with the Commentary of Medhatithi 22 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 28 из 350Следующая ⇒

Hetuśāstrāśrayāt’. — ‘Relying upon the argumentative science of the Bauddhas, Cārväkas

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 6, 10 and 12)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.6 (Sources of Knowledge of Dharma).

VERSE 2.11

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

योऽवमन्येत ते मूले हेतुशास्त्राश्रयाद् द्विजः ।
स साधुभिर्बहिष्कार्यो नास्तिको वेदनिन्दकः ॥११॥

yo'vamanyeta te mūle hetuśāstrāśrayād dvijaḥ |
sa sādhubhirbahiṣkāryo nāstiko vedanindakaḥ ||11||

If a twice-born person, relying upon the science of dialectics, should disregard these two sources, he should be cast out by good men, — the detractor of the Veda being an infidel. — (11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

On the ground of ‘untruthfulness’ and ‘unreliability’ if a twice-born person, relying upon the science of dialectics the ‘science of dialectics’ here stands for the polemical works written by Atheists, treatises of Bauddhas and Charvākas, in which it is repeatedly proclaimed that “the Veda is conducive to sin”; — relying upon such a science, if one should scorn the Veda; i.e., when advised by some one to desist from a certain course of action which is sinful according to the Veda and the Smṛti, in the words — ‘Do not do this, it is prohibited by the Veda,’ — if he disregards this advice and persists in doing it, saying, ‘what if it is prohibited in the Veda or in the Smṛtis? They are not at all authoritative’; — even without saying this, if he should even think in this manner, — and if he is found to pay much attention to the science of dialectics; — such a person should he cast out by the good — despised by all cultured persons — out of such acts as ‘officiating at sacrifices,’ ‘teaching,’ ‘honours of a guest’ and so forth. Since the text does not specify the acts (from which the man should be kept out), it follows that he should be kept out of all those acts that are fit for the learned. And the reason for this lies in the fact that it is only the ignorant man, whose mind is uncultured and who smacks of the polemic, that can speak as above (in deprecation of the Veda); and to the said acts (of officiating, etc.) it is only the learned man that can be entitled. It is in view of this that such ‘criticism’ has been prohibited in the preceding verse, — such criticism being due to want or respect, — and it does not deprecate such inquiry as might be instituted for the purpose of elucidating the true meaning of the Veda.

It is in view of all this that the author states the reason for what he has asserted — ‘The detractor of the Veda being an infidel.’ Thus the man, who would set forth arguments in support of the view that ‘the Veda is unauthoritative,’ only by way of a primâ facie statement, would not he an ‘infidel’; because such statement of the arguments would he made only for the purpose of strengthening the final conclusion (that the Veda is authoritative).

The text speaking of tin; ‘detractor of the Veda,’ has not mentioned the Smṛti; hut the idea is that both stand on the same footing, and both equally form the subject-matter of the context; hence the mention of any one of them implies both.

Some people might however take the term ‘Veda’ (in the expression ‘detractor of the Veda’) to be actually restricted to the Veda only, and they would thence conclude that ‘the detractor of Smṛtis’ should not be cast out, the casting out in this verse being declared for the ‘detractor of the Veda’ only. With a view to such people the Author adds the following verse. — (11)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hetuśāstrāśrayāt’. — ‘Relying upon the argumentative science of the Bauddhas, Cārvākas &c.’ (Medhātithi); — ‘Relying on methods of reasoning directed against the Veda’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa).

The argumentative person is always decried: see e. g. 4.30, where the ‘Hetuka’ is described as not fit to be honoured; the ‘Hetuka’ is mentionod in 12. 111. as a person who must be a member of the Pariṣad; though in the latter text the term has been explained as ‘one well-versed in the principles of Mīmāṃsā and the Śāstras’ (see Mitākṣarā on 3. 301, p. 1384).

‘Nāstiko vedanindakaḥ’ — see Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 424) where we read — ‘The detracting of the Veda is of three kinds — (1) The first is that which consists in seeking to prove the untrustworthy character of the Veda by means of arguments culled from Bauddha, Jaina and other treatises; — this has been described by Yājñavalkya as being equal in heinousness to the murdering of a Brāhmaṇa. (2) The second consists in neglecting the acts laid down in the Veda and Śrutis, through one’s tendency to wranglings and disputations; — it is this that is referred to by Manu under 2.11, who further regards it as equal in heinousness to the drinking of wine. (3) The third consists in lack of due faith, — the acts laid down being done only through fear of popular odium, and not through any faith in them; tins has been mentioned among Minor Sins.

This verse has been quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 4) which reads ‘ubhe’ for ‘mūle’ and explains it as ‘Śruti and Smṛti’; for ‘śrayāt’ it reads ‘shraya’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Hārīta-Smṛti, 7.21, — ‘That person is a Nāstika who decries what is said in the Veda, who does not discriminate between virtue and vice and who does not admit the existence of the other world.’

Yājñavalkya, 1-227. — ‘The insulting of the Teacher, the decrying of the Veda, the killing of a friend, all this should be regarded as equal to the killing of the Brāhmaṇa.’

VERSE 2.12

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

वेदः स्मृतिः सदाचारः स्वस्य च प्रियमात्मनः ।
एतच्चतुर्विधं प्राहुः साक्षाद् धर्मस्य लक्षणम् ॥१२॥

vedaḥ smṛtiḥ sadācāraḥ svasya ca priyamātmanaḥ |
etaccaturvidhaṃ prāhuḥ sākṣād dharmasya lakṣaṇam ||12||

The Veda, the Smṛti, the Practice of cultured Men, and what is agreeable to oneself — these directly constitute the fourfold means of knowing Dharma. — (12)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There is no difference here. The prohibition of detracting the Veda implies that there should be casting out of also one who detracts the Smṛti, the Practic Men and Self-satisfaction. These also describe only such Dharma as is based upon the Veda; hence the detractor of these is also the ‘detractor of the Veda.’

Objection: — “There is no need for having both the verses; a single verse would have been sufficient, somewhat to the following effect: — ‘the twice-born person, who, relying upon the Science of Dialectics, should scorn the sources of Dharma, beginning with Veda and ending with Self-satisfaction, should be cast out by all good men, on account of his being an infidel.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — Teachers do not mind the burdening (prolexity) of their works; what they make every effort to avoid is the burdening of the intellect (of the learner); as it is the latter which interferes with the right understanding of Dharma; and this misunderstanding obstructs the fulfilment of the ends of man.

Then again, even if the author had mentioned all the four sources of Dharma (as suggested by the objector), some people might still argue thus — “the author should have mentioned the Veda only, all Dharma being based upon the Veda.” Hence it is for the purpose of clearness that the author has stated the matter in both ways: the former verse being intended for those who like brevity, and both the verses for other persons.

‘What is agreeable to oneself’ is the same as the ‘self-satisfaction’ spoken of before. The term ‘oneself’ is added only for filling up the metre.

‘These constitute directly the means of knowing Dharma’ — ‘Lakṣaṇa’ means cause, indicator; and Sense-Perception is not the means of knowing Dharma, as some people have held, speaking of (the sages as) ‘persons who have directly perceived Dharma.’

In the compound ‘Chaturvidham,’ ‘fourfold,’ the term ‘vidhā’ means kind, form. As a matter of fact, Veda is the only source of knowledge of Dharma, and Smṛti and the rest are only so many forms of the Veda.

Other people have explained this second verse as serving the purpose of recapitulating (all that has been said regarding the sources of Dharma). The description of the means of knowing Dharma having been finished, it is the end of this section that is indicated by the repetition (contained in the present verse). Such is the fashion with treatises on the Vedāṅgas; e.g., ‘saṃsthājapenopatiṣṭhante upatiṣṭhante’ (when; ‘upatiṣṭhante’ is repeated for indicating the end of the section); and when the author sets forth the second verse he has in his mind the sum-total of all that has been said in the present section. It is just as the Naiyāyikas, having propounded the Proposition that ‘Word is non-eternal,’ set forth the reasons in support of it, and then re-iterate the conclusion, saying ‘therefore word is non-eternal.’ In fact such is the way of all writers; e.g., the author of the Mahābhāṣya (Patāñjali) also sometimes states the Sūtra or the Vārtika, and having explained it, repeats it again. — (12)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The first half of this verse is precisley the same as that of Yājñavalkya 1.7.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 6, 10 and 12)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.6 (Sources of Knowledge of Dharma).

VERSE 2.13

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

अर्थकामेष्वसक्तानां धर्मज्ञानं विधीयते ।
धर्मं जिज्ञासमानानां प्रमाणं परमं श्रुतिः ॥१३॥

arthakāmeṣvasaktānāṃ dharmajñānaṃ vidhīyate |
dharmaṃ jijñāsamānānāṃ pramāṇaṃ paramaṃ śrutiḥ ||13||

The knowledge of Dharma is ordained for those who are not addicted to the pursuit of wealth and pleasures; and for those seeking for the knowledge of Dharma, the Revealed Word is the highest authority. — (13)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Wealth’ stands for cattle, land, gold and so forth, and ‘addiction’ to it means being entirely taken up with the undertaking of cultivation, service, etc., for the purpose of acquiring and accumulating wealth.

‘Pleasures’ stands for sexual pleasures; and ‘addiction’ to these means constant recourse to it, as also to its accompaniments in the shape of singing and music, etc.

For people who are devoid of these (wealth and pleasures), ‘the knowledge of Dharma,’ the true understanding of Dharma, ‘is ordained,’ specially propounded, accomplished; the verb ‘vidhīyate’ is derived from the root ‘dhīṅ’ to accomplish.

Objection. — How is it that people addicted to wealth and pleasures can have no knowledge of ‘Dharma?’ In fact such persons also, as time permits them, can obtain some knowledge of ‘Dharma,’ — by listening at the time of eating and at such times as do not interfere with their pursuit of wealth and pleasure, to stories and to the precept or example of others (who know Dharma).”

In view of the above objection, the author has added the words — ‘for those who seek the knowledge of Dharma,’ etc. The chief authority for Dharma is the Veda; and the Veda can never be understood by the persons referred to. It is extremely difficult to comprehend and for its due comprehension it requires the thorough study of the sciences of Nigama (Vedic commentaries), Nirukla (Philology), Vyākaraṇa (Grammar), Tarka (Logic) Purāṇa (History) and Mīnāmsā (Exigetics). And this entire mass of literature can never be acquired by a man unless he renounces all other activities. What can be learnt from stories and examples are only a few stray Dharmas, and not the entire body of Dharma, in the shape of the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices, along with all its accessory details, which can be learnt only from the Veda and the other sources of Dharma. It is in view of all this that the text says — ‘the Revealed Word is the highest authority.’ This how ever is not meant to take away the force of ‘Example’ as a source of knowledge.

What is stated in the text is corroborated by the following well-known saying — ‘He alone acquires learning who shuns wealth like snake, sweetmeats like poison, and women like evil spirits?

[ Another explanation of the verse.]

According to others again the expression ‘arthakāma’ stands for hankering after visible rewards — and for people ‘addicted’ to these, — those who hanker after honour, fame, etc., and who, seeking after visible results, have no other end in life save worldly advancement — ‘the knowledge of Dharma,’ i.e., ‘performance of Dharma,’ — is not ‘ordained,’ taught. The term ‘jñāna’ (’knowledge’) stands for’that in which the act becomes recognised’ (jñāyate asmin), i.e., its performance; it is only when the Dharma is performed that it becomes clearly manifest, clearer indeed than that comprehended at the time that the scriptures are studied. It is for this reason that it is the performance that is spoken of as ‘jñāna,’ ‘knowledge.’

What the text means therefore is this: — Even though the performance of Dharma brings worldly advancement, yet one should not undertake it entirely with a view to that fame; it should be undertaken with the sole idea that it is prescribed by the scriptures. The act having been done with this idea, if some visible result also follows, it may do so, but it is not what is thought of by the man. In fact the

Veda itself describes the result following from Vedic study as ‘fame and worldly advancement,’ in the passage — ‘the world progressing endows him with four things — honour, gifts, freedom from taxes and freedom from death.’ To the same effect is the following saying — ‘The water supplied for the growth of sugar-cane waters also the grasses and creepers, in the same manner when a man treads the path of Dharma, he also obtains fame, pleasure and riches.’

Objection. —

“When the act is endowed with a certain faculty, it does not lose that faculty, even though it may be performed with some other end in view; it must always bring about its natural effects; e.g., even though one may drink poison, with the idea that it is an efficacious medicine, yet it does not fail to kill him. Similarly even though the act may be done with a view to some visible reward, yet it cannot fail to bring about the invisible results mentioned in ' the scriptures. Why then should you have this aversion, which makes you assert that an act should not be undertaken with a view to worldly advancement?”

It is in view of this objection that the text adds — ‘For those seeking for the knowledge of Dharma, the Revealed Word is the highest authority.’ And what this means is that ‘those who seek for visible rewards do not obtain any invisible reward, — and it is not only that he does not obtain the invisible result, he commits sin also by being addicted to what is prohibited.’ — (13)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vidhīyate’. — Medhātithi puts forward a second explananation of this.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2.20.1. — ‘In the performance of duties one shall not allow considerations of worldly things.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1-2.7. — ‘In all countries one should imitate the behaviour of all such good men as are self-controlled, experienced, free from greed and haughtiness.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1-30.9. — ‘In cases of conflict what is laid down in the Śruti is more authoritative.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.6. — ‘When there is a conflict between two equally authoritative texts, there is option.’

Jaimini-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, 1.3.3. — ‘When a Smṛti conflicts with Śruti, it has no authority; where it does not conflict, there is presumption of corroborative Śruti.

Also see the Comparative notes for Verse 2.6 (Sources of Knowledge of Dharma).

VERSE 2.14 [Conflict of Authorities]

Section IV - Conflict of Authorities

श्रुतिद्वैधं तु यत्र स्यात् तत्र धर्मावुभौ स्मृतौ ।
उभावपि हि तौ धर्मौ सम्यगुक्तौ मनीषिभिः ॥१४॥

śrutidvaidhaṃ tu yatra syāt tatra dharmāvubhau smṛtau |
ubhāvapi hi tau dharmau samyaguktau manīṣibhiḥ ||14||

Where there is conflict between two Vedic texts, both are held to be Dharma; both have been rightly pronounced by the wise to be Dharma. — (14)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The objection urged above (in the Bhāṣya on Verse 10) is answered here.

When ‘between two Vedic texts there is ‘conflict,’ — i.e., setting forth of contrary facts, — e.g., what is declared to be ‘Dharma’ by one text is pronounced to bo ‘adharma’ by another; — in such cases both are Dharma, — i.e., to be performed as optional alternatives. The authoritative strength of the two texts is equal; hence it cannot bo discerned which is reliable and which is not. Thus the conflict being between two equally authoritative texts bearing upon the same subject, there must be option.

Objection. —

“The text speaks of both being Dharma, which means that there should be combination (and not option); as it is only when there is combination that both could be Dharma; otherwise ( ), only one of them could be Dharma. (at a time).”

We deny this. The use of the word ‘both’ is incompatible with separate, performance (even acts performed one after the other, and not conjointly, can be spoken of as ‘both’); the word does not necessarily denote two things taken together.

Further, option is distinctly the reasonable course to adopt. The action known as ‘Agnihotra’ is one only; and with reference to this single act, three points of time have been laid down; now the action forms the primary factor, the comes in only as a subordinate element; nor is it possible to adopt all the three points of time in connection with any single performance; nor again can it be right to repeat the performance for the sake of the time; as it is never right to repeat the primary for the sake of the secondary factor. From all this it follows that option is most reasonable, as declared in the words ‘whenever there is conflict between authorities of equal force, there is option.’ (Gautama, 1.3.)

‘Both have bent proclaimed to be Dharma.’ — “What is the difference between this statement and the former one, ‘both are Dharma’?”

There is no difference; in the former statement, the author has stated his own opinion, and in the latter he supports his opinion by the opinion of other teachers, by pointing out that ‘this is what has also been proclaimed by other wise men.’ — (14)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 15) as describing the comparative authority of the several sources. Where there are two Vedic texts setting forth two conflicting views, both are to be accepted, since they have been so accepted by authorities older than Manu himself, i. e. the two are to be regarded as optional alternatives.

It is quoted also in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 136.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.6. — ‘When there is a conflict between two equally authoritative texts, there is option.’

Also see the Comparative notes for Verse 2.6 (Sources of Knowledge of Dharma).

VERSE 2.15

Section IV - Conflict of Authorities

उदितेऽनुदिते चैव समयाध्युषिते तथा ।
सर्वथा वर्तते यज्ञ इतीयं वैदिकी श्रुतिः ॥१५॥

udite'nudite caiva samayādhyuṣite tathā |
sarvathā vartate yajña itīyaṃ vaidikī śrutiḥ ||15||

At sunrise, or before sunrise, or at early dawn, — the sacrificial act may be performed at any time, — such is the pronouncement of the Veda. — (15)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is an instance of the ‘conflict’ spoken of in the preceding verse.

In regard to the offering of the Agnihotra-lilbtions, all these three points of time have been prescribed, — and the injunction of each of these deprecates the others; and the sense of these Vedic texts is that ‘the merificial act may be performed at any time’; — in all ways the offering proceeds, i.e., it should proceed. As regards the deprecation of the offering done after sunrise (which is found in the text enjoining the time before sunrise), this deprecation is not meant to be an interdict; it is only meant to be an injunction of the offering before sunrise. Similarly in the other cases. Thus what is meant is that the act may be performed at any one of the three points of time; and the command of the scriptures becomes fulfilled by the offering being done at any one time.

‘Such is the pronouncement of the Veda.’ — This is what is meant by the Vedic declaration; and it does not mean that what is deprecated is interdicted.

The ‘sacrificial act’ spoken of here is what is known as the ‘Agnihotra-homa’; there is not much difference between ‘yāga’(a sacrifice) and ‘homa’ (libation-pouring). When one renounces his proprietary right over a substance in favour of a certain deity, — the idea in his mind being ‘this belongs to the deity now, and not to me,’ — this is what constitutes ‘yāga’ ‘sacrifice’; and exactly the same is the form of ‘Homa,’ ‘Pouring of libation,’ also. The only difference is that in Homa there is the additional factor of the substance being thrown, deposited in a specified manner, in fire or some such receptacle. It is in view of this similarity that the Homa is spoken of here as ‘yajña.’ That this is so is proved by the fact that the three points of time spoken of have been prescribed in the Veda in connection with Homa, and not all kinds of sacrifice.

The expressions ‘udite’ (‘after sunrise’) and the rest are to be taken as parts of, and as standing for, such declarations as ‘udite hotavyam’ (‘the Homa should be performed after sunrise’) and so forth; — the construction being that ‘the meaning of the declaration that the Homa should be performed after sunrise, not before it, etc., etc., is as follows.’

By the compound word ‘samayā’ the time of early dawn is meant. Others have taken it as consisting of two words: ‘samayā’ meaning near, requires its correlative in the shape of something that is near; and since the two points of time mentioned in the sentence are those ‘before’ and ‘after sunrise,’ the required correlative in the present instance is the time of twilight. ‘Adhyuṣita’ stands for the time of departure of the night, and means ‘at the departure of night.’ [So the compound means ‘that twilight which comes after the departure of night.’]

The words of the text are intended to quote the words of the Veda, which are found to be read in one form in one text, and in another form in another text; so that whether the expression ‘samayādhyuṣita’ is one word or two words can be ascertained only from the original texts.

Thus then, the same act of Homa being laid down in the Veda as to be done optionally at any one of the three points of time, there is no inconsistency. It is only in connection with two accomplished entities that, when found to be incompatible with one another, they are held to be ‘inconsistent’; the same cannot be true in connection with things still to he accomplished [and all actions belong to this latter category]. For what has got to be accomplished may be accomplished either in one way or another; and how could there be any inconsistency in this?

In the case of conflicting Smṛti -texts also, the most reasonable view to take is that they lay down optional alternatives. — (15)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Samayādhyuṣite’; — The dawn (Medhātithi), — or that twilight which comes after the departure of the night (Ibid, and Govindarāja); — the time when neither the sun nor the stars are visible (Kullūka).

This verse has been quoted by the Madanapārijāta (p. 175) as indicating the two divisions of the time ‘before sunrise’; — these two divisions being ‘Anudita’ and ‘Samayādhyuṣita.’ These two are more fully described by Kātyāyana, who defines the ‘anudita’ as ‘the sixteenth part of the night, adorned by stars and planets’, — and the ‘Samayādhyuṣita’ as that time in the morning when the stars have disappeared, but the sun has not risen.

The same authority defines the ‘udita ‘sunrise,’ as that when the mere streak of the sun is visible, not all its rays.

It is quoted also in the the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Ācāra, p. 326); — in the Saṃskāraratnamālā, (p. 2) as laying down the two times for Homa, and it reads ‘homaḥ’ for ‘yajñaḥ’; — in the Ācāramayūkha (p. 65) as laying down the time for the morning Homa; — and in the Nityāchārapradīpa (p. 410.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.1. — ‘One should offer libation of cooked food both morning and evening.’

Kātyāyana-Smṛti, 1.9.35. — ‘Before the stars are distinctly visible and before the redness of the sky has disappeared, one should offer the evening oblation.’

Muṇḍopaniṣad, 1.2.1. — ‘All those detailed acts that the wise ones have found mentioned in the Vedas, — all these one should always perform.’

Muṇḍopaniṣad, 1.2.3. — ‘One who does not perform the Agnihotra, or the Darśapūrṇamāsa, or the Cāturmāsya, or the Vaisvadeva......destroys his entire family.’

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США