Clarification on a Mahabharata Shloka

[राघवेन्द्र त्रिपाठी]

Pranam to the elders, 

I came across the following verse in Mahabharata.

विवाहकाले रतिसंप्रयोगे, प्राणात्यये सर्वधनापहारे। 

विप्रस्‍य चार्थे ह्यनृतं वदेत पञ्चानृतान्याहुरपातकानि॥

 (महाभारत, कर्णपर्व)

I am puzzled by the inclusion of “विवाहकाले”. I am a beginner in Samskrit, It would be immensely helpful if the elders could clarify in what sense or why विवाहकाले and विप्रस्य अर्थे are included in this verse?

Regards,

Raghavendra Tripathi

--

Raghavendra Tripathi (राघवेंद्र त्रिपाठी) Indian Institute of Sciences (भारतीय विज्ञान संस्थान)

[Abhisek Mukherjee]

1. Marriage is accepted as a Yajna in our Shastra. If there comes so many obstacles to stop its actions, at that time telling a lie will not be considered as a sin. For example, even if female side avoid their enemies by telling a lie to protect themselves will not be a sinful act.

2. Vipra is always obeyed in Shastra. At the time of his life crisis then telling a lie to save him is not marked a sinful act according to Shastra.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANLTG%2ByRs_3q9zbH3Oac-%2Bzs8FWPofFam-SS3Q-rmMCLsLqRqg%40mail.gmail.com.

[kenp]

Here's a  link.

http://iamshishu.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_27.html

[Gowri T.R]

As per my knowledge, the full meaning of the shloka is that:

Telling a lie is not considered a sin in five instances as allowed/ permitted in the shastras 

1. During the marriage ( if a truth could stop a good marriage life,  telling lies just for the marriage to happen is permissable.  For example: when the bride's family demand for a 5 digit salary for the groom and if the  groom is a person who gets a 4 digit salary.  Telling a lie that the groom gets 5 digit salary for the marriage to happen will not be considered a sin. 

2. Rati samyoge  means  in a situation private for a husband and wife(especially during  union) telling a lie is not considered a sin.  

3. Pranaatyaaya  - atyaya  means  endanger.  So when someone's life endangered or under threat,  telling a lie is not considered a sin. 

4. Sarvadhanaat  - when in a  situation if all the wealth is looted,  at that time telling a lie is not considered a sin ( one need not be truthful and honest to a thief who will loot all wealth)

5. Viprasya ca arthe - vipra here means not just " BRAHMANA" . It means a  learned man, a wise man, very pious person who is harmless in anyway.  If the  earnings of such a person is taken away,  telling a lie is not considered a sin.  

  Explanation  courtesy ~ Dr.Sri. U.Ve. Karunakarachariar

--

[Raghav K]

Dear all,

Thanks for the explanations provided so far. I still am not clear on some of these and would humbly seek more comprehensive clarification from this forum of scholars.

There are many instances that still do not justify lying and could hurt the other person. They violate a more fundamental principle of ahimsA paramo dharma / mA himsyAt sarva bhUtani. Any vyakhyana provided, in my humble opinion, should be consistent with the rest of the dharma shastra.

For instance, is it okay to lie about one's caste, gotra, or pinda so that the marriage happens but then later they realize they are of the same gotra or sapinda or have married someone of a caste that is not sanctioned by dharma? Or, someone could lie that they would follow all acharas after marriage and present themselves as very dharmic and after marriage not keep a single vow and ruin the life of the other boy/girl? Or someone could have some vyasanas such as drinking before marriage and hide it and get married. Would that be dharmic?

Rati samprayoge - if someone has a deadly contagious disease such as HIV or maintains extra-marital relationships (sorry to mention these in this holy forum!) and they hide it before uniting and cheat their partner, would that be sanctioned by dharma sastra?

Lord Ramachandra knew his life would be in danger but was honest about their situation with Surpanakha (and that, of course, got him into trouble) - so was Ramachandra (who is famed as dharmAtmA satyasandhah) dharmic and truthful?

Even to someone who came to loot them completely and the other party knew they came to loot them including taking away their life or their children's lives, we have examples of kings like Bali, Shibi, or Harischandra who did not lie or hide anything which is why we still remember today.

People like Tukaram were honest to the core and did not lie even when everything was being taken away. Was this not the right behavior, then?

Kindly clarify 🙏

Kind regards,

Raghav

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALoVRmc-MGt3mxbTeM3_jQc1eczv0eNBnh7d%2BBas-5uBhThhxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[kenp]

This verse may need more proper translation and interpretation.

"न नर्मयुक्तं वचनं हिनस्तिन स्त्रीषु राजन् न विवाहकाले।

प्राणात्यये सर्वधनापहारे पञ्चानृतान्याहुरपातकानि॥" अर्थात - "मज़ाक में, विशेष परिस्थिति में पत्नी के पास, विवाह के समय, जब प्राण जाने का प्रसंग हो, और जब सब लुट जाने वाला हो - इन पाँच अवसरों पर झूठ बोलने से पाप नहीं लगता ।"

https://sa.wikiquote.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_(%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D)

https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/50566/is-it-adharma-to-speak-something-untrue-unknowingly

https://www.hinduscriptures.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/19F_Chapter_165_1.pdf

[Rajaram Krishnamurthy]

Dear Shri Ragav you are arguing; it is not a say that you are permitted to lie; if you are an Harischandra pl do exist as it is , which is the greatest; but u happen to lie in SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, VEDAS CREATE EXCEPTIONS, though exceptions do not make the main rule satyam vrata dharmam chara KR IRS

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJvoAst5OLq5%2Ba%2B0xsKZMvCEGSs53VovgVrrZca7LGbe%3D%3D2CVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[M V S Siva Prasad]

Respected sir ,

There is a difference between samanya dharma and vishista dharma.

The normal query of him was towards the samanya dharmas of the slokam.

Involving Rama , bali , etc . Is really not necessary here.

Coming to your query - 

Rama had a Brahma jnana even before he went to Vanavasa. That completely available or known to us by yoga vasishta . 

On such a situation entire behaviour of Rama will be a questionable one. .. But that's not the case. 

The Rama Avatara is for the development of Dharmic path inside humans. Seeing him with such a point of view in society creates an image to him . Instead of following his path of behaviour people follow to praise him. Which is highly happening in recent days.

Iam not against bhakti but the behavioural following of rama is really a necessary one inside the society.  

Everything done by rama on valmiki ramayana was mithya only because he knows he was the Brahman yet he felt to say I feel my self as a son of Dasaratha etc. We can't take those things as wrong etc.

Thirdly the sloka tells about general principles not suitable for specific case. Because even the veda vyasa knows dharma differs from case to case and situation to situation etc.

Instead of general study involving a specific case study is really unnecessary. 

Hanuman told lankini that he came to see lanka in sundara kanda . Can we say that as a truth ....  

Some goons came to kill someone and you tell his whereabouts because you were bound by satya vrata... That's a wrong one na. 

There exists a story in devi bhagavatam where just inorder to save an animal the person says the eyes which can see can't tell and the mouth which can tell can't see.

I hope you remember that context.

Coming to HIV topics etc.  The family have an option of doing medical tests na. They may do medical tests and may know about the health situation of the groom/bride. Just on believing the words if the family moves then the fault exists on the family too. The family had the responsibility of the boy/girl who is going to be married.

Coming to the cases like rama/ sibi / bali there vishista law follows.

The specified sloka was a samanya sloka and there exists vishista dharma which overrules the samanya . त्यागेनैके अमृतत्त्व मानसुः may be applied here.

In general complete looting generally happens when enemies invade .Or when persons traveling through forest gets robbed.on those situations it's really a necessary one otherwise you can't sustain. 

There is a statement in ramayana जीवन् भद्राणि पश्यति।  hence in order to save life saying a lie can't be considered as a lie.

Its natural to lie in Rati etc. In order to get acceptance by spouse it becomes necessary to lie.

Poets themselves had several alankaras for that. If that's not allowed then entire kavya parampara will become a lie. Because all alankaras were generally seems to be lies.

while proposing love to spouse / lover everyone in general  says I will love you for lifelong etc. Do you think that the girl /boy don't know that the statement was wrong ....Being an unmarried person I can't comment on it much more. 

Even the lie in the above situations happens from both sides also. In marriage both the parties definitely lie with each other.

Anyway I wish to say that involving the specific case in a general is really unnecessary. 

Pardon me for inconvenience if any. 

Sorry if iam wrong. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJvoAst5OLq5%2Ba%2B0xsKZMvCEGSs53VovgVrrZca7LGbe%3D%3D2CVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hari Parshad Das]

स्त्रीषु नर्मविवाहे च वृत्त्यर्थे प्राणसङ्कटे ।
गोब्राह्मणार्थे हिंसायां नानृतं स्याज्जुगुप्सितम् ॥ (श्रीमद्भागवत ८/१९/४३)

श्री श्रीधरस्वामी :— विवाहे च वरादिस्तुतौ । गवां ब्राह्मणानां च हितार्थम् ।

[Hari Parshad Das]

I have quoted the verse (Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 8/19/43) and the commentary by Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmī in my previous message. In a marriage, the bride or the groom may sometimes not be very good looking. Yet it is not a fault to falsely praise them. According to  Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmī , the term go-brāhmaṇārthe means — for benefitting the cows and brāhmaṇas in any possible way.

[Raghav K]

Thank you for your answers! 🙏

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BG61GTOaT0OE1Pj3_h_q%2BEE_HqOSUf0cuGPjoR6DnBG6OePRw%40mail.gmail.com.

[kenp]

स्त्रीषु नर्मविवाहे च वृत्त्यर्थे प्राणसङ्कटे।

गोब्राह्मणार्थे हिंसायां नानृतं स्याज्जुगुप्सितम्॥ ८-१९-४३

https://jigyaasaa.wordpress.com/tag/mu%E1%B9%87%E1%B8%8Dakopani%E1%B9%A3at/

https://www.bhagwatkathanak.in/2021/01/strishu-narma-vivahe.html

https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/8/19/43/side-by-side/es/