“Yudhishthira said, ’Desirous of marriage someone actually gives a dower to the girl’s kinsmen; someone says, the girl’s kinsmen consenting promises to give a dower; someone says, ’I shall abduct the girl by force;’ someone simply displays his wealth (to the girl’s kinsmen, intending to offer a portion thereof as dower for her); someone, again, actually takes the hand of the girl with rites of wedding.  I ask thee, O grandsire, whose wife does the girl actually become?  Unto its that are desirous of knowing the truth, thou art the eye with which to behold.’

“Bhishma said, ’Whatever acts of men have been approved or settled in consultation by the wise, are seen to be productive of good.  False speech, however, is always sinful.[282] The girl himself that becomes wife, the sons born of her, the Ritwiks and preceptors and disciples and Upadhyayas present at the marriage all become liable to expiation if the girl bestow her hand upon a person other than he whom she had promised to wed.  Some are of opinion that no expiation is necessary for such conduct.  Manu does not applaud the practice of a girl living with a person whom she does not like.[283] Living as wife with a person whom she does not like, leads to disgrace and sin.  No one incurs much sin in any of these cases that follow.  In forcibly abducting for marriage a girl that is bestowed upon the abductor by the girl’s kinsmen, with due rites, as also a girl for whom dower has been paid and accepted, there is no great sin.  Upon the girl’s kinsmen having expressed their consent, Mantras and Homa should be resorted to.  Such Mantras truly accomplish their purpose.  Mantras and Homa recited and performed in the case of a girl that has not been bestowed by her kinsmen, do not accomplish their purpose.  The engagement made by the kinsmen of a girl is, no doubt, binding and sacred.  But the engagement that is entered into by the wedder and wedded, with the aid of Mantras, is very much more so (for it is this engagement that really creates the relationship of husband and wife).  According to the dictates of the scriptures, the husband should regard his wife as an acquisition due to his own acts of a previous life or to what has been ordained by God.  One, therefore, incurs no reproach by accepting for wife a girl that had been promised to another by her kinsmen or for whom dower had been accepted by them from another.’

“Yudhishthira said, ’When after the receipt of dower for a girl, the girl’s sire sees a more eligible person present himself for her hand,—­one, that is who is endued with the aggregate of Three in judicious proportions, does the girl’s sire incur reproach by rejecting the person from whom dower had been received in favour of him that is more eligible?  In such a case either alternative seems to be fraught with fault, for to discard the person to whom the girl has been promised can never be honourable, while to reject the person that is more eligible can never