WYAVASTHA-DARPAN A. 99.6 by the former only that the dutta-koma, with holy texts from the Poda, can properly be performed. The other classes, and particularly the Sittira, upon this, and other like occasions, perform an imitation of it, with texts from the Purénas. And, even with regard to the Brünanas, admit ting their conception in favor of its spiritual benefit, it by no means follows that it is essential to the efficacy of the rite, for civil purposes; but the contrary is to be inferred; and the con clusion is, that its validity, for these, consists generally in the consent of the necessary parties, - the adopter having at the time no male issue, and the child to be received being within the legal age, and not being either an only, or the eldest, son of the giver; the prescribed ceremonies not being essential.—Str. H. L. vol. I. pp. 83, 84. The first part of Jagannātha's remarks, namely,–that the oblation to fire (Amma ) is an unessential part of the ceremony of adoption—appears to be inaccurate; for when it is explicitly laid down in the Daftaka-Wismansit and other works of paramount authority, that the filial relation of a boy adopted without the observance of the homa and other rites fails to accrue, and the boy so adopted does not inherit the adopter's property, then the homa and other necessary rites cannot, upon the mere saying of Jagannātha, he unessential parts of an adoption, neither can the adoption be eomplete without the observanoe of the sume : ( See ante, pp. 092, 081.) Iiis other remnrk,— namely, should the oblation to fire be partly omitted, in consequence of inability, the ndoption is sometimes good in law, seems not to be correct in every respect, inasmuch as of the several Åomas, only the Sísyāyana (which is a supplementary one ) can be dispensed with : save and except that, no other homa, necessary in adoption, can be wholly or partly omitted without leaving the adoption incomplete. And as to his remark last quoted,—namely, if the intention of giving and receiving be expressed in the terms: ‘I give hion to you as a Ron,’ ‘I take him as a son,’ he becomes a son, nothing else is required : since no one has declared that filiation is null is the oblation to fire be omitted,—it is to be observed that it has been eonclusively laid down in the Juo/4}...t- Monánsá and intimated in the Jattuku-Chandriká, which are paramount authorities on the su'ject of adoption, and are followed in practice in preference to all others, that—of gift, acceptance, burnt sacrifice (homa, ) and so forth, should any be wanting, the filial relation and even the heritaile right fail. Consequently, the assertion that—no one has declared that filiation is null if the oblation to fire he omitted—is contrary to fact. Besides, adoption is permitted on the principle that the adopted son is born again in the family of his adoptiuor father, and this regeneration can only take place by the performance of the religious rites ordained : this much is manifest from the following dietum of his own : “Birth caused by mal." soed and uterine 'blood is one ground of filiation ; the second birth, by invest it are or other ceremonies, is equally a ground of filiation, by whomsoever performed. When he who has procreated a son rives him to another, and that child is born notin by the rite of initiation, then his relation to the giver ceases, and a relation to the adopt or common, “a this birth cannot afterwards become null by his erroneously reverting to his original family :” ( See Colch. Dig. vol. II, pp. I 19, 150. )—Further, had the mere gift and acceptance been sufficient to establish the relation of the adopted as son to the adopter, then the non-performance of his initiatory ceremonies by the adopter would not have rendered him a slave. An adoption, therefore, in complete and valid no" in rely by gifts and acceptance, but by the performance of the accessary rites, preceded by a legal gift and acceptance: should any of them he wanting, the filial relation must also be wanting, as has been justly concluded in the Daf/t/a-Mănănrá. Thus Josanná/ha’s dictum that, save and except gift, and acceptanee, nothing else is required f for the validity of an adoption.) is quite erroneons, and as such cannot be followed in opposition the doctrine laid down in those two works, which are of paramount authority in adoption. The above is also applicable to Mr. Colebrooke's remarks, which are founded principallo upon those of Jagannātha. It would seem that, at the time of writing them, the passages contained in the Duttaka-Mimánsá and Daftaka-Chandrikā did not occur to the mind of Mr. Colebrooke, as otherwise he would not have followed Jagannātha in preference to those paramount authoritics. 够
