with the Commentary of Medhatithi 136 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 142 из 350Следующая ⇒

VERSE 4.260

Section XXII - Summing Up

अनेन विप्रो वृत्तेन वर्तयन् वेदशास्त्रवित् ।
व्यपेतकल्मषो नित्यं ब्रह्मलोके महीयते ॥२६०॥

anena vipro vṛttena vartayan vedaśāstravit |
vyapetakalmaṣo nityaṃ brahmaloke mahīyate ||260||

The Brāhmaṇa, learned in the Vedic soriptures, who conducts himself by this course of life, has his sins removed, and remains for ever exalted in the region of Brahman. — (260)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This describes the result of all that has gone before.

‘The Brāhmaṇa, learned in the Vedic scriptures, who conducts himself by this course of life, has his sins’ — arising from doing what is forbidden — ‘removed’ — by means of Expiatory Rites. The meaning is that by doing what is enjoined, and by avoiding what is forbidden, and by expiating by means of rites those sins that may happen to be committed, — ‘becomes exalted in the region of Brahman; — or, according to another theory, be becomes of the same nature as Brahman — (260)

Thus ends Discourse IV.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 2.244.

This verse is quoted in Nityācārapradīpa (p, 42).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (9.71). — ‘The Accomplished Student who maintains this behaviour saves from sin his parents and relations both above and below himself, and fails not in attaining the regions of Brahman.’

Vaśiṣṭha (8.17). — ‘Ever bathing, ever wearing the sacred thread, ever studying the Veda, avoiding the food of outcasts, approaching his wife only during the periods, and offering oblations according to law, the Brāhmaṇa fails not to reach the regions of Brahman.’

Baudhāyana (2.4.24). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa who every day, during the day and the night and the twilights offers prayers, becomes purified by Brahman and becomes Brahman Itself; and following the scriptures, he wins the regions of Brahman.’

End of Adhyāya IV.

***

Discourse V - Sources of Evil

VERSE 5.1 [What shortens Life?]

Section I - What shortens Life?

श्रुत्वैतान् ऋषयो धर्मान् स्नातकस्य यथौदितान् ।
इदमूचुर्महात्मानमनलप्रभवं भृगुम् ॥१॥

śrutvaitān ṛṣayo dharmān snātakasya yathauditān |
idamūcurmahātmānamanalaprabhavaṃ bhṛgum ||1||

The sages, having heard the duties of the Accomplished Student as just described, said this to the high-souled Bhṛgu, who sprang from fire. — (1)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Having heard the duties of the Student and the Householder as expounded in the foregoing three Discourses, the great Sages, Marīci and others, ‘said to’ — asked the following question of — Bhṛgu, their teacher.

“In the text we find the expression of the Accomplished Student — ‘snātakasya’; why then do you bring in the Student?”

Our answer to this is that the present verse is meant to be descriptive of what has gone before; and as a matter of fact, the duties of the Student also have been described.

‘High-souled’ and ‘who sprang from the fire’ are the epithets of Bhṛgu; — ‘He whose origination was from the fire.’

“But in discourse I, verse 34, Bhṛgu has been spoken of as the son of Manu”.

True; but what was stated there was an imaginary commendation, while what is said here is in accordance with the account found in the Vedas of Bhṛgu having been born out of fire. The name ‘Bhṛgu’ has been thus explained — ‘What rose out first out of the fallen semen was the Sun, and what rose as the second was Bhṛgu’. Or, what is asserted here may be only figurative; the origin of Bhṛgu being described as ‘Fire’, on the basis of similarity, as regards effulgence.

In any case, it is not necessary to lay stress upon either of the two explanations as being the more reasonable of the two; because this is not what forms the main subject-matter of the treatise.

The whole of the text, describing the question and the answer, is meant to indicate the importance of the subject of the evils attaching to food; the moaning being that the evils attaching to the food itself are more serious than those attaching to the nature of its gift and acceptance; and this on the ground that the defects attaching to the thing itself are more intimate, and hence more serious, than those arising from contact.

“In connection with the defects of contact, the Expiatory Rite that is laid down is a three days’ fast; while that in connection with the thing itself, is a single day’s fast (5. 20). How then can this latter be said to be more serious?”

Our answer is as follows: — The greater seriousness here spoken of refers to garlic and such things, in connection with which it is stated that — ‘by eating these intentionally the man becomes an outcast’ (5.19); so that the expiation necessary would be that which has been prescribed for outcasts (which is very serious). — (1)

VERSE 5.2

Section I - What shortens Life?

एवं यथोक्तं विप्राणां स्वधर्ममनुतिष्ठताम् ।
कथं मृत्युः प्रभवति वेदशास्त्रविदां प्रभो ॥२॥

evaṃ yathoktaṃ viprāṇāṃ svadharmamanutiṣṭhatām |
kathaṃ mṛtyuḥ prabhavati vedaśāstravidāṃ prabho ||2||

“How is it, O Lord, that Death overpowers the Brāhmaṇas who are learned in the Vedic lore, and who perform their duty exactly as it has been thus described?” — (2)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Text now shows what the great Sages asked.

‘Thus’ — refers to the manner in which the Treatise has propounded the subject; and ‘exactly as described’ — refers to the subject-matter of the Treatise.

Those Twice-born men who perform the duty exactly in the form in which it has been described in the present Treatise: — that all twice born men are indicated by the terms ‘vipra’ ‘brahmana’, in the Text will be clear from what is going to be said in verse 26 below, where ‘twice-born’ is the term used; — ‘how is it that Death orerpotrers them’ — while still in the state of the ‘Student,’ or in that of the; Accomplished Student’? How is this, when, in reality, they should live the full spun of humun life? The span of a man’s life is a hundred years; so that the death of Brāhmaṇas before that is not proper; specially as it has been declared that ‘from right conduct one attains longevity’ (4.156), and ‘no calamity befalls persons who recite the Veda and. offer oblations’ (4.146). (2).

VERSE 5.3-4

Section I - What shortens Life?

स तानुवाच धर्मात्मा महर्षीन् मानवो भृगुः ।
श्रूयतां येन दोषेण मृत्युर्विप्रान् जिघांसति ॥३॥

अनभ्यासेन वेदानामाचारस्य च वर्जनात् ।
आलस्यादन्नदोषाच्च मृत्युर्विप्राञ्जिघांसति ॥४॥

sa tānuvāca dharmātmā maharṣīn mānavo bhṛguḥ |
śrūyatāṃ yena doṣeṇa mṛtyurviprān jighāṃsati ||3||

anabhyāsena vedānāmācārasya ca varjanāt |
ālasyādannadoṣācca mṛtyurviprāñjighāṃsati ||4||

Bhṛgu, the righteous son of Manu, said to the great sages — “Listen, by what fault Death seeks to destroy the Brāhmaṇas.” — (3).

Death seeks to destroy the Brāhmaṇas on account of their omitting the study of the Vedas, on account of neglect of right conduct, on account of slothfulness and on account of the defects of food. — (4).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Objection — “When the question has been put forward in regard to Brāhmaṇas who perform their duties, it is not right to answer it by indicating the ‘fault’; nor can there be any connection with what follows (in verse 4) [as omission of Vedic Study &c. is not possible for those who perform their duties].”

The answer to the above is as follows: — ‘Omission of Vedic Study’ and the rest have been put forward only by way of illustration; the sense being — ‘just as the omission of Vedic Study and the rest are acknowledged by you all to be the causes of death, so also are the defects of food, going to be described below. Even when a man carries on Vedic Study &c., the fulfilment of his above-described duty is not complete, if it is beset with the very much more serious drawback of defective food. This is emphasised here in view of the fact that this is an entirely different section (dealing with defects of food). (3-4)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verse 5.4)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 8) to the effect that laziness also is the source of a ‘force’ that brings about untimely death; — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 510), which explains ‘ālasya’ as ‘not being disposed to perform one’s duty, even when he is able to do it’; — ‘annadoṣa’ as standing for defective production and so forth; — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 294.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verse 5.4)

Yājñavalkya (Parāśaramādhava, Prāyaścitta, p. 6). — ‘By omitting to do what is enjoined and by doing what is forbidden, and by not controlling the senses, doth a man fall into degradation.’

VERSE 5.5 [Objectionable Food]

Section II - Objectionable Food

लशुनं गृञ्जनं चैव पलाण्डुं कवकानि च ।
अभक्ष्याणि द्विजातीनाममेध्यप्रभवानि च ॥५॥

laśunaṃ gṛñjanaṃ caiva palāṇḍuṃ kavakāni ca |
abhakṣyāṇi dvijātīnāmamedhyaprabhavāni ca ||5||

Garlic, leeks and onions, mushrooms and all that proceeds from impure things, are unfit to re eaten by twice-born men. — (5).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The terms ‘garlic’ &c. are well-known among men.

