with the Commentary of Medhatithi 85 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 91 из 350Следующая ⇒

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 455) in support of the view that Madhuparka is to be offered to a King only if he is also a ‘Śrotriya,’ ‘learned in the Veda’, not otherwise; — ‘Śrotriyaḥ’ being taken as qualifying ‘rājā.’ — It is difficult to see how the writer will construe the term ‘Sampūjyau’ (in the dual number).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.119-120)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.119.

VERSE 3.121

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

सायं त्वन्नस्य सिद्धस्य पत्न्यमन्त्रं बलिं हरेत् ।
वैश्वदेवं हि नामैतत् सायं प्रातर्विधीयते ॥१२१॥

sāyaṃ tvannasya siddhasya patnyamantraṃ baliṃ haret |
vaiśvadevaṃ hi nāmaitat sāyaṃ prātarvidhīyate ||121||

Out of the food cooked in the evening the wife should offer the Bali-oblation, without sacred formulas. This is the “Vaiśvadeva” rite which has been enjoined for both Morning and evening. — (121)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The first cooking has been described: the second rooking is now described.

‘Evening’ — end of day, the advent of night; out(?) of the food cooked at that time all the rites pertaining to the ‘Fire Sacrifices’ have to be repeated, with the exception of the ‘Brahmayajña’ (Vedic Study) and the ‘Pitṛyajña’ (Śrāddha).

“All that the text says is that she should offer the ‘Bali-oblation;’ and in ordinary usage it is only the4 Bhūtayajña’ (the offering to elementals) that is called ‘bali.’ So that, whence do we get (out of the words of the Text) either the pouring of libations into fire, or the offering of food to guests &c.? in answer to this the following might be urged — ‘The offering prescribed in the verse is spoken of by the name Vaiśvadeva, and the term, Vaiśradeva, denotes that the offering is meant for all, being prescribed for all gods (viśve devāḥ). In fact the term, both morning and evening, clearly indicates that the offering in the evening is to be precisely similar to that in the morning; it is for the purpose of conveying this sense that the term morning has been used. If it were not so, then, since the morning -offering has been already prescribed before, why should it have been necessary to say here that it has been enjoined for both morning and evening?” But in that case, the Brahmayajña and the Pitṛyajña also should have to be performed (in the evening also),”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — The phrase ‘out of the food cooked’ clearly indicates the doing of that alone which can be done with the food, — and not of the Brahmayajña, which is done by means of Vedic Study, nor of ‘Tarpaṇa’ ( ), which is done with water. We construe the words of the Text as follows ‘out of the food cooked, the Bali-oblation should be offered, and this rite, called Vaiśvadeva, is prescribed as to be done out of the food cooked, both morning and evening.’ That such is the meaning we deduce from the use of the term ‘food’ and that of the term ‘vaiśvadeva

‘Without sacred formulas;’ — what is interdicted is the use of expressions containing the names of the deity and ending with the syllable ‘svāhā;’ such expressions, for instance, as ‘agnaye svāhā,’ and the like; no other sacred formulas have been prescribed in connection with the Vaiśvadeva offerings; the said expressions are called ‘sacred formulas’ (mantra) only with a view to eulogise them; the real character of ‘mantra’ cannot belong to any expressions not occurring in the Veda; all students of Veda accept that only as ‘mantra’ which forms part of the Veda, either in the form of Ṛk, Yajuṣ or Sāman; and the meaning of words is ascertained from usage only. Those expressions with which the Bali and other oblations are made are not found in the text of any Veda; all that the Śruti says is that ‘oblations should be offered to Agni and other deities;’ the use of the syllable ‘svāhā’ also in the offering of all oblations is enjoined in another text, which says that ‘oblations are offered to gods either with the syllable svāhā or vaṣaṭ;’ but the use of the syllable ‘vaṣiṭ’ has been restricted to the end of the ‘yājyā’ mantras only by the declaration ‘one should pronounce vaṣaṭ at the end of the yājyā.’ In connection with the syllable ‘svāhā,’ the grammatical rules lay down the use of the Dative affix. Thus it is that it becomes necessary to use such verbal expressions as ‘agnaye svāhā,’ and the like, because every secrificial offering is aimed for a deity, and it is only by means of words that we know for which deity it is aimed.

“Under the circumstances, as the use of these expressions is prohibited, how can the sacrifice he regarded as accomplished? For so long as the gift is not completed by the assertion ‘this is for you, it is no longer mine,’ the sacrifice cannot be regarded as accomplished. Merely giving up a thing, without special reference to a recipient, cannot be called a ‘sacrifice’.”

This is true: the verbal reference to the gods being prohibited, the wife shall make the reference mentally.Just as when the Śūdra pronounces the syllable ‘namḥ,’ the use of the Mantra being replaced in his case by that syllable — as declared by Gautama, who says ‘For the Śūdra the syllable namaḥ has been ordained as the mantra’ (10.64); and the utterance of the name of the deity is not permitted for him. And yet it has been declared that even in this case the offering to the Deity becomes duly accomplished. The revered teachers, however, have declared that it is only the syllabic ‘svāhā’ that is to be replaced by the syllable ‘namaḥ,’ and that the utterance of the name of the Deity has not been prohibited.

Question: — “ Who is the real performer of the Vaiśvadeva offering in the evening?”

Answer: — It has been already asserted that it is the wife, who will make the offering without mantras; and this because she will be near by. — (121)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 315), which adds the following notes: — The first sentence here extends upto ‘nāmaitat’; ‘sāyamprātarvidhīyate’ being a totally distinct sentence; the latter serves to enjoin the necessity of making the Vaiśvadeva-offering both morning and evening. The meaning thus comes to be that it is only in the evening that the wife is entitled to perform the ‘Vaiśvadeva rite’ in the form of the Bali-offering. Some people hold that the ‘Bali-offering’ herein laid down as to be done by the wife indicates the Vaiśvadeva offering also, and is not meant to be a substitute for the latter.

It is quoted also in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 929), which 1ms the following notes: — One sentence runs up to ‘nāmaitat’, and ‘sāyamprātarvidhīyate’ is another sentence, laying down the two times for Vaiśvadeva offering. It is to this offering in the evening alone that the wife is entitled; and it is not right, as some people have held, that the name ‘Vaiśvadeva’ here stands for the entire rite of that name, including the Homa also; because Homa has been expressly forbidden for women. Others again have held that the singular number in ‘balim’ indicates that the only offering that the wife is to make is that which is made in the sky, i.e., the ‘Vaihāyasa-bali’. But this also is not right; because in the same context as the present, another text uses the plural form, ‘balīn haret’. Thus the conclusion is that the entire offering is to be made in the evening either by the man or his wife.

The verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 403), which adds the following explanation: — Bali-offering without mantras, with food cooked in the evening, is to be done by the wife only in the absence of the House-holder and his sons; — ‘Homa’ by women being generally interdicted by several texts.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 145) which explains it to mean that — ‘in the absence of males, the wife should offer Vaiśvadeva-bali without mantras.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gobhila (1. 4.19). — ‘The Bali is to be offered by the woman in the evening, and by the man in the morning.’

Gautama (Aparārka, p. 145). — ‘The Vaiśvadeva-offering and the Bali-offering should be made both morning and evening, even though the man himself may not take any food.’

VERSE 3.122 [Śrāddhas]

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

पितृयज्ञं तु निर्वर्त्य विप्रश्चन्द्रक्षयेऽग्निमान् ।
पिण्डान्वाहार्यकं श्राद्धं कुर्यान् मासानुमासिकम् ॥१२२॥

pitṛyajñaṃ tu nirvartya vipraścandrakṣaye'gnimān |
piṇḍānvāhāryakaṃ śrāddhaṃ kuryān māsānumāsikam ||122||

Month after Month, on the moonless day, the Brāhmaṇa with the Fire shall, after having performed the Pitṛyajña, offer the “Piṇḍānvāhāryaka.” — (122)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The śrāddha described here is the compulsory one, as distinct from the Vaiśvadeva-śrāddha, which is optional.

‘On the moon-leas day’ — on the Amāvāsya day. There also not at any and every time, but only ‘after having performed the Pitṛyajña.’ That is, after having performed that Ptṛyajña which has been prescribed in the Śruti. Thus the time for the Śrāddha in question comes to be the same as that for this latter; and in connection with this it has been laid down that the Piṇḍapitṛyajña is to be performed on the Amāvāsya day, in the afternoon.’

Even for one who has not set up the fire, the performance of such offerings is essential; as it is declared — ‘the person who has not set up the fire having made the accessary offerings &c.’

‘The Brāhmaṇa with the fire’ — i.e., he who is keeping up the marriage-fire, or who has set up the fire since succession to his property. No significance is meant to be attached to the mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ since the śrāddha in question is meant to be performed by the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also; hence it is that other smṛtis have prescribed this śrāddha without special reference to any particular caste.

‘Piṇḍānvāhārya kam;’ — this is the proper name of this śrāddha; the etymological explanation is that ‘that which is offered along with balls of food, Piṇḍas, is piṇḍānvāhāryaka.’

‘Month after month,’ — in one month, and also in another month. The compound word connotes monthly repetition; thus the meaning is that the śrāddha is to be performed every month. Thus it is that its compulsory character becomes established. Though the term ‘anumāsa’ alone dignities repetition, and the second term ‘māsa’ is superfluous, yet prolixity (anti redundance) is not minded in a metrical treatise. — (122)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“The sacrifice identified by the term Pitṛyajña is the so-called Piṇḍapitṛyajña, a Śrauta rite (Āśvalāyana, Śrauta-sūtra 2.6-7); and Piṇḍānvāhāryaka is another name for the monthly Śrāddha.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (p. 165), where it is explained as laying down the order of sequence between Piṇḍapitṛyajña and Piṇḍānvāhāryaka, as performed by the man with the consecrated fire; — the particle ‘anu’ denotes repetition; — ‘candrakṣaye’ means ‘on the Amāvasyā day.’

It is quoted in Kālaviveka (p. 354) as laying down Śrāddha to be performed on the Amāvasyā day.

Madanapārijāta (p. 321) quotes it in support of the view that all those texts that lay down the Vaiśvadeva offering as to be done before the Śrāddha, are to be taken as applying only to the man who has set up the Śrauta Fire (which is what is meant by the term ‘agnimān’ in the present verse); — again on p. 495, where it adds that ‘māsānumāsikam’ means ‘every month’; and goes on to explain that Piṇḍapitṛyajña is to be performed also by the man who has not set up the Śrauta Fire; so that for the man with the ‘Śrauta Fire,’ as well as for the man with the ‘Domestic Fire,’ it is necessary to perform Anvādhāna, Piṇḍapitṛyajña and Amāvasyā-Śrāddha, — all on the same day.

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 40) quotes this verse as permitting the performance of Śrāddha on a day on which there is Caturdaśī in the morning but Amāvasyā for the rest of the day.

This is quoted in Aparārka (p. 418), which remarks that the repetitive form of the term ‘māsānumāsikam’ is meant to imply that the Śrāddha on the Amāvasyā day is compulsory; — in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 609) to the effect that ‘Pitṛyajña’ should be performed before the ‘Śrāddha’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 72,171,321 and 1064); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (pp. 956 and 989) to the effect that the Amāvasyā-Śrāddha should be performed after Piṇḍapitṛyajña; it explains ‘Piṇḍānvāhāryakam’ as Piṇḍānām piṇḍapitṛyajñārthānām anu paścāt āhṛyate kṛyate iti,’ and calls it a name for the Amāvasyā

Śrāddha; — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 185), which explains ‘Piṇḍānvāhāryakam’ as Pārvaṇaśrāddha, and expounds the same as ‘piṇḍāḥ anu brāhmaṇabhojanānantaram āhriyante asmin’; — in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 6) as laying down Amāvasyā-Śrāddha; — and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, pp. 431 and 492).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Sumantu (Aparārka, p. 418). — ‘The man with the fire shall offer Śrāddha to those to whom his father offers it.’

Maitrāyaṇīya-pariśiṣṭa (Do.). — ‘Marriage, the birth of a son, the Pitrya Iṣṭi, Soma-sacrifice, sacred places, and the arrival of the right Brāhmaṇa, — these are occasions for the performance of Śrāddha by one whose father is living.’

Viṣṇu (Do.). — ‘If the man with his father living performs Śrāddha, he should offer it to those to whom his father offers it; if his grandfather is alive, to those to whom the grandfather offers it; if his father, grandfather and greatgrandfather are all alive, he shall not offer it at all.’

Gautama (15.2). — ‘During the later fortnight, from the fifth day onwards, Śrāddha shall be performed.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 217). — ‘The Moonless day, the Aṣṭakās, the Auspicious ceremonies, the darker fortnight, the two solstices...... (these are the occasions for Śrāddha).’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 417). — ‘The Moonless day on which the moon sets after appearing is called Sinīvālī; on that day should Śrāddha be offered by Agnihotrins; and that day on which the moon is entirely invisible (called Kuhū), on that it should be offered by Brāhmaṇas without fire and by others.’

Laugākṣi (Do., p. 418). — ‘The man whose father is dead should offer Śrāddha every day, also every month on the moonless day, on auspicious occasions and also every year.’

Uśanas (Aparārka, p. 418). — ‘The twice-born man whose father has died shall offer Śrāddha every day — be he with Fire or without Fire; also every month and every year.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘While one’s father is living, one should avoid all Śrāddhas; but according to some people, he should offer it to those Pitṛs to whom his father offers it.’

VERSE 3.123

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

पितॄणां मासिकं श्राद्धमन्वाहार्यं विदुर्बुधाः ।
तच्चामिषेणा कर्तव्यं प्रशस्तेन प्रयत्नतः ?? ॥१२३॥

pitṝṇāṃ māsikaṃ śrāddhamanvāhāryaṃ vidurbudhāḥ |
taccāmiṣeṇā kartavyaṃ praśastena prayatnataḥ ?? ||123||

The monthly śrāddha to the Pitṛs the wise call “anvāhārya;” and it should be carefully performed with such meat as has been commended. — (123)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Anvāhārya’ is the name of the fee paid to the priests officiating at the Darṣa-Pūrṇamāsa sacrifices; and the monthly śrāddha offered to the Pitṛs is the ‘Anvāhārya fee’ for the Ancestors; and the sense of the metaphor is that the Pitṛs are as much pleased on receiving the śrāddha-ofterings as the Priests are on receiving the fee. This name serves to indicate that the śrāddha is performed for the Pitṛs. But the relation in which the Ancestors stand to the śrāddha is not the same in which the Deities stand to the Darśa and other sacrifices; as the śrāddha is performed for their benefit; and it is in this sense that we have the genitive case in ‘pitṛṛṇām (pitṝṇām?)’; if the Pitṛs were the ‘deities,’ then there would be no reason for the omitting of the Dative affix.

Another reading giving a totally different sense is ‘piṇḍānām māsikam.’

‘The wise call Anvāhārya’ — This also indicates the obligatory character of the Pitṛ-yajña (which is as necessary as the sacrificial gift); but with this difference that it is not a mere subordinate factor (as the sacrificial fee is).

‘It should be performed with such meat as has been comended’ — i.e., not prohibited, or particularly recommended; as in 268, where it is said ‘with the meat of fish the Ancestors remain satisfied for two months, etc., etc.’

This is the principal method; in the absence of meat, curds, butter, milk, cakes, etc., shall be offered, as is going to be prescribed later on.

The meat, however, is only the sauce for the seasoning of such food as cooked rice and the like; it does not consti-tute a food by itself, since the text is going to describe ‘such subsidiaries us soup and vegetables, etc.’ (226), and also ‘on what kinds of food, etc.’ (next verse). — (123)

The question that arises now is that the śrāddha consisting of the several acts of (a) oblations in fire, (b) feeding of Brāhmaṇas, (c) offering of hulls of food, and so forth, — are they all equally principal and expressible by the name ‘śrāddha?’ Or, some are principal and some secondary? The answer is that, in view of suoh expressions as — ‘one should feed Brāhmaṇas in śrāddha,’ ‘this man has eaten at the śrāddha,’ and so forth, where ‘feeding’ and ‘śrāddha’ are spoken of as synonyms, — the ‘feeding of Brāhmaṇas appears to be the principal factor.’ To the same end our Author says —

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 573); — and in Godādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 431), which expounds the name ‘anvāhāryam’ as ‘anu, paścāt, āhāryam kāryam,’ and says that this the learned call ‘Dārśa-Śrāddha.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.16). — ‘Śrāddha should be performed month by month.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.19). — ‘The first alternative is that at these Śrāddhas the offering should consist of butter and meat.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (70.24). — [The Pitṛs are represented as saying] — ‘Kālaśāka, Mahāśalka, the meat of the Vārdhrīṇasa goat, and the meat of the rhinoceros whose horn has not come out, — these we partake of.’

Laugākṣi (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 308) — ‘The twice-born person whose father is dead must perform Śrāddha on the moonless day every month.’

VERSE 3.124

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

तत्र ये भोजनीयाः स्युर्ये च वर्ज्या द्विजोत्तमाः ।
यावन्तश्चैव यैश्चान्नैस्तान् प्रवक्ष्याम्यशेषतः ॥१२४॥

tatra ye bhojanīyāḥ syurye ca varjyā dvijottamāḥ |
yāvantaścaiva yaiścānnaistān pravakṣyāmyaśeṣataḥ ||124||

I am now going to describe fully which and how many Brāhmaṇas should be fed at it, and on what food, — as also those that should be avoided. — (124)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘At it’ — at the śrāddha; — those Brāhmaṇas that should be fed, — as also those that should be avoided; — ‘how many’ — what number; as is going to be pointed out that ‘two should be fed at the offering to the gods, and so forth’ (125); — ‘on what food,’ — ‘on sesamum, barley, etc.’ (267) all this ‘I am now going to describe’ — listen-to it.

This (feeding of Brāhmaṇas) is the chief thing to be accomplished; for without this the śrāddha is as good as not done. As for the subsidiary factors, — those that help in the performance directly, as well as those that help indirectly, — even if these are not duly accomplished, the śrāddha is done, — only it is not quite complete in its details. Hence it is that the subjects have been propounded again, for the purpose of indicating their predominant character. — (124.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 241, l. 25) — ‘Yaccāṅgajātam etc.’ — The Mīmāṃsakas, specially those belonging to the ‘Prābhākara’ school, classify ‘subsidiaries to an act’ under four heads: — (1) class-character, (2) quality, (3) substance, and (4) such things as are denoted by verbs, i.e., actions. The last of these is grouped under two heads — (1) Those directly helpful, called Sannipatyopakāraka, and (2) those indirectly helpful, called ‘Ārādupakāraka’. That which produces its direct effects in certain things conducive to the fulfilment of the sacrificial act, is its Sannipatyopakāraka; e.g., the sitting of the sacrifìcer, the threshing of the corn and so forth. The Sannipatyopakāraka is of four kinds — (1) that which brings into existence a certain substance; i.e., the kneading of the flour, which brings into existence the dough; — (2) that which leads to the acquisition of a certain substance; e.g., the act of milking the cow; — (3) that which produces some change in an already existing substance; e.g., the boiling of clarified butter; — (4) that which is purely purificatory, e.g., the sprinkling of water over the corn. The subsidiaries that belong to this class do not produce any transcendental result —

Apūrva — of their own; they are related to the result produced by the sacrificial act to which they are subsidiary......... The

Ārāpudakāraka — or indirectly helpful subsidiaries — are of two kinds — (1) those that fulfil only a transcendental purpose and do not produce any visible effects in any material substance; e.g., the small offerings made during the Darśapūrṇamāsa, such as the Samid-yāga and the rest; — and (2) those that produce both transcendental and visible effects; e.g., the Payovrata, the act of the Sacrificer and his wife living, during the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma, purely on milk. These latter, from their very nature, are such acts as have their own minor resultant Apūrvas, which go to help in the fulfilment of the Apūrva of the main sacrificial act itself. [For a discussion on this subject, the reader is referred to the Prābhakara School of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, pp. 180-185.]

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 377).

VERSE 3.125

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

द्वौ दैवे पितृकार्ये त्रीनेकैकमुभयत्र वा ।
भोजयेत् सुसमृद्धोऽपि न प्रसज्जेत विस्तरे ॥१२५॥

dvau daive pitṛkārye trīnekaikamubhayatra vā |
bhojayet susamṛddho'pi na prasajjeta vistare ||125||

Even though wealthy, one should feed two at the rite performed in honour of the gods, and three at that in honour of the Pitṛs; or one only at each of the two rites he should not indulge in large company. — (125)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though as a rule each subject should be propounded in the same order in which it has been mentioned before, — and according to this the persons to be fed should have been described first, — yet the present verse describes their number first; because there is very little to be said on this point.

With reference to the gods, one should feed two Brāhmaṇas, and at the rite performed in honour of the Pitṛs he should feed three; ‘or one at each of the two’ — i.e., one at the rite in honour of the Gods and one at that in honour of the Pitṛs.

Though the word used in the Text is ‘pitṛ,’ which shows that the entity to whom the offering is to be made is the Father, yet, as a matter of fact, the offering is to be made to the Father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Hence, at the śrāddha, one should food one Brāhmaṇa for each of these three, — and not one only for all three; because each of them constitutes a distinct ‘recipient of offering.’ Says the author of the Gṛhyasūtra (Āśvnlāyana, 4. 7.2-4) — ‘Not only one for all; it has been explained by means of the balls;’ that is, just as only one ball is not offered to all, so only one Brāhmaṇa should not be fed for all. Here also the author will say later on — ‘he should invite at least three;’ and the invitation there spoken of is for the purpose of feeding them, and not for the purpose of any merely transcendental result. It is for this reason that at the rite in honour of ancestors one should feed three, — that is, three times three, specially as it has been declared that ‘one should not feed the least number.’ This same explanation applies also to what is said below (in 129) regarding the feeding ‘even one learned person at each;’ which means that one for each of the three ancestors.

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США