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

282 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IX. 2-3
[ M p. 122 ll 22-33
also explains the paryudāsa (proviso) contained in the text of Yājñavalkya
(II. 175) 'a man may give anything that does not cause detriment to one's
family except¹ wife and son'. The absence* of ownership in son and wife has
been already propounded in the discussion on ownership (p. 83 above). In
making a gift of these (that are mentioned in Nārada) not only will the
gift be invalid in law but the man will be liable to undergo an expiatory
penance as Dakṣa says with reference to these
That foolish man who makes a gift of these incurs the penalty of
expiatory penance.
Manu says
He who receives what may not be given and he who gives what may
not be given both of them should be punished like a thief and should be
only repeat what is already well-known, that is, they are merely an anuvāda (which
is a variety of arthavāda). Nīlakaṇṭha cites a Vedic example of a negative clause being
only an anuvāda and not a niṣedha properly so called. In Tai. S. V. 2. 7 we have
a sentence "The brahmavādins say 'fire should not be kindled on the bare ground, nor
in the middle regions nor in the heavens'". The rule about agnicayana is that fire is
to be kindled on gold and not on bare ground. It is not possible to kindle fire in the
middle regions nor in the heavens; therefore this prohibitory passage (nāntarīkṣe na divi)
does not forbid what possibly might be done. These words contain only an arthavāda
(of the anuvāda variety) and serve to belaud the kindling of fire on gold and censure
kindling on bare ground. This text is dealt with in Jaimini I. 2. 5 and X. 8. 7. Vide notes
to V. M. pp. 367-368 for further explanation. An arthavāda has three varieties: virodhe
guṇavādaḥ syād-ānuvādovadhārite | bhūtārthavādas-tad-dhānād-arthavādas-tridhā
mataḥ || When it is said 'Ādityo yūpaḥ' (the sun is the sacrificial post) it is an example of
guṇavāda as this is opposed to our perception, but the sentence has only a secondary sense
(viz. that both Āditya and yūpa are brilliant). When it is said 'agnir himasya bheṣajam'
(fire is an antidote to cold) it expresses what is well-known from the experience of our
senses. So this is anuvāda. When it is said 'Indra killed Vṛtra' it is bhūtārthavāda
since it is not opposed to any pramāṇa, nor is it known from any pramāṇa; it only
narrates a story.
1 When the negative particle na is employed in a passage the question often
arises as to its exact import. In some cases it has the sense of pratiṣedha (prohibition)
as in 'he does not take the ṣoḍaśi cup in Atirātra sacrifice'. Sometimes na has the
sense of an arthavāda, as in 'neither in the middle regions nor in the sky' discussed above.
In some cases na has the sense of paryudāsa (an exception or proviso). A Vedic
example is 'the snātaka should not see the rising sun', which passage is preceded by the
words 'tasya vratam' (his observances). An observance is something positive, there-
fore 'he should not see' &c. does not prohibit the seeing of the rising sun but only enjoins
that he should make a resolve not to see the rising sun. Yājñavalkya's rule is 'what a
man owns may be given'. The words 'except son and wife' constitute an exception. Just
as in Nārada's verses 'anvāhitam' &c. several things are declared to be adeya though
over the first six of them there is no ownership (and so the negative particle is construed
as an anuvāda) so Yaj. excludes son and wife from deya things though they are not of
the same nature as other things (over which there is ownership). This is the idea
conveyed by the words 'this explanation also explains &c.)' Vide notes to V. M. pp. 369-
370 for detailed explanation. Dakṣa enumerates nine things as adeya.
P. 203 (text)

S. IX. 4-6 ] RESUMPTION OF GIFTS 233
M. p. 122 l. 32-p 123 l. 16 ]
made to pay the highest amercement.¹
What may be given is thus declared by Bṛhaspati ( p. 312 v. 3 ) ·
What remains after (providing) for the food and clothing of the family
may be given.
Kātyāyana declares what must be given ( without fail ) ·
He who, having voluntarily promised a gift to a brāhmaṇa, does not
deliver it should be compelled to give it as if it were a debt and should
be fined the first amercement.
Gautama ( V. 21 ) says ' one should not give, even after promising to
give, to a man who does what is forbidden ' ( by the s'āstras ) Vyāsa forbids
the gift or sale of means of livelihood ²
Those who are born and those who are yet to be born and those who
are in the womb wish for means of livelihood; so no gift nor sale ( of vṛtti
' can be effected ).
Nārada ( pp. 128-129 vv. 3 and 8 ) sets out the various kinds of valid
and void gifts :
*Of valid gifts there are seven varieties and invalid gifts are of sixteen
varieties. The price paid for goods, wages, what is paid for pleasure
( from dancers or bards ), a gift through affection, a gift from gratitude,
a gift to a bride's kinsmen and gifts for charitable purposes-these are known
as valid gifts by those who have knowledge of gifts.
' Anugraha ' means ' dharma ' ( religious and charitable purposes )
Nārada ( pp. 129-130 vv. 9-11 ) says :
Invalid gifts are ( sixteen ) as follows · What has been given by men
under the influence ( or pressure ) of fear, anger, pangs of sorrow, or as a
bribe or in jest, or under misapprehension ( as to person or thing ), or
through fraud, or given by a child or by a fool or by one who is not his
own master, by one who is distressed, by one intoxicated, by one who is,
insane; or what is given from the desire of a reward thinking ' this man
will do me some good turn '; what is given through ignorance to an
undeserving person because it was proclaimed that he was a worthy
person, what is given for a purpose which is really sinful ( though
thought to be meritorious )—all these are known to be invalid gifts ³

1. Manu VIII. 138 lays down 1000 paṇas as the highest amercement, 500 as middle
   and 250 as first, and Yāj. I. 366 prescribes 1080 as the highest fine, half of it as mid-
   dling and quarter of it as first or lowest
2. ' Adharmasaṃyukta ' in Gautama means one who is guilty of visiting a prosti-
   tute and such other censurable conduct. ' Vṛtti ' — Mandlik takes it in the modern sense
   of ' a religious office such as that of a village priest ' by which a man makes his livelihood,
   but it is not necessary to do so
3. In Javerbai v Kablibai 15 Bom 326 at p. 336 it was said that Nīlakaṇṭha does
   not place a conditional gift amongst those which are essentially void and that in the works
   of other Hindu writers the word ' upādhi ' usually implies fraud and not merely condition.
   With the last two in Nārada compare Manu VIII. 212.

• P. 204 ( text ).
  V. M. 30

234 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IX. 7 10
[ M. p.128 l. 27 p.124 l.28
Ruk means ' pain The construction is by those who are under
the influence of pain caused by fear and the rest ; i. e. the meaning is
given by one who was oppressed by the fear of being beaten &c ; in the
same way what was given ( to others ) through anger against brothers with
the idea that loss may be caused , vyatyāsaḥ is when a man intending
to give silver gives gold through mistake chalayogataḥ occurs when
( for example ) knowing that a king wanted to give a cow to Devadatta it
was given to another who dressed himself like Devadatta even though the
recipient was a worthy man Kṛtaḥ means one whose mind is restless
through disease , mattaḥ means intoxicated by some intoxicating drug ,
unmattaḥ means affected by wind ( delirium ) apavarjitam means
given what was given with the thought he would do me a good turn
to one who does not do it what was given with the idea that one ( the
donee ) will employ it for religious purposes but who employs it for sinful
purposes These ( gifts ) return ( to the donor ). Kātyāyana says
' What is given through lust or wrath or by those who are dependent
by those distressed by those frightened by lunatics or by those who are
infatuated or what was given for avoiding ( the consequences of ) lapses
( from the right path )—these may be taken back ²
Kāmāt means for seducing the wife of another , klībaḥ
means one frightened , the meaning of vyatyāsa dattam is bribe.
What is promised as a bribe to a man for accomplishing a certain object
need never be given even though the object be accomplished If the bribe
were given before ( the object was accomplished ) it should be returned
by force ( to the giver ) and a fine eleven times as much ( as the
bribe ) should be levied. This is what the followers of Garga and
Manu say ²
The same author ( Kātyāyana ) describes the nature of a bribe
That is said to be utkoca ( a bribe ) which is obtained by those, viz. by
giving information about a theft about a felon, about one who breaks the
rules of decent conduct about an adulterer by pointing out those who
are of bad character by spreading false reports about a person ³
Manu ( VIII 165 ) says
A fraudulent mortgage or sale, a fraudulent gift or acceptance and
everything else wherever ( the king or judge ) finds deceit-all these he
should declare to be void.

1. Compare Gautama V 23 and Bṛ p. 313 vv 9-10.
2. These two verses are quoted in Shri Sitaram v Shri Harihar 35 Bom 100 at
   p 180 where it was held that if an adoption was induced by a bribe given to a widow the
   bribe was an illegal payment and cannot support a sale or gift.
3. Giving information about a theft = either suppressing information about a
   person who is really a thief or threatening a person that he would be reported as a thief

• P 205 ( text )

B. IX-10-X. 1 ] RESUMPTION OF GIFTS 235
M. p 131 l. 23-p 134 l. 1.* ]

• • 'Yoga' means 'fraud'; 'yutā' means 'in whatever other tran-
    saction'. The meaning is that 'all that returns (to the donor) when the
    fraud vanishes (i. e. detected)'. Kātyāyana says :¹
    If a gift was promised by a man for a religious purpose, whether when
    in good health or when afflicted with disease, the son should be made to
    pay it, if the father (the promisor) die without actually handing it over;
    there is no doubt on that point.
    Further elucidation on this point will be found in my revered father's
    Dvaitanirṇaya.
    Here ends (the section on) resumption of gifts.
    Now begins (the section on) the breach of a contract of service.
    Nārada (p. 131 v. 1) says:
    When a man having agreed to serve does not carry out the agreement,
    it is termed a breach of the contract of service, a title of law.
    Bṛhaspati (p. 345 v. 10) says, that servants are of three kinds:
    The armed fighter is declared to be highest, the cultivator the middling
    one, the porter is declared to be the lowest and so is (a servant)
    employed in household work.²
    Nārada (p. 135 v. 24) says:
    One who is appointed over all (servants) and (to supervise) over the
    household should also be regarded as a labourer and he is known to be

1. It was said above that a gift by one who is 'ārta' is void, an exception to that is
   stated in this verse. The only case where an incomplete gift not actually made but remain-
   ing only in promise was enforced by the courts in ancient India are a gift promised to a
   brāhmaṇa (vide Kātyāyana quoted above on p. 233) and a gift for a religious purpose. This
   verse contains the germ of the idea of a will since here the mere declaration of the inten-
   tion of a man to give for religious purposes is made enforceable after his death. In modern
   times a mere gift for dharma without specifying any particular object is declared to be
   void for uncertainty. Vide 6 Bom. 24, 11 Bom. 482, 17 Bom. 351, 18 Bom 136, 23 Bom.
   725 (P. C.) at p. 735 (= 26 I. A. 71). But this is opposed, as pointed out in 30 Mad. 340
   to the spirit of ancient Hindu Law. Vide Manu IV. 227 for dharma meaning 'iṣṭa'
   (religious purposes) and 'pūrta' (charitable purposes). This text of Kātyāyana is the
   basis of the Hindu Law of religious Trusts. Vide Ghelabhai v. Uderam 36 Bom. 29 at
   p. 35 (where the verse is quoted) and Bhupati Nath v. Ram Lal 37 Cal. 128 (F. B.) at
   p. 187 (where also Kāt. is quoted). In many of the earlier reported cases it was laid
   down as a general proposition that under Hindu Law a gift was invalid without possess-
   ion. Vide 4 Bom. H. C. R. (A. C. J.) p. 31, 10 Bom. H. C. R. 491. But since Kalidas v.
   Kanhaya Lal L. R. 11 I. A. 218 it has been held that possession is not absolutely necessary
   to constitute a valid gift under Hindu Law. In Bhaskar v. Sarasvatibai 17 Bom. 486
   (at p. 491) it is said (approving Mayne) that Hindu Law properly so called appears to
   lay little stress on any such rule as applicable to gifts.
2. Compare Nār. p. 131 v. 23 for the same three classes and examples.

• P. 206 (text).

286 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA | [ B. X. 28
[ M p. 185 ll. 5-22 ]
kauṭumbika ( the general family servant ). '
Kātyāyana says
According to Bhṛgu one who is free by giving himself ( to another )
becomes a slave like a wife.¹ Slavery should be known as limited to three
varņas ( classes ) in no case can a brāhmaṇa become a slave *Slavery of
men of the kṣatriya vaiś ya and śūdra classes who give up their freedom
is to be in the descending order of the classes and not in the inverse
order ²
Nārada ( p 187 v 89 ) says :
Slavery is not ordained in the inverse order of the ( four classes )³
Kātyāyana says
Where the three twice-born classes are fallen from the order of ascetics
there ( the king ) should banish a brāhmaṇa ( apostate ) and a kṣatriya
( apostate ) should be reduced to slavery This is the view of Bhṛgu.
The mention of kṣatra ( in Kātyāyana ) is intended to include the
vaiśya and śūdra also ⁴ Dakṣa and Nārada describe the method of banish-
ing a brāhmaṇa
He who having entered the order of asceticism does not abide by the
peculiar duties of that order should be instantly banished by the king
after having branded on his skin the mark of dog s foot
Kātyāyana says
A brāhmaṇa should not be made a slave even to a brāhmaṇa. But a
brāhmaṇa may if he so desires, do work for another brāhmaṇa who is
possessed of good character and Vedic learning and to whom he is inferior
( in these respects ) But even then a brāhmaṇa should not do impure
1 Just as a woman by rendering up her person to her husband as his wife becomes
his dependent, so when a free man offers himself as belonging to another, he becomes a slave.
2 The first half is the same as Yāj. II. 183 (latter half). A kṣatriya, vaiś ya or a śūdra
can be the slave of a brāhmaṇa, a vaiś ya or s'ūdra can be the slave of a kṣatriya and a
s'ūdra of the vaiś ya.
3. The latter half of this verse is except where a man violates the duties peculiar
to his class and status. Slavery is like the condition of a wife A brāhmaṇa could marry
a girl of his own or of any of the three other classes so a kṣatriya or vais ya could be the
slave of a brāhmaṇa but just as a kṣatriya or vais ya male could not have as his wife a
girl of a higher class, so a man of a higher class could not be the slave of one of a lower
class. Nārada says generally that a man who violates the duties of his caste may become
the slave of one of a lower caste, while Yāj. II. 183 restricts this general rule by saying
that one who is an apostate from sannyāsa ( even though a brāhmaṇa ) becomes the slave
of the king alone but Kātyāyana prescribes that a brāhmaṇa apostate from sannyāsa
should be banished and any one of the other classes should be made a slave of the king.
4 This note of Nīlakaṇṭha shows that he held that even s'ūdras could go into the
order of sannyāsa. But the trend of the dharmaśāstras and other ancient authorities is
that a s'ūdra could not be a sannyāsin. Vide 30 Bom. 168 at p. 174 where it was assumed
that sannyāsīs are confined to the three higher castes.
P 207 ( text )

S. X. 3 6 ] BREACH OF CONTRACT SERVICE 287
M/p. 125 l. 23-p. 126 l. 25 ]
work ('even for a learned brāhmaṇa).¹
Manu (VIII. 411) says :

• 'A brāhmaṇa should support without harshness a kṣatriya or a vaiśya
  distressed for his livelihood; he should make them do work (befitting
  them) if they were their own masters'
  'Svāmīkarma' means 'work of a higher kind suited to their caste'.
  Kātyāyana says.
  He who takes a brāhmaṇa woman and also he who sells her should
  be fined by the king who should make that transaction (of sale and pur-
  chase) null and void. He who enslaves a woman of a respectable family
  that took shelter with him at her pleasure (or through lust) or who trans-
  fers her to another shall be punished and his act shall be annulled. He
  who enjoys the nurse of his child or one who is not a nurse or the wife
  of his attendant as if she were a female slave would incur the lowest
  amercement.
  Viṣṇu (V 151) says 'one who employs a man of a higher caste as a
  slave shall be fined in the highest amercement.'² Kātyāyana says :
  He who wishes to sell a female slave faithful to him who cries (when
  about to be sold), being able and not in any difficulty, would incur the
  lowest amercement.
  Nārada (pp. 135-137 vv. 26-29, 37, 30) describes the varieties of slaves:
  One born at (his master's) house, one purchased (for money), one
  received (by gift and the like), one obtained by inheritance, one main-
  tained during a famine, one pledged by his master, onet released from
  a heavy debt, one made captive in a fight, one won through a wager,
  one who approaches saying 'I am thine', one fallen from asceticism, one
  enslaved for a stipulated period, one who becomes a slave for maintenance,
  one enslaved on account of connection with a female slave, one sold by him-
  self—these are the fifteen classes of slaves declared in the śāstras. Among
  these the group of the first four cannot be released from slavery except
  by the favour of their masters, their bondage is hereditary. That wretched
  man who, being free, sells himself is the vilest of these (fifteen varieties).
  He also cannot be released from bondage. He out of these (fifteen), who
  saves his master from danger to life, would be free from the state of

1. Nārada (p 131. vv. 5-7) divides work into pure and impure and says that pure
   work is done by labourers and impure by slaves and then sets out impure work as 'sweep-
   ing the gateway, the privy, the road and the place for rubbish, shampooing private parts &c'.
2. This may refer to a brāhmaṇa being made a slave or to the fact of a man of a
   lower class employing as a slave one of a higher class.

• P 208 (text), † P. 209 (text)

218 । VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. X. 6-10 / M. p. 126 l. 25-p. 127 l. 12 ]
slavery and shall get a son's share (out of his master's wealth)¹ ।
Yājñavalkya (II 183) says:
He who falls from asceticism becomes the king's slave for life.²
Nārada (pp. 136-137 vv 31-34) says
One maintained in a famine is released from bondage if he gives a pair
of oxen. A slave who is pledged becomes free (from pledgee's slavery)
when his master redeems him by paying off the debt. A debtor is freed
from slavery by paying his debt with interest. One who approaches say-
ing 'I am thine', one made a prisoner in war and one won in a wager-
these are released on giving a substitute who will do some work.³ A slave
for a stipulated period gets release on the expiry of the time fixed. *The
slave for maintenance is released at once from the moment the master ceases
to give him food. One enslaved on account of (connection with) a female
slave is released on parting from her.
Pratiśīrṣaḥ means a substitute. 'Vaḍavā' means a female slave.
Yājñavalkya (II 182) says
One who is forcibly made a slave and who is sold as a slave by robbers
is released (by the king if the master does not release him).⁴
Nārada (p. 138 v 40) says
If one who is not free offers himself as a slave (to another) saying
'I am thine' the slave would not secure his desire, but the former
master can recover him.
Asvatantraḥ means the slave of another. In this section the
masculine gender of the word 'dāsa' being not intended (to be strictly
taken), it should be understood that all these rules apply to a female slave
also. Kātyāyana states a reason for enfranchising a female slave
He, who has intercourse with his female slave who bears issue to him in
consequence, should make her together with her offspring free from slavery
having regard to the seed.
Bījam means child; the meaning is considering the fact of the
child being of good qualities.⁵ Nārada (p. 133 vv 42-43) says

1. One born at his master's house—means born from a female slave of the master.
   He is otherwise called garbhadasa. Bhaktadāsaḥ means one who says "I shall be your
   slave till I shall pay off the price of the food I have eaten" or one who says "I shall be
   your slave as long as you give me food." Who saves his master &c. — The Mit. on Yāj. II
   182 says when he saves his master attacked by robbers or a tiger. One enslaved......
   female slave—means one who being in love with a female slave marries her and enters
   the household as a slave.
2. That is, he could not be a free man by the favour of his master or by imperilling his
   life for saving his master.
3. The reading tulyakarmaṇā is much better. It means a substitute who is able
   to do as much work as these slaves.
4. Compare Nār. p. 137 v 38.
5. Vide notes to V M. p 390 for other explanations
   P. 210 (text)

egardedorregarded, the 'r' is slightly broken. It says regarded(orregardod`).

Line 15:
the owner.²

Line 16:
Thus ends (the section on) breach of contract of service.

Line 17:
Divider line: ───────

Line 18:
Now begins ( the section on ) non-payment of wages.
Wait, spacing: ( the section on )

Line 19:
Nārada ( p 139 v 1 ) says

Line 20:
A series of rules for payment and non-payment of the wages of labour-

Line 21:
ers is declared ( hereafter ); that is known to be the title of law called

Line 22:
' non-payment of wages '.

Line 23:
Yājñavalkya ( II. 194 ) says ·

Line 24:
He who without settling the wages to be paid causes work ( to be done )

Line 25:
should be made by the king to pay a tenth part ( of the profits ) of trade,
Wait, "the": the or tlie? In ( of the profits ), the 'h'

210 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. XI. 4 5 / M. p. 128 l. 3-p. 129 l. 7]
compelled to do it after giving him the wages If he does not perform it
after having taken wages, he would incur liability to pay back twice the
wages ¹
Manu (VIII 215) says
A hired workman, who without being ill, does not perform through
insolence work as agreed upon should be fined eight kṛṣṇalas and no
wages should be paid to him ²
The same author (Manu VIII. 217 and 216) says
He, who whether well or ill does not perform the work as agreed,
shall have no wages paid to him though the work left unperformed be
only a small part. But a labourer who was ill may when he becomes
well perform his work as at first agreed upon and would get his proper
wages even after the lapse of a long time
Viṣṇu (V 153-154) says A hired labourer leaving off work before
the stipulated period expires shall forfeit the whole price of his labour and
should pay to the king a hundred paṇas. The same author (Viṣṇu V
157-159) says If the master dismiss the servant before the expiry
of the stipulated period he shall pay to the servant his whole wages and
a hundred paṇas to the king, except in cases where the servant is to
blame. ³ Vṛddha-Manu says
A servant should be made to pay the value of what he lost through care-
lessness and twice the value of what he lost through hatred (of the master)
but he should not be made to pay anything for what was stolen by
thieves nor for what was burnt nor for what was carried away by water

• Drohaḥ means hatred, Ūḍham means carried away
  Yājñavalkya (II. 197-198) says
  One who causes an obstacle (by refusal to work) just at the (auspicious)
  time of starting should be made to pay twice the wages, if (he causes
  obstacle) after starting he should be made to pay a seventh part, but
  the fourth part if he leaves off on the way
  Vṛddha Manu says
  If a merchant dismisses the servant on part of the journey after selling
  the merchandise, he (the servant) too must be paid but he shall receive
  half the wages
  Kātyāyana says
  If the goods be detained or seized on the way he (the servant) would
  obtain wages in proportion to the distance traversed That master who

1. Compare Yāj. II. 198.
2. A kṛṣṇala (otherwise called raktikā) is a little less than two grains. Five
   kṛṣṇalas made one māṣa and 16 māṣas made a suvarṇa, but two kṛṣṇalas made a māṣa of
   silver. Vide Manu VIII. 131 135 and Yāj I 362 363.
3. The fault of the servant must be theft and the like and not eating large quantities
   of food &c.
   P 218 (text)

S. XI 5-XII 1 ] NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES 241
M. p. 129 ll 8-32 ]
deserts on the way his servant who is helpless, tired or afflicted with dis-
ease will incur the first amercement, if he does not wait for three days in
the village (after the servant gets ill).
'Āsiddhyeta' means 'is detained or attached by the king's order'. Bṛhas-
pati (p 346 vv. 17-18) says
When a servant being enjoined by the master (to do something) does
an improper act (such as theft) for the master's benefit the master shall
be held responsible for it. That master who does not pay the wages of
labour even after the work is finished shall be compelled by the king to
pay it and also a proportionate fine¹
Nārada (p 141 v 7) says
(A merchant) who after having hired vehicles and beasts of burden
does not carry his merchandise by means of them shall be made to pay
a fourth part of the hire, and the whole hire if he leaves them half way.

• 'Yānam' means 'chariot and the like', 'vāhanam' means 'direct
  vehicles such as horses' Kātyāyana says
  He who having hired elephants, horses, bullocks, asses, camels and the
  like does not return them when his object is fulfilled shall be made to pay
  (the hire) till he returns them.
  Nārada (p 143 vv. 20-21) says
  If a man builds a house on the land of another and lives in it paying
  rent (for the land), he may take with him when he leaves it the thatch,
  the timber, the bricks and the like (building materials). But if he
  has resided on the ground of another without paying rent and without any
  definite agreement, he shall, when he leaves the house, make over to the
  owner of the ground, the thatch and the timber and the bricks laid (as
  walls)
  'Stomaḥ' means 'hire'
  Here ends (the section on) non-payment of wages.
  Now begins (the section on) transgression of conventions.
  Nārada (p 153 v 1) says :
  The established conventions (or rules) among heretics, naigamas
  and the like are styled samaya (compact, usage) That is known to
  be a title of law called 'non-violation of conventions' ²

1. It is better to read 'vinayam' for 'vetanam'.
   2 'Samayānapākarma' — Anapākarma is used in Manu VIII 4 with reference to
   'gifts' and 'anapakriyā' which is similar to 'anapākarma' in derivation is used with
   reference to gifts and wages in Manu VIII 214 Nārada has 'vetanasyānapākarma' and
   'samayasyānapākarma' It is difficult to give an exact rendering of anapākarma'.

• P. 214 (text)
  V. M. 31

242 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. XII. 1-3.
[ M p. 129 l. 33-p.130 l. 27

• Pākhaṇḍinaḥ means persons engaged in trade who are opposed to
  the path laid down by the Vedas naigamāḥ are those (traders) who
  are not opposed to the Veda, by the word ādi persons learned in the
  three Vedas are included. Bṛhaspati (pp 346 347 vv 2-3) declares the
  duty of the king in these matters.
  (The king) should bring and establish there (in his kingdom) brāhma-
  ņas proficient in the Vedas and lores, learned brāhmaṇas and those who
  keep sacrificial fires and should assign to them means of livelihood He
  should donate to them houses and lands from which no taxes are levied
  having declared in a grant of his that they would be free from liability to
  pay in future (the king s dues on land cultivated by them) ¹
  'Anāchedyakarāḥ means on which taxes are not levied Muktabhāvyāḥ
  means 'the future (share of the king in the) produce from the soil of which
  is given up Yājñavalkya (II 186) thus speaks about the peculiar rules
  of learned brāhmaṇas and the like
  Whatever rules are established by the king or by local conventions
  should be assiduously observed (by the learned brāhmaṇas and others)
  so far as they are not in conflict with their duties (as laid down in their
  sacred books) ²
  Nārada (p. 158 v 2) says
  Among heretics, among naigamas guilds, corporations groups and
  assemblages, the king must maintain the conventions (settled) among
  them in fortified places as well as in the open country also
  Śreṇis are communities of persons of various castes carrying on
  one kind of trade or business, pūgāḥ are communities of the same (i e.
  of persons of different castes) carrying on different kinds of trades,
  vrātas are assemblages of kinsmen, relatives and cognates they are also
  Saṁvid means a settled convention or usage and vyatikrama means transgression
  So saṁvidvyatikrama is another name of samayasyānapākarma Manu (VIII 5) and
  Yāj. employ the title saṁvid-vyatikrama while Br employs the word samayātīkrama
  Heretics are Bauddhas and Jainas who deny the authority of the Vedas. Naigama
  ordinarily means a trader Kātyāyana as quoted in V R. (p. 668) defines 'naigama
  as a group of citizens The Mit. on Yāj. (II. 192) explains naigama as Pāśupatas
  and others who regard the Vedas as authoritative (here the word is derived from nigama
  meaning Veda).
  1 Āp. Dh. S II 10. 26. 10, Manu VII. 133 exempt a learned brāhmaṇa from taxation
  and Manu VII. 135 calls upon a king to assign means of livelihood to śrotriyas.
  2 Aparārka and Sm. C. give examples of conventional rules Vide notes to V M
  p. 890. Some examples are old prapās and temples should be repaired, poor people should
  be supported when there is trouble from thieves, one man from each house should come for-
  ward for defence &c In the Pehava inscription from the temple of Garibnath (Epi. Ind.
  Vol I. p 184) we find that pious horse-dealers at Pehova agreed to impose upon themselves
  and their customers certain tithes, the proceeds of which were to be distributed among
  certain temples and priests. As examples of rules by the king are mentioned horses should
  not be sent to the enemy's country food should be given to all travellers
  P 315 (text)

S, XII, 8-XIII. 1. 8
M. p.130 l.22-p.131 l. 9 ] TRANSGRESSIONS OF CONVENTIONS 243
termed ' kulas ' ; ' pākhaṇḍins ' and ' naigamas ' have* been already
explained.¹ ' Gaṇas ' are the assemblages of these beginning with heretics
and ending with ' vrātas '. Yājñavalkya ( II 187 ) prescribes a punishment
for breaches of the conventions ( settled ) among these
Him who embezzles the property of a gaṇa or who violates their
established usages, the king should banish from the country after confis-
cating all his property ²
Here ends ( the section on ) the violation of conventions.
――――――
Now begins ( the section on ) rescission of purchase.
Nārada ( p. 149 v 1 ) says :
When a purchaser, after having purchased an article for a ( certain )
price, does not approve of it ( 1. e repents of the purchase ), it is termed
rescission of purchase, which is a title of law.
The same author ( Nārada p. 150 vv. 5-6 ) fixes the time for examin-
ing an article ( 1 e for buying an article on approval )
One should examine milch cattle within three days ( from purchase ),
beasts of burden for five days and the examination of pearls, diamonds
and corals may extend up to seven days. ( The examination ) of male
bipeds ( 1. e. male slaves ) may extend to half a month and twice that
( 1. e. for a month ) in the case of a female ( slave ), of all kinds of seeds
for ten days and for one day in the case of iron and clothes.³
Kātyāyana says .
The rescission ( lit. repentance ) in the case of land extends to ten
days for the purchaser or for the seller.
Bṛhaspati ( p. 350 v. 6 ) says
If some defect in any way is found ( by examination ) in the article
before these ( periods elapse ), the article should be returned to the seller
and the buyer should obtain the price thereof.
¶ Kātyāyana says :
If an article were purchased without being examined and was after-
――――――
1 Vide p 5 n 1 above for śreṇi, pūga and kula. Kātyāyana ( vv. 678-680 ) defines
the terms mentioned in this verse of Nārada ' Pūga ' is variously explained Mayūkha
gives one explanation Kāt explains it as ' companies of traders ' Vīr explains it as ' horse
riders and elephant riders '. Kāt, explains ' vrāta ' as meaning ' troops of soldiers armed
with various weapons ' and ' gaṇa ' as an assembly of brāhmaṇas ' Vide notes to V. M. p.
386 for examples of conventions prevalent among heretics &c
2 This punishment was to be awarded for serious offences, but for light ones Manu
( VIII. 220 ) prescribed a fine of four suvarṇas or six niskas &c.
3. Compare Yāj. II 177 These rules can apply only if the thing was purchased without
examination.

• P. 216 ( text ). ¶ P. 217 ( text ).

244 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ B. XIII. 1 8-XIII. 2.8
[ M. p. 131 l. 2-p. 162 l. 6
wards shown to be defective the article should be returned to its owner
within the time (limited by the śāstras) but not otherwise.
With regard to an article bought after an examination by (the pur-
chaser) himself Nārada (pp 149 150 vv 2-3) says
Where a purchaser after purchasing an article for a price thinks that
he has made a bad purchase, it should be returned (by him) to the
seller the same day without looking into it (i e. without examining it ) ¹
If the purchaser were to return it on the second day he would forfeit
(lit. bring) a thirtieth part of the price, if on the third day, double
of that (i e. a fifteenth part), after that it (the article) belongs to the
purchaser alone (i. e. it cannot be returned)
Nārada (p 150 v 7) says
A worn garment which is dark and soiled when purchased with
(knowledge of) all faults cannot be returned to the seller
Here ends (the section on) rescission of purchase
Now begins (the section on) non-delivery of sold chattel
Nārada (p. 146 v 1) says
When an article has been sold for a (certain) price and is not
delivered to the purchaser that is termed non-delivery of a sold chattel
which is a title of law

• Yājñavalkya (II. 254) says
  He who having received the price of an article does not at all deliver
  it to the buyer should be made to deliver it to the buyer together with
  interest and if (the purchaser) has come from a foreign country then
  together with the profit that he would have made in the foreign country
  Dik means another country , ‘ diglābha means the profit that
  would be made by sale in another country , sodayam means ‘ together
  with interest The same author (Yājñavalkya II 256) says
  If an article suffer damage by an act of God or the king the loss
  will fall on the seller alone if he did not deliver it on demand
  The same author (Yāj. II. 255) says
  If loss (of the thing sold) arises through the fault of the purchaser,
  the loss falls on the purchaser alone.²
  Nārada (p 148 v 9) says
  When a purchaser, having purchased an article does not accept it when
  1 The reading avikṣataṁ (in an undamaged condition) is much better

2. Compare section 107 of the Indian Contract Act.
   P 218 (text)

S. XIII. 2-3-XIV. 2 ] NON-DELIVERY OF SOLD CHATTEL 245
M. p. 132 l. 6-p. 133 l. 2 ]
it is delivered to him (by the vendor), the vendor incurs no balme ( i e
commits no wrong) by selling it to another
Yājñavalkya says
What was sold for an inadequate price by an intoxicated man or
by one insane or by one who is dependent or idiotic must be given up (by
the purchaser) and it would still belong to the vendor.¹
All these rules must be understood as referring to an undertaking given
by the seller to the effect 'the article is to be delivered to you alone and to
none else, when the price is paid', since* Nārada (p 148 v. 10) says
Thus has the rule (or law) been declared with regard to goods for
which the price has been paid. When the price has not been tendered,
there is no transgression by the vendor,² unless there be a special agree-
ment (to deliver in spite of no price being paid)
On the sale of an article with blemishes Yājñavalkya says ³
That clever man who, knowing his chattel to be full of defects, sells it
should be made to pay double its price (to the purchaser) and a fine
equal to that (i e double the price)

Here ends the (section on) non-delivery of a sold chattel.

Now begins (the section on) dispute between master and herdsman.

When cattle or the like are destroyed (or injured) through the fault
of the herdsman, Yājñavalkya (II. 165) says
When the loss occurs through the fault of the herdsman, the fine
ordained for him is twelve panas and a half and (he must give) to the
owner also the animal⁴ (or its price).
'Dravyam' means 'a cow and the like'. Manu (VIII 234) lays
down the signs of ascertaining the death of cattle and the like.
1 This verse very closely resembles Bṛ p. 350 v 5. Some construe 'for an in-
adequate price' as a separate cause for rescission
2 No fault attaches to the vendor if he retains the article or disposes of it to another
when no price is paid unless he specially agreed that he would not do so, though the price
be not paid at once.
3. This appears to be the same as Bṛ. p. 350 v. 4 The verse in the text is not found in
the printed Yāj and is ascribed to Bṛ. by Sm C. and Vīr Compare Yāj. II. 257 and Nārada
p 148 v. 7.
4. 'Sārdhatrayodaś'a' is rendered as 13½ by the Mit, Aparārka and Smṛtica-
ndrikā, while the Vīr and Par M take it to mean 12½. The Vīr relies upon a Vārtika to
Pāṇini II 1 34 and the usage of the Mahābhāṣya. Vide notes to V M p. 332. Nīlakaṇṭha
seems to hold that a similar animal should be restored to the owner.

• P. 219 (text)

246 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. XIV 2-5
[ M. p. 133 l. 2-p. 134 l. 5
When animals die let (the herdsman) present to the master in order
to show (him) the signs (for recognising his deceased cattle) the ears,
their hides, their tails, the abdomen (or bladder) the tendons, the
pigment (found in their heads &c )
Madana says that aṅkaḥ means the horns and the like. Yājña-
valkya (II 167) describes the portion of ground (to be set apart) as
pasturage for cows and the like

• A vacant space (for grazing cattle) of one hundred bows should be
  left between one village and another two hundred bows in the case of
  a large-sized village and four hundred bows in the case of a town ¹
  'Parīṇāhaḥ means land set apart for pasture for kine and the like.
  This pariṇāha is the same as parīhāra since Manu (VIII. 237) says
  round about a village an enclosure should be kept of one hundred bows
  a kharvaṭa is a village having several artificers and husbandmen, some
  say it means 'a village abounding in thorny shrubs ² Yājñavalkya (II
  159-161) describes the fine to be paid by the owner of beasts when they
  eat the growing crop or the like belonging to another
  (The owner of) a she-buffalo doing damage to crops should be fined
  eight māṣas half of that (the owner of) a cow (should be fined) half
  of that (i e. two māṣas) (the owner of) goats and sheep. For cattle
  sitting down in the field after eating the crops the fine is double of that
  already stated The same fine is to be levied in the case of enclosures
  (in which grass is stored) asses and camels are equal to she-buffalo
  (as regards fine) As much crop as may be destroyed (by straying
  animals) shall be made good to the owner of the field the herdsman (if
  at fault) shall be whipped but the owner of the cattle incurs the fine
  already stated
  ‡ Vivītam means a place for storing grass, wood and the like
  Uśanas states an exception to the above:
  (Owners of) cows are not to be fined during festivals (if they stray)
  and at the time for a śrāddha.
  Vyāsa says
  O best of men what was enjoyed by brāhmaṇas after committing a
  trespass, by very indigent relations or by cows excels the Vājapeya ³ (in
  merit)
  Uśanas says

1. The reading of the printed text is grāmakṣetrāntaram (which means between
   a village and the fields). A bow was often taken as equal to four cubits. Vide p. 66 for
   various lengths of a bow
2. This is the explanation given by the Mit. The Mayūkha follows the Madanaratna
3. Vājapeya is one of the seven soma sacrifices. Vide Gautama VIII. 21.
   † P 220 (text) ‡ P 221 (text)

S. XIV. 5-XV. 2 ] DISPUTE BETWEEN MASTER AND HERDSMAN 247
M. p. 181 ll. 6-23 ]
Neither the pitṛs nor the gods taste ( the offerings ) of that man who
demands back the corn destroyed by cows ¹
Thus ends the ( section on ) dispute between master and herdsman.
Now begins ( the section on ) boundary disputes.
Bṛhaspati ( p. 351 vv 5-6 ) states the means whereby boundaries may
be ascertained
Dry cowdung, bones, chaff, charcoal, gravel, pieces of stones hollowed
out, sand, bricks, cow's tails, cotton seeds, ashes—after having put these
things in jars one should deposit them underground at the ends of
boundaries.²
Yājñavalkya ( II. 152 ) states some special rules about witnesses in
this matter :
Or men from neighbouring villages, even in number, either four, eight
or ten, wearing red garments and garlands of red flowers and carrying on
their heads clods of earth, should trace ( or point out ) the boundary.³
Nārada ( p. 157 v. 9 ) says
One man⁴ single-handed should not settle the boundary, even though
he be confident ( about his knowledge of the boundary ). This decision
( about a boundary ) must be entrusted to many, since it is an affair of
importance

• Bṛhaspati ( p. 352 v 11 ) says
  In the absence of witnesses and signs ( of boundaries ) even a single
  upright man acceptable to both ( disputants ), wearing a garland of
  red flowers and a red garment and carrying a clod of earth on his head,
  adhering to truth and having kept a fast, may fix the boundary

1. The Vīr. (p 451) is careful to add that this applies to cows only at the time of s'rāddha
   2 The marks of boundaries are either patent ( prakās'a ) or concealed ( upāms'u )
   Vide Manu VIII 249 Wells, tanks, large trees, gardens, temples, mounds, beds of rivers—
   these are ( Br p 351 v. 3 ) visible signs and the verses in the text give the invisible ones.
   Compare Manu VIII 250-251 for a similar enumeration.
2. The boundary was to be settled by the evidence of witnesses properly so called ( a
   witness would be one who actually saw the boundary laid out ) Vide Manu VIII. 253.
   This verse says that in the absence of witnesses, sāmantas should settle it. 'Sāmantāḥ
   samagrāmāḥ' is explained by Mīt as 'neighbouring villagers even in number'. The
   words 'four, eight, ten' indicate according to Aparārka that two or six will not do, the
   Mit. does not support this view Vide Manu VIII. 258 about sāmantas being four and VIII.
   256 about red garments and garlands.
   4 Dr. Jolly translates 'pratyayavān-api' as 'even though he be a reliable person.'
   This is not correct The Mit. says that this verse applies where the single man is not
   accepted by both parties as an arbiter

• P. 222 (text).

248 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ § XV. 2-6
[ M. p. 184 l. 20-p. 185 l. 24
Kātyāyana says
In the case of settling the boundary by walking, in the ordeal by kośa
(sacred water of the bath of idols &c.) in swearing by the feet of (idols
elders or brāhmaṇas) (the visitation of) divine or royal displeasure
is to be expected within three fortnights, one fortnight and a week res-
pectively.¹
Manu (VIII. 257) says
The truthful witnesses who point out the true boundary in aforesaid
manner are absolved from sin but such as settle it falsely should each
be fined two hundred (paṇas)
Nārada (p. 156 v. 7) says
If the neighbours speak what is not true in settling a boundary they
should all be separately fined by the king the middle amercement.
Kātyāyana says
Of the several persons gathered together (for settling a boundary) if all
of them do not (properly help to) decide either through fear or covetous-
ness they should (each) be made to pay the highest amercement.
Yājñavalkya (II. 153) says
In the absence of persons knowing the boundary or marks (indicating
it) the king is to settle the boundary (as he thought fit).²

• Manu (VIII. 265) says
  When the boundary cannot be ascertained the king knowing the law,
  should himself assign the (disputed strip of) land to that one party to
  whom it would be most serviceable. This is the settled rule.³
  The same author says
  One should not disturb a man in the manner and extent of the enjoy-
  ment of a house, (of access through) a door or of a market and the like
  which he had from the time of its foundation.⁴
  Kātyāyana also says
  One should not interfere with (another's) base of the wall, drain
  balcony window watercourse and dwelling house he who obstructs
  would be liable to fine.
  Mekhalā means the built base of a wall (i. e. the plinth)
  bhramaḥ means passage for the exit of water. Niṣkāsaḥ according
  1 The idea is that the boundary was not to be regarded as final for three fortnights. If
  within that time the person or persons settling it were visited with divine or royal dis-
  pleasure, then it was to be held that they decided falsely.
  2 Under the Bombay Land Revenue Code (Bombay Act V of 1879) section 121 the
  Collector's decision as to the boundary between two survey numbers is final.

3. Avisahyāyām is variously explained. Aparārka, Sm. C. and Vir. explain as
   devoid of witnesses and marks. Kullūka and Vir. as impossible to ascertain.
   4 This is not found in Manu but in Bṛhaspati p. 351 v. 24 where vāri (water)
   is read for dvāra.
   P. 223 (text)

S. XV 6-9                                  BOUNDARY DISPUTES                                  249
M. p. 135 l 24-p 136 l 18 ]
to Madana, means a place for sitting down constructed of wood projecting from
a mansion and the like, but not touching (resting on) the ground. In some
books the reading is 'dhūma-niskāsaḥ', the meaning of which is 'a
window or the like for letting out smoke'. By the word 'ādi' (in the
verse preceding Kātyāyana's) are intended the walls of others and the like.
The same author (Kātyāyana says) :
After the time of the first entry (or foundation) such things are not
to be added at any time; one should not open a window so as to have a
peep into the dwelling houses of others or construct a drain for rainwater
on to the house of another ¹
Bṛhaspati (p 354 v 26) says :
A privy, a fire-place, a pit, a receptacle for throwing in leavings of food
and dirty water—these should never be constructed very close to the wall of
another.

• Varcah-sthānam' means 'a privy' ; 'atyārāt' means 'very near'.'
  Kātyāyana says :
  Places for depositing ordure, urine or (soiled) water, the construction
  of a fireplace or pit should be made leaving (at least a space of) two
  hands from the wall of another
  Bṛhaspati (p 354 v. 27) says :
  A path by which men and beasts go to and fro unhindered is declared
  to be 'saṁsaraṇa' and must not be obstructed by anyone.
  Nārada (p 158 v 15) says :
  One should not obstruct a cross-road, the sanctuary of a deity, a king's
  highway by (heaping) ordure, by a raised platform, a pit, aqueduct or
  the eaves of houses.
  Kātyāyana says.
  That is called a cross-road (or thoroughfare) by which all men pass at
  any time without being prevented and that is called a rājamārga (a king's
  highway) by which all men pass at stated times
  Bṛhaspati (p. 354 v 28) says.
  He who makes obstruction on a thoroughfare (by keeping carts &c), or
  makes a pit, or plants trees or voids ordure wilfully shall pay one māsaka
  as fine
  Manu (IX. 282) says :
  He who voids ordure on the king's highway when there is no calamity
  (or urgent pressure) should pay (as fine) two kārṣāpaṇas and should
  immediately remove the filth ²

1 'To have a peep into' &c.—This speaks of the right of privacy which is recognised
by custom even now in Gujerat. Vide Nathubhai v Chhaganlal 2 Bom L R. 454, Manch-
lal v. Mohanlal 44 Bom 496 (= 22 Bom L R. 226) These are not to be added so as to
interfere with another's rights
2 Great leniency was shown to old men, pregnant women and minors. Vide Manu
IX. 283

• P. 224 (text).
  V. M. 32

250 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. XV 9-18 / M. p. 186 L10-p. 187 L10]
Kātyāyana says :
He who defiles with filth a tank a garden or holy water should be fined
the first amercement after making him remove the filth
Yājñavalkya (II 155) says
For destroying boundary, for encroaching beyond the boundary and for
usurping a field the fines (respectively) are the lowest, the highest the
middling.
Manu (VIII 264) says
One who usurps by intimidation a house a tank, a garden or a
field should be fined 500 (panas) but the fine is two hundred if he did it
through ignorance.
Kātyāyana says
The fruits and flowers of trees growing on the boundary between two
fields should be declared as joint between the owners of the fields.
Kātyāyana says
But where the branches of trees growing in one man's field are spread
over another's field he should be considered as the owner in whose field
the (branches) stand spread out.¹
Yājñavalkya (II 157) says
When a man without informing the owner of a field makes a water
-course in that field the owner (of the field in which the setu is made)
is entitled to the profit arising therefrom or in his absence the king ²
The same author (Yāj. II 156) says
A dike that produces benefit should not be forbidden because it causes
some slight injury as also a well which occupies little space but has abun-
dant water (should not be prohibited) because it deprives another of some
land.
Na niṣedhyaḥ (should not be prohibited) has to be understood
(after kūpaḥ)
Nārada (p 158 v 17) also says :
(The erection of a) dike in the middle of another man's field is not
forbidden if it confers great benefit while the loss is trifling large in-
crease (of crops) is desirable even if there be (slight) loss (of land)
Nārada (p 159 v 20) says
If a man were to repair (start afresh) a dike erected in former times

1. Kātyāyana draws a distinction between jātāḥ and saṁsthitāḥ. Therefore it is
   proper to understand after saṁsthitāḥ in the fourth quarter the word śākhāḥ. Mandlik
   (p. 136) translates in whose field the trees stand But this is not correct. The reference
   is to the fruits and flowers growing on such branches.
2. Setu does not mean bridge here, but a dike or watercourse. A setu is of two
   kinds, one kheya (which is dug into the ground) and the other is bandhya (which prevents
   the access of water) Vide Nārada p. 158 v 18. The purport of the verse is that a setu
   should not be made in another's land without his permission or without giving him some
   consideration.
   P 225 (text) 7 P 226 (text)

S. XV, 18-XVI, 1.2. ] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 251
M, p. 187 l.10-p. 188 l. 2 ]
but which had become dilapidated, without the permission of the owner,
he shall not have the (use and) profit thereof.
Vyāsa says :
He who having taken a field does not himself cultivate it nor causes it
to be cultivated by another should be made to pay to the owner of the land
its produce and a fine equal in value to the king ¹
‘S'adam’ means ‘as much crop as it was possible to raise from the
field.’
Here (ends the section) on boundary disputes.
Now (begins the section on) Abuse.
*Bṛhaspati (p 355 vv. 2-4.) says :
That is said to be abuse of the lowest degree when the country, village,
the family or the like of a man is abused or sinfulness is ascribed (to a man)
without specifying any definite act (or object).² Speaking of one’s
(the abuser's) connection with the sister or mother (of the abused), or
ascription of minor sins (to the abused), is termed abuse of the middling
sort by those who are learned in the S'āstras.³ Charging a man with
taking forbidden food or drink, or taxing him with (the commission of)
mortal sins, mercilessly exposing a man’s weakest point—this is termed
abuse of the highest degree ⁴
‘Dravyam vinā’ (in the first verse) means ‘without specifying any
definite object,’ that is, it is merely a verbal abuse, ‘abhighattanam’ means
‘exposing’ (or divulging) Visnu (Dh S V. 35) says ‘For abuse of one of the
same class (as the abuser) a man should be fined twelve panas.’ In another
smṛti it is said :
When two parties have been guilty of abuse (insult) and both have begun
(to quarrel or abuse) at the same time, both shall undergo the same punish-
ment, if no differentiation is apparent (in respect of their culpability).⁵
Nārada (p. 208 v. 9) says :
He who is the first to offer an insult is decidedly to blame; he who
returns the insult is also a wrong-doer; but the one who is the first (i e.
who began) shall undergo the heavier punishment ⁶

1. Compare Yāj. II 158.
2. Compare Nārada p. 207 v 1.
   3 Vide Manu XI, 59-66 and Visnu chap. 37 for upapātakas
3. For mahāpātakas vide Manu XI. 54
4. This is Nārada p 208 v. 8.
5. ‘Āksārayet’ means ‘one who falsely charges with the commission of a sin,’

• P, 227 (text).