with the Commentary of Medhatithi 56 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 62 из 350Следующая ⇒

sarvaṃ vāpi cared grāmaṃ pūrvauktānāmasambhave |
niyamya prayato vācamabhiśastāṃstu varjayet ||185||

In the event of al the afouesaid being not available, he may wander over the whole village, remaining pure and having his speech well-controlled; but he should avoid persons of ill-repute. — (185)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘All the aforesaid’ — i.e., those not devoid of the Veda and sacrifices and so forth — ‘being unavailable’; — ‘wander over the whole village’; — he may go over the whole village, irrespectively of caste and other distinctions, for the purpose of obtaining his means of subsistence. Only ‘he should avoid persons of ill-repute’ — i.e., those who are known to have committed serious sins, even though they may never have been seen to commit them; Says Gautama (2-35) — ‘The begging of alms may be done from all castes, save the disreputable and the fallen.’

‘Having his speech well-controlled’; — i.e., till he obtains the alms, he should not utter any words save those used in the actual begging. — (186)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 60), which adds that the prohibition of the ‘abhiśasṭa’ naturally implies that of the ‘patita’ ‘outcast’, also; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 110), which says that this does not sanction begging from a Śūdra.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (2.42). — ‘Food should be begged from all castes, except from the outcasts and persons of ill-repute.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.3.25). — ‘Pot in hand, one should beg for food from qualified Brāhmaṇas, excepting the Teacher’s house; and avoiding those unfit and of ill-repute.’

Bhaviṣya Purāṇa (see under 183).

Aṅgiras (Parāśaramādhava, p. 453). — ‘From the Śūdra he shall accept only raw food, that also just enough for one night.’

VERSE 2.186

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

दूरादाहृत्य समिधः सन्निदध्याद् विहायसि ।
सायं।प्रातश्च जुहुयात् ताभिरग्निमतन्द्रितः ॥१८६॥

dūrādāhṛtya samidhaḥ sannidadhyād vihāyasi |
sāyaṃ|prātaśca juhuyāt tābhiragnimatandritaḥ ||186||

Having fetched fuel-sticks from a distance, he should place them in the air; and with these he should, without fail, make offerings to the fire, morning and evening. — (188)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘distance’ is meant to stand for such plots of land as are not owned by any one; for instance, the forest is ‘distant’ from the village, and it is not owned by any one. If such were not the meaning, and ‘distance’ simply meant ‘remote places,’ — then since the exact degree of remoteness is not specified, the manning of the injunction would remain indefinite.

‘Having fetched’ — having brought.

‘Should place’ — should keep.

‘In the air’ — i.e., on the roof of the house; no placing is possible in the open air, without some support.

‘With these he should make offerings morning and evening.’

The fetching of the fuel may he at that or at any other time, according as the student pleases.

Some people regard the ‘placing in the air’ as serving some transcendental purpose. Others have however held that the fuel brought fresh from the tree is wet; and hence it is necessary to place it either on the top of the house or on that of a wall, etc. (for the purpose of drying). — (186)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vihāyasi’ — In the air, i. e. on the roof of the house (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka); — ‘on a platform’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘in the open air (Nandana); — ‘in any pure place except the ground’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 451), as laying down the method of ‘tending the fire’, and ‘explains it that ‘he should place the fuel somewhere in the open, not on the grouhd;’ — in Smṛtitattva (p. 936) as laying down the morning and evening offerings into the Fire; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 448), where ‘dūrāt’ is explained as from a spot not owned by any one’; — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 498), where vihāyasi is explained as ‘antarīkṣe’ ‘in the open air — in Madanapārijāta (p. 24), where ‘dūrāt’ is explained as ‘from a spot not owned by any other person’, and ‘vihāyasi’ as ‘maṇḍapādau’ ‘oh an altar or some such place’; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 43), which says that, according to Dharmaprakāśa, ‘vihāyasi’ means ‘on the house-top’; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 86), which explains dūrāt, as ‘from places not belonging to any person’, and vihāyasi as ‘on the house-top’, — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 34a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.4.16). — ‘Having kindled fire and swept the place, he should lay fuel on it, morning and evening, in accordance with instructions received.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 448). — ‘He should not go for fetching fuel in the evening.’

Viṣṇu (28.4). — ‘Both times, bathing and fire-tending.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (2.22.6). — ‘Morning and evening, he should fetch fuel.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2.5.9) — ‘Without causing injury, he should fetch fuel from the forest, lay it on the fire and then utter speech.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3-2-27). — ‘Girdle-wearing, alms-begging, staff-carrying, fuel-fetching, water-bathing, morning salutation, — these are the daily compulsory duties.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.54). — ‘Therefore, the Religious Student should fetch fuel.’

Āpastamba (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 448). — ‘Some people say that Fire-kindling should be done in the evening only.’ Laugākṣi (Do.) — (same as above).

Baijavāpa (Do.). — ‘Before sunset, and also in the morning, going northward, without causing injury, he should fetch fuel, — wet, if desirous of food; dry, if desirous of Brahmic glory; both, if desirous of both.’

Vāyu-purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 452). — ‘The fuel should he of Palāśa; in the absence of that, Khadira or Śamī or Rohitaka or Aśvattha; and in the absence of these, Arka and Vetasa.’

VERSE 2.187

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

अकृत्वा भैक्षचरणमसमिध्य च पावकम् ।
अनातुरः सप्तरात्रमवकीर्णिव्रतं चरेत् ॥१८७॥

akṛtvā bhaikṣacaraṇamasamidhya ca pāvakam |
anāturaḥ saptarātramavakīrṇivrataṃ caret ||187||

He who, without being ill, omits for seven days, to beg alms and to offer fuel to the fire, shall perform the rites prescribed for the Avakīrṇin. — (187)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He who, for seven days’ — consecutively, ‘has omitted to beg alms and to offer fuel to the Fire, — without being ill’ — while not suffering from any disease, — ‘shall perform the rites prescribed for the Anakīrṇin’; — i.e., the expiatory rite the exact form of which is going to he described in Chap. 11?. (verse 118).

This is said here only for the purpose of showing the gravity of the offence; and it does not mean that the rite mentioned is to he actually performed in expiation of the omission. That this is so is shown by the fact that another Smṛti has laid down a much simpler expiation for this omission, viz.: ‘offering of clarified butter, etc.’ The following fact also is another indicative of the same conclusion: — If what is mentioned here were a real expiatory rite, then on the occasion of mentioning the conditions under which the ‘Amkīrṇin-rite’ are to be performed as an expiatory rite, the author would have mentioned these omissions also, in the same way in which he has mentioned ‘sexual intercourse with women.’

Some people interpret this verse to means as follows: — “It is necessary to do the two acts (of begging alms and offering fuel) for seven days only; having done them for seven days, if one drops them, there is no harm in this; and these seven days are to be the first ones after Upanayana.”

This however is not right; as it would lie in direct contravention to the direction that ‘this should be done till the Final Return from the teacher’s house,’ — as also to what follows in the next verse. — (187)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 438) as laying down the Avakīrṇivrata (actually prescribed in 11.118 in connection with the loss of chastity on the part of the Student) as applicable to other omissions also; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 485), in support of the view that the Begging of Alms is not optional, but compulsory, since the present verse prescribes an expiation for its omission, which clearly implies that the omission is sinful; — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 498) to the effect that the omission of Begging alms involves sin; and again on page 500, where it is explained that the expiation here prescribed is to be performed in the event of repeated omissions; — and in Mitākṣarā (p. 1345, on 3. 281), where it is explained as laying down an expiation for those cases where the duty of ‘fire-tending’ is omitted without any such extenuating circumstance as being occupied with some other duty.

Nirṇayosindhu (p. 190) quotes it as laying down the expiatory rites due on the omission of the duties laid down for the Student.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1142) as laying down the expiation for omitting the said duties, without sufficient reason; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 111) to the effect that alms-begging is an obligatory duty; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 357).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.2.5). — ‘There is sin in omitting the alms-begging, sin in the non-kindling of fire; one who omits these for seven days should perform the Avakīrṇi-vrata.’

Viṣṇu (28.52) — (reproduces Manu’s words).

VERSE 2.188

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

भैक्षेण वर्तयेन्नित्यं नैकान्नादी भवेद् व्रती ।
भैक्षेण व्रतिनो वृत्तिरुपवाससमा स्मृता ॥१८८॥

bhaikṣeṇa vartayennityaṃ naikānnādī bhaved vratī |
bhaikṣeṇa vratino vṛttirupavāsasamā smṛtā ||188||

The avowed student should subsist on alms; he should not (habitually) eat the food given by one person. for the student, subsisting on alms has been declared to be equal to fasting. — (188)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Objection. — “It has already been laid down that he should go about begging alms every day (183).”

What is there said would show that the begging of Alms is meant to serve the visible purpose (of sustaining the body); specially as it has been subsequently laid down that ‘having offered it to the Teacher, he should eat it’; and this ‘eating’ cannot be sanctificatory of the alms; which alone could prevent us from taking it as serving the purely visible purpose of sustaining the body.

Some people have explained that the re-iteration of the ‘daily begging of alms’ is made for the purpose of adding the further direction that ‘he should not eat the food given by one person.’

But this is not right. Since the eating of the food given by one person is precluded by the term ‘alms’ itself. ‘Alms’ stands for an aggregate of what is obtained by begging; whence then could there be any possibility of eating the food given by one person?

The conclusion on this point is that the whole rule has been re-iterated here with a view to adding (in the next verse) that such eating of the food given by one person is permissible at Śrāddhas.

‘He should subsist on alms’; — he should nourish his body — sustain his life — by means of food obtained by begging; and he should not eat food received from a single person.

The verse should not be taken to mean that “he should not eat what belongs to a single person, — he should eat what belongs to several owners; e.g., what belongs to several undivided brothers.” For the word in the text means simply ‘one who eats one food — or one person’s food.’

The term ‘Vrati’ here stands for the Religious Student; and as the fact of the rule pertaining to him is clear from the context, the addition of the word can be taken only as filing up the metre.

Next follows the commendatory statement: — ‘The subsisting — sustaining of the body — of the student on alms only has been declared to be equal to fasting.’ — (188)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The first half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 454) in support of the view that the Student should not accept food from one and the same house day after day; and adds that this is meant to apply to normal times; in abnormal times it is not meant to be strictly adhered to; this on the strength of Yājñavalkya’s declaration (1. 32.)

The same work quotes the second half of the verse on p. 485, as declaring the reward accruing to the Student from strictly following the rules of alms-begging.

The whole verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 498) as prohibiting the habit of seeking for food from one and the same person regularly; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 61); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 111), which says that this refers to normal times, not to abnormal times of distress.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 2.188-189)

Yājñavalkya (1.32). — ‘The student firm in his vow should not, except in times of distress, habitually eat food given by a single person; at a Śrāddha the Brāhmana may eat when he likes, without injuring his vow.’

VERSE 2.189

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

व्रतवद् देवदैवत्ये पित्र्ये कर्मण्यथर्षिवत् ।
काममभ्यर्थितोऽश्नीयाद् व्रतमस्य न लुप्यते ॥१८९॥

vratavad devadaivatye pitrye karmaṇyatharṣivat |
kāmamabhyarthito'śnīyād vratamasya na lupyate ||189||

During a performance in honour of gods and in honour of ancestors, he may, when invited, eat freely, like an ascetic, in due accordance with his observances. by this his observances do not suffer. — (189)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse provides an exception, under certain conditions, to the rules regarding subsisting on alms.

‘In honour of Gods’; — i.e., when Brāhmaṇas are fed in honour of the gods; and also when they are fed in honour of the fathers; — if he is ‘incited,’ requested — ‘he may eat freely’ — the food given by one person. But he himself should not ask for it.

This again should be ‘in due accordance with his observances’; i.e., he should avoid honey and meat, which are inconsistent with his observances. The two phrases — ‘in due accordance with his observances’ and ‘like an ascetic’ — express the same meaning; and it does not mean that in a village he is to eat ‘in accordance with his observances,’ while in the forest he is to eat ‘like an ascetic.’ It is with a view to filling up the metre that the two phrases have been used. [There is another reason why the phrase ‘like an ascetic’ should not he taken separately] — ‘Ascetic’ here stands for the hermit, so if the student were permitted to eat ‘like the hermit,’ the eating of meat also would become allowed for him; as the hermit is permitted to eat meat, by such rules as ‘he may eat the flesh of dead animals’ (Gautama, 3.31).

‘In honour of Gods’; — i.e., those rites of which gods are the deities; i.e., the feeding of Brāhmaṇas laid down as to be done at the performance of the Agnihotra, the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and the other sacrifices offered to the gods; as we find in such injunctions as ‘at the Āgrahāyaṇa and other sacrifices one should feed Brāhmaṇas and make them pronounce “svasti.”’ It is in connection with these that we have the present permission for the religious student.

Others explain the term ‘performance in honour of the gods’ to mean that feeding of Brāhmaṇas which is done in honour of the Sun-god on the seventh day of the month, and so forth.

This however is not right. For the act of eating has no connection with the gods, — being, as it is, not instrumental in the accomplishment of any sacrifice. Further, the mere fact of an act being done with reference to a god, does not make the latter the ‘deity’ of that act; if it did, then the Teacher would have to be regarded as the ‘deity’ when one gives a cow to him, and the room will have to be regarded as the ‘deity’ when one sweeps it. Then again, it is with the eater that the act of eating is directly connected; and the Sun-god has no active function in the fulfilment of that act (as the Teacher is in the former case); nor is he the thing aimed at (as the room is in the latter case); as the eating is not for his sake. Further, the accusative ending (in the term denoting food) denotes that it is meant for the eater, not that it is meant for the Sun-god. Nor has it been enjoined anywhere that ‘one should feed Brāhmaṇas for the sake of (with reference to) the Sun-god.’

It might be argued that on the basis of usage we assume the existence of such an injunction.

But this cannot be; because there is always some scriptural basis found for such assumption of injunctions.

“In the present case also we have such basis in the shape of the ‘external’ Smṛtis.”

If there were such a Smṛti-rule, its meaning would be that ‘one should please the gods by feeding Brāhmaṇas.’ And it would not be right to assume such a meaning; as scriptural injunctions are aimed, not at pleasin the Gods, but at accomplishing what is prescribed by the injunctions. Then again, if such were the meaning of the Injunction, its connection with the Sun-god and others intended to be deities could not be based either upon an object, or upon a desired result; nor again could they be the purpose, as in the case of the act of piercing; nor are they desired for their own sake, like cattle and other desirable things, for the simple reason that they are not something to be enjoyed. If it were the satisfaction of the Sun-god that were desired, — that also, will need a proof for its own existence; and there is no such proof available. Such a thing as the ‘satisfaction of the Sun-god’ is not known by Perception or other means of knowledge, — in the way that cattle, etc., are, — whereby it could be desired and connected with the performance of sacrifices.

If the motive of the man be held to be the idea that “the Sun-god is my lord and he will endow me with a fruit desired by me”; — this also cannot be accepted, as there is no proof for this either. There is no Injunction in support of this idea. It is only an Injunction that prompts to activity the person who is related to a certain well-known result, which also serves to single out the man so prompted; but it does not point to the presence of the result. What the Injunction points to is the fact that a certain act known by other means of knowledge as leading to a particular desirable result is related to the performance as his qualifying factor.

If it be held that the offering is a kind of ‘sacrifice,’ and the feeding is a kind of disposal of it, — our answer is that that may be so regarded, if such is the usage of cultured people. But the feeding cannot be shown to have any direct connection with the deity; and as for connection through the intervening agency of the sacrife, that we do not object to. Then again, as a matter of fact, when people undertake the performance of such acts, they have no idea that they are performing a sacrifice; the only idea that they have is that when the Brāhmaṇas have been fed, the particular deity would be satisfied. From all this it is clear that the Deity has no sort of action conducive to the act of feeding, nor is it the qualifying factor of any other thing that has such action. Thus then, the Deity is neither the object of the act, nor has it any connection with it. Nor again is it possible for the Sun-god and the rest to be regarded ns aimed at by the act; for in the act of feeding, it is the person fed that is aimed at; and it is the Brāhmaṇas that are fed. Further, the mere fact of being aimed at does not make one the ‘deity’; for in that case, when one gives a cow to the Teacher, or sweeps the room, the Teacher and the room would have to be regarded as ‘deities.’

“How then is there to be Brāhmaṇa-feeding at a performance in honour of ancestors? There also the fathers could not be the ‘deities’ of the act. The offerings made into the Fire could not be regarded as made in honour of the ancestor; as other deities are found to be mentioned in connection with them. And just as the ‘satisfaction of the Sun-god,’ so the ‘satisfaction of ancestors also, cannot be regarded as the result to be accomplished, by the act; for the very same reason that the connection of such satisfaction with the Injunction is not cognisable by any other means of knowledge.”

To this some people make the following answer: — The ‘satisfaction of Ancestors’ is clearly recognised (as the result to be accomplished). That such beings as the ‘Fathers’ do exist is proved by the fact of souls being imperishable; and it is only through their deeds that they become connected with physical bodies. The feeding of these ‘Ancestors’ is the principal business, of which the reward has been described in the passage — ‘feeding them, one obtains ample reward.’ This reward could only consist in the satisfaction of the Ancestors; this ‘satisfaction’ again could only be in the form of happiness, mental contentment; it could not be in the form of physical gratification which follows, in the case of men, from the act of eating. This pleasure may sometimes accrue to the fathers during the different conditions of life in which they happen to be born under the influence of their own past deeds. The verbal root ‘tṛp’ denotes only satisfaction; physical gratification is something different, and can be known only by other means of knowledge.

Against this the following objection might be raised: — “In as much as the Son is the nominative agent in the act of feeding, how could the result, which should accrue to the agent, accrue to the Ancestors, — as people versed in law do not regard actions as bringing rewards to persons other than the actual doers.”

Such an objection cannot be rightly taken. Because in this case the Ancestors themselves are the accredited agents; by the mere act of begetting the child, the father has done all this (that the son does on his behalf); in fact the son is begot for the sole purpose that he will confer on the Father benefits, seen as well as unseen. Tims then, just as in the Sarvasvāra sacrifice — where the performer offers his own life and is thus absent when the subsequent details are performed, — some other persons continue to be regarded as the ‘performer,’ by virtue of his having died after having requested the Brāhmaṇas to finish the sacrifice for him, by means of the words

‘O Brāhmaṇas, please finish the sacrifice for me’; — so would it also be in the case in question. The only difference between the two cases is tbat in the case of the Sarvasvāra, the actual doers are the hired priests doing the act with the totally different motive of earning a living, while in the case in question the doer is the son, who has been prompted by tbat same Injunction. Just as the Father performs the sacraments for his son, being prompted to it by the Injunction of begetting sons, which Injunction extends up to the final admonition addressed to the son (after Upanayana), — similarly the Śrāddha and other rites are performed, for the father by the son. Just as the maintaining of the living father is a necessary duty of the son, as laid down in (11.10A), so is it with the dead father also.

The performance of the act in question is not purely voluntary, like the Vaiśvānara sacrifice, in connection with which we read — ‘On the birth of a son, one should offer the Vaiśvānara cake baked on twelve pans; — he upon whose birth this offering is made becomes glorious, an enjoyer of food and endowed with efficient organs.’ Here we find that the Father comes to perform the Yaiśvānara sacrifice when he desires certain results for his son; and it is not compulsory, like the Tonsure and other sacramental rites. As regards the act under consideration, on the other hand, we have the direction that ‘the rite in honour of the Fathers should he performed till one’s death,’ which shows that the rite is to be performed throughout one’s life.

As regards the objection that the result of the act, according to this view, does not accrue to the doer of the act, — this is explained in a different manner: just as in the case of the Vaiśvānara sacrifice, the result, in the shape of having a highly qualified son, accrues to the father, who is the doer of the act, — so in the case in question also, the result, in the shape of the ‘Father’s satisfaction,’ accrues to the son, the doer of the act. So that in both ways — whether the result accrue to the father or to the performer of the rite, — there is no incongruity at all. For as regards the father also, a result like the one in question is one that is desired by him in the very act of begetting the child; so that the father also does not obtain a reward not desired by him.

“If the ancestors are not the ‘deities’ of the Śrāddha-rite, how can it be called ‘paitra’ (in honour of ancestors), which term has been formed by the adding of the affix denoting the deity?’”

What we say in answer to this is that the Fathers are regarded as deities on the ground of their being, like deities, the entities with reference to whom the offerings are made. The ancestors are referred to in some such form as ‘this feeding of Brāhmaṇas is done for the purpose of benefiting you.’ In the offering called the ‘Piṇḍapitṝ-Yajña,’ the ancestors are actually ‘deities but of śrāddhas, the ancestors have not been regarded as ‘deities.’ As for this feeding of Brāhmaṇas, it is on the same footing as the offerings tbat are made into the fire of portions of clarified butter, cake and such other things. And in this way the Brāhmaṇas themselves occupy the position of ancestors. Hence at the time that the food is served to them, one should think of it being offered to his ancestors, with some such expression in his mind — ‘this is offered to you, it is no longer mine.’ The Brāhmaṇas thus fed attain the position of the ‘Āhavanīya fire’ (into which libations are poured); the only difference being that into the Āhavanīya the offering is actually thrown, while it is only placed near the Brāhmaṇas, and they take it up themselves.

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология