with the Commentary of Medhatithi 24 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 30 из 350Следующая ⇒

himavadvindhyayormadhyaṃ yat prāg vinaśanādapi |
pratyageva prayāgācca madhyadeśaḥ prakīrtitaḥ ||21||

The country lying between the Himālaya and the Vindhya, to the east of Vinaśana and to the west of Prayāga, is called the ‘Madhyadeśa,’ the ‘Middle Country.’ (21)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

On the north lies the Himālaya and on the south the Vindhya. ‘Vinaśana’ is the name of the place where the Sarasvatī river has disappeared. — (20)

‘Prayāga’ — is the confluence of the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā.

The region having these four as its boundaries is to be known by the name ‘Madhya-deśa.’ It is called ‘madhya’ or ‘middle,’ because it is neither very superior nor very inferior, — and not because it is located the centre of the Earth. — (21)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vināśana’ — This is the name given to the place where the river Sarasvatī becomes lost in the sands. Buhler says it lies in the district of Hissar, in the Punjab.

Buhler curiously translates ‘pratyak’ by ‘east,’ while it means west.

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (p. 18), which explains ‘vinaśana’ as the place where the Sarasvatī has disappeared; — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣa, p. 56) which locates ‘Vinaśana’ in the Kurukṣetra, — in the Dānamayūkha, (p. 7), — and the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

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

VERSE 2.22

Section VI - Qualified Countries

आ समुद्रात् तु वै पूर्वादा समुद्राच्च पश्चिमात् ।
तयोरेवान्तरं गिर्योरार्यावर्तं विदुर्बुधाः ॥२२॥

ā samudrāt tu vai pūrvādā samudrācca paścimāt |
tayorevāntaraṃ giryorāryāvartaṃ vidurbudhāḥ ||22||

The country extending as far as the Eastern Ocean and as far as the Western Ocean, and lying between the same two mountains, — the learned know as ‘Āryāvarta.’ (22).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The country that lies between the two limits of the Eastern and Western Oceans, — and between the two mountains spoken of in the preceding verse, — i.e., the Himālaya and the Vindhya, — is described as ‘Āryāvarta,’ ‘by the learned,’ — i.e., by cultured people. It is called ‘Āryāvarta’ in the sense that the Āryas line there (‘Āryāḥ vartante tatra’); i.e., it is they that are born there again and again, and the Barbarians, even though attacking it repeatedly, do not remain there.

The particle ‘āṅ’ (in ‘āsamudrāt’) indicates the outer not the inner boundary, and it does not indicate inclusion. Hence the islands in the oceans do not come under ‘Āryāvarta.’

What are mentioned here are the four boundaries of the country: the Eastern Ocean on the east, the Western Ocean on the west, the Hiṁālaya on the north and the Vindhya on the south.

In as much as these two mountains have been mentioned as ‘boundaries,’ they are not included under ‘Āryāvarta’; from this people might be led to conclude that one should not inhabit these mountains. And with a view to (avoiding) this possibility, the Author adds the next verse. — (22)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 18); — in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4), which explains ‘Tayoḥ’ as standing for the Himāvat and the Vindhya; — and in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 56).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

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

VERSE 2.23

Section VI - Qualified Countries

कृष्णसारस्तु चरति मृगो यत्र स्वभावतः ।
स ज्ञेयो यज्ञियो देशो म्लेच्छदेशस्त्वतः परः ॥२३॥

kṛṣṇasārastu carati mṛgo yatra svabhāvataḥ |
sa jñeyo yajñiyo deśo mlecchadeśastvataḥ paraḥ ||23||

But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land op the Mlecchas.’ (23)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Where the deer known as ‘Kṛṣṇasāra’ — that which is either black with white spots, or black with yellow spots — ‘roams,’ — lives — i.e., is found, born, — ‘by nature,’ — i.e., not that where it resides for a time only, having been imported as a present of rare value, and so forth; — ‘that country is to be known’ — regarded — ‘as yajñīya’ — ‘fit for sacrificial acts.’

‘Beyond that’ — i.e., the region other than the one where the Kṛṣṇasāra is indigenous — ‘is the land of the Mlecchas.’ The Mlecchas are the people who are known as lying beyond the pale of the four castes, — not included even among the Pratiloma castes; such as the Medas, the Andhras, the Śabaras and the Pulindas.

It is not meant that the sacrifices are to be performed on the very spot where the deer roams, — in the way in which they are performed ‘on level ground,’ according to the injunction that ‘one should perform sacrifices on level ground’; as we h ave ‘rooms’ in the present tense, and certainly one could not perform a sacrifice on the very spot, and at the very time, at which the deer may have started to roam. Further, a certain place is the ‘locus’ of the sacrifice only in the sense that it holds a all those things that are operative towards its performance, either as instruments or agents and the like, and certainly two material substances (i.e., the Roaming Deer and the Sacrificial Accessories) could never occupy the same spot. Nor can the condition mentioned (the roaming of the deer) be taken as indirectly indicating some, other time (than the one at which the roaming is being done); as no such indirect indication is admissible in the case of Injunctions; as has been shown under the Adhikaraṇa dealing with the ‘winnowing basket’ (Mīmāmsā-Sūtra, 1.2.26 el. Seq.), by Śabara (on 1.2.26), who says — ‘what is meant by is done is that it is capable of being done’ [and the present time is not what is meant to be emphasised].

“As a matter of fact, when one thing is spoken of as located (contained) in another, it does not mean that it occupies the whole of it; so that it is not necessary for the Locus to be occupied in its entirety, as it is in the case of the oil contained in the seasamum-seed. In fact, even when only a portion of one tiling is occupied by another, the whole of the former becomes its locus or container; e.g. when a man is spoken of as ‘sitting in the house,’ or ‘occupying the chariot.’ So that in the case in question what is described here is the entire country, consisting of villages and towns, and bounded by hills and rivers; and when the deer roams even in some part of it, the whole country becomes its locus. Hence there is no force in the argument that ‘two material substances cannot occupy the same spot.’”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — In the present instance there is no direct injunction, such as ‘one should perform sacrifices here (in this country)’; as the injunctive affix is found added to the root ‘to know’ (in the word ‘jñeyaḥ’), and not to the root ‘to sacrifice.’ All that is meant is that the country spoken of is ‘fit for sacrifices’; the meaning being that ‘this country is fit for sacrificial performances’; and this ‘fitness for sacrifices’ is possible even without a direct injunction (of the actual performance). The fact of the matter is that it is only in the countries mentioned that the several sacrificial accessories, in the shape of the kuśa -grass, the Palāśa, the Khadira and other trees, are mostly found; and sacrificial performers also, in the shape of persons belonging to the three higher castes and learned in the three Vedas, are found only in these countries; and it is on the basis of these facts that the countries have been described as ‘fit for sacrifices.’ The verb ‘jñeyah’ ending in the verbal affix (‘yat’) also has the sense of the injunctive only imposed upon it, and in reality it is only an Arthavāda resembling an injunction; just like the passage ‘jartilayavāgvā vā juhuyāt,’ (‘one should offer either the wild seasamum or the wild wheat’) [which, even though cotaining the injunctive word ‘juhuyāt,’ has been regarded as an Arthavāda resembling an injunction],

When again it is said that ‘beyond this is the land the mlecchas,’ this also is purely descriptive of the usual state of things; the sense being that in these other lands it is mostly mlecchas that are born; it does not mean that people inhabiting them are all (on that account) ‘mlecchas’; because what is a ‘mleccha’ is well known, just like the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and other well known castes. In fact, the name ‘mlecchadeśa’ is to be taken literally, in the sense that it is ‘the country of mlecchas’; so that if mlecchas happen to conquer a part of Āryāvarta itself and take their habitation there, that also would become ‘mlecchadeśa.’ Similarly if a certain well-behaved king of the Kṣatriya-caste should happen to defeat the mlecchas and make that land inhabited by people of the four castes, relegating the indigenous, mlecchas to the category of ‘Chāṇḍāla,’ as they are in Āryāvarta, then that which was a ‘country of the mlecchas’ would become a ‘land fit for sacrifices.’ And this for the simple reason that no laud is by itself defective; it is only by association that it becomes defective, just as it is when soiled by impure things. Hence, even apart from the countries designated here as ‘fit for sacrifices,’ if, in a certain place, all the necessary conditions are available, one should perform his sacrifices, even though it be a place where the spotted deer does not roam.

From all this it follows that the statement — ‘this should, be known as the country fit for sacrifices, and beyond is the land of the mlecchas’ is purely descriptive, being meant to be supplementary to the injunction that follows in the next verse. — (23).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kṛṣṇaṣāraḥ — Burnell — “What animal is intended it is impossible to say. In Southern India, a pretty little, but rare, gazelle is taken for it. It does not however answer to the name so far as its colour (light brown) goes.”

From the explanation given by Medhātithi the deer meant is that which is ‘black with white spots’, or ‘black with yellow spots’; and there is no doubt that the animal meant is that which is black in the upper, and white (or yellow) in the lower parts of its body.

Medhātithi (p. 76, 1. 26) — ‘Śūrpādhikaraṇe’ — in Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1-2-26; and the next sentence ‘etaddhi kriyate ityucyate’ is from Śabara on that Sūtra, — the whole sentence being — ‘etat (i. e. shakyate kartumiti) hi kriyate ityucyate, na ca vartamānakālaḥ kaschidasti yasyāyam pratinirdeṣhaḥ.’

‘Mleccadeśastvataḥparaḥ’ — Note the liberalised interpretation of this provided by Medhātithi. Burnell curiously enough regards this to be an ‘order to dwell in this land’. There is no ‘order’ to dwell in the Mleccadeśa. The countries to be inhabited having been defined and all beyond these being designated as ‘Mlechadeśa’, the term ‘these countries’ of verse 24 refers, as Medhātithi clearly points out, to Brahmāvarta, Madhyadeśa, Brahmarṣideśa and Yajñīyadeśa; and the order to dwell contained in verse 24 also refers to those, and not to the ‘Mlecchadeśa’, which is ‘beyond these.’

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 18), which adds that the country described as ‘fit for sacrificial performances’ is meant to be so used only when the aforesaid four countries are not available; — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā,p. 56), which explains ‘Yājñiyaḥ’ as ‘fit for sacrificial performances’, and ‘Mlecca’ as ‘unfit for sacrificial performances’; — and in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

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

VERSE 2.24

Section VI - Qualified Countries

एतान्द्विजातयो देशान् संश्रयेरन् प्रयत्नतः ।
शूद्रस्तु यस्मिन् कस्मिन् वा निवसेद् वृत्तिकर्शितः ॥२४॥

etāndvijātayo deśān saṃśrayeran prayatnataḥ |
śūdrastu yasmin kasmin vā nivased vṛttikarśitaḥ ||24||

The twice-born people should seek to resort to these countries; the Śūdra may however, when distressed for a living, reside in any land. — (24).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author now proceeds to state that injunction for the sake whereof the names of several countries have been set forth.

‘The twice-born people.’ even though they be born in another country, should ‘resort these countries’ i.e. to Brahmāvarta, etc. Abandoning the country of their birth, they should make every effort to reside in Brahmāvarta and the other countries just described.

In connection with this some people hold that the injunction of residing in these countries is with a view to unseen (spiritual) results; the sense being that even though certain results might accrue to one in other countries also, yet people should reside in these countries; and when we come to look for the reward of such residence, — we may conclude, either (a) that the residence in the said countries is enjoined as purificatory, just like bathing in the Gaṅgā and other sacred places, — the idea being that just as the water of one place is more sacred than that of another, so also it is only some regions that are sacred, as has been described in the Purāṇas; or (b) that from the mere residence itself the man goes to Heaven, this assumption being on the analogy of the Viśvajit sacrifice.

Neither of these two views is admissible. If the present verse had laid down such residence as would not be possible (without this injunction), then there might be some justification for assuming a reward, and for considering which of the two alternatives mentioned (in the previous paragraph) is the more reasonable. As a matter of fact however, the possibility of the residence in question is already secured by the fact that it is only in the said countries that the performance of the compulsory and optional rites is possible; in fact, apart from the said countries, there is no possibility of the performance of Dharma in its entirity. For instance, in the snowy regions of Kāśmīra and such places, people suffer so much from cold that they are unable to attend to their evening prayers outside their house; nor (for the same reason) is it possible to read the Veda in the proper manner, going out either to the east or to the north of the village; nor lastly, is it possible to bathe in the river every day during the winter.

-----------------

The implication of the expression ‘twice-born people’ is that no country can be ‘the land of mlecchas’ except when it is inhabited by mlechhas. For otherwise any man entering that country would at once become a ‘mleccha’; and as such how could he be a ‘twice born’ person? It might be argued that — “by merely entering that country one does not become a mleccha, he becomes so only by residing there, and it is this residence that is prohibited here.” — But this can not bo accepted; because what is mentioned here is ‘resorting,’ which connotes the idea of the man being born in one country and then leaving it and going to another country; and there can be no ‘resorting’ to a place which is already inhabited. If this were not meant, then the Author would have simply said that ‘one should never reside in any other country after renouncing these.’ It might be argued that “the ‘resorting’ being already accomplished, the re-iteration of it serves the purpose of precluding others.” — But in that case this would become a ‘Parisankhyā’ a ‘Preclusive Injunction and such injunctions are beset with three defects.

It might be argued that “it is the abandoning (of the countries) that is indirectly indicated, the sense being that one should never abandon these countries.”

But so long as the direct meaning of a text is admissible, there can bo no justification for admitting an indirect indication. For this reason what has been said above cannot be accepted. From all this it follows that what the words imply is that men do not become ‘mlecchas’ by merely coming into contact with a certain country, it is the country that becomes ‘the land of mlecchas’ through the contact of men (mlecchas).

In as much as service of the twice-born people constitutes the prescribed duty of the śūdra, it follows as a matter of course that the latter should reside where the former reside; but if he fails to obtain a living in that country, then he may go. and live in another country; this is what is permitted (in the latter part of the verse). When the man comes to have a large family, or becomes unfit for service, — even though the twice-born person on whom he is dependent may be prepared to support him, — the śūdra may go and live in another country, where there may be a chance for him to acquire wealth. But even so he should never live in a country where mlecchas form the majority of inhabitants; he should betake himself to a land fit for sacrifices; because if he lived in a country abounding in mlecchas it would be impossible for him to avoid their contact, in the course of moving, sitting, eating and so fourth; so that there would be the fear of his becoming a mleccha.

‘Distressed for a living,’ — i.e., suffering from want of a living. ‘Living’ means wealth sníficient for the maintaining of one’s family. In the absence of such ‘living,’ there is a curtain amount of ‘distress;’ and this distress which is caused by the want of living is spoken of as caused by the ‘living’ itself; just as good harvest being the effect of rain, famine is caused by want of rain, but is spoken of as ‘caused by rain.’

‘In any country’ implies want of restriction.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Aparārka (p. 6) as permitting the Śūdra to reside, for the sake of livelihood, in ‘Mleccā’ countries also; — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 56), which explains ‘vṛtti’ as ‘livelihood ‘karṣitaḥ’ as ‘in difficulty’, and the compound ‘vṛttikarṣitaḥ’ as ‘one who is in difficulties regarding livelihood — and in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana, 1-30. — ‘Āraṭṭa, Kāraskara, Puṇḍraka, Sauvīra, Baṅga, Kaliṅga, Prāsūna, — if one goes to those countries, he should perform the expiatory rite of either Punaḥstoma or Sarvapṛṣṭhā.

Baudhāyana. — ‘Anantaka (Dvārakā), Aṅga, Magadha, Surāṣṭra, Dakṣiṇāpatha Upāvṛt, Sindhu, Sauvīra, these countries are of mixed origin.’

Ādipurāṇa (Vīra-Pari., p. 59). — ‘A person horn in Āryāvarta either twice-born or not, should never cross the Karmāda (Karmanāśā), the Sindhu or the Karatoyā. The twice-born person should never go beyond Āryāvarta except on pilgrimage, or in obedience to the order of his parents.’ In Magadha, the sacred places of pilgrimage are Gaya, the river Poonpoon; the Hermitage of Chyavana and the forest of Rājagṛha.’

Vāyu-purāṇa (Ibid). — ‘Kāñchī, Kośala, Saurāṣṭra, Karṇāṭa, Kacheha, Kāverī, Kolvaṇa (land near the Tryambaka Hill, near Nāsik), — these tracts are not commended. That tract of land over which the five rivers (Śatadru, Vipāśā, Airāvaiī, Chandrabhāgā and Vitastā) flow is called Āraṭṭa; the Ārya should not permanently dwell in this country. One who crosses the Narmadā, the Sindhu aud the Kosi, or goes to the West of Puṣkara, and lives there beyond the time of pilgrimage, goes to hell. — Aṅga, Baṅga, Kaliṅga, Andhra, Madra, Mālavika, tract to the South of the Narmadā or to the North of the Sindhu, Pauṇḍra, Surāṣṭra, Vaindhya, Māgadhaka, Khaśa, — these are all sinful tracts.’

Vāyu-purāṇa (Ibid). — ‘The country bounded on the South by the Mahānadī, and on the North by Magadha is the country of Triśaṅku, with an area of 48 square miles; this country should be avoided.’

Vāyu-purāṇa (Ibid, p. 57). — ‘Wise men should take shelter in that country where there is prosperity due to the black antelope, barley, grass, the four castes and the four life-stages.’

Skanda-purāṇa (Vira-Pari., p. GO). — ‘Aṅga, Baṅga, Kaliṅga, Parvata, Khaśa, Sindhu, Sauvīra, Saurāṣṭra, Pārada, Andhra, Mālava, — these the twice-born should avoid. But when pressed for livelihood, the Householder may betake himself to these countries.’

Bhaviṣya purāṇa (Do., p. 55). — Brahmāvarta is the best country; less than that is the Ṛṣideśa; less than this latter is the Madhyadeśa; next to that comes the Āryāvarta.’

Chāndogya Upaniṣad (quoted in Vīra-Paribhāṣā, p. 60). — ‘One shall not approach the Caṇḍāla, nor the inferior country.’

Pitāmaha (Do., p. 60). — ‘One may reside even in the kingdom of the Śūdra, if the Gaṅgā flows through it: even though that country may he inhabited by uncultured people, yet it is a sacred land.

Vyāsa (Do., p. 61). — ‘Those places, those countries, those mountains and those hermitages are sacred through which the best of rivers, the Gaṅgā, flows.’

Viṣṇudharmottara (Do.). — ‘The righteous man should reside at Prabhāsa, at Puṣkara, at Kāśī, at Naimiṣa, at Amarakaṇṭaka, on the Gaṅgā or on the Sarayū.’

VERSE 2.25 [Summing up]

Section VII - Summing up

एषा धर्मस्य वो योनिः समासेन प्रकीर्तिता ।
सम्भवश्चास्य सर्वस्य वर्णधर्मान्निबोधत ॥२५॥

eṣā dharmasya vo yoniḥ samāsena prakīrtitā |
sambhavaścāsya sarvasya varṇadharmānnibodhata ||25||

Thus has the source of Dharma been briefly explained to you, as also the origin of all this (world). Learn now the duties of the several castes. — (25).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Here we have the recapitulation of all that has gone before, — and this for the purpose of refreshing the memory.

‘Yoniḥ’ — ‘source,’ cause.

‘Samāśena’ — ‘briefly,’ in brief.

‘Sambhavaśca’ — ‘also the origin’ — this refers to what has gone in Discourse I.

‘Of all this’ — this refers to the ‘creation of the world,’ which is recalled in the form of a mental picture, and thus brought before the eye (which makes it capable of being referred to by the pronoun ‘this’).

‘The duties of the several castes’ — The duties that should he performed by the various castes.

‘Learn’ — i.e. in detail.

In this connection, the author of the Smṛtivivaraṇa describes five kinds of Dharma or Duty: —

‘Varṇa-dharma,’ ‘duties pertaining to caste;’

‘Āśrama-dharma,’ ‘Duties pertaining to Life-stages,’

‘Varṇāśrama-dharma,’ ‘duties pertaining to caste and life-stage’;

‘Naimittika-Dharma,’ ‘Occasional Duties,’

and ‘Guṇa-Dharma’ ‘Duties pertaining to qualification.’ —

(1) Of these, that which proceeds entirely on the basis of caste, and takes no account of age, life-stage or any such circumstances, is called ‘duty pertaining to castes;’ e.g., what is laid down in such rules as — ‘the Brāhmaṇa should not be killed,’ ‘wine shall not be drank by the Brāhmaṇa’ — refers to a particular caste only, and is meant to apply to every person of that caste till his very last breath.

(2) ‘Duty pertaining to life-stage’ is that which does not depend upon caste only, but takes account of a particular life-stage also; e.g., ‘Fire-kindling and alms-begging are the duties of the Vedic student’ (Gautama 2.8).

(3) ‘Duty pertaining to caste and life-stage’ is that which is related to both; e g., when it is prescribed that ‘the bow-string made of grass is the girdle for the Kṣatriya student,’ it means that what is mentioned does not apply to any other life-stage (than that of the student), nor to any other caste (except the Kṣatriya); — what is meant to he the example here is the wearing of the girdle during student-life, not the first taking of it, which forms part of the Upanayana-rites, and does not pertaiṇ to the particular life-stage; and the Upanayana itself is what ushers in a particular life-stage, and it is not a ‘duty pertaining to the life-stage.’

(4) The ‘Occasional Duty’ consists of such acts as the purifying of things and so forth.

(5) ‘Duty pertaining to qualifications’ is that which is presented in connection with special qualifications; e.g., what is laid down in such rules as ‘he should be absolved from six’ is with reference to the qualification of ‘vast learning;’ to this same category belong also all those duties that are laid down for the ‘annointed’ Kṣatriya.

All these are meant to be included under the ‘of the castes’ (mentioned in the text); and hence the text mentions those only; and it does not make mention of the sub-divisions, because in the first place there are endless subdivisions, and secondly, (if the text went about mentioning all possible kinds of duties) it would have to mention those many duties also which are laid down for men in general, without reference to any particular caste. Similarly with other varieties of ‘Duty.’ In fact the ‘Duties pertaining to castes’ have been mentioned only as an indication; it does not mean that the duties of the mixed castes are excluded from consideration; because this latter has also been promised (in 1.2) as the subject to lie expounded; and the present statement is only meant to be the reiteration of that promise. — (25)

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США