History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.553

v4.c63.t2.553

This discussion raises an important doctrine which frequently figures in dharmaśāstra works. The doctrine is expressed in this form viz. when a visible motive or purpose is obvious in the case of a rule or prescription it is not proper to ascribe an unseen or spiritual purpose or reason for it. This doctrine is older than even Āp. Dh. S. I. 4. 12. 11 which says, 'where men act because they find pleasure in so doing, there śāstra has no scope'. Śabara also says,¹⁶²⁸ 'those rules (in the smṛti) that have a seen purpose derive their authority from that fact, while those that have no visible purpose may be inferred to be based upon the Veda (and derive their authority from that).' These words of Śabara are quoted by Kullūka on Manu III. 7 where Manu states that a girl should not be selected as a bride from a family that neglects the *saṁskāras*, in which no male children are born, in which there is no Veda study, the members of which have on their bodies long and thick hair, that suffers from such diseases as piles, dyspepsia, epilepsy, black and white leprosy. Kullūka remarks that the works on medicine hold that such diseases are inherited and so if such a girl be married the progeny might suffer from these diseases, and thus this prohibition is based on a visible motive. From this a very important conclusion is drawn by dharmaśāstra writers viz. if one while performing a rite or when engaged in any matter acts contrary to a rule that has a seen purpose, the rite or matter does not become invalid or void, while where a rule is based on an unseen or spiritual purpose and it is infringed, the act itself becomes void or invalid. Yāj. I. 52 and 53¹⁶²⁹ prescribe among other things that the bride to be chosen by a man must be free from (incurable) diseases, must have a brother living, must not be a *sapiṇḍa* of the bridegroom or must not have the same *gotra* or *pravara* as that of the bridegroom. On this the Mit. remarks that if a man marries a girl who is suffering from an incurable disease, the marriage is valid, only he does an act which runs counter to seen results (i. e. he may suffer the consequence that his children may be diseased), but if he goes through a ceremony of marriage with a girl who is a sapiṇḍa or of the same gotra or pravara there is no valid marriage and the girl is not his legal wife. No clear visible purpose can be associated with the prohibition against marrying a sapiṇḍa or sagotra girl; hence there must be a spiritual purpose in that prohibition and so if one infringes it the act itself (viz. marriage) becomes void.¹⁶³⁰