with the Commentary of Medhatithi 67 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 73 из 350Следующая ⇒

Another question raised is why should the mother’s asapiṇḍā, who is included in the mother’s asagotrā implied by the eha in the text, be mentioned separately? — The ‘mother’s Sapiṇḍā’ has got to be so mentioned for the purpose of excluding the girl born in the family of the father of one’s step-mother, who is one’s own ‘asapiṇḍā’, as also the ‘asagotrā’ of the mother, but is the ‘sapiṇḍā’ of the mother; so that if the text had excluded only the ‘mother’s asagotrā,’ the said girl would he marriageable; she becomes excluded, however, by the condition that she should not he his Another’s sapiṇḍā’.

It goes on to raise a. further question that the phrase ‘asagotrā ca pituḥ’ need not be taken to include the father’s ‘asapiṇḍā’ also, as the latter is already included under the term ‘father’s asagotrā’. — The answer to this is that the separate exclusion of the ‘father’s sapiṇḍā’ is necessary in view of the following case: — Devadatta’s father, Yajñadatta, is the adopted son of his father, Bhānudatta, — a girl is born in the family of Yajñadatta’s progenitor-father, — this girl would be asagotrā of Devadatta’s ‘father’ (adoptive), and also ‘asagotrā’ of his ‘mother’: — thus there would be a likelihood of Devadatta marrying this girl; — and this becomes precluded by taking the ‘ca’ to mean the ‘father’s asapiṇḍā’. If this had not been intended by Manu, he would have said ‘one’s own asagotrā’ (‘asagotrā ca yātmanaḥ’). Thus the upshot of all this is that the girl to be married should be ‘asapiṇḍā and asagotrā’ of his Mother, and also ‘asapiṇḍā and asagotrā of his Father’.

This verse is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 196); — in Gotra-pravara-nibandha-kadamba (p. 131), which adds the following notes: — In as much as the text forbids only the ‘sapiṇḍā’ of the mother, it follows that the sagotrā of the mother is not forbidden; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 184), which adds the following explanation: — The girl who is not ‘sapiṇḍā’ either of the bridegroom or of his mother, and who is not the ‘sagotrā’ of the bridegroom or his father, is commended for the purpose of marriage; — in OodādharUpaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 223), which adds the following notes — ‘Dārakarmaṇi’, in the rite that makes a ‘wife’, — ‘maithune’, in the act of intercourse which is consummated conjointly by man and woman; — the sense is that the said girl is commended not only for cooking and such other acts as are done by the woman alone, but also in that joint act which is done by both conjointly; according to Kalpataru, ‘maithune’ means ‘in the begetting of the lawful son by means of sexual intercourse’.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 477), in support of the view that not only the girl, but her family also should be carefully examined; — also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 588); — in Aparārka (p. 84); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 508); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 204).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4. 2-5). — ‘Marriage should he performed with persons not belonging to the same Pravara; — above the Seventh grade among his paternal relations; — also beyond persons of the same seed; — and above the fifth grade among maternal relations.’

Vaśiṣṭḥa (8. 1, 2). — ‘He should marry a girl who has no common Ṛṣi (as her ancestor).........; nor one who is in the seventh grade among his paternal and in the fifth grade among his maternal relations.’

Bodhāyana (2. 1. 38). — ‘If he unknowingly marries a girl who is of the same gotra as his mother, he should maintain her as his mother; if he has got a child from her, he should perform the following expiation.........’

Viṣṇu (24.9-10). — ‘He should obtain a wife who is not the same gotra as himself nor with the same Pravara-ṛṣis; and who is beyond the fifth grade of his maternal, and beyond the seventh grade of his paternal relations.’

Viṣṇu (Aparārka, p. 82). — ‘Those who marry within the seventh and fifth grades, and the children of such marriages, become outcasts and Śūdras.’

Yājñavalkya (1.53). — ‘The girl who is free from disease, has a brother, and does not belong to the same gotra or the same Ṛṣis, and who is above the fifth and seventh grades of relationship on the maternal and paternal sides respectively.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3.4.4,5). — ‘The girl who does not belong to the same gotra, and who is not his mother’s sapiṇḍa.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (37). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Śātātapa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 590). — ‘First of all there should be purity regarding gotra and pravara, and then that regarding the fifth and seventh grades of relationship.’

Baudhāyana (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 590). — ‘One born of a woman of the same gotra as her husband is a Caṇḍāla.’

Śātātapa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683). — ‘If one marries the daughter of his maternal uncle, or a girl who is of the same gotra as his mother, or of the same pravara, — he should renounce her and perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance.’

Sumanta (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683, Aparārka, p. 80). — ‘Having married the daughter of his father’s sister, or that of his mother’s sister, or one who is of the same gotra as his mother, or of the same pravara, — one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa; he shall give her up, but support her.’

Sumanta (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 702). — ‘Girls are unmarriageable up to the seventh grade on the father’s side, and up to the fifth grade on the other sides.’

Vyāsa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683). — ‘Some people hold that one should not marry a girl who has the same gotra as his mother.’

Kāṭhaka Gṛhya (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 683). — ‘One should not marry a girl who has the same gotra and the same pravara as his father, nor one who is of the same gotra as his mother.’

Kātyāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 684). — ‘One should avoid a girl who, as regards his father, is of the same gotra or of the same pravara; but as regards his mother, only one who has the same gotra (the sameness of pravara in this latter case does not matter).’

Pāraskara (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 702). — ‘Jñāti-relationship extends to the seventh grade, or to the tenth.’

Yājñavalkya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 702). — ‘From the seventh or the tenth grade extends the Jñāti-relationship.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703). — ‘On the father’s and on the mother’s side, the sapiṇḍatā (consanguinity) ceases beyond the seventh and the fifth grades of relationship respectively.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 703). — ‘One should select a girl who has no pravara- sage in common with him, — avoiding seven grades on the father’s and five on the mother’s side.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704). — ‘In marriage one should avoid three grades on the mother’s side and five grades on the father’s.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704). — ‘One shall select a girl who has been found to be endowed with the three qualifications, and he should avoid seven grades on his father’s, and five on his mother’s side.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 407). — ‘Within the seventh and the fifth grades of relationship from the father and the mother respectively — a girl is unmarriageable; as also one who has the same gotra or pravara.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703). — ‘The householder shall marry a girl who is in the fifth grade on his mother’s side and in the seventh on the father’s.’

Ślokavaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703). — ‘One should marry the girl who is the seventh on his father’s side and fifth on his mother’s side.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 703). — ‘O king, the householder shall marry, in the proper form, a girl who is fifth on his mother’s side and seventh on his father’s side.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704), — ‘One shall acquire rightfully a wife, who is not born of the same gotra or the same pravara as himself, — and who happens to he the fifth on mother’s and seventh on the father’s side.’

Manu and Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 704). — ‘Sapiṇḍatā ceases in the seventh grade.’

Chaturviṁshatimata (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 704). — ‘On both sides, one should marry the girl in the third and the fourth grades.’

Saṭtṛṁshanmata (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 704). — ‘Manu has declared that one may marry the girl who is in the third grade on the mother’s side and in the third grade on the father’s side.’

VERSE 3.6

Section III - Marriageable Girls

महान्त्यपि समृद्धानि गोऽजाविधनधान्यतः ।
स्त्रीसम्बन्धे दशैतानि कुलानि परिवर्जयेत् ॥६॥

mahāntyapi samṛddhāni go'jāvidhanadhānyataḥ |
strīsambandhe daśaitāni kulāni parivarjayet ||6||

In female connection one should avoid these (following) ten families, — even though they be great and rich in the possession of cattle, goat and sheep and grain. — (6).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is a deprecatory exhortation, supplementary to the Prohibition coming later.

‘Rich’ denotes prosperity.

‘Possession’ — property.

‘Though great’ — high.

The possessions are farther specified — ‘in the possession of catlle, &c., &c.’ The affix ‘tas’ in ‘gojavidhanadhānyataḥ’ has the force of the Instrumental; the construction being — ‘gojāvidhanena-dhānyena.’ The term ‘possession’ has been added for the purpose of qualifying ‘cattle’ etc., the sense being ‘cattle and the rest, which constitute possession.’

‘Grain’ stands for property in the shape of kūṭa (?)

‘Female-connection’ — i.e., Marriage — the compound being construed as ‘the connection for the purpose of obtaining a female mate.’ — (6)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 6-7)

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (1.5.1). — ‘First of all, one should examine the family — on the father’s as also on the mother’s side, etc., etc.’

Yājñavalkya (1.54). — ‘[The girl should be selected] from a Śrotriya family of which ten generations are well known, which is expansive and which is not beset with the defect of an infectious disease.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (36). — ‘One shall not marry a girl whose father is not known.’

Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 587). — ‘In connection with the marriage of Brāhmaṇas, what should be heeded is the family.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 588). — ‘The following are the fourteen families in which one should not marry: (1) One should avoid such Brāhmaṇa-families as have their Pravaras unknown, and also (2) the family of hereditary (professional) priests; (3) a family of which the members are too tall; (4) that of which the members are too short; (5) that of which the members are of too pronounced a complexion; (6) the family of which several members have a limb wanting; (7) that of which several members have too many limbs; (8) that of which the members suffer from dyspepsia; (9) that of which the members suffer from leucoderma, or (10) leprosy and such other diseases; (11) that of which the members are too lascivious; (12) that of which the members are given up entirely to Tāntric practices; (13) the Family of which the members suffer from epilepsy or (14) from paleness.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 589) — ‘[Such objectionable families are to be avoided, because] the offspring is of the same nature as the family.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 84). — ‘The following families are to be avoided even though they he not outcasts: In which there, has been lucoderma, or leprosy, or dropsy or pthisis or other infectious deseases, in which members have been shortlived or suffering from piles; of which the Gotra and Pravara Ṛṣiṣ are not known, or that, in which the Veda is unknown or one which has the same Ṛṣis. The first six are to ho avoided because the offspring takes after the family; of the unknown Gotra-Pravara is to he avoided because such a family would he unlit for sacrificial performances; and one in which the Veda is unknown is to be avoided, because it would he unfit, for divine rites; one having the same Ṛṣis as the man himself is to he avoided because it is the same family. For these reasons one should examine seven generations on the father’s side and live on the mother’s side and then select as his wife a girl who has not attained puberty, is endowed with superior qualities and has a brother. He shall always select one who is fully qualified as regards family, the asterism under which she has been born, and learning and wisdom.’

VERSE 3.7

Section III - Marriageable Girls

हीनक्रियं निश्पुरुषं निश्छन्दो रोमशार्शसम् ?? ।
क्षयामयाव्य्ऽपस्मारिश्वित्रिकुष्ठिकुलानि च ?? ॥७॥

hīnakriyaṃ niśpuruṣaṃ niśchando romaśārśasam ?? |
kṣayāmayāvy'pasmāriśvitrikuṣṭhikulāni ca ?? ||7||

Such families as — (1) that in which the sacred rites have been abandoned, (2) which is male-less, (3) which is devoid of the Veda, (4) members of which are woolly and subject to (5) piles, (6) phthisis, (7) dyspepsia, (8) epilepsy, (9) leucoderma, and (10) leprosy. — (7)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘That in which the sacred rites’ — the natal and other sacraments — ‘have been abandoned’ — neglected; i.e., in which the consecratory rites as also the compulsory ‘Five Sacrifices,’ etc., are not performed.

‘Male-less’ — productive of females; i.e., in which, aṣa rule, only female, not male, children are born;

‘Devoid of the Veda’ — destitute of Vedic study.

‘Romaśārśasam’ — This copulative compound mentions two kinds of families. ‘Romasha,’ ‘woolly,’ — i.e. the members of which have their arms and limbs covered with much and long hair. ‘Piles’ — fleshy protuberances in the anus, which being a disease, are extremely painful.

‘Phthisis’ — the disease of consumption.

‘Dyspepsia’ — slow-digestion: by which the food eaten is not properly digested.

‘Epilepsy’ — leading to loss of memory and other cognate troubles.

‘Leucoderma’ — white spots on the body, with holes.

‘Leprosy’ — is well-known.

All these words — beginning with ‘romasha’ — are names of particular diseases, and are to be taken as ending in possessive affixes.

Older commentators have explained that the prohibition. herein contained is based entirely upon ordinary visible considerations: As a matter of fact, bipeds inherit the peculiarities of their mother’s families; hence, children born of mothers belonging to families that have ‘abandoned the sacred rites,’ etc., etc, would be prone to the same defects;

and diseases ace apt to be infectious; works on medicine having declared that ‘all diseases, with the sole exception of’ Diarrhoea, are infectious.’ — (7)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 588), where ‘hīnakriyam’ is explained as ‘devoid of the performance of such acts as the sacrifice and the like;’ — ‘Niṣpuruṣam’ as ‘that in which females are the sole survivors — ‘niśchandaḥ’ as ‘devoid of Vedic study;’ — also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 477), which has exactly the same explanation of precisely the same words.

Aparārka (p. 84) quotes this along with the preceding verse; — and adds the following explanations: — ‘Hīnakriyam’ means ‘devoid of the proper performance of the Conception and other Sacramental Rites,’ — ‘Niṣpuruṣam’ means ‘a family in which girls alone are born,’ — ‘Niśchandaḥ’ is ‘devoid of Vedic study,’ — ‘lomasham’ is ‘that members whereof have their body covered with inordinately prominent hairs,’ — and ‘arshasam’ means ‘suffering from piles.’ — It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 204) which adds the following explanations: — ‘Hīnakriyam,’ not engaged in the performance of sacrifices and other religious acts; — ‘Niṣpuruṣam,’ without a male master — ‘Niśchandaḥ’ devoid of Vedic learning — ‘romasham,’ hairy, — ‘arshasam’, suffering from the particular disease, piles, — all these qualifications pertain to the children of the family; — and in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 508), which has the following notes; — ‘Hīnakriyam’, not performing the prescribed duties, i.e., not avoiding prohibited acts, — ‘Niṣpuruṣam’, devoid of male progeny, — ‘arshasam’ family in which the disease runs hereditary.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 6-7)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.6.

VERSE 3.8

Section III - Marriageable Girls

नोद्वहेत् कपिलां कन्यां नाधिकाङ्गीं न रोगिणीम् ।
नालोमिकां नातिलोमां न वाचाटां न पिङ्गलाम् ॥८॥

nodvahet kapilāṃ kanyāṃ nādhikāṅgīṃ na rogiṇīm |
nālomikāṃ nātilomāṃ na vācāṭāṃ na piṅgalām ||8||

He should hot marry a maiden with tawny hair, nor one with superfluous limbs, nor one who has disease, nor one who has either no hair or too much hair, nor one who is garrulous, nor one with reddish eyes. — (8)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The prohibition in the preceding verse was with regard to the family of the bride; while that in the present verse pertains to her body.

The girl whose hairs are of either tawny or golden colour is called ‘kapilā.’

‘With superfluous limbs’ — e.g., having six fingers.

‘Who has disease’ — who is suffering from many diseases, or is overtaken by some incurable disease; — the possessive affix having the sense of many or Of permanence.

‘Who has no hair’ — ‘loman’ — standing for hairs in general also. What the present qualification has in view, however, is the entire absence of hair in the arm-pits and between the thighs.

‘Garrulous’ — who talks much and disagreeably, when it is necessary to speak very little.

‘With reddish eyes’ — Whose eyes are red, on account of some disease. — (8)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 731) in support of the view that one should not many a girl with defects; — it explains ‘vācāṭā’ as ‘garrulous’ and ‘piṅgalā’ as ‘with reddish eyes.’

Smṛtitattva (II, p. 149) quotes it and adds that the defects here described do not deprive the girl, if married, of the character of the ‘lawful wife,’ as visible (physical) defects can mean only physical disabilties, and cannot affect the nonphysical spiritual or moral character of anything.

The verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Lakṣaṇa, p. 120), where ‘rogiṇī’ is explained as ‘suffering from epilepsy and such diseases,’ and ‘vācāṭām’ ‘as one who talks much of improper things,’ — and not simply as ‘garrulous’, which is the explanation of the same author in another place [Saṃskāra-prakāśa, p. 731, see first note above]; — also in Aparārka (p. 78) to the effect that one should not many a girl who is not endowed with the proper marks; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 74); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 510), which explains ‘kapilām’, as ‘of the colour of red lice,’ and ‘piṅgalā’ as ‘of the colour of fire:’ — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 200), which explains ‘vācāṭā’ as ‘garrulous,’ and piṅgalā’ as ‘with tawny eyes;’ — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 50a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.8-9)

Viṣṇu (24.12-16).Not one who is diseased or with excessive limbs; or with deficient limbs; nor one who is too pale, or too talkative.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 3). — ‘One who is free from disease and has a brother.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (34). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 731). — ‘Too hort (short?), too tall, too thin, too fat, with tawny eyes, too pale, — such girls should not he accepted.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 731). — ‘The wise man shall not marry a girl who hears signs of a beard, who has a masculine appearance, whose voice is cracked, who speaks insinuatingly, whose voice is like the crow’s, who looks on without, winking, whose eyes arc defective; — he shall not marry her whose thighs arc hairy, whose ankles are high, in whose, cheeks there are dimples; — he shall, not marry a girl whose skin is rough, who is pale, who is diseased, or with red eyes, or with lean hands and feet, — or one who is dwarfish, or too tall, or one whose eye-brows arc joined: nor one whose teeth have many holes, nor one with a frightful face.’

Āpastamba (Vīramitrodaya-Sarṃskāra, p. 532). — ‘One named after an asterism, or after a river, or after a tree is not commended; one should avoid one whose name contains the consonants r or l or gh or jh or ḍh or ḍh or bh.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Satṃskāra) — ‘In selecting a wife one should avoid one named after a Veda, or a river, or a mountain or a Gandharva, or an asterism, or a tree, or a creeper.’

VERSE 3.9

Section III - Marriageable Girls

नऋक्षवृक्षनदीनाम्नीं नान्त्यपर्वतनामिकाम् ।
न पक्ष्यहिप्रेष्यनाम्नीं न च भीषणनामिकाम् ॥९॥

naṛkṣavṛkṣanadīnāmnīṃ nāntyaparvatanāmikām |
na pakṣyahipreṣyanāmnīṃ na ca bhīṣaṇanāmikām ||9||

Nor one bearing the name of an asterism, or a tree, or a river; nob one having her hame after a low caste or a mountain; nor one named after a bird, a serpent or a slave; nor one with a hame inspiring terror. — (9)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Asterism’ is constellation; one who bears the name of one of these; such as ‘Ārdrā,’ ‘Jyeṣṭhā,’ and the like.

‘Bearing the name of a tree’ — such as ‘Śiṃśapā,’ ‘Āmalakī,’ and so forth.

‘River’ — the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā; she who bears these names.

The term “ṛkṣavṛkṣanadī” is to be expounded as a copulative compound; which with the following term ‘nāman’ forms a genitive Tatpuruṣa compound; and these, along with the term ‘nāman’ repeated, form a Bahuvrīhi compound; the repeated term ‘nāman’ being dropped.

‘Having her name after a low caste’ — such as ‘Barbarī’

‘Śabarī’ and the like.

‘Mountains’ — such as the Vindhyā, the Himalaya, and the rest.

This compound (‘parvatanāmikām’) also is to be expounded as the former; and has the ‘ka’ affix added to it.

‘Named after a bird’ — snch as ‘Śukī’ ‘Sārikā,’ and the like.

‘Serpent,’ snake; one who is named after it; such as ‘Vyālī,’ ‘Bhujaṅgī.’

‘Slave’ — such names as ‘Dāsī,’ ‘Bālī.’

‘Inspiring terror’ — that which causes fear; such as Ḍākinī,’ ‘Rākṣasī.’

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 732), where ‘ṛkṣa’ is explained as ‘asterism;’ — and ‘antya’ as ‘mleccha;’ — in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 149) to the same effect as the preceding verse;’ — in Vīramitrodaya (Lakṣaṇa, p. 120), where ‘antya’ is explained as ‘antyaja,’ i.e., cāṇḍāla; — in Aparārka (p. 78) as indicating the unmarriageability of girls with the wrong type of names; — in Samkāramayūkha (p. 74); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 510), which explains ‘antya’ as bearing a Mleccha name; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 201), which explains ‘ṛkṣa’ as ‘nakṣatra,’ ‘antya’ as ‘mleccha,’ and ‘bhīṣaṇā’ as terrifying; — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 50a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.8-9)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.8.

VERSE 3.10

Section III - Marriageable Girls

अव्यङ्गाङ्गीं सौम्यनाम्नीं हंसवारणगामिनीम् ।
तनुलोमकेशदशनां मृद्वङ्गीमुद्वहेत् स्त्रियम् ॥१०॥

avyaṅgāṅgīṃ saumyanāmnīṃ haṃsavāraṇagāminīm |
tanulomakeśadaśanāṃ mṛdvaṅgīmudvahet striyam ||10||

One should marry a female with a faultless body, bearing an agreeable name, having her gait like that of the swan or the elephant, having fine hair on the body and the head, and fine teeth, and with tender limbs. — (10)

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов