with the Commentary of Medhatithi 306 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 312 из 350Следующая ⇒

vṛddhau ca mātāpitarau sādhvī bhāryā śiśuḥ sutaḥ |
apyakāryaśataṃ kṛtvā bhartavyā manurabravīt||

This verse is not commented upon by the Commentators; it is quoted by Medhātithi under 2.189, and in several important Nibandhas.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 283); — in Mitākṣarā (1.224) to the effect that one who abandons his wife and children stands on the same footing as one who abandons his parents; — again on 2.175, as. indicating the obligatory character of the duty of maintaining one’s family-members; — the Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes: — ‘Vṛddhau’, over 80 years old, — ‘śiśuḥ’, less than 16 years old, — ‘Akāryaśatam’, many such reprehensible acts as receiving improper gifts and so forth.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva I (p. 349); — in Smṛtitattva II (p. 361) as mentioning persons who must be supported; — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 186); — and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 384), which adds that this refers to abnormal times of distress.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.9-10)

Śātātapa (Aparārka, p. 283). — ‘The twice-born person who, in feeding and making gifts, passes over the student near at hand destroys his family to the seventh generation.’

Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (Do.). — ‘If one passes over the Brāhmaṇa near at hand, — except when he is an outcast, — and feeds one at a distance, he falls into hell. — For this reason, the wise man should never pass over his neighbours and relations, or his daughter’s son or sister’s husband, or his sister’s son specially, and other relations; he should not pass over these even if they be illiterate; passing over them, one falls into hell.’

Vyāsa (Do., p. 282). — ‘What is given to one’s parents, brothers, sisters or daughters, wife or sons, — becomes an irreproachable bridge to heaven. A gift made to the father becomes a hundredfold, that to the mother a thousandfold, that to the daughter becomes endless, and what is given to the uterine brother is imperishable.’

Dakṣa (Do., p. 939). — ‘The following are the persons that should be supported by rich persons: — father, mother, teacher, wife, children, a poor man seeking shelter, guest and fire; also relations that are poor, an orphan seeking shelter. He shall make presents to learned men......... The supporting of one’s dependants is the way to heaven, and the harassing of them is the way to hell.’

VERSE 11.11-12

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

यज्ञश्चेत् प्रतिरुद्धः स्यादेकेनाङ्गेन यज्वनः ।
ब्राह्मणस्य विशेषेन धार्मिके सति राजनि ॥११॥

यो वैश्यः स्याद् बहुपशुर्हीनक्रतुरसोमपः ।
कुटुम्बात् तस्य तद् द्रव्यमाहरेद् यज्ञसिद्धये ॥१२॥

yajñaścet pratiruddhaḥ syādekenāṅgena yajvanaḥ |
brāhmaṇasya viśeṣena dhārmike sati rājani ||11||

yo vaiśyaḥ syād bahupaśurhīnakraturasomapaḥ |
kuṭumbāt tasya tad dravyamāhared yajñasiddhaye ||12||

During the reign of a righteous king, if the sacrificial rite of a sacrificer, specially of a Brāhmaṇa, be interrupted for want of one requisite, — that substance may be appropriated, for the completion of that sacrifice, from the house of a Vaiśya possessed of many cattle, who does not perform sacrifices and does not drink the Soma. — (11-12)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 11.11-12)

Inasmuch as the text speaks of the requisite, it follows that the appropriation here permitted applies, not only to the gold necessary for the making up of the sacrificial fee, but also to animals and other things necessary for the sacrifice. All that the text lays down is the appropriation of the thing, and not the mode by which it should be done. Hence the thing may he acquired either by begging, or by exchange or by stealing.

“But it has been said that ownership is not acquired by stealing.”

There is no force in this objection. Since it is directly laid down here, in so many words, that the thing shall be ‘appropriated’; and it has also been said that ‘a sacrifice may be accomplished even by doing a mean act.’

There is nothing to show whether this ‘appropriation’ is permitted only in a case where a sacrifice having been begun, all its requisites are at hand, with the exception of a single article, — or also when it is intended to be taken in hand.

‘Specially of a Brāhmaṇa’ — This shows that for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also the said appropriation under the said circumstance is permitted.

“What Kṣatriya is there who would beg? Specially as begging is absolutely impossible for the Kṣatriya.”

What you say is not enough. For the Brāhmaṇa also, stealing is forbidden. The fact of the matter is that there is no restriction regarding the method to be employed in the appropriation under the said circumstances.

‘During the reign of a righteous king’ — This is purely reiterative. If the king is righteous and knows the law, he would know that under tin; peculiar circumstances stealing is permitted, and hence the sacrificer would he emboldened to do the appropriation. If, on the other hand, the king did not know the law, he would punish the said appropriation like ordinary theft; and hence under his rule no one would think of doing it.

‘Possessing many cattle’ — This stands for all kinds of wealth.

‘Who does not perform sacrifices’ — i.e., who does not do any righteous act, in the shape of giving gifts and so forth.

‘Kutumba’ stands here for the house. It is stealing from the house that is exceptionally objectionable; hence it is this that is permitted. But no such restriction is meant as that it should be taken ‘from the house’ only; it may be taken also from the threshing yard and such other places, where the particular thing may be available; specially as it is going to be declared later on (Verse 17) — ‘either from the threshing yard, or from the field, or from the house.’ — (11-12)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verse 11.12)

According to Nārāyaṇa and Nandana, ‘the king’ is the agent to be understood with the verb ‘āharet’, ‘may take’; — this being supported by a parallel passage in the Mahābhārata which ends with ‘Yajñārthampārthivo haret’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.11-14)

Mahābhārata (12.165.6-9). — (Same as Manu.)

Gautama (18.24-27). — ‘In order to defray the expenses of a wedding, — and when engaged in a rite enjoined by the secred texts, one may take money from a Śūdra, — or from a man rich in small cattle who neglects his religious duties, though he does not belong to the Śūdra caste, — or from the owner of a hundred cows who has not laid the fire; — or from the owner of a thousand cows who does not drink Soma.’

VERSE 11.13

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

आहरेत् त्रीणि वा द्वे वा कामं शूद्रस्य वेश्मनः ।
न हि शूद्रस्य यज्ञेषु कश्चिदस्ति परिग्रहः ॥१३॥

āharet trīṇi vā dve vā kāmaṃ śūdrasya veśmanaḥ |
na hi śūdrasya yajñeṣu kaścidasti parigrahaḥ ||13||

Or, he may freely take away two or three things from the house of a Śūdra; for the Śūdra has nothing to do with acrifices. — (13)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If the thing required is not available in the house of a Vaiśya, it may be taken from that of a Śūdra.

‘Two or three.’ — These must be taken as referring to sacrificial requisites, since it is these that the text is dealing with.

The text adds a declamatory statement — ‘The Śūdra has nothing to do with sacrifices

Though the appropriation has been spoken of above as to be done by several methods, vet in the ease of the Śūdra, there should be no begging, since it is distinctly said that — ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not beg wealth, for the purpose of sacrifices, from a Śūdra.’ — (24)

“In another Smṛti, the performance of sacrifices with wealth belonging to the Śūdra has been prohibited without any exceptions.”

On the strength of the present text itself, it follows that one may accept gifts from the Śūdra.

Others however explain that when the wealth has been appropriated by the Brāhmaṇa, it is no longer ‘wealth belonging to the Śūdra.’

As a matter of fact, however, what the prohibition refers to is the doing of ‘Śānti’ and ‘Pauṣṭika’ rites for the Śūdra. And a performance is actually called after that wealth which the Ṛtvik priest actually employs in the performance; and there is no doubt that in the case of the sacrifices in question, the performance would be styled as done with wealth belonging to the Śūdra,’ in view of the fact that the wealth originally belonged to him, even though it may not do so at the time of the performance itself. — (13)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.11-14)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.11-12.

VERSE 11.14

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

योऽनाहिताग्निः शतगुरयज्वा च सहस्रगुः ।
तयोरपि कुटुम्बाभ्यामाहरेदविचारयन् ॥१४॥

yo'nāhitāgniḥ śatagurayajvā ca sahasraguḥ |
tayorapi kuṭumbābhyāmāharedavicārayan ||14||

If a man, possessing a hundred cows, has not laid the Fire, — or a man possessing a thousand cows, performs no sacrifices, — out of the houses of these men also, one may take away (the sacrificial requisites) without hesitation. — (14)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What the verse means is that things may be taken also from Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas, if they are of the character described.

The ‘cow’ has been mentioned only as the standard of the amount of wealth meant

‘Who performs no sacrifices’ — does not perform the Soma-sacrifice. — (14)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

According to Medhātithi, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda, this refers to Kṣatriyas as well as Brāhmaṇas; — according to Govindarāja it refers to the former alone.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.11-14)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.11-12.

VERSE 11.15

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

आदाननित्याच्चादातुराहरेदप्रयच्छतः ।
तथा यशोऽस्य प्रथते धर्मश्चैव प्रवर्धते ॥१५॥

ādānanityāccādāturāharedaprayacchataḥ |
tathā yaśo'sya prathate dharmaścaiva pravardhate ||15||

He shall take it also from one who always acquires, and never gives, if he refuses to give up the thing; thus does his fame spread and merit increase. — (15)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse applies to all castes.

‘Who always acquires’ — who always goes on acquiring wealth by agriculture, by receiving gifts, by money-lending and so forth; — ‘and never gives.’

‘If he refuses to give up the thing’ — then other methods should be employed.

‘Who never gives’ — may he taken to mean ‘who is of a miserly disposition.’ — (15)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ādānanityāḥ’. — ‘Men of all castes who constantly amass wealth’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa;); — ‘Brāhmaṇas who always accept gifts’ (Kullūka, Govindarāja and Rāghavānanda).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.165.10). — ‘The King shall openly take wealth from misers; thus alone can the duty of the King be duly performed.’

VERSE 11.16-17

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

तथैव सप्तमे भक्ते भक्तानि षडनश्नता ।
अश्वस्तनविधानेन हर्तव्यं हीनकर्मणः ॥१६॥

खलात् क्षेत्रादगाराद् वा यतो वाऽप्युपलभ्यते ।
आख्यातव्यं तु तत् तस्मै पृच्छते यदि पृच्छति ॥१७॥

tathaiva saptame bhakte bhaktāni ṣaḍanaśnatā |
aśvastanavidhānena hartavyaṃ hīnakarmaṇaḥ ||16||

khalāt kṣetrādagārād vā yato vā'pyupalabhyate |
ākhyātavyaṃ tu tat tasmai pṛcchate yadi pṛcchati ||17||

Likewise one who has not eaten six meals, may, for the seventh meal, take from a person whose sacred duties are neglected, — but only to this extent that it does not last till the morrow; — (16) either from the threshing yard, or from the field, or from the house, or from any place where it may be got; but if the owner questions him, he must confess it to the questioner. — (17)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 11.16-17)

The property of another person may he seized also when one’s own family is suffering from want

‘Not lasting till the morrow.’ — The addition of this phrase implies that the taking of only that much is permitted which may maintain the family for one day, — and no more.

‘From one whose sacred duties are neglected’ — implies that it may be taken for the purpose of sacred rites.

Another Smṛti says — ‘At first one should appropriate from a person of lower status than himself; if no such be available, then from a man of equal status; and in the event of this also being not available, even from a person of superior righteousness.’

‘For the seventh meal.’ — If the man has not eaten for three days he may appropriate another’s property for his morning meal on the fourth day. Two meals a day have been laid down in such texts as — ‘one shall eat in the morning and in the evening.’

‘Or from any place.’ — Even out of the garden and such places.

‘He should confess it’ — but ‘to the questioner’ only; — ‘if he questions him,’ — i.e., he should not send for him and force the owner to question him.

Or the ‘questioner’ may stand for the owner of the property, and ‘if he questions him’ for the king; the king questioning him when he is taken before him (and charged with having taken away the property). In this manner we may distinguish between the two terms ‘pṛcchate’ and ‘pṛcchati.’ Says Gautama (18. 30) — ‘Questioned by the king he should confess it’

What is said here should be understood to apply to both cases — want of food, and shortage of sacrificial requisites. — (16-17)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verse 11.16)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2. 275), where Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Bhakta’ is food; ‘saptame bhakte,’ on the fourth day; — ‘aśvastanavidhānena,’ in such a way that there may be nothing left over for the second day; — ‘hīnakarmaṇaḥ,’ from a man whose religious acts are very poor. — It is quoted again under (2.43), whíere the meaning is explained as that ‘if, in the absence of food, a man has gone without food for three days, he should wrest from a man deficient in religious acts just enough for one day.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 938), which explains the meaning as — ‘if a man has gone without food for six meals, then at the time of his seventh meal, he should take by force just enough for the day from a man of lower caste and also from one who is deficient in religious acts.’

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 352), to the effect that if a man has gone without six meals, he may steal food; and notes that this sanction implies that one may even perform the Vaiśvadeva rites with such stolen food.

(verse 11.17)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.43), to the effect that if, under circumstances mentioned in the preceding verse, one has stolen food, he should confess if asked; — and in Aparārka (p. 938), to the effect that the food spoken of in the preceding verse, may be taken from the threshing-yard and other places.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verse 11.16)

Mahābhārata (12.165.21). — (Same as Manu.)

Gautama (18.28-29). — ‘And when he has not eaten at the time of six meals, he may take, at the time of the seventh meal as much as will sustain life, not so much as would enable him to make a hoard, — even from men who do not neglect their duties.’

Yājñavalkya (3.42). — ‘Having gone hungry for three days, he may take grains from a non-Brāhmaṇa; but on being accused of it, be should state the truth.’

(verse 11.17)

Mahābhārata (12.165.12). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.42). — (See above under XVI.)

Gautama (18.30). — ‘If he is questioned about it, he shall confess it.’

VERSE 11.18

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

ब्राह्मणस्वं न हर्तव्यं क्षत्रियेण कदा चन ।
दस्युनिष्क्रिययोस्तु स्वमजीवन् हर्तुमर्हति ॥१८॥

brāhmaṇasvaṃ na hartavyaṃ kṣatriyeṇa kadā cana |
dasyuniṣkriyayostu svamajīvan hartumarhati ||18||

The Kṣatriya shall never appropriate the property of a Brāhmaṇa; when starving, he may appropriate the property of the robbers and of one who neglects his duties. — (18)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The Kṣatriya’ — This is meant to include the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also.

‘Never’ — i.e., not even in times of the greatest distress.

‘Robber and one who neglects his duties.’ — That is, Brāhmaṇas having this character. ‘Robber’ is the thief, and ‘one who neglects his duties’ is the person who does not observe the rules governing the life-stages. — (18)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This is quoted in Aparārka (p. 938), as an exception to what has gone in the preceding two verses.

VERSE 11.19

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

योऽसाधुभ्योऽर्थमादाय साधुभ्यः सम्प्रयच्छति ।
स कृत्वा प्लवमात्मानं सन्तारयति तावुभौ ॥१९॥

yo'sādhubhyo'rthamādāya sādhubhyaḥ samprayacchati |
sa kṛtvā plavamātmānaṃ santārayati tāvubhau ||19||

He who takes wealth from the wicked and gives it to the virtuous, makes himself a raft and carries both over. — (19)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Raft’ — for crossing the sea.

‘Both’ — the man from whom he appropriates it, and the man to whom he gives it.

The rest is purely declamatory. — (.19)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.19-22)

Mahābhārata (12.165.12). — (Same as Manu).

Gautama (18.31-32). — ‘If the Brāhmaṇa possesses sacred learning and a good character, he must be supported by the King, — if the sacred law is violated and the King does not do his duty, he commits sin.’

Yājñavalkya (3.43). — ‘Of the starving Brāhmaṇa the King shall arrange for maintenance, after having found out all about his conduct, family, character, learning, knowledge and austerities, — and also his household.’

VERSE 11.20

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

यद् धनं यज्ञशीलानां देवस्वं तद् विदुर्बुधाः ।
अयज्वनां तु यद् वित्तमासुरस्वं तदुच्यते ॥२०॥

yad dhanaṃ yajñaśīlānāṃ devasvaṃ tad vidurbudhāḥ |
ayajvanāṃ tu yad vittamāsurasvaṃ taducyate ||20||

The property of persons given to perform sacrifices the learned regard as ‘the property of the gods;’ while the property of those who do not perform sacrifices is described as ‘the property of demons.’ — (20)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This also is a declamatory declaration in support of the teaching that ‘no property shall be taken from men possessed of good qualities, but there is no harm if it is taken from those devoid of qualities.’ — (20)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.19-22)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.19.

VERSE 11.21

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

न तस्मिन् धारयेद् दण्डं धार्मिकः पृथिवीपतिः ।
क्षत्रियस्य हि बालिश्याद् ब्राह्मणः सीदति क्षुधा ॥२१॥

na tasmin dhārayed daṇḍaṃ dhārmikaḥ pṛthivīpatiḥ |
kṣatriyasya hi bāliśyād brāhmaṇaḥ sīdati kṣudhā ||21||

The righteous king shall inflict no punishment upon him; as it is only through the foolishness of the Kṣatriya that the Brāhmaṇa suffers from hunger. — (21)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If a person is brought before the king charged with theft, under the circumstances above described, he shall not be punished; as it is only on account of the king’s ‘foolishness’ — folly — ‘that the Brāhmaṇa suffers from hunger.’

Stress is not meant to be laid on ‘hunger’ only; as both ‘hunger’ and ‘sacrificial needs’ are meant, as is clear from the context and from the implications of the declamatory passages. — (21)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.19-22)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.19.

VERSE 11.22

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

तस्य भृत्यजनं ज्ञात्वा स्वकुटुम्बान् महीपतिः ।
श्रुतशीले च विज्ञाय वृत्तिं धर्म्यां प्रकल्पयेत् ॥२२॥

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США