Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Or, in order to remove (the guilt of) slaying a Braéhmaza, he may walk one hundred yoganas, reciting one of the Vedas, eating little, and controlling his organs ; 77. Or he may present to a Brahmazma, learned in 74. Vidush4m, ‘who know (his purpose), ’ (Medh., Gov., Kull.), may also mean according to Medh. ‘who are expert in archery,’ and Nand. adopts this explanation. Nar. thinks that this penance must be performed by one who intentionally murdered a Brahmaaa, and that it must end in his death. According to the Bhavishyapuriza which Kull. and Ragh. quote, these two penances and that mentioned in the next verse are to be performed by a Kshatriya who slew a Brahmana, those ending in death by an offender who himself, destitute of good qualities, killed a learned Srotriya, and the lighter ones by an eminent king who unintentionally caused the death of a worthless Braéhmana. 45. According to the Bhavishyapuraaa, Nr. and Kull., Svargit is the name of a sacrifice, but Medh. (on verse 78) and R4gh. take the word as an adjective qualifying Gosava. Regarding the Gosava, see KAty4yana Sr. Sittras XXII, 11, 3; regarding the Abhigit, Asy. Sr. Sitras VIII, 5,13. According to Gov. and Nar., Trivrit is equivalent to Trivritstoma, and to be taken separately; but according to Medh. and Ragh., trivritd qualifies Agnish/ut. Regarding the Agnish/éut, see Asv. Sr. SQtras IX, 7, 22-25. 46. According to N4r., Kull., and Ragh. (the latter two quoting the Bhavishyapurama as their authority), this penance suffices to expiate the unintentional slaughter of one who has nothing but the name of a Braéhmaza. 77. I read with Medh., Gov., and K., dhanam hi instead of 446 LAWS OF MANU. XI, 78. the Vedas, his whole property, as much wealth as suffices for the maintenance (of the recipient), or a house together with the furniture ; 78. Or, subsisting on sacrificial food, he may walk against the stream along (the whole course of the river) Sarasvatt; or, restricting his food (very much), he may mutter thrice the Samhita of a Veda. 79. Having shaved off (all his hair), he may dwell at the extremity of the village, or in a cow-pen, or in a hermitage, or at the root of a tree, taking pleasure in doing good to cows and Brahmazas. dhanam va (N&r., Nand., Ragh., editions), ‘or as much wealth as.’ Kull.’s explanation, too, points to the former reading, the meaning of which is that ‘the whole property’ must be sufficient to maintain the recipient. According to the Bhavishyapura#a, quoted by Kull. and R4gh., the penance is prescribed for the case that a rich, unlearned Brahmama who keeps no sacred fire, unintentionally slew an utterly worthless Brahmama.
2According to the Bhavishyapura#a, quoted by Kull. and R4gh., the penance is prescribed for the case that a rich, unlearned Brahmama who keeps no sacred fire, unintentionally slew an utterly worthless Brahmama. 78. According to the Bhavishyapurfsa, quoted by Kull. and Ragh., the first penance is to be performed by an unlearned Bréhmaza who intentionally killed an utterly worthless castefellow, the second by an exceedingly distinguished Srotriya who unintentionally caused the death of a man merely a Brahmaza in name. Medh. and Gov. attach their views regarding the particular cases to their explanations of this Sitra. Gov. does not go beyond generalities. But Medh. says that the penance mentioned in verse 73 and the first described in verse 74 may be optionally performed for intentionally slaying an ordinary Brahmama. If a Srotriya or one who is performing a Srauta sacrifice has been killed, the offender is to burn himself. The sacrifices will atone for the guilt of a homicide committed unintentionally, by a most distinguished member of the Aryan castes, provided that the person slain was a Brahmana in name only. 49. Medh., Kull., and Gov. think that the rule allows an option with respect to the residence during the penance of twelve years (verse 73). Nér, says that the verse contains a general rule for all penances. XI, 85. PENANCES FOR MURDER. 447 80. He who unhesitatingly abandons life for the sake of Brahmazas or of cows, is freed from (the guilt of) the murder of a Brahmama, and (so is he) who saves (the life of) a cow, or of a Brahmaza. 81. If either he fights at least three times (against robbers in defence of) a Brahmama’s (property), or reconquers the whole property of a Brahmaza, or if he loses his life for such a cause, he is freed (from his guilt). 82. He who thus (remains) always firm in his vow, chaste, and of concentrated mind, removes after the lapse of twelve years (the guilt of) slaying a Brahmaza. 83. Or he who, after confessing his crime in an assembly of the gods of the earth (Brahmamas), and the gods of men (Kshatriyas), bathes (with the priests) at the close of a horse-sacrifice, is (also) freed (from guilt). 84. The Brahmamza is declared (to be) the root of the sacred law and the Kshatriya its top; hence he who has confessed his sin before an assembly of such men, becomes pure. 85. By his origin alone a Brahmamza is a deity even for the gods, and (his teaching is) authoritative for men, because the Veda is the foundation for that. 80. This holds good also before the twelve years’ penance is finished (Gov., Kull., Nar.).
385. By his origin alone a Brahmamza is a deity even for the gods, and (his teaching is) authoritative for men, because the Veda is the foundation for that. 80. This holds good also before the twelve years’ penance is finished (Gov., Kull., Nar.). 83. Gov. holds that this penance is efficacious only if the offender is engaged in the performance of the twelve years’ penance. Kull. and R4gh. think that it is a separate penance, because the subject of the twelve years’ penance has been finished in the preceding verse, and because the Bhavishyapur4za specially prescribes it for an eminent Brahmaza who unintentionally causes the death of a worthless caste-fellow. Medh. mentions both opinions, and states that he believes the penance to be efficacious in any case. 448 LAWS OF MANU. XI, 86. 86. (If) only three of them who are learned in the Veda proclaim the expiation for offences, that shall purify the (sinners); for the words of learned men are a means of purification. 87. A Braéhmaza who, with a concentrated mind, follows any of the (above-mentioned) rules, removes the sin committed by slaying a Brahmaza through his self-control. 88. For destroying the embryo (of a Brahmaaza, the sex of which was) unknown, for slaying a Kshatriya or a Vaisya who are (engaged in or) have offered a (Vedic) sacrifice, or a (Brahmaza) woman who has bathed after temporary uncleanness (Atreyt), he must perform the same penance, 89. Likewise for giving false evidence (in an important’ cause), for passionately abusiny the teacher, for stealing a deposit, and for killing (his) wife or his friend. go. This expiation has been prescribed for unin- 88-89. Ap. I, 24, 6-9, 23; Gaut. XXII, 11-14; Vas. XX, 34-36; Baudh. II, 1, 12; Vi. L, 7-10; LII, 4; Yag#. III, 251. 88. Medh. and several other commentators propose, in explanation of the term Atreyi, besides the interpretation given above, also the erroneous one, ‘a female of the tribe of Atri.’ 89. ‘Giving false evidence,’ i.e. ‘in a case where the life of the accused is involved’ (Medh., Gov., N&r.), or ‘where gold, land and the like is at stake’ (Kull., Ragh.). ‘Abusing the teacher,’ see above, verse 56. ‘Stealing a deposit,’ i.e. ‘gold belonging to a Kshatriya or Vaisya, or silver and other property belonging to a Bréhmana’ (Kull., Nar., Ragh.), or property belonging to a poor Braéhmana (Medh.). Strf, ‘his wife’ (Nar., Nand.), means according to Gov., Kull, and Ragh. ‘the virtuous wife of a distinguished Br&hmana who keeps sacred fires. Medh. (on verse 88) seems to agree to a similar explanation. ‘His friend, i.e. ‘though he may not be a Brahmana’ (N4r.). go. The verse is identical with Baudh. II, 1, 6. The correct XI, 93. | PENANCES FOR DRINKING SPIRITS. 449 tentionally killing a Brahmaza ; but for intentionally slaying a Brahmaza no atonement is ordained.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Or, in order to remove (the guilt of) slaying a Braéhmaza, he may walk one hundred yoganas, reciting one of the Vedas, eating little, and controlling his organs ; 77. Or he may present to a Brahmazma, learned in 74. Vidush4m, ‘who know (his purpose), ’ (Medh., Gov., Kull.), may also mean according to Medh. ‘who are expert in archery,’ and Nand. adopts this explanation. Nar. thinks that this penance must be performed by one who intentionally murdered a Brahmaaa, and that it must end in his death. According to the Bhavishyapuriza which Kull. and Ragh. quote, these two penances and that mentioned in the next verse are to be performed by a Kshatriya who slew a Brahmana, those ending in death by an offender who himself, destitute of good qualities, killed a learned Srotriya, and the lighter ones by an eminent king who unintentionally caused the death of a worthless Braéhmana. 45. According to the Bhavishyapuraaa, Nr. and Kull., Svargit is the name of a sacrifice, but Medh. (on verse 78) and R4gh. take the word as an adjective qualifying Gosava. Regarding the Gosava, see KAty4yana Sr. Sittras XXII, 11, 3; regarding the Abhigit, Asy. Sr. Sitras VIII, 5,13. According to Gov. and Nar., Trivrit is equivalent to Trivritstoma, and to be taken separately; but according to Medh. and Ragh., trivritd qualifies Agnish/ut. Regarding the Agnish/éut, see Asv. Sr. SQtras IX, 7, 22-25. 46. According to N4r., Kull., and Ragh. (the latter two quoting the Bhavishyapurama as their authority), this penance suffices to expiate the unintentional slaughter of one who has nothing but the name of a Braéhmaza. 77. I read with Medh., Gov., and K., dhanam hi instead of 446 LAWS OF MANU. XI, 78. the Vedas, his whole property, as much wealth as suffices for the maintenance (of the recipient), or a house together with the furniture ; 78. Or, subsisting on sacrificial food, he may walk against the stream along (the whole course of the river) Sarasvatt; or, restricting his food (very much), he may mutter thrice the Samhita of a Veda. 79. Having shaved off (all his hair), he may dwell at the extremity of the village, or in a cow-pen, or in a hermitage, or at the root of a tree, taking pleasure in doing good to cows and Brahmazas. dhanam va (N&r., Nand., Ragh., editions), ‘or as much wealth as.’ Kull.’s explanation, too, points to the former reading, the meaning of which is that ‘the whole property’ must be sufficient to maintain the recipient. According to the Bhavishyapura#a, quoted by Kull. and R4gh., the penance is prescribed for the case that a rich, unlearned Brahmama who keeps no sacred fire, unintentionally slew an utterly worthless Brahmama.
2According to the Bhavishyapura#a, quoted by Kull. and R4gh., the penance is prescribed for the case that a rich, unlearned Brahmama who keeps no sacred fire, unintentionally slew an utterly worthless Brahmama. 78. According to the Bhavishyapurfsa, quoted by Kull. and Ragh., the first penance is to be performed by an unlearned Bréhmaza who intentionally killed an utterly worthless castefellow, the second by an exceedingly distinguished Srotriya who unintentionally caused the death of a man merely a Brahmaza in name. Medh. and Gov. attach their views regarding the particular cases to their explanations of this Sitra. Gov. does not go beyond generalities. But Medh. says that the penance mentioned in verse 73 and the first described in verse 74 may be optionally performed for intentionally slaying an ordinary Brahmama. If a Srotriya or one who is performing a Srauta sacrifice has been killed, the offender is to burn himself. The sacrifices will atone for the guilt of a homicide committed unintentionally, by a most distinguished member of the Aryan castes, provided that the person slain was a Brahmana in name only. 49. Medh., Kull., and Gov. think that the rule allows an option with respect to the residence during the penance of twelve years (verse 73). Nér, says that the verse contains a general rule for all penances. XI, 85. PENANCES FOR MURDER. 447 80. He who unhesitatingly abandons life for the sake of Brahmazas or of cows, is freed from (the guilt of) the murder of a Brahmama, and (so is he) who saves (the life of) a cow, or of a Brahmaza. 81. If either he fights at least three times (against robbers in defence of) a Brahmama’s (property), or reconquers the whole property of a Brahmaza, or if he loses his life for such a cause, he is freed (from his guilt). 82. He who thus (remains) always firm in his vow, chaste, and of concentrated mind, removes after the lapse of twelve years (the guilt of) slaying a Brahmaza. 83. Or he who, after confessing his crime in an assembly of the gods of the earth (Brahmamas), and the gods of men (Kshatriyas), bathes (with the priests) at the close of a horse-sacrifice, is (also) freed (from guilt). 84. The Brahmamza is declared (to be) the root of the sacred law and the Kshatriya its top; hence he who has confessed his sin before an assembly of such men, becomes pure. 85. By his origin alone a Brahmamza is a deity even for the gods, and (his teaching is) authoritative for men, because the Veda is the foundation for that. 80. This holds good also before the twelve years’ penance is finished (Gov., Kull., Nar.).
385. By his origin alone a Brahmamza is a deity even for the gods, and (his teaching is) authoritative for men, because the Veda is the foundation for that. 80. This holds good also before the twelve years’ penance is finished (Gov., Kull., Nar.). 83. Gov. holds that this penance is efficacious only if the offender is engaged in the performance of the twelve years’ penance. Kull. and R4gh. think that it is a separate penance, because the subject of the twelve years’ penance has been finished in the preceding verse, and because the Bhavishyapur4za specially prescribes it for an eminent Brahmaza who unintentionally causes the death of a worthless caste-fellow. Medh. mentions both opinions, and states that he believes the penance to be efficacious in any case. 448 LAWS OF MANU. XI, 86. 86. (If) only three of them who are learned in the Veda proclaim the expiation for offences, that shall purify the (sinners); for the words of learned men are a means of purification. 87. A Braéhmaza who, with a concentrated mind, follows any of the (above-mentioned) rules, removes the sin committed by slaying a Brahmaza through his self-control. 88. For destroying the embryo (of a Brahmaaza, the sex of which was) unknown, for slaying a Kshatriya or a Vaisya who are (engaged in or) have offered a (Vedic) sacrifice, or a (Brahmaza) woman who has bathed after temporary uncleanness (Atreyt), he must perform the same penance, 89. Likewise for giving false evidence (in an important’ cause), for passionately abusiny the teacher, for stealing a deposit, and for killing (his) wife or his friend. go. This expiation has been prescribed for unin- 88-89. Ap. I, 24, 6-9, 23; Gaut. XXII, 11-14; Vas. XX, 34-36; Baudh. II, 1, 12; Vi. L, 7-10; LII, 4; Yag#. III, 251. 88. Medh. and several other commentators propose, in explanation of the term Atreyi, besides the interpretation given above, also the erroneous one, ‘a female of the tribe of Atri.’ 89. ‘Giving false evidence,’ i.e. ‘in a case where the life of the accused is involved’ (Medh., Gov., N&r.), or ‘where gold, land and the like is at stake’ (Kull., Ragh.). ‘Abusing the teacher,’ see above, verse 56. ‘Stealing a deposit,’ i.e. ‘gold belonging to a Kshatriya or Vaisya, or silver and other property belonging to a Bréhmana’ (Kull., Nar., Ragh.), or property belonging to a poor Braéhmana (Medh.). Strf, ‘his wife’ (Nar., Nand.), means according to Gov., Kull, and Ragh. ‘the virtuous wife of a distinguished Br&hmana who keeps sacred fires. Medh. (on verse 88) seems to agree to a similar explanation. ‘His friend, i.e. ‘though he may not be a Brahmana’ (N4r.). go. The verse is identical with Baudh. II, 1, 6. The correct XI, 93. | PENANCES FOR DRINKING SPIRITS. 449 tentionally killing a Brahmaza ; but for intentionally slaying a Brahmaza no atonement is ordained.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.