with the Commentary of Medhatithi 90 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 96 из 350Следующая ⇒

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481); — and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘yakṣmī’ as ‘one suffering from consumption’ and ‘nirākṛtiḥ’ as ‘one who does not perform the Five Daily Sacrifices,’ — and ‘gaṇābhyantaraḥ’ as ‘one who makes a living by a temple dedicated to the public.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.155

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

कुशीलवोऽवकीर्णी च वृषलीपतिरेव च ।
पौनर्भवश्च काणश्च यस्य चौपपतिर्गृहे ॥१५५॥

kuśīlavo'vakīrṇī ca vṛṣalīpatireva ca |
paunarbhavaśca kāṇaśca yasya caupapatirgṛhe ||155||

An actor, one who has broken the vows of continence, the husband of a Śūdra woman, the son of a re-married woman, one who has only one eye, and he in whose house lives the paramour. — (155)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Bards, dramatic performers, dancers and singers are called ‘actors.’

‘One who has broken the vows of continence’ — necessary for the student.

The term ‘vṛṣalī’ stands for the śūdra woman; her ‘husband.’ People think that this refers to a case where there is no other wife; the meaning being ‘he who is the husband of the Śūdra woman alone, he who has no wife of any twice-born caste.’

“Whence is this sense got at?”

In another connection, we find a recapitulation of reprehensible practices, where we read — ‘these are men addicted to reprehensible practices’ (167); the mere marrying of a Śūdra woman, which is sanctioned by all, is not ‘reprehensible;’ but it has been sanctioned only for one who has already married a wife of the same caste as himself. Hence, what is excluded here is that husband of the Śūdra woman who has no wife of the same caste as himself.

‘The son of a re-married woman;’ — ‘punarbhūḥ’ is the remarried woman; described under Discourse 9, in the verse ‘she who has been abandoned by her husband, etc.’ (9.175).

‘Who has only one eye’ — whose one eye is maimed.

‘He in whose house lives the paramour,’ — i.e., the paramour of his lawfully wedded wife. Such a man is despised by reason of his tolerating such a thing. It is said below (8.317) — ‘The abortionist transmits bis guilt to him who feeds him, and the misbehaved wife transmits hers to her husband.’ — (155)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which (on p. 693) adds the following notes: — ‘Kuśīlava’ stands for ‘singers and others,’ — ‘Vṛṣalīpati’ is ‘the husband of a girl who attained puberty before marriage;’ — that person also is to be excluded in whose house a paramour of his wife’s lives constantly; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481); — and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘Kuśīlavaḥ’ as ‘dancer’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.156

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

भृतकाध्यापको यश्च भृतकाध्यापितस्तथा ।
शूद्रशिष्यो गुरुश्चैव वाग्दुष्टः कुण्डगोलकौ ॥१५६॥

bhṛtakādhyāpako yaśca bhṛtakādhyāpitastathā |
śūdraśiṣyo guruścaiva vāgduṣṭaḥ kuṇḍagolakau ||156||

One who teaches for a stipulated fee, he who is taught by one who teaches for a stipulated fee, the pupil and also the teacher of a Śūdra, one who is reprehensible in speech, the son of an adulteress and the son of a widow. — (156)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘One who teaches for a stipulated fee’ — one who teaches only while be is engaged on a fee; one who undertakes the work of teaching after having made the stipulation that ‘if you pay me so much, I shall teach you the Veda,’ is called ‘one who teaches for a stipulated fee.’ Such is the form of payment known among bearers and others. If, however, without having verbally stipulated that one would receive a certain amount of money, one does the work of teaching and receives payment afterwards, then such a teacher is not ‘one who teaches for a stipulated fee.’ In fact, teaching in return for payment of an amount not previously stipulated, has been actually sanctioned.

Similarly, ‘one who is taught by one who teaches for a stipulated fee;’ this is the name given to one who himself, like Satyakāma, pays a stipulated fee and then reads with the teacher. The boy, however, who, in the absence of any other teacher, is put by his father and others under the tuition of one who is paid a stipulated fee, is not regarded as ‘of reprehensible practice.’ Because it is for the father to save the boy from all that is prohibited. It has been declared (in 8.317) — ‘The pupil and the sacrificer transmit their guilt to the Teacher.’

‘The pupil of a Śūdra’ — in the learning of Grammar and other Sciences.

‘Teacher’ — of the Śūdra, Though the term ‘śūdra,’ forms the subordinate factor in the compound ‘śūdraśiṣya,’ yet it is construed with the following word; such construction being permissible in works on Smṛti. Then again, the condition of being ‘reprehensible practice’ is a qualification that governs all that is said here, and it is only the teaching of the Śūdra. that is reprehensible, not the teaching of any other higher caste.

‘Reprehensible in speech’ — i.e., rude and untruthful of speech. Others explain this to mean ‘one who is accused of a serious offence.’

‘The son of an adulteress and the son of a widow’ — to be described later on (174), — (156).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vāgduṣṭaḥ’ — ‘who speaks rudely and falsely’ (Medhātithi); — ‘who speaks rudely’ (Kullūka); — ‘one who is accused of a serious offence’ (‘others’ mentioned by Medhātithi, and Kullūka.)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which (on p. 693) adds that ‘vāgduṣṭa’ is ‘one of rude speech’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481); — in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘guruḥ’ as ‘preceptor of the Śūdra,’ and ‘vāgduṣṭaḥ’ as ‘of harsh speech’; — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.157

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

अकारणे परित्यक्ता मातापित्रोर्गुरोस्तथा ।
ब्राह्मैर्यौनैश्च सम्बन्धैः संयोगं पतितैर्गतः ॥१५७॥

akāraṇe parityaktā mātāpitrorgurostathā |
brāhmairyaunaiśca sambandhaiḥ saṃyogaṃ patitairgataḥ ||157||

The forsaker, without cause, of his mother, father and superior; and he who has formed a connection, through the relationship of either Veda or marriage, with outcasts. — (157)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He who, in the absence of any cause, forsakes his Mother, Father and Preceptor. The term ‘guru,’ ‘superior’ here being used in its general sense, includes the Teacher also.

Some people argue that — “in that case (if ‘guru ’ stands for the superior in general), the Father and the Mother need not have been mentioned, these also being included under the term ‘guru; for this reason, this term ‘guru’ should be taken as standing for the Preceptor only.”

This, however, is not right. If the ‘father’ and ‘mother’ wore not specifically mentioned, then the term ‘superior’ would stand for the father only, by the law of the ‘natural and artificial’ [i.e., where both are possible, the natural one is to be given the preference, and the Father is the natural superior, while the Teacher is only an artificial one]. When, however, these two are mentioned separately, then it becomes clear that the term ‘superior’ has been used in its most general sense; specially in view of what other scriptures have said regarding the Teacher being ‘the best of superiors.’

Reasons for forsaking these superiors are such as are mentioned in the text — ‘one should forsake one’s father, if one has injured the king,’ and so forth.

The ‘forsaking’ of one’s parents means omitting to wash and shampoo their feet and to do such other services, i.e., being inattentive to their service. Similarly, with the Teacher, in whose case going for study to another teacher, while one’s teacher is capable of teaching one, also constitutes ‘forsaking.’

‘Who has formed connection with outcasts’ — i.e., established relationship with them.

‘Through the Veda’ — i.e., by officiating at their sacrifices, by teaching them, and so forth.

‘Through marriage,’ — i.e., by giving his daughter in marriage to them, and so forth.

“The man who forms such connection, would himself become an outcast; and it would he as an outcast himself that he would be avoided at rites.”

In answer to this, some people say, in view of what is said below (290) regarding a man becoming an1 outcast’ by associating with outcasts for one gear, that the present prohibition should be taken as pertaining to the time before the lapse of the twelve months.

“What is this peculiar form of expression — formed a connection through relationship?’”

As a matter of fact, the term ‘samyoga,’ ‘connection’ is not used here in the sense of ‘conjunction,’ according to the usage of the Vaiśeṣikas; it is the act itself that is called ‘connection,’ by reason of its being the cause of connection. In connection with the acts of ‘officiating at sacrifices’ and the like, the term ‘connection’ indicates and stands for mere relationship in general. — (157)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Guroḥ’ — ‘The Upādhyāya’, Sub-teacher (Medhātithi); — ‘the Ācārya Teacher (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which (on p. 693) adds that the person meant to be excluded by the second half of the verse is the person who contracts the said alliances with one associating with a person who has committed a heinous crime, — and not with the latter person himself, as such a relation of the ‘heinous criminal’ would be an ‘outcaste’ himself, and hence liable to be excluded as such; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.158

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

अगारदाही गरदः कुण्डाशी सोमविक्रयी ।
समुद्रयायी बन्दी च तैलिकः कूटकारकः ॥१५८॥

agāradāhī garadaḥ kuṇḍāśī somavikrayī |
samudrayāyī bandī ca tailikaḥ kūṭakārakaḥ ||158||

The house-burner, the poisoner, one who eats the food of an adulteress’ son, the seller of Soma, the sea-voyager, the bard, the dealer in oils, and the perjuror. — (158)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The burner of houses.

‘Garada’ — one who gives to others the gara-poison; the mention of ‘gara’ is merely indicative; it includes all kinds of poison.

He who eats the food of the adulteress’ son; similarly, he who eats the food of the widow’s son; the former being meant to be purely indicative.

He who sells Soma; ‘Soma’ is a particular kind of herb; he who sells this herb, for use either at sacrifices or for medicine.

Others have explained the term ‘Soma’ (in the expression ‘seller of Soma’) to mean the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices performed with the Soma. Though the actual ‘selling’of these sacrifices is not possible, — because an act is purely incorporeal, — yet, as a matter of fact, the practice of ‘selling’ sacrifices is found to be current among illiterate people; hence the present prohibition. Illiterate people are found making such assertions in oath as — (a) ‘whatever good I have done, may be yours’ (where they mean to transfer the merit acquired by their good deeds), and (b) ‘that night in which you were born and that in which you are dying, leaving these two, all your charities and performances, all your good deeds, your life and offspring I might destroy, if they injure me’ (An oath). And just as they make use of such oaths, so also they practice the Giving and Selling (of acts) by means of words; and he who does this, is avoided (at Śrāddha -feedings). It is from this that we infer the impropriety of uttering such oaths and the doing of such verbal givings and sellings.

‘Sea-voyager’ — one who goes out to the sea.

‘Bard’ — one who sings the eulogia of men.

‘Dealer in oils’ — one who presses sesamum and other oilseeds.

‘Perjuror’ — one who tells a lie when giving evidence. — (158).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Agāradāhī’ — ‘An incendiary; as also (according to Nandana) one who burns corpses for money’.

‘Kuṇḍāśī’ — ‘One who eats the food of the son of an adultress’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka) ‘the glutton who eats sixty palas of rice’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Kūtakārakaḥ’ — ‘The perjuring witness’ (Medhātithi, Rāghavānanda and also Kullūka, whose explanation does not differ from Medhātithi’s as noted by Buhler); — Medhātithi explains the word as ‘Sākṣyeṣvanṛtavādī,’ and Kullūka as ‘Sākṣivāde mṛṣāvādasya-kartā’; — ‘any one who commits fraud, i.e. a forger, a falsifier of weights and measures’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687) without any comment; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.159

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

पित्रा विवदमानश्च कितवो मद्यपस्तथा ।
पापरोग्यभिशस्तश्च दाम्भिको रसविक्रयी ॥१५९॥

pitrā vivadamānaśca kitavo madyapastathā |
pāparogyabhiśastaśca dāmbhiko rasavikrayī ||159||

One quarrelling with one’s father, the keeper of a gambling house, the drunkard, one afflicted with a foul disease, one accused of sins, the hypocrite, and the dealer in essence. — (159)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He who quarrels with his father; i.e., talks rudely to him; and goes to court against him as party to a suit instituted for partition. Says Gautama (15-19) — ‘Those who separate from their Father, without reason.’

Why should this be asserted here, which appears to be a repetition of what has been mentioned above (153) as the ‘opposer of his Teacher’?”

Opposing is one thing, and quarrelling is something different. When the superior wants a certain thing, if one were to say rudely, ‘How can this be got!,’ — this is ‘opposing;’ so that one is an ‘opposer, by obstructing his acquisition of a thing that belongs to him. Further, under 153 ‘pratirāddhā’ is another reading (for ‘pratiroddhā’), which means ‘doing direct injury,’ i.e., striking the superior with slaps, &c. And with this reading what has gone before (in 153) is clearly different from the ‘quarrelling’ mentioned here.

‘Keeper of a gambling house’ — the gamester who makes other people gamble; he who is himself a gambler has been already excluded before (in 151),

Some people read ‘Kekara’ (for ‘Kitava’), reading the text as ‘Kekaro madyapastathā;’ and ‘Kekara’ is the man with a squint.

Others, again, read ‘Kātara,’ which means ‘one, the pupils in whose eyes are like the parrot’s feather, green.’

‘Drunkard’ — one who drinks wines of kinds other than the ‘Surā’ (wine distilled from grains); such, for instance, as the ‘Ariṣṭa,’ and the like; — the drinker of ‘Surā’ being already precluded as an ‘outcast.’

‘One afflicted with a fold disease’ — i.e., the leper; he being very much despised among people, it is only right that he should be spoken of as ‘afflicted with a foul disease.’

It is on account of the present prohibition that the term yakṣmi (in 154) has been taken (by some people) not as the ‘invalid’ in general, but one who is suffering from consumption; if the ‘invalid’ in general were meant, then all invalids being included there, the author would not have mentioned ‘one afflicted with a foul disease’ in this verse.

‘Accused of sins.’ — one who is known among people as having committed sins, great and small; even without its being known for a certain.

‘Hypocrite.’ — one who deceitfully performs religious acts, with a view to gaining popularity, not because he thinks it his duty to do so.

‘Dealer in essence.’ — i.e., the seller of poison; it is poison that is called ‘Essence.’ In several places, we find the poisoner spoken of as ‘rasadaḥ’ ‘giver of essence — (159)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kitavaḥ’ — ‘The keeper of a gambling house’ (Medhātithi); — ‘one who makes others play for himself’ (Govinda-

Medhātithi and Kullūka note the other reading ‘Keka raḥ’, explaining it as ‘squint-eyed’, and connecting it with the ‘drunkard.’

The translation on p. 183, ll. 1-3 should run as follows, and not as printed: — “Some people read ‘Kekaraḥ’ for ‘kitavaḥ’ and make it qualify ‘madyapaḥ’; the ‘kekara’ is ‘the man with a squint’.

‘Kātaraḥ’ is yet another reading noted by Medhātithi, who explains it as ‘one, the pupils in whose eyes are like the parrot’s feather, green’.

‘Rasavikrayī’ — ‘One who sells poison’ (Medhātithi); — ‘one who sells substances used for flavouring food, e.g., sugarcane-juice and the like’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘the seller of molasses’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 087), which reads ‘Kekaraḥ’ and explains it as ‘squint-eyed’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha p. 9); — and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘kitavaḥ’ as ‘gambler’, and ‘rasavikrayī’ as ‘dealer in salt and such other articles’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.160

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

धनुःशराणां कर्ता च यश्चाग्रेदिधिषूपतिः ।
मित्रध्रुग् द्यूतवृत्तिश्च पुत्राचार्यस्तथैव च ॥१६०॥

dhanuḥśarāṇāṃ kartā ca yaścāgredidhiṣūpatiḥ |
mitradhrug dyūtavṛttiśca putrācāryastathaiva ca ||160||

The maker of bows and arrows, he whose wife dallies with another person and he who makes love to his brother’s widow, he who injures a friend, he who subsists by gambling and he who has his own son for his teacher. — (160)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He who, as a professional artisan, makes bows and arrows.

‘Agredidhiṣūpatiḥ;’ — the term ‘didhiṣū’ is connected both ways, like the single eye-ball of the crow operating in both sockets. Such a construction is permissible, because the text belongs to the category of a ‘snmṛti-śātra.’ Even (meaningless) lines and clods of earth are made to yield some meaning, in consideration of the requirements of Smṛtis; and they come out useful too. For this reason, the objection need not be raised as to how a single term occurring in the middle of a compound can be construed with two different terms. In fact. Gautama (15.16) has expressly prohibited both (The ‘agredidhiṣū’ and the ‘didhiṣūpati’), and this indicates the plausibility of the above construction; and the compound really contains two terms. Further, there is no such person as ‘agredidhiṣūpati.’ The definition of these two (‘agredidhiṣū and didhiṣūpatī’) will he supplied later on.

‘Who injures a friend’ — who puts obstacles in a friend’s business.

‘Who subsists by gambling’ — The man for whom gambling is the means of subsistence.

“Such a person has already been mentioned in the preceding verse.”

But the person who helps people to gamble (The ‘keeper of a gambling house, mentioned before) is not necessarily one who makes a living by it; in fact, it is one who himself does not know gambling, or who does not do it through fear of his elders; hut, being addicted to it as an amusement, he always makes others gamble; and it is for excluding this kind of man that we had the second ‘Kitava’ (in the preceding verse; the word ‘Kitava’ having been first included in verse 151).

Or, the term ‘dyūtavṛtti’ may stand for those who, without any money themselves, are constant dummy visitors at gambling places.

He whose son is his teacher; it is not possible for the son to be his father’s ‘ācārya’ in the real sense of this term. — (160)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Agredidhiṣūpatiḥ’ — According to Medhātithi, this means (a) the ‘Didhiṣūpati’, i.e., one who makes love to his brother’s widow (according to 173 below) — and also (b) the ‘Agredidhisū’, i.e., the man whose wife dallies with another person (according to definition quoted by Medhātithi on 173). This interpretation is supported by Manu 3.173 (read with Prajāpati, quoted by Maskari Bhāṣya on Gautama sūtra 15.16), which adds to Manu 173, the further assertion saṃ caiva jīvato bhrātuḥ sa cāgredidhiṣūḥ samṛtaḥ, which would apply the name agredidhiṣū to that man whose wife dallies with his younger brother, during his own life-time. It may be remarked that Gautama (15.16) contains the compound agredidhiṣūpatididhiṣūpati; and it has been construed by the Maskari-bhāṣya to mean agredidhiṣū and didhiṣūpati (thus supporting Medhātithi); or (1) agredidhiṣūpati (husband of a girl who is married before her elder sister) and didhiṣūpati (husband of a girl whose younger sister is married before her).

Medhātithi does not resolve the compound, as Buhler puts it, into ‘agredidhiṣūpati’ and ‘didhiṣūpati’; in fact he actually denies that there is any such person as ‘agredidhiṣūpati’; — though it is difficult to see how this statement here by Medhātithi is to he reconciled with what he says under verse 173 below, that ‘the definition of Agredidhiṣūpati should be learnt from another Smṛti’, — and this definition is quoted as ‘if the brother is alive, the man is to be known as Agredidhiṣūpati; so that the Didhiṣūpati is the man making love to his dead brother’s wife’ (according to Manu 3.173), while Agredidhiṣūpati is one whose wife dallies with his younger brother during his own life-time.

Kullūka quotes Laugākṣi to the effect that ‘when the younger sister is married while the elder is still unmarried, the former is the Agredidhiṣū and the latter the didhiṣū’; and on the strength of this he would exclude ‘the husband of the younger sister marrying before her elder sister. But as rightly remarked by Buhler, this definition of Laugākṣi cannot be accepted in the interpretation of Manu who has himself (in verse 173) provided a totally different definition. It is interesting to note that the Maskaribhāṣya on Gautama (15.16) attributes to Manu the definition quoted by Kullūka as Laugākṣi’s.

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, which quotes this text of Manu on p. 688, and explains it on p. 693) cites the verse quoted by Kullūka (from Laugākṣi), but attributes it to Devala, and explains the term ‘agredidhiṣūpati’ in the same manner as Kullūka.

‘Dyūtavṛttiḥ’ — ‘He who makes a living by gambling’ (Medhātithi, who does not explain the term to mean ‘one who makes others play for his profit’; also Nārāyaṇa and Nandana); — ‘the keeper of a gambling-house’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

‘Putrācāryaḥ’ is explained in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 694) as ‘akṣarapāṭhakaḥ’ the teacher of alphabets. So the status of the Primary School Teacher of ancient days was no better than that of their representatives at the present day!

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.161

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

भ्रामरी गन्डमाली च श्वित्र्यथो पिशुनस्तथा ।
उन्मत्तोऽन्धश्च वर्ज्याः स्युर्वेदनिन्दक एव च ॥१६१॥

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности