with the Commentary of Medhatithi 69 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 75 из 350Следующая ⇒

Viṣṇu (26. 26). — (Reproduces Manu 15.)

Viṣṇu (26. 25). — ‘For the twice-born person, a Śūdra wife can never serve any religious purpose; she may be taken sometimes only for the purpose of pleasure.’

Viṣṇu (46. 7). — (Reproduces Manu 18)

Baudhāyana (2. 1. 41). — ‘Begetting children on a Śūdra wife, etc., etc....... lead to degradation.’

Vṛddha Yama (3. 13). — ‘If the Brāhmaṇa, infatuated with pride, marries a low-caste wife, he commits the sin of Brāhmaṇa-killing day after day’ [then it reproduces Manu 19].

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 750). — ‘If the Brāhmaṇa has intercourse with a Śūdra woman, he remains impure for three days; if he begets a child on her, he falls off from Brāhmaṇa-hood.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa having recourse to ṭhe Śūdra woman immediately goes downward; if he has a child by her, he becomes fallen.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 751). — ‘There is a doubt as to whether or not the Brāhmaṇa becomes degraded by begetting children on wives of lower castes. There can be no such in regard to Kṣatriya or Vaiśya wives. But he who begets a child on the Śūdra certainly becomes degraded.’

Uśanas (Do., p. 751). — ‘There may be expiation for the wine-drinker, or even for the Brāhmaṇa-murderer; there is none for one who has begotten a child on a Śūdra wife......... Some people say that the Brāhmaṇa-husband of a Śūdra girl becomes degraded; according to others, he does not become degraded, because of the assertion that the Brāhmaṇa may have four wives in due order of the four castes.’

Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (Do.). — ‘Atri became degraded by leading a Śūdra girl to the altar; Utathya became degraded by begetting a son on the Śūdra; Śaunaka became a Śūdra by having a grandson born from a Śūdra; similarly Bhṛgu and others also became degraded.’

Brahma-purāṇa (Do., p. 752). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa shall never marry the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya or the Śūdra girl; but after having married a Brāhmaṇa-girl, he may afterwards marry the others, but only under certain circumstances.’

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 495). — ‘When the semen falls into the womb of the Śūdra woman, it gives out a loud wail of grief saying “I am, fallen into an ordure-pit; this man, blinded by sinful lust, is casting me downwards, may he himself quickly fall down into the lowest state;” — having thus cursed the man, it falls down.’

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana-Parāśaramādhava, p. 496). — ‘The good do not commend the begetting of children on a Śūdra wife; some people have declared that even for purposes of enjoyment, one shall not have recourse to a Śūdra girl.’

Smṛtyantara (Do., p. 496). — ‘The marrying of a girl of a different caste......... should be avoided during the Kali age.’

VERSE 3.14

Section III - Marriageable Girls

न ब्राह्मणक्षत्रिययोरापद्यपि हि तिष्ठतोः ।
कस्मिंश्चिदपि वृत्तान्ते शूद्रा भार्यौपदिश्यते ॥१४॥

na brāhmaṇakṣatriyayorāpadyapi hi tiṣṭhatoḥ |
kasmiṃścidapi vṛttānte śūdrā bhāryaupadiśyate ||14||

Under no circumstance whatsoever has a Śūdra wife been ordained for the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya, — even though these be placed in peril. — (14)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even when the Śūdra girl is extremely handsome, and the Brāhmaṇa or Kṣatriya bridegroom is in the ‘tenth stage’ of his life, — he should never marry the Śūdra girl.

On this point, a descriptive phrase is added — ‘under no circumstance whatsoever’ — i.e., in no story at all — ‘has been ordained’ — described.

‘In peril’ — Even in the greatest distress.

In the preceding verse, the Śūdra wife has been permitted, and here she is prohibited. Hence there should be option.

“Option is permissible only when there is possibility of the two courses being adopted at one and the same time, and both courses are equally sanctioned by scriptural injunctions; and it cannot be permitted when a course of action is open to one only under the influence of passion, while it is prohibited by scripture. In the case in question, the taking of a Śūdra wife is not sanctioned by scripture, it is possible only under the influence of passion; and all that the foregoing verse means is that the marriage of a Śūdra girl under the influence of passion is not entirely prohibited; the prohibition, on the other hand (contained in the present verse), is purely scriptural. Hence the conclusion is that the Śūdra girl should not be married at all. It is in view of this that Yājñavalkya (Ācāra, 56) has declared. — ‘It is said that twice-born persons may take Śūdra wives; but that is not my opinion.”’

Our answer to the above is as follows: — In all cases, option is admitted only in view of the likely futility of the injunction (of one or the other coarse of action). If the Śūdra-wife were absolutely prohibited, then the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya girls alone would have been mentioned as permitted (to the Brāhmaṇa) in times of peril; and in that case, the counter-exception (mentioned in 13), as also the prohibition (contained in 14), would both be superfluous; as the marrying of the girl of one’s own caste would have been already secured by the restrictive rule. Thus, then, since there is a clear incompatibility between the sanction (in 13) and the prohibition (in 14), the two should be regarded as optional alternatives.

“The presence of an option means that the agent may do what he likes; and, as the marrying of the Śūdra girl (if one wishes to do so) would be already secured by the counter-exception (in 13), there would be no need for putting forward the prohibition (in 14) [as the not-marrying of the Śūdra girl is already deduced, from the general rule of marrying within one’s own caste].”

But the marrying of the Śūdra girl has not been left entirely to the wish of the agent, in the way in which the marrying of Kṣatriya and Vaiśya girls has been; in fact, it has not been permitted, except in times of very great distress.

From all this the following conclusion appears the right one to adopt: — The general rule regarding marrying a girl of one’s own caste having already indicated, by implication, the impropriety of marrying girls of other castes, — that the Śūdra girl should have been prohibited again (in 14), already shows that the rule regarding not marrying girls of other castes is not absolute; and since this rule is not absolute, it follows that in times of difficulty, or in the event of not finding a girl of his own caste, while the Śūdra girl shall never be married, those of the other two castes may be married. — (14).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495) as countenancing the view that it is better by far that the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya should avoid a Śūdra wife altogether, even though he he overpowered by lust; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 144), where the prohibition herein contained is explained as referring to the first, marriage; — and ‘āpat’ is explained as ‘the contingency of not finding a girl of the same caste’; — and it adds, on the strength of the next verse, that what is here said is applicable to the Vaiśya also.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 749) quotes the verse and explains ‘vṛttante’ as ‘in a story.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 87), which adds that though the verse mentions only the ‘Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya’ it does not mean that it is permissible for the Vaiśya; all thaí is meant is that for the two higher castes it is specially reprehensible; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 205), which says that this prohibition is meant for the first marriage, as is clear from the foregoing verses.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.13.

VERSE 3.15

Section III - Marriageable Girls

हीनजातिस्त्रियं मोहादुद्वहन्तो द्विजातयः ।
कुलान्येव नयन्त्याशु ससन्तानानि शूद्रताम् ॥१५॥

hīnajātistriyaṃ mohādudvahanto dvijātayaḥ |
kulānyeva nayantyāśu sasantānāni śūdratām ||15||

Twice-born men, marrying, through infatuation, a girl of the low caste, quickly reduce their families, along with their offspring, to the position of the Śūdra. — (15).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a deprecatory exhortation, supplementing the foregoing prohibition.

‘Of the lout caste’ — i.e., of the Śūdra caste; the Śūdra girl being the subject of consideration; and further, because the statement ends with the assertion that the families along with offspring are reduced to the position of the Śūdra.

‘The twice-born men, through infatuation’ — i.e., on account of folly arising from greed for wealth, or from lust, — ‘reduce their families to the position of the Śūdra.’ That is, sons born of that wife become Śūdras, and so also grandsons and great-grandsons descended from them. Hence, it is added — ‘along with their offspring’ — the term ‘offspring’ standing for the line of descendants, consisting of sons, grandsons, &c. — (15).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495) its prohibiting the marrying of a Śūdra wife by the twice-born; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 750); — and in Aparārka (p. 87).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.13.

VERSE 3.16

Section III - Marriageable Girls

शूद्रावेदी पतत्यत्रेरुतथ्यतनयस्य च ।
शौनकस्य सुतोत्पत्त्या तदपत्यतया भृगोः ॥१६॥

śūdrāvedī patatyatrerutathyatanayasya ca |
śaunakasya sutotpattyā tadapatyatayā bhṛgoḥ ||16||

One who marries a Śūdra girl becomes an outcastk, — according to atri and to the son of Utathya; according to Śaunaka, by the birth of a son; and according to Bhṛgu, by having children from her (alone). — (16).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Śūdrāvedi’ is one who acquires — i.e., marries — a Śūdra girl.

‘Becomes an outcasts’ — i.e., as good as an outcaste.

Such is the opinion of Atri, and of Utathya’s son. The authorities have been mentioned with a view to inspire respect.

The first half of the verse is supplementary to the prohibition contained in the preceding verse.

‘According to Śaunaka, by the birth of a child.’ This is an entirely different rule. It presumes that marriage with a Śūdra girl is permitted, and then prohibits intercourse with her during her ‘courses’; ‘birth of a son’ is possible only by having intercourse on the even days of the woman’s period. Thus the meaning is that ‘one should not have intercourse with his Śūdra wife during her courses.’

‘According to Bhṛgu, by having children from her.’ This also is a distinct rule by itself. ‘Tadapalya’ is one who has only such children as. are born of his Śūdra wife; and the character of such a man is called ‘tadapatyatā.’ This is the opinion of Bhṛgu; which means that ‘after one has begotten children from wives of the more respectable castes, he may have intercourse with the Śūdra wife.’

The mention of ‘outcaste’ here is only meant to indicate degradation; it does not mean that the man is to be actually treated as an ‘outcaste,’ as described under 11.182. All this we shall explain later on. — (16).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

According to Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nandana and Rāghavānanda, the meaning of this verse is as translated. According to Nārāyaṇa’s explanation, the translation would read as follows (rendered by Buhler): — “A man of the family of Atri who weds a Śūdra female, becomes an outcaste; one of the race of Utathya’s son, on the birth of a son; and one of Śaunaka’s or Bhṛgu’s race, by having no other but Śūdra offspring.’ Buhler adds — “It ought to be noted that, according to Kullūka alone, the three classes refer to Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas respectively. Rāghavānanda particularly objects to the opinion.”

Burnell ??tes that the rule attributed here to Gautama (Utathya’s ???n) is not found in the Sūtras of Gautama, where we find only a general statement regarding the unlawful character of Śūdra offsprings of twice-born men. And Hopkins says the same thing in regard to the Smṛti of Atri.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 750); neither of which provides any explanation of this rather obscure verse; — in Aparārka (p. 88), which explains the meaning to be that “according to Atri and Gautama, the Brāhmaṇa marrying a Śūdra girl ‘falls’ by the mere act of marriage; according to Śaunaka, by begetting a son on her; and according to Bhṛgu, when a grandson is born from her;” — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 361), which notes that this and the next verse are only meant to deprecate the marrying of a Śūdra girl, ‘in the improper order’; — and in Smṛti-candrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 208), which adds the following notes: — The Brāhmaṇa marrying a Śūdra girl becomes degraded, — this is the opinion of Atri and of the ‘son of Utathya,’ i.e. Gautama; — hence according to these authorities the Brāhmaṇa should never marry a Śūdra girl; — according to Śaunaka, however, degradation results, not from marrying, but from begetting a child on a Śūdra wife, — hence according to him, the man should avoid the Śūdra wife during the ‘periods — according to Bhṛgu again, even the begetting of a child does not lead to degradation, what leads to it is the circumstance that the Brāhmaṇa has no children except those from his Śūdra wife, — so that according to Bhṛgu only so long as he has not got a child from his Brāhmaṇa wife shall the Brāhmaṇa avoid his Śūdra wife during the periods’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.13.

VERSE 3.17

Section III - Marriageable Girls

शूद्रां शयनमारोप्य ब्राह्मणो यात्यधोगतिम् ।
जनयित्वा सुतं तस्यां ब्राह्मण्यादेव हीयते ॥१७॥

śūdrāṃ śayanamāropya brāhmaṇo yātyadhogatim |
janayitvā sutaṃ tasyāṃ brāhmaṇyādeva hīyate ||17||

Having placed a Śūdrā woman on his bed, the Brāhmaṇa goes to perdition; and having begotten a son by her, he falls from Brāhmaṇahood itself. — (17).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a laudatory exaggeration.

If on the Śūdra wife he begets a son, he falls from Brāhmaṇahood itself i.e., the son becomes a non-Brāhmaṇa. This also is a deprecatory exaggeration.

‘Son’ — is in the masculine gender. So that (in the preceding verse also) the term ‘begetting of children,’ ‘sutotpattyā,’ should be taken to refer to the male child; even though in the compound the word can be taken both ways — either as ‘sutā’ in the Feminine, or as ‘suta’ in the Masculine. It is with this view that we have pointed out above that what is prohibited is intercourse with the woman on the even days of her ‘period’ (as it is only by intercourse on those days that a male child is born). — (17).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hopkin’s remarks — “A significant alteration in the Mahābhārata 13.47.9 makes the last part of this verse read — ‘He is nevertheless purified by a ceremony known in law’.” — One fails to see what is ‘significant’ in this, when Hindu law bristles with expiatory ceremonies in connection with much more heinous offences than the marrying of a Śūdra wife.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.265, p. 1326) as meant to indicate the gravity of the offence, and as laying down the actual irrevocable loss of Brāhmaṇahood; — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495) as prohibiting the marrying of the Śūdra by the twice-born; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 750); — in Aparārka (p. 87); — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 361); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 208), which notes that what this forbids is the marrying and begetting of child on a Śūdra wife before a Brāhmaṇa wife.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.13.

VERSE 3.18

Section III - Marriageable Girls

दैवपित्र्यातिथेयानि तत्प्रधानानि यस्य तु ।
नाश्नन्ति पितृदेवास्तन्न च स्वर्गं स गच्छति ॥१८॥

daivapitryātitheyāni tatpradhānāni yasya tu |
nāśnanti pitṛdevāstanna ca svargaṃ sa gacchati ||18||

If the rites performed by one in honour of deities, Pitṛs and Guests are dominated by her (his Śūdra wife), then the Pitṛs and the Gods do not eat of them; and the man does not go to heaven. — (18)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This prohibition pertains to all times.

Even if a Śūdra girl happens to be married, the rites, herein mentioned, should not be performed in a manner by which she might dominate them. That is to say, the Śūdra wife is not entitled to participate in the husband’s religious acts, in the manner in which wives of the three higher castes arc.

Since she is a ‘wife,’ it might be thought that she is so entitled; and it is in view of the possibility of such notion being entertained that we have the present prohibition. The meaning thus is that when one is going to spend his wealth over some religious act, he need not seek her consent, in the way he seeks that of his wives of the twice-born castes; in other cases, however — such as the expenses incurred for seeking prosperity and obtaining pleasure, — she is not to be disregarded. That she should be employed, like a servant, during the performance of Śrāḍdha, &c., is not prohibited; e.g., there would be no harm if she were to thresh corn and so forth; but she should not be made to serve food and do such other acts.

‘Rites in honour of deities’ are (1) the Daśa-pūrnamāsa and other sacrifices, and (2) the feeding of Brāhmaṇas in honour of Deities, as already explained by us under 2.180.

‘Rites in honour of Pitṛs’ — i.e., Śrāddhas and offering of water-libations.

‘Rites in honour of guests’ — i.e., the reception and feeding of guests, and offering them water for washing their feet, and so forth.

“The prohibition here put forth is already implied by the rule that wives of one’s own caste should not be superseded by other wives.”

Not so; because the rule speaks of the wife of the same caste being actually present. Hence people might he led. to argue as follows — “If the wife of the Brāhmaṇa’s own caste happens to be in her courses, or absent, then his Śūdra wife may preside over the rites, just like his Kṣatriya and Vaiśya wives; further, the prohibition contained in the rule referred to pertains, not to her title to preside, but simply to the act of examining the clarified butter and so forth, which are done by the wife in accordance with the rule that the clarified butter used at sacrifices should be such as has been examined by the wife; and, as the rule simply mentions the general name ‘wife,’ it may be taken to mean that the act may be done by any wife that has been obtained.”

And it is with a view to prevent this being done, — and of wives of different castes doing the said acts in the same way in which they are done by any one wife from among several wives of the same caste, — that we have the present prohibition.

The ‘domination,’ by the wife is due to her being entitled to the act.

‘The deities and the Pitṛs do not eat of it;’ — this means that the acts become futile.

‘He does not go to heaven;’ — i.e., if the guest takes food, the householder fails to attain Heaven, which he would attain as the result of his having fed his guests. ‘Heaven’ here stands for all those rewards that have been described as proceeding from the ‘honouring of guests,’ and it is a reference to all that has been said under 3. 106. — (18).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 88), which explains it to mean that ‘she should not be allowed to take a prominent part in the offerings made to the Gods and Pitṛs;’ — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 206), which explains ‘tatpradhānāni’ as ‘at which the Śūdra wife presides.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.13.

VERSE 3.19

Section III - Marriageable Girls

वृषलीफेनपीतस्य निःश्वासोपहतस्य च ।
तस्यां चैव प्रसूतस्य निष्कृतिर्न विधीयते ॥१९॥

vṛṣalīphenapītasya niḥśvāsopahatasya ca |
tasyāṃ caiva prasūtasya niṣkṛtirna vidhīyate ||19||

There is ho expiation for him who has drunk the moisture of the mouth of a Śūdra woman, who has been tainted by her breath, and who has begotten children on her. — (19).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is an exaggerated exhortation.

‘Vṛṣalīphena’ is the moisture of her mouth; he by whom this has been drunk is ‘vṛṣalīphenapīta;’ — the past participial adjective ‘pīta’ being put last by the analogy of such compounds as ‘palāṇḍubhakṣita,’ and so forth.

If we adopt the other reading ‘vṛṣalīpītaphenasya,’ then the compound ‘pītaphenaḥ’ is to be expounded as ‘pītaḥ pheno yasya;’ and this, with the term ‘vṛṣalī’ taken as an Instrumental Tatpuruṣa, — according to Pāṇini 2. 1. 30. (the sense being ‘the moisture of whose mouth has been drunk by a Śūdra woman’). Or, ‘pītaphena,’ expounded as above, might be taken as forming a Genetive Tatpuruṣa with ‘vṛṣalī.’

The meaning is the same in all cases. When the husband and wife lie together, the touching of their lips, etc., are inevitable. Hence, what the word of the text indicates is sexual intercourse, by mentioning something that is concomitant with it.

From the context it is clear that this verse is supplementary to the foregoing prohibition, and it is not an independent assertion. If it were an independent assertion, we should have the prohibition of kissing only, and the other forms of intercourse would become sanctioned; so that, by having intercourse with a Śūdra woman, only if one avoids kissing, he would not be transgressing any scriptural injunction.

‘Who has begotten children on her’ — i.e., who has had intercourse with her during her ‘courses.’

‘Expiation’ — purification there is none. This indicates a high degree of deprecation. — (19).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495) along with the preceding four verses; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 75), where ‘phenapītasya’ is explained as ‘pītamukhāsavasya’, ‘he who has drunk wine from the mouth.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.13.

VERSE 3.20 [The Eight Forms of Marriage]

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

चतुर्णामपि वर्णानं प्रेत्य चैह हिताहितान् ।
अष्टाविमान् समासेन स्त्रीविवाहान्निबोधत ॥२०॥

caturṇāmapi varṇānaṃ pretya caiha hitāhitān |
aṣṭāvimān samāsena strīvivāhānnibodhata ||20||

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте