with the Commentary of Medhatithi 21 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 27 из 350Следующая ⇒

The variability of the Law is unfeignedly declared by Parāśara in 1.22: —

‘The Law or the Right is one in the Kṛta Cycle, different in the Tretā Cycle, yet different in the Dvāpara Cycle, and yet different in the Kali Cycle, — varying as it does with the character of the Time-Cycles.’

On this Mādhava makes the following observations: —

The ‘difference’ spoken of here is, not of the nature or essence, of the Law or Right, but of its modes. If it were the former, then it would imply a corresponding diversity in the Veda also, as the source of that Law; while as a matter of fact, the Veda does not vary with the time-cycles. As regards the modes however, we have several instances of diversity; for instance, though the act of the Agnihotra- offering itself is the same, yet there is diversity in regard to the mode of performing it according as it is performed in the morning or in the evening. For instance, at the evening-performance the sprinkling is to be done with the mantra ‘Ṛtantva satyena pariṣiñchāmi,’ while that at the morning-performance with the mantra ‘Satyantva ṛtena pariṣiñchāmi.’ Thus in the present instance also, the variation lies in the mode of doing what is ‘right,’ and not in what is ‘right’ itself; the variations being due to the nature of the time-cycle and of the capacity of the man doing the acts. This matter has been fully discussed in the Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra VI.3, where the conclusion arrived at is that in the case of the Agnihotra and such other obligatory rites, only those prescribed details have to be performed which it is within the capacity of the performer to perform. Baudhāyana also has declared that the obligatory acts are to be performed to the extent that one can; they should, on no account, be entirely omitted.

The most important instance of variation is cited by Parāśara (1.23) himself — “In the Kṛta Cycle, Austerity is the highest Dharma or Duty; — in the Tretā, Learning; — in the Dvāpara, Sacrifice, — and in the Kali, Charity.” To the last Bṛhaspati adds ‘sympathy and self-control.’

There is variation, according to Parāśara (1.24), not only in Law, but also in the authority: — ‘Duringthe Kṛa, the Laws are those ordained by Manu, — during the Tretā, those ordained by Gautama, — during the Dvāpara, those ordained by Śaṅkha-Likhita, — and during the Kali, those ordained by Parāśara.’ This distinction however has never been observed in actual practice, as even up to the present time, the work of Manu holds the highest position among the Smṛtis.

Conclusion

From the above we conclude that all the authorities are agreed on the following points — (a) The Veda is the first and paramount authority, (b) The Smṛti is authoritative only in so far as it is not repugnant to the Veda, to which it owes its authority; but only on matters on which we have no paramount authority, (c) Practices or Customs are trustworthy guides, only as they are current among the ‘cultured,’ and then too only those that are not repugnant to Vedic or Smṛti texts. (d) The same with regard to Tribal or Family Customs. (e) The judgment of the ‘Assembly’ of the learned is to be accepted as authoritative only when it is not repugnant to the Veda, and only when tho judgment is ‘unbiased’ by improper feelings. There is not a single text, or ‘explanation,’ which favours the opinion that Custom is to override original texts, — an opinion that has been upheld by the Privy Council, and endorsed by eminent writers on Anglo-Hindu Law. Neither Vijñāneśvara (Mitākṣarā) nor Jīmūtavāhana (Dharmaratna) nor Nīlakaṇṭha (Mayūkha) countenances any such view; and these three are regarded by our lawyers as the founders of the principal ‘Schools of Law.’

VERSE 2.7

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

यः कश्चित् कस्य चिद् धर्मो मनुना परिकीर्तितः ।
स सर्वोऽभिहितो वेदे सर्वज्ञानमयो हि सः ॥७॥

yaḥ kaścit kasya cid dharmo manunā parikīrtitaḥ |
sa sarvo'bhihito vede sarvajñānamayo hi saḥ ||7||

Whatever Dharma for whatever person has been described by Manu, — all this is declared in the Veda; since the Veda embodies all knowledge. — (7)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse proceeds to make it clear how the authority of the Smṛti (Recollection) is due to its connection with persons knowing the Veda.

‘Whatever Dharma’ — duties relating to castes, duties relating to life-stages, duties relating to sacramental rites, in their general or special forms — ‘for whatever person’ — for the Brāhmaṇa or other castes — ‘has been described by Manu’ — ‘all this is declared in the Veda’ — i.e., is expounded in it; how this is done has been shown in the preceding verse.

‘Since the Veda embodies all knowledge’; — Veda is the cause, the source, of all that is worth knowing, in regard to superphysical things. The affix ‘mayaṭ’ has been added in the sense that the Veda is made up of all knowledge; applying to ‘knowledge’ the character of being the product of the Veda. When one thing is the produot of another, the latter is spoken of as ‘embodying’ the former, i.e., of the same nature as the other; and Veda, being the source of knowledge, is said to ‘embody’ it. According to the Sāṅkhya theory of the Product being always existent in the Cause, the Cause is of the same nature as the Product.

Or, the meaning may be that ‘the Veda proceeds from all knowledge’ as its source; the ‘mayaṭ’ affix in this sense being used according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra 4.3.81. — (7)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 20.7.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Taittirīya-Saṃhitā, 2-2-6.2. — ‘Whatever Manu has said is wholesome.’

Parāśara-Smṛti, 1.21. — ‘During each Kalpa Manu declares the Dharmas.’

VERSE 2.8

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

सर्वं तु समवेक्ष्यैदं निखिलं ज्ञानचक्षुषा ।
श्रुतिप्रामाण्यतो विद्वान् स्वधर्मे निविशेत वै ॥८॥

sarvaṃ tu samavekṣyaidaṃ nikhilaṃ jñānacakṣuṣā |
śrutiprāmāṇyato vidvān svadharme niviśeta vai ||8||

Having fully perceived all this with the eye of knowledge, the learned man should enter upon his own duties, resting upon the authority of the Revealed Word. — (8)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘All this’ — all tilings that can be known, those that are created as well as those that are uncreated (eternal); all that is dealt with in the scriptures, what is amenable to perception and other ordinary means of knowledge, and also what is not so amenable.

‘Having perceived with the of knowledge’ — in the shape of the learning of and pondering over the various sciences of Reasoning, Grammar, Philology, Mīmāmsā and the rest. The study of the scriptures is called the ‘eye’ in the sense that it is like the eye, in being the instrument of knowledge; the similitude being that ‘Dharma is known by means of scriptures in the same way as Colour is known by means of the Eye.’

‘Honing perceived’ — i.e., after having ascertained by means of due consideration.

‘Resting upon the authority of the Revealed Word.’ — i.e., in accordance with the authority of the Veda.

‘Should enter upon his duties’ — i.e., perform his dharma.

After all the sciences have been studied, the trustworthy character becomes fully established, which is not done until the sciences have been duly studied. When a man carefully ponders over the sciences, he comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds for believing in the authority of these sciences, while there are reasons for trusting the authority of the Veda.

‘Sarvam,’ ‘all,’ qualifies all that is to be known; and ‘nikhilam,’ ‘fully,’ is an adverb modifying the participle ‘samavekṣya,’ ‘having perceived,’ — ‘Having fully perceived,’ — i.e., (1) having stated, in the form of the primâ facie Argument, all possible semi-arguments in support of the view that the other sciences are authoritative, — or that the Veda is not authoritative, — (2) having refuted those arguments by means of perfectly valid reasonings based upon the established theory, — when one states his own finally considered view, the final conclusion arrived at is that the Veda is authoritative; — all this is what is implied by the term ‘fully.’ Thus though the term ‘sarva’ and ‘nikhila’ are synonyms, yet since they serve two distinct purposes, they are not regarded as being a needless repetition.

The term ‘sva,’ ‘own’ is purely explanatory; what is the ‘duty’ of one man is not the ‘duty’ of another. — (8)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Idam’ — The Śāstras (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka); — the ordinances of Manu (Nārāyaṇa); — the various said sources of the knowledge of Dharma (Nandana).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.21.5. — ‘One should undertake that act which he determines upon with due knowledge.’

Āpastamba, 2.2.2. — ‘For all castes, greatest happiness accrues from the performance of their own duties.’

Āpastamba, 2.16.1. — ‘Those who act after proper discrimination become reputed as highly righteous, and these are persons whose act has been described by Manu as Śrāddha.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 11.31. — ‘Men of all castes and in all stages of life, who are firm in their own duties, enjoy the fruits of their acts and then become born in highly qualified countries, and families, wherein they are endowed with learning, character, intelligence and happiness.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 13.2. — ‘Those firm in their own duties are free from all blame.’

Gantama-Dharmusūtra, 13.15. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa should take his food at the house of only those persons who are reputed to he addicted to their own Dharma.’

Atri-Saṃhitā, 25. — ‘Those persons who perform their own duties and remain firm therein, are loved by people, even though they may be at a distance.’

Atri-Saṃhitā, 25. — ‘Even the Śūdra, if he is firm in his Dharma, attains Heaven.

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.19. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa and the rest should remain firm in their own duties.’

VERSE 2.9

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

श्रुतिस्मृत्योदितं धर्ममनुतिष्ठन् हि मानवः ।
इह कीर्तिमवाप्नोति प्रेत्य चानुत्तमं सुखम् ॥९॥

śrutismṛtyoditaṃ dharmamanutiṣṭhan hi mānavaḥ |
iha kīrtimavāpnoti pretya cānuttamaṃ sukham ||9||

For the man performing the duty laid down by the revealed word and the recollections obtains fame here, and after death, unsurpassed happiness. — (9)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There might be some one who, being an unbeliever, might form the misconception that the acts laid down in the Veda are fruitless, and omit to do them; hence with a view to induce such a man to undertake the performance of those acts, the Author, placing himself in the position of a friend, proceeds to indicate the. perceptible results that follow from the acts in question, to say nothing of other kinds of results.

The man who performs the act, known as ‘duty,’ ‘Dharma,’ — which is ‘laid down by the Revealed Word and the Recollections — obtains ‘here,’ in this wold, as long as he lives, ‘fame,’ praise, honour, regard; that is, all men respect him and love him as one ‘who is firm in the rightful path and highly virtuous.’

‘After death,’ — in another body — he obtains that ‘happiness’ superior to which there is no other happiness. As a matter of fact, almost all the acts are prescribed in the Veda as to be done by one who desires Heaven; and ‘Heaven’ stands for ‘unsurpassed happiness’; hence it is that the author speaks of ‘unsurpassed happiness.’

For these reasons, it is only right that the unbeliever also, who seeks for nothing but visible results, should undertake the performance of the acts in question. This is the purport of the text. — (9)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Vrata, p. 14); — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 61), which explains that, ‘anuttamam sukham’ stands for the rewards that are spoken of in connection with each act; — and in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 16b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Atri-Saṃhitā, 16. — ‘By me has been described that Dharma in which remaining firm, men of the various castes acquire reputation in the world and after death attain the highest condition.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2.2.5. — ‘In course of evolution, the man, by the residue of the results of his past acts, obtains his caste, his- body, his complexion, strength, intelligence, knowledge and also other things and activities; and in its revolution, this process brings him happiness in both worlds.’ Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2.2.7. — ‘Through acts conducive to sin, one becomes born in undesirable families.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 11-31. — ‘People of various castes and in various stages of life, remaining firm in their duties, on death, enjoy the fruits of their acts, and by reason of the residue of those, become born again in a good family of superior caste, endowed with long life, learning, wealth, happiness and intelligence.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 1.2. — ‘The man who performs his duties with due knowledge becomes highly praiseworthy in the world, and after death attains Heaven.’

Dakṣa-Smṛti, 2.66. — ‘The Householder, ever intent on his own duties, partakes of Heaven.’

Laghu-Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 2.17. — ‘Whatever has been prescribed in the Śruti and in the Smṛti, — all this should be done by the Housoholder; otherwise, he becomes open to censure.’

VERSE 2.10

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

श्रुतिस्तु वेदो विज्ञेयो धर्मशास्त्रं तु वै स्मृतिः ।
ते सर्वार्थेष्वमीमांस्ये ताभ्यां धर्मो हि निर्बभौ ॥१०॥

śrutistu vedo vijñeyo dharmaśāstraṃ tu vai smṛtiḥ |
te sarvārtheṣvamīmāṃsye tābhyāṃ dharmo hi nirbabhau ||10||

The Veda should be known as the ‘revealed word,’ and the Dharmaśāstra as the ‘recollections’; in all matters, these two do not deserve to be criticised, as it is out op these that Dharma shone forth. — (10)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Objection: — “Is this a treatise on the meanings of words, a lexicon, — like the works beginning with such words as Ātmabhūḥ, Parameṣṭhī (are the names of Brahmā), and so forth, — that it is stated that ‘Revealed Word’ means the Veda, and ‘Recollections’ means the Dharmaśāstra?”

Answer: — In ordinary life, the ‘Practices of Cultured Men’ are not regarded either as ‘Revealed Word’ or as ‘Recollection,’ on the ground of their being not codified; codified treatises alone are known as ‘Smṛtis,’ ‘Recollections’; and it is for the purpose of declaring that these Practices also are included under ‘Smṛti’ that the author has set forth this verse.

‘Dharmaśāstra,’ ‘Dharma-ordinance,’ is that which serves the purpose of ‘ordaining’ (teaching) Dharma as to be done; and ‘Smṛti’ is that wherein Dharma is taught, i.e., laid down as to be done; and codification or non-codification is entirely immaterial. Now as a matter of fact a knowledge of what should be done is derived from the Practices of Cultured Men also; so that these also come under ‘Smṛti.’ Hence whenever mention is made of ‘Smṛti’ in connection with any matter, the Practices of Cultured Men should also be taken as included under the name.

“If all Dharmaśāstra (‘ordinance of Dharma’) is ‘Smṛti’ then the Veda also, which is the ‘ordinance of Dharma’ par excellence, would have to be regarded as Smṛti,” — with a view to preclude the possibility of such an idea being entertained, the author has said — ‘The Veda should be known as the Revealed Word.’ Where the words conveying the ‘Teaching of Dharma’ are directly perceived (heard), it is the ‘Revealed Word’; while where the words of Teaching are only recollected, it is ‘Smṛti’; and since this latter condition is also fulfilled by the ‘Practices of Cultured Men,’ this latter also comes under ‘Smṛti’; as a matter of fact, no authority can attach to any Practice, in corroboration whereof a Vedic text is not ‘recollected.’

Or, the mention of the ‘Revealed Word’ may be explained as serving the purpose of showing that the Smṛti is equal to the Veda.

Question: — “What is that common function of Revealed Word and Recollection which rhe present verse seeks to attribute to the Practices of Cultured Men?”

Answer: — ‘In all matters these two should not be criticised’; — ‘These two’ — i.e., Revealed Word and Recollection. — ‘In all matters’ — i.e., even in regard to apparently inconceivable things, such as are entirely beyond the scope of those means of knowledge that are applicable to perceptible things; e.g., (a) the same act of killing leads, in one case, to good, and while in another case it leads to sin; (b) the drinking of wine leads to Hell, while the drinking of Soma removes sin. In such matters, we should not proceed to discuss the various pros and cons. ‘Criticism’ consists in raising doubts and conceiving of contrary views. For example — “If the act of killing is sinful, then since the act of killing is the same in all cases, that done in the course of Vedic sacrifices should also be sinful; — if the latter killing is a source of good, ordinary killing also should be conducive to good; the act being exactly the same in both cases.”

What is prohibited here is that ‘criticism,’ in which we conceive of the form of an act to be quite the reverse of what is declared in the Veda, and proceeding to examine it by means of reasonings based upon false premisses, begin to insist on the conclusion thus arrived at. It is not meant to prohibit such enquiry and discussion as to whether the Prima Facie View or the Established Thesis is in due accord with the Veda. That such an inquiry is not meant to be prohibited is clear from what the author says later on — ‘He alone, and none else, knows Dharma, who examines it by reasonings.’ (Manu, 12.106)

Question: — “Is this criticism prohibited with a view to some invisible (superphysical) results?”

We say — no. Because it was out of these two that Dharma shone forth. [This is what is intended by the said prohibition.]

This assertion points out the fact that all the arguments, set forth by casuists in support of things contrary to what is laid down in the Veda, are fallacious. These arguments are of the following kind — “The killing of animals in the course of Vedic sacrifices must be sinful, because it is killing, like any ordinary killing.” — Now that killing is sinful is learnt from no other source of knowledge except scriptures; under the circumstances, no reason can be found to establish the sinfulness of killing until the scriptures have been accepted as authoritative; and when once the authority of the Veda has been admitted, it could not be reasonable to bring forward arguments against it, as this would invalidate the (acknowledged) authority of scriptures; and this would involve self-contradiction: at first the scriptures were admitted to be authoritative, and then subsequently they are held to be un-authoritative; and this opinion would be contrary to the person’s own previous assertion, — no casuist ever says ‘my mother is childless’; and it is also contrary to the scriptures.

The Casuist might argue as follows: —

“Scripture is not authoritative; why then should contrariness to it be regarded as undesirable? That the scripture (Veda) is unauthoritative is proved by such discrepancies as (a) untruthfulness, (b) inconsistency and (c) repetition.

(a) Such sacrifices as the Kārīrī (which is laid down as to be performed for obtaining rain) are performed by men desiring min, but as a matter of fact no rain comes after the performance. As regards the rain that might come at some future time, it has been well said — ‘The Kārīrī having been performed during the autumn, when the cornfields were drying up, if the rain falls during the spring, this only leads to cattle-disease!’ Further, as regards the Jyotiṣṭoma and such other sacrifices, which are spoken of as bringing their rewards at some future time, since the acts will have completely disappeared after performance, the assertion that their reward would come after a hundred years would be exactly like the confident assertion of the Vampirist. From this it is clear that the Veda is untruthful,

(b) There is ‘inconsistency’ also: when it is said ‘libations should be offered after sunrise,’ if it were offered before sunrise, it would be clearly wrong; as it is said — ‘those who perform the Agnihotra before sunrise utter falsehood morning after morning.’ Then again, it is said ‘that the libations should be offered before the sun has risen,’ for (it is said) ‘the offering made after sunrise would be like the offering of reception to the guest after he had gone.’ Now in the former we have the injunction of offering after sunrise, and a deprecation of offering before sunrise, while in the latter we have the reverse. So that people are always in doubt as to which alternative they should adopt.

(c) The same Agnihotra that is enjoined in one Vedic Rescension is found to be enjoined in another Rescension also; and it has been held (by the Mīmāmsakas) that the act, mentioned in the various texts, is one and the same (Agnihotra) And this is a clear Repetition.”

That there is no ‘untruthfulness’ in the Veda is what is meant by the last quarter of the Verse (‘it was out of these that Dharma shone forth’). Because out of the Veda ‘Dharma alone — i.e., only that a certain act should be done, in the form of sacrifice, — ‘shone forth,’ is expounded; and it does not say anything definite in regard to the time at which the rewards shall appear; this is clear from the fact that the passages that speak of rewards do not make mention of any time; all that we learn from the Injunction is that a certain result shall follow, and the Injunction does not specify the time. As a matter of fact, divisions of time, past, present and future, are related to what is expressed by the verbal root; while the Result is not denoted by the verbal root at all; it is only implied by the Injunction; what is denoted by the verbal root (i.e., the act of ‘sacrifice’) is actually accomplished at the time (of the performance), in the form of the offering of a substance for the benefit of a certain deity, — the fulfilment of this offering appearing in the form of the transformation of the substance offered (into the fire, for instance). Further in ordinary life also, we find that when a person, who is an obedient servant of another, is directed to go to a certain place, he at once obeys the order; though as regards his wages, in some cases he may obtain it at the very beginning; but also sometimes during the act, or even after the act has been accomplished; and then also he may get them on the same day, or the next day, or at some future time. In the same manner, there is no limit as to the time at which the results spoken of in the scriptures will appear; all that is meant is that (by the performance of the act) the result, in the shape of Heaven, Rain or so forth, is brought within reach, — and not (hat they appear on the very same day. Then again, just as there are obstacles in the way of the realising of results of acts done in the ordinary course of life, so there are also in the case of the acts prescribed by the Veda, — such obstacles consisting of past sins and so forth. This (possibility of the Rain not coming immediately after the act) is clearly shown in the Veda itself when it says ‘if the rain should not come, the man should continue as before.’ And as regards the Sarvasvāra sacrifice (which is laid down as leading the performer to heaven), people have explained that the reward does not consist in the immediate entrance to Heaven, in fact it consists in what the man actually desires, and the desire is in the form ‘may I reach heaven without difficulty [ i.e., after death; immediate translation to heaven would mean immediate death, which no man desires].

As regards the argument that there is no difference in the act of killing as done in ordinary life and as done during a Vedic sacrifice, — what has to be borne in mind is the fact that the sinfulness of the act of killing is known only from the scriptures, it is not amenable to perception or any ordinary means of knowledge; and there is certainly a difference: the ordinary killing is prompted by passion, while the sacrificial killing is prompted by Vedic Injunction; and as the killing of the animal offered to Agni-Soma is prompted by the Vedic Injunction, this constitutes a great difference. From all this it is clear that in the Veda there is nothing ‘untruthful.’

As regards ‘Inconsistency’ (which is the second point urged against the Veda), the Author is going to answer it in the text itself (Verses 14-15 below). — (10)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Amimāṃsye’ — ‘not to be called into question’ (Buhler, acc. to Medhātithi) ‘Irrefutable’ (Burnell, improved by Hopkins into ‘not to be discussed’).

For an interesting discussion regarding the anṛtavyādhātapunaruktadoṣa attaching to the Veda, the reader is referred to Vātsyāyana’s Bhāṣya on the Nyāyasūtra 2.1.58-63.

Medhātithi (p. 69, l. 4) ‘Sarvasvāre tu vivādante’ — The Sarvasvāra is an Iṣṭi sacrifice which is described as leading the sacrificer directly to heaven; and in regard to this there is a difference of opinion among Vedic scholars: some hold that entrance into heaven is not the actual result, the result being the accomplishment of what the man desires — viz., the fulfilment of his wish to go to heaven without any hindrance, whenever he may die.

This has been quoted by the Mitākṣarā under 1.7, in support of the view that the name ‘Smṛti’ is applied to the Dharmaśāstra.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности