with the Commentary of Medhatithi 308 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 314 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 232).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.31-35)

[See 9.290 above; and texts thereunder; also 9.313-321.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.31.

VERSE 11.35

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

विधाता शासिता वक्ता मैत्रो ब्राह्मण उच्यते ।
तस्मै नाकुशलं ब्रूयान्न शुष्कां गिरमीरयेत् ॥३५॥

vidhātā śāsitā vaktā maitro brāhmaṇa ucyate |
tasmai nākuśalaṃ brūyānna śuṣkāṃ giramīrayet ||35||

The Brāhmaṇa is called the creator, the punisher, the teacher and the advisor; therefore one should not address unpleasant words to him, nor use any harsh words. — (35)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The meaning of this verse has been already explained before.

When a Brāhmaṇa is performing a malevolent rite, the King shall not utter any such ‘unpleasant words’ as ‘punish him.’

‘He shall not we harsh words.’ — This prohibition refers also to remonstrance and censure.

Or, the meaning may be that — ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not be ill-treated by men of any caste; since he is very powerful, by reason of his knowledge of the Vedas, and is capable of inflicting punishments by himself.’

‘Creator’ — of another King.

‘Punisher’ — chastiser.

‘Advisor’ — one who offers beneficial advice.

And since he is all this, he is a ‘benefactor.’

Thus, being endowed with all kinds of power, he should not be disregarded as a weakling. — (35)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vidhātā’. — ‘Creator’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘performer of the prescribed rites’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka); — ‘one who is able to do, to undo and to change’ (Rāghavānanda); — ‘the performer of magic rites’ (Nandana); — ‘Śāsitā’, — ‘Punisher, controller, adviser’ — of the king (Medhātithi), — ‘of his sons and pupils’ (Kullūka); — ‘instructor in the sacred daw’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘the instigator of incantations’ (Nandana). ‘Vaktā’. — ‘One who gives wholesome advice’ (Medhātithi); — ‘the teacher’, (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘the expounder of the sacred law’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.31-35)

[See 9.290 above; and texts thereunder; also 9.313-321.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.31.

VERSE 11.36

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

न वै कन्या न युवतिर्नाल्पविद्यो न बालिशः ।
होता स्यादग्निहोत्रस्य नार्तो नासंस्कृतस्तथा ॥३६॥

na vai kanyā na yuvatirnālpavidyo na bāliśaḥ |
hotā syādagnihotrasya nārto nāsaṃskṛtastathā ||36||

Neither a girl, nor a youthful woman, nor a man of little learning, nor a fool, nor one distressed, nor one without the sacraments shall act as a ‘Hotṛ’ at the Agnihotra. — (36)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In connection with the appointing of the priests at the Agnihotra it has been said, — ‘one shall pour the libations or have it poured;’ and as these words are applicable equally to the man and the woman, as being entitled to the pouring of milk-offerings, the present text forbids it in regard to girls and youthful women.

Similarly the possibility of such offerings being made by one who is possessed of ‘little learning’ — i.e., knows only the texts bearing on the two oblations, — or by ‘a fool.’

‘Distressed’ — by illness.

‘Without sacraments’ — who has not been initiated.

Some people hold that this explanation of the text is not right. As regards the Śrauta Agnihotra, the declaration is — ‘on each Parva day one shall pour the libations himself, or one of the priests shall do it;’ there is no possibility for a woman ever acting as a ‘priest’; hence the prohibition herein contained must pertain to ‘the girl and the youthful woman,’ — its purpose being to indicate the possibility of its being done by a woman who has got a son. In support of this they quote the following words of other Sūtra-writers — ‘The wife may freely pour the morning and evening libations in the domestic fire.’ Others again, on the strength of what is said (in the next verse) regarding one being ‘skilled in the rituals,’ hold that the prohibition pertains to the Three Fires (of the Śrauta ritual).

But as a matter of fact the term ‘vitāna’ (used in the next verse) stands for ‘ritual’; and all this is performed only in Śrauta fires; so that there is no possibility of either women or unlearned men. performing these; specially as it has been laid down that only very specially qualified persons should act as priests.

From all this it is clear that the term ‘Agnihotra’ here stands for all kinds of rites, and the term ‘hotṛ’ for all classes of priests. So that the present Smṛti is only a reiteration of what has been enjoined in the Veda. — (36)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

See 2.172; 5.155; 9.18.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.36-37)

Mahābhārata (12.165.21-22). — (Same as Manu.)

Gautama (2.4). — ‘One must not employ a child to offer oblations into the fire or to make Bali offerings.'

Āpastamba (2.15.17-18). — ‘A female shall not offer any oblations into the fire; nor a child that has not been initiated.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2-6). — ‘Hārīta quotes the following verse — “No religious rite can be performed by a child before he has been girt with the sacred girdle; since he is on a level with the Śūdra before he is born in the Veda.’

[See above. — 2.72; 5.155 and 9.18.]

VERSE 11.37

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

नरके हि पतन्त्येते जुह्वन्तः स च यस्य तत् ।
तस्माद् वैतानकुशलो होता स्याद् वेदपारगः ॥३७॥

narake hi patantyete juhvantaḥ sa ca yasya tat |
tasmād vaitānakuśalo hotā syād vedapāragaḥ ||37||

If these persons pour the oblations, they sink into hell, as also the person to whom the agnihotra belongs; hence the ‘Hotṛ’ shall be a person fully learned in the Veda and expert in rituals. — (37)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘These persons’ — The girl and the rest; — ‘sink’ into hell, if they pour the oblations;

‘The person’ — i.e., the person on whose behalf the oblations are poured. — (37)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.36-37)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.36.

[See above. — 2.72; 5.155 and 9.18.]

VERSE 11.38

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

प्राजापत्यमदत्त्वाऽश्वमग्न्याधेयस्य दक्षिणाम् ।
अनाहिताग्निर्भवति ब्राह्मणो विभवे सति ॥३८॥

prājāpatyamadattvā'śvamagnyādheyasya dakṣiṇām |
anāhitāgnirbhavati brāhmaṇo vibhave sati ||38||

If a Brāhmaṇa, possessed of wealth, does not give a ‘prājāpatya’ horse as the ‘fee’ foe the fire-laying, he becomes as good as one who has not laid the fire at all. — (38)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In connection with the Fire-laying rite, a horse is to be given as the ‘fee.’ the term ‘prājāpatya’ is added for the purpose of eulogising the horse. Or, the term may be taken to mean ‘neither very good nor very bad,’ in which sense ordinary men use the name ‘prajāpati.’

‘Possessed of wealth.’ — This means that if the man does not give the fee, on account of his not possessing wealth, — then he does become regarded as one who has laid the Fires. — (38)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Prājāpatyam’. — ‘Dedicated to Prajāpati’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda); — the epithet is merely laudatory; or it may mean ‘neither very good nor very inferior’ (Medhātithi); —

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.165.23). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 11.39

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

पुण्यान्यन्यानि कुर्वीत श्रद्दधानो जितेन्द्रियः ।
न त्वल्पदक्षिणैर्यज्ञैर्यजेतेह कथं चन ॥३९॥

puṇyānyanyāni kurvīta śraddadhāno jitendriyaḥ |
na tvalpadakṣiṇairyajñairyajeteha kathaṃ cana ||39||

The man who has faith and control over his senses may perform other meritorious acts; but he shall not, on any account, perform sacrifices with small fees. — (39)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

A sacrifice is regarded as ‘with small fees’ when the fee given at it is smaller than what has been prescribed.

“The fee is a sort of hire; if a worker is obtained at a lower hire, why should anything higher be paid? This is the principle that governs all dealings of people in the ordinary world, with the ploughman and other workers. There is the saying also — ‘when a thing can be had for one paṇa, what wise men shall buy it for ten paṇas?’ If the sacred texts prescribe ‘twelve-hundred’ as the fee, this is done only with a view to the obtaining of higher rewards.”

It is people entertaining such notions for whose sake the present text sets forth the prohibition, and it does not refer to a case where the prescribed fee itself is small. — (39)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (12.165.24). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 11.40

Section II - The Brāhmaṇa’s Responsibilities

and Privileges regarding Sacrificial Performances

इन्द्रियाणि यशः स्वर्गमायुः कीर्तिं प्रजाः पशून् ।
हन्त्यल्पदक्षिणो यज्ञस्तस्मान्नाल्पधनो यजेत् ॥४०॥

indriyāṇi yaśaḥ svargamāyuḥ kīrtiṃ prajāḥ paśūn |
hantyalpadakṣiṇo yajñastasmānnālpadhano yajet ||40||

A sacrifice with small fees destroys the organs, honour, heaven, longevity, fame, offspring and cattle. Hence one possessed of small means shall not perform sacrifices. — (40).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse describes the results following from the transgression of the aforementioned rule. — (40).

Comparative notes by various authors:

[See above. — 4.94.]

Mahābhārata (12.165.25). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 11.41 [Expiation for the Neglect of the Agnihotra Fire]

Section III - Expiation for the Neglect of the Agnihotra Fire

अग्निहोत्र्यपविध्याग्नीन् ब्राह्मणः कामकारतः ।
चान्द्रायणं चरेन् मासं वीरहत्यासमं हि तत् ॥४१॥

agnihotryapavidhyāgnīn brāhmaṇaḥ kāmakārataḥ |
cāndrāyaṇaṃ caren māsaṃ vīrahatyāsamaṃ hi tat ||41||

If a Brāhmaṇa who has set up the fires neglects them wilfully, he shall perform the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ penance for a month; as his offence is equal to the offence of killing a hero. — (41)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Neglects’ — omits to tend; this may mean either the absolute omission of the rite, or allowing the fires to be extinguished.

The text lays down the Expiatory Rite here, because the text has been dealing with the Agnihotra.

Inasmuch as the text speaks of ‘fires’ (in the plural), what is here said may also he assumed to be applicable to the neglect of the ‘domestic fire.’

‘Equal to the killing of a hero’ — in view of the declaration, — ‘he who allows the fires to become extinguished is regarded by the gods as the slayer of a hero.’

The addition of the qualifying team ‘wilfully’ indicates that when the neglect is not wilful, there should be some other form of expiation. — (41)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vīra’ — ‘Son’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda); — ‘a Kṣatriya’ (Nandana); — ‘a deity’ (suggested by Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1154), which adds the following notes: — The construction is ‘māsamagnīn apavidhya’; — ‘vīra’ is the sacrificer; — if the omission lasts longer than a month, the man should perform the ‘Three monthly Goghna expiation’; — in Vidhānapārijāta II (p. 115); — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 425); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 391), which explains ‘apavidhya’ as ‘abandoning’, — ‘vīrahatyā’ as ‘murdering the sacrificer’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (22.34). — ‘The penance of abstaining from sexual intercourse for one year shall be performed by him who extinguishes the sacred fires, who neglects the daily recitation of the Veda or who has been guilty of a minor offence.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.18). — ‘One who extinguishes the sacred fires, or who forgets the Veda through neglect of the daily recitation, is a sinful man.’

Do. (21-27). — ‘He who extinguishes the sacred fires shall perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days, and shall cause them to he kindled again.’

Viṣṇu (54-13). — ‘One who forgets the Vedic texts be has studied, or who forsakes the sacred fires, must subsist on alms for one year, bathing three times, sleeping on the ground and eating only one meal a day.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 1154). — ‘If the sacred fires have remained extinguished for a year, one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance and kindle them again; if for two years, he should perforin the Somāyana and the Cāndrāyaṇa; if for three years, he shall repeat the Kṛcchra perance for a year and then kindle the fires again.’

Śaṅkha (Do.). — ‘One who has neglected the fires shall perform the Kṛcchra for one year and also give a cow.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.). — ‘He who neglects the fires, or he who reads the Veda improperly, shall beg alms for one year from Brāhmaṇa households.’

VERSE 11.42

Section III - Expiation for the Neglect of the Agnihotra Fire

ये शूद्रादधिगम्यार्थमग्निहोत्रमुपासते ।
ऋत्विजस्ते हि शूद्राणां ब्रह्मवादिषु गर्हिताः ॥४२॥

ye śūdrādadhigamyārthamagnihotramupāsate |
ṛtvijaste hi śūdrāṇāṃ brahmavādiṣu garhitāḥ ||42||

Those who perform the Agnihotra, after having obtained wealth from a Śūdra, are ‘Śūdra’s Priests,’ censured among Vedic scholars. — (42)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

People explain this verse to mean that the Agnihotra should not be performed with the wealth obtained from Śūdras, as a friendly present. The prohibition does not apply to the carrying on of such compulsory rites as have been already undertaken. It has been declared that ‘one should not perform sacrifices after having begged wealth from Śūdras, there is no harm, however, if the wealth is given unasked, and is used for the carrying on of a rite already commenced.’ Further it is only making a living by receiving gifts from improper persons that has been forbidden; while the performance of the compulsory rites by such means has been permitted. From all this the present verse is understood to be the prohibition of only the single rite of ‘Fire-laying’; specially because the text mentions simply ‘the wealth of the Śūdra,’ and does not make any such distinction as between what is obtained by begging and what is obtained unasked. If the prohibition pertained to all rites, then, since the prohibition would have been secured by the present verse, there would be no point in the prohibition of ‘begging’ contained in Verse 24. — (42)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 168); — and in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 60).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.42-43)

[See above. — 11.24.]

VERSE 11.43

Section III - Expiation for the Neglect of the Agnihotra Fire

तेषां सततमज्ञानां वृषलाग्न्युपसेविनाम् ।
पदा मस्तकमाक्रम्य दाता दुर्गाणि सन्तरेत् ॥४३॥

teṣāṃ satatamajñānāṃ vṛṣalāgnyupasevinām |
padā mastakamākramya dātā durgāṇi santaret ||43||

The giver shall cut across his miseries by putting his foot upon the heads of those fools who attend upon the Śūdra’s fires. — (43)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The fires are spoken of as ‘the Śūdra’s’ in the sense just explained.

The whole of this section sets forth the evil effects arising from the transgression of the above-mentioned rules — (43)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 168).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.42-43)

[See above. — 11.24.]

VERSE 11.44 [Expiation: General Laws (prāyaścitta)]

Section IV - Expiation: General Laws (prāyaścitta)

अकुर्वन् विहितं कर्म निन्दितं च समाचरन् ।
प्रसक्तश्चैन्द्रियार्थेषु प्रायश्चित्तीयते नरः ॥४४॥

akurvan vihitaṃ karma ninditaṃ ca samācaran |
prasaktaścaindriyārtheṣu prāyaścittīyate naraḥ ||44||

If a man does not do what is enjoined, or does what is censured, or becomes addicted to sensual objects, he becomes liable to expiatory rites. — (44)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The text now proceeds to describe those Expiatory Rites which form the subject-matter of the discourse, and first of all it describes the persons liable to the performance of these rites. What is it that makes a man liable?

‘What is enjoined’ — as a compulsory act, such as the Twilight Prayers, the Agnihotra and so forth, all such as have their compulsory character indicated by such words as ‘one shall perform the Agnihotra throughout life.’ Those acts also that have been laid down as to be done under specified circumstances, — such as bathing when one is defiled by the touch of something unclean — are included among those ‘enjoined.’

‘Does not do’ — through carelessness or laziness.

Similarly ‘what is censured’ — forbidden, such as the drinking of wine and so forth. If one, transgressing the Scriptures, has recourse to such acts.

‘Becomes liable to expiatory rites.’ — All this means that the liability in this case is conditional; the performance of expiatory rites being incumbent upon one who omits what is enjoined and does what is forbidden.

“For one who is desirous of acquiring a village the Sāṅgra haṇī sacrifice has been enjoined; so that if one who is desirous of acquiring a village is somehow unable to perform that sacrifice, this would be an omission of what is enjoined on his part; as soon as he conceives a desire for the acquisition of a village, the said sacrifice becomes for him an ‘enjoined act’; so that if he does not undertake it, he transgresses the injunction and hence should be liable to the expiatory rites.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — What the injunction in such a case means is that ‘when one undertakes the performance of the particular sacrifice, he is led to it by a desire for the reward in the shape of a village’; so that what the scriptural injunction really does is to indicate the relation of cause and effect between the ‘sacrifice’ and the ‘acquisition of a village.’ Even though in this case also the main idea expressed by the injunctive sentence is that the act in question should be done, yet what the injunction actually does is to lay down that the act should be done only for the accomplishment of the said purpose. So that all that happens to the person omitting the performance of that sacrifice is that that purpose is not accomplished; such omission does not involve a sin; and an expiatory rite would be necessary only when there has been some sin.

“Whence is the idea derived that the omission of a compulsory duty involves sin? In connection with the Agnihotra and such other compulsory acts, we do not find any such assertion as — ‘he who does not do it incurs sin.’”

As a matter of fact we do find sentences occurring in the wake of the injunction of compulsory duties, — such as ‘vedibh-yaḥ paramā bhavati’ [which are understood to be indicative of the said idea]; and in almost all cases there are declamatory passages indicative of the sin involved in the omission of compulsory acts; and there must be some truth in these; otherwise they could not be construed along with any injunction. Even in cases where no such declamatory passages are actually found, they are always assumed in support of injunctions. In fact it is the declamatory passages that constitute the driving force behind injunctions; such driving force would not be efficient unless it were assumed that an omission would involve sin. In the actual practice of all experienced men such is the operation of all Injunctions. Injunction is as a rule known to urge people to actions; — men are never urged to anything except what serves a useful purpose for them; and it is with a view to guard against the contingency of the Injunction becoming deprived of this urging force that we have to make the said assumption (of passages declaring that omission involves sin). Though the urging power could be secured also by assuming that the act concerned leads to Heaven, yet, as such an idea would be inconsistent with the conception that the act should be done throughout life, it becomes necessary to conclude that the due performance saves one from sin. To this end we have the assertion — ‘even a hundred injunctions do not secure that activity of men which is brought about by fear.’

From all this it is clear that when the text speaks of a man not doing ‘what is enjoined,’ it refers to the compulsory acts.

“In connection with bathing on touching an unclean thing, there are no words indicating its compulsory character, like such expressions as ‘throughout life’ and the like.”

What is the need of any other words? What the text is understood to indicate is that a certain act is to be done under certain specified circumstances; and there is no need for any other driving agency. The fact of the act being compulsory is expressed by the notion that whenever the said circumstance presents itself, it should be done. In the case of Agnihotra and such other rites also, we do not find the texts actually containing the term ‘compulsory,’ — the compulsory character bring indicated only by the absolute certainty of the condition mentioned (‘throughout life,’ in connection with the Agnihotra).

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры