Page 361 of: Paumacariya (critical study)

332
A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAṂ
one who followed the fourth stage of life. Manu states that a Sanyāsin
should wander from place to place (nirapekṣaḥ parivrajet 6.33). The
other two stages, which preceded the above mentioned stages, were those
of studentship and householder (Brahmacarya & Gārhasthya). These
were the four stages of life as defined by the Brahmanical works.
But still the orthodoxy or the strictness in observing the four
stages of life is not evidenced in the PCV. Prince Anuddhara (39.84)
became a Tāpasa without marrying and Purohita Agniketu (41.48)
became so before attaining the prescribed age for entering the
third stage. Further each and every non-Jaina Vipra is not mentioned
Hence the
to be regularly entering all the four stages of life.
observations of B. S. Upadhyaya (IK, p. 174) are correct when he
says that the four-stages of life were actually not observed in practice.
So it can be surmised that one's inclination to renounce the world
was more important than the mere consideration of the factor
of age.
SECTION 2. FAMILY AND RELATIONSHIP
A. Family
The family, the fundamental unit of society is denoted by
kutumba (99.8; 5.184), parivāra (6.36; 66.16), and kula (53.17; 14.145).
All the members of a family bore affection for one another, performed
their respective duties, helped in strengthening social bonds and thus
paved the way for the advancement and happiness of one another.
The family was paternal in constitution and therefore, the father was
the master and all in all of the whole family. His orders were obeyed
by all, so he has been called 'gṛhapati' (48.77). His wife was the
mistress of the house. She is called 'grhini' (grhiṇi 45.33 or ghariṇi
71.1). She remained faithful to her husband.
--
Father the sole authority:
-The father had full control over his sons
and daughters. He selected their life partners (27.41; 15.35-39;
8.1-21; 12.1-8; 38.28). He saw to the utmost well-being of his
daughter while selecting her husband (10.1-8). Ther is a case of a
mother (Kaikeyi) who took initiative and got her son (Bharata)
married to the girl (Subhadra) of her choice through the consent of
her husband (28.130). The word of father were binding on his son in
the matters relating to marriage and the latter did not violate them
(15.89-91). The father was the final authority in distributing his
property to his sons (48.77-80). A father could expel his sons from
home if thay behaved contrary to the social custom (25.17; 82.79;