with the Commentary of Medhatithi 148 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 154 из 350Следующая ⇒

The verse is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 274).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.20). — ‘When a relative who is not a Sapiṇḍa or a relative by marriage, or a fellow-student, has died, the impurity lasts for one night along with the preceding and following days.’

Gautama (14.14). — ‘If infants, relations living in a distant country, those who have renounced domestic life, and those who are not Sapiṇḍas, die, the purification is immediate.’

VERSE 5.78

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

अन्तर्दशाहे स्यातां चेत् पुनर्मरणजन्मनी ।
तावत् स्यादशुचिर्विप्रो यावत् तत् स्यादनिर्दशम् ॥७८॥

antardaśāhe syātāṃ cet punarmaraṇajanmanī |
tāvat syādaśucirvipro yāvat tat syādanirdaśam ||78||

If, within ten days, another birth or death happen to befall, the Brāhmaṇa shall remain impure until that period of ten days shall have elapsed. — (78).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Here also the mention of ‘ten days’ is meant to stand for the period of impurity ordained in each individual case. The meaning thus is that — ‘before the expiry of the period of impurity ordained for a particular ease, if another cause of impurity should come about, then purification comes with the lapse of the remainder of that period; and the second period of impurity is not to be counted from the day on which the cause shall have arisen.’ Says Gautama (14.5) — ‘If an impurity should occur again during the interval, the purification comes with the remainder of the former.’

‘Birth and Death’ being mentioned in a compound, — and it being not easy to find out in which order of sequence these are to be taken, — and intervention being possible by unlike causes of impurity also, — it is to be understood, on the authority of usage, that what is meant is intervention by a like cause of impurity (i.e. of impurity due to death by another due to death and so forth). It is in this sense that the use of the term ‘another’ becomes more justifiably significant.

The term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ also is meant to stand for persons observing the impurity.

In another Smṛti-text it has been laid down that — ‘if it happens at the close of the night, then it is in two days; and if it happens at dawn, then three days’; and having begun with the statement — ‘when the Brāhmaṇa dies, the impurity lasts for ten days’, — it goes on to say — ‘if no one dies or is born in the interval, he becomes pure after the remaining days.’ And this takes no account of any distinction between like and unlike sources of impurity. — (78).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 79 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 386), which notes that the period of ‘ten days’ here mentioned stands for all periods of impurity as laid down in the several cases, — and not for that of ‘ten days’ only; — and again on p. 388.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 622); — in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 237), in the sense that when there is a commingling of two causes of impurity, the later one lapses with the earlier; — again on p. 244 to the same effect — i. e., the period of impurity due to a later cause becomes contracted within the limits of that due to a previous cause; — and again on p. 247 to the same effect; — and in Hāralatā (p. 61), which says that the qualification ‘punaḥ’, ‘again’ applies to death only, and draws the following conclusion: — ‘If during the ten days of impurity duetto a death, another death or a birth should occur, then the impurity ceases after the end of the said ten days due to the former death;’ it goes on to say. that such is not. the case if death occur during the period of impurity due to a birth, as the impurity due to death is more serious than that due to birth, and hence cannot merge into the latter.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.6). — ‘If during a period of impurity, another death occurs, the relatives shall he pure after the lapse of the remainder of the former period.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.17-18). — ‘If a birth and a death occur together, one and the same period of ten days shall serve for both. If other births or deaths happen before the completion of the ten days of the first impurity, that first period will suffice; provided the new course of impurity occurs before the end of the ninth day.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.23-25). — ‘If during a period of impurity, another death or birth occurs, the relatives shall be pure after the expiry of the remainder of that first period. But if one night only of the first period of impurity remain, they shall be pure after two days and nights. If the second death or birth occurs on the morning of the day on which the first period expires, they shall he pure after three days and nights.’

Viṣṇu (22.35-38). — ‘If during the period of impurity due to birth, another birth occurs, then purification comes after the expiry of the first period of impurity. If the second occurs when only one night remains of the first period, then purification comes after two days. If it occurs on the morning of the last day of the first period, then after three days. Similarly on the death of a relative during the period of impurity due to death.

Yājñavalkya (3.20). — ‘If another birth or death happen during a period of impurity, one becomes purified on the lapse of the remaining daws.’

Aṅgiras (Aparārka, p. 898). — If during a period of impurity due to birth, a death occurs, — or during a period of impurity due to death, a birth occurs, — then, the impurity is to he observed in accordance with the death, not with the birth.’

Ṣaṭtṛṃśan-mata (Do.). — ‘If during an impurity due to death, a birth occurs, then purification from the impurity duo to the birth comes after the lapse of the period of impurity due to death; the birth is not purificatory of the impurity due to death.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 899). — ‘When two equal causes of impurity coalesce, the impurity should cease with the former; if they are not equal, then with the second; such is the declaration of Dharmarāja.’

Śaṅkha (Do., p. 900). — ‘If after the mother’s death the father dies, then purification comes after the lapse of the impurity due to the father’s death.’

Yama (Do.). — ‘If a cause happens lengthening the period of an impurity, the impurity should cease with what happens later. If during a three-day period of impurity, a ten-day impurity should occur, then purification comes with the end of this latter.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 900). — ‘If an impurity due to death occurs during an impurity due to death, purification comes with the lapse of the previous impurity. A shorter impurity can remove another only when the latter is a short one.’

Prajāpati (Do.). — ‘If a son happen to be born during an impurity due to another birth, then the father’s purification is immediate; he being purified by the lapse of the previous impurity. When several impurities coalesce, purification comes on the lapse of that which is the more serious; when there is coalescence of impurity due to birth and another due to death, that due to death is the more serious.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do.). — ‘There are two parts to every period of impurity; if a fresh cause of impurity happen within the first part of a previous impurity, then the purification comes on the lapse of the previous impurity; if however it happen after that, then it comes on the lapse of the second impurity. Similarly when during the impurity duo to one death, another death happens. If during the impurity due to death, a birth occurs, — or during the impurity due to birth, a death occurs, — then purification comes on the lapse of the impurity duo to death.’

Uśanas (Parāśaramādhava, p. 622). — ‘If during a shorter impurity, a longer one happens, the purification cannot come with the lapse of the former; it must take its own time.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘When circumstances prolonging the impurity occur, purification comes on the lapse of the succeeding one; but if the second impurity occurs before the fifth day of the first one, then purification comes on the lapse of the first one.’

Parāśara (3.28-29). — ‘If during the ten days of impurity, another birth or death should occur, the Brāhmaṇa shall remain impure till the expiry of those ten days.’

VERSE 5.79

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

त्रिरात्रमाहुराशौचमाचार्ये संस्थिते सति ।
तस्य पुत्रे च पत्न्यां च दिवारात्रमिति स्थितिः ॥७९॥

trirātramāhurāśaucamācārye saṃsthite sati |
tasya putre ca patnyāṃ ca divārātramiti sthitiḥ ||79||

On the death of the Teacher, they declare the impurity to last for three days; on the death of his son or wife, it lasts for one day and night; such is the law. — (79).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Teacher’, ‘Ācārya’, here stands for the Initiator: — on his death — the impurity of the pupil lasts for three days.

On the death of the Teacher’s son or wife, — it lasts for one day and night. — (79).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 80 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 187), and again on p. 912, where it is added that the rule herein laid down, is meant for the case where the pupil does not perform the antyeṣṭi for the Teacher; in a case where he does perform it, it involves an impurity extending over full ten days, as declared above, under verse 64.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.24), which also makes ṭhe same remark as Aparārka; — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 380); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 431); — in Hāralatā (p. 76), which explains the second half as — ‘on the death of the Teacher’s son, from whom one has not read anything, the impurity lasts for one day and night, and so also on the death of the Teacher’s wife, other than the one for whom Gautama has prescribed an impurity of three days’; — in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 37); — and in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 63).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.28). — ‘If the Teacher, his son or wife, or a person for whom one sacrifices, or a pupil (has died, or been carried), the impurity lasts three days.’

Baudhāyana (1.11-28). — ‘For a Teacher, a Sub-teacher and their sons, three days and nights.’

Viṣṇu (22.42). — ‘On the death of the Teacher or the maternal grand-father, in three days.’

Viṣṇu (22.44). — ‘On the death of the Teacher’s wife, the Teacher’s son, the Sub-teacher, the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the wife’s brother, fellow-student and pupil, — purification comes after one day and night.’

Yājñavalkya (3.21). — ‘On the death of the Teacher, the pupil, the Exponent of Veda, the maternal uncle and the Vedic scholar, purification comes after one day.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.4.19, 21). — ‘Ten days after the death of a Guru who is no Sapiṇḍa three nights after the death of the Teachers.’

Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.7.9-10). — ‘When the Teacher has died, for ten days (the Veda shall not be read); — when he has heard of it, for three days.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2.11.7). — ‘If his Guru has died, let him go down into water and interrupt study for ten nights.’

Gobhila G ṛhyasūtra (3.3.26). — ‘Three days, if his Teacher has died.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 913). — ‘One shall remain impure for three nights, on the death of the maternal grand-father, the Teacher and the Vedic scholar.’

Uśanas (Aparārka, p. 913). — ‘On the death of the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the friend, the guru, the guru’s wives, — the impurity lasts for one night along with the preceding and following days.’

VERSE 5.80

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

श्रोत्रिये तूपसम्पन्ने त्रिरात्रमशुचिर्भवेत् ।
मातुले पक्षिणीं रात्रिं शिष्यर्त्विग्बान्धवेषु च ॥८०॥

śrotriye tūpasampanne trirātramaśucirbhavet |
mātule pakṣiṇīṃ rātriṃ śiṣyartvigbāndhaveṣu ca ||80||

In the case of a learned companion, one shall remain impure for three days; in the case of a maternal uncle, a pupil, an officiating priest and relation, for a night along with the two days (preceding and following it). — (80).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Learned’ — Who has studied the Vedic text.

‘Companion’ — who, through friendship, has been living with one. Or ‘upasampanna’ may mean endowed with good character.

What has been said before (Verse 70) regarding the case of ‘fellow-students’ pertains to those who have not yet got up the entire Veda.

In lexicons the term ‘upasampanna’ appears as a synonym for ‘dead’; but in view of the long period of impurity laid down (which would not be compatible with the case of a stranger), the former explanation is the better of the two.

Others construe the text otherwise — explaining it to mean that ‘the impurity lasts for three clays in the case of the learned maternal uncle’ and ‘for a night along with the two days in the case of the pupil, etc.’

The term ‘relation’ stands for the wife’s brother, the son of the maternal aunt and so forth.

When we connect the ‘maternal uncle’ with‘the night along with the two days’, — then, since this period would be already applicable to the case of the maternal uncle by reason of his being a ‘relation’, the separate mention of him should he taken as making the rule compulsory in his case; and this would mean that in the case of other relations, it would be discretionary. — (80)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 81 of others.)

‘Upasampanne’ — (a) ‘who lives with one out of friendship or on business’ or (b) ‘endowed with good character’ (Medhātithi); — (c) ‘neighbour’ (Nārāyaṇa); — (d) ‘dead’ (suggested but rejected by Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.24), which adds the following notes: — ‘Upasampanna’ means either ‘related by friendship or neighbourliness’ or ‘possessed of good character’; — the ‘mātula’ includes the maternal cousin and other relations of that kind, and the ‘bāndhava’ stands for one’s own ‘bāndhava’ as also those of his father and mother; — in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 129), which explains ‘npasampanna’ as ‘living in one’s own house’, i.e., if a Vedic scholar living in one’s house happens to die etc.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 610), which explains ‘Śrotriya’ as standing for one who has learnt the same rescensional text as the person himself, — ‘Upasampanna’ as one who is endowed with friendliness or neighbourliness; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 431), as laying down the rule relating to the case of the highly qualified Śrotriya, or such near relations as the maternal uncle and the like; it explains ‘upasampanna’ as one endowed with friendliness or with good qualities; — and in Hāralatā (p. 76), which adds the explanation: — ‘on the death of a Vedic Scholar belonging to another family in one’s own house, — or on that of a Vedic Scholar who is a near neighbour (‘upasampanna’) etc.’ — and in the case of the mother’s uterine brother, if the death takes place in another place, the impurity lasts for two days and one night, — ‘Śiṣya’, one who, though initiated by some one else, has learnt, from one a portion of the Veda, or the subsidiary sciences — in this case also the impurity lasts for two days and one night, — ‘ṛtvik’ one who has officiated at one’s sacrifices, — ‘bāndhava’, blood relation.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.20, 22). — ‘The impurity lasts for a night along with the preceding and following days, on the death of a relative who is not a Sapiṇḍa, or a relative by marriage, or a fellow-student; for one day, on the death of a Śrotriya dwelling in the same house.’

Baudhāyana (1.11-29, 30). — ‘For three days, on the death of an officiating priest; of a pupil, of one who has the same spiritual guide, of a fellow-student, three days, one day and night, one day and so forth.’

Viṣṇu (22.44). — ‘he becomes pure in one day, on the death of the wife or son of his Teacher, or on that of his Subteacher, or his maternal uncle, or his father-in-law, or a brother-in-law, or a fellow-student, or a pupil.’

Yājñavalkya (3.24). — ‘For one day, on the death of the guru, a pupil, an Exponent, a maternal uncle, or a Vedic scholar.’

Pracetas (Parāśaramādhava, p. 610). — ‘On the death of the mother’s sister, the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the mother-in-law, the guru, the officiating priest and the person for whom one officiates, — purification is obtained in three days.’

VERSE 5.81

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

प्रेते राजनि सज्योतिर्यस्य स्याद् विषये स्थितः ।
अश्रोत्रिये त्वहः कृत्स्नमनूचाने तथा गुरौ ॥८१॥

prete rājani sajyotiryasya syād viṣaye sthitaḥ |
aśrotriye tvahaḥ kṛtsnamanūcāne tathā gurau ||81||

On the death of the King in whose realm he lives, it lasts till the light; in the case of a non-learned teacher, for the whole day; as also in the case of the (ordinary) teacher. — (81).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The name ‘rājan’ is really applied indirectly to the man of a particular caste as endowed with the qualifications of anointment and the rest; that it is so is clear from the clause‘in whose realm he lives.’ In fact when the word signifies the lord of a country belonging to a particular caste, it does so only by indirect indication, and not by direct denotation.

‘Till the light’ — i.e., it continues along with the light. That is, if the death occurs during the day, the impurity lasts during the day only, and it does not go on into the night; similarly if the death occurs at night, it lasts during the night only, and does not extend to the day. The fact that the text has used this peculiar expression — ‘sajyotiḥ’, ‘till the light’ — in the present context (when only day, and only night are meant), — is indicative of the fact that whenever the term ‘day’ or ‘night’ is used, it means both day and night; e.g., in verses 5.66 and 5.59. in 5.64 also, where the term ‘night’ is used in addition to the term ‘day’, it is added only for the purpose of filling up the metre.

At night, the ‘light’ is that of fire, as we rend in the Brāhmaṇa-text bearing upon the Agnihotra — ‘The night becomes resplendent with the light of fire, not with the light of the Sun.’

In the case of the ‘non-learned’ — who does not study the Veda — ‘teacher’ — it lasts during the whole day; it does not extend to the night, even when the cause of impurity happens during the night.

“How can a ‘non-learned’ man be a ‘teacher’? In fact it is only one who has learnt the Veda along with its subsidiary sciences that is entitled to do the work of teaching.”

True; but a mere expounder is also called a ‘teacher.’ Hence what is meant is that ‘in the case of the person who has, somehow, learnt the subsidiary sciences (without learning the Veda) and expounds them, the impurity lasts during the day.’ That this must be the meaning is indicated by the fact that there is a distinct rule reference to the Teacher who is properly qualified, or to the Initiating Preceptor, who is the principal object of reverence.

Some people connect the negative prefix in ‘non-learned’ with the term ‘teacher’; and explain the rule laid down as referring to ‘the learned man who is the teacher of other persons, and bears no relation to the person concerned’. — (81).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 82 of others.)

‘Anūcāne tathā gurau’ — ‘A guru who expounds the Veda along with the subsidiary sciences’ (Govindarājā, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘the guru and the person capable of expounding the Veda’ (Nārāyaṇa); — Medhātithi construes ‘anūcāne’ with ‘aśrotriye’,and explains it to mean ‘one who, though not learned in the Veda, is yet conversant with the subsidiary sciences’; — Nandana (and also ‘others’ in Medhātithi) read ‘agurau’, and explains ‘anūcāne agurau’ ‘one who is learned in the Vedas and its subsidiaries, but is not one’s guru’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 215), which explains ‘Sajyotiḥ’ as that impurity which lasts ‘as long as the light’, of the sun, or of the stars; — in Mitākṣarā, which also explains the meaning to be that the impurity lasts as long as the light; i. e., if death has occurred during the day, then it lasts till sunset, while if it has occurred during the night, then as long as the stars are visible; — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 613), which offers the same explanation, and in the same words, as Mitākṣarā; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 435), which explains the term ‘Sajyotiḥ’ as ‘lasting as long as the light’, and adds — ‘during the day, it lasts till sunset, and during the night, till sunrise’; — and in Hāralatā (p. 76), which adds the following explanation: — That Kṣatriya king in whose territories one lives, if such a king, who is not a Vedic Scholar, dies, then the impurity is ‘Sajyotiṣ’, i.e., if the death occurs during the day, it lasts as long as the sun is visible, and if it occurs during the night, then as long as the stars are visible, — if the said king is an expounder of the Veda, the impurity lasts the whole day and night, — ‘anūcāna’ is one who has studied the Veda and is capable of expounding it, — similarly if the ‘guru’ dies, the impurity lasts the whole day and night, ‘guru’ is one who has taught a little of the subsidiary sciences.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (22-45, 46). — ‘The impurity lasts for one day, when the king of that country in which one lives has died; likewise if a man not his Sapiṇḍa has died at his house.’

Yājñavalkya (3.25). — ‘Purity is attained on the same day, in the case of the death of the king in whose realm one lives.’

VERSE 5.82

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

शुद्ध्येद् विप्रो दशाहेन द्वादशाहेन भूमिपः ।
वैश्यः पञ्चदशाहेन शूद्रो मासेन शुध्यति ॥८२॥

śuddhyed vipro daśāhena dvādaśāhena bhūmipaḥ |
vaiśyaḥ pañcadaśāhena śūdro māsena śudhyati ||82||

The Brāhmaṇa becomes pure in the days, the Kṣatriya in twelve days, the Vaiśya in fifteen days and the Śūdra in a month. — (82).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The alternative rales — limiting the period of impurity to ‘three days’, ‘four days’ &c., — have been laid down above, in consideration of the character and learning of the persons concerned; and the present verse is added with a view to preclude those alternatives from the Kṣatriya and other castes. The mention of ‘ten days’ in regard to the Brāhmaṇa however is a mere reiteration.

In this connection the following question is likely to arise — “What is the text that restricts the period of impurity for the Kṣatriya to twelve days (or of the Vaiśya to fifteen days, and so forth) compulsorily, on the strength whereof the present verse is taken as precluding the other alternatives from them?”

This present text itself serves to indicate the time mentioned as applying to those castes. And in the face of this text, the other periods of ‘ten’ days and so forth, wherever mentioned, are understood to be merely indicative of the period specified for each caste. As a matter of fact, however, even in the presence of the present verse, the mention of ‘ten days’ need not be taken to be indicative (as just stated). For even though the section as a whole may pertain to all four castes, yet the alternatives mentioned can pertain only to that caste for whom the period of ‘ten days’ has been laid down. In another Smṛti-text it is with special reference to the Brāhmaṇa that it has been asserted that — ‘the Brāhmaṇa may resume Vedic study after one day’; and it is to this that all the other alternatives mentioned in other Smṛti texts have to be taken as optional. In any case, on the eleventh day there is no impurity at all.

The author of the Vivaraṇa says that in the present verse special significance is meant to be attached to the use of the term ‘day’ (and it is the day that is meant, as distinguished from the night); so that there is no impurity on the tenth night; and hence it is only right and proper that invitations to the śrāddha on the eleventh day should be issued on the previous day. When a person is going to set up the Fire, the impurity shall be wiped off by the vigil kept daring the previous night.

This however is not right. If the term ‘day’ meant the day only, then on the other days also there would be no imparity daring the nights. It might be argued that those intervening nights would (all within the period of impurity by virtue of the general rule that ‘impurity due to death lasts for ten days’ (5.59). But what is the authority for denying a similar significant to the term ‘day’ in this context also?

Is is for these reasons that we have explained that throughout this context the word ‘day’ stands for the day and night. It is for this reason that in the preceding verse, where the day only is meant, we have the epithet ‘whole’, ‘kṛtsnam’ added to it. — (82).

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману