with the Commentary of Medhatithi 310 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 316 из 350Следующая ⇒

अन्नहर्ताऽमयावित्वं मौक्यं वागपहारकः ।
वस्त्रापहारकः श्वैत्र्यं पङ्गुतामश्वहारकः ॥५१॥

एवं कर्मविशेषेण जायन्ते सद्विगर्हिताः ।
जडमूकान्धबधिरा विकृताकृतयस्तथा ॥५२॥

suvarṇacauraḥ kaunakhyaṃ surāpaḥ śyāvadantatām |
brahmahā kṣayarogitvaṃ dauścarmyaṃ gurutalpagaḥ ||49||

piśunaḥ pautināsikyaṃ sūcakaḥ pūtivaktratām |
dhānyacauro'ṅgahīnatvamātiraikyaṃ tu miśrakaḥ ||50||

annahartā'mayāvitvaṃ maukyaṃ vāgapahārakaḥ |
vastrāpahārakaḥ śvaitryaṃ paṅgutāmaśvahārakaḥ ||51||

evaṃ karmaviśeṣeṇa jāyante sadvigarhitāḥ |
jaḍamūkāndhabadhirā vikṛtākṛtayastathā ||52||

The stealer of gold has disfigured nails; the drinker of wine, black teeth; the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa, consumption; and the violator of his preceptor’s bed, a disfigured skin; — (49) the informer, a foul-smelling nose; the false caluminator, a foul-smelling mouth; the stealer of grains, a deficiency of limbs; and the adulterator, an excess of limbs; — (50) the stealer of food, dyspepsia; the stealer of words, dumbness; the stealer of clothes, leucoderma; and the stealer of horse, lameness. — (51) It is thus that idiots, the dumb, the blind, the deaf and deformed men, despised by righteous men, are born, on account of particular acts. — (52)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 11.49-52)

By killing a Brāhmaṇa one becomes affected by consumption — a very serious disease known among physicians by that name.

One who has intercourse with his preceptor’s wife suffers from ‘disfigured skin.’

The ‘informer’ has a nose emitting nauseous smell; and ‘the false caluminator has a foul-smelling mouth.’

“The caluminator also is only an informer.”

True; but one of them (the former) assumes other people’s defects, while the other describes only those that really exist; — that is the sole difference between the two.

‘Excess of limbs’ — more than the natural number.

‘Adulterator’ — one who mixes commodities with inferior ones resembling it, e.g., saffron with the Kusumbha flower.

‘Dyspeptic’ — one who cannot digest the food eaten.

‘Dumbness’ — Incapability of speech; e.g., the idiot, the epileptic and the like.

The rest is well known.

‘Deformed.’ — Their figure is despicable.

All this is the result of ‘particular acts.’ These acts bring about the said effects instead of making the men sink into hell and suffer after-death tortures; or even for those who, even though they have passed through all these latter, have still some remnant left of the force of their past misdeeds; or for those in whose case the force of their meritorious deeds being greater, the effects of the evil deeds have had no occasion to assert themselves. In all such cases there is a ‘residue’ of past acts. — (49-52)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verse 11.51)

‘Vāgapahārakaḥ.’ — ‘Stealer of speech’, — i.e., one who learns the Veda by stealth’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘a plagiarist’ (Nārāyaṇa).

[The additional verse, relating to the ‘stealer of a lamp’ has been translated by Buhler as part of the text; it has been so accepted by Rāghavānanda and Rāmacandra, but not by the other commentators. We have followed the text of Medhātithi here; hence from this verse onward our verse-numbering will be one less than that in Buhler], This additional verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (p. 248).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.48-52)

[See below. — 12.53 et seq.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.43.

VERSE 11.53

Section V - Physical Effects of Unexpiated Offences committed in Previous Lives

चरितव्यमतो नित्यं प्रायश्चित्तं विशुद्धये ।
निन्द्यैर्हि लक्षणैर्युक्ता जायन्तेऽनिष्कृतेनसः ॥५३॥

caritavyamato nityaṃ prāyaścittaṃ viśuddhaye |
nindyairhi lakṣaṇairyuktā jāyante'niṣkṛtenasaḥ ||53||

Because persons with sins unexpiated are born with disgraceful marks, therefore expiatory rites shall always be performed, for the purpose of purification. — (53)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Disgraceful marks’ — Disfigured nails, black teeth and so forth. — (53)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (3.220), to the effect that the omission of an expiatory rite involves sin; — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta. p. 3) to the same effect — in Smṛtitattva, (p. 473); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 17).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (3.220). — ‘Therefore, for his purification, the sinner should perform expiatory penances; thus do the people and his own self become appeased.’

VERSE 11.54 [Offences: their Classification]

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

ब्रह्महत्या सुरापानं स्तेयं गुर्वङ्गनागमः ।
महान्ति पातकान्याहुः संसर्गश्चापि तैः सह ॥५४॥

brahmahatyā surāpānaṃ steyaṃ gurvaṅganāgamaḥ |
mahānti pātakānyāhuḥ saṃsargaścāpi taiḥ saha ||54||

Brāhmaṇa -slaying, wine-drinking, theft, intercourse with the Preceptor’s wife, — are called the ‘heinous offences,’ as also association with these. — (54)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(a) Intercourse with the Preceptor’s wife, (b) Theft, and (c) Association with outcasts, — these are ‘heinous offences’ for all castes; — ‘wine-drinking’ is so only for the Brāhmaṇa.

‘Theft’ — stands here for the stealing of gold belonging to a Brāhmaṇa; as is clear from another Smṛti text, which says that — ‘The stealing of Brāhmaṇa’s gold constitutes a heinous offence.’ The term ‘pātaka’ (offence) literally signifying ‘that which degrades,’ is applied to all transgressions, major as well as minor, and, in the name ‘mahā-pātaka,’ the qualifying epithet ‘mahā’ is meant to indicate the great seriousness of the offence.

‘Association with these’ — with any one of them; details regarding this are going to be described under 180 below. — (54)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 9.235.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta, (p. 786). — in Aparārka, (p. 1044), which adds that ‘surā’ stands here for the ‘Paiṣṭī’ i.e., liquor distilled from grains; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, (prāyaścitta, 3b); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 39 and 140).

Comparative notes by various authors:

[See above. — 9.235.]

Gautama (21.1). — ‘The slayer of a Brāhmaṇa, he who drinks wine, the violator of the Guru’s bed, he who has connection with the female relations of his mother and of his father, or with sisters and their female offspring, he who steals gold, an atheist, he who constantly repeats reprehensible acts, he who does not cast off persons guilty of a crime causing loss of caste and he who forsakes blameless relatives, — all these become outcasts.’

Āpastamba (1.21.7-8). — ‘Stealing gold, crimes whereby one becomes accused, homicide, neglect of the Vedas, causing abortion, incestuous connection with relations born of the same womb as the mother or the father, and with the offspring of such persons, drinking wine, and intercourse with persons whose intercourse is forbidden; these are actions that cause loss of caste.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.19-21). — ‘They state that there are five Mahāpātakas: stealing gold, the violation of Guru’s bed, drinking Surā, slaying a learned Brāhmaṇa, and associating with outcasts, either spiritually or matrimonially.’

Viṣṇu (35.1-2). — ‘Killing a Brāhmaṇa, drinking wine, stealing Brāhmaṇa’s gold, and sexual connection with a Guru’s wives are Mahāpātakas; also social intercourse with such criminals.’

Yājñavalkya (3.227). — ‘Brāhmaṇa-slayer, wine-drinker, stealer (of gold), violators of Guru’s bed; these are the Mahāpātakins, as also one who associates with these for one year.’

VERSE 11.55

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

अनृतं च समुत्कर्षे राजगामि च पैशुनम् ।
गुरोश्चालीकनिर्बन्धः समानि ब्रह्महत्यया ॥५५॥

anṛtaṃ ca samutkarṣe rājagāmi ca paiśunam |
guroścālīkanirbandhaḥ samāni brahmahatyayā ||55||

Lying for self-aggrandisement, caluminating before the king, and falsely harassing the Preceptor are equal to ‘Brāhmaṇa -killing.’ — (55)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Samutkarṣe’ — The Locative ending denotes purpose; just as in the expression ‘carmaṇi dvīpinam hanti’ (‘kills the tiger for the sake of his skin’). When a man lies with the motive of securing honour for himself, his offence is equal to that of killing a Brāhmaṇa. For instance, on an occasion great honour or much wealth is expected to be obtained by every one who is a Brāhmaṇa, or a Vedic scholar, or belongs to a high family, — if one falsely represents himself as such; or when a person needs a qualified recipient for his gifts, if one, though not so qualified, represents himself to be as such. In such cases the man lies ‘for self-aggrandisement’; this is what is meant, and not any small gain for oneself; even though this latter also may be called ‘samutkarṣe.’

One is said to ‘caluminate’ people when he falsely attributes evils to him.

‘Falsely harassing the preceptor’ — causing him pain and anxiety by falsely telling him such things as ‘your unmarried daughter is pregnant,’ and so forth; which implies needless hatred. Or, ‘nirbandha’ may stand for quarrelling with him before the King, or bringing a false (barge against him. Says Gautama, — ‘False accusation of the Teacher, etc...... are equal to the heinous offences.’ (21.10) — (55)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Guroścālīkanirbandhaḥ.’ — ‘Wrongfully going to law against the teacher’ (Medhātithi), or ‘falsely accusing the teacher’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka); — ‘Repeatedly doing what is disagreeable to the teacher’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p, 419), as enumerating offences on the same footing as Brāhmaṇa-slaughter; — in Aparārka (p. 1047), which adds the following notes: — On the occasion of the examination of the disputed superiority of qualifications of two rivals, if the Judge pronounces a false judgment, this act is as sinful as the killing of a Brāhmaṇa; ‘alīkanirbandha’ is false accusation; — and in Madanapārijātā (p. 807), which adds the explanation that ‘when a man without knowing the our Vedas, represents himself to the king as knowing them, — and some one is asked to examine the validity of the claim — if this latter should make a false report, the sin incurred by him is equal to that involved in Brāhmaṇa-slaughter’.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 177), which adds the following notes — ‘Anṛtañca samutkarṣe’ means the misrepresentation of oneself as possessing qualities which are not really possessed, e.g., when a Śūdra says ‘I am a Brāhmaṇa’ and wears the sacred thread, — or misrepresentation regarding the qualifications of another person e.g., if one were to say of a learned Brāhmaṇa that he knows nothing, — this is equal to ‘Brāhmaṇa-murder’, — i.e. involves the twelve-year penance; — this refers to cases of intentional and repeated acts, — ‘paiśuna’ is backbiting to the king, and ‘guroḥ &c.’ is false accusation of one’s father.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.55-56)

Gautama (21.10). — ‘Giving false evidence, calumnies which will reach the ears of the king, an untrue accusation against the Guru, are equal to the Mahāpātakas.’

Do. (21.1). — See under 54.

Viṣṇu (36.1). — ‘Killing a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya, engaged in a sacrifice, or a woman in her courses, or a pregnant woman, or a Brāhmaṇa woman who has bathed after temporary uncleanliness, or an embryo of an unknown sex, or one come for protection, are crimes equal to the crime of Brāhmaṇa-killing.’

Do. (36.2). — ‘Giving false evidence, killing a friend, these are equal to wine-drinking.’

Do. (37.1-5). — ‘Setting one’s self up by false statements, making statements which will reach the ears of the King, regarding a minor offence committed by some one, unjustly upbraiding a Guru, reviling the Veda, forgetting the studied Vedic texts; these are crimes of the fourth degree.’

Yājñavalkya (3.228-29). — ‘Insulting one’s Guru, reviling the Veda, killing a friend, forgetting what has been learnt, these are equal to Brāhmaṇa-killing; eating forbidden food, dishonesty, lying for aggrandisement, kissing a woman in the courses, are equal to wine-drinking.’

Āpastamba (1.21.8). — See under 54.

VERSE 11.56

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

ब्रह्मोज्झता वेदनिन्दा कौटसाक्ष्यं सुहृद्वधः ।
गर्हितानाद्ययोर्जग्धिः सुरापानसमानि षट् ॥५६॥

brahmojjhatā vedanindā kauṭasākṣyaṃ suhṛdvadhaḥ |
garhitānādyayorjagdhiḥ surāpānasamāni ṣaṭ ||56||

Neglecting the Veda, reviling the Veda, bearing false witness, slaying a friend, and eating of forbidden and unfit food, — these six are equal to ‘wine-drinking.’ — (56)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

After having learnt the Veda, if one forgets it on account of not keeping up its study, he is said to ‘neglect the Veda.’ Or it may stand for the disobedience of the injunction of Vedic study, as a compulsory duty.

‘Bearing false witness’ — even on occasions other than for self-aggrandisement.

‘Slaying’ — killing — ‘of a friend.’

‘Eating of forbidden and unfit food.’ — ‘Forbidden,’ such as garlic and the rest; ‘unfit,’ — i.e., unpleasant. If such food is intentionally eaten. — (56)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.231), to the effect that though the offences here enumerated have been placed by Yājñavalkya in the same category as ‘Brāhmaṇa-slaughter’, while Manu classes them with ‘wine-drinking’, — yet all that this implies is that there are alternative expiatory rites.

It, is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1047), as placing on the same footing as ‘wine-drinking’, such offences as ‘forgetting’ and ‘reviling’ the Veda and the killing of a friend; and the meaning of this is that there are alternative expiatory rites; — it explains ‘anādyam’ as uneatable on account of bad smell and the like.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 293) in support of the view that these offences are ‘anupātakas’ ‘ancillary sins’, as distinguished from ‘upapātakas’ ‘minor sins’.

It is quoted in Madanapārijata (p. 807), which makes the same remark as Mitākṣarā; — and again on p. 825, where the following notes are added: — According to Smṛtimañjarī, ‘garhita’ stands for onions and such other forbidden food, and ‘anādya’ for impure food; while according to Kalpataru ‘garhita’ stands for such food as, though not forbidden by the scriptures, is deprecated by the people: — ‘anādyam’, garlic and such things; — the eating of these things is equal to wine-drinking, only when it is done intentionally.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 177), which has the following notes — ‘Brahmojjhatā’ means ‘forgetting the Veda through neglect of proper study,’ — ‘Vedanindā’, passing deprecatory remarks against the words and contents of the Vedas — ‘Suhṛdvadha’, murdering of a friend other than the Brāhmaṇa, — ‘garhītānna’ is ‘food of the lowest born’, — ‘garhitādya’, is forbidden food, e.g., mushrooms and so forth, of which repeated eating is meant here. It notes the reading ‘garhitānādya’ as adopted by Kalpataru, which explains ‘garhita’ as ‘what is forbidden by the scriptures’, and ‘anādya’ as ‘what is very much deprecated among the people, such as garlic &c.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.55-56)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.56.

VERSE 11.57

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

निक्षेपस्यापहरणं नराश्वरजतस्य च ।
भूमिवज्रमणीनां च रुक्मस्तेयसमं स्मृतम् ॥५७॥

nikṣepasyāpaharaṇaṃ narāśvarajatasya ca |
bhūmivajramaṇīnāṃ ca rukmasteyasamaṃ smṛtam ||57||

Stealing of a deposit, or of men, horse, silver, land, diamonds and other oems, — all this has been declared to be equal to the ‘stealing of gold.’ — (57)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Deposit’ — even such as consists of not very valuable things.

‘Men.’ — This term stands for the kind; hence the stealing of women also stands on the same footing. This same sin accrues to him who, after having betrothed his daughter to one man, gives her ultimately to another, even when no defects have been found in the former bridegroom. This is what has been described as the man ‘falling upon a lie.’ — (57)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.265), as referring to the stealing of property belonging to the Brāhmana; — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 421); — in Aparārka (p. 1048); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 177 and 344), which has the following note — ‘Deposit’, belonging to the Brāhmaṇa.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (2.2.3-4). — ‘Stealing the property of a Brāhmaṇa or a deposit, giving false evidence regarding land.’

Viṣṇu (36.3). — ‘Appropriating to one’s self land belonging to a Brāhmaṇa or a deposit, are crimes equal to theft of gold.’

Yājñavalkya (3.230). — ‘Stealing of a horse, of gems, of human females, of land, and of cows, or of deposit, these are equal to gold-stealing.’

VERSE 11.58

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

रेतःसेकः स्वयोनीषु कुमारीष्वन्त्यजासु च ।
सख्युः पुत्रस्य च स्त्रीषु गुरुतल्पसमं विदुः ॥५८॥

retaḥsekaḥ svayonīṣu kumārīṣvantyajāsu ca |
sakhyuḥ putrasya ca strīṣu gurutalpasamaṃ viduḥ ||58||

Carnal intercourse with one’s uterine sister, or with virgins, or with low-born women, or with the women of one’s friend or son, — all this they regard as equal to the ‘violating of the Preceptor’s bed.’ — (58)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Uterine sisters’ — sisters horn of the same mother as oneself.

‘Virgins’ — unmarried women.

‘Low-born women’ — wild women.

‘Friend’ — companion; his ‘women.’

The use of the generic term ‘women’ indicates that it is not only the wife that is meant What is meant is a woman kept for carnal purposes, by the friend or the son.

What we hold however is that, even though the text has used the generic term‘women,’ yet it cannot be regarded as putting the married and the unmarried women on the same footing; because such an equalisation would be highly unreasonable.

What is said here is not for the purpose of indicating what the exact expiatory rite in the case should be, but with a view to indicate [the seriousness of the crime; which, of course, means that] the expiation also should be heavy. This is what has been set forth in the declaration — ‘these shall be heavy in the case of serious, and light in that of lighter, crimes.’ If all this were for this purpose of indicating the exact expiatory rite, it should have occurred under the section dealing with these rites proper. Further, since‘bearing false witness,’ and‘slaying of a friend,’ are here placed on the same footing as‘wine-drinking,’ the expiation for these could not be prescribed as the same as that in the case of‘Brāhmaṇa-killing’; — secondly, the‘falsely harassing the Preceptor’ has here been declared to be equal to‘Brāhmaṇa-killing,’ and yet later on it has been considered necessary to lay down again for this offence the same expiation as for‘Brāhmaṇa-killing’; — thirdly, carnal intercourse with a‘virgin’ has here been said to be equal to the‘violating of the Preceptor’s bed,’ and yet it was considered necessary to prescribe again for this offence the same expiation as that for the said‘violating of the Preceptor’s bed.’ From all this it is clear that the present equalising of the various sins here with one or the other of the heinous offences is not meant to be an injunction of the necessary expiatory rites.

Other people think that even though all that is meant is to indicate the seriousness of the crimes, yet there is nothing unreasonable in the equalisation here set forth; which may, therefore, be taken as meant to indicate the exact expiations. As for the fact that, even though‘bearing false witness,’ and ‘slaying a friend’ are here put on the same footing as‘winedrinking.’ yet the exact expiation for it has been prescribed to be the same as that for Brāhmaṇa-killing, — this means simply that the two expiations are meant to be optional. Where there is absolute equalisation, there can be no option; as is clear from Verse 87 below. — (58)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.231), to the effect that the ‘intercourse’ meant here is the actual consummation of the act, as is clear from the use of the term ‘retaḥseka’; — in Aparārka (p. 1048), which also adds that if the intercourse ceases before actual emission, the offence is not equal to the ‘violation of the Teacher’s bed — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 251), which adds that this refers to cases where, the act is repeated for fifteen days; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 844), which notes that the use of the expression ‘retaḥseka’ indicates that if the act ceases before emission, it involves an expiation lighter than that in the case of ‘the violation of the Teacher’s bed’; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 177), which has the following notes — ‘Svayonyāsu’, Sapiṇḍa-women, and such women as are blood-relations of one’s father or mother, — ‘kumārīṣu’ Brāhmaṇa virgins, — ‘Antyajāsu’, Caṇḍāla and other low-born girls, — ‘Sakhyuḥ strīṣu’, wives of Brāhmaṇa friends, — ‘putrastrīṣu’, wives of sons born of wives of different castes, or wives of sons other than the ‘body born’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.58-66)

Gautama (21.1). — (See under 54.)

Do. (21.11). — ‘The guilt of a minor offence rests on those who are defilers of company, or killers of kine, or those who forget the Veda, those who pronounce the Vedic texts for sinners, students who break the vow of chastity, and those who allow the time of initiation to pass.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.5, 13). — ‘Trading with merchandise of any description; the following are the minor offences involving loss of caste. Intercourse with women who should not he approached, cohabitation with the female friend of a female Guru, with the female friend of a male Guru, with an Apapātra woman, and a female outcast, — following the medical profession, sacrificing for the multitude, living by the stage, following the profession of the dancing master, or singing master or acting master, tending cows and buffaloes, and so forth, and also fornication.’

Āpastamba (1.21.7-9, 14-15, 17-18). — ‘The following acts cause loss of caste: stealing gold, crimes that make one accused, homicide, neglect of the Vedas, causing abortion, incestuous connection with relations born of the same womb as one’s father or mother, or with the offsprings of such relations, drinking wine, intercourse with persons intercourse with whom is forbidden. That man falls who has connection with a female friend of a female Guru, or with a female friend of a male Guru, or with any married woman. Eating forbidden flesh, as of a dog, a man, a village-cock or village pigs, or carnivorous animals; eating what is left by a Śūdra, the cohabitation of Aryans with Apapātra women. Some say that these also lead to loss of caste.’

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии