with the Commentary of Medhatithi 237 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 243 из 350Следующая ⇒

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 49a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.267-270)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.267.

VERSE 8.270

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

एकजातिर्द्विजातींस्तु वाचा दारुणया क्षिपन् ।
जिह्वायाः प्राप्नुयाच्छेदं जघन्यप्रभवो हि सः ॥२७०॥

ekajātirdvijātīṃstu vācā dāruṇayā kṣipan |
jihvāyāḥ prāpnuyācchedaṃ jaghanyaprabhavo hi saḥ ||270||

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)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘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.’

‘He is of low origin’ — being born out of the feet of Brahmā. This is the reason given for the special penalty; and it serves also to indicate the same punishment for persons of the reverse cross-breed also; since these latter also are ‘of low origin’; specially in view of the declaration that ‘there is no fifth caste.’ — (270)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 809); — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 153), which adds the following notes: — ‘Ekajāti’, ‘once-born’, is the Śūdra, since he has no upanayana (which is the second birth), — ‘dāruṇayā’, heartrending, insinuating a heinous crime and so, forth, — ‘jaghanyaprabhavaḥ’, the Śruti having described the Śūdra as born from the feet. This implies that in the case of the mixed castes insulting the twice-born also, the same penalty is meant, since these also are ‘low-born.’

Bālambhaṭṭī (on 1.107) remarks that, inasmuch as in verse 177 the cutting of the tongue is excluded in the case of the Śūdra insulting the Vaiśya, what is said in the present verse must be restricted to the Śūdra insulting either a Brāhmaṇa or a Kṣatriya.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.267-270)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.267.

VERSE 8.271

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

नामजातिग्रहं त्वेषामभिद्रोहेण कुर्वतः ।
निक्षेप्योऽयोमयः शङ्कुर्ज्वलन्नास्ये दशाङ्गुलः ॥२७१॥

nāmajātigrahaṃ tveṣāmabhidroheṇa kurvataḥ |
nikṣepyo'yomayaḥ śaṅkurjvalannāsye daśāṅgulaḥ ||271||

If he mentions the name and caste of these men with scorn, a burning iron nail ten inches long shall be thrust into his mouth. — (271)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Scorn’ — is disrespect, a feeling of disdain.

The words being in some such form as — ‘O wretched Brāhmaṇa, do not touch me’; and so forth.

Similarly with the name also.

‘Mention’ means uttering the names without the proper honorific title, or accompanied by an affix signifying ‘disdain’ — (‘Oh you Devadattaka’).

Or ‘abhidroha’ may mean anger.

‘Should be thrust’ — thrown in.

‘Nail’ — wedge.

‘Burning’ — flaming with fire.

‘Iron’ — made of iron. — (271)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 153), which adds the following notes: — ‘Abhidroheṇa’, in an extremely insulting manner, — ‘ayomayaḥ’, made of iron, — ‘śaṅkuḥ’, nail.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 809), which says that this is meant for very frequently repeated offence.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.25). — ‘If a low-born man revilingly mentions the name or caste of a superior, — an iron pin, ten inches long, shall be thrust into his mouth.’

Nārada (15-16.23). — ‘If the Śūdra refers to the name or caste of a superior caste in terms indicating contempt, an iron-rod, ten inches long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.’

VERSE 8.272

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

धर्मोपदेशं दर्पेण विप्राणामस्य कुर्वतः ।
तप्तमासेचयेत् तैलं वक्त्रे श्रोत्रे च पार्थिवः ॥२७२॥

dharmopadeśaṃ darpeṇa viprāṇāmasya kurvataḥ |
taptamāsecayet tailaṃ vaktre śrotre ca pārthivaḥ ||272||

If through arrogance, he teaches brāhmaṇas their duty, the king shall pour heated oil into his mouth and ears. — (272)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Sometimes Śūdras, ‘through arrogance’ due to a slight knowledge of grammar, address to Brāhmaṇas such advice as — ‘this is your duty,’ — ‘such is the procedure of this rite’ — ‘do not do it in this manner, you who are learned in the Veda.’ And the text lays down the penalty for such Śūdras. If however a Śūdra has learnt things through his association with Brāhmaṇas, and points out lapses as to proper time and place due to forgetting the details, in a friendly manner, with such words as — ‘Do not please omit the morning time,’ ‘fulfil your duties towards the gods,’ ‘satisfy the gods,’ ‘wear the cloth over your right shoulder, and not the reverse,’ — then there is nothing wrong in this.

‘Heated’ — put into fire and hence painful.

‘Pour’ — make it flow.

“It is right that it should be poured into his mouth, since it is with the mouth that he offers the advice. But what is the fault of the ears?”

Their fault lies in having listened to misguided reasonings (which make him think himself qualified for offering the advice). — (272)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 11.115.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 809), which adds that ‘asya’ stands for the Śūdra; — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 254).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5-24). — ‘If a low-born man, through arrogance, give instruction to a member of the highest caste, concerning his duty, let the King order hot oil to be poured into his mouth.’

Nārada (15-16.24). — ‘If the Śūdra is insolent enough to give lessons to Brāhmaṇas regarding their duty, the King shall order hot oil to he poured into his mouth and ears.’

Bṛhaspati (20.12). — ‘A Śūdra teaching the precepts of religion, or uttering the words of the Veda, or insulting a Brāhmaṇa, shall he punished by cutting out his tongue.’

VERSE 8.273

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

श्रुतं देशं च जातिं च कर्म शरीरमेव च ?? ।
वितथेन ब्रुवन् दर्पाद् दाप्यः स्याद् द्विशतं दमम् ॥२७३॥

śrutaṃ deśaṃ ca jātiṃ ca karma śarīrameva ca ?? |
vitathena bruvan darpād dāpyaḥ syād dviśataṃ damam ||273||

He who, through arrogance, speaks falsely regarding the learning, the habitat, the caste, the occupation, or the bodily details (of another person), should be made to pay a pine of two hundred. — (273)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When, as a matter of fact, a man is really learned, one may say ‘this has not been properly learnt by him’; or he may defame his learning by declaring — ‘what he has learnt is not right.’

With regard to one who regards himself as an inhabitant of Brahmāvarta, he may say ‘he is a foreigner.’

With regard to a real Brāhmaṇa, he may say ‘he is a Kṣatriya’; or through friendship he may call a Kṣatriya, ‘Brāhmaṇa.’

‘Occupation’; — the ‘student’ may be called ‘one who has finished his studies.’

In regard to one’s ‘bodily details, ho may say ‘he is suffering from skin diseases,’ when, in reality, the man has no defects at all.

‘Falsely ’; — ‘false’ is what is a lie. The instrumental ending being used in accordance with Pāṇini’s rule ‘Prakṛtyādibhya upasaṅkhyānam.’

Or ‘falsity’ may stand for unrighteousness; and it is only right that unrighteousness should be regarded as instrumental in defaming other persons.

‘Through arrogance’; — ‘arrogance’ stands for disregard for others. So that if the assertions in question are made through ignorance, or in joke, there is no harm.

“For whom is this penalty laid down?”

We say — for all castes. Others however hold that, since the context pertains to the Śūdra, it must be regarded as meant for the Śūdra falsely defaming a twice-born person. — (273)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 2.19-11.

‘Karma śārīram’ — ‘With reference to occupation and to the body’ (Medhātithi); — ‘bodily sacraments’ (Kullūka and others).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 254), which adds the following notes: — ‘Karma,’ austerities and the like; — ‘śārīram,’ limbs of the body, — ‘vitathena,’ falsely, — the meaning being that if one, through arrogance, spreads false reports regarding the learning, country, caste, austerities, and limbs of another, he shall be fined 200. The Instrumental ending in ‘Vitathena’ is in accordance with Pāṇini’s Sūtra ‘Prakṛtyādibhya upasaṅkhyānam’; — ‘Śruta’, ‘learning’ and the rest are mentioned by way of illustration of the false reports; e.g. — ‘This man has not learnt the Veda,’ ‘he is not an inhabitant of Āryāvarta,’ ‘he is not a Brāhmaṇa,’ ‘he has performed no austerity at all,’ ‘his skin is not free from disease’ and so forth. — ‘Darpa’ stands for the high opinion that one has in regard to his own qualifications and consequently the low opinion that he has with regard to other persons.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5-26). — ‘He who falsely denies the sacred knowledge, the country or the caste, of a member of the higher castes, or who says that his religious duties have not been fulfilled by him, — shall be find 200 Paṇas.’

Bṛhaspati (20-14). — ‘He who reviles a person’s native country or other belongings of his, shall be fined 12 Paṇas. He who, through arrogance, imputes an offence to him, shall be compelled to pay the fine of the first degree.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 103). — ‘For reviling a man in regard to his body, nature, learning, livelihood and country, — the punishment is a fine of 3 Paṇas.’

VERSE 8.274

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

काणं वाऽप्यथ वा खञ्जमन्यं वाऽपि तथाविधम् ।
तथ्येनापि ब्रुवन् दाप्यो दण्डं कार्षापणावरम् ॥२७४॥

kāṇaṃ vā'pyatha vā khañjamanyaṃ vā'pi tathāvidham |
tathyenāpi bruvan dāpyo daṇḍaṃ kārṣāpaṇāvaram ||274||

If a man, even truly, calls another ‘one-eyed’ or ‘lame’ or something else like it, — he should be made to pay a fine of at least one ‘Kārṣāpaṇa.’ — (274)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘One-eyed’ — he who is deprived of one of his eyes.

‘Lame’ — who is without one leg.

‘Something else like this’ — e.g., a cripple, flat-nosed and so forth.

‘Even truly’; — the term ‘even’ implies the false defamation also, i.e., when one who is not one-eyed is called so.

The fine in this case shall be ‘at least one Kārṣāpaṇa’ — i.e., if, through mercy, the lowest fine be meant to be imposed, a Kārṣāpaṇa should be the lowest amount of it. Otherwise, the flue should be two, three, four or five Kārṣāpaṇas, according to the character of the accused.

This rule may be taken, as before, as referring to either all men, or to the Śūdra only. — (274)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.204), which notes that this rule refers to a case where the defamer is a very wicked person; and Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Tathyena,’ even in truth, — ‘kārṣāpaṇāvaram,’ at least one kārṣāpaṇa, never less than that; this refers to cases where a wicked and ill-behaved person insults a caste-fellow.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 806), which adds that this refers to a case where the insulter is a man with very superior qualifications, or where the motive of insulting is very insignificant.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 247), which explains ‘kārṣāpaṇāvaram’ as ‘that than which one kārṣā paṇa is lower,’ i.e., ‘two kārṣāpaṇas — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 295), which adds that this refers to an extremely wicked person; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 44b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 150a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Arthaśāstra (p. 103). — ‘If one reviles a man as one-eyed, lame and so forth when he is really so, — the fine is 3 Paṇas; if he is not so, it is 6 Paṇas.’

Viṣṇu (5.27). — ‘If a man is blind, with one eye, or lame, or defective in any similar way, — and another calls him so, — the latter shall be fined 2 kārṣāpāṇas, though he speaks the truth.’

Yājñavalkya( 2-204). — ‘If a man reviles another — either falsely or truly or ironically — in regard to defective limbs or sense-organs or diseases, — he shall he fined twelve and a half Paṇas.’

Nārada (15-16.18). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 8.275

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

मातरं पितरं जायां भ्रातरं तनयं गुरुम् ।
आक्षारयंशतं दाप्यः पन्थानं चाददद् गुरोः ॥२७५॥

mātaraṃ pitaraṃ jāyāṃ bhrātaraṃ tanayaṃ gurum |
ākṣārayaṃśataṃ dāpyaḥ panthānaṃ cādadad guroḥ ||275||

He who alienates the mother, the father, the wife, the brother, the child or the preceptor, should be made to pay a hundred; as also one who does not give the way to his preceptor. — (276)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Alienating’ means estranging (sowing dissension), by false insinuations; e.g., when one tries to sow dissension by making such assertions as — ‘This mother of yours has no love for you, she has a great hankering after her other son, and has secretly given him a golden ring.’ Similarly when he sows dissension between the father and son, or between the husband and wife, or between brothers, or between the preceptor and disciple.

The term ‘child’ has been mentioned with a view to indicate the other member in the dissension. If this were not added, the punishment would apply only to one who would alienate the ‘mother’ from her son, — and not to one who would alienate the ‘son’ from his mother; though ‘alienation’ is always between two parties, yet that party is spoken of as being ‘alienated’ through whom the estrangement is attempted. Under the circumstances, if the ‘child’ were not mentioned, the punishment would apply only to one who would ‘alienate the mother’ by saying — ‘this son of yours is not devoted to you, and is ill-behaved,’ — and not to one who would ‘alienate’ the son, in the manner described before.

Others have explained the word ‘ākṣārayan’ as causing mental suffering; by making such statements as — ‘I am going away from the country for the purpose of acquiring learning or wealth,’ — when the fear of the going away of the son causes pain to the father and others; and hence this should not be done.

As regards the ‘preceptor,’ so long as he is alive, one should not go over to another, specially so long as he does not permit him to do so. In a case where the disciple causes mental suffering to his preceptor, by disrespect and such acts, — the man cannot escape by paying the fine of a hundred only; as ‘disregarding of the preceptor’ has been held to be a very serious offence.

The ‘alienating’ of the loving wife with children is attempted by telling her that her husband is going to marry another woman. Similarly that of the son with excellent qualities, by representing him to be otherwise.

If in any way, one does not give the way to his preceptor, bis fine shall be one hundred. — (275)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ākṣārayan’ — ‘Defames, by causing dissension’ (Medhātithi), — ‘accuses of a heinous crime’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda), — ‘accuses of incest’ (Nārāyaṇa), — ‘makes them angry’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.204), which (reading ‘Śvaśuram’ for ‘tanayam’) adds that this refers to cases where the wife is innocent of what is said against her, and. where the mother and the rest are even guilty of what is alleged. Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes: — ‘Ākṣārayan,’ defaming, — ‘adadat,’ not leaving in favour of; — what Mitākṣarā says in regard to this rule answers the objection taken against it by Kullūka, that some explanation should be found for the same penalty being prescribed for insulting all the persons mentioned here; — Medhātithi, on the other hand, adopting the reading ‘tanayam,’ has explained ‘ākṣārayan’ as causing dissension among the persons mentioned.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 149b), which explains ‘bhrātaram’ as ‘elder brother,’ and adds that this refers to cases where the elders have done some mischief, and the wife has done nothing wrong; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 295), which adds the same note as Mitākṣarā; — and in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 99), which adds that the ‘brother meant here is the elder one, since he is mentioned along with the father and the rest,’ and adds that Mitākṣarā and other works have declared that this refers to the wife only when she is innocent, and to the mother and others even when they are guilty.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 250), which reads ‘tanayam,’ and explains ‘ākṣārayan’ as ‘subjecting’ to insult — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 44b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.28) — ‘He shall he fined a hundred Kārṣāpaṇaṣ for defaming a Guru.’

Bṛhaspati (20.13). — ‘One reviling the sister or other relations shall pay a fine amounting to 50 Paṇas.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 250). — ‘If one reviles the King’s officers or elders or Brāhmaṇas, he shall be chided or beaten or besmeared with cowdung, or made to ride a donkey, or fined to such an extent as would cure him of his arrogance.’

VERSE 8.276

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियाभ्यां तु दण्डः कार्यो विजानता ।
ब्राह्मणे साहसः पूर्वः क्षत्रिये त्वेव मध्यमः ॥२७६॥

brāhmaṇakṣatriyābhyāṃ tu daṇḍaḥ kāryo vijānatā |
brāhmaṇe sāhasaḥ pūrvaḥ kṣatriye tveva madhyamaḥ ||276||

The discerning king shall inflict this punishment upon the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya: the brāhmaṇa shall be fined the lowest amercement and the kṣatriya the middlemost — (276)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The construction of this passage is elliptical: — ‘In the case of mutual abuse between the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya, this shall be the punishment.’

Or, the Dative (in ‘brāhmāṇakṣatriyābhyāṃ’) may be taken as denoting purpose; the sense being — ‘for the purpose of keeping in check the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya.’

The punishment here prescribed is to be inflicted when some grievous offence is attributed, and causes pain — (276)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 255), which adds the following explanations: — In a case where a Brāhmaṇa and a Kṣatriya have insulted one another, the ‘first amercement’ on the latter. — According to Bālambhaṭṭī (2.207) the rule refers to cases where the defamation is in regard to a heinous offence; — It is quoted in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 71), which says that this refers to cases of mutual defamation between the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya, and adds that the same law holds good as between the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also-; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 150a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.276-278)

(See texts under 268-270.)

VERSE 8.277

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

विट् शूद्रयोरेवमेव स्वजातिं प्रति तत्त्वतः ।
छेदवर्जं प्रणयनं दण्डस्यैति विनिश्चयः ॥२७७॥

viṭ śūdrayorevameva svajātiṃ prati tattvataḥ |
chedavarjaṃ praṇayanaṃ daṇḍasyaiti viniścayaḥ ||277||

On the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also, the inflicting of punishment shall be of the same kind, according to their respective castes, — barring mutilation; such is the decision. — (277)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Of the same kind’ — i.e., the lowest and the middlemost amercements, mentioned in the preceding verse. The order should be as follows: — when the Vaiśya abuses the Śūdra, he shall be fined the lowest amercement, and when the Śūdra abuses the Vaiśya, he shall be fined the middle amercement.

‘The inflicting of the punishment shall be the same, barring mutilation’; — This includes the ‘cutting off of the tongue’ laid down in verse 270.

‘According to their respective castes’ — This should not be understood to mean that the said fine is to be inflicted when they abuse men of their own caste; the meaning is that the fine shall be in accordance with the castes mentioned. The sense of the verse is that when these men abuse men of their own castes, the punishment shall be as laid down before.

‘Inflicting’ — Promulgating.

When the Kṣatriya abuses the Vaiśya, the fine shall consist of half of the lowest amercement; the same scale shall apply when the Brāhmaṇa abuses the Vaiśya and the Śūdra. — (277)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 250), which adds the following: — The rule laid down in the preceding verse is applicable to the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also; — ‘Svajātiṃprati’ — ‘as between persons of the same caste’ (the punishment is to be inflicted) ‘tattvataḥ,’ in accordance with the superiority or inferiority of position and qualifications; — ‘chedavarjam’, this precludes the cutting of the tongue.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.207), to the effect that when the Vaiśya abuses the Śūdra, he is to be fined 50 paṇas. Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Viṭśūdrayoḥ in the case of the Vaiśya and the Śūdra — ‘Svajātiṃ prati’ — insuring each other, — ‘evameva,’ the case is to be treated as in the case of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya, — i. e., when the Vaiśya insults the Śūdra, he should pay the ‘first amercement,’ and when the Śūdra insults the Vaiśya, he should pay the ‘middle amercement,’ — this should be the penalty inflicted, and there is to be no cutting of the tongue; — ‘tattvataḥ,’ this is the legal punishment. — This verse, as also the preceding one, refers to a case where the defamation is in regard to a heinous offence.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 150a).

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте