with the Commentary of Medhatithi 315 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 321 из 350Следующая ⇒

Others take this verse to apply to the case of the drinking of the ‘Gauḍī’ and ‘Mādhvī’ liquors; as another Smṛti text has declared that — ‘For drinking wine other than that got from grains, one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance.’

‘Once.’ — This applies both to ‘pieces of grain’ and ‘oilcake’; — ‘at night.’

‘Hair-cloth’ — cloth made of the hair of the cow or the goat.

‘With his hair matted’ — only at the top — or over the whole head.

‘With a sign’ — such as a keg of wine and so forth. — (92)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.254), which adds that this refers to a case where wine has been drunk by mistake and then vomitted; — again, as referring to a case where the, wine has been taken unitentionally but thrown out, after it has merely touched the palate.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 412), to the same effect, — i.e. as referring to a case where the wine has only touched the palate; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 9b); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 98), which says that this refers either to cases of unintentional but repeated drinking of the Gauḍī and Mādhvī wines, or to those of intentional drinking, only once, of those wines.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.90-93)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.90.

VERSE 11.93

Section VIII - Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)

सुरा वै मलमन्नानां पाप्मा च मलमुच्यते ।
तस्माद् ब्राह्मणराजन्यौ वैश्यश्च न सुरां पिबेत् ॥९३॥

surā vai malamannānāṃ pāpmā ca malamucyate |
tasmād brāhmaṇarājanyau vaiśyaśca na surāṃ pibet ||93||

Wine indeed is the dirty refuse of grains, and sin also is called ‘dirt’; for this reason the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya shall not drink wine. — (93)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the term ‘anna’ denotes literally ‘what is eaten,’ food, yet it is more commonly applied to the Vrīhi and other grains, as also to cooked rice, fried flour, cakes and so forth. It is on this basis that Pāṇini (2.1.34) has made a distinction between ‘anna’ and ‘vyañjana.’

Thus then, inasmuch as wine is obtained from grains, it becomes liable to be spoken of as ‘anna,’ ‘grain,’ and it comes to be spoken of as ‘the dirty refuse of grains.’ This description of wine is indicative of the fact that its use is forbidden. And this indication applies to all the three higher castes: — that the wine extracted from grains should not be drunk by the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya or the Vaiśya. Then again it is this wine extracted from grains to which the name is applicable more directly than to the other two varieties, the Gauḍī and the Mādhvī. Further, the expiation in the case of other distilled liquors is not so heavy as in the case of the Sīdhu (i.e., the Gauḍī) and the Mādhvī.

‘Sin also is called dirt,’ — this has been added with a view to indicate that wine is a most despicable thing.

Though the subject-matter of the present context is Expiation, yet the Syntactical Indication of the present verse clearly points to the prohibition of wine. And since it is a distinct sentence, it cannot be regarded as a mere declamation. — (93)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika p. 548); — in Aparārka (p. 1044), which adds the following notes: — ‘Being the refuse of grains’ is applicable only to that liquor which is distilled from ground grains, and not to those distilled from molasses and honey, as neither of these two latter is ‘grain,’ which name is applicable only to Vrīhi and other corns; thus then the drinking of liquor distilled from grains is forbidden for all twice-born men, and the other two kinds for the Brāhmaṇa only.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.253), firstly to the effect that ‘Surā’ is the name of that liquor which is distilled from grains; — secondly to the effect that this liquor is forbidden for all ‘the three higher castes, while that distilled from honey or molasses is forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa only; — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 89), which adds that ‘annānām’ stands not only for rice, but for barley, wheat and other grains also, — hence it is that the wine produced by the fermentation of grains is called ‘Surā — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 355), to the effect that the name ‘Surā’ d irectly denotes wine made from grains only.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.90-93)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.90.

VERSE 11.94

Section VIII - Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)

गौडी पैष्टी च माध्वी च विज्ञेया त्रिविधा सुरा ।
यथैवैका तथा सर्वा न पातव्या द्विजोत्तमैः ॥९४॥

gauḍī paiṣṭī ca mādhvī ca vijñeyā trividhā surā |
yathaivaikā tathā sarvā na pātavyā dvijottamaiḥ ||94||

Wine should be understood to be of three kinds: (a) distilled from molasses (Gauḍī ), (b) distilled from grains (Paiṣṭī), and (c) ‘distilled from grapes’ (Mādhvī); as the one so all the rest should never be drunk by the chief of the twice-born. — (94)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Gauḍī’ is that which is distilled from ‘Guḍa,’ molasses. Even according to those persons who make wine directly from fermented cane-juice itself, the article distilled is ‘Gauḍī’ ‘distilled from guḍa,’ in the sense that the name of the product, (guḍa, molasses) is applied to the cause (cane-juice).

The ‘Mādhvī’ is that ‘distilled from madhu, grape-juice i.e., in its fermented form’; for fresh grape-juice, before it has become fermented into wine, is not forbidden. This distinctly lays down that it is the fermented grape-juice that is called ‘Mādhvī.’ Wherever the prohibition contains the word ‘madya’ (‘intoxicating substance’), it cannot apply to any substance which has not acquired intoxicating properties; us such a substance could not be spoken of as ‘madya,’ intoxicating substance. A similar case is that of the word ‘Śukta’ (‘fermented gruel’) which is applied to the gruel in a certain condition, and not to gruel in general. So long as the gruel has not become soured, it is not called ‘Śukta.’ In the same manner again, the calf is not called a ‘bull’ while it is young.

Thus it is that the mixture of grain water and other things does not come to be called ‘wine,’ so long as it does not imbibe intoxicating properties, by being kept over night Similarly with cane-juice, grape-juice and other substances.

“From all this it would follow that the drinking of a small quantity of wine is permitted — that quantity of it which, if drunk, does not cause intoxication, or when this is prevented by the use of an antidote.”

There is no force in this objection. The prohibition is not meant to apply to the bringing about of intoxication; it does not mean, for instance, that ‘one should act so that he does not become intoxicated or drunk’; what the prohibition means is that ‘one should not drink that which possesses the capacity to cause intoxication’; and this capacity is present in a small quantity of wine also. The mere fact that while dry and low-spirited wine inebriates even when drunk in small quantities, that which is soft and high-spirited does not do so even when drunk in large quantities, — does not prove that there is no intoxicating power in the latter. Mere absence of effects does not necessarily prove the absence of the causa For instance, because a certain quantity of fire is unable to burn a large piece of wood, that does not prove that the fire does not possess the power to burn; specially when it is found that it is quite capable of burning dry grass.

It has been argued that — “it would seem that the drinking of wine is permitted if its intoxicating properties are counteracted by an antidote.”

But there is no force in this objection either. For even though the fire may not burn a heap of grass when it is wet, it does not mean that it does not possess the power to burn; all that it indicates is that though the power is there, it is unable to produce its effect But so long as the power is there, the chance of the effect being produced is always there.

Then again, no other substance could deprive the wine of its inherent power of intoxicating; all that it can do is to prevent the effects from appearing. Thus it is that a man of bilious temperament becomes intoxicated by the use of even a small quantity of wine, another man of phlegmatic temperament is not so easily intoxicated. From all this it is clear that the power is not destroyed in either case.

Thus then the prohibition cannot apply to the substance which is yet to acquire the intoxicating power. Nor can it be regarded as forbidden simply because there is prohibition of it as possessing certain definite characteristics. For instance, in the case of the assertion — ‘the thief should be avoided’ (it is not meant that every man, even before he has committed theft, shall be avoided). It is for this reason that no prohibition applies to the gruel before it has become sour.

“How do you explain the form ‘Mādhvī’? The correct form should be ‘Mādhavī.’”

The answer to this is that rules as applied to proper names are not compulsory (Paribhāṣā, 95); and the authority for this consists of Pāṇini’s Sūtra 3.4.146.

The use of the term ‘chief of the twice-born’ has been used with a view to permit wine-drinking for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya. For instance, the Mahābhārata describes wine as drunk by the Yadāvas and the Bhāratas: — ‘Both Keśava and Arjuna were found by me to be drunk with wine,’ — which is a declamatory assertion pointing to the same fact “Why is then the plural form in ‘so all?’”

Two of them are the substances likened and one is that to which those are likened.

The mention of wine being the ‘dirty refuse of grains’ is meant to be a declamatory assertion producing a reason for what has been prescribed; just as in the case of the text ‘Śūrpeṇa juhoti tena hi annam kriyate.’ — (94)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Madhvī.’ — distilled from honey’ (Medhātithi); — ‘distilled from Madhūka flowers’ (Kullūka); — ‘distilled either from grapes and from Madhūka flowers or from honey’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1044), which adds that the liquor distilled from grains is here made an example of prohibited drink; which means that this is the principal kind of liquor, and the other two are only secondary; it is for this reason that though all the three are equally forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa, the former alone is forbidden for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.253), to the effect that liquor distilled from grains is the principal kind of liquor; — and again, in the sense that the sin involved in the drinking of liquor distilled from honey and molasses is as heavy as that in drinking that distilled from grains.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 411), which notes that the name ‘Surā’ is applied primarily to liquor distilled from grains only, and only indirectly to those distilled from honey and molasses; — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 548); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 814), which notes that ‘dvijottama’ stands for Brāhmaṇas; hence the meaning is that all kinds of liquor are forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa from his very birth; — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 89) in support of the view that the name ‘Surā’ applies to wines of all the three kinds; — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 355) to the effect that the name ‘Surā’ applies directly to these three kinds of wine only, and only figuratively to other kinds.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.94-97)

Viṣṇu (22.82). — ‘Distilled from sugar, or from the blossoms of Madhūka, or from flour; these three kinds of wine have to be discerned; as the one so all; none of them should be tasted by the twice-born. Further, that distilled from the blossoms of the Madhūka, from molasses, from the Ṭaṅka fruit, from the Jujube fruit, from dates, from the bread-fruit, from honey, Maireya wine, and wine made of the sap of the cocoanut (coconut?) tree; these ten intoxicating drinks are unclean for the Brāhmaṇa; but the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya commit no wrong in touching or drinking them.’

Agastya (Aparārka, p. 1070). — ‘That distilled from the jack-fruit, from grapes, from Madhūka blossoms, from dates, from palm-fruit, from sugar-cane juice, from honey, the Maira, from the cocoanut, — these eleven kinds of wine are equal; the twelfth is the wine called Surā, which is the worst of all.’

VERSE 11.95

Section VIII - Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)

यक्षरक्षः।पिशाचान्नं मद्यं मांसं सुरासवम् ।
तद् ब्राह्मणेन नात्तव्यं देवानामश्नता हविः ॥९५॥

yakṣarakṣaḥ |piśācānnaṃ madyaṃ māṃsaṃ surāsavam |
tad brāhmaṇena nāttavyaṃ devānāmaśnatā haviḥ ||95||

Intoxicants, meat, wine and distilled liquors are the food of Yakṣas, Rākṣasas and Piśācas; it should not be taken by the Brāhmaṇa who partakes of the offerings to the gods. — (95)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Yakṣa’ and the rest are lower classes of beings, ignorant of the law relating to what should and what should not be eaten; and it is they that eat meat

The compound ‘Surāsavam,’ is a copulative one, i.e., in accordance with Pāṇini 2.4.6.

‘Distilled liquor’ also is a kind of ‘intoxicant,’ there being a slight difference between the two. The two are mentioned on the analogy of such expressions as ‘the ox and the bull’

‘Who partake of the offering to the gods’ — The cake, rice and such substance offered to the gods are called ‘offerings’; as mentioned in connection with the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices. It is these that it is right and proper for the Brāhmaṇa to eat, and not wine and meat, which are the food of the lower spirits. — (95)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.253), as implying that it is for the Brāhmaṇa alone that all the three kinds of liquor are equally forbidden; — in Aparārka (p. 1069), to the effect that (a) the Surā is to be avoided by all the twice-born, even before initiation, (b) the Mādhvī and the Gauḍī are to be avoided by the Brāhmaṇa at all times, but by the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya only during the period of studentship.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 225); — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika 548); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 814), to the effect that the Mādhvī and the Gauḍī are forbidden only for the Brāhmaṇa, not for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya; but they are forbidden for all the three higher castes during the period of studentship; — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 355).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.94-97)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.94.

VERSE 11.96

Section VIII - Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)

अमेध्ये वा पतेन् मत्तो वैदिकं वाऽप्युदाहरेत् ।
अकार्यमन्यत् कुर्याद् वा ब्राह्मणो मदमोहितः ॥९६॥

amedhye vā paten matto vaidikaṃ vā'pyudāharet |
akāryamanyat kuryād vā brāhmaṇo madamohitaḥ ||96||

A Brāhmaṇa, stupefied by drunkenness, might tumble down upon unclean things; or he might wrongly recite the Veda; or he might do some other improper act. — (96)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Tumbling on unclean things’ is purely declamatory, like the mention of ‘the eating of the food of the gods.’

“How can the reciting of Vedic texts ever be an improper act?”

The answer to this is that what is meant is that ‘he might do an act which is improper,’ as compared to the reciting of the Veda. Further, why is it impossible for the reciting of Veda to be ‘improper?’ In fact the uttering of Vedic texts has been clearly forbidden for one who is in an unclean condition. — (96)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 548).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.94-97)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.94.

VERSE 11.97

Section VIII - Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)

यस्य कायगतं ब्रह्म मद्येनाप्लाव्यते सकृत् ।
तस्य व्यपैति ब्राह्मण्यं शूद्रत्वं च स गच्छति ॥९७॥

yasya kāyagataṃ brahma madyenāplāvyate sakṛt |
tasya vyapaiti brāhmaṇyaṃ śūdratvaṃ ca sa gacchati ||97||

When the ‘Brahman’ resident in his body has been once deluged by wine, the ‘Brāhmaṇahood’ disappears and the man becomes a Śūdra. — (97)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When the Veda has been duly studied, it remains in the man’s heart, in the form of memory; and it is the Veda thus committed to memory that is called here ‘Brahman.’ The meaning thus is that when the heart has become ‘deluged with wine,’ the man becomes a Śūdra.

‘Brāhmaṇahood’ has been mentioned with a view to indicate that all kinds of wine are forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa, — the wine distilled from grains alone being forbidden for the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya. — (97)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika p. 548).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.94-97)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.94.

VERSE 11.98

Section VIII - Expiation of drinking Wine (surā)

एषा विचित्राभिहिता सुरापानस्य निष्कृतिः ।
अत ऊर्ध्वं प्रवक्ष्यामि सुवर्णस्तेयनिष्कृतिम् ॥९८॥

eṣā vicitrābhihitā surāpānasya niṣkṛtiḥ |
ata ūrdhvaṃ pravakṣyāmi suvarṇasteyaniṣkṛtim ||98||

Thus have been described the various expiations for wine-drinking; after this I am going to expound the expiation for the theft of gold. — (98)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The purpose of the two halves of the verse is as is clearly stated here. — (98)

Last Updated: 16 February, 2018

VERSE 11.99 [Expiation for stealing Gold (suvarṇa)]

Section IX - Expiation for stealing Gold (suvarṇa)

सुवर्णस्तेयकृद् विप्रो राजानमभिगम्य तु ।
स्वकर्म ख्यापयन् ब्रूयात्मां भवाननुशास्त्विति ॥९९॥

suvarṇasteyakṛd vipro rājānamabhigamya tu |
svakarma khyāpayan brūyātmāṃ bhavānanuśāstviti ||99||

A Brāhmaṇa who has committed the theft of gold shall go to the King, and confessing his crime, shall say ‘sire, punish me.’ — (99)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is the expiation for stealing gold belonging to a Brāhmaṇa.

The term ‘brāhmaṇa’ is meant to include all castes; as is dear from the fact that no other expiation has been prescribed for the Kṣatriya and other castes.

‘Punish me.’ — ‘Inflict the proper punishment on me.’ The man shall go to the King and tell him this.

The word ‘King’ here stands for the Sovereign of the country, — but one who is of the Kṣatriya caste. — (99)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 414); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 117).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.99-102)

[See above 8.314-316.]

Āpastamba (1.25.10). — ‘Those who have stolen gold, drunk wine or violated the Guru’s bed, but not those who have slain a Brāhmaṇa, shall eat every fourth meal-time a little food, bathe at the time of the three libations, passing the day standing and the night sitting. After the lapse of three years, they throw off their guilt.’

Viṣṇu (52.1-3). — ‘He who has stolen gold must bring a club to the King, proclaiming his deed; whether the King kills him with it, or dismisses him unhurt, he becomes purified. Or in the case he did it unawares, he shall perform the Mahāvrata for twelve years.’

Yājñavalkya (3.257-258). — ‘One who steals Brāhmaṇa’s gold should hand over a club to the King, proclaiming his deed; whether killed, or let off, by the King, he becomes pure, if he does not report it to the King, he shall he purified by performing the penance laid down for the drinker of wine; — or he must give away to the Brāhmaṇa his own weight in gold.’

VERSE 11.100

Section IX - Expiation for stealing Gold (suvarṇa)

गृहीत्वा मुसलं राजा सकृद्द् हन्यात् तु तं स्वयम् ।
वधेन शुध्यति स्तेनो ब्राह्मणस्तपसैव तु ॥१००॥

gṛhītvā musalaṃ rājā sakṛdd hanyāt tu taṃ svayam |
vadhena śudhyati steno brāhmaṇastapasaiva tu ||100||

Taking up a club, the King himself shall strike him once. The thief becomes purified by death; but the Brāhmaṇa by penance alone. — (100)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Club’ — a particular kind of stick, made of iron or wood.

‘Once,’ ‘himself’ — both of these are meant to be emphasised.

‘Becomes purified by death.’ — The man shall be struck only; it does not matter whether or not he dies by it; he becomes purified by the stroke of the club.

‘The Brāhmaṇa by penance’ — as described below. Here also stress is not meant to be laid upon the term ‘Brāhmaṇa.’ It is for this reason that the next verse contains the term ‘twice-born person’ (in general).

Though the stealing of Kṛṣṇala (grains of gold, used at certain sacrifices) is a serious crime, yet, what is here laid down should be understood as pertaining to the stealing of a hundred gold-pieces. It has been explained that punishment and expiation proceed on the same lines; and, in connection with punishments, it has been said that ‘death shall be the penalty when more than a hundred gold-pieces have been stolen’ (8.321); hence the expiation here put forward should also be taken as pertaining to the stealing of the same quantity.

As regards the assertion that the thief becomes pure by death, it is understood to be based upon the passage — ‘For him the King shall take up a weapon made of Udumbara wood, and kill him with it, and he becomes pure by that death.’ And this refers to a case where the stealer is a Kṣatriya or one lower still, and the owner is a highly qualified person.

When, however, the man is prepared to die, he may be made to refund what he has stolen and smeared with butter, live upon cow-dung (?). — (100)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Tapasaiva tu.’ — “Kullūka thinks that it indicates that, while a Brāhmaṇa must never be slain by the king, other Āryans also may perform austerities. — According to Rāghavānanda it refers to the optional recitation of the Gāyatri 700,000 times; — according to Nārāyaṇa to other penances, even such as end in death; — Govindarāja takes it as referring to those prescribed in the next verse.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 414), which adds the following notes: — The alternative of ‘killing’ is meant for one who is a Brāhmaṇa in name only while ‘austerity’ is for one who is endowed with such qualities as being devoted to sacrifices and so forth. It goes on to add that the death-penalty is meant for cases of intentional stealing; unintentional stealing of gold being possible in cases where a man steals a piece of cloth, to which (unknown to him) a piece of gold may be tied. It adds that the particular ‘austerity’ is, meant as described by Manu himself in the next verse.

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США