with the Commentary of Medhatithi 183 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 189 из 350Следующая ⇒

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 286). — ‘The cow, the horse, the gold and the land, on seeing the hands of a Brāhmaṇa ignorant of the Veda, decries the giver.’

VERSE 7.86

Section VII - Domestic Duties

पात्रस्य हि विशेषेण श्रद्दधानतयैव च ।
अल्पं वा बहु वा प्रेत्य दानस्य फलमश्नुते ॥८६॥

pātrasya hi viśeṣeṇa śraddadhānatayaiva ca |
alpaṃ vā bahu vā pretya dānasya phalamaśnute ||86||

For one obtains, after death, the reward, small or great, of his gifts, — according to the peculiar character of the recipient, and also according to his own faith. — (86)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘pātra’ etymologically signifies either (a) ‘one who saves from sinful deeds’, or (b) ‘one who saves and protects himself’; — i.e., the recipient; or the recipient is called ‘pātra’ in the same sense in which the vessel containing clarified butter is called its ‘pātra’; the substance given away is deposited in the recipient in the same manner in which the butter is deposited in the vessel. This is what has been declared above (82) — “For kings this is interminable, and has been called Brahmic treasure.”

The ‘peculiar character’ of the recipient consists in his possessing or not possessing, proper qualifications. It is by reason of these qualifications that rewards of gifts are obtained.

‘Or small.’ — When the gift is mads to one who is possessed of excellent qualifications, in the shape of character and Vedic learning, it brings a ‘great’ reward, and when made to one who has no qualifications, it brings a small reward.

‘According to his own faith.’ To this effect we have the following text: — (see verse 7.86b)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 303), to the effect that the value of a gift varies in proportion to the qualifications of its giver and receiver.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 7.85-86)

See Comparative notes for Verse 7.85.

VERSE 7.86b

Section VII - Domestic Duties

देशकालविधानेन द्रव्यं श्रद्धासमन्वितम् ।
पात्रे प्रदीयते यत् तु तद् धर्मस्य प्रसाधनम् ॥८६ (2)॥

deśakālavidhānena dravyaṃ śraddhāsamanvitam |
pātre pradīyate yat tu tad dharmasya prasādhanam ||86b||

That substance is conducive to merit which is given to a proper recipient, in good faith and in due accordance with time and place and form. — (86b)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Here ‘place’ stands for the ‘right place’, which is that which is other than the village inhabited by the giver himself; people away from their homes are likely to be subject to many inconveniences and wants, which may he removed by the gift; — ‘Time’ — when some one who is performing a sacrifice happens to run short of necessary supplies; or when an eclipse takes place; ‘Form’ — the pouring of water, the pronouncing of the syllable ‘Svasti’ by the recipient, the proper preparation of the substance given away, the sweetness of disposition with which the gift is made; and so forth;

‘Substance’ — cow, land, gold and so forth.

‘Faith’ — a keen desire for fulfilment, the determination as to ‘how this may be accomplished.’

‘After death.’ — This only indicates that the reward does not always follow immediately after the act of giving; it does not mean that it accrues always during the next life; specially as all that is meant in the case of all acts enjoined in the Veda is that they must bring their reward (and nothing is indicated regarding the time at which the reward is to accrue). — (86)

VERSE 7.87 [Duties in Battle (saṅgrāma)]

Section VIII - Duties in Battle (saṅgrāma)

समोत्तमाधमै राजा त्वाहूतः पालयन् प्रजाः ।
न निवर्तेत सङ्ग्रामात् क्षात्रं धर्ममनुस्मरन् ॥८७॥

samottamādhamai rājā tvāhūtaḥ pālayan prajāḥ |
na nivarteta saṅgrāmāt kṣātraṃ dharmamanusmaran ||87||

While protecting his people, if the king is challenged by enemies, either equal in strength, or stronger, or weaker, he shall not shrink from battle, bearing in mind the duty of the kṣatriya. — (87)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

War has been enjoined as the last resource for the king, when -all other means nave failed; and when once war has been entered into and the king has reached the battle-field, and has been challenged by his enemy, — he shall not show any sort of indifference; this is what is meant by the present verse; which means that he shall not entertain any such notion as — ‘I shall not strike at a weak enemy.’

Or, when robbers and others, in sheer disregard for the established law, attack the people, — or join the king’s enemies, — if such persons cannot be subdued without war, — then the king must go to war with them, even though they be weak. Though in a case like this, the king is not actually ‘challenged’ by the robbers in so many wards, yet, for all practical purposes, he is as good as ‘challenged’.

It is ‘the duty of the Kṣatriya’ that whenever he is challenged, he must fight, whoever the challenger may be, and he shall take no account of the caste or age or training or ambition etc. of the other party. This duty the King has to bear in mind. — (87)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, (p. 405).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (10.16). — ‘To stand firm in battle and not to turn hack.’

Baudhāyana (1.18.9). — ‘He shall not turn back in battle.’

Viṣṇu (3.43). — ‘When ho has been attacked by his foe, he shall protect, his own realm to the best of his power.’

Yājñavalkya. (1.323). — ‘Those who, for the sake of lands, fight in battles with fair weapons, go to heaven, like Yogins.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Rājanīti, p. 405). — ‘For the sake of his people, the Kṣatriya shall fight and even give up his life.’

VERSE 7.88

Section VIII - Duties in Battle (saṅgrāma)

सङ्ग्रामेष्वनिवर्तित्वं प्रजानां चैव पालनम् ।
शुश्रूषा ब्राह्मणानां च राज्ञां श्रेयस्करं परम् ॥८८॥

saṅgrāmeṣvanivartitvaṃ prajānāṃ caiva pālanam |
śuśrūṣā brāhmaṇānāṃ ca rājñāṃ śreyaskaraṃ param ||88||

Not shrinking from battle, protecting the people, and attending on brāhmaṇas, — is the best means of securing happiness for kings. — (88)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is meant to show that the three duties here mentioned bring equal rewards. — (88)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 413).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (3.44). — ‘There is no higher duty for men of the military caste than to risk their life in battle.’

Yājñavalkya (1.322). — ‘There is no higher duty forkings than to give to the Brāhmaṇas whatever is obtained in war, and to grant fearlessness to their people.’

VERSE 7.89

Section VIII - Duties in Battle (saṅgrāma)

आहवेषु मिथोऽन्योन्यं जिघांसन्तो महीक्षितः ।
युध्यमानाः परं शक्त्या स्वर्गं यान्त्यपराङ्मुखाः ॥८९॥

āhaveṣu mitho'nyonyaṃ jighāṃsanto mahīkṣitaḥ |
yudhyamānāḥ paraṃ śaktyā svargaṃ yāntyaparāṅmukhāḥ ||89||

Kings, seeking to slay each other in battle and fighting with gheat energy, without turning back, proceed to heaven. — (89)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Āhava’ is that where heroes are challenged by one another to fight, i.e., the battle; vying with one another and ‘seeking to slay each other’; — ‘fighting’ — striking — ‘with great energy’ — to the utmost of their power. It is on account of metrical exigencies that in place of ‘parayā’ (as qualifying ‘śaktyā’) we have the form ‘param’.

‘Without turning back’; — this is to be construed with ‘fighting’; — proceed to heaven.’

Objection — “As a matter of fact, the action taken by kings is instigated by a love for territorial expansion; so that an ordinary physical reward being possible, why should Heaven be mentioned as the reward?”

Heaven is mentioned as the reward in connection with the observance of the rules of war going to be described; for the observance of these rules there can be no other motive. Even the king who has renounced his kingdom may observe the rules laid down in the next and following verses, and by surrendering to the powerful enemy he would become entitled to the trancendental reward (Heaven; there being no possibility of his winning any territories). Or again, when a king, on suffering defeat in battle, enters the fray (in sheer desperation), this act can only lead to Heaven. And on the strength of the present verse, such desperate fighting could not fall within the purview of the prohibition of self-immolation.

‘Kings’ — Rulers of provinces; not those under them; as the action of these latter is prompted by the interest of their masters and not by any interest of their own; under the circumstances, how could there be any rewards for them? In fact, their case is analogous to that of the Priests whose services have been secured by means of a stipulation regarding fees; so that in the case of the king’s underlings also, in as much as their service has been secured by means of wages, how could there be any reward in the shape of Heaven or the like?

“But under 5-97, it has been declared without any reservation that the sacrifice is immediately accomplished for the Kṣatriya who is killed by means of uplifted weapons, in due accordance with the duties of the Kṣatriya; and again — ‘those two persons pierce through the solar orb — the Renunciate is meditation and the hero killed in the forefront of battle’; — further, in the Mahābhārata, it has been declared that Heaven is attained even by those who witness the battle. There are Vedic texts indicative of the same fact; e.g., ‘Those brave men who fight in battles and give up their bodies there, as also those who pay a thousand as the sacrificial fee, go to the Gods,’ — which shows that great rewards accrue to those sacrificers who pay a thousand as sacrificial fees, — ‘as also those brave persons who give up their lives in battle’. Further, the text speaks of ‘those who fight,’ and not ‘those who have sold themselves for dying (for others);’ specially as there is no such stipulation made at the time that the man’s services are engaged. In the case of the officiating priests, the Hotṛ, the Udgātṛ and the rest, their appointment is for the express purpose of performing those priestly duties that are indicated by their titles. From all this it follows that even in the case of a map dying in serving his master, there is transcendental reward. Nor is there any such hard and fast rale as that there can be no reward in the case of an act prompted by the purposes of another man. In fact the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa becomes purified by bathing at the Final Bath of the Aśvamedha sacrifice, where he is not the performer of the sacrifice.”

The answer to the above is as follows: — As a matter of fact, the giving up of his life by the king for the benefit of his people is actually conducive to merit. As regards what has been said regarding the losing of one’s life in battle being tantamount to the accomplishment of a sacrifice, — this must refer to the man whose services have been engaged on a salary and who, not being his own master, enters the battle simply on the word of command to ‘march forward’. This is the person meant by the expression ‘who is killed in the fore-front of battle.’

Or, the ‘piercing of the solar orb’ by the man fighting in battle would mean only being saved from hell. In a case where a king’s realm is attacked and pillaged by another king, and his people are being massacred, if the former undertakes to fight against him and loses his life in the fray, this would be conducive to merit. If he does not fight, he falls into ‘blind darkness’, which means Hell, on account of the total absence of light there. What the ‘piercing of the solar orb’ means is that the man reaches the regions beyond the solar regions; i.e., he does not fall downwards. When a man has accepted service on pay, under a master, if he fails tonight for his master in battle, and abandons him, his fall into hell is certain. On the other hand, if the man has fought his master’s battle and has become free from the debt of the wages he has received from him, — if he is not bowed down by his sins, — it is only natural that he should attain heaven, by virtue of his own meritorious acts. It is in view of this that it has been declared that ‘his sacrifice becomes immediately accomplished’. Thus also the passage in the Mahābhārata becomes reconciled, where it is said that persons who have accepted service in the army attain heaven. As for the mention of Heaven being attained by persons ‘witnessing the battle’, this must be regarded as a commendatory exaggeration.

Or, the meaning of all this may be that, there being many means of livelihood, living by military service is sure to lead to heaven.

As regards the argument that it is not for dying that the men are engaged in military service, — in reality when soldiers are paid their wages, it is for no other purpose than for fighting; specially as no other purpose has been mentioned. The men are engaged by the master with the view that ‘they shall be ready for all kinds of work and shall help me in all my undertakings.’ So that when a war breaks out, it becomes their duty to do everything for their master, even up to the giving up of the body; and thus alone is he able to repay his master. When, however, there is no war, if the servant happens to die, then he dies a servant (and not one freed from bondage); as the repayment of his debt is accomplished only if he accomplishes some purpose of his master, similar to that for which he has been engaged. as for the texts quoted as indicating the attainment of heaven by men dying in battle, — these also become reconciled in the above manner.

What has been mid regarding the murderer becoming freed from sins by bathing at the Final Bath of the Aśvamedha is accepted on the strength of the direct assertion to that effect, contained in such texts as — ‘Hence on their association etc. etc.’; while in the present instance going upward is stated to be the result of fighting; — and this constitutes a difference between the two cases (which, thus, cannot be regarded as analogous). — (89)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 405), which explains ‘mithaḥ’ as ‘vying with each other’; — and in Rājanītiratnākara (p. 28a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba (2.26, 2, 3). — ‘They say that a king who is slain in attempting to recover the property of Brāhmaṇas performs a sacrifice where his body takes the place of the sacrificial post and at which an unlimited fee is given. — Hereby have been declared the rewards of other heroes who fall fighting for a worthy cause.’

Viṣṇu (3.45). — ‘Those who have been killed in protecting a cow, or a Brāhmaṇa, or a king, or a friend, or their own property, or their own wedded wife, or their own life, go to heaven.’

Yājñavalkya, (1.323). — (See under 87.)

Yājñavalkya (1.324). — ‘Even when one’s own army is broken up, if one does not turn back, each step that he takes is equal to a Horse-Sacrifice.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Rājanīti, p. 405). — ‘For the sake of his people, the king shall fight, and even give up his life; thereby he obtains the reward of a Horse-Sacrifice. If a man, without turning back, is killed in battle by his enemies, he obtains the regions of Indra, won by his valour.’

Yama (Do., p. 406). — ‘The Kṣatriya resides on the chest of the Kṣatriya, and the Brāhmaṇa at his back; therefore he should always guard his back in battle; or else he becomes a Brāhmaṇa-killer.’

VERSE 7.90

Section VIII - Duties in Battle (saṅgrāma)

न कूटैरायुधैर्हन्याद् युध्यमानो रणे रिपून् ।
न कर्णिभिर्नापि दिग्धैर्नाग्निज्वलिततेजनैः ॥९०॥

na kūṭairāyudhairhanyād yudhyamāno raṇe ripūn |
na karṇibhirnāpi digdhairnāgnijvalitatejanaiḥ ||90||

While fighting his enemies in battle, he shall hot strike with concealed weapons; nor with arrows that are poisoned, or barbed, or with flaming shafts. (90)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Āhava’ is that where heroes are challenged by one another to fight, i.e., the battle; vying with one another and ‘seeking to slay each other’; — ‘fighting’ — striking — ‘with great energy’ — to the utmost of their power. It is on account of metrical exigencies that in place of ‘parayā’ (as qualifying ‘śaktyā’) we have the form ‘param’.

‘Without turning back’; — this is to be construed with ‘fighting’; — proceed to heaven.’

Objection — “As a matter of fact, the action taken by kings is instigated by a love for territorial expansion; so that an ordinary physical reward being possible, why should Heaven be mentioned as the reward?”

Heaven is mentioned as the reward in connection with the observance of the rules of war going to be described; for the observance of these rules there can be no other motive. Even the king who has renounced his kingdom may observe the rules laid down in the next and following verses, and by surrendering to the powerful enemy he would become entitled to the trancendental reward (Heaven; there being no possibility of his winning any territories). Or again, when a king, on suffering defeat in battle, enters the fray (in sheer desperation), this act can only lead to Heaven. And on the strength of the present verse, such desperate fighting could not fall within the purview of the prohibition of self-immolation.

‘Kings’ — Rulers of provinces; not those under them; as the action of these latter is prompted by the interest of their masters and not by any interest of their own; under the circumstances, how could there be any rewards for them? In fact, their case is analogous to that of the Priests whose services have been secured by means of a stipulation regarding fees; so that in the case of the king’s underlings also, in as much as their service has been secured by means of wages, how could there be any reward in the shape of Heaven or the like?

“But under 5-97, it has been declared without any reservation that the sacrifice is immediately accomplished for the Kṣatriya who is killed by means of uplifted weapons, in due accordance with the duties of the Kṣatriya; and again — ‘those two persons pierce through the solar orb — the Renunciate is meditation and the hero killed in the forefront of battle’; — further, in the Mahābhārata, it has been declared that Heaven is attained even by those who witness the battle. There are Vedic texts indicative of the same fact; e.g., ‘Those brave men who fight in battles and give up their bodies there, as also those who pay a thousand as the sacrificial fee, go to the Gods,’ — which shows that great rewards accrue to those sacrificers who pay a thousand as sacrificial fees, — ‘as also those brave persons who give up their lives in battle’. Further, the text speaks of ‘those who fight,’ and not ‘those who have sold themselves for dying (for others);’ specially as there is no such stipulation made at the time that the man’s services are engaged. In the case of the officiating priests, the Hotṛ, the Udgātṛ and the rest, their appointment is for the express purpose of performing those priestly duties that are indicated by their titles. From all this it follows that even in the case of a map dying in serving his master, there is transcendental reward. Nor is there any such hard and fast rale as that there can be no reward in the case of an act prompted by the purposes of another man. In fact the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa becomes purified by bathing at the Final Bath of the Aśvamedha sacrifice, where he is not the performer of the sacrifice.”

The answer to the above is as follows: — As a matter of fact, the giving up of his life by the king for the benefit of his people is actually conducive to merit. As regards what has been said regarding the losing of one’s life in battle being tantamount to the accomplishment of a sacrifice, — this must refer to the man whose services have been engaged on a salary and who, not being his own master, enters the battle simply on the word of command to ‘march forward’. This is the person meant by the expression ‘who is killed in the fore-front of battle.’

Or, the ‘piercing of the solar orb’ by the man fighting in battle would mean only being saved from hell. In a case where a king’s realm is attacked and pillaged by another king, and his people are being massacred, if the former undertakes to fight against him and loses his life in the fray, this would be conducive to merit. If he does not fight, he falls into ‘blind darkness’, which means Hell, on account of the total absence of light there. What the ‘piercing of the solar orb’ means is that the man reaches the regions beyond the solar regions; i.e., he does not fall downwards. When a man has accepted service on pay, under a master, if he fails tonight for his master in battle, and abandons him, his fall into hell is certain. On the other hand, if the man has fought his master’s battle and has become free from the debt of the wages he has received from him, — if he is not bowed down by his sins, — it is only natural that he should attain heaven, by virtue of his own meritorious acts. It is in view of this that it has been declared that ‘his sacrifice becomes immediately accomplished’. Thus also the passage in the Mahābhārata becomes reconciled, where it is said that persons who have accepted service in the army attain heaven. As for the mention of Heaven being attained by persons ‘witnessing the battle’, this must be regarded as a commendatory exaggeration.

Or, the meaning of all this may be that, there being many means of livelihood, living by military service is sure to lead to heaven.

As regards the argument that it is not for dying that the men are engaged in military service, — in reality when soldiers are paid their wages, it is for no other purpose than for fighting; specially as no other purpose has been mentioned. The men are engaged by the master with the view that ‘they shall be ready for all kinds of work and shall help me in all my undertakings.’ So that when a war breaks out, it becomes their duty to do everything for their master, even up to the giving up of the body; and thus alone is he able to repay his master. When, however, there is no war, if the servant happens to die, then he dies a servant (and not one freed from bondage); as the repayment of his debt is accomplished only if he accomplishes some purpose of his master, similar to that for which he has been engaged. as for the texts quoted as indicating the attainment of heaven by men dying in battle, — these also become reconciled in the above manner.

What has been mid regarding the murderer becoming freed from sins by bathing at the Final Bath of the Aśvamedha is accepted on the strength of the direct assertion to that effect, contained in such texts as — ‘Hence on their association etc. etc.’; while in the present instance going upward is stated to be the result of fighting; — and this constitutes a difference between the two cases (which, thus, cannot be regarded as analogous). — (89)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 405), which explains ‘mithaḥ’ as ‘vying with each other’; — and in Rājanītiratnākara (p. 28a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba (2.26, 2, 3). — ‘They say that a king who is slain in attempting to recover the property of Brāhmaṇas performs a sacrifice where his body takes the place of the sacrificial post and at which an unlimited fee is given. — Hereby have been declared the rewards of other heroes who fall fighting for a worthy cause.’

Viṣṇu (3.45). — ‘Those who have been killed in protecting a cow, or a Brāhmaṇa, or a king, or a friend, or their own property, or their own wedded wife, or their own life, go to heaven.’

Yājñavalkya, (1.323). — (See under 87.)

Yājñavalkya (1.324). — ‘Even when one’s own army is broken up, if one does not turn back, each step that he takes is equal to a Horse-Sacrifice.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Rājanīti, p. 405). — ‘For the sake of his people, the king shall fight, and even give up his life; thereby he obtains the reward of a Horse-Sacrifice. If a man, without turning back, is killed in battle by his enemies, he obtains the regions of Indra, won by his valour.’

Yama (Do., p. 406). — ‘The Kṣatriya resides on the chest of the Kṣatriya, and the Brāhmaṇa at his back; therefore he should always guard his back in battle; or else he becomes a Brāhmaṇa-killer.’

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры