with the Commentary of Medhatithi 311 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 317 из 350Следующая ⇒

Viṣṇu (36.4-7). — ‘Sexual connection with a paternal aunt, with the maternal grandmother, with a maternal aunt, with the mother-in-law, with the Queen — are crimes equal to connection with a guru’s wife; — and so is sexual intercourse with the father’s or mother’s sister, and with one’s own sister; — and sexual connection with the wife of a learned Brāhmaṇa, or a priest, or an Upādhyāya, or a friend; — and with a sister’s female friend, or with a woman of one’s own race, with a woman belonging to the Brāhmaṇa caste, with a Brāhmaṇa maiden, with a low-caste woman, with a woman in her courses, with a woman come for protection, with a female ascetic, or with a woman entrusted to one’s own care.’

Do. (37.6-10, 13-33). — ‘Abandoning one’s holy fire, or father, mother, son or wife; — eating forbidden food, or food of those whose food should not he eaten; — appropriating to one’s self what belongs to another; — sexual intercourse with another man’s wife; sacrificing for persons for whom it is forbidden to sacrifice; — killing a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya or a Śūdra, or a cow, — selling articles that should not be sold, — for an elder brother to suffer his younger brother to marry before him, for a younger brother to marry before his elder brother, — to give a girl in marriage to either of these two, — or to perform the nuptial ceremony for him, — to allow the proper time for Upanayana to pass off, — to teach the Veda for a reward, — to he taught the Veda by a hired teacher, — to be employed in mines, — to make large instruments, — cutting trees, shrubs, creepers, long climbing plants, or herbs, — to make a living by prostituting one’s own wife, — trying to overcome others by incantations or forcible means; cooking for one’s own self, — omitting to pay one’s debts to God, Sages and Pitṛs, — studying irreligious hooks, — Atheism, — subsisting by a reprehensible act, — intercourse with woman who drinks wine; — these are crimes of the fourth degree.’

Yājñavalkya (3.231, 234-42). — ‘Intercourse with a friend’s wife, with a maiden, with one’s own offsprings, with a Caṇḍāla woman, with one’s Sagotra woman, with one’s sons’ wives, — is declared to be equal to the violating of the guru’s bed. Killing cows, apostacy, theft, non-payment of debts, omitting to establish the sacred fires, selling what should not be sold, marrying before the elder brother, learning Veda from a hired teacher, teaching the Veda for payment, adultery, permitting one’s self to be superseded in marriage by the younger brother, usury, manufacturing salt, killing a woman, a Vaiśya, a Śūdra or a Kṣatriya, making a living through reprehensible things, atheism, breaking the vow of celibacy, selling of sons, stealing grains or base metals or cattle, sacrificing for those not entitled to perform sacrifices, abandoning of father, mother or son, selling of tanks or gardens, defiling a maiden, sacrificing for one who has married before his elder brother and giving of girl in marriage to such a person, dishonesty, omitting of the observances and restrictions, undertaking of an act for one’s own benefit, intercourse with a wine-drinking woman, abandoning of Vedic study or of the sacred fires, neglecting one’s sons, forsaking of relatives, cutting trees for fuel, making a living by one’s own wife, or by medicines or by killing, making of murderous machines, being addicted to vicious habits, selling one’s self, serving under a Śūdra, making friendships with low men, intercourse with low-born women, omitting the prescribed life-stages, getting fat with food given by others, studying of evil sciences, superintending mines, selling one’s wife; — each of these is a minor sin, an upapātaka.’

VERSE 11.59

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

गोवधोऽयाज्यसंयाज्यं पारदार्यात्मविक्रयः ।
गुरुमातृपितृत्यागः स्वाध्यायाग्न्योः सुतस्य च ॥५९॥

govadho'yājyasaṃyājyaṃ pāradāryātmavikrayaḥ |
gurumātṛpitṛtyāgaḥ svādhyāyāgnyoḥ sutasya ca ||59||

Killing a cow, sacrificing for one unworthy to sacrifice, adultery, selling oneself, abandoning one’s father, mother, teacher, or son, or of Vedic study or Fire; — (59)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author now proceeds to describe the ‘Minor offences.’

‘Those unworthy to sacrifice,’ — i.e., the outcast, the Śūdra and so forth, — ‘sacrificing’ f or these. The use of the affix ‘ṇya’ in the nominal sense is a Vedic anomaly.

‘Selling oneself’ — Making oneself a slave, subservient to another man, and thus putting himself on the same footing as the cow and such other properties as are sold.

Others read — ‘pāradāryamavikrayam’ — ‘adultery and selling what should not be sold.’

What is meant by ‘selling oneself’ is taking service under an unrighteous master, when there is only slight trouble, in the shape of want of livelihood and the like.

The ‘abandoning of the teacher’ — means the neglect of attention due to him; e.g., having recourse to another teacher, while the former teacher is quite competent to teach.

Similarly with the ‘abandoning of one’s father and mother.’

What is reprehensible is the abandoning of these when they are not outcasts. If they have become outcasts, their abandoning would be only right and proper.

The Construction is — ‘the abandoning of Vedic study and the Fire’ The ‘abandoning of Vedic study’ means not carrying out in practice the injunction that ‘one should recite the Veda everyday.’

“Would the omission of this study for a single day, or for one year, Constitute this offence?”

Since the text contains no qualification, it would seem that omission for even one day would constitute the offence.

This, however, is not right. Because the injunction of daily study is a compulsory one; and a distinct expiation is going to be set forth later on for the omission of a compulsory duty. Hence what is meant here is such neglect as leads to the Veda being entirely forgotten.

This neglect having been declared (under 56) to be equal to ‘wine-drinking,’ the present text is meant to indicate an alternative expiation; the exact alternative to be employed should be determined by the comparative seriousness or otherwise of the neglect in any particular case. For instance, if the neglect of Vedic study is due to the man being engaged on another Vedic rite, his offence would be a minor one; while if it is due to the man giving himself up to luxury, or to moneymaking, or to quarrels, — his offence would be equal to ‘wine-drinking.’

As the ‘fire’ is spoken of in the singular, it should be understood to mean the domestic fire; — the Śrauta Fires having been all along spoken of in the plural.

“In connection with the offences of abandoning the Śrauta Fires, the Cāndrāyaṇa penance has been declared to be the expiatory rite. In the present context also, since the act would be of the nature of a minor offence, the expiation would consist of the same penance.”

There is no force in this objection; since in connection with minor offences also, diverse expiatory rites have been laid down; — the comparative seriousness or otherwise of the offence and the heaviness or lightness of the expiation being determined in each case by considerations of the capacity of the man concerned. And when the Cāndrāyaṇa penance has been mentioned as the expiation for minor offences, what is meant is that that penance represents the lowest limit ‘Abandoning of the son’ — means omitting to support him, or turning him out of the house — when he is no longer an infant and is duly qualified. In the abandoning of a son who has become an outcast, there would be no wrong. — (59)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittavivekā (p. 192), which has the following notes — ‘Ayājya-saṃyājya’, includes improper gifts and teaching also, — ‘tyāga’ of parents, i.e. neglecting to take care of them, — ‘Svādhyāya-tyāga’, forgetting the Veda that has been learnt, — ‘agnityāga’, through slothfulness, — ‘sutatyāga’, neglecting his feeding and education, — ‘ca’ is meant to include the ‘abandoning of the wife’ also.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.58-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.58.

VERSE 11.60

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

परिवित्तिताऽनुजेऽनूढे परिवेदनमेव च ।
तयोर्दानं च कन्यायास्तयोरेव च याजनम् ॥६०॥

parivittitā'nuje'nūḍhe parivedanameva ca |
tayordānaṃ ca kanyāyāstayoreva ca yājanam ||60||

Allowing oneself to be superseded in marriage by his younger brother, superseding by the younger one’s elder brother in marriage, and the giving of one’s daughter to, or sacrificing for, these two; — (60)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Younger’ — younger brother.

‘Sacrificing for these two’ — i.e., officiating as priest for them at the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices. — (60)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes — ‘Parivittitā’, of the elder brother who remains without wife and fire while his younger brother has taken both, — ‘parivedana’ of the younger brother, in the said circumstances, — ‘ca’ indicates that these two ‘offences’ apply in the case of sisters also, — the marrying of one’s daughter to either of the two persons just mentioned, — and officiating as priest at marriages and other rites of the said two persons.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.58-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.58.

VERSE 11.61

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

कन्याया दूषणं चैव वार्धुष्यं व्रतलोपनम् ।
तडागारामदाराणामपत्यस्य च विक्रयः ॥६१॥

kanyāyā dūṣaṇaṃ caiva vārdhuṣyaṃ vratalopanam |
taḍāgārāmadārāṇāmapatyasya ca vikrayaḥ ||61||

Defiling a maiden, usury, breaking of a vow, selling a tank, a garden, one’s wife or a child. — (61)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Defiling a maiden’; — i.e., having recourse to her in the spirit of bravado that ‘she has not yet been touched by man’; or, the depriving her of her chastity by touching her generative organ with the toe or such other parts of the body; — in fact doing all these, with the sole exception of actual sexual intercourse; — which latter has been declared to be equal to ‘the violating of the Preceptor’s bed.’

‘Usury’ — Making money by this means as a means of living, — even in normal times. Vaśiṣṭha has declared that ‘usury consists in lending money or grains on interest.’ This is a scriptural technicality, not subject to the notions of the ordinary world.

‘Breaking of a vow.’ — A ‘vow’ consists in the taking of such resolution as — ‘I shall rather starve than partake of food in the house of such and such a person eating at whose place is forbidden’; and if one does not keep to this resolve, it would be ‘breaking of the vow.’

“As a matter of fact, the name ‘vow,’ vrata, is given to a restriction that one voluntarily puts upon himself; and if the resolve is a voluntary one, how could deviation from that constitute a transgression of the scriptures? it has been said that ‘by omitting to do what is enjoined one becomes liable to expiation’; and the resolution in the case in question is not ‘what is enjoined.”’

The answer to this is as follows: — It is true that in the initial stage the vow is purely voluntary; but the keeping of it is what has been ‘enjoined’ by the scriptures. Just as in the case of the Saurya and other sacrifices performed with a view to definite rewards, — the act, in its initial stage, is purely voluntary; but the continuation and completion of it (when once begun) is what is ‘enjoined’; the act could be discontinued only either if the performer had ceased to desire the particular reward, or if the reward were actually obtained; in all such cases the performer would be blamed as being energetic only in undertaking an act.

As regards the observances to be kept by the Accomplished Student, the text is going to lay down a very light expiation for the neglect of these. And this may be regarded as an optional alternative to what is here laid down.

‘Garden’ — flower-gardens and parks, etc.

Another Smṛti declares all kinds of land as ‘not to be sold.’ — (61)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vratalopanam’. — ‘Breaking a vow voluntarily taken’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa): — ‘breaking the vow of Studentship’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes — ‘Kanyāyā dūṣaṇam’ calling a virgin a ‘non-virgin’, or piercing with the finger her private parts, — ‘vārdhuṣitvam’ (which is its reading for ‘vārdhuṣyam’) for the Brāhmaṇa or the Kṣātriya, — ‘vratāt cyutiḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘vratalopanam’), ‘avakīrṇitvam’, sexual delinquency of the Religious Student, — ‘dāraṇām’, even such as have not been married by one, — ‘apatyasya’, of the various kinds of children.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.58-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.58.

VERSE 11.62

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

व्रात्यता बान्धवत्यागो भृत्याध्यापनमेव च ।
भृत्या चाध्ययनादानमपण्यानां च विक्रयः ॥६२॥

vrātyatā bāndhavatyāgo bhṛtyādhyāpanameva ca |
bhṛtyā cādhyayanādānamapaṇyānāṃ ca vikrayaḥ ||62||

Apostacy, abandoning a relative, teaching for wages, learning from a paid teacher and the selling of what should not be sold. — (62)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Relations.’ — The maternal uncle, cousins and others, even apart from one’s uterine brothers. If one has the means, it behoves him to support all these, if they be starving. This is what has been spoken of above in Verse 9.

“In face of the present text, the mention of the abandoning of one’s son (in 60) becomes superfluous.”

It is not superfluous. The mention of both is like the case where all web-footed birds having been forbidden in general, the Swan is specially prohibited separately.

Hence the abandoning of the mother and those mentioned in the former verse is also a minor offence, like what is mentioned in the present verse; with this difference only that this latter is less serious.

‘Teaching for wages and learning from a paid teacher’ — i.e., if one learns from a paid teacher, when unpaid teachers are available.

‘What should not he sold’ — as described in Discourse X (Verses 86, et seq). — (62)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

See 10.20.

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes — ‘Vrātyatā’, whose Upanayana has not been performed at the prescribed age, and one who has not performed the Soma-sacrifice, — ‘bāndhavatyāga’, abandoning, without reason, of Sapiṇḍa and other relatives, — ‘bhṛtakādhyāpana’ (which is its reading for ‘bhṛtyādhyāpana’,) imparting knowledge in exchange for wages received — ‘bhṛtādhyayana’, learning under a Teacher who teaches for wages received, — ‘apaṇyānām vikrayaḥ’ selling of lac and other things even once, and repeated selling of milk and other things, — this is an ‘offence’ for the Brāhmaṇa.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.58-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.58.

VERSE 11.63

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

सर्वाकारेष्वधीकारो महायन्त्रप्रवर्तनम् ।
हिंसौषधीनां स्त्र्याजीवोऽभिचारो मूलकर्म च ॥६३॥

sarvākāreṣvadhīkāro mahāyantrapravartanam |
hiṃsauṣadhīnāṃ stryājīvo'bhicāro mūlakarma ca ||63||

Superintending all mines, executing large mechanical works, destroying medicinal herbs, subsisting on women, performing malevolent rites and sorcery. — (63)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Mines’ — places where gold and other precious things are obtained.

‘Superintending’ — control obtained under royal commands.

‘All’ — implies the inclusion of other sources of income also, e.g., control over villages and towns, investigating law-suits and administering criminal law.

Similarly ‘mechanical works’ stand for the building of bridges and embankments for regulating the flow of water; the undertaking of such works also is a minor offence.

‘Destroying’ — Cutting — ‘medicinal herbs’ — before they are dry.

‘Subsisting on women’ — That is, maintaining oneself and family on the property of women, or making a living out of prostitutes.

‘Malevolent rites’ — Killing one’s enemies by curses or incantations or sacrificial rites prescribed in the Veda.

‘Sorcery.’ — Using incantations for gaining control over persons. — (63)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Mahāyantrapravartanam’ — ‘Executing great mechanical works, e.g., constructing dams across rivers in order to stop the flow of water’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘making machines for the killing of large animals, such as boars’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘making such machines as sugar-mills and the like’ (Nandana).

‘Stṛyājivaḥ.’ — ‘Subsisting on one’s wife’s earnings by making her enter service’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana); — ‘by turning her into a harlot’ (Kullūka); — ‘maintaining oneself by the separate property of his wife’ (Medhātithi); — ‘living on money obtained by selling his wife’ (Rāghavānanda). — Nandana who reads ‘hiṃsrauṣadhistṛyupājīvaḥ’ (for ‘hiṃsauṣadhīnām stṛyājīvaḥ’), explains the compound as ‘subsisting either on money earned by the sale of noxious herbs, or on the earnings of one’s wife.’

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes — ‘Sarvakareṣu adhīkāraḥ,’ employment in mines, — ‘mahāyantrapravartanam,’ working of oil and other mills, or of machines for the sharpening of weapons and so forth,’ — ‘auṣadhīnām hiṃsā,’ destroying the crops, — ‘stṛyājīvaḥ,’ living on the earnings of women, — ‘abhicāra,’ doing of japa, homa and such acts with the motive of bringing harm to others, — ‘mūlakarma,’ rites for captivating other persons and such other purposes.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.58-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.58.

VERSE 11.64

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

इन्धनार्थमशुष्काणां द्रुमाणामवपातनम् ।
आत्मार्थं च क्रियारम्भो निन्दितान्नादनं तथा ॥६४॥

indhanārthamaśuṣkāṇāṃ drumāṇāmavapātanam |
ātmārthaṃ ca kriyārambho ninditānnādanaṃ tathā ||64||

Cutting down green trees for purposes of fuel, the undertaking of the act (of cooking) for one’s own benefit and the eating of forbidden food. — (64)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There would be nothing wrong in the cutting down of trees for purposes of fuel for sacrificial performances; specially as one cannot, be sure of the purity of dead trees.

‘Undertaking of the act’ — of cooking. There is the prohibition that, even when distressed by hunger, one shall not. do the cooking for himself alone; and it is for this reason that we explain the term ‘act’ to mean the act of cooking. If, on the other hand, we took the term to stand for action in general, then it would be necessary to assume the necessary prohibition of such action in general, merely on the strength of the fact that an expiation is laid down for it; as there could be no expiation for an act that, is not prohibited; as it has been declared that ‘by doing what is forbidden one becomes liable to expiatory rites’ (44). When, however, we take the word to mean as explained above, then the expiation laid down is quite in keeping with a well-known prohibition, and there is no need for assuming one.

‘Eating forbidden food.’ — Objection. — “The Eating of Forbidden Food having been already mentioned above (57), why should there be a repetition of it here?”

Answer. — It has been mentioned again for the purpose of indicating an alternative Expiation; — the sense being that the expiation prescribed before is for repeated acts of eating forbidden food; while the one indicated by the present text is for doing it for the first time. — (64)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

See 3.118.

‘Ninditānna.’ — ‘Forbidden food’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka); — ‘food given by persons from whom it should not be accepted, e.g. by a king, a gambler and so forth’ (Nārāyaṇa, Raghavānanda and Nandana).’

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes — The cutting of many trees for purposes of fuel, — cooking for one’s own benefit, not for the purpose of offerings to Viśvedevas, — ‘ninditānna,’ the food given by tribes or thieves and such people.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.58-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.58.

VERSE 11.65

Section VI - Offences: their Classification

अनाहिताग्निता स्तेयं ऋणानामनपक्रिया ।
असत्शास्त्राधिगमनं कौशीलव्यस्य च क्रिया ॥६५॥

anāhitāgnitā steyaṃ ṛṇānāmanapakriyā |
asatśāstrādhigamanaṃ kauśīlavyasya ca kriyā ||65||

Omission of fire-laying, theft, non-payment of debts, studying bad books, and the practising of the histrionic art. — (65)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Omission of Fire-laying’ — is an offence in the case of a man who has been married and has got a son, and is possessed of the requisite means. The author of the Smṛti thinks that since the Vedic texts laying down Fire-laying do not contain any conditions, they clearly indicate the compulsory character of that rite.

“How can the act of laying of the fire be regarded as enjoined by Vedic texts? If what is mentioned in one context were to be taken as enjoined in connection with another, this would lead to a great confusion regarding the true meaning of the scriptures. What the texts are actually found to prescribe are the Fires; how can that be taken as prescribing the act of laying?”

It is true that the Fires have been prescribed by such texts as — ‘Libations are to be offered into the Āhavavīya Fire,’ and so forth; but, as a matter of fact, these Fires cannot be obtained without laying (or kindling); it is for this reason that when the Fires are prescribed, it is understood that the act of laying them is also prescribed.

“If the laying be meant simply for the obtaining of the Fires, then the injunction would apply to only those persons who perform the rite of Fire-laying; and not to one who has no fires at all. Nor is the act of laying compulsory, in the way in which the life-long rites are compulsory. How then win the omission of Fire-laying be an offence?”

The passage — ‘by not doing what is enjoined, etc., etc.,’ — has clearly laid down that one is liable to expiation if he omits to do what is enjoined; and the act of Fire-laying has been enjoined by such texts as ‘one shall lay the Fires.’

“It is true that the act has been enjoined; but it is so neither with a view to the obtaining of heaven, nor for any other purpose; it has been enjoined only for the purpose of obtaining the Fires. As for the Fires, their use is well known; so that the man who needs them shall obtain them by the means thus enjoined, — and others will not obtain them. What possibility would be there for the omitting of what has been enjoined, — which would render the person liable to Expiation? How can a man be regarded as an offender if he fails to obtain gold, for instance?”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — From the present text itself it is understood that if a man is entitled to Firelaying, he must obtain the Fires by means of the rites prescribed.

Theft — of articles other than those specifically named in this connection.

‘Debts.’ — This refers to the non-performance of those acts that have been laid down as paying off the ‘four debts’ (to the Gods, the Pitṛs, to Men and to the Fires).

‘Bad books’ — e.g., those written by Cārvākas and Nirgranthas; those that are not trustworthy, and have no connection with Vedic rites or their effects.

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте