with the Commentary of Medhatithi 151 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 157 из 350Следующая ⇒

Our answer to the above is as follows: — In such cases as the one under consideration whether a certain thing form the predominant or the subordinate factor is not determined by the Accusative or Instrumental case-ending, but upon its being or not being already known. That is to say, what is not already known, that alone can form the subject of the Injunction, and this is to which due significance is meant to be attached; and this for the simple reason that it is denoted by a word which can have no other denotation; while what is already known from other sources, and is mentioned for the sake of the In junction, has to be taken as subserving the purposes of the Injunction in exactly the same form in which it has been denoted by the previous word. In the sentence ‘the Brāhmaṇa should not be killed’, all that the Injunction directly signifies is the prohibition of the act of killing, and everything else (mentioned in the sentence) is such as is already known from other sources. Even so however, due significance has to be attached to what is expressed by the basic nouns (in the sentence), as otherwise, their very use would come to be meaningless. But the gender, the number and other elements, which are denoted by the case-endings, — it is just possible that these are used simply because they are invariable concomitants of basic nouns (which cannot be used by themselves without a case-ending); and hence sometimes these latter are meant to be significant, sometimes not. As regards the killing of the Brāhmaṇa, no man requires to be urged to do it by an Injunction; as he is urged to it by his own hatred of the man he kills; and all men are, by their very nature, prone to do this act But as regards the prohibition of it, unless it were directly enjoined, it could not be got at by any means; specially as it could not be obtained from any other source. So that, since it is not in any way conducive to the fulfilment of an act, nor is it the qualification of anything so conducive, hence, even though it were to be included under the nature of man, it could not be connected with the context. Consequently, for the purpose of connecting it with the context it is necessary to attribute to it the character of the topic; and when the prohibition in question has been made the topic of the Injunction, it is no longer necessary to make the denotation of the verb the topic. Thus then, the topical character having been wrested by the Prohibition, what is denoted by the verb naturally loses that character. The performance of the act (denoted by the verb) is such that its performance is secured through ordinary tendencies (of men); so that for its own accomplishment it does not stand in need of being embraced by any Injunction; and all that it needs is the capacity (and desire) of the man to do the act; and this, act of killing, being got at by other means of knowledge, establishes the man’s capacity for doing the act; so that it is through a qualification of the man that it becomes correlated with the sentence. Thus it is quite in keeping with the theory of words denoting only correlated entities. The act, along with its qualification, thus not forming the topic of this Injunction, man’s tendency to it has to be explained as being due to ordinary wordly causes. As a matter of fact, in the case of killing, such tendency and motive power is present, in the form of the man’s passion; and certainly no restrictions of gender or number pertain to passion; or the activity might be due to the man’s hatred.

From all this it follows that the word, whose denotation does not form the topic of the Injunction, on the ground that it is already known, renounces its denotative power and indicates a sense that is determined by other means of knowledge. And in as much as gender and number are not, even by import, signified by the word, how can any significance be attached to them? It being necessary to speak of what is denoted by the basic noun, it has to be spoken of with the help of some number and it cannot be used entirely by itself; and it is for this reason that gender and number are added.

On the point at issue thus the conclusion is as follows:

The man, who has determined to take upon himself the character of the agent of the act of killing, is urged (by the prohibition) to what is signified by the negative word. So that in a prohibitive sentence, no significance need attach to the use of the Accusative ending, which therefore may be ignored. Even sentences where we find the Instrumental Ending, or even the Nominative — e.g., ‘wine shall not be drunk by the Brāhmaṇa’, or ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not drink wine’, — what is denoted by them being already got at from other sources, they do not form topics of the Injunction; and hence they are taken as spoken of only by way of reference. In the case where the Accusative comes in as a qualification of the motive, the Nominative and the Instrumental endings are always taken along with the Accusative. Even when the Accusative is directly used, that which is not already known from other sources forms part of the enjoined (predicate), and, as such, is regarded as duly significant; for example in the case of such texts, as ‘bhāryām upagacchet’ (‘one should have recourse to his wife’), ‘apatayam utpādayet’ (‘one should beget a child’) [where due significance attaches to the singular number in ‘wife’ and ‘child’]. The ‘wife’ is not a a thing acquired in the ordinary worldly manner; as she can be acquired only by means of the marriage-rites. Nor is it a thing that has been definitively described in an Injunction, which would strictly restrict it to what is enjoined therein; as there is in the case of such texts as — ‘āśvinam grahṇāti’ (‘holds the cup dedicated to the Aśvins’), ‘maitrāvaruṇam grāhṇāti (‘holds the cup dedicated to Mitra-Varuṇa’), and ‘daśaitānadhvaryurgṛhṇāti’ (‘the Adhvaryu holds these then’) [where the exact character of the cups has been prescribed by the texts laying down the dedication], and the cups taken up are of the precise number mentioned in the texts; consequently, their number being known, they become connected with the in junction of the washing, in sequential accordance with that number. Now in this case, there being no other sentence, and the sentence in question itself being the originative injunction, there are no grounds for rejecting the directly expressed number; so that any rejection of what is expressed by the self-sufficient denotative power of words could proceed only from the mind of man. Similarly in the case of the text ‘paśunā yajeta’ (‘one should sacrifice with an animal’), the Injunction pertains to the sacrifice, which is of the nature of something to be accomplished; so that when we proceed to seek for the means by which it could be accomplished, all that is mentioned in the injunctive text, qualification and all, comes to be regarded as the object of the Injunction; specially because the function of the Injunction cannot be regarded as having been fully fulfilled only by the laying down of what is signified by the root ‘yaji’, ‘to sacrifice’; why, then, should not the words be taken in the sense that is indicated by their own denotation as helped by the denotation of other words connected with them?

Persons versed in the science of “Pramāṇas” however regard the text as a self-sufficient Injunction; and in this they only repeat what has been said by other people. What we have said is easily understandable; and it does not demand any very keen acumen to grasp it. It is the very essence of things. The science is useful only so far as the Injunction is concerned; anything more than that is a mere show of learning, a purely exaggerated description. Such description is of use only in a case where the Injunction does not supply all the information needed; as for instance, in the case of the injunction regarding the ‘laying of pebbles’, there being several articles such as butter, oil, salt and the like, that are helpful towards wetting, — it being doubtful as to which of these is to be used in the wetting of the ‘pebbles’, it is the description (of Butter as ‘longevity itself’) which leads to the conclusion that Butter should be used. Or again, in the case of the ‘Ratri-sattra’, the performance of sacrificial rites during the night being unheard of anywhere else, the subsequent description of the ‘men obtaining honour’ helps to indicate the propriety of such performance by one who is desirous of acquiring honour or fame. In the case in question however the sentence (which in Adh. 11, verses 92 etc. prohibit wine for the Brāhmaṇa) is complete in all respects, at the mention of ‘Brāhmaṇas’; so that all needs having been fulfilled, the only purpose served by the description is ‘commendation.’ It might be argued that what is said under 11.96 is treated on the same footing as the assertion that ‘the sinful man comes by accomplished happiness’, — so that the prohibition of wine-drinking comes to have a footing, though a partial one, as referring to the male only. But there would be no force in this; because females also are entitled to partake of the butter and other substances, which have been left after the offerings to the Gods have been made; and they are permitted to recite Vedic texts also at the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices; such texts, for instance, as ‘videyakarmāsi, &c., &c.’ Even such Injunctions as ‘one should make the performer of Śrāddhas drink wine’ indicate that wine is permitted for women.

Nor is any such distinction (between male and female) made in the case of ‘Brāhmaṇa-killing.’ So that upon the question here raised, the final conclusion is that the prohibition of winedrinking pertains to the whole caste — (89).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 90 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Hāralatā, which has the following notes: — ‘Pāṣaṇḍamāśṛtāḥ’ applies to both men and women Kāmataścarantyaḥ’ are those who have had intercourse with numberless men, — for all those there are no after-death offerings; — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 80).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.88-89)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.88.

VERSE 5.90

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

आचार्यं स्वमुपाध्यायं पितरं मातरं गुरुम् ।
निर्हृत्य तु व्रती प्रेतान्न व्रतेन वियुज्यते ॥९०॥

ācāryaṃ svamupādhyāyaṃ pitaraṃ mātaraṃ gurum |
nirhṛtya tu vratī pretānna vratena viyujyate ||90||

The student, carrying his own dead Teacher, or tutor, or father, or mother, or monitor, — does not suffer in his observances. — (90).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some people think that the term ‘his own’ qualifies the ‘Teacher’ only; and it serves to exclude the Teacher’s Teacher, would be thought of as deserving the same treatment, according to what has been said above under 2.205.

Others again explain ‘his own’ as standing for one’s relations.

But in this latter case, it would seem unnecessary to mention the ‘father’ and the ‘mother.’ But it may be explained as emphasising the obligatory character of the rule as regards these particular relations.

‘Monitor’, ‘Guru’, — is one who has been described in 2.149.

There is no harm done to his observances by carrying the dead body of these persons; and what the text means by this specification is that there is interference in the observances by the carrying of the dead bodies of persons other than these — (90).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 91 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācarā, p. 633) to the effect that there is nothing wrong in the Religious Student carrying the dead body of the persons named here; — and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 391); — in Hāralatā (p. 201) to the effect that when there are no other persons available for carrying the dead body of the Teacher and the rest and perform their cremation, then the person who has undertaken vows and observances may do the needful, and this does not interfere with his observances, — it explains ‘ācārya’ as the person who has done the initiation and taught the entire Veda, the ‘upādhyāya’ is one who has taught a portion of the Veda or the Subsidiary Sciences, and ‘guru’ is the person who expounds the Veda and the Sciences; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 294).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (22.86). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.15). — ‘The religious student retains his character of religious student even after carrying the dead body of the teacher, the father and the sub-teacher.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 884). — ‘The religious students incur the necessity of re-initiation, by the carrying of a dead body, except that of their parents.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 884). — ‘The religious student, even while keeping the vows, does not deviate therefrom, if he burns the dead body of his teacher, sub-teacher, preceptor, father or mother.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 633). — ‘Tho religious student shall not perform such acts as the burning of the dead body; if he does do it, he shall perform the kṛohchra penance and go through the initiation again.’

VERSE 5.91

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

दक्षिणेन मृतं शूद्रं पुरद्वारेण निर्हरेत् ।
पश्चिमौत्तरपूर्वैस्तु यथायोगं द्विजन्मनः ॥९१॥

dakṣiṇena mṛtaṃ śūdraṃ puradvāreṇa nirharet |
paścimauttarapūrvaistu yathāyogaṃ dvijanmanaḥ ||91||

One should carry the dead śūdra by the southern gate of the city; but the twice-born persons by the western, northern and eastern gates respectively — (91).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘City’ stands for the village &c. also.

This rule applies to those places where there are several gates; the advice pertaining to such persons as may be capable of following it.

The Śūdra has been mentioned first, because it is an inauspicious subject. And this reversal of the order indicates that the term ‘respectively’ indicates that the Vaiśya should be carried by the western, the Kṣatriya by the northern and the Brāhmaṇa by the Eastern gate. — (91)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 92 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 870), which adds that the word ‘Nirharaṇīyāḥ’ is to be supplied after ‘dvijātayaḥ’; — and that ‘Yathāyogam’ (for which it reads ‘Yathāvarṇam’) means that the castes are to be taken in the reverse order; i.e., Brāhmaṇa through the eastern the Kṣatriya through the northern and the Vaiśya through the western gate, — this on the strength of a text quoted from the Adityapurāṇa.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 634); — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 414); — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 111); — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 216), — and in Hāralatā (p. 119), which notes that the castes are mentioned in the reverse order because the subject spoken of is an extremely inauspicious one, and by adopting this order the writer avoids the use of the epithet ‘dead’ directly in

connection with the higher castes; — it explains ‘Yathāyogam’ as ‘in the inverse order, i.e., the Vaiśya, the Kṣatriya and the Brāhmaṇa respectively’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Hārīta (Parāśaramādhava, p. 634) — ‘The dead body should not he carried towards the village.’

VERSE 5.92

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

न राज्ञामघदोषोऽस्ति व्रतिनां न च सत्त्रिणाम् ।
अइन्द्रं स्थानमुपासीना ब्रह्मभूता हि ते सदा ॥९२॥

na rājñāmaghadoṣo'sti vratināṃ na ca sattriṇām |
aindraṃ sthānamupāsīnā brahmabhūtā hi te sadā ||92||

This taint of uncleanliness does not attach to Kings, or to those keeping a vow, or to the performers of sacrificial sessions; because they occupy the position of sovereigns and are ever of the nature of Brahman. — (92).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the terra ‘rājan’, ‘king’, is denotative of the Kṣatriya-caste, yet, on account of the reason being stated in the words that ‘they occupy the position of sovereigns’, it follows that it indicates the ruler of countries. This we shall explain fully under the next verse.

‘Those who are keeping a vow;’ — i.e., those who are observing a vow, and undergoing such penances as those of the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ and the like.

‘Performers of sacrificial sessions;’ — i.e., those who are performing the ‘Gavāmayana’ sacrifice, or those who have been initiated for the other sacrifices also. Says Gautama (14.1) — ‘For sacrificial priests, for one who has been initiated and for the Student.’

In support of this we have the laudatory statement (in the second line). ‘Position of Sovereigns;’ — i.e., the kings — ‘occupy,’ — maintain, — The ‘position’ — place — ‘of sovereigns’ — of rulers of men; and the other two — the keepers of vows and performers of sacrificial sessions — have attained the character of Brahman.

‘Taint of uncleanliness’ — i.e., impurity.

Others have explained the term ‘Sattriṇaḥ’ to mean persons who are constantly making gifts. But in its primary denotation, the term refers to a particular form of sacrifice. — (92).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 93 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 616).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (19.48). — (Same as Manu.)

Gautama (14.1.45-46). — ‘The Sapiṇḍas become impure by the death of a relative during ton days, except those who are officiating as priests, who have performed the initiatory sacrifice and the religious student. Kings remain always pure, lest their business be impeded, — also the Brāhmaṇa, lest his daily study of the Veda be interrupted.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.1). — ‘Referring to deaths and births, they declare that the impurity of Sapiṇḍas lasts ten days; except for officiating priests, men who have performed the initiatory ceremony of the Soma-Sacrifice, and students of the Veda.’

Viṣṇu (22.48-55). — ‘Nor do kings become impure, while engaged in the discharge of their duties, nor devotees fulfilling a vow; nor sacrifices engaged in a sacrificial performance; nor workmen while engaged in their work; nor those who perform the king’s orders, if the king desires them to be pure; nor can impurity arise during the installation of the monument of a deity, nor during a marriage ceremony, if those ceremonies have already begun; nor when the whole country is afflicted with a calamity; nor in times of public distress.’

Yājñavalkya (3.27.28). — ‘For officiating priests, for those initiated for a sacrifice, for those engaged in sacrificial work, for those engaged in a sacrificial session, for the religious student, for the person engaged in charities, for the knower of Brahman, — also during a marriage, during the giving of charities, during a sacrifice, during war, in times of public distress, and in times of great trouble, — purification is instantaneous.’

Parāśara (3.20-22). — ‘Mechanics, artists, physicians, slaves and slave-girls, barbers, kings and Vedic scholars have been declared to be such as are purified instantaneously; so also the man keeping a penance, one engaged in a sacrificial session and the twice-born person who has taken the Fires. There is no impurity for the king, or for the person for whom the king desires it to cease, or one who is going to engage in battle, or in a charity, or one who is in distress, or the Brāhmaṇa who has been invited.’

Ādipurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 615). — ‘The work done by the painter and other artists is such as is not known to others; hence in the doing of their own work, they are always pure. The work that is done by the cook is such as is not known to others; hence the cook is always pure. What is done by the physician cannot be done by any one else; hence for purposes of touching, the physician is always pure. The work that the male and the female slaves do with ease, no one else can do; hence they are always pure. The work that the king does — how can any one even dream of doing? Such being the case the king is always pure, in the matter of births and deaths. The driving of elephants and such other works as are done by the royal servants cannot be done by others; hence these are always pure.’

Pracetas (Do.). — ‘Mechanics, artists, physicians, male and female slaves, kings and royal servants are declared to be such as become purified instantaneously.’

Vṛddha-Parāśara (Parāśaramādhava, p. 616). — ‘There is no impurity for kings, or for religious students, persons engaged in sacrificial sessions, persons initiated for a sacrifice, and all those for whom the king wishes it There is no impurity due to birth or death, for those engaged in penance or charity.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 617.). — ‘The Kṣatriya engaged in battle, the Vaiśya seated among cows, the Brāhmaṇa engaged in a sacrificial session and the religious student are always pure.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.). — ‘There is no impurity during marriage or sacrifice or trouble or journey or pilgrimage.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do.). — ‘In the installation of a god’s image, in the performance of a communal sacrifice, during Śrāddha and such rites, or during Pitṛyajña, or in the giving away of the daughter, — there is no impurity.’

Aṅgiras (Do.). — ‘There is no impurity due to birth or death on three occasions — during a sacrificial performance, during marriage and during a sacrifice to gods.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 919). — ‘After the Initiatory Ceremony at a sacrifice, and during the performance of the Kṛcchra and other penances, there is no impurity, even on the death of the father. The impurity comes after the completion of the performance and lasts for three days. So also for religious students.’

Jābāla (Do., p. 920). — ‘For the religious student, the king, the ascetic, the artist, the initiated person, during a sacrifice or marriage or a sacrificial session, — there is no impurity,’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do.). — ‘For the priest who has accepted the Honey-mixture in connection with a sacrificial performance, if a cause for impurity arises, it dues not apply to him. So also for the person who has been initiated for a sacrifice, till the Final Bath. Nor is there any impurity for the calm ascetic firm in Vedānta, etc., etc.’

VERSE 5.93

Section IX - Other forms of Impurity

राज्ञो महात्मिके स्थाने सद्यःशौचं विधीयते ।
प्रजानां परिरक्षार्थमासनं चात्र कारणम् ॥९३॥

rājño mahātmike sthāne sadyaḥśaucaṃ vidhīyate |
prajānāṃ parirakṣārthamāsanaṃ cātra kāraṇam ||93||

Immediate purification has been ordained for the king on the majestic throne; and the reason for this lies in his occupying that position for the protection of the people. — (93).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Majestic’ — i.e., that seat whose character is grand, glorious; this ‘majesty’ consists in the fact that it is seated upon this throne that the man is enable to carry on the work of protecting the people; and herein lies his sovereignty over men. This is what is meant by the clause — ‘and the reason for this lies in his occupying that position’; and what this means is that mere caste does not entitle the man to the consideration that the rule implies; what entitles him to it is his work of protecting the people. The term ‘āsana’, ‘position,’ also does not mean here a seat or a couch; it stands for the duties incumbent upon one who takes his seat upon it. It is for this reason that the older writers have explained the present rule to mean that there is no impurity in the case of any person who is capable of protecting the people, even if he be a non-Kṣatriya by caste.

‘For the purpose of protecting the people.’ — The meaning of this is that all the observances relating to impurity are not to cease, but only those that would be incompatible with the proper fulfilment of his duty of protecting the people; for example, the giving of food-grains out of his granary during times of scarcity, and so forth, the performance of rites for the allaying of celestial, atmospheric and terrestrial portents. Further, it becomes incumbent upon the king to attend to such business as may be brought up suddenly by gentlemen; or, when it becomes necessary for him to speak out for the purpose of settling disputes and religious doubts that may arise among twice-born persons in the higher stages of life. — (93).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 94 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.27), in support of the view, that the rule that ‘no impurity attaches to the king’ holds only with regard to such acts of making gifts, receiving and honouring people and hearing suits as are essential for the safety of the people; and it does not apply to the performance of the ‘Five Great Sacrifices’ and other religious acts.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 616); — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 70), which explains ‘māhātmika sthāna’ as the seat of judgement, in connection with which there can be no impurity; — and in Hāralatā (p. 110) which explains the meaning to be ‘for the king who is occupying the position of God, the Lord of all things’, ‘māhātmikasthāna’, there is immediate purification, — not so for one who has lost his kingdom; as the ground for the immediate cessation of impurity lies in the fact that he occupies the judgment seat when he comes to the work of administering justice and protecting the people.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (19.47). — (Same as Manu.)

(See above for other texts.)

VERSE 5.94

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США