with the Commentary of Medhatithi 333 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 339 из 350Следующая ⇒

***

Discourse XII – Philosophy

VERSE 12.1 [Question]

Section I - Question

चातुर्वर्ण्यस्य कृत्स्नोऽयमुक्तो धर्मस्त्वयाऽनघः ।
कर्मणां फलनिर्वृत्तिं शंस नस्तत्त्वतः पराम् ॥१॥

cāturvarṇyasya kṛtsno'yamukto dharmastvayā'naghaḥ |
karmaṇāṃ phalanirvṛttiṃ śaṃsa nastattvataḥ parām ||1||

‘O sinless one, the whole law for the four castes has been expounded by you; instruct us now in regard to the actual fruition of actions.’ — (1)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The first half of the verse indicating the end of the subject-matter of the ordinances, serves the purpose of shutting out any further desire on the part of the listeners.

‘Whole’ — This epithet is meant to be commendatory; the sense being that ‘these ordinances have set forth all the Smārta duties along with the esoteric explanations.’

The fact of the Teacher having completed his task is described through the mouth of the pupil; but no stress is meant to be laid upon it.

In reality however the assertions set forth here do not emanate from the Teacher and Pupil at all; the author of the book himself has divided these into two parts (of question and answer).

The term ‘Dharma’ denoting what ought to be done, here stands for the whole compilation of Injunctions and Prohibitions. And it is through this that the connection between actions and their results, even though not referred to before, is now set forth.

The assertion — ‘The whole law has been expounded by you’ — becomes explicable only when taken as referring to Injunctions and Prohibitions.

“The result of what action is asked about — when it is said — ‘Instruct us now in regard to the function of actions’? For those actions that are compulsory are done simply because they have been enjoined by the Scriptures, and the agent does not have any reward in view at all; those that are not compulsory, in connection with nearly every one of them distinct rewards have been spoken of; — e.g., in such declarations as ‘one who makes a gift of water obtains satisfaction, as also heaven and longevity’; — and even those in connection with which it might be thought that no rewards have been spoken of, — there also it has been proved that Heaven is their reward; — as regards the Gestatory and other Sacramental Rites, these have their reward in the peculiar character that they bestow upon the persons for whom they are performed; and as such do not stand in need of any transcendental results; — the Occasional Acts, such as the purifying of substances and the like, or the bathing on touching a Caṇḍāla and so forth, — these also lead to results that are quite perceptible; they are done for the purpose of purifying things, because the use of impure things has been forbidden; — lastly, as regards Expiatory Rites the purpose served by them has been just described. Thus we fail to see those actions whose results are -sought to be known.”

The result sought to be known is that of those that are forbidden; as it is those that are spoken of below, as ‘the sinfulness of acts committed through the body, etc., etc.’ (Verse 9). And in a way the obeying of prohibitions also is something enjoined by the scriptures.

“If those acts also were laid down for the purpose of rewards, they would not be incumbent on all men; as they would be performed by only such men as happen to have a desire for the particular reward.”

Our answer to this is as follows: — Here no such results are going to be described as are desired by men; as what are set forth here are the undesirable results; and certainly these are not desired; no man ever wishes to obtain what is undesirable; and it is in this manner that the results mentioned come to bear upon all men.

What we have said regarding the obeying of prohibitions being an act done in accordance with scriptural injunctions, does not go far enough; the fact of the matter is that everything is done in accordance with scriptural injunctions.

“But the acts that the scriptural injunctions set forth are done for the sake of men desiring the results of those acts; — or in some cases, the acts are occasional ones, laid down without reference to any results in the case in question (of prohibitions) however, inasmuch as we do not find any expressions indicative of the fact that they shall he obeyed ‘throughout life,’ wherefore would the forbidden act not he done?”

It is found that if one ignores the prohibitions he incurs sin. For instance, it has been declared that ‘by entertaining a desire to kill a Brāhmaṇa, one goes to hell.’

“The act that is forbidden, — such as the killing of a Brāhmaṇa and the like, — is certainly not one that is enjoined by the scripture. It is only an act enjoined by the scripture that can have any connection with results mentioned in the scriptures; as we find in the case of such declarations as — ‘one desiring heaven should perform sacrifices’; where the fact that sacrifices should be performed is one that can he got at only from the scriptures, and not from any other source. In the ease in question on the other hand, men are prompted to do the prohibited acts by hatred and such other worldly unscriptural motives; and what is itself unscriptural cannot have any connection with a result that is scriptural. It has been asserted that texts have indicated that the ignoring of prohibitions is conducive to sin. But what would be the need for such an indication?

Since all that we learn from the scriptural prohibition is that it says to the man moved by hatred to do some forbidden act (like the killing, for instance) — ‘this should not be done’; and there the comprehension of the sentence is complete; what word is left there uncomprehended which would need the said indication?”

If we were to pursue this enquiry further, it would prolong our work unduly. The fact of the matter in brief is this: — what the prohibitive injunction ‘one shall not kill’ signifies is a prohibition. Now there does arise in the mind of the person to whom this injunction is addressed a desire to know what it all means; and the idea that he derives from it is — ‘such and such a course of action shall not be adopted by me’; and it is not the object (act) that is urged by the Injunction; since by their very nature injunctions are meant to urge agents, and the agent in the case in question would be indicated by the presence of the worldly motive of hatred, which is what would be in keeping with the nature of the act of killing. The man who undertakes to kill by his own will would not stand in need of being urged by an injunction; and it is such a person to whom the prohibitive injunction is addressed. In a case where the action is indicated by other sources, any injunction that bears upon it may be taken as indicating the agent concerned; and in cases where no desire for any result is concerned, the person who is urged by the injunction does not comprehend the fact of bis being the person urged, until he understands that what is prohibited leads to an undesirable result: In fact such is the way in which ordinary men understand things. When a certain act is found to be forbidden by the Veda, if a man does it, it is understood that it would lead to undesirable results. And in matters like the present nothing can be put forward except what happens in the course of ordinary worldly experience. And even if the fact of a certain act leading to undesirable results, is not directly mentioned, it will be only right to assume this fact, on the basis of the very nature of prohibitions; to say nothing of cases where the said fact is directly mentioned? For there can be no justification of rejecting what, is directly mentioned. The mention of such results as ‘hell’ and the like cannot be regarded as purely declamatory, so long as it is capable of being taken as setting forth the results of acts spoken of. Further, declamatory assertions also are only complements to injunction. In the case in question, however, there is no injunction mentioned either directly or indirectly; because the fact principally sought to be set forth is the connection between the act and the result. In the present discourse no acts are enjoined; all that is propounded is the relation of certain acts to certain results; and the hundreds of assertions contained here cannot be meaningless. If they were really meaningless, we would have admitted it to be so; but such is not the way of writers on Smṛtis. Nor can the passages in question be explained in any other way save in the one indicated above; specially as there is no injunction to which they could be complements (and hence be taken as Declamatory Declarations).

It might be argued that such figurative explanation would be wrong, even on the part of writers on scriptures.

But it is not so; those who talk thus show utter disregard for the Great Sages.

‘Agha’ is sin; ‘anagha,’ ‘sinless one,’ is in the Case of Address; denoting freedom from sin, which is meant to be a praise of the teacher.

‘Instruct’ denotes speaking. — (l)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 12.1-4)

These verses are quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692), which adds the following notes: — ‘Trividhasya’, the three kinds, highest, middling, and lowest, — ‘tryadhiṣṭhānasya’ which has three substrata, in the shape of mind, speech and body, — ‘daśalakṣaṇayuktasya’, the ten distinguishing features of ‘paradravyābhidhyāna’ and the rest going to be described below (verses 5-7); — of this ‘dehin’ know the mind to be the ‘instigator’; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścittā 41a); — and verse (3) only in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 12).

VERSE 12.2 [The Philosophy of Action and its Retribution (karmayoga)]

Section II - The Philosophy of Action and its Retribution (karmayoga)

स तानुवाच धर्मात्मा महर्षीन् मानवो भृगुः ।
अस्य सर्वस्य शृणुत कर्मयोगस्य निर्णयम् ॥२॥

sa tānuvāca dharmātmā maharṣīn mānavo bhṛguḥ |
asya sarvasya śṛṇuta karmayogasya nirṇayam ||2||

The righteous Bhṛgu, sprung for Manu, said to the Great Sages — ‘Listen to the truth regarding the relation of Actions.’ — (2)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is the answer to the question of the sages.

‘Listen to what you have asked.’

‘Karma-yoga’ — The compound is to be explained as the ‘yoga,’ ‘relation,’ of ‘karma,’ ‘actions’; and from the context it is clear that it is the ‘relation’ to results that is meant’ — (2)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 12.1-4)

See Comparative notes for Verse 12.1.

VERSE 12.3

Section II - The Philosophy of Action and its Retribution (karmayoga)

शुभाशुभफलं कर्म मनोवाग्देहसम्भवम् ।
कर्मजा गतयो नॄणामुत्तमाधममध्यमः ॥३॥

śubhāśubhaphalaṃ karma manovāgdehasambhavam |
karmajā gatayo nṝṇāmuttamādhamamadhyamaḥ ||3||

Actions proceeding from mind, speech and body are conducive to good and bad results; and the conditions of men, due to actions, are high, low and middling. — (3)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘good’ results are mentioned only by way of an example; or as laying down the functions of the mind and speech.

Actions proceed from mind, speech and body. The term ‘Karma,’ ‘action,’ here does not stand only for that movement of the body which is involved in the performance of sacrifices; it stands for all kinds of action, even those of the nature of contemplation, meditation, speaking and the like.

The term ‘phala,’ ‘result,’ is to be construed with each of the two terms of the compound (‘śubha’ and ‘aśubha’); so that what the compound means is ‘conducive to good results’ and ‘conducive to bad results.’

This should not be understood to mean that good and bad results are obtained only from the performance of such actions as are accomplished by bodily operations, in fact the same thing happens in the case of actions springing from mind and speech also; since results have been described as proceeding from all the three kinds of actions. — (3)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 12.1-4)

See Comparative notes for Verse 12.1.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 998). — ‘Whatever act, good or bad, a man does, in whatever circumstances, of that he obtains the reward under the same circumstances. In the body he suffers the consequences of his bodily acts; in speech, those of his verbal acts; and in his mind, those of his mental acts.’

VERSE 12.4

Section II - The Philosophy of Action and its Retribution (karmayoga)

तस्यैह त्रिविधस्यापि त्र्यधिष्ठानस्य देहिनः ।
दशलक्षणयुक्तस्य मनो विद्यात् प्रवर्तकम् ॥४॥

tasyaiha trividhasyāpi tryadhiṣṭhānasya dehinaḥ |
daśalakṣaṇayuktasya mano vidyāt pravartakam ||4||

Know the mind to be the instigator of all this that is connected with the body, and which is of three kinds, has three substrata and is endowed with ten distinct characteristics. — (4)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Objection — “All actions, good or bad, laid down in such passages as — ‘he shall punish the guilty,’ ‘he shall not injure,’ are accomplished by the operation of the body. For instance, (a) the act of giving, which consists in the withdrawing of one’s ownership over a thing and bringing about that of another, is laid down as ‘to be done with the right hand’ and so forth (which involves a bodily action); (b) the act of sacrificing, consisting of the entire procedure ending with the Final Bath, is one that is accomplished by bodily operations; (c) similarly all such acts as desisting from striking others with a stick and so forth are such as are due to bodily operations. What then is that action which springs from the Mind?”

It is in answer to this that the text says — ‘Know the Mind to be the instigator of all this.’ — Seeing and all such acts are functions of the Mind; as in the absence of Mind, no purely physical action is possible For instance, in the case of every act, the agent first of all conceives of the thing concerned as being of a certain nature and as bringing about pleasure or pain, or leading to something on which pleasure or pain is dependent, and then comes to the determination ‘I shall have this’ or ‘I shall not have it’; and it is only the action to which this determination leads where the functioning of the body or of speech comes in. Thus it is that in the case of ail intentional actions, the Mind is the ‘instigator.’ As for unintentional actions, the said process is not always perceptible; for instance, when wine is drunk under the misapprehension that it is some, other drink, or when one approaches another woman, mistaking her for one’s own wife, or in cases of such chance-actions as the killing of mosquitoes and other insects by the throwing about of the hand, turning on one’s sides during sleep and so forth; though in all these cases also the responsibility for doing it rests on the agent, which renders him liable to expiation.

‘Which is of three kinds’; — as brought about by speech, mind and body.

‘Three substrata’; — in accordance with the ‘high,’ ‘low’ and ‘middling’ conditions of the agent.

‘Endowed with ten distinct characteristics’; — the functions of the mind and the body being of three kinds each [making up six] and those of speech are of four kinds, — thus making up the ‘ten.’ These are going to be described in the next few verses. — (4)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 12.1-4)

See Comparative notes for Verse 12.1.

VERSE 12.5

Section II - The Philosophy of Action and its Retribution (karmayoga)

परद्रव्येष्वभिध्यानं मनसाऽनिष्टचिन्तनम् ।
वितथाभिनिवेशश्च त्रिविधं कर्म मानसम् ॥५॥

paradravyeṣvabhidhyānaṃ manasā'niṣṭacintanam |
vitathābhiniveśaśca trividhaṃ karma mānasam ||5||

Coveting the wealth or others, scheming in one’s mind about what is undesirable, adhering to a wrong notion, — these are the three forms of ‘mental action.’ — (5)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Coveting’ — What is meant is that through jealousy for the wealth of other men, one may be constantly thinking of some adversity befalling their fortune — ‘Oh, how many horses and cows! How many sheep and goats! What excellent horses! Woe to men! How is it that he has attained such prosperity! In what way may I wrest it all from him! It would be grand if all this wealth of his were destroyed!’

‘Scheming about what is undesirable.’ — Some people construe this also with the phrase ‘of others’; and take it to mean ‘the planning of the death of others with the view that all his wealth will come to him.’

“The ‘coveting of the wealth of others’ has also been explained to mean this same thing; so that the idea having been already provided by this phrase, the former would be entirely superfluous.”

The second phrase is a wider term. It is not right to ‘scheme about’ what is undesirable, for others; and loss of wealth is a particular form of ‘what is undesirable.’

It is in view of this difficulty that some people do not construe this second phrase with the phrase ‘of others’; and they explain ‘undesirable’ as standing for forbidden.

According to this view also, ‘the coveting of the wealth of others’ (which is also forbidden) would have to be taken as mentioned separately, only for the purpose of indicating its importance.

Similarly with the phrase ‘adhering to a wrong notion’; e.g., (a) when the prima facie argument is regarded as the Final Conclusion, (b) the philosophy of Idealism, (c) the view that the Veda is not trustworthy, (d) insistence on the view that there is no such thing as the Soul, and so forth.

Others explain this to mean constant opposition to the renouncing of meat-eating.

These three constitute the evil type of ‘mental activity’; apart from these are those of the good type; e.g., ‘not coveting what belongs to another,’ ‘kindness to all creatures,’ ‘faith in the reality of morality and such things.’ Says the revered Vyāsa — ‘Non-coveting of the property of others, sympathy for all beings, and the idea that righteous deeds always bring their reward, — one should constantly think in his mind of these three items.’ — (5)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vitathābhiniveśaḥ’. — ‘Adherence to false doctrines’ (Medhātithi); — ‘constant deep hatred’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692); — in Aparārka (p. 997); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a); — in Hemādri (Kāla p. 632); — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 88).

VERSE 12.6

Section II - The Philosophy of Action and its Retribution (karmayoga)

पारुष्यमनृतं चैव पैशुन्यं चापि सर्वशः ।
असम्बद्धप्रलापश्च वाङ्मयं स्याच्चतुर्विधम् ॥६॥

pāruṣyamanṛtaṃ caiva paiśunyaṃ cāpi sarvaśaḥ |
asambaddhapralāpaśca vāṅmayaṃ syāccaturvidham ||6||

Abusing, lying, calumniating all men, and idle prattling, — are the pour kinds of ‘verbal action.’ — (6)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Abusing’ — uttering of words causing pain to others.

‘Calumniating’ — detracting from the merits of others, on account of jealousy.

‘Idle prattling’ and‘telling an untruth.’ — (6)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692); — in Aparārka (p. 998); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a); — in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 632); — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 88).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (3.134). — ‘The man who is a liar, or a backbiter, or harsh in speech, or talks irrelevantly, is born among animals and birds.’

VERSE 12.7

Section II - The Philosophy of Action and its Retribution (karmayoga)

अदत्तानामुपादानं हिंसा चैवाविधानतः ।
परदारोपसेवा च शारीरं त्रिविधं स्मृतम् ॥७॥

adattānāmupādānaṃ hiṃsā caivāvidhānataḥ |
paradāropasevā ca śārīraṃ trividhaṃ smṛtam ||7||

Taking what has not been given, unsanctioned killing, and intercourse with the wives of others — these have been declared to be three kinds of ‘bodily action.’ — (7)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Accepting from unworthy people of what has not been given, and what is itself an impure thing.

‘Wives of others’ — includes unmarried maidens also.

As against these there are — accepting proper gifts in the proper manner, protecting others and controlling of the organs.

Thus has Action proceeding from Mind, Speech and Body, been described as being of‘ten kinds’; and according as each of these is either ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ we have twenty kinds. — (7)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692); in Aparārka (p. 998), which adds that the ten kinds of sinful acts, proceeding from the mind, speech and body, when committed intentionally and repeatedly, should be understood to be what leads to the map being born in such bodies as those of the Cāṇḍāla and the like; but of, the same kinds of acts, when done unintentionally, the results are different; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a); — in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 632); — and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 88).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (8.135). — ‘The man, who is addicted to taking what has not been given to him, or associates with the wives of other men, or kills animals in a way not sanctioned by the scriptures, is born among trees.’

VERSE 12.8 [Fruits of Action]

Section III - Fruits of Action

मानसं मनसेवायमुपभुङ्क्ते शुभाशुभम् ।
वाचा वाचा कृतं कर्म कायेनेव च कायिकम् ॥८॥

mānasaṃ manasevāyamupabhuṅkte śubhāśubham |
vācā vācā kṛtaṃ karma kāyeneva ca kāyikam ||8||

The good and the evil resulting from ‘mental acts,’ one experiences through the Mind alone; those of ‘verbal acts,’ through speech; and those of ‘bodily acts,’ through the body. — (8)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some people explain this to mean that when by his act, a man causes mental pain to others, he himself experiences, in return, mental pain.

Our opinion is that one experiences mental suffering as the result of all the three kinds of ‘mental acts.’

Similarly in the case of the other two (Verbal and Bodily acts) also. — (8)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692); — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 12).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 998). — ‘In the body, he suffers the consequences of his bodily acts; in his speech, those of his vocal acts; and in the mind, those of his mental acts.’

VERSE 12.9

Section III - Fruits of Action

शरीरजैः कर्मदोषैर्याति स्थावरतां नरः ।
वाचिकैः पक्षिमृगतां मानसैरन्त्यजातिताम् ॥९॥

śarīrajaiḥ karmadoṣairyāti sthāvaratāṃ naraḥ |
vācikaiḥ pakṣimṛgatāṃ mānasairantyajātitām ||9||

Through sinful acts due to the Body, man becomes inanimate; through those of Speech, a bird or a beast; and through those of Mind, he is born in the lowest caste. — (9)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What the verse describes is what happens in a large number of cases; the sense being that in most cases whenever men are reborn in the species mentioned, it is due to causes herein specified. Bat it is not always so; as it is going to be asserted later on (55 et. seq.) that those who commit the ‘heinous offences’ are born among the lower animals and so forth.

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