with the Commentary of Medhatithi 265 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 271 из 350Следующая ⇒

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Ornaments that may have been given to her on previous occasions by her brother or other relations, who would be ignorant of her desire to choose her own husband, — all such ornaments she should hand back to them. She is not to give up what has been given to her after she has actually done the act

It is only when the ornament has been given to her beforehand by persons, with the motive that she shall not be given to a particular person, — and yet it is this same person that the girl chooses for her husband, — it is not right for her to retain the gift

‘Stenaḥ,’ in the masculine form, is another reading for ‘Stenā’; in which case the ‘theft’ would lie upon the bridegroom; in which case, the father should force him to give up the ornament. — (92)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Stenaḥ’ is not the reading of Medhātithi, who only notes it as a vār. lec.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 772); — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 223); — in Aparārka (p. 94); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 148); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 217); — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 501).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.90-92)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.90.

VERSE 9.93

Section IX - The Marriage of Girls

पित्रे न दद्यात्शुल्कं तु कन्यां ऋतुमतीं हरन् ।
स च स्वाम्यादतिक्रामेद् ऋतूनां प्रतिरोधनात् ॥९३॥

pitre na dadyātśulkaṃ tu kanyāṃ ṛtumatīṃ haran |
sa ca svāmyādatikrāmed ṛtūnāṃ pratirodhanāt ||93||

When a man takes away a maiden who has reached puberty, he shall pay no nuptial fee to the father, — who would fall off from his ownership by reason of thwarting her menses. — (93)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This prohibits the payment of nuptial fees in the case of the girl who has reached puberty, and who is intended to be given away for a fee; and the reason for this is that — ‘he would fall off from his ownership.’ It is only during childhood that the girl is to live under the tutilage of her father; so that when she is taken away by a man after she has reached a higher age, — the father’s ownership over her has ceased.

Even in the case of a girl who is not intended to be given away for a fee, the father’s ownership ceases, — the grounds for such cessation (i.e., the girl having reached the higher age) being equally present in her ease also.

‘Falling off’ means cessation.

‘Thwarting’ — impeding its fruition in the shape of bearing children.

Some people say that this verse does not belong to Manu. — (93)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 3, 23, 24, 51 and 52; 8.366; — 9, 46, 71, 97 and 98; — 11.62.

“According to some people, this verse does not form part of the text of Manu” — says Medhātithi. This is not his own opinion, as Hopkins wrongly asserts.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 772); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 149); — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 223); — in Aparārka (p. 94), which explains ‘śulka’ as the price; — and in Smṛtikaumudī (p. 38).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (24.41). — ‘A girl, whose menses begin to appear while she is living at her father’s house, before she has been betrothed to a man, has to be considered as a degraded woman; by taking her without the consent of her kinsmen, a man commits no wrong.’

VERSE 9.94

Section IX - The Marriage of Girls

त्रिंशद्वर्षो वहेत् कन्यां हृद्यां द्वादशवार्षिकीम् ।
त्र्यष्टवर्षोऽष्टवर्षां वा धर्मे सीदति सत्वरः ॥९४॥

triṃśadvarṣo vahet kanyāṃ hṛdyāṃ dvādaśavārṣikīm |
tryaṣṭavarṣo'ṣṭavarṣāṃ vā dharme sīdati satvaraḥ ||94||

A man thirty years old shall marry a charming maiden twelve years old; or one twenty four years old, a damsel eight years old; in the event of his duties suffering, he may do it sooner. — (94)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What the injunction means is that the maiden married should be so much younger than the man; — and not that marriage must be done only at. the age stated. Nor is any stress meant to be laid upon the exact number of years mentioned; all that is meant is that one should many a girl very much younger than himself.

This injunction does not occur in the section dealing with Marriage; hence, what is stated here cannot he regarded as a qualification of the persons undergoing that sacrament, and consequently, as an essential factor in the rite itself; for this same reason, it cannot be taken as precluding the age of ‘ten’ or ‘twenty-five’ or such others.

“But it is often found that even though laid down in a distinct passage, a detail does form an essential factor of an act”

True; but the very fact that the teacher has thought it fit to place the present text apart from the section on marriage is clearly indicative of the fact that he had some special purpose in this.

The practice of cultured men is also as we have stated.

Further, the age here stated can never be observed in the case of one’s son marrying a second time; so that, if the injunction were meant to be taken literally, it would mean that there should be no second marriage; and this would be absurd. — (94)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 766), which says that the following is the upshot of the texts bearing on this subject: — If the age of the girl is 8 years or less, she should be married to a man whose age is three times that of hers; if it is between 8 and 12, the age of the bidegroom should two and a half times; — if her age is between 12 and 16 then that of the bridegroom shall be two years less than the double of her age. Of the sentence ‘dharme sīdati satvaraḥ,’ it gives two explanations: — (a) if he finds that his religious duties would otherwise suffer, he may marry earlier; and (b) if he marries in haste, — i.e., if he marries before he has reached the prescribed age, or if he marries a girl whose age is lower than the one prescribed, — then he suffers in spiritual merit

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 474), as laying down the extent to which the bride should be younger than the bridegroom; — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 121), which adds that this verse applies to cases where the girl has not menstruated upto 12 years; — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 215); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 82), which explains ‘tryaṣṭavarṣaḥ’ as ‘twenty-four years old’; — in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 801); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 112), which explains ‘satvara’ as ‘one of lower age,’ and deduces the conclusion that there is nothing wrong if the girl is married before her menstruation; — and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 222), which explains ‘satvaraḥ’ as one who is in a hurry to enter the Householder’s stage.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (13.41.14). — ‘One who is thirty or twenty-one years old shall take a wife sixteen years old, but before she has attained puberty.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 766). — ‘A man shall select a wife whose age is one-third of his own.’

Yama (Do.) — (Same as Manu.)

Āpastamba (Do., p. 767). — ‘A man thirty-years old shall take a wife ten years old, before she has attained puberty; and one twenty-one years old, a girl seven years old.’

Āśvalāyana (Do.). — ‘A maiden seven years old is called Śaiśavī; a man eighteen years of age shall marry her; a maiden eight years old is called Gaurī, conducive to richness of sons and grandsons; and she shall be married by a man twenty-five years old; a girl nine years old is called Rohiṇī conducive to richness of wealth; a wise man shall wed her for the accomplishment of all his desires; a girl over ten years age, until she has her courses, is called Gāndhārī; and she shall be married by a man desirous of living long.’

VERSE 9.95

Section IX - The Marriage of Girls

देवदत्तां पतिर्भार्यां विन्दते नेच्छयाऽत्मनः ।
तां साध्वीं बिभृयान्नित्यं देवानां प्रियमाचरन् ॥९५॥

devadattāṃ patirbhāryāṃ vindate necchayā'tmanaḥ |
tāṃ sādhvīṃ bibhṛyānnityaṃ devānāṃ priyamācaran ||95||

The husband obtains his wife as a present from the gods, and not by his own wish; hence he should always support the faithful wife, thereby doing what is agreeable to the gods. — (95)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What the verse means is that ‘the faithful wife should not be abandoned, even though she suffer from the defects of being disagreeable or of harsh speech and so forth’; and the rest of it is merely commendatory.

As for the rule that ‘he shall keep her confined in one room,’ which has been laid down in regard to the unfaithful wife, — this applies to a case where there has been a single act of transgression on her part; if the act is repeated, divorce must follow. Otherwise, there would be no point in the assertion that ‘he shall always support the faithful wife.’

As regards the declaration — ‘when a woman has trans gressed, she shall have all her rights withdrawn, he dressed in dirty clothes and be given mere subsistence, being allowed to live in a degraded condition, lying upon the ground’ (Yājñavalkya, 170), — this refers to a case where the husband is willing and able to keep her; if however he is unwilling, then there must be divorce.

It is going to be laid down later on that food and clothing should be provided for oven such wives as have become outcasts, and so forth; but that has to be taken only as prohibiting banishment which would be involved in the starting of a life of living on alms, which forms part of the expiatory rite consequent upon such heinous sins as the murdering of a Brāhmaṇa and the like. This we shall explain later on. In any case, it is not incumbent upon the husband to support a wife who has turned unfaithful. Nor does the present text prescribe ‘casting off’ which might be interpreted as ‘avoiding intercourse with her.’

That the wife is a ‘present from the gods’ is implied by such Vedic texts and declamatory passages as — ‘Soma gave her to Gandharva etc.,’ (Ṛgveda, 10.85.41).

Or, she may be called ‘a present from the gods’ in the sense that during the marriage-rite itself, the girl becomes the wife of the gods.

‘Obtains, — not by his own, wish.’ So that the wife does not stand on the same footing as cattle or gold picked up in the market. This is what is meant by the phrase ‘not by his own wish.’

‘What is agreeable to the gods.’ — When one divorces his wife, who is a necessary factor in the offering of libations to the Viśvedevas, he is not in a position to do ‘what is agreeable to the gods.’ Hence, even though she be hostile, she has to be supported. But in the event of her becoming an outcast, and hence losing her rights, the husband may ‘supersede’ her. — (95)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Deva-dattā’ — ‘Given by the gods, Bhaga, Aryaman, Savitṛ and the rest mentioned in the Vedic text recited during marriages’, — ‘from Agni’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘from Soma, Agni and the Gandharvas’ (Medhātithi and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 481).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (13.44.27). — ‘That man obtains his wife as a gift from the gods is the teaching of the Law; he (who does not treat her well) falsifies the word of man and god.’

VERSE 9.96

Section IX - The Marriage of Girls

प्रजनार्थं स्त्रियः सृष्टाः सन्तानार्थं च मानवः ।
तस्मात् साधारणो धर्मः श्रुतौ पत्न्या सहोदितः ॥९६॥

prajanārthaṃ striyaḥ sṛṣṭāḥ santānārthaṃ ca mānavaḥ |
tasmāt sādhāraṇo dharmaḥ śrutau patnyā sahoditaḥ ||96||

Women were created for the purpose of child-bearing, and men for the furfose of procreation. hence it is that Religious Rites have been ordained in the Veda as common between the man and his wife. — (96)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Child-bearing’ — Conception.

‘Procreation’ — Impregnating.

‘Hence’ — i.e., because of the act of child-begetting being dependent upon both, — the man’s Religious Rites have been ordained in the Veda, as being in common with his wife.

Consequently, since alone by himself he could not be entitled to the performance of any rites, he shall not abandon his wife, even though she be hostile. — (96).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 418), which adds that the term ‘prajana’ here stands for the act of conceiving and ‘santāna’ for the act of depositing the seed, fecundating.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(See texts under 85.)

Nārada (12-19). — ‘Women have been created for the sake of propagation.’

VERSE 9.97

Section IX - The Marriage of Girls

कन्यायां दत्तशुल्कायां म्रियेत यदि शुल्कदः ।
देवराय प्रदातव्या यदि कन्याऽनुमन्यते ॥९७॥

kanyāyāṃ dattaśulkāyāṃ mriyeta yadi śulkadaḥ |
devarāya pradātavyā yadi kanyā'numanyate ||97||

After the nuptial fee for a girl has been paid, if the man who paid the fee dies, the girl should be given to the younger brother-in-law, in case she consents. — (97)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When the nuptial fee has been received by her father and other relations, but she has not been given away, — only the verbal betrothal having been done, — if, in the interval, the giver of the foe happen to die, then there arises the doubt, as to whether she, in the manner of other goods, shall revert to the younger brother-in-law, or to all brothers, as in the ease of Yudhiṣṭhira and others, or in the absence of brothers, to ‘Sapiṇḍa’ relations, — the text lays down the rule that ‘she should he given to the younger brother-in-law’; — not either to all the brothers of her husband, or to all his ‘Sapiṇḍa’ relations, — but to his younger brother only. But hero also, only if the girl consents.

“In the event of the girl not consenting, what shall become of the nuptial fee?”

If the girl desires to take to life-long celibacy, then the fee shall remain with the members of her father’s family; but if she seeks for another husband, then the fee shall be refunded out of the fee received from this second man. — (97)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 153); — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 227); — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 739); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 105), which explains the meaning to be that ‘if the girl agrees she may be given to the younger brother, but if she prefers to be given to some one else, she should be given to this latter’ — in Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 454); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 530); — in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 227); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 219).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(See under 47, 69 and 71.)

Vaśiṣṭha (17-72). — ‘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.’

Kātyāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 739). — ‘If a man should die or become lost, after betrothal, the girl shall wait for three menstrual periods and then marry another person. If the betrothed should go away after having paid the nuptial fee and the girl’s dowry, the girl shall be kept unmarried for one year, after which she should be given away in the proper form to another man.’

VERSE 9.98 [Impropriety of the Nuptial Fee]

Section X - Impropriety of the Nuptial Fee

आददीत न शूद्रोऽपि शुल्कं दुहितरं ददन् ।
शुल्कं हि गृह्णन् कुरुते छन्नं दुहितृविक्रयम् ॥९८॥

ādadīta na śūdro'pi śulkaṃ duhitaraṃ dadan |
śulkaṃ hi gṛhṇan kurute channaṃ duhitṛvikrayam ||98||

Even a Śūdra should not take a nuptial fee, when he is giving away his daughter; by accepting a fee, what he does is disguised bartering. — (98)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What is to be done when the fee is received voluntarily, has been laid down in the preceding verse. Hence some people might come to entertain the following notion — “There is nothing wrong in receiving the nuptial fee, since the scriptures have laid down special rules regarding the subject.” And with a view to preclude such a notion, the text says — ‘even a Śūdra should not take a nuptial fee.’ — What the foregoing text has done is to lay down certain rules relating to cases where a man receives the fee, of his own will; and it does not lay down the propriety of receiving the fee. Just as the laying down of expiatory rites in connection with wine-drinking does not mean that the drinking is permitted.

The ‘nuptial fee’ here spoken of is the same as what has been deprecated in another text; and we have already explained why the same fact has been reiterated in the present verse.’ — (98)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 140).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.98-100)

Vaśiṣṭha (1.36). — ‘The buying of a wife is mentioned in the following passage of the Veda: — “Therefore one hundred cows besides a chariot should be given to the bride’s father.”’

Āpastamba (2.13.12) — ‘It is declared in the Veda that at the time of marriage, a gift, with a view to meet the father’s wishes, should be made by the bridegroom to the father — “Therefore he should give a hundred cows besides a chariot; this gift he should make bootless by returning it to the giver.” In reference to these marriage-rites, the word “Sale” can apply only in a metaphorical sense; as such union is effected under the law.’

VERSE 9.99

Section X - Impropriety of the Nuptial Fee

एतत् तु न परे चक्रुर्नापरे जातु साधवः ।
यदन्यस्य प्रतिज्ञाय पुनरन्यस्य दीयते ॥९९॥

etat tu na pare cakrurnāpare jātu sādhavaḥ |
yadanyasya pratijñāya punaranyasya dīyate ||99||

Good men, both ancient and modern, have never committed the act, that having promised to one they gave her to another. — (99)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been declared above that — ‘when the nuptial fee has been received, and the giver of the fee has died, the girl may be given to another man, if she consents.’ This is what is forbidden by the present text, — i.e., the act. of promising the girl to man who has paid the fee, and then to give her to another after receiving a fee from him.

What is meant is that in such cases the girl should be made to choose her own husband. — (99)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 104), which says that this refers to cases where no defects have been discovered in the bride-groom; — in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 503), which has the same note; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 218), which says that this refers to cases where the bride-groom has no defects.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.98-100)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.98.

VERSE 9.100

Section X - Impropriety of the Nuptial Fee

नानुशुश्रुम जात्वेतत् पूर्वेष्वपि हि जन्मसु ।
शुल्कसञ्ज्ञेन मूल्येन छन्नं दुहितृविक्रयम् ॥१००॥

nānuśuśruma jātvetat pūrveṣvapi hi janmasu |
śulkasañjñena mūlyena channaṃ duhitṛvikrayam ||100||

Nor indeed have we heard, even in former Cycles, of the covert sale of a daughter, for a price styled “nuptial fee.” — (100)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

We have not heard of such a thing from any source. ‘Pūrveṣu janmasu’ — i.e., in former cycles. — (100)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 232), which says that this refers to cases where the father receives the money for his own benefit

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.98-100)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.98.

VERSE 9.101 [Summary of the Law Relating to Husband and Wife]

Section XI - Summary of the Law Relating to Husband and Wife

अन्योन्यस्याव्यभिचारो भवेदामरणान्तिकः ।
एष धर्मः समासेन ज्ञेयः स्त्रीपुंसयोः परः ॥१०१॥

anyonyasyāvyabhicāro bhavedāmaraṇāntikaḥ |
eṣa dharmaḥ samāsena jñeyaḥ strīpuṃsayoḥ paraḥ ||101||

‘May mutual fidelity continue till death’, — this, in brief should be understood as the highest duty between husband and wife. — (101)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Fidelity’ — unstinted obedience in all actions. Says Āpastamba: (a) ‘The wife should not be neglected in matters relating to Duties, Wealth and Pleasure’; — (b) ‘The highest good of man consists in Duty, Wealth and Pleasure, as it is declared that the whole fabric rests upon these three factors.’

Some people hold the following view: — “What is meant by ‘fidelity’ here is non-abandonment; otherwise, as to the woman, so to the man also, it would not he open to many more than one wife.”

This however is not right; because in regard to men there is a distinct sanction — (a) ‘Those who act through mere lust, etc.,’ (b) ‘the barren wife shall be superseded in the eighth year,’ and so forth; while there is no such sanction in the case of women. There is another text also which is indicative of the same fact — ‘There are several wives for one man, but not several husbands for a woman at the same time.’

‘Until death,’ — till they die; i.e., it ends only when either of them dies.

This should be understood to be the highest duty of man and wife, stated in brief. — (101)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 110), which adds that fidelity to each other is an obligatory duty, the transgression of which necessitates expiation; — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 421).

VERSE 9.102

Section XI - Summary of the Law Relating to Husband and Wife

तथा नित्यं यतेयातां स्त्रीपुंसौ तु कृतक्रियौ ।
यथा नाभिचरेतां तौ वियुक्तावितरेतरम् ॥१०२॥

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте