Verse 3.53

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

आर्षे गोमिथुनं शुल्कं के चिदाहुर्मृषैव तत् ।
अल्पोऽप्येवं महान् वाऽपि विक्रयस्तावदेव सः ॥ ५३ ॥

ārṣe gomithunaṃ śulkaṃ ke cidāhurmṛṣaiva tat |
alpo'pyevaṃ mahān vā'pi vikrayastāvadeva saḥ || 53 ||

Some people declare that the bovine pair are the “consideration” (to be accepted) in the Ārṣa form of marriage. This is not true; for small or large, the act becomes a ‘selling’ all the same.—(53)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Bovine pair’—i.e., a cow and a bull.

Some people declare that this ‘consideration’ should be accepted.

Manu’s opinion, however, is that ‘this is not true;’ i.e., it should not be accepted.

‘Small’—i.e., accomplished by small means; similarly with ‘large.’ It is ‘selling’ all the same.—(53)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 489), which adds the following explanation:—The ‘gomithuna,’ ‘bovine pair,’ (given by the bridegroom in the Ārṣa marriage) has been called by some people the ‘price’ paid for the girl;—but ‘this is not true,’—i.e., it cannot be regarded as the ‘price’, as it does not posses that character; the ‘price’ of a thing is always an indefinite factor; as is found in every sale-transaction, the price can never be definitely fixed; that which suffices for buying a thing is called its ‘price’; and this varies with time and place. In the present case, however, the amount is definitely fixed; it is the ‘Ārṣa’ marriage when only the ‘cow-pair’ is given, neither more nor less. Thus there being no real buying in this case, the Ārṣa marriage must be regarded as lawful.

Madanapārijāta (pp. 155-156) takes the verse somewhat differently: It says that if the ‘cow-pair’ given by the bridegroom is taken by the bride’s father himself, then it is a clear case of ‘selling’ the girl; but there would be nothing wrong if the present were accepted by him on behalf of the bride, as is clear from the next verse.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 849) quotes it in support of the view that the ‘cow pair’ given in the Ārṣa marriage is not the ‘price’; though it must come to be so regarded if it is taken through greed, as has been made clear by Verse 51 above.

This verse is also quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 759) in support of the view that the Ārṣa marriage involves no ‘selling’ of the girl,—and it reproduces the arguments adduced by Parāśaramādhava (above).

It is quoted in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 479), which has the same note as Parāśaramādhava (above); but makes things clear by reading ‘Kriyate tāvataiva saḥ’, which lends itself to the desired interpretation much more easily than the reading ‘vikrayastāvadeva saḥ,’ which calls the transaction pure ‘selling’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 231), which explains ‘mṛsā’ as ‘false,’ and declares that the marriage is unrighteous, in as much as it involves ‘selling’, the cow-pair being the price and not mere śulka or ‘fee.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Mahābhārata (13.80.20-21).—[Reproduces Manu’s words and adds]—‘though this has been done by some persons, yet it is not the Eternal Law; because such action is found, in many cases, to he due to greed.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.36).—‘Therefore, when the present of a chariot and a hundred cows is made, it is known as selling.’ Apastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.13.11).—[See under verse 51.]

Mahābhārata (13.45.20).—(Same as Manu.)