with the Commentary of Medhatithi 49 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 55 из 350Следующая ⇒

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘A part of the Veda.’ — The Mantra only or the Brāhmaṇa portion only; — Or, without the Veda itself, only the Vedic subsidiary sciences; — he who teaches this, — and also even the whole Veda, (but) — ‘for a living,’ — i.e., not prompted purely by the injunction of ‘becoming a preceptor,’ — he is an Upādhyāya, a ‘Sub-teacher,’ not an Ācārya, ‘Preceptor.’

He who may teach even the entire Veda to a pupil initiated by another person, is not a ‘Preceptor’; nor is he a ‘Preceptor’ who, having initiated a pupil, does not teach him the entire Veda.

“If the teaching of a portion of the Veda is made the distinguishing feature of the ‘Sub-Teacher,’ and the Initiating is the characteristic of the ‘Preceptor,’ — then what would be the character of that person who does not do the initiating, but teaches the whole Veda? He would be neither a ‘Preceptor’ (since he has not done the initiating), nor a ‘Sub-teacher’ (as he has not taught only a portion of the Veda). Nor has any other name been heard of for such a teacher.”

Our answer is as follows: — According to what is going to be said in 149 such a person would be the ‘Teacher,’ ‘Guru,’ Who is inferior to the ‘Preceptor,’ but superior to the ‘Subteacher.’

The terms ‘api’ ‘punaḥ’ in the Text only serve to fill in the metre. — (141)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 304), as defining the Upādhyāya, the Sub-teacher, in view of the declaration that the ‘Ācārya’ is equal to ten ‘Upādhyāyas’; — also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477), which adds the following notes — ‘Ekadeśam’ — i.e. either the Brāhmaṇa portion alone, or the Mantra-portion alone; — ‘Vṛttyartham’ — for his own livelihood.

Madanapārijāta (p. 30) having quoted the verse adds — Ekadeśam — of the Veda, i.e. either the Saṃhitā, or the Brāhmaṇa or subsidiary sciences; — he who teaches any one of those either without payment, — or with payment (without previously stipulating for it), — is an ‘Upādhyāya.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 65), as providing the definition of Upādhyāya; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 45); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 91), which explains ‘vṛtti’ as living.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha-smṛti, 3-27. — ‘He who teaches a portion of the Veda, as also the subsidiary sciences, is the Upādhyāya.’

Yājñavalkya, 1-35. — ‘The Upādhyāya is one who teaches a portion of the Veda.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 29.2. — ‘He who teaches for payment received o r who teaches a portion of the Veda, is the Upādhyāya.’

VERSE 2.142

Section XXV - Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’

निषेकादीनि कर्माणि यः करोति यथाविधि ।
सम्भावयति चान्नेन स विप्रो गुरुरुच्यते ॥१४२॥

niṣekādīni karmāṇi yaḥ karoti yathāvidhi |
sambhāvayati cānnena sa vipro gururucyate ||142||

That Brāhmaṇa, who performs, in the prescribed manner, one’s sacramental rites beginning with the rites of impregnation, and supports him with food, is called the “Guru,” “Mentor.” — (142)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The mention of the ‘Rites of Impregnation’ indicates that the present verse lays down the fact of the Father being a ‘Mentor.’

‘Niṣeka’ ‘Impregnation,’ is the ‘Sprinkling of the semen’: — those acts of which the ‘Impregnation’ is the first or beginning; the term ‘beginning’ shows that all the Sacramental Rites are meant.

He who performs these rites and also ‘supports’ — fosters — ‘with food.’

‘Chaivainam’ is another reading (for ‘cānnena’). The meaning remains the same; as ‘supporting’ can be done only by means of food. The only additional sense obtained from this other reading is the reference, by means of the pronoun ‘enam,’ to the boy.

“As a matter of fact, ‘enam is only a relative pronoun; and the ‘Boy’ does not appear anywhere here as its antecedent.”

There is no force in this; for whom else (if not for the boy) are the Kites of Impregnation and the rest performed? And ‘reference’ is often only implied, not always expressly stated.

He who does not fulfil these two conditions, but gives one birth, is only a ‘progenitor,’ not a ‘mentor.’ Nor should the notion be entertained that, not being a ‘mentor,’ he should not be respected; as a matter of fact, he is the very first to deserve respect; as says the revered Vyāsa — ‘The Father is the master, the source of the body, the benefactor, the life-giver, the mentor, the advisor, of all that is good, the visible God.’

The mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ is only illustrative. — (142)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 302) as defining the ‘guru’, the clasping of whose feet has been prescribed; — also in the Prāyaścitta-kāṇḍa of the same work (p. 259), in support of the view that the term ‘guru’ denotes primarily the father only; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477), which adds the following Explanatory notes: — ‘Niṣeka’ — the rites of conception; and the sacramental rites referred to are those beginning with these and ending with the ‘imparting of the Veda’; — ‘sambhāvayati’ means nourishes. The performance of the rites of conception alone is sufficient to entitle the man to the title of ‘guru’; the other qualifications have been added only with a view to indicate that the person referred to here deserves higher honor than the Ācārya; — such is the view of Śūlapāṇi.

Madanapārijāta (p. 31) on the other hand, states that the term ‘vipraḥ’ stands here for the Father; from which it follows that a father who does not fulfil the conditions stated is not a ‘guru’ at all.

The verse is also quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.- 259, p. 1297) in support of the view that the term ‘guru' primarly denotes the Father, the title ‘guru ' belonging to the person who performs the conception and other rites, i.e., the progenitor himself; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta, p. 11 b); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 88), which explains ‘niṣeka’ as garbhādhāna, and adds that ‘annasambhāvana’ includes the ‘teaching of Veda’ also; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 44), to the effect that the Father alone is the ‘guru’; — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 356) to the same effect; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 128) to the same effect; but it combats the view that the Father only is entitled to be called ‘guru’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

See also Manu, 149.

Yājñavalkya, 1.34. — ‘He is the Guru who, having performed all the rites, imparts the Veda to the pupil.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 478). — ‘He is a Guru who is fully equipped with knowledge of the Veda, has excellent character, with senses under control.’

Hārīta (Parāśaramādhava, p. 303),

Devala (Aparārka, p. 65),

‘The sub-teacher, the father, the elder brother, the king, the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the protector, the maternal and paternal grand-fathers, the uncle, one of the superior caste, — these are gurus among males. The mother, the maternal and paternal grandmothers, the teacher’s wife, the uterine sisters of the father and of the mother, the mother-in-law, and the elderly nurse, — these are gurus among females,’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 65). — ‘Maternal grandfather, maternal uncle, paternal uncle, father-in-law are gurus; the elder brother, the Accomplished Student and the Ṛtvik are to be inspected like the guru. The mother’s sister, the maternal aunt, the mother-in-law, the nurse, the father’s sister, the paternal grandmother, the paternal aunt and the teacher’s wife are to be treated as the mother.’

VERSE 2.143

Section XXV - Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’

अग्न्याधेयं पाकयज्ञानग्निष्टोमादिकान् मखान् ।
यः करोति वृतो यस्य स तस्यर्त्विगिहोच्यते ॥१४३॥

agnyādheyaṃ pākayajñānagniṣṭomādikān makhān |
yaḥ karoti vṛto yasya sa tasyartvigihocyate ||143||

He who, being duly appointed, performs, for one the Fire-laying rite, the Cooked Sacrifices and the Agniṣṭoma and other sacrifices, — is called his “officiating priest.” — (143)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The rite that brings about the existence of the Āhavanīya and other (sacrificial fires) is called the ‘Fire-laving Rite,’ prescribed in such sentences as ‘the Brāhmaṇa should lay fire during the spring.’

‘Cooked sacrifices’ — the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and the rest.

‘The Agniṣṭoma and other sacrifices,’ — i.e., the Soma-sacrifices. The term ‘makha’ is synonymous with ‘kratu,’ ‘sacrifice.’

He who perfoms these acts for one is called his ‘priest.’ ‘For him’ and ‘his’ denote relation; the meaning being that ‘the performer is the officiating priest of only that man for whom he performs the acts, and not of any other person.’

All these terms, ‘Preceptor’ and the rest, are words denoting relation.

‘Being appointed’ — being requested; i.e., whose appointment has been made in accordance with the rules laid down in the scriptures.

The ‘Priest’ has been described here, in connection with the mention of persons entitled to respect; and priests have nothing to do with the duties of the religious student. This description is supplied here only for the purpose of indicating that the Priest also is entitled, like the Preceptor and the rest, to respect. — (143)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (H, p. 5) as supporting the view that the title ‘Ṛtvik’ is applicable to the man from the moment of ‘appointment’ till the end of the performance of the rites for which he has been appointed; and that during this time any impurity attaching to the man would be only ‘immediate’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 91) as defining the Ṛtvik'

It is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477) where ‘agnyādhāyam’ is explained as agnyādhānam, and ‘Pākayajña' as the Aṣṭaka and the rest; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 31); — and in Aparārka (p. 66) as meaning that the title ‘Ṛtvik’ applies to that man whose services are paid for by a sacrificer for the performance of the sacrificial rite; — and again on p. 919.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya, 1.34. — ‘He who performs, for one, sacrifices, is called the Ṛtvik.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 3.3. — ‘He who performs, for one, the sacrificial rites, him he should know as the Ṛtvik.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 66). — ‘The Ṛtvik is of three kinds called — (1) the Kṣirahotā, i.e., one who helps one, in the Firelaying, (2) the Ahāryavṛtā, i.e., one who, in the absence of the (1) is appointed for purposes of the obligatory rites, (3) the Viśesavṛta, i.e., one who is appointed at the subsequent sacrifices.’

VERSE 2.144

Section XXV - Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’

य आवृणोत्यवितथं ब्रह्मणा श्रवणावुभौ ।
स माता स पिता ज्ञेयस्तं न द्रुह्येत् कदा चन ॥१४४॥

ya āvṛṇotyavitathaṃ brahmaṇā śravaṇāvubhau |
sa mātā sa pitā jñeyastaṃ na druhyet kadā cana ||144||

He who rightly fills one’s both ears with the Veda should be regarded as his Father and Mother; one should not, at any time, do him harm. — (144)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He who fills both ears with the Veda’ — by teaching — ‘should be regarded as his Father and Mother.’

The present verse does not enjoin that the words ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ denote the teacher; because these two terms, ‘Father and Mother,’ have their denotations as well known as the words ‘Ācārya’ and the rest, — that the term ‘Father’ denotes the progenitor, and ‘mother’ the progenitress. As a matter of fact, these two terms have been applied here for the purpose of indirectly eulogising the Teacher; just as in such expressions as ‘the ploughman is an ox.’ Inordinary experience the father and the mother are known as one’s best benefactors; they give one birth, bring him up with food, and seek to do good to their child, even at the risk of their body. Hence, the Teacher also, being a great benefactor, is eulogised as being equal to them; the sense being that he who helps one by imparting learning is superior to all other benefactors.

‘Rightly’ — is an adverb; the sense being that the Veda imparted is right, correct; not vitiated either by the omission of letters or by wrong accent.

‘Harm’ stands for injury, and also for disrespect.

‘At any time’ — i.e., even after the learning of books has been accomplished, one should do him no harm. Says the author of the Nirukta — ‘ The Brāhmaṇas who, after being taught, do not honour their teachers, by word, mind and act, etc., etc.’; — ‘Do not honour,’ i.e., disregard; — ‘Just as such pupils are of no use to the teacher’ — bring him no benefit — ‘so also does the learning bring no benefit to the pupils.’

‘Ātṛṇoti’ is another reading (for ‘āvṛṇoti’ in the Text), which means ‘pierces’ or ‘penetrates’ the two ears; which figuratively implies ‘teaching’; as we find in the line — ‘he is called a man with impenetrated ears whose ears hare not been reached by learning.’

This verse prohibits the doing of harm, by one even after he has acquired all the learning, to all the three kinds of Teachers — the Preceptor, the Sub-teacher and the Mentor. — (144)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse, along with verse 114, occurs in an older form (as Burnell remarks) in the Viṣṇu and Vaśiṣṭha Smṛtis; and also in Nirukta II. 4, where the verb appears as ‘ātṛṇatti’.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 93), which explains ‘āvṛṇoti’ as ‘fill’, and ‘avitatham’ as ‘free from wrong accentuation and other defects’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 30.40. — ‘He who fills one’s ears with the truth, imparting nectar, without causing pain, — him I regard as Father and Mother; and knowing what he has done, one should hear no malice towards him.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.1.25. — ‘One should never bear malice towards him.’

Nirukta, Naigamakāṇḍa, 4. — ‘He who has expounded the Veda is to be regarded as similar to Viṣṇu.’

VERSE 2.145

Section XXV - Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’

उपाध्यायान् दशाचार्य आचार्याणां शतं पिता ।
सहस्रं तु पितॄन् माता गौरवेणातिरिच्यते ॥१४५॥

upādhyāyān daśācārya ācāryāṇāṃ śataṃ pitā |
sahasraṃ tu pitṝn mātā gauraveṇātiricyate ||145||

In veneration, the Preceptor excels ten Sub-teachers; the Father a hundred preceptors, and the Mother a thousand Fathers. — (145)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse lays down the relative superiority among the persons intended to be eulogised. The Preceptor is superior to the Sub-teacher, the Father is superior to the Preceptor, and the Mother is superior even to the Father. The specification of the numbers ‘ten’ and the rest is purely valedictory. All that is meant is that the following is superior to the preceding; hence it is that we have the expression ‘a thousand Fathers.’

‘Excels ten Sub-teachers’ — i.e., he is superior to ten Sub-teachers.

“Why have we the Accusative ending here?”

The ‘ati’ (in ‘atiricyate’) is a preposition; the construction being — upādhyāyān ati (in reference to Sub-teachers); — and this means that ‘surpassing each of the ten sub-teachers, he becomes endowed with greater honour.’ Or, the ‘atireka,’ excelling (denoted by the verb ‘atiricyate’), means excess, the verbal root being used here in the sense of‘subjugation caused by excess’; the sense being that ‘by excess of respect he subdues ten sub-teachers’. Lastly, if we take the verb ‘atiricyate’ as the reflexive passive form, the Accusative ending becomes quite consistent; specially as the Vārtika (on Pāṇini, 3.1.87) speaks of ‘wide usage’ in connection with such transitive verbs as ‘milk,’ ‘cook’ and the like.

Objection. — “The very next verse is going to assert that the ‘Father who imparts the Veda is the superior while the present verse declares the Father to be superior to the Preceptor: and this is mutually contradictory.”

There is no force in this objection. According to etymologists the “Ācārya’ is not one who teaches; hence in the present verse the term stands for one who only performs the sacramental rites and teaches merely the rules of conduct; — Ācārya being one who makes one learn ā cāra. It is not necessary that one should always use only such names as arc current in one’s own science; e.g., the term ‘guru’ in the present treatise, has been declared to stand for the father, and is also used here and then; for the preceptor. From all this it is clear that the superiority of the father here meant is only over that person who confers upon one only a slight benefit, who only performs the Initiatory Rite and teaches the Rules of Conduct, and does not do any teaching.

The order of precedence being as here laid down, it follows that at a place where all these are present, the Mother is to be saluted first, then the Father, then the Preceptor, then the Sub-teacher. — (145)

The question arising as regards the order of precedence when the real Preceptor, and the Father who has performed the Initiatory Rite are both present, — the next verse supplies the answer.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The first quarter of this is referred to in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 304).

The verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 31); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 478), where the following notes are added: — In point of veneration, the ‘Ācārya’ is superior as compared to ten ‘Upādhyāyas’, the Father is superior to a hundred Ācāryas, and the Mother is superior to a thousand Fathers; — the person spoken of as ācārya here is the person who performs the Upanayana and teaches the Sāvtrī only (not the entire Veda), — as is clear from the next verse where the man who performs the Upanayana and teaches the entire Veda is described as superior to the Father.

This same explanation is given by Medhātithi and Kullūka also. Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa on the other hand, hold that the word ‘Pitā’, ‘Father’, stands for that Father who, having begotten the child, performs its Upanayana and himself teaches it the entire Veda.

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 92), which adds that the Father meant here is one who is a mere Progenitor and has not performed any sacramental rites for the boy; in other eases, when he has performed these, it is the Father that is superior.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.58. — ‘Among elders the Ācārya is the highest; the mother — say some.’

Vaśiṣṭha, 13.17. — (Manu’s words reproduced.)

Yājñavalkya, 1.35. — ‘These deserve to be respected in the order in which they are mentioned; the mother is more venerable than all of them.’

Bhaviṣya-Purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 478). — (Manu’s words reproduced.)

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 479). — ‘One should not intervene between his Father and Mother; he may speak in favour of his mother: as she is the person that bore him and brought him up.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra). — ‘Of the two the Father is superior, on account of the supremacy attaching to the seed: in the absence of the Father, the Mother is the highest; and in her absence, the elder brother.’

Purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 304). — ‘By law these are two gurus for man: the Father and the Mother; between these two, the Father is superior, then the Mother, then the elder brother.’

Vyāsa (Do.). — ‘For ten months she keeps the child in her womb, suffering from shooting pains, then she gives him birth, being rendered unconscious in the process; devoted to her son, she regards him as superior even to her very life; who can recompense her even in a hundred years?’

VERSE 2.146

Section XXV - Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’

उत्पादकब्रह्मदात्रोर्गरीयान् ब्रह्मदः पिता ।
ब्रह्मजन्म हि विप्रस्य प्रेत्य चैह च शाश्वतम् ॥१४६॥

utpādakabrahmadātrorgarīyān brahmadaḥ pitā |
brahmajanma hi viprasya pretya caiha ca śāśvatam ||146||

Between the progenitor and the imparter of the veda, the imparter op the veda is the more venerable father; for the brāhmaṇa’s “birth” is the veda, eternally, — here as well as after death. — (146)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Progenitor’ — is one who gives natural birth; ‘Imparter of the Veda’ is one who teaches; — both these are ‘fathers’; and between these two ‘fathers,’ that Father is ‘more venerable’ who imparts the Veda. So that when the Father and the Preceptor are both present, the Preceptor should be saluted first.

The text adds a valedictory statement in support of what has been said — ‘The Brāhmaṇa’s birth is the Veda’; i.e., is for the purpose of learning the Veda; the compound ‘brahmajanma’ being expounded as ‘brahmagrahaṇārtham janma,’ according to the Vārtika on ‘Pāṇini’ 2.1.60. According to this explanation of the compound, the Initiatory Rite would be ‘the birth for the learning of the Veda.’ Or, the compound ‘brahmajanma’ may be explained as ‘birth consisting in the form of learning the Veda.’

This, for the Brāhmaṇa, is eternally — ever — beneficial — ‘here’ and ‘beneficial after death’ also. — (110)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

For the apparent inconsistency between this and the preceding verse, see note above.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 305), in support of the view that the ‘Ācārya’ also, in certain cases, is superior to the Father and Mother; — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 32), which adds the following notes: — ‘Brahmajanma’ means birth from Veda, i. e. Upanayana; ‘after death? — because it creates in the boy the capacity to attain all the good, even the Final Release, — as also ‘here’ — by reason of creating the capacity to perform all religious rites, — it is ‘eternally’ — the bringer about of lasting good.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 479) simply quotes the verse.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 97) in support of the view that the orders of the Teacher carry more weight than those of the Father; — it explains ‘brahmadaḥ’ as ‘the teacher’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 93), which adds that ‘brahmadaḥ’ stands for the Ācārya, not the Upādhyāya, as is clear from the second line which means — ‘because he gives that birth which serves the purpose of Vedic study, i.e. the Upanayana, he is superior.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 30.44. — (Reproduces Manu’s Words.)

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.57. — ‘Among elders the Ācārya is the highest.’

Vaśiṣṭha, 2.5. — ‘They declare the Ācārya to be highest, because of his imparting the Veda.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.21. — ‘The Father and Mother bring forth only the physical body.’

VERSE 2.147

Section XXV - Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’

कामान् माता पिता चैनं यदुत्पादयतो मिथः ।
सम्भूतिं तस्य तां विद्याद् यद् योनावभिजायते ॥१४७॥

kāmān mātā pitā cainaṃ yadutpādayato mithaḥ |
sambhūtiṃ tasya tāṃ vidyād yad yonāvabhijāyate ||147||

When the Father and Mother beget one through mutual desire, — this that he is born in the womb is to be regarded as his “production.” — (147)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

These two verses are purely valedictory.

‘When the Father and. Mother beget him’ — the child — ‘through mutual desire’ — in secret, under the influence of desire.

‘Should be regarded as his production;’ — that the child is born in the womb of the Mother — i.e., b ecomes endowed with his several limbs — this is mere production. And those entities that have their production are sure to be destroyed; so that what is the use of that ‘production’ which is doomed to immediate destruction? — (117)

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология