with the Commentary of Medhatithi 48 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 54 из 350Следующая ⇒

pañcānāṃ triṣu varṇeṣu bhūyāṃsi guṇavanti ca |
yatra syuḥ so'tra mānārhaḥ śūdro'pi daśamīṃ gataḥ ||137||

Among the three (higher) castes, he, in whom there are present most op these five, and of high degree, deserves (greater) respect; as also the Śūdra who has reached the tenth stage (of life). — (137)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Of these five’ grounds of respect; — he in whom there are ‘a larger number’ — not all — ‘deserves respect.’ And here the mere sequence (or posteriority) of the qualifications should not be much heeded. For instance, when one man possesses wealth and relations, and the other possesses only old age, — the former gets preference over the latter.

But even when there are several qualities present, if they are not of high degree, — while the single quality possessed by the other person is of very high degree, — then both are equal; and the larger number do not get over the latter (superior) qualification.

When the former verse uses the term ‘weightier,’ it only means superiority in comparison to one (not several) of the preceding ones.

When however in one person there are a larger number of preceding qualities and also of high degree, — of great excellence, — while in the other person there are present the same number of succeeding qualities, — so that the number of preceding and succeeding qualifications (possessed by the two men) are equal, — then, there is no getting over the one by the other, simply on the ground of precedence (in enumeration); in this case both are to he regarded as equal.

“Since what the text declares is that he is deserving of respect in whom the qualities are of high degree, — it would he right to conclude that in the case just mentioned where the two persons possess an equal number of qualities (hut the preceding ones are of higher degree), the presence of the preceding set should get over the other.”

Not so; the epithet ‘of high degree’ is meant to apply to the case where the two sets of qualities are equal; e.g., where the one as well as the other is possessed of learning, superiority belongs to one whose learning is of the superior order. Similarly with the other qualities.

‘Among the three Castes,’ — i.e., among Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas. If the said qualities, many in number and of high degree, belong to the Kṣatriya, then such a Kṣatriya deserves to be respected by the Brāhmaṇa possessed of inferior qualities, even though he belongs to the higher caste. The Vaiśya, similarly, is to be respected by the Kṣatriya.

Similarly by all the twice-born castes the Śūdra should be respected, ‘when he has reached the tenth stage.’ The ‘tenth’ stands for the last stage of life, and indicates extreme old age. Thus then, in case of the Śūdra, ‘wealth’ and ‘relations’ do not constitute grounds of respect, in relation to tho three higher castes. This is clear from the fact, that the Text specifies the ‘tenth stage.’ ‘Action’ and ‘Learning’ are not possible in the Śūdra; for the simple reason that he is not entitled to these.

‘Most’; — all that is meant by this is excess, not plurality of number (which would mean at least three); hence what is asserted applies to tho presence of qualities also. There is nothing to justify the notion that the term ‘bahu’ (from which ‘bhūyāmsi is derived’) denotes number. Further, the term actually used is ‘bhūyaḥ,’ not ‘bāhu’; and the former is often found to be used in the sense of excess, much: e.g., ‘bhūyāṅśchātra parihāro,’ ‘there is much that can be said in answer to this,’ ‘bhūyābhyudayena yokṣye,' ‘I shall become endowed with much prosperity.’ Nor is any significance meant to be attached to the plural number in ‘bhūyāmsi’; the plural number in this case denoting only kind, according to Pāṇini 3.2.58, which lays down that ‘when a kind or genus is spoken of, the plural number is optionally used.’ If significance were really meant to be attached to the plural number, then a person possessed of only one quality (of however high degree) would never be entitled to respect; and this would run counter to what we h ave learnt from the foregoing verse. Furthor, by speaking of — ‘the Śūdra who has reached the tenth stage’ — where mere age (only one quality) is mentioned as a ground of respect, — the Text has made it clear that no significance is meant to be attached to the plural number (in ‘bhūyāmsi’). Usage also points to the same conclusion. — (1.37)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted along with verse 136 in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 474), which adds the following explanation: — Among the three castes, Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya, the person who possesses a greater amount of the preceding qualification (among the five mentioned in 136) is to be honoured more than one possessed of the succeeding one only. Thus a person possessed of greater wealth and superior relations is higher than one only older in age; one possessed of a higher degree of wealth, relations and age is higher than one superior in action only; — one possessed in a higher degree of wealth, relation, age and action is superior to one possessing learning only; — ‘guṇavanti’ means superior; which means that between two persons possessing wealth, he is higher whose wealth is superior; and the ‘superiority’of wealth would consist in its having been acquired by lawful means and such other circumstaṇces. In the case of ‘relations,’ this superiority would consist in being more intimate and so forth; — in the case of ‘age’ it would consist in being very much older; — in that of ‘action,’ in its being equipped with all auxiliary details; — in that of ‘learning,’ in its being acquired in the prescribed manner. — ‘Tenth stage’ stands for the age over ninety years; the hundred years of man’s life being divided into ten equal spans, the tenth one coming after the ninetieth year; — -when he has reached this age, the Śūdra also becomes entitled to honour at the hands of the twice-born.

The last foot of the verse regarding the ‘tenth stage’ is quoted on p. 453 also, as declaring the respectability of the Śūdra.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 159), where ‘daśamī’ is explained as ‘the last ten years of the hundred years’; — ‘bhūyāṃsi’ as to number and ‘guṇavanti’ as to degree; — hence without considering the caste, one possessed of superior learning is to he respected by another possessed of less; or one who knows more subjects is to be respected by another knowing a lesser number; similarly in regard to ‘karma’ and other qualifications also; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 48), which explains ‘daśamīm gataḥ’ as ‘over ninety years of age,’ and ‘pañchānām’ as ‘among learning and the rest’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 106), which explains ‘daśamī’ as ‘the last part of hundred years, i. e. beyond ninety years,’ and adds that ‘old age’ is meant to be indicative of the presence of wealth and the rest also.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (10.6). — ‘The Śūdra also if he has children and is over 80 years in age.’

Yājñavalkya (1.116). — ‘When the said qualities (of Learning, etc.) are present in a very large degree, the Śūdra also deserves respect, when he has reached old age.’

VERSE 2.138

Section XXIV - Degrees of Respect

चक्रिणो दशमीस्थस्य रोगिणो भारिणः स्त्रियाः ।
स्नातकस्य च राज्ञश्च पन्था देयो वरस्य च ॥१३८॥

cakriṇo daśamīsthasya rogiṇo bhāriṇaḥ striyāḥ |
snātakasya ca rājñaśca panthā deyo varasya ca ||138||

Way should be made for one in a chariot, for one who is in the tenth stage of life, for one suffering from disease, for one carrying a burden, for a woman, for the person who has just passed out of studentship, for the king and for the bridegroom. — (138)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Another method of showing respect is also described by the way.

‘Chakrin’ is the person in a chariot, one who is occupying a cart or some such conveyance. For him ‘way should be made.’ ‘Way’ is that path, that part of the Earth, by which one goes to a village and such other places; while one is on such a ‘way,’ if a man in a chariot should happen to come either in front of him or behind him, then the man on foot should move off from the spot where he might be obstructing the passing of the cart.

‘One who is in the tenth stage of life’ — one who is far advanced in age.

‘One suffering from a disease’ — one who is suffering very badly from some malady.

‘One who is carrying a burden’ — one who is carrying grains and other heavy things; such a man also finds it difficult to move, and hence must bo favoured.

‘A woman,’ — i.e., simply by reason of her being a woman, irrespective of her caste or qualifications, or of the position of her husband.

‘King’ — stands here for the master of a kingdom, not for the mere Kṣatriya. For in the conclusion (which comes in the next verse) we have the term ‘Pārthiva’ which means the ‘lord of the Earth,’ ‘pṛthivyāḥ īśvaraḥ.’

Objection. — “In as much as in the opening verse (the present) we have the term ‘rājan,’ it would be more reasonable to interpret the term ‘parthiva’ (in the next verse) in accordance with, and as standing for, the ‘Rājā’ (than that ‘Rājā’ should be taken as standing for the ‘pārthiva’), and the word ‘Rājan’ is well-known as denoting the Kṣatriya caste; and as this forms the principal denotation of the term, it should be accepted in the opening of the passage, specially as there does not appear to be any incongruity in it. In the next verse, where the relative merits are mentioned, it is quite possible to take the term ‘parthiva’ as referring to the Kṣatriya; in view of the fact that the ‘protecting of the Earth,’ which is connoted by the term ‘pārtiva.’ is a duty prescribed specifically for the Kṣatriya. So that it cannot be right, to take the term as referring to other castes, merely on the strength of their being ‘in possession of land’ (‘pṛthīvyāḥ īśvaraḥ’).”

To the above we make the following reply: — What is asserted here (in the next verse) is capability being respected; — when, e.g., the person who has just passed out of hi s studentship is described as deserving to be honoured by a king. Under verse 35, it has been pointed out that the term ‘bhūmipa’ stands for the Kṣatriya caste; and since the Kingly caste is merely indicative, what is mentioned here is understood to pertain to such a Kṣatriya as happens to be the ‘lord of men.’

The ‘bridegroom’ — who is going to marry. For these persons ‘way should be made;’ — what is meant by ‘deyaḥ,’ ‘should be made,’ is simply that one should give up the road; and as ‘giving up’ only means moving off (and not actual giving), the Dative ending has not been used. — (138)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 76); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 48), which explains ‘varaḥ’ as ‘one who is going to marry’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 107), which has the following notes — ‘chakrin,’ one who is driving in a cart, — ‘snātaka,’ the student who has completed his course of studentship, — ‘varaḥ,’ one who is going to marry; — when one meets any of these, he should make way for him, i.e., move away from his path, — among those mentioned here, the Accomplished Student and the King deserve to be respected by the ‘others’, as stated in the next verse.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 138-139)

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (13.25, 26). — ‘Among the following — an aged person, a child, a sick person, a man carrying a load, a woman, a man driving in a chariot, — the succeeding should make way for the preceding; when the King and the Accomplished Student meet, the king should make way for the student; all should make way for a bride who is being married.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 6. 25, 26. — ‘One on a chariot, a man in the tenth stage of life, one who deserves kindness (i.e., the sick), a bride, an Accomplished Student, and the King, — for these way should he made; the King should make way for the Vedic scholar.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2. 3. 50 (also Devala quoted in Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 476). — ‘Way should he made for the Brāhmaṇa, the cow, the king, the blind person, the aged, the man suffering under a load, a pregnant woman and a weak person.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2. 2. 57. — ‘Way should be made for the King until he meets the Brāhmaṇa; but when he meets the Brāhmaṇa, way should be made for the latter. All men should make way for a conveyance, for one carrying a load, one struck with disease, and a woman; to one of superior caste; and also to the Renunciate, and the intoxicated and the lunatic, — these latter for the sake of one’s own safety.’

Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 6.475). — ‘Way should be made for the dumb, the blind, the deaf, the intoxicated, the lunatic, the loose woman, one’s enemy, a child and the outcast.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 476). — ‘Way should be made for the child, the aged, the intoxicated, the lunatic, one struck with a foul disease, one carrying a load, a woman who is pregnant, the Accomplished Student, the Renunciate, and also persons excelling in learning, arts and other qualities.’

Yājñavalkya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 476). — ‘Way should be made for the aged, the man with a load, the King, the Accomplished Student, a woman, the sick, the bridegroom, the man on a chariot; among these the King deserves special honour; but the Accomplished Student deserves honour even from the King.’

VERSE 2.139

Section XXIV - Degrees of Respect

तेषां तु समवेतानां मान्यौ स्नातकपार्थिवौ ।
राजस्नातकयोश्चैव स्नातको नृपमानभाक् ॥१३९॥

teṣāṃ tu samavetānāṃ mānyau snātakapārthivau |
rājasnātakayoścaiva snātako nṛpamānabhāk ||139||

Among these, when they come together, the man who has just passed his studentship and the King deserve to be honoured; and between the person just passed his studentship and the King, the person just passed his studentship receives the respects op the King. — (139)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Among these, when they come together,’ — when they happen to meet, — ‘the person just passed his studentship and the King deserve to he honoured’ — by the ‘making of way,’ which is the particular form of ‘honouring’ mentioned in the present context.

‘Receives the respects of the King’ — i.e., obtains honour from the King.

The genitive case-ending has the sense of selection (according to Pāṇini 2.3.41)

Among the rest — the person riding a chariot and others — there is option, dependent upon their respective capacity. — (139)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse also is simply quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 107) to the effect that among the persons mentioned in the preceding verse the accomplished student and the king deserve to be respected by the others’, and between these two the former is to be respected by the latter.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 138-139)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.138.

VERSE 2.140 [Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’]

Section XXV - Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’

उपनीय तु यः शिष्यं वेदमध्यापयेद् द्विजः ।
सकल्पं सरहस्यं च तमाचार्यं प्रचक्षते ॥१४०॥

upanīya tu yaḥ śiṣyaṃ vedamadhyāpayed dvijaḥ |
sakalpaṃ sarahasyaṃ ca tamācāryaṃ pracakṣate ||140||

The Brāhmana who, having initiated a pupil, teaches him the Veda along with the Ritualistic and esoteric treatises, — him they call, ‘Ācārya,’ ‘Preceptor’ — (140)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present section is taken up for determining the exact signification of ‘Ācārya’ (Preceptor) and other terms. As a matter of fact, people make use of these names on the basis of certain qualifications; and this particular matter has not been dealt with by Pāṇini and other writers on the subject of the meanings of words. What the present text says regarding the meaning of the titles is based, like the Smṛti of Pāṇini and others, upon usage, not upon the Veda; as it does not prescribe anything to be done; that such and such a word means such and such a thing is a well-established fact, not something to be accomplished.

‘Having initiated,’ — i.e., having performed the Initiatory Rite, — ‘he who teaches’ — makes him get up — ‘the Veda’ — is the ‘preceptor.’ The ‘getting up’ of the Veda here meant consists in the remembering of the exact words of the text, independently of other learners.

‘Kalpa,’ ‘Ritualistic Treatise,’ — stands here for all the Subsidiary Sciences. — ‘Esoteric Treatises’ are the Upaniṣads. Though these latter also are inoluded under the name ‘Veda,’ yet the text has mentioned them separately by the name ‘Esoteric Treatises,’ with a view to remove the misconception that these are not Veda, — a misconception that might arise from the fact that they have a second name ‘Vedānta,’ where the term ‘anta’ denotes ‘proximity’ (only, not identity).

Others have explained the term ‘rahasya,’ ‘Esoteric Treatises,’ to mean ‘the meaning of the Vedic texts’; and by this explanation, the teaching of the verbal text only would not make one a ‘Teacher,’ it would be necessary ‘for him to explain the meaning also.’ To this effect we have the following declaration in the Abhidhāna-Kośa; — ‘He who expounds the meanings of mantras is called the Preceptor”; — here the term ‘mantra’ stands for all Vedic passages.

In accordance with this explanation, the learning of the meaning also, and not the mere getting up of the Text, would be prompted by the injunction of ‘becoming a Preceptor so that for every man the injunction of Vedic study would come to be carried out by other persons.

“That may be so; but even when the Injunction of Vedic study is carried out by other persons, the purpose of the student becomes accomplished all the same.”

In that case then, since ‘becoming a Preceptor’ is a purely voluntary act, if the Teacher does not have recourse to the necessary activity, then the carying out of the injunction of Vedic study would remain unaccomplished; so that this injunction of Vedic study would no longer be compulsory.

Then again, as a matter of fact, the term ‘rahasya,’ ‘esoteric treatise,’ is not ordinarily known as denoting the ‘explanation of the meaning of Vedic texts.’

From all this it is clear that the purpose of adding the term ‘rahasya’ is as explained before.

Or, the separate mention of the ‘Upaniṣads,’ may be explained as indicating the importance of that part of the Veda.

As regards the declaration quoted above — ‘he is called Preceptor who explains the meaning of mantras,’ — this is not a Smṛti (and hence not authoritative). Nor is there any ground for taking the term ‘mantra’ as standing for Vedic texts in general.

For all these reasons it is dear that the purpose of the present Injunction lies in the reading of the mere Text. So that when the boy has accomplished the getting up of the words of the Veda, this also means that he has carried out the injunction of ‘becoming a Teacher.’ — (140)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Rahasyam’ — ‘The Upaniṣads, along with their explanations — (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nandana, and Rāghavānanda); — ‘the esoteric explanations of the Vedas and the subsidiary sciences, — not the Upaniṣads, these being included in the term ‘Veda’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse has supplied Prabhākara with his text on which to base the entire enquiry into the nature of Dharma. Kumārila has taken as his basic text the Vedic text ‘svādhyāyo’dhyetavyaḥ’ ( ), and has proceeded to explain that the ‘Svādhyāya,’ ‘Vedic Study,’ herein enjoined cannot be the mere reading up of the verbal text of the Veda, but also a due understanding of its meaning; and as this meaning could not be comprehended without careful investigation, it becomes necessary to undertake the investigation initiated by the Mīmāṃsā Śāstra,

The sentence ‘svādhyāyo’dhyetavyaḥ’ contains in reality the injunction of that Vedic recitation which is done daily, and not of the initial study and scrutiny of the sense etc. Hence Mādhava (in Parāśaramādhava, Ācāra, p. 1'40) has suggested that the basic text for Kumārila should have been that Vedic text which we assume on the basis of the Smṛti-rules relating to Upanayana.

Prabhākara does not accept Kumārila’s view. He argues that, according to the view of Kumārila, any and every man — twice-born or otherwise — would be entitled to Vedic study, only if he fulfils the condition of desiring to know Dharma. Prabhākara bases his enquiry into Dharma and Vedic study on the rule ‘aṣṭavarṣam brāhmaṇam upanayīta’, where the Ātmanepada standing in ‘upanayīta’ clearly implies that the Upanayana, Initiation of the Pupil, is meant to serve some purpose for the Initiator himself; this purpose is no other than the acquiring of the title of ‘Ācārya — how this title can be acquired is explained in the present text of Manu, according to which that man alone is to be called Ācārya. who (a) initiates the pupil, and (b) teaches him the Veda along with the Ritualistic and Esoteric Treatises. The motive-desire thus, for all this study and investigation is on the part of the teacher, and not on that of the pupil; it is the Teacher who desires to acquire for himself the title of Ācārya and as this cannot be done without teaching, the pupil comes in only as the person to be taught; and as the latter cannot be a pupil until he studies, this studying by the pupil is implied by the above texts. This explanation avoids the difficulty of a non-dvija undertaking. Vedic study; the prospective Teacher being a learned man, conversant with the law, would never admit a non - dvija pupil. Though the injunction of Vedic study is thus implied in the above-quoted texts, yet they do not supply the motive for the pupil; the Teacher’s desire for obtaining a title and honor cannot serve as a motive for the pupil; hence, it is explained, the motive purpose of the pupil lies in his desire to learn the meaning of the Veda; this is what leads him to proceed with the investigation into Dharma.

This view of Prabhākara has been combated, in its turn, by Mādhava (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, pp. 138-139), who argues that Teaching having been laid down as means of livelihood, it is clearly a Kāmya-karma — an act prompted by physical motives — and hence anitya, non-obligatory; as such it cannot be accepted as the sole prompter of the act of Vedic Study, which is nitya, obligatory; the latter must have an independent injunction for itself.

It is in connection with the above discussion in course of its presentation of Prabhākara’s view, that the present verse has been quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 137); and again on p. 304, where it is put forward as setting forth the definition of the ‘Ācārya’ as distinguished from the ‘Upādhyāya.’

The verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477), as defining the ‘Ācārya’ — where ‘Kalpa’ is explained as a particular treatise which lays down, on the basis of clearly perceptible Vedic texts, the practical details of ritual; and as including the other subsidiary sciences also; — and ‘rahasya’ as Upaniṣads, — these being mentioned separately (from the Veda) by reason of their importance; — and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 45) which explains ‘rahasyam’ as standing for the Upaniṣads.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 30); — in Aparārka (p. 65), which adds that the term ‘Kalpa’ includes Grammar and the other subsidiary sciences, as also Mīmāṃsā and Nyāya, — the etymological meaning of the term being ‘that which determines (kalpayati) the meaning of the Veda; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 90) to the effect that the Ācārya is to teach not only the Veda, but the Upaniṣads, and the Ritualistic Manuals &c., also.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.10-11. — ‘The Upanayana is the second birth.... He from whom this is received is the Ācārya.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.24-27. — ‘He from whom one gathers (learns, ācinoti) his duties is the Ācārya; he brings about the essence of knowledge; this constitutes the highest birth.’

Vaśiṣṭha-smṛti, 3. 24. — ‘He who having initiated him, teaches him the entire Veda is the Ācārya.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 29.1. — ‘He who having initiated the pupil and taught him the observances, teaches him the Veda, should be known as the Ācārya.’

Yājñavalkya-smṛti, 1.34. — ‘He who, after initiating, teaches the Veda is called the Ācārya.’

Tama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 478). — ‘He is called Ācārya who is truthful in speech, steady, expert, kind to all beings, orthodox, devoted to the Veda and pure.’

VERSE 2.141

Section XXV - Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’

एकदेशं तु वेदस्य वेदाङ्गान्यपि वा पुनः ।
योऽध्यापयति वृत्त्यर्थमुपाध्यायः स उच्यते ॥१४१॥

ekadeśaṃ tu vedasya vedāṅgānyapi vā punaḥ |
yo'dhyāpayati vṛttyarthamupādhyāyaḥ sa ucyate ||141||

He is called “Upādhyāya,” “Sub-teacher,” who teaches, for a living, only a part of the Veda, or only the Vedic subsidiary sciences. — (141)

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману