with the Commentary of Medhatithi 271 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 277 из 350Следующая ⇒

“Wherefore then is there any prohibition as to the case of the Appointed Daughter falling under Marriage?” Because as a supplement to the said prohibition, there is the assertion ‘because the child belongs to the father.’

Thus then, it is only in so far as the obtaining of children is concerned that the Appointed Daughter cannot he one’s ‘wife’; she is fully entitled to assist as ‘wife’ in all that relates to sacred duties, property and pleasure.

This may ho so; yet, inasmuch as she cannot become the man’s own, there can be no real marriage (which implies ownership).

“In that case the son of the Appointed Daughter would be ‘maiden-born.’ Because he would not belong to his progenitor; he being the child of parents not lawfully wedded, if however, the marriage of the Appointed Daughter is of the nature of a ‘sacrament,’ the child fulfills both conditions — that of belonging to his progenitor and being born of duly hallowed wed-lock. And if he fails in only one of those two conditions, he is still different from the‘maiden-born.’”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — The character of the‘maiden-born’ son is not present in the son of the Appointed Daughter.

The definition of the ‘maiden-horn’ is thus stated — ‘A son whom a maiden secretly bears in her father’s house, one should call maiden-born by name; and the child horn of the maiden belongs to the man who marries her’ (9.172). And the meaning of this is as follows. — ‘If a son fulfills these conditions, he shall he regarded in this treatise as maiden-born; and the question arising as to the person to whom such a son belongs, the text adds, as an additional sentence, that ‘the child horn of the maiden belongs to the man who marries her.’ Or, this text may he taken not as defining the particular kind of son, but simply as declaring his relationship; — the sense being that ‘the maiden-born son should he regarded as related to the person who marries the girl’; so that the whole text forms one connected sentence. As a matter of fact, relationship varies with variations in the persons concerned and the attendant circumstances, — such for instance, as while the one (the maiden-born) is begotten secretly, the other (that of the Appointed Daughter) is begotten openly.

Thus the idea that the text quoted supplies the definition of the ‘maiden-born’ son should be regarded as repudiated. It only points out that the child is‘maiden-born’....(?)

Others however have declared that the Smṛti text itself has a special hearing; the name‘maiden-horn’ is not applied to every child of an unmarried‘maiden’; it applies only to such a child as has been defined by Manu.

This view also we accept (??) — (135)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Dhanam.’ — ‘What the appointed daughter received from her father either during his life-time or on his death.’ (Nārāyaṇa). — But Kullūka says that this prohibits the father inheriting the appointed daughter’s estate on the plea that she was his ‘son.’ — According to Nandana it precludes the paternal uncle and other relatives from inheriting the property of an appointed daughter.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p.754), which adds that this refers to the case of the daughter who has been ‘appointed’ under the terms that ‘the son born of this girl shall be mine’, and not to that of one who is ‘appointed’ as herself being the ‘son’; in the case of the latter the husband is precluded from inheriting her property, by Paiṭhīnasi.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 520), which adds that this rule is meant for cases where the dead sonless daughter has no unmarried daughter or sister; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 374), which adds that this refers to cases where no brother-is born to the lady, oven subsequently; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 742 and 765); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga p. 276), which says that this refers to cases where a son has been born to the Appointed Daughter and has died.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.145). — ‘The property of a childless woman goes to her husband.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka, p. 754). — ‘If an Appointed Daughter dies childless, her husband does not inherit her property.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.) — ‘When an Appointed Daughter dies childless, her property should not go to her husband; it should be taken cither by her mother or by her mother-in-law [for these two, the text, as quoted in Vivādaratnākara, p. 521, mentions the unmarried sister.]’

Devala (Vivādaratnākara, p. 519). — ‘If a woman dies childless, her property should be taken either by her husband, or by her mother or by her brother or by her father.’

Nārada (13.9). — ‘If the woman has no offspring, her property goes to her husband, if they were married in the first four forms of marriage; it shall go to her parents, if she had been married in the last four forms of marriage.’

VERSE 9.136

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

अकृता वा कृता वाऽपि यं विन्देत् सदृशात् सुतम् ।
पौत्री मातामहस्तेन दद्यात् पिण्डं हरेद् धनम् ॥१३६॥

akṛtā vā kṛtā vā'pi yaṃ vindet sadṛśāt sutam |
pautrī mātāmahastena dadyāt piṇḍaṃ hared dhanam ||136||

Either appointed on not appointed, if a daughter bears a son to a husband of equal status, through that son does the maternal grandfather become endowed with a ‘son’s son’; he shall offer the funeral cake and inherit his property. — (136)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

By duly considering what has gone before and what follows next, it is clear that the present verse also refers to the Appointed Daughter.

It has been said that the son of the unappointed daughter also is entitled to the property of his maternal grandfather; how much more so is the son of the Appointed Daughter entitled to it? — This is the idea meant to be expressed. The verse cannot he taken as laying down the title of the grandson to the property of the maternal grandfather; for if such a general principle were recognised, then there would be no need for the institution of the ‘appointed daughter’ at all.

“But in another Smṛti text it is found to be laid down that it is incumbent upon every daughter’s son to offer the cake to his maternal grandfather: — ‘so also on behalf of the mother’s fathers’ (Yājañvalkya, 1.228). And in the present verse also, if we ignore the fact of its occurring in a context dealing with the ‘appointed daughter,’ and bear in mind the words of the text itself, it appeal’s only reasonable to take, as pertaining to every daughter’s son, the injunction regarding ‘the offering of cakes and the inheriting of property. In another text also, it has been declared that ‘the daughter’s son shall take the entire property etc., etc.’ (Manu, 9.132).”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — In the text quoted from Yājñavalkya, we find the term ‘mother’s fathers’

in the plural; now does this refer directly to the individual ‘father,’ or indirectly to the ‘mother’s grandfather’ and other ancestors? In the former case, it would mean that the offering is to be made to the maternal grandfather only, just like the ordinary ‘Śrāddha’ and other offerings; and this would be wrong, after the ‘Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa’ has been done (which has unified the mother’s father with her grandfather and great-grandfather); since it has been declared that ‘after the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa one shall offer cakes to all the three.’ If it be held that the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa rite itself may not be performed. But this also could not be; as the performance of it is nowhere forbidden. As for ‘indirect’ indication, it can be justified only under very special circumstances; and then too it must be in consonance with the direct declaration of Śruti texts. And it is only in very special circumstances that a text ean be entirely separated from the context in which it occurs; as is found to be the case in regard to the ‘Twelve Upasads.’ (Mīmāṃsā Sūtra. 3.3.15-16).

As for the epithet ‘not appointed,’ it has been already explained that it means something quite different.

For all these reasons, the verse must be taken as referring to the son of the Appointed Daughter only. — (136)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘(a) Akṛtā vā (b) kṛtā.’ — (a) ‘Daughter not appointed explicitly, and (b) one appointed explicitly’ (Kullūka); — (b) ‘unappointed, i.e., any ordinary daughter’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa Nandana); — the ‘unappointed daughter’ is added only hyperbolically, the meaning being that ‘when even the unappointed daughter is entitled to inherit, the appointed one is all the more entitled’ (Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.136), to the effect that in the absence of the son and the daughter, the property goes to the daughter’s son. The Bālambhaṭṭī adds that Vijñāneśvara had taken the verse as applying to all daughters, but Medhātīthi has come to the conclusion that the rule is meant for the ‘Appointed Daughter’ only.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 435), to the effect that the ‘daughter’s son’ who inherits his grand-father’s property must offer Śrāddhas to him; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 40b); — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 190a and 205b), which explains that the Appointed Daughter being a ‘son’, her son, even though the ‘son of a daughter’ (dauhitra) is virtually the ‘son’s son’ (pautra); and hence just as the son’s son inherits the property op the failure of the son, so does the daughter’s son also, on the failure of the daughter; — and by Jîmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga. p. 224).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (28.9). — ‘Some people declare that a daughter becomes an Appointed Daughter merely by the intention of her father.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 435). — ‘The son of the Appointed Daughter should always offer the Shraddha to his mother’s father.’

Kātyāyana (Do.) — ‘If one has no son, his Śrāddha should he performed by his daughter’s son.’

Skanda (Do.) — ‘If one inherits the property of the father and other ancestors of his mother, he must perform their Śrāddha in due form.’

Bṛhaspati (25.37). — ‘Both a son’s son and the son of an Appointed Daughter lead a man to heaven; both are pronounced to be equal as regards their right of inheritance and the duty of offering balls of meal.’

Smṛti (Vivādaratnākara, p. 586). — ‘The son’s sou and the son of the Appointed Daughter both lead one to supreme Bliss; and both are considered equal in the matter of offering the Ball of meal and water, and also in regard to inheritance.’

VERSE 9.137

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

पुत्रेण लोकान्जयति पौत्रेणानन्त्यमश्नुते ।
अथ पुत्रस्य पौत्रेण ब्रध्नस्याप्नोति विष्टपम् ॥१३७॥

putreṇa lokānjayati pautreṇānantyamaśnute |
atha putrasya pautreṇa bradhnasyāpnoti viṣṭapam ||137||

Through the son one conquers the worlds, through the grandson he obtains immortality, and through the son’s grandson he attains the regions of the Sun. — (137)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Through the son’ — when born, — i.e. through the help rendered by him — ‘one conquers’ — wins — ‘the worlds’ — the ten ‘sorrowless regions,’ Heaven and the rest’. That is he becomes bo rn in those regions.

Similarly ‘through the grandson, he obtains immortality’ — i-e., long residence in those regions.

‘Through the son’s grandson he attains the regions of the Sun’ — i.e., he becomes effulgent and is not be dimmed by any sort of darkness. — (137)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 103), which explains ‘Bradhna’ as the sun; — in Vyavahāra-Balāmbhaṭṭī (pp. 657 and 707); — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 199b); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 249).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bodyayana (2. 16.6). — ‘“Through a son one conquers the worlds, through a grandson one obtains immortality; and through the son’s grandson one ascends to the highest heaven”; — this has been declared in the Veda.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.5). — ‘Through a son one conquers the worlds; through a grandson one obtains immortality; and through the son’s grandson one gains the world of the Sun.’

Do. (Vivādaratnākara, p. 585). — ‘For one. who has a son, there are immortal regions; there is no higher region for one who has no son; childless persons are mere eaters.’

Viṣṇu (15.46). — ‘Through a son one conquers the worlds; through a grandson one obtains immortality; and through the son’s grandson one gains the world of the Sun.’

Yājñavalkya (1.78). — ‘The worlds, immortality and heaven are attained respectively through the son, the grandson and the great-grandson,’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 584). — ‘Agnihotra, the three Vedas, Sacrifices with hundreds of sacrificial fees, — these are not equal even to the sixteenth part of the birth of the first-born son; for one who has secured sons and grandsons during his life-time and while he is still performing sacrifices without interruption, the heaven is always within grasp.’

VERSE 9.138

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

पुन्नाम्नो नरकाद् यस्मात् त्रायते पितरं सुतः ।
तस्मात् पुत्र इति प्रोक्तः स्वयमेव स्वयम्भुवा ॥१३८॥

punnāmno narakād yasmāt trāyate pitaraṃ sutaḥ |
tasmāt putra iti proktaḥ svayameva svayambhuvā ||138||

Because the Son delivers his father from the hell called ‘Put,’ therefore has he been called ‘Putra,’ ‘Deliverer from Put,’ by the Self-existent One Himself. — (138)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a declamatory supplement to the Injunction of begetting children.

‘The hell called Put’ — is the name given to the four kinds of elemental life on the Earth. And from this is the father delivered by his son, as soon as he is born; which means that he is born next in a divine life.

It is for this reason that he is called ‘Putra,’ ‘Deliverer from Put.’ — (138)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 583); — in Smṛtitattva II (p. 389), which (adopting the reading sukhasandarśanenāpi tadutpattau yateta saḥ) takes the verse as enjoining the begetting of a son for the purpose of being saved from the hell ‘Put’; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 658 and 707); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 199b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (15.44). — ‘Because he saves his father from the hell called Put, therefore a male child is called Putra by Svayambhu himself.’

Hārīta (Vivādaratnākara, p. 583). — ‘There is a hell named Put; one whose line is broken goes to hell; hence as saving his father from that hell, the male child is called Putra.’

Bṛhaspati (Do., p. 584). — ‘Since the male child saves the father from the hell called Put, by his mere looking at his face, — therefore a man should make an effort to procure a son.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.). — ‘The father throws off his debt on the son, and thereby attains immortality; hence as soon as the son is born, the father should see his face.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita and Paiṭhīnasi (Do.) — ‘Wherever the son is born, the father rejoices at it; because through him he becomes freed from his debts to the Pitṛs.’

Smṛti (Vivādaratnākara, p. 585). — ‘Fathers fearing to fall into hell, desire sons, hoping that one of them may repair to Gayā and bring about their salvation.’

VERSE 9.139

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

पौत्रदौहित्रयोर्लोके विशेषो नोपपद्यते ।
दौहित्रोऽपि ह्यमुत्रैनं सन्तारयति पौत्रवत् ॥१३९॥

pautradauhitrayorloke viśeṣo nopapadyate |
dauhitro'pi hyamutrainaṃ santārayati pautravat ||139||

Between the Son’s son and the Daughter’s son there is no difference in the world; since the daughter’s son also, like the son’s son, saves the man in the next world. — (139)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Here also the term ‘daughter’s son’ is to be understood as standing for the son of the. Appointed Daughter.

‘The daughters son, like the son’s son, saves the man in the next world’; — this is purely declamatory; — the fact having been already enjoined before (in 133).

Between these two ‘there is no difference’; — in the case of one (the son’s son), it is the mother, while in that of the other (the daughter’s son) it is the father, that belongs to another family. Hence the daughter’s son also delivers one from the aforesaid Put-hell. — (139)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. verse 133.

The second half of this verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 185), as attributing the character of the ‘son’s son’ to the daughter’s son.

It is quoted in Dāyakramasaṅgraha (p. 25); — in Dattakamīmānsā (p. 40); — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī.

Comparative notes by various authors:

See texts under 133 and 132.

Viṣṇu (15.47). — ‘No difference is made in this world between the son’s son and the daughter’s son: for even a daughter’s son works the salvation of a sonless man just like a son’s son.’

VERSE 9.140

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

मातुः प्रथमतः पिण्डं निर्वपेत् पुत्रिकासुतः ।
द्वितीयं तु पितुस्तस्यास्तृतीयं तत्पितुः पितुः ॥१४०॥

mātuḥ prathamataḥ piṇḍaṃ nirvapet putrikāsutaḥ |
dvitīyaṃ tu pitustasyāstṛtīyaṃ tatpituḥ pituḥ ||140||

The son of the Appointed Daughter shall offer the first cake to his mother, the second to her father and the third to his father’s father. — (140)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been declared (132) that ‘he shall offer the cake to his father and to his maternal grandfather’; where the offering of the cake by the son of the Appointed Daughter to bis maternal grandfather has been enjoined; and this is a totally different kind of offering laid down for him.

‘The first cake, he shall offer to his mother,’ — the second to her father.

Some people read ‘pitustasya,’ ‘his (not her) father’ And those who accept this reading offer the cake to the Appointed Daughter, and then to the progenitor, and then the third to the progenitor’s father.

In accordance with this view there would be no offering laid down for the maternal grandfather. — (140)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 563); — in Aparārka (p. 435), as referring to the case of the ‘grandson’ whose mother herself had been an ‘appointed daughter’ in the sense that she herself was made a ‘son’; in Madanapārijāta (p. 609); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 185b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

See texts under 132 and 136.

Baudhāyana (2.3.16). — ‘They quote the following: — “The son of an Appointed Daughter offers the first funeral cake to his mother, the second to her father and the third to his father’s father.”’

VERSE 9.141 [Adoption]

Section XVIII - Adoption

उपपन्नो गुणैः सर्वैः पुत्रो यस्य तु दत्त्रिमः ।
स हरेतैव तद्रिक्थं सम्प्राप्तोऽप्यन्यगोत्रतः ॥१४१॥

upapanno guṇaiḥ sarvaiḥ putro yasya tu dattrimaḥ |
sa haretaiva tadrikthaṃ samprāpto'pyanyagotrataḥ ||141||

If one has an adopted son endowed with all good qualities, he shall inherit his property, even though he may have come from another family. — (141)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Under 9.185, it is said — ‘Sons, and not brothers or fathers, are the inheritors of the father’s property’ — where all sons are declared to be entitled to inheritance. So long as the ‘legitimate’ son is alive, the ‘Kṣetraja’ and other sons are entitled to maintenance only: ‘The legitimate son alone is the sole master of the entire paternal property; for the others he shall, as an act of kindness, provide for subsistence,’ says Manu (9.163). Thus then the fact of the adopted son inheriting the lather’s property is already established; the present text therefore is meant to indicate that he is so entitled, even when the legitimate son is there. If it did not mean this, there would he no point in the verse at all.

The question that arises is — what shall he the share of the adopted son?

Some people hold that, since nothing particular has been laid down, the share shall he equal to that of the legitimate son.

This however is not right. If shares had been meant to be equal, then this would have been clearly stated, as it has been in the case of the son of the Appointed Daughter (under 9.134). Hence it follows that, as in the ease of the Kṣetraja son, so here also, the share shall be the sixth or eighth part (of that of the legitimate son).

In this connection there is something to be said. Just as the author has declared the share of the Kṣetraja son to be ‘the sixth part’ (9.164), that, of the ‘adopted’ son also would have been prescribed (if it were so intended).

Thus then, the real purport of the reiteration contained in the present verse has got to be found out.

Our revered teacher explains as follows: — The idea provided by the present verse is that, inasmuch as no particular share has been specified, the slare of the adopted son should be understood to be less than that of the Kṣetraja; and he cannot, go without, a share; nor is he entitled to a share equal to that of the legitimate sun, or to that of the Kṣetraja son. — (141)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Medhātīthi, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda refer this rule to the case where a man has a legitimate son and an adopted son, and think that in such a case the latter, being eminently virtuous, shall receive, like the Kṣetraja, a fifth or sixth part of the Estate. Medhātithi remarks that some think he is to have half, but that this opinion is improper, and finally that Upadhyāya, i.e., his teacher, allots to the adopted son less than to the Kṣetraja. — Kullūka and Rāghavānanda state that Govindarāja took the verse to mean that the eminently virtuous adopted, son shall inherit on failure of a legitimate son and of the son of the wife, but that this explanation is inadmissible on account of verse 165. — Nārāyaṇa says ‘it has been declared that the adopted son receives a share like the chief son, when he is eminently virtuous’.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 567), which adds the following note: — ‘Guṇaīḥ’, such as caste, learning and character; — the fact of this adopted son being entitled to inherit being patent from the fact of his being a ‘son’, the specific mention of ‘being endowed with virtues’ is meant to indicate that in a case where a body-born son happens to he born after the adoption, the adopted son is to have a share in the inheritance only if he is ‘endowed with virtues’, while if he is not so endowed, he is entitled to maintenance only.

It is quoted in Dattakamīmāṃsā (p. 28) as countenancing the adopted son’s inheritance of the entire property of the adoptive father, when the latter leaves no ‘body-born’ son; — in Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 370), to the effect that the adopted son is entitled to an equal share with the ‘body-born’ son; — and in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 769) to the same effect as Dattakamīmāṃsā.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.141-142)

Vaśiṣṭha (15.9-10). — ‘If, after an adoption has been made, a body-born son be born, the adopted son shall obtain a fourth part; — provided he her not engaged in rites conducive to prosperity.’

VERSE 9.142

Section XVIII - Adoption

गोत्ररिक्थे जनयितुर्न हरेद् दत्त्रिमः क्व चित् ।
गोत्ररिक्थानुगः पिण्डो व्यपैति ददतः स्वधा ॥१४२॥

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов