Sexual Life in Ancient India: A Study in the Comparative History of Indian Culture v1.c6.89

v1.c6.89

¹ The tale in its form to-day has been naturally much changed. At first Bhīshma evidently really did fulfil his brotherly duty, and became the father of Pāṇḍu and Dhṛitarāshṭra. See xi, 23.24. That has already been shown by Ludwig, and Holtzmann after him (*Das Mahābh. u. seine Teile*, i, 154 ff. ; ii, 172 ; iv, 193). Then Vyāsa was brought in, perhaps not only through Brahmanic pride, but because, too, the tale of Bhīshma’s vow of chastity now stood in the way; for the false relation of the ages for the two tales is less likely. But it is only to his Brahmanhood that Vyāsa owed this honour, not to his threadbare-thin authorization as a kinsman. This can clearly be seen from Pāṇḍu’s own words in i, 120.22, 23, and just as clearly from his speech to Kuntī, if we compare 122.23, 24 with 122.21, 22 and 121.35-41. So, too, our tale itself shows that it is as a Brahman that Vyāsa is to come in. According to i, 2.101 it was also a varadāna. But in the end offence was perhaps taken to this “singing the praises” of the “gods of the earth”, and “gods of the gods”, remarkable as that might seem, if the alteration here sprang from a Brahmanic source. Arjuna, nearly always so correct from the priestly standpoint, indeed calls out very angrily : “What grounds had King Kalmāshapāda, then, in his thoughts for assigning (samniyojita) his wife to his teacher, the best of the Brahma-knowers ? Why did the high-minded Vasishṭha, who yet knows the highest holy law, the great Ṛishi, thus lie with her that for him was not for lying with ? It is unlawful that Vasishṭha did in former days” (i, 182.1 ff.). Then recourse was had to the levirate the levirate is at least well enough known to the heroes of the Mahābh. for them to use it in comparisons. So in xiii, 8.22 : “ As the woman when her husband dies makes the brother-in-law 1 her husband, so the earth makes the Kshattriya her