365bet娱乐

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

啶оえ啷佮�冟ざ啶班ぞ啶｀ぞ啶� 啶曕ぐ啷嵿い啶� 啶� 啶�啶多�嵿�氞ぞ啶椸�嵿ぐ啷囙う啶苦ぇ啶苦し啷傕お啶むた啶� 啷�
啶�啶苦い啷嵿ぐ啶о�嵿ぐ啷佮�椸�� 啶︵�嵿く啷傕い啶掂�冟い啷嵿い啶苦ざ啷嵿�� 啶�啷佮い啷嵿ぐ啶距�氞ぞ啶班�嵿く啶膏�嵿い啶ム�堗�� 啶� 啷� 啷оガ啷� 啷�

dhanu岣ヅ沘r膩峁嚹佱箖 kart膩 ca ya艣c膩gre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati岣� |
mitradhrug 诲测奴迟补惫峁泃迟颈艣ca putr腻肠腻谤测补stathaiva ca || 160 ||

The maker of bows and arrows, he whose wife dallies with another person and he who makes love to his brother鈥檚 widow, he who injures a friend, he who subsists by gambling and he who has his own son for his teacher.鈥�(160)

 

Medh膩tithi鈥檚 commentary (尘补苍耻产丑腻峁�y补):

He who, as a professional artisan, makes bows and arrows.

鈥�础驳谤别诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴补迟颈岣�;鈥欌�攖he term 鈥�诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ�鈥� is connected both ways, like the single eye-ball of the crow operating in both sockets. Such a construction is permissible, because the text belongs to the category of a 鈥�蝉苍尘峁泃颈-艣腻迟谤补.鈥� Even (meaningless) lines and clods of earth are made to yield some meaning, in consideration of the requirements of 厂尘峁泃颈蝉; and they come out useful too. For this reason, the objection need not be raised as to how a single term occurring in the middle of a compound can be construed with two different terms. In fact. Gautama (15.16) has expressly prohibited both (The 鈥�agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ�鈥� and the 鈥�诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati鈥�), and this indicates the plausibility of the above construction; and the compound really contains two terms. Further, there is no such person as 鈥�agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati.鈥� The definition of these two (鈥�agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ� and 诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴at墨鈥�) will he supplied later on.

鈥�Who injures a friend鈥欌�攚ho puts obstacles in a friend鈥檚 business.

鈥�Who subsists by gambling鈥欌�擳he man for whom gambling is the means of subsistence.

鈥淪uch a person has already been mentioned in the preceding verse.鈥�

But the person who helps people to gamble (The 鈥榢eeper of a gambling house, mentioned before) is not necessarily one who makes a living by it; in fact, it is one who himself does not know gambling, or who does not do it through fear of his elders; hut, being addicted to it as an amusement, he always makes others gamble; and it is for excluding this kind of man that we had the second 鈥�Kitava鈥� (in the preceding verse; the word 鈥�Kitava鈥� having been first included in verse 151).

Or, the term 鈥�诲测奴迟补惫峁泃迟颈鈥� may stand for those who, without any money themselves, are constant dummy visitors at gambling places.

He whose son is his teacher; it is not possible for the son to be his father鈥檚 鈥�腻肠腻谤测补鈥� in the real sense of this term.鈥�(160)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

鈥�础驳谤别诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴补迟颈岣�鈥欌�擜ccording to Medh膩tithi, this means (a) the 鈥�顿颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴补迟颈鈥�, i.e., one who makes love to his brother鈥檚 widow (according to 173 below)鈥攁nd also (b) the 鈥�础驳谤别诲颈诲丑颈蝉奴鈥�, i.e., the man whose wife dallies with another person (according to definition quoted by Medh膩tithi on 173). This interpretation is supported by Manu 3.173 (read with Praj膩pati, quoted by Maskari Bh膩峁�ya on Gautama s奴tra 15.16), which adds to Manu 173, the further assertion sa峁� caiva j墨vato bhr膩tu岣� sa c膩gre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ�岣� sam峁泃a岣�, which would apply the name agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ� to that man whose wife dallies with his younger brother, during his own life-time. It may be remarked that Gautama (15.16) contains the compound agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati; and it has been construed by the 惭补蝉办补谤颈-产丑腻峁�y补 to mean agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ� and 诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati (thus supporting Medh膩tithi); or (1) agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati (husband of a girl who is married before her elder sister) and 诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati (husband of a girl whose younger sister is married before her).

Medh膩tithi does not resolve the compound, as Buhler puts it, into 鈥�agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati鈥� and 鈥�诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati鈥�; in fact he actually denies that there is any such person as 鈥�agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati鈥�;鈥攖hough it is difficult to see how this statement here by Medh膩tithi is to he reconciled with what he says under verse 173 below, that 鈥榯he definition of Agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati should be learnt from another 厂尘峁泃颈鈥�,鈥攁nd this definition is quoted as 鈥榠f the brother is alive, the man is to be known as Agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati; so that the 顿颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴补迟颈 is the man making love to his dead brother鈥檚 wife鈥� (according to Manu 3.173), while Agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati is one whose wife dallies with his younger brother during his own life-time.

Kull奴ka quotes Laug膩k峁�i to the effect that 鈥榳hen the younger sister is married while the elder is still unmarried, the former is the Agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ� and the latter the 诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ�鈥�; and on the strength of this he would exclude 鈥榯he husband of the younger sister marrying before her elder sister. But as rightly remarked by Buhler, this definition of Laug膩k峁�i cannot be accepted in the interpretation of Manu who has himself (in verse 173) provided a totally different definition. It is interesting to note that the Maskaribh膩峁�ya on Gautama (15.16) attributes to Manu the definition quoted by Kull奴ka as Laug膩k峁�i鈥檚.

笔补谤腻艣补谤补尘腻诲丑补惫补 (膧c膩ra, which quotes this text of Manu on p. 688, and explains it on p. 693) cites the verse quoted by Kull奴ka (from Laug膩k峁�i), but attributes it to Devala, and explains the term 鈥�agre诲颈诲丑颈峁Ｅ玴ati鈥� in the same manner as Kull奴ka.

鈥�顿测奴迟补惫峁泃迟颈岣�鈥欌�斺�楬e who makes a living by gambling鈥� (Medh膩tithi, who does not explain the term to mean 鈥榦ne who makes others play for his profit鈥�; also N膩r膩ya峁嘺 and Nandana);鈥斺�榯he keeper of a gambling-house鈥� (Govindar膩ja, Kull奴ka and R膩ghav膩nanda).

鈥�Putr腻肠腻谤测补岣�鈥� is explained in 笔补谤腻艣补谤补尘腻诲丑补惫补 (膧c膩ra, p. 694) as 鈥�补办峁�a谤补辫腻峁环补办补岣�鈥� the teacher of alphabets. So the status of the Primary School Teacher of ancient days was no better than that of their representatives at the present day!

This verse is quoted in 贬别尘腻诲谤颈 (艢r膩ddha, p. 481).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.