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:

परदारेषु जायेते द्वौ सुतौ कुण्डगोलकौ ।
पत्यौ जीवति कुण्डः स्यान् मृते भर्तरि गोलकः ॥ १७४ ॥

paradāreṣu jāyete dvau sutau kuṇḍagolakau |
patyau jīvati kuṇḍaḥ syān mṛte bhartari golakaḥ || 174 ||

By the wives of other men two kinds of sons are born: the “Kuṇḍa” and the “Golaka;” he who is born while the husband is alive is the “Kuṇḍa,” and one born after the death of the husband is the “Golaka.”—(174)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

While the husband is alive, if a son is born to his wife living in his house, from a paramour tolerated by the forgiving nature of the husband,—this son born of a stranger is called ‘Kuṇḍa.’

That born after the husband has died, is ‘Golaka.’

Some people have held that these names are given to sons born to the woman not ‘appointed’ by her husband (to bear children).

This, however, is not right; as in that case their exclusion would be secured by the more fact of their being non-Brāhmaṇas. Hence we conclude that the ‘Kuṇḍa’ and the ‘Golaka’ are sons born to the woman ‘appointed’ by her husband.

“But how is it that the eons born to the unappointed woman are non-Brāhmaṇas, while those born to the appointed woman are Brāhmaṇas?

This follows from the fact that, in the definition of castes, the term ‘wife’ is mentioned: ‘In the case of all castes, one born of the wife of the same caste, etc., etc.’ (10.5). This term ‘wife,’ like the term ‘husband,’ is a relative one; the term ‘wife,’ ‘patnī,’ again, has been explained (etymologically) as associated with one at sacrificial performances; and no man is entitled to perform.sacrifices in association with another man’s wife.

“If that be so, then no Brāhmaṇa-hood should belong to the sons born to the appointed woman, in whose case also the same reason is applicable.”

This question we shall determine under Discourse 10 (verse 5).

Or, both—the sons of the appointed as well as those of the unappointed woman—may be regarded as ‘non-Brāhmaṇas;’ but the difficulty is that, as has been already pointed out above, if these persons are not Brāhmaṇas, then, there being no possibility of these being admitted to dinners, any prohibition of them would be altogether uncalled for. Specially, as their exclusion would be secured by the exclusion of the ‘out-cast.’ Being an ‘out-cast’ consists in falling off from the duties of the Brāhmaṇa; and as eating at śrāddhas is a duty of the Brāhmaṇa, such feeding may- not be possible for the out-cast. And yet we find his exclusion asserted in verse 150 above,—(174)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.222) as providing the definition of the ‘Kuṇḍa’ and the ‘Golaka’, who have been declared by Yājñavalkya, (1.222) to be unfit to be invited at Śrāddhas;—in Aparārka (p. 445), which adds that this refers to the Kṣetraja son, the other being excluded on the ground of his being a non-Brāhmaṇa;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 362);—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 39);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 422.)

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 3.174-175)

Laghu-Śātātapa (105).—[Reproduces Manu, with slight variations.]

Mahābhārata (13.7.13).—[Do.].

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: