Courtesy : Mr.Raj Pundit
==================
Namaskar
First and foremost we must appreciate that many of our practices (prathA) are not according to smRiti rather based on deshAchAra. Just because they occur, does not endorse them with legitimacy.
For dvija the primary purpose of vivAha saMskAra is to produce ‘dharma-yukta-santAna’; offspring which will be imbibed with dharma and uphold its tenets. Therefore a number of factors are considered prior to union.
* Among the dvijAti a bride of the same caste is commendable for wifehood; savarNAgre dvijAtinAM prashastA dArakarmaNi | Manu III.1
* The family of both bride and groom should be carefully examined; kulamagre parIksheta mAtRtaH pitRtashcheti | Ashva.Grihyasutra I.5
* For Brahmins only the family is important in marriage; that they be Brahmin is paramount. All other factors (education, vedashAkha etc) are secondary: brAhmaNasyam kulaM grAhya na vedA sapadakramAH |Vishnu.
* KulInatA (family reputation) is imperative and the optimum defined as : dasha-puruSha-vikhyAtA-ch-chhotrIyANAM mahAkulAt |yagnavalkya I.54
that families of Shrotriyas famous from ten generations are good ones for marriage. VigyAneshvara refers to families from five generations both maternal and paternal sides that are reputed for their learning and character.
1. Those suffering from various impediments, diseases or congenital disorders are to be avoided. (vide Manu iii. 6 & Yama -Viramitrodaya Samskara vol.ii p.56). The reason for this is given by Harita, offspring are born according to families “kulAnurUpAH prajA sambhavanti†Manu also reiterates this point (vide iii.63).
2. Then the couple should be matched according to their temperament, disposition etc. through the aid of jyotiSha.
It is definitely considered improper to marry a cross-cousin (paternal aunt’s child, or maternal uncle’s/ aunt’s child) or sister’s daughter but more so for the Brahmins. Here is the pramaan :
asapiNDA cha yA mAtura- sagotrA cha yA pituH|
sA prashastA dvijAtInAM dArakarmaNi maithune|| Manu III.5
In terms of the statutes of a bride for all ‘dvija’ (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya) smRiti enjoins:
“She who is not descended from his maternal or paternal ancestors, within the sixth degree and who is not of the same gotra as his mother or father is eligible by a dvija for nuptials and union (copulation).â€
By sixth degree this means one’s wife should not be of the gotra of the following:
1. Father ( any sagotra)
2. Mother (any one of maternal gotra)
3. Father’s mother’s paternal gotra
4. Father’s mother’s maternal gotra
5. Mother’s father’s maternal gotra
6. Mother’s mother’s paternal gotra
In orthodox Brahmins this statute is still adhered to however in any event, smRti instructs us not to marry anyone having the same gotra as our father or mother:
anugyAto dArAn-kurvIta| asagotrAn| mAtura-sapiNDA |Gobh. Grih.Sutra III.4
“(A student, after he has studied the Veda), should, with the permission (of his parents), take a wife. One who does not belong to the same Gotra and who is not a sapinDA relation of his mother.â€
Pravara is another consideration; three or five are considered and they should not be common.
The mother’s family are considered the custodian of their daughter and her offspring, nephews and nieces. The term for daughter in Sanskrit is dauhitR ‘one who draws milk from her mother’ and the offspring of the daughter are termed ‘dauhitra’-nephew, and ‘dauhitRI’-niece, who are considered the ‘purohita’ and giving gifts and honouring just one of them is equivalent to worshipping 100 Brahmins. The name for the maternal uncle (mother’s brother) is ‘mAmA’ in many northern dialects and considered the equivalent of two mothers (mA+mA). At the time of marriage of his sister he places lAjA (parched paddy) in the cupped hands of his sister when she circumambulates Agni during the pheras (lAjA homam) denoting his role in safeguarding his sister’s honour and that of her progeny. The maternal family consider their daughter as a sapling which like the paddy seedling once germinated must be transplanted to the home of the husband
(paddy field) at the time of vivAha where she grows into a plant. The crop of this plant i.e. her children are dear to them (because they initially planted the seedling and are joyous when it bears fruit); that is why the mother’s family are involved in every important rite of passage in their daughter’s children’s lives (muNDaNa-chuDAkaranam, upAnayanama, vivAha, antyeShThi etc.)
For the above reason and the dictates of shAstra, the practice of consanguineous marriage appears not to be in accordance with our scriptures, though clearly this has not precluded it from happening among some Hindu communities.
Therefore in light of the above-mentioned scriptural citations we would humbly point out that our scriptures do oppose sagotra marriages and would invite our learned brethren to validate consanguineous marriage and proffer vidhi-vidhAna-pramANa from our scriptures.
We would alert those who have tried to explain matters of dharma through scientific explanation and would respectfully advise learned vipra not to resort to such measures; whatever other books or sciences may say, their views and laws or principles cannot be taken into account in this matter. In it, they have no place, no status, no locus standi or use whatsoever. Because, the subject matter of these is matter, material sciences, material world and the life here; while that of the Scriptures, is Dharma which also concerns what cannot be known by them. It deals with that also: the supernatural, metaphysical and spiritual, and the life not only here but hereafter as well.
That is why they say, the above books or sciences are to be rejected when dealing with the questions of Dharma. They are of no use in it:
yaa veda-baahyaah-smritayo yaashch kaashch kudrishtayah/
sarvaas-taa nish-phalaah pretya, tamo-nishtthaa hi taah smritaah//
Dharma is what the Vedas and Smritis propound.. In fact, Dharma expounded by them alone is Dharma; not any other. Any other would be a Dharma-aabhaas. On Dharma, they are the only source and authority.
Shruti Smriti vihito dharmah. (Vash. Dharma Sutra. 1:4:6)
Shruti-smriti vihito dharmah. (Vaadhool.)
Shruti-smriti-bhyaam yat sa dharmah prakeertitah. ()Devi Bhaa. 7:39:5
Shruti Smriti vihito dharmah. (Vash. Sm. 1:3)
Vedoktah paramo dharmah smriti shaastra gato aparah/
Shishtaa-cheerno aparah proktas-tryo dharmah sanaatanah// MB Anu. 141:65
Those who have had no education of the Vedas, learnt not even the early chapters of even one of them, and are not learned in even a single Smriti; how can they be able to determine Dharma and pronounce a judgement on it?
They can decide anything, expound anything, or declare anything; but it is not going to be, nor it can be -Dharma, or worthy of being accepted by that name.
The Scriptures have clearly stated: Words of even a single knower of the Vedas is to be known and accepted as Dharma; but not that of million others! In fact, one who believes in, and has an abiding faith in the sanctity and authority of the Vedaadi Scriptures is an Aastika.
eko-api veda-vid-dharmam yam-vya-vasyed dvijottamah/
sa vigyeyah paro dharmo na-agyaanaam-udito-ayutaih//
The decision taken by an organisation like shastra.org (most of whom would be Veda-illiterates) cannot become Dharma. Would a decision taken by it, say, on Mathematics or Physics, also become their Law?
The Scriptures have further stated: If it is felt that a certain point is not clear in its particulars; then what the Shishta Braahmanaas say should be accepted as Dharma:
Anaamnaateshu dharmeshu katham syaat-iti ched-bhavet/
Yam shishtaah braahmanaah brooyuh sa dharmah syaad-ashankitah//
Who these Shishta Braahmanaas are; they have said:
Dharmena-adhigato yaistu vedah sa-pari-brihnganah//
Te shishta brahmana geyah shruti-pratyaksh hetavah//
(Those who have gained knowledge of the Vedas with their appendages (angaas and upaangaas), and confirmed their truths by examination, are Shishtas.)
As stated before, for deciding such a question on sagotra marriages, the Scriptures have advised formation of a Sabha of ten Shishta Braahmanaas; and where they were not available, of three. The vyavasthaa given by them is to be accepted and not transgressed:
Dashaavaraa vaa parishadyam dharmam parikalpayet/
Tray-varaa vaapi vritasthaa tam dharmam na vichaalayet//
Of those ten, one each is to be a scholar of each of the four Vedas, and the rest of Nyaya, Meemansaa, Nirukta and Manu aadi Dharma Shastras who belong to the first three Ashramas. The vyavasthaa given by them is to be accepted; but not of even ten thousands others:
trai-vidyo hetukas-tarkee nairukto dharma-paathakah/
trayash-cha aashraminah poorve, parishat-syaat-dashaavaraa//
avrataa-naam-amantraa-naam jaati-maatra-upa-jeevinaam/
sahasra-shah sametaa-naam parishatvam na vidyate//
We would also like to submit here that to give vyavasthaa on a point of Dharma is the duty and prerogative of the Dharma-Acharyas; who, as the name suggests, are our highest teachers of Dharma. It is they who are entitled, authorised and empowered to decide and adjudicate such points; not common people like we who may be ignorant of even the language in which the Scriptures are written.
How shall they determine correctly what is Dharma and what is not? Those who are mere logicians are not called faithfuls or Believers, but Nastikas.
While deciding such matters, we should also not forget that the Dharmicness or otherwise of our actions is to be judged by Dharma Raj after death. And, he does not consider or take into account opinions or decisions of any such panels while doing that.
The Muslims do not decide like that. The Christians, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Baudhs none of them decide like that. How is it that we the English educated Anglicised Hindus alone are doing it? Are we not afraid of the ill consequences? Have we no fear of the danDa of Dharma Raj that we take the matter of Dharma so casually? Our’s is a Dharma; and it is called Sanatan Dharma, meaning Eternal Dharma. How can it be determined or arbitrated upon by anyone who has not gained proper authentic knowledge of the Sanskrit language and the Scriptures: the Vedas and their Angas and Upangas, from traditional teachers, and in a traditional manner?
If some anglicised and deluded 'Hindus' want to pave a way to naraka through abadoning the very precepts of dharma with purported 'good intentions' and 'political correctness' then so be it; they will verily receive the fruits of their karma. However kindly do not lead others down this slippery slope just to reassure you that you will not be alone when you will have to leave your earthly abode and embark on the journey to kumbhipAka.
Pranaam
knr
--
If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it.
Happy moments, praise God.
Difficult moments, seek God.
Quiet moments, worship God.
Painful moments, trust God.
Every moment, thank God
First and foremost we must appreciate that many of our practices (prathA) are not according to smRiti rather based on deshAchAra. Just because they occur, does not endorse them with legitimacy.
For dvija the primary purpose of vivAha saMskAra is to produce ‘dharma-yukta-santAna’; offspring which will be imbibed with dharma and uphold its tenets. Therefore a number of factors are considered prior to union.
* Among the dvijAti a bride of the same caste is commendable for wifehood; savarNAgre dvijAtinAM prashastA dArakarmaNi | Manu III.1
* The family of both bride and groom should be carefully examined; kulamagre parIksheta mAtRtaH pitRtashcheti | Ashva.Grihyasutra I.5
* For Brahmins only the family is important in marriage; that they be Brahmin is paramount. All other factors (education, vedashAkha etc) are secondary: brAhmaNasyam kulaM grAhya na vedA sapadakramAH |Vishnu.
* KulInatA (family reputation) is imperative and the optimum defined as : dasha-puruSha-vikhyAtA-ch-chhotrIyANAM mahAkulAt |yagnavalkya I.54
that families of Shrotriyas famous from ten generations are good ones for marriage. VigyAneshvara refers to families from five generations both maternal and paternal sides that are reputed for their learning and character.
1. Those suffering from various impediments, diseases or congenital disorders are to be avoided. (vide Manu iii. 6 & Yama -Viramitrodaya Samskara vol.ii p.56). The reason for this is given by Harita, offspring are born according to families “kulAnurUpAH prajA sambhavanti†Manu also reiterates this point (vide iii.63).
2. Then the couple should be matched according to their temperament, disposition etc. through the aid of jyotiSha.
It is definitely considered improper to marry a cross-cousin (paternal aunt’s child, or maternal uncle’s/ aunt’s child) or sister’s daughter but more so for the Brahmins. Here is the pramaan :
asapiNDA cha yA mAtura- sagotrA cha yA pituH|
sA prashastA dvijAtInAM dArakarmaNi maithune|| Manu III.5
In terms of the statutes of a bride for all ‘dvija’ (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya) smRiti enjoins:
“She who is not descended from his maternal or paternal ancestors, within the sixth degree and who is not of the same gotra as his mother or father is eligible by a dvija for nuptials and union (copulation).â€
By sixth degree this means one’s wife should not be of the gotra of the following:
1. Father ( any sagotra)
2. Mother (any one of maternal gotra)
3. Father’s mother’s paternal gotra
4. Father’s mother’s maternal gotra
5. Mother’s father’s maternal gotra
6. Mother’s mother’s paternal gotra
In orthodox Brahmins this statute is still adhered to however in any event, smRti instructs us not to marry anyone having the same gotra as our father or mother:
anugyAto dArAn-kurvIta| asagotrAn| mAtura-sapiNDA |Gobh. Grih.Sutra III.4
“(A student, after he has studied the Veda), should, with the permission (of his parents), take a wife. One who does not belong to the same Gotra and who is not a sapinDA relation of his mother.â€
Pravara is another consideration; three or five are considered and they should not be common.
The mother’s family are considered the custodian of their daughter and her offspring, nephews and nieces. The term for daughter in Sanskrit is dauhitR ‘one who draws milk from her mother’ and the offspring of the daughter are termed ‘dauhitra’-nephew, and ‘dauhitRI’-niece, who are considered the ‘purohita’ and giving gifts and honouring just one of them is equivalent to worshipping 100 Brahmins. The name for the maternal uncle (mother’s brother) is ‘mAmA’ in many northern dialects and considered the equivalent of two mothers (mA+mA). At the time of marriage of his sister he places lAjA (parched paddy) in the cupped hands of his sister when she circumambulates Agni during the pheras (lAjA homam) denoting his role in safeguarding his sister’s honour and that of her progeny. The maternal family consider their daughter as a sapling which like the paddy seedling once germinated must be transplanted to the home of the husband
(paddy field) at the time of vivAha where she grows into a plant. The crop of this plant i.e. her children are dear to them (because they initially planted the seedling and are joyous when it bears fruit); that is why the mother’s family are involved in every important rite of passage in their daughter’s children’s lives (muNDaNa-chuDAkaranam, upAnayanama, vivAha, antyeShThi etc.)
For the above reason and the dictates of shAstra, the practice of consanguineous marriage appears not to be in accordance with our scriptures, though clearly this has not precluded it from happening among some Hindu communities.
Therefore in light of the above-mentioned scriptural citations we would humbly point out that our scriptures do oppose sagotra marriages and would invite our learned brethren to validate consanguineous marriage and proffer vidhi-vidhAna-pramANa from our scriptures.
We would alert those who have tried to explain matters of dharma through scientific explanation and would respectfully advise learned vipra not to resort to such measures; whatever other books or sciences may say, their views and laws or principles cannot be taken into account in this matter. In it, they have no place, no status, no locus standi or use whatsoever. Because, the subject matter of these is matter, material sciences, material world and the life here; while that of the Scriptures, is Dharma which also concerns what cannot be known by them. It deals with that also: the supernatural, metaphysical and spiritual, and the life not only here but hereafter as well.
That is why they say, the above books or sciences are to be rejected when dealing with the questions of Dharma. They are of no use in it:
yaa veda-baahyaah-smritayo yaashch kaashch kudrishtayah/
sarvaas-taa nish-phalaah pretya, tamo-nishtthaa hi taah smritaah//
Dharma is what the Vedas and Smritis propound.. In fact, Dharma expounded by them alone is Dharma; not any other. Any other would be a Dharma-aabhaas. On Dharma, they are the only source and authority.
Shruti Smriti vihito dharmah. (Vash. Dharma Sutra. 1:4:6)
Shruti-smriti vihito dharmah. (Vaadhool.)
Shruti-smriti-bhyaam yat sa dharmah prakeertitah. ()Devi Bhaa. 7:39:5
Shruti Smriti vihito dharmah. (Vash. Sm. 1:3)
Vedoktah paramo dharmah smriti shaastra gato aparah/
Shishtaa-cheerno aparah proktas-tryo dharmah sanaatanah// MB Anu. 141:65
Those who have had no education of the Vedas, learnt not even the early chapters of even one of them, and are not learned in even a single Smriti; how can they be able to determine Dharma and pronounce a judgement on it?
