365bet娱乐

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

啶夃お啶膏ぐ啷嵿�溹え啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶оぞ啶ㄠじ啷嵿�� 啶оぐ啷嵿ぎ啶む�� 啶ㄠ�嬥お啶�啶︵�嵿く啶む�� 啷�
啶�啶苦い啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶оぞ啶ㄠ�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶溹え啷� 啶むじ啷嵿ぎ啶距う啷� 啶оぐ啷嵿ぎ啷囙ぃ 啶む�� 啶�啶溹�囙い啷� 啷� 啷оエ啷� 啷�

upasarjana峁� pradh膩nasya dharmato nopapadyate |
pit膩 pradh膩na峁� prajane tasm膩d dharme峁嘺 ta峁� bhajet || 121 ||

The Secondary cannot rightly be (equal to) the primary; because in procreation, the father is the primary, therefore he (the secondary) should be treated accordinc, to the law (stated before).鈥�(121)

 

Medh膩tithi鈥檚 commentary (manubh膩峁�ya):

The 鈥�Secondary 鈥欌�� subsidiary i.e., the 鈥�办峁�e迟谤补箩补鈥� son;鈥斺��to the primary鈥欌�攖o the legitimate, 鈥榖ody-born,鈥� 鈥�aurasa鈥� son,鈥斺��cannot he equal鈥欌�攖his has got to be supplied,鈥斺��rightly,鈥� according to law. Hence this cannot be right. That is, it is only the 鈥�legitimate鈥� son of the elder brother who is entitled to the 鈥榩referential share,鈥� which would have been his father鈥檚; while the son in question, the 鈥�办峁�e迟谤补箩补鈥� is only a 鈥�secondary鈥� son.

鈥淭丑别refore h e should be treated according to law.鈥濃�擳he rule of partition stated before.

鈥淏ut if the son in question also happens to be the eldest, wherefore cannot he obtain exactly what would go to the 鈥榣egitimate鈥� son?鈥�

The reason for this is stated:鈥斺��In procreation the father is t he primary.鈥欌�擳he term 鈥榝ather鈥� here stands for the actual progenitor; he is the principal factor in the act of begetting the son. The 鈥�办峁�e迟谤补箩补鈥� son, therefore, being begotten by the younger brother, is secondary.

The verse can be explained only by supplying the words 鈥榠s not equal to.鈥�

This verse is purely declamatory, supplementing the foregoing prohibition of the 鈥榩referential share;鈥� and since it is declamatory, it may be explained, by attributing any meaning to the terms 鈥榩rimary鈥� and 鈥榮econdary.鈥�

Others read 鈥�tasm膩d dharme峁嘺 tam tyajet.鈥� (鈥楾herefore one should rightly abandon him).鈥�

But this is not right; since everywhere the 鈥�办峁�e迟谤补箩补鈥� son has been declared to be entitled to an equal share with the other sons.

Then again, since this passage is purely declamatory, it could not be taken as setting forth an optional alternative (to the 鈥榚qual share鈥� laid down in other texts).鈥�(121)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

鈥�笔谤补诲丑腻苍补蝉测补鈥�.鈥斺�楾he principal, body-born, son鈥� (Medh膩tithi);鈥斺�楾he father, the husband of the widow鈥� (Kull奴ka, Nar膩ya峁嘺 and R膩ghav膩nanda).

鈥淭丑别 subsidiary son has not the same rights as the principal, his dead father, the husband of his widow-mother; it is this father, the husband of the widow, who is the 鈥榩rincipal etc.,鈥� (Kull奴ka and N膩r膩ya峁嘺);鈥斺�榯he father is the principal, not the mother, hence even though the mother is the elder sister-in-law, yet the son does not have the same right as his dead father鈥� (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in 痴颈惫腻诲补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 (p. 542) as supplying a reason for what has been said in 120; it adds the following explanation:鈥斺��upasarjana鈥� is subsidiary, i.e., the 碍峁�e迟谤补箩补 son,鈥攊t is not lawful that this son should be treated like the principal, the 鈥榖ody-born鈥�, son; because in this case (of niyoga) the father, the progenitor-uncle, is the 鈥榩rincipal鈥�;鈥攕uch is the explanation given by the author of the 笔谤补办腻艣补. Lak峁�midhara construes 鈥�Upasarjanam鈥� as 鈥�Upasarjanatvam鈥�; but that makes no difference in the meaning.鈥斺��顿丑补谤尘别峁嘺鈥�, according to the injunction of the scriptures.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.120-121)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.120.