with the Commentary of Medhatithi 108 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 114 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.7-8)

Yājñavalkya (1.228). — ‘He may be the possessor of a granary-full or a jar-full of grains, or of grain enough for three days, or of grain not enough for the morrow; or he may live by gleaning and picking; the succeeding being superior to the preceding among these.’

Laghu-Viṣṇu (2.16-17). — ‘The virtuous householders are divided into four classes according to the difference in their means of livelihood; of these the following is superior to the preceding. [Three quarters of Manu’s text being reproduced, the fourth part is read as sadyaḥprakṣālakaḥ, one who had just enough for the last meal that he has had.]’

Mahābhārata (12.249.2-3). — ‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise — the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’

VERSE 4.8

Section II - Means of Subsistence

चतुर्णामपि चैतेषां द्विजानां गृहमेधिनाम् ।
ज्यायान् परः परो ज्ञेयो धर्मतो लोकजित्तमः ॥८॥

caturṇāmapi caiteṣāṃ dvijānāṃ gṛhamedhinām |
jyāyān paraḥ paro jñeyo dharmato lokajittamaḥ ||8||

Among these four Brāhmaṇa-householders, each later should be regarded as superior, and a superior winner of worlds by virtue of his merit. — (8)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The person who accumulates wealth enough for a shorter time is superior, better, in point of merit; and superiority of merit leads to superiority of reward — ‘he is a superior winner of worlds’ — he wins the wolrds; i.e., takes possession of them, as their master; i.e., obtains them for his enjoyment. The suffix ‘tama’ denotes excellence. In the absence of qualifications, the term ‘worlds’ here is taken as standing for the heavenly regions.

For these reasons, the rule on this point would be as follows: —

(a) He who has vast responsibilities, having many children, whose sons have not set up separate houses, who has not married away his daughters, — such a person should possess a granary full of corns; — (b) he, however, who has become advanced in age, has got children, has done all that he had to do, — such a person, as he goes on withdrawing from activities, should have recourse to the other alternatives. — (8)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 169); — and in Madanapārijāta, (p. 216).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.7-8)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.7.

VERSE 4.9

Section II - Means of Subsistence

षट्कर्मैको भवत्येषां त्रिभिरन्यः प्रवर्तते ।
द्वाभ्यामेकश्चतुर्थस्तु ब्रह्मसत्त्रेण जीवति ॥९॥

ṣaṭkarmaiko bhavatyeṣāṃ tribhiranyaḥ pravartate |
dvābhyāmekaścaturthastu brahmasattreṇa jīvati ||9||

From among these one follows the six occupations; another lives by three; one again with two; while the fourth lives by “Brahmasattra.’ — (9)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘From among these’ — from among the four kinds of householders, one having a granary full of grains, and so forth, — ‘one follows the six occupations;’ i.e., the person with vast responsibilities described above, follows all the six occupations. — “Which are these?” — These arc — (1) gleanings, (2) pickings, (3) earning by begging, (4) earning without begging, (5) agriculture and trade; ‘teaching,’ officiating at sacrifices’ and ‘receiving gifts’ being included under ‘earning by begging, and without begging.’ The man with a large family should have recourse to all these occupations, for the due fulfilment of his daily work; in fact he may have recourse to even agriculture and trade.

Some people explain the ‘six occupations’ of the present context as standing for — ‘Teaching, studying’ and the rest mentioned in Discourse I (88). But this explanation is in-compatible with the context [since Study, offering of sacrifices and making gifts can nut be ‘means of livelihood’]; and further, there would be no point in prescribing study and the rest here, they having been already enjoined elsewhere (in 1.88 and in 10.75).

‘Another’ — the second, who possesses a jar full of corns — ‘lives by three;’ the prefix ‘pra’ in ‘pravartate’ is superfluous; ‘pravartate’ standing for ‘vartate.’ Any three occupations of those mentioned are meant here, — with the exception of Agriculture and Trade.

The person possessing only a jar full of corns is more commendable than the former. Since it is going to be declared later on that — ‘this means of living has been deprecated by the good;’ this with reference to the ‘tending of cattle, trade,’ and so forth (8.102). Gautama has mentioned (10.5-6)

‘Agriculture and Trade, not carried on by oneself, and money-lending’ as permissible in normal times. But even when one carries on trade and agriculture, not by oneself, but through others, — there is something improper in this also; though the impropriety may be a small one.

‘One lives with two.’ — Here also, leaving off ‘earning by begging,’ any two of the six may be adopted. The acquiring of wealth without begging also is permissible only to the extent of what may suffice for three days.

‘The fourth lives by Brahmasattra.’ — ‘Brahmasattra’ stands for either one of the two, ‘picking’ and ‘gleaning.’ These means of living are called ‘sattra’ (Sacrificial Session), because they are carried on continuously and are not to be finished on any one day. For this reason they are called ‘sattra,’ specially as they have to be carried on every day. The term ‘brahma’ is synonymous with ‘Brāhmaṇas;’ the meaning being that this is a sacrifical session for Brāhmaṇas. From the use of this term ‘brahma’ here, it follows that all that has been said before this regarding the means of living, pertains to ‘Brāhmaṇas;’ those pertaining to the Kṣatriya and others will be described on various occasions.

Question — “How can any living be possible by pickings and gleanings alone? since it is only during the autumn and the summer that it is possible for ears of corns to fall either in fields or in harvest-yards, it might be said that ‘the man would earn summer-grains from the summer-harvests, and the autumnal grains from the autumnal harvests.’ But in this way the man would have to collect grains lasting for six months; and he could never be ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow.’ It might be argued that — ‘it would be possible for the man to pick and glean grains that may have fallen here and there (even apart from harvesting).’ This is true; but the grain collected in this fashion could never suffice for feeding. — ‘When the man is picking and gleaning, just as he will have collected enough, he will eat; it being impossible for him to make a collection for five or more days. In the Mahābhārata, the person who eats at the end of a fortnight has been called ‘one who lives by pickings and gleanings which means that, under such circumstances, the Householder has become the Hermit.’ — But even so, this would be incompatible with the character of ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow;’ as, under the circumstances mentioned, the man would be ‘one who lives upon whatever he obtains,’ and not‘ one who does not possess enough for the morrow.’ That man is called ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow,’ who earns everyday just enough for the day, and spends it all on the same day, and does not keep anything for the next day. If the daily ‘picking and gleaning’ does not suffice for his daily feeding, how could he be ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow?’ How could such a person live and maintain his wife and children?”

It is in view of these difficulties that some people offer another explanation of the Text beginning with the words ‘another lives by three’: — ‘By three’ — i.e., by officiating at sacrifices, by teaching and by receiving gifts. — ‘By two’ — i.e., by officiating at sacrifices and by teaching; the ‘receiving of gifts’ being precluded in view of what is said (in 10.109) regarding ‘the receiving of gifts being demeaning.’ — ‘Brahma - sattra’ is teaching; and this would be enough for a living. The person described (in 4.10) as ‘one who lives by picking and gleaning, etc.,’ must be different from the four described in the present text.

On this point, we offer the following explanation: — ‘The person living by picking’ is one who obtains from several persons — taking ten or twelve barley grains from each — just enough to serve for the day; while one who obtains from each person enough for the day is called ‘one living by gleanings.’ In another Smṛti text, this means of living has been called ‘Yāyāvara.’ in view of this, such livelihood may pertain to all time. Nor would there be any incompatibility between the performance of the Vaiśvadeva and other rites and the maintaining of wife and children; as for purposes of the former, a very small quantity would be taken out of the alms obtained. — (9)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ṣaṭkarma’ — Medhātithi is again misrepresented by Buhler. (See Translation); the ‘six’ described by him are (1) ‘uñcha,’ (2) ‘śila,’ (3) ‘ayācitalābha,’ (4) ‘yācitalābha,’ (5) ‘kṛṣi’ and (6) ‘vāṇijya’; and he adds that ‘Teaching, sacrificing for others and receiving gifts’ are included under ‘yācita-ayācitalābha’ — they are those mentioned in verses 5 and 6, according to Govindarāja, which agrees with Medhātithi; — those mentioned in 5 and 6, excepting ‘service’ and substituting in its place ‘money-lending,’ according to Kullūka and Rāghavānanda; — according to Nārāyaṇa, those mentioned in verses 5 and 6, and also those enumerated in 1.88; — those mentioned in 1. 88, according to Nandana, which explanation Medhātithi notes and rejects.

‘Tribhiḥ’ — Here also Buhler misrepresents Medhātithi; Medhātithi does not restrict ‘three’ to the ‘first three mentioned in verses 5-6’; what he clearly says is ‘any three out of those mentioned excepting agriculture and trade’; — ‘teaching, sacrificing and accepting gifts’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana); — ‘teaching, sacrificing and accepting gifts, as also the first three mentioned in verses 5-6’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Dvābhyām’ — Here also what Medhātithi says is — any two out of the three just recommended, excepting gifts received for asking — and not ‘gleaning and accepting voluntary gifts’ as stated by Buhler; — ‘sacrificing and teaching’ (Govindarāja Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana); — ‘gleaning ears and single grains’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Brahmasattra’ — ‘Any one of the two, gleaning ears and gleaning single grains’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘teaching’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 169), which adds the following notes: — ‘ṣaṭkarma’ stands for the six occupations of sacrificing for others, offering sacrifices and the rest, that have been recommended for the Brāhmaṇa; and these are referred to for the purpose of prescribing the three occupations of receiving gifts and the rest; — ‘tribhiranyaḥ’ — i. e., for the ‘kumbhīdhānya’ also the three occupations are enjoined; — ‘dvābhyām ekaḥ’, — this permits sacrificing and teaching for the Tryahaihika, — the receiving of gifts being forbidden, as they may come from evil persons; — the fourth, ‘Aśvastana’ should live by ‘Brahmasattra’, i. e., teaching alone. Thus it follows that the ‘Kusūladhānya’ and the rest are meant for the Brāhmaṇa only; as the receiving of gifts and the rest are not possible for any other caste.

Mitākṣarā (on 1.128) quotes the verse in support of the view that the first refers to ‘sacrificing, teaching, receiving gifts, agriculture, trade and cattle-tending,’ — the second to ‘sacrificing, teaching and receiving gifts,’ — the third to ‘sacrificing and teaching’ and the fourth to ‘teaching’ only.

The verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 216), which provides an explanation more in keeping with Medhātithi’s: — The Kusūladhyāna has six occupations, — viz. uñcha, śila, ayācita, yācita, kṛṣi and vāṇijya; — the other, ‘Kumbhīdhānya’ lives by three — i.e., uñcha, śila and ayācita; — the ‘Tryahaihika’ by two — i.e., uñcha and śila; — and ‘Aśvastanika’ by the ‘Brahmasattra’ i.e., by the u ñ cha alone, which leads him to the ‘regions of Brahman, and as such is equal to the Sattra sacrifice.’

The verse is quoted also in Vidhānapārijāta (II. p. 247), which explains the ‘six occupations’ to be ‘sacrificing, teaching, receiving gifts, agriculture, trade and cattle-tending; — and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 131), which explains the meaning as follows: — Some people live by the six means — officiating at sacrifices, teaching, receiving gifts, agriculture, trade and cattle-tending; — others by three only viz., receiving gifts, teaching and officiating at sacrifices; others by two only i.e., by officiating at sacrifices and teaching; and others again by one only, teaching; among these each succeeding one is superior to the preceeding ones.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.244.4). — [Practically the same as Manu — ‘Ṣaṭkarmā vartayatyeko tribhiranyaḥ pravartate dvābhyamekaścaturthastu brahmasattre vyavasthitaḥ.’]

VERSE 4.10

Section II - Means of Subsistence

वर्तयंश्च शिलौञ्छाभ्यामग्निहोत्रपरायणः ।
इष्टीः पार्वायणान्तीयाः केवला निर्वपेत् सदा ॥१०॥

vartayaṃśca śilauñchābhyāmagnihotraparāyaṇaḥ |
iṣṭīḥ pārvāyaṇāntīyāḥ kevalā nirvapet sadā ||10||

‘Living by gleanings and pickings, intent upon the performance of Agnihotra, one should constantly offer only those Iṣṭi-sacrificer that pertain to the moonless and full-moon days and to the solstices. — (10);

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘pārvāyaṇāntīyāḥ’ is to be expound as ‘those pertaining to the Parvas and the Ayanāntas;’ — the term being formed with the reflexive ‘aṇ’ and the correlative ‘cha’ (according to Pāṇini, 4.2.114).

‘Iṣṭi-sacritices pertaining to the Parvas (the moonless and the full-moon days) are the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa sacrifices; and that ‘pertaining to the solstices’ is the sacrifice called the ‘Agrayaṇa.’

The adding of ‘only’ precludes the voluntary sacrifices that are performed with special ends in view. For the man here referred to, the offering of the Vaiśvadeva oblations and the making of Bali -offerings are not necessary every day; because he does not possess the requisite amount of wealth. Hence the term ‘only’ precludes all the more elaborate sacrifices.

“For that same reason, the Agnihotra also would not be possible for the man; as wealth is needed for that also.”

Yes; but he could offer the fortnightly oblations.

“How would such a man maintain his wife?”

She also will have recourse to the same means of living (i.e., picking and gleaning). In the event of the wife being disabled and unable to carry on this method of livelihood, the husband would not be entitled to the performance of the Agnihotra (or to the livelihood by pickings and gleanings).

“How would the wife, in such cases, manage to live, when the man would be keeping the Cāndrāyaṇa and such other fasts and observances?”

There is no room for this question, in face of the direction that ‘the wife shall eat what is left by the guest and others.’

“In the event of the man not being able to offer the Vaiśvadeva -offerings, the wife could not live upon her own private property; as it has been laid down that both husband and wife shall live upon ‘remnants,’ Hence, the man shall make the Vaiśvadeva -offerings with the help of his wife’s property; specially, as the use of the wife’s property for religious purposes has been sanctioned by the scriptures.”

It is not so; under the circumstances mentioned, it is the Agnihotra, and not the Vaiśvadeva -offering, that is religiously binding.

Or, even granting what you say. How would that woman live who has no private property of her own?

From all this it follows that the man, whose wife is disabled, is not entitled to have recourse to the ‘picking and gleaning’ method of livelihood.

‘Living’ — maintaining himself. — (10)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Laghu-Viṣṇu (2.27.29). — ‘Whatever means of Dharma have been laid down in the Śruti and in the Smṛti, — every one of these should be carried out in practice by one living in the house; otherwise he becomes open to censure.’

VERSE 4.11

Section II - Means of Subsistence

न लोकवृत्तं वर्तेत वृत्तिहेतोः कथं चन ।
अजिह्मामशथां शुद्धां जीवेद् ब्राह्मणजीविकाम् ॥११॥

na lokavṛttaṃ varteta vṛttihetoḥ kathaṃ cana |
ajihmāmaśathāṃ śuddhāṃ jīved brāhmaṇajīvikām ||11||

He shall never follow the worldly way, for the sake of subsistence; he shall live the straightforward, sincere and pure life of the Brāhmaṇa. — (11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That is called the ‘worldly way’ which is followed by ordinary people wanting in moral strength; — such methods, for instance, as those of hypocrisy and flattery — (describing the man from whom something is to be gained as) ‘you are Viṣṇu, you are Brahmā! May you conquer and live long!’ and so forth, — and also of reciting pleasing and jocular stories.

‘For the sake of subsistence.’ — What is mentioned here should not be done for the purpose of making a living; there is no harm in its being done by way of politeness.

‘Straightforward.’ — The man whose exterior is different from the interior, is called ‘dishonest,’ ‘not straightforward;’ such a person.is of a jealous temperament and shows it to persons who speak disagreeable words to him.

‘Sincere.’ — That man is called ‘insincere,’ ‘hypocritical,’ who performs the Agnihotra, for obtaining popularity and thereby receiving presents and gifts, and not with a view to carrying out the scriptural injunctions regarding it.

Though ‘straightforwardness’ and the rest are qualities belonging to the soul, yet they are here figuratively attributed to the ‘Life.’

‘Straightforward, sincere and pure’ — The ‘purity’ here meant consists in its not being mixed up with the two methods of livelihood described above, and also in its being free from the aforesaid defects.

Though what was meant could be conveyed by means of only one of the three words, yet, in view of metrical exigencies, the author has made use of three words; such, use being analogous to such expressions as ‘go-balīvarda’ (where the go is the same as the balīvarda).

How can there be any such expression as ‘live the life of the Brāhmaṇa,’ ‘Brāhmaṇajīvikām jīvet, ‘when the root to live is intransitive? Why, too, should the same root (to live, jīva) be used twice (once in ‘jīvet’ and again in ‘jīvikām’)? Certainly, the relation of cause and effect is never found to be expressed by such expressions, as ‘gamanam gacchet,’ ‘should go the going.’”

Our answer is as follows: — The relation of cause and effect is based upon the relation of general and particular, and hence there is nothing incongruous in this. We have such usage in expressions like ‘aśvapoṣam puṣṭaḥ,’ ‘fattened like the fattening of the horse,’ Further, the root ‘jīva,’ ‘to live,’ also denotes the act of living as part of the act of acting up to the performance; and in this sense it is transitive also. So that there is nothing objectionable in the expression used; the term ‘jīvet,’ ‘should live,’ being explained as should act up to,’ for the sake of subsistence. — (11)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.249.22). — ‘Not with any worldly motives shall he perform any acts or any religious duty.’

Yājñavalkya (1.123). — ‘He shall lead a straightforward and sincere life, in due accordance with his age, intelligence, wealth, dress, learning and occupation.’

VERSE 4.12

Section II - Means of Subsistence

सन्तोषं परमास्थाय सुखार्थी संयतो भवेत् ।
सन्तोषमूलं हि सुखं दुःखमूलं विपर्ययः ॥१२॥

santoṣaṃ paramāsthāya sukhārthī saṃyato bhavet |
santoṣamūlaṃ hi sukhaṃ duḥkhamūlaṃ viparyayaḥ ||12||

He who wants happiness should adopt perfect contentment and remain self-controlled. Happiness has its root in contentment, and its opposite is the root of unhappiness. — (12)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

With a view to laying stress upon the importance of the two means of living — ‘to collect grains for three days’ and ‘not to possess grains enough for the morrow,’ — the author adds this verse by way of reflection.

One should have recourse to contentment; that is, one should not make an effort to go about begging on a large scale, with a view to becoming dependent upon several persons.

‘He who wants happiness should remain self-controlled.’ — ‘Self-control’ consists in not wanting more wealth than what would suffice for bare subsistence.

‘Contentment’ is the root of happiness for all high-minded persons; and its opposite — i.e., Discontent — is the root of unhappiness; the non-accomplishment of what is desired being a source of great humiliation for the learned. For these reasons, one should have recourse to contentment. — (12)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 170), which remarks that in connection with all these ‘vratas’, it has to be borne in mind that what is exactly meant by the term ‘vrata’ is the mental determination that ‘I shall do this — I shall not do that’, — and that all these have to be taken up immediately after the Final Bath.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (1.129). — ‘He shall ever remain contented.’

VERSE 4.13 [The Observances of the Accomplished Student]

Section III - The Observances of the Accomplished Student

अतोऽन्यतमया वृत्त्या जीवंस्तु स्नातको द्विजः ।
स्वर्गायुष्ययशस्यानि व्रताणीमानि धारयेत् ॥१३॥

ato'nyatamayā vṛttyā jīvaṃstu snātako dvijaḥ |
svargāyuṣyayaśasyāni vratāṇīmāni dhārayet ||13||

The twice-born Accomplished Student, living by any one of these means of livelihood, should keep these (following) observances, which are conducive to heaven, longevity and fame. — (13)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘means of livelihood’ stands for the rule regarding subsistence. Hence, ‘by any one’ does not imply that the man’s life should be entirely dependent upon that one; because the rules do not say that he who has recourse to one living should not have recourse to another. It is for this reason,too, that the mail subsisting by a number of means of living, or the man who has inherited his father’s property (and hence does not stand in need of the modes of living just described), does not cease to be entitled to the keeping of the observances. If this were not so, then it would be absolutely necessary for the man to adopt only one mode of living.

‘These observances.’ — ‘Observance’ means mental determination, in the form — ‘such and such an act is enjoined by the scriptures, — I should do this — or I should not do that.’

‘Conducive to heaven, longevity and fame.’ — Some people have held that this mentions the results actually following from the keeping of the observances; and hence it is only persons desiring these results, that have to keep the observances.

This, however, is not right. As if this were so, then the observances would cease to be obligatory; and this would be incompatible with the term ‘nitya,’ ‘daily,’ ‘always,’ occurring in the next verse. Further, the Veda has indicated the obligatory character of these observances: — ‘By not keeping these, one becomes beset with sin,’ Further, if Heaven and the rest were construed as something desired, they could not attain the position of being qualifications of the persons entitled to the observances. — (13)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.249.25-28). — ‘The man who carries on, without complaint, the functions of the householder, purifies ten ancestors and ten descendants.... For householders whose self is under control a place in heaven is effectively secured.’

VERSE 4.14

Section III - The Observances of the Accomplished Student

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры