with the Commentary of Medhatithi 255 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 261 из 350Следующая ⇒

visrabdhaṃ brāhmaṇaḥ śūdrād dravyopādānamācaret |
na hi tasyāsti kiṃ cit svaṃ bhartṛhāryadhano hi saḥ ||417||

The Brāhmaṇa may confidently have recourse to seizing the goods of the Śūdra; as the latter has no property, and his property is meant to be seized by the master. — (417)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In this connection some people assert that what is stated hero is in reference to the Śūdra who has volunteered, through religious motives, to be a slave.

This however is not right; as there is nothing to show that it refers to any particular case. Hence what is meant is that the Brāhmaṇa may take the wealth of the Śūdra who is the slave of all.

‘Confidently’ — without hesitation. He should never have any such doubt as to how he can seize the Śūdra’s goods, such seizing being forbidden. Since there is no property that really belongs to the Śūdra. Specially because in such cases the master is not deprived of his possession; since the Śūdra acquires property only for the purpose that his master may make use of it. Hence the Brāhmaṇa should seize the goods ‘confidently.’ Even where it is presented by the Śūdra, he should use it as if it had been in his own house.

It is only when there is actual need that this can be right. Hence it is only when the Brāhmaṇa has no property of his own that he incurs no sin by seizing the goods of his Śūdra-slave. — (417)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.410-418)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.410.

VERSE 8.418

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

वैश्यशूद्रौ प्रयत्नेन स्वानि कर्माणि कारयेत् ।
तौ हि च्युतौ स्वकर्मभ्यः क्षोभयेतामिदं जगत् ॥४१८॥

vaiśyaśūdrau prayatnena svāni karmāṇi kārayet |
tau hi cyutau svakarmabhyaḥ kṣobhayetāmidaṃ jagat ||418||

The king shall make the Vaiśya and the Shudra carefully to perform their duties; for by swerving from their duties they would disturb this world. — (418)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

By neglecting their own duties they would ‘disturb’ — throw into confusion — ‘this world.’ Hence the king should carefully see to it that they do not swerve from their duties. Even Vaiśyas should be punished, with a heavy fine, even on a slight transgression. Though there is to be no imprisonment for him, yet money-penalties are quite possible. — (418)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

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

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.410-418)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.410.

VERSE 8.419

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

अहन्यहन्यवेक्षेत कर्मान्तान् वाहनानि च ।
आयव्ययौ च नियतावाकरान् कोशमेव च ॥४१९॥

ahanyahanyavekṣeta karmāntān vāhanāni ca |
āyavyayau ca niyatāvākarān kośameva ca ||419||

Day after day he shall look after his business-centres, his conveyances, his income and expenditure regularly, and mines and treasury. — (419)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse shows the purpose of indicating all the duties of the king.

‘Business-centres’ — agricultural stations, customs-house and so forth.

‘Conveyances’ — elephants and the rest.

‘Income and expenditure’ — so much has come in, and so much has been spent. This should be looked into ‘regularly,’ constantly.

‘Mines’ — places whence gold and other minerals are brought out.

‘Treasure’ — the place where money is deposited. — (419)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Karmāntān’ — ‘Completion of his undertakings’ (Kullūka); — ‘the works, such as agriculture and the rest’; (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nandana); — ‘workshops’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 155).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇudharmottara (Vīramitrodaya-Rājanīti, p. 154). — ‘Towards the end of the night the King shall listen to an account of his income and expenditure.’

Yājñavalkya (1.325). — ‘After having made arrangements for safety, he shall himself examine his income and expenditure.’

VERSE 8.420

Section XLVIII - Laws relating to Civic Misdemeanours

एवं सर्वानिमान् राजा व्यवहारान् समापयन् ।
व्यपोह्य किल्बिषं सर्वं प्राप्नोति परमां गतिम् ॥४२०॥

evaṃ sarvānimān rājā vyavahārān samāpayan |
vyapohya kilbiṣaṃ sarvaṃ prāpnoti paramāṃ gatim ||420||

The king who completes all this business, removes all sin and attains the highest state. — (420)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the aforesaid manner the king who completes all the ‘business’ relating to the Nonpayment of debts and the rest, — i.e., carries them to their end, — removes all kinds of sin, and attains ‘the highest state’ secured by him, in the shape of Heaven and Liberation. — (420)

Thus ends the Bhāṣya on Discourse VIII.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 396).

***

Discourse IX - Duties of the King

(concluded)

VERSE 9.1 [Husband and Wife]

Section I - Husband and Wife

पुरुषस्य स्त्रियाश्चैव धर्मे वर्त्मनि तिष्ठतोः ।
संयोगे विप्रयोगे च धर्मान् वक्ष्यामि शाश्वतान् ॥१॥

puruṣasya striyāścaiva dharme vartmani tiṣṭhatoḥ |
saṃyoge viprayoge ca dharmān vakṣyāmi śāśvatān ||1||

I shall now expound the eternal duties of the man and woman, who keep to the righteous path, during union and separation. — (1)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In course of the enunciation of the ‘heads of dispute’, after ‘adultery’ comes ‘the determining of the duties of husband and wife’, it is this therefore that is now going to be set forth.

When the husband is very much harassed by his wife, or the wife is very much persecuted by her husband, the dispute is to be brought up before the king.

It has been laid down that the wife shall attend upon her husband who behaves in the right manner, who is not beset with hate and jealousy and who is well-disposed towards his wife; and the husband has no sort of ‘sovereignty’ over his wife; and the (attending) is to consist in shampooing his feet and rendering such service as behoves a servant

Though the words used in the text are ‘man’ and ‘woman — which only denote the human genus in its two sexes, — yet in the present context they are relative terms, connotative of the husband and wife; specially as in the next verse, the term ‘sva’ (svaiḥ) clearly indicates that the ‘man’ and ‘woman’ bear a distinct relationship to one another.

The present verse contains the author’s declaration as to what he is going to do in the coming discourse.

Of the husband and wife , — ‘during union’ — while they are together, — and ‘during separation’, — when the husband has gone away from home.

‘The righteous path’ — regarding toilet, the care of the body and so forth.

All this ‘I am going to expound’.

The epithet ‘eternal’ is only by way of praise.

‘Who keep to the righteous path — this is purely reiterative of the fact that it is the path laid down in the legal scriptures that is the most righteous. — (1).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 1034).

VERSE 9.2

Section I - Husband and Wife

अस्वतन्त्राः स्त्रियः कार्याः पुरुषैः स्वैर्दिवानिशम् ।
विषयेषु च सज्जन्त्यः संस्थाप्या आत्मनो वशे ॥२॥

asvatantrāḥ striyaḥ kāryāḥ puruṣaiḥ svairdivāniśam |
viṣayeṣu ca sajjantyaḥ saṃsthāpyā ātmano vaśe ||2||

During the day and the night women should not be left to themselves by their men. If they become addicted to sensual objects, they should be kept under one’s control. — (2).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Women should not be left free to act as they like, in regard to morality, wealth and pleasure. Whenever they desire to employ their wealth in acts of righteousness and the like, they should obtain the permission of their ‘men’, the husband or other male relations, according to her age.

‘Their men’ — Guardians, indicated in the following verse.

‘Sensual objects’ — Singing and the like; they become ‘addicted to’ having recourse to — these, — ‘they should be kept under one’s control,’ — should be cheeked.

Though the phrase ‘not left to themselves’ indicates the propriety of depriving them of independence in regard to all actions, yet the text specifically mentions the ‘sensual objects’ with a view to point out that in regard to latter special care should be taken; so that people may not be led to think that all that is necessary is to prevent the women from associating with other men, and it does not matter if they become addicted to drink and other evils, while keeping confined to their homes.

The particle ‘ca’ indicates that, though what the words directly declare is the duty of the man, yet it also follows that the woman also should not be independent; it is in this manner that the duties of both ‘man and woman’ in relation to one another become expounded, as promised in verse (1), — and not those duties that consist of sacrificial performances and the like. — (2).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.195), which adds the following notes: — As a matter of fact, this appearing of husband and wife before the king as plaintiff and defendant is forbidden, and as such there is no room for this subject under the present head; but what is meant is that if, from other sources, the king should happen to hear of the misbehaviour of the one or the other of the party, he should interfere, and by means of judicious punishment bring them back to the path of righteousness; otherwise he becomes involved in sin. — Bālambhaṭṭī has the following Explanatory notes: — ‘Svaiḥ’, the women’s own brother and other relations, — ‘divāniśam,’ always, — ‘viṣayesu’, even such objects of enjoyment as are not actually forbidden, such as beautiful things, tasty food, and so forth, — ‘sajjantyaḥ’ addicted, — they should be kept under control.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 322); in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 330), which adds that ‘though a regular law-suit between husband and wife has been prohibited, yet if the king happens to learn from other sources, of quarrels between them, he should intervene and make them keep to the right path,’ — in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 98) which explains ‘sajjantyaḥ’ as becoming ‘addicted’ — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 31b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

[See also Manu, 5.147-148 and the texts under them.]

Gautama (18.1). — ‘A wife is not independent with respect to the sacred Law.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.44). — ‘Women do not possess independence.’

Vaśiṣṭha( 5.1). — ‘A woman is not independent; the males are her masters.’

Viṣṇu (25.12). — ‘Not to act by herself in any matter.’

Yājñavalkya (1.85). — ‘There is no independence for woman at any time.’

Bṛhaspati (24.2). — ‘A woman must be restrained from even slight transgressions by her relations, — by night and by day she must be watched by her mother-in-law and other ladies of the family.

Śukranīti (4.4.11, 23). — ‘Women have no separate right to the employment of the means of realising the three ends of spiritual merit, wealth and pleasure. The wife should be pure in mind, speech and action; she should abide by the instructions of her husband, and follow him like his shadow, and be a friend in all his activities and servant in all his commands.’

VERSE 9.3

Section I - Husband and Wife

पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति यौवने ।
रक्षन्ति स्थविरे पुत्रा न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यमर्हति ॥३॥

pitā rakṣati kaumāre bhartā rakṣati yauvane |
rakṣanti sthavire putrā na strī svātantryamarhati ||3||

The father guards her during virginity, the husband guards her in youth, the sons guard her in old age; the woman is never fit for independence. — (iii).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Guarding’ here stands for averting of trouble, — ‘trouble’ consisting in suffering caused by the transgression of the right course of conduct, by illegal appropriation of property and so forth; and the ‘averting’ of this consists in warding it off. This should be done by the father and others.

The Present tense in ‘guards’ has the force of the Injunctive; such use being a Vedic idiom; hence the word ‘guards’ should be taken to mean ‘should guard’.

The mention of the three stages of her life separately is only meant to show on whom lies the greater responsibility during a certain period of the woman’s life. In reality all the male relatives are equally responsible for her safety.

‘Virginity’ — stands for the period preceding her being given away in marriage.

Smilarly ‘youth’ stands for the period during which her husband is alive.

Thus the words of the text are only reiterative of the actual state of things; the sense being that the woman shall be guarded by that man under whose tutilage she may he living at the time. It is for this reason that even during her husband’s life-time, the responsibility for the woman’s protection rests upon her father and her son also. This is what has been declared in the laws of Manu; which means that all of them shall guard her at all times; and this has not been stated in so many words, as that would have made the text prolix.

“What is asserted here has been already declared above, under 5. 147.”

Not so; ‘independence’ is one thing and ‘guarding’ is another. 5.147 has declared that woman shall not be ‘independent’, while the present text lays down that she shall be ‘guarded’, as a matter of fact even while the woman is ‘dependent’ upon some one else, she may be open to danger, which has got to be averted.

“But in the present text also it is said that ‘the woman is not fit for independence.”

Our answer to this is that the present text does not lay down that she shall not be independent in regard to anything at all; all that it means is that her mind being not quite under her control, she is not capable of guarding herself, specially as she does not possess the requisite strength. Under discourse V on the other hand, the absence of ‘independence’ laid down is in regard to something totally different (i.e. her property). — (3).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 286); — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 410); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 608); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra 66b); — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 674).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (13.46.14). — (Same as Manu.)

Baudhāyana (2-3.45). — ‘They quote the following: — “Their father protects them in childhood, their husband protects them in youth, and their sons protect them in old age; a woman is never lit for independence.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (5.3). — ‘They quote the following: — “Their fathers protect them in childhood; their husbands protect them in youth; and their sons protect them in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.”’

Viṣṇu (25.13). — ‘To remain subject, in her infancy to her father, in her youth, to her husband, and in her old age to her sons.’

Yājñavalkya (1.85-86). — ‘The father shall guard her while she is a maiden, her husband, when she has been married, and her son in old age; in the absence of these, her relations; there is no independence for the woman at any time. When deprived of her husband, she shall never live apart from her father, mother, son, brother, father-in-law, mother-in-law, or maternal uncle.’

Smṛtyantara (Aparārka, p. 109). — ‘When there is no one left in the two families (of her father and of her husband), the King becomes the master and supporter of the woman; he shall support her and punish her if she deviates from the path of duty.’

Nārada (Vivādaratnākara, p. 410). — ‘Women, even though born of noble families, become ruined by independence; that is why Prajāpati has ordained that they shall not be independent.’

Nārada (Vivādaratnākara, p. 111). — ‘On the death of her husband, if the widow is without a son, the members of her husband’s family shall be her masters; they shall take it upon themselves to protect and support her. If the husband's family has perished, and not a single member of it is left, her father’s family shall be her master. When there is no one left in either of the two families, the King becomes her lord and protector; it is for him to protect her and punish her if she deviates from the right path.’

VERSE 9.4

Section I - Husband and Wife

कालेऽदाता पिता वाच्यो वाच्यश्चानुपयन् पतिः ।
मृते भर्तरि पुत्रस्तु वाच्यो मातुररक्षिता ॥४॥

kāle'dātā pitā vācyo vācyaścānupayan patiḥ |
mṛte bhartari putrastu vācyo māturarakṣitā ||4||

Censurable is the father who gives her not away at the right time; censurable the husband who approaches her not; and censurable the son who, on the death of her husband, does not take care of her — (4).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If, at the approach of the right time for giving her away, the father does not give her away, (he becomes censurable).

“What in the right time for the girl to be given away?”

It has been laid down that such time begins from her eighth year and extends to the time.previous to her puberty. We have indications of this in the present work also.

‘Who does not approach her’ — Who does not have intercourse with her. The ‘right time’ for such approach is the period of her ‘course’. — (4).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158a), which has the following notes: — ‘Kāle’ at the time suitable for giving away the girl: — ‘vācyam’ is to be blamed, — ‘anupayan,’ not approaching.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (18.22). — ‘He who neglects the marriage of girls commits sin.’

Baudhāyana (4.1.12, 17-19). — ‘He who does not give away a marriageable daughter within three years of her puberty doubtlessly contracts a guilt equal to that of killing an embryo. He who does not approach, during three years, a wife who is marriageable, incurs, without doubt, a guilt equal to that of killing an embryo; but if a man does not approach his wife after she has bathed after her temporary uncleanliness, though he dwells near her, — his ancestors lie, during that month, in the menstrual excretions of the wife. They declare that the guilt of the husband who does not approach his wife in due season, — of him who approaches her during her temporary uncleanliness, — and of him who commits an unnatural crime, is equally heinous.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.69-70). — ‘They quote the following: — “If through the father’s negligence, a maiden is given away after the suitable age has passed, she, who was waiting for a husband, destroys him who gives her away............ Out of fear of the appearance of menses, let the father marry his daughter while she still goes about naked; for if she stays in the house after the age of puberty, sin falls upon the father.”’

Yājñavalkya (1.64). — ‘If one does not give away the girl, he incurs the guilt of killing an embryo, at each of her menstrual periods.’

Kāśyapa (Aparārka, p. 93). — ‘If a girl perceives her menstrual blood while she is still in her father’s house, unmarried, her father becomes the killer of an embryo, and the girl herself a cāṇḍālī. If any Brāhmaṇa, through folly, marries such a girl, he is to be known as the husband of a Vṛṣali, unfit to be invited at a Śrāddha and to dine with Brāhmaṇas.’

Nārada (Do.). — ‘The girl shall not ignore the appearance of her menstrual flow; she shall inform her relations of it; if after this, they do not give her away, they become equal to Brāhmaṇa-killers.’

Saṃvarta (Do.). — ‘Father, mother, and brother, all these three go to hell, if they see a maiden in puberty.’

Bṛhaspati (24.3, Vivādaratnākara, p. 412). — ‘If the father does not give her away in time, — or if the husband does not approach her during her periods, — or if the son does not supply his mother with food, — all these three become legally reprehensible and deserving of punishment.’

VERSE 9.5

Section I - Husband and Wife

सूक्ष्मेभ्योऽपि प्रसङ्गेभ्यः स्त्रियो रक्ष्या विशेषतः ।
द्वयोर्हि कुलयोः शोकमावहेयुररक्षिताः ॥५॥

sūkṣmebhyo'pi prasaṅgebhyaḥ striyo rakṣyā viśeṣataḥ |
dvayorhi kulayoḥ śokamāvaheyurarakṣitāḥ ||5||

Women should be specially guarded against even small attachments; for, if not guarded, they would bring grief to both families. — (5).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Attachment’ — association, with a woman of unknown character, — one who is in the habit of standing at the doorway, looking at gaily dressed young men passing by, and so forth.

The meaning is that they should be guarded against temptations. Even though the acts mentioned above, — i,e. gazing at young men and so forth are not wrong in themselves, nor is the association of women with women wrong in itself.

* * * * * *

Against these they should be ‘guarded’; they should be checked.

‘Specialty’ with particular care.

* * * * * *

Thus the meaning is that the woman should be guarded by all the men of the family, her brother, father, brother-in-law, and the rest.

* * * * * * (5)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412); — Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 323), which adds the following notes: — ‘If they are not guarded, they bring grief to the families of their husbands and fathers; hence for the sake of both families, special care is to be taken of them’; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, 66b); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 674); — in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 98); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 158a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.5-7)

Mahābhārata (3.12.68). —

Hārīta (Vivādaratnākara, p. 410). — ‘One must guard one’s wife against sensual contact, as the ruin of the wife involves the ruin of the family; the ruin of the family involves the ruin of the line; the ruin of the line involves the ruin of all offerings to gods and Pitṛs; the ruin of offerings involves the ruin of Dharma; the ruin of Dharma leads to the ruin of the soul; and the ruin of the soul means the loss of all things.’

Paiṭhīnaśi (Do., p. 411). — ‘For these reasons, one must guard one’s wife: lest there he a confusion of castes.’

Bṛhaspati (24-2). — (See under 2.)

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология