with the Commentary of Medhatithi 207 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 213 из 350Следующая ⇒

‘Of all castes’; — that is to say, there is no restriction regarding castes. As regards the rule relating to the restriction of castes, that we shall explain later on. The meaning of the present text therefore is that ‘men of any caste, according as they be available, should ho cited as witnesses by all suitors.’

‘In all suits,’ — such as non-payment of debt and the rest.

Those who are the ‘reverse’ of those specified above ‘should be avoided.’ — Though as a matter of fact, when specially qualified persons have been specified, there is no possibility of the admission of those who are the ‘reverse’ of them, — yet the preclusion is in accordance with popular usage: ordinary men are often found to assert one thing and deny its contrary (in the same sentence); e.g., they are found to say — “an operation alters a material substance, and not what is not material.’ Further, the chief qualification of witnesses is truthfulness; and this cannot be ascertained in its positive form; in fact it can be ascertained only negatively, by finding out that the man does not pervert truth; this latter again is not perceptible because what the ‘non-perverting of truth’ means is the telling of truth, and in regard to what cm only be heard by the ear, bow can there he any perceptible cognition of the truth of what is stated by the words? If the facts were perceptible, there would be no need for seeking for any witnesses. And in regard to all things cognisable by means of words,

there is no amenability to any other means of cognition. So that it is only when it is found that in a certain person all those conditions are absent which are found to be conducive to telling lies, that the veracity — i.e., his incapability to pervert truth — conies to be inferred. Thus it is with a view to indicate this that we have the words ‘the reverse of these should be avoided.’ — (63)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 256 and 281); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 177).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.61-63)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.61.

VERSE 8.64

Section XII (A) - Evidence

नार्थसम्बन्धिनो नाप्ता न सहाया न वैरिणः ।
न दृष्टदोषाः कर्तव्या न व्याध्यार्ता न दूषिताः ॥६४॥

nārthasambandhino nāptā na sahāyā na vairiṇaḥ |
na dṛṣṭadoṣāḥ kartavyā na vyādhyārtā na dūṣitāḥ ||64||

Neither interested persons, nor relations, nor helpers, nor enemies, nor persons of proved corruption, nor those afflicted with disease, nor the corrupted should be made witnesses. — (64)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The following persons are named, as showing those persons in whose case causes for telling lies are likely to be present.

Among these are (1) ‘interested persons’ — i.e., persons standing related to each other in the relation of the creditor, the debtor and so forth. If a person loses a ease through the deposition of one who happens to be his debtor, he is likely to become enraged at that very time and to press the debtor for immediate repayment of the debt; in view of this the debtor is likely to be swayed by a desire to keep the creditor pleased; and as such he cannot he a witness. Similarly, in a suit filed by the debtor against some one, his creditor would be swayed by the consideration that if the penniless suitor won his case, he would he able to repay his own dues; and as such he would he likely to depose falsely in his favour; for this reason he also cannot be a true witness.

Or, ‘interest’ mean purpose, object; thus persons who have some end in view, — who stand to gain from either party, — or from whom either party is likely to gain something — are called ‘interested’ — their interest in the case being similar to that of the parties themselves.

‘Relations’ — friends and relations knowing the insand outs of the case, — e.g., paternal and maternal uncles, etc.

‘Helpers’ — those who have stood security and others similarly situated.

‘Enemies’ — what these are is well known.

‘Persons of proved corruption,’ — those who have home false evidence in other cases, or who have committed other forbidden acts.

‘Afflicted with disease,’ — i.e., those affected by serious, — not paltry-ailments; this is what is implied by the term ‘afflicted.’ Those labouring under such afflictions are likely to lose temper, to forget things and to perjure themselves.

‘Corrupted,’ — those who have committed a mortal sin, or have repeatedly committed minor sins. the term ‘of proved corruption’ is meant to refer to those who hare been convicted of, and punished for, a serious crime. Such persons are no longer regarded as ‘corrupted,’ because they have been brought under discipline by having paid to t he king the penalty for their sin. — (64)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Arthasambandhinaḥ’ — ‘Persons having money-dealings with either of the two parties’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘having an interest in the suit’ (Nārāyaṇa and Medhātithi, alternatively); ‘who have received benefits from the parties’ (Nandana).

‘Sahāyāḥ’ — ‘Sureties and the like’ (Medhātithi); — ‘Servants’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 66); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī, (p. 281); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 10a); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (29b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 49a), which says that these texts set forth those qualities, which make a man unreliable as a witness, and it reproduces Medhātithi’s explanations of the words.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.64-67)

Gautama (13.2). — (See under 63.)

Āpastamba (2.29.7). — (See under 63.)

Vaśiṣṭha (16.28). — (See under 63.)

Viṣṇu (8.2-4). — ‘The King cannot be made a witness; nor an ascetic, nor a learned Brāhmaṇa, nor a gamester, nor a thief, nor a person who is not his own master, nor a woman, nor a child, nor a perpetrator of violence, nor one overaged, nor one intoxicated or insane, nor a man of ill-repute, nor an outcast, nor one tormented by hunger or thirst, nor one oppressed by a sudden calamity, nor one wholly absorbed in evil passions; — nor an enemy or a friend, nor one interested in the subject-matter, nor one who does forbidden acts; nor one formerly perjured; nor an attendant; nor one who, without being appointed, comes and offers his evidence.’

Yājñavalkya (2.70-71). — ‘The following are not to be made witnesses: — Woman, child, aged person, gamester, one intoxicated or insane, one accused of a heinous crime, actor, heretic, forger, one with defective organs, outcast, a near relative, or one related in business, friend, enemy, thief, one addicted to violence, those beset with perceptible faults, one despised (by good men).’

Baudhāyana (1.19.13). — (See under 62.)

Nārada (1.157-162). — ‘Incompetent witnesses have been declared by the learned to be of five sorts: (1) Actually declared by law to be incompetent, (2) incompetent on account of depravity, (3) incompetent by reason of contradiction, (4) one of uncalled for deposition, (5) one of intervening decease. (1) Learned Brāhmaṇas, devotees, aged persons and ascetics are those who have been declared by law to be incompetent, without any reason being given for it; — (2) thieves, robbers, dangerous characters, gamblers and assassins are incompetent by reason of their depravity, there is no truth to be found in them; — (3) if the statements of witnesses called by the King do not agree, they are rendered incompetent by reason of contradiction, — (4) he who, without being appointed to be a witness, comes of his own accord to make a deposition, is called a spy in the law-books and he is unworthy to bear testimony; — (5) where can any person bear testimony, if the claimant is no longer in existence, whose claim should have been heard? Such a person is rendered incompetent by reason of intervening decease.’

Nārada (1.177-192). — ‘Those must not be examined as witnesses who are interested in the suit; nor friends or associates or enemies or notorious offenders or persons stained with a heavy sin; — nor a slave or an impostor, or one not admitted to Śrāddhas; nor a child, nor an oil-presser, nor one intoxicated, nor a mad man, nor a careless man, nor one distressed, nor a gamester, nor one who sacrifices for the whole village; — nor one engaged in a long journey, nor a merchant who travels to transmarine countries, nor a religious ascetic, nor one sick or deformed; nor a simple man, nor a learned Brāhmaṇa, nor one who neglects religious practices, nor a eunuch nor an actor; — nor an atheist, nor an apostate, nor one who has forsaken his wife or his fire, nor one who makes illicit offerings, nor an associate who eats out of the same dish as oneself, nor an adversary, nor a spy, nor a relation, nor one related by the same womb; — nor one who has proved an evil-doer, nor a public dancer, nor one who lives by poison, nor a snake-catcher, nor a poisoner, nor an incendiary, nor one who has committed a minor offence; — nor one oppressed by fatigue, nor a ferocious man, nor one who has relinquished worldly appetites, nor one penniless, nor a member of the lowest castes, nor one leading a bad life, nor one still a student, nor an oilman nor a dealer in roots; — nor one obsessed by a demon, nor an enemy of the King, nor a weather-prophet, nor an astrologer, nor a malicious person, nor one self-sold, nor one of deficient limbs, nor one living by prostitution; — nor one with bad nails or black teeth, nor one who betrays his friend, nor a rogue, nor a dealer in spirituous liquor, nor a juggler, nor an avaricious or cruel man, nor an enemy of the company of traders or of an association; — nor one who takes animal-life, nor a leather-manufacturer, or a cripple, or an outcast, or a forger, or a quack, or an apostate, or a robber, or one of the King’s attendants; — nor a Brāhmaṇa who sells human beings, cattle meat, bones, honey, milk, water or butter; nor a member of a twice-born caste who is addicted to usury; — nor one who neglects his duties, nor a judge, nor a bard, nor one who serves low people, nor one who quarrels with his father, nor one who causes dissension. These are the incompetent witnesses. When a heinous crime, or a robbery or adultery or defamation has been committed, the King should not inquire too strictly into the character of the witnesses. A child also cannot be made a witness; nor a woman, nor one man alone, nor a cheat, nor a relation, nor an enemy. By the consent of both parties even one man alone may become a witness in a suit.’

Bṛhaspati (7.29-30). — ‘The mother’s father, the father’s brother, the wife’s brother, maternal uncle, brother, friend and son-in-law are inadmissible as witnesses in all disputes. Persons addicted to adultery or to drinking, gamblers, calumniators, insane, suitering, violent persons and unbelievers cannot act as witnesses.’

VERSE 8.65

Section XII (A) - Evidence

न साक्षी नृपतिः कार्यो न कारुककुशीलवौ ।
न श्रोत्रियो न लिङ्गस्थो न सङ्गेभ्यो विनिर्गतः ॥६५॥

na sākṣī nṛpatiḥ kāryo na kārukakuśīlavau |
na śrotriyo na liṅgastho na saṅgebhyo vinirgataḥ ||65||

The king should not be made a witness; nor craftsmen, nor actors, nor a Vedic scholar, nor one in holy orders, nor one who has renounced all attachments. — (65)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

At the time that one is lending out money, the king should not he made a party to the transaction by being requested to the effect ‘yon shall he my witness.’ Because if the king gave evidence, people would suspect him of partiality, — being all-powerful as he is; and tin’s would lead to the detriment of the interest of one or the other; — nor would it be proper to question the king in the same manner as an ordinary witness. Though being an inhabitant of the same place, the king might corroborate statements by means of written notes, yet what is forbidden is his appearance as a regular witness of the ordinary class.

As for craftsmen and the rest, they should not be made witnesses for fear of injury to their business. These men live by the good-will of the people; and it is human nature that though men know (that their case is false), yet the mere consideration that they are losing it leads them to bear a grudge against the witnesses and others; and thus the universal goodwill of the artisan and the rest becomes lost, further, in as much as these men are of mean nature, they are prone to being diverted from the path of honesty, and hence becoming partial.

As regards the ‘Vedic scholar,’ what is denied is not his trustworthiness, but the propriety of his appearing as a witness; just as in the case of the king. Because the foot of the man being a ‘Vedic scholar’ does not deprive him of his trustworthiness; on the contrary, it only intensifies it to a special degree; and (his for the same reason that Vedic scholarship has never been found to be the instigator of perjury.

Similarly with those that follow.

‘Craftsmen’ — those that make a living by some crafts; such as cooks and the like.

‘Actors’ — dancers, singers and so forth.

‘Vedic scholar’ — one who studies the Veda; the person meant here is one who is always engaged in Vedic study. Or, ‘Vedic scholarship’ may be taken as indicating the performance of religions rites; and in that, case the prohibition would apply to one who is engaged in such performance; — the work of the witness being prejudicial to such rites.

‘One in holy orders’ — the Religious student. As for those who merely wear the badge of the Wandering Mendicant, or of the heretical orders, — these are inadmissible on the ground of their following the heretical scriptures.

‘One toko has renounced attachments’ — This stands for those householders who have ‘renounced the Veda.’ ‘Attachment’ means either the repeated enjoyment of sensual objects, or the undertaking of acts for ordinary worldly purposes — .(65)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kuśīlava’ — ‘Actors, dancers singers and so forth’ (Medhātithi); — ‘actors’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘actors and so forth’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka); — ‘singers’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 66); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 10a); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 281); — in Smṛticandrikā, (Vyavahāra, p. 177); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (80b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 49b), which reproduces Medhātithi’s, explanation.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.64-67)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.64.

VERSE 8.66

Section XII (A) - Evidence

नाध्यधीनो न वक्तव्यो न दस्युर्न विकर्मकृत् ।
न वृद्धो न शिशुर्नैको नान्त्यो न विकलेन्द्रियः ॥६६॥

nādhyadhīno na vaktavyo na dasyurna vikarmakṛt |
na vṛddho na śiśurnaiko nāntyo na vikalendriyaḥ ||66||

 — Not one wholly dependent, nor one under pupilage, nor a paid servant, nor one who adopts forbidden occupations, nor one too old, nor a minor, nor a single person, nor one belonging to the lowest class, nor one with defective organs; — (66)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘One wholly dependent’: — this term is applied by usage to the horn slave and such other persons who are entirely subservient to other persons.

Others read ‘adhyādhīna,’ which means a prisoner.

‘One under pupilage’ — the son or the pupil (of either party), who is entirely under the sway of the Teacher. Or the term ‘vaktaryaḥ’ may he taken as standing for one whose body has been deformed by leprosy or some such disease.

‘Dasyu’ here stands for the servant engaged on fixed wages, — so called because he ‘accomplishes work’ ( ), as explained by the followers of the Nirukta. Since such a servant is engaged on daily wages, he is not absolutely dependent on others; that is why he has been mentioned separately. As persons belonging to this class live upon the wages earned, they would become deprived of their livelihood (if they deposed against their employer); and further, as their living is small, they are liable to corruption, hence untrustworthy also. As for the thief or robber (who also is called ‘dasyu’), as he is mentioned by a separate word (in the next verse), he cannot be taken as spoken of here by means of the term ‘dasyu.’ Or, the term ‘dasyu’ may stand for a hard-hearted person, one of cruel disposition.

‘Vikarmakṛṭ’ is one who adopts an occupation forbidden by the scriptures; e.g., the Brāhmaṇa adopting the occupation of the Kṣatriya, or the Kṣatriya that of the Vaiśya and so forth.

‘Too old.’ — One who is too old is subject to lapses of memory.

‘Minor,’ — one who is too young and not yet entered business.

‘A single person’ — in as much as ‘at least three’ has already been laid down, — which leaves no possibility of citing a single witness — the prohibition of ‘a single person’ is to be taken as permitting under certain circumstances, the citing of only two witnesses. Otherwise, in a case where, it being laid down that a document must be attested by three persons, — people might be led to think that if the third attestor is not present, the other two persons may write, but they are not admissible as a ‘witness.’

‘Person belonging to the lowest class’ — the barbarian, the Caṇḍāla and so forth. These are percluded here, because they might be regarded as admissible by reason of their having their origin in the Śūdra-caste (who is permitted in verse 60).

“One with defective organs’ — with his perceptive faculties rendered defective by bodily disease. — (66)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vaktavyaḥ’ — ‘Son or pupil or such others as can be ordered about’ (Medhātithi and Rāmacandra); — ‘one whose body is disfigured by leprosy or such other diseases’ (Medhātithi, alternative); — ‘despised by reason of misconduct’ (Nārāyaṇa, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana).

‘Dasyu,’ — ‘Servant receiving wages’ (Medhātithi. Govindarāja and Rāghavānanda); — ‘cruel man’ (Medhātithi, alternative, Kuljūka and Rāghavānanda); ‘low-caste man’ (Nandana)‘murderer’ (Rāmacandra).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 66) — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 10a); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 281); — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 177); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (30b), which explains ‘adhyadhīnaḥ’ as one who is held in bondage; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 49b), which reproduces Medhātithi’s explanations.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.64-67)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.64.

VERSE 8.67

Section XII (A) - Evidence

नार्तो न मत्तो नोन्मत्तो न क्षुत्तृष्णोपपीडितः ।
न श्रमार्तो न कामार्तो न क्रुद्धो नापि तस्करः ॥६७॥

nārto na matto nonmatto na kṣuttṛṣṇopapīḍitaḥ |
na śramārto na kāmārto na kruddho nāpi taskaraḥ ||67||

 — Nor one afflicted, nor one intoxicated, nor one demented, nor one tormented by hunger and thirst, nor one oppressed by fatigue, nor one tormented by love, nor one who is in a rage, nor a thief. — (67)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Afflicted’ — by the death of relatives and friends.

‘Intoxicated’ — senseless through wine.

‘Demented’ — seized by epilepsy, or obsessed by ghosts.

‘Tormented by hunger or thirst’ — Suffering from the pangs of hunger or thirst.

‘Fatigue’ — caused by much physical labour, involved in walking long distances, engaging in battle and so forth; — ‘oppressed’ by it.

‘Love’ — Desire for intercourse with women. One who is separated from his beloved, as also one who is too much with her, — both of them are untrustworthy, on account of their mind being engrossed in the loved one, or in the fear of being separated from her.

‘In rage’ — who is too angry with some person, — even other than the parties of the suit; such a person having his mind entirely taken up with rage is unable to perceive things rightly, or to remember them correctly.

‘Thief’; — even though the thief also is ‘one who adopts a forbidden occupation,’ yet since ho has been mentioned separately, it has to be explained on the analogy of the expression ‘go-balīvarda’ (‘cows and hulls’). — (67)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 66); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 10a); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 281); — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 177); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (30b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 49b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.64-67)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.64.

VERSE 8.68

Section XII (A) - Evidence

स्त्रीणां साक्ष्यं स्त्रियः कुर्युर्द्विजानां सदृशा द्विजाः ।
शूद्राश्च सन्तः शूद्राणां अन्त्यानामन्त्ययोनयः ॥६८॥

strīṇāṃ sākṣyaṃ striyaḥ kuryurdvijānāṃ sadṛśā dvijāḥ |
śūdrāśca santaḥ śūdrāṇāṃ antyānāmantyayonayaḥ ||68||

 — Woman should give evidence for women; and for twice-born persons similar twice-born men, virtuous śūdhas for śūdras, and men of the lowest caste for the lowest men. — (68)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case where both plaintiff and defendant are males, the evidence of females is not admissible; when however the suit lies between a male and a female, or between two females, — there women do appear as witnesses. But there is no restriction as to women alone — and no men, — being witnesses for women. In fact it is only in suits relating entirely to males that woman are admissible as witnesses only in special cases, since the only reason that is given for excluding women is their fickleness, but there are some women who are as truthful as the best propounded of the Veda and as steady.

‘For twice-born persons similar twite-born men’ As for the twice-born person of the higher class, and hence more trustworthy, — he may make certain statements whose veracity may be doubted, — and hence his words are not absolutely reliable. In fact the witness should be one who is accepted by the parties as reliable; and this is possible only when he belongs to the same class; as it is only men of the same class who by reason of living in the same place are expected to know all about one another’s transactions; while for others, it would be difficult to come into sufficiently close proximity with men of the lower strata; which, on the other hand, is always available for men of the same class. Similarly for men of inferior qualities, men of the same kind are to be witnesses; though this does not mean that persons with higher qualifications are not admissible.

The ‘similarity’ here meant may be — (a) in caste, or (b) in occupation, or (c) in qualities, or (d) in action, such as the studying of the Veda and so forth, or (e) in character.

But all this restriction is not meant to be applicable to very important suits; because as a rule much reliability is not found in men with inferior qualifications.

‘Far men of the lowest class’ — such as the Caṇḍāla and the rest — men of the same low class. The compound ‘antya-yonayaḥ’ is to be expounded as those who have their yoni or origin in the lowermost stratum.

This is meant to be only illustrative. The same rule holds good regarding other classes of people, — such as craftsmen, actors and so forth, — for whom also the witnesses should be ‘similar’ — in caste, occupation, character, etc.; though these have not been mentioned in the text; because the same reason is present in their case also. — (68)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Sadṛśāḥ’ — ‘Inhabitants of the same place, of the same caste, same occupations, same qualifications’ (Medhātithi); — ‘of the same caste’ (Kullūka) ‘of the same caste and equally virtuous’ (Govindarāja).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 665); — in Mitākṣarā (on 2.68); — in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 214); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 9b); — in Kṛtyakalpataru, 30b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 47a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (16.30). — ‘Let the King admit women as witnesses regarding women; for twice-born men, twice-born men of the same caste; good Śūdras for Śūdras, and men of low birth for men of the low caste.’

Yājñavalkya (2.69). — ‘Or all men may be witnesses for all castes.’

Nārada (1.153). — ‘Among companies of artisans, or guilds of merchants, artisans or merchants shall be witnesses; and members of an association among other members of the association; persons living outside, among those living outside; and women among women.’

Nārada (1.156). — ‘If in a company of artisans or guilds of merchants, or in any other association, anyone falls out with his associates, they should not bo made witnesses against him; for they all are his enemies.’

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности