with the Commentary of Medhatithi 1 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 7 из 350Следующая ⇒

Discourse XII - Philosophy

Section I - Question

Section II - The Philosophy of Action and its Retribution (karmayoga)

Section III - Fruits of Action

Section IV - Meaning of Tridaṇḍa (“triple control”)

Section V - The Responsible Agent: the Self

Section VI - Transmigration

Section VII - The Three Guṇas

Section VIII - States of Existence due to the Three Qualities

Section IX - Details of Transmigration

Section X - The Highest Good

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

Section XII - Doubtful Points of Law to be decided by the Assembly

Section XIII - Summing up of the Esoteric Teaching

***

MANUSMRITI

Discourse I - Origin of the Work;

Creation of the World;

Summary of Contents of the Book.

VERSE 1.1 [Question of the Sages]

Section I - Question of the Sages

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

मनुमेकाग्रमासीनमभिगम्य महर्षयः ।
प्रतिपूज्य यथान्यायमिदं वचनमब्रुवन् ॥१॥

manumekāgramāsīnamabhigamya maharṣayaḥ |
pratipūjya yathānyāyamidaṃ vacanamabruvan ||1||

The Great Sages, having approached Manu, paid their respect to him in due form, and finding him seated with mind calm and collected, addressed him these words — (1).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Salutation to the Supreme Brahman! His real character can be known only from the Vedānta texts; He is the cause of the three worlds; and He destroys all evil.

The first four verses describe the fact of the treatise being the work of a highly qualified author, and of its providing instructions bearing upon such ends of man as are not knowable by means of any other source of knowledge; and this is done for the purpose of indicating its importance (and raising it in the estimation of men). When a treatise has secured high position in the estimation of men, its author obtains fame, and also heaven; and both these continue to exist as long as the world exists. A scientific treatise, has its position established only when people engage in studying, in listening to lectures on, and in pondering over, it. Intelligent persons cannot undertake the said study, etc., until they have satisfied themselves as to the purposes served by them. It is for this reason that, the Teacher has composed the four verses with a view to point out that the Treatise is put forth for the purpose of making known the means of accomplishing the ends of man.

It would not be right here to argue as follows: — “Even without the purpose of the Treatise being stated at the very outset, we could easily ascertain what that purpose is, by examining the several parts of the Treatise going to be propounded; what then is the use of making an effort to describe that purpose? Further, even if the purpose is stated at the very outset, one cannot bo sure of it until be has fully examined the subsequent portions of the Treatise; as a matter of fact, all the assertions that a man may make do not always bring conviction. Nor is it necessary that every undertaking must be preceded by the knowledge of purposes served by it; for instance, we find pupils undertaking the study of the Veda, without knowing beforehand the purposes to be served by that study. In the works of human authors also, the practice of stating the purpose is not always followed. For instance, the revered Pāṇini begins hi s Sutras with the words ‘Now follows the teaching of words,’ without having stated the. purpose to be served by his treatise.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — Unless people have ascertained the purpose served by a particular Treatise, they would not, in the first place, take it up at all; and unless they take it up, how could they examine the whole of it? Then again, that same idea which is got at by the examination of the entire Treatise, becomes more easily comprehended if it has been briefly indicated in the beginning. It is with reference to this that there is the assertion that — ‘in ordinary experience, the learned always consider it desirable to carry ideas in their minds briefly as well as in greater detail.’

As regards the argument that — “even when the purpose has been stated there can be no certainty about it, for the simple reason that we do not derive conviction from the words of human beings, — in whose oase the idea that we have is that this man knows the matter as he says, and not that the fact is really as he asserts,” — our answer is that we do not quarrel over the question as to whether the words of human beings do, or do not, bring about conviction; because discussion over this question would swell the size of our work. But as a matter of fact, even though it is possible for a man to have recourse to a certain course of action, even when he is in doubt as to the exact purpose served by it, — yet until there is some statement as to the purpose served by a particular action, even doubts could not arise in regard to it. In fact, if some statement had not been made in regard to the purpose to be served by the present Treatise, the doubt that would arise in men’s minds would be (not as to whether or not it was going to serve any useful purpose, but) as to whether it is a treatise on Law or on Economics, or an aimless attempt in the nature of an examination of such subjects as the ‘Crow’s teeth’ and the like. On the other hand, when the aim of the work has been stated, the idea arising in our minds is — ‘the author of this work asserts that he is going to show us the path leading to our welfare, — there is no harm done by our undertaking the study of the work, — well, let us look into it’; and forthwith we take up the work.

Next as regards the case (cited by the opponent) of pupils taking up Vedic study (without being told of the exact purpose to be accomplished thereby), — the fact of the matter is that the action of the pupil is due to his being urged to it by his Teacher, and not to his recognition of the fact that if behoves him to take up the study (for the accomplishment of any purpose of his own); in fact being quite a child at the time (of beginning Vedic study), it is not possible for him to have any idea as to his being entitled to the study (by virtue of his having an aim that could be served only by that study); and his activity, therefore, is brought about entirely by the direction of another person (his Teacher); who does not bewilder him by pointing out to him that he is entitled to take up the study; and when once the boy has taken up Vedic study (entirely under advice of his Teacher), the motive for further study is provided by the desire to know the meaning of the Vedic texts studied; and thus the study continues to be carried on. [This is the case with the study of the Veda.] As regards the study of the present Treatise (on Law), only such persons are entitled to it as have already studied the Veda, as is clearly indicated by the text — ‘the twice-born person who, without having studied the Vedas, devotes his energies to other subjects [becomes a Shudra]’ (Manu, 2.168); and by that time the pupil has his intelligence aroused, and consequently seeks to know wbat purpose is to be served by any further action that he is going to undertake.

As regards the revered Pāṇini, his aphorisms are extremely brief; so that there is no possibility of their having any other meaning (or serving any other purpose) than the one directly expressed by them; and further, the fame of Pāṇini is well known to even the smallest boy; so that the purpose served by his work is too well known to need reiteration. The present treatise (of Manu) on the other hand is on an extensive scale, abounding in several (commendatory and condemnatory) ‘Descriptions,’ and it helps in the accomplishment of all human ends; so that if its aim is stated in easily intelligible words, there is no harm done.

Of enquirers (and students) there are two classes, — one following reasoning, and another following tradition. The former of these take up the study of Manu; because they know the importance and greatness of the author and his work from such texts as — ‘whatever Manu said is wholesome’ (Kāṭhaka, 11.5), and ‘Manu has said all that has been said in the Ṛgveda, the Yajurveda, the Sāmaveda and the Mantras of the Atharva, as also by the Seven Great Sages.’ And those of the latter class undertake it merely under the influence of the tradition, the source of which they have carefully investigated — that the treatise has been composed by Prajāpati himself. And for the sake of such persons, the mentioning of the name of the Author also is a factor leading to action (towards s tudy).

It is for these reasons that we have here the laying out of the aim of the Treatise, in the form of question and answer: The Great Sages are the questioners, Prajāpati is the expounder, and the subject is Dharma, which being not amenable to the ordinary means of knowledge, can be known only from the Śāstras (Scientific Treatises), — it is so difficult that even the Great Sages have doubts in regard to it. That Prajāpati is the actual expounder is indicated by the words of the text itself, which says — being questioned by them,’ and not ‘I, being questioned by them’; and of himself again Manu speaks (12.123) as being the natural image (representative) of Brahmā. Thus an effort is necessary for the expounding of the Law. Such is the sense of the first four verses.

In what manner the present Treatise is made up of Instructions bearing upon the ends of man we shall show by the interpretation of the words of the text.

Now, in the text we have tho declarations — (l) ‘the Great Sages, having approached Manu, said to him — ‘do please expound to us the Duties of Man,’ and (2) ‘being thus questioned by them, He said — ‘listen’; and these two — the question and its answer — in their import, are expressive of the one idea that the Treatise expounds the Dharmas; (he word ‘Dharma’ is in common parlance used in the sense of that means of accomplishing one’s good which is not cognisable by any of the ordinary means of knowledge, with the sole exception of ‘word.’ Hence when it is said ‘listen to Dharma,’ what is meant is that what is going to be expounded is conducive to the fulfilment of the higher ends of man.

‘Manu’ is the name of a particular person known, in long-continued tradition, as having studied several Vedic texts, as knowing their meaning and as practising the precepts therein contained; — ‘Eating approached’ him, i.e., having gone forward near him, intentionally, giving up all other actions, and not by mere chance, having met with him the special effort made by the Sages to get near Manu shows the importance of the subject-matter of their question, as also the authoritative and trustworthy character of the expounder; a man who is not capable of rightly expounding a subject is never questioned by persons going up to him for that purpose. — ‘Whose mind was calm and collected’ — ‘Seated with mind calm and collected,’ — i.e., whose mind was in a tranquil state; and it does not mean ṭhat he was actually seated upon a mat, or some such seat; os there would be no point in stating this; in fact the word ‘seated’ merely connotes calmness; it is only when one’s mind is calm that he is capable of answering questions. — ‘Having approached’ — has for its object simply ‘Manu’; ‘seated with mind calm and collected’ being an adverbial clause modifying the act of ‘questioning’ (by the sages). The sense of the sentence thus is — ‘they said to him the following words, on finding, from the manner in which he engaged into conversation with them in making enquiries about their welfare, that his mind was not preoccupied, but calm and collected, and he was therefore attentive to their questioning.’

The term ‘ekāgra,’ by ordinary usage, connotes what is meant by (he term is steadiness of the mind, it being concentrated upon the contemplation of the knowledge of truth, following upon the cessation of all doubts and illusions of the person in whom the contact of all defects of passion and the like is set aside by inhibition. It is only when one h as his mind in this condition that he is capable of apprehending sound and other objects that lie within reach of his senses; which is not the case when he is in doubt as to the object being a real entity or otherwise. — Or, etymologically the term ‘agra’ denotes the mind, by reason of the fact that in the act of apprehending things it is the Mind that goes before (agragāmi) the Eye and other sense-organs; and in ordinary parlance that which acts first or goes ahead, is called ‘agra’; — so that the compound ‘ekāgra’ is to be expounded as ‘he who has his agra, or Mind, fixed upon one perceptible object’; there being nothing incongruous in a Bahuvrīhi Compound being taken, if its sense demands it, as referring to things that are not co-existent. By this explanation also ‘ekāgra’ connotes absence of distraction.

‘Saving paid their respects in due form’ — ‘Due form’ stands for the rule prescribed in the scriptures; and they did not transgress any such rule; the scriptures have laid down the rule that on first approaching his Teacher, the pupil should offer his obeisance, attend upon him, and so forth; and it was in this prescribed manner that the sages paid their respects to Manu; which means that they showed due devotion and respect.

The great sages. — The word ‘ṛṣi’ means the Veda; and the word ‘ṛṣi’ is applied also to a person, by virtue of his possessing excellent knowledge of the Veda and all that is prescribed therein and acting up to these. The Ṛṣis, sages, who approached Manu, were great; the said persons become ‘great,’ when the above-mentioned qualities become developed in them to a very high degree; just as Yudhiṣṭhira is called the ‘greatest of the Kurus’ (because he possessed, jn a very high degree, the qualities that distinguished the members of the Kuru-race). — Or the sages may be regarded as ‘great,’ by virtue of their superior austerities, or of the great respect and fame enjoyed by them.

‘They addressed these words’ — ‘Vacana’ is that by which something is spoken of; this refers to the question formulated in the second verse; these being the nearest ‘words’ are what are referred to by the pronoun ‘these.’ Some people have held that the pronoun ‘this’ always refers to something directly perceived at the time; for these people also the question may bo regarded as ‘perceived,’ on account of its being present in the mind. — Or ‘vacana,’ may mean that which is spoken of; and in that case it would stand for the subject-matter questioned about. If it be taken as referring to the sentence (and, not to the subject-matter), then the meaning would be that ‘they pronounced this sentence.’ — If the term ‘vacana’ means that which is spoken of, the sense is that ‘they asked the following question’; and in that case the verb ‘abruvan,’ ‘addressed,’ would have two objects, — ‘Manu’ being the indirect object. In fact, Manu is the object of all the three verbs in the sentence (approach, pay respects to and address). — (1).

Explanatory notes:

‘Pratipūjya’ — has been taken by Kullūka to mean also after mutual salutations’; and be has taken ‘yathānyāyam’ with ‘abravīt.’ Sarvajñanārāyaṇa takes it to mean ‘pratyekam pūjayitvā’, having honoured them severally’.

Medhātithi (p. 1, 1. 18) curiously ascribes the assertion ‘atha śabdānuśāsanam’ to Pāṇini, not to Patañjali.

P. 2, 1. 4 — appears to favour the Prābhākara view in regard to the Śastrārambha (vide Prabhākara-Mīmāṃsa). But on p. 73, 1. 20, the Bhāṭṭa view is also accepted.

P. 2, 1. 12. — ‘Whatever Manu said &c.,’ — This text occurs in several Saṃhitas in varying forms, where it refers to the secred (sacred?) texts ‘seen’ by Manu. But there is nothing to prevent the deduction being drawn that tins declaration proves the antiquity of the ‘Law of Manu’, though it need not be exactly in the form in which it has been handed down to us by Bhṛgu and his pupils.

P. 2, 1. 13. — ‘Manu has said &c.’ — “ṛco yajūṃṣi” &c. — The second half of this verse is quoted by Bidder (XIV) as “maharṣibhistu tatproktaṃ smārtaṃ tu manurabravīt”, and translated as ‘the Vedas were proclaimed by the great sages, but the Smārta, or traditional lore, by Manu.’ It is strange that Buhler did not notice that such a statement as this would not add very much to Manu’s claims to exceptional honour. The right reading of the verse is, as we find in the printed texts of Medhātithi, saptarṣibhistu yatproktaṃ tu(?) sarvammanurabravīt,’ ‘the Ṛk verses......... and all that has been declared by the seven sages, — all this has Manu expounded’. This would mean that the work of Manu contains all the teachings that had gone before him.

P. 3, 1. 11. — ‘Having paid their respects’, &c. — pratipūjyā yathānyāyam — The commentaries on this expression throw a curious light on their own relative antiquity: Medhātithi explains it simply as — yādṛśī śāstreṇābhivādanopāsanādikā guroḥ prathamopasarpaṇe pūjā vihitā tathā pūjayitvā — and he does not seek to Emphasise and explain the anomaly involved in the teacher being a ‘Kṣatriya’ and the questioners ‘Brāhmaṇas’, and the latter offering pūjā to the former. Kullūka has tried to tone down the anomaly by explaining pratipūjya as pūjitāḥ santaḥ pūjāṃ kṛtvā — ‘They offered the pūjā after they had themselves received the pūjā due to themselves;’ and Rāghavānanda goes a step farther and explains as yathānyāyam as “nyāpo'tra kṣatriyeṣu brāhmaṇādīnāṃ na namaskāraḥ kintu vākapūjā |”

P. 3, 1. 13. — ‘The word ṛṣi means the Veda’ — The word ‘ṛṣi’ is explained by Medhātithi as a synonym for the Veda, and in his Bhāṣya on verse 11 below he actually uses the word in that sense. According to him the term primarily denotes the Veda, and only secondarily the person who possesses special knowledge of the Veda.

P. 2, l. 23 — ‘Dharmaśabdaśca — This is a paraphrase of Jaimini’s definition codanālakṣaṇo'rtho dharmaḥ

VERSE 1.2

Section I - Question of the Sages

भगवन् सर्ववर्णानां यथावदनुपूर्वशः ।
अन्तरप्रभवानां च धर्मान्नो वक्तुमर्हसि ॥२॥

bhagavan sarvavarṇānāṃ yathāvadanupūrvaśaḥ |
antaraprabhavānāṃ ca dharmānno vaktumarhasi ||2||

May Thou, O blessed One, explain to us, in due form and in proper order, the duties of all castes and intermediate castes! — (2).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The second verse describes what the sages said to Manu, after having approached and worshipped him.

The term ‘bhaga,’ ‘blessings,’ is used for superiority, magnanimity, fame, strength and so forth; and ‘bhagavān’ is he who possesses all this; that is (in the present context) Manu; hence it is he who is addressed by the term ‘O blessed one.’

The term ‘caste’ is applied to the three castes, ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ ‘Kṣatriya,’ and ‘Vaiśya’ — the term ‘all’ has been added for the purpose of including the ‘Śūdra’; if this was not done, then, the question, emanating from the Great Sages (who represent only the three higher castes), would be restricted to the three castes only.

‘Intermediate’ means middle; from the mixture of two castes there arises another imperfect caste; those that are born out of those imperfect unions are the ‘intermediate castes,’ born in the natural order or the reverse; those known under the names ‘Mūrdhāvasikta,’ ‘Kṣattṛ,’ ‘Vaidehika’ and so forth (Vide, Manu 10.7 et. seq.), these could not be classed under the caste either of the mother or that of the father; just as the Mule born out of the union of the Horse and the Ass is a distinct species, it is neither the ‘horse’ nor the ‘ass’; — on this ground these would not be included under the ‘castes’; hence they have been mentioned separately.

Objection — “But the offspring of ṭhe union of castes mixed in the natural order is regarded as belonging to the caste of the mother.”

It is not so, we reply. From what is said under 10.6 as to these castes being ‘similar,’ it is clear that they are only ‘similar’ to the caste of the mother, and not quite the same as this latter. The functions of these intermediate castes also are such as can be learnt only from scriptures; they cannot be ascertained entirely from their natural inclinations (as in the case of lower animals); and in as much as these functions cannot be ascertained by the help of any other source of knowledge, they fall under the term ‘Dharma,’ ‘duties,’ and as such deserve to be expounded in the scriptures. Of the intermediate castes born of unions in the reverse order, such duties as ‘not harming others’ and so forth are going to be described (by Manu himself under 10.63). When they are spoken of as being ‘without any duties,’ the ‘duties’ meant are such as Observances, Fasts and so forth.

‘Yathāvat,’ ‘in due form.’ — The suffix ‘vati’ denotes propriety; the meaning being — ‘in the form in which performance would be proper.’ This ‘propriety’ also includes such details as — ‘this is compulsory, that is optional,’ ‘this is primary, that is secondary,’ as also rules relating to substance, place, time, agent and so forth.

‘Anupūrvaśaḥ,’ ‘in due order.’ — ‘Order’ means sequence; the meaning is — ‘please explain also the order in which the several duties have to be performed.’ The order meant is such as — after the performance of the ‘Birth-rite,’ come respectively ‘Tonsure,’ ‘Initiation’ and so forth. The phrase ‘in due form’ implies completeness in regard to subject-matter; ‘order’ does not form part of the subject-matter, hence the qualification ‘in due order’ has been added separately.

The word ‘dharma,’ ‘duty,’ is found to be used in reference to — (1) the injunction of what should be done, (2) the prohibition of what should not be done, — both these bearing upon transcendental purposes, — and also (3) action in accordance with the said Injunctions and Prohibitions. Whether the denotation of the term applies equally to both, or it applies primarily to one only, and to another only secondarily, — this we do not discuss on the present occasion; and we have already discussed this in detail in another work (the Smṛtiviveka), and it has no direct bearing on the present context. In any case, when it is declared that the Aṣṭakās should be performed,’ what is clearly understood is the propriety of performing in relation to the Aṣṭakāt; and when it is declared that ‘the meat of the animal killed by a poisoned arrow should not be eaten,' what is dearly understood is the impropriety of performing in relation to the eating of the said meat. Whether the action of the Aṣṭakā is regarded as ‘duty,’ or the propriety of performing that act, — it does not make any difference in the ultimate result. And when the form of ‘duty’ has been duly expounded, that is contrary constitutes ‘Adharma’ (sin) follows naturally by implication. Thus what is meant is that ‘Dharma,’ ‘Duty,’ as also ‘Adharma,’ ‘sin,’ both form the subject-matter of the scriptural treatise: the performance of the ‘Aṣṭakā’ is a Duty, as also is the avoidance of Brāhmaṇa-murder’; the non-performance of Aṣṭaka’ is a sin, as also is the performance of Brāhmaṇa-murder’; such is the distinction (between ‘Duty’ and ‘Sin’ as described in the scriptures).

‘Arhasi,’ ‘may you’ — indicates ability in the shape of possessing the requisite capacity; and as such expresses the fact of the teacher being a lit and proper person for the expounding the duties; the sense being — ‘in as much as you are fully able to expound the Duties, hence you are a fit and proper person for that work, — ns such you are entreated by us to explain to us the said Duties’; it follows by implication that when a man is a fit and proper person for doing a certain act, that act should be done by him. The term of entreaty ‘do please explain to us’ is supplied from without. — (2)

Explanatory notes:

‘O blessed one,’ bhagavan — The title bhagavān means ‘one who possesses Bhaga.’ What ‘bhaga’ stands for is thus described in the Viṣṇupurāṇa quoted by Kullūka — ‘Bhaga is the name for the following six — (1) full sovereignty, (2) strength, (3) fame, (4) glory, (5) knowledge and (6) freedom from passion.’

‘Intermediate castes,’ antaraprabhavān — This refers to the ‘mixed castes’ described under Discourse 10.

P. 3, l. 24 — For manuḥ J reads manoḥ which would be construed with sambodhanam.

P. 3, l. 25 — for jñātiṣu (l. 25) J and Mand. lightly read jātiṣu.

P. 4, l. 3 — Those castes being similar &c. sadṛśāneva tānāhu: — This is Manu, 10. 6, where Medhātithi says — te sadṛśā eva jñeyāḥ, natajjātīyāḥ......tatsadṛśagrahaṇāt mātṛta utkṛṣṭāḥ pitṛto nikṛṣṭāḥ — ‘They should he regarded as equal to, not of the same caste as, their fathers; what is meant is that they are superior to the mother, but inferior to the father.’

P. 4, l. 14 — ‘In another work,’ granthāntare — Does this refer to the author’s Smṛtiviveka from which he has quoted in his comments on 2. 6 below?

Medhātithi does not attach much importance to the account of creation here provided. In more than one place he says that the whole of Adhyāya I is ‘mere Arthavāda.’ In his comments on verse 5, for instance, he says that the process described is in some places in accordance with the account found in the Purāṇas, and in others, in accordance with the tenets of the Sāṅkhya system of philosophy; and that no attention need be paid to this, as it has no direct bearing upon Dharma. Again under verse 9, he says that as this subject does not form the real subject-matter of the treatise, no attention need he paid to what the author says on it.

VERSE 1.3

Section I - Question of the Sages

त्वमेको ह्यस्य सर्वस्य विधानस्य स्वयम्भुवः ।
अचिन्त्यस्याप्रमेयस्य कार्यतत्त्वार्थवित् प्रभो ॥३॥

tvameko hyasya sarvasya vidhānasya svayambhuvaḥ |
acintyasyāprameyasya kāryatattvārthavit prabho ||3||

Thou alone, O Lord, art conversant with what ought to be done, which forms the true import of this entire Veda — which is eternal, inconceivable and not directly cognisable. — (3)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

At this stage the following question arises — “It has been said that the term ‘Duty’ is used in the sense of only that activity which tends to accomplish a transcendental purpose; and such activity may consist in the performing of the Aṣṭakā, as also in bowing to Caityas and such other acts (prescribed in the heterodox scriptures); and what sort of Duties is going to be expounded in the present Treatise?”

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры