with the Commentary of Medhatithi 110 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 116 из 350Следующая ⇒

VERSE 4.24

Section IV - The ‘Five Sacrifices’

ज्ञानेनैवापरे विप्रा यजन्त्येतैर्मखैः सदा ।
ज्ञानमूलां क्रियामेषां पश्यन्तो ज्ञानचक्षुषा ॥२४॥

jñānenaivāpare viprā yajantyetairmakhaiḥ sadā |
jñānamūlāṃ kriyāmeṣāṃ paśyanto jñānacakṣuṣā ||24||

Other Brāhmaṇas, looking, with the eye of knowledge, upon this act as having its root in knowledge, always sacrifice with these sacrifices, by means of knowledge. — (24)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘By these sacrifices,’ — by the Five great sacrifices under treatment — ‘they sacrifice,’ — i.e., accomplish their duty in relation to them. It is in this sense that there is difference in the denotations of the two terms, ‘sacrifice’ and ‘sacrifices,’ — between which the text speaks of the relation of cause and effect; just as we have in the expression, ‘he who sacrifices with the Agniṣṭoma sacrifice.’

Question: — “ How can the sacrifice be accomplished by means of knowledge? Sacrifice consists in the act of offering a certain material for the benefit of a deity; and certainly knowledge is not of the nature of such au act.”

Our answer is as follows s — By the term ‘sacrifice’ in the present verse what is meant is the accomplishment of the act of sacrificing.

“If such accomplishment were brought about by knowledge alone, for what purpose would there be the performance of the act itself? The performance of an act cannot be entirely objectless. If your idea be that — ‘since the Veda speaks of the reward of an act accruing also to the man having knowledge of it, there is no need of the actual performance at all,’ — this cannot be right; as the passage referred to is only a commendatory description subserving the purposes of some other passage.”

To this we make the following reply: — We have already pointed out that the persons entitled to the performance of the sacrifices in question are those that have realised the true nature of the Soul and are entirely free from desires. And it is these persons that are spoken of as ‘possessing knowledge,’ and not those who have the knowledge of the act. What the present text means is that such persons, having given up the Veda, but continuing in the house, should accomplish the great sacrifices in this manner. That is to say, it is only by means of knowledge of the Soul that such persons can accomplish such sacrifices as can be performed only with the help of wealth (which these men have renounced); but, as regards the two duties of Teaching and offering water-libations, it is going to be declared in Discourse VI, that these can be accomplished only by the actual performance of the acts (and not by knowledge of the Soul).

The text adds a commendatory declaration, by way of pointing out the reason for what has been said above.

‘Having its root in Knowledge,’ — i.e., that act which has its root in Knowledge. Knowledge stands at the root of all acts; an ignorant person cannot perform any act at all. This is what has been said in such passages — as — ‘the learned man sacrifices.’

‘Looking with the eye of Knowledge.’ — The Knowledge being as if it were the Eye; just as colour is perceived bymeans of the eye, so is the matter known by means of knowledge.

‘Knowledge’ here does not stand for the Veda alone — (24).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.23-24)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.23.

VERSE 4.25 [The Agnihotra and the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa]

Section V - The Agnihotra and the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa

अग्निहोत्रं च जुहुयादाद्यन्ते द्युनिशोः सदा ।
दर्शेन चार्धमासान्ते पौर्णमासेन चैव हि ॥२५॥

agnihotraṃ ca juhuyādādyante dyuniśoḥ sadā |
darśena cārdhamāsānte paurṇamāsena caiva hi ||25||

He shall always offer the Agnihotra, either at the beginning, or, at the end, of day and night, as also the “Darśa” and the “Paurṇamāsa” at the end of each half-month. — (25).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The terms ‘agnihotra’ and the rest are found used in the Veda and in the Gṛhyasūtra texts, in the sense of particular rites; and these rites, along with their procedure, are prescribed in these texts. And it is to these rites that the present verse makes a reference; it does not contain the original injunction of the rites; specially, as it speaks of their form only; i.e, all that the present verse mentions is the necessity of performing the act of offering only, — and it does not mention either the material to be offered, or the deity to whom it is to be offered. And yet the names ‘Agnihotra’ and the rest, stand in need of the mention of detailed particulars; hence it follows that what is implied is that the detailed particulars of these rites are to be learnt from other treatises.

“If that be so, then, since the necessity of performing the rites also could be learnt from those same treatises, there is no use for the present text at all.”

The use of the present text lies in adjusting the necessity of performing these acts, in the case of persons who have renounced Vedic rituals, with the form of worship laid down in the present context; the sense being that just as, according to what has been said regarding some people offering ‘the life-breath into speech,’ and so forth, the Five Great Sacrifices are performed by such men, by means of Knowledge alone, — so are the sacrificial rites mentioned in the present verse also. Then again, what sort of objection is this that you urge, when you ask — ‘Why should there he a repeated mention?’ As a matter of fact, in the case of the Vedic and Smṛti texts, it is found that what is said in one part of it is said again in another part; and all this would be open to objection (according to you). Lastly, we have already provided the general answer to such objections; — viz., that since the persons meant to be enlightened are many, the texts cannot be regarded as needless repetitions at all. Just as, by reason of the perceiv-ers being many, there are many organs of perception, and all men cannot see with one eye only, and there is need of several such organs, — so also is the case with the diverse Vedic and Smṛti texts.

The question might be raised — “Why should the mere name of the rites be mentioned?”

There is nothing objectionable in this also. Since the procedures as laid down in the several Vedic texts are divergent, which particular procedure could the verse mention? If it were to mention all, there would be prolexity; and if it were to mention any one only, this would involve the abandoning of the others.

“Even so, the omission is open to objection.”

But we have already pointed out that the present verse contains only a reference, and not an Injunction. It is only an Injunction, against which the objection can be urged that — ‘the act being already enjoined elsewhere, why should it be enjoined again?’

‘At the beginning and end of dag and night;’ — this is not meant to be construed respectively. What is meant is — ‘at the beginning of day and beginning of night,’ and ‘at the end of day and end of night;’ and by this, morning and evening are meant. For those who follow the practice of making the offerings after sunrise, the offering shall be made ‘at the beginning of day;’ while for those who follow the practice of making the offerings before sunrise, it shall be made ‘at the end of night.’

The term ‘dyu’ here is synonymous with ‘Divasa,’ ‘day.’

‘Always,’ — i.e., throughout one’s life, one should offer these morning and evening libations.

In connection with ‘darśena,’ it is necessary to supply the root ‘yajeta’; as the original injunction of the Darśa-sacrifice does not contain the verb, ‘juhuyāt,’ — the injunction being in the form ‘darśena yajeta;’ and the prfesent verse makes only a reiterative reference to what is prescribed in that injunction; and thus (it being impossible to construe ‘darśena’ with the verb ‘juhuyāt’ in the verse) it becomes necessary to supply the verb ‘yajeta.’ For this same reason, though the text does not make any specification, the phrase, ‘at the end of half-month’ should be understood to mean that the Darśa is to be performed at the end of the darker fortnight, and the Paurṇamāsa (Pūrṇamāsa) at the end of the brighter fortnight. Says the Śruti — ‘One should perform the Darśa sacrifice on the Moonless Day and the Paurṇamāsa on the Full Moon Day.’ — (25)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 217), which makes the following observations: — The ‘ends of night and day’ being laid down as the times fit for the making of the two Agnihotra offerings, — the points of time really meant are also those immediately preceding and following the said ‘ends’; it is on this understanding that the evening-offering is commenced in the afternoon and finished after the evening; and for those who adopt the alternative of making the offering ‘after sunrise,’ it is done after the sun has actually risen, (which would naturally be after the end of the night). Similarly as the exact point of time denoted by the term ‘Darśa’ would be too minute for any act, it stands for such length of time as may be necessary for the entire offering. Then follows a long disquisition regarding ‘Paurṇamāsa’ and ‘Amāvasyā’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (1.124). — ‘That Brāhmaṇa who may have grains enough for three years shall drink Soma; and he who has enough for the year shall perform the rites previous to the Soma.’

Viṣṇu (59. 2-4). — ‘The Agnihotra in the morning and in the evening; — oblations should be poured to the gods; — one shall offer sacrifices on the moonless and full-moon days, by reason of the proximity and remoteness of the moon and the sun.’

VERSE 4.26 [The Harvest-Sacrifice]

Section VI - The Harvest-Sacrifice

सस्यान्ते नवसस्येष्ट्या तथार्तुअन्ते (तथार्त्वन्ते?) द्विजोऽध्वरैः ।
पशुना त्वयनस्यादौ समान्ते सौमिकैर्मखैः ॥२६॥

sasyānte navasasyeṣṭyā tathārtuante (tathārtvante?) dvijo'dhvaraiḥ |
paśunā tvayanasyādau samānte saumikairmakhaiḥ ||26||

At the end of the grains, the Brāhmaṇa shall perform the “New-Harvest sacrifice;” at the end of the seasons, the “Adhvara-sacrifices;” at the end of the solstices the “Animal-sacrifice;” and at the end of the year the “Soma-sacrifices.” — (26)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘sasya,’ ‘grains,’ stands for the Vrīhi and other grains; — ‘end’ means exhaustion. The meaning is that when the previous supply of grains has become exhausted, he shall perform the ‘New-Harvest Sacrifice,’ i.e., the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice.

This does not mean that either the exhaustion of the previous supply of grain, or the coming in of the new harvest, is the reason or occasion for the performance of the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi; what is meant is that the eating of new grain is prohibited, until one has performed the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi. This is what has been said in the following text — ‘Without having offered the sacrifice, one should not eat new grain.’ On these grounds, some people explain the verse to mean that ‘since one cannot eat new grains without having performed the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice, one shall perform this sacrifice.’

But, according to this explanation, it would mean that — if there has been no previous grain-supply, or, if there is no fresh grain-supply, or, if one has no desire to eat new grains, it would not he necessary to perform the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice. If the ‘end of previous supply’ be taken to be indicative of the coming in of the new supply [and there were nothing to prohibit the eating of new grains before performing the sacrifice], then it becomes possible to eat the new grain without having performed the sacrifice.

For these reasons, we conclude that here we have two declarations — (a) ‘he shall not eat without having performed the sacrifice’ (next verse) and (b) ‘at the end of the grains, &c.’ (present verse). The ‘end of grains’ is meant to stand for the coining of the new grain; since the coming in is certain, and as such can serve as the occasion for the sacrifice. The ‘end’ or ‘exhaustion’ (of the former supply), on the other hand, is uncertain; since, in the case of rich men, there are supplies that may last for three years. It is for these reasons that the author of the Sūtra has declared —

‘Without having performed the Agnihotra, one shall not eat out of the harvest,’ and ‘When one is satisfied for the year, one shall perform the Āgrayaṇa,’ — and, further, ‘The new-grain sacrifice is to be doue in the autumn this last laying down the time for the sacrifice. So that the man, for whom there is no ‘end of the former supply,’ will observe the rule regarding autumn being the time for the sacrifice; which will not be done by another person (for whom there is ‘end of former supply’). In this way, both the declarations are found to have their use. If this were not the meaning, then the author would have said simply — ‘On the coming of the new harvest, he shall perforin the New-Harvest Sacrifice.’ Since, however, the author says — ‘without having performed the New-Harvest Sacrifice, one shall not eat of the new grains,’ it follows that even when the new harvest has come iu, if the man happen to have old corn left, he may wait-till the autumn (for the performance of the sacrifice); and, since the coming in of the new harvest forms the occasion for the sacrifice, the performance of the Āgrayaṇa is obligatory, even when the man has no desire to eat new grains.

‘At the end of the seasons’ — According to the theory that ‘the season constitutes the year,’ what this portion of the text lays down is the performance of the Cāturmāsya sacrifices; in fact, it is these sacrifices that are referred to by the term ‘adhvara,’

‘End of the solstices’ means ‘beginning of the two solstices’; — the two solstices being the ‘northern’ and the ‘southern.’ At these, one shall perform the ‘Animal-Sacrifice,’ twice during the year. The author of the Sutra has said — ‘This sacrifice is either six monthly or yearly.’

‘At the end of the year.’ — The term ‘samā’ is synonymous with ‘year;’ and the ‘end’ of this is the śiśira, the later winter season. The present verse does not mean that the Soma-sacrifice shall be performed during the winter; what is meant is that — ‘when the winter has passed and the spring has arrived, the Soma-sacrifice shall be performed.’ Says the Śruti — ‘At each spring-season, one shall perform the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice.’

What the whole text means is that these constitute the obligatory rites, and, as such, shall be performed, somehow or the other, by even those who have renounced Vedic rituals. — (26).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 217).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (59.5-9). — ‘At each solstice, with the Paśuyāga; — during the autumn and the summer, with the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice; — also on the ripening of the Vrīhi and the Yava; — he who possesses grains more than what would be needed for three years, — each year, with Soma-sacrifice.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11.41). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa must necessarily lay the Fires; — he shall perform the sacrifices of Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa, Āgrayaṇeṣṭi, Cāturmāsya, Paśu and Soma.’

Yājñavalkya (1.126). — ‘Each year, the Soma, — at each solstice the Paśu, — and the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi and the Cāturmāsya also shall be performed.’

VERSE 4.27

Section VI - The Harvest-Sacrifice

नानिष्ट्वा नवसस्येष्ट्या पशुना चाग्निमान् द्विजः ।
नवान्नमद्यात्मांसं वा दीर्घमायुर्जिजीविषुः ॥२७॥

nāniṣṭvā navasasyeṣṭyā paśunā cāgnimān dvijaḥ |
navānnamadyātmāṃsaṃ vā dīrghamāyurjijīviṣuḥ ||27||

Without having performed the New-Harvest sacrifice, and the animal Sacrifice, the Brāhmaṇa, who has set up the fire, shall not eat new grain or meat, — if he desires to live a long life. — (27)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘Agnimān’ must stand here for one who has set up the Fire; because ‘observances’ form the subject matter of the context; and it is in connection with the Agnihotra-homa that we have ‘observances’ laid down in the Yajur-veda.

Without having performed the Animal Sacrifice, he shall not eat meat, nor shall be eat new grain without having performed the New-Harvest Sacrifice.

The text next describes the reward accruing from the observing of this rule — ‘if he desires to live a long life.’ The term, ‘āyu,’ ‘life,’ denotes the function of the out-and-in-breathings operating continuously. Even though the verb, to live,’ is intransitive, yet we have the accusative ending, in view of the action of ‘desiring,’ — this act of desiring being expressed by the verb (‘to live) as ending in the desiderative affix ‘san.’ Though, as a matter of fact, the object of the act of ‘desiring’ is what is denoted by the root to which the desiderative is affixed (i.e., living), and not anything outside the desiderative term itself, — and the desire is subordinate to what is desired, — yet there need be nothing incongruous in the suggested construction, in view of the dictum that ‘the basic term and the affix jointly denote what is expressed by the affix’; so that the accusative ending may be attributed to what is expressed by the desiderative word as a whole. According to this view also, the term ‘āyti’ ‘life,’ would he indicative of a period of time, the meaning being ‘if he desires a life lasting for a long time.’ So that the accusative would he due to the dictum that ‘in the case of intransitive verbs, the time-period may be regarded as an object.’

This rule, relating to the man with the Fire performing the Animal Sacrifice, applies to the case of the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice also. Because the Gṛhya texts have prescribed the Āgrayaṇa as an obligatory rite for one who has only the domestic fire.

As for the rule that ‘the New-Harvest Sacrifice is to be performed in the autumn,’ this refers to the Vrīhi and the Śyāmāka grains, not to the Yava. Nor is it necessary to perform the Harvest-Sacrifice at each and every harvest; nor is it performed with such grains as the Māṣa, the Mudga, and the like. That all this is so follows from the fact that the present text is dependent upon other scriptural injunctions, and it is not itself a self-sufficient injunction, as we have already explained. And in other scriptural injunctions it has been laid down that the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi is to be performed with the Vrīhi, the Śyāmāka and the Yam.

Though this is so, yet other. grains also should not be eaten, until the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi has been performed; since it has been stated in general terms that ‘he shall eat no new grains and if the author had meant to prohibit the eating of only those grains with which the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi is performed, then he should have said — ‘He shall not eat the Vrīhi, the Śyāmāka and the Yava, until he has made the offering;’ while what the author of the Sūtra has said is — ‘The Āgrayaṇa is to be performed with the Vrīhi, the Śyāmāka and the Vara; one shall eat no new grains until one has made the offering;’ so that the term ‘grain’ cannot stand for any particular grains only. — (27).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gobhila-Smṛti (3.94). — ‘The man who eats new grains without having offered it in sacrifice, for him the expiation consists in making the Vaiśvānara offering.’

VERSE 4.28

Section VI - The Harvest-Sacrifice

नवेनानर्चिता ह्यस्य पशुहव्येन चाग्नयः ।
प्राणानेवात्तुमिच्छन्ति नवान्नामिषगर्धिनः ॥२८॥

navenānarcitā hyasya paśuhavyena cāgnayaḥ |
prāṇānevāttumicchanti navānnāmiṣagardhinaḥ ||28||

For his Fires, greedy or n ew grains and meat, seek to devour his very life, if they are not worshipped with new grains and with meat. — (28)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

By pointing out the evils arising from the omission of the said rites, the text indicates their obligatory character.

‘Not worshipped with new grains’ — not having the oblations offered into them, — ‘the fires’ — of the man who has set up the fire, — ‘seek to devour’ — eat — ‘his very life.’

‘Greed.’ — ‘Greed’ is excessive longing; and one who has this, is called ‘greedy.’ The affix ‘ini’ has the force of the possessive. — (28)

VERSE 4.29 [Attending upon Guests]

Section VII - Attending upon Guests

आसनाशनशय्याभिरद्भिर्मूलफलेन वा ।
नास्य कश्चिद् वसेद् गेहे शक्तितोऽनर्चितोऽतिथिः ॥२९॥

āsanāśanaśayyābhiradbhirmūlaphalena vā |
nāsya kaścid vased gehe śaktito'narcito'tithiḥ ||29||

No guest shall dwell in his house without being honoured, to the best of his ability, with seat, food, bed, or with water, fruits and roots. — (29).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What is said here has already been said before; it is reiterated here for the purpose of laying down the additional details that follow.

‘No guest shall dwell in his house unhonoured.’ — That is, all guests should be lodged in the house after being honoured.

‘To the best of his ability.’ — One or two, or several, — as many as can he duly honoured — shall be honoured with seat and other things. What is meant is that when guests are living in one’s house, all these things should be provided for them, in a respectful manner; it does not mean that one should give away one’s proprietary right over all these articles in.the house. Since ‘fruits and roots’ have been mentioned separately, it follows that these are to be given only in the event of other kinds of food, in the shape of rice, juice, meat and butter, being not available. — (29)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 677 and Śrāddha, p. 438).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.21.1). — ‘In the absence of all else, a place, water, agreeable speech, — at least these should not fail towards one who resides in his house; one should eat what has been left by the guests; no such sweet dishes should one eat in his house as have not been partaken of by the guest.’

Viṣṇu (59.26-27). — ‘Though breathing, he does not live who makes no offerings to gods, guests, dependents, Pitṛs and his own self. The Religious Student, the Renunciate and the Hermit derive their sustenance from the Householder; hence when these happen to arrive at one’s house, he shall not disregard them.’

Do. (67.30, 40, 42, 43). — ‘One shall not permit a guest to live in the house without feeding him. The foolish man who eats food without offering it to these knows not that he is himself being devoured by dogs and vultures. After that the husband and wife shall eat what remains. The Householder shall eat what is left after offerings have been made to gods, Pitṛs, men, dependents and the household-deities. The food prescribed for the good consists in the remnant of the sacrificial offering.’

Do. (67.32-33). — ‘Never without having given; never without pouring the oblation into fire.’

Mahābhārata (12.249.5, 7, 12, 13). — ‘One shall not have food cooked for himself alone; one shall not needlessly kill animals; — no Brāhmaṇa should reside in his house, without being honoured and fed. He shall always feed upon Vighasa and upon Amṛta — Amṛta being the remnant of sacrifices; and the eating of it is like the eating of sacrificial food. He who eats what has been left after all dependents have been fed is said to feed on Vighasa.’

VERSE 4.30

Section VII - Attending upon Guests

पाषण्डिनो विकर्मस्थान् बैडालव्रतिकान् शठान् ।
हैतुकान् बकवृत्तींश्च वाङ्मात्रेणापि नार्चयेत् ॥३०॥

pāṣaṇḍino vikarmasthān baiḍālavratikān śaṭhān |
haitukān bakavṛttīṃśca vāṅmātreṇāpi nārcayet ||30||

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров