with the Commentary of Medhatithi 141 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 147 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 527), as reiterative of what has gone before; — and in Smṛtitattva (p. 449).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.10.6). — (Same as Manu, reading iti vai kavayo viduḥ’ for ‘Prajāpatirakalpayat.’)

VERSE 5.29

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

चराणामन्नमचरा दंष्ट्रिणामप्यदंष्ट्रिणः ।
अहस्ताश्च सहस्तानां शूराणां चैव भीरवः ॥२९॥

carāṇāmannamacarā daṃṣṭriṇāmapyadaṃṣṭriṇaḥ |
ahastāśca sahastānāṃ śūrāṇāṃ caiva bhīravaḥ ||29||

The immobile is the food of the mobile; those devoid of fangs are the food of those endowed with fangs; those without hands are the food of those with hands; and cowards are the food of the brave. — (29).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Mobile’, — those that are capable of walking and flying and are courageous and active; e.g. the kite, the mongoose and the rest. — Of those the ‘immobile’ — lethargic animals, such as the pigeon, the serpent and the like — are ‘the food.’

Similarly ‘of those endowed with fangs,’ — i.e. of the lion, the tiger, etc., — ‘those devoid of fangs’ — the Ruru, the Pṛṣat and the other kinds of deer — arc the ‘food.’

‘Those without hands, serpents, fish and the like — are the food of ‘those with hands,’ — of the mongoose and the fisherman, etc.

‘Of the brave’ — of those that are endowed with great courage — ‘cowards’ — those who are over-fond of life — are the food.

The meaning is that those possessed of inferior strength are killed for food — (29).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 527), which adds — the ‘cara’ are the deer and the rest, — the ‘acara’ grasses etc., — ‘damṣṭṛn’, the tiger and others, ‘adamṣṭṛn,’ the deer and the like, — ‘sahasta’ are men and the like, — and ‘ahasta’ fish etc., ‘śūra’ are brave persons — and ‘bhīru’ are the timid.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.99.15). — (Reproduces the first half of Manu.)

VERSE 5.30

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

नात्ता दुष्यत्यदन्नाद्यान् प्राणिनोऽहन्य्ऽहन्यपि ।
धात्रैव सृष्टा ह्याद्याश्च प्राणिनोऽत्तार एव च ॥३०॥

nāttā duṣyatyadannādyān prāṇino'hany'hanyapi |
dhātraiva sṛṣṭā hyādyāśca prāṇino'ttāra eva ca ||30||

The eater incurs no sin by eating, even daily, such animals as are eatable: since the eater as well as the eaten animals have been created by the creator himself — (30).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Eater’ — one who eats.

‘Eatable’ — which are capable of being eaten. He incurs no sin even by eating them daily.

By the ‘Creator’ — Prajāpati — himself — have been created both the enter and the eaten.

For this reason when there is danger to life, meat must be eaten. This is the sense of the three verses, which are purely comemendstory — (30).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Ālinika, p. 527).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (51.61). — ‘Animals have been created for purposes of the sacrifice... hence killing at sacrifice is no killing.’

VERSE 5.31

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

यज्ञाय जग्धिर्मांसस्येत्येष दैवो विधिः स्मृतः ।
अतोऽन्यथा प्रवृत्तिस्तु राक्षसो विधिरुच्यते ॥३१॥

yajñāya jagdhirmāṃsasyetyeṣa daivo vidhiḥ smṛtaḥ |
ato'nyathā pravṛttistu rākṣaso vidhirucyate ||31||

‘The eating of meat for sacrifices’ — this is declared to be the divine law; but behaviour contrary to this is described as ‘demoniacal practice’ — (31).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The eating of meat — in the form of offerings and oblations — ‘for sacrifices.’

‘This is the div ine law’; — this is what has been ordained by the Gods.

‘Behaviour contrary to this,’ — i.e. eating meat for the fattening of the body — is ‘the demonical pract ice’; it is only demons that eat meat in this fashion. This is said in deprecation of the practice. — (31)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Cf. this with the Mahābhārata, 13.114-116. In ib 116, 15, this is quoted as Śruti, but in 115, 53, its gist is ascribed to Manu” — Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 527), which adds the following notes: — ‘yajñāya’ means ‘for purposes of sacrifice’, — ‘yagdhi’ means ‘eating’, — ‘atonyathā’ means ‘elsewhere than at a sacrifice’; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 582).

VERSE 5.32

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

क्रीत्वा स्वयं वाऽप्युत्पाद्य परोपकृतमेव वा ।
देवान् पितॄंश्चार्चयित्वा खादन् मांसं न दुष्यति ॥३२॥

krītvā svayaṃ vā'pyutpādya paropakṛtameva vā |
devān pitṝṃścārcayitvā khādan māṃsaṃ na duṣyati ||32||

Having bought it, or having obtained it himself, or having it presented by others, — if one eats meat after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitṛs, he does not incur sin — (32)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The law here laid down refers to the meat of deer and birds. The meaning is that there is no sin incurred in eating the meat of the Ruru, the Pṛṣat and other kinds of deer, or the partridge and other birds, if it is done after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitṛs.

In the case of the offering to the Viśvedevas, when there is no preparation for it in the house, one may eat rice and other things, even without making the offering; but not so meat; it is with a view to emphasise this that the text repeats — ‘having worshipped the Gods and the Pitṛs etc.’ If mere sanction to eat after worship were meant, this has already been accorded before.

What is meant by the ‘worshipping of the Gods’ here is the offering of the meat on a clean spot with the words ‘this is for the Gods’; or that ‘the worship of the Gods’ should be done in such terms as — ‘this to Agni, to Vāyu, to Surya, to Jātavedas.’ That this must be the meaning of the ‘worship’ is proved by the fact that ‘offering of oblations into the fire’ (which could he the other meaning ‘worshipping the Gods’) is not possible for persons other than Agnihotrins; nor can there be any offering made to the Gods without oblations having been poured into the fire; specially as it has been already shown that the two are distinct actions and involve distinct methods of procedure. This mutter may rest here for the present.

Others have explained the ‘worship of the Pitṛs’ to mean Śrāddha; and in Śrāddhas we do find worshipping being done. It is the Pitṛs again that are spoken of as the ‘deities’ of the Śrāddha. Hence it is that in connection with the Pitṛs, all writers on Smṛti have prescribed the Śrāddha only, and no other act.

“How can the buying of meat be permissible? The meat obtained from the market becomes ‘Sa?na’, ‘butcher’s meat’ (which has been forbidden); and as for the meat of animals dying of themselves, and not killed by the butcher, this is ‘unfit for eating’, on the ground of its causing disease.”

Our answer to the above is that one can always ‘buy’ the meat brought by fowlers and bird-catchers; and these are known us ‘butchers’; and they wander about from house to house, carrying meat for sale, when it is possible to buy it; and it does not become ‘butcher’s meat.’

‘Having obtained it himself,’ — the Brāhmaṇa by begging it’ and the Kṣatriya by hunting. — (32)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 527), which adds that ‘svayamutpādya’ refers to the Kṣatriya alone; — in Smṛtitattva (p. 449); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 582); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 276).

VERSE 5.33

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

नाद्यादविधिना मांसं विधिज्ञोऽनापदि द्विजः ।
जग्ध्वा ह्यविधिना मांसं प्रेतस्तैरद्यतेऽवशः ॥३३॥

nādyādavidhinā māṃsaṃ vidhijño'nāpadi dvijaḥ |
jagdhvā hyavidhinā māṃsaṃ pretastairadyate'vaśaḥ ||33||

In normal times the twice-born man conversant with the law shall not eat meat unlawfully; having eaten it unlawfully, he shall, after death, be devoured by them helplessly. (33)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That is called ‘unlawful’ which is done apart from the above-sanctioned occasions — of the worshipping of the Gods, the wish of the Brāhmaṇas and so forth; and in this ‘unlawful’ manner one shall not eat meat.

This is only a reiteration of what has been said before.

‘In normal times’. — In abnormal times of distress, when one’s life is in danger, he need not wait for the worship of the Gods etc.

“Danger to life has already been sanctioned as one of the occasions on which meat may be eaten; so that such eating would be quite lawful, not unlawful.”

True; but what has been said on the previous occasion was in connection with the consecrated meat of the cow, the sheep and the goat; and in the present text the phrase ‘in normal times’ has been added with a view to extend the sanction to the meat of the hare and other animals also.

It is not the mere knower of the law that is called ‘conversant with the late’ but one who, in practice acts up to the law. In connection with ordinary worldly acts also the term ‘know,’ ‘be conversant with,’ is used in this sense; when it is said of a man ‘he knows this’, what is meant is that ‘he acts up to it’.

When the question arises regarding the effect of the act in question, the text says — ‘Having eaten meat unlawfully,’ — i.e. in a manner not prescribed in the scriptures — ‘he shall, on death, he devoured’, by those animals. All that is meant — is that when a man eats meat in an unlawful manner, he suffers various kinds of pain. If these were not meant by the passage (and if it were taken in its literal sense), — then, in as much us it is the meat of the goat that is commonly eaten by people, and the goat is a not carnivorous animal [how could it ‘devour’ its eater?]

Or, the meaning may be that the eater, by virtue of the sin of that act, comes to be devoured by carnivorous animals; and as this would be the result of his having eaten the goat, he would be described as being devoured by the goat. — (33)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 531); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 449); — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 301).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, pp. 5-30). — ‘One should not eat needlessly-prepared meat.’

Āpastamba (1.16.16). — ‘He shall not eat meat which has been cut with a knife used for killing.’

Viṣṇu (51.59). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa shall never eat meat that has not been consecrated with mantras; that however which has been duly consecrated he shall eat, following the eternal law.’

VERSE 5.34

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

न तादृशं भवत्येनो मृगहन्तुर्धनार्थिनः ।
यादृशं भवति प्रेत्य वृथामांसानि खादतः ॥३४॥

na tādṛśaṃ bhavatyeno mṛgahanturdhanārthinaḥ |
yādṛśaṃ bhavati pretya vṛthāmāṃsāni khādataḥ ||34||

The sin of the man who kills animals for gain is not so great, after death, as that of the man who eats needlessly-prepared meat. — (34)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The meaning of this verse is well known — (34).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya, (Āhnika, p. 531).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vi ṣ ṇ u (51.62). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 5.35

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

नियुक्तस्तु यथान्यायं यो मांसं नात्ति मानवः ।
स प्रेत्य पशुतां याति सम्भवानेकविंशतिम् ॥३५॥

niyuktastu yathānyāyaṃ yo māṃsaṃ nātti mānavaḥ |
sa pretya paśutāṃ yāti sambhavānekaviṃśatim ||35||

But when invited according to law, if a man does not e at meat, he becomes, after death, a beast, during twenty- one births. — (35)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Sambhava’ stands for janma, birth.

Except when there is danger to life through hunger, if a man does not worship the Gods, and yet eats meat, he certainly incurs sin. — (35)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 251), which explains ‘niyuktaḥ’ as ‘invited, at a sacrifice to the gods or at a Śrāddha’; — in Mitākṣarā (on 1.179) to the effect that one must eat meat when iṅvited to a Śrāddha; — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 294) as setting forth the sinfulness of not eating the meat duly offered; — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 530), which explains ‘sambhavān’ as ‘births’; — in Smṛtitattva (p. 449); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 577); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 279), which remarks that this refers to such meat as is not forbidden.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (11.34). — ‘An ascetic who, invited to dine at a sacrifice to Pitṛs or to gods, refuses meat, shall go to hell.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 251). — ‘The man who, invited to a Śrāddha or to a sacrifice to the gods, refuses meat, shall go to hell, etc.’

Hārita and Śātātapa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 530). — ‘If one, invited to a Śrāddha, does not eat meat, one goes to hell...’

VERSE 5.36

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

असंस्कृतान् पशून् मन्त्रैर्नाद्याद् विप्रः कदा चन ।
मन्त्रैस्तु संस्कृतानद्यात्शाश्वतं विधिमास्थितः ॥३६॥

asaṃskṛtān paśūn mantrairnādyād vipraḥ kadā cana |
mantraistu saṃskṛtānadyātśāśvataṃ vidhimāsthitaḥ ||36||

The Brāhmaṇa shall never eat animals that have not been consecrated with sacred texts; but those that have been consecrated with sacred texts, he shall eat, taking, his stand upon the eternal law. — (36)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In connection with animals-sacrifice, ‘sprinkling with water’ and other consecrations have been laid down as to be done with sacred texts; and one shall eat the meat of those animals for whom all these have been performed, and which (thus) are the ‘remnants of sacrifices’ prescribed in the Vedas. But in the case of the and other sacrifices that are performed solely on the strength of usage (and for which there is no injunction in the Veda), — even though the meat would he the ‘remnant of sacrifice’, yet, since there would be no ‘consecration with sacred texts’, it would be ‘unfit for eating’.

‘Eternal’ — Vedic.

‘Taking his stand’ — dependent. — (36)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 580).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (51.59). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 5.37

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

कुर्याद् घृतपशुं सङ्गे कुर्यात् पिष्टपशुं तथा ।
न त्वेव तु वृथा हन्तुं पशुमिच्छेत् कदा चन ॥३७॥

kuryād ghṛtapaśuṃ saṅge kuryāt piṣṭapaśuṃ tathā |
na tveva tu vṛthā hantuṃ paśumicchet kadā cana ||37||

If there is occasion, he shall make an animal of clarified butter, or an animal of flour; but he shall never seek to kill an animal needlessly. — (37)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

People are likely to entertain such ideas as the following — “at the Sītā - yajña the Khañjikā-yāga, the Caṇḍikā-yāga and the like, which are performed on the authority of usage only, it is right for the man desiring a certain result to kill animals; for it has been found that one obtains a rich harvest by offering sacrifices at which animals are killed.”

With a view to set aside such notions the text says — ‘It there is occasion,’ — if necessity arises for the offering of an animal in sacrifice, — ‘he shall make an animal of clarified butter’; i.e., he shall make clarified butter the sacrificial animal: that is, it being necessary to otter an animal to the Gods, he shall offer, in its place, clarified butter: which is as good a ‘sacrificial material’.

‘Or, he shall make an animal of flour’; i.e. he shall make the figure of an animal with flour, and offer that figure to the Gods; or, it may be taken to mean that ‘instead of the animal he shall offer cakes and other things made of flour’.

“Why is this called needless animal-slaughter, when it is sanctioned by the usage of cultured people?”

Since women, and Śūdras are ignorant of the Veda, such sacrifices as those mentioned cannot be assumed to have any sanction in the Veda: specially as people have reconrse (recourse?) to these sacrifices for the purpose of propitiating the Gods, and no Vedic act is done for the propitiating of Gods; for the simple reason that in connection with Vedic rites, Gods have been mentioned as subordinate factors. In fact, what they urge in support of the performance of the sacrifices in question is the argument based upon negative and positive induction, from the experience that there is rich harvest when Gods are propitiated with the sacrifice of animals. For these reasons, these sacrifices cannot be regarded as having the sanction of the Veda. As for the positive and negative induction that also is entirely mistaken.

From all this it is clear that the present verse only reiterates what is already indicated as the right course by al (all?) kinds of reasons: and it has been put forward by the author through feelings of friendly kindliness. — (37)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Saṅge’ — ‘On an occasion arising for the killing of an animal (at a rite other than those laid down in the Veda)’ (Medhātithi); — ‘if one has a strong desire to eat meat’ (Kullūka and Nārāyanā). [It is difficult to see how a strong desire for meat could be appeased by eating animal made of butter or flour]; — ‘in the event of one being attacked by evil spirits’ (Govindarāja); — ‘on the occasion of social gatherings’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538), which quotes Kalpataru as offering the following explanation: — In such ceremonies as the Sītāyajña and the like, which are not prescribed in the Veda, and the killing of animals at which, therefore, cannot have the sanction of the Veda, — if, in view of the prevalent custom, it is found necessary to sacrifice an animal, one should offer an animal made either of butter or of flour; — it then quotes Kullūka’s explanation, — and then the one given by Medhātithi, remarking that this last is in agreement with Kalpataru, — It then goes on to describe another explanation, by which ‘Saṅge’ means ‘at a sacrifice’ and this is explained as laying down an alternative to the killing of animals at the well-known sacrifices, Agnīṣṭomīya and the rest. — This last explanation, the author rejects, on the ground (1) that there is no authority for taking the word ‘saṅge’ in the sense of sacrifice, and (2) that it would not be right for a Smṛti to lay down an alternative to a detail that has been laid down in the original Vedic injunction of the sacrifices.

VERSE 5.38

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

यावन्ति पशुरोमाणि तावत्कृत्वो ह मारणम् ।
वृथापशुघ्नः प्राप्नोति प्रेत्य जन्मनि जन्मनि ॥३८॥

yāvanti paśuromāṇi tāvatkṛtvo ha māraṇam |
vṛthāpaśughnaḥ prāpnoti pretya janmani janmani ||38||

As many hairs there are on the body of the animal, so m any times after dying does its needless killer suffer violent death, birth after birth. — (38.)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For so many lives does he suffer violent death.

‘Needless killer of the animal’, — one who kills the animal in a way not prescribed in the Śruti or the Smṛti: from the context it is clear that this refers to that animal-sacrifice which ordinary people perforin on the Mahānavamī.

The term ‘paśaghna (?)’ is a Vedic form formed with the affix ‘ka’ — (38).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. The Mahābhārata 13.93.121.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (51.60). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (1.180). — ‘The wicked man who kills animals unlawfully dwells in hell for as many days as there are hairs on the animal’s body.’

Mahābhārata (13.93.121). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 5.39

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

यज्ञार्थं पशवः सृष्टाः स्वयमेव स्वयम्भुवा ।
यज्ञोऽस्य भूत्यै सर्वस्य तस्माद् यज्ञे वधोऽवधः ॥३९॥

yajñārthaṃ paśavaḥ sṛṣṭāḥ svayameva svayambhuvā |
yajño'sya bhūtyai sarvasya tasmād yajñe vadho'vadhaḥ ||39||

Animals have been created by the Self-born God himself for the purpose of sacrifice: sacrifice is conducive to the well-being of all this would; hence killing at a sacrifice is no ‘killing’ at all — (39).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The evil just described does not pertain to the killing of animals at the rites prescribed by Śruti and S mṛti.

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