with the Commentary of Medhatithi 142 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 148 из 350Следующая ⇒

That ‘killing’ which forms part of sacrifices, — for the due fulfilment of that were animals ‘created’ — produced, brought into existence, — ‘by the self-born God’ — Prajāpati ‘himself.’

This is a purely commendatory passage.

‘Sacrifice’ — in the form of the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest — ‘is conducive to the well-being’ — prosperity, development, advancement — ‘of all this’ — world.

For this reason the killing that is done at a sacrifice should be regarded as no killing at all. What this means is that it does not involve the sin of ‘killing’ animals. — (39)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Ityapi śrūyate śrutiḥ is the end of this verse instead of svayameva svayambhuvā as found in the Mahābhārata, 13.116.14. Quite a number of Manu’s verses are cited as Śruti in the Epic.” — Hopkins.

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

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (51.61). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 5.40

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

ओषध्यः पशवो वृक्षास्तिर्यञ्चः पक्षिणस्तथा ।
यज्ञार्थं निधनं प्राप्ताः प्राप्नुवन्त्युत्सृतीः पुनः ॥४०॥

oṣadhyaḥ paśavo vṛkṣāstiryañcaḥ pakṣiṇastathā |
yajñārthaṃ nidhanaṃ prāptāḥ prāpnuvantyutsṛtīḥ punaḥ ||40||

Herbs, animals, trees, beasts and birds, reaching death for the sake of sacrifices, attain advancements. — (40)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“How is it known that killing at sacrifices involves no sin?”

The answer is as follows: — ‘killing’ is the greatest injury that can befall the being killed; because it involves such great evil as the loss of life, involving separation from wife, children and riches, and all the attendant evil consequences; and also because it carries the entities nearer to the fruition of their sins in the form of hell and the like. But when an animal is killed at a sacrifice, this killing becomes a great benefit conferred upon it, and it is not an injury; because it does not lead it to hell nr any such undesirable conditions. That this is so follows from the fact that those ‘reaching death’ — destruction — at a sacrifice — ‘attain advancements’ — higher positions, in regard to caste and so forth; — being born as a God or a Gandharva, or as men born in better countries or continents — such as the Uttarakuru and the like.

The whole of this is a purely commendatory description. We do not find here any Injunction: the verb ‘attain’ being in the simple Present tense. Nor is there any justification for deducing an Injunction from the commendatory description, — as is done in the case of the passage ‘Pratitiṣṭhanti etc.’ (v ide, Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, 4.3.17. et seq); because in the present case neither there is, nor is there any possibility of, any other Injunction (apart from those already set forth in the text).

The whole of this descriptive section is supplementary to the prohibition of the eating of unlawful meat; and the upshot of the prohibition contained in these verses is that ‘one should never seek to kill animals needlessly.’ (verse 37) As for the sanction (of killing) implied in the statement — ‘animals have been created for the purpose of sacrifices’ (39), — all this is understood as involving the prohibition of eating which is going to be distinctly emphasised below in verse 48.

Nor can any Injunction (such as ‘desiring advancement, the animal shall die at a sacrifice’) be deduced from the text. Because such an Injunction could not be intended for the animals; for the simple reason that they would not understand it. And those for whom the Injunction is not intended cannot be the agent; and unless one is an agent, he cannot obtain any reward declared in the scriptures. Specially as in the present case, the result spoken of does not proceed in any perceptible manner from the nature of the thing involved; as there is, for instance, in the case of the poison, which produces its results even on ignorant persons who take it. There is no such thing in the case of things spoken of in the Veda.

Further, since the herbs and other things spoken of here ore unconscious beings, the ‘principle of the priests’ cannot apply to their case. That is to say, it is found that in the case of sacrificial performances, results are spoken of as accruing to one person (the sacrificer) from the acts that are actually done by others, — i. e., the priests officiating for him; e.g., in the case of the passage — ‘he desires one to become worse etc,’ In the case of such passages we admit of an Injunction, because what is there stated is not capable of being taken as supplementary to any other Injunction, and secondly because the indication of the Injunction, is quite clear, and lastly, because the Injunction indicated is found to be one that pertains to human beings.

In the case of all scriptural statements, we are entitled to deduce just as much us may be reasonably deduced from the actual words of the text. For instance, it has been declared that the Brāhmaṇa joining in the sacrificial bath of other people should have to perform an expiatory rite [and we have to accent this, even though we fail to see any reason for it]. In the present case, however, there is no possibility of any Injunction being addressed to the beings concerned (all of which are inanimate).

‘Herbs,’ — grass and the like.

‘Animate,’ — the goat and other beasts (which are mentioned as fit for being offered at sacrifices).

‘Trees,’ — such as are objects of worship.

‘Beasts,’ — those which, though not ordinarily regarded as fit for sacrificing, happen to be mentioned, in some passages, as to be offered; e.g., ‘one shall kill partridges.’ Though at the Vājapeya and similar sacrifices, the calves are used only for the purpose of carrying loads, yet they are called ‘beasts;’ and even though these do not suffer actual death, yet the term ‘death’ in their case stands for all the sufferings that they undergo.

‘Bird.” — the Kapiñjala and the rest; even though these are sometimes spoken of as ‘animals’, yet, as a rule, they are not known by that name: for in such passages as there are seven tame animals and seven wild animals’, the animals meant are the cow and the rest, which are not birds; in fact the term ‘paśu’, ‘animals, denotes quadrupods; or the difference between ‘animals’ and ‘birds’ may be regarded as similar to that between the ‘go’ and the‘balvarda’ (the former term being wider than the latter) (40).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538), which explains ‘ucchṛtiḥ’ as ‘advancement’.

Medhātithi (P. 403, l. 22) — Pratitiṣṭhantītivat’ — This refers to Mīmāṃsā Sūtṛa 4.3.17 et. seq., which embodies what has been called the ‘Rātrisattra-nyāya’. In connection with the ‘Rātri’ offerings, it is said that ‘he who offers these obtains respectability &c.;’ and in regard to this the question arises whether this latter passage is a mere arthavāda, or it describes the result that really follows from the offerings; and the conclusion is that, inasmuch as no other mention of the result of the offerings is found anywhere, the passage in question must be taken as describing the results actually following from them.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (51.63). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 5.41-42

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

मधुपर्के च यज्ञे च पितृदैवतकर्मणि ।
अत्रैव पशवो हिंस्या नान्यत्रैत्यब्रवीन् मनुः ॥४१॥

एष्वर्थेषु पशून् हिंसन् वेदतत्त्वार्थविद् द्विजः ।
आत्मानं च पशुं चैव गमयत्युत्तमं गतिम् ॥४२॥

madhuparke ca yajñe ca pitṛdaivatakarmaṇi |
atraiva paśavo hiṃsyā nānyatraityabravīn manuḥ ||41||

eṣvartheṣu paśūn hiṃsan vedatattvārthavid dvijaḥ |
ātmānaṃ ca paśuṃ caiva gamayatyuttamaṃ gatim ||42||

At the Madhuparka offering, at sacrifices, and at the rites in honour of the Pitṛs, — at these alone should animals be killed, and nowhere else: thus has Manu declared — (41)

The twice-born person, knowing the real import of the Veda, killing animals on these occasions, carries himself and the animal to the most excellent state. — (42).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present text sums up in brief those occasions on which the killing of animals is sanctioned by the scriptures.

‘Madhuparka’ — has been already described. At this the killing of the calf has been enjoined.

‘Sacrifice’ — such as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the like; the eleventh stage of which consists of the animal-sacrifice; as also the Paśubandha, at which the sacrificing of the animal forms a sacrifice by itself.

‘Rites in honour of the Pitṛs,’ — i.e., those of which the Pitṛs are the ‘deities’; what are meant are the Aṣṭaka and other offerings of the kind, and not Śrāddhas; because these latter are laid down as to be performed with cooked meat, (for which the meat could be obtained otherwise than by actually killing the animal at the rite itself): and in connection with this the killing of animals has not been enjoined; nor will it be right to regard this (injunction regarding the offering of cooked meat) as implying the killing of animals: because the original injunction of the Śrāddha does not lay clown such killing. Further, the present verse also does not clearly enjoin it: specially as what is here mentioned is capable of being taken as pertaining to the Aṣṭaka offerings. If the present verse were an injunction, it would involve the necessity of seeking for its basis (in some Vedic text): while, as we shall explain later on, it is capable of being construed as supplementary to another Injunction.

Some people explain the term ‘pitṛdaivatakarma’ as standing for the rites performed in honour of the gods and the Pitṛs i.e., the Great Sacrifices (daily).

Animals are to be killed by Brāhmaṇas for the ‘support of their dependents,’ and the killing of animals is also permitted at times of distress, when life may be in danger — (41-42).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verse 5.41)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 154), as setting aside the view that ‘the offering of Madhuparka does not necessarily involve the killing of the animal’; — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).

(verse 5.42)

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

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verse 5.41)

Viṣṇu (51.64). — (Same as Manu.)

Vaśiṣṭha (4.6). — (Same as Manu.)

Śāṅkhāyuna-Gṛhyusūtra (2.16.1). — (Same as Manu.)

(verse 5.42-46)

Viṣṇu (51.65-69). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 5.43

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

गृहे गुरावरण्ये वा निवसन्नात्मवान् द्विजः ।
नावेदविहितां हिंसामापद्यपि समाचरेत् ॥४३॥

gṛhe gurāvaraṇye vā nivasannātmavān dvijaḥ |
nāvedavihitāṃ hiṃsāmāpadyapi samācaret ||43||

Living in his house, or with his teacher, or in the forest, the self-controlled twice-born person shall not, even in times of distress, do that killing which is not sanctioned by the veda. — (43).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse forbids such killing as is not sanctioned by the Veda, it is not meant, to sanction that which is already sanctioned by it.

As a matter of fact, no other killing (save what is sanctioned) is possible in the case of the Student ‘living with his teacher,’ or of the man performing austerities ‘in the forest;’ even though some sort of killing may be possible for the incontinent Student, yet for the Hermit in the forest it is not possible in any case. Even for the Student, an absolute indifference to life (and livelihood) is not considered desirable. Hence the present verse should he treated as the Injunction of killing at Śrāddhas; and the mention of the ‘house’ is a mere reiteration (Śrāddhas being performed only by the Householder).

Some people argue here as follows: — “if this were such an Injunction, what would be the meaning of the terms ‘in the forest’ and ‘in times of distress’? For the Recluse in the forest, even though keeping up his Fire, there are no animul-sacrifices: as we shall show under 6.11.”

Our Teacher however gives the following explanation; — What is urged may be true of the Student: as regards the Recluse, even ‘self-abandonment’ has been enjoined by such texts as ‘having recourse to the Aparājitā, etc. etc.’ So that for him there can be no killing for saving his life; all this we shall clearly explain under 6.31.

“The present verse puts forward the prohibition of killing even in times of distress; how then is it that you take it to mean the permission of it at such times?”

True; but otherwise (if the text were not taken as permitting killing as sanctioned by the Veda), it would be useless. It might be argued that it could serve the purposes of a commendatory text. But even for a commendatory text, some sort of basis (some injunctive text to which it is supplementary) will have to be sought out. Hence we conclude that the prohibition contained in the verse relates to normal times — other than those of distress; and there is nothing incongruous in its being sanctioned in connection with abnormal times of distress. Further, there are various degrees of ‘distress’; and under the lesser forms of it, if one would take to ‘killing’ animals for food under the consideration that his food-supply was sufficient only for a month or a fortnight (after which he will have nothing to eat), — then such killing (even though at an abnormal time of distress) would be what is forbidden by the present text; on the other hand, if the man fears that he would die now if he did not kill for food, — or if a desperado with uplifted weapon were attacking him, — then the killing has to be done; and it is this killing in abnormal times of distress that is permitted by the text.

In this manner the Vedic text ‘one should protect himself from all things’ also becomes reconciled. (43).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

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

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verse 5.42-46)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.42.

VERSE 5.44

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

या वेदविहिता हिंसा नियताऽस्मिंश्चराचरे ।
अहिंसामेव तां विद्याद् वेदाद् धर्मो हि निर्बभौ ॥४४॥

yā vedavihitā hiṃsā niyatā'smiṃścarācare |
ahiṃsāmeva tāṃ vidyād vedād dharmo hi nirbabhau ||44||

That killing which is sanctioned by the Veda has been eternal in this world of mobile and immobile beings: it is to be regarded as no killing at all; since it was out of the Veda that the Law shone forth. — (44).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The killing of creatures which has been prescribed in the Veda, ‘has been eternal’ — without beginning — ‘in this world of mobile and immobile beings;’ on the other hand, that which is laid down in the Tantra and other works is modern, and based upon mistaken induction. Hence it is only the former that is to be regarded as ‘no killing at all’; and this for the reason that it does not involve any sin in reference to the other world. When this killing is called ‘no killing,’ it is only in view of its effects, and not in view of its form (which of course is that of killing ).

“Since both acts would be equally killing; how can there be any difference in their effects ?”

The answer to this is — ‘because it was out of the Veda that the Law shone forth’; — the promulgation of what is lawful (right) and what is unlawful (wrong) proceeded from the Veda; human authorities not being at all trustworthy. And as a matter of fact, the Veda is found to declare that in certain cases, killing is conducive to welfare. Nor is there an absolute identity of form (between the two kinds of killing); because firstly there is the difference that, while one is done for the sake of accomplishing a sacrifice, the other is done for entirely personal motives; and secondly there is difference in the intention also, that is, ordinary killing is done either by one who desires to eat meat, or by one who hates the creature (killed), while the Vedic killing is done because the man thinks that ‘it is enjoined by the scriptures’.

‘Shone forth’ — Shone fully; i.e., became manifested. — (44).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

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

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verse 5.42-46)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.42.

VERSE 5.45

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

योऽहिंसकानि भूतानि हिनस्त्यात्मसुखैच्छया ।
स जीवांश्च मृतश्चैव न क्व चित् सुखमेधते ॥४५॥

yo'hiṃsakāni bhūtāni hinastyātmasukhaicchayā |
sa jīvāṃśca mṛtaścaiva na kva cit sukhamedhate ||45||

He, who kills harmless creatures for the sake of his own pleasure, never attains happiness, living or head — (45).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

A half-syllable — ‘a’ — should be understood to be present (between ‘go’ and ‘hiṃsakam’). The prohibition regarding ‘harmless creatures’ indicates that there is no prohibition regarding dangerous animals, such as serpents, tigers and the like. — (45).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

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

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verse 5.42-46)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.42.

VERSE 5.46

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

यो बन्धनवधक्लेशान् प्राणिनां न चिकीर्षति ।
स सर्वस्य हितप्रेप्सुः सुखमत्यन्तमश्नुते ॥४६॥

yo bandhanavadhakleśān prāṇināṃ na cikīrṣati |
sa sarvasya hitaprepsuḥ sukhamatyantamaśnute ||46||

He, who does not seek to inflict sufferings of capture and death on living beings, is the well-wisher of all and obtains perfect happiness. — (46).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“Capture” and ‘death’ are the ‘sufferings’ meant; or ‘sufferings’ may be taken separately, as standing for ‘doing pecuniary harm’ etc.

He who seeks to do all this , — i.e., who not only desists from such acts, but who never has any desire to do it; — such a person does not merely cense, to do harm to others, he actually becomes their ‘well-wisher’, — he is anxious to do good to them; and ‘he obtains perfect happiness’ — (46).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 539).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verse 5.42-46)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.42.

VERSE 5.47

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

यद् ध्यायति यत् कुरुते रतिं बध्नाति यत्र च ।
तदवाप्नोत्ययत्नेन यो हिनस्ति न किं चन ॥४७॥

yad dhyāyati yat kurute ratiṃ badhnāti yatra ca |
tadavāpnotyayatnena yo hinasti na kiṃ cana ||47||

He who does not injure anything obtains, without effort, what he thinks of, what h e undertakes, and what he fixes his heart upon. — (47).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘What he thinks of’, — in the shape of profit and honour, &c.

‘What he fixes his heart upon’, — whatever desirable thing he has longing for; — all this ‘he obtains without effort.’

‘What he undertakes’ — whatever art he does, the reward of that he obtains, without and difficulty, immediately after the accomplishment of that act. — (47)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.181) as laying down the indirect result of avoiding the killing of animals.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (51.70). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (l.181). — ‘The self-controlled Brāhmaṇa, even though living in the house, obtains all desires and also the reward of Aśvamedha sacrifice, if he gives up meat.’

Bṛhaspati (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 536). — ‘If the non-greedy man cats not meat, even though he is ill or has been invited, he obtains, without effort, the reward of the Aśvamedha sacrifice.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika). — ‘The approver, the cutter, the killer, the buyer, the seller, and the cooker — all these are slayers......the eater is the seventh and the worst of all.’

VERSE 5.48

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

नाकृत्वा प्राणिनां हिंसां मांसमुत्पद्यते क्व चित् ।
न च प्राणिवधः स्वर्ग्यस्तस्मान् मांसं विवर्जयेत् ॥४८॥

nākṛtvā prāṇināṃ hiṃsāṃ māṃsamutpadyate kva cit |
na ca prāṇivadhaḥ svargyastasmān māṃsaṃ vivarjayet ||48||

Meat is never obtained without having encompassed the killing of animals; and the killing of animals does not lead to heaven; hence one should avoid meat. — (48)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse show’s that all the verses forbidding the killing of animals are auxiliary to the prohibition of meat-eating.

As a matter of fact, until animals have been killed, meat cannot be obtained; and killing is very painful. Hence one should avoid meat.

“Meat can be obtained from animals that die of themselves; how is it then that it is said that it cannot be obtained without encompassing the death of animals?”

The verse is a purely commendatory exaggeration. Further, there can be no idea of any one eating the meat of animals dying of themselves, for the simple reason that such meat is the source of disease. Meat is never eaten without being offered, and what is a source of disease can never be offered as gift.

‘Utpadyate’; — the meat is brought about by killing; hence the nominative of hilling and of obtaining may be regarded as one and the same; so that there is nothing incongruous in the expression ‘nākṛtvā utpadyate’. Or, ‘utpadyate’ may be construed along with ‘does not lead to Heaven.’ What is meant is, not only that it does not lead to heaven, but also that it leads to hell and other evils. — (48)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 5.48-49)

These verses are quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 719), which adds that the prohibition contained here pertains to the eating of meat obtained by such killing of animals as is prohibited, — and not to that of meat obtained by purchase; and this on the ground that it is prefaced by the deprecating of the act of killing.

VERSE 48 only is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 279).

VERSE 5.49

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

समुत्पत्तिं च मांसस्य वधबन्धौ च देहिनाम् ।
प्रसमीक्ष्य निवर्तेत सर्वमांसस्य भक्षणात् ॥४९॥

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры