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:

गौडी पैष्टी च माध्वी च विज्ञेया त्रिविधा सुरा ।
यथैवैका तथा सर्वा न पातव्या द्विजोत्तमैः ॥ ९४ ॥

gauḍī paiṣṭī ca mādhvī ca vijñeyā trividhā surā |
yathaivaikā tathā sarvā na pātavyā dvijottamaiḥ || 94 ||

Wine should be understood to be of three kinds: (a) distilled from molasses (Gauḍī), (b) distilled from grains (Paiṣṭī), and (c) ‘distilled from grapes’ (Mādhvī); as the one so all the rest should never be drunk by the chief of the twice-born.—(94)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Gauḍī’ is that which is distilled from ‘Guḍa,’ molasses. Even according to those persons who make wine directly from fermented cane-juice itself, the article distilled is ‘Gauḍī’ ‘distilled from guḍa,’ in the sense that the name of the product, (guḍa, molasses) is applied to the cause (cane-juice).

The ‘Mādhvī’ is that ‘distilled from madhu, grape-juice i.e., in its fermented form’; for fresh grape-juice, before it has become fermented into wine, is not forbidden. This distinctly lays down that it is the fermented grape-juice that is called ‘Mādhvī.’ Wherever the prohibition contains the word ‘madya’ (‘intoxicating substance’), it cannot apply to any substance which has not acquired intoxicating properties; us such a substance could not be spoken of as ‘madya,’ intoxicating substance. A similar case is that of the word ‘Śukta’ (‘fermented gruel’) which is applied to the gruel in a certain condition, and not to gruel in general. So long as the gruel has not become soured, it is not called ‘Śukta.’ In the same manner again, the calf is not called a ‘bull’ while it is young.

Thus it is that the mixture of grain water and other things does not come to be called ‘wine,’ so long as it does not imbibe intoxicating properties, by being kept over night Similarly with cane-juice, grape-juice and other substances.

“From all this it would follow that the drinking of a small quantity of wine is permitted—that quantity of it which, if drunk, does not cause intoxication, or when this is prevented by the use of an antidote.”

There is no force in this objection. The prohibition is not meant to apply to the bringing about of intoxication; it does not mean, for instance, that ‘one should act so that he does not become intoxicated or drunk’; what the prohibition means is that ‘one should not drink that which possesses the capacity to cause intoxication’; and this capacity is present in a small quantity of wine also. The mere fact that while dry and low-spirited wine inebriates even when drunk in small quantities, that which is soft and high-spirited does not do so even when drunk in large quantities,—does not prove that there is no intoxicating power in the latter. Mere absence of effects does not necessarily prove the absence of the causa For instance, because a certain quantity of fire is unable to burn a large piece of wood, that does not prove that the fire does not possess the power to burn; specially when it is found that it is quite capable of burning dry grass.

It has been argued that—“it would seem that the drinking of wine is permitted if its intoxicating properties are counteracted by an antidote.”

But there is no force in this objection either. For even though the fire may not burn a heap of grass when it is wet, it does not mean that it does not possess the power to burn; all that it indicates is that though the power is there, it is unable to produce its effect But so long as the power is there, the chance of the effect being produced is always there.

Then again, no other substance could deprive the wine of its inherent power of intoxicating; all that it can do is to prevent the effects from appearing. Thus it is that a man of bilious temperament becomes intoxicated by the use of even a small quantity of wine, another man of phlegmatic temperament is not so easily intoxicated. From all this it is clear that the power is not destroyed in either case.

Thus then the prohibition cannot apply to the substance which is yet to acquire the intoxicating power. Nor can it be regarded as forbidden simply because there is prohibition of it as possessing certain definite characteristics. For instance, in the case of the assertion—‘the thief should be avoided’ (it is not meant that every man, even before he has committed theft, shall be avoided). It is for this reason that no prohibition applies to the gruel before it has become sour.

“How do you explain the form ‘Mādhvī’? The correct form should be ‘Mādhavī.’”

The answer to this is that rules as applied to proper names are not compulsory (Paribhāṣā, 95); and the authority for this consists of Pāṇini’s Sūtra 3.4.146.

The use of the term ‘chief of the twice-born’ has been used with a view to permit wine-drinking for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya. For instance, the Mahābhārata describes wine as drunk by the Yadāvas and the Bhāratas:—‘Both Keśava and Arjuna were found by me to be drunk with wine,’—which is a declamatory assertion pointing to the same fact “Why is then the plural form in ‘so all?’”

Two of them are the substances likened and one is that to which those are likened.

The mention of wine being the ‘dirty refuse of grains’ is meant to be a declamatory assertion producing a reason for what has been prescribed; just as in the case of the text ‘Śūrpeṇa juhoti tena hi annam kriyate.’—(94)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Madhvī.’—distilled from honey’ (Medhātithi);—‘distilled from Madhūka flowers’ (Kullūka);—‘distilled either from grapes and from Madhūka flowers or from honey’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1044), which adds that the liquor distilled from grains is here made an example of prohibited drink; which means that this is the principal kind of liquor, and the other two are only secondary; it is for this reason that though all the three are equally forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa, the former alone is forbidden for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.253), to the effect that liquor distilled from grains is the principal kind of liquor;—and again, in the sense that the sin involved in the drinking of liquor distilled from honey and molasses is as heavy as that in drinking that distilled from grains.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 411), which notes that the name ‘Surā’ is applied primarily to liquor distilled from grains only, and only indirectly to those distilled from honey and molasses;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 548);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 814), which notes that ‘dvijottama’ stands for Brāhmaṇas; hence the meaning is that all kinds of liquor are forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa from his very birth;—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 89) in support of the view that the name ‘Surā’ applies to wines of all the three kinds;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 355) to the effect that the name ‘Surā’ applies directly to these three kinds of wine only, and only figuratively to other kinds.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.94-97)

Viṣṇu (22.82).—‘Distilled from sugar, or from the blossoms of Madhūka, or from flour; these three kinds of wine have to be discerned; as the one so all; none of them should be tasted by the twice-born. Further, that distilled from the blossoms of the Madhūka, from molasses, from the Ṭaṅka fruit, from the Jujube fruit, from dates, from the bread-fruit, from honey, Maireya wine, and wine made of the sap of the cocoanut (coconut?) tree; these ten intoxicating drinks are unclean for the Brāhmaṇa; but the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya commit no wrong in touching or drinking them.’

Agastya (Aparārka, p. 1070).—‘That distilled from the jack-fruit, from grapes, from Madhūka blossoms, from dates, from palm-fruit, from sugar-cane juice, from honey, the Maira, from the cocoanut,—these eleven kinds of wine are equal; the twelfth is the wine called Surā, which is the worst of all.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: