with the Commentary of Medhatithi 91 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 97 из 350Следующая ⇒

bhrāmarī ganḍamālī ca śvitryatho piśunastathā |
unmatto'ndhaśca varjyāḥ syurvedanindaka eva ca ||161||

An epileptic, one having a string of scrofulous swellings, one who suffers from leucoderma, the backbiter, the lunatic, the blind man, and the derider of the Veda — all these should be avoided. — (161)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The words here used signify particular diseases.

‘Bhrāmarī’ — is an epileptic.

‘Gaṇḍamāti’ — on whose cheeks and throat there appear swellings in the form of a string.

‘Śvitra’ — is white leprosy, leucoderma.

‘Piśuna,’ ‘backbiter,’ is one who betrays other people’s secrets, and accuses them on the sly.

‘Lunatic’ — whose mind is unsettled, either when there is derangement of his humours or when he is obssessed by a ghost, and he says and does things at random.

‘Blind man’ — who is without eyes.

‘Derider of the Veda’ — “The derider of the Veda has been already mentioned before by the term ‘brahmadviṭ’ ‘who is inimical to Brahman,’ where the term ‘brahman’ has been explained as having several meanings (signifying the Brāhmaṇa as well as the Veda).”

Not so; deriding is something totally different from being inimical; being inimical is a property of the mind, while deriding is speaking ill, of one by words expressing disregard. — (161)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688), and on p. 694, the term ‘bhrāmarī’ is explained as ‘vṛttyarthameva bhramaravat arthārjakaḥ,’ ‘one who, for his living, picks up wealth from here, there and everywhere, like the black bee’; — 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 3.162

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

हस्तिगोऽश्वौष्ट्रदमको नक्षत्रैर्यश्च जीवति ।
पक्षिणां पोषको यश्च युद्धाचार्यस्तथैव च ॥१६२॥

hastigo'śvauṣṭradamako nakṣatrairyaśca jīvati |
pakṣiṇāṃ poṣako yaśca yuddhācāryastathaiva ca ||162||

The tamer of elephants, bulls, horses or camels, one who subsists on stars, bird-keeper and the teacher of warfare. — (162)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘One who trains elephants,’ etc., is called their ‘tamer,’ he who trains them in various gaits.

‘One who subsists on stars,’ — the term ‘stars’ stands for the science of Astrology; and he who lives by that is the astrologer.

The keeper of birds, — he who keeps them for the purposes of chase.

‘Teacher of warfare’ — one who teaches the science of archery. — (162)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted without comment in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688); — 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 3.163

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

स्रोतसां भेदको यश्च तेषां चावरणे रतः ।
गृहसंवेशको दूतो वृक्षारोपक एव च ॥१६३॥

srotasāṃ bhedako yaśca teṣāṃ cāvaraṇe rataḥ |
gṛhasaṃveśako dūto vṛkṣāropaka eva ca ||163||

He who diverts water-courses, he who is addicted to obstructing them, the house-planner, the messenger and

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Water-courses’ — the sources of water; — ‘he who diverts’ these; i.e., having cut the embankments, takes the water to irrigate his field, &c.

‘He who is addicted to obstructing them’ — i.e, the water-courses.

‘Obstructing’ means covering up; hence the meaning is that‘he who closes the source from which the water flows.’

The person who advises regarding the position of houses; — one who lives by the science of architecture; i.e., the architect, the mason, and so forth. One who plans his own houses is not meant here.

‘Messenger,’ — the king’s servant; who is employed by him as a slave. He is one who is employed in business relating to peace and war.

He who plants trees for payment. Planting them as a righteous act is not reprehensible; because such an act would not be ‘reprehensible practice;’ in fact, the planting of trees has been actually enjoined, as we learn from such assertions as‘he who has planted ten mango-trees goes not to hell.’ — (163)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688), which explains (on p. 694) ‘gṛhasaṃveśakaḥ’ as ‘one who makes a living by carpentry’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 482); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.164

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

श्वक्रीडी श्येनजीवी च कन्यादूषक एव च ।
हिंस्रो वृषलवृत्तिश्च गणानां चैव याजकः ॥१६४॥

śvakrīḍī śyenajīvī ca kanyādūṣaka eva ca |
hiṃsro vṛṣalavṛttiśca gaṇānāṃ caiva yājakaḥ ||164||

He who sports with dogs, the falconer, the defiler of virgins, the cruel man, he who derives his subsistence from Śūdras, and he who sacrifices to the Gaṇas. — (164)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He who sports with dogs’ — i.e., keeps dogs for sporting purposes.

‘Falconer’ — he who lives on falcons, — i.e, by baying and selling them. The ‘bird-keeper’ mentioned before (162) is one who keeps them in cages.

He who makes a virgin cease to be a virgin is called ‘the defiler of virgins.’

The ‘cruel man’ is one who takes delight in killing animals.

He who derives subsistence from serving the Śūdras.

‘Vṛṣalaputraḥ’ is another reading (for ‘vṛṣalavṛttiḥ’), which means ‘he who has only Śūdra children;’ ‘having only Śūdra children’ being a ‘reprehensible act.’

He who sacrifices to the deities called ‘gaṇas.’ ‘Gaṇayāgas’ are well known. — (164)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Gaṇānām-yājakaḥ’ — ‘One who sacrifices to the gods; i.e., he who performs the well known Gaṇayāgas,’ (Medhātithi); — ‘one who sacrifices for a group of men or friends’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Ācāra, p. 688) without comment; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 482).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.165

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

आचारहीनः क्लीबश्च नित्यं याचनकस्तथा ।
कृषिजीवी श्लीपदी च सद्भिर्निन्दित एव च ॥१६५॥

ācārahīnaḥ klībaśca nityaṃ yācanakastathā |
kṛṣijīvī ślīpadī ca sadbhirnindita eva ca ||165||

One devoid of right conduct, the man without vigour, the constant beggar, he who lives by agriculture, one suffering from elephantiasis, and he who is spoken ill of by good men. — (165)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Right conduct’ stands here for the ordinary acts of courtesy, such as offering worship to persons coming to one’s house, and so forth; — he who is devoid of this.

‘Without vigour’ — i.e., with very little energy; who has lost all enthusiasm for doing his duties.

‘Constant beggar’ — one who is always begging, he who teases people by his begging; it is in the very nature of things that begging should displease the person bagged from. The term ‘yācanakaḥ’ is formed with the ‘yu’ affix, according to Pāṇini 3.1.134, and then the reflexive ‘ka’ added to it.

‘He who lives by agriculture’ — by doing the cultivating himself; or even by the cultivating done by others, if other means of living are available.

‘One suffering form elephantiasis’ — whose one leg is thicker than the other,

‘He who is spoken ill of by good men’ — the unfortunate man, who is despised by good men, even without doing anything wrong. — (165)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted without comment in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 482); — and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.166

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

अउरभ्रिको माहिषिकः परपूर्वापतिस्तथा ।
प्रेतनिर्यापकश्चैव वर्जनीयाः प्रयत्नतः ॥१६६॥

aurabhriko māhiṣikaḥ parapūrvāpatistathā |
pretaniryāpakaścaiva varjanīyāḥ prayatnataḥ ||166||

The sheep-dealer, the buffalo-keeper, the husband of a woman who had another previous husband, the carrier of the dead — all these should be avoided with care. — (166)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Urabhra’ is sheep; one who ‘deals’ in these, — i.e., carries on the business of buying and selling them; it may also mean ‘one whose chief wealth consists in sheep.’

Similarly, the ‘buffalo-keeper.’

‘He who has had another man for her former husband;’ — the husband of such a one; i.e., one who marries again the woman who has been previously given to — or married by — another man; he who ‘again’ (punaḥ) ‘becomes’ (bhavati) the husband; such a husband is called ‘paunarbhava’ by the scriptures.

He who carries the dead — i.e., carries the dead bodies.

These ‘should be avoided with care’ — (166).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688), which (on p. 694) explains ‘Aurabhrikaḥ’ as ‘one who keeps sheep as a means of livelihood’, — and māhiṣikaḥ’ as meaning either (a) ‘one who keeps buffaloes’, or (b) ‘the son of an unchaste woman’, — this latter explanation being based upon a text quoted from Devala, — ‘An unchaste wife is called Māhiṣī; the son born of her is called Māhiṣikaḥ,’ — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 484); — and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘pretaniryātakaḥ’ as ‘one who carries dead bodies on payment of wages’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.150.

VERSE 3.167

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

एतान् विगर्हिताचारानपाङ्क्तेयान् द्विजाधमान् ।
द्विजातिप्रवरो विद्वानुभयत्र विवर्जयेत् ॥१६७॥

etān vigarhitācārānapāṅkteyān dvijādhamān |
dvijātipravaro vidvānubhayatra vivarjayet ||167||

The learned Brāhmaṇa should avoid at both (rites) these l owest of twice-born men, who are of reprehensible conduct and who are unworthy of company. — (167)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

These men, whose ‘conduct’ — line of action — is ‘reprehensible.’ The ‘blind’ and the rest having their previous misconduct indicated by these disabilities; while the ‘thief,’ etc., have their misconduct actually perceptible in the present.

‘At both’ — rites for gods and pitṛs.

‘Should avoid’ — should exclude.

‘Unworthy of company’ — i.e., they do not deserve company. The ‘ḍhak’ affix denoting presence. Absence from company indicates unworthiness. That is, he does not deserve to eat in the company of other Brāhmaṇas. It is for this reason that such persons have been called ‘defilers of company;’ the meaning being that those who sit at dinner with them become defiled. — (167)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688) and (on p. 694) explains ‘ubhayatrāpi varjayet’ as ‘a11 these men are to be excluded from both kinds of rites — those in honour of the Gods as well as those in honour of the Pitṛs’; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 482).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bṛhad- Yama-Smṛti (37, 38). — ‘These should be avoided at Śrāddhas and at gifts; these should be avoided with great care — so Yama has declared.’

Viṣṇu (82.30). — ‘These have been declared to be low Brāhmaṇas, defilers of the line; the wise man should avoid them with great care at the performance of Śrāddha.’

VERSE 3.168

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

ब्राह्मणो त्वनधीयानस्तृणाग्निरिव शाम्यति ।
तस्मै हव्यं न दातव्यं न हि भस्मनि हूयते ॥१६८॥

brāhmaṇo tvanadhīyānastṛṇāgniriva śāmyati |
tasmai havyaṃ na dātavyaṃ na hi bhasmani hūyate ||168||

The unlearned Brāhmaṇa becomes quenched in the same manner as the fire of dry grass. The sacrificial offering should not be presented to him; as no libation is poured upon ashes. — (168)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is re-iterated in the present verse, in order to indicate that, just as the thief and the rest are ‘defilers of the company,’ so equally blameworthy is the unlearned Brāhmaṇa also.

Others offer the following explanation: — The present verse is intended to indicate the occasional admissibility, to the offerings for gods, of such blind and other disabled, but learned, Brāhmaṇas as happen, at some particular time, to be free from any reprehensible practice; the sense of the text being — ‘The unlearned Brāhmaṇa should be avoided, but why should not the offering be not presented to one who is learned?’ It is for this reason that the text mentions the ‘offering for gods’ So that what is meant is that, at the offering to gods, it is only the unlearned Brāhmaṇa that should be excluded, while those whose practices are reprehensible, and are on that account distinctly debarred by a direct prohibition, should be excluded from both the offering to gods and that to pitṛs, — and only from that to ancestors. Vaśiṣṭha has said: ‘If a person learned in the Veda happen to be stigmatised by such bodily defects as are regarded as defiling the company, such a person Yama declares to be unblameworthy; in fact, such a person is a sanctifier of the company.’

‘Becomes quenched in the same manner as the fire of dry grass;’ — The fire of dry grass cannot cook the sacrificial offerings, and it becomes quenched as soon as the offering is thrown into it, and also becomes extinguished; anything offered into it does not become burnt to ashes; and hence such an offering becomes futile; since it has been laid down that ‘one should not pour libations into fire that is not burning brightly, the fire embodies all deities;’ — exactly of the same nature as the fire of dry grass is the unlearned Brāhmaṇa. This is what the text means by the words ‘As no libations are poured on ashes;’ just as the fire of dry gross becomes turned into ash before (burning the offerings), and people do not pour libations into such fire, similarly, the unlearned Brahman is not fed. — (168)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi is misrepresented by Buhler, who says that “according to Medhātithi the object of this verse is to admit virtuous and learned men, afflicted with bodily defects, as guests at rites in honour of the gods.” As a matter of fact, this explanation is adduced by Medhātithi as given by ‘others’; its meaning, given by himself being that ‘just as the thief and the rest are defilers of company, so equally blameworthy is the unlearned Brāhmaṇa also’, — exactly as Kullūka explains the verse.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 465); — and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 41).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (13.90.46). — [Reproduces Manu, reading ‘śrāddham’ for ‘havyam.’]

Mahābhārata (13.90.46). — ‘Just as a butter-oblation that is poured in extinguished fire reaches neither the Gods nor the Pitṛs, so also what is given to the dancer or the singer.’

VERSE 3.169

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

अपाङ्क्तदाने यो दातुर्भवत्यूर्ध्वं फलौदयः ।
दैवे हविषि पित्र्ये वा तं प्रवक्ष्याम्यशेषतः ॥१६९॥

apāṅktadāne yo dāturbhavatyūrdhvaṃ phalaudayaḥ |
daive haviṣi pitrye vā taṃ pravakṣyāmyaśeṣataḥ ||169||

I am going to describe fully the results that afterwards accrue to the giver from giving, out of the offering to gods and to Pitṛs, to one who is unworthy of the line. — (169)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author states the result of the prohibitive injunction just put forward.

‘Paṅktya’ means ‘those who are worthy of the line; — those who are not so, are ‘apaṅktya;’ the ‘yat’ affix being added by virtue of the term ‘paṅkti’ occurring in the ‘daṇḍādi’ group.

The results that accrue, from giving to such persons, to the giver, — all that I am going to describe; do listen with attention. — (169)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.169-170)

Mahābhārata (13.90, 11). — ‘O Yudhiṣṭhira, that offering to the gods which is eaten by the twice-born men ‘unfit for company’ goes to the Rākṣasas; so say the teachers of the Veda.’

VERSE 3.170

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

अव्रतैर्यद् द्विजैर्भुक्तं परिवेत्र्यादिभिस्तथा ।
अपाङ्क्तेयैर्यदन्यैश्च तद् वै रक्षांसि भुञ्जते ॥१७०॥

avratairyad dvijairbhuktaṃ parivetryādibhistathā |
apāṅkteyairyadanyaiśca tad vai rakṣāṃsi bhuñjate ||170||

Demons indeed consume the food that is eaten by Brāhmaṇas deviod of self-restraint, by such as those who have superseded their elder brother and the like, or by others that are unworthy of company. — (170)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Devoid of self-restraint’ — uncontrolled; whose practices are not controlled by the scriptures.

‘Those who have superseded their elder brother,’ and the like, are, in fact, outside the pale of the scriptures; yet they have been mentioned here with a view to differentiate them from others, and also to indicate the gravity of their offence.

‘Others that are unworthy of company’ — such as the blind man, the man affected with elephantiasis, and so forth.

The food that is eaten by those people, at a Śrāddha, is consumed by ‘demons’ — the enemies of gods, — and not by one’s ancestors. That is to say, the Śrāddha becomes entirely useless.

The mention of ‘demons’ is a purely deprecatory exaggeration. — (1 7 0)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Avrataiḥ’ — ‘Devoid of self-restraint’ (Medhātithi); — ‘who have not fulfilled the vows of studentship’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘who do not observe the rules laid down for the Accomplished Student’.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 471 and 493).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.169-170)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.170.

VERSE 3.171

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

दाराग्निहोत्रसंयोगं कुरुते योऽग्रजे स्थिते ।
परिवेत्ता स विज्ञेयः परिवित्तिस्तु पूर्वजः ॥१७१॥

dārāgnihotrasaṃyogaṃ kurute yo'graje sthite |
parivettā sa vijñeyaḥ parivittistu pūrvajaḥ ||171||

He who unites himself with “wife” and “Agnihotra,” while his elder remains, is to be regarded as the “superseder of his elder;” and the elder is to be regarded as “one who is superseded.”’ — (171)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Agraja,’ ‘elder brother’ — is the uterine brother born before one. Thus has it been asserted — ‘There is no harm in the superseding of the uncle’s sons, the step-mother’s sons and the sons of other’s wives, by marriage and the setting up of fire;’ hence, in the present context, the term ‘elder brother’ stands for the uterine brother. While he ‘remains’ — i.e., without marriage and without having set up the fire; the root ‘stkā’ (in the term ‘sthitê’) has been used in the sense of the absence of the act mentioned.

The term ‘agnihotra,’ though the name of the act of sacrifice, stands for the setting up of fire for purposes of that act.

In another smṛti, we find an exception — ‘the lunatic, the sinner, the leper, the outcast, the eunuch and the consumptive need not be waited for.’ What is mentioned here is meant to be indicative of the condition in the form of the elder brother being in any way not entitled (to marry and set up the fire). Hence the ‘defiler of company’ is also included.

A special period has also been specified during which one is to wait for his elder brother to marry and set up the fire — ‘one should wait for eight years,’ — ‘some say for six years’ (Gautama, 18.19). This period is to be reckoned from the time when the younger brother has reached the age of marriage; and the age of marriage is the time when one has duly fulfilled the injunction of Vedic Study.

“As a matter of fact, the period of time stated in the passage quoted refers to the man who has gone out travelling. The passage quoted above begins with the word ‘the elder brother being,’ which refers to the time during which the elder brother is out on travel. [So that it can have no bearing upon supersession by marriage].”

True; but the term ‘who has gone out on travel’ is distinctly found to be connected with one sentence [this sentence being ‘pravrajite nivṛttiḥ prasaṅgāt, Gautama, 18.16]; so that, for connecting the same word with another sentence [‘bhrātari chaivam jyāyasi yavīyān, 18.18], some special reasons should be stated. There is, however, no such reason; as there is in the case of such words as ‘there is connection between this and the term svarita;’ no such words, however, are found in the case of the sentences in question; nor is one sentence incomplete without the connection of the word in question.

Vaśiṣṭha has used the generic term ‘fire and has, therefore, meant the ‘Smārta’ Fire.

Some people have held this definition of ‘superseder’ to apply also to one whose father has not set up the Fire; the term ‘agraja,’ ‘elder,’ meaning simply ‘one born before one;’ so that the Father also is one’s ‘elder.’

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?