with the Commentary of Medhatithi 139 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 145 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.17-18)

Gautama (17-27). — ‘Five-nailed animals should not be eaten, excepting the hedge-hog, the hare, the porcupine, the iguana, the rhinoceros and the tortoise.’

Baudhāyana (1.12-5). — ‘Five five-nailed animals may be eaten — viz., the porcupine, the iguana, the hare, the hedge-hog, the tortoise and the rhinoceros, except (perhaps) the rhinoceros.’

Āpastamba (1.17-37). — ‘Five-nailed animals should not be eaten, excepting the iguana, the tortoise, the porcupine, the rhinoceros, the hare and the Putīkaśa.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.39, 40, 44, 47). — ‘Among five-nailed animals, the porcupine, the hedge-hog, the hare, the tortoise and the iguana may he eaten; among domestic animals, those having only one row of teeth, except the camel; those not mentioned as fit for eating should not be eaten; regarding the wild boar and the rhinoceros, there are conflicting opinions.’

Viṣṇu (51.6, 26, 27). — ‘On eating the flesh of five-nailed animals, — except the hare, the porcupine, the hedge-hog, the rhinoceros and the tortoise, — one should fast seven days; on eating the flesh of the ass, the camel and the crow, one should perform the Cāndrāyana, — also on eating unknown flesh, or flesh from the slaughter-house, or dried flesh.’

Yājñavalkya (1.174, 177). — ‘Unknown animals and birds, flesh from the slaughter-house and dried flesh (should not be eaten). Among five-nailed animals, the following may be eaten: the porcupine, the hedge-hog, the alligator, the tortoise and the have.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 543). — ‘Among animals, the following should not be eaten: the cow, the camel, the ass, the horse, the elephant, the lion, the leopard, the bear, the Śarubha, serpents and boa constrictors, the rat, the mouse, the cat, the mongoose, the village-hog, the dog, the jackal, the tiger, the black-faced monkey, the man and the monkey.’

VERSE 5.18

Section II - Objectionable Food

श्वाविधं शल्यकं गोधां खड्गकूर्मशशांस्तथा ।
भक्ष्यान् पञ्चनखेष्वाहुरनुष्ट्रांश्चैकतोदतः ॥१८॥

śvāvidhaṃ śalyakaṃ godhāṃ khaḍgakūrmaśaśāṃstathā |
bhakṣyān pañcanakheṣvāhuranuṣṭrāṃścaikatodataḥ ||18||

Among five-nailed animals they declare the porcupine, the hedge-hog, the alligator, the rhinoceros, the tortoise and the hare, as fit to be eaten; as also all animals having one line of teeth. except the camel. — (18)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Among five-nailed animals, the Porcupine and the rest are fit to be eaten.

In another Smṛti, there is option regarding the Rhinoceros. Says Vaśiṣṭha (14-4?) — ‘They dispute about the rhinoceros.’

With the exception of the camel, all those animals are fit to be eaten which have only one line of teeth: for instance, the cow, the gout and the deer.

“In as much as the present verse specifies the porcupine &c. as alone fit to be eaten, among five-nailed animals, — it follows that all the other five-nailed animals are unfit to be eaten; so that the prohibition of ‘all five-nailed animals’ becomes entirely superfluous.”

There is nothing wrong in this. When the prohibition is stated in so many words, our comprehension of it is direct; if on the other hand, we were to derive our knowledge of what should not be eaten from the specification of what should be eaten, our comprehension of the prohibition would be only inferential, indirect; and this would he a complicated process. — (18).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.177); — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 545), which explains ‘ekatodataḥ’ as ‘those that have only one line of teeth’; — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 299).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.17-18)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.17.

VERSE 5.19 [Penalty for eating Forbidden Food]

Section III - Penalty for eating Forbidden Food

छत्राकं विड्वराहं च लशुनं ग्रामकुक्कुटम् ।
पलाण्डुं गृञ्जनं चैव मत्या जग्ध्वा पतेद् द्विजः ॥१९॥

chatrākaṃ viḍvarāhaṃ ca laśunaṃ grāmakukkuṭam |
palāṇḍuṃ gṛñjanaṃ caiva matyā jagdhvā pated dvijaḥ ||19||

The mushroom, the village-pig, garlic, the village-cock, onions and leeks, — the twice-born man eating these intentionally would become an ou tcast. — (19).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Chatraka’ is the same as karaka, the mushroom.

‘Viḍvarāha’ is the village-pig, which wanders about unchecked.

By eating these the man becomes an outcast. That is, he should perform the Expiatory Rites prescribed for outcasts. It will be asserted later on (11.56) — ‘The eating of forbidden food is like the drinking of wine.’ — (19)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1157), which notes that the intentional eating of these things make the twice-born person an ‘outcast,’ i.e., disqualifies him from all that is done by twice-born persons, and the expiation for this would be the same as that prescribed for wine-drinking.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.176), which says that this refers to intentional and repeated eating of the things; also on 3.229; — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 317), as referring to intentional eating; — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 825) to the effect that the intentional eating of forbidden things is equal to wine-drinking; and again on p. 927, to the effect that it is intentional and repeated eating that is equal to wine-drinking and hence makes one outcast, while by intentionally eating these only once, one only becomes liable to the performance of the Cāndrāyaṇa.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (23.5). — ‘(Expiation is to be performed) for the eating of tame cocks or tame pigs.’

Viṣṇu (51.3-4). — ‘If the twice-born eat of the following — garlic, onion, tame pig, tame cock, — he should perform expiations and should go through the sacraments over again.’

Yājñavalkya (1.176). — ‘Onion, tame pig, mushroom, tame cock, garlic, and leeks, — on eating these one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa.’

Parāśara (2.9-10). — ‘Milk of newly calved cow, white garlic, brinjals, leeks, onion, exudation from trees, the property of gods, mushrooms, milk of the camel, milk of sheep, — if the twice-born eats these unintentionally, he becomes purified by fasting for three days and eating Pañcagavya.’

VERSE 5.20

Section III - Penalty for eating Forbidden Food

अमत्यैतानि षड् जग्ध्वा कृच्छ्रं सान्तपनं चरेत् ।
यतिचान्द्रायाणं वाऽपि शेषेषूपवसेदहः ॥२०॥

amatyaitāni ṣaḍ jagdhvā kṛcchraṃ sāntapanaṃ caret |
yaticāndrāyāṇaṃ vā'pi śeṣeṣūpavasedahaḥ ||20||

Having eaten these unintentionally, he should perform the ‘Kṛcchra Sāntapana’, or the ‘Yati-Cāndrāyaṇa’; and in the case of the rest one should fast for a day. — (20)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Unintentionally’ — unwillingly, — ‘having eaten these’ — any one of the six just mentioned that it is any one that is meant, and not all together, is indicated by the fact that the act of eating in this case is nor. what is actually enjoined.

‘In the case of the rest’ — i.e. in the case of eating the other things — ‘red exudations from trees’ and other things forbidden above, — one should desist from eating ‘for a day’; — the term‘day’ is used as including the night also; e.g. in such passages as‘the day is dark, the day is bright’ — (Ṛgveda 6.9.1.)

In connection with the eating of some of the things here forbidden, the text is going to prescribe in the section on Expiatory

Rites (Discourse 11) distinct expiatory rites: — e.g., in connection with‘carnivorous animals, pig etc.’ (11.156); and in this case those are the Rites to be performed; since they have been directly enjoined in so man words; specially as the single ‘day’s fast’ here prescribed will have its application only in cases other than those especially provided for. — (20)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 11.155, 213 and 219.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (pp. 927 and 825) as laying down the expiation for the unintentional eating of the things; — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 317) to the same effect, with the additional note that the ‘Sāntapana’ meant here must he that which extends over seven days. — The last quarter is quoted twice in Mitākṣarā on 3.290, to the effect that if one eats forbidden things other than those here mentioned only once, and that unintentionally, he has got only to fast for the day; — under 1.175 to the effect that the eating of the forbidden birds unintentionally makes one liable to fasting for the day; — and the first three quarters on 1.176, where it is pointed out that it refers to unintentional and repeated eating of the things; — also on 3.229 as laying down the expiation for unintentional eating.

It is also quoted in Aparārka (p. 1157), to the effect that by unintentionally eating the things enumerated repeatedly one becomes liable to the Yati-cāndrāyaṇa, and by eating other forbidden things to fasting during the day.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.20-21)

Yajñavalkya (1.176). — (See-above.)

Parāśara (2.9-10). — (See above.)

Śātātapa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 318). — ‘Garlic, leek, onion, black brinjal, mushroom, tame pig, fame; cock, milk of camel, woman or ass,- on eating these one should undergo the Upanayana again and perform the ‘taptakṛcchra repeatedly.’

Viṣṇu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 319). — ‘On eating the flesh of dogs, and on eating mushrooms, one should perform the Sāntapana; on eating substances cooked overnight, — except preparations of barley or wheat or milk, or what is smeared with oils, or dry sugar-candy — one should fast. Substances growing out of incisions or unclean things, the red exudation from trees, needlessly cooked rice-sesamum,... on eating these one should fast for three days and should stand in water for one day.’

VERSE 5.21

Section III - Penalty for eating Forbidden Food

संवत्सरस्यैकमपि चरेत् कृच्छ्रं द्विजोत्तमः ।
अज्ञातभुक्तशुद्ध्यर्थं ज्ञातस्य तु विशेषतः ॥२१॥

saṃvatsarasyaikamapi caret kṛcchraṃ dvijottamaḥ |
ajñātabhuktaśuddhyarthaṃ jñātasya tu viśeṣataḥ ||21||

Once a year the Brāhmaṇa shall perform the ‘Kṛcchra’ penance, in order to atone for unintentional eating; but for intentional eating, special ones. — (21).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This refers to the Brāhmaṇa who is in the habit of eating at the house of those Śūdra whose food he is permitted to eat.

It is possible that at the house of a Śūdra, there may he some articles of food that are not fit to be eaten by the Brāhmaṇa, which can not always be avoided; if the Brāhmaṇa eats at the house of such a Śūdra, there is always a fear of his having partaken of some forbidden food; hence for him it is laid down that he should perforin the ‘Prājāpatya Kṛcchra’. In all bases where the precise form of the ‘kṛcchra’ is not laid down, it should be understood to be the‘Prājāpatya’ kṛcchra as we shall explain later on.

‘In order to atone for unintentional eating’: — i.e., in the event of there being suspicion of his having unwillingly partaken of forbidden food; that is, for the expiating of the sin incurred, in the event of his having eaten forbidden food.

“But the expiation for this is going to be prescribed later on, under 5.I27.”

What that means and refers to we shall explain in connection with that verse.

For the art committed intentionally, special rites should be performed; i.e. that expiatory rite which has been prescribed in many words in connection with a particular case — (21).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 11. 212.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290) as laying down the expiation for cases of suspected eating of forbidden things; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 340).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.20-21)

VERSE 5.22 [Killing of Animals for Food]

Section IV - Killing of Animals for Food

यज्ञार्थं ब्राह्मणैर्वध्याः प्रशस्ता मृगपक्षिणः ।
भृत्यानां चैव वृत्त्यर्थमगस्त्यो ह्याचरत् पुरा ॥२२॥

yajñārthaṃ brāhmaṇairvadhyāḥ praśastā mṛgapakṣiṇaḥ |
bhṛtyānāṃ caiva vṛttyarthamagastyo hyācarat purā ||22||

The commended beasts and birds may be killed by Brāhmaṇas for the purpose of sacrifice, and for the purpose of feeding their dependents; as Agastya did this of old. — (22).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In connection with food fit to be eaten, the Text proceeds to sanction the act of killing.

If one’s dependents are very much pressed by hunger, and no other food can be found, then one may kill such birds and beasts as are fit to be eaten. The exact meaning of the term ‘dependent’ has been explained before (as standing for parents, wife etc.)

The mention of Agastya — that Agastya did the act — is only by way of recommendation.

The first half of the verse is purely commendatory; because the act of killing in connection with sarcifices is directly enjoined by the Vedic injunctions themselves (and as such does not stand in need of any sanction from the present text).

‘Commanded’ — i.e., permitted as lit to be eaten.

This same thing is slated in the next verse in greater detail, as bearing upon the recommendation of certain acts. — (22).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.179) to the effect that just as there is nothing wrong in the eating of meat which is the remnant of sacrificial and Śrāddha offerings, so also there is none in eating that which is left after the dependents have been fed.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 537), which adds that animals are to he killed for feeding one’s dependents, only when there is no other means of feeding them; and this implies also that there is no harm in one’s eating the meat himself that is left after the feeding of dependents; — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 301).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.22-23)

Vaśiṣṭha (4.5-8). — ‘The Mānava text states: — “Only when he worships Pitṛs and gods or honours guests, he may certainly slay animals: on offering the honey-mixture to guests, and at rites in honour of Pitṛs and gods and at a sacrifice, — on these occasions only may an animal be slain.” The slaughter of animals at sacrifices is no slaughter. One may cook a big ox or a big goat for a Brāhmaṇa or Kṣatriya guest.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.15). — ‘It is declared in the Veda: — “At a sacrificial session which lasted one thousand years, Agastya went out to hunt; he had sacrificial cakes prepared with the meat of beasts and fowls good to eat.”’

Yājñavalkya (Do.). — ‘One who kills animals against the law, dwells in terrible hell for as many years as there are hairs on the body of the animal.’

Yama and Paiṭhānaṣi (Do.). — ‘One should not kill any animal for his own sake; if he cooks it for the sake of gods and Brāhmaṇas, he incurs no sin,’

VERSE 5.23

Section IV - Killing of Animals for Food

बभूवुर्हि पुरोडाशा भक्ष्याणां मृगपक्षिणाम् ।
पुराणेष्वपि यज्ञेषु ब्रह्मक्षत्रसवेषु च ॥२३॥

babhūvurhi puroḍāśā bhakṣyāṇāṃ mṛgapakṣiṇām |
purāṇeṣvapi yajñeṣu brahmakṣatrasaveṣu ca ||23||

In ancient times, at sacrifices performed by the sages, as also at sacrifices performed by Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas, the sacrificial cakes were made of eatable beasts and birds. — (23)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The killing of beasts and birds has been prescribed in connection with the sacrifice named ‘Ṣaḍviṃśat-saṃvatsara’ (Twenty-six Years). This is what is referred to in the present verse. The Brāhmaṇa-passage bearing upon the subject is as follows: — ‘At the end of the day the master of the house goes out hunting, and out of the flesh of the animals that he kills sacrificial cakes are made’.

In as much as the present verse is purely commendatory, no significance is meant to be attached to the past tense in the term ‘babhūva’, ‘were made’; hence the same thing is done now-a-days also.

The same holds good regarding the term ‘purāṇeṣu’, ‘in ancient times’. This also means that people should not consider that the said sacrificial practice has come into force in recent times only. — Or, the term may be taken to mean that ‘it should not be understood that there is nothing to sanction the practice of killing animals at sacrifices’. — Or, the term may be regarded as added for the benefit of those persons who are incapable of comprehending the meaning of the scriptures themselves, and who regulate their conduct entirely in accordance with the practices of other people, on the principle that ‘the right path is that whereby great men have gone’. The meaning is that ‘this practice is not of recent origin, it is without beginning’.

The ‘ancient sages’ are certain Brāhmaṇas, well-known for their austerities. Or, it may stand for a distinct species of beings; as described in the Mahābhārata and other works. In this connection it is not necessary to press the objection that — “If these sages belong to a distinct species of beings, they are like Gandhar vas and others, and as such, not entitled to the performance of sacrifices.”; — since the passage is a purely commendatory one, and as such, may be understood in any way one chooses.

‘Brahmakṣatriyasava’, — sacrifices performed by Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas. — (23)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 537) quotes this verse as Arthavāda to the preceding verse, the meaning being as follows: — ‘Inasmuch as in ancient sacrifices performed by sages, edible sacrificial cakes used to be made of animals and birds killed for the purpose, these may be killed by men of the present day also.’ That the sacrificial cake is to be made of the flesh of animals has been laid down in connection with the ‘Thirty-six-year Sacrificial Session’, about which we read that “on the closing day of which, the master of the house goes out a — hunting, and out of the flesh of the animals killed there the Savanīya sacrificial cakes are prepared.”

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.22-23)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.22.

VERSE 5.24 [Stale Food]

Section V - Stale Food

यत् किं चित् स्नेहसंयुक्तं भक्ष्यं भोज्यमगर्हितम् ।
तत् पर्युषितमप्याद्यं हविःशेषं च यद् भवेत् ॥२४॥

yat kiṃ cit snehasaṃyuktaṃ bhakṣyaṃ bhojyamagarhitam |
tat paryuṣitamapyādyaṃ haviḥśeṣaṃ ca yad bhavet ||24||

Such Food and eatables as are mixed with oils may be eaten though stale, if unspoilt; so also what may be the remnant of a sacrificial offering. — (24)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Whatever food is mixed with oils.’ — ‘Food’ stands for Rice etc. Though the roots to ‘eat’ and to ‘feed’ are synonymous, yet the two terms ‘food’ and ‘eatables’ have been used with a view to the various articles of food.

‘Unspoilt’ — here stands for what has not become sour by keeping.

Such food ‘may b e eaten, though stale’. That is called ‘stale’ which has been kept over night. What is cooked on one day also becomes ‘stale’ the next day.

‘Mixed with oils.’ — In regard to this the following question is raised: —

“Does this mean that whatever in the shape of vegetable-juice etc. has been cooked with oils should be eaten even when stale? — Or, that oils are to be mixed up with dry articles of food, at the time that they are going to be eaten stale? According to the latter view stale cakes and sweets also would have to be eaten only after having been mixed with oils.”

There is, it is argued, no room for any such doubt; since what is asserted by the words ‘may be eaten though stale’ is only the eatability of food mixed with oils; so that the epithet ‘mixed with oils’ is part of the Subject, and not of the Predicate. Nor do we find it referred to by the pronoun ‘tat’, ‘that’, by any such form of expression as ‘what is stale, that may be eaten mixed with oils’ (which would make the epithet part of the Predicate).

The answer to this is that there is still some ground for doubt; as (according to the explanation just suggested) there would be no point in the separate mention of the ‘remnants of sacrificial offering’, which are stale and not mixed with oils (the latter being implied by their being mentioned apart from ‘food mixed with oils;’ because there is no chance of these remnants being ‘mixed with oils’ and becoming ‘stale’. Consequently the separate mention of these can have some sense only if in their case it were not considered necessary to mix oils at the time of eating. So that the separate mention of these becomes justified only if, in the case of these Remnants, it be not necessary to mix oils at the time of eating (which is considered necessary in the case of the other articles of food.)

But, even so, there need not be any doubt. For in that case, it would be only right to take the epithet ‘mixed with oils’ as part of the Predicate, for the purpose of justifying the separate mention of the ‘Remnants of sacrificial offerings’. [So that thus also, the meaning would be quite clear, though different from what we had explained before.]

In answer to this it is argued that there is only this ground for doubt that in view of the fact that the direct construction of the words as they stand is always to be preferred to any other roundabout constructions, — would it be right to regard the mention of the ‘sacrificial remnants’ as merely reiterative (and not injunctive) [ in which case it may well be left pointless]? Or that, inorder to guard against the mention being pointless, the words should be construed to mean that whatever is stale should be mixed with oils at the time of eating?

On this point there is no doubt; rather than allow the words of the text to be regarded us pointless, it is far more reasonable to have recourse to the indirect method of construction. The real decision however depends entirely upon usage.

‘Oils.’ — This term stands for butter, oil, fat and bone-marrow — (24).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 523); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 452); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 616); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 291).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.24-25)

Viṣṇu (51.35). — ‘Preparations of barley and wheat mixed with oils, soured substances and sugar-candy — barring these, if one eats anything kept overnight, he should fast.’

Yājñavalkya (1.169). — ‘Food kept: overnight, or kept for a long time, may he eaten if mixed with oils: as also preparations of wheat, barley and milk, even without, oils.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 523). — ‘Cakes, gruel, fried grains, fried-barley flour, vegetables, meat, curries, rice-sesamum, barley-meal, milk-vice, and things mixed with oils, — all this may he eaten, even though kept overnight; hut substances soured by keeping should he avoided.’

VERSE 5.25

Section V - Stale Food

चिरस्थितमपि त्वाद्यमस्नेहाक्तं द्विजातिभिः ।
यवगोधूमजं सर्वं पयसश्चैव विक्रिया ॥२५॥

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология