with the Commentary of Medhatithi 272 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 278 из 350Следующая ⇒

gotrarikthe janayiturna hared dattrimaḥ kva cit |
gotrarikthānugaḥ piṇḍo vyapaiti dadataḥ svadhā ||142||

The adopted son shall not take the family-name or the property of his progenitor; the cake follows the family-name and the property; for him therefore who gives away his son the funeral offerings cease. — (142)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It is only right that the adopted son should have a share in his adoptive father’s property; since he does not inherit either the family-name or the property of his progenitor; and this for the simple reason that he has gone out of the family.

Inasmuch as he does not inherit the family-name and the property of the progenitor, he does not offer cakes to him; since ‘the cake follows the family-name and the property’; — that is, a son offers the funeral cakes etc., to that preson whose family-name and property he inherits.

‘Ceases’ — drops away from him.

‘Svadhā’; — this syllable stands for that which makes the use of the syllable ‘svadhā’ possible; — i. e., the Śrāddha and other offerings. And when a man gives away his son to another man, those offerings cease for him; that is. they should not be offered to him.

This law applies to the ‘made’ and other kinds of sons, — i.e., ‘the one conceived before marriage,’ the ‘cast off’ and ‘the one who benefits both.’

Others construe ‘haret’ as implying the causal form ‘hārayet’, ‘should deprive’; which means that the adopted son shall benefit both fathers.

But the fact of the matter is that the verse opens with the relinquishing of privileges; so that consistently with that, the latter half also should mean that ‘no cake shall be offered’; i.e., the father also shall relinquish his privilege of receiving the cakes.

In the face of these facts, some authority will have to be found for attributing a different meaning to the words (‘haret’ and the rest). — (142)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“The general meaning is that all connections with the first family ceases. Nevertheless, according to Kātyāyana and the later usage, if there is a special agreement to that effect, the son may belong to both fathers (dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa)”. — Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.132), which notes that ‘adopted son’ is here mentioned as representing all kinds of secondary ‘sons all of whom are entitled to inherit the ‘father’s’ property, as is clear from verse 185 below. — The Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Datrimaḥ’ is the same as ‘dattaka’, the adopted son; — ‘janayituḥ’, of the progenitor; — according to Medhātithi ‘janayituḥ’ is to be taken as with the Ablative ending; thus then the adopted son is not affected by the impurity consequent on the death of his progenitor. This verse permits the adopting of sons even of gotras other than the adopter’s own. — ‘Pīṇḍa’ means the offering of śrāddha, and this offering of śrāddha follows the gotra and the inheritance, i.e. śrāddha is to be offered to that ‘father’ whose ‘gotra’ and ‘inheritance’ one receives; — it is for this reason that the ‘svadhā’ i.e., śrāddha, offered by the adopted son, ceases — ‘vyapaiti’ — from the person who gave the son to be adopted by another; i.e. the adopted son shall not offer śrāddha to that person. — In reality however the term ‘piṇḍa’ here stands for ‘sāpiṇḍya if it is taken in the sense of ‘śrāddha’. then the subsequent sentence ‘vyapaiti svadhā’ becomes a superfluous repetition. It is for this reason that all cultured people treat, in all matters, the adopted son as belonging to the gotra of the adoptive father, and on the death of the adopted son, it is the sapiṇḍas of the adoptive father that observe impurity for ten days; and in all matters he is regarded as a ‘sapiṇḍa’ of the family of the adoptive father. It is for the same reason that the adopted son is regarded as having ceased to be the sapiṇḍa of his progenitor’s family. — All this however holds good in a case where the progenitor has got other sons; in cases where he has none such, his property must go to his begotten son, even though adopted by another person; and he must perform his śrāddha also. It is in this sense that the ‘dvyāmuṣyāyana’ has been held to benefit both the families,

The verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 351), which adds the following notes: — The ‘adopted’ son is mentioned only by way of illustration, it stands for all the secondary sons. — Though there are texts that lay down that the secondary sons are entitled to inherit the property of the ‘father’, yet these must refer to other Yugas, except so far as the ‘adopted’ son is concerned, who inherits in Kali-yuga also.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 208), as indicating the legality of adopting sons of other gotras also. It proceeds to set forth the order of preference among the several alternatives regarding the gotra &c. of the son to be adopted: — (1) One who is both sagotra and sapiṇḍa of the adopter, — (2) who is sapiṇḍa but not sagotra, — (3) who is sagotra but not sapiṇḍa, — (4) who has the same pravaras, — (5) who is neither sagotra nor sapiṇḍa nor sapravara. — It is quoted again on p. 686, as likely to be understood as prohibiting the performance of śrāddha for the progenitor, and hence implying that the son adopted by another person ceases to be the ‘sapiṇḍa’ of his progenitor. — It is quoted again on p. 716, where the following notes are added: — The adopted son is not to take the ‘gotra’ or the ‘estate’ of his progenitor, and the ‘sapiṇḍa character’ as also the ‘performance of śrādhā’ of the person who gives away the son to be adopted, — becomes removed from the adopted son; and the reason for this is that the Pīṇḍa follows the ‘gotra and the estate’ and hence ceases when these two cease.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 38), where the clause ‘gotrarikthānugaḥ piṇḍah’ only is quoted in support of the principle that inheritance is based upon the benefit conferred by the inheritor upon the original owner of the property. — It is quoted again on p. 384 as indicating the superiority of the Daughter to the adopted and other secondary sons; — and again on p. 391, as laying down that the liability to offering Piṇḍas is based upon the inheritance of property.

It is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 278), which notes that what is here stated refers to cases where the progenitor has other sons.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 568), which adds that in view of the general principle that the ‘offering of Piṇḍas’ follows ‘gotra and inheritance’, the former ceases in the case stated; — ‘svadhā’ stands for śrāddha and other offerings.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 51), which adds the following notes: — The meaning is that the ‘Piṇḍa’ is concomitant with ‘gotra and inheritance’; — this refers to the ‘purely adopted son’, the Dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa retaining the gotra, etc., of his progenitor also; — ‘Piṇḍa’ stands for the śrāddha and other after-death rites, according to Medhātithi, Kullūka Bhaṭṭa and others; while, according to others, ‘piṇḍa’ stands for the ‘sapiṇḍa-character’ and ‘svadhā’ for the śrāddha and other after-death rites; as a matter of fact, however, what the terms “gotra-rikṭha-piṇḍa-svadhā” stand for is all that, is due to the relationship of the progenitor; and all this is precluded in the case in question; thus it follows that the adopted son ceases to have the relation of ‘uterine brotherhood’ with the other sons of his progenitor, and so forth.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 135) as indicating the change of gotra for the adopted son; — in Gotrapravaranihandhakadamba (p. 185), which says that this applies only to the offering of Śrāddha and such things; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 185) as laying down the cessation of the generator’s gotra; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 79) as lending support to the view that the son adopted in another family loses the Sāpiṇḍya also of his progenitor’s family; in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 455), which says that this is meant for cases where the progenitor has got another son; — in Dattakamīmānsā (p. 30), which explains the second line to mean that ‘in giving his son for being adopted by another person, he relinquishes the śrāddha that that son would have offered’; — in Dattakacandrikā (p. 53), which explains the verse to mean that — ‘By the mere act of being given to be adopted the son ceases to be a son to his progenitor, and thereby relinquishes all his gotra and all claims to his property’; — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (śrāddha 4a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.141-142)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.141.

VERSE 9.143 [Sons not Entitled to a Share in the Parental Property]

Section XIX - Sons not Entitled to a Share in the Parental Property

अनियुक्तासुतश्चैव पुत्रिण्याऽप्तश्च देवरात् ।
उभौ तौ नार्हतो भागं जारजातककामजौ ॥१४३॥

aniyuktāsutaścaiva putriṇyā'ptaśca devarāt |
ubhau tau nārhato bhāgaṃ jārajātakakāmajau ||143||

The offspring of a wife not ‘authorised,’ and the offspring obtained from her younger brother-in-law by a woman who has already got a son, — both of these are undeserving of a share; one being born of an adulterer, and the other being the product of lust. — (143)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been declared above that, when the husband dies without male issue, the wife should obtain the sanction of her elders for the begetting of a son. And this same declaration is reiterated here.

If a woman is ‘not authorised’ by her elders, and yet being anxious for a son, begets one, — under the impression that she being the ‘soil’ of her husband, the son born of her would be his ‘Kṣetraja’ son and thus entitled to inherit his property, — a son born in this manner shall not inherit his father’s property; because a son is called ‘Kṣetraja’ only when he is born in the manner expressly laid down in the scriptures; and it. is only then that he inherits the property of the ‘owner of the soil’ (his dead father). It is for this reason that the present verse denies the inheriting capacity of the son born of the woman not duly ‘authorised;’ but it does not forbid the offering of the funeral cake; even though the son is one born of an ‘outcast’ woman.

Narada (13.19 et. seq) lays down a special rule — ‘Those that are born from an unauthorised woman, either by one or by several men, are not entitled to the property of their father; being, as they are, the sons of the persons from whose seed they have been born; — they shall offer the cake to the person from whose seed they are born, specially if the mother has been obtained by 1 he payment of the nuptial foe; if however the mother has not been obtained by the payment of the fee, they shall offer the cake to the person who had wedded their mother,’

The text uses the term ‘suta,’ ‘offspring’ (instead of ‘putra’ son), because the child referred to is not born in accordance with the law relating to the ‘adopted’ and other sons, and is, on that account, not mentioned among ‘sons.’ Among the twice-born people the issues of one’s mere ‘seed’ (and not of lawful wedlock) are entitled to mere subsistence, and not to the inheritance of property; specially as in connection with all kinds of sons it has been declared that ‘on the death of their father the sons shall divide among themselves the property of their father, left over after the performance of the necessary religious rites; and they are all entitled to maintenance,’ Thus it is the duty of the Legitimate son to provide for the maintenance of the unlawfully-begotten sons; but these latter are not entitled to any inheritance in the property; specially because inheritance has been declared to belong to those particular kinds of sons that have been specially enumerated: We read (in 9.102) of ‘the two heirs’ (whore only two sons are spoken of as ‘heirs’).

From what is said here it follows that ‘the issue of the unauthorised woman,’ not entitled to the property of his lawful father, does become a sharer in that of the person from whose seed he is born; and the share in this case would be just enough for his subsistence.

Then again, as the woman has been obtained at a price, she is a ‘slave,’ and the son ‘slave-born;’ and as such, he is entitled not to a share in the property, but to mere subsistence.

Others have held that, even though the woman may not be a regular ‘slave’ (in the technical sense), she is a servant all the same, since the servant is always employed for doing a definite work; e.g., the bath-man, the toilet-man, the cook and so forth; the woman kept for pleasure also is employed for a definite work, — and is fed and clothed; and hence she is as good as a servant.

Similarly also in the case of the woman who has already got a son, if the son is alive, and yet she obtains a son from her younger brother-in-law, even on ‘authorisation.’

“But how can there be ‘authorisation’ in the ease of a woman who has already got a son?”

It is the brother-in-law who may be ‘authorised’ for the purposes of pleasure, under the pretext of begetting a son.

As a matter of fact, both of these are ‘born of an adulterer;’ the one born of a woman who has already got a son is, in addition, also ‘the product of lust.’ In the case of the former the action is prompted entirely by a longing for a son, and not by lust. — (143)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Vyavahāra, p. 368); — and in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 586), which adds the following notes — ‘Aniyuktāsutaḥ’ is the son begotten by the widow without the permission of her elders; — ‘bhāgam’ share in the property of the husband of the widow; — this means that such a son is precluded from the offering of Piṇḍas and other rites also. This refers to cases where the widow has been bought over to the connection.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.143-144)

Gautama (28.23). — ‘A son begotten by another relation on a widow whose husband’s brother is alive, — is excluded from inheritance.’

Nārada (13.19-20; Vivādaratnākara, p. 387). — ‘Sons begotten on a widow not authorised, by one or many persons, are not entitled to inherit, — they being the sons of ...

VERSE 9.144

Section XIX - Sons not Entitled to a Share in the Parental Property

नियुक्तायामपि पुमान्नार्यां जातोऽविधानतः ।
नैवार्हः पैतृकं रिक्थं पतितोत्पादितो हि सः ॥१४४॥

niyuktāyāmapi pumānnāryāṃ jāto'vidhānataḥ |
naivārhaḥ paitṛkaṃ rikthaṃ patitotpādito hi saḥ ||144||

The made child of an ‘authorised’ woman, if not begotten in the prescribed manner, is not entitled to the paternal property; as he is procreated by outcasts. — (144)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Not in the prescribed manner;’ — i.e., not wearing the white dress and observing such details.

He is not entitled to the property; i.e., he shall not be treated as the ‘Kṣetraja’ son.

The brother-in-law ‘and the sister-in-law are both rightly regarded as ‘outcasts,’ on account of their having not obeyed the restrictions, in the begetting of the son; since what is permitted by the scriptures is only such intercourse as is done in strict accordance with the rules laid down. — (144)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 587), which explains ‘avidhānataḥ’ as ‘not in accordance with the method prescribed for Niyoga’; — and in Dattakamīmānsā, (p. 29) as referring to the Kṣetraja son.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.143-144)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.143.

VERSE 9.145 [Status of the Son Born by ‘Authorisation’]

Section XX - Status of the Son Born by ‘Authorisation’

हरेत् तत्र नियुक्तायां जातः पुत्रो यथौरसः ।
क्षेत्रिकस्य तु तद् बीजं धर्मतः प्रसवश्च सः ॥१४५॥

haret tatra niyuktāyāṃ jātaḥ putro yathaurasaḥ |
kṣetrikasya tu tad bījaṃ dharmataḥ prasavaśca saḥ ||145||

The son born of the ‘authorised’ woman shall inherit, like the ‘legitimate’ son; as legally that seed is of the owner of the soil and the offspring belongs to him. — (145)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Like the legitimate, son’; — this has been enjoined here with a view to permit the ‘preferential share’ ordained for the eldest brother; as no other ‘equality’ is possible (between the two kinds of sons). What the present, rule premite is the ‘preferential share’ for the ‘Kṣetraja’ son born of the eldest wife. To this extent, this is a exception to ‘the equal shares’ laid down in verse 121. And since both the rules are equally authoritative, they must he treated as optional alternatives, — the adoption of the one or the other being dependent upon the qualifications of the persons concerned. Apart from this there would be no purpose in this verse; as all that is herein staled has been already laid down elsewhere.

‘That seed is of the owner of the soil,’ — because it serves his purposes. This is purely commendatory; hence it is added ‘legally’ — i.e., according to the law.

Another reason for this lies in the fact that the ‘child’ — which is the visible embodiment of the seed — belongs to the owner of the soil.

This verse is purely declamatory. — (145)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Medhātithi and Kullūka state that the object of this verse is to teach that a Kṣetraja, if endowed with good qualities, may even receive (against verse 120) the additional share of an eldest son; — Nārāyaṇa says the expression ‘like a legitimate son’ is used in order to establish the title to an equal share.” — Buhler.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.145-148)

Bṛhaṣpati (25.35). — ‘No one but the Body-born son is the inheritor of the father’s property; an Appointed Daughter’s also is equal to him; all the other sons are entitled only to maintenance.’

VERSE 9.146

Section XX - Status of the Son Born by ‘Authorisation’

धनं यो बिभृयाद् भ्रातुर्मृतस्य स्त्रियमेव च ?? ।
सोऽपत्यं भ्रातुरुत्पाद्य दद्यात् तस्यैव तद्धनम् ॥१४६॥

dhanaṃ yo bibhṛyād bhrāturmṛtasya striyameva ca ?? |
so'patyaṃ bhrāturutpādya dadyāt tasyaiva taddhanam ||146||

This rule refers to the case where the dead brother was one who had separated from the surviving brother; while the preceding verse was meant for that where the two brothers lived together. This is the only difference between this and the foregoing rules.

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Shall beget a child for that brother’ — i.e., by the mode of‘authorisation.’

‘Shall give the property to that child;’ — nor to its mother.

It is in accordance with this principle that women are entitled to maintenance, and not to ownership of properties; as they are taken care of in oilier ways.

‘His property’ — i.e., the property of the separated brother. — (146)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse occurs in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 542), which adds the following notes: — The man, who takes care of the property and widow of his brother who had separated from him, should beget a ‘Kṣetraja’ son on that widow and make over the property to that son, he should never take the property for himself.

It is quoted in the Mitākṣarā, (2.136), which says that the meaning is that even when the brother is divided, if he dies, his widow is to be in touch with his property only through the child, and not by her own right The Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes. — ‘Bibhriyāt’, should take care; — ‘tameva ca’ is another reading (for ‘eva taddhanam’); — ‘taddhanam,’ the brother’s property; — ‘tasyaiva,’ to the son; — the use of the word ‘dadyāt’ implies that the rule refers to the case of divided brothers; as in the case of Undivided brothers, there would be no property belonging separately to the dead brother.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 742), which explains ‘tasyaiva’ to mean ‘to the child only, not to its mother’; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 357), which adds that the meaning is that when a divided brother has died, his widow can have anything to do with his property, only through her child; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, (Vyavahāra, p. 41a); — and in Vīramitrodaya, (Vyavahāra 196a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.145-148)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.145.

VERSE 9.147

Section XX - Status of the Son Born by ‘Authorisation’

या नियुक्ताऽन्यतः पुत्रं देवराद् वाऽप्यवाप्नुयात् ।
तं कामजमरिक्थीयं वृथोत्पन्नं प्रचक्षते ॥१४७॥

yā niyuktā'nyataḥ putraṃ devarād vā'pyavāpnuyāt |
taṃ kāmajamarikthīyaṃ vṛthotpannaṃ pracakṣate ||147||

If a woman, without being ‘authorised,’ bears a son either to her broth er-in-law or to some other person, that son they declare to be ‘lust-born,’ ‘incapable of inheritance’ and‘born in vain.’ — (147)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Before ‘niyuktā,’ there should be an ‘a’ (coalescing with the ‘ā’ in ‘yā’); for otherwise (if the word meant ‘authorised’) the present verse would be contrary to what has gone in the preceding verse. It might be argued that with ‘aniyuktā,’‘not authorised,’ this would be a needless repetition of what has gone before. But such superfluity can be, and has been, explained.

The older writers however do not accept the reading ‘aniyuktā,’ ‘not authorised.’ And according to them the text is to be explained as meaning that ‘the son born of the authorised woman also is not entitled to the paternal property.’

‘Last-born,’ — even when the man acts under ‘authority,’ there is always a certain amount of ‘lust’ involved, hence the child is called ‘lust-born.’

‘Born in vain;’ — this means that he is incapable of accomplishing the purpose for which he was begotten.

This verse turns out (according to the older writers) to be a denial of the title to inheritance declared before (in 147); and hence an option has been accepted in this case,

Our revered teacher however declares that if we read ‘aniyuktā,’ ‘not authorised,’ the two texts become reconciled. — (147)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.145-148)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.145.

VERSE 9.148

Section XX - Status of the Son Born by ‘Authorisation’

एतद् विधानं विज्ञेयं विभागस्यैकयोनिषु ।
बह्वीषु चैकजातानां नानास्त्रीषु निबोधत ॥१४८॥

etad vidhānaṃ vijñeyaṃ vibhāgasyaikayoniṣu |
bahvīṣu caikajātānāṃ nānāstrīṣu nibodhata ||148||

This rule should be understood as applying to partition among sons born of wives of the same caste; listen to that applying to that among sons born to one man of several and diverse wives. — (148)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Sons born of the wives of the same caste.’ — Sons born of mothers of the same caste as the father are entitled to inherit the whole property.

‘Born of diverse wives’; — i.e., of wives belonging to diverse castes.

This is what is now going to be expounded.

‘Severed’ — this is a mere reiteration.

Others however attach special significance to this epithet (‘several’) also; the sense being that in the case of partition among sons born of several wives belonging to diverse castes, the rule is as going to be set forth (in 153), — viz., ‘The Brāhmaṇa son shall take four shares etc., etc.’ As for a single wife of a different caste, — no man ever has recourse to any such; hence she does not count in the present connection. — (148)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 527), which adds that ‘ekayoniṣu’ means ‘those belonging to the same caste’, ‘ekajātānām’, ‘begotten by one man’, — ‘bahvīṣu’, ‘on wives belonging to diverse castes’; — and notes that ‘ekajātānām’ is to be construed with ‘bahvīṣu’ also.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.145-148)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.145.

VERSE 9.149 [Shares of Sons born of Mothers of diverse Castes]

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?