with the Commentary of Medhatithi 259 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 265 из 350Следующая ⇒

‘Intelligent,’ — possessed of inborn intelligence.

‘Well-trained’ — thoroughly educated by his father and others.

‘Conversant with the sciences and the arts’. — The terms ‘jñāna’ and ‘vijñāna’ connote instrumentality (meaning jñāyate anena iti jñānam’, and ‘vijñāyate anena iti vijñānam’). So that the term ‘jñāna’, ‘science’, stands for the sciences subsidiary to the Veda, and ‘vijñāna’, ‘arts’, for the art of reasoning and the fine arts.

The sense of the verse is that the man who is possessed of any intelligence should never do such an act; since such is the law laid down in all scriptures. As regards the ignoramus, who is as good as an animal, the present, teaching is not meant for him at all. Hence what is stated here is purely reiterative.

‘If he desires longevity’. — This has been added with a view to indicate that the present prohibition is the same as that contained under Discourse IV; and this sets aside the idea as to its being a distinct prohibition. — (41)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vijñānam’ — ‘Treatises on logic, arts, and so forth’ (Medhātithi); — ‘subsidiary sciences’ (Kullūka).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.42

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

अत्र गाथा वायुगीताः कीर्तयन्ति पुराविदः ।
यथा बीजं न वप्तव्यं पुंसा परपरिग्रहे ॥४२॥

atra gāthā vāyugītāḥ kīrtayanti purāvidaḥ |
yathā bījaṃ na vaptavyaṃ puṃsā paraparigrahe ||42||

On this point, persons conversant with ancient lore recite some ‘Gāthās’ sung by Vāyu, to the effect that man should not sow his seed in what belongs to another. — (42)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘gāthā’ is the name of a particular metre; as has been declared by Piṅgala — ‘Atrāsiddhaṅgātheti it is also used in the sense of verses handed down by a long-continued tradition. For instance, in the Veda, we find that, having made the declaration — ‘This is the gāthā of the learned that is going to be recited’, it goes on to quote the verses ‘Yadasya pūrvamaparanta-dasya &c.’

‘Sung by Vāyu’ — recited, declared by him.

‘Conversant with ancient lore;’ — those who know all about what happened in the past cycles.

‘In what belongs to another’ — In another man’s field. — (42)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.43

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

नश्यतीषुर्यथा विद्धः खे विद्धमनुविध्यतः ।
तथा नश्यति वै क्षिप्रं बीजं परपरिग्रहे ॥४३॥

naśyatīṣuryathā viddhaḥ khe viddhamanuvidhyataḥ |
tathā naśyati vai kṣipraṃ bījaṃ paraparigrahe ||43||

‘As the arrow shot by an after-shooter hitting a wounded animal in a hole (already made) is wasted, so does the seed become wasted when sown in what belongs to another.’ — (43)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author quotes the said ‘gāthā’.

‘Iṣu’ is arrow, — ‘becomes wasted’.

‘In a hole’ — at a wound.

The man who shoots a deer after it has been wounded by another archer.

In this case the kill belongs to the man who wounded it first.

Or, the meaning may be that ‘the arrow shot in the air — i.e. away from the mark — ‘becomes wasted’ — abortive, — as also when one shoots an animal already wounded.’

In the same manner, the seed sown by a man in another’s wife, becomes wasted. That is, the child born belongs to the owner of the ‘field’. — (43)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.44

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

पृथोरपीमां पृथिवीं भार्यां पूर्वविदो विदुः ।
स्थाणुच्छेदस्य केदारमाहुः शाल्यवतो मृगम् ॥४४॥

pṛthorapīmāṃ pṛthivīṃ bhāryāṃ pūrvavido viduḥ |
sthāṇucchedasya kedāramāhuḥ śālyavato mṛgam ||44||

People learned in ancient lore have regarded this Pṛthvī (earth) to be the wife of Pṛthu; they declare the field to belong to him who has cleared off the stalks, and the deer to him who struck the dart. — (44)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The relation of husband and wife established by ancient tradition is such that two totally distinct entities are spoken of as one. For instance, though the Earth (Pṛthivī) was associated with King Pṛthu thousands of years ago, yet she is even now named after him ‘Pṛthivī’.

In view of this, even though a son may be born of another man, he must belong to him whose wife the mother is.

‘They declare the field to belong to him who cleared off the stalks;’ — there being no other relationship spoken of, the Genetive ending (in ‘sthāṇūcchedasya’) must signify the relation of possessor and possessed.

‘Stalks’ — stands here for groves, thickets, creepers and other growths on the land; — he who clears off these is ‘he who clears off the stalks.’ The land belongs to him by whom the over-growths have been cleared and the land levelled and made into arable land. The fruits of filling and sowing this land also belong to that same man.

‘The deer to belong to him who struck the dart.’ — ‘They declare’ has to be construed with this also. Where several persons are hunting and following a deer, they declare the animal to belong to him the dart of whose arrow is found in its body. So that it belongs to the man who wounded it first, and tills is what has been said above regarding ‘the arrow of the shooter being wasted.’ — (44)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hopkins says — “The kings subsequent to Pṛthu, according to Medhātithi, have no legitimate claim to possession.” — But there is nothing in Medhātithi to this effect.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.45

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

एतावानेव पुरुषो यत्जायाऽत्मा प्रजैति ह ।
विप्राः प्राहुस्तथा चैतद् यो भर्ता सा स्मृताङ्गना ॥४५॥

etāvāneva puruṣo yatjāyā'tmā prajaiti ha |
viprāḥ prāhustathā caitad yo bhartā sā smṛtāṅganā ||45||

The man is a man only in so far as he consists of himself, his wife and his progeny. thus it is that the Brāhmaṇas have declared that ‘the husband is declared to be the same as the wife.’ — (45)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It is only right that the child belongs to the man whose wife the mother is; because the husband and wife are one; and the child also is the man himself; how then can the self of one man belong to another?

Such is the usage of the world, and the learned Brāhmaṇas also have made the same assertion. — (45)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba (2.14.16). — ‘There is no division between husband and wife; — for from the time of marriage, they are united in religious ceremonies; — likewise also as regards the rewards for acts by which spiritual merit is acquired; — and with respect to the acquisition of property.’

VERSE 9.46

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

न निष्क्रयविसर्गाभ्यां भर्तुर्भार्या विमुच्यते ।
एवं धर्मं विजानीमः प्राक् प्रजापतिनिर्मितम् ॥४६॥

na niṣkrayavisargābhyāṃ bharturbhāryā vimucyate |
evaṃ dharmaṃ vijānīmaḥ prāk prajāpatinirmitam ||46||

Either by sale or by repudiation the wife is not released from her husband; such is the law that we know, as originally propounded by prajapati. — (46)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some one may have the following notion: — “Other men’s wives may be made one’s own by paying money to the husband, and the difficulty regarding ownership being thus removed, the son horn of her would belong to the begetter.”

This is declared to be not possible. Wives of other men cannot be made one s own even by the paying of a thousand gold-coins.

Nor, when she is abandoned by her husband on account of poverty, can the wife belong to the man who receives her.

The reason for this lies in the fact that verse 3.4, which contains the injunction of marriage, uses the verb ‘udvaheta’ (‘shall take’), in the Ātmanepada form, which clearly indicates that the woman who has been ‘taken’ through the sacramental rites by one man cannot he the ‘wife’ of any other man; just as the ‘āhavanīya’ (sacrificial Fire) cannot he regarded as being so for any other person save the one who has kindled it with the prescribed rites.

‘Sale’ stands for purchase as well as exchange; and ‘Repudiation’ for abandoning. By neither of them is the wife ‘released’ — lose the character of ‘wife.’ — (46)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 149), which explains ‘niṣkraya’ as selling and ‘visarga’ as renouncing, divorcing.

VERSE 9.47

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

सकृदंशो निपतति सकृत् कन्या प्रदीयते ।
सकृदाह ददानीति त्रीण्येतानि सतां सकृत् ॥४७॥

sakṛdaṃśo nipatati sakṛt kanyā pradīyate |
sakṛdāha dadānīti trīṇyetāni satāṃ sakṛt ||47||

Once does the share fall to a man; once is a maiden given away; once does one say ‘I give’; each of these three comes only once. — (47)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This has been explained by us under the section on ‘Rescision’ (8.227).

At the time of partition, if the co-partners are such as are entitled to equal as well as unequal shares, they should divide the property in such equal and unequal shares. This partition having been once made, some one of the co-partners may subsequently raise objections to it. It is such subsequent objection that the ‘present verse is meant to preclude. If, however, at the very outset, the party were to indicate the inadequacy of his share, then, the partition should have to be revised. If, on the other hand, the objecter should declare the inequity of the partition after the lapse of a long time, all that he can claim is the equalisation of his own share, and not a rescission of the whole partition; since during the time that has elapsed each co-partner will have made additions to his share, or carried out repairs to what may have been in a dilapidated condition, or used up the clothes and gold and other things [so that a re-partition of the entire inheritance would not be possible].

Others, however, explain the declaration regarding ‘the share falling only once’ to mean that — ‘if after the partition, it be discovered subsequently that there are some among the co-partners who are affected by impotence or some such physical defect as disqualifies him from receiving a share in the property, — there shall be no resumption of these shares by the others.’

Similarly, if there be some co-partners who are really entitled to two, three or four shares, but somehow at the time of partition, all of them receive equal shares, then, if, after sometime, they were to complain, they should not be permitted to annul the former partition.

In the case of the outcast, however, there is resumption of his share, as we shall explain later on.

‘The maiden is given away only once.’ — Though this would imply that the husband acquires ownership over the girl immediately after verbal betrothal, — even before the marriage has been performed, — yet what is really meant is that particular time which is indicated by such declarations as ‘One might take away a girl even though she may have been betrothed’ (Yājñavalkya, 1.65) and ‘The marriage is to be regarded as accomplished at the seventh step’ (Manu, 8.227). This we have already explained above.

“Once does one say ‘I give’” — Cows and other things are given away to others in the same form of ownership that, the giver himself has over them; but the maiden belongs to the father as ‘daughter,’ while she is given away to the other party as his ‘wife’; so that the father’s relationship to her does not cease. It is for this reason that she has been mentioned separately (in the sentence ‘the maiden is given away only once’).

Objection. — “If the father’s ownership and relationship does not cease, how can the ‘giving away of the maiden’ be said to be accomplished? It is in the very nature of the act of giving that the ownership of one ceases and that of another is brought about.”

There is no force in this objection. In the case in question there are two relationships, — that of parent and child, and that of owner and owned, and while the former remains intact, the latter does cease. This is what is meant when verse 5.188 declares that ‘During childhood the girl should remain under her father,’ and ‘under her husband during youth,’ which indicates the cessation of the father’s ownership and the coming into existence of that of the husband. — (27)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 490), which adds that this rule regarding the betrothal of a girl pertains to cases where the bridegroom to whom the girl has been betrothed has no disqualifying defects; — in

Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 388), which adds that the irrevocability of a partition here spoken of is meant for those cases where all doubts regarding its fairness can be set at rest by reasonable arguments; — in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 145), and again on p. 182, where it is added that this irrevocability of partitions is meant for cases where the partition has been made by the objector himself; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 218), which explains the first clause to mean that ‘a man obtains his share in a property only once,’ and adds that what is said in regard to the ‘girl’ applies only to those cases where there is no defect in the bridegroom (to whom the girl has been betrothed).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.160). — ‘He who, having promised his daughter to one suitor, gives her in marriage to another, shall he punished as a thief; — unless the first suitor have a blemish.’

Yājñavalkya (1.65). — ‘A maiden is given away hut once; having given her away, if one takes her hack, he becomes liable to punishment; hut even after giving her away, one may take her hack, if a better suitor should arrive.’

Gautama (Aparārka, p. 94), — ‘Even though he may have promised the girl to a suitor, one may not give her to him if he happen to he beset with vice.’

Nārada (12.28). — (Same as Manu.)

Do. (12.32). — ‘When a man, after having made a solemn promise of marrying his daughter to a certain suitor, does not deliver her afterwards, he shall be punished by the King like a thief, in case the suitor be free from defects.’

Do. (Aparārka, p. 94). — ‘If even after betrothal, some defect is found in either the bride or the bridegroom, the betrothal may be cancelled; there is no finality in mere betrothal.’

Kātyāyana (Do.) — ‘If, after betrothal, the bridegroom becomes lost, the girl shall wait for three months and then select another man. If a girl has been betrothed to one and married to another, she shall be given away, even after the performance of the ceremonies, to the person to whom she had been previously promised.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.). — ‘If the bridegroom happen to die after the girl has been given away with water and verbally, — hut has not gone through the ceremonies with mantras, — she remains an unmarried maiden with her father.’

VERSE 9.48

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

यथा गोऽश्वोष्ट्रदासीषु महिष्यजाविकासु च ।
नोत्पादकः प्रजाभागी तथैवान्याङ्गनास्वपि ॥४८॥

yathā go'śvoṣṭradāsīṣu mahiṣyajāvikāsu ca |
notpādakaḥ prajābhāgī tathaivānyāṅganāsvapi ||48||

As with cows, mares, she-camels, slave-girls, buffaloes, she-goats and ewes, it is not the begetter who obtains the offspring, — even thus it is with the wives of others — (48)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

[There is no Bhāṣya on this verse. The same idea occurs again in 55 below].

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 578); — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 574).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.48-56)

(See the texts under 31-44.)

Parāśara (1.16). — (Same as Manu.)

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 580). — ‘If the seed is sown by a stranger in a soil without the knowledge of the owner of the soil, it belongs to the owner of the soil.’

Nārada (Do., p. 581). — ‘There can be no crops without the soil, nor is there any crop without the seed; hence the child is held to belong to both the father and the mother.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do. p. 557). — ‘The child belongs to the person who married the girl with mantras, — says Aṅgiras: but Uśanas says that when the seed has been sown with the consent of both the owner of the soil and the owner of the seed, the product belongs to both.’

Hārita (Do.). — ‘No soil is productive without the seed, nor does the seed grow without the soil, hence the child belongs to both — say some people.’

VERSE 9.49

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

येऽक्षेत्रिणो बीजवन्तः परक्षेत्रप्रवापिणः ।
ते वै सस्यस्य जातस्य न लभन्ते फलं क्व चित् ॥४९॥

ye'kṣetriṇo bījavantaḥ parakṣetrapravāpiṇaḥ |
te vai sasyasya jātasya na labhante phalaṃ kva cit ||49||

If persons, possessing no fields, but having seeds, sow these in fields belonging to others, — they never obtain the grain of the crop that is produced. — (49)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It is a well-known fact that persons possessing no fields, but having seed-corn, do not obtain any portion of the crop of mudga, māṣa and in other grains that spring from fields belonging to other persons. — (49)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 579).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.48-56)

(See the texts under 31-44.)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.48.

VERSE 9.50

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

यदन्यगोषु वृषभो वत्सानां जनयेत्शतम् ।
गोमिनामेव ते वत्सा मोघं स्कन्दितमार्षभम् ॥५०॥

yadanyagoṣu vṛṣabho vatsānāṃ janayetśatam |
gomināmeva te vatsā moghaṃ skanditamārṣabham ||50||

If a bull were to beget a hundred calves on others’ cows, those calves would belong to the owners of the cows, and the bull’s emissions would be in vain. — (50)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The foregoing verse has indicated and explained the state of things as pertaining to immoveable property; and the present verse points it out in reference to cows and other animate belongings of men.

When one man’s bull begets a number of calves on cows belonging to other men, the owner of the bull does not obtain a single one of those calves; all of these calves belong to the ‘owners o f the cows’ — the persons to whom the cows belong.

‘Of the bull’ — i,e., related to the bull — ‘Emission’ sowing of seed; — ‘in vain’; — futile, useless. — (50)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 579).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.48-56)

(See the texts under 31-44.)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.48.

VERSE 9.51

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

तथैवाक्षेत्रिणो बीजं परक्षेत्रप्रवापिणः ।
कुर्वन्ति क्षेत्रिणामर्थं न बीजी लभते फलम् ॥५१॥

tathaivākṣetriṇo bījaṃ parakṣetrapravāpiṇaḥ |
kurvanti kṣetriṇāmarthaṃ na bījī labhate phalam ||51||

Similarly persons who have no ‘soil’ of their own — if they sow in the ‘soil’ belonging to another man, they confer benefit upon the owner of the ‘soil,’ and the owner of the seed reaps no fruit. — (51).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a continuation of what has gone before.

Just as in the case of the cows, and also in that of immoveable property, so among human beings also, the sowers of the seed ‘confer the benefit upon’ — accomplish the purposes of — the owner of the soil. — (51)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 579); — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 521).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.48-56)

(See the texts under 31-44.)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.48.

VERSE 9.52

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

फलं त्वनभिसन्धाय क्षेत्रिणां बीजिनां तथा ।
प्रत्यक्षं क्षेत्रिणामर्थो बीजाद् योनिर्गलीयसी ?? ॥५२॥

phalaṃ tvanabhisandhāya kṣetriṇāṃ bījināṃ tathā |
pratyakṣaṃ kṣetriṇāmartho bījād yonirgalīyasī ?? ||52||

If between the owner of the soil and the owner of the seed, there has been no compact regarding the produce, then the chops belong clearly to the owner of the soil; — the receptacle being more important than the seed. — (52)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been stated in a general way that the produce belongs to the owner of the soil, not to that of the seed; a further detail in regard to this is now added.

‘When no compact has been made’ — i.e., no agreement between the owner of- the soil and the seed, as to the produce belonging to both, in accordance with the maxim relating to two men, one of whom had lost his horse and another had burnt his chariot, (where the fruit, in the shape of being carried, accrued, by agreement, to both), — ‘the crop’ — i.e., the produce — ‘belongs clearly to the owner of the soil’ — The term ‘clearly’ indicates that there is no doubt on this point.

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология