with the Commentary of Medhatithi 92 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 98 из 350Следующая ⇒

In this manner, what is said here would apply to other ‘older’ persons also; as a matter of fact, however, the terms ‘younger’ and ‘elder’ are never used between father and son.

In another Smṛti we find — ‘the elder brother being, etc., etc.’ (Gautama, 18.18. where the Brother is specifically mentioned).

The elder brother is called the ‘superseded’ — (171)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi — (P. 259, l.5) — ‘Bhrātarītyādi paṭhitam’, — i.e., in Gautama ‘Pravrajite nivṛttiḥ prasaṅgāt’ (18.16)... ‘Bhrātari chaivam jyāyasi yavīyān kanyāgnyupayameṣu’ (18.18); — the latter Sūtra is referred to again in 1.11.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.223) in the sense that — ‘the younger brother, who takes a wife or sets up the Fire, before his elder brother has done so, is called Parivettā, and the elder brother is called Parivitti.’

Aparārka deals with this subject in detail, under this same text of Yājñavalkya.

Madanapārijāta (p. 170) quotes this verse and explains that the ‘elder brother’ meant here is the uterine brother, not the step-brother.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 760), which also explains that the ‘elder brother’ meant is the uterine brother, as is clearly declared in a text quoted from Garga. It quotes another verse from ‘Manu’, which is not found in our texts: —

agraje brahmacaryasthe yo'nujo dārasaṅgraham |
kurute parivettā sa paricitto'grejo bhavet ||

It has a curious note regarding the exact signification of the term ‘ṣodarya’ (generally understood to mean uterine): It says — ‘sodaryatva’ is of three kinds — (1) due to the father being the same; (2) due to the mother being the same, and (3) due to both being the same; the idea that ‘sodaryatva’ is based upon the sameness of the Father is derived from the Garbhopaniṣad text that ‘at first the fetus is born in the male’, as also from the Mahābhārata text — ‘Having stayed in the father’s stomach, he entered the Mother through his semen’; and again in the same work, Kacha is representented as saying to Devayānī that she was his ‘sister’ because she had lived in the same father’s stomach as he himself had done.

The verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācara, p. 690), where also ‘elder brother’ is explained as the uterine brother; — also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 723), where the construction of the phrase ‘agraje sthite’ is explained as ‘agraje anūḍhe akṛtāgnihotre ca sthite’. The untraced verse from ‘Manu’ quoted in Vīramitrodaya is quoted here also.

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 233) as forbidding the setting up of the Fire by the younger brother if it has been already set up by his elder; — and in Aparārka (p. 445, and again on p. 1050) as defining the Parivitti; — in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 811), which notes that this refers to uterine brothers only, and that also not in cases where the elder brother is either an outcaste, or insane, or sexless, or blind, or deaf, or dumb, or idiot, or dwarf, or leper, or suffering from leucoderma, or consumptive, or suffering from dropsy, or from some incurable disease, or heretic, or renunciate, or gone away for a long time; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 371); — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 514).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gobhila-Smṛti (1.70). — ‘He who takes a wife or performs fire-laying before his elder brother should be regarded as the Superseder of the Elder, and the elder brother is to be regarded as the Superseded.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (40). — [Reproduces the words of Manu.]

Garga (Parāśaramādhava, p. 690). — ‘While the uterine elder brother remains unmarried, if one takes a wife or lays the fire, he becomes an outcast.’

Śātātapa (Do.). — ‘The sin of supersession is not involved if one marries before such brothers as are the sons of uncles or of step-mothers, or of other women.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 690). — (Do.)

VERSE 3.172

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

परिवित्तिः परिवेत्ता यया च परिविद्यते ।
सर्वे ते नरकं यान्ति दातृयाजकपञ्चमाः ॥१७२॥

parivittiḥ parivettā yayā ca parividyate |
sarve te narakaṃ yānti dātṛyājakapañcamāḥ ||172||

The superseded elder brother, the superseding younger brother, and she through whom the superseding is done, — all these go to hell, along with the giver and the officiating priest as the fifth. — (172)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

While he is dealing with the subject of ‘supersession,’ the author proceeds to state its prohibition by showing the evil that befalls all persons connected with it.

He who is passed over, insulted, by the marriage is the ‘superseded elder brother;’ and he who does the passing over of the elder brother is ‘the superseding younger brother;’ — that girl through whom the superseding is done; — ‘all these go to hell.’

The ‘giver’ and the officiating priest form the fifth of those that go to hell. The ‘giver’ meant here must be that of the girl, her father and other guardians; that such is the meaning is clear from the context.

The ‘officiating priest’ is one who performs the Homa in marriage, or he who guides the ceremony. Or, it may mean ‘one who officiates as priest at the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices by the aforesaid four persons — the superseded elder brother, the superseding younger brother, the girl that is married, and he who gives her away.’

For this reason, the elder brother should act in such a manner that he does not form an obstacle in the marriage of his younger brother; and the younger brother also should wait for twelve, eight or six years; and the girl also should not allow herself to be given away to such a person;

The compound ‘dātṛyājakapañcamāḥ’ is to be expounded as a Bahuvrīhi, containing Dvandva: a ‘Dātṛyājakau (Dvandva) pañcamau yeṣām’ (Bahuvrīhi). — (172)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 723) without comment; — also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 760); — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 514) which adds the following notes — That girl also goes to hell, by marrying whom the younger brother ‘supersedes’ the elder; ‘dātṛyājakapañcamāḥ’, i.e. (1) the bridegroom, (2) the bride, (3) the superseded elder brother, (4) the giver away of the bride, (5) and the priests officiating at the ceremony.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Laghu-Śātātapa (40). — [Reproduces the words of Manu.]

Gobhila-Smṛti (1.71). — ‘The Superseder and the Superseded both assuredly go to hell; if they have performed the expiatory rite, even so they participate in the effects reduced only by a quarter.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.39). — [Same as Manu, except that for ‘Yāyā ca parividyate’ the reading is Yā chainam parivindati.’

Mahābhārata (12.165-68). — (The first line is the same as Manu.) — ‘He who marries illegally — all these are outcasts.’

VERSE 3.173

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

भ्रातुर्मृतस्य भार्यायां योऽनुरज्येत कामतः ।
धर्मेणापि नियुक्तायां स ज्ञेयो दिधिषूपतिः ॥१७३॥

bhrāturmṛtasya bhāryāyāṃ yo'nurajyeta kāmataḥ |
dharmeṇāpi niyuktāyāṃ sa jñeyo didhiṣūpatiḥ ||173||

He who would lasciviously make love to the wife of his dead brother, even though she may have been appointed according to law (to bear a child by him), should be known as the “didhiṣūpati.” — (173)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He who, acting in accordance with the law of ‘Niyoga,’ should happen to make love to — take delight in intercourse with — the wife of his dead brother; — ‘lasciviously’ — i.e., in transgression of the exact form of ‘Niyoga,’ — i.e., renouncing the injunction that ‘one should have intercourse with his brother’s wife only once during her periods,’ — if he should have recourse, at will, to such advances as cousist in firm embrace, kissing, and so forth, — or if he should have intercourse with her more than once, — or even allow his mind to be inclined that way, — then, such a person, impressed with the mark of passion by such signs, as casting longing glances upon the woman, and so forth, is to be known as the ‘didhiṣūpati.’

The exact definition of the ‘agredidhiṣūpati’ is to be learnt from another Smṛti, which says — ‘when the brother is alive, the man is to be known as the agredidhiṣūpati.’

Some people have held that the present verse does not form part of the text at all; and as a reason for this, they urge the fact of its being incomplete. It being necessary to provide definitions of both (the didhiṣūpati and the agredidhiṣūpati), it is not possible for authors who know their business to provide the definition of only one of them; specially, as another Smṛti has provided the definitions of both: — (a) ‘the wise men regard him as didhiṣūpati, who is the husband of a woman who has had a previous husband; and (b) that Brāhmaṇa is to be regarded as the agredidhiṣūpati of whom that woman was the wife;’ — and

these definitions are not applicable to the present context (which might have justified the omission by our author); as (the husband of a woman who has had a previous husband’ has been excluded already before (in verse 160). Hence the ‘didhiṣūpati’ must be different from the one defined as such in the passage just quoted (from another Smṛti). — (173)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

It is interesting to note that Medhātithi states that “some people have held that the present verse does not form part of the text at all.” (Trans, p. 194).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 452) as providing a definition of ‘didhiṣūpati’ as distinct from that provided by Devala, according to whom he is the husband of the girl whose younger sister is married before her; — and it adds that the implication of the definition itself is that such a person is to be excluded.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vyāghrī Smṛti (quoted in the Gautama-sūtravṛtti). — ‘One who is the husband of a woman who has had a previous husband, — the wise called Didhiṣūpati.’

Prajāpati (quoted in do.). — [Reproduces Manu.]

VERSE 3.174

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

परदारेषु जायेते द्वौ सुतौ कुण्डगोलकौ ।
पत्यौ जीवति कुण्डः स्यान् मृते भर्तरि गोलकः ॥१७४॥

paradāreṣu jāyete dvau sutau kuṇḍagolakau |
patyau jīvati kuṇḍaḥ syān mṛte bhartari golakaḥ ||174||

By the wives of other men two kinds of sons are born: the “Kuṇḍa” and the “Golaka;” he who is born while the husband is alive is the “Kuṇḍa,” and one born after the death of the husband is the “Golaka.” — (174)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

While the husband is alive, if a son is born to his wife living in his house, from a paramour tolerated by the forgiving nature of the husband, — this son born of a stranger is called ‘Kuṇḍa.’

That born after the husband has died, is ‘Golaka.’

Some people have held that these names are given to sons born to the woman not ‘appointed’ by her husband (to bear children).

This, however, is not right; as in that case their exclusion would be secured by the more fact of their being non-Brāhmaṇas. Hence we conclude that the ‘Kuṇḍa’ and the ‘Golaka’ are sons born to the woman ‘appointed’ by her husband.

“But how is it that the eons born to the unappointed woman are non-Brāhmaṇas, while those born to the appointed woman are Brāhmaṇas?”

This follows from the fact that, in the definition of castes, the term ‘wife’ is mentioned: ‘In the case of all castes, one born of the wife of the same caste, etc., etc.’ (10.5). This term ‘wife,’ like the term ‘husband,’ is a relative one; the term ‘wife,’ ‘patnī,’ again, has been explained (etymologically) as associated with one at sacrificial performances; and no man is entitled to perform.sacrifices in association with another man’s wife.

“If that be so, then no Brāhmaṇa-hood should belong to the sons born to the appointed woman, in whose case also the same reason is applicable.”

This question we shall determine under Discourse 10 (verse 5).

Or, both — the sons of the appointed as well as those of the unappointed woman — may be regarded as ‘non-Brāhmaṇas;’ but the difficulty is that, as has been already pointed out above, if these persons are not Brāhmaṇas, then, there being no possibility of these being admitted to dinners, any prohibition of them would be altogether uncalled for. Specially, as their exclusion would be secured by the exclusion of the ‘out-cast.’ Being an ‘out-cast’ consists in falling off from the duties of the Brāhmaṇa; and as eating at śrāddhas is a duty of the Brāhmaṇa, such feeding may- not be possible for the out-cast. And yet we find his exclusion asserted in verse 150 above, — (174)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.222) as providing the definition of the ‘Kuṇḍa’ and the ‘Golaka’, who have been declared by Yājñavalkya, (1.222) to be unfit to be invited at Śrāddhas; — in Aparārka (p. 445), which adds that this refers to the Kṣetraja son, the other being excluded on the ground of his being a non-Brāhmaṇa; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 362); — in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 39); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 422.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.174-175)

Laghu-Śātātapa (105). — [Reproduces Manu, with slight variations.]

Mahābhārata (13.7.13). — [Do.].

VERSE 3.175

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

तौ तु जातौ परक्षेत्रे प्राणिनौ प्रेत्य चैह च ।
दत्तानि हव्यकव्यानि नाशयन्ति प्रदायिनाम् ॥१७५॥

tau tu jātau parakṣetre prāṇinau pretya caiha ca |
dattāni havyakavyāni nāśayanti pradāyinām ||175||

These creatures, born of other men’s wives, cause, for the giver, the destruction, in this life as well as after death, of their offerings to gods and pitṛs that have been presented to them. — (175)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The plural number in ‘prāṇinaḥ,’ ‘creatures,’ is according to Pāṇini 1.2,58.

These people do not deserve the names of ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ and the rest; and they only deserve to be called ‘creatures;’ they are not worthy of any other name. For this reason, they ‘cause the destruction of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs;’ — i.e.,. they render them fruitless — ‘for the givers’ — those who give it to them.

The terms ‘parivettṛ’ (superseder) and the rest are not sufficiently well known in ordinary usage; nor are they capable of being etymologically analysed. Hence, the author has provided the definition of these. — (175)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 362).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.174-175)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.175.

VERSE 3.176

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

अपाङ्क्त्यो यावतः पङ्क्त्यान् भुञ्जानाननुपश्यति ।
तावतां न फलं तत्र दाता प्राप्नोति बालिशः ॥१७६॥

apāṅktyo yāvataḥ paṅktyān bhuñjānānanupaśyati |
tāvatāṃ na phalaṃ tatra dātā prāpnoti bāliśaḥ ||176||

If one who is unworthy of company happen to look upon a number of those that are worthy of company, while those are eating, then the foolish giver (of food) does not obtain the reward of feeding so many men. — (176).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Pāṅktya’ are those that deserve the paṅkti, line. One is called ‘pāṅktya’ when one is deserving of sitting on the same seat as, and eating in the company of, good men. He who is not so deserving, is ‘a-pāṅktya.’

As many worthy people — learned men, ascetics and persons learned in the Veda — the unworthy man happens to look upon while the former are eating, — the reward of feeding so many men, — in the shape of the satisfaction of his ancestors — fails to be accomplished.

For this reason, when one is performing śrāddhas, one should send away from that place all thieves and others.

‘Foolish’ — ignorant. — (176)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 498.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārafa (13.137.17). — ‘The one-eyed person defiles sixty; the eunuch, a hundred; the man suffering from leucoderma, as much as he sees ; — in the line of invitees seated in a line.’

VERSE 3.177

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

वीक्ष्यान्धो नवतेः काणः षष्टेः श्वित्री शतस्य तु ।
पापरोगी सहस्रस्य दातुर्नाशयते फलम् ॥१७७॥

vīkṣyāndho navateḥ kāṇaḥ ṣaṣṭeḥ śvitrī śatasya tu |
pāparogī sahasrasya dāturnāśayate phalam ||177||

The blind man, by looking, destroys the feeder’s reward for feeding ninety men, the one-eyed man of sixty, the leper of one hundred, and the man afflicted with a foul disease of a thousand. — (177)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“How can there be any looking by the blind man; — by virtue of which the text says ‘the blind man by looking, etc.’?”

True; what is meant is only his proximity to the place. The meaning is that, in an uncovered place, the blind man should be removed away from such distance from which the man with eyes could see.

‘The one-eyed man of sixty;’ — this does not mean that if the number is more than these, they may be fed (even in the presence of the blind, etc.). All that the reducing of the number means is that the delinquency would be less serious, and hence the expiatory rite to be performed would be on a smaller scale.

It is the leper that is called ‘śvitrī.’

‘The man suffering from a foul disease’ — is well known, — (177)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Regarding the diseases which are punishments for sins committed in a former life, see below, 11.49 et. seq.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 454), which adds that what is meant is that ‘if a blind man remains in a place from where a man with eyes could see the Brāhmaṇas eating, — then he destroys the merit that would result from the feeding of ninety men’; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 499).

VERSE 3.178

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

यावतः संस्पृशेदङ्गैर्ब्राह्मणान् शूद्रयाजकः ।
तावतां न भवेद् दातुः फलं दानस्य पौर्तिकम् ॥१७८॥

yāvataḥ saṃspṛśedaṅgairbrāhmaṇān śūdrayājakaḥ |
tāvatāṃ na bhaved dātuḥ phalaṃ dānasya paurtikam ||178||

As many Brāhmaṇas the officiator at the sacrifices performed by Śūdras may happen to touch with his limbs, — the reward relating to charity in connection with the gift to so many Brāhmaṇas fails to accrue to the giver. — (178)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

As many Brāhmaṇas he may happen to touch with his limbs, — when he happens to enter the same line with them; — here also the actual touching of the body is not meant; mere presence at the place is meant.

‘Reward relating to charity’ — i.e., the rewards that follow from gifts made outside the ‘sacrificial altar. — (178)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Paurtikam’ — ‘Rewards that follow from gifts made outside the sacrificial altar’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja); — ‘the gift of food at a Śrāddha’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 454); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 498).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (82.14). — ‘Those who sacrifice for the Śūdra (should be avoided).’

Bṛhad-Yama-Smṛti (35, 37, 38). — ‘The ill-visaged, the eunuch, the heretic, the decrier of the Veda, the sophist, the sacrificer for the Śūdra, and those who sacrifice for improper persons, — these should be avoided with great care at the Śrāddha.’

VERSE 3.179

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

वेदविद्चापि विप्रोऽस्य लोभात् कृत्वा प्रतिग्रहम् ।
विनाशं व्रजति क्षिप्रमामपात्रमिवाम्भसि ॥१७९॥

vedavidcāpi vipro'sya lobhāt kṛtvā pratigraham |
vināśaṃ vrajati kṣipramāmapātramivāmbhasi ||179||

If a Brāhmaṇa, though learned in the Veda, should, through covetousness, accept a gift from him, — he quickly perishes; just like the unbaked vessel in water. — (170)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In connection with the present subject, the author points out the impropriety of receiving gifts from one who officiates at sacrifices performed by Śūdras.

‘Though learned in the Veda;’ — if he accepts the gift of something belonging to one who officiates at sacrifices performed by Śūdras,

‘Through covetousness’ — is a mere reiterative reference.

He also perishes quickly — i.e., he is deprived of what he desires, — in the shape of wealth, children, cattle, body, and the like.

When such is the fate of one learned in the Veda — what is to be said of one who is ignorant of the Veda?

The author will point out later on that there is not much harm in the learned man’s receiving gifts.

‘Āma’ — unbaked — ‘pātra’ — vessels, such as saucer, and the like.

‘In water’ — i.e., when thrown into water. — (179)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Atri-Smṛti (2, 5). — ‘One shall not be addicted to sinful acts, on the strength of the Veda; for an intentional sin is not destroyed by the Veda.’

Atri-Saṃhitā (145). — ‘By accepting gifts they perish, as fire perishes by water.’

VERSE 3.180

Section VIII - Śrāddhas

सोमविक्रयिणे विष्ठा भिषजे पूयशोणितम् ।
नष्टं देवलके दत्तमप्रतिष्ठं तु वार्धुषौ ॥१८०॥

somavikrayiṇe viṣṭhā bhiṣaje pūyaśoṇitam |
naṣṭaṃ devalake dattamapratiṣṭhaṃ tu vārdhuṣau ||180||

What is given to the Soma-seller becomes ordure; to the physician, pus and blood; that to the temple-attendant becomes lost; and that to the usurer has no place. — (180)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The sense is that the man becomes born in that species of creatures where ordure is eaten.

Similarly, with the physician.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману