with the Commentary of Medhatithi 340 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 346 из 350Следующая ⇒

If we read ‘abhyeti’ for ‘atyeti,’ it would mean that the man becomes freed form the shackles of the body. — (90)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1033).

VERSE 12.91

Section X - The Highest Good

सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि ।
समं पश्यन्नात्मयाजी स्वाराज्यमधिगच्छति ॥९१॥

sarvabhūteṣu cātmānaṃ sarvabhūtāni cātmani |
samaṃ paśyannātmayājī svārājyamadhigacchati ||91||

He who perceives the Self in all beings, and all beings in the Self, — and sacrifices to the Self, — attains self-sovereignty. — (91)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse proceeds to point out in what manner the said result is to be brought about.

The term ‘bhūta,’ ‘being,’ stands here for all things, movable and immovable, animate and inanimate; — in these one should perceive the ‘self,’ — cultivating the notion ‘I am this whole world’ — as expressed in the text ‘aham vṛkṣasya, etc.’ (Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, 7.10.1); and he should give up all such notions of duality as ‘this is myself and that is some one else.’ When the man comes to entertain such notions as — ‘this is myself, this is mine, that is not mine’ — this is what constitutes his ‘bondage.’ When, on the other hand, he has given up all notions of ‘I’ and ‘mine,’ or ‘this is mine’ and ‘that is another’s,’ and so forth, he comes to recognise the absolute unity of the Self.

This is what is meant by the term ‘self-sovereignty.’

‘All beings in the Self’ — cultivating the notion — ‘The entire phenomenal world subsists in me, — I alone am the creator, the doer, the meditator and the meditated upon.’

‘Sacrifices to the Self’ — offers sacrifices to — thinks of — the Self as representing all the gods; cultivating the notion — ‘There are no such deities as Agni or Āditya, — I am the sole deity’; — the man becomes one who ‘sacrifices to the Self’; and this does not mean that the man should actually offer sacrificial materials to himself.

In this connection some people hold that it is not right to speak of Agni and other deities of the Āgneya and other sacrifices as the ‘Self.’

‘Svārājyam,’ ‘self-sovereingty.’ — The term is derived as ‘Sve rājye bhavam’; and the meaning is that the man becomes as self-sufficient as the supreme Self, and also self-luminous, not depending upon the Sun or the Moon or other sources of light, or upon the eyes and the other sense-organs, nor the Internal Organ of the Mind and the rest. This is why the text uses the term ‘paśyan,’ ‘perceiving’ which implies not merely seeing, but that one should contemplate upon the said idea, giving up all functionings of the exernal and internal organs. — (91)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ātmayājī’. — ‘Who realises the presence of all deities in himself’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja); — ‘he who performs the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices in the manner of the Brahmārpana’ (Kullūka and Nandana and Rāghavānanda).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Īśa-Upaniṣad (6).

Āpastamba (1.23.1). — ‘That Brāhmaṇa shines in heaven who is wise and recognises all creatures in the Self, who pondering thereon, does not become bewildered, and who recognises the Self in everything.’

VERSE 12.92

Section X - The Highest Good

यथोक्तान्यपि कर्माणि परिहाय द्विजोत्तमः ।
आत्मज्ञाने शमे च स्याद् वेदाभ्यासे च यत्नवान् ॥९२॥

yathoktānyapi karmāṇi parihāya dvijottamaḥ |
ātmajñāne śame ca syād vedābhyāse ca yatnavān ||92||

Having renounced even the said acts, the Brāhmaṇa shall concentrate his effort on the knowledge of Self, on calmness and on the study of the Veda. — (92)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Even the said acts.’ — This does not sanction the abandoning of such acts as the Agnihotra and the like; all that is meant to be enjoined is that ‘one should concentrate his effort on the knowledge of Self’ — which prescribes the acquiring of the knowledge of Self.

‘Having renounced the acts.’ — What the meaning of this phrase is that one should concentrate his efforts upon the acquiring of the knowledge of Self, even though this might involve the abandoning of such acts as the worshipping at certain temples or attending upon elders and so forth. This does not however sanction the voluntary renunciation of the compulsory rites; but all other rites have to be renounced, without which the knowledge of Self cannot be acquired. — (92)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.58) which explains ‘Vedābhyāsa’ as ‘repeating the Praṇava, Om’ — and in Yatidharmasāṅgraha (p. 26).

VERSE 12.93

Section X - The Highest Good

एतद् हि जन्मसाफल्यं ब्राह्मणस्य विशेषतः ।
प्राप्यैतत् कृतकृत्यो हि द्विजो भवति नान्यथा ॥९३॥

etad hi janmasāphalyaṃ brāhmaṇasya viśeṣataḥ |
prāpyaitat kṛtakṛtyo hi dvijo bhavati nānyathā ||93||

This represents the fulfilment of the object of one’s existence, specially for the Brāhmaṇa; it is only when he has attained this, and not otherwise, that the twice-born man has accomplished his purpose. — (93)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The twice-born.’ — This implies that the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also are entitled to the knowledge of Self; as has been made clear by Vedic texts of the Āraṇyakas.

‘Specially for the Brāhmaṇa.’ — This has to be taken as referring particularly to the ‘Study of the Veda’; since to the ‘Knowledge of Self’ are twice-born persons equally entitled.

Having attained this ‘knowledge of the Self’ the man ‘has accomplished his purpose’; — that is, all his ends are fulfilled; there being no higher end than Liberation.

“What has been said regarding the necessity of looking on all things as the One Self appears to be contrary to perceptible facts. What we perceive directly is diversiy (diversity?). How can this be perceived as one? Any teaching regarding this would be setting forth a purpose that cannot be fulfilled. What is diverse, how can that be looked upon as one? The ass can never be looked upon as the cow. It is only when the perceiving organ is deranged that one perceives a thing as what it is not, — as we find when the shell is mistaken for silver; and certainly no such wrong conception forms the subject of a teaching. One who could propound such a teaching would be looked upon as most foolish, and his words would bear no fruit at all”

It is in view of this that we have the next verse. — (93)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kṛtakṛtyaḥ ‘All whose ends have been accomplished’ (Medhātithi); — who has done all he ought to do’ (Govindarāja).

VERSE 12.94 [Supremacy of the Veda]

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

पितृदेवमनुष्याणां वेदश्चक्षुः सनातनम् ।
अशक्यं चाप्रमेयं च वेदशास्त्रमिति स्थितिः ॥९४॥

pitṛdevamanuṣyāṇāṃ vedaścakṣuḥ sanātanam |
aśakyaṃ cāprameyaṃ ca vedaśāstramiti sthitiḥ ||94||

For Pitṛs, gods and men, the Veda is the eternal eye; the teaching of the Veda is beyond power and illimitable. Such is the settled fact. — (94)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It is as if it were the ‘Eye’ — being the means of perception; just as the eye provides the perception of colour, so does the Veda of dharma; hence it is spoken of as the ‘Eye.’

‘Eternal’ — everlasting. This is meant to indicate the fact that the Veda is not the work of a personal author. If it were the work of such an author, then it would be affected by his weaknesses, and would therefore not be entirely trustworthy. Hence, inasmuch as we find the Veda free from all those excellences and defects that beset man, we conclude that it is not the work of any person, and on that account, is absolutely trustworthy.

Hence it is that, the Veda being absolutely trustworthy, it cannot be regarded as incongruous simply because of its teachings being contrary to facts of perception.

“If the Veda were to contain such teachings as ‘one should irrigate with fire’ or ‘burn with water,’ would this also not be incongruous?”

The analogy is not quite correct. In the sentences cited, visible objects with visible powers are spoken as accomplishing visible effects; and as such objects are amenable to other means of knowledge, it is only natural that, if there is any teaching contrary to these, it should be regarded as incongruous. In the case in question on the other hand, (i.e., of Duty) the subject, dealt with is such as is amenable to Injunctions only, a subject upon which no other means of knowledge can have any hearing at all, — bearing as they do only upon existing objects, (and not upon acts to be done); how then can there be any incongruity between these?

Then again, what is laid down here is that entities that are not self should be looked upon as the ‘Self,’ for the purpose of attaining ‘self-sovereignty’; so that wherever the notion of diversity is very rampant, it is only right that this should be set aside by constant, practice. For instance, love, hatred and other functions of the mind can be controlled by the practice of meditation; when for example, an enemy ceases to be an enemy if he is constantly looked upon as a ‘friend.’ All this can be ascertained by our own experience. In fact, the power of thought is so great that it can bring about the conception of non-existing things also; e.g., a lover separated front his object of love, sees her in everything. How much more possible is it then, my friend, in a ease where what is contemplated upon is the very truth? Thus then, how can one be justified in asserting that, what is asserted here appears to be contrary to the diversity that is actually perceived? In reality all things are of the nature of the ‘Self,’ and they appear as diverse only on account, of our being in the habit of looking upon them as diverse. It is the perceiving of this unity that is enjoined here; in which case there would be no chance of any such notions arising as ‘this is mine — that is not mine,’ and the like. This is what has been thus declared — ‘The two syllables ma-ma (mine) connote death, and the syllables na-ma-ma (not mine) connote immortality.’

Thus then there is no incongruity at all (in the teaching of the Veda).

‘For pitṛs, gods and men.’ — These are the words of the Veda itself. Even gods and others cannot perceive Duty and allied things without the help of the Veda; they are beyond their power; — and also ‘illimitable’ — the number of Vedic rescensions being endless. Or, ‘aprameya’ means that no adequate conception can be formed of the Veda and its subsidiaries. — (94)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 129).

VERSE 12.95

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

या वेदबाह्याः स्मृतयो याश्च काश्च कुदृष्टयः ।
सर्वास्ता निष्फलाः प्रेत्य तमोनिष्ठा हि ताः स्मृताः ॥९५॥

yā vedabāhyāḥ smṛtayo yāśca kāśca kudṛṣṭayaḥ |
sarvāstā niṣphalāḥ pretya tamoniṣṭhā hi tāḥ smṛtāḥ ||95||

Those ‘revealed texts’ that are outside the Veda, as also all the false theories, are useless, even when carried to perfection; as they have been declared to be founded on ‘darkness.’ — (95)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Having declared the trustworthiness of the Veda on the ground of its not being the work of an author, the text proceeds to point out the untrustworthy character of those ‘Vedas’ that are the work of personal authors.

The ‘revealed texts’ — in the form of Injunctions brought together under a compilation — ‘that are outside the Veda’ contrary to the Veda, — e.g., such declarations as ‘Heaven is attained by bowing to caityas’ and so forth, — which are known under the name of the doctrines of ‘Nirgranthas,’ ‘Somas,’ and the like.

‘False theories’ — philosophical systems based upon wrong reasonings — such as, the proving of the Veda being the work of a personal author, the rejecting of ‘apūrva,’ ‘deities’ and such other entities. These are what are known as ‘false theories.’

‘All these are useless,’ — ‘pretya,’ ‘even when carried to perfection’ — by the full setting forth of reasons and examples; these are declared to be useless; on account of the fallacious character of their reasonings.

They are like the ‘darkness’ of night, on the path of duty, spreading far and wide, in the form of huge compilations.

No trustworthiness can attach to the teachings contained in the compilations made by human authors; for the simple reason that such authors do not possess the faculty to perceive things beyond the senses.

In fact, even if some one did possess such a faculty, people would not believe him; because there can be no proof for the statement that ‘such and such a person is omniscient, and he has composed such and such a revealed text.’

If, even on being the work of a human author, the text be regarded as trustworthy, this would involve the necessity of assuming an unseen fact (of the man being possessed of divine powers), for a visible purpose. For all these reasons all those reasonings should be regarded as based upon ignorance.

Others explain the verse to mean that, ‘pretya,’ after dying, — ‘the said texts and theories are useless,’ — because they become the cause of men being born in conditions partaking of the quality of ‘Tamas.’

Under this explanation, the syntactical connection of the participle ‘pretya’ would be impossible, since it must have the same nominative as that of the principal verb in the sentence (which is impossible), and the only alternative would be to read, for ‘pretya,’ ‘prete,’ the Locative form of the past-participle ‘preta.’ — (95)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Pretya’ — ‘Having acquired excellence’ (Medhātithi); — ‘after death’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka).

VERSE 12.96

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

उत्पद्यन्ते च्यवन्ते च यान्यतोऽन्यानि कानि चित् ।
तान्यर्वाक्कालिकतया निष्फलान्यनृतानि च ॥९६॥

utpadyante cyavante ca yānyato'nyāni kāni cit |
tānyarvākkālikatayā niṣphalānyanṛtāni ca ||96||

Those other (doctrines) which spring up and perish are all worthless and false, being of modern growth. — (96)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Other’ — i.e., apart from the Veda; — ‘doctrines’ — teachings; — ‘which spring up and perish,’ — and because they spring up and perish, they are not eternal, — while the Veda is eternal.

‘Being of modern growths’ — having been propounded by some person of the present time, — ‘they are worthless’ — not productive of any transcendental result.

‘Those other doctrines’ — which bear traces of being propounded by dissemblers, and such other signs. — (96)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 12.)

VERSE 12.97

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

चातुर्वर्ण्यं त्रयो लोकाश्चत्वारश्चाश्रमाः पृथक् ।
भूतं भव्यं भविष्यं च सर्वं वेदात् प्रसिध्यति ॥९७॥

cāturvarṇyaṃ trayo lokāścatvāraścāśramāḥ pṛthak |
bhūtaṃ bhavyaṃ bhaviṣyaṃ ca sarvaṃ vedāt prasidhyati ||97||

The four castes, the three worlds, the four life-stages, the past, the present and the future are each learnt from the Veda. — (97)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This also is in praise of the Veda.

‘The four castes’ are learnt from the Veda, — i.e., the duties of the four castes ate tints known; e.g., ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall be initiated during the spring, the Kṣatriya during the summer,’ and so forth. As for the external features they are the same in all castes, and can be definitely ascertained only by experience; as we have shown elsewhere.

‘The three worlds’ — Such texts as ‘the gods subsist upon offerings from this world’ indicate that the Veda points out the means of subsistence for all the three worlds; specially as the Smṛtis (which contain details regarding these matters) also have their source in the Veda.

The ‘life-stages’ also are learnt from the Veda.

Similarly the ‘past’ births, pleasures and pains; — the ‘present’ — current, — and the ‘future’ — what is to come; for the knowledge of all this one must seek help from the Veda. — (97)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 500); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, 46b); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 128).

VERSE 12.98

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

शब्दः स्पर्शश्च रूपं च रसो गन्धश्च पञ्चमः ।
वेदादेव प्रसूयन्ते प्रसूतिर्गुणकर्मतः ॥९८॥

śabdaḥ sparśaśca rūpaṃ ca raso gandhaśca pañcamaḥ |
vedādeva prasūyante prasūtirguṇakarmataḥ ||98||

Sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour as the fifth, proceed from the Veda; their production being due to the ‘secondary rites.’ — (98)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Sound and the other objects of experience, which are also the means of pleasure, are known through the Veda. It is by the performance of Vedic rites that the pleasure of hearing music is secured; — and if one neglects those rites, he becomes condemned to the hearing of sounds unpleasant to the ear; — Sound and the other qualities, and the bodily organs apprehending these all owe their existence to the Veda. This is what is meant by the assertion that they ‘proceed from the Veda’; which does not mean that Veda is the material cause out of which these things are made.

This same idea is further explained by the sentence — ‘their production is due to the secondary rites.’ — The ‘production’ — birth, of sound and other things — ‘is due to the secondary rites’ — Rites directly conducive to such results as Heaven and the like are called ‘primary rites,’ while those minor ones which bring about such minor results us sound and the rest, are ‘secondary rites’; to the latter category belongs, the Citrā Sacrifice.

‘Prasūterguṇadharmataḥ’ is another reading. In this reading ‘guṇa’ stands for the qualities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas; — ‘dharma’ for modification; — ‘prasūti’ for the disturbance of equilibrium, excess, extension; and the meaning is that Veda is the cause of the extension of the operations of the qualities of Sattva and the rest; — the Veda being regarded as the cause of all this, as it is all due: to spiritual agencies.

There are several other curious readings, which we do not note, as they are useless. — (98)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Prasūtirguṇakarmataḥ’. — An obscure word, the different readings for which disgusted even Medhātithi. For the various explanations see Buhler.

VERSE 12.99

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

बिभर्ति सर्वभूतानि वेदशास्त्रं सनातनम् ।
तस्मादेतत् परं मन्ये यत्जन्तोरस्य साधनम् ॥९९॥

bibharti sarvabhūtāni vedaśāstraṃ sanātanam |
tasmādetat paraṃ manye yatjantorasya sādhanam ||99||

The eternal lore of the Veda upholds all beings; f or th is reason I regard this as the best means of accomplishing the ends of every creature. — (99)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That the Veda upholds all beings has been indicated in the following Brāhmaṇa-text — ‘Sacrificial materials are offered into fire, — the fire raises it up to the Sun, — the Sun bears it on his rays, — thence comes rain; thus it is that the sacrificial material comes to be regarded as the cause of the birth and existence of all beings.’ This same idea has been expressed in the present work also — ‘The material rightly thrown into the fire rises up to the Sun,’ and so forth (3.76).

For these reasons I regard this as the best means for the accomplishing of the ends of man. In what manner the Veda supplies all the knowledge regarding man’s duties has been already shown.

“What fulfils all these ends, — is it Vedic (spiritual), or worldlly (physical)?”

The duty is spiritual, but the actual act, which is visible to the eye, is physical. — (99)

VERSE 12.100

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

सेनापत्यं च राज्यं च दण्डनेतृत्वमेव च ।
सर्वलोकाधिपत्यं च वेदशास्त्रविदर्हति ॥१००॥

senāpatyaṃ ca rājyaṃ ca daṇḍanetṛtvameva ca |
sarvalokādhipatyaṃ ca vedaśāstravidarhati ||100||

It is only one who knows the Vedic lore that deserves the command over armies, Kingly authority, the office of the adjudicator of punishments and sovereignty over all men. — (100)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is an exaggerated praise.

‘Adjudicator of punishments’ — the officer who, in villages and cities, fixes the punishments upon men; who is appointed to look after what people do and what they do not know.

‘Army’ — consisting of elephants, horses, chariots and foot-soldiers; — the ‘Commander’ of all this.

‘Kingly authority’ — royal authority over a small circle.

‘Sovereignty over all men’ — the status of the Emperor. — (100)

VERSE 12.101

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

यथा जातबलो वह्निर्दहत्यार्द्रानपि द्रुमान् ।
तथा दहति वेदज्ञः कर्मजं दोषमात्मनः ॥१०१॥

yathā jātabalo vahnirdahatyārdrānapi drumān |
tathā dahati vedajñaḥ karmajaṃ doṣamātmanaḥ ||101||

Just as fire, having gained strength, burns even green trees, even so does the person knowing the Veda consume all the evil effects of his deeds. — (101)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

As in the preceding verse, so now also the construction of the words is quite easy, and their meaning is well-known. — 101

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 172); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 129).

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры