with the Commentary of Medhatithi 231 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 237 из 350Следующая ⇒

Nārada (9.2-6, 16). — ‘When a purchaser, after having purchased an article for a certain price, thinks he has made a foolish bargain, he may return it to the vendor on the same day, in an undamaged condition. When the purchaser returns it on the second day, he shall lose a thirtieth part of the price. He shall lose twice as much on the third day. After that time, the purchaser must keep it. The purchaser shall examine an article before purchasing it, in order to find out its good and bad qualities; that which has been approved by him after close examination, cannot be returned to the vendor. Milch cattle may be examined for three days; beasts of burden, for five days; and in the ease of precious stones, pearls and coral, the period of examination may extend over seven days. Bipeds shall be examined within a fortnight; a female within twice that time; all sorts of grain, within ten days; iron and clothes within a single day...... A merchant who is acquainted with the qualities of the merchandise he deals in must not annul a purchase after having once made it; he ought to know all about the profit and loss on merchandise and its origin.’

Bṛhaspati (18.3-6). — ‘The examiner shall examine the article himself and show it to others; when, after examining and approving it, he has accepted it, he is not at liberty to return it. The foolish man who sells an article, though acquainted with its defects, shall have to pay twice its value to the purchaser and a fine of the same amount to the King. What has been sold by one intoxicated or insane, or at a very low price, or under the impulse of fear, or by one not his own master, or by an idiot, shall be relinquished by the purchaser; or it may be recovered from him by forcible means. Within a certain period, if a defect should be discovered anywhere in the commodity purchased, it shall he returned to the vendor and the purchaser shall recover the price.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 191). — ‘If a man, after having purchased an article, refuses to take it, — or if after taking it, does not return it undamaged, — he shall recover the price paid for it, after paying the tenth part of it to the vendor. This shall he done within ten days of the transaction; after that there can he no rescission of the sale.’

Do. (Do., p. 197). — ‘If a man, after having purchased a milch cattle or such things, — but before actual delivery — returns it undamaged, within time, he should pay to the vendor the tenth part of the price. If he repents it after he has taken delivery, he should pay the sixth part of the price.’

Vyāsa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 198). — ‘Grasses, wood, bricks, threads, grains, wines, liquids, clothes, baser metals and gold, shall he examined at the time of the transaction only.’

VERSE 8.223

Section XXXVIII - Rescission of Sale

परेण तु दशाहस्य न दद्यान्नापि दापयेत् ।
आददानो ददत् चैव राज्ञा दण्ड्यौ शतानि षट् ॥२२३॥

pareṇa tu daśāhasya na dadyānnāpi dāpayet |
ādadāno dadat caiva rājñā daṇḍyau śatāni ṣaṭ ||223||

But after ten days, he shall neither return nor take it back; he who takes it back, as well as he who returns it, should be fined by the king six hundred. — (223)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

After ten days there can be no ‘rescission of the sale.’

If the buyer does repent of the transaction and applies to the king for its rescission, be should be fined six hundred ‘he shall not return it.’ — This prohibition is not put forth with a view to any transcendental result; all that is meant is that such is the established rule, — that after ten days the buyer should not be forced, against his wish, to give up the article, nor should the seller he forced to take it back. So that there is nothing wrong if the returning and taking back are done amicably by mutual understanding. — (223)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.258); — in Aparārka (p. 831); — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 199), which adds that the fine meant is 100 paṇas; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 88); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (108b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.222-223)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.222.

VERSE 8.224

Section XXXVIII - Rescission of Sale

यस्तु दोषवतीं कन्यामनाख्याय प्रयच्छति ।
तस्य कुर्यान्नृपो दण्डं स्वयं षण्णवतिं पणान् ॥२२४॥

yastu doṣavatīṃ kanyāmanākhyāya prayacchati |
tasya kuryānnṛpo daṇḍaṃ svayaṃ ṣaṇṇavatiṃ paṇān ||224||

If a man gives a defective damsel, without mentioning the defects, he should be punished by the king himself with a fine of ninety-six ‘paṇas.’ — (221)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When a maiden happens to be defective, but she is not described as being so, to the bridegroom, and is given to him without disclosing her defects, — then, on these becoming known, the king shall punish the giver.

The term ‘himself’ is meant to indicate the gravity of the offence.

Such circumstances in connection with the girl as may be detrimental to morality, to progeny, and to capacity in general are to be regarded as her ‘defects’; e.g., such diseases as consumption and the like, loss of virginity and so forth.

The punishment in this case is to be cither what is laid down in the present text, or that prescribed above, under 205. — (221)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in ‘Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī’ (p. 1019).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (1.66). — ‘If a man gives a girl in marriage without proclaiming her blemish, he should he lined the highest amercement.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p 95). — (Same as Manu, but reading ‘Purvasāhasachoditam’ for ‘ṣaṇṇavatim paṇān’).

Arthaśāstra (p. 92). — ‘In the case of marriages, for the three higher castes, there can he rescission before the Hand-joining ceremony; for the Śūdra, before intercourse has taken place. Even after the Hand-joining ceremony has been performed, the marriage can be revoked if the girl is discovered to have serious defects; hut marriage can never he revoked after the birth of children. If the father gives away the girl without proclaiming any serious defects that she may have, he should be lined 96 Paṇas, and he should he made to return the fee or the dowry that he may have received for the girl.’

Nārada (12.33). — ‘When a man gives a maiden in marriage who has a secret blemish, without making the blemish known, the King shall visit him with the gravest punishment.’

VERSE 8.225

Section XXXVIII - Rescission of Sale

अकन्येति तु यः कन्यां ब्रूयाद् द्वेषेण मानवः ।
स शतं प्राप्नुयाद् दण्डं तस्या दोषमदर्शयन् ॥२२५॥

akanyeti tu yaḥ kanyāṃ brūyād dveṣeṇa mānavaḥ |
sa śataṃ prāpnuyād daṇḍaṃ tasyā doṣamadarśayan ||225||

If a man, through malice, speaks of a maiden as ‘not a virgin’ he should receive the punishment of one hundred, if unable to prove her impurity. — (225)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Not a virgin’ — i.e., one who has already had sexual intercourse. If a man speaks of a maiden as such, but is unable to prove her guilt, he should he fined one hundred coins.

Others have held the view that, in view of the fact that the penalty prescribed is too small in comparison with the serious nature of the defamation, the text should he taken as referring to the actual utterance of the exact words ‘not a virgin;’ specially as we cannot get over the significance of the particle ‘iti,’ (‘as’); — the sense thus being that the man is to be fined one hundred, only when ho actually defames the maiden as a ‘non-maiden.’

“What difference does this make?”

The explanation is as follows: — When the man defames the maiden as a ‘non-virgin,’ if he is asked — ‘How is she a non-virgin?’ — and he replies — ‘she is immodest, cruel, and prone to using obscene language, — all which is not proper for virgins,’ — hut cannot prove it, then it is that he is to be fined only one hundred, — i.e., when all that he alleges is the absence in the girl of such qualities as should he present in all maidens (and does not accuse her of having actually lost her virginity).

Or, the term ‘virgin’ may he taken as denoting juniority of age; and the meaning of the text explained as follows: — When a man is seeking a certain girl in marriage, if some one should come and tell him behind the back of the girl’s relations — ‘that girl is not a maiden, she is too young — or too old,’ — then the guardian of the girl complains to the king — ‘my girl is extremely handsome and this man is maligning her to the prospective bridegroom, because he is himself desirous of having her’; thereupon if the defamer is proved guilty, — as he is, when he is found to have made the allegations when the girl was actually of the right age, — then he is fined ‘one hundred.’ — (225)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavaklya (1.66). — ‘If the bridegroom relinquishes the bride when she has no defects, he should he punished; and if he falsely accuses her of defects, he should he lined a hundred.’

Viṣṇu (5.47; Aparārka, p. 96). — ‘If one speaks of a blemishless girl as having a blemish, he should be fined the highest amercement..’

Nārada (12.3). — ‘The selection of the bride loses its binding force when a blemish is subsequently discovered in her.’

Do. (12.31). — ‘Let no man calumniate a faultless maiden; neither must one calumniate a faultless suitor. When however, there is an actual defect, it is no offence if they dissolve their mutual agreement.’

Do. (12.34-36). — ‘When a man, from hatred, declares a maiden to have lost her virginity, he shall pay 100 Paṇas as tine, unless he is able to give proofs of her disgrace. When a man, after having plighted his faith to a maiden, abandons her although she is faultless, he shall be fined and made to marry the maiden, even against his will. Affliction with a chronic or hateful disease, deformity, loss of virginity, — these are declared to be the defects of a maiden.’

VERSE 8.226

Section XXXVIII - Rescission of Sale

पाणिग्रहणिका मन्त्राः कन्यास्वेव प्रतिष्ठिताः ।
नाकन्यासु क्व चिन्नॄणां लुप्तधर्मक्रिया हि ताः ॥२२६॥

pāṇigrahaṇikā mantrāḥ kanyāsveva pratiṣṭhitāḥ |
nākanyāsu kva cinnṝṇāṃ luptadharmakriyā hi tāḥ ||226||

The marriage-ritual texts are applicable to virgins only, and nowhere among men, to non-virgins; and this because these latter are excluded from religious acts. — (220)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Pāṇigrahaṇa’ is marriage, the taking of a wife; in connection with the ritual of marriage, there are certain mantra - texts — such as ‘kanyā agnimayakṣata, etc.’ (‘the virgin offered a sacrifice to Agni’) — which indicate that it is virgins alone that can undergo the ceremonies of marriage. In fact, the very injunction of marriage itself says — ‘one should marry a virgin,’ and it is this that is reiterated in the mantra-texts; and the mere fact of the term ‘virgin,’ being found in these mantra-texts could not be regarded as indicative of the restriction of marriage to virgins only; and this for the simple reason that mantra-texts, by their very nature have no injunctive force.

The same idea is further emphasised by means of a negative assertion — ‘and nowhere among men, to non-virgins.’ — That is, in no Vedic text is marriage with a non-virgin found to be mentioned.

‘Excluded from religions acts’ — In as much as such girls would not be entitled to help in the performance of the Agni-hotra and other rites, or in the proper begetting of children, they are not fit for being married.

For this reason, when a man calls a virgin a ‘non-virgin,’ he should be punished with a heavy fine. This is what is meant by the adding of the present verse after what has been said in the preceding one. — (226)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 741), to the effect that the mantric marriage rites are meant only for those girls who are entitled to the name ‘Kanyā’ (virgin), i. e., those whose generative organs have not been ‘penetrated’; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 1019).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.226-227)

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 741). — ‘On the completion of the ceremony of Joining Hands, the maiden is married only in mantras; even after that, until she has had intercourse, she may be married again.’

Smṛti (Do., p. 585). — ‘The maiden becomes separated from her gotra on marriage, on the completion of the Seventh Step.’

VERSE 8.227

Section XXXVIII - Rescission of Sale

पाणिग्रहणिका मन्त्रा नियतं दारलक्षणम् ।
तेषां निष्ठा तु विज्ञेया विद्वद्भिः सप्तमे पदे ॥२२७॥

pāṇigrahaṇikā mantrā niyataṃ dāralakṣaṇam |
teṣāṃ niṣṭhā tu vijñeyā vidvadbhiḥ saptame pade ||227||

The marriage -texts are clearly conducive to ‘wife-hood’; and these are to be recognised by the learned as completed at the ‘seventh-step.’ — (227)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Wife’ is consort; and ‘wife-hood’ is brought about by the mantras, — which are thus ‘conducive to’ it. That is, the sacramental rite called ‘marriage’ is accomplished by the use of these mantras, in the case of the twice-born castes; it is not so in the case of the śūdra, in whose case no mantras are used; though, barring the mantras, all the rest of the procedure is the same. It is in this sense that the mantras are indicative of the sacramental rite of ‘marriage.’

Of these ‘mantras,’ the completion, end, is to be ‘recognised,’ — ‘at the seventh-step.’ After the ‘offering of fried grains,’ the bride is made to go round the fire thrice and then move forward seven steps, the words addressed to her beginning with the words ‘ekapadī bhava’ and ending with ‘saptapadī bhava,’ and when the ‘seventh step’ has been thus taken by the bride, there can be no revoking, either on the part of the bride’s father or on that of the bridegroom. So that even though she be insane, she has to betaken as ‘wife,’ and cannot be abandoned.

There can be no such ‘marriage’ of a girl, who has already had sexual intercourse; and in her case even though the entire procedure, up to the ‘offering of fried grains’ may have been gone through, she does not become a ‘wife.’ So that in this case, a revoking of the bargain is possible, just as in the case of any other commodity. Just as the performance of the rites of ‘fire-laying,’ if done by a Śūdra, cannot make the fire ‘āhavanīya’ (sacrificial), — or as the performance of the fire-offerings and other details of the marriage-rite does not make it a regular ‘marriage,’ if the bride happens to bn within ‘sapiṇḍa-relationship’ to the bride-groom. In fact these cases are regarded as transgressions, as is clearly indicated by the following declaration of Vaśiṣṭha: — ‘By reason of having gone through the rites the man becomes liable to expiation and the bride becomes unfit for being married to any one else.’

“If a man, after having married a girl suffering from a disease conducive to sterility, does not abandon her, what would be the remedy?”

If he has the wish and the capacity, he shall marry another girl; just as in the case of one who has a sharp-tongued wife and whom ‘he shall give up at once’ (Manu, 9.81).

In a case where, after she has given birth to a son and the man has set up the lire, the wife happens to be attacked by some wasting disease, — the husband shall not have her superseded; specially as the circumstances under which supersession is permissible have been strictly enumerated (9.77-85). Even then, if some one were to take to another wife, by reason of the unchaste character of his former wife, we could not prevent him.

In brief then, the rule relating to girls is that, — even though in the case of ether commodities, there is rescission, by mutual understanding, even after ten days, — there can be no such revoking in the case of girls who have been married. Even in cases where girls are given in return for prices paid, they are to be treated as other commodity only until marriage has been performed. While in the case of one who is given away in a purely religious spirit, there can be no revoking at all; so say the texts. Though in such cases also, there is revocation, — as declared by Yājñavalkya (I.65) ‘Even though she has been betrothed, the girl may be taken back if a better bridegroom present himself,’ — but only till the ‘seventh step’ has been taken. Once the ‘seventh step’ has been taken, the gift cannot be rescinded; and hence there is no revoking in this case; just as there is none in the case of such gifts as the cow and the like. When once a cow has been given to a person, the gift cannot he returned and taken back, oven by mutual understanding; because the act of giving has been already accomplished at the time that the gift was made. So that when once the gift has been accepted, if it were given again to the original giver, — then this would only he an entirely different act of gift, and not the revoking of the former gift. Similarly in the case where both the bride and the bridegroom are possessed of the requisite qualifications, there can be no rescission (of the betrothal), even before the marriage has been performed. While after the marriage has been performed, there can be no abandonment of even a defective bride. Though if she happens to be one who has already had intercourse, and is therefore not a ‘maiden’ at all, — she may be abandoned; since marriage is enjoined as to be done with a ‘maiden.’ Marriage stands on the same footing as using; and just as the cloth that has been used and worn cannot be returned to the seller oven within ten days, so the maiden also who has been married cannot be abandoned.

This subject we shall deal with again under 9.47. — (227)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 585), to the effect that ‘marriage’ is accomplished on the reaching of the seventh step; — and again at p. 836, to the effect that the taking of the ‘seven steps’ is absolutely essential.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 893), to the effect that the taking of the seven steps constitutes an essential factor in the sanctificatory rite of marriage; — again in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 107), to the same effect; — again at p. 130, where the following notes are added — ‘niṣṭhā,’ means completion, of ‘wife-hood,’ — ‘saptame pāde,’ i.e., on the seven steps being reached by the girl; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 529); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 222); — and in Hāralatā (p. 52) which has the following notes: — ‘Niyatam’, i.e., bringing about wife-hood, all the other details being mere accessories.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.226-227)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.226.

VERSE 8.228

Section XXXVIII - Rescission of Sale

यस्मिन् यस्मिन् कृते कार्ये यस्येहानुशयो भवेत् ।
तमनेन विधानेन धर्म्ये पथि निवेशयेत् ॥२२८॥

yasmin yasmin kṛte kārye yasyehānuśayo bhavet |
tamanena vidhānena dharmye pathi niveśayet ||228||

Whenever any person should have repentance in regard to any compact that has been entered into — the king shall bring him to the righteous path, in the manner just described. — (228)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The law relating to rescission within ten days is not restricted to transactions among tradesmen; it is applicable also to compacts relating to wages, interest and other kinds of transaction. The repetition of the pronoun in the phrase ‘yasmin yasmin’ indicates that all kinds of transaction are meant to be included.

This is an example of ‘extended application.’

When a compact has been entered into, and the work agreed upon has been commenced, then it is that repentance sets in. When a compact has been entered into verbally, the parties should therefore wait for ten days, to see if there is repentance on either side.

In a case however where after money has been borrowed on interest, or a priest has been appointed, and the wages have been paid, — if a quarrel arises in regard to the terms of the compact, — then this case does not come within the rule here laid down; — so say some people; on the ground that what has been done cannot be undone.

This however is not right. It is only when a work has been completed that it is regarded as ‘done,’ — and not only when it has been begun; because the past-participial affix in the term ‘done’ does not connote commencement (but accomplishment), and there is no ground for rejecting its primary connotation. As for the argument that ‘what has been done cannot be undone’; — as a matter of fact, even when an act has been done, if there is any obstruction in the way of the due appearance of its effects, it is regarded to be as good as ‘undone.’ For instance, when the food that has been eaten is thrown out.

Even in the case of ordinary things of the world, when they are found to be amenable to the rules laid down in the scriptures, promulgation or revocation must proceed on these same scriptural lines. Hence even though the things may have become accomplished, there may be revocation. Consequently, even after a money-transaction has been completed and the money has been taken home by the borrower, it shall be brought back, if either party shows signs of repentance. If there has been any deterioration or expenditure, these shall he borne by the party concerned, in accordance with the law laid down in the scriptures. It is for this reason that some people hold that by merely receiving the loan, the borrower becomes liable to a month’s interest.

In cases of mortgage also — when things are mortgaged on the understanding that they shall he used for a stipulated time, — tho transaction is revoked if there is repentance within ten days. As regards the appointment of priests, it is like the marriage of girls. There can be revocation after ten days only when there had been a compact; but only if there is another scriptural text bearing on this subject. — (228)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 191), which adds the following notes: — ‘Yasmin yasmin’, the repetition of this general pronoun implies that even in transactions other than sales, — such as loan and so forth, — if there is ‘desire to withdraw’ or ‘repentance’, the same rules are to be followed as those laid down in connection with the Rescission of Sales, — such as returning, receiving back, fine of 600 paṇas and so forth, in accordance with the circumstances of each case; ‘anena,’ i.e., by the method Laid down in connection with the Rescission of Sales and Purchases; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 88); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (108b).

VERSE 8.229 [Disputes between Owner and Keeper]

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

पशुषु स्वामिनां चैव पालानां च व्यतिक्रमे ।
विवादं सम्प्रवक्ष्यामि यथावद् धर्मतत्त्वतः ॥२२९॥

paśuṣu svāmināṃ caiva pālānāṃ ca vyatikrame |
vivādaṃ sampravakṣyāmi yathāvad dharmatattvataḥ ||229||

I am going to expound fully the true law relating to disputes between owners and keepers arising from transgressions regarding cattle. — (229)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In regard to ‘cattle’ — such as cows and the like — there may be some ‘transgressions’; and from those may arise ‘disputes between their owners and keepers’; — the owner saying — ‘you have destroyed my cow, give her to me’; — on which the keeper retorts — ‘There was no neglect on my part.’ The ‘true law’ — the established rule — that governs such disputes — that ‘I am going to describe fully.’

This summing up of the sense of the entire section is put forth for the purpose of securing the attention of the audience. — (229)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 170), which adds that ‘paśuṣu’ stands for such cattle as form the subject-matter of dispute; — in Parāśaramādhava, (Vyavahāra, p. 262), which explains ‘vivādam’ as method of settling the dispute; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (104 b).

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?