History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1137

v4.c63.1137

*Vidyādhana* (gains of learning) has undergone the greatest changes of fortune since the earliest times to modern days. It was probably the first kind of self-acquisition recognised in very early times. Though the Āp. Dh. S. and Baud. Dh. S. say nothing about it, yet Gaut. (28. 28-29) lays down that all members (of a joint family), if not learned, should divide equally whatever is earned by them (by agriculture etc.) but what a learned man himself acquires by his learning he may not share with his unlearned brothers if he so desires. Haradatta says that this applies only between brothers that are joint. Vasiṣṭha 17. 51 appears¹⁰⁹⁵ to give two shares to the acquirer of wealth at a partition among brothers and his rule probably represents a very early stage when the acquirer could not retain the whole of his self-acquisition but got only two shares in it and the rest of the joint family members took one share each in it. Manu IX. 206, Yāj. II. 119, Nār. (dāyabhāga 11), Kāt.¹⁰⁹⁶ (868) and Vyāsa say generally that *vidyādhana* is not liable to be divided at a partition. Among writers of smṛtis Kāt. contains the most elaborate treatment of vidyādhana and of self-acquisitions in general. It will be set out in the sequel. But some of the smṛtis point out that even vidyādhana is partible, if learning was acquired at the expense of the family funds (as in Nār. dāyabhāga 10 referred to above) or when the learning was acquired in the family house itself from the father or an elder brother (Kāt.¹⁰⁹⁷ 874). The Dāyabhāga (VI. 1 42–49) discusses at great length the views of Śrīkara on Yāj. II. 118 and Manu IX. 208 and dissents from them and states his conclusion as follows: A man since his birth depends upon his family for food and maintenance and so if the words "without expending ancestral estate" were literally and widely interpreted, hardly any man can say that no paternal wealth was expended on him and so earnings of whatever kind would have to be deemed to be partible and there would be no propriety or purpose in the words of Manu IX. 208. Therefore it must be understood as done by Viśvarūpa that the detriment meant is not the expenditure of food in maintaining a person in the house from infancy, but that when a member acquires estate by his learning or in any other way without giving or spending paternal wealth for acquiring that, then only it becomes his self-acquisition¹⁰⁹⁸.