with the Commentary of Medhatithi 130 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 136 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 944); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 494), which explains ‘aśrotriyatate’ as ‘that which is performed by such priests or sacrifices as are devoid of Vedic learning’; this prohibition must mean that one should not eat at such a sacrifice, even after Agniṣomīya-Vapāyāga; as regards the time before this, eating at a sacrifice is already forbidden by the general rule that ‘one should not eat the food belonging to one who has been initiated for a sacrificial performance’; — ‘grāmayājin’ is one who performs sacrifices for groups of men; and one should not eat at a sacrifice where such a priest makes the offerings; — nor should one eat at a house where Vaiśvadeva and other offerings have been made by a woman; this must be taken as applying to cases where such priests are available, for where they are not available, even women fire permitted to make the offerings; — ‘klība’ is ‘impotent’.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 770); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 259), which adds the following notes — ‘aśrotrīya’, one who has not learnt the Veda, — ‘grāmayājī’, one who officiates as priest at the Śrāddha and other performances by several persons, or performs propitiatory rites for others; one should not go to a sacrifice where such a man happens to be the Hotṛ, priest.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17.11). — ‘He shall keep away from honour at the hands of unequals.’

Āpastamba (1.19.27). — ‘The eunuch also.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.14). — ‘He shall not take part in ceremonies performed by one who serves as the priest of many persons, or by one who initiates many persons.’

VERSE 4.206

Section XIV - Other Duties

अश्लीकमेतत् साधूनां यत्र जुह्वत्यमी हविः ।
प्रतीपमेतद् देवानां तस्मात् तत् परिवर्जयेत् ॥२०६॥

aślīkametat sādhūnāṃ yatra juhvatyamī haviḥ |
pratīpametad devānāṃ tasmāt tat parivarjayet ||206||

Where such persons pour the oblations, it is considered indecent by all good men; it is disagreeable to the gods; hence, one should avoid it — (206)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is supplementary to the foregoing prohibitive Injunction.

‘Indecent’ — blameworthy.

‘By good men’ — by all cultured people.

‘Where such persons pour the oblations,’ — i.e., offer sacrifices.

‘It is disagreeable’ — displeasing — ‘to the gods.’

‘Hence one should avoid’ — going to — ‘these sacrifices.’ — (206).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 494), which explains ‘aślīka’ as ‘conducive to adversity’, — and ‘pratīpa’ as ‘disagreeable’; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 250), which remarks that the entire verse is ‘Arthavāda’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (14.5). — ‘The gods do not partake of the offerings of one who is suffering from white leprosy, or of one who has married a girl after puberty, or of one who is under the subjection of his wife, or of one who permits his wife’s paramour to live in the house.’

VERSE 4.207

Section XIV - Other Duties

मत्तक्रुद्धातुराणां च न भुञ्जीत कदा चन ।
केशकीटावपन्नं च पदा स्पृष्टं च कामतः ॥२०७॥

mattakruddhāturāṇāṃ ca na bhuñjīta kadā cana |
keśakīṭāvapannaṃ ca padā spṛṣṭaṃ ca kāmataḥ ||207||

He shalll never eat food offered by intoxicated or angry or sick persons; nor that which is contaminated by hair or insects, or that which has been intentionally touched with the foot. — (207)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The food offered by such persons is to be avoided, so long as the intoxication and other conditions are actually on them.

Others explain the text to refer to habit; the sense being that one should avoid the food offered by such persons as are frequently drunk, — who are habitual drunkards.

Similarly, with one who has bad temper and is frequently obssessed by rage; or one who is mostly sick, a confirmed invalid.

‘What is contaminated by’ — spoilt by the touch of — ‘hair and insect.’ Among insects, there are some which contaminate the food by their presence when they are dead; e.g., flies and lizards; while others spoil it even when living.

The term ‘insect’ includes all small creatures, such as worms, flies, etc. And ‘hair’ includes nails and bristles, as also dirt and other things; — on the basis of usage.

‘What is touched with the foot intentionally;’ — there is no harm if it is touched simply through chance carelessness — (207).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The first half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3. 290); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 944); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 494), which explains ‘mattaḥ’ as ‘intoxicated, either by wine or by wealth etc.’ — and ‘āturaḥ’ as ‘afflicted with a very serious disease.’

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 451), which explains ‘Keśakītāvapanna’ as ‘defiled by the presence of hair or insects’; — and ‘Kāmataḥ’ as ‘intentionally’; — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 517), which adds that since the text has added the qualification ‘Kāmataḥ’, there should be no harm if the food happens to be touched by the foot unintentionally; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 610 and 770); — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 296); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260), which explains ‘Keśakītāvapannam’ as ‘cooked along with hairs or insects’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17.9-10). — ‘What has been contaminated by hair or insect, or what has been defiled by the touch of the feet of a woman in her courses, or of the black bird.’

Āpastamba (1.16.23-28). — ‘That food in which there may be hair, — or some other unclean thing; — what has been defiled by unclean things: — or by such insects as live on unclean things: — or by the tail of the mouse; — or what has been defiled by the foot.’

Viṣṇu (5.18-19). — ‘What has been intentionally touched by the foot or sneezed upon; — also that belonging to the intoxicated, the enraged and the diseased.’

Yājñavalkya (1.162, 167, 168). — ‘The food offered by the physician, the diseased, the enraged, the loose woman, the intoxicated, the enemy, of one who is cruel or of the ‘Ugra,’ the outcast, the apostate, the hypocrite or persons feeding upon leavings; — flesh needlessly prepared and not offered to gods or Pitṛs, what contains hair or insects, food turned sour or kept overnight, touched by the dog or seen by the outcast; or touched by the woman in her courses, or what has been offered publicly or by mistake; what has been smelt by the cow, or partaken of by the dog, or touched by the foot intentionally.’

VERSE 4.208

Section XIV - Other Duties

भ्रूणघ्नावेक्षितं चैव संस्पृष्टं चाप्युदक्यया ।
पतत्रिणावलीढं च शुना संस्पृष्टमेव च ॥२०८॥

bhrūṇaghnāvekṣitaṃ caiva saṃspṛṣṭaṃ cāpyudakyayā |
patatriṇāvalīḍhaṃ ca śunā saṃspṛṣṭameva ca ||208||

Nor that which has been looked at by the Brāhmaṇa-slayer, or what has been toughed by a woman in her courses, or what has been pecked by the birds, or what has been touched by a dog. — (208)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Bhrūnahā’ is the Brāhmaṇa-slayer; what has been ‘looked at’ — eagerly seen — by such a person. This is only illustrative; it indicates other sinful persons also. The prohibition of food touched by these persons follows from the rule that lays down the necessity of bathing on being touched by such sinners.

‘Udakyā’ is the woman in her courses; and what is forbidden is food touched — not merely seen — by her.

“As a matter of fact, the Text is going to lay down the necessity of bathing on touching a woman in her courses; this alone being sufficient to indicate her impurity, how could there be any possibility of any one taking the food touched by her (that the Author should have found it necessary to forbid it)?”

Our answer to this is as follows: — [ This prohibition was thought necessary, because ] in the first place, people might be led to eat food touched by her after having washed it; or secondly, in view of what has been said regarding the mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa-slayer’ being illustrative, some one might be led to believe that this latter term is indicative of all those that are mentioned in verse 5.85; and, in that case, the prohibition would apply to the food even seen by the woman in her courses.

This same explanation applies to the prohibition of ‘what has been touched by a dog.’

It has been said that the term ‘Brāhmaṇa-slayer’ is indicative of other sinful outcasts also; and what are thus included are the ‘outcast,’ ‘the newly-delivered woman’ and others mentioned later on (in 5.85); and the ‘woman in her courses.’ also includes the newly-delivered woman.

‘Patatri’ is bird; and the birds meant are the carnivorous ones, the vulture, etc., and not the swan and other non-carnivorous ones; such being the usage among men. — (208)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 451), which explains ‘bhrūṇaghna’ as ‘an outcast,’ — ‘udakīyā’ as ‘the woman in her courses,’ — and ‘patatriṇavalīḍham’ as ‘what has been eaten by the crow and other birds.’

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 518), which explains ‘udakīyā’ as ‘the woman in her courses,’ — ‘patatrin’ as ‘birds,’ — and ‘avalīḍham’ as ‘eaten’; — in Hemādri (Shraddha, p. 610); — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260); — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 296).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17.10-11). — ‘Touched by the woman in the courses or by the feet of birds; — seen by an abortionist, or smelt by the cow, or defiled in thought.’

Āpastamba (1.16.29-30). — ‘Seen by the dog or by an improper person.’

Viṣṇu (51.17). — ‘Seen by the abortionist, touched by the woman in her courses, pecked by birds, touched by the dog, smelt by the cow.’

Yājñavalkya (1.167.168). — (See above.)

Āpastamba (1.19.1). — ‘One who is intoxicated or insane or imprisoned, the paramour living in the house of his ladylove, or one who permits his wife’s paramour to live in the house — (the food of these should he avoided).’

Last Updated: 16 February, 2018

VERSE 4.209

Section XIV - Other Duties

गवा चान्नमुपघ्रातं घुष्टान्नं च विशेषतः ।
गणान्नं गणिकान्नं च विदुषा च जुगुप्सितम् ॥२०९॥

gavā cānnamupaghrātaṃ ghuṣṭānnaṃ ca viśeṣataḥ |
gaṇānnaṃ gaṇikānnaṃ ca viduṣā ca jugupsitam ||209||

Nor the food that has been smelt by the cow, nor particularly that food which has been publicly offered, nor the food that belongs to a multitude, nor the food of the harlot, nor that which has been censured by the learned. — (209)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Food publicly offered,’ — the food that is given at temples or sacrificial sessions, by public notice, to all coiners, without any invitation to individuals. Or, it may mean ‘what is given to one person after having been promised to another.’

The root, ‘Ghuṣ’ has been declared to mean to announce; so that people regard the present verse as refering to cases where there is no announcement; and what is forbidden, therefore, is eating, without invitation, at sacrifices, marriages and such other functions.

The ‘gaṇa,’ meant by the text is multitude, company; hence the name is not applied to a number of brothers living together undivided. It is declared in Discourse IX that ‘there is a single duty operating among brothers living jointly’; and the duty therein referred to is the receiving of guests, and so forth; all which is made clear under 9.105, where the ‘eldest brother’ is declared as inheriting the entire parental property; and it is this inheritance that indicates his liability to fulfil the duties also.

What is forbidden is what is not induced in the parental heritage, even though it belong in common to all.

‘Harlot’ is the public woman.

‘Censured’ — deprecated, — ‘by the learned’, — even though it be something edible; e.g., the lotus-stalk, the oil-cake, and so forth. — (209)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The second half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290).

The verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 451), which explains ‘ghuṣṭānnam’ as ‘the food that is offered at sacrificial sessions and other similar occasions, to all and sundry by public proclamation’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 495), which explains ‘ghuṣṭānna’ in the same manner as Smṛtitattva, but quotes Medhātithi’s second alternative explanation of it as ‘what had been previously promised to another person’; ‘viśeṣataḥ’ has been added with a view to indicate the exceptional objectionability of the food; — ‘gaṇa’ is ‘multitude,’ — this term is not applicable to brothers who have not separated; — ‘gaṇikā’ is a ‘prostitute’; — ‘what has been condemned by a disinterested person learned in the Veda, even without his detecting any of the specified defects.’

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 510 and 771); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260), which adds the following notes: — ‘Ghuṣṭānnam’, that food which is offered publicly with such words as ‘who is there who will take this food?’, — ‘gaṇānnam’ food cooked by several persons jointly.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17.11). — (See above.)

(Do.) (17. 15). — ‘What has been touched by the unchaste woman, the accused person, or one who is unknown, or one who is undergoing punishment, or the carpenter, the miser, the physician, the fowler, one who lives upon leavings, — of the multitude or of enemies.’

Āpastamba (17.5). — ‘What has been smelt by men, or by other unclean animals.’

(Do.) (18.16-17). — ‘The food belonging to a multitude should not be eaten, or what has been censured.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.4). — ‘What has been publicly offered, or the food belonging to a multitude or to a harlot.’

Viṣṇu (61.7, 9, 17). — ‘The food belonging to a multitude or to a harlot or to a thief or to a singer — if one eats this he should live for seven days on milk only, — also the food belonging to a woman, a miser, one who has been initiated for a sacrifice, one who is accused of a crime, or the eunuch. What has been seen by the abortionist, or touched by the woman in her courses, or pecked by birds, or touched by the dog or smelt by the cow.’

Yājñavalkya (1.168). — (See above.)

(Do.) (1.161.). — ‘Food belonging to a miser, a prisoner, a thief, a eunuch, an actor, a dealer in bamboos, one accused of a crime, an usurer, a harlot, a multitude, or the person initiated for a sacrifice.’

VERSE 4.210

Section XIV - Other Duties

स्तेनगायनयोश्चान्नं तक्ष्ह्णो वार्धुषिकस्य च ।
दीक्षितस्य कदर्यस्य बद्धस्य निगडस्य च ॥२१०॥

stenagāyanayoścānnaṃ takṣhṇo vārdhuṣikasya ca |
dīkṣitasya kadaryasya baddhasya nigaḍasya ca ||210||

Nor the food of the thief or the singer, nor of the carpenter, the usurer, of the initiated person, of the miser, the prisoner and the fettered. — (210)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Singer,’ — Who lives by singing. The ordinary occasional singing of popular songs is actually laid down.

‘Miser’ — niggard.

The difference between the ‘prisoner’ and the ‘fettered’ is, that the former may be imprisoned by mere words (verbal orders), while the latter is actually bound in ropes and iron-chains.

Some people read ‘viśadasya’ for ‘nigadasya;’ — ‘viśaḍa’ being explained as ‘man in trouble.’ — (210)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Baddhasya nigaḍasya;’ — ‘One who is only verbally confined and one who is bound with cords or iron chains’ (Medhātithi); — ‘one bound with chains’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 944); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 451); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 495) which adds the following notes: — ‘Stena’ is ‘one who takes away what belongs to another,’ — ‘gāyana’ is ‘one who makes a living by singing,’ — ‘takṣan’ is ‘one who has carpentery for his livelihood,’ — and ‘Vārdhuṣika’ is ‘one who makes a living by charging improper rates of interest, or by making undue profits by trade; and adds that the term is also applied to one who brags of his own superior virtues and decries others’ — this on the strength of a text quoted from Viṣṇu; — ‘dīkṣita’ is ‘one who has been consecrated by means of the Dīkṣaṇīya-Iṣṭi,’ — whose food should not be eaten prior to the ceremony of purchasing the Soma, or before the Agnīṣomīya vapāyāga; — ‘kadarya’ is ‘the miser,’ defined by Devala as ‘one who, through greed for amassing wealth, causes suffering to himself, his wife and children, as also hinders the right fulfilment of his religious duties’; — ‘baddhasya’ means ‘bound with ropes,’ or ‘bound only verbally,’ — and ‘nigaḍasya’ means ‘one who is in chains’; though ‘nigaḍa’ means ‘chains’ only, yet it stands here for one who is in chains; [this is as Medhātithi has explained the terms]; or the genitive in ‘nigaḍasya’ may be taken in the sense of the instrumental, so that, the two words ‘baddhasya nigaḍasya’ may be taken together as ‘nigadena baddhasya’ (one bound in chains); — this according to Kalpataru.

This is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 710); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260), which defines ‘Vārdhuṣika’ according to Yama as ‘one who buys things cheap, and sells them dear, as also one who makes a living by lending money on interest’; and explains ‘dīkṣitaḥ’ as ‘the person who has performed the Dīkṣaṇīya Iṣṭi’; his food is forbidden till the end of the sacrifice in connection with which that Iṣṭi has been performed, — and ‘kadarya’as ‘he who amasses wealth at the cost of much discomfort to himself, his religious performances, his wife and children; — ‘baddhasya,’ one who is tied with a rope, — ‘nigaḍa,’ chain.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17.15). — (See above.)

Āpastamba (1.18.18, 22, 23). — ‘Of all those who live by arts and crafts; — also the usurer, — also one who has been initiated for the sacrifice, until he has bought the Soma.’

(Do.) (1.19.1). — (See above, under 208.)

Vaśiṣṭha (14.2-3). — ‘The food offered by the following should not be eaten — the physician, the fowler, the loose woman, the thief, the accused, the eunuch, the outcast; — the miser, the initiated person, the invalid, the Soma-seller, the carpenter, the dyer, the oil-presser, the usurer, the leather-dealer.’

Yājñavalkya (1.161). — (See above, under 209.)

Viṣṇu (51.7). — (Do.)

Mahābhārata (Śānti, 35.29). — ‘Of the initiated person, of the sacrifice-seller, of the carpenter, of the leather-dealer, of the loose’woman and of the dyer (the food should not be eaten).’

VERSE 4.211

Section XIV - Other Duties

अभिशस्तस्य षण्ढस्य पुंश्चल्या दाम्भिकस्य च ।
शुक्तं पर्युषितं चैव शूद्रस्योच्छिष्टमेव च ॥२११॥

abhiśastasya ṣaṇḍhasya puṃścalyā dāmbhikasya ca |
śuktaṃ paryuṣitaṃ caiva śūdrasyocchiṣṭameva ca ||211||

Nor the food of an accused person, or of the hermaphrodite, or the unchaste woman, or the hypocrite; nor the food turned sour, or that kept overnight, or what forms the leavings of the Śūdra. — (211)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Unchaste woman’ — one who has sexual intercourse with any and every person.

“The food of the harlot has been already forbidden [so that the present text would appear to be superfluous].”

It is not so; the ‘unchaste woman’ is totally different from the ‘harlot.’ The ‘harlot’ is one that makes a living by her beauty; while the ‘unchaste woman’ is one who is unstable in her sexual passions.

‘Hypocrite’ — the ‘man of cat-like behaviour’ and others of similar bad conduct.

‘The Śūdra’s leavings’ are specially forbidden here for the purpose of indicating the heaviness of the expiatory panance necessitated by it; — the partaking of the leavings of all men having been already forbidden.

Others explain the terms, ‘Śūdra’s leavings,’ to mean the food left in the dish, after the Śūdra has eaten out of it.

Another reading is ‘ucchiṣṭamagurostathā,’ ‘the leavings of persons other than one’s teacher.’

As a matter of fact, the term ‘ucchiṣṭa’ stands for that which has been defiled by the touch of another person, as also for that which has been left after another person has eaten. In the latter sense, if one’s own ‘leavings’ were prohibited, then every one would have to cat the whole of one’s food as a single morsel. Nor is it the custom among cultured people that, after having eaten one morsel of food, the man washes his hands and mouth and eats the next morsel out of another dish. As for the prohibition that ‘one Should not cat the food once partaken of,’ what this forbids is the interruption of the meal by such acts as rising to receive a guest, and so forth, till one has had one’s fill and till one has washed; after which the touch of others involves no harm.

Where several persons are dining together, even if they happen to touch one another, — as this touching is something totally different, — it would not be a case of ‘eating the leavings.’ As a matter of fact, the Father, along with his sons, always partakes of the food left by guests. Āpastamba and others have deprecated eating with uninitiated sons, — not with the initiated ones.

According to this view, the prohibition would apply to eating in the company of men of other castes; and, in all such cases, some intervening screen shall he set up between the two persons. As for ‘leavings,’ in the sense of what has been left after one has eaten, — this is forbidden, whether it be one’s own ‘leavings’ or those of some other person, — (211).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Śūdrasyocchiṣṭam’ — ‘Food of a Śūdra, and the leavings of any man’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘the leavings of a Śūdra’ (Medhātithi, Rāghavānanda, Govindarāja and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3. 290); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 451) which explains ‘paryuṣitam’ as ‘food kept overnight’, and ‘ucchiṣṭa’ as ‘leavings’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 495) which adds the following notes: — ‘Abhiśasta’ is ‘one accused of such crimes as make one outcast,’ — ‘ṣanḍaka’ is ‘hermaphrodite,’ — ‘puṃścalī’ is ‘unchaste woman,’ — ‘dāmbhika’ is ‘the religious hypocrite,’ — ‘śukta’ is that which has been very much soured by the contact of the juice of other things, — ‘paryuṣita’ is ‘food kept over-night,’ even though not soured; — according to Haradatta, food cooked during the day becomes ‘paryuṣita’ after sunset, and that cooked during the night becomes so after sunrise; — one should not eat the ‘leavings’ of a Śūdra; though the eating of all ‘leavings’ has been forbidden, yet that of the Śūdra has been specified for the purpose of indicating that this is doubly objectionable; — or the meaning of the clause ‘śūdrasyocchiṣṭam’ may be that ‘one should not eat a Śūdra’s food, nor the leavings of any person’; — or ‘out of the dish out of which a Śūdra has eaten and left some food.’

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 772); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 250) which explains ‘ṣaṇḍaka’ as ‘sexless’; and adds that of ‘śaktu’ and ‘paryuṣita’ food, only repeated eating involves expiation.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17, 14-16). — ‘Food kept overnight (should be avoided), with the exception of vegetables, oils, meat and honey: — also the food of the loose woman, the accused, etc., etc., — of those unfit for company, except the baldheaded.’

Āpastamba (1.17.17-20). — ‘Cooked food kept overnight, — food turned sour, etc.’

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности