with the Commentary of Medhatithi 33 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 39 из 350Следующая ⇒

Gobhila (Parāśaramādhava, p. 377). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa may sit facing the East, or the West; in connection with rites in honour of Pitṛs, even the North; but the South he must avoid.’

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 395). — ‘One shall eat with wet feet, facing the East, with his two feet or even one touching the ground.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 309). — ‘One should eat seated, facing the east, with speech in check, not decrying the food, nor scattering it, with mind concentrated on it: and having eaten he shall sip water.’

VERSE 2.53

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

उपस्पृश्य द्विजो नित्यमन्नमद्यात् समाहितः ।
भुक्त्वा चौपस्पृशेत् सम्यगद्भिः खानि च संस्पृशेत् ॥५३॥

upaspṛśya dvijo nityamannamadyāt samāhitaḥ |
bhuktvā caupaspṛśet samyagadbhiḥ khāni ca saṃspṛśet ||53||

The twice-b orn person should always take his food after having sipped water and with due care; and after having eaten, he should rinse his mouth in the proper manner and touch the cavities with water. — (53).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The terms ‘ācamana’ and ‘spṛśa’ are both synonymous, being found from the usage of cultured people, to signify a particular purificatory act. Though it is true that the root ‘spraha’ has been declared to have an entirely different meaning, and the root ‘chamu’ (from which the word ‘ācamana’ is derived) also has been declared to signify the act of eating, — yet in actual usage we find that with the particular prefixes (upa and a) they are used in a much restricted sense and hence they are taken in that (restricted) sense. So that even though the root ‘spṛśa’ has a very wide denotation, yet actual usage limits its significance. Just as though the root ‘gaḍi’ denotes only part of the face in general, the term ‘gaṇḍa’ (derived from that root) is used in the sense of tho cheek only, and it is not applied to any other part of the face; similarly the root ‘puṣya’ means to accomplish, and the term ‘puṣya’ is laid down as denoting ‘lunar, asterism’ in general, yet in actual usage this latter name is applied to one particular asterism only; similarly again the term ‘dhāyyā,’ though laid down as denoting Sāmidhenī verses in general, is actually used in the sense of the Āvāpikī verses only. Hence the term ‘upaspṛśya’ means exactly what is meant by the term ‘ācamya’; the actual injunction of this act of ‘ācamana’ will come later on. Further, the text itself uses the two terms as synonymous. Having laid down that ‘one should always do the shana,’ it goes on to say that ‘this ācamana’ should be done three times; from which it is clear that the two are synonymous.

Though the ‘rinsing of the mouth’ has been already laid down in verse 51, it is re-iterated again in order to show immediate sequence: the sense being that one should take his food immediately after rinsing the mouth, and no other act should be allowed to intervene. To this end we have the following declaration of the revered Vyāsa — ‘Oh Lord, I shall remain with such people as take their food with five limbs wet’ — this being said by Lakṣmī; the ‘five limbs’ being the two hands, two feet, and month; and these five limbs can remain wet only if one cats immediately after the rinsing, and not if he makes any delay. Manu himself (in 4. 76) is going to declare under the duties of the Snātaka that ‘one should eat with the feet still wet’; and there we shall show that there is no needless repetition involved in this.

‘Always’ — this is added in order to guard against the notion that being laid down in the section dealing with the duties of the Student, what is here prescribed applies to him alone; and to show directly that it is applicable to every form of eating.

Some people have held that “the term ‘twice-born’ is what is meant to make the rule applicable to every form of eating, and that the ‘always’ is merely an explanatory reiteration.”

This however is not right. This would have been the right explanation if the qualification ‘twice-bom’ were incompatible with the ‘student’; as a matter of fact however, the said qualification is quite applicable to the ‘student’; hence with the exception of the adverb ‘always’ there is nothing to indicate that what is here laid down is to be taken as going beyond the particular context.

‘With due care’ — That is, with due consideration of the character of the food and his own (digestive) powers. If one happens to be absent-minded, he cannot avoid indigestible, unwholesome and hot food, nor can he eat only what is wholesome.

‘After having eaten, he should rinse his mouth.’ — That one should remove all traces of oil, etc., has been already prescribed under the section on the ‘purification of substances.’ The ‘rinsing’ here laid down is that which one should do after he has eaten and removed all traces of oil, etc.

In this connection some people have held that one ‘rinsing’ (after food) having been already laid down under 5. 145 — where it is said that ‘one should rinse his mouth after sleep, sneezing and eating,’ — the present verse must be taken as laying down a second ‘rinsing,’ for the purposes of some transcendental result; there being such a general injunction as ‘having rinsed the mouth, one should rinse it again.’

This aspect of the question wo shall deal with under Discourse V.

In the proper manner. — This only re-iterates the injunctive and obligatory character of the ‘rinsing’; the meaning being that ‘one should follow all the details of the Binning that have been enjoined.’

‘Should touch with water the cavities.’ — ‘Cavities,’ i.e., holes in the head.

Objection. — “It is already laid down (under 60, below) that the cavities should be touched with water.”

To this some people reply that the repetition in the present verse is meant to exclude the ‘self’ and ‘head’ (which also are mentioned along with the ‘cavities’ in 60), — and refers to that rinsing which one already clean, does, without reference to Eating. So that according to those who take the first ‘rinsing’ after food as meant for cleanliness and a second ‘rinsing’ as lending to some transcendental result, — the ‘self’ and the ‘head’ are not ‘touched with water’ for the purpose of bringing about a transcendental result; this being done for cleanliness alone. The actual process of this rinsing is going to he laid down in 61. — ‘One desirous of cleanliness should always rinse his mouth, etc., etc..’

Another answer to the aforesaid objection is that what the present verse does is to emphasise the fact of the being recognised as something enjoined by the scriptures; the sense being that this Rinsing is the scriptural (prescribed in the Śāstras), not the ordinary, rinsing. As a matter of fact, where a certain primary act has become known as equipped with particular accessories, wherever that same act is subsequently spoken of, it is at once recognised as being the same as the former one. So that when the text says ‘should rinse his mouth,’ it does not mean merely that a certain substance (water) should be sipped; what is meant is to indicate all that has been prescribed in connection with the scriptural purification, along with its appurtenent details. — (53)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Nityam’ — This, according to Govindarāja, Kullūka Nārāyaṇa and Nandana indicates that the rule refers to householders also. The first half of this verse has been quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 327).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 6 7.34-35. — ‘One should cat without wetted feet or without wetted hands and mouth.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtṛa, 2.48. — ‘While eating, he should keep silent, contented, not greedy; and he should keep water near him; he should touch with water the holes in his head.’

Baudhāyana-Dhaṛmasūtra, 5.1.21 — ‘Touching the holes with water, as also the feet, the head and the left hand.’

Āpastamba-Dhaṛmasūtra, 1.5.2. — ‘When going to eat, he should carefully sip water twice, he should wash twice and should sprinkle water once.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 309). — (See above.) Gadya-Vyāsa (Do., p. 378). — ‘Being satisfied, he shall sip water with the mantra amṛtāpidhānamasi, and moving a little from that place, he shall rinse his mouth in due form.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘Having eaten, he shall wash in due form, cleansing his mouth and hands by rubbing with clay.’

Gautama (Do.). — ‘At the time of rinsing the mouth, if one rubs it with the forefinger, the foolish man falls into the Raurava hell.’

Vyāsa (Do.). ‘Having washed his hand, if the foolish man drinks the water taken for rinsing, he degrades the gods, his Pitṛs and himself. One shall not wash in the vessel in which he has eaten. If he rises from his seat before, washing, he should bathe at once.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 379). — ‘He shall sip water with the mantra amṛtāpidhānamasi; having sipped water, he shall wash again, with the mantra Āyaṅgauḥ, etc

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 61). — ‘Having eaten, he shall wash himself, without any mantra.’

VERSE 2.54

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

पूजयेदशनं नित्यमद्याच्चैतदकुत्सयन् ।
दृष्ट्वा हृष्येत् प्रसीदेच्च प्रतिनन्देच्च सर्वशः ॥५४॥

pūjayedaśanaṃ nityamadyāccaitadakutsayan |
dṛṣṭvā hṛṣyet prasīdecca pratinandecca sarvaśaḥ ||54||

He should always worship the food and eat it without disparaging it. When he sees it, he should rejoice and peel gratified, and he should always welcome it. — (54)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Food,’ ‘aśana,’ is that which in eaten (aśyate), i.e., rice and curry, etc. When the food is brought to him, he should look upon it as a ‘deity’; i.e., he should have the notion — ‘this food is my highest deity.’ (a) The ‘worshipping’ of the food may consist in regarding it as the source of the birth and sustenance of all living beings; or (b) in regarding it as the means of sustaining his life; as the food is declared to have said — ‘he worships me regarding me as sustaining life’; or (c) in receiving it with due obeisance, etc.

‘He should eat it without disparaging it’; — even when there is any such source of disparagement as that the article of food is of bad quality, or it is badly cooked, he should not disparage the food; i.e., he should not make any such disparaging remarks as — ‘this is most disagreeable,’ or ‘it is likely to upset the constitution of the body,’ and so forth. If the food happens to be really defective, he should simply not eat it; he should not eat it and yet find fault with it.

‘When he sees it he should rejoice’ — he should rejoice just as he does when, on returning from a long journey, he sees his wife and children.

‘He should feel gratified’; — on seeing the food, he should remove from his mind even such displeasure as may have been produced by other causes.

‘He should welcome it’; — ‘welcoming’ consists in acclaiming it as a boon; i.e., receiving it with honour, with such words as ‘may we have such food every day.’

‘Always,’ — at all times. The affix ‘shas’ has the sense of the locative, according to the option involved in Pāṇini’s Sūtra 5. 4. 42. Or, wo may read ‘sarvadā’ (instead of ‘sarvaśaḥ’). — (54)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Pūjayet — ‘worship’ (Govindarāja and Nandana.); — Medhātithi offers three explanations as to what is meant by the ‘worshipping’ of the food; — Nārāyaṇa takes it to mean that the mantra (Ṛgveda, 1. 187.1) should be addressed to it Kullūka explains it as ‘meditate upon it as sustaining life’.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 486), which explains the pūjā as standing for saṃskāra, due preparation.

It is quoted again in the Āhnika section of the same work (p. 382), where, on the strength of a statement attributed to Śātātapa, it is said that in the case of food, ‘worship’ can only mean being regarded as a deity.

The verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 433); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 114), which explains ‘akutsayan’ as ‘not decrying.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 54-55)

Yājñavalkya, 1. 31, — ‘He should eat the food, paying due regard to it, not disparaging it.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 7.2.6. — ‘Seated — he should eat the food, intent upon it, without disparaging the food, — not dropping it on the ground; and after earing, he should touch Fire.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 67.42-43. — ‘Worshipping the food, with contented mind, wearing a garland and smeared with sandal-paste.’

Baudhāyana Dhaṛmasūtra, 2.3.17. — ‘[Says the Food] — He who eats me, without having made offerings to Pitṛs, Gods, dependents, guests, and to friends, eats, through foolishness, poison; and him I devour; for him I am death. He who eats me after having made the Agnihotra-ofFerings and the Vaiśvadeva-offerings and after having honoured the guests and fed his dependents, — content, clean and reverential, — for him I am nectar; he alone eats me.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 7.59. — ‘He should eat the food, morning and evening, after worshipping it, never disparaging it.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 369). — (See under 52.)

Vṛddha-Manu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 375). — ‘One should always welcome the food while eating it, with speech in check, not decrying the food.’

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 375). — ‘Silent or not silent, he shall be happy while eating.’

VERSE 2.55

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

पूजितं ह्यशनं नित्यं बलमूर्जं च यच्छति ।
अपूजितं तु तद् भुक्तमुभयं नाशयेदिदम् ॥५५॥

pūjitaṃ hyaśanaṃ nityaṃ balamūrjaṃ ca yacchati |
apūjitaṃ tu tad bhuktamubhayaṃ nāśayedidam ||55||

The food, thus worshipped always, imparts strength and vigour. If eaten irreverently, it destroys them both. — (55)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is only a valedictory supplement to the rule prescribed above; it is not meant to be the statement of definite results following from the observance of that rule. If it were a statement of results, the rule would be an optional one, to be observed only by one who desires vigour and strength; and in that case the adverb ‘always’ would have no sense; — as we have in the expression, ‘the food thus worshipped always, etc.’ For these reasons the rule must be regarded as one to be observed throughout life, just like the rule regarding facing of the east (during meal).

‘If eaten irreverently, it destroys them both,’ — i.e., vigour and strength.

‘Strength' is power, the capacity to lift heavy loads without effort; while ‘vigour’stands for energy and courage, which is found even in a man who is lean (and physically weak): while great strength is found only when the limbs of the body are well-developed and the body has attained huge proportions. — (55)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ūrjam’. — Buhler wrongly attributes to Medhātithi the explanation that this term means ‘bulk’. The term used by him is ‘mahāprāṇatā’ which means the same as ‘vīrya’ of Kullūka or ‘energy’ of Nārāyaṇa. Buhler has apparently been misled by a mis-reading of Medhātithi.

This verse has been quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 486) where ‘pūjitam’ has been explained as, ‘samskṛtam’, well prepared; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 114).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 54-55)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.54.

VERSE 2.56

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

नौच्छिष्टं कस्य चिद् दद्यान्नाद्यादेतत् तथाऽन्तरा ।
न चैवात्यशनं कुर्यान्न चौच्छिष्टः क्व चिद् व्रजेत् ॥५६॥

naucchiṣṭaṃ kasya cid dadyānnādyādetat tathā'ntarā |
na caivātyaśanaṃ kuryānna caucchiṣṭaḥ kva cid vrajet ||56||

He should not give the leavings to anyone; he should not eat in between; he should not do over-rating; and he should not go any-where with particles of food still on him. — (56)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The food left in the dish, and become unclean by being touched with the mouth, is called, ‘leavings;’ — this he should not give to anyone. The prohibition of the offering of the leavings to any person being already contained in this verse, the necessity of having another prohibition of the offering of the leavings to a Śūdra, — which we find among the duties of the Snātakā — we shall explain in connection with the latter verse.

[In ‘Kasyachit’ ] though the dative would he the proper form, we have the genitive in the sense of ‘relationship in general,’ and what is meant is that it should not he given even to such living beings as do not understand that a certain thing has been given to them, — such for instance, as dogs and cats; in this latter case the act cannot he called ‘giving’ in its full sense; as it involves merely the cessation of the proprietary right of the giver, it does not involve the producing of the proprietary right in the recipient [that is why the Dative could not he rightly used: which could imply both giving and receiving ].

The phrase ‘antarā’ ‘in between,’ means middle. There are two times for meals — morning and evening; and one should not eat between these meals. Or, ‘in between’ may mean interruption; in which case the meaning is that ‘having once left off the act of eating, and having interrupted it by some other act, he should not eat the food left in the same dish.’ Another Smṛti lays down the specific rule that ‘one should avoid eating interrupted by rising and washing.’ Others again have explained the phrase ‘antarā,’ as meaning disconnection. The Śruti having declared that ‘holding the dish with the left hand, ono should take up the morsel with the right hand and then offer it to the Life-breath in the mouth,’ — it is the omitting of the act of holding the dish with the left hand which is meant by the terms ‘antarā.’

‘Be should not do over-eating’; — one should not eat too much. This is with a view to health, and hence implies the avoidance of such food as may he either indigestible or unsuitable. Specially because the advice is based upon reason. What is ‘over-eating’ can he learnt from the Āyurveda. The sense is that one should eat only that quantity of food which does not quite fill the stomach, and which is properly digested. Of the three parts into which the stomach is divided, one part itself should bo filled with food, half a part with water, and one part should be left for the action of the bodily humours. If this is not done, health suffers.

‘He should not go anywhere teiṭh particles of food still on him’; — on the very spot where he has oaten, he should clean himself by removing all particles of food from the body and then wash his hands and mouth without rising from the place. — (50)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The second half of this verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 458); in Aparārka (p. 61) in support of the view that by avoiding over-eating one acquires health; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 115).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 56-57)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1. 3. 36-10. — ‘After eating, he should himself wash the dish; he should not have any leavings; what he does not eat he should bury in the ground; or throw into water.’

Āpastamba, 1. 11- 31. 22. — ‘He should not offer the leavings to a non-Brāhmaṇa.’

Āpastamba, 2.1.2-3. — ‘He should eat twice; never satiating himself with food.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 61). — ‘For the ascetic the meal should consist of eight morsels, for the hermit, sixteen, for the householder, thirty-two; for the student, there is no limit.’

[This same text is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 370, as from Āpastamba. ]

Vaśiṣṭha, 17. — ‘Leavings or no leavings, — he should not offer the food to a Śūdra.’

Vaśiṣṭha, 11.17. — ‘Leavings, except those of the Teacher, should never be eaten; nor one’s own leavings.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2. 7. 17. 12. — ‘He should not. offer the leavings to any one who does not possess the necessary qualifications.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 67. 36. — ‘One should not eat clarified butter, with mouth unclean.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 2. 37. — ‘Leavings should he avoided.’

Saṃvarta (Aparārka, p. 61). — ‘Eating in the morning and in the evening has been prescribed for men, by the gods; one shall not eat in between these two meals; this practice is equal to the Agnihotra.’

Mahābhārata. (Aśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 370). — ‘One should never overeat himself, nor eat too little.’

Pulastya (Do.). One shall never eat all that is served to him, except curd, butter, fruits, milk, honey, and sattu.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do., p. 372). — ‘He shall not leave food needlessly; he shall not go anywhere with particles of food still on him.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.47. — ‘[He should eat] contentedly. not greedily.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (Parāśaramādhava, p. 371). — ‘Morning and evening, he shall eat food, which has been worshipped, without decrying it.’

VERSE 2.57

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

अनारोग्यमनायुष्यमस्वर्ग्यं चातिभोजनम् ।
अपुण्यं लोकविद्विष्टं तस्मात् तत् परिवर्जयेत् ॥५७॥

anārogyamanāyuṣyamasvargyaṃ cātibhojanam |
apuṇyaṃ lokavidviṣṭaṃ tasmāt tat parivarjayet ||57||

Over-eating destroys health, cuts off life and bars heaven; it is unrighteous and detested by people; for these reasons one should avoid it. — (57)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse proceeds to show that the prohibition of over-eating is based upon ordinary worldly considerations.

‘Destroys health,’ — is productive of such diseases as fever, pain in the stomach and so forth.

‘Cuts off life,’ — destroys life, bringing on such diseases as cholera and the like.

‘Bars heaven,’ — because implying the neglect of one’s body, it involves the transgressing of such scriptural injunctions as ‘one should guard himself against all things.’ The ‘barring of heaven’ means going to hell.

‘Unrighteous’ — productive of misfortune.

‘Detested by people’; — the man who eats too much is always looked down upon as a ‘glutton.’

For these reasons one ‘should avoid,’ — i.e., not do — over-eating. — (57)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 488); in Aparārka (p. 156); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 115).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 56-57)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.56.

VERSE 2.58

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

ब्राह्मेण विप्रस्तीर्थेन नित्यकालमुपस्पृशेत् ।
कायत्रैदशिकाभ्यां वा न पित्र्येण कदा चन ॥५८॥

brāhmeṇa viprastīrthena nityakālamupaspṛśet |
kāyatraidaśikābhyāṃ vā na pitryeṇa kadā cana ||58||

Every time, the Brāhmana should sip water, either though the receptacle dedicated to Brahmā, or through that dedicated to Prajāpati, or through that dedicated to the ‘Thrice-ten’ (Gods); but never through that dedicated to the Pitṛs. — (58)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘tīrtha,’ ‘Receptacle,’ means a clean vessel containing water; ‘tīrtha’ (literally) is that which exists for the purpose of saving people, i.e., freeing them from their sins. In some places ‘tīrtha’ is explained as ‘that by which people descend into water.’ In the present context however it stands for that part of the palm of the hand which contains water; and we must take the word ‘tīrtha’ as applied to the hand, with a view to eulogise it, only figuratively; for water does not remain in the hand always (and as such it cannot be called tīrtha in its literal sense).

Through the said receptacle, he should sip water.

‘Dedicated to Brahmā’; — this also is a figurative eulogy. The term means ‘that of which Brahmā is the deity’; and certainly the said ‘Receptacle,’ not being of the nature of a ‘sacrifice,’ or of a ‘Mantra,’ could not be said to be ‘dedicated to a deity.’ The special nominal affix in the word ‘brāhma,’ which denotes ‘dedication to a deity,’ may however be justified on the assumption that the said receptacle resembles a ‘sacrifice’ in certain characteristics, such as being the means of sanctification and so forth.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов