be done without a wife); and it is necessary to realise in this connection the necessity of making every effort to become entitled to the performance of religious acts. Otherwise, (if no such effort were necessary), having lost his title to such acts by reason of the impurity brought about by evacuations, if one were to omit the necessary purifying processes, he would not be open to the charge of having omitted an obligatory duty; under the circumstances, why should anyone take the trouble of getting rid of the impurity caused by death and other circumstances?—It might be argued that this latter is also itself enjoined.—Even so, the omission would involve the transgression of this one injunction only, and not of the thousands of injunctions (relating to the acts that the man would perform after due purification).