History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.103

v4.c63.t1.103

The high eulogy bestowed on the son in the Vedic and smṛti literature has reference only to the *aurasa* son. Manu IX. 180 asserts that the eleven kinds of sons viz. kṣetraja and the rest (except aurasa and putrikā) are merely substitutes for the real son, admitted to prevent the cessation of religious rites and in IX. 181 Manu states the final conclusion that such sons as the *kṣetraja* that are procreated from the seed of others really belong to him from whose seed they spring and not to the other man (who takes them up). Bṛ.¹²³⁷ (S B. E. 33 p. 375 verses 35-36) declares: 'thirteen sons were enumerated in order by Manu, out of whom only the aurasa and putrikā are the cause of propagating the line. Just as oil is declared by the good to be a substitute (in sacrifices) in the absence of clarified butter, so the eleven kinds of sons in the absence of *aurasa* and *putrikā*¹²³⁸ (are admitted merely as substitutes and not the real thing).' Although Yāj. II. 132 declares that each succeeding one out of the twelve kinds of sons takes the estate in the absence of each preceding one and offers *piṇḍa* to the deceased owner, yet the efficacy of the piṇḍas offered by the several sons was deemed to differ very much. Manu leaves no room for doubt on this point when he says (IX. 161) 'a man desiring to cross beyond the gloom (of bad worlds, hells) through (or with the help of) bad sons (such as the kṣetraja) secures a result similar to what a person crossing (a sheet of) water in a leaking boat secures'. The idea is that secondary sons cannot confer the same spiritual benefit as the *aurasa* son can. Medhātithi on Manu IX. 166 and the D. M. explain this very clearly. An aurasa son confers the highest spiritual benefit. The substitute sons (as indicated by the very use of the word *pratinidhi*) confer a much less benefit. Even a man's widow can perform his śrāddha if he be sonless, but as she could not offer the *pārvaṇa śrāddha* her act was not deemed to be as efficacious as a śrāddha performed by a son.¹²³⁹ Jaimini devotes several sūtras to the subject of *pratinidhi* (a substitute) in VI. 3. 13-41. The main conclusion established is that generally speaking there can be no substitute as regards the *devatā* (the deity to which a particular offering is directed by the Veda to be offered in a particular sacrifice), the fire (āhavanīya and other consecrated fires), the *mantra* (which is to accompany a particular offering) and certain rites specifically prescribed to be done in a sacrifice (such as 'samidho yajati' in Darśa-pūrṇamāsa) and the *svāmin* (the sacrificer). On Jaimini VI.