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:

या नियुक्ताऽन्यतः पुत्रं देवराद् वाऽप्यवाप्नुयात् ।
तं कामजमरिक्थीयं वृथोत्पन्नं प्रचक्षते ॥ १४७ ॥

yā niyuktā'nyataḥ putraṃ devarād vā'pyavāpnuyāt |
taṃ kāmajamarikthīyaṃ vṛthotpannaṃ pracakṣate || 147 ||

If a woman, without being ‘authorised,’ bears a son either to her broth er-in-law or to some other person, that son they declare to be lust-born,’ ‘incapable of inheritance’ andborn in vain.’—(147)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Before ‘niyuktā,’ there should be an ‘a’ (coalescing with the ‘ā’ in ‘’); for otherwise (if the word meant ‘authorised’) the present verse would be contrary to what has gone in the preceding verse. It might be argued that with ‘aniyuktā,’not authorised,’ this would be a needless repetition of what has gone before. But such superfluity can be, and has been, explained.

The older writers however do not accept the reading ‘aniyuktā,’ ‘not authorised.’ And according to them the text is to be explained as meaning that ‘the son born of the authorised woman also is not entitled to the paternal property.’

Last-born,’— even when the man acts under ‘authority,’ there is always a certain amount of ‘lust’ involved, hence the child is called ‘lust-born.’

Born in vain;’—this means that he is incapable of accomplishing the purpose for which he was begotten.

This verse turns out (according to the older writers) to be a denial of the title to inheritance declared before (in 147); and hence an option has been accepted in this case,

Our revered teacher however declares that if we read ‘aniyuktā,’ ‘not authorised,’ the two texts become reconciled.—(147)

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.145-148)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.145.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: