with the Commentary of Medhatithi 47 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 53 из 350Следующая ⇒

Others however hold that, there is some difference in the treatment to be accorded to the mother and to the Teacher’s wife. In the case of the Teacher’s wife, worship, etc., are necessary; while in the case of the mother, it is often otherwise also, because of the son being too young, or because of the mother being too fond of him. And since the father’s sister and the mother’s sister also fondle the child (like his mother), it is only natural that these should be treated like the mother. Fondling during childhood is done by one’s own older sister also. But when one has passed beyond childhood, his treatment of these relatives should be like that of his teacher’s wife. All this is not got out of the present verse only. And if we did not have both declarations (one in the present verse, and Another in 131), then the mere assertion of ‘behaviour as towards his mother’ would be liable to be understood as referring to salutation only, as it is this that forms the subject-matter of the context; while as a matter of fact, it is the loving behaviour that is here intended to be accorded. — (133)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 459) in support of the view that the ladies herein mentioned should be accosted by the clasping of the feet, as they are here declared to be treated ‘like the mother’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 90).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (32.3). — ‘Mother’s sister, father’s sister, and the elder sister also.’

VERSE 2.134 [Degrees of Respect]

Section XXIV - Degrees of Respect

दशाब्दाख्यं पौरसख्यं पञ्चाब्दाख्यं कलाभृताम् ।
त्र्यब्दपूर्वं श्रोत्रियाणां स्वल्पेनापि स्वयोनिषु ॥१३४॥

daśābdākhyaṃ paurasakhyaṃ pañcābdākhyaṃ kalābhṛtām |
tryabdapūrvaṃ śrotriyāṇāṃ svalpenāpi svayoniṣu ||134||

Among citizens friendship and equality are regarded as ranging within ten years (of age-difference); among artists, it is regarded as ranging within five years; among learned men, it proceeds up to three years; and among blood-relations, it ranges only within a very short period of time. — (134)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said above (under 120) that ‘the life-breaths of the younger men rush outwards at the approach of the elder now the present verse proceeds to determine by bow many years one may be regarded as an ‘elder’; among ordinary men people come to be regarded as ‘elderly’ when they become grey-headed.

Among citizens, equality and friendship are regarded as subsisting among people who differ in their age by ten years, so that among these, one conies to be regarded as ‘elder’ when he happens to be more than ten years older; and those less than that should be treated as ‘friends and equals’; and hence accosted as ‘Oh, Sir,’ as declared by Gautama (6.14) — “Equals in age should be accosted as ‘Oh, Sir’; when the difference in age is more than ten years, the person should be regarded as ‘elder.’

In the expression ‘daśābdākhya,’ ‘ākhyā’ stands for ‘ākhyānam,’ ‘description’; and the compound, a three-termed Bahuvrīhi, means ‘that whose description is ten years’; the years being construed as qualifying ‘friendship’ on the basis of ‘description,’ and no significance being attached to the difference between cause and effect (the ‘years’ being the cause of the ‘friendship’), all that the compound means is that — ‘one who is senior by about ten years is an equal friend.’

‘Pauras,’ ‘citizens,’ are ‘persons living in cities.’ The mention of ‘cities’ is only by way of illustration; the same rule holds good among inhabitants of villages also. Among people living in the same village, all those come to be regarded as ‘friends’ among whom there happens to be some ground for close intimacy.

Those persons who practise some sort of art — crafts, music and the rest, — among these one who is older by less than five years is an ‘equal’; beyond that, he is ‘elder.’

‘Tryabdam’ means ‘that which is preceded by three years’; and of this kind is the ‘equality’ among learned men.

‘Among blood-relations, it ranges within a very short period of time’; — i.e., among persons belonging to the same family, he who is senior by only a few days is also ‘elder.’

“What period of time is to be regarded as very short?”

It cannot he three years; for having spoken of three ‘years,’ the text mentions ‘short,’ which means that it must be less than that. It cannot mean two years, because of the singular number. Nor lastly, can it mean one year, as in that case there would be no point in the qualification ‘very short.’ Because ‘year’ is the name given to a well-defined period of time; so that a period of time which is less than that even by a single day ceases to be a ‘year.’ For these reasons ‘short’ must refer to time in general (unspecified), the only peculiarity being tbat it, should be less than a year.

The particle ‘ca’ should be taken as standing for ‘?va,’ ‘only’; the meaning being ‘friendship ranges only within a very short period of time, beyond that the man becomes elder.’ All this should be taken as holding good only among people of the same caste, possessed of similar qualifications; so that the definition of ‘elder’ as something relative in sense is that obtaining among ordinary people.

Other persons explain the verso as follows: — This verse does not define what is tho characteristic of being ‘elder’; it only serves to define ‘Friendship.’ It could be taken as defining ‘elderliness’ only if we abandoned its direct meaning; as only then could it be taken to mean that ‘during such time one is a friend, and after that he becomes an elder.’ As a matter of fact, what the verse means is as follows: — (a) People who live in the same city for ten years become ‘friends’; (b) among people knowing the arts — sixty-four in number — companionship during five years establishes ‘friendship’; (c) among blood-relations, friendship is established by living together even for a very short time. Thus then, one does not become a ‘friend’ simply because he happens to be of equal age, in fact the ‘friend’ is as described; but the said conditions of ‘friendship’ all require tbat the parties concerned be of equal age.

All this may be true; but this explanation is inconsistent with the next verse; in the latter, ‘caste’ is mentioned as the pre-eminent factor, and not the age; and the reason is that if the mere fact of being so many years older in age were to make one ‘elder,’ then we could not get rid of the contingency of persons of different (and inferior) castes being regarded as ‘elders.’

Older commentators have all adopted the first explanation (put forward by us). — (134)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Those who are ‘friends’ and equals may address each other with the words ‘bhoḥ’, ‘bhavat,’ or ‘vayasya’, ‘friend’. The explanation of the verse, which is substantially the same in all the commentaries, is based on Gautama’s passage (6.14-17); while Haradatta’s interpretation of Āpastamba (1.4.13) somewhat differs.” — (Buhler).

“A small difference in age constitutes among relatives a difference in position; but in other cases only a considerable difference as specified. — This ‘equality’ refers to the form of salutation among equals.” — (Burnell — Hopkins).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 466), where the following explanation is given: — Among persons living in the same city, and not possessed of any exceptional learning or wealth or other qualifications, if the difference in the age of two persons extends to within ten years, they are to treat each other as ‘friends,’ and there is to be no salutation; the ‘city’ here includes the village also; — among persons versed in music and other arts, equality extends to within five years of difference in age; — and among those learned in the Veda to within one (as read here) year; — and among Sapiṇḍas, to within a very short period of time. In every case there is ‘superority’ if the difference exceeds the periods mentioned.

It is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 299), where also we have the following explanation Among inhabitants of the same village one is to be treated as ‘friend’ if he is older by less than ten years; beyond that he is to be treated as ‘superior’. — Among men expert in the arts and in learning, there is equality if there is a difference of five years; — among persons learned in the Veda, or students of the Veda, there is equality if there is a difference of three years, after which the older man becomes ‘superior’; — among blood relations, brothers and the rest, the older person is to be treated as an equal only when the difference in age is very small.

Parāśaramādhava raises the question of saluting such Ṛtvik and others as are younger in age. In view of the general rule that these should be saluted, the fact of any one being younger in age does not deprive him of his right to a salute. The conclusion however is that all that is meant is that they have to be ‘treated with respect’; and this implies that one should stand up to receive and welcome them with agreeable words, as is clearly laid down by Baudhāyana, who says,

ṛtvikśvaśurapitṛ?yamātulānāṃ tu yaviyasāṃ pratyutthānābhibhāṣaṇam.

That these are not to he saluted is clearly asserted by Gautama (6.9), which lays down that these are anabhivāthāḥ (?), It is interesting to note that in quoting Gautama, Mādhava has read abhivādanam in place of anabhivādyāḥ; but knowing somehow that the meaning of Gautama was that these are not abhivādyāḥ, he has explained abhivādanam as abhibhāṣaṇam, speech.

The verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 29) as declaring the difference in age which constitutes ‘superiority’. It practically repeats the explanation given in Parāśaramādhava (see above); but at the end adds that among blood-relations, the difference of even one day establishes superiority; while between relations born on the same day there is equality as declared by Āpastamba. — ‘One born on the same day is a friend.’

Aparārka (p. 53) quotes this verse and adds the following explanation: — Among citizens even one who is ten years older is a ‘friend and it is only one who is more than ten years older is to be regarded as an ‘elder’; among musicians and other artists one older by five years or less is a ‘friend’, older than that he becomes an ‘elder’; among Vedic scholars, it is upto three years; and among these latter, superority or inferiority is determined by special qualifications. — -The particle ‘api’ means ‘eva’.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 101), which offers the following explanation: — Among citizens, one who is senior by one to ten years is to be regarded as a ‘friend’ — an equal; one older than that is an ‘elder’ — a superior; — among artists people versed in singing, dancing and so forth there is ‘friendship’ upto a difference of five years; among Vedic scholars it extends to a difference of three years; older than that, is ‘elder’ — superior; among blood-relations there is ‘friendship’ within a limit of very few years; one even a little older is to be saluted like an ‘elder’; — all this refers to Brāhmaṇas.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.24.13). — ‘Friendship (equality) among citizens extends up to ten years; among members of the same Vedic sect, up to five years and the elder Vedic scholar deserves salutation if he is senior by three years.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (6.2.5). — ‘One born on the same day as oneself is his friend; a citizen who is senior by ten years; an artisan, who is senior by five years; a Vedic scholar of the same Vedic sect, who is senior by three years.’

VERSE 2.135

Section XXIV - Degrees of Respect

ब्राह्मणं दशवर्षं तु शतवर्षं तु भूमिपम् ।
पितापुत्रौ विजानीयाद् ब्राह्मणस्तु तयोः पिता ॥१३५॥

brāhmaṇaṃ daśavarṣaṃ tu śatavarṣaṃ tu bhūmipam |
pitāputrau vijānīyād brāhmaṇastu tayoḥ pitā ||135||

The Brāhmaṇa or ten years and the Kṣatriya or a hundred years should be known as father and son; and of the two this Brāhmaṇa is the father. — (135)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

One since whose birth ten years have elapsed is ‘of ten years.’ The time is the determining and the Brāhmaṇa the determined factor; but it is not possible to determine, by means of time, either his tallness or shortness or thinness, etc.; what can be determined by it is only a certain act of his; and this act can only be that of maintaining his life-breath, which subsists in him continuously since his birth.

The same explanation applies to the epithet ‘of a hundred years.’

They should be looked upon as ‘father and son.’

‘Of the two’ — as compared with each other, — ’ the Brāhmaṇa is the father.’

All that this means is that even when the Kṣatriya is very old and the Brāhmaṇa very young in years, the former should rise to meet and salute the latter. — (135)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 474), as showing that the Brāhmaṇa is ‘superior’ to all.

It quotes the same verse as contained in Bhaviṣyapurāṇa. — . It is quoted also in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 44b); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 101) to the effect that as between a Brāhmaṇa and a Kṣatriya, the former is to be saluted by the latter, even though he be very much junior in age.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.14.25) — (a paraphrase of Manu).

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (32.17) — (reproduces the exact words of Manu).

Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 474) — (has the verse of Manu, to which it adds another verse to the effect that) — ‘the Brāhmaṇa has thus been declared by the wise the Kṣatriya’s father, the Vaiśya’s grand-father and the Śūdra’s great-grand-father.’

Śātātapa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, pp. 473-474). — ‘Agni is the superior of the Twice-born men, the Brāhmaṇa is the superior of all castes.’

Śātātapa (Parāśaramāḍhava, p. 299). — ‘The Kṣatriya and the rest should never be saluted by the Brāhmaṇa, even though they be endowed with knowledge and of good conduct and very learned.’

Mahābhārata (13.8.21). — ‘The Kṣatriya, hundred years old and the Brāhmaṇa, ten years old, should he regarded as father and son; of the two, the Brāhmaṇa being the superior.’

VERSE 2.136

Section XXIV - Degrees of Respect

वित्तं बन्धुर्वयः कर्म विद्या भवति पञ्चमी ।
एतानि मान्यस्थानानि गरीयो यद् यदुत्तरम् ॥१३६॥

vittaṃ bandhurvayaḥ karma vidyā bhavati pañcamī |
etāni mānyasthānāni garīyo yad yaduttaram ||136||

Wealth, Relation, Age, Action and Learning, as the fifth, — these are the grounds of respect; (among them) that which follows is weightier (than that which goes before it). — (136)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Caste has been described as a ground of superiority; so that one belonging to a higher caste should be respected by one of a lower caste. The text now proceeds to describe the relative strength of those factors that entitle persons of a caste to salutation and honour among themselves.

Age is mentioned here again only for the purpose of indicating its position as compared with others.

In the case of all that is mentioned here it is the connection of the person with them that entitles him to respect. That is, the possession of wealth and the possession of relations constitute titles of respect. It is not meant that the peculiar relationship borne by the man — such as that of being a paternal or a maternal uncle — constitutes the title of respect; what is meant is that one who has many relations deserves to be respected.

‘Age’ — i.e., advanced age. The term is generally used in this qualified sense ; e. g., in such passages as — ‘Even though the son be of age, he should be advised by his father.’ Verse 134 has already explained what age entitles one to respect

‘Action’ — such as is laid down in Śrutis and Smṛtis; i. e., one’s assiduity in performing such actions.

‘Learning,’ — the knowledge of the Veda along with the subsidiary sciences and their auxiliaries.

Objection. — “In view of such declarations as ‘the learned man offers sacrifices,’ ‘the learned man officiates at sacrifices,’ the unlearned person can never be entitled to the performance of religious acts; under the circumstances, how can mere ‘action,’ without ‘learning,’ be a ground for respect?”

Answer. — There is no force in this objection. Excellence is what is meant here. Superior or efficient learning is what constitutes a title to respect; and as for the performance of actions, this can be done also by men possessed of limited learning; for a man is entitled to perform actions in accordance with the knowledge possessed by him: specially as ‘learning’ entitles a person to the performance of actions simply because it serves to capacitate him for it, and not because it has been declared to be a necessary condition.

“But the man devoid of learning cannot know the form of the action to be performed, and being capable of acting only like lower animals, to the performance of what could he be entitled?”

Even such a person can, on having heard a few Smṛti-texts, perform austerities and repeat mantras. It is only in the performance of the Agnihotra and such other Vedic rites that one requires the knowledge of Vedic texts. But here also the title to perform the rites is dependent upon the extent of knowledge possessed by the man; e.g., one who knows the meaning of tho texts bearing upon the Agnihotra is entitled to its performance; the knowledge of other sacrifices is of no use in that.

The following argument might be urged here — “We have the injunction ‘the entire Veda should be studied,’ which pertains to the whole Veda, and implies the thorough understanding of the whole; and when it is necessary to understand the meaning of the entire Veda, how can there be any such partial knowledge as could justify such an assertion as that ‘he who knows the meaning of the texts bearing on the Agnihotra shall be entitled to the performance of that act, even though he be ignorant of the meaning of other texts?’”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — It is the study of one Vedic Recension that is necessary; and what we mean is that he who has studied one Recension and has fully understood its meaning, becomes entitled to the performance of Vedic acts, even without studying the other Recensions.

“The purpose of the Scripture is the same in all cases; even though there may be some difference in the order of a few words and syllables, yet the main feature of the Scripture remains the same. Then again, as for the understanding of the meaning, this is obtained by the due comprehension of the meanings of words and reasonings; now, neither the meanings of words, nor the reasonings, differ in the different Recensions. So that the means by which one learns the meaning of one Recension serves the same purpose in regard to the other Recensions also; and one does not stand in need of any other learning; so that if One Recension has been learnt, all become learnt.”

True. Such Agnihotra, etc., as are enjoined in one Recension may not differ from the same acts as enjoined in other Recensions; but there are certain actions which are not enjoined at all in certain Recensions. E.g., the Śyena and other malevolent rites in connection with the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa are not found in the Aśvalāyana Recension of the Ṛgveda; nor the Somayāga, the Vājapeva, the Bṛhaspatisava and so forth. So that when a man has learnt one Recension, he becomes entitled to that Agnihotra and that Jyotiṣṭoma, etc., which are enjoined iu that Recension; and if one who has not studied another Recension, and has neither read nor heard of it, how can he know anything about the acts enjoined in that other Recension? Nor ore the Soma-sacrifices compulsory; so that, through fear of incurring the sin of omitting a compulsory act, one might be forced to seek for the knowledge of them from other Recensions. As for the ‘Kindling of Fire,’ even though this also is not found enjoined in the said Āśvalāyana recension of the Ṛgveda, yet it does contain the injunction of preparing the ‘Āhavanīya’ fire; as is clear from such passages as ‘bring up the Āhavanīya’; so that, not understanding the meaning of this passage with the help of ordinary people, the student naturally seeks, from other Recensions, for the knowledge of what this ‘Āhavanīya’ is; and thus he comes to look over the entire section of the other Recension dealing with the ‘Kindling of Fire.’ Similarly having heard the passage — ‘Having offered either the Amāvāsyā or the Paurṇamāsa libations, etc.,’ one seeks from other Recensions for the knowledge of the exact form of the two acts (of Amāvāsyā and Paurṇamāsa offerings). Similarly in the case of other compulsory and optional acts that have to be performed, when it is found that some of their details arc not laid down in a certain Recension, — -such details, for instance, as pertain to the Adhvaryu (and are mentioned in the Yajurveda) or to the Udgātṛ (and are mentioned in the Sāma-Veda), — the requisite knowledge is sought for from those other texts. It is not possible for one to know the act that is laid down in Recensions other than the one studied by him. To the student who learns several Recensions, and studies their meanings, all this becomes quite clear. But even in the absence of such knowledge as this last, the performance of acts is quite possible. Or, such performance could be possible even on a slight understanding (of the Vedic texts).

The sense of all this is that in the case of one whose learning is flawless, and who is fit to explain all sciences, such learning constitutes a title to respect.

‘Weightier.’ — The comparative ending indicates that the comparison is between two and two out of the five mentioned. Thus one who is fully versed in all the fourteeu sciences, is respected through his ‘learning,’ even though he he not entitled to it on account of being lame, blind or poor.

The text points out the relative superiority of these, with a view to cases where there may i.e a conflict among them. —

‘Among these that which follow is weightier than that which precedes it.’ For instance, when one man has vast wealth, and the other has many relations, then the latter deserves higher respect than the former; for that which follows is ‘weightier’ than that which precedes it. Similarly Age is weightier than Relation. And from this it follows that Age is weightier still than Wealth. From all this it is clear that ‘Learning is superior to all, for all Dharma is based upon it,’ as has been declared by Gautama (6-21 — 22).

Objection. — “Since the preceding factor is not weighty, how can we have the comparative form ‘weightier’? It is only when there are two weighty things that one can be called weightier; and since in the present case is, ex hypothesi, in relation to something preceding there can be no weightiness in ‘wealth,’ which is not preceded by any thing else.”

What is meant is that the whole lot of five being ‘weighty’ in common, the comparative ending is rightly used as showing that one is weightier than the other.

‘Māna’ means respect; ‘sthāna’ means ground, cause.

If we adopt the reading ‘Mānyasthānāni,’ the term ‘mānya’ is to be explained as having the force of the abstract noun; ‘mānya’ standing for ‘mānyatva.’ — (136)

It has just been declared that among persons each of whom possesses only one of the qualifications mentioned, one possessing the latter is to be regarded as superior to one possessing the former. Now the question arises — between two persons, one of whom possesses two former qualifications and the other possesses only one latter qualification, who is to be treated as superior? The following verse answers this question.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 474), where we find the following notes: — ‘Vittam’ stands for wealth acquired by lawful means; — ‘bandhuḥ’ for uncles and others; — ‘vayaḥ’ for older age; — ‘karma’ for acts prescribed in the Śruti and Smṛti; — ‘vidyā’ for true knowledge; — these are ‘mānyasthānāni,’ i.e. grounds of respectability. (See note below on 137).

Aparārka (p. 159) quotes this verse in support of the view that a man, though belonging to an inferior caste, deserves to be respected by another of the superior caste, if the former happens to be possessed of superior learning and other qualifications. — It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 44b); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 106), which explains ‘mānyasthānāni’ as ‘grounds of respect, and adds that ‘learning’ is the highest of these all.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu Smṛti (32.16) — (words of Manu reproduced).

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (6.20). — ‘Wealth, Relationship, Caste, Learning and Age are objects of respect: the succeeding being superior to the preceding; Vedic Learning is superior to all, Dharma being based upon that.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (1.3.21). — ‘Learning, Wealth, Age, Relationship and Deeds are objects of respect; when all these are present, the preceding has preference over the succeeding,’

Yājñavalkya (1.116). — ‘By reason of Learning, Action, Age, Relationship, etc., and Wealth, in order, does a man become respected.’

VERSE 2.137

Section XXIV - Degrees of Respect

पञ्चानां त्रिषु वर्णेषु भूयांसि गुणवन्ति च ।
यत्र स्युः सोऽत्र मानार्हः शूद्रोऽपि दशमीं गतः ॥१३७॥

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману