with the Commentary of Medhatithi 246 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 252 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 319), which adds the following notes: — ‘Sandhātā,’ one who ties up with a view to taking it away; — similarly ‘vimokṣakaḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘ca mokṣakaḥ’), is one who sets it free with the intention of taking it; — ‘caurakilviṣam,’ the penalty for theft, corporal or monetary; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 136) which explains the meaning to be that the punishment is to be meted out to (1) the person who tethers untethered cattle for the purpose of taking it away, or (2) one who untethers those that are tethered, for taking them away, or (3) one who deprives one of any one of the properties mentioned, — i.e. the share and the rest.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

See Texts under CCCXXV above.

VERSE 8.343

Section XLIV - Robbery (sāhasa)

अनेन विधिना राजा कुर्वाणः स्तेननिग्रहम् ।
यशोऽस्मिन् प्राप्नुयात्लोके प्रेत्य चानुत्तमं सुखम् ॥३४३॥

anena vidhinā rājā kurvāṇaḥ stenanigraham |
yaśo'smin prāpnuyātloke pretya cānuttamaṃ sukham ||343||

By punishing thieves in accordance with th is law, the king obtains fame in this world, and after death, unsurpassable bliss. — (343)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the manner described above, he who punishes thieves, obtains ‘fame’ — praise from all men, ‘in this world,’ as long as he lives; and ‘after death, unsurpassable bliss’ in the shape of Heaven.

This sums up the section. — (343)

VERSE 8.344 [Violence (hiṃsā)]

Section XLV - Violence (hiṃsā)

अइन्द्रं स्थानमभिप्रेप्सुर्यशश्चाक्षयमव्ययम् ।
नोपेक्षेत क्षणमपि राजा साहसिकं नरम् ॥३४४॥

aindraṃ sthānamabhiprepsuryaśaścākṣayamavyayam |
nopekṣeta kṣaṇamapi rājā sāhasikaṃ naram ||344||

The king who is desirous of indra’s eternal place, as also of imperishable fame, shall not ignore the desperado even for a moment. — (344)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the terra ‘sāhasikaḥ,’ ‘desperado,’ ‘desperation’ means violence; hence the ‘desperado’ is one who commits violence; i.e, the man who, not minding either the physical or spiritual effects of his acts, is prompted by the sheer spirit of violence, and openly engages himself in causing suffering to others by such acts as theft, hurt, adultery and so forth. This is what has been already referred to under 332.

This ‘violence’ is not anything different from theft and the rest; these same acts are called ‘violent crimes’ when they are done with a certain amount of daring. Such acts as setting fire, tearing clothes and the like, are also ‘acts of violence,’ since they involve the destruction of property.

The punishment of such a person the king ‘shall not ignore,’ — should not delay, — ‘even for a single moment,’ i.e., he should be punished the moment he is caught.

‘Indra’s place,’ — the place that belongs to Indra, i.e., Heaven; — ‘he who seeks to obtain’ that; or he who desires his own kingly position to be ‘aindra,’ like that of Indra, in point of stability.

If the king punishes those that deserve to be punished, — exercising both rigour and mercy — his people become attached to him, — ‘as the rivers to the ocean,’ as described above.

‘Imperishable and eternal fame’; — we have two qualifying epithets, because we have two nouns to qualify — ‘eternal place,’ and ‘imperishable fame.’ Or both the epithets may he taken as qualifying ‘fame’; — ‘perishing’ denoting lessening of quantity, and ‘non-eternality,’ absolute destruction. And both these qualities belong to the ‘fame’; it never wanes, and it never dies.

This is a valedictory description of things as they happen. — (344)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (18.30). — ‘When the King seated on the throne of judgment, full of majesty, deals out punishment, equitable towards all creatures, he is called Vaivasvata.’

Śukranīti (4.5.107). — ‘For cases of murder, thieving, robbery and felonies, there is no fixed time; these should he adjudicated at once.’

VERSE 8.345

Section XLV - Violence (hiṃsā)

वाग्दुष्टात् तस्कराच्चैव दण्डेनैव च हिंसतः ।
साहसस्य नरः कर्ता विज्ञेयः पापकृत्तमः ॥३४५॥

vāgduṣṭāt taskarāccaiva daṇḍenaiva ca hiṃsataḥ |
sāhasasya naraḥ kartā vijñeyaḥ pāpakṛttamaḥ ||345||

He who commits violence is to be regarded as the worst offender, as compared to one who is wicked of speech, to a thief and to one who hurts with a staff. — (310)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is another declamation eulogising the injunction of punishment.

‘Wicked of speech’; — he who offends with words.

‘Taskara’ is a thief.

‘With a staff’ — the ‘staff’ stands here for anything that hurts, any weapon.

In comparison to all these three kinds of offenders, dealt with in the three foregoing sections, the one going to be dealt with now is the worst. — (345)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.345-347)

Nārada (14-1 et seq.). — ‘Whatever act is performed by persons inflamed with strength is called Violence. Manslaughter, robbery, indecent assault on another man’s wife, the two kinds of assault are the four kinds of Violence. Destroying, reviling, disfiguring or otherwise injuring fruits, roots, water and the like, or agricultural implements............ The punishment to be inflicted for Violence shall be proportionate to the heaviness of the crime, but it shall not be less than a hundred.’

VERSE 8.346

Section XLV - Violence (hiṃsā)

साहसे वर्तमानं तु यो मर्षयति पार्थिवः ।
स विनाशं व्रजत्याशु विद्वेषं चाधिगच्छति ॥३४६॥

sāhase vartamānaṃ tu yo marṣayati pārthivaḥ |
sa vināśaṃ vrajatyāśu vidveṣaṃ cādhigacchati ||346||

The king who condones the perpetrator of violence quickly falls into destruction and incurs hatred. — (346)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This also is a declamation.

He who condones the man addicted to violence — the causal affix in ‘marṣayati’ having the reflexive force, it means ‘forgives,’ ‘bears with,’ — ‘quickly falls into destruction,’ and becomes hated among his people; and being thus hated, he comes to be assailed and overcome. — (346)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.345-347)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.345.

VERSE 8.347

Section XLV - Violence (hiṃsā)

न मित्रकारणाद् राजा विपुलाद् वा धनागमात् ।
समुत्सृजेत् साहसिकान् सर्वभूतभयावहान् ॥३४७॥

na mitrakāraṇād rājā vipulād vā dhanāgamāt |
samutsṛjet sāhasikān sarvabhūtabhayāvahān ||347||

Neither for the sake of friendship, nor for the sake of a large gain of money, should the king let off the perpetrators of violence, who cause terror to all living beings. — (347)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For the reasons explained above, it is added — on account of his own friendship with the criminal, — or at the request of the minister or some other officer — or with the idea that the criminal himself is giving him a large amount of money, — the king shall not condone him; since perpetrators of violence cause terror to all creatures.

This also is purely declamatory. — (317)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.345-347)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.345.

VERSE 8.348-349

Section XLV - Violence (hiṃsā)

शस्त्रं द्विजातिभिर्ग्राह्यं धर्मो यत्रोपरुध्यते ।
द्विजातीनां च वर्णानां विप्लवे कालकारिते ॥३४८॥

आत्मनश्च परित्राणे दक्षिणानां च सङ्गरे ।
स्त्रीविप्राभ्युपपत्तौ च घ्नन् धर्मेण न दुष्यति ॥३४९॥

śastraṃ dvijātibhirgrāhyaṃ dharmo yatroparudhyate |
dvijātīnāṃ ca varṇānāṃ viplave kālakārite ||348||

ātmanaśca paritrāṇe dakṣiṇānāṃ ca saṅgare |
strīviprābhyupapattau ca ghnan dharmeṇa na duṣyati ||349||

Twice-born persons shall carry arms: When religion is interfered with, when there is confusion among the twice-born castes caused by the exigencies of time, — (348) in his own defence, in cases of hindrance of sacrificial fees, in the case of outrages upon Brāhmaṇas and women, — if one strikes in the cause of right, he incurs no sin. — (319)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 8.348-349)

From what has been said above (in 4.36) regarding the carrying of ‘a bamboo-stick’ the carrying of weapon being permitted to a Vedic-scholar, it is just possible that when possessed of much physical strength, if he were to take up arms, he would be regarded as a desperado; hence for fear of his becoming a criminal, it would seem that the carrying of weapons is forbidden to him; it is in view of this idea that the present text sanctions the taking up or arms under certain circumstances — ‘Twice-born persons shall carry arms.’

This sentence ends here (as a general permission); the rest (of the two verses) is to be taken along with — ‘if one strikes in the cause of right, etc., etc.’ Thus there are two distinct sentences here.

Some people hold that arms are to be taken up only under the circumstances described hero (and hence they take the whole of the two verses as a single sentence). But according to this view, what would he the condition of the man who would be unexpectedly attacked by a desperado? Certainly desperados would not wait for him to take up arms.

Another interpretation possible is that — “when religion is interfered with, when there is confusion caused by exigencies of time, i.e., when things have become unsettled on the death of a king — one may take up arms; but at other tiroes the necessary protection would be afforded by the king himself.”

But in reality the king cannot spread out his hands and reach every individual person in the kingdom. There are some desperados who attack even the boldest, and the most trusted officers of the king; but they fear persons carrying arms.

For these reasons it is right that one should carry arms at all times.

The question arising — are arms to be carried only for the purpose of striking fear in the minds of people? — the answer is ‘no,’ — ‘if one strikes in the cause of right, he does not incur sin’; — i.e., what is permitted extends up to striking.

What Āpastamba (1.10.6) has declared — ‘The Brāhmaṇa shall not take up a weapon even for the purpose of testing it’ — prohibits the raising of weapons, when none of the mentioned occasions is present, and not the carrying of them; because weapons are unsheathed, when they are tested.

‘When religion is interfered with,’ — when the performance of sacrifices and other religious rites is obstructed by some men.

‘When there is confusion among the castes’ — absence of all restraint, admixture of castes, and so forth.

‘Caused by the exigencies of time,’ — such as the death of the king, and such other calamities. On all these occasions one shall carry arms fur the protection of his properly and family.

Others hold that on the occasions stated, arms may be carried for the sake of other people also; — says Gautama (21.19) — ‘Also when some one is striking a weaker man, if he is able to rescue him.’

Interference with religious rites, and confusion of castes having been already mentioned as occasions for taking up arms, the author proceeds to mention other occasions also — ‘In his own defence’ — i.e., for defending his own body, wife, children and property , — against all kinds of danger — this is what is signified by the preposition ‘pari’ in the term ‘paritrāṇe’; — ‘if one strikes, he incurs no sin.’

‘In cases of hindrance of sacrificial fees’ — when other people are taking away the sacrificial fee set up in connection with a performance, — then one must fight, on that account.

Others construe the phrase to mean ‘when there is a strife for sacrificial fees’; — i.e., if some trouble arises over them.

‘In the case of outrage upon’ — insult, ill-treatment of, — ‘women and Brāhmaṇas,’ — where modest women are being forcibly outraged, or killed; or where a Brāhmaṇa is being killed by some people, — ‘if one strikes’ with the sword or some such weapon, ‘he incurs no sin.’ That is, this involves no transgression of the prohibition of causing injury to others.

If there was no prohibition, one might do as he liked; but when we look at other injunctions and ponder over the declaration of Gautama — ‘One should take up arms when a weaker person is being struck, if he is able to rescue him,’ — we understand that one must strike, under the circumstances. But if one fears that he may be struck hack, then he might ignore (what is happening to others), in accordance with the maxim that ‘one should guard himself against all dangers.’ — (348-349).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 8.348-349)

These verses are quoted half and half in Aparārka (p. 1043).

They are quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 784), which adds the following notes : — ‘Kālakārite viplave’, ‘if there is interference with the sacred duties due either to the tendencies of the king or to the tendency of the times,’ — ‘tat paritrāṇe saṅgare’, ‘if fighting ensues for the safety of those’; — ‘abhyupapatti’ is ‘preservation’; — ‘dharmeṇa’, ‘not by dishonest weapons or by dishonest methods.’

The first half of verse 348 is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.286) in support of the view that, in certain cases — when, for instance, one finds the paramour with his wife, and there would be delay if he were to lodge a regular complaint before the king, — the man would be justified in taking up a weapon and killing the paramour. Bālambhaṭṭī explains the entire verse: — ‘(1) When arrogant persons prevent Brāhmaṇas from performing their sacred duties; (2) when, on the waning of royal authority due to foreign invasion, one has to take care of himself, (3) when one has to enter a fray for the preserving of cows &c., (4) or for the safety of women and Brāhmaṇas; — if one fights in a lawful manner, he incurs no sin.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.348-349)

Baudhāyana (2.4-15). — ‘They quote the following — “Out of regard for the sacred law, the Brāhmaṇa and the Vaiśya may take up arms for the protection of cows and Brāhmaṇas, or when a confusion of castes threatens to take place.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.24). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa and the Vaiśya may take up arms in self-defence and in order to prevent the confusion of castes.’

Gautama (7.25). — ‘If his life is threatened, even a Brāhmaṇa may use arms.’

VERSE 8.350

Section XLV - Violence (hiṃsā)

गुरुं वा बालवृद्धौ वा ब्राह्मणं वा बहुश्रुतम् ।
आततायिनमायान्तं हन्यादेवाविचारयन् ॥३५०॥

guruṃ vā bālavṛddhau vā brāhmaṇaṃ vā bahuśrutam |
ātatāyinamāyāntaṃ hanyādevāvicārayan ||350||

Without hesitation one should strike an approaching desperado, — be he a preceptor, a child, or an aged man, or a highly learned Brāhmaṇa. — (350)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author further points out that in one’s own defence a man should always fight.

That man is called a ‘desperado’ who is intent upon destroying one’s body, property, wife or children. Such a man one ‘should strike without hesitation.’

The mention of the ‘preceptor’ and the rest is purely by way of a commendatory declamation; the sense being — ‘when even such persons deserve to be struck, what of others?’ As a matter of fact, in the case of the persons named, there is to be no killing, even though they be desperados; since from what has been said under the text — ‘He shall never offend the teacher who explained the Veda, etc.’ (4.162) — it is clear that the striking of the preceptor is forbidden, even if he do harm.

It may be possible to construe the term ‘gurum’ with ‘ālatāyinam’; — hut in that case the two terms would mean ‘the great desperado’; so that the striking of desperados who are not ‘great’ would become precluded; — why? — because there is no other text (that would enjoin striking in their case).

“But there is the next verse — ‘there is no sin in killing a desperado,’ which permits the killing of all desperados in general.”

Not so; because we do not find any injunctive word in the next verse, which, on that account is best taken as a declamatory supplement to the previous injunction (contained in the present verse).

The revered teachers have declared as follows: — Though, in reality, the injunction contained in the text is that ‘one should strike the desperado,’ and all the rest is merely declamatory, — yet it has to be taken as sanctioning the striking of the preceptor and other persons mentioned. Because the mere ‘malefactor’ (who is mentioned in 4.162, as not to be offended) is something quite different from the ‘desperado’; — one who inflicts an ordinary injury, which does not involve any serious harm to the body, etc., is the ‘malefactor’; while the ‘desperado’ is something totally different; — being described in the following words. — ‘Ho who has lifted the sword, who is going to strike with poison or Are, who has raised his hands for the purpose of pronouncing a curse, who is going to kill by means of magic spells, who backbites against one to the king, who violates one’s wife, who is ever intent upon finding fault with one, — all these should be regarded as desperados?

Some people hold that — “from the use of the word ‘approaching’ in the text it would seem that the person who is rushing forward with uplifted sword, with a view to strike him, or one who is going to take away his wife, should be struck; — but when the injury has been done, he should ignore it.”

But this is not right; since in the next verse we find the phrase ‘openly or secretly,’ from which it is clear that the man who has done the harm, and he who is going to do it, both stand on the same footing. Hence the term ‘approaching’ must be taken as purely descriptive; whether he ‘approaches’ for doing harm, or after having done harm, — he is to be struck, because he is a ‘desperado; for the mere fact of his having done the act does not deprive him of the character of a ‘desperado.’ Further, the present text does not sanction the striking in one’s own defence only (in which case alone the above-mentioned meaning of the epithet would be applicable); since that has been already provided for in the foregoing verse. — (350)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to Kullūka the condition is that one must be unable to save one self by fight; — according to Nārāyaṇa one must not wound such a man excessively.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 784), which adds the following explanation: — ‘When even the Teacher and the rest, if they are assassins, may be slain — what to say of others;’ — which only means that there is nothing wrong in the slaying of assassins other than the Teacher and the rest; it is not meant that these latter are to be slain; because we have the general prohibition that ‘no Brāhmaṇa shall be killed.’

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 104); — in Aparārka (p. 627, and again at p. 1043); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī — (p. 1011); — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 59), which says that ‘eva’ has been added for the purpose of emphasis; — and in Nītimayūkha (p. 77).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.350-351)

Vaśiṣṭha (3.15-18). ‘They declare that the slayer commits no crime by slaying an assassin. They quote the following: — “An incendiary, a poisoner, one raising a weapon to strike, a robber, one who forcibly takes away land, abductor of another man’s wife, — these six are called Ātatāyin, Assassins. One may slay an assassin who comes with the intention of killing, even though he may be knowing the whole Veda along with the Upaniṣads; by that act one does not incur the guilt of Brāhmaṇa-slaughter. He who slays an assassin learned in the Veda and belonging to a noble family, does not incur, by that act, the guilt of murdering a learned Brāhmaṇa; as this is a case of fury recoiling on fury.”’

Baudhāyana (1-18.11-13). — ‘One should not fight with...... Brāhmaṇas, — excepting assassins. They quote the following — “He who slays an assassin, who is able to expound the Veda and born in a noble family, does not, by that act, incur the guilt of killing a learned Brāhmaṇa; this being a case of fury recoiling on fury.”’

Viṣṇu (5.189-192). — ‘Any man may unhesitatingly slay a man who attacks him with the intent to murder him, whether he be his spiritual teacher, young or old, or a Brāhmaṇa, or even a Brāhmaṇa versed in many branches of sacred knowledge. By killing an assassin who attempts to kill, whether in public or in private, no crime is committed by the slayer — fury recoils on fury. Assassins are of seven kinds — such as try to kill by the sword, or with poison, or with fire, such as raise their hand to pronounce a curse, such as recite a deadly incantation from the Atharva Veda, such as raise a false accusation reaching the ears of the King, and such as have illicit intercourse with another man’s wife. The same designation is given to other evil-doers who deprive others of their reputation or of their wealth, or who destroy religious merit by ruining pools and such things or property.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 1042). — ‘Or an assassin advancing to strike one, even though he be fully learned in the Veda, if one strikes him, one does not incur the sin of Brāhmaṇa-killing. The following are to be regarded as assassins: — one raising the sword to strike, one going to administer fire or poison, one raising his hand to curse, one killing with magic rites, one back-biting to the King, one wresting another man’s wife.’

Bṛhaspati (Do.). — ‘If one reviles on being reviled, or strikes on being struck, or kills one who is advancing to kill, one does not commit any offence.’

VERSE 8.351

Section XLV - Violence (hiṃsā)

नाततायिवधे दोषो हन्तुर्भवति कश्चन ।
प्रकाशं वाऽप्रकाशं वा मन्युस्तं मन्युमृच्छति ॥३५१॥

nātatāyivadhe doṣo hanturbhavati kaścana |
prakāśaṃ vā'prakāśaṃ vā manyustaṃ manyumṛcchati ||351||

No evil of any kind accrues to the slayer for killing a desperado, either openly or secretly; as it is only Fury recoiling upon Fury. — (361)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘No evil of any kind’ — i.e., no sin, no punishment, no expiatory rites.

‘Openly’ — in the presence of other people; — ‘secretly’ by administering poison, etc.; — i.e., by whatever means.

‘Fury’ — the deity of anger — ‘recoils upon Fury’; — so that there is no relation of ‘slayer’ and ‘slain’ between the two persons; since it is the desperado’s anger that is killed by the anger of the other person.

‘This is purely declamatory; being analogous to the following speech of the person who is seeking for gifts and says — ‘Who will give to me? I am not the receiver, nor you the giver; so that there would be nothing wrong in the acceptance of the gift.’

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров