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

$\left.\begin{matrix} S. IV. 5. 32
M. p. 63 ll 20 35 \end{matrix} \right]$ ADOPTION 129
Kumārila) As to what a writer says 'Someśvara on the strength of Gau-
tama's text declared that Kuntī had sapiṇḍa relationship for seven genera-
tions in the family of S'ūra also', that remark arises from not (carefully)
studying the work (of Someśvara). For, he (Someśvara), having first refer-
red to the cessation of sapiṇḍa relationship (on the strength of Manu),
spoke of the text of Gautama as meant to prohibit (marriage) in the family
of the progenitor, but not as conveying that there was sapiṇḍa relationship
(of the adopted for seven generations in the family of birth)
Thus the two kinds (of adopted sons), kevala and dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa,
being established, the condition also 'this belongs to us both,' is established
(in the case of the dvyāmuṣyāyana), since it has an evident (visible)
purpose, viz. that the adopter may know that he (the son taken) is the son of
two fathers
*And the simple adopted son (kevala dattaka) has sapiṇḍa relation-
ship for seven generations in the family of the adoptive father (pālaka-
pitṛ) and for five generations in the (adoptive) mother's family

---

near sapiṇḍa (being third from the common ancestor) Vide Yāj I 52--53 The
answer of the Tantravārtika is that Subhadrā was not a real sister of Vāsudeva, but only
his cousin, such as a maternal aunt's daughter In popular language such a female
cousin is called sister and Someśvara notes that among the Lāṭas (people of southern
Gujarat) that was the case in his day This assumption of a distant relationship in
Subhadrā to Vāsudeva (sambandha--vyavadhāna-kalpanā) is the explanation that
Kumārila offers as against the charge that Arjuna married his maternal uncle's
(Vasudeva's) daughter Not being the real sister of Vāsudeva, she was not the
daughter of Vasudeva Some urged that Kuntī being given in adoption, there was cessation
of her relationship with the family of her natural father S'ūra and his son Vasudeva
according to Manu (9 142) and so her son Arjuna could very well marry Subhadrā even
if she was the real sister of Vāsudeva and the daughter of Vasudeva and there was no
necessity to assume that she was a cousin only This view of some quoted by Someśvara is
referred to by Nīl in the words 'after declaring the cessation son of S'ūra'. This view is
met by the argument that, though Pṛthā was adopted by Kuntībhoja, still there is an express
prohibition in the text of Gautama (4 3) about marrying one within seven degrees in the line
of the procreator (S'ūra, the natural father of Pṛthā here) and so if Subhadrā were really
the daughter of Vasudeva, she would be bījasantānajā with reference to Pṛthā's son and
would be ineligible for marriage (apariṇeyā) with Arjuna All this is compressed in the words
'after declaring and after raising the doubt by Arjuna' All this discussion serves
the purpose of establishing that there are two kinds of dattaka, kevala and dvyāmuṣyāyana.
Pṛthā was kevala dattaka and so it could be urged that there was cessation of sapiṇḍa rela-
tionship The words of Gautama simply prohibit in express terms a marriage with one born
within certain degrees from the progenitor (but they do not positively say anything about
sapiṇḍa relationship) Someśvara himself held the view that Subhadrā was only a cousin
of Vāsudeva (i e he assumed with Kumārila that there was sambandhavyavadhāna) and
so Arjuna was not guilty of marrying a maternal uncle's daughter Vide notes to V M.
pp 199--204 where the relevant passages from Kumārila and Someśvara are quoted,

• P. 119 (text).
  V. M. 17