with the Commentary of Medhatithi 289 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 295 из 350Следующая ⇒

samairhi viṣamaṃ yastu cared vai mūlyato'pi vā |
samāpnuyād damaṃ pūrvaṃ naro madhyamameva vā ||287||

The man who treats equals as unequals in value should receive the punishment of the first or the middlemost amercement. — (287)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In regard to certain substances it has been declared that in exchanges they shall be treated as equivalent: — e.g., Sesamum and paddy have been declared to be equal; if in regard to such articles, some one treats them as unequal — i.e., having advanced sesamum, he receives in payment a larger quantity of paddy; — or even when there is no exchange, in the act of buying and selling, if one buys sesamum at a price higher than that given for paddy; — or in a case when one man has an upper garment for sale, and another an under-clothing, and the latter stands in need of the latter, — though the two are of equal value, yet knowing the greater need of the man with the upper garment, the latter offers to him the under-clothing, but not in equal exchange, but for a higher price, — such a man is said to ‘treat equals as unequals’ in value.

The punishments prescribed are for both the buyer and the seller; since both are parties to the act of ‘treating equals as unequals.’

The term ‘vā’, in this case is superfluous, serving only to fill up the metre.

The two alternative fines — the ‘first’ and the ‘middlemost’ — are laid down, as to be determined by the value of the commodities concerned. — (287)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 825), which adds the following explanations: — That man suffers the ‘first amercement’ who deals with honest, customers — who pay the right price — dishonestly, giving them cheaper articles; and the ‘middle amercement’ is the penalty for the man who, selling the right commodity, receives a higher or lower price.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 296), which adds the following explanation: — The man, who, receiving the same price from a number of purchasers, sells to them articles of varying, qualities, suffers the ‘first amercement’; and the man who sells commodities of the same quality to a number of persons, but charges them varying prices, suffers the ‘middle amercement It goes on to quote Halāyudha as explaining (with Medhātithi) the verse to mean that the man who deals dishonestly; ‘viṣamam’ — i.e. in exchanging things with a man, he, taking advantage of the needs of the other party, gives less of his own commodity and receives more of that of the other man, — when in reality both commodities are recognised to be of equal value, — or when the vendor, taking advantage of the needs of the customer, sells to him a cheaper article at a higher price, — he should suffer either the ‘first’ or the ‘middle’ amercement, according to the value of the commodity concerned. It is quoted in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 80), which explains ‘samaiḥ’ as ‘ordinary’, and adds the explanation — ‘one who replaces a valuable article by an ordinary one, should fined 250 Paṇas if the other party is put to a loss of the seventh part of his outlay, and 500 Paṇas if the loss is the fifth part or more’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.286-287)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.286.

VERSE 9.288

Section XXXVIII - Treatment of Criminals and their Punishment

बन्धनानि च सर्वाणि राजा मार्गे निवेशयेत् ।
दुःखिता यत्र दृश्येरन् विकृताः पापकारिणः ॥२८८॥

bandhanāni ca sarvāṇi rājā mārge niveśayet |
duḥkhitā yatra dṛśyeran vikṛtāḥ pāpakāriṇaḥ ||288||

The king shall establish prisons all along the public road, — where the suffering and disfigured offenders might be seen. — (288)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The king shall ‘establish’ — place — houses of incarceration on all well-known roads, — where the ‘suffering offenders might be seen;’ — this implies that the position of the prisons shall be so arranged as to fall within such places as are passed by ordinary passers-by; and it follows from this that various forms of torture shall be inflicted on the prisoners.

‘Disfigured’ — the condition of their body being altered by either total starving or reduced rations.

The rest is quite clear. — (288)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 630), which explains ‘bandhanāni’ as ‘places of imprisonment.’

VERSE 9.289

Section XXXVIII - Treatment of Criminals and their Punishment

प्राकारस्य च भेत्तारं परिखाणां च पूरकम् ।
द्वाराणां चैव भङ्क्तारं क्षिप्रमेव प्रवासयेत् ॥२८९॥

prākārasya ca bhettāraṃ parikhāṇāṃ ca pūrakam |
dvārāṇāṃ caiva bhaṅktāraṃ kṣiprameva pravāsayet ||289||

Him in who breaks the wall, or fills up the ditch, or breaks the gate — he shall instantly banish. — (289)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The penalty of banishment is to be inflicted only in the case of damages done to the walls, ditches, etc. of a fort.

‘Ditch’ — deeply dug out parts of the ground. — (289)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 367); — in Aparārka (p. 853); — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 919).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 367). — ‘One who pierces, or cuts, or demolishes a wall should be made to pay the first amercement.’

VERSE 9.290

Section XXXVIII - Treatment of Criminals and their Punishment

अभिचारेषु सर्वेषु कर्तव्यो द्विशतो दमः ।
मूलकर्मणि चानाप्तेः कृत्यासु विविधासु च ॥२९०॥

abhicāreṣu sarveṣu kartavyo dviśato damaḥ |
mūlakarmaṇi cānāpteḥ kṛtyāsu vividhāsu ca ||290||

In all cases of malevolent rites, the fine shall be two hundred; as also in a case of magic spell by persons not related, or in those of various kinds of sorcery. — (290)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Malevolent rite,’ — encompassing death by such superphysical means as incantations and the like. If anyone performs such a rite, he shall receive the prescribed punishment, if the person aimed at does not die off. But in the case of such rites being successful, the man cannot escape with such a simple punishment. In that case the penalty shall be the same as that for ‘man-slaughter.’

The term ‘all’ is meant to imply that the same punishment is to be inflicted in the case of Vedic as well as non-Vedic rites; — Śyena and other sacrifies being the ‘Vedic malevolent rites,’ and the ‘taking of the foot-dust’, ‘pricking with a needle’ the non-Vedic ones.

‘Magic spells’ — such as ‘bringing under control’ and so forth.

‘Persons related’ are the son, the wife and such relations of the victim; other than these are the ‘presons not related.’

‘Sorcery’ also is only a form of ‘malevolent rite,’ consisting of ‘expulsion’ and such ends as ‘bringing about feelings of disgust against friends and relations,’ ‘insanity’ and other similar magical effects brought about by means of incantations. — (290)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 362), which adds the following notes: — (a) In the case of ‘abhicā ras’ — the Śyena and other murderous rites — performed against persons who have done no harm, — (b) in the case of ‘mūlakarma’ — administrating of medicines — done by persons with the intention of causing harm, — and (c) in the case of ‘kṛtyā’, — various kinds of sorcery, such as forcible transportation and the like, — the operator is to be fined 200.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 821); — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 100).

VERSE 9.291

Section XXXVIII - Treatment of Criminals and their Punishment

अबीजविक्रयी चैव बीजोत्कृष्टा तथैव च ।
मर्यादाभेदकश्चैव विकृतं प्राप्नुयाद् वधम् ॥२९१॥

abījavikrayī caiva bījotkṛṣṭā tathaiva ca |
maryādābhedakaścaiva vikṛtaṃ prāpnuyād vadham ||291||

He who sells what is not-seed, or picks out the seed, or transgresses the bounds (of propriety) shall suffer ‘mutilation’ as the penalty. — (291)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He who sells as ‘seed’ what is ‘not seed,’ by concealing its real character. It is after the lapse of a long term that seeds germinate in the field; so that it cannot be ascertained whether or not they are real ‘seeds.’

‘He who picks out seed’ — good seed germinates quickly; the offender therefore picks out the good seed and sells the remaining bad ones. Or, the meaning may be that the man ‘picks up the seeds’ that have been sown in the field and takes them away.

‘Bounds’ — rules and practices sanctioned by scriptures and usage.

‘Mutilation’ — cutting off of ears, nose etc. — (291)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Buhler remarks “all the commentators give more or less correct readings”, — and declares that the correct reading “seems to be” ‘bījotkraṣṭā’. This is amusing to read, when we find Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa, Rāghvānanda, Nandana and Rāmacandra all adapting the reading ‘bījotkraṣṭā’.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 296), which adds the following notes: — ‘Abījavikrayī’, one who sells, as seed, com which is unfit for sowing, — ‘bījotkarṣī’, one who forcibly takes out the seed that has been sown, — ‘maryādabhedakaḥ’, one who transgresses the customs of his country, caste and family, the scriptures and popular practices, — ‘vikṛtam vadham’, corporal punishment in the form of the cutting off of ears and other limbs of the body.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 825), which explains ‘abījavikrayī’ as ‘one who sells as seed what is not seed’, — and ‘bījotkraṣṭā’ as ‘one who digs out seed that has been already sown’; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 81), which adds the explanation — ‘He who (a) sells as seed what is not seed, or (b) takes forcible possession of a field sown by another, or (c) breaks a local or tribal or family custom, or a scriptural or royal injunction, should have his ears and nose and other limbs cut off.

VERSE 9.292

Section XXXVIII - Treatment of Criminals and their Punishment

सर्वकण्टकपापिष्ठं हेमकारं तु पार्थिवः ।
प्रवर्तमानमन्याये छेदयेत्लवशः क्षुरैः ॥२९२॥

sarvakaṇṭakapāpiṣṭhaṃ hemakāraṃ tu pārthivaḥ |
pravartamānamanyāye chedayetlavaśaḥ kṣuraiḥ ||292||

If the goldsmith, the worst of all ‘thorns,’ behaves dishonestly, the king shall have him cut to pieces with razors. — (292)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Of all the ‘thorns’ described above, the goldsmith is the worst’

Question’. — If what is meant is the selection (of the ‘goldsmith from among the ‘thorns’), — then why should not the compounding (in ‘Sarvakaṇṭakapāpiṣṭham’) be avoided [in obedience to Pāṇini 2.2.10]?

What is meant by his being ‘the worst of sinners’ is that the stealing of a small quantity of gold involves a great sin, while the stealing of gold belonging to a Brāhmaṇa involves ‘the most heinous crime.’

For this reason, if the goldsmith behaves dishonestly, ‘he shall be cut to pieces.’ Goldsmiths steal gold by manipulating the scales and during the processes of heating and cutting.

In this case, considerations of the quantity stolen, or the caste of the owner do not enter; repetition alone has to be taken into consideration; e.g., in the ease of the first offence a fine shall be substituted for the slicing of flesh with a razor.

It has already been explained that in the case of corporal punishment, the sin disappears by virtue of the punishment inflicted — (292)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2. 297), which adds that it refers to cases where the gold belongs to a temple, or to a Brāhmaṇa or to the king; — in Aparārka (p. 862), which remarks that it refers to the case of a goldsmith stealing gold belonging to a Brāhmaṇa; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 309), which explains ‘Kaṇṭaka’ as an open thief, and adds that people have held that the penalty prescribed being very heavy, it must refer to cases of repeated theft; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 151b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.296). — ‘One who deals with gold fraudulently, or sells bad flesh, should be deprived of three limbs (nose, ears and hands), and be made to pay the highest amercement.’

Katyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 309). — (Same as Yājñavalkya, above.)

VERSE 9.293

Section XXXVIII - Treatment of Criminals and their Punishment

सीताद्रव्यापहरणे शस्त्राणामौषधस्य च ।
कालमासाद्य कार्यं च राजा दण्डं प्रकल्पयेत् ॥२९३॥

sītādravyāpaharaṇe śastrāṇāmauṣadhasya ca |
kālamāsādya kāryaṃ ca rājā daṇḍaṃ prakalpayet ||293||

For the stealing of agricultural implements, of arms or of medicines, the king shall determine the punishment, after taking into consideration the time and uses. — (293)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Sītā’ — Stands for the cultivated field; and implements connected therewith are the plough, the spade and so forth. For the stealing of these punishment has to be inflicted.

Is this to be done arbitrarily? No; ‘after taking into consideration the time and uses.’ That is, if the time for cultivation is near at hand, the punishment shall be severe; and severer still when the field has been already cultivated and a rich harvest is in prospect.

‘Taking into consideration’ — having ascertained its advent. Under other circumstances, the punishment shall be in accordance with the nature of the object stolen.

Similarly in the case of ‘arms’ — swords and the rest — if they are stolen at the time of war, the punishment shall be severe; — or in the ease of ‘medicines’ — if they are stolen at the time that they are going to be actually administered, — and the chances are that if the medicine is stolen and not administered, the patient shall suffer great pain; — and no other medicine is available at the time, — and even if available, it requires a long time for its preparation; — all these circumstances have to be taken into consideration when determining the punishment.

In the case of ‘arms’, if they belong to the king, — or to persons who are in constant dread of enemies and robbers (and hence need the arms for self-defence), — the punishment shall be severe; but if they are some small things, it shall be simple. — (293)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 324).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 324). — ‘For stealing agricultural implements at the time of cultivation, 108 Paṇas.’

VERSE 9.294 [The Seven ‘Limbs’ of the Kingdom (saptāṅga)]

Section XXXIX - The Seven ‘Limbs’ of the Kingdom (saptāṅga)

स्वाम्य्ऽमात्यौ पुरं राष्ट्रं कोशदण्डौ सुहृत् तथा ।
सप्त प्रकृतयो ह्येताः सप्ताङ्गं राज्यमुच्यते ॥२९४॥

svāmy'mātyau puraṃ rāṣṭraṃ kośadaṇḍau suhṛt tathā |
sapta prakṛtayo hyetāḥ saptāṅgaṃ rājyamucyate ||294||

The master and the minister, the capital city, the people, the treasury and the army, and the ally, — these are the seven constituents; and the kingdom is described as having ‘seven limbs.’ — (294)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘Removal of Thorns’ having been dealt with, the author now proceeds to describe such duties of the king as bear entirely upon the administration of the kingdom. If the administration is carried on in this manner, the kingdom is safe: so also there is safety in the kingdom if law-suits are justly disposed of and thorns are effectively removed. Then again, in most cases the ‘thorns’ — i.e., the worst criminals — consist of persons attached to the Queen or to the Princes, to the king’s favourities or to the commanders of armies and so forth; and it is possible that the king may not remove this, being guided by some such notion as — ‘In the event of a dangerous upheaval among the people I shall have great need for the army-commander, or for the tributary chief, — why should I punish him, simply for some offence against the people?’ — and it is in view of this that the author is proceeding with the subjects of the ‘constituents’ of the kingdom. And from what follows, it is clear that the People stand on the same footing as the King himself, — being as much a ‘constituent’ of the kingdom as the latter; though there may be some difference in the degree of their relative importance. For instance, if there is disurbance among the people due to some act of the Minister, this should be suppressed; because the people are of greater importance than the Minister; or, the king may desist from hasty action, and try to find out the‘thorn’ and remove him. it is for this reason that portions of the teachings contained in Discourse VII ate extracted and set forth in the present connection.

‘Master’ — i.e. the King himself.

‘Minister’ — the Councillor, the Priest, the Army-Commander.

‘Capital City’ — the city containing the king’s residence.

‘People’ — the public.

‘Treasury’ — store of gold and silver and other valuables.

‘Army’ — consisting of elephants, horses and foot-soldiers.

‘Ally’ — one having the same end in view: as has been described‘next to him comes the Ally.’

These are the ‘constituents’ — causes, components — of the kingdom; in the same manner as the potsherds are of the jar.

Or the term ‘prakṛti’ may he taken as standing for ‘svabhāva,’‘nature;’ the sense in that case would be that the kingdom is of the nature of these.

It is these seven that have been divided into seventy-two parts, the details of which have been already described. — (294)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 278).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.294-297)

Yājñavalkya (1.352). — ‘The Master, the Minister, the People, the Fort, the Treasury, Forces, and Allies, — these are the constituent factors of the kingdom, which is, on that account, called seven-limbed.’

Kāmandaka (1.16). — ‘King, Minister, Kingdom, Fort, Treasury, Army and Allies are known to form the seven constituents of the state; good sense and unebbing energy are its primary stay.’

Do. (4.1-2). — ‘King, Minister, Kingdom, Fort, Treasury, Army and Allies are the seven constituents of the State. They contribute to one another’s weal, etc.’

Do. (8.4-5), — ‘Minister, Fort, Kingdom, Treasury and Army these five have been said, by persons well-versed in Polity, to be the principal constituents of a Central Sovereign. These five and the allied sovereigns, and in the seventh place, the central monarch himself; — these together have been said by Bṛhaspati to compose what is known as government with seven constituents.’

Do. (14.1). — ‘The constituents, beginning with the Minister and ending with the Ally are said to be the constituents of government. Of all the weaknesses, the gravest is the weakness of the Ruler himself.’

VERSE 9.295

Section XXXIX - The Seven ‘Limbs’ of the Kingdom (saptāṅga)

सप्तानां प्रकृतीनां तु राज्यस्यासां यथाक्रमम् ।
पूर्वं पूर्वं गुरुतरं जानीयाद् व्यसनं महत् ॥२९५॥

saptānāṃ prakṛtīnāṃ tu rājyasyāsāṃ yathākramam |
pūrvaṃ pūrvaṃ gurutaraṃ jānīyād vyasanaṃ mahat ||295||

Among these seven constituents of the kingdom stated in due order, injury to each preceding one is to be regarded as more serious. — (295)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That is to say, any harm coming to the King’s own army is more serious than that of the Ally. If he is himself fully fit, the King can go to the rescue of his Ally.

Similarly as between the Treasury and the Army, — injury to the Treasury means positive injury to the Army.

And between ‘Treasury’ and the ‘People,’ — if the People are injured, whence would the ‘Treasury’ derive its existence? Similarly when the whole People are in danger, all effort should be concentrated on the saving of the ‘Capital City,’ as it is there that all the accessories of the kingdom can he brought together. The ‘Minister’ again is more important than the ‘Capital City;’ as the destruction of the Chief Minister may bring destruction to the entire kingdom. — (295)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 278), which explains ‘vyasanam’ as ‘vyasanakāraṇam’, ‘source of trouble’ — and adds that these are so only when they defective. — It is quoted again on p. 319, where the same notes are repeated and ‘prakṛtīnām’ is explained as ‘among the factors’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.294-297)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.294.

VERSE 9.296

Section XXXIX - The Seven ‘Limbs’ of the Kingdom (saptāṅga)

सप्ताङ्गस्यैह राज्यस्य विष्टब्धस्य त्रिदण्डवत् ।
अन्योन्यगुणवैशेष्यात्न किं चिदतिरिच्यते ॥२९६॥

saptāṅgasyaiha rājyasya viṣṭabdhasya tridaṇḍavat |
anyonyaguṇavaiśeṣyātna kiṃ cidatiricyate ||296||

Yet in the kingdom consisting of the ‘seven limbs’ interlaced like the ‘triple staff,’ — since their qualities are mutually helpful, — no one of them is superior. — (296)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

An example is cited — ‘interlaced like the Triple Staff — i.e., each is dependent upon the other. This same idea is further emphasised — ‘since their qualities are mutually helpful;’ — inasmuch as they are helpful to one another, there can be no distinction among them; just as there is none among the soil, the seed and the water, in the process of cultivation.

From this it follows that special attention is to be paid to every one of the seven limbs.

There certainly is some difference in their relative importance; what then is meant by the assertion that ‘no one of them is superior’ is that due care should always be taken in the guarding of the Ally and other ‘limbs’ also (which, in the preceding verse, have been declared to be of minor importance). Because the destruction of the Ally also would eventually lead to the destruction of the King’s own kingdom, specially when the attack upon the former comes from a powerful quarter; even though the danger may be not so imminent. — (296)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 320).

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии