A 'legitimate son'.....

[Pia]

Sorry, am jumping ahead a little here, but I found this precise quote
in MB (discussion on 'legitimacy' on another forum), and here's what
Pandu tells Kunti. I was pretty astounded -- even today's western
societies ain't so liberal about conferring 'legitimacy' on children
born under these circumstances! Especially #s 5, 6 and 10 !!!!

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01121.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01121.htm):

"The religious institutes mention six kinds of sons that are heirs and
kinsmen,
and six other kinds that are not heirs but kinsmen. I shall speak of
them
presently. O Pritha, listen to me. They are:
1st, the son begotten by one's own self upon his wedded wife;
2nd, the son begotten upon one's wife by an accomplished person from
motives of
kindness;
3rd, the son begotten upon one's wife by a person for pecuniary
consideration;
4th, the son begotten upon the wife after the husband's death;
5th, the maiden-born son;
6th, the son born of an unchaste wife;
7th, the son given;
8th, the son bought for a consideration;
9th, the son self-given;
10th, the son received with a pregnant bride;
11th, the brother's son; and
12th, the son begotten upon a wife of lower caste.
On failure of offspring of a prior class, the mother should desire to
have
offspring of the next class."

Pia

[rajeev]

The categories are interesting and quite confusing. If I understand
correctly the first 6 categories are heirs, the next 6 are kinsmen but
not heirs. I'll just jot down some of the questions that it raises.

a. What is the meaning of kinsman? Is it related to performing rites?
b. What do 5. and 9. mean? Are there Hindu stories with maiden-born
children? I assume 7 means adopted son...
c. In general the 'why' of this order eludes me. 12 is of course a
little shocking to modern sensibilities. 6 seems to contradict 2, 3
and 4 but I guess if the husband agrees, the wife is still 'chaste' in
the situations of 2 and 3. But how can the wife be chaste in 4? 4
really seems incongruous unless it implies remarriage!

Rajeev.

[Amit Virmani]

Re: 4, could it refer to the wife becoming pregnant just before the husband dies?

2009/9/7 rajeev <rajeev....@gmail.com>

[Rajeev Ayyagari]

I thought of that, but I felt that wouldn't need a special consideration; it seemed that would come under 1.

[Chris Travers]

It might be interesting to see a major study done on this topic in terms of comparative law.  Here are some preliminary observations though.  It seems that India's rules on this subject were probably not entirely unusual in terms of other Indo-European groups.  The questions seem to be related to support of the child and inheritance.

The question of legitimacy and "marriage" is an interesting one.  Reading this reminds me of the work by the Rees brothers on Celtic/Indian comparisons and the fact that the Brehon Code (the old Irish legal system) recognized 10 forms of "marriage."  However these were, like here, not necessarily economic relationships but rather questions of legitimacy and support for the well-being of the children.  In essence under the Brehon Code, the words translated as "marriage" are nothing more than arrangements for child support.

The forms of marriage thus range from rape, to wife abduction, to one-night stands, to things we would more typically see as marriage.

One list of the Irish forms are found here: http://www.cyonic-nemeton.com/AncientSex.html

1. A marriage of the first degree which took place between partners of equal rank and property.
2. A marriage of the second degree in which a woman had less property than the man and was supported by him.
3. A marriage of the third degree in which a man had less property than the woman and had to agree to management of the woman's cattle and fields.
4. A marriage of the fourth degree was the marriage of the loved one in which no property rights changed hands, though children's rights were safeguarded.
5. A marriage of the fifth degree was the mutual consent of the man and woman to share their bodies, but live under separate roofs.
6. A marriage of the sixth degree in which a defeated enemy's wife was abducted. This marriage was valid only as long as the man could keep the woman with him.
7. A marriage of the seventh degree was called a soldier's marriage and was a temporary and primary sexual union (a one night stand).
8. A marriage of the eighth degree occurred when a man seduced a woman through lying, deception or taking advantage of her intoxication (equivalent to date rape).
9. A marriage of the ninth degree was a union by rape (forcible rape).
10. A marriage of the tenth degree occurred between feeble minded or insane people.

These can be divided into 4 categories (others divide into three, but and 10th degree into different category).  The first is what we might think of as "traditional marriage" which covers degrees 1-3 and involves joint property and living arrangements.  The second is sexual consent, which covers degrees 4-7.  Then there are "criminal marriages" (8 and 9) for which other penalties would also be assessed, and then there was the tenth degree which doesn't seem to fit into the other categories but might be placed under sexual consent because property management would not be a part of the recognized relationship.

I put the sixth degree into sexual consent because some translations say it is only valid if the woman ALLOWS herself to be abducted, and everyone agrees that the woman had the right to leave the arrangement, and I can't read Old Irish well enough to have an informed opinion on where the line would hae been drawn.  Hence such categorization should be seen as somewhat tentative.

My own thinking is that focusing on legitimacy is probably a fairly recent phenomenon or might be more closely related to specifically Greco-Roman developments.  Certainly we see stronger emphasis on legitimate children in Roman law (see Table 4 in http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.htm).

The early Greek code of Crete (450 BCE) provides for legitimate and adopted children, but seems to discuss them only in terms of inheritence obligations.  I.e. adopted children receive half the inheritance share of legitimate children.  Among Norse cultures, questions of legitimacy seemed limited to inheritance and naming conventions as well.  This might be equivalent to the kinsman/heir distinction in the Indian discussion.

Also we see special rules relating to how to determine whether a child is legitimate if born after the husband dies in Greek and Roman law so it would seem to me that number 4 in Pia's post might be related to that determination.  I have not gotten a chance to do careful study of the Icelandic laws at this point but I would not be surprised if there were discussions of that issue there as well.

Anyway, just food for thought.

Chris Travers

[Shampa Chatterjee]

4 is when the wife would undergo niyoga to give the husband a heir. it didnt matter if the husband was dead. a child born to a woman was the husband's legit heir.

--- On Mon, 9/7/09, Rajeev Ayyagari <rajeev....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Baishali Goswami]

• “On failure of offspring of a prior class, the mother should desire
to
have offspring of the next class.”

What does that mean?

• Do we have examples of 8 and 9 in the Mahabharata?

• Karna was a Maiden born child, right?

• One thing common to all 6 cases where the son is the heir, is that
the son has to come out of mom’s womb. I wonder what happened to sons
born from the man and another woman whom he did not marry. Just
kinsman or heir?

• Lastly 3 and 8 contradict each other. A bought son is a kinsman,
whereas, a child borne with pecuniary consideration is an heir. Seems
like 3 was added to the list just to upgrade 8 in case of an
emergency!!


Baishali

[Chris Travers]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Baishali Goswami <imawsog...@googlemail.com> wrote:

•       Lastly 3 and 8 contradict each other. A bought son is a kinsman,
whereas, a child borne with pecuniary consideration is an heir. Seems
like 3 was added to the list just to upgrade 8 in case of an
emergency!!

Questions: Could kinsmen be promoted to heirs if no other heirs were available?

Were kinsmen entitled to any inheritance at all?  Or just a smaller share?

Chris Travers

[rajeev]

On Sep 8, 5:53 am, Baishali Goswami <imawsogilahs...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> •     Karna was a Maiden born child, right?

Karna's father was Suryadeva (sun). Suryadeva "restored" Kunti's
virginity afterwards, but I don't think that makes it a maiden birth.
And it was an act of passion, not niyoga. It looks like Karna doesn't
fit into this hierarchy because Kunti wasn't married when he was
born.

>
> •     One thing common to all 6 cases where the son is the heir, is that
> the son has to come out of mom’s womb.  I wonder what happened to sons
> born from the man and another woman whom he did not marry. Just
> kinsman or heir?

Good question. This list seems to be from the wife's point of view --
it only includes situations where there is a wife. Anyone know of a
more comprehensive list?

>
> •     Lastly 3 and 8 contradict each other. A bought son is a kinsman,
> whereas, a child borne with pecuniary consideration is an heir. Seems
> like 3 was added to the list just to upgrade 8 in case of an
> emergency!!
>

My interpretation: in 3 someone is paid to beget a son on the wife; in
8 the son is not born to the wife but is purchased.

What is 9 "the son self-given" anyone?

[Shampa Chatterjee]

Yes, Karna was not born of Niyoga. The purpose of Niyoga was to obtain an heir. Baishali, your Q. was why the child had to come out of the mom's womb. This is because at the point of panigrahanam, the woman was handed over (all oragns incl :) i.e.) to the man and hence forth everything that came out of her belonged to him. something like the harvest belonging to he to who the land belonged.

Rajeev, the list is not from a woman's point of view. This listing is mentioned in the Manusamhita. And it is a comprehensive list according to which sons can be obtained by 13 ways. Because no matter what a man (or a woman for that matter) had to have a son to offer salvation (via pinda-daan) to his forefathers.

A kinsman could, in the absence of an heir, become one and Hinduism was pretty lax on this conversion. I would recommend a) Dandin's Dasakumar Charita to get an idea of the non-uniformity of practices in 6-7th century India and b) J.J. Meyer's "Sexual life in ancient India".

~Shampa
--- On Tue, 9/8/09, rajeev <rajeev....@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: rajeev <rajeev....@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: A 'legitimate son'.....

[Anindya]

I put the sixth degree into sexual consent because some translations
say it
is only valid if the woman ALLOWS herself to be abducted, and
everyone
agrees that the woman had the right to leave the arrangement, and I
can't
read Old Irish well enough to have an informed opinion on where the
line
would hae been drawn. Hence such categorization should be seen as
somewhat
tentative.

---------------------------------------
Hi Chris, this is very interesting indeed. Indian tradition, to my
knowledge, mentions eight types of marriages, running the gamut from
the traditional full blown ceremony to marriage through getting the
girl intoxicated (the 'Paisaca marriage').

What you described above is the 'Rakshasa marriage" and much
mentioned in our literature. It was considered a rather gallant and
honourable way to get a wife for kshatriyas, esp. if the woman was
willing.

The most famous example in the Mahabharata is the Arjuna-Subhadra
marriage. That's also how Bhishma gets wives for his brother
Vichitravirja (just to hedge his bets, he makes off with all three
daughters of the king...).

Among others we have Krishna-Rukmini.

[Anindya]

> What is 9 "the son self-given" anyone?

Seems like the case of someone going up and saying, "Yo, wouldja
please adopt me as a son ?" and the other party agreeing.
Maybe that was a way of going up in society in those days.

[Anindya]

>. 12 is of course a
> little shocking to modern sensibilities.

IMO, 12 was the case of the 'dasiputra'.

Those ancient princes and maharajas were diddling around quite a bit
with the household help and pregnancies were quite common I guess. In
such a case, perhaps, the woman was sometimes made a 'wife', so her
child had some standing.

If I remember right, Vidura in the Mahabharata is a case 12.

[Dr. Bisakha Sen]

> IMO, 12 was the case of the 'dasiputra'.
>
> Those ancient princes and maharajas were diddling around quite a bit
> with the household help and pregnancies were quite common I guess. In
> such a case, perhaps, the woman was sometimes made a 'wife', so her
> child had some standing.
>
> If I remember right, Vidura in the Mahabharata is a case 12.

So was Jujutsu (maybe he invented Kung Fu too ?). He was a 'dasiputra'
of Dhritarashtra, the one who goes over to the Pandava side literally
minutes before the great war starts. Since all the royal Kaurav
princes are killed, he basically becomes Dhritarashtra and Gandhari's
24 hr caretaker afterwards.

In actual Indian history, the most famous 'dasiputra' is of course,
Chandragupta Maurya, Emperor Ashok's granddad. He was the dasiputra
who overthrew the corrupt and lecherous 'legal prince' Nanda and
established the first great Indian empire in recorded history.

Pia

[Dr. Bisakha Sen]

I read one analysis of the MB regarding Amba (who in the literal story
does tapasya, dies and is immediately reborn as Drupad's daughter
Sikhandini and then goes on to become Prince Sikhandi)......that what
may have actually happened is that Amba became a 'self-given' child of
Drupad, and then took it one step further, training herself in warfare
to the point where Drupad was happy to acknowledge her as a 'son'
rather than a 'daughter'.

Pia