with the Commentary of Medhatithi 117 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 123 из 350Следующая ⇒

Some people explain the text as follows: —

“The present text contains two injunctions forbidding the teaching of the text of the treatises dealing with Dharma or Law, and the expounding of its meaning: one forbids the teaching of the verbal text and the other that of its meaning. But the expounding of Law, without reference to text, is not forbidden by any.”

But for those who explain the text thus, the present Verse will be a mere repetition of the prohibition of consultation on matters relating to the scriptures.

The following might be urged here — “The term ‘law’ applies to Grammar and all those treatises that help in obtaining the knowledge of Law; but Grammar is not a ‘scriptural treatise,’ in the sense of expounding super-senseous (spiritual) things; hence the teaching of Grammar would not be included under the prohibition here put forward; and yet Grammar is of use in the understanding of Law; specially as the grammarian can, by a close analysis of the words, find out the meaning of the most difficult sentence. So that, since the prohibition relating to the ‘consultation’ (quoted above) pertains to the ‘Law-scriptures’ proper, it would not apply to Grammar; hence it is the teaching of Grammar that has been separately forbidden by the present text.”

All this would be quite right; only if no one urged that one who is not entitled to the primary thing (the Veda), can never be thought of as taking up its subsidiaries (the subsidiary sciences of Grammar, &c.) In the present instance, the Veda and this Smṛti texts constitute the ‘primary;’ and to the study of these the Śūdra is not entitled.

‘Nor shall he indicate to him any vrata or penance.’ — The term ‘vrata,’ ‘penance,’ here stands for the kṛcchras; such being the sense in which the term has been used in 11.102 and other texts. These be shall not indicate to the Śūdra who is seeking to acquire prosperity by their means; in connection with expiatory rites, they have got to be indicated. As for the ‘vratas,’ ‘observances,’ prescribed for the ‘accomplished student,’ there is no possibility of these pertaining to the Śūdra; for the simple reason that he can never be an ‘accomplished student.’ Similarly, the imparting of the Sāvitrī to him is impossible, because he can never carry on Vedic Study; Vedic Study is not possible for him, because he has not been initiated; and Initiation is not possible for him, because it has been laid down for the three castes only. — (80).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Discrepancies between this verse and others in the work (9.125) are explained by the commentators, who say that the Śūdra mentioned in the other rules is the family servant.” — Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 220), which explains ‘vratam’ as ‘prāyascittam’, ‘expiatory rite’; — and again on p. 1090, where it is pointed out that the giving of advice regarding ‘expiation’, that is forbidden here, refers to those cases where the Śūdra seeks advice without the mediation of a Brāhmaṇa.

It is quoted also in Mitākṣarā (on 3.262), which remarks that the prohibition refers to those cases where the Śūdra does not seek advice in a meek and suppliant attitude; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 71b); — and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 72), which says that what is forbidden here is ‘direct teaching.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.80-81)

Āpastamba (21.2.22). — ‘He shall not offer the leavings to a non-Brāhmaṇa; — if it is to he given to him, one should scoop the tusk (?), place the leavings in it and then offer it to him.’

Vaśiṣṭha (15.12-13). — [Reproduces Manu ]

Viṣṇu (72.48-52). — ‘He shall not offer the leavings to the Śūdra; nor the leavings or the sacrificial materials; nor sesamum; he shall not expound to him the law; nor the penance.’

VERSE 4.81

Section IX - Personal Cleanliness

यो ह्यस्य धर्ममाचष्टे यश्चैवादिशति व्रतम् ।
सोऽसंवृतं नाम तमः सह तेनैव मज्जति ॥८१॥

yo hyasya dharmamācaṣṭe yaścaivādiśati vratam |
so'saṃvṛtaṃ nāma tamaḥ saha tenaiva majjati ||81||

He who expounds to him the law, and he who indicates the penance to him, will sink, along with him, into the hell called “asaṃvṛta.” — (81).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a deprecatory supplement to the foregoing text.

‘Will sink along with him;’ — this shows that both parties are considered guilty — he who expounds, as also he who hears it expounded.

‘Will sink’ — will fall into, i.e., will reach. — (81).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 220).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.80-81)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.80.

VERSE 4.82

Section IX - Personal Cleanliness

न संहताभ्यां पाणिभ्यां कण्डूयेदात्मनः शिरः ।
न स्पृशेच्चैतदुच्छिष्टो न च स्नायाद् विना ततः ॥८२॥

na saṃhatābhyāṃ pāṇibhyāṃ kaṇḍūyedātmanaḥ śiraḥ |
na spṛśeccaitaducchiṣṭo na ca snāyād vinā tataḥ ||82||

He shall not scratch his own head with both hands joined together; he shall not touch it while unclean; and he shall not bathe without it. — (82).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Joined together’ — joined to one another. This forbids the scratching of the head with both hands at the same time.

Hands; this forbids the use of the two arms joined together.

‘His own’ — not that of others; hence there would be nothing wrong in having one’s head scratched with the two hands of another person.

Since the head has been specified, there would be nothing wrong in scratching the back and other parts of the body.

‘He shall not touch it’ — his own head, with his own hand, — or with any other part of the body, as some people have explained. But this is not right, as it is the hands that are being spoken of in the text.

‘He shall not bathe without it’ — i.e., without the head. This rule applies to all kinds of bathing — the daily obligatory one as well as the occasional one.

“Why should this rule be observed in the case of ordinary bathing, done by a person who has perspired (and only wishes to clean the perspiration)?”

That it should be so follows from the fact that the present rule is meant to be taken along with the rule laying down bathing.

For connecting this rule with the bathing that is directly enjoined, — there may be some reason. But, so far as the ordinary bathing is concerned, since there is no injuction regarding it, there can be no ground for observing the present rule in connection with it.”

Well, as a matter of fact, the root‘to bathe’ denotes the act of washing with water, cow’s urine and such things — the whole body or the rest of the body, barring the head. And, since people might leave off the head, when bathing on having touched a Cāṇḍāla, or some such unclean thing, — the text forbids this by the rule — ‘he shall not bathe without the head.’ Ordinary bathing, without washing the head, is of course possible; in view of which we have such assertions as — ‘having bathed his head, etc., etc.,’ — (82)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183), which explains ‘tataḥ’ as standing for the head.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (68.38.) — ‘He shall not touch his head (while unclean).’

Viṣṇu (71.53). — ‘With hands joined together, he shall not scratch his head or his belly.’

Mahābhārata (13.101-69). — [Same as Manu, the second line reading as — ‘ Nacābhīkṣṇam śiraḥ snāyāt tathāsyāyurna ṛṣyate ].’

VERSE 4.83

Section IX - Personal Cleanliness

केशग्रहान् प्रहारांश्च शिरस्येतान् विवर्जयेत् ।
शिरःस्नातश्च तैलेन नाङ्गं किं चिदपि स्पृशेत् ॥८३॥

keśagrahān prahārāṃśca śirasyetān vivarjayet |
śiraḥsnātaśca tailena nāṅgaṃ kiṃ cidapi spṛśet ||83||

Catching of the hair, as also striking on the head, — these he shall avoid; having his head bathed, he shall touch no limb with oil. — (83)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some people hold that this refers to one’s own head, as well as to the head of other persons; while others connect this with the term, ‘his own,’ of the preceding verse.

What is forbidden here is the hair-catching, etc., done in anger; for there is ‘hair-catching’ also during sexual intercourse, and this is not forbidden.

The compound ‘śiraḥ-snāta’ is to be expounded as‘śiraḥ snātam anena,’ he whose head has been bathed, the order of the term being in accordance with the rule governing such compounds as, by appearance, belong to the ‘Rājadanta’ group (Pāṇini 2.2.31).

‘He shall not touch any limb’ — of his own. — (83)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Tailena’ — This, is construed by almost all the commentators with ‘spṛśet’, ‘one should not touch with oil any limb after having bathed his head’; by others with ‘Śiraḥsnātaḥ’, ‘one who has anointed his head with oil shall noṭ touch any limb’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183), which construes the second line to mean ‘having anointed his head with oil, he shall not rub that same oil over any other limb, or he shall not, during the rest of that day, rub his body with any oil at all’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (64.12). — ‘He shall not touch the oiled limb.’

VERSE 4.84 [Gifts not to be Accepted]

Section X - Gifts not to be Accepted

न राज्ञः प्रतिगृह्णीयादराजन्यप्रसूतितः ।
सूनाचक्रध्वजवतां वेशेनैव च जीवताम् ॥८४॥

na rājñaḥ pratigṛhṇīyādarājanyaprasūtitaḥ |
sūnācakradhvajavatāṃ veśenaiva ca jīvatām ||84||

He shall not accept gifts from a king not born of the Kṣatriya caste; nor from the keepers of slaughterhouses, oil-presses or grog-shops; nor from those who live on brothels. — (84)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said above (4.33) that ‘he shall seek for wealth form Kings,’ This word, “king,” denoting the lord of men, has been found to be applied to the Kṣatriya as well as the non-Kṣatriya; e.g., in such expressions as ‘the Kingdom of Brāhmaṇas,’ Hence, in connection with a rule regarding the acceptance of gifts, when we find a prohibition, we take the term as standing for the lord of men; specially, as in the present verse, we have the phrase ‘not born of the Kṣatriya caste,’ Since it is possible for one to accept, through avarice, the gifts of the lords of men, belonging to all castes, the text has specified it; the sense being — ‘one shall not accept gifts from such a lord of men as is not born of the Kṣatriya caste; nor even from the Kṣatriya king, who does not behave according to the scriptures as will be made clear by the prohibition coming later on.

‘Sūnā’ is slaughter-house; and he who lives by selling meat, after having slaughtered the animal, is called a butcher,’ a ‘keeper of the slaughter-house.’

Similarly, ‘cakravān’ is one who lives by oil-pressing; who is known among men as ‘khaṭika.’

‘Dhvaja’ is wine-shop; and the ‘dhvajavān’ is he who lives by buying and selling wine

‘Veśa’ is brothel; he who lives by this — be it a man or a woman. — (84)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 218), which adds that the ‘king’ here spoken of is one who tyrannises over his subjects; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 410).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.84-85)

Yājñavalkya (1.141). — [‘He shall not accept any gifts from a king who is greedy and who acts against the scriptures.’]

‘In the matter of acceptance of gifts, the butcher, the oil-presser, the wine-vendor, the prostitute and the king are all condemned, each succeeding one being ten times worse than the preceding.’

Yama (4, 58). — ‘Gifts from the king should be avoided by those who are desirous of winning the three worlds; by accepting the gift of a king, one’s Brāhmaṇahood disappears.’

Saṃvarta (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 199). — ‘The king’s gift is something terrible; it is like wine-drinking, and like poison; it is better to feed on the flesh of one’s own son, than to accept of the king’s gift.’

VERSE 4.85

Section X - Gifts not to be Accepted

दशसूनासमं चक्रं दशचक्रसमो ध्वजः ।
दशध्वजसमो वेशो दशवेशसमो नृपः ॥८५॥

daśasūnāsamaṃ cakraṃ daśacakrasamo dhvajaḥ |
daśadhvajasamo veśo daśaveśasamo nṛpaḥ ||85||

One oil-press is equal to ten slaughter-houses; one grog-shop is equal to ten oil-presses; one brothel is equal to ten grog-shops; and one king is equal to ten brothels. — (85)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is meant to show that the receiving of gifts from the one mentioned later is more reprehensible than that from the one mentioned before it.

As for the means of subsistence during abnormal times, this shall be described later on. — (85)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.84-85)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.84.

VERSE 4.86

Section X - Gifts not to be Accepted

दश सूणासहस्राणि यो वाहयति सौनिकः ।
तेन तुल्यः स्मृतो राजा घोरस्तस्य प्रतिग्रहः ॥८६॥

daśa sūṇāsahasrāṇi yo vāhayati saunikaḥ |
tena tulyaḥ smṛto rājā ghorastasya pratigrahaḥ ||86||

A king has been declared to be equal to a butcher who maintains ten thousand slaughter-houses; and terrible is the receiving of gifts from him. — (86)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Saunika’ is one who maintains a slaughter-house.

‘Maintains’ — carries on for his own benefit.

‘Terrible;’ — it is frightful, as leading to hell, and other places. — (86)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 185).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇudharmottara (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 200). — [Reproduces Manu.]

VERSE 4.87

Section X - Gifts not to be Accepted

यो राज्ञः प्रतिगृह्णाति लुब्धस्यौच्छास्त्रवर्तिनः ।
स पर्यायेण यातीमान्नरकानेकविंशतिम् ॥८७॥

yo rājñaḥ pratigṛhṇāti lubdhasyaucchāstravartinaḥ |
sa paryāyeṇa yātīmānnarakānekaviṃśatim ||87||

He who accepts gifts from a king who is avaricious and behaves contrary to the scriptures, goes, in succession, to these twenty-one hells: — (87)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is an exaggerated deprecation of receiving gifts from Kings.

‘Avaricious’ — who is in the habit of extracting riches from his subsidiary chiefs.

‘Who behaves contrary to the scriptures’ — he who acts against the laws laid down under 11-2 2 et. seq., and inflicts undue punishments, confiscates the women, and so forth.

‘In succession’ — i.e., he goes to another hell after having experienced the sufferings of one.

‘Hell.’ — This term signifies extreme suffering; and, since extreme suffering is all that is meant to be expressed, the singular number would be the proper form; and the number ‘twenty-one’ is an exaggerated description. — (87)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 185); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 403 and 410), to the effect that one should not accept gifts from a Kṣatriya king who is unrighteous.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.87-91)

Viṣṇu (43.1-22). — ‘The Hells are as follows —

Tāmisra,

Andhatāmisra,

Raurava,

Mahāraurava,

Kālasūtra,

Mahāmaraka,

Sañjīvana,

Avīci,

Tāpana,

Sampratāpana,

Saṅghātaka,

Kākola,

Kuḍmala,

Pūtimṛttika,

Lohaśaṅku,

Ṛcīṣa,

Viṣamapathin,

Kaṇṭakaśālmali,

Dīnapadī,

Asipatravana,

Lohacāraka.’

Skandapurāṇa (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 199). — ‘The man who has been brought up on gifts from the king becomes a Brahmarākṣasa in the water-less desert, and docs not obtain another birth. The man who, having renounced his Brāhmaṇahood, and deluded by greed for riches and for sensual objects, accepts gifts from the king, his fall into the Raurava hell is certain. Even trees burnt by forest-fíres grow again on the advent of rain; but those that have been burnt by gifts from the king never grow again.’

VERSE 4.88-90

Section X - Gifts not to be Accepted

तामिस्रमन्धतामिस्रं महारौरवरौरवौ ।
नरकं कालसूत्रं च महानरकमेव च ॥८८॥

सञ्जीवनं महावीचिं तपनं सम्प्रतापनम् ।
संहातं च सकाकोलं कुड्मलं प्रतिमूर्तिकम् ॥८९॥

लोहशङ्कुं ऋजीषं च पन्थानं शाल्मलीं नदीम् ।
असिपत्रवनं चैव लोहदारकमेव च ॥९०॥

tāmisramandhatāmisraṃ mahārauravarauravau |
narakaṃ kālasūtraṃ ca mahānarakameva ca ||88||

sañjīvanaṃ mahāvīciṃ tapanaṃ sampratāpanam |
saṃhātaṃ ca sakākolaṃ kuḍmalaṃ pratimūrtikam ||89||

lohaśaṅkuṃ ṛjīṣaṃ ca panthānaṃ śālmalīṃ nadīm |
asipatravanaṃ caiva lohadārakameva ca ||90||

(1) Tāmisra, (2) Andhatāmisra, (3) Mahāraurava, (4) Raurava, (5) Kālasūtra-Naraka, (6) Mahānaraka, (7) Sañjīvana, (8) Mahāvīci, (9) Tāpana, (10) Sampatāpana, (11) Saṃhāta, (12) Sakākola, (13) Kuḍmala, (14) Pūtimṛttika, (15) Lohaśaṅku, (16) Ṛjīṣa, (17) Pathin, (18) Śālmalī, (19) Nadī, (20) Asipatravana and (21) Lohadāraka. — (88-90).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The meaning of these three verses is clear. — (88-90)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 4.88-90)

“A varied list is found in Yājñavalkya 3.222 et. seq., Viṣṇu 43.1 et. seq. Others occur in our text, 4.81, 4.197, 3.249, 12.76”. — Hopkins.

Nārāyaṇa takes ‘nadī’ as standing for the Vaitariṇī river; while Govindarāja takes it as by itsef forming the name of a particular hell. The Viṣṇupurāṇa has a hell named ‘Dīpanadī’.

All these three verses are quoted in Aparārka (p. 185); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 15), which adds the following explanation of the names: —

‘Tāmisra,’ darkness,

‘Andhatāmisra’, dense darkness, —

‘Mahāraurava-Raurava’, abounding in hot sands, —

‘Kālasūtra,’ resembling the potter’s cutting string, —

‘Mahānaraka’, where all sorts of dire sufferings are gone through, —

‘Sañjīvanam’, where one is repeatedly killed and brought to life, —

‘Mahāvīci’, where large waves tumble about, —

‘Tapana’, resembling flaming fire, —

‘Sampratāpana’ is another name for the Kumbhīpāka, —

‘Saṃhāta’ over-crowded, —

‘Kākola’, where people are devoured by crows, —

‘Kuḍmala,’ where there is whipping with cords, —

‘Pūtimṛttikam’ where the earth smells like filth, —

‘Lauhaśaṅku’, pricks like the needle, —

‘Ṛjīṣa’, where rotten flour is thrown, —

‘Panthā’, where one is constantly on the move, —

‘Śālmala’, where people are pierced by thorns of the Śālmalī tree, —

‘Nadī’, where one is washed away by such streams as the Vaitariṇī and the like —

‘Lohacāraka,’ where there is chaining in irons.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.87-91)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.87.

VERSE 4.91

Section X - Gifts not to be Accepted

एतद् विदन्तो विद्वांसो ब्राह्मणा ब्रह्मवादिनः ।
न राज्ञः प्रतिगृह्णन्ति प्रेत्य श्रेयोऽभिकाङ्क्षिणः ॥९१॥

etad vidanto vidvāṃso brāhmaṇā brahmavādinaḥ |
na rājñaḥ pratigṛhṇanti pretya śreyo'bhikāṅkṣiṇaḥ ||91||

Knowing this, the learned Brāhmaṇas reading the Vedas do not accept gifts from a king, if they desire to secure welfare after death. — (91)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is the final summing up of the foregoing rules forbidding the acceptance of gifts.

Knowing that the accepting of gifts from kings is the source of various forms of suffering, learned Brāhmaṇas should not accept gifts from kings.

‘After death’ — i.e., in the next birth; — ‘welfare’ — good; — those who desire. The term ‘pretya,’ which has the form of a participle, is a totally different word.

‘Brahma’ is Veda; those who ‘read,’ study it.

The epithets, ‘learned’ and ‘reading the Vedas,’ have been added with a view to indicate the excessive character of the suffering. Such persons suffer the greatest pains, resulting from the said acceptance of gifts; as it is going to be declared — ‘the learned man should fight shy of that.’ — (91).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 185).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.87-91)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.87.

VERSE 4.92 [Daily Duties]

Section XI - Daily Duties

ब्राह्मे मुहूर्ते बुध्येत धर्मार्थौ चानुचिन्तयेत् ।
कायक्लेशांश्च तन्मूलान् वेदतत्त्वार्थमेव च ॥९२॥

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США