Verse 8.98

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

पञ्च पश्वनृते हन्ति दश हन्ति गवानृते ।
शतमश्वानृते हन्ति सहस्रं पुरुषानृते ॥ ९८ ॥

pañca paśvanṛte hanti daśa hanti gavānṛte |
śatamaśvānṛte hanti sahasraṃ puruṣānṛte || 98 ||

‘He destroys five by false evidence regarding animals; he destroys ten by false evidence regarding kine; he destroys a hundred by false evidence regarding horses, and a thousand by false evidence regarding men.’—(98)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The compound ‘paśvanṛtam’ is to be expounded as ‘paśunimittam-anṛtam,’ ‘false evidence regarding animals,’—on the analogy of the compound ‘śākaparthivaḥ.’

False evidence destroys five relatives;—this ‘destroying’ consists in making them fall into hell;—the five relatives being—(1) the father, (2) the mother, (3) the wife and (4-5) a couple of children (son and daughter).

“How can the result of sin committed by one accrue to another?”

Our answer is that it is on account of association that one person goes to heaven or to hell, by virtue of the virtuous or vicious acts committed by another.

What is really meant is that the perjurer is abandoned by the said relatives;—or, that ho incurs the sin that would accrue from the killing of the relations; and hence even though not actually killing them, he is described as ‘destroying’ them, on the ground that the spiritual effect of the two acts is the same.

This however is a purely hortatory exaggeration; and it is not meant that the man actually commits the act; if this latter were meant, then the man would be subject to the expiatory rites prescribed in connection with the actual killing of the said relatives; while as a matter of fact, the perjurer is subjected to only those sites that have been prescribed in connection with the sin of perjury.

The gradual increase in the number (of relatives destroyed) is meant to indicate the increasingly heavier character of the expiation necessary; and the statements are not meant to be taken as literally true. Hence all that is meant is that each succeeding act of perjury (mentioned) makes the man liable to a heavier expiation than the preceding one.

On being questioned as to the person to whom a certain slave belongs, if the witness deposes falsely,—it is a case of ‘false evidence regarding men.’— (98)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 674);—in Smṛtisaroddhāra (p. 336);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 220), which says that ‘pañca’, ‘five’, qualifies ‘bandhavān’ ‘relations,’ who have been mentioned in the preceding verse;—in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 205);—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (35b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Baudhāyana (1.19.12-13).—‘By false testimony regarding gold, he ruins three ancestors; by false testimony regarding small cattle, he ruins five; by false testimony regarding kine, he kills ten; he ruins a hundred by false evidence regarding horses, and a thousand by false evidence regarding man; a witness who speaks falsely about land ruins the whole world.’

Vaśiṣṭha (16.34).—‘He kills five by false testimony regarding a maiden; ten by false testimony regarding kine, a hundred by false testimony regarding a horse, and a thousand by false testimony regarding a man.’

Gautama (13.14-15).—‘By false evidence concerning small cattle, a witness kills ten; by that regarding cows, horses, men, or land,—in each succeeding case, ten times as many as in the one preceding; or, by false evidence regarding land, the whole human race.’