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:

अष्टापाद्यं तु शूद्रस्य स्तेये भवति किल्बिषम् ।
षोडशैव तु वैश्यस्य द्वात्रिंशत् क्षत्रियस्य च ॥ ३३७ ॥
ब्राह्मणस्य चतुःषष्टिः पूर्णं वाऽपि शतं भवेत् ।
द्विगुणा वा चतुःषष्टिस्तद्दोषगुणविद्द् हि सः ॥ ३३८ ॥

aṣṭāpādyaṃ tu śūdrasya steye bhavati kilbiṣam |
ṣoḍaśaiva tu vaiśyasya dvātriṃśat kṣatriyasya ca || 337 ||
brāhmaṇasya catuḥṣaṣṭiḥ pūrṇaṃ vā'pi śataṃ bhavet |
dviguṇā vā catuḥṣaṣṭistaddoṣaguṇavidd hi saḥ || 338 ||

In the case of theft, the guilt of a Śūdra is eightfold, that of the Vaiśya sixteen-fold, and that of the Kṣatriya thirty-two-fold;—(337) that of the Brāhmaṇa sixty-four-fold, or fully hundred-fold, or twice sixty-four-fold; when he is cognisant of the good or bad quality of the act.—(338)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 8.337-338)

When he is cognisant of the good or bad quality of the act’;—this points out the reason for what is here laid down; and from this it is clear that the penalty here prescribed is meant for the educated. Thus then, if for a guilt an ordinary man is fined one ‘Kārṣāpaṇa,’ the learned Śūdra incurs the ‘eight-fold guilt;’—that is, that which is connected with the number ‘eight,’ or that which is folded, multiplied, eight times. In either case the term ‘eight-fold’ means that the educated Śūdra’s guilt is eight times that of the ordinary man.

That of the Vaiśya is double that of the Śūdra; since he is himself entitled to study the Veda and acquire the necessary knowledge, while the Śūdra can learn only a little through serving or associating with the Brāhmam.

As for the Kṣatriya, though, in the point of knowledge, he stands on the same footing as the Vaiśya, yet, in as much as the protecting of people forms part of his duty, his guilt is double that of the Vaiśya.

As regards the Brāhmaṇa, the author cannot be content with prescribing any amount of penalty,—‘sixty-four,—hundred,—hundred and twenty-eight.’ Since it is his duty to expound the duties of men and instruct them, and thus guard them against evil.

What blame can attach to the common man, who is on the same level as the lower animals? Uneducated men cannot know the good or bad character of actions, and hence they are led to do what should not he done. If, however, the educated men were also to behave in the same manner, then alas! the world would be doomed! As there would be no third man to teach men their duty,—it having been declared that—‘only two men are known in the world—the King and the learned Brāhmaṇa.’ For the king, a heavy punishment having been already prescribed in the preceding verse, the present verse lays it down for the Brāhmaṇa.

Thus all that the present verse enjoins is heavier punishment (for the Brāhmaṇa), and the exact numbers are not to be taken literally. Because so far as the Brāhmaṇa is concerned, it has been declared that there can be no limit to his punishment. Nor would it be right to lay down any option—‘this or that’—in this case [as it would be if the words were taken literally ]; as there would be nothing to determine which of them it should be in any particular case; since both the options being equally authoritative, it would be impossible to find any case in which the lower penalty could be imposed. What king is there, for instance, who would accept only a sixty-four-fold fine, and give up one the double of that figure? Further, one would have been admissible in the case only if punishments were meant to serve a transcendental purpose; as a matter of fact however, they are not meant to serve any transcendental purpose, as we have already explained. Says Gautama (12.17)—‘For the educated there should be heavier punishment.’ For these reasons the very indefiniteness of the assertion deprives it of injunctive force. Nor would it he right to take the option as determined by the qualifications of the culprit; as this has been already laid down under verse 232, et seq.

Further, the fact of the present passage being an injunction is indicated by the purpose served by it; and as that purpose is served by its being taken as prescribing heavier punishment in general, there can be no justification for its being taken literally and hence laying down options.—(337-338).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

(verses 8.337-338)

These verses are quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.275), in support of the view that the fine imposed for theft should vary with the caste of the thief; whereon Bālambhaṭṭī notes two different readings (see Note I);—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 302):—and in Vivādaratnākara (342), which adds the following notes:—‘Aṣṭāpādyam’ means ‘multiplied eight times,’—‘kilviṣam,’ the amount of fine imposed as punishment; the meaning thus is that the fine to be imposed upon a learned śūdra should be eight times that on an ignorant śūdra; similarly in the case of the Vaiśya and others also;—for the Brāhmaṇa the fine is to be either full one hundred, or twice 64;—the reason for this is ‘taddoṣaguṇaviddhi saḥ,’—‘because the Brāhmaṇa is fully cognisant of the evil character of theft—thus the fact of the culprit being cognisant of the evil being a ground for enhanced penalty in the case of the Brāhmaṇa, the same principle is to be applied to the case of the Śūdra and others also. That offence for which the legal penalty for the Śūdra, is one, for the Vaiśya, the Kṣatriya and the Brāhmaṇa, it should be double the amount of the preceding; so that the penalty for the ignorant Śūdra being one, that of the learned Śūdra is eight times—aṇd that of the learned Vaiśya 16, the learned Kṣatriya 32 and the learned Brāhmaṇa 64 times.

These are quoted also in Prāyaścittāviveka (p, 348), which says that all that is meant is to deprecate the act, and to show that the gravity of the offence is in proportion to the caste of the delinquent;—it explains ‘aṣṭāpādyam’ as ‘that which is multiplied by eight; aṣṭābhiḥ āpadyate guṇyate iti,’—the single unit being meant for those lower than the Śūdra;—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 144), which attributes them to Yājñavalkya, and says that ‘taddoṣaguṇavit’ is to be construed all through; so that the meaning is that the fine in the case of the Śūdra who is cognisant of the seriousness of the offence is to be eight times that of the ignorant man, and so on, the fine varying with the qualifications of the offender.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.337-338)

Gautama (12.15-17).—‘The value of property which a Śūdra unrighteously acquires by theft, must be repaid eightfold;—for each of the other castes, the fine shall be doubled; if a learned man offends, the punishment shall be very much enhanced.’

Nārada (Theft, 51-52).—‘In theft, the crime of the Śūdra is eight times (that of the lowest caste); of the Vaiśya, sixteen-fold; of the Kṣatriya, thirty-two-fold; of the Brāhmaṇa sixty-four-fold—Knowledge also makes a difference; for knowing persons, the punishment is specially severe.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: