Sexual Life in Ancient India: A Study in the Comparative History of Indian Culture v1.c6.119

Language: English

v1.c6.119.1

1 There is not complete agreement in the various law writings either as to the order of rank of the twelve kinds of sons, or as to the two divisions : (1) sons who belong to the family and have also the right to inherit ; (2) sons who only belong to the family, but have not the right to inherit. The category, “ capable of inheriting, but not belonging to the family,” moreover, is found only in the MBh. Here we give only one or two details which are perhaps of special importance for the subject of this book. All the law books put the kshetraja (the son begotten by a proxy) next after the son of the body ; only Yājñavalkya names before him and as fully equal to the aurasa the son of the inheriting daughter (putrikā). While the son of the inheriting daughter according to the general view is the heir of his sonless grandfather, and also of his father, if this latter has no other son, but in return also takes over in both families the duty of the sacrificing to the forefathers, Gautama, xxviii, 32 throws him into the last place but two in the second group. The gūḍhotpanna or he that is begotten in adultery is reckoned by all to group I, the sahoḍha (he that marriage brought in the bride’s body) only in Nārada (xiii, 45), while otherwise he generally takes the second place in category II, in Vasiṣṭha, xvii, 26 and Viṣṇu, xv, 15 the first place, in Yājñav., ii, 131 the last place but one.

v1.c6.119.2

The kānīna or unmarried woman’s son is among the first and privileged set of six in all except Manu, ix, 161, as also Gautama, xxviii, 33 and Baudhāyana, ii, 2, 3.32 ; but these two agree here exactly with Manu, only that Baudh. brackets the putrikāputtra with the datta of Manu, and so gets thirteen classes, and Gautama handles the son of the heiress-daughter like a very cruel father in the way already mentioned. In these three the kānīna is found at the head of group II. The paunarbhava is taken by Vasisṭha, xvii, 13 ff., Yājñav., ii, 128 ff., Viṣṇu, xv, 1 ff., into I, while in Nārada he stands in the first place in II, in Manu and his followers in the last place but two. Yājñavalkya and Viṣṇu, it is true, do not expressly mention the two categories. All lay it down that if there are no sons really entitled to inherit, then the others must come into the inheritance according to their rank. The greater number, that is, Vas., Nār., Yājñ., and Viṣṇu in their six first classes have only actual children of the mother, no matter who the father may be. Vas., xvii, 22, 23, and Yājñ., ii, 129 (= Agnipur., 256.16) assert that the unmarried woman’s son belongs to the girl’s father, which sounds the more remarkable in that these two law teachers reckon the kānīna among the very members of the husband’s family who are entitled to inherit. Whether this prescription is only to hold when the mother does not marry is very much open to question.

v1.c6.119.3

The meaning is rather as follows: If the father has no sons, then that son of his daughter, whom she has borne in his own house, is his natural heir. Cp. Nārada, xii, 60; Meyer, Kauṭilya, p. 765 at foot. The usual doctrine is that the kānīna like the sahoḍha belongs to him that takes the mother to his house. So, for instance, Manu, ix, 172 f.; Viṣṇu, xv, 12, 17. In fact the great question in dispute is found running, too, through the law books: What is it that decides, field or seed? Manu, ix, 31 ff. and x, 70, declares that “the seed is more important”, and proves it without hesitation. But then it is shown, if possible still more clearly, that the field is all in all (ix, 42 ff.). Vasisṭha, xvii, 6 ff., does no more give the for and against; Āpast., ii, 6, 13.6 f. and Baudhāyana, ii, 2, 3.33 decide that the seed is the decisive thing (the son belongs to the begetter). Nārada, xiii, 17, and Parāçara, iv, 20 f. hold the opposite opinion; for according to Parāçara not only the kuṇḍa (son of the adulteress) but also the golaka (widow’s bastard) belongs to the husband, and Nārada also names the kānīna, sahoḍha, and gūḍhaja as son and heir of the husband. So also MBh. K, xiii, 84.9-12. Moreover Parāçara in iv, 22 gives only four classes of sons: aurasa, kṣetraja, datta, kṛtrima. But all twelve can be brought under these.

v1.c6.119.4

The Mahānirvāṇatantra teaches as to the kānīna, golaka, and kuṇḍa that they are like the atipātakin, cannot inherit, and do not bring uncleanness by their death, that they are therefore utter outsiders (xii, 82). Cp. Bṛhaspati, xxv, 41; Yājñav., i, 222 ff. It is a statement often found that he that is sprung of a begetting by proxy must—naturally in an emergency—bring the offering to If thus the many kinds of sons whom the wife has gathered elsewhere have their fixed place, recognized by law, in the husband’s family, it is probably due in the first place to the Indian passion for systematizing and their worship of tradition, and respect for the usage of different districts. That which once had been stated as a principle was dragged on faithfully down through the centuries, nay through thousands of years. But on the other hand the life to-day of our civilized mankind also, for instance, would really offer without a doubt quite as much, if not, indeed, far more, foundation for suchlike codifying of the fruits of women’s freedom in love. To speak only of one thing, it is no wonder that, in a land where sons—whether begotten by a man himself or not—meant so much, a man was often inclined just to enjoy such fruits without letting himself be worried over the question of whence the life-bringing pollen might have been wafted for them. We are not to draw from this the conclusion of a remarkable lack of morals, not even for earlier times.

v1.c6.119.5

The Epic, anyhow, gives no sure foundation whatever for such an assumption. It is true that in many regards the ethical feeling was still raw and undeveloped; for it the woman, indeed, was usually only a chattel; but of this we shall speak by and by. But is it truly any better among ourselves who have progressed so wonderfully?