with the Commentary of Medhatithi 211 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 217 из 350Следующая ⇒

This is quite true; but the statement in the text is based upon an assumed distinction; just like the statement ‘one injures his soul by his own soul’ (Bhagavad-gitā). — (90)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 674); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (35b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.89-97)

[See the texts under 79 et seq.]

VERSE 8.97

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

यावतो बान्धवान् यस्मिन् हन्ति साक्ष्येऽनृतं वदन् ।
तावतः सङ्ख्यया तस्मिन् शृणु सौम्यानुपूर्वशः ॥९७॥

yāvato bāndhavān yasmin hanti sākṣye'nṛtaṃ vadan |
tāvataḥ saṅkhyayā tasmin śṛṇu saumyānupūrvaśaḥ ||97||

‘Listen now, gentle friend, in due order, how many relatives, by number, one destroys by giving false evidence, in what cases.’ — (97)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present text introduces a section where it is pointed out that the degree of sin committed by the perjurer varies with the nature of the matter of the suit.

When this fact is asserted in the form of an address, it serves the purpose of indicating its importance, when something is said in secret, it is regarded as some slight matter, not of any importance; but what is said now is important, and hence should be listened to with attention, — such being the implication of the hortatory form adopted.

The term ‘gentle friend,’ in the singular form, is intended for Bhṛgu alone from among the several whom Manu is instructing.

‘Yaṣmin sākṣye’; — the two locatives are not in apposition; the meaning is — ‘the false evidence that is given in regard to a certain subject-matter’; — so that the locative denotes ‘matter,’ while the locative absolute means something quite different. Or the diversity in the evidence being in accordance with the diversity in the matter, the two locatives may be in apposition also.

The term ‘tāvat’ is generally used to denote extent; and as extent is of various kinds, the author specifies it as being ‘by number.’

‘In due order,’ — for the purpose of easier understanding; when a subject is stated in due order, it becomes easily understood. The ‘order’ meant here is with reference to the number; as it is number that is going to be described in the following verses. — (97)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Hanti’ — ‘Destroys — i.e., leads to hell’ (Medhātithi on 98, and Nārāyaṇa and Kullūka); — ‘makes to fall from heaven, or makes to be born among lower animals’ (Rāghavānanda); — ‘incurs the guilt of killing them’ (Kullūka, alternative).

‘Saumya’ — Addressed to Bhṛgu (Medhātithi), but later on under 99, he rejects the view and says that it must be taken as addressed to the witness giving evidence.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 674); — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 205); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru, (35b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.89-97)

[See the texts under 79 et seq.]

VERSE 8.98

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

पञ्च पश्वनृते हन्ति दश हन्ति गवानृते ।
शतमश्वानृते हन्ति सहस्रं पुरुषानृते ॥९८॥

pañca paśvanṛte hanti daśa hanti gavānṛte |
śatamaśvānṛte hanti sahasraṃ puruṣānṛte ||98||

‘He destroys five by false evidence regarding animals; he destroys ten by false evidence regarding kine; he destroys a hundred by false evidence regarding horses, and a thousand by false evidence regarding men.’ — (98)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The compound ‘paśvanṛtam’ is to be expounded as ‘paśunimittam-anṛtam,’ ‘false evidence regarding animals,’ — on the analogy of the compound ‘śākaparthivaḥ.’

False evidence destroys five relatives; — this ‘destroying’ consists in making them fall into hell; — the five relatives being — (1) the father, (2) the mother, (3) the wife and (4-5) a couple of children (son and daughter).

“How can the result of sin committed by one accrue to another?”

Our answer is that it is on account of association that one person goes to heaven or to hell, by virtue of the virtuous or vicious acts committed by another.

What is really meant is that the perjurer is abandoned by the said relatives; — or, that ho incurs the sin that would accrue from the killing of the relations; and hence even though not actually killing them, he is described as ‘destroying’ them, on the ground that the spiritual effect of the two acts is the same.

This however is a purely hortatory exaggeration; and it is not meant that the man actually commits the act; if this latter were meant, then the man would be subject to the expiatory rites prescribed in connection with the actual killing of the said relatives; while as a matter of fact, the perjurer is subjected to only those sites that have been prescribed in connection with the sin of perjury.

The gradual increase in the number (of relatives destroyed) is meant to indicate the increasingly heavier character of the expiation necessary; and the statements are not meant to be taken as literally true. Hence all that is meant is that each succeeding act of perjury (mentioned) makes the man liable to a heavier expiation than the preceding one.

On being questioned as to the person to whom a certain slave belongs, if the witness deposes falsely, — it is a case of ‘false evidence regarding men.’ — (98)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 674); — in Smṛtisaroddhāra (p. 336); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 220), which says that ‘pañca’, ‘five’, qualifies ‘bandhavān’ ‘relations,’ who have been mentioned in the preceding verse; — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 205); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (35b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.19.12-13). — ‘By false testimony regarding gold, he ruins three ancestors; by false testimony regarding small cattle, he ruins five; by false testimony regarding kine, he kills ten; he ruins a hundred by false evidence regarding horses, and a thousand by false evidence regarding man; a witness who speaks falsely about land ruins the whole world.’

Vaśiṣṭha (16.34). — ‘He kills five by false testimony regarding a maiden; ten by false testimony regarding kine, a hundred by false testimony regarding a horse, and a thousand by false testimony regarding a man.’

Gautama (13.14-15). — ‘By false evidence concerning small cattle, a witness kills ten; by that regarding cows, horses, men, or land, — in each succeeding case, ten times as many as in the one preceding; or, by false evidence regarding land, the whole human race.’

VERSE 8.99

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

हन्ति जातानजातांश्च हिरण्यार्थेऽनृतं वदन् ।
सर्वं भूमिअनृते हन्ति मा स्म भूमिअनृतं वदीः ॥९९॥

hanti jātānajātāṃśca hiraṇyārthe'nṛtaṃ vadan |
sarvaṃ bhūmianṛte hanti mā sma bhūmianṛtaṃ vadīḥ ||99||

‘Deposing falsely in regard to gold, he kills the born as well as the unborn; by false evidence regarding land, he kills all; never tell a lie regarding land.’ — (99)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Question — “How can association with the sinful person affect those not yet born, — that it is said that the man kills the born as well as the unborn?”

It has been already pointed out that all this is merely a hortatory exaggeration.

‘He kills all by deposing falsely in regard to land; never tell a lie regarding land’; — this direct form of address has been adopted for the purpose of indicating the gravity of the offence.

Question — “What is it that is called Land?”

Answer — It is what is known as globe, the earth with hilly protuberances, extending to the ocean.

Objection — “But who can be the owner of all this extensive earth? Who too can take it away by force? For there is no king over the whole earth. To this effect there is the earth’s song addressed to Viśvakarman Bhauvana, — the latter term being his name derived from his father’s — ‘no mortal can give me away’; — which means that there is no one who owns the entire earth, — ‘I shall sink into the midst of the water, having heard that he is desirous of haring intercourse with me,’ — this sinking within water implying the futility of the gift, — ‘vain is thy promise to give me away’ — ‘just as what Is thrown into the water becomes useless, so also is your promise to give the Earth to Kaśyapa useless.’ (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 13. 7. 1. 15). The meaning of all this is that the earth is the common property of all men, to be equally enjoyed by all; and kings are appointed only for taking care of it. Thus then, cither the giving away or the taking away of the whole extent of this earth being impossible, how can there be any disputes regarding its possession?”

Answer — True; but, just as the entire earth is spoken of as ‘bhūmi,’ ‘land,’ so also are Holds, villages and platforms and over these latter, ownership is certainly possible; and the making over or the taking away also of such ownership is directly perceptible; the ‘taking away’ of this consists in asserting ownership in an improper manner; and the mere dismantling of a house or the cutting of a tree does not constitute the act of ‘taking away.’ Hence if a man walks over another man’s land, or takes clay out of it, ho is not said to ‘take away the land.’

“But the Mīmāṃsakas have declared that ‘It cannot be the land, because it is common to all’ (Jaimini, 6. 3. 3) [where the word ‘land’ stands for the whole earth].”

But the term is found to be used in the sense also of parts of the earth, by the revered Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana, who has declared as follows, in course of the description of the duty of charity — ‘On the earth the king should permit the duty of charity by others also; this is a sacred treasure laid down for kings’ [which refers to the gift of land]. As for the assertion of the Mīmāṃsakas regarding ‘land’ being ‘common to all,’ — this refers to the entire globe, to roam about over which all men are equally entitled, and which therefore, cannot he owned by any one; how then could it be given away? In accordance with this view, villages and towns can be given away at the Viśvajit sacrifice. Others however quote the words ‘they present as sacrificial fee, the bhūmi with the exception of the platform and the wife’s room,’ — and explain, that, since any such exception would not be applicable to the entire earth, the giving must refer to fields and such other parts of it only.

In view of the term ‘vadīḥ’ (singular) in this verse, the words ‘listen, gentle sir’ (of verse 97) should he taken as addressed to the witness, and not to the pupil.

All the words in the second person contained in verse 88 onwards (up to 92) are meant to be addressed to the śūdra witness, as is clear from the gravity of the offence indicated, and also from the similarity in the verbal forms used; — while from verse 93 onwards are to be addressed to all witnesses. That such a break in the construction is intended is shown by the adopting of a different verbal form; — the Second Person is used in the former set of verses while in the latter we have the Third Person, which clearly indicates dissociation from the previous context. — (99).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Sarvam hanti’ — ‘Destroys everything — i. e., incurs the guilt of killing all animate beings’ (Kullūka and Govindarāja); — ‘destroys even more than a thousand beings’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘destroys the entire universe’ (Nandana).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.19.12). — (See under 98.)

Gautama (13.6). — ‘By false evidence regarding land, one destroys the whole human race.’

VERSE 8.100

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

अप्सु भूमिवदित्याहुः स्त्रीणां भोगे च मैथुने ।
अब्जेषु चैव रत्नेषु सर्वेष्वश्ममयेषु च ॥१००॥

apsu bhūmivadityāhuḥ strīṇāṃ bhoge ca maithune |
abjeṣu caiva ratneṣu sarveṣvaśmamayeṣu ca ||100||

‘That concerning water they declare to be similar to that concerning land; as also that relating to the sexual enjoyment of women, and to gems, water-born as well as granitic.’ — (100)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The sin accruing from false evidence relating to the water — much or little — contained in wells, tanks and other reservoirs — is similar to that in the ease of land.

‘Sexual enjoyment of women’; — i.e., in answer to the question — ‘by whom has this woman been ravished sexually.’

‘Water-born gems,’ — such as the pearl; — ‘granitic gems’ — the emerald and the like; — the term ‘gems’ being construed both ways. There are various kinds of gems, waterborn and granitic; hence all that was necessary was to mention the ‘gems’ only; and the mention of the qualifying epithet must he taken only as serving the purpose of filling up the metre.

‘Water-born’ — produced in water.

‘Granitic’ — formed from stones. — (100)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 205), — and in Kṛtyakalpataru.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (13.18-19). — ‘By false evidence regarding water, one incurs the same guilt as in that regarding land; likewise by false evidence regarding criminal intercourse.’

VERSE 8.101

Section XII - Exhortation and Examination of Witnesses

एतान् दोषानवेक्ष्य त्वं सर्वाननृतभाषणे ।
यथाश्रुतं यथादृष्टं सर्वमेवाञ्जसा वद ॥१०१॥

etān doṣānavekṣya tvaṃ sarvānanṛtabhāṣaṇe |
yathāśrutaṃ yathādṛṣṭaṃ sarvamevāñjasā vada ||101||

‘Having noticed all these evils proceeding prom perjury, speak out directly everything exactly what you have seen and heard.’ — (101)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Give up all suspense and hesitation, speak out what you have seen and heard. — (101)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Añjasā’ — ‘Without hesitation or śilly-shallying (Medhātithi); — ‘truly’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka); — ‘quickly’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 674); — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 205), which explains ‘añjasā’ as ‘with a clear heart’; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (35b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 675). — ‘When they have assembled, they should say exactly what they have seen or heard.’

[See texts under 74.]

VERSE 8.102 [Some witnesses to be treated like Śūdra]

Section XIV - Some witnesses to be treated like Śūdra

गोरक्षकान् वाणिजिकांस्तथा कारुकुशीलवान् ।
प्रेष्यान् वार्धुषिकांश्चैव विप्रान् शूद्रवदाचरेत् ॥१०२॥

gorakṣakān vāṇijikāṃstathā kārukuśīlavān |
preṣyān vārdhuṣikāṃścaiva viprān śūdravadācaret ||102||

‘He shall treat like Śūdras the Brāhmaṇas who tend cattle, who engage in trade, and who are craftsmen, actors, menial servants ok money-lenders.’ — (102)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Craftsmen’ — artisans; carpenters, blacksmiths, cooks and so forth.

‘Actors’ — dancers and singers.

‘Menial servants,’ — those who serve others for a living; known as ‘dāsa.’

‘Money-lenders,’ — who live upon interest on money lent.

These persons, even though they he Brāhmaṇas, should, in the matter of taking evidence and administering ordeals, — that this is meant is dear from ‘the context — he ‘treated’ — i.e., questioned — ‘like Śūdras’; but not so in other matters. That is to say, in taking evidence, the Śūdra is not questioned with reference to charity, virtue and the like, and in ordeals, he is subjected to the ordeal by fire; and the same treatment should be meted out to the persons mentioned here.

Though ordeal has not yet been spoken of in the present context, yet what is said here is taken as applying to the case of ordeals also, because they are dealt with immediately after the present section, and immediate sequence also is a basis of relationship; the two subjects therefore are closely interrelated. — (102)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 674), and again on p. 681, as indicating that in certain eventualities even a Brāhmaṇa may be condemned to death; — in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 19); — in Vīramitrodaya (Rajānīti, p. 268), which refers to Aparārka and adds that the term ‘viprām’ here stands for the illiterate Brhāmaṇa who does cattle-tending &c., as also for such Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas as are addicted to degraded vocations; — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 35 and Śrāddha, p. 359); — in Prāyascittaviveka (p. 384); — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 205).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.10.24). — ‘Let him treat as Śūdras those Brāhmaṇas who tend cattle, or live by trade, or are artisans, actors, servants or usurers.’

VERSE 8.103 [False evidence permissible in special cases]

Section XV - False evidence permissible in special cases

तद् वदन् धर्मतोऽर्थेषु जानन्नप्यन्य्था नरः ।
न स्वर्गाच्च्यवते लोकाद् दैवीं वाचं वदन्ति ताम् ॥१०३॥

tad vadan dharmato'rtheṣu jānannapyanythā naraḥ |
na svargāccyavate lokād daivīṃ vācaṃ vadanti tām ||103||

In some cases, a man who, though knowing the truth, deposes otherwise, through piety, does not fall off from heaven. This is a divine assertion that they reproduce. — (103)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though deposing otherwise than the truth, the man does not fall off from heaven; i.e., even though he has given false evidence, he does not incur sin.

“Is this so at all times?”

The text proceeds to say that it is not so always; but only in cases where it is done ‘through piety,’ — i.e., through such pious motives as pity and the like; ‘cases’ means suits. How piety forms the motive is going to be shown in the next verse.

What is said here by the author is not out of his own mind; even previous writers on Smṛti have reproduced this ‘divine assertion.’ “What divine assertion?” — The assertion that ‘one should give false evidence from considerations of piety’ has emanated from the gods; and having heard that, Manu and other writers have reproduced it.

This is only a praising of false evidence under special circumstances.

Others however have explained this verse as supplementing the previous injunction; and under this explanation what is said here should apply to what has been said regarding the cattle — tenders and other Brāhmaṇas being exhorted like Śūdras, when asked to give evidence. People might ask how a Brāhmaṇa should be exhorted like a Śūdra; and the text explains that there can be nothing wrong in this, since Manu and other writers have made the declaration that they are to be treated as Śūdras, and they are the sole authority in matters relating to right and wrong.

Witnesses should tell the truth; and that in the manner in which it is enjoined; so that in a case where lying is righteous, that should he regarded as right. — 103

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Buhler wrongly says that Nandana omits this verse; Hopkins is equally inaccurate in saying that Nandana places this verse after 104.

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (38a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bṛhaspati (7.34). — ‘Let him preserve, even by telling a lie, a Brāhmaṇa who has sinned once through error and is in peril of his life, and is oppressed by rogues and others.’

VERSE 8.104

Section XV - False evidence permissible in special cases

शूद्रविड् क्षत्रविप्राणां यत्रऋतोक्तौ भवेद् वधः ।
तत्र वक्तव्यमनृतं तद् हि सत्याद् विशिष्यते ॥१०४॥

śūdraviḍ kṣatraviprāṇāṃ yatraṛtoktau bhaved vadhaḥ |
tatra vaktavyamanṛtaṃ tad hi satyād viśiṣyate ||104||

Where the telling of the truth would lead to the death of a Śūdra, a Vaiśva, a Kṣatriya or a Brāhmaṇa, — in that case falsehood should be spoken; as that is preferable to truth. — (104)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There is the general prohibition. — ‘one shall not speak a falsehood’; and the present verse declares that this prohibition applies to cases other than that entailing the death of the Śūdra and others; and it does not actually enjoin the telling of falsehood. For if it meant the latter, then any coordination between this and the said general prohibition would he impossible.

“What is the condition meant to refer to what is asserted here? the phrase in that case cannot be taken as indicating that condition; as this phrase qualifies death; and as death is not existent at the time, it could not be the required condition; for if it were, the meaning would come to be that ‘when the death has been brought about, falsehood should be spoken’; and this is not what is meant.”

The term ‘where’ referring to the case, the phrase ‘in that case’ also would refer to the same. Hence the meaning comes to be that — ‘in a case where the party defeated becomes liable to death’; and this certainly can serve as the required condition.

As for the king’s wrath, this cannot he regarded as the required condition; as it is an uncertain factor, and also because any penalty inflicted entirely through wrath would be illegal.

For all these reasons the only right course is to take the text as supplementary to the prohibition of lying.

In connection with Gautama’s test, there is no chance of its being taken as an injunction of lying; for all that it says is — ‘there is nothing wrong in lying, if a man’s life is dependent upon it’ (13.24).

In the face of such prohibitions and sanctions, it depends on the will of the man whether he shall tell the truth or untruth; so that arguing in his mind that by telling the truth, he becomes the cause of the death of the accused, and hence the transgressor of the law that ‘one shall not kill any living being,’ — the man decides to tell the untruth; and in this he does what is quite reasonable.

Question. “All that the man does is to answer the question that is put to him; he does not kill; and without killing, how can he be tainted with the sin of killing?”

Answer. The man being free to say what he chooses, if, on account of his deposition, the accused comes to be killed by the king, he does become a means of thaṭ killing, and hence its perpetrator or agent.

Question. “Every kind of means does not become an agent, e.g., when nobility is acquired by wealth, or “fame by learning,” wealth and learning are the means but not the agents. What makes a certain thing the means is its capacity to bring about a special kind of effect in the form of substance or quality. Even when an action is spoken of as such an effect — e.g., in the assertion ‘cooking is done by fire’ — the action that is spoken of by the verbal noun (‘cooking’) is in its accomplished form (and hence as good as a substance or a quality; since an action is that which is still in course of being accomplished). But the effect spoken of in the present context is of a totally different kind — scriptural or spiritual, and not temporal, — being brought about by what is declared in the scriptural texts; and the Agent of such an act is not of the same character as that of the former. If the character of the Agent were to consist in command and prayer — which mean ordering and requesting, — then, in the case of such assertions as ‘make the corns become hot,’ the use of the causal form would he impossible, as it refers to the corns, which are not sentient (and hence cannot have any command or prayer addressed to them).”

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии