with the Commentary of Medhatithi 236 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 242 из 350Следующая ⇒

ते पृष्टास्तु यथा ब्रूयुः सीमासन्धिषु लक्षणम् ।
तत् तथा स्थापयेद् राजा धर्मेण ग्रामयोर्द्वयोः ॥२६१॥

te pṛṣṭāstu yathā brūyuḥ sīmāsandhiṣu lakṣaṇam |
tat tathā sthāpayed rājā dharmeṇa grāmayordvayoḥ ||261||

As they, on being questioned in fairness, declare the marks of boundary-lines between two villages, even so shall the king fix it. — (261)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Construe ‘dharmeṇa,’ ‘in fairness’ with ‘pṛṣṭāḥ,’ ‘questioned.’

‘Sīmāsandhi’ is to be construed as an appositional compound — that ‘sandhi,’ ‘line,’ which is the ‘sīmā,’ ‘boundary.’ — The ‘line’ representing the point where two villages meet, and this being what is meant by ‘boundary.’

‘Mark’ — indicative. — (261)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 210); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (111b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.262

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

क्षेत्रकूपतडागानामारामस्य गृहस्य च ।
सामन्तप्रत्ययो ज्ञेयः सीमासेतुविनिर्णयः ॥२६२॥

kṣetrakūpataḍāgānāmārāmasya gṛhasya ca |
sāmantapratyayo jñeyaḥ sīmāsetuvinirṇayaḥ ||262||

In the case of fields, walls, tanks, gardens and houses, the decision regarding boundary-marks is dependent upon the neighbours. — (262)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Garden’ — stands for park-lands, as well as vegetable yards.

The neighbours are the only source of authority for decisions regarding these.

This has been added with a view to preclude the evidence of hunters and others (mentioned in the preceding two verses).

‘Boundary-marks’; — demarcation of boundary, which is done for the indication of the exact boundary. — (262)

Comparative notes by various authors:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 218) — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 62).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.263

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

सामन्ताश्चेत्मृषा ब्रूयुः सेतौ विवादतां नृणाम् ।
सर्वे पृथक् पृथग् दण्ड्या राज्ञा मध्यमसाहसम् ॥२६३॥

sāmantāścetmṛṣā brūyuḥ setau vivādatāṃ nṛṇām |
sarve pṛthak pṛthag daṇḍyā rājñā madhyamasāhasam ||263||

In the case of men disputing about boundary-marks, if the neighbours depose falsely, all of them should be severally punished by the king with the ‘middle amercement.’ — (268)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The punishment of the neighbours is to be severer than that laid down above (in 257).

‘Severally.’ — This is a mere reiteration, the law on this point having been already declared before.

The holders of neighbouring fields are sure to know the right boundary; hence if they happen to give false evidence, their punishment should be heavy. As for ordinary neighbours (living in the neighbourhood), it is not necessary that they should be cognisant of the exact boundaries of fields, etc.; hence in their case the fine is to be ‘two hundred,’ as laid down before (257). Hence in the case of the boundaries between two villages, such persons as may have been seeing it, as also the neighbours, are to be fined ‘two hundred’ (if they give false evidence).

On the strength of the use of the term ‘neighbours’ in the present context, some people have held that the penalty should be the same, both in the case of boundaries between villages and that of boundaries between fields. But this view is contrary to all reason, and hence should he ignored. — (263)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 211), which adds the following notes: — ‘Setu,’ boundary , — ‘ pṛthak pṛthak,’ each severally, each one individually being the ‘witness;’ — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 95); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (112a)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.264

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

गृहं तडागमारामं क्षेत्रं वा भीषया हरन् ।
शतानि पञ्च दण्ड्यः स्यादज्ञानाद् द्विशतो दमः ॥२६४॥

gṛhaṃ taḍāgamārāmaṃ kṣetraṃ vā bhīṣayā haran |
śatāni pañca daṇḍyaḥ syādajñānād dviśato damaḥ ||264||

If a person, by intimidation, appropriates a house, a tank, a garden, or a field, he shall be fined five hundred; but only two hundred, if he does it in ignorance. — (264)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the course of dealing with fields, etc., this additional law is here added.

‘Intimidation’ — has been mentioned only as an example, of the methods of misappropriation employed; the meaning is that — ‘if a man knowing the field to belong to another person, takes possession of it, he shall he fined five hundred.’

‘Middle amercement’ (which is 500) having been already mentioned in the preceding verse, its reiteration here is meant to indicate that the amount shall vary according to the methods of misappropriation. Or it may be, as some people hold, that in the preceding verse, no significance is meant to be attached to the exact number.

The man appropriates another’s property by such intimidations as — ‘I shall file a suit and have him punished by the king,’ or ‘I shall have him robbed by thieves,’ and so forth; and in this case the fine shall he five hundred, while in other oases, it is to be some other form of it. — (264)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.155), according to which ajñānāt is meant to cover those cases where a man takes possession of another’s garden &c. under the impression that they really belong to himself; in which case the fine is to be only two hundred. Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Bhīṣayā,’ threatening with dangers from some other source; this includes greed also.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 766); — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 222), which explains ‘bhīṣayā,’ as ‘by arousing fear in him,’ — ‘ajñānāt’ as ‘through mistake’; — in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 98); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 64), which explains that ‘if one robs the house after having threatened the owner, the fine is only 500 paṇas;’ — and in Vīramitrodaya, (Vyavahāra, 143b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.265

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

सीमायामविषह्यायां स्वयं राजैव धर्मवित् ।
प्रदिशेद् भूमिमेकेषामुपकारादिति स्थितिः ॥२६५॥

sīmāyāmaviṣahyāyāṃ svayaṃ rājaiva dharmavit |
pradiśed bhūmimekeṣāmupakārāditi sthitiḥ ||265||

In the event of the boundary being unascertainable, the righteous king shall himself assign to them their lands, on the basis of advantages. Such is the established law. — (265)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Unascertainable’ — incapable of being determined, on account of there being no marks or witnesses available.

‘The king himself’ — of his own will — ‘shall assign’ — make over — ‘their lands’; saying — ‘this is your land, that is yours.’

‘Righteous’; — this is added with a view to point out that the king shall not show partiality to any party.

‘On the basis of advantages’ — i.e., according to considerations of common good ; i.e., he shall indicate the boundary between the two villages in such a manner as to make the decision equally advantageous to both parties; so that if the field assigned to one party is less in size, it is of better quality, being more fertile.

The ablative ending in ‘upakārāt’ has the force of the participal affix; the term standing for the expression ‘upakāram apekṣya,’ ‘taking into consideration the advantages.’

Or, the text may mean that, the land may be assigned to one party, being taken away from the other party, whose rights over it are doubtful. In a case where the complaining village is unable to indicate the boundary, while the other party is able to do it, he shall assign the disputed land to the latter. In this way a great benefit would be conferred upon the king himself, as also upon a large number of villages. — (265)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This Verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.153), to the effect that between the two villages (disputing over their boundary), the king shall allot the disputed plot to that one to which it would be more useful than to the other.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 764), which adds the following notes: — ‘Aviṣahyā’, without any means of determination, in the shape persons or proofs, — ‘pravishet’ (which is its reading for ‘pradishet’), is equivalent to ‘praveśayet,’ put into possession, — ‘upakārāt,’ on the ground of utility.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 216), which adds the following notes: — ‘Aviṣahyā’, unascertainable in the absence of witnesses, — ‘ekeṣām pradishet upakārāt,’ he should give it to one party, on the ground of ‘utility’ i. e., to that party which is likely to derive greater benefit from the land in dispute; when this benefit is found to be equally possible for both parties, then he should divide the land between both.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhavā (Vyavahāra, p. 275), which explains ‘aviṣahyā’ as ‘there being neither witnesses nor any other indications helping to determine it;’ — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 31a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 142,) which explains ‘aviṣahyāyam’ as ‘that for which no determinent is available in the shape either of witnesses or marks.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2-153). — ‘In the absence of persons conversant with the boundary, and of boundary-marks, the lawful King himself shall determine the boundary.’

Nārada (11.11, 27). — ‘Should there he no persons conversant with the true state of things, and no boundary-marks, then the King himself shall fix the boundary between the two estates, as he thinks best.’

VERSE 8.266

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

एषोऽखिलेनाभिहितो धर्मः सीमाविनिर्णये ।
अत ऊर्ध्वं प्रवक्ष्यामि वाक्पारुष्यविनिर्णयम् ॥२६६॥

eṣo'khilenābhihito dharmaḥ sīmāvinirṇaye |
ata ūrdhvaṃ pravakṣyāmi vākpāruṣyavinirṇayam ||266||

Thus has the whole law relating to the demarcation of boundaries been propounded. After this I am going to expound that relating to verbal assault. — (266)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse sums up the preceding section and introduces the next.

Under 8.6, this head of dispute has been mentioned as ‘assault — corporal and verbal’ (Hurt and Defamation) [‘Hurt’ coming first], in the present context, the latter has been taken up first. This alteration of the order of sequence is due to considerations of simplicity: In most oases actual physical assault is preceded by verbal assault. Further, a copulative compound (as ‘daṇḍavācike’ of verse 6) denotes only mutual relationship, it lays no stress upon the order in which the terms occur. So that both kinds of ‘assault ’ — physical as well as verbal — being equally meant, what sort of ‘alteration of order of sequence’ is there in the present case? This has been folly explained by the author of the Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇini, 1.8.10; and it is on the basis of this theory that the two assaults have been mentioned by means of a compound. — (206)

VERSE 8.267 [Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)]

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

शतं ब्राह्मणमाक्रुश्य क्षत्रियो दण्डमर्हति ।
वैश्योऽप्यर्धशतं द्वे वा शूद्रस्तु वधमर्हति ॥२६७॥

śataṃ brāhmaṇamākruśya kṣatriyo daṇḍamarhati |
vaiśyo'pyardhaśataṃ dve vā śūdrastu vadhamarhati ||267||

On abusing a Brāhmaṇa the Kṣatriya should be fined one hundred; and the Vaiśya one hundred and fifty; or two hundred; the Śūdra however deserves immolation. — (267)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Abusing’ is speaking harshly. In most cases it takes the following forms: — (a) Causing pain by addressing foul words; — (b) cursing without reason — ‘O low-born one, may you suffer long’; — (c) giving false information; e.g., ‘your unmarried daughter is pregnant’; — (d) defamation, attributing to him serious or non-serious offences.

The punishment to be inflicted upon the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya for abusing a Brāhmaṇa is as here laid down. In another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya, 2.2.10) however we read — ‘If a defamation refers to a heinous offence, the penalty shall consist of the middle amercement; while if it refer to a minor offence, it shall be the lowest amercement.’

For the Śūdra ‘immolation,’ — in the form of beating, cutting off the tongue, actual death, and so forth, to be adjusted in accordance, with the exact nature of the abuse. — (267)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 808), which adds that ‘vadha’ here means ‘cutting off the tongue’; — in Parāśaramadhava (Vyavahāra, p. 295); — in Mitākṣarā, (2.207),.where Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes: — ‘Adhyardha,’ 150, — whether it should be 150 or 200 in any particular case is to depend upon the lightness or gravity of the offence, — ‘vadha,’ beating and so forth.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 250), which adds the following notes: — ‘Ākruśya’ stands for the ‘middle’ kind of defamation — says Pārijāta; — ‘adhyardham śatam’, 150, — ‘dve vā’, this alternative is prescribed in view of the comparative gravity of the defamation; — ‘vadha’, beating, cutting off of the tongue and so forth.

It is quoted’ in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 99); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 44b); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 70), which explains ‘adhyardham’ as ‘one and a half’, and ‘vadha’ as ‘beating’, and says that the punishment, in the case of the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also, is for defamation; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 149a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.267-270)

Gautama (12. 1, 8, 10-13). — ‘A Śūdra who intentionally reviles twice-born men, by criminal abuse, or criminally assaults them with blows, shall be deprived of the limb with which he has offended. A Kṣatriya shall he fined one hundred, if he abuses a Brāhmaṇa. A Vaiśya who abuses a Brāhmaṇa shall pay one and a half (times as much as the Kṣatriya). A Brāhmaṇa abusing a Kṣatriya shall pay 50; half of that for abusing a Vaiśya; nothing for abusing a Śūdra.’

Yājñavalkya (2.206.207). — ‘The fine is half for reviling one lower than one’s self, double, for reviling women and superior persons; thus shall the fine he inflicted in accordance with the superiority or inferiority of the castes concerned. If a person abuses another belonging to a higher caste, he shall be fined double and treble (of 50 Paṇas); if one abuses another belonging to a lower caste, the fine shall be reduced by half of the afore-mentioned.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 104). — ‘Among the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya, the Śūdra and the Caṇḍāla, — if the succeeding reviles the preceding, the fine shall be 3 Paṇas; — if the preceding reviles the succeeding, it shall be 2 Paṇas.’

Viṣṇu (5.23, 33-35-38). — ‘If the Śūdra uses abusive language, his tongue shall be cut off; — for using insulting language, he shall be fined a hundred kārṣāpaṇas; — for insulting a man by using bad language regarding his mother, the highest amercement; — for abusing a man of his own caste, he shall be fined twelve Paṇas; for abusing a man of a lower caste, six Paṇas; — for insulting a member of the highest caste, or of his own caste (at the same time), the same fine is ordained; — or if he only returns his insult, a fine amounting to three kārṣāpaṇas.’

Āpastamba (2.27.14). — ‘The tongue of a Śūdra who speaks evil of a virtuous person, belonging to one of the first three castes, shall be cut out.’

Nārada (15-16.15-17, 22, 25). — ‘A Kṣatriya who reviles a Brāhmaṇa must pay one hundred Paṇas as fine; a Vaiśya must pay one and a half hundred, or two hundred; a Śūdra deserves corporal punishment. A Brāhmaṇa shall he fined fifty Paṇas for calumniating a Kṣatriya; in the case of a Vaiśya, the fine shall he half of fifty; in the case of a Śūdra, it shall be twelve Paṇas. When a twice-born person offends against a member of his own caste, he shall pay twelve Paṇas as fine. When he utters calumnies which ought never to be uttered, the fine shall be twice as high. A once-born man who insults members of a twice-born caste with gross invectives, shall have his tongue cut out... With whatever limb a low-caste man offends against a Brāhmaṇa, that very limb of his shall be cut off; such shall be the atonement of his crime.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 251). — ‘A Brāhmaṇa abusing a Kṣatriya should be fined 100; 50 for abusing a Vaiśya and ‘25 for abusing a Śūdra.’

Bṛhaspāti (20.6-11). — ‘When persons equal in caste and qualities abuse one another, the punishment ordained for them is thirteen Paṇas and a half. For a Brāhmaṇa abusing a Kṣatriya, the fine shall be a half-hundred; for abusing a Vaiśya, half of fifty; for abusing a Śūdra, twelve and half. This punishment has been ordained for abusing a virtuous Śūdra who has committed no wrong; no offence is imputable to a Brāhmaṇa for abusing a Śūdra devoid of virtue. A Vaiśya shall he fined a hundred Paṇas for reviling a Kṣatriya; a Kṣatriya reviling a Vaiśya shall have to pay half of that amount as fine. In the case of a Kṣatriya reviling a Śūdra, the fine shall be twenty Paṇas; in the case of a Vaiśya, double that amount. The Śūdra shall be compelled to pay the fine of the first amercement for abusing a Vaiśya; the middle amercement for abusing a Kṣatriya 5 and the highest amercement for abusing a Brāhmaṇa.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīvādaratnākara, p. 248). — ‘For abusing a person of a higher caste, the offender should propitiate him and pay a fine of three kārṣāpaṇas; — on insulting a man of the same caste as oneself the fine is twelve kārṣāpanas; and twenty-four, for insulting a person of superior qualifications.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 251). — ‘For a low-caste man abusing one of a higher caste, the fine is eight Purāṇas (Purāṇa being equal to 32 silver kṛṣṇalas).’

VERSE 8.268

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

पञ्चाशद् ब्राह्मणो दण्ड्यः क्षत्रियस्याभिशंसने ।
वैश्ये स्यादर्धपञ्चाशत्शूद्रे द्वादशको दमः ॥२६८॥

pañcāśad brāhmaṇo daṇḍyaḥ kṣatriyasyābhiśaṃsane |
vaiśye syādardhapañcāśatśūdre dvādaśako damaḥ ||268||

For abusing a Kṣatriya, the Brāhmaṇa should be fined fifty; and in the case of a Vaiśya, the fine shall be twenty-five; and in that of a Shudra, twelve. — (268)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Abusing’ here stands for all sorts of defamation, except the attributing of grievous offences, for which latter other penalties are laid down. The locative ending indicates occasion.

The locative in ‘vaiśye’ denotes the object.

The punishment for the cases where the Brāhmaṇa is the abuser or the abused has been laid down; for finding out that for the cases of abuse among the Kṣatriya and other castes themselves, we have to look into other Smṛtis. Says Gautama for instance — ‘Whenever there is abusing between the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya, or between the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, where the Kṣatriya abuses a Vaiśya he shall be fined fifty; and where the Vaiśya abuses a Kṣatrya, the fine shall be one hundred; similarly for abusing a Śūdra the Kṣatriya shall be fined twenty-five, and the Vaiśya fifty.’

In the case of the Śūdra abusing a Śūdra, the punishment shall depend upon their qualifications, as is going to be detailed below (under 287 et seq.). — (268)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2. 207), to the effect that the Brāhmaṇa is to be fined 50 for insulting a Kṣatriya, 25 for insulting a Vaiśya and 12½ for insulting a Śūdra; — in Aparārka (p. 808), to the same effect, adding that so many paṇas are meant; — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 151), which adds that ‘abhiśaṃsana’ means ‘defaming,’ ‘insulting.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.267-270)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.267.

VERSE 8.269

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

समवर्णे द्विजातीनां द्वादशैव व्यतिक्रमे ।
वादेष्ववचनीयेषु तदेव द्विगुणं भवेत् ॥२६९॥

samavarṇe dvijātīnāṃ dvādaśaiva vyatikrame |
vādeṣvavacanīyeṣu tadeva dviguṇaṃ bhavet ||269||

Among twice-born men, when there is offence against an equal, the fine is twelve only in the case of unutterable abuses, it shall be double. — (269)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If a once-born person insults a twice-born one with gross abuse, he should suffer the cutting off of his tongue; as he is of low origin. — (270)

‘Once-born person’ — the Śūdra; if he ‘insults’ — abuses — the higher castes — ‘with gross abuse’ — harsh words attributing heinous offences, — suffers ‘the cutting off of the tongue.’

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 149), which adds the following notes: — No special stress is meant to be laid here on the mention of the ‘twice-born’ (what is stated being equally applicable to all castes); — ‘vyatikrame’ means defamation, other than the divulging, of a secret, which latter is what is spoken of by the phrase ‘vāde avacanīye.’

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов