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:

यस्त्वनाक्षारितः पूर्वमभिभाषते कारणात् ?? ।
न दोषं प्राप्नुयात् किं चिन्न हि तस्य व्यतिक्रमः ॥ ३५५ ॥

yastvanākṣāritaḥ pūrvamabhibhāṣate kāraṇāt ?? |
na doṣaṃ prāpnuyāt kiṃ cinna hi tasya vyatikramaḥ || 355 ||

If, however, he is one who has not been previously accused, and converses with her for some good reason, he does not incur any guilt; as in his case there has been no transgression.—(355)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If however the man is one who has not been previously accused or suspected, and if the conversation is found to be one bearing upon business, then there is no guilt, as in his case there is no transgression.

But even though not previously accused, if he converses without any business, he becomes liable to the aforesaid punishment.—(355)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 384), to the effect that no blame is to be attached to, and no punishment inflicted in a case where a man, not previously suspected, engages in such conversation for other purposes;—in Aparārka, (p. 854), which explains ‘doṣaiḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘pūrvam’) as ‘such improper tendencies as a longing for a particular woman and so forth’;—and in Mitākṣarā (2.284), to the same effect.

Bālambhaṭṭī supplies a full explanation:—‘If the man is one who has not been suspected of entertaining any improper desire towards a woman, and he engages in conversation with that woman for some purpose, and in the presence of other persons, then he should not be regarded as culpable, since he has done nothing wrong.’

It is quoted in Vivādacintāmaṇi (pp. 172-173) which has the same explanation as the one just stated.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.354-355)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.354.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: