with the Commentary of Medhatithi 324 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 330 из 350Следующая ⇒

But though the offence may be equal, the corresponding expiation for women shall be only half (of what is prescribed for males); — ‘women and sick men, boys up to the sixteenth year of age and men after or beyond the eightieth year are subject to only one-half of the prescribed expiation’ — says a text

The expiation is lighter in the case of a woman whose unchastity is well known. For instance, if one misbehaves with an unchaste low-caste woman, he should bathe along with his clothes and give a water-jar to a Brāhmaṇa; and if with a similar Vaiśya woman, he should take food at the fourth meal-time and feed Brāhmaṇas; if with a Kṣatriya woman, he should fast for three days and should give a yavāṭaka. It has also been declared that he may be treated like a Vaiśya. The same should be understood to be the case with the wife of a Śūdra. In connection with people having intercourse with women during their courses or bringing about their conception, it has been declared that — ‘if women of the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya castes, have intercourse with a Śūdra, they could be purified by expiations, if they have not conceived, — not otherwise.’

In the case of women who have not been wedded by any one, and live by prostitution, it is doubtful whether or not an expiation is necessary for having intercourse with them.

“Why should there be any such doubt?”

Because the term ‘dāra,’ ‘wife,’ connotes consecration (a woman who has passed through the sacrament of marriage); and when no marriage has been performed, the woman cannot be called any one’s ‘wife and expiations are necessary only in the case of intercourse with the ‘wife’ of another person. This would lead us to the conclusion that in the case in question no expiation is needed. On the other band, since it has been laid down that ‘one should remain attached to his own wife,’ we think that there should be expiation in the case in question (as it involves infidelity to one’s own wife).

“What then is the right view on this point?”

The right view is that expiation is necessary.

“Why so?”

Because the restriction (that one should he devoted to his own wife) has been directly enjoined, and expiation has been declared to be necessary in the case of one’s omitting to do what has been enjoined (11.41). Even though the offence may not fall under the category of ‘minor offences,’ yet that does not mean that there is to be no expiation. The various kinds of offences — ‘minor offences,’ ‘offences leading to loss of caste,’ and so forth — have been enumerated, not by way of an exhaustive list (of offences requiring expiation), but only for the purpose of indicating the necessary expiations. The condition common to all offences has been summed up as — ‘omitting to do what is enjoined, etc., etc.’ (11.44). The ease of the ‘wanton’ woman has been already explained, and the prostitute also is an ‘unchaste woman.’

“As a matter of fact, only that woman is to be called ‘another’s wife,’ ‘paradāra’ (in connection with the present context) who has intercourse with the paternal or maternal relations of her husband; and such women become known as ‘wanton,’ when they have intercourse with several men.”

True; but to the prostitute also, the term ‘svairiṇī,’ ‘wanton,’ is applicable on the basis of her wantonness or want of self-control.

Hence in the case of these, there should he both, bathing along with clothes, and also the giving of a water-jar.

In connection with adultery some people hold the following opinion — The avoiding of sexual intercourse is of the nature of a vow, and as such pertains, not to all men, but to the Accomplished Student; as it is in reference to him that the texts have set forth the section beginning with the words‘now his vow,’ and ending with — ‘these vows he shall keep.’ — (176)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The second half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (1.70), and again under 3.265, as laying down the ‘Three Years’ Penance’ and such other penances for the woman’s offence of adultery with a man of the higher caste; — and in Aparārka (p. 98); — and the first half is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 285), which explains that the first half of the verse lays down what is to be done by the husband of the offending woman, and the second half what is to be done by the woman herself; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 370), which says that the meaning is that the husband should keep her in a room, without toilet or bath, meanly dressed, sleeping on the ground, with food just enough to keep her alive, — all this till her next menstruation.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.176-177)

Mahābhārata (12.165.63). — ‘If one’s wife has misbehaved, she shall be kept confined, and made to perform the same penance that has been prescribed for the man committing adultery.’

Viṣṇu (53.8). — ‘A woman who has committed adultery once must perform that penance which has been prescribed for the adulterer.’

Paribhāṣā (Aparārka, p. 1124). — ‘For women and invalids, the expiatory penances are only half of what has been prescribed for men.’

Bṛhaspati (Do., p. 1124). — ‘The woman who commits adultery should perform that same penance which men perform for the guilt of having intercourse with women of the same caste...... If the act has been committed without the woman’s consent, her husband shall keep her guarded in the house, clad in dirty clothes, sleeping on the ground, and subsisting on food given to her just enough to keep her alive; and he should have the expiatory penances of Kṛcchra and Parāka performed by her.’

Uśanas (Do., p. 1125). — ‘If a man’s wife has misbehaved, he should keep her clad in inferior clothes, with all her authority taken away from her; and she should he made to perform either the Cāndrāyaṇa or the Prājāpatya.’

Saṃvarta (Do.). — ‘If a woman has been ravished by force, with her heart burning with shame, she becomes purified by performing the Prājāpatya; there is no other purification for her.’

Ṛṣyaśṛṇga (Do.). — ‘If a woman has been ravished by force by a man of her own caste, her expiation shall consist of fasting for three days.’

Gautama (Do.) — ‘A misbehaved woman shall be kept guarded and receive mere subsistence.’

VERSE 11.177

Section XIX - Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse

सा चेत् पुनः प्रदुष्येत् तु सदृशेनोपमन्त्रिता ।
कृच्छ्रं चान्द्रायणं चैव तदस्याः पावनं स्मृतम् ॥१७७॥

sā cet punaḥ praduṣyet tu sadṛśenopamantritā |
kṛcchraṃ cāndrāyaṇaṃ caiva tadasyāḥ pāvanaṃ smṛtam ||177||

If she happens to be corrupted again, on being solicited by a man of equal caste, — then the Kṛcchra and the Cāndrāyaṇa would be the means prescribed for her purification. — (177)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘On being solicited’ by a man of equal caste, — if she happens to have sexual intercourse again, then, inasmuch as this would be a ‘minor offence,’ the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ would be the natural expiation for her. Even so, the Cāndrāyaṇa has been mentioned again in the present verse, in order to imply that the other expiations prescribed for ‘cow-killing’ (which is a typical ‘minor offence’) are not applicable in the present case, — and also that the complete Cāndrāyaṇa has to be performed.

Though the latter half of the verse would seem to imply that ‘intercourse with all women apart from one’s own wife involves the same expiation,’ yet as a matter of fact, such is not the case; as special penalties have been laid down in connection with the following women: — ‘mother, mother’s sister, mother-in-law, maternal aunt, father’s sister, wife of the paternal uncle, wife of a friend, wife of a pupil, sister, sister’s friend, daughter-in-law, daughter, teacher’s wife, a woman belonging to one’s own gotra, a woman-refugee, a queen, a mendicant woman, a chaste woman, one’s nurse, a woman belonging to a higher caste.’ From among these, as regards the mother, the proper expiation has been already explained (under the ‘heinous offence’of ‘Violating the Preceptor’s Bed’); — in connection with those beginning with the ‘mother’s sister’ and ending with ‘daughter,’ the expiation shall he the performance of the Kṛcchra penance for one year; — and in the case of the rest, the performance of Cāndrāyaṇa.

Question — “Those that have been mentioned here as belonging to the same gotra, — does this mean those that are born in the same gotra as the man? Or those that have been married to the same gotra?”

The answer to this is that both are meant; since we find texts indicative of both views.

‘Gotra’ means family, paternal line; and if women of the same paternal line be meant, then the separate mention of the ‘father’s sister,’ would be superfluous, as she ‘belongs to the same paternal line.’ If, on the other hand, the woman he held to be one who belongs to the gotra of the person to whom she has been united, then they should be spoken of as belonging to their husband’s gotra; and in that case, the separate mention of the‘wife of the paternal uncle’ becomes superfluous; as in the said sense she would he ‘of the same gotra’ as the man concerned. Thus then, there being nothing to indicate which one of these two views is meant, we take the term as referring to both. The common view, however, is that what are meant here are women whose husband’s gotra is the same as that of the man concerned.

Some people have hold that — “In connection with the performance of Śrāddhas, women belong to their father’s gotra.” But this is restricted to Śrāddhas only. Or, we may take it as referring to other cases also, if we find a text, directly saying so. — (177)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1125); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 373), which says that this refers to her fourth repetition of the act, done against her wishes.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.176-177)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.176.

VERSE 11.178

Section XIX - Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse

यत् करोत्येकरात्रेण वृषलीसेवनाद् द्विजः ।
तद् भैक्षभुज्जपन्नित्यं त्रिभिर्वर्षैर्व्यपोहति ॥१७८॥

yat karotyekarātreṇa vṛṣalīsevanād dvijaḥ |
tad bhaikṣabhujjapannityaṃ tribhirvarṣairvyapohati ||178||

What a twice-born man commits by dallying with a Caṇḍālī for one night, — that he wipes off in three years, living on alms and constantly repeating (sacred texts). — (178)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘vṛṣalī’ here stands for the Caṇḍālī.

Since the expiation prescribed is a heavy one, it should be understood as meant, for the act done intentionally and repeated twice. In other cases the expiation would consist in the performance of the Kṛcchra for one year.

Since the text contains the term ‘for one night,’ what is said here must ho taken as referring to a man who sleeps with the woman and spends the whole night with her.

‘Dallying’ means enjoyment.

The term ‘vṛṣalī’ has been used here as a deprecatory word, and not in the sense of the particular caste (Caṇḍāla).

‘What he commits’ — The sin that he brings on.

‘That he wipes off in three years’ — destroys it.

‘Lining on alms and constantly repeating sacred texts.’ — As no particular texts have been specified, they say that the words repeated should he expressive of his deed (?). Others, however, have held that the words repeated shall bo, not ordinary ones, but those occurring in the Mantra and Brāhmaṇa texts, to be selected according to the man’s own predilections. That this is so follows from the fact that, where the repeating of the sacred texts of the Ṛg-Veda has been prescribed (in 11.262) as a general moans of purification, no particular texts have been specified.

Some people explain the term ‘vṛṣalī’ as standing for the Śūdra woman, and declare that dallying with her for three months is what is meant.

But this cannot be right. Because marrying a Śūdra woman is not permitted; and as for a wanton woman, the expiation in her case is a light one; and intercourse with other kinds of Śūdra women would fall under the category of ‘Minor Offences,’ for which the expiation laid down in the present verse would be too heavy. — (178)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vṛṣalī’ — ‘Cāṇḍālī’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka); — ‘a Śūdra woman’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.260), which explains ‘vṛṣalī’ as Cāṇḍālī; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 363), which says that this lays down the expiation for the marrying of a Śūdra girl, in a manner not sanctioned by the scriptures.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (53.9). — (See under 175.)

Āpastamba (1.27.11). — ‘A Brāhmaṇa removes the sin which he committed by serving one day and night a man of the black race, if he bathes for three years, eating at every fourth meal-time.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.11). — ‘A Brāhmaṇa removes the sin which he committed by serving the black race one day and one night, if he bathes during three years at every fourth meal-time.’

Parāśara (7.9). — ‘If a twice-born man commits the sin of attending upon a Vṛṣalī for one night, he becomes pure by living on alms and repeating the sacred texts during three years.’

VERSE 11.179 [Expiation for associating with Outcasts]

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

एषा पापकृतामुक्ता चतुर्णामपि निष्कृतिः ।
पतितैः सम्प्रयुक्तानामिमाः शृणुत निष्कृतीः ॥१७९॥

eṣā pāpakṛtāmuktā caturṇāmapi niṣkṛtiḥ |
patitaiḥ samprayuktānāmimāḥ śṛṇuta niṣkṛtīḥ ||179||

Thus has the atonement tor the four kinds of sinners been set forth; now listen to these (following) expiations for those who associate with outcasts. — (179)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The meaning of the verse is quite clear. — (179)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 141).

VERSE 11.180

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

संवत्सरेण पतति पतितेन सहाचरन् ।
याजनाध्यापनाद् यौनान्न तु यानासनाशनात् ॥१८०॥

saṃvatsareṇa patati patitena sahācaran |
yājanādhyāpanād yaunānna tu yānāsanāśanāt ||180||

If one associates with an outcast for one year, he himself becomes an outcast; not by sacrificing for him, or teaching him, or forming a matrimonial alliance with him, — but by walking, sitting or eating. — (180)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘outcast’ connotes disqualification in regard to the rites of twice-born men; the meaning is that he ‘falls,’ recedes, becomes deprived of, his rights.

‘Outcasts,’ — of the four castes, Brāhmaṇa and the rest; — ‘if one associates with them — in one year he becomes an outcast,’ he becomes equal to the outcast.

What is it that he is supposed to do when ‘associating?’

‘Walking, sitting and eating’ — (a) ‘walking’ means conversing, touching the body and moving about in his company; similarly (b) ‘sitting,’ on the same bed, or on the same seat; and (c) ‘eating,’ on the same seat, or out of the same dish.

‘Sacrificing, teaching and forming matrimonial alliance,’ — it is with these that ‘not’ has to be construed.

It becomes necessary to explain whether, by‘sacrificing’ for an outcast, one does not become an outcast at all, or he becomes so in more or less than a year.

On the basis of other Smṛti -texts it is understood that by sacrificing for an outcast, one becomes an outcast immediately.

The right reading would be‘yājanādhyāpanam,’ with the Accusative ending; — as the nouns are meant to be governed by the present-participle term‘ācaran,’ which also indicates the reason for what is here laid down (for the purpose of the indication whereof the Ablative has been used). — (180)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa explain the verse differently: — ‘He who associates with an outcast by sacrificing for him, or by forming a matrimonial alliance with him, himself becomes an outcast after a year, but not by using the same carriage or seat, or eating with him’.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 849), which explains the meaning as follows: — ‘By associating with an outcast on conveyances, seats and dinners after one year, — but by associating with him in sacrificing, teaching and the like, he becomes an outcast, not after one year, but immediately

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1087), which offers the following explanation: — By associating in any way with a known outcast, himself becomes an outcast; that is, becomes like him; — there are some acts in which associating with the outcast makes one an outcast, irrespective of all other considerations; and such acts are ‘sacrificing, teaching and marrying’; each of these acts by itself makes the associator an outcast; — the acts of going on the same conveyance, sitting together and eating, on the other hand, do not by themselves make him an outcast; they do so through other acts.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (8.261), as meaning that only such acts as those of ‘travelling together and so forth’ make one an outcast by being continued for one year; — it adds that ‘sitting’ includes ‘sleeping’ also. It remarks that the passage is to be construed as follows: — ‘Saṃvatsareṇa patati patitena sahācaran yānāsanāśanāt’; and ‘Yājanādhyāpanādyaunāt na tu saṃvatsareṇa patati, kintu sadya eva’; and concludes thus — ‘By sacrificing and other acts the man becomes an outcast at once, while by sleeping and other acts he becomes so only by continuing it for one year’.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka, (pp. 149 and 156), which construes ‘Yāṇāṣanāśanāt’ as ‘Yānasanāśanāt utpannam saṃyogam ācaran’, — and adds that these three, when done all together and intentionally, do degrade the man.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.165.37). — (Same as Manu.)

Baudhāyana (2.2.35). — ‘He who associates with an outcast, by using the same carriage or seat with him, becomes an outcast in one year; not so by sacrificing for him, or teaching him, or forming a matrimonial alliance with him.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.22). — ‘They quote the following: — “He who during a year associates with an outcast becomes an outcast; not by sacrificing for him, or teaching him, or forming a matrimonial alliance with him, but by using the same carriage or seat.”’

Gautama (21, 3). — ‘He who associates for a year with outcasts (becomes an outcast).’

Viṣṇu (35.3-5). — ‘He who associates with an outcast becomes an outcast himself after one year; and so does he who rides in the same carriage with him, or who eats in his company, or who sits on the same bench, or who lies on the same couch with him. Matrimonial intercourse, sacrificial intercourse or vocal intercourse with an outcast entails immediate loss of caste.’

Yājñavalkya (3.261). — ‘He who associates with these (outcasts) for one year, himself becomes equal to them.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 1086). — ‘If a man knowingly lives with an outcast for one year, he becomes mingled with him, and at the end of the year, becomes an outcast himself. Sacrificing for the outcast, forming matrimonial connections with him, teaching him, eating with him, — doing these one becomes an outcast immediately.’

Bṛhaspati (Do.). — ‘Occupying the same seat or couch with an outcast, sitting in the same line with him, mixing up one’s cooked food with his, using the same vessels, sacrificing for him, teaching him, going on the same conveyance with him, eating with him; these are the nine forms of association; this should not he done with low men.’

Parāśara (Do., p. 1088). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa unintentionally forming connections with outcasts becomes equal to him, either in five days, or ten days, or twelve days, or half-a-year, or one year.’

VERSE 11.181

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

यो येन पतितेनैषां संसर्गं याति मानवः ।
स तस्यैव व्रतं कुर्यात् तत्संसर्गविशुद्धये ॥१८१॥

yo yena patitenaiṣāṃ saṃsargaṃ yāti mānavaḥ |
sa tasyaiva vrataṃ kuryāt tatsaṃsargaviśuddhaye ||181||

When a man associates with any one of outcasts, he should, for his own purification, perform the same penance that has been prescribed for that outcast. — (181)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For the atonement of the sin of associating with an outcast, the same expiation is to be performed which has been prescribed for that outcast himself.

In ‘eṣam,’ ‘of these,’ the Genitive has the sense of selection; the sense being — ‘From among these outcasts, if a man associates with any one, — in the manner described in the preceding verse, — he should perform that same expiation which has been prescribed for that same outcast; — for the purpose of purifying — removing — the sin begotten by that association.’

This last phrase ‘for the purpose, etc.,’ serves only to fill up the metre.

As a rule, a man becomes degraded (an outcast) by repeatedly doing such degrading acts as not renouncing the company of outcasts. Now there arises the question — Does this mean that the degradation — the outcastness — that attaches itself to the associating person is direct, — or is it only the degradation of the outcast that becomes attributed to him indirectly? If it is something new, then it behoves you to point out the authority for the assertion that ‘there are five heinous offences.’ If it be held that in the case of the five, the degradation is direct, while in that of others it is indirect, — then there would be no point in making any such distinction. The acts being the same, the expiations being the same, what would be the use for attributing the degradation in one case, only indirectly?

Objection — Some people argue as follows: — “Usage does not always vary with purposes only, it varies on other grounds also. In the present case the distinction is based upon authoritative texts: For instance, in a case where, having asserted degradation, the text goes on to explain it as consisting in being deprived of the rights of twice-born men, — e.g., in 182 below, — as the character is mentioned as belonging to the man himself, the degradation is direct; on the other hand, where the character is spoken of — either by name or by indicative words, — as due to relations with the outcast, it is indirect. For instance, in connection with the names ‘Saurya’ and ‘Āgneya,’ no characteristic of the terms ‘Sūrya’ and ‘Agni’ is found to have been declared as belonging to the Saurya and the Āgneya, on the basis whereof there could be any transference of details from one to the other, which could bestow any peculiar character on them. (Vide Mīmāṃsa-Sūtra, 8.1.27-31).’

“This, however, is not right; because in the case cited, the terms ‘Sūrya’ and the rest are all-powerful, since they form part of the Veda, which is not the work of an author. The present treatise on the other hand, is the work of a human author, and how can any such author propound a distinction which does not exist in fact? There may be some kinds of distinction which may be admitted, when not opposed to well-known Perception or Inference. [But cannot justify the assuring of distinctions in all cases.] As for repetition, it means the doing of an act twice over; and it is in this sense that the term is used, even in cases where the act is repeated a hundred times; for in all cases, the character of ‘repetition’ is one and the same. In ordinary parlance also ‘repetition’ means only duplicating the act. So that whether an act is repeated twice, or a hundred times, the expiation due to ‘repetition’ shall be one and the same, as what is forbidden is a despicable deed; and whether a man sleeps twice during the day, or kills a cow more than once, — the condition that there is repetition of a despicable act is one and the same, which should lead to the same kind of ‘degradation.’ For these reasons what is here propounded needs to be pondered over — is open to doubt”

Answer — What is there that needs pondering over? That the five acts are sinful, leading to degradation, has been declared by all writers on Smṛti; as also that some other acts are similar to those five. There is no gainsaying these two facts; as for distinction among these, it can be made on the basis of ‘the capacity of the agent, the nature of the offence,’ and so forth (set forth in Verse 209 below). It can never be that what has been declared as similar to a certain act should stand on the same footing as that act itself; for instance, the cow cannot be the same as the gavaya. The fact of the matter is that on certain points the two acts differ between themselves, while On others they resemble, and hence come to be spoken of as ‘similar.’

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?