with the Commentary of Medhatithi 314 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 320 из 350Следующая ⇒

If even three of them, learned in the Veda, expound the expiation for the offences, that shall suffice for their purification; as the word of learned men is purificatory. — (85)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This goes on to describe the necessity of men liable to expiation presenting themselves before the Congregation or Court; and the definition of this ‘Court’ is that — ‘the Brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda constitute the Court.’

“It is declared (under 12.110) that the ‘Court should consist of at least ten men,’ or again (12.113) — ‘a single person learned in the Veda.’”

The number ‘ten’ mentioned in the former text does not refer to the men; it refers to their qualifications; since in the verse following we find the qualifications enumerated — ‘knowing the three Vedas, a logician, an exegetist etc., etc.’ (12.111). As regards the ‘single person learned in the Veda’ (12.113), — what this shows is that, even in the absence of the other qualifications — of being a logician and so forth, — if a man possesses the one qualification of knowing the Veda, he becomes qualified for serving on the ‘Court’

The present verse is meant to lay down the exact number of men constituting the ‘Court’ And even though the only qualification mentioned here is ‘knowledge of the Veda’ yet the others — being a logician and so forth, — are also understood. As otherwise mere ‘knowledge of the Veda’ could not be accepted as a definition of the ‘Court.’ All this we shall explain later on (under XII).

“If Vedic learning is not possible without the knowledge of Logic, Exegetics and the rest, wherefore has it been said that ‘even a single man learned in the Veda may make up the Court?’”

All that this latter declaration means is that, even in the absence of all other qualifications, Vedic learning alone by itself would constitute a sufficient qualification. All this we shall explain in connection with the text in question.

From all this it follows that when a man has incurred the liability to perform an expiation, he should question three men assembled together; as a single man is liable to make mistakes or become careles.

This recourse to the ‘Court’ must be taken even by persons who may be themselves learned; and the reason for this is that — ‘the word of corned men is purificatory.’

Nor would this make ‘secret expiation’ impossible. Because in that case the offence would not be known to any person; and appearing before the Court is necessary only in cases where the offence has become known. It is what has been spoken of above (22) — ‘By confession, by repentance etc, etc.’

This explanation, however, is not right What the present verse refers to is the case where, in the absence of the requisite expiation not having been clearly laid down, it becomes necessary to assume the right expiation, ‘on the basis of the man’s capacity, and the nature of the offence’ (209); and the meaning of the text is that that assumption is to be accepted which is made by three men. — (85)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.72.

VERSE 11.86

Section VII - Special Expiation for Special Offences: (a) For Killing a Brāhmaṇa

अतोऽन्यतममास्थाय विधिं विप्रः समाहितः ।
ब्रह्महत्याकृतं पापं व्यपोहत्यात्मवत्तया ॥८६॥

ato'nyatamamāsthāya vidhiṃ vipraḥ samāhitaḥ |
brahmahatyākṛtaṃ pāpaṃ vyapohatyātmavattayā ||86||

A Brāhmaṇa who, with concentrated mind, follows any one of these methods, removes, on account of his being self-possessed, the sin committed by killing a Brāhmaṇa. — (86)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse serves the purpose of recapitulating all the expiatory rites laid down in connection with ‘Brāhmaṇa- Killing.’

The term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ stands here for all castes.

‘Removes’ — destroys.

‘On account of his being self-possessed’ — i.e., by reason of his being cognisant of the true nature of the Self. In

fact a man is called ‘self-possessed’ when he has full faith in what is prescribed in the scriptures; this man’s firm conviction is that what laid down in the scriptures can never be wrong. — (86)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.72.

VERSE 11.87

Section VII - Special Expiation for Special Offences: (a) For Killing a Brāhmaṇa

हत्वा गर्भमविज्ञातमेतदेव व्रतं चरेत् ।
राजन्यवैश्यौ चैजानावात्रेयीमेव च स्त्रियम् ॥८७॥

hatvā garbhamavijñātametadeva vrataṃ caret |
rājanyavaiśyau caijānāvātreyīmeva ca striyam ||87||

Having killed an unknown embryo, one should perform this same penance, — also on killing a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya, who has performed sacrifices, or a woman of the ‘Ātreyī’ race. — (87)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Embryo’ — belonging to the Brāhmaṇa caste.

The meaning of the verse is that one should not help an abortion.

‘Unknown’ — whose male or female sex is not yet ascertainable. When this has become ascertainable, the expiation shall be in accordance with the sex.

“How can there be a killing of the embryo, until the woman is also killed?”

Abortions are generally secured by the use of medicines and such other methods.

‘This same penance.’ — They say that, since the singular number is used here, it is the ‘Twelve-year Penance’ that is meant here; specially as this is what has been spoken of in closest proximity to the present text.

Others, however, have held that the term ‘this same’ refers to the means of purification in general; hence it stands for all the expiatory rites that have been laid down in connection with ‘Brāhmaṇa-killing.’

‘A Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya who has performed sacrifices — i.e., who is engaged in a sacrificial performance; — no significance attaching to the past tense (in ijānau’); as in another Smṛti text we read — ‘The Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya seated at the Extraction of Soma’; from which it would seem that the rule here laid down refers to the persons who have started the drinking of Soma, and not to those engaged in the performance of the Darśapūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices. But the clear implication of the Vedic text is that it applies to persons engaged in any sort of sacrificial performance; — the actual text being ‘it is only when one has become a Brāhmaṇa that he engages in a sacrifice’ [where no particular sacrifice is specified].

‘A woman qf the Ātreyī race.’ — Woman born in the race of Atri. The caste of the man and the woman being the same, what is prescribed in connection with the killing of ‘a Brāhmaṇa’ should apply equally to the case of the male and the female; hence the mention of ‘the woman of the Ātreyī race’ clearly excludes women of the other races; which means that the killing of these other women of other Brāhmaṇa races, would be only a ‘minor offence,’ mentioned above as ‘the killing of a woman of a Vaiśya or a Kṣatriya’ (66). What has been spoken of as ‘the killing of a woman or of a friend eta, eta,’ refers to women of all the four castes. The upshot of all this is — that in the case of the killing of a Brāhmaṇa woman, there are two optional alternatives — the expiation laid down for ‘heinous offences’ and that prescribed for a ‘minor offence’; which one of the two is to be adopted bring determined by the qualifications of the husband or of the woman herself, — as also by the intentional or unintentional character of the crime. For instance, (a) even in the case of a woman of another caste, if she has a child still at her breast, the expiation shall be of the heavier kind, in consideration of the fact, that it would be difficult for the child to live after the mother’s death; — (b) in the case of the Brāhmaṇa woman who, faultless herself, has become an object of hatred to her husband, and is killed by a man because, on being approached by him, she preserves her chastity and does not accede to his proposal, — the expiation shall be of the heavier kind; — as also (c) in the case of recklessly killing a friend’s wife. In other cases on the other hand, ordinary expiation according to Verse 66 would be applicable In the case of the woman of the ‘Ātreyī’ race, however, there are no alternatives.

Others have explained the word ‘Ātreyī’ to mean a woman in her courses, on the strength of its occurring along with the term ‘embryo.’ They quote the text — ‘pātyate bhrūṇahā, ātreyyāśca hantā’ — where the term ‘bhrūṇahā’ means ‘the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa.’ Under this explanation also the woman in her courses referred to must be a Brāh maṇa. She is called ‘Ātreyi’ in consideration of the fact that she is sure to carry a child in her womb. Though the use of the nominal affix found in the term ‘Ātreyī’ is nowhere laid down in the sense here attributed to it, yet the said denotation may be accepted on the strength of usage. — (87)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.251), according to which ‘avijñāta garbha’ indicates the stage of pregnancy before the sex of the child has been determined; — it adds that though the fact of the child in the womb belonging to the Brāhmaṇa-caste would make the offender liable to the expiation for Brāhmaṇa-slaying, — yet, in as much as the possibility of the child being female might lead one to think that the guilt of killing a female would be a ‘minor sin,’ and hence involve a lighter expiation, — it becomes necessary to emphasise the necessity of performing the heavier expiation.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 87, 179 and 228), which adds the explanation that, having killed the Brāhmaṇa embryo, before its sex has been determined, one should perform the rites laid down in connection with ‘Brāhmaṇa-murder,’ as also for killing a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya — while they are performing a sacrifice, — an d also for killing an ‘ātreyī,’ i.e., a Brāhmaṇī.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.87-88)

Gautama (22.12-13). — ‘The same penance that has been prescribed for Brāhmaṇa-slaying shall be performed by one who has killed a Brāhmaṇa female when she has bathed after her course; also for destroying the embryo of a Brāhmaṇa, though its sex may be not distinguishable.’

Bodhāyam (2.1-12). — ‘The penance for killing a woman who has bathed after her courses is the same as that for the killing of a Brāhmaṇa.’

Āpastamba (1.24.8-9). — ‘He who has destroyed an embryo of a Brāhmaṇa, or a woman during her courses, is called Abhiśasta, accursed, and stands on the same footing regarding expiation, as the Brāhmaṇa-killer.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.23, 34-35). — ‘He is called Bhrūṇahan who kills a Brāhmaṇa or destroys an embryo the sex of which is unknown. For killing a female of the Brāhmaṇa caste who is an Ātreyī...... the same penance that is prescribed for the Brāhmaṇa-killer should be performed. That woman is called Ātreyī who has bathed after her courses.’

Viṣṇu (50.8-10). — ‘He who has killed a pregnant woman, or a woman in her courses, or a woman who has bathed after her courses, or a friend, shall perform the Mahāvrata.’ (p. 839)

Yājñavalkya (3.251). — ‘He who destroys an embryo or an Ātreyī woman should perform the penance laid down for the Brāhmaṇa-killer.’

VERSE 11.88

Section VII - Special Expiation for Special Offences: (a) For Killing a Brāhmaṇa

उक्त्वा चैवानृतं साक्ष्ये प्रतिरुध्य गुरुं तथा ।
अपहृत्य च निःक्षेपं कृत्वा च स्त्रीसुहृत्वधम् ॥८८॥

uktvā caivānṛtaṃ sākṣye pratirudhya guruṃ tathā |
apahṛtya ca niḥkṣepaṃ kṛtvā ca strīsuhṛtvadham ||88||

Similarly also for telling a lie in giving evidence, for angering the preceptor, for misappropriating a trust, and for killing one’s wife or friend. — (88)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The expiation here laid down pertains to giving false evidence in connection with gold, land and such things, or in cases of doubt regarding a murder. The guilt in these cases is very much heavier; and in regard to other expiations laid down elsewhere, the adoption of one or the other should be determined in accordance with the gravity or otherwise of the

‘Angering.’ — This is the same as what has been spoken of as ‘falsely harassing’ under 56 above; as ‘harassment’ is always preceded by ‘angering.’

‘Trust.’ — In this case also the exact nature of the expiation shall depend upon such considerations as to whether the trust-property belongs to a poor or to a rich person, to a low person or to a Brāhmaṇa, or to some other person of high position. In a case where only one expiation is mentioned, it can be one only; and there can be no occasion for any assumptions. In fact, in connection with giving false evidence and ‘misappropriating a trust’ there are no varying grades of expiation.

What is prescribed in connection with ‘wine-drinking’ is certainly somewhat heavier; but every case is to be determined in accordance with ‘the capacity etc.,’ of the guilty person (11.209); though these considerations have been laid down only as affecting those offences ‘for the expiation whereof no atonement has been prescribed’ (209). — (88)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.244), which adds the following notes: — This refers to cases where the false evidence leads to the death of men; — ‘pratirabhya,’ becoming passionately angry with; — ‘nikṣepa,’ the deposit placed by a Brāhmaṇa, — ‘strī’ here stands for the wife of a person who has taken the fires, who is endowed with the quality of being devoted to her husband and so forth; — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 179); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 56b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.87-88)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.87.

VERSE 11.89

Section VII - Special Expiation

for Special Offences: (a) For Killing a Brāhmaṇa

इयं विशुद्धिरुदिता प्रमाप्याकामतो द्विजम् ।
कामतो ब्राह्मणवधे निष्कृतिर्न विधीयते ॥८९॥

iyaṃ viśuddhiruditā pramāpyākāmato dvijam |
kāmato brāhmaṇavadhe niṣkṛtirna vidhīyate ||89||

All this expiation has been laid down for killing a Brāhmaṇa unintentionally; for killing a Brāhmaṇa intentionally no atonement has been ordained. — (89)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Killed’ — murdered.

This verse has been already explained above as meant to indicate that the expiation for intentional ‘Brāhmaṇa- killing’ should be very heavy. — (89)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Iyam’. — According to some this refers to verse 72, and these people hold that “in the case of wilful murder the penance has to be made severer by doubling or trebling the term of twelve years.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.226), where it is put forward (by the Pūrvapakṣin) in support of the view that in the case of wilful murder there is no expiation at all; — but the Siddhānta view is that ‘iyam’ refers to the ‘Twelve Years’ Penance mentioned before (verse 72), and the latter half of the verse does not entirely deny all expiation; since several texts have definitely prescribed expiation by death in such cases. — It is quoted again under 3.243, in support of the view that the ‘Twelve Years’ Penance is meant to meet cases of unintentional murder; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 77); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 2a); — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 354), which says that this precludes only the ‘Twelve Years Penance,’ and not all kinds of expiation, as suicide is actually laid down as the expiation for intentional Brāhmaṇa-murder; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 65), wḥich says that the meaning is that the ‘Twelve Years’ and other penances are precluded from intentional Brāhmaṇa-murder, and the implication is that there is no expiation for it.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (21.7). — ‘Manu declares that the first three crimes (Brāhmaṇa-killing, wine-drinking and violating of Guru’s bed) cannot be expiated.’

Baudhāyana (2.1-6). — ‘They quote the following — “He who unintentionally slays a Brāhmaṇa becomes sinful”... The sages declare that he may be purified if he did it unintentionally; but no expiation is found for wilful murder.’

VERSE 11.90 [Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)]

Section VIII - Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)

सुरां पीत्वा द्विजो मोहादग्निवर्णां सुरां पिबेत् ।
तया स काये निर्दग्धे मुच्यते किल्बिषात् ततः ॥९०॥

surāṃ pītvā dvijo mohādagnivarṇāṃ surāṃ pibet |
tayā sa kāye nirdagdhe mucyate kilbiṣāt tataḥ ||90||

A twice-born person, having, through folly, drunk wine, shall drink wine red-hot; he becomes freed from his guilt, when his body has been completely burnt by it. — (90)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the text speaks of ‘twice-born men,’ yet what is said here is meant for the Brāhmaṇa only; says another Smṛti text — ‘Hot wine should be poured on the Brāhmaṇa’ (Gautama, 23.1).

‘Through folly’ — this is only explanatory.

‘Red hot’ — Though the text uses the word ‘varṇa’ colour, yet it is mere heat that is meant; as is clear from what follows, about ‘the body being burnt.’ — (90)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The liquor Here meant is that distilled from ground grains, according to Medhātithi, Govindarāja And Kullūka; — according to Nārāyaṇa the death-penance is meant for all twice-born men partaking of liquor distilled from grains, and by Brāhmaṇas who have drunk any of the three kinds of liquor described under verse 95.

‘Mohāt’. — Nandana reads ‘amohāt’ and explains it as ‘not unintentionally’, ‘intentionally.’

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.253), which explains ‘mohāt’ as meaning ‘ignorance of scriptural injunctions’. — It enters into a long discussion regarding the exact connotation in the present context, of the term ‘surā,’ and comes to the conclusion that it stands for the liquor distilled from ground grains; the partaking of which is equally heinous for all the three higher castes, — the drinking of the other two kinds, that distilled from molasses and that from honey, being sinful for the Brāhmaṇa only.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 815), which adds the following notes: — ‘Mohāt’ stands for ‘ignorance of the scriptures,’ and not for ‘ignorance of the nature of the liquid drunk’; — ‘agnivarṇām,’ ‘heated to the extent of becoming red-hot’; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 9a); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 93), which explains ‘agnivarṇām’ as ‘hot as fire,’ and quotes Jikana to the effect that ‘mohāt’ means ‘intentionally.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.90-93)

Mahābhārata (12.165.48).

Gautama (23.1). — ‘They shall pour hot wine into the mouth of a Brāhmaṇa who has drunk wine; he will be purified by death.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.18, 19, 21). — ‘If he has drunk Surā he shall scald himself to death with hot wine. For unintentionally drinking Surā, he shall perform the Kṛcchra penances during three months and then undergo a second initiation. They quote the following — “A Brāhmaṇa, a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya who has unintentionally drunk the wine called Vāruṇī must be initiated a second time.”’

Āpastamba (1.25.3). — ‘A wine-drinker has to drink exceedingly hot liquor, so that he dies.’

Vaśiṣtha (20-19, 22). — ‘If a Brāhmaṇa intentionally drinks liquor other than Surā, or if he unintentionally drinks Surā, he must perform a Kṛcchra and an Atikṛcchra; and after eating clarified butter, be initiated again. But a Brāhmaṇa who repeatedly partakes of Surā shall drink liquor of the same kind boiling hot. He becomes pure by death.’

Yājñavalkya (3.253-256). — ‘The man who drinks Surā attains purity by dying after drinking any one of the following things red-hot — Surā, water, clarified butter, cow’s urine and milk. Or he may perform the penance prescribed for Brāhmaṇa-killing, clothed in hair-cloth and wearing matted looks; or for one year he may use sesamum oil-cake or grains of rice at night only. If any one of the three castes unknowingly drinks the Vāruṇī wine, ho shall undergo initiation a second time. The Brāhmaṇa woman who drinks wine does not go to her husband’s regions; and in the world she is born as a bitch.’

Viṣṇu (51-1). — ‘A drinker of wine must abstain from all religious rites and subsist on grains unseparated from the husk for one year.’

VERSE 11.91

Section VIII - Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)

गोमूत्रमग्निवर्णं वा पिबेदुदकमेव वा ।
पयो घृतं वाऽ मरणाद् गोशकृद्रसमेव वा ॥९१॥

gomūtramagnivarṇaṃ vā pibedudakameva vā |
payo ghṛtaṃ vā' maraṇād gośakṛdrasameva vā ||91||

Or, he may drink red-hot cow’s urine, or water, or milk, or butter, or liquid cow-dung, until he dies. — (91)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case of any one of these expiations, the epithet ‘red-hot’ is to be applied.

The cow’s urine and other substances have been specified with a view to predude dying by any other means.

In the present case, the ‘wine’ should be understood as standing for that liquor which is obtained from grains; as it is this liquor to which the term ‘wine’ is held to be directly applicable; its application to other liquors being indirect What is said here is applicable to cases of intentional wine-drinking; sis it is going to be declared later on (11.146) — “If one drinks wine unintentionally, he becomes purified by going through the sacramental rites.’

‘Agnivarna,’ ‘red-hot,’ means that it should be as hot as fire; as is clear from the phrase ‘until he dies.’

Wine is forbidden for women also. It has been declared in the work of Vaśiṣṭha that — ‘If a Brāhmaṇa woman drinks wine, the gods do not permit her to go to the regions where her husband has gone; she roams about in this world, and after all her merit has been exhausted, she becomes an amphibious animal.’ — (91)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 412), which adds that this refers to the same case as the preceding verse; i.e., to the intentional -drinking of liquor distilled from grains; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 93), which says that the ‘milk’ and ‘clarified butter’ meant are those of the cow only.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.90-93)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.90.

VERSE 11.92

Section VIII - Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)

कणान् वा भक्षयेदब्दं पिण्याकं वा सकृत्निशि ।
सुरापानापनुत्त्यर्थं वालवासा जटी ध्वजी ॥९२॥

kaṇān vā bhakṣayedabdaṃ piṇyākaṃ vā sakṛtniśi |
surāpānāpanuttyarthaṃ vālavāsā jaṭī dhvajī ||92||

Or, for the expiation of the guilt of wine-drinking, he may, for one year, eat only once at night either pieces of grain or oil-cake, clothed in hair-cloth, with his hair matted, and carrying a sign. — (92)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This expiation is meant for those cases where wine is taken as medicine when life is in actual danger; — though winedrinking in such circumstances has been permitted by certain texts.

In connection with the case where wine has been drunk unintentionally, it is going to be laid down that the man should pass through the sacramental rites over again, and also perform the ‘Taptakṛcchra’ penance.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности