Verse 11.55

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

अनृतं च समुत्कर्षे राजगामि च पैशुनम् ।
गुरोश्चालीकनिर्बन्धः समानि ब्रह्महत्यया ॥ ५५ ॥

anṛtaṃ ca samutkarṣe rājagāmi ca paiśunam |
guroścālīkanirbandhaḥ samāni brahmahatyayā || 55 ||

Lying for self-aggrandisement, caluminating before the king, and falsely harassing the Preceptor are equal to ‘Brāhmaṇa -killing.’—(55)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

^‘Samutkarṣe’—The Locative ending denotes purpose; just as in the expression ‘carmaṇi dvīpinam hanti’ (‘kills the tiger for the sake of his skin’). When a man lies with the motive of securing honour for himself, his offence is equal to that of killing a Brāhmaṇa. For instance, on an occasion great honour or much wealth is expected to be obtained by every one who is a Brāhmaṇa, or a Vedic scholar, or belongs to a high family,—if one falsely represents himself as such; or when a person needs a qualified recipient for his gifts, if one, though not so qualified, represents himself to be as such. In such cases the man lies ‘for self-aggrandisement’; this is what is meant, and not any small gain for oneself; even though this latter also may be called ‘samutkarṣe.’

One is said to ‘caluminate’ people when he falsely attributes evils to him.

‘Falsely harassing the preceptor’—causing him pain and anxiety by falsely telling him such things as ‘your unmarried daughter is pregnant,’ and so forth; which implies needless hatred. Or, ‘nirbandha’ may stand for quarrelling with him before the King, or bringing a false (barge against him. Says Gautama,—‘False accusation of the Teacher, etc...... are equal to the heinous offences.’ (21.10)—(55)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Guroścālīkanirbandhaḥ.’—‘Wrongfully going to law against the teacher’ (Medhātithi), or ‘falsely accusing the teacher’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘Repeatedly doing what is disagreeable to the teacher’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p, 419), as enumerating offences on the same footing as Brāhmaṇa-slaughter;—in Aparārka (p. 1047), which adds the following notes:—On the occasion of the examination of the disputed superiority of qualifications of two rivals, if the Judge pronounces a false judgment, this act is as sinful as the killing of a Brāhmaṇa; ‘alīkanirbandha’ is false accusation;—and in Madanapārijātā (p. 807), which adds the explanation that ‘when a man without knowing the our Vedas, represents himself to the king as knowing them,—and some one is asked to examine the validity of the claim—if this latter should make a false report, the sin incurred by him is equal to that involved in Brāhmaṇa-slaughter’.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 177), which adds the following notes—‘Anṛtañca samutkarṣe’ means the misrepresentation of oneself as possessing qualities which are not really possessed, e.g., when a Śūdra says ‘I am a Brāhmaṇa’ and wears the sacred thread,—or misrepresentation regarding the qualifications of another person e.g., if one were to say of a learned Brāhmaṇa that he knows nothing,—this is equal to ‘Brāhmaṇa-murder’,—i.e. involves the twelve-year penance;—this refers to cases of intentional and repeated acts,—‘paiśuna’ is backbiting to the king, and ‘guroḥ &c.’ is false accusation of one’s father.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.55-56)

Gautama (21.10).—‘Giving false evidence, calumnies which will reach the ears of the king, an untrue accusation against the Guru, are equal to the Mahāpātakas.’

Do. (21.1).—See under 54.

Viṣṇu (36.1).—‘Killing a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya, engaged in a sacrifice, or a woman in her courses, or a pregnant woman, or a Brāhmaṇa woman who has bathed after temporary uncleanliness, or an embryo of an unknown sex, or one come for protection, are crimes equal to the crime of Brāhmaṇa-killing.’

Do. (36.2).—‘Giving false evidence, killing a friend, these are equal to wine-drinking.’

Do. (37.1-5).—‘Setting one’s self up by false statements, making statements which will reach the ears of the King, regarding a minor offence committed by some one, unjustly upbraiding a Guru, reviling the Veda, forgetting the studied Vedic texts; these are crimes of the fourth degree.’

Yājñavalkya (3.228-29).—‘Insulting one’s Guru, reviling the Veda, killing a friend, forgetting what has been learnt, these are equal to Brāhmaṇa-killing; eating forbidden food, dishonesty, lying for aggrandisement, kissing a woman in the courses, are equal to wine-drinking.’

Āpastamba (1.21.8).—See under 54.