The term ‘karaka’ is the name of a genus, sometimes regarded as the same as the well-known thing ‘kryāku’ (?); mushrooms also are ‘kavaka’; as it is forbidden under the name of ‘kavaka’, while the expiatory rite in connection with its eating has been prescribed under the name of ‘chatrāka,’ in verse 19; and no other thing (except the mushroom) is known by the name ‘chatruka’; nor will it be right to regard, on the basis of verbal similarity alone (between ‘chatrāka’ and ‘chatrākāra’, umbrella-shaped), all those things as ‘chatrāka’ which resemble the umbrella, are ‘chatrākāra’; as in that case the prohibition (of ‘chatrāka’) would apply also to the suvarchala and other things (which also are umbrella-shaped); and this would be contrary to all usage. Hence we conclude tha ‘chatrāka’ and ‘kavaka’ are one and the same thing. Says the author of the Nirukta — ‘The chatrāka is kṣuṇṇa, since it is smashed.’ From this it is clear that the name ‘kavaka’ applies to those white shoots that grow out of the earth that has been ploughed; this is also in keeping with what is going to be said in connection with‘kavakas growing out of the earth’ (6.14); and it has also been just pointed out that the name applies to what is ‘smashed’ by a stroke of the foot. It is for this reason (of its being described as growing out of the earth, and of its being mashed by a stroke of the foot) that the prohibition (of ‘kavaka’) is not applicable to those vegetable growths that shoot out of the trunks of trees.

In medicinal treatises the kukuṇḍa has been described as ‘kavaka’; but this explanation (of the name on a purely conventional basis) cannot be accepted in the same manner as that in regard to the term ‘go’ and the rest. Further, as a matter of fact, in ordinary parlance the term ‘kavaka’ is always applied to a vegetable. Hence it is on the basis of usage that the exact signification of the term, wherever it occurs in a medical or other scientific treatise, should be ascertained, and we have already shown what that signification is.

Other things also, which resemble garlic and such things mentioned here, which resemble these latter in colour and smell, have been forbidden by Viṣṇu. In the Smṛti of Parāśara however the prohibition is by name, and this for the purpose of prescribing the special Expiatory Rite of ‘Candrāyaṇa’ in connection with it. From this it follows that ‘lavataka’, ‘karnikāra’ and such other things are forbidden.

‘Things proceeding from impure substances’; — those that grow of impure things or are in contact with them.

Others have declared that it is not right to forbid those things that grow only out of impure things, these standing on the same footing as ‘mūlā’ (radish) ‘cāstuka’ (a kind of grass) and such other things (known to grow out of impure things); — so that the prohibition does not apply to those grains and vegetables growing in fields specially manured for the purpose of enriching the harvest.

This however is not right. Because from what the text says it is clear that all these things are equally unfit to be eaten. Further, what has been suggested might have been accepted, if it were absolutely impossible for anything to grow without the use of impure substances. There are some things however that grow directly out of impure substances, while there are some that grow out of mere connection with them; the right view to take therefore is that the prohibition applies to the former only, and not to the latter.

As regards meat, even though it grows out of semen and blood (both impure substances), yet the present prohibition does not apply to it; because it has been dealt with in a totally different context. — (5)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 510), which explains ‘amedhyaprabhavāni’ as ‘produced directly from human ordure, or in trees growing from seeds passed with human excreta’; — and in Smṛtitattva (p. 448), which reads ‘karakāṇi’ (for kavakāni) and explains it as ‘chatrāka,’ ‘mushroom;’ and explains ‘amedhyaprabhavāni’ as ‘produced from ordure and such things.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17.32). — ‘Fresh leaves, mushrooms, garlic, and exudations (from trees).’

Āpastamba (1.17.26, 28). — ‘Red garlic, white garlic, onion and mushroom, are not eatable; so says the Brāhmaṇa-text.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.33). — ‘For eating garlic, onions, mushrooms, turnips, Śleśmātaka, exudations from trees, the red sap flowing from incisions, food pecked at by crows or worried by dogs, or the leavings of a Śūdra, — Atikṛcchra penance.’

Viṣṇu (51.3, 34, 36). — ‘Garlic, onion, turnips, things having the same smell, village-pigs, village-cocks, monkey, beef, — on eating these also, the Cāndrāyaṇa is to be performed. — On eating mushrooms and Kavakas, the Sāntapana penance; — also exudations, products of unclean things, the red sap flowing from trees.’

Yājñavalkya (1.171). — ‘Red or white exudations from trees, mushrooms flowing out of unclean things.’

Baudhāyana (Aparārka, p. 247). — ‘Of trees planted on unclean ground, the flowers and fruits are not objectionable.’

Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 511). — ‘Garlic, leeks, onions, mushrooms, brinjals, gourds — by eating these, one’s caste becomes defiled.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 511). — ‘The circular-shaped Kuṅkuṇḍa, the Caitya-shaped and Umbrella-shaped mushrooms, — all these were born out of the body of the Daitya.’

Taittirīya-Śruti (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 512). — ‘The red sap that flows from trees, or any sap that flows from incisions in trees — that is harmful.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 513). — ‘Garlic, leek, Vilaya, Sumuhha, mushrooms, onion, — these the wise man should always avoid.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 511). — ‘The mushroom, the village-hog, onion, garlic, — on eating these, the Brāhmaṇa, even though he be conversant with all the Vedas, becomes degraded.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 511). — ‘Śleśmātaka, Vrajaphalī, Kausumbha, Nālamastaka, and leek, — among vegetables, these are not eatable. — Onion, garlic, śukta, exudations, kucuṇḍa, the white brinjal, and kumbhāṇḍa, — these one should not eat.’

VERSE 5.6

Section II - Objectionable Food

लोहितान् वृक्षनिर्यासान् वृश्चनप्रभवांस्तथा ।
शेलुं गव्यं च पेयूषं प्रयत्नेन विवर्जयेत् ॥६॥

lohitān vṛkṣaniryāsān vṛścanaprabhavāṃstathā |
śeluṃ gavyaṃ ca peyūṣaṃ prayatnena vivarjayet ||6||

He shall carefully avoid the red exudation from trees, as also those flowing from incisions, the śelu berries, and ‘curdled milk’ of the cow. — (6)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Exudation from trees’; — anything, apart from the constituent parts of the tree itself, — such as, the root, the trunk, the branches, the leaves, the fruits and the flowers, — which proceeds from the tree, either in the form of some liquid flowing from the cavity in the tree, or in some other form. The epithet ‘red’ excludes, from prohibition, such exudations as the camphor and the like.

Those that have their origin, source, in ‘incisions’; those that flow from the bark and such parts of the tree. These things, if not red, are not forbidden.

‘Śelu’ — the śleṣmātaka fruit, to be known from medical and other treatises. It should not be taken to mean the cream of fresh milk; as it is never known to have that meaning. It has been argued that — “it is better to take the word as standing for cream, on account of its proximity to the term, ‘curdled milk’”. But proximity becomes a means of deciding in favour of one of the two possible meanings of a term, only when the term is actually found in usage to be used in both senses; but it can never be the authority for attributing an unheard of meaning to a word.

‘Of the cow’; — this shows that that of the buffalo etc. is not forbidden. The milk is unfit to be eaten if, by mere contact with fire, it becomes ‘curdled’, — i.e., thickened without adhesion; the term ‘pīyūṣa’ is used in the sense of the milk of the newly-calved cow.

“The text is going to declare, as until to be eaten, the milk, along with all its preparations, of the cow for the first ten days of its calving; and it is only during three or four days that the milk is of the nature described above (i.e., curdled by mere contact with fire) [so that no separate prohibition appears to be called for.]”

True; the thing is mentioned in the present verse with a view to those cases where the milk continues to be so ‘curdled’ even after the first ten days.

The two words — ‘carefully’ and ‘avoid? — are added only for filling up the metre; since ‘unfit to be eaten’ (of verse 5) continues to be connected with all that is mentioned in the text. — (6)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 247); — in Mitākṣarā (on 1.171), which notes that the addition of the epithet ‘red’ makes it clear that the prohibition does not apply to such exudations as assafœtida, camphor and the like; — and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 711), which adds — ‘the red exudations’ meant are the lac and the rest, — the epithet ‘red’ indicating that such exudations as are white, e.g., assafœtida, camphor and the like — are not forbidden, — ‘śelu’ is śleṣmātaka, — ‘peyūṣa’ is ‘new milk,’ i.e., the milk of the newly-delivered cow, whose blood-flow has not ceased; and in support it quotes verse 8 following.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 510), which adds the following notes — ‘Vṛkṣaniryāsa’ is ‘the solidified exudation from trees’, — ‘Vraścana’ is cutting, and the exudations from cuttings are to be avoided even when they are not red. The prohibition does not apply to such things as assafœtida, camphor and the like, — ‘śelu’ is śleṣmātaka, — and ‘peyūṣa’ is the milk of the newly dilivered cow, which solidifies at the slightest contact with fire; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 567); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 287).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17.32, 33). — (See above.)

Vaśiṣṭha (14.33). — (See above.)

Viṣṇu (51.36). — (See above.)

Yājñavalkya (1.171). — (See above.)

VERSE 5.7

Section II - Objectionable Food

वृथा कृसरसंयावं पायसापूपमेव च ।
अनुपाकृतमांसानि देवान्नानि हवींषि च ॥७॥

vṛthā kṛsarasaṃyāvaṃ pāyasāpūpameva ca |
anupākṛtamāṃsāni devānnāni havīṃṣi ca ||7||

Needlessly cooked Rice-sesamum and Butter-sugar-sesamum, milk-rice and flour-cakes, unconsecrated meat, food of the gods and sacrificial viands; — (7)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Kṛsarasaṃyāran’ is an aggregative copulative compound. Rice cooked with Sesamum is called ‘kṛsara’; — ‘saṃyāva’ is a particular article of food, made up of butter, sugar, sesamum and such things, well-known in cities.

Some people, on the strength of the root ‘yu’ (from which the term ‘saṃyāva’ is derived) signifying the act of mixing, explain the term ‘saṃyāva’ as standing for all those articles of food that are prepared by-mixing together different kinds of grains, — such as the mudga, the kuṣṭhaka and the rest.

For these persons the separate mention of ‘kṛsara’ would be superfluous; as this would be included under ‘saṃyāva’, as just explained.

The term ‘needlessly cooked’ is to be construed with all the terms. It stands for what the householder cooks for himself, and not for the sake of Gods, Pitṛs or guests.

This however does not appear to be right. Because the ordinary cooking chat the Householder Hoes is not always for any such set purpose as that of inn king offerings out of it. What happens is that the cooking having been done, without reference to any particular purpose, and only in a general way, the Five Sacrifices have been laid down, as to be offered out of the food thus cooked. So that if the man eats the food without having made the offering to the Viśvedevas out of it, he transgresses a direct injunction; but no prohibition enters into the cuse. According to the present text however, as just explained, such eating would necessitate two expiatory rites, — one due to transgressing an injunction (by not making the offering to the Viśvedevas), and another due to the doing of a prohibited act (of cooking the Rice-sesamum needlessly). If however such articles of food as ‘Rice-sesamum’ and the rest, are cooked without reference to a particular God, or to a particular sacrificial rite, — this involves a transgression of the rules pertaining to one’s daily duties also.

As regards the text ‘one shall not cook for himself’, — this cannot be regarded as a prohibition (; because it being absolutely necessary to Ho the cooking, all that the sentence does is simply to make a reference to the act of eating done by one who has disobeyed the rules (regarding the daily ‘sacrifices’). For, as already pointed out above, if it were a prohibition, there would be a twofold expiatory rite involved. Then again, even when the cooking is done for some other purpose, it cannot be absolutely denied that it has been done by the man ‘for himself’ also. ‘Cooking’ means the act of cooking food, and the fact of its being done for one’s own self cannot be denied by means of the same word; as the man is directed to live upon the same food (i.e., what is left after the feeding of the guests &c). The eating of the remnant, of food, after the guests and others have been fed, (which has been laid down for the Householder) is not meant to be a mere ‘embellishment’ of the Remnant (and not an act necessary for the maintenance of the man himself). Nor has it been laid down anywhere that at the time of cooking the Householder is to make use of any such formula of determination as ‘cook food for me’, which would be regarded as forbidden (by the sentence ‘one shall not cook for himself’) In fact the cooking is said to be ‘for himself’ only in consideration of what happens subsequently. That is to say, if the food were cooked wjth the determination to make an offering to the Gods, and then subsequently the man were to eat it all himself, this would involve the wrong of being false to one’s own resolve also. From all this it is clear that the sentence in question is a mere reiterative reference, the sense being — ‘what one cooks, he should not use for himself until he has made the offering to the Viśvedevas’.

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