Verse 12.5

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

परद्रव्येष्वभिध्यानं मनसाऽनिष्टचिन्तनम् ।
वितथाभिनिवेशश्च त्रिविधं कर्म मानसम् ॥ ५ ॥

paradravyeṣvabhidhyānaṃ manasā'niṣṭacintanam |
vitathābhiniveśaśca trividhaṃ karma mānasam || 5 ||

Coveting the wealth or others, scheming in one’s mind about what is undesirable, adhering to a wrong notion,—these are the three forms of ‘mental action.’—(5)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Coveting’—What is meant is that through jealousy for the wealth of other men, one may be constantly thinking of some adversity befalling their fortune—‘Oh, how many horses and cows! How many sheep and goats! What excellent horses! Woe to men! How is it that he has attained such prosperity! In what way may I wrest it all from him! It would be grand if all this wealth of his were destroyed!’

‘Scheming about what is undesirable.’— Some people construe this also with the phrase ‘of others’; and take it to mean ‘the planning of the death of others with the view that all his wealth will come to him.’

“The ‘coveting of the wealth of others’ has also been explained to mean this same thing; so that the idea having been already provided by this phrase, the former would be entirely superfluous.”

The second phrase is a wider term. It is not right to ‘scheme about’ what is undesirable, for others; and loss of wealth is a particular form of ‘what is undesirable.’

It is in view of this difficulty that some people do not construe this second phrase with the phrase ‘of others’; and they explain ‘undesirable’ as standing for forbidden.

According to this view also, ‘the coveting of the wealth of others’ (which is also forbidden) would have to be taken as mentioned separately, only for the purpose of indicating its importance.

Similarly with the phrase ‘adhering to a wrong notion’; e.g., (a) when the prima facie argument is regarded as the Final Conclusion, (b) the philosophy of Idealism, (c) the view that the Veda is not trustworthy, (d) insistence on the view that there is no such thing as the Soul, and so forth.

Others explain this to mean constant opposition to the renouncing of meat-eating.

These three constitute the evil type of ‘mental activity’; apart from these are those of the good type; e.g., ‘not coveting what belongs to another,’ ‘kindness to all creatures,’ ‘faith in the reality of morality and such things.’ Says the revered Vyāsa—‘Non-coveting of the property of others, sympathy for all beings, and the idea that righteous deeds always bring their reward,—one should constantly think in his mind of these three items.’—(5)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Vitathābhiniveśaḥ’.—‘Adherence to false doctrines’ (Medhātithi);—‘constant deep hatred’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692);—in Aparārka (p. 997);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a);—in Hemādri (Kāla p. 632);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 88).