with the Commentary of Medhatithi 228 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 234 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.245). — ‘In the sale of medicines, oils, salts, perfumes, grains, molasses and such things, if the vendor mixes inferior stuff, he shall be fined 16 Paṇas.’

Katyāyana (Aparārka, p. 776). — ‘One should make a purchase and pay its price openly.’

VERSE 8.204

Section XXXIII - Fraudulent Sale

अन्यां चेद् दर्शयित्वाऽन्या वोढुः कन्या प्रदीयते ।
उभे त एकशुल्केन वहेदित्यब्रवीन् मनुः ॥२०४॥

anyāṃ ced darśayitvā'nyā voḍhuḥ kanyā pradīyate |
ubhe ta ekaśulkena vahedityabravīn manuḥ ||204||

After one damsel has been shown, if another be given to the bridegroom, then he should marry both of them for the same single price, — so Manu has ordained. — (204)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Since the present context is dealing with matters relating to sales, it lays down certain rules relating to maidens given in marriage for a price.

At the time of receiving the price, if the man shows a beautiful girl, but after having received it, he gives an ugly one, or one not of proper age, or of inferior qualifications, — then for that same price, the bridegroom shall marry both the girls.

The rule here laid down pertains to the case of girls only, that relating to similar frauds in connection with the selling of cattle and other goods shall be laid down later on. — (204)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Yet he has emphatically inveighed against the sale of women 3.51, 9.98” — says Hopkins. But he forgets that ‘śulka’ is not price, Buhler also has been similarly misled.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.204-205)

Yājñavalkya (1.66). — ‘If a man gives away his daughter in marriage, without mentioning her defects, he should be fined the highest amercement.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 95). — ‘If a man gives away a defective girl in marriage, without mentioning the defect, he should be punished by the King with the first amercement; the defects of a girl being presence of chronic and loathsome disease, shortness of limbs, loss of virginity, immodesty, attachment to another man.’

VERSE 8.205

Section XXXIII - Fraudulent Sale

नोन्मत्ताया न कुष्ठिन्या न च या स्पृष्टमैथुना ।
पूर्वं दोषानभिख्याप्य प्रदाता दण्डमर्हति ॥२०५॥

nonmattāyā na kuṣṭhinyā na ca yā spṛṣṭamaithunā |
pūrvaṃ doṣānabhikhyāpya pradātā daṇḍamarhati ||205||

The giver, of a girl who is insane or leprous or has suffered copulation, does not deserve punishment, if he has previously declared her defects. — (205)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

By the declaration that one does not deserve punishment by giving a girl suffering from the defects of insanity and the rest, after having openly declared them, — what is meant is that by giving her without declaring the defects, one does become liable to punishment.

Not only in the case of the girl given for a price, but also in that of others, who is going to be married by the ‘Brāhma’ and other forms, — the betrothal becomes invalidated, and the penalty is that ‘the man becomes guilty of theft’ (verse 198), — if he does it intentionally; the case in which it is done unintentionally does not fall within the scope of the present context (which deals with ‘fraud’).

The construction is as follows: — ‘If the man openly declares, at the time of betrothal, the defect of the ‘insane’ girl, i.e., insanity, — of the ‘leprous’ girl — i.e., leprosy — of the girl who ‘has suffered copulation’ — i.e., loss of virginity, — by saying ‘this girl has such and such a defect,’ — then he is not liable to punishment. — (205)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.204-205)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.204.

VERSE 8.206 [Joint Concerns]

Section XXXIV - Joint Concerns

ऋत्विग् यदि वृतो यज्ञे स्वकर्म परिहापयेत् ।
तस्य कर्मानुरूपेण देयोंशः सहकर्तृभिः ॥२०६॥

ṛtvig yadi vṛto yajñe svakarma parihāpayet |
tasya karmānurūpeṇa deyoṃśaḥ sahakartṛbhiḥ ||206||

If a priest appointed at a sacrifice abandons his work, his associates shall pay him only such share as may be in keeping with the work actually done by him. — (206)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse introduces the head of ‘Joint Concerns’: and as an example, the author takes up the ease of ‘Joint action’ at Vedic rites.

‘Sacrifice’ — The Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest. For the proper performance of the numerous details of these sacrifices, when a certain ‘priest has been appointed,’ — with the words — ‘you should perform the duties of the ‘Hotṛ,’ or ‘of the Adhvaryu,’ or ‘of the Udgātṛ,’ — and the further condition is made — ‘you should do the work according to the śrauta-rules’; — if, on account of his inefficiency or other causes, he happens to abandon it after it has been half-done, — then the share of the sacrificial fee payable to him shall be in accordance with the amount of work done by him. For instance, if the man goes away after having done only a fourth part of his work, he should be paid the quarter of the third part of the entire ‘fee’ prescribed in connection with the particular sacrifice concerned. This would be ‘in accordance with the work done.’

‘By h is associates’ — i.e., the other priests, the Hotṛ, the Udgātṛ and the rest. — (206)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 836); — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 118), which adds the following notes: — ‘Svakarma parihāpayet,’ i.e., through sickness or such causes, a part of the sacrificial fee shall be paid to him, after duly considering the total fee payable for the entire sacrifice and the part of the work that may have been done by him; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 222), which explains ‘sahakartṛbhiḥ’ as ‘by his colleagues’; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 48), which says that ‘if a priest, through disease or other disability, is unable to perform his work, then he is to be paid his fee in proportion to the work actually done by him; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (89b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 120a), which explains ‘sahakartṛbhiḥ’ as ‘by his collaborators,’ — or the meaning may be ‘he should be paid his share of the fee, along with, at the same time as, the other priests are paid.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(See Manu below, 388.)

Yājñavalkya (2.265). — ‘Among a company of joint workers, if one happen to be dishonest, the others should expel him without payment; if he happen to omit his share of the work on account of his inability to do it, then he should have it done by another. This same rule applies to the case of sacrificial priests, cultivators and artisans.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 836). — ‘If the Sacrificial Priest fails to officiate at a sacrifice, or if a Teacher fails to teach, he should be abandoned; one becomes degraded if he abandons them in other circumstances.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 836). — ‘If the Sacrificial Priest happen to be in trouble, some one else may officiate for him and receive a proportionate share out of the fee payable to the former.’

Bṛhaspati (Vivādaratnākara, p. 117). — ‘From among men employed in a common work, if one happen to die, his share of the work should be done by a relation of his, or by his colleagues collectively.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.). — ‘If on the approach of the Savana, a priest should happen to die, what should be done is that his work should be completed by his Sagotra or by his pupil; if he has no relations, then the sacrificer should appoint another Priest.’

VERSE 8.207

Section XXXIV - Joint Concerns

दक्षिणासु च दत्तासु स्वकर्म परिहापयन् ।
कृत्स्नमेव लभेतांशमन्येनैव च कारयेत् ॥२०७॥

dakṣiṇāsu ca dattāsu svakarma parihāpayan |
kṛtsnameva labhetāṃśamanyenaiva ca kārayet ||207||

He who abandons his work after the fees have been paid, should receive his full share; and the work should be got done by another. — (207)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The sacrificial fees are paid at the ‘Mid-day Extraction’; if a priest gives up his work after that, the fee paid to him shall not be refunded; he ‘should receive it’ — i.e., he should not be made to refund it.

The work should be completed by the sacrificer, through another person, paying him an additional fee. This has been added with a view to preclude the following notion — “Everything in connection with sacrifices should be done by priests, — persons become priests when they have been appointed as such, — this appointment can be made only at the prescribed time, which is before the commencement of the performance, so that if an appointment were to be made during the performance, it would become defective, — and yet the performance has got to be finished, — and if it has to be finished in a defective form, I shall get only those details performed which can be done by the priests other than the one who has gone away.” The sense is that only that much of deficiency has to be admitted as cannot be avoided; and every little detail that can he done should be done.

Some people have held that the verb ‘should be got done’ is to be construed with the ‘priest’; the meaning being that the sacrificer shall pay to the remaining priests higher fees and get the abandoned work done by them, if he cannot do it himself; but, as before the payment of the final fee, the burden of finishing the performance rests with the sacrificer. — (207)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kārayet’ — ‘The sacrificer should have it done by another priest’ (Medhātithi); — ‘the defaulting priest should have it done by another (Nārāyaṇa, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 837); — in Paraśāramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 222), which explains ‘anyena’ as ‘by some from among that group of priests to which he himself belongs’; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 118); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 49), which says — ‘if the priest leaves his work after, having received the fee after the midday rites, then he is to return the entire fee, and get the work completed by his son or others’; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (89b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.265). — (See under 206.)

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 120). — ‘After a Priest has been appointed, if the sacrificer appoint another, the fee shall be paid to the former; if he happen to go out for some time, then his return shall be awaited, and the sacrificer shall not go on with the performance during his absence. If the completion of the performance becomes urgent, he may have it completed; and on his return, the priest may be given some fee.’

Nārada (3.8-11). — ‘When an officiating priest has met with an accident, another priest shall officiate for him, and receive from him his part of the fee. Where an officiating priest forsakes a sacrificer, who is no offender and is free from guilt, — or when a sacrificer forsakes a faultless priest, — they shall both be punished. There are three sorts of officiating priests: hereditary, appointed by the sacrificer himself, and one who performs the priestly functions of his own accord, through friendship; the above law applies to the hereditary and appointed priests; no sin attaches to the forsaking of the priest acting of his own accord.’

VERSE 8.208

Section XXXIV - Joint Concerns

यस्मिन् कर्मणि यास्तु स्युरुक्ताः प्रत्यङ्गदक्षिणाः ।
स एव ता आददीत भजेरन् सर्व एव वा ॥२०८॥

yasmin karmaṇi yāstu syuruktāḥ pratyaṅgadakṣiṇāḥ |
sa eva tā ādadīta bhajeran sarva eva vā ||208||

In connection with a rite, when specific fees are prescribed for its several parts, — will one man take all these, or shall they all share them?

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse adds something more in connection with Vedic rites, which is relevant to the present context.

In connection with rites, fees are as a rule proscribed for them as a whole, and not with reference to each priest, — the injunction being in the form ‘the fee for it shall he twelve hundred’; this same injunction becomes applicable by ‘transference’ also to such sacrifices as grow out of, and are analogous to, that in connection with which the fee has been prescribed; — such sacrifices, for instance, as the llājasūya and the rest; — now in connection with these latter, it is found that with reference to certain parts of the rite, distinct speciñc fees have been prescribed as to be paid to a particular priest specifically, — e.g., ‘the bright gold shall be given to the Adhvaryu’; — these are what are called (in the text) ‘specific fees for its several parts.’

Now the question arises — Is the gift, like the other sacrificial fees, connected with the Adhvaryu, only in the sense that he is one among four partners, and it belongs to all the priests, the Adhraryu being only the channel? or that it belongs to the Adhvaryu alone, the others receiving a share only out of the main fee?

This is the question propounded by the verse.

The term ‘pratyaṅgadakṣiṇā’ means the fees directly prescribed in so many words in connection with special rites as to be given to particular persons. Or the term ‘pratyaṅga’ may mean for each several part.

‘Will one man take all these,’ — the gift being connected with the chief priest only, — or shall others all ‘share them,’ — those, equally with the chief priest, having officiated at the performance; — just as they do in the case of the main sacrificial fee? — Such is the sense of the question.

The answer to this is that when a certain fee has been prescribed for a particular person, it is to be taken by him alone: as it is only thus that the prescribed act of ‘giving’ could he regarded as fulfilled. The mention of the particular recipient in the rule could not be intended to serve any transcendental purpose (and no other purpose could it serve, if the fee were not actually meant to be received by that person alone). — (208)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 119) which adds the following notes: — ‘Praiyaṃśadakṣiṇāḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘pratyaṅgadakṣināḥ’), the fees that have been prescribed for a particular priest, in connection with particular sections of an elaborate sacrifice; e.g., at the ceremony of anointment two golden vessels are given to the Adhvaryu priest; — in regard to these, the question is — Is the whole of that special fee to be taken by that one priest in reference to whom it has been prescribed? Or that individual is only the formal recipient, and the fee has to be equally divided among all the priests taking part in the performance?

It is quoted in Kṛtyakalapataru (90a), which explains ‘pratyaṃśadakṣiṇā’ (which is its reading for ‘pratyaṅgadakṣiṇā’) as ‘the fees that have been prescribed as the special shares of particular priests’, and it adds that this rule is meant to raise the question whether when, e.g., two gold Prakāśas are prescribed as to be given at the Abhiṣecanīya Rites, to the Adhvaryu, — are the two articles to be taken by that priest, or are they to be divided among all the priests concerned?

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (Vivādaratnākara, p. 120). — (Same as Manu).

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 837). — (Same as Manu).

VERSE 8.209

Section XXXIV - Joint Concerns

रथं हरेत् चाध्वर्युर्ब्रह्माऽधाने च वाजिनम् ।
होता वाऽपि हरेदश्वमुद्गाता चाप्यनः क्रये ॥२०९॥

rathaṃ haret cādhvaryurbrahmā'dhāne ca vājinam |
hotā vā'pi haredaśvamudgātā cāpyanaḥ kraye ||209||

At Fire-laying, the Adhvaryu shall take the chariot, and the Brahman the horse; or the Hotṛ shall take the house: and the Udgātṛ shall take the cart at the Soma-purchase. — (209)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

At the rite of Fire-laying the Adhvaryu shall take the chariot; and the Brahman or the Hotṛ shall take the swift horse.

In certain rescensional texts, these form the ‘sacrificial fee’ for the rite of Fire-laying.

At, the rite of ‘Soma-purchase,’ there is a cart, which is to be taken by the Udgātṛ. To this cart one calf is yoked, and another unyoked: and it is on this cart that the purchased Soma is carried. Others hold that the rites laid down in connection with the ‘purchase of Soma’ have some transcendental purpose, and their use does not lie only in the obtaining of the Soma; because there is no new character produced in the Soma by its being purchased in the peculiar manner prescribed.

This verse has described how the fees prescribed in connection with the subsidiary details are to be distributed among the several persons concerned; the next verse is going to describe the rule concerning the distribution of the sacrificial fee prescribed in connection with all rites in general. — (209)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 120), which adds the following notes: — For the followers of certain recensions it is laid down in connection with the fire-kindling rites that the Adhvaryu is to receive the chariot the Brāhmaṇa priest a swift horse, the Udgātṛ priest, the cart in which the Soma is carried. — ‘Kraye’ means at the purchase of Soma. — Hence the answer to the question raised in the preceding verse is that the special fee prescribed for a particular priest is to be given to that priest only; as it is only thus that the ‘giving’ would be done in its real sense; the mention of the priests in the texts prescribing the fees could not but be for this perceptible purpose; while in any other case such naming would have to be taken only as serving some transcendental purpose.

This verse is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava, (Vyavahāra, p. 221), to the effect that it is only the general fee prescribed in connection with the performance as a whole that it is to be divided among the priests, — not so the special fee prescribed in connection with a particular priest, who alone is to receive this latter fee; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (90a), which says that this answers the question raised in the preceding verse, the answer being that wherever the texts prescribe a certain article as to be given to a particular person, it has to be given to that person only.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (Vivādaratnākara, p. 120). — (Same as Manu).

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 837). — (Same as Manu).

VERSE 8.210

Section XXXIV - Joint Concerns

सर्वेषामर्धिनो मुख्यास्तदर्धेनार्धिनोऽपरे ।
तृतीयिनस्तृतीयांशाश्चतुर्थांशाश्च पादिनः ॥२१०॥

sarveṣāmardhino mukhyāstadardhenārdhino'pare |
tṛtīyinastṛtīyāṃśāścaturthāṃśāśca pādinaḥ ||210||

From among all, the chief men shall receive half; the next shall receive half of that; the ‘thirders’ the third part and the ‘fourthers’ the fourth part of it. — (210)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From among the priests, ‘the chief ones receive half’; i.e., they receive half of the fee that is prescribed for the rite as a whole.

At the Soma-sacrifice there are sixteen priests; of these the chief ones are four: the Hotṛ, the Adhvaryu, the Brahman and the Udgātṛ, and these receive one half of the total fee; — the total fee being one hundred and twelve, fifty-six go to these four men.

Half of this, that is twenty-eight, go to the ‘next’; i.e., those four whose appointment comes after that of the four mentioned above; i.e., the Maitrāvaruṇa, the Pratiprasthātṛ, the Brāhmaṇācchaṃsin and the Prastotṛ.

The ‘thirders’ receive the ‘third part.’ — The term ‘part’ here is synonymous with ‘half’; the term ‘half’ does not always stand for two equal divisions; it is used also in reference to what is very near such equal divisions; hence the ‘third part’ of ‘fifty-six’ is understood to be sixteen; so that each of these four gets four.

Some people take the ‘third part’ as such that of the total fee; when others take it as that of fifty-six.

The four ‘thirders’ are — the Acchāvāka, associated with the Hotṛ, the Neṣṭṛ connected with the Adhvaryu, the Agnīd with the Brahman, and the Pratihartṛ with the Udgātṛ.

The ‘Fourthers’ — i.e., so called because they perform the fourth part of the rite, and also because they occupy the fourth place from the Maitrāvaruṇa — receive ‘the fourth part’ — i.e., twelve — of the whole; this number being got at in the same manner as before.

This same method of distribution is to be employed also in the case of the rite of Initiation, where the fee is laid down as ‘a hundred’; where also the ‘halfers’ and ‘fourthers’ help in the performance.

The practice, that, we have found prescribed elsewhere we have described in connection with the present text also. — (210)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The total fee being 112, the shares are 56, 28, 16, 12 (Medhātithi); — the total being 100, the shares are 48, 24, 16, 12 (Rāghavānanda, Nārāyaṇa and Kullūka); [Buhler wrongly puts the last figure as 8]; — the total fee shall be divided into 25 shares and the several classes shall receive 12, 6, 4 and 3 respectively.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 118), which adds the following notes: — At the Jyotiṣṭoma, 100 cows have been laid down as the fee for the 16 priests; and the present rule prescribes what part of it is to be given to which priest; the four ‘principal’ priests — e.g., the Hotṛ, Adhvaryu Brahman and Udgātṛ — are ‘ardhinaḥ’, entitled to one half; with a view to the total available, this ‘one half must be understood to be 48; so that 48 cows are to be given to the principal priests’; — the next class, consisting of the Maitrāvaruṇa, Pratiprasthātṛ, Brāhmaṇacchaṃsi and Prastotṛ are to receive half of the ‘half-sharers’, i.e., 24 cows have to be given to these; — the next class, consisting of the Acchāvāka, Neṣṭr, Agnīdhra and Pratihartṛ, are entitled to a third part of the ‘half-sharers’; so that they are to receive 16 cows; — the last class consisting of the Grāvastotṛ, Netṛ, Potṛ and Subrahmaṇya, are to receive a quarter of the ‘half-sharers’; so that these receive 12 cows. — This division, it adds, his based upon the text ‘ardhino dīkṣayati’ which actually names the priests ‘ardhinaḥ,’ ‘half-sharers’, and so forth.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.265), which lays down the same classification and division as the Vivādaratnākara. It raises the following question: — “This division cannot be acceptable, as we find neither any convention to the effect, nor is the fee of the nature of capital jointly raised, nor is there any Vedic text actually prescribing such shares. So that, under the circumstances, the most equitable division would be that every one should receive an equal share, according to the rule laid down in Mīmāṃsā-sūtra — ‘Samam syāt aśrutatvāt’, ‘it must be equal, as nothing else has been directly prescribed’; or that each one should receive what is due to him in consideration of the work actually done by him.” — It answers this objection as follows: — Unless we accept the division suggested, we cannot account for the names ‘ardhinaḥ’ (half sharers), ‘Tṛtīyinaḥ’ (third sharers), and ‘Pādinaḥ’(quarter sharers), which we find in a text in connection with the Dvādaśāha sacrifice, which has the Jyotiṣṭoma for its archetype; these names would be meaningless if they were not taken as indicating the share of the priests in the sacrificial fee.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 837), which adds that though the first class of priests gets only 48, which is not quite half of 100, yet it is very close to it; hence they may be called ‘Half sharers’; it has the same division as in Mitākṣarā.

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров