WYAVASTHA-DARPANA, t } 5 2 Hence, a brother's son existing, no affiliation { of him, or another, as a son given, and so forth, takes place.”—This is not to be argued : for, although, by reason of the nephew's possessing the representation of the filial relation, he may be the means of procuring exemption from exclusion from heaven, and so forth : still,—as the celebration of name, and the due perpetuation of lineage, would not be attained,—for the sake of the same, the constituting of him [ an adopted son is indispensable. Besides, the two texts in question do not prohibit, where a brother's • son may exist, the constituting of (him, or another, ) a son given, and so forth : but indicate, (as inherent in a nephew,) the virtue of a son, consisting in the eapacity to perform the funeral repast, and so forth.- For, otherwise, a contradiction of the rule for the production of a Kshetraja son, not with. standing a brother's son Inay exist, would follow ; and since, by the text subjoined, the resemblance ..! son's son obtains in a daughter's son, according to the reasoning recited, the non-adoption of a son given, and the rest, where a daughter's son also might exist, would resulte " y that male , hild, whom a daughter, whether formally appointed, or not, shall produce, from a husband of no equal class, the maternal grandfather becomes the grandsire of a son's son : set that son give the funerał oblatton, and possess the inheritaneo.”–1). Ch. Seet. 21, 22. But is, where even a brother’s son inay exist, the constituting of (hirn, or another, ) a son given, and so forth, be legal , then, though in the texts subjoined, the resemblance of the virtue of a son is shown to obtain in the son of a rival wife, where even such son existed, the affiliation - a son given, and so forth, by the step-mother might take place. Prihaspasi-" The same rulo 1, also ordained, in respect to many wives of the same person.” Alan w:—“If, among all the wives of the same husband, one bring forth a male child, Manu has declared them all, by means of that son, to be mothers of male issue.” ( D. Ch. Sect. I, § 23.) Should this he objected, it l, wrong. For, where the son of a rival wife exists, as the whole benefit even of a son is attained, no afiiliation ( by the step-mother, of hinn or another,) takes place.* But if, a brother's son exist, the affiliation of him only, is indispensable , where there may be only one brother's son, in that case the adoption cannot take place, on account of the : ...xt of sashishtha, who recites :-" An only son, let no man give, or accept.—For he is destined to prolong the line of his ancestors.”—Should this be alleged, it is inacurate. For the 1.x: in question, is applicable to a case, other than that of the Luyámushyāyana, or son of two fathers—In case of the Dvyámkahyāyana, extinction of lineage, contemplated in the clause of the tax, containing the reason, would not take place.—D. Ch. Sect. I. § 27, 28.
- See D. Mim. Sect. II, § 69—71. D. Ch. 8ect. I. 25, 36, Ante, pp. 830, 840.
66
