with the Commentary of Medhatithi 87 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 93 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted without comment in Madanapārijāta (p. 556).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āśvalāyana (1.50). — ‘The good man who constantly offers food into the mouth of one learned in the Veda, becomes freed from heinous sins and attains union with Brahman.’

Āśvalāyana (14.15). — ‘At the Śrāddha one shall invite such Brāhmaṇas as are fully learned in the Rig Veda; in the absence of these, he may invite persons learned in other recensions of the Veda.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.9-13). — ‘The offerings made to Gods and Pitṛs should be presented to the person learned in the Veda; what is presented to one who is not learned in the Veda reaches neither the Pitṛs nor the Gods; — that man who has an illiterate person in his bouse and the learned man at a distance, should present the offering to the learned man; this would not be a supersession of the illiterate man; there can be no wrongful supersession of the Brāhmaṇa who is devoid of the Veda; no one pours oblations into ashes and neglects the burning fire; those regions where illiterate persons enjoy what should he enjoyed by the learned are struck by famine and other dangers.’

Atri-saṃhitā (152). — ‘What is given to an unqualified recipient destroys the family up to the seventh generation; neither the Gods nor the Pitṛs accept such offerings.’

Bṛhaspati (59). — ‘If an illiterate person accepts the gift of the cow or gold or clothing or land or sesamum, he becomes burnt like fuel; if a man has an illiterate person at home and the learned man at a distance, the present should he made to the learned; the supersession of the illiterate is not wrong.’

VERSE 3.133

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

यावतो ग्रसते ग्रासान् हव्यकव्येष्वमन्त्रवित् ।
तावतो ग्रसते प्रेतो दीप्तशूलर्ष्ट्ययोगुडान् ॥१३३॥

yāvato grasate grāsān havyakavyeṣvamantravit |
tāvato grasate preto dīptaśūlarṣṭyayoguḍān ||133||

As many mouthfuls as the person ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs, so many flaming spikes, spears and iron-balls does the man swallow after death. — (133)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even though it is the śrāddha that forms the subject-matter of the present context, yet the present verse describes the evil results occurring to the eater; it is to this effect that it has been declared that ‘for this reason should the ignorant person fear the acceptance of gifts from this and that person.’

‘Spikes and spears’ are the names of particular weapons. Such a person is made by the attendants of the Lord of Death to eat red-hot iron-balls.

According to Vyāsa’s view, the evil result accrues to the person offering the focal, and not to the eater, nor to the ancestors. Because it cannot be right to connect the dead ancestors with the evil arising from the disobeying, by another person, of the prohibition (of the feeding ignorant persons); as in that case, there would be the absurdity of a man suffering what he has not earned. If an ignorant person has been fed by the son, what fault is there of his dead ancestors?

“But by this same reasoning the benefit also of the śrāddha should not accrue to the ancestors.”

It would certainly not accrue to them, if the śrāddha-offering had not been distinctly enjoined as being for their benefit. In the present case (of feeding Brāhmaṇas), however, there is no such injunction as that ‘this should be done by one who desires to confer a benefit on one’s son,’ as there is in the case of the Śyena sacrifice. Then, as regards the words of the present text, they can fit in also with the person ottering the food; the construction in this case being — ‘that man, at whose performance of the śrāddha such a person eats, obtains such and such a result.’ What forms the subject-matter of the present context is the prohibition of the feeding of ignorant persons; and the disregarding of this prohibition would render the rite defective; and this defect in the Kite would lead to the evil result that the man would no longer be entitled to the performance of that rite [aud this would pertain to the giver, not eater, of the food]; and since the ancestors derive benefit from the śrāddha, for this reason also the transgressing of its injunction should involve guilt on the part of the son.

“What are the precise words of Vyāsa (on this subject)?”

[They are] — ‘As many mouthfuls as an ignorant person swallows out of a man’s offerings, so many spikes does he swallow on going to the abode of Death.’

In place of ‘preto’ some people read ‘pretya;’ where also the term ‘having died’ pertains to the eater; and the sense of the text is that ‘the ignorant mail shall not eat of the offerings made to gods and ancestors.’ — (133)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

According to Nārāyaṇa the punishment here mentioned falls on the eater. — Medhātithi mentions both explanations.

For ‘guḍān’ Nandana reads ‘hulān’ and explains it as ‘double-edged sword.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 449), which explains ‘śūlam’ and ‘ṛṣti’ as particular weapons, — and ‘ayoguḍa’ as ‘an iron-ball’; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 401).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yama (Aparārka, p. 449). — ‘He in whose family there has been a cessation of the Veda and the sacrificial altar for three generations is a had Brāhmaṇa.’

Vyāsa. — ‘As many morsels the man ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings made by a man so many darts does he swallow in the abode of Death.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 449). — ‘Those countries where what should be eaten by the learned is eaten by the illiterate are beset by drought and great dangers beset them.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘Even those born of noble families and endowed with learning, — if they be of base conduct and addicted to wicked deeds, — they are even regarded as demons. Those addicted to the killing of birds, fish and deer, serpents and tortoise and other animals are all Bad Brāhmaṇas. Who serves a Śūdra, who is supported by the King, the village-sacrificer, those living by killing and capturing — these six are Low Brāhmaṇas.’

VERSE 3.134

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

ज्ञाननिष्ठा द्विजाः के चित् तपोनिष्ठास्तथाऽपरे ।
तपःस्वाध्यायनिष्ठाश्च कर्मनिष्ठास्तथाऽपरे ॥१३४॥

jñānaniṣṭhā dvijāḥ ke cit taponiṣṭhāstathā'pare |
tapaḥsvādhyāyaniṣṭhāśca karmaniṣṭhāstathā'pare ||134||

Some twice-born persons excel in learning; others excel in austerities; some others excel in austerities and Vedic study, and others again excel in rites. — (134)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The text proceeds to divide the qualities of men, for the purpose of indicating the superiority of learning; and this also tor the purpose of pointing out the propriety of making gifts to the learned.

Persons possessing excellence in ‘learning’ — knowledge — are said to ‘excel in learning,’ — i.e., devoted to learning.

The sense desired to be conveyed justifies the Bahuvrīhi compound even between non-appositional terms. Persons, who have studied the Veda and its meaning and are always intent upon it, are said to ‘excel in learning.’

This same explanation applies to all the terms ending with the term ‘niṣṭhā.’

The compound ‘tapassvādhyāyaniṣṭhāḥ’ is Bahuvrīhi, containing within itself a copulative compound. ‘Austerities’ — such as the Cāndrāyaṇa, and the rest; — ‘vedic study,’ is learning of the Veda.

‘Rites’ — Agnihotra, and the rest.

It has to be borne in mind that all these qualities are meant to coexist together; the presence of any one of them only, in the absence of the others, does not make a man a fit recipient of the gift; all that the text describes is the fact of some men excelling in one and some in another. That such is the meaning is indicated by the fact that the term ‘niṣṭhā,’ which denotes finishing, is indirectly indicative of excelling; and when a person excels in, is intent upon, some one quality, he is said to ‘excel’ in that. When a man is possessed of all the good qualities, but one of those is possessed in a superior degree, and the others in lesser degree, then also the man is a fit recipient; but if he does not possess anyone quality in a superior degree, even though he may possess all the qualities, he is not a fit recipient.

That a combination of all the qualities is necessary, is shown by what has been said in the second discourse to the effect that ‘one who is devoid of learning cannot rightly perform any rites.’

Others have explained the term ‘jñānaniṣṭha’ to mean the Renunciate, on the ground that ‘devotion to self-knowledge’ has been specially prescribed for him after he has renounced the performance of all rites; (under this explanation) the term ‘taponiṣṭha’ would stand for the Recluse; he being called ‘tāpasa’ ( devoted to austerities); as in such assertions as ‘during the summer the Recluse should perform the five austerities’ (6. 23); — and the term ‘tapaḥsvādhyāyaniṣṭha’ would stand for the Student; — and ‘karmaniṣṭha’ for the Householder. According to this explanation, the persons whose feeding is prohibited are those that are outside the pale of the four ‘stages;’ say the Paurāṇikas — ‘the Śrāddha should not be offered to persons outside the pale of the four stages.’ — (134)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (6.24-25). — ‘Some recipients excel in the Veda, some in austerities; the best of recipients is one who never has had in his stomach any food given by a Śūdra. That man is called a Recipient who is given to Vedic studies, born of a noble family, quiet, devoted to sacrificial performances, afraid of sin, fully learned, respectful towards women, virtuous, protector of the cow, and tolerant through austerities.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (73.9-13). — ‘Purified by sacred places; purified by sacrifices; purified by austerities; purified by truth; purified by mantras.’

Yājñavalkya (1.121). — ‘Celibates, maintaining the five fires, firm in the performance of their duties, devoted to austerities, and devoted to parents, — such Brāhmaṇas are con ducive to the success of the Śrāddha.’

Mahābharata (13.90.50). — [Mentions ‘Svādhyāyaniṣṭhāḥ-jñānaniṣṭhāḥ-taponiṣṭhāḥ-karmaniṣṭhāḥ.’]

VERSE 3.135

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

ज्ञाननिष्ठेषु कव्यानि प्रतिष्ठाप्यानि यत्नतः ।
हव्यानि तु यथान्यायं सर्वेष्वेव चतुर्ष्वपि ॥१३५॥

jñānaniṣṭheṣu kavyāni pratiṣṭhāpyāni yatnataḥ |
havyāni tu yathānyāyaṃ sarveṣveva caturṣvapi ||135||

The offerings to the pitṛs should be carefully presented to those excelling in learning; and the offerings to gods to all the four, according to law. — (135)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author now proceeds to show the purpose why he has provided a classification of the qualities.

Offerings made to the Pitṛs are called ‘Kavya;’ these should be ‘presented’ — given — ‘to those excelling in learning.’

‘Carefully’ — implies that if one does not take special care, these also, like the offering to gods, should be given to all the four.

For the offerings to Pitṛs the best recipients are those excelling in learning, — it having been declared that ‘he is the recipient among recipients.’

What the verse means is that food in general should be given to all the four, without any distinction.

‘Law’ — Rule laid down in the scriptures. — (135)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.7.4, 22). — ‘One shall feed such Brāhmaṇas as are well versed in the Veda; also one who is studying the Veda, the son of an expounder of the Veda, and one learned in the Veda; when these eat at a Śrāddha, they purify the line of feeders.’

Gautama (15.9, 10). — ‘Vedic scholars, endowed with beauty, age and character; the first offer should be made to the younger men.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 219). — ‘One who is foremost in all the Vedas, one learned in the Veda, the young man knowing Brahman, one who knows the meaning of the Veda, the Jyeṣṭhasāman, the Trimadhu and the Trisuparṇaka.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (83, 19, 21). — ‘Specially the Yogins. May such a one bo born in our family as may feed at the Śrāddha the Brāhmaṇa who is a Yogin! By that would we be fully satisfied.’

Mahābhārata (13. 90. 51). — [Reproduces the first half of Manu.]

VERSE 3.136

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

अश्रोत्रियः पिता यस्य पुत्रः स्याद् वेदपारगः ।
अश्रोत्रियो वा पुत्रः स्यात् पिता स्याद् वेदपारगः ॥१३६॥

aśrotriyaḥ pitā yasya putraḥ syād vedapāragaḥ |
aśrotriyo vā putraḥ syāt pitā syād vedapāragaḥ ||136||

If a father happen to be ignorant of the Veda, whose son is thoroughly versed in the Veda, — and if the son happen to be ignorant of the Veda and the father is t horoughly versed in the Veda; — (136)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is intended to propound a doubt (as to which of the two is superior). — (136)

VERSE 3.137

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

ज्यायांसमनयोर्विद्याद् यस्य स्यात्श्रोत्रियः पिता ।
मन्त्रसम्पूजनार्थं तु सत्कारमितरोऽर्हति ॥१३७॥

jyāyāṃsamanayorvidyād yasya syātśrotriyaḥ pitā |
mantrasampūjanārthaṃ tu satkāramitaro'rhati ||137||

‘Of these two one should regard him as superior whose father is learned in the Veda; while the other deserves honour for the sake of the veneration due to the Veda. — (137)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Having raised the question as to which is superior of the two — one whose father is illiterate, but he himself is ‘thoroughly versed in the Veda,’ i.e., who has read the Veda along with the subsidiary sciences, — and the other whose father is thoroughly versed in the Veda, but he himself is illiterate, — the author now sets forth the established conclusion.

‘Of these two’ — between one who is himself learned in the Veda, but his father is illiterate, and one who is himself illiterate, but his father is learned in the Veda — one should know him to be ‘superior’ — more praiseworthy — who is himself illiterate, but his father is learned in the Veda.

‘The other...... for the sake of the veneration due to the Veda’ — He is to be honoured, not because he is a Brāhmaṇa, but because he has learnt the Vedic Mantras, which have to be honoured; and since the honouring of the Veda has not been prescribed in connection with Śrāddhas, such a person does not deserve to be fed at these.

What the author does by means of these two verses, propounding us they do a question and its answer, is to indicate, through a laudatory description, that what entitles a man to eat at Śrāddhas is the fact of his father being learned in the Veda, and that of himself being learned in the Veda (the two combined). The mere fact of he himself being learned in the Veda, does not entitle him to the eating, nor the fact of his father being learned in the Veda, while he himself is illiterate.

It is with reference to this that it has been said above (in 130) that ‘one should examine the Brāhmaṇa from far off etc.;’ and the examination of ‘learning’ there mentioned refers to enquiries concerning the learning of both father and son; while those relating to caste and qualif ications, these have to be extended to higher ancestors also. And since it is this distinction that is sought to be brought out in this verse, it cannot be regarded as a needless repetition. — (137)

VERSE 3.138

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

न श्राद्धे भोजयेन् मित्रं धनैः कार्योऽस्य सङ्ग्रहः ।
नारिं न मित्रं यं विद्यात् तं श्राद्धे भोजयेद् द्विजम् ॥१३८॥

na śrāddhe bhojayen mitraṃ dhanaiḥ kāryo'sya saṅgrahaḥ |
nāriṃ na mitraṃ yaṃ vidyāt taṃ śrāddhe bhojayed dvijam ||138||

At a Śrāddha one should not feed a friend; his acquisition shall be made by means of riches. At a Śrāddha one should feed him whom he regards neither as friend nor as foe. — (138)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even when endowed with the aforesaid qualifications of ‘Vedic learning’ and the rest, the man shall not be fed on account of his being a friend; this is the prohibition contained in this verse.

‘A friend’ — one whose happiness and unhappiness are the same as one’s own, and who is in no way different from himself, — ‘one should not feed at a Śrāddha.’

‘By means of riches’ — by means of other kinds of gifts — ‘the acquisition’ of the friend should be made; his friendship obtained; or the benefit of ‘friendship’ may consist in non-separation.

It is not only the friend that one shall not feed; the enemy also should not be fed. ‘Him whom he regards neither as friend nor as foe,’ — towards whom one eutertains feelings of neither affection, nor aversion: in regard to whom there could be no suspicion of any relationship due to affection or any other motive; the mention of the ‘friend or foe’ being only illustrative. It is on account of the suspicion of such relationship that the maternal grandfather and others have been mentioned (in 147, 148 below) as secondary alternatives.

“There is possibility of the enemy being fed only where one wishes make a friend of him; hence he also being included under ‘friend’ (should not have been mentioned separately).”

The separate mention is expected to make the matter dearer. — (138)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 559); — in Aparārka (p. 448); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 401); — and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 41), which explains ‘dhanaiḥ’ as ‘by presents of other kinds,’ and ‘saṅgraha’ as ‘affection.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (15). — ‘He should not behave towards him as towards a friend.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (17.4). — ‘He shall feed such Brāhmaṇas... as are not related to him either through otra or through marriage or through Vedic learning or through discipleship.’

Baudhāyana (2.8.6). — ‘Such as are not related to him through the Veda.’

Vaśiṣṭha. (11.14). — ‘During the darker fortnight, after the fourth day, he shall make offerings to the Pitṛs; having, on the previous day, got together such Brāhmaṇas as are renunciates or hermits or are old, not engaged in any improper profession, learned in the Veda, — but who are not his own pupils or disciples. But he shall feed even his disciples, if they are endowed with exceptional qualities.’

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 137.44). — ‘One who has offered the Śrāddha shall not receive a friend; for the purpose of making friends he shall make presents of riches; in connection with the offerings to gods and Pitṛs, he shall feed one who is neutral, whom he regards neither as a friend nor as a foe.’

Kaśyapa (Aparārka, p. 448). — ‘Enemies...... should not be invited at Śrāddha.’

VERSE 3.139

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

यस्य मित्रप्रधानानि श्राद्धानि च हवींषि च ।
तस्य प्रेत्य फलं नास्ति श्राद्धेषु च हविःषु च ॥१३९॥

yasya mitrapradhānāni śrāddhāni ca havīṃṣi ca |
tasya pretya phalaṃ nāsti śrāddheṣu ca haviḥṣu ca ||139||

He at whose Śrāddhas and sacrifices, the friend forms the principal factor, — for him, after death, there is no reward, either for Śrāddhas or for sacrifices. — (139)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse supplies the commendatory supplement to the foregoing prohibition.

The term ‘friend’ is used here in the abstract sense; hence the meaning is ‘in which friendship enters as the prime consideration.’ And this includes both friend and foe.

The term ‘sacrifice’ stands for (1) gifts given with reference to gods and (2) the feeding of Brāhmaṇas with a view to some transcendental result.

‘Pretya phalam nāsti’ (‘after death there is no reward’) —

“No construction is possible of this clause; since the nominative of the root ‘pra + iṇ’ (of the act of dying denoted by the word ‘pretya’) is the person performing the śrāddha, whereas of the verb ‘na + asti’ (‘is not’) the nominative is ‘phala,’ ‘reward’ [and as a rule, the nominative of the participle ‘pretya’ and the finite verb ‘nāsti’ should be one and the same].”

In answer to this, some people explain that the term ‘pretya’ is an independent word, an indeclinable noun, denoting the other world [and is not a participle at all]. Another explanation is that of the root pra + in also ‘reward’ is the nominative; the meaning of the participle in this case being ‘even though arriving near,’ ‘it does not come about,’ — i.e., it fails to be enjoyed. — (139)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Śrāddkakriyākaumudī (p. 41).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.139-140)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.8). — ‘Offerings given to friends and relations reach neither the gods nor the Pitṛs.’ Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 90.42-43). — ‘If at one’s offerings to gods and Pitṛs, his friends happen to form the predominant factor, then neither the gods nor the Pitṛs are satisfied; and he goes not to heaven. If one makes friends at the Śrāddha, he goes not by the path of the gods; collecting his friends at Śrāddha, ho falls off from heaven.’

VERSE 3.140

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

यः सङ्गतानि कुरुते मोहात्श्राद्धेन मानवः ।
स स्वर्गाच्च्यवते लोकात्श्राद्धमित्रो द्विजाधमः ॥१४०॥

yaḥ saṅgatāni kurute mohātśrāddhena mānavaḥ |
sa svargāccyavate lokātśrāddhamitro dvijādhamaḥ ||140||

The man who, through folly, makes friendships by means of Śrāddhas, — that meanest of twice-born men, having the Śrāddha for his friend, falls from the regions of heaven. — (140)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Friendships’ — friendly relations — he ‘who make’ ‘by means of Śrāddhas’ ‘through folly — i.e., being ignorant of what is contained in the scriptures, — falls from heaven,’ — i.e., never reaches heaven; the root ‘fall’ being used in the sense of want of connection in general; the sense being ‘just as a man on reaching heaven and falling from there loses all connection with it, so this man also.’ What is meant is that the man does not obtain the reward for performing the śrāddha. in this sense alone can the passage have any connection with all that has gone in the present context.

‘Having the. śrāddha for his friend;’ — the śrāddha is spoken of as his friend, on account of its being the means of his acquiring a friend, it is in this sense that we have the Bahuvrīhi compound in ‘śrāddhamitra.’

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии