with the Commentary of Medhatithi 316 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 322 из 350Следующая ⇒

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1079), which adds that the term ‘vipraḥ’ does not preclude the other castes; it is emphasised only with a view to indicate that what is here stated is an exception to the general prohibition ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not he killed this general prohibition is of that act of killing to which one is prompted by mere passion; in the case in question the killing is done as an act of justice, and at the request of the culprit himself. In fact the omission of this act of justice would involve the king in sin.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.267), which adds the following note — On being struck once, if the culprit dies, he becomes absolved from his sin; but even if he do not die when struck, he becomes absolved from the sin; — and again, to the effect that, the killing of the Brāhmaṇa under the said circumstances is permissible; — and in Prayaścittaviveka (p. 117).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.99-102)

[See above 8.314-316.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.99.

VERSE 11.101

Section IX - Expiation for stealing Gold (suvarṇa)

तपसापनुनुत्सुस्तु सुवर्णस्तेयजं मलम् ।
चीरवासा द्विजोऽरण्ये चरेद् ब्रह्महनो व्रतम् ॥१०१॥

tapasāpanunutsustu suvarṇasteyajaṃ malam |
cīravāsā dvijo'raṇye cared brahmahano vratam ||101||

If a twice-born person is desirous of removing the guilt of stealing gold by means of penance, he should perform the penance prescribed for the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa, — living in a forest, clothed in rags. — (101)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This only refers to the ‘Twelve-year Penance,’ and not to any other of the several expiations prescribed for the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa; — the construction being — ‘He shall perform that penance which has been prescribed for the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa.’

‘Who desires to remove’ — anxious to wipe off; desirous of purification. — (101)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to Nārāyaṇa this verse refers to an unintentional offence; according to Kullūka and Rāghvānanda, to the theft of a small sum.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 415), as describing the ‘austerity’ mentioned in the preceding verse; — and in Aparārka (p. 1080), which remarks that this refers to a case where the gold stolen belonged to a Brāhmaṇa devoid of good qualities, or where the theft has been committed by a Brāhmaṇa possessing good qualities in times of distress for the support of his family; — and that in a case where one without qualities has stolen gold belonging; to a Brāhmaṇa with good qualities, in large quantities, or for such evil purposes as gambling and the like, the expiation must be one that ends in the culprit’s death.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.99-102)

[See above 8.314-316.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.99.

VERSE 11.102

Section IX - Expiation for stealing Gold (suvarṇa)

एतैर्व्रतैरपोहेत पापं स्तेयकृतं द्विजः ।
गुरुस्त्रीगमनीयं तु व्रतैरेभिरपानुदेत् ॥१०२॥

etairvratairapoheta pāpaṃ steyakṛtaṃ dvijaḥ |
gurustrīgamanīyaṃ tu vratairebhirapānudet ||102||

The twice-born man shall remove the guilt caused by theft by means of these penances. That caused by intercourse with the Preceptor’s wife he shall wipe off by means of these following penances. — (102)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“Inasmuch as only two modes of purification have been mentioned above — ‘the thief becomes purified by death, and also by penance,’ — the plural number in ‘these penances,’ does not appear to be right”

This same use of the plural number is indicative of the fact that there are other expiations also, which have not been mentioned, — to be determined by the considerations of the circumstances attending each case.

‘Gurustrīgamanīyam’ means that of which intercourse with the Preceptors’s wife is the incentive; — the cause is often regarded as the prayojana, the incentive, which prompts or brings about the effect — (102)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.99-102)

[See above 8.314-316.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.99.

VERSE 11.103 [Expiation for the violating of the Preceptor’s Bed (gurutalpa)]

Section X - Expiation for the violating of the Preceptor’s Bed (gurutalpa)

गुरुतल्प्यभिभाष्यैनस्तप्ते स्वप्यादयोमये ।
सूर्मीं ज्वलन्तीं स्वाश्लिष्येन् मृत्युना स विशुध्यति ॥१०३॥

gurutalpyabhibhāṣyainastapte svapyādayomaye |
sūrmīṃ jvalantīṃ svāśliṣyen mṛtyunā sa viśudhyati ||103||

He who has violated his Preceptor’s bed shall confess his crime and lie down upon a heated iron-bed; or embrace a blazing image. By death he becomes purified. — (103)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He who has violated his preceptor’s bed’ — Another reading his ‘Gurutalpī’; — the term ‘talpī’ ending in the possessive affix, stands for a particular form of intercourse between man and woman.

By ‘preceptor,’ here is meant the Preceptor as well as the Father. And ‘bed’ stands for the wife.

The expiation here laid down is for intercourse with the wife of one’s preceptor, or with a step-mother of the same caste; and the three expiations here set forth refer to a case where the act has been intentional.

‘Confess his guilt’ — proclaim his crime.

He shall lie down upon a bed of iron as hot as fire; that this is what is meant is dear by the next sentence — ‘He becomes purified by death.’

‘Sūrmi’ is image of a woman, made of iron. This he shall embrace. — (103)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 1083), which adds the following notes: — The culprit should openly proclaim his offence of having violated his Guru’s bed; — ‘sūrmī’ is a female image made of iron or some such metal.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 255); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 836 and 837), which notes that there are two expiations prescribed here: — (a) lying down upon a heated iron-bed, and (b) embracing the red hot image; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 11 a); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 137), which explains ‘gurutalpaḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘gurutalpī’) as ‘guroḥ talpam talpam yasya,’ ‘sūrmī’ as an iron image.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.103-107)

Gautama (23.8-11). — ‘He who has defiled his Guru’s bed shall lay himself down on a heated iron-bed; or he shall embrace the red-hot iron-image of a woman; or he shall tear out his organ and testicles and, holding them in his hands, walk straight towards the south-west, until he falls down dead. He will be purified after death.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.13-15). — ‘He who has defiled his Guru’s bed shall lay himself down on a heated iron bed; — or embrace the red-hot image of a woman; — or cutting off his organ together with the testicles, and holding them in his joined hands, he shall walk towards the south-west until he falls down dead.’

Āpastamba (1.25.1-2). — ‘He who has had connection with his Guru’s wife shall cut off his organ together with the testicles, take them in his joined hands and walk towards the south until he falls down dead. Or he may die embracing a heated metal-image of a woman.’

Vaśiṣṭha (22.13-14). — ‘He who violates his Guru’s bed shall, cut off his organ together with the testicles, take them in his joined hands and walk towards the south; whenever he meets with an obstacle, there he shall stand until he dies; — or having shaved all his hair and smeared his body with clarified butter, he shall embrace the heated iron-image of a woman. It is declared in the Veda that he is purified after death.’

Viṣṇu (34.1, 2; — 53.1). — ‘Sexual connection with one’s mother or daughter or daughter-in-law is crime of the highest degree. Such criminals of the highest degree should enter the flames; there is no other way to atone for the crime. One who has had illicit sexual intercourse must perform the Prājāpatya penance for one year according to the rule of the Mahāvrata.’ (P. 839)

Mahābhārata (12.165.50-51). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.259-260). — ‘The violator of his Guru’s bed should he down on a heated iron-bed along with the iron-image of a woman; or cutting out his testicles and holding them he shall give up his body towards the south; or he shall perform the Prājāpatya penance for one year, or the Cāndrāyaṇa for three months, and shall repeat the Vedic text.’

VERSE 11.104

Section X - Expiation for the violating of the Preceptor’s Bed (gurutalpa)

स्वयं वा शिष्णवृषणावुत्कृत्याधाय चाञ्जलौ ।
नैरृतीं दिशमातिष्ठेदा निपातादजिह्मगः ॥१०४॥

svayaṃ vā śiṣṇavṛṣaṇāvutkṛtyādhāya cāñjalau |
nairṛtīṃ diśamātiṣṭhedā nipātādajihmagaḥ ||104||

Or, having cut off his penis and testicles, he shall take them in his joined hands and walk straight on towards the ‘region of evil spirits,’ until he falls down. — (104)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘cutting off’ here mentioned is conducive to purification. The use of a cutting instrument is implied by the fact that every act needs the requisite implements; so that the weapon implied must be one that is fit to be used for the required cutting.

The South-west is the ‘region of evil spirits.’

‘Straight on,’ — not deviating from the straight line; so that he may not seek to avoid wells or pits and such things; but in the case of walls and such obstacles, he should certainly go round them. — (104)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.259), which offers the following explanation: — He should himself cut off his testicles and the organ, take them in his hands and go away straight onwards towards the South-West, till his body falls off; it adds that the man should go towards the South-West backwards and with eyes bandaged.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 836), which also adds that the man should go backwards and with eyes closed; — in Aparārka (p. 1083); — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 253); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta, p. 11a); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 137), which says that the ‘cutting’ should be done with a razor as distinctly prescribed by Śaṅkha-Likhita.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.103-107)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.103.

VERSE 11.105

Section X - Expiation for the violating of the Preceptor’s Bed (gurutalpa)

खट्वाङ्गी चीरवासा वा श्मश्रुलो विजने वने ।
प्राजापत्यं चरेत् कृच्छ्रमब्दमेकं समाहितः ॥१०५॥

khaṭvāṅgī cīravāsā vā śmaśrulo vijane vane |
prājāpatyaṃ caret kṛcchramabdamekaṃ samāhitaḥ ||105||

Or, carrying a bedstead, clothed in rags, with beard grown, he shall perform, in the solitary forest, the ‘Prājāpatya’ penance, for one year, with concentrated mind. — (105)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This expiation refers to a case where the crime has been committed unintentionally, under the misapprehension that the woman was the man’s own wife; — or when the crime is intentional, and the woman belongs to a different caste.

‘Rags,’ ‘cīra,’ — pieces of doth.

‘With beard grown’ — letting his beard grow.

Even in a case where the woman is of the same caste, if she is an unchaste woman, the expiation shall be a light one. — (105)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 840); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 140), which says that this refers to unintentional intercourse with the guru-patnī who is unchaste.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.103-107)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.103.

VERSE 11.106

Section X - Expiation for the violating of the Preceptor’s Bed (gurutalpa)

चान्द्रायणं वा त्रीन् मासानभ्यस्येन्नियतैन्द्रियः ।
हविष्येण यवाग्वा वा गुरुतल्पापनुत्तये ॥१०६॥

cāndrāyaṇaṃ vā trīn māsānabhyasyenniyataindriyaḥ |
haviṣyeṇa yavāgvā vā gurutalpāpanuttaye ||106||

Or, with his senses controlled, he shall perform the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ for three months, subsisting on ‘sacrificial food’ or on barley-gruel, — for the expiating of the sin of violating the Preceptor’s bed. — (106)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This expiation refers to those cases where the woman happens to be the wife of the maternal uncle or such other persons as are generally treated as ‘guru,’ ‘preceptor.’

‘Sacrificial food’ — milk, roots, butter and so forth.

‘Barley-gruel’ — a particular kind of drink. — (106)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.103-107)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.103.

VERSE 11.107

Section X - Expiation for the violating of the Preceptor’s Bed (gurutalpa)

एतैर्व्रतैरपोहेयुर्महापातकिनो मलम् ।
उपपातकिनस्त्वेवमेभिर्नानाविधैर्व्रतैः ॥१०७॥

etairvratairapoheyurmahāpātakino malam |
upapātakinastvevamebhirnānāvidhairvrataiḥ ||107||

By means of these penances, the committers of heinous crimes may wipe off their sins. The committers of minor offences may do the same by their following the several forms of penances. — (107)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This summarises what has been said before and what is going to be said next — (107)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.103-107)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.103.

VERSE 11.108 [Expiation of “Minor Offences”: Cow-killing (goghna)]

Section XI - Expiation of “Minor Offences”: Cow-killing (goghna)

उपपातकसंयुक्तो गोघ्नो मासं यवान् पिबेत् ।
कृतवापो वसेद् गोष्ठे चर्मणा तेन संवृतः ॥१०८॥

upapātakasaṃyukto goghno māsaṃ yavān pibet |
kṛtavāpo vased goṣṭhe carmaṇā tena saṃvṛtaḥ ||108||

The cow-killer, charged with a minor offence, shall drink barley for three months; and having shaved his head and covered with the skin of the cow, he shall live in the cow-pen. — (108)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Cow-killer’ — one who has killed a cow; the word being formed with the ‘Ka’ affix.

‘Shall drink barley.’ — Some people explain this to mean a drink mixed with barley. Others, however, hold that the name of the original substance (barley) has been used in the sense of its product; hence what is meant is that the man shall drink barley-gruel.

In the ease of the former explanation, it is necessary to assume the addition of water or some liquid substance, without its being mentioned in the text; as mere barley-grains cannot be drunk, until they are mixed up with a liquid substance.

In the second explanation, however, all that is necessary is to take the word ‘barley’ in a figurative sense; and certainly, a figurative or indirect signification is much simpler than the assumption of what is not mentioned at all.

‘Having shaved his head’ — with his hair shaved off; or it may simply mean with his hairs cut.

‘Cow-pen’ — the place where cows sit and rest.

‘Covered with the skin of the cow’ — not necessarily of the cow that has been killed; it may be of another cow also. — (108)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 11.108-116)

These verses are quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 191), which adds that this refers to the ease of intentionally killing a cow belonging to a Brāhmaṇa; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 860), which notes that what is laid down in verses 108 to 113 refers to cases of intentional killing of a cow belonging to the Kṣatriya, and what is declared in verses 115 and 116 to cases of killing any cow belonging to a Brāhmaṇa. It goes on to add the following notes: — Since the text mentions no other food, the man should live upon fruits and roots only; or the meaning may be that ‘anena vidhinā’ (of verse 115) refers to the two months’ course detailed in the foregoing verses; and the sense is that the man who is unable to give ten cows with a bull should give away all his belongings. When however one unintentionally kills a cow, young and well-fed, belonging to a Brāhmaṇa, he should observe the three-monthly penance prescribed by Aṅgiras.

They are quoted also in Smṛtitattva (p. 519); — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 358); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 196-197), which says that this refers to the ordinary killing of the cow, and not to its killing for sacrifices; — and adds the following explanation: — He should shave his head, cover himself with the skin of the cow he has killed, and drink gruel of barley cooked in cow’s urine’, and thus live in the cow-pen, for one month, and during the next two months he should fast during the day and eat a little in the evening, — ‘vīrāsana’ is sitting without any support, — ‘abhiśasta’ attacked, — ‘bhayaih’ by dangerous animals, — ‘sarvaprāṇaiḥ’ (which is its reading for sarvapāpaiḥ’), to the best of his power — ‘gām na kathayet’, with a view to have her driven away, — ‘sucaritavrataḥ’, he who has followed these restrictions in the right manner, — he should give ten cows along with one bull.

VERSE 115 only is quoted in the Śuddhikaumdī (p.241).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.108-116)

Gautama (22.18). — ‘The penance for killing a cow is the same as that for killing a Vaiśya (vow of continence to be kept for three years and giving one cow and one bull).’

Āpastamba (1.26, 1). — ‘If a milch cow or a full-grown ox has been killed without reason, the expiation shall be the same as that for killing a Śūdra (give ten cows with a bull).’

Vaśiṣṭha (21.18). — ‘If he kills a cow, he shall perform, during six months, a Kṛcchra or a Taptakṛcchra, clothed in the raw hide of that cow.’

Viṣṇu (50, 16-24). — ‘The man shall serve cows for a month, his hair and beard having been shaven; — he shall sit down to rest when they rest; and stand still when they stand still; — he shall give assistance to a cow that has met with an accident; — and shall preserve cows from dangers; — he shall not shelter himself against cold and similar dangers, without having previously protected the cows against them; — he shall wash himself with cow’s urine; and subsist upon the five bovine products; — this is the Go-vrata, cow-penance, which must be performed by one who has killed a cow.’

Yājñavalkya (3.264-265). — ‘The man who has killed a cow shall drink the five bovine products for a month, sleeping in the cowpen, serving the cows; and then by giving a cow, he becomes pure; or he shall calmly perform the penance of Prājāpatya Atikṛcchra; — or having fasted for three days, he shall give away ten cows with a hull as the eleventh.’

Parāśara (8.31-42). — ‘Having shaved the whole head, he shall bathe three times during the day, and live among cows during the night, and go behind them during the day; when it is hot, or raining, or very cold or when the wind is blowing strongly, he shall not protect himself until he has protected the cows to the best of his ability. If he finds a cow grazing in a field or in a threshing yarn — either his own or belonging to some one else, — he shall not tell of it to any one; nor shall he tell any one when he finds a calf sucking milk. He shall drink water when the cows drink it, he down when they he down, and with all his strength shall save a cow when she has either fallen down or stuck in mud. One shall prescribe as penance for cow-killing a suitable Prājāpatya and Kṛcchra: (Forms of these penances) — For one day he shall eat once; for one day he shall eat only in the evening; for one day he shall eat only what he gets without asking for it; and for one day he shall live on air; for two days he shall eat only once; for two days he shall eat what he gets without asking for it, for two days he shall eat only at night; for two days he shall live on air. Each of these being done for three days; and for four days. The prescribed penance having been performed, he shall feed Brāhmaṇas, present them with fees and recite the sacred texts. After feeding the Brāhmaṇas, the cow-killer becomes purified without doubt.’

VERSE 11.109

Section XI - Expiation of “Minor Offences”: Cow-killing (goghna)

चतुर्थकालमश्नीयादक्षारलवणं मितम् ।
गोमूत्रेणाचरेत् स्नानं द्वौ मासौ नियतेन्द्रियः ॥१०९॥

caturthakālamaśnīyādakṣāralavaṇaṃ mitam |
gomūtreṇācaret snānaṃ dvau māsau niyatendriyaḥ ||109||

For two months, with senses controlled, he shall eat a limited quantity of food, without any pungent salt, at the fourth meal-time; and shall bathe in cow’s urine. — (109)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘For two months’ — he shall take his food once and then again only in the evening of the next day.

If we take the term ‘Kṣāra’ — ‘pungent’ — as a qualification of ‘lavaṇa,’ ‘salt,’ we secure the prohibition of the rock-salt also. If the two terms were independent, the compound would be a copulative one, and this would mean the prohibition of ‘pungent substances’ also; and in that case it would be necessary to take the singular number as indirectly indicating the dual; as we have the copulative compound only, both the components are equally important at one and the same time. When however, the compound is taken as a ‘qualitative’ one (‘pungent’ being a qualification of the ‘salt’), we obtain a qualified denotation.

‘Limited’ — small; i.e., that which, without producing full satisfaction, is enough to keep the body going.

‘Bathing in cow’s urine’ is to be done three times a day.

‘At the fourth meal-time’ is to be construed with ‘for two months.’

In another Smṛti we read — ‘Having shaved his head, covered with the skin, he shall live in the cow-pen; end bathing in cow’s urine for two months has been prescribed for him; it is only the washing of the feet that he should do with water.’ In this it is not possible to connect the bathing in cow’s urine with the phrase ‘for two months.’ The mention of the feet is only for the purpose of filling up the metre; for, if any impurity happens to attach to the man’s feet during the time that he is bathing, it would naturally be washed with water only; as is clearly laid down by the rules of purification. Hence at the time of bathing, the rinsing of the mouth also should he done with water; at other times purification may be secured by the use of clay and other cleansing substances; and this would have to be done in the natural order — water being used after clay has been applied. And since cow’s urine has been prescribed for bathing only, what possibility would there be of its being used for the rinsing of the mouth or any such purpose? In connection with bathing, it is only as an expiation that the use of cow’s urine has been prescribed. — (109)

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии