with the Commentary of Medhatithi 326 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 332 из 350Следующая ⇒

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Refugee’ — He who, on being harassed by his enemies, or struck by some powerful person, seeks refuge with a person saying ‘save me,’ — or a man who has committed an offence and comes to a learned man saying — ‘save me, tell me what expiation I should perform.’ Both these would be ‘refugees.’

‘Ungrateful men’ — Those who forget the benefit that has been conferred upon them by some one, and try to injure him, — or one who spoils the effect of the benefit he has himself conferred upon some one, and tries to undo it by doing him harm. Though both these men would be ‘kṛtaghna’ in the literal sense, yet in ordinary usage the name is applied to one who causes injury to his benefactor.

In this connection, there is no consideration of caste, — the only condition is that the persons murdered are‘children’ and the like.

‘Women’ — Even though they be unchaste. Though in these cases the expiation shall be light, yet association with them is directly forbidden by the words of the text.

‘Association’ — Keeping company, living together. — (190)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1209), which remarks that the phrase ‘viśuddhānapi dharmataḥ’ clearly indicates that the expiations laid down in connection with the murder of women and other crimes do really serve to remove the sin involved.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 155), as indication of the view that in the case of heinous crimes, even after the prescribed expiration has been gone through, the offender is not fit for being associated with, even though for all spiritual purposes he may have become ‘purified’; — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 21); — and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 109), which explains ‘na saṃvaset’ to mean that ‘one should not associate with them in eating or any such act.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (54.32). — ‘Let him not however, associate with those who have killed children, or with ungrateful persons, or with those who have tilled a woman, or one who came to him for protection, — even though such sinners may have secured absolution according to the Law.’

Yājñavalkya (3.299). — ‘Those who have killed a person seeking protection, or a child or a woman, or those who are ungrateful, — with these one should not associate, even though they may have performed the requisite penances.’

VERSE 11.191 [Expiation for the Neglect of ‘Sāvitrī’]

Section XXI - Expiation for the Neglect of ‘Sāvitrī’

येषां द्विजानां सावित्री नानूच्येत यथाविधि ।
तांश्चारयित्वा त्रीन् कृच्छ्रान् यथाविध्योपनाययेत् ॥१९१॥

yeṣāṃ dvijānāṃ sāvitrī nānūcyeta yathāvidhi |
tāṃścārayitvā trīn kṛcchrān yathāvidhyopanāyayet ||191||

Though twice-born men to whom the Sāvitrī has not been taught according to rule, should be made to perform three Kṛcchra penances and then initiated in due form. — (191)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The time for the Brāhmaṇa’s Initiation has been laid down as extending up to the sixteenth year of his age; and the present text lays down the expiation for transgressing this limit.

If to a Brāhmaṇa the Sāvitrī has not been taught — from the seventh to the sixteenth year of his age — the ‘teaching of the Sāvitrī’ stands here for the sacrament of Initiation; hence the meaning is ‘if the Initiation has not been performed at the said time’; similarly up to the twenty-second year for the Kṣatriya, and the twenty-fourth year for the Vaiśya, — then after the lapse of this time, he should be made to perform three ‘Kṛcchra’ penances. Where the term ‘Kṛcchra’ stands without an epithet, it means the Prājāpatya penance, — such is the well-known usage of Smṛti.

Others explain the ‘Kṛcchra’ here as standing for the Kṛcchātikṛcchra.

After these Kṛcchra penances have been performed, he should be initiated.

‘In due form’ — This is purely reiterative. — (191)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

See 2.38.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 433), as laying down the expiation for the ‘Vrātya’; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 871), which adds that — (a) in the case of the omission being due to the absence of an initiator, the expiation should he that prescribed by Manu and Yājñavalkya, and (b) in the case of omission being due to no such unavoidable circumstances, nor in times of digress, it should be ‘Three Years’ Penance’ prescribed under the section on cow-slaughter.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1107), which explains ‘trīn kṛcchrān’ as meaning — (1) The Prājāpatya, (2) the Kṛcchra and (3) the Atikṛcchra; — in Mitākṣarā (3.265), as laying down what should be done when one has become a ‘vrātya’; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 350); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 384.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (54-26). — ‘Those twice-born men by whom the Gāyatrī has not been repeated, nor the other ceremonies performed, as the law directs, must be made to perform three Prājāpatya penances and then initiated according to custom.’

Āpastamba (1.1.28-29). — ‘If the proper time for initiation has passed, he shall observe, for the space of two months, the duties of a Student, as observed by those who are studying the three Vedas; after that he may be initiated; and after that he may be instructed.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11.76-78). — ‘A man who has missed the Sāvitrī may undergo the Uddālaka penance. Let him subsist, during two months, on barley-gruel, during one month on milk, during half a month on curds, during eight days on clarified butter, during six days on alms given without asking, and during three days on water; and let him fast for one day and night. Or, he may go to bathe with the priests at the end of an Āśvamedha sacrifice. Or, he may perform the Vrātya-stoma.’

VERSE 11.192

Section XXI - Expiation for the Neglect of ‘Sāvitrī’

प्रायश्चित्तं चिकीर्षन्ति विकर्मस्थास्तु ये द्विजाः ।
ब्रह्मणा च परित्यक्तास्तेषामप्येतदादिशेत् ॥१९२॥

prāyaścittaṃ cikīrṣanti vikarmasthāstu ye dvijāḥ |
brahmaṇā ca parityaktāsteṣāmapyetadādiśet ||192||

When twice-born men, who follow improper occupations, or who are abandoned by the Veda, are desirous of performing expiations — for these also this same expiation is to be prescribed. — (192)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Who follow improper occupations’; — e.g., Brāhmaṇas engaged in the service of a Śūdra. The proper occupation for each man is indicated by the livelihood that has been prescribed for him; occupations other than that would he ‘improper.’ That occupation which is prescribed for twice-born men would be ‘improper’ for persons other than twice-born.

‘Abandoned by the Veda’ — those who, though initiated, have not studied the Veda, — or having studied have forgotten it.

For those also there should be the ‘three Kṛcchras.’

‘Are desirous of performing expiations.’ — This is purely reiterative; as people take to an action only when they have a desire for it. — (192)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (1107.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (54.27). — ‘Those twice-born men who are anxious to make an atonement for having committed an unlawful act, or for having neglected the study of the Veda, must he made to perform the same penance (three Prājāpatyas).’

VERSE 11.193 [Expiation for Brāhmaṇas acquiring Property by Improper Means]

Section XXII - Expiation for Brāhmaṇas acquiring Property by Improper Means

यद् गर्हितेनार्जयन्ति कर्मणा ब्राह्मणा धनम् ।
तस्योत्सर्गेण शुध्यन्ति जप्येन तपसैव च ॥१९३॥

yad garhitenārjayanti karmaṇā brāhmaṇā dhanam |
tasyotsargeṇa śudhyanti japyena tapasaiva ca ||193||

When Brāhmaṇas acquire property by an objectionable act, they become pure by giving it up, and also by repeating sacred texts and performing austerities. — (193)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Objectionable’ — Though the text uses this general term, it should be understood as standing for the ‘accepting of improper gifts,’ because what the next verse lays down refers to the particular means of acquiring property; what is said is that ‘the man becomes absolved from the sin of accepting an improper gift.’

‘Giving it up’ — Relinquishing; renouncing all sense of ownership with regard to it, or actually giving it away. Unmindful of any spiritual or temporal benefits that might accrue from the relinquishment, he should deposit, the property on the public road, saying — ‘anyone who wishes may take this from me’; — or he may throw it away into a river or a pit. or in some such place.

The exact forms of the ‘repeating of sacred texts’ and ‘austerities’ are going to be described in the verse referred to above.

Others lead ‘mānavāḥ’ (‘men’) in place of ‘Brāhmaṇāḥ,’ and explain the verse as follows: — Any means of acquiring property that has been forbidden for a man — be he a twice-born or Śūdra — is ‘objectionable’ for him. E.g., it has been declared that — ‘The Brāhmaṇa or the Kṣatriya shall not take interest’ (10.117). For one who earns wealth by such means, the expiation consists of ‘giving up,’ ‘repeating of texts’ and ‘austerities,’ all three combined. In the ease of the Brāhmaṇa accepting an improper gift, however, there is a special expiation as described in the following verse. — (193)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta ĪI (p. 476); — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 49); — in Aparārka (p. 1150); — in Mitākṣarā (3.290), which adds that this surrendering should be done in every ease before the performance of the expiation specially prescribed for the act; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 925), which notes that ‘japyena’ refers to the 300 repetitions of the Sāvitrī laid down in the next verse; — in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 222), which says that, this clearly implies that the religious act, that the man does with the ill-gotten wealth also becomes vitiated to that extent; — in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 403 and 415); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 165a), to the effect when a man acquires property by methods not sanctioned by the scriptures, he does not obtain any legal possession of that property, and hence his sons also have no claims to inherit that, property.

Comparative notes by various authors:

[See above, 10.111.]

Viṣṇu (54.28). — ‘Those Brāhmaṇas who have acquired property by base acts become free from the consequent sin by relinquishing that property and by reciting sacred texts and practising austerities.’

VERSE 11.194

Section XXII - Expiation for Brāhmaṇas acquiring Property by Improper Means

जपित्वा त्रीणि सावित्र्याः सहस्राणि समाहितः ।
मासं गोष्ठे पयः पीत्वा मुच्यतेऽसत्प्रतिग्रहात् ॥१९४॥

japitvā trīṇi sāvitryāḥ sahasrāṇi samāhitaḥ |
māsaṃ goṣṭhe payaḥ pītvā mucyate'satpratigrahāt ||194||

Having, with concentrated mind, repeated the Sāvitrī three thousand times, and drinking milk in a cow-pen for one month, he becomes absolved from the sin of accepting an improper gift. — (194)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The Sāvitrī three thousand times’ — Some people take this to mean that this should be done everyday; while others construe ‘trīṇi’ with ‘māsam’ [the meaning being, that the whole is to run for three months]; so that the mantra would have to be repeated one hundred times everyday.

‘Cow-pen’ — the place where cows are kept. — (194)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 430), as referring to cases where both the giver and the gift are unfit, and improper; — in Aparārka (p. 1150), to the effect that ‘residence in the cow-pen’ is an essential factor in the expiation; — in Mitākṣarā (3.290), which adds the following notes: — The repetition of the Sāvitrī here prescribed is to be done daily, as is clear from the Accusative ending in ‘māsam’ which denotes duration; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 403).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (54.24). — ‘By repeating attentively the Gāyatrī three thousand times, by dwelling in the pasture of cows, by subsisting on milk for a month, one becomes free from the sin of receiving unlawful presents.’

Yājñavalkya (3.288). — ‘One becomes free from the sin of receiving improper presents if one dwells in the cow-pen for one month, subsisting on milk and devoted to the repeating of the Gāyatrī.’

VERSE 11.195

Section XXII - Expiation for Brāhmaṇas acquiring Property by Improper Means

उपवासकृशं तं तु गोव्रजात् पुनरागतम् ।
प्रणतं प्रति पृच्छेयुः साम्यं सौम्यैच्छसीति किम् ॥१९५॥

upavāsakṛśaṃ taṃ tu govrajāt punarāgatam |
praṇataṃ prati pṛccheyuḥ sāmyaṃ saumyaicchasīti kim ||195||

When he has returned from the cow-pen, emaciated with the fast, and humble, they shall ask him — ‘friend, dost thou desire equality with us?’ — (195)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The mention of ‘Emaciation’ implies that he is to drink only a small quantity of milk.

‘Humble’ — sitting on his knees on the ground.

‘They’ — the learned Brāhmaṇas — shall ask him — ‘O friend, dost thou desire equality with us?’ and add — ‘If so, you should never again disobey the scriptures, and accept improper gifts, through greed.’ When tints addressed, the man should say — ‘forsooth’ (as prescribed in the following verse).’ — (195)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 473).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.195-196)

Baudhāyana (2.1.36). — (See under 187.)

Yājñavalkya (3.299). — ‘When the jar has been overturned, the man, seated among his kinsmen, shall offer grass to the cows; and when he has been honoured by the cows, the association of others follows.’

VERSE 11.196

Section XXII - Expiation for Brāhmaṇas acquiring Property by Improper Means

सत्यमुक्त्वा तु विप्रेषु विकिरेद् यवसं गवाम् ।
गोभिः प्रवर्तिते तीर्थे कुर्युस्तस्य परिग्रहम् ॥१९६॥

satyamuktvā tu vipreṣu vikired yavasaṃ gavām |
gobhiḥ pravartite tīrthe kuryustasya parigraham ||196||

Having said ‘Forsooth’ to the Brāhmaṇas, he shall scatter grass to the cows; whereupon they shall accord admission to him at a place hallowed by the cows. — (196)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That place is said to be ‘hallowed by the cows’ by which they pass to the pasture-grounds, or where they descend to a river or to a water-fall for drinking water.

‘They’ — the Brāhmaṇas — ‘shall accord to him admission,’ i.e., they shall take hold of his hand and bring him over near themselves. — (196)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vipreṣu satyam uktvā.’ — ‘Having truly promised to the Brāhmaṇas that he would never again accept an improper gift’ (Kullūka); — ‘having told the truth to the Brāhmaṇas regarding his offence and the consequent penance’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtittava (p. 473).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.195-196)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.195.

VERSE 11.197

Section XXII - Expiation for Brāhmaṇas acquiring Property by Improper Means

व्रात्यानां याजनं कृत्वा परेषामन्त्यकर्म च ।
अभिचारमहीनं च त्रिभिः कृच्छ्रैर्व्यपोहति ॥१९७॥

vrātyānāṃ yājanaṃ kṛtvā pareṣāmantyakarma ca |
abhicāramahīnaṃ ca tribhiḥ kṛcchrairvyapohati ||197||

If one sacrifices for apostates, or performs the obsequies of strangers, or malevolent rites, or the Ahīna sacrifice, — he wipes it off by three Kṛcchras. — (197)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

’Apostates’ — Those who have fallen off from the Sāvitrī; for such men, (a) if one performs the Vrātyastoma — which is a rite specially prescribed for them, — either by officiating at it as a priest or by directing it; — (b) or if he performs the ‘obsequies’ — the rites performed in the cremation-grounds — ‘for strangers’ — i.e., for persons other than their parents or preceptor; — (c) or if he performs ‘malevolent rites’ — such as the Śyenacit sacrifice and the like; — or (d) if he performs the Ahīna. sacrifice; — he becomes pure by performing ‘three Kṛcchras.’

Others hold that what is here laid down does not refer to the performer of the ‘malevolent’ or ‘Ahīna’ sacrifices, but to those who officiate as priests at these sacrifices. It is for this reason that this same rule applies also to those who perform sacrifices for apostates. As regards the performer himself, since he undertakes the performance in obedience to the Vedic injunction of the sacrifices concerned, how could they be liable to expiation for their act, so long as the performance has not been forbidden?

“As regards the Ahīna sacrifice, it is possible that it may have been undertaken in obedience to a Vedic injunction; but how can the same be said regarding the Śyena and other malevolent rites? There is no such injunction as that ‘one should kill his enemies’; all that the Veda says is that — ‘if one desires to encompass the death of his enemy, he should, for that purpose, perform the Śyena and such malevolent rites.’ And to the killing of an enemy one is prompted solely by impetuous desire, and the entertaining of such desire has been forbidden, by such texts as — ‘one should not seek to injure any living creature.’ To the performance of the Ahīna sacrifices also people are prompted solely by impetuous desire; as only such people are entitled to it as entertain an eager desire for a definite reward; — but (there is this difference that) in this case neither the desire for the particular reward nor the action leading up to that reward is one that is forbidden. While in the other case in question (that of the Malevolent Rites), both are forbidden: as the general prohibition ‘one should not injure living creatures’ means that ‘one shall undertake an act that leads up to the death of a living creature’; and it is such death which forms the result of the Śyena and other malevolent rites. As regards the Ahīna on the other hand, there is no such prohibition as that — ‘one should not undertake an act that leads to heaven.’”

In answer to this, some people offer the following explanation: — It having been declared (11.33) that ‘speech is the Brāhmaṇa’s weapon,’ the encompassing of the death of an enemy by means of malevolent rites, becomes sanctioned by it. So that the Ahīna and the Malevolent Rite stand upon the same footing.

Thus then an expiation would appear to be necessary only for the priest officiating at these sacrifices (and not for the sacrificer himself).

“As a matter of fact all acts done with a purpose have been forbidden by the general text — selfishness is deprecated’ (2.2).”

What this text means we have explained under that verse itself.

As a matter of fact, in connection with the Ahīna, there may he some Vedic texts sanctioning the act of officiating at it. As regards the Malevolent Rite on the other hand, there is impropriety on the part of the sacrificer also; as is indicated by such texts as — ‘Those who kill by means of the Jyotiṣ, etc., etc.’; and it is for this reason that expiations also have been prescribed in this connection.

So far as the present verse is concerned however, it can he taken as referring to the priests officiating at the Malevolent Rite.

‘Malevolent Rite,’ ‘abhicāra’ is the name given to the encompassing of an enemy’s death by means of the repeating of sacred texts and the offering of oblations, prescribed in the Veda. — (197)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 383); — in Aparārka (p. 1152), which explains ‘antya karma’ as the ‘antyeṣṭi,’ and adds that this refers to one who does the acts on hire, and not merely with a religious motive; and that it refers to the Brāhmaṇa who performs the death-rites for the Kṣatriya and other castes; — the ‘Ahīna’ is the name for all those Ahargaṇa sacrifices which begin with the ‘Dvirātra’ and end with the ‘Dvādaśarātra.’

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 429), as laying down the expiation for officiating at sacrifices performed by those who should not perform them; — and in Madanapārijāta (p. 917), which adds the following notes: — ‘Antya karma,’ the rites performed on the cremation ground, — ‘pareṣām,’ non-sapiṇḍas or śūdras, — in the case of the former it is repetition that is reprehensible, and in that of the latter, even the first act; — ‘abhicāra,’ ‘murderous rite,’ is reprehensible, when it is performed against one who has not done any similar act against the man; — the ‘Ahīna’ is a particular kind of sacrifice.

It is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 122); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 247), which says that, as ‘hīna’ means ‘unrighteous,’ ‘ahīna’ means ‘righteous,’ and hence what is forbidden is ‘magical rites against righteous persons.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 11.197-198)

Viṣṇu (54.25). — ‘He who has knowingly offered a sacrifice for an unworthy person, he who has performed the funeral rites for a stranger, he who has practised magic rites, and he who has performed sacrifices of the Ahīna class, — all these may rid themselves of their sin by performing three Kṛcchra penances.’

Āpastamba (1.26.7). — ‘He who has been guilty of conduct unworthy of an Aryan, of calumniating others, of actions contrary to the rules of conduct, of eating or drinking forbidden things, of connection with a woman of the Śūdra caste, of an unnatural crime, of performing magic rites, shall bathe and sprinkle himself with water, reciting the seven verses addressed to Apas, or those addressed to Varuṇa,......... in proportion to the frequency with which the crime has been committed.’

Yājñavalkya (3.289). — ‘One who performs sacrifices for an Apostate, one who performs magic rites for encompassing the death of some person, one who misuses the Veda, or one who abandons a person who has sought his protection, should perform three Kṛcchra penances and subsist upon barley for one year.’

VERSE 11.198 [Expiation for the abandoning of Refugees]

Section XXIII - Expiation for the abandoning of Refugees

शरणागतं परित्यज्य वेदं विप्लाव्य च द्विजः ।
संवत्सरं यवाहारस्तत् पापमपसेधति ॥१९८॥

śaraṇāgataṃ parityajya vedaṃ viplāvya ca dvijaḥ |
saṃvatsaraṃ yavāhārastat pāpamapasedhati ||198||

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров