Verse 8.227

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

पाणिग्रहणिका मन्त्रा नियतं दारलक्षणम् ।
तेषां निष्ठा तु विज्ञेया विद्वद्भिः सप्तमे पदे ॥ २२७ ॥

pāṇigrahaṇikā mantrā niyataṃ dāralakṣaṇam |
teṣāṃ niṣṭhā tu vijñeyā vidvadbhiḥ saptame pade || 227 ||

The marriage -texts are clearly conducive to ‘wife-hood’; and these are to be recognised by the learned as completed at the ‘seventh-step.’—(227)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Wife’ is consort; and ‘wife-hood’ is brought about by the mantras,— which are thus ‘conducive to’ it. That is, the sacramental rite called ‘marriage’ is accomplished by the use of these mantras, in the case of the twice-born castes; it is not so in the case of the śūdra, in whose case no mantras are used; though, barring the mantras, all the rest of the procedure is the same. It is in this sense that the mantras are indicative of the sacramental rite of ‘marriage.’

Of these ‘mantras,’ the completion, end, is to be ‘recognised,’—‘at the seventh-step.’ After the ‘offering of fried grains,’ the bride is made to go round the fire thrice and then move forward seven steps, the words addressed to her beginning with the words ‘ekapadī bhava’ and ending with ‘saptapadī bhava,’ and when the ‘seventh step’ has been thus taken by the bride, there can be no revoking, either on the part of the bride’s father or on that of the bridegroom. So that even though she be insane, she has to betaken as ‘wife,’ and cannot be abandoned.

There can be no such ‘marriage’ of a girl, who has already had sexual intercourse; and in her case even though the entire procedure, up to the ‘offering of fried grains’ may have been gone through, she does not become a ‘wife.’ So that in this case, a revoking of the bargain is possible, just as in the case of any other commodity. Just as the performance of the rites of ‘fire-laying,’ if done by a Śūdra, cannot make the fire ‘āhavanīya’ (sacrificial),—or as the performance of the fire-offerings and other details of the marriage-rite does not make it a regular ‘marriage,’ if the bride happens to bn within ‘sapiṇḍa-relationship’ to the bride-groom. In fact these cases are regarded as transgressions, as is clearly indicated by the following declaration of Vaśiṣṭha:—‘By reason of having gone through the rites the man becomes liable to expiation and the bride becomes unfit for being married to any one else.’

“If a man, after having married a girl suffering from a disease conducive to sterility, does not abandon her, what would be the remedy?”

If he has the wish and the capacity, he shall marry another girl; just as in the case of one who has a sharp-tongued wife and whom ‘he shall give up at once’ (Manu, 9.81).

In a case where, after she has given birth to a son and the man has set up the lire, the wife happens to be attacked by some wasting disease,—the husband shall not have her superseded; specially as the circumstances under which supersession is permissible have been strictly enumerated (9.77-85). Even then, if some one were to take to another wife, by reason of the unchaste character of his former wife, we could not prevent him.

In brief then, the rule relating to girls is that,—even though in the case of ether commodities, there is rescission, by mutual understanding, even after ten days,—there can be no such revoking in the case of girls who have been married. Even in cases where girls are given in return for prices paid, they are to be treated as other commodity only until marriage has been performed. While in the case of one who is given away in a purely religious spirit, there can be no revoking at all; so say the texts. Though in such cases also, there is revocation,—as declared by Yājñavalkya (I.65) ‘Even though she has been betrothed, the girl may be taken back if a better bridegroom present himself,’—but only till the ‘seventh step’ has been taken. Once the ‘seventh step’ has been taken, the gift cannot be rescinded; and hence there is no revoking in this case; just as there is none in the case of such gifts as the cow and the like. When once a cow has been given to a person, the gift cannot he returned and taken back, oven by mutual understanding; because the act of giving has been already accomplished at the time that the gift was made. So that when once the gift has been accepted, if it were given again to the original giver,—then this would only he an entirely different act of gift, and not the revoking of the former gift. Similarly in the case where both the bride and the bridegroom are possessed of the requisite qualifications, there can be no rescission (of the betrothal), even before the marriage has been performed. While after the marriage has been performed, there can be no abandonment of even a defective bride. Though if she happens to be one who has already had intercourse, and is therefore not a ‘maiden’ at all,—she may be abandoned; since marriage is enjoined as to be done with a ‘maiden.’ Marriage stands on the same footing as using; and just as the cloth that has been used and worn cannot be returned to the seller oven within ten days, so the maiden also who has been married cannot be abandoned.

This subject we shall deal with again under 9.47.—(227)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 585), to the effect that ‘marriage’ is accomplished on the reaching of the seventh step;—and again at p. 836, to the effect that the taking of the ‘seven steps’ is absolutely essential.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 893), to the effect that the taking of the seven steps constitutes an essential factor in the sanctificatory rite of marriage;—again in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 107), to the same effect;—again at p. 130, where the following notes are added—‘niṣṭhā,’ means completion, of ‘wife-hood,’—‘saptame pāde,’ i.e., on the seven steps being reached by the girl;—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 529);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 222);—and in Hāralatā (p. 52) which has the following notes:—‘Niyatam’, i.e., bringing about wife-hood, all the other details being mere accessories.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.226-227)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.226.