with the Commentary of Medhatithi 68 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 74 из 350Следующая ⇒

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

One whose body is free from defects is called ‘avyaṅgāṅgī;’ the term ‘avyaṇga’ standing for freedom from defects; just like such other words as ‘pravīṇa,’ ‘udāra,’ and the rest. Since the term ‘avyaṅga,’ etymologically, means ‘free from defects in the limbs,’ the second ‘aṇga’ must be taken as standing for the whole body; hence the epithet ‘avyatiya’ denotes fulness or comeliness of the bodily form.

‘Saumya,’ ‘agreeable’ — it has been laid down in this book that the names of women should be sweet-sounding and easy to pronounce.

She who moves like the swan or the elephant. That is, one whose gait is as elegant and languid as that of the swan or the elephant.

The term ‘tanu,’ ‘fine,’ here does not stand for ‘small;’ it means moderate. Just as the girl who is neither fat nor leau is called ‘tanvaṅgī,’ ‘one with a fine body.’

‘Mṛdvaṇgī is one whose limbs are tender, not hard or rough.

Such a female ‘one should marry.’ ‘Female’ here must be taken to stand for the maiden, as it is the maiden that is being spoken of in the context.

“If that is so (if this verse also refers to the maiden), then the prohibition contained in verse 8 regarding ‘one who has no hair, &c.,’ is superfluous; as the positive injunction, contained in the present verse, implies that ‘one who is not as here described should not be married.’”

True, that is so; the same fact when stated by means of two verses — affirmatively in one and negatively in the other — becomes clearly understood.

In the present context, the term ‘maiden’ is used in the sense of a woman who has not experienced sexual intercourse. Says Vaśiṣṭha — ‘One should acquire a wife who has had no sexual intercourse and who is similar to himself.’ But one who has been ‘consecrated’ (by marriage) by one man is no longer capable of being ‘consecrated’ by another; as there can be no doing of what has been already done. So that, if a girl has been married, and her husband goes away before she has had intercourse with him, — if she happens to be a loose woman, she cannot be married to another person, even though she is still a ‘maiden’ (in the technical sense); and it is such a maiden that is mentioned in the words of Vaśiṣṭha quoted above. In another work also it is said — ‘One should marry a female, never before married by another person, who is younger than himself and has brothers’ (Yājñavalkya, Ācāra 52). — (10)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 731) as setting forth the external signs of a marriageable girl; — also in Vīramitrodaya (Lakṣaṇa, p. 118) to the same effect; — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 132) as setting forth the external signs; and for the internal signs it refers to Āśvalāyana who has prescribed the following method; — eight balls should be made of clay brought from eight different places, and after some incantations have been uttered over them, the girl should be asked to pick up one of them; (1) if she picks up that made of clay from fields with rich corn growing, it is a sign that she would have progeny rich in grains; (2) if she picks up that of clay brought from the cattle-shed, she will be rich in cattle; (3) if that of clay from the altar, she will be an expounder of Brahman; — (4) if that of clay from a lake that is never dry, she will be endowed with all riches; (5) if that from the gambling den, she will be crafty; — (6) if that from the road-crossing, she will be inclined to wander about; (7) if that from barren soil, she will be unlucky; (8) and if that from the crematoriuûi, she will destroy her husband.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 78); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 74) as laying down the external signs of a marriageable girl; — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 509) which explains ‘tanulomakeśadaśanā’ as ‘one the hair on whose chest is scanty, and whose hair and teeth are fine’; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 200); — and in Nṛsiṃha-prasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 50a).

‘Putrikādharmaśaṅkayā’ — ‘For fear of her having the character of the Appointed Daughter’ (Medhātithi); — ‘For fear (in the former case) of her being an Appointed Daughter, and (in the latter) of committing a sin’ (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa, Rāghavānanda, and ‘others’ in Medhātithi). Govindarāja adopts Medhātithi’s explanation so far as this phrase is concerned; but he gives a somewhat different explanation of the first half of the verse, which according to him, would mean ‘one should not marry a girl who has no brother, or whose father is not known’, — the two contingencies being independent; while according to Medhātithi, the second clause (‘whose father is not known’) is subordinate to the former, — the meaning being that the doubt regarding the girl being an ‘appointed daughter’ would arise if there were no brother, and if the father were not known; for he adds “if the father is known, there is no fear of the girl being an Appointed Daughter, as he will himself declare whether or not she has been ‘appointed’.”

According to Medhātithi, therefore, in the translation of the verse, we should have ‘and’ instead of ‘or’.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 474), which adds the following notes: — He shall not many a girl with regard to whom it is not known whether or not her father has the intention of making her an ‘appointed daughter;’ — the sense is that where there is no fear of this, one may marry the girl, even though she has no brother. The clause ‘na vijñāyeta vā pitā’ (which, according to this explanation, means ‘the intentions of whose father are not known’) implies that it is possible for the daughter to be ‘appointed’ even without the Father making an agreement to that effect with the bridegroom; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 82), which adds that this implies that the daughter can be ‘appointed,’ even without express agreement and declaration.

The verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 746), where it is explained as meaning that ‘one should not marry a girl with regard to whose father it is not known whether or not he has the intention of making her an Appointed Daughter’; and it adds that it is shown by this that according to all the sages a daughter can become ‘appointed’ even without being openly declared to be so; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 414), which explains the meaning to be that one should not marry the girl with regard to whom it is not known if her father intends to ‘appoint’ her; and adds the same note as Saṃskāramayūkha.

Madanapārijāta (p. 136) quotes this verse and reproduces the same explanation as above, and deduces the conclusion that ‘one should marry the girl in whose case there is no fear of this.’

Vidhānapārijāta (p. 699) quotes the verse and adds that ‘in a case where there is no fear of the father having an intention of making the girl an Appointed Daughter, one may marry the girl, even though she may have no brother.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 80) as indicating that it is possible for a daughter to be ‘appointed’ secretly; without her being married under that expressed agreement; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 181), which adds the same note as Saṃskāraratnamālā.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Laghu-Āśvalāyana (15. 2). — ‘After due examination, ho shall select a girl who is horn of a good family, has a pleasing face, nice limbs, nice clothes and of agreeable looks, who has beautiful eyes and is handsome.’

Śātātapa. (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 731). — ‘One shall select a girl who has the voice of the swan, complexion like the clouds and eyes of the tawny colour of honey.’

Āpastamba (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra). — ‘One shall marry a girl who has relations, good character, and auspicious marks, and who is free from disease.’

VERSE 3.11

Section III - Marriageable Girls

यस्यास्तु न भवेद् भ्राता न विज्ञायेत वा पिता ।
नौपयच्छेत तां प्राज्ञः पुत्रिकाऽधर्मशङ्कया ॥११॥

yasyāstu na bhaved bhrātā na vijñāyeta vā pitā |
naupayaccheta tāṃ prājñaḥ putrikā'dharmaśaṅkayā ||11||

The wise man shall not mabry one who has no brother, or whose father is not known; for fear of her having the character of the “appointed daughter.” — (11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

She who has no brother, — such a girl one should not marry, — ‘for fear of her having, the character of the appointed daughter;’ i.e., by reason of her being an ‘appointed daughter;’ i.e., by reason of there being the doubt that the girl’s father might have performed those rites that would have made her an ‘appointed daughter.’

“Why should such a doubt arise at all?”

Such a doubt would arise if the girl’s father is not known, having died or having gone away to a foreign country. Under such circumstances, the girl is given away in marriage either by her mother or by other members of her father’s family. Since it is laid down that when the girl has reached the marriageable age, if her father happen to be absent, she shall be given away in marriage by the said relations.’ The exact rule on this point we shall quote later on. If the father is known, however, there is no fear of the girl being an ‘appointed daughter as he will himself declare whether or not she has been ‘appointed.’

‘Or’ in the text should be taken in the sense of ‘if;’ the sense being that ‘if the father is not known, the girl should not be married.’

Others have taken the two clauses as formulating two independent prohibitions: (a) ‘If the father is not known’ — i.e., if it is not known from whom she is born; this being a prohibition of marrying the girl of unknown parentage; — and (b) the next prohibition is to be construed as ‘one should not marry the girl who has no brother, for fear of her being an appointed daughter.’ They further point out that the latter phrase, ‘for fear of her being an appointed daughter,’ cannot be construed with the clause, ‘if her father is not known.’

In the whole of this section on Marriage, wherever the prohibition is not based upon grounds that are not perceptible — e.g., ‘one should marry a maiden who is not his father’s sapiṇḍa,’ etc., (when the grounds of interdiction are trascendental, not perceptible, as in the case of the prohibition of marriage with a diseased girl, etc.), — if the prohibition is disobeyed, the ‘marriage’ itself remains unaccomplished. Hence, if one happens to marry a girl belonging to the same gotra as himself, the marriage, even though performed, would be as good as not performed; and this for the simple reason that the character of ‘marriage’ is determined by scriptural injunction, — just like the character of the ‘Fire-laying’ rite; and, hence, a transgression of the injunction means the non-accomplishment of -the Rite. In the case of Fire-laying, it is found that if there is omission of any subsidiary detail, the Āhavanīya’ and other ‘Fires’ are not accomplished; similarly, a girl that belongs to the same ‘gotra’ as a man can never become the ‘wife’ of that man. Hence it has been ordained that such a girl, even though she may have gone through the sacramental rites, shall be given up. Further, in connection with such marriages, Vaśiṣṭha and other revered writers have prescribed specie lexpiratory rites. Even though, in reality, what each a marriage involves is only a discrepancy in the Rite caused by the transgression of one of the interdictions relating to a subsidiary detail, — and it does not involve any sin on the part of the man, — yet the Expiratory Rite has to be performed, in view of its being directly enjoined by the scriptures. Or, we may take it thus that what is prohibited is ‘intercourse’ with a girl of the same ‘gotra,’ and the Expiatory Rite relates to the series of acts perpetrated by the man (in the form of the marriage-ceremonies.)

As regards the prohibition of marriage with girls belonging to families that may have dropped the sacred rites and so forth, — it is based upon perceptible grounds; and, hence, when such girls are married, the ‘marriage’ is duly accomplished, the girl actually becomes the man’s ‘wife,’ and she shall not be given up. It is in view of this fact that in verse 6, we have the laudatory epithet ‘even though they be great,’ which draws a line of distinction between the two sets of prohibitions. Such also is the custom among all cultured people: they do occasionally marry girls ‘with tawny hair,’ etc., but never one that belongs to the same gotra. — (11)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 474). — ‘According to some people the daughter becomes appointed by the mere intention of the father (to that effect); hence as there could always be a suspicion regarding this, one should not marry a girl who has no brother.’

Yājñavalkya (1.53). — ‘One who has a brother and is free from disease, etc.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (36). — [Reproduces Manu],

Likhita (51) — [Reproduces Manu].

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 531). — ‘One shall marry a girl who has her father, mother and brother and is endowed with all suitable qualities, etc., etc.’

VERSE 3.12

Section III - Marriageable Girls

सवर्णाऽग्रे द्विजातीनां प्रशस्ता दारकर्मणि ।
कामतस्तु प्रवृत्तानामिमाः स्युः क्रमशोऽवराः ॥१२॥

savarṇā'gre dvijātīnāṃ praśastā dārakarmaṇi |
kāmatastu pravṛttānāmimāḥ syuḥ kramaśo'varāḥ ||12||

For ‘twice-born men’ a girl of equal caste has been recommended for the first marriage-sacrament. For those, however, who take to it through mere desire, these (following) should be regarded as preferable in due order. — (12)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In verse 4, we had the words ‘the twice-born person should take a wife,’ where the wife has been spoken of by means of a word ending in the Accusative, which makes the wife th e primary, and the marriage the secondary, object; and yet the singular number (in ‘wife’) is meant to be duly significant; since it forms part of the predicate of the sentence; just as we have in the case of the assertion, ‘he cuts the sacrificial post.’ In the case of a thing whose character is determined and known from other sources, — if such a thing happens to be referred to in connection with the Injunction of some other act, it is always understood to be referred to exactly in the form in which it has been known; e.g., in the case of the injunction, ‘wash the cup;’ and this for the simple reason that all ‘references’ are based upon wḥat is previously known. Thus, in connection with the ‘cups,’ their number is already known from such statements as ‘at the morning-extraction the Adhvaryu takes up ten cups;’ their use also is already known from the statement, ‘libations are poured with the cups;’ hence, in the subsequent statement, ‘wash the cup,’ no significance is attached to the singular number in the word ‘cup,’ — this statementbeing construed in connection with what is already known about it. In the present instance, on the other hand, the thing concerned — the ‘wife’ — is one whose character has not been determined anywhere else; in fact, it is only from the present text that we derive our knowledge of what the ‘wife’ is: hence, we understand it exactly as it is here described; so that due significance is to be attached to the number, just as much as to the basic noun itself. All this we shall discuss with detailed arguments under discourse V.

Thus then, due significance being attached to the (singular) number (in the word ‘wife,’ as used in verse 4), — if one happens to marry a second time, even though the marriage-rites might be duly performed, she does not become a ‘wife;’ just as when one Āhavanīya is already there, the second fire, even though duly kindled, does not become ‘Āhavanīya.’ But, under certain circumstances, the taking of a second wife is considered desirable; and it is in connection with this second marriage that we have the rules propounded in this and the following verses. It is in view of this that Gautama has said — ‘If one’s wife is endowed with virtue and offspring, one should not take another; in the event of failure on either of the two points, one may have another.’

‘Of equal caste,’ — i.e., of the same caste.

‘For the first,’ — first of all; i.e., for one who has not taken a wife from a different caste; ‘has been recommended.’

Having married a girl of his own caste, if the man finds that she does not inspire his love; or if the act of child-begetting is not fulfilled, — then there comes about the man’s desire for another wife; and then these — going to be mentioned below — ‘are to be regarded as preferable’ — superior — on the strength of the scriptures.

This, then, is an exception to the rule regarding having only one wife, as also to that of having a wife from one’s own caste.

Objection: — “The restriction appears to be upon the taking of a second wife from one’s own caste; as the plurality (of wives) does not appear to be sanctioned regarding girls of one’s own caste.”

Answer — All that the present text permits is the exceeding of the number ‘one.’ And, if what is sanctioned is the exceeding of it by means of marrying a girl of a different caste, — what is there that would prevent one’s marrying (again) a second girl of his own caste? It is for this reason that what Gautama has declared applies equally to all — ‘if there is failure in regard to either of the two, one may take another wife.’ In the following verse also we read, ‘she and one of his own caste,’ where also the second wife from one’s own caste is permitted. — (12).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 209); — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 143) as providing permissible substitutes for the proper ‘wife’; — it explains ‘avarāḥ’ (which it reads in place of ‘varāḥ’) as jaghanyāḥ, ‘lower’; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 98), which adds the following notes: — There are three classes of Marriage — (1) for Dharma, (2) for offispring and (3) for physical pleasure; that for offspring is obligatory, and for this one should have a girl of the same caste as himself; and in that for Pleasure, or for avoiding the sin of not entering the second life-stage, one may have girls of other castes, even a Śūdra girl; in the former also, if no girl of the same caste is available, girls of other castes may be taken.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 747), which adds the following explanations: — The term ‘varṇa’ stands for caste; — ‘agre’ means the first marriage; — the term ‘dvijāti’ indicates also persons born of the Śūdra through mixed marriages, ‘natural’ as well as ‘inverse — ‘praśastā’ means that she is recommended as the first and best alternative for taking a wife for the purposes of (1) enjoyment, (2) begetting a son and (3) helping in religious acts (these three being ‘dārakarma’ the function of the wife).

This is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 493), where we have the following notes: — ‘Agre’ means ‘at the first marriage of the Accomplished Student.’; — ‘dārakarmaṇi’ — for the performance of the Agnihotra and other rites; — ‘Savarṇā’ — ‘she who has the same caste as the bridegroom’ is recommended; — i.e., the Brāhmaṇī for the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriyā for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya for the Vaiśya. Having, for the sake of religious acts, married a girl of the same caste, if one is desirous of ha ving more wives for purposes of physical enjoyment, he may marry girls of lower castes (‘avarāḥ’) in due order; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 205), which says that the implication of the text is that after one has married a girl of the same caste, he may marry others of other castes also, but they will be less and less desirable in order; this means that for the sake of Dharma one should marry a girl of the same caste.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.12-13)

Baudhāyana (1. 8. 2-5) — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa there are four wives, in the order of the castes; for the Kṣatriya, there are three; for the Vaiśya, two; for the Śūdra, one.’

Viṣṇu (21. 1-1). — [Same as above.]

Viṣṇu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 191). — ‘For the twice-born, the Śūdra wife can serve no spiritual purpose; the only purpose she can serve is that of lust and hence she has been permitted only for one who is blinded by lust.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 57). — ‘In the order of ṭhe castes, there are three wives for the Brāhmaṇa, two for the Kṣatriya and for tho Vaiśya; for the Śūdra, there is only the wife of the same caste.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 24-25). — ‘In the order of the castes, there are three wives for the Brāhmaṇa, two for the Kṣatriya, one each for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra; — according to some people, the Shíidra girl may also he married, but without mantras.’

Pāraśara (1.4. 8-1.1). — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, there are three wives, in the order of the castes; — two for the Kṣatriya; — one for the Vaiśya; — for all, the Śūdra wife also, hut without mantras.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 747,). — ‘For all men the first alternative is to have a wife of the same caste as oneself.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 748). — ‘In the order of the castes, the Brāhmaṇa may have four wives; the Kṣatriya, three; the Vaiśya, two; the Śūdra, only one, the Śūdra.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 748). — ‘In the event of his not obtaining a girl of the same caste as himself, the Brāhmaṇa may beget, a son on a Kṣatriya wife, or on a Vaiśya wife, or according to some, on a Śūdra wife.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 748). — ‘Apart from the Brāhmaṇa wife, there are three wives, in the descending order of the castes; for the Śūdra girl, there are (apart from the Śūdra husband), three husbands in the ascending order of the castes; for the Kṣatriya there are two wives, in addition to the one of his own caste; for the Vaiśya only one; for the Vaiśya girl there are two husbands and for the Kṣatriya, one only — in addition to that of her own caste.’

VERSE 3.13

Section III - Marriageable Girls

शूद्रैव भार्या शूद्रस्य सा च स्वा च विशः स्मृते ।
ते च स्वा चैव राज्ञश्च ताश्च स्वा चाग्रजन्मनः ॥१३॥

śūdraiva bhāryā śūdrasya sā ca svā ca viśaḥ smṛte |
te ca svā caiva rājñaśca tāśca svā cāgrajanmanaḥ ||13||

For the Śūdra, the Śūdra girl. alone has been ordained to be the wife; for the Vaiśya, she as also the girl of his own caste; for the Kṣatriya, those two as also the girl of his own caste; and for the Brāhmaṇa those three as also the girl of his own caste — (13).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There being a distinction of castes, ‘one’s own caste’ constitutes the (upward) limit. Just as for the Brāhmaṇa, there are Kṣatriya and other wives, so it would seem as if for the Śūdra also there would be wives belonging to the lower orders of ‘washer-woman and carpenter.’ In order to preclude this possibility, the text lays down the restriction that the Śūdra can have a wife from his own caste only. A wife of the higher caste is precluded by the qualifying phrase, ‘in due order,’ in the preceding verse.

‘She’ — i.e., the Śūdra woman — ‘and girl of his own caste’ — i.e., the Vaiśya woman — ‘for the Vaiśya.’

‘Those two’ — the Vaiśya woman and the Śūdra woman, — ‘and the girl of his own caste’ — ‘for the Kṣatriya.’

Similarly, ‘for the Brāhmaṇa.’

The right order would appear to be that the verse should begin with the ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ but it begins with the ‘Śūdra’ which only goes to lend strength to the aforesaid notion (that a wife of the higher class is not permitted).

In this connection, it has been declared that ‘what is meant by the text is that there should be option in order, and not a combination of all (the several kinds of wives).’ — (13)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hopkins compares this with the Mahābhārata 13, 47. 8.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 404) as an amplification of what has been declared in the latter half of the preceding verse; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 740) along with the preceding verse; and in Aparārka, (p. 88), which adds that what is stated hero is permissible only in the case of people moved by lust, and not of those who are subject to righteousness; so that these are to be regarded as ‘inferior — ‘Kramaśaḥ’ (verse 12) in due order, not in any topsy-turvy ‘order — in Smṛtikaumudī (p. 3), which observes that the eva in ‘śūdraiva’ is meant to preclude marriage of the ‘inverse’ order; — i.e., where the bridegroom’s caste is lower than that of the bride; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 206), which adds that this pertains to marriage for pleasure’s sake.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.12-13)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.12.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.13-19)

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 27). — ‘By doing this, degradation of family is certain, and after death, fall from heaven.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14. 5). — ‘The Devas eat not in the house of the Brāhmaṇa-husband of a Śūdra wife.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 56). — ‘The view that has been held, that the Twice-born may take a Śūdra wife, — this I do not accept; because the man himself is born in his wife.’

Śaṅkha (4. 9). — ‘By the twice-born, the Śūdra girl shall not be made a wife, even in times of distress; there is no salvation for him as born of her. Those twice-born persons among whose Sapiṇḍa descendants, a Śūdra-born person comes in, — all become Śūdras themselves, even though they may have attained heaven. For these reasons, he shall always avoid the taking of a Śūdra wife.’

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов