with the Commentary of Medhatithi 258 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 264 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.26-27)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.26.

VERSE 9.28

Section II - Duty towards Children

अपत्यं धर्मकार्याणि शुश्रूषा रतिरुत्तमा ।
दाराऽधीनस्तथा स्वर्गः पितॄणामात्मनश्च ह ॥२८॥

apatyaṃ dharmakāryāṇi śuśrūṣā ratiruttamā |
dārā'dhīnastathā svargaḥ pitṝṇāmātmanaśca ha ||28||

Off-spring, religious acts, faithful service, highest happiness, — all this is dependent on the wife; as also the attainment of heaven by oneself as well as by his forefathers. — (28)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The sense of this verse has been already pointed out before. — (28)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 417); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 191); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, 66b).

Last Updated: 16 February, 2018

VERSE 9.29-30

Section II - Duty towards Children

पतिं या नाभिचरति मनोवाग्देहसंयता ।
सा भर्तृलोकानाप्नोति सद्भिः साध्वीइति चोच्यते ॥२९॥

व्यभिचारात् तु भर्तुः स्त्री लोके प्राप्नोति निन्द्यताम् ।
सृगालयोनिं चाप्नोति पापरोगैश्च पीड्यते ॥३०॥

patiṃ yā nābhicarati manovāgdehasaṃyatā |
sā bhartṛlokānāpnoti sadbhiḥ sādhvīiti cocyate ||29||

vyabhicārāt tu bhartuḥ strī loke prāpnoti nindyatām |
sṛgālayoniṃ cāpnoti pāparogaiśca pīḍyate ||30||

[These are the same as verses 164 and 165 of Discourse V]

She, who does not fail in her duty to her husband, having her thought, speech and body well-controlled, reaches her husband’s regions; and is called ‘good’ by all gentle-men. — (29).

The woman, who, through failure in her duty to her husband, becomes an object of contempt in the world, comes to be born as a jackal and is tormented by foul diseases. — (30).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.29-30)

These two verses have been already explained under Discourse V. — (29-30)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verse 9.29)

[See above, 5.165.]

(verse 9.30)

[See above, 5.164.]

Vaśiṣṭha (21.14). — ‘Faithful wives who are ever pure and truthful reside after death in the same regions with their husbands; those that are unfaithful are born as jackals.’

VERSE 9.31 [To whom does the Child belong?]

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

पुत्रं प्रत्युदितं सद्भिः पूर्वजैश्च महर्षिभिः ।
विश्वजन्यमिमं पुण्यमुपन्यासं निबोधत ॥३१॥

putraṃ pratyuditaṃ sadbhiḥ pūrvajaiśca maharṣibhiḥ |
viśvajanyamimaṃ puṇyamupanyāsaṃ nibodhata ||31||

Listen to the following disquisition regarding the son, propitious and salutary to the world, set forth by the wise patriarchs and the great sages. — (31)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Disquisitions’ — the setting forth of a matter for investigation; or a dissertation. — ‘Listen’ to that, — ‘set forth’ — put forward — ‘regarding the son’ — with reference to the son, — ‘by the wise patriarchs and the great sages’

‘Salutary to the world’ — calculated to do good to all men.

‘Propitious’ — beneficial.

The subject of the ‘laws relating to children,’ which was introduced in verse 25 has been interrupted by the few verses dealing with the greatness of women; hence it has been necessary to recall attention to the original subject-matter — ‘listen to the disquisition’. — (31)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

(See also under 48-56.)

Gautama (18.9-14). — ‘The child belongs to one who begets it except when an agreement to the contrary has been made. The child begotten on his wife at a living husband’s request belongs to the husband; but if begotten by a stranger, it belongs to the latter; — or to both; — but if reared by the husband, it belongs to him.’

Āpastamba (2.13.6-7). — ‘A Brāhmaṇa-text says that the son belongs to the begetter. They quote also the following verse from the Veda: — “Having considered myself formerly as a father, I shall not now allow any longer my wives to be approached by other men, since they have declared that a son belongs to the begetter in the world of Yama. The giver of the seed carries off the son after death, in Yama’s world. Therefore they guard their wives, fearing the seed of strangers. Carefully watch over the procreation of your children, lest stranger-seed he sown on your soil. In the next world, the son belongs to the begetter; an imprudent husband makes the begetting of children futile for himself.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.6-9). — ‘There is a difference of opinion. Some say the son belongs to the husband of the mother, and others say he belongs to the begetter. With respect to this they quote verses on both sides, like the following: — “If one man’s bull were to beget a hundred calves on another man’s cows, they would belong to the owner of the cows; in vain would the bull have spent his strength.” “Carefully watch the procreation of your offspring, lest strangers sow seed on your soil; in the next world, the son belongs to the begetter; by carelessness, a husband makes his offspring futile for himself.”’

Do. (17.63-64). — ‘They declare that a son begotten on a widow who has not been duly authorised, belongs to the begetter; if she was duly authorised, then the child belongs to both the males connected with the authorisation.’

See Manu 10.72.

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 414). — ‘The origin or soil is the most potent factor; that is why castes become intermixed.’

Do. (p. 581). — ‘The declaration of the Veda is that the child belongs to the owner of the soil; some sages say that the child belongs to the mother; the child is said to belong to two fathers.’

VERSE 9.32

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

भर्तरि पुत्रं विजानन्ति श्रुतिद्वैधं तु कर्तरि ।
आहुरुत्पादकं के चिदपरे क्षेत्रिणं विदुः ॥३२॥

bhartari putraṃ vijānanti śrutidvaidhaṃ tu kartari |
āhurutpādakaṃ ke cidapare kṣetriṇaṃ viduḥ ||32||

They recognise the son to be the husband’s; but in regard to one who is only the progenitor, there is diversity of opinion; some people declare the begetter, while others the owner of the soil (to be the owner of the child). — (32)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Husband’ — the marrier; the man with whom the woman has gone through the sacrament of marriage; and when a son is born from this husband in that women, ‘they’ — all learned men — ‘recognise’ — accept — the son to be that man’s. There is no difference of opinion on this point; it is an acknowledged principle.

‘There is diversity of opinion however in regard to one who is the progenitor only’; in a case where the man is not one to whom the woman has been married, but only the begetter of the son in a soil belonging to another man.

This diversity of opinion is next pointed out — ‘Some people declare the begetter’ to be the person to whom the child belongs; while others declare ‘the owner of the soil’ to be so; i.e., the person whose wife the woman is, even though he be not the actual begetter.

Having thus propounded the doubt due to the difference of opinion among teachers, the author himself proceeds to justify the doubt. — (32)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.33

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

क्षेत्रभूता स्मृता नारी बीजभूतः स्मृतः पुमान् ।
क्षेत्रबीजसमायोगात् सम्भवः सर्वदेहिनाम् ॥३३॥

kṣetrabhūtā smṛtā nārī bījabhūtaḥ smṛtaḥ pumān |
kṣetrabījasamāyogāt sambhavaḥ sarvadehinām ||33||

The woman has been declared to be like the ‘soil,’ and the man has been declared to be like the seed; and the production of all corporeal beings proceeds from the union of the soil and the seed. — (33)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The woman’ is as if it were ‘the soil’. ‘Soil’ stands for that part of the Earth where corns are grown; and the woman is like that: Just as the seed sown and held in the soil sprouts up, so also the semen deposited in the woman.

‘The man is like the seed’, — Here also the term ‘bhūta’ denotes similitude. The man’s semen is the ‘seed’, and not the man himself; but he is himself so called because the semen is contained in him.

‘From the union’ — contact, the relationship of container and contained — there is ‘the production’ — birth — ‘of all corporeal beings’ — beings endowed with bodies; i.e. of the four kinds of living beings. In the case of sweat-born insects also, the ākāśa is the ‘soil’ and sweat the ‘seed’, and the ‘union’ of these is the relation of container and contained.

For the said reason it is only right that there should be the said doubt; as there can be no ‘production’ when either of the two is absent; the function of both being necessary in the begetting of the child; and since there is nothing to indicate to which one of the two the child belongs, hence the doubt as to whether the child belongs to both or to either one of the two.

In fact, the whole of this subject relating to the relationship of the child and the person to whom the child belongs is one that is amenable to reasoning; as we shall show under the verso where the details are set forth. — (33)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.34

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

विशिष्टं कुत्र चिद् बीजं स्त्रीयोनिस्त्वेव कुत्र चित् ।
उभयं तु समं यत्र सा प्रसूतिः प्रशस्यते ॥३४॥

viśiṣṭaṃ kutra cid bījaṃ strīyonistveva kutra cit |
ubhayaṃ tu samaṃ yatra sā prasūtiḥ praśasyate ||34||

In some cases the seed is prominent; but in others it is the female womb; when both are equal, the offspring is highly commended. — (34)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The prominence of the seed is seen in the case of Vyāsa, Ṛṣyaṣṛṅga (Ṛṣyaśṛṅga?) and other great sages, (who, though born of low mothers, became high sages); — and that of the female womb in the case of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and other ‘kṣetraja’ sons, who, even though born of Brāhmaṇa fathers, took the caste of their mothers.

‘Where both are equal’ — i.e. belonging to the same caste.

‘The offspring is highly commended;’ — since in this case there is no dispute; this is what has been declared under 32 above, regarding people recognising the son as belonging to the father, — (34)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Compare 10.72.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.35

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

बीजस्य चैव योन्याश्च बीजमुत्कृष्टमुच्यते ।
सर्वभूतप्रसूतिर्हि बीजलक्षणलक्षिता ॥३५॥

bījasya caiva yonyāśca bījamutkṛṣṭamucyate |
sarvabhūtaprasūtirhi bījalakṣaṇalakṣitā ||35||

[Prima-facie argument] — “As between the seed and the womb, the seed is declared to be superior; because the production of all things is marked by the characteristics of the seed.” — (35)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The doubt having been set forth, the author puts forward the ‘preponderance of the seed’ as the prima facie argument And if the seed is the superior factor, then the child must belong to him whose the seed is. That the seed is the more important is indicated by the fact that in the case of the corn and such other things, though the soil and several other causes operate in their production, yet they take up the characteristics of the seed. So that even though in the case of the child, the transmission of the characteristics of the seed is not. so clearly manifest, yet it has to be accepted as a fact, on the basis of the fact of such transmission being found in the case of corn and other things. Further, it is only when this view that is accepted that the uniformity of all products becomes established. Thus it is that superiority belongs to the seed.

This is what is shown by the text — ‘the production of all things’ is found to be ‘marked by the characteristics of the seed’; — these ‘characteristics of the seed’ consisting in shape, colour, figure and so forth; and by this is the production ‘marked’ distinguished; i.e., it follows them. — (35)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 675).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.36

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

यादृशं तूप्यते बीजं क्षेत्रे कालोपपादिते ।
तादृग् रोहति तत् तस्मिन् बीजं स्वैर्व्यञ्जितं गुणैः ॥३६॥

yādṛśaṃ tūpyate bījaṃ kṣetre kālopapādite |
tādṛg rohati tat tasmin bījaṃ svairvyañjitaṃ guṇaiḥ ||36||

“As is the seed which is sown in the soil prepared in season, so does the seed spring forth, marked by its own qualities.” — (36)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is only a detailed version of what has just gone above.

The exact meaning of the term ‘yādṛśam,’ ‘as’, is going to be explained under verse 39 below, where the several kinds of grains are mentioned — ‘paddy, vrīhi’ and so forth.

‘Prepared in season’. — ‘In season’, i.e., during the rains, at the time of sowing; — ‘prepared’ — tilled and levelled and got ready.

‘So does it spring forth’ — is produced.

‘Own qualities’ — of colour, shape, taste, strength and so forth; — ‘marked’ — characterised. — (36)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.37

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

इयं भूमिर्हि भूतानां शाश्वती योनिरुच्यते ।
न च योनिगुणान् कांश्चिद् बीजं पुष्यति पुष्टिषु ॥३७॥

iyaṃ bhūmirhi bhūtānāṃ śāśvatī yonirucyate |
na ca yoniguṇān kāṃścid bījaṃ puṣyati puṣṭiṣu ||37||

“This earth is called the primeval womb of things; and yet, in its development, the seed does not develop any qualities of the womb.” — (37)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The foregoing verse has described the fact that the qualities of the seed are reproduced in the product; the present verse is going to show that the qualities of the soil are not so reproduced.

‘This earth is called the womb’ — soil of production — ‘of things’ — i.e., herb, vegetables, thickets, creepers and other immovable things; and yet none of the qualities of the earth are found in these things, neither clay nor dust bring found in them.

‘The seed does not develop in its development’. — The term ‘seed’ here stands for the corn growing out of the sprouts, and not for the loots. The corn, left over after consumption, when sown, again becomes the seed; and this does not ‘develop’ — reproduce; — the reproduction of qualities being a part of the ‘development,’ we have the present tense in ‘develops,’ — acquires, obtains — ‘the qualities of the womb’ — in its constituent parts, if the verb ‘develops’ itself had stood for the reproduction that forms part of the development, then the term ‘in its development’ would be superfluous. Hence, according to the principle that verbal roots have several meanings, the verb ‘develops’ has to be taken as denoting something else. Or, the term ‘in its development’ may be taken as only serving the purpose of filling up the metre; and the superfluity thus explained somehow. Or the two terms, ‘in its development’ and ‘develops’, may be explained as standing respectively for the general and special forms; just as in the expression ‘svapoṣam puṣṭaḥ’, ‘nourished by his own nourishment.’ — (87)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.38

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

भूमावप्येककेदारे कालोप्तानि कृषीवलैः ।
नानारूपाणि जायन्ते बीजानीह स्वभावतः ॥३८॥

bhūmāvapyekakedāre kāloptāni kṛṣīvalaiḥ |
nānārūpāṇi jāyante bījānīha svabhāvataḥ ||38||

“In this world, seeds sown in season by the cultivators even in one and the same plot of land spring-forth in various forms, according to their nature”. — (38)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What has been just said is further explained by means of an example.

‘In one and the same plot’ — the particle ‘api’ being construed after ‘kedāre’ — i.e., in one and the same field, — ‘sown in season’, — i.e., at the time that may be fit for each of the seeds concerned, — ‘by the cultivators,’ — ‘spring forth in various forms’, — each seed being produced in its own peculiar form.

If the soil were the more important factor, all the products would have been of one and the same quality; since the soil is one and the same for all. — (38)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.39

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

व्रीहयः शालयो मुद्गास्तिला माषास्तथा यवाः ।
यथाबीजं प्ररोहन्ति लशुनानीक्षवस्तथा ॥३९॥

vrīhayaḥ śālayo mudgāstilā māṣāstathā yavāḥ |
yathābījaṃ prarohanti laśunānīkṣavastathā ||39||

“Vrīhi -corn, rice, mudga-beans, sesamum, māṣa-beans, barley, leeks and sugar-cane are produced in accordance with the seeds.” — (39)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The “various forms” in which the seeds grow are here described. ‘In accordance with the seeds”, — i.e., according to the character of the seed.

The plural number throughout is denotative of the species. — (39)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.40

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

अन्यदुप्तं जातमन्यदित्येतन्नोपपद्यते ।
उप्यते यद् हि यद् बीजं तत् तदेव प्ररोहति ॥४०॥

anyaduptaṃ jātamanyadityetannopapadyate |
upyate yad hi yad bījaṃ tat tadeva prarohati ||40||

“It is not possible that what is sown is of one kind and what is produced is of a different kind; the seed that is produced is the same that is sown.” — (40)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The same fact is set forth in other words.

If Mudga-beans are sown, what is produced can never be Vrīhi.

What is stated in the first half in the negative form is re-affirmed, in the second half, in the affirmative form. — (40)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.31.

VERSE 9.41

Section III - To whom does the Child belong?

तत् प्राज्ञेन विनीतेन ज्ञानविज्ञानवेदिना ।
आयुष्कामेन वप्तव्यं न जातु परयोषिति ॥४१॥

tat prājñena vinītena jñānavijñānavedinā |
āyuṣkāmena vaptavyaṃ na jātu parayoṣiti ||41||

[The established conclusion] — for this reason he who is intelligent, well-trained, and conversant with the sciences and the arts, should never, if he desires longevity, sow in another’s wife. — (41)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The prima facie argument having been put forward, the present verse sets forth the established doctrine; and what the text means is that the soil is the predominant factor.

Objection — “In the text there is no word signifying the predominance of the soil; all that is declared is the prohibition of having recourse to other’s wives — ‘shall not sow in another’s wife’; which means that one should not let his semen enter another man’s wife; and it does not mean that the child belongs to the person to whom the soil belongs.”

True; but when we take the present text along with what follows (under 43) regarding ‘the seed sown in what belongs to another’ being ‘lost’, — it becomes clear that the prohibition of intercourse contained in the present verse is based upon the consideration that the child born would be taken away by another, and it is not with a view to any spiritual result The prohibition based upon spiritual considerations has in fact already gone before (4.134); where it has been said that ‘there is nothing so conducive to the shortening of life etc.’ Thus the conclusion is that, (inasmuch as the present prohibitive text is supplementary to another text (43), with which it has to be construed, we are not free to interpret it as we choose; so that the only right course is to take it as declaring the predominance of the soil.

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США