with the Commentary of Medhatithi 263 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 269 из 350Следующая ⇒

This however is not right Because, if the maintaining of herself by unobjectionable industries referred to the time after the eight years of waiting, — then, before the- lapse of that time, is she to die? Suicide is not considered desirable for her, just as it is not for the man; being, as it is, forbidden for all. Hence, the conclusion appears to be that before the lapse of the said time she shall maintain herself by unobjectionable industries; but after that she may have recourse to objectionable ones also.

Others hold that after the said time, the woman may deviate from chastity; — as says smother Smṛti text — ‘When the husband is lost, or dead, or become a renunciate, or impotent, or an outcast — in the event of these five calamities smother husband is permitted for women.’ (Parāśara).

Others again hold the following view: — Even in ignorance, it is not open to the woman to renounce her chastity. In fact, it has been laid down among the duties of women (under 5.156) that ‘on the death of her husband she shall not even utter the name of another man’; so that deviation from chastity is not permissible even on the death of her husband, — what to say as to when he has only gone abroad. As regards the Smṛti-text quoted, the word ‘pati’ ‘husband,’ is used there in the sense of protector, just as in the case of such terms as ‘grāmapati’, ‘senāpati’ and so forth. So that all that the present text means is that — ‘she should no longer remain dependent upon her husband, she may undertake the work of the toilet-maid or some such thing, under another man who would give her food’; and when she has entered into a contract for such service extending over six months, or a year — if the husband happen to turn up and claim her, asking the employer to give her up, — he can claim her restitution, before the lapse of the eight years; as before that she belongs to her husband.

Other matters relating to this subject have been fully dealt with under Discourse V.

This same view has been accepted by many others also.

Other people, however, hold that the text sanctions recourse to the life of the ‘remarried widow’ (after the lapse of the time mentioned). If a woman is abandoned by her husband, — or if her husband, after having made provision for her, does not return during the said time, and she is as good as abandoned by him, — ‘then, she may he married by another man, according to the practice of ‘widow remarriage’; and if the former husband happen to return after that, he can say nothing, and she shall continue to be the wife of the second husband.

This however is not right; since ‘neither by sale nor by repudiation is the wife released from her husband.’ (Manu 9.46); and the uses of this text we shall explain later on.

‘For a sacred duty’ — The compound ‘dharmakāryam’ being explained as a karmadhāraya — ‘dharma’ — ‘sacred’ — ‘kārya’ — duty; and that which is for purposes of this is ‘dharmakāryārtham.’

Objection — “For the house-holder, wherefore should there he any protracted journey abroad for a sacred duty? It is incumbent upon him to attend upon the Fires, to perform the

Five Sacrifices. How too can he remain away during the spring season? Since he has got to perform the Jyotiṣ -sacrifice during the spring. Even such acts as bathing in sacred places and the like, which are enjoined by Smṛti texts, have to be performed by him only so long as they are compatible with those laid down by Śruti texts. These could not be possible even for one who has gone abroad after having made arrangements for the maintenance of the fires and other such Śrauta rites. Since it has been laid down that ‘journeys, after proper arrangements during absence, are permissible only till the next New or Full Moon’; and it has also been declared that ‘on the New or Full Moon Day the man shall pour the libations himself.’ Even for one who has not laid the Fires, if pilgrimages were undertaken, — even though these and the performance of the Five Sacrifices would stand upon the same footing, both being laid down by Smṛti texts, — yet as both the acts are laid down as to be done by him along with his wife, there should be no pilgrimage if the wife were left behind.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — What is said here refers to the commands of one’s elders; — ‘i.e., to the case where the man is sent out by his elders, either for acquiring merit, a for attendance upon the king, or on some business of their own, — this going abroad would be ‘for a sacred duty.’ Or, it may refer to the performance of such Expiatory Rites as consist in wandering about hermitages and such places. Or, ‘for satred duty’ may stand for the acquiring of wealth, — the man being poor and seeking to earn wealth by some means. ‘Or for the sake of learning.’ —

Objection — “But the taking of a wife is possible only.after one has taken the Final Bath, which is possible only for one who has completed his studies and already acquired learning; wherefore then could there be any possibility for a married man to seek for learning?”

It has been already explained that even after learning a little of what is contained in the Veda, a man becomes entitled to marry, and also to the Final Bath and other Ceremonies.

“This cannot be right; there is Final Bath only after the ‘enquiry into Dharma’ has been completed; and ‘enquiry’ consists in “coming to a definite conclusion after due consideration and clearing of doubts.”

True; but the present text does not contain the injunction that ‘one should seek for learning.’ If it were so, then it would be already included under the ‘purpose of sacred duty’. Then again, even though the man may have acquired sufficient learning to entitle him to Bath and Marriage, yet it would be open to him to seek for further proficiency and practice, specially in the new sciences.

Journey is said to be ‘for fame’, when one goes abroad for advertising his bravery or learning.

‘For pleasure’, — for instance, when one follows a prostitute; or goes about seeking for a more desirable wife.

Another Smṛti text lays down the period of time in reference to the children born: — Says Viṣṇu — ‘The Brāhmaṇa shall wait till eight children are born, the Kṣatriya six and the Vaiśya four.’

There is no time-limit in the case of Śūdras. But some people declare the limit in their case to be one year. — (76)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda hold that after the expiration of the terms mentioned, the wife shall go to seek her husband. Nandana says — ‘the meaning is that no sin is committed if she afterwards takes another husband’. — Medhātithi, having noted and dismissed two other explanations — (a) that ‘she should maintain herself by blameless methods’ [which is the explanation attributed to Medhātithi himself by Buhler], and (b) that ‘she may have intercourse with another man*, — propounds the explanation that ‘she may take service under another man as a toilet-woman in his house, and on the return of her husband, she may return to him, if he can induce her to go.’ He also notes and rejects the explanation of the ‘ancients’ that ‘she may marry another man.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (12.98-101). — ‘Eight years shall a Brāhmaṇa woman wait for the return of her absent husband; or four years, if she has no issue; after that she may betake herself to another man. A Kṣatriya woman shall wait six years; or three years if she has no issue; a Vaiśya woman, for three years if she has issue; otherwise, two years. No definite period is prescribed for a Śūdra woman, whose husband has gone on a journey. Twice the above periods is ordained for eases where the absent husband is alive and tidings are received of him. The above rules have been laid down for those cases where a man has disappeared. No offence is imputed to a woman if she goes to live with another man after the fixed period has elapsed.’

Gautama (18.15-17). — ‘A wife must wait for six years, if her husband has disappeared. If he is heard of, she shall go to him. But if the husband has become a Renunciate, his wife must refrain from intercourse with men. The wife of a Brāhmaṇa who has gone abroad for study must wait for twelve years.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.75-80). — ‘The wife of an emigrant shall wait for live years. After five years have passed, she may go out to seek her husband. If, for reasons connected with spiritual or pecuniary matters, she be unwilling to leave her home, she must behave in the same manner as if her husband were dead. In this manner a Brāhmaṇa woman with issue shall wait five years, and one having no issue, four years; a Kṣatriya woman with issue, five years, and one without issue, three years; a Vaiśya woman with issue, five years, and one without issue, two years; a Śūdra woman with issue, three years and one without issue, one year. After that, she shall live among those who are united with her husband, in interest, or by birth, or by the funeral cake, or by water-libations, or by descent from the same family, — each earlier named person being more venerable than the following one. But while any member of the family is living, she shall never go to a stranger.’

VERSE 9.77 [The Recalcitrant Wife: Supersession, Divorce]

Section VII - The Recalcitrant Wife: Supersession, Divorce

संवत्सरं प्रतीक्षेत द्विषन्तीं योषितं पतिः ।
ऊर्ध्वं संवत्सरात् त्वेनां दायं हृत्वा न संवसेत् ॥७७॥

saṃvatsaraṃ pratīkṣeta dviṣantīṃ yoṣitaṃ patiḥ |
ūrdhvaṃ saṃvatsarāt tvenāṃ dāyaṃ hṛtvā na saṃvaset ||77||

For one year the husband shall bear with a hating wife; after the year he shall wrest her property and cease to co-habit with her. — (77)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Hating’ — she who hates her husband.

The meaning of the verse is that he shall not turn her out of the house. Though the use of the root ‘vas’ with ‘sam’ is not compatible with the Accusative ending in ‘enam’; and ‘samvaset’, ‘co-habit’, would stand for ‘samvāsayet’, ‘allowed to live with him yet it should be taken to mean ‘chiding’. Even in the case of grievious sins, the woman is not to be turned away, since it has been laid down that ‘she is to be kept imprisoned in one room’; similarly, in the case of expiatory rites in connection with such sins. The confiscation of her property also is for the purpose of bringing her to her senses; and it does not mean absolute taking away of all her belongings. — (77)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 423).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.77-84)

Nārada (12.92-95). — ‘The woman who wastes the entire property of her husband under the pretence that it is her own strīdhana, or who procures abortion, or who makes an attempt on her husband’s life, — the King shall banish her from the town. One who always shows malice to him, or makes unkind speeches, or eats before her husband, — he shall expel from his house. Let not a husband show love to a barren woman, or to one who gives birth to female children only, or whoso conduct is reprehensible, or who constantly contradicts him; if he does love conjugal intercourse with her, he becomes liable to censure himself. If a man forsakes a wife who is obedient, sweet-spoken, skilful, virtuous and the mother of male issue, — the King shall make him mindful of his duty by inflicting severe punishment.’

Yājñavalkya (1.73). — ‘One who drinks wine, or is diseased, or guileful, or barren, or destructive of wealth, or harsh-tongued, or brings forth only female children, or bears malice towards her man, — shall be superseded.’

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 100). — ‘So long as one’s wife is endowed with virtue and offspring, one shall not take to another wife; if she be wanting in either of the two, he shall take to another.’

Baudhāyana (2.4-516). — ‘Let him abandon a barren wife in the tenth year; one who bears daughters only, in the twelfth; one whose children all die, in the fifteenth; but her who is quarelsome, without delay.’

Do. (Vivādaratnākara, p. 425). — ‘If she does not attend upon him, or is barren or inimical to her husband, — such a wife the wise men always abandon; as also one who talks hurriedly and harshly.’

Viṣṇu (Vivādaratnākara, p. 423). — ‘He who forsakes a faultless wife should be punished like a thief.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘There is no expiation for the man who forsakes his wife, through folly and unjustly, and thereby abandons his duty and also progeny; hut he may abandon her if she is leprous or outcast or barren, or insane or with menstruation disorganised, or inimical towards himself.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.). — ‘One who is averse to sexual intercourse, or to pilgrimage, or to the performance of her duties, or who has intercourse with a disciple or an elder, — these four kinds of wife should he abandoned; specially one who is prone to injure her husband.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘He shall avoid a wife who destroys her embryo, has intercourse with lower castes, or with his disciples and sons, or is addicted to vicious habits, or is in the habit of wasting money and-grains.’

Do. (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 873). — ‘The childless wife should be abandoned in the ninth year; one who loses her children, in the tenth year; one who gives birth to daughters only, during the eleventh year; and one of harsh words, immediately.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 872), — ‘One shall supersede a wife who is habitually unpleasant or inimical towards men, or disagreeable.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘If a wife gives birth to too many children, the husband shall wait for eight years; if she is barren and otherwise defective, ten years; if she gives birth to daughters only, for twelve years, — and then, desirous of male issue, he shall take another wife in the lawful manner.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava — Ācara, p. 508). — ‘If the wife is one that puts obstacles in the way of the performance of religious acts, or is unchaste, or is very much diseased, — the husband shall abandon her, for the; preservation of his righteousness; — if she is harsh of speech, he shall not abandon her, but supersede her; nor shall he give up having intercourse with her.’

Dakṣa (Aparārka, p. 113). — ‘If the first wife, who is the wife-in-law, becomes faulty, then alone he shall take another wife with better qualities.’

VERSE 9.78

Section VII - The Recalcitrant Wife: Supersession, Divorce

अतिक्रामेत् प्रमत्तं या मत्तं रोगार्तमेव वा ।
सा त्रीन् मासान् परित्याज्या विभूषणपरिच्छदा ॥७८॥

atikrāmet pramattaṃ yā mattaṃ rogārtameva vā |
sā trīn māsān parityājyā vibhūṣaṇaparicchadā ||78||

If the wife disregards her husband who is mad, or intoxicated, or afflicted by disease, she should be deprived of ornaments and appurtenances and abandoned for three months. — (78)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Disregarding’ means neglect of his service, omitting to look after his medication and diet; it does not stand for having recourse to another man.

The ‘abandoning’ for three months also stands only for the omitting of endearing caresses, etc., for reasons already given.

She shall be deprived of ‘ornaments’, such as necklaces, bracelets and so forth; — ‘and of appurtenances’ — such as vessels, water-jars, slaves and slave-girls, etc., etc. — (78)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 423).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.77-84)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.77.

VERSE 9.79

Section VII - The Recalcitrant Wife: Supersession, Divorce

उन्मत्तं पतितं क्लीबमबीजं पापरोगिणम् ।
न त्यागोऽस्ति द्विषन्त्याश्च न च दायापवर्तनम् ॥७९॥

unmattaṃ patitaṃ klībamabījaṃ pāparogiṇam |
na tyāgo'sti dviṣantyāśca na ca dāyāpavartanam ||79||

If, however, she shows aversion to one who is mad, or an outcast, or impotent, or seedless, or afflicted with foul disease, there shall be no desertion, nor the wresting of her property. — (79)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Impotent’ and ‘seedless’, both denote absence of manly vigour; the only difference is that while the former indicates futility of the seed, the latter implies total absence of virility.

If a wife shows an aversion to such a husband, she is not to suffer punishment.

‘Wresting’ — means confiscation. Banishment, stopping of food and such other punishments have been forbidden by other Smṛti-texts. — (79)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 423).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.77-84)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.77.

VERSE 9.80

Section VII - The Recalcitrant Wife: Supersession, Divorce

मद्यपाऽसाधुवृत्ता च प्रतिकूला च या भवेत् ।
व्याधिता वाऽधिवेत्तव्या हिंस्राऽर्थघ्नी च सर्वदा ॥८०॥

madyapā'sādhuvṛttā ca pratikūlā ca yā bhavet |
vyādhitā vā'dhivettavyā hiṃsrā'rthaghnī ca sarvadā ||80||

If the wife is a drunkard, or false in conduct, or rebellious, or diseased or mischievous, or wasteful, — she should be superseded. — (80)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Drunkard’ — addicted to drinking wine; and hence incapable of looking after cooking, and other household work. Such a woman deserves “supersession.” If she persists in drinking, even after she has been forbidden by her elders, she shall undergo the punishment laid down later on, in verse 84. For the sin of transgressing what she ought to observe, she should perform an expiatory rite; but on repetition, she shall be superseded.

Other grounds for supersession have been laid down as hampering the due fulfilment of religious rites, begetting of children and other household duties.

In the case of the Brāhmaṇa woman, for whom wine-drinking has been forbidden by the scriptures, there is to be expiation of the sin of drinking, if the act is not repeated. She does not become an outcast, since the grounds for women being outcasts have been enumerated — ‘abortion, and service of low-born men are the grounds for women becoming outcasts’ — (says Gautama, 21.9.) All this we shall explain under Discourse XI; it has been dealt with under Discourse V also.

‘False in Conduct’ — whose conduct is not good; for instance, whose treatment of servants is harsh, who takes her food even before the religious offerings have been made, who has no faith in rites in honour of gods and pitṛs, or in the feeding of Brāhmṇnas and such religious acts.

‘Wasteful’ — who is a spendthrift, and does not take proper care of her utensils and furniture, and buys them at high prices and so forth.

‘Mischievous’ — who is inclined to inflict punishments for very small offences (?), and who is prone to interfere with ordinary daily expenditure (?).

‘Supersession’ — i.e., marrying of a wife over and above the said one. — (80)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 508), which explains ‘vyādhitā’ as ‘suffering from a long lingering disease — in Madanapārijāta (p. 188), which adds the following notes: — ‘Madyapā’, the woman who is addicted to drinking what is forbidden for the caste to which she belongs, — ‘asatyavṛttā,’ whose conduct is not good, — ‘pratikūlā,’ in the habit of doing tilings disagreeable to her husband and of beating her children, servants and others, — ‘arthaghnī,’ prone, through idleness, to wasting money, — ‘adhivedana’ means the taking of another wife.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 100), which adds the note that ‘vyādhitā’ means suffering from a lingering disease; — it quotes this verse in support of the view that what is meant to be a ground for superseding the wife is not the drinking of liquor, but the drinking of any intoxicant; the drinking of wine being one of the ‘serious’ sins, it would make the woman liable to be renounced, and not only superseded.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 871), whieh adds that ‘Madyapā’ here has been held by older writers to refer only to women of the twice-born castes; but in reality it refers to all the four castes, for all of whom the drinking of all the three kinds of ‘wine’ — Gauḍī, Mādhvī and Paiṣṭī — is forbidden; — ‘asatyavṛttā’ is ill-behaved or untruthful; — ‘pratikūlā,’ acting in ways injurious to her husband; — ‘vyādhitā,’ suffering from such diseases as render her unfit for household work; — ‘hiṃsrā’, addicted to beating children and maidservants; — ‘arthaghnī’, ‘prone to wasting the wealth acquired;’ — ‘sarvadā’ is to be construed as qualifying ‘asatyavṛttā’ and the other epithets, — the meaning being the wife who is always untruthful.

It is quoted in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 592), which explains ‘vyādhitā’ as a ‘confirmed invalid.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.77-84)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.77.

VERSE 9.81

Section VII - The Recalcitrant Wife: Supersession, Divorce

वन्ध्याष्टमेऽधिवेद्याब्दे दशमे तु मृतप्रजा ।
एकादशे स्त्रीजननी सद्यस्त्वप्रियवादिनी ॥८१॥

vandhyāṣṭame'dhivedyābde daśame tu mṛtaprajā |
ekādaśe strījananī sadyastvapriyavādinī ||81||

The barren wife shall be superseded in the eighth year; in the tenth she whose children die off; in the eleventh she who bears only daughters; but immediately she who talks harshly. — (81)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The text proceeds to lay down the supersession of other kinds of wives.

Among these, the barren one should be superseded in the eighth year; in the tenth, she whose children die off.

By marrying a second wife the man shall save himself from the contingency of disobeying the injunction regarding the Laying of Fire (to which a childless person is not entitled), and that regarding the begetting of children, — to which he would be liable by reason of his wife being childless. Because, the Laying of Fire is not found to be prescribed for a sonless person.

The same holds good regarding the wife that bears only daughters; as also she whose children die off.

As regards the wife who is harsh of speech, as there is no such serious defect, there need be no supersession; and she may be forgiven. — (81)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 188), which adds that ‘adhivettavyā’ has to be supplied at the end; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 873); — in Aparārka (p. 100); — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 230); — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 508); — and in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 363).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.77-84)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.77.

VERSE 9.82

Section VII - The Recalcitrant Wife: Supersession, Divorce

या रोगिणी स्यात् तु हिता सम्पन्ना चैव शीलतः ।
साऽनुज्ञाप्याधिवेत्तव्या नावमान्या च कर्हि चित् ॥८२॥

yā rogiṇī syāt tu hitā sampannā caiva śīlataḥ |
sā'nujñāpyādhivettavyā nāvamānyā ca karhi cit ||82||

But if a wife, who is an invalid, is well-disposed and endowed with modesty, she may be superseded after her consent has been obtained; and in no case is she to be disgraced. — (82)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Will-disposed’ — towards her husband; devoted to his service.

The present verse enjoins — (a) that her consent is to be obtained, and (b) that she shall not be disgraced. This applies also to the case of the barren wife, and to that of one who bears only daughters; because, all these have been mentioned in the same context; and in none of these is there any reason why she should be disgraced.

‘In no cane’ — never.

‘Disgraced’ — in the form of harsh words addressed in admonition. — (82)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 100), which adds that the qualification ‘sick’ includes also the ‘barren’ wife, and ‘one who gives birth to female children only’; — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 508), as laying down a special consideration in the case of the devoted wife; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 872) which adds that ‘hitā’ is mentioned only by way of illustration.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология