with the Commentary of Medhatithi 157 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 163 из 350Следующая ⇒

In this connection, no one should entertain the idea that — ‘there would be nothing wrong in the partaking of food if the defilement were entirely unknown.’ As this would be contrary to what has been declared (in 5.20) regarding the sinfulness of eating certain things unintentionally.

Thus the conclusion is that a thing is to be regarded as pure in connection with which no contamination is known by any of the recognised means of knowledge. But when, even in the absence of definite proof, there be even the slightest and most far-fetched suspicion regarding contamination, the thing concerned should be washed with water. E.g. when from among a large number of dishes and cups lying in the same place, if even one has been seen to be contaminated by the touch of the dog or some such thing, all the rest of them also should be washed with water.

To this same category (of ‘what is not seen’) belongs also ‘what is commended by word.’ That is cultured men should be made to pronounce the thing to be pure. They say that things become pure by the Brāhmaṇa’s word. The present tense in ‘praśasyate’, ‘is commended’, has the force of the Injunctive.

Some people explain the‘commendation’ here spoken of as follows “When the person going to make use of a certain thing has seen it being defiled, even if he does not himself see it being purified, he should believe it to have been purified if cultured people assure him that it has undergone purification.”

This however is not right. Since the assertion of a trustworthy person has nowhere been spoken of as being unreliable, to assert it here would be a needless repetition.

Others have explained the term ‘what is washed with water’ as meant to be an example, — and the ‘unseen’ and the ‘commended by word’ as the two whose purity is here enjoined; the sense being — ‘Just as what is washed with water is pure, so also should be regarded what is not seen and what is commended by word’

“If everything is pure, in which no contamination is cognised by either Perception or Inference or Verbal Authority, — then why should the Cāndrāyaṇa have been prescribed (under 5.21) as to be performed for the expiation of the sin of having partaken of defiled food, without knowledge ?”

What has been said under 5.21 is in connection with what is At for being eaten; while the present text deals with purification in general. Or, a distinction may be drawn between the two declarations, either on the ground of one referring to cases of more serious defilement than the other, or on the ground of one referring to times of distress and the other to normal times. — (125)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 127 of others.)

This is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 469) as laying down the means of satisfaction where defilement is only suspected; — in Smṛtitattva (p. 454), which adds the following note: — ‘adṛṣṭam’ is ‘that which has never been known to be suspected of defilement’, — ‘vācā praśasyate’ — when a thing has been suspected of being defiled, if the Brāhmaṇas declare ‘may this be pure’, it has to be regarded as pure; — such being the explanation, it adds, provided by Dīpakalikā and Kullūka Bhaṭṭa; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 818); — in Nityācāropradīpa (p. 102) which explains ‘adṛṣṭam’, as ‘not perceived to be defiled’, i.e., where no defilement is known to exist by any means of knowledge, — ‘nirṇiktam’, washed, when suspected of being defiled, — ‘Vācā etc.’ if even after washing, there is some compunction, this is removed when the thing is commended; — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p 292); — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 459) which says that ‘brāhmaṇa’ stands for all the four castes.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (3.101.40). — (Same as Manu).

Baudhāyana (1.9.9). — ‘The gods created for Brāhmaṇas three means of purification — ignorance of defilement, sprinkling with water and commending by word of mouth.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.24). — ‘They quote the following words of Prajāpati — The gods created for Brāhmaṇas, three means of purifying — Ignorance, sprinkling and commending by word of mouth.’

Viṣṇu (2?.47). — ‘The gods have declared, as peculiar to Brāhmaṇas, three means of effecting purity — if the impurity has not been perceived, if the object is sprinkled with water, if, in doubtful cases, they commend it with speech.’

Yājñavalkya (1.191). — (See under 124 then) — ‘What is verbally cemmended (commended?), or washed with water, or unknown (as defiled) is ever pure.’

VERSE 5.126

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

आपः शुद्धा भूमिगता वैतृष्ण्यं यासु गोर्भवेत् ।
अव्याप्ताश्चेदमेध्येन गन्धवर्णरसान्विताः ॥१२६॥

āpaḥ śuddhā bhūmigatā vaitṛṣṇyaṃ yāsu gorbhavet |
avyāptāścedamedhyena gandhavarṇarasānvitāḥ ||126||

Water collected on the ground is pure, if it is sufficient to allay the thirst of the cow; but only if it is not contaminated by any unclean thing, becoming affected by with its smell, colour and taste. — (126)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘ground’ is mentioned only by way of illustration; so that water in canals is also pure. Water on the ground, as also in the atmosphere, is, by its very nature, pure; but the ground, being in contact with unclean substances, is slightly impure; hence when water is collected on the ground, it imbibes impurity by contact; and the present text proceeds to point out what quantity of water thus collected is to be regarded as pure: — ‘Sufficient to allay the thirst of the cow’; — ‘vaitṛṣṇyam’ means freedom from thirst, This is meant to indicate a particular quantity; this explanation having been adopted by the ancients on the strength of the words of the Veda — ‘so that the dawlap of the cow dapples in water &c. &c.’ Thus the quantity meant is that in which the cow’s dewlap becomes submerged, or which allays her thirst.

Water collected on pure ground is pure, even in small quantities.

“How is it to be known that water has been ‘contaminated by an unclean thing’?”

In answer to this we have the phrase — ‘becoming affected by its smell, colour and taste,’ The Instrumental ending in ‘amedhyena’, ‘by an unclean thing’, has to be changed here into the genitive; the meaning being — ‘when the water imbibes the smell, colour and taste of the unclean thing, then it is to be regarded as contaminated by it.’ According to this construction, if in a tank, an unclean thing be found in one part, while in another part the water be found to be free from its smell &c., then this latter is to be regarded as pure — (126).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 128 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 272); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 618); — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 119); — in Śuddhikaumudī (pp. 297 and 341), which says that ‘rūpa etc.’ means that one should shun that water which has an evil smell, bad colour and bad taste; the natural colour and taste of water are white and sweet, and though there is no natural smell, yet of transferred smell only the agreeable one is to be accepted, hence the meaning is that water should be used only when it is either odourless or has an agreeable odour; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 14b); — and in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 81).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.9.10). — ‘Water collected on the ground with which cows slake their thirst is a means of purification, provided it is not strongly mixed with unclean substances, nor has smell, nor is discoloured, nor has taste.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.35, 36, 47). — ‘Water (for sipping) may be taken even out of a hole in the ground, if it is sufficient to slake the thirst of cows. He shall not purify himself with water that has been defiled with colours, perfumes or flavouring substances; nor with such as is collected in unclean places. Water collected on the ground that quenches the thirst of the cows, the Lord of created things has declared to be pure.’

Viṣṇu (23.43). — ‘Stagnant water, if even a single cow can quench her thirst with it, is pure, unless it is quite filled with unclean objects; it is the same with water upon a rock.’

Yājñavalkya (1.192). — ‘Water in its natural condition, standing on the ground, is pure, if it is sufficient to satisfy a cow.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 272). — ‘That water is declared to he purificatory which is devoid of smell and flavour, free from dirt, and such as would not disappear if a cow were to drink out of it.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 273). — ‘Water, at a drinking booth in the forest, or in a jar, or in a well, or in a water-pot, or in a stone-cup, or in a leather-bag, is unfit for drinking, except in times of distress.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 119). — ‘Rain-water collected on the ground is purified in ten nights.’

VERSE 5.127

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

नित्यं शुद्धः कारुहस्तः पण्ये यच्च प्रसारितम् ।
ब्रह्मचारिगतं भैक्ष्यं नित्यं मेध्यमिति स्थितिः ॥१२७॥

nityaṃ śuddhaḥ kāruhastaḥ paṇye yacca prasāritam |
brahmacārigataṃ bhaikṣyaṃ nityaṃ medhyamiti sthitiḥ ||127||

The artisan’s hand is always pure; so also is merchandise spread out for sale; the food begged and held by the student is ever sacred; such is the established rule — (127).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Kāru’ is artisan; such as the cook; the dyer, the weaver and so forth the hand of these people is ‘always pure.’ It is for this reason that they are touchable even during periods of impurity caused by birth or death. But it does not mean that their hand is to be regarded as pure even when found to be actually bearing the stains of ordure or such unclean things.

What is stated here is on the same footing with what as been asserted before regarding certain people being ‘immediately purified.’ Nor is there any superfluous repetition; as no such purification has been declared anywhere else in the Institutes of Manu. Then the present text contemplates another case also, e.g. weavers, as a rule, weave cloth without bathing for separating the yarns from the pillars they make use of dough and gruel &c.; — they place the vessels containing these things at random: — the ‘impurity’ involved in all this is what is negatived by the present text; and it is not meant that people who are impure by their very nature are to be regarded as ‘touchable’ by taking to the work of artisans; because such work has not been ordained for them.

This same reasoning holds good regarding the view that things touched by Mlecchas are not impure. In connection with these, sprinkling and washing have to be done, as laid down by Śaṅkha, who reads — ‘The artisan’s hand is pure, and so also are substances in a heap.’

‘Merchandise’; — the substance that is sold for money, or is exchanged for some other substance, is called ‘merchandise’; and when this is ‘spread out’ in the market-place, it is pure. That is, it does not become defiled by such contaminations as being handled by several purchasers, being spread out on unwashed ground and so forth, even though one may perceive such contaminations again and again. Since the text speaks of its being ‘spread out’, it follows that so long as the thing is stored within a room, it is not pure, even though it is ‘in the market-place’. — As regards cooked substances, such as fried flour, cakes and the like, — though these also are ‘pure’ (when spread out in the market-place), yet they are not fit for eating; as declared by Śaṅkha — ‘things exposed in the marketplace are not fit for eating’.

‘Held by the student’. — By reason of the ‘purity’ being spoken of in this verse along with this term, it is to be regarded as pertaining to such contamination as the following — (a) treading along the public road in course of begging (b) the sight of unclean objects, (c) spitting and sneezing, (d) the dropping of one hand on the food obtained and so forth, — all which are probable.

‘Sacred’; — this is meant to imply purity — (127).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 129 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 468), which notes that ‘brahmacārigatam bhaikṣyam,’ stands

for all that is permitted by way of ‘alms’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 838); — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 355), which explains ‘nityam śuddhaḥ’ as ‘even without washing, an article made by an artisan may be used — ‘kāru’ means ‘artisan’, — ‘paṇyam’ is ‘merchandise’, ‘spread out’ at the place of sale; — among these, however, cooked food is an exception; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 17a); — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 250), which says that ‘brahmacāri’ stands for ‘bhikṣu in general.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.9.1). — ‘The Veda declares that the hand of the artisan is always pure; so is vendible commodity exposed for sale and food obtained by begging which a student holds in his hand.’

Viṣṇu (23.48). — ‘The hand of a cook or other artisan, things exposed for sale in a shop, food given to a Brāhmaṇa, and all manufactories or mines are always pure.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.46). — ‘A vendible commodity tendered for sale, and what is not dirtied by gnats and flies that have settled on it (is pure).’

Yājñavalkya (1.187). — ‘The artisan’s hand is pure; so also commodity exposed for sale, alms and woman’s mouth.’ Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 263). — ‘The artisan’s hand is pure, so also substances got out of mines and washed.’

VERSE 5.128

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

नित्यमास्यं शुचि स्त्रीणां शकुनिः फलपातने ।
प्रस्रवे च शुचिर्वत्सः श्वा मृगग्रहणे शुचिः ॥१२८॥

nityamāsyaṃ śuci strīṇāṃ śakuniḥ phalapātane |
prasrave ca śucirvatsaḥ śvā mṛgagrahaṇe śuciḥ ||138||

The mouth of women is always pure; as also the bird in the dropping of fruits; the calf is pure in causing the flow (of milk); and the dog is pure in the catching of deer — (128).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The mouth of all women is ‘pure’ — for the purposes of kissing &c. ‘Women during sexual intercourse etc.’ — says another Smṛti -text. What is said here applies only to such women with whom sexual intercourse is possible, and not to the mother, sister and such women. This should not be understood to be the denial of the impurity attaching to the mouth until it is washed after food. Because even though the wife is a woman with whom sexual intercourse is possible, yet it has been declared in discourse IV that ‘one should not eat with his wife’.

The addition of the term ‘always’ implies that the mouth is pure, not only at the time of the actual intercourse, but also during the acts that lead up to it.

‘The bird in the dropping of fruits’. — Though the term “śakuni’, ‘bird’, denotes all kinds of birds, yet by usage, what is said here is not applicable to the crow, the vulture or other such birds as feed upon unclean things.

Since the text uses the term ‘dropping’, the present rule applies only to fruits on the tree.

‘In causing the flow’. — When the cow is being milked, the calf is made to touch the teats for the purpose of making the milk to flow; and yet it has been declared that ‘cows are pure except in their mouths’; so that the touch of the calf’s mouth might be regarded as a source of impurity; it is with a view to preclude this notion that we have the present text.

The dog itself is not pure; but it is to be regarded as pure when in the course of hunting, it catches’the deer — (128).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 130 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 835); — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 355), which says the meaning is that the woman’s mouth is clean, for the purpose of kissing; — and in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 84) which says ‘women’ means ‘one’s own wife’, and that ‘prasrave’ means ‘in drinking the milk of the cow.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.9, 2). — ‘A calf is pure in making the milk flow; a bird in the dropping of fruits, women at the time of dalliance and a dog in catching a deer.’

Sumantu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 145). — ‘Women, infants, mosquitoes, flies, cats, rats, shadow, seats, beds, conveyances and water-particles are always pure.’

Bṛhaspati (Parāśaramādhava, p. 145). — ‘Of Brāhmaṇas, the feet are pure; of goats and horses, the mouth; of cows, the hind-part is pure; of women, the whole body.’

Vaśiṣṭha (28.8). — ‘A calf is pure for the flowing of milk; a bird when it causes a fruit to fall, women during dalliance, and a dog when it catches a deer.’

Uśanas (Parāśaramādhava, p. 144). — ‘The cow is pure at the hind-part, the goat and other at the front; women are pure all over; but their heart is impure.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.45, 47). — ‘Wild animals killed by dogs and fruits thrown by birds, what has been spoilt by children and what has been handled by women,...the Lord of Created Beings has declared these to be pure.’

Viṣṇu (23.49). — ‘The mouth of the woman is always pure, a bird is pure in the dropping of fruits; a sucking calf in the flowing of milk; and a dog in the catching of deer.’

Yājñavalkya (1.187, 192-195). — ‘The woman’s mouth is pure...... So is the deer’s flesh dropped by dogs, Caṇḍālas, carnivorous animals and others...... Sun’s rays, fire, goat, shadow, cow, horse, earth, air, liquid particles and flies are pure for touching; and the calf is pure in making the milk flow. The goat and the horse are pure in their mouth, but not so the cow, nor the excretions from human bodies. Roads are purified by the rays of the sun and the moon and by wind; particles issuing from the mouth are pure, so also water dropped during sipping water and the hairs of the moustache in the mouth.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 274). — ‘Seat, bed, conveyance, woman’s mouth, blanket, and razor, — these and the sacrificial cups, the wise never regard as defiled. The following are always pure to the touch: — cow, horse, liquid particles, shadow, flies, locusts, parrots, goat, elephant, martial umbrella, solar and lunar rays, earth, lire, dust, air, water, curd, clarified butter, milk.’

Śaṅkha (Do.). — ‘Smoke, fire and dust wafted by the wind, are pure.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do.). — ‘The mouth of one’s wife during.dalliance and of the infant just born are pure.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘Goats and horses arc pure in their mouth, cows are pure in their hind-part, trees are pure when in flower; Brāhmaṇas are always pure.’

Śivadharmottara (Do.). — ‘Brāhmaṇa, cow, flies, perspiration, shadow, lire, sun’s rays, dust, earth, air, — are pure in touching...... The shadow cast by the Caṇḍāla and the out cast is never defiling to the touch.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Parāśaramādhava, p. 145). — ‘Woman’s mouth during dalliance.’

Parāśara (7.35). — ‘Unimpeded currents are never impure, nor dust raised by the wind; women, old persons and children are never impure.’

VERSE 5.129

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

श्वभिर्हतस्य यन् मांसं शुचि तन् मनुरब्रवीत् ।
क्रव्याद्भिश्च हतस्यान्यैश्चण्डालाद्यैश्च दस्युभिः ॥१२९॥

śvabhirhatasya yan māṃsaṃ śuci tan manurabravīt |
kravyādbhiśca hatasyānyaiścaṇḍālādyaiśca dasyubhiḥ ||129||

The flesh of the animal killed by dogs Manu has declared to be pure; as also that of the animal killed by other carnivorous animals and by the Cāṇḍāla and other low castes. — (129).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the preceding verse — ‘the dog is pure in the catching of deer’ — all that was meant was that in the act of catching deer, the dog is pure; while the present verse goes into further details and declares the purity of what has been killed by the dog, as also of that killed by others with the stroke of sticks &c. Hence it is only the latter part of the verse that lays down something new.

‘Carnivorous animals’ — the kite, the jackal and the rest.

‘Cāṇḍāla and others’; — ‘and others’ is meant to include the Śvāpada and people of that class.

‘Low castes’ — the Nisāda, the Vyādha and others, who live by killing animals. — (129).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 131 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 146); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 468), which explains ‘kravyāt’ as the ‘Śyena and the rest’, — and ‘dasyu’ as ‘fowlers’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 835); — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 356); — and in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 3), which explains that what is said regarding dogs refers to its killing at a hunt; and there also it refers to only such animals as have their flesh permitted for eating.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (23.50). — ‘Flesh of an animal killed by dogs is pronounced pure; and so is that of an animal slain by other carnivorous creatures, or by huntsmen such as Caṇḍālas.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.45). — (See above, under 128.)

Yājñavalkya (1.192). — ‘The deer’s flesh dropped by dogs, Caṇḍālas and carnivorous animals and others is pure.’

VERSE 5.130

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

ऊर्ध्वं नाभेर्यानि खानि तानि मेध्यानि सर्वशः ।
यान्यधस्तान्यमेध्यानि देहाच्चैव मलाश्च्युताः ॥१३०॥

ūrdhvaṃ nābheryāni khāni tāni medhyāni sarvaśaḥ |
yānyadhastānyamedhyāni dehāccaiva malāścyutāḥ ||130||

The cavities that are above the navel are all pure; those that are below it are impure; as, also are all excretions dropped fr om the body. — (130).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘kha’ stands for organ; hence the organs of action also become included; and thus taking the two feet, the plural number becomes justified in the phrase ‘those that are below it are impure.’

This explanation (by which the lower organs are all made impure) is not right; as it is contrary to what has gone in the first half. Therein it has been declared that the purity of those above the navel is of a higher grade and superior: and this could have a meaning only if the lower ones also were pure; for what is while cannot be called more black.

Further, the term ‘kha’ does not signify the organ, it only signifies the cavity or hole. It is for this reason that the organs have been spoken of as ‘saptaśirṣanyaḥ’, ‘having seven seats’ (the cavities of the two ears, two eyes, two nostrils and the mouth). There are two ‘cavities’ below the navel; but the plural number has been used on account of the male and female generative organs being regarded as distinct.

According to this, there would be no uncleanliness of the hand involved in touching the inside of the mouth; — but only if if does not come into contact with the phlegm or other things that may be there. So. that if the hand does become contaminated with some such defiling substance, the mouth shall not be touched by it — (130).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 132 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 50); — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 103), which explains ‘khāni’ as ‘cavities’ and adds that (though there are only two cavities below the navel) the text uses the plural ‘tāni’ by regarding the male and female generative organs as distinct; — in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 85), which explains ‘khāni’ as ‘holes’, ‘medhyāni’ as ‘clean’, and ‘adhaḥ’ as ‘below the navel’; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 842); — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 359), which explains ‘medhyāni’ as ‘touchable’, and ‘amedhyāni’ as ‘untouchable’ and ‘dehachyuta-mala’ as standing for the nails and other excrescences, which also are ‘untouchable’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (3-51). — ‘The cavities above the navel must bo considered pure; those below it are impure; so are all excretions from the body.’

Yājñavalkya (1.194). — ‘Nor are excretions fallen from the human body pure.’

Baudhāyana (1.10.19). — ‘A man’s body is pure above the navel; it is impure below the navel, — so declares the Veda.’

VERSE 5.131

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

मक्षिका विप्रुषश्छाया गौरश्वः सूर्यरश्मयः ।
रजो भूर्वायुरग्निश्च स्पर्शे मेध्यानि निर्दिशेत् ॥१३१॥

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры