History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c73.130
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c73.130
- Language
- English
v5.c73.130.1
Tai. S. I. 8. 5. 1, Tai. Br. I. 6. 9 (which will be quoted later on) show that śrāddha was offered to three immediate ancestors, father, grand-father, great-grand-father. The Baud. Dh. S. (I. 5. 113-115) states that there is a group of seven persons closely knit together that is called *avibhaktadāya sapiṇḍas* viz. great-grand-father, grand-father, father, the man himself (who offers piṇḍas to the preceding three), his full brothers, his son from a wife of the same caste, the grandson and great grandson; that sakulyas are those that are called 'vibhaktadāyādas', that the wealth of the deceased descends to those who are born of the body of the deceased⁸³⁴. Manu IX. 137 (= Vas. 17.5 = Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 46) solemnly⁸³⁵ affirms: 'by (the birth of) a son a man wins the worlds (heaven &c.), he secures immortality by a grandson and by the grandson of a son he reaches the abode of the Sun'. This verse shows that all the three descendants of a person confer equally great spiritual benefit on him. Yāj. also (in I. 78) lumps the three together (without making any distinction between them) when he says 'since a man secures perpetuation of lineage and heaven by means of son, grand-son and great-grand-son'. Therefore when Manu (IX. 106) says that by the birth of a son a man discharges his debt to his progenitors the Dāyabhāga (XI.
v5.c73.130.2
34) explains that the word *putra* stands for the three descendants up to the great-grandson, since all the three are entitled to perform the pārvaṇa-śrāddha and equally benefit the ancestors by the piṇḍas they offer, and that the word *putra* is not to be taken literally but only as illustrative in order to include the great-grandson, since one may with difficulty find a text expressly mentioning the *adhikāra* of the grandson (as a performer of śrāddha and taker of wealth) but there is no text expressly mentioning the great-grandson separately (as the taker of wealth and giver of piṇḍa)⁸³⁶. On Yāj. II. 50 which lays down that when the father dies or has gone to a distant country or is overwhelmed by calamities (incurable diseases or the like) his debts should be paid by the sons or grandsons, the Mit. adds that even when a son or grandson receives no ancestral property the father's debts must be paid, the only difference being that the son has to pay the principal as well as the interest, while the grandson has to return only the principal and has to pay no interest and the Mit. quotes a verse of Bṛhaspati⁸³⁷ where all the three descendants are mentioned in one breath and the Mit. adds that the great-grandson has not to pay even the principal if he has received no ancestral property. This last remark implies that the Mit. regarded that the great-grandson was also included in the extended sense of 'putra'. Yāj. II.
v5.c73.130.3
51 begins by saying that whoever takes the wealth of a deceased person has to pay the latter's debts, so the great-grandson would have to pay the great-grand-father's debts if he received the assets of the grand-father. Therefore the Mit. on II. 50 expressly mentions that a great-grandson need not pay his great-grand-father's debts if he received no assets, because, otherwise being included in the extended meaning of putra, he would have had to pay. There was no necessity to bring in or mention the prapautra under II. 50 if the Mit. did not include the prapautra in the word putra. Again on Yāj. II. 51 ('putrahīnasya rikthinaḥ') the Mit. included even prapautra under the word *putra*. This shows that the Mit. is quite conscious that the three descendants of a man form one group and succeed to his estate and liabilities and putra includes three descendants wherever the context so requires. If the word 'putra' is not to be taken as only illustrative and as including both grandson and great-grandson, serious difficulties will arise even in the interpretation of Yāj. on which the Mit. comments. For example, in Yāj. II. 135-136 it is said that when a sonless man dies his wife, daughters and other heirs (named there) succeed one after another. If 'putra' is taken to mean only 'son' and no one else, then on the death of a man without a son his wife or daughter (whoever is alive) will take the wealth even if a son's son exists. But that would be absurd and is not stated by any one.
v5.c73.130.4
Therefore the word putra has to be interpreted in a wider sense in a proper context. Many works such as the Vyavahāramayūkha, the Vīramitrodaya, the Dattakamīmāṁsā interpret the word 'putra' as including three generations. Therefore, though the Mit. in its remarks on inheritance and succession expressly names the son and grandson only (lit. it should have mentioned only the son) it must be taken as including the great-grandson also, particularly in view of the fact that it refers to the great-grandson in its comment on Yāj. I. 50 and 51 as taking the riktha which the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 114) interprets as apratibandha dāya. Baud., Manu, Yājñavalkya speak of the three descendants and Śaṅkha-likhita, Vas. XI. 39 and Yama employ⁸³⁸ only the word *putra* or *suta* in relation to the three ancestors. Therefore, the remark of Dr. Kapadia in 'Hindu Kinship' on p. 162 'Vijñāneśvara understands by the word putra sons and grandsons only' is unjustified. It is impossible to hold with Dr. Kapadia that the Mit. ran counter to the express dicta of renowned Smṛtis such as those of Manu, Śaṅkha-Likhita and Purāṇas like the Viṣṇu-purāṇa III. 13.30 (quoted above in note 582) and that in its remarks on succession it forgot its own interpretation of putra on Yāj. II. 51. He has also not correctly understood the words of the Mit. introducing Yāj. II. 137: 'sons and grandsons take the wealth; in their absence, the wife and others; thus it is said (by me)'. This is wrong for several reasons.
v5.c73.130.5
'Wife and others take the wealth' is said by Yāj. (in II. 135-36). The following words are 'now (the author) declares an exception to both.' This clearly refers to Yāj. (II. 137) and not to Vijñāneśvara and so 'uktam' also must refer to Yāj. and not to Vijñāneśvara. Therefore, according to the Mit. the great-grandson is included in the extended meaning of the word 'putra', is entitled just like a son or a grandson to offer śrāddha (in default of a son or grandson) and to take the wealth and pay the debts of the ancestor. In the matter of payment of debts there is, on account of the difference in the period that elapses, a difference between all the three descendants if no ancestral wealth is left by the ancestor, viz. the son pays the debt with interest, the grandson only the principal lent but without interest and the great-grandson nothing at all. This shows that even between the son and the grandson that are expressly mentioned by Yāj. II. 50 as to the payment of debts there is a difference and that as the great-grandson had to pay nothing when no ancestral property existed he was not mentioned at all in Yāj. II. 50.