with the Commentary of Medhatithi 132 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 138 из 350Следующая ⇒

VERSE 4.218

Section XIV - Other Duties

राजान्नं तेज आदत्ते शूद्रान्नं ब्रह्मवर्चसम् ।
आयुः सुवर्णकारान्नं यशश्चर्मावकर्तिनः ॥२१८॥

rājānnaṃ teja ādatte śūdrānnaṃ brahmavarcasam |
āyuḥ suvarṇakārānnaṃ yaśaścarmāvakartinaḥ ||218||

The king’s food takes off one’s vigour and the Śūdra’s food his Brahmic glory; the goldsmith’s food his longevity, and the l eather-cutter’s food hi s fame. — (218)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Text now proceeds to describe the effects of transgressing the above prohibitions.

One who eats the king’s food loses his vigour; and so with all the rest.

The terms ‘goldsmith’ and the rest, are denotative of particular professions; so that those persons who deal in making articles of gold are called goldsmiths. Similarly, with ‘dyer’ and other terms. Those who cut leather are called ‘leather-cutters,’ this name being applied to those who live by this trade.

In the present context, there are some whose food has not been forbidden in the foregoing verses; but the evil results flowing therefrom are now described; the prohibition of these is to be inferred from the latter. — (218)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 507); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 542) to the effect that the eating of King’s food involves a heavy penance; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 782); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 352).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (35. 27). — [Same as Manu, but reading for the last quarter ‘Avīrāyāśca yoṣitaḥ,’ ‘of the maleless woman.’]

Vaśiṣṭha (14.3). — (See above.)

Viṣṇu (51. 8). — ‘The food of the carpenter and of the leather-cutter.’

Āpastamba (9.28). — ‘The King’s food takes off one’s vigour, and the Śūdra’s food one’s Brāhmic glory; he who cats unpurified food, eats the dirt of the earth.’

VERSE 4.219

Section XIV - Other Duties

कारुकान्नं प्रजां हन्ति बलं निर्णेजकस्य च ।
गणान्नं गणिकान्नं च लोकेभ्यः परिकृन्तति ॥२१९॥

kārukānnaṃ prajāṃ hanti balaṃ nirṇejakasya ca |
gaṇānnaṃ gaṇikānnaṃ ca lokebhyaḥ parikṛntati ||219||

The food of artisans impairs the offspring, that of the clothes-washer impairs strength; the food of a multitude and the food of the harlot out off the max from the regions. — (219)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Artisans,’ — the professional cook and others following not very low crafts; — this is what distinguishes these from other craftsmen.

The ‘impairing’ of offspring means that children are not born. — (219)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 507); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 782).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.219-220)

Mahābhārata (35.28). — ‘The usurer’s food is ordure; and the harlot’s food is semen,’

VERSE 4.220

Section XIV - Other Duties

पूयं चिकित्सकस्यान्नं पुंश्चल्यास्त्वन्नमिन्द्रियम् ।
विष्ठा वार्धुषिकस्यान्नं शस्त्रविक्रयिणो मलम् ॥२२०॥

pūyaṃ cikitsakasyānnaṃ puṃścalyāstvannamindriyam |
viṣṭhā vārdhuṣikasyānnaṃ śastravikrayiṇo malam ||220||

The food of the physician is pus; the food of the unchaste woman is semen; the food of the usurer is ordure, and that of the dealer in weapons is dirt. — (220.)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The physician’s food is like pus,

‘Indriya’ means semen.

‘Ordure’ and ‘dirt’ are one and the same. — (220)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 3.180-181.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 507); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 782).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.219-220)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.219.

VERSE 4.221

Section XIV - Other Duties

य एतेऽन्ये त्वभोज्यान्नाः क्रमशः परिकीर्तिताः ।
तेषां त्वगस्थिरोमाणि वदन्त्यन्नं मनीषिणः ॥२२१॥

ya ete'nye tvabhojyānnāḥ kramaśaḥ parikīrtitāḥ |
teṣāṃ tvagasthiromāṇi vadantyannaṃ manīṣiṇaḥ ||221||

The food of those other persons who have been successively mentioned as those whose food should not be eaten, — the wise men describe as skin, bones and hairs. — (221)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There are other persons who have been mentioned in this section as those whose food should not be eaten; and the food of these men is ‘skin, bones and hairs.’ That is, the eating of their food is as improper as the eating of their skin, etc. — (221)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 507); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha p. 782).

VERSE 4.222

Section XIV - Other Duties

भुक्त्वाऽतोऽन्यतमस्यान्नममत्या क्षपणं त्र्यहम् ।
मत्या भुक्त्वाऽचरेत् कृच्छ्रं रेतोविण्मूत्रमेव च ॥२२२॥

bhuktvā'to'nyatamasyānnamamatyā kṣapaṇaṃ tryaham |
matyā bhuktvā'caret kṛcchraṃ retoviṇmūtrameva ca ||222||

After unknowingly eating the food of any one of these, there should be a three days’ fast. Having eaten it knowingly, as also on eating semen, ordure and urine, one should perform the “Kṛcchra” penance. — (222)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Three days fast;’ — i.e., he shall not eat anything for three days.

‘Unknowingly,’ — not intentionally.

In the case of its being done intentionnlly, one should perform the ‘Kṛcchra’ penance. And this ‘Kṛcchra’ should be the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra,’ in view of what other Smṛti texts have laid down. One such text (Gautama 23.2) has prescribed the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra’ as to be performed in the case of eating semen; ordure and urine; — viz., ‘In the event of drinking these intentionally, one shall live upon milk, butter, water and air — upon each of these for three days; this is the Taptātikṛcchra; and then follows his purification,’

The present being not a section dealing with Expiatory Rites, the mention of such a rite is meant to indicate the seriousness of the offence.

In view of the phrase, ‘of any one of these,’ being in the Genitive form, some people have held that the Expiatory Rite here prescribed is meant to apply to only those cases where the food actually belongs to the persons mentioned, and not where it is objectionable by reason of time, or by its very nature, or by contact. Among such articles of food as sour-gruel and the like, non-eatability is of four kinds: — (1) some things are non-eatable, because of time ; e.g., sour-gruel, things kept overnight, and so forth; (2) some are non-eatable, because of contact; e.g, things that have come in contact with wine and such things; (3) some are non-eatble by their very nature; e.g., garlic and such things; (4) some are non-eatable by reason of their owner; e.g., the food of the persons enumerated in the present context.

Our answer to the above is as follows: — It is quite true that there are four kinds of non-eatability; it is true also that the text has used the Genitive form; but if the Expiatory Rite here prescribed did not pertain to such food as sour gruel and the like, but only to what is objectionable in regard to its owner, then the mention of these in the present connection would be entirely meaningless. For the prohibition of these two things is coining under Discourse V. From this it is clear that their mention in the present context is only for the purpose of prescribing the Expiatory Rite.

“Why, then, should they he mentioned in Discourse V.?”

This we shall explain at that place. As for the exact meaning and purpose of such texts as — (a) ‘the eating of the first two is objectionable’ and (b) ‘having eaten the food of persons whose food should not he eaten,’ etc. (11.152), — we shall explain all this in detail under those same texts — (222).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 240), which adds that the term ‘kṛcchra’ here stands for the ‘atikṛcchra,’ on the strength of a text quoted from Śaṅkha; — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 300), which adds that what is prescribed in the first half is to be done only in the event of the man being unable to throw out the food eaten; and again on p. 305; — in Smṛtitattva (p. 542); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 252, 261 and 524).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (23.23.24). — ‘If one eats food of the man whose food should not be eaten, he should reduce himself to a condition when there is nothing in his bowels; — he should not eat anything for three days.’

Prajāpati — ‘On eating the food of one whose food should not be eaten one should give to the Brāhmaṇa the price of that food; he should remain with wet clothes throughout the day, or he should give a cow.’

VERSE 4.223

Section XIV - Other Duties

नाद्यात्शूद्रस्य पक्वान्नं विद्वानश्राद्धिनो द्विजः ।
आददीताममेवास्मादवृत्तावेकरात्रिकम् ॥२२३॥

nādyātśūdrasya pakvānnaṃ vidvānaśrāddhino dvijaḥ |
ādadītāmamevāsmādavṛttāvekarātrikam ||223||

The learned Brāhmaṇa shall, not eat the cooked food of the Śūdra who performs no śrāddhas. In the absence of livelihood, he may receive from him raw grain sufficient for one day. — (223)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Śūdra’s food has been forbidden generally; and particular details regarding it are now laid down — ‘who does not perform Śrūddhas.

“Where has Śūdra’s food been forbidden?”

It has been forbidden in 4. 211.

“What is forbidden there is Śūdra’s leavings, and not other kinds of food.”

Not so; the said verse (211) is to be construed as — ‘the Śūdra’s food should not be eaten, nor the leavings of others.’ The explanation that we gave above of this verse, was in accordance with the older Commentators; as we clearly pointed out there.

‘Who does not perform Śrāddhas.’ — ‘Śrāddha’ here stands for the sacrificing of cooked food and such other rites as have been prescribed for the Śūdra; hence, the meaning is ‘who does nor perform these rites.’ What is meant is that ‘one shall not eat the cooked food of any Śūdra, except those of the better class.’

Another reading is ‘aśraddhinaḥ’ (for ‘aśrāddhinaḥ); which means, ‘who is devoid of faith;’ in the next verse also we find special stress laid down upon ‘faith,’ by the term ‘vadānya,’ ‘liberal.’

‘Raw’ — dry; paddy, rice, and so forth.

‘Sufficient for one day’ — just that quantity which may suffice for one day, — not more. — (223)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 341), which explains ‘aśrāddhinaḥ’ as ‘one who does not offer the daily Śrāddhas’; and adds that this is meant to indicate the compulsory character of these Śrāddhas, — and ‘ekarātrikam’ is explained as ‘what is enough for one day.”

Buhler notes that Nārāyaṇa explains ‘aśrāddhinaḥ’ as ‘destitute of faith’. But the reading thus explained must be ‘aśraddhinaḥ’ which is a var: lec: noted by Medhātithi.

The verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 490) which adds that the term ‘Śrāddha’ here must be taken as standing for the Pākayajña, which is prescribed for the Śūdra; — he who performs that is called ‘Śrāddhin’; — if a Śūdra does not perform it, his ‘cooked food’ should not be eaten; — such is the explanation given by Medhātithi. Kalpataru on the other hand, has explained the term ‘Śrāddha’ as standing for the daily Śrāddhas. In some places the word is read as ‘Aśraddhinaḥ’, which means ‘devoid of faith’. — In the event of ‘abnormal distress’ — ‘avṛttau’ — one should receive from him uncooked — not cooked — rice or other grain, just enough to last for one day.

It is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 250); — in Prāyascittaviveka (p. 253), which explains ‘aśrāddhinaḥ’ as the Śūdra ‘who is not entitled to partake of Śrāddha food’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 785); — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 320).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Parāśara (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 492). — ‘The food remains ‘Śūdra’s food’ only so long as as it has not been touched by the twice-born; as soon as it has been touched by the twice-born’s hand, it becomes sacred food.’

Yama (Do.). — ‘Śūdra’s food when placed in a vessel belonging to the twice-born is not objectionable.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Do.). — ‘When Śūdra’s food comes to one’s house, it should be eaten after water has been sprinkled over it.’

Āpastamba (1.18, 3 et. seq.). — ‘ He may accept uncooked food; or even cooked food, such as is devoid of relish; he should desist after getting just what would keep him alive.’

Aṅgiras (68-73). — ‘He who eats the Śūdra’s food continuously for a mouth, even during that same life, becomes a Śūdra, and after death, is born a dog. There is no rise upwards for one who reads, sacrifices or offers oblations while nourished by food given by the Śūdra. If a man has recourse to his wife after eating of the food given by a Śūdra, the son begotten by him belongs to that Śūdra. If a man dies with Śūdra’s food in his stomach, he is born as a hog, or is born in the family of that same Śūdra.’

Gautama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 489). — ‘Food may be begged from all castes, with, the exception of such persons as are accused or outcast.’

Hārita (Do., p. 490). — ‘One who dies with Śūdra’s food in his stomach is born as a mule or a camel, and becomes a Śūdra.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.). — ‘The twice-born man dying with Śūdra’s food in his stomach becomes a hog, etc., etc.’

Yama (Do., p. 491). — ‘The Agnihotrin who does not desist from Śūdra’s food loses his soul, his Veda and his three Fires.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.). — ‘The householder who eats Śūdra’s food loses his strength and vigour.’

VERSE 4.224

Section XIV - Other Duties

श्रोत्रियस्य कदर्यस्य वदान्यस्य च वार्धुषेः ।
मीमांसित्वोभयं देवाः सममन्नमकल्पयन् ॥२२४॥

śrotriyasya kadaryasya vadānyasya ca vārdhuṣeḥ |
mīmāṃsitvobhayaṃ devāḥ samamannamakalpayan ||224||

The gods having compared the food of the miserly Vedic Scholar and that of the liberal usurer, ordained the food of both to be equal. — (224)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What is meant is the Brāhmaṇa endowed with all necessary qualifications, — the term ‘Vedic Scholar’ being meant to be purely illustrative. ‘Vedic Scholar’ means the learned man who performs all the duties that have been laid down for him. If such a person happens to be ‘miserly’ — who does not take delight in receiving friends, relations and guests, and who does not wish to give anything to any person.

The other person is the ‘usurer,’ living on usury, and thus engaged in objectional business. If he happens to be ‘liberal,’ noble-minded, endowed with faith, is delighted at the arrival of people at his house, and duly honors them with food and other things.

The food belonging to these two persons the gods have ordained to be ‘equal.’

Even though one of them (the former) is possessed of all good qualities, yet he is condemned by reason of his niggardliness. It has been declared that ‘covetousness spoils all good qualities.’ The other person, even though endowed with due faith, is censured by reason of his objectionable business. Hence, ‘having examined’ — duly pondered over the matter — the gods have ordained that the food belonging to the two persons stands on the same footing. — (224)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 4.224-225)

Cf. 10.73.

These verses are quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 508); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 768).

They are referred to also in the Mahābhārata (12.264.11) as ‘Brahmagītā gāthā’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.224-225)

Baudhāyana (1.5.63). — ‘Having compared the food offered by a man pure but devoid of faith, and that by one impure, but endowed with faith, — the gods declared them to he equal. Prajāpati told them that the two were not equal, hut unequal; what is offered by the faithless being damned, that which is purified by faith is distinctly superior.’

Mahābhārata (Śānti., 270.10). — ‘People learned in the ancient lore recite certain verses sung by Brāhmaṇas: — In connection with the sacrificial performance the gods regarded as similar the food offered by the pure hut faithless man and that offered by the impure but faithful; similarly also that offered by the miserly Vedic scholar and by the generous woman, — having compared these two, they regarded them as equal. Prajāpati however told them that they had committed a mistake; that offered by the generous is purified by faith, while the other is damned through want of faith.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.14). — ‘One should eat the food offered even by the thief, if he is endowed with faith; but never of that man who sacrifices for, or initiates, many people.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 508). — ‘Even food offered by one’s teacher should not be eaten, if it is not offered with respect.’

VERSE 4.225

Section XIV - Other Duties

तान् प्रजापतिराहैत्य मा कृध्वं विषमं समम् ।
श्रद्धापूतं वदान्यस्य हतमश्रद्धयेतरत् ॥२२५॥

tān prajāpatirāhaitya mā kṛdhvaṃ viṣamaṃ samam |
śraddhāpūtaṃ vadānyasya hatamaśraddhayetarat ||225||

Thereupon Prajāpati came to them and said — “Do not make the unequal equal: what belongs to the liberal man is purified by faith, while the other is defiled by want of faith. — (225)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Prajāpati, having approached, said to the gods — ‘Do not in this way, make the unequal eaual’ — i.e., do not establish any such improper equalisation.

Then the gods asked — ‘Who there is, then, the superior between the two persons?’

Then Prajāpati answered — ‘The food that belongs to the liberal-minded usurer, who is endowed with faith, is purified by faith, while the other food, that belongs to the Vedic scholar, is censured, condemned, by his act (faithlessness).’

This dialogue between Prajāpati and the gods is purely imaginary; all that is meant is that ‘one shall not eat food offered by a person, who, though otherwise qualified, is devoid of faith, while that belonging to the Śūdra shall be eaten, if it is offered with due respect.’ — (225)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 4.224-225)

See Explanatory notes for Verse 4.224.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 4.224-225)

See Comparative notes for Verse 4.224.

VERSE 4.226

Section XIV - Other Duties

श्रद्धयेष्टं च पूर्तं च नित्यं कुर्यादतन्द्रितः ।
श्रद्धाकृते ह्यक्षये ते भवतः स्वागतैर्धनैः ॥२२६॥

śraddhayeṣṭaṃ ca pūrtaṃ ca nityaṃ kuryādatandritaḥ |
śraddhākṛte hyakṣaye te bhavataḥ svāgatairdhanaiḥ ||226||

He shall always diliqenty perform, with faith, sacrifices and other religious acts; done with faith, and with well-begotten wealth, they become imperishable. — (226)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Iṣṭa,’ ‘sacrifice,’ stands for those acts of Sacrifice and the like that are done on a regular altar; while ‘pūrta’ stands for other acts done with a view to spiritual results, such as honouring those who deserve to be honoured, and so forth.

Both these sets of acts shall be done ‘with faith;’ and with well-gotten wealth;’ — i.e., with wealth got by such fair means as learning, bravery, bride, and so forth.

Thus performed, these acts lead to ini perishable results. Those that are performed with wealth not well-gotten, are not fruitless; they only lead to perishable (transitory) results. Because, even unfair means produce ownership; so that sacrifices may be performed with wealth over which one’s ownership has been produced. Further, usury (as a means of acquiring wealth) is not found to have been prohibited anywhere in connection with sacrifices and charities. Hence it follows that, even with the help of such wealth, sacrifices, etc., shall be performed till Heaven has been attained. There will certainly be some difference in the degr.ee of excellence in the results obtained.

Now, the question arises — What are the fair sources of acquiring wealth?

In answer to this, we have the following verses: —

I. What is derived from (a) learning, (b) bravery, (c) austerities, (d) bride, (e) person sacrificed for, (f) pupil, and (g) inheritance, — are the seven kinds of ‘pure’ wealth; and the result of these is also pure.

Of these, learning and austerities are the sources that bring presents. Though ‘present’ constitutes only one kind of wealth, yet it has been mentioned as two, on account of its twofold source. The qualifications of the persons making the gifts have also to be borne in mind. If the giver does not happen to be absolutely objectionable, the wealth derived from him is also pure. — The terms ‘person sacrificed for’ and ‘pupil’ indicate the work of officiating at sacrifices and teaching. — ‘inherited,’ from one’s forefathers. — ‘Bride,’ what is obtained from the Father-in-law, at the time of marriage. — ‘Bravery’ — for the Kṣatriya; while the ‘bride’ and ‘inheritance,’ are common to all men.

II. What is derived by — (a) usury — (b) agriculture, (c) trade, (d) art (e) service, (f) attendance, and (g) from a person who has been helped ; — these seven kinds of wealth are called ‘mixed.’

‘Service’ consists of running on errands and obeying orders; while ‘attendance’ is agreeable behaviour. Of these, ‘usury,’ ‘agriculture’ and ‘trade’ are mixed only for the non - Vaiśya; for the Vaiśya, these are commendable. Similarly, ‘service,’ consisting of attending upon twice-born men, is commendable for the Śūdra; the others are not commended for him. What is meant by these being ‘mixed’ is, that the results obtained from acts, performed with wealth derived from those sources, are transitory; these results lasting only during the present life.

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте