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:

उपसर्जनं प्रधानस्य धर्मतो नोपपद्यते ।
पिता प्रधानं प्रजने तस्माद् धर्मेण तं भजेत् ॥ १२१ ॥

upasarjanaṃ pradhānasya dharmato nopapadyate |
pitā pradhānaṃ prajane tasmād dharmeṇa taṃ bhajet || 121 ||

The Secondary cannot rightly be (equal to) the primary; because in procreation, the father is the primary, therefore he (the secondary) should be treated accordinc, to the law (stated before).—(121)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘Secondary ’— subsidiary i.e., the ‘kṣetraja’ son;—‘to the primary’—to the legitimate, ‘body-born,’ ‘aurasa’ son,—‘cannot he equal’—this has got to be supplied,—‘rightly,’ according to law. Hence this cannot be right. That is, it is only the ‘legitimate’ son of the elder brother who is entitled to the ‘preferential share,’ which would have been his father’s; while the son in question, the ‘kṣetraja’ is only a ‘secondary’ son.

“Therefore h e should be treated according to law.”—The rule of partition stated before.

“But if the son in question also happens to be the eldest, wherefore cannot he obtain exactly what would go to the ‘legitimate’ son?”

The reason for this is stated:—‘In procreation the father is t he primary.’—The term ‘father’ here stands for the actual progenitor; he is the principal factor in the act of begetting the son. The ‘kṣetraja’ son, therefore, being begotten by the younger brother, is secondary.

The verse can be explained only by supplying the words ‘is not equal to.’

This verse is purely declamatory, supplementing the foregoing prohibition of the ‘preferential share;’ and since it is declamatory, it may be explained, by attributing any meaning to the terms ‘primary’ and ‘secondary.’

Others read ‘tasmād dharmeṇa tam tyajet.’ (‘Therefore one should rightly abandon him).’

But this is not right; since everywhere the ‘kṣetraja’ son has been declared to be entitled to an equal share with the other sons.

Then again, since this passage is purely declamatory, it could not be taken as setting forth an optional alternative (to the ‘equal share’ laid down in other texts).—(121)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Pradhānasya’.—‘The principal, body-born, son’ (Medhātithi);—‘The father, the husband of the widow’ (Kullūka, Narāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).

“The subsidiary son has not the same rights as the principal, his dead father, the husband of his widow-mother; it is this father, the husband of the widow, who is the ‘principal etc.,’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa);—‘the father is the principal, not the mother, hence even though the mother is the elder sister-in-law, yet the son does not have the same right as his dead father’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 542) as supplying a reason for what has been said in 120; it adds the following explanation:—‘upasarjana’ is subsidiary, i.e., the Kṣetraja son,—it is not lawful that this son should be treated like the principal, the ‘body-born’, son; because in this case (of niyoga) the father, the progenitor-uncle, is the ‘principal’;—such is the explanation given by the author of the Prakāśa. Lakṣmidhara construes ‘Upasarjanam’ as ‘Upasarjanatvam’; but that makes no difference in the meaning.—‘Dharmeṇa’, according to the injunction of the scriptures.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.120-121)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.120.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: