with the Commentary of Medhatithi 251 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 257 из 350Следующая ⇒

If a Vaiśya approaches a protected Kṣatriya woman, or the Kṣatriya a Vaiśya woman, — both these deserve the same punishment as that in the case of an unprotected Brāhmaṇa woman. — (382)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said above (in 376) that in the case of approaching an unprotected Brāhmaṇa woman, the Vaiśya ‘should be committed with five hundred and the Kṣatriya with one thousand.’ So in the present case also the fine for the Vaisḥya would be five hundred.

The heavier punishment for the Kṣatriya is justified on the ground that being entrusted with the task of protecting the people, if he takes to offending against them, he incurs a great sin. — (382)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 393), which remarks that ‘daṇḍa’, ‘punishment,’ meant here is the ‘middle amercement’; — in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 106); — in Aparārka (p. 857), which remarks that the meaning is that in the case of the Vaiśya having intercourse with an unguarded Kṣatriya woman who is entirely corrupt, the fine is 500; while if the woman is guarded and chaste, then death-penalty; — if the woman belongs to the same cāste as himself, the penalty is the ‘highest amercement.’

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.286); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 319), to the effect that between the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, if one has recourse to the woman of the other caste, the penalty is a fine of 1,000 and 500 paṇas respectively; — and in Vīramitrodya (Vyavahāra 156a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.382-385)

[See Texts under 371, 372 and 374-378.]

VERSE 8.383

Section XLVI - Adultery

सहस्रं ब्राह्मणो दण्डं दाप्यो गुप्ते तु ते व्रजन् ।
शूद्रायां क्षत्रियविशोः साहस्रो वै भवेद् दमः ॥३८३॥

sahasraṃ brāhmaṇo daṇḍaṃ dāpyo gupte tu te vrajan |
śūdrāyāṃ kṣatriyaviśoḥ sāhasro vai bhaved damaḥ ||383||

The Brāhmaṇa having intercourse with the said two, when protected, should be made to pay a fine of one thousand; the fine for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya approaching a Śūdra woman, should be one thousand. — (383)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Brāhmaṇa approaching the protected Vaiśya or Kṣatriya Woman should be fined one thousand; and of course ‘banishment’ and ‘branding’ remain as the fixed forms of punishment (in all cases of adultery).

For approaching a Śūdra woman, the Kṣatriya and the ‘Vaiśya should be fined one hundred.

‘Sāhasra’ is the same as ‘Sahasra,’ the affix ‘aṇ’ having the reflexive-force. Or ‘Sāhasra’ may be explained as that which consists of a sahasra or thousand; the ‘aṇ’ affix having the force of the possessive. — (383)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 393); — in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 106), which remarks that this refers to the case of a chaste woman; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 317); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 155b), which explains ‘te’ as ‘Kṣatriya and Vaiśya’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.382-385)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.382.

VERSE 8.384

Section XLVI - Adultery

क्षत्रियायामगुप्तायां वैश्ये पञ्चशतं दमः ।
मूत्रेण मौण्ड्यमिच्छेत् तु क्षत्रियो दण्डमेव वा ॥३८४॥

kṣatriyāyāmaguptāyāṃ vaiśye pañcaśataṃ damaḥ |
mūtreṇa mauṇḍyamicchet tu kṣatriyo daṇḍameva vā ||384||

In the case of the Vaiśya approaching an unprotected Kṣatriya woman, the fine shall be five hundred; but the Kṣatriya may suffer tonsure or the fine. — (384)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For the Vaiśya there shall be a fine of five hundred, if he has intercourse with an unprotected Kṣatriya woman.

For the Kṣatriya also there shall be the same penalty; or he may suffer ‘tonsure’ — shaving of the head with ass’s urine.

The same punishment is applicable to both the Vaiśya and the Kṣatriya for having intercourse with an unprotected Vaiśya woman. — (384)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 396), which adds the following explanation: — If a Kṣatriya has recourse to an unguarded Kṣatriya woman, his head shall be wetted with urine and then shaved, or he may be fined, like the Vaiśya, 500 paṇas. It adds that Lakṣmīdhara has read ‘mauṇḍyameva’ for ‘daṇḍameva’; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 1008).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.382-385)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.382.

VERSE 8.385

Section XLVI - Adultery

अगुप्ते क्षत्रियावैश्ये शूद्रां वा ब्राह्मणो व्रजन् ।
शतानि पञ्च दण्ड्यः स्यात् सहस्रं त्वन्त्यजस्त्रियम् ॥३८५॥

agupte kṣatriyāvaiśye śūdrāṃ vā brāhmaṇo vrajan |
śatāni pañca daṇḍyaḥ syāt sahasraṃ tvantyajastriyam ||385||

The Brāhmaṇa, approaching an unprotected Vaiśya or Kṣatriya woman, should be fined five hundred, and one thousand for approaching a woman of the lowest order. — (385)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is the punishment for the Brāhmaṇa having intercourse with a Vaiśya or a Kṣatriya woman.

‘Of the lowest order’ — i.e., the Caṇḍāla, the Śvapaca and so forth. In their case the fine shall be one thousand.

The law relating to the fine of thousand ‘paṇas’ is briefly as follows: — For the Brāhmaṇa approaching a protected woman of any of the four castes, the fine shall be one thousand; and in addition to this for having intercourse with the wife of a Vedic scholar there shall be both banishment and branding, while in other oases there shall be banishment only. We presume this to be the case with the wife of a Vedio Scholar on the ground that the expiatory rite prescribed in connection with such intercourse is of a serious character.

For intercourse with an unprotected woman, there shall be a fine of five hundred in addition to banishment and branding.

Though the unprotected woman may he spoken of as ‘another man’s wife,’ on account of her having undergone the marriage-rites, yet, in reality, when she becomes loose in her character, she practically ceases to belong to her husband.

For the non-Brāhmaṇa, there is death-penalty if he approaches by force a protected woman: for approaching a willing woman, he shall be fined one thousand, and also banishment and branding; — as laid down under 376 above. — (385)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Antyajastriyam’ — ‘Chāṇḍāla woman’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘woman belonging to such castes as washermen, cobblers, actors, basket-makers, fishermen, Mādas and Bhillas’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 394), which adds the following notes: — ‘Kṣatriyavaiśye’ is the dual form in the Accusative; — ‘antyajastrī’, washerwoman and the like; — in view of what is said here the death-penalty laid down elsewhere for having recourse to the ‘antyaja’ woman should be understood as meant for men other than Brāhmaṇas; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 1008); — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 108), which explains ‘antyaja’ as ‘the washerwoman, the cobbler, and so forth.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.382-385)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.382.

VERSE 8.386 [Summing up of the Sections relating to Criminal Law]

Section XLVII - Summing up of the Sections relating to Criminal Law

यस्य स्तेनः पुरे नास्ति नान्यस्त्रीगो न दुष्टवाक् ।
न साहसिकदण्डघ्नो स राजा शक्रलोकभाक् ॥३८६॥

yasya stenaḥ pure nāsti nānyastrīgo na duṣṭavāk |
na sāhasikadaṇḍaghno sa rājā śakralokabhāk ||386||

That king in whose town there is no thief, no adulterer, no defamer, no criminal, no assaulter, — attains the regions of Indra. — (386)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That king in whoso ‘town’ — kingdom — there is no thief, reaches the ‘regions of Indra’ — heaven.

‘No adulterer’ — who has no intercourse with a married woman, or to one married a second time. The mention of the ‘woman’ indicates that the prohibition applies to the case of all such women as are not one’s own wife, and are not related to him.

‘Defamer’ — the man who commits the three kinds of defamation.

‘Criminal’ — already described above.

‘Assaulter’ — who commits physical violence.

‘Attains the regions of Indra’ — is to be construed with each of the phrases.

This verse constitutes a hortatory supplement to the injunctions regarding the punishing of thieves and others. — (386)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 408), which adds the following notes: — ‘Duṣṭavāk,’ defamer of people, — ‘daṇḍaghna,’ one who strikes people with a stick, i.e., an assaulter; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 264).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.386-387)

Viṣṇu (5.196). — ‘The King in whose dominion there exists neither thief, nor adulterer, nor calumniator, nor robber, nor murderer, attains the world of Indra.’

Cf. The Upaniṣad text, where a king is represented as saying — ‘In my realm there is no thief, no miser, no drunkard, none who is not tending the Fires, nor any illiterate person, no female libertine, — whence then can there be any male libertine.’

Yama (Vivādaratnākara, p. 408). — ‘Wicked persons, criminals, rogues, gamblers, oppressors, — that King in whose realm these persons are not found becomes entitled to the realm of India.’

Nārada (18.7-8). — ‘Whenever wicked acts, opposed to the dictates of the sacred law, have been committed, the King, after having reflected upon the matter, shall himself inflict punishment upon those who deserve it. What is opposed to revealed and traditional law, or injurious to living beings, must not be practised by the King; wherever it is practised, he must check it.’

VERSE 8.387

Section XLVII - Summing up of the Sections relating to Criminal Law

एतेषां निग्रहो राज्ञः पञ्चानां विषये स्वके ।
सांराज्यकृत् सजात्येषु लोके चैव यशस्करः ?? ॥३८७॥

eteṣāṃ nigraho rājñaḥ pañcānāṃ viṣaye svake |
sāṃrājyakṛt sajātyeṣu loke caiva yaśaskaraḥ ?? ||387||

The suppression of these five in his own dominions secures to the king paramount sovereignty among his peers and fame in the world. — (387)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Paramount sovereignty,’ — lordship over others, independence.

‘Among his peers.’ — the term ‘peers’ stands for such kings as are his rivals. The king in question rises to lordship over all those; i.e., they become subservient to him and obey bis wishes.

‘Fame in the world’ — also is brought about.

In both cases it is the ‘suppression’ that brings about the said result.

The meaning is that people continue to eulogise the king, even though they say that ‘he is a very cruel chastiser of the people.’ — (387)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 408), which explains ‘sajāteṣu’ as ‘among persons of the same class with himself’; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 264).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.386-387)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.386.

VERSE 8.388 [Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours]

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

ऋत्विजं यस्त्यजेद् याज्यो याज्यं चर्त्विक् त्यजेद् यदि ।
शक्तं कर्मण्यदुष्टं च तयोर्दण्डः शतं शतम् ॥३८८॥

ṛtvijaṃ yastyajed yājyo yājyaṃ cartvik tyajed yadi |
śaktaṃ karmaṇyaduṣṭaṃ ca tayordaṇḍaḥ śataṃ śatam ||388||

If a sacrificer forsakes an officiating priest, and if an officiating priest forsakes a sacrificer, — each being capable of doing the work and free from disqualifications, — their punishment is one hundred each — (388).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Officiating priest’ — a person who performs the several acts in connection with ‘sacrificial performances’; e.g., the Ṛtvik, the Hotṛ, the Udgātṛ and so forth.

Though the name ‘officiating priest’ becomes applicable to the man only after his appointment, and continues so till the completion of the rites, yet the law that is laid down here pertains to the forsaking done before the actual appointment, and not to that during the performance of the rites that have commenced. And the titles are applied on the ground of past events; that is to say, it is only one who has had previous experience; as a priest who has the chance of being chosen again. In fact the title is applied, not only on the basis of previous experience, but also upon hereditary qualifications; as says Nārada — ‘the man employed previously is self-chosen’; and further, this applies not only to the experience of a single generation, but to the family-traditions of several generations; as has been described in detail in the Mahābhārata in the sections dealing with Saṃvarta and Marutta.

The upshot thus is that those persons should be chosen as officiating priests who belong to the same family members whereof have been chosen in the past by the forefathers of the selector.

This same is applicable to the case of the ‘sacrifices’ also; the priests also should hare recourse to the same sacrifices with whose forefathers their forefathers may hare had dealings in the past.

‘Officiating priest’ — the man who has performed the priestly duties, or one who belongs to the family of such a person.

If a man going to perform a sacrifice does not appoint such a priest, but ask some one else.

‘Capable of doing the work’ — of sacrificing; i.e., conversant with the entire procedure.

‘Free from disqualifications’ — i.e., not haring any such defect as a defective limb, or being accused of a serious crime and so forth.

If such a qualified priest, on being requested to officiate, refuses to do so, and does not accept the priesthood offered; — when the sacrificer is free from the said disqualifications and is fully learned.

In the case of both these forsakings, there shall be a fine of one hundred. If the priest forsakes the sacrificer he should be made to pay a hundred, and so also the sacrifices if he forsakes the priest.

This rule is applicable, not only to the case of the sacrificer and the officiating priest, but also to that of the Preceptor and the Pupil. As says Gautama (21.12-13) — ‘The Priest and the Preceptor are to be forsaken only if they are deficient in learning, or happen to serve an outcast; by forsaking them otherwise one becomes an outcast.’

Some people hold that this law is applicable also to the case of the giver and the recipient. — (388)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 122), which adds that whether the fine is to be 200 or 100 is to be determined by the offence being intentional or unintentional, and also by the richness or poverty of the offender.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 837), which adds that this rule applies to such priests as are hereditary, or have been appointed by the man himself; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (91a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 120a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

[See the Text under 206, et seq.]

VERSE 8.389

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

न माता न पिता न स्त्री न पुत्रस्त्यागमर्हति ।
त्यजन्नपतितानेतान् राज्ञा दण्ड्यः शतानि षट् ॥३८९॥

na mātā na pitā na strī na putrastyāgamarhati |
tyajannapatitānetān rājñā daṇḍyaḥ śatāni ṣaṭ ||389||

Neither the mother, nor the father, nor the wife, nor the son deserve to be forsaken; he who forsakes these, unless they are outcasts, should be fined six hundred by the king. — (389)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The mother does not deserve to be forsaken, — should net be cast off. ‘Forsaking’ consists in turning her out of the house, if she has failed in her maternal duties; i.e., if she fails to do what she ought to do in return for what she receives at the bands of her son.

The same explanation applies to the case of the father and the rest also.

The term ‘strī’ (woman) stands for the wife, as is clear from the fact that the text mentions only relatives.

These should not be forsaken, unless they are outcasts. As regards the mother, Śātātapa has declared that ‘to the son the mother never becomes an outcast.’

The ‘forsaking’ of the outcast, wife consists in giving up all intercourse with her and in forbidding her to do household work; but the giving of food and clothing is not forbidden; as it is declared that — ‘food and clothing should be given to even outcast wives, and these should live near the house.’ — (389)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 357), which notes that ‘tyāga,’ ‘abandonment,’ here means ‘not according such treatment to them as has been prescribed in the scriptures’; — and that ‘strī’ here stands for the wife.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 823), which remarks that this rule refers to the abandoning of all the four collectively; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 154).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.163). — ‘A husband forsaking a blameless wife shall be punished as a thief.’

Yājñavalkya (2.237). — ‘Between father and son, brother and sister, husband and wife, teacher and disciple, — if one forsakes the other, unless he or she has become an outcast, he shall be fined one hundred.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka, p. 823). — ‘The father and the mother should never be forsaken; indeed no Sapiṇḍas possessing good qualities should be forsaken; if one forsakes these arbitrarily, unless they have become outcasts, he should he fined 200. Nor should one misbehave towards the father, mother, or teacher; one who misbehaves towards them shall have his limb cut off.’

VERSE 8.390

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

आश्रमेषु द्विजातीनां कार्ये विवदतां मिथः ।
न विब्रूयान्नृपो धर्मं चिकीर्षन् हितमात्मनः ॥३९०॥

āśrameṣu dvijātīnāṃ kārye vivadatāṃ mithaḥ |
na vibrūyānnṛpo dharmaṃ cikīrṣan hitamātmanaḥ ||390||

For twice-born men disputing among themselves regarding any point relating to the orders, the king, desirous of his own welfare, shall not determine the law. — (390)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In regard to the ‘duties’ of the various orders of the Hermit dwelling in the forests, several disputes arise as to this and not that being the sense of the scriptures.

When these men happen to dispute among themselves, the king shall not, in a hurry, lay down the law; i.e., he should not, in the exercise of his sovereign power, determine what the law on the point is. What he should do and how is going to be explained later on.

By acting in this manner, the king accomplishes his own welfare; i.e., he does not relinquish the injunctions of the scriptures.

In the case of householders, even though they also belong to an ‘order,’ — yet, the method of laying down the law should be the same as laid down before (and not as declared in the present text, which pertains to the Hermit and the Recluse only).

‘Points’ — i.e., doubtful questions regarding the duties; that this refers to this particular matter of duties is indicated by the mention of the ‘orders.’ — (390)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Āśrameṣu’ — ‘The hermitages of Vānaprasthas and other hermits living in the forest’ (Medhātithi); — ‘the Householder’s and other life-stages’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 4); — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 10a), which explains ‘āśrameṣu kārye’ as ‘business arising out of the life-stages’; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (10a), which explains ‘āśrameṣu’ as ‘in the matter of the life-stages’, — and ‘na vibrūyāt,’ as ‘should not apportion victory and defeat.’

VERSE 8.391

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

यथार्हमेतानभ्यर्च्य ब्राह्मणैः सह पार्थिवः ।
सान्त्वेन प्रशमय्यादौ स्वधर्मं प्रतिपादयेत् ॥३९१॥

yathārhametānabhyarcya brāhmaṇaiḥ saha pārthivaḥ |
sāntvena praśamayyādau svadharmaṃ pratipādayet ||391||

Having, with the assistance of Brāhmaṇas, received them with due honour, the king shall, at first, pacify them with soothing words, and then explain to them their duty. — (391)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What the king should do under the circumstances is now explained.

Having received each of the men with such honour as he deserves, by reason of his qualifications, — he should, ‘with the assiatance of Brāhmaṇas’ — his ministers and priests, — this ‘assistance’ being rendered in the reception, or in the explaining of duties. It is only in the latter that the true character of the Brāhmaṇa becomes revealed.

With the assistance of these Brāhmaṇas, he shall explain to them their duty.

The assistance of the Brāhmaṇas having been insisted upon, the declaration that the king shall explain the duties is meant to indicate the predominance of the king, who is to associate the Brāhmaṇas with himself. And this predominance is due to the fact that kings never lose their temper.

The king should explain the duties to them after having at first ‘pacified them’ — i.e., having soothed their temper — ‘with soothing words’ — affectionate and complimentary words. — (391)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (10a), which explains ‘sāntvena praśamayya’ as ‘having allayed all anger and ill-feeling by means of conciliatory words; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 10a).

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры