with the Commentary of Medhatithi 254 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 260 из 350Следующая ⇒

एष नौयायिनामुक्तो व्यवहारस्य निर्णयः ।
दाशापराधतस्तोये दैविके नास्ति निग्रहः ॥४०९॥

eṣa nauyāyināmukto vyavahārasya nirṇayaḥ |
dāśāparādhatastoye daivike nāsti nigrahaḥ ||409||

This law has been laid down in connection with suits by boat-passengers relating to the negligence of boatmen in water; there is no punishment in the case of accidents due to heaven. — (409)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Boat-passengers’ — persons habituated to going about a boats.

It is with regard to these that this law has been laid down, that ‘if anything should be damaged by the fault of the boatmen, it shall be made good by them.’

‘In the case of accidents due to heaven’ — i.e., when the boat breaks as the result of an accident due to storm or such causes, and commodities happen to be damaged, — no punishment is to be inflicted upon the boatmen.

This same law applies to the carriers of goods on land also. If the carrier walks along with due care, supporting himself by a staff, and has duly tied up the bundles, if he happens to tumble down on the road which has suddenly been rendered slippery by rain, and the goods he is carrying become damaged in consequence, — whose fault could it be held to be? — (409)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 641).

VERSE 8.410

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

वाणिज्यं कारयेद् वैश्यं कुसीदं कृषिमेव च ।
पशूनां रक्षणं चैव दास्यं शूद्रं द्विजन्मनाम् ॥४१०॥

vāṇijyaṃ kārayed vaiśyaṃ kusīdaṃ kṛṣimeva ca |
paśūnāṃ rakṣaṇaṃ caiva dāsyaṃ śūdraṃ dvijanmanām ||410||

He shall make the Vaiśya to carry on trade, money-lending, agriculture, — and cattle-trading; and the Śūdra to perform service for the twice-born castes. — (410)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some people explain this text as follows: — “The Vaiśya and Śūdra should he made to do the work here mentioned, even though they be unwilling to do so; since such is their duty. Even though the law is laid down for a visible purpose, yet from the very nature of the restrictive injunction, it has to be regarded as indicating a transcendental result also. Such being the sense of the text, it comes to this that the Brāhmaṇa also should he forced to accept gifts. If it be held that such acceptance has heen held, in certain cases, to be improper, then the same may be said regarding the case in question also.”

This however is not right. What the injunction contained in the verse does is to lay down the methods to be adopted by certain men if they are desirous of acquiring wealth; and it does not mean that they must act as here laid down. man’s activity is not always determined by injunctions; i.e., there is no need for an injunction in a case where there is some motive already present. It is only in the restriction that lies the use of the injunction; and the restriction in the present case is that it is the Vaiśya only who should be made to carry on trade; so that if any other man do that work, except in times of distress, he should be punished by the king. Similarly it is the Brāhmaṇa only who should accept gifts; but if he happens to be contented, he may desist from receiving gifts, though quite capable of receiving them. As regards the statement in verse 412 below, that is purely declamatory. Similarly it is the Śūdra only who should be made to perform service; and so on, the sense of the restriction may easily he explained — (410)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 625).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.410-418)

Nārada (18.4-6). — ‘Sinful confusion of castes, the rules regarding their means of subsistence and other subjects have been dealt with in the Miscellaneous Chapter. The King shall he careful to protect all orders and the constituent elements of his state with the four means indicated by science. When any caste remains behind the rest, or exceeds the limits assigned to it, the King, seeing that it has strayed from its path, shall bring it back to the path of duty.’

Gautama (8.1-3). — ‘A king and a deeply read Brāhmaṇa are the upholders of moral order in the world; on them

depends the existence of the fourfold human race, of conscious beings, of those that move on feet and on wings, and of those which creep — as well as the protection of the offspring, the prevention of the confusion of castes and the sacred law.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.39-41). — ‘The three lower castes shall live under the guidance of the Brāhmaṇa; — he shall declare their duties; — and the King shall govern them accordingly.’

Hārīta (Vivādaratnākara, p. 626). — ‘The King is the ruler of men, in regard to favours and punishments; he keeps in check people prone to transgress the bounds of propriety and to misappropriate the property and wives of others.’

Kātyāyana (Do., 152). — ‘The three lower castes may take to slavery, but never the Brāhmaṇa. Among the various castes, the lower can be a slave to the higher, but never the higher to the lower. Among, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śūdras there may be slavery among members of the same caste, but a Brāhmaṇa should never be made to work as a slave. If a Brāhmaṇa is made to work as a slave, the King’s glory fades away.’

Nārada (Do., pp. 144-145). — ‘These first four kinds of slaves are never freed from slavery, except through the masters’ favour. Of slaves, there are fifteen varieties — (1) one born in the masters’ house, (2) bought, (3) obtained as present, (4) inherited, (5) saved from starvation during a famine, (6) one kept in pledge, (7) acquired by freeing him from debt, (8) won in battle, (9) won by betting, (10) one who has surrendered himself, (11) one fallen from renunciation, (12) one who has become a slave for a limited period, (13) slave for fooding, (14) one who has accepted slavery through his love for a slave-girl, and (15) one who has sold himself.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 80). — ‘If one puts up for sale a Śūdra who is a minor or who is the very life of an Ārya, one shall be fined 12 Paṇas; one who puts up a Vaiśya, 24 Paṇas; a Kṣatriya, 36 Paṇas; a Brāhmaṇa, 48 Paṇas. This applies to cases where the boy is put up by his own relatives. If it is done by strangers, the penalty shall be the three kinds of Death; also for the buyers and those who witness the transaction. For the Mlecchas there is no offence, if they sell or pledge their offspring; but an Ārya can never be a slave.’

Śukranīti (4.5.579). — ‘The wife, the son and the slave, — these three have no property; whatever they earn is the property of those to whom they belong.’

VERSE 8.411

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

क्षत्रियं चैव वैश्यं च ब्राह्मणो वृत्तिकर्शितौ ।
बिभृयादानृशंस्येन स्वानि कर्माणि कारयेत् ॥४११॥

kṣatriyaṃ caiva vaiśyaṃ ca brāhmaṇo vṛttikarśitau |
bibhṛyādānṛśaṃsyena svāni karmāṇi kārayet ||411||

A Brāhmaṇa shall, through compassion, support a Vaiśya and a Kṣatriya, who are distressed for a livelihood, and should make them do his own work. — (411)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Brāhmaṇa shall support them, if they are ‘distressed for a livelihood,’ by giving them food and other things; i.e., he shall support the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya.

‘Through compassion’ — through pity.

‘Should make them do his own work.’ — The Brāhmaṇa’s ‘own work’ consists in the fetching of fuel, water and such things.

Or, the meaning may be that he should make them perform such duties as are the Kṣatriya’s and the Vaiśya’s own. That is, the Kṣatriya should be employed in guarding the village and so forth, and the Vaiśya in cultivating the land, tending the cattle and so on.

This law relates to the Brāhmaṇa who is possessed of much wealth and property and is, as such, capable of supporting others.

‘Own work;’ — the phrase implies that he should not employ them in personal attendance, or in any such meat, work as the washing of unclean things and the like. — (411)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 253), which explains ‘svāni karmāṇi’ as ‘duties prescribed for their respective castes’; — in Aparārka (p. 789); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 126a), which says that the meaning is that ‘if a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya has become a slave through want of living, his master should treat him well and take light work from him.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.410-418)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.410.

VERSE 8.412

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

दास्यं तु कारयन्लोभाद् ब्राह्मणः संस्कृतान् द्विजान् ।
अनिच्छतः प्राभवत्याद् राज्ञा दण्ड्यः शतानि षट् ॥४१२॥

dāsyaṃ tu kārayanlobhād brāhmaṇaḥ saṃskṛtān dvijān |
anicchataḥ prābhavatyād rājñā daṇḍyaḥ śatāni ṣaṭ ||412||

If the Brāhmaṇa, through the sense of mastery, and out of greed, makes sanctified twice-born persons do fertile work, against their will, — he should be fined by the king six hundred. — (412)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Sanctified’ — those for whom the initiatory rite has been performed. Though this is already implied by the term ‘twice-born’ itself, yet the additional qualification has been added in order to guard against this latter word being taken in the sense of all the three castes promiscuously. The sense of the text is that if a Brāhmaṇa makes fellow caste-men perform such ‘servile work’ as the washing of feet, the removing of offal, sweeping and so forth, — ‘against their will’; — because he is their master, — i.e., possessed of the rights of the master over them, — ‘he should be fined six hundred,’ — if he does it ‘through greed.’ If he does it through hatred and such other motives, the fine shall be heavier.

The form ‘prābhavatya’ is an abstract noun formed from the present participial term ‘prabhavan.’ And since the text speaks of ‘mastery,’ which implies the idea of master and servant, there would be nothing wrong in the preceptor’s menial work being done by the pupil.

‘Against their will’ — this shows that if they are willing, the fine shall be very small. — (412)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 153), which has the following notes: — ‘Prabhāvatvāt’ (which is its reading for ‘Prābhavatyāt’), on account of being powerful, — ‘saṃskṛtān,’ endowed with character and learning if a Brāhmaṇa employs such twice-born men in work unsuitable for them he should be fined 600 by the king.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 789), which explains ‘prābhavatya,’ as ‘prabhavato bhāvaḥ,’ being powerful; — 600 paṇas are meant; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 126a), which explains ‘prābhavatyāt’ as ‘prabhutvāt’, and adds that the mention of ‘dvijāti’ makes it clear that the penalty here prescribed does not refer to the case of Śūdra -slaves.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.410-418)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.410.

VERSE 8.413

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

शूद्रं तु कारयेद् दास्यं क्रीतमक्रीतमेव वा ।
दास्यायैव हि सृष्टोऽसौ ब्राह्मणस्य स्वयम्भुवा ॥४१३॥

śūdraṃ tu kārayed dāsyaṃ krītamakrītameva vā |
dāsyāyaiva hi sṛṣṭo'sau brāhmaṇasya svayambhuvā ||413||

But a Śūdra, whether bought or unbought, he shall make to do servile work; since it is for doing servile work for the Brāhmaṇa that he has been created by the self-born one. — (413)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Bought or unbought’ — i.e., engaged on fooding.

This is a reference to the law going to be laid down below (under 415).

‘It is for doing servile work, etc.’ — this is purely declamatory. — (413)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 154), which explains the meaning to be that a Śūdra may be made to do even the meanest service.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.410-418)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.410.

VERSE 8.414

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

न स्वामिना निसृष्टोऽपि शूद्रो दास्याद् विमुच्यते ।
निसर्गजं हि तत् तस्य कस्तस्मात् तदपोहति ॥४१४॥

na svāminā nisṛṣṭo'pi śūdro dāsyād vimucyate |
nisargajaṃ hi tat tasya kastasmāt tadapohati ||414||

Even though set free by the master, the Śūdra is not released from service; since that is innate in him, and who can release him from it? — (414)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even though ‘set free’ by the master to whom he belongs, by the seven modes of slavery, — i.e., even though emancipated by him.

Service is ‘innate in him,’ — is in the very nature of his caste.

Who can therefore release the Śūdra from servitude? Just as the Śūdra-caste cannot be removed from him, so also servitude.

This is purely declamatory; since it is going to be declared later on that under special circumstances, the Śūdra does become released from servitude. — (414)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 146), which adds the following: — Even through the favour of the owner of the Śūdra-slave, there is no freedom for the latter from the lowest service or slavery.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 786); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (97a), which explains the meaning as that howsoever favourably inclined he may be towards either the borne Śūdra or to the bought slave, cannot absolve him from servitude.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.410-418)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.410.

VERSE 8.415

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

ध्वजाहृतो भक्तदासो गृहजः क्रीतदत्त्रिमौ ।
पैत्रिको दण्डदासश्च सप्तैते दासयोनयः ॥४१५॥

dhvajāhṛto bhaktadāso gṛhajaḥ krītadattrimau |
paitriko daṇḍadāsaśca saptaite dāsayonayaḥ ||415||

There are seven kinds of slaves — (1) captured under a banner, (2) slave on food, (3) born in the house, (4) bought, (5) presented, (6) hereditary, and (7) slave by punishment. — (415)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘Dhvajā’ ‘banner’ stands for the chariot;

hence ‘Dhvajinī’ means the army; ho who is captured ‘under the banner’ is the captive of war, who is made a slave.

“What is stated here, — does it refer to the Kṣatriya, — the meaning being that the Kṣatriya made captive in war becomes a slave?”

Not so, we reply; since it is the Śūdra that forms the subject-matter of the context; as is clear from the preceding statement — ‘it is for the purpose of servitude that he has been created.’ What the text refers to is the case where the owner of the slave having been defeated in battle, the slave is brought over and enslaved by the captor.

“as a matter of fact, servitude has been declared to be for all Śūdras — when for instance it was asserted that servitude is ‘innate in him.’”

It is not so; for in that case there would be a great confusion; as it would not be ascertained to whom a certain slave belongs; since all the three higher castes would be their masters, to be served by them. Hence there would be no restriction. Then again, all that has been asserted before (regarding servitude being ‘innate’ in the Śūdra and all that) is not of the nature of an injunction. Further, there is the declaration that ‘among the castes each of the following shall serve the preceding’ (Gautama, 10.66), — by which the Kṣatriya and the Vaiṣhya also would have to be regarded as slaves.

All this however is not right. ‘Serving’ is one thing and ‘slavery’ is another. Slavery consists in doing servile work, and in not objecting to going anywhere he may be sent to; while ‘service’ may consist in shampooing the body, guarding the family or property and so forth. All this has been dealt with in detail by Nārada.

‘Slave on food’ — he who has accepted slavery for obtaining food.

‘Born in the house’ — i.e., born of a slave-girl.

‘Bought’ — from the former master, for a price.

‘Presented’ — given to one, either through love, or for the purpose of acquiring spiritual merit.

‘Hereditary’ — who has belonged to the family through a line of ancestors.

“What is the difference between this last and the slave born in the house?”

The latter is one born of a slave-girl that may have been acquired by the master himself, while the other is hereditary.

‘Enslaved for punishment’ — one who, being incapable of paying the king’s fines, is made a slave.

In fact, according to some people, such slaves are possible for the other castes also, in view of what has been said regarding the propriety of repaying a debt even by manual labour.

But this is not right; as ‘slavery’ is one thing and ‘doing manual work’ is something totally different. Nor is the case cited a case of ‘punishment,’ whereby it could be included under the present head. Then again, when it is said that debts may be repaid ‘by manual work also,’ it does not necessarily mean ‘slavery,’ though this also may be one kind of ‘work.’

“When the Śūdra works as a slave entirely through considerations of his duty, why should there be only seven kinds of slaves?”

There is no force in this objection. Because in his case ‘slavery’ is not innate in him; it is purely voluntary wish him; he having recourse to it only with a view to acquiring merit. And further, such a slave cannot be given away or pledged; — as the bought and house-born slaves can. In fact the Śūdra in question is guided by what has been declared (under 10.128) regarding the Śūdra ‘imitating the behaviour of the virtuous, etc., etc.’; and by this it is clearly implied that slavery is not inherent in him; he takes to it only with a view to a definite result. Hence there is real ‘slavery’ only when it is involuntary. So that if a Śūdra has property of his own and lives upon it, not supporting himself by depending upon the Brāhmaṇa and others, he does nothing wrong. — (415)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 8.49, 177 and 9.229.

‘Dhvajāhṛtaḥ’ — ‘Captured in war’ (Medhātithi); — ‘who has become a slave by marrying a slave-girl’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Daṇḍadāsaḥ’ — ‘Enslaved for debt’ (Medhātithi); — ‘enslaved for having abandoned a religious order’. (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 789), which explains ‘daṇḍadāsa’ as ‘one who has been enslaved in payment of fine imposed,’ and adds that the list here given is not meant to be exhaustive.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.181), which remarks that the list is not exhaustive; and Bālambhaṭṭī explains ‘dhvajadāsa’ as ‘a captive of war,’ — ‘daṇḍadāsa’ as ‘one who has abandoned a religious order and has not performed the consequent expiatory rite, and has thereupon, by way of punishment, been made by the king a life-long slave.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 240), which also notes that the list is not exhaustive.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.410-418)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.410.

VERSE 8.416

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

भार्या पुत्रश्च दासश्च त्रय एवाधनाः स्मृताः ।
यत् ते समधिगच्छन्ति यस्य ते तस्य तद् धनम् ॥४१६॥

bhāryā putraśca dāsaśca traya evādhanāḥ smṛtāḥ |
yat te samadhigacchanti yasya te tasya tad dhanam ||416||

The wive, the son and the slave, — these three are declared to have no property; whatever they acquire is the property of him to whom they belong. — (416)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

These three are without property, even though they may acquire property. Property can belong to one who has possession; while whatever property the said persons acquire is in the possession of him to whom they themselves belong; so that the property of the wife belongs to the husband, that of the son to the father and that of the slave to the master.

“If these persons have no property, how can they be entitled to the performance of any rites? So that it would not be right to assert that — ‘if two sons should have kindled the consecrated fire, they should offer the oblations to those for whom the father offers them.’ Then again, it is necessary for the husband and wife to perform religious rites jointly, the husband being exhorted not to ignore the wife in matters relating to religious acts, pleasure and wealth? If however the wife has no property, what would be her ignoring in regard to wealth? Further, the Śūdra also has got to make certain offerings of cooked food; and this also would be incompatible with the fact of his having no property. There would be no such incompatibility if the injunction regarding these offerings were taken as referring to such Śūdras as are free (and hence possess property). But as a matter of fact, slaves also have proprietary rights over their property, whioh is, on that account, called their own property. For these reasons it is wrong to say that ‘what they acquire is the property of him to whom they belong.’ This is exactly like the assertion ‘she whose son I am is not my mother.’ Further, if women had no proprietary right, there would be no sense in such śruti-declarations as — ‘the wife should obey,’ ‘the wife should follow in the footsteps of her marrier’ and so forth.”

Our answer to the above is, as follows: — What is meant by the text is only that they are dependent, subservient; the meaning being that ‘without the husband’s sanction, the wife should not employ her wealth anywhere she may choose.’ Similarly with the son and the slave.

Others however hold that the ‘wife’ and the ‘son’ have been mentioned only by way of illustrating the status of the slave; and the latter is mentioned for the purpose of declaring, in reference to him alone, what follows in the next verse, which means that in times of distress the master should feel no hesitation in taking what belongs to the slave; as in reality it is the master’s own property. — (416)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 572).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.410-418)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.410.

VERSE 8.417

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

विस्रब्धं ब्राह्मणः शूद्राद् द्रव्योपादानमाचरेत् ।
न हि तस्यास्ति किं चित् स्वं भर्तृहार्यधनो हि सः ॥४१७॥

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте