History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c26.106

v2.c26.106

According to this explanation of the Mitākṣarā¹⁰⁷⁵ the following rules about prohibition based on sāpiṇḍya follow: (1) In computing degrees the common ancestor is to be included; (2) regard is to be had to the father and mother of the bride and bridegroom both; (3) if computation is made from the mother's side of either the proposed bride or bridegroom, they must be beyond the fifth degree (i. e. they must be 6th or further on) from the common ancestor and if it is made through the father of either, they must be beyond the seventh from the common ancestor (i. e. they must be eighth &c.). This last postulates four different classes of cases, viz. descent from a common ancestor may be traced through the fathers of both bride and bridegroom or through the mother of both, or through the mother of the bridegroom and the father of the bride or through the father of the bridegroom and the mother of the bride. The method of computing degrees is entirely different from the English method as is made clear by the remarks of the Mit. translated above. The rules require that both must be beyond sapiṇḍa relationship as defined and limited above. For example, tracing descent through the fathers of both bride and bridegroom, if the bride is 8th from the common ancestor (called *kūṭastha* in dharmaśāstra works) and the bridegroom is 6th, there can be no marriage, as though the bride is beyond the limits of sapiṇḍa relationship to the common ancestor, the bridegroom being 6th from the kūṭastha has sapiṇḍa relationship with the kūṭastha. These rules apply according to the Mit. only where the ancestors married women of their own varṇa. But if an ancestor married a brāhmaṇa girl and also a kṣatriya girl and a question arose about the eligibility of marriage among descendants of these two wives, then prohibition based on sapiṇḍa relationship extends up to only three degrees (and not seven or five).1075a It should not be supposed that these rules of the Mit. are universally observed. The texts themselves are in conflict. Further, the customs and usages as to prohibited degrees for marriage are so divergent in the various parts of India and among the hundreds of castes and sub-castes that it is impossible to state any rule as universally or even generally applicable. A few examples of conflict among the smṛtis are cited by the Mit. itself. Vas. Dh. S. (8. 2) says '(he may marry) the fifth on the mother's side and 7th on the father's side', while Yāj. as interpreted by the Mit. makes it necessary that the girl to be eligible must be 6th from the common ancestor traced through the mother and 8th when traced through the father. Paiṭhīnasi says 'the girl must be beyond three degrees on the mother's¹⁰⁷⁶ side and five degrees on the father's side'. These two are explained away by the Mit. by saying that these texts do not authorise a marriage with a girl who is distant from the common ancestor by a lesser number of degrees than those propounded by Yāj. but they only prohibit marriage with girls who are nearer in degrees than those stated in those texts. But this reconciliation of the conflict among the smṛtis is not at all satisfactory.