with the Commentary of Medhatithi 127 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 133 из 350Следующая ⇒

‘Gauḥ’ — Buhler is again unfair to Medhātithi. Both Medhātithi and Kullūka take this term ‘gauḥ’ precisely as Buhler says ‘it is not impossible’. (See Translation.) From what Buhler says, Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana take ‘gauḥ’ only as ‘the Cow, which at once yields its benefits by its milk &c.’ This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 68), which says that, if the ‘gauḥ’ is taken as an example per similarity, then it means ‘earth’, — the earth does not produce the harvest immediately after sowing of seeds; if it is taken as ‘cow’, then it is an example per dissimilarity, the meaning being ‘the cow gives its products, in the shape of milk &c. immediately, not so sin, which takes time to fructify.’

VERSE 4.173

Section XIV - Other Duties

यदि नात्मनि पुत्रेषु न चेत् पुत्रेषु नप्तृषु ।
न त्वेव तु कृतोऽधर्मः कर्तुर्भवति निष्फलः ॥१७३॥

yadi nātmani putreṣu na cet putreṣu naptṛṣu |
na tveva tu kṛto'dharmaḥ karturbhavati niṣphalaḥ ||173||

If not on himself, then on his sons, — if not on his sons, then on his grandsons (falls the punishment); an unrighteousness, once committed, never fails to bring its consequences to the perpetrator. — (173)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“It is not right that the consequences of acts done by one person should be described as falling on others. As a matter of fact, all Vedic acts bring their fruits to the person who performs them. The principle of the Vaiśvānara sacrifice (whereby the fruits of the sacrifice accrue to the son of the performer) cannot be held to be applicable to the present case, as there is no direct assertion to that effect. In connection with the acts dealt with in the present context, there is no assertion to the effect that their consequences accrue to the performer’s son.”

True; but when the son suffers pain, it causes the father still greater pain; so that, in that case also, the resultant suffering would fall upon the perpetrator himsef (himself?). As regards the son also, the said suffering may be said to come to him by virtue of some past misdeed of his son; and there would be nothing incongruous in this.

The same holds good regarding ‘grandsons’ also.

‘Kṛto-dharmaḥ.’ — Whether the component words be read as ‘Kṛtaḥ-dharmaḥ’ or ‘Kṛtaḥ-adharmaḥ,’ the resultant conjunct form would be the same — ‘Kṛto-dharmaḥ;’ hence both dharma (righteousness) and adharma (unrighteousness) are meant to be spoken of (as not failing in bringing up their consequences) — (173).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (P. 356, l. 20) — ‘Vaiśvānaranyāyaḥ’ — This refers to Mīmāṃsā-sūtra, 4.38 et. seq, where it is stated that though the Vaiśvānara sacrifice is performed by the Father, yet its results accrue to the Son.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 68) — which adds ‘Kṛtodharmaḥ’ should be construed as ‘Kṛtaḥ adharma’, as the context deals with Adharma, — ‘na niṣphalaḥ,’ i.e., unless it is expiated.

VERSE 4.174

Section XIV - Other Duties

अधर्मेणैधते तावत् ततो भद्राणि पश्यति ।
ततः सपत्नान् जयति समूलस्तु विनश्यति ॥१७४॥

adharmeṇaidhate tāvat tato bhadrāṇi paśyati |
tataḥ sapatnān jayati samūlastu vinaśyati ||174||

For a time one prospers through unrighteousness, for a while he experiences good things, and for a time he conquers his enemies; but, after all, he perishes root and branch. — (174)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Through unrighteousness,’ — such as causing injury to his master, and so forth — ‘he prospers’ — gains advancement.

‘For a time,’ — for the time being only.

Then, ‘for a while’ — after having gained riches and lands, — ‘he experiences’ — enjoys — ‘good things;’ — i.e., such signs of prosperity as the presence of many servants, the possession of cattle, horses, and so forth.

Then, ‘he conquers his enemies’ — i.e., ill-treats such persons as are poor. What are meant by ‘enemies’ are those persons who, remaining firm in the path of righteousness, do not have recourse to questionable means of livelihood; and, in comparison to a rich person, the poverty of such men would involve a certain amount of insult.

Having remained thus for some time, such persons become destroyed ‘root and branch,’ ‘i.e., along with their children, relations and riches.

For these reasons, righteousness should not be forsaken. — (1 74).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 92.4). — (Same as Manu, but reading ‘Vardhatyadharmeṇa naraḥ’ for ‘adharmeṇaidhate tāvat.’)

VERSE 4.175

Section XIV - Other Duties

सत्यधर्मार्यवृत्तेषु शौचे चैवारमेत् सदा ।
शिष्यांश्च शिष्याद् धर्मेण वाच्।बाहूदरसंयतः ॥१७५॥

satyadharmāryavṛtteṣu śauce caivāramet sadā |
śiṣyāṃśca śiṣyād dharmeṇa vāc|bāhūdarasaṃyataḥ ||175||

He shall always delight in truthfulness, Law and right conduct, as also in ceanliness (cleanliness?); he shall govern his pupils in accordance with law, — with his speech arms, and belly duly controlled. — (175)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Truthfulness,’ — the habit of saying things just as they are seen.

‘Law,’ — Injunctions and Prohibitions contained in the Veda.

Though Truthfulness also would be involved under ‘law,’ yet it has been mentioned separately, with a view to emphasize its special importance.

The fact of the matter is that ‘untruthfulness’ being the very nature of men, it is forbidden again and again with special emphasis.

‘Right conduct,’ — the conduct of good men. ‘Good men’ are those that are cultured; and the ‘conduct’ or course of action adopted by them.

In all these, ‘he shall delight.’ ‘Delight’ is satisfaction. Hence, what the text enjoins is satisfaction with those just enumerated; the sense being that ‘he should show satisfaction of mind at the sight of all right forms of activity.’

‘Pupils,’ — wife, son, slaves and students; these should be governed ‘in accordance with law;’ the law being what has been laid down in this connection under 8.299, et seq.

‘With his speech, amis and belly duly controlled.’ — Whether there be necessity or not, if one does not speak much, this is what is called ‘control of speech.’ The ‘control of arms’ consists in not causing pain to others by the strength of one’s arms. The ‘control of belly’ consists in non-gluttony, not eating too much; — gluttony consisting in eating much at other people’s houses, with special zest for a particular article of food.

What has been already said before, is repeated over and over again, because wholesome advice is to be given at all times. This is the explanation of all repetitions. — (175)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 4.164; 8.299.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (1, 50.68, 69, 70). — ‘He shall never be fickle with the generative organ, the stomach, the hands, the feet, speech and eyes. He shall be devoted to Truthfulness and Rightful Conduct. He shall be the instructor of well-disciplined pupils; practised in cleanliness, and devoted to the Veda; — ever harmless, mild, firmly active, self-controlled and charitable.’

VERSE 4.176

Section XIV - Other Duties

परित्यजेदर्थकामौ यौ स्यातां धर्मवर्जितौ ।
धर्मं चाप्यसुखोदर्कं लोकसङ्क्रुष्टमेव च ॥१७६॥

parityajedarthakāmau yau syātāṃ dharmavarjitau |
dharmaṃ cāpyasukhodarkaṃ lokasaṅkruṣṭameva ca ||176||

He shall, avoid such wealth and pleasures as are opposed to righteousness, as also righteousness if it be conducive to unhappiness, or disapproved by the people. — (176)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said above that the ‘group of three’ constitutes the ‘ends of man.’ Some people might think that all the three are equally important, and argue as follows and act accordingly Righteous acts, like the Jyotiṣṭoma, &c., are found to be performed at the cost of wealth and pleasure. Such acts lead to loss of wealth by the giving away of the sacrificial fee and other gifts; and they are opposed to pleasure, inasmuch as it has been laid down that the person initiated for sacrifices shall remain continent, and so forth. Exactly in the same manner, it would be right to have recourse to the acquisition of wealth and pleasure at the cost of righteousness, so that the prohibition, ‘One shall not injure any living beings,’ forbids only such injury as one might inflect upon others simply on account of enmity, and not that which brings to the person wealth or pleasure.”

It is with a view to preclude such ideas that the text declares that — ‘He shall avoid such wealth and pleasure’ as involve opposition to righteousness.

Having thus emphasized the superior importance of Righteousness, he proceeds to add that, in some cases, righteous acts also have to be avoided — ‘also righteousness if it be conducive to unhappiness.’ ‘Udarka’ means sequence; that whose sequence is unhappy is ‘asukhodarka.’ For instance, some people give away their entire property, and obtain the fame of being an ‘extremely righteous and charitable person;’ — or, when, even on solitary river-banks, where many ordinary persons see what is being done, people bathe, not so much for acquiring spiritual merit, but for winning the praise of the populace; — or, again, when large gifts are made to the ‘crows of sacred places’ (the Brāhmaṇas, at these places, who hanker after gifts), for the purpose of advertising their, powers of giving. All such acts are deprecated.

Or, again (one should avoid), such acts as are ‘disapproved by the people,’ as being blameworthy; e.g., the killing (at sacrifices) of the bull, which should not be killed; and the act of eating its flesh is more blameworthy than that of eating other kinds of flesh.

This prohibition is with a view to perceptible results, just like the prohibition of touching a snake. Ordinary men, being ignorant, would not know that the killing of the bull is permitted (under special conditions), and would therefore make it known that the sacrificer of the bull is an unrighteous person; and, as a large majority of men are illiterate, even cultured persons, not caring to investigate the source of the popular opinion, would avoid the person (as unrighteous). This is what has been said in the passage — ‘the king being righteous,’ etc., etc..

What we have said above, is in accordance with the explanation provided by older writers. As a matter of fact, however, it can never be right to reject, on the strength of Smṛti, what has been enjoined by the Veda. The right example of the act aimed at by the Text is as follows: The custom of ‘niyoga’ (‘begetting of a child on the widowed sister-in-law’) is sanctioned by Smṛtis; but it is not performed, because it is ‘deprecated by the people;’ or, again, when one is supporting an unprotected young woman, entirely through pity, — if people show their disapproval by giving out that ‘she appeals to hiś generosity because she is a woman,’ — then the said righteous act of supporting would be one that is ‘deprecated by the people.’ — (176)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 159); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 11), which would restrict the rule to only such ‘dharma’ as is ‘dṛṣṭārtha’, ‘prescribed for the purpose of perceptible worldly results.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (71.84.85). — ‘Wealth and Pleasure, opposed to Righteousness (he shall avoid); — also such Righteousness as may be disapproved by the people.’

Āpastamba (7.20.22). — ‘He shall enjoy such pleasures as are not incompatible with righteousness.’

Yājñavalkya (1.156). — ‘In act, mind and speech he shall carefully do what is right; and he shall not do what is right if it happens to he such as is not conducive to heaven, or disapproved by the people.’

Gautama (9.47). — ‘While wearing shoes, he shall avoid eating, sitting, accosting and saluting.’

Śukranīti (3.4-5). — ‘He shall not try to attain liberation without trying to attain the other three purposes, and he shall follow the path of liberation without disregarding the other three. This is the golden mean.’

VERSE 4.177

Section XIV - Other Duties

न पाणिपादचपलो न नेत्रचपलोऽनृजुः ।
न स्याद् वाक्चपलश्चैव न परद्रोहकर्मधीः ॥१७७॥

na pāṇipādacapalo na netracapalo'nṛjuḥ |
na syād vākcapalaścaiva na paradrohakarmadhīḥ ||177||

He shall not be fickle with his hands and feet, nor fickle with his eyes, nor crooked, nor fickle with his speech, nor harm others by deed or thought. — (177)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The compound in ‘pāṇipādacapalaḥ’ is the instrumental Tatpuruṣa, in accordance with Pāṇini’s Sūtra 2.1.30. The ‘fickleness’ of the hand would consist in the picking up or removing of useless things.

The ‘fickleness’ of the eye would consist in looking at other women, or at pictures, etc.

He shall not net or think in such a manner as would bring harm to others. — (177).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 524), as setting forth an epitome of what one’s ‘duty’ is; — in Vidhānapārijāta (I., p. 695), — and again in II, p. 204, in connection with tilaka marks on the forehead; — in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 275) to the effect that even when living in foreign lands one should keep up the ways of his fathers; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1680); — in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 68), which says that this refers to cases of optional alternatives only; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 71a); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 9) to the effect that family-custom is to be regarded as a guide in cases where there is a difference of opinion among the various scriptural texts.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (6.38). — ‘Ho shall not be fickle with his hands and feet, nor with his eyes, nor with his limbs; such should be the conduct of the cultured.’

Gautama (1.50). — (See under 175, above.)

VERSE 4.178

Section XIV - Other Duties

येनास्य पितरो याता येन याताः पितामहाः ।
तेन यायात् सतां मार्गं तेन गच्छन्न रिष्यति ॥१७८॥

yenāsya pitaro yātā yena yātāḥ pitāmahāḥ |
tena yāyāt satāṃ mārgaṃ tena gacchanna riṣyati ||178||

He shall tread the path of the righteous by the same way in which his fathers and grandfathers have trodden; going by that way, he shall not suffer. — (178)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘rightious path’ that has been followed by his forefathers, — in the way of forming friendships with certain persons, the forming of marriage-alliances with certain people, the studying of a certain rescensional text of the Veda, and so forth that same path should be followed by the man himself. By acting thus, he ‘shall not suffer’ — i.e., he does not suffer harm, is not blamed in the world.

What is here laid down is the means of knowing one’s duty, that is open to ignorant men, — especially in regard to such acts as not injuring others, and so forth; just like the beat of the royal drum, which announces to the Mlecchas and other people what they should do.- So far as the Agnihotra and such acts are concerned, these are to be learnt only by the texts bearing upon each of them.

Some people urge the following objection here: — “If what has been done by the forefathers happen to be such as has no basis in the scriptures, — how can that be regarded as ‘dharma,’ a ‘rightious act?’ If, on the other hand, it has some basis in the scriptures, then that same would be the source of knowledge open to the son also; and in that case, what would be the point in referring him to the practice of his forefathers?”

This objection we have already answered by pointing out that what is here laid down as the means of knowing duty that is open to illiterate persons.

Others, again, make the following assertion: — “In a case where, even on careful examination, one’s doubt regarding one’s duty does not cease, — and the texts available are capable of lending support to both the courses open to him, — in such cases, one should act according to the practice of one’s forefathers.”

This view also needs to be examined. There is no valid source of knowledge that can be always doubtful; the text bearing upon a question must always point to only one efficient course of action.

It may be that what is meant is that, in the matter of optional alternatives, one should adopt the practice of one’s forefathers; simply because it has been adopted by others in the past.

‘The path of the righteous.’ — This has been added with a view to emphasize the fact that, if one’s forefathers may have followed an unrighteous path, one shall not follow such a practice, in such cases. — (178).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (Ādi, 210.29) — ‘Dharma, O king, is very subtle, we know not its ways; all we do is that we follow the footsteps of our forefathers.’

VERSE 4.179-180

Section XIV - Other Duties

ऋत्विक्पुरोहिताचार्यैर्मातुलातिथिसंश्रितैः ।
बालवृद्धातुरैर्वैद्यैर्ज्ञातिसम्बन्धिबान्धवैः ॥१७९॥

मातापितृभ्यां जामीभिर्भ्रात्रा पुत्रेण भार्यया ।
दुहित्रा दासवर्गेण विवादं न समाचरेत् ॥१८०॥

ṛtvikpurohitācāryairmātulātithisaṃśritaiḥ |
bālavṛddhāturairvaidyairjñātisambandhibāndhavaiḥ ||179||

mātāpitṛbhyāṃ jāmībhirbhrātrā putreṇa bhāryayā |
duhitrā dāsavargeṇa vivādaṃ na samācaret ||180||

He shall not have a quarrel with the officiating priest, the priest, or his Teacher, or with his maternal uncle, or his guests or dependants, with children, or with old or sick persons, or with doctors, with his paternal relations or marriage relations, with his parents, or female relations, or brother or son, or wife, or daughter, or with his slaves. — (179-180).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He shall not have’ — is connected with each of the persons.

‘Dependants’ — who derive their livelihood from him.

‘Doctors’ — learned men, or physicians.

‘Jñāti’ — paternal relations.

‘Sambandhi’ — relations by marriage.

‘Bāndhava’ — maternal relations; sons of maternal aunt, and so forth.

‘Female relations’ — sisters and other married relations.

‘Quarrel’ — any sort of misunderstanding or unpleasant dealing, and even wordy quarrel — ‘he shall not do’ — with any of these. — (180).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 4.179-180)

These verses are quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 573); — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 120).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.179-181)

Mahābhārata (Śānti, 249.14-17). — (Same as Manu; but reading ‘Etān vīmucya saṃvādān’ for ‘etairvivādān santyajya and ‘jitaḥ.’ for ‘jitaiḥ.’)

Yājñavalkya (1.157-158). — ‘The Householder wins all regions by avoiding quarrels with his mother, father, brother, female relations, relations by marriage, maternal uncle, aged persons, boys, sick persons, his teacher, doctors, dependants and relations, his priest, the officiating priest, his own children, wife, slaves and paternal relations.’

VERSE 4.181

Section XIV - Other Duties

एतैर्विवादान् सन्त्यज्य सर्वपापैः प्रमुच्यते ।
एतैर्जितैश्च जयति सर्वान्लोकानिमान् गृही ॥१८१॥

etairvivādān santyajya sarvapāpaiḥ pramucyate |
etairjitaiśca jayati sarvānlokānimān gṛhī ||181||

Having renounced quarrel with these, the householder becomes freed from all sins; and, by ignoring them, he wins all these worlds. — (181)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The sin that accrues from such quarelling, does not accrue to him who avoids them; — this is what is meant by the phrase, ‘becomes freed from all sins.’

When these are ignored, he ‘wins’ — makes his own — ‘all these worlds.’

This is a purely commendatory exaggeration.’ — (181).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 573).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.179-181)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.179.

VERSE 4.182

Section XIV - Other Duties

आचार्यो ब्रह्मलोकैशः प्राजापत्ये पिता प्रभुः ।
अतिथिस्त्विन्द्रलोकेशो देवलोकस्य चर्त्विजः ॥१८२॥

ācāryo brahmalokaiśaḥ prājāpatye pitā prabhuḥ |
atithistvindralokeśo devalokasya cartvijaḥ ||182||

The teacher is the lord of the world of Brahmā; the Father is sovereign of the world of Prajāpati; the Guest is the master of the world of Indra; and the Priests are the lords of the world of gods. — (182)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Teacher is the lord of Brahma’s world; so that, when the Teacher is satisfied, that world is attained. It is this fact that is figuratively described as the Teacher being the lord of that region.

The Father is the sovereign of the world of Prajāpati. — (182).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 2.244.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 574), as setting forth reasons for not quarelling with those mentioned in the preceding verses.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.182-185)

Mahābhārata (Śānti, 249.17-21). — (Same as Manu, hut reading ‘indralokesya’ for ‘indralokeśaḥ’ — ‘vaiśvadeve tu jñātayaḥ’ for ‘vaiśvadeve tu bāndhavāḥ,’ — ‘bāndharā dikṣu’ for ‘no yapām loke,’ — ‘bṛddhabālāturakṛśāstvākāśe prabhaviṣṇavaḥ’ for ‘ākāśeśāstu vijñeyā bālabṛddhakṛśāturāḥ,’ — and ‘sahenni-tyamasañjvaraḥ’ for ‘sahetāsañjvaraḥ sadā.’)

VERSE 4.183-184

Section XIV - Other Duties

जामयोऽप्सरसां लोके वैश्वदेवस्य बान्धवाः ।
सम्बन्धिनो ह्यपां लोके पृथिव्यां मातृमातुलौ ॥१८३॥

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