with the Commentary of Medhatithi 154 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 160 из 350Следующая ⇒

“Or again, the Smṛti may be taken as dealing with the explanation of the meanings of words, — resembling the Smṛti that deals with the correct and incorrect forms of words. As for the notion that ‘the works of Manu and others have their basis in such Vedic texts as deal with the subject of what ought to be done’, we ask — who has said that this is so? As a matter of fact, our presumption of the basis for the assertions of Manu and others depends upon the merit of each individual case. For instance, in the case of the Aṣṭakā, which is of the nature of a rite, we presume its basis in the form of a Vedic text enjoining what ought to be done; but in a case where the assertion deals with things as they really exist, the corresponding basic text, also must be of the same kind, dealing with an accomplished entity. As regards the subject of the exact meanings of words, the idea regarding the priority of a particular denotation may always be derived from usage; as in this matter there is no question of anything to be done. In the case in question however (where there is a question of something to be done), it is not possible to derive any knowledge from mere usage. Specially because purification being something that can he brought about only by means of Vedic texts, how could it ever be made dependent upon usage? If it were, then all injunctions on the subject would be absolutely futile. — ‘But we have such in junctions as that of Pāṇini, to the effect that one should make use of correct, and not incorrect, forms of words’ (where also there is no act to be done, nothing to be brought into existence).’ — This is not Pāṇini’s injunction at all; all that his rule says is ‘this is correct, not that’; though it is true there is a rule like what has been quoted in the works of the authors of the Dharmasūtras all this may be learnt in detail from the Abhidhānāsara ). — ‘In this Smṛti itself we find such injunctions as that — (1) claimants to property shall divide it in such and such a manner, or that (2) the eldest brother shall take four shares (9.153), or that (3) the eldest brother shall take &c. &c. (9.105). The proper denotation of the injunction has been declared to extend to directing and other factors also.

In fact the denotations of the words are in the form of injunctions and direction, and other factors are only supplementary to the injunctions; for in all these cases the notion derived from the words is in the form of urging to activity (towards a certain end).’ — But what sort of urging could there be in the case (1) of causes and effects, or (2) of the pronouncing of blessings, or (3) of opportunity (all which are sometimes expressed by the injunctive affix)? Nor could the taking (of the four shares, mentioned in the texts just quoted) form the object of an injunction; since it is what is liable to be done by reason of the eldest brother being desirous of taking all he can. — ‘But the desire, of the eldest brother would lead him to take his own as well as the other brothers’ shares, and hence the said injunction serves to restrict what should be taken by each.’ — As a matter of fact however, there being no possibility perceptible of any one demanding more than his prescribed share, there is no room for any restrictive injunction. — ‘Well, on account of the prohibition, the text may be taken as a preclusive injunction. — This would be all right; but in that case, if at the time of division itself, any of the brothers were to take something in excess of his prescribed share, with the acquiescence of his brothers, he would be incurring sin, even though the permission of the brothers would be there. Nor could the text be taken as indicating the man’s ownership over a certain share of the thing concerned; because the coming into existence of ownership has been already mentioned in the injunction of receiving one’s share; and what the prohibition does is to point out that over everything else, apart from the prescribed share, the man has no rights of ownership. But even so, if one were to transgress this prohibition and take possession of an excessive share, his ownership would certainly come into existence. It is for these same reasons that ownership has been held to be produced even by stealing and such acts. And for the time, apart from possession, no such idea is entertained as that this man has no ownership over the thing.

“Thus then, it being found that the text in question cannot be taken either as an Injunction, or a Restriction, or a Preclusion, all that the dividing means is the apportionment of the shares — ‘so much is the share of this person und so much of that.’ Consequently the injunctive in ‘vibhajeran’, ‘should divide’, must indicate opportunity; and that the term ‘should take’ only refers to what actually happens in ordinary worldly practice; just as in the injunction ‘the hungry man should eat’, or ‘for the sake of the acquisition and safeguarding of his property one shall seek the help of the king.’ Gautama has distinctly enumerated (in 10.39) the sources, of ownership as — ‘Inheritance, purchase, &c., &c.’

“Thus then, since we have such direct Smṛti-injunctions as those of the Aṣṭakā and the like (which are something to be done and hence fit subjects for injunction), what is said in them regarding Impurity and Purity can only be taken as laying down something that is entirely of a sanctificatory character; and since this also has its basis in a (Vedic) Injunction, it may be regarded as prescribed by that injunction itself. So that it is only from the scriptures that it can be determined what is impurity and what is purity. For this reason it is necessary that the nature of impurity also should be fully explained.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — This has been explained under 135 below, where ‘fat, semen, &c.,’ of men have been mentioned as constituting ‘impurities’; and the specifying of ‘men’ is only illustrative, as is clear from other Smṛti -texts, of all such animals as the dog, the cat, the ass, the camel, the monkey, the crow, the village-hog,the village-cock, the rat, the jackal and other carnivorous animals and birds, also nailed animals and the mungoose; and ‘fat’ and the other things include also the flesh and the hair.

What is meant by the declaration of ‘purification’ (in the present verse) is that whenever the substances mentioned become contaminated by urine and such things they have to be sanctified in the manner laid down; and this need not be done when they are to be used in their natural condition. Because gold and other things are not impure by their nature, — when alone they could need purification whenever they would be used.

Or, the verse may be taken as laying down the purification in connection with a visible act, but with a view to an invisible (trancendental) result: just like the laying down of the rule that ‘one should eat facing the East’

In this latter case however, the mention of ‘purification’ would be incongruous.

As for the ordinary clearing and washing of vessels before eating those are done on account of usage, and not by virtue of the Smṛti-rule regarding purification (which pertains to only such articles as have become defiled by the touch of the unclean thing).

As regards the other things that are ‘untouchable’ by man — such, for instance, as the Cāṇḍāla and the like — or garlic, onion, wine, meat and so forth, — these also are sources of defilement of substances.

What particular form of purification shall be used in the case of the contamination by what unclean thing, — for this it is necessary to look out for usage and other Smṛti-texts. Details on this point have been.‘supplied by Hārīta, Āpastamba, Parāśara and other sages; but all these passages we have not quoted here, for fear of having to write too much, in the manner of the philosophical writer Chandragomin. — (110).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 111 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 255), which explains ‘taijasāni’ as ‘gold and the rest;’ — in Mitākṣarā (on 1.183), which remarks that this pertains to vessels that are soiled; — that there is to be option between ‘ash’ and ‘clay,’ but either of these has to be combined with ‘water,’ — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 15b); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 805); — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 305).

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 134), which remarks that this pertains to soiled vessels; — in Smṛtitattva (p. 432) to the effect that eating out of a stone dish is permitted; — and in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 96).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (1.29-31). — ‘As regards the purification of things, objects made of metal must be scoured, those of clay should be thoroughly heated by fire, those of wood must be planed and those of yarns should be washed. — Objects made of stone, jewels, shells or mother-o’pearl must be treated like metallic objects.’

Baudhāyana (1.8.32, 46, 47). — ‘Defiled objects made of metal must be scoured with cow-dung, earth and ashes, or with one of these: — conch-shells, horn, pearl-shells, and ivory with a paste of yellow mustard; or they may be cleaned with milk.’

Bo. (1.14.45). — ‘Vessels made of metal must be washed, after having been scrubbed; the materials to be used for scrubbing arc cow-dung, earth, ashes and the like.’

Āpastamba (1.17.11). — ‘A vessel made of metal becomes pure by being scoured with ashes and the like.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.49-51). — ‘Objects made of metal must be scoured with ashes; those made of clay should be thoroughly heated by fire; those of wood should be planed, and those of yarns should be washed. Stones and gems should be treated like objects made of metal; conch-shells and pearl-shells like gems.’

Yājñavalkya (1.182, 183). — ‘Of vessels and cups made of gold, silver, conch-shell, of stones, vegetables, ropes, roots, fruits, cloth, bamboo, and leather — as also of other vessels of wood, etc., — purification is accomplished by means of water.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 254). — ‘Vessels not touched by liquids are purified by water; those touched by liquids are regarded as purified only when they are free from fatty stains and odour.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 254). — ‘Gold, silver, conch-shells and pearl-shells are purified by water; if these are defiled to the extent of being discoloured and losing their properties, then they should be cleaned with the flour of barley, wheat, beans, lentils and cow-dung; copper-vessels are cleansed by acids and salts; vessels of Kāṃsya by ashes; iron-vessels by being scrubbed with stone, oil and sand; vessels made of gems are cleansed by scrubbing with stone and washing.’

Āpastamba (Do.). — ‘Vessels of kāṃsya are cleansed by the ten alkalies.’

Śaṅkha (Do.). — ‘A kāṃsya -vessel should not be heated; it becomes purified by being washed twenty-one times. Vessels of Kāṃsya, lead and zinc are purified by hot water. Kāṃsya and iron are cleansed by alkalies; iron-vessels are purified by heating, also by ashes and cow-dung. Vessels made of stone are cleansed by heating, scrubbing and also by water; those of wood, by planing; also by earth, cow-dung and water.’

Uśanas (Do., p. 255). — ‘Vessels of gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc and kāṃsya are cleansed by water mixed with ashes; those of metals in general, if defiled, are cleansed by washing with ashes three times. Gold, gems, silver, conch-shells, pearl-shells and stones, as also diamonds, bamboo, ropes and leather, are purified by water. Vessels of clay and weapons are heated for purification.’

Kāśyapa (Do.). — ‘Ivory, horn, conch-shell, pearl-shell and gems are cleansed by sand.’

Yama (Do.). — ‘Silver, gold, copper, lead, iron, Kāṃsya and zinc are purified by ashes.’

Ṛṣyaśṛṅga (Do.). — ‘Pearls and corals are purified by washing; also vessels made of conch and other shells, and also of all kinds of stone.’

Viṣṇu (Do.). — ‘Things made of copper, lead or zinc are purified by acid and water; — all things made of metal are cleansed by being washed with ashes and water twenty-one times.’

Smṛtyantara (Aparārka, p. 255). — ‘Vessels of kāṃsya are cleansed by ashes, if they have not been touched with wine; if so touched, they can be cleansed only by heating and scrubbing; copper is cleansed by acids if it has not been touched with flesh; if so touched, it can he cleansed only by being heated over again.’

Ādipurāṇa (Do., p. 256). — ‘Things made of gold, silver, conch-shells, shells and gems, — also those made of kāṃsya, iron, copper, lead and zinc, — if they are not smeared, — become cleansed with simple water.’

Śātātapa (Do.) — ‘Gold, silver, copper, lead, iron and zinc are cleansed by being scrubbed with stone,’

VERSE 5.111

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

निर्लेपं काञ्चनं भाण्डमद्भिरेव विशुध्यति ।
अब्जमश्ममयं चैव राजतं चानुपस्कृतम् ॥१११॥

nirlepaṃ kāñcanaṃ bhāṇḍamadbhireva viśudhyati |
abjamaśmamayaṃ caiva rājataṃ cānupaskṛtam ||111||

A golden vessel, free from stains, becomes pure by water alone; so also what is produced in water, what is made of stone and what is made of silver, if it is not enchased (or verse much defiled). — (111).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This rule applies to two particular metals, gold and silver, when they are free from stains; as for other metals, copper and the rest, their cleansing is to be done with washing with powdered bricks and such things, just as in the case of their bring defiled by leavings of food. There is no stain in a vessel in which milk or water has been drunk. As regards the case where parts of the vessel become stained by the leavings of meat, butter, milk and such things, the author is going to lay down distinct means of cleansing — ‘By that from which they sprang &c.’ (113). Then again, since the text has spoken of the removal of ‘smells and stains’, we should make use of such cleansing substances as may be capable of removing a particular stain; and it is not necessary to make use of ash and water in all cases. Hārīta mentions several such cleansing substances, as ‘powdered wheat, rice, peas, barley, kidney-bean and lentil’; and he proceeds to say — ‘even when gold and silver vessels are not stained, if they have been touched by a Cāndāla, or by a menstruating woman, they should be cleaned with ash twenty-one times.’

Śaṅkha however has declared thus — ‘Of metal vessels defiled by a dead body or blood or semen or urine or ordure, there should be either alteration or scrubbing or washing twenty-one times with ash’. There should be ‘alteration’ in the case of vessels long immersed in urine &c.; ‘alteration’ means the destruction of the original name and form and the bringing about of another shape and name; — ‘scrubbing’ means scratching with a sharp weapon or with stone.

Another Smṛti-text has prescribed’ (l) melting, (2) heating and (3) hammering.’ — When the vessel has been put into the melting-pot by the goldsmith, it becomes pure ‘burning’, i.e., being pat into fire by goldsmiths ‘hammering i.e., heating and then placing on the anvil and hammering, in the melting-pot it bring declared that ‘all mines are pure.’

‘What is produced out of water’ — the conch-shell, the rock-crystal and the like. For the stained conch-shell there is purification by the paste of white mustard, or by cow’s-urine and water, or by milk. We read in another Smṛti — ‘The couch-shell is purified by water; if it is defiled and oily, then by milk and water, and by the paste of white mustard.’

‘Anupaskṛtam’ ‘enchased’, i.e., the chasings in which are not filled (with unclean things), not very much defiled. This goes with every one of the things mentioned; hence in the case of every one of these being defiled with the touch of dry unclean things or of the caṇḍāla and the like, — even though there be no stain, — the purification is to be as described before, in accordance with other Smṛti-texts. — (111).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 112 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 446), which explains ‘anupaskṛtam’ as ‘not chased’, i.e., ‘the chasings whereof do not retain any such unclean thing as wine, food leavings and so forth’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 805); — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 134), which explains ‘anupaskṛtam’ as ‘unsoiled,’ and ‘abjam’ as ‘the conch and such things’; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, (Śrāddha, p. 15b); — in Aparārka, (p. 254), which explains ‘anupaskṛtam’ as ‘the chasings wherein are not filled with copper or other metals’; — in Mitākṣarā, (on 1.193), which explains ‘anupaskṛtam’ as ‘akhātapūritam’ (the term used by Medhātithi), i. e., ‘the chasings in which are not filled in’; — in Nityācārapradīpa, (p. 96), which explains ‘nirlepam’ as absolutely unsoiled; — and in Śuddhikaumudī, (p. 305), which explains ‘abja’ as ‘conches, shells and the like,’ — ‘ca’ as including glass-vessels, and ‘anupaskṛtam’ as ‘not chased or otherwise modified.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.111-112)

Baudhāyana (1.8, 33, 46, 47). — ‘Copper, silver and gold must be cleansed with acids, — conch-shells, horn, pearl-shell and ivory, with a paste of yellow mustard; or they may he cleansed with milk.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.61, 62). — ‘Gold is purified by fire alone; likewise silver.’

Viṣṇu (23.7). — ‘Objects made of gold, silver, shells, or gems, when not smeared, are cleansed with water.’

Yājñavalkya (1.182). — (See above, under 110.)

Parāśara (7.25-30). — ‘Iron things are cleansed by being scrubbed with iron; lead by heating in fire; vessels made of ivory, bone, horn, silver and gold, as also gems, stones and conch-shells, one should wash with water; in stone however, scrubbing also should be done; earthenware is cleansed by heating in fire; grains by water sprinkled on them; things made of bamboo, tree-bark, linen, cotton cloth and woolen cloth, are purified by washing. For muñja grass and things made of it, winnowing basket, jute, fruits and leather, grasses, wood and ropes, sprinkling with water has been prescribed. Cotton-beds and pillows, red-coloured cloths and the ? become pure by being dried over fire and then sprinkled with water.’

Mārkaṇḍeyapurūṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 134). — ‘Vessels and men are purified by water; metal things are cleansed by washing with water and scrubbing with stone.’

VERSE 5.112

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

अपामग्नेश्च संयोगाद् हैमं रौप्यं च निर्बभौ ।
तस्मात् तयोः स्वयोन्यैव निर्णेको गुणवत्तरः ॥११२॥

apāmagneśca saṃyogād haimaṃ raupyaṃ ca nirbabhau |
tasmāt tayoḥ svayonyaiva nirṇeko guṇavattaraḥ ||112||

Gold and silver sprang out of the union of water and fire; for these reasons the purification of these two is best done by means of their source. — (112.)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is a purely commendatory description.

In the series of commendatory passages beginning with the words ‘agnirvai varuṇam’ and ending with ‘abhyākāmyata’, the origin of gold and silver has been described; the meaning of which is that — ‘Agni approached Varuṇa, i.e., water, in the manner of a male approaching a female, and had sexual intercourse with it, and out of this sprang gold and silver.’

For this reason the purification of these is done by means of their ‘source’; i.e., by fire when there is much defilement, and algo by water.

Another reading is ‘Sayonyā’; in which case the meaning is ‘by that which has the same source as themselves’, i.e., by ash. And in accordance with this view cleansing by means of clay is also sometimes permitted.

The ‘purification is best done’. — (112).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 113 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 15b); — in Hemādri, (Śrāddha, p. 802); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 15a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 5.111-112)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.111.

VERSE 5.113

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

ताम्रायस्कांस्यरैत्यानां त्रपुणः सीसकस्य च ।
शौचं यथार्हं कर्तव्यं क्षाराम्लोदकवारिभिः ॥११३॥

tāmrāyaskāṃsyaraityānāṃ trapuṇaḥ sīsakasya ca |
śaucaṃ yathārhaṃ kartavyaṃ kṣārāmlodakavāribhiḥ ||113||

Of copper, iron, brass, pewter and tin, the purification should be done, according to suitability, by means of alkaline substances, of liquid acids and of water. — (113).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘According to suitability’. — According to what may be suitable to a particular thing; i.e., that substance should be used for cleaning which is best fitted to remove the dirt from the object to be cleaned. It is for this reason that in another Smṛti we find it stated that — ‘things made of tin and lead are to be cleansed by means of cow-dung and chaff.’ Similarly — ‘Brass-articles smelt by the cow, or defiled by the food-leavings of the Śūdra, or defiled by dogs and cows become cleansed by means of alkaline substances.’ It is with a view to this that we have the various varieties of alkalines, such as those prepared out of gruel, or of pomegranates and so forth. — (113).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 114 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.190); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 805); — and in Śuddhikaumudī, (p. 305), which explains ‘Kṣāra’ as ‘ashes’ — ‘amlodaka’ as the juice of lemon and such things, this latter goes with ‘tāmra’ and ‘kṣārodaka’ with rest , — washing goes with all, — ‘yathārham’ sufficient to remove dirt and soiling.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.8.33). — (See under 111.)

Vaśiṣṭha (3.58, 63). — ‘A woman is purified by her courses, a river by its current, brass by ashes, and earthenware by heating again. Copper is cleansed by acids.’

Viṣṇu (23.25, 26). — Vessels of copper, bell-metal, tin and lead are cleansed with acidulated water; — vessels of white copper and iron with ashes.’

Yājñavalkya (1.190). — ‘Tin, lead and copper are cleansed by acids and water and ashes; hell-metal and iron by ashes and water; a liquid substance by over-flowing.’

Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 269). — ‘Liquid substances should he made to overflow with water; grains, vegetables, roots and fruits should he washed with water, after throwing away the defiled portion.’

Śaṅkha (Do.). — ‘Clarified butter and oil should be melted; milk should be flooded over; vessels should be washed with water; as also vegetables, fruits and roots... There is no defilement for curds, clarified butter, milk and Takra when those are contained in large vessels.’

Laugākṣi (Do.). — ‘Milk, curds and their preparations are purified by being placed in another vessel; also by being flooded over, or passed though cloth or heating on fire.’

Yama (Do.). — ‘Raw meat, clarified butter, honey, oils of fruits — these are impure while contained in vessels belonging to Mlecchas, but pure as soon as taken out of those vessels.’

Vṛddha-Śātātapa (Do., p. 270). — ‘For clarified butter and oils, heating; for milk, flooding; curd and thickened milk are purified by throwing out the defiled part.’

VERSE 5.114

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

द्रवाणां चैव सर्वेषां शुद्धिरुत्पवनं स्मृतम् ।
प्रोक्षणं संहतानां च दारवाणां च तक्षणम् ॥११४॥

dravāṇāṃ caiva sarveṣāṃ śuddhirutpavanaṃ smṛtam |
prokṣaṇaṃ saṃhatānāṃ ca dāravāṇāṃ ca takṣaṇam ||114||

For all liquids, purification has been declared to consist in throwing out a little; for solids, in sprinkling; and for wooden articles, in scraping. — (114).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Liquids’ — Substances that have the tendency to flow; e.g., clarified butter, oil, gruel and so forth; when small quantities of these, — not more than a seer — are defiled by the cow and other things, — their purification is done by means of, ‘utpavana’, — i.e., the removal or throwing away, of a portion of the original contents. In another Smṛti-text it has been declared as follows: — ‘Utpavana is done by means of two blades of Kuśa, with the hymn — ‘pavamānaḥsuvarjanaḥ, &c.’

Others have explained ‘utpavana’ to mean ‘make to overflow’; the meaning being that another similar substance is to be poured into the defiled liquid till the vessel becomes filled to overflowing and a portion of the liquid flows out.

What is here prescribed is to be done in the case of direct contamination.

In the case of small quantities, the liquid has to be thrown away.

When, on the other hand, it is the vessel that is contaminated — and there is no direct defilement of the liquid itself — it should be removed into another vessel. In the case of liquids becoming contaminated by the contact of food-leavings, it has been declared ‘clarified butter should be placed in water and Vedic mantras recited’; and it is clear that the things have to be poured into another vessel, which latter is to be placed in water; for if the oil itself were placed in water, it would not remain fit for use. Similarly in the case of clarified butter also.

The said ‘utpavana’ is meant for liquids. But when liquids come into contact with urine and other unclean things, to this extent that their own odour and colour cease to be perceptible, — they have to be thrown away.

As regards such liquids as have been boiled, Śaṅkha has prescribed re-boiling also.

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры