History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.573
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.573
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.573.1
Rāma who performed Aśvamedha accompanied by a golden image of Sītā; (11) Dhṛtarāṣṭra, though blind, performed sacrifices; (12) Vāsudeva and Arjuna are described as being drunk and as having married Rukmiṇī and Subhadrā respectively who were their maternal uncle's daughters (such marriages being forbidden). Kumārila, like a modern comparative mythologist. explains (Tantravārtika p. 208) that Prajāpati means 'the Sun' who approaches (i. e. rises after) the Dawn. This explanation is as old as the Ait. Br. 13. 9 where it is said that there are two views viz. it is either 'Heaven' or 'Uṣas' that is meant by the word 'daughter.' Similarly Indra and Ahalyā respectively mean the Sun and the Night and *jāra* means literally 'one who makes to disappear or wither away' (and not paramour) in that passage. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1145 note 2550 for the epithet 'Ahalyāyai jāra' in the Veda and quotation from Tantravārtika. The story of Ahalyā and Indra varies in its details in the epics. Vide Rāmāyaṇa I. 48, Udyoga 12. 6. These two are instances of transgression of dharma (dharma-vyatikrama) and the next case of Vasiṣṭha is an example of *sāhasa* (through sorrow). Kumārila says that Viśvāmitra was prompted by his hatred of Vasiṣṭha and his pride, that the sin accruing from his act would be neutralized by his great austerities. So his actions cannot serve as a model for imitation by others.
v4.c63.t2.573.2
Vyāsa, who was a son of Satyavatī from Parāśara when she was a maiden, had Vicitravīrya as (his uterine) brother after Satyavatī married Śantanu. In the case of a brahmacārin, sexual intercourse is most reprehensible (vide H. of Dh. vol. II p. 374). But Vyāsa agreed to *niyoga* because of his regard for his mother as allowed by Gaut. 18. 4-5. Kumārila adds that Vyāsa could do so on account of his great past and future austerities, that another person with similar qualifications may do so even in spite of all prohibitions, since the Mahābhārata (Āśramavāsika 30. 24) says 'sarvaṁ balavatāṁ pathyam' (to the strong everything is wholesome or allowable). He gives an apt illustration. An elephant can devour branches of trees without harm, but others doing so would meet death. Dakṣa V. 10 prescribes 'anāśramī na tiṣṭheta kṣaṇamekamapi dvijaḥ' (a twice-born person should not stay even for a moment unattached to some āśrama). Bhīṣma remained unmarried out of filial devotion to his father and Rāma could not think of another wife as he was so much attached to Sītā. Kumārila boldly asserts that Bhīṣma had a wife only for the purpose of the sacrifices he performed (though this is mentioned in no Itihāsa or Purāṇa) and relies upon the mode of proof called *arthāpatti* for this¹⁶⁴³. His words are given below. This and some other explanations offered by Kumārila shed a very interesting light on the theological apologetics of Mīmāṁsakas. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp.
v4.c63.t2.573.3
558 and 684 for Rāma and the golden image of Sītā. As to Yudhiṣṭhira's bringing about the death of his brāhmaṇa teacher the explanation is that the former performed Aśvamedha after the end of the war by way of prāyaścitta (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 147 n. 333 and pp. 1236-37 notes 2674-75 for Aśvamedha as the re mover of all sins). As to Draupadī being the wife of five brothers Kumārila quotes Ādiparva 198. 14 (=cr. ed. 190. 14) and offers several explanations (p. 209), the most astounding being that there were five wives of the five brothers who were so similar that they were all referred to as one. As the Nyāyasudhā (p. 194) remarks, these various explanations were offered to show off great resourcefulness of interpretation (parihāra-vaibhavārtham), the proper one being that the practice of the Pāṇḍavas was an evil one and was not to be imitated. A blind man could not perform sacrifices and was excluded from inheritance. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 157 n. 369 and vol. III. p. 609 n. 1154. But Kumārila says that as Dhṛtarāṣṭra was blessed with sight for a while and saw his deceased sons through the miraculous power of Vyāsa (Āśramavāsiparva chap. 32-37) he might have been endowed with sight at the time of the sacrifices or what is meant is that he made gifts which are spoken of as sacrifices. As regards Subhadrā, Kumārila asserts that in spite of the fact that Subhadrā was said in the Ādiparva (219. 18 = cr. ed. 211.
v4.c63.t2.573.4
18) to have been the *daughter of* Vasudeva and *sister of* Kṛṣṇa, she was really the daughter of Kṛṣṇa's step-mother's sister or the daughter's daughter of the sister of his step-mother's father (a female cousin being often called a sister among the Lāṭas). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 459-460 and notes to my edition of the text of V. Mayūkha (pp. 200-202). Kṛṣṇa's marriage with Rukmiṇī is to be similarly explained. It is somewhat surprising that Khaṇḍadeva states that it is nowhere found that Subhadrā was the daughter of Vasudeva. Probably he had a corrupt reading of the Mahābhārata passage before him. As to the charge of drinking spirituous liquor (*ubhau madhvāsavakṣībau* in Udyogaparva 59. 5) against both Vāsudeva and Arjuna, they were both kṣatriyas and only brāhmaṇas were prohibited from drinking any kind of intoxicating drink (Gaut. II. 25), while to kṣatriyas and vaiśyas two kinds of wine called madhu (liquor from honey or madhuka flowers) and sīdhu (rum) were allowed and only paiṣṭī (spirituous liquor distilled from flour) was forbidden (by Gaut. II. 25, Manu XI. 93-94).