with the Commentary of Medhatithi 138 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 144 из 350Следующая ⇒

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘They eat animals of the village and of the forest, sheep, goat, buffalo, deer, rhinoceros, etc., etc.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 541). — ‘Cranes, flamingoes, owls, crows, vultures, cocks, pigeons are birds that should not be eaten.’

Yama (Do, pp. 542 and 543). — ‘Mushrooms. village-hogs, web-footed birds, — by eating these the twice-born becomes degraded; also by eating cows, horses, asses, camels, dogs, jackals, scratching birds, and pecking birds.’

Āpastamba (Do.). — ‘Among scratching birds, the cock should not he eaten; among pecking birds, the Plava; also carnivorous birds and the flamingo, the Bhāsa, etc., etc.’

Parāśara (2.11). — ‘On intentionally eating the flesh of the frog or the mouse, the twice-born becomes purified by living on barley-meal for one day.’

VERSE 5.12

Section II - Objectionable Food

कलविङ्कं प्लवं हंसं चक्राह्वं ग्रामकुक्कुटम् ।
सारसं रज्जुवालं च दात्यूहं शुकसारिके ॥१२॥

kalaviṅkaṃ plavaṃ haṃsaṃ cakrāhvaṃ grāmakukkuṭam |
sārasaṃ rajjuvālaṃ ca dātyūhaṃ śukasārike ||12||

The Sparrow, the Plava, the Haṃsa, the Cakravāka; the village-cock, the Crane, the Rajjudāla, the Dātyūha, the Parrot and the Starling. — (12).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Sparrow’, ‘Kalabiṅka’ (‘Kalaviṅka’), is the name of a village-bird described in the scriptures. Its prohibition being already got at by the general prohibition of all ‘village-birds’, the separate mention of the sparrow implies the catability of the female sparrow; — the term ‘kalabiṅka’ being a masculine just like the term ‘bull.’

Others have explained that this name has been added for the purpose of excluding (from the prohibition) the wild sparrow, which retires to the forest during the rains. They are called ‘village-birds’ because of their living in the villages during the greater part of the year; just as is the case with the ‘wild buffalo.’

The prohibition of the plava, the haṃsa, and the cakravāka being already got at from the general prohibition of all ‘web-footed birds’, the separate mention of these is for the purpose of emphasising the obligatory character of their exclusion. — the eating of the ‘Ātya’ and other ‘web-footed’ birds being regarded as optional.

‘Village-cock’ — the specification of the ‘village -cock’ permits the eating of the wild cock.

“But why should there have been any suspicion regarding the non-eatability of the wild cock at all?”

Because another Smṛti text says simply — ‘Among birds, the cock’, which indicates that all kinds of cock are equally ‘unfit to be eaten’; it is for this reason that this general statement line been sought by the present text, to be limited in its scope.

“But why cannot this he regarded as a case of option, since the present text permits the eating of the wild crick, which the other text forbids?”

This cannot he a case of option: it is a case of option only when there are two contradictory texts of equal authority hearing upon the same subject; in the present case however, there is no contradiction: there is no difference in the actual teaching of the two Smṛti-texts concerned: because it is quite reasonable to regard the general statement as restricted in its scope; specially as a third independent text has already been quoted above.

“If this be so, then the general prohibition regarding the web-footed birds may be taken as restricted in its scope to the Haṃsa and other specified birds: so that the prohibition does not extend to all crows and web-footed birds.”

This would have been the case if the Smṛti-treatises were not the work of a human author. In the case of works of non-human origin, if they proceed from different sources, there would be no useful purpose by making the general statement restricted to the particular case of the Haṃsa and other birds; while in the case of the work of human authors, if they proceed from different persons, it is quite possible that the person who knows the truth in its general form is ignorant of it in the restricted form, or the person who know it in the limited form is ignorant of it in the wider form; so that when we come to consider the source of the two statements, we assume the existence (in the Veda) of a general statement as the source of one, and a particular statement as the source of the other: and these two Vedic statements occurring in two different recensional texts, the only reasonable course is to construe them together, unless there are distinct injunctions bearing upon the two statements. Specially as no such complaint can be raised against the Vedas as — ‘What is the use of the general statement if it is to be taken in its restricted sense?’ There is no room for such a complaint, because there is no author in the case against whom such a complaint could be raised. Specially as in the case of a Vedic statement, the only idea that is obtained is front the actual words of the text, only that which can be derived from the words themselves; and there can be no justification for the assuming of any other meaning, for any purpose whatsoever.

What the ‘Rajjudāla’ and other birds are is to be learnt from persons versed in the science of birds. — (12)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 540), which adds the following notes: — ‘Kalaviṅka’ is the caṭaka, the sparrow; these being already included under ‘grāmanivāsinaḥ’, their separate mention is meant to indicate that they are always to be avoided; which implies that the ‘cāṣa’ and other ‘grāmanivāsi’ birds may be eaten. [All this hitter note is attributed to Medhātithi by the writer; but no words to this effect are found in Medhātithi; see Translation ]. — The epithet ‘grāma’ in ‘grāmakukkuṭaḥ’ indicates that wild kukkuṭa is not forbidden; ‘sārasa’ in the bird called ‘puṣkara,’ which has a long neck, long feet and is of blue colour; — ‘Rajjudāla’ is the wood-pecker; — ‘dātyūha’ the black-necked bird; — ‘Śuka’ is parrot; — ‘sārikā’ is well known by its own name.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 583).ted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 583).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17.28-29). — (See above under 11.)

Baudhāyana (1.12.143). — ‘Nor tame cocks and pigs.’

Āpastamba (1.17.32-33, 35). — ‘Among scratching birds, the tame cock shall not be eaten; among pecking birds, the Plava shall not be eaten; nor the swan, the Bhāsa, the Brahmani duck, or the falcon.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14-48). — ‘Among birds, the scratchers, the peckers, the web-footed, the Kalaviṅka, the water-hen, the flamingo, the Brahmani duck, th e Bhāsa, the crow, the blue pigeon, the osprey, the Cātaka, the dove, the crane, the black partridge, the grey heron, the vulture, the falcon, the white egret, the ibis, the cormorant, the peewit, the flying-fox, the night-flying birds, the wood-pecker, the sparrow, the Railātaka, the green pigeon, the wag-tail, the village-cock, the parrot, the starling, the cuckoo, the carnivorous birds and those living about villages (should not be; eaten).’

Viṣṇu (51.3.29). — ‘Village-hog, village-hen, monkey, cow — on eating these one shall perform the Cāndrāyaṇa;...one shall fast for three nights if he eat the Kalaviṅka, Plava, etc.,etc.’

Yājñavalkya (1.172-174). (See under 11, 7 also.) — ‘Kalaviṅka, Black crow, Kurara, wood-pecker, web-footed birds, Khañjarīṭa, and strange animals and birds — these one should avoid.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 541). — ‘The following birds should not be eaten: Crane, Swan, Dātyūha, etc., etc.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 542)__‘The mushroom, the village-hog, the web-footed birds, cocks, — by eating these the twice-born becomes degraded.’

Śaṅkha (Do). — ‘The partridge, the peacock, the pheasant, the white partridge, the Vārdhrīṇasa bird and the duck, these Yama has himself declared to be fit for eating.’

VERSE 5.13

Section II - Objectionable Food

प्रतुदाञ्जालपादांश्च कोयष्टिनखविष्किरान् ।
निमज्जतश्च मत्स्यादान् सौनं वल्लूरमेव च ॥१३॥

pratudāñjālapādāṃśca koyaṣṭinakhaviṣkirān |
nimajjataśca matsyādān saunaṃ vallūrameva ca ||13||

Those birds that feed by striking with their beaks, those that are web-footed, the koyaṣṭi, those that scratch with their nails, those that dive and eat fish, slaughter-house meat, and dried meat. — (13)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Those that feed by ‘striking’ — piercing — ‘with their beaks.’ Such is the nature of these birds. The Śatapatra and other birds belong to this class.

‘Web-footed’ — The Āti and the rest. That there is an option in regard to this has already been pointed out above (Bhāṣya on 12.)

“Wherever there is an option, it depends upon the man’s wish which of the two options he will adopt: and as a matter of fact, it is only an unforbidden course that can be so adopted. The act of eating is an ordinary temporal act, possible only when there is a desire on the part of the man (to do it); it is not a spiritual act, which would have to be done in any case. So that we do not see any useful purpose that could be secured by an optional prohibition.”

Our answer to this is that this has already been answered.

“But what has been said may be all right in regard to cases where (as in the Veda) the comprehension of the meaning depends entirely upon the words of the text, and there is no intention (of any author) behind them (to indicate their true purport). The present treatise however is the work of a human author, having been composed by him with great care and labour. for the purpose of supplying in brief all the information that was contained in another voluminous work containing a hundred thousand verses; so that no needless word can be used in it. In fact it is for this reason (of his not using a single superfluous word) that the author comes to be regarded as a ‘Teacher’. It is not that there is no prohibition of all web-footed birds in general, in which case alone the prohibition of a particular web-footed bird, the Haṃsa, could be justified. Since the present verse also is a Smṛti-text (and it forbids all web-footed birds in general). Some people have held that the term ‘jālapāda’ (web-footed bird) in the present verse is a wrong reading”.

We have already explained that the intention of the Teacher is undersood with the help of gestures, actions and the spinning out of long explanations; and in the present case particular details are also inferred. What was meant to be said was that ‘one shall not eat web-footed birds in normal times’; but the author has propounded the prohibition in the wider form, with it view to justifying both prohibitions (of web-footed birds in general, and of the Haṃsa in particular).

‘Sūnā’ ‘Slaughter house’, is that place where animals are killed for the purpose of selling their flesh. Others explain it as ‘meat-market’.

‘Dried meat’, ‘Vallura’, is Mesh dried and kept for several days.

‘Nakhuviṣkira’ are those birds that scratch with their nails; — e.g. the Peacock, the Cock &c.

These birds are partly ‘fit to be eaten’ also, in view of the assertion that these may be eaten ‘in abnormal times;’ specially in view of what another Smṛti-writer has said regarding ‘the Cock among birds’ (being eatable). But the present text of Manu cannot be regarded as referring to the Cock; as in that case the separate mention of the ‘Cock’ would be useless. — (13)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 540), which adds the following notes: — ‘pratudāḥ’ are the birds that strike with the peak and then eat; — ‘jālapāda’ is the web-footed bird, e.g. the cāṣa and the like; — ‘koyaṣṭi’ is a species of wild birds; — ‘nakhaviṣkira’ is the bird that scratches out food with its nails; — ‘nimajjya matsyādān’ are those birds that catch fish by diving under water; e.g. the aquatic crow and the like; — ‘sūnā’ is the slaughter-house, and ‘sauna’ is that which is got from there; — ‘vallūra’ is dry fish.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 583).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama. (17.35). — ‘The peckers, the scratchers and birds that are not web-footed may be eaten.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.18). — (See above.)

Viṣṇu (51.27). — ‘On eating unrecognised meat, or meat from the slaughter-house or dry flesh, one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa.

Yājñavalkya (1.172, 174, 175). — (See above, — and also) ‘Chāṣas, red-footed birds, meat from the slaughter-house and dry flesh, — on eating these; intentionally one should go without food for three days.’

VERSE 5.14

Section II - Objectionable Food

बकं चैव बलाकां च काकोलं खञ्जरीटकम् ।
मत्स्यादान् विड्वराहांश्च मत्स्यानेव च सर्वशः ॥१४॥

bakaṃ caiva balākāṃ ca kākolaṃ khañjarīṭakam |
matsyādān viḍvarāhāṃśca matsyāneva ca sarvaśaḥ ||14||

The Baka, the Balākā, the Kākola, the Khañjarīṭa, the fish-eaters, and village pigs; as also fish always. — (14)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The prohibition of the ‘Baku, Balākā and Kākola’ being already included under that of ‘fish-eaters’, these have been mentioned separately in order to indicate that the eating of the other fish-eating birds is optional.

‘Fish-eaters’. — Animals other than birds also, which eat fish, are to be regarded as ‘unfit to be eaten’; such animals, for instance, as the alligator and the like; that this is what is meant, is clear from the fact that the name ‘fish-eater’ is to be applied in its literal sense.

Kākola is the same as the Kite, such being its name in foreign lands; for instance, it is known by this name in the Bāhlīka country.

The prohibition of the ‘village-pig’ implies the permission to eat the wild pig. The prohibition of those ‘living in villages’ in the preceding verse (11) should be taken, on the strength of the context, us referring to birds only. It is only thus that there would be any point in the mention of the ‘village-pig’ in the present verse. The pig that lives in villages is called ‘viḍvarāha’, ‘village-pig.’

“If in verse 11, ‘those living in villages’ are to be taken, on the strength of the context, as birds only, then the term ‘fish-eaters’ in the present verse also should be taken as referring to birds only.”

Not so; because the present context is not restricted to birds only; since it mentions also non-birds, such as the ‘village pig’ and‘fish.’

‘Sarvaśaḥ,’ — always.

This is a general rule; its exceptions we shall explain later on. — (14).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 343), which adds the following notes: — The ‘vaka’ and the ‘balākā are well known birds ; — kākola is the Droṇakāka; — ‘khānjarīṭa’ is the khañjana; — ‘matsyādāḥ’ are the alligator and the like; — the prohibition of the ‘viḍvarāha’ implies the sanction of the wild boar. — ‘ṣarvaśaḥ’ means in every way’; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 583).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (17.29, 34). (See under 12, and). — ‘Carnivorous birds (should be avoided).’

Baudhāyana (1.12-3, 8). — ‘Nor tame cocks and pigs; — five kinds of scratching birds — partridge, blue rock-pigeon, francoline partridge, Vārdhrīṇasa crane, the peacock (may be eaten).’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.48(?)). — (See above, under 12.)

Viṣṇu (51.21.29). (See under 11, and) — ‘On eating fish other than the Pāṭhīna, the Rohita, the Rājīva, Siṃhatuṇḍa and Śakula, one should fast for three davs.’

Yājñavalkya (1.173-175). — (See above under 12 and 13.)

VERSE 5.15

Section II - Objectionable Food

यो यस्य मांसमश्नाति स तन्मांसाद उच्यते ।
मत्स्यादः सर्वमांसादस्तस्मान् मत्स्यान् विवर्जयेत् ॥१५॥

yo yasya māṃsamaśnāti sa tanmāṃsāda ucyate |
matsyādaḥ sarvamāṃsādastasmān matsyān vivarjayet ||15||

He who eats the flesh of an animal, is called the ‘eater of its flesh’; he who eats fish is the ‘eater of all kinds of flesh’; hence one shall avoid fish. — (15).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a commendatory supplement to the foregoing prohibition of fish.

When one eats the flesh of an animal, he comes to be described as connected with the act of eating that animal; e.g., the mungoose is called ‘serpent-eater’, the cat ‘rat-eater’ and so forth. He who eats fish eats all kinds of flesh; it would be right to speak of him as a ‘beef-eater’ also.

Hence, by reason of the possibility of this calumny, one should avoid fish. — (15).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 546), which adds that this is an arthavāda to the prohibition of eating fish that has gone before in the preceding verse; — in Smṛtitattva (p. 448); — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 299).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.15-16)

Āpastamba (1.17.38-39). — ‘Among fish, the Ceṭa should not be eaten; — nor the snake-headed fish or the alligator, or those that live on flesh only, nor those mis-shaped like the Mermen.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 546). — (Same as Manu, and also) — ‘The following arc unfit for eating — the alligator, serpent,

leech, Madgu, peacock-shaped aquatic animal, small snake-like fish, crocodile, water-hen, and those fish that have ears like the horses, or without scales, or having mouths at both ends. — The student of Veda should avoid all scaleless fish.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 546). — ‘The Kulīra, Vārtāka, Pattana, Jalānarta and Kṣipraga are unfit for eating. Fish with scales are eatable; others are uneatable, so also the snakeheaded fish and fish with mis-shaped mouth.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.41, 42). — ‘Among fish, the long-nosed crocodile, the Gavaya, the porpoise, the alligator, the crab, should not he eaten, nor those that are mis-shaped or snakeheaded.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 547). — ‘Among aquatic animals, Shambu, Śukti, Nakhaśukti, alligator, flying-fish and misshaped fish should not be eaten.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘Fish that are not mis-shaped (may be eaten).’

Yājñavalkya (1.177-178). — ‘Among fish the following may be eaten by the twice-born, — Siṃhatuṇḍa, Rohita, Pāṭhīna and those with scales.’

Gautama (17.36-37). — ‘Fish that are not mis-shaped and animals that are slain for the fulfilment of the sacred law.’

Bodhāyana. (1.12-8). — (See under 14)

Viṣṇu (51-21). — (See under 14.)

VERSE 5.16

Section II - Objectionable Food

पाठीनरोहितावाद्यौ नियुक्तौ हव्यकव्ययोः ।
राजीवान् सिंहतुण्डाश्च सशल्काश्चैव सर्वशः ॥१६॥

pāṭhīnarohitāvādyau niyuktau havyakavyayoḥ |
rājīvān siṃhatuṇḍāśca saśalkāścaiva sarvaśaḥ ||16||

The ‘Pāṭhīna’ and the ‘Rohita’ are fit to be eaten when used as offerings to gods or Pitṛs; the ‘Rājīva’, the ‘Siṃhatuṇḍa’ and the ‘Saśalka,’ (one may eaṭ) on all occasions — (16)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Pāṭhīna’ and ‘Rohita’ — two particulars kinds of fish-having been mentioned as fit to be offered to Gods and to Pitṛs, the eating of these is permitted on the occasion of the performance of Śrāddha and other rites; and not in the course of ordinary daily food. As for the Rājīva, the ‘Siṃhatuṇḍa’ and the ‘Saśalka’ fish on the other hand, these are to be eaten ‘on all occasions’; i.e. they may be eaten also on occasions other than the offerings to Gods and to Pitṛs.

‘Rājīva’ some people regard this as standing for lotus-coloured fish. Others explain it as standing for those fish that are marked by lines.

‘Siṃhatuṇḍa,’ — those having a lion-like face.

‘Saśalka’ — is the same as the fish called ‘Shakalin.’ — (16).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi and Govindarāja explain the meaning to be that “The Pāṭhīna and the Rohita are to be eaten only when offered to the gods or Pitṛs, and not ordinarily, while those enumerated in the second half are to be eaten ‘sarvasaḥ’ at all times.” — Kullūka objects to this explanation on the following grounds: — There is no authority for the view that the two kinds of fish are to be offered at Śrāddhas, eaten only by the person invited at it, not by the performer of the Śrāddha or other persons, while the other kinds are to be eaten by others also; — in fact all other authorities have placed all those mentioned here on the same footing. Kullūka’s own explanation is as follows: — ‘The Pāṭhīna and the Rohita should be eaten, as also the Rājīva and the rest’; — and the phrase ‘niyuktau havyakavyoḥ’ he takes as standing by itself, in the sense that ‘all things that are forbidden may be eaten, when one is threatened with starvation, after they have been offered to the gods and Pitṛs.’

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.178), which goes one farther than Medhātithi, and adds that those enumerated in the second line also are to be eaten only when offered at Śrāddhas and sacrifices; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 547), which adds the following notes: — ‘ādyau’ means ‘are to be eaten’ — when they are ‘niyuktau’ — i.e., used for the purpose of Śrāddha and other offerings; — ‘Pāṭhīna’ is that which is also called ‘Chandraka,’ ‘Rājīva’ is red-coloured, ‘Siṃhatuṇḍa,’ is that which has its mouth like the lion’s, ‘Saśalka’ are fish covered with shell-like skin.

It is quoted in Smṛtattva (p. 449); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 577); — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 300), which explains ‘niyuktau,’ as employed for Śrāddha and other purposes, and ‘ādyau’ as ‘may be eaten,’ ‘rājīva’ as red-coloured.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.15-16)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.15.

VERSE 5.17

Section II - Objectionable Food

न भक्षयेदेकचरानज्ञातांश्च मृगद्विजान् ।
भक्ष्येष्वपि समुद्दिष्टान् सर्वान् पञ्चनखांस्तथा ॥१७॥

na bhakṣayedekacarānajñātāṃśca mṛgadvijān |
bhakṣyeṣvapi samuddiṣṭān sarvān pañcanakhāṃstathā ||17||

He shall not eat solitary animals, nor unknown beasts and birds, even though indicated among those fit to be eaten; nor any five-nailed animals. — (17).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Solitary’ — those animals that move about singly (not in herds); such as serpents, owls and the like.

‘Unknown’ — as regards name and kind.

‘Beasts and birds;’ — neither beasts nor birds are fit to be taken.

‘Even though indicated among those fit to be eaten’ — Those that are not actually forbidden are, to that extent, regarded as fit to be eaten; and hence indirectly ‘indicated’ as such. In reality, there is no direct indication of those fit to be eaten. Those that are not specially recognised as to be avoided come to be regarded as fit to be eaten; and these are spoken of as ‘indicated as fit to be eaten’.

‘Fire-nailed animals:’ — e.g. the Monkey, the Jackal and the like.

‘Any’ — has been added for filling up the metre. — (17)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 544), which adds the following notes: — ‘Ekacara’ are those animals which, as a rule, roam about alone, such for instance as serpents; — ‘ajñātāḥ’ — whose name and species are unknown, i.e., one should not eat unknown animals which, though not falling under any species either generally or specifically prohibited, are understood by implication to be included under those that are permitted; — nor should one eat any five-nailed animals, with the exception of the śaśaka and the rest (enumerated in the next verse).

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?