History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.573.2

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.