Sexual Life in Ancient India: A Study in the Comparative History of Indian Culture v1.c6.119.3

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.