with the Commentary of Medhatithi 172 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 178 из 350Следующая ⇒

Among all these however, in accordance with the injunction or the direct Vedic text, the Householder is declared to be the best; because he supports the other three. — (89)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“What is asserted here does not appear to be right. For what it means is that the order of the Householder is directly enjoined by Vedic texts, which speak of the others only as supported by the former. In fact, in the event of the order of the Householder alone being directly enjoined by the Veda, there would be no room for the other orders; because the Vedic text (laying down Householding) would be more authoritative than the Smṛti -texts laying down austerities and other things (connected with the other orders.)’ — It might be argued in this connection that — ‘the words of the present verse are not to be construed as By reason of the injunction of the Vedic text (the Householder is superior), but that the superiority of the Householder spoken of in the Vedic text is due to the fact of his supporting the others; this is what is made clear by the sentence ‘he supports the other three’. — It has however got to be explained how this can be. — It may be urged that this would be so on account of the other orders also being enjoined in the Veda. — But if they are enjoined in the Veda, (and this is what is referred to in the present verse), then the present -text clearly runs counter to the Smṛti text that — ‘the Householder’s order alone is directly enjoined by the Veda’ (Gautama, 3.36). Nor is there any other construction possible. — It might be urged that ‘In view of the Jābāla-śruti, where we read that, having become a Householder, one shall become a Hermit, and having become a Hermit he shall go forth as a Wandering Mendicant, — all the orders are equally enjoined by the Veda’. — But even So, the contradiction of the Smṛti- text remains unexplained. Then again, this Jābāla-śruti is not injunctive in connection with the other orders; it does not contain any such injunction as that ‘one shall wander about in the forest in such and such a manner,’ — such and such acts shall be done by the man dwelling in the forest, — and such and such by the man who has gone forth as a Wandering Mendicant’, — in the way in which the duties of the Householder, beginning from the Laying of the Fire and ending with the Final Sacrifice, are found to be directly laid down; it merely mentions their name — ‘having become a householder &c.’ From all this it is clear that to speak of the Householder’s order as well as the other orders as equally enjoined in the Veda involves a contradiction of what has gone before.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — It is true that for the man who has taken a wife to himself, the Veda has directly enjoined the duties, commencing with fire-laying and ending with the final sacrifice. Now, in connection with the marriage-rite itself, we have to consider the question as to what it is by which that act of marriage is prompted, — whether It is prompted by the Vedic texts that speak of persons entitled to offer the Agni-hotra -libations? — or by the injunction that lays down the duty of begetting children? — or by the visible (worldly) purpose of the man?

“What sexual love prompts is only the taking of a woman, and not the marriage-rite; that alone can be regarded as prompting an act, without which this latter could not be accomplished; and for persons influenced by sexual love, all their domestic business would be accomplished by simply having a woman; why then should they need to perform the marriage-rites?”

This would be all right, if intercourse with a mere woman in general were not forbidden. Though what the Veda says regarding the fire-laying may apply to any woman in general, yet the scriptures always make a distinction between the woman with whom one may, or she with whom he may not, have inter course. It is for this reason that for men with a steady character, the desired purpose cannot be accomplished without marriage. So that it is only natural that there should be the idea that marriage is prompted by the Veda itself.

“If it be as the text says, then there would be nothing to prompt the other orders. And the purposes of all orders being accomplished by Householdership alone, what would be the need of examining what prompts the others. That which prompts the marriage may serve as the prompter (of Householdership); but if Householdership alone is actually enjoined, how could the other orders come about? Under the circumstances again, how far would any investigation into the prompter of marriage be justified?”

Our answer is as follows: — It has been asserted that the purposes of all the orders are fulfilled (by Householdership). This is quite true; when one order has been duly prompted, and the aid required by the others becomes indirectly accomplished by the same, there can be no heed for the assumption of what would prompt these latter. For instance, the Vrīhi corn, the acquiring of which is prompted by the motive of livelihood, is also used in the performance of rites; and there is no acquiring of property for the purpose of the rites; — or again, even though the unlearned man is not entitled to the performance of sacrifices, yet the acquiring of learning is not prompted by those performances, being, as it is, already accomplished in obedience to the injunction of Vedic study itself. Similarly in the case in question (of marriage), the necessary motive being already supplied by the man’s own desires, the act does, not need the prompting of Vedic texts. Thus the injunction of the acts to be done would be applicable to those also who have not married.

Thus it is that the man who has all his passions deadened during the period of Studentship itself, does not wish to marry at all; and such a person, on account of having no companion (wife), would not be entitled to the second order. Thus not being entitled to the rites prescribed in the Vedic texts, he would naturally take to the next (the third) order (having skipped over Householdership).

Others have offered the following explanation: — Marriage does not stand on the same footing as Property. Without some property living is impossible, as it is on property that man lives; but in the absence of the wife living is not impossible; so that the wife is not as essential as property; and the act of marrying a wife is prompted soley by considerations of religious acts (which cannot be done without a wife); and it is necessary to realise in this connection the necessity of making every effort to become entitled to the performance of religious acts. Otherwise, (if no such effort were necessary), having lost his title to such acts by reason of the impurity brought about by evacuations, if one were to omit the necessary purifying processes, he would not be open to the charge of having omitted an obligatory duty; under the circumstances, why should anyone take the trouble of getting rid of the impurity caused by death and other circumstances? — It might be argued that this latter is also itself enjoined. — Even so, the omission would involve the transgression of this one injunction only, and not of the thousands of injunctions (relating to the acts that the man would perform after due purification).

In answer to this, the following arguments may be put forward: — “Of what particular injunction would it be the meaning that ‘for the sake of acquiring the title to the performance of religious acts, the agent shall make an effort to accquire that title’? All the Injunctions that there are pertain to the performance of the Agnihotra and other rites, and all that they lay down is that the acts therein specified ought, to be performed, and they do not urge the bringing into existence of the Fires. These fires are kindled, in connection with the voluntary acts, by the man who undertakes them through desire for the rewards to be obtained from them; and it is only when these Fires have been thus kindled that the man becomes ‘one who has laid the Fires,’ and hence subject to the injunctions relating to the lifelong performance of the Agnihotra rites. Then again, it is only the man with a wife that is entitled to the ‘laying of fire’; so that the man would desire to marry a wife in the same manner as he lays the Fires for the purpose of acquiring the title to the performance of religious acts. So that the sense of no Injunction is offended if one omits to acquire the title to the performance of the Agnihotra and other rites [simply because there is no such Injunction as that one shall acquire this title ]. Nor does the Injunction of Marriage itself indicate that marriage shall be performed; because the act of Marriage is a sanctificatory or sacramental rite, just like the Vedic rites of the obligatory daily Agnihotra and other rites; specially as no rewards are mentioned in connection with it.”

In answer to this the ancients offer the following explanation: There is a direct Vedic text laying down the paying off of the ‘three debts’ — ‘When the Brāhmaṇa is born, he is born beset with three debts &c. &c.’; and this text becomes applicable to the man as soon as he is born; this ‘birth’ can not refer to the second ‘birth’ in the form of ‘Initiation’; as in that case, the man would be as good as an animal, prior to his ‘Initiation’. In fact the exact time referred to by the passage speaking of the ‘debts’ is that at which the man, having been born, comes to realise his responsibilities. Thus then, after the has accquired learning and thus become entitled to marry, if after having sought for a bride, he fails to obtain one and becomes grey, he would certainly be entitled to proceed to the stage of the Hermit. In fact, such a man comes to the following conclusion — ‘all through my youth I have been seeking for a bride; — they say that Fire-laying has been enjoined for only such men as have their hair still black; — and by the man of grey hairs Fire is not to be laid except in the event of his wife having died, — such is the meaning that they attribute to the Vedic Injunction’.

The ‘Householder is the best of all’, because of his connection with religious acts; hence the superiority belongs to the stage itself (not to the man).

‘These three.’ — That it supports the other three stages is another ground for its superiority. This is what has been referred to by the text — ‘By means of knowledge and by good &c. &c.’ — (89).

This same dea (idea?) is further supported by means of an example. —

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 6.87-93)

See Comparative notes for Verse 6.87.

(verses 6.89)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 563), which explains the meaning to be as follows: — As a matter of fact we find that all the scriptures lay down in great detail the duties of the Householder; hence this is recognised as superior to the other life-stages; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 175).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (3.36). — ‘The venerable teacher prescribes one order only; because the order of Householders is explicitly prescribed.’

Vaśiṣṭha (8.14). — ‘A householder alone performs sacrifices; a householder alone performs austerities; and the order of Householders is the most distinguished among the four.’

Viṣṇu (59.27-29). — ‘These three — the Student, the Hermit and the Renunciate — derive their subsistence from the order of Householders; therefore must a Householder not treat them with disdain, when they have arrived. The Householder offers sacrifices, the Householder practises austerities, the Householder distributes gifts; therefore is the order of Householders the best of all.’

VERSE 6.90

Section VIII - The Renouncer of the Veda (vedasaṃnyāsika)

यथा नदीनदाः सर्वे सागरे यान्ति संस्थितिम् ।
तथैवाश्रमिणः सर्वे गृहस्थे यान्ति संस्थितिम् ॥९०॥

yathā nadīnadāḥ sarve sāgare yānti saṃsthitim |
tathaivāśramiṇaḥ sarve gṛhasthe yānti saṃsthitim ||90||

Just as rivers and rivulets attain their resting-places in the Ocean, so do men of all other orders obtain support in the Householder. — (90).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Rivers’ — the Gaṅgā and the rest; — ‘rivulets’ — the Bhidya and others. The distinction between ‘rivers’ and ‘rivulets’ is based upon the difference of position or of taste.

In actual usage both are treated as one and the same; and the diversity of gender (in that case) is explained as standing on the same footing as that in the ease of the synonymous words ‘bhāryā’ (feminine) and ‘dārā’ (Masculine).

‘Resting place’ — support.

Just as the Ocean is the resting place for all kinds of water, so is the Householder entitled to the performance of all duties — (90)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 6.87-93)

See Comparative notes for Verse 6.87.

(verses 6.90)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 563); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 175).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (8.15-17). — ‘As all rivers, great and small, find a resting place in the ocean, even so men of all orders find protection with Householders. As all creatures exist through the protection afforded by their mothers, even so all mendicants subsist through the protection afforded by Householders.’

VERSE 6.91

Section VIII - The Renouncer of the Veda (vedasaṃnyāsika)

चतुर्भिरपि चैवैतैर्नित्यमाश्रमिभिर्द्विजैः ।
दशलक्षणको धर्मः सेवितव्यः प्रयत्नतः ॥९१॥

caturbhirapi caivaitairnityamāśramibhirdvijaiḥ |
daśalakṣaṇako dharmaḥ sevitavyaḥ prayatnataḥ ||91||

By twice-born men belonging to all these four orders this ten-fold duty shall always be assiduously observed. — (91)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse introduces what is going to be described below. ‘Ten-fold’ — That which has ten ‘folds’ or forms.

‘Be observed’ — Always be performed.

Though all these have already been mentioned before, yet they are repeated here in order to indicate their great importance; and this repetition also lends support to the view that it is the combination of ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Action’ that accomplishes the hightest end of man — (91)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 6.87-93)

See Comparative notes for Verse 6.87.

VERSE 6.92

Section VIII - The Renouncer of the Veda (vedasaṃnyāsika)

धृतिः क्षमा दमोऽस्तेयं शौचमिन्द्रियनिग्रहः ।
धीर्विद्या सत्यमक्रोधो दशकं धर्मलक्षणम् ॥९२॥

dhṛtiḥ kṣamā damo'steyaṃ śaucamindriyanigrahaḥ |
dhīrvidyā satyamakrodho daśakaṃ dharmalakṣaṇam ||92||

(1) Steadiness (2) Forgiveness, (3) Self-control, (4) Abstention from unrighteous appropriation, (5) Purity, (6) Control of the Sense-organs, (7) Discrimination, (8) Knowledge, (9) Truthfulness, and (10) Absence of anger, — these are the ten-fold forms of duty. — (92)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Steadiness and the rest are qualities of the Soul.

(1) ‘Steadiness’ — the feeling of contentment even at the loss of property and such things; expressed by such feelings as ‘if it has been lost, what does it matter? It can be acquired again.’ Similarly at separation from a beloved person, the man regains former equanimity by thinking that ‘such is the way of the world.’

(2) ‘Forgiveness’ — the excusing of wrongs committed; not seeking to do injury to a person in return for an injury that might have been done by him.

(3) ‘Self-control’ — absence of haughtiness, renouncing of pride due to superior learning &c.

(4) ‘Absention from unrighteous appropriation’: — this is well known.

(5) ‘Purity’ — cleanliness of food etc.

(6) ‘Control of the Sense-organs’ — not allowing them to be drawn even towards unforbidden things.

(7) ‘Discrimination’ — true knowledge, following upon the refutation of all doubtful and contrary views.

(8) ‘Knowledge’ of the Soul. The difference between ‘discrimination’ and ‘knowledge’ is that the former refers to Acts, and the latter to the Soul.

In view of this tautology, some people read ‘Dhīvidyā’ (wise discrimination). But this is not right; specially as we have explained the difference between the two.

The rest are well known.

‘Absence of anger’ is not permitting anger to arise when there is an occasion for it, and ‘forgiveness’ is not doing harm to others even when they may have done harm to one. — (92).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 6.87-93)

See Comparative notes for Verse 6.87.

(verse 6.92)

‘Dhṛtiḥ’ — ‘Fortitude, calmness even on the loss of wealth and such other calamities’; — ‘firmness of purpose in the discharge of duties’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

‘Damaḥ’ — ‘Humility’ (Medhātithi); — ‘patience under sufferings’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘subjugation of the mind’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

‘Dhīḥ’ — ‘True knowledge, free from doubts and errors (Medhātithi and Govindarāja); — ‘knowledge of the true meaning of the śāstras’ (Kullūka and Rāghvānanda); — Nārāyaṇa and Nandana, reading ‘hrīḥ’, explain it as ‘modesty’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 972), which explains ‘śaucam’ as ‘purity of mind and body’, — ‘dhīḥ’ as ‘discrimination of right and wrong’, — ‘dhṛtiḥ’ as ‘keeping the mind from going astray’, — ‘damaḥ’ as ‘controlling of the mind by means of the Kṛcchra and other austerties’. It adds that this verse enumerates the duties common to all the four orders; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 16a); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 13), which has the following notes; — ‘Dhṛti’, firmness, — ‘kṣamā’ is nonperturbation of the mind even when wronged, — ‘dama’ is control of the ‘mind’, — ‘asteya’ is non-appropriation of what is not given, — ‘śauca’ is cleanliness, both internal and external, — ‘indriyanigraha’ is keeping the senses from all forbidden objects, — ‘hrī’ (which is its reading for ‘dhī’) is cessation from improper acts, — ‘vidyā’ is self-knowledge — ‘satya’ is saying what is true, which should be agreeable also, — ‘akrodha’ is freedom from anger.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (10.30). — ‘To avoid backbiting, jealousy, pride, self-consciousness, unbelief, dishonesty, self-praise, blaming others, deceit, covetousness, delusion, anger, and envy is considered to be the duty of all orders.’

Yājñavalkya (3.66). — ‘Truthfulness, abstention from unrighteous appropriation and anger, modesty, purity, discrimination, steadiness, self-control, control over sense-organs and learning — these have been declared to be universal dharma.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 30). — ‘To all men — desisting from injuring others, truthfulness, purity, freedom from jealousy and cruelty and forgiveness.’

Kāmandaka (3.34-36). — ‘Not to find no fault with others, to observe his own duties, to show compassion for the distressed, to address sweet words to all, to save friends even at the cost of his life, to welcome enemies coming to the house, to practise charity commensurate with his resources, to be against sufferings, to conciliate estranged friends, to treat kindly and obey the wishes of all relations, — these are the characteristics of the high-minded.’

VERSE 6.93

Section VIII - The Renouncer of the Veda (vedasaṃnyāsika)

दश लक्षणानि धर्मस्य ये विप्राः समधीयते ।
अधीत्य चानुवर्तन्ते ते यान्ति परमां गतिम् ॥९३॥

daśa lakṣaṇāni dharmasya ye viprāḥ samadhīyate |
adhītya cānuvartante te yānti paramāṃ gatim ||93||

Those Brāhmaṇas, who properly study the ten forms of duty, and having studied them, follow them in practice, reach the highest state. — (93).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This describes the reward of what has just been enjoined. The mention of the reward of study is meant to eulogise the actual performance. — (93).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 6.87-93)

See Comparative notes for Verse 6.87.

VERSE 6.94

Section VIII - The Renouncer of the Veda (vedasaṃnyāsika)

दशलक्षणकं धर्ममनुतिष्ठन् समाहितः ।
वेदान्तं विधिवत्श्रुत्वा संन्यसेदनृणो द्विजः ॥९४॥

daśalakṣaṇakaṃ dharmamanutiṣṭhan samāhitaḥ |
vedāntaṃ vidhivatśrutvā saṃnyasedanṛṇo dvijaḥ ||94||

The twice-born person, performing, with collected mind, the ten-fold Duty, and having duly learnt the Vedānta texts, and become free from debts, should take to Renunciation. — (94).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Being freed from debts, should take to Renunciation.’ — This text is meant to lay down that Renunciation should come only after the three debts have been paid off. Just as all men are not entitled to go forth as a mendicant at the same period of their life, so with Renunciation also.

‘Having duly learnt the Vedānta texts’. — There is no renunciation for one who has not learnt what is contained in the Vedānta texts. Though the performance of Rites, as well as the learning of the Vedānta, are both implied in the injunction of ‘Vedic study’ — both kinds of texts being equally ‘Veda,’ — yet the learning of the Vedānta texts has been reiterated here for the purpose of laying special stress on it; the sense being that ‘the man shall devote himself entirely to it’.

“What is the actual meaning of the injunction. — ‘shall take to Renunciation’? What is thia that is called ‘Renunciation’?”

‘Renunciation’ consists of abandoning the notion that ‘this is mine’.

“What have been referred to above are the ‘Renouncers of the Veda’, from which it would seem as if there were ‘renunciation’ of the ‘Veda’ or of ‘what is contained in the Veda’, — and not that of such acts as the accepting of gifts and the like, which are done for the purpose of enabling the man to perform the acts enjoined by the Veda.”

In verse 84 above it has been declared that the Veda is the ‘refuge for those seeking immortality’; so that Vedic study is enjoined even for that stage at which Knowledge (and not Action) becomes the predominating factor in one’s life. In as much as the Agnihotra and other rites are accomplished with the help of material substances, they naturally become renounced when there is no sense of property (the notion of mine). Such ‘renunciation’ is meritorious only for one whose wife is dead, or who, having made arrangements for the upkeep of bis Fires, concentrates his attention on the Supreme Self. We read in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad — ‘when he thinks of going away, he says to his son &c. &c.,’ which lays down the handing over of the Fires. This renunciation of the Fires is enjoined also for the decrepit old man — ‘By decrepitude does he become absolved from this.’ Those rites however which do not take the aid of material substances — such for instance as the Twilight Prayers, the daily Agnihotra and the like — the performance of these being not forbidden, one remains entitled to it till his very last breath. — (94).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 973); — and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 5).

VERSE 6.95

Section VIII - The Renouncer of the Veda (vedasaṃnyāsika)

संन्यस्य सर्वकर्माणि कर्मदोषानपानुदन् ।
नियतो वेदमभ्यस्य पुत्रैश्वर्ये सुखं वसेत् ॥९५॥

saṃnyasya sarvakarmāṇi karmadoṣānapānudan |
niyato vedamabhyasya putraiśvarye sukhaṃ vaset ||95||

Having renounced all acts, and thrown off the taint of his acts, and studied the Veda with mind self-oontrolled, he shall live at ease under the protection of his son. — (95).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Having studied the Veda’; — this implies that the Veda shall not be given up. This has been already explained above.

The right reading would appear to be the present-participial form ‘abhyasyan,’ ‘studying.’

‘He shall live at ease under the protection of his son’; — i.e., if he has a son born to him; or of any other person who may be in the place of his son; such, for instance as his grandson. They say that in this case also one should retire to another house. — (95).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (10.26). — ‘At his option, the Renunciate may dwell in the village,’

VERSE 6.96

Section VIII - The Renouncer of the Veda (vedasaṃnyāsika)

एवं संन्यस्य कर्माणि स्वकार्यपरमोऽस्पृहः ।
संन्यासेनापहत्यैनः प्राप्नोति परमं गतिम् ॥९६॥

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США