They can decide anything, expound anything, or declare anything; but it is not going to be, nor it can be -Dharma, or worthy of being accepted by that name.
The Scriptures have clearly stated: Words of even a single knower of the Vedas is to be known and accepted as Dharma; but not that of million others! In fact, one who believes in, and has an abiding faith in the sanctity and authority of the Vedaadi Scriptures is an Aastika.
eko-api veda-vid-dharmam yam-vya-vasyed dvijottamah/
sa vigyeyah paro dharmo na-agyaanaam-udito-ayutaih//
The decision taken by an organisation like shastra.org (most of whom would be Veda-illiterates) cannot become Dharma. Would a decision taken by it, say, on Mathematics or Physics, also become their Law?
The Scriptures have further stated: If it is felt that a certain point is not clear in its particulars; then what the Shishta Braahmanaas say should be accepted as Dharma:
Anaamnaateshu dharmeshu katham syaat-iti ched-bhavet/
Yam shishtaah braahmanaah brooyuh sa dharmah syaad-ashankitah//
Who these Shishta Braahmanaas are; they have said:
Dharmena-adhigato yaistu vedah sa-pari-brihnganah//
Te shishta brahmana geyah shruti-pratyaksh hetavah//
(Those who have gained knowledge of the Vedas with their appendages (angaas and upaangaas), and confirmed their truths by examination, are Shishtas.)
As stated before, for deciding such a question on sagotra marriages, the Scriptures have advised formation of a Sabha of ten Shishta Braahmanaas; and where they were not available, of three. The vyavasthaa given by them is to be accepted and not transgressed:
Dashaavaraa vaa parishadyam dharmam parikalpayet/
Tray-varaa vaapi vritasthaa tam dharmam na vichaalayet//
Of those ten, one each is to be a scholar of each of the four Vedas, and the rest of Nyaya, Meemansaa, Nirukta and Manu aadi Dharma Shastras who belong to the first three Ashramas. The vyavasthaa given by them is to be accepted; but not of even ten thousands others:
trai-vidyo hetukas-tarkee nairukto dharma-paathakah/
trayash-cha aashraminah poorve, parishat-syaat-dashaavaraa//
avrataa-naam-amantraa-naam jaati-maatra-upa-jeevinaam/
sahasra-shah sametaa-naam parishatvam na vidyate//
We would also like to submit here that to give vyavasthaa on a point of Dharma is the duty and prerogative of the Dharma-Acharyas; who, as the name suggests, are our highest teachers of Dharma. It is they who are entitled, authorised and empowered to decide and adjudicate such points; not common people like we who may be ignorant of even the language in which the Scriptures are written.
How shall they determine correctly what is Dharma and what is not? Those who are mere logicians are not called faithfuls or Believers, but Nastikas.
While deciding such matters, we should also not forget that the Dharmicness or otherwise of our actions is to be judged by Dharma Raj after death. And, he does not consider or take into account opinions or decisions of any such panels while doing that.
The Muslims do not decide like that. The Christians, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Baudhs none of them decide like that. How is it that we the English educated Anglicised Hindus alone are doing it? Are we not afraid of the ill consequences? Have we no fear of the danDa of Dharma Raj that we take the matter of Dharma so casually? Our’s is a Dharma; and it is called Sanatan Dharma, meaning Eternal Dharma. How can it be determined or arbitrated upon by anyone who has not gained proper authentic knowledge of the Sanskrit language and the Scriptures: the Vedas and their Angas and Upangas, from traditional teachers, and in a traditional manner?
If some anglicised and deluded 'Hindus' want to pave a way to naraka through abadoning the very precepts of dharma with purported 'good intentions' and 'political correctness' then so be it; they will verily receive the fruits of their karma. However kindly do not lead others down this slippery slope just to reassure you that you will not be alone when you will have to leave your earthly abode and embark on the journey to kumbhipAka.
Pranaam
knr
--
If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it.
Happy moments, praise God.
Difficult moments, seek God.
Quiet moments, worship God.
Painful moments, trust God.
Every moment, thank God
No comments:
Post a Comment