with the Commentary of Medhatithi 229 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 235 из 350Следующая ⇒

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 739); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (90a), which adds the following explanation: — ‘Sarveṣām’, among the sixteen priests engaged in the sarcrifice, out of the 100 cows, the prescribed sacrificial fee, one half is to go to the principal priests, viz., Hotṛ, Brāhmaṇa, Adhvaryu and Udgātṛ; even though they may receive a little less than the exact one half, they may be called ‘ardhinaḥ’, ‘Halfers’; the second set, consisting of the Maitrāvaruṇa, Brāhmaṇacchaṃsin, Pratiprasthātṛ and Prastotṛ, are entitled to half of what is received by the former set; the third set, consisting of the Acchāvāka, Agnīdhra, Neṣtṛ and Pratihartṛ, receive the third part of what is received by the first set; — and the fourth set, consisting of the Grāvastut, Netṛ, Unnetṛ and Subrahmaṇya, receive the fourth part of what is received by the first set.

VERSE 8.211

Section XXXIV - Joint Concerns

सम्भूय स्वानि कर्माणि कुर्वद्भिरिह मानवैः ।
अनेन विधियोगेन कर्तव्यांशप्रकल्पना ॥२११॥

sambhūya svāni karmāṇi kurvadbhiriha mānavaiḥ |
anena vidhiyogena kartavyāṃśaprakalpanā ||211||

Among men carrying on their business jointly, the allotment of shares should be done by the application of these principles. — (211)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the sacrificial performance, the man who does the most laborious parts of the work and is employed to do what demands much effort, receives a larger fee, and he who does the easier parts receives loss; similarly among ordinary workmen also, those, e.g., employed in the building of houses and temples, — when they do the work ‘jointly,’ as among the architect, the mason and the carpenter. — their several shares shall be alloted ‘by the application of these principles’; — ‘principle’ is rule laid down in the Veda, hence this phrase means ‘according to the rule laid down in the Veda in connection with sacrificial performances.’

Similarly in the producing of a drama, and such other business, the shares are to ho alloted among the dancers, the singers and the players of musical instruments.

Even though everyone of the persons concerned may be well versed in the science and quite capable of doing all the work, yet the shares are to be alloted in accordance with the work that is actually done by each, and according to the character of the man concerned.

Thus ends the treatment of ‘Joint Concerns.’ — (211)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 221), which remarks that this distribution pertains to only cases where the thing to be divided is mentioned as common to all; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (90a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 119b), which says that this refers, not to the fee that is prescribed for individual priests, but to the common fee of 1200 cows, which is prescribed for all the officiating priests.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.259). — ‘Among traders carrying on a joint concern for profit, their profit and loss shall be commensurate with the share of capital contributed by each.’

Nārada (3.1-3). — When traders or others carry on business jointly, it is called Partnership. When several partners are jointly carrying on business for the purpose of profit, the contribution of funds towards the common stock of the association shall form the basis of their undertakings. Therefore let each contribute his proper share. The loss, expenses and profit of each partner are either equal to those of other partners or exceed them, or remain below them, according as his share is equal to theirs, or greater or less.’

Bṛhaspati (14.3). — ‘As an equal, smaller, or larger share of the joint stock has been contributed by a partner, in the same proportion shall he defray charges, perform labour and obtain profit.’

Śukranīti (4.5.614-618). — ‘Those who deal in gold, grains and liquids, jointly, will have the earnings according to the amount of their share, greater, equal or less. Whatever portion has been stipulated beforehand, — equal, less or greater, — that shall he accepted. Expenditure he shall pay and do the labour also proportionately, and take the profit also in the same manner.’

VERSE 8.212 [Resumption Of Gifts]

Section XXXV - Resumption Of Gifts

धर्मार्थं येन दत्तं स्यात् कस्मै चिद् याचते धनम् ।
पश्चाच्च न तथा तत् स्यान्न देयं तस्य तद् भवेत् ॥२१२॥

dharmārthaṃ yena dattaṃ syāt kasmai cid yācate dhanam |
paścācca na tathā tat syānna deyaṃ tasya tad bhavet ||212||

When a man gives money, for a pious purpose, to another who asks for it, — if, subsequently, it is not used for that purpose, then, it shall not be given to him. — (212)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

A man comes to the rich man praying — ‘I am desirous of marrying for the sake of issue,’ or ‘I wish to perform such and such a sacrifice,’ ‘give, me some money’; — and the money is given to him; — but the man does not marry, and spends the money either in gambling or over prostitutes, or for something else, laying it out on interest or agriculture, — then ‘it shall not be given to him.’

When the money has been given already, there can be no sense in forbidding the gift; (A) hence the sentence should be taken to mean that ‘it shall be taken back from him.’ (B) Or the former clause itself may be taken in a figurative sentence, — the word ‘gives’ being taken in the sense of ‘promises’; the meaning in this case would be that ‘the promised money shall not be given.’ In this sense we have the assertion of Gautama (5.23) — ‘Even after promising, no money shall be given to one who is found to be unrighteous.’

“Of these two explanations (A & B), which is the more reasonable?”

Both are reasonable: the taking back of what has been given, and also not giving what has been promised. In another Smṛti -text we find both these courses laid down: — Beginning with the words — ‘I am going to perform such and such an act,’ the text goes on to say — ‘what is given in ignorance is as good as not given’ Nārada, 4.10-11). This means that when money has been given for a certain act, if that act is not done, the money, even though paid, shall ho brought back from the receiver’s house; and the opinion of Nārada is that in this case there was only a promise of the gift, and its fulfilment would be dependent upon the actual fulfilment of the purpose for which it had been asked for. — (212)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kartāhametat karmeti’ — (Medhātithi, p. 1009, l. 5). — The text of Nārada (4.10-11) is — ‘Kartāhametat karmeti pratilābhecchayā ca yat Apātre pātramityukte kārye vā dharmasaṃhite Yaddattam syādavijñānādadattam tadapi smṛtam.’

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 137), which explains the meaning to be — ‘If the man begs money for the performance of a pious act, but having got it, he does not do the act, then the gift should be recovered from him.’

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 348), to the effect that when money has been given to a Brāhmaṇa who has begged it for the purpose of performing a sacrifice or some such act, — but he does not do such an act, — then the money is to be taken back from him; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (94a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Ārthaśāstra (6.94). — ‘In some cases the resumption of a gift is permitted; if one has given away his entire property, or his wife and son, or his own self, it should be restored to him; if a gift has been promised to a certain person under the impression that he is deserving of it, it may be resumed on his being found to be undeserving; u (?) if a gift was promised to a man for the purpose of helping him in the carrying on of such meritorious work as the tending of cows and the like, it may be resumed if he is found to be using it in stealing, adultery and such acts; if it has been promised to a man under the impression that he has rendered help to the giver, it may be resumed if the man is found either to have done him no good or to have actually done him harm; if a gift has been promised by virtue of certain special qualifications in the recipient, it may be resumed if he is not found to possess those qualifications. Clever judges shall permit such resumption of gifts in such a manner as neither the giver nor the recipient may be hit hard.’

Nārada (14.4 et seq.). — ‘A deposit, a pledge, joint property, a son, wife, the entire property of one having offspring, and what has been promised to another man: — these have been declared to be inalienable by one even in the worst plight...... The price paid for merchandise, wages, a present offered for amusement, a gift made from affection, or from gratitude, or for sexual intercourse with a woman, and a respectful gift, — these are valid gifts. The following are invalid gifts: what has been given under the influence of fear, anger, hatred, sorrow or pain; or as a bribe, or in jest, or fraudulently, under false pretences; or by a child, or by a fool, or by a person not bis own master, or by one distressed, or by one intoxicated, or by one insane, or in consideration of a reward, thinking this man will do me some service; — and so is invalid what has been given from ignorance to an unworthy man thought to be worthy, or for a purpose thought to be virtuous. The donee who covets invalid gifts and accepts them through avarice, — and the donor of what ought not to be given, — both deserve punishment.’

Bṛhaspati (16.2, 8-11). — ‘That which may not be given is of eight kinds: joint property, son, wife, pledges, one’s entire property, a deposit, wealth, what has been borrowed for use and what has been promised to another. The following eight are recognised as valid gifts: — wages for pleasure derived, price of merchandise, fee paid to or for a damsel, present to a benefactor, present through reverence, kindness or affection. What has been given by one angry or resenting an injury, or through inadvertence, or by one distressed, or by a junior, mad man, a terrified person, one intoxicated or overaged, or outcast or idiot, or one afflicted with grief or illness, — or what is given in jest; — all these have been declared to be void gifts. When anything has been given through desire for reward, or to an unworthy person mistaken for a worthy one, or for an immoral purpose, — the donor may resume the gift.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākāra, p. 129, p. 132, p. 135). — ‘A man may give away his entire property over and above what may be necessary for the maintenance of his family, excepting his house. If a man has promised a gift to a Brāhmaṇa of his own accord, if he refuses to give it he should he made to pay it, and also pay the first amercement. A man may resume what he may have given under the influence of love or anger, or when he was not a free agent, or when he was distressed. Or one made by a eunuch, an intoxicated person, or under a misapprehension, or in jest. If a bribe has been promised for some work, it should never be given, even if the work may be accomplished.’

Yājñavalkya (2-175, 176). — ‘With the exception of the wife and son, everything may he given away, in consonance with the interests of the family; if a man has offspring, he should not give away his entire property; nor may he give to one person what has been promised to another. The acceptance of a gift should he public, specially in the ease of immovable property; on having given or promised a gift, one should not resume it.’

Gautama (Vivādaratnākara, p. 133). — ‘Even though he may have promised a gift, he shall not give it if the recipient is found to be unrighteous.’

VERSE 8.213

Section XXXV - Resumption Of Gifts

यदि संसाधयेत् तत् तु दर्पात्लोभेन वा पुनः ।
राज्ञा दाप्यः सुवर्णं स्यात् तस्य स्तेयस्य निष्कृतिः ॥२१३॥

yadi saṃsādhayet tat tu darpātlobhena vā punaḥ |
rājñā dāpyaḥ suvarṇaṃ syāt tasya steyasya niṣkṛtiḥ ||213||

If, through arrogance or greed, the man should seek to recover it, he should be made by the King to pay one gold-piece, as an expiation for that theft. — (213)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Seeking to recover it’ — i.e., filing a suit before the King, with a view to recover it in the manner of a debt; — when, on being asked to pay back what he has already received, the man files an application before the King, saying ‘Having given the money to me he seeks to take it away from me’; the ‘recovering’ of the gift consisting, in this case, of its being confirmed. — This is done cither ‘through arrogance or greed’; — this describes the causes of the action mentioned before.

The penalty for the man who does this act shall be ‘one gold-piece’; — ‘as an expiation for that theft’; — lest people think that the man, being regarded as a thief, should suffer the penalties prescribed for theft, the author has laid down the penalty as ‘one gold piece.’ And yet he has used the word ‘theft’ with a view to preclude the notion that the man is not a ‘thief,’ since what he has taken was given to him and he did not take it away himself. The meaning thus is that, though the man is a ‘thief,’ yet his punishment, as here laid down, shall consist of ‘one gold piece’ only, but in all other respects, he is to be treated as a ‘thief.’ — (213)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Saṃsādhayet’ — ‘If he tries to enforce the fulfilment of the promise by a complaint before the king’ (Medhātithi); — if he tries to obtain the money forcibly or refuses to refund it’ (Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Govindarāja); — ‘if he should withhold the repayment’ (Rāmacandra, who reads ‘Sandhārayet’); — ‘if the man should really perform the act for which he had begged, then the man who had promised to pay, but did not pay, (or having paid, took it back), should be made to pay to him a Suvarṇa, by way of fine, for not fulfilling his promise’ (Nandana, who has been misrepresented by Hopkins).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 137), which explains the meaning to be — ‘if, through annoyance or greed, he should accomplish the purpose (artham sādhayet ), then he should be fined by the king one Suvarṇa.’

It is quoted also in Aparārka (p. 782), which adds the following explanation: — ‘If on being asked to refund, the man, through annoyance or greed, does not refund the money, but complain before the king with a view to establish the fact that the gift should not be taken back, — then he should be forced to refund the money’; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (94a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Arthaśāstra (p. 94). — ‘If a gift is made under fright, — for fear of punishment, or blame or calamity, — the man accepting the gift should be punished as a thief; — so also one who offers and accepts a gift in anger for the injuring of a third person.’

(See texts under 212.)

VERSE 8.214

Section XXXV - Resumption Of Gifts

दत्तस्यैषौदिता धर्म्या यथावदनपक्रिया ।
अत ऊर्ध्वं प्रवक्ष्यामि वेतनस्यानपक्रियाम् ॥२१४॥

dattasyaiṣauditā dharmyā yathāvadanapakriyā |
ata ūrdhvaṃ pravakṣyāmi vetanasyānapakriyām ||214||

Thus has been fully explained the lawful non-misappropriation of gifts; after this I am going to describe the ‘non-misappropriation of Wages.’ — (214)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The first half sums up the foregoing Head of Dispute, and the second introduces the next head.

‘The non-misappropriation of gifts has been explained.’ — ‘Misappropriation’ is non-fulfilment; and it is the negation of this that is expressed by the negative prefix; the sense being that if the gift is resumed in the manner described above, it does not mean its improper ‘misappropriation’; such is the rule of all gifts.

‘Lawful’ — not against law.

“When the gift, after being promised, is not paid, — how does this not militate against law?”

Such a question should not be raised. Since the right and lawful course in the case is that it should not be paid, or if paid, it should be taken hack.

‘Explained’ — described.

‘Yathāvat,’ ‘fully’ — i.e., in the right manner. The meaning is that ‘it has been expounded in the proper manner.’ Or the term ‘yathā’ may be taken to mean propriety, so that ‘yathāvat’ would mean properly.

‘Wages’ — subsistence-allowance; and the ‘non-misappropriation’ of this is going to be described. That is, what I am going to describe now is the behaviour by which there is no improper misappropriation of duty on the part of those who work on wages. — (214)

VERSE 8.215 [Non-Payment of Wages]

Section XXXVI - Non-Payment of Wages

भृतो नार्तो न कुर्याद् यो दर्पात् कर्म यथोदितम् ।
स दण्ड्यः कृष्णलान्यष्टौ न देयं चास्य वेतनम् ॥२१५॥

bhṛto nārto na kuryād yo darpāt karma yathoditam |
sa daṇḍyaḥ kṛṣṇalānyaṣṭau na deyaṃ cāsya vetanam ||215||

If a hireling, without being ill, does not perform the stipulated work, through arrogance, — he should be fined eight ‘Kṛṣṇalas,’ and should not receive his wages. — (215)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The man who does a stipulated work for a stipulated amount of wages is what is meant by the term ‘hireling’ here; i.e., the man who has been engaged to do a certain service, and who has agreed to do it within a definite time, if he is paid ‘five rupees’ (for instance), if such a person does not finish the work, he should be fined eight ‘kṛṣṇala’ — of gold, or of silver, or of copper, in accordance with the nature of the work and other circumstances; and he should not receive the said rupees, which had been fixed as his wages.

But this applies to a case where the man is not ill, and omits to do the stipulated work, ‘through arrogance.’ That is, the fine and the loss of wages are to be inflicted only upon the man who is not suffering from any illness, and who omits to do the work through sheer arrogance; so that it is not open to the man to retort — ‘Pay me an amount commensurate with the labour already incurred by me.’

Some people hold that this same penalty is to be inflicted upon priests who leave off their work at their own will.

But this is not right; in the case of a sacrificial performance, the loss to the sacr ifi cer, caused by the rites being only half-done, is very great, so that the penalty in this ease should also be heavy; all that the sacrificer has lost should he made good, and the man should also compensate for the physical suffering involved in the saerificer having to repeat, the preliminary rites of the ‘Dīkṣā,’ the ‘Upasad’ and the ‘Devavrata.’

In a case where a mechanic approaches the rich man and urges him to undertake the digging of a tank, or the building of a temple, with the promise that he would supervise the work and see that it is completed, but subsequently slips off, then he should” make good all the loss of money and energy that his employer may have suffered; and thus according to the law of the ‘trader and the carrier,’ this law has been propounded by Kātyāyana as being applicable to all cases: in his Sutra, be says — ‘If, through the fault of the carrier, the trader suiters some loss, it shall be borne by the carrier, — and so also the man who, having urged a man to invest his money on some undertaking, slinks off, after the work has been only half-done.’ Here ‘investing’ means applying t he money to the work; and one who makes the man do this, should make good the loss; such is the sense of the passage.

The law laid down in the verse applies to the person who is engaged on fooding only, for six months, or one year, to do a specified work. Says Nārada — ‘If a man does not do the stipulated work, he should be forced to receive his wages and do it; if he receives the wages, but does not do the work, he should suffer double the amount received in wages; if he abandons the work before the end of the stipulated time, he deserves to lose his wages.’ — (215)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kṛṣṇala’ — ‘Of gold, silver or copper, according to the nature of the case’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja); Kullūka also has ‘suvarṇādi’, ‘gold and others’, and not ‘gold’ only. Buhler has misrepresented him.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā’ (2.198); — in ‘Vyavahāramayūkha’ (p. 92); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 233), which notes that this is meant for a case where the hired man has left the work half undone; if he has done more than half, then only the wages have to be withheld (and there is to be no fine); — in Aparārka (p. 797), which notes that he should not receive the wages of even that part of the work which he may have done and in Kṛtyakalpataru (102a), which explains ‘anārtaḥ’ as not suffering from any disability imposed either by royal command or by supernatural causes.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.215-217)

Āpastamba (2.28.2-3). — ‘A servant in tillage who abandons his work shall be flogged. The same punishment shall be inflicted on a herdsman leaving his work.’

Viṣṇu (5.153-154). — ‘A hired workman who abandons his work before the term has expired shall pay the whole amount of the stipulated wages to his employer; and he shall pay 100 Paṇas to the King.’

Yājñavalkya (2.193-198). — ‘If a workman abandons his work after having received his wages, he shall refund double the amount received by him. If he abandons it before he has received any wages, he should pay to the employer the amount of the stipulated wages; but workmen may be allowed to retain their tools. If the employer has engaged a workman without settling his wages, he should be made by the King to pay the tenth part of the profit that he may have made in trade, in cattle or in agriculture, through the labours of that workman. In a case where the workman has worked beyond the stipulated time and place, — if this additional work decreases the profits of the employer, the latter may give him such wages as he likes for this additional work; but if it has tended to increase his profits, he shall give more. A man shall be paid his wages in accordance with the amount of work done: and neither party shall be stingy (of labour or payment); if the workman is sparing in his labour, he shall receive only what the employer may give him. In the case of a carrier, if he destroys the articles he is carrying, through neglect, — and not through any act of God or of the King — he should be made to replace it; if the employer puts obstacles in the way of his starting, he shall pay double the amount of the stipulated wages. If the carrier abandons the work after he has just started, he should be made to pay the seventh part of the stipulated wages; the fourth part, if he abandons it on the way; the whole of it if he abandons it after going half way of the journey. If the employer dismisses the carrier, he should be made to pay in the same proportion.’

Nārada (5.22). — ‘Hired servants are of three kinds: highest, middlemost and lowest; the wages due for their labour are fixed in proportion to their skill and to the value of their services.’

Do. (6.2, 3, 5-9). — ‘A master shall regularly pay wages to the servant hired by him, whether it be at the commencement, at the middle, or at the end of his work, just as he had agreed to do. When the amount of the wages has not been fixed, the servant of a trader, a herdsman and an agricultural labourer shall take a tenth part of the profit derived from the trade, the product of the cows and of the grain respectively. If one fails to perform such work as he had promised to do, he shall be compelled to perform it, after first paying him the wages. If he does not perform it after receiving the wages, he must pay back twice the amount of the wages received. One who abandons merchandise which he had agreed to convey to its destination, shall give a sixth part of the wages. An employer who does not pay the wages that he had agreed to give shall forfeit those wages together with interest. A merchant who does not take a conveyance or beasts for draught of burden, after having hired them, shall be made to pay a fourth part of the hire, and the whole, if he leaves them half-way. And so shall a earner who fails to transport the goods entrusted to him forfeit his wages. He shall be compelled to pay twice the amount of his wages if he raises difficulties at the time of starting. When the merchandise has been damaged by the carrier’s fault, he shall have to make good every loss, — not including such losses as may have been caused by fate (accident) or by the King.’

Bṛhaspati (16.8-20). — ‘The servant for gain or pay is declared to be of many sorts; another is servant for a share of the grain... — A servant engaged for a day, a month, half-month, a six-month, two months, or a year, must do the work which he promised to do and receive the stipulated wages. A servant for a share of the grain is of two kinds — serving either a husbandman or an owner of cattle; ho shall receive a share of the grain produced, or of the milk; a third or fifth of the produce shall be given to the cultivator of the soil as his share. Let that cultivator to whom food and clothing are given take a fifth part of the crops; and let him who serves in consideration of the profit take a third part of the grain produced. Should a hired servant fail in the performance of ever so small a part of his employer’s work, he forfeits his wages, and may be sued in court for his offence. When a servant does not perform his work after having received his wages, though he is able to work,... he shall be compelled to pay twice as much as his wages as a fine to the King, and to refund the wages to the employer. he who has promised to do work and does not perform it, shall he compelled to do so by forcible means even; and if, through obstinacy, such a servant should still not do it as engaged for, he shall be fined eight Kṛṣṇalas, and his wages shall not he given to him. When a servant commanded by his employer does any improper act for the benefit of his employer, the latter shall be held responsible for it. When a master does not pay wages for the labour stipulated, after the work has been performed, he shall be compelled by the King to pay it, and a proportionate fine besides. A man hired for attendance on milch cows shall receive the whole milk every eighth day.’

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте