with the Commentary of Medhatithi 102 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 108 из 350Следующая ⇒

Further, there is only one Śrāddha; and the term ‘monthly’ being a generic one, there is nothing to indicate that it stands for the ‘Unitary Rite’ only.

In Yājñavalkya also we find the same thing. If Yājñavalkya’s text were taken as referring to what has gone immediately before it, then the method of the ‘Amalgamating Rite’ should be applicable to it; as the Śrāddha in question is found mentioned after this latter. Having said — ‘this is the Amalgamating Rite,’ and ‘before the Amalgamating Rite,’ — it is said immediately after this ‘on the date of death, &c.’

From all this it follows that not taking any account of mere proximity, the details that are indicated as belonging to it are those of the ‘Amāvasyā Śrāddha.’

The Mantras also support our view. It says — ‘Become united with the previous ancestors, &c., &c.;’ and it is the person recently dead who is thus addressed; the plural number in ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam; being purely honorific: as says the author of the Nirukta — ‘In the expression etā utyā uṣasaḥ &c., the single Uṣas, Dawn, is spoken of in the plural, for the purpose of showing respect to it.”

“The term ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam,’ ‘become united,’ should refer to those balls into which the ball offered to the deceased is thrown in; and this latter ball also should be referred to by words in the plural, ‘pūrvebhiḥ pitṛbhiḥ etc.’ For in this case it is only this latter plural number that will have to be regarded as figurative. Otherwise, if the plural verb ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam’ also were taken as referring to the ball that is thrown in, the plural number in both would have to be regarded as figurative and unreal.”

There is no force in this also. Because as a matter of fact, what becomes united with each one of the balls is only a portion of the ball that is thrown in; as is clear from the direction — ‘having offered the fourth ball, one should divide it into three parts and put it into the balls so that the three balls do not all become the container, at one and the same time; and it is only if this were the case that the plural number in ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam’ could be applicable literally.

“If each of the three is referred to separately, even so, why could not the plural in ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam’ and the indirect address be taken as referring to the balls into which the one ball is thrown in? Specially as the word ‘pitrvebhiḥ’ referring to the ball that is thrown in, it would not be right to refer to it by the pronoun ‘ebhiḥ,’ ‘these.”’

Well, the Mantra in question — ‘Saṃsṛjyaḍhvam etc.’ not being an injunctive one, we need not trouble ourselves over its interpretation; it is, as a matter of fact, purely descriptive; and the description applies to what is enjoined; and in the present connection what has been enjoined is the uniting of the balls; so that this uniting is all that is indicated by the Mantra. As for the number (singular or plural), this is not directly enjoined (by any text), and hence also not obtained by implication; it becomes connected with the passage by mere probability, and this probability is recognised prior to the Mantra (which therefore could have no bearing upon it).

Some people have said that — “the term ‘fourth’ (in the text just quoted) may mean simply predecessor; so that the deceased (father) being the first, in relation to him the great-grandfather would be the ‘fourth’ predecessor.”

This also is not right. In fact, it is the ball offered to the deceased which is called the fourth, — this being the one which completes the number four, after the balls to his ancestors have been deposited. Further, the Śrāddha in question begins with the Pitṛs, and not with the deceased; since it has been declared that — ‘one shall invite the Pitṛs, not mentioning the deceased.’ So that the order to be adopted would be that the first ball offered is to the father (of the deceased); and in regard to this also the following rule has been laid down; The dividing into three parts and the placing upon the balls to the Pitṛs are to be done of that same ball which is the fourth. All that is meant there is that ‘one should giveaway the fourth ball after having divided it into three parts;’ the connection of the ‘ball’ with the act of ‘giving away’ being clearly implied. When the question arises as to what is that which is to be divided into three parts, — it is the ball that is mentioned in close proximity which becomes connected with it. All doubts being set at rest by this, there is apparently no ground for connecting the term ‘fourth’ also with it.

Then again, when there is a doubt as to which ball is it that is to be divided, the answer is supplied by another Smṛti — ‘Having offered four balls to each individual name, the offerer of the ball should divide the first with the two mantras beginning with ye samānāḥ.’ The one particular ball is called ‘first’ only in view of its being the first to be offered, and not because of its being related to the first ancestor. Because the great-grandfather would be the ‘predecessor’ of the grandfather, who, in his turn, would be the ‘predecessor’ of the Father; so that there being no definiteness, the exact meaning of the verse would remain uncertain. The order of the offering, however, is fixed by rule; hence in that there is no indefiniteness.

Thus then, the act of dividing into three parts having been connected with the fourth ball, this dividing should be done, on the strength of another Smṛti, in the order of the offering. Consequently, it is said in the Kāṭhaka that — ‘it is clear that the dividing is of the previously dead,’; — we ask now — whence does it follow that this is clear?

It has been held that — “the offering is not made to the deceased because he has become included among the Pitṛs.”

This also is nothing. Because it is in accordance with a direct injunction that the offering is not made: ‘The ball does not go to the fourth;’ again ‘the ball proceeds to three only.’ As for the reading invented by the writer himself — ‘he shall not mention the deceased,’ and the explanation of this as that ‘the deceased having become united with the Pitṛs, this text prohibits a further offering to him,’ — the fact of the matter is that the reading of the text is not thus; in reality no prohibitive term is found in the text at all; what is found is the cumulative particle (‘ca’ instead of ‘na’). Even if the reading contained the negative particle, the same explanation would apply to this case which we have pointed out in connection with the prohibition of a separate ball for the deceased contained in the verse — ‘yaḥ sapiṇḍīkṛtam etc. etc’.

As regards such assertions as — ‘after the Amalgamating Rite the son shall perform for his parents, every year, the Unitary Rite, and for the rest the Pārvaṇa rite’, — and so forth, if there are really such passages (in authoritative works) then what is the use of the proclaiming of the name ‘Amāvasyā?’ In fact, these passages are not found in any of the well-known Smṛti texts recognised by cultured people.

For these reasons, we conclude that there is nothing to indicate any differentiation, from which we could deduce the fact that the balls offered to the ancestors are placed upon that offered to the deceased. For this same reason the established practice should not be abandoned. It has also been shown that this same view is in accordance with reason; Thus it is clear that some people have been led to accept the view that the balls of the ancestors are to be deposited, by construing the words of the text in a different manner.

In verse 247 here — where it is said that ‘For the twice-born person just dead, there should be performed the rite upto Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa, one should do the feeding at his Śrāddha without any in honour of the gods, and he shall offer one ball;’ — The ‘Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa’ or ‘Amalgamating Rite’ should be regarded only as partially binding in a case where the Father has died, while the Grandfather is still alive; i.e., it is to be performed only when no regard is paid to the prohibition contained in the words ‘one shall not make an offering that involves the ignoring of a living person.’ When, however, one accepts the view that ‘there should be precedence etc. etc.’ then, the Grandfather should be left out and the dead father should be united to the higher ancestors. Similarly, the rite is only partially binding when the Father is offering the Śrāddha to his dead son. Similarly, too, when one’s wife dies without issue, the performance is only partially binding upon the step-son whose mother may be living.

Says the text — ‘For those that die childless, others shall perform the rite, and those ladies again for those.’

The term ‘sutaiḥ,’ ‘sons’ in the text stands for children; though the presence of the term ‘suta’ might be taken to indicate the inclusion of the son’s substitutes also, if the particle ‘sva,’ ‘own,’ were not taken as precluding those others. — (248)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Burnell is wrong in saying that ‘verse 248 is apparently omitted by Medhātithi’ It is strange that scholars of the ‘Critical School’ should be making such statements on the strength of Mss. which they know to be imperfect and incomplete.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 802) as likely to be interpreted as indicating the ‘offering of the Ball’ to be the principal factor. It combats this view and adds that in the compound ‘piṇḍanirvapaṇam’ the term ‘piṇḍa’ is to be understood as synonymous with ‘pitṛ’, so that what the compound means is ‘offering to the Pitṛs.’

Medhātithi (P. 286, l. 14) — ‘Sapiṇḍīkaraṇaśrāddham &c.’ This appears to be a paraphrase of the verse, which is quoted also in Mitākṣarā (on ll. 253-254), where, however, the reading is ‘pretānna nirdishet.’ See below Bhāṣya, p. 289, ll. 15-20.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Jātūkarṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 445). — ‘When the father has become one of the Pitṛs, his son shall, year after year, and month after month, offer to him Śrāddha in the manner of the Pārvaṇa Śrāddhas.’

Jamadagni (Do.). — ‘When the father or the mother has become amalgamated with the Piṭṛs, the body-born son shall offer to the parents, on the day of their death, in the manner of the Śrāddha performed on the moonless day.’

VERSE 3.249 [Procedure after Feeding]

Section XV - Procedure after Feeding

श्राद्धं भुक्त्वा य उच्छिष्टं वृषलाय प्रयच्छति ।
स मूढो नरकं याति कालसूत्रमवाक्षिराः ॥२४९॥

śrāddhaṃ bhuktvā ya ucchiṣṭaṃ vṛṣalāya prayacchati |
sa mūḍho narakaṃ yāti kālasūtramavākṣirāḥ ||249||

He who, having eaten at a śrāddha, gives the leavings to a śūdra, — this foolish man falls headlong into the Kālasūtra hell. — (249)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the text mentions the evil accruing to the diner, yet the advice intended is conveyed to the performer of the śrāddha; the sense being that ‘he should manage it so that the diner does not offer the leavings to a Śūdra.’ This form of the rule is analogous to that pertaining to the Priests (where also what is meant is that the master of the sacrifice so arranges things that the Priests do not commit any breaches of law).

‘Vṛṣala’ — Śūdra.

‘Head-long’ — With the feet upwards.

The term ‘śrāddha’ has been repeated here for the purpose of guarding against the idea that what is here stated pertains to the ‘Amalgamating Rite’ only. — (249)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 498); — and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 559).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vṛddha-Śātātapa (51). — [Reproduces Manu, but reading ‘tiryagyonau ca jāyate’ for ‘kālasūtramavākśirāḥ.’]

VERSE 3.250

Section XV - Procedure after Feeding

श्राद्धभुग् वृषलीतल्पं तदहर्योऽधिगच्छति ।
तस्याः पुरीषे तं मासं पितरस्तस्य शेरते ॥२५०॥

śrāddhabhug vṛṣalītalpaṃ tadaharyo'dhigacchati |
tasyāḥ purīṣe taṃ māsaṃ pitarastasya śerate ||250||

Having eaten at a Śrāddha, if one enters the bed of a woman on that day, his ancestors lie in her ordure for the whole of that month. — (250)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

They say that the term ‘vṛṣalī’ in this verse stands for woman generally; and in this sense they explain the etymology of the term to mean — ‘vṛṣasyati’ — chālayati, ‘moves’ — ‘bhartāram.’ ‘her husband,’ Be this woman a Brāhmaṇī or any other caste — all are prohibited. Says another Smṛti (Gautama, 15.23) — ‘On that day he shall remain firmly continent.’

‘Bed’ denotes sexual intercourse; the prohibition does not apply to merely entering the bed.

‘Day’ stands for day and night; hence the prohibition applies to the night also.

‘Ordure’ — this is a deprecatory exaggeration, intended to dissuade men.

‘His ancestors’ — i.e., the ancestors of the man eating at the śrāddha.

This also has to be explained as before; that is, the rule applies to both (the feeder and the eater). As regards the eater, what is here laid down is only ‘circumstantial;’ that is, it is enjoined as to be observed by him only when the circumstance of eating at śrāddhas is present. From the context, however, it is clear that it pertains to the Rite (and hence to the Performer) also. — (250)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vṛṣalī’ — Neither Medhātithi nor Kullūka takes this in the sense of a ‘Śūdra female.’ Buhler is not right in attributing this explanation to them. Both of them explain it as ‘any woman’; and they derive this meaning etymologically, by using the term ‘vṛṣasyati,’ ‘one who attracts to herself the male.’ Nor is Buhler right in attributing to Nārāyaṇa the explanation that the word ‘vṛṣalī’ means ‘a seducing woman’; as Nārāyaṇa also uses the term ‘vṛṣasyanti’ only by way of pointing out the etymological signification of the term ‘vṛṣalī’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (13.90,12). — ‘Having eaten at a Śrāddha, if one reads the Veda, or enters the bed of a woman (the rest as in Manu).’

VERSE 3.251

Section XV - Procedure after Feeding

पृष्ट्वा स्वदितमित्येवं तृप्तानाचामयेत् ततः ।
आचान्तांश्चानुजानीयादभितो रम्यतामिति ॥२५१॥

pṛṣṭvā svaditamityevaṃ tṛptānācāmayet tataḥ |
ācāntāṃścānujānīyādabhito ramyatāmiti ||251||

Having asked — “Have you dined well?” — he shall, after they have been fully satisfied, make them wash; and when they have washed, he shall say — “You may rest where you choose. — (251)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

After food, drink and water for sipping have been offered, the guests should be questioned — with the words ‘have you eaten well?’

According to another Smṛti, the question should be put by the host, food in hand. It is the nature of some people that if the food is not near at hand, they do not ask for it, even though they may have desire for it, fearing the trouble they would cause; but if the food is close by, they take it.

‘After they have been fully satisfied, he shall make them wash.’

Others have explained this to mean that the guests should be put the question — ‘Are you fully satisfied?’ And when they have ascertained the fact of their having been fully satisfied, they should be further propitiated by the question — ‘Have you dined well?’ It is going to be declared (under 254) that ‘at the rite in honour of the Pitṛs one should say Have you dined well?’

‘When they ham washed, he shall say &c.’ — ‘Where you choose’ — i.e., at either of the two places, — here or at your own house, you may take your rest, in any manner you choose. — (251)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (73. 25-26). — ‘After the Brāhmaṇas have eaten and become fully satisfied, he shall sprinkle water with grass on the food, with mantra ‘Māmekṣeṣṭha,’ — scatter the food near the leavings, — ask the Brāhmaṇas, Are you fully satisfied — and having made them sit facing the north, he shall offer them water for rinsing the mouth; after that he shall thoroughly wash the spot where Śrāddha had been offered; — he shall do all this with kuśa in hand, — going round the Brāhmaṇas facing the east with the mantra Yanme rama, etc., he shall honour them with such gifts as may be within his power, and address to them the words Abhiramantu bhavantaḥ; on which they should say Abhiratāḥ smaḥ devāśca pitaraśca.’

Yājñavalkya (1.242). — ‘Taking up the food, saying Vriptāḥ sthaḥ, he shall obtain their permission and scatter the food on the ground and pour water once.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (4.8.22). — ‘Having asked sampannam (Is it completed?), he shall gather all the food that has been used and having taken out of it just what may be needed for the Sthālīpāka and Piṇḍa offerings, the rest he shall hand over.’

VERSE 3.253

Section XV - Procedure after Feeding

ततो भुक्तवतां तेषामन्नशेषं निवेदयेत् ।
यथा ब्रूयुस्तथा कुर्यादनुज्ञातस्ततो द्विजैः ॥२५३॥

tato bhuktavatāṃ teṣāmannaśeṣaṃ nivedayet |
yathā brūyustathā kuryādanujñātastato dvijaiḥ ||253||

He shall then inform them of the food that may be left after they have eaten; being permitted by the Brāhmaṇas he shall do as they tell him. — (253)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

They shall be informed of the food that has been eaten; they should be told — ‘here is this.’ ‘Being permitted by them, he shall do as they tell him,’ that is, without their permission he shall not make any other use of the food. — (253)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 504), which adds that ‘if the Brāhmaṇas so wish, the food should be sent over to their house; or if they permit him to eat it, along with his relations, this may be done.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Śaunaka (Aparārka, p. 503). — ‘Having seen that the Brāhmaṇas are satisfied,...... he shall keep some food for the sake of the ball-offerings, and offer the rest to the Brāhmaṇas, or use it according to their instructions.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (4.8.11). — ‘Having enquired if all was complete, he shall keep, for the Sthālīpāka and the Piṇḍa offerings, everything that may have been used, and what remains he shall present (to the Brāhmaṇas).’

Yājñavalkya (1.242). — In regard to the remnants, he should ascertain their wishes.’

Laghu-Āśvalāyana (23.70). — ‘Everything having been completed, he shall ask them ‘what is to he done with the remnants?’ — On being permitted by them, he shall eat it, along with his friends.’

VERSE 3.254

Section XV - Procedure after Feeding

पित्र्ये स्वदितमित्येव वाच्यं गोष्ठे तु सुशृतम् ।
सम्पन्नमित्यभ्युदये दैवे रुचितमित्यपि ॥२५४॥

pitrye svaditamityeva vācyaṃ goṣṭhe tu suśṛtam |
sampannamityabhyudaye daive rucitamityapi ||254||

At the rite in honour of the Pitṛs, one should say “svaditam” (well-dined); at the Goṣṭha, “suśṛtam” (well-cooked); at the Ābhyudayika rite, “sampannam” (accomplished); and at the rite in honour of the gods, “rucitam” (agreeable). — (254)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Other persons also, happening to be present on the occasion, should offer words of encouragement; and the terms to be used are here mentioned.

Another commentator explains as follows: — The permission to take food should be sought by means of these terms; hence these words have got to be uttered by the performer of the Śrāddha. But he should say, ‘Svadadhvam,’ ‘please eat well,’ and not ‘Svaditam,’ ‘well eaten;’ or, the reading may be ‘Svadatu’ (‘do eat please’).

This explanation is based upon another Smṛti and upon custom; and, according to this, when the Brāhmaṇas have begun to eat, they should be enlivened by the performer of the Śrāddha with these words.

‘At the goṣṭha’ — i.e., when several cows are sitting at the same place; — the word to be pronounced is ‘Suśṛtam,’ ‘well-cooked.’

The word ‘Astu,’ ‘may it be,’ is understood everywhere.

At the rite in honour of the gods, the term used should be ‘rucitam’ or ‘rocitam — (254)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vācyam’ — ‘By the giver of the feast or any other person that happens to come’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja); — ‘by the giver of the feast’ (Kullūka).

‘Goṣṭhe’ — ‘In the cow-pen’ (Medhātithi); — ‘at the Goṣṭhīśrāddha’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘at a feast given to Brāhmaṇas for the purpose of bringing some benefit to the cows’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 177) as prescribing the form of ṭhe question to be addressed to the invited at a Śrāddha, after they have been fed.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (3.63-64). — ‘At the offering to Pitṛs, the term svaditam; — at the Ābhyudayika offerings — Sampannam.’

(See 235 above.)

VERSE 3.255 [Essentials of Śrāddha]

Section XVI - Essentials of Śrāddha

अपराह्णस्तथा दर्भा वास्तुसम्पादनं तिलाः ।
सृष्टिर्मृष्टिर्द्विजाश्चाग्र्याः श्राद्धकर्मसु सम्पदः ॥२५५॥

aparāhṇastathā darbhā vāstusampādanaṃ tilāḥ |
sṛṣṭirmṛṣṭirdvijāścāgryāḥ śrāddhakarmasu sampadaḥ ||255||

The afternoon, Kuśa-Grass, setting up of the dwelling, sesamum grains, liberality, cleaning and superior Brāhmaṇas; — these are the essentials of Śrāddha-rites. — (255)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Śrāddha should be performed in the afternoon.

‘These are the essentials of Śrāddha rites,’ — i.e., attempt should be made to bring about all these things.

Though the present text mentions the ‘afternoon’ without reference to any particular Śrāddha, yet it is not to be observed in connection with all Śrāddhas: for we have another Smṛti-text to the effect that — ‘rites in honour of the gods shall he performed in the forenoon; that in honour of the Pitṛs in the afternoon; the Śrāddha offered to a single person shall be performed at mid-day, while that in connection with auspicious rites shall be performed in the morning.’

‘Dwelling’ — house; the ‘setting up’ ‘of this consists in the white-washing of the walls with lime etc., the smearing of the floor with cowdung; having its slope to wards the south.

‘Liberality’ — charity; i.e., unstinted giving away of food and vegetables.

‘Cleaning’ — washing; i.e., a particular maimer of preparing the food.

Others have explained this verse to mean that these things constitute the ‘excellence’ — the superiority — of the rites, — and not that they shall not be performed without these. — (255)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 474), which explains ‘Sṛṣṭi’ as connoting ‘plenty’, and ‘Mṛṣṭi’ as connoting ‘deliciousness’; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 111 and 72), which adds the following notes: — ‘V āstu’, the house built for the Śrāddha-performance, — its ‘Sampādana’ means ‘building or acquiring by purchase, making it slope towards the South, levelling, washing and besmearing with cow-dung’ — ‘Sṛṣṭi’ means ‘giving away’ i.e., freely giving away vegetables and other things, — ‘Mṛṣṭi’, cleanliness or sweetness, — ‘agryāḥ’, those equipped with Vedic learning, — these are ‘Śrāddhasampadaḥ’ i.e., excellences of things used at the Śrāddha; this implies that all these should be got together.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры