The Markandeya Purana (Study)

by Chandamita Bhattacharya | 2021 | 67,501 words

This page relates ‘Family Structure (Introduction)’ of the study on the Markandeya Purana, one of the oldest of the eigtheen Mahapuranas preserving the history, civilisation, culture and traditions of ancient India. The Markandeyapurana commences with the questions raised by Rishi Jaimini (a pupil of Vyasa), who approaches the sage Markandeya with doubts related to the Mahabharata. This study examines various social topics such as the status of women, modes of worship, yoga, etc.

Family Structure (Introduction)

The family is a well-knit unit of society. Generally it comprises the husband, wife, children, brother, sister and parents. The family is the smallest and starting point of evaluation from the sociological point of view. The word family has come from the Roman term ‘famulus’ i.e. a domestic slave.[1] In the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa we find the description on the concept of family life expressed through the conversation between two deers.[2] Here it is stated that a family is considered to be complete when there is a child.[3] But, in spite of having many sons and daughters, a man has to dwell amidst the flames of raging conflagration for the excessive self-interest in those children.[4]

Status of the Father

In the Vedic period, a father was considered as the head of the family. All liabilities of the family were dependent upon him and all other members of the family owed obedience to him.[5] The Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa also agrees that father is all in all in a family. It has been expressed by the speech of Kuvalayāśva that those sons are very lucky and happy who, in their father’s lifetime possess a particle from a huge amount of father’s wealth.[6]

On the other hand, the fatherless one, who worry about wealth, are truly lacking in happiness, enjoyment and are deceived by the providence.[7] The father occupies an important place in the whole family. So, he should be honoured and should not be touched with the foot by his son. It is mentioned in the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa that touching the father as well as the cow, the fire, the mother, the sister, the son-in-law, the brāhmaṇas and the aged ones with the foot was considered to be a sin.[8] Again, killing of the father,[9] disregarding of parents etc. are included into very sinful acts.[10] Thus we can imagine the high status of the father in the family at the time of the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa.

Status of the Son

There are various duties and responsibilities to be performed by a son. Like the father, a son also takes an important part in the family.In the Vedas we find the references of a parent's desire for having one or more sons and a mother bearing ten sons were considered to be very lucky. The generation of the family survives through the birth of a son. So the son acts as the continuer of the family line. The birth of a son is the primary object of a married couple.[11] Generally every married couple is found to have a craving for the birth of a good and heroic son. The Ṛgveda contains enough examples of desiring brave sons.[12] The son was trusted to save his forefather from the hell called ‘put’ into which they might otherwise fall without his birth.[13] Birth of a son was dreamt up to be responsible towards helping father to perform his duties which are due to the manes, men and the gods.[14] A man cannot achieve the aim like worshipping the gods, the manes and the living-beings without begetting sons.[15] It is also believed that, when one sonless person performed sacrifices to the pitṛs with the offerings of flesh then he might get sons. Penance was also practised for that purpose. For example king Karandhama performed penance and pleased God Indra for obtaining a son.[16] According to Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, sonless is better than having a fool or bad son. Because a bad son brings unhappiness to the family, friends, untimely old age to his parents and causes the downfall of his pitṛs from the heaven. A bad behavioural son is hated by everyone because he never satisfies the pitṛs, gratifies his friends and brings misery to his parents.[17] On the other hand, a good son is a protector of his father.[18] That son who is known in the world through his father is considered to be hated one. But the birth of that father is considered to be worth (sujaṇma) if he attains fame through his son.[19]

It is seen that every man in this world tries to achieve fame by acquiring knowledge in different branches, offering gifts or donations to the needy and earning prowess. But a father, how much may he have acquired fame, wants to see his son surpassing him in all good aspects. This has been stated in the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa that person who is not surpassed by his son in respect of knowledge, gifts and prowess cannot experience that happiness which springs from a good son.[20] Again upon the success and progress of his son a person’s epithet putravān depends. It is stated here that father, in true sense, as putravān i.e. possessed of a son if his son possesses both knowledge of the śāstras and good character. These qualities of his son also are always extolled by his friends and foes respectively.[21] Those parents are considered to be fortunate whose sons are commanded by the entire world, beneficent, peaceful and devoted to good work.[22] On the basis of the skill and greatness of sons the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa divides the sons into three groups, viz. uttama, madhyama and adhama. Accordingly, a middling (madhyama) son is he who does not diminish the glory, wealth and heroism of his father, the best (uttama) son is he who adds, by his own might, fresh heroism to the victory achieved by his father and exceeds that, and the lowest son is that who lessens the wealth, heroism and glory acquired by his father.[23] Also, a son who acquires fame by his own work is considered as fortunate or lucky, he is considered an ordinary (middling) man if he is known through his father, grandfather and also if a son is known by his maternal relatives and mother, he is called the worst of men.[24]

Relation between Father and Son

The relation between a father and a son is very close. In the 1 st sūkta of the Ṛgveda, in the context of praising God Agni, it is stated that the father is easily available (sūpāyana) for a son for his (son’s) wellbeing.[25] Likewise, Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa shows the friendly and strong relation between the father and the son. A father discussed every matter with his son, except his personal matter. A father prays Agni to protect his beloved son just like a father.

This is quoted in the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa thus—

yatte vahne śivaṃ rūpaṃ ye ca te sapta hetayaḥ /
taiḥ pāhi naḥ stuto deva pitā putramivātmajam
//[26]

For example, prince Ṛtadhvaja who accepts the orders of his father (piturādeśakārin)[27] decided to work for his father without being remarried after the death of his wife, Madālasā.[28] It is permissible for a son to discuss his personal life with his father. On the basis of this opinion Suprabhā’s father told Nābhāga to obtain his father’s permission to marry Suprabhā, a Vaiśya lady.But Nābhāga refused to do it thinking that there is no scope for consultation with the gurus those works which should not be done.[29] On the other hand, there are some sons who did not fulfil their father’s request. For example, sage Sukṛṣa’s sons did not accept his father’s order. They refused to do when he asked them to give their flesh to Indra who had come, in the guise of an old bird, to test his truthfulness. Then, out of anger, Sukṛṣa cursed his sons to born as birds. But, later on he repented for his work and bestowed upon them the highest knowledge it shows his love for his sons.[30]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

J. Sanyal and Mallick, K.N., Social Philosophy, p.58

[2]:

Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, 65.21; 117.10

[3]:

aputro’haṃ mahārāja vṛthā janmaprayojanam /
vicārayanna paśyāmi prāṇānām iha dhāraṇam // Ibid., 117.10

[4]:

bahavo me sūtā bhūpa bahvyo duhitarastathā /
yaccintā-duḥkha-dāvāgnijvālāmadhye vasāmyaham // Ibid., 117.16

[5]:

Rgveda, 4.17.17; 8.86.4

[6]:

te subhāgyāḥ supuṇyāśca yeṣāṃ pitari jīvati /
tṛṇaṃ koṭisamaṃ vittaṃ tāruṇyaṃ vittakoṭiṣu // Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, 22.7

[7]:

yairna cintyaṃ dhanaṃ kiñcin mama gehesti nāsti vā /
pitṛbāhutarucchāyaṃ saṃśritāḥ sukhino hite // Ibid., 20.10-11

[8]:

Ibid., 14.59-60

[9]:

Ibid., 10.81

[10]:

Ibid., 15.3

[11]:

Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, 8.228; cf. Rāmāyaṇa, 1.38.12

[12]:

Ṛgveda, 1.64.14 d; 1.140.12 c; 2.23.19 b; 2.24.15 c; 2.32.1 d; 7.34.20 d, 8.27.16 c

[13]:

garbhādhānavidhānena na kāmamanurudhyatā /
putrārthaṃ janitaścāyaṃ punnāmno bibhyatā mune // Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, 72.16;
cf., puṃnāmna narakād yasmād trāyate pitaraṃ sutaḥ /, Mahābhārata, 1.147.5; Rāmāyaṇa, 2.107.12; Manusmṛti, 9.138; Nirukta, 2.11

[14]:

pitṛdevamanuṣyāṇāṃ yānyuktāni ṛṇāni vai /
tānyapākurute putro............................. // Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, 3.40

[15]:

anutpādya sutāndevānasantarpya pitṛṃstathā /
bhūtādīṃ ca kathaṃ mauḍhyāt sugatiṃ gantumicchhasi // Ibid., 92.7; cf., Manusmṛti, 6.35

[16]:

Ibid., 118.1

[17]:

Ibid., 72.7 b -9,12

[18]:

satputreṇa tvayā putra tārito’ham mahātmanā / Ibid., 19.92 a

[19]:

dhik tasya janma yaḥ pitrā loke vijñāyate naraḥ /
yat putrāt khyātimabhyeti tasya janma sujanmanaḥ // Ibid., 19.101

[20]:

na satputrakṛtāṃ prītimanyaḥ prāpnotimānavaḥ /
putreṇātiśayito yaḥ prajñādānavikramaiḥ // Ibid., 19.100

[21]:

śastrasilesamaṃ manye yasmin dhanyataraṃtu tam /
yasya mitra-gunān mitrāṇyanitrāśca parākramam //
kathayanti sadā satsu putravāns tena vai pitā / Ibid., 18. 25-26 a

[22]:

dhanyās te tanayā yeṣāṃ sarvalokābhisamotāḥ /
paropokāriṇaḥ śāntāḥ sādhukarmaṇyanuvrātāḥ // Ibid., 72.10

[23]:

Ibid., 19. 94-97

[24]:

ātmajñānī yato dhanyo madhyaḥ pitṛpitāmahaiḥ /
mātṛpakṣeṇa mātrā ca khyātiṃ yāti narādhamaḥ // Ibid., 19.102

[25]:

sa naḥ piteva sunave’gne sūpāyano bhava sacasvā naḥ svastaye // Ṛgveda, 1.1.9

[26]:

Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, 96.71

[27]:

Ibid., 19.8

[28]:

Ibid., 21.16-17

[29]:

praṣṭavyāḥ sarvakāryeṣu guravo guruvartibhiḥ /
na tvīdṛśeṣvakāryeṣu gurūṇāṃ vākyagocaraḥ //
kva manmatha kathālāpo gurūnāṃ śravaṇaṃ kva ca /
viruddhametadanyatra praṣṭavyā guravo nṛbhiḥ // Ibid., 110.13-14

[30]:

Ibid., 3.15

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: