Makaranda Madhukar Anand Mahendale Festshrift

Author(s): M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre

Page 148

137
The Aurasa Son
English law." This decision drew strong criticism from Gooroodass Banerjee : "with every respect due to the decision of the highest tribunal for India, I may be permitted to say that the doctrine of procreation in lawful wedlock is necessary to constitute legitimacy, is not only supported by the language of the texts cited above, but is also in accordance with the general spirit of the Hindu law, by which the nuptial rites are primarily meant only for girls (note : Manu 8. 226); while the necessity of marrying girls before puberty, reduces the practical inconvenience of the doctrine within the narrowest possible limits."
(Marriage and Stridhana, 3rd ed., 1913, p. 166). 19. Although Kullūka does not say so explicitly, he may have been influenced here
by several smrti texts which require that a bride be ananyapūrvā "not having belonged to another man.” Cf. Yājñavalkya 1. 52 ananyapūrvikā, Āpastamba 2.
6. 13. 1 apūrvā, etc. 20. One might be tempted to read the same requirement into Āpastamba 2. 6. 13.
1-4, were it not that Āpastamba's is the only text that is brief and vague on the subject of sons, to the extent of not mentioning any of the 12 kinds of sons by name. Yet, Āpastamba distinguishes between two types of sons : (1) sons begotten on a woman who is savarnā, apūrvā, and śāstravihită, and (2) sons by a woman who is pūrvavatī, by one who is asaṁskrtā, and sons begotten varnāntare maithune. The privileges of the first type of sons (teşāṁ karmabhiḥ sambandhah, dāyenāvyatikramas-ca) have been differently interpreted. In the second case there is dosa on the part of the father (or the parents ?), and, more important, the son (tatrāpi dosavān putra eva). Based on Pāṇini 5. 3. 14, according to which the suffix-tra in tatra can have other meanings than that of the locative, Haradatta interprets the latter sentence as follows: tābhyamubhābhyām-api putra evātiśayena dosavān. This seems to indicate that for Āpastamba and, even more so for his commentator Haradatta, the son of an
asavarna marriage did not qualify as an aurasa. 21. Similarly, Sarvajñanārāyaṇa (on the same verse): svakşetre svasavarnaksetre. 22. The term dharmavivāhodha may imply that, in Vijñaneśvara's opinion, the
parents' wedding must have been one of the "higher," not one of the "lower" types of wedding. Cf. Viśvarūpa's Balakrīdā (on the same verse) : savarnā brāhmādivivāhasaṁskrtă dharmapatni.