Verse 3.5 [Marriageable Girls]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

असपिण्डा च या मातुरसगोत्रा च या पितुः ।
सा प्रशस्ता द्विजातीनां दारकर्मणि मैथुने ॥ ५ ॥

asapiṇḍā ca yā māturasagotrā ca yā pituḥ |
sā praśastā dvijātīnāṃ dārakarmaṇi maithune || 5 ||

She who is not a “sapiṇḍa” of one’s mother, not of the same “Gotra” as his Father, and who is not born of (unlawful) intercourse—has been recommended for marriage.—(5)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The text proceeds to show what sort of maiden should be married.

‘She who is not a sapiṇḍa of one’s mother, and who is not of the same gotra as his Father, has been recommended for marriage.’ The term ‘sapiṇḍa’ indicates the relations on the mother’s side. According to another Smṛti, women are called the “mother’s sapiṇḍa” only up to three steps of relationship. But, as a matter of fact, marriage with relatives on the mother’s side is permitted beyond not the third, but the fifth, step of relationship. Says Gautama (4—3 and 5)—‘Beyond the seventh step of relationship on the Father’s side and beyond the fifth step on the mother’s side.’ Thus, inasmuch as the term ‘sapiṇḍa’ cannot be taken here in its literal sense (of relation within three steps of relationship), it has to be explained, in accordance with other Smṛtis (such as Gautama), as standing for ‘mother’s relation.’ The meaning thus comes to be—‘She who is not born of the mother’s family;’ and the limit of relationship is to be taken as prescribed by Gautama. So that one should not marry the girl who is descended either from his maternal grandfather or great-grandfather, up to five steps downwards, on account of the closeness of relationship among the descendants of these. Hence the mother’s sister, the daughter of the mother’s sister, as also those descended from the maternal great-grandmother, all these become excluded, on the ground of all of them being ‘relations.’

‘She who is not of the same gotra as his Father—The term ‘gotra’ has been declared to stand for the descendants of

Vaśiṣṭha, Bhṛgu, Garga and the rest.—‘Of the same gotra’ means belonging to same gotra. That is, a ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ girl cannot be married by a ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ boy; nor the ‘Garga’ girl by a ‘Garga’ boy.

In the Vaśiṣṭha (Dharmaśāstra), there is prohibition also of the girl belonging to the same gotra as one’s mother. It says—‘If the twice-born person marries a girl of the same gotra or the same Pravara as himself, he shall renounce her and perform the penance of the Cāndrāyaṇa; so also if he has married the daughter of his maternal uncle, or a girl of the same gotra as his mother.’

Gautama says—‘There is marriage between parties not having the same Pravara’ (4.2); so that if the Pravara is different, there may be marriage, even though the gotra happen to be the same.

This, however, is not right; because another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya) has prohibited both—‘one should marry a girl born of a different gotra and Ṛṣi’ (Acāra, 53),—where ‘Ṛṣi’ stands for ‘pravara.’

“But how can a girl be born of the same Ṛṣis when her gotra is different?”

Why may this not be possible when the Smṛti distinctly speaks of it? This subject is one that falls entirely within the purview of Śruti and Smṛti, and is beyond our perception; so that there could be no incongruity (in what is directly asserted in the Smṛti).

“What are ‘pravaras,’ after all?”

Well, you are asking too little; you might as well ask—‘What is a Brāhmaṇa?’ ‘What is a gotra?’ In fact, just as the generic character of ‘man’ being equally present in all men, the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and the rest constitute the particular species included under that generic character,—exactly in the same manner, the generic character of ‘Brāhmaṇa’ being common among a number of men, ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ and the rest come in as specific sub-divisions; and related to each ‘gotra’ there are a few names of ‘Ṛṣis;’ and the person who belongs to a certain ‘gotra’ has to connect himself with these Ṛṣi-names, which are called his ‘pravara.’ This same is the meaning of the term ‘pravara’ in connection with the prohibition of marriage.

The writers of Sūtras have mentioned the pravaras along with each distinct gotra, in such words as—‘such and such are the pravaras of the person belonging to such and such a gotra.’ As for the distinct gotras, these are duly remembered by the persons born in those gotras themselves—‘we belong to the ‘Parāśara-gotra,’ ‘we belong to the Upamanyu-gotra,’ and so forth. Though, like.their gotra, people remember their pravaras also, yet inasmuch as the number of pravaras is large, it was thought that people might forget them, and hence the Smṛtis were written for the purpose of mentioning the pravaras connected with each of the gotras. As for the gotra, save that people themselves remember it, there is no other indicative in the form that ‘he who is like this and that belongs to such and such a gotra. All that has been declared in connection with gotra is that persons belonging to the same gotra must belong to a common stock and a common caste.

This diversity of Gotra and Pravara is found only among Brāhmaṇas, not Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas. Say the authors of the Kalpasūtra—‘that of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya is determined by that of their priests.’ On the ground of this Kalpasūtra-statement occurring in the section dealing with Pravara, it might be construed to be a denial of pravara only, which might be understood to apply to those two castes also by reason of particular gotras having been mentioned in relation to them. But, in reality, there are no gotras mentioned in connection with them.

“Under the circumstances, what sort of restriction would there be on the point of relationship, in connection with marriages?”

Our answer is as follows:—The rule of Gautama (4. 3), that ‘it should be beyond the seventh step among the relations on the father’s side,’ is common to all castes (and this would supply the necessary limitation).

In the present verse also the term ‘not of the same gotra’ means ‘who is not a Sapiṇḍa;’ and, just as the term ‘sapiṇda,’ in the preceding phrase, so the same term here also, would be taken as standing for ‘relations;’ and in this way we secure the exclusion of girls descended from the father’s sister, as also of other girls descended from one’s great-grandfather, up to the seventh step. And it is only persons up to the seventh step of relationship that have been called ‘sapiṇḍa.’

Others have explained ‘gotra’ to mean family. And in this case, there is no need for any limit; there can be no marriage among parties who know each other as ‘belonging to the same family.’ In accordance with this view also the term ‘asapiṇḍā’ has to be construed twice over; so that, as before, the daughter of the father’s sister and Others become excluded.

“But, according to this view, the exclusion of girls belonging to the same gotra and having the same pravaras becomes difficult. As among these there is no such idea as that ‘we belong to the same family.’”

The answer to the above is that this difficulty is sought to be explained by a reference to tradition. There is a tradition that ‘Vaśiṣṭha and others like him are the prime progenitors of families, and persons descended from them and belonging to their gotra are the Pravaras, who were their sons and grandsons endowed with excellent austerities and learning and vastly famous.’ [ And in this sense ‘persons belonging to the same gotra and having the same pravaras’ may be regarded as ‘belonging to the same family.’] In other Smṛtis also we find the same rule.

The following facts, however, have to be borne in mind in this connection:—In the phrase, ‘having the same pravaras,’ the sameness is in regard to the names, not the mere number, of Pravaras; and the question arises, whether the prohibition applies to all cases where al the Pravara-names are the same, or only to those where even one name, happens to be common. If the whole set of names constitutes the ‘pravara,’ then there is no ‘sameness of Pravara’ in a case where a few names are common but others are different, and hence the ‘set of names’ in the two cases becomes different; so that the prohibition would not apply to such a case; and marriage could take place between the Upamanyus and the Parāśaras, whose gotras are different,—one belonging to the Gotra of Upamanyu, and the other to the gotra of Parāśara,—but there is difference in their. ‘pravaras,’ in the Sense noted above; because for the ‘Upamanyu gotra’ the Pravaras are ‘Vaśiṣṭha, Bharadvāja and Ekapāt,’ while for the ‘Parāśara gotra’ they are ‘Vaśiṣṭhya, Gārgya and Parāśarya.’ If, on the other hand, only one name constituted the ‘Pravara’—and not the whole set, then the prohibition would apply to even such cases where a single name happens to be common. E.g., when it is said ‘Māṣa grains should not be eaten,’ one ceases to eat even mixed Māṣa grains.

What, then, is the right view?

The right view is that single names constitute ‘pravara; it is in accordance with this that we find such usage as ‘ekam vṛṇīte,’ ‘dvau vṛnīte,’ ‘trīn vṛnīte,’—where there is co-ordination between ‘one,’ ‘two’ and ‘three’ with the ‘Pravara;’ and it is said that ‘there should be no marriage even when, one pravara-name is common.’

The mention of the ‘twice-born person’ is merely indicative; as for the Śūdra also there is no marriage up to seven grades of relationship on the father’s aide, and five on the mother’s side.

‘Marriage’—i.e., taking to wife.

‘Recommended’—enjoined with commendation.

‘Who is not born of (unlawful) intercourse,’ i.e., who is born directly from her lawful father. ‘Niyoga’ (begetting of offspring by the widow) having been permitted, the girl who would be born under that form would not be excluded by the foregoing qualifications; hence she is separately excluded by the term ‘who its not born of unlawful intercourse;’ which means that one should not voluntarily marry a girl born, of ‘Niyoga,’ because she is born of unlawful intercourse.

Others read ‘Amaithune’ (for ‘Amaithunī), and explain it to mean that the girl described has been recommended as an associate at religions functions, and not for sexual intercourse.

And such a prohibition would be by way of eulogy; the sense being—‘if one marries a girl with these qualifications, she fulfills his religious functions, even though there be no sexual intercourse.’

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Asapiṇḍā ca yā mātuḥ—asagotrā ca yā pituḥ’—Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda hold the first ‘ca’ to mean that the ‘sagotrā’ of the mother also is excluded; this exclusion is supported by Vaśiṣṭha as quoted by Medhātithi;—according to Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, the second ‘ca’ connects the ‘asapiṇḍā’ with ‘pituḥ’ also. But there appears to be no point in this as the father’s ‘asapiṇḍā’ would be already included under the father’s ‘asagotrā’. Medhātithi appears to have been conscious of this, as he adds that the term ‘sapiṇḍa’ here stands for ‘relations’ [see Trans. p. 26, ll. 3-4, which should be as follows, and not as it appears there—“In the present phrase ‘asagotrā ca pituḥ’, the particle ‘ca’ excludes the fathers sapiṇḍā also.”]

‘Amaithunī’—This is the reading adopted by Medhātithi, to whom Buhler wrongly attributes the reading ‘maithune’ (‘for conjugal union’), which is the reading of Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Kullūka, the last however explaining it to mean ‘(she is recommended) for the Firelaying, child-begetting and other acts to be performed by the husband and wife jointly.’—Medhātithi notes a third reading ‘amaithune’, and explains it to mean that ‘the girl is recommended as an associate at religious functions, and not for sexual intercourse, though he does not consider this satisfactory.—Medhātithi’s reading ‘amathunī’ has been explained by him to mean ‘not born of unlawful intercourse’, and added for the purpose of excluding the girl horn of Niyoga. Though Nandana also adopts this same reading, he explains it as one ‘who has had no sexual intercourse.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 81) in support of the view that the girl to be married should be one who is ‘asapiṇḍā’ on both the paternal and the maternal sides; it adds that ‘asagotrā’ alone would preclude the father’s ‘sagotrā’ also (the gotra of the man being the same as his father’s); the word ‘pituḥ’ has therefore been added with a view to the ‘putrikāputra’.—Such a girl is ‘recommended’—for ‘dārakarma’—such rites as cannot be performed without a wife and for ‘maithune’, i.e., such rites as can he done only conjointly by the pair, e.g. the Pākayajña, and the like,—‘asapiṇḍā ca yā mātuḥ’ is meant to preclude the marrying of the daughter of the maternal uncle, she being the man’s ‘mother’s sapiṇḍā’.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 468), where the following explanation is added—‘who is asapiṇḍā of the mother, as also her asagotrā—who is asagotrā of the father, and also his asapiṇḍā,—is recommended for all acts to be performed by the couple’.—It raises the question that the separate mention of the ‘mother’ is superfluous; as the wife has no ‘piṇḍa’ or ‘gotra’ apart from the husband; so that the ‘asapiṇḍā’ and ‘asagotrā’ of the ‘mother’ would be the same as those of the ‘father’;—and supplies the answer that in the case of the Gāndharva and some other forms of marriage, the bride being not given away by her father, she retains her gotra and piṇḍa; so that her ‘sapinda’ and ‘asagotra’ would not be the same as those of her husband.

In connection with this verse a peculiar point of view has been set forth by ‘some people’ in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 691):—

“Three kinds of sapiṇḍā have got to be excluded—

1. who is one’s own and his father’s sapiṇḍā,
2. who is one’s own sapiṇḍā, but not the sapiṇḍā of his father,
3. who is not one’s own sapiṇḍā, but is the father’s sapiṇḍā.

To the first category belongs the girl who is one’s own sapiṇḍā as being the sapiṇḍā of his father, who is the married husband of his mother;—to the second category belongs the girl who is not the sapiṇḍā of that ‘father’ who is only the supporter (not the progenitor), and is one’s own and his natural father’s (progenitor’s) sapiṇḍā,—and who thus is his own sapiṇḍā, but not that of his supporter-‘father’;—and to the third class belongs that girl who is the sapiṇḍā of the supporter-‘father’, but not one’s own sapiṇḍā. All this diversity is based upon the fact that in the case of the ‘adopted’ son (in whose case the supporter-father and the progenitor-father are different), the son’s body (piṇḍa) does not contain the constituent elements of the body of the father.

For the same reasons there are four kinds of ‘father’ also—

1. the progenitor, the husband of the mother;
2. the owner of the ‘field, i.e. the mother’s husband, who is not the progenitor;
3. the owner of the ‘seed’, i. e. the progenitor, who is not the husband of the mother;
4. and the supporter, i.e. the adoptive father.

Of these the ‘progenitor’, husband of the mother, and the ‘seed-owner’ both transmit the constituents of their body to the child; and on that ground the sāpiṇḍya ‘consanguinity’; of these two Fathers to the Aurasa and Kṣetraja sons would be direct; while that of the ‘field-owner’ (the second kind of ‘father’) would be only indirect, through the field (i.e., the body of his wife); the bodies of the husband and wife having been declared to bo one.—Now the girls that fall within these three kinds of ‘consanguinity would become excluded by the test that ‘one should marry a girl younger than himself, who is not his sapiṇḍā’ (Yājñavalkya 1. 52). But the Sapiṇḍā of the Supporter (adoptive) father would not be the Sapiṇḍā of the adopted son, and as such she would not he excluded by the said text. Hence it becomes necessary to find out a text excluding the ‘father’s Sapiṇḍā;’ and such a text is found in Manu 3. 5 (the present verse). This text clearly implies that the girl who falls within seven degrees of the ‘Sāpiṇḍya’ of the Secondary Father (not the progenitor) is to be avoided; in this sense the term pituḥ, being taken in its etymological sense of one who supports, pāti iti pitā, includes the adoptive, father also.”

This view is not accepted by the author of Vīramitrodaya himself, who takes Manu’s text to mean the exclusion of the girl who is one’s Sapiṇḍā or Sagotrā either through his father or through his mother.

Smṛtitattva (II, p. 106) quotes this verse, explaining daṛa-karma as ‘the act of making a wife’ i.e., the, taking of a wife.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1. 53, p. 34) in the sense that the sagotrā girl is to be excluded.

Vidhānapārijāta (p. 690) quotes this verse and adds that the second ‘ca’ excludes the father’s ‘Sapiṇḍā’ also. Here also we have a reproduction of the discussion found in Parāśaramādhava (see above).

The verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 133), which adds the following explanatory notes:—The meaning of this is as follows—The girl who is not-sapiṇḍā of the mother,—and also her not-sagotrā, which is implied by the first ‘ca’—is recommended, i.e., is fit for being married. The purport of all this is as follows—Twice-born men are entitled to marry girls belonging to the same caste as themselves, as also those belonging to lower castes; the marriage with a girl of the same caste is the principal or primary form of it, while that with a girl of a different caste is only secondary;—for the married man two kinds of acts have been enjoined—sacrifices and intercourse; and in the text the former set of acts is spoken of by the term ‘dāra-karma’, and the latter set by the term ‘maithuna’

Having explained the verse, Madanapārijāta also raises the question why the Sapiṇḍā and Sagotrā of the Mother should be mentioned apart from that of the Father, and deals with it in a somewhat different manner from that in Parāśaramādhava or Vidhānapārijāta. Its answer is that the separate mention is meant to meet the following case—Devadatta has for Ids mother the adopted daughter (of his grandfather), who has been ‘appointed’ by her adoptive ‘father’;—hence Devadatta does not inherit the gotra of his Progenitor-father;—now the husband of the aforesaid adopted daughter (i. e. the progenitor of Devadatta) has adopted a daughter, who is the Sapiṇḍā of her adoptive father (Devadatta’s Progenitor), but not the Sapiṇḍā of Devadatta;—thus Devadatta might marry the adopted daughter of his progenitor. This contingency has been prevented by the separate exclusion of the ‘Mother’s Sapiṇḍā; as the girl, though not the Sapiṇḍā of Devadatta or his adoptive Father, would still be the Sapiṇḍā of his mother, whose piṇḍa is one with that of her husband, (the adoptive father of the girl concerned).

Another question raised is why should the mother’s asapiṇḍā, who is included in the mother’s asagotrā implied by the eha in the text, be mentioned separately?—The ‘mother’s Sapiṇḍā’ has got to be so mentioned for the purpose of excluding the girl born in the family of the father of one’s step-mother, who is one’s own ‘asapiṇḍā’, as also the ‘asagotrā’ of the mother, but is the ‘sapiṇḍā’ of the mother; so that if the text had excluded only the ‘mother’s asagotrā,’ the said girl would he marriageable; she becomes excluded, however, by the condition that she should not he his Another’s sapiṇḍā’.

It goes on to raise a. further question that the phrase ‘asagotrā ca pituḥ’ need not be taken to include the father’s ‘asapiṇḍā’ also, as the latter is already included under the term ‘father’s asagotrā’.—The answer to this is that the separate exclusion of the ‘father’s sapiṇḍā’ is necessary in view of the following case:—Devadatta’s father, Yajñadatta, is the adopted son of his father, Bhānudatta,—a girl is born in the family of Yajñadatta’s progenitor-father,—this girl would be asagotrā of Devadatta’s ‘father’ (adoptive), and also ‘asagotrā’ of his ‘mother’:—thus there would be a likelihood of Devadatta marrying this girl;—and this becomes precluded by taking the ‘ca’ to mean the ‘father’s asapiṇḍā’. If this had not been intended by Manu, he would have said ‘one’s own asagotrā’ (‘asagotrā ca yātmanaḥ’). Thus the upshot of all this is that the girl to be married should be ‘asapiṇḍā and asagotrā’ of his Mother, and also ‘asapiṇḍā and asagotrā of his Father’.

This verse is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 196);—in Gotra-pravara-nibandha-kadamba (p. 131), which adds the following notes:—In as much as the text forbids only the ‘sapiṇḍā’ of the mother, it follows that the sagotrā of the mother is not forbidden;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 184), which adds the following explanation:—The girl who is not ‘sapiṇḍā’ either of the bridegroom or of his mother, and who is not the ‘sagotrā’ of the bridegroom or his father, is commended for the purpose of marriage;—in OodādharUpaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 223), which adds the following notes—‘Dārakarmaṇi’, in the rite that makes a ‘wife’,—‘maithune’, in the act of intercourse which is consummated conjointly by man and woman;—the sense is that the said girl is commended not only for cooking and such other acts as are done by the woman alone, but also in that joint act which is done by both conjointly; according to Kalpataru, ‘maithune’ means ‘in the begetting of the lawful son by means of sexual intercourse’.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 477), in support of the view that not only the girl, but her family also should be carefully examined;—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 588);—in Aparārka (p. 84);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 508);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 204).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (4. 2-5).—‘Marriage should he performed with persons not belonging to the same Pravara;—above the Seventh grade among his paternal relations;—also beyond persons of the same seed;—and above the fifth grade among maternal relations.’

Vaśiṣṭḥa (8. 1, 2).—‘He should marry a girl who has no common Ṛṣi (as her ancestor).........; nor one who is in the seventh grade among his paternal and in the fifth grade among his maternal relations.’

Bodhāyana (2. 1. 38).—‘If he unknowingly marries a girl who is of the same gotra as his mother, he should maintain her as his mother; if he has got a child from her, he should perform the following expiation.........’

Viṣṇu (24.9-10).—‘He should obtain a wife who is not the same gotra as himself nor with the same Pravara-ṛṣis; and who is beyond the fifth grade of his maternal, and beyond the seventh grade of his paternal relations.’

Viṣṇu (Aparārka, p. 82).—‘Those who marry within the seventh and fifth grades, and the children of such marriages, become outcasts and Śūdras.’

Yājñavalkya (1.53).—‘The girl who is free from disease, has a brother, and does not belong to the same gotra or the same Ṛṣis, and who is above the fifth and seventh grades of relationship on the maternal and paternal sides respectively.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3.4.4,5).—‘The girl who does not belong to the same gotra, and who is not his mother’s sapiṇḍa.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (37).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Śātātapa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 590).—‘First of all there should be purity regarding gotra and pravara, and then that regarding the fifth and seventh grades of relationship.’

Baudhāyana (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 590).—‘One born of a woman of the same gotra as her husband is a Caṇḍāla.’

Śātātapa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683).—‘If one marries the daughter of his maternal uncle, or a girl who is of the same gotra as his mother, or of the same pravara,—he should renounce her and perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance.’

Sumanta (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683, Aparārka, p. 80).—‘Having married the daughter of his father’s sister, or that of his mother’s sister, or one who is of the same gotra as his mother, or of the same pravara,—one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa; he shall give her up, but support her.’

Sumanta (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 702).—‘Girls are unmarriageable up to the seventh grade on the father’s side, and up to the fifth grade on the other sides.’

Vyāsa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683).—‘Some people hold that one should not marry a girl who has the same gotra as his mother.’

Kāṭhaka Gṛhya (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683).—‘One should not marry a girl who has the same gotra and the same pravara as his father, nor one who is of the same gotra as his mother.’

Kātyāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 684).—‘One should avoid a girl who, as regards his father, is of the same gotra or of the same pravara; but as regards his mother, only one who has the same gotra (the sameness of pravara in this latter case does not matter).’

Pāraskara (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 702).—‘Jñāti-relationship extends to the seventh grade, or to the tenth.’

Yājñavalkya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 702).—‘From the seventh or the tenth grade extends the Jñāti-relationship.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘On the father’s and on the mother’s side, the sapiṇḍatā (consanguinity) ceases beyond the seventh and the fifth grades of relationship respectively.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 703).—‘One should select a girl who has no pravara- sage in common with him,—avoiding seven grades on the father’s and five on the mother’s side.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704).—‘In marriage one should avoid three grades on the mother’s side and five grades on the father’s.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704).—‘One shall select a girl who has been found to be endowed with the three qualifications, and he should avoid seven grades on his father’s, and five on his mother’s side.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 407).—‘Within the seventh and the fifth grades of relationship from the father and the mother respectively—a girl is unmarriageable; as also one who has the same gotra or pravara.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘The householder shall marry a girl who is in the fifth grade on his mother’s side and in the seventh on the father’s.’

Ślokavaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘One should marry the girl who is the seventh on his father’s side and fifth on his mother’s side.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703).—‘O king, the householder shall marry, in the proper form, a girl who is fifth on his mother’s side and seventh on his father’s side.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704),—‘One shall acquire rightfully a wife, who is not born of the same gotra or the same pravara as himself,—and who happens to he the fifth on mother’s and seventh on the father’s side.’

Manu and Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704).—‘Sapiṇḍatā ceases in the seventh grade.’

Chaturviṁshatimata (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 704).—‘On both sides, one should marry the girl in the third and the fourth grades.’

Saṭtṛṁshanmata (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 704).—‘Manu has declared that one may marry the girl who is in the third grade on the mother’s side and in the third grade on the father’s side.’