365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

啶呧し啷嵿�熰ぞ啶�啶距う啷嵿く啶� 啶む�� 啶多�傕う啷嵿ぐ啶膏�嵿く 啶膏�嵿い啷囙く啷� 啶�啶掂い啶� 啶曕た啶侧�嵿が啶苦し啶�啷� 啷�
啶粪�嬥ぁ啶多�堗さ 啶む�� 啶掂�堗ざ啷嵿く啶膏�嵿く 啶︵�嵿さ啶距い啷嵿ぐ啶苦�傕ざ啶む�� 啶曕�嵿し啶む�嵿ぐ啶苦く啶膏�嵿�� 啶� 啷� 啷┼ォ啷� 啷�
啶�啷嵿ぐ啶距す啷嵿ぎ啶｀じ啷嵿�� 啶氞い啷佮�冟し啶粪�嵿�熰た啶� 啶�啷傕ぐ啷嵿ぃ啶� 啶掂ぞ啶洁お啶� 啶多い啶� 啶�啶掂�囙い啷� 啷�
啶︵�嵿さ啶苦�椸�佮ぃ啶� 啶掂ぞ 啶氞い啷佮�冟し啶粪�嵿�熰た啶膏�嵿い啶︵�嵿う啷嬥し啶椸�佮ぃ啶掂た啶︵�嵿う啷� 啶灌た 啶膏�� 啷� 啷┼ォ啷� 啷�

a峁ａ弓膩p膩dya峁� tu 艣奴drasya steye bhavati kilbi峁�am |
峁�o岣峚艣aiva tu vai艣yasya dv膩tri峁兣沘t k峁�atriyasya ca || 337 ||
br膩hma峁嘺sya catu岣メ梗a峁ａ弓i岣� p奴r峁嘺峁� v膩'pi 艣ata峁� bhavet |
dvigu峁嚹� v膩 catu岣メ梗a峁ａ弓istaddo峁�agu峁嘺vidd hi sa岣� || 338 ||

In the case of theft, the guilt of a 艢奴诲谤补 is eightfold, that of the 痴补颈艣测补 sixteen-fold, and that of the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补 thirty-two-fold;鈥�(337) that of the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 sixty-four-fold, or fully hundred-fold, or twice sixty-four-fold; when he is cognisant of the good or bad quality of the act.鈥�(338)

 

Medh膩tithi鈥檚 commentary (manubh膩峁�ya):

(verses 8.337-338)

鈥�When he is cognisant of the good or bad quality of the act鈥�;鈥攖his points out the reason for what is here laid down; and from this it is clear that the penalty here prescribed is meant for the educated. Thus then, if for a guilt an ordinary man is fined one 鈥�碍腻谤峁Ｄ乸补峁嘺,鈥� the learned 艢奴诲谤补 incurs the 鈥�eight-fold guilt;鈥欌�攖hat is, that which is connected with the number 鈥榚ight,鈥� or that which is folded, multiplied, eight times. In either case the term 鈥�eight-fold鈥� means that the educated 艢奴诲谤补鈥檚 guilt is eight times that of the ordinary man.

That of the 痴补颈艣测补 is double that of the 艢奴诲谤补; since he is himself entitled to study the Veda and acquire the necessary knowledge, while the 艢奴诲谤补 can learn only a little through serving or associating with the 叠谤腻丑尘补尘.

As for the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补, though, in the point of knowledge, he stands on the same footing as the 痴补颈艣测补, yet, in as much as the protecting of people forms part of his duty, his guilt is double that of the 痴补颈艣测补.

As regards the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺, the author cannot be content with prescribing any amount of penalty,鈥斺��sixty-four,鈥�hundred,鈥攈undred and twenty-eight.鈥� Since it is his duty to expound the duties of men and instruct them, and thus guard them against evil.

What blame can attach to the common man, who is on the same level as the lower animals? Uneducated men cannot know the good or bad character of actions, and hence they are led to do what should not he done. If, however, the educated men were also to behave in the same manner, then alas! the world would be doomed! As there would be no third man to teach men their duty,鈥攊t having been declared that鈥斺�榦nly two men are known in the world鈥攖he King and the learned 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺.鈥� For the king, a heavy punishment having been already prescribed in the preceding verse, the present verse lays it down for the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺.

Thus all that the present verse enjoins is heavier punishment (for the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺), and the exact numbers are not to be taken literally. Because so far as the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 is concerned, it has been declared that there can be no limit to his punishment. Nor would it be right to lay down any option鈥斺�榯his or that鈥欌�攊n this case [as it would be if the words were taken literally ]; as there would be nothing to determine which of them it should be in any particular case; since both the options being equally authoritative, it would be impossible to find any case in which the lower penalty could be imposed. What king is there, for instance, who would accept only a sixty-four-fold fine, and give up one the double of that figure? Further, one would have been admissible in the case only if punishments were meant to serve a transcendental purpose; as a matter of fact however, they are not meant to serve any transcendental purpose, as we have already explained. Says Gautama (12.17)鈥斺�楩or the educated there should be heavier punishment.鈥� For these reasons the very indefiniteness of the assertion deprives it of injunctive force. Nor would it he right to take the option as determined by the qualifications of the culprit; as this has been already laid down under verse 232, et seq.

Further, the fact of the present passage being an injunction is indicated by the purpose served by it; and as that purpose is served by its being taken as prescribing heavier punishment in general, there can be no justification for its being taken literally and hence laying down options.鈥�(337-338).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

(verses 8.337-338)

These verses are quoted in 惭颈迟腻办峁�a谤腻 (2.275), in support of the view that the fine imposed for theft should vary with the caste of the thief; whereon 叠腻濒补尘产丑补峁�峁�墨 notes two different readings (see Note I);鈥攊n 笔补谤腻艣补谤补尘腻诲丑补惫补 (Vyavah膩ra, p. 302):鈥攁nd in 痴颈惫腻诲补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 (342), which adds the following notes:鈥斺��础峁ａ弓腻辫腻诲测补尘鈥� means 鈥榤ultiplied eight times,鈥欌�斺��办颈濒惫颈峁�a尘,鈥� the amount of fine imposed as punishment; the meaning thus is that the fine to be imposed upon a learned 艣奴dra should be eight times that on an ignorant 艣奴dra; similarly in the case of the 痴补颈艣测补 and others also;鈥攆or the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 the fine is to be either full one hundred, or twice 64;鈥攖he reason for this is 鈥�taddo峁�agu峁嘺viddhi sa岣�,鈥欌�斺�榖ecause the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 is fully cognisant of the evil character of theft鈥攖hus the fact of the culprit being cognisant of the evil being a ground for enhanced penalty in the case of the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺, the same principle is to be applied to the case of the 艢奴诲谤补 and others also. That offence for which the legal penalty for the 艢奴诲谤补, is one, for the 痴补颈艣测补, the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补 and the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺, it should be double the amount of the preceding; so that the penalty for the ignorant 艢奴诲谤补 being one, that of the learned 艢奴诲谤补 is eight times鈥攁峁嘾 that of the learned 痴补颈艣测补 16, the learned 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补 32 and the learned 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 64 times.

These are quoted also in 笔谤腻测补艣肠颈迟迟腻惫颈惫别办补 (p, 348), which says that all that is meant is to deprecate the act, and to show that the gravity of the offence is in proportion to the caste of the delinquent;鈥攊t explains 鈥�补峁ａ弓腻辫腻诲测补尘鈥� as 鈥榯hat which is multiplied by eight; a峁ａ弓膩bhi岣� 膩padyate gu峁噛ate iti,鈥欌�攖he single unit being meant for those lower than the 艢奴诲谤补;鈥攊n 痴颈惫腻诲补肠颈苍迟腻尘补峁噄 (p. 144), which attributes them to Y膩j帽avalkya, and says that 鈥�迟补诲诲辞峁�a驳耻峁嘺惫颈迟鈥� is to be construed all through; so that the meaning is that the fine in the case of the 艢奴诲谤补 who is cognisant of the seriousness of the offence is to be eight times that of the ignorant man, and so on, the fine varying with the qualifications of the offender.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.337-338)

Gautama (12.15-17).鈥斺�楾he value of property which a 艢奴诲谤补 unrighteously acquires by theft, must be repaid eightfold;鈥攆or each of the other castes, the fine shall be doubled; if a learned man offends, the punishment shall be very much enhanced.鈥�

狈腻谤补诲补 (Theft, 51-52).鈥斺�業n theft, the crime of the 艢奴诲谤补 is eight times (that of the lowest caste); of the 痴补颈艣测补, sixteen-fold; of the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补, thirty-two-fold; of the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 sixty-four-fold鈥擪nowledge also makes a difference; for knowing persons, the punishment is specially severe.鈥