with the Commentary of Medhatithi 43 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 49 из 350Следующая ⇒

अग्नीन्धनं भैक्षचर्यामधःशय्यां गुरोर्हितम् ।
आ समावर्तनात् कुर्यात् कृतोपनयनो द्विजः ॥१०८॥

agnīndhanaṃ bhaikṣacaryāmadhaḥśayyāṃ gurorhitam |
ā samāvartanāt kuryāt kṛtopanayano dvijaḥ ||108||

The twice-born person, whose Initiation has been performed, should continue to do, till the final Bath of “Return” (Samāvartana), tub kindling of fire, the begging of food, the sleeping on the ground and the acting for the teacher’s well- being. — (108)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The kindling of fire’ — i.e., setting the fire aflame every morning and evening by supplying fuel to it.

‘Sleeping on the ground’; — i.e., not ascending a bedstead, not actually sleeping on the hare ground.

‘Teacher’s well-being,’ — i.e., service consisting of the fetching of water in jars and such other work. As for the doing of things beneficial to him, this is to be done throughout life.

All this should be done till that Final Bath, which consists in returning from the Teacher’s house, and which constitutes the end of Religious Studentship; for the simple reason that all this is included in the Injunction of ‘Vedic Study.’ As a matter of fact, the life of the ‘student’ and its appurtenant details have to continue till the Veda is completely got up; so that as soon as this getting up is done, the discontinuance of the details follows as a matter of course.

The reiteration of the ‘kindling of fire’ and other duties in the present verse is meant to indicate that the duties other than those — which have been previously prescribed for students — are incumbent upon persons in the succeeding stages of life also (and are not confined to the ‘student’ only). As says Gautama (3.9), — ‘All this is not incompatible with the succeeding stages of life.’

“But why cannot we have this that the duties specified in the present verse are to continue during the whole studentship stage, while others might be discontinued even beforehand?”

The opinion of other Smṛtis on this point has been already shown to be that all rules are laid down in connection with their principal time; (and this time in the present case being the entire studentship-stage) if the course just suggested were adopted (and some of the present duties were dropped before the end of that stage), we would be needlessly going against this principle.

In place of the expression ‘gurorhitam’ the right form would have been ‘gurave hitam’ in the Dative, accordingly to Pāṇini 2.1.36, which lays down the use of the Dative in connection with the term ‘hita.’ — (108)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Āsamāvartanāt ’ — See 3. 3-4.

This verse, is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra. p. 455), as laying down the duties of the Student; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 489) as laying down the ‘ miscellaneous duties ’ of the Student; — and in Aparārka (p. 76), as laying down the time-limit up to which the fire-tending and other functions have to be kept up.

‘Acting for the teacher’s well-being.’ The details of this have been described by Hārīta, quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 490) — ‘By fetching of water, Kuśa-grass, flowers, fuel, roots, fruits, sweeping and washing of the house, bodily service and so forth, — he should devotedly attend upon the Teacher, whose cast off clothes, bed and seat he should never step over.’

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 46a); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 118), which adds that those mentioned here indicate the other duties also.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2. 1. 20-21, 43). — ‘Every day he should fetch fuel from the forest and lay it; — he should rise before the Teacher and sleep after him; — during the course of his study, he should attend upon the Teacher and follow him.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 1. 2. 15). — ‘He should never bear malice towards the Teacher.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 1. 2. 11). — ‘After initiation the boy should live with the Teacher as a religious student.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.3.2. 20-21). — ‘Always doing good to the teacher, never crossing him in his words; sleeping on a lower bed.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 1. 4. 13, 14, 16). — ‘Morning and evening he should fetch a jar of water; — always he should fetch fuel from the forest and lay it down; — having kindled the fire and cleaned the place, he should lay fuel upon it, both morning and evening, in accordance with instructions.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.1. 3. 25). — ‘Morning and evening he should beg for food from people other than those that are wicked or accused of evil deeds; and after having presented to the teacher all that he obtains, he should live upon what the Teacher gives him.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (1. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11). — ‘The Religious Student shall serve the Teacher till ṭhe death of his body; — he shall keep his speech under control and having begged food, he shall take it either during the fourth or the sixth or the eighth part of the day; — he shall come to read when called; — whatever food he obtains by begging, he shall present to the Teacher, and shall eat only with his permission; — during the day, he shall avoid sleeping on the bedstead, washing the teeth, applying of collyrium to the eyes, oiling of the body, wearing of shoes and carrying of the umbrella; — he shall rest during the night.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (27. 4, 7, 9, 12). — ‘Both times he shall bathe and tend the fire; — he shall do what is good for and agreeable to the Teacher; — he shall beg alms from respectable families, but not from his Teacher’s family; — he shall sleep on the ground.’

Yājñavalkya-Smṛti (1.25,27, 28). — ‘Both morning and evening he shall attend upon the fire; — he shall always do, with his mind, speech and body what is good for his teacher; for his livelihood, he shall beg food from respectable Brāhmaṇas.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 489). — ‘The Religious Student shall always wear the girdle, the skin, the staff, the Upavīta, the loin-slip and the waist-band.’

Yama (Do. and Parāśaramādhava, p. 455). — ‘Living on food received in alms, he shall live with the Teacher, and keep the staff, the water-pot, the kuśa-bundle, muñja-girdle, and the vow of celibacy. The Religious Student shall always carry the girdle, the skin, the staff, the sacred thread, the loin-slip, and the thread round the loins.’

Vyāsa (Do.). — ‘Sleeping after the Teacher and rising before him, living in the teacher’s house, he shall do all that should be done by the pupil and the servant; he shall always stay by his side, his constant attendant; he shall not eat until the Teacher has eaten; nor shall he drink water until the Teacher has drunk it; he shall not sit while the Teacher is standing, nor sleep while he is sitting.’

Yājñavalkya (Do. 490). — ‘He shall attend upon the Teacher, for purposes of Vedic study; he shall read when he is called upon to do so: whatever he obtains in alms he shall present to the Teacher.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘He shall serve the Teacher by fetching water, gathering Kuśa, flowers, fuel, roots and fruits, sweeping, washing, bodily service; he shall attend upon him while he is walking, sitting or sleeping; he shall never sleep over what has been worn by him, or over his bed and seat or wear his sandals or step over his shadow.’

Āpastamba (Do.). — ‘He should be entirely subservient to the Teacher, — except as regards the degrading crimes.’

Yama (Do.). — ‘Subservient to the Teacher, not independent, living in the Teacher’s house, he shall rise before him and sleep after him; he shall keep his sleep and food under control, suppressing indolence and anger, fully self-controlled, ever attentive, free from egotism and devoted to the service of the Teacher.’

Viṣṇu (Do., p. 491). — ‘He shall never sit on the same seat with his Teacher, except upon rafts and boats.’

Sumantu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 455). — ‘Celibacy, austerity, alms-begging, fire-tending during the twilights, Vedic study, service of the Teacher, these the Religious Student shall observe.’

VERSE 2.109 [Specially qualified Pupils]

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

आचार्यपुत्रः शुश्रूषुर्ज्ञानदो धार्मिकः शुचिः ।
आप्तः शक्तोऽर्थदः साधुः स्वोऽध्याप्या दश धर्मतः ?? ॥१०९॥

ācāryaputraḥ śuśrūṣurjñānado dhārmikaḥ śuciḥ |
āptaḥ śakto'rthadaḥ sādhuḥ svo'dhyāpyā daśa dharmataḥ ?? ||109||

The teacher’s son, one who is eager to do service, one who imparts knowledge, one who is righteous, one who is clean, a near relative, one who is competent, one who gives monet, one who is gentle, and one’s own (son) — these ten should be taught for the sake of merit. — (109)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In verse 233 below the author is going to declare that ‘Of all gifts the gift of the Veda is the best’; and the question arising as to the sort of person to whom knowledge should be imparted — the present verse proceeds to describe the characteristics of the recipient of knowledge. And this contains the injunction of teaching, which is connected with the section dealing with the duties of the student.

‘The Teacher’s son.’ — ‘He who is eager to do service,’ i.e., — personal attendance, or other household work in accordance with his strength, such as rubbing the body and so forth.

‘One who imparts knowledge,’ — such knowledge as may not be known to the Teacher, but which may have been learnt somehow by the pupil; e.g., sciences dealing with property, love and the arts, or with Dharma; the teaching of suoh a pupil is by way of exchange of knowledge.

‘One who is righteous '; — he who makes it his chief business to perform the Agnihotra and such religious acts.

‘One who is clean’; — one who keeps his body clean with clay and water.

The three words ‘righteous,’ ‘clean’ and ‘gentle’ are not needless repetitions, — their use being similar to the use of such expressions as ‘go-balīvarda’ (where the second term serves to qualify the first).

‘A near relatice’ — a friend or closely related person.

‘One who is competent’ — capable of getting up and remembering texts.

‘One’s own son,’ — who has been previously ‘initiated.’

These ten, even though ‘initiated’ by others, should be taught.

“The text uses the term dharmataḥ, which means that by teaching them one acquires merit. But one who pays money clearly brings a visible benefit to the teacher; wherefore then can there be any justification for the assuming of an unseen result — in the shape of merit — in this case?”

Who says that there is to be an assumption of unseen results? There can be no assumption of what is directly stated. It has been distinctly declared tbat “these ten should be taught ‘for the sake of merit.’”

The revered teacher however says that what the term ‘dharmataḥ’ means is that what is here stated is the rule of the sacred law; by teaching these persons there is no transgression of the law. It does not mean that by imparting knowledge to one who pays money the teacher acquires the merit that results from the act of imparting knowledge. — (109)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Dharmataḥ’ — ‘According to the sacred law’ (Kullūka and Nandana); — ‘for the sake of merit’ (Medhātithi, Govindarājā and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 517) as laying down the duties of the Teacher; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 51); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 812); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 140) which explains ‘śaktaḥ’ as ‘capable of acquiring knowledge’ and ‘jñānadaḥ’ as ‘one who has imparted knowledge.’

Medhātithi (p. 125, 1. 22) — ‘Upādhyāyastu’ — This ‘Upādhyāya’ is referred to several times. He is either Medhātithi’s teacher, or an older commentator on Manu. The former is more probable.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (1.28). — ‘(1) One who is grateful, (2) who bears no hatred, (3) who is exceptionally intelligent, (4) who is clean, (5) who is not jealous, (6) who is gentle, (7) who is competent, (8) a near relative, (9) who imparts knowledge and (10) who gives money; — these should be taught for the sake of merit.’

VERSE 2.110

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

नापृष्टः कस्य चिद् ब्रूयान्न चान्यायेन पृच्छतः ।
जानन्नपि हि मेधावी जडवल्लोक आचरेत् ॥११०॥

nāpṛṣṭaḥ kasya cid brūyānna cānyāyena pṛcchataḥ |
jānannapi hi medhāvī jaḍavalloka ācaret ||110||

One should not instruct any one unless he is asked; nor any one who asks in an improper manner. even though knowing (the truth), the wise man should behave, among men, as if ignorant. — (110)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If a person, who is not his regular pupil, but is reading near him, should murder the text, or omit certain letters, or read with a wrong accent, — the learned man should not, unless he is asked to (correct), instruct the student and tell him ‘you have murdered the text, you should read it thus.’ If the reader happen to he his own pupil, then he should instruct him, even without being asked. If again the student were to ask, but ask in an improper manner, — then also he should not instruct him. The ‘proper manner’ of asking is to ask with due humility, in the manner of a pupil, with such words as — ‘in this matter I have a doubt, pray instruct me on this point.’ In cases other than this, ‘even though knowing the truth, the wise man should behave’ — continue to live — among men, ‘as if ignorant,’ — as if he were dumb; i.e., he should remain silent, as if he did not know anything.

This prohibition regarding the explaining of doubts without being asked refers to scriptural matters; as regards temporal matters, the author is going to declare that — ‘Employed or not employed (by the king) the man knowing the law should expound it.’ Others have held that the prohibition contained in the present verse applies equally to both scriptural and temporal matters. — (110)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Jaḍavat.’ — ‘Jaḍa’ is ‘dumb’ here (Medhātithi and Kullūka); — an ‘idiot’ (according to others).

This verse is quoted in Yatidharmasaṃgraha (p. 107).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (2.18). — ‘The Veda should not be taught to one who is not prepared to render such respect as lies within his power.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2.50). — ‘If a question regarding the Veda is asked without due respect, it destroys the questioner, as fire burns straw; therefore the Veda should not be expounded to those who do not render proper respect.’

VERSE 2.111

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

अधर्मेण च यः प्राह यश्चाधर्मेण पृच्छति ।
तयोरन्यतरः प्रैति विद्वेषं वाऽधिगच्छति ॥१११॥

adharmeṇa ca yaḥ prāha yaścādharmeṇa pṛcchati |
tayoranyataraḥ praiti vidveṣaṃ vā'dhigacchati ||111||

He who instructs in an unlawful manner, and he who asks in an unlawful manner, — of those two one or the other either dies (untimely), or incurs the ill-will (of the people). — (111)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present text describes the evil effects of transgressing the above prohibition.

He who instructs a pupil — ‘you should read this’ — in an unlawful manner, either when he is not asked, or when he is asked in an unlawful manner; and be also who asks in an unlawful manner; — both of these die, before time. If only one of them happens to be the transgressor, then he alone dies. When asked in an unlawful manner, if the wise man docs not explain, then the questioner dies; but if he does explain, then both of them die. This indication of the evil effects proceeding from improper questioning clearly implies that for the questioner also there is a proper manner of putting questions.

‘Or incurs the ill-will’ — enmity — of the people. — (111)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vidveṣam vādhigacchati’ — ‘Incurs the ill-will of the people’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja); — ‘loses the reward’ (Rāghavānanda); — ‘incurs the other party’s enmity’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 516), as laying down the duties of the Teacher.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (29.7) — (reproduces the words of Manu). Do., (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 516). — ‘One should not teach, or sacrifice for, a person who has not been duly tested.’

VERSE 2.112

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

धर्मार्थौ यत्र न स्यातां शुश्रूषा वाऽपि तद्विधा ।
तत्र विद्या न वप्तव्या शुभं बीजमिवौषरे ॥११२॥

dharmārthau yatra na syātāṃ śuśrūṣā vā'pi tadvidhā |
tatra vidyā na vaptavyā śubhaṃ bījamivauṣare ||112||

Where merit and wealth are not possible, nor is there an adequate desire to serve, there knowledge should not be imparted; just as healthy seed (is not sown) on barren land. — (112)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said above (in 109) that ‘these ten should be taught for the sake of merit ’; of that same injunction the present verse supplies a brief reiteration; it does not prescribe anything new, being merely elucidatory of the preceding injunction.

‘Wealth’ should be taken as standing for benefit of all kinds; since the preceding verse has spoken of teaching by way of exchange of knowledge also.

‘Adequate’; — i.e., commensurate with the teaching; there being much service it the teaching is much; and little service if the teaching is little.

‘There knowledge’; — the term ‘knowledge,’ ‘vidyā,’ stands for that by means of which all things are known; i.e., the reading of the text as well as the grasping of the meaning. The meaning is that he who does not bring any benefit should not be taught the text of the Veda, nor should the explanation of tho meaning of Vedic texts be expounded to him.

‘Ūṣara’ — stands for that plot of land where, on account of the defects in the soil, seeds do not sprout.

‘Healthy’; — corn-seeds of good variety are sown with the help of the plough, etc. Similarly knowledge also bears excellent fruits when sown (imparted) on good soil.

It should not be thought that, when one imparts knowledge when paid for it, it becomes a case of mere barter; because the action (of teaching) is not preceded by any bargaining as regards the price to be paid, such as — ‘if you give me such and such an amount, I shall impart to you such an amount of teaching’; while such bargain is the necessary condition of all ‘barter’; and the mere conferment of the slightest benefit does not constitute ‘barter.’

Though verse 215 below says that ‘one should not confer any benefit upon the teacher previously,’ — yet this does not quite prohibit the previous conferring of benefits; it is merely supplementary to the injunction that ‘when the pupil is going to take the Final Bath, he should, when asked to do so, bring for his Teacher all that may lie within his power’; and it is not an independent statement by itself. — (112)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 515), among texts laying down the Teacher’s duties; — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 523), as mentioning those who should not be taught; — in Madanapārjāta (p. 103) as mentioning certain persons not fit for teaching; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 51); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 312), which explains the meaning to be that ‘there is no merit in teaching a heretic who neglects the prescribed duties’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 140).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 112-113)

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2.4.9). — ‘Where merit and wealth are not possible, nor is there an adequate desire to serve, there one may rather perish with his learning, than sow it on barren soil.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (29.8). — (reproduces the words of Manu 112).

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 516). — ‘Where there is no merit or wealth, nor desire to serve nor clxance of riches, — there one may perish along with his learning; he should never sow it on barren soil.’

VERSE 2.113

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

विद्ययैव समं कामं मर्तव्यं ब्रह्मवादिना ।
आपद्यपि हि घोरायां न त्वेनामिरिणे वपेत् ॥११३॥

vidyayaiva samaṃ kāmaṃ martavyaṃ brahmavādinā |
āpadyapi hi ghorāyāṃ na tvenāmiriṇe vapet ||113||

The expounder of the Veda may rather perish along with his knowledge; hut he should never sow it on barren soil, even in dike distress. — (113)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘samam’ means ‘along with.’

It is better that the ‘expounder of the Veda’ — the student of the Veda — should die along with his knowledge — unexpounded to any person, and famishing in his own body — than that it should be taught to unfit persons.

From what is here said it follows that one who has studied the Veda should also teach it as a duty, and not merely for making a living; and that it is not only a person desiring a certain result that is entitled to the teaching; just as to the giving of water and such other acts it is not only persons with some motive that arc entitled. Says the Śruti — ‘He who, having studied the Science, does not expound it to those who need it, becomes an undoer of what he has done; — one should open the door to welfare; and should teach others; this function of words the poets describe as leading to fame; all this rests in this act; those that know this become immortal.’

When the text calls the man ‘an undoer of what he has done,’ what it means is that the omission of teaching constitutes an offence; and this implies that teaching is something tbat must be done.

‘On barren soil’; — i.e., to a person in whose case none of the three purposes are fulfilled.

‘Even in dire distress’; — i.e., e ven in times of troublous calamity; the ‘distress’ here meant is the absence of properly qualified pupils.

All this would be justified only if teaching were something that must be done.

“Teaching being compulsory, if fully qualified pupils be not available, one might fulfil his duty of teaching by getting hold of substitutes, for qualified pupils; just as in the absence of Vrīhī corn, sacrifices are accomplished by means of Nīvāra corn.”

(With a view to guard against this, the text has added that) under the said circumstances — when properly qualified pupils are not available, the necessity of performing the work of teaching should cease; just as when a properly qualified guest is not available, the necessity of the duty of ‘honouring the guest’ ceases.

‘Sow’; — this term which is directly applicable to the seed, indicates figuratively the work of teaching. Just as the seed sown in the field produces a large outturn, so does knowledge also.

Others have explained ‘distress’ as standing for ‘want of wealth.’ The sense in this case being that even though the man may be in the worst of conditions, he should not sow in barren soil, he should rather die; and by so doing the man could not be transgressing the injunction that ‘one should protect himself from all dangers,’ even though he could have within his reach the means of livelihood in the shape of teaching unqualified pupils.

This explanation however is not right. The pupils who pay money cannot bo called “barren soil”; the term ‘barren soil’ being only a reference to what has gone in the preceding verses. If the ‘giver of wealth’ also were not a qualified pupil, then how could there be any chance of the teacher undertaking the work of teaching him in times of distress, — which chance is prohibited iu the present verse? — (113)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This also is quoted along with 112 in Madanapārijāta (p. 103); — also in Vīdhānapārijāta (p, 523).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 112-113)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.112.

VERSE 2.114

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

विद्या ब्राह्मणमेत्याह शेवधिस्तेऽस्मि रक्ष माम् ।
असूयकाय मां मादास्तथा स्यां वीर्यवत्तमा ॥११४॥

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии