History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c73.t1.48

v5.c73.t1.48

Hemādri (Śrāddhakāṇḍa, pp. 380-385) holds an interesting discussion as to whether a performer of śrāddha belonging to one recension of a Veda must restrict himself to inviting brāhmaṇas that are students of the same recension of the Veda or whether he can invite any brāhmaṇa that may have studied any of the three Vedas. Some people relying on a maxim ('as in the case of a bride so in the case of an offering') invite only brāhmaṇas of their own *śākhā* possessed of the qualifications above set forth. Hemādri replies that this is a wrong notion, relies on Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 15. 9 'one should feed⁸⁸⁷ in all (religious) acts brāhmaṇas that are pure (in their conduct) and that have studied the Veda' and asserts that no smṛti, Itihāsa, Purāṇa, Gṛhyasūtra nor Kalpasūtra contains the restriction of inviting only brāhmaṇas of the performer's own śākhā. He further says that in such texts as 'triṇāciketas-trimadhuḥ' (quoted in note 862a above) the rule laid down is to invite brāhmaṇas that have studied different śākhās and Vedas. He rejects the idea about any restriction as to selecting a bridegroom of the same śākhā as the bride's father and remarks that if some people are not prepared to give their daughters in marriage to young men belonging to other śākhās, that is due to ignorance about the families and is also due to pride and vanity. He winds up by saying that in Āryāvarta countries it is found on all sides that marriage connections are entered into with persons studying different śākhās but living in the same district, (such connections) not being condemned, while persons who study the same śākhā of the Veda but do not know each other do not enter into marital connections.⁸⁸⁸ As a contrast to this commonsense view it should be noted that the author of the Bālambhaṭṭī recommends that 'Mahārāṣṭra brāhmaṇas should not invite brāhmaṇas of other castes (of brāhmaṇas) and particularly the Koṅkaṇastha brāhmaṇas should be avoided and it goes so far as to say that a person belonging to one's own caste not possessed of good qualities and of a blemished character (provided he is not guilty of mahāpātakas or the like) should be preferred to one belonging to another sub-caste even if endowed with good qualities.