with the Commentary of Medhatithi 159 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 165 из 350Следующая ⇒

The details of the manner of purification — in connection with births, deaths and the rest — should be like those of the Vaisḥya.

‘Their food shall consist of the leavings, or twice-born men.’ — This has been already explained before. — (138).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 140 of others.)

‘Māsikam mpanam kāryam’ means, according to Nandana, ‘shall offer the monthly Śrāddha.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 906), which adds the following notes: — The rule of purity pertaining to the Vaiśya means a period of impurity extending over fifteen days; — ‘Nyāyavartinām’ means devoted to the service of the twice-born, the offering of the Five Great Sacrifices, the supporting of dependents, the loving of wife and so forth.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 111); — in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 318), which leads ‘ārya’ (for ‘Vaiśya’) and explains it as Vaiśya; — in Hāralatā (p. 10), which has the following notes: — That ‘Śūdra’ is called Nyāyavartin who, with a purely religious motive, serves the Brāhmaṇa honestly and earnestly, performs the Five Sacrifices with ‘namaḥ’ as the mantra, avoids all forbidden food and forbidden acts, — such a Śūdra becomes purified in Fifteen days, in the manner of a Vaiśya, — he should shave every month, — or vapanam may mean ‘offering of Piṇḍas’ i.e., the Śrāddha on the Moonless Day, — it is only such a Śūdra that is entitled to eat the food-leavings of the Brāhmaṇa, — this curtailment of the period of impurity (from one month to fifteen days) is only for the purpose of the man serving the Brāhmaṇa, and for that of offering the Five Sacrifices and so forth, — in Varṣakriyākaumudī (p. 573), which explains vapanam as shaving and says that the Śūdra should not keep long hair, — or it may stand for the Amāvasyā Śrāddha; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 352).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba (2.3.5-8). — ‘For Śūdras is prescribed the same rule of sipping water as for their masters; besides the Śūdra cooks shall daily have shaved the hair of their heads, of their beards, on their bodies, and also their nails; and they shall bathe with clothes on; or they may trim their hair and nails on the eighth day of each month, or on the Full moon and Moonless days.’

VERSE 5.139

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

नोच्छिष्टं कुर्वते मुख्या विप्रुषोऽङ्गं न यान्ति याः ।
न श्मश्रूणि गतान्यास्यं न दन्तान्तरधिष्ठितम् ॥१३९॥

nocchiṣṭaṃ kurvate mukhyā vipruṣo'ṅgaṃ na yānti yāḥ |
na śmaśrūṇi gatānyāsyaṃ na dantāntaradhiṣṭhitam ||139||

Drops from the mouth, if they do not reach the body, do not make one impure; nor the hairs of the beard that enter the mouth; nor what adheres to the teeth. — (139).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the text — ‘on having spat and on having told a lie &c.’ (5.144) — it has been laid down that on spitting one should sip water; which indicates that until one has sipped water, he remains impure. Drops issuing from the mouth would also be a form of ‘spitting;; so that the issuing of drops of water from the mouth standing on the same footing as the spitting of phlegm, it might be thought that it should necessitate the sipping of water. With a view to this contingency, the author has added the present verse.

‘Mukhyaḥ’ — produced in, or issuing from, the mouth such ‘drops’ do not make one impure, if they do not fall upon the body.

“But it has been already declared that drops are pure (5-132.)”

But that was with reference to things other than bodily excretions. That this was meant there is clearly indicated by the present verse; which makes it clear that all kinds of drops were not meant when they were declared to be pure.

‘Śmaśruṇi’ — hairs of the beard, — ‘that enter the mouth’ — ‘do not make one impure’; this has to be construed with the present phrase; so that they do become the cause of some slight evil effects (even though they do not make the man impure).

So also ‘what adheres to the teeth.’ In connection with this we have greater details in another Smṛti text — ‘What adheres to the teeth is like the teeth, except what is touched by the tongue; — some say that this is so before it falls off from the teeth; — what falls off is to be treated as saliva the man becomes pure by swallowing it.’ (Gautama 1.38 to 40.) ‘Those that fall off’ — i.e. without bang touched by the tongue: since the touch of the tongue has been declared to be not pure. — (139).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 141 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 353), which explains ‘mukhyāḥ’ as ‘those proceeding from the mouth’ and ‘Dantāntaraviṣṭitam’ (which is its reading for Dhiṣṭhitam) as ‘what has entered between the teeth’; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 972), which explains Dantānta as between the teeth or in the teeth-cavities and adhiṣṭhitam as attached.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (23.53). — ‘Such drops as fall from the mouth of a man upon any part of his body do not render it impure; nor do hairs of the beard that enter his month; nor remnants of food adhering to his teeth.’

Gautama (1.38-41). — ‘Remnants of food adhering to the teeth are as his teeth (and do not make him impure), except if he touches them with the tongue; or before they fall from their place, according to some people; if they do become detached, he should know that he is purified by merely swallowing them, like saliva; drops of saliva dropping from the mouth do not cause impurity, except when they fall on a limb of the body.’

Baudhāyana (1.8.24, 25). — ‘What adheres to the teeth should be regarded like the teeth; because it is fixed like the teeth. Let him not sip water on their account in case it falls; if it flows out, he shall be pure. They quote the following: — “If anything adheres to the teeth, it is pure like the teeth; and if he swallows it, or whatever else may be in the mouth, or may remain there after he has sipped water, he will become pure.”’

Āpastamba (1.16.11-13). — ‘He does not become impure by the hair of his moustache getting into his mouth, as long as he does not touch them with his hand; if drops of saliva are perceived to fall from his mouth, then he shall sip water; some people declare that if the saliva falls on the ground, he need not sip water.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.37). — ‘Drops of saliva falling from the mouth, which do not touch a limb of the body, do not make a man impure.’

Yājñavalkya (1.195). — ‘Drops issuing from the mouth are pure; so also the water dropped in sipping water; and the hair of the moustache entering one’s mouth; if anything adheres to the teeth, the man becomes pure by throwing it out.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 277). — ‘What adheres to the teeth is like the teeth, when it is devoid of any taste, — except when it is touched by the tongue.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘What adheres to the teeth and cannot be taken out should be regarded as the teeth; and he should not make much effort to take it out, as if the sticks used wounded him, he would become very impure.’

VERSE 5.140

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

स्पृशन्ति बिन्दवः पादौ य आचामयतः परान् ।
भौमिकैस्ते समा ज्ञेया न तैराप्रयतो भवेत् ॥१४०॥

spṛśanti bindavaḥ pādau ya ācāmayataḥ parān |
bhaumikaiste samā jñeyā na tairāprayato bhavet ||140||

The drops that touch the feet of one who is helping others to wash should be regarded as on the same footing as those on the ground; and he is not rendered impure by them. — (140)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Helping others to wash,’ — i.e. offering water to other persons.

The meaning is as follows When one is pouring water for another person and the latter begins to sip water, if drops of water flowing out from between the fingers of that person happen to fall on the ground and rising from it, touch the feet of the man who is offering the water, — that man is not made impure by them.

‘Those on the ground’. — The drops of water fulling from the hand of the washing person, though unclean, should be regarded to be as clean as small quantities of water collected on clean ground.

‘By them,’ — touched, the man does not become impure. — (140)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 142 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 276); — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 228), which notes that pādau here include the other limbs also; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 113), which adds the following notes: —

The construction is parān ācāmayataḥ; — bhūmigaiḥ means ‘the drops of water falling on the ground’; — the use of the term ācāmayataḥ implies that if the drops of water fallen from the washings of one man happen to touch others than the one who is helping in the washing, — then those latter do become impure; — pādau includes other parts of the body also, — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 251), — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 972), which says that the construction is parānācamayataḥ pādau, and the meaning is that ‘when one is pouring water for another person rinsing his mouth, then if the water dropped by the latter falls upon the feet of the former, it does not make him unclean, because that water is bhaumikaiḥ samāḥ, clean as any ordinary water on the ground, — it follows that this refers only to the man who is pouring water for the other; other persons standing by do become unclean by the water-drops falling on then feet, — in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 281); — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 353).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.10.34). — ‘Where drops of water touch the feet of a man who is offering water to others for washing, no defilement is caused by them. They are as pure as water collected on the ground.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.42). — ‘One is not defiled by the drops which fall on his feet, while he is offering water to others for sipping; they are declared to he as good as water on the ground.’

Viṣṇu (23.54). — ‘Drops trickling on the feet of a man holding water for others for sipping, are considered to be equal to waters springing from the earth; by them he is not defiled.’

Yājñavalkya (1.195). — (See above, under 139.)

VERSE 5.141

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

उच्छिष्टेन तु संस्पृष्टो द्रव्यहस्तः कथं चन ।
अनिधायैव तद् द्रव्यमाचान्तः शुचितामियात् ॥१४१॥

ucchiṣṭena tu saṃspṛṣṭo dravyahastaḥ kathaṃ cana |
anidhāyaiva tad dravyamācāntaḥ śucitāmiyāt ||141||

He who, with some substance in hand, happens to be touched by an unclean object, becomes pure by washing, without laying down that substance. — (141).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The man who has committed something necessitating ‘washing’ is called ‘unclean’. For instance, one who has passed urine or evacuated his bowels, and has not performed the purificatory ablutions; or when he has been defiled by the contamination of some unclean thing.

‘With some substance in hand;’ — the person who is holding in his hand some thing to be eaten or some metal or cloth, &c., is called ‘dravyahastaḥ’, the use of the compound being similar to such compounds as ‘khadgahastaḥ’.

If such a person happens to be touched, then ‘without laying down’ — without setting aside — ‘that substance’ — he should wash.

“How can the man wash, when he has a substance in his hand? The procedure of washing has been described as ‘washing the hand upto the wrists and so forth.”

In answer to this some people offer the following explanation: — What is meant by the man being ‘with some substance in hand’ is that he should have the substance somewhere on his body, not necessarily in his hands. Similarly in the case of impurity also if the man become defiled, the contamination affects substances that may be lying on his shoulders also. Similarly purification is obtained by washing. Hence the man should perform the washing by removing the substance from his hand and keeping it on his fore-arm, in his lap or in some other part part of his body. The meaning is that just as the impurity of the man makes the substance impure so also; the purification of the man renders the substance pure.

Gautama has declared that — ‘The man with a substance in hand, happening to become unclean, should wash after having kept away the substance’ (1.28). This they explain as follows: Though both (washing and keeping away) are spoken of together, yet it is the keeping away that is meant to be enjoined by this text, otherwise all that would be necessary in the circumstances would be the purifying of both himself and the substance; and where would there be any necessity for the keeping away of the substance? Hence, since, in the absence of the text quoted, there would be no possibility of the keeping away, this text must be taken as meant only for enjoining this latter. “How then would the substance be purified?” It would be purified by being held by the pure person, — or by the ‘washing’ prescribed by another Smṛti-text: viz: ‘while dealing with foods and drinks if one happens to touch an unclean thing, he should wash the article and then sip water: in this manner it does not become defiled.’

“In the present verse nothing is said regarding the necessity of having to keep away the substance, and yet if it were to be taken as implied, the phrase ‘without laying down’ would be absolutely futile.”

As a matter of fact, the same purpose runs through all Smṛtis; and yet from the direct words of the texts in the present instance we understand that there is a clear difference of opinion (between Manu and Gautama). So that the two should be regarded as optional alternatives; and the rule determining the option would be that — (a) if the substance is a heavy one it shall be laid aside, otherwise it may be kept on the body, — or (b) when the man himself eats the food (carried), or he touches a large quantity of unclean things, or is touched by a person who should have washed but has not yet washed, — in all these cases the touching of the substance would be a source of uncleanliness (141)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 143 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 264), which notes that this refers to cloth or such other substances being in the hand; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 641); — in Ācāramayūkha (p. 17), which quotes Medhātithi to the effect that this refers to small things in the hand, — such things as can not be kept aside; — in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 861), — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 118), which notes that this refers to the hand being engaged in the holding of things other than articles of food, — says Kālpataru; — in Smrtisāroddhāra (pp. 246 and 251), — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 476), which says that this refers to articles of food; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 954), which says that according to Medhātithi heavy objects are kept aside, but not small objects, but according to Smṛticandrikā it refers to such clothing and other things as can not be kept aside; or it may mean that sacred vessels may not be kept aside, food and metallic things may be kept aside, and clothes and other things may or may not be kept aside; — in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 281), which quotes Viśvarupa to the effect that this refers to things other than food and vegetables; — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 317), which says that the man should keep the thing on his body and rinse his mouth, by which he himself, as also the thing carried, becomes purified; — according to Ratnākara, this refers to milk only.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.8.27-30). — ‘If he becomes impure while holding a metal-vessel, he shall put it down, sip water and sprinkle it, when he is going to take it up: if he becomes impure while he is occupied with food, he shall put it down, sip water and sprinkle it, when he is going to take it up. If he becomes impure while occupied with water, he shall put it down, sip water and sprinkle it, when he is going to take it up. That is contrary to rule in the case of an earthen vessel.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.43). — ‘If, while occupied with eatables, he touches any impure substance, then he shall place that thing on the ground, sip water and then use it.’

VERSE 5.142

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

वान्तो विरिक्तः स्नात्वा तु घृतप्राशनमाचरेत् ।
आचामेदेव भुक्त्वाऽन्नं स्नानं मैथुनिनः स्मृतम् ॥१४२॥

vānto viriktaḥ snātvā tu ghṛtaprāśanamācaret |
ācāmedeva bhuktvā'nnaṃ snānaṃ maithuninaḥ smṛtam ||142||

Having vomitted or purged, one should bath and then eat clarified butter. After having eaten his food, he should only sip water. For one who has copulated bathing has been ordained. — (142).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Vomitting’ and ‘purging’ are well known. The man who throws out the food that he has eaten is said to have ‘vomitted’. The man the number of whose motions has gone beyond the number eight, — either through disease, or through his having taken Harītakī or some such purgative — is said to have ‘purged.’

These two persons should first of all bathe.

Then, they should eat clarified butter and then any other kind of food; and the injunction of eating clarified batter is meant to be a prohibition of other kinds of food. Just as in the case of expiatory rites, ashes and water are regarded as means of purification, so in the case in question, is the eating of clarified butter.

‘After having taken food he should only sip water’ — After he has taken his food, if he happen to vomit or purge on the same day, then he should do the sipping of water only, and not. bathing and eating of clarified butter.

Others have taken this independently by itself, to mean that ‘after having taken his food he should sip water this being a reiteration of the water-sipping that has already been prescribed as to be done after meals.

‘One who has copulated,’ — i.e., one who has had sexual intercourse with a woman, — becomes pure by bathing. (142).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 144 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 922); and again on (p. 926), where it explains the meaning to be that ‘if one vomits after having eaten food, he must wash’; — in Mitākṣarā (on 3.30), which adds, like Aparārka, that the last clause refers to sexual intercourse during the wife’s ‘courses’; — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 106), which notes that ‘viriktaḥ’ means ‘one who has abnormal purgings,’ — and that the meaning is that ‘if one vomits after he has taken his food, he should only wash, and not bathe’; — and again on p. 199 where the construction of the second half is explained as ‘bhuktvā annam vāntaḥ,’ whence the meaning is that on vomitting immediately after food, there should be washing only, — the particle ‘eva’ serving to preclude the bathing which is prescribed in the first half of the verse for one who has ‘vomitted’; — the ‘sexual intercourse,’ refers to that during the courses; — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 331), which explains ‘viriktaḥ’ as ‘one who has had many motions,’ and adds that if one vomits immediately after taking his food, he is simply to rinse his mouth, and for the man who has had sexual intercourse during the wife’s ‘period,’ he is cleansed by bathing; — in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 334), which says that ‘vāntaḥ’ is understood after ‘bhuktvā annam,’ and adds the same notes; — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 796).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba (2.1.21-23). — ‘During intercourse only they shall he together; afterwards separate; then they shall both bathe.’

Viṣṇu (22.67). — ‘Bathing is also ordained after sexual intercourse, after bad dreams, also when blood has issued from the throat and after having vomited or been purged,’

Parāśara (Aparārka, p. 922). — ‘After bad dreams and sexual intercourse, or vomiting, or purging, or shaving,... one should bathe.’

Bṛhaspati (Do.). — ‘After sexual intercourse, there should be immediate bathing.’

Yama (Do.). — ‘When there is indigestion, or purging or vomiting, or sleeping at sunset, after bad dreams, or touching a wicked man, one shall only bathe.’

VERSE 5.143

Section XIII - Purification of Substances

सुप्त्वा क्षुत्वा च भुक्त्वा च निष्ठीव्यौक्त्वाऽनृतानि च ।
पीत्वाऽपोऽध्येष्यमाणश्च आचामेत् प्रयतोऽपि सन् ॥१४३॥

suptvā kṣutvā ca bhuktvā ca niṣṭhīvyauktvā'nṛtāni ca |
pītvā'po'dhyeṣyamāṇaśca ācāmet prayato'pi san ||14३||

One should sip water after having slept, after having sneezed, after having eaten, after having spat, after having told a lie, after having drunk water, and when going to read the Veda, even though he may be quite pure. — (143).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘After having sneezed,’ — after having done sneezing, which is the name given to the sound that emanates involuntarily from the nostrils of a man moved by internal wind.

‘Even though he may be quite pure.’ — This is to be construed only with the phrase‘when going to read the Veda’; the meaning being that even though he be quite pure, he should, when going to read the Veda, read it after having sipped water; i.e., the water sipping-should be done as part of the procedure laid down in connection with Vedic study; while after sleep &c., the water-sipping shall be done once only.

As for the following declaration — ‘Having slept, having sneezed, having eaten, having drunk water, the wise man shall sip water and then again sip water; as also after having spat and told lies’, — this has to be construed to mean that ‘having sipped water, he should eat and then sip water again.’ In a case however where it is clearly stated that ‘one should sip water twice, the act has to be repeated consecutively.’ (143)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 145 of others.)

Cf 2.70.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1139), which adds that the ‘water-sipping’ here laid down for lying is to be combined with the repeating of the Gāyatrī — the water-sipping removing the uncleanliness and the Gāyatrī removing

the sin; — in Mitākṣarā (on 1.196); — in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 115), which notes that though this verse clearly implies that water-sipping is not done for the purpose of removing impurity, yet it is absolutely necessary, whenever one eats or drinks; — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 224); — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 423), which says that this refers to unintentional lying; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 523), which adds that ‘prayatopi’ means ‘though he may have already washed’; — and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 349), which explains ‘Adhyeṣyamāṇaḥ’ as ‘going to read.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (1.374. — ‘On sleeping, dining, and sneezing, he shall again sip water.’

Āpastamba (1.16.14). — ‘On touching during sleep or sternutation, the effluvia of the nose or the eyes, or touching

blood, hair, fire, kine, a Brāhmaṇa or a woman, and after having walked on the high road, and after having touched an impure thing or man, and after having put on his lower garment, he shall either bathe or sip or merely touch water.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.38). — ‘If, after having sipped water, he sleeps, eats, sneezes, drinks, weeps or bathes, or puts on a dress, he must again sip water.’

Viṣṇu (22.75) — ‘Having sneezed, slept, and eaten, or going to eat and to study, or having drunk water, bathed, spat, or having put on his garment, walked on the high road, discharged urine or faeces, touched dry hone of five-toed animals — he must sip water.’

Gobhila (1.2.33). — ‘Having slept or eaten or sneezed or taken a bath or drunk something or changed his garments or walked on the high road or gone to a crematorium, — he should sip water again and again.’

Yājñavalkya (1.196). — ‘Having bathed or drunk, or sneezing or sleeping or passing along the road, or after putting on a garment, he shall sip water again, even though he may have already sipped water.’

Baudhāyana (Aparārka, p. 278). — ‘On the cloth-knot becoming loose, if he re-ties it, he shall sip water; or he may touch moist earth, cowdung or grass.’

Āpastamba (Do.). — ‘When going to eat, he shall sip water.’

Pracetas (Do.). — ‘On urinating, passing faeces, spitting or lying, he shall sip water again.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.). — ‘On the approach of an asthmatic fit and on passing a road-crossing, he shall sip water again.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 279). — ‘When going to sleep, he shall sip water.’

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?