with the Commentary of Medhatithi 35 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 41 из 350Следующая ⇒

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.2.22-23. — ‘With water, not hot, nor with bubbles.’

Śaṅkha (Vīra-Āhnika, p. 66). — ‘With water pulled out, which is free from bubbles and foam, not heated by fire, nor brackish.’

Gautama and Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 67). — ‘Not with water fetched by a Śūdra or an unclean person or by one hand.’ Kūrmapurāṇa (Do.). — ‘With water which is not brackish and which has not been fetched by a Śūdra or by an unclean person; nor with water brought with one hand.’

Saṃvarta (Do.). — ‘Never with water offered by a Śūdra or an unclean person, or with one hand.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 68). — ‘With water pulled out, purified, examined, not brackish, nor heated, nor with foam and bubbles.’

Pracetas (Do., p. 69). — ‘One should twice, thrice or four times sip water, without making any sound, which is not hot, nor with foam, which has been purified by cloth and by the eve, — reaching the heart.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 70). — ‘Nor with water which has not been looked into, which is hot or unclean; discoloured or foul-smelling or foamy.’

Parāśara (Do., p. 71). — ‘Sipping should not be done with water fetched by a Śūdra, or with one hand, or by one who has not kept the observances, or by an unknown person.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 222). — ‘It has been declared that at night, the wise men may be purified by even such water as has not been looked into; as also for sick men.’

VERSE 2.62

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

हृद्गाभिः पूयते विप्रः कण्ठगाभिस्तु भूमिपः ।
वैश्योऽद्भिः प्राशिताभिस्तु शूद्रः स्पृष्टाभिरन्ततः ॥६२॥

hṛdgābhiḥ pūyate vipraḥ kaṇṭhagābhistu bhūmipaḥ |
vaiśyo'dbhiḥ prāśitābhistu śūdraḥ spṛṣṭābhirantataḥ ||62||

The Brāhmaṇa is purified by the water reaching the heart; the Kṣatriya by that reaching the throat; the Vaiśya by water that is just sipped, and the Śūdra by what is touched with the end. — (62)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Reaching the heart’ — that which reaches down to the regions of the heart; the word being derived from the root ‘gam’ with the ‘ḍa’ affix, according to Pāṇini, 6. 2.101; the term ‘hṛdaya’ being changed into ‘hṛd’ according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra, 6.3.50.

‘Is purified’ — Reaches sanctity; that is, gets rid of impurity. The water (reaching the heart) would, in quantity, be just a little less than a handful.

‘The Kṣatriya by that reaching the throat’ — i.e., by that which reaches only down to the throat. The term ‘bhūmipaḥ’ in the text stands for the Kṣatriya; as the ‘lordship of land’ is laid down for the Kṣatriya only; and hence this well-known function (of ruling the land) indicates here the Kṣatriya caste. If actual ‘lordship’ of the land were meant, then what is laid down here would have been prescribed among the ‘duties of tho king.’

‘The Vaiśya by the water that is just sipped,’ — i.e., which is just taken into the mouth; even without reaching the throat, the water thus sipped serves to purify the Vaiśya.

‘The Śūdra by what is touched with the end;’ — ‘anṭataḥ’ stands for ‘antena’; the ‘tasil’ affix having the force of the instrumental, according to the Vārtika on Pāṇini, 5. 4. 44. The term ‘end’ (anta) means proximity; e.g., the phrase ‘udakānta’ means ‘near water’. It also means a part; e.g., in such expressions as ‘vastrānta,’ ‘vasanānta’ and the like. With both these significations the term ‘end’ (being a relative term) stands in need of a correlative; whenever it is used, one always wants to know — ‘near what ’ or ‘part of what.’ Now in the present case, the water-sipping has been laid down for the other castes as to he done with certain parts of the hand and the lips and the tongue; and it is the ‘end’ of these that is meant. It cannot mean mere ‘proxi mity’; because the ‘water-sipping’ prescribed cannot he accomplished by mere proximity. Then again, the ‘touch’ (of the water with the tongue and lips) would involve sipping (which has been laid down for the Vaiśya); for one is sure to feel the taste of that which is touched with the tongue and lips. Hence the conclusion appears to he that the quantity of water sufficient for the Śūdra is just a little less in quantity than that for the Vaiśya; e.g., while for the Vaiśya the water should touch the root of the tongue, for the Śūdra it should touch only its tip.

Water being a fluid substance, its going beyond the limits prescribed would be unavoidable; hence all that is meant is that if the water sipped fails to reach the prescribed limits, it fails to purify the man.

The description of the ‘receptacles’ (parts of the hand) refers to the right hand; as it is this hand that should be used in all washings; specially as it has been laid down that men should perform (religious) acts with the right hand. It is for this reason that we reiterate this fact in the present connection. — (62)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 221); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 335), which points out that for the Śūdra, there is no ācamana, as the verse stops short at the Vaiśya; so in the place of ācamana, the Śūdra should wash his hands and feet; — this is clear from a text of the Brahmapurāṇa; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 74), where it is explained that ‘antataḥ’ means inside of the mouth; and hence what is meant is that there should be no drinking of the water, which should only touch the inner part of the mouth; — such being the opinion of Kalpataru. It is curious that Kalpataru, as quoted in Vīramitrodaya, has quoted Manu 5.13 9, where ‘antataḥ’ does not occur at all, and missed the present verse, which, as Vīramitrodaya rightly remarks, is the text that really supports the explanation provided by Kalpataru. Vīramitrodaya notes Medhātithi’s explanation with approval on p. 75.

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 46); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 985), which adds the following notes: — ‘Hṛdgābhiḥ,’ reaching the regions of the heart, — ‘Pūyate’ acquires purity; — ‘Kaṇthayābhiḥ,’ just touching the throat only, — ‘bhūmipoḥ,’ the Kṣatriya; — ‘prāśitāḥhiḥ’, just taken into the mouth, and not reaching the throat, — ‘antataḥ,’ the affix ‘tasi’ has the force of the Instrumental, — the term ‘anta’ meaning near requires a correlative, that to which nearness is meant, — so that the meaning is that the Śūdra is purified by water reaching that point which is in close proximity to that which the water should reach for purifying the Vaiśya; — and as the tongue is the point for the Vaiśya, for the Śūdra it must be the teeth; though the water that reaches the teeth must touch the tongue also, yet all that is meant is that the quantity for the Śūdra should be just a little less than that for the Vaiśya.

It is quoted also in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 221).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 5. 17. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa becomes pure by water reaching the heart, the Kṣatriya by its reaching the throat and the Vaiśya by water actually drunk off; the woman and the Śūdra by merely touching it.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 62. 9. — ‘The three twice-born castes become pure by water reaching the heart, the throat and the palate respectively, the woman and the Śūdra by touching it once.’

Gautama Dharmasūtra, 1.37. — ‘He should thrice or four times sip water reaching the heart.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 3.33-34. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa is purified by bubble-free and foamless water reaching his heart; the Kṣatriya by it reaching the throat, the Vaiśya by water actually drunk; the woman and the Śūdra by merely touching it.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.21. — [The same words as Viṣṇu, above.]

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.2.29. — ‘He should sip water reaching the heart.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 74). — ‘The woman and the Śūdra are purified by the washing of the hands and lips.’

Uśanas (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 75). — ‘That quantity of water is to be taken as reaching the heart in which a bean sinks; this quantity, less by its fourth part is taken as reaching the throat’, less by half, as reaching the palate; and less by three-fourths, as reaching the teeth.’

Pracetas — (See above.)

VERSE 2.63

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

उद्धृते दक्षिणे पाणावुपवीत्यौच्यते द्विजः ।
सव्ये प्राचीनावीती निवीती कण्ठसज्जने ॥६३॥

uddhṛte dakṣiṇe pāṇāvupavītyaucyate dvijaḥ |
savye prācīnāvītī nivītī kaṇṭhasajjane ||63||

When the right hand is held above (the sacred thread etc.), the twice-born person is described as ‘Upavītin’; when the left hand is held above, ‘Prāchīnāvītin,’ and on its hanging by the neck, ‘Nivītin.’ — (63)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

An objection is raised — “As a matter of fact, in treatises dealing with Dharma, the meanings of words are accepted to be exactly as they are known in ordinary usage; and the works of Manu and others should not make it their business to explain the meanings of words, in the way in which it is done by grammatical and lexicographical works.”

Ānswer. — We have already answered this before; if treatises on Dharma should be found to supply the explanation of such words as are not ordinarily known, are they to be blamed for doing so? Then again, in the present instance, there is another purpose also in view. The term ‘upavītin’ is explained in the course of the explanation of the act of ‘water-sipping,’ with a view to indicate that the method (of wearing the sacred thread, etc.) is auxiliary to that act. Though it is true that the wearing of the sacred thread, — either as part of a religious observance, or as accomplishing certain desirable results for man, — is known as to be done at all times, yet if the ‘water-sipping’ were done without it, it would remain incomplete. So that, if we did not have the present text (as indicating the necessity of wearing the sacred thread during water-sipping), there would be some deficiency in the religious act, as also some defect in the agent. If the sipping were done without the sacred thread, it would be as good as not done, and there would be the additional wrong done, in the shape of sipping the water while unclean.

Question. — “How is it that the Upavīta-method alone is regarded as auxiliary to the ‘water-sipping,’ when as a matter of fact, the present text has spoken of another method, the ‘Prāchīnāvīta,’ also?”

Our answer is as follows: — As for the ‘Prāchīnāvīta’ method, this has been directly prescribed, in so many words, as pertaining to acts of offering to the Pitṛs; so that when its use has been found in connection with these, it could not be taken as an alternative to the ‘Upavīta’ method, whose use has not yet been found. Similarly the ‘Nivīṭa’ method also has its use in connection with acts of sorcery. Though the use of the ‘Nivīṭa’ has not been laid down in the itself, yet since all Smṛtis have the same end in view, the use prescribed in other Smṛtis could be regarded as accepted in the present context also.

The term ‘hand’ stands here for the arm; it is only when the man raises his arm that he is called ‘Upavīṭi’; further, we are going to point out later on that the ‘Upavīṭa’ is the method (of wearing the thread) to be employed at all times (not during religious acts only); and no one is called ‘Upavīṭin’ by merely lifting his hand.

‘When the left hand is held above,’ he is called ‘Prāchīnāvīṭī’; it is the compounded form (‘prāchīnāvīṭī’) that constitutes the name; the text puts it iu the uncompounded form on account of the exigencies of metre.

‘On its hanging by the neck’; — ‘Sajjana,’ ‘hanging’ means being worn, when the sacred thread, or the piece of cloth, is worn over the neck, and neither arm is held over it, then the man becomes ‘nivītī.’ — (63)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 39), which notes that the non-compounding (in ‘prāchīna-āvīti’ is a Vedic anomaly; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 188).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 5.1.5-8. — ‘The Sacred Thread worn at sacrifices to gods (upavīta) consists of the silk or the cotton thread folded three times three: it should reach down to the navel; the right arm being held above; — the reverse (prāchīnāvita) at offerings to Pitṛs; hanging by the neck, it is nivīta; hanging downwards it is adhovīta.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.6.18-19. — ‘He who is wearing the Sacred Thread in the upavīta form is to be regarded as wearing two pieces of cloth; — while he who is wearing it in the Adhovīta form, is to be regarded as wearing only one piece of cloth.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.2.2-3. — ‘Holding aloft the right arm, passing over the head, resting the thread on the left shoulder, hanging down the right arm-pit, — thus does he become the wearer of the Yajñopavīta; lifting the left arm, passing over the head, resting the thread on the right shoulder, hanging down the left arm-pit, — thus does he become the wearer of the Prāchīnāvīta.’

VERSE 2.64

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

मेखलामजिनं दण्डमुपवीतं कमण्डलुम् ।
अप्सु प्रास्य विनष्टानि गृह्णीतान्यानि मन्त्रवत् ॥६४॥

mekhalāmajinaṃ daṇḍamupavītaṃ kamaṇḍalum |
apsu prāsya vinaṣṭāni gṛhṇītānyāni mantravat ||64||

When the girdle, the skin, the staff, the sacred thread or the water-pot becomes damaged, he should throw it into the water and take up another with the proper formulas. — (64)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse enjoins that when these things are damaged, they should be thrown into water and others should be taken up; and the sequence of the ‘throwing’ and the ‘taking up’ is to be just as it is found in the text. In as much as one has got to take up these things again, they cannot be regarded as forming part of the Initiatory Ceremony itself; if it were part of this ceremony, then all their purpose would have been fulfilled by the completion of the ceremony. The right view therefore is that these should continue to be taken up throughout the ‘student-stage.’

“But is it not possible to regard the throwing into water here laid down as the disposal of the things mentioned, if they happen, during the Initiatory Ceremony — and before its completion, — to be damaged by divine or human adverse forces? The taking up of fresh ones, would, in this case, be necessary for the completion of the ceremony; just as there is of the begging-bowl. Is it absolutely impossible for the text to be taken in this manner, that the mere fact of the re-taking being laid down should be made the basis of assuming that the things should continue to be held throughout the student-stage?”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — As for mere ‘holding,’ this has been laid down in connection with the staff only (during the Initiatory Rite); as for the girdle what is to be done during the ceremony is only its tying (round the waist); so that what should be done as part of the Initiatory Ceremony is the peculiar arrangement of strings (which constitutes the act of tying); this being done, the purpose of the Injunction will have been fulfilled; so that if, at some future time, any thing becomes damaged or not, what effect could that have upon the ceremony (which will have been long completed)? As for the particular form of ‘disposal,’ this helps the Rite only when what has become damaged forms an integral part of the Rite itself. Nor again have the scriptures laid down any purpose for which the girdle, etc., are worn, for the fulfilment of which purpose, the re-taking of them (during the ceremony) would be enjoined (in the present text); it is only when the purpose of a certain object has not been fulfilled, that we take it for granted that that object should be taken up again. For these reasons, because the text lays down (a) a particular form of Disposal, and (b) the re-taking of the things, we conclude that, even though the holding of these may form an integral part of the Initiatory Ceremony, the necessity of this holding does not end with the completion of the ceremony. Then again, the girdle, etc., are mentioned in the same category as the ‘water-pot,’ which continues to be held after the ceremony also; and this shows that the other articles also are to continue to be held, and all this ‘holding’ forms part of the observances (of the Religious Student). From all this it follows that the girdle and other things are subservient to both: by the force of ‘context,’ they form part of the Initiatory Ceremony, and since they are found to be held after the completion of that ceremony, they are to continue as long as the ‘student-stage’ lasts. That the ‘water-pot’ has to be carried (always) for the purpose of carrying water is also implied by (the binding and universal character of) the injunction of the ‘Disposal’; otherwise (if the pot were not meant to be carried always), the meaning of the injunction would be that the disposal is to be carried out only when the water-pot may be held; and this would make the Injunction partial and limited in its application.

As regards the ‘holding of the staff,’ this comes to be regarded as part of the ‘begging of food,’ on the basis of sequence enjoined in the rule ‘one should beg for food after taking up the staff’, but on the basis of actual practice, it comes to be done in connection with such ordinary talking also as is not done for the purpose of ‘food-begging.’ But it does not mean that the staff should be held always; for the boy who may be holding the stick would be unable to do such acts as standing, sitting, sleeping, eating and so forth; similarly in Verse 2.70 it is laid down that the boy, when proceeding to read the Veda, should sit with joined palms (and this would not be possible if he held the staff in his hand).

‘With the proper formulas’ — this means that the retaking of the articles should be in the same manner in which they are taken up during the Initiatory Ceremony; and in that connection formulas are laid down in regard to the wearing of the Girdle, and not in regard to the holding of the staff. — (64)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 451), which says that it lays down the method of disposing of the sacred thread and other things whenever they happen to break; — also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 190).

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 934) which says that, as the use of mantras is essential, if a certain Gṛhyasūtra does not mention the mantra, it has to be borrowed from another Gṛhyasūtra; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 423), where also the verse is explained as laying down the ‘disposal’ of the tilings mentioned. The latter quotes the verse again on p. 887, where it is explained that in a case where an injunction lays down a certain act as to be done ‘with the proper mantras’ — as is done in the present verse — and no particular mantra is prescribed? one has to use the mantra that may be found mentioned in a particular Gṛhyasūtra. This is what ‘mantravat’ has beeif explained to mean, in Madanapārijāta (p. 37 also.)

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra,, p. 85) as laying down the disposal of the sacred thread that has been worn out; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 39), which notes that the meaning of the term ‘mantravat’ is that they have to be worn with those same mantras that were used for wearing them at the Upanayana; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 72) as an example of the principle that where the text laying down a certain act as to be done ‘with mantras’ does not specify the particular mantras to be used, these have to be taken as laid down in other Gṛhyasūtras.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.29. — [Reproduces the exact words of Manu.]

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 4.5-7. — ‘When these articles become spoilt by urine, excreta, blood or semen, they should be thrown away; when the water-pot breaks, one should offer a hundred libations with the Vyāhrti mantras; the pieces he should throw into the water, and repeating the Sāvitrī ten times, he should take up another pot.’

Bhṛgu (Vīra-Samskāra, p. 423). — ‘When the sacred thread is torn or broken, the Brāhmaṇa should bathe and then wear a new one.’

VERSE 2.65 [Hair-clipping (keśānta)]

Section XIV - Hair-clipping (keśānta)

केशान्तः षोडशे वर्षे ब्राह्मणस्य विधीयते ।
राजन्यबन्धोर्द्वाविंशे वैश्यस्य द्व्यधिके मतः ॥६५॥

keśāntaḥ ṣoḍaśe varṣe brāhmaṇasya vidhīyate |
rājanyabandhordvāviṃśe vaiśyasya dvyadhike mataḥ ||65||

The sacrament of Keśānta is ordained for the Brāhmaṇa in his sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya in his twenty-second year, and for the Vaiśya two years later. — (65)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Keśānta — Hair-clipping. is — the name of a particular sacrament. This sacrament should be done, for the Brāhmaṇa, in his sixteenth year, from conception. For a knowledge of the exact form of this sacrament our only source is the Gṛhyasūtra.

‘Two years later’ — i.e., in the year, which is two years later than the twenty-second. Or, the compound may be taken as qualifying ‘time,’ so that the meaning is — ‘at the time which comes two years later than the twenty-second,’ — ‘for the Vaiśya.’ The numeral adjective ‘two’ must be taken as qualifying years; as the whole verse refers to years. — (65)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 444); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 778); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 107); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 637), which explains Dvyadhike as in the twenty-fourth year; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 353), which explains rājānyabandhuḥ as Kṣatriya and Dvyadhike as twenty-fourth.

Another name for the Keśānta sacrament mentioned in Saṃskāramayūkha is ‘Godāna,’ which has been etymologically explained as — gāvaḥ keśāḥ-dīyante chidyante yasmin.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 457), where it is said that this rite is what is called ‘godāna’; — and in Aparārka (p. 67), which adds that the numbers here mentioned are to be counted from birth and not from conception, for if the latter were meant, the word used would have been ‘garbhaṣoḍaśa’ like ‘garbhaṣṭama.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya, 1 36. — ‘The keśānta is to be done in the sixteenth year.’

Āpastamba- Gṛhyasūtra, 1.17.1-2. — ‘The Godāna (Hair-cutting) in the sixteenth year.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.3. — ‘When the boy is sixteen years old, comes the keśānta.’

Gobhila- Gṛhyasūtra, 3.1. — ‘Now, the Godāna in the sixteenth year; the keśānta ceremony is described by the description of the Cūḍākaraṇa

VERSE 2.66 [Sacraments for Females]

Section XV - Sacraments for Females

अमन्त्रिका तु कार्यैयं स्त्रीणामावृदशेषतः ।
संस्कारार्थं शरीरस्य यथाकालं यथाक्रमम् ॥६६॥

amantrikā tu kāryaiyaṃ strīṇāmāvṛdaśeṣataḥ |
saṃskārārthaṃ śarīrasya yathākālaṃ yathākramam ||66||

For females, this whole series should be performed at the right time and in the proper order, for the purpose of sanctifying the body; but without the Vedic formulas — (66)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘This whole series’ should be done for females, without the recitation of Vedic formulas. — ‘Series’ stands for the entire body of sacraments, beginning with the ‘Birth-rites,’ along with all the acts that constitute their procedure.

‘For the purpose of sanctifying’ — i.e., purifying This means that the purpose of the sacraments in the case of females that is the same as that in that of males.

‘At the proper time,’ — i.e., without letting that time pass which has been prescribed for the several sacraments. The term ‘yathā’ here signifies non-transgression, and hence, not signifying ‘similarity,’ it is compounded according to Pāṇini 2.1.7.

The same explanation applies to the compound ‘yathā-kramam’ also.

In as much as the text has distinctly asserted that it is only the reciting of Vedic formulas that may be omitted, there could be no idea of the sacraments (for females) being performed at a time, or in an order, other than the prescribed ones; so that the prohibition of other times and another order should be taken as merely describing what is already known, and as added only for the purpose of filling up the metre. All that is really meant by the text is that for females the sacraments should be performed without the Vedic formulas.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов