History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c26.101

v2.c26.101

¹⁰⁷¹ The words 'तथा पत्या सह पत्न्या एकशरीरारम्भकतया' are translated differently by Golap Chandra Sarkar in his 'Hindu Law' (7th ed. of 1936) pp. 81-82 as 'similarly arises the sapiṇḍa relationship of the husband with the lawfully wedded wife by reason of (their together) forming one body' (i. e. one person, hence the wife is called half the body of the husband). The learned author thinks that his translation is the correct one and others went wrong in translating as in the passage above. His translation cannot be accepted for several reasons. In the first place, it is opposed to the explanation of the Bālambhaṭṭī आरम्भकतयेति उभयारब्धे एकशरीरे स्वावयवान्वयादित्यर्थः (i. e. particles of the bodies of the husband and wife continue in or are concerned with one body, the son, that is produced by them both). That husband and wife are one is a pleasant fiction but here Vijñāneśvara is stressing the physical continuity of particles. The husband and wife though said to be one are still two bodies. No one says that their bodies become physically one. Besides the objection that if they do not beget a son, the husband and wife will not be sapiṇḍas is not sound. Rules and principles are laid down for generality of cases and regard is to be had to their capacity to produce a son. The निर्णयसिन्धु (III. पूर्वार्ध p. 280) shows that G. C. Sarkar is wrong 'एकस्य हि पितुर्मातुर्वा शरीरस्यावयवाः पुत्रपौत्रादिषु साक्षात् परंपरया वा शुक्रशोणितादिरूपेणानुस्यूताः। यद्यपि पत्न्याः पत्या सह भ्रातृपत्नीनां च परस्परं नैतत्संभवति तथापि आधारत्वेनैकशरीरावयवान्वयोऽस्त्येव ।.' A woman's husband's brother's wife is the receptacle (ādhāra) for a son who is procreated by the husband's brother and his wife, the former of whom has particles of his father whose particles continue in the husband of the woman.