with the Commentary of Medhatithi 107 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 113 из 350Следующая ⇒

Section I - General Remarks

चतुर्थमायुषो भागमुषित्वाऽद्यं गुरौ द्विजाः ।
द्वितीयमायुषो भागं कृतदारो गृहे वसेत् ॥१॥

caturthamāyuṣo bhāgamuṣitvā'dyaṃ gurau dvijāḥ |
dvitīyamāyuṣo bhāgaṃ kṛtadāro gṛhe vaset ||1||

Having dwelt, during the first quarter of his life, with the Teacher, the Brāhmaṇa shall, during the second quarter of his life, live in his house, after having taken a wife. — (1)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The first verse sums up in brief what has gone in the last two discourses, for the purpose of recalling it to the mind; and the second verse serves to indicate that among the Duties of the Householder this prescribes the means of livelihood.

Inasmuch as the extent of ‘life’ of man is uncertain, any rule regarding the ‘quarter’ of life becomes incompatible; hence the present verse is to be taken as stating only the period of life that has been allocated to the various stages of life. Though the rule might somehow be justified on the basis of the assertion that ‘man lives for a hundred years,’ yet our Author has himself laid down other kinds of limit; e.g., with regard to studentship he has said that ‘it may extend till the Veda has been got up’ (3. 1); and in connection with the limit of the stage of the Householder also, it has been said (6. 2) — ‘when the Householder finds etc.;’ and from all this it follows that the present verse is to be taken simply as the reiteration of the said limits.

‘The first quarter of his life.’ — This is regarded as ‘first,’ counting from the man’s birth.

‘Having dwelt with his Teacher,’ — i.e., having accomplished his studentship; — ‘during the second quarter of his life,’ — he shall marry, and ‘live in his house’; — i.e., lead the life of the Householder. — (1)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 562), which adds that the rule here laid down is on the basis of the understanding that the ordinary span of man’s life is a hundred years; — and in Saṃskāramayūkha, (p. 64), which remarks that the span of man’s life being a hundred years, one should devote twenty-five years to each of the four life — stages, — such is the view of the writers of the Digests.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.242.28-30). — ‘The pupil shall pass through the life-stages, free from vulgarity; having gone through the fourth part of his life by keeping the fasts and observances, relating to the Veda, he shall offer the fee to his preceptor and perform the ceremony of ‘Return’ according to the law; being united to a virtuous wife and having, with due care, kindled the fires, the householder shall pass the second quarter of his life, keeping firm in his observances.’

Do. (12.243.1). — ‘During the second quarter of his life, the householder shall live in the house, firm in his observances, after having been united to a virtuous wife and having kindled the fires.’

VERSE 4.2 [Means of Subsistence]

Section II - Means of Subsistence

अद्रोहेणैव भूतानामल्पद्रोहेण वा पुनः ।
या वृत्तिस्तां समास्थाय विप्रो जीवेदनापदि ॥२॥

adroheṇaiva bhūtānāmalpadroheṇa vā punaḥ |
yā vṛttistāṃ samāsthāya vipro jīvedanāpadi ||2||

[While living in the house], The Brāhmaṇa shall, in normal times, subsist by taking to that means of livelihood which involves no trouble — or very little trouble — to living beings. — (2)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

By ‘trouble’ here is meant, not only harm, but the unpleasant feeling or displeasure that is produced in the mind of one who is constantly begged with the words ‘give me this,’ ‘give me that;’ — the harming of others being already generally prohibited.

‘Little trouble;’ — If he cannot manage to live without begging, he should beg very little. This is what.is meant by ‘little trouble.’

That ‘means of livelihood’ — means of subsistence, such as agriculture, service, and the like — which means does not cause trouble to other persons, — such a means of subsistence should be taken to.

This is a general advice.

‘By taking to that means...he should subsist.’

What is to be done in abnormal times of distress shall be laid down in Discourse X.

From what is said here it follows that there are also other means of living than those that are going to be described. Otherwise, if the present text referred to those only that are going to be described, there would be no point in the general injunction here put forward. Thus it is that we get at such means of living as ‘officiating at sacrifices,’ ‘teaching,’ ‘money-lending,’ and so forth, — even though these are not mentioned among ‘amṛta’ and the rest enumerated here.

‘Living on gleanings,’ which has been accepted as a very small means of subsistence, is what is meant by ‘involving little trouble.’ Says Gautama (10.6) — ‘Agriculture and Trade, done through others, as also money-lending.’

What is here laid down is the means of mere subsistence; the amassing of wealth is to be done by the few specialised means going to be enumerated. — (2)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.128), which says that what is here stated is confined to the Brāhmaṇa only; — in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 246); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 215); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, p. 37a),

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (2.11). — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, officiating at sacrifices and receiving of gifts.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.4-6). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa’s own occupation, consists of studying, teaching, sacrificing, officiating at sacrifices, making gifts, receiving gifts, inheriting of property and gleaning and picking; also such others as may not have been adopted by others.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.69). — ‘If unable to maintain himself by teaching, officiating at sacrifices, and receiving of gifts, he may live by the occupation of the Kṣatriya; this being the next best for him.’

Atri (13). — ‘The occupation of the Brāhmaṇa consists of sacrificing, making gifts, studying, austerities, receiving gifts, teaching and officiating at sacrifices; these are the means of his livelihood.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 29). — ‘For the householder, living by the means prescribed for him, marrying in families not belonging to the same Ṛṣi-gotra, approaching his wife only during her periods, making offerings to gods, Pitṛs, guests and dependants and feeding on what remains.’

VERSE 4.3

Section II - Means of Subsistence

यात्रामात्रप्रसिद्ध्यर्थं स्वैः कर्मभिरगर्हितैः ।
अक्लेशेन शरीरस्य कुर्वीत धनसञ्चयम् ॥३॥

yātrāmātraprasiddhyarthaṃ svaiḥ karmabhiragarhitaiḥ |
akleśena śarīrasya kurvīta dhanasañcayam ||3||

For the accomplishment of bare maintenance, one shall accumulate wealth by means of one’s own irreproachable occupations, without causing trouble to the body. — (3)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The preceding verse has described the means of daily subsistence; the present verse is going to mention rules regarding the accumulating of wealth.

‘One shall accumulate wealth by means of one’s own occupations.’ — These occupations shall be described later on.

The author states the purpose for which wealth is to be accumulated: ‘For the accomplishment of bare maintenance’ — Wealth shall be accumulated, not for the purposes of pleasure, but simply for the sake of maintenance. ‘Maintenance’ stands for the subsisting of oneself and one’s family; and what just suffices for that is called ‘bare maintenance;’ — ‘the accomplishment,’ or bringing about of this, is the ‘purpose’ of the accumulation. The performance of obligatory duties is included under one’s ‘own subsistence;’ for, until one performs these, one’s own subsistence is not accomplished. It has been said above (3.72) — ‘he who does not make the five offerings, is not alive, even though he may be breathing.’

Or, what is meant is that, even though a certain means of accumulating wealth may be sanctioned by the scriptures, if it happen to be such as is considered reproachable in the eyes of men, it shall be avoided. For instance, when a man of noble family has spent all his belongings, he shall avoid living by such means as the receiving of gifts from a person of his own caste, but of a low family, who may have acquired wealth.

‘Without causing trouble to the body’ — Service and Trade are sources of great suffering to the body, involving as they do long journeys and other troubles: so that these should be avoided.

‘Accumulation.’ — Collecting and keeping. — (3).

VERSE 4.4

Section II - Means of Subsistence

ऋतामृताभ्यां जीवेत् तु मृतेन प्रमृतेन वा ।
सत्यानृताभ्यामपि वा न श्ववृत्त्या कदा चन ॥४॥

ṛtāmṛtābhyāṃ jīvet tu mṛtena pramṛtena vā |
satyānṛtābhyāmapi vā na śvavṛttyā kadā cana ||4||

He shall live in “Truth” and “Nectar,” or by “Death” and “Super-death;” or, even by “Truth and Falsehood;” but never by the “living of the dog.” — (4)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author now mentions the “occupations” by name; and their mere names imply the excellence of some of them; and from this it follows that one should have recourse to the deprecated ones only when the commended ones are not possible.

Of these, the “Death” and the “Super-Death” are the most deprecated; and worse than these is the “Truth and Falsehood,” as is clear from the fact that the Text says that one may live ‘even by these;’ where the term ‘even’ clearly indicates undesirability. — (4)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 309); — in Vidhānapārijāta (II. p. 246); — and the second half in Madanapārijāta (p. 216).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Agnipurāṇa (100.5). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Kūrmapurāṇa (1.2.25.22). — ‘The householder is of two kinds — the Sādhaka and the Non-sādhaka; for the former, teaching, officiating at sacrifices, receiving of gifts, gleaning and picking; for the Non-sādhaka householder, gleaning and picking have been declared to be the only two means of livelihood.’

VERSE 4.5

Section II - Means of Subsistence

ऋतमुञ्छशिलं ज्ञेयममृतं स्यादयाचितम् ।
मृतं तु याचितं भैक्षं प्रमृतं कर्षणं स्मृतम् ॥५॥

ṛtamuñchaśilaṃ jñeyamamṛtaṃ syādayācitam |
mṛtaṃ tu yācitaṃ bhaikṣaṃ pramṛtaṃ karṣaṇaṃ smṛtam ||5||

Gleaning and picking is to be known as “Truth;” and what is obtained unasked, “Nectar”; alms obtained by begging is “Death,” and cultivation is declared to be “Super- death.” — (5)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The corn that is gleaned is to be known as ‘Truth;’ living by this means being regarded as equal to the strict observance of truth. When after harvesting, corn is being carried either home or to the granary, if certain ears of corn fall down on the ground, and are left by the owner’ — the picking up of these is what is called “gleaning;” and this is called ‘Truth;’ and in regard to this, one need not entertain any such idea as ‘this belongs to another person, so I shall not take it.’

Similarly, when one takes away what has fallen off from the sheaf — either before or after harvesting, — and what forms part of several offshoots, — this is ‘picking.’

‘What is obtained unasked is Nectar’ — so called, because it is a source of great pleasure.

‘The alms obtained by begging is Death.’ — The term ‘begging’ itself signifying the fact of what is obtained being ‘alms,’ the addition of this latter term — which is formed by the adding of a Nominal Affix denoting a group or collection, — is meant to imply that several persons shall be begged, and no single person shall be constantly troubled, as is shown by what has been said above regarding ‘what involves very little trouble to living beings.’ Then again, as a rule, the term ‘bhaikṣa,’ ‘alms,’ is found to be used in the sense of cooked food; as we find in the case of such passages as — ‘for the purpose of cleansing oneself from alms;’ hence the adding of the term ‘begging’ serves to indicate that ‘alms’ stands here for food in general; hence what is meant here is not cooked food only; specially as for one who has set up the Fire, it would be wrong to make the Vaiśvadeva and other offerings with food cooked in any other fire.

The begging of alms here spoken of is not meant to be that only which is got for eating; it stands for what enables the man to maintain himself; and the maintenance of the householder is not accomplished merely by eating; in fact, it requires all such things as are necessary for house-keeping; hence it is that water-vessels and other such articles should also be begged; as also such household-requisites as dishes and covers, etc. So far as the Student is concerned, since for him it is impossible that just at the time of his eating, cooking should be done in the proper manner; — it follows that in his case ‘alms’ must mean cooked food only.

The term ‘bhikṣā,’ ‘alms,’ also indicates the quantity of the article obtained by begging; this quantity being a mere handful. But when a man is begged, he does not give mere alms, a mere handful; so that the begging of the cow, gold and such other things could not be regarded as sanctioned by the mere ‘handful.’ In fact, begging is always done for the purpose of receiving all kinds of gifts.

“The receiving of alms also would be a receiving of gifts.”

No; mere acceptance does not constitute the ‘receiving of gifts;’ the root ‘graha,’ with the preposition ‘prati,’ — i.e., the term ‘pratigraha,’ ‘receiving of gifts’ — is applied to a particular form of ‘acceptance,’ and not to any and every acceptance. Wherever the term ‘pratigraha,’ ‘gift,’ is used — e. g., under 4.186 and 10.100 — it is used in the sense of such gift as is offered with a view to some transcendental result, and is received with due mantras. In the receiving of mere ‘alms,’ however, there is no reciting of any such mantra as ‘devasya tvā, etc.’ Nor again, is the term applied to the accepting of friendly and other presents; in the sense of this latter, the term is never used.

From all this it follows that the terms ‘Truth’ and ‘Nectar’ are used in the sense of things other than ‘gifts.’ Hence, in this case, the man who gives, whether begged or un-begged, is a high-souled person, and, hence, in his mind there does not arise any desire for any form of return (for the gift he makes); so that there would be no grounds for any restriction as to the caste, etc., of the recipient or giver. When a present is made entirely through sympathy for the receiver, it does not become a ‘gift’ (which always connotes the presence of desire for some transcendental result).

“But what is given through sympathy or pity is also conducive to transcendental results.”

We say — no; because it does not fulfil the conditions of ‘dāna,’ ‘giving’ (formal); it being prompted either by pity or by the desire to do good to others. Hence, just as in offering advice, through sympathy, considerations of caste do not come in; so in the case of giving through pity also. It is for this reason that in the case of such giving, cultured people do not observe any such restrictions as ‘gifts should be offered to the Brāhmaṇa who knows the real meaning of the Veda,’ and so forth. It is for this same reason, again, that even non-Brāhmaṇas, on becoming poor, accept gifts offered by others, but are not, on that account, regarded as having ‘received gifts,’ and thus transgressed upon the Brāhmaṇas ‘livelihood.’

The conclusion, therefore, is as follows: — Though in the regular ‘gift,’ considerations of its being asked or unasked do come in, yet it does not, merely on that account, become either ‘Truth’ or ‘Nectar;’ because it has been shown that these terms have a different connotation.

This same connotation is applicable to ‘officiating at sacrifices’ and ‘teaching’ (the other two means of livelihood for the Brāhmaṇa): Some one obtains the post of officiating at a sacrifice after having begged for it from some one. Similarly with the work of Teaching also.

Any such means of living as is obtained by begging, involves humiliation; and hence, resembling death, it is called ‘death.’

Cultivating is worse even than Death; specially as the act of ploughing and carrying of burdens is the work of lower people. — (5)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 309), which explains the difference between ‘uñcha’ and ‘śila’ by taking ṭhe former to mean the picking up of single grains, of corn and the latter that of ears of com fallen on the ground; — and in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 246).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.5-6)

Kūrmapurāṇa (1.2.25.23). — ‘He may live either by Nectar or by Death; Nectar is that which is obtained unasked, and Death is the alms obtained by begging.’

Bṛhad-Yama (60, 62). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa is ruined by serving the king. Those Brāhmaṇas who serve such masters as should not be served, and who officiate at sacrifices for those for whom it should not be done, are to be regarded as impure and beyond the pale of all Dharma.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.27). — ‘When unable to maintain himself by means of his own occupations, he shall never have recourse to a sinful occupation.’

Yājñavalkya (3.25). — ‘In abnormal times of distress, the Brāhmaṇa may maintain himself by the occupation of the Kṣatriya, or by that of the Vaiśya.’

Viṣṇu (2.15). — ‘In times of distress, the occupation of the next (caste).’

Baudhāyana (2.2.69, 72). — ‘Being unable to maintain himself by teaching, officiating at sacrifices, and receiving of gifts, he shall live by the occupation of the Kṣatriya; this being the next best for him; — he may also have recourse to the occupation of the Vaiśya; this being the next best.’

Gautama (7.6-7). — ‘In the absence of the aforesaid, the occupation of the Kṣatriya; in the absence of this latter also, the occupation of the Vaiśya.’

VERSE 4.6

Section II - Means of Subsistence

सत्यानृतं तु वाणिज्यं तेन चैवापि जीव्यते ।
सेवा श्ववृत्तिराख्याता तस्मात् तां परिवर्जयेत् ॥६॥

satyānṛtaṃ tu vāṇijyaṃ tena caivāpi jīvyate |
sevā śvavṛttirākhyātā tasmāt tāṃ parivarjayet ||6||

Trade is “Truth and Falsehood;” even by that one may live. Service has been declared, to be the “living of dogs;” hence one should avoid it. — (6)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It should not be understood that the scripture here lays down the fact of Trade being both ‘true’ and ‘false;’ it only describes the nature of the thing; and what constitutes the ‘falsehood’ of Trade is the element of avaricious grabbing involved in it.

‘May live.’ — This implies that Trade may be had recourse to, only for the purposes of livelihood, never for that of accumulating wealth.

‘Service is the living of the dog.’ — The dog is made to work hard, and gets little and with difficulty; so also the servant. ‘Service’ here connotes being ordered about; the servant is always commanded to do this and that work, right as well as wrong. Hence, when people serve kings with such superior kind of work as the carrying of arms and the like, these are not regarded ‘as the living of dogs,’ — (6)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The first half of this verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 309); — and the entire verse in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 246).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.5-6)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.5.

VERSE 4.7

Section II - Means of Subsistence

कुसूलधान्यको वा स्यात् कुम्भीधान्यक एव वा ।
त्र्यहेहिको वाऽपि भवेदश्वस्तनिक एव वा ॥७॥

kusūladhānyako vā syāt kumbhīdhānyaka eva vā |
tryahehiko vā'pi bhavedaśvastanika eva vā ||7||

He shall be either one possessing a granary full of grains, or one possessing a jar full of grains; he may be one possessing what is wanted for three days, or one who does not possess enough for the morrow. — (7)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been declared that wealth should be accumulated for the maintenance of oneself and family; and no trouble shall be undertaken for mere pleasure; it has not been said whether the man is to acquire wealth day by day, or only once, sufficient to last for a long time. Hence the Text now proceeds to show how one is to earn a living lasting for some length of time.

‘Kusūladhānyakaḥ.’ — One who has grains in a granary; the compound being a Bahuvrīhi, where the members are not in apposition to each other.

Another reading is ‘Kusūladhānyikaḥ;’ in which case, the term Kusūladhānya would mean ‘grains enough to fill a granary;’ and one who possesses this would be ‘Kusūladhānyika;’ the word being formed with the Possessive affix ‘ik.’

Receptacles built of bricks and such things, which contain grains, are called ‘Kusūla’ or ‘Koṣṭha,’ ‘granary;’ and this term serves to indicate the quantity; the sense being that ‘one shall accumulate grains in such quantities as may fill a granary and it does not mean that ‘he must use the granary only as the receptacle for grains.’ What the text permits, by means of the word ‘granary,’ is the accumulating of just that quantity of grain which may suffice to maintain for one year the family of a man with large responsibilities, having a large number of servants, relations, wives, slaves, children, cattle, horse, and such other things. That such is the sense, is shown by what is going to be said (in 11.7) regarding the man who has grains sufficient for three years.

Significance is not meant to be attached to the term ‘grains’ also; in fact, there would be nothing wrong in the man acquiring such quantities of gold, silver and such things as would suffice for the said maintenance. All that the text means is that one should not accumulate more than that.

‘Kumbhī’ is the same ‘uṣṭṛka,’ ‘jar.’ They say that this stands for such quantity as would suffice for six months.

‘Trayahaihika;’ — ‘aihika’ means ‘wanted;’ he who has what is wanted for three days is ‘trayahaihika;’ which is the name given to one who collects what is enough for the requirements of his family for three days.

‘Śvastana’ is what is needed for the morrow; he who possesses this is, as before, ‘Śvastanika;’ and this compound, with the negative particle, gives the term ‘aśvastanika;’ ‘who does not possess enough for the morrow.’ The meaning is that he should acquire what just suffices for the time, what he earns he should spend all that the same day. — (7)

The author next states the law relating to the options just mentioned: —

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kusūladhānyakaḥ’ — Having as much grain as is contained in a Kusūla, a granary, i. e., enough to feed the household for one year’ (not three as mentioned by Buhler) [Medhātithi]; — ‘enough to last twelve days’ (Govindarāja); — ‘enough for three years’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘enough for twelve, six or three months’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Kumbhīdhānyakaḥ’ — ‘Having as much grain as may be contained in a Kumbhī, i.e., enough to last for six months’ (Medhātithi); — ‘enough to last for six days’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘enough for one year’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 169); — in Mitākṣarā, (on 1.128), which adds that this refers, not to all Brāhmaṇas, but to those only who are ‘yāyāvara’ i.e., ‘who devote themselves entirely to study, sacrifice and making gifts, and do not have recourse to teaching, sacrificing for others and receiving gifts, or amassing of wealth’ (according to Devala); — also on 3.29, as describing the four kinds of ‘Householder’; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 216); — in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 246), which explains ‘Kusūla’ as ‘Koṣṭhakam,’ — ‘Kumbhī’ as ‘aṣṭrikā,’ and the whole compound as ‘one who possesses grain enough to fill the one or the other’; — ‘tryahika’ as ‘one who has grains enough to last for three days,’ and ‘aśvastana’ as ‘one not having grains for the morrow’; — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, p. 37a).

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры