with the Commentary of Medhatithi 199 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 205 из 350Следующая ⇒

Yājñavalkya (2.3). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa knowing the entire Dharma shall be appointed by the King to try law-suits, if, under pressure of business, he is unable to look into them himself.’

Bṛhaspati (1.24). — ‘Let the King, or a member of the twice-born caste officiating as Chief Judge, try causes acting on principles of equity, and abiding by the opinion of the judges and the doctrine of the sacred law.’

Śukranīti (4.5.23-34). — ‘Where the King cannot personally attend to the administration of justice, he should appoint a Brāhmaṇa who is versed in the Vedas, self-controlled, highborn, impartial, unagitated and calm, who fears the next life, is religious-minded, active and devoid of anger. If the Brāhmaṇa is not learned enough, the King should appoint a Kṣatriya, or a Vaiśya who is versed in the sacred law; but he should never appoint the Śūdra, The king should always appoint men of the caste to which he himself belongs; as most members of the royal caste are likely to be well-qualified.’

Nārada (Parāśaramādhava-Vyavahāra, p. 22). — ‘He is called the Chief Judge who, — fully acquainted with the eighteen titles of law and with the eight thousand subdivisions thereof, skilled in Logic and other sciences, and thoroughly versed in revealed and traditional lore, — investigates the law relative to the case in hand by putting questions and passing decisions according to what was heard or understood by him.’

Kātyāyana (Parāśaramādhava-Vyavahāra, p. 22). — ‘When no Brāhmaṇa is available, the King shall appoint a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya versed in legal lore; but he shall avoid the Śūdra.’

Prajāpati (Smṛticandrikā). — ‘The anointed King or the learned Brāhmaṇa, seated on the seat of judgment, shall investigate the suits quietly.’

VERSE 8.10

Section III - Constitution of the Court of Justice (continued)

सोऽस्य कार्याणि सम्पश्येत् सभ्यैरेव त्रिभिर्वृतः ।
सभामेव प्रविश्याग्र्यामासीनः स्थित एव वा ॥१०॥

so'sya kāryāṇi sampaśyet sabhyaireva tribhirvṛtaḥ |
sabhāmeva praviśyāgryāmāsīnaḥ sthita eva vā ||10||

That man, accompanied by three assessors, shall enter the excellent Court, and either seated or standing, shall investigate the suits on behalf of the king. — (10)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Assesors’; — though the caste of these persons is not specified here, yet in view of the Brāhmaṇa being mentioned later on (in 11), and also of the phrase ‘along with Brāhmaṇas’ (in verse 1 above), it follows that these also should be Brāhmaṇas.

The number is mentioned as ‘three’ simply with a view to preclude the possibility of only one or two men being appointed: what is meant is that three or more men shall be appointed. This we shall explain in detail under the section dealing with Witnesses.

‘Shall enter the excellent Court.’ — Though entering the court as the king’s representative, he shall stand or sit on such a seat as is proper for himself. The repetition of ‘standing or sitting’ serves either to indicate the right posture for him, or to preclude other postures. The meaning of this is that he should not sit upon the king’s throne. — (10)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 21); — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 37); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (8a); — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 10b); — and in Rājanītiratnākara (p. 15b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Śukranīti (4.5.77). — ‘The Chief Judge is the speaker, the king is the President, the councillors are the investigators.’

Śukranīti (4.5.85-86). — ‘The King should enter the court modestly, together with the Brāhmaṇas and Ministers versed in state-craft, with the object of investigating the cases.’

VERSE 8.11

Section III - Constitution of the Court of Justice (continued)

यस्मिन् देशे निषीदन्ति विप्रा वेदविदस्त्रयः ।
राज्ञश्चाधिकृतो विद्वान् ब्रह्मणस्तां सभां विदुः ॥११॥

yasmin deśe niṣīdanti viprā vedavidastrayaḥ |
rājñaścādhikṛto vidvān brahmaṇastāṃ sabhāṃ viduḥ ||11||

That place, where three Brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda sit, as also the learned Brāhmaṇa appointed by the king, — they regard as the ‘Court of Brahman.’ — (11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been declared that ‘having entered the Court, he shall look into the cases.’ As regards the word ‘sabhā,’ in ordinary language it is used in the sense of a particular apartment of the house; e.g., in the Mahābhārata it is said that the ‘excellent gold-burnished sabhā was built by Maya — sometimes it is also used in the sense of an assemblage of particular men. In order to preclude these two meanings of the term, the author states the definition of the ‘Sabhā,’ ‘Court,’ meant in the present context.

That place where three Brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda are brought together, as also the learned Brāhmaṇa appointed by the king, — or the person mentioned in the preceding verse, — that is the ‘Sabhā’ meant here.

The name of ‘Brahman’ has been mentioned for the purpose of extolling the Court; the sense being that ‘the Court constituted as here stated is as unexceptionable as that of Brahman himself.’ — (11)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitāttva (II, p. 199), to the effect that the court becomes a true ‘Court,’ only by reason of the presence of the duly qualified Brāhmaṇa-judge appointed by the king; — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 46), which explains ‘prakṛtaḥ’ as the appointed judge; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (8b); — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 36 and 11b), which says that no stress is meant to be laid upon the number three, as the number may be larger, up to seven; what is meant is that they shall not be less than three; — and in Rājanītiratnākara (p. 17a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bṛhaspati (1.11). — ‘That assembly is equal in sanctity to a sacrificial session in which there sit seven, or five or three Brāhmaṇas, who are acquainted with the world, with the Veda and with Law.’

Bṛhaspati (1.5). — ‘A Court of Justice is composed of ten members; and an assembly of this sort, in which the King examines the cases attentively, is comparable to a religious session.’

Śukranīti (4.5.50-52). — ‘The assembly in which there are seven, five, or even three Brāhmaṇas versed in human affairs, the Vedas and the Dharmaśāstras is like a sacrificial session.’

Śukranīti (4.5.72). — ‘The ten requisites in the administration of justice are — the king, officers, councillors, smṛti-books, accountant, clerk, gold, fire, water and one’s own men.’

Nārada (3.18). — ‘That is not a court where there are no elders; they are not elders who do not pass a just, sentence; that is not just sentence where there is no truth; that is not truth which is vitiated by error.’

VERSE 8.12

Section III - Constitution of the Court of Justice (continued)

धर्मो विद्धस्त्वधर्मेण सभां यत्रोपतिष्ठते ।
शल्यं चास्य न कृन्तन्ति विद्धास्तत्र सभासदः ॥१२॥

dharmo viddhastvadharmeṇa sabhāṃ yatropatiṣṭhate |
śalyaṃ cāsya na kṛntanti viddhāstatra sabhāsadaḥ ||12||

In a court where Justice is pierced by Injustice, and the members of the Court do not remove that dart, these members also become pierced. — (12)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this verse.]

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 5a and 10b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Śukranīti (4.5.16). — ‘The King who does not perform his civic duties well certainly rots in hell.’

Nārada (3.89), — ‘Where justice is slain by injustice and truth by falsehood, the members of the court, who look on with indifference, become doomed to destruction. When justice, hit by injustice, enters a court, and the members do not extract the dart from the wound, they are hit by it themselves.’

Bṛhaspati (1. 34-36). — ‘Of the Tree of Justice, the Brāhmaṇa is the root, the King is the stem and branches, the ministers are its loaves and blossoms, just government is its fruit; — renown and wealth are the sap of its fruit; a dignified station, invincibility, esteem among men, and eternal residence in Heaven constitute the enjoyment of its fruit. — Having recognised these advantages in justice, the King should be equitable towards litigants, and should pass a just sentence, discarding avarice and other evil propensities.’

Kātyāyana (Smṛticandrikā, p. 47). — ‘Where a decision is taken by councillors against the laws, there justice is slain by injustice. If the king happens to be inclined to act unjustly, the councillors shall not remain neutral; if they do remain neutral, they become degraded.’

VERSE 8.13

Section III - Constitution of the Court of Justice (continued)

सभां वा न प्रवेष्टव्यं वक्तव्यं वा समञ्जसम् ।
अब्रुवन् विब्रुवन् वाऽपि नरो भवति किल्बिषी ॥१३॥

sabhāṃ vā na praveṣṭavyaṃ vaktavyaṃ vā samañjasam |
abruvan vibruvan vā'pi naro bhavati kilbiṣī ||13||

One should either not enter the Court at all, or he should speak out what is equitable; one who either spe aks nothing, or speaks falsely, becomes tainted with sin. — (13)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What is asserted here forbids two things — (a) he who has accepted the appointment (of a Judge) should not be unjust, and (b) he should not slur over the injustice committed by others; since both these involve sin.

‘Speaks nothing’; — i.e., he who remains silent when another person is committing an injustice, — or he who interferes in the investigation and then says what is not compatible with the scriptures or with justice — ‘becomes tainted with sin’ — i.e., comes to partake of the sin. Hence the man should not entertain the hope that — ‘it is another judge who is judging wrongly, and he may incur sin, I am only sitting silent and indifferent, why should I he affected by the sin?’

By the prohibiting of entrance into the Court what is forbidden is the accepting of the appointment of a judge to investigate cases; so that what is meant by the sentence ‘one should not enter the Court’ is that ‘he should not accept the appointment of the investigating judge, or, if he does accept it, he should speak out what is just.’

This has been taken to imply that when even an unauthorised person happens.to be present, if he finds that the judges are acting wrongly, he should not remain silent. To this end wo have the assertion — ‘Authorised or unauthorised, the man who knows what is just should always speak out’ (Nārada 2.2). If he fear molestation at the hands of the king’s officers as to why he should speak, when he is not authorised to do so, — then he should go away from that place. In support of this we have the following assertion — ‘When a wrong is being inflicted upon a weak person, if one does not save him from it, he incurs sin, only if he hag the power to gave him’ (Gautama, 21.19). — (13)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 604); — in Mitākṣarā (on 2.2), in support, of the view that the assessors duly appointed incur sin if they do not, check the king in the event of his taking an illegal course; but as regards other people present, these incur sin only if they either speak falsely or suppress the truth, — and not for not checking the king; — and again on 2.83; — and also in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 12a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Śukranīti (4.5.53, 55). — ‘The man who knows Dharma can speak, whether appointed or not appointed. Either one should not come to the Court, or should speak truthfully. That man is a sinner who keeps silent or utters falsehood.’

Nārada (3.10). — ‘Either the judicial assembly must not be entered at all, or a fair opinion should be delivered. That man who stands mute or delivers an opinion contrary to justice, is a sinner.’

Nārada (3.14). — ‘He who, having entered the Court, delivers a strange opinion, ignoring the true state of the case, resembles a blind man who, regardless, swallows fish together with the bones.’

VERSE 8.14

Section III - Constitution of the Court of Justice (continued)

यत्र धर्मो ह्यधर्मेण सत्यं यत्रानृतेन च ।
हन्यते प्रेक्षमाणानां हतास्तत्र सभासदः ॥१४॥

yatra dharmo hyadharmeṇa satyaṃ yatrānṛtena ca |
hanyate prekṣamāṇānāṃ hatāstatra sabhāsadaḥ ||14||

Where justice is destroyed by injustice, or truth by falsehood, while people are looking on, — there the members of the court also are destroyed. — (14)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Justice’ is decision arrived at in strict accordance with the scriptures, reasoning and local customs; — if this is

‘destroyed by Injustice,’ — i.e., set aside by the reverse of justice, — by either the plaintiff or the defendant; — similarly where ‘truth is destroyed by falsehood’ — by the witnesses; — and all the time the judges and the other people in the Court remain looking on, and do not try to draw out the real facts, — then these men also are ‘destroyed,’ — i.e., become as good as dead corpses. This is meant to be a deprecation of the judges, etc.

For these reasons the members of the Court shall not connive at any misrepresentations being made by the parties or by the witnesses.

In as much as the mention of ‘Justice and Injustice’ only, or of ‘Truth and Falsehood’ only, would have been sufficient, the mention of both would have to be regarded as serving the purpose of tilling up the metre; hence it has been explained as referring to two distinct sets of persons (the parties and the witnesses). — (14)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (3.89). — ‘Where justice hit by injustice enters a Court, and the members do not extract the dart from the wounds, they are hit by it themselves. Where justice is slain by injustice, and truth by falsehood, the members of the Court who look on with indifference, become doomed to destruction.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 604). — (Same as Nārada.)

VERSE 8.15

Section III - Constitution of the Court of Justice (continued)

धर्म एव हतो हन्ति धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः ।
तस्माद् धर्मो न हन्तव्यो मा नो धर्मो हतोऽवधीत् ॥१५॥

dharma eva hato hanti dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ |
tasmād dharmo na hantavyo mā no dharmo hato'vadhīt ||15||

Justice, blighted, blights; and justice, preserved, preserves; hence justice should not be blighted, lest blighted justice blight us. — (15)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Judgment should not be perverted, through fear; because justice, when violated, ‘blights’ — our prosperity, as also the prosperity of the sinful party and his helpers.

Similarly, when ‘preserved,’ justice removes dangers from all sources; so that even though angered, the party (defeated) cannot do any harm.

‘Hence’ — i.e., knowing this, that happiness and unhappiness are based upon morality, one should not violate morality (or justice). If we violate justice, justice shall, like an enraged serpent, strike back at us; so lest justice blight us — i.e., with a view to saving ourselves, — we should preserve justice. — (15)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 17a); — in Hemādri (Vrata, p. 15); — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 48); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (11b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (3.313.38).

Mahābhārata (Vana, 314.131). — ‘If protected, justice protects; if slain, it slays; therefore I shall never renounce justice; lest justice, being slain, may slay ourselves.’

VERSE 8.16

Section III - Constitution of the Court of Justice (continued)

वृषो हि भगवान् धर्मस्तस्य यः कुरुते ह्यलम् ।
वृषलं तं विदुर्देवास्तस्माद् धर्मं न लोपयेत् ॥१६॥

vṛṣo hi bhagavān dharmastasya yaḥ kurute hyalam |
vṛṣalaṃ taṃ vidurdevāstasmād dharmaṃ na lopayet ||16||

For Justice is the revered ‘Vṛṣa,’ Bull; and he who commits the violation, ‘alam,’ of it, him the gods regard as ‘vṛṣala,’ low-born; hence one shall not violate Justice. — (16)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

By means of the explanation of the term ‘vṛṣala,’ the judge who perverts justice is censured. The title of ‘vṛṣala’ (low-born) does not apply to one who is so by caste — i.e., the śūdra, — but he who ‘commits the violation’ (‘alam’) of the Bull, ‘vṛṣa,’ — i.e., he who showers all blessings; — the particle ‘alam’ denoting violation, perversion.

The opinion that such a person is ‘vṛṣala’ is held by the gods; if it is taken as denoting a caste, it may be so taken; but the gods are more authoritative, and they accept the denotation of the term as here explained.

The mention of the ‘gods’ is only a commendatory exaggeration.

For the reason here explained, in all such texts as — (a) ‘no vṛṣala should come in during the performance of a śrāddha,’ or ‘the vṛṣala thief should be killed,’ — the term ‘vṛṣala’ should be taken as standing for the Brāhmaṇa that perverts truth.

Consequently one should not violate Justice, lest he become tainted with the character of the ‘vṛṣala’; the application of this character to the Brāhmaṇa being a form of deprecation. — (16)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 447), in support of the interpretation of ‘vṛṣala’ as ‘one devoid of dharma’; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (11a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.16-17)

Mahābhārata (Śānti, 90.16). — ‘Justice is the sacred Bull, Vṛṣa; he who brings about his destruction, laya, is called the Vṛṣala; therefore one should never renounce justice.’

Do. (Anuśāsana, 173.14.16). — ‘When one abandons his body, Dharma alone goes with him. Dharma is the only helper for men in the other world.’

VERSE 8.17

Section III - Constitution of the Court of Justice (continued)

एक एव सुहृद् धर्मो निधानेऽप्यनुयाति यः ।
शरीरेण समं नाशं सर्वमन्यद् हि गच्छति ॥१७॥

eka eva suhṛd dharmo nidhāne'pyanuyāti yaḥ |
śarīreṇa samaṃ nāśaṃ sarvamanyad hi gacchati ||17||

Morality (Justice) is the only friend who follows one even after death; everything else perishes along with the body. — (17)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What has been declared in verse 15 is that Morality or Justice should not be perverted, through fear; and the present verse declares that it should not be perverted through love either.

In as much as Morality (Justice) is the ‘only friend,’ it is for this that one should cultivate it. Ordinary men often abandon their friends even during life; even in the case of those that are very great friends, the friendship lasts only till death. Morality on the other hand, follows the man even when dead. Therefore even for the sake of friendship, one should not either pervert justice or connive at its perversion.

In this sense there is the following saying — ‘Wife, son, friends, riches and wealth — all these are lost when the man’s body is destroyed; it is Morality alone which never abandons him; hence one might abandon his sons and wife, but never Morality.’

Everything else, in the shape of wife, son and so forth, — except Morality — perishes with the body; i.e., except Morality nothing is able to save the man on death; so that even for the sake of friends and relations, Morality should not be abandoned. — (17)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hitopadeśa 1,59; — in Hemādri (Vrata, p. 14); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 17a); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (11a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.16-17)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.16.

VERSE 8.18

Section III - Constitution of the Court of Justice (continued)

पादोऽधर्मस्य कर्तारं पादः साक्षिणं ऋच्छति ।
पादः सभासदः सर्वान् पादो राजानमृच्छति ॥१८॥

pādo'dharmasya kartāraṃ pādaḥ sākṣiṇaṃ ṛcchati |
pādaḥ sabhāsadaḥ sarvān pādo rājānamṛcchati ||18||

One quarter of the Injustice falls on the man who commits it, one quarter on the witness, one quarter on the members of the Court and one quarter on the king. — (18)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The judges should not entertain any such idea as the following — ‘Between the plaintiff and the defendant, one or the other is taking what belongs to the other, — so that he will incur the sin of wrongful possession of the land, — we are not committing the act, — why then should we be participators in the sin?’ Because as a matter of fact, the said sin is divided into four parts.

This verse is a purely supplementary exaggeration; because in reality the sin committed by one man does not go to another. What happens then is that on the judges also falls the sin of transgressing the law that forbids unjust decisions. On the king, though he does not personally investigate the case, there does fall the sin resulting from the sinful act of the judges appointed by him and acting as his representatives. Or if, on being apprised, by the defeated party, of the unfair dealings of the authorised judges, he does not punish the dishonest officer, and does not take steps to come to a just decision, then also he becomes a participator in the sin. Or, the ‘King’ in the text may be taken as standing for the judge appointed by him; the sense being that when the king himself decides the case wrongly, the sin falls upon him, whereas when his representative does so, the sin falls upon the latter. — (18)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Sabhāsadaḥ’ — ‘People assembled in Court’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda)‘Judges’ (Govindarāja).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 2.305), to the effect that in the case of miscarriage of justice, every one of those persons should be punished; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 15); — in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 200); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 5a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.19.8). — ‘Of injustice in decisions, one quarter falls on the party in the cause, one quarter on his witnesses, one quarter on all the judges, and one quarter on the King.’

Gautama (13.11). — ‘If the sacred law or the rules are violated, the guilt falls on the witnesses, the Assessors, the King, and the offender.’

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология