with the Commentary of Medhatithi 45 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 51 из 350Следующая ⇒

That expression has been added for the purpose of securing the use of the term ‘name’; the sense being that, one should pronounce his name saying ‘I am named so and so’ (and not merely ‘I am so and so.’)

According to others, both expressions mean the same thing ‘this here I am such and such a person’; so that the use of the one or the other expression is optional.

According to this verse, the exact form of the words of greeting comes to be this — ‘abhivādaye devadattanāma’ham bhoḥ,’ ‘I accost thee, Sir, I who am named Devadatta the use of the ‘Sir’ being prescribed in the following verse (124).

‘Elder’ — the addition of this word in the text is meant to imply that there should be accosting of equals and inferiors also, but in their case, the form is not as laid down here, which is meant for the case of elders only. — (122)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 25), where the following notes are added: — ‘abhivādāt,’ i.e., after the word ‘ahhivādaye,’ ‘I salute’ — one should mention his name, ‘I am so and so’; — the term ‘vipra’ stands for all the twice-born men; — also in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 45), which says that what is meant by ‘abhivādāt’ is ‘after having pronounced the words ‘I salute’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 96), which adds the explanation ‘one should pronounce his own name, I am Devadatta, after having saluted.’

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 450), where the following explanation is added: — When saluting the elder — i.e., an aged person — ‘abhivādātparam’ — i.e., after uttering the word ‘abhivādaye’, ‘I salute,’ — one should utter his proper name, ‘I am so and so.’ It has been declared in the Yajñasūtra that the generic pronoun ‘asau’ (‘so and so’) indicates the proper name. Since the text uses the term ‘elder,’ it follows that the method here laid down is not to be employed in saluting such uncles and other superior relatives as are younger in age to the saluter; the method for saluting them is going to be described later on. The term ‘Vipra’ includes the Kṣatriya and the rest also; as is clear from the rules regarding the returning of salutation, under verse 127 below.

On the expression ‘ahamasmi,’ this work quotes Medhātithi’s remark that both ‘aham’ and ‘asmi’ meaning the same thing, the use of the one or the other is optional. But this has been quoted as the opinion of ‘others’ by Medhātithi. This view is rejected by Vīramitrodaya as being repugnant to Manu, verse 122. It rejects the view of Kullūka also, who opines that the term ‘nāma’ need not be used in the formula.

This verse is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 296) where too the term ‘abhivādātparam’ is explained to mean — ‘Having first uttered the words I salute, he should pronounce his name’; — and in Aparārka (p. 52), which says that the formula is ‘abhivādaye caitranāmāhamasmi bhoḥ.’; — and in Aparārka (p. 52), which bìiivādaye caitranāmāhamasmi

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (1.6.5.) — ‘Having announced his name he should say Here I am, — such is the form of salutation on the meeting of a learned man.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (1.2.27). — ‘Saying Here I am Sir, he should touch his ears, for securing attention,’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.5-12). — ‘In the morning one should salute the Teacher, saving Here I am.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti. — ‘ He should say Here I am Sir to all those persons who are entitled to their feet being clasped by him.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (27.17). — ‘He should announce his name and at the end of the salutation should pronounce the word bhoḥ.’

Yajñavalkya (1.26). — ‘Then he should salute the elders, saying Here I am.’

VERSE 2.123

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

नामधेयस्य ये के चिदभिवादं न जानते ।
तान् प्राज्ञोऽहमिति ब्रूयात् स्त्रियः सर्वास्तथैव च ॥१२३॥

nāmadheyasya ye ke cidabhivādaṃ na jānate |
tān prājño'hamiti brūyāt striyaḥ sarvāstathaiva ca ||123||

To those persons who do not comprehend the (significance of the) name (pronounced) in the words of greeting, the wise one should say ‘I’; similarly to all, women. — (123)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From what has come before it might be understood that even an unlearned person deserves to be saluted, by reason of the large amount of wealth he might possess; the present verse serves to preclude such a notion.

‘Those who,’ being uneducated; — ‘of the name’ — in its Sanskrit form that may have been pronounced, — ‘the significance, as pronounced in the words of greeting’; persons, not conversant with grammar do not understand the words to mean that ‘I have been accosted by this person,’ — they do not understand the Sanskrit language. — To such persons, as also to women who deserve to be saluted, — these do not comprehend the Sanskrit language — the wise one should say simply ‘I salute thee,’ thus omitting only the mention of his name, which forms one part of the full injunction. If the persons thus accosted should fail to understand even this much, then they should be saluted even with corrupt vernacular forms of words; it is in view of this that the text has added the epithet ‘wise’; i.e., when one realises the difficulty of the other person’s understanding, he should find out some such form of greeting as might suit each particular case, and he should not stick to the precise form enjoined in the preceding verse.

‘Similarly to all women’; the term ‘all’ implies that the same applies even to the wives of teachers, — even though they be capable of understanding Sanskrit words.

Some people have explained that one should pronounce his name only when it so happens that he is known among people by a pseudonym — some such as ‘Vanamālīvarṇaḥ,’ — so that the real name given to him by his father is not known, and what is known is not his real name.

Others have explained the verse to refer to those who do not know the correct form of answering the salutation; for instance, Pāṇini (8.2.83) has laid down that the vowel at the end of the name pronounced in answering a salutation should he pronounced ultra-long; and to those who do not know this, the wise one should simply say ‘I.’ The author of the Mahābhāṣya (Patañjali) also has said the same in course of his explanation of the uses of the Science of Grammar — “Ignorant people who do not know that in answering a salutation, the name should be pronounced with an ultra-long vowel, — to such persons one may freely say simply ‘I,’ just as to women.” These writers have said that the term ‘abhivāda,’ ‘salutation,’ in the present verse has got to be taken in the sense of ‘answering a salutation,’ specially on account of what has been said in other Smṛtis. If the present verse is not explained on these lines, then, the prohibition of salutation, occurring in verse 126 below would come to be taken as prohibiting the saluting of all unlearned persons; and this would be contrary to what other Smṛti-rules have laid down regarding the use of the simple form ‘it is I’ (in the saluting of unlearned persons). If, on the other hand, we adopt the explanation as here suggested, then the said prohibition (occurring in 1.20) might be taken as purely commendatory, and not mandatory; and this would be quite consistent with the present explanation. — (123)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 501) as laying down the method of salutation also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 451), where the following observations are made: —

‘In the case of such illiterate men as do not comprehend the salutation addressed to them in the form of the Sanskrit sentence declaring the name of the saluter, — i. e. who do not understand that they are being saluted, — as also in the case of all women, literate and illiterate, — one should not omit his own name, and say simply, ‘I salute you and if even this much is not understood, then the salutation may be made even with corrupt vernacular words; — such is the implication of the term ‘prājña,’ wise. The ancients have defined ‘abhivādana ‘salutation’ as obeisance with the prescribed formula.

There is a difference among —

1. Pādopasaṃgrahaṇa (clasping the feet),
2. ‘Abhivādana’ (salutation)
3. and ‘Namaskāra’ (bowing);

 — the (1) being reserved for Teachers and Elders, (2) for people very much older than the saluter, and (3) for those only slightly older; so says Harihara; and Kalpataru also mentions ‘abhivādana’ and ‘Pādopasaṃgrahaṇa’ separately; Manu himself mentions the two separately in verse 216 below.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 54) as laying down that the saluting of illiterate persons is to be done in the same form as that of women; — also in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 98), which adds the explanation: — ‘To persons not conversant with the proper way of returning the salute along with the name of the saluter, — as also to all women — the salutation is to be offered only with the words ‘aham bhoḥ,’ ‘it is I, sir!’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (13.1.1). — ‘Here I am — he should say only this much, when saluting a person who is not learned enough to know the proper form of returning the salutation.’

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 54). — ‘Elderly ladies one shall salute with bowing the head; all ladies are to be saluted with one’s name; not so one’s mother or the wives of Elders — say some.’

VERSE 2.124

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

भोःशब्दं कीर्तयेदन्ते स्वस्य नाम्नोऽभिवादने ।
नाम्नां स्वरूपभावो हि भोभाव ऋषिभिः स्मृतः ॥१२४॥

bhoḥśabdaṃ kīrtayedante svasya nāmno'bhivādane |
nāmnāṃ svarūpabhāvo hi bhobhāva ṛṣibhiḥ smṛtaḥ ||124||

In saluting, one should pronounce the term “Oh, Sir” at the end op his own name; since it has been declared by the sages that the form “Oh, Sir” represents the form of all names. — (124)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘At the end of his own name one should pronounce the term Oh, Sir.’The epithet ‘own’ has been added with a view to precluding the possibility of the name of the saluted person being understood to be meant.

The rest of the verse is purely valedictory.

The term should be pronounced, immediately after the letters of the name, but after some, other letters also, such as the expression ‘I am’ (as laid down in verse, 122, above). The presence of the particle ‘iti’ (in verse 122, after ‘ahamasmi’) is meant to define the actual form of the expression to be used; the sense being that such is the actual form of the expression to be used; Further, if the expression were wrongly used iu the form ‘Devadatta, Oh, Sir, I am,’ the comprehension of its meaning (by the accosted person) would be delayed, and this would still further delay the inviting of his attention; and this would defeat the purpose of the salutation. And it may also happen that when the expression used is one not amenable to simple construction, the other party does not comprehend it at all.

‘Form’ — the existence of very essence. Or, it may mean that it comes in lieu of the name of the accosted person; i.e., comes in place of the name; and the name of the accosted person is. not pronounced. The term ‘bhāta’ may mean either that which is accomplished by means of existence, or that which is accomplished by means of an agent.

Or, we may read ‘svarūpabhāve,’ with the locative ending.

‘The form, Oh, Sir’; — i.e., the presence, the existence, of the term‘Oh, Sir’ — ‘is, the form of all names.’ Just as one is addressed by having his name uttered — ‘Oh, Devadatta, listen to me,’ similarly the term bhoḥ’ (Oh, Sir) — which ends in the Vocative case-ending — is used for the purposes of address; this has been so declared by the sages. — (124)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 26) with the following notes: — The term ‘bhoḥ’ is the ‘marūpabhāva’ of names; i.e. it leads the name uttered to reach the person addressed; the sense being that when addressed with the term ‘bhoḥ’, the person catches the saluter’s name. The root in the term ‘bhāva’ denotes reaching. If we read ‘bhobhāvaḥ’ this would mean ‘the bhāva, or presence, of the term bhoḥ:

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 450) where we have the following notes: — At the end of the name pronounced in the salutation, one should utter the term ‘bhoḥ’ for attracting the attention of the person saluted; because it has been declared by the sages that the term ‘bhoḥ’ stands for the names of the persons addressed; so that, even though the name of the saluted person be not uttered, the term ‘bhoḥ’ becomes the proper form of address. Thus then the formula for saluting comes to be ‘abhivādaye amukanāma ahamasmi bhoḥ.’

This is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 191); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 45), which states the complete formula as ‘Ābhivādaye Devadatto’ham bho’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 96).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (28.17.) — ‘In salutation, he should pronounce his own name and at the end the word bhoḥ.’

VERSE 2.125

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

आयुष्मान् भव सौम्यैति वाच्यो विप्रोऽभिवादने ।
अकारश्चास्य नाम्नोऽन्ते वाच्यः पूर्वाक्षरः प्लुतः ॥१२५॥

āyuṣmān bhava saumyaiti vācyo vipro'bhivādane |
akāraścāsya nāmno'nte vācyaḥ pūrvākṣaraḥ plutaḥ ||125||

On saluting, the Brāhmaṇa should he answered with the words ‘Be long lived, O Gentle One’; and at the end of his name the vowel “a,” which occurs at the end of the consonant, should be pronounced ultra long. — (125)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

On salutation having been done, the answering greeting should be made by the Father to the accoster, with the words — ‘Be long-lived, Oh Gentle One.’ The particle ‘iti’ in the text is meant to show that the preceding words constitute the formula. The use of such expressions also as (a) ‘āyuṣmān edhi,’ ' Prosper O Long-lived One,’ (b) ‘dīrghāyurbhūyāh,’ ‘Be long-lived,’ (c) ‘cirañjīva,’ ‘Live long’ — is permitted by the usage of cultured men.

‘The vowel “a”’ — which occurs at the end of the name of the person whose salutation is answered — ‘should be pronounced ultra-long.’ The term ‘pluta,’ ‘ultra-long,’ stands for the vowel that is drawn out to the length of three moras. The vowel ‘a’ is mentioned only by way of illustration; it stands for ‘i’ and other vowels also. The ‘end’ spoken of in the text is in relation to the vowels only; so that in the case of names ending in consonants also, the lengthening applies to the vowel that happens to be the last, ‘at the end.’ The term ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ qualities the ‘vowel a,’ which is to be lengthened; and ‘akṣara’ here stands for the consonant; and the compound means ‘that vowel of which the preceding syllable is a consonant’; i.e., the vowel occurring along with the consonant. What is meant is that it is the vowel ‘a’ already there tbat is to be lengthened, and not any such vowel as might be added; that is, the vowel that is already present in the name is to be lengthened out.

All this explanation is in accordance with the rules of the revered Pāṇini; as in the matter of the use of words and their meaning, the revered Pāṇini is more authoritative than Manu and other writers. And Pāṇini has laid down (in 8.2.83) that ‘in answering tile greeting of a non-śūdra, the ṭi should be ultra-long and the name ‘ṭi’ is given to that syllable of which the last vowel forms the beginning (which in tho present case is the ‘a,’ which is regarded as a part of itself and hence ‘having the last vowel for its beginning’). No significance is meant to be attached to the specification of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ in the present verse; as what is here prescribed is applicable to the Kṣatriya and others also. The usage sanctioned by other Smṛtis is also the same, and no separate rules are laid down for these other castes.

As an example we have such expressions as ‘Be long-lived, O Devaḍattā’; and one containing a name ending in consonant, — ‘Be long lived, O Somaśarmān.’ — (125)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Buhler adopts the reading ‘pūrvākṣaraplutaḥ’, which is given by Nandana, and mentioned by Nārāyaṇa. The meaning, according to this, as Buhler remarks, is that the name Devadatta should be pronounced as ‘Devadattā.’ Medhātithi and Kullūka adopt the reading ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ plutaḥ,’ under which the meaning is that ‘the vowel a, which occurs at the end of the consonant, should be pronounced ultra-long.’ “According to this interpretation,” says Buhler, “Manu’s rule agrees with Āpastamba and Pāṇinī (8-2-88). Govindarāja and Rāghavānanda go far off the mark.”

Several commentators note that ‘vipraḥ’ includes all the twice-born persons.

Medhātithi (p. 182, 1. 4) — ‘Tatra pūrvasmin &c.’ — Kullūka’s expounding of the compound is simpler — ‘pūrvam’ nāmagatam — ‘akṣaram’ — vyāñjanam — saṃśliṣṭam yasya sa pūrvākṣaraḥ.’

Ibid, (p. 182, 1. 8) — ‘Bhagavān Paṇinīḥ’ — This refers to the sūtra ‘acontyādi ṭi’ which defines the ‘ṭi’ as ‘that which has for its beginning the last among the vowels’; and the example given in Siddhāntakaumudī under Sūtra 8.283 is, Āyuṣmān bhava Devadattā’; from which it is clear that the name ‘ṭi’ is applicable to the vowel ‘a’ in ‘tta’ and it is ‘tadādi’ — having for its beginning the last of the vowels — in the sense that it ends in itself, it being regarded as its own constituent part, according to Śabdenduśekhara, which has the following note —

nanu mārtaṇḍa ityatra mārtaśabdāntyāc takārākāraḥ sa ādiryasyetyanyapadārtho durlabha iti cenna | ekasminneva samudāyatvāropeṇa tadavayavatvāropeṇa ca tadupapatteḥ ||

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 297), which adds the following notes: — The compound ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ is to be expounded as pūrvara akṣaram yasya; and the ‘purvam akṣaram’, ‘preceding syllable,’ in a name is the consonant, since a vowel can not be ‘preceded’ by another vowel; hence the meaning comes to be that the vowel at the end of the final consonant should be pronounced ultra-long. The term ‘akṣaraḥ’ stands for all vowels that may occur at the end of a name [This is exactly what Medhātithi and Kullūka have said]; the text could not have meant the vowel ‘a’ only; as it is not possible for all names to end in that vowel. Thus the formula comes to be — ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya Devadattā.’

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 26), which supplies three different explanations: — At the end of the words ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya,’ the name of the saluter should be pronounced — ‘Viṣṇuśarman’; (a) at the end of the name an ‘a’ should be pronounced, and of this ‘a,’ the ‘pūrvasvaraḥ,’ the preceding syllable,’.should be ultra-long. The masculine form ‘akṣaraḥ’ is a Vedic archaism, [ the right form being ‘akṣaram’]. Though the syllable ‘preceding’ (the ‘a’ pronounced after the name ‘Viṣṇuśarman’) would be ‘n,’ yet inasmuch as the consonant could not be pronounced ‘ultra-long,’ the term ‘preceding syllable’ would apply in this case to ‘a’ that is contained in the name [ i.e. the ‘a’ after ‘m’]; and it is this ‘a’ that would be pronounced ultra-long [The formula thus being ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya Viṣṇuśarmā3n’]. — (&) ‘Pūrvākṣaram plutam’ is another reading, in which case the construction is all light [and there is no archaism]; the meaning being that ‘the preceding syllable is to be pronounced ultra-long.’ — (c) Or, the sentence ‘akāraśchāsya nāmno’nte’ may be explained as follows: — The vowel ‘a’ (ākāraḥ) that appears at the end of ‘his’ (‘asya’, the saluter’s) ‘name’ (‘nāmnaḥ’) — ‘a’ mentioned only by way of illustration, any vowel at the end of the name being meant, — is what is qualified by the qualifying word ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ — which means, in this case, — that which has the syllables, akṣaram, in the name ‘preceding’ — ‘pūrvāṇi,’ — itself; and such a vowel should be pronounced ultra-long, — and no other ‘a’, either in the name itself, or added after the name.

The formula, according to all these explanations, is ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya Devadattā3.’ This is not accepted by Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 452), which would omit the word ‘saumya,’ which in Manu’s text, it takes as standing for the name of the saluter; so that the formula according to it would be ‘āyuṣmān bhava Devadattā3.’ It argues that if we don’t take the word ‘saumya’ as standing for the name, we would have to seek elsewhere for the injunction for pronouncing the name in regard to which the second half prescribes the ultra-elongation of the final ‘a.’ — As regards the second line of the verse, it takes it to mean that, ‘the a tliat appears at the end of the saluter’s name should be pronounced ultra-long; — and adds that the vowel ‘a’ here stands for vowels in general; as all names do not, and cannot end in ‘a’, in the case of names ending in consonants also, fhe syllable to be ultra-elongated would be the last of the vmvels contained in the name; it is clear from Pāṇini’s rule that the ‘ṭi’ syllable is to be so pronounced (see note, above) — and it is the last vowel that is called ‘ṭi’. — In the compound pūrvākṣaraḥ ‘akṣara’ means consonant, and the compound means ‘that which has a consonant immediately preceding it’; so that the text comes to mean that ‘the vowel that has a consonant immediately preceding it should not be separated from the consonant and then pronounced ultra-long; it should be pronounced along with the consonant.’ It concludes that this explanation is in agreement with Medhātithi and several others. According to this view the formulas would be — (a) ‘āyuṣmān bhava Devadattā3’ (where the name ends in a vowel) and (b) ‘āyuṣmān bhava Somaśarmā3n,’ where the name ends in a consonant.

The same work goes on to add that Haradatta has adopted the reading ‘pūrvākṣaraplutaḥ’ (see note above) and has explained the verse as follows: — At the end of the name is to be pronounced an additional ‘a’ — over and above the syllables in the name itself, — and this additional ‘a’ — is to be ‘pūrvākṣaraplutaḥ,’ — i. e., ‘having its preceding syllable — i. e., vowel — ultra-long’; — i. e., the vowel preceding the additional ‘a’ should be ultra-long; and this may be done also where consonants may be intervening between the two. Thus in the case of there being no intervening consonant, the formula would be āyuṣmān bhava saumya Devadattā3,’ while in that of there being an intervening consonant, it would be āyuṣmān bhava saumya Agnichi3da’ (where the consnant, ‘d’ intervenes between the additional ‘a’ at the end, and the vowel ‘i’ preceding it.)

It further adds that the term ‘vipraḥ’ includes the Kṣatriya and others also, as is clear from the fact that in grammar we find rules (a) making the ultra-elongation of the final vowel optional in the case of the saluter being a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya, and also (b) prohibiting the elongation in the case of the saluter being a woman or a Śūdra.

This work quotes Medhātithi to the effect that the words in the text ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya’ are meant to be purely illustrative, and it is not meant that these should be the very words used; it is thus that even such returns become permissible as — ‘āyuṣmānedhi,’ ‘dīrghāyurbhūyāḥ,’ ‘cirañjīva’ and others that are in common use among cultured people.

This verse is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 191), where ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ is explained as referring to the letter preceding the ‘n’ in ‘śarman’; — and in Aparārka (p, 53), which adds the following note: — The ‘akāra’ here stands for the final vowel in the name of the saluter; hence whichever. vowel occurs at the end of the name should be pronounced ultra-long; hence ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ means ‘that which is preceded by a syllable’; this syllable preceding the final vowel must be a consonant. Hence the meaning is that the vowel, along with the consonant, should be pronounced ultra-long. It does not mean that an additional ‘a’ is to be added at the end of the name.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 98), which adds the following notes: — The vowel ‘a’ here stands for any vowel that occurs at the end of a name; there is no such rule as that every name must end in ‘a’; hence the elongation pertains to the vowel that occurs at the end of a name; and it does not mean that an additional ‘a’ has to be added at the end of every name.

It is quoted also in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 46), which has the same remarks regarding the vowel ‘a’; it adds: — According to some people, the title ‘śarman’ also has to be pronounced; so that the formula would be ‘āyuṣmān bhava Devadattā śarman.’ Others hold that the elongation prescribed is to be done to the ‘a’ contained in the term ‘śarman’ But this is open to doubt, as the term ‘śarman’ does not form part of the name; if it did, then, as some other syllables would necessarily be required to be prefixed to this, it could not be possible to have any name ‘with two letters’, as has been prescribed. This elongation of the vowel is not done in the name of the Śūdra, who is excluded, according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra ‘Pratyabhivāde’śūdre’; this however makes it clear that the salutation of the Śūdra also is to be returned.

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология