Datasets:
sidhellman
/
clean_data.txt

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
182
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 himself 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 beard by us that' even this was the boon granted to men in days of old by the Maruts in respect of maidens[284]. 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