with the Commentary of Medhatithi 72 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 78 из 350Следующая ⇒

ekaṃ gomithunaṃ dve vā varādādāya dharmataḥ |
kanyāpradānaṃ vidhivadārṣo dharmaḥ sa ucyate ||29||

‘When the maiden is given away in due accordance with rule, after taking, in odedience to law, from the bridegroom, one or two pairs of cow and bull, — this is called the “Ārṣa” form.’ — (29).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“Pair;” — i.e., the cow (female) and the bull (male). — ‘one or two,’ — ‘after taking’ — receiving — ‘from the bridegroom, ’ — when the maiden is given away’ — this is the ‘Ārṣa’ form.

‘In obedience to law;’ — i.e., with the idea that such receiving is sanctioned by law, and hot with the idea of receiving it in exchange for (price for) the girl. The sense is that what is received cannot be regarded as the price; as there is no possibility of any higher or lower demand being made (as there would be if it were a question of price). — (29)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Burnell is not right in remarking that ‘this is the most common form now.’ Among the better classes of the Brāhmaṇas the ‘Brāhma’ still continues to be the most common form; and among others, the form most common now is the Āsura.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 849), where ‘dharmataḥ’ is explained as meaning ‘according to family-custom’; or ‘in obedience to the law governing the Ārṣa marriage, not by way of a price for the girl.’

It is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 155) as showing that it is not necessary that the number of ‘cows given should be always ‘two’ as mentioned in other Smṛtis; — it adds that if the Father of the Bride accept this ‘pair of cow and bull’ it becomes a ‘selling’ of the girl; — in Hemādri (Dana, p. 684); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 62a); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 228), which explains ‘Gomithunam’ as ‘a milch cow and a bull.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4. 8). — ‘In the Ārṣa form the bridegroom should present to the bride’s guardian a pair of cow and bull.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11). — ‘After having made the first two offerings of fried grains, the bridegroom should present a pair of cow and hull to the bride’s guardian and then marry her; this is the Ārṣa form.’

Āpastamba- Dharmasūtra (2. 11. 18). — ‘In the Ārṣa form, two pairs of cow and bull should be given to the bride’s father.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.32). — ‘The Arṣa is accomplished by means of a pair of cow and bull.’

Viṣṇu (2. 4. 21). — ‘The Ārṣa is accomplished by the acceptance of a pair of cow and bull.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 59). — ‘By accepting a pair of cows, it is the Ārṣa.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1. 6. 4). — ‘If one marries the girl after presenting a pair of cow and bull, it is the Ārṣa marriage: it purifies seven future and seven past generations on both sides.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 851). — ‘That wherein there is giving away of the girl, along with a pair of cow and bull, to a bridegroom, praiseworthy and not. belonging to the same gotra, — this they know as the Ārṣa marriage.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.). — ‘The Ārṣa is accomplished by means of a pair of cow and bull, or of a pair of clothes; but in every case ornaments and dowry should be given.’

VERSE 3.30

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

सहौभौ चरतां धर्ममिति वाचाऽनुभाष्य च ।
कन्याप्रदानमभ्यर्च्य प्राजापत्यो विधिः स्मृतः ॥३०॥

sahaubhau caratāṃ dharmamiti vācā'nubhāṣya ca |
kanyāpradānamabhyarcya prājāpatyo vidhiḥ smṛtaḥ ||30||

When the Father, having decked them, gives away the daughter with the words, “may you both together perform your duty,” making them also repeat them, — this is called the “Prājāpatya” form. — (30).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘Prājāpatya’ form of marriage is that in which the girl is given away on the clear undertaking having been taken in so many words that “you both together shall duly Fulfil your duties.”

‘Duty’ has been mentioned only by way of illustration; the undertaking refers to ‘duty,’ ‘property’ and ‘pleasure’ also; as, in all these three, the interests of the husband and the wife are common. In reality, what is actually uttered is the word duty’ only, the expression used being ‘may duty be performed by you both,’ and not that ‘may duty, property and pleasure he accomplished:’ but, in consideration of what has been said in other law-books, the term ‘duty’ in the said expression has been explained as standing for ‘property’ and ‘pleasure’ also. Hence the conclusion is that the expression ‘may duty be performed by you both together is to be pronounced at the time that the girl is being given away to the person upon whom the condition has been imposed that ‘this girl is to be given to you only if you fulfil your duty, property and pleasure along with her,’ and who has accepted the condition at the time of marriage. Thus, then, even though(property’ and ‘pleasure’ also are meant to be included, yet they are not actually mentioned, because they are not of sufficient importance. Says Gautama (4. 7) — ‘In the Prājāpatya form of marriage, the mantra used is may you together perform your duty;’ and the use of the term ‘mantras’ clearly shows that the words to be used should be precisely as they are laid down here, Just as in the case of mantra-texts. Further, in the case of very powerful men, it would not be right to make it a condition that the wife shall partake of all their properties and pleasures; and yet that these also are meant we learn from other law-books.

This form of marriage is inferior to the preceding ones only by reason of this condition being imposed; as this shows that there is a desire on the part of the giver for some sort of return from the recipient.

The bridegroom also is made to repeat in his words the condition that he accepts; and the exact form laid down is not for the giver only. For ‘having made to repeat’ would have been enough if only one of them were to say it, the phrase, ‘with the words,’ would have been superfluous; the act of repeating being always by means of words only. Says the author of the Gṛhyasūtra — ‘Having said this is true for you, he should make the bridegroom say this is true for us.’ In fact, the prefix in ‘anubhāṣya’ (‘having made to repeat’) clearly indicates the confirmation of what has been said before. — (30).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 851); — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 685); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 228).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4. 7). — ‘The Prājāpatya consists in merely bringing them together, with the exhortation — may you together perform your duty.’

Baudhāyana (l. 11. 3). — ‘Having dressed and adorned her, if she is given away, with the exhortation, may this girl cooperate with you in the performance of duty, — this constitutes the Prājāpatya form.’

Viṣṇu (24.22). — ‘The Prājāpatya form consists in the giving away of the girl when she has been asked for.’

Yājñavalkya (1.60). — ‘When a girl is given to a man who has asked for her, with the words — may she co-operate with you in the performance of duty — this is the Prājāpatya form, and the son horn of this purifies six generations on each side along with the giver himself.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1.6.1.3.). — ‘The Prājāpatya is accompanied by the exhortation — may you both co-operate in the performance of duty; this purifies eight past and eight future generations on both sides.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 851). — ‘When the girl is decked and given away on the clearly expressed understanding that the couple is to co-operate in the performance of duty, — this is the Prājāpatya marriage.’

VERSE 3.31

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

ज्ञातिभ्यो द्रविणं दत्त्वा कन्यायै चैव शक्तितः ।
कन्याप्रदानं स्वाच्छन्द्यादासुरो धर्म उच्यते ॥३१॥

jñātibhyo draviṇaṃ dattvā kanyāyai caiva śaktitaḥ |
kanyāpradānaṃ svācchandyādāsuro dharma ucyate ||31||

When one carries away the maiden, after having given, of his own will, as much wealth as the (he?) can to the kinsmen, as well as to the bride herself, this is called the “Āsura” form. — (31).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Kinsmen.’ — the father and other relations of the bride.

‘As well as to the bride;’ — i.e., by way of ‘dowry.’

The compound ‘Kanyāpradāna’ is to be expounded as ‘Kanyāyāḥ āpradānam’ — the meaning being ‘the carrying away of the maiden.’ This constitutes the ‘Āsura’ form of marriage.

Of his own will; — i.e., in any manner he may chose; not according to rules laid down in the scriptures. This is what distinguishes this from the ‘Ārṣa’ form. In the latter, the scripture restricts the gift to ‘a cow and a bull’ only; while in the present case, the ‘wish’ of the giver shall depend upon the beauty, the character and such other qualities of the bride. — (31).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 852), where it explains ‘Āpradānam’ as ādānam grahaṇamiti yāvat, i.e., ‘taking’; — and ‘Svācchandyāt’ as ‘of his own free will, not in obedience to the wish of the bride’s father,’ his right over her having been created by purchase.

Smṛtitattva (I, p. 593) quotes the verse and refers to Kullūka Bhaṭṭa as explaining ‘āpradānam’ as ‘taking of the girl’; and it explains ‘svācchandyāt’ as ‘by his own will.’

It is quoted in Hemādri (Dana, p. 685); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 229), which explains ‘āpradānam’ as ‘ādānam’, ‘taking’, and ‘svācchandyāt’ as ‘at one’s will’, irrespectively of the willingness or otherwise of the gill, thus differing from the ‘Gāndharva’ in which both are willing.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4. 11). — ‘When the acquiescence of the bride’s guardians is secured by means of wealth, it is the Āsura form.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.7). — ‘It is the Āsura which is performed after satisfying with wealth (the girl and her guardians).’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.12.1). — ‘When one takes away the bride after having given as much wealth as he can, it is the Āsura form.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.35). — ‘When one obtains a girl who has been purchased with wealth after staking, it is the Mānuṣa form.’ [Manuṣa is another name for ‘Āsura,’ says the Vīramitrodaya Saṃskāra, p. 853.]

Viṣṇu (24.24). — ‘Marriage by purchase is Āsura.’

Yājñavalkya (1.61). — ‘The Āsura is that which is brought about by the acceptance of wealth.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (16.1.6.). — ‘When one marries a girl after having satisfied her with wealth, it is the Āsura form.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 853). — ‘When the parents give away the girl, selling her for a fee, it is ṭhe Āsura form.’

Hārīta. (Do.). — ‘When the girl is given away to a man who is suspected, by other people, of hypocrisy and deceit, — it is the Āsura form.’

VERSE 3.32

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

इच्छयाऽन्योन्यसंयोगः कन्यायाश्च वरस्य च ।
गान्धर्वः स तु विज्ञेयो मैथुन्यः कामसम्भवः ॥३२॥

icchayā'nyonyasaṃyogaḥ kanyāyāśca varasya ca |
gāndharvaḥ sa tu vijñeyo maithunyaḥ kāmasambhavaḥ ||32||

The mutual union of the bride and bridegroom, through love is to be known as the “Gāndharva” form; it has sexual intercourse for its end and it has its source in lust. — (32).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘union’ — coming together at one place — ‘of the bride and bridegroom, through love’ — through mutual longing.

In deprecation of this form of marriage it is added — ‘It has sexual intercourse for its end’ — it serves the purpose of sexual intercourse only. This is made clearer by the next clause — ‘it has its source in lust;’ — ‘source’ is that from which a thing springs; and it is from lust that this union springs. — (32).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa raise the question as to the prescribed offerings and wedding ceremonies being performed in the cage of the Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca forms of marriage; and on the strength of a text of Devala’s and another of Śaunaka (Bahvṛca Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa) they declare that the offerings must be made, but that no Vaidika mantras should be recited; this latter reservation being based on Manu’s text (8.226). Medhātithi discusses this at great length under verse 34 below, from which it appears that the opinion on this subject has always been divided. In support of the view that the subsequent rites are essential, several texts are quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, pp. 861-862).

This verse is quoted in ‘Vīramitrodaya’ (Saṃskāra, p. 855), where the ‘Anyonyasaṃyogaḥ’ is explained as ‘mutual agreement’, — ‘Maithunyaḥ,’ ‘conducive to all acts accomplished by means of sexual intercourse’, — and ‘Kāmasambhavaḥ,’ as ‘originating from excessive lust’; — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 685); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 229), which explains ‘Maithunyaḥ’ as ‘favourable to sexual intercourse.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4. 10). — ‘When the girl loves a man and herself becomes united to him, it is the Gāndharva form.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 6). — ‘The Gāndharva consists in the mutual union of the loving bride and the loving bridegroom.’

Āpāstamba-Dharmasūtra (2. 11. 20). — ‘When the couple become united through mutual love, it is the Gāndharva.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 33). — ‘It is the Gāndharva when the man loving the girl who loves himself, and is similar to himself, marries her.’

Viṣṇu (24. 23). — ‘When ṭhe couple in love with one another, become united, independently of the parents, — it is the Gāndharva.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 61). — ‘The Gāndharva is accomplished by mutual agreement.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1. 6. 1. 5). — ‘It is Gāndharva when the man marries the girl after coming to a mutual agreement.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 855). — ‘When in a sacred place, the man and the woman become united by mutual agreement, through love, it is the fifth form of marriage, the Gāndharva.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 856). — ‘When the girl herself selects the bridegroom, it is Gāndharva.’

VERSE 3.33

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

हत्वा छित्त्वा च भित्त्वा च क्रोशन्तीं रुदतीं गृहात् ।
प्रसह्य कन्याहरणं राक्षसो विधिरुच्यते ॥३३॥

hatvā chittvā ca bhittvā ca krośantīṃ rudatīṃ gṛhāt |
prasahya kanyāharaṇaṃ rākṣaso vidhirucyate ||33||

The forcible abduction of the maiden from her home, while she is crying out and weeping, after having beaten and wounded and pierced, — is called the “Rākṣasa” form. — (33).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Forcibly;’ — i.e., having subdued the guardians of the girl, if one carries her away by force, this is called the ‘Rākṣasa’ form. This is all that is meant to be stated here. ‘Having beaten,’ etc., is a mere descriptive re-iteration; for it is always understood that, while the bridegroom is forcibly taking away the girl, if some one seeks to stop him, he shall beat them and do the rest of it. But if, knowing the great strength of the abductor, her guardians, through fear, let her go, — then also it is a Rākṣasa form of marriage; and it is not a necessary condition of this form that the beating, etc., must be done.

‘Having beaten’ — by means of sticks, etc.

‘Wounded’ — cutting limbs by strokes of the sword and other weapons.

‘Pierced’ — walls and forts.

‘Crying out and weeping;’ — i.e., unwilling girl. This is what distinguishes this from the ‘Gāndharva’ form. ‘Crying out’ stands for such loud wailings as — ‘there is none to protect me, I am being taken away, save me,’ and so forth: while ‘weeping’ stands for shedding tears, which is the characteristic of all frightened women. — (33)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in ‘Vīramitrodaya’ (Saṃskāra, p. 856), where the following explanation is given — ‘Hatvā’ — ‘having beaten, those obstructing him’; — ‘Chittvā’ — having cut off, the heads of the obstructors’; — ‘Bhittvā’ — ‘having pierced, with strokes of weapons’; — ‘Krośantīm’ — calling for her relations; — all this indicates fighting.

The second half is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 129) in support of the view that what distinguishes the Rākṣasa form is forcible abduction.

The verse is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 685); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra,:p. 229), which explains ‘prosahya’ as ‘by force’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4. 12). — ‘When there is taking away by force, it is the Rākṣasa.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 8). — (Same as above.)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.12.2). — ‘When the girl is taken away after attacking her guardians, it is the Rākṣasa.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 34). — ‘When they suddenly attack with force and take away the girl, it is the Kṣātra form of marriage.’

Viṣṇu (24.24). — ‘Taking away by fighting constitutes the Rākṣasa.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 61). — ‘It becomes the Rākṣasa, if there is taking away by fight.’

Āśvalāyana- Gṛhyasūtra (6.15). — 'When one wrests the crying girl from her crying guardians after having killed and maimed them, it is the Rākṣasa.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 856). — ‘It is the Rākṣasa form of marriage when, with the king’s support, the girl is obtained by attacking and chastising her guardians.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 857). — ‘It is th e Kṣātra form when the decked girl is won in battle.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 857). — ‘If the girl is taken away by force, it is Rākṣasa, the seventh form of marriage, based upon bravery.’

VERSE 3.34

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

सुप्तां मत्तां प्रमत्तां वा रहो यत्रोपगच्छति ।
स पापिष्ठो विवाहानां पैशाचश्चाष्टमोऽधमः ॥३४॥

suptāṃ mattāṃ pramattāṃ vā raho yatropagacchati |
sa pāpiṣṭho vivāhānāṃ paiśācaścāṣṭamo'dhamaḥ ||34||

When the man approaches the girl by stealth, while she is asleep, or intoxicated or unconscious, — it is the “Paiśāca” form, the wickedest and the basest of marriages. — (34).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The unwillingness of the girl is the condition common to the ‘Rākṣasa’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ forms: the difference is that in the former there is beating, while in the latter there is stealth.

‘Asleep’ — overpowered by sleep.

‘Intoxicated’ — senseless, under the influence of wine, &c.

‘Unconscious’ — who has lost consciousness on account of the disorders of the wind-humour.

‘By stealth’ — not openly.

‘Approaches’ — has sexual intercourse with.

This is the Paiśāca marriage, of all marriages the ‘wickedest’ — the most sinful. That is to say, the issue of such a marriage does not become the rightful child.

------------------------

In connection with this subject, some people think that the ‘Gāndharva’ form of marriage is accomplished by mere ‘intercourse,’ the ‘Rākṣasa’ by mere ‘abduction’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ by mere ‘approach,’ — irrespective of the sacramental rites relating to the ‘taking of the hand’ and the rest. And they base this idea upon the fact that all these three are mentioned in apposition to ‘marriage’ which forms the subject-matter of the context.

But, according to these people, in the ‘Brāhma’ and other forms also, since the ‘giving’ is mentioned in apposition to ‘marriage,’ the sacramental rites would cease (to be necessary factors in the marriage). But we have shown above, how. these rites cannot be omitted. The fact of the matter is that it is only figuratively that the term ‘marriage’ has been applied to that act of ‘giving’ which is done for the purpose of ‘marriage.’

As regards the ‘Gandharva’ form, the revered Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana has described it, in connection with the union of Duṣyanta and Śukuntalā, as being ‘without fire and without sacred texts;’ and this shows that there are certain sacramental rites of ‘taking the hand,’ etc., but they are done without sacred texts etc.

As regards the ‘Paiśāca’ form, there is a difference of opinion: — In this form (it is argued) ‘approaching’ is the prime factor; but that does not deprive the girl of her ‘maidenhood;’ as this can be put an end to only by the sacramental rites attendant upon marriage; so that the girl still continuing to be a ‘maiden,’ the prohibition of rites in connection with ‘non-maidens’ — which we find in the statement that ‘the sacred texts relating to marriage are restricted to maidens only’ (8. 226) — does not apply to this form of marriage; and hence its connection with the sacramental rites remains undisturbed. The prohibition just referred to is for the purpose of precluding the sacramental rites (from the case of non-maidens); while the girl married by the ‘Paiśāca’ form has her maidenhood destroyed only when she has gone through the rites. Thus, then, even though the ‘approaching’ may take place first, yet the taint of ‘non-maiden-hood’ does not apply to her. It is only in accordance with this view that Karṇa can be called ‘maiden-born;’ for if mere intercourse with man were to deprive the girl of her maidenhood, how could we have such a statement as ‘the son born of a maiden is called maiden-born.’ If, on the other hand, the name ‘maiden’ be applied only to such girls as have not had the sacramental rites performed for them, then the said statement would be all right, Karṇa and others of his kind, being sons of unmarried girls. It is only if ‘approaching’ be the prime factor that it is possible for a child being born from a ‘maiden.’ In fact, we find in stories the description of the ‘marriage’ of girls who had been previously ‘approached’ by the ‘Paiśāca’ form.

It might be asked — “when sexual intercourse has been already accomplished with the help of intoxicants, etc., what would be the use of the sacramental rites?”

The answer to this is as follows: — Though the act of copulation has been accomplished, and the man. has transgressed the prohibition of intercourse with a ‘maiden,’ yet the performance of the rites is necessary, — firstly, for the purpose of making her entitled to share in the religious acts of her husband, and, secondly, for the purpose of avoiding the sin of repeating the act of having intercourse with a ‘maiden.’ This form of marriage is thus deprecated by reason of its involving a transgression of the prohibition of having intercourse with a maiden, and also because it subserves the purely physical purposes of the man (and not any religious purpose).

The above view, however, is not right; because, in ordinary parlance, the term ‘maiden’ denotes the girl who has had no intercourse with man, and not one for whom the sacramental rites have not been performed. In fact, even though her sacramental rites have not been perforated; if a girl happens to have sexual intercourse with man,-she ceases to be regarded as a ‘maiden;’ and when such girls have taken to the profession of prostitutes, intercourse with them does not involve the sin of having intercourse with a ‘maiden.’ It is true that the words ‘virgin’ and ‘maiden’ have beeu regarded as referring to a female in the earlier years of her age; but, in connection with rules relating to marriage, they are always used in the sense of one who has had ho intercourse with man. It is for this reason that when a man is found to be seeking marriage with a girl who maintains the appearance of a virgin, and does not openly go in for sexual intercourse, — he is warned by people with such words as — ‘she is no longer a virgin, her virginhood has been destroyed.’

Further, in the case of marrying such a girl, there would be a serious deficiency in the sacramental rites themselves. E.g., the rite of ‘conception’ has to be done with sacred texts, such as ‘Viṣṇuryoniṅkalpayatu, etc. (Ṛgveda, 10.184. 1), — which means ‘May Viṣṇu generate upon your generative organ;’ and there can be no ‘generation’ (by Viṣṇu) of what has already been generated’ (by another man); so that the use of the sacred text in this case would be meaningless. Nor could, any such text be used when an unmarried girl would be ‘approached’ in the ‘Paiśāca’ form; as it has been definitely declared that it is to be used only in the case of ‘married’ girls. Nor would it be right to hold that the ‘generation’ (spoken of in the said text) refers to the case of marriages other than the ‘Paiśāca;’ for the use of the text has been prescribed without any restriction at all.

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?