व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

128 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IV 5. 30-33
[ M p. 62 ll. 1-10
those who are dvyāmuṣyāyaṇas such as those adopted or bought
cannot marry in both gotras just as in the case of Śauṅga-Śaiśiri
which declares that the dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa has both gotras and the verse
of Manu (9 142) which declares (in the case of the adopted son) the cessa-
tion of the gotra of the natural father, this conflict can be removed only
by (postulating) a distinction (of dattaka) into kevala (dattaka) and dvyā-
muṣyāyaṇa For these (three) reasons the (existence of the) kevaladattaka
also is established
It is for this reason (i e on account of the distinction between kevala-
dattaka and dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa) that after declaring on the strength of the
text of Manu the cessation of sapiṇḍa relationship between Arjuna the
son of Kuntī who was given as an adopted daughter to Kuntibhoja by Śūra
and Subhadrā a daughter of Vasudeva son of Śūra and after declaring that
this passage of Gautama (4 3) is merely concerned with the prohibition
(in marriage) of even a girl born in the line of (santāna) the pro-
creator and after raising the doubt that Subhadrā was not fit to be
married by Arjuna Bhaṭṭa Someśvara puts forward the explanation
(refuting the doubt) viz the assumption of a distant relationship, which
(explanation) was offered in the Vārtika¹ (viz the Tantravārtika of
they are, according to others, the ancestors of the founders of each gotra Śaiśiris are a
sub-division of the Katas, who are a branch of the Viśvāmitra gotra while the Śauṅgas
are a subdivision of the Bhāradvāja gotra. On the wife of a Śauṅga a Śaiśiri begot a
son by niyoga. The descendants of the son so begotten came to be called Śauṅga-Śaiśiris
and they could not marry in both gotras viz. Bhāradvāja and Viśvāmitra. Vide notes
to V M p. 100 The argument of Nīlakaṇṭha is that the conflict between the verse from
the pravarādhyāya and that of Manu leads to the inference that they refer to distinct
kinds of dattaka (i. e. there is a viṣayavyavasthā) viz. dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa and kevala.
1 Mandlik (p. 63) in his translation makes a mess of this somewhat difficult and invol-
ved passage. He had apparently no clue to what the Vārtika was and what Someśvara said
His translation by an explanation founded on a Vārtika text that there was no relationship
(between Arjuna and Subhadrā) after the adoption is absurd. Mr Gharpure (p 86)
follows him almost word for word The Vārtika is the Tantravārtika of Kumārila and
Bhaṭṭa Someśvara is the author of a learned commentary on the Tantravārtika, called
Nyāyasudhā (or Rāṇaka) The Tantravārtika enters into an elaborate discussion (pp
128-133) about the lapses from good conduct attributed to ancient sages and epic
heroes The charge brought against Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa) and Arjuna is that they
married their own maternal uncles' daughters, Rukmiṇī and Subhadrā respectively
which is forbidden From ancient times there was a conflict of views as to marrying one's
maternal uncle's daughter Baudhāyana (Dh. S I 1 17-21) says that this was
practised by the southerners and condemns it himself. But some southern writers like
Mādhava and the author of the Smṛticandrikā defend the practice Śūra had a son
Vasudeva and a daughter Pṛthā. He gave Pṛthā in adoption to his paternal aunt son
Kuntibhoja (Mahābhārat Ādi 111 13) The son of Pṛthā (or Kuntī) was Arjuna
Subhadrā is spoken of as the daughter of Vasudeva and sister of Vasudeva (Kṛṣṇa)
Vide Ādiparva 219 17-18. Arjuna married Subhadrā, who was thus his maternal uncle's
daughter if the texts are to be taken literally But a maternal uncle's daughter is a very