Sexual Life in Ancient India: A Study in the Comparative History of Indian Culture v1.c6.119.4

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.