with the Commentary of Medhatithi 65 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 71 из 350Следующая ⇒

‘For half that period’ — ‘that period’ refers to ‘thirty six years;’ the ‘half’ of which is eighteen years. Here also the division of time would be six years for each Veda.

‘Or for a quarter;’ — ‘Quarter’ is the fourth part of the said number, i.e., nine years, that is, three years for each of the three Vedas.

“But how can the Veda be got up in three years.”

It is quite possible that a certain pupil may be exceptionally intelligent (and he could get up the Veda in three years).

Other people offer the following explanation: — The duties prescribed in the verse are not made conditional upon the character of the ‘learning they are conditioned by the injunction bearing upon the duties themselves. So that if, before the learning has been accomplished, the rules are duly observed for a few days during the course of learning, the purpose of the Injunction becomes duly fulfilled; as the observance of the details even to that extent would go to fulfil the conditions of the Injunction of Vedic Study. If one puts an end to his observances before he has got up the text, then he comes to be called a ‘Vratasnātaka’ ‘renouncer of observances.’ Thus, inasmuch as both these contingencies are possible, it is only right that a definite period of time should have been prescribed; and the meaning is that one does not become entitled tō the title of ‘Vratasnātaka’ unless he has put in three years’ work (at least). Though some Smṛtis lay down that ‘there is Final Bath only on the completion of Vedic Study,’ yet it is quite reasonable to apply the name ‘Bath’ (snāna) figuratively to the completion of the observances relative to Vedic Study.

This, however, is not right. Though the observances are objects of independent Injunctions, yet the right course to be adopted is that they should be kept up as long as the ‘study’ continues. In fact, the observances having been actually enjoined in connection with Study, they must continue throughout the study. If the first part of the present verse (consisting of the first three feet) were taken separately, then the words of the text themselves would make the observances abandoned after three years only, even before the ‘study’ has been finished. If, on the other hand, the whole verse — including the last quarter — is taken as a single sentence, then the observances cannot cease until the Veda has been wholly learnt. In fact, the particle ‘eva,’ ‘precisely,’ clearly indicates that this last view is the correct one.

“If there is no cessation of the observances until the Vedas have been learnt, how is it that three are two distinct titles (l) ‘Vratasnātaka’, ‘who has completed the observances.’ and (2) Vedasnātaka,’ ‘who has completed the Veda’?”

We shall explain this under Discourse IV.

The aggregate of ‘thirty-six years’ is called ‘ṣaṭtṛṃśadabdam;’ that which pertains to this aggregate is ‘ṣaṭtṛṃśadābdikam’. Similarly, the term ‘traivedikam.’ That whose extent is half of that is ‘tadardhikam.’ Similarly, ‘pādikam’ and ‘grahaṇāntikam.’ The possessive affix in these terms is in accordance with Pāṇini’s Sūtra 5.2.145. The forms cannot come under Pāṇini’s 5.1.57. — (1).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“The Atharva Veda is here, as in most of the ancient Dharmasūtras, left out altogether. Baudhāyana alone states that the term of Studentship extends over forty-eight years, and that rule includes the Atharva Veda.” — Buhler.

Medhātithi (p. 187, l. 10) — ‘Yatraiva hi sviṣṭakṛdādayaḥ.” — See Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 4.1.18 et seq. The question being whether the Sviṣṭakṛt offering (which is made with the remnants of the sacrificial materials) serves only as a ‘disposal’, or it also serves some transcendental purpose, — the conclusion is that in tills case a transcendental result, even though not mentioned in the texts, has to be assumed.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 97), where the following notes are added: — ‘Traividyā means the three Vedas; — the Studentship over the three Vedas should be made to extend over thirty-six years; that is, one should devote twelve years to studentship over each of the three Vedas; — in the case of ‘half the period six years have to be devoted to each of the three Vedas; and in the ease of ‘quarter of the period only three years.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 557), where the following totally different explanation is added: — The meaning of this is as follows: — In the event, of the Boy studying the three Vedas, his Studentship should extend over thirty-six years; if he studies only two Vedas, then over ‘half, i. e. half of forty-eight years, or twenty-four years; that such is the meaning we deduce from the other texts bearing on the subject; — the ‘quarter’ also has to be similarly explained. If the ‘half’ and ‘quarter’ were taken in relation to ‘thirty-six years’, then the meaning would he that the Studentship should extend over eighteen and nine years respectively; and this would not agree with any other Smṛti text This same consideration gets rid of the fanciful view set forth by the Candrikā that “in the case of ‘half’, the Boy should devote six years to each of the three Vedas, and in that of ‘quarter’, three years to each.”

It is interesting that this last view has been adopted by Medhātithi. (See Translation, p. 11). This view appears to have the support of Yājñavalkya (l.36), which clearly states that — “Studentship should extend over either twelve or five years for each Veda.”

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 67), which adds that the studentship over one Veda is to extend over six years in the case of ‘half’, and over three years in the case of ‘quarter’; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 166), which adds the following explanations: — ‘Traivedikam’, pertaining to the three Vedas, Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāman, — this should be carried on for 36 years, — similarly the vow of ‘Studentship’ pertaining to each single Veda is to be kept for 12 years, — in the case of the ‘Ārdhika’ system, 6 years have to be devoted to each Veda, — and 3 years each in the case of the ‘Pādika’ system; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 779).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (2. 52. 54). — ‘One should keep up his studentship over one Veda, for twelve years; — or for twelve years over each Veda; — or over all, till they have been got up.’

Baudhāyana (1. 2. 1-4), — ‘The ancient studentship over the Veda lasts for 48 years; — or for 24 years; — or for 12 years over each Veda; — or for one year over each Kāṇḍa; — or till it has been got up.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 2. 12-16). — ‘For 48 years; or less by a quarter; — or by half; — or by three quarters; or at least for half-twelve years.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 36). — Over each Veda, studentship should continue for 12 years, or for 5 years; or, according to some, for such time as may suffice for its being got up.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (1. 22. 3,4). — ‘Studentship over the Veda should continue for 12 years: — or for such time as would suffice for its being got up.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2.5.13-15). — ‘One should keep up his studentship over the Veda for 48 years; — or for 12 years over each Veda; — for such time as would suffice for its being got up.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2. 6. 2). — ‘Studentship continues for 48 years; according to some, for 12 years.’

VERSE 3.2 [Entrance into the Household]

Section II - Entrance into the Household

वेदानधीत्य वेदौ वा वेदं वाऽपि यथाक्रमम् ।
अविप्लुतब्रह्मचर्यो गृहस्थाश्रममावसेत् ॥२॥

vedānadhītya vedau vā vedaṃ vā'pi yathākramam |
aviplutabrahmacaryo gṛhasthāśramamāvaset ||2||

Having learnt, in due course, three Vedas, or two Vedas, or one Veda, he should enter upon the state of the householder, having never deviated from the vows of studentship. — (2).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘learning of Three Vedas’ has been mentioned (in the preceding verse); the learning of ‘two’ and ‘one’ Veda, not having been mentioned anywhere, are here put forward us alternatives. The term ‘veda’ in this connection has been explained as standing for Recensional Text; ‘and what is meant is that one should learn three, or two, or one Recension of each of the three Vedas, — and not that three or two or one Recension of a single Veda should be learnt. Because the work to be learnt has been called the ‘Triplicate Science.’

‘Having learnt’ — having got up, by means of the above described course of studentship.

‘He should enter upon the state of the householder’ — The exact nature of;the ‘Householder’s stage’ is going to be described later on (Verse 4, below). — ‘Enter,’ i.e., live; verbal roots having several meanings. The prefix ‘ā’ denotes limit.

One who has taken a wife to himself is called ‘householder,’ which term is used in its conventional, not etymological, sense; The term ‘house’ standing for wife; and he who takes his stand upon that house is called ‘Householder.’

The term ‘āśrama,’ ‘state,’ stands for all those duties, positive and negative, that have been prescribed (for the married man). Just as for the ‘initiated boy,’ there is ‘state of studentship’ till the Final Return from the Preceptor’s house, so for one who has married, it is the ‘state of the Householder,’

‘Nor deviated from the votes of studentship,’ — i.e., he who has not broken the vows of not having intercourse with women. This epithet has to be regarded as a distinct sentence, in accordance with the usage of stories; the sense being that (a) ‘the boy should not deviate from the vows of studentship’ and (b) ‘he should enter upon the state of the Householder.’ If the whole were taken as a single sentence, then, as a result of this, one who has deviated from the vows would never be entitled at all to enter upon the Householder’s state. If, however, we take the epithet as an independent injunction pat forth for the man’s benefit (and not as a necessary condition for entering upon Householdership), then deviation from it makes the man liable to the penalty of expiation, but it does not make him unfit to enter upon Householdership.

By the words, ‘having learnt, he should enter,’ all that is meant is that the two acts should come in this order, — entrance upon Householdership following the ‘learning;’ and it is not meant that marriage should come immediately after study. Because where the words signify mere sequence, immediate sequence is not always meant. Hence daring the time intervening between ‘Vedic Study’ and ‘marriage,’ it becomes possible for the boy to carry on the study of Grammar and. other Sciences, which help in the understanding of the meaning of Vedic texts. In fact, it is only the learned man that is entitled to Householdership; and it is not like the ‘Vedic Study,’ to which the entirely ignorant boy is entitled. Though during boyhood, the boy is like a lower animal, incapable of understanding what he is entitled to, yet he is made to act either by his Father or by his Preceptor. In fact, the act of ‘Vedic Study’ by the boy falls within the Father’s province; the proper-teaching of the child being the Father’s duty; and the reason for this lies in the fact that it is only when the child has been properly taught that the Father is regarded as having duly fulfilled the injunction of ‘begetting a child.’ ‘Teaching’ of the child, again, consists in explaining to him what he should do and what he should not do. And, if the Boy fails to understand his duties when these are explained to him, he is led by the hand, like the blind man, and made to fulfil them; just as he is caught firmly by the hand and saved from falling into the fire or into the well, in the same manner, he is also saved from drinking and other evils leading to imperceptible effects. Or, again, just as a boy is made, against his wish, to drink a wholesome medicine, so in the same manner, he is also made to do acts prescribed in the scriptures. After he has become capable of understanding things a little, he is directed by means of such words ‘you should do such and such an act.’ Such being the case, when the Boy has learnt the Veda, he should be instructed by his Father or Preceptor in such words as — ‘You have learnt the Veda, now you are fit for carrying on an investigation into what is contained in it, — hence you should now hear lectures on the subsidiary sciences.’ It is only when this advice has been given that the father is regarded as having fulfilled the duty of ‘begetting a child’; as it has been declared — ‘the child is begotten only when he comes to understand his own duties.’

From all this it becomes established that one should not marry immediately after learning the Veda, until he has learnt what is contained in the Veda; and the words of the text have to be construed thus — ‘Having learnt — i.e., after learning has been finished — one should continue to be firm in the vows of studentship (i.e., ‘of continence’). The cessation of continence having become permissible (after the Veda has been learnt), its maintenance is reiterated with a view to indicate that the other vows and restraints — such as the avoidance of honey, meat and the rest — may be withdrawn. The conclusion thus comes to be that, so long as the Veda is being learnt, the Boy should keep all his vows of studentship, — but when the learning of the Veda has been completed, and he continues his studies further for under standing what is contained in the Veda, he should abstain only from intercourse with women.

Though the term ‘brahmacharya,’ ‘vows of studentship,’ is ordinarily explained as standing for those observances and restraints that are kept up for the proper learning of the Veda, — yet in the present context it has been used in the sense of ‘avoiding intercourse with women,’ — as we shall show later on.

‘In due course,’ — i.e., according to that order of reading which is well known among students; i.e. first of all one should read the sixty-four sections of the Saṃhitā (of the Ṛgveda), then the Brāhmaṇa, and so forth, in the same order of sequence in which they may have been studied by his forefathers. In matters like this, no one can rightly say that ‘one should not follow either family traditions, or the dictates of morality, or orderly sequence.’ The meaning of all this is that ‘one should not abandon that Recensional Text which may have been learnt by his father and other ancestors.’ — (2)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 189, 1. 14) — ‘Vedaśabdaḥ śākhāvacano vyākhyātaḥ’ — Hopkins calls this ‘a later view’ and refers to Āpastamba 2. 6.5.

The first quarter of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on p. 24, l. 36), in amplification of Yājñavalkya’s statement that ‘Studentship is to extend over twelve years’, and the meaning is deduced that twelve years should be devoted to the study of each Veda.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 131); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 505), where the note is added that — ‘If one intends to perform the Jyotiṣṭoma and such other sacrifices, which can be performed only with the help of the three Vedas, one has to learn all the three Vedas, the Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāman; — if he is going to perform the Prākṣaumika and the Haviryajñas, he has to learn only, two, the Ṛk and the Yajuṣ; — while if he intends to perform only the Pākayajñas, he should learn only his own hereditary rescensional Vedic text; in the case of the other Vedas also, he should confine himself to only those rescensions which may have been studied by his forefathers, and not any one at random.

The verse is also quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 587) in support of the view that every Brāhmaṇa is entitled to the study of various Vedic rescensional texts; — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 680); in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 568); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 49a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (3. 52). — ‘Having unfailingly maintained his studentship, he shall marry a girl endowed with good qualities.’

VERSE 3.3

Section II - Entrance into the Household

तं प्रतीतं स्वधर्मेण ब्रह्मदायहरं पितुः ।
स्रग्विणं तल्प आसीनमर्हयेत् प्रथमं गवा ॥३॥

taṃ pratītaṃ svadharmeṇa brahmadāyaharaṃ pituḥ |
sragviṇaṃ talpa āsīnamarhayet prathamaṃ gavā ||3||

When, by the due observance of his duties, he has acquired the Veda and his heritage from his father, and is so inclined, — his father shall first honour him, adorned with garlands and seated upon a couch, with the “Cow.” — (3)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘When he has acquired the Veda and his heritage, the father shall honour him first with the cow,’ He who has acquired both, the Veda (‘Brahman’) and the heritage (‘dāya’) is called ‘brahmadāyādāharaḥ.’ ‘Dāya’ (Heritage) is what is given, i.e., property; — ‘Brahman’ is ‘Veda’; — ‘haraṇa’ is acquiring. It is only when the boy has learnt the Veda and received his share of the ancestral property from his father that he takes to the Householder’s state; a man without any property not being entitled to enter upon that stage. If the father happens to have no property, he should earn wealth by begging for the avowed purpose of marrying his son (and thereby maintaining his line), and then marry him.

Others explain the Veda itself as being the ‘heritage;’ and regard the present verse as a reiteration of the foregoing Injunction! for the purpose of indicating that it is to be learnt from the Father.

“It having been declared before that it is the Preceptor whose function it is to teach the Veda, why is it that the boy is now spoken of as acquiring the Veda and ‘heritage’ from his father?”

The answer to this is as follows: — For him whose Father is living, the Father himself is the ‘Preceptor.’ It is only when the Father is not living, or when he is somehow incapacitated, that another person may act as the ‘Preceptor.’ By the appointing of another man as the ‘Preceptor,’ the Father’s title to act as one ceases. But, whether the Father himself teaches his son or some one else teaches him, it makes no difference.

Some people have urged the following argument — “In connection with the Upanayana, it has been laid down, as a compulsory duty that the ‘gift should consist of some very superior thing’ (Gautama, 25.6); from which it is dear that the function is to be performed by some one else (and not by the Father himself).”

This is not right. That the Fee should consist of a very superior thing is an Injunction in connection with the Upanayana, the Initiatory Rite; and whether the Initiator is the Father or some other Preceptor, neither of these persons requires any incentive to perform this function; and fees are paid only as incentives to service; nor is any incentive necessary in a case where the person engages in the work under the influence of some other form of prompting. For these reasons, the term ‘Fee’ in the context in question, being found incapable of conveying the sense of an incentive to work, must be taken as standing for some such gift as is made for the purpose of some transcendental results, just like the giving of gold. And it is the Father who should make the Boy the owner of enough wealth to enable him to make a gift of the ‘superior thing.’

If one were to insist upon the following argument — “it is not possible for the term fee to be used in any sense other than what is paid as an incentive to serve, and so long as a word can be taken in its primary sense, it cannot be right to have recourse to any secondary signification,” — then, in that case, the said Injunction of the Fee will have to be regarded as applying to such cases where, as in the case of Satyakāma Jābāla, neither the Father is alive, nor is there any other Preceptor appointed as the Father’s substitute, and where the Boy presents himself (to a Teacher) for Initiation. And it has been already explained that such a boy, having passed his childhood, is fully entitled to have his sacraments performed for himself.

Thus, in both cases, it is the Father’s function; he may do the initiating himself or get it done by another Preceptor.

‘Inclined’ — i.e., who is inclined towards entering the life of the Householder, — and not him who is going to be a lifelong student, even though the latter may be returning home simply for the sake of obeying the rule regarding the completion of study.

‘Adorned with garland’ — this is meant to include all the details that have been laid down by the authors of the Gṛhyasūtras in connection with the ‘Madhuparka’ offering.

‘Seated upon a couch’ — seated upon a valuable sofa.

‘With the cow’ — i.e., with the ‘Madhuparka’ offering. The offering of the cow in the ‘Madhuparka’ has been prescribed as an optional alternative; hence the term ‘cow’ here stands for that particular act (of offering) which is done by means of the cow.

‘Shall honour’ — this is the duty of the Father or the Preceptor.

‘First’ — i.e., before marriage.

‘Inclined’ — i.e., lying down upon the couch for the purpose of receiving the offering.

‘By the strict observance of his duties’ — this is a super-fluous reiteration; and it makes no difference whether it is construed with ‘acquiring the Veda and his heritage,’ or with ‘shall honour.’ — (3).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 190, 1. 21) — ‘Sāntānikatayā’ — Apte explains ‘sāntānika’ as ‘a Brāhmaṇa who wishes to marry for the sake of issue.’ This is not quite correct. The word occurs in Manu 11. 1, where Kullūka explains it as ‘vivāhārthi,’ which has apparently misled the lexicographer. The word really means ‘he who is desirous of santāna, propagation of his race’, and is applied to the Father who, if poor, has to beg for the purpose of marrying his son.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 76), which adds the following explanation: When the Accomplished Student has been understood (pratīta) as inclined to take a wife; — he being ‘brahmadāyahara’ — i.e., equipped with study of the Veda, and inherited property, i.e., being quite able to maintain a family; — if the father be devoid of property, he should acquire enough by means of begging, and then marry; and thus obtain the ‘domestic fire,’ without which he could not perform the Pākayajñas. — ‘Sragvin’ indicates the presence of ornaments; — ‘talpa’ is bedstead; when the young man is seated upon it his father ‘should worship him first with the cow’ — i.e., with the Madhuparka.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (1. 24. 2). — ‘When, an Accomplished Student arrives, one should offer him the honey-mixture.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3. 9. 3). — ‘Where people are going to worship him (the next morning), there he should, stay during the night.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3. 4. 28. 33). — ‘Having approached the Ācārya seated in his assembly, he shall look upon the assembly, — sitting down, he shall control his breath; — then the Ācārya shall worship him; — having brought over a chariot yoked with a pair of bullocks...; — he is to ascend the chariot; — starting either eastward or northward, he is to go round.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2. 8. 4. 5). — ‘The Vedic Student deserves the Cow-honey-mixture; — as also the Ācārya, the Priest, the Accomplished Student, the King endowed with righteousness.’

VERSE 3.4

Section II - Entrance into the Household

गुरुणानुमतः स्नात्वा समावृत्तो यथाविधि ।
उद्वहेत द्विजो भार्यां सवर्णां लक्षणान्विताम् ॥४॥

guruṇānumataḥ snātvā samāvṛtto yathāvidhi |
udvaheta dvijo bhāryāṃ savarṇāṃ lakṣaṇānvitām ||4||

The twice-born person, having, on being permitted by the Preceptor, “bathed” and “returned” according to rule, shall take a wife of the same caste as himself, who is endowed with signs. — (4).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even on the completion of the observances relating to Vedic Study, the Boy shall “bathe” only when ‘permitted by the Preceptor.’ ‘Bathing’ here stands for a peculiar sacrament prescribed in the Gṛhyasūtras, as the limit for the observances of the Religious Student. Why the term ‘bathing’ is used in this figurative sense we have already explained above.

‘Having returned’ — i.e., having gone through a particular consecratory. rite consisting of the offering of the Madhuparka, etc., as laid down in the Gṛhyasūtra, and having returned from the Preceptor’s home to his Father’s home.

All this has been mentioned as supplementary to the Injunction contained in the term ‘shall take,’ being already known from other sources. The ‘return’ spoken of here is not a part of the ‘marriage.’ Hence for him who has learnt the Veda in his Father’s house, though there can be no ‘Return,’ yet marriage is done.

Some people take the ‘Return’ to mean that Bath which forms part of the marriage rites. Against this view it might be argued that the participial ending ‘ktvā’ (in ‘snātvā’) clearly indicates that the two (Bath and Return) are entirely different. But that ceremony of ‘Return’ which coṇsists in ‘bathing’ and which forms part of the marriage rite, is going to be described later; where a particular form of ‘Bathing’ with its details is found laid down, [Hence the ‘Return’ mentioned, in the present verse cannot be regarded as part of Marriage.]

Or, the term ‘Return’ may be taken as intended to connote the renouncing of restraints and observances. In that case, ‘returned’ would mean ‘having resumed the former condition free from all restraint.’ Special stress is laid upon the renouncing of restraints in this connection, because the observances and restraints imposed upon the Religious Student are exceptionally hard, which is not the case with the other subsequent stages of life.

‘According to rule’ — this is to be construed like the term ‘in strict accordance with his duties’ (of the preceding verse).

‘The twice-born person shall take a wife’ — ‘Shall take’ constitutes the injunction of marriage. Marriage is a sacramental rite, a refining process, as is indicated by the Accusative ending in ‘bhāryām.’

“But before marriage there does not exist such a thing as wife for whom the refinement could be effected in the same manner as ornamentation by collyrium is done to the Eye. In fact, it is by means of marriage itself that the wife is brought into existence.”

In the case of the sacrificial post, we find such injunctions as the ‘sacrificial post shall be cut,’ and that same piece of wood becomes the post on which the refining process of cutting, &c., has been performed. Exactly in the same manner it is by means of the refining process of marriage performed upon her that the person becomes a ‘wife.’

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология