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...
Verse 5.44
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:
या वेदविहिता हिंसा नियताऽस्मिंश्चराचरे ।
अहिंसामेव तां विद्याद् वेदाद् धर्मो हि निर्बभौ ॥ ४४ ॥yā vedavihitā hiṃsā niyatā'smiṃścarācare |
That killing which is sanctioned by the Veda has been eternal in this world of mobile and immobile beings: it is to be regarded as no killing at all; since it was out of the Veda that the Law shone forth.—(44).
ahiṃsāmeva tāṃ vidyād vedād dharmo hi nirbabhau || 44 ||
Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The killing of creatures which has been prescribed in the Veda, ‘has been eternal’— without beginning—‘in this world of mobile and immobile beings;’ on the other hand, that which is laid down in the Tantra and other works is modern, and based upon mistaken induction. Hence it is only the former that is to be regarded as ‘no killing at all’; and this for the reason that it does not involve any sin in reference to the other world. When this killing is called ‘no killing,’ it is only in view of its effects, and not in view of its form (which of course is that of killing ).
“Since both acts would be equally killing; how can there be any difference in their effects ?”
The answer to this is—‘because it was out of the Veda that the Law shone forth’;—the promulgation of what is lawful (right) and what is unlawful (wrong) proceeded from the Veda; human authorities not being at all trustworthy. And as a matter of fact, the Veda is found to declare that in certain cases, killing is conducive to welfare. Nor is there an absolute identity of form (between the two kinds of killing); because firstly there is the difference that, while one is done for the sake of accomplishing a sacrifice, the other is done for entirely personal motives; and secondly there is difference in the intention also, that is, ordinary killing is done either by one who desires to eat meat, or by one who hates the creature (killed), while the Vedic killing is done because the man thinks that ‘it is enjoined by the scriptures’.
‘Shone forth’— Shone fully; i.e., became manifested.—(44).
Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha
This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).
Comparative notes by various authors
(verse 5.42-46)
See Comparative notes for Verse 5.42.