with the Commentary of Medhatithi 57 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 63 из 350Следующая ⇒

Nor will it be right to argue that “Śrāddhas cannot be regarded as sacrifice, as in them the syllable ‘svāhā’ is not pronounced with reference to the gods.” Because we find the same in the case of the ‘Sviṣṭakṛt’ offerings (which are regarded as sacrifice). Thus then, the Śrādḍha, even though of the nature of a ‘sacrifice,’ can be offered to Ancestors. Nor is there any incongruity in the Ancestors being the ‘deities’ (of the offering) and also the recipients of the result. We are going to explain more about this matter, which is not directly mentioned in the text, under Chapter III.

From all this it becomes established that the Sun and the other gods arc not ‘deities’ in the feeding of Brāhmaṇas.

“The definition of ‘deity’ as one who is aimed at in a sacrifice is too narrow; because as a matter of fact, we find the name ‘deity’ applied even in cases where there is no connection with any sacrifice; e.g., in such statements as — (a) ‘the worshipping of deities,’ ‘one should approach the deities.’ But neither worship, nor going forward (which is what is expressed by approaching), is possible with regard to deities.”

There is no force in this; as the worship may be taken as enjoined in connection with those cases where the deity is actually enjoined; or, it may refer to the deities as related to the Agnihotra and other sacrifices.

“Even so, the difficulty does not cease. The deity can never be the object of worship; as that would deprive it of the very character of ‘Deity’ (which has been defined as consisting in being aimed at in a sacrifice); for if it were the object of worship, it could not be the recipient of the sacrifice. It h as been declared that ‘the active agent of one act cannot be an active agent of another.’ The ‘active agent’ is a particular kind of force, and this force varies with each particular act; and as the presence of such force can be indicated only by its effects, we can reasonably assume only that much of diversity in it as there may be effects. From this it follows that what is the ‘recipient of a gift’ must remain the recipient, it cannot become the object. — ‘How then do we have such expressions as give this to the cooker, where the nominative of the action of cooking becomes the recipient, — or having his body wounded by arrows, he went away helplessly, being looked upon by the glances of his beloved, [where the object of the act of looking becomes the nominative of the act of going ].’ — The answer to this has already been explained: — such expressions become justified by the difference between the efficiency and the efficient being regarded as secondary and figurative; as is found to be the case in such expressions as ‘having eaten, he goes.’ Thus then, if the aot in question is meant to be a worship, then its object cannot have the character of the ‘Deity’; while if the Sun and the rest are ‘deities,’ then the act enjoined cannot be regarded as ‘worship.’ Nor can it be held that the Sun being well known as a ‘deity,’ the present injunction lays down its worship. Because the term ‘deity’ is not a common name of the Sun and other gods, in the way in which the term ‘go’ (cow) is of the ‘śabaleya’ and other bovine varieties.”

To the above we make the following reply: — It is quite true that the Sun and others are not, in their own form, ‘deities’; the term ‘deity’ is a relative term; and it is only from an injunction that we can learn that a certain being is the ‘deity’ of an act; the fact being that when a certain offering is enjoined with reference to a being, this latter is the ‘deity’ of that offering. It is for this reason that Agni is not the ‘deity’ of any other offering save that ‘dedicated to Agni.’ [All this is quite true] but no injunction of ‘worship’ is possible without the object to be worshipped; and deities are found to be mentioned as objects of worship. Now if the act of ‘worship’ is not possible when the term ‘deity’ is taken in its primary sense, then the ‘worship’ may be taken as being of the nature of ‘sacrifice.’ But, in the absence of any mention (in the injunction of feeding Brāhmaṇas) of the substance to be offered and the deity to whom it is to be offered, the act in question cannot acquire the character of true ‘sacrifice’; so that the text iu question may be regarded as a descriptive reference for the purpose of prescribing the ‘forenoon’ as the proper time for it; the sense being that ‘all acts in honour of the gods should be done during the forenoon.’

“Why is it said that the deity is not directly mentioned?”

For the simple reason that there is no word directly signifying any deity. The term ‘deity’ that is actually found is the common name of all deities; so that the injunction refers to the worshipping of Agni, Āditya, Rudra, Indra, Viṣṇu, Sarasvatī and so forth; and during the worship there is offering of incense, light, garland, presents and such other things. In the case of Agni; the connection with the act of worship offered is always direct; as regards Āditya (the Sun-god) since he is far off, his worship consists in the placing of sandal-paste, flowers, etc., on a clean spot; and as regards Indra and the other gods, since they are not visible, their worshipping is done by the placing of flower, etc., accompanied by a reference to their names. Though in the act of worship, the beings worshipped form the predominant factor, yet inasmuch as they are subservient to the act to be done, it is the act of worship that comes to be recognised as what should be done. If the substance offered were the predominant factor, then the Deity could never form the subject of the injunction. All this is made clear in Jaimim’s Mīmānsā-Sūtra, 2.1.6 and 7. The view put forward on the other hand is perfectly reasonable, the case being analogous to that of the Hymns and Eulogies. The Hymn is not made for the sake of the hymn itself; so the worship also is not for the sake of the worshipped. If might be argued that Hymns and Eulogies are not mentioned here by name. But the answer to this has already been given. The accusative has the sense of the instrumental, as in the expression ‘juhoti,’ where ‘saktūn’ has been taken as ‘saktubhiḥ.’

Similarly the sentence ‘mṛdam gām daivatam pradakṣiṇāni kurvīta,’ — ‘one should have the clay, the cow, the deity to his right,’ — lays down the use of the right hand; the sense being that all acts done in honour of the gods should be done with the right hand; the passage cannot mean that the deities ensouling the clay, etc., should be actually placed on the right; for the simple reason that the deities have no physical form.

The same holds good regarding the injunction ‘one should move up to the gods.’ Since it is not possible for one to go near the gods by walking on foot, and since the root ‘gam’ (as in ‘abhigāccet’) signifies knowledge, why should ‘abhigamana’ differ from Remembrance? The sense thus is that during the act one should think of the gods; i.e., he should avoid all anxiety or distraction of the mind. In this way this Smrti is found to be one whose basis is actually found in the Vedic Injunction, which says — ‘One should think in his mind of that deity to whom he may be offering the libation.’

“But this thinking of the deity is already implied in the aiming (which has been put forward in the definition of the Deity), — which cannot be done without thinking.”

This objection has no force; as mere aiming can be done also by a man who is anxious and whose mind is distracted.

Thus then all suoḥ expressions as ‘the property of the gods,’ ‘the cattle of the gods,’ ‘the substance of the gods’ and the like are to be taken as referring to such cattle and things as hare been assigned to (dedicated to) the gods. Some people have held that in the seotion dealing with penalties to be inflicted upon persons stealing the ‘property of gods,’ it is the image of the god that is meant; as otherwise the regulations bearing upon the subject would become liable to he infringed. As regards the images upon whom the character of ‘gods’ has been imposed, things are called their ‘property’ on the basis of an assumed sense of ownership; and it is such property that is referred to as ‘property of the gods,’ in such passages as — ‘the highest penalty is to be inflicted on the stealing of the property of Gods, Brāhmaṇas and Kings.’ In reality, gods can have no rights of ownership; and hence the literal sense of the expression being inadmissible, it is only right that we should accept the figurative one.

“In the present case what is the figurative sense? In every instance of figurative use, the presenoe of a common function (or quality) forms the basis; e.g., the expression ‘the Boy is Fire’ is used when the boy is found to possess the white resplendence of fire. Similarly in every case the figurative or secondary sense is recognised only where there is some common property present; — the presence of suoḥ property being cognised by means of perception and other means of cognition. In the case in question however, since the sense of the deity is recognisable only by the purpose served by it, — and the form of the deity cannot be ascertained through that purpose, — how could there be any recognition of common properties?”

Our answer is as follows: — We find particular forms of deities described in the Mantras and Arthavādas; and all these descriptions are interpreted as figurative. People who do not perceive any basis for such interpretation take the passages in their literal sense and regard Indra and the deities as actually possessing those forms; and the similarity of such forms they actually perceive in the images; and in this sense also it is only natural that the description should he regarded as figurative.

Some people have explained that the feeding of Brāhmaṇas at Śrāddha in honour of the Viśvedevas is what is described here as being ‘in honour of the gods.’ But such feeding, being part of what is done ‘in honour of ancestors,’ becomes included under the latter phrase, and the re-iteration of it would he entirely meaningless. Then again, since we have the generic term ‘gods,’ on what grounds could we restrict it to the Viśvedevas only P If such restriction be based upon the association of the term ‘pitrya’ ‘in honour of ancestors,’ — then, since the acts thus spoken of would not he included in ‘those done in honour of ancestors,’ — the two words could he justified on the analogy of the expression ‘go-balibarda,’ ‘bovine bull,’ which is used even when there is not much difference between what is denoted by the two terms. — (189)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ṛṣivat’ — ‘Like an ascetic; i.e. avoiding honey, meat and other forbidden food’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka); — ‘eating only a little wild-growing rice and other food fit for the ascetic’ (Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

Medhātithi (p. 163, l. 17) — ‘Mṛtasya kartṛtvam’ — This refers to Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 10. 2. 55-56. The Sarvasvāra, a modification of the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice, has been prescribed for by one who desires his own death; and in course of this the sacrificer surrounds the Post with a new piece of cloth and having addressed the words — ‘O Brāhmaṇas, please complete this sacrifce of mine,’ — enters the fire. In connection with this it is argued that the performer of the sacrifice having perished, there can be no point in proceeding with it. But the final conclusion is that the sacrifice must be proceeded with to its very end, as the sacrifice as well as its completion is directly enjoined by the Śruti text, — the latter by the words laid down as to be addressed to the Brāhmaṇas.

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 498); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 424); — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 291), which explains the construction as ‘ubhyarthitaḥ kāmamaśnīyāt, abhyarthitaḥ meaning ‘requested,’ ‘invited’.

Buhler in his translation has omitted the sentence vratamasya na lupyate,

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 2.188-189)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.188.

VERSE 2.190

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

ब्राह्मणस्यैव कर्मैतदुपदिष्टं मनीषिभिः ।
राजन्यवैश्ययोस्त्वेवं नैतत् कर्म विधीयते ॥१९०॥

brāhmaṇasyaiva karmaitadupadiṣṭaṃ manīṣibhiḥ |
rājanyavaiśyayostvevaṃ naitat karma vidhīyate ||190||

This duty has been prescribed by the sages for the Brāhmaṇa only; this duty has not been so ordained for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya. — (190)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The duty — tbat one should eat the food given by one person only under certain circumstances — that has just been prescribed, is meant for the Brāhmaṇa only; — it has been so ordained ‘by the sages’ — by the learned, after having learnt it from the Veda. They do not intend this to apply to the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya; which means that students belonging to these two castes should not eat any food except what they get as alms.

Objection. — “As a matter of fact, it is only the Brāhmaṇa that is entitled to eat at Śrāddhas; as is clear from such declarations as — ‘Which Brahmaṇas are to be fed at Śrāddhaa, and which to be avoided?’ — ‘To the most deserving Brāhamaṇa etc.’ and so forth; from which it is clear that the Brāhmaṇa alone is entitled to receive gifts. Further, what we have here is a counter-exception, not an original Injunction; and all denials are dependent upon possibility [and in the present case there is, as just pointed out, no possibility of the feeding pertaining to any non-Brāhmaṇa].”

To the above we make the following reply: — It has been ordained that after the Brāhmaṇas have eaten, the remnant should be disposed of by being made over to ‘relations’; and in this there is no restriction as to caste; the man thus would feed any one who may happen to be his ‘relation’; and in this the recipients are indicated, not by the caste-names ‘Kṣatriya’ etc., but simply by the general name ‘relation.’ It is in view of this possibility of non-Brāhmaṇas partaking of the food at Śrāddhas that we have the prohibition in the Text. — (190)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (P. 166, 1. 20) — ‘Na tatra jātyapekṣā’ — A better instance than the one cited by Medhātithi is found in Manu 3. 234 — ‘Vṛatasṭhamapi dauhitram śrāddhe yatnena bhojayet,’ by which ‘feeding at Śrāddha’ is applicable to the Kṣatriya Brahmacārī also.

VERSE 2.191

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

चोदितो गुरुणा नित्यमप्रचोदित एव वा ।
कुर्यादध्ययने यत्नमाचार्यस्य हितेषु च ॥१९१॥

codito guruṇā nityamapracodita eva vā |
kuryādadhyayane yatnamācāryasya hiteṣu ca ||191||

Prompted by the Teacher, or even when not prompted, he should put forth his exertion to study, and also to doing what is helpful to the teacher. — (191)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Prompted’ — ordered — ‘by the teacher, he put forth his exertion’ — make an effort — ‘to study.’

“It has been already laid down that ‘one should rend when wanted by the Teacher.’ How then can there he any exertion put forth by one who is not prompted?”

What is here said refers to the student who has learnt a part of the Veda, and is going to learn the remainder; for this latter the ‘instruction of the teacher’ is not necessary.

Similarly he should do, without being told to do so, such helpful acts for the teacher as fetching jars of water, massaging his body whenever he happens to be fatigued, and so forth. — (191)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 521); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 100); — in Aparārka (p. 64); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 47a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (2.36, 37). — ‘Reading, when called upon to do so; — addicted to what is agreeable and beneficial to the Teacher.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.4.24, 26). — ‘Engaged in work for the Teacher: — Reading when called upon to do so.’

Viṣṇu (28.6, 7). — ‘Reading on being called upon; — doing what is agreeable and beneficial to the Teacher.’

Yājñavalkya (1-27). — ‘On being called upon, he should read; whatever he obtains as alms, he should present to the teacher; he should always do, with mind, body and aot, what is good for the teacher.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3.1.15). — ‘He should be entirely under the teacher.’

VERSE 2.192

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

शरीरं चैव वाचं च बुद्धीन्द्रियमनांसि च ।
नियम्य प्राञ्जलिस्तिष्ठेद् वीक्षमाणो गुरोर्मुखम् ॥१९२॥

śarīraṃ caiva vācaṃ ca buddhīndriyamanāṃsi ca |
niyamya prāñjalistiṣṭhed vīkṣamāṇo gurormukham ||192||

Having under control his body and his speech, as also his organs of sensation and his hind, he should stand with joined palms, looking at the face of his Teacher. — (192)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

On coming from some other place, ‘he should stand looking at the face of his Teacher,’ — he should not sit; — ‘having under control, his body’; — i.e., he should not do such acts as the throwing about of hands and feet, laughing and so forth; nor should he speak anything needlessly.

He should control his ‘organs of sensation,’ — i.e, if he finds anything wonderful near the Teacher, he should not think of it again and again. He should control the Auditory and other organs also; the control of the visual organ is secured by looking at the Teacher’s face.

He should control the mind also; i.e., he should avoid the thought of difficulties pertaining to soriptural matters, or of the building of houses, granaries and the like.

The prohibition contained under 288 with regard to ‘making an effort to control, etc.,’ — is meant to prohibit attachment.

The meaning of all this is that when he is near his Teacher, he should not permit the slightest movement of his organs, even towards such things as are not prohibited.

‘With joined palm’ — i.e., with the hands joined together in the shape of a pigeon, turned upwards. — (192)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 106) and in Aparārka (p. 55),

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (1-52, 53). — ‘Catching hold of the left hand, leaving the thumb free, he should request the teacher with the words, Teach, Sir; — fixing his eyes and mind thereon.’

VERSE 2.193

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

नित्यमुद्धृतपाणिः स्यात् साध्वाचारः सुसंवृतः ।
आस्यतामिति चौक्तः सन्नासीताभिमुखं गुरोः ॥१९३॥

nityamuddhṛtapāṇiḥ syāt sādhvācāraḥ susaṃvṛtaḥ |
āsyatāmiti cauktaḥ sannāsītābhimukhaṃ guroḥ ||193||

He should always have his arm raised, remain well behaved, and well-guarded; when addressed with the words “be seated,” he should sit facing his teacher. — (193)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The arm should be raised, not only above the saered thread, but also out of the upper garment.

The adverb ‘always’ is meant to imply that the arm is to be raised not only while he is standing, nor only while he is reading, but on other occasions also.

‘Well-behaved’; — he should have his behaviour — speech and other acts — good, above reproach. The word ‘implies that even when not near the Teacher, he should not utter indecorous words, or do any such wrongful act.

‘Well-guarded’; — i.e., fully self-controlled, regarding speech, mind and eyes, — he should avoid even the slightest defects. The man who follows the bent of his desires (and does not restrain them) is called among people ‘unguarded’; and the opposite of this is ‘well-guarded.’

Others explain this to mean that ‘near his Teacher one should keep his body covered, and he should not take off his upper garment.’

In the manner thus described, ‘he should stand’ (as laid down in the preceding verse); but when the Teacher says to him ‘be seated’ — either in so many words, or by the gesture of his brows, etc.; the function of the injunction being to convey the direction, and this conveying need not be done only by means of words, — ‘he should sit.’

‘Facing his Teacher’ — with his face towards the Teacher. — (198)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 100); — in Aparārka (p. 56); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 47a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (1.60). — ‘Being permitted, the pupil should sit to the teacher’s right, facing either the east or the north.’

VERSE 2.194

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

हीनान्नवस्त्रवेषः स्यात् सर्वदा गुरुसन्निधौ ।
उत्तिष्ठेत् प्रथमं चास्य चरमं चैव संविशेत् ॥१९४॥

hīnānnavastraveṣaḥ syāt sarvadā gurusannidhau |
uttiṣṭhet prathamaṃ cāsya caramaṃ caiva saṃviśet ||194||

In the peesenge of his Teacher, he should always have inferior food, dress and apparel; he should rise before him, and go to sleep later. — (194)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘In the presence of his Teacher’ — he should eat — ‘inferior’ — i.e., less — ‘food.’This ‘inferiority’ of the food may be sometimes in quantity, and sometimes in quality; that is to say, if he happen to obtain as alms such food as is richly cooked and mixed with butter, milk and vegetables, then he should not eat it, — if his Teacher has already eaten food of not the same quality, or when he is eating with his Teacher, or if equally rich food has not been prepared in the Teacher’s house. If similar food has been got ready for the Teacher, then he should reduce the food he himself eats.

As regards dress, if the Teacher’s happens to be woolen, the pupil should wear cotton.

‘Apparel’ — ornaments, toilette, etc. This also should be inferior.

‘Always’ — i.e., even after the period of studentship. It is in view of this that ‘apparel’ has been added; for the Religious Student there could be no adornment, etc.

‘He should rise before him’ — i.e., from the bed, at the end of night; or from the seat, after he has understood that it is time for the Teacher to rise; he should rise before his Teacher.

‘He should go to sleep’ — retire to bed, or take his seat — ‘later’ — i.e., after the Teacher has gone to sleep. — (194)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 101), where it is explained that the ‘inferiority’ of the food, dress and apparel, is meant to be in comparison to the Teacher’s in Aparārka (p. 56); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 47b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (2.28). — ‘Sleeping and sitting on the ground, rising before and sleeping after the teacher.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.22). — ‘Rising before and sleeping after.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.2.28). — ‘Having got rid of all pride.’

Do. Do. (1.4.22). — ‘Should avoid sleep.’

Do. Do. (1.4.28). — ‘One who sleeps after and rises before the teacher is described as not sleeping.’ Viṣṇu (2.8.13). — ‘Rising before the teacher, he should sleep after him.’

VERSE 2.195

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

प्रतिश्रावणसम्भाषे शयानो न समाचरेत् ।
नासीनो न च भुञ्जानो न तिष्ठन्न पराङ्मुखः ॥१९५॥

pratiśrāvaṇasambhāṣe śayāno na samācaret |
nāsīno na ca bhuñjāno na tiṣṭhanna parāṅmukhaḥ ||195||

He should not listen to and converse with (his Teacher), while lying down; nor while seated, nor while eating, nor while standing, nor with his face turned away. — (196)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Listen to’ — i.e., listening to the words of the Teacher, when the latter calls him and directs him to do some work.

‘Converse with’ — i.e., holding conversation with the teacher.

‘Listening’ and ‘conversing’ form the copulative compound ‘pratiśravaṇasambhāṣe.’

‘While lying down’; — i.e., with his body reclining upon his owa bed.

‘Na samācaret’ — should not do.

‘Not while seated’ — upon a seat.

‘Nor while eating, nor while stand,’ — i.e., standing up right in one place, without moving.

‘Nor with face turned away’ — i.e., with face averted from the direction in which the Teacher may be looking. — (195)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 106); — and in Aparārka (p. 56), which explains ‘pratiśravaṇc’ as ‘aṅgīkāra’ ‘acceptance’.

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?