with the Commentary of Medhatithi 84 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 90 из 350Следующая ⇒

This ‘being devoured’ — being eaten — by them, he does not understand. The foolish man simply feels that ‘I am eating now,’ and he does not understand that his eating in this manner means the eating of his own body by dogs and vultures. This latter is the result of such eating; hence it has been thus described. — (115)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 455) without comment; and also on p. 395, where it is explained as setting aside the view that the Vaiśvadeva and Bali offerings should be made only once in the morning when the man himself eats, — and as indicating the necessity of making them both in the morning and in the evening, even though the man himself may not eat at both times. There is this difference, however, that if the man omits the offerings while he himself eats, he incurs two sins — that of eating without offering, and that of omitting the offerings; whereas if he drops them when he himself does not eat, he incurs only one sin, that of omitting the offerings. Thus on the Ekādaśī and other fasting days also, the said offerings have got to be made; and food has got to be cooked for that purpose; but in the event of his being unable to do the cooking, the offerings may be made even with uncooked food.

This is quoted also in Aparārka (p. 147), which explains the second line to mean ‘he does not understand that he is himself being devoured by dogs and vultures’, and deduces the conclusion that it is not sinful to eat along with the persons mentioned in the preceding verse.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (67.40). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Baudhāyana (2.7.20). — ‘If one eats before having fed these in the proper manner, he is himself eaten; he does not eat; though he knows not this.’

Baudhāyana (3.17.18). — ‘They quote the following declaration made by the Food: — If one eats rice without offering rice to the Pitṛs, the gods, dependents, guests and friends, he eats poison; him I devour; for him I am Death.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 364). — ‘If one eats before these have been fed, he eats sin, and after death, he goes to hell and is born as a feeder on phlegm.’

VERSE 3.116

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

भुक्तवत्स्वथ विप्रेषु स्वेषु भृत्येषु चैव हि ।
भुञ्जीयातां ततः पश्चादवशिष्टं तु दम्पती ॥११६॥

bhuktavatsvatha vipreṣu sveṣu bhṛtyeṣu caiva hi |
bhuñjīyātāṃ tataḥ paścādavaśiṣṭaṃ tu dampatī ||116||

After the Brāhmaṇas, his own people and servants have dined, — the husband and wife should afterwards eat what is left. — (116)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Brāhmaṇas’ — i.e., guests.

‘His men people’ — people of the same caste, and so forth. When all these have eaten, then ‘what is left by them,’ the husband and wife should eat.

‘Afterwards’ — this is added with a view to perclude the notion that a portion of the food having been assigned to the guests and others, and kept aside, the remainder might be called ‘what is left,’ and as such might be eaten by the householder and his wife, even before the guests, &c.

Half of this verse is meant to be the injunction of the time for the husband and wife to eat; the rest of it is a purely descriptive reference. — (116)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 364), as laying down the manner in which the Householder himself should take his food; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 456) without comment.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (67.41). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.8.2). — ‘He shall eat what has been left by the guests.’

Yājñavalkya (1.105). — ‘The husband and wife shall eat what is left after the guests and dependents have been fed.’

Paraskara (3.9.14). — ‘The householder and his wife, after all the rest.’

VERSE 3.117

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

देवान् ऋषीन् मनुष्यांश्च पितॄन् गृह्याश्च देवताः ।
पूजयित्वा ततः पश्चाद् गृहस्थः शेषभुग् भवेत् ॥११७॥

devān ṛṣīn manuṣyāṃśca pitṝn gṛhyāśca devatāḥ |
pūjayitvā tataḥ paścād gṛhasthaḥ śeṣabhug bhavet ||117||

Having worshipped the gods, sages, men, the Pitṛs and the household deities, the Householder shall eat afterwards what remains. — (117)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a mere reiteration of the foregoing injunction of the performance of the Five Sacrifices, and of the time for the Householder’s eating.

Others, however, have explained this verse its actually laying down something different: The former verse has laid down the eating of remnants by both husband and wife; while this verse leaves aside the woman and lays down the eating by the man alone. And from this it would follow that the wife should eat before the servants and before also the husband. In this way, this becomes reconciled also with what has been said before (113) regarding ‘the feeding of friends, &c., together with the wife.’ Otherwise, if we assumed the latter to mean that the wife should not eat with them, we would be abandoning the most palpable construction of the sentence. As for what has been described in the Mahābhārata (regarding Draupadī eating after her husbands), that is a mere description, not an injunction. Even if it were an injunction, it could only be regarded as laying down an option.

This, however, is not right; as the present verse is a mere reiteration.

Nor is there any incompatibility of the singular number in ‘householder’ (with the idea that both husband and wife are meant); because in all things the Husband and wife operate conjointly; so that their companionship being the prime factor, the use of the Dual member does not become necessary. Just as in the text, ‘the Brāhmaṇa should set up the fire,’ even though the husband and wife have got to perform the rite jointly, yet there is no incongruity in the singular number. And why so? Because one of the two is the principal and the other is subordinate; and the subordinate cannot impose its number. Hence it is that the principal being one only, though the wife also comes in in fulfilment of her husband’s purpose, yet the singular number is the right form to use. The single word ‘householder’ denotes the wife also; and this is ip view of the joint functioning of the husband and wife; and this is possible only when both are conceived of jointly, and not if either both are regarded as principal, or both are regarded as subordinate. From all this it follows that the wife is not to eat before her husband; which establishes the conclusion that this verse is only a reiteration, intended to lend strength to the conviction (arising from the foregoing injunctions).

Some people have explained that, in the clause, ‘he should worship the household deities,’ the term ‘deities’ is only a laudatory re-iteration; and on account of its connection with the injunctive verb ‘should worship,’ the sentence contains an injunction of the worshipping as a subordinate factor. And they argue thus — “The primary denotation of the term ‘deity’ is not compatible with the act of worshipping; as the ‘deity’ in the primary sense can only be related to the acts of sacrificing and hymning. It is for this reason that the text has added the epithet ‘household,’ — which means those in the house; and these can only be in the form of images. As those to whom sacrifices are offered can have no connection with the house.”

For these people also what is to be taken in the secondary sense is the ‘deity,’ not the ‘worshipping.’

But why all this? The simple explanation is that the deities to whom sacrificers offer sacrifices are called ‘house - hold deities’ — (117)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 456) without comment; — also on p. 395, as indieating (along with verse 115) the necessity of making the Vaiśvadeva and Bali offerings both in the evening and in the morning; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 581).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (67.42). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Baudhāyana (27.21). — ‘One should eat the remnant left by the Pitṛs, the gods, the dependents, the parents and the teacher; such is the prescribed law.’

VERSE 3.118

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

अघं स केवलं भुङ्क्ते यः पचत्यात्मकारणात् ।
यज्ञशिष्टाशनं ह्येतत् सतामन्नं विधीयते ॥११८॥

aghaṃ sa kevalaṃ bhuṅkte yaḥ pacatyātmakāraṇāt |
yajñaśiṣṭāśanaṃ hyetat satāmannaṃ vidhīyate ||118||

He who cooks for himself eats only sin; for the eating of good mem has been described as the eating of the remains of sacrifices. — (118).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He eats only sin’ — i.e., he accumulates sin in his heart; he places that in his stomach, and not even a morsel of food; — ‘who cooks’ — gets food prepared — ‘for himself’ — for his own eating; giving such directions as — ‘I am hungry, and I prefer such and such food; hence cook these.’ Hence one should not have food cooked for himself, except when he is in distress. When, one is in distress, then it is incumbent upon him — in accordance with another injunction — to maintain his body, even at the risk of disobeying a certain injunction; specially in view of the law that ‘one should guard oneself against all.’

Such is the meaning attributed to this verse by some persons. But this is not right; being contrary to another Smṛti text, which says — ‘whatever may be best, liked in this world, and whatever may be most loved in the house, that should be given to the qualified person, by one who wishes that thing to be inexhaustible.’ Now, if what is best liked by the householder were not cooked, how could it be given to others?

What the text means, therefore, is as follows: — So far as the daily cooking is concerned, it is not with special reference to any person; it is only when friends and relations turn up that special things are cooked for them. If it were not so, then there would be no force in the injunction of giving food to guests and others out of the food that has not been cooked for any person in particular. What is meant is that the evil mentioned in the verse attaches to one who eats food without offering it to the guest, &c.; — or that, in the event of all the food cooked being eaten up by the guest and others, the

Householder shall not have more food cooked only for himself. Vaśiṣṭha has declared — ‘the Husband and wife should eat the remnant; if the whole has been eaten, cooking should not be done again.’ (11-11-12).

‘The eating of the remains of sacrifices; — this is only laudatory of the ‘eating of what is left,’ enjoined above (in 117).

‘Sacrifice’ — the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest.

‘Remains’ — what is left after use. — The ‘eating’ of this is called ‘yajñaśiṣṭāśanam’. Equal to this in its effects has been described the eating — of what remains after the feeding of the guest and others, — of all good householders, who are intent upon the obeying of the scriptures. — (118)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 457) as deprecating the conduct of the man who does not entertain guests.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (67.43). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Baudhāyana (2.7.16). — ‘He who eats alone is entirely sinful; the food he takes is futile.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 457). — ‘He who cooks for himself eats sin; one should always avoid that futile cooking which is intended only to please his own palate.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika). — ‘One shall not cook for himself, nor shall he kill animals for himself; one who cooks for the sake of gods and for the sake of Brāhmaṇas does not become tainted with sin.’

Jābāla (Do.) — ‘He who eats without bathing, eats dirt; he who eats without having repeated mantras, eats pus and blood; he who eats without having offered Homa, eats insects; and he who eats food without offering it to others, eats poison.’

VERSE 3.119

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

राजर्त्विग्स्नातकगुरून् प्रियश्वशुरमातुलान् ।
अर्हयेन् मधुपर्केण परिसंवत्सरात् पुनः ॥११९॥

rājartvigsnātakagurūn priyaśvaśuramātulān |
arhayen madhuparkeṇa parisaṃvatsarāt punaḥ ||119||

He should receive, with the “honey-mixture,” the king, the priest, the accomplished Student, the Teacher, the Son-in-law, the Father-in-law and the Maternal uncle, — coming again after a year. — (119)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In course of the entertaining of guests, the Text proceeds to lay down the special form of honouring of a few other respected persons also.

‘King’ — stands here for the annointed king of men, and not for the mere Kṣatriya in general. The honour here prescribed is a very great one, and every Kṣatriya does not deserve it. Nor would it be right to speak of an ordinary Kṣatriya along with the ‘accomplished student’ and the ‘teacher;’ for there can be no similarity between the honour accorded to the Teacher and to an ordinary Kṣatriya. There are Vedic texts also indicative of the same conclusion. For instance, in the Ātithyeṣṭi-Brāhmaṇa we read — ‘the guest is like a king of men arrived;’ and in connection with the rule of killing a cow for the offering of ‘Honey-mixture,’ we find the guest spoken of as ‘the killer of cows;’ all which goes to show that the said offering is meant for the king of men. Hence the honour here mentioned is to be paid to a king of men, irrespective of his being a Kṣatriya or not. But so far as the Śūdra king of men is concerned, no honours are to be paid to him which are accompanied by the recitation of Vedic Mantras.

“All that is prohibited is the uttering of mantras by the Śūdra; there is no prohibition of the reciting of mantras by the Brāhmaṇa and others at an offering made to the Śūdra.”

This does not affect our position; as the persons honoured have also got to recite certain mantras, such as ‘bhūtebhyastvā, &c.’

“But in the Mahābhārata we read of the Honey-mixture offered by the Śūdra also: ‘He himself offered to the Blessed Lord a seat fit for him, as also the Honey-mixture and the cow,’ — where Vidura is described as offering it to Vāsudeva.”

In such cases, the term ‘honey-mixture’ is used figuratively in the sense of curd, which is one of the ingredients of that mixture; and, in common usage, the name of a thing is applied to another when the latter helps in the bringing into existence of the former; when, for instance, Butter is spoken of as ‘longevity’ itself.

From all this it is clear that the term ‘king’ here denotes the king of men, and not the mere Kṣatriya.

The term ‘priya’ has been declared to mean the son-in-law.

‘Accomplished student’ — i.e., accomplished, not in learning ail’d observances both (but only in learniug, still keeping up the observances). If it had stood for one who has accomplished and finished both, then, since the ‘Teacher’ and the ‘Priest’ also would be such ‘accomplished students’ (there would be no point in mentioning these separately). As for people in the other states (of the Recluse, etc.), for these feeding on alms has been prescribed, and not eating in the manner of ‘guests.’ Or, the term ‘snātaka,’ ‘accomplished student’ may stand for one who has only recently completed his course of Vedic Study.

‘He should receive’ — honour — all these.

The term ‘honey-mixture’ is the name of a rite; and the exact form of this rite is to be learnt from the Gṛhyasūtras.

‘Parisamvatsarān,’ ‘cominy after a year,’ — qualifies the King and other persons to be honoured. The term means ‘over whom one year has passed.’ The meaning is that they are entitled to the honour of the ‘honey-mixture,’ if they come after a year, not before that.

Some people explain the verse to mean that if they, happen to come before the year, then, even though the full year may not have elapsed since the last offering was made, yet they are to receive the offering. Hut others hold that the honouring here prescribed is an annual function; and not as often as they may come; and under this view, the mere fact of their coming before the year is entirely out cannot be an obstacle to the honour being offered.

Another reading is ‘parisamvatsarāt;’ which means that the honour is to be held in abeyance for a year; after that they should be honoured. — (119)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Priyaḥ’ — ‘Son-in-law’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘Friend’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

‘Parisaṃvatsarān’ — Kullūka reads ‘parisaṃvatsarāt.’

“The Mahābhārata has here parisaṃvatsaroṣitān, ‘gone a year on a journey.’” — (Hopkins).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 454) as laying down the ‘Madhuparka’ offering for the King and some others.

Medhātithi (Footnote, p. 237.) — The printed editions have wrongly treated the verse ‘yadyadiṣṭatamam &c.’ as Manu’s text. It is only a part of Medhātithi’s comment, quoted by him as the ‘Smṛtyantara’ referred to by him in line 16.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.119-120)

Gautama (5.28-30). — ‘The Priest, the Teacher, the Father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle, — when these arrive the Honey-mixture is to be offered; again on the lapse of a year; and also before the marriage and the sacrifice.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.8.5-9). — ‘The Vedic Scholar deserves the cow and the honey-mixture; as also the Teacher, the Priest, the Accomplished Student, and the King, if he be righteous; to the Teacher, the Priest, the Father-in-law and the King, the cow and the Honey-mixture shall be offered when they come after the lapse of one year; the Honey-mixture consists of curd mixed with honey, or water mixed with honey, or, in the absence of other things, water only.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11.1). — ‘Six persons deserve to be honoured: the Priest, the bridegroom, the king, the paternal uncle, the Accomplished Student and the maternal uncle.’

Yājñavalkya (1.109-110). — ‘One shall offer either a big bull or a big goat to the Vedic scholar, as also honour, attendance, delicious food and sweet words; once every year are to be entertained the Accomplished Student, the Teacher, the King; as also the friend and the bridegroom, and the Priests when going to officiate at a sacrifice.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1.24.1-4). — ‘After having appointed the Priest, he shall offer to him the Honey-mixture; also to an Accomplished Student that may happen to arrive; also to the King, the Teacher, the Father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle.’

Pāraskara (1.3. 1-3). — ‘Six persons deserve to be honoured: the Teacher, the Bridegroom, the King, the dear friend, and the Accomplished Student; these shall be entertained once every year; also the Priests that are going to officiate at a sacrifice.’

Gobhila (4.10.23-26). — ‘Six persons are deserving of the honour of entertainment: the Teacher, the Priest, the Accomplished Student, the Bridegroom, the dear friend and the guest; these should be entertained after the lapse of one year; and also at marriage and at a sacrifice.’

VERSE 3.120

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

राजा च श्रोत्रियश्चैव यज्ञकर्मण्युपस्थितौ ।
मधुपर्केण सम्पूज्यौ न त्वयज्ञ इति स्थितिः ॥१२०॥

rājā ca śrotriyaścaiva yajñakarmaṇyupasthitau |
madhuparkeṇa sampūjyau na tvayajña iti sthitiḥ ||120||

The king and the Learned Man should be honoured with the Honey-mixture, at the approach of a sacrificial performance, — not if there is no sacrifice (going to be performed). — (120)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some people hold that this verse serves to prescribe the honouring even before the lapse of a year, if the persons happen to Arrive in connection with a sacrifical peformance. Others, however, take it as completing what has been said in the preceding verse; and if it be not taken in this sense, then the statement ‘not if there is no sacrifice’ remains inexplicable.

The term ‘learned man’ here may be taken as standing either for the person spoken of above as ‘accomplished student,’ or for the Priest; it is for the latter that the offering of ‘Honey-mixture,’ when the sacrifice is going to be performed, has been laid down. Though one would perform the Soma-sacrifice several times during the year, yet the Priests would help in the performance only if they have been duly honoured. Thus it is only if taken in this sense that the text comes to have a well-established basis (in the Veda). In any other sense, it will have to have its basis assumed.

Others, however, take the term ‘learned man’ as referring to the Priest and all the rest of them (mentioned in the preceding verse). In fact, Gautama has said this in a general way: Having said that ‘the honey-mixture is to be offered in the reception of the priest, the father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle, (5-25), he says ‘before the sacrifice and the marriage’ (5.27). And from this it is clear that at the time that a sacrifice is going to be performed, all those who deserve to be honoured should be honoured even before the lapse of the year.

‘Not if there is no sacrifice;’ — this prohibition applies to the honouring before t he year is over, and not that which comes after it.

In connection with the second foot of the verse, there are several readings:

Some people read ‘tate yajñe upasthitau,’ ‘who arrive when a sacrifice has commenced;’ and they explain this to mean that ‘the honey-mixture’ is to be offered to them only if they come, by invitation, when the performance of the sacrifice has commenced, and not when it is only going to be commenced.

This view is objected to by some persous: In view of the general rule that ‘the person initiated for sacrifice should not offer anything,’ all offering is prohibited for the initiated sacrificer; so that, if the offering of honey-mixture were now permitted, this would be contrary to the said general rule. It will not be right to argue (in answer to this that — “this is not an offering, since the injunction is that he should honour them, so that it is honouring that is enjoined;” because in the rite of the ‘Honey-mixture, ‘there is an actual offering of curd, as also of meat and food. If it be said that “the man eats what belongs to another person (without the latter offering it),” — in that case, the act would involve the sin of theft. It may be argued that, “in view of the direct assertion permitting such an act, it could not be regarded as theft.” But in that case, the act of giving is there; in fact, th e giving or offering also is actually enjoined in such texts as ‘should offer the honey-mixture.’ Hence the act would be contrary to law. “The offering would be contrary to the law that ‘the Initiated Sacrificer should not offer anything,’ only if the term ‘Sacrifice’ always stood for the Soma-sacrifice (in connection with which we have the said prohibition); as a matter of fact, however, the terra stands for the Darśa- Pūrṇamāsa sacrifices also; and the present injunction may be taken as pertaining to these latter.” This also will not be right; as, in this case, it will be contrary to usage: as a matter of fact, cultured people do not offer the Honey-mixture to honoured persons at any other sacrifice except the Soma-sacrifice; and Usage always follows the Veda.

For all these reasons, the right reading is ‘yajñakarmaṇyupasthite’ (as we have explained already). As a matter of fact, it is only when an honoured person arrives when the sacrificial performance is going to commence that cultured persons receive him with the Honey-mixture; and not after the performance has commenced. For this reason we do not even stop to consider the point that the prohibition (of offering by the Initiated Person) pertains to the act of giving in general, and not to that act of offering or giving which has been enjoined in connection with the sacrifice itself.

The compound ‘yajñakarma’ is to be expounded as the Karmadhāraya compound: when this performance is approaching — going to be performed. — (120)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to one opinion, given by Medhātithi, and according to Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa, this rule is a limitation of verse 119, and means that the two persons mentioned shall not receive the ‘Honey-mixture,’ except when they come dining the performance of a sacrifice, however long a period may have elapsed since their last visit — According to another explanation, mentioned by Medhātithi, and according to Nandaṇa and Rāghavānanda, the verse means that a King and a Śrotriya, who come, after a year since their last visit on the occasion of a sacrifice, shall receive the Madhuparka. — The term ‘Śrotriya’ refers, according to Medhātithi, to a Snātaka or to an officiating priest; — according to ‘others’ quoted by him, to all the persons mentioned in the preceding verse; — according to Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, to a Snātaka.” — Buhler.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности