with the Commentary of Medhatithi 270 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 276 из 350Следующая ⇒

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.127.

VERSE 9.130

Section XVII - Property of one who has no Male Issue: the ‘Appointed Daughter’

यथैवात्मा तथा पुत्रः पुत्रेण दुहिता समा ।
तस्यामात्मनि तिष्ठन्त्यां कथमन्यो धनं हरेत् ॥१३०॥

yathaivātmā tathā putraḥ putreṇa duhitā samā |
tasyāmātmani tiṣṭhantyāṃ kathamanyo dhanaṃ haret ||130||

The son is as one’s own self, and the daughter is equal to the son; hence so long as she is there in her own real character, how can anyone else take his property? — (130)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said that the father shall declare — ‘The child that is born of her shall be mine;’ and a man’? child inherits his property; so that at the time that the father dies, if the daughter has got no child, it would seem that she cannot inherit his property; it is in view of this that the present text lays down that she shall inherit it

‘So long as she is there in her own real character’ — of being meant to provide a son.

Or, it. may mean — ‘while the father’s own self is there, in the shape of the daughter.’

‘The daughter is equal to the son.’ — Though the text uses the generic term ‘daughter,’ yet from the context it is clear that it is the ‘appointed daughter’ that is clearly meant. — (130)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 591); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 152), to the effect that like the son, the daughter also serves the purpose of propagating the father’s race; — in Hāralatā (p. 179); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 663 and 691); — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 203a); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 270).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (13.45-11). — (Same as Manu.)

Baudhāyana (2.3-14). — ‘One must know a son begotten by the husband himself on a wedded wife of equal caste to be a legitimate son of the body. They quote the following: “From the several limbs of my body art thou produced, from my heart art thou born; thou art my very self called a son; mayst thou live a hundred years.’

VERSE 9.131

Section XVII - Property of one who has no Male Issue: the ‘Appointed Daughter’

मातुस्तु यौतकं यत् स्यात् कुमारीभाग एव सः ।
दौहित्र एव च हरेदपुत्रस्याखिलं धनम् ॥१३१॥

mātustu yautakaṃ yat syāt kumārībhāga eva saḥ |
dauhitra eva ca haredaputrasyākhilaṃ dhanam ||131||

Whatever may be the separate property of the mother is the share of the unmarried daughter alone; and the daughter’s son shall inherit the entire property of the man who has no son. — (131)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘yautaka’ is applied to the separate property of a woman; of which she alone is the sole owner. — Others apply it to only what she receives at marriage, and not to all that belongs to her; it is only over the former that she has an absolute right; as it is said that ‘women become their own mistresses, on obtaining presents at their marriage.’

Others again hold that the term ‘yautaka’ applies to the savings that the young woman makes out of what she receives from her husband for her clothing and ornaments, and also for the daily household expenses.

‘Is the share of the unmarried daughter only.’ — Since the text adds the qualification ‘unmarried,’ it is clear that what is said here does not apply to one who has been married. Further, the term ‘eva,’ ‘only,’ referring to what is well known, sets aside the implications of the context; consequently, what is said here (regarding the mother’s property) cannot apply to the ‘appointed daughter’ (who would be married).

Gautama — after having declared that the woman’s property descends to her children’ (28.24) — adds — ‘To her daughters who are unmarried and unsettled;’ where ‘unsettled’ stands for those who, though married, are childless, and without any property of their own, not having obtained a footing in the house of their husbands.

‘The grandson alone is to inherit’ — the entire property of the man who dies without a legitimate son. What would be the share of the grandson, when the man dies leaving a legitimate son, shall he declared Inter on.

The term ‘grandson’ stands for the son of the appointed daughter, in the present sentence only, not throughout the context; as it is only in connection with the ‘mother’s separate property’ (mentioned in the first half of the verse) that there is any authority for rejecting the implications of the context (which refers to the Appointed Daughter). — (131)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to Medhātithi, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa, all Strīdhana is meant; — according to ‘others’ mentioned by Medhātithi, Nandana and Rāghavānanda, the so-called ‘saudāyika’ or property derived from the father’s family.” — Buhler.

‘Kumārī’ — ‘an unmarried daughter (Medhātithi and Kullūka); — ‘a daughter who has no sons’ (Nārāyaṇa).

The first half of this verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 517) which adds the following notes: — ‘Yautakam’ here stands for what has been given to the girl at the time of her marriage, by her father and other relatives. Halāyudha however holds that it stands for what has been given to the woman for such household purposes as the purchase of vegetables and other things, out of which, by her clever management, she may have saved and increased by judicious handling. To such property of the mother either the sons or the married daughters can have no right, as a rule; but if among the married daughters there be such as are childless or otherwise ill-conditioned, these are to have an equal share in the property.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 372), which explains ‘yautakam’ as ‘property obtained from the father’s family’; — in Aparārka (p. 721), to the effect that when the mother’s property comes to be divided among her daughters, the unmarried ones have the preference over the married ones; — in Smṛtitattva II (p. 186), which has the following note: — The term ‘yautaka’ is derived from the root ‘yu’ (to join), and hence signifying junction, or union, it stands for ‘what is given at marriage’; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 631 and 750); — in Dāyakramasaṅgraha (p. 21); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 132), which says ‘yautakam’ stands for the dowry obtained at marriage, — this being indicated by the root ‘yu’ (to join) from which the word is derived, — marriage being the ‘joining’ of the husband and wife.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(See below 192.)

Mahābhārata (13.45-12). — (Same as Manu.)

Gautama (2.8.24). — ‘A woman’s separate property goes to her unmarried daughters, and on failure of such, to unsettled married daughters.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.43). — ‘The daughters shall obtain the ornaments of their mother, as many as are presented according to the custom of the caste; or anything else may be given.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.46). — ‘Let the daughters divide the nuptial present of their mother.’

Viṣṇu (17.21). — ‘If she died leaving children, her wealth goes in every case to her daughter.’

Yājñavalkya (2.145). — ‘If a woman has died without issue, her property goes to her husband, in the case of her having been married by the first four forms of marriage; but to her father, in the case of her having been married by the other forms of marriage; if she has died leaving children, her property goes to her daughters.’

Devala (Vivādaratnākara, p. 519). — ‘On the mother’s death her Strīdhana belongs equally to her sons and daughters; if she dies childless, it goes to her husband, or to her mother, or brother or father.’

Bṛhaspati (25.87 Aparārka, p. 721). — ‘A woman’s Strīdhana goes to her children; her daughter also has a share in it, if she is unmarried; if married, she receives only some honorific trifle.’

Pāraskara (Parāśaramādhana-Vyāvahāra, p. 372). — ‘A woman’s Strīdhana has been declared to belong to her unmarried daughter; if the daughter has been married, she shares it equally with her brothers.’

VERSE 9.132

Section XVII - Property of one who has no Male Issue: the ‘Appointed Daughter’

दौहित्रो ह्यखिलं रिक्थमपुत्रस्य पितुर्हरेत् ।
स एव दद्याद् द्वौ पिण्डौ पित्रे मातामहाय च ॥१३२॥

dauhitro hyakhilaṃ rikthamaputrasya piturharet |
sa eva dadyād dvau piṇḍau pitre mātāmahāya ca ||132||

The daughter’s son should inherit the entire property of the sonless father; he shall also offer two cakes — to the ‘father’ and to the ‘maternal grandfather.’ — (132)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That the son of the Appointed Daughter shall inherit the entire property of the father having been already laid down in the foregoing verse, the present verse has been explained by some people as laying down the necessity of ottering the two cakes, with reference to the said‘daughter’s son.’ And according to these people the reading is ‘hared yadi,’ ‘if the son of the Appointed Daughter inherits, etc., etc.’

According to this view, the offering of the cakes would he incumbent only in the event of the man inheriting the entire property; so that he need not offer the cakes in the event of his receiving an ‘equal share’ (as laid down under 131 below). If this were not the meaning, then there would be no point in the injunction, if the offering of cakes, which would he already indicated by the general law that ‘one shall make offerings to him From whom he receives anything.’ And in that ease any reference to the inheriting of the ‘entire property’ would he absolute purposeless.

This explanation however cannot be right. What is meant is that he ‘shall inherit the property of the sunless father;’ and ‘aputrasya pitur haret’ is the long-accepted reading also. The term‘father’ also is known to apply to the actual progenitor, and not to the maternal grandfather. Henee what is meant is that ‘if the husband of the appointed daughter has no son from any other wife, but has one from the appointed daughter, then this same son shall be the son for his own father, as also for his mother’s father.’ If however, the progenitor has sons from his other wives, then the son born of the ‘appointed daughter’ shall neither inherit the property of, nor offer cakes to, him; — even though he may be born of a mother belonging to the same caste as his father. The relation of the ‘progeny and progenitor’ is different from that of ‘father and son.’ Even though the ‘fathers’ of ‘Kṣetraja’ and some oilier kinds of son, are not their ‘progenitors,’ yet they are regarded as having those as their ‘issue’; while the fathers of the ‘purchased,’ and the ‘abandoned’ sons, even though their actual ‘progenitors,’ are not regarded as having them as their ‘issue’; as happened in the case of Ajīgarta and other persons (who sold their sons to other persons). In the definition of the ‘Aurasa’ ‘legitimate,’ son (9.166), we find the words ‘in his own soil’; and in the ease of the ‘appointed daughter’ the ‘soil’ belongs to her father; — her husband being only one who has wedded her and as such, is entitled to obedience and service.

For these reasons, the conclusion should be as follows: — in a ease where the husband of the ‘appointed daughter’ has no other sons, the son of the ‘appointed daughter’ shall inherit his entire property, and also offer funeral cakes to him. If however the father has sons from other wives, him the son of the ‘appointed daughter,’ shall not offer cukes to his father.

Such a son is called ‘daughter’s son,’ i.e., the son of the appointed daughter. In the case of the grandfather also, the same principle applies as that in the case of the father; — that is, he shall otter the cake to him whose property he inherits; and not in any other case. As a matter of fact, the injunction that ‘ho shall offer the cakes when he inherits the entire property’ does not necessarily imply that there should be no offering in other cases. Because there being no reference to the father and the grandfather, any such implication would be of the nature of ‘preclusion.’ If there were an implication, oven in the absence of such a reference, the deduction would be that offerings should be made to both. Bo that the meaning would be that — ‘just as cakes are offered to the father and the maternal grandfather, so should they be offered also to the paternal grandfather and the maternal great-grandfather, the two ancestors above the former two respectively. — (132)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 136 and 140.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 560), which adds the following notes: — ‘Aputrasya’ i.e., one who has no ‘body-born’ son; — the second half is a mere reiteration of what goes before — says Prakāśa; it is an Arthavāda providing a reason for what has gone before — says Udayakara in his commentary on Manu. [These remarks are based on the reading of the second line as dauhitra eva tu haredaputrasyāsvilaṃ dhanam ].

It is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 631 and 664); — in Hemādri (Śrādha, p. 87); — in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 427), which says that the two ‘balls’ are to be offered to the father and to the mother’s father; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 153) which adds that this refers to cases where neither of the parents of the deceased is alive; — and by Jīmūtavāhāna (Dāyabhāga, p. 278) as indicating that the grandson is entitled to the property of his mother’s father by reason of the mother deriving her body from that father.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.127-129, 9.132-133)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.127.

VERSE 9.133

Section XVII - Property of one who has no Male Issue: the ‘Appointed Daughter’

पौत्रदौहित्रयोर्लोके न विशेषोऽस्ति धर्मतः ।
तयोर्हि मातापितरौ सम्भूतौ तस्य देहतः ॥१३३॥

pautradauhitrayorloke na viśeṣo'sti dharmataḥ |
tayorhi mātāpitarau sambhūtau tasya dehataḥ ||133||

In this world, between the son’s son and the daughter’s son there is no difference, in law; for the father and mother of each of them were both born of h is own body. — (133)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a declamatory supplement to what has gone before. “Why is there no difference?”

‘Because the father and mother etc., etc’ — (133)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Na loke... na dharmataḥ.’ — ‘Neither with regard to worldly affairs nor to sacred deities’ (Kullūka); — ‘with respect to sacred duties, according to law’ (Rāghavānanda and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 191), to the effect that the son’s son and the daughter’s son being on the same footing, just as in the absence of the son, the property goes to the son’s son, so also in the absence of the daughter it should go to the daughter’s son; — again on p. 394; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 631, 664 and 752).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.127-129, 9.132-133)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.127.

VERSE 9.134

Section XVII - Property of one who has no Male Issue: the ‘Appointed Daughter’

पुत्रिकायां कृतायां तु यदि पुत्रोऽनुजायते ।
समस्तत्र विभागः स्यात्ज्येष्ठता नास्ति हि स्त्रियाः ॥१३४॥

putrikāyāṃ kṛtāyāṃ tu yadi putro'nujāyate |
samastatra vibhāgaḥ syātjyeṣṭhatā nāsti hi striyāḥ ||134||

But if a son happen to be born after the daughter has been ‘appointed,’ the division must be equal; as there is no seniority for the woman. — (134)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The division shall be equal, — there shall be equal shares, with the son thus born.

This precludes the ‘preferential share.’

‘There is no seniority for the woman.’ — The ‘seniority’ precluded is in regard to the share of inheritance only, and not in regard to the treatment to be accorded to her. — (134)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 541), which adds the following notes: — The ‘putra’ here stands for the aurasa, ‘body-born,’ son; — ‘anu’, after the ‘appointment’ of the daughter; — ‘striyāḥ’, of the ‘appointed daughter’; who the ‘appointed daughter’ is, is described by Manu in verse 127.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.132) to the effect that when both the sons — the body-born son and the son born of the ‘appointed daughter’ — are there, all the property is not to go to the former only. The Bālambhaṭṭī adds that the meaning of the last quarter is that the ‘special portion’ ordained for the ‘eldest son’ does not accrue to the ‘appointed daughter’ or her son.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 739); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 347), which has the same note as the Mitākṣarā; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 654); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 150); — in Dāyakramasaṅgraha (p. 51); — by Jīmūtavāhan (Dāyabhāga, pp. 223 and 67), as setting forth a reason why the Appointed Daughter should offer the Ball through her son.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bṛhaspati (25.33, 35). — ‘Of the thirteen sons mentioned by Manu, the Body-horn son and the Appointed Daughter continue the family. No one hut a Body-born son is declared to be the father’s heir; an Appointed Daughter is equal to him; all the others are entitled to maintenance only.’

Kātyāyana (Parāśaramādhava-Vyavahāra, p. 347). — ‘On the birth of a Body-born son, the other sons are entitled to only a fourth part of the share, if they belong to the same caste as the father; if they belong to lower castes, they are entitled to food and clothing only.’

VERSE 9.135

Section XVII - Property of one who has no Male Issue: the ‘Appointed Daughter’

अपुत्रायां मृतायां तु पुत्रिकायां कथं चन ।
धनं तत् पुत्रिकाभर्ता हरेतैवाविचारयन् ॥१३५॥

aputrāyāṃ mṛtāyāṃ tu putrikāyāṃ kathaṃ cana |
dhanaṃ tat putrikābhartā haretaivāvicārayan ||135||

If the appointed daughter happen to die without a son, the husband of that appointed daughter may, without hesitation, take that property. — (135)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

So far it would appear that the husband of the Appointed Daughter who has had no issue, has nothing to do with the property in question; hence the present text lays down his connection with it.

In this connection there arises the question: — “Does the Appointed Daughter become ‘sanctified’ by marriage or not? If she is sanctified, then she becomes a wife; as ‘marriage’ consists in ‘making a wife.’ And in that case her property naturally reverts to her husband (?). If, on the other hand, she is not sanctified by the marriage, — then, as she would still continue to be a maiden, her husband’s intercourse with her would he of the nature of having intercourse with an unmarried maiden, and would he a direct contravention of the rule that one should always remain attached to his own wife.”

You may take it any way you choose. (?)

“But in that case the present verse becomes meaningless.”

There is no force in this objection. In order to complete the usefulness of the verse, it should he taken as meant to set aside the notion that ‘just as the child horn of the Appointed Daughter does not belong to her husband, so would her property also not be inherited by him.’ As a matter of fact, again, there are several verses in the work of Manu that are purely declamatory.

Or, (for the sake of argument) it may be said that the Appointed Daughter is not sanctified by Marriage. Even so, intercourse with her would not mean intercourse with a maiden. — “How so?” — Because all that is meant is that the child born of her shall belong to its mother’s father; and any consideration of extraneous matters is entirely out of place (?) Then again, the act of the husband of the Appointed Daughter is not among those that make one an ‘outcaste’ (as it would, if it meant intercourse with a maiden).

Further, is the argument that ‘it moans intercourse with a maiden’ urged on the understanding that the name ‘maiden’ stands for the remarried widow? As a matter of fact, there are three kinds of ‘maidens’ — (l) one who has had no sexual intercourse with a male, (2) one who has dedicated herself to lifelong service of temples, and (3) one who is still a child. Now, if the objector understands the term ‘maiden’ as standing tor one who has had no sexual intercourse, then, the first intercourse that the husband has with his married wife would also be ‘intercourse with a maiden.’ In the present treatise, the term ‘kanyā,’ ‘maiden,’ is generally used in the sense of ‘one who has had no sexual intercourse with a male.’

If the term ‘maiden’ be taken to stand for one for whom the sacraments have not been performed, — that cannot he right; as words expressive of that would he forthcoming at the very outset (?) In fact, it is only on the strength of other authorities that the term is taken figuratively as standing for the said person (?) It has been said that — ‘all the sacred texts used at marriage are applicable to maidens only, and never to non-maidens, because the latter are such as have fallen off from all religious rites’ (8.226); and the mention of ‘falling off from religious rites’ is clearly indicative of the fact that the girl who has had intercourse with man is a ‘non-maiden’; and obviously, she who has not had such intercourse is a ‘maiden.’ In all these cases the ‘rites’ referred to are those that are done in accordance with the direct signification of the term ‘maiden.’ Now the question arises whether this is so in the case of all ‘rites, ‘or only in those in regard to which there are other authorities? Now, as regards the son called ‘maiden-born’ ‘Kānīna,’ the very name indicates that the girl is still under her father and is devoid of the sacramental rite (of marriage). If the name indicated only the absence of religions rites, — i e., if the name ‘maiden-horn’ applied to the child not born of lawful wed-lock, — then the son of the married woman also, begotten by men other than her husband, would he ‘maiden-born.’ On the other hand, if the name indicated the ownership of the father only, then the daughter of the Appointed Daughter also would come to be called ‘maiden-born’.

It has been said above that intercourse with the ‘maiden’ involves the transgression of the law that one should have intercourse with his ‘wife’ only, lint this law does not mean that, ‘one should not have intercourse with women other than his wife,’ or that, ‘he should not love another woman or another wife.’ Because if it meant that, then all this prohibition being already contained in this law, any separate prohibition of ‘intercourse with the wives of others’ would he entirely superfluous. What the said law does mean is that ‘the man shall cherish love for his wife,’ — the cultivating of the feelings of love being conducive to great happiness. (?) The passage — ‘One should not cherish desire for any woman, nor the wife of another man, as by avoiding this he falls not off from virtue’ — is a mere reiteration. Or, it may only mean the injunction that ‘while remaining attached to his own wife, one should avoid intercourse with her on the sacred days.’ Even so, the injunction would be only supplementary to another. Nor would the case in question fall within the prohibition of intercourse with ‘another’s wife’; because so long as she has not been married, she cannot, be called ‘wife.’

Now what is the right course to adopt?

The right course is that the girl (Appointed Daughter) should not be wedded by any person. There are eight forms of marriage; they have been styled ‘Brāhma’ and the rest, in accordance with the nature of the manner of acceptance involved in each; and in the case of the Appointed Daughter, there is no ‘acceptance’ (or making own); as in her case, the ownership of the girl’s father does not cease. Further, the very prohibition regarding the marrying of a brotherless girl implies that one should not marry the ‘Appointed Daughter.’ It is said for instance that — ‘one should not marry a brotherless girl, as her son belongs to her father’ (Gautama, 28.20). This prohibition occurs in a special context; and the trangression of this would make the marriage lose its true sacramental character; just as the marrying of a Śūdru girl by a Brāhmaṇa deprives his ‘fire’ of the ‘Āhavanīya’ (sacrificial) character.

Mere prohibition however of a certain marriage does not necessarily deprive it of its sacramental character. In many eases, for instance, people marry the ‘tawny girl,’ and several such others as are forbidden; and with the assistance of those wives they do cany on their religious duties. But if the girl belongs to the same Gotra or Pravara as her husband’s, then, even though she has been ‘married,’ she cannot fulfill the duties of the ‘wife’ for him. It is in view of this fact that in connection with the rule that — ‘one should not marry the lawny girl ete., etc.,’ — some people have held that the prohibition, pertains to the visible disabilities, and hence it does not stand on the same footing as the prohibition of the marrying of a ‘sapiṇḍa’ girl; though both the prohibitions occur in the same context.

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры