with the Commentary of Medhatithi 325 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 331 из 350Следующая ⇒

From all this it follows that those also who are equal to outcasts become ‘outcasts,’ themselves; and in this case the expiation would be just a little less than that in the case of actual outcasts.

In connection with the question of being deprived of rights and privileges, some people put forward the special points that the man becomes deprived only of the right of performing the Śrauta rites, and not the Smārta ones.

It has been argued above that there would be no difference between doing an act twice and doing it a hundred times over. But as a matter of fact, there would certainly be a difference among the various degrees of repetition. How could the offence in both cases be of the same degree?

Another argument put forward is that — ‘Sleeping during the day and cow-killing, both being forbidden acts, there would be the same degree of ‘degradation’ involved in the repeated committing of both these deeds. But how can the deprecation of the two acts be said to be of the same degree; — when, as a matter of fact, we find a distinction between the degree of sinfulness clearly set forth in the corresponding declamatory passages? And there is multiplicity of expiation also in cases where the prohibition is exceptionally emphatic.

The rule on this point is this: — That there is ‘degradation’ brought about by the repeated performance of forbidden acts is not true of all forbidden acts s for instance Verse 11.41 has declared that the killing of 1,000 animals of one kind is equal to that of a single animal of another; hence in several cases, even though a certain forbidden act may be repeated several times, there is no ‘degradation’ at all. — (181)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 851), which notes that in all these cases the lightness or heaviness of the expiation will depend upon the caste and capacity of the person concerned; — in Mitākṣarā (3.261); — in Parāśaramadhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 23), which defines ‘saṃsarga’ as travelling together, sitting together and so forth; — in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 141 and 165), which says that this refers to the Mahāpātakas only, — and that ‘Patita’ here stands for the mere ‘offender’ or ‘sinner’ (not literally, the outcast); — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 356).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (54.1). — ‘If a man associates with one guilty of a crime, he must perform the same penance as that person.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 1088). — ‘If a sinful man associates with another man, the latter shall perform the same penance as the former, but only three quarters of it.’

Bṛhaspati (Do., p. 1087). — ‘If a man associates with a sinner for six months, through sacrificing, teaching and the like, or though occupying the same seat or couch with him, he should perform half of that penance which has been prescribed for that sinner.’

VERSE 11.182

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

पतितस्योदकं कार्यं सपिण्डैर्बान्धवैर्बहिः ।
निन्दितेऽहनि सायाह्ने ज्ञातिर्त्विग्गुरुसंनिधौ ॥१८२॥

patitasyodakaṃ kāryaṃ sapiṇḍairbāndhavairbahiḥ |
nindite'hani sāyāhne jñātirtviggurusaṃnidhau ||182||

When one has become an outcast, his Sapiṇḍas and relations shall offer him ‘water’ outside, on an inauspicious day, in the evening, in the presence of relatives, priests and elders. — (182)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When one has become an ‘outcast,’ and is unwilling to perform the prescribed expiation, they shall treat him as dead and offer to him the ‘water-jar’; this is what the text lays down.

‘Sapiṇḍas’ — Relations on the Father’s side, up to the seventh degree.

Persons other than those who may be related to the man are called ‘relations,’ which includes the Sagotras also.

‘On an inauspicious day’ — i.e., on the fourteenth and such other days of the month.

‘In the evening’ — at sunset.

‘Relatives, priests, etc.’ — of the persons making the offering, as also of the outcast. — (182)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 964), which explains ‘nindite ahani’ as on the 4th or 9th or 14th day of the month; and such other forbidden days; — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 408); — in Aparārka (p. 1206); — and in Mitākṣarā (p. 295), to the effect that the rites in question are to be performed near elders during the fifth part of the day and on such forbidden days as the 4th or 9th or 14th of the month.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.182-185)

[See above, 9.201.]

Gautama (20.4-9). — ‘A slave or a hired servant shall fetch an impure vessel from a dust-heap, fill it with water taken from the pot of a female slave and, his face turned towards the south, upset it with his foot, pronouncing the sinner’s name and saying: “I deprive so-and-so of water.” All the kinsmen shall touch the slave, passing their sacred thread over the right shoulder and under the left arm, and untying the look on their heads. The spiritual teachers and the marriage-relatives shall look on. Having bathed, they shall enter the village. He who afterwards unintentionally speaks to the outcast shall stand, during one night, repeating the Gāyatrī. If he converses with him intentionally, he must perform the same penance for three nights.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.36). — ‘Now the relatives shall empty (the water-pot of a grievous offender) at a solemn meeting (and he shall confess), “I, N. N., am (the perpetrator of) such and such (a deed).” After (the outcast) has performed (his penance), the Brāhmaṇas shall ask him who has touched water, milk, clarified butter, honey, and salt, “Hast thou performed (the penance)?” The other (person) shall answer, ‘Om’ (yes)!’ They shall admit him who has performed (a penance) to all sacrificial rites, making no difference (between him and others).’

Vaśiṣṭha (15.12-16). — ‘A slave, or the son of a low-caste woman, or a relative not belonging to the same caste who is destitute of good qualities, shall fetch a broken jar from a heap of useless rubbish, place Kuśa grass with its top lopped off on Lohita grass on the ground, and empty the jar with his left foot; and the relatives, allowing their hair to hang down, shall touch the man who empties the jar. Turning their left hands towards the spot, they may go home at pleasure. After that they should not admit the outcast to sacred rites. Those who admit him to sacred rites become equal to him.’

Yājñavalkya (3.294). — ‘The female slave and the relatives shall pour the jarful of water outside the village for the outcast; and they shall exclude him from all functions.’

Viṣṇu (22.57). — ‘On the death-day of an outcast, a female slave of his must upset a jar with water with her feet.’

VERSE 11.183

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

दासी घटमपां पूर्णं पर्यस्येत् प्रेतवत् पदा ।
अहोरात्रमुपासीरन्नशौचं बान्धवैः सह ॥१८३॥

dāsī ghaṭamapāṃ pūrṇaṃ paryasyet pretavat padā |
ahorātramupāsīrannaśaucaṃ bāndhavaiḥ saha ||183||

A female slave shall overturn a jar full of water with her foot, as in the case of the dead; and they, along with the relations, shall observe the ‘uncleanliness’ for the day and night. — (183)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘As in the case of the dead’ — This is an injunction of what should be done (in the case of the dead).

The female slave shall overturn with her foot the water-jar, saying — ‘This is for so and so’ (naming the outcast).

After this has been done, it is necessary to observe ‘un-cleanliness’ during the day and night.

‘Along with the relations’ — They shall all sit in one place, for that day.

The naming of the ‘female slave’ indicates that the Sapiṇḍas should not do it themselves.

“If that be so, and the Sapiṇḍas do not do this act themselves, what should be the difference between ‘Sapiṇḍas’ and ‘relations,’ in view of which it has been said that all this should be done in the presence of relations, priests and elders? Since all (Sapiṇḍas as well as Relations) would be helping the offering only by their presence, and thus acting like an indirect accessory.”

It is not so; ‘Sapiṇḍas’ and others of that class are the ‘performers’ of the act of offering in the sense that it is they that direct it; while ‘Relations,’ ‘priests’ and the rest are brought together only with a view to some spiritual effect. — (183)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 964), which explains ‘pretarat’ as wearing the upper cloth over the right shoulder and so forth; — in Mitākṣarā (3.295), to the effect that the slave-girl may make the offerings under orders of the paternal relations of the outcast — it explains ‘pretavat’ as implying that the offender should face the south, wear the upper cloth over the right shoulder and so forth; — and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 408).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.182-185)

[See above, 9.201.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.182.

VERSE 11.184

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

निवर्तेरंश्च तस्मात् तु सम्भाषणसहासने ।
दायाद्यस्य प्रदानं च यात्रा चैव हि लौकिकी ॥१८४॥

nivarteraṃśca tasmāt tu sambhāṣaṇasahāsane |
dāyādyasya pradānaṃ ca yātrā caiva hi laukikī ||184||

Thenceforth shall cease all conversation with him, sitting with him, his sharing in property, as also all ordinary intercourse. — (184)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse lays down how his relations shall treat the outcast after the ‘water’ has been offered.

‘Conversation’ — Talking with one another.

‘Property’ — Wealth. This also shall not be given to him.

‘Ordinary intercourse’ — Saluting at meeting and enquiring after health and so forth, bringing him home at marriages and other ceremonies, feeding him, and so forth.

“The cessation of all this is already implied in that of conversation.”

What is meant by the last phrase includes also the dropping of all such courtesies as rising to receive him, leaving the seat and the likes; while ‘conversation’ stands for acts pertaining to the utterance of words only. — (184)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.295) to the effect that the outcast should thenceforward be kept outside the pale of conversation, sitting together and other forms of association; — and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 409).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.182-185)

[See above, 9.201.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.182.

VERSE 11.185

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

ज्येष्ठता च निवर्तेत ज्येष्ठावाप्यं च यद् धनम् ।
ज्येष्ठांशं प्राप्नुयाच्चास्य यवीयान् गुणतोऽधिकः ॥१८५॥

jyeṣṭhatā ca nivarteta jyeṣṭhāvāpyaṃ ca yad dhanam |
jyeṣṭhāṃśaṃ prāpnuyāccāsya yavīyān guṇato'dhikaḥ ||185||

The right of primogeniture shall be withheld, as also the additional share of property due to the eldest; the additional share due to him as the eldest shall be obtained by his younger brother, who is superior to him in quality. — (185)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The additional share of property due to the eldest.’ — In connection with this, the following objection is raised: — “The declaration that all property shall be withheld from him clearly implies the withholding also of the additional share due to the eldest”

In answer to this some people explain that the said withholding is reiterated in the present verse, for the purpose of laying down that the said share shall devolve upon the younger brother who excels him in quality.

Others however think that the term ‘Property’ stands for all kinds of wealth, not for the hereditary property only; as in the lexicon we find ‘dāyādya’ (which is the word used in the preceding verse) mentioned as a synonym for ‘dhana’, ‘property.’ Hence what is meant by the withholding of ‘property’ from him means that one may not pay to him what may have been borrowed from him; what the debtor should do is to repay the same to the man’s son, brother or other heirs.

Others again hold that the withholding of ‘property’ is meant to apply to the case where the property has not been previously divided, while what is meant by the present verse is that if division has already taken place, all that shall be taken away from him is only the additional share that he may have received by virtue of his being the eldest brother; so that even though the man may have sons, they shall inherit all the rest of his property, save the said additional share. — (185)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.182-185)

[See above, 9.201.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.182.

VERSE 11.186

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

प्रायश्चित्ते तु चरिते पूर्णकुम्भमपां नवम् ।
तेनैव सार्धं प्रास्येयुः स्नात्वा पुण्ये जलाशये ॥१८६॥

prāyaścitte tu carite pūrṇakumbhamapāṃ navam |
tenaiva sārdhaṃ prāsyeyuḥ snātvā puṇye jalāśaye ||186||

If however the expiation has been performed, they shall bathe with him in a sacred reservoir of water and shall throw into the water a fresh jar filled with water. — (186)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse describes what sort of water-offering is to be made for one who has performed the prescribed penance.

‘They shall bathe with him in a reservoir of water,’ — in a sacred river, or in a large lake, or in some such sacred place as Prabhāsa, Mānasa and the like; — ‘and throw a fresh jar full of water.’

Since the present text speaks of the ‘fresh jar’ and the foregoing one speaks of the ‘female slave,’ it means that in the former case, the jar to be used should be one that has been already in use for other purposes. In both cases the jar is to be filled with water. — (186)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.296), to the effect that the aforesaid offering should be made after the offenders have taken a bath in a sacred tank; — in Nirṇayasindhu (pp. 402 and 409); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 472); — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 966), which explains ‘prāsyeyuḥ’ as ‘should throw’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.186-187)

Gautama (20.10-14). — ‘But if an outcast has been purified by penances, his kinsmen shall fill a golden vessel with water from a very holy lake or river, and make him bathe in that water. Then they shall give him that vessel, and he, after taking it, shall recite the following text — “Cleansed is the sky, etc.” Let him offer clarified butter reciting the sacred texts. Let him then present gold or a cow to a Brāhmaṇa, and also to his teacher.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.36). — (See above, under 182.)

Yājñavalkya (3.295). — ‘When he returns after having performed the requisite penances, they shall pour a fresh jarful of water; after that they shall not despise him, and they shall associate with him in all matters.’

Vaśiṣṭha (15.17-20). — ‘Outcasts who have performed the prescribed penance may be re-admitted. Those who strike their teacher, mother or father may be re-admitted in the following manner: Having filled a golden or an earthen vessel with water from a sacred lake or river, they pour it over him reciting three sacred texts.’

VERSE 11.187

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

स त्वप्सु तं घटं प्रास्य प्रविश्य भवनं स्वकम् ।
सर्वाणि ज्ञातिकार्याणि यथापूर्वं समाचरेत् ॥१८७॥

sa tvapsu taṃ ghaṭaṃ prāsya praviśya bhavanaṃ svakam |
sarvāṇi jñātikāryāṇi yathāpūrvaṃ samācaret ||187||

Having thrown that jar into the water, he shall enter his own house and carry on, as before, all his family-functions. — (187)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The jar has to be thrown again in the same water in which they have bathed.

Then taking him with them, the relations shall go to his house, and then, as before, go on with all such family-functions as dinner and the like.

According to others, ‘he’ stands for the man who has performed the expiation; and under this view, the jar should be thrown by that same man.

This ‘water-rite’ is to be performed only in the case of the ‘outcast’ referred to in the present context, and not to other kinds of ‘outcasts,’ — such as those described under 8.389 — ‘one who abandons his father, one who kills the king, one who sacrifices for the Śūdra’ and so forth. — (187)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.186-187)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.186.

VERSE 11.188

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

एतदेव विधिं कुर्याद् योषित्सु पतितास्वपि ।
वस्त्रान्नपानं देयं तु वसेयुश्च गृहान्तिके ॥१८८॥

etadeva vidhiṃ kuryād yoṣitsu patitāsvapi |
vastrānnapānaṃ deyaṃ tu vaseyuśca gṛhāntike ||188||

This same method is to be adopted also in the case of female outcasts; but clothing, food and drink shall be supplied to them and they shall live close to the house. — (188)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘This same method is to be adopted in the case of female outcasts,’ — of women who have become outcasts.

Even in the case of such female outcasts as have not performed the expiation, and to whom ‘water’ has been offered, in the manner of a dead person, — food and clothing shall be supplied. Inasmuch as the text uses the word ‘dāna,’ what is meant is that she is to receive just enough food and clothing to keep her body, and she shall not be supplied with any articles of luxury.

‘Drink’ — From the very propriety of the case, this stands for water. But, even if it was not supplied, she could get it in any quantities. What is meant therefore by its mention is that the man supplying her with it shall not do it in an affectionate manner.

Food and clothing also should be of the same inferior quality as the drink. Says Yājñavalkya (1.70) — ‘One should deprive the unchaste woman of her rights, let her remain dirty, living on mere morsel of food, despised, and sleeping on the ground.’

The conditions that render women ‘outcasts’ are the same as those in the case of men. As for what has been said in connection with those who procure abortions — ‘in cases of abortion, the woman does not incur a heavier guilt — etc., etc.’ what this means is only that both the man and the woman are equally guilty, and it does not mean that in cases other than this, the woman incurs a heavier guilt. Says Yājñavalkya (3.298) — ‘Intercourse with inferior men, abortion, and injuring the husband are to be regarded as acts that degrade (render outcasts) women in particular.’

‘They shall live close to the house’ — What is meant by the phrase ‘close to the house’ is that they shall be turned out of the main building and allowed to live in a separate hut.

Some people say that lodging close to the house is to be given to only those who are performing the expiation, and not for others.

But this is not right. Because what is really meant is that the supplying of food and clothing would be easier if she dwelt close by. While during the time that she is undergoing the expiation, she would be living on alms, or milk, or performing the Cāndrāyaṇa and other penances. And the rule regarding living on alms cannot be regarded as set aside by what is said in the present text; as the only purpose served by the present text is to prescribe the means of subsistence.

From all this it follows that what the verse means is that food and clothing, etc., have to be supplied also to that female outcast who, either though incapacity or on account of some other cause, is not in a position to perform the expiatory penance. — (188)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.260), which explains that this prescribes the ‘Twelve Years’ Penance,’ halved in consideration of the sex of the offender; — and that in reference to an unintentioned offence.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 99).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (3.296). — ‘This same rule has been declared to be applicable to women who have become outcasts. They should however be given a dwelling in the vicinity of the household, and should also receive clothes, food and protection.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Āparārka, p. 1208). — ‘Four kinds of women must be entirely abandoned: One who has intercourse with her husband’s pupil, one who has intercourse with her Guru, one who has killed her husband, and one who has intercourse with a despicable person.’

VERSE 11.189

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

एनस्विभिरनिर्णिक्तैर्नार्थं किं चित् सहाचरेत् ।
कृतनिर्णेजनांश्चैव न जुगुप्सेत कर्हि चित् ॥१८९॥

enasvibhiranirṇiktairnārthaṃ kiṃ cit sahācaret |
kṛtanirṇejanāṃścaiva na jugupseta karhi cit ||189||

One shall not carry on any business with unexpiated sinners; but in no case shall he despise those who have performed the expiation. — (189)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Sinners’ — This stands for the ‘outcasts,’ as is dear from the context So long as these are ‘unexpiated’ — undean, not having performed the prescribed expiations, — ‘one shall not carry on any business,’ — such as borrowing, selling, buying, sacrificing and so forth.

‘Expiation’ is purification, wiping off of the sin. When this has been done, one should not ‘despise’ the man. That is, no one should reproach one who has duly performed the prescribed expiation. — (189)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

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

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (54.31). — ‘With sinners who have not expiated their crime, let a man not transact business of any kind. But the man who knows the Law must not blame those who have expiated it.’

Yājñavalkya (3.295). — (See under 156-187.)

VERSE 11.190

Section XX - Expiation for associating with Outcasts

बालघ्नांश्च कृतघ्नांश्च विशुद्धानपि धर्मतः ।
शरणागतहन्तॄंश्च स्त्रीहन्तॄंश्च न संवसेत् ॥१९०॥

bālaghnāṃśca kṛtaghnāṃśca viśuddhānapi dharmataḥ |
śaraṇāgatahantṝṃśca strīhantṝṃśca na saṃvaset ||190||

One shall not associate with murderers of children, ungrateful men, murderers of a refugee, and murderers of women, — even though they may have been duly purified. — (190)

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности