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:

वानस्पत्यं मूलफलं दार्वग्न्यर्थं तथैव च ।
तृणं च गोभ्यो ग्रासार्थमस्तेयं मनुरब्रवीत् ॥ ३३९ ॥

vānaspatyaṃ mūlaphalaṃ dārvagnyarthaṃ tathaiva ca |
tṛṇaṃ ca gobhyo grāsārthamasteyaṃ manurabravīt || 339 ||

Fuel for fire and trees, roots and fruits, and grass, for feeding cows,—the taking of these Manu has declared to be no theft.—(339)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Vānaspatyam’ stands for trees, ‘vanaspati’;—the affix having the reflexive force. When this is taken ‘for feeding cows,’ it is not ‘theft.’

Roots and fruits’—of trees; as also lotus-roots, corns and so forth.

Under verse 326 et seq., punishment has been prescribed in connection with ‘roots and fruits,’ along with ‘yarns’ and other things,—when taken for purposes other than the feeding of cows. Hence when the act is here said to be ‘not theft,’ it refers only to cases where they are taken ‘for feeding cows.’

According to another Smṛti-text however, punishment has got to be inflicted in a case where the man is not suffering from any actual shortage, and he takes the things through sheer childishness; specially when they are within an enclosure. Says Gautama (12.28)—‘Fruits and flowers one may take as his own, of tre.es that are not enclosed.’

Fuel for fire’;—if the man who has set up the fire finds no trees near him, and finds that the fire would be extinguished, if he takes fuel for keeping it alive, there is no harm in this, he might supply the lire with fuel consisting of leaves; but in a village where leaves are not available in large quantities, if he takes some fuel, there can be no harm in this.

Grass for cows’;—the Dative in ‘gobhyaḥ’ means ‘for the sake of.’

In as much as the text specifies this, it would be wrong if the grass were taken for the purpose of making mats.

Some people hold that the term ‘grass’ itself indicates that it is meant for cows. But for them there would be no justification for the presence of the term ‘for cows,’ ‘goḥbyaḥ (gobhyaḥ?)’ (with the Dative); as in that case the Genitive would be the right form.—(339)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 252);—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 116), which says that what is meant is that the sin of the act is removed by the use mentioned, and not that it is not a case of ‘theft’;—and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 147), which says that the ‘fruits’ meant should be such as do not belong to another person.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (12.28).—‘One may take as one’s own, grass for a cow, and fuel for his fire; as also flowers of creepers and trees and their fruit, if these be unfenced.’

Āpastamba (1.28.1-6).—‘He who, under any condition whatsoever, covets and takes another man’s property is a thief; thus teach Kautsa and Hārīta, as well as Kaṇva and Puskarsādi. Vārsyāyani declares that there are exceptions to this law, in regard to some things;—e.g., seeds ripening in the pod, food for a draught-ox; if these are taken, the owner should not forbid it. To take even these in large quantities is sinful. Hārīta declares that in every case the permission of the owner must he obtained first.’

Yājñavalkya (2.166).—‘Grass, fuel and flowers, the twice-born may take from all places.’

Smṛtyantara (Aparārka, p. 774).—‘Grass, wood, flower or fruit—if one takes any of these without permission, he deserves to have his hand cut oil.’

Nārada (Theft, 22-24).—‘For stealing, wood, cane, grass and the like...... vegetables, green roots, grass or flowers... a fine of five times the value of the article stolen.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: