with the Commentary of Medhatithi 3 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 9 из 350Следующая ⇒

‘Was in existence’ — the past tense has been used, because the condition described can never be known by any person; hence it is that it has been described as ‘incognizable.’

‘Wholly’ — this shows that the dissolution is not partial but total. (5)

Explanatory notes:

‘Tamas’ is generally taken here in the sense of the ‘Root evolvent’, only Rāghavānanda taking it in the sense of the Vedantic māyā; he is supported by Sāyaṇa who explains the term similarly, under his explanation of Ṛgveda 18. 129. 8.

P. 8, l. 8 — (1) tam āsīt (Ṛgveda 10.129.8) — Sāyaṇa supplies a somewhat different explanation:

Sndt89fb 1(1)

As a Vedāntin, Sāyaṇa identifies tamas with māyā |

VERSE 1.6

Section III - Origin of the World

ततः स्वयम्भूर्भगवानव्यक्तो व्यञ्जयन्निदम् ।
महाभूतादि वृत्तोजाः प्रादुरासीत् तमोनुदः ॥६॥

tataḥ svayambhūrbhagavānavyakto vyañjayannidam |
mahābhūtādi vṛttojāḥ prādurāsīt tamonudaḥ ||6||

Thereafter, the supreme being Hiraṇyagarbha, self-born, unmanifest and bringing into view this (universe), appeared, — dispelling darkness and having his (creative) power operating upon the Elemental Substances and other things. — (6)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

After the above described Great Night; — the ‘Self-born,’ he who comes into existence by himself; i.e. who takes up a body by his own will, his taking the body not being dependent upon his past acts, as it is in the case of beings undergoing births and deaths.

‘Unmanifest,’ — not cognizable by people devoid of ability to contemplate and other powers produced by the practice of yoga. Or, it would be better to read ‘avyakṭam’ (in the Accusative), making it an epithet of ‘idam,’ ‘this;’ the meaning being ‘this universe which was in its unmanifest condition.’

‘Bringing into view’ — making it perceptible in the form of the grosser products; that is, he by whose wish the World comes into existence.

‘Appeared’ — the term ‘Prāduḥ (?)’ — denotes visibility.

‘Dispelling darkness,’ — ‘darkness’ stands for the state of dissolution; he dispells, sets aside, that state; he creates the World afresh and is therefore said to ‘dispel darkness.’

‘Elemental Substances,’ earth and the rest.

‘Other things’ — refers to Sound and other qualities of the said substances; — he has his ‘power’ i.e. creative power — ‘operating,’ acting, upon the said substances &c. The Elemental Substances by themselves are incapable of producing the World; when however the requisite potency is instilled into them by him, they become transformed into the shape of trees and other things. The term ‘Elemental Substances’ here does not stand for the substances, which at the beginning of ‘creation,’ exist in the form of potencies lying latent in Primordial Matter.

Another reading is ‘mahābhūtānuvṛttaujāḥ;’ ‘anuvṛttam, meaning bent upon; the meaning of the epithet remains the same as before. (6)

Explanatory notes:

‘Mahābhūtādī’ — Here again Rāghavānanda, the Vedantin, is at variance with the other commentators, and takes it in the sense of ‘Akaṅkāra,’ and not in that of ‘the Elemental Substances &c,’

‘Prādurāsīt’ — ‘assumed a body of his own free will, not in consequence of his Karma?: (Medhātithi, Kullūka, Govinda, Nandana); — ‘became discernible’: (Nārāyaṇa) — ‘became ready to create’: (Rāghavānanda)

The reader should refer to the latter portion of the Bhāṣya on verse 11, where the present verse is explained as setting forth the self-evolution of Prakṛti, according to the Sāṅkhya.

VERSE 1.7

Section III - Origin of the World

योऽसावतीन्द्रियग्राह्यः सूक्ष्मोऽव्यक्तः सनातनः ।
सर्वभूतमयोऽचिन्त्यः स एव स्वयमुद्बभौ ॥७॥

yo'sāvatīndriyagrāhyaḥ sūkṣmo'vyaktaḥ sanātanaḥ |
sarvabhūtamayo'cintyaḥ sa eva svayamudbabhau ||7||

He, — who is apprehended beyond the senses, who is subtile, unmanifest and eternal, absorbed in all created things and inconceivable, — appeared by himself. (7)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He, who’ — these two pronouns refer to something well-known, that is (in the present context) the ‘Supreme Brahman,’ he who is described, in the Vedanta texts as also in other philosophical systems, in the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, as having the qualities going to be described in the present verse.

‘He appeared by himself’ — i.e. took a body for himself; the root ‘bhā,’ having several meanings, is here used in the sense of coming into existence; or, it may be taken in its usual sense of shining; the meaning being that he was self-effulgent, and did not need the light from the sun or other sources.

‘Atīndriya’ means that which is beyond the senses, the compound being taken as an Avyayībhāva; the compound ‘atīndriyagrāhyaḥ’ being included under the general rule of compounds formulated in Pāṇini’s Sūtra 2.1.4; the mean ing being that he is apprehended beyond the senses, he never comes within range of the senses; it is an entirely different kind of cognition, the intuitive cognition of the yogin, by which he is apprehended. Or, the compound ‘that which is beyond the senses’ may be taken as standing for the Mind, which, being imperceptible, is not perceived by the senses; it is for this reason that the Vaiśeṣikas have held Mind to be ‘cognisable by means of Inference,’ as stated in the Nyāya-sūtra (1.1.16) — ‘The fact that cognitions do not appear simultaneously is indicative of the Mind.’ And it is by means of this Mind alone that the said Being is apprehended. Says the revered Vyāsa also — ‘He is not perceptible by the eye, nor by the other senses; he is apprehended by means of the clear Mind, by persons endowed with subtle powers of cognition’; — i.e. not sullied by the defects of passion &c.; — by persons who have acquired the powers of subtle perception, by virtue of their being entirely devoted to the worship of the said Being.

‘Subtile’ — i.e. as if he were ‘subtile,’ small; inreality he is not the substratum of any such finite or concrete predications or concepts as ‘large’ or ‘small;’ he is, in fact, beyond all such predications; as is declared in the following passage — ‘He is free even from the semblance of all predications; he has been variously conceived of on the strength of scriptures and inference, he is beyond all taint of duality, beyond affirmation and denial, beyond sequentiality and non-sequentiality, beyond reality and unreality; he is the very soul of the universe, and becomes cognised only by means of discriminative wisdom.’

Because he is ‘subtile,’ he is ‘unmanifest, eternal;’ being of subtile nature, he is endowed with beginningless and endless puissance, home people have held that the position of ‘Hiraṇyagarbha’ is attained by (ordinary beings) through (meritorious) acts; according to these people also he is ‘everlasting,’ in the sense that, though lie has beginning, he has no end; because his condition, which consists in being the experiencer of the fruits emanating from his original act of bringing about creation, never comes to an end.

Ho is described as ‘absorbed in all created things’ in the sense that he is the very soul of things, having his mind intent upon the idea that ‘all things are to be created by me;’ when for instance, the jar made of clay, having its body built out of clay, is said to be ‘absorbed in (consisting of) the clay;’ similarly when a certain person ponders too much over a thing, he is described figuratively, as ‘absorbed’ in that thing; as we find in such expressions as — ‘this person is absorbed in women,’ ‘he is absorbed in the Ṛgveda,’ ‘he is absorbed in the Yajurveda,’ and so forth. Or, it may be in view of the Advaita, ‘Nondualistic,’ Philosophy, by which sentient as well as insentient tilings have no existence apart from Hiraṇyagarbha, all being his illusory modifications; so that these modifications consisting of the created things, and these being non-different from him, it is only right that he should be described as ‘absorbed in (consisting of) created tilings.’ —

“But how can the single entity undergo illusory modifications? It would be inconsistent with its unity.”

The answer given by the upholders of the theory of ‘illusory modifications’ is as follows: — When the surface of the sea is struck by the winds, high waves rise out of it, and these waves are not entirely apart from the sea, nor are they totally absorbed in it; and they cannot be described as either ‘different’ or ‘non-different’ from it; exactly similar is the case with the ‘illusory modifications’ of Brahman.

The term ‘also’ may also be supplied to the words of the text; the sense being — ‘even though, in his own pristine form, he is imperceptible, he becomes perceptible in the form of the ‘modifications;’ similarly with the epithet ‘subtile;’ the implication of ‘also’ being that he is gross in the form of the grosser modifications; similarly, he is ‘unmanifest’and also ‘manifest,’ ‘eternal’ and also ‘not eternal,’ ‘absorbed in created things’ and also ‘free from their forms (and limitations);’ all this being in reference to him in the condition of ‘modifications.’

‘Inconceivable’ — i.e. his character is marvellous, he being possessed of remarkable powers. — (7)

Explanatory notes:

Sūkṣmaḥ: — ‘unperceivable by the external senses’: (Kullūka). But this would be a repetition of atīndriyagrāhyaḥ’; hence Govinda renders it as ‘who is perceivable by subtle understanding only;’ and Rāghavānanda — ‘who is without parts’ — which is, as Kullūka makes out to be, the meaning of ‘avyaktaḥ.’

Sarvabhūtamayaḥ — Medhātithi has offered two explanations: (1) ‘entirely taken up by the idea of creating tilings’, and (2) ‘whose modification all tilings are’. The latter explanation is practically accepted by all the commentators.

Udbhabau — ‘Assumed a body’: (Medhātithi and Govinda) or ‘shone forth’ (alternative suggested by Medliātitlii); ‘appeared in the form of the products’: (Kullū.) — ‘became discernible’ (Nandana).

Medhātithi, P. 10, l. 7 — ‘Tathā ca Vaiśeṣikāḥ’; — The sūtra quoted is Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtra, 1.1.10. It seems that even so early as Medhātithi’s time ‘Nyāya’ and Vaiśeṣika’ were used as convertible terms.

VERSE 1.8 [Creation Of Water]

Section IV - Creation Of Water

सोऽभिध्याय शरीरात् स्वात् सिसृक्षुर्विविधाः प्रजाः ।
अप एव ससर्जादौ तासु वीर्यमवासृजत् ॥८॥

so'bhidhyāya śarīrāt svāt sisṛkṣurvividhāḥ prajāḥ |
apa eva sasarjādau tāsu vīryamavāsṛjat ||8||

Desiring to create the several kinds of created things, he, in the beginning, by mere willing, produced, out op his own body, Water; and in that he threw the seed. — (8)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He’ — who, — by virtue of the qualities described in the preceding verse, and also by virtue of such Vedic texts as ‘In the beginning there appeared Hiraṇyagarbha &c.’ (Ṛgveda 10.121.1) — acquired the title of ‘Hiraṇyagarbha.’

‘Several kinds of created things’ — things possessed of various forms.

‘Desiring to create,’ — wishing to bring into existence.

‘In the beginning,’ first of all — ‘produced,’ called into being — ‘water’ ‘out of his own body,’ i.e., the body assumed by himself (on manifestation). Or, according to the Ádvaita Philosophy, ‘Primordial Matter’ is the ‘body’ of Hiraṇyagarbha here spoken of; it is ‘his own’ in the sense that it follows his wish, and is the cause of the production of all bodies.

The next question that arises is — “When he created the body of all living beings, did he do so by means of some physical act, such as digging with the spade and so forth (as the potter does in the making of the Jar)?”

The answer is no. — “How then?” — ‘By mere willing’ — by the mere act of wishing ‘let water be produced.’

The following further question is raised — “Since the Earth and other things were non-existent at the time, what was the receptacle or standing ground of the water that was produced?”

The question is addressed to the winds! [ lit., it is as good as addressed to others!]. It might just as well bo asked — what is the receptacle or standing ground for the Supreme Lord himself when he has assumed a body. If it be explained that so far as the powers of the creator himself are concerned, no questions arise, for the simple reason that he is possessed of unique powers, — then the same may be said in regard to water and the other products also, which may be regarded as having similar unique powers.

In that, water, he threw, scattered, the seed, the semen. (8)

Explanatory notes:

(3) Abhidhyāya — According to those who interpret the process here as ‘described in accordance with the Saṅkhya’, this means ‘independently of all outside force, just as a man does an act by mere thought.’

Āpaḥ — In his eagerness to be literally faithful, Buhler has translated this as ‘waters’, using the plural form in consideration of the plural form of ‘āpaḥ’ in the plural. It has to be borne in mind, however, that the text has used the plural form, because the base ‘ap’ has no singular form at all.

Vide, in this connection, Ṛgveda, 10.121.1, and Viṣṇu-purāṇa I.

Saḥ — Hiraṇyagarbha (acc. to Medhātithi); the Paramātman (according to others.)

Abhidhyāya — According to the interpretation of ‘others’, noted by Medhātithi, under verse 11, this participle means ‘independently of all external activity, just as a man may do some act by merely willing it.’

Medhātithi P. 11, l. 6 — ‘anyebhya idamucyate’ — This is an idiomatic expression used in the sense — ‘This that is urged is spoken, as it were, to others — it does not concern us, — it has no hearing upon what we have said.’

VERSE 1.9 [Birth of Brahmā]

Section V - Birth of Brahmā

तदण्डमभवद्धैमं सहस्रांशुसमप्रभम् ।
तस्मिञ्जज्ञे स्वयं ब्रह्मा सर्वलोकपितामहः ॥९॥

tadaṇḍamabhavaddhaimaṃ sahasrāṃśusamaprabham |
tasmiñjajñe svayaṃ brahmā sarvalokapitāmahaḥ ||9||

That became the golden egg, resplendent like the Sun; in that (egg) he (Hiraṇyagarbha) himself was born as Brahmā, the ‘Grand-father’ of the whole world. — (9)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

First of all Primordial Matter develops in the form of Clay; i.e., on account of the contact of Hiraṇyagarbha’s ‘seed,’ it become solidified; and this is what is described as having become an ‘egg.’ — ‘Golden,’ gold, made up of gold; i.e., in its brilliance it resembled the thing made of gold.

“But this statement (that the egg was of gold) is contained in the scriptures, and we do not find any such term as ‘like’ or ‘resembling’ (which would have justified the interpretation of ‘golden’ as resembling gold), — how then can we, in the absence of any other authority, explain the term figuratively?”

Our answer to the question is as follows: — Later on we find the statement — ‘by means of the two forces, he created Heaven and Earth’ (Verse 13); and as a matter of fact, this Earth is found to consist of clay, and not of gold entirely; and it is in view of this fact that we have taken the epithet ‘golden’ figuratively.

‘Sahasrāṃśuḥ,’ lit. ‘thousand-rayed,’ is the Sun; — ‘aṃśu’ means rays; and the resplendence of the egg was like that of the rays of the Sun.

‘In that egg he himself was born,’ came into existence, as Brahmā,’ — Brahmā is Hiraṇyagarbha himself; — the exact signification of the term ‘himself’ has already been explained; the meaning is that he had originally (as Hiraṇyagarbha) assumed a body by the force of occult powers, he gave up that body and entered within the egg. — Or, it may be that when he created water, Hiraṇyagarbha had no body, hence he took up a body within the egg. — Or again, the being spoken of as ‘he who’ (in verse 7) was different from the Brahmā who is described here as being born in the egg; this would be in keeping with what is going to be stated (in verse 11) in regard to the latter being ‘created by him,’ i.e., created by the Supreme Lord (described in verse 7).

“But (under this last explanation) how could he be said to be ‘himself born?’ — and the text apparently speaks, as ‘Brahmā,’ of him who was ‘himself born’ (in the egg).”

This does not affect the position; the son is often called by the name of the Father, when he is described as the ‘self being born out of itself.’

The fact of the matter however is that what the Teacher has asserted is based upon scriptural texts, which have no bearing upon the matter at all [for being mere Arthavāda, they are not meant to describe what is directly expressed by the words]; so Unit we need not lay stress upon what is said (in the text) in this connection; specially because, so far as the expounding of Duties is concerned, it does not matter at all whether Hiraṇyagarbha himself was born in the egg, or he created some other being.

‘The grand-father of the whole world’ — is a proper name, applied figuratively. That it has to be taken so is proved by the fact that the Being described is not literally the ‘Grandfather’ of the people; what the attributing of this proper name is meant to indicate is that the being described is an object of great reverence, the term ‘Grand-father’ being chosen, because the Grand-father commands greater reverence than even the Father. (9).

Explanatory notes:

Burnell remarks that this ‘Egg’ does not belong to the Sāṅkhya philosophy. The explanation of this, in accordance with that philosophy, is thus given by Medhātithi, under verse 11 — ‘Sarvataḥ pradhānaṃ pṛthivyādibhūtotpattau kāṭhinyameti aṇḍarūpam sampadyate.’

Haimam — The commentators are agreed that this is used figuratively, in the sense of pure or brilliant.

Jajñe svayam Brahmā — (a) ‘He himself was born as Brahmā’, or (b) ‘Brahmā himself was born.’

There has been a great deal of confusion in the mind of modern scholars in connection with the ‘Golden Egg’, — much of which would have been avoided if the figurative character of the term had been recognised.

Medhātithi P. 11. l. 22 ‘Anidamparebhyaḥ — & c.’ — Cf. what has been said in the Bhāṣya on verse 5, to the effect that ‘the process of creation here described is in some places in agreement with the Purāṇas, while in others, in accordance with the doctrine of the Saṅkhyas.’ It is this want of consistency that has led Medhātithi to regard the whole of this discourse as purely ‘arthavāda.’

VERSE 1.10 [Meaning of the term ‘Nārāyaṇa’]

Section VI - Meaning of the term ‘Nārāyaṇa’

आपो नारा इति प्रोक्ता आपो वै नरसूनवः ।
ता यदस्यायनं पूर्वं तेन नारायणः स्मृतः ॥१०॥

āpo nārā iti proktā āpo vai narasūnavaḥ |
tā yadasyāyanaṃ pūrvaṃ tena nārāyaṇaḥ smṛtaḥ ||10||

Water is called ‘nara,’ — water being the offspring of nara; since water was the first thing created by (or, the original residence of) that being, he is, on that account, described as ‘nārāyaṇa.’ — (10)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Being just described is the same who, here and there in the scriptures, is described under the name ‘Nārāyaṇa,’ as possessed of a superior degree of creative and cognitive powers, and hence being the Personal Creator of the world; the mere difference in names does not necessarily imply difference in the things denoted; so that the Beings described under the names ‘Brahmā,’ ‘Nārāyana’ and ‘Maheśvara are one and the same; though they form the objects of diverse forms of worship, yet they do not differ among themselves; as we shall show under Discourse XII.

How this is (i.e. how Brahmā is the same as ‘Nārāyana’) is explained now: — ‘Water is called Nara.’ — described under the name of, — ‘Nara.’

In answer to the objection — “There is no such usage current among experienced persons; nor is it generally known that water is called Nara,” — the Author adds: — ‘Water being the offspring of Nara,’ — the supreme Being (Hiraṇyagarbha, described in verse 8 as having created water) might well be known under the name ‘Nara,’ Person; and water is his ‘offspring;’ hence water is spoken of as ‘Nara,’ the name of the father is often applied to the child, e.g., the ‘sons of Vaśiṣṭha,’ the revered sages Tāvabhru, Maṇḍu and Lomaka, are spoken of as ‘Vaśiṣṭhāḥ’; and such usage is based upon the

figurative identification of the child with the father. — ‘Since’ because — ‘Water,’ known as ‘Nara,’ was ‘the first thing created by’ — or it was his container when he lay in the womb (egg) — ‘he is, on that account, described as Nārāyaṇa.’

In the sense of ‘he whose container is Nara’the compound should be ‘narāyaṇa;’ but the first vowel may be taken as lengthened according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra 6.3.134, which justifies such lengthening in several other cases also,; just as we have in the word ‘pūruṣa’ (which is a variant for ‘puruṣa’); — or we may have the lengthening due to the affix ‘aṇ’ in the sense of ‘mass’ [so that nāra would be ‘mass of water,’ and ‘he who has this mass of water as his container, ayana,’ would he ‘nārāyaṇa’]. (10).

Explanatory notes:

Āpo nārā &c. — This explanation of the name ‘Nārayaṇa’ is found in Viṣṇu Puraṇa I, and also in the Mahābhārata, 3.189.3.

It is curious that Medhātithi reads ‘narāḥ’ (instead of ‘nārāḥ’) and adds a somewhat forced explanation of the elongation of the initial vowel in ‘nā’.

Medhātithi P. 12, l. 6 — Babhrumaṇḍuloniakāḥ — These apparently are three other proper names — ‘Babhru’, ‘Maṇḍu’ and ‘Lomaka’, — which stand on the same footing as ‘Vaśiṣṭha.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata, 12.341.40. — [Same as Manu ; but being placed in the mouth of Nārāyaṇa himself, the second half is put in the First Person.] — “That is why I am Nārāyaṇa.”

VERSE 1.11 [Nature of Brahmā]

Section VII - Nature of Brahmā

यत् तत् कारणमव्यक्तं नित्यं सदसदात्मकम् ।
तद्विसृष्टः स पुरुषो लोके ब्रह्मैति कीर्त्यते ॥११॥

yat tat kāraṇamavyaktaṃ nityaṃ sadasadātmakam |
tadvisṛṣṭaḥ sa puruṣo loke brahmaiti kīrtyate ||11||

That which is the cause — unmanifest, eternal and partaking of the nature of the existent and the non-existent, — the being produced by that (cause) is described among people as ‘brahmā.’ — (11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘cause’ spoken of here is one who is always the never the product; the formation of his body is not dependent upon the will of any other being; he is endowed with a natural supremacy all his own; — ‘unmanifest and eternal’ as already explained (under verse 7); — ‘partaking of the nature of the existent and the non-existent’; — ‘sadasat’ stands for the ‘sat,’ ‘existent,’ and the ‘asat,’ non-existent’; and the said ‘cause’ is one whose ‘nature,’ character, consists of the said ‘existent and non-existent.’

“But how can a single entity partake of the two contradictory characters of the ‘existent’ and the ‘non-existent’?”

The answer to this is as follows: — In as much as people of the present day cannot form any idea of such a heing, the cause becomes incapable of being spoken of as ‘existent,’ and hence is described as ‘partaking of the nature of the non-existent; and yet, in as much as the fact of the said being being the cause of the entire world is known from the scriptures, it is described as ‘of the nature of the existent;’ thus the description of Brahman as both (‘existent’ and ‘non-existent’) is not incongruous, being based, as it is, upon the difference in the character of the persons conceiving of it.

“As a matter of fact, this is true of all things; everything is ‘existent’ in its own form and ‘non-existent’ in the form of other things; why then should it be stated that this is not incongruous in the case of Brahman only?”

The answer to this is as follows: — Under the philosophy of ‘Non-duality’ nothing except Brahman being ‘what is that other thing which (while existent in its own form) could be spoken of as ‘non-existent’ in the form of Brahman?

‘The being produced by that,’ — being brought into existence, being created within the egg; this Being ‘is described among people as Brahmā’; the being, who is found mentioned in the Mahābhārata and other works as seated hero and there for the purpose of granting boons to such Devas, Asuras and Ṛṣis as have performed severe austerities, — he was the first to be created by the afore-mentioned Supreme Being, the Highest Brahman.

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров