with the Commentary of Medhatithi 323 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 329 из 350Следующая ⇒

By means of these penances, the twice-born man shall remove the sin caused by theft; that due to approaching women who should not be approached, he shall expiate by these (following) penances. — (169)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The meaning of this verse is quite clear. — (169)

VERSE 11.170 [Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse]

Section XIX - Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse

गुरुतल्पव्रतं कुर्याद् रेतः सिक्त्वा स्वयोनिषु ।
सख्युः पुत्रस्य च स्त्रीषु कुमारीष्वन्त्यजासु च ॥१७०॥

gurutalpavrataṃ kuryād retaḥ siktvā svayoniṣu |
sakhyuḥ putrasya ca strīṣu kumārīṣvantyajāsu ca ||170||

If one has had sexual intercourse with his uterine sister, or with the wife of his friend, or of his son, or with an unmarried maiden, or with a lowest-born woman, — he should perform the penance prescribed for the ‘violation of the Preceptor’s Bed.’ — (170)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even though the text speaks generally of ‘the penance prescribed for the violation of the Preceptor’s Bed,’ without any qualifications, yet it does not mean the application to the present case of what has been said regarding ‘sleeping on a redhot iron-bedstead,’ and so forth (under Verse 104); what it does mean, however, is the performing for one year of the ‘Prājāpatya penance,’ which has been laid down in Verse 106. That such must be the meaning is clear from the fact that the violating of the Preceptor’s Bed is a ‘heinous offence’; and apart from the ‘heinous offences,’ there is no penance leading to death; though there may be this in cases of repetition (of non-heinous offences also).

‘Svayoni’ — uterine sister.

‘Wife of a friend.’ — The consort of a loving friend; what constitutes the seriousness of this offence is the affectionate regard of the friend, and not any blood-relationship, nor any such qualification of the husband as Vedic learning and the like.

Similarly in the case of ‘the wife of his son’ — the daughter-in-law.

‘Unmarried maiden’ — of other castes also. This is meant to refer to intercourse with those who have not yet been given away by their fathers, and who have not surrendered themselves through love, — the intercourse being entirely by force.

In connection with this also, the exact penance shall be regulated by several considerations. Though the text has added no qualifications to the general application of the law relating to the ‘violation of the Preceptor’s bed,’ yet in any two cases there may be two distinct penances, as is actually found to be the case. For instance, on account of the comparative heaviness or lightness of the offence, there would, in the case of women of the lower castes, be the performance of the Cāndrāyaṇa for three months, which would be lighter than that of the Kṛcchra for one year (which would have to be done in the case of other women).

‘Lowest-born ’ — Caṇḍāla and Mleccha women. In the case of Caṇḍāla women, a distinction in the penance has to be made on the ground of the act being intentional or unintentional, — as is clear from other Smṛti texts. For instance, in the case of women of the ‘antyāvasāya’ caste, the penance would be a ‘Half-Kṛcchra,’ while in others, it would be one lasting for twelve days. — (170)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 544); — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 252), as referring to cases where the act is repeated for one month; — and again on p. 264, where it says that it refers to cases of repeated acts when unintentional, but a single act when intentional; — also in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 181 and 187), which says that this refers to cases other than those where the intercourse has been within the forbidden circle, — it explains ‘Svayoniṣu’ as ‘one’s own paternal and maternal relatives’ — ‘antyajāṣu’ as ‘Chaṇḍāla women — and ‘Gurutalpavratam’ as the ‘twelve years penance.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.170-171)

(See text under 49, above.)

Gautama (23.12, 13, 32). — ‘The guilt of one who has intercourse with the wife of a friend, a sister, a female belonging to the same family, the wife of a pupil, a daughter-in-law, — or with a cow — is as great as that of him who violates the Guru’s bed. Some people declare the guilt of such a person to be equal to that of a Student who breaks the vow of continence. For intercourse with a female of one of the lowest castes, one shall perform a Kṛcchra penance during one year.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.13-14). — ‘Intercourse with females who must not be approached, cohabitation with the female friend of a female Guru, with the female friend of a male Guru, with an Apapātra woman, or with a female outcast,......... the expiation is to live like an outcast for two years.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.15-16). — ‘The expiation for intercourse with the wife of a teacher, of a son, or of a pupil is that, having shaved all his hair and smeared his body with clarified butter, the man shall embrace the heated iron-image of a woman. If he has had intercourse with a female considered venerable in the family, with a female friend, with the female friend of a Guru, with an Apapātra female, or with an outcast, — he shall perform the Kṛcchra penance for three months.’

Viṣṇu (34.1-2). — ‘Sexual connection with one's mother, or daughter, or daughter-in-law are crimes of the highest degree. Such criminals of the highest degree should proceed to the flames; there is no other way of atoning for their crime.’

Do. (53.1), — ‘One who has had illicit sexual intercourse must perform the Prājāpatya penance for one year, — according to the rule of the Mahāvrata, clad in a garment of bark and living in a forest.’

Yājñavalkya (3.231-232). — ‘Intercourse with a friend’s wife, a maiden, a uterine sister, with women of the lowest castes, with women of the same gotra, with a daughter-in-law, — is declared to be as heinous as that of violating the Guru’s bed. A man who has intercourse with his father’s sister, or mother's sister, or maternal aunt, or daughter-in-law, or step-mother, or sister, or his preceptor’s daughter, or his preceptor’s wife, or his own daughter, — is a violator of the Guru’s bed; he should have his organ cut off and killed; so also the woman who fell in love with him.’

VERSE 11.171

Section XIX - Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse

पैतृस्वसेयीं भगिनीं स्वस्रीयां मातुरेव च ।
मातुश्च भ्रातुस्तनयां गत्वा चान्द्रायणं चरेत् ॥१७१॥

paitṛsvaseyīṃ bhaginīṃ svasrīyāṃ mātureva ca |
mātuśca bhrātustanayāṃ gatvā cāndrāyaṇaṃ caret ||171||

On having had intercourse with one’s sister born of his father’s sister, or of his mother’s sister, or of his mother’s full brother, — one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa. — (171)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Sister born of the father’s sister’ — is the daughter of the father’s sister; similarly the daughter of the mother’s sister.

‘Mother’s brother’ — maternal uncle.

‘Full’ — uterine. — (171)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 714); — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 198); — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 691); — and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 470), which has the following notes: — ‘The term ‘bhaginī’ qualifies ‘paitṛṣvaseyī’ and the rest, — ‘āptasya’ qualifies ‘the mother’s brother’, after which ‘daughter’ is to be understood; ‘āptasya’ means ‘Sapiṇḍa’; the ‘mother’ is one who has been married by the ‘gāndharva’ and other forms of marriage; — in the term ‘paitṛṣvaseyī’ also the ‘pitṛṣvasā’, ‘father’s sister’ meant is one who is still within the limits of ‘Sapiṇḍa’ relationship, and who had been married by the Gāndharva form; — it is only when the term is taken in this sense that the qualification ‘bhaginī’ has some significance.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra 52a); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 187), which explains ‘āptasya’ (which is its reading for ‘tanayām’) as ‘a near sapiṇḍa’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.170-171)

(See text under 49, above.)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.170.

VERSE 11.172

Section XIX - Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse

एतास्तिस्रस्तु भार्यार्थे नोपयच्छेत् तु बुद्धिमान् ।
ज्ञातित्वेनानुपेयास्ताः पतति ह्युपयन्नधः ॥१७२॥

etāstisrastu bhāryārthe nopayacchet tu buddhimān |
jñātitvenānupeyāstāḥ patati hyupayannadhaḥ ||172||

A wise man should never take these three as his wife; being blood-relations, they are not fit to be married; because by marrying them one sinks low. — (172)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“The unmarriageability of these being already implied by the law that no ‘sapiṇḍa’ relation shall be wedded, for what special purpose does the present text assert that they are not fit to be married?”

Some people offer the following explanation: — It is asserted here with a view to permit the option of marrying such relations other than these three as have been precluded on the ground of Sapiṇḍa-relationship.

This, however, is not right Because the present text is meant to lay down the expiation necessary in the case of these three, which is different from that in the case of other Sapiṇḍa relations; and so long as this explanation of the text is possible, it would be highly improper to reject, even partially, the injunctions of the text forbidding the marrying of all ‘Sapiṇḍa relations’; options are admitted only when they cannot be avoided.

‘Jñāti’ — blood-relation.

‘Not fit to be married’ — not fit to be wedded, or for intercourse.

‘Marrying’ — wedding.

‘Sinks low’ — that is, he falls into hell; or it may mean that he becomes degraded in caste, comes to belong to a lower caste. Though in reality, a man’s caste cannot leave him so long as his body lasts, yet what is meant is that he ceases to be entitled to the performance of his caste-functions. — (172)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 714); — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 198); — the first half in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 470).

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra,. p. 187).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (2.1.37-38). — ‘If he unintentionally marries a female belonging to the same Gotra as himself he shall support her, treating her as his mother. If such a woman has borne a child, he shall perform the Kṛcchra penance during three months and pour two oblations into the fire.’

VERSE 11.173

Section XIX - Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse

अमानुषीषू पुरुष उदक्यायामयोनिषु ।
रेतः सिक्त्वा जले चैव कृच्छ्रं सान्तपनं चरेत् ॥१७३॥

amānuṣīṣū puruṣa udakyāyāmayoniṣu |
retaḥ siktvā jale caiva kṛcchraṃ sāntapanaṃ caret ||173||

A man who has had sexual intercourse with nonhuman females, or with a menstruating woman, — and he who has discharged his semen in a place other than the female organ, or in water, — should perporm the ‘Sāntapana Kṛcchra.’ — (173)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Non-human females’ — the mare and the like.

Though the cow also is ‘non-human,’ yet in connection with it, a distinct expiation has been laid down by Gautama (23. 12-13). — ‘For intercourse with a friend, a sister, a woman of the same gotra, the wife of the pupil, the daughter-in-law, and the cow, the expiation shall be equal to that for the violation of the Preceptor’s bed, or that for the immoral religions student.’ Between the two optional alternative expiations laid down by Gautama, viz., that prescribed for violating the Preceptor’s bed and that for the immoral religious student, — one has to be taken as pertaining to cases where the act has been intentional, and the other to those in which it has been unintentional.

In Gautama’s text, the term used is simply ‘talpa’ (bed), which, in view of the context in which it occurs, must be taken as standing for the ‘gurutalpa’ (Preceptor’s Bed); — and the term ‘avakara’ should be taken as standing for ‘avakīrṇa’ ‘Immorality,’ which, being the cause of the expiation, indicates the expiation itself. The word ‘sakhī’ (friend) in Gautama’s text stands for a woman with whom friendship has been contracted in the same-manner as with men; and it does not mean ‘the wife of a friend’; since the feminine affix here does not denote relation to the corresponding masculine; nor can this term be construed with the term ‘wife’ (coming later); since between the two we have the term ‘sayoni’ (sister). Vaśiṣṭha also uses the term in the same sense in the passage — ‘Gurvī, sakhī, eta’

‘Menstruating woman’ — the woman who is in her monthly courses.

Another reading is ‘pītvādharam puruṣaḥ, etc.’ The sense remains the same.

‘Ayoni’ — a place other than the female organ.

Some people read (for ‘jale chaiva’) ‘jale khe ca’ [which means ‘in water and in Ākāśa’].

‘The Ākāśa being already included in the term ‘ayoni,’ ‘places other than the female organ,’ — it need not be mentioned (by means of the word ‘khe’); as ‘kha’ stands for Ākāśa, which certainly is ‘a place other than the female organ.’ There is no force in this objection. As some people think that the presence of the term ‘yoni’ (in the compound term ‘ayoni’) indicates that the term stands for other parts of the ‘body’ [and under this view, the mention of Ākāśa would not be superfluous].

‘In water’ — directly. — (173)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1149), as referring to the act done intentionally and repeatedly; — and in Parāśa ramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 272).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.173-174)

Gautama (22.36). — ‘For committing a bestial crime, excepting in the case of a cow, he shall offer an oblation of clarified butter, reciting the Kūṣmāṇḍa texts.’

Gautama (23.34). — ‘For connection with a woman during her courses, one should perform the Kṛcchra penance for three days.’

Āpastamba (1.26.7). — ‘He who has been guilty of conduct unworthy of an Aryan, of calumniating others,...... of connection with a Śūdra woman, of an unnatural crime, — shall bathe and sprinkle himself with water, reciting the seven verses addressed to Apas in proportion to the frequency with which the crime has been committed.’

Viṣṇu (53.4, 7). — ‘For intercourse with a man, for unnatural crime with a woman, for wasting one’s manhood in the air, or in water, or during the day, or in a go-cart, — one must bathe in his clothes. For intercourse with cattle, or a public prostitute, one must perform the Prājāpatya penance.’

Yājñavalkya (3.288). — ‘One who has intercourse with a woman in her courses, should, at the end of a three days’ fast, eat clarified butter and thereby purify himself.’

Do. (3.291). — ‘If one has intercourse with a woman during the day, one should bathe and perform Breath-suspension.’

VERSE 11.174

Section XIX - Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse

मैथुनं तु समासेव्य पुंसि योषिति वा द्विजः ।
गोयानेऽप्सु दिवा चैव सवासाः स्नानमाचरेत् ॥१७४॥

maithunaṃ tu samāsevya puṃsi yoṣiti vā dvijaḥ |
goyāne'psu divā caiva savāsāḥ snānamācaret ||174||

If a twice-born man commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female, in an ox-cart, or in water, or during the day, — he should take a bath along with his clothes. — (174)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case of such sexual intercourse, there should be immediate bath, with all the clothes on; — when it is committed in an ox-cart, or in water. — (174)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 276); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 369).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.173-174)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.173.

VERSE 11.175

Section XIX - Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse

चण्डालान्त्यस्त्रियो गत्वा भुक्त्वा च प्रतिगृह्य च ।
पतत्यज्ञानतो विप्रो ज्ञानात् साम्यं तु गच्छति ॥१७५॥

caṇḍālāntyastriyo gatvā bhuktvā ca pratigṛhya ca |
patatyajñānato vipro jñānāt sāmyaṃ tu gacchati ||175||

If a Brāhmaṇa unintentionally approaches a woman of the Caṇḍāla or other lowest-born castes, — or eats her food, or receives her presents, — he becomes an outcast; but if he does it intentionally, he becomes her equal. — (175)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There is expiation for approaching, for eating the food of, and accepting gifts from, women of the ‘Caṇḍāla’ caste, as also of the ‘Mleccha’ tribes inhabiting the boundaries of the land.

‘Becomes an outcast.’ — All that this means is that the expiation shall be heavier than the ‘performance of the Kṛcchra for one year,’ — and not that the man actually becomes an outcast.

The partaking of the ‘food’ has been mentioned here for the purpose of indicating that the expiation in this case shall be the ‘performance of the Kṛcchra for one year,’ and not that which has been laid down in connection with ‘the eating of the food of persons whose food should not be eaten’ (Verse 152).

Similarly the ‘receiving of gifts’ also has been mentioned here for the purpose of indicating the said Kṛcchra as the expiation, and not ‘the drinking of milk in a cow-pen for a month’ (which is going to be prescribed in Verse 194 below).

‘If he does it intentionally, he becomes her equal.’ — This is only a declamatory assertion intended to lay down an expiation. What has been asserted in another Smṛti text regarding the expiation for the intentional and unintentional act, has already been explained; how then could it be taken as meant to imply a heavier expiation?

‘Saving taken food.’ — “With what is this to be construed?”

With the term ‘Caṇḍāla or other lowest-born caste!

“But this term is the subordinate factor in the compound (‘Caṇḍalāntyastriyaḥ,’ where ‘strī,’ ‘woman,’ is the predominant factor).”

It has been often shown that a subordinate factor also may be construed with other words, when the sense demands it. The text having said ‘having taken the food,’ — and the question arising as to whose food is meant, — as no one else is mentioned in the text, it naturally follows that it has to be taken with‘the Caṇḍāla and other lowest-born castes.’ The sense thus comes to be this — ‘If one eats the food of the Caṇḍāla and the Mleccha, — and if he receives gifts from them, — and approaches their women, etc., etc.’

The expiation here laid down is for approaching the woman only once. In the event of the act being repeated, the offender must become ‘equal’ to the woman, on account of his being disqualified (from all the privileges of his own caste). The sin of the repeated acts could not be atoned for by means of expiations; for every cause would have its effect; and all the expiatory rites — necessary for the atoning of the sin of the repeated acts — could not be performed during a single life-time.’ — (175)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 348), which adds the following notes: — By doing the act unintentionally the man ‘falls’, ‘patati’, i.e., becomes sinful; hence the repetition of the act involves the ‘Twelve Years’ Penance — when done intentionally, the act makes the man turn into the same caste; hence the repetition of this would involve expiation by death; which however applies only to the act repeated during a long period of time.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1121), which notes that the said ‘equality’ involves expiation by death; — in Smṛtitattva (p. 543); — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 88), as referring to eases of intentional continuation of the act for a long time; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 160, 187, 258, 412), which says that this prescribes the ‘Twelve Years’ Penance’ for the unintentional eating of the Caṇḍāla’s food; — that the accepting of gifts also that is meant is twenty-four unintentional repetitions of the acceptance.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (53.5, 6). — ‘By intentional intercourse with a Caṇḍāla woman, he becomes her equal in caste; for intercourse unawares with such, he must perform the Cāndrāyaṇa twice.’

Do. (53.9). — ‘That guilt which a Brāhmaṇa incurs by intercourse with a Caṇḍāla woman for one night he can remove only by subsisting on alms and constantly repeating the Gāyatrī for three years.’

Baudhāyana (2.4.14). — ‘They quote the following: — “A Brāhmaṇa who unintentionally approaches a female of the Caṇḍāla caste, eats food given by a Caṇḍāla, or receives presents from him, becomes an outcast. But if he does it intentionally, he becomes equal to a Caṇḍāla.”’

Do. (2.4.13). — ‘The rule regarding intercourse with a woman of the Caṇḍāla caste is that the man should perform the penance of Atikṛcchra and Cāndrāyaṇa.’

Vaśiṣṭha (23.41). — ‘The penance for intercourse with a woman of the Caṇḍāla caste is that he shall subsist during a -month on water only and constantly repeat the Śuddhavatī verses; — or he may go to bathe with the priests at the conclusion of the Aśvamedha sacrifice.’

VERSE 11.176

Section XIX - Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse

विप्रदुष्टां स्त्रियं भर्ता निरुन्ध्यादेकवेश्मनि ।
यत् पुंसः परदारेषु तच्चैनां चारयेद् व्रतम् ॥१७६॥

vipraduṣṭāṃ striyaṃ bhartā nirundhyādekaveśmani |
yat puṃsaḥ paradāreṣu taccaināṃ cārayed vratam ||176||

If the wife is particularly corrupt, her husband should keep her confined in one room, and should make her perform that penance which has been prescribed for males in cases of adultery. — (176)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If she is ‘particularly corrupt the husband should keep her confined’ — i.e., keep her away from all the duties of a wife’ such as ‘the collecting of wealth’ and so forth (described under 9.11).

‘In one room’ — i.e., she should be kept in chains, and should not be permitted to roam about at will in her husband’s house.

While thus confined, she should be made to perform the necessary expiation.

“What expiation?”

‘That penance which, has been prescribed for males in cases of adultery’ — that is, in the case of a Brāhmaṇa, adultery, when committed upon a woman of equal or inferior castes, is to be treated as a ‘minor offence,’ which involves the corresponding expiation. So also in the case of men of other castes; but when these latter commit the act on a woman of a superior caste, the expiation for the Vaiśya shall be double; it shall be triple in the case of a Kṣatriya misbehaving with a Brāhmaṇa woman. But for a Vedic scholar, the expiation shall be trebled; — when a Śūdra misbehaves with a Brāhmaṇa woman, the expiation is that which has been prescribed for ‘heinous offences’; — when a Vaiśya misbehaves with a Kṣatriya woman, it is to be treated as a ‘minor offence.’ All this distinction has been explained under ‘Punishments,’ The rules regarding women misbehaving with men of inferior castes shall be the same as those relating to men misbehaving with women of superior castes.

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры