with the Commentary of Medhatithi 129 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 135 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 170); — in Mitākṣarā (on 1.130); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 364).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.195-199)

Viṣṇu (93.8-12). — [Same as Manu.]

VERSE 4.196

Section XIV - Other Duties

अधोदृष्टिर्नैष्कृतिकः स्वार्थसाधनतत्परः ।
शठो मिथ्याविनीतश्च बकव्रतचरो द्विजः ॥१९६॥

adhodṛṣṭirnaiṣkṛtikaḥ svārthasādhanatatparaḥ |
śaṭho mithyāvinītaśca bakavratacaro dvijaḥ ||196||

With eyes cast downwards, of cruel disposition, intent upon the accomplishment of his own ends, dishonest and falsely humble; — such is the Brāhmaṇa ‘who behaves like the heron’. — (196)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Looking downwards’ is a mark of ‘heron-like behaviour.’ Or, the term, ‘adhodṛṣṭih’ may mean ‘whose ideas are ‘nīca,’ i.e., mean; he who is ever ready to do anything, who accepts gifts even from the lowest persons.

‘Niṣkṛti’ is cruelty; he, in whom this is the principal factor, is called ‘niṣkṛtika,’ ‘cruel,’ he who talks in an improper manner.

‘Falsely humble,’ — who shows himself to be extremely gentle and harmless, but, in actual practice, turns out to be most harmful. For example, the cat pretends to be asleep, when intent upon catching its prey; similarly, the person whose righteousness is mingled with deceit, has been called ‘a man of cat-like behaviour.’ So also with the expression, ‘of heron-like behaviour:’ When seeking to catch fish, herons pretend to show as if they were taking no notice of the creatures in water, and yet all the time they are intent upon catching the fish.

The term ‘vrata’ denotes habit.

It has been shown above how there is no repetition in the several parts of the verses. Even if there were some real repetitions, there would be nothing wrong in this, as the verses contain definitions (of two distinct characters); and the repeated assertions make the fact more easily intelligible.

“What is the difference between the cat-like and the heron-like behaviour!”

We explain as follows: — The latter (one who is heron-like) is bent upon accomplishing his own ends, he does not thwart the purposes of other men; while the former (one who is cat-like), thwarts the purpose of other people, through sheer jealousy, even though his own interests be not served by it — (196).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.130); — in Aparārka (p. 170), which explains ‘śaṭha’ as ‘stuck up’; — and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 66).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.195-199)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.195.

VERSE 4.197

Section XIV - Other Duties

ये बकव्रतिनो विप्रा ये च मार्जारलिङ्गिनः ।
ते पतन्त्यन्धतामिस्रे तेन पापेन कर्मणा ॥१९७॥

ye bakavratino viprā ye ca mārjāraliṅginaḥ |
te patantyandhatāmisre tena pāpena karmaṇā ||197||

Those Brāhmaṇas who are heron-like in their behaviour, and those who are cat-like, fall, by that sinful act, into the Andhatāmisra hell. — (197)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is explained by its own words. — (197).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.195-199)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.195.

VERSE 4.198

Section XIV - Other Duties

न धर्मस्यापदेशेन पापं कृत्वा व्रतं चरेत् ।
व्रतेन पापं प्रच्छाद्य कुर्वन् स्त्रीशूद्रदम्भनम् ॥१९८॥

na dharmasyāpadeśena pāpaṃ kṛtvā vrataṃ caret |
vratena pāpaṃ pracchādya kurvan strīśūdradambhanam ||198||

Having committed a sin, he shall not perform penance un der the pretext of doing a righteous act, — deceiving women and Śūdras by thus covering his sin by a penance. — (198)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Having committed a sin, he shall not perform a penance,’ — in the shape of an expiatory rite; — ‘under the pretext of doing a righteous act;’ — pretending righteousness, he makes it known among people that he is doing the penance purely as a religious act., and that there has been no occasion for his doing it as an expiatory rite; though, in reality, he is doing it as an expiatory rite. This is what one should not do.

‘By covering sin,’ — by concealing his sin — one shall not — by means of the said righteous act — seek to deceive ‘women and Śūdras.’

The meaning is that, when one has to perforin an expiatory rite, one shall openly perform it as such, except in the case of the Expiatory Rites distinctly laid down as ‘secret’ — (198).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 1229).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.195-199)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.195.

VERSE 4.199

Section XIV - Other Duties

प्रेत्येह चेदृशा विप्रा गर्ह्यन्ते ब्रह्मवादिभिः ।
छद्मना चरितं यच्च व्रतं रक्षांसि गच्छति ॥१९९॥

pretyeha cedṛśā viprā garhyante brahmavādibhiḥ |
cadmanā caritaṃ yacca vrataṃ rakṣāṃsi gacchati ||199||

Such Brāhmaṇas are condemned after death, and also here (in this life) by the expounders of the Veda; and penance done under a false pretence goes to the evil spirits. — (199)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The nature of things is such that, even though an act may be done with a view to a certain end, yet its other results also accrue to him. For instance, when one is intent upon obeying one’s Teacher, it is with a view to the fulfilment of a religious duty, and not for obtaining pleasure; and yet, from the very nature of the thing, the act of obedience brings pleasure.

Some people bold the following opinion: — “Penances serve the purpose of removing sins; and even though performed with a view to other ends, they do not renounce their own nature. So that, in the case in question, the Expiatory Rite would serve both purposes, — I shall become known by the people as righteous, and my sin also shall be removed.”

It is with a view to setting aside such a view that the Author adds the present verse.

‘The penance done under a false pretence goes to evil spirits;’ — that is, it becomes useless, and it does not remove the sin.

It is not only that his purpose is not accomplished, in fact, such Brāhmaṇas — those performing penances under false pretences — ‘are condemned’ — reprehended — ‘by the expounders of the Veda;’ i.e., by the cultured people, who know the authority of the Veda. — (199).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.195-199)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.195.

VERSE 4.200

Section XIV - Other Duties

अलिङ्गी लिङ्गिवेषेण यो वृत्तिमुपजीवति ।
स लिङ्गिनां हरत्येनस्तिर्यग्योनौ च जायते ॥२००॥

aliṅgī liṅgiveṣeṇa yo vṛttimupajīvati |
sa liṅgināṃ haratyenastiryagyonau ca jāyate ||200||

One who, though not entitled to the wearing of a certain badge, gains one’s living by wearing that badge, takes off the sins of persons entitled to that badge, and is born in the womb of a lower animal. — (200)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There is a distinctive badge connected with each of the life-stages. For the Student there is the wearing of the girdle-zone, etc.; for the Householder, there is the wearing of the bamboo-stick, the ear-ring, the water-pot, and so forth; and for the Wandering Recluse, the wearing of the reddish-brown garment, the rod, and so forth.

How, if a Householder makes a living — by wearing one of of these badges, with a view to obtaining alms, — ‘he takes of the sins of persons entitled to that badge;’ — helps them to become free from their debts; and ‘is born in the womb of a lower animal,’ such as the jackal and the like.

In this connection, the difficulty should not be raised that it is not possible for the sins committed by the persons entitled to the badge to move away from them to go over to the pretender.

Because all that is meant by the text is that one should not wear the badge of other persons. Even though no direct prohibition is laid down, yet we deduce the said impropriety from the deprecatory statement contained in the verse. — (200)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Viṣṇu (93.13). — [Same as Manu, but reading ‘prajāyate’ for ‘ca jāyate.’]

VERSE 4.201

Section XIV - Other Duties

परकीयनिपानेषु न स्नायाद् हि कदा चन ।
निपानकर्तुः स्नात्वा तु दुष्कृतांशेन लिप्यते ॥२०१॥

parakīyanipāneṣu na snāyād hi kadā cana |
nipānakartuḥ snātvā tu duṣkṛtāṃśena lipyate ||201||

He shall never bathe in the tanks belonging to other persons. Having bathed there, he becomes tainted with a part of the tank-digger’s sin. — (201)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Nipāna,’ — which is etymologically explained as ‘nipibanti asmin,’ or ‘nipibanti asmāt,’ — ‘in which, or from which, people drink,’ — means ‘water-reservoir;’ that is, a tank, a well or a tank. And one should never bathe in any such tank as has been dug by another man for his own use, and has not been given away for the benefit of the public.

This forbids all kinds of bathing — (a) the obligatory daily bath, (b) the occasional bath necessitated by the touch of the Cāṇḍāla and such other persons, and (c) the ordinary bath taken for the relieving of heat and perspiration.

The text proceeds to point out the evil arising from the disobedience of the said prohibition he becomes ‘tainted’ — contaminated — by a part of such sin as there may be of the person who dug the tank.

This is a deprecatory exaggeration, supplementing the preceding prohibition, — (201)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 169), which adds the following notes: — In view of the term ‘Nipānakartuḥ’ in the second line, the term ‘Parakīya’ should be taken to mean ‘made by another person’; as Kalpataru holds that ‘Parakīya’ must mean ‘made by another’, — whether consecrated or unconsecrated, since no distinction between them is made anywhere; — [This appears to be a gist of Medhātithi’s explanation of ‘Parakīya,’ for which see Translation ]; — ‘Nipāna’ means ‘water-reservoir.’

This verse is quoted also in Kālaviveka (p. 328), which too makes the same observations as Vīramitrodaya (just quoted).

It is quoted also in Aparārka (p. 234), which makes the remark that the tank that has been consecrated and made over to the public cannot be called ‘parakīya’; and this favours Medhātithi’s interpretation of the verse, which is supported also by what follows in the next verse; — in Smṛtikaumudī (p. 65), which explains ‘parakīya’ as ‘dug by another,’ and says it cannot mean ‘belonging to another’; as is quite clear from what is added regarding the nipānakartṛ; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 874); — in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 300), which explains ‘parakīya’ as ‘dug by others’; — and is Śuddhikaumudī (p. 324), which says that ‘Kadācana’ makes it clear that the prohibition is absolute.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (2.3.5-6). — ‘People should not perform their bath in water that has been dammed; a part of the merit goes to the man that built the dam. For this reason one should avoid the dams and wells built by others.’

Yājñavalkya (1.159). — ‘He shall not bathe in the tanks of other persons until he has taken out five clods of earth; he shall bathe in a river or in ponds dug by the gods, in lakes, and in springs.’

Viṣṇu (63.1). — ‘He shall not perform his bath in tanks belonging to others.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 169). — ‘One shall avoid the dams and wells built by others; the builder becomes a partaker in the merit: one should bathe there after throwing in three handfuls of earth (and three jarfuls of water).’

VERSE 4.202

Section XIV - Other Duties

यानशय्याऽऽसनान्यस्य कूपोद्यानगृहाणि च ।
अदत्तान्युपयुञ्जान एनसः स्यात् तुरीयभाक् ॥२०२॥

yānaśayyā''sanānyasya kūpodyānagṛhāṇi ca |
adattānyupayuñjāna enasaḥ syāt turīyabhāk ||202||

By using another person’s conveyance, couch, seat, well, garden or house, — when these have not been given, — one becomes the partaker of the fourth part of that person’s sins. — (202)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If one uses the conveyance, etc., that belong to another person, and have not been given, one comes to partake of the fourth part of the sins of that person.

Some persons assert in this connection that, since the text uses the terra ‘when these hive not been given,’ what is meant is that one should not use these things when they have been assigned for public use.

This is not right; because the prohibition herein contained refers to what belongs to another person; and what 1 ms been assigned for public use does not belong to another person; since he has already renounced his proprietory right over them, in the proper manner.

The specification of the ‘fourth part’ is not meant to be emphasized; as has been already explained before. — (202)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 237).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (l.160). — ‘He shall avoid beds, seats, gardens, horses and conveyances belonging to others, unless they are offered to him.’

VERSE 4.203

Section XIV - Other Duties

नदीषु देवखातेषु तडागेषु सरःसु च ।
स्नानं समाचरेन्नित्यं गर्तप्रस्रवणेषु च ॥२०३॥

nadīṣu devakhāteṣu taḍāgeṣu saraḥsu ca |
snānaṃ samācarennityaṃ gartaprasravaṇeṣu ca ||203||

He shall always bathe in rivers and in tanks and lakes dug by the gods; as also in water-holes and springs. — (203)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

As a matter of fact, all rivers are ‘dug by the gods;’ hence they cannot be both, which would necessitate the differentiation connoted by the epithet; hence the gender of the epithet should be that of the things qualified by it. As for tanks, etc., these are ‘dug by gods’ as well as ‘dug by men. (Hence, in their case, the differentiation is necessary). As a matter of fact, these are never actually dug by the gods; all. that is meant to be indicated by the epithet, therefore, is their largeness and importance, due to the fact that people do not remember who dug them. — (203)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Garta’ — ‘Pits’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘a small brook whose course does not extend beyond a thousand Dhanuṣ, i.e., 2,000 yards’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 234), which, in explaining the word ‘garta’, quotes from Kātyāyana to the effect that water-streams that do not run beyond 2004 yards are called ‘garta’. This same text is quoted by Kullūka as from Chandoga-pariśiṣṭa. [Buhler wrongly puts down this name as ‘Chandogya-priśiṣṭa’]. — ‘Prasravaṇa’ — is a small water-spring running down from hills.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.159), which adds that this rule refers to the daily compulsory bath; — in Kālaviveka (p. 330); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 181), which adds the following notes: — ‘Nadī’ should be taken as standing for such streams as never dry up; bathing in small streams which dry up being forbidden; — ‘devakhāta’ is that which is known as ‘dug by the gods’; — ‘taḍāga’ is an artificial water-reservoir, which is larger than 1,000 square yards; — while ‘Saras’ is smaller than the ‘Taḍāga’ but larger than 500 square yards; such is the explanation given by Hemādri. According to Kalpataru on the other hand, the ‘devakhāta taḍāga’ is such tank as is known to be connected with gods, at the Puṣkara lake (near Ajmer), and the ‘Saras’ is a small stream; — the ‘Garta’ is that which has been defined as running upto 2,004 yards; — and ‘Prasravaṇa’ is the water-fall.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 867), which has the following notes: — ‘Nadī’ means a flowing current of water which never dries up completely, bathing in streams that dry up during summer being forbidden — ‘devakhāta’, such ditches and pools as are known to have been ‘dug by the gods’, — ‘taḍāga’, an artificial, water-reservoir which is over 1,000 and less than 2,000 cubits in size; and ‘Saraḥ’ is a tank which is over 1,000 cubits in size but smaller than a Taḍāga; ‘Garta’ is the name given to that reservoir of water whence water does not flow out, and which covers ground 8,000 ‘bow-lengths’ in size; and ‘Prasravaṇa’ is the water-fall, water flowing down a mountain-side.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (64.16). — ‘He shall bathe in springs, in ponds dug by the gods and in lakes.’

Yājñavalkya (1.159). — ‘He shall bathe in rivers, in ponds dug by the gods and in springs.’

Mārkaṇḍeya (Aparārka, p. 235). — ‘Than water pulled out of the well, the water on the ground is more sacred; and more so is the water of a waterfall; better than that is lake-water; purer than that is river-water; purer than that is the water of a Tīrtha; and the water of the Gaṅgā is the most sacred of all.’

Yājñavalkya (Do.). — ‘When a larger water is available one shall not bathe in the smaller one; nor in an artificial one, where there is a river.’

VERSE 4.204

Section XIV - Other Duties

यमान् सेवेत सततं न नित्यं नियमान् बुधः ।
यमान् पतत्यकुर्वाणो नियमान् केवलान् भजन् ॥२०४॥

yamān seveta satataṃ na nityaṃ niyamān budhaḥ |
yamān patatyakurvāṇo niyamān kevalān bhajan ||204||

The wise man shall always observe the Restraints, but not necessarily the Observances. Not observing the Restraints, and keeping the Observances alone, he falls. — (204)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Yamas,’ ‘Restraints,’ are negative, of the nature of prohibitions; e.g., ‘the Brāhmaṇa should not be killed,’ ‘wine should not be drunk,’ and so forth. The ‘niyamas,’ ‘observances,’ are positive in form, of the nature of something to be done; e.g., ‘one shall daily recite the Veda,’ and so forth.

‘Not necessarily the Observances.’ — This does not mean that one shall not keep the Observances; all that is meant is that the Restraints are more obligatory in their character than the Observances.

This is what is further emphasized: — ‘Not observing the Restraints, one falls.’ If the Restraints are not observed, it means that Brāhmaṇa-killing and such acts are done, which means that the man has become an outcast, and people do not find it advisable to sit near him or have any dealings with him. It is not so in the case of the non-keeping of the Observances. To this effect we have the following assertions current among cultured people: —

‘The man who keeps the Observances, but is not intent upon the Restraints, falls; but he who observes the Restraints, but not the Observances, does not suffer. Therefore, one should devote one’s attentions to the Restraints, not minding the Observances so much.’

For some people, the terms ‘Yama’ and ‘Niyama’ have technical significations, — e.g., (a) ‘not injuring others, truthfulness, continence, sinlessness, non-thieving, — these five constitute the Yamas, the major observances; (b) Absence of Anger, Attendance on the Teacher, Purity, Light Food, Carefulness, — these constitute the five Niyamas, the minor Observances.’

Even according to this view, the present verse indicates the relative importance of the two sets of duties.

Thus, what the present verse lays down is neither that one shall observe the Yamas, nor that one shall not keep the Observances; since both are equally prescribed by the scriptures. — (204)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Yama’ and ‘nigama’ are best taken as explained by Medhātithi; though Kullūka and others quote the somewhat artificial distinction made by Yājñavalkya (III. 313-314).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (3.312-313). — ‘Celibacy, Compassion, Forgiveness, Charitableness, Truthfulness, Straightforwardness, Harmlessness, Non-appropriation of other’s property, Sweet disposition and Self-control have been declared to be the

Restraints. — Bathing, Silence, Fasting, Sacrificing, Study, Control of the sexual organs, Attendance on the teacher, Cleanliness, Freedom from anger and Alertness are the Observances.’

Atri (47). — [Same as Manu.]

VERSE 4.205

Section XIV - Other Duties

नाश्रोत्रियतते यज्ञे ग्रामयाजिकृते तथा ।
स्त्रिया क्लीबेन च हुते भुञ्जीत ब्राह्मणः क्व चित् ॥२०५॥

nāśrotriyatate yajñe grāmayājikṛte tathā |
striyā klībena ca hute bhuñjīta brāhmaṇaḥ kva cit ||205||

The Brāhmaṇa shall never eat at a sacrifice performed by one who has not learnt the Veda; or at one performed by a village-priest, or at one offered by a woman or a eunuch. — (205).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The preceding verse has closed the section on Positive Duties; now begins the section on prohibitions (Negative Duties).

Among the various acts it is that of eating which is likely to be done at random, — food being what is sought after most; hence the text proceeds with prohibitions regarding the act of eating.

‘Aśrotriya,’ ‘Non-śrotriya,’ is one who has not learnt the Veda; at the sacrifice ‘performed’ — undertaken — by him, — or at sacrifice at which the officiating priests are ignorant of the Veda — ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not eat.’

‘Village-priest,’ — one who officiates as the priest of the entire village; where such a person, or a woman, offers the sacrifice.

In the Chāndogya, the authors of the Gṛhya -rules have described the performance of sacrifices by women, and it is in view of this that the text forbids eating at such sacrifices. Or, the prohibition may refer to that sacrifice at which the woman is the principal performer; her husband being beset with poverty and other disqualifications, and the woman being proud of the wealth acquired by her as dowry, or of the wealth possessed by her relations.

‘Eunuch’ — wanting in masculinity. — (205)

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США