Marrying maternal uncle's daughter allowed or not

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namo Vidvadbhyaha

I want to know if our Sastras allow a man to marry his maternal uncle's daughter मातुलकन्या and also

paternal aunt's daughter पैतृष्वसेयी. Some people have criticized this practice in दाक्षिणात्यs. In

दाक्षिणात्यs a girl can even marry her maternal uncle. But in Mahabharata times itself we can see

Arjuna from North marrying his cousin Subhadra. Then why this complaint against दाक्षिणात्यs?

All these Vivahas will not be Sagotra Vivaha. Therefore they are not prohibited. What is Hindu

Law saying?

-Venkatesh

[Hnbhat B.R.]

This topic had been discussed some time ago. I think Hindu Law of Marriage was not discussed at that time.  Search in the group and you will get the link.

[Anilkumar Veppatangudi]

Not only Sagothra but also Sapinda marriages are not recommended. That is five times removed from the mother's side and seven times from the father's side. according to P.V.Kane.

Dr.V.R.Anil Kumar

http://www.kalpaheritage.org

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

This topic had been discussed some time ago. I think Hindu Law of Marriage was not discussed at that time.  Search in the group and you will get the link.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, 11 January 2016 15:00:36 UTC+5:30, Anilkumar wrote:

Not only Sagothra but also Sapinda marriages are not recommended. That is five times removed from the mother's side and seven times from the father's side. according to P.V.Kane.

Smṛti texts do not approve of sapiṇḍa marriages. For example Yājñavalkya Smṛti says (YS 1.52-53): अविप्लुतब्रह्मचर्यो लक्षण्यां स्त्रियमुद्वहेत्। अनन्यपूर्विकां कान्तामसपिण्डां यवीयसीम्॥ अरोगिणीं भ्रातृमतीमसमानार्षगोत्रजाम्। पञ्चमात्सप्तमादूर्ध्वं मातृतः पितृतस्तथा॥ These verses are also found in Garuḍa Purāṇa. Similary, Manu Smṛti says (MS 3.5): असपिण्डा च या मातुरसगोत्रा च या पितुः। सा प्रशस्ता द्विजातीनां दारकर्मणि मैथुने॥

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa observed the practice prevalent in southern regions and condemned it. For a comprehensive reading including definitions of sapiṇḍa, please refer P. V. Kane (1941). History of Dharmaśāstra. Volume II, Part 1. pp. 452-466. Poona:Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Kane covers the explanation that Kumārila Bhaṭṭa offers for the case of Arjuna and Subhadrā. Kane also covers the justifications of cross-cousin marriages offered by some works but they are later works (compared to Kumārila Bhaṭṭa’s work) if I remember correctly. 

There have been several discussions on BVP on the topic, Prof. Korada nicely summarized the situation here, before remarking

“as per the tradition and also scientifically marriage between near / related people is not advisable.”

Sapinda relationships are also defined in the Hindu Marriage Act which says

(f)(i)“Sapinda relationship” with reference to any person extends as far as the third generation(inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being traced upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation;

(ii) two persons are said to be “sapinda” of each other if one is a lineal ascendant of the other within the limits of sapinda relationship, or if they have a common lineal ascendant who is within the limits of sapinda relationship with reference to each of them;

As per the same act, one of the conditions of marriage is

(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;

 

The custom permitting such marriages, as referred to in the Hindu Marriage Act, is prevalent in southern India alone. In other regions, especially in northern India, such marriages are socially unacceptable and are considered incestuous as cousins are seen are brother and sister: girls and women tie rakha-s for cousins on Rakshabandhana and Bhai-Duja days. 

[Shankarji Jha]

Right, this is the norm followed by almost all northern Indian regions especially
Mithila region in Bihar. Regards,

Sent from Outlook Mobile

[Venkatesh Murthy]

No, even if Sapinda relation is there the local customs are allowed by Hindu Law. There is no prohibition.  

There is also Vedic support -

In the Vedas there is a text which means “Oh Indra! We offer to you the fat seasoned in the ghee that is thy portion, as the maternal uncle’s daughter or paternal aunt’s daughter is one’s lot in marriage”. This is cited in support of the validity of such marriages. But the better basis for such marriages is local custom. In Andhra Pradesh sister’s daughter is regarded by custom as eligible for marriage.

http://www.shareyouressays.com/117362/what-is-the-nature-of-sapinda-relationship-under-hindu-marriage-act-1955

[Anilkumar Veppatangudi]

Sapinda marriages are not ALLOWED. They happen. There is no central authority to take action if one transgresses recommendations. It is a well established medical fact that consanguineous marriages often result in children born with defects. 

Dr.V.R.Anil Kumar

http://www.kalpaheritage.org

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaskaar Sri Mishraji

When there is conflict between श्रुति and स्मृति the श्रुति will win according to Mimamsa.

In श्रुति there is a Vakya like this -

 तृप्तां जहुर्मातुलस्येव योषा भागस्ते पैतृष्वसेयी वपामिव “Oh Indra! We offer to you the fat seasoned in the ghee that is thy portion, as the maternal uncle’s daughter or paternal aunt’s daughter is one’s lot in marriage”. मातुलकन्यापरिणयनस्यानेकश्रुतिस्मृतिसिद्धत्वात्

[V Subrahmanian]

More than anything, we have this dictum of the Taittiriya Upanishad:

तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । शीक्षावल्ली । एकादशोऽनुवाकः । मन्त्रः ४

ये तत्र ब्राह्मणाः संमर्शिनः । युक्ता आयुक्ताः । अलूक्षा धर्मकामाः स्युः । यथा ते तत्र वर्तेरन् । तथा तत्र वर्तेथाः । अथाभ्याख्यातेषु । ये तत्र ब्राह्मणाः संमर्शिनः । युक्ता आयुक्ताः । अलूक्षा धर्मकामाः स्युः । यथा ते तेषु वर्तेरन् । तथा तेषु वर्तेथाः । एष आदेशः । एष उपदेशः । एषा वेदोपनिषत् । एतदनुशासनम् । एवमुपासितव्यम् । एवमु चैतदुपास्यम् ॥ ४ ॥

The commentary of Shankaracharya is:

अथ एवं वर्तमानस्य यदि कदाचित् ते तव श्रौते स्मार्ते वा कर्मणि वृत्ते वा आचारलक्षणे विचिकित्सा संशयः स्यात् भवेत्, ये तत्र तस्मिन्देशे काले वा ब्राह्मणाः तत्र कर्मादौ युक्ता इति व्यवहितेन संबन्धः कर्तव्यः ; संमर्शिनः विचारक्षमाः, युक्ताः अभियुक्ताः, कर्मणि वृत्ते वा आयुक्ताः अपरप्रयुक्ताः, अलूक्षाः अरूक्षाः अक्रूरमतयः, धर्मकामाः अदृष्टार्थिनः अकामहता इत्येतत् ; स्युः भवेयुः, ते ब्राह्मणाः यथा येन प्रकारेण तत्र तस्मिन्कर्मणि वृत्ते वा वर्तेरन्, तथा त्वमपि वर्तेथाः । अथ अभ्याख्यातेषु, अभ्याख्याता अभ्युक्ताः दोषेण संदिह्यमानेन संयोजिताः केनचित्, तेषु च; यथोक्तं सर्वमुपनयेत् - ये तत्रेत्यादि ।

The essence is: शिष्टाचारः is pramāṇa. 

The परस्परनिन्दा’ across classes, regions, etc. is stated by Swami Vidyaranya in the Jivanmukti viveka under the 'Vāsanākṣaya prakaraṇam':

तथा हि देशविशेषेण परस्परं निन्दाबाहुल्यमुपलभ्यब्ब् ते । दाक्षिणात्यैर्विप्रैरौत्तरा वेदविदो विप्रा मांसभक्षिणो निन्द्यन्ते ।  औत्तराहैश्च मातुलसुतोद्वाहिनो यात्रासु मृद्भाण्डवाहिनो दाक्षिणात्या निन्द्यन्ते । ....एवं स्वस्वकुलगोत्रबन्धुवर्गेष्टदेवतादिप्रशंसा परकीयनिन्दा च आविद्वदङ्गनागोपालं सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धा ।

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, 11 January 2016 20:35:09 UTC+5:30, Venkatesh Murthy wrote:

Namaskaar Sri Mishraji

When there is conflict between श्रुति and स्मृति the श्रुति will win according to Mimamsa.

In श्रुति there is a Vakya like this -

 तृप्तां जहुर्मातुलस्येव योषा भागस्ते पैतृष्वसेयी वपामिव “Oh Indra! We offer to you the fat seasoned in the ghee that is thy portion, as the maternal uncle’s daughter or paternal aunt’s daughter is one’s lot in marriage”. मातुलकन्यापरिणयनस्यानेकश्रुतिस्मृतिसिद्धत्वात्

Namaste Venkatesh Murthy Ji

Kane mentions that this verse (from the Khila portion of the Ṛgveda) is cited to justify sapiṇḍa marriages in the Smṛticandrikā and the Parāśaramādhavīya. Both Smṛticandrikā (c. 1200 CE) and the Parāśaramādhavīya (c. 1350 CE) are much later compositions than the Smṛti-s and both were authored in the South. As Kane points out, the same verse is interpreted to mean the opposite (i.e., as pointing to prohibited degrees of marriage) by Aparārka and Viśvarūpa when commenting on Yājñavalkya Smṛti I.53 (Kane, HODS, Volume II, part I, pp. 461-462). Kane also observes that the Smṛticandrikā goes a step further in by citing a verse addressed by Yamī to her brother Yama which “does not clearly refer to cross-cousin marriages” (ibid., p. 463). So, the interpretations of Smṛticandrikā and the Parāśaramādhavīya are debatable. It may help to see all interpretations and commentaries on the verse to see how the understanding of the verse varied with time and/or geographical regions.

It may also be helpful to look for works which trace the origin of sapiṇḍa marriage in South India. Was sapiṇḍa marriage originally approved in Vedic times, later abandoned in rest of India and explicitly forbidden/condemned by authors of Smṛti-s? Or did it originate in the South from the regional non-Vedic culture? How about Namboodiri Brahmins of Kerala where cross-cousin marriages are prohibited (e.g. see Mencher and Goldberg, Kinship and Marriage Regulations Among the Namboodiri Brahmans of Kerala, Man, 2(1), March 1967, pp. 87-106). 

Lastly, Anilkumar Ji brought up medical aspects and genetic effects of consanguineous marriages. On this, one may refer Kumaramanickavel G et al (2002), Consanguinity and ocular genetic diseases in South India: analysis of a five-year study, Community Genetics, 5(3), pp. 182-185. The abstract of the paper is available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14960889.

Thanks, Nityanand

 

[V Subrahmanian]

It is also a matter for investigation whether even the institution of marriage was prevalent in the vedic system.  For, we come across a story (in the Mahabharata?) where Uddalaka's 'wife' was simply led away by another man which enraged the former's son Shvetaketu.  It looks like there was a practice where anyone could simply walk away with anyone else to make a living together.   

http://docslide.us/documents/riddles-in-hinduism.html  [I picked up this URL as this popped up as a result of my search words for the above material.]: 

//The Mahabharata refers to two reformers Dirghatama and Shwetaketu. It was laid down by Shwetketu that the marriage is indissoluble and there was to be no divorce. Two reforms are attributed to Dirghatama. He stopped polyandry and declared that a woman can have only one husband at a time. The second reform he is said to have carried out. was to lay down conditions for regulating Niyog. The following were the most important of these conditions. (i) The father or brother of the widow (or of the widow's husband) shall assemble the Gurus who taught or sacrificed for the deceased husband and his relatives and shall appoint her to raise issue for the deceased husband [Kane Vol. II part I p. 601] RIDDLES IN HINDUISM (ii) (1) The husband, whether living or dead, must have no sons; (2) The Gurus in a family council should decide to appoint the widow to raise issue for her husband, (3) The person appointed must be either the husband's brother or a sapinda, or sagotra of the husband or (according to Gautama) a sapravara or a person of the same caste. (4) The person appointed and the widow must be actuated by no lust but only by a sense of duty; (5) The person appointed must be anointed with ghee or oil (Narada Stripurnsa, 82) must not speak with or kiss her or engage in the sportive dalliance with the women; (6) This relationship was to last till one son was born (or two according to some); (7) The widow must be comparatively young, she should not be old or sterile, or past childbearing or sickly or unwilling or pregnant (Baud. Dh. S. II. 2.70, Narad, Stripumsa 83.84); (8) After the birth of a son they were to regard themselves as father-in-law and daughter-in-law (Manu IX, 62). It is further made clear by the texts that if a brother-in-law has intercourse with his sister-in-law without appointment by elders or if he does so even when appointed by elders but the other circumstances do not exist (e.g., if the husband has a son), he would be guilty of the sin of incest." There are other reforms carried out by the ancient Aryan Society necessary to improve its morals. One was to establish the rule of prohibited degrees for purposes of marriage to prevent recurrence of father-daughter, brother-sister, mother-son, grandfather-grand daughter marriages. //

regards

subrahmanian.v

--

[Savitri]

NOW AT PRESENT, LITERALLY WHAT PRACTICE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED?

PL. Let all have vision on VIVAHA PRAKRIYA...

Sent from my iPad

[Anilkumar Veppatangudi]

Rig Veda 10.85 describes the ritualistic wedding of Suryaa, daughter of Savitaa, the sun with Soma, the moon. Is that far back enough?

Dr.V.R.Anil Kumar

http://www.kalpaheritage.org

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Yes there is a Mahabharata story -

"It hath been heard by us that there was a great Rishi of the name of
Uddalaka, who had a son named Swetaketu who also was an ascetic of merit.
O thou of eyes like lotus-petals, the present virtuous practice hath been
established by that Swetaketu from anger. Hear thou the reason. One day,
in the presence of Swetaketu's father a Brahmana came and catching
Swetaketu's mother by the hand, told her, 'Let us go.' Beholding his
mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was
greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him
and said, 'Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by
antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in
this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.' The
Rishi's son, Swetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established
in the world the present practice as regards men and women. It hath been
heard by us, O thou of great virtue, that the existing practice dates
from that period among human beings but not among beings of other
classes. Accordingly, since the establishment of the present usage, it is
sinful for women not to adhere to their husbands."

Coming to Sapinda relations we have to study the current practice. We are doing पिण्डप्रदान of offering sesame mixed rice balls to only

पितृपितामहप्रपितामह and मातृ-पितामही-प्रपितामही in the regular श्राद्ध ceremony. Only in Mahaalaya Paksha there is  पिण्डप्रदान

to other Pitrus like maternal grandfather. But in that same Mahaalaya श्राद्ध ceremony we are doing पिण्डप्रदान to even friends

and others. If we accept Sapinda to include offering Pinda to common person the friend's son will also become Sapinda. Because

he will also offer Pinda to his father.  Then even friend's daughter cannot be married even if he has different Gotra.

How to solve this problem of Sapinda?

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Sometime ago I read an anecdote, according to which Ravana came to know that Lord Vishnu would be born to Kaushalya, in order to kill Ravana. To avert that, Ravana kidnapped Kaushalya and put her in a metallic box and let  the box go in the river, hoping that she would die. Luckily for her Dasharatha saw the box and tried to bring the box out of the water but in that process he too fell in the water and he and the box landed in some isolated island. Later on they could come back home and Dasharatha married Kaushalya. They had a daughter "Shanta", who had some physical disability, because of which Shanta could not walk well.  It came out that Dashartha and kaushalya were related and that is why  their daughter was born with health problem.  Shantar was given to Dasharatha;s friend Lomapada, who married Kaushalya's sister and they did not have children. Gradually Shanta's disabilty disappeared..

From this anecdote it means that in the ancient times,  people knew that there could be health problems in such unapproved marriages.

Regards,

Sunil KB

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

--

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Part of the joy and also frustration of asking a scholarly group like this a question, "what vivaaha practice should be followed?," is that nobody will tell you exactly what to do! There are the sapinda arguments on the one hand and customarily allowed practice in south India (excluding Kerala but including many parts of Maharashtra and Orissa) on the other hand. One can listen to lots of traditional points on both sides without ever getting convinced one way or the other. And then there is the loss of genetic diversity argument that you will hear nowadays from the perspective of modern science as well. However, an instance of marrying within close relations here or there does not necessarily cause health problems for children born into the marriage. However, if such a practice is continued for many generations, the chances of losing genetic diversity and therefore of perpetuating problematic genetic issues will increase rapidly.

My personal take on it is this. If you or the immediately concerned family members have any kind of reservations about the practice of marrying cross-cousins (or a maternal uncle), please don't do it! There is no point in getting into a marital relationship with doubts and hesitation. If you or the family or your community have no problems with the practice, please don't worry whether that violates some other traditional rule. 

So, do not force a cross-cousin marriage upon unwilling young people citing family custom or deshaacaara as reason. The world today is very different from even twenty years ago. On the other hand, do not force it the other way round either, citing some traditional reason that has been alien to your own community tradition for at least a few centuries now. 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

ps. Namboodiri Brahmins in Kerala traditionally did not adopt cross-cousin or maternal uncle marriage customs, but that is also correlated with their other rule that only the eldest son married a Namboodiri girl. The younger sons entered into spousal relationships with women of other castes that were matrilineal and matriarchal in their practice. The vast majority of Namboodiri girls died unmarried, so there was no dearth of choice of bride for any young Namboodiri man. The Nair and other castes also avoided the practice of a girl marrying a maternal uncle, because the girl and her uncle both belonged to the same tharavad, the female lineage equivalent of the male lineage gotra. 

[rniyengar]

Way back in February 2015 when the same topic was discussed I had posted:  Please see Harivamsha which is Khila of MBh. Vide Vishnuparva Ch.61. Pradyumna married S'ubhAngi daughter of his maternal uncle (i.e. Rukmi brother of RukmiNi).  

His son Aniruddha married Rukmi's granddaughter. This, if taken as historical, must have happened more than 2000 years back!

RNI

[kali]

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 7:59:13 PM UTC+5:30, Venkatesh Murthy wrote:

Namaskārams,

>We are doing पिण्डप्रदान of offering sesame mixed rice balls to only

>पितृपितामहप्रपितामह and मातृ-पितामही-प्रपितामही in the regular श्राद्ध ceremony. Only in Mahaalaya Paksha there is  पिण्डप्रदान

>to other Pitrus like maternal grandfather.

Sir, down south in Tamilnadu, we smarthas do पिण्डप्रदान to both पितृवर्ग and मातृवर्ग during Amāvāsya, Māsatarpaṇam and also Grahaṇa tarpaṇam.  Only during प्रत्याब्दिक श्राद्ध ceremony we do it for our  पितृवर्ग only.

Dhanyavādaḥ

kalivaradhan

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 13 January 2016 06:58:42 UTC+5:30, rniyengar wrote:

Way back in February 2015 when the same topic was discussed I had posted:  Please see Harivamsha which is Khila of MBh. Vide Vishnuparva Ch.61. Pradyumna married S'ubhAngi daughter of his maternal uncle (i.e. Rukmi brother of RukmiNi).  

His son Aniruddha married Rukmi's granddaughter. This, if taken as historical, must have happened more than 2000 years back!

RNI

Well, the Mahābhārata also has examples of polyandry (Draupadī) and [rākṣasa] marriages involving abduction of the bride/brides (Arjuna abducting Subhadrā; and also Bhīṣma abducting Ambā, Ambikā, and Ambālikā for Vicitravīrya). It is a different thing for an epic to document an event (or a practice), and for dharmaśāstra-s (Gṛhya Sūtra-s, Smṛti-s, etc) to allow/approve it.

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

In Amaavaasya and Grahana there is only तिलतर्पण but no पिण्डप्रदान. People doing actual श्राद्ध in these days is very rare.

तर्पण is done in everyday Nitya Brahma Yajna also for Devas, Rishis and Pitrus.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>Well, the Mahābhārata also has examples of polyandry (Draupadī) and [rākṣasa] marriages involving abduction of the bride/brides

>(Arjuna abducting Subhadrā; and also Bhīṣma abducting Ambā, Ambikā, and Ambālikā for Vicitravīrya). It is a different thing for an >epic to document an event (or a practice), and for dharmaśāstra-s (Gṛhya Sūtra-s, Smṛti-s, etc) to allow/approve it.

 

It is true,  it is a different thing for an epic to document, let us say 'reflect', 'include', 'cover' an event (or a practice), and for dharmaśāstra-s (Gṛhya Sūtra-s, Smṛti-s, etc) to allow/approve it. 

 

But why would at all an itihaasa like Mahabharata include such practices?

 

Let us take the case of polyandry. Draupadi is listed among pativratas. Many from the present day ask, 'can a woman with multiple husbands be called a pativrataa ?'. I ask them, 'if you were to study a tribe in which polyandry is practised and if you notice the tribal community find fault with a woman who has an affair with a man other than her 'ritually' married husbands, would you say, 'what is wrong, she anyway has multiple husbands' ? Can we say call it weird if that community admires the equally committed love of a woman of that community to all her multiple husbands ? The cultural relativistic, pluralistic understanding that is required to appreciate the spirit of such a community in disapproving or admiring such behaviours is what the author of Mahabharata seems to have intended to instruct through his work.

 

Even some university title-holding anthropologists describe the matrilineal system that prevailed in Kerala in a highly politically incorrect and offensive manner within and outside their class room teaching because of lack of such a cultural relativistic and well nuanced understanding of practices unfamiliar to them. Author of Mahabharata appears to have intended to avoid such poor understandings of human cultures.

 

Only such a magnanimous intention on the part of that author can, I think, explain the coverage of such a wide range of cultural practices, including those which anticipate some of the newly emerging ones such as surrogacy in Mahabharata.

 

Des'aachaaras aviruddha to the spirit of the s'ruti and smritis also need to be viewed with such an understanding instructed by such great Itihasas.

 

Thanks for your patience.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj  

 

 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 14 January 2016 20:58:42 UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

 

Let us take the case of polyandry. Draupadi is listed among pativratas. Many from the present day ask, 'can a woman with multiple husbands be called a pativrataa ?'. I ask them, 'if you were to study a tribe in which polyandry is practised and if you notice the tribal community find fault with a woman who has an affair with a man other than her 'ritually' married husbands, would you say, 'what is wrong, she anyway has multiple husbands' ? Can we say call it weird if that community admires the equally committed love of a woman of that community to all her multiple husbands ? The cultural relativistic, pluralistic understanding that is required to appreciate the spirit of such a community in disapproving or admiring such behaviours is what the author of Mahabharata seems to have intended to instruct through his work.

 

Even some university title-holding anthropologists describe the matrilineal system that prevailed in Kerala in a highly politically incorrect and offensive manner within and outside their class room teaching because of lack of such a cultural relativistic and well nuanced understanding of practices unfamiliar to them. Author of Mahabharata appears to have intended to avoid such poor understandings of human cultures.

 

Only such a magnanimous intention on the part of that author can, I think, explain the coverage of such a wide range of cultural practices, including those which anticipate some of the newly emerging ones such as surrogacy in Mahabharata.

Thanks Prof. Paturi Ji for your thoughts. I agree that nobody has the right to judge a community in its admiration or disapproval of specific behaviour (e.g. how a community which practises polyandry views adultery), or call it ‘weird’. I also agree with your statement that the author of the Mahābhārata had a “cultural relativistic, pluralistic understanding.” However, it must be remembered that the same Mahābhārata, whose author shows this understanding and who was witness to cross-cousin marriages (marriages with sapiṇḍā-s), says that marriage should be with a girl who is neither sapiṇḍa nor sagotra. In the didactic dialogue between Bhīṣma and Yudhiṣṭhira in the Anuśāsana Parva, Bhīṣma supports the what is said in the Manusmṛti (MBh verse 13.44.18 in the Gita Press edition):

असपिण्डा च या मतुरसगोत्रा च या पितुः।

इत्येतामनुगच्छेत तं धर्मं मनुरब्रवीत्॥

Hindi translation by Rāmanārāyaṇa Datta Śāstrī Pāṇḍeya Rāma: 

“जो कन्या माताकी सपिण्ड और पिताके गोत्र की न हो, उसी का अनुगमन करे। इसे मनुजीने धर्मानुकूल बताया है।”

Link: https://archive.org/stream/mahabharata06ramauoft#page/220/mode/1up

English translation by Kisari Mohan Ganguly:

“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.”

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b009.htm

I have not seen the commentary by Nīlakaṇṭha on the above verse. While the author of Mahābhārata shows a greater understanding of human cultures and may not describe a system/practice in unflattering terms, he does give space to the dispassionate opinion of Bhīṣma (which might as well be the opinion of the author).

 

 

Des'aachaaras aviruddha to the spirit of the s'ruti and smritis also need to be viewed with such an understanding instructed by such great Itihasas.

 

Thanks for your patience.

I agree, and as the above verse shows, deśācāra-s which are viruddha to the guidelines in Dharmaśāstra-s need to be viewed dispassionately as instructed by the Mahābhārata. In public discourse, there is no space for politically incorrect and offensive manner (e.g. description of matrilineal system of Kerala in unflattering terms), although we cannot dictate what people do ‘off the record’. Similarly, there is no need to be an apologist or take offence at dispassionate analysis in public discourse: historical studies on marriages with sapiṇḍā-s and their prevalence in certain Vedic communities in spite of them not being recommended in the Dharmaśāstra-s would only help our understanding of a culturally diverse country.

 

Thanks, Nityanand

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 15 January 2016 11:21:28 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

In the didactic dialogue between Bhīṣma and Yudhiṣṭhira in the Anuśāsana Parva, Bhīṣma supports the what is said in the Manusmṛti (MBh verse 13.44.18 in the Gita Press edition):

असपिण्डा च या मतुरसगोत्रा च या पितुः।

That should read:

असपिण्डा च या मातुरसगोत्रा च या पितुः

Apologies for the orthographic error.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Manu also said about seven generations away as a criterion. Many interpret it as being seven mothers away for marriagability.

Regards,

Sunil KB

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>However, it must be remembered that the same Mahābhārata, whose author shows this understanding and who was witness to cross-cousin marriages (marriages with sapiṇḍā-s), says that marriage should be with a girl who is neither sapiṇḍa nor sagotra. In the didactic dialogue between Bhīṣma and Yudhiṣṭhira in the Anuśāsana Parva, Bhīṣma supports the what is said in the Manusmṛti (MBh verse 13.44.18 in the Gita Press edition).

--------- Is this a self-contradiction  or a paradox (a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.)/ virOdhAbhAsa (AbhAsa of virOdha) ?

 

Best way out in such cases is to rule out self-contradiction, given the greatness of the author and try to understand the spirit behind the letters that can accommodate both what is made to be instructed in such dialogues and what is depicted in the book.

 

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

At the beginning of  गौतमस्मृति , we come across  two सूत्रs - 

वेदो धर्ममूलम् , तद्विदां  च स्मितिशीले (the same are taken in मनुस्मृति ) ।

Then before the third सूत्रम् the following  अवतारिका  of मिताक्षरा of Hardatta is there --

यदि शीलं प्रमाणम्  अतिप्रसङ्गः स्यात् । कथम् ? कतकभरद्वाजौ व्यत्यस्य भार्ये जग्मतुः । वसिष्ठः चण्डालीम् अक्षमालाम् । प्रजपतिः स्वां दुहितरम् । रामेण पितृवचनत् अविचारेण मातुः शिरश्छिन्नमित्यादि साहसमपि प्रमाणं स्यात् । नेत्याह -

दृष्टो धर्मव्यतिक्रमः साहसं च महताम् (सू)

मिताक्षरा --

महतामेतादृशं साहसमपि धर्मव्यतिक्रम एव दृष्टो न तु धर्मः। रागद्वेषनिबन्धनत्वात् ।

अव--

न च तेषाम् एवंविधं द्ष्टम् इत्येतावता अस्मदादीनामपि प्रसङ्गः । कुतः --

अवरदौर्बल्यात् (सू)

(अवरः = inferior / younger)

मिता --

अवरेषाम् अस्मदादीनां दुर्बलत्वात् । तथा च श्रूयते -

तेषां तेजोविशेषेण प्रत्यवायो न विद्यते ।

तदन्वीक्ष्य प्रयुञ्जानः सीदत्यवरको जनः॥ इति  (सीदति = would perish)

since those people got a lot of तपस् they can withstand the impact or they may not be affected .But those who ape them , being feeble , would perish .

so whatever is done by great people sometimes is not धर्म and we need not follow them .

Vidvan Nityananda Misra  has rightly quoted  धर्मशास्त्रम्  -  all of us should follow and it is an उपलक्षणम् to आयुर्वेद --

the children born in / out of such wedlock would have impaired intelligence and  deformed limbs  - it is conspicuous .

Who will be responsible for this ?

कर्ता कारयिता चैव प्रेरकश्चानुमोदकः।

सुकृते दुष्कृते चैव चत्वारः समभागिनः॥

We should be very careful --

यद्यदाचरति श्रेष्ठः तत्तदेवेतरो जनः।

स यत्प्रमाणं कुरुते लोकस्तदनुवर्तते ॥ (गीता)

So if is our धर्म and Social responsibility to  arrest the tendency - it may be in South or elsewhere .

Anything we say is above राग and द्वेष ।

Elsewhere it is said - why not  follow the ऋषिs and do some good things ?

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Venkatesh Murthy]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Manu and other Smrtis allow Sistacara depending on local customs also. Cutting off mother's head by Rama cannot be compared with marrying maternal uncle's daughter. Because cutting off mother's head is not Sistachara in any place. But marrying maternal uncle's daughter is accepted custom for many many generations in South India. We have to compare apples to apples but not apples to oranges.

Is it धर्मव्यतिक्रमः or शिष्टाचार ?  This is the question to answer.

Moreover local customs have to be respected.

It is also not true children born will be deformed. We can see many many examples of children of these marriages are perfectly normal.

Kindly see this book page 46 -

'Local customs and practices trump textual descriptions and details of rituals and practices and this has also been upheld by Supreme Court of India.'

- South Asian Religions Tradition and Today - Google books

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coupled_cousins

- Wikipedia

Famous film director Satyajit Ray married Bijoya Das, his first cousin and long-time sweetheart.^[11] The couple had a son, Sandip, who is now a film director.

Famous scientist Albert Einstein married Elsa Löwenthal on 2 June 1919, after having had a relationship with her since 1912. She was a first cousin maternally and a second cousin paternally.

Famous poet Edgar Allan Poe -  In Baltimore in 1835, he married Virginia Clemm, his 13-year-old cousin.

Charles Darwin married  his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coupled_cousins

- Wikipedia

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>However, it must be remembered that the same Mahābhārata, whose author shows this understanding and who was witness to cross-cousin marriages (marriages with sapiṇḍā-s), says that marriage should be with a girl who is neither sapiṇḍa nor sagotra. In the didactic dialogue between Bhīṣma and Yudhiṣṭhira in the Anuśāsana Parva, Bhīṣma supports the what is said in the Manusmṛti (MBh verse 13.44.18 in the Gita Press edition).

--------- Is this a self-contradiction  or a paradox (a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.)/ virOdhAbhAsa (AbhAsa of virOdha) ?

 

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Venkatesh Murthy Ji

As you began this thread with a question, I am curious if the question is primarily from a legal perspective or a Dharmashastra perspective or from the perspective of a biological fitness? The thread has seen comments on all of these. A couple of points to add on your response.

On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 12:10:36 UTC+5:30, Venkatesh Murthy wrote:

It is also not true children born will be deformed. We can see many many examples of children of these marriages are perfectly normal.

Certainly not all children born from consanguineous marriages are deformed, and I am sure Prof. Korada Subramanyam Ji did not mean “all children” born from such wedlocks are deformed. The right questions to ask from the perspective of biological fitness is:

Is there a higher rate (risk or probability) of certain genetic disorders in children born to consanguineous marriages, as compared to other marriages? Is this change statistically significant? 

I suggest you compile a list of papers or books which have dealt with such studies over large sample sets and where inferences are based on sound statistical analysis (hypothesis testing at a certain level of significance).

One of the papers I know of is 

Hanan Hamamy. Consanguineous marriages: Preconception consultation in primary health care settings. Journal of Community Genetics. July 2012; 3(3): pp. 185–192. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419292/pdf/12687_2011_Article_72.pdf

From the section Consanguinity and health parameters:

The reproductive health criteria related to consanguinity show that in first cousin marriages as opposed to nonconsanguineous marriages, fertility rate is slightly higher, abortion rate is not different, stillbirths and infant mortality rates are slightly higher and birth defects frequency is estimated to be around 2–3% points more than the background rate among newborns in the general population (around 2–3%).

From the conclusion:

Consanguineous marriages are associated with an increased risk for congenital malformations and autosomal recessive diseases, with some resultant increased postnatal mortality in the offspring of first cousin couples, but demographic and socioeconomic confounders need to be well controlled. No major adverse associations with reproductive parameters such as miscarriages and fertility have been documented. Associations with quantitative traits and complex adult-onset diseases are vague and inconsistent, suggesting the importance of implementing future research in this area.

 

Kindly see this book page 46 -

'Local customs and practices trump textual descriptions and details of rituals and practices and this has also been upheld by Supreme Court of India.'

- South Asian Religions Tradition and Today - Google books

The above citation is a general observation. As it is neither a legal perspective nor a Dharmashastra perspective on the specific topic of cross-cousin marriage, it may not be very relevant here.

Thanks, Nityanand

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 16 January 2016 00:43:25 UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

>However, it must be remembered that the same Mahābhārata, whose author shows this understanding and who was witness to cross-cousin marriages (marriages with sapiṇḍā-s), says that marriage should be with a girl who is neither sapiṇḍa nor sagotra. In the didactic dialogue between Bhīṣma and Yudhiṣṭhira in the Anuśāsana Parva, Bhīṣma supports the what is said in the Manusmṛti (MBh verse 13.44.18 in the Gita Press edition).

--------- Is this a self-contradiction  or a paradox (a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.)/ virOdhAbhAsa (AbhAsa of virOdha) ?

 

Best way out in such cases is to rule out self-contradiction, given the greatness of the author and try to understand the spirit behind the letters that can accommodate both what is made to be instructed in such dialogues and what is depicted in the book.

 

Dr. Paturi Ji

There may be a paradox/self-contradiction between two recommendations/teachings (e.g. teaching 1: One should not lie; and teaching 2: One may lie to save one's life). There may be a paradox/self-contradiction between two descriptions (e.g. description 1: X happened; and description 2: X did not happen). But how could there be a paradox/self-contradiction between a teaching (MBh verse 13.44.18) and the description of an event (Arjuna/Pradyumna's marriage with a sapinda)? The former is what MBh recommends, and the latter is what it describes as what happened. 

I hope the commentator Nilakantha understood the spirit behind the letters of Mahabharata. His commentary may throw some light. 

Thanks, Nityanand

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The point in the 'same Mahabharata' and the emphasis in the word 'the same' has a pointing towards the opposition between the described and made to be instructed by one character to the other. I think the opposition between the two is the central semantics of the sentence quoted from AadaraNiya Nityanandji's post. 

My question was how do we look at this opposition? 

There must be some purpose in the description of an event which is apparent opposition to what  is made to be instructed by one character to the other. 

My understanding of the purpose is to instruct a spirit broader than that is apparent. 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

It appears to me that one aspect of the sapinda marriage has not been looked at. May be that in the Gandharva style of marriage or  the prema-viavaha (or love-marriage in the English language), which is considered the highest form of marriage, there could have been some leeways allowed and the marriage of sapindis accepted, provided, of course,  both the boy and girl don't have health issues. Arjuna and Subhadra's marriage obviously fell in this category and that could be the reason why Lord Krishna supported that marriage, whereas Lord Balarama objected to that as the latter believed in the conventional standards.

