with the Commentary of Medhatithi 320 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 326 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (21.26). — ‘The Kṛcchra penance of twelve days’ duration and a gift to the Brāhmaṇa are required for expiating the sin of killing each such animal as has bones.’

Yājñavalkya (3.275). — ‘If one is unable to make the gifts necessary for the expiating of the sin of killing the elephant and such animals, he shall perform the Kṛcchra penance for each animal that one kills.’

VERSE 11.140

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

अस्थिमतां तु सत्त्वानां सहस्रस्य प्रमापणे ।
पूर्णे चानस्यनस्थ्नां तु शूद्रहत्याव्रतं चरेत् ॥१४०॥

asthimatāṃ tu sattvānāṃ sahasrasya pramāpaṇe |
pūrṇe cānasyanasthnāṃ tu śūdrahatyāvrataṃ caret ||140||

If one kills one thousand animals ‘with bones,’ or a full cart-load of boneless ones, he shall perform the penance for the killing of a Śūdra. — (140)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘With bones.’ — This denotes the smallness of the body; as is clear from its being mentioned along with ‘boneless animals.’

‘Anas’ is cart, which stands here as a measure.

Though this expiation has been laid down here, yet, something else also has got to be done, as laid down in the next versa — (140)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaś chitta, p. 66); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 241), which explains the meaning to be that for the unintentional killing of 1,000 insects with bones, or a cartful of boneless insects, one should perform the ‘six-montly penance’, which Manu has prescribed in connection with the killing of a Śūdra; if it is done intentionally, then the ‘one year penance’ is to be performed.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.140-141)

Viṣṇu (50.46-47). — ‘If he has killed a thousand small animals having hones, — or an ox-load of boneless animals, — he must perform the same penance as for killing a Śūdra. But if he has killed animals having bones, he must also give some trifle to a Brāhmaṇa; if he has killed boneless animals, he becomes purified by one breath-suspension.’

Gautama (22.20-2). — ‘For killing one thousand small animals with bones, also for killing an ox-load of boneless animals, the same penance as for killing a cow; or he may also give something for the killing of each animal with bones.’

Āpastamba (1.26.2). — ‘For killing an ox-load of boneless animals, the same penance as for killing a Śūdra.

Vaśiṣṭha (21-25). — ‘Having slain a quantity of boneless animals, equal to the weight of a cow, one should perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days’ duration, and also give something.’

Yājñavalkya (3.269, 275). — ‘For killing a thousand animals with bones, or a cart-load of boneless animals, one should perform the same penance as for killing a Śūdra. For killing an animal with bones, he shall give something; and for killing a boneless animal, he shall perform breath-suspension.’

VERSE 11.141

Section XV - Expiation for the killing of Cats and other Animals

किं चिदेव तु विप्राय दद्यादस्थिमतां वधे ।
अनस्थ्नां चैव हिंसायां प्राणायामेन शुध्यति ॥१४१॥

kiṃ chideva tu viprāya dadyādasthimatāṃ vadhe |
anasthnāṃ caiva hiṃsāyāṃ prāṇāyāmena śudhyati ||141||

For the killing of animals with bones, he should give some trifle to a Brāhmaṇa; and for the killing of boneless animals, one becomes purified by the ‘control of breath.’ — (141)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Some trifle’ stands for a small thing — small in amount, in utility and in price.

According to the older writers the expiation here laid down is for the killing of a single animal.

As a matter of fact, there is no expiation at all for the killing of boneless animals.

‘Control of Breath’ here stands for self-control.

The killing of ‘insects and worms,’ which has been mentioned among ‘defiling sins’ (under 11.70), is to be understood as referring to insects of large size, — the present verse referring to little insects as mosquitoes and the rest. — (141)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kiñcit.’ — ‘One paṇa’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘eight handfuls of grain’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 66); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 241), which says that this refers to the killing of only one insect.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.140-141)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.140.

VERSE 11.142 [Expiation for cutting Trees and other Offences]

Section XVI - Expiation for cutting Trees and other Offences

फलदानां तु वृक्षाणां छेदने जप्यमृच्शतम् ।
गुल्मवल्लीलतानां च पुष्पितानां च वीरुधाम् ॥१४२॥

phaladānāṃ tu vṛkṣāṇāṃ chedane japyamṛcśatam |
gulmavallīlatānāṃ ca puṣpitānāṃ ca vīrudhām ||142||

When one cuts fruit-bearing trees, shrubs, creepers, branches of trees or flowering plants, he should recite one hundred Ṛk verses. — (142)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Fruit-bearing trees’ — such as the Mango, the Kaṇṭakī and the like.

The reciting of one hundred Ṛk verses is meant for twice-born men.

“What then is to be the expiation for a Śūdra?”

Some people hold that for them the expiation shall be the same as for the ‘minor offence’ of ‘cutting green trees for fuel.’ This, however, cannot be right, as that would be too heavy.

“If that is too heavy, why should it have been prescribed in connection with minor offences?”

The expiation laid down there was for repeated acts.

For these reasons, for the Śūdra cutting fruit-bearing trees, etc., the expiation shall be fasting for two or three days.

‘Shrubs,’ etc. — have been already explained.

‘Latā’ — stands here for branches of trees. — (142)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ṛkṣatam (Ṛcśatam?).’ — ‘One hundred verses, the Gāyatrī and the like’ (Kullūka); — ‘the Gāyatrī itself repeated a hundred times’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.276); — in Parā sha ramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 434), which notes that this refers to the cutting of trees etc., other than that for sacrificial purposes; — in Aparārka (p. 1134), which notes that ‘puṣpitānām’ goes with ‘vīrudhām’; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 920), which notes that there is nothing wrong in cutting the trees etc., for the purposes of the five great sacrifices and other religious purpose; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 243), which says that this refers to the cutting of trees with very few fruits.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (50.48). — ‘For cutting trees yielding fruit, shrubs, creeping or climbing plants, or plants yielding blossoms, he should recite the Vedic mantra a hundred times.’

Yājñavalkya (3.276). — ‘For cutting trees, shrubs and creepers, one should recite a hundred Ṛk verses.’

VERSE 11.143

Section XVI - Expiation for cutting Trees and other Offences

अन्नाद्यजानां सत्त्वानां रसजानां च सर्वशः ।
फलपुष्पोद्भवानां च घृतप्राशो विशोधनम् ॥१४३॥

annādyajānāṃ sattvānāṃ rasajānāṃ ca sarvaśaḥ |
phalapuṣpodbhavānāṃ ca ghṛtaprāśo viśodhanam ||143||

For the destroying of any kind of creatures bred in food, in sauces, in fruits or in flowers, the expiation consists in eating with clarified butter. — (143)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The creatures or living beings that are bred in cooked rice, and other kinds of food kept for a long time.

‘Bred in sauces’ — such as molasses, gruel and so forth.

The insects inside figs and such others are those ‘bred in fruits and flowers.’

‘Eating with clarified butter’ — that is, when one begins to take his food, he should drink clarified butter; — the particle ‘pra’ in ‘prāśa’ denoting beginning. Hence what is laid down does not exclude owlinary food, as is done in the case of the ‘Payovrata’ (subsisting on milk) and other penances; and the reason for this lies in the consideration that the creatures concerned are so insignificant that mere ‘breath-control’ has been prescribed as the expiation for killing them; so that the expiation in question (if it meant subsisting on clarified butter only) would be too heavy for such a trifling offence. Hence what is meant by ‘eating with clarified butter’ is that just a little of it should he sipped in the beginning. — (143)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1138), which adds that ‘ghāte,’ ‘on cutting,’ is to be construed with

this verse; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 242), which explains ‘anādya’ as śaktu and the rest, — ‘rasa’ as ‘molasses and the like,’ — ‘phala’ as ‘the jujube and so forth,’ — ‘puṣpa’ as the Madhūka and the rest, — if one kills the insects produced in these things unintentionally, one should eat clarified butter and then fast for a day.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (50.49). — ‘For killing insects bred in rice or other food, or in sweets and such things, or in liquids, or elsewhere, or in flowers or fruits, — the penance consists in eating clarified butter.’

VERSE 11.144

Section XVI - Expiation for cutting Trees and other Offences

कृष्तजानामोषधीनां जातानां च स्वयं वने ।
वृथालम्भेऽनुगच्छेद् गां दिनमेकं पयोव्रतः ॥१४४॥

kṛṣtajānāmoṣadhīnāṃ jātānāṃ ca svayaṃ vane |
vṛthālambhe'nugacched gāṃ dinamekaṃ payovrataḥ ||144||

If one needlessly cuts plants grown by cultivation, or those that spontaneously grow in the forest, he shall attend on the cow for one day, subsisting on milk only. — (144)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Those that grow in a plot of land that has been cultivated with the plough, the spade and other implements, and those that grow by themselves in the forest; — if one cuts these ‘needlessly’ — i.e., not for any such purpose as the feeding of cattle and the like, — he should ‘attend on the cow for one day’ — with great joy.

‘Subsisting on milk.’ — This precludes all other food. — (144)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (50.50). — ‘If a man has wantonly cut such plants as grow by cultivation, or such as rise spontaneously in the woods, — he must wait on a cow and subsist on milk for one day.’

Yājñavalkya (3.276). — (See under 142.)

VERSE 11.145

Section XVI - Expiation for cutting Trees and other Offences

एतैर्व्रतैरपोह्यं स्यादेनो हिंसासमुद्भवम् ।
ज्ञानाज्ञानकृतं कृत्स्नं शृणुतानाद्यभक्षणे ॥१४५॥

etairvratairapohyaṃ syādeno hiṃsāsamudbhavam |
jñānājñānakṛtaṃ kṛtsnaṃ śṛṇutānādyabhakṣaṇe ||145||

By means of these penances shall one remove the six arising from the act of slaying, either intentionally or unintentionally. Now listen to all that is involved in eating forbidden food. — (145)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The sin arising from the act of slaying’ — that which is produced by slaying — ‘shall he removed’ — is removable — by the penances just described; — whether the act be done intentionally or unintentionally.

Now listen to the method by which one could remove the sin involved in the eating of ‘forbidden food’ — such food as ought not to be eaten. — (145)

VERSE 11.146 [Expiation for the Sin of taking Forbidden Food]

Section XVII - Expiation for the Sin of taking Forbidden Food

अज्ञानाद् वारुणीं पीत्वा संस्कारेणैव शुध्यति ।
मतिपूर्वमनिर्देश्यं प्राणान्तिकमिति स्थितिः ॥१४६॥

ajñānād vāruṇīṃ pītvā saṃskāreṇaiva śudhyati |
matipūrvamanirdeśyaṃ prāṇāntikamiti sthitiḥ ||146||

If one drinks wine unintentionally, he becomes pure by a sacrament; this, however, is not what should be prescribed in the case of doing the act intentionally; in which case there should be a penance involving death; — such is the settled law. — (146)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Inasmuch as in connection with this ‘Initiation,’ the use of the girdle-zone and other things has been forbidden, it follows that it stands here for ‘Initiation’; and on the strength of another Smṛti-text, this should be accompanied by the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra’ penance. Says Gautama — ‘In the case of unintentional drinking of wine, one should live for three days upon milk, clarified butter, water and air, performing the Tapta-kṛcchra, — then should follow his Initiation’ (23.2).

The ‘wine’ meant here is not that which is distilled from grains, but those that are distilled from molasses and honey.

“From what does this follow?”

It follows from what we learn from another Smṛti-text — ‘The Brāhmaṇa who unintentionally drinks wine other than that distilled from grains, becomes pure by subsisting, for ten days, on cow’s urine, and barley-products.’ So that in the case of the unintentional drinking of wine distilled from grains, there is to be an ordinary form of expiation (and not Re-initiation), — either in the one form of the penance involving the subsisting for one year on pieces of grain, or in the performance of the ‘Chāndrāyaṇa.’

In the case of the intentional drinking of even the two kinds of wine (that distilled from molasses and that distilled from honey), the aforesaid expiation should not be prescribed; in such a case, the expiation should be one that brings about the death of the offender.

“What expiation would this be?”

The same that has been prescribed above for the drinking of the wine that is distilled from grains, which is the most important form of wine.

This, however, should be understood to apply to cases of repeated drinking (of the two kinds of wine); since for once drinking wines other than that distilled from grains, the performance of the Cāndrāyaṇa penance has been laid down.

Thus the ‘settled law’ on this point is as follows: — (a) If one drinks intentionally the wine distilled from grains, there should be a penance ending in death; — (b) if he drinks that same wine unintentionally, and once only, he should live upon pieces of grain and perform the Cāndrāyaṇa; — (c) if he does it unintentionally, but repeatedly, then it shall be just as in the case of intentional drinking; — (d) in the case of the intentional drinking of other wines, one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa; — (e) in the case of the unintentional drinking of these, once only, there should be the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra’ Initiation and subsisting on cow’s urine and barley-products; — and (f) in the case of unintentional, but repeated, drinking of these, it shall be just as in the case of the wine distilled from grains. — (146)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Anirdeśyam.’ — ‘What is stated in the first half is not to be prescribed in the case of the intentional drinking of Vāruṇī’ (Medhātithi and Nandana); — ‘Any expiation involving death shall not be prescribed even in the wise of the intentional drinking of Vāruṇī’ (Nārāyaṇa and others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1074), which explains the meaning to be — ‘The intentional drinking of Surā is an offence for which no expiation can be prescribed by any Assembly; it has to be found out by the offender himself.’ It adds that the re-performance of the sacramental rites in itself cannot absolve the man from the sin; these rites have to be performed after the man has undergone the expiation specifically prescribed for wine-drinking.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.255), which adds that the sacramental rites are to be performed after the performance of the Tapta-Kṛcchra.

It is quoted in Parāyaścittaviveka (p. 100), which explains the second half to mean that ‘if one drinks wine intentionally, then the expiation just prescribed will not serve his purpose his only expiation will consist in giving up his life.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(See texts under 91 et seq.)

Gautama (23.2). — ‘If the Brāhmaṇa has drunk wine unintentionally, he shall subsist for three days on hot milk, clarified hatter and water; and inhale hot air. This penance is called Tapta-Kṛcchra. After that he shall undergo a second initiation.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.19). — ‘For unintentionally drinking wine one shall perform the Kṛcchra penance for three months and he initiated again.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.19). — ‘If a Brāhmaṇa intentionally drinks liquor other than that distilled from rice, or if he unintentionally drinks liquor extracted from rice, he must perform a Kṛcchra and an Atikṛcchra, and after eating clarified butter, he initiated again.’

Viṣṇu (51.1-4). — ‘A drinker of liquor must abstain from all religions rites and subsist on grains separated from the husk, for a year. If a man has knowingly tasted any of the excretions of the body, or of intoxicating drinks, he should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance. In all these cases, the twice-born man shall be initiated a second time, after the penance is over,’

Yājñavalkya (3.255). — ‘On drinking the Vāruṇī wine or semen, or urine or ordure, unwittingly, the three twice-born castes shall undergo initiation a second time.’

VERSE 11.147

Section XVII - Expiation for the Sin of taking Forbidden Food

अपः सुराभाजनस्था मद्यभाण्डस्थितास्तथा ।
पञ्चरात्रं पिबेत् पीत्वा शङ्खपुष्पीशृतं पयः ॥१४७॥

apaḥ surābhājanasthā madyabhāṇḍasthitāstathā |
pañcarātraṃ pibet pītvā śaṅkhapuṣpīśṛtaṃ payaḥ ||147||

If one has drunk water kept in a vessel used for keeping wine, or in a pot where intoxicating drinks are kept, he shall drink, for five days, milk in which Śaṅkhapuṣpī has been boiled. — (147)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This expiation refers to the drinking of water out of a vessel in which the taste of wine is felt.

“The term ‘madya,’ ‘intoxicating drink,’ being a general one, all that is intended would be secured from the single word ‘contained in a pot used far keeping intoxicating drinks’; and the other word ‘contained in a vessel used for keeping nine’ should not have been used.”

True; this would be so if there were not a great difference between the expiations prescribed for the drinking of ‘wine’ and of ‘intoxicating drinks.’ When, however, there is such a difference, it would appear that, there should be a correspondingly heavier expiation for the drinking of water contained in a wine-vessel; — and it is with a view to preclude this idea that the text prescribes the same expiation for both.

‘For five days he shall drink milk in which Śaṅkha-puṣpī has been boiled.’ The term ‘payas’ here stands for milk; because the particular term ‘śhṛta’ (in the sense of boiled) is used only in connection with milk and sacrificial materials.

‘Śaṅkhapuṣpī’ is the name of a medicinal herb; and this shall be pounded and boiled in milk, which shall be drunk for five days. — (147)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1074), which explains that ‘payaḥ’ here stands for milk; — again on p. 1160, where it is added that this refers to cases where the water has been drunk and vomitted by women or children, and it was contained in a vessel that had contained wine, hut was not wet with it, so that the water had not imbibed either the taste or the smell of the liquor.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 349), which adds that this refers to cases of unintentional repeated drinking of the water; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 324), which says that ‘payaḥ’ means milk; ‘Śaṅkhapuṣpī’ is a particular herb.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (2.1.22). — ‘He who drinks water which has stood in a vessel used for keeping Surā, shall live six days on milk in which leaves of the Śaṅkhapuṣpī plant has been boiled.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20-21). — ‘If a Brāhmaṇa drinks water which has stood in a vessel used for keeping wine, he becomes pure by drinking, during three days, water mixed with a decoction of lotus, Udumbara, Bilva, and Palāsa leaves.’

Viṣṇu (51.23-24). — ‘After having drunk water from a vessel in which liquor had been kept, he must drink for seven days milk boiled with the Śaṅkhapuṣpī plant. After having drunk water from a vessel in which any intoxicating beverage had been kept, he must drink the said milk for five days.’

VERSE 11.148

Section XVII - Expiation for the Sin of taking Forbidden Food

स्पृष्ट्वा दत्त्वा च मदिरां विधिवत् प्रतिगृह्य च ।
शूद्रोच्छिष्टाश्च पीत्वाऽपः कुशवारि पिबेत् त्र्यहम् ॥१४८॥

spṛṣṭvā dattvā ca madirāṃ vidhivat pratigṛhya ca |
śūdrocchiṣṭāśca pītvā'paḥ kuśavāri pibet tryaham ||148||

If one touches wine, or offers it to another, or receives it in due form, — or if he drinks water left by a Śūdra, — he shall drink kuśa-water for three days. — (148)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Receives it in due form,’ — i.e., pronouncing the syllable ‘svasti’; similarly with the offering also.

There would be no harm in the case of vrīhi and other corns.

‘Kuśa’ is a kind of grass. — (148)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vidhivat’ — ‘Pronouncing a benediction on the giver’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka); — ‘at the Sautrāmaṇi sacrifice’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1164.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 1164). — ‘If a twice-born person intentionally touches wine, onions or garlic, he shall live for three days on Kuśa-water and also repeat the Gāyatrī.’

VERSE 11.149

Section XVII - Expiation for the Sin of taking Forbidden Food

ब्राह्मणस्तु सुरापस्य गन्धमाघ्राय सोमपः ।
प्राणानप्सु त्रिरायम्य घृतं प्राश्य विशुध्यति ॥१४९॥

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология