with the Commentary of Medhatithi 309 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 315 из 350Следующая ⇒

‘Addicted’ — Constantly using such sensual objects as richly cooked food, sandal-paint and unguents, etc. This implies the character of bring always given to such enjoyment.

“This has been already prohibited under 4.16, where it has been said that — ‘one shall not attach himself to sensual pleasures.’”

People think that since this latter passage occurs in connection with the vows of the Accomplished Student, it cannot serve as a general Prohibition. What occurs under ‘vows’ cannot be regarded as a Prohibition; as what is enjoined under ‘vows’ is the taking of a certain resolve, in some such form as — ‘I shall not do such and such an act.’

Or, some one may be inclined to think that the former prohibition being a slight one, the offence is not a serious one. With a view to guard against this, the Author has put the offence on the same footing as other serious offences.

Or, the explanation may be that it is often found that, even though something has been forbidden in a general way, it is again forbidden specifically, for the purpose of indicating its importance.

For instance, we often meet with such assertions as — ‘The Brāhmaṇas have come, — the Vaśiṣṭhas have also come.’

‘Becomes liable to expiatory rites’ — The term ‘prāyaścitta,’ ‘expiatory rite,’ is a conventional name applied to certain rites performed under certain specified conditions, and the form ‘prāyaścittīyate’ is formed according to Pāṇini 3.1.85.

‘Man’ — This term has been added for the purpose of indicating that what is here stated applies to all the four castes. — (44)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.220), which notes that the use of the general term ‘naraḥ’ implies that what is here said is applicable to the ease of men born of reversed parentage; such general sins as those of killing and the like being possible in their case also; — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 50), which adds that the verse is indicative of those sins that accrue from the omission, through sloth, of the obligatory duties; — in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 6); — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 10), which says that the meaning is that the act is sinful, and hence involves expiation; — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 351).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.44-47)

Mahābhārata (12-34.2). — (Same as Manu 44)

Gautama (19.2-7). — ‘A man in this world is polluted by a vile action, such as sacrificing for men unworthy to offer sacrifices, eating forbidden food, speaking what should not he spoken, neglecting what is prescribed and doing what is forbidden. People are in doubt if such a man shall, or shall not, perform a penance for such a deed. Some declare that he shall not do it, because the deed must persist. The best opinion is that he shall perform a penance. For it is declared in the Veda that one who has performed the penance of Punastoma may come back to partake of the Soma-libations.’

Baudhāyana (3.10.2-5). — [The same as Gautama; but it adds ‘accepting gifts from those whose gift should not be accepted;’ for ‘eats forbidden food,’ it has ‘Eats the food of one whose food should not he eaten,’ and it omits ‘speaking etc.’ and also ‘neglecting what is prescribed.’]

Vaśiṣṭha (20.1-2). — ‘A penance shall be performed for an offence committed unintentionally. Some declare that it shall he performed also for those committed intentionally.’

Do. (22.1-5). — ‘Now indeed man in this world speaks an untruth, or sacrifices for men unworthy to offer a sacrifice, or accepts what should not be accepted, or eats forbidden food, or does what should not be done.’ (The rest as in Gautama).

Yājñavalkya (3.219-221). — ‘A man becomes degraded by omitting to do what is enjoined, by doing what is condemned, and by not controlling the senses. Therefore for the purpose of purifying himself, he shall perform expiatory penances; thus do the people and also his own inner soul become appeased. By the performance of expiatory penances does that sin disappear which had been committed unintentionally; if the sin had been committed intentionally, the performance of the penances only makes the man fit for being associated with; such being the declaration. Those who commit sins, and yet do not perform the penances, nor repent their misdeeds, fall into terrible hells.’

Chāgaleya (Aparārka, p. 1039). — ‘The expiatory penances are for sins committed unintentionally; for those committed intentionally, there is no expiation.’

Jābāli (Parāśaramādhava-Prāyaścitta, p. 153). — ‘The Brāhmaṇas prescribe penances for sins committed unintentionally; some people prescribe them also for those committed intentionally, for twice-born men as well as for Śūdras.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘When a sin has been committed unintentionally, and only once, there is expiation prescribed for it by persons versed in the Law. If the sin is committed a second time, the penance shall he the double of the former; if it is repeated for the third time, it shall he the three-fold Kṛcchra; and for the fourth repetition, there is no expiation. Nor is there any expiation for a sin committed even once, if it has been committed intentionally. But some people lay down expiation even for sins committed intentionally.’

Aṅgiras (Do.). — ‘If the sin has been committed unintentionally, penance is performed; hut there is none for sins committed intentionally; even if there be, it will have to be double of the former.’

VERSE 11.45

Section IV - Expiation: General Laws (prāyaścitta)

अकामतः कृते पापे प्रायश्चित्तं विदुर्बुधाः ।
कामकारकृतेऽप्याहुरेके श्रुतिनिदर्शनात् ॥४५॥

akāmataḥ kṛte pāpe prāyaścittaṃ vidurbudhāḥ |
kāmakārakṛte'pyāhureke śrutinidarśanāt ||45||

The learned understand Expiatory rites to pertain to cases where the sin is committed unintentionally; some people however assert on the evidence of ‘Śruti texts’ that they apply to cases of intentional offence also. — (45)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This declaration has been made for the purpose of indicating that in cases of intentional offence, the Expiatory Rite should be of a particularly serious character.

‘Committed unintentionally.’ — They declare that Expiatory Rites are meant, to be performed in cases where the ‘sin’ — the transgression of the ordinances — has been committed through negligence or want of care.

“What are the grounds for such an opinion? The law on the point is that — ‘when a man transgresses an injunction and undertakes a wrong act, he shall perform an expiatory rite.’ So that there is no ground for any differentiation.”

Some people hold that if there were no such differentiation, there would be no point in the prescribing of special Expiatory Ṛtes for cases of intentional offence.

It is for this reason that the text puts forward another view, by way of a ‘Pūrvapakṣa’ a ‘contrary view’ — ‘They apply to cases of intentional offence also.’ According to this view the meaning of the Law would be that Expiatory Rites shall be performed in cases of intentional as well as unintentional offences.

‘On the evidence of Śruti texts’ — One Vedic text indicative of the said view is found in the Upahavya-Brāhmaṇa (the story of Upahavya) — ‘Indra gave away the ascetics to the dogs.’ Such giving away could never have been unintentional; and yet the story goes on to say, it was for the purpose of expiating this sin that Prajāpati made over Upahavya to Indra. Such is the clear meaning of the text — (45)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.28.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 705), which quotes a Vedic text to the effect that once Indra gave away certain sages to be devoured by the ‘Śālāvṛka’ dogs, for which sinful act Prajāpati ordained for him the expiatory rite called ‘Upahavya’, which is taken as implying that for intentional offences also there is ‘expiation.’.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (3.226), as indicating that expiatory rites are to be performed in the case of intentional offences also, — and not that the sin accruing from such offences is wiped off by these rites, in the case of ‘degrading’ offences.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Prāyaścitta, p. 152), to the effect that in the case of intentional offences, there can be expiation, only according to some authorities, not all; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 18), which says that stress is meant to the laid upon ‘akāmakāḥ’ as it is only for unintentional delinquencies that there is expiation, and in reference to ‘Śrutividarśanāt,’ it quotes the Śruti-passage describing the story of Indra and the Śālavṛkas.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.44-47)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.44.

VERSE 11.46

Section IV - Expiation: General Laws (prāyaścitta)

अकामतः कृतं पापं वेदाभ्यासेन शुध्यति ।
कामतस्तु कृतं मोहात् प्रायश्चित्तैः पृथग्विधैः ॥४६॥

akāmataḥ kṛtaṃ pāpaṃ vedābhyāsena śudhyati |
kāmatastu kṛtaṃ mohāt prāyaścittaiḥ pṛthagvidhaiḥ ||46||

A sin committed unintentionally is expiated by the reciting of the Veda; while that committed intentionally, in folly, is expiated by the various forms of expiatory rites. — (46)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Question. — “Do these Expiatory Rites end only with their performance (without bringing about any effects), just like the Twilight Prayers and other rites? Or, do they continue until definite effects are produced, in the form of the actual removal of the guilt like the act of cleansing the body (which ends only with the actual removal of the dirt)?”

In answer to this some people offer the following explanation: — As a matter of fact no action is ever lost; both merit and demerit (due to actions) end only with the bringing about of their effects; no actions ever disappear until they have brought about their effects. This is what is meant by the assertion that ‘no action is ever lost’ Hence the man who commits a transgression must experience the tortures of hell, as the result of that transgression, [so that no expiation of any transgression is possible]; and the only effect of his not performing the prescribed expiatory rite would be that he shall also transgress the law laying down such rite, and thus commit a further offence.

This, however, is not right Because, simply because the texts lay down that the rite shall be performed, such rite does not become compulsory [and it is only the omission of a compulsory act that involves sin]. All that is said is that the man becomes ‘cleansed’; from which it is clear that this cleansing is the purpose served by the expiatory rite. So that when expiatory rites are performed, one would wash off his sins; and this would he done because of the sin having been committed by the man himself.

It has been argued above that — “all that has been indicated is that sin is incurred by the man who commits an act that has been forbidden by a prohibitive text; and not that the sin becomes nullified by means of expiations.”

But this also is not right. Because what has been indicated is that the said act becomes a source of suffering; now in Expiation also there is much suffering in the form of penances and charities; and it is quite possible that the small amount of suffering undergone in the shape of these latter should prevent the onset of the greater sufferings threatening in the future. Just as a serious disease is prevented by the eating of bitter medicines and keeping on low diet; or again, when a man having committed an offence surrenders himself to the king and confesses his guilt, saying — ‘I have done such and such an act,’ — the punishment inflicted upon such a man is only half of what is prescribed for that offence; while if he were arrested by the king’s officers and brought to court, his punishment would be much severer.

Thus it is that the utility of the injunctions in question (of expiations) becomes established. That the rites are destructive of the effects of sins has to be admitted on the strength of the injunctions themselves. It is for this reason that these rites have been called ‘expiatory’ of sins; for the sin is said to be ‘expiated’ only when it has become deprived of its causal efficiency.

For the same reason the Expiatory Rite cannot be regarded as restoring the rights and privileges lost by. reason of the guilt; since it is only in the case of the five most heinous offences that any loss of privileges has been mentioned, — the very term ‘becoming an outcast’ meaning the loss of the privileges of the caste.

In connection with the present context it should not be understood that any such marked distinction is intended as that ‘in the case of unintentional offences the expiation consists in the reciting of the Veda, and in that of intentional offences of penances’; — because as a matter of fact both kinds of expiation have been laid down in connection with both kinds of offences; specially as every rule regarding an expiatory rite starts off with the defining of the occasion for expiation; e.g., ‘The Slayer of a Brāhmaṇa shall make a cut, etc, etc.’ (11.72)

Thus then, all that the verse means is that — ‘there is heavy expiation in the case of intentional offences, and a lighter one in that of unintentional ones.’

“In fact when a man commits an act unintentionally, he is not the doer of that act; as one is called the ‘doer’of an act only when he does it intentionally; as we find people making such assertions as — ‘This man is not doing such and such an act, he is being made by fate to do it’ Further, it is only as done with a distinct motive towards it that an act forms the subject of a prohibition; e.g., it is only when a man evinces a desire for drinking wine that he is told ‘not to drink the wine’; and if a man eager for a drink of water drinks wine thinking it to be water, he does not incur any guilt; and this for the simple reason that his action has not been prompted by the motive to drink wine. It might be argued that it is only an action that has formed the subject of an Injunction that cannot be forbidden. This is quite true, so far as actions without a purpose are concerned; but of actions with a purpose, a prohibition is always possible.”

In answer to this some people offer the following explanation: — What forms the subject-matter of prohibitive texts is the affirmation of an act as extending up to the sin that its commitment involves; just as it does in the case of taking poison.

For these people the objection has no force at all. As regards the taking of ‘poison,’ there can be no distinction as to its being done intentionally or unintentionally; in either case the act must lead to death.

Similarly in the case of such acts as ‘the Slaying of a Brāhmaṇa’ and the like.

According to some people an act is done because of the declaration that it shall be done, and it is not done because of the declaration that it shall not be done. And by this view also prohibitions apply to only one who is going to do some ordinary act; it is only when a man is going to do an act that he is called its ‘doer.’ But a man can be a ‘doer’ even without knowing it, as when he falls down a river-bank. It cannot be said that in such a case the man is called a ‘doer’ only in the figurative sense; because the doer (nominative) has been defined only as ‘one who is his own master regarding the act,’ and not as ‘one who does an act intentionally

Further, from the present text itself it is clear that even acts due to sheer negligence have been held to involve sin, and hence necessitate expiation. What is the need of any further assumptions? — (46)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (3.226), to the effect that the sin accruing from ‘non-degrading’ offences even when intentional, is wiped off by the performance of expiatory rites; — in Aparārka, (p. 1040) — in Madanapārijāta, (p. 705); — in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 18), which says that all that is meant by the mention of ‘Vedabhyāsa’ is that the expiation of unintentional delinquencies is lighter than that for intentional ones, — it explains ‘pṛthagvidhaiḥ’ as ‘other kinds of expiation’; — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra, (p. 354).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.44-47)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.44.

VERSE 11.47

Section IV - Expiation: General Laws (prāyaścitta)

प्रायश्चित्तीयतां प्राप्य दैवात् पूर्वकृतेन वा ।
न संसर्गं व्रजेत् सद्भिः प्रायश्चित्तेऽकृते द्विजः ॥४७॥

prāyaścittīyatāṃ prāpya daivāt pūrvakṛtena vā |
na saṃsargaṃ vrajet sadbhiḥ prāyaścitte'kṛte dvijaḥ ||47||

Having incurred the liability to an expiatory rite, — either by chance or by a previous deed, — a twice-born person shall not associate with righteous men, so long as the expiatory rite has not been performed. — (47)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘By chance’ — through his own negligence.

Some people read ‘mohāt’ in place of ‘daivāt.’ It is only through folly (‘mohāt’) that people commit misdeeds; which man, who is not a fool, shall ever transgress a scriptural injunction?

‘By a previous misdeed’ — Some evil deeds committed in previous life, whose effects have been already experienced, and which are inferred from such physical defects as disfigured nails and the like.

The meaning of all this is as follows: — Transgressions done in the present life are either intentional or unintentional; and the same should be inferred also in the case of acts done in previous lives.

“But what is the expiation to be done in the case of disfigured nails and such physical defects?”

The ‘Kṛcchra,’ the ‘Atikṛcchra’ and the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ are expiatory rites applicable to all cases; though Vaśiṣṭha has declared that ‘the man should perform that special expiatory rite somehow connected with that which is indicative of the previous sin.’

What the present text thus means is that those who have not performed the Expiatory Rite to which they are liable shall avoid associating with righteous men; i.e., they should not mix with them in study and such acta

Though the act of ‘associating’ pertains to both parties, and hence when prohibited in reference to one, it becomes forbidden for both, — yet the prohibition is again repeated (in 189) in the form that ‘righteous men shall not associate with them,’ and this is on account of the agents concerned in the two cases being different. If there were prohibition in reference to one party only, then a transgressing of this prohibition would render that, party alone liable to expiation, — and not the other party, even though the latter also would have done the act of ‘associating.’ Hence with a view to indicate the liability of both parties we have the two distinct prohibitions — one for the righteous and another for the unrighteous. The upshot of all this is that no one should associate with persons with black teeth and so forth, until they have performed the necessary expiatory rite. — (47)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta, (p. 774), which adds the following notes: — ‘Daivāt,’ i.e., for the sake of some offence committed during the present life, — or for that of some offence the antenatal committing of which is indicated by the presence, in the person, of such defects as consumption, rotten nails, black teeth and so forth, — one should perform the expiatory rites prescribed by Vaśiṣṭha; but the expiation performed should be that prescribed for the presence of the said defects, not that for the offences of which those defects are known to be the effects, — e.g. the presence of rotten nails has been held to he the effect of stealing gold in a previous life, or consumption is held to be the effect of Brāhmaṇa-slaughter committed in a previous life.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, (Prāyaścitta, p. 2a); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 141 and 148), as forbidding association with sinners.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.44-47)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.44.

VERSE 11.48 [Physical Effects of Unexpiated Offences committed in Previous Lives]

Section V - Physical Effects of Unexpiated Offences committed in Previous Lives

इह दुश्चरितैः के चित् के चित् पूर्वकृतैस्तथा ।
प्राप्नुवन्ति दुरात्मानो नरा रूपविपर्ययम् ॥४८॥

iha duścaritaiḥ ke cit ke cit pūrvakṛtaistathā |
prāpnuvanti durātmāno narā rūpaviparyayam ||48||

Evil-minded men suffer disfigurement, — some from evil deeds committed during the present life and others from those committed in former lives. — (48)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What has been explained above is made clear now.

‘Some from evil deeds committed during the present life’ — i.e., by doing forbidden acts in their present birth.

‘By those committed in former lives’ — as explained above.

It is this ‘disfigurement,’ as indicative of past sins that is now described in detail. — (48)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 6).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.48-52)

[See below. — 12.53 et seq.]

Vaśiṣṭha (20.43-44). — ‘They quote the following: — “Hear how the bodies of those who, having committed various crimes, died a long time ago, and were horn again, are marked: — A thief will have deformed nails, the murderer of a Brāhmaṇa will he afflicted with white leprosy; he who has drunk wine will have black teeth, and the violator of the Guru’s bed will suffer from skin-diseases.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.6). — ‘The man with deformed nails or black teeth should perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days’ duration.’

Viṣṇu (45.1-33). — ‘After having undergone thè torments in the hells, and having passed through the animal bodies, the sinners are born as human beings with the following marks: — A criminal of the highest degree shall have leprosy; a slayer of a Brāhmaṇa, consumption; a wine-drinker, black teeth; a stealer of gold (belonging to a Brāhmaṇa), deformed nails; a violator of his spiritual teacher’s bed a disease of the skin; a calumniator, a stinking nose; a malicious informer, stinking breath; a stealer of grain, a limb too little; one who steals by mixing (i.e., by taking good grain and replacing the same amount of bad grain in its stead), a limb too much; a stealer of food, dyspepsia; a stealer of words, dumbness; a stealer of clothes, white leprosy; a stealer of horses, lameness; one who pronounces an execration against a God or a Brāhmaṇa, dumbness; a poisoner, a stammering tongue; an incendiary, madness; one disobedient to a Guru (father), the falling sickness; the killer of a cow, blindness; the stealer of a lamb, the same; one who has extinguished a lamp, blindness with one eye; a seller of tin, chowries, or lead, is born a dyer of cloth; a seller of (horses or other) animals whose foot is not cloven, is born a hunter: one who eats the food of a person born from adulterous intercourse, is born as a man who suffers his mouth to he abused; a thief (of other property than gold), is born a bard; a usurer becoms epileptic; one who eats dainties alone, shall have rheumatics; the breaker of a convention, a bald head; the breaker of a vow of chastity, swelled legs; one who deprives another of his subsistence, shall be poor; one who injures another (without provocation), shall have an incurable illness. Thus according to their particular sins, are men born, marked by evil-signs, sick, blind, hump-backed, halting, one-eyed; others as dwarfs, or deaf, or dumb, feeble-bodied (eunuchs, whitlows, and others). Therefore must penances be performed by all means.’

Yājñavalkya (3.209-215). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa slayer becomes consumptive, the wine-drinker has black teeth, the gold stealer has deformed nails; the violator of the Guru’s bed suffers from skin diseases; the stealer of food becomes dyspeptic; the stealer of words, dumb; the mixer of grains has a limb too many; the back-biter has stinking nostrils; the stealer of sesamum becomes the oil-drinking animal; calumniator has stinking mouth; one who has intercourse with another’s wife and one who steals a Brāhmaṇa’s property becomes a Brahmarākṣasa in a desolate forest; those who steal gems are born in low castes; one who steals clothes suffers from white leprosy.’

VERSE 11.49-52

Section V - Physical Effects of Unexpiated Offences committed in Previous Lives

सुवर्णचौरः कौनख्यं सुरापः श्यावदन्तताम् ।
ब्रह्महा क्षयरोगित्वं दौश्चर्म्यं गुरुतल्पगः ॥४९॥

पिशुनः पौतिनासिक्यं सूचकः पूतिवक्त्रताम् ।
धान्यचौरोऽङ्गहीनत्वमातिरैक्यं तु मिश्रकः ॥५०॥

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры