with the Commentary of Medhatithi 277 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 283 из 350Следующая ⇒

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 740) to the effect that re-marriage is permitted only so long as the girl is still ‘akṣatayoni’, ‘virgin’. It adds the following notes: — If the virgin here described marries again, it is the second husband that is called ‘paunarbhava’; and it is this man, and his sons, that are excluded from śrāddhas and gifts etc.; the name cannot apply to the former (deserted) husband or his sons. Though the woman being ‘punarbhūḥ’, both the husbands, being related to her, are liable to the title ‘paunarbhava’ (‘related to the Punarbhū’), yet the most reasonable view appears to be to apply the title to that particular husband by virtue of whose connection the woman herself becomes ‘punarbhū’. Aparārka has applied the title to both the husbands; but this view becomes annulled by the above considerations. Though in the explanation provided by us, there would appear to be no distinction made as to whether the gatapratyāgatā girl is or is not still a virgin, yet both Nārāyaṇa and Medhātithi have held that the epithet ‘akṣatayoniḥ’, ‘virgin’, is meant to be construed with the ‘gatapratyāgatā’ also. And this is the correct view.

It is quoted in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 38a.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (4.1.15-16). — ‘If a damsel has been abducted by force, and has not been wedded with the sacred texts, she may lawfully be given to another man; she is even like a maiden. — If, after a damsel has been given away, — or even after the nuptial rites have been performed, — the bridegroom dies, — she who has thus left the father’s house and has come hack to it, may ho again wedded, according to the rule applicable to second weddings; provided the marriage had not been consummated.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.74). — ‘If a damsel, before the death of her husband, had been merely wedded by the sacred texts, and the marriage had not been consummated, she may be married again.’

Viṣṇu (15.8). — ‘She who being still a virgin, is married a second time is called Punarbhū, re-married.’

VERSE 9.177

Section XXIII - The Twelve Kinds of Sons defined

मातापितृविहीनो यस्त्यक्तो वा स्यादकारणात् ।
आत्मानमर्पयेद् यस्मै स्वयन्दत्तस्तु स स्मृतः ॥१७७॥

mātāpitṛvihīno yastyakto vā syādakāraṇāt |
ātmānamarpayed yasmai svayandattastu sa smṛtaḥ ||177||

If a boy, being deprived of his parents, or being abandoned by them without cause, offers himself to a man, — he is called the ‘self-offered son.’ — (177)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.173-178)

[The Bhāṣya on these verses is not available in any of the manuscripts.]

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 738), which explains that the ‘Kāraṇa’, cause, for abandoning, consists in the child having become an out-cast, — and ‘sparśayet’, offers, surrenders.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 571), which has the following notes: — ‘Akāraṇāt’, without fault, — ‘ātmānam sparśayet’ should offer himself with the words, — ‘I am your son — in the Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 38); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 38a); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 546); — in Śrāddhakriyakaumudī (p. 455); — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 92); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 1(?)89b), which says that the abandoning of the child should be only because of inability to support it, and not by reason of the child having become an out-cast and so forth.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (2.3.28). — ‘He is called a Svayandatta, self-given, son, who, abandoned by his father and mother, gives himself to a stranger.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.33-5). — ‘The fourth is the son self-given.’

Viṣṇu (15.22-23). — ‘The son self-given is the tenth; — and he belongs to him to whom he gives himself,’

Yājñavalkya (2.131). — ‘One who gives himself is the self-given son.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 41). — ‘The Upagata, self-offered, son is one who offers himself, or is offered by his kinsmen, as a son to a stranger.’

VERSE 9.178

Section XXIII - The Twelve Kinds of Sons defined

यं ब्राह्मणस्तु शूद्रायां कामादुत्पादयेत् सुतम् ।
स पारयन्नेव शवस्तस्मात् पारशवः स्मृतः ॥१७८॥

yaṃ brāhmaṇastu śūdrāyāṃ kāmādutpādayet sutam |
sa pārayanneva śavastasmāt pāraśavaḥ smṛtaḥ ||178||

If a Brāhmaṇa, through lust, begets a son on a Śūdra woman, he is as a corpse, even though living, and hence called the ‘living corpse.’ — (178)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.173-178)

[The Bhāṣya on these verses is not available in any of the manuscripts.]

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“The designation ‘a corpse’ indicates that his father derives imperfect benefits from his offerings (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda), — or that he is blameable (Rāghavānanda).” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Prāyaścitta, p. 38); — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 574), which adds the following notes: — ‘Pārayan,’ conferring some benefits upon the man whom he regards as his father, — he is called ‘śava’ ‘corpse,’ because of his being capable of conferring very little benefit upon his father; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī, (pp. 552 and 688); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 38a); — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 189b) — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 220), which says that this refers to the son of a Śūdra woman who is not a married wife.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (2.3.30). — ‘He who is begotten, through lust, by a man of the first twice-born caste on a Śūdra woman, is the Pāraśava son.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.38). — ‘They declare that the son of a woman of the Śūdra caste is the sixth (among those who are kinsmen, not heirs.)’

Viṣṇu (15.27). — ‘The son born of a non-descript woman, Yatra-kvacana-utpādita, is the twelfth.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 42). — ‘The son of a Brāhmaṇa father (and Śūdra mother) is the Niṣāda or the Pāraśava.’

VERSE 9.179

Section XXIII - The Twelve Kinds of Sons defined

दास्यां वा दासदास्यां वा यः शूद्रस्य सुतो भवेत् ।
सोऽनुज्ञातो हरेदंशमिति धर्मो व्यवस्थितः ॥१७९॥

dāsyāṃ vā dāsadāsyāṃ vā yaḥ śūdrasya suto bhavet |
so'nujñāto haredaṃśamiti dharmo vyavasthitaḥ ||179||

If a son is born to a Śūdra from a female slave, or from the female slave of a slave, he shall, when permitted, receive a share; such is the settled law. — (179)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case of a Śūdra, the child born from an unmarried woman, or from an unauthorised woman, is a ‘son.’ From the text, it is clear that if a slave were to beget a child upon a female slave belonging to another slave, that child would belong to the former, and not to the latter.

‘When permitted’ — by his father — ‘shall receive a share’ — equal to that of the ‘legitimate’ son; when the partition is done during the father’s life-time, or when the father has declared to his sons that ‘this child is entitled to a share equal to yours.’

If, however, the father does not permit it, what should he done has been declared in another Smṛti — ‘The son born to a Śūdra from a female slave shall receive a share according to the wish — [of his father, i.e., as much as his father permits him to take], — but on the fathers death, his brothers shall allot to him a half-share; [that is, they shall give him half of their own share; if they themselves take two shares each, they shall give him one]; — if he has no brothers, he shall take the entire property, except when there are daughter’s sons; — i.e., in the absence of ‘legitimate’ sons, he shall inherit the whole property, but only if there is no daughter’s son; if the daughter’s son is there, this latter shall be treated like a ‘legitimate’ son; because, nothing else is mentioned in connection with the daughter’s son, and it is he that is presented to the mind by the context.

In the case of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes, the sons of slave-girls are entitled to mere subsistence.

Such is the law. — (179)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 537), which adds the note that the son meant is born to a slave from a slave-girl not married to him; — the Kalpataru holds that the son meant is that born from the slave-girl belonging to a personal servant; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 566); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 38a); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 222), which says that in the absence of the said sanction, the son is to have only half a share.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.133). — ‘A son born to a Śūdra father from a slave-girl may inherit his property, by the desire of his father; on the death of the father, his brothers may allot to him one-half share; — if there are no brothers, nor sons of the father’s daughter born of his married wife, then he shall take the whole property.’

VERSE 9.180

Section XXIII - The Twelve Kinds of Sons defined

क्षेत्रजादीन् सुतानेतानेकादश यथोदितान् ।
पुत्रप्रतिनिधीनाहुः क्रियालोपान् मनीषिणः ॥१८०॥

kṣetrajādīn sutānetānekādaśa yathoditān |
putrapratinidhīnāhuḥ kriyālopān manīṣiṇaḥ ||180||

These eleven, the ‘soil-born’ and the rest, as here described, the wise ones call ‘substitutes of a son,’ — taken with a view to the failure of a religious duty. — (180)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Substitute’ — when the ‘principal’ is not there; which means that these other sons are to be taken only in the absence of the ‘legitimate’ son.

In other Smṛtis, these sons have been mentioned in a different order; e.g., the ‘secretly born’ occupies the fifth place in one text, while the sixth in another. But no significance attaches to the order in which these? are mentioned; this is what is indicated by the fact that there is no uniform order adopted by the Smṛtis. Even though no special significance attaches to the order, yet a distinctly useful purpose is served by it; as we shall explain later on.

These sons are taken ‘with a view to’ — on account of — ‘the failure of a religious duty’; i.e., with a view to prevent the transgression of the injunction that ‘one shall beget a child.’ This injunction is an obligatory one, and as such, must, be acted up to by the Householder. The principal method of doing this consists in begetting a ‘legitimate’ son; but in the absence of that, he may have recourse to the others here described. — (180)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“These substitutes are not to be taken if there is a ‘body-born’ son (Medhātithi), — or an ‘appointed daughter’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 574), which adds the following notes: — ‘Putrapratinidhīn,’ ‘substitutes of the Body-born Son and the Appointed Daughter’, — they perform the necessary functions only in the absence of these two; — the reason for this is supplied by the term ‘Kriyālopāt’ — which means ‘on account of the risk of transgressing the injunction that one should beget children’; — the injunction is an obligatory one; and as such has to be obeyed by some means or the other; hence when the primary method of having children fails, one must have recourse to the secondary method of having substitutes.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva, II, (p. 262), to the effect that the name ‘son’ is applied to the substitutes only figuratively; — in Aparārka (p. 97); — in Mitākṣarā, (3.259), to the effect that the substitutes are not really sons, they are so called because they perform the functions of the son; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 207), which notes that those ‘sons’ whose bodies are made up of the constituents of the body of one of the two parents, — e.g. the ‘Kṣetraja,’ ‘Gūḍhaja,’ ‘Kānīvn’ ‘Paunarbhava’ and ‘Sahoḍha’ — are called ‘substitutes because the constituents of the body of the other parent are wanting’; — and in the case of the Appointed Daughter, even though her body is made up of the constituents of the bodies of both parents, and as such she would appear to be exactly like a regular ‘son,’ yet she has been regarded as a ‘substitute’ or ‘secondary son,’ on the ground that being a girl, she has a body wherein the constituents of the father’s body are less than those of the mother’s; it is for this reason that Yājñavalkya has called her ‘equal’ to the ‘Body-born’ Son; — the son of the Appointed Daughter is ‘secondary,’ the constituents of the bodies of his grandparents existing in his body indirectly (through his mother). In the case of the ‘Dattaka,’ ‘Krīta,’ ‘Kṛtrima,’ ‘Svayamdatta’ and ‘Apabiddha,’ on the other hand, — where the ‘son’ is not born of either of the adoptive parents, — there is no connection at all with the constituents of the bodies of these latter; and in their case, their character of ‘secondary son’ would rest entirely upon the verbal authority of the texts, and in their case the term ‘pratinidhi,’ ‘substitute,’ would mean ‘anukalpa,’ ‘secondary alternative.’

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 837), which notes that these sons are not regular ‘sons,’ the name being applied to them only on the ground of their performing the functions of the son; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 552, 652 and 683); — in Dattakamīmānsā (p. 29); — in Dattakacandrikā (p. 48); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 189b), which says that the reason for their being called ‘secondary substitutes’ lies in the fact that there have been no marriage and other rites performed.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bṛhaspati (25.33-34). — ‘Of the thirteen sons mentioned by Manu, the Body-born and the Appointed Daughter continue the family. — As in default of clarified butter, oil is admitted by the righteous as a substitute, so are the eleven sons admitted as substitutes, in default of the Body-born son and of the Appointed Daughter.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 576). — ‘While the Body-born son or the Appointed Daughter is there, the Kṣetraja and other sons, belonging as they do to different gotras, are only continuers of the family; and they perform the śrāddha as slaves.’

VERSE 9.181

Section XXIII - The Twelve Kinds of Sons defined

य एतेऽभिहिताः पुत्राः प्रसङ्गादन्यबीजजाः ।
यस्य ते बीजतो जातास्तस्य ते नैतरस्य तु ॥१८१॥

ya ete'bhihitāḥ putrāḥ prasaṅgādanyabījajāḥ |
yasya te bījato jātāstasya te naitarasya tu ||181||

Those sons born of the seed of strangers that have been described here by the way, belong to him from whose seed they are born, and not to any other person. — (181)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some people explain this to mean the denial of the injunction regarding the other sons, even in the absence of the ‘legitimate’ son; the sense being that — ‘those that have been described as substitutes to be appointed in the absence of the legitimate son, should not be appointed, because; being born of the seed of another man, they are the sons of that man, and of none other; they cannot he the ‘sons’ of the man that appoints them.’

Thus, the foregoing texts having sanctioned the appointing of such sons, and the present text forbidding it, there should be option; and this option shall be restricted to the inheriting of property. So that the ‘maiden-born,’ the ‘one received along with the wife,’ the ‘son of the remarried woman’ and the ‘secretly born’ son are not entitled to inherit property; the ‘adopted’ and the rest are entitled to inherit only in the absence of the ‘legitimate’ son, while the ‘maiden-born’ and the rest are not to inherit the father’s property even in the absence of die ‘legitimate’ son; they are entitled to food and clothing only, whether the ‘legitimate’ son is there or not; since it has been declared (in 202 below) — ‘It is only fair that the wise man should give to all food and clothing according to his means; if he does not give it at all, he would become an outcast.’ — (181)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 574); — and in Aparārka (p. 97).

Comparative notes by various authors:

[See texts under 32 et seq.]

Baudhāyana (2.3.34-35). — ‘The son belongs to the begetter............ After one’s death, the son belongs to the begetter.’

Āpastamba (2-13.6-10). — ‘A Brāhmaṇa text says — “The son belongs to the begetter.” — They quote also the following — “Having considered myself formerly a father, I shall not now allow my wives to be approached by other men; since they have declared that a son belongs to the begetter...... In the next world, the son belongs to the begetter.”’

VERSE 9.182

Section XXIII - The Twelve Kinds of Sons defined

भ्रातॄणामेकजातानामेकश्चेत् पुत्रवान् भवेत् ।
सर्वांस्तांस्तेन पुत्रेण पुत्रिणो मनुरब्रवीत् ॥१८२॥

bhrātṝṇāmekajātānāmekaścet putravān bhavet |
sarvāṃstāṃstena putreṇa putriṇo manurabravīt ||182||

Among brothers, born of the same father, if even one have a son, Manu has declared all of them to be ‘with son,’ through that son. — (182)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi on verses 182-202 is wanting in all Mss. But Kullūka criticises his view on 187; and Vivādaratnākara (p. 522) quotes him on 194.

“Hence no subsidiary sons (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda), or no Kṣetrjas (Nārāyaṇa) are necessary in such a case. Kullūka and Rāghavānanda add that the brother will take the estate and give the funeral offerings on failure of a wife, daughters and so forth (Yājñavalkya, 2.135).” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnkara (p. 582); — in Smṛtitattva, (p. 389), which explains ‘ekajātānām’ as ‘born of the same father and mother’; — in Mitākṣarā, (2.132), to the effect that the verse is meant to prohibit the adopting of any other person as ‘son,’ so long as the brother’s son can be adopted; it does not mean that the nephew is a regular ‘son.’

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 211), which adds the following notes: — The term ‘putriṇaḥ’ indicates some action taken by the man who adopts the ‘son’; so that the meaning of the sentence comes to be this: — Among uterine brothers, if a son is born to even one, the others, having no sons of their own, should adopt that son as theirs; nor would this be repugnant to the prohibition that there can be no adopting of one who is the only son of his parents; as the only ground for this prohibition lies in the consideration that if the only son becomes adopted by another person, the line of his own father becomes extinct; which consideration is not present in the case in question as the ‘line’ of all uterine brothers is one and the same; then there is another reason also; what the prohibition interdicts is the giving of the only son to be adopted, while in the case in question there is no giving away, the son being regarded as belonging to all the brothers, only by mutual understanding.

It is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭtī (p. 668); — in Dattakamīmāṃsā (p. 10) as lending support to the view that, so far as possible, one should adopt his own brother’s son, and adds that ‘ekajātānām’ makes it clear that the adopting is to be done by the uterine brother, not by a brother born of different fathers or different mothers, and that ‘bhrātṛṛṇām (bhrātṝṇām?)’ implies that there can be no mutual adoption by the brother of the son of the sister; — and in Vīrmitrodaya (Vyavahāra 108b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (17.10). — ‘If amongst many brothers begotten by one father, one have a son, they all become with son through that son; so says the Veda.’

Viṣṇu (15.42). — ‘Among brothers begotten by one father, the son of one is the son of all and must present the Ball of meal to all.’

Bṛhaspati (25.90). — ‘When there are many uterine brothers sprung from one father, — and a son is horn even to one of them only, — they all are declared to have male offspring, through that son.’

Kālikāpurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 212). — ‘People become endowed with son, through their own sons as also through the sons of their brothers.’

Bṛhatparāśara (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 213). — ‘Of a sonless uncle, his brother’s son would he the son and shall perform his Śrāddha and offer the Ball of meal.’

VERSE 9.183

Section XXIII - The Twelve Kinds of Sons defined

सर्वासामेकपत्नीनामेका चेत् पुत्रिणी भवेत् ।
सर्वास्तास्तेन पुत्रेण प्राह पुत्रवतीर्मनुः ॥१८३॥

sarvāsāmekapatnīnāmekā cet putriṇī bhavet |
sarvāstāstena putreṇa prāha putravatīrmanuḥ ||183||

Among all the wives of one man, if one have a son, Manu has declared all of them to be ‘with son,’ through that son. — (183)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 582); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 300) as attributing the character of the regular ‘son’ to the son of the co-wife; — in Smṛtitattva II (p. 187); — again on p. 388, where ‘ekapatnīnām’ is expounded as ‘ekaḥ patiḥ yāsām’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 97); — in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 459 and 465), to the effect that a woman’s property is inherited (1) by her son, (2) by her grandson, (3) by her great-grandson, (4) by her daughter and (5) by her step-son; and also as entitling the step-son to do the ‘sapiṇḍana,’ ‘amalgamating,’ Śrāddha for his step-mother; — in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 76), to the effect that the step-son is as good as a son; — in Dattakamīmāṃsā (p. 14), to the effect that the step-son is a ‘son’, even without being ‘appointed’, because he is constituted by the elements of her own husband’s body; — in Dattakacandrikā (p. 50); — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 200), to the effect that if a woman has no son of her own, her afterdeath rites are to be performed by her step-son; — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 103); — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 668).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (17, 11). — ‘If among many wives of one husband, one have a son, they all become with son, through that son; — thus says the Veda.’

Viṣṇu (15.41). — ‘Amongst wives of one husband also, the son of one is the son of all.’

Bṛhaspati (25.100). — ‘The same rule applies to a plurality of wives; if one of them has male issue, that son shall offer the Ball of meal to them all.’

VERSE 9.184

Section XXIII - The Twelve Kinds of Sons defined

श्रेयसः श्रेयसोऽलाभे पापीयान् रिक्थमर्हति ।
बहवश्चेत् तु सदृशाः सर्वे रिक्थस्य भागिनः ॥१८४॥

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте