with the Commentary of Medhatithi 101 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 107 из 350Следующая ⇒

‘The mendicant’ — the Brāhmaṇa that may come begging for alms.

‘On being permitted by the Brāhmaṇas,’ busy with eating,

‘he shall entertain,’ according to his ability, i.e., he shall honour them by offering food, or by giving alms in the proper manner. [The permission of the invited Brāhmaṇas is essential, because] on that day, the food has been cooked specially for them. — (243)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Brāhmaṇam bhikṣukam’ — ‘The Brāhmaṇa that arrives as a guest, and the Brāhmaṇa that comes begging for alms’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka); — ‘the Brāhmaṇa householder, and the ascetic that begs for food’ (Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 728) in support of the view that ‘after the invited Brāhmaṇas have been seated, if a Religious Student or an Ascetic should happen to turn up, he also should be fed at the Śrāddha’; — in Aparārka (p. 500); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 246); — in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 521); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 439).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (81.18). — ‘At the time, he shall feed a Brāhmaṇa or a mendicant, with the permission of the Brāhmaṇas (invited).’

Yama (Caturvargacintāmaṇi-Śrāddha, p. 439). — ‘If a mendicant or a Religious Student happen to arrive seeking for food, — after the Brāhmaṇas have been seated, he also should be fed.’

Varāhapurāṇa (Do.). — ‘If at that time an excellent Brāhmaṇa seeking for food, or a guest, should arrive, he shall, on being permitted by the Brāhmaṇas, freely feed him also.’

Chāgaleya (Parāśaramādhava, p. 728). — ‘At the time of the Śrāddha also one shall welcome the Ascetic and the Religious Student.’

VERSE 3.244

Section XIV - Method of Feeding

सार्ववर्णिकमन्नाद्यं संनीयाप्लाव्य वारिणा ।
समुत्सृजेद् भुक्तवतामग्रतो विकिरन् भुवि ॥२४४॥

sārvavarṇikamannādyaṃ saṃnīyāplāvya vāriṇā |
samutsṛjed bhuktavatāmagrato vikiran bhuvi ||244||

Having mixed up the food of all kinds and wetted it with water, he should throw it before the Brāhmaṇas who have eaten, scattering it on the ground. — (244)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘varṇa’ should be taken as standing for kind. Having ‘mixed up’ — brought together — the food along with all the various kinds of seasonings — ‘having wetted it with water’ — ‘he should throw it before the Brāhmaṇas who have eaten’ — i.e., become fully satisfied; after they have pronounced the words, ‘We are fully satisfied;’ ‘scattering it’ — i.e., it should not be thrown at one place, but broken up and scattered; — ‘on the ground’ — not in any vessel; on the ground also, not on the bare ground, but on Kuśa-grass, as it is going to be laid down in the next verse. Śaṅkha says that the scattering should be done ‘either once or thrice.’ — (244)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 750), which adds the following notes: — ‘Sārvavarṇikam’ means ‘that food which contains the particular vegetable called Sarvavarṇā; — and in Aparārka (p. 504), which explains that what is meant by ‘sannīya’ is that the food should be collected in one vessel.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (81.21). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Yājñavalkya (1.241). — ‘Addressing them the words — Are you satisfied, — and having obtained their permission, he shall take up the food and scatter it on the ground, oífering water once for each.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.8.14). — ‘Having scattered the food on the ground, ho should dismiss them, pronouncing svadhā-om.’

Pracetas (Parāśaramādhava, p. 750). — ‘He should scatter the food on the ground, with the mantra Ye agni, etc.’

VERSE 3.245

Section XIV - Method of Feeding

असंस्कृतप्रमीतानां त्यागिनां कुलयोषिताम् ।
उच्छिष्टं भागधेयं स्याद् दर्भेषु विकिरश्च यः ॥२४५॥

asaṃskṛtapramītānāṃ tyāgināṃ kulayoṣitām |
ucchiṣṭaṃ bhāgadheyaṃ syād darbheṣu vikiraśca yaḥ ||245||

The remnant and that which has been scattered on the Kuśa grass form the share of those who have died without sacraments, and of those who have abandoned family ladies. — (245)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In connection with infants who have not completed their third year, it is going to be said that ‘cremation shall not be performed for him;’ it is these that are spoken of here as ‘those who have died without sacraments.’

‘The remnant’ — contained in the dishes; as also ‘what is scattered on the Kuśa’ forms their ‘share’ The term ‘bhāgadheya’ is the same as ‘bhāga.’

This does not mean that these persons are not helped by the śrāddha.

‘Those who hare abandoned’ — their elders. Or, ‘those who have abandoned the ladies of their family, without finding any fault in them.’ According to the former explanation, the term ‘Kulayoṣitām’ is to be construed by itself, and taken to mean ‘unmarried maidens.’

For the reason stated, the remnant should be offered to the persons mentioned.

It would not be right to raise the question — “Since the remnant would be unclean, how could it be offered as the said share?” — because, in view of this very text, there is no uncleanliness attaching to the remnant; just as there is none in the case of the remnant of Soma-juice (at the Soma-sacrifices). — (245)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Varṣakriyākaumudī, (p. 359), as enumerating those entitled to the scattered food; — in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 562), which explains ‘kulayoṣitām tyāginām’ as ‘those who abandon the ladies of their family without cause’, and adds that the food scattered in the dish is for those who have died without sacraments, while that on the ground is for the slaves; — in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 275); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1512), which adds the following notes: — ‘asaṃskṛta’ stands for those whose Upanayana has not been done, and also the unmarried girls, — ‘tyāginaḥ’ are suicides, — ‘kulayoṣitām’, those ladies to whom water-offerings have not been made; — or ‘kulayoṣitām tyāginām’ may be taken together, meaning ‘those who have abandoned their wives and ladies without cause.’

‘Tyāginām kulayoṣitām’ — ‘For those who abandon their elders and for unmarried maidens; or to those who have abandoned the ladies of their family, without fault’ (Medhātithi); — ‘For women who have forsaken their families’ (Govindarāja); — ‘suicides and childless women’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘For ascetics and...’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 376) without any comment; — and in Aparārka (p. 504), which explains ‘bhāgadheyam’ as ‘share’; and adds that what is meant is that ‘for those persons of his family who have died without Upanayana, and for those who have forsaken the ladies of his family or such others as should not be forsaken, — one should assign the food left in the dish in which the Brāhmaṇas have eaten, as also that which has been scattered on the grass’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (81.22). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Vaśiṣṭha (11.20). — ‘For those persons of one’s family who may have died before the performance of their sacramental rites, — Manu has laid down the share in the form of the remnants and the scatterings.’

Laghu-Āśvalāyana (23.90-91). — ‘Having shaken the vessels, and pronouncing the syllable svasti, he shall throw on each of the spots sesamum and washed rice, and then scatter food also, for those of his Pitṛs who may have died without, sacraments.’

VERSE 3.246

Section XIV - Method of Feeding

उच्छेषणां भूमिगतमजिह्मस्याशठस्य च ।
दासवर्गस्य तत् पित्र्ये भागधेयं प्रचक्षते ॥२४६॥

uccheṣaṇāṃ bhūmigatamajihmasyāśaṭhasya ca |
dāsavargasya tat pitrye bhāgadheyaṃ pracakṣate ||246||

At the rite in honour of the Pitṛs, the remnant fallen on the ground is regarded as the share of straightforward, dutiful servants. — (246)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The preceding verse has described the disposal of the remnant in the dishes; the present verse mentions the fact that the remnant fallen on the ground is for servants.

‘Ajihma’ means ‘not dishonest,’ ‘straightforward.’

‘Aśaṭha’ is ‘not idle,’ ‘dutiful.’

Of such servants the said remnant is the share.

For this reason, large quantities of food shall be served, so that, when the invited person is eating, something may fall on the ground. — (246)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.239) in support of the view that ‘the food served to the Brāhmaṇas should be served in sufficiently large quantities, to make it possible for there being leavings, which constitute the share of the servants and others; — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 376), without any comment; — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 325); — in Aparārka (p. 504), which adds that what has been left fallen on the ground by the Brāhmaṇas should be offered for such honest and hard working slaves as may have died; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 151 and 1511), which adds that dāsavarga here stands for the father’s principal servant who may be dead; — and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 562).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (81.23). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Vaśiṣṭha (1?.21). — ‘The remnant of food fallen on the ground, or scattered, as also the smearings and water, — should be offered as food for those who may have died young, or for children.’

VERSE 3.247

Section XIV - Method of Feeding

आसपिण्डक्रियाकर्म द्विजातेः संस्थितस्य तु ।
अदैवं भोजयेत्श्राद्धं पिण्डमेकं च निर्वपेत् ॥२४७॥

āsapiṇḍakriyākarma dvijāteḥ saṃsthitasya tu |
adaivaṃ bhojayetśrāddhaṃ piṇḍamekaṃ ca nirvapet ||247||

For the twice-born person just dead, there should be (performed) the rite up to the ‘Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa’: one should do the feeding at his Śrāddha without any in honour of the gods, and he shall offer one ball. — (247)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘For the twice-born person, just dead’ — one should perform the rite up to ‘Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa;’ i.e., the offering of balls conjointly with the two preceding ancestors, which constitutes the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa, the ‘Amalgamating Rite,’ shall not be made once — what, then, shall be offered? — ‘He should offer one ball;’ the particle ‘ca’ having the sense of ‘only;’ the sense is that ‘one ball shall be offered, only to the person just dead.’ The Brāhmaṇa also shall be fed in honour of that person only.

In another Smṛti, there is declared another specific procedure — ‘It shall be without invitation and doing in fire’ (Yājñavalkya, ācāra 251); where ‘doing in fire’ stands for the seeking of permission with the words, ‘I shall do this in fire;’ and the pouring of libations into fire is not prohibited. In the Gṛhyasūtra, libations into fire have been laid down in connection with the Śrāddha offered to the recent dead.

At what time and how long is the rite to be performed — information on these points should be sought for from another Smṛti; where it is said that — (A) ‘The first Śrāddha is on the eleventh day,’ — (B) ‘on the date of death, for one year, the Śrāddha should be done every month, and every year it shall be performed, like the monthly performance,’ — and in the Kathaka it is said, ‘This should be done every year.’

(A) The term ‘eleventh’ is only indicative of the day on which the period of impurity ceases; since it has been declared that ‘having become pure, one should make offerings to the Pitṛs.’

(B) The author of Gṛhyasūtras declares that the ‘Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa’ shall be performed at the end of the year.

The Śrāddha mentioned in the text is called ‘Ekoddiṣṭa’ (‘offered to one person’); and the ‘offering’ (of the ball) is part of it.

It has been held that, on account of the declaration of the Śruti‘ one should make offerings to the Pitṛs’ (quoted above), — the offering should be made to the Father, Grand-father and Great-grandfather. But it cannot be right to make this offering (to all three) until the ‘Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa’ has been performed. Because the Smṛti (regarding the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa) cannot be entirely set aside by the said Vedic declaration. — (247)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse, as quoted by Medhātithi on p. 290, l. 1, reads ‘Asapiṇḍa’. — But the same sense may be got out of the reading ‘Āsapiṇḍa’. — See Translation.

“The Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa, the solemn reception of a dead person among the partakers of oblations, is performed either on the thirteenth day, or a year after death,” — says Buhler. But the rite is performed on the twelfth, not the thirteenth day.

Hopkins has misunderstood the signification of the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa rite. He calls it ‘ceremony on making a Sapiṇḍa (relative) for him’ and adds that ‘it implies that the deceased died without any family to offer the Śrāddha for him.’

As a matter of fact, this rite is performed for every one; and its meaning is as explained by Buhler (see above).

The second half of this verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 802) in support of the view that the ‘Śrāddha’ and ‘offering of the Ball’ are two distinct acts.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Paiṭhīnasi. — ‘Before the performance of the Sapīṇḍīkaraṇa one should perform the sixteen Śrāddhas; and all these should be performed by the unitary process.’

VERSE 3.248

Section XIV - Method of Feeding

सहपिण्डक्रियायां तु कृतायामस्य धर्मतः ।
अनयैवावृता कार्यं पिण्डनिर्वपनं सुतैः ॥२४८॥

sahapiṇḍakriyāyāṃ tu kṛtāyāmasya dharmataḥ |
anayaivāvṛtā kāryaṃ piṇḍanirvapanaṃ sutaiḥ ||248||

But after the Amalgamating Rite has been duly performed, the offering of balls shall be done by the sons, by this same method. — (248)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

After the Sapṇḍīkaraṇa or the Amalgamating Rite has been performed, offering should be made to all the three ancestors, by ‘that same method;’ i.e., in accordance with the procedure of the “Pārvaṇa-śrāddha,” The term ‘āvṛt’ means procedure, method; which is thus prescribed — ‘The Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa Śrāddha should be performed, as preceded by the rite in honour of the gods; — the Pitṛs should be fed, — and among them the person just dead.’ By the term ‘Pitṛs’ here are meant the three ancestors beginning with the Grandfather, who have already entered the category of the ‘Pitṛs,’ by having been ‘united;’ these should be fed; — and ‘among them’ — i.e., among those same Brāhmaṇas that are fed for the united Pitṛs, the ‘person just dead’ should be invited; as it is thus that he becomes united with the ancestors; and this rite is meant to bring about this union Though Viṣṇu reads — ‘One should feed Brāhmaṇas in honour of the dead person, also in that of the father, grandfather, and greatgrandfather of the dead person,’ — yet here also it is not stated that they shall be fed separately. So that, just as a sacrificial material intended for several deities is offered to them all in a single oblation, similarly, the Brāhmaṇa also may be fed in honour of several ancestors; and there would be no incongruity in this. In fact, it is only thus that the use of the term ‘saha’ (in our text) becomes justified; and thus also it is that one avoids the feeding of an even number of Brāhmaṇas at the rite in honour of the Pitṛs [as there would be, if the Brāhmaṇa fed in honour of the dead person were distinct from the three fed in honour of the three higher united ancestors.] Further, according to those persons who accept the second alternative mentioned in verse 125, and feed one Brāhmaṇa each at the rite, in honour of the gods and that in honour of the Pitṛs, only one man is fed in honour of the three ancestors; similarly, here also (the same Brāhmaṇa shall be fed for four).

“The same line of argument would apply also to the rule that ‘three persons should be fed at the rite, in honour of the Pitṛs;’ and there also each of these three men might he fed in honour of all the. Pitṛs; as there also there is no mention of their being distinct.”

How do you say that there is no such mention? We read in the Gṛhyasūtra — ‘One ball alone shall not be offered to all, — this has been made clear by the term balls itself.’ Then again, it is said that ‘the cup dedicated to the deceased shall be poured into the cups dedicated to the Pitṛs;’ and if the cup of the deceased person were not distinct, from which cup could the water-offering be poured? If it be said that it would be poured out of the cup dedicated to all in common, — this would be highly improper; for that cup will have been dedicated to the three ancestors beginning with the grandfather, and not to the father (just dead); and it would not be proper to offer the water to the latter out of that which has been dedicated to others. It might be argued that the mixing up (laid down in the text just quoted) might be done after the water-offering has been made. But in that case, the said mixing would be done for the purposes of an entirely different offering; and this would be contrary to the injunction regarding the ‘pouring out,’ On the other hand, there is no incongruity in the method described by us above.

The next question that arises is — Who is it that is called ‘Preta,’ ‘departed,’ ‘deceased’ (mentioned by Viṣṇu above as one in whose honour Brāhmaṇas should be fed)? [The word meaning ‘dead’ should apply to all ancestors.]. As a matter of fact, however, no ball is offered to the great-grandfather after the Amalgamating Bite has been performed, since he has become united with the previous ancestors. Says the Smṛti, —

‘One who offers a separate hall to the united deceased, becomes by that act, the murderer of injunctions, as also of his father.’ And yet the ball is offered to the ‘deceased’ separately; and one and the same ball is not offered in common to all. In fact, the mantras that are recited at the rite also express the same idea — ‘ye samānāḥ, &c.’

Our answer to the above is as follows1The term ‘preta,’ ‘departed,’ does not denote the act connoted by the root ‘iṇ,’ ‘to go;’ in fact, it is used, not in its etymological, but conventional, sense of ‘one recently dead;’ certainly, one who has gone out on a long journey is not called a ‘preta’ (as he should he, if the term were used in its etymological sense). Further, the action of ‘going’ is present in the person who died long ago, as well as in one only just dead. It is for this reason that we have such expressions in the Śruti as — (a) ‘Prayannevāsmallokād-yesamānāḥ, etc.,’ and (b) ‘pretāyāmandinatrayam’ — where the term ‘preta’ is applied to one recently dead. As for the text quoted above — ‘he who would offer a separate ball to the deceased, etc.,’ — the meaning of it is as follows: After the ‘Amalgamating Rite,’ the ‘Ekoddiṣṭa’ the ‘Unitary Rite,’ should not be performed, — whenever śrāddha is performed, it should he offered to all the three ancestors, — and on the date of death also, it should be offered to the three ancestors, and not to the Father only. It is thus that the method of the ‘Pārvaṇa-śrāddha’ has been mentioned in the present text, — by the words, ‘by this same method’ — as to be adopted, in the Śrāddha in question also.

“The pronoun ‘this’ appears to stand for what forms the subject-matter of the present context; as pronouns, by their very nature, denote what is nearest to them; and in the present instance, what is nearest is the injunction regarding the ‘Unitary Rite.’”

Not so. If, even after the performance of the ‘Amalgamating Rite,’ the offering were made to one person only, then there would be no point in mentioning the two cases separately (as is done in 247 and 248). Further, the particle ‘tu,’ ‘but,’ clearly indicates deviation from the method of what forms the subject-matter of the context; the sense being — ‘the rule that has been laid down pertains to the case where the Amalgamating Rite has not been performed; but this should not be applied to the case where the said Rite has been performed.’ From all this it follows that, even though the mention of the method of the ‘Pārvaṇa’ is more remote, yet it is that which is meant to be adopted, in the present connection. Further, if after the performance of the ‘Amalgamating Rite,’ whenever it would be necessary to perforin the ‘Unitary Rite,’ the offering to all three ancestors would be made on the Amāvasyā day, — then what would be the difference? For, in this case also, would not there be present the condition mentioned in the present text — ‘after the Amalgamating Rite has been performed, etc., etc.’ Nor in the Institutes of Manu do we find any other time prescribed, such as ‘every year on the date of death etc.,’ to which the present text could be held to apply. So that (by the reasoning of the opponent), in all cases, it would be the ‘Unitary Rite’ that would have to be performed. And this would be contrary to the declaration of the Mahābhārata, where, in reference to the places of pilgrimage, it is said —

‘He satisfied his forefathers by means of śrāddha.’

As regards the text of the other Smṛti — ‘livery year, the śrāddha shall be performed like the monthly performance,’ — here also the ‘monthly śrāddha’ refers to the śrāddha on the Amāvasyā; as this latter is the archetype of all śrāddhas; and it is in connection with this that all the details have been prescribed. And it will not be right to take the term, ‘monthly performance,’ as standing for the Śrāddha performed every month during the year; because no specific details have been prescribed in connection with this latter, whereby it could be differentiated. As for the ‘Unitary Rite,’ the first of its kind is performed on the eleventh day (after death, (or the Brāhmaṇa), and on the thirteenth day (for the Kṣatriya), and so forth. Hence it cannot be right to refer to the ‘Unitary Rite’ by the term ‘monthly performance;’ the monthly performance is so called because of its connection with the ‘month’ as the time; but there is no connection between the Unitary Rite and any such time as the ‘month;’ it having been shown that it is connected with other points of time also. For instance, it having been declared that — ‘becoming pure, one should make offerings to the Pitṛs,’ it follows that such offerings could be made before the end of the month, as well as after it; so that there is no reason for speaking of it by the name ‘monthly performance.’ As for the ‘Amāvasyā Śrāddha,’ on the other hand, its originative injunction containing the term ‘Pūrṇamāsa’ (the Full Moon Day, which literally means Full-Month), — the time being fixed by such texts as ‘the offering should be made monthly’ — and no other time being mentioned in this connection, — and all the details of the Amāvasyā Śrāddha being found present in the Śrāddha in question also, — it is only right that this latter should be declared as having the details of the ‘Amāvasyā’ applicable to it.

The Śrāddha-offering with uncooked substances also has its archetype in the ‘Pārvaṇa-Śrāddha;’ and having this for its archetype, it would follow that the offering is to be made to three ancestors; and hence (in view of the possibility of this being accepted), the text enjoins the propriety of the ‘Unitary Offering’ only.

As for Yājñavalkya’s declaration (Ācāra, 256) — ‘For one year, every month, on the date of death, the Śrāddha should be performed; similarly, at the end of each year; the first Śrāddha being performed on the eleventh day (after death);’ — here also it is the same method that is prescribed. There also it is the ‘Amāvasyā Śrāddha,’ that has been recognised as the archetype. Even if the ‘Unitary

Rite’ were connected with the ‘month’ as the time, it would not be right to make it borrow its details from the Rite here mentioned; as a beggar does not beg from another beggar; so that, since this also would be as much of an ‘Ectypal Rite’ as the ‘Unitary Rite’ itself (there could be no borrowing between them).

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов