with the Commentary of Medhatithi 273 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 279 из 350Следующая ⇒

Section XXI - Shares of Sons born of Mothers of diverse Castes

ब्राह्मणस्यानुपूर्व्येण चतस्रस्तु यदि स्त्रियः ।
तासां पुत्रेषु जातेषु विभागेऽयं विधिः स्मृतः ॥१४९॥

brāhmaṇasyānupūrvyeṇa catasrastu yadi striyaḥ |
tāsāṃ putreṣu jāteṣu vibhāge'yaṃ vidhiḥ smṛtaḥ ||149||

If to a Brāhmaṇa there be four wives in due order, — for partition among the sons born of these, the rule has been declared to be as follows. — (149)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Order;’ — this refers to what has been said in Discourse III.

This verse also is a brief indication of what follows. — (149)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 527); and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 35b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.149-157)

Vaśiṣṭha (17.47-50). — ‘If a Brāhmaṇa has issue by wives belonging to the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya castes respectively, — the son of the Brāhmaṇa. wife shall receive three shares; the sou of the Kṣatriya wife, two shares; — the other sous shall inherit equal shares.’

Mahābhārata (13.47.4?, 56). — ‘Something very good, a bull, a vehicle that may he the most important, — this shall be taken as a special share by the son of the Brāhmaṇa mother.’ (57 is the same as Manu 157).

Viṣṇu (8.(?)1-37). — ‘If there are four sons of a Brāhmaṇa from wives of the four castes, they shall divide the entire estate of the father into ten parts; of these the son of the Brāhmaṇa wife shall take four parts; the son of the Kṣatriya wife, three parts; the son of the Vaiśya wife, two parts; the son of the Śūdra wife, a single part. Again, if there are three sons of a Brāhmaṇa by wives of the first three castes only, they shall divide the estate into nine parts; of these each shall take, in the order of his caste, shares amounting to four, three and two parts respectively. If there are three sons from the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Śūdra wives, they shall divide the estate into equal parts; and take four, three and one parts respectively. If there are three sons of the Brāhmaṇa, Vaiśya and Śūdra wives, they shall divide the estate into seven parts and take four, two, and one parts respctively. If there are three sons of the Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Shudra wives, they shall divide the estate into six parts and take three, two and one parts respectively. If a Kṣatriya has sons by a Kṣatriya, a Vaiśya and a Śūdra wife, the mode of division shall be the same (i.e., the estate being divided into six parts etc.). If the Brahmaṇa has two sons, one belonging to the Brāhmaṇa and another belonging to the Kṣatriya caste, they shall divide the estate into seven parts; and the Brāhmaṇa shall take four parts, and the Kṣatriya, three. If there are two sons to a Brāhmaṇa, one belonging to the Brāhmaṇa and another to the Vaiśya caste, the estate shall be divided into six parts, the Brāhmaṇa shall take four, and the Vaiśya, two parts. If there are two sons to a Brāhmaṇa, one belonging to the Brāhmaṇa and another to the Śūdra caste, the estate shall be divided into live parts; and the Brahmaṇa shall take four parts and the Śūdra a single part. If there are two sons to a Brāhmaṇa, or to a Kṣatriya, — one belonging to the Kṣatriya and another to the Vaiśya caste, — they shall divide the estate into five parts; the Kṣatriya shall take three parts and the Vaiśya two parts. If there are two sons to a Brāhmaṇa, or to a Kṣaṭtriya, one belonging to the Kṣatriya and the other to the Śūdra caste, they shall divide the estate into four parts; and the Kṣatriya shall take three parts and the Śūdra, a single part. If there are two sons to a Brāhmaṇa, or to a Vaiśya or to a Śūdra, — and the one belongs to the Vaiśya and the other to the Śūdra caste, they shall divide the estate into three parts, — the Vaiśya taking two parts, and the Śūdra, one. If a Brāhmaṇa has an only son, he shall take the whole estate, provided he be a Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya. If the Kṣatriya has an only son, who is either a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya, the rule shall be the same. If the Vaiśya has an only son who is a Vaiśya, the rule shall be the same. The only son of a Śūdra shall be the sole heir to his Śūdra father. A Śūdra who is the only son of a father of one of the twice-born castes, shall inherit one half of his property; — the other shall devolve in the same way as the property of one who dies without issue. Mothers shall receive shares proportionate to their son’s shares; — and so shall unmarried daughters. Sons of the same caste as their father shall receive equal shares; — a best part shall be given to the eldest son as bis additional share.’

Gautama (28.35-40). — ‘The son of a Brāhmaṇa by a Kṣatriya wife, being the eldest and endowed with good qualities, shares equally with a younger brother born of a Brāhmaṇa mother; — but he shall not receive the additional share due to the eldest son. If there are sons begotten by a Brāhmaṇa on wives-of the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya castes, the division between them shall he in the same way as between the son of a Brāhmaṇa wife and that of a Kṣatriya wife. Similarly the two sons of a Kṣatriya born, one from the Kṣatriya and the other from the Vaiśya wife. The son of even a Śūdra wife, — if he is obedient like a pupil, — receives a provision for maintenance out of the estate of a Brāhmaṇa deceased without other male issue. According to some, the son of a woman of even equal caste does not inherit if he behaves unrighteously.’

Yājñavalkya (2.125) — ‘The sons of the Brāhmaṇa, belonging to the four castes, shall receive, respectively, four, three, two and one parts of his estate; the three sons of the Kṣatriya, belonging to the Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra castes, shall receive three, two and one parts; — the two sons of the Vaiśya, belonging to the Vaiśya and Śūdra castes, shall receive two and one parts.’

Bṛhaspati (Vivādaratnākara, p. 536). — ‘If a Brāhmaṇa has no child except a son born from a Śūdra wife, this son, if obedient, shall receive a maintenance and the rest of his property shall go to his Sapiṇḍas.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 732). — That property of the Brāhmaṇa which has been derived from gifts shall not be inherited by his sons by the Kṣatriya and other wives; even though the father may have given this to these latter, the son of the Brāhmaṇa wife shall take it away on his death.’

Do. (Vivādaratnākara, p. 533). — ‘The son of a Brāhmaṇa born from a Kṣatriya wife, — if he happen to be the eldest and possessed of good qualities, — may obtain the same share as the Brāhmaṇa sons; similarly with the Vaiśya son of a Brāhmaṇa.’

Nārada (Vivādaratnākara, p. 528). — ‘Among the sons of the lower castes, horn of married wives, the shares go on decreasing by one.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 531). — ‘Among sons born from wives of other castes, there is a decrease in the inheritance by one half in each case.’

Do. (p. 536). — ‘The son of the Śūdra wife is entitled to inherit property; whatever his father gives him, that shall be his share.’

Baudhāyana (Do., p. 532). — ‘Between two sons, one born of the wife of the same caste as the father, the other of a wife of the next lower caste, — if the latter happens to be possessed of good qualities, he may obtain the special share of the eldest; or he may even become the master of the entire property.’

VERSE 9.150

Section XXI - Shares of Sons born of Mothers of diverse Castes

कीनाशो गोवृषो यानमलङ्कारश्च वेश्म च ।
विप्रस्यौद्धारिकं देयमेकांशश्च प्रधानतः ॥१५०॥

kīnāśo govṛṣo yānamalaṅkāraśca veśma ca |
viprasyauddhārikaṃ deyamekāṃśaśca pradhānataḥ ||150||

The ploughman, the breeding bull, the conveyance, the ornament, and the house shall be given as the ‘preferential share’ to the Brāhmaṇa, as also one principal share. — (150)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Kīnāśa,’ ‘ploughman’, — the slave who tills the soil. Says the mantra text — ‘Indra āsīt surapatiḥ, kīnāśā āsan-marutaḥ, yathāsutam kīnāśā abhiyantu vāhaiḥ’

‘Conveyance’ — cart and the rest.

‘Ornament’ — the ring or some such ornament worn by the father.

‘House’ — the principal apartment.

‘One principal share’; — among the several shares into which the property may be divided, the most important of these shall go to the Brāhmaṇa son.

All this should be set aside as the ‘preferential share’ for the ‘eldest’ son, and the rest of the property should be divided according to the rule going to be laid down. — (150)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ekāṃśaśca pradhānataḥ’, ‘one most excellent share’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka); — ‘one share consisting of the best part of the- property’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana); — ‘one share, because of his being the chief person’ (Rāghavananda).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 527), which adds the following notes: — ‘Kīnāśa’ is the ploughman — ‘yānam’, the horse and the rest; — thus the meaning is that the son of the Brāhmaṇa mother should, receive the plough man the cow, the bull, the conveyance, the ornament and the house; and among the ‘three shares’ of the inheritance to which he is entitled, one should be made specially important by containing the most important and the most valuable things; — the cow and bull etc. are to be given only if it be possible to do so.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.

VERSE 9.151

Section XXI - Shares of Sons born of Mothers of diverse Castes

त्र्यंशं दायाद् हरेद् विप्रो द्वावंशौ क्षत्रियासुतः ।
वैश्याजः सार्धमेवांशमंशं शूद्रासुतो हरेत् ॥१५१॥

tryaṃśaṃ dāyād hared vipro dvāvaṃśau kṣatriyāsutaḥ |
vaiśyājaḥ sārdhamevāṃśamaṃśaṃ śūdrāsuto haret ||151||

Out of the estate the Brāhmaṇa shall take three shares; the son of the Kṣatriya mother two shares; the son of the Vaiśya mother a share and a half; and the son of the Śūdra mother one share. — (151)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the text has used the singular number throughout, yet the rule here laid down applies also to the ease where there are two or more sons of each caste, who are entitled to equal shares. In a ease however where the number of sons of the different castes is not the same, the rule is as set forth in the next verse. — (151)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 528); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 212).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.

VERSE 9.152

Section XXI - Shares of Sons born of Mothers of diverse Castes

सर्वं वा रिक्थजातं तद् दशधा परिकल्प्य च ।
धर्म्यं विभागं कुर्वीत विधिनाऽनेन धर्मवित् ॥१५२॥

sarvaṃ vā rikthajātaṃ tad daśadhā parikalpya ca |
dharmyaṃ vibhāgaṃ kurvīta vidhinā'nena dharmavit ||152||

The man knowing the law shall divide the entire estate into ten parts, and then make an equitable division according to the following rule. — (152)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Estate’ — property.

‘Equitable’ — in accordance with law.

On the strength of the declaration contained in the forthcoming verse some people do not accept the division mentioned above. — (152)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to Nārāyaṇa this rule refers to the case where each of the wives has several sons, while the preceding one is applicable where each wife has one son only. — Rāghavānanda thinks that the first rule shall be followed when the son of the Brāhmaṇa possesses good qualities, the second when he is destitute of them”. — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 528), as containing the sanction for partition with ‘special shares’ in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 353); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 212).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.

VERSE 9.153

Section XXI - Shares of Sons born of Mothers of diverse Castes

चतुरानंशान् हरेद् विप्रस्त्रीनंशान् क्षत्रियासुतः ।
वैश्यापुत्रो हरेद् द्व्यंशमंशं शूद्रासुतो हरेत् ॥१५३॥

caturānaṃśān hared viprastrīnaṃśān kṣatriyāsutaḥ |
vaiśyāputro hared dvyaṃśamaṃśaṃ śūdrāsuto haret ||153||

The Brāhmaṇa shall take four shares, and the son of the Kṣatriya mother three shares; the son of the Vaiśya mother shall take two shares, and the son of the Śūdra mother shall take one share. — (153)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the shares of the Kṣatriya and other sons have been set forth here in an unqualified form, yet in another Smṛti, in connection with certain particular kinds of property, we find a totally different form of division: — (1) ‘The land acquired from gifts shall not be given to the son of the Kṣatriya mother, and (2) if any such land happen to have been given by the father to these, it shall be taken by the Brāhmaṇa son on the father’s death.’

Since this specifies the land ‘acquired from gifts,’ that acquired by purchase and other means do not become similarly excluded. Elsewhere again we read — ‘The son horn to a Brāhmaṇa from his Śūdra wife is not entitled to a share in landed property,’ which precludes the Śūdra son from all kinds of lands.

All this restriction should be understood to apply to those cases where there are other forms of property also; otherwise, we would be faced by the law relating to ‘the tenth part of a share.’ If there were no other property, the sons in question would be left without any subsistence.

What I hold however is that though the allotment of shares (under the circumstances mentioned in the Smṛti texts quoted) is negatived, provision for subsistence does not thereby become precluded

If it be asked ‘What is the difference between these two?’ — our answer is that if the said sons were entitled to regular ‘shares,’ they would be entitled to make gifts of, or sell, the property inherited, while what they get for subsistence, of that they can only take the usufruct.

“As for the grains necessary for his subsistence, these the Śūdra son shall receive from the Brāhmaṇa son; so that there would be no point in alloting any land to him for that purpose. Says Gautama (28-39) — ‘Ho obtains his subsistence, in the manner of a pupil.”

True; but provision for his subsistence has got to be made, in consideration of the fact that the property under division is his father’s; and if such provision were not definitely made at the time of division, it is just possible that the twice-born brothers might lose the property, either by misconduct or by some such act as selling and the like; and in that wise he would be left without subsistence. If, on the other hand, some land has been definitely allotted for his subsistence, the other brothers could not appropriate it to other uses, without his consent. — (153)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 528), which adds that no significance attaching to the singular number in ‘vipraḥ’ this same rule applies to cases where there are several sons from the Brāhmaṇī wife.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 343), which adds that this pertains to lands other than that which may have been received by the father as a religious gift, to which latter, the non-Brahmaṇa sons are not entitled; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 144); — in Dāyakramasaṅgraha (p. 51); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 212).

On the failure of other sons, the rest of the property goes to the Sapiṇḍas (according to Medhātithi), — to the widow and the rest (according to Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 535), which adds the following notes: — ‘Saputraḥ’, one having sons of the twice-born castes, — ‘aputraḥ’, one having no sons of the twice-born castes; — Halāyudha and Pārijāta have taken this verse to men that no part of the property goes to such son of the married Śūdra wife as is entirely devoid of good qualities.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 344), which adds that this refers to such Śūdra-born sons as are not obedient to the father.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 735), which adds the ‘adhikam’ means ‘more than the tenth share;’ — also on p. 740 where it is added that the implication o'f this rule is that in the case of the man ‘without sons,’ the property besides the ‘tenth share,’ which goes to the Śūdra-born son, goes to the ‘widow and the rest’

It is quoted in Mitākṣara (2.132-133), which explains the meaning to be that even though the son of the Śūdra wife is a ‘body-born’ son, yet he cannot inherit anything more than the tenth share, even when there are no other sons. It adds the following explanation: — ‘Satputraḥ’ means ‘one having sons of wives of the twice-born castes,’ — ‘aputraḥ,’ ‘one who has no sons from the twice-born wives,’ — when such a person dies, then his sons — Kṣetraja and the rest — or sapiṇḍas, shall not give to his son from the Śūdra wife, any more than the tenth share. — This implies that the sons of Kṣatriya and Vaiśya wives inherit the entire property, if there is no son from the Brāhmaṇa wife.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 35b); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 688); — in Vīramitrodaya

(Vyavahāra 192b) which explains ‘satputra’ as having ‘son born of the wife of one’s own caste;’ and ‘aputra’ as ‘having no son born of the wife of one’s own caste, and adds that on the death of such a person, the Kṣetraja and other sons will inherit his property, but the son born of Śūdra mother will not get more than the tenth part of the estate: — and by Jīmūtavāhara (Dāyabhāga, p. 219), which says that even in the absence of a son of a twice-born caste, the Śūdra son shall not get more than the tenth part.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.

VERSE 9.154

Section XXI - Shares of Sons born of Mothers of diverse Castes

यद्यपि स्यात् तु सत्पुत्रोऽप्यसत्पुत्रोऽपि वा भवेत् ।
नाधिकं दशमाद् दद्यात्शूद्रापुत्राय धर्मतः ॥१५४॥

yadyapi syāt tu satputro'pyasatputro'pi vā bhavet |
nādhikaṃ daśamād dadyātśūdrāputrāya dharmataḥ ||154||

Whether a Brāhmaṇa has a son or no son, he shall not, according to law, allot more than the tenth part to the son of the Śūdra wife. — (154)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Has a son’ — has any son; or the son meant may be that born of the Brāhmaṇa wife, and not that of any of the‘twice-born’ wives. So that if there is no son born of the Brāhmaṇa wife, even if there art-sons of Kṣatriya and Vaiśya wives, the son of the Śūdra wife shall receive the eighth part; while if there is only a son of the Vaiśya wife, he shall get the third part.

Others, however, explain the phrase ‘no son’ to mean the absence of a son of any twice-born wife. And according to this view, the residue of the property left after the tenth part has been marie over to the Śūdra son shall go to the Sapiṇḍas (Collaterals).

The most unobjectionable principle of division, however, would be as follows: — If the property is a large one, and there is no son of any higher caste, the Śūdra son shall receive only the tenth part; if, however, the property is just enough for the maintenance of a few men only, then, the whole shall go to the Śūdra son.

In the case of Kṣatriyas and others, another Smṛti has laid down the following rule in connection with sons born of the same and different castes: — ‘Sons of a Kṣatriya are entitled to three, two and one shares; those of the Vaiśya to two and one’ (Yājña. 2.125). That is, sons of the Kṣatriya from the Kṣatriya wife shall each receive three parts, those from the Vaiśya wife two parts, and from the Śūdra wife one part; so that Śūdra sons receive the sixth part of the property of the Kṣatriya father and the third part of the Vaiśya father.

Others again explain the sense of the present text as follows: — When he is going to give some property to the Śūdra son at all, the father shall collect the entire property and give to him the tenth part of it, — even, though he be free to do as he likes; as it is going to be declared (in the next verse) that ‘whatever his father shall give to him, that shall be his.’

According to this view, it would be much more reasonable to construe the text as ‘the man having a son shall give, etc. etc.,’ — ‘dadyāt,’ ‘shall give,’ being construed with ‘saputraḥ,’ ‘having a son’; otherwise, the construction would be — ‘the person, whose father has a son or no son, shall give, etc.,’ — which shall be a most difficult one. As in this case, the term ‘having a son’ shall stand for the dead father, while the nominative of the verb ‘shall give’ shall be the living son or other Sapiṇḍa relations.

Thus, then, in a case where there are only Brāhmaṇa and Śūdra sons, and no Kṣatriya or Vaiśya ones, the Śūdra one is entitled, not to the tenth part, but to something less, never more.

If there are ten cows, the Brāhmaṇa son shall receive four cows the Śūdra one cow, — the remaining ones being divided between the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya sons. When, however, these latter too do not exist, then, these five cows also shall he divided, on the aforesaid principle, between the Brāhmaṇa and Śūdra sons. When, however, the Brāhmaṇa son takes the entire property, he cannot be called either a ‘share-holder’ or ‘a receiver of four shares.’ Hence, in this ease what has been said (in 153) regarding the Brāhmaṇa taking ‘four shares’ would apply to a case where there are four brothers. The Śūdra also receives the ‘tenth share’ only when there are four brothers; — this share to be correspondingly increased if there are two or three brothers only. — (154)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.

VERSE 9.155

Section XXI - Shares of Sons born of Mothers of diverse Castes

ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्रापुत्रो न रिक्थभाक् ।
यदेवास्य पिता दद्यात् तदेवास्य धनं भवेत् ॥१५५॥

brāhmaṇakṣatriyaviśāṃ śūdrāputro na rikthabhāk |
yadevāsya pitā dadyāt tadevāsya dhanaṃ bhavet ||155||

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США