Marrying one’s maternal uncle’s daughter

[Guest guest]

Marrying one’s maternal uncle’s daughter

 

 

 

In mImAmsA paribhAShA, by Krishna Yajvan, a standard work on pUrva mImAmsA,

(similar to vedAnta paribhAShA for vedAnta), there is the following

interesting statement:--

 

“Such usage among the cultured as marrying a maternal uncle’s daughter,

however, is unauthoritative, because this is forbidden by the smRiti text,

“Marrying a maternal uncle’s daughter”, etc., and therefore contradicts the

smRiti.

 

 

 

Swami Vidyaranya refers to this practice, which is prevalent in the southern

States of India, in the following statement in his work Jivanmuktiviveka:--

 

 

 

 

“The southern Brahmanas censure the northerners, well-versed in the Vedas,

as meat-eaters. The northern Brahmanas retaliate by ridiculing the southern

custom of marrying the daughter of a maternal uncle and for carrying

earthenware during travel”.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastriji,

 

What you posted is very interesting in its own right, but I am now extremely

curious to know why you decided to post it. I feel there is a more general point

(i.e. more general than marrying one's maternal uncle) you are trying to convey

but I don't know what that may be.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

In order that wealth is retained within the family,the culture of marrying

cousins was/is prevalent in south india.Amongst some muslim communities cousins

of the brothers itself marry.

 

suresh.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Marrying one's maternal uncle's daughter

 

> Swami Vidyaranya refers to this practice, which is prevalent in

> the southern States of India, in the following statement in his

> work Jivanmuktiviveka:--

>

> " The southern Brahmanas censure the northerners, well-versed in

> the Vedas, as meat-eaters. The northern Brahmanas retaliate by

> ridiculing the southern custom of marrying the daughter of a

> maternal uncle and for carrying earthenware during travel " .

 

Hari OM!

Never thought of reading such interesting topics here. Any way,

Sanskrit works are typically full of " prakshiptas " - " deliberate

insertions " by later folks to gain artifical currency to their

own ideas. Older the texts, greater the number of " prakshiptas " .

 

This mentioning about marriage, censuring one group by other for

meat-eating or carrying earthenware- all sounds very much like some

mischievous prankster's " prakshipta " into the Jivanmuktiviveka.

Hard to believe Vidyaranya would say such in a spiritual work.

 

Also, no text seems immune to encroachment by Prakshiptas. Even

Geeta consists of 700 or 701 verses depending upon edition one

reads. Some " prakshiptas " do not deviate much from the central

teaching and some sound jarring, adding nothing but distraction

and some color. Even so, the central teachings survive because of

the care and clear exposition is testimony to farsightedness of

sages and also nature of the subject.

=======================================

Hari OM!

[Guest guest]

Namaste to members interested in this thread,

 

After giving all the teaching He wanted to give in earlier chapters, Lord

Krishna glorifies in 16.23-24, the greatness of shaastra, and it being the

only means for understanding what is to be done, and what not ought not be

done. Primarily, He expects the seeker to convert his karma into a

karma-yoga, keeping in mind the grand goal statements/injunctions

he gave in earlier chapters.

 

But who, other the shaastra will tell the seeker what karma is? How will he

know what needs to be done? If dharma and adharma, the ones that separate

karma and vikarma, are motivated by convenience, rather than by

scripture, how do we distinguish a spiritual seeker from others? The answer

to this above question is more perplexing because the shaastric vidhi and

nishhedha could vary from place to place and sAMpradAya could take

precedence to " what is in the books " .

 

Another similar example to this, many brahmin families, eat onion, though it

is a nishhedha item. They justify it saying that the shaastra injunction

'kala~njaM na-bhakxayet' refers to an animal (killed by a poisoned arrow)

and not to onion. (Even among the ones who interpret it in the former way,

they would not interpret it as packaged meat bought from Walmart, that is

another matter!)

 

It is the importance of following sAMpradAya in interpreting shaastra

that could never be understated. This is primarily because shaastra could

not be something passed by books in vaidic tradition. It is in this context,

that I understand Sastri-ji's reference.

 

Namaste again

Ramakrishna

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

> What you posted is very interesting in its own right, but I am now

> extremely curious to know why you decided to post it. I feel there is a

> more general point (i.e. more general than marrying one's maternal uncle)

> you are trying to convey but I don't know what that may be.