with the Commentary of Medhatithi 116 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 122 из 350Следующая ⇒

‘On a bed,’ — seated on a conch, and such other things — ‘he shall not eat;’ nor placing the food-morsel on his hand; nor placing the food on the sent, without an intervening dish. That this pertains to the food, and not to the eater, is clear from the juxtaposition of what has gone before. — (74)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Na pāṇistham’ — ‘Placed in the left hand’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘served in the hand, and not in a dish’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (9.33). — ‘Blowing the fire with the mouth......, eating seated on the stool........., these he shall avoid.’

Baudhāyana (3.2.26-27). — ‘He shall not eat food on his lap; he shall not eat seated on the stool.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.33). — ‘He shall not eat food on his lap; nor seated on a stool.’

Viṣṇu (6.8.19). — ‘[He shall not eat while] on the bed.’

Viṣṇu (71.45). — ‘He shall avoid gambling.’

Yājñavalkya (1.138). — ‘He shall not drink water in his hands...... nor shall he gamble with dice.’

Gobhila (3.5.12). — ‘He shall not carry his own shoes.’

VERSE 4.75

Section IX - Personal Cleanliness

सर्वं च तिलसम्बद्धं नाद्यादस्तमिते रवौ ।
न च नग्नः शयीतैह न चोच्छिष्टः क्व चिद् व्रजेत् ॥७५॥

sarvaṃ ca tilasambaddhaṃ nādyādastamite ravau |
na ca nagnaḥ śayītaiha na cocchiṣṭaḥ kva cid vrajet ||75||

Any food containing sesamum, he shall not eat after sunset; he shall never sleep naked; nor go anywhere with mouth unwashed after meals. — (75)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

On the sun having set; the accusative ending in ‘astam’ is in accordance with Pāṇini 1. 4. 90.

‘Nor go anywhere, etc.’ — “This has already been forbidden in the section dealing with the duties of the Student; where it has been also explained that the prohibition pertains to the men in general, and is not restricted to the Student only.”

True; but the present injunction is for the purpose of pointing out the act as an ‘observance;’ and what is meant is that ‘One should make a life-long determination of not going about with mouth unwashed after meals.’ — (75)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 72).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (9.60). — ‘He shall never sleep naked at night.’

Viṣṇu (69.29). — ‘At night, he shall not eat anything mixed with sesamum.’

Viṣṇu (70.3). — ‘Nor naked (shall he sleep).’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3.9.6). — ‘He shall not bathe during night; he shall not bathe naked; he shall not sleep naked; he shall not look at a naked woman, except......’

VERSE 4.76

Section IX - Personal Cleanliness

आर्द्रपादस्तु भुञ्जीत नार्द्रपादस्तु संविशेत् ।
आर्द्रपादस्तु भुञ्जानो दीर्घमायुरवाप्नुयात् ॥७६॥

ārdrapādastu bhuñjīta nārdrapādastu saṃviśet |
ārdrapādastu bhuñjāno dīrghamāyuravāpnuyāt ||76||

He shall eat with wet feet; but he shall not sleep with his feet wet. By eating with wet feet, one would attain long life. — (176)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Before the act of eating, one shall observe the rule that ‘one should eat with wet feet;’ it is not meant that he should go on wetting his feet till he has finished eating and become fully satisfied.

‘Shall not deep’ — i.e., he shall not lay down his body upon the bed; ‘samveśana,’ ‘sleeping,’ standing for the laying down of the body on the bed.

The reason for this is next mentioned — ‘Long life.’ — It does not mean that the injunction is meant only for one who desires long life (and for none others); in fact, like the preceding ones, this also is obligatory; and the mention of ‘long life’ is purely illustrative. — (76)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 72).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.191.6-7). — ‘He shall eat food with five limbs wet, — facing the east and silent; he shall not decry the food, he should cat it whether it be tasty or otherwise. He shall not rise from his seat with wet hands. He shall not sleep with wet feet.’

Do. (13.104.61). — [Reproduces Manu.]

Viṣṇu (69.34). — ‘Nor with unwet feet, nor with unwet hands and mouth (shall he eat).’

Viṣṇu (70.1). — ‘He shall not sleep with wet feet.’

VERSE 4.77

Section IX - Personal Cleanliness

अचक्षुर्विषयं दुर्गं न प्रपद्येत कर्हि चित् ।
न विण्मूत्रमुदीक्षेत न बाहुभ्यां नदीं तरेत् ॥७७॥

acakṣurviṣayaṃ durgaṃ na prapadyeta karhi cit |
na viṇmūtramudīkṣeta na bāhubhyāṃ nadīṃ taret ||77||

He shall never approach a place difficult of access, which is not within range of his vision; he shall not look at urine or excreta; nor shall he cross a river with his arms — (77)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Difficult of access.’ — Mountains and such places as can be got at with difficulty; as also a forest dense with trees, shrubs and creepers.

‘He shall not approach.’ — He shall not pass over, shall not go to.

‘Which is not within the range of his vision;’ — because there is danger of snakes and robbers, etc., lying hidden there. The ‘Eye’ includes also the other sources of knowledge, such as the Scriptures, for Instance.

‘Urine and excreta’ — ‘Looking at’ — these mean examining their colour, etc. This extends over a long time; and hence should not be done. There is no harm in seeing it once by the way.

Swimming a river is forbidden for a man in the normal state; and not when there is danger apprehended from wolves and other animals. — (77)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The last foot of this verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (9.33). — ‘Blowing the fire with the mouth...... crossing the river with arms, climbing difficult places........., these he shall avoid.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.46). — ‘He shall not cross the river with his arms.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.43). — [Do.]

Viṣṇu (63.46). — ‘Nor with his arms (shall he cross rivers).’

Yājñavalkya (1.135). — ‘He shall not look at his urine or excreta; nor anything unclean.........’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3.9.7). — ‘He shall not climb a tree; he shall not descend into a well; he shall not cross a river with his arms; he shall not expose himself to danger.’

Pāraskara (1.7.6). — ‘Looking into a water-reservoir, climbing trees, fruit-gathering, crossing over difficult places......, these he shall not do.’

VERSE 4.78

Section IX - Personal Cleanliness

अधितिष्ठेन्न केशांस्तु न भस्मास्थिकपालिकाः ।
न कार्पासास्थि न तुषान् दीर्घमायुर्जिजीविषुः ॥७८॥

adhitiṣṭhenna keśāṃstu na bhasmāsthikapālikāḥ |
na kārpāsāsthi na tuṣān dīrghamāyurjijīviṣuḥ ||78||

One who is desirous of living a long life, shall not step on hair, nor on ashes, bones and potsherds; or on cotton-seed or chaff. — (78)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Potsherds’ — broken pieces of earthenware.

‘Long life’ — This use of the Accusative has been already explained. — (78)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (9.16). — ‘He shall not stand upon ashes, hairs, chaff, potsherds and unclean things.’

Baudhāyana (1.3.37). — ‘He shall not stand upon ashes, bones, hairs, chaff, potsherds, and bath-water.’

Āpastamba (2.20.11). — ‘Standing upon ashes and chaff.’

Viṣṇu (63.24-25). — ‘He shall not stand upon chaff, potsherds, bones, ashes and embers; nor on cotton-seeds.’

Viṣṇu (Aparārka, p. 183). — ‘He shall not stand on the roadcrossing, nor under a tree at night, nor in an empty house, nor in a slaughter-house or a prison.’

Yājñavalkya (1.139), — ‘He shall avoid all incompatible acts, as also the smoke issuing from a dead body, and swimming in the river; also standing upon hairs, ashes, chaff, embers, and potsherds.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka, p. 183). — ‘He shall not stand upon a heap of grass or a heap of pebbles.’

VERSE 4.79

Section IX - Personal Cleanliness

न संवसेच्च पतितैर्न चाण्डालैर्न पुल्कसैः ।
न मूर्खैर्नावलिप्तैश्च नान्त्यैर्नान्त्यावसायिभिः ॥७९॥

na saṃvasecca patitairna cāṇḍālairna pulkasaiḥ |
na mūrkhairnāvaliptaiśca nāntyairnāntyāvasāyibhiḥ ||79||

He shall not associate with outcasts, nor with Cāṇḍālas, nor with Pulkasas; nor with the illiterate; nor with the haughty; nor with Antyas; nor with Antyāvasāyins. — (79)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“What is here said has already been declared above — (a) that ‘he shall not live at a place surrounded by men...... nor in that which is haunted by men of the lowest castes’ (4. 6).”

Not so, we reply. What has been forbidden there, is the inhabiting of such places; while what is forbidden here is associating. What was said there was that ‘one shall not set up as a householder in a village inhabited by such people;’ while the present verse forbids associating with them; this ‘associating’ consisting of the setting up of friendly relations by accepting their gifts, living near their house, sitting with them under the shade of the same tree, and so forth. Further, the former text speaks of the village as being ‘surrounded,’ which implies that the said people live there in large numbers; so that, what it means is that ‘one should not live even near a village where the said people live in large numbers.’ In the present verse, however, what is forbidden is living near a village, where even a few of these people live. Herein lies the difference between the two passages.

‘Pulkasas’ are Niṣādas, born of Śūdra mothers.

‘Antyas,’ i.e. — the Medas and other Mleccchas.

‘Antyāvasāyins’ — is born from a Niṣāda mother and Cāṇḍāla father; as will be described later on (10.39).

‘Haughty’ — overbearing in vanity due to wealth and such other causes. — (79)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Pukkasa... Antyāvasāyin’ — Defined under 10 — 12, 39, 49.

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 71b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba (1.21, 5-6). — ‘There is to be no concern with outcasts, — nor with apapātras.’

Baudhāyana (2.42). — ‘There is to be no concern with outcasts.’

Baudhāyana (3.42). — ‘Nor with outcasts, nor with woman, nor with a Śūdra.’

Baudhāyana (2.62). — ‘One falls by associating with outcasts for one year, through sacrifice or teaching or marriage, — also through conveyances, seats or feeding.’

Gautama (9.17). — ‘He shall not converse with Mlecchas, or with unclean or unrighteous persons.’

Devala (55, 58, 75). — ‘He who has lived with Mlecchas, for a period extending from five to twenty years — for him the expiation has been prescribed to be two cāndrāyaṇas. — If in an assembly, one comes into contact with a Mleccha, he shall bathe with his clothes on and go without food for one day. If a Brāhmaṇa has lived in the dwelling of a Mleccha for one, two, three or four years (he shall perform an expiatory rite).’

VERSE 4.80

Section IX - Personal Cleanliness

न शूद्राय मतिं दद्यान्नोच्छिष्टं न हविष्कृतम् ।
न चास्योपदिशेद् धर्मं न चास्य व्रतमादिशेत् ॥८०॥

na śūdrāya matiṃ dadyānnocchiṣṭaṃ na haviṣkṛtam |
na cāsyopadiśed dharmaṃ na cāsya vratamādiśet ||80||

He shall not offer advice to a Śūdra, nor the leavings, nor what has been prepared as an offering to the Gods. He shall hot expound the law to him; nor shall he indicate to him any penance. — (80)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

No advice shall be offered to a Śūdra regarding his welfare or otherwise, regarding matters temporal or spiritual; that is to say, one should not become an adviser to a Śūdra.

This prohibition pertains to being an adviser as a means of livelihood; there would be nothing wrong in offering advice in a purely friendly manner; in fact, there may be hereditary friendship between Brāhmaṇas and Śūdras; and certainly through friendship advice for welfare is always offered. Further, it has been declared (by Manu himself) that the Brāhmaṇa should be friendly to all castes — ‘the Brāhmaṇa is one who is friendly to all.’

Some people offer the following explanation: —

“From what is said in other texts, it is better to take the present verse to mean that advice shall not be offered unasked; as declared above (in 2. 110), — ‘He should not say anything to any one without being asked.’”

This explanation, however, is not right. What has been said under 2,110, is in connection with the reading of the

Veda; the sense being, ‘if a man is found to be committing a mistake in accent, or syllable, or in some other detail, one should not tell him, unless one is asked, that he had murdered the Text.’ Similarly, in connection with the enumeration of persons who shall not be taught the Veda, it has been said — ‘One shall not speak unasked;’ and this also means that, in the case of persons other than his own pupils, one should not say anything, even if he finds them reciting the Veda wrongly, either as regards accent or syllables.

‘Nor the leavings’ — The term ‘ucchiṣṭa’ denotes impurity, specially in relation to food. One who has paid calls of nature, is also called ‘ucchiṣṭa,’ ‘impure,’ till he has washed; as we shall explain under the text — ‘One who is impure, ucchiṣṭa, shall not touch with his hand, &c.’ (142). But, as a rule, the term is used in connection with food. So that, while one is eating, the food that comes into contact with his mouth, whether within the mouth or outside, becomes known as ‘impure.’ It is in this sense that under 5.141 — where it is said — ‘nor the hairs of the moustache entering the mouth,’ — everything, with the exception of the hairs of the moustache, is said to become ‘impure.’ It is in this sense also that the eater, the thing eaten and the dish containing the food, all come to be called ‘impure’; ‘ucchiṣṭa.’

In some cases, the word is also used in the sense of ‘what has been left unused,’ ‘remnant,’ ‘leaving;’; e.g., in the passage — ‘The leavings of the substance offered are to be given as the fee.’ Thus, it is on the basis of usage that the term ‘ucchiṣṭa’ is applied to the food that has been served in the dish for a particular person,. and out of which a little has been eaten by him; and the clean food that is simply placed in the dish and not even touched by the eater, — this also is rejected, on the strength of usage, as ‘impure,’ on the ground of its being in contact with the dish which is in contact with that food out of which the person has eaten (and which therefore has become a ‘leaving’). It is in accordance with this that each passages as — (a) ‘the leavings of food should be given’ (10.125), and (b) ‘leavings shall not be given, etc.’ — which contain an injunction and a prohibition, respectively — are taken as pertaining to the same thing, and as applying to the ‘true’ and the ‘untrue’ Śūdra, respectively, and also as referring to the remnants of different kinds of materials offered (and hence not being mutually contradictory). Or, the meaning (of the prohibition) may be that what has been left in the pot, after the guests and others have eaten, and which is as good as ‘stale’ and ‘leavings,’ should not be given to the Śūdra. It is argued that, since the term is found to be used (in 10.125) along with ‘torn clothes,’ this latter explanation is the right one to be accepted. Further, since the root ‘śiṣ’ (from which ‘ucchiṣṭa’ has been derived) denotes ‘other than what has been used,’ and the preposition (‘ut’) has to be construed in accordance with that signification, — there need be nothing incongruous in construing this passage also in the same sense as the passage ‘the leavings of the substance offered are to be given as the fee.’ In this manner, there is no incompatibility between these two Smṛti- texts (‘the leavings of the food shall be given’ and ‘the leavings should not be given’); though in most passages the term is restricted, by convention, to people who stand in need of washing. As for the declaration that ‘the method of purification is like that of the Vaiśya, etc.’ (5.139) — this refers to the Slave-Śūdra; and the term ‘ucchiṣṭa’ in this passage is understood to mean ‘the leavings of food,’ as we shall show under this passage.

‘Nor what has been prepared as an offering to the Gods’ — The term ‘haviṣ-kṛtam’ means ‘haviṣe kṛtam,’ ‘prepared as an offering to the Gods.’ The compound is an irregular one; the compounding of the participle ‘kṛṭa’ or ‘kalpita,’ with the noun ending in the Dative, having the sense of ‘for the purpose of,’ is not sanctioned.

According to the maxim of the ‘stick and the cake’ — by which, when the stick on which cakes are hanging is brought down by rats, we are led to believe that the cakes have been eaten by them, — the prohibition contained in the text pertains to every such thing as has the slightest possibility of being intended for being offered. And thus it is that the prohibition becomes applicable (a) to what has been set aside as being meant for an’ offering, (b) to the remnant of the substance that has been offered, and (c) to such offering-material as has not been left after having been eaten. It is in view of this that the text has used the term ‘kṛta,’ which is the most general term denoting action of any kind; and the compound ‘haviṣ-kṛta’ means ‘what has been kṛta,’ i.e., determined upon — as to be offered.’ And in this way, the offering-material that is left after the sacrificer has eaten it, does not cease to be included under the term ‘haviṣ-kṛta,’ since that also is what ‘had been determined upon as to be offered.’ And thus the prohibition becomes applicable to the substance in all conditions (after it has been once fixed upon as to be offered).

By others the term ‘haviṣ-kṛtam’ has been explained as ‘mixed with the offering-material;’ and since what is mixed up with something else is prohibited, the unmixed offering-material also becomes forbidden. For instance, when it is intended to forbid what is related to the Brāhmaṇa, the texts use the word ‘Brāhmaṇa’ only.

“But how can the prohibition of the thing mixed with something else imply the prohibition of that thing by itself?”

If the thing by itself were prohibited, then it might have been argued that the prohibition of the mixed thing is secondary. In a case, however, where, even on being mixed up, the two things are percieved as distinct, — or, when, even though the colour of the two things is not visible, yet by means of taste and such other means they are percieved as distinct, — the two things are treated as if they were there by themselves.

For instance, when fried flour and other things are mixed with wine, even though the colour of the wine is not visible, yet, since the taste of the wine is distinctly felt, the eating of such flour entails the expiratory rite prescribed in connection with the drinking of wine.

Objection — “But even so, when the wine is mixed up with the flour, it loses its liquid form; so that it cannot be a case of drinking of the wine.”

There is no force in this objection. ‘Drinking’ has been mentioned, because that is how wine is generally taken; and what is forbidden is the ‘taking’ of wine; as the present context is dealing with what shall be eaten and what shall be not eaten; and ‘eating’ here means only ‘taking,’ of which drinking, eating, chewing and the rest are only special forms. As for smelling, since it is felt even when the substance is not near at hand, it does not necessarily lead to the presence of the substance itself. For instance, even when camphor and such things are at a distance, their odour is felt. If it be assumed that the odour is felt because of the fine particles of the substance (having been wafted into the nostrils), — then such wafting away of the particles should bring out a gradual diminution of the size of the substance (which is not found to take place). In a case where two things become mixed up and form one composite substance, and there is nothing to indicate a reference to either one of them singly, — either a sanction or a prohibition cannot apply to either of them by itself. E.g., when it is said ‘milk should be drunk,’ it applies to the milk and the water both mixed together, and not to the water alone, or the milk alone; as each of these would be a distinct substance (from ‘milk’); each of these by itself would have a distinct colour and a distinct taste indicating its presence; and hence each would be a distinct substance.

“If this be so, then, when one drinks wine mixed with water, it should not entail the expiatory rite that has been prescribed for the drinking of wine; as the mixture would be a distinct substance from the mixture drunk.”

There is no force in this objection. Wine, like the bitter taste, entirely suppresses the taste of everything eke; so that, since in the case cited, the taste of wine will have been clearly felt, the said expiatory rite becomes necessary. When there is much water and only a little wine, the expiatory rite to be performed is that which has been prescribed for ‘contact with wine,’ as we shall explain in detail under Discourse 11.

From all this it follows that where the prohibition is of a certain thing by itself, it might involve that of its mixture also; e.g., when it is said that “māṣa -grains shall not be eaten,’ such grains also become eschewed as have māṣa mixed with them. But the prohibition that pertains to a mixture — on what grounds could it be applied to the unmixed thing by itself? E.g., when it is said — ‘bring water from the confluence of the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā,’ — the man thus directed does not bring water either from the Gaṅgā alone, or from the Yamunā alone. If usage be cited as the ground for such application, — theu such usage has got to be shown. [Thus, if the term ‘haviṣkṛtan’ of the text were taken as ‘havirmiśram,’ then the prohibition could not apply to the Haviṣ itself.]

‘He shall not expound the law to him.’ — “The very first words of this text have forbidden the offering to a Śūdra of any advice on temporal or spiritual matters; and the expounding of law also becomes forbidden by the same words.”

True; but the prohibition has been repeated for the purpose of additional information; in the shape of special expiatory rites — laid down in connection with the expounding of the law to a Śūdra, — which we shall explain under 11.198.

Others have taken this additional prohibition to mean that ‘he shall not, in the craracter (character?) of an officiating priest, instruct the Śūdra regarding the details of procedure pertaining to the Pārvaṇa Śrāddha, the Pākayajña and such other rites.’

Some people urge the following objection here: — “If the expounding of law to the Śūdra is forbidden, from whence is the Śūdra to acquire his knowledge of the law? In the absence of such knowledge, he can perform no rites; so that the whole scripture dealing with the rites to be performed by the Śūdra would be pointless.”

This is not a right objection. It is just possible that the Brāhmaṇa, through avarice, may transgress the prohibition and teach the Śūdra. For instance, when the Brāhmaṇa accepts a gift from a Śūdra, he is urged to it. not by the Injunction relating to the ‘giving away of all one’s belongings’ (which has been prescribed for the Śūdra) in consequence of having killed a Brāhmaṇa; in fact, the motive is supplied by his avarice.

“Well, we have the direct declaration that ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall explain the law to others also.’”

But that refers only to the possible means of livelihood (open to the Śūdra). What the text says is — ‘The Brāhmaṇa should know the means of livelihood open to all, and should explain it to others also’ (10.2).

Advice and teachings have to be certainly given to the Śūdra who is dependent upon oneself; for an ignorant person is sure to transgress injunctions and prohibitions; and association with such transgressers has been forbidden under 79 above.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману