Shloka 36
Teaching of Karma-yoga
Student Conduct, Vedic Study, and Gāyatrī Supremacy
भ्रातृभार्याश्च संग्राह्या सवर्णा हन्यहन्यपि । विप्रोष्य तूपसंग्राह्या ज्ञातिसंबंधियोषितः
bhrātṛbhāryāśca saṃgrāhyā savarṇā hanyahanyapi | viproṣya tūpasaṃgrāhyā jñātisaṃbaṃdhiyoṣitaḥ
زوجةُ الأخ، إن كانت من نفس الفَرْنَة (الطبقة)، يجوز قبولُها زوجةً، ولو تكرّر موتُها مرارًا. وإذا كانت المرأةُ غائبةً عن زوجها، فيجوز أيضًا اتخاذُ النساء المرتبطات بالقرابة وروابط العشيرة زواجًا.
Not explicitly identifiable from the single-verse excerpt (context needed from Adhyaya 53 framing dialogue).
Concept: Dharma is presented as a rigid social-legal code governing marriage/kinship, prioritizing lineage continuity over individual sentiment.
Application: Read critically: distinguish historically conditioned social injunctions from the Padma Purāṇa’s broader bhakti-ethic; in practice, uphold non-harm, consent, and protection of vulnerable kin as higher dharma.
Primary Rasa: raudra
Secondary Rasa: bibhatsa
Visual Art Cues: {"scene_description":"A severe dharma-assembly scene: a stern sage recites injunctions from palm-leaf manuscripts while listeners sit uneasy, shadows pooling behind them. In the background, a veiled household doorway and a symbolic funeral pyre motif hint at the verse’s unsettling ‘again and again’ phrasing, creating moral tension rather than celebration.","primary_figures":["anonymous dharma-vaktā (sage/ācārya)","householder listeners","scribes with palm-leaf manuscripts"],"setting":"A court-like sabhā or gurukula hall with dharma-texts, ritual vessels, and a threshold to a household interior suggested in the backdrop.","lighting_mood":"temple lamp-lit","color_palette":["smoked umber","lamp-gold","deep maroon","ash gray","indigo-black"],"tanjore_prompt":"Tanjore painting style: a dharma-sabhā with a central seated sage holding palm-leaf grantha, gold leaf halo and lamp flames, rich maroon and emerald textiles, ornate pillars, gem-studded manuscript box; background shows symbolic doorway and faint cremation-ground iconography rendered as stylized motifs, emphasizing moral gravity.","pahari_prompt":"Pahari miniature style: intimate indoor assembly with delicate linework, cool indigo shadows, refined faces showing discomfort, a sage pointing to a manuscript; minimal but poignant symbolic elements (a distant pyre silhouette, a threshold curtain) in lyrical, restrained composition.","kerala_mural_prompt":"Kerala mural style: bold black outlines, warm ochres and reds, a didactic sage in frontal pose with manuscript, attendants in profile; stylized household doorway and ritual objects, dramatic contrast between lamp-lit foreground and darkened background to convey tension.","pichwai_prompt":"Pichwai cloth painting style: not Krishna-centric—adapt as a didactic textile panel with ornate floral borders and lotus motifs framing a sabhā scene; deep blue ground with gold highlights, manuscript and lamps central, peacocks subdued at corners, emphasizing the Purāṇic ‘ācāra’ theme rather than līlā."}
Audio Atmosphere: {"recitation_mood":"dramatic","suggested_raga":"Bhairavi","pace":"moderate-narrative","voice_tone":"authoritative","sound_elements":["low temple bell","dry rustle of palm leaves","hushed assembly murmurs","distant conch (faint)"]}
Sandhi Resolution Notes: भ्रातृभार्याः+च→भ्रातृभार्याश्च; हन्य+अहनि+अहनि+अपि→हन्यहन्यपि (पुनरुक्ति); तु+उपसंग्राह्याः→तूपसंग्राह्याः; ज्ञाति+संबन्धि+योषितः→ज्ञातिसंबंधियोषितः
FAQs
It presents a rule-like statement about permissible marital acceptance connected to kinship (brother’s wife; relatives’ women) under specific conditions, framed as a dharma/niyama passage.
Literally it means “even if slain again and again,” which reads oddly in a marriage context; it may reflect a textual variant, a compressed legal formula, or a hyperbolic/technical usage whose precise sense requires comparison with other manuscripts and the surrounding verses.
Such statements should be read with chapter context, genre (dharma-vidhi vs. narrative), and manuscript variation in mind; interpreting them as universal prescriptions without context can misrepresent the text’s intent and traditional legal-theological debates.