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...

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

मनुष्याणां पशूनां च दुःखाय प्रहृते सति ।
यथा यथा महद् दुःखं दण्डं कुर्यात् तथा तथा ॥ २८६ ॥

manuṣyāṇāṃ paśūnāṃ ca duḥkhāya prahṛte sati |
yathā yathā mahad duḥkhaṃ daṇḍaṃ kuryāt tathā tathā || 286 ||

When a hurt has been inflicted on men or animals, with the motive of causing pain, the king shall inflict punishment in proportion to the greatness of the pain caused.—(286)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse supplies deails (details?) in connection with what has been said before regarding ‘the breaker of skin, etc.’ (in 281).

If the term ‘men’ did not occur, and the verse were taken as referring to any and every living creature, it would give the idea that the same punishment is to be inflicted in the case of the larger as well as the smaller beasts, birds and deer; and it is for the. purpose of precluding this idea that the term ‘men’ has been added.

In proportion to the greatness of the pain earned’;—if the animal hurt is a large one, and the extent of the bruise or the quantity of blood is small, then the hurt being ‘small,’ the fine shall be less than a hundred; while if the hurt is ‘serious,’ it may exceed a hundred.

Others have said that the text has added the term ‘greatness’ for the purpose of indicating that in the case of great pain, the fine shall be increased,—and it does not mean that when the pain caused is not great, the fine shall be decreased.

With the motive of earning pain’—i.e., when the hurt is inflicted with the clear intention of giving pain; hence there is no enhancement of the fine if the hurt has been inflicted by chance carelessness.

These two verses are instances of cases where the attendant circumstances have to be taken into consideration in the apportioning of fines for hurt; and it is in this sense that they should be interpreted.—(286)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 266), which adds that ‘duḥkhāya’ means ‘with the intention of giving pain and the addition of this implies that there is no crime if the hurt is caused by chance;—and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 75), which explains ‘duḥkhāya’ as ‘with the intention of causing pain.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.286-287)

Viṣṇu (5.75-76).—‘All those who have hurt a man, shall pay the expense of his cure;—so also those who have hurt a domestic animal.’

Yājñavalkya (2.222).—‘he who hurts a man should pay the expenses of the cure, and should also be made to pay the fine that has been ordained in connection with lighting.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 816).—‘On hurting the body or the sense-organs, the offender should be fined and also made to pay whatever may satisfy the man hurt, as also the expenses that may be incurred in the complete healing of the wounds inflicted.’

Bṛhaspati (21.10).—‘He who injures a limb, or divides it, or cuts it off, shall be compelled to pay the expenses of curing it, and he who may have taken away an article during the quarrel shall restore it.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 107).—‘For breaking the thigh or the neck, for piercing the eye, and for making a man unable to move, or speak or eat, the middle amercement shall he inflicted, and the offender shall also be made to pay the expenses for the healing of the wound.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: