History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1044

v4.c63.1044

they are purified from the sin by abandoning that wealth, by repeating the sacred texts (like the Gāyatrī) and by austerities. If ownership springs from śāstra alone, what is earned by a person in ways condemned by śāstra cannot become the property of that man and so his sons cannot divide what is not his property. But if ownership is deemed to be a secular matter (*laukika*) then even what is obtained by condemned means becomes the property of that man, his sons incur no blame (though the acquirer may have to perform penance) and can divide that wealth (which is dāya), since Manu X. 115 enumerates dāya among the seven approved sources of wealth. The Madanaratna does not approve of this. Its reason briefly is that Manu XI. 193 simply lays down a penance, but does not say that wealth so obtained does not become the acquirer's property, that it is on account of this that Manu does not prescribe any special fine or punishment for one who acquires wealth by means of a bad gift, as he prescribes for a thief and that what is acquired by theft does not become the property of the thief and his sons cannot divide it and would incur punishment if they do so. V. P. (pp. 423-424) refers to the views of the Mit. and the Madanaratna and approves of the views of the former.