Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

भगवन् सर्ववर्णानां यथावदनुपूर्वशः ।
अन्तरप्रभवानां च धर्मान्नो वक्तुमर्हसि ॥ २ ॥

bhagavan sarvavarṇānāṃ yathāvadanupūrvaśaḥ |
antaraprabhavānāṃ ca dharmānno vaktumarhasi
|| 2 ||

May Thou, O blessed One, explain to us, in due form and in proper order, the duties of all castes and intermediate castes!—(2).

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The second verse describes what the sages said to Manu, after having approached and worshipped him.

The term ‘bhaga,’ ‘blessings,’ is used for superiority, magnanimity, fame, strength and so forth; and ‘bhagavān’ is he who possesses all this; that is (in the present context) Manu; hence it is he who is addressed by the term ‘O blessed one.’

The term ‘caste’ is applied to the three castes, ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ ‘Kṣatriya,’ and ‘Vaiśya’—the term ‘all’ has been added for the purpose of including the ‘Śūdra’; if this was not done, then, the question, emanating from the Great Sages (who represent only the three higher castes), would be restricted to the three castes only.

Intermediate’ means middle; from the mixture of two castes there arises another imperfect caste; those that are born out of those imperfect unions are the ‘intermediate castes,’ born in the natural order or the reverse; those known under the names ‘Mūrdhāvasikta,’ ‘Kṣattṛ,’ ‘Vaidehika’ and so forth (Vide, Manu 10.7 et. seq.), these could not be classed under the caste either of the mother or that of the father; just as the Mule born out of the union of the Horse and the Ass is a distinct species, it is neither the ‘horse’ nor the ‘ass’;—on this ground these would not be included under the ‘castes’; hence they have been mentioned separately.

Objection—“But the offspring of ṭhe union of castes mixed in the natural order is regarded as belonging to the caste of the mother.”

It is not so, we reply. From what is said under 10.6 as to these castes being ‘similar,’ it is clear that they are only ‘similar’ to the caste of the mother, and not quite the same as this latter. The functions of these intermediate castes also are such as can be learnt only from scriptures; they cannot be ascertained entirely from their natural inclinations (as in the case of lower animals); and in as much as these functions cannot be ascertained by the help of any other source of knowledge, they fall under the term ‘Dharma,’ ‘duties,’ and as such deserve to be expounded in the scriptures. Of the intermediate castes born of unions in the reverse order, such duties as ‘not harming others’ and so forth are going to be described (by Manu himself under 10.63). When they are spoken of as being ‘without any duties,’ the ‘duties’ meant are such as Observances, Fasts and so forth.

Yathāvat,’ ‘in due form.’—The suffix ‘vati’ denotes propriety; the meaning being—‘in the form in which performance would be proper.’ This ‘propriety’ also includes such details as—‘this is compulsory, that is optional,’ ‘this is primary, that is secondary,’ as also rules relating to substance, place, time, agent and so forth.

Anupūrvaśaḥ,’ ‘in due order.’—‘Order’ means sequence; the meaning is—‘please explain also the order in which the several duties have to be performed.’ The order meant is such as—after the performance of the ‘Birth-rite,’ come respectively ‘Tonsure,’ ‘Initiation’ and so forth. The phrase ‘in due form’ implies completeness in regard to subject-matter; ‘order’ does not form part of the subject-matter, hence the qualification ‘in due order’ has been added separately.

The word ‘dharma,’ ‘duty,’ is found to be used in reference to—(1) the injunction of what should be done, (2) the prohibition of what should not be done,—both these bearing upon transcendental purposes,—and also (3) action in accordance with the said Injunctions and Prohibitions. Whether the denotation of the term applies equally to both, or it applies primarily to one only, and to another only secondarily,—this we do not discuss on the present occasion; and we have already discussed this in detail in another work (the Smṛtiviveka), and it has no direct bearing on the present context. In any case, when it is declared that the Aṣṭakās should be performed,’ what is clearly understood is the propriety of performing in relation to the Aṣṭakāt; and when it is declared that ‘the meat of the animal killed by a poisoned arrow should not be eaten,' what is dearly understood is the impropriety of performing in relation to the eating of the said meat. Whether the action of the Aṣṭakā is regarded as ‘duty,’ or the propriety of performing that act,—it does not make any difference in the ultimate result. And when the form of ‘duty’ has been duly expounded, that is contrary constitutes ‘Adharma’ (sin) follows naturally by implication. Thus what is meant is that ‘Dharma,’ ‘Duty,’ as also ‘Adharma,’ ‘sin,’ both form the subject-matter of the scriptural treatise: the performance of the ‘Aṣṭakā’ is a Duty, as also is the avoidance of Brāhmaṇa-murder’; the non-performance of Aṣṭaka’ is a sin, as also is the performance of Brāhmaṇa-murder’; such is the distinction (between ‘Duty’ and ‘Sin’ as described in the scriptures).

Arhasi,’ ‘may you’—indicates ability in the shape of possessing the requisite capacity; and as such expresses the fact of the teacher being a lit and proper person for the expounding the duties; the sense being—‘in as much as you are fully able to expound the Duties, hence you are a fit and proper person for that work,—ns such you are entreated by us to explain to us the said Duties’; it follows by implication that when a man is a fit and proper person for doing a certain act, that act should be done by him. The term of entreaty ‘do please explain to us’ is supplied from without.—(2)

 

Explanatory notes

‘O blessed one,’ bhagavan—The title bhagavān means ‘one who possesses Bhaga.’ What ‘bhaga’ stands for is thus described in the Viṣṇupurāṇa quoted by Kullūka—‘Bhaga is the name for the following six—(1) full sovereignty, (2) strength, (3) fame, (4) glory, (5) knowledge and (6) freedom from passion.’

‘Intermediate castes,’ antaraprabhavān—This refers to the ‘mixed castes’ described under Discourse 10.

P. 3, l. 24—For manuḥ J reads manoḥ which would be construed with sambodhanam.

P. 3, l. 25—for jñātiṣu (l. 25) J and Mand. lightly read jātiṣu.

P. 4, l. 3—Those castes being similar &c. sadṛśāneva tānāhu:—This is Manu, 10. 6, where Medhātithi says—te sadṛśā eva jñeyāḥ, natajjātīyāḥ......tatsadṛśagrahaṇāt mātṛta utkṛṣṭāḥ pitṛto nikṛṣṭāḥ—‘They should he regarded as equal to, not of the same caste as, their fathers; what is meant is that they are superior to the mother, but inferior to the father.’

P. 4, l. 14—‘In another work,’ granthāntare—Does this refer to the author’s Smṛtiviveka from which he has quoted in his comments on 2. 6 below?

Medhātithi does not attach much importance to the account of creation here provided. In more than one place he says that the whole of Adhyāya I is ‘mere Arthavāda.’ In his comments on verse 5, for instance, he says that the process described is in some places in accordance with the account found in the Purāṇas, and in others, in accordance with the tenets of the Sāṅkhya system of philosophy; and that no attention need be paid to this, as it has no direct bearing upon Dharma. Again under verse 9, he says that as this subject does not form the real subject-matter of the treatise, no attention need he paid to what the author says on it.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: