with the Commentary of Medhatithi 266 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 272 из 350Следующая ⇒

tathā nityaṃ yateyātāṃ strīpuṃsau tu kṛtakriyau |
yathā nābhicaretāṃ tau viyuktāvitaretaram ||102||

Man and wife, after they have passed through the rites, should always so exert themselves that they may not become separated and be unfaithful to each other. — (102)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Should exert themselves’ — should make an effort; so that they may not be unfaithful to each other; — unfaithfulness consisting in neglect, want of co-operation in matters relating to Duty, Wealth and Pleasure.

‘Passed through the rites’ — performed the rites of marriage.

This verse is meant to be a summing up of what has gone before, and not the injunction of any thing new. — (102)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 421).

VERSE 9.103

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

एष स्त्रीपुंसयोरुक्तो धर्मो वो रतिसंहितः ।
आपद्यपत्यप्राप्तिश्च दायधर्मं निबोधत ॥१०३॥

eṣa strīpuṃsayorukto dharmo vo ratisaṃhitaḥ |
āpadyapatyaprāptiśca dāyadharmaṃ nibodhata ||103||

Thus has been expounded to you the law relating to husband and wife, which is conducive to conjugal happiness, — as also the manner of obtaining children in times of distress; learn now the partition of inheritance. — (103)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse shows the connection between what has gone before and what is coming next.

The two subjects — of the Duties of Husband and Wife, and the Begetting of Children — having been dealt with, it is the fit occasion for taking up the subject of the Partition of Inheritance. — (103)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 6).

VERSE 9.104 [Inheritance: Equal Division among Sons]

Section XI (A) - Inheritance: Equal Division among Sons

ऊर्ध्वं पितुश्च मातुश्च समेत्य भ्रातरः समम् ।
भजेरन् पैतृकं रिक्थमनीशास्ते हि जीवतोः ॥१०४॥

ūrdhvaṃ pituśca mātuśca sametya bhrātaraḥ samam |
bhajeran paitṛkaṃ rikthamanīśāste hi jīvatoḥ ||104||

After the death of the father and of the mother, the brothers, being assembled, shall divide equally the paternal property; while the parents are alive, they have no power. — (104)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Shall divide’ — the affix denotes propriety. (Further Bhāṣya not available).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“The father’s estate is to be divided after the father’s death, and the mother’s estate after the mother’s death’ (Kullūka Rāghavānanda, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana). — ‘The mother’s estate devolves on the sons, only on failure of daughters’. (Nārāyaṇa). — The word ‘ūrdhvam’ indicates by implication that the rule holds good in the case of the father’s turning an ascetic (Rāghavānanda). — The equal division takes place if the eldest does not desire to receive an additional share (Kullūka). — The last clause shows that division of the property may take place with the parents’ permission during their lifetime. (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).” — Buhler.

Of the Bhāṣya on this verse we have a single short sentence; on the next verse it is wanting in all the Mss. hitherto found; so also on several other important verses bearing on inheritance. It seems it has been purposely destroyed by the ‘Editors’ who reconstructed the Bhāṣya under King Madana. And from the fact that the pruning knife began to operate with the verse dealing with the rule regarding the larger share of the eldest brother, one feels justified in assuming that the conclusion arrived at on this point by Medhātithi was detrimental to the interests of the said King, who therefore set himself systematically to collecting all available Mss. of the work and destroying this portion. — In the absence of some such strong motive, one fails to see why the King should have taken all this trouble regarding the ‘reconstruction’ of Medhātithi’s commentary.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 455), which adds the following notes: — ‘Samam’, equal, there being no setting aside of the twentieth part (for the eldest brother). — It might be argued that since Manu has himself laid down that the twentieth part should be set aside as the additional share for the eldest brother, when they are dividing the paternal estate after the father’s death, why should he speak of ‘equal shares’? — But the fact of the matter is that the said additional share is meant only for those cases where the eldest brother happens to possess special qualifications. — Udayakara has however explained the present verse to mean that what of is to be divided into ‘equal’ shares is only that part of the property which remains after setting aside the said twentieth part. — Halāyudha and Pārijāta have read ‘saha’ in place of ‘samam’ and Pārijāta has explained it as ‘among themselves’. — The term ‘paitṛkam’ is to be expounded as ‘mātā ca pitā ca pitarau, tayoḥ idam paitṛkam’; so that the ‘mother’s estate’ also becomes included, — so says Halāyudha. — Though the text uses the term ‘paitṛkam riktham’, ‘father’s estate’, it is meant to include the estate of the grandfather and other forefathers also; in which latter also the brothers have shares. — Though it is true that both the father’s and the mother’s estate are meant, yet it has to be borne in mind that to the mother’s estate, the sons are entitled only in the absence of a daughter or her descendants.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 41), which adds that even though the text repeats the particle ‘ca’, yet it does not mean that both the parents should die before the property is divided.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p, 326), which adds the following notes: — ‘Pituḥ ūrdhvam’, this phrase indicates the time for the division of the father’s property; and ‘mātuḥ ūrdhvam’ indicates that for the division of the mother’s property; thus the meaning of the verse comes to this: — On the death of the Father, his estate is to be partitioned, even though the Mother may be living; similarly on the death of the Mother, her estate is to be partitioned, even though the Father may be living; there being no reason why the partition of the estate of the one should await the death of the other.

It is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 443); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 124) which has the following notes; — ‘Samam’, equal, — i.e., without setting apart 20 per cent for the eldest; — it might be argued that Manu has actually sanctioned 20 per cent, as the special share of the eldest brother, in connection with the partition that is done after the Father’s death; — but this sanction should be taken as referring either to cases where the eldest brother has very special qualifications, or where he is specially desirous of having a special share; — it explains the mention of the ‘mother’ as being due to the term ‘paitṛkam’ meaning ‘parental’, and hence including the mother’s property also, which can be partitioned only after the death of the ‘mother.’

It is quoted in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 331); — in Dāyakramasaṅgraha; — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 170a), which adds the following notes: — ‘Paitṛkam’, belonging to the Father and the Mother; the sense being that the Father’s property is to be divided after the Father’s death, find the Mother’s property after the Mother’s death; — the particle ‘ca’ does not imply that ‘after the death of both the parents is another time for partition’; for the simple reason that the Mother or the Father being alive can be no obstacle in the partitioning of the property of the other; — and in Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 23), which says that this verse is meant to answer the question ‘why the sons should not partition the property during the life-time of the parents’? — the reason being that during that time they have no proprietary right over it.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (28.1). — ‘After the father’s death, the sons shall divide his estate.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.3, 8). — ‘A father may divide his property among his sons; — while the father lives, the division of the estate can take place only with his permission.’

Viṣṇu (18.36). — ‘Sons who are of the same caste as the father shall receive equal shares.’

Āpastamba (2.13.1-3). — ‘Sons begotten in the right manner on a wife of the same caste as oneself have a right to inherit the estate; — if they do not sin against either of the parents.’

Yājñavalkya (2.117). — ‘After the parents, the sons shall divide equally their property as well as their debts; the mother’s property, what remains after the paying off of the debts, her daughters shall divide among themselves; and in the absence of the daughters, the offspring of their daughters.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 12). — ‘Partition is ordained only among those sons who have attained their majority; — for males, majority is attained in the sixteenth year.’

Śukranīti (4.5.591). — ‘If the father he dead, the sons and the rest are to receive their shares according to the said proportion (i.e., sons and their mothers are to be made equal sharers).’

Arthaśāstra (p. 31). — ‘During the life-time of the parents, the sons have no right over the ancestral property; after the death of the parents, there is partition of the ancestral property, and also of the self-acquired property of the father... There shall be an equal division of the property and of the debt.’

Nārada (13.49-50). — ‘After their father’s death, the sons shall succeed to his wealth in order; whenever a superior son is wanting, the one next to him shall succeed. On failure of a son, the daughter succeeds; because she continues the lineage just like the son.’

Do. (13.2). — ‘The father being dead, the sons shall divide the estate as they ought, — so shall the daughters divide the property of the mother when she dies; on failing daughters, their issue.’

Nārada (Aparārka, 718). — ‘After the father, the sons shall divide the property equally.’

Bṛhaspati (25.1). — ‘After the death of both parents, division of the property among brothers has been ordained to take place. It may take place even in the father’s life-time, if the mother be past child-hearing.’

Do. (25.10). — ‘When they divide the father’s heritage, all the sons shall share alike.’

Devala (Vivādaratnākara, p. 456). — ‘On the father’s death the sons shall divide among themselves the father’s property; they have no right over the property so long as the father is alive and is free from faults.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.). — ‘During the father’s life time, the sons shall not divide the property; the sons have no right even over that which may have been acquired subsequently; because as regards property, as well as over religious rites, the sons are dependant upon the father, so long as he is alive and is faultless.’

Saṃgrahakāra (Parāśaramādhava-Vyavahāra, p. 327). — ‘The father’s property may be divided on his death, even while the mother is living; as apart from her husband, the wife has no proprietory right; similarly the mother’s property may be divided on her death, even while the father is living, as the husband has no right over his wife’s Strīdhana while her children are there.’

VERSE 9.105 [The entire Property goes to the Eldest Brother]

Section XII - The entire Property goes to the Eldest Brother

ज्येष्ठ एव तु गृह्णीयात् पित्र्यं धनमशेषतः ।
शेषास्तमुपजीवेयुर्यथैव पितरं तथा ॥१०५॥

jyeṣṭha eva tu gṛhṇīyāt pitryaṃ dhanamaśeṣataḥ |
śeṣāstamupajīveyuryathaiva pitaraṃ tathā ||105||

The eldest brother alone may take the entire paternal property; the rest shall live under him, just as under their father. — (105)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(No Bhāṣya available).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

What is said here refers to eases where ‘the eldest son is specially virtuous’ (Kūlluka and Rāghavānanda), — or ‘possesses eminent qualities, and the others are less distinguished’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (p. 117), where Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Pitryam’, inherited from the father, — ‘Śeṣāḥ’, brothers other than the eldest, — Upajī veyuḥ, should follow him, like their father. Mitākṣarā adds that such unequal division, even though sanctioned by the scriptures, should never be adopted, being opposed to popular sentiment, and also to Vedic texts.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 35), in support of the view that the eldest son should succeed to the kingdom; — in Aparārka (p. 722), which adds that this rule is meant for eases where the younger brothers are still in status pupillari, or are not entitled to any share by reason of being idiots and so forth, or are inexperienced; — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes: — What is meant is that in partition, the eldest brother, if he happens to be possessed of all the qualities of the superior brother, should be treated as the sole master, like the Father himself; — ‘tamupajīveyuḥ’ means that ‘they should live on the subsistence provided by him.’

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (II, p. 170); — anti in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 125), as laying down an alternative course; — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 171b); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dayabhāga, pp. 35 and 103).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.105-110)

Gautama (28.3-4). — ‘Or, the whole property may go to the first-born; and he shall support the rest as a father. But in partition there is an excess of spiritual merit.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.13). — ‘A son who possesses specially good qualities becomes a protector of the rest.’

Āpastamba (2.14.6). — ‘Some people declare that the eldest son alone inherits.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.1). — ‘The father throws off his debts and obtains immortality if he sees the face of a living son.’

Viṣṇu (15.45). — (Same as Vaśiṣṭha.)

Nārada (13.5). — ‘Or the senior brother shall maintain all like a father, if they wish it; or even the youngest brother, if able; the well-being of the family depends on the ability of the head.’

Hārīta (Vivādaratnākara, p. 459). — ‘When the father has voluntarily handed over the property to the sons, or when he has gone abroad, or when he has died, the eldest son shall look after the property.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 460). — ‘When the father has been disabled, the eldest son shall carry on the business of the estate, hut never without the father’s consent.’

Mantra (Parāśaramādhava — Ācāra, p. 501). — ‘(Same as Vaśiṣṭha.)

VERSE 9.106

Section XII - The entire Property goes to the Eldest Brother

ज्येष्ठेन जातमात्रेण पुत्री भवति मानवः ।
पितॄणामनृणश्चैव स तस्मात् सर्वमर्हति ॥१०६॥

jyeṣṭhena jātamātreṇa putrī bhavati mānavaḥ |
pitṝṇāmanṛṇaścaiva sa tasmāt sarvamarhati ||106||

By the mere birth of the eldest son, a man becomes ‘with son,’ and (hence) free from the debt to Pitṛs; it is for this reason that he deserves the whole. — (106)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(No Bhāṣya available).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. Śruti — ‘Nāputrasya lokosti’ (Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.3.9).

This verse is quoted in Virādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes: — ‘Putrībhavati’, becomes one who has fulfilled the dictates of the scriptures regarding the begetting of offspring; — the addition of ‘mātra’ is meant to indicate that, the man becomes ‘with son’ even before the child has had its sacramental rites performed; — ‘anṛṇaḥ’, becomes freed, by the birth of a single son, from one of the three kinds of debts which have been described in the Śruti as besetting a man from his very birth.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 35); — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācarā, p. 501); — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 163); — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 439); — in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 686); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 43); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 656); — in Nṛsiṃhapraṣāda (Saṃskāra 25b); — in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (pp. 450 and 491), which explains ‘putrībhavati’ as ‘becomes saved from the hell called Put’; — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 86): — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 171b); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, pp. 37 and 250) as lending support to the view that one’s title to another’s property is determined also by the benefits conferred by the former on the latter.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.105-110)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.105.

VERSE 9.107

Section XII - The entire Property goes to the Eldest Brother

यस्मिनृणं संनयति येन चानन्त्यमश्नुते ।
स एव धर्मजः पुत्रः कामजानितरान् विदुः ॥१०७॥

yasminṛṇaṃ saṃnayati yena cānantyamaśnute |
sa eva dharmajaḥ putraḥ kāmajānitarān viduḥ ||107||

That son alone to whom the man transfers his debt, and through whom he attains immortality, is the ‘duty-born son;’ others are known as ‘lust-born.’ — (107).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Others, etc.’ — This is purely declamatory. If it were taken in its literal sense, the younger brothers would never be entitled to any property at all; and this would be contrary to what follows. — (107)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“This verse alludes to the Vedic text quoted, Vaśiṣṭha 17.1; Viṣṇu 15.43” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes: — ‘Sannayati’, concentrates, — ‘ānantyam’, endless bliss, — ‘aśnute’, obtains, i.e., becoming freed from debt, — ‘Kāmajān’, this is a mere exaggerated statement, because it cannot be taken to mean that the younger sons have no share in the paternal estate, since it has been distinctly declared that they do have such share.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 163); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 656); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 43); — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a); — by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 37); — and in Rājanītiratnākara (p. 40b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.105-110)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.105.

VERSE 9.108

Section XII - The entire Property goes to the Eldest Brother

पितेव पालयेत् पूत्रान् ज्येष्ठो भ्रातॄन् यवीयसः ।
पुत्रवत्चापि वर्तेरन् ज्येष्ठे भ्रातरि धर्मतः ॥१०८॥

piteva pālayet pūtrān jyeṣṭho bhrātṝn yavīyasaḥ |
putravatcāpi varteran jyeṣṭhe bhrātari dharmataḥ ||108||

The eldest brother shall support his younger brothers, just as the father supports his sons; and the younger brothers, in duty bound, shall behave towards the eldest brother, like sons. — (108)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

They should be supported like sons; but they shall not be deprived of wealth, on the ground of their being of younger age.

They also should look upon him as their father; this is what is meant by the sentence. — ‘They shall behave like sons.’ — (108)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following explanation: — The eldest brother should take care of the younger brothers, as if he were their father, and he should not separate them; — ‘putravat varteran’, they should not entertain feelings of hatred towards him; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 513, 656 and 691); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 90), as attributing the qualities of father and son to the elder and younger brothers respectively; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.105-110)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.105.

VERSE 9.109

Section XII - The entire Property goes to the Eldest Brother

ज्येष्ठः कुलं वर्धयति विनाशयति वा पुनः ।
ज्येष्ठः पूज्यतमो लोके ज्येष्ठः सद्भिरगर्हितः ॥१०९॥

jyeṣṭhaḥ kulaṃ vardhayati vināśayati vā punaḥ |
jyeṣṭhaḥ pūjyatamo loke jyeṣṭhaḥ sadbhiragarhitaḥ ||109||

It is the eldest brother who advances the family, or ruins it; the eldest brother is worthy of the highest honour; the eldest brother is never ill-treated by good men. — (109)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is another eulogy on the eldest brother.

The right sort of eldest brother ‘advances the family’; and when the same is devoid of qualities, he ‘ruins it.’ When the eldest brother has a good character, his younger brothers also behave in the same manner. And when not possessed of good qualities, all these quarrel among themselves. — (109)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes: — ‘Kulam vardhayati’, the prosperity of the family being brought about by the adopting of proper business-methods and the taking care of the younger brothers; — ‘vināśayati’, all that this means is that he is in a position to ruin the family; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 656); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.105-110)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.105.

VERSE 9.110

Section XII - The entire Property goes to the Eldest Brother

यो ज्येष्ठो ज्येष्ठवृत्तिः स्यान् मातैव स पितैव सः ।
अज्येष्ठवृत्तिर्यस्तु स्यात् स सम्पूज्यस्तु बन्धुवत् ॥११०॥

yo jyeṣṭho jyeṣṭhavṛttiḥ syān mātaiva sa pitaiva saḥ |
ajyeṣṭhavṛttiryastu syāt sa sampūjyastu bandhuvat ||110||

If the eldest brother behaves as the eldest brother, he is like a mother, and like a father. If however he does not behave like the eldest brother, he shall be honoured simply as a kinsman. — (110)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Behaving like the eldest brother’ consists (1) in treating the younger brothers with love, like that towards a son, — (2) in supporting them and looking after their property, like his own, and (3) in preventing them from wrong acts?.

If he behaves otherwise, he should he honoured ‘like a kinsman,’ — i.e., like the maternal or paternal uncle; i.e., the younger brothers shall stand up when they come up, and so forth. This means that they shall not be entirely subservient to his wishes. — (110)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes: — The ‘behaviour of the eldest’ consists in lovingly maintaining and taking care of the youngers; — ‘bandhuvat’, like the maternal uncle and other relations, he should be treated with respect, and saluted and so forth, and he should not be treated disrespectfully; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 513 and 691); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a).

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности