with the Commentary of Medhatithi 145 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 151 из 350Следующая ⇒

Objection. — “in the present context we do not find any prohibition of touching [how then can the text just quoted be taken as pertaining to touchability alone]?”

But in another Smṛti-text we read — ‘The touching of the body is permitted after the bones have been collected;’ and also elsewhere — ‘The Brāhmaṇas become touchable in three or four days; while at birth or death, purification comes in eleven days; in the case of the Kṣatriya there is touchability on the sixth or seventh day, and their food becomes pure in twelve days; in the case of the Vaiśya, touchability comes on the eighth or ninth day, but their food is pure in a fortnight; the Śūdra becomes touchable on the eleventh or twelfth day and the purification of his food comes about in a month.’ So says Hārīta; and yet another text also — ‘The touchability of the different castes comes about in three, four, five and six days respectively; the food of the Brāhmaṇa becomes eatable in ten days, and that of the other castes two, three and six days later’.

The several alternatives mentioned in the above texts are he taken as based upon the exigencies of individual cases, as also upon the higher or lower qualifications of the persons concerned; e.g. the hired slaves of the Brāhmaṇa remain untouchable for time or four days, while-their born slaves become touchable immediately. Similarly, in the case of the other cutes also.

Wherever ‘immediate purification’ is mentioned, them should be bathing with all the clothes on.

As regards the purification of material substances, — all details are going to be explained later on.

Among girls also, the ‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship’ extends to three degrees. As says Vaśiṣṭha — ‘For women who have got sons it is known to extend to three degrees.’ This limited ‘sapiṇḍa- relationship’ in the case of women however refers only to Impurity; as regards marriage what its extent should be has been already indicated before.

The final conclusion thus is that the seventh degree is the limit, and the persona up to and including the sixth degree are ‘Sapiṇḍas’. This is what is meant by the words — ‘it ceases with the person in the seventh deree (decree?).’

‘The Samānodaka’ relationship — i.e. the name ‘Samānodaka’ — ‘when the origin and the name become unrecognisable.’ — ‘Origin’ — ‘such a person is born in my own family’; — ‘name’ — ‘he is descended from the father named so and so, and the grandfather named so &; so’; — when both these are ‘unrecognisable.’ That is, when either of these happens to be unknown, then also, the name in question is not applicable.

In the case of persons within the limits of ‘Samānodaka-relationship,’ all that people should do is to enter a river or some other water-reservoir, till the water reaches up to the navel, — they should face the south and, having offered water with the right hand upward, without looking back, should return home. — (60)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 893), as providing the definition of the ‘Samānodaka’ relationship, and explains the meaning to be that this relationship subsists among all those people who clearly recognise a common ancestor; — in Mitākṣarā (on 1.253); — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 590); — in Vyāvahāramayūkha (p. 63) which, construes ‘Saptame’ as ‘Saptame atīte,’ so that the seventh also becomes included in ‘Sapiṇḍa’ relationship; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 427); — in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 37), which says that ‘vinivartate’ is to be construed with the second line also; — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 230), which says that from the point where ‘Samānodaka’ relationship ceases, ‘Sagotra’ relationship alone remains; — in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 104), which quotes Medhātithi to the effect that all those who are descended from the great-grandfather of one’s own great-grandfather are his ‘Sapiṇḍas’; — in Hāralatā (p. 96), which has the following note: — Six ancestors beginning from one’s father are his ‘Sapiṇḍa,’ the seventh ancestor is not ‘Sapiṇḍa’; and the reason for this lies in the fact that one’s three immediate ancestors — father, grandfather and great-grandfather — are entitled to receive the ‘piṇḍa’ from him, and the next three ancestors — i. e., the father, grandfather and great-grandfather of the great-grandfather, — are entitled to the ‘smearings of his piṇḍa;’ while the seventh ancestor is not entitled to any share of Piṇḍa; it adds that the man himself is ‘Sapiṇḍa’ of his own six ancestors; — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 52), which explains that the ‘Sapiṇḍā’ relationship ceases in one’s seventh ancestor, and ‘Samānodaka’ relationship extends upto that person who is known to be descended from ‘my such and such ancestor,’ and from the point where no such descent can be specifically pointed out, that relationship ceases and beyond that all are ‘gotraja’ only; — in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 256), which reproduces Medhātithi’s remark quoted above; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 181); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 209b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.13). — ‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship ceases with the fifth or the seventh degree.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.2). — ‘Amongst Sapiṇḍas, Sapiṇḍa-relationship extends to the seventh degree.’

Āpastamba (2.15.2). — ‘On account of the blood-relations of his mother, and of his father, within six degrees, — or as far as the relation is traceable (he shall bathe, if they die).’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.17-18). — ‘It has been declared in the Veda that Sapiṇḍa-relationship extends to the seventh degree; that for married females, it extends to the third degree.’

Viṣṇu (22.5). — ‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship ceases at the seventh degree.’

Parāśara (1.3.8). — ‘In the case of descendants of a different caste, the Sapiṇḍa-relationship (and the consequent impurity) ceases with the fourth degree; one’s descendant in the fifth degree, becomes excluded from the Sapiṇḍa-relationship.’

Matsyapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 589). — ‘Those beginning with the fourth ancestor, are Partakers of the Smearing; those beginning with the father, are Partakers of the Balls; the offerer of the hall himself is the seventh; thus does Sapiṇḍa-relationship extend over seven degrees.’

Paiṭhīnasī (Do., p. 590). — ‘The Sapiṇḍa-relationship ceases beyond three from the mother and five from the father.’

Vṛddha-Parāśara (Do., p. 589). — ‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship ceases with the seventh degree, in the case of their being all of the same caste; in the ease of their being of different castes, it ceases with the fourth degree.’

VERSE 5.61

Section VIII - Sapiṇḍa: relationship as bearing on ‘Impurity’

जननेऽप्येवमेव स्यान् मातापित्रोस्तु सूतकं ।
सूतकं मातुरेव स्यादुपस्पृश्य पिता शुचिः ॥६१॥

janane'pyevameva syān mātāpitrostu sūtakaṃ |
sūtakaṃ mātureva syādupaspṛśya pitā śuciḥ ||61||

Thus also should it be at a birth; but the parturient disability attaches to the parents only; or, the parturient disability would attach to the mother alone, and the father would become purified by bathing. — (61)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The same rule holds good regarding ‘birth’ among Sapiṇḍas. Just as in connection with death several alternative periods of impurity have been laid doom, in consideration of one’s livelihood depending upon the six acts (of giving and receiving gifts and so forth), and also upon the vastness or purity of one’s Vedic learning, — exactly the same holds good regarding cases of birth also; all that is meant to be applicable to the case of birth is impurity pure and simple, without any qualification of time; so that no specifications being found to be indicated here, the case of birth, through its own inherent aptitude, becomes connected with all that has been said (in the way of qualifications and limitations) in connection with death. On the other hand, if the words of the text were taken to indicate the application, to the case of birth, of impurity as specially limited by a particular period of time, then it would be connected only with the period of ten days, which is the principal alternative laid down; and in that case this same period would apply to the case of Vedic Study &c. also. Or, by the closer proximity of the mention of the alternative of the single-day-period, the case of birth would become connected with this latter period only; and thus having its wants supplied by this, it would have no connection with the other alternative periods of ‘three days’ and the rest. And in that case, even in the face of the limitations and restrictions due to livelihood and study, the present text would lay down the same single alternative in connection with both death and birth, and would, irrespective of all qualifications of the persons concerned, become conditioned by their caste only, and thus become incongruous and opposed to usage.

“Under this explanation, the alternative periods of three days and the rest would become applicable also to the women that have been delivered; and this would be contrary to all usage.”

The answer to this is as follows: — This would be the case only if what is laid down in the present verse (regarding the delivered woman) were an optional alternative. As a matter of fact however, the rule laid down is absolutely fixed. It is only thus that the use of the term tu “but” becomes justified.

Then again, the term ‘sūtaka’ used in the text does not directly denote impurity; it could only indirectly indicate the impurity as related to parturition (which is what is directly express sed by the word). But through indirect indication it would be far more reasonable to make it express untouchability, which is more nearly related to parturition. If all kinds of impurity were meant, then the author would have used the word ‘āśauca’ ‘impurity’, itself; and the line would have read ‘āśaucam mātureva syāt.’ From all this it follows that another Smṛti-text having laid down three days (for both parents), and the present text making no mention of any such period, what is here said regarding the ‘parturient disabiliy’ attaching ‘to the mother only’ is an optional alternative. So that between the father and the mother the option applies to the father only.

The father becomes pure after having bathed. This is only by way of a piefatory (prefatory?) statement; from what follows in the next verse the father also remains untouchable for three days. (61).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi and Govindarāja omit the first line of 61 and the first line of 62; so that in the place of 61 and 62, they read only one verse made up of the second lines of both 61 and 62.

This verse is quoted in Hāralāta, (p. 15), which explains ‘evameva’ as standing for ‘ten days’ and other periods; — and in Śuddhimayūkha, (p. 37).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.14). — ‘The rules regarding impurity caused by death of a relation are applicable to that caused by the birth of a child also; — in this case, the impurity falls on the parents, — or on the mother alone.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.1). — ‘Referring to births and deaths, they declare that the impurity of Sapiṇḍas lasts ten days.’

Do. (1.11. 19-23). — ‘On a birth indeed, the parents become impure for ten days; some declare that the mother alone becomes impure, because people avoid only lying-inwomen; others say that the father alone becomes impure, because the semen is the chief cause, the Veda speaking of sons born without mothers. Hut the correct opinion is that both the parents become impure, because they are equally connected with the event.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.20-22). — ‘The rule regarding impurity should bo exactly the same on the birth of a child, for those men who desire complete purity, — or for the mother and the father alone; according to some for the mother only; they quote the following text: — “On the birth of a child, the male does not become impure, if he does not touch the female.”’

Parāśara (3.31). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.10). — ‘The impurity (on birth) attaches to the parents; but most certainly and completely to the mother. On the day of the birth however there is no impurity; since on that day the ancestors are born.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 896). — There is no impurity for the male, if he has no contact with the female.’

VERSE 5.62 [Other forms of Impurity]

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

निरस्य तु पुमांशुक्रमुपस्पृस्यैव शुध्यति ।
बैजिकादभिसम्बन्धादनुरुन्ध्यादघं त्र्यहम् ॥६२॥

nirasya tu pumāṃśukramupaspṛsyaiva śudhyati |
baijikādabhisambandhādanurundhyādaghaṃ tryaham ||62||

The man, having emitted semen becomes pure by bathing; hence, on account of seminal filiation he should observe impurity for these days. — (62)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

While laying down purification after three days, the author permits the purification by bathing, which has been spoken of above. If it be asked — “why should this be stated?” — the answer is that it is stated in the form an injunction; by way of a commendatory assertion, and not a regular injunction, just as in the case of the Vedic passage ‘jartilayavāgvā va juhuyāt

‘Having thrown out semen’, — after emission daring the act of sexual intercourse, — the man becomes pure by bathing.

‘Hence, on account of seminal filiation’; — ‘Seminal’ means pertaining to the semen; — fitiliation means begetting of the child; and in the event of this, why should he not ‘observe’ — keep up — ‘the impurity for three days.’ The impurity due to child-birth is not of the same kind as that which attaches to the man who has emitted semen and has not taken a bath; in fact it lasts for three days. The period of ‘three days’ mentioned here is a reiteration of the same as occurring in the preceding verse. For this same reason the ‘upaspṛśya’ in the present verse is taken to mean bathing and not merely water-sipping; specially in view of the assertion that ‘s??na, ‘birthing,’ has been enjoined for the man who has had sexual intercourse.

Some people hold that when a son is born to a man, he becomes touchable on that same day. As says Śaṅkha — At the birth of a boy, before the placenta has been severed, there is nothing wrong in the man receiving, on that same day, the gift of sugar, sesamum, gold, cloth, clothes, cows and grain, — so say some: and again — ‘for this reason that day is sacred, enhancing as it does the pleasure of the forefathers: and because it reminds one of his ancestors, there is no impurity attaching to that day.’ In fact some people-even go to the length of performing śrāddhas on that day. From this it follows that in such cases there is no impurity attaching to the father at all.

In fact the two Smṛti- texts just quoted are to be taken as providing optional alternatives, in consideration of the man having, or not having, means of living (other than the receiving of gifts). — (62).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 63 of other commentators.)

According to the interpretation of Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, the two halves of this verse are distinct, the first half laying down that the man who emits semen is purified by bathing, and the second half that he who begets a child is purified after three days. According to Medhātithi however, the first half supplies the reason for what is asserted in the second half. (See Translation).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 606), which explains ‘baijika-sambandha’ as ‘janyajanakabhāva,’ ‘the parental relationship.’

The Hāralatā, which has both lines of (62) explains the meaning as — ‘The untouchability due to death pertains to all sapiṇḍas, and that due to birth pertains to the parents of the child only, but the full period (ten days) of ‘impurity’ attaches to the mother only, that attaching to the father disappears immediately on bathing.

VERSE 5.63

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

अह्ना चैकेन रात्र्या च त्रिरात्रैरेव च त्रिभिः ।
शवस्पृशो विशुध्यन्ति त्र्यहादुदकदायिनः ॥६४॥

ahnā caikena rātryā ca trirātraireva ca tribhiḥ |
śavaspṛśo viśudhyanti tryahādudakadāyinaḥ ||64||

Those who touch this corpse become pure after one day and one day along with three three-day periods; those who offer water, after three days. — (63).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Three three-day periods’ — i.e., nine days; — along with one day and one night, — make up ten days. The period has been mentioned in this fashion in view of metrical exigencies.

‘Those who touch the corpse’ — i.e., those who wash and adorn the dead body. Mere bathing is going to be laid down later on, for the other persons touching the body, as also for those who carry it; as will be made dear from the next verse.

All this refers to the Samānodaka relations as also to those who carry the body for wages received. In regard to the carrying of the dead of helpless and forlorn persons, we have another Smṛti — text, which says — ‘For such persons who do the excellent deed (of carrying the dead body of a helpless man), there is nothing wrong, nor is there any impurity involved, for them it has been ordained that they are immediately purified by bathing in water.’ As regards the assertion of the text under 5.100 — ‘He who carries the dead body of a Brāhmaṇa, who is not his Sapiṇḍa-relation, becomes purified in three days’ — what this means we shall explain under that verse.

‘Those who offer water’ — i.e., the ‘Samānodaka’ relations. In connection with these, ‘immediate purification’ also is going to be laid down under verse 77. Hence the two should be regarded as optional alternatives.

What is said here is in connection with ‘sapiṇḍa’ relations and refers to persons not engaged in Vedic study. — (63)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 64 of other commentators.)

“According to Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa, the rule refers to such Brāhmaṇas who for money carry a dead body to the cemetery according to Kullūka and Rāghavānanda, to Sapiṇḍas who in any way touch a corpse out of affection; — Medhātithi thinks that it applies to all who touch or cany out a dead body, be it for love or for money. Rāghavānanda thinks that the text mentions three alternative periods of impurity, one day, three days and ten days.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 883), which explains it as laying down the period of impurity of ten days for those who touch a dead body; it explains ‘ahnā chaikena rātryā’ as meaning ‘one day and night,’ and ‘tribhiḥ trirātraiḥ’ as ‘nine days’; — thus ten days is the period of impurity (for the Brāhmaṇa) touching the dead body of the Brāhmaṇa; for the Brāhmaṇa carrying for money the dead body of other castes, the period extends to that which has been prescribed for that caste — says the Viṣṇupurāṇa; — Aparārka quotes the verse again on p. 893 to the effect that the period of impurity, for Samānodakas is only three days.

It is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 382), which also explains it as laying down a period of ten days.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.23.10, 27). — ‘On touching a corpse from an interested motive, the impurity lasts for ten days. The duration of the impurity of a Vaiśya and of a Śūdra (in the same case), twelve days, or half a month, or a whole month, or as many days as there are seasons in the year: The same rule applies to the higher castes. Or the impurity-lasts three days.’

Yājñavalkya (3.11). — ‘For those who have touched a corpse as a duty, and who desire immediate purification, such purification is accomplished by Bathing and Breath-control.’

Parāśara (Mitākṣara, 3, 14). — ‘Those twice-born persons who carry the dead body of a Brāhmaṇa become purified immediately by bathing.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 883). — ‘If a man, on payment, burns the dead body of a person of a different caste from himself, the period of his impurity will be the same as that prescribed for the caste of the dead.’

Parāśara (Aparārka, p. 883). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa is not defiled by touching or cremating a dead body: if he carries it and applies fire to it, he becomes purified immediately by bathing.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘Those who have touched the corpse shall not enter the village till the stars become visible; and at night, till the appearance of the sun.’

VERSE 5.64

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

गुरोः प्रेतस्य शिष्यस्तु पितृमेधं समाचरन् ।
प्रेतहारैः समं तत्र दशरात्रेण शुध्यति ॥६४॥

guroḥ pretasya śiṣyastu pitṛmedhaṃ samācaran |
pretahāraiḥ samaṃ tatra daśarātreṇa śudhyati ||64||

The pupil performing the ‘Pitṛmedha’ for his dead Teacher becomes purified in ten days; just as those who carry the dead body. — (64)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Pitṛmedha’ — i.e., the final sacrificial offering; others hold that the term stands for the entire procedure (of the Śrāddha); — performing this, the pupil becomes purified in ten days. This same rule applies to the Student also.

‘Just as those who carry the dead body’; — for those who take out the dead body, the period is ten days; and so it is for the pupil also. — (64).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 65 of other commentators.)

‘Pitṛmedha’ — The Antyeṣṭi (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘the entire Śrāddha ceremony’ (‘others’ noted by Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 912), which says that the ‘guru’ meant here is Ācārya, and that ‘Pitṛmedha’ is Antyeṣṭi; — in Mitākṣarā (on 3.24), to the effect that if the pupil performs Antyeṣṭi of his guru, then he is to be impure for ten days; — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 381) as reiterating the ‘ten-day’ period for all carriers of the dead body, the ‘pupil’ being mentioned only by way of illustration.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (22.85). — (Same as Manu.)

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.4.19). — ‘Ten days after the death of a Guru who is nut a Sapiṇḍa.’

Yājñavalkya (3.24). — ‘In the case of the Guru, the disciple, the Expounder of the Veda, the maternal uncle and the Vedic Scholar, — there is purification in a single day.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 913). — ‘For three days one remains impure, on the death of the maternal grandfather, the Ācārya and the Vedic Scholar.’

Uśanas (Aparārka, p. 913). — ‘On the death of the maternal uncle, the Father-in-law, the friend, the Guru and the Guru’s wife, and the maternal grandmother, one is impure for a night along with the clay preceding and following it.’

VERSE 5.65

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

रात्रिभिर्मासतुल्याभिर्गर्भस्रावे विशुध्यति ।
रजस्युपरते साध्वी स्नानेन स्त्री रजस्वला ॥६५॥

rātribhirmāsatulyābhirgarbhasrāve viśudhyati |
rajasyuparate sādhvī snānena strī rajasvalā ||65||

In the case of miscarriage, the woman becomes pure in so mamy days as there have been months; and the woman in her courses becomes fit by bathing after the ceasing of the menstrual flow. — (65)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case of miscarriage, the purification, that comes after as many days as the months of pregnancy, can pertain only to the woman: us it is the woman that is directly spoken of in the verse. The rule for the purification, in this case, of her Sapiṇḍa-relation has to be sought from other Smṛtis and from usage. Vaśiṣṭha (4. 34) however has laid down the period of three days for all Sapiṇḍas — ‘In the case of the death of a child less than two years old, and also in the case of miscarriage, the impurity lasts for three days.’

It is regarded as a case of ‘miscarriage,’ when it happens after three months and before the tenth month; others hold that it is to be so regarded when it happens before the ninth month. What is called ‘srāva’ (lit. flowing out) here is discharge before the right time, and not necessarily the flowing out of a liquid substance.

In connection with miscarriage, Gautama also has declared that ‘the period lasts for as many days as there have been months’ (14-15).

As a matter of fact, children born in the seventh month live; hence if miscarriage takes place in the seventh month, the period of impurity is full (ten days). But this is so only if the child is born alive; otherwise it is to be as many days as there have been months.

For the woman in her courses it has been ordained that she is purified by bathing after the flow has ceased; while another Smṛti text says that she becomes pure in three days. On this point the final conclusion is as follows: ‘Before three days, even though the flow may cease, she is not pure; while after three days she becomes pure even though the flow may not have ceased.’ In the text however, though the term used first is ‘becomes pure’, we find word ‘fit’ (sādhvī) used in connection with the menstruating woman; and this means that so long as the flow has not ceased, she is not fit for participating in the Vedic rites; and it does not mean that she is untouchable; as it has been declared that ‘the first four days have been condemned.’ The construction thus is — ‘The woman in her courses, on the ceasing of the flow, by bathing, becomes fit’ — i.e., fit for participating in religious rites.

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии