with the Commentary of Medhatithi 38 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 44 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 33), as laying down the exact form of the Praṇava and of the three Mahāvyāhṛtis.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 55.10. — [The same words as Manu.]

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2. 10. 69. — ‘The Praṇava is the soul of the Veda.’

VERSE 2.77

Section XVII - Rules of Study

त्रिभ्य एव तु वेदेभ्यः पादं पादमदूदुहत् ।
तदित्यर्चोऽस्याः सावित्र्याः परमेष्ठी प्रजापतिः ॥७७॥

tribhya eva tu vedebhyaḥ pādaṃ pādamadūduhat |
tadityarco'syāḥ sāvitryāḥ parameṣṭhī prajāpatiḥ ||77||

Out of the three Vedas again, the Supreme Prajāpati milked each foot of the Sāvitrī verse beginning with ‘tat.’ — (77)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse is a valedictory description of the origin of the Gāyatrī -verse beginning with the words ‘tat savitur vareṇyam,’ which serves the purpose of introducing the coming injunction. As for the injunction of the Vyāhṛtis, this is to be deduced from the valedictory description contained in the preceding verse. As for the actual order in which the several syllables have to be pronounced, that is ascertained from the order in which they are found mentioned in tho text. The author is also going to lay down in the next verse — ‘They should pronounce this syllable (om), and this verse (‘tat savitur, etc.’), preceded by the Vyāhṛtis.’

‘Milked’ — churned out.

“Beginning with ‘tat’;” — though this being all that the text says, it might refer to an altogether different verse — ‘tat savitur vṛṇimahe, etc.’ (Ṛgveda, 5. 82. 1), which is not three-footed, — yet it is the three-footed verse that should he taken as referred to here; and it is the ‘Sāvitrī’ verse that is three-footed.

In as much as Kaśyapa and other sagos are also called ‘Prajāpati,’ the text has added the qualification ‘Supreme’; so that it is Hiraṇyagarbha that becomes specified; as it is He who dwells on, the highest spot, from where there is no reversion (to worldliness).

This has been added with a view to show the extreme importance of the Sāvitrī verse; — it was churned by the highest of all Prajāpatis, out of the Vedas. — (77)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hopkins — “This verse is one of the most famous in literature, Whitney has discussed it in Vol. I., pp. 111-112 of the new edition of Colebrook’s Essays. His translation runs as follows — ‘Of Savitar, the heavenly, that longed-for glory may we win, and may himself inspire our prayers.’

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 52), as supporting the view that the gāyatrīmantra, is ‘born of the Veda’ par excellence-, — also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 338).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 50.11. — [Reproduces the words of Manu.]

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra, 1. 1. 1-10. — ‘By all the Vedas, is the Sāvitrī expounded, — so says the Brāhmaṇa-text.’

VERSE 2.78

Section XVII - Rules of Study

एतदक्षरमेतां च जपन् व्याहृतिपूर्विकाम् ।
सन्ध्ययोर्वेदविद् विप्रो वेदपुण्येन युज्यते ॥७८॥

etadakṣarametāṃ ca japan vyāhṛtipūrvikām |
sandhyayorvedavid vipro vedapuṇyena yujyate ||78||

Reciting, at the two twilights, this syllable and this verse, preceded by the Vyāhṛtis, the Brāhmaṇa, learned in the Veda, becomes endowed with Vedic merit. — (78)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though this verse is syntactically connected with the section dealing with the Injunction of Vedic study, yet it is to be taken as embodying the injunction of recitation during the Twilight-Prayers; and as regards the ‘Gāyatrī’-verse itself, the mention of it (in the present verse) is merely for the purposes of reference (the injunction of its recitation having already gone before), while that of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis forms the direct injunction of the recitation of these, which has not been enjoined anywhere else.

To this some people make the following objection: —

“This cannot be regarded as an Injunction pertaining to the Twilight Prayers; as these do not form the subject-matter of the present context. Even if it was an injunction, it could only be one pertaining to the Religious Student; as it is the Student whose duties are being propounded in the present context. But this is not possible, since the text has added the qualification ‘learned in the Veda’; and certainly the student just initiated could never be ‘learned in the Veda.’ Further, the text also adds a particular fruit — ‘becomes endowed with Vedic merit’; while the Injunction of the Twilight-Prayers is a compulsory one. Then again, we do not understand what is this fruit, called ‘Vedic merit’ which is described as proceeding from the recitation. If what is meant is the merit proceeding from the recitation of the Veda, and if the attaining of this merit is what is meant by being ‘endowed with Vedic merit’ — then, in regard to this view it has to be noted that so far as the Injunction of Veda-reciting is concerned — which forms the subject-matter of the present context, — there can be no other result proceeding from it, except the understanding of the meaning of tho Vedic texts; for the simple reason that no such result has been anywhere mentioned. Further, in as much as there is a perceptible result in the shape of the comprehension of meaning, there can be no room for the assuming of any other results. The injunction of Veda-reciting that there is for the Householder and others, — in the words ‘day after day one should recite the Veda’ — this also is a compulsory one; and the results mentioned in connection with it, in the shape of ‘milk, and honey, etc.,’ this is only a valedictory supplement. From all this it is clear that the present verse cannot be regarded as an Injunction (of recitation during the Twilight Prayers). Specially as, if it were taken as an Injunction, all the above difficulties will have to be explained. On the other band, if the verse be taken as a valedictory reference, then the term ‘reciting’ could be taken as referring to the Reciting of the Veda, which forms the subject-matter of the context; and in that case it would be possible to construe the term ‘Vedic merit’ also in some way or the other.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: —

It has been already explained that the implications of context are always set aside by those of Syntactical Connection; and for the very reason that the terms ‘learned in the Veda’ and ‘Twilight prayers’ are not connected with the subject-matter of the context, — the present Injunction is to be taken as pertaining to something else. The Injunction is simply to the effect that during the two Twilight Prayers one should pronounce the three expressions (Om — Sāvitrī verse — Vyāhṛtis); and the term ‘learned in the Veda’ is merely descriptive?

“But as a matter of fact, it is possible only for persons in the Householder and other stages to be ‘learned in the Veda’; the Student can never be so.

What has this possibility got to do with the matter? If the term is taken as merely descriptive of what is already known from other sources, then the injunction contained in the verse becomes applicable to people in all stages of life. While if the term ‘learned in the Veda’ were taken as a significant epithet of the Nominative agent (of the act enjoined), then the student would not be entitled to the act.

“Why should the term be taken as merely descriptive?”

For the simple reason that there would (otherwise) be a syntactical split. The injunction pertaining to the Injunction of the Twilight Prayers, what has to be enjoined regarding it is the reciting of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis, which has not been enjoined anywhere else, Now, if in addition to these, something else were taken as enjoined, — in the form of ‘being learned in the Veda,’ — then there would be a syntactical split [the sentence in question containing two injunctions, (a) ‘should recite the Praṇava, etc.,’ and (b) ‘should learn the Veda’]; and it is not legitimate to enjoin (by means of a single sentence) several details pertaining to an act already enjoined. Nor is it possible (as another alternative) to take the mention of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis as merely descriptive [because their injunction has not been met with anywhere else].

From all this it follows that what the Text means is as follows: — ‘In connection with the reciting of the Gāyatrī that has been enjoined in relation to the Twilight Prayers, there is this further detail that the said recitation is to lie preceded by the uttering of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis.’

The mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa' is only by way of illustration.

It has been argued above that — “the text speaks of a result, while the Injunction of the Twilight Prayers is a compulsory one.”

But what inconsistency is there in this? While what is enjoined is a compulsory act, the result mentioned may follow from the further detail mentioned in the text; the meaning being that ‘the said result follows from the previously enjoined Twilight Prayer, when it is accompanied by the recitation of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis. Just as when the ordinary Agnihotra is performed with the water brought over in the milking vessel, there comes about the particular result in the shape of cattle; and this in (?) accordance with the injunction that ‘for one desiring cattle water should be brought in the milking vessel.’

It is on the strength of this last injunction that we have made bold to say what we have said above. In reality the injunction contained in the verse is not an optional one at all (meant only for those desiring the particular result mentioned). Specially as another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya, 1. 23) clearly lays it down as a compulsory injunction — ‘One should recite the Gāyatrī along with the Śiras, preceded by the Vyāhṛtis.’

Further, you have yourself argued that the exact nature of the result (‘Vedic merit’) cannot be ascertained (which is an argument against the text being taken as laying down a result). As a matter of fact, what ‘Vedic merit’ means is as follows: — ‘The merit that has been described in the Veda as resulting from the saying of the Twilight Prayers accrues to man only when he recites all the three expressions — and not by reciting the Gāyatrī only.’ ‘Puṇya,’ ‘merit,’ is excellence. Since Smṛtis are based upon the Veda, what is mentioned in the Smṛtis is also called ‘Veda-merit,’ which last expression stands for the ‘merit of the Veda.’

“What is the merit of the Veda?”

That (merit) which is expounded by the Veda. The merit that results from the Veda being recited may also be called ‘the merit of the Veda’; but by virtue of the specific relationship, it is what is expounded by the Veda, — and what is produced by it — that should be spoken of as ‘merit of the Veda.’ As for the producing of merit, this is done by other things also, such as sacrificial performances and the like; while the expounding of it is done by the Veda only.

Some people have taken the last foot of the Verse to mean as follows — “What has been enjoined as compulsory Vedic Study becomes fulfilled merely by reciting the three expressions during the Twilight Prayers.”

But this is not right. For if the present text meant this, then it would be providing an option to what has been laid down as the compulsory ‘Vedic Study’; and this would mean the partial rejection of this study. But so long as we can avoid it, it is not right to admit the rejection of any injunction.

‘This syllable’ — refers to the syllable ‘oṃ.’

“But this is not a single letter, containing as it does, two or three syllables.”

Our answer is that the term ‘syllable’ here stands for ‘vowel-sound’ and ‘contact with consonants.’ Hence the term denotes that which forms the subject-matter of the context.

‘This Verse’ — i.e., the Sāvitrī verse ‘tat saviturvareṇyam, etc.’

‘Preceded by the Vyāhṛtis;’ — i.e., that before which the Vyāhṛtis have been uttered. Here only the three Vyāhṛtis are meant, — these alone having been mentioned in the present context (in verse 76), — and not the seven, ending with ‘Satyam.’

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (P.111,1.11) — Prāpte hi karmaṇi, &c.’ — This is a paraphrase of Kumārila’s dictum —

prāpte karmaṇi nāneko vidhātuṃ śakyate guṇaḥ |
aprāpte tu vidhīyante vahavo'pyekapatnataḥ |

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 50), which explains ‘etadakṣaram’ as the Praṇava; — and in Nityāchārapaddhati, (p. 189).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 78-79)

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 1220). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa stealing gold, or killing a Brāhmaṇa, or violating the teacher’s bed, or drinking wine, becomes absolved from the sin by repeating the Gāyatrī a lakh of times.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘The syllable om, the Vyāhṛtis and the Sāvitrī constitute the Sāvitra Pavitra, by which one becomes absolved from all sins; by repeating it a hundred times he becomes purified in a month; repeating it ten thousand times he has his soul entirely purified of all sins.’

Viṣṇusmṛti, 55.12 — [reproduces the words of Manu].

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 4.6. — ‘They declare that seated on kuśa-grass, holding kuśa-blades and water in the hand, he should repeat the Gāyatrī a thousand times.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2.29. — ‘Breath-suspensions, accompanied by the Vyāhṛtis and the Praṇava, repeated sixteen times daily, purify even the embryo-murderer, in a month’s time.’

Vasiṣṭha-smṛti, 36-5 [reproduces the foregoing text of Baudhāyana].

Vasiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 1220). — ‘On the commingling of all kinds of sin, the best purification consists in repeating the Gāyatrī ten thousand times.’

Nṛsiṃhapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, pp. 254-255). — ‘Having offered the Evening Prayers, while the sun is still visible, he should go on repeating the Gāyatrī till the stars become visible.’

VERSE 2.79

Section XVII - Rules of Study

सहस्रकृत्वस्त्वभ्यस्य बहिरेतत् त्रिकं द्विजः ।
महतोऽप्येनसो मासात् त्वचैवाहिर्विमुच्यते ॥७९॥

sahasrakṛtvastvabhyasya bahiretat trikaṃ dvijaḥ |
mahato'pyenaso māsāt tvacaivāhirvimucyate ||79||

Repeating this Triad a thousand times in open air, the twice-born person becomes freed, in a month, from even great sin, as the snake from its slough. — (79)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘bahiḥ,’ ‘in open air,’ stands for uncovered spot; the sense being that it should be done outside towns and villages, on the bank of rivers and such places.

‘A thousand times, repeating’ — reciting it again and again.

“The affix ‘kṛtvasuch’ (in the term ‘Sahasrakṛtvaḥ’) also signifies repetition, which is again denoted by the word ‘abhyasya’ also; so there is needless repetition.”

The repetition is not objectionable, in view of a distinction between general and particular. That is to say, the word ‘abhyasya’ denotes repetition in general, and when the question arises as to the particular number of repetitions, we have the text adding ‘a thousand times.’ Both the general and the particular could not be regarded as signified by the single word ending with the ‘kṛtvasuch’ affix; because this latter word always stands in need of a particular act (that has to be done a thousand times). The mere expression ‘devadattaḥ pan chakritvo’haḥ,’ ‘Devadatta five times during the day’ does not signify anything until the word ‘bhuṅkte,’ ‘Eats,’ is added.

“But the term ‘repeating’ also does not signify any particular act.”

True; but the act of reciting forms the subject-matter of the context; so that the repeating is understood as pertaining to that act; ‘repetition’ standing for attending to it again and again.

‘Even from great sin’; — he becomes freed from even such heinous sins as ‘Brāhmaṇa-killing’ and the like; what to say of minor offences?

‘Api,’ ‘Even,’ denotes possibility, not cumulation; cumulation is expressed when more things than one are mentioned separately; as in the sentence — ‘there is sovereignty of Devadatta, and of Yajñadatta also.’ There is no such separate mention in the text.

Question — “From what minor offences does the man become freed? Cow-killing and such acts have been regarded as ‘minor offences’; and for every one of these the scriptures have prescribed distinct expiatory rites along with all their details. While as regards those acts that are not done consciously, but which are regarded as must have been done, — though no definite expiation could be prescribed for them, yet they would be got rid of by means of the Twilight Prayers and such other compulsory rites prescribed for daily performance. Then again, if what is mentioned in the present verse were a real expiation, it should have come under the section on Expiatory Rites (Ch. XI); just as it is said (under 11. 77) — ‘One may recite the text of the Veda while keeping due restraint over food.’ Further, if the present verse were meant to prescribe an expiatory rite, the whole section dealing with Expiatory Rites (Ch. XI) would he superfluous. For, what accused person would omit to do the expiation consisting of the mere reciting of mantras, and go in for the very difficult rites endangering the body and very life itself? Says an old saying — ‘If honey were available in a place within easy reach, wherefore should one go to the hills? The desired end having been accomplished, which wise man could put forth further efforts?’ — and again — ‘What can he obtained for a single coin, no wise man purchases for ten coins.’ Nor can the verse be taken as a valedictory supplement to what forms the subject-matter of the context (i.e., Vedic Study), because there is no ground for connecting it syntactically with the context, — such grounds, for instance, as being found defective if taken apart from the context and so forth.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — The present verse is a direct Injunction; and the act laid down is done for the removing of sins. It has been argued that — “What is laid down here (being too easy) could not be regarded as optional with those rites that are prescribed in a different context and are very much more difficult.” But it can certainly be taken as optional with those expiations which consist in Mantra-recitations. For instance, the reciting of the Mantra has been declared as destroying all sins; and with this what is laid down in the present verse could be taken as optional. In connection with the Aghamarṣaṇa-Mantra, three days fasting is prescribed, while according to what is laid down in the present verse, the man becomes freed by doing th e reciting for a month, but taking two ordinary meals every day. Thus the difference between the two is not so great as to lead us to regard them as very diverse in character.

Or, what is mentioned here may be taken as purifying the man from such past sins as arc indicated by the evil position of planets, etc.; and it is from these sins that the man becomes free. ‘Sin’ is something undesirable; from this the man becomes freed, — i.e., is not affected by the results of those sins.

‘Just as the snake from the slough,’ — just as the snake becomes freed from the cast-off skin. This means that the sin is completely removed.

For such past sins as are indicated by the discolouring of the skin and such other diseases, other Smṛtis have prescribed many expiatory rites. All this we shall explain under the section on Expiatory Rites.

It is in view of what, is said in the present verse that we have the saying — ‘There is no fall for people who go on reciting mantras and pouring libations.’ — (79)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vahiḥ’ — Burnell represents Medhātithi as explaining this term to be ‘on a river-island and the like.’ This is not right; the word used by Medhātithi is ‘nadīpulinādau’ — which means ‘on the bank of rivers and such places’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1220) where ‘vahiḥ’ is explained as ‘outside the village’ — and ‘trikam’ as ‘the Sāvitrī along with the Vyāhṛtis’; — and in Gadādharapaddhai (Kālasāra, p. 30), which explains ‘trikam’ as (1) Praṇava. (2) Vyāhṛti and (3) Gāyatrī.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 78-79)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.78.

VERSE 2.80

Section XVII - Rules of Study

एतयाऋचा विसंयुक्तः काले च क्रियया स्वया ।
ब्रह्मक्षत्रियविद्योनिर्गर्हणां याति साधुषु ॥८०॥

etayāṛcā visaṃyuktaḥ kāle ca kriyayā svayā |
brahmakṣatriyavidyonirgarhaṇāṃ yāti sādhuṣu ||80||

Bereft of this verse, and of the timely performance of his own duty, a person of Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya birth incurs the odium of good men. — (80)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘By this verse’ — by the Sāvitrī.

‘Bereft’; — he who fails to observe the Twilight Prayers and neglects Vedic Study.

‘Odium’ — Blame.

‘Among good men’ — Among the highly cultured people.

‘Incurs’ — becomes open to.

With a view to show what sort of odium he incurs, the Text adds — ‘and of the timely performance of his own duty.’ — ‘Timely’ — e.g., the sixteenth year for the Brāhmaṇa and so forth. When the man is bereft of these rites, he becomes despised.

From this it is clear that even though the boy may have been initiated, and as such become qualified for Vedic Study, — yet, if he is bereft of the Sāvitrī, he becomes a ‘Vrātya,’ apostate.

What is meant by ‘his own duty’ is just that duty which is common to the three castes; and this is the duty of Initiation. It is only when we interpret it thus that the qualification ‘timely’ comes to have any sense. If the ‘duty’ meant were the duties of Vedic Study and the rest, the text would have said simply ‘performance of his own duty’ (without the qualification ‘timely’).

The term ‘yoni’ being synonymous with ‘birth’ denotes caste. So what is meant is the person of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes.

The present verse is only a descriptive supplement, added for the purpose of making the Expiatory Rites prescribed for the Vrātya (apostate) applicable to the omissions mentioned here. — (80)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The text of this verse, and hence its meaning, is entirely changed in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 429); the words as quoted here are,

etayar??'pi saṃyuktaḥ kāle?a kriyayā'mu?ā |
?ipra?triya?i?yonirprāha?ya?ṃ yāti prādhuṣu ||

it may be rendered thus — ‘Equipped with this verse, and timely performance of this act, a person of Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya birth becomes acceptable among the good.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.14 — [reproduces, with slight variations, the words of Manu].

Baudhāyana-Dhaṛmasūtra, 2. 4. 15. — ‘Those who offer not the Morning-prayer before the advent of Dawn, nor the Evening-prayer before the lapse of Eve, — how can these be called Brāhmaṇas? Those Brāhmaṇas who offer? not the? Morning and Evening Prayers, them the king should employ in works fit for the Śūdra.

VERSE 2.81

Section XVII - Rules of Study

ओङ्कारपूर्विकास्तिस्रो महाव्याहृतयोऽव्ययाः ।
त्रिपदा चैव सावित्री विज्ञेयं ब्रह्मणो मुखम् ॥८१॥

oṅkārapūrvikāstisro mahāvyāhṛtayo'vyayāḥ |
tripadā caiva sāvitrī vijñeyaṃ brahmaṇo mukham ||81||

The three imperishable Mahāvyāhṛtis preceded by the syllable ‘oṃ,’ and the three-footed Sāvitrī, — these should be regarded as the ‘Mouth of Brahman.’ — (81)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“Preceded by the syllable Oṃ” — in the beginning of which the syllable ‘Oṃ’ occurs. — ‘Mahāvyāhṛtis’; — this refers to the three syllables ‘bhūḥ — bhuvaḥ — svaḥ,’ which form the subject-matter of the present context.

‘Imperishable’; — the syllables are so called in view of the fact that the results proceeding from their repetition are longstanding. If this were not meant, then the qualification would be superfluous, as all words are equally imperishable, eternal.

Three-footed Sāvitrī; — the verse ‘tat savituḥ, etc.’

‘The mouth of Brahman.’ — These are called ‘mouth’ in the sense that they form its opening. Hence this verse is to be regarded as the valedictory supplement of the Injunction that these should be recited at the beginning of Vedic Study.

Or ‘mouth’ may mean portal, the means; — the sense being that union with Brahman is reached by this means. This is what is described in the next verse. — (81)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Brahmaṇo mukham — “Literally, the mouth of Brahman is meant to convey the double sense (of leading to, and leading to union with, Brahman). Both interpretations are given by Medhātithi, Kullūka. and Rāghavānanda; while Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana explain it merely as the beginning or portal of the Veda.” — Buhler.

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?