with the Commentary of Medhatithi 71 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 77 из 350Следующая ⇒

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 860) in support of the view that certain forms of marriage are permissible for the, Brāhmaṇa under abnormal circumstances; and adds the following explanation: — From among the five — Prājāpatya, Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca, — the Āsura having been singled out as fit for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra only, and the Paiśāca being deprecated for all, the remaining three alone are lawful for the Brāhmaṇa; i. e., the Prājāpatya, the Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa. This conclusion is based on the analogy of the livelihood recommended for the next lower caste being permissible for the higher caste in abnormal times; so that the marriages commended for the Kṣatriya are permitted for the Brāhmaṇa under abnormal circumstances.

The same work on page 859 quotes the second half of the verse, to the effect that the Paiśāca is not lawful for any caste.

Madanapārijāta (p. 159) quotes it, and offers the following explanation: — From among the five — Prājāpatya, Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca, — three are ‘lawful viz, Prājāpatya, Gāndharva and Rākṣasa. The second half indicates two of these — i.e., the Āsura and Paiśāca — as unlawful. — Even though the Prājāpatya has been enumerated in verse 24 among the primary forms recommended for the Brāhmaṇa, yet, the same is here mentioned only as ‘lawful under abnormal circumstances,’ with a view to indicate that it is inferior to the Ārṣa.

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 487) quotes this verse and adds the following explanation — From among the forms beginning with the Brāhma and ending with the Āsura, three — i. e., the Brāhma, the Daiva and the Prājāpatya are lawful; while Ārṣa and the Āsura are unlawful, on account of their involving the purchase of a wife; as between these two also, one should never adopt the Āsura, which should be avoided as carefully as the Paiśāca, It goes on to add that here Manu has set forth only a view that has been held by ‘some one’; according to his own view, there is no ‘purchase’ involved in the Ārṣa marriage, where the ‘pair of cows’ given are not by way of a ‘price’ for the girl; as has been clearly declared in verse 53 below. So that, according to Manu, the Ārṣa is as lawful as the other three.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 683); — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 479), which adds the following explanation: — Among the five, beginning with the Brāhma and ending with the Āsura, the first three are ‘righteous,’ as not involving any form of selling; — the Ārṣa and the Āsura are ‘unrighteous,’ as involving bartering, and lienee, like the Paiśāca, they should not be adopted even in abnormal circumstances.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (Ādi-parva, 73.11). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 859). — ‘The last one has been condemned.’

Kaśyapa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 488). — ‘The woman got by purchase is not called Patnī; she is not fit to participate in rites either to gods or to Pitṛs; Kaśyapa has called her a slave.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 488). — ‘The first four marriages are conducive to spiritual merit and help also in the water-offerings; that is, those in which no price is paid, and which alone are fit for the Brāhmaṇa; these save both families.’

VERSE 3.26

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

पृथक् पृथग् वा मिश्रौ वा विवाहौ पूर्वचोदितौ ।
गान्धर्वो राक्षसश्चैव धर्म्यौ क्षत्रस्य तौ स्मृतौ ॥२६॥

pṛthak pṛthag vā miśrau vā vivāhau pūrvacoditau |
gāndharvo rākṣasaścaiva dharmyau kṣatrasya tau smṛtau ||26||

The two forms of marriage mentioned before — i.e., the Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa — have been declared, whether separately or mixed, to be lawful for the Kṣatriya. — (26)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Singly’ — this is a inert re-iteration, each single form having been already prescribed in the foregoing verses. The ‘mixed’ form is what is prescribed here; where the ‘Gāndharva-Rākṣasa’ are prescribed independently of (apart from) the other forms. The notion derived from what has gone before being that each form stands apart by itself, just like the Vrīhi being used apart from the Yava, — the present verse lays down the combination (of two). When we have two such texts as ‘offer the Vrīhi’ and ‘offer the Yava? each of which prescribes a substance to be used at a sacrifice independently of the other, — we conclude that the two are meant to be optional alternatives, and they are not meant to be mixed tip; because, if the mixture of both were used, we would be obeying neither the injunction of Yava, nor that of Vrīhi. Similarly, in the present case, when only one girl is to be married, it being impossible to adopt any two forms of marriage, the present text proceeds to prescribe the combination of two of them.

Such a combination of the said two forms would be possible under the following circumstances: — A girl living in her father’s house, happens to see a boy living in the same house and having heard praises from messengers, falls in love with him, but not being mistress of herself she cannot meet him, — and then she enters into a compact with her lover, requests him to take her away by some means or other, and gets herself carried away: and the bridegroom, being possessed of great strength, carries her away after having ‘killed and wounded’ (her guardians): Now in this case, since there is ‘voluntary union between the two’ (verse 32), it fulfils the conditions of the ‘Gāndharva’ form: while, since he has carried her away, after ‘having killed and wounded’ (verse 33), the conditions of the ‘Rākṣasa’ form also become fulfilled.

These two forms are possible for the Kṣatriya only. These two are lawful for the Kṣatriya — says the Text.

Mentioned before — is a mere reiterative reference.

Others have offered the following explanation: — When a Kṣatriya marries several girls, he marries one by the ‘Gāndharva’ form, and another by the ‘Rākṣasa’ form: — and this is the ‘mixed form’ meant by the text. And when all are married by one or the other of these two forms, it is a case of ‘separately’ mentioned by the text. And from this we gather that it is only these two forms of marriage that the Kṣatriya might adopt promiscuously — sometimes the one and sometimes the other; while in the case of the ‘Prājāpatya’ and the rest, he should adopt the same form in all his marriages which he happens to adopt in the first. — (26)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 860), where the following notes are added: — This lays down the forms.permissible for the Kṣatriya under abnormal circumstances. — ‘Pṛthak’ means unmixed, and ‘Miśra,’ mixed; we have the latter form in a case where the marriage having been previously settled by mutual understanding between the bride and the bridegroom, if the bride’s people oppose it, the bridegroom takes her away by force, as happened in the case of Kṛṣṇa’s marriage with Rukmiṇī (described in the Bhāgavata). A further distinction has got to be made here: the ‘mixed’ form is permissible only under abnormal conditions, while the ‘unmixed’ one is a secondary form permissible for all time; and hence the mention of this latter in the present verse is merely reiterative (as remarked by Medhātithi also), — the reiteration being made for the purpose of indicating the utter inferiority of the ‘mixed’ to the ‘unmixed’ form. This implies that for other castes also, in the event of an ‘unmixed’ form being not possible, the ‘mixed’ form becomes permissible. — Even though the Paiśāca has been prohibited for all, yet it has been mentioned among the forms of marriage only for the purpose of its being permitted for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra under exceptionally abnormal circumstances.

Madanapārijāta (p. 160) also quotes this verse as laying down what is permissible for the Kṣatriya under abnormal conditions. īt adds the following notes: — ‘Pṛthak pṛthak’ means the primary and the secondary forms, laid down as alternatives; and the second half quotes an example of the ‘mixed’ form; there is a ‘mixture’ of the Gāndharva and Rākṣasa forms when after a mutual understanding has been arrived at between the bride and the bridegroom, if the bride’s people raise objections to the marriage, the bridegroom fights with them and takes away the bride by force. — This is to be understood only as an illustration; on the same analogy, other ‘mixtures’ may be permissible for other castes also. — Even though very much deprecated, the Paiśāca form is permitted under abnormal circumstances for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, — as also for such twice-born persons as have adopted the living of the Vaiśya or the Śūdra.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 682).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (Ādi-parva, 73. 12-13). — ‘The Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa are lawful for the Kṣatriya: the two may be performed either separately or jointly.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 16). — ‘Some people commend the Gāndharva for all, — since it is accompanied by love.’

VERSE 3.27

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

आच्छाद्य चार्चयित्वा च श्रुतशीलवते स्वयम् ।
आहूय दानं कन्याया ब्राह्मो धर्मः प्रकीर्तितः ॥२७॥

ācchādya cārcayitvā ca śrutaśīlavate svayam |
āhūya dānaṃ kanyāyā brāhmo dharmaḥ prakīrtitaḥ ||27||

When one himself invites a man endowed with learning and character and gives to him his daughter, after having dressed and worshipped (them), — this is called the “Brāhma” form. — (27)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author now describes the exact nature of the several forms of marriage.

‘After having dressed.’ — What is meant is a particular form of dressing, ordinary dressing being absolutely necessary (and hence implying no special regard). Hence the. meaning is — ‘After having dressed with nice and suitable clothes, such as might be available at the place.’

‘Having worshipped;’ — i.e., having done worship with bracelets, armlets and other ornaments, and also special modes of honouring, indicative of great affection.

There is nothing to indicate the connection of the ‘dressing’ and ‘worshipping’ with either the bride only or with the bridegroom only: hence they should be taken as relating to both.

‘Endowed with learning and character.’ — This implies also the other qualifications of the bridegroom, mentioned in other law-books; such as ‘intelligent, loved by the people, having his virility carefully tested’ (Yājñavalkya, Ācītra, 55).

‘Himself;’ — i.e., not previously requested by him.

‘Invites’ him; — i.e., gets the bridegroom to come, by sending bis own man.

This giving away of the daughter is the ‘Brahma form’ of marriage. Though the term ‘form’ is a general one, yet, in consideration of the context, it has to be taken as standing for marriage.

The upshot of this definition comes to be that ‘when a man obtains a wife without asking for it, and with due honour, it is the Brahma form of marriage.’

“The definition provided in the text cannot be right; as, in reality, ‘marriage’ is for the purpose of accepting a wife [so that the mere ‘giving’ by the father cannot be marriage.]”

The ‘giving’ spoken of in the text is meant to extend right up to the end of the marriage-ceremony; in fact, until the marriage has been performed, the ‘giving’ is not complete; it is at the time of ‘marriage’ that there is ‘acceptance’ of the girl by the bridegroom; and until this acceptance, the ‘gift’ is not complete. Specially, ‘giving’ here does not consist merely in the renouncing of one’s proprietary right; it extends up to the creating of the proprietary right of another person (the recipient). It is in view of this that the author is going to declare later on — ‘the learned should regard the seventh step as the final stage of the marriage’ (5.152). Thus, then, it is at the time of marriage that the maiden should be given away; it is for this reason that the author of the Gṛhyasūtra has laid down the rites in connection with the Brāhma marriage as to be performed at the time of the marriage itself.

As for the ‘giving’ before the marriage, this is merely a verbal compact; and if no such compact has been entered into, it is just possible that at the desired time the marriage may not be actually performed; for in the absence of formal agreement, the father of the bride may not give her, or the bridegroom may not accept her. Hence it is necessary that before the actual marriage, a regular contract should be entered into, in some such form, ‘she is to be given by you and accepted by me.’ [Just as an internal sacrifice becomes naturally excluded when it is deficient in some essential factor and does not fulfil the conditions of the injunction.?]

Some people argue as follows: — “When the cow and such other things are given away for the purpose of obtaining a transcendental result, the giving is accomplished merely by the recepient accepting it with the proper texts and the same should be the case with all acts of giving. So that, in the case in question also, marrying occupying the same position as accepting, ‘marriage’ should be regarded as synonymous with acceptance; and the act of accepting consists in making the thing one’a own; as says the revered Pāṇini in Sūtra 1. 3. 56 — ‘The root yama with the prefix upa in the sense of making one’s own takes the Ātmanepada.’ From this it is clear that marriage is done only for the purpose of receiving the maiden.”

This, however, is not right. In fact, the ‘marriage’ is of the maiden that has been accepted, and it is for the purpose of making her a wife. The Injunction bearing upon marriage is not in the form that — ‘one should accept the maiden by means of this rite;’ nor are the sacred texts recited at marriage such as signify the act of accepting; as is the case with such mantras as — ‘devasya tvā pratigṛhṇāmi, etc.’

As for what has been said regarding the sense of making one’s own, such a sense is not incompatible with our view. The act of ‘marrying’ also is of the nature of making one’s own. The act of ‘giving’ only brings about the ownership of the recipient; and the act of ‘marrying’ creates a particular form of ownership. Further, the wife is not a ‘property’ in the same sense that the cow and other things are; the latter are property’ in the sense that they may be used in any way one likes, while the maiden married by one can be used only as ‘wife so that the relation between husband and wife is of that of a peculiar kind of ownership; as will be shown later on, under 5. 152. — (27).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Arcayitvā’ — Medhātithi and Kullūka take this as well as ‘ācchādya’ as referring to both the bride and the bridegroom; — Nārāyaṇa and Rāghvānanda refer ‘urcayitvā’ to the bridegroom only.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 847), where the following Explanatory notes are added: — ‘Ācchādya,’ ‘having dressed,’ with clothes; — ‘arcayitvā’ ‘having worshipped’ with garlands, sandal-paint and so forth; — both these are to be done to the bridegroom, not to the bride; since both these are related to ‘āhūya’ ‘having invited,’ which cannot refer to the bride; — ‘Svayam,’ ‘himself,’ should not be taken (as Medhātithi and Kullūka take it) as precluding the possiblity of the request for the girl coming from the bridegroom; as such preclusion would be inconsistent with the rule laying down the ‘selection’ of the bride by the bridegroom. — Further Baudhāyana says — “After ascertaining his Śrutaśīle, learning and character, one gives the girl to the Student who seeks for her,” — and here we find it distinctly laid down that there should be a seeking for the girl by the bridegroom; — in this passage ‘Student,’ Brahmacāri, stands for one whose observance of studentship has not suffered in any way. — ‘The seeing’ spoken of by Baudhāyana consists in selecting the bride. That the father should ‘himself’ invite the bridegroom has been laid down as the peculiar characteristic of the ‘Brāhma’ form of marriage. Such also is the custom among the people of the south.

This verse is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 106) in connection with a somewhat subtle discussion. The author holds the view that ‘marriage,’ ‘vivāha,’ is the act of taking a wife, and hence the ‘giving’ of the bride cannot be called ‘marriage,’ as the giving is done by the Father, while the taking of a wife is done by the Bridegroom. On this ground, he argues, the definition of the Brāhma form of marriage provided in the present text of Manu should not be explained as consisting in the ‘giving of the girl’; the word ‘Dānam’ has, therefore, to be explained differently, in its etymological sense ‘yasmai dīyate tat dānam’ i.e., ‘dānam’ means ‘that for the sake of accomplishing which the giving is done’; — and as it is the Student’s ‘taking of a wife’ that is accomplished by giving, it is this ‘taking of the wife’ which should be taken as expressed by the word ‘dānam.’ He argues further that if the ‘marriage consisted in the giving of the girl, then the agent, person marrying, would be the bride’s Father, and not the Bridegroom. The author is conscious of the syntactical difficulty involved in his explanation, in connection with the participle ‘āhūya’, ‘having invited,’ which, as it stands, must have the same nominative agent as the ‘giving.’ But he brushes it off with the remark that the derivation of the verbal root in ‘āhūya’ being only a secondary factor, may be ignored, or we may supply some such word as ‘sthitaḥ’; — the meaning thus being — ‘the man who takes the wife when he comes after being invited.’

It is interesting to note that the question raised by Raghunandana in Smṛtitattva has been anticipated and satisfactorily explained by Medhātithi (see Translation, p. 58).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 88); — in Dānakriyākaumudī (p. 9) as laying down the necessity of clothing the girl properly; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 61a); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 227), which explains ‘arcayitvā’ as ‘having worshipped him with offerings of ornaments and other tilings.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4. 6). — ‘One should give away his daughter, dressed and adorned, to a man who is endowed with learning, character, good conduct, and relations; — this is the Brāhma form.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 2). — ‘The Brāhma form consists in giving the girl to a man who has kept the vows of the Religious Student seeking for wife, after having tested his learning and character.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2. 11. 17). — ‘In the Brāhma form of marriage, one should find out all about the relations, the character, the learning and the health of the man and then give to him the girl after having adorned her to the best of his power, for the purpose of hearing children and for companionship.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.30). — ‘That is the form of marriage in which the father gives away the girl to a person desirous of having a wife, after having made to him an offering of water.’

Viṣṇu (24.19). — ‘The Brāhma form consists in inviting the qualified man and giving the girl to him.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 58). — ‘When the girl, adorned to the best of one’s power, is given to a man who has been invited for the purpose, it constitutes the Brāhma form of marriage; the son born of these marriages purities twenty-one generations on both sides.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1. 6. 15). — ‘Having adorned the girl one should give her away, preceded by the water-offering; the son born thereof purifies twelve future generations and twelve past generations on both sides.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 847). — ‘One should give away the girl, endowed with auspicious qualities, dressed and adorned, wearing now bangles, to a deserving man; this constitutes the Brāhma form of marriage.’

Saṃvarta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 847). — ‘One should give away — by the Brāhma form of marriage — his daughter, endowed with good qualities, after having adorned her with excellent ornaments, to a suitable bridegroom.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 847). — ‘One should give away the girl, dressed and adorned, after going round the fire thrice and pronounced the name and gotra; this is the Brāhma form.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848). — ‘The girl that is given away with water, they regard as Brahmadeyā.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848). — ‘When one offers a pair of clothes to a man and gives his girl to him, without deprecating or discussing him, directing him to jointly carry on Dharma, this is the Brāhma form of marriage.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848). — ‘When one gives to a man of his own caste, who is well known to him, the girl who has not reached puberty, — this is the Brāhma marriage.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848). — ‘One should give away the girl adorned with gold, before she has reached puberty.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848). — ‘To a qualified bridegroom, you give the girl, with proper faith and confidence, after having adorned her to the best of your power and endowed her with wealth.’

VERSE 3.28

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

यज्ञे तु वितते सम्यग् ऋत्विजे कर्म कुर्वते ।
अलङ्कृत्य सुतादानं दैवं धर्मं प्रचक्षते ॥२८॥

yajñe tu vitate samyag ṛtvije karma kurvate |
alaṅkṛtya sutādānaṃ daivaṃ dharmaṃ pracakṣate ||28||

While a sacrifice is being performed, if one gives away his daughter, after having decked her, to the priest who is officiating at it, — this they call the “Daiva” form. — (28).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Being performed;’ — i.e., when a sacrifice, such as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the like, has been commenced; if one gives away his daughter to the ‘priest’ — the Adhvaryu — ‘who is officiating’ — working — ‘at it;’ — ‘after having decked her;’ — this is a mere re-iteration; this forming an essential condition in every form of giving one’s girl in marriage; that ‘one should give the girl in marriage after having decked her’ being a general injunction.

“The cow, the house, the mule and other things have been mentioned as the fee for priests, the giving of the daughter has not been found laid down anywhere as helping in the fulfilment of sacrificial performances.”

What has ‘helping in the fulfilment of sacrificial performances’ got to do with the subject under consideration? All that is meant is that, when a sacrifice has begun to be performed, if one gives his daughter to the priest, this constitutes the ‘Daiva’ form of marriage.

In this case, there is some slight return made by the bridegroom in the form of services rendered in connection with the sacrifice. Even though the daughter is not given in consideration of any sacrificial services rendered, yet when she is given to him while he is engaged in a certain act, it does give rise to the inference (that she has been given as a reward for those services). And it is in view of this fact that the ‘Daiva’ form has been regarded as inferior to the ‘Brāhma’ form (in which latter, there is not the slightest suspicion of any kind of return). — (28).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hopkins is not quite right when he says that ‘the priest receives the maiden as part of the fee.’ It is not so, as has been made clear by Medhātithi. Further the ‘fee’ is always given after the completion of the rite, and not only when ‘it has begun’, or while the priest is still ‘doing his work.’

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 849), where the explanation is added — Samyak sauṣṭhavena karma kurvate ṛtvije ityanvayaḥ; the construction is that the girl is given ‘to the priest who is doing the work efficiently, in a proper manner’; — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 684); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 228.).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4. 4). — ‘The Daiva consists in giving the girl to the Priest within the sacrificial altar.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 5). — ‘At the time that the sacrificial fees are being given, if the girl is given to the Priest within the sacrificial altar, — this the Daiva.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2. 11. 19). — ‘In the Daiva form, the girl is to be given to the Priest, in course of the sacrificial performance.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 31). — ‘In course of a sacrificial performance, if one gives his girl, after having decked her, to the Priest carrying on his sacrificial duties, — this they call the Daiva marriage.’

Viṣṇu (24.20). — ‘The Daiva is that offered to the Priest engaged in a sacrifice.’

Āpastamba-Gṛhyasūtra (1.6.2). — ‘When a sacrifice is being performed, if one gives the girl duly decked to the Priest therein engaged, this is called the Daiva marriage; the son bora thereof purifies ten past and ten future generations on both sides.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 849). — ‘When one brings into the sacrificial altar the girl decked in gold and gives her to the Priest, this is the marriage called Daiva.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 849). — ‘The marriage of the Priest is called Daiva.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 849). — ‘When the girl is given within the altar, to the bridegroom after having presented to him a pair (of cow and bull), this is the Daiva marriage.’

VERSE 3.29

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

एकं गोमिथुनं द्वे वा वरादादाय धर्मतः ।
कन्याप्रदानं विधिवदार्षो धर्मः स उच्यते ॥२९॥

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров