with the Commentary of Medhatithi 5 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 11 из 350Следующая ⇒

[Another explanation of the verse is given below, in the form of an introduction to verse 20]. — 19

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The ‘seven’ are made up of —

(1) Egoism, the five subtile elements and the Mahat (Medhātithi, Govinda and Kullūka); — (2) Ātman instead of Mahat (Nārāyana and Nandana). Medhātithi notes another enumeration suggested by ‘others’ — (1) The five organs of Perception, (2) the five organs of Action and (3), (4), (5), (6) and, (7) the five grogs elemental substances.’

The name ‘puruṣa’ has been applied to the Tattvas, Principles, — because ‘they serve the purposes of the, soul’ (Medhātithi), — or because ‘they are produced by the Puruṣa, Ātman,’

VERSE 1.20

Section IX - Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards

आद्याद्यस्य गुणं त्वेषामवाप्नोति परः परः ।
यो यो यावतिथश्चैषां स स तावद् गुणः स्मृतः ॥२०॥

ādyādyasya guṇaṃ tveṣāmavāpnoti paraḥ paraḥ |
yo yo yāvatithaścaiṣāṃ sa sa tāvad guṇaḥ smṛtaḥ ||20||

Among these (Elementary Substances), each succeeding one acquires the quality of what precedes it; and each elemental substance is endowed with as many qualities as the place it occupies (in the order in which the said substances are set forth). — (20)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the preceding verse some people offer a different explanation of the number ‘seven’: — (1) The five organs of sensation, the Eye and the rest, taken together from a single group; they are regarded as ‘one’ on account of their possessing the common character of being the instruments of perception; — (2) similarly the five organs of action; these two, forming two groups, are ‘two principles’; — (3-7) the five elemental substances, being treated individually, by reason of their functions being distinct from one another, are the ‘seven principles’; and the five Rudimentary Substances and the principle of Egoism are the ‘subtile constituents’ that go to make up the ‘bodies’ of the said seven; — i.e., these seven are the products of evolution from the said six. — The rest of the verse is explained in the same manner as set forth above.

Thus, in accordance with this explanation, the Elemental Substances having been spoken of in the preceding verse (19), the pronoun ‘eṣām,’ ‘among these,’ refers to those same substances. Though there are several words intervening (between the mention of Elemental Substances in verse (19) and the pronoun ‘among these’ in the present verse), which are in closer proximity to the pronoun, yet, as a matter of fact, what Is described in the present verse, — the fact of ‘these’ being endowed with a particular number of qualities derived from well-defined sources — is applicable only to the Elementary Substances, and not to other things; even though these latter may form the subject-matter of the context (and may as such, be capable of being referred to by the pronoun in question).

The meaning of the verse thus comes to this: — ‘Among these’ Elemental Substances, — which are set out (later on) in a definite order of sequence, one preceding the other — the ‘succeeding one’ acquires the quality of the preceding one, through its connection with it. — The term ‘quality’ here stands for the five, Sound and the rest; — the ‘preceding’ (and ‘succeeding’) is in reference to the order in which the names of the Elemental Substances are set forth in verse 75 below, where it is said that ‘first of all Ākāśa is produced &c., &c.’ The fact of sound &c., being the qualities of these substances will also bo described in that same verse. — Among Ākāśa and the rest, each one occupies a definite place in the order in which they are set forth; the term ‘yāvatithaḥ’ means the number of the place occupied by it; the word being formed by the adding of the affix ‘ithuk,’ by Pāṇini’s Sūtra 5.2.53. The meaning is that each substance becomes endowed with as many qualities as the place, second or third, &c., occupied by it; that is, the substance occupying the second place in the order of sequence has two qualities, that occupying the third place has three, and so on.

The first half of the verse means that among the Elemental Substances, each succeeding one acquires the quality of its predecessor; and each of them is later on (under verses 75 &c.) described has having one quality inherent in itself; for instance, ‘Ākāśa is known as possessing the quality of sound’ (verse 75); ‘Fire is described as possessing the quality of colour’ (verse 77), and so forth; so that acquiring one quality from its predecessor (and having one inherent in itself) each substance would appear to be endowed with only two qualities, — with the sole exception of Ākāśa (which, having no substance ‘preceding’ it, would have the single quality of Sound, which is inherent in itself); hence with a view to preclude such an idea, the author has added the the second half of the verse — Each Elemental Substance being endowed with as many qualities &c. &c., — which means that Wind has two qualities, Fire has three, Water has four, and Earth has five.

“Why does the Author use the form ‘ādyādyasya’? The correct form should be ‘ādyasyādyasya’, the repetition of the term ‘ādyasya’ being necessitated by Pāṇini’s Sūtra 8.1.4; just as we have in such expressions as ‘paraḥ paraḥ.’”

The form used is due to the exigencies of metre; and exigencies of metre justify the non-observance of rules. — (20)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Nandana places verse 27 before 20. There appears to be no justification for deviating from the order adopted by all other commentators.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata, 12.232.8. — ‘The qualities of the preceding go over to the succeeding and whatever it is and in whatever form and place, so many qualities it is declared to possess.’

VERSE 1.21

Section IX - Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards

सर्वेषां तु स नामानि कर्माणि च पृथक् पृथक् ।
वेदशब्देभ्य एवादौ पृथक् संस्थाश्च निर्ममे ॥२१॥

sarveṣāṃ tu sa nāmāni karmāṇi ca pṛthak pṛthak |
vedaśabdebhya evādau pṛthak saṃsthāśca nirmame ||21||

At the outset he designated distinct names for add things; and devised acts and Laws, on the basis of the words of the veda. — (21)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He,’ Prajāpati, ‘designated the names of all things’; just in the same manner as people assign names to new-born children, or to other things also, for the purpose of speaking of them in ordinary business; as we find done in such assertions as, ‘āt and aich are called Vṛddhi’ (Pāṇini 1.1.1), or ‘Dhi-śrī-strī &c.’ (Piṅgala). What is meant is that he established a connection between a certain thing and a certain term, — such terms, for instance, as ‘ganḥ’ (Cow), ‘Aśvaḥ’ (Horse) and ‘Puruṣaḥ’ (Man).

He devised also the acts, known as ‘Dhaima-Adharma’ (Virtue-Vice), — i.e., such acts as the Agnithotra and the like which lead to transcendental results.

Having devised the acts, he devised also the ‘laws,’ the rules, governing them; such for instance, as, ‘such and such an act should be done by the Brāhmaṇa only, at such and such a time, for the purpose of obtaining such and such a result.’ — Or, ‘laws’ may be taken as referring to the rules governing the ordinary acts with visible worldly results; such, for instance, as ‘cattle should graze in such and such a place,’ ‘this water should not be given for purposes of irrigation of crops to such and such a village until we have secured such and such a benefit from it in return.’ — He devised also those acts that accomplish only visible results; but those acts that accomplish transcendental results he devised on the basis of Vedic declarations.

Objection — “As a matter of fact, all things have been created by Brahmā; and since he is the only independent agent, the proper statement would have been that ‘he devised the Veda for the purpose of safeguarding the performaṅce of acts’; in fact the devising of the Veda by Brahmā is going to be described even in the present context (in verse 23).”

Answer — On the subject of the origin of the Vedas, several theories have been propounded: (1) Some people hold as follows: — Brahmā studied the Vedas in a previous cycle; — at the following Universal Dissolution, they disappeared; — in the succeeding cycle at first they were recollected by Brahmā, just as if he had gone to sleep and had risen from it; in the same manner as people remember a verse that came to their mind during a dream; — the Veda having been thus recollected by him, he remembers the words of such passages as “gauranubandhyaḥ-aśvastuparo mṛgaḥ (Yajurveda-Vajasa. 24.1), and immediately there come to his mind the things denoted by these words; so that as soon as these things are found to have come into existence, he decides that, inasmuch as such as was the name of this thing in the preceding cycle, it may have the same name in this cycle also. So that he devised the names as well as the acts, both on the basis of the words of the Veda. — (2) The other theory is as follows: — Even at universal Dissolution the Vedas do not disappear at all; they continue to exist for ever, just like the Supreme Being postulated by certain philosophers. This same Supreme Being created within the egg the being named Brahmā and taught him the Vedas; and this Brahmā, on the basis of the words of the Vedas, devised every thing.

What the real truth on this point is we have already set forth above; while for one who seeks for an account in accordance with the Purāṇas, we have just described the two theories that have been propounded.

‘Ādau,’ ‘at the outset’ — at the time of world creation; — or, ‘ādau’ may be taken to mean ‘ever-lasting,’ referring to those names whose original form has not become corrupted, as distinguished from such corrupted names as ‘gāvī’ and the like, which owe their origin to the incapacity of men (to pronounce the corect forms).

‘Distinct’ — the names designated were in accordance with that configuration of the body peculiar to each species; what he designated was not merely a collective name (applicable to all animals), — but a distinct name for each species. — (21)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata, 12.232.26. — ‘Out of the words of the Veda itself did He, in the beginning, create the names of the sages, as also of all those creations that are described in the Veda.’

VERSE 1.22 [Creation of the Gods]

Section X - Creation of the Gods

कर्मात्मनां च देवानां सोऽसृजत् प्राणिनां प्रभुः ।
साध्यानां च गणं सूक्ष्मं यज्ञं चैव सनातनम् ॥२२॥

karmātmanāṃ ca devānāṃ so'sṛjat prāṇināṃ prabhuḥ |
sādhyānāṃ ca gaṇaṃ sūkṣmaṃ yajñaṃ caiva sanātanam ||22||

For the sake of living beings intent upon action, he created the eternal sacrifice; as also the host of Gods and the subtile multitude of the lesser divinities, the Sādhyas. — (22)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Living beings intent upon action’ — stands for human beings intent upon the performance of actions; for the accomplishment of the purpose of these, ‘he created the sacrifice.’ Those men are called ‘intent upon action’ who, not giving themselves up to the worship of Brahman, still hanker after such results as the obtaining of sons and cattle, etc., and accepting the philosophy of Dualism, engage themselves in the performance of actions. — The Genitive ending also (in the words ‘Karmātmanām prāṇinām) signifies ‘for the sake of’; hence the meaning is that ‘he created the sacrifice for the sake of the said beings.’ — ‘The hosts of gods’ also he created for the sake of sacrifices. — The particle ‘ca’ is misplaced after ‘Karmātmanām’; its proper place is after ‘devānām’; the meaning thus being — ‘He created the sacrifice, and for the sake of the due fulfilment of the sacrifice, he created also the hosts of gods, such as Agni, Agni-Soma, Indra-Agni and so forth. — He also created the multitude of the divinities called ‘Sādhyas’ — the word ‘gaṇam’ being construed with ‘Sādhyānām’ also. The Sādhyas are mentioned apart from the ‘Gods,’ because they are not entitled to partake of the sacrificial offerings, — they being entitled only to having hymns addressed to them. That the Sādhyas form a particular class of divinities is shown by such passages as ‘In the beginning there were the gods named Sādhyas’ (Ṛgveda 10.90.16). — Or the separate mention of the ‘Sādhyas’ may be explained on the analogy of such expressions as ‘brāhmaṇa-parivrājaka’ and the like [the ‘Parivrājaka’, ‘wandering renunciate’ is a ‘Brāhmaṇa’ with some qualifications; similarly the Sādhyas are Devas with the further qualification that they are not entitled to a share of the offerings], — ‘Subtile’ — the multitude of Sādhyas is Subtile in comparison to such deities as the Maruts and the Rudrāṅgirases. — The mention of the Sādhyas is meant to include all those deities that have no connection with sacrificial offerings, such, for instance, as Veno, (?) Sunīti (?) and so forth.

[Another explanation of the verse.]

Some people construe ‘Karmātmanām-devānām-prāṇimām’ together, taking them as co-extensive. The ‘gods’ being called ‘Karmātmānaḥ’ in the sense that they are of the nature of actions, actions form the very essence of their nature; they are so called, because they help in the accomplishment of sacrificial acts, or because they constitute the most important factor in the sacrificial act. Among the gods there are some who arc described in the Itihāsas, in connection with sacrifices, as possessed of distinctive forms; to this class belong the gods, Indra, Rudra and Viṣṇu; there are others who are gods, not in their own forms, but only at sacrifices; to this class belong the ‘Akṣa’ (wheel-axle), ‘Grāvan’ (Pebbles) and the Rathāṅga (the wheels, or the constituent parts of the chariot). As regards Indra &c., we find in the Mahābhārata descriptions of such deeds of theirs as fighting with Vṛttra and other Asuras; but there is no description of any such acts in connection with the Wheel-axle &c.; and yet in the Vedic hymns connected with sacrificial offerings we find these latter spoken of as ‘deities’; for instance, the wheel-axles are referred to as deities in the hymn ‘prāvepāmā &c’; (Ṛgveda, 10.34.1); the Pebbles are spoken of as deities in the hymn ‘praite vadantu &c.’ (Ṛgveda, 10.94.1) — the Wheels are spoken of as deities in the hymn ‘vanaspate vīdvaṅgu &c.’ (Ṛgveda 6.47.26). — It is in view of (with a view to exclude) these latter (which are inanimate) that we have the epithet ‘prāṇinām’ (Animate). There are two kinds of gods; some are animate, others inanimate; e.g., Indra and others are described in the ‘Purāṇa’ as having human bodies and endowed with life; but the wheel-axle &c. are not found so described. All this conception of the creation of things is based upon Itihāsas. An additional ‘ca,’ also, has to be taken as understood; the meaning being ‘animate and also the inanimate.’ According to the Nirukta also there are three kinds of deities — Horses, mentioned in the hymn ‘mā no mitra &c.’ (Ṛgveda, 1.162.1), Birds mentioned in the hymn ‘Kanikradat &c.’ (Ṛgveda 5.83.1), and Bulls mentioned in the hymn ‘āgāvo agman’ &c. (Ṛgveda, 6.28.1); — all these deities are animate; and the inanimate ones have been already described.

The epithet ‘eternal’ qualifies the ‘sacrifice’; the sacrifice having existed in the previous cycle also, there is a continuity of tradition in regard to it; and it is on this ground that it is regarded as eternal. — (22)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The meaning of this verse, which Buhler attributes to Medhātithi, is one that the latter has not put forward at all. His explanation is somewhat different, as will be clear from the translation. He has however noted an explanation by ‘others’, which is rightly rendered by Buhler as — ‘The Lord created the multitude of the gods whose nature is sacrifice and of those endowed with life.’ — According to Rāghavānanda it means — ‘The Lord created among beings endowed with life the (to us) invisible multitude of the gods who, by the result of their acts, have obtained their divine station, or who subsist on offerings.’

VERSE 1.23 [Creation of the Vedas]

Section XI - Creation of the Vedas

अग्निवायुरविभ्यस्तु त्रयं ब्रह्म सनातनम् ।
दुदोह यज्ञसिद्ध्यर्थं ऋच्।यजुस्।सामलक्षणम् ॥२३॥

agnivāyuravibhyastu trayaṃ brahma sanātanam |
dudoha yajñasiddhyarthaṃ ṛc|yajus|sāmalakṣaṇam ||23||

From out of (the three deities) Agni, Vāyu and Ravi, he extracted, for the due fulfilment of sacrifices, the eternal Brahman, threefold, in the forms of ‘Ṛk,’ ‘Yajuṣ’ and ‘Sāman.’ — (23)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There are only three deities, Agni, Vāyu, and Ravi, — say the followers of the Nirukta; even though these three have several names; and in accordance with this theory the text would mean as follows: — ‘For the due fulfilment of the sacrifices,’ to these three deities, — the Dative ending (in the term ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’) being due to the fact of these three deities being the recipients of the sacrificial offerings, — ‘he milked the Brahman,’ called ‘Veda’, ‘in the forms of Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāman.’

But as a matter of fact, the root (in ‘dudoha’ ‘milked’) is one that should have two objects; it has its primary object in the form of ‘trayam’; and it should have a second, the secondary, object; but there is no such secondary object in the sentence. Hence we conclude that the term ‘ravibhyaḥ’ should be taken in the Ablative case; the meaning being — ‘From out of the three deities, Agni &c, he extracted’ — made to flow, produced — [the Veda].

Question: — “How could the words, the mantra-texts and the Brāhmaṇa-texts (of which the Veda consists) — which are made up of letters — come out of Agni and other deities?” Answer: — Why is this not possible? In regard to invisible forces, who can say that they do not exist?

[An objection is raised against the second interpretation preferred by the Bhāṣya] — “It is not right to alter the meaning of the verb (‘dundoha,’ ‘milked’); so that (if the root retains its own meaning) how could we havo the Ablative (in ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’)? It should take the Accusative ending, according to the grammatical rule under Pāṇini’s Sūtra 1.4.51, which lays down that the roots ‘duhi,’ ‘yāci’ &c., take two objects, and the source from which the ‘milking’ is done is the secondary object. Further, the mind of reasonable men is not satisfied when what is described as having happened in the past is something that is not compatible with the ordinary sources of knowledge.”

This incongruity becomes explained away when we take the statement as referring to the framework of the Vedas; the meaning being that the Ṛgveda came out of Agni, the Yajurveda out of Vāyu and the Sāmaveda out of Ravi. Then again, it has to be borne in mind that Agni and the rest are deities endowed with superior potencies, and Prajāpati is possessed of unexcelled powers; so that what can be impossible for these? Under this explanation full significance should attach to the Ablative; so that the case-relation being already expressed (by the Ablative), and the Ablative being duly significant, it is the Ablative that is used [and not the Accusative, which has been laid down in Pāṇini 1.4.51 as to be used only in cases where the case-relation is not otherwise expressed]; this has been fully justified in the Bhāṣya (of Patañjali).

Question: — “If the said theory be not accepted, what would be the explanation of the word ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’ then?”

Answer: — In that case, we have already said that it could be taken as the Dative; and (as regards the necessity of the verb ‘dudoha,’ ‘milked,’ having a secondary object) it has to be borne in mind that all that is here stated is mere vāda. So that (physical impossibilities being not counted) ‘ātman’ may be taken as the required secondary object, — the meaning being that ‘Prajāpati milked himself (of the Veda)’ [‘for the sake of Agni, and Ravi’]. And further, ‘milking’ may be taken in the sense of teaching, which resembles the act of milking in consisting of transferring a thing from one receptacle into another. [So that the passage would mean that ‘he taught the Veda to Agni &c.’] Even when the word ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’ is taken as Ablative, the statement can be justified on the ground that the opening verses of the Ṛgveda speak of Agni, — this fact being what is meant by the statement ‘the Ṛgveda came out of Agni.’ Similarly, the opening verse of the Yajurveda is ‘Iṣe tvorje’ &c., whore the term ‘iṭ’ (the base in ‘iṣe’) means food, and food is produced by Vāyu, which is present within the food, by the bestowing (upon it) of rain; ‘urk’ (the base in the second word ‘urje’) means life-breath, and this is Vāyu (Air) itself; thus since the Yajurveda opens with the description of the effects of Vāyu, we have the metaphorical expression that ‘it came out of Vāyu.’ Or, the duties of the Adhvaryu and the functions of the Ṛtviks (which form the subject-matter of the Yajurveda) all consist of so many forms of activity; and all activity proceeds from Vāyu; hence it is on the basis of this similarity that the Yajurveda is spoken of as coming out of Vāyu. Lastly, as regards the the singing of the Sāman cannot be done except by persons specially qualified for it; hence the Sāma verses are such as can be duly read by only the best among men, and Ravi (the Sun) occupies the highest point in space [and on this fact is based the statement that the Sāmaveda came out of Ravi ]. — (23)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

There are two explanations of this verse, supplied by Medhātithi: — (1) ‘For the sake of the accomplishment of the sacrifice to Agni, Vāyu and Sūrya, He produced the Veda,’ and (2) ‘Out of Agni......He produced the Veda’; — the latter being preferred, for reasons adduced in the Bhāṣya.

Burnell has a curious note here to the effect that — ‘This myth of the creation of the Vedas differs from the Sāṅkhya account, according to which they are eternal and issue from Brahmā’s mouth.’ It was necessary to supply references to the work on Sāṅkhya here referred to.

Medhātithi (p. 19, 1. 9) ‘Asmindarśane’ — etc. This refers to the passage in the Mahāhhāṣya (Nirṇayasāgara edition, ‘Vol. II, p. 265, l. 18).

A similar use of the Ablative ending we find in 2. 77.

Do. (p. 19, l. 11) ‘Dohanañchādhyāpanam’ — In this case ravibhyaḥ would be the Dative form.

VERSE 1.24 [Creation of Time]

Section XII - Creation of Time

कालं कालविभक्तीश्च नक्षत्राणि ग्रहांस्तथा ।
सरितः सागरान् शैलान् समानि विषमानि च ॥२४॥

kālaṃ kālavibhaktīśca nakṣatrāṇi grahāṃstathā |
saritaḥ sāgarān śailān samāni viṣamāni ca ||24||

[He created] also Time, the Divisions of Time, the Lunar Mansions, the Planets, the Rivers, the Oceans, the Mountains and the tracts of land, plain and rugged. — (24)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author mentions Time, because it belongs to the same category (of ‘action’) as Duty. It is only according to Vaiśesikas that Time is a substance; according to others it is a form of action; it consists in the extension of the motions of the Sun and other planets, and is liable to return.

‘Divisious of Time’ — such divisions as into ‘month,’ ‘season,’ ‘half-year,’ ‘year’ and so forth.

‘Lunar Mansions’ — such as Kṛttikā (Pleiades), Rohiṇī (Aldebaran) and the rest.

‘Planets’ — Sun and the rest.

‘Rivers’ — streams.

‘Oceans’ — seas — and ‘Mountains.’

‘Even tracts of land’ — such tracts of land as are of one uniform form, devoid of ditches and holes. — ‘Rugged tracts of land’ — such as are high and low. — (24)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 19, 1. 21) — It is interesting to note that even so late as Medhātithi’s time, the Lunar Mansions were counted from Kṛttikā onwards, and not from Aśvinī as in the more recent astronomical systems. (See Thibaut on ‘Indian Astronomy’ in Indian Thought Vol. I.)

This verse is quoted in the Gadādharapaddhati — Kālasāra, p. 5, as describing the creation of time and its divisions; — also in the Kālamādhava (p. 45) as describing the creation of time by God; it reads ‘vibhaktim’ for ‘vibhaktiḥ.’

VERSE 1.25 [Creation of Happiness]

Section XIII - Creation of Happiness

तपो वाचं रतिं चैव कामं च क्रोधमेव च ।
सृष्टिं ससर्ज चैवैमां स्रष्टुमिच्छन्निमाः प्रजाः ॥२५॥

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности