Verse 3.25

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

पञ्चानां तु त्रयो धर्म्या द्वावधर्म्यौ स्मृताविह ।
पैशाचश्चासुरश्चैव न कर्तव्यौ कदा चन ॥ २५ ॥

pañcānāṃ tu trayo dharmyā dvāvadharmyau smṛtāviha |
paiśācaścāsuraścaiva na kartavyau kadā cana || 25 ||

Of the five, three have been declared to be lawful and two unlawful, in this treatise; the Paiśāca and the Āsura forms should never be adopted.’—(25)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The law laid down in this verse pertains to the Kṣatriya and the rest, not to the Brāhmaṇa; for if it referred to the latter, there would be an inconsistency regarding the ‘Rākṣasa’ forms; as the Brāhmaṇa can never do the ‘killing and wounding’ (which are inevitable in that form), which acts are possible only for the Kṣatriya and others.

‘Of the five’— Forms of marriage, beginning with the ‘Prājāpatya’—three are lawful, and two—i.e., the Paiśāca and the Āsura—should never be adopted.

Though the ‘Prājāpatya’ has not been mentioned in connection with the Kṣatriya and others, yet it is here specially enjoined for them; so also the ‘Rākṣasa’ for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra. It is the Āsura and the Paiśāca that are interdicted.

The conclusion on this point is as follows:—For the Brāhmaṇa there are six forms of marriage; of these the ‘Brāhma’ is the best of all; inferior to that are the ‘Daiva’ and the ‘Prājāpatya;’ inferior to these is the Ārṣa, then the ‘Gāndharva,’ then the ‘Āsura.’

There are some people who regard this verse as pertaining to the Brāhmaṇa also. According to these, the ‘Rākṣasa’ form is permissible for that Brāhmaṇa who may have adopted the profession of the Kṣatriya. They argue that, even though the Brāhmaṇa may have abandoned his own functions and taken to those of other castes, if they do some ‘killing and wounding’ in connection with marriage, he may become liable to the performance of expiatory rites for doing those acts; but that would not deprive the ‘Rākṣasa marriage’ of the character of ‘marriage.’

That the ‘Brāhma’ is the best form of marriage has been shown by its results (described in versus 37, et seq.). As for the other three, though they have not been interdicted under any circumstances, yet their inferiority is deduced from the fact that the results following from them are of an inferior type. As regards the ‘Āsura’ form, since it has been specifically prescribed for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, it implies the exclusion of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya from it. And yet we have the distinct injunction of six forms as permitted for the Brāhmaṇa (in 23 above). From all which it follows that there is option; but it is an option with the restriction that one is to have recourse to the second option only in the event of the first option being impossible. Fur-ther, that an option is intended, is clearly established by the fact that several forms of marriage are permitted, and yet a combination of all is impossible; just as, in the case of Vrīhi and Yava, we admit an option, because both are sanctioned, and yet they cannot be combined. Thus, then, when other forms are possible, if one were to adopt the ‘Āsura’ form, its results, in regard to spiritual merit and the character of the offspring, would be inferior.

As regards the Kṣatriya, the ‘Rākṣasa’ form is the best; as it had been enjoined absolutely without any option by all the four verses. Verse 23 permits four forms for the Kṣatriya, which means that the ‘Āsura,’ the ‘Gāndharva,’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ also are permitted; while those latter have been interdicted by the assertion that the Rākṣasa alone is for the ‘Kṣatriya,’ (24). Hence it follows that these latter forms are optional, not primary. In consideration of the context, it is clear that the injunction is for the ‘Rākṣasa’ form only. But, since there is no definite exclusion of the ‘Prājāpatya’ form, this latter also is equal to the ‘Rākṣasa,’ for the Kṣatriya.

Similarly, for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also, the ‘Prājāpatya,’ which has been mentioned as permitted in all cases, is not prohibited. The ‘Āsura’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ are both ‘permitted’ and ‘prohibited’ for them; the ‘Rākṣasa’ also has been interdicted by the phrase, ‘excepting the Rākṣasa’ (23), while it is permitted by the assertion that ‘three are lawful’ (25).

It is for the Brāhmaṇa only that the ‘Paiśāca’ is not permitted, and for the Kṣatriya and the rest, the ‘Brāhma,’ the ‘Daiva’ and the ‘Ārṣa’ are not permitted at all.—(25)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 860) in support of the view that certain forms of marriage are permissible for the, Brāhmaṇa under abnormal circumstances; and adds the following explanation:—From among the five—Prājāpatya, Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca,—the Āsura having been singled out as fit for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra only, and the Paiśāca being deprecated for all, the remaining three alone are lawful for the Brāhmaṇa; i. e., the Prājāpatya, the Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa. This conclusion is based on the analogy of the livelihood recommended for the next lower caste being permissible for the higher caste in abnormal times; so that the marriages commended for the Kṣatriya are permitted for the Brāhmaṇa under abnormal circumstances.

The same work on page 859 quotes the second half of the verse, to the effect that the Paiśāca is not lawful for any caste.

Madanapārijāta (p. 159) quotes it, and offers the following explanation:—From among the five—Prājāpatya, Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca,—three are ‘lawful viz, Prājāpatya, Gāndharva and Rākṣasa. The second half indicates two of these—i.e., the Āsura and Paiśāca—as unlawful.—Even though the Prājāpatya has been enumerated in verse 24 among the primary forms recommended for the Brāhmaṇa, yet, the same is here mentioned only as ‘lawful under abnormal circumstances,’ with a view to indicate that it is inferior to the Ārṣa.

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 487) quotes this verse and adds the following explanation—From among the forms beginning with the Brāhma and ending with the Āsura, three—i. e., the Brāhma, the Daiva and the Prājāpatya are lawful; while Ārṣa and the Āsura are unlawful, on account of their involving the purchase of a wife; as between these two also, one should never adopt the Āsura, which should be avoided as carefully as the Paiśāca, It goes on to add that here Manu has set forth only a view that has been held by ‘some one’; according to his own view, there is no ‘purchase’ involved in the Ārṣa marriage, where the ‘pair of cows’ given are not by way of a ‘price’ for the girl; as has been clearly declared in verse 53 below. So that, according to Manu, the Ārṣa is as lawful as the other three.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 683);—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 479), which adds the following explanation:—Among the five, beginning with the Brāhma and ending with the Āsura, the first three are ‘righteous,’ as not involving any form of selling;—the Ārṣa and the Āsura are ‘unrighteous,’ as involving bartering, and lienee, like the Paiśāca, they should not be adopted even in abnormal circumstances.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Mahābhārata (Ādi-parva, 73.11).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 859).—‘The last one has been condemned.’

Kaśyapa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 488).—‘The woman got by purchase is not called Patnī; she is not fit to participate in rites either to gods or to Pitṛs; Kaśyapa has called her a slave.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 488).—‘The first four marriages are conducive to spiritual merit and help also in the water-offerings; that is, those in which no price is paid, and which alone are fit for the Brāhmaṇa; these save both families.’