with the Commentary of Medhatithi 153 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 159 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (14.31). — ‘If he has followed a corpse, he shall purify himself by bathing in his clothes.’

Viṣṇu (22.64). — ‘If he has followed the corpse of a twice-born person, he must go to a river and having plunged into it, repeat the Aghamarṣaṇa mantra three times, and then coming out of the water, repeat the Gāyatrī, a hundred and eight times.’

Yājñavalkya (3.26). — ‘If the Brāhmaṇa has followed the corpse of a twice-born person or a Śūdra, he shall become pure by bathing in water, touching fire and eating clarified butter.’

Parāśara (3.42-46). — ‘(Same as Manu 102, then) — If the Brāhmaṇa, through folly, follows the corpse of a Kṣatriya, he remains impure for one day and becomes purified by eating Pañcagavya, — If a Brāhmaṇa, through folly, follows a dead Vaiśya, he remains impure for two nights and after that he should perform six breath-suspensions. If a foolish Brāhmaṇa follow a dead Śūdra, he shall remain impure for three nights and after the lapse of the third night, he shall go to a river that falls into the ocean and having performed a hundred breath-suspensions, and eaten clarified butter, he shall become purified.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 636). — ‘In the case of a Kṣatriya corpse being followed, purification comes after one day; in that of a Vaiśya one, after two days; and in that of a Śūdra one, after three days, followed by a hundred breath-suspensions.’

VERSE 5.103

Section XI - Impurity in the case of persons beyond the pale of Sapiṇḍa relationship

न विप्रं स्वेषु तिष्ठत्सु मृतं शूद्रेण नाययेत् ।
अस्वर्ग्या ह्याहुतिः सा स्यात्शूद्रसंस्पर्शदूषिता ॥१०३॥

na vipraṃ sveṣu tiṣṭhatsu mṛtaṃ śūdreṇa nāyayet |
asvargyā hyāhutiḥ sā syātśūdrasaṃsparśadūṣitā ||103||

One should not have a dead Brāhmaṇa carried by a Śūdra, while his own people are there. For it would be an oblation into fire, defiled by the touch of the Śūdra, and as such not conducive to heaven. — (l 03).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Have carried’ — have taken out.

‘While his own people are there’ — i.e., men of the same caste. The use of the term ‘oblation into fire’ implies that the body should not also be burnt by the Śūdra.

The specification of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ is not emphasised; for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also the Śūdra’s touch is defiling; hence what the supplementary statement indicates is that the prohibition applies to the case of these two also. — (103).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 104 of others.)

According to Nārāyaṇa this rule is meant for Brāhmaṇas only; but Medhātithi says that the ‘vipra’ is mentioned only by way of illustration; the rule applies to all the three higher castes.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.20); — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 634), which reproduces the remark made in Mitākṣarā that the phrase ‘sveṣu tiṣṭhatsu’ is superfluous, in view of the assertion (in the second half) that the touching of the body by the lower castes is ‘asvargya,’ which would imply that the body should not be so touched, irrespective of the presence or absence of the dead person’s ‘own people’; — and in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 17).

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 395), which also adds the same remark; — and in Hāralatā (p. 120) which says — ‘sveṣu tiṣṭhatsu’ means that if possible the dead body of a Brāhmaṇa should be carried by Brāhmaṇas alone, in the absence of Brāhmaṇas by Kṣatriyas, even by Vaiśyas in the absence of Kṣatriyas, and by Śūdras only when there are no Vaiśyas — ‘asvargyā,’ this also refers to cases where twice-born persons are available.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (19.1). — ‘One must not cause a dead member of a twice-born caste to be carried by a Śūdra; nor a Śūdra by a twice-born person.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 634). — ‘When a sacrificer dies, the Śūdra shall not carry his dead body; that dead person for whom the Śūdra carries fire, grass or wood, remains a ghost for ever and becomes defiled by sin.’

VERSE 5.104 [Means of Purification for Corporeal Beings (dehin)]

Section XII - Means of Purification for Corporeal Beings (dehin)

ज्ञानं तपोऽग्निराहारो मृत्मनो वार्युपाञ्जनम् ।
वायुः कर्मार्ककालौ च शुद्धेः कर्तॄणि देहिनाम् ॥१०४॥

jñānaṃ tapo'gnirāhāro mṛtmano vāryupāñjanam |
vāyuḥ karmārkakālau ca śuddheḥ kartṝṇi dehinām ||104||

Wisdom, austerity, fire, food, clay, mind, water, smearing, wind, action, the sun and time are means of purification for corporeal beings. — (104).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Wisdom’ and the rest are mentioned only by way of illustrating the purification by lapse of time; the sense being — ‘just as these are the means of purification within their own spheres, so is Time also, and the efficacy of this latter should not be doubted.’

Of the several things mentioned here, what is efficatious under what circumstances shall be explained in the present context itself; and the efficacy of other things shall be described in particular places.

‘Wisdom’ — spiritual knowledge; such as is taught by the Sāṅkhya-Yoga. This serves to set aside Ignorance, and removes attachment and other impediments, whereupon wisdom becomes free from all defects. This is what is going to be described under 108, where it is said — ‘Intellect becomes purified by wisdom.’

‘Austerity;’ — the Kṛcchra, the Cāndrāyaṇa and the rest. This serves to remove the taint of major and minor sins.

‘Fire’ — is the means of purification of earthen-ware vessels and such other things as have been mentioned as being ‘purified by re-baking’(121).

‘Food;’ — i.e., the eating of such pure things as milk and roots.

This also serves to purify in the same manner as Austerity.

The fact of ‘clay’ and ‘water’ being the means of purification is well-known, That of the ‘mind’ is going to be described under 108.

‘Smearing;’ — i.e., cleaning and whitewashing with such things as cowdung, lime and the like.

‘Wind’ — purifies pieces of grass and wood lying on the roads, which happen to be touched by the cāṇḍāla and such others.

‘Actions;’ — e. g., the saying of Twilight Prayers and such other rites. It has been declared under 2.102 that ‘one should stand saying the morning prayers, thus he removes the sin committed, during the night’; — what this means we have explained under Discourse II.

Though ‘Austerity’ also is an ‘action’, it has been mentioned separately for the purpose of emphasising its importance. In fact, in the srciptures ‘Austerity’ is generally mentioned separately; e.g. in Yājñavalkya, Ācāra 221 — ‘Karmaniṣṭhāstaponiṣṭhāḥ’ — (104)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 105 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 792); — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 249); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 16b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (22.88). — (Same as Manu.)

Baudhāyana (1.5.52). — ‘Time, fire, purity of mind, water and the like, smearing with cow-dung, and ignorance (of defilement) are declared to be the sixfold means of purification for created beings.’

Yājñavalkya (l.194). — ‘Roads are purified by the rays of the moon and the sun and by the wind.’

Do. (3.30-33). — ‘Time, fire, acts, clay, wind, mind, knowledge, austerity, water, repentance, fasting — all these are causes of purification. For those who do what should not he done, charity is the means of purification; the river is purified by its current; of things requiring purification, it is brought about by clay and water; for the twice-born, renunciation is the purifier; for Vedic scholars, austerities; for the learned, tolerance; for the body, water; for those who have sinned secretly, the repeating of mantras; for the mind, truth; for all living beings, penance and learning; for the intellect, knowledge; for the Conscious Being, the best purification consists in the knowledge of God.’

VERSE 5.105

Section XII - Means of Purification for Corporeal Beings (dehin)

सर्वेषामेव शौचानामर्थशौचं परं स्मृतम् ।
योऽर्थे शुचिर्हि स शुचिर्न मृद्वारिशुचिः शुचिः ॥१०५॥

sarveṣāmeva śaucānāmarthaśaucaṃ paraṃ smṛtam |
yo'rthe śucirhi sa śucirna mṛdvāriśuciḥ śuciḥ ||105||

Among all modes of purification, purity in regard to wealth has been ordained to be the most important; for he who is pure in regard to wealth is really pure, and he is not pure who is merely purified by clay and water. — (105).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“What is the connection of this in the present context?”

What is meant is that — ‘just as one who, after having paid the of nature, immediately betakes to purifying himself by day and water, — so whenever, through carelessness and mistake, one happens to steal what belongs to others, or to do any such act, — he should immediately betake to the necessary expiatory rites, for the purpose of purifying himself’; — as is going to be explained under Discourse 11. — (105).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 106 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 792); — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 249); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 13b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (22.89). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 5.106

Section XII - Means of Purification for Corporeal Beings (dehin)

क्षान्त्या शुध्यन्ति विद्वांसो दानेनाकार्यकारिणः ।
प्रच्छन्नपापा जप्येन तपसा वेदवित्तमाः ॥१०६॥

kṣāntyā śudhyanti vidvāṃso dānenākāryakāriṇaḥ |
pracchannapāpā japyena tapasā vedavittamāḥ ||106||

Learned men become pure by tolerance; by liberality those who have done what should not be done; secret sinners by the repeating of sacred texts; and by austerity those who are well-versed in the Veda. — (106).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Those who are learned are purified by tolerance; ‘they are never affected by hatred, jealousy or ill-will; hence even when sin is rampant, they remain ever pure. ‘Tolerance’ is the property of the Mind which consists in having the same consideration for all.

Of ‘liberality’ also the efficacy in removing the sin of doing what sought not to be done has been described under 11.139, where it is declared that ‘murder is wiped off by charity’.

In the section dealing with ‘secret sins’ also it has been declared that for the expiation of secret sins, one should repeat the sacred texts.

For persons well-versed in the Veda, ‘austerity’; which, in their case, consists in repeating the Vedic texts and also cultivating knowledge; as it has been declared that — ‘for the Brāhmaṇa, learning is the real austerity’ (11.235). As regards the ‘kṛcchra’ and other penances, they are, means of purification for all men, not only for those versed in the Veda. — (106).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 107 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 792); — in Smṛtisāroddhāra, (p. 249); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, (Śrāddha, p. 13b); — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 360).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (22.90). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.32.33). — (See above, under 104.)

VERSE 5.107

Section XII - Means of Purification for Corporeal Beings (dehin)

मृत्तोयैः शुध्यते शोध्यं नदी वेगेन शुध्यति ।
रजसा स्त्री मनोदुष्टा संन्यासेन द्विजोत्तमाः ॥१०७॥

mṛttoyaiḥ śudhyate śodhyaṃ nadī vegena śudhyati |
rajasā strī manoduṣṭā saṃnyāsena dvijottamāḥ ||107||

What needs purification is purified by clay and water; the river is purified by its current; the woman of uhclean mind by menstruation; and Brāhmaṇas by renunciation. — (107).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When the banks of a river with water shallowed down becomes defiled by unclean things, its water becomes purified by the current of the same river, when it has regained its current strong enough to demolish its sides. The brinks of rivers are not purified in the manner in which other ground is purified “by means of five things” (Verse 123).

Or, it may be that the text has declared that ‘the river is purified by its current’ in view of the idea that people may have in regard to the river having become defiled on account of un clean things flowing along its current; and the meaning is that it should not be thought that, inasmuch as the river has become contaminated by the flowing along of unclean things coming from all sides, it can never, become pure.

The woman who has not been found to have had carnal intercourse with any man, but continues to think of the beauty and good qualities of other men, is regarded as ‘of undean mind’, and such a woman becomes purified by ‘menstruation’; i.e.,; by the flow of blood during her courses.

‘Renunciation’ shall be described in Discourse VI, and by this are Brāhmaṇas purified. And no mere mental process removes the sin that they, in their ignorance, may have committed in the shape of having entertained thoughts for the killing of small insects and so forth. — (107).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 108 of others.)

This verse is quoted in ‘Parāśaramādhava’ (Ācāra, p. 536), which adds the following notes: — Some people have understood the last quarter of the verse to mean that it is the Brāhmaṇa only, not the Kṣatriya or the Vaiśya, that is entitled to ‘Renunciation’; and in support of this there are several Śruti and Smṛti texts. — Others however have held that all the four stages are meant for all the twice-born persons; and the texts that prohibit Renunciation for the non- Brāhmaṇa should be understood as prohibiting only the wearing of the dull red garment and the taking of the staff (which have been laid down in connection with the life of the Renunciate).

The verse is also quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 116), in support of the view that the woman’s sin of evil intentions is removed by her menstruation — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 249); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 792); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 13b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (3.58). — (Same as Manu.)

Viṣṇu (22.91). — (Same as Manu.)

Parāśara (7.4). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.32). — (See above, under 104.)

Smṛtyantara (Parāśaramādhava, p. 536). — ‘The defects of birth and the evils of one’s deeds, — all these Renunciation burns up.’

VERSE 5.108

Section XII - Means of Purification for Corporeal Beings (dehin)

अद्भिर्गात्राणि शुध्यन्ति मनः सत्येन शुध्यति ।
विद्यातपोभ्यां भूतात्मा बुद्धिर्ज्ञानेन शुध्यति ॥१०८॥

adbhirgātrāṇi śudhyanti manaḥ satyena śudhyati |
vidyātapobhyāṃ bhūtātmā buddhirjñānena śudhyati ||108||

The limbs are purified by water; the mind is purified by truthfulness; the soul proper by learning and austerity; and cognition is purified by knowledge. — (108).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘personality’ entitled to the performance of acts consists of the following factors —

The person himself, i.e., the Inner Soul,

the Internal Organ, i.e., the mind,

the Intellect

and the Body, the receptacle of experiences.

The Sense-Organs being material, do not constitute a separate factor. Of these factors some are purified by one thing, and some by other; the statement that ‘Time purifies everything’ being purely valedic tory.

‘Limbs,’ standing for the parts, indicate the whole, the body; the sense being that ‘by water’ — i.e., by bathing — ‘the body becomes purified.’

The ‘mind’ — described (in Discourse I) as consisting of ‘the existent and the non-existent’ — becomes contaminated by evil intentions; and it becomes pure by ‘truthfulness’ — i.e., by good intentions. In a previous verse (104) the mind has been spoken of as a ‘means of purification’; but that has to be taken in an indirect sense; and the present text can not mean that ‘words’ (truthful) are the means of purifying the mind; and the Śruti also speaks of ‘the word being prompted by the Mind, whence the word uttered by one who is absent-minded becomes fit for demons and not for the gods.’

‘Learning’ — produced by the proper study of the Sāṅkhya and the Vedānta; — and ‘austerity’ — in the form of the Kṛcchra and the rest; — when endowed by these the ‘soul proper’ becomes purified. The term — ‘bhūta’ (in the compound ‘bhūtātma’) means proper, real; i.e., that which is really the soul, the object of the notion of the ‘ego’ as free from the notion of ‘I’, and not the material entity consisting of the body.

‘Buddhi’ is ‘cognition’ — which is regarded as contaminated when it appears in the form of a thing that is non-existent, or when it does not take any account of the distinction between the real form of the thing cognised and the apparent form in which it is cognised when, during dreams and such conditions, it is obsessed by wrong notions of things; — or ‘Buddhi’ may stand for that faculty of the personality which is the product of the unexpiated portions of his past misdeeds, and which may, by virtue of each single sin committed in the past, beset that personality in the form of Ignorance, appearing in the shape of the notion of diversity, or in the shape of the non-discrimination between the Soul and the material attributes, which operates in the form of attachment to children, wealth and such things, and becomes the source of extreme longings. — This ‘Buddhi’ becomes pure by ‘know ledge;’ — i.e., proper understanding of the means of cognition as indicating the self-luminous character of all cognitions. Cognition is distinct from the Object cognised, by reason of the latter having a shape, and it being impossible for the former to become modified, into that shape; and hence it becomes purified by the conviction that it is, by its very nature, unmodifiable.

The term ‘learning’ in the previous clause stands for the knowledge of what is taught by the Veda; and its capacity for purification is of the same kind as described under 11.246 — ‘as the fire, in one moment, etc.’

Being purified in the above manner, the person reaches the regions of Brahman. Such is the four-fold purification. And what is intended to be expressed is eulogy of such purification as leading to the fulfilment of the highest ends of man in the matter of his births and other ciruumstances. — (108).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 109 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 249); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 13b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.8.2. and 31, 27). — (Same as Manu.)

Vaśiṣṭha (3.60). — (Same as Manu.)

Viṣṇu (22.92). — (Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.33). — (See above, under 104.)

VERSE 5.109 [Purification of Substances]

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

एष शौचस्य वः प्रोक्तः शरीरस्य विनिर्णयः ।
नानाविधानां द्रव्याणां शुद्धेः शृणुत निर्णयम् ॥१०९॥

eṣa śaucasya vaḥ proktaḥ śarīrasya vinirṇayaḥ |
nānāvidhānāṃ dravyāṇāṃ śuddheḥ śṛṇuta nirṇayam ||109||

Thus has been explained to you the rule regarding bodily purification; listen now to the rule regarding the purification of various substances. — (109.)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Of various things;’ — i.e., of substances that are used by man, in the form of products that are igneous, earthy, liquid, solid, isolated, compact.

This verse points out the difference of what is going to be described from the purification described above. In the foregoing Section the most important purification was shown to be that of the Soul, that of substances deserving attention only because of their being used by the personality; while in the present section the reverse is the case.

‘Listen to the rule’. — This verse is meant to avoid the two sections being comfounded. — (109).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 110 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 805).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (22.93). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 5.110

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

तैजसानां मणीनां च सर्वस्याश्ममयस्य च ।
भस्मनाऽद्भिर्मृदा चैव शुद्धिरुक्ता मनीषिभिः ॥११०॥

taijasānāṃ maṇīnāṃ ca sarvasyāśmamayasya ca |
bhasmanā'dbhirmṛdā caiva śuddhiruktā manīṣibhiḥ ||110||

Of igneous substances, of gems and of everything made of stone, — the purification has been ordained to be accomplished by means of ash, by water and by clay. — (110)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The name ‘Igneous substances’ is applied to all those substances that melt at the contact of fire; e.g. silver, gold, copper, iron, lead, zinc and so forth.

‘Gems’ — things of the nature of the rock-crystal. ‘Ashma’ is stone; and what is made of it is called ‘ashmamaya’.

‘Sarvasya,’ ‘of everything’ — This has been added for filling up the metre; the justification for it being found in there being two kinds of stone — that quarried from mountains and that obtained from river-beds.

‘By ash’; — since both ash and clay serve the same purpose, they are to be regarded as optional alternatives; while ‘water’ is meant to be used along with each of these two.

“What is the use of these?”

The removing of stains and smells. It has been declared that — ‘the purification of the unclean thing consists in the removal of its stains and smell’; — and again‘so long as from the object besmeared with an unclean substance, the odour and stain do not pass off &c. &c.’

Both ash and clay are, by their very nature, non-greasy; hence purification is brought about by these in the case of oily effects.

The ‘purification’ of the ‘impure’ thing consists in making it fit for use by removing its defects.

“If this is so, then it should be necessary to describe in detail the impurity attaching to things — in some such form as ‘such and such a substance becomes impure when in contact with such and such a substance’. — ‘But these are worldly things; and all this would be known from ordinary usage.’ — Not so; because from ordinary usage, the thing is known only in a vague general form. Further in ordinary usage what is called ‘impure’ is only what has become disgusting by being contaminated by urine, ordure and blood; while what is meant by ‘impure’ in the present context is that which is unfit for touching &c.; and it is only from the scriptures that it could be learnt whence this unfitness arises. Then again, a man is called pure when he does not fall into a mistake in regard to what belongs to others. From all this it is clear that no useful purpose can be served from what is thus known, from ordinary usage, regarding the signification of the term in question. Though it is generally known that what has been contaminated is impure, yet it cannot be known by what particular thing a certain thing becomes contaminated. — ‘But how can the exact signification of a term be ascertained from scriptures, when, ‘as a matter of fact, what the scriptures provide is the knowledge of what should be done, and not the meaning of a certain word, which latter is what is done by the work of Pāṇini; that this is so follows from the fact that the Smṛtis of Manu and others are based upon the Veda (which deals only with the Duties of Man)’. — Our answer to this is as follows: — In the case in question, we do infer an injunction in the form — ‘one should not make use of a substance that has become contaminated by such and such a substance’; and there would be nothing incongruous in the notion that the substance by whose contact the thing becomes unfit for use is the cause of contamination. Similarly as regards purification also, we can recognise its basis in some such injunction as — ‘when a thing has become contaminated, it may be used after it has gone through the prescribed process of washing &c.’; and yet such an injunction would not mean that ‘purification should be done’. For if it did this, then, he who would not do it would incur sin. What happens is that in the case of ordinary secular acts, it being possible for the man in need to make use of any kind of vessels, pure or otherwise, — the Scripture lays down the restriction that ‘if need arises, one should make use of such vessels, and not of others If it is to be treated as a restriction, then it would be incumbent upon only one who seeks prosperity; and every other man would be free to do as he chose; just as in connection with the question of the correct forms of words, though the correct and incorrect forms are both equally expressive, yet there is the restriction which indicates that the use of the correct form brings merit, while that of the incorrect form is sinful [and this means that only people seeking merit need use the correct form].’ — This would be true only if there were no text prohibiting the use of unclean vessels. But when there is such a prohibition, how could anyone make use of the vessel that has not been purified? As for the rules regarding purification, these only represent exceptions (to the prohibition of unclean vessels, the meaning being, that if the unclean vessel has been purified, it may be used). How then could there be any prosperity arising from what is a mere exception? Since all that it means is that if one acts according to the exception, he does not incur the sin of transgressing the prohibition.

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология