with the Commentary of Medhatithi 262 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 268 из 350Следующая ⇒

sa mahīmakhilāṃ bhuñjan rājarṣipravaraḥ purā |
varṇānāṃ saṅkaraṃ cakre kāmopahatacetanaḥ ||67||

In ancient times that chief of royal sages, possessing the whole world, brought about the confusion of castes, having his mind beset with lust. — (67)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Possessing,’ — ruling over.

“When the King brought about the confusion of castes, how can he be called the chief of royal sages?”

The answer is that possessing the whole Earth, he was a great King, but he had his ‘mind’ — mental equanimity — ‘besat’ — destroyed — ‘by lust’ — in the shape of carnal desires and so forth. — (67)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 738 and in Vyavahāra, 186a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.60-68)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.60.

VERSE 9.68

Section IV - Duties of Women in Times of Distress (niyoga)

ततः प्रभृति यो मोहात् प्रमीतपतिकां स्त्रियम् ।
नियोजयत्यपत्यार्थं तं विगर्हन्ति साधवः ॥६८॥

tataḥ prabhṛti yo mohāt pramītapatikāṃ striyam |
niyojayatyapatyārthaṃ taṃ vigarhanti sādhavaḥ ||68||

Since then, whenever any one, through folly, ‘authorises’ a woman whose husband is dead, to beget children, — him the good men censure. — (68)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The sense of this declaratory passage is clear. — (68)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 738 and Vyavahāra, 186a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.60-68)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.60.

VERSE 9.69

Section IV - Duties of Women in Times of Distress (niyoga)

यस्या म्रियेत कन्याया वाचा सत्ये कृते पतिः ।
तामनेन विधानेन निजो विन्देत देवरः ॥६९॥

yasyā mriyeta kanyāyā vācā satye kṛte patiḥ |
tāmanena vidhānena nijo vindeta devaraḥ ||69||

If the husband of a maiden dies after the troth has been verbally plighted, — shall her then own younger brother-in-law espouse in the following manner. — (69)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse lays down a practice in connection with maidens, which has the form of ‘authorization’.

‘After the troth has been verbally plighted’ — i.e., alter the accomplishment of verbal betrothal; — when she has been given away orally by one and accepted by the other party.

‘Her own younger brother-in-law shall espouse’ — marry — ‘her, in the following manner’ — (69)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (1.69), as enunciating the view that the sanction of the ‘kṣeṭraja’ son pertains only to those cases where the bridegroom has died after the verbal betrothal; — again under 2.127, as describing the case in which alone ‘niyoga’ is permissible; — and it adds that this verse implies that the man to whom a girl has been betrothed has become her ‘husband’ even before the marriage rites have been performed.

Mitākṣarā adds the following notes: — When the ‘husband’ to whom the girl has been betrothed dies, then his ‘own’ i.e., uterine brother, elder or younger, ‘vindeta,’ shall take her, i.e., marry her. It construes ‘anena vidhānena’ with the next verse.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 129), to the effect that the child born under this rule belongs to the person to whom the girl had been previously betrothed; — in Aparārka (p. 78), which also notes that this verse serves to restrict the sanction of ‘niyoga’ or of ‘marriage of widows’ to cases of mere betrothal, not of actual marriage; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 351), to the same effect; and it adds that for this reason the foregoing conflicting verses 59-68 should not be understood as setting forth two optional alternatives; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 737), to the effect that ‘niyoga’ does not mean mere intercourse, without marriage, it means marriage and then intercourse; — and again on p. 756, as laying down the marrying of the girl by her younger brother-in-law, on the death of her (betrothed) husband.

This verse is quoted also in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 38a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.69-70)

Vaśiṣṭha (17.72-74). — ‘If the betrothed of a maiden die after she has been promised to him verbally and by a libation of water, — but before she was married to him with the sacred texts, — she belongs to her father alone. If a damsel has been abducted by force, and not wedded with the sacred texts, she may lawfully he given to another man; she is even like a maiden. If before the death of her husband, the damsel had merely been wedded with the sacred texts, and the marriage had not been consummated, she may be married again.’

Kātyāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 739). — ‘If a man should die or become lost after betrothal, the girl shall wait for three menstrual periods and then marry another person.’

VERSE 9.70

Section IV - Duties of Women in Times of Distress (niyoga)

यथाविध्यधिगम्यैनां शुक्लवस्त्रां शुचिव्रताम् ।
मिथो भजेता प्रसवात् सकृत्सकृद् ऋतावृतौ ॥७०॥

yathāvidhyadhigamyaināṃ śuklavastrāṃ śucivratām |
mitho bhajetā prasavāt sakṛtsakṛd ṛtāvṛtau ||70||

When he has, according to rule, espoused her, clad in white garments and pure in her observances, they shall approach each other once in each season, until issue. — (70)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘According to rule’ — in accordance with the rules laid down in the scriptures.

‘Has espoused her’ — This would be ‘espousal’ or ‘marriage’ only in name; as the maiden in such a case would he called a ‘punarbhū,’ ‘a remarried widow’; and even though married, she could not be a ‘wife’ (in the real sense of the term); her marriage, which is nominal, being only for a defenite purpose. That this is so is shown in the next verse — ‘Having given away his daughter to one man, one shall not give her to another,’ — which means, that she should not be given to her younger brother-in-law either; and when she is not given away — and as such does not become the property of the man — how could she he his ‘wife’?

‘Clad in white garments’; — this is a rule that is to be observed by the man approaching the woman; it is to be observed also in other cases of ‘authorisation.’ — (70)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted along with 69 in Mitākṣarā (2.127), which adds the following notes: — ‘Yathāvidhi,’ in accordance with the scriptures, — ‘adhigamya’, having married, — ‘anena vidhānena,’ (of the preceding verse) i.e., ‘besmearing himself with clarified butter, with speech held in check and so forth’, — ‘śuklavastrām śucivratām,’ with her mind and body under full control, — ‘mithaḥ,’ in secret, — shall approach her once during each course, till conception takes place. It proceeds to declare that all this does not make the woman the actual ‘wife’ of the brother-in-law; hence the child bora of this union belongs to the real (i.e., the former) husband; — Bālambhaṭṭī adds that the action of the brother-in-law is purely for the purpose of providing a child for his dead brother; it goes on to add the following notes Kullūka Bhaṭṭa remarks that the fact of the child born of the intercourse here sanctioned belonging to the dead betrothed is clear from the restriction imposed, that there is to be intercourse only once during the course, and that also only until conception takes place. — Having thus stated the view of the older writers, Bālambhaṭṭī enters into a long discussion and comes to the conclusion that the sanction of remarriage must refer to a regular widow — who loses her real husband after full marriage, and not only after betrothal; and it naively remarks that the opinion of the older writers is due to prejudice against ‘niyoga,’ by reason of its having been forbidden during the Kaliyuga.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 129), which also quotes Kullūka Bhaṭṭa’s remark (quoted in Bālambhaṭṭī above). It goes on to add that what is here laid down should be done only if the woman concerned is willing to do it, not otherwise; as is clearly declared by Vaśiṣṭha.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 351); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 737).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.69-70)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.69.

VERSE 9.71

Section IV - Duties of Women in Times of Distress (niyoga)

न दत्त्वा कस्य चित् कन्यां पुनर्दद्याद् विचक्षणः ।
दत्त्वा पुनः प्रयच्छन् हि प्राप्नोति पुरुषानृतम् ॥७१॥

na dattvā kasya cit kanyāṃ punardadyād vicakṣaṇaḥ |
dattvā punaḥ prayacchan hi prāpnoti puruṣānṛtam ||71||

Having given away his daughter to one man, the wise man should not give her away again. Having given her away once, if he gives her again, he incurs the guilt of ‘fraud towards men.’ — ‘(7l)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been declared ‘that consummation of it is to be understood as occurring at the seventh step’ (8.227). People may be inclined to the notion that if the bridegroom dies before this point has been reached, the girl may be given away to another man; it is this notion that the present text, precludes.

This prohibition has been repeated here, in view of the special circumstances herein mentioned; as a matter of fact, the girl married after betrothal has been already declared to be a ‘remarried widow.’

When the girl has been betrothed, given away, to one man, — if he happens to die — she shall not be given to another. By doing this the father incurs the guilt of ‘fraud towards men’; — i.e., he incurs the same guilt that would be incurred by the kidnapping of a human being. — (71)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

See above, 8.98.

“Medhātithi and Nandana say that the verse is meant to forbid marriage of a girl whose betrothed has died. But Kullūka thinks that it refers to all cases where a betrothal has taken place, and that it removes a doubt which might arise through a too strict interpretation of 8.227.” — Buhler.

This verse in quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 326); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 220).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.160-161). — ‘He who, having promised his daughter to one suitor, marries her to another, shall be punished as a thief, unless the first suitor have a blemish.’

Yājñavalkya (1.65). — ‘A girl is betrothed but once; if the father takes her away after that, he should suffer the punishment of a thief; but he may take her away from the man to whom she has been betrothed, if a superior suitor happens to turn up.’

Nārada (12-30). — ‘Should a more respectable suitor, who appears eligible in point of religious merit, fortune and amiability, present himself, — after the nuptial fee has already been presented by a former suitor, — the verbal engagement previously made shall he annulled.’

(See texts under 47.)

VERSE 9.72 [Repudiation of the Betrothed Maiden]

Section V - Repudiation of the Betrothed Maiden

विधिवत् प्रतिगृह्यापि त्यजेत् कन्यां विगर्हिताम् ।
व्याधितां विप्रदुष्टां वा छद्मना चोपपादिताम् ॥७२॥

vidhivat pratigṛhyāpi tyajet kanyāṃ vigarhitām |
vyādhitāṃ vipraduṣṭāṃ vā chadmanā copapāditām ||72||

Even after having accepted the maiden in due form, one mat repudiate her, if she be blemished, or diseased, or corrupted, or betrothed by deception. — (72)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Form’ — as prescribed in the scriptures; what is done in accordance with this — i.e., as laid down in 3.35 et-seq, — where the use of water has been held by some to be meant for the case of maidens.

When one has, according to this form, accepted a maiden, — he may ‘repudiate, her’ — before marriage is done.

‘Blemished’ — disfigured by evil bodily marks, not perceived before. Even though she may have been accepted, and be very handsome, yet if she be found to be wanting in modesty, or harsh of tongue.

‘Diseased’ — suffering from consumption.

‘Corrupted’ — one who is known among men as suffering from an incurable disease, or as being in love with another man.

Such a girl one may repudiate.

Some people have explained ‘vipraduṣṭā’ as ‘deflowered.’

This however is not accepted by others as right. So long as the girl has not been enjoyed by a man, and as such remains a ‘maiden,’ she cannot be regarded as ‘corrupted’; and after she has been enjoyed, she is no longer a ‘maiden’; so that in this case there could be no sense in the assertion that ‘one may repudiate the corrupted maiden.’ And the abandoning of the ‘deflowerd’ girl has been already laid down before (under 8.226).

‘Betrothed by deception’ — actually wanting in limbs, or having superfluous limbs.

Since the text mentions the presence of defects as the ground for repudiation, it follows that even in the presence of such minor defects as are not mentioned here, — one may abandon the girl, even after betrothal. — (72)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vipraduṣṭām’ — ‘Blemished, by bodily defects’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana); ‘belonging to a base family’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 492), to the effect that it is not only the giver of a defective maiden that is to be punished, but the girl herself is to be renounced in Madanapārijāta (p. 154), which adds the following notes: — ‘Vipraduṣṭā’ is one who entertains longings for another man, — ‘Chadmanā’, by showing to the bridegrom a girl other than the one to be married; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 744), which adds the following notes: —

‘Vigarhitām’, already previously married, but ‘impenetrated;’ it quotes Medhātithi’s words as ‘pūrvam pratigṛhītām akṣatayonimapi’; ‘vipraduṣṭām,’ having her affections centred in another man; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 106), which explains ‘vigarhitām,’ as ‘defective’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 221), as laying down the divorcing of a girl, after the detection of some defect in her, — it explains ‘vipraduṣṭām’ as ‘vividham prakarṣeṇa duṣṭām,’ ‘having several serious defects.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.72-73)

Viṣṇu (5.162). — ‘The punishment of a thief is ordained for a suitor abandoning a girl after betrothal, if she is free from blemish.’

Yājñavalkya (1.66). — ‘If a man gives away a girl without mentioning her defects, he should be fined with the highest amercement; but the man that abandons a faultless girl betrothed to him should be punished; and if he falsely attributes defects to her, he should be fined one hundred.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 96). — ‘After having accepted a maiden free from defects, if the man abandons her, he should he punished; and even though he may desire another maiden he should marry the same former maiden.’

Do. (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 745). — ‘One shall not find fault with a faultless bride, or with a faultless bridegroom; but if the fault is there, there is nothing wrong in mentioning it and abandoning one another.’

Kātyāyana (Do.). — ‘If a man marries a girl without proclaiming his own defects, or asks for her hand, he shall not obtain her, even though she may have been betrothed to him. In the same manner if the girl is subsequently found to have defects, the giver of her shall be punished.’

VERSE 9.73

Section V - Repudiation of the Betrothed Maiden

यस्तु दोषवतीं कन्यामनाख्यायौपपादयेत् ।
तस्य तद् वितथं कुर्यात् कन्यादातुर्दुरात्मनः ॥७३॥

yastu doṣavatīṃ kanyāmanākhyāyaupapādayet |
tasya tad vitathaṃ kuryāt kanyādāturdurātmanaḥ ||73||

If a man gives away a defective maiden, without declaring the defects, one may annul that act of the wicked girl-betrother. — (73)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The defects of the maiden have been already described. If a man gives her away without declaring those defects, — one may ‘annul’ — render null and void — that ‘act’ — of giving — by returning the gift This, though already laid down in the preceding verse, has been made still clearer by the present one. — (73)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.72-73)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.72.

VERSE 9.74 [Duties of the Husband going Abroad]

Section VI - Duties of the Husband going Abroad

विधाय वृत्तिं भार्यायाः प्रवसेत् कार्यवान्नरः ।
अवृत्तिकर्शिता हि स्त्री प्रदुष्येत् स्थितिमत्यपि ॥७४॥

vidhāya vṛttiṃ bhāryāyāḥ pravaset kāryavānnaraḥ |
avṛttikarśitā hi strī praduṣyet sthitimatyapi ||74||

A man having business may go abroad, after having provided for the maintenance of his wife; for a wife, even though virtuous, may become corrupt, when distressed by want of subsistence. — (74)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

All that is meant by the injunction here put forth is that whenever a man goes abroad, he should do so after having made provision for his wife’s subsistence; the form of the injunction being — ‘one going abroad should make provision for the subsistence of his wife’; that is, he should so arrange it that during the time that he is away, she shall be supplied with means of sustaining her body, with food, clothing and other household requisites.

Having provided for all this, he shall‘go abroad,’ i.e., go away to foreign lands.

‘Having business.’ — ‘Business’ stands for the man’s purpose, visible (temporal) as well as invisible (spritual); the latter consisting in ‘merit’ and the former in ‘wealth’ and ‘pleasure.’ This same idea is going to be set forth again (in 76) — ‘If the man has gone abroad for the purposes of merit, etc.’

This text forbids journeying abroad and leaving the wife behind, in the absence of some such purpose as those herein mentioned.

‘Distressed by want of subsistence.’ — This points out a visible harm likely to arise; and is a purely declamatory assertion. ‘Distressed’ — troubled — ‘by want of subsistence’ — by poverty.

‘May become corrupt’ — by intercourse with other men.

‘Even though virtuous.’ — ‘Virtue’ stands for the customs and ways of the family; and she who keeps up these is ‘virtuous.’

It is quite likely that through hunger and other forms of privation, the distressed wife may fall into corruption, and maintain herself by betaking herself to another ‘husband.’ The affix in ‘praduṣyet’ indicates likelihood — (74)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 418), which explains ‘sthitimatī’ as ‘endowed with modesty and other virtues.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.74-75)

Viṣṇu (25.9-10). — ‘She shall not decorate herself with ornaments while her husband is absent from home; — nor resort to the bouses of strangers.’

Yājñavalkya (1.84). — ‘Amusements, ornamenting the body, visiting social gatherings and festivals, visiting other’s houses — these should be avoided by the woman whose husband has gone abroad.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka,p. 108). — ‘Swinging, dancing, amusements, picture-seeing, applying cosmetics, visiting gardens, going out in conveyances, sitting in exposed places, rich food and drink, sporting with balls, perfumes, garlands, ornaments, polishing of teeth, collyrium, and toilet, — all these should be avoided by women whose husbands have gone abroad.’

Bṛhaspati (25.9-10). — ‘While her husband is absent, a woman must avoid decorating herself, as well as dancing, singing, public spectacles or festivals and meat or intoxicating drinks.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 440). — ‘During the absence of her husband, the woman shall not adorn herself, nor unbind her hair.’

VERSE 9.75

Section VI - Duties of the Husband going Abroad

विधाय प्रोषिते वृत्तिं जीवेन्नियममास्थिता ।
प्रोषिते त्वविधायैव जीवेत्शिल्पैरगर्हितैः ॥७५॥

vidhāya proṣite vṛttiṃ jīvenniyamamāsthitā |
proṣite tvavidhāyaiva jīvetśilpairagarhitaiḥ ||75||

When the husband has gone abroad after having provided for her subsistence, she shall live on, firmly devoted to restraint. When however he has gone without providing for it, she shall subsist by unobjectionable industries. — (75)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Restraint’ — such as, avoiding the house of others, in the absence of her husband, as she does when he is present ‘Devoted’ — fixed, observing.

When he has gone without making provision for her, she should subsist by industries; — such as, spinning, lace-making and the like. The ‘objectionable’ industries are the making of fans and such things.

These are the means of subsistence for widows, depending upon their own labour. — (75)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 438), which explains the construction as ‘vṛttim vidhāya proṣiie;’ and explains ‘jīvet’ as ‘should maintain herself by the means provided for her by her husband.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.74-75)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.74.

VERSE 9.76

Section VI - Duties of the Husband going Abroad

प्रोषितो धर्मकार्यार्थं प्रतीक्ष्योऽष्टौ नरः समाः ।
विद्यार्थं षड् यशोऽर्थं वा कामार्थं त्रींस्तु वत्सरान् ॥७६॥

proṣito dharmakāryārthaṃ pratīkṣyo'ṣṭau naraḥ samāḥ |
vidyārthaṃ ṣaḍ yaśo'rthaṃ vā kāmārthaṃ trīṃstu vatsarān ||76||

If the husband went abroad for some sacred duty, he should be awaited for eight years; if for learning, or for fame, six years; but three years, if for pleasure. — (76)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said that a man may go abroad ‘on business’; the present verse proceeds to show the several kinds of ‘business,’ — the time of waiting varying with the nature of the business.

The text has said nothing as to what the wife should do after having waited for the eight years. And on this point, some people on the strength of Context, say that she should maintain herself by unobjectionable industries.

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры