with the Commentary of Medhatithi 143 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 149 из 350Следующая ⇒

samutpattiṃ ca māṃsasya vadhabandhau ca dehinām |
prasamīkṣya nivarteta sarvamāṃsasya bhakṣaṇāt ||49||

Having duly pondered over the origin of meat, and over the fettering and killing of living beings, one should abstain from the eating of all meat. — (49)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The foetus grows in the womb, which is an unclean place: and it is produced from semen and ovule, both unclean things.

‘Fettering and killing’ — involved in the obtaining of meat.

‘Having duly pondered over’ — carefully considered with an alert mind; — ‘all this, — one shall abstain from the eating of all meat’ — i.e., also of that which is not forbidden; what to say of what is actually forbidden?

The present text is a commendatory exaggeration: it is not meant that meat should be always regarded as unclean; the sentence does not mean to lay down that all meat is actually unclean. — (49)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 5.48-49)

See Explanatory notes for Verse 5.48.

VERSE 5.50

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

न भक्षयति यो मांसं विधिं हित्वा पिशाचवत् ।
न लोके प्रियतां याति व्याधिभिश्च न पीड्यते ॥५०॥

na bhakṣayati yo māṃsaṃ vidhiṃ hitvā piśācavat |
na loke priyatāṃ yāti vyādhibhiśca na pīḍyate ||50||

He who does not eat meat like a fiend, disregarding the proper method, becomes popular among men and is not afflicted by disease. — (50)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Proper method’ — i.e., of worshipping the Gods and so forth; if one does not eat meat, regardless of this manner, but eats it only in the right manner, — ‘he b ecomes popular’ — loved by the people: he becomes dear to all.

‘He is not afflicted by disease.’ — Diseases are produced if a man eats the flesh of lean and enfeebled animals. For this reason also one should eat meat only in the right manner; and by eating it thus, he ‘is not afflicted by disease.’ By eating meat in any other way, he is always afflicted by disease.

‘Like a fiend.’ — The term ‘fiend’ stands for a species of lower animals, which eat flesh always in the wrong manner; hence every one who eats it in the wrong manner becomes like a fiend; — this is the sense of the deprecatory simile. — (50).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. The Mahābhārata 13.114.12.

VERSE 5.51

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

अनुमन्ता विशसिता निहन्ता क्रयविक्रयी ।
संस्कर्ता चोपहर्ता च खादकश्चेति घातकाः ॥५१॥

anumantā viśasitā nihantā krayavikrayī |
saṃskartā copahartā ca khādakaśceti ghātakāḥ ||51||

He who approves, he who cuts, he who kills, he who buys and sells, he who cooks, he who serves and he who eats it are ‘slayers’ — (51).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When some one is killing an animal, if another person should come, and for his own selfish purposes show his approbation, by such words as ‘he is doing well in thus killing the animal,’ — this latter man is called the, ‘approver’.

‘He who cuts.’ — he who quarters the dead body.

‘He who serves’ — places it before persons eating.

‘He who eats it’.

All these are ‘slayers’.

What is meant by attributing the character of the ‘slayer’ to those who do not actually slay, but do the other acts of eating, preparing, selling, &c., — is the deprecation of all these acts; all these persons do not actually become ‘slayers.’ The ordinary act of ‘slaying’ is that which results in loss of life: so that it is only one who does this act that is the ‘slayer.’ In accordance with the rule that ‘the nominative agent of an act is one who does it independently by himself,’ that person alone is called the ‘slayer’ who deprives living beings of their life; those who do the acts of buying, selling, etc., are other than that person.

“But the statement that the approver and the rest also are slayers also emanates from the Smṛti (and as such must be accepted as true).”

The authority of this Smṛti does not extend to the subject of words and their denotations; it is confined to the subject of right and wrong, — what is lawful and what unlawful. More authoritative on the subject of words and their meanings is the revered Pāṇini. In fact Manu and otther writers on Smṛti only make use of words in accordance with ordinary usage, and they do not lay down rules bearing upon words and their meanings; they use the words, they do not regulate them.

“But as a matter of fact, we do find these writers making such assertions as ‘such and such a person is called a Preceptor’ and so forth (which lay down the denotation of words).”

True; bat in such cases there is no inconsistency between what the Smṛti says and what we learn from the treatises bearing upon the subject. Nor again is there any other useful purpose found to be served by those passages that explain the meaning of the term ‘preceptor’ (for instance). In the present case, however the passage is capable of serving an. auxiliary purpose by bring taken as a commendatory statement; so that it is not possible, on the strength of the present text alone, to regard all. these persons as ‘slayers.’

Some people argue as follows: — “If there is no one to eat, there would be no one to kill; so that the killing is really prompted by the eating; and the prompter of an act also has been regarded as its doer; so that the eater is the slayer, even in the direct sense of this term; and it is only right that the eater should have to perform the same Expiatory Rite as the slayer.”

This, we say, is not right; because as a matter of fact, a different expiatory rite has been prescribed, under Discourse XI for the taster of the meat of the animals killed (by others).

What has been stated above regarding the prompter bring the doer, that also is not true. The prompting agent has been thus defined — ‘He who by means of direction and request, prompts the independent agent, is also an auxiliary agent, the other bring the principal one.’ And as a matter of fact when the slayer kills the animal, hie is not ordered to do so by the eater; be does it as u means of living, with the motive that he shall live by selling the flesh.

If prompting means abetting, — i.e., if it be held that when a man proceeds to do a certain act, if another person abets him and co-operates with him, the latter is to be regarded as the prompter — then, this definition also is not applicable to the present case, in the act of killing, the ‘abetting’ would consist in such acts as — (a) collecting the weapons, etc. (b) the sharpening of the blunted axe, (c) the bringing up of the sword, and so forth; as without these the act of killing could not be accomplished, [and none of these acts is done by the eater ].

If, however, the prompter be defined as ‘that person for whose take the. work is done,’ — then, in the case of the ‘teaching of the boy,’ the boy would have to be regarded as the prompting agent in the act of ‘teaching’; and yet ‘teaching’ does not mean ‘reading’ (which is what the boy actually does).

Then again, when the slayer does the killing, he does not do so for the benefit of any particular person, by virtue of which the latter’s action of eating could be regarded as sinful. In fact, all these persons undertake these acts for their own benefit; and not one of them is troubled by the idea of benefiting any other person.

“Even when the man undertakes the killing for his own benefit, such action would be absolutely useless if there were no eater: it is only when there is an eater, that the man’s action is fruitful; and the fruit of an act is the motive, the ‘prompting force; and as this depends upon the enter, the eater also is an indirect prompter.”

If this be so, then, when a person is murdered on account of enmity, since the enemy would be the prompter of the act of killing, the murdered man could become the murderer! For without enmity, the act of murder would not be possible. Similarly when in the case of Brāhmaṇa-murdcr, the murderer (in course of the Expiatory Rite) gives away his entire property, the act of giving will have been prompted by the murder: and as there could be no recipient without the giver, it is not only the re-chastity, but the giver also that would beecome tainted with the sin. Similarly a beautiful woman would incur sin by guarding her chastity against the lover who has his heart burning with the arrows of love and who has expressed his longing for her.

From all this it follows that what has been suggested cannot be the definition of the prompter.

As a matter of fact, both the slayer and the eater do their respective acts for their own special benefit: but they become helpful to one another in the manner of two persons one of whom has lost his horse and another his cart; and there can be no question of one being the prompter of the other.

This has been fully discussed under 8.104. — (51).

Comparative notes by various authors:

“In the Mahābhārata (13.114.36-49) this is ‘as told of old by Mārkaṇḍeya’.” — Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 251) — in Mitākṣarā (on 1.181), as describing the eight kinds of ‘killer’; — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 301), which has the following notes: — ‘ghātakāḥ’, partakers in the sin, — ‘anumantā’, who acquiesces in the act, — ‘viśasitā’, who cuts the limbs, — ‘nihantā’, who actually does the act that deprives the animal of the life, — ‘saṃskartā,’ who cooks the meat, — ‘upahartā’, who serves the meat.

Last Updated: 16 February, 2018

VERSE 5.52

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

स्वमांसं परमांसेन यो वर्धयितुमिच्छति ।
अनभ्यर्च्य पितॄन् देवांस्ततोऽन्यो नास्त्यपुण्यकृत् ॥५२॥

svamāṃsaṃ paramāṃsena yo vardhayitumicchati |
anabhyarcya pitṝn devāṃstato'nyo nāstyapuṇyakṛt ||52||

If a man, without worshipping the gods and Pitṛs, seeks to increase his own flesh by the flesh of others, — there is no s inner greater than that person. — (52).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This deprecates the man who eats meat for the purposc of fattening himself, and not one who does it for averting disease. That this is so is clear from the words of the text ‘he who seeks to increase.’ In him also, only if he does it ‘without worshipping the Gods and Pitṛs.’ But if the man is ill, and recovery is not possible without eating meat, then there would be no harm, even if the said worshipping were not done. — (52).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“In the Mahābhārata (13.114.14) this verse is ascribed to Nārada.” — Hopkins.

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

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (13.115.14, 36) (116.11). — (Reproduces Manu, the second line reading as ‘Nāradaḥ prāha dharmātmā niyatam sovasīdati under 14; and under 36, the second line reading as ‘udvignavāso vasati yatra yatrābhijāyate’ and under 116.16, the second line reading as ‘nāsti kṣudratarastasmāt sa nṛśaṃsataro naraḥ.’)

Viṣṇu (51.76). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (1.181). — (See above, under 47.)

VERSE 5.53

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

वर्षे वर्षेऽश्वमेधेन यो यजेत शतं समाः ।
मांसानि च न खादेद् यस्तयोः पुण्यफलं समम् ॥५३॥

varṣe varṣe'śvamedhena yo yajeta śataṃ samāḥ |
māṃsāni ca na khāded yastayoḥ puṇyaphalaṃ samam ||53||

If a man performs the Aśvamedha Sacrifice every year, for a hundred tears, — and another does not eat meat, — the merit and reward of both these are the same. — (53.)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The eating of the meat of the Hare and other animals, — in the form of remnants of the worship of Gods and Pitṛs — has been sanctioned. If one abstains from this eating, he obtains the fruits of the Aśvamedha sacrifice; and the fruits of this sacrifice have been described in the words ‘he obtains all desires, etc., etc.’

In this connection it would not be right to urge the following objection: — “How can mere abstaining from meat be equal to a sacrifice involving tremendous labour and much expense?” — Because the said abstention also is extremely difficult. Further, the principle enunciated in the Sūtra. — ‘The particular result would follow from development as in the ordinary world’ — is operative here also. Hence there can be no objection against the asserting of results or fruits of actions.

Our answer however is us follows: — What is said in the text is a purely commendatory exaggeration; socially because the statement of the sacrifice being performed ‘every year for one hundred years’ can be regarded only us such an exaggeration; for it is not possible for the Aśvamedha to be performed every year; nor can it be performed ‘for a hundred years,’ as no performer would live so long,

‘Puṇyaphalam’ is a copulative compound, it being impossible to take it us a Genitive Tatpuruṣa. — (53).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

In the Mahābhārata (13.114.15) this occurs as writer’s ‘matam mama,’ but it has ‘māse’ for ‘varṣe’ — says Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.181), to the effect that the merit of the performance of Aśvamedha accrues to one who renounces meat for a full year; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 533), which adds that according to Medhātithi, this is mere Arthavāda, and not the declaration of a result that actually follows from the act, — this being based upon the principle laid down by Jaimini under 4.3.1. It goes on to add that this view is not right; as this case is not analogous to that of Jaimini 4.3.1,

A ‘declaration of rewards’ is regarded as an ‘Arthavāda’ only when there is some other passage mentioning another reward in connection with the same act; in the present case, however, we do not find any other passage speaking of any other rewards accruing from the renouncing of meat for one year; so that this comes under the Rātrisattranyāya (Jaimini 4.3.17 et. seq.; see note under verse 40). It concludes with the remark that the reward accruing from the renouncing of meat for one year, — even though of the same kind as that following from the Aśvamedha — is of a much lower degree; — and quotes the following Kārikā of ‘Bhaṭṭapāda’ —

phalānāmalpamahatām karmaṇāṃ ca svagocare |
vibhāgaḥ snānasāmānyādaviśeṣeṇa codite |

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (13.115.10, 16). — ‘If one performs the Aśvamedha month after month, and if one eats not. meat, the two are equal. If one were to perform difficult austerities for full one hundred years, and one were to omit meat-eating, the two might or might not be equal.’

Viṣṇu (51.76). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (1.181). — (See above, under 47.)

VERSE 5.54

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

फलमूलाशनैर्मेध्यैर्मुन्यन्नानां च भोजनैः ।
न तत् फलमवाप्नोति यत्मांसपरिवर्जनात् ॥५४॥

phalamūlāśanairmedhyairmunyannānāṃ ca bhojanaiḥ |
na tat phalamavāpnoti yatmāṃsaparivarjanāt ||54||

By subsisting upon sacred fruits and roots, and by eating the food of hermits, one does not obtain that reward which he does by abstaining from meat — (54).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Sacred’ — fit for Gods.

‘Food of hermits’ — i.e., such grains as are got without cultivation; e.g., the Nirāra and the like.

This verse also is a purely commendatory exaggeration — (54)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 719), which adds that the renouncing of meat here spoken of refers to meat other than the ‘consecrated’ and the rest that have been spoken of before.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.54-55)

Viṣṇu (51.77.78). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 5.55

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

मां स भक्षयिताऽमुत्र यस्य मांसमिहाद् म्यहम् ।
एतत्मांसस्य मांसत्वं प्रवदन्ति मनीषिणः ॥५५॥

māṃ sa bhakṣayitā'mutra yasya māṃsamihād myaham |
etatmāṃsasya māṃsatvaṃ pravadanti manīṣiṇaḥ ||55||

‘Me he (māṃ-sa) will devour in the next world, whose meat I eat in this’ — this is the ‘meatness’ (māṃsatva) of the ‘meat’ (māṃsa), as the wise ones declare. — (55).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This explanation of the name is a commendatory description.

‘Māṃ sa bhakṣayitā’, — ‘He will eat me.’ — ‘The general pronoun ‘saḥ,’ ‘he,’ has its particular character pointed out by what follows — ‘whose meat I eat here.’ — (55).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. The Mahābhārata 13.116.35.

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

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.54-55)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.54.

VERSE 5.56

Section VI - Lawful and Forbidden Meat

न मांसभक्षणे दोषो न मद्ये न च मैथुने ।
प्रवृत्तिरेषा भूतानां निवृत्तिस्तु महाफला ॥५६॥

na māṃsabhakṣaṇe doṣo na madye na ca maithune |
pravṛttireṣā bhūtānāṃ nivṛttistu mahāphalā ||56||

There is no sin in the eating of meat, nor in wine, nor in sexual intercourse. Such is the natural way of living beings; but abstention is conducive to great rewards. — (56).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From verse 28 to this we have a series of purely commendatory texts; there are only two or three verses that are injunctive in their character.

‘There is no sin in the eating of meat.’ This assertion stands on the same footing as verse 32 above. What we learn from the present verse (in addition to what we know already) is that ‘abstention is conductive to great rewards.’ By various deprecatory texts the impression has been produced that ‘no meat should be eaten.’ But by way of providing a means of living for living beings it has been asserted that ‘there is no sin in the eating of meat’; which means that there is no sin if one eats such meat as is the remnant of the worship of Gods, etc., or what is eaten at the wish of Brāhmaṇas, and under such similar circumstances specified above; but this only if he wish to eat it.

‘Abstention’ — taking the resolve not to eat meat and then to abstain from it — this is ‘conducive, to great reward.’ In the absence of the mention of any particular reward, Heaven is to be regarded as the reward. So say the Mīmāṃsakas.

Similarly in regard, to ‘wine’, for the Kṣatriyas, — and to ‘sexual intercourse’, for all castes; but apart from that which may be alone (a) ‘during the day’ or (b) ‘with women in their courses’, or ‘on sacred days’, (in connection with all of which sexual intercourse has been forbidden).

The three things mentioned, here, in their very restricted forms, constitute the ‘natural way of living beings’, sanctioned by the scriptures with a view to the maintenance of the body. Says the author of the Science of Medicine (Āyurveda) — ‘Food, continence and sleep — these three, intoxicants and women, tend to prolong life.’

If, however, one can manage to live without these, for him ‘abstention is conucive to great rewards.’ This is said merely by way of illustration: same being the case with all ‘abstentions’ from such things as are neither prescribed nor forbidden. Where however a certain act is definitely prescribed, there is nothing reprehensible in the man’s doing it, even if it be done only for the Bake of the pleasure that it affords him; in fact abstention from such an act would itself be reprehensible, as done with a view to ‘great rewards’; e.g. the eating of honey, having a full meal, wearing a woolen garment and so forth. Such also is the practice of cultured people; the revered Vyāsa also says the same. Those acts, on the other hand, to which people have recourse only through desire, — even though these be neither permitted nor forbidden, — e.g. laughing, scratching of the body and so forth, — abstention born these would be conducive to great rewards, — (56)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 719) in support of the view that it is only the eating of prohibited meat that is sinful; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 537), which adds the following notes: — ‘māṃse’ — i.e., such meat as is not forbidden; — ‘madye’ — for the Kṣatriya and other lower castes ; — ‘maithune’ — i.e., such sexual intercourse as is not prohibited; — ‘nivṛttiḥ’ — i.e., the determination to renounce; — ‘mahāphalā’ — i.e., conducive to the attainment of Heaven and such other results as have been mentioned in the foregoing arthavāda passages. Medhātithi has remarked that the determination to renounce meat and other things must be regarded as conducive to Heaven only, on the basis of the principle of the Viśvajit (Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 4.3.15-16). But this is not right, as it is very much simpler to accept the rewards mentioned in the arthavāda passages as the rewards meant here, rather than assume one on the basis of the said principle.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 277), which remarks that this refers, to such meat as is left, after the offerings to the gods and Pitṛs have been made; — as regards wine, the abandoning of it is ‘conducive to great rewards’ only for those for whom wine is not forbidden, — and as regards ‘sexual intercourse,’ the abandoning that leads to great rewards is that of the intercourse which is sanctioned ‘on all except the sacred days,’ and ‘that for the sake of pleasure.’

VERSE 5.57 [Impurity due to Death]

Section VII - Impurity due to Death

प्रेतशुद्धिं प्रवक्ष्यामि द्रव्यशुद्धिं तथैव च ।
चतुर्णामपि वर्णानां यथावदनुपूर्वशः ॥५७॥

pretaśuddhiṃ pravakṣyāmi dravyaśuddhiṃ tathaiva ca |
caturṇāmapi varṇānāṃ yathāvadanupūrvaśaḥ ||57||

I am going to describe, in due order, purification on death, as also purification of substances, as prescribed for all the four castes. — (57)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘For all the four castes’. — This is meant to imply that the duties of the Śūdra, generally laid down only in a vague form, could not be known without special effort.

‘Pretaśuddhi’, — the purification of the living after the death of other persons. This compound is according to the general rule ‘A noun with a declensional ending is compounded with anther noun with a declensional ending’.

Though the author announces that he is going to describe the purification, yet, in as much ‘purification is dependent upon, and relative to, ‘impurity’, and us it is the function of the treatise to provide information regarding both, the author is going to describe first the occasions of ‘Impurity’. — (57).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Mahābhārata (13.115.14, 36) (116.11). — (Reproduces Manu, the second line reading as ‘Nāradaḥ prāha dharmātmā niyatam sovasīdati under 14; and under 36, the second line reading as ‘udvignavāso vasati yatra yatrābhijāyate’ and under 116.16, the second line reading as ‘nāsti kṣudratarastasmāt sa nṛśaṃsataro naraḥ.’)

Viṣṇu (51.76). — (Same as Manu.)

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США