with the Commentary of Medhatithi 23 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 29 из 350Следующая ⇒

Īśopaniṣad, 2. — ‘One should desire to live for a hundred years, all along doing his duties.’

Mahānārāyaṇopaniṣad, 2.1. — ‘The Agnihotra should be continued till death.’

VERSE 2.16 [Persons entitled to the Performance of Dharma]

Section V - Persons entitled to the Performance of Dharma

निषेकादिश्मशानान्तो मन्त्रैर्यस्योदितो विधिः ।
तस्य शास्त्रेऽधिकारोऽस्मिन् ज्ञेयो नान्यस्य कस्य चित् ॥१६॥

niṣekādiśmaśānānto mantrairyasyodito vidhiḥ |
tasya śāstre'dhikāro'smin jñeyo nānyasya kasya cit ||16||

That person alone, and none other, should be regarded as entitled to the scripture, for whom the sacraments beginning with conception and ending with the crematorium, are prescribed as to be done with mantras. — (16)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In Adhyāya I (Verse 103) are found the words ‘this should be studied by the learned Brāhmaṇa’; and though this is a mere Arthavāda, yet the presence of the potential affix ‘tavya’ (in the term ‘adhyetavyam’) might lead people into the mistake that it is an Injunction; and in that case the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya would be precluded from the study. It is with a view to preclude this possibility that we have the present verse, which shows the capability of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also to study.

The older commentators have also taken this verse as serving to preclude the possibility of the Śūdra studying the scripture, which he might be tempted to do.

The term ‘scripture’ here stands for the compilation by Manu.

‘Entitled,’ — the ‘title’ meant here consists in the idea that ‘this should be done by me.’ But no ‘collection of words’ — which is an accomplished entity — can be regarded as ‘to be done’; nor, on the other band, can any action be regarded as ‘to be accomplished,’ except as related to a certain substance. Hence the ‘title’ is understood to pertain to a certain action relating to the scripture. Now in the present context, the action intended is not found to be either making, or being, or existing; as for ‘being’ and ‘existing,’ they both mean ‘to be’; so that if these were the action meant, the meaning would be — ‘one should undertake the being or the existing, as related to the scripture’; but as a matter of fact the ‘being’ of one thing cannot be undertaken by another. The action of ‘making’ also would not be applicable; because so far as the words are concerned, all are eternal (and as such cannot be made); while as regards sentences, they have been already made by another person (the author of the scripture). From all this it follows that the action intended is that of studying as pertaining to the scripture. So that the meaning comes to be this — ‘the man is entitled to the study of the scripture’; and just as to the studying, so also to the learning of its meaning.

“In as much as the work of Manu has had a beginning in time, how could any injunction relating to it (as the present verse is supposed to be) be based upon the Veda, which is beginningless?”

Our answer is as follows: — It is quite open to us to infer some such general (Vedic) injunction as that ‘the Śūdra should not study such sentences as serve to expound the scriptures.’ Further, these statements of the expounders of the Veda that serve to explain Vedic texts bear a certain resemblance to these texts; and hence they are as much the subject of a bcginningless tradition as the Vedic texts themselves.

What forms the subject-matter of the scriptures is actual performance, and to this all the four castes arc entitled [though to the study of the scriptures the three twice-born castes alone are entitled].

“If such be the case, then it would be permissible for the Śūdra to perform all those acts which are prescribed in a general manner, without reference to any specified persons.”

How this contingency does, not arise we shall show, as occasion arises.

Objection: —

“When the Śūdra is not entitled to study the scripture and learn its meaning, how can he be entitled to the performance of the acts therein prescribed? Unless the man knows the exact form of the act, he cannot do it; unless he studies the scriptures, he cannot know what is contained in them; and no unlearned person is entitled to the performance of any (religious) act.”

True; but the requisite knowledge can be obtained from the advice of other persons. The Śūdra may be dependent upon a Brāhmaṇa; or a Brāhmaṇa may be doing the work of instructing people for payment; and such a Brāhmaṇa might very well instruct the Śūdra to ‘do this, after having done that’ and so forth. So that the mere fact of the Śūdra performing the acts does not necessarily indicate that he is entitled to the study and understanding of the scriptures; as performance can be accomplished, even on the strength of what is learnt from others; as is done in the case of women; what helps women (in the performance of their duties) is the learning of their husbands, which becomes available to them through companionship. Then again, the texts laying down the acts do not imply the direct knowledge (of the injunctive texts). It is only in the case of men, to whom is addressed the injunction of Vedic study — contained in the words ‘one should study the Veda’ — that the performance of duties proceeds upon the basis of their own learning; and this injunction is meant only for the male member’s of the three higher castes. But in the case of these also their study and understanding of the scriptures is not prompted by their knowledge of what is contained in them; it is prompted entirely by the two injunctions — (1) the injunction of having recourse to a duly qualified teacher, and (2) the injunction of Vedic study.

‘Conception,’ is ‘ impregnation ’; that series of sacraments which begins with this is called ‘niṣēkādiḥ,’ ‘beyinning conception.’ This sacrament is laid down as to be performed after the marriage (of the parents), — with the mantra ‘viṣṇuryoniṅkalpayatu,’ etc. (Ṛgveda, 10.18.1.1) — on the occasion of the first intercourse only, for some people, while for others at each menstrual period, till conception takes place.

That which has the ‘crematorium’ for its end is called ‘ending with the crematorium.’ The word ‘crematorium’ stands for that place where dead bodies are disposed of; and through association it indicates the rites performed for the dead, called the ‘Antyeṣṭi’; as it is only this performance that is done with mantras, and not the place (which is what is directly denoted by the word ‘crematorium’).

The qualification mentioned in the text points to the Twice-born castes; it is only these persons who have their sacraments done with mantras. The author does not say simply ‘dvijātīnām,’ ‘for the twicc-born’ (and he has taken to the round-about way of saying the same thing), because Manu Svāyambhuva has a peculiar style of composing his verses.

The passage is not to be construed to mean that ‘the sacraments are laid down in mantras’; because mantras do not contain the injunction of any acts; they are not injunctive; they only serve as reminders, during the performance of the act, of the details enjoined in other texts. Hence the passage should be explained as meaning — ‘those for whom the sacraments are laid down as to be done with Mantras.’

‘None other,’ — is purely explanatory; the rest of the sentence having already served the purpose of restricting what is said to the twice-born castes. Or, it may be taken as reiterated for the preventing of the idea that some one might entertain the notion that ‘what is laid down here is something that must be done by the twice-born castes, while for the Śūdra it is neither prescribed nor interdicted.’ — (16)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Mantraiḥ’ — This has been added with a view to exclude the woman and the Śūdra, whose sacraments are not performed ‘with mantras’ (see 2.66 and 10.127).

Burnell remarks — ‘In Vedic times the reception of outsiders into the community was, to a certain extent, recognised, and ceremonies (e. g. the Vrātyastoma) were in use for this purpose.’

It is rather difficult to be very dogmatic regarding what was, or what was not, recognised ‘in Vedic times.’ But if the ceremony of the Vrātyaṣtoma is the sole authority for the statement, then it has to be borne in mind that the writer has not comprehended the purpose of those ceremonies. If he had taken the trouble to find out what ‘vrātya’ meant, he would have found out that the ceremony was performed for the re-admission of those who had become excluded by reason of the omission of certain obligatary rites; and it was not meant for admitting absolute ‘outsiders’.

This verse has been quoted by the Mitākṣarā on 1.3 (p. 6) — in support of the view that it is the Twice-born persons alone who are entitled to study the Dharma Śāstra.

It is quoted also in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 512) to the same effect — also in the Aparārka (p. 14); — in the Smṛticandrikā (p. 18.) which explains ‘Niṣeka as the Garbhādhāna sacrament and ‘smaśāna’ as the ‘after-death rites; — and in the Varṣakriyākaumudī (p. 574) as implying that the rites are to be performed for the Śūdra also, but without Vedic Mantras.

Medhātithi (p. 73, 1. 26) — Ācāryakoraṇavidhinā svādyāyādhyayanavidhināca.’ Here both the Bhāṭṭa and the Prābhākara views of Śāstrārambha are accepted by the writer.

VERSE 2.17 [Qualified Countries]

Section VI - Qualified Countries

सरस्वतीदृशद्वत्योर्देवनद्योर्यदन्तरम् ।
तं देवनिर्मितं देशं ब्रह्मावर्तं प्रचक्षते ॥१७॥

sarasvatīdṛśadvatyordevanadyoryadantaram |
taṃ devanirmitaṃ deśaṃ brahmāvartaṃ pracakṣate ||17||

The region lying between the divine rivers Sarasvati and Dṛṣasvatī which has been created by the gods, — they call ‘Brahmāvarta’ — (17)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The sources of the knowledge of Dharma have been described; it has also been stated that in cases of couflict there is option; persons entitled to the performance of dharma have also been indicated in a general way. Now the author proceeds to describe those countries that are fit for the performance of Dharma, and where (on that account) it becomes incumbent to perform it.

‘Sarasvatī’ is the river bearing that name. ‘Dṛṣadvatī’ is another river; that which lies between these two, that region they call by the name of ‘Brahmāvarta’; that is the region which the cultured speak of by that name.

‘Created by the Gods’ — is for the purpose of eulogising the boundaries and the bounded region; the sense being that ‘the region is created by the Gods, and is therefore more sacred than all other regions.’ — (17)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The Aparārka quotes this verse along with verses 19,21 to 23, as indicating the views that the ‘black antelope’ is to serve as a mark of the ‘yajñīya deśa’ only in the case of the countries other than those described in these verses. This verse and verses 18 to 22 have been quoted in the Madanapārijāta (p. 12) in support of the view that the ‘Custom’ or ‘Right Behaviour’ that is to be regarded as authoritative and trustworthy is that prevalent among the people inhabiting the tract of land herein defined.

Other writers, among whom are Vaśiṣṭha and Śaṅkha define ‘Āryāvarta’ as that tract ‘where the black antelope roams’; which, according to Manu (2.23) is the characteristic feature of the ‘yajñīya deśa’ ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Vrata, p. 27), — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 55), which explains that the epithet ‘devanirūpitam,’ ‘created by the Gods,’ is only meant to be eulogistic; — in the Dānamayūkha (p. 7), — and in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

VERSE 2.18

Section VI - Qualified Countries

तस्मिन् देशे य आचारः पारम्पर्यक्रमागतः ।
वर्णानां सान्तरालानां स सदाचार उच्यते ॥१८॥

tasmin deśe ya ācāraḥ pāramparyakramāgataḥ |
varṇānāṃ sāntarālānāṃ sa sadācāra ucyate ||18||

That practice, which has comb down through an unbroken line op tradition among the several castes and subcastes in that country, is called the ‘Practice of Good Men.’ — (18)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Question — “As regards the usage in the said country, what is the condition of its reliability? Is it learning and culture? Or the connection of the particular country is the only condition, and the practices of the ignorant and the uncultured also arc authoritative? We ask this because if ‘learning’ and ‘culture’ are not regarded as necessary conditions, then the two qualifications mentioned in the sixth verse — in the phrase ‘the Practice of good and learned men’ — become futile. And further, it is not possible for the ‘Practice of Bad men’ to be a source of Dharma, for the simple reason that such persons can have nothing to do with the Veda. If, on the other hand, learning and culture do form the conditions of reliability, then no useful purpose will have been served by the counection of the particular country herein mentioned; because it cannot be said that practice of learned and cultured men of other countries is not authoritative.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — The statement is based upon probability; the chances are that in the country mentioned only learned and cultured men are born. This is what is meant by the assertion that ‘the Practice in that country is called the Practice of good.’

Others have explained that the verse is intended to deny the authority of a purely local ‘Practice’ (Usage), on the ground that in other countries people marry the daughter of the maternal uncle.

This explanation is not right. Because it has been laid down as a general principle that ‘from among the practices of the country, the family and the caste, only that should be done what is not contrary to law’; and the marrying of one’s maternal cousin is actually contrary to the law, as found in the injunction that ‘one should marry beyond the seventh grade of relationship on the father’s side and beyond the fifth on the mother’s’ [and the maternal cousin falls within these prohibited degrees] Further, as regards the said country of Brahmāvarta also there are certain practices — such as eating in the same dish with boys who have not undergone the Brahmanical Initiation — which are not regarded as authoritative. In fact no practice can ever be authoritative which is contrary to Smṛti; because it would be so much further removed from the Veda (the source of all authority); as the Practice leads to the inference of the Smṛti, and the Smṛti leads to the inference of the Veda; while the Smṛti leads to the inference of its corroborative Veda directly. There is another reason why Practices like the one mentioned above can never be even suspected to be authoritative. Such Practices are found to be clearly due to perceptible motives: e.g., some one having fallen in love with a handsome maternal cousin married her, through fear of the King, in order to escape from the penalty that would be inflicted for violating the chastity of an unmarried girl; and others who came after him being themselves illiterate and relying upon the words ‘one should go on on the same path on which his father and grand-father have gone’ (Manu, 4.178), taken in their literal sense, came to regard the said marrying as ‘Dharma’ (something that should he done). Then again, even though the text (4.172) prescribes an expiatory rite in connection with the taking as wife of the three classes of girls (the daughter of the Father’s sister, the daughter of the Mother’s sister and the daughter of the Mother’s brother), — yet people are liable to fall into the mistake that marriage with relatives other than the three specified here is not interdicted. That such is not the meaning of the verse (11.172) wo shall explain later on.

Now no Smṛti or Practice, that is prompted by a perceptible motive, can ever be regarded as authoritative. Says the revered Bhatta (Kumārila) — ‘That Smṛti, which is contrary to the Veda, or deprecated, and which serves a visible purpose, and is prompted by perceptible motives, can never he based upon the Veda.’

From all this it follows that what is contained in this verse is only an arthavāda, eulogising the particular country, — this eulogy being supplementary to the Injunction coming later on that ‘the Twice-born people should betake themselves to these countries’ (verse 21 below).

‘Pāramparya’ is the same as ‘paramparā,’ ‘Tradition’; which goes from one to the other, from him again to a fourth person, and so on; this succession is what is called ‘Tradition’; and ‘Krama,’ ‘line,’ stands for ‘unbroken continuity;’ — ‘come down’ means learnt.

‘Sub-castes’ — are people of mixed birth; — the ‘castes’ along with these are called Sāntarālāḥ.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 75, 1. 5) — Kāraṇagrahaṇāt.’ — When a custom or even a Smṛti rule, is found to be actually based upon some material motive, — no authority can attach to such custom or rule. Read in this connection Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1. 3. 4, which discusses the authoritative character of such Smṛti rules as, while not contradicting any Śruti-rule, are yet found to be due to ignorance or covetousness; e.g. the text laying down that the cloth with which the sacrificial post is covered should be given to the priest. The conclusion on this point is that such rules have no authority. (See, for further details, Prābhākara — Mīmāṃsā, pp. 138-139).

This verse is quoted in the Madanapārijāta (p. 12); — in the Dānamayūkha (p. 7); — in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4), — and in the Vīramitrodaya — Paribhāṣa (p. 55), which adds the following notes: — ‘Paramparya;’ is the same as ‘paramparā’, ‘Tradition,’ — i. e., that whose beginning cannot be traced; — this precludes the authority of modern customs; — ‘antarāla’ are the mixed castes; — it quotes Medhātithi to the effect that the purport of this verse is to eulogise the custom of the particular country, and not to deny the authority of the customs of other countries.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

Vaśiṣṭha, 1.7-12. — ‘Aryāvarta is the country which is to the East of the spot of disappearance, to the West of Kālakavana, to the North of Pāriyātra and the Vindhya and to the South of the Himālaya. The Dharma and practices prevalent in this country should be accepted in all places. Some people apply the name Āryāvarta to the land between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā. Brahmanic glory is coterminous with the tract over which the black antelope roams.

Vaśiṣṭha, 15.9-14. — ‘The Dharmas and Ācāras prevalent in that country should be accepted everywhere. The others are of contrary Dharma. Some people restrict Dharma to the country lying between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā. Others again state that Brahmanic glory extends all over that tract of land over which the black deer roams. The limits of this tract are hounded on the west by the river Sindhu and on other sides by the Vaitariṇī river (in Mālwā, according to Vīramitrodaya, Paribhāṣa, p. 57); and by the spot where the sun rises.’ Vyāsa, 1.3. — ‘The Vedic dharma can prevail only in that country over which the black deer roams naturally.’

Samvarta, 4. — ‘That country where the black deer constantly roams at will is to be known as Dharma-deśa, where alone the duties of the twice-born can be performed.’

Baudhāyana, 1.25.25. — ‘To the East of the spot of disappearance (of the Sarasvatī river), to the West of the Kālakavana, to the North of Pāriyātra and to the South of Himālaya, — this is Āryāvarta; it is the Sadāchāra of this country that is authoritative; according to some people it is the tract included between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīra-Pari.,p. 57). — ‘That country is noble which lies to the East of the mountain where the Sun sets, to the West of that where the Sun rises, which is interspersed with high mountains and sacred rivers; this is the sacred land; or the land where the black antelope roams, or that to the East of the Sindhu and the Sauvīra, to the West of Kāmpilya, to the North of the Pāriyātra and to the South of the Himalaya, — here Brahmanic glory is complete.’

Paiṭhīnasi (ibid). — ‘From Himālaya to the Kumārī (Cape Comorin), from the Sindhu and the Vaitariṇī and to the place where the sun rises, or where the black antelope roams, — over this land alone is Dharma present in its complete form.’

Viṣṇu, 74.4. — ‘That country where there is no differentiation of the four castes should be known as the mleccha deśa; other than this is Āryāvarta.’

VERSE 2.19

Section VI - Qualified Countries

कुरुक्षेत्रं च मत्स्याश्च पञ्चालाः शूरसेनकाः ।
एष ब्रह्मर्षिदेशो वै ब्रह्मावर्तादनन्तरः ॥१९॥

kurukṣetraṃ ca matsyāśca pañcālāḥ śūrasenakāḥ |
eṣa brahmarṣideśo vai brahmāvartādanantaraḥ ||19||

Next to Brahmāvarta is the ‘Brahmarṣideśa,’ comprising the regions op Kurukṣetra, Matsyas, Pañchālas and Śukasenakas. (19).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

These are the names of the various regions.

‘Kurukṣetra’ is what is known as Samantapañcaka, the place where the Kurus were exterminated. The etymological signification of the name ‘Kurukṣetra h as been explained as meaning — ‘do good deeds here, and salvation shall come quickly,’ ‘kuru sukṛtamatra kṣiprantrāṇam bhavati.’

‘Matsyas’ and the rest are the names of countries, in the plural form.

‘Brahmarṣideśa’ is the name of the entire group. Brahmāvarta is the country ‘created by the Gods’; and since the Brahmarṣis are a little lower in degree than the Gods, this country, being related to Brahmarṣis, is slightly lower in grade than Brahmāvarta. This is what is meant by this being ‘next to Brahmāvarta,’ — i.e., slightly different from it; — the negative particle (in ‘a denoting slightly; just as when it is said that ‘the sick person should drink gruel when it is not-hot,’ it is meant that it should be drunk when it is slightly hot. The term ‘antara’ means different; as it is found in such assertions as ‘mahadantaram,’ ‘in the case of men, women and water, even a slight difference makes a great difference.’ (19)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The tract here described “comprises,” — says Buhler — “the Doab from the neighbourhood of Delhi as far as Mathura,” and Burnell refers us to a map in the Numismata Orientalia, Part I.

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra P. 17) which reads ‘Anantaram’ and explains — it as ‘slightly less important’; — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 56), which adds the following notes: — ‘Matsya, Virātdeśa, — Pāñchāla’ the Kānyakubja and adjacent countries, — Śūrasena, country about Mathura, — ‘anantaraḥ’ slightly inferior; — in the Dānamayūkha (p. 7.) and the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4), which have the same explanations as the Vīramitrodaya.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men).

VERSE 2.20

Section VI - Qualified Countries

एतद् देशप्रसूतस्य सकाशादग्रजन्मनः ।
स्वं स्वं चरित्रं शिक्षेरन् पृथिव्यां सर्वमानवाः ॥२०॥

etad deśaprasūtasya sakāśādagrajanmanaḥ |
svaṃ svaṃ caritraṃ śikṣeran pṛthivyāṃ sarvamānavāḥ ||20||

All men on the earth may learn their respective duties from the Brāhmaṇa born in these countries. (20)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From the ‘agrajanma,’ i.e., the Brāhamṇa — ‘born in these countries’ — Kurukṣetra and the the rest — all men ‘may learn’ — seek to know — ‘their respective duties’ — proper conduct. This has been already explained under Verse 18. — (20)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya, Paribhāṣā (p. 56) which says that this is meant only to eulogise the particular country.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men).

VERSE 2.21

Section VI - Qualified Countries

हिमवद्विन्ध्ययोर्मध्यं यत् प्राग् विनशनादपि ।
प्रत्यगेव प्रयागाच्च मध्यदेशः प्रकीर्तितः ॥२१॥

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры