Sexual Life in Ancient India: A Study in the Comparative History of Indian Culture v1.c6.93

v1.c6.93

sahoḍha, gūḍhaja (and paunarbhava). Manu first allows and describes the niyoga, and then absolutely forbids it. Bṛhaspati finds the explanation in its not being fitting in this present evil age. Cp. Bühler's Manu, p. xciv, and Bṛhaspati, xxiv, 14. On the levirate son begotten in the prescribed way there rests no stain, but such a stain there is if the matter has not been rightly carried out. Gautama in xxviii, 23 declares that where the widow has still a brother-in-law, her son called into life by another man cannot inherit. Nārada, xii, 48, indeed, applies to the woman who is given by her kinsfolk to a sapiṇḍa, there being no brother-in-law, the abusive term "married again". The main passages dealing with the niyoga, especially of the widow, are : Manu, ix, 58 ff. ; 143 ff. ; Baudh., ii, 2, 4.7 ff. (= ii, 2.69 ff.) ; Gautama, xviii, 4 ff. ; Yājñav., i, 68 f. ; Bṛhaspati, xxiv, 12 ; Vas., xvii, 55 ff. ; Nārada, xii, 80 ff. (cp. 48, 50). The two last-named law teachers, especially Nārada, are very detailed and characteristic. Yājñav., i, 68 f., probably has reference to the niyoga of the widow as the commentators understand it. If we take the words, it is true that the husband might be still alive, and even be what is meant by guru. Moreover, the same law teacher says that the kṣhetraja has been begotten with a sagotra (a kinsman bearing the same family-name) or "another man" (ii, 128). The addition of "man" would probably be more natural than the "kinsman" of the commentators. On the other hand Yājñav. condemns him that goes to the brother's wife without an injunction as strongly as the other law-givers. Cp. especially Kauṭilya (transl.), Index under "Vikariatszeugung". [From Melanesia for indirect reference to the Levirate idea cp. G. C. Wheeler, Mono-Alu Folklore, p. 41 (Translator).]