Regards,

Sunil  KB

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

[ramchander deekonda]

Respected Scholars,

After all this long discussion about marrying maternal uncle's daughter, I think it is time to record our experiences or observations about the negative results of this relationship. 

I would like to share our family's saga of giving daughters to sister's sons.  This (evil?) yes I can call it so, was practiced since the time of my great grand father. Even my sister who is 68 was given to our cousin in marriage.  I was too young to resist or protest. My aunt (my sister's mother-in-law) was also given from our family and her mother-in-law was also from our family.

My sister has a daughter. When she was 5 years old she developed leukoderma (Vitiligo).  Despite, best available treatment, it did not go completely.  We could only arrest it from further spreading.  Doctors have told this girl that the reason for the ailment is inbreeding. One of her two brothers is also not in perfect health. It was hell to find a boy for her, in spite of her PG qualifications and good Job. She curses my parents, and the entire system day in and day out. I have also observed, that in many muslim families, where there are first cousin marriages, the progeny suffered from inborn defects.

This is for the information of all our brothers.  In-breeding marriages, apart from being incestuous,  in my opinion are a scourge, it should be condemned without resorting to any excuse. But, unfortunately, some big politicians in south India are encouraging such evil practices by following them in this modern society.

Dhanyo'smi

Ramchander Deekonda

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:30:31 PM UTC+5:30, Venkatesh Murthy wrote:

Namo Vidvadbhyaha

I want to know if our Sastras allow a man to marry his maternal uncle's daughter मातुलकन्या and also

paternal aunt's daughter पैतृष्वसेयी. Some people have criticized this practice in दाक्षिणात्यs. In

दाक्षिणात्यs a girl can even marry her maternal uncle. But in Mahabharata times itself we can see

Arjuna from North marrying his cousin Subhadra. Then why this complaint against दाक्षिणात्यs?

All these Vivahas will not be Sagotra Vivaha. Therefore they are not prohibited. What is Hindu

Law saying?

-Venkatesh

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste Sri Deekonda ji

There may be cases like this. But there are also cases with perfectly normal children. The scientific research on this is saying the birth defects and other problems is slightly higher for cousin marriages. The reference paper quoted by Sri Mishraji and others also are saying only 2-3% higher. Sorry your case may be in that extra 2-3%.

But what about other cousin marriages producing normal children? They will say cousin marriages has some advantages. It is good for the girl. She is not marrying a stranger and going to bed with that stranger. She knows the husband's family and has affection for that family before marriage itself. The family cultures will be matching. There are so many advantages for the girl.  It has advantages of love marriage and arranged marriage both. Because if it is only love marriage the cultures may not match. And parents may not be willing. If it is only arranged marriage the girl or boy may not be willing but forced to agree by elders.

There are different types of cousin marriages. But only few are correct according to Dharma. Maternal uncle's daughter and paternal aunt's daughter may be

married. Even a girl can marry her maternal uncle. But Maatula Kanyaa is the hot favorite. Even many South Indian films have love stories with Maatula Kanyaa. Majority of cousin marriages are of this type.

[V Subrahmanian]

One other reason why such marriages were preferred is that the property stayed within the family.  

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Whatever dharma shastra says if one marries within ones own family both have the same genetic pool. This gives rise to in breeding.  The decision is left  to the  individuals to decide if given a choice. But in most cases the individuals are not consulted and the couples tend to go along with family. This might have suited families that existed fifty or hundred years back when elders used to decide everything they refused to take a back seat and allow individuals to make decisions. Early marriages before the girl and the boy used to start earning was prevalent. One was were forced to be with family business or learning . Dissent and reasoning was not tolerated. Now in a changed environment marriages within a family is not the norm and are gradually being discouraged with increased awareness.

Dharamashastra says marrying within the same gotra is prohibited. It makes no sense. People who have the same gotra might not be even remotely related. The law was amended to allow such marriages Dhamra Shastras are not absolute like the vedas. cChanges can be made depending on the will of the society.

Venkatesh Murthy ji's remark

​'She is not marrying a stranger and going to bed with that stranger. She knows the husband's family and has affection for that family before marriage itself. The family cultures will be matching. There are so many advantages for the girl.  It has advantages of love marriage and arranged marriage both. Because if it is only love marriage the cultures may not match. And parents may not be willing. If it is only arranged marriage the girl or boy may not be willing but forced to agree by elders."

 
My reply

My grandmother first saw of grand father only in the marriage hall when the ritual of opening the parda between the bride and the bride groom takes place he saw my grand mother. They were related to each other. When goverment took away our lands under the amended laws. He was forced to study further and make living no family came to his rescue. I see no advantages for the girls. Girls in olden days were not educated were forced to be dependent on male members and were not given choices. Now its changing with women becoming aware of their rights. Why should parents agree or disagree if one wants to marry unless one cannot stand on their feet or need their money or help? Why parents or any one else be bothered at all its a individuals personal right freedom privacy and decision. I am a south Indian and the very concept of Matula Kanya is revolting to me. If it Pitula Kanya is sister and matula kanya its not .How silly can argument get.

Anyway would like to end with this note do want to enter into long and protracted debate due to time restrain But will answer replies soon.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com> wrote:

--