365bet娱乐

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

啶椸�屶ぁ啷� 啶�啷堗し啷嵿�熰�� 啶� 啶�啶距ぇ啷嵿さ啷� 啶� 啶掂た啶溹�嵿�炧�囙く啶� 啶む�嵿ぐ啶苦さ啶苦ぇ啶� 啶膏�佮ぐ啶� 啷�
啶�啶ム�堗さ啷堗�曕�� 啶むぅ啶� 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啶� 啶� 啶�啶距い啶掂�嵿く啶� 啶︵�嵿さ啶苦�溹�嬥い啷嵿い啶�啷堗�� 啷� 啷�啷� 啷�

gau岣嵞� pai峁ａ弓墨 ca m膩dhv墨 ca vij帽ey膩 trividh膩 sur膩 |
yathaivaik膩 tath膩 sarv膩 na p膩tavy膩 dvijottamai岣� || 94 ||

Wine should be understood to be of three kinds: (a) distilled from molasses (骋补耻岣嵞�
), (b) distilled from grains (笔补颈峁ａ弓墨), and (c) 鈥榙istilled from grapes鈥� (惭腻诲丑惫墨); as the one so all the rest should never be drunk by the chief of the twice-born.鈥�(94)

 

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

鈥�骋补耻岣嵞�鈥� is that which is distilled from 鈥�骋耻岣峚,鈥� molasses. Even according to those persons who make wine directly from fermented cane-juice itself, the article distilled is 鈥�骋补耻岣嵞�鈥� 鈥榙istilled from 驳耻岣峚,鈥� in the sense that the name of the product, (驳耻岣峚, molasses) is applied to the cause (cane-juice).

The 鈥�惭腻诲丑惫墨鈥� is that 鈥榙istilled from madhu, grape-juice i.e., in its fermented form鈥�; 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 鈥�惭腻诲丑惫墨.鈥� Wherever the prohibition contains the word 鈥�madya鈥� (鈥榠ntoxicating substance鈥�), it cannot apply to any substance which has not acquired intoxicating properties; us such a substance could not be spoken of as 鈥�madya,鈥� intoxicating substance. A similar case is that of the word 鈥�艢耻办迟补鈥� (鈥榝ermented gruel鈥�) 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 鈥�艢耻办迟补.鈥� In the same manner again, the calf is not called a 鈥榖ull鈥� while it is young.

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

鈥淔rom all this it would follow that the drinking of a small quantity of wine is permitted鈥攖hat quantity of it which, if drunk, does not cause intoxication, or when this is prevented by the use of an antidote.鈥�

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 鈥榦ne should act so that he does not become intoxicated or drunk鈥�; what the prohibition means is that 鈥榦ne should not drink that which possesses the capacity to cause intoxication鈥�; 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,鈥攄oes 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鈥斺�渋t would seem that the drinking of wine is permitted if its intoxicating properties are counteracted by an antidote.鈥�

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鈥斺�榯he thief should be avoided鈥� (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.

鈥淗ow do you explain the form 鈥�惭腻诲丑惫墨鈥�? The correct form should be 鈥�惭腻诲丑补惫墨.鈥欌赌�

The answer to this is that rules as applied to proper names are not compulsory (笔补谤颈产丑腻峁Ｄ�, 95); and the authority for this consists of P膩峁噄ni鈥檚 S奴tra 3.4.146.

The use of the term 鈥�chief of the twice-born鈥� has been used with a view to permit wine-drinking for the K峁�atriya and the Vai艣ya. For instance, the Mah膩bh膩rata describes wine as drunk by the Yad膩vas and the Bh膩ratas:鈥斺�楤oth Ke艣ava and Arjuna were found by me to be drunk with wine,鈥欌�攚hich is a declamatory assertion pointing to the same fact 鈥淲hy is then the plural form in 鈥�so all?鈥欌赌�

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

The mention of wine being the 鈥榙irty refuse of grains鈥� is meant to be a declamatory assertion producing a reason for what has been prescribed; just as in the case of the text 鈥�艢奴rpe峁嘺 juhoti tena hi annam kriyate.鈥欌赌�(94)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

鈥�惭补诲丑惫墨.鈥欌�攄istilled from honey鈥� (Medh膩tithi);鈥斺�榙istilled from 惭补诲丑奴办补 flowers鈥� (Kull奴ka);鈥斺�榙istilled either from grapes and from 惭补诲丑奴办补 flowers or from honey鈥� (N膩r膩ya峁嘺).

This verse is quoted in 础辫补谤腻谤办补 (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 Br膩hma峁嘺, the former alone is forbidden for the K峁�atriya and the Vai艣ya.

It is quoted in 惭颈迟腻办峁�a谤腻 (3.253), to the effect that liquor distilled from grains is the principal kind of liquor;鈥攁nd 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 笔补谤腻艣补谤补尘腻诲丑补惫补 (Pr膩ya艣citta, p. 411), which notes that the name 鈥�厂耻谤腻鈥� is applied primarily to liquor distilled from grains only, and only indirectly to those distilled from honey and molasses;鈥攊n 痴墨谤补尘颈迟谤辞诲补测补 (膧hnika, p. 548);鈥攊n 惭补诲补苍补辫腻谤颈箩腻迟补 (p. 814), which notes that 鈥�dvijottama鈥� stands for Br膩hma峁嘺s; hence the meaning is that all kinds of liquor are forbidden for the Br膩hma峁嘺 from his very birth;鈥攊n 笔谤腻测补艣肠颈迟迟补惫颈惫别办补 (p. 89) in support of the view that the name 鈥�厂耻谤腻鈥� applies to wines of all the three kinds;鈥攁nd in 厂尘峁泃颈蝉腻谤辞诲诲丑腻谤补 (p. 355) to the effect that the name 鈥�厂耻谤腻鈥� applies directly to these three kinds of wine only, and only figuratively to other kinds.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.94-97)

痴颈峁ａ箛耻 (22.82).鈥斺�楧istilled from sugar, or from the blossoms of 惭补诲丑奴办补, 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 惭补诲丑奴办补, from molasses, from the 峁琣峁卥补 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 Br膩hma峁嘺; but the K峁�atriya and the Vai艣ya commit no wrong in touching or drinking them.鈥�

Agastya (础辫补谤腻谤办补, p. 1070).鈥斺�楾hat distilled from the jack-fruit, from grapes, from 惭补诲丑奴办补 blossoms, from dates, from palm-fruit, from sugar-cane juice, from honey, the Maira, from the cocoanut,鈥攖hese eleven kinds of wine are equal; the twelfth is the wine called 厂耻谤腻, which is the worst of all.鈥