The Sanskrit Epics, page 816
SECTION XLIII
“‘BHISHMA SAID, “BEHOLDING his disciple returned from his mission, Devasarman of great energy addressed him in words which I shall recite to thee O king!
“‘“Davasarman said, ‘What hast thou seen, O Vipula, in course of thy progress, O disciple, through the great forest? They whom thou hast seen knew thee, O Vipula. I, as also my spouse Ruchi, know how thou hadst acted in the matter of protecting Ruchi.’
“‘“Vipula said, ‘O regenerate Rishi, who are those two whom I first saw? Who also are those other six whom I saw subsequently? All of them know me: who, indeed, are they to whom thou alludest in thy speech to me?’
“‘“Devasarman said, ‘The first couple, O regenerate one, whom thou sawest, are Day and Night. They are ceaselessly moving like a circle. Both of them know the transgression of which thou hast been guilty, those other men (six in number) whom, O learned Brahmana, thou sawest playing cheerfully at dice, are the six Seasons. They also are acquainted with thy transgressions. Having committed a sin in secrecy, no sinful man should cherish the assuring thought that his transgression is known only to himself and not to any one else. When a man perpetrates a sinful deed in secret, the Seasons as also Day and Night behold it always. Those regions that are reserved for the sinful shall be thine (for what thou hast done). What thou hadst done thou didst not tell me. That thy sin was not known to any one, was thy belief, and this conviction had filled thee with joy. Thou didst not inform the preceptor of the whole truth, choosing to hide from him a material portion. The Seasons, and Day and Night, whom thou hast heard speak in that strain, thought it proper to remind thee of thy transgression. Day and Night and the Seasons are ever conversant of all the good and the bad deeds that are in a man. They spoke to thee in that way, O regenerate one, because they have full knowledge of what thou hadst done but which thou hadst not the courage to inform me of, fearing thou hadst done wrong. For this reason those regions that are reserved for the sinful will be thine as much. Thou didst not tell me what thou hadst done. Thou wert fully capable, O regenerate one, of protecting my spouse whose disposition by nature is sinful. In doing what thou didst, thou didst not commit any sin. I was, for this, gratified with thee! O best of Brahmanas, if I had known thee to have acted wickedly, I would without hesitation, have cursed thee. Women become united with men. Such union is very desirable with men. Thou hadst, however, protected my wife in a different spirit. If thou hadst acted otherwise, a curse would have been uttered upon thee. Even this is what I think. Thou hadst O son, protected my spouse. The manner in which thou didst it hath now become known to me as if thou hadst thyself informed me of it. I have, O son, become gratified with thee. Relieved of all anxiety, thou shalt go to heaven!’ Having said these words unto Vipula, the great Rishi Devasarman, ascended to heaven with his wife and his disciple and began to pass his time there in great happiness. In course of conversation, O king, on a former occasion, the great ascetic Markandeya had narrated to me this history on the banks of the Ganga. I, therefore, recite to thee. Women should always be protected by thee (from temptations and opportunities of every kind). Amongst them both kinds are to be seen, that is, those that are virtuous and those that are not so. Those women that are virtuous are highly blessed. They are the mothers of the universe (for they it is that cherish all creatures on every side). They it is, O king, that uphold the earth with all her waters and forests. Those women that are sinful, that are of wicked behaviour, that are the destroyers of their races, and that are wedded to sinful resolves, are capable of being ascertained by indications, expressive of the evil that is in them, which appear, O king, on their bodies. It is even thus that high-souled persons are capable of protecting women. They cannot, O tiger among kings, be protected in any other way. Women, O chief of men, are fierce. They are endued with fierce prowess. They have none whom they love or like so much as they that have sexual congress with them. Women are like those (Atharvan) incantations that are destructive of life. Even after they have consented to live with one, they are prepared to abandon him for entering into engagements with others. They are never satisfied with one person of the opposite sex, O son of Pandu! Men should feel no affection for them. Nor should they entertain any jealousy on account of them. O king, having a regard only for the considerations of virtue, men should enjoy their society, not with enthusiasm and attachment but with reluctance and absence of attachment. By acting otherwise, a man is sure to meet with destruction, O delighter of the Kurus. Reason is respected at all times and under all circumstances. Only one man, viz., Vipula, had succeeded in protecting woman. There is none else, O king, in the three worlds who is capable of protecting women.”’“
SECTION XLIV
“‘YUDHISHTHIRA SAID, “TELL me of that, O grandsire, which is the root of all duties, which is the root of kinsmen, of home, of the Pitris and of guests. I think this should be regarded as the foremost of all duties, (viz., the marriage of one’s daughter). Tell me, however, O king, upon what sort of a person should one bestow one’s daughter?”
“‘Bhishma said, “Having enquired into the conduct and disposition of the person, his learning and acquirements, his birth, and his acts, good people should then bestow their daughter upon accomplished bridegrooms. All righteous Brahmanas, O Yudhishthira, act in this way (in the matter of the bestowal of their daughters). This is known as the Brahma marriage, O Yudhishthira! Selecting an eligible bridegroom, the father of the girl should cause him to marry his daughter, having, by presents of diverse kinds, induced the bridegroom to that act. This form of marriage constitutes the eternal practice of all good Kshatriyas. When the father of the girl, disregarding his own wishes, bestows his daughter upon a person whom the daughter likes and who reciprocates the girl’s sentiments, the form of marriage, O Yudhishthira, is called Gandharva by those that are conversant with the Vedas. The wise have said this, O king, to be the practice of the Asuras, viz., wedding a girl after purchasing her at a high cost and after gratifying the cupidity of her kinsmen. Slaying and cutting off the heads of weeping kinsmen, the bridegroom sometimes forcibly takes away the girl he would wed. Such wedding, O son, is called by the name of Rakshasa. Of these five (the Brahma, the Kshatra, the Gandharva, the Asura, and the Rakshasa), three are righteous, O Yudhishthira, and two are unrighteous. The Paisacha and the Asura forms should never be resorted to.277 The Brahma, Kshatra, and Gandharva forms are righteous, O prince of men! Pure or mixed, these forms should be resorted to, without doubt. A Brahmana can take three wives. A Kshatriya can take two wives. As regards the Vaisya, he should take a wife from only his own order. The children born of these wives should all be regarded as equal.278 Of the three wives of a Brahmana, she taken from his own order should be regarded as the foremost. Similarly, of the two wives permitted to the Kshatriya, she taken from his own order should be regarded as superior. Some say that persons belonging to the three higher orders may take, only for purposes of enjoyment (and not for those of virtue), wives from the lowest or the Sudra order. Others, however, forbid the practice.
“‘“The righteous condemn the practice of begetting issue upon Sudra women. A Brahmana, by begetting children upon a Sudra woman, incurs the liability of performing an expiation. A person of thirty years of age should wed a girl of ten years of age called a Nagnika.279 Or, a person of one and twenty years of age should wed a girl of seven years of age. That girl who has no brother nor father should not be wed, O chief of Bharata’s race, for she may be intended as Putrika of her sire.280 After the appearance of puberty, the girl (if not married) should wait for three years. On the fourth year, she should look for a husband herself (without waiting any longer for her kinsmen to select one for her). The offspring of such a girl do not lose their respectability, nor does union with such a girl become disgraceful. If, instead of selecting a husband for herself, she acts otherwise, she incurs the reproach of Prajapati herself. One should wed that girl who is not a Sapinda of one’s mother or of the same Gotra with one’s father. Even this is the usage (consistent with the sacred law) which Manu has declared.”281
“‘Yudhishthira said, “Desirous of marriage someone actually gives a dower to the girl’s kinsmen; someone says, the girl’s kinsmen consenting promises to give a dower; someone says, ‘I shall abduct the girl by force;’ someone simply displays his wealth (to the girl’s kinsmen, intending to offer a portion thereof as dower for her); someone, again, actually takes the hand of the girl with rites of wedding. I ask thee, O grandsire, whose wife does the girl actually become? Unto its that are desirous of knowing the truth, thou art the eye with which to behold.”
“‘Bhishma said, “Whatever acts of men have been approved or settled in consultation by the wise, are seen to be productive of good. False speech, however, is always sinful.282 The girl herself that becomes wife, the sons born of her, the Ritwiks and preceptors and disciples and Upadhyayas present at the marriage all become liable to expiation if the girl bestow her hand upon a person other than he whom she had promised to wed. Some are of opinion that no expiation is necessary for such conduct. Manu does not applaud the practice of a girl living with a person whom she does not like.283 Living as wife with a person whom she does not like, leads to disgrace and sin. No one incurs much sin in any of these cases that follow. In forcibly abducting for marriage a girl that is bestowed upon the abductor by the girl’s kinsmen, with due rites, as also a girl for whom dower has been paid and accepted, there is no great sin. Upon the girl’s kinsmen having expressed their consent, Mantras and Homa should be resorted to. Such Mantras truly accomplish their purpose. Mantras and Homa recited and performed in the case of a girl that has not been bestowed by her kinsmen, do not accomplish their purpose. The engagement made by the kinsmen of a girl is, no doubt, binding and sacred. But the engagement that is entered into by the wedder and wedded, with the aid of Mantras, is very much more so (for it is this engagement that really creates the relationship of husband and wife). According to the dictates of the scriptures, the husband should regard his wife as an acquisition due to his own acts of a previous life or to what has been ordained by God. One, therefore, incurs no reproach by accepting for wife a girl that had been promised to another by her kinsmen or for whom dower had been accepted by them from another.”
“‘Yudhishthira said, “When after the receipt of dower for a girl, the girl’s sire sees a more eligible person present himself for her hand, — one, that is who is endued with the aggregate of Three in judicious proportions, does the girl’s sire incur reproach by rejecting the person from whom dower had been received in favour of him that is more eligible? In such a case either alternative seems to be fraught with fault, for to discard the person to whom the girl has been promised can never be honourable, while to reject the person that is more eligible can never be good (considering the solemn obligation there is of bestowing one’s daughter on the most eligible person). I ask, how should the sire conduct himself so that he might be said to do that which is beneficial? To us, of all duties this seems to demand the utmost measure of deliberation. We are desirous of ascertaining the truth. Thou, indeed, art our eyes! Do thou explain this to us. I am never satiated with listening to thee!”
“‘Bhishma said, “The gift of the dower does not cause the status of wife to attach to the girl. This is well-known to the person paying it. He pays it simply as the price of the girl. Then again they that are good never bestow their daughters, led by the dowers that others may offer. When the person desirous of wedding happens to be endued with such qualities as do not go down with the girl’s kinsmen, it is then that kinsmen demand dower from him. That person, however, who won over by another’s accomplishments, addresses him, saying, ‘Do thou wed my girl, adorning her with proper ornaments of gold and gems,’ — and that person who complies with this request, cannot be said to demand dower or give it, for such a transaction is not really a sale. The bestowal of a daughter upon acceptance of what may strictly be regarded as gifts (of affection or love) is the eternal practice. In matters of marriage some fathers say, ‘I shall not bestow my daughter upon such and such a person;’ some say, ‘I shall bestow my daughter upon such a one.’ — Some again say with vehemence, ‘I must bestow my daughter upon such an individual.’ These declarations do not amount to actual marriage. People are seen to solicit one another for the hands of maidens (and promise and retreat). Till the hand is actually taken with due rites, marriage cannot be said to take place. It has been heard by us that even this was the boon granted to men in days of old by the Maruts in respect of maidens284 The Rishis have laid the command upon all men that maidens should never be bestowed upon persons unless the latter happen to be most fit or eligible. The daughter is the root of desire and of descendants of the collateral line. Even this is what I think.285 The practice has been known to human beings from a long time, — the practice, of sale and purchase of the daughter. In consequence of such familiarity with the practice, thou mayst be able, upon careful examination, to find innumerable faults in it. The gift or acceptance of dower alone could not be regarded as creating the status of husband and wife. Listen to what I say on this head.
“‘“Formerly, having defeated all the Magadhas, the Kasis, and the Kosalas, I brought away by force two maidens for Vichitravirya. One of those two maidens was wedded with due rites. The other maiden was not formally wedded on the ground that she was one for whom dowry had been paid in the form of valour. My uncle of Kuru’s race, viz., king Valhika, said that the maiden so brought away and not wedded with due rites should be set free. That maiden, therefore, was recommended to Vichitravirya for being married by him according to due rites. Doubting my father’s words I repaired to others for asking their opinion. I thought that my sire was exceedingly punctilious in matters of morality. I then went to my sire himself, O king, and addressed him these words from desire of knowing something about the practices of righteous people in respect of marriage, ‘I desire, O sire, to know what in truth the practices are of righteous people.’ I repeated the expression of my wish several times, so great was my eagerness and curiosity. After I had uttered those words, that foremost of righteous men, viz., my sire, Valhika answered me, saying, ‘If in your opinion the status of husband and wife be taken to attach on account of the gift and acceptance of dowry and not from the actual taking of the maiden’s hand with due rites, the father of the maiden (by permitting his daughter to go away with the giver of the dowry) would so himself to be the follower of a creed other than that which is derivable from the ordinary scriptures. Even this is what the accepted scriptures declare. Persons conversant with morality and duty do not allow that their words are at all authoritative who say that the status of husband and wife arises from the gift and acceptance of dowry, and not from the actual taking of the hand with due rites. The saying is well-known that the status of husband and wife is created by actual bestowal of the daughter by the sire (and her acceptance by the husband with due rites). The status of wife cannot attach to maidens through sale and purchase. They who regard such status to be due to sale and the gift of dowry are persons that are certainly unacquainted with the scriptures. No one should bestow his daughter upon such persons. In fact, they are not men to whom one may marry his daughter. A wife should never be purchased. Nor should a father sell his daughter. Only those persons of sinful soul who are possessed, besides, by cupidity, and who sell and purchase female slaves for making serving women, regard the status of wife as capable of arising from the gift and acceptance of a dowry. On this subject some people on one occasion had asked prince Satyavat the following question, “If the giver of a dowry unto the kinsmen of a maiden happens to die before marriage, can another person take the hand of that maiden in marriage? We have doubts on this matter. Do thou remove these doubts of ours, for thou art endued with great wisdom and art honoured by the wise. Be thou the organ of vision unto ourselves that are desirous of learning the truth.” Prince Satyavat answered saying, “The kinsmen of the maiden should bestow her upon him whom they consider eligible. There need be no scruples in this. The righteous act in this way without taking note of the giver of the dower even if he be alive; while, as regards the giver that is dead, there is not the slightest doubt. Some say that the virgin wife or widow, — one, that is, whose marriage has not been consummated with her husband by actual sexual congress in consequence of his absence or death, — may be allowed to unite herself with her husband’s younger brother or such other relation. The husband dying before such consummation, the virgin-widow may either surrender herself to her husband’s younger brother or betake herself to the practice of penances. In the opinion of some, the younger brother of the husband or such other relation may thus use the unused wife or widow, though others maintain that such practice, notwithstanding its prevalence, springs from desire instead of being a scriptural ordinance. They that say so are clearly of opinion that the father of a maiden has the right to bestow her upon any eligible person, disregarding the dowry previously given by another and accepted by himself. If after the hand of a maiden has been promised all the initial rites before marriage be performed, the maiden may still be bestowed upon a person other than the one unto whom she had been promised. Only the giver incurs the sin of falsehood: so far, however, as the status of wife is concerned, no injury can occur thereto. The Mantras in respect of marriage accomplish their object of bringing about the indissoluble union of marriage at the seventh step. The maiden becomes the wife of him unto whom the gift is actually made with water.286 The gift of maidens should be made in the following way. The wise know it for certain. A superior Brahmana should wed a maiden that is not unwilling, that belongs to a family equal to his own in purity or status, and that is given away by her brother. Such a girl should be wed in the presence of fire, with due rites, causing her, amongst other things, to circumambulate for the usual number of times.”’“‘“
