History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.214
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.214
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.214.1
The argument of the Dāyabhāga (which was propounded before it by a writer probably named Udyota¹⁴²³) that the taking of a deceased person's estate depends upon the spiritual benefit conferred on him is briefly as follows. It relies principally on Baud. Dh. S. and Manu. In the section on the partition of wealth (which begins from IX. 103) Manu (IX. 137) declares the super-eminent spiritual benefits conferred by the son, grandson and great-grandson; further (in IX. 106) Manu states that the son gets all wealth from his father because he frees the latter from debt, that (in IX. 139) the daughter's son also is spoken of as saving the grandfather in the next world and as therefore entitled to the grandfather's wealth, that the verse immediately preceding Manu IX. 187 (declaring that the nearest amongst sapiṇḍas inherits) speaks of the offering of piṇḍa to three ancestors; and since it is reasonable to presume that the blind and the like are excluded from inheritance (Manu IX. 201) because they are incapable of performing religious rites, it follows that Manu and others regarded the taking of wealth as dependent on the conferring of spiritual benefit. This point of view the Dāyabhāga emphasizes at every step. It¹⁴²⁴ says: "There are two purposes for which wealth is acquired, viz. for worldly enjoyment and for the unseen or spiritual benefit derived from making gifts and the like;
v4.c63.t2.214.2
but when the acquirer is dead, he cannot have enjoyment of the wealth and the only purpose that remains is the unseen purpose or benefit. It is therefore that Bṛ. says, 'from the wealth inherited, the inheritor should carefully set apart half for the benefit of the deceased for defraying the expenses of the monthly, six-monthly and annual śrāddhas". The subject of śrāddhas will be dealt with in another volume. But here it is necessary to say a few words for making the position of the Dāyabhāga clear. Among the several kinds of śrāddhas two deserve notice, viz. *Ekoddiṣṭa* and *Pārvaṇa*.¹⁴²⁵ The first (*ekoddiṣṭa*) is performed for the benefit of a single deceased person. There are sixteen such śrāddhas performed for the benefit of the deceased during the course of one year after his death or on the 11th day of death. And every year on the anniversary of death an ekoddiṣṭa śrāddha may be performed for a deceased person. The pārvaṇa śrāddha is performed on certain specified days, such as the *amāvāsyā* of a month, or particularly in the dark half or on the *amāvāsyā* of Bhādrapada or on a *saṅkrānti*. In this śrāddha the three deceased paternal ancestors of the performer are principally invoked and the three deceased paternal ancestors of his mother are also invoked but their invocation is secondary and is dependent on the principal invocation. There is one more word that must be explained here viz. *sapiṇḍana* or *sapiṇḍīkaraṇa*.
v4.c63.t2.214.3
This is a śrāddha rite performed one year after the death of a person or on the 12th day from his death. By this śrāddha the person recently deceased ceases to be a *preta* (a departed spirit) and is elevated to the rank of *pitṛs* (Manes). The widow and daughter can perform only the ekoddiṣṭa śrāddha, while sons, grandsons and great-grandsons can perform the pārvaṇa śrāddha also. The Dāyabhāga refers (XI. 1. 34 p. 162) to the fact that the three male descendants, by performing the pārvaṇa śrāddha, confer great spiritual benefit on the owner (compare note 1342 above). Elsewhere (XI. 7. 17 p. 211) it designates the pārvaṇa as ‘traipuruṣika’ (i. e. performed for the benefit of three ancestors). When speaking of the right of the widow to inherit it emphasizes (XI. 1. 43 p. 165), by quoting verses from Vyāsa,¹⁴²⁶ that a widow by leading a chaste life, by offering water mixed with sesame every day to her deceased husband, by making gifts and observing fasts saves himself and her husband in the next world. It adds that if the widow misbehaves she makes her husband fall, as husband and wife share in the fruits of each other's good and evil deeds. Therefore the widow takes her husband's wealth for his benefit. Bṛhan-Manu (q. by the Dāyabhāga XI. 1. 7 and by the Mit.) declares that a sonless chaste widow should offer piṇḍa to her husband and take his entire estate. Similarly Prajāpati (cited above on p. 709 and quoted by even the V.
v4.c63.t2.214.4
Mayūkha and other works of the Mitākṣarā school) requires the widow who inherits all the movable and immovable property of her deceased husband to perform the monthly, six-monthly and annual śrāddhas of her husband.¹⁴²⁷ Similarly the Dāyabhāga allows the unmarried daughter or a married daughter having a son (or who is likely to have a son) to inherit because her son will offer piṇḍa to the owner who will be the maternal grand-father. It prefers the daughter's son¹⁴²⁸ as an heir even to the father because the former offers a piṇḍa to the owner himself, while the father offers piṇḍas to two of the three paternal ancestors to whom the owner would have been bound to offer piṇḍas. The D. B. winds up by saying¹⁴²⁹ that the order of inheritors must be followed in such a way that the wealth of the deceased may be most beneficial to (the soul of) the deceased. In certain respects the D. B. does not strictly and logically follow its own theory but is compelled to twist it by reason of the places assigned by special texts to certain heirs.¹⁴³⁰ For example, the order of heirs according to the D. B. is; son, grandson and great grandson; widow; daughter; daughter's son: father; mother; full brother; half brother; full brother's son; half brother's son. But the persons entitled to perform the śrāddha of the deceased in order are somewhat different. In fact the order of succession does not strictly follow in any school the order of those that are called *śrāddhādhikārins*.
v4.c63.t2.214.5
The order of those who are entitled to offer śrāddha to a deceased separated male (*śrāddhādhikārin*) given in most works is as follows; son (aurasa or adopted); grandson; great-grandson; widow; married daughter; unmarried daughter who has succeeded to the deceased's wealth; daughter's son who succeeds to the wealth; full brother; half brother (son of a different mother); full brother's son; half brother's son; father; mother; daughter-in-law; full sister; half sister; full sister's son; half sister's son; paternal uncle; paternal uncle's son; other gotraja sapiṇḍas; sodaka; any gotraja; cognates such as maternal grandfather, maternal uncle, maternal uncle's son (i. e. the bandhus of the three kinds in order); pupil; son-in-law; father-in-law; friend; any brāhmaṇa who takes a brāhmaṇa's wealth or king who takes by escheat. Vide Nirṇayasindhu III uttarārdha pp. 382-386, Dharmasindhu III uttarārdha pp. 368-369, Śrāddhaviveka p. 48. If the principle of the capacity to offer or of the offering of piṇḍas regulating the right to succeed is to be strictly and logically followed, there is no reason why the mother or the paternal grandmother should succeed immediately after the father or the paternal grandfather respectively. Her recognition in the D. B. school is due to the fact she is expressly mentioned in Manu as an heir. Similarly in the rules about the succession to re-united coparceners, the school of D. B.
v4.c63.t2.214.6
gives preference to re-united co-parceners and does not apply the theory of spiritual benefit. Further the Dāyatattva says that all that is required is the capacity to receive piṇḍa or the capacity to participate in the piṇḍas offered by others and not the actual offering of piṇḍas. For example, if a man performs śrāddha for his ancestors, then dies, but no one performs his sapiṇḍana and therefore he does not participate in the piṇḍas given to his ancestors, still his wealth will be inherited on the principle of religious efficacy.¹⁴³¹ Owing to considerations of space it is not possible to go into great detail about the several propositions established in relation to the theory of religious benefit as the determining factor in matters of inheritance. But the following propositions may be set out in one place: