with the Commentary of Medhatithi 149 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 155 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 83 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 245) as laying down the period of impurity for each several caste; — in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p.288); — in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 64); — in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 115); — in Dānakriyākaumudī (p. 21); — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 6), which says that the meaning is that on the death of a Sapiṇḍa who is over six years and two months of age, — for the survivor who is ignorant of the Veda and has not set up the fires, but has passed through all the sacramental rites, the impurity in the case of the Brāhmaṇa lasts for ten days; — it adds that if death occurs before sunrise, then the preceding day is to be counted among the ten, — if the survivor is an Agnihotri or Vedic scholar, it is over in a single day; — and in Hāralatā (pp. 4 and 9).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.2-5). — ‘The impurity of the Kṣatriya lasts for eleven days; of a Vaiśya, twelve days, or according to some, half-a-month; and that of a Śūdra, a whole month,’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.26-29). — ‘A Brāhmaṇa is freed from impurity, after ten days; a Kṣatriya, after fifteen days; a Vaiśya, after twenty days, a Śūdra, after a mouth.’

Viṣṇu (22.1-1). — ‘The impurity of a Brāhmaṇa caused by the birth or death of Sapiṇḍas lasts ten days; of a Kṣatriya, twelve days; — of a Vaiśya, fifteen days, of a Śūdra, a month.’

Yājñavalkya (3.22-23). — ‘The impurity lasts for twelve days for the Kṣatriya, fifteen days for the Vaiśya, thirty days for the Śūdra; but only half the time, if the person affected is one who remains firm in law.’

Aṅgiras (Aparārka, p. 911). — ‘On the death of a Brāhmaṇa after tonsure, his relations are purified in three days; on that of a Kṣatriya, in six days; on that of a Vaiśya, in nine days; on that of a Śūdra less than three years old, in five days; on that of one three years old, in twelve days; on that of a Śūdra more than six years old, in a month.’

Ṛṣyaśṛṅga (Aparārka, p. 912). — ‘In eases where the impurity of the Brāhmaṇa lasts three days, that of the Śūdra lasts twelve days; and that of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, for six and nine days respectively.’

VERSE 5.83

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

न वर्धयेदघाहानि प्रत्यूहेन्नाग्निषु क्रियाः ।
न च तत्कर्म कुर्वाणः सनाभ्योऽप्यशुचिर्भवेत् ॥८३॥

na vardhayedaghāhāni pratyūhennāgniṣu kriyāḥ |
na ca tatkarma kurvāṇaḥ sanābhyo'pyaśucirbhavet ||83||

One should not prolong the days of impurity; nor should he interrupt the rites performed in the fires; because he who performs those rites, even if he be a Sapiṇḍa, would never he impure. — (83).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some people may entertain the following notion: — “The various alternatives that have been laid down regarding the period of impurity extending to three days, &c., all stand on an equal footing with the alternative of ‘ten days,’ and their adoption is not regulated by considerations of character and study, etc.; so that the observing of the longer period being open to me, why should I have recourse to the alternative of ‘one day’, which would entail the trouble of resuming my studies sooner? I shall have recourse to the alternative of ‘ten days’, and shall enjoy the pleasure of having nothing to do for a longer period.”

It is for the benefit of such a person that the author, moved by sympathy, makes it clear that the optional alternatives are regulated by other considerations; and that they do not all stand on the same footing. In what way they are regulated has been already shown by us.

If this be not the meaning of the present advice, and if it mean something else, — what possibility would there be of any prolongation of the period that has been specifically fixed for each individual? And it is only with such a possibility that there could be room for the advice contained in the present verse. What harm could there be in the author making still clearer what he has already said before (regarding the regulation of the optional alternatives)?

Some people hold that — even after the prescribed number of days have elapsed, purification is not accomplished until bathing and other rites have been performed; as it is going to be asserted that ‘the Brāhmaṇa becomes pure after touching water, etc.’ (Verse 98); and some one may think that so long as he remains impure he would not incur any sin by the omission of religious duties, and hence he may not proceed to take the bath or other rites; — and it is in view of such cases that we have the injunction that ‘one should not prolong the days of impurity,’ — the meaning being that the stipulated days having elapsed, one should not delay the external purifications.

As regards the assertion that — “the use of the term day implies that there is no impurity on the night of the tenth day,” — it has already been pointed out that this view is not correct. Says Gautama (14.6) — ‘If during one impurity another source of impurity should arise, there is purification after the remainder of the former’; and having said this, he thought that people might be led to think that if the second impurity should arise about the end of the last night, there would be purification after that night, and in order to guard against this he has added — ‘if it happens about the end of the night, then after two nights’ (14.7) [From which it is dear that the lost night also falls within the period of impurity].

‘Nor should he interrupt the rites performed in the fires.’ — This is said in view of the fact by reason of impurity all the rites prescribed in the Śruti and the Smṛti become precluded. The meaning is that the rites that are performed in the fires, — such as the Evening-libation and the rest — should not be interrupted, — i.e., shall not be omitted. ‘Interruption’ means omission, non-per formance.

But this does not mean that the impure man should himself perform the rites; since it is added — ‘he who performs the rites, even if he be a Sapiṇḍa, would never be impure’; which means that ‘even a Sapiṇḍa-relation would not be impure, to say nothing of other persons’; says the Gṛhyasūtra also — ‘They should perform in the house-fire the obligatory rites, with the exception of the Vaitāna -rite’; and then — ‘others would perform these.’ This does not refer to the mere offering of libations that is done in connection with the setting up of the fires, but to the performance of the rite in all its details; since it is only for these that the employment of other agents is possible, since the principal libation itself, which consists in offering certain substances, can be offered by the householder himself. Hence the rites that are precluded (daring impurity) are those of the Vaiśvadeva-offering and the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices. Of other nets, such as the telling of beads, the saying of Twilight Prayers and so forth, — the preclusion of these has nowhere been indicated; and all these are obligatory. Hence what the present taxt does is to permit the performance of other acts; specially as another Smṛti text has prohibited such acts as ‘the offering of libations and Vedic study.’ Thus then, the distinction (as to what acts are precluded and what not) is based upon the obligatory or voluntary character of the acts themselves; specially as the voluntary act tending to the accomplishment of desired ends should never be done, since impurity deprives the man of the title to perform all such acts.

“But the impure man cannot be entitled to the performance of the obligatory acts either.”

As a matter of fact, purity does not constitute an essential factor in the rites; and though an obligatory act may be done even in a slightly deficient form (due to the lack of purity, for instance), such is not permissible in the case of voluntary acts done with a view to definite ends. It might be argued that they also might be performed, on the strength of the present text itself. But this would not be right; for all that the present text permits is getting certain rites performed by proxy; and as this in itself would be a deficiency, it would be admissible in the case of the obligatory rites only, and not in that of voluntary ones.

With regard to the Vaiśvadeva offering however, there is a difference of opinion. Some people quote the following Smṛti -text — ‘At a birth or a death, one shall not pour libations into fire, even with dry grains or fruits, nor should he perform any sacrificial rites.’

From all this it follows that one should offer the following the Twilight-libations, the Dūrśa-Purṇamāsa sacrifices, the Annual Śrāddha, the Śrāddha offered in the month of Āśvina and so forth. As for the Upākarma, its performance depends upon the lunar asterism and it need not be done on the full-moon-day. — (83.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 84 of others.)

‘Pratyūhenṅāgniṣu kriyāḥ’ — Medhātithi has been misrepresented here, not only by Buhler, but by Kullūka also. There is nothing in Medhātithi to show that Sandhyopāsana should be omitted for ten days. Nor is there any difference in the interpretation of Medhātithi and that of Kullūka and others. (See Translation.)

‘Sanābhayaḥ’ — ‘Sapiṇḍa’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda); — ‘Sahodara’, ‘uterine brother’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 891), which adds the following notes: — With a view to remaining idle, without having to perform his religious duties, one should not prolong the days of impurity; nor should he abandon those necessary acts that are prescribed to be performed in the śrauta fires, — e.g., the Agnihotra offerings; the meaning is that all those should be done even during the days of impurity; — the second half is added in anticipation of the objection that “in view of the rule whereby impure men are not entitled to the performance of religious acts, it would be right to abandon the acts during the period of impurity.” What is meant is that it is quite true that the impure m an should not perform religious acts; but on the strength of the special texts (like the present one) hearing upon certain Well defined acts, one would be justified in concluding that he is not ‘impure’, so far as the performance of these acts is concerned. — The use of Atmanepada form ‘kurvāṇaḥ’ makes it clear that the actual performer of the religions acts is not impure — even though the person dead or born be a very near relation of his, — in fact he is quite pure. Inasmuch as this absence of impurity refers to the performer himself, it follows that so far as officiating at the performance of other persons is concerned, the near relations of the dead or the born must be regarded as impure and unqualified.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.17), in support of the view that there is no impurity regarding the performance of those religious acts that are compulsory, the voluntary ones, however, which are done for the purpose of gaining reward, should not be performed during impurity; — and it adds that since the text specifically mentions the acts done ‘in the fires’, it follows that the ‘five great sacrifices,’ which are not done in fire, should cease during impurity.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 254) as affording justification for the coalescing of ‘impurities’ due to more than one cause; — in Hāralatā (pp. 7 and 25), which notes that the expression ‘tat karma’ implies that the impurity means incapacity to perform such acts as Fire-kindling, gifts, Homa and so forth, and adds the following notes: — ‘aghāhāni’, days of impurity, those should not be prolonged by the Agnihotrin, for whom its curtailment is justified by distinct texts; and he should never observe the full period of ten days, — even dining the curtailed period, he should not entirely stop the offerings into the Fires, he should have this done through Brāhmaṇas belonging to other gotras and hence not suffering from the same disabilities, — and the reason for this lies in the fact that in the performance of the said acts of disablity does not attach even to the Sapiṇḍa, — what to say of persons of other gotras?

It is quoted also in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 278), which explains ‘sanābhayaḥ’ as Sapiṇḍa, — ‘tatkarma’ as officiating as a priest, — the disability due to impurity does hot attach to him, if no person of other gotras is available for the work, — such is the implication of the particle ‘api’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (3.17). — ‘One should continue to perform all the fire-worship, as also all those acts that are enjoined in the Veda.’

Vyāghrapāt (Aparārka, p. 892). — ‘During the period of impurity one should stop all smārta rites; but for the purpose of śrauta rites, one becomes pure immediately, by bathing.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (3.13.31-34). — ‘During the period of impurity, one should not carry on Vedic study one should intermit the daily rites, with the exception of those performed with the help of the śrauta fire, or with that of the domestic fire, according to some: — others should perform those for him.’

Jābāla (Aparārka, p. 892). — ‘During the impurity due to birth and death, there is no intermission of rites performed in the śrauta fire; as regards the domestic fire, libations into it should be poured by persons belonging to another gotra.’

Bṛhaspati (Do.). — ‘During impurity due to birth or to death, one shall not abandon the fire-offerings, he shall have them offered by others.’

Jātūkarṇya (Do.). — ‘During an impurity, Piṇḍayajña, Caru-Yajña, and Homa, should be got done by a person not belonging to the same gotra.’

Saṃvarta, (Do.). — ‘The Homa-offerings should, during impurity, be made with dry grains or fruits; but the performance of the five Great Sacrifices should be intermitted. For ten days, the Brāhmaṇa shall desist from the Vaiśvadeva offering.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Do.). — ‘O king, the offering of the twilight-prayers should he done at all times, except during impurity.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.). — ‘During impurity, one shall only offer water with the Sāvitrī and meditating upon the sun, offer his obeisance.’

Pulastya (Do. p. 893). — ‘The twilight-prayers, the Iṣṭi, the Caru and Homa one should perform all through life; even during impurity one shall not omit these During impurity due to death or birth, one should not omit the twilight prayers; the Brāhmaṇa shall repeat the mantras only mentally — even so omitting the Breath-suspension.’

VERSE 5.84

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

दिवाकीर्तिमुदक्यां च पतितं सूतिकां तथा ।
शवं तत्स्पृष्टिनं चैव स्पृष्ट्वा स्नानेन शुध्यति ॥८४॥

divākīrtimudakyāṃ ca patitaṃ sūtikāṃ tathā |
śavaṃ tatspṛṣṭinaṃ caiva spṛṣṭvā snānena śudhyati ||84||

After having touched the Cāndāla, the menstruating woman, the outcast, the woman in child-bed, the dead body, or toucher thereof — one becomes pure by bathing. — (84).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘divākīrti’ is the cāṇḍāla; that it is so is clear from the fact that he is mentioned along with the worst untouchables, and also from the use of the name in the Mahābhārata, in course of a conversation between the Cat and the Mouse — ‘at that time the Divākīrti became oppressed with fear’ (where it is the cāṇḍāla that is clearly meant). It cannot stand for the barber here; for the barber is among the touchables, and also because he is one whose food may be eaten (by the Brāhmaṇa). As for the rule laying down the necessity of bathing after a shave, this cannot be put forward in the present context, as the bathing in this case is necessitated by the consideration that, while one is shaving hairs are bound to fall on the body, and as, on falling from the body, they are unclean, it is necessary that one should bathe.

‘Tatspṛṣṭinam’, ‘the toucher thereof.’ — This compound is to be expounded as — ‘tasya spṛṣṭam, tadasyāsti’. The men who touch those mentioned above have also got to bathe.

Some people argue that, as the persons mentioned are not all in equal proximity to the term ‘tatspṛṣṭinam,’ ‘the toucher thereof,’ this refers to the ‘dead body’ only, and not to the ‘Cāṇḍāla’ and the rest. But others hold that since all are mentioned in the same sentence, and since the term occurs at the end of all the other persons mentioned, all these are present before the mind, and hence referred to by the pronoun ‘thereof‘; so that the construction intended is that all the terms up to ‘śaram’, ‘the dead body’, form one copulative compound, and then compounded with ‘spṛṣṭinam’, ‘toucher’; and hence when the term ‘the toucher thereof’ comes up, all the things spoken of by all the members of the copulative compound come to the mind. There is, on the other band, nothing to indicate that the term ‘toucher’ is to be connected with the ‘dead body’ only; for the simple reason that it is equally connected with the ‘outcast’ and the rest also. In fact, all that is clearly indicated is that the term ‘toucher’ is connected with some other term that has gone before; in a copulative compound however, each term is regarded as denoting all the things spoken of; and hence all these latter are equally closely related to the term ‘toucher’. Another construction that might be suggested is to construe the term ‘toucher thereof’ with the term ‘dead body’, and then with the other terms. But in this case, there would be nothing to justify the connection of the term ‘toucher’ with the ‘outcast’ and the rest.

From all this it follows that it is only on the strength of usage that a right conclusion can be arrived at. — (84)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 85 of others.)

‘Tatspṛṣṭinam’ — ‘One who has touched these, i.e., the Divākīrti and the rest’ (Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana); ‘one who has touched a corpse’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is.quoted in Aparārka (p. 921), which adds the following: — Even though through its proximity to the term ‘śava’, ‘tatspṛṣṭinam’ would appear to mean ‘one who has touched a śava’, yet inasmuch as the ‘Divākīrti’ and others mentioned before also belong, like the corpse, to the category of ‘unclean things’, it is only right that one who touches the person that has touched all those should bathe. This agrees with Medhātithi.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3. 30) to the effect that even when between the man and an unclean thing, there interposes a living thing (like the man who has touched the unclean things) the man has to bathe.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 258) to the effect that the man who touches one who has touched the Divākīrti and the rest, should bathe; i.e., the touch of an unclean thing defiles also when it is indirect, being interposed by a living object (like the man touching the Divākīrti &c.).

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 202), which explains Divākīrti as ‘Chaṇḍāla’; — and in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 54), which reproduces the note made by Madanapārijāta is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 257), which explains ‘divākīrti’ as ‘Chaṇḍāla’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 796); — in Śuddhikaumudī. (p. 327), which explains ‘divākīrti’ as ‘chaṇḍāla’; — in Ācāramayūkha (p. 42); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 159 and 468), which explains ‘tatspṛṣṭin’ as ‘one who has touched a dead body’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.30). — ‘On touching an outcast, a Caṇḍāla, a woman impure on account of confinement, a woman in her courses, or a corpse, — and on touching persons who have touched them, — he shall purify himself by bathing in his clothes.’

Baudhāyana (1.9.5). — ‘On touching a tree standing on a sacred spot, a funeral pyre, a sacrificial post, a Caṇḍāla, or a person who sells the Veda, — a Brāhmaṇa shall bathe in his clothes.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.36). — ‘On touching one who sells the Veda, a sacrificial post, an outcast, a funeral pyre, a dog or a Caṇḍāla, he shall bathe.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.37). — ‘When he has touched a sacrificial post, a pyre, a burial ground, a menstruating woman, a woman lately confined, impure men, or Cāṇḍalas and so forth, — he shall bathe, submerging both bis body and his head.’

Viṣṇu (22.69). — ‘After having touched one who has touched a corpse, or a woman in her courses, or a Caṇḍāla or a sacrificial post, — bathing is ordained.’

Yājñavalkya (3.29). — ‘On touching a woman in her courses or persons suffering from impurity due to birth and death, one should bathe; on touching persons who have touched them he shall rinse his mouth.’

Saṃvarta (Aparārka, p. 921). — ‘For one who touches one who has touched these, bathing has been enjoined.’

Viṣṇu (Do.). — ‘On touching a woman in her courses, a corpse, a Caṇḍāla, human bone with fat, one should bathe with his clothes on.’

Chyavana (Do., p. 922). — ‘One shall bathe with clothes on on touching an outcast, a Caṇḍāla, one who lives upon property belonging to gods, the village-priest, the Soma-vendor, the sacrilìcial post, a funeral pyre, a wood of the pyre, wine, wine-vessel, human bone with fat, one who has touched a corpse, a woman in her courses, one who has committed a heinous crime, or a corpse; after bathing, he should touch fire, repeat the Gāyatrī a hundred and eight times, bathe again and then rinse his mouth thrice.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 922). — ‘An outcast, a woman lately confined, a Caṇḍāla, — on touching these intentionally one becomes purified by bathing with clothes on, touching fire and eating butter. On touching a person who has touched a corpse, a Caṇḍāla, a funeral pyre, a sacrificial post, a woman in her courses, intentionally, the Brāhmaṇa shall become purified by bathing.’

Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa (Aparārka, p. 923). — ‘One whose food should not be eaten, a woman lately confined, a eunuch, a cat, a Caṇḍāla, a dog, a cock, an outcast, an excommunicated person, a corpse-carrier, a woman in her courses, a pig, — on touching these one becomes purified by bathing.’

Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya (Do.). — ‘On touching a Caṇḍāla, a Pukkasa, a Mleccha, a Bhilla, a Pārasīka, one who has committed a heinous crime, — one should bathe with clothes on.’

Parāśara (Do.). — ‘On touching a tree growing in a crematorium, a funeral pyre, a sacrificial post, a Caṇḍāla, a Soma-vendor, — the Brāhmaṇa should enter water with clothes on.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘A Caṇḍāla, an outcast, a corpse-carrier, a woman lately confined, a woman in her courses, — on touching these one becomes purified by bathing.’

Vāyupurāṇa (Do.). — ‘The woman in her courses, the woman lately confined, the dog, the Antyāvasāyin, the corpse-carrier, — on touching these there is impurity, from which one becomes purified by bathing with clay and with clothes on.’

Parāśara (Do., p. 926). — ‘If one happens to touch a Caṇḍāla and the corpse and other things after sunset, he becomes purified by touching fire and gold.’

Aṅgiras (Parāśaramādhava, p. 257). — ‘On touching a person who has touched a corpse, a woman in her courses and a woman lately confined or one outcast — one becomes purified on bathing with clothes on.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Do., p. 258). — ‘If one touches by chance a person who has been touched by a Caṇḍāla, a woman lately confined, or a corpse, — he shall sip water and do japa; if one intentionally touches the said person, he should sip water for the purpose of purifying himself.’

VERSE 5.85

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

आचम्य प्रयतो नित्यं जपेदशुचिदर्शने ।
सौरान् मन्त्रान् यथोत्साहं पावमानीश्च शक्तितः ॥८५॥

ācamya prayato nityaṃ japedaśucidarśane |
saurān mantrān yathotsāhaṃ pāvamānīśca śaktitaḥ ||85||

On seeing unclean things, the man, after having sipped water, shall always attentively recite the Solar Mantras according to his inclination, as also the Pāvamānī verses, according to his capacity. — (85).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Unclean things’. — Those just mentioned are to be understood as meant here, because of their proximity.

Those mantras that are addressed to the Sun are called ‘Solar’ and the mantras meant are ‘udutyam jātavedasam, &c. &c.’

The Pāvamānī verses. — The verses ‘svādiṣṭaye, &c. &c.’ occurring in the ninth maṇḍala of the Ṛgveda.

‘According to his inclination’ and ‘according to his capacity’ mean the same thing; two words have been used for the purposes of metre.

In as much as the ‘mantras’ and ‘verses’ are mentioned in the plural, at least three verses should be recited; and as regards more, they may be recited only if other and more important duties do not suffer thereby. Then again, since the text speaks of ‘mantras and the term ‘Pāramānī’ also refers to verses, purification is brought about as soon as one has gone beyond three verses, even though the hymn may not be completed.

The dog also has to be included among the ‘unclean things’; as it also is unclean. In the present context Gautama has declared — ‘Of the dog also; whatever it might pollute, say some’ (14.29-30).

‘Attentively’; — without allowing his mind to wander about; he should fix it upon contemplating the deity. Or, ‘Prayataḥ’ may mean that ‘at a time when one is busy with worshipping deities, if he should happen to touch an unclean thing, he should do what is here laid down, — and not otherwise’. — (85).

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?