with the Commentary of Medhatithi 224 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 230 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 275).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.170-171)

Vaśiṣṭha (19.14-15). — ‘Let the King not take property for his own use from the inhabitants of the realm. Only the measures and price of such property shall he liable to deduction by way of taxation.’

Yājñavalkya (1.338-339). — ‘If the King increases his treasury out of his realm, in an illegal manner, he, very soon, loses his property and becomes ruined, along with his relations. The fire arising out; of the harassment of his people becomes extinguished only after it has consumed the king’s family, prosperity and his very life.’

Kātyāyana (Do.). — ‘If the King realises from his realm, in an unlawful manner, either lines or taxes, or tolls or share of agricultural produce, he incurs sin. The King who rules in the right maimer, without covetousness, obtains sons and his treasury and kingdom prosper.’

Mahāhhārata (Do.). — ‘If the King’s treasure is obtained righteously, he rules the entire earth, even though his strength may not be great.’

VERSE 8.171

Section XXX - The Royal dues and the King’s duty regarding them

अनादेयस्य चादानादादेयस्य च वर्जनात् ।
दौर्बल्यं ख्याप्यते राज्ञः स प्रेत्यैह च नश्यति ॥१७१॥

anādeyasya cādānādādeyasya ca varjanāt |
daurbalyaṃ khyāpyate rājñaḥ sa pretyaiha ca naśyati ||171||

By the taking of what he ought not to take and by the relinquishing of what he ought to take the king’s weakness becomes proclaimed, and he becomes ruined here as also after death. — (171)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘What ought not to be taken’ is that which he is not entitled to receive; the verbal affix denoting title.

‘Weakness becomes proclaimed’ — by his subjects, who say — ‘This king punishes us, but he is unable to suppress thieves, robbers and recalcitrant tributary kings’; his enemies also assert their power; and being attacked by these, ho becomes disgusted with life and thus ‘becomes ruined here’ — in this world — and by taking what he ought not to take — i.e., by imposing illegal fines, etc. — he ‘becomes ruined, after death’ also. — (171)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 275).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.170-171)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.170.

VERSE 8.172

Section XXX - The Royal dues and the King’s duty regarding them

स्वादानाद् वर्णसंसर्गात् त्वबलानां च रक्षणात् ।
बलं सञ्जायते राज्ञः स प्रेत्यैह च वर्धते ॥१७२॥

svādānād varṇasaṃsargāt tvabalānāṃ ca rakṣaṇāt |
balaṃ sañjāyate rājñaḥ sa pretyaiha ca vardhate ||172||

By taking what is his due, by the proper adjustment of castes, and by protecting the weak, the power of the king grows, and he prospers here as also after death. — (172)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Svādānam’; — the ‘ādā na,’ ‘taking’ of his ‘sva,’ ‘what is his due.’ Or it may be explained as ‘su’ — ‘good’ — ‘ādāna’ — ‘receiving’; ‘good’ here standing for what is proper.

‘Adjustment of castes,’ — i.e., the admixture of the persons of two castes with members of the same caste; we take it as ‘two,’ because an ‘admixture’ presupposes two relatives; and as no other relatives are mentioned we take the ‘adjustment’ or ‘admixture’ as pertaining to castes. The mixture that takes place among the subdivisions of various castes cannot be called an ‘adjustment of the castes.’ because it does not pertain to the ‘castes’ pure and simple.

Ṛju however reads a negative particle here; in which case this would be a reiteration of the prohibition of the ‘crossing’ of castes.

Also on account of ‘protecting the weak’ from the ‘strong,’ when they are suffering at the hands of these latter, — ‘the power of the king grown.’

The sense of all this is that. — ‘The King should investigate the cases properly, and should never inflict illegal penalties’; — and it is as a hortatory supplement to this injunction that we are going to have a number of passages. — (172)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 275), which adds the following notes; — ‘Svādānāt’, ‘by taking what is his own legally, such as taxes and so forth’; — ‘varṇasaṃsargāt’, ‘by marriages and such relationships contracted by the Brāhmaṇa’ and other castes with persons of their own respective castes’; the ‘saṃsarga’ of different castes is not meant, as that would lead to the evil of ‘mixed castes.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (18.5-7, 33, 43). — ‘The King shall be careful to protect all orders and the constituent elements of the state... Whenever any caste should remain behind others, or exceed its limits, — seeing that it has strayed from its path, — the King shall bring it back to the path of duty. So also when other wicked acts, opposed to the dictates of the sacred law, have been committed, the King after having reflected upon the matter shall inflict punishment on those who deserve it... The King’s duties are the protecting of his subjects, the honouring of the aged and the wise, the trying of law-suits and making each caste abide by its duties...... If a ruler, though severe, is mindful of his duty, correct in his conduct find quick to punish the wicked and to protect the virtuous, — his wealth is declared to he pure.’

Yājñavalkya (1.315). — ‘What he has not obtained, he should seek to obtain lawfully.’

VERSE 8.173

Section XXX - The Royal dues and the King’s duty regarding them

तस्माद् यम इव स्वामी स्वयं हित्वा प्रियाप्रिये ।
वर्तेत याम्यया वृत्त्या जितक्रोधो जितेन्द्रियः ॥१७३॥

tasmād yama iva svāmī svayaṃ hitvā priyāpriye |
varteta yāmyayā vṛttyā jitakrodho jitendriyaḥ ||173||

For these reasons, the King shall, like Yama, renounce his likes and dislikes, and behave in the manner of Yama, — his anger suppressed and his senses controlled. — (173)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The same idea is further expounded.

‘This servant is my own and hence I like him, — this other is only an inhabitant of my kingdom, and is proceeding against the former, hence I dislike him’; — all such ideas he should renounce.

In the protecting of, and dealings with, his subjects, he shall be entirely impartial, like Yuma; the ‘manner of Yama’ having been found to be strictly impartial. The form ‘yāmyayā’ is explained by the exclusion of the ‘yaṇ’ affix mentioned in Pāṇini 6.4.148 and the addition of the syllable ‘ya’ under one of the additional rules.

“Who is the person who becomes like Yama?”

He who has ‘his anger suppressed and senses controlled’; — i .e., one should renounce all attachment and thus overcome love and hatred. — (173)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 2b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (18.30). — ‘When the King, having seated himself full of majesty on the throne of judgment, deals out punishment, equitable towards all creatures, he is called Vaivasvata or Yama.’

VERSE 8.174

Section XXX - The Royal dues and the King’s duty regarding them

यस्त्वधर्मेण कार्याणि मोहात् कुर्यान्नराधिपः ।
अचिरात् तं दुरात्मानं वशे कुर्वन्ति शत्रवः ॥१७४॥

yastvadharmeṇa kāryāṇi mohāt kuryānnarādhipaḥ |
acirāt taṃ durātmānaṃ vaśe kurvanti śatravaḥ ||174||

If an evil-minded king, through folly, deal with cases unjustly, — his enemies bring him under their control in no time. — (174)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If the king ‘deal with eases unjustly,’ it is only ‘through folly’ that he neglects the Law; and the fruit of this transgression is that his people having become disaffected, ‘his enemies bring him under their control’; — when the people become disaffected, they become a lot of angry, greedy, frightened and ill-treated persons, and are easily won over by his enemies, who, thereupon attack him, capture him, strike at him and take away his kingdom; — this is what is meant by ‘bringing under control.’ — (174)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (6b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 39a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.174-175)

Yājñavalkya (1.353-354). — ‘Punishment inflicted lawfully rejoices the worlds; otherwise it makes them discomforted.’

VERSE 8.175

Section XXX - The Royal dues and the King’s duty regarding them

कामक्रोधौ तु संयम्य योऽर्थान् धर्मेण पश्यति ।
प्रजास्तमनुवर्तन्ते समुद्रमिव सिन्धवः ॥१७५॥

kāmakrodhau tu saṃyamya yo'rthān dharmeṇa paśyati |
prajāstamanuvartante samudramiva sindhavaḥ ||175||

When however, having subdued love and hatred, he deals with cases justly, his subjects turn towards him, as the rivers towards the ocean, — (175)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Just as ‘Rivers’ — streams — take refuge with the ocean and having taken refuge, become attached to it, and continue to remain merged in it, and never turn back, — similarly the subjects turn towards the king, when he subdues love and hatred, and coming to have their interests common with the king, become merged into him. — (175)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hopkins refers to Ṛgveda 1.32.3 for a similar imagery. This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 2b); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (4a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 39a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.174-175)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.174.

VERSE 8.176 [Liquidation of Debts]

Section XXXI - Liquidation of Debts

यः साधयन्तं छन्देन वेदयेद् धनिकं नृपे ।
स राज्ञा तत्चतुर्भागं दाप्यस्तस्य च तद् धनम् ॥१७६॥

yaḥ sādhayantaṃ chandena vedayed dhanikaṃ nṛpe |
sa rājñā tatcaturbhāgaṃ dāpyastasya ca tad dhanam ||176||

A person who complains to the king against the creditor trying to accomplish his purpose by his own will, — should be made by the king to pay the fourth part, and also the total amount to him — (176)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Will’ — wish; and ‘by his own will’ means ‘without filing his suit with the king,’ just as he pleases, — not necessarily by the four sanctioned methods of acquiring property; — if he is complained against, and summoned by the king’s officers, — and then if the debtor, on being questioned, should admit the debt, saying ‘I owe him such and such an amount,’ then the latter should he fined a quarter of that debt, and the total amount due he should be made to pay to the creditor ; e.g., if he owes a hundred, he should he fined twenty-five, and should pay to be creditor a hundred. We should not fall into the mistake that a hundred less twenty-five is to be paid to the king and the balance, i.e., twenty-fire to the creditor; as in this case the punishment would fall upon the creditor and not upon the debtor. — (176)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (80b.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (6.18-19). — ‘A creditor recovering the sum lent by any lawful means shall not he reproved by the Xing. If the debtor, so forced to discharge the debt, complains to the King, he shall be fined in an equal sum.’

Yājñavalkya (2.40). — ‘If the creditor tries to realise the loan that is admitted, he shall not he reproved by the King. If, on being thus pressed to pay, the debtor approaches the King, he should he fined and made to repay the amount due to the creditor.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 645). — ‘If the creditor harasses the debtor who is acting lawfully, he shall forfeit the debt, and shall also be fined the same amount.’

Bṛhaspati (11.54). — ‘When a debtor has acknowledged a debt, it may he recovered from him by the expedients of friendly expostulation and the rest, by moral suasion, by artful management, by compulsion and by confinement in the house.’

Nārada (1.122, 123).

[122 is same as Manu 8.49]. —

‘A creditor who tides to recover his loan from the debtor must not he checked by the King, both for secular and religious reasons.’

VERSE 8.177

Section XXXI - Liquidation of Debts

कर्मणाऽपि समं कुर्याद् धनिकायाधमर्णिकः ।
समोऽवकृष्टजातिस्तु दद्यात्श्रेयांस्तु तत्शनैः ॥१७७॥

karmaṇā'pi samaṃ kuryād dhanikāyādhamarṇikaḥ |
samo'vakṛṣṭajātistu dadyātśreyāṃstu tatśanaiḥ ||177||

Even by labour shall the debtor make good what is due to the creditor, if he is of the same or of a lower caste; the superior person shall pay it up gradually. — (177)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If the debtor has no property, he is not let off simply because he has no property; he should he made to do ‘labour’; i.e., he should become a servant, and the amount of wages that would, be payable to the servant for doing the work that he does shall be credited to his account; and when the total amount thus credited equals the sum of his debt along with the interest, then he should be freed from service.

‘Make good to the creditor’; ‘uttamarṇa’ and ‘udhamarṇa’ are relative terms applied to one or the other party on the basis of their possessions.

The manual labour is made to be done by all who are of the same caste as, or of the lower caste than, the creditor.

‘The superior person’ — i.e., one belonging to a higher caste, or possessed of higher qualifications — ‘shall pay it up gradually’ — i.e., according as he goes on earning. We read in Nārada — ‘If the Brāhmaṇa is poor, he shall pay up gradually according to his circumstances.’ Hence for the liquidation of the creditor’s debts, the Brāhmaṇa shall not he made by the king to suffer any pains; and the interests of the creditor too have to be protected. — (177)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 8.49, and 9.229; also 8.415.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.43), which explains the meaning to be that “the debtor should make himself ‘samam’, equal, to the creditor by putting an end ṭo the relation of creditor and debtor”; — in Aparārka (p. 146), which explains the meaning to be that “even by doing some work for the creditor, the debtor should make himself equal, similar, to the creditor, by becoming free from debt”; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 70), which adds the following explanation: — The debtor, who is either of the same caste with, or of a lower caste than, the creditor, should, even by means of working, clear off his debt, and thereby render himself equal to the creditor. So long as the debt is not paid off, there is an inequality between them — one being the creditor and the other the debtor; but when by means of work, the debt has been paid off, both of them become ‘equal’. — But if the debtor belongs to a higher caste, he should not be made by the creditor to work for him.

It is quoted also in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 89); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (79b), which explains ‘samam kuryāt’ as ‘remove his indebtedness, which puts him in a position lower than that of his creditor, by doing such work for the latter as would suffice to liquify the amount of debt’ — ‘śreyān’ is ‘one belonging to a higher caste’ and also ‘one possessed of higher qualifications’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 104b), which also has the same explanation.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bṛhaspati (11.59). — ‘An indigent debtor may be taken by the creditor to his own house and compelled to work there, such as distilling spirits and the like; but a Brāhmaṇa should be made to pay gradually.’

Nārada (1.132). — “If a wealthy debtor, from malice, refuses to pay his debt, the King shall compel him to pay it by forcible means, and shall take five in the hundred for himself.’

Yājñavalkya (2.43) — ‘If the debtor of a lower caste is too indigent to pay, the creditor shall make him do work; but an indigent Brāhmaṇa should he made to pay gradually, as he obtains the means to pay.’

VERSE 8.178

Section XXXI - Liquidation of Debts

अनेन विधिना राजा मिथो विवदतां नृणाम् ।
साक्षिप्रत्ययसिद्धानि कार्याणि समतां नयेत् ॥१७८॥

anena vidhinā rājā mitho vivadatāṃ nṛṇām |
sākṣipratyayasiddhāni kāryāṇi samatāṃ nayet ||178||

In this manner shall the king settle the disputes of men quarrelling among themselves, deciding them with the help of witnesses and other evidence. — (178)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘This’ refers to all that has been said above.

‘Manner’ — method.

‘Deciding them with the help of witnesses and other evidence,’ — ‘Deciding’ is to be construed with each of the two names ‘sūkṣi’ (witness) and ‘pratyaya’ (evidence); — ‘evidence’ standing for inferences and ordeals.

‘Disputes’ — Not only the non-payment of debts, but others, also.

‘Settle,’ — i.e., remove the differences of opinion between the plaintiff and the defendant: and restore them to agreement.

The treatment of the ‘non-payment of debts’ has been finished. This also is the end of all suits; victory or defeat in all of them being adjudicated on the same lines. Even in the ‘Heads of Dispute’ that follow there is no other means available for deciding except ‘witnesses And the rest’; the only difference that there is is in regard to the character of the punishment to be inflicted, whose exact nature has got to be prescribed; and it is for this purpose that we have the following sections; and in course of this it shall also be determined what is meant by ‘Selling without Ownership,’ ‘Rescission of Sale’ and so forth. — (178)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Pratyaya’ — ‘Inference and supernatural proof’ (Medhātithi); — ‘inference, oaths and so forth’ (Govindarāja); — ‘oaths’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 618).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bṛhaspati (27.25) — ‘Thus let the King every day examine in common with learned Brāhmaṇas, both the suits preferred by litigants and those instituted by the King himself.’

VERSE 8.179 [Deposits (nikṣepa)]

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

कुलजे वृत्तसम्पन्ने धर्मज्ञे सत्यवादिनि ।
महापक्षे धनिन्यार्ये निक्षेपं निक्षिपेद् बुधः ॥१७९॥

kulaje vṛttasampanne dharmajñe satyavādini |
mahāpakṣe dhaninyārye nikṣepaṃ nikṣiped budhaḥ ||179||

The wise man shall, entrust a deposit to one who is born of good family, is endowed with character, cognisant of the law, and truthful, has a large following, and is wealthy and honourable — (179)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He whose birth and family are well known, — whose forefathers are known to have been learned, righteous and rich, — who never have recourse to improper acts, being mindful of the reputation of their family. In fact such a person is incapable of hearing the slightest blame; and yet it is such people! that are subject to severest criticism at the hands of the people.

‘Vṛtta’ is character, conduct; i.e., being naturally mindful of public opinion.

‘Cognisant of the law’; — who has become acquainted with the true meaning of Smṛtis, Purāṇas and Itihāsas by repeatedly studying them.

‘Truthful’ — who has found, in all business-relations, to speak in strict accordance with real facts.

‘Has a large following,’ — he who is held in high esteem by his friends and relations, as also by the officers of the king, — and is, as such, not amenable to be approached by dishonest state-officials.

The ‘wealthy’ man avoids the misappropriation of other people’s property, with a view to safeguard his own possessions, and also through fear of transcendental results; the idea in his mind being — ‘I have enough wealth of my own, why should I think of the property of others? If I were detected, I would be punished.’

‘Honourable,’ who always acts righteously, or who is of a straightforward nature.

The nominal affix ‘ghañ’ (in the noun ‘nikṣepa,’ ‘deposit’) has the force of the passive, and makes the word stand for the gold and other property that are kept as deposits.

‘Shall entrust’ — Place.

‘The wise man’; — the man who entrusts deposits in the said manner is ‘wise’; otherwise he becomes a fool.

The Author here is ottering an advice in the manner of a friend; and the advice has no spiritual purpose behind it, as there is in the case of such acts as the Aṣṭakā and the like.

When a ‘deposit’ is placed with such a person, it is never lost; nor is there any doubt as to who has placed it and with whom. On the other hand, if a person is a pauper, a notorious cheat or drunkard, — even if he he dragged up, no one would even believe that a deposit had been placed with him; when the man is not possessed of a single farthing, how could it he believed that he would have been entrusted with gold or such large properties? — (179)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (82b), which explains ‘mahāpakṣa’ as one who has a large family; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 204); — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 85), which explains ‘mahāpakṣa’ as ‘one having a large family’, — and ‘nikṣepam’ as ‘nikṣepyam,’ i.e., the thing deposited; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 36), which explains ‘mahāpakṣa’ as ‘one who has a large number of relatives.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (2.1, 2) — ‘When a man entrusts any property of his own to another, in confidence and without suspicion, it is called by the learned a Deposit. A sensible man should make a deposit with one who belongs to a respectable family and who is virtuous, acquainted with his duties, veracious, influential, wealthy, and honourable.’

Bṛhaspasti (12.2, 4). — ‘When any chattel is deposited in the house of another man, through fear of the King, robbers or other dangers, or for the purpose of deceiving one’s heirs, it is called a Deposit. Let a man make a deposit, after duly considering the place, house, master of the house, the power, means, quality, veracity and kindred of the depositary.’

VERSE 8.180

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

यो यथा निक्षिपेद्द् हस्ते यमर्थं यस्य मानवः ।
स तथैव ग्रहीतव्यो यथा दायस्तथा ग्रहः ॥१८०॥

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов