with the Commentary of Medhatithi 89 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 95 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (82-1, 2). — ‘At the rite in honour of the gods, one shall not examine the Brāhmaṇa; at that in honour of Pitṛs he shall examine him with care.’

VERSE 3.150

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

ये स्तेनपतितक्लीबा ये च नास्तिकवृत्तयः ।
तान् हव्यकव्ययोर्विप्राननर्हान् मनुरब्रवीत् ॥१५०॥

ye stenapatitaklībā ye ca nāstikavṛttayaḥ |
tān havyakavyayorviprānanarhān manurabravīt ||150||

Manu has declared those Brāhmaṇas undeserving of (receiving) the offerings to gods and Pitṛs who are thieves, outcasts and eunuchs, as also those that have the behaviour of atheists. — (150)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Thieves’ — stealers.

‘Outcast’ — one who commits any one of the five ‘great sins.’

‘Eunuch’ — emasculate, having the marks of both man and woman, unvirile, impotent.

‘Atheists’ — Materialists and others; those whose firm conviction is that ‘gifts are nothing, oblations are nothing, there is no other world the behaviour of those is unbelief; ‘those whose behaviour is like the behaviour of atheists’ are called ‘having the behaviour of atheists,’ — this being an instance of the compound that drops its last term. The word ‘atheist’ by itself would be sufficient; the term ‘behaviour’ has been introduced for the purpose of filling up the metre.

Or, the term ‘nāstikavṛttayaḥ’ may be taken to mean ‘those who derive their livelihood from atheists.’

These Manu has declared to be undeserving of the offerings made at the rites performed in honour of gods and Pitṛs.

The name of ‘Manu’ has been added for the purpose of lending force to the prohibition; as, in reality, all duties have been described by Manu. — (150)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687) among others, enumerating persons who should not be invited at Śrāddhas; it adds (on 688) the notes that — the ‘thief’ meant here is one who steals the belongings of others than the Brāhmaṇas, the stealer of the latter’s goods being included under ‘outcastes’, — ‘nāstikavṛtti’ is one who derives his livelihood from one who denies that there are any rewards for acts in the other world; — and in Aparārka (p. 447), which explains the ‘nāstika’ as ‘one who holds the opinion that there is nothing that is divine,’ and the ‘nāstikavṛtti’ as ‘he who makes a living by expounding and writing on the works of such unbelievers.’

It is quoted also in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 480); — and in ‘Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

Gautama (15.15-18). — ‘One shall not feed at Śrāddha one who is a thief, an eunuch, an out-cast, a heretic, or who behaves like a heretic, the murderer of the hero, one whose wife dallies with another person (or who makes love to his brother’s widow, or who has married a girl before the marriage of her elder sister), who officiates at sacrifices performed by women or by village communities, who keeps goats, who commits arson, who drinks wine, who is censorious, who has perjured himself, who is a conjuror, who permits his wife’s paramour to live in the house, who eats the food of an adulterer’s son, who sells Soma, who has burnt a house, who is a poisoner, who has broken the vows of continence, who is the servant of a company, who has intercourse with women with whom intercourse is prohibited, who is cruel, who has been superseded, in marriage, by his younger brother, who has superseded, in marriage, his elder brother, who is a pledgee or a pledger, who is bald-headed, or with deformed nails or black teeth, who suffers from leucoderma, who is the son of a remarried woman, who keeps a gambling house, who does not repeat mantras, who is the servant of the king, the Prātirūpika (whose profession is the assuming of disguises), who has married a Śūdra woman, who neglects the great sacrifices, who is leprous, who makes a living by money-lending, who trades, who makes a living by arts and crafts, or who is addicted to playing on musical instruments or to dancing and singing; — also those who have separated from their father against his wish.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11.15). — ‘Avoiding the emaciated, one who is suffering from leucoderma, the eunuch, the blind, one who has black teeth, the leprous and one who has deformed nails.’

Yājñavalkya (1.222-224). — ‘The following have been deprecated: the invalid, one deficient in his limbs, one with superfluous limbs, the one-eyed, the son of a re-married woman, one who has broken his vows of continence, one born of his unwidowed mother’s paramour, one born of his widowed mother’s paramour, who has deformed nails, or black teeth, who teaches for a stipulated fee, the eunuch, the defiler of virgins, who is accused of sins, who injures a friend, the traitor, the Soma-seller, who has superseded his elder brother in marriage, who has abandoned the mother or the father or the preceptor, one who eats the food of the adulterer’s son, the son of a Śūdra, the husband of a girl who had another husband, the thief, one whose conduct is wicked.’

Viṣṇu (82.4-29). — ‘Those who offer sacrifices for many persons, or for village-communities, those who have abandoned the mother, the father, the preceptor, the Fires or Vedic Study, temple-attendants, healers, servants of the king, professional teachers, those taught by professional teachers, those associating with outcasts, those whose behaviour is cat-like (hypocritical), those who quarrel with their father, those in the habit of performing on other days those rites that should he performed on fixed days, informers, astrologers, those supported by food given by Śūdras, those engaged in evil professions.’

Mahābhārata (13.90, 6, etc.). — ‘He who has married before his elder brother, who is suffering from skin-diseases, who violates his preceptor’s bed; the keeper of a gambling house, one who has helped in abortions, the consumptive, who tends cattle, who neglects the great sacrifices, who serves the village, the usurer, the singer, who sells all things, who has burnt houses, the poisoner, who eats the adulterer’s food, the seller of Soma, the palmist, the servant; of the king, who deals in oils, the forgerer, who has separated from his father, he who permits his wife’s paramour to live in the house, who is accused of crimes, the thief, who makes his living by arts and crafts; one who performs on stray days ceremonies laid down as to he performed on specified days, the back-biter, who injures his friend, the adulterer, who teaches persons not keeping the observances, one who makes a living by arms, who wanders about with dogs, and one who has been bitten by a dog.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.17.21). — ‘Who is suffering from leucoderma, bald-headed, adulterer, the son of one who makes a living by arms, one born of a Brāhmaṇa mother and a Śūdra father; — if these are fed at the Śrāddha, they defile the line.’

Atri-Saṃhitā (347-348). — ‘The servant, the tawny, the one-eyed, one suffering from leucoderma, the invalid, whose skin is diseased, one whose hair has fallen off, one suffering from jaundice, one who wears matted locks, who carries loads, who is cruel, who has two wives, who has a Śūdra wife, who foments quarrels and one who causes much suffering.’

Bṛhad- Yama-Smṛti (35, 38). — ‘Possessed of evil features, the eunuch, a heretic, decrier of the Veda, one ever hankering after gifts, who is addicted to begging and is engrossed in objects of sense.’

Prajāpati-Smṛti (84, 90). — ‘The husband of a girl who has had a husband before, the thief, whoso conduct is reprehensible, — these are to be avoided. One’s ancestors fly away if they see a buffalo-keeper at the Śrāddha.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 689). — ‘The man who makes a living for three years by worshipping gods, is called the Devalaka, despised at all offerings to Gods and Pitṛs; he is to be regarded as unfit for company at all functions.’

Kaśyapa (Aparārka, p. 118). — ‘Enemies, those who betray trusts, who are deficient in limbs, astrologers, — these Brāhmaṇas should be avoided at all functions; the one-eyed, the leprous, the eunuch, the skin-less, the hair-less, — these should never be mixed up at Śrāddha, with those versed in the Veda.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 119). — ‘Perjuror, impotent, wife-controlled, dam-piercer, keeper of musical time, professional actor, teacher of false religion, professional beggar, who has incurred the liability of expiatory rites, roguish, foolhardy, fowler, gambler, atheist, back-biter, wicked, etc., etc.’

VERSE 3.151

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

जटिलं चानधीयानं दुर्बालं कितवं तथा ।
याजयन्ति च ये पूगांस्तांश्च श्राद्धे न भोजयेत् ॥१५१॥

jaṭilaṃ cānadhīyānaṃ durbālaṃ kitavaṃ tathā |
yājayanti ca ye pūgāṃstāṃśca śrāddhe na bhojayet ||151||

One should not feed, at a Śrāddha, one with braided hair, who is not learned, one who is hairless, the gambler, and those who sacrifice for hosts. — (151)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘One with braided hair’ — i.e., the Student; this arrangement of the hair has been laid down as an optional alternative for him — ‘he should either shave his head or wear his hair in braids’ (2-219); the ‘braided hair’ is mentioned here only as an indicative of the Student; hence the present verse includes also that student who may have shaved his head. And the student whose feeding is prohibited here is only one who is not studying.

“In view of what has been said above in regard to the propriety of feeding one who is learned in the Veda (128), there can be no possibility of anyone feeding a man who is not studying (why then should his feeding be specially prohibited?)”

The prohibition is necessary, as otherwise one might feed the student who began his study, but did not carry it on and did not learn the Veda.

“But it has been said above (145) that one should feed him who is ‘thoroughly versed in the Veda;’ where, then, could there be any possibility of the admission of one who had only made a beginning of study?”

In that case, we shall take the prohibition as applying to that student who may have read through the Veda, without having made it all his own.

Or, the phrase ‘who is not learned’ may be taken as added to guard against the contingency that, on the strength of what is said (in 3, 234) regarding the propriety of feeding the daughter’s son, even though he he still in the state of studentship, some people might be led to think the only necessary qualification consisted in the person invited being the ‘daughter’s son,’ and ‘learning’ was not an essential condition at all. And when the student1 who is not studying’ becomes precluded, it naturally follows that the student who is studying is entitled to be fed.

‘Durrāla;’ — this term may mean either one whose hair have fallen off, or one who is red-haired, or one who is without hair in his private parts. In this sense, they explain the etymology of the word as follows: — ‘mere grass suffices for his clothing, he is covered by mere grass, having no clothing, ho hides his private parts with mere grass,’

‘Gambler’ — who is addicted to gambling.

‘Who sacrifice for hosts’ — for groups of men. The collective performance of the I Vrātyastoma for a number of Vrātyas has been prescribed: and officiating at such sacrifices has been prohibited under II. 197.

Our explanation, however, is that the phrase applies to one who may sacrifice, even by turns, for many persons: — i.e., who undertakes service as priest very frequently: — such a person also shall not be fed. Says Vaśiṣṭha — ‘He who sacrifices for many men, and he who initiates many persons.’

Some people hold that, since the present verse specifies the‘Śrāddha,’ the interdict herein contained pertains only to rites in honour of the Pitṛs, not to those in honour of the gods.

This, however, is not right. Because the rites in honour of the gods (Viśvedevas) are also a part of the ‘Śrāddha,’ which latter term therefore can be used in connection with these also. — (151)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which adds (on p. 688) the notes that — ‘Jaṭila’ means the

Student, who is qualified by the adjective ‘anadhīyānaḥ’, so that the person precluded is the Student who is not reading, — one who is reading being regarded as fit to be invited, the unreading Student could not be included under the term ‘not learned in the Veda,’ as there is every likelihood of people falling into the mistake that even though not reading, the Student deserves to be invited; — the ‘Durvāla’ is one who is ‘bald’, or ‘tawny-haired’; — the ‘Kitava’ is ‘one addicted to gambling’; — the ‘Pūgayājaka’ is ‘one who sacrifices for hosts.’ — It goes on to add that the addition of the term ‘Śrāddha’ indicates that the persons here enumerated are to be excluded from invitation only at Śrāddhas, and not from the rites performed in honour of the gods; otherwise the addition would be superfluous.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 450), which explains ‘jaṭilam’ as ‘the Brahmacārī,’ and ‘durbāla’ as ‘khalatiḥ;’ — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 480); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

‘Jaṭilam ca anadhīyānam’ — Medhātithi takes ‘anadhīyānam’ as qualifying ‘jaṭilam’, explaining the two together as ‘the Student who is not learned; i.e., who began the study, hut did not complete it’; — Kullūka also takes the two together; but explains ‘anadhīyānam’ as ‘one who has only had his Upanayana performed, but has not been taught the Veda’; and adds that ‘this implies that one may invite that Student who is still studying the Veda, though he may not have mastered it.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.152

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

चिकित्सकान् देवलकान् मांसविक्रयिणस्तथा ।
विपणेन च जीवन्तो वर्ज्याः स्युर्हव्यकव्ययोः ॥१५२॥

cikitsakān devalakān māṃsavikrayiṇastathā |
vipaṇena ca jīvanto varjyāḥ syurhavyakavyayoḥ ||152||

Healers, temple-attendants, meat-sellers and those living by trade, — these should be avoided at rites performed in honour of gods and Pitṛs. — (152)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Healers physicians.

‘Temple-attendants’ — those who attend upon idols.

These two are prohibited only as means of living. Healing and serving idols, when done entirely with a righteous motive (and not as a means of living), are not reprehensible.

‘Meat-sellers’ — Butchers.

If we read these words with the Accusative ending, then they have to be construed with the verb of the preceding verse.

‘Those living by trade’ — i.e., by improper trade; improper merchandise shall be described under Discourse 10, — those who live by such trade.

‘Should be avoided’ — at both kinds of rites.

Meat-selling is reprehensible, even when done with a righteous motive. For instance, when one man has got meat and another man has need for it; — the former man who has got the meat stands in need of butter for oblations; and he exchanges his meat with the other man’s butter; this exchange is done ‘with a righteous motive,’ and exchange also is called ‘selling;’ hence those also become excluded who do such meat-selling, even with a righteous motive. — (152)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which omits the second half of this and the whole of the next verse, though continuing with verse 154; — the whole verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 560); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 480).

Parāśaramādhava (on p. 689) adds the notes that the ‘chikitsaka’ is ‘one who administers medicine either gratuitously or by way of living,’ — this work being specially forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa, — the ‘Devalaka’ is ‘one who, for three years, worships the gods as a means of making money,’ such being the definition provided by a text quoted from Devala, — the ‘Māṃsavikrayī’ intended to be excluded is one who sells meat, even in abnormal times of distress, — because as regards normal times, living by any kind of trade is forbidden by the next phrase, which prohibition does not apply to abnormal times, during which the ‘livelihood of the Vaiśya’ has been permitted for the Brāhmaṇa.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 450), which explains that the ‘Chikitsaka’ means one who makes a living by administering medicines, not one who does it by way of charity; — and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.153

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

प्रेष्यो ग्रामस्य राज्ञश्च कुनखी श्यावदन्तकः ।
प्रतिरोद्धा गुरोश्चैव त्यक्ताग्निर्वार्धुषिस्तथा ॥१५३॥

preṣyo grāmasya rājñaśca kunakhī śyāvadantakaḥ |
pratiroddhā guroścaiva tyaktāgnirvārdhuṣistathā ||153||

The servant of a village and of the king, one with deformed n ails, one with black teeth, the opposer of his superior, one who has forsaken the Fire and the usurer. — (153)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Servant’ — one who carries out orders: one who is sent by the village-people hither and thither, on business.

Similarly, ‘the servant of the king,’ ‘one who hew deformed nail,’ ‘one who has black teeth.’

‘Opposer of his teacher’ — he who, in conversation and other things, remains against and in opposition to his superior.

‘One who has forsaken the Fire’ — i.e., out of the Three Fires and the Domestic Fire, one who has given up even one,

‘Usurer’ — one who, even though he has other menus of living available, lives upon interest. Though ‘Usury’ has been defined as ‘the accumulating of grains by interest,’ yet this definition can be accepted as authoritative only within the limited scope of the subject dealt with by the Smṛti in which it occurs; in fact, grammarians apply the term ‘usurer’ to persons making a living by interest, in connection with things other than grains also: and, in the matter of words and their meanings, grammarians are more authoritative than others; because they make these the subject of careful study. — (153)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

It is interesting to note that this verse is omitted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 687) and Madanapārijāta (p. 560), though both quote the preceding and the following verses. But the former includes it in the explanations given later on (on p. 690), where the term ‘tyaktāgnim’ is explained as ‘one who abandons the Śrauta and Smārta fires without any reason for giving up the compulsory duties,’ — ‘vārdhuṣin’ is explained as ‘one who borrows money at a cheap rate and lends it at a higher rate of interest’

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha p. 9a); — and in Śrāddha-kriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘guroḥ pratiroddhā’ as ‘one who behaves disagreeably to the Teacher,’ and ‘vārdhuṣī’ as ‘one who lives by lending money on interest’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.154

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

यक्ष्मी च पशुपालश्च परिवेत्ता निराकृतिः ।
ब्रह्मद्विष्परिवित्तिश्च गणाभ्यन्तर एव च ॥१५४॥

yakṣmī ca paśupālaśca parivettā nirākṛtiḥ |
brahmadviṣparivittiśca gaṇābhyantara eva ca ||154||

The invalid, the cattle-tender, one who has superseded h is elder brother, he who neglects the Great Sacrifices, one who is inimical to Brāhmaṇas, he who has been superseded by his younger brother, and one who is member of a company. — (154)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘yakṣmī’ stands here for the invalid in general. Some peope take it as standing for one suffering from consumption.

‘Cattle-tender’ — he who, stick in hand, tends cattle as a profession.

‘Nirākṛti,’ ‘who neglects the Great Sacrifices,’ — one who, though entitled to perform the Great Sacrifices, fails, to perform them. Even now-a-days, one who fails to perform the Great Sacrifices, and is, on that account, regarded as incapable of being served,’ is called ‘Nirākṛti.’ Thus we read in the Śatapatha — ‘ one who worships neither gods, nor ancestors nor men.’

Some people quote the definition that — ‘the man devoid of Vedic study, learning and wealth is called Nirākṛti;’ but these people are ignorant of the right meaning of words; because the person mentioned in this definition can have no connection with the present context, which deals exclusively with ‘persons learned in the Veda.’ If the term ‘Nirākṛti’ is taken iii the sense of ‘the derider, Nirākartā, of gods, etc.,’ then there is. some compatibility with the literal signification of the root; and even though the term ends with the abstract affix, ‘ktin,’ and as such is an abstract noun denoting a quality, yet its use in the sense of the person having that quality may be justified on the principle that there is no difference between the quality and one possessing the quality.

Then again, the root in the term ‘Nirākṛti,’ when preceded by ‘ni,’ signifies exclusion: people who are excluded are said to be ‘Nirākṛta;’ as we find in such expressions as ‘Nirākṛta, excluded, from dinner,’ ‘Nirākṛta, excluded, from title,’ and so forth. Thus non-exclusion would be ‘ākrti,’ ‘invitation;’ and one from whom this has been set aside, would be ‘Nirākṛti.’

Further, ‘ākṛti’ also means configuration; the prefix ‘ni’ having the sense of reprehensibilty, the term may be taken as excluding the ill-figured person. It has been declared that (one should feed) ‘one who is endowed with speech, beauty, age and diameter:’ here ‘endowed with speech’ means eloquent, of powerful speech; but the man who is garrulous should not be fed; ‘endowed with beauty’ means having a beautiful body and limbs; ‘endowed with age’ means what Gautama (15.10) has said in regard to ‘the feeding of older men before youths,’

Lastly, the term ‘Nirākṛti’ may be taken as ending in ‘ktich,’ and being a proper name,

‘One who is inimical to Brahman’ — one who hates Brāhmaṇas, or the Veda; the term ‘Brahman’ denoting both (Brāhmaṇa and Veda); when, for instance, it is said that ‘the Brāhmaṇa also is called Brahman.’

‘Company’ — corporation; those, who subsist conjointly upon one means of livelihood, are spoken of by the name ‘com pany;’ and those Brāhmaṇas who are members of such a company.

‘One who has superseded his elder brother’ and ‘one who has been superseded by his younger brother’ — these are going to be described later on. — (154)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Yakṣmī’ — ‘Invalid in general, or (according to ‘others’) one suffering from consumption’ (Medhātithi, who has favoured the latter explanation on p. 159 of the text).

‘Nirākṛtiḥ’ — ‘One who omits the Great Sacrifices, even though entitled to their performance’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘one who forsakes the Vedas’ (Govindarāja); — ‘one who does not recite the Veda, or has forgotten it’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

‘Gaṇābhyantaraḥ’ — ‘A member of a corporation of men subsisting conjointly upon one means of livelihood’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘the headman of a village, or leader of a caravan’ (added by Nārāyaṇa); — ‘one who misappropriates the money of a corporation’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 560), which explains ‘paśupālaḥ’ as ‘one who tends cattle as a means of living’, — ‘Nirākṛtiḥ’ as ‘atheist,’ — and ‘gaṇābhyantaraḥ’ as ‘a Brāhmaṇa who is a member of a Maṭha, a religious corporation.’

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which adds (on p. 690) the following notes: — The ‘yakṣmī’ is the ‘consumptive’; — the ‘cattle-tender’ meant to be excluded is one who does the work even in normal times, — the ‘parivettā’ is the younger brother who takes a wife or sets up the fire, before his elder brother; and ‘Parivitti’ is the elder brother thus superseded, — the ‘elder brother’ here meant being the ‘uterine brother’, as there is nothing wrong in the ‘superseding’ of other kinds of brothers; though, under certain circumstances, the ‘superseding’ of the elder uterine brother also is not considered wrong; e. g., when the brother happens to be impotent, or away in foreign lands, or become an outcaste, or turn an ascetic, or entirely given to yogic practices, and as such has renounced the world, and so forth; — the ‘nirākṛti’ is one who, having read the Veda, has forgotten it’; — and the ‘gaṇābhyantara’ is ‘one who is a member of a group of men belonging to various castes and engaged in uncertain ways of living.’

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США