with the Commentary of Medhatithi 274 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 280 из 350Следующая ⇒

Of the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, the son born of a Śūdra wife is not an inheritor of property; his property shall consist of whatever his father may give to him. — (155)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The son born of the Śūdra wife of the twice-born persons is not an‘inheritor of property.’ — Is that so always? — No; ‘whatever his father may give to him’ — i.e., the ‘tenth part’ which the father may have allotted to him — that shall be his property; and he obtains nothing more out of his paternal property.

In this connection, it has been declared by Śaṅkha — ‘The son of the Śūdra wife is not entitled to inheritance; — his share consists of whatever his father gives him; at the time of partition, however, his brothers may give him a pair of bullocks in addition’; — this latter sentence forming a subsequent addition.

Others hold that what is said in the present text refers to the son of the unmarried Śūdra woman; — their argument being that there is nothing in the text indicative of the woman being one that has been duly married, — all that the term ‘Śūdra’ denotes is the particular caste. Hence, the meaning is that for the son of such a woman, ‘whatever the father gives him,’ — that is, the provision that his father makes for his maintenance, or any share that he may have allotted to him for his maintenance during his life-time, — that shall be his property, — and his brothers need not give him anything. Says Gautama in the section dealing with the son of a Śūdra wife — ‘As regards the sons of unmarried wives, they shall, if they are obedient, receive enough for subsistence, in the manner of pupils.’ (28 — 39)

According to the view of these men, however, the sons born of unmarried Kṣatriya and Vaiśya wives would be entitled to inheritance; and it is not known to what share these would be entitled.

It might be asserted that — “Their share shall be the same as that of the sons of married wives; since there is no word, either directly or indirectly indicative of the fact that the mothers shall be married wives. For all that is said is that — ‘the legitimate son alone shall inherit the property’ (163); which distinctly mentions the ‘legitimate’ son, born of the legally married wife ↓ and the qualities of the ‘legitimate’ son can never be present in those born of unmarried wives, and further, it has been declared that ‘the son of the unauthorised woman...... is not entitled to any share’ (143). It might be urged that this last passage refers to the brothers wife; as it is only in connection with her that ‘authorisation’ has been sanctioned; so that when the text used the term ‘unauthorised’ it must be taken as referring to her alone.”

But in the present case also, there is dear indication of the fact that sons become entitled to ‘subsistence’ as soon as they are born (irrespectively of all other conditions). Hence, the term ‘unauthorised’ also refers in general to the wives of other persons. And all these sons (of married or unmarried wives) are entitled to subsistence. — (155)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“The son of a Śūdra wife receives no share of his father’s estate in case the mother was not legally married’ (Medhātithi; ‘others,’ in Kullūka), — or in case he is destitute of good qualities (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda). According to Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa ‘na rikthabhāk’ means ‘receives no larger share than one-tenth, except if the father has given more to him.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 535), which adds the following notes: — ‘According to Lakṣmīdhara the meaning is that ‘if the father gives anything to the son of his Śūdra wife, he should give only the tenth part of his property’; — Halāyudha and Pārijāta hold that the verse denies all share to the son of the Śūdra mother who is not a married wife.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 343); which adds that this refers only to such property as may be given by way of an affectionate present; and hence there is no incompatibility with those texts that deny to the said son any part of the landed property.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 735), which notes that this debarring from inheritance is meant for those cases where the son in question has already received some affectionate presents from the father; — or that the verse may be taken to mean that the son is not entitled to anything more than the tenth share of the property.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 45) as debarring from all inheritance the son of a śūdra mother, who is not a legally married wife; — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 219), which says that this denial of heritance refers only to those cases where the śūdra son has already got the tenth part of the father’s property, during the latter’s life-time, through his favour.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.

VERSE 9.156

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

समवर्णासु वा जाताः सर्वे पुत्रा द्विजन्मनाम् ।
उद्धारं ज्यायसे दत्त्वा भजेरन्नितरे समम् ॥१५६॥

samavarṇāsu vā jātāḥ sarve putrā dvijanmanām |
uddhāraṃ jyāyase dattvā bhajerannitare samam ||156||

Or, all the sons of twice-born men, born of wives of the same caste, shall divide the property equally, after the others have given to the eldest his ‘preferential share.’ — (156)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the absence of any other alternative, (he term ‘or’ can be explained only as referring to what is here stated.

Whether the wives belong to the same caste or to different castes, it is only the Śūdra son that has been precluded from inheriting the entire property; hence, what is asserted here must be understood to apply to twice-born sons only. Consequently, the sense is that if a Brāhmaṇa has no son born of his Brāhmaṇa wife, his sons horn of the other wives, inherit his entire property. Similarly, the son of the Vaiśya wife of the Kṣatriya father.

The text cannot mean that ‘after the preferential share has been given to the eldest brother, all the sons born of wives of different castes shall divide equally, — with those born of the wives of the same caste.’ As this would he contrary to what has been said before (in 153) regarding each son of the lower caste receiving one share less than that of the higher caste.

It has been argued that — “This equality would be right in a case where the sons of the wife of the same caste are devoid of qualities, while those of the lower castes are duly qualified; specially in view of what has been declared by Gautama (28.40) — according to same people, a son of the wife of the same caste does not inherit, if he is misbehaved.”

This, however, is not right. Because, the caste of the son is the most important consideration. In fact, the revered teachers have declared that as soon as the son (of the wife of the same caste) has been born, he becomes the owner of the entire property.

Thus, the rule on this subject should be as that when there are no sons of the wife of the same caste, oven those sons that are born of wives of different, castes should give to the eldest brother of the same caste as themselves, his preferential share and divide the rest equally. — (156)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 532), which adds the following explanation: — In cases where twice-born men have many sons from several wives of the same caste as themselves , — or (as indicated by the term ‘vā’) many sons from several wives of diverse castes, — the sons shall divide the property equally after having given something to the eldest brother as his ‘additional share.’

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 193).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.

VERSE 9.157

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

शूद्रस्य तु सवर्णैव नान्या भार्या विधीयते ।
तस्यां जाताः समांशाः स्युर्यदि पुत्रशतं भवेत् ॥१५७॥

śūdrasya tu savarṇaiva nānyā bhāryā vidhīyate |
tasyāṃ jātāḥ samāṃśāḥ syuryadi putraśataṃ bhavet ||157||

For the Śūdra is ordained a wife of his own caste only, and no other; and all the sons born of her shall be entitled to equal shares, even if there be a hundred sons. — (157)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For the Śūdra there is no irregular wife of the ‘ascending’ degree.

This is only a reiteration of what has been said before.

‘Other sons born of her shall be entitled to equal shares.’

It is in view of there being no fifth caste that, the text has said that ‘for the Śūdra there is a wife of the same caste, and no other.’ — (157)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This Verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 532); — and in Smṛtitattva II (p. 193), which quotes and accepts the explanation given by Kullūka that this is meant to preclude the ‘additional share’ prescribed in the preceding verse.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.

VERSE 9.158 [The Relative Status of the Twelve Kinds of Sons]

Section XXII - The Relative Status of the Twelve Kinds of Sons

पुत्रान् द्वादश यानाह नॄणां स्वायम्भुवो मनुः ।
तेषां षड् बन्धुदायादाः षडदायादबान्धवाः ॥१५८॥

putrān dvādaśa yānāha nṝṇāṃ svāyambhuvo manuḥ |
teṣāṃ ṣaḍ bandhudāyādāḥ ṣaḍadāyādabāndhavāḥ ||158||

Among the twelve kinds of sons that Manu sprung from the Self-existent one has mentioned, — six are kinsmen as well as heirs, and six are kinsmen, not heirs. — (158)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a brief indication of what follows.

The term ‘bandhu’ stands for ‘bāndhava,’ ‘kinsman.’ Six inherit the man’s ‘family-name’ as well as ‘property’; while with the remaining six, the ease is the reverse of this.

What the true view is regarding this point, we shall explain later on. — (158)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 549), which adds that the diversity of opinion on this question among the various Smṛtis — as regards the exclusion or inclusion of certain kinds of sons — is to be explained as based upon consideration of the qualifications of the sons; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 552, 666 and 687); — in Dattakacandrikā (p. 61); — and in Vīvādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 147).

Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana take the latter half to mean that the six sons are neither bandhu (kinsmen) nor dāyāda (heir); Kullūka says that this explanation would be against the declaration of Baudhāyana; — Nārāyaṇa goes on to explain ‘bandhudāyāda’ as ‘heir to the kinsmen, i.e., inheritors of the estates of kinsmen, such as paternal uncles, on failure of sons and wives of these latter.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.158-160)

Baudhāyana (2.3.31-32). — ‘They quote the following verses: “The Body-born son, the son of an Appointed Daughter, the son begotten on a wife through another man, the adopted son and the appointed son, the son horn secretly,

and the son cast off are entitled to share the inheritance. The son of an unmarried damsel, the son of a pregnant bride, the son bought, the son of a re-married woman, the son self-given and the Niṣāda are only members of the family.’

Gautama (28.32-33). — ‘The Body-born son, the son begotten on a wife through another man, the adopted son, the appointed son, the son born secretly, and the son cast off are inheritors of property. The son of an unmarried damsel, the son of a pregnant bride, the son of a re-married womans the son of an Appointed Daughter, the son self-given, and the son bought belong to the family; — these latter are entitled to one-fourth of a share, in the absence of the former six sons.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.25-39). — ‘They declare that, these six sons (Body-born, begotten on the wife through another man. the Appointed Daughter, son of a re-married woman, the son of an unmarried damsel, and the son secretly born) are heirs as well as kinsmen, preservers from great danger. Among those who are only kinsmen, not heirs are — one received with the pregnant bride, the adopted son, the son bought, the son sell-given, the son cast off, and the son of a Śūdra woman. They declare that the last-mentioned six sons shall take the heritage of him who has no heir belonging to the first six classes.’

Yājñavalkya (2.132). — ‘Among the twelve kinds of sons, the one succeeding inherits the property and offers the B?? only in the absence of the preceeding.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p.??4). — ‘The son cast off, the son born of the pregnant bride, the son adopted, the son bought, the son of the Śūdra wife, the son s??? given, — those six are non-inheritors; — among the six sons that are inheritors — viz., the Body-born son, the son begotten on the wife by another man, the son of the Appointed Daughter, the son of the remarried woman, the son born of an unmarried damsel, the son born secretly, there is an apportionment of shares; — two parts going to the father, two to the Body-horn son, and one each to the rest.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘Six of the sons are both kinsmen and inheritors — viz., one begotten by oneself on a righteous wife, one begotten by one’s wife through another man, the son of a remarried woman, the son of an unmarried damsel, the son of an Appointed Daughter, and the son secretly born. The son adopted, the son bought, the son cast off, the son horn of a pregnant bride, the son self-given and the son found by chance are inheritors, not kinsmen.’

Devala (Do., p. 550). — ‘These twelve sons have been declared to serve the purpose of perpetuating one’s line, — they being born of one’s own body, or of others, or found by chance; — of these, the first six are kinsmen as well as inheritors of the father. All these inherit the father’s property, in the absence of a Body-born son.’

Nārada (Do., p. 551). — ‘The Body-born son, the son begotten on one’s wife through another man, the son of an Appointed Daughter, the son of the unmarried damsel, the son born of a pregnant bride, the son secretly born, the son of the remarried woman, the son east off, the son adopted, the son bought, the son appointed, the son self-given, — these are the twelve sons. Of these six are kinsmen as well as inheritors, and six are only kinsmen, not inheritors; — the preceding one being senior to the succeeding one.’

VERSE 9.159-160

Section XXII - The Relative Status of the Twelve Kinds of Sons

अउरसः क्षेत्रजश्चैव दत्तः कृत्रिम एव च ।
गूढोत्पन्नोऽपविद्धश्च दायादा बान्धवाश्च षट् ॥१५९॥

कानीनश्च सहोढश्च क्रीतः पौनर्भवस्तथा ।
स्वयन्दत्तश्च शौद्रश्च षडदायादबान्धवाः ॥१६०॥

aurasaḥ kṣetrajaścaiva dattaḥ kṛtrima eva ca |
gūḍhotpanno'paviddhaśca dāyādā bāndhavāśca ṣaṭ ||159||

kānīnaśca sahoḍhaśca krītaḥ paunarbhavastathā |
svayandattaśca śaudraśca ṣaḍadāyādabāndhavāḥ ||160||

(1) The ‘Aurasa,’ ‘Body-born,’ (2) the ‘Kṣetraja,’ ‘Soil-born,’ (3) the ‘Datta,’ ‘given’ (adopted), (4) the ‘Kṛtrima,’ ‘appointed,’ (5) the ‘Gūḍhotpanna,’ ‘Secretly born,’ and (6) the ‘Apaviddha,’ ‘Cast off,’ — these six are both heirs and kinsmen. — (159)

(1) The ‘Kānīna,’ ‘maiden-born,’ (2) the ‘Sahoḍha,’ ‘received along with the wife,’ (3) the ‘Krīta,’ ‘bought,’ (4) the ‘Paunarbhava’ ‘begotten on a remarried woman,’ (5) the ‘Svayandatta,’ ‘self-offered’ and (6) the ‘Śaudra,’ ‘Śūdra-born,’ — these six are only kinsmen, not heirs. — (160)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.159-160)

Those two verses enumerate the twelve kinds of sons, for the purpose of indicating the two classes mentioned above. — (159-160)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verse 9.159)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Prāyaścitta, p. 37); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 349), where it is added that though the sons have been divided into these two sets, yet the duty that devolves upon them, as ‘sapiṇḍas’ or ‘sagotras,’ devolves equally on all the twelve, — such as the offering of water and so forth; — and as for inheriting the father’s property, the latter set also are entitled to it, in the absence of the former set

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 549); — and in Mitākṣarā, (2.132), which has the following notes: — The implication of this is that, in the case of the death also of the Sapiṇḍa or the Samānadaka of the father, the property goes to the first set of six sons and not to the second; though the duty of offering water and so forth devolves equally upon both sets. The Bālambhaṭṭī adds that from the last remark it follows that the compound ‘adāyādabāndhavāḥ’ is to be expounded as ‘adāyāda’ (non-inheritors) + bāndhava (relations),’ i.e., though they don’t inherit the property, they make the offerings required of the Sapiṇḍa or Sagotra.

This is quoted in Vivādacintāmaṇi, (Calcutta, p. 147); — and in the Dattakacandrikā, (p. 61).

(verse 9.160)

This verse is quoted along with the last, in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaśacitta, p. 37); — in Parāśaramādhava, (Vyavahāra, p. 349); — in Vivādaratnākara, p. 549); — and in Mitākṣarā, (2.132).

The latter half of this is quoted in Vīramitrodaya, (Saṃskāra, p. 211) which has the following notes: — This justifies the view that the ‘Śaudra’ also is a ‘secondary son’; but it adds that this can be understood only in the sense that the son begotten by a Śūdra on a slave girl (not married) is to be regarded as a ‘secondary son’ only in the absence of a ‘primary son.’

The verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī, (p. 666 and 687); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 147); — and in Dattākacandrikā, (p. 61).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.158-160)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.158.

VERSE 9.161

Section XXII - The Relative Status of the Twelve Kinds of Sons

यादृशं फलमाप्नोति कुप्लवैः सन्तरन्जलम् ।
तादृशं फलमाप्नोति कुपुत्रैः सन्तरंस्तमः ॥१६१॥

yādṛśaṃ phalamāpnoti kuplavaiḥ santaranjalam |
tādṛśaṃ phalamāpnoti kuputraiḥ santaraṃstamaḥ ||161||

The man who tries to cross the gloom with the help of bad sons obtains results similar to those obtained by one who tries to cross the water with the help of unsound boats. — (161)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘Kṣetraja’ and other sons having been mentioned along with the ‘legitimate’ son, people might think that all of them stand on the same footing; it is with a view to set aside this notion that the author adds this verse. The sense is that the ‘Kṣetraja’ and other ‘bad sons’ are not capable of rendering the same assistance that is rendered by the ‘legitimate’ son.

Even though the text does not mention anything definite, yet people have explained it to mean this, on the basis of the context. Others, however, have explained the ‘bad sons’ to mean ‘sons of unauthorised women.’

The sense is that even though people have these ‘had sons,’ they should not regard themselves as having sons, they should still continue to make efforts to obtain a ‘legitimate’ son.

‘Gloom’ — of the other world, due to the man’s past misdeeds, in the shape of not having paid off the debts to his Pitṛs, — which could be cleared off only by moans begetting offspring. — (161)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī, (p. 701).

VERSE 9.162

Section XXII - The Relative Status of the Twelve Kinds of Sons

यद्येकरिक्थिनौ स्यातामौरसक्षेत्रजौ सुतौ ।
यस्य यत् पैतृकं रिक्थं स तद् गृह्णीत नैतरः ॥१६२॥

yadyekarikthinau syātāmaurasakṣetrajau sutau |
yasya yat paitṛkaṃ rikthaṃ sa tad gṛhṇīta naitaraḥ ||162||

If the ‘Soil-born’ and the ‘body-born’ sons are both entitled to inherit the same property, each shall receive that property which belongs to his own father, and not the other. — (162)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

An impotent man having obtained a son from his ‘authorised’ wife through another man, according to the method described under 167, may happen to have his impotence cured by medicines and then himself beget his own ‘legitimate,’ ‘body-born’ son; and in this ease, the former son would receive the property of his progenitor, who may be called his ‘father’ on the ground of his being the cause of his birth; and on the same ground the child would be called his ‘son’ only figuratively; since in reality he is the ‘Kṣetraja’ son of the other man, just as he is referred to in this verse.

If, however, the progenitor happens to have a ‘legitimate’ son of his own, — and if the father, moved by his great love, does not happen to have made over all his property to that son, — and further, if there are no other Sapiṇḍa relations — under such circumstances, the ‘Kṣetraja;’ son may inherit the property of that progenitor. The sons of ‘unauthorised’ women also inherit the property of their progenitor, if there are no ‘Sapiṇḍa’ relations.

Others explain the verse to mean as follows: — While the rightful ‘heir’ is already there, if a ‘Kṣetraja’ son happen also to be bora, this latter shall inherit the property of his progenitor, and not that of the ‘owner of the soil’ (his mother’s husband), — if there is a ‘legitimate’ son of the latter. In the presence of the legitimate son, what the share of the ‘Kṣetraja’ son shall be is laid down in verses 165 and 164.

The next two verses show how the two sons become entitled to the same property. — (162)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi has been mis-represented here by Kullūka and also by Buhler. (See text). Nārāyaṇa and Nandana hold that the rule refers to the case of two undivided brothers, where one having died, the other, who has sons of his own, begets on the other a Kṣetraja son; in which case on the death of the second brother, the Kṣetraja is entitled to receive only the share of his mother’s husband, not any in the estate of his natural father.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 543), which has the following notes: — The ‘Kṣetraja’ meant here is one begotten by one not ‘commissioned’ (by the elders); — ‘paitṛkam riktham’ means ‘that property which the father gave to the mother for the purpose of maintaining the son.’ Others however construe the verse as it stands, in the direct, sense — ‘Each takes the property of his own father.’

It is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 739), as laying down that the Dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa-Kṣetraja is entitled to inherit the property of his progenitor-father.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (p. 169), which explains the meaning to be that each is to take the property of the man from whose seed he was born; — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 229), which says that the son shall inherit the property of that person from whose ‘seed’ he may he horn.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (17.23). — ‘Co-parceners descended from different fathers must adjust their shares according to their fathers; let each take the wealth due to his father; no other has a right to it.’

VERSE 9.163

Section XXII - The Relative Status of the Twelve Kinds of Sons

एक एवौरसः पुत्रः पित्र्यस्य वसुनः प्रभुः ।
शेषाणामानृशंस्यार्थं प्रदद्यात् तु प्रजीवनम् ॥१६३॥

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов