व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

262 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. XVIII. 8-9
M. p. 146 l. 19-p. 147 l. 2
with a felonious intent) eve if he be one who has thoroughly master-
ed the Vedas, thereby he does not incur the sin of brāhmaṇa murder
these (two texts) are (really) meant to apply to an ātatāyin who is not
a brāhmaṇa as the use of the word 'api (even) and vā shows¹. The
reference to the brāhmaṇa is in the nature of an a fortiori argument² as
in even a brāhmaṇa if an ātatāyin may be killed what then of another
This is the explanation given in the Mitākṣarā,³ since Gālava says:
"He who kills even a learned brāhmaṇa⁴ who approaches as an ātatāyin
raising his weapon (to strike) does not become the murderer of a learned
brāhmaṇa he would be so if he did not kill him
and since Bṛhaspati says
He who kills a brāhmaṇa felon versed in the Vedas and born of a good
family does not commit a brāhmaṇa murder he would be guilty of
of brāhmaṇa murder if he did not kill him
The conclusion of the Candrikā (i. e. Smṛti-candrikā) is that even
a brāhmaṇa felon coming to kill a man is by all means to be slain
that a brāhmaṇa who steals one's field wife or the like (and is
therefore a felon) is not to be killed that a kṣatriya and the rest
in similar circumstances (i e. stealing a field or a wife) are to be
killed And this conclusion (of the Candrikā) is proper⁵ since the
texts of Manu, Kātyāyana, Gālava and Bṛhaspati referring as they
1 These two verses very much exercised the minds of ancient writers. Manu XI. 89
lays down that there is no expiation if one intentionally kills a brāhmaṇa and in Manu IV
162 there is an injunction not to kill one's guru, parents, brāhmaṇas and cows. Therefore
Manu VIII 350 if literally taken as a vidhi would conflict with Manu IV 162 and XI. 89.
But really Manu VIII. 350 is an arthavāda In Manu VIII. 348-349 it is said that anyone of
the first three classes may take up arms when there is hindrance to dharma or in self-defence
or for protecting women and brāhmaṇas and that if he kills anyone while doing this there is
no sin incurred. Then 350 says that one may kill an ātatāyin whether he be a guru etc. So
these words do not contain a vidhi saying that guru must be killed when he is an ātatāyin
These words only convey that even a guru may have to be killed, what of others? Such
particles as vai (in the Vedas) or vā are indicative of an arthavāda (a laudatory or
condemnatory text) Vide Jaimini I 2. 7 and 26-27 Vide notes to V M. pp. 416-419
for detailed explanation.
2. Kaimutika is derived from the words kim-uta kaimutika nyāya is a maxim
used where a conclusion will a fortiori follow as regards certain matters when it is con-
ceded that it does follow in certain other less important or less obvious matters.
3. The conclusion of the Mit. is stated on Yāj. II 21.
4 Bhrūṇa ordinarily means a child in the womb but bhrūṇa in Gālava is
explained by Sm C. as brāhmaṇa and by the Vīr an excellent brāhmaṇa According to
the Baudhāyana Gṛhya a a bhrūṇa is one who knows the whole Vedic lore of his śākhā
up to sūtra and pravacana.
5. Vide notes to V M. pp. 419-420 for the views of the Smṛti-candrikā. Nīlakaṇṭha
approves of the three propositions of the Candrikā, but as will be seen a little lower down he
adds a qualification to the first proposition of the Candrikā viz. that though an ātatāyī
brāhmaṇa may be killed, that holds good as regards past ages, but in the present Kali age
an ātatāyī brāhmaṇa cannot be killed even in self-defence. In his Nīti mayūkha Nīlakaṇṭha
approves of the three propositions of the Candrikā without qualification.
P. 212 (text)