Mitakshara (Rijumitakshara) 1.3

English (machine translation) 1.3

Language: English

1.3.1

Now he states the ceremonial bath for the purpose of marriage for one who is fit for marriage:

1.3.2

Having given the desired gift to the teacher, he should take the ceremonial bath with his permission, / having completed either the Veda, or the observances, or indeed both.

Having brought to completion—that is, having finished—according to the method previously stated, the Veda consisting of mantra and brāhmaṇa, or the observances consisting of the duties of a student of the Veda enumerated before, or both, he should give to the previously mentioned teacher the desired gift according to his ability and then take the ceremonial bath. If he is unable [to pay], he may do so with the teacher's permission even without giving the gift. The distribution among these options depends on capability, time, and so forth.

1.3.4

He now states what one should do after the ceremonial bath:

1.3.5

Without having broken his celibacy, he should marry an auspicious woman, / who has belonged to no other before, who is lovely, not a sapiṇḍa, and younger [than himself].

1.3.6

‘Without having broken his celibacy’ means one whose celibacy has not lapsed. ‘Auspicious’ means endowed with external and internal auspicious characteristics. External characteristics are those stated by Manu: 'having delicate body hair, head hair, and teeth' and so forth. Internal characteristics are to be known through the procedure stated by Āśvalāyana beginning with: 'having made eight lumps of earth.' ‘A woman’ means one examined for womanhood in order to rule out being an eunuch. ‘Who has belonged to no other before’ means not accepted by another man through gift or sexual enjoyment. ‘Lovely’ means pleasing, causing delight to the mind and eye of the bridegroom; for Āpastamba's traditional text states: 'Her with whom one's mind and eye are pleased, in her lies prosperity.' And this applies where there is an absence of external defects such as deficient or excessive limbs. ‘Not a sapiṇḍa’: one who has the same (samāna), that is, one (eka), body (piṇḍa) is a sapiṇḍa; she who is not a sapiṇḍa is an asapiṇḍā; [he should marry] her. And the condition of being a sapiṇḍa arises from the connection with parts of the same body. For instance, the son's connection with the father is through the connection with the parts of the father's body. Likewise with the paternal grandfather and others through the father, because of the connection with the parts of his body. Likewise with the mother through connection with the parts of the mother's body. Likewise with the maternal grandfather and others through the mother. So too with maternal aunts, maternal uncles, and others, through the connection with parts of the same body. Likewise with paternal uncles, paternal aunts, and others. So too the wife with the husband, because they initiate a single body [together in offspring]. Similarly, even wives of brothers with one another, because they produce a single body along with those who are produced from a single body. Thus, wherever the word ‘sapiṇḍa’ occurs, there connection with parts of a single body is to be understood, directly or indirectly. If that is so, then even for the maternal grandfather and others,

1.3.7

‘Ten days of impurity due to death are prescribed among sapiṇḍas,’

1.3.8

would apply without distinction. That would indeed be so if there were not a specific statement such as: 'others should observe [impurity] for those women who have been given in marriage.' Therefore, where there is no specific statement among sapiṇḍas, this rule that 'impurity due to death lasts ten days' holds good. Moreover, sāpiṇḍya must necessarily be explained in terms of connection with the parts of a single body, because of the Vedic text: 'For the Self is born of the Self' and so forth; and 'You are born after your offspring'; and because of Āpastamba's statement: 'He himself is seen visibly sprouted forth.' Likewise, in the Garbha Upaniṣad: 'This body consists of six sheaths: three from the father, three from the mother; bones, sinews, and marrow from the father; skin, flesh, and blood from the mother,' because connection of body parts is expounded in various places. If, on the other hand, sāpiṇḍya were accepted as based on connection through the offered funeral rice-ball (piṇḍa), there would be no sāpiṇḍya in the maternal line or among brothers, paternal uncles, and the like. And if conventional usage based on the power of the whole word were adopted, the meaning derived from the parts of the word, which is understood in various passages, would be abandoned. (For when the meanings of the parts exist, a word applied to another meaning is established as a whole only when there is no other recourse.) As for sāpiṇḍya through indirect connection with the parts of a single body, we shall explain how there is no undue overextension. ‘Younger’ means lesser in age and in stature; he should marry—that is, wed—her according to the rule stated in his own domestic manual (Gṛhyasūtra).

1.3.9

He states further qualifications:

1.3.10

Free from disease, having a brother, not born of the same ṛṣi or gotra,

1.3.11

‘Free from disease’ means not afflicted with an incurable disease. ‘Having a brother’ is in order to remove the suspicion of her being made an appointed daughter (putrikā); from this it is understood that even an unstated daughter may become an appointed daughter. ‘Not born of the same ṛṣi or gotra’: belonging to a ṛṣi (ārṣa) means the invocation of ancestral sages (pravara); gotra is well known in hereditary lineage. The ārṣa and the gotra are ārṣagotra. One who has the same ārṣa and gotra is of the same ārṣagotra; born from such a one is born of the same ārṣagotra; one who is not born of the same ārṣagotra is asamānārṣagotrajā; [he should marry] her. Gotra and pravara are each separate grounds for exclusion. Therefore, [it means] not born of the same ārṣa and not born of the same gotra. And accordingly Gautama states: 'Marriage is with those who do not share the same pravara.' So too:

1.3.12

"She who is not a sapiṇḍa on the mother's side and who is not a sapiṇḍa on the father's side, / is recommended for twice-born men for the marital rite and for intercourse."

1.3.13

So says Manu. Likewise, some hold that a girl of the mother's gotra is also not to be wed, [3]

1.3.14

"Having wed the daughter of one's maternal uncle, and likewise a woman of the mother's gotra, / and having approached a woman of the same pravara, one should perform the cāndrāyaṇa penance."

1.3.15

—because an expiation is recorded [for it]. And here, by [the word] "not a sapiṇḍa," the daughter of a father's sister, mother's sister, and so forth is excluded. Likewise, by "not of the same gotra," a woman who is of the same gotra is excluded even if she is not a sapiṇḍa, having been born in a different lineage. Likewise, by "not of the same pravara," a woman who has the same pravara is excluded even if she is neither a sapiṇḍa nor of the same gotra. And so, the requirement of being "not a sapiṇḍa" applies to all classes, because sapinda relationship exists everywhere. The requirement of "not born of the same gotra and pravara" pertains to members of the three higher classes. Even though royal personages and Vaishyas have no pravaras because they lack specific gotras of their own, nevertheless the gotra and pravara of their family priest are to be understood. And so Āśvalāyana says, after stating: "One chooses the ancestral seers of the sacrificer," "For royal personages and Vaishyas, he chooses those of the family priest." In the case of women who are sapiṇḍas, of the same gotra, or of the same pravara, the status of wife does not arise at all. In the case of a diseased woman and the like, however, even though wifehood does arise, there is merely an incompatibility with visible purposes.

1.3.16

Regarding "not a sapiṇḍa": here, sapinda relationship has been explained through the connection of body parts, directly or indirectly; and since that is possible in some way or another everywhere for everyone in beginningless transmigration, there would be an absurd overextension; therefore, he says:

1.3.17

Beyond the fifth from the mother's side, and likewise beyond the seventh from the father's side. [1.53cd]

1.3.18

Beyond the fifth on the mother's side, in the mother's lineage, and beyond the seventh on the father's side, in the father's lineage, "the sapinda relationship ceases"—such is the ellipsis to be supplied. And therefore, although this word "sapiṇḍa" applies everywhere by the etymological force of its constituent parts, it has a restricted scope, like words such as nirmanthya ("produced by friction") or paṅkaja ("lotus"). And thus, six beginning with the father are sapiṇḍas, and six beginning with the son, and oneself is the seventh; even when there is a divergence of lineage, one should count taking that [ancestor] from whom the divergence of lineage occurs, as far as the seventh—this is to be applied everywhere. And thus, counting from the mother and including her father, grandfather, and so on, a woman standing in the fifth generation is figuratively termed "fifth from the mother." Similarly, counting from the father and including his father and so on, a woman standing in the lineage of the seventh person is termed "seventh from the father." And likewise:

1.3.19

"In a marriage between two sisters, between a sister and a brother, or between a brother's daughter and a paternal uncle, / because of being the starting point and so forth, the branching of lineages is reckoned."

1.3.20

Although Vasiṣṭha has said:

1.3.21

"The fifth and the seventh, likewise, from the mother's side and the father's side;"

1.3.22

and Paiṭhīnasi [has said]: "Passing over three on the mother's side, and passing over five on the father's side,"

1.3.23

that too is for the purpose of prohibiting those below, not to permit [marriage with] them; thus there is no contradiction among all the Smṛtis. And this is to be understood in the case of members of the same caste. But in the case of different castes, there is a special rule, as Śaṅkha says:

1.3.24

"If many are born of one man in different wombs, or born of different women, / they are of the same piṇḍa, [yet] of different purifications; but the piṇḍa reverts at the third [generation]."

1.3.25

"Born of one man" means born from a single Brahmin or the like. "In different wombs" means born of different women of different classes. "Born of different women" means born of different women belonging to the same class; they are "of the same piṇḍa," but have "different purifications." We will explain "different purifications" in the section on ritual impurity. "The piṇḍa reverts at the third" means that the sapinda relationship extends to three generations only. || 1.53

1.3.26

From an illustrious, great family of Vedic scholars renowned through ten generations, [1.54ab]

1.3.27

"Pūruṣa" means simply puruṣa (generation / person); "from a family renowned through ten generations" means through five on the mother's side and five on the father's side. "Of Vedic scholars" means of those who have studied the Vedas. "Study" is an indicative term: endowed with learning and study. "Great family" is a family that is great, prosperous with sons, grandsons, cattle, maidservants, villages, and the like; from that [family] a maiden must be taken—this is the restrictive rule.

1.3.28

Since marriage would thus be permitted everywhere [in such families], he states an exception:

1.3.29

Even if prosperous, not from one affected by the taint of infectious diseases. [1.54cd]

1.3.30

Infectious diseases are defects entering through semen and blood, such as vitiligo, leprosy, epilepsy, and the like. Furthermore, those stated by Manu: devoid of ritual rites, devoid of male offspring, and so forth. Even from a prosperous, previously described great family that is affected by these, [a maiden] must not be taken. || 1.54

1.3.31

Having thus stated the restrictive rule regarding taking a maiden, he states the restrictive rule regarding the groom in giving away a maiden:

1.3.32

Endowed with these very qualities, of the same social class, a Vedic scholar, the groom / must be carefully examined for virility, young, intelligent, and liked by people. [1.55]

1.3.33

Endowed with these very qualities described above and free from defects, such is the groom. His further special characteristic is this: of the same class or superior, not of an inferior class. A Vedic scholar: personally endowed with Vedic learning and study. Carefully, with effort, examined for virility. And the means of examination has been shown by Nārada:

1.3.34

"He whose seed floats on water, whose urine is non-burning and frothy, / would be a man by these characteristics; but with the opposite [traits], a eunuch."

1.3.35

So [he says].

1.3.36

"Young": not old. "Intelligent": of sharp intellect in worldly and Vedic affairs. "Liked by people": one who has not alienated people, through gentle speech preceded by a smile, and so on. || 1.55

1.3.37

Marriage is threefold, having pleasure, offspring, and duty as its ends. Among these, the one for offspring is twofold: obligatory and optional. There, in the obligatory one for offspring, by the words "of the same social class, a Vedic scholar, the groom," a woman of the same class was shown to be primary. Now, since a secondary substitute must be stated for the optional [marriage] and for the obligatory conjunction, he says:

1.3.38

As for what is said regarding the taking of a wife from among Shudras by twice-born men, / this is not my opinion, because he himself is born in her. [1.56]

1.3.39

As for what is said,

1.3.40

"For twice-born men, a woman of the same class is recommended first for the marital rite; / but for those acting out of passion, these are lower in successive order:"

1.3.41

—having introduced [the subject with this verse]—

1.3.42

The view that a Brahmin may take four wives, a Kshatriya three, and a Vaishya two—namely, the marrying of a Shudra woman by twice-born men—is not the opinion of Yājñavalkya. For this twice-born man is born again in her, as stated in the Vedic revelation: 'That wife is called a wife (jāyā) because one is born (jāyate) again in her.' And here, by stating the reason 'in her he himself is born', and thereby prohibiting the marrying of a Shudra woman by one who acts to produce an obligatory son or a son born out of desire, a Kshatriya and a Vaishya woman are permitted as wives to a Brahmin, and a Vaishya woman to a Kshatriya, in the secondary alternative for producing an obligatory son and in the production of a son born out of desire. || 1.56

1.3.43

Now he states the order of marriage for one who desires sexual pleasure, or who has already begotten a son, or whose wife has died, who is not qualified for another stage of life, and who desires merely to remain in the stage of life of a householder:

1.3.44

Three wives according to the order of the classes, two likewise, and one in respective order / for a Brahmin, a Kshatriya, and a Vaishya; for one born a Shudra, [only] one of his own class.

1.3.45

In the order of the classes, there are three wives for a Brahmin, two for a Kshatriya, one for a Vaishya, but for a Shudra there is only a wife of his own class. Furthermore, a woman of the same class is established as primary for all. In the absence of each preceding one, each succeeding one is taken. And this very order applies in the secondary alternative for the obligatory rule and in the rule for the production of a son born out of desire. Therefore, as for the enumeration of a Shudra woman's son among sons and the declaration of his share, as well as the text beginning with 'From a Brahmin, indeed, is the Mūrdhāvasikta' down to 'This rule is taught regarding lawfully wedded wives', that pertains to one born inevitably to a man desiring sexual pleasure or desiring merely [to remain in] the stage of life. || 1.57

1.3.46

He states the forms of marriage:

1.3.47

The Brāhma marriage is when [a maiden], adorned according to one's means, is given having invited [the groom]; / the son born of it purifies twenty-one men on both sides.

1.3.48

That is the marriage named Brāhma, in which, having invited a bridegroom endowed with the prescribed characteristics, the maiden is given, adorned according to one's means, with the pouring of water. A son born of her, if he is of virtuous conduct, purifies twenty-one [generations] on both sides: ten beginning with his father, ten beginning with his son, and himself as the twenty-first. || 1.58

1.3.49

[Next are] the Daiva and Ārṣa marriages:

1.3.50

The Daiva is [given] to an officiating priest engaged in a sacrifice; the Ārṣa, however, upon receiving a pair of cattle. / The first-born [son] purifies fourteen, and the latter-born six.

1.3.51

The Daiva marriage is that in which, while the performance of a sacrifice is in progress, the maiden, adorned according to one's means, is given to an officiating priest. But where the maiden is given upon receiving a pair of cattle, that is the Ārṣa. The first-born, born of the Daiva marriage, purifies fourteen: seven later and seven earlier. The latter-born, born of the Ārṣa marriage, purifies six: three earlier and three later. || 1.59

1.3.52

The definition of the Prājāpatya marriage:

1.3.53

When she is given to a suitor after saying, 'May the two of you practice duty together,' / that is the Kāya (Prājāpatya) marriage; the son born of it purifies six and six relatives along with himself.

1.3.54

The Prājāpatya marriage is the gift of a maiden having stipulated: 'May the two of you practice duty together.' The son born of it purifies six earlier and six later, together with himself, thus thirteen. || 1.60

1.3.55

The definitions of the Āsura, Gāndharva, and other marriages:

1.3.56

The Āsura is through taking wealth; the Gāndharva is through mutual agreement; / the Rākṣasa is through abduction by fighting; the Paiśāca is through deceit toward the maiden.

1.3.57

The Āsura is through the taking of wealth. The Gāndharva occurs through mutual affection. The Rākṣasa is through abduction by fighting. The Paiśāca is through deceit toward the maiden—that is, through abduction by fraud or trickery in states such as sleep. || 1.61

1.3.58

He states the specific differences in marrying a woman of the same class and others:

1.3.59

The hand is to be taken in the case of women of the same class; a Kshatriya woman should take an arrow; / a Vaishya woman should take a goad; in marrying [a woman of lower class], however, by a twice-born man.

1.3.60

In a marriage with women of the same class, only the hand is to be grasped according to the rule prescribed in one's own Gṛhyasūtra. A Kshatriya maiden, however, should take an arrow. A Vaishya woman should take a goad. In a marriage with a higher-class man, a Shudra woman, however, [should take] the hem of a garment. As Manu says:

1.3.61

'The hem of a garment should be grasped by a Shudra woman in marrying a higher-class man.' || 1.62

1.3.62

He states the order of those who give the maiden in marriage:

1.3.63

The father, grandfather, brother, a member of the same family, and likewise the mother, / is the giver of the maiden; on the absence of each preceding one, each succeeding one, if in a sound state of mind.

1.3.64

Not giving her, he incurs [the sin of] embryo-killing at every menstrual season. / In the absence of givers, however, the maiden should herself make a choice of a suitable husband.

1.3.65

Among these, beginning with the father, in the absence of each preceding one, each succeeding one is the giver of the maiden, if he is in a sound state of mind—that is, if he is not afflicted with defects such as madness. Therefore, whoever has the qualification, if he does not give her away, incurs embryo-killing at every menstrual season. And this is to be understood when a bridegroom endowed with the prescribed characteristics is available. When, however, there is an absence of givers, then the maiden herself may choose a bridegroom who is suitable—fit to be approached—and endowed with the prescribed characteristics. || 1.63 || 1.64

1.3.66

The punishment for abducting a maiden:

1.3.67

Once only is a maiden given; one who takes her away incurs the punishment of a thief.

1.3.68

It is a rule of scripture that a maiden is given once only. Therefore, one who takes away the maiden after having given her is to be punished like a thief.

1.3.69

Such a prohibition having been established everywhere, he states an exception:

1.3.70

Even though given, he may take her back if a bridegroom arrives who is better than the previous one.

1.3.71

If a bridegroom arrives who is better than the previous bridegroom, endowed with superior learning, lineage, and so forth, and the previous one is attached to sin or of bad conduct, then even though she has been given, he may take her back. And this is to be understood as [permissible only] prior to the seventh step. || 1.65

1.3.72

One who gives [a maiden] without disclosing a defect is to be fined the highest penalty; / but one who abandons a faultless maiden is to be fined, while one who falsely defames her [is to be fined] one hundred.

1.3.73

He, however, who gives a maiden without disclosing a defect discernible to the eye is to be fined the highest penalty. And the highest penalty will be explained later. But he who, having accepted a faultless maiden, abandons her, is likewise to be fined the highest penalty. He, however, who, even prior to marriage, defames a maiden out of hatred or the like with false defects such as chronic diseases, is to be fined one hundred panas of the characteristics to be explained. || 1.66

1.3.74

In the passage 'not previously married to another', a woman not previously married was declared as the one to be wed; in that regard, he explains what kind of woman is one previously married to another:

1.3.75

Both a deflowered and an undeflowered woman, consecrated again, is a punarbhū (remarried woman); / an unchaste woman (svairiṇī) is she who, having abandoned her husband, resorts to a man of the same class out of lust.

1.3.76

A woman belonging to another is of two kinds: a remarried woman (punarbhū) and a wanton woman (svairiṇī). The remarried woman is also of two kinds: deflowered and undeflowered. Among these, the deflowered one has already been tainted by association with a man prior to the marriage ceremony. The undeflowered one is tainted by the ceremony itself. Furthermore, one who abandons her husband in youth and willingly associates with a man of the same class is a wanton woman.

1.3.77

The general exclusion of a woman previously married being thus established in all respects, he states an exception:

1.3.78

Authorized by his elders, with a desire for male offspring, the husband's brother, / or a sapiṇḍa, or a sagotra, anointed with clarified butter, may approach a sonless woman in her fertile period.

1.3.79

He may approach her until conception takes place; otherwise, he becomes an outcaste. / One born by this rule shall be his field-born (kṣetraja) son.

1.3.80

"A sonless woman" means one who has not obtained a son. "Authorized" by her father and others for the sake of obtaining a son, "the husband's brother" is the younger brother of the husband; or a sapiṇḍa conforming to the stated definition; or a sagotra. In the absence of the former of these, each subsequent one [is eligible]. Having anointed his entire body with clarified butter, he may approach—go to—her only in the fertile period that has the characteristics to be stated later, until conception occurs. Going to her beyond that, or in another manner, he becomes an outcaste. A son produced by this rule shall be the field-born son of the previous husband who married her. And the teachers maintain that this applies [only] to a betrothed maiden,

1.3.81

"If the husband of a maiden dies after the betrothal is sealed by word, / her own brother-in-law may marry her in accordance with this rule."

1.3.82

Because of this smrti text of Manu.

1.3.83

With respect to an unfaithful wife, he says:

1.3.84

Deprived of authority, unkempt, subsisting only on a ball of food, / humiliated, sleeping on the ground, an unfaithful wife should be made to dwell [in the house].

1.3.85

One who commits adultery—he should make her dwell in his own house: "deprived of authority," meaning devoid of authority over maintaining servants and the like; "unkempt," meaning without collyrium, unguents, clean clothes, or ornaments; "subsisting only on a ball of food," meaning receiving only enough food to sustain life; humiliated with rebukes and the like; and sleeping on bare ground. This is for the sake of producing detachment, but not for the sake of purification,

1.3.86

"Whatever penance is prescribed for a man regarding another's wife, he should make her perform that very penance,"

1.3.87

because of this separate instruction on penance.

1.3.88

He states a commendatory passage to show that her penance is slight:

1.3.89

Soma gave them ritual purification, and the Gandharva a pleasant voice; / the Fire gave them universal purity; women are indeed pure for this reason.

1.3.90

Prior to marriage, Soma, the Gandharva, and the Fire, having enjoyed women, gave them, in that order, ritual purification, sweet speech, and universal purity. Therefore, women are traditionally held to be pure and clean in all respects—in touching, embracing, and so forth.

1.3.91

He states that one should not suppose that she incur no fault at all:

1.3.92

Purification from unfaithfulness occurs upon the menstrual period; upon pregnancy, abandonment is prescribed; / likewise in the case of abortion, killing the husband, and so on, as well as in the case of a major sin.

1.3.93

Whatever demerit arises from unmanifested mental infidelity, from the intention to have intercourse with another man, purification from that occurs in the menstrual period, upon the appearance of menses. But abandonment is ordained in the case of a pregnancy caused by a Shudra,

1.3.94

"Wives of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas who have united with a Shudra / are purified by penance if they have not given birth, but not otherwise,"

1.3.95

according to this smrti text. Likewise, in the case of abortion, slaying the husband, and a major sin such as slaying a Brahmin; and by the use of "and so on," abandonment is also ordained in the case of going to a disciple or the like,

1.3.96

"Four wives are to be abandoned: she who goes to a disciple, she who goes to the guru, / and especially she who slays her husband, and she who approaches an outcaste,"

1.3.97

according to this smrti text of Vyāsa. An "outcaste" (juṅgita) is one born in reverse order of caste, such as a leatherworker. And "abandonment" means exclusion from sexual enjoyment and religious duties, not her expulsion from the house, on account of the restrictive rule: "he should confine her in a single room."

1.3.98

He states the grounds for taking a second wife:

1.3.99

A wife who drinks spirituous liquor, is diseased, deceitful, barren, destructive of property, sharp-tongued, / bearing only female children, or hostile to men, may be superseded.

1.3.100

"One who drinks spirituous liquor" is a liquor-drinker, even if she is a Shudra woman,

1.3.101

"Half the body of him whose wife drinks spirituous liquor falls,"

1.3.102

because of this general prohibition. "Diseased" means afflicted with a chronic illness. "Deceitful" means treacherous. "Barren" means childless. "Destructive of property" means one who wastes wealth. "Sharp-tongued" means one who speaks harshly. "Bearing only female children" means one who gives birth to daughters. "Hostile to men" means one who constantly works harm. "May be superseded" applies to each of these. Supersession (adhivedana) is taking another wife.

1.3.103

Furthermore:

1.3.104

A superseded wife must be maintained; otherwise a great sin arises. / Where there is harmony between husband and wife, there the threefold aim of life flourishes.

1.3.105

That superseded wife must be maintained just as before, with gifts, honor, and hospitality. If she is maintained otherwise, there is great demerit and the fine that will be mentioned. Nor does maintenance merely avoid demerit; for where there is harmony between husband and wife—unity of minds—there the daily increase of duty, wealth, and pleasure also occurs.

1.3.106

With respect to a woman, he says:

1.3.107

She who does not go to another man, whether her husband be living or dead, / attains renown in this world and rejoices with Umā.

1.3.108

She who, whether her husband be living or dead, does not go to another man out of fickleness, attains vast renown in this world, and revels together with Umā by the power of her merit.

1.3.109

In the absence of grounds for supersession, he states regarding the man who supersedes:

1.3.110

He who abandons a wife who obeys commands, is skillful, bears heroic sons, and speaks pleasantly, / shall be compelled to give a third of his property; if destitute, maintenance for the woman.

1.3.111

One who abandons—meaning supersedes—a wife who obeys commands, that is, executes orders; is skillful, that is, swift in action; bears heroic sons, that is, has male offspring; and speaks pleasantly, that is, speaks sweetly, shall be compelled by the king to give a third part of his own wealth. But if he is destitute, he shall be compelled to provide maintenance, such as food and clothing.

1.3.112

He states the duties of women:

1.3.113

Women must obey the husband's word; this is the highest duty of a woman. / But one tainted by a major sin must be waited on until purification.

1.3.114

The husband's word must always be carried out by women. Because this alone is the supreme, exalted duty of women, being the cause of heaven. But when he is tainted by a major sin, she must wait until purification; she is not subject to him [then]. Afterwards, however, she is subject to him just as before.

1.3.115

He states the fruit of taking a wife according to the scriptures:

1.3.116

Because infinity of worlds and attainment of heaven [come] through sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons,
therefore women must be served and must be well protected.

1.3.117

Infinity of worlds—meaning the non-interruption of one's lineage—and attainment of heaven are the purpose of taking a wife. How? He explains: infinity of worlds through sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons, and attainment of heaven through the Agnihotra and other [rites]—this is the syntactical connection. Because these two arise from women, therefore women are to be served, that is, enjoyed for the sake of offspring; and they are to be protected for the sake of duty. And likewise, the attainment of duty and offspring is stated by Āpastamba as the purpose of taking a wife, when he says: "When one has a wife endowed with duty and offspring, he should not take another" (ĀpDh 2.11.12). The fruit of sexual pleasure, however, is purely worldly.

1.3.118

It has been said that women are to be served for the sake of producing a son. Regarding that, he states a qualification:

1.3.119

Sixteen nights are the fertile period of women; during it, he should approach [her] on even [nights].
He remains indeed a celibate student, but he should avoid the parvan days and the first four [nights].

1.3.120

The fertile period (ṛtu) is the time characterized by a woman's fitness for conception. And that comprises sixteen days and nights beginning from the day of the appearance of menses. During that fertile period, on even nights—by the mention of "nights", daytime is forbidden—he should approach, that is, go [to her], for the sake of a son. The plural in "on even [nights]" indicates inclusion; and therefore, even in a single fertile period, he should go on all the even nights that are not forbidden. Going [to her] in this manner, he remains indeed a celibate student. Therefore, where celibacy is enjoined, such as in an ancestral rite (śrāddha), even if he approaches [her], there is no fault of lapse from celibacy. Moreover, he should avoid the parvan days and the first four [nights]. Because "parvan days" is plural, implying "and others", the eighth and fourteenth days are included, as Manu says:

1.3.121

"On the new moon, the eighth, the full moon, and the fourteenth,
a twice-born snātaka should constantly be a celibate student, even during the fertile period." (MDh 4.155)

1.3.122

Therefore, he should avoid the new moon and other [parvan days], and the four nights beginning from the appearance of menses.

1.3.123

Moreover:

1.3.124

Approaching a woman thus, [when she is] slender, he should avoid Maghā and Mūla;
when the moon is auspicious, a man should beget once an auspicious son.

1.3.125

Approaching a woman thus in the manner described, he should approach her [when she is] slender. And slenderness at that time arises precisely from the observance of the menstruating woman. If it does not arise, then slenderness should be brought about for the sake of producing a son through small and unctuous food and the like,

1.3.126

according to the text:
"A male is born when the semen of the male predominates; a female is born when that of the female predominates." (MDh 3.49)

1.3.127

When, even on an even night, there is a predominance of uterine blood, then only a female having male appearance is born. Even on an odd [night], when there is a predominance of semen, only a male having female appearance is born, because time is merely an auxiliary cause, whereas semen and uterine blood are dominant as material causes. Therefore, she should be made slender. He should avoid the asterisms Maghā and Mūla. And when the moon is in an auspicious house such as the eleventh, and by the word "and" (ca) [is implied: when there is] the occurrence of a male asterism, auspicious conjunction, ascendant, etc., [he should approach her] once in a single night, not twice or thrice. Thereupon he begets a son endowed with auspicious marks—a "man", meaning one whose virility is unimpaired.

1.3.128

Having thus stated the rule for the fertile period, he now states the rule outside the fertile period:

1.3.129

Or he may also act according to her desire, remembering the boon granted to women,
and remaining devoted solely to his own wife, since women are declared in the tradition to be protected.

1.3.130

Because he acts without transgressing his wife's desire, he would be 'following her desire' (yathākāmī). The word 'or' (vā) is intended to introduce another restrictive rule, not to revoke the previous restrictive rule. 'Remembering the boon granted to women' by Indra: 'He who frustrates your desire shall become a sinner,' as they said: 'Let us choose a boon: may we obtain offspring in season, and may we unite according to desire until delivery.' 'Therefore women obtain offspring in season, and unite according to desire until delivery; for this boon was chosen by them' (cf. VaDh 5.8). Moreover, he should be 'devoted to his own wife alone'—that is, entirely absorbed in her, his mind fixed on her; 'he should be' is supplied from the context. By the word 'alone' (eva), he precludes going to another woman, because penance is recorded [for that]. For both, he states a visible purpose: 'for women must be protected, as is recorded.' Since women must be protected, as is recorded and stated: 'and they are to be well protected' (YDh 1.78). And that state of being well protected is achieved by following her desire and by not going to another woman. On this point, it is said: 'In that [period], he should approach [her] on the even nights' (YDh 1.79). Is this an injunction (vidhi), a restrictive rule (niyama), or an exclusive specification (parisaṃkhyā)? It is replied: It cannot be an injunction, because the subject matter is already established. Nor is it an exclusive specification, because of the incurrence of the three faults. Therefore, masters of Nyāya have concluded that it is a restrictive rule. What, then, is the difference between these? An injunction is the establishing of what is completely unestablished, such as: 'One should perform the Agnihotra,' 'The Aṣṭakā rites are to be performed.' A restrictive rule is the establishing of an alternative not established in a given case, when [the action itself] is established in an alternative, such as: 'One should sacrifice on level ground.' The sacrifice is enjoined as an obligation by: 'One should sacrifice with the new- and full-moon sacrifices.' And since that cannot be performed without a location, a location is established by implication. And that [location] is twofold: level and unlevel. When the sacrificer wishes to sacrifice on level ground, the statement 'One should sacrifice on level ground' is indifferent, because its own purpose is already established. But when he wishes to sacrifice on unlevel ground, then 'One should sacrifice on level ground' enjoins its own purpose, because its purpose is not established at that time. The exclusion of unlevel ground, however, is implied: because the sacrifice is accomplished only by the enjoined ground, the sacrifice would not be performed according to the scriptures by using an unenjoined ground. Likewise: 'One should eat food facing east.' This traditional (smārta) example is also explained by the preceding. Exclusive specification is the re-statement of one case among several already established, for the purpose of excluding the others. As in: 'Holding this rein of the cosmic order, he takes the halter of the horse'; this mantra, by its own inherent capacity, is applicable to the taking of both the horse's halter and the donkey's halter; when it is reapplied to the horse's halter by 'he takes the halter of the horse,' it is excluded from the donkey's halter. Just as in: 'Five five-nailed animals may be eaten'; for here, eating [meat] is established through natural impulse in the case of hares and the like as well as dogs and the like; when it is heard again regarding hares and the like, it is excluded from dogs and the like. What, then, is appropriate here? Some say: Exclusive specification. For indeed, for one who has taken a wife, approaching [her] during her fertile season is established by natural desire alone, so this is not the scope of an injunction. Nor is it that of a restrictive rule, because of contradiction with the Gṛhya Smṛtis. For the authors of the Gṛhya texts record: 'After taking a wife, he should be a celibate student for three nights, twelve nights, or one year.' In that regard, if a fertile season were to occur before the twelve nights or the year, the recollection of celibacy would be superseded by the restrictive rule: 'He must indeed approach her during the fertile season.' Moreover, when the verbal action is already established, a statement is properly directed toward a qualification; and approaching the wife during the fertile season is established by desire alone; therefore, the syntactic formulation is proper as: 'If he approaches, he should do so only during the fertile season.' Furthermore, approaching during the fertile season is permanently established by the obligatory injunction of producing a son itself; thus, the restrictive rule 'he must approach during the fertile season' would be superfluous. And in a restrictive rule, an unseen result (adṛṣṭa) would have to be assumed. Furthermore, in the restrictive rule that 'he must certainly approach during the fertile season,' an impossible duty would be instructed for one who is absent, disabled by disease or the like, or unwilling. And there would be a contradiction between injunction and restatement (vidhyanuvādavirodha) in a restrictive rule. For indeed, a single word uttered once would restate that very meaning in one alternative and enjoin it in another alternative. Therefore, exclusive specification alone is proper: 'He should approach only during the fertile season, not at other times.' This [view] Bhāruci, Viśvarūpa, and others do not accept. Hence, a restrictive rule alone is proper, because the injunction of its own meaning is possible in an alternative, and because a fault is heard [in scripture] in the event of non-approach:

1.3.131

"He who does not approach his wife when she has bathed after her season, while being in proximity, / is bound to the terrible sin of abortion; of this there is no doubt."

1.3.132

Nor is there a contradiction between injunction and restatement, because there is no restatement and the statement has the force of an injunction. For a contradiction between injunction and restatement occurs where that very thing must be restated as the limiting condition of what is to be enjoined, and must also be enjoined with reference to another as unestablished. As, in the prima facie view of the Vājapeya section, in 'One who desires paramount sovereignty should sacrifice with the Vājapeya,' the sacrifice must be restated as the limiting condition for enjoining the subordinate quality characterized as the Vājapeya, and that very [sacrifice] must also be enjoined with reference to the fruit characterized as paramount sovereignty. And here, there is no need for restatement. As for what was said that an unseen result must be assumed in a restrictive rule, that is equal in the case of exclusive specification as well, since a fault must be assumed for one who approaches outside the fertile season. As for the claim that there is no restrictive rule because approaching during the fertile season is permanently established by the implication of the obligatory injunction of producing a son itself, that is incorrect. This very [rule] is the obligatory injunction of producing a son. It might be thought: 'Thus approaching an exhausted woman, he should engender an auspicious son' (cf. YDh 1.80)—hence the injunction to produce a son is distinct from the approach to the woman. That is not so. The realization (bhāvanā) which has the approach as its instrument is shown to have the production of a son as its object, by this statement: 'Thus approaching, he should engender an auspicious son,' just as 'Performing the Agnihotra, he should bring about heaven.' Nor does this entail the injunction of an impossible duty for one who is absent or the like, because the instruction applies only to those who are in proximity and capable.

1.3.133

"He who does not approach his wife when she has bathed after her season, while being in proximity—"

1.3.134

"He who, being healthy, does not approach his own wife who has bathed after her season—"

1.3.135

because of the mention of this qualification. But the cessation of one who is unwilling follows precisely from the restrictive injunction. Nor does [the text] merely serve as a qualification, since the injunction of the verbal sense is possible as an alternative. Nor is there a contradiction with the Gṛhya texts. When the season is observed before [the completion of] a year, for one who engages in intercourse there is no fault of breach of celibacy, just as during ancestral rites and the like. Therefore, an exclusionary injunction, which possesses the three faults of abandoning one's own sense, assuming another sense, and annulling what has been established, is not appropriate. So too in the case of "Five five-nailed animals may be eaten": although both [interpretations] are possible—a restrictive injunction, since the eating of hares and the like is established as an alternative, or an exclusionary injunction, since the eating of both hares and dogs is established—nonetheless, under the view of a restrictive injunction, there would arise the fault of not eating hares and the like, and because no fault would arise in eating dogs and the like there would be a contradiction with the Smṛti texts on expiation; hence an exclusionary injunction alone is adopted. By this,

1.3.136

"Eating in the morning and evening is prescribed by the Smṛti for the twice-born"

1.3.137

is also explained as a restrictive injunction. And [otherwise] "He should not eat in between" would be redundant under an exclusionary injunction. And thus, when there is a restrictive injunction, the distributive sense "in every season" is obtained, based on the principle: "Upon the repetition of the occasion, that which depends on the occasion also recurs." The statement "He may act according to desire" is also merely a restrictive injunction: when there is desire in the woman even outside the season, he must indeed bring pleasure to the woman. As for "He should approach in the season, or everywhere except on forbidden days" (GDh 5.1–2)—this pair of Gautama's sūtras is also intended solely as a restrictive injunction: he must approach during the season, and even outside the season when there is desire in the woman, he must approach except on forbidden days. Enough of digression. || 1.81

1.3.138

Furthermore:

1.3.139

Women are to be honored with ornaments, clothing, and food
by their husbands, brothers, fathers, kinsmen, mothers-in-law, fathers-in-law, brothers-in-law,
and relatives.

1.3.140

Virtuous women previously described are to be respected according to capacity with ornaments, garments, food, flowers, and the like by husbands and others; because when they are honored, they enhance virtue, wealth, and pleasure. || 1.82

1.3.141

He states what she, in turn, entrusted with household duties, should be like:

1.3.142

Keeping the household utensils arranged, skillful, cheerful, averse to squandering,
she should perform the salutation of the feet of her parents-in-law, devoted to her husband.

1.3.143

"Keeping the household utensils arranged" means she whose set of household utensils is kept in its proper place. For example, mortar, pestle, winnowing basket, and the like in the husking place; grindstone and upper stone unseparated in the grinding place, and so forth. "Skillful" means proficient in household chores. "Cheerful" means having an ever-smiling face. "Averse to squandering" means not given to wastefulness. "She should be" is to be supplied everywhere. Furthermore: "mother-in-law and father-in-law" are "parents-in-law" (śvaśurau)—this is a single remnant compound by [Pāṇini's rule] "śvaśuraḥ śvaśrvā" (Pāṇ 1.2.71). She should constantly perform the salutation of their feet. The mention of parents-in-law is intended to include other venerable persons as well. "Devoted to her husband" means being compliant with her husband, she should perform what was previously stated. || 1.83

1.3.144

This was stated when the husband is present. He states what she should do when the husband has gone abroad:

1.3.145

Sport, bodily adornment, attending gatherings and festivals,
laughter, and going to another's house—a woman whose husband has gone abroad should abandon these.

1.3.146

A woman whose husband has gone to another country should abandon sport with balls and the like; bodily adornment with unguents and the like; attending "gatherings," which are crowds of people, and "festivals," which are weddings and the like; laughter, which is grinning broadly; and going to another's house. "Should abandon" is connected with each. || 1.84

1.3.147

Furthermore:

1.3.148

The father should protect an unmarried maiden; the husband, one who is married; and sons in old age;
in their absence, kinsmen. A woman never has independence.

1.3.149

Prior to marriage, the father should protect the maiden from improper conduct; after that, the husband; in his absence, the sons in old age; in the absence of those mentioned, kinsmen; in the absence of kinsmen, the king, according to the text: "When both sides are exhausted, however, the king is the husband and master of women." Therefore, women have no independence at any time. || 1.85

1.3.150

Furthermore:

1.3.151

She should not be separated from her father, mother, son, brother, mother-in-law, father-in-law, or maternal uncles,
[or] without her husband; otherwise, she becomes blameworthy.

1.3.152

"Without her husband" means bereft of her husband, or bereft of her father and the like, she should not be; because bereft of them she becomes blameworthy, that is, censurable. And this applies in the case of celibacy; according to Viṣṇu's Smṛti: "When the husband has died, celibacy or following him [in death]" (ViDh 25.14). In following him, there is great prosperity. And Vyāsa showed this by means of the story of the female pigeon:

1.3.153

"The devoted wife entered the blazing fire;
there she joined her husband, who was wearing wondrous bracelets.
Then the bird went to heaven, reunited with his wife;
honored there on account of his deed, he delighted with his wife."
(MBh 12.144.9, 12)

1.3.154

So too Śaṅkha and Aṅgiras:

1.3.155

"Three and a half crores are the hairs that are on a human body;
for that long a time she dwells in heaven who follows her husband [in death]."

1.3.156

Having taught this, they show their non-separation:

1.3.157

"Just as a snake-catcher forcefully pulls out a snake from a hole,
even so that woman, having extracted [her husband], rejoices with him alone.
There, devoted to her husband and praised by hosts of Apsarases,
she plays with her husband as long as fourteen Indras [reign]."

1.3.158

Likewise:

1.3.159

"Whether the husband is a slayer of a Brahmin, an ungrateful person, or a slayer of a friend,
the non-widowed woman who dies taking him with her purifies him.
When her husband has died, the woman who mounts the fire,
having conduct equal to Arundhatī, is glorified in the heavenly world.
And as long as a woman does not burn herself in the fire when her husband is dead,
for that long she is not freed in any way from a female body."

1.3.160

Hārīta also:

1.3.161

"The maternal line, the paternal line, and the line into which she is given—
she purifies these three families who follows her husband [in death]."

1.3.162

Likewise:

1.3.163

"Distressed when he is distressed, joyful when he is glad, unwashed and emaciated when he is abroad,
and who would die when her husband has died—that woman is to be known as a devoted wife."

1.3.164

And this is entirely a universal duty for all women who are not pregnant and do not have infant children, down to the Caṇḍālas, because of the unqualified statement: “she who follows her husband.” As for the texts that aim at prohibiting following [in death] for a Brahmin woman:

1.3.165

“There is no following in death for a Brahmin woman, on account of the command of Brahmā; / but among the other social classes, it is declared to be the highest austerity. // Living, she would work his welfare; from death, she is a suicide. / A woman of the Brahmin caste who follows her dead husband // would lead neither herself nor her husband to heaven, through suicide,”

1.3.166

and so forth, they concern mounting a separate funeral pyre.

1.3.167

Because of the specific traditional rule: “Having mounted a separate pyre, a Brahmin woman ought not to go [to death].”

1.3.168

By this, permission for a separate pyre is understood for Kshatriya women and others. As for what has been stated by some—that because suicide is forbidden for women just as for men, this instruction on following [the husband in death] is, like the Śyena sacrifice, for one whose longing for heaven has grown excessively and who transgresses the prohibitory scripture; just as the instruction on the Śyena sacrifice in “One practicing malevolent sorcery should sacrifice with the Śyena” is for one whose heart is overwhelmed by violent anger and who transgresses the prohibitory scripture—that is incorrect. First, in the view of those who explain that the Śyena is injurious via its fruit, because in the actualisation having the Śyena as its instrument the injury which is the object of production has no contact with the injunction and therefore has contact with the prohibition: in their view, since injury itself is enjoined by the scripture on following [the husband] as being for the sake of heaven, there is an absence of contact with prohibition, just as in the case of the victim dedicated to Agni and Soma; hence the difference between following [in death] and the Śyena is completely clear. As for the view that injury is an operation conducive to death, and the Śyena, being of the nature of an operation conducive to the death of another, is indeed injury; and in an optional rite, because engagement in the instrumental factor can occur through desire, the injunction is not prompter; and being of the nature of injury prompted by desire, the Śyena is prohibited and brings about injury by its very nature: in that case too, since death itself is enjoined by the scripture on following [in death] as the means to heaven, even if engagement regarding death is through desire, still, engagement in the operation conducive to death—such as entering the fire, which has the form of the procedure—is indeed from the injunction; thus there is no scope for a prohibition, just as in “One who desires prosperity should sacrifice a white animal to Vāyu.” Therefore, the difference between following [in death] and the Śyena is completely clear. And as for [the claim that] following [in death] is improper because it conflicts with the Vedic passage: “Therefore, desiring heaven, one should not depart before one's full lifespan,” and that in “Therefore, desiring heaven, one should not depart before one's full lifespan,” expenditure of life prior to one's full lifespan with the aim of the fruit of heaven ought not to be made by one who seeks liberation—because while a remainder of life exists, when the taint of the inner mind has been destroyed by the performance of regular and occasional duties, and when hearing, reflecting, and meditating are accomplished, liberation characterised by the attainment of Brahman of unsurpassable bliss is possible through knowledge of the self; therefore, expenditure of life ought not to be made for the sake of heaven which consists of impermanent and trivial happiness: that is the meaning. And hence, for a woman who does not desire liberation and desires heaven consisting of impermanent and trivial happiness, following [in death] is proper, like the performance of other optional rites. Thus everything is unexceptionable. || 1.86

First 168 of 187 passages. Read on