with the Commentary of Medhatithi 59 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 65 из 350Следующая ⇒

go'śvauṣṭrayānaprāsādaprastareṣu kaṭeṣu ca |
āsīta guruṇā sārdhaṃ śilāphalakanauṣu ca ||204||

He may sit with the teacher on carts drawn by oxen, horses and camels, on terraces and on grass-mats; as also on reedmats, rocks, benches and boats. — (204)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The terra ‘cart’ is connected with each of the foregoing terras; and the cart yoked with, drawn by, oxen ( ), ‘horses’ (‘aśva’) and ‘camels’ (uṣṭra) is called ‘gośvoṣṭvayānam?’; the terra ‘yukta’ (‘yoked,’ ‘drawn by’) being dropped, as in the word ‘dadhighāṭa’ (‘curd-jar’). That this is so is clear from the fact that it is not possible for two men to ride together on the hare back of the ox, etc. If we had the word ‘yāna’ standing by itself, then we might have taken the verse itself as permitting the riding along with the teacher on the bare back of the ox, etc. In some places we do find this to he permitted by usage.

‘Terrace,’ — the surface on the top of houses; and in such places sitting with the Teacher is as possible as on the floor of houses.

‘Grass-mats’ — beds made of grass and leaves, etc.

‘Reed-mats’ — beds made of reeds and sticks.

‘Bocks’ — stone-slabs either on the top of hills or elsewhere.

‘Benches’ — scats made of wood, called ‘pota,’ ‘varta,’ etc.

‘Boats’; — i.e., contrivances for floating on water, which would include rafts and other similar things. — (204)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 107); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462) where ‘phalakam’ is explained as Kāṣṭhanirmitam dīrghāsanam, ‘a long seat made of wood’, a bench: — also on page 491, where it is quoted in support of the view that the prohibition contained in verse 198 must refer to cases other than those of carts and conveyances. It further adds that though the riding on conveyances drawn by ox etc. is prohibited, — yet the sanction accorded here is in view of the possibility of such lading in abnormal times of distress. It is interesting to note that no such scruples have prejudiced Medhātithi, who apparently belonged to a part of the country where riding on bullock-carts is permissible; while the author of Vīramitrodaya belonged to a part of the country where such riding is prohibited, e.g. in Mithilā.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 120) as sanctioning, in certain cases, the sitting of the pupil with the teacher.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1. 2. 35). — ‘There is nothing wrong in sitting with the Teacher on a boat, or a stone-slab, or an elephant, or the roof of a house, or a mat, or on a wheeled conveyance.’ Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 8. 12). — ‘In a journey he should ascend the conveyance behind the Teacher.’

Viṣṇu (28.27, 28). — ‘He should not sit on the same seat with the Teacher; — except on a stone-slab, a boat, or a conveyance.’

VERSE 2.205

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

गुरोर्गुरौ सन्निहिते गुरुवद् वृत्तिमाचरेत् ।
न चानिसृष्टो गुरुणा स्वान् गुरूनभिवादयेत् ॥२०५॥

gurorgurau sannihite guruvad vṛttimācaret |
na cānisṛṣṭo guruṇā svān gurūnabhivādayet ||205||

When the Teacher’s teacher happens to be close by, he should adopt towards him the same behaviour as towards his own teacher; but until permitted by his teacher, he should not pay respects to his own elders. — (205)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse permits the afore-mentioned behaviour towards one’s Teacher to be adopted in certain other cases.

Since the whole of the present deals with study, the term ‘guru’ should throughout be taken in the sense of ‘teacher.’ If the teacher of one’s Teacher happens to be near, he should behave towards him as towards his own teacher.

‘When he happens to be close by.’ — This implies that it is not incumbent upon the pupil to go over to the house of his teacher’s teacher for the purpose of paying respects to him.

While living in the Teacher’s house, — ‘until he is permitted by his Teacher’ — allowed by him to do so, — he should not go to pay respects to his own ‘elders’; — to his father, mother, etc. This does not mean that when these elders come to his Teacher’s house, hc shall wait for the Teacher’s permission before he offers obeisance to them.

“Whence do you get this meaning?”

It follows from the fact that one’s parents are the highest objects of veneration; and as regards the paternal uncle, maternal uncle and other relations, if one salutes them, this does not stand in the way of his proper behaviour towards the Teacher. For after all, all his efforts are meant to win the Teacher’s favour.

As regards the order to be observed in saluting the mother, the father and the Teacher, when all these happen to be together, — it has already been declared that the Mother is superior to all; and as between the Father and the Teacher, there is option: In as much as the respect due to the Teacher is by reason of the position of the ‘Father’ having been imposed upon him, the Father should be regarded as superior; but since it has been declared (in 146) that ‘the father imparting the Veda is superior,’ it would follow that the Teacher is superior. It is for this reason that there is option. — (205)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The first half of the verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 306), in support of the view that the ‘grand-teacher’ also is to be treated like the teacher; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462), where ‘ani sṛṣṭaḥ’ is explained as ‘aniyuktaḥ’, ‘not permitted’, — and ‘svāṅgurūm’ as ‘uncles and other relations

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 54), which explains ‘anisṛṣṭaḥ’ as ‘not permitted — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 46); — and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 34).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.8.19). — ‘When the Teacher and the Teacher’s Teacher are seated together, he should clasp the feet of the latter and then those of the former.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.6.29). — ‘In the presence of the Ācārya, he should not clasp the feet of other Teachers of the lower grade.’

Gautama (6. 3, 4). — ‘Mother, father, relations, elders, intellectual teachers; — when all these are present, the preceding should be saluted before the succeeding.’

Viṣṇu (28.29, 30). — ‘When the Teacher’s Teacher is present, behaviour towards him should be like that towards the Teacher; — until permitted by the teacher, he should not salute his elders.’

Vaśiṣṭha (13.22). — ‘When the Teacher’s Teacher is present, the behaviour towards him is prescribed to be like that towards the Teacher.’

VERSE 2.206

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

विद्यागुरुष्वेवमेव नित्या वृत्तिः स्वयोनिषु ।
प्रतिषेधत्सु चाधर्माद् हितं चोपदिशत्स्वपि ॥२०६॥

vidyāguruṣvevameva nityā vṛttiḥ svayoniṣu |
pratiṣedhatsu cādharmād hitaṃ copadiśatsvapi ||206||

This same shall be his constant behaviour towards his intellectual teachers, towards his blood-relations, towards persons restraining him from sin and towards those who give him salutary advice. — (206)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This also is an instance of ‘Transference.’

Teachers other than the Preceptor are called here ‘intellectual teacher’ — such as the Sub-Teacher and the rest. One should behave towards these just as it has been detailed above (under 192 et seq.).

‘Towards blood-relations’ — i.e., towards the elder brother, the paternal uncle, etc

‘Constant behaviour’ — i.e., behaviour as towards the Preceptor.

As distinguished from the ‘Preceptor,’ the other ‘Intellectual Teachers’ are to be so honoured only during the period of one’s learning under them.

‘Towards persons’ — friends and others — ‘restraining him from sin’ — i.e., from evils, such as connection with other women and so forth. It has been said that when one is found to be thinking within himself of doing some evil deed, then his friends and others ‘should restrain him from sin, even to the extent of dragging him by his hairs’; and towards one who restrains him in this way, he should behave as towards his Teacher, — even if he happens to be of equal or inferior age.

Also towards those who give salutary advice, independently of books. Or, ‘giver of salutary advice’ may be taken as standing for noble-minded persons in general. — (206)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462), where ‘vidyāguru’ is explained as ‘teachers other than the Ācārya’, — ‘nityā’, as ‘holding for all time’, — ‘svayoni’, as ‘uncle and the rest’, — ‘hita’ as dharmatattva, ‘the essence of Morality’; — and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 34).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 206-207)

Gautama (2.30). — ‘Similarly towards respected superiors.’

Baudhāyana (1.1.37). — ‘The eating of the leavings should be avoided in the case of the Ācārya’s son or in that of the expounder of the Veda.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 7. 29, 30). — ‘Towards the older fellow-student, — the behaviour towards the Ācārya’s son should be like that towards the teacher, with the exception of eating the leavings.’

Vaśiṣṭha (13.22). — ‘Towards the teacher’s son, one should behave like that towards the teacher himself, — so says the Śruti.’

Viṣṇu (32.1). — ‘The King, the priest, the Vedic scholar, one who prevents him from doing wrong, the sub-teacher, the paternal uncle, the maternal grandfather, the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the elder brother, one’s relations, — the behaviour towards these should be like that towards the teacher.’

VERSE 2.207

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

श्रेयःसु गुरुवद् वृत्तिं नित्यमेव समाचरेत् ।
गुरुपुत्रेषु चार्येषु गुरोश्चैव स्वबन्धुषु ॥२०७॥

śreyaḥsu guruvad vṛttiṃ nityameva samācaret |
guruputreṣu cāryeṣu guroścaiva svabandhuṣu ||207||

Towards superiors he should always behave as towards the Teacher, as also towards the Teacher’s son who has acquired the position of the Teacher, and towards the Teacher’s own blood-relations. — (207)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Superiors’; — those possessed of greater amount of wealth and learning. Towards these ‘he should behave always as towards the Teacher’; — i.e., he should offer him obeisance, welcome and so forth.

In this verse many such words have been used as are superfluous; but in as much as this is a metrical work, such usage is not objectionable. ‘Towards superiors’ was all that should h ave been said here; ‘as towards the Teacher’ would be already implied; ‘behaviour’ has already been mentioned in the preceding verse. Many such instances can be found in this work.

‘Towards the Teacher’s son who has acquired the position of the Teacher’; — the addition of the word ‘ācārya’ is meant to show that the son should have obtained the position of the Teacher. The sense is that, if during the Teacher’s absence, his son teaches his pupils for a few days, he should be treated as a Teacher

Another reading is ‘guruputresvaṭhāryeṣu.’ The term ‘ārya’ in’this case would mean ‘one belonging to the highly qualified Brāhmaṇa-caste,’ as we find in such instances as — ‘śūdrāccāryo jyāyān.’

This verse does not enjoin that such treatment should lie accorded to all the sons of the Teacher.

‘Towards the Teacher’s own blood-relations.’ — The epithet ‘own’ has been added for the purpose of restricting the statement to members of the Teacher’s family; the mere fact of being a member of the Teacher’s family is the sole ground for the treatment being accorded to him, — irrespectively of age, learning, etc. — (207)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ācārye’ — is construed as qualifying ‘guruputre’ according to Medhātithi, who explains the two terms as ‘the teacher’s son who imparts instruction for a few days during the absence of the teacher’. — Another reading, suggested by

Medhātithi is ‘āryeṣu’, explained as ‘duly qualified Brāhmaṇas’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka and Govindarāja); — ‘virtuous’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana); — ‘older in age’ (Vīramitrodaya).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462), where we have the following explanations: — ‘Śreyaḥsu’ means ‘those possessed of superior learning and other qualifications; — ‘āryeṣu’ means ‘older in age’; — ‘guroḥ svabandhuṣu’ means ‘the teacher’s uncles and other relations — and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 34).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 206-207)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.206.

VERSE 2.208

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

बालः समानजन्मा वा शिष्यो वा यज्ञकर्मणि ।
अध्यापयन् गुरुसुतो गुरुवत्मानमर्हति ॥२०८॥

bālaḥ samānajanmā vā śiṣyo vā yajñakarmaṇi |
adhyāpayan gurusuto guruvatmānamarhati ||208||

Whether he be younger, or of equal age, or a student of sacrificial ritual, — the Teacher’s son, imparting instruction, dfserves the same honour as the Teacher. — (208)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For those persons who do not adopt, the reading whereby the term ‘ācārya’ (teacher) is made the qualification of the ‘Teacher’s son’ in the preceding verse, — it would follow that the entire treatment of the Teacher is to he accorded to the Teacher’s son who is qualified and belongs to the same caste, even though he may not have done any teaching. And it is this wide rule that is restricted by the present verse. — It is only the Teacher’s son imparting instruction that deserves the same honour as the Teacher, — and not he who does not impart instruction.

“That the Teacher’s son who imparts instruction should be honoured like the teacher follows from the mere fact of instruction having been received from him; and from what we read in connection with the story relating to the infant (vide 151 above) the propriety of similar treatment of the junior is already known; so that even for the mention of the ‘younger or of equal age’ the present verse would not be required.”

True; what has been said before is the treatment to be accorded to one who teaches the Veda, or even a portion of the Veda, — even though he be not the regular preceptor; while the person referred to here is not one who has made one get up the Veda; it is only one who teaches for a few days or even for a part of the day. And since such a person would not be either a ‘Preceptor’ or a ‘sub-teacher,’ his honouring would not be included under what has gone before; so it becomes necessary to enjoin it in the present connection.

It is from this verse that we understand that the entire treatment of the Teacher is not to be accorded to one who teaches only broken parts of a manṭra.

For those however who read ‘ācārya,’ ‘who does the work of teaching’ in the preceding verse, — the present verse would be a mere reference to what has been enjoined before, for the purpose of adding the injunction occurring in the next verse.

‘Or a student of sacrificial ritual’; — the mention of ‘sacrificial ritual’ is only by way of illustration; the meaning is that even though he be a mere student of a subsidiary science, or of a portion of the Veda — Mantra portion or the Brāhamaṇa portion, — yet he deserves to be honoured like the teacher; only if he happens to be the teacher’s son and imparts instruction in some science, he should be honoured like the teacher. Though this has been already said (in the preceding verse) yet that does not matter, as the present verse is meant to be merely re-iterative.

Some people offer the following explanation: — “The phrase ‘imparting instruction’ stands for the capacity of teaching; the sense being that if the teacher’s son has learnt the Vedas and is capable of teaching it, he should be honoured like the teacher; — whether he actually docs the work of teaching or not.”

This explanation is verbally quite correct. The Present Participal affix (in ‘adhyāpayan,’ ‘imparting instruction’) has the sense of characterisation; and this characterisation is that of an act; so that the use is in accordance with Pāṇini 3.2.128; and the act is directly mentioned as that ‘deserving the same honour as the teacher.’ — (208)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Yajñakarmaṇi’ — Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa construe this with ‘śiṣyaḥ’, and explain the phrase ‘Yajñakarmaṇi śiṣyaḥ’ as ‘student of sacrificial ritual (and other Vedic subsidiaries)’; — Nandana construes it with ‘adhyāpayan’, explaining the phrase as ‘who imparts instruction in sacrificial ritual — Kullūka and Rāghavānanda take it by itself, explaining it as ‘who happens to be present at a sacrificial performance’.

‘Adhyāpayan’ — ‘Teaching’ (Medhātithi); ‘Having the capacity to teach’ (Kullūka, also Vīramitrodaya).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462) where ‘adhyāpayan’ is explained as ‘capable of teaching’; and the construction is explained as yajñakarmaṇi guruvanmānamarhati’ — i.e., ‘at a sacrificial performance, he deserves to be honoured like the Teacher’; — thus agreeing on all points with the explanation given by Kullūka.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 208-209)

Viṣṇu (28.31-33). — ‘One should behave towards the teacher’s son who imparts instruction to him just as he would towards the teacher himself, — whether he be younger than him or of the same age; — he should not wash his feet; — nor should he eat his leavings.’

Gautama (2.38,39). — ‘He should behave similarly towards ṭhe teacher’s wife and his sons; — but should not eat his leavings, or bathe him, or dress his hair, or wash his feet, or rub his body, or clasp his feet.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.37). — ‘Towards the teacher’s son, or towards the expounder of the Veda, one should behave similarly, with the exception of eating his leavings.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.7.30). — ‘I he behaviour towards the teacher’s son should be like that towards the teacher himself, — with the exception of eating the leavings.’

VERSE 2.209

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

उत्सादनं च गात्राणां स्नापनौच्छिष्टभोजने ।
न कुर्याद् गुरुपुत्रस्य पादयोश्चावनेजनम् ॥२०९॥

utsādanaṃ ca gātrāṇāṃ snāpanaucchiṣṭabhojane |
na kuryād guruputrasya pādayoścāvanejanam ||209||

He shall not shampoo the limbs of his teacher’s son, nor assist him in bathing, nor eat of the food left by him; nor should he wash his feet. — (209)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Shampooing’ — rubbing after oiling — he shall not do.

‘Washing of his feet’ also he shall not do; — for the teacher’s son.

It is from this prohibition that it follows that, even though not directly enjoined, these acts should be done for the teacher. When however the teacher’s son himself becomes the teacher, by becoming fully equipped to teach the entire Veda, — then the eating of the food left by him, etc., come to be done for his own sake; and the present prohibition does not apply to the acts under such circumstances. For their prohibition refers to what is due to the son, through the injunction transferring to him the treatment accorded to the teacher, — and not to what would be due to him by direct injunction. — (209)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462) as providing exception to the general rule of the preceding verse, which declares that all that is done for the teacher should be done for his son also; and the present verse specifies certain acts of service which, though done for the Teacher, are not permissible for the Teacher’s son. ‘Gātrotsādana’ means ‘nibbing and shampooing the body.’

It is quoted also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 495).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 208-209)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.208.

VERSE 2.210

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

गुरुवत् प्रतिपूज्याः स्युः सवर्णा गुरुयोषितः ।
असवर्णास्तु सम्पूज्याः प्रत्युत्थानाभिवादनैः ॥२१०॥

guruvat pratipūjyāḥ syuḥ savarṇā guruyoṣitaḥ |
asavarṇāstu sampūjyāḥ pratyutthānābhivādanaiḥ ||210||

The teacher’s ladies belonging to the same caste should be honoured like the teacher himself; those not belonging to the same caste should be honoured with rising and salutations. — (210)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The teacher’s ladies’ — wives — ‘belonging to the same caste’ — of the same caste as the teacher, — ‘should be honoured like the teacher’ — by carrying out their orders and so forth.

‘Those not belonging to the same caste’ are to be honoured only ‘with rising and salutations.’ The plural number in ‘salutations’ has the sense of ‘et cetera’: hence the doing of what is agreeable and beneficial, the non-mimicking of gait, etc., also become included. — (210)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 300) and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 402); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, pp. 103 and 123) as indicating the figurative use of the title ‘guru’; — and in Smṛtikaustubha (p. 478).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (32.2,5). — ‘ Also the wives of these; — of such wives of the teachers as belong to lower castes, the salutation should be done from a distance; there should be no clasping of the feet.’

Gautama (2. 38). — ‘Similarly towards the wives and sons of the teachers.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 7.27). — ‘The behaviour towards the teacher’s wives should be similar to that towards the teacher; with the exception of the clasping of the feet and the eating of the leavings.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.38). — ‘In the case of the teacher’s wife, one should avoid hair-dressing, dressing, bathing and eating of the leavings.’

VERSE 2.211

Section XXX - Rules to be observed by the Religious Student

अभ्यञ्जनं स्नापनं च गात्रोत्सादनमेव च ।
गुरुपत्न्या न कार्याणि केशानां च प्रसाधनम् ॥२११॥

abhyañjanaṃ snāpanaṃ ca gātrotsādanameva ca |
gurupatnyā na kāryāṇi keśānāṃ ca prasādhanam ||211||

Annointing, assisting at bath, shampooing of limbs and dressing of the hair should not be done for the teacher’s wife. — (211)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Annointing’ — rubbing of the head and body with oil, butter, and such things.

‘Shampooing’ — rubbing — ‘of limbs this includes the washing of feet also.

What is prohibited here is every service that involves the touching of the body; and the reason for this the author is going to explain below (in 213).

‘Dressing of the hair’; — arranging the, hair into various shapes, and adorning the frontal hair with Kuṅkuma, Sindūra and other things. This has been mentioned only by way of illustration; hence the adorning of the body also with sandal-paint, etc., becomes interdicted. — (211)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 301.) quotes this verse as laying down exceptions to the general rule regarding the clasping of the feet and the rendering of other services to the Teacher’s wife.

It is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 495); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 402); — also on p. 493.

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров