with the Commentary of Medhatithi 278 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 284 из 350Следующая ⇒

śreyasaḥ śreyaso'lābhe pāpīyān rikthamarhati |
bahavaścet tu sadṛśāḥ sarve rikthasya bhāginaḥ ||184||

On the failure of each superior kind of son, each next inferior one is entitled to inheritance; if there be several of the same class, all shall share the property. — (184)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Kullūka and Rāghavānanda add that, as the son of Śūdra wife is enumerated among the twelve, and not considered, like the son of Kṣatriya and Vaiśya wives, a legitimate son, he inherits only on failure of all other subsidiary sons.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 552), which explains ‘Sadṛśāḥ’ as ‘equal in qualifications’; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 555, 691 and 698); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 192a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (17.39, 81). — ‘They quote the rule that the last mentioned six sons shall inherit the property of him who has no son mentioned among the first-mentioned six classes. Let the Sapiṇḍas or the subsidiary sons divide the heritage of him who has no son of the first-mentioned six kinds.’

Viṣṇu (15.28-29). — ‘Among these sons, each preceding one is preferable to the one next in order; — and he takes the inheritance before the next in order.’

Yājñavalkya (2.132). — ‘Among the sons, the succeeding one is entitled to offer the Ball and inherit the property only in the absence of the preceding one.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 552). — (Same as Manu.)

Bṛhaspati (25.39-41). — ‘The other sons, beginning with the Kṣetraja, shall respectively take a fifth, a sixth and a seventh part. The adopted, the cast off, the bought, the appointed and the son by a Śūdra wife; — these, when pure by caste, and irreproachable in their conduct, are considered as sons of middle rank. The Kṣetraja is despised by the virtuous; and so are the son born of the re-married woman, the son of an unmarried damsel, the son received with the pregnant bride and the son secretly born.’

Hārīta (25.39-41). — ‘Sons of the Śūdra wife, sons self-given and sons bought are all as had as the Śūdra-born.’

VERSE 9.185 [Inheritance]

Section XXIV - Inheritance

न भ्रातरो न पितरः पुत्रा रिक्थहराः पितुः ।
पिता हरेदपुत्रस्य रिक्थं भ्रातर एव च ॥१८५॥

na bhrātaro na pitaraḥ putrā rikthaharāḥ pituḥ |
pitā haredaputrasya rikthaṃ bhrātara eva ca ||185||

Sons alone shall inherit the father’s property, not brothers or fathers; but the father and brothers shall inherit the property of one who dies sonless. — (185)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Kullūka and Rāghavānanda insert, after ‘who leave no son,’ ‘nor widow and daughters’, and before ‘brothers’, ‘who leaves no parents.’ Nārāyaṇa, who (as also Govindarāja and Nandana) reads ‘eva vā’, ‘or brothers’, says that the father inherits the estate of an undivided son leaving no male issue, or the brothers with his permission, and that the estate of a divided son descends to his wife and other heirs mentioned in Yājñavalkya II, 135-136.” — Buhler.

The first half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.132) to the effect that all sons, ‘body-born’ as well as others, are entitled to inherit the father’s property. The Bālambhaṭṭī quotes verse 184 and notes that ‘son’ cannot be taken as standing for the body-bom sons only; because the rights of the body-born born have been declared in another verse already.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 653); — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 552), which quotes the first half only; — it quotes the second half on p. 592, where ‘aputrasya’ is explained as ‘without sons, primary as well as secondary.’

The second half is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.136), as laying down that the property of a sonless man goes to his Father or Brother; — again as justifying the conclusion that, if the man leaves a large property, his wife is to receive enough for her maintenance and the remainder is to go to his brother; — again, where the view is expressed that all that is meant is that both the Father and the Brother are entitled to inherit; and no priority or preference is meant to be implied by the order in which the two are mentioned; — on this the Bālambhaṭṭī notes that this view is supported by the use of the particle ‘vā’; — again, where it is explained as meaning that brothers inherit only in the absence of the father.

It is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 650 and 651); — in Dattakacandrikā (p. 61); — and by Jīmūtavāhana Dāyabhāga, (p. 253 and 293), to the effect that it is this brother that inherits, not the brother’s son.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (17.4-8). — ‘The wealth of a man who dies without male issue goes to his wife; failing her, to his daughter; failing her to his father; failing him, to his mother; failing her, to his brother; failing him, to his brother’s sons; failing them, to his kinsmen; failing them, to Sakulyas; failing them, to fellow-students; failing them to the King, except in the case of the property being a Brāhmaṇa’s.’

Yājñavalkya (2.135-136). — ‘Wife, daughters, parents, brothers, brother’s sons, Sagotras, kinsmen, pupils, fellow-students; among these the succeeding inherits the property of a man dying without male issue, only in the absence of the preceding one. Such is the law for all castes.’

Bṛhaspati (Āparārka, pp. 740, 742, 745). — ‘The wife being one half of the man’s body, the man whose wife is alive is himself still alive; and while one half of his body is alive, how can any one else take his property? Hence in the case of a man dying without male issue, even though his father, brothers and Sapiṇḍas may be living, it is his wife who inherits his property. If the man dies without leaving a male issue or a wife, or brother or father or mother, his property shall be divided by his Sapiṇḍas in proportionate shares. If the man leaves no son, his Śrāddha shall he performed by his wife; and in the absence of the wife, by his uterine brother; — failing him, other brothers, or brothers’ sons, or Sapiṇḍas, or Sakulyas, or pupils, or Vedic scholars are entitled to his wealth.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 741). — ‘If a man dies without male issue, his property goes to his brother; failing him, to his mother and father; or to his senior (or junior) wife.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘The property of the son-less man shall go to his uterine brothers, or to his daughters of the same caste as himself, or to his father if he he living, or to brothers of the same caste as himself, or to his mother, or to his wife; — in this same order.’

Nārada (Do.) — ‘If among brothers, some one should die, or go away as a Renunciate, the other brothers shall divide his property among themselves, except the Strīdhana; they shall support his wives as long as they continue to be faithful to their husband.’

Gautama (Do., 742). — ‘The wife should obtain the property of one who dies childless.’

Vṛddha-manu (Do.). — ‘A widow, without a son, keeping pure the husband’s bed, and firm in the observance of her duties, shall offer the Hall of meal to him and take his entire property.’

Kātyāyana (Do., p. 745). — ‘If a man dies after partition, without leaving a male issue, his father should take his property, or his brother, or mother, or his father’s mother, in due order.’

Pāiṭhīnasi (Vivadaratnākara, p. 592). — ‘The property of a son-less man goes to his brother; failing him to his mother and father, or his eldest wife, or Sagotras, or pupils, or fellow-students.’

Āpastamba (Do., p. 596). — ‘In the absence of sons, the nearest Sapiṇḍa; failing him, the preceptor; failing him, the pupil.’

VERSE 9.186

Section XXIV - Inheritance

त्रयाणामुदकं कार्यं त्रिषु पिण्डः प्रवर्तते ।
चतुर्थः सम्प्रदातैषां पञ्चमो नोपपद्यते ॥१८६॥

trayāṇāmudakaṃ kāryaṃ triṣu piṇḍaḥ pravartate |
caturthaḥ sampradātaiṣāṃ pañcamo nopapadyate ||186||

To three should water-libation be offered; to three is the cake offered; the fourth is the giver of these offerings; there can be no fifth. — (186)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

According to Kullūka and Rāghvānanda the verse is meant to indicate the right of the kṣetraja and other secondary sons to inherit the estate of grand-father and others dying childless. — According to Nandana it indicates the right of grand-sons and great grand-sons to inherit before brothers and the rest.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 592); — in Aparārka (p. 744), as describing the ‘nearest sapiṇḍas’; the sense being that that sapiṇḍa is the ‘nearest’ who makes water-offerings to the same persons (father, grandfather and great-grandfather); so that the uterine brother would be the ‘nearest’; the son of the uterine brother would he one step removed, as his ‘father’ would be different; — still one further removed would be the brother’s grandson, as his ‘father’ and ‘grandfather’ would both be different; so on with the others.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 134), to the effect that the father, the grandfather and the great-grandfather, irrespective of their wives, are the ‘deities’ (i.e., recipients) of the water and other offerings; — and again on p. 195; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 655); — in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 198b); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, pp. 157 and 253).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.186-189)

[See Text under 185.]

Mānava-Śrāddhakalpa (III). — (Same as Manu.)

Āpastamba (2.14.2-5). — ‘On failure of sons, the nearest Sapiṇḍa takes the property; failing him, the preceptor; failing him the pupil, who may use it for the teacher’s benefit or enjoy it himself; or the daughter may take the property; on the failure of all relations, let the King take the property.’

Gautama (28.21). — ‘Sapiṇḍas, Sagotras, those connected by descent from the same Ṛṣi, and the wife shall share the estate of a person dying without male issue (or an Appointed Daughter).’

Do. (28.41, 42). — ‘Śrotriyas shall divide the estate of a childless Brāhmaṇa; — the King shall take the property of the other castes.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.9-15). — ‘The great-grand-father, the grand-father, the father, one’s own-self, the uterine brothers, the son by a wife of equal caste, the grand-son and the great-grand-son, — these they call Sapiṇḍas; and amongst these, the son and the son’s son (together with the father) are sharers of an undivided oblation; sharers of divided oblations, they call Sakulyas. If no other relations are living, the property of the deceased man descends to his Sapiṇḍas; on the failure of Sapiṇḍas, the Sakulyas inherit; on the failure of these, the preceptor who takes the place of the spiritual father, a pupil or an officiating priest shall take the property; on failure of these, the King, who shall give that property to persons versed in the three Vedas; but the King shall never take the property of the Brāhmaṇa.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.81-84). — ‘The Sapiṇḍas or the subsidiary sons shall divide the property of him who has no son of the first six kinds; on failure of them, the preceptor and the pupil shall take the property; on failure of these two, the King inherits; but the King shall never take the property of a Brāhmaṇa.’

Viṣṇu (17.10-14). — ‘Failing brother’s sons, the property goes to the relations called Bandhu; failing these, to those called Sakulya; failing these, to a fellow-student; failing him, to the King, except when it is Brāhmaṇa’s property; — the property of the Brāhmaṇas goes to Brāhmaṇas.’

Yājñavalkya (2. 135-130). — ‘The wife, daughters, parents, brothers, brother’s sons, Sagotṛa, Bandhu — relations, pupils, fellow-students, — from among these in the absence of the preceding, the succeeding inherits the property of the man who dies without male issue. This is the law for all castes.’ Nārada (Aparārka,p. 715). — ‘Inthe absence of daughters, the property goes to Sakulyas and Bāndhuvas, and then to people of the same caste; and failing all these, to the King. In the absence of all relations, the holy Brāhmaṇas learned in the Vedas inherit the property; the property of the Brāhmaṇa shall not be taken by the King; of men of other castes, the property shall be taken by the King.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Aparārka, p. 716). — ‘The property of the learned Brāhmaṇa goes to the Assembly, not to the King.’

VERSE 9.187

Section XXIV - Inheritance

अनन्तरः सपिण्डाद् यस्तस्य तस्य धनं भवेत् ।
अत ऊर्ध्वं सकुल्यः स्यादाचार्यः शिष्य एव वा ॥१८७॥

anantaraḥ sapiṇḍād yastasya tasya dhanaṃ bhavet |
ata ūrdhvaṃ sakulyaḥ syādācāryaḥ śiṣya eva vā ||187||

The property shall always devolve upon him who is nearest to the (deceased) ‘Sapiṇḍa’; after these either a ‘Sakulya’; or the Spiritual Preceptor, or the pupil. — (187)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Sapiṇḍāt’. — “In the text the word is masculine. Kullūka begins by taking it generally as masculine or feminine, then, after giving the law of inheritance for the sons, he begins by taking the wife as the first female inheritor, quotes seven verses of Bṛhaspati and Vṛddha Manu, and also Yājñvalkya (2.135-136) to prove the statement; and ends by giving a list of female sapiṇḍas, after denouncing Medhātithi, because he denies the wife the right of sharing the inheritance”. — Hopkins.

Rāghavānanda agrees, in substance, with Kullūka; but in order to make the rule still more fully agree with Yājñavalkya (2. 35-136), he asserts that the cognates (Bandhus) are also implied by the term ‘sakulya’. — According to Nandana, the ‘sakulyas’ are Samānadakas.

The first half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.136), as lending support to the view that among brothers, the first claim is that of the uterine one, those born of other mothers being a step further removed; — in Aparārka (p. 744) to the effect that the nearer sapiṇḍa has the prior claim, — ‘nearness’ having been described under 186.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 592), which adds the following notes: — ‘Anantaraḥ’, near, — ‘dhanam’, of the man without son, — ‘sakulya’ here stands for Samānadaka; — in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 63), in support of the view that the claim of the sister comes next to that of the grandmother (paternal); — in Smṛtitattva II (p. 195), which explains the meaning to be that ‘from among the Sapiṇḍas of the dead man, the nearest will inherit his property’; — in Dāyakramasaṅgraha (pp. 10 and 28); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 40b); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 570 and 662); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 154); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 332), which, explains ‘sakulya’ as ‘beyond the Sapiṇḍa’, and also as ‘the descendant of great-great-grandfather’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.186-189)

[See Text under 185.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.186.

VERSE 9.188

Section XXIV - Inheritance

सर्वेषामप्यभावे तु ब्राह्मणा रिक्थभागिनः ।
त्रैविद्याः शुचयो दान्तास्तथा धर्मो न हीयते ॥१८८॥

sarveṣāmapyabhāve tu brāhmaṇā rikthabhāginaḥ |
traividyāḥ śucayo dāntāstathā dharmo na hīyate ||188||

But, on the failure of all, the property shall be taken by Brāhmaṇas, learned in the Vedas, pure and self-controlled; in this manner the law would not be violated. — (188)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Sarveṣām’ — ‘Of all the heirs mentioned in the preceding verse’ (Rāghavānada); — ‘of all males and females related in any way to the deceased’ (Nandana); — the term indicates that other persons, not named here, such as fellow-students and so forth, are also entitled to the inheritance (Kullūka).

“Nārāyaṇa points out that this rule refers solely to the property of a Brāhmaṇa”. — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 675), which says that it refers to any Brāhmaṇa neighbour of the deceased; — in Mitākṣarā (2.136), to the effect that on the failure of blood-relations, a fellow-student, and a learned Brāhmaṇa, the property shall go to any ordinary Brāhmaṇa; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 665); — in Dāyakramasaṅgraha (p. 12); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 333).

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 597); — and in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 354), which makes the same remark as Mitākṣarā.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.186-189)

[See Text under 185.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.186.

VERSE 9.189

Section XXIV - Inheritance

अहार्यं ब्राह्मणद्रव्यं राज्ञा नित्यमिति स्थितिः ।
इतरेषां तु वर्णानां सर्वाभावे हरेन्नृपः ॥१८९॥

ahāryaṃ brāhmaṇadravyaṃ rājñā nityamiti sthitiḥ |
itareṣāṃ tu varṇānāṃ sarvābhāve harennṛpaḥ ||189||

The property of the Brāhmaṇa shoved never be taken by the King, — such is the law; but in the case of other castes, the king shall take the property, in the absence of all heirs. — (189)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The first half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣavā (2.136), which remarks that this only means that the king shall not take the Brāhmaṇa’s property, and not that even a son may not inherit the Brāhmaṇa’s property; — again, to the effect that no part of the Brāhmaṇa’s estate shall be an escheat to the king.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 675), to the effect that the property of the Kṣatriya caste, in the absence of legal heirs, shall go to the king, and not to the Brāhmaṇa; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 597); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 355) to the effect that on the failure of legal heirs, the Brāhmaṇa’s property shall never go to the king, while that of the other castes shall go to the king; — in Dāyakramasaṅgraha (p. 12); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 41a); — and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 338).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.186-189)

[See Text under 185.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.186.

VERSE 9.190

Section XXIV - Inheritance

संस्थितस्यानपत्यस्य सगोत्रात् पुत्रमाहरेत् ।
तत्र यद् रिक्थजातं स्यात् तत् तस्मिन् प्रतिपादयेत् ॥१९०॥

saṃsthitasyānapatyasya sagotrāt putramāharet |
tatra yad rikthajātaṃ syāt tat tasmin pratipādayet ||190||

In the case of a man dying childless, if an issue is raised from a member of the same family, all the property that there may be shall be delivered to that child. — (190)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

According to Kullūka and Rāghavānanda, this verse refers to the case in which a duly authorised widow bears a son to her husband through a sagotra; and the former adds that this practice having been already sanctioned under verse 59, it is mentioned here again with a view to make it clear that the son may be obtained by the widow, not only “from the younger brother-in-law or a Sapiṇḍa”, but also from a remoter sagotra. — Nārāyaṇa holds the meaning of this verse to be that the son that the widow bears, even without authorisation, to a sagotra, shall inherit the property of the husband of that widow. He adds that some people apply this rule to Śūdra females only.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 589), which adds the following notes: — The widow of a deceased person should bear a son from a ‘sagotra’ — i.e. either from the younger brother-in-law or a sapiṇḍa — should make over the property owned by her dead husband to that son, and she should not take it herself; such is the opinion of the Pārijāta; — the author of the Prakāśa on the other hand holds the meaning to be that the king himself should make the widow bear a son through a sagotra, and hand over to him the father’s property; — the final result of both the explanations is the same.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 742), which explains ‘tasmai’ (which is its reading for ‘tasmin’) as ‘to that child’; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 758).

Comparative notes by various authors:

[See texts under 59, 145 and 146.]

VERSE 9.191

Section XXIV - Inheritance

द्वौ तु यौ विवदेयातां द्वाभ्यां जातौ स्त्रिया धने ।
तयोर्यद् यस्य पित्र्यं स्यात् तत् स गृह्णीत नैतरः ॥१९१॥

dvau tu yau vivadeyātāṃ dvābhyāṃ jātau striyā dhane |
tayoryad yasya pitryaṃ syāt tat sa gṛhṇīta naitaraḥ ||191||

But if two sons, born of two men, contend for the property in the mother’s possession, each shall take, to the exclusion of the other, what belonged to his own father. — (191)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Kullūka and Nandana take this verse as referring to the case in which a woman married twice successively two husbands and bore a son to each of them; in this case, on the death of the husbands, the property of each should be given by the mother to his own son. — Rāghavānanda, while accepting this explanation, proposes another: — ‘If two sons begotten by two different men contend for the separate property of their mother, &c., &c.’. — Nārāyaṇa holds that the verse refers to a contention between a ‘body-born’ son and a ‘golaka’ or ‘Paunarbhava’ son for the estates of their respective fathers held by their mother.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 588), which notes that the term ‘strī’, according to the Pārijāta, stands for the prostitute, the re-married widow or the dissolute woman; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 483 and 758).

Comparative notes by various authors:

[See texts under 59, 145 and 146.]

VERSE 9.192

Section XXIV - Inheritance

जनन्यां संस्थितायां तु समं सर्वे सहोदराः ।
भजेरन् मातृकं रिक्थं भगिन्यश्च सनाभयः ॥१९२॥

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США