with the Commentary of Medhatithi 327 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 333 из 350Следующая ⇒

If a twice-born man has abandoned a refugee, or has tampered with the Veda, he atones for that offence by living upon barley for one year. — (198)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘refugee’ is of two kinds, as described above (under 190), — ‘abandoning’ — discarding of him, if one is able to afford him protection (is sinful). This has been discussed before.

‘Tampered with the Veda’ — (a) Has studied it on a day on which it should not be studied; — or (b) has interfered with a man who is reading it in the correct form, by telling him some such tiling as — ‘What are you reading? — You have mangled the text,’ — or (c) through greed for wealth recites it, without being invited to do so. The Smṛti has declared that — ‘by reciting the Veda for gain one becomes degraded, says Manu.’ — (198)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vedam viplāvya.’ — ‘Having taught the Veda to people who should not be taught’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nandana); — ‘having wrongly interpreted the Veda or perverted its sense by omitting anusvāras etc.’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘having intentionally forgotten the Veda’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 918), which adds the following notes: — If the man abandons one who comes to him seeking safety from some danger, or for the prescription of an expiation, — ‘Vedam viplāvya,’ i.e., reading it within hearing of the Cāṇḍāla or other snob persons, or on days unfit for study.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1152), to the effect that when a man comes to one in the hope of obtaining shelter for his life, and the latter, though capable of saving him, refuses to do so, — similarly one who reads the Veda from an improper person, or in an improper place, or at an improper time, — or learns it from or teaches it to an unqualified person, — both these should live on barley for one year.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.197-198)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.197.

VERSE 11.199 [Expiation for Dog-bite and similar Offences]

Section XXIV - Expiation for Dog-bite and similar Offences

श्वशृगालखरैर्दष्टो ग्राम्यैः क्रव्याद्भिरेव च ।
नराश्वोष्ट्रवराहैश्च प्राणायामेन शुध्यति ॥१९९॥

śvaśṛgālakharairdaṣṭo grāmyaiḥ kravyādbhireva ca |
narāśvoṣṭravarāhaiśca prāṇāyāmena śudhyati ||199||

When bitten by a dog, or a jackal, or an ass, or by a tame carnivorous animal, or by a man, or a camel, or a pig — he becomes pure by ‘breath-suppression.’ — (199)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Bitten’ — with the teeth.

‘Tame carnivorous animal’ — such as the cat, the ichneumon and so forth. — (199)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.277); — in Aparārka (p. 1135); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 11 and 448).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (23.7). — ‘If one has been bitten by a carnivorous beast, or a camel or an ass or a tame cock or a tame pig, he shall thrice suspend his breath and eat clarified butter.’

Vaśiṣṭha (23.31). — ‘A Brāhmaṇa who has been bitten by a dog becomes pure if he goes to a river flowing into the ocean, bathes there, suppresses his breath one hundred times and eats clarified butter.’

Viṣṇu (54.12). — ‘He who has been bitten by a dog, a jackal, a tame pig, an ass, an ape, a crow, or a public prostitute, shall approach a river and standing there shall suspend his breath sixteen times.’

Yājñavalkya (3.277). — ‘One who has been bitten by a wanton woman, an ape, an ass, a dog, a camel or crows, becomes pure by performing breath-suspension in water and then eating clarified butter.’

VERSE 11.200 [Expiation for the Man excommunicated from Repasts]

Section XXV - Expiation for the Man excommunicated from Repasts

षष्ठान्नकालता मासं संहिताजप एव वा ।
होमाश्च सकला नित्यमपाङ्क्त्यानां विशोधनम् ॥२००॥

ṣaṣṭhānnakālatā māsaṃ saṃhitājapa eva vā |
homāśca sakalā nityamapāṅktyānāṃ viśodhanam ||200||

For persons excommunicated from repasts, the purification consists in (a) eating at the sixth meal-time, reciting the Vedic text, and the daily offering of the ‘Sākala homa,’ for a month. — (200)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Excommunicated from repasts’ — as described in Discourse III; in connection with each one of whom, distinct expiations have been prescribed elsewhere.

For these there should be, for one month — (a) the reciting of the Vedic text, (b) the ‘Sākala Homa’ and (c) eating at the sixth meal-time; — all three combined.

The ‘Sākala Homa’ is that which is offered with wooden sticks (?) and with the mantra ‘Devakṛtasya, etc., etc.’ (Vāja-saneya-Saṃhitā, 8. 13).

‘Daily.’ — This has been added in older to show that even after the reciting of the Vedic text has been finished, this offering shall be continued, till the end of the month. — (200)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

See above 3.151 et. seq. for ‘Apāṅktyas’; and Śuklayajurveda-saṃhitā (8.13) for the Śākala-homas.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1158), which notes that the ‘Apāṅktyas’' have been described by Manu himself under the section on ‘śrāddhas’; — and in Mitākṣarā (3.286), and again under 3.289, where it is added that the particular expiation to be performed is to be determined by considerations of the caste of the offender and such other circumstances.

VERSE 11.201 [Expiation for riding a Camel and other similar Offences]

Section XXVI - Expiation for riding a Camel and other similar Offences

उष्ट्रयानं समारुह्य खरयानं तु कामतः ।
स्नात्वा तु विप्रो दिग्वासाः प्राणायामेन शुध्यति ॥२०१॥

uṣṭrayānaṃ samāruhya kharayānaṃ tu kāmataḥ |
snātvā tu vipro digvāsāḥ prāṇāyāmena śudhyati ||201||

If a Brāhmaṇa intentionally hides a conveyance drawn by a camel, or one drawn by asses, — or if he bathes naked, — he becomes pure by ‘breath-suppression.’ — (201)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Uṣṭra-yāna’ is a cart to which a camel is yoked.

Riding on the camel itself would involve a heavier expiation, — in the shape of the repetition of ‘Breath-control.’

‘Digvāsā’ — naked.

For the atonement of the offence of being naked, the man should bathe along with his clothes, and then perform the ‘Breath-suppression.’ — (201)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1184), which adds that in the case of the offence being unintentional, the expiation is to consist of bathing only; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 462).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (3.291). — ‘The man who rides in a cart drawn by an ass or a camel should perform breath-suspension in water.’

Viṣṇu (54.23). — ‘One who has been riding upon a camel, or upon an ass, and one who has bathed, or slept, or eaten, quite naked, must suspend his breath thrice.’

VERSE 11.202

Section XXVI - Expiation for riding a Camel and other similar Offences

विनाऽद्भिरप्सु वाऽप्यार्तः शारीरं संनिषेव्य च ।
सचैलो बहिराप्लुत्य गामालभ्य विशुध्यति ॥२०२॥

vinā'dbhirapsu vā'pyārtaḥ śārīraṃ saṃniṣevya ca |
sacailo bahirāplutya gāmālabhya viśudhyati ||202||

If, on being pressed, one passes bodily refuse, either without water, or in water, he becomes pure by bathing in his clothes, outside and touching a cow. — (202)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Without water’ — when water is not at hand, or not visible.

‘Pressed’ — overfull with excreta.

‘Bodily refuse’ — urine or ordure.

On ‘passing’ these, one should bathe ‘in his clothes’ — the clothes in which he committed the act.

‘Outside’ — the village.

‘Bathing’ — becoming immersed in water; and ‘touching’ a cow, — he becomes pure. — (202)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.293), which adds the following notes — ‘Vinā adbhiḥ’, when there is no water near at hand, — ‘śārīram,’ the passing of urine and stools; — it adds that this refers to cases where the act has been done unintentionally.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1187), which explains ‘Śārīram’ as the passing of urine and stools; — and in the Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 456), which explains ‘Śārīram’ as ‘the passing of urine or stools,’ and says that it refers to cases where the man omits the use of water on account of dire urgency.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yama (Aparārka, p. 1187). — ‘When a Brāhmaṇa is travelling in places where there is no water, if he happen to become unclean, he should plunge into water with clothes on, as soon as he finds it; or he may repeat the Gāyatrī a hundred times, which is the highest kind of Bath.’

VERSE 11.203

Section XXVI - Expiation for riding a Camel and other similar Offences

वेदोदितानां नित्यानां कर्मणां समतिक्रमे ।
स्नातकव्रतलोपे च प्रायश्चित्तमभोजनम् ॥२०३॥

vedoditānāṃ nityānāṃ karmaṇāṃ samatikrame |
snātakavratalope ca prāyaścittamabhojanam ||203||

For the neglect of the compulsory duties laid down by the Veda, and for the omission of the observances of the Accomplished Student, — the expiation is fasting. — (203)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The duties laid down in the Veda are — (a) the Śrauta sacrifices, Darśapūrṇamāsa and the rest and (b) the Smārta rites of the Twilight Prayers and the rest. These latter also are regarded as ‘laid down in the Veda,’ because Smṛtis have their source in the Veda.

‘The observances of the Accomplished Student’ — e.g., ‘He shall not wear over-worn or dirty clothes’ and so forth.

If these are omitted, the offender should fast for one day.

In connection with the omission of the Śrauta rites, some sacrifices have been prescribed by way of expiation; and with these the ‘fasting’ here prescribed is to be combined.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 809): — in Nirṇayasindhu (pp. 84 and 345); — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 579); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 957), to the effect that in the ease of the omission of those Śrauta and Smāṛta rites for which, no specific expiation is prescribed, the fasting here laid down series as the expiation; and where a specific expiation has been prescribed, it has to be done along with this fasting; — in Aparārka (p. 1188), which explains ‘abhojanam’ as fasting, and adds the same note as the above; — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 443), which adds that this fasting has to he done along with the rites specifically prescribed; — in Mitākṣarā (3.242); — in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 286 and 368), which says that this refers to a single omission, — and explains ‘Snātaka’ as ‘house-holder’; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 357), which says that this refers to cases of unintentional omission.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (54.29). — ‘For omitting one of the compulsory acts enjoined in the revealed law, and for the breach of the rules laid down for the Accomplished Student, a fast is ordained as the atonement.’

VERSE 11.204 [Expiation for hurting and insulting a Brāhmaṇa]

Section XXVII - Expiation for hurting and insulting a Brāhmaṇa

हुङ्कारं ब्राह्मणस्योक्त्वा त्वङ्कारं च गरीयसः ।
स्नात्वाऽनश्नन्नहः शेषमभिवाद्य प्रसादयेत् ॥२०४॥

huṅkāraṃ brāhmaṇasyoktvā tvaṅkāraṃ ca garīyasaḥ |
snātvā'naśnannahaḥ śeṣamabhivādya prasādayet ||204||

If a man has uttered the syllable ‘hum’ against a Brāhmaṇa, or has addressed a superior person as ‘thou,’ — he shall bathe, fast for the rest of the day and having saluted him, shall propitiate him. — (204)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The syllable ‘hum’ is uttered as a sign of anger and insult; e.g., in such expressions as — ‘Keep quiet, hum! don’t speak like this’ and so forth; — the syllable ‘hum’ being uttered by way of a prohibition.

‘Against a Brāhmaṇa,’ — be he older, or equal or younger, a pupil or a son.

Similarly — ‘if he addresses a superior person as “Thou,”’ — e.g., ‘Thou sayest so,’ ‘thou didst this.’

The expiation here laid down is for the use of the singular form of the pronoun ‘Yuṣmat’; and no significance is meant to be attached to the special Nominative-ending (in the term ‘tvam’ here used). In actual usage, speaking to their superiors, people make use of such forms as ‘Yuṣmāsu’ the Plural form (in the Locative).

‘Should bathe and fast’ — which moans the dropping of the morning-meal.

‘Having saluted’ — fallen on his feet, — ‘he shall propitiate him’ — make him give up his anger — and then take his meal. — (204)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1185); — and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 355), as laying down fasting.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.204-206)

Parāśara (11.49-50). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.292). — ‘For addressing one’s elder with such disrespectful terms as “Tvam” and “Hum,” for defeating him in a discussion, or for binding him with a cloth, one should immediately appease him and fast during the day.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 1185). — ‘For addressing unspeakable words to a Brāhmaṇa, the expiation ordained is that the man should perform the Kṛcchrātikṛcchra penance and appease the insulted person by falling at his feet; and for tying a cloth round his neck, the expiation prescribed is that the man shall fast for three days and appease him by falling at his feet. If one falsely calumniates the Brāhmaṇa, or injures him, he shall fast for one day, or for three days, or for six days, according to circumstances.’

VERSE 11.205

Section XXVII - Expiation for hurting and insulting a Brāhmaṇa

ताडयित्वा तृणेनापि कण्ठे वाऽबध्य वाससा ।
विवादे वा विनिर्जित्य प्रणिपत्य प्रसादयेत् ॥२०५॥

tāḍayitvā tṛṇenāpi kaṇṭhe vā'badhya vāsasā |
vivāde vā vinirjitya praṇipatya prasādayet ||205||

Having struck him even with a blade of grass, or having tied him in the neck with a cloth, or having defeated him in an altercation, — one shall bow to him and appease him. — (205)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Having struck him with a blade of grass,’ — which may not cause any pain at all.

‘Having tied’ — ever so gently — ‘him in the neck with a cloth.’

‘Having defeated him in an altercation,’ — in an ordinary quarrel.

‘Bow to him’ — humbly, — and ‘appease him’

This rule does not apply to scientific debates or wranglings. — (205)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1185).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.204-206)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.204.

VERSE 11.206

Section XXVII - Expiation for hurting and insulting a Brāhmaṇa

अवगूर्य त्वब्दशतं सहस्रमभिहत्य च ।
जिघांसया ब्राह्मणस्य नरकं प्रतिपद्यते ॥२०६॥

avagūrya tvabdaśataṃ sahasramabhihatya ca |
jighāṃsayā brāhmaṇasya narakaṃ pratipadyate ||206||

If, with the intention of injuring a Brāhmaṇa, one has threatened him, he shall remain in hell for a hundred years; and for one thousand years, if he has struck him. — (206)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a prohibition of threatening; the rest is purely declamatory.

‘Jighāṃsayā’ — with the intention of injuring, if one raises a stick or some such weapon, — ‘he remains in hell for a hundred years’; — and ‘for one thousand years, if he has actually struck him.’

‘With the intention of injuring’ — i.e., not in mere joke. — (200)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 4.165, 167-169.

Tins verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 223).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.204-206)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.204.

VERSE 11.207

Section XXVII - Expiation for hurting and insulting a Brāhmaṇa

शोणितं यावतः पांसून् सङ्गृह्णाति महीतले ।
तावन्त्यब्दसहस्राणि तत्कर्ता नरके वसेत् ॥२०७॥

śoṇitaṃ yāvataḥ pāṃsūn saṅgṛhṇāti mahītale |
tāvantyabdasahasrāṇi tatkartā narake vaset ||207||

As many particles of dust on the ground as Brāhmaṇa’s blood coagulates, for so many thousand years will the shedder (of that blood lie in hell. — (207)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Brāhmaṇa’s blood’ — falling on the ground as the result of the stroke of the stick or other weapons; — ‘as many particles of dust this coagulates, — so many thousand years will the shedder’ of that blood dwell in hell.

This also is purely declamatory. — (207)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.165.45). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 11.208

Section XXVII - Expiation for hurting and insulting a Brāhmaṇa

अवगूर्य चरेत् कृच्छ्रमतिकृच्छ्रं निपातने ।
कृच्छ्रातिकृच्छ्रौ कुर्वीत विप्रस्योत्पाद्य शोणितम् ॥२०८॥

avagūrya caret kṛcchramatikṛcchraṃ nipātane |
kṛcchrātikṛcchrau kurvīta viprasyotpādya śoṇitam ||208||

On threatening a Brāhmaṇa, one shall perform the Kṛcchra; on striking him, the Atikṛcchara, and on shedding his blood, both the Kṛcchra and the Atikṛcchra. — (208)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This propounds the expiation for the offences described above.

The ‘shedding of blood’ spoken of here is something different from ‘causing pain to a Brāhmaṇa’ mentioned above (under 67); or the two may be regarded as optional alternatives. — (208)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 479); — in Mitākṣarā (3.280), which remarks that when bleeding is brought about, it must involve both ‘threatening’ (avagūraṇa) and ‘striking’ (nipātana), — as without these there could be no wounding but in the case of bleeding, the expiation would be ‘Kṛcchrātikṛcchra’ (which is prescribed for the bleeding), and not ‘Kṛcchra’ and ‘Atikṛcchra’ also (which are prescribed separately for ‘threatening’ and ‘striking’ respectively); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 464).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (2.1.7). — ‘He who has raised his hand against a Brāhmaṇa shall perform a Kṛcchra penance; an Atikṛcchra penance, if he strikes him; Kṛcchra and Cāndrāyaṇa, if blood flows.’

Viṣṇu (54.30). — ‘For attacking a Brāhmaṇa, the Kṛcchra penance should be performed; for striking him, the Atikṛcchra; and for fetching blood from him, the Kṛcchrātikṛcchra.’

Parāśara (11.51). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.293). — ‘For raising a stick against a Brāhmaṇa, the Kṛcchra penance; for striking him, the Atikṛcchra; for fetching his blood, the Kṛcchrātikṛcchra; for inflicting such hurt as keeps the blood within the skin, the Kṛcchra should be performed.’

VERSE 11.209 [General Expiation: covering all Unspecified Cases]

Section XXVIII - General Expiation: covering all Unspecified Cases

अनुक्तनिष्कृतीनां तु पापानामपनुत्तये ।
शक्तिं चावेक्ष्य पापं च प्रायश्चित्तं प्रकल्पयेत् ॥२०९॥

anuktaniṣkṛtīnāṃ tu pāpānāmapanuttaye |
śaktiṃ cāvekṣya pāpaṃ ca prāyaścittaṃ prakalpayet ||209||

For the atonement of offences for which no expiation has been prescribed, one should fix an expiation after taking into consideration the man’s capacity and the nature of the offence. — (209)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For those wrongful deeds for which no expiation has been prescribed, — e.g., the killing of men belonging to the mixed castes of the reverse order, such as the Caṇḍāla and the like, — ‘one shall fix the expiation.’

“In the present work itself, it has been declared that — ‘for killing animals with bones, one may give something to a Brāhmaṇa’ (Verse 141); and this should include the Caṇḍāla and others.”

In that verse, inasmuch as the said animals are spoken of along with ‘boneless animals,’ it follows that only very small animals are meant; and what is there laid down cannot, apply to animals with very large bodies (such as human beings, etc.).

“It having been declared that there are only four castes, and no fifth one, the Caṇḍāla and other inversely mixed castes should all fall under the ‘Śūdra.’”

Simply because there is no fifth caste, it does not follow that the men in question must be Śūdras. Since everyone of these has a distinct characteristic of his own. For instance, ‘the Śūdra is born of a Śūdra father from a married wife of the same caste,’ while the others in question are all born of mixtures of castes. Consequently the expiation for the killing of these cannot he the same as that for the killing of a Śūdra. Nor could it he met by the ‘giving away of something to a Brāhmaṇa.’

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности