________________
The Aurasa Son
129
Manu's position is ambivalent. The putrikāputra is not mentioned in the list of sons. On the other hand, on two occasions the son's son and the daughter's son (whom most commentators interpret as the son of a putrikā) are said to be equall4 :
pautradauhitrayor loke na viśeso 'sti dharmataḥ (9. 133ab);
pautradauhitrayor loke višeso ňopapadyate (9. 139ab).
Yājñvalkya goes farther, and clearly equates the putrikāputra with the aurasa :
auraso dharmapatnījas tatsamaḥ putrikāsutaḥ. (2. 128cd) 15
And so does Kautilya :
tena tulyaḥ putrikāputraḥ. (3. 7.5) When Brhaspati illustrates what it means to be a pratinidhi type of son, he excludes from that category not only the aurasa but the putrikāputra as well :
(26.78)
ajyam vină yathā tailaṁ sadbhih pratinidhikrtam tathaikādaśa putrās tu pautrikaurasayor vina. ||
What this means is that the rules regarding the aurasa son that will be discussed in the remaining pages of this article in the opinion of many also apply to the putrikāputra.
The aurasa being different from the superior to all other kinds of sons entails that he is entitled to special privileges. Most important are those related to inheritance. Without going into details which are beyond the scope of this study, I will just mention that, according to a number of sources, the aurasa alone inherits the paternal property to the exclusion of any other son. According to Manu :
eka evaurasah putrah pitryasya vasunah prabhuḥ śeşānām—ānrśamsyārthaṁ pradadyāt tu prajīvanam || (9. 163)
Similarly BỊhaspati, although again ranking the putrikāputra with the aurasa :
