Verse 8.99

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

हन्ति जातानजातांश्च हिरण्यार्थेऽनृतं वदन् ।
सर्वं भूमिअनृते हन्ति मा स्म भूमिअनृतं वदीः ॥ ९९ ॥

hanti jātānajātāṃśca hiraṇyārthe'nṛtaṃ vadan |
sarvaṃ bhūmianṛte hanti mā sma bhūmianṛtaṃ vadīḥ || 99 ||

‘Deposing falsely in regard to gold, he kills the born as well as the unborn; by false evidence regarding land, he kills all; never tell a lie regarding land.’—(99)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Question—“How can association with the sinful person affect those not yet born,—that it is said that the man kills the born as well as the unborn?”

It has been already pointed out that all this is merely a hortatory exaggeration.

‘He kills all by deposing falsely in regard to land; never tell a lie regarding land’;—this direct form of address has been adopted for the purpose of indicating the gravity of the offence.

Question—“What is it that is called Land?”

Answer—It is what is known as globe, the earth with hilly protuberances, extending to the ocean.

Objection—“But who can be the owner of all this extensive earth? Who too can take it away by force? For there is no king over the whole earth. To this effect there is the earth’s song addressed to Viśvakarman Bhauvana,—the latter term being his name derived from his father’s—‘no mortal can give me away’;—which means that there is no one who owns the entire earth,—‘I shall sink into the midst of the water, having heard that he is desirous of haring intercourse with me,’—this sinking within water implying the futility of the gift,—‘vain is thy promise to give me away’—‘just as what Is thrown into the water becomes useless, so also is your promise to give the Earth to Kaśyapa useless.’ (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 13. 7. 1. 15). The meaning of all this is that the earth is the common property of all men, to be equally enjoyed by all; and kings are appointed only for taking care of it. Thus then, cither the giving away or the taking away of the whole extent of this earth being impossible, how can there be any disputes regarding its possession?”

Answer—True; but, just as the entire earth is spoken of as ‘bhūmi,’ ‘land,’ so also are Holds, villages and platforms and over these latter, ownership is certainly possible; and the making over or the taking away also of such ownership is directly perceptible; the ‘taking away’ of this consists in asserting ownership in an improper manner; and the mere dismantling of a house or the cutting of a tree does not constitute the act of ‘taking away.’ Hence if a man walks over another man’s land, or takes clay out of it, ho is not said to ‘take away the land.’

“But the Mīmāṃsakas have declared that ‘It cannot be the land, because it is common to all’ (Jaimini, 6. 3. 3) [where the word ‘land’ stands for the whole earth].”

But the term is found to be used in the sense also of parts of the earth, by the revered Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana, who has declared as follows, in course of the description of the duty of charity—‘On the earth the king should permit the duty of charity by others also; this is a sacred treasure laid down for kings’ [which refers to the gift of land]. As for the assertion of the Mīmāṃsakas regarding ‘land’ being ‘common to all,’—this refers to the entire globe, to roam about over which all men are equally entitled, and which therefore, cannot he owned by any one; how then could it be given away? In accordance with this view, villages and towns can be given away at the Viśvajit sacrifice. Others however quote the words ‘they present as sacrificial fee, the bhūmi with the exception of the platform and the wife’s room,’—and explain, that, since any such exception would not be applicable to the entire earth, the giving must refer to fields and such other parts of it only.

In view of the term ‘vadīḥ’ (singular) in this verse, the words ‘listen, gentle sir’ (of verse 97) should he taken as addressed to the witness, and not to the pupil.

All the words in the second person contained in verse 88 onwards (up to 92) are meant to be addressed to the śūdra witness, as is clear from the gravity of the offence indicated, and also from the similarity in the verbal forms used;—while from verse 93 onwards are to be addressed to all witnesses. That such a break in the construction is intended is shown by the adopting of a different verbal form;—the Second Person is used in the former set of verses while in the latter we have the Third Person, which clearly indicates dissociation from the previous context.—(99).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Sarvam hanti’—‘Destroys everything—i. e., incurs the guilt of killing all animate beings’ (Kullūka and Govindarāja);—‘destroys even more than a thousand beings’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘destroys the entire universe’ (Nandana).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Baudhāyana (1.19.12).—(See under 98.)

Gautama (13.6).—‘By false evidence regarding land, one destroys the whole human race.’