with the Commentary of Medhatithi 322 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 328 из 350Следующая ⇒

brahmacārī tu yo'śnīyān madhu māṃsaṃ kathaṃ cana |
sa kṛtvā prākṛtaṃ kṛcchraṃ vrataśeṣaṃ samāpayet ||158||

If a person keeping a vow happens, in any way, to eat honey or meat, he should perform the original Kṛcchra, and then complete the remainder of his vow. — (158)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Person keeping a vow’ — i.e., one who is still in the stage of the Religious Student.

‘In any way’ — i.e., even in normal times; in abnormal times, when life is in danger, the eating of the two things has been permitted; so that there being nothing wrong in such eating, the present verse cannot he taken as laying down as an expiation for the same, thereby contradicting what has gone before. Hence what the meaning is that the expiation is necessary only under certain conditions, not always.

‘Original Kṛcchra’ — i.e., the Prājāpatya; which is called ‘original,’ because it forms the origin or archetype of all Kṛcchras.

‘He should complete the remainder of his vow’ — This shows that until the prescribed expiation has been performed, the man is not entitled to complete the vow. — (158)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha, (23.11). — ‘If a Student eats meat which has been given to him as leavings, he shall perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days’ duration, and afterwards complete his vow.’

Viṣṇu (51.45). — ‘If a Student eats honey or meat at any time, he must perform the Prājāpatya penance.’

Yājñavalkya (3.282). — ‘If the Student eats honey or meat, he should perform the Kṛcchra penance, and then complete the rest of the vows.’

VERSE 11.159

Section XVII - Expiation for the Sin of taking Forbidden Food

बिडालकाकाखूच्छिष्टं जग्ध्वा श्वनकुलस्य च ।
केशकीटावपन्नं च पिबेद् ब्रह्मसुवर्चलाम् ॥१५९॥

biḍālakākākhūcchiṣṭaṃ jagdhvā śvanakulasya ca |
keśakīṭāvapannaṃ ca pibed brahmasuvarcalām ||159||

He who eats what has been left by a cat, a crow, a rat, a dog, or an ichneumon, — or food defiled by a hair or an insect, — shall drink the Brahmasuvarcalā herb. — (159)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Ākhu’ — rat.

‘Defiled’ — rendered impure by the contact of the said things.

‘Brahmasuvarcalā’ — Having pounded it and mixed it with water, he shall drink it for one day; since the text does not make any specific recommendation as to time, if the drinking is done once one day, the injunction will have been duly obeyed. — (159)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 932), to the effect that on eating the ucchiṣṭa of the cat and other animals one should drink the Brāhmīsuvarcalā for one day; — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 320), which explains ‘Brāhmasuvarcalā’ as the yellow sun-flower, — the offender should pass one day living on this; — and adds that this refers to cases where the act is unintentional; where it is done intentionally, the penance should he kept for three days; — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 316).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (23.11). — (See above, 158.)

Viṣṇu (51.46-47). — ‘If any one eats the leavings of the food of a cat, of a crow, of an ichneumon, or of a rat, he must drink water in which Brahma-śūvarcalā has been boiled. For eating what has been left by a dog, he must fast for one day and then drink the five bovine products.’

VERSE 11.160

Section XVII - Expiation for the Sin of taking Forbidden Food

अभोज्यमन्नं नात्तव्यमात्मनः शुद्धिमिच्छता ।
अज्ञानभुक्तं तूत्तार्यं शोध्यं वाऽप्याशु शोधनैः ॥१६०॥

abhojyamannaṃ nāttavyamātmanaḥ śuddhimicchatā |
ajñānabhuktaṃ tūttāryaṃ śodhyaṃ vā'pyāśu śodhanaiḥ ||160||

If one desires his own purity, he should not eat improper food; when eaten unintentionally, it should be thrown out, or speedily atoned for by means of purifications. — (160)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The first half of the verse is purely reiterative; as what the verse lays down is the expiation for the unintentional eating of improper food

The meaning is that the food should be immediately vomited. Or ‘it should be atoned, for by means of purifications’ — i.e., expiations.

Others explain ‘purifications’ as standing for the Harītakī and such other purgatives; and they quote, in their support, the following from Gautama (23.23) — ‘For eating improper food, the bowels should be cleared of all refuse.’

This passage, however, does not support the said interpretation; as even fasting would clear the bowels of all ref use.

Hence the meaning must be that in the event of the man not vomiting the food, he should perform the prescribed expiations. — (160)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Śodhanaiḥ.’ — ‘Penances’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘purgative decoctions’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 548); — and in Prayaścittaviveka (p. 342).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (23.26). — ‘If he has eaten forbidden food, — he must throw it up and eat clarified butter.’

VERSE 11.161

Section XVII - Expiation for the Sin of taking Forbidden Food

एषोऽनाद्यादनस्योक्तो व्रतानां विविधो विधिः ।
स्तेयदोषापहर्तॄणां व्रतानां श्रूयतां विधिः ॥१६१॥

eṣo'nādyādanasyokto vratānāṃ vividho vidhiḥ |
steyadoṣāpahartṝṇāṃ vratānāṃ śrūyatāṃ vidhiḥ ||161||

Thus has the law relating to the penances for the eating of improper food been set forth; listen now to the law relating to the penances expiatory of the sins of theft. — (161)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Of penances for the eating of improper food’ — i.e., of such food as should not be eaten.

Next follows the law relating to those penances that remove the sin of theft — (161)

VERSE 11.162 [Expiation for Theft (steya)]

Section XVIII - Expiation for Theft (steya)

धान्यान्नधनचौर्याणि कृत्वा कामाद् द्विजोत्तमः ।
स्वजातीयगृहादेव कृच्छ्राब्देन विशुध्यति ॥१६२॥

dhānyānnadhanacauryāṇi kṛtvā kāmād dvijottamaḥ |
svajātīyagṛhādeva kṛcchrābdena viśudhyati ||162||

If a chief of twice-born men intentionally commits theft of grains, cooked food and wealth, from the house of a caste-fellow, he becomes pure by performing the Kṛcchra for one year. — (162)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Chief of twice-born men’ — This is only illustrative; it includes the Kṣatriya and the rest also; but inasmuch as the text has used the term ‘chief of twice-born men,’ the phrase ‘from the house of a caste-fellow’ is understood to signify from the house of a Brāhmaṇa. Hence the meaning comes to be this: — ‘Men of all castes, on stealing wealth from the house of a Brāhmaṇa, would become pure by performing the Kṛcchra for one year.’

The term ‘wealth’ including all kinds of property, ‘grains’ and ‘cooked food’ have been specially mentioned, for the purpose of indicating the better quality of grains; as for the stealing of grains of inferior quality, another expiation is going to be prescribed; from which it follows that what is here laid down applies to the stealing of the more important varieties of grains of superior quality.

“From among the various castes, if the Brāhmaṇa steals the property of other castes, what shall be the expiation?”

It shall be computed at the ‘fourth,’ the ‘eighth’ and other parts of what is here prescribed; just as we have found in the ease of murder (sec. 127). That is, when the Brāhmaṇa steals the property of a Kṣatriya, he shall perforin the Kṛcchra or three months; in the case of the property of a Vaiśya, for a month and a half, and in that of a Śūdra, for twenty-two days.

“What is the quantity of grains, the stealing of which would make one liable to the said expiation?”

More than, — or even a little less than — ten jarfuls. That such is the meaning is indicated by the heaviness of the expiation prescribed.

A similar computation may he made in regard to ‘wealth’ also.

‘Intentionally.’ — This is added only for the purpose of filling up the verse; as there can be no unintentional stealing of what belongs to another.

‘Grains’ — Vrīhi and the rest,

‘Cooked food’ — grains and meat

When every one of the three tilings is stolen, the Kṛcchra should be performed for three years.

Some people take the expiation here laid down as meant for the stealing of all the three things mentioned, on the ground that it is a very heavy one. — (162)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3. 265); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 874), which adds the following notes: — ‘Dhana’ stands for valuables other than gold, — ‘dvijottama,’ Brāhmaṇa, — his ‘svajāti’ is Brāhmaṇa; — this refers to cases where the Brāhmaṇa has stolen; — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 427); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 342), which explains ‘anna’ as cooked food, and ‘dhana’ as cattle.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba (1.25.10). — ‘Those who have committed theft of gold, or drunk wine, or had connection with a guru’s wife, — hut 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 (52.5). — ‘He who steals grains or valuable objects must perform the Kṛcchra for a year.’

VERSE 11.163

Section XVIII - Expiation for Theft (steya)

मनुष्याणां तु हरणे स्त्रीणां क्षेत्रगृहस्य च ।
कूपवापीजलानां च शुद्धिश्चान्द्रायणं स्मृतम् ॥१६३॥

manuṣyāṇāṃ tu haraṇe strīṇāṃ kṣetragṛhasya ca |
kūpavāpījalānāṃ ca śuddhiścāndrāyaṇaṃ smṛtam ||163||

For the stealing of men and women, of a field or a house, or the water of a well, or a tank, — the Cāndrāyaṇa has been declared to be the expiation. — (163)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Men’ — slaves.

‘Women’ — slave girls.

‘Field’ — plot of land, where Vrīhi and other corns are grown.

The word ‘water’ is to be construed both with ‘wells and tanks.’ What is here laid down applies to a case where water has been drawn from the well or the tank and preserved in a cistern and such, other smaller reservoirs.

From the mention of ‘water’ here it follows that for the misappropriating of dry wells and tanks, there is another law.

‘Vāpī’ is a synonym for ‘taḍāga’ (tank). — (163)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.265), which notes that it refers to a case where the quantity of water stolen is such as could be obtained for 250 Panas; — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 876), which notes that this refers to the stealing of men belonging to Kṣatriya and other castes; the stealing of the Brāhmaṇa being regarded as on the same footing as the stealing of gold; — ‘vāpi’ and ‘kūpa’ have been added as qualifications for the purpose of excluding water contained in jars and other vessels. It quotes Aparārka as holding that the expiation here prescribed refers to the ‘stealing’ of tanks and wells full of water, — and also the above-mentioned remark of Mitākṣarā. It adds that this expiation is to be performed after the stolen article has been returned to the owner.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 344), which says that ‘manuṣya’ and ‘strī’ stand here for male and female slaves.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (52.6). — ‘For stealing male or female slaves, a well or pool, or a field, — the Cāndrāyaṇa penance should be performed.’

VERSE 11.164

Section XVIII - Expiation for Theft (steya)

द्रव्याणामल्पसाराणां स्तेयं कृत्वाऽन्यवेश्मतः ।
चरेत् सान्तपनं कृच्छ्रं तन्निर्यात्यात्मशुद्धये ॥१६४॥

dravyāṇāmalpasārāṇāṃ steyaṃ kṛtvā'nyaveśmataḥ |
caret sāntapanaṃ kṛcchraṃ tanniryātyātmaśuddhaye ||164||

If one steals things of small value in the house of another, he should restore them; and for his own purification, he should perform the ‘Sāntapana Kṛcchra.’ — (164)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Things of small value’ do not last long; and things of small value are such earthenware articles as a dish, a cup, and so forth, as also such wooden things as the ‘droṇa,’ the ‘āḍhaka’ and other weights; and such iron things as the spade, the shovel, and so forth.

‘In the house of another.’ — The stealing of things lying in the house is a serious offence; not so that of things lying in the field or in the courtyard.

‘Restored’ — given back. This pertains to all cases of theft, as it has not been qualified in any way.

In a case where it is not possible to restore what has been stolen, the expiation shall be the double of what is prescribed here. — (164)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.265), as referring to the stealing of such things of small value as tin, lead and the like, — which thus becomes excluded from the expiation prescribed for ‘theft’ in general; — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 874), as referring to the stealing of lead, tin and other things worth less than 25 Paṇas.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (42.7). — ‘For stealing articles of small value, the Sāntapana penance should he performed.’

VERSE 11.165

Section XVIII - Expiation for Theft (steya)

भक्ष्यभोज्यापहरणे यानशय्याऽऽसनस्य च ।
पुष्पमूलफलानां च पञ्चगव्यं विशोधनम् ॥१६५॥

bhakṣyabhojyāpaharaṇe yānaśayyā''sanasya ca |
puṣpamūlaphalānāṃ ca pañcagavyaṃ viśodhanam ||165||

For the stealing of eatables and edibles, of a conveyance or a bed, or a seat, or of fruits, roots and flowers, — the expiation consists of the Five Products of the cow. — (165)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Conveyance’ — the cart and such things.

‘Bed’ — the bedstead, and so forth.

‘Seat’ — the mat, the stool, or wooden slab.

‘Eatables and edibles.’ — The distinction between the two should be understood to be this that while one stands for what is dry and scattered, the other stands for the reverse; — ‘eatables`’ standing for such things as sweetmeats, cakes and the like and ‘edibles’ for barley-gruel and such things.

‘Five Products of the Cow’ — These are well-known.

Here also what is mentioned should be eaten for one day only. — (165)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.265), as referring to cases where the quantity of food stolen is just enough for one meal; — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 875), which has the same note, and adds that, in as much as the ‘conveyance’ and other things have been mentioned in the same context, these also should he understood to be of just that value which would be equivalent to the value of a single meal.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (52.8). — ‘For stealing sweet-meats, food, drinks, a bed, a seat, flowers, roots or fruits, the drinking of the five bovine products has been ordained.’

VERSE 11.166

Section XVIII - Expiation for Theft (steya)

तृणकाष्ठद्रुमाणां च शुष्कान्नस्य गुडस्य च ।
चेलचर्मामिषाणां च त्रिरात्रं स्यादभोजनम् ॥१६६॥

tṛṇakāṣṭhadrumāṇāṃ ca śuṣkānnasya guḍasya ca |
celacarmāmiṣāṇāṃ ca trirātraṃ syādabhojanam ||166||

There should be fasting for three days, in the case of stealing grass, wood, trees, dry food, molasses, clothes, leather and meat. — (166)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The expiation here laid down is for the stealing of grass and other things, in such quantities, as would be more valuable than the ‘conveyance’ and other things mentioned in the preceding verse,

‘Wood’ — hot made into any article. That this is what is meant follows from its occurring along with ‘trees.’

‘Druma’ is tree.

‘Dry food’ — either rice, or fried barley.

‘Molasses.’ — This stands for things made of molasses; so that sugarcandy and other sweetmeats become included.

‘Caila’ is cloth; — i.e., of large quantities of valuable cloth.

The expiation here laid down is an optional alternative to the Kṛcchra that would be necessary in accordance with what is laid down in Verse 163, where the stealing of ‘wealth’ (which includes cloth) has been dealt with.

‘Leather’ stands here for armour.

‘Māṃsa’ — meat. — (166)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.265), which adds that since the expiation here prescribed is thrice as heavy ns that prescribed in the proceeding verse, the ‘grass’ and other things mentioned here should be taken to be of that quantity which would be obtainable at a price three times that of the single meal.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1110), which notes that this refers to the stealing of ‘grass’ and other things whose value is three times that of the single meal of one man; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 875); — and in Prāyaścittviveka (p. 345), which explains ‘Śuṣkānna’ as ‘rice &c.’, and adds that the ‘two days penance’ is for stealing grains sufficient for two meals, for stealing more than that, there should be heavier expiation.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (52.9). — ‘For stealing grass, firewood, trees, rice in the husk, sugar, clothes, skins, or flesh, — the thief must fast for three days.’

VERSE 11.167

Section XVIII - Expiation for Theft (steya)

मणिमुक्ताप्रवालानां ताम्रस्य रजतस्य च ।
अयः।कांस्यौपलानां च द्वादशाहं कणान्नता ॥१६७॥

maṇimuktāpravālānāṃ tāmrasya rajatasya ca |
ayaḥ |kāṃsyaupalānāṃ ca dvādaśāhaṃ kaṇānnatā ||167||

In the case of the stealing of gems, pearls, corals, copper, silver, iron, bronze and stone, one should subsist, for twelve days, on pieces of grain. — (167)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There is to be reduction in time, according to the greater or smaller quantity of the things stolen, as also according as the offence is the first one or a repetition. — (167)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.265), which adds that, inasmuch as the expiation is twelve times as heavy as that prescribed in 165, the articles mentioned should he understood to be twelve times the value of the single meal in Madanapārijata (p. 875), which makes the same remark; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 74a); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 341), which explains ‘Kaṇānnatā’ as ‘living on small pieces of grain’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (52.10). — ‘For stealing precious stones, pearls or coral, copper, silver, iron or white copper, — one must eat grain separated from the husk for twelve days.’

VERSE 11.168

Section XVIII - Expiation for Theft (steya)

कार्पासकीटजोर्णानां द्विशफेकशफस्य च ।
पक्षिगन्धौषधीनां च रज्ज्वाश्चैव त्र्यहं पयः ॥१६८॥

kārpāsakīṭajorṇānāṃ dviśaphekaśaphasya ca |
pakṣigandhauṣadhīnāṃ ca rajjvāścaiva tryahaṃ payaḥ ||168||

In the case of cotton, silk, wool, an animal with cleft hoofs, an animal with uncleft hoofs, a bird, perfumes, medicinal herbs, and a rope, — milk shall be drunk for three days. — (168)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Kīṭaja,’ ‘produced from worms,’ stands for silks.

‘Animals with cleft hoofs’ — such as the cow and the rest.

‘Animals with uncleft hoofs’ — such as the horse and the rest.

‘Birds’ — parrots, hawks, and so forth.

‘Rope’ — used for pulling water out of wells. — (168)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijātā (p. 875); — and in Mitākṣarā (3.265), which notes that, since the expiation is thrice as heavy as that prescribed in 165, it should he understood as referring to the stealing of the things mentioned, when their value is three times that of the single meal.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (62.11, 13). — ‘For stealing cotton, silk, wool or other stuffs, he should subsist on milk for three days. For stealing birds or perfumes or medicinal herbs, or cords, or basket-work, — he must fast for one day.’

VERSE 11.169

Section XVIII - Expiation for Theft (steya)

एतैर्व्रतैरपोहेत पापं स्तेयकृतं द्विजः ।
अगम्यागमनीयं तु व्रतैरेभिरपानुदेत् ॥१६९॥

etairvratairapoheta pāpaṃ steyakṛtaṃ dvijaḥ |
agamyāgamanīyaṃ tu vratairebhirapānudet ||169||

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры