with the Commentary of Medhatithi 73 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 79 из 350Следующая ⇒

The above and several other difficulties crop up if ‘approaching’ is regarded as the principal factor. The term ‘Upagamana,’ ‘approach,’ then, should be taken as standing for the acts of embracing, kissing and such other concomitants of actual ‘intercourse;’ — such use of the term being due to the fact that the said acts are concomitants of, and lead up to, the act of ‘intercourse.’ As regards the expression, ‘the maiden-born son,’ inasmuch as the direct meaning of the term ‘maiden’ is not applicable, it is taken in its indirect meaning of ‘one who has not gone through the sacramental rites.’ As for the case where the sacramental rites are performed even after ‘intercourse,’ such cases are very rare. Then, as regards the statement — ‘when the sacrament is performed for a pregnant girl, with or without the knowledge of her being so, etc.’ (9. 173), — this refers to cases where the person performing the sacramental rites is not the same that has had the previous intercourse with her; so that this would not be a case of ‘Paiśāca’ marriage at all; as in this latter, the girl is given in marriage to that same person who has had intercourse with her (during sleep, etc.), and that same person would be performing the rites for her. Then again, so far as the performance of rites for the pregnant girl is concerned, it has been directly laid down by scriptural texts. All this we shall explain in full detail under Discourse IX.

Others, again, have held the view that — “in reality, the intercourse itself is the principal factor; for, if it were not so, there would be no point in the prohibiting of intercourse (with maidens).”

But if ‘intercourse’ were the principal factor, then that itself would constitute ‘marriage;’ none other being possible, according to the reasoning just put forward; so that there would be no object for the prohibition, as ‘intercourse,’ when voluntary, would constitute the ‘Gāndharva’ marriage; when ‘forcible,’ it would be ‘Rākṣasa’ marriage; and in other cases it would be ‘Paiśāca;’ and no other ‘intercourse,’ without rites is possible, whereby the prohibition could apply to all forms of ‘intercourse.’ As a matter of fact, however, there certainly is an object for the prohibition, — in the shape of such cases where there is forcible intercourse by stealth, or where the girl is given away by her parents, but no sacramental rites are performed. This latter cannot come under the ‘Gāndharva’ marriage; as it is not ‘voluntary’ on the part of the girl. It is for this reason that in such a case the husband does not incur the sin of having intercourse with a ‘maiden;’ as this latter contingency happens under totally different circumstances.

Thus, then, since the performance of sacramental rites has been interdicted in the case of girls who have already had sexual intercourse, — and since the ‘Paiśāca’ also is, like the ‘Brāhma’ and the rest, a means (of acquiring a wife), — and since, therefore, this form also is capable of being culled ‘marriage,’ — it follows that what is denoted by the term ‘approach,’ ‘upagama’ (‘intercourse’) is only a secondary factor.

The differentiating characteristics of the eight forms of marriage are as follows (1) that marriage which comes without asking, just like landed property, gold and the rest, is ‘Brāhma;’ (2) that which comes by virtue of one’s priestly character is ‘Daiva;’ (3) that which is accompanied by the present of a cow and a bull is ‘Ārṣa;’ (4) that which is accompanied by the condition, ‘may you together perform your duties,’ and which comes either by or without asking, is ‘Prājāpatya;’ the characteristics of the others are easily discerned.

In the words, ‘Brāhma,’ etc., the nominal affix denotes relation; and the relationship of Brahma and the rest is ascribed to the marriage, with a view to eulogising it. So also in the rest. In the case of the term ‘Paiśāca,’ the meaning is ‘that which is fit for Piśācas,’ and it connotes deprecation. — (34).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (P. 206, l. 20) — ‘Varṇyate chetihāsādiṣu &c.’; — e.g. the case of Kunti, who was married to Pāṇḍu, after she had given birth to Karṇa.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 129); — in Aparārka (p. 91); — and in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 685).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4.13). — ‘When there is intercourse without the girl’s knowledge it is the Paiśāca form.’

Bodhāyana (1.11.9). — ‘When one marries a girl while she is asleep, or unconscious, or mad, it is the Paiśāca.’

Viṣṇu (24.26). — ‘It is Paiśāca when one approaches a girl while she is asleep or unconscious.’

Yājñavalkya (1.61). — ‘It is Paiśāca when the girl is won by stratagem.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1.6.6). — ‘The carrying away of girls, asleep or unconscious, constitutes the Paiśāca.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 858). — ‘The carrying away of a girl who is asleep, unconscious or mad, or in distress, — is the Paiśāca, the eighth form of marriage, based upon want of care.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 858). — ‘it is the Paiśāca form when the girl is won by the employment of women, drinks, wine, and presents.’

VERSE 3.35

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

अद्भिरेव द्विजाग्र्याणां कन्यादानं विशिष्यते ।
इतरेषां तु वर्णानामितरेतरकाम्यया ॥३५॥

adbhireva dvijāgryāṇāṃ kanyādānaṃ viśiṣyate |
itareṣāṃ tu varṇānāmitaretarakāmyayā ||35||

‘For the chief of twice-born men the giving away of one’s daughter with water alone is commended; but for the other castes it is with mutual desire.’ — (35)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘For the chief of twice-born men;’ — i.e., for Brāhmaṇas.

‘Giving away of the daughter — when one is giving away his daughter, the giving away ‘with water,’ ‘is commended.’ That is, when one is giving his daughter to a Brāhmaṇa, he should give her ‘with water’ only.

“How can water be the instrument (means) of giving?”

What is meant is that without water, there can be no ‘giving;’ since we have the law — ‘alms and gifts should be given with water, after the uttering of the syllable namaḥ, and so also in all religious acts.’

Or, by the restriction expressed by the phrase, ‘with water alone,’ the text means to exclude the ‘Ārṣa,’ the ‘Āsura’ and the ‘Prājāpatya;’ as in these latter, water is not the only instrument used; other instruments also being used; such as ‘a cow and a bull,’ as also the compact (that ‘you should perform your duty together’).

What is really meant (by the girl being given ‘with water alone’) is as follows: — Just as when a cow, or gold or such other things are given, the giver does not impose any conditions, — such as ‘this cow should be thus tended by you, she should be fed upon such and such grass,’ and so forth, — in the same manner should the girl also be given; and the father shall not, through his great love for his daughter, impose upon his son-in-law any conditions; nor should he receive from him any presents.

As for the Kṣatriya and other castes, there should be ‘giving’ of the girl, when there is mutual desire on the part of the bride and the bridegroom; and not otherwise, as it is done in the ‘Brāhma’ form of marriage.

Others explain this as follows — what is meant by ‘mutual desire’ is that the father may either receive presents or give her ‘with water’ only.

According to this explanation, it becomes indicated that the ‘Brahma’ form of marriage pertains to all castes. — (35).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 138), where it is explained as meaning that in the case of Brāhmaṇas, that marriage is considered most commendable in which water is the only substance used as the instrument; while in that of the Kṣatriya and others, it may bo accomplished, even without the pouring of water, simply by mutual consent, the father of the bride agreeing to give, and the bridegroom to receive, the girl. This does not mean, however, that in the latter case water should never be used.

VERSE 3.36

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

यो यस्यैषां विवाहानां मनुना कीर्तितो गुणः ।
सर्वं शृणुत तं विप्राः सर्वं कीर्तयतो मम ॥३६॥

yo yasyaiṣāṃ vivāhānāṃ manunā kīrtito guṇaḥ |
sarvaṃ śṛṇuta taṃ viprāḥ sarvaṃ kīrtayato mama ||36||

The quality that has been ascribed by Manu to each of these forms of marriage — listen to all that, O Brāhmaṇas, from me, as I proceed to describe them correctly. — (36)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author is reminding his audience of what he had said before (Verse 22) regarding the ‘good and bad points of each form of marriage.’ Many things have been promised as to be described; and what he means to do by this verse is to point out that by means of the forthcoming verses he is going to explain such and such a subject. The reiteration contained iu this verse therefore is quite proper.

‘Of these forms of marriage’. — The genitive has- the sense of selection. The meaning being that from among these marriage-forms, to each has been ascribed a quality by the teacher, Munu; — ‘To all this listen, O Brāhmaṇas.’ This is addressed by Bhṛgu to the great sages.

‘Correctly’’ — without altering anything.

‘proceed to describe’ — expound. — (36)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 862); — and in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 603).

VERSE 3.37

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

दश पूर्वान् परान् वंश्यानात्मानं चैकविंशकम् ।
ब्राह्मीपुत्रः सुकृतकृत्मोचयत्येनसः पितॄन् ॥३७॥

daśa pūrvān parān vaṃśyānātmānaṃ caikaviṃśakam |
brāhmīputraḥ sukṛtakṛtmocayatyenasaḥ pitṝn ||37||

The son born of the wife married by the Brāhma form is a performer of righteous acts, absolves from sins ten Pitṛs on the ascending side and ten on the descending side of his family, as also himself as the twenty-first. — (37)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Pitṛs on the ascending side,’ i.e., father, grandfather, and so forth.

‘Pitṛs on the descending side,’ i.e., son, grandson, and so forth.

These he ‘absolves from sins i.e., saves them from the sufferings of hell, etc.

Tbe son that is born of the girl married by the Brāhma form ‘is a performer of righteous acts,’ — i.e., his deeds are virtuous.

‘Pitṛs’ — those that have gone over to the other world. The term ‘pitṛ’ here stands for dead persons; in no other sense could the son and other descendants be spoken of as one’s ‘pitṛs.’

‘Ten’ — this is construed with both ‘ascendants’ and ‘descendants;’ as is clear from the man himself being spoken of as ‘the twenty-first.’

This verse is a purely laudatory exaggeration. Hence the question need not be raised how the man can save from sin his descendants, who are not yet born. For ancestors, freedom from sin is actually brought about by the proper performance, by the son, of Śrāddha and other rites; this we shall explain under the section on ‘Śrāddha.’ All that the assertion that ‘he absolves from sins ten descendants’ means is that in his family ten lines of descendants are born sinless. — (37)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 863), where it explains ‘Brāhmaṇī’ as ‘the girl married in the Brāhma form;’ and adds that the term ‘pitṛn’ includes the son and other descendants also; — also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 487); — in Aparārka (p. 88), which explains ‘Sukṛta’ as ‘doing what is enjoined and avoiding what is forbidden’; — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 683); and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 227).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4.29.33). — ‘The good sons purify; the son born of a wife married by the Brāhma form purifies ten past and ten future generations, along with oneself.’

Viṣṇu (24.29). — ‘The son of a wife married by the Brāhma form purifies twenty-one generations.’

Yājñavalkya (1.58). — ‘The son horn of this marriage purifies twenty-one generations.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (16.1.1). — ‘The son born thereof purifies twelve past and twelve future venerations on both sides.’

Śaunaka (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 863). — ‘When a girl has been given away in the Brāhma form of marriage, the son born of her purifies twelve past and twelve future generations both on his maternal and his paternal sides.’

VERSE 3.38

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

दैवौढाजः सुतश्चैव सप्त सप्त परावरान् ।
आर्षौढाजः सुतस्त्रींस्त्रीन् षट् षट् कायौढजः सुतः ॥३८॥

daivauḍhājaḥ sutaścaiva sapta sapta parāvarān |
ārṣauḍhājaḥ sutastrīṃstrīn ṣaṭ ṣaṭ kāyauḍhajaḥ sutaḥ ||38||

The son born of the wife married by the Daiva form (absolves from sin) seven ancestors and seven des cendants; the son born of the wife married by the Ārṣa form three of each; and the son born of the wife married by the Prājāpatya form six of each. — (38)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The girl wedded by the Daiva form of marriage is called ‘the wife married by the Daiva form:’ and the son born of her.

[In the term ‘Kāya’] ‘ka’ stands for Prajāpati; and that marriage of which he is the presiding deity is ‘Kāya.’ In reality, marriage is a sacramental rite consisting in the ‘taking’ (of the girl’s hand), and there is no connection with any deity; still Prajāpati is called its ‘deity’ only figuratively. Though it is true that there are offerings made to Prajāpati during the marriage-rites, yet, since such offerings are common to all the preceding forms of marriage also, -they cannot form the ground for the name ‘Prājāpatya’ being given to any particular form. Further, such an explanation (of the name being based upon the presiding deity) would not be available at all in the case of the names ‘Āsura’ and the rest: as at no marriage-rite are any offerings made to the Āsura and others.

The short vowel in ‘ḍha,’ in the term ‘Kāyoḍhaja,’ is in accordance with Pāṇini 6. 3.63 (where much latitude is allowed in the case of the final vowels of feminine endings).

“In the Text it is found that the marriage-form with inferior results has been mentioned after that with superior results; so that the ‘Ārṣa’ should have been mentioned after the ‘Prājāpatya’ (in verse 25).”

There is a special reason why the ‘Prājāpatya though with superior results, has been mentioned last. In verse 25 above, it has been declared that ‘of the five three are lawful, etc., etc.,’ when the ‘Prājāpatya’ is meant to be included (among those permitted for the Kṣatriya); while if the ‘Ārṣa’ were mentioned after the ‘Prājāpatya’ (on the ground of the inferior results of the former), then it would be the ‘Ārṣa’ that would become included (among those sanctioned for the ‘Kṣatriya’). — (38)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 487); — the first half is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 863), where the term ‘daivoḍhāja’ is explained as ‘one born of a wife married in the Daiva form’; and it is added that the phrase ‘ātmānañca’ of the preceding verse has to be construed here also; — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 683); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 228), which explains ‘Kāya’ as the Prājāpatya.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (4.29-32). — ‘Three generations are purified by the Ārṣa, ten by the Daiva, and ten by the Prājāpatya.’

Viṣṇu (24.30-32). — ‘The son of the wife married in the Daiva form purifies fourteen generations; that of one married in the Ārṣa form, seven; that of one married in the Prājāpatya form, four.’

Yājñavalkya (1.59-60). — ‘The son born of the first (i.e., Daiva) form of marriage purifies fourteen generations, and that born of the second, Ārṣa form, six; that born of the Prājāpatya purifies six generations, along with oneself.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (16.1). — ‘The Daiva purifies ten past and ten future generations on both sides; the Prājāpatya purifies eight past and eight future generations on both sides; the Ārṣa purifies seven past and seven future generations on both sides.’

Shannaka (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, pp. 863 and 864). — ‘The son born of a girl married by the Daiva form purifies ten past and ten future generations on the father’s and on the mother’s side. The son born of the girl married by the Ārṣa form purifies seven past and seven future generations on the father’s and on the mother’s side. The son born of the girl married by the Prājāpatya form purifies eight past and eight future generations on both sides.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 865). — ‘The Prājāpatya-born purifies seven generations below and seven above, and also oneself; the Ārṣa-born, five; and the Daiva-born, three.’

VERSE 3.39

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

ब्राह्मादिषु विवाहेषु चतुर्ष्वेवानुपूर्वशः ।
ब्रह्मवर्चस्विनः पुत्रा जायन्ते शिष्टसम्मताः ॥३९॥

brāhmādiṣu vivāheṣu caturṣvevānupūrvaśaḥ |
brahmavarcasvinaḥ putrā jāyante śiṣṭasammatāḥ ||39||

Only from the four marriages mentioned successively, beginning with the Brāhma, are born sons endowed with Brahmic glory and respected by cultured persons. — (39)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In verse 22, it has been asserted that the author was going to describe ‘the good and bad points of offsprings;’ this is what is being done now.

‘Anupūrvaśaḥ’ (successively) is an expression that authors of Smṛtis use in the sense of ‘ānupurvyeṇa.’

The honour and fame that one receives by virtue of his learning, knowledge and superior wisdom, are called ‘Brahmic glory;’ those possessed of this are called ‘endowed with Brahmic glory,’ The term ends in the Possessive affix ‘in.’

‘Respected by cultured persons’ — favoured, not hated, not ill-treated; i.e, liked. Inasmuch as the root in ‘sammata’ does not signify thinking, it does not fall under Pāṇini’s Sūtṛa.3. 2. 188; and hence the compounding does not become precluded by Pāṇiṇi 2. 2. 12; and the genitive ending in ‘śiṣṭa’ denotes mere relationship in general. — (39)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Śiṣṭa’ — defined under 12. 109.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 487); and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 865), which says that this describes the results accruing from the different forms of marriage.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 117) along with verses 40 and 41, which adds that all this pertains to the Brāhmaṇa; — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 683); — in Smṛticandrikā, (Saṃskāra, p. 230); — and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 99).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.39-42)

Viṣṇu (24.34-37). — ‘He who gives his girl in marriage by the Brāhma form goes to the regions of Brahman; by the Daiva, to Heaven; by the Ārṣa, to the regions of Viṣṇu; by the Prājāpatya, to the regions of the gods; and by the Gāndharva form, one goes to the region of the Gandharvas.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.17). — ‘It is well known that as the marriage-forms, so the offspring.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.12.4). — ‘To the extent that the form of marriage is the right one, to that same extent is the offspring born thereof of the right kind.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 865). — [Reproduces the words of Manu.]

Dakṣa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 866). — ‘The reward accruing from the marrying of a girl by the right form is double in the case of her being given to a Brāhmaṇa; a hundred-thousandfold in that of her being given to a learned Brāhmaṇa; and endless in that of her being given to a thoroughly learned Brāhmaṇa.’

VERSE 3.40

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

रूपसत्त्वगुणोपेता धनवन्तो यशस्विनः ।
पर्याप्तभोगा धर्मिष्ठा जीवन्ति च शतं समाः ॥४०॥

rūpasattvaguṇopetā dhanavanto yaśasvinaḥ |
paryāptabhogā dharmiṣṭhā jīvanti ca śataṃ samāḥ ||40||

Endowed with beauty and the quality of goodness, possessing wealth, and fame, with full enjoyment and righteous, they live for a hundred years. — (40)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Beauty’ — pleasing form.

‘Qualify of Goodness’ — which is going to be described in Discourse XII.

‘Endowed with’ these — i.e., possessing these two.

‘Possessing wealth’ — Wealthy.

‘Possessing fame’ — Well-known as possessing the qualities of learning, bravery, and so forth.

‘With full enjoyment’ — i.e., supplied with sufficient quantities of such means of enjoyment as garlands, sandal-paint, music, vocal and instrumental, and so forth.

‘Enjoyment’ stands for non-separation from the above-mentioned means of enjoyment; and those for whom this is ‘full’ — not deficient, complete — are said to be ‘with full enjoyment.’

‘Righteous,’ ‘dharmiṣṭha’ — i.e., engaged in the performance of righteous acts. The term ‘dharma,’ according to Some, is an adjective; and hence it has taken the superlative affix (‘iṣṭha’).

‘They live for a hundred years’ — (40)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Rūpasattvaguṇopetāḥ’ — ‘Endowed with beauty and the quality of goodness’ (Medhātithi); — ‘Endowed with beauty, goodness and other qualities’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka).

This is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 865); — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 488); — in Aparārka (p. 115); — in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 683); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 230).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.39-42)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.39.

VERSE 3.41

Section IV - The Eight Forms of Marriage

इतरेषु तु शिष्टेषु नृशंसाऽनृतवादिनः ।
जायन्ते दुर्विवाहेषु ब्रह्मधर्मद्विषः सुताः ॥४१॥

itareṣu tu śiṣṭeṣu nṛśaṃsā'nṛtavādinaḥ |
jāyante durvivāheṣu brahmadharmadviṣaḥ sutāḥ ||41||

From the other remaining inferior marriages are born sons, addicted to saying harsh and untrue words, and despisers of the Vedic Dharma. — (41)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From marriages other than the ‘Brahma’ and the rest — i.e., from the ‘Gāndharva,’ and the rest.

‘Those who say harsh and untrue words.’ — Angry and indecent words addressed to one’s mother and sisters, etc., are what are meant by ‘harsh words.’ The meaning of the term ‘untrue’ is well-known. ‘Nṛśaṃsa-anṛta,’ compounded copulatively, give the form ‘nṛśaṃsānṛte,’ ‘harsh and untrue.’ He who is in the habit of Saying such words is called ‘nṛśaṃsānṛtavādin,’ ‘addicted to saying harsh and untrue words.’ Such is the explanation of the compound term.

‘Brahmadharma’ is ‘Vedic Dharma,’ — i. e., the Dharma, Duty, laid down in the Veda; those who despise it, i.e., have no faith in it.

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология