Verse 3.26

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

पृथक् पृथग् वा मिश्रौ वा विवाहौ पूर्वचोदितौ ।
गान्धर्वो राक्षसश्चैव धर्म्यौ क्षत्रस्य तौ स्मृतौ ॥ २६ ॥

pṛthak pṛthag vā miśrau vā vivāhau pūrvacoditau |
gāndharvo rākṣasaścaiva dharmyau kṣatrasya tau smṛtau || 26 ||

 The two forms of marriage mentioned before—i.e., the Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa—have been declared, whether separately or mixed, to be lawful for the Kṣatriya.—(26)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Singly’—this is a inert re-iteration, each single form having been already prescribed in the foregoing verses. The ‘mixed’ form is what is prescribed here; where the ‘Gāndharva-Rākṣasa’ are prescribed independently of (apart from) the other forms. The notion derived from what has gone before being that each form stands apart by itself, just like the Vrīhi being used apart from the Yava,—the present verse lays down the combination (of two). When we have two such texts as ‘offer the Vrīhi’ and ‘offer the Yava? each of which prescribes a substance to be used at a sacrifice independently of the other,—we conclude that the two are meant to be optional alternatives, and they are not meant to be mixed tip; because, if the mixture of both were used, we would be obeying neither the injunction of Yava, nor that of Vrīhi. Similarly, in the present case, when only one girl is to be married, it being impossible to adopt any two forms of marriage, the present text proceeds to prescribe the combination of two of them.

Such a combination of the said two forms would be possible under the following circumstances:—A girl living in her father’s house, happens to see a boy living in the same house and having heard praises from messengers, falls in love with him, but not being mistress of herself she cannot meet him,—and then she enters into a compact with her lover, requests him to take her away by some means or other, and gets herself carried away: and the bridegroom, being possessed of great strength, carries her away after having ‘killed and wounded’ (her guardians): Now in this case, since there is ‘voluntary union between the two’ (verse 32), it fulfils the conditions of the ‘Gāndharva’ form: while, since he has carried her away, after ‘having killed and wounded’ (verse 33), the conditions of the ‘Rākṣasa’ form also become fulfilled.

These two forms are possible for the Kṣatriya only. These two are lawful for the Kṣatriya—says the Text.

Mentioned before—is a mere reiterative reference.

Others have offered the following explanation:—When a Kṣatriya marries several girls, he marries one by the ‘Gāndharva’ form, and another by the ‘Rākṣasa’ form:—and this is the ‘mixed form’ meant by the text. And when all are married by one or the other of these two forms, it is a case of ‘separately’ mentioned by the text. And from this we gather that it is only these two forms of marriage that the Kṣatriya might adopt promiscuously—sometimes the one and sometimes the other; while in the case of the ‘Prājāpatya’ and the rest, he should adopt the same form in all his marriages which he happens to adopt in the first.—(26)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 860), where the following notes are added:—This lays down the forms.permissible for the Kṣatriya under abnormal circumstances.—‘Pṛthak’ means unmixed, and ‘Miśra,’ mixed; we have the latter form in a case where the marriage having been previously settled by mutual understanding between the bride and the bridegroom, if the bride’s people oppose it, the bridegroom takes her away by force, as happened in the case of Kṛṣṇa’s marriage with Rukmiṇī (described in the Bhāgavata). A further distinction has got to be made here: the ‘mixed’ form is permissible only under abnormal conditions, while the ‘unmixed’ one is a secondary form permissible for all time; and hence the mention of this latter in the present verse is merely reiterative (as remarked by Medhātithi also),—the reiteration being made for the purpose of indicating the utter inferiority of the ‘mixed’ to the ‘unmixed’ form. This implies that for other castes also, in the event of an ‘unmixed’ form being not possible, the ‘mixed’ form becomes permissible.—Even though the Paiśāca has been prohibited for all, yet it has been mentioned among the forms of marriage only for the purpose of its being permitted for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra under exceptionally abnormal circumstances.

Madanapārijāta (p. 160) also quotes this verse as laying down what is permissible for the Kṣatriya under abnormal conditions. īt adds the following notes:—‘Pṛthak pṛthak’ means the primary and the secondary forms, laid down as alternatives; and the second half quotes an example of the ‘mixed’ form; there is a ‘mixture’ of the Gāndharva and Rākṣasa forms when after a mutual understanding has been arrived at between the bride and the bridegroom, if the bride’s people raise objections to the marriage, the bridegroom fights with them and takes away the bride by force.—This is to be understood only as an illustration; on the same analogy, other ‘mixtures’ may be permissible for other castes also.—Even though very much deprecated, the Paiśāca form is permitted under abnormal circumstances for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra,—as also for such twice-born persons as have adopted the living of the Vaiśya or the Śūdra.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 682).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Mahābhārata (Ādi-parva, 73. 12-13).—‘The Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa are lawful for the Kṣatriya: the two may be performed either separately or jointly.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 16).—‘Some people commend the Gāndharva for all,—since it is accompanied by love.’