History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c19.114.3

v2.c19.114.3

But it will be seen from the list appended below that Uśanas and Vaikhānasa almost always make a distinction between the caste assigned to the offspring of the union of parents of different varṇas, according as there is a marriage between the two or it is only a clandestine, illegitimate or adulterous union. For example, Uśanas says¹²⁶ that when there is a marriage between a kṣatriya male and a brāhmaṇa female, the offspring is called sūta, while the offspring of a clandestine union between a brāhmaṇa woman and a kṣatriya male was called rathakāra. So these two authors held that there could be a legal marriage when a woman of a higher varṇa married a male of a lower varṇa.¹²⁷ There were several other works like the Sūtasaṁhitā (Śivamāhātmyakhaṇḍa chap. 12. 12-48) where a similar distinction is made between the children of marriages and clandestine unions. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 90 says that such progeny as kuṇḍa and golaka (Manu III. 174), kānīna, sahoḍhaja (who are all not due to intercourse in wedlock) are different from savarṇa, anuloma and pratiloma and are to be treated as śūdras and that the *kṣetraja* son is to be treated as in a different category (since *niyoga* is allowed by the smṛtis and by the usage of *śiṣṭas*) and belongs to the caste of his mother. Aparārka (on Yāj. I. 92 p. 118) does not accept this view and holds that even kānīna and sahoḍha may be held to be brāhmaṇas (if the begetter can be proved to have been a brāhmaṇa); while Viśvarūpa on Yāj. II.