with the Commentary of Medhatithi 319 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 325 из 350Следующая ⇒

mārjāranakulau hatvā cāṣaṃ maṇḍūkameva ca |
śvagodhaulūkakākāṃśca śūdrahatyāvrataṃ caret ||131||

Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl and a crow, — he shall perform the penance of the ‘Śūdra-killer.’ — (131)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Inasmuch as the expiation prescribed is a heavy one, it should be understood as applying to a case where all these animals have been killed.

“It has been asserted in connection with offences leading to loss of caste, etc., that a combination is not meant. How too is it ever possible for all these animals to come up before any one man and be killed? If only some of these were present, the required conditions would not be there; in fact it would become a wholly different case. Hence the person meant should be one who has killed one of these animals repeatedly. But there is nothing in the text, to show that this is what is meant Nor can the expiation be taken as referring to the killing of each single animal, as there is in the case of such assertion as ‘one should drink milk, etc., etc.’” (132)

Thus then, the sentence cannot be taken either as referring to each of the animals severally, or as referring to all of them together; nor is there any third way possible.

It has been said that a combination cannot be meant. If a combination is not meant, then the only way in which the text could be taken would be to take it as referring to each individual singly; just as there is in the case of the assertion ‘he whose father or grandfather has not drunk the Soma, etc., etc.’ But in a case (like the present) where it is found that the whole sentence becomes meaningless if it is not taken as referring to a combination of all the individuals, it is only right that, with a view to avoid such a contingency, the sentence should be taken as referring to such combination; for instance, in the case of the text — ‘In the case of killing a thousand animals etc.’ (140), — if a combination were not meant, the mention of the specific number ‘thousand’ would be meaningless. It is only when, if the sense adopted happens to be very much contrary to what has been laid down in other scriptural texts, that such a sense can be rejected.

“But even in a case where a certain idea is expressed directly by the words of the text, no significance is ever meant to be attached to the qualifications involved in its indirect implication; for instance, in the ease of the assertion — ‘he whose both sacrificial materials become spoilt, etc.’ — significance is not meant to be attached to the exact denotation of the term ‘both.’ In this sentence there are two terms ‘both’ and ‘sacrificial material’; and if significance is attached to both these terms, there results syntactical split, as we shall explain later on. When however it is doubtful whether in a given case significance attaches to the ‘material’ or the ‘both’ — the two have to be taken separately, in order to avoid the syntactical split; or what is predicated in the sentence has to be taken as having no connection with one of the two terms. Now what is in closest proximity to the predicate ‘becomes spoilt’ is the term ‘material,’ — as is clear from the fact that its number is more in keeping with that of this term; so that the other term becomes reiterative of the qualification of the ‘material.’ If on the other hand, no significance attaches to the term ‘material,’ then, the rest of the sentence can be taken only as declamatory. In the case in question, if a combination wore meant to be expressed, or if stress were to be laid upon the term ‘thousand’ (in 140), the whole sentence would become meaningless. So that all that the passage would mean is that — ‘one should perform the penance of the Śūdra-killer......(?),’ and that ‘the act of killing these is similar to the killing of a Śūdra,’ and all that this would secure would he that; these few animals would not he killed (?)”

On the principle here enunciated, we might regard other qualifications also as not meant to be emphasised; for instance under Verse 142. And all this would lead to a deal of incongruity. Then again the passage we are dealing with is the work of a human author, and it does not belong to the Veda. In the case of a Vedic passage, whose usage would it represent? And whom could we charge with having made use of a meaningless assertion? In the case of a passage like the present one, on the other hand, which is the conscious work of a human author, if there is an incongruity in regard to even a single syllable, the writer becomes at once open to the charge of having made use of a meaningless expression.

For all these reasons the only right course is to regard combination and its qualification as both equally meant to be significant.

As regards the argument that there can be no possibility of so many animals being killed at one and the same time, — it is quite possible for those who go on hunting excursions and who follow the profession of setting fire to forests.

Lastly as regards the argument, that if even a single one of these several animals is not killed, there would be no occasion for the prescribed expiation, — this also is not right. For just as in the case of the killing of more animals than those enumerated, so also in that of killing fewer than those, a proper adjustment of the requisite expiation can always be made. — (131)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1130), which adds that this refers to intentional repetitions, of the act; — and in Mitākṣarā (3.270) as laying down the ‘Six-monthy Penance’ for the killing of all the animals mentioned, collectively.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.131-132)

Gautama (22-19). — ‘For injuring a frog, an ichneumon, a crow, a chameleon, a musk-rat, a mouse or a dog (the penance is the same as that for the murder of a Vaiśya).’

Baudhāyana (1.19.6). — ‘For killing a flamingo, a Bhāsa bird, a peacock, a Brāhmaṇī duck, a Pracetaka, a crow, an owl, a frog, a musk-rat, a dog, a Babhru, a common ichneumon, and so forth, the offender shall pay the same fine as for the killing of a Śūdra.’

Āpastamba (1.25.13). — ‘If a crow, a chameleon, a pea-cock, a Brāhmaṇī duck, a swan, the vulture called Bhāsa, a frog, an ichneumon, a musk-rat, or a dog has been killed, then the offender should perform the same penance as that for killing a Śūdra.’

Vaṣhiṣṭha (21.24). — ‘Having slain a dog, a cat, an ichneumon, a snake, a frog, or a rat, — one shall perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days’ duration, and also give something to a Brāhmaṇa.’

Viṣṇu (50.30-32). — ‘If he has intentionally killed a dog, he should fast for three days. If he has unintentionally killed a mouse, or a cat, or an ichneumon, or a frog, or a Duṇḍubha snake, or a large serpent — he must fast for one day, and on the next day give a dish of milk, sesamum and rice mixed together to a Brāhmaṇa and give him an iron hoe as his fee: If he has unintentionally killed an iguana, or an owl, or a crow, or a fish, he must fast for three days.’

Yājñavalkya (3.271). — ‘For killing a cat, an alligator, an ichneumon, a frog or birds, one should drink milk for three days, or perform a quarter of the Kṛcchra penance.’

VERSE 11.132

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

पयः पिबेत् त्रिरात्रं वा योजनं वाऽध्वनो व्रजेत् ।
उपस्पृशेत् स्रवन्त्यां वा सूक्तं वाऽब्।दैवतं जपेत् ॥१३२॥

payaḥ pibet trirātraṃ vā yojanaṃ vā'dhvano vrajet |
upaspṛśet sravantyāṃ vā sūktaṃ vā'b |daivataṃ japet ||132||

Or, he may drink milk only for three days, or walk over eight hundred miles of road, or bathe in a stream, or recite the hymn addressed to the Waters. — (132)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Other expiations are now laid down for the killing of any one of the animals mentioned.

The term ‘payaḥ’ stands here for milk, and not water, though it denotes both; just as it does in the passage ‘payasā juhoti’ (‘offers milk’). As an analogous case we have the term ‘varāha,’ which, though signifying both clouds and the boar, is more often used in the sense of the latter; though this term ‘varāha’ signifies mountain also, yet whenever it is used in this sense, it stands in need of some co-ordinating term-such as ‘Himavān-varāhaḥ,’ (‘Himālaya Mountain’), ‘varāhaḥ pāriyātraḥ,’ (‘Pāriyātru Mountain’), and so forth.

In the case in question, it being dear that what the text mentions is an article of food, by which the body could be maintained, — if we find the term ‘payas,’ milk, it means that all other articles of food are to be eschewed. This also is the right view to take in view of the fact that what is meant, to be prescribed is a penance, ‘tapas,’ — a tapas being that which causes pain (tāpayati). This name ‘tapas’ is given to such acts as the eating of clarified butter after Prānāyāma; this, however, does not exclude the eating of other things, nor the rinsing of the mouth, which would make the eating of clarified butter along with something else impossible.

Nor can water be taken as an optional alternative for milk (both being denoted by the term ‘payas’); what does form such an alternative is that ‘he shall bathe in a stream,’ so that ‘drinking of milk,’ ‘walking over 800 miles’ and ‘bathing in a stream’ are the possible alternatives. The stress laid upon the terra ‘stream’ excludes the bathing in tanks and pools.

‘Sacred to the Waters’ — i.e., the ‘Pavamāna’ hymn beginning with the verse ‘Āpohiṣṭhā mayobhuvaḥ, etc., etc.’

Another Smṛti text lays down also the eating of mixed food, and the giving of an iron-rod as a gift,.

‘Walk’ — not by way of travelling to a certain place; but walking on foot (by way of penance). — (132)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, these penances are to be performed if the animal has been killed unintentionally. — According to Medhātithi they have to expiate the slaughter of a single animal. — The choice among the four penances depends, according to Kullūka and Rāghavānanda, on the strength of the offender, according to Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa, on his caste and other circumstances.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.270), as laying down the penances for the killing of each of the animals severally; — in Aparārka (p. 1131) as referring to the killing of a cat; — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 949), which explains ‘upasparśa’ as bathing, and adds that this refers to unintentional killing; intentional killing involves double the expiation here prescribed.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.131-132)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.131.

VERSE 11.133

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

अभ्रिं कार्ष्णायसीं दद्यात् सर्पं हत्वा द्विजोत्तमः ।
पलालभारकं षण्ढे सैसकं चैकमाषकम् ॥१३३॥

abhriṃ kārṣṇāyasīṃ dadyāt sarpaṃ hatvā dvijottamaḥ |
palālabhārakaṃ ṣaṇḍhe saisakaṃ caikamāṣakam ||133||

For killing a snake, the Brāhmaṇa should give an iron spade; and in the case of a eunuch, a load of straw and a ‘māsa’ of lead. — (133)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

No stress is meant to be laid on the mention of the. ‘Brāhmaṇa.’

A sharp ‘iron spade’ should be given. The qualification ‘iron’ excludes the spade made of wood and other substances.

‘In the case of a eunuch’ — one who is wanting in virility; who is of four kinds — (1) he who has no semen at all, (2) he whose semen is of mere air, (3) who feels no erection of the organ, and (4) who has the signs of both sexes, a hermaphrodite. This expiation regarding the killing of the eunuch is applicable to all animals — Brāhmaṇa, Śūdra, sheep, goat, and so forth. — (133)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 67); — in Aparārka (p. 1132), which explains ‘palāla’ as paddy-stalks without grains; — in Mitākṣarā (3. 273); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 950), which adds that the ‘palālabhāra’ and ‘one māṣa of Sīsaka’ are optional alternatives; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 527), which says that the gift prescribed removes the sin of the killing.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (22.23, 25). — ‘For killing a eunuch, he shall give a load of straw and a māṣa of lead. For killing a snake, a bar of iron.’

Viṣṇu (50.34-35). — ‘If he has killed a snake, he must give an iron spade. If he has killed emasculated cattle or birds, he must give a load of straw.’

Yājñavalkya (3.274). — ‘For killing serpents, one should give an iron bar; for killing a eunuch, lead and tin; for killing a boar, a jar of clarified butter; for killing a camel, gold weighing one Ratti: and for killing a horse, a cloth.’

VERSE 11.134

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

घृतकुम्भं वराहे तु तिलद्रोणं तु तित्तिरौ ।
शुके द्विहायनं वत्सं क्रौञ्चं हत्वा त्रिहायनम् ॥१३४॥

ghṛtakumbhaṃ varāhe tu tiladroṇaṃ tu tittirau |
śuke dvihāyanaṃ vatsaṃ krauñcaṃ hatvā trihāyanam ||134||

For a boar, a jar of clarified butter; for a partridge, a ‘droṇa’ of sesamum; for a parrot, a two-year-old calf; and for killing a horse, a three-year-old calf. — (134)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If one kills a boar, he should give a jar full of clarified butter. ‘Droṇa’ — is equal to four ‘āḍhakas’ (ten seers).

‘Hāyana’ is year.

‘Calf’ — a young one of the bovine species. — (134)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 64), which adds that this refers to cases where the offender is a wealthy person; — and in Prāyaścittāviveka (p. 240).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (20.24). — ‘For killing a boar, a jar of clarified butter.’

Viṣṇu (50.36-89). — ‘If he has killed a boar, he should give a jar of clarified butter. If he has killed a partridge, he must give a Droṇa of sesamum. If he has killed a parrot, a calf two years old. If he has killed a curlew, a calf three years old.’

Yājñavalkya (3.272, 273, 275). — ‘For killing an elephant, he shall give five nīla bulls: for killing a parrot, a calf two years old; for killing an ass, a goat or a ram, he should give a bullock; and for killing the purlew, a calf three years old. For killing a swan, a kite, a monkey, a carnivorous animal, or birds flying in the air or walking on the ground, or a peacock, he shall give a cow; hut only a heifer, for killing a non-carnivorous animal. For killing a partridge, he shall give a Droṇa of sesamum.’

VERSE 11.135

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

हत्वा हंसं बलाकां च बकं बर्हिणमेव च ।
वानरं श्येनभासौ च स्पर्शयेद् ब्राह्मणाय गाम् ॥१३५॥

hatvā haṃsaṃ balākāṃ ca bakaṃ barhiṇameva ca |
vānaraṃ śyenabhāsau ca sparśayed brāhmaṇāya gām ||135||

On having killed a swan, a balākā, a crane, a peacock, a monkey, a falcon, or a vulture, — one should give a cow to a Brāhmaṇa. — (135)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Swan’ and the; rest are birds.

‘Vānara’ is monkey.

‘Sparśayet’ — should give.

This expiation applies to the killing of any one of the animals mentioned; because the names have not been compounded into a copulative compound, — as has been explained before. — (135)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 62), which notes that this refers to ‘eases where the offender is a wealthy person unable to do any fasting; — in Aparārka (p. 1132) in Mitākṣarā (3.272); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 950); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 239).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.19.6). — (See under 131.)

Viṣṇu (50.33). — ‘If he has killed a Haṃsa, or a crane, or a heron, or a cormorant, or an ape, or a falcon, or the vulture called Bhāsa, or a Brāhmaṇī duck, he must give a cow to a Brāhmaṇa.’

Yājñavalkya (3.273). — (See under 135.)

VERSE 11.136

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

वासो दद्याद् हयं हत्वा पञ्च नीलान् वृषान् गजम् ।
अजमेषावनड्वाहं खरं हत्वैकहायनम् ॥१३६॥

vāso dadyād hayaṃ hatvā pañca nīlān vṛṣān gajam |
ajameṣāvanaḍvāhaṃ kharaṃ hatvaikahāyanam ||136||

On killing a horse, one should give a garment; and five black bulls on killing an elephant; on killing a goat and a sheep, an ox; and on killing a hare, a one-year-old calf. — (136)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Haya’ — horse.

‘Gaja’ — elephant.

‘Anadvān’ — ox; also on the killing of a goat and a sheep.

On killing a ‘hare’, a ‘one-year-old calf’ — as is clear from the proximity of the ‘ox.’ — (136)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 69); — in Mitākṣarā (3.271); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 230), which explains the meaning to he that for the killing of an ass, a ram or a goat, one should give a one year old bullock.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (3.272). — (See under 135.)

Baudhāyana (1.19.4). — ‘If he has slain a milch cow, or a draught ox, he shall perform a Cāndrāyaṇa after paying the prescribed fine.’

Viṣṇu (50.25-28). — ‘If he has killed an elephant, he shall give five nīla bulls; if he has killed a horse, he must give a cloth; if he has killed an ass, he must give a calf one year old; the same if he has killed a ram or a goat.’

VERSE 11.137

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

क्रव्यादांस्तु मृगान् हत्वा धेनुं दद्यात् पयस्विनीम् ।
अक्रव्यादान् वत्सतरीमुष्ट्रं हत्वा तु कृष्णलम् ॥१३७॥

kravyādāṃstu mṛgān hatvā dhenuṃ dadyāt payasvinīm |
akravyādān vatsatarīmuṣṭraṃ hatvā tu kṛṣṇalam ||137||

For killing carnivorous animals, one should give a milch-cow; and a heifer for killing those not carnivorous; and a ‘kṛṣṇala’ of gold for killing a camel. — (137)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Carnivorous animals’ — e.g., the hyena, the lion and so forth.

‘Not carnivorous’ — e.g., the several species of the deer.

‘Dhenu’ — stands for the cow only.

‘Kṛṣṇala’ — is a gold-piece of a definite weight. The term has this technical meaning in treatises on Fines; but

elsewhere it is used in the ordinary sense of a particular weight-measure; as in such passages as — ‘one desiring longevity should give one hundred kṛṣṇalas of clarified butter.’ — (137)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1132); — in Mitākṣarā (3.272); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 950); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 232 and 527), which says that this refers to unintentional killing, and that once only.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (50.29, 40-41). — ‘If he has killed a camel, he must give a golden Kṛṣṇala. If he has killed a wild carnivorous animal, he must give a milch cow; if a non-carnivorous wild animal, he must give a heifer.’

Yājñavalkya (3.274-275). — (See under 134.)

VERSE 11.138

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

जीनकार्मुकबस्तावीन् पृथग् दद्याद् विशुद्धये ।
चतुर्णामपि वर्णानां नारीर्हत्वाऽनवस्थिताः ॥१३८॥

jīnakārmukabastāvīn pṛthag dadyād viśuddhaye |
caturṇāmapi varṇānāṃ nārīrhatvā'navasthitāḥ ||138||

For killing inconstant women of the four castes, one should give, for his purification, a leathern bag, a bow, a goat and a sheep respectively. — (138)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Inconstant.’ — Those women who, behaving like prostitutes, have intercourse with many men, are called ‘inconstant’; the epithet does not connote merely transgression of the scriptures; as that would not restrict the term to adultery only.

One should give the ‘leathern bag’ and other things in the order of the castes.

‘Jina’ — the leathern bag, used for carrying water and such purposes.

‘Kārmuka’ — bow.

‘Vaṣṭa’ — goat.

‘Avi’ — sheep.

‘Respectively.’ — This shows that the expiation here laid down is not to be regarded as cumulative.

Some people read ‘gatvā’ (for ‘hatvā’) (‘having intercourse’). But this is not right; since ‘killing’ forms the subject-matter of the present context. — (138)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1128), which explains ‘anavasthitāḥ’ as ‘not faithful to their husbands,’ i.e., ‘adulterous’; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 227).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (22.26). — ‘For killing an unchaste woman, who is Brāhmaṇi only in name, one should give a leather bag.’

Yājñavalkya (3.269). — ‘For killing an ill-behaved Brāhmaṇi, or Kṣatriyā, or Vaiśya, or Śūdra woman, one shall give, for purifying himself, a leather bag, a bow, a goat, or a ram respectively. But for killing a woman not badly behaved he should perform the same penance as that for killing a Śūdra.’

VERSE 11.139

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

दानेन वधनिर्णेकं सर्पादीनामशक्नुवन् ।
एकैकशश्चरेत् कृच्छ्रं द्विजः पापापनुत्तये ॥१३९॥

dānena vadhanirṇekaṃ sarpādīnāmaśaknuvan |
ekaikaśaścaret kṛcchraṃ dvijaḥ pāpāpanuttaye ||139||

If a twice-born person is unable to atone the sin of killing by means of gifts, he should perform the ‘Kṛcchra,’ for each act, for the purpose of removing his sin. — (139)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Atone’ — expiate.

This verse shows that gifts constitute the principal atonement for sins.

‘For each act.’ — This shows that what is here laid down is not to be regarded as cumulative.

The words beginning with ‘dvijaḥ’ (‘twice-born person’) are added for the purpose of filling up the metre.

In the absence of any specification, the term ‘Kṛcchra’ has been taken to stand for the ‘Prājāpatya’ penance. — (139)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 30 and 50) which explains the meaning to be that, if the offender is not in a position to give the male cow or other things prescribed, be becomes absolved from the sin by performing the Kṛcchra penance.’

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?