with the Commentary of Medhatithi 213 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 219 из 350Следующая ⇒

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Fifteen days and nights make a ‘fortnight’; the aggregate of three fortnights is called ‘tripakṣam’; according to Pāṇini 2.4.17, the compound should have a feminine ending, but this is precluded by the exception that follows, regarding ‘pātra’ and other words (which include the word ‘pakṣa’ also).

“In that case the feminine form ‘tripakṣī’ should be impossible.”

The wrong gender in that case is to be regarded as a ‘Vedic anomaly.’

The Ablative ending in ‘tripakṣāt’ has the force of the participial affix ‘lyap.’

The meaning of the verse thus is that — ‘He who after having waited for three fortnights, dees not give evidence, without being ill, should hear the burden of that debt’; — ‘as also the tenth part out of it, as a penalty.’

‘Debts and other mailers’; — the addition of the phrase ‘and other matters’ indicates that what is said here applies to all kinds of suits; and the repetition of the term ‘debt’ is only by way of illustration. The meaning is that — ‘in a suit where for the said time no evidence is given, the burden of the defeated party is to be borne by the witnesses.’

‘Gada,’ ‘illness,’ is meant to indicate other kinds of disability also; so that due cognizance should be taken of such conditions also as family troubles, fear of creditor and so forth.

The term ‘bandha’ following a numeral word, denotes penalty, and stands for the ‘tenth part.’

The terms ‘naraḥ’ and ‘sarvataḥ’ are added only for filling up the metre.

Others explain that the assertion ‘should hear that debt’ means that ‘he incurs the sin of stealing the amount of the debt.’

The meaning is that the man shall pay the tenth part of the fine that would be payable to the king by the defeated party. — (107)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hopkins again misrepresents Nandana as reading ‘gatonaraḥ’ for ‘Narogadaḥ.’ It is clear that Hopkins had a very defective manuscript of Nandana’s commentary.

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (37b); — in Aparārka (p. 677), to the effect that it is only in cases relating to debts and the like that the absentee witness who is fit to attend, does not attend; — in Mitākṣarā (on 2.76) which adds that ‘agadaḥ’ stands for freedom from disease and state or divine oppression; — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 213), which explains ‘agadaḥ’ as ‘in good health,’ — ‘tadṛnam’ as that which can be proved by means of witnesses; — ‘sarvam’ as ‘along with accrued interest,’ and ‘prāpnuyāt’ as ‘should be paid’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 54b) which explains that ‘agadaḥ’ stands for the ‘absence of obstacles arising either from natural causes or from some action of the king.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (13.6). — ‘If witnesses, on being asked, do not answer, they are guilty of a crime.’

Yājñavalkya (2.76). — ‘A person not deposing as a witness should be made to pay, on the forty-sixth day, the entire amount of the debt (involved in the suit), along with the tenth part of that amount as penalty.’

Bṛhaspati (7.31). — ‘If a witness, who is not ill, being summoned, does not make his appearance, he should be made to pay the debt and also a fine, after the lapse of three fortnights.’

Nārada (1.197). — ‘He who conceals his knowledge at the time of trial, although previously he has stated to others what he knows, deserves specially heavy punishment; for he is more criminal than a false witness.’

Śukranīti (4.5.387). — ‘The man who, when summoned, does not bear witness is punishable.’

VERSE 8.108 [After-effects of Giving Evidence]

Section XVII - After-effects of Giving Evidence

यस्य दृश्येत सप्ताहादुक्तवाक्यस्य साक्षिणः ।
रोगोऽग्निर्ज्ञातिमरणं ऋणं दाप्यो दमं च सः ॥१०८॥

yasya dṛśyeta saptāhāduktavākyasya sākṣiṇaḥ |
rogo'gnirjñātimaraṇaṃ ṛṇaṃ dāpyo damaṃ ca saḥ ||108||

That witness, — who may be found, within a week of having given evidence, to suffer from sickness, fire or the death of a relative, — should be made to pay the debt and also the penalty. — (108)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Saptāhāt,’ ‘within a week,’ — the use of the Ablative implies that the proposition ‘before’ is understood. That is, on anyone of the seven days, after he has given evidence, if the witness is found to suffer from sickness, it implies that he has been adjudged by destiny to be a perjuror, and hence he should be punished in accordance with the aforesaid rule.

‘Illness’ stands for any kind of acute suffering; — ‘fire’ for the burning of cattle and conveyances; — and ‘death of a relative’ for the death of the son or the wife or some other near relative; — all these being indicative of his having given false evidence. — (108)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Nandana is again misrepresented by Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 2.80.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.113). — ‘If a man suffers no calamity, arising either from the King or from some supernatural force, within fourteen days (of his deposition), he should undoubtedly be regarded as pure (honest).’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 715). — ‘If the man suffers some calamity after the lapse of two weeks, he shall not be accused on that account (of dishonesty).’

Viṣṇu (14.4-5). — ‘He to whom any calamity happens within a fortnight or three weeks — such as an illness, or fine, or death of a relative, or a heavy visitation by the King, — should be known to be dishonest, — otherwise, he should be known as honest.’

Pitāmaha (Aparārka, p. 715). — ‘If within three days, or seven days, or two weeks, some calamity befalls the man, he should be regarded as a sinner. If he alone, and none other, should suffer from illness, or death of a relative, or fine, this would be an indication of his sin.’

VERSE 8.109 [Oaths and Ordeals]

Section XVIII - Oaths and Ordeals

असाक्षिकेषु त्वर्थेषु मिथो विवदमानयोः ।
अविन्दंस्तत्त्वतः सत्यं शपथेनापि लम्भयेत् ॥१०९॥

asākṣikeṣu tvartheṣu mitho vivadamānayoḥ |
avindaṃstattvataḥ satyaṃ śapathenāpi lambhayet ||109||

In witness-less cases, if he cannot get at the truth between the two disputants by any means, he should discover it by means of oath. — (109)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Witnessless cases,’ — those cases in which there are no witnesses; — in regard to these, when the king fails to find out the truth, — by any means, — i.e, by any ordinary methods, — ‘he shall discover’ — learn — it ‘by means of oath’ — i.e, by transcendental methods of inference. The root ‘labh’ ‘to get at’ (in ‘lambhayet’), though literally meaning the attaining of a thing, indirectly implies knowing.

All that the advice conveyed by the injunction means is that ‘in cases where there are no witnesses, he shall discover the truth by means of oath’; all the rest merely fills up the metre.

‘Mithaḥ’ — between themselves. — (109)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Śapathena’ — ‘Supernatural proof’ (Medhātithi); — ‘oath’ — ‘touching of the head and so forth’ (Nārāyaṇa), — or declaring ‘may heinous sins accrue to me if what I have said turns out to be untrue’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 694), which adds that ‘asākṣikeṣu’ means ‘in cases where no human evidence is available’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 71b), which explains ‘asākṣikeṣu’ in the same manner.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (13.12-13). — ‘Some declare that the witnesses shall be charged with oath to speak the truth. In the case of others than Brāhmaṇas that oath shall be sworn in the presence of Gods, of Brāhmaṇas and of the King.’

Viṣṇu (5.19). — ‘Let the Judge summon the witnesses, at the time of sunrise, and examine them, after having bound them by an oath.’

Viṣṇu (9.33). — ‘Let the Judge summon the defendant at the time of sunrise, after having fasted on the previous day and bathed in his clothes, and make him go through all the ordeals in the presence of Gods and of Brāhmaṇas.’

Nārada (1.235, 236, 239). — ‘When owing to the negligence of the creditor, both documentary evidence and witnesses are missing, — and the defendant denies his obligation, three different methods may be adopted: — Timely reminder, Argument, and thirdly, Oath; these are the measures that the plaintiff should adopt against his adversary. If arguments are of no avail, let him cause the defendant to undergo one of the ordeals.’

Nārada (1.247-249). — ‘If no witness is forthcoming, for either of the two litigant parties, he must test them through ordeals and oaths of every sort. When a heavy crime has been committed, the King shall administer one of the ordeals: in light cases, the virtuous king shall swear the man with oaths.’

Yājñavalkya (2.97). — ‘Calling him at sun-rise, after he has fasted and bathed with clothes on, he shall make him go through the ordeals, in the presence of Gods, Brāhmaṇas and the King.’

Bṛhaspati (10.1-3). — ‘A forger of gems, pearl or coral, one withholding a deposit, a ruffian and an adulterer shall, in every case, be tested by oaths and ordeals. In charges related to heavy crimes, or to the appropriation of a deposit, the King should try the case by ordeals, even though there be witnesses. When a thing has happened long ago, or in secret, or when the witnesses have disappeared, or are perjured all of them, — the trial should be conducted by having recourse to an ordeal.’

Śukranīti (4-5.460). — ‘When argument also fails, ordeal has to be used in the investigation of cases.’

Do. (4-5.525). — ‘If one party urges human evidence, and the other divine, the King should accept the former, not the latter.’

Śukranīti (4.5, 529). — ‘The six kinds of decision are — through evidence, argument, custom, oaths, king’s edict and confession by the defendant.’

VERSE 8.110

Section XVIII - Oaths and Ordeals

महर्षिभिश्च देवैश्च कार्यार्थं शपथाः कृताः ।
वसिष्ठश्चापि शपथं शेपे पैजवने नृपे ॥११०॥

maharṣibhiśca devaiśca kāryārthaṃ śapathāḥ kṛtāḥ |
vasiṣṭhaścāpi śapathaṃ śepe paijavane nṛpe ||110||

By the great sages, as well as by the Gods, oaths have been taken for the purposes of a case; Vasiṣṭha even swore an oath before the King Paijavana. — (110)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a commendatory supplement to the foregoing injunction of having recourse to oaths.

‘By the great sages’ — i.e., by the seven sages, called ‘Saptarṣi,’ and the rest; — ‘oaths have been taken, for the purposes of a case,’ — i.e., for the purpose of arriving at a decision regarding doubtful cases.

In this connection the story recounted by the revered Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana may be cited as an example. On one occasion when their lotuses had been stolen, the seven sages swore among themselves — ‘he who has stolen your lotus shall go the way of sinners,’ and so forth.

‘By the Gods’ — Indra and the rest, also; e.g., when Indra was accused in relation to Ahalyā, he swore many oaths, being afraid of being cursed.

‘Vashistha’ has been mentioned separately, for the purpose of indicating his special importance; — he also swore; the term ‘oath’ itself conveying the sense of swearing, the verb ‘swore’ should be taken in the sense of ‘took’; just as we have such expressions as ‘sacrifices a sacrifice,’ ‘nourished with self-nourishment,’ — so have we also the expression ‘swore an oath.’ ‘Shepe’ is the third person singular form in the Past Perfect tense of the root ‘shap’ to swear.

Before the king Paijavanu; — Sudās, the son of Pijavana was a king; and, during his reign, on being accused by Viśvāmitra in the midst of an assembly, Vashistha was beset with anger and desire and took the oath with regard to his being a‘demon’; in the presence of that same king he had been accused of having ‘devoured his hundred sons’ and hence being a ‘demon’; whereupon he swore — ‘may I die to-day, if I am a demon!’ — this invoking of an undesirable contingency upon himself being what is called an ‘oath.’ In a case where people swear by laying their hands upon the head of their wife or children, the ‘oath’ consists in invoking evil upon these latter. — (110)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Paijavana’ is another name for king Sudās, say Nārāyāṇa and Kullūka.

For the story of the seven sages, see the Mahābhārata 13.93; 13. “See Sāyana on Ṛgveda 7.104.15, which is considered to contain the oath sworn.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 406); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (62a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (1.243, 244). — ‘Of gods and sages even, the taking of oaths is recorded. Vasiṣṭha took an oath when he was accused of having assumed the shape of an evil spirit. The seven Ṛṣis resolutely took an oath together with Indra, in order to clean themselves mutually of suspicion, when each was suspected of having stolen lotus-fibres.’

Śukranīti (4.5.461). — ‘Ordeals are known as divya, divine, because they were used by the devas, gods, in the discrimination of difficult cases.’

VERSE 8.111

Section XVIII - Oaths and Ordeals

न वृथा शपथं कुर्यात् स्वल्पेऽप्यर्थे नरो बुधः ।
वृथा हि शपथं कुर्वन् प्रेत्य चैह च नश्यति ॥१११॥

na vṛthā śapathaṃ kuryāt svalpe'pyarthe naro budhaḥ |
vṛthā hi śapathaṃ kurvan pretya caiha ca naśyati ||111||

The wise man shall not take an oath improperly; taking an improper oath, one becomes ruined here as well as after death. — (111)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse describes the effect of improper swearing, ‘improper’ meaning contrary to truth, false.

The gravity of the sin of ‘false swearing’ is dependent upon the nature of the property stolen — be it goods or something else, — and also upon that of the caste of the person involved and so forth. But even in minor matters one should not swear falsely; in more serious matters of course, the sin is more heinous.

‘Ruin after death’ consists in falling into hell; and ‘ruin here’ is in the form of public obloquy, and also punishment at the hands of the king, in the event of the true facts being discovered by other means. — (111)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vṛthā’ — ‘False’ (Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana); — ‘needlessly, in small matters’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 229), — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p.406); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavāhara, 89a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (1.257, 258). — ‘Where no one declares himself ready to undergo punishment, an ordeal cannot take place. An ordeal shall be administered to litigants when there is reason for it, not otherwise. Therefore an intelligent, virtuous, righteous and wise king (or judge) should abstain from administering any one of the five ordeals, unless both parties consent to it.’

VERSE 8.112

Section XVIII - Oaths and Ordeals

कामिनीषु विवाहेषु गवां भक्ष्ये तथेन्धने ।
ब्राह्मणाभ्युपपत्तौ च शपथे नास्ति पातकम् ॥११२॥

kāminīṣu vivāheṣu gavāṃ bhakṣye tathendhane |
brāhmaṇābhyupapattau ca śapathe nāsti pātakam ||112||

There is no serious offence in swearing to women, or in connection with marriages, fodder for cows, or fuel, or for the sake of a Brāhmaṇa. — (112)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Kāminīṣu’ — ‘Kāma’ is a particular form of pleasure caused through the tactile organ; and those who are productive of such pleasure are called ‘Kāminī,’ — which is a terra that stands for wife, courtesans and so forth. To these if one swears, for the fulfilment of his desire — in such words as ‘I do not love any other woman, thou art the queen of my heart,’ etc., — there is nothing wrong in this; though, if after meeting the women, and on being asked by her to give a certain thing, he swears falsely that he would give it to her, — then this is certainly wrong.

‘Śapathe,’ ‘in swearing’; — the Locative here signifies the subject, and not the purpose. Hence the meaning is that there is nothing wrong, only in that form of oath which is sworn in connection only with that single woman with whom the man is in love. If, however, the Locative signified the purpose, then there would he nothing wrong in swearing for the purpose of robbing others of their property; and in that case what is declared (in 121 below) regarding the heavier punishment, in the case of perjury through lust, being ‘ten times’ would not be proper.

Even in the case of the woman, if the man swears falsely in a dispute with her, relating to other matters, — he commits a sin. Similarly in other cases.

‘In connection with marriages’; — when one says ‘this man has married another woman,’ or ‘that woman should ho married by you,’ and so forth; such lying, also in connection with the marriage of friends and others, is not sinful, but not so the concealing of the real caste of the bride and such details.

‘Fodder for cows’; — when, for the sake of obtaining fodder for cows, one has been constrained to commit theft, but denies it, — then if called to bear testimony, if the witness should swear to his not having done the act, — there is nothing wrong in this.

Similarly with ‘fuel.’

‘For the sake of Brāhmaṇas,’ — for conferring some benefit on Brāhmaṇas.

“Lying for the sake of all castes having been already permitted (in 104), why should this be repeated here?”

Some people offer the following explanation: — In the case of Brāhmaṇas false swearing is permitted, while in that of the Śūdra and other castes, it is simple lying that is sanctioned.

This however is not right; as under 104, it has been declared that ‘such lying is preferable to truth’; so that what is sanctioned there is not lying at all. The fact of the matter is that the said verse is not a prohibition; it provides an exception to the prohibition of false swearing contained in the preceding verse; and hence there should he nothing wrong in swearing for the sake of any caste.

“Why then should the declaration in the present verse be made?”

What has been permitted under 104 is lying with a view to save the men from death, which refers to all castes; for the purpose of conferring a benefit, however, it is permitted only in the ease of the Brāhmaṇa; as in the case of the other castes, the man might be prompted to lie also by greed for money and other motives.

In all these oases also the permission of false oath applies to only those eases where the purpose cannot he served without it, by any other means — (112)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 229), which adds the following notes: — ‘Kāminīṣu,’ when conversing with a woman in secret one may swear falsely for the purpose of satisfying her; — similarly for the purpose of bringing about a marriage, for obtaining food for cows, for obtaining fuel necessary for offerings, and for saving a Brāhmaṇa; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 406).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (16.35). — ‘Men may speak an untruth in marriage, during dalliance, when their lives are in danger, or the loss of their entire property is imminent, and for the sake of a Brāhmaṇa.’

Gautama (23.29-31). — ‘Some declare that an untruth spoken in marriage, during dalliance, in jest, or while one is in severe pain, is not reprehensible. But that is certainly not the case when the untruth concerns the guru; for if one lies even in his heart to his guru, regarding even small matters, he destroys himself, his seven descendants and seven ancestors.’

VERSE 8.113

Section XVIII - Oaths and Ordeals

सत्येन शापयेद् विप्रं क्षत्रियं वाहनायुधैः ।
गोबीजकाञ्चनैर्वैश्यं शूद्रं सर्वैस्तु पातकैः ॥११३॥

satyena śāpayed vipraṃ kṣatriyaṃ vāhanāyudhaiḥ |
gobījakāñcanairvaiśyaṃ śūdraṃ sarvaistu pātakaiḥ ||113||

The Brāhmaṇa should be made to swear by truth, the Kṣatriya by conveyances and weapons, the Vaiśya by cattle, grains and gold, and the Śūdra by all sins. — (113)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In as much as the act of ‘swearing’ consists in invoking upon oneself evil consequences, — such as ‘If I do this may such and such an evil befall me,’ — when a man is made to say ‘I swear by truth,’ what is meant is — ‘may all my merit due to truthfulness become futile.’

‘Conveyances’ and ‘weapons’ also are the means of swearing in this same sense; when one swears by these it means — ‘may these be useless for me.’

‘Cattle, grains and gold,’ — the Vaiśya should be made to swear by touching these; which would mean ‘may these be useless for me.’

‘The Śūdra by all sins’; — the Śūdra should be made to say — ‘may the following sins befall me.’ — (113)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 2.73), which adds the following notes: — To the Brāhmaṇa he should administer the oath — ‘If you tell a lie your truthfulness shall perish’; to the Kṣatriya, ‘your conveyances and weapons shall be futile’; to the Vaiśya, ‘your cattle, seeds and gold shall be useless;’ to the Śūdra, ‘if you tell a lie all the sins shall accrue to thee.’ It adds that verse 102 provides an exception to the rule here laid down.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 19), and again on p. 38; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 78); — in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 611), which adds the following notes: — The Brāhmaṇa he shall cause to take the oath in the form ‘what I say is quite true,’ and what he says after this should be accepted as true; — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 336); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (62a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 88b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (8.20-23). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa witness should be asked to declare: the Kṣatriya to declare the truth; the Vaiśya should be addressed thus — “Thy kine, grain and gold shall yield thee no fruit if thou wert to lie”: the Śūdra should be addressed thus — “Thou shall have to atone for all heavy crimes if thou wert to lie.”’

Nārada (1.248). — ‘Let him cause the Brāhmaṇa to swear by truth, the Kṣatriya by his conveyance and by his weapons, the Vaiśya by his gold, grains, cows and so forth; or all by venerable deities or deified ancestors, or by their own pious gifts or meritorious deeds.’

VERSE 8.114

Section XVIII - Oaths and Ordeals

अग्निं वाऽहारयेदेनमप्सु चैनं निमज्जयेत् ।
पुत्रदारस्य वाप्येनं शिरांसि स्पर्शयेत् पृथक् ॥११४॥

agniṃ vā'hārayedenamapsu cainaṃ nimajjayet |
putradārasya vāpyenaṃ śirāṃsi sparśayet pṛthak ||114||

Or, he may make him fetch fire, or make him dive under water, or make him touch the heads of his son and wife severally. — (114)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He shall make him fetch water’ — with the hand, with only the leaf of the fig tree intervening. As for the other details, regarding the man going seven steps and so forth, — all this may be found in other Smṛtis (e.g., Yājñavalkya, Vyavahāra, 103, and Nārada 2.296). The matter being well known by tradition, our author has simply stated the ‘fetching of fire.’

‘He,’ i.e., the Judge — ‘shall make him dive under water.’

‘He shall make him touch the heads of his son and wife, secerally,’ — the man shall touch the head with his hand; and as this occurs in the context dealing with ‘oaths,’ the man should be made to utter the swearing words also.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману