Datasets:
sidhellman
/
clean_data.txt

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
182
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."
SECTION XLV
"Yudhishthira said, 'If a person, after having given dowry for a maiden, goes away, how should the maiden's father or other
kinsmen who are competent to bestow her, act? Do tell me this, O grandsire!'
"Bhishma said, 'Such a maiden, if she happens to be the daughter of a sonless and rich father, should be maintained by the
father (in view of the return of him who has given the dowry). Indeed, if the father does not return the dowry unto the kinsmen
of the giver, the maiden should be regarded as belonging to the giver of the dowry. She may even raise offspring for the giver
(during his absence) by any of those means that are laid down in the scriptures. No person, however, can be competent to wed
her according to due rites. Commanded by her sire, the princess Savitri had in days of old chosen a husband and united herself
with him. This act of hers is applauded by some; but others conversant with the scriptures, condemn it. Others that are
righteous have not acted in this way. Others hold that the conduct of the righteous should ever be regarded as the foremost
evidence of duty or morality.[287] Upon this subject Sukratu, the grandson of the high-souled Janaka, the ruler of the Videhas,
has declared the following opinion. There is the well-known declaration of the scriptures that women are incompetent to enjoy
freedom at any period of their life. If this were not the path trodden by the righteous, how could this scriptural declaration
exist? As regards the righteous, therefore, how can there be any question or doubt in respect of this matter? How can people
condemn that declaration by choosing to conduct themselves otherwise? The unrighteous dereliction of eternal usage is
regarded as the practice of the Asuras. Such practice we never hear of in the conduct of the ancients[288] the relationship of
husband and wife is very subtile (having reference to the acquisition of destiny, and, therefore, capable of being understood
with the aid of only the inspired declarations in scriptures). It is different from the natural relationship of male and female
which consists only in the desire for sexual pleasure. This also was said by the king alluded to of Janaka's race.'[289]
"Yudhishthira said, 'Upon what authority is the wealth of men inherited (by others when they happen to have daughters)? In
respect of her sire the daughter should be regarded the same as the son.'
"Bhishma said, 'The son is even as one's own self, and the daughter is like unto the son. How, therefore, can another take the
wealth when one lives in one's own self in the form of one's daughter? Whatever wealth is termed the Yautuka property of the
mother, forms the portion of the maiden daughter. If the maternal grandfather happens to die without leaving sons, the
daughter's son should inherit it. The daughter's son offers pindas to his own father and the father of his mother. Hence, in
accordance with considerations of justice, there is no difference between the son and the daughter's son. When a person has got
only a daughter and she has been invested by him with the status of a son, if he then happens to have a son, such a son (instead
of taking all the wealth of his sire) shares the inheritance with the daughter.[290] When, again, a person has got a daughter and
she has been invested by him with the status of a son, if he then happens to take a son by adoption or purchase then the
daughter is held to be superior to such a son (for she takes three shares of her father's wealth, the son's share being limited to
only the remaining two). In the following case I do not see any reason why the status of a daughter's son should attach to the
sons of one's daughter. The case is that of the daughter who has been sold by her sire. The sons born of a daughter that has been
sold by her sire for actual price, belong exclusively to their father (even if he do not beget them himself but obtain them
according to the rules laid down in the scriptures for the raising of issue through the agency of others). Such sons can never
belong, even as daughter's sons, to their maternal grandfather in consequence of his having sold their mother for a price and
lost all his rights in or to her by that act.[291] Such sons, again, become full of malice, unrighteous in conduct, the
misappropriators of other people's wealth, and endued with deceit and cunning. Having sprung from that sinful form of
marriage called Asura, the issue becomes wicked in conduct. Persons acquainted with the histories of olden times, conversant
with duties, devoted to the scriptures and firm in maintaining the restraints therein laid down, recite in this connection some
metrical lines sung in days of yore by Yama. Even this is what Yama had sung. That man who acquires wealth by selling his
own son, or who bestows his daughter after accepting a dower for his own livelihood, has to sink in seven terrible hells one
after another, known by the name of Kalasutra. There that wretch has to feed upon sweat and urine and stools during the whole
time. In that form of marriage which is called Arsha, the person who weds has to give a bull and a cow and the father of the
maiden accepts the gift. Some characterise this gift as a dowry (or price), while some are of opinion that it should not be
regarded in that light. The true opinion, however, is that a gift for such a purpose, be it of small value or large, should, O king,
be regarded as dowry or price, and the bestowal of the daughter under such circumstances should be viewed as a sale.
Notwithstanding the fact of its having been practised by a few persons it can never be taken as the eternal usage. Other forms
of marriage are seen, practised by men, such as marrying girls after abducting them by force from amidst their kinsmen. Those
persons who have sexual intercourse with a maiden, after reducing her to subjection by force, are regarded as perpetrators of
sin. They have to sink in darkest hell.[292] Even a human being with whom one has no relationship of blood should not form