Verse 9.111 [Separation of the Brothers: Partition: Allotment of Shares]

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

एवं सह वसेयुर्वा पृथग् वा धर्मकाम्यया ।
पृथग् विवर्धते धर्मस्तस्माद् धर्म्या पृथक्क्रिया ॥ १११ ॥

evaṃ saha vaseyurvā pṛthag vā dharmakāmyayā |
pṛthag vivardhate dharmastasmād dharmyā pṛthakkriyā || 111 ||

Thus may they live either together, or separately, with a view to spiritual merit; by separate living merit prospers; hence separation is meritorious.—(111)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Inasmuch as no man voluntarily incurs any responsibilities regarding the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices, which involves the spending of wealth,—the text proceeds to recommend ‘separation,’ with a view to the performance of such acts.—‘Or separately with a view to spiritual merit’—This does not mean that, non-separation is sinful; all that is meant is that Separation is meritorious, just like the Agnihotra and other acts.

“But since non-separation would be an obstacle to the performance of the meritorious acts, it should he sinful.”

There is no force in this objection. There is sin only when a man omits to do what it is his duty to do; and one who has not separated from his brother is not entitled to the performance of the religions acts, for the simple reason that he has no independent ‘Fire’ of his own; as the ‘Laying of Fire’ has been laid down as to be done at the time of separation. In the case of the man who has married and laid his Fires during his father’s life-time, he is at once entitled to the performance of the religious acts; so that for such a man there is no ‘non-separation.’ But even in this case, if the man happens to lose his properly, or for some reason does not possess enough wealth to enable him to perform the religious acts, he would not incur sin, if he lived with his brothers. Because, as has been already pointed out, neither ‘separation’ by itself, or ‘non-separation’ by itself, is cither meritorious or sinful.

“It has been declared that ‘for brothers who have not divided their property a single religious duty is performed,’ which shows that like husband and wife, the brothers perform their duty conjointly; and this clearly shows that before separation, their clear duty is that they should act conjointly, on account of their property being common.”

This cannot be the case with the Agnihotra and similar acts. These are performed in the ‘Āhavanīya’ and other consecrated fires; and the existence of these fires is due to certain consecratory rites. Further, as the injunction relating to these contains the verb with the Ātmanepada ending, it is clear that the Fires consecrated by one man cannot be used by another; and further the pouring of oblations in Fires consecrated by another person is found to be distinctly forbidden—‘one should not offer sacrifices in Fires belonging to another man.’ Nor is the performance of the Agnihotra and other rites laid down as to be done in the household Fire kindled according to Smārta rites, because the very term ‘household’ connotes a special qualification; and the tin; thus qualified could be used for certain specified purposes only; such for instance as the feeding of guests and other acts laid down as constituting the ‘great sacrifices;’—in such texts as—‘In the marital fire should one perform his household-rites, as also the five sacrifices.’ From this it is clear that in the household-fire one can perform only the household-rites. Consequently when a text says that ‘a single duty is performed,’ it clearly refers to such acts as the Śrāddha, the Charities and so forth.—(111)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 459), which has the note that, what is meant is that separation is considered desirable, because it affords the opportunity for several performances of sacrifices; it is not meant that the separation itself is conducive to merit, like the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma, or that non-separation is sinful, like the eating of the flesh of the animal killed by a poisoned arrow.

It in quoted in Aparārka (p. 719), which adds that conjoint life is meant for those cases where some of the brothers may be still studying; in cases where all of them have read the Veda and are capable of taking the fires, it is far better that they should live separately;—again on p. 722, to the effect that it is not necessary that the brothers must divide immediately after the father’s death;—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 125) as sanctioning partition as conducive to religions merit;—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a);—and by Jīmūtavāhāna (Dāyabhāga, p. 37), which says that this is a clear case of voluntary option.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (28.4).—‘In partition, there is increase of spiritual merit.’

Bṛhaspati (25.6).—‘When several brothers reside in the same house and cook their food together, the Pitṛs, Gods and Brāhmaṇas are worshipped at a single place; but after they have divided the property, the worship takes place separately in each house.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 719).—‘It has been ordained that while the parents are alive, the sons shall live together; when the parents have died, and the sons become divided, their spiritual merit increases.’