History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.107

v4.c63.t1.107

3. 35 Śabara makes¹²⁴⁰ it clear that in employing a *pratinidhi* the vedic rite becomes deficient and does not yield the full reward of the religious act. The Satyāṣāḍha Śr. S. III. 1. asserts¹²⁴¹ that there can be no substitute for the sacrificer, the wife, the son, the place, time &c. (prescribed by the Vedic texts for any rite). Therefore it is clear that there was difference of view among very ancient writers about the spiritual benefit to be derived from substitute sons. The natural human tendency to simplify matters and water down strict injunctions prevailed and it began to be thought that even subsidiary sons conferred some spiritual benefit (though not as much as the aurasa son). For about two thousand years the kṣetraja and other sons have been prohibited by the smṛtis. For example, Bṛ states that Manu first describes the procedure of *niyoga* and then forbids it, that it is impossible to practise *niyoga* in the *dvāpara* and *kali* ages owing to the deterioration in man's knowledge and *tapas* (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 603 n. 1418 for the quotation). The passage from Śaunaka forbidding sons other than *aurasa* and *dattaka* in the Kali age quoted by Aparārka and others has been cited above (n. 1131).