with the Commentary of Medhatithi 341 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 347 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (27.2). — ‘As a fire burning strongly consumes even green trees, even so does the fire of the Veda destroy one’s guilt caused by one's deeds.’

VERSE 12.102

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

वेदशास्त्रार्थतत्त्वज्ञो यत्र तत्राश्रमे वसन् ।
इहैव लोके तिष्ठन् स ब्रह्मभूयाय कल्पते ॥१०२॥

vedaśāstrārthatattvajño yatra tatrāśrame vasan |
ihaiva loke tiṣṭhan sa brahmabhūyāya kalpate ||102||

In whatever life-stage he may be, the person who knows the true meaning of the Vedic Scriptures becomes fit for union with brahman, even while dwelling in this world. — (102)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Union with Brahman’ — becoming one with Brahman, (i.e., attaining Brahman).

‘In whatever’ — i.e., even though he may not take to the several stages in the regular order. This is what has been referred to in such passages as — ‘Brāhmaṇas, deviating from the regular path, pass on to the stage of the Mendicant immediately after passing through that of the Student.’ — 102

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 510); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 132).

VERSE 12.103

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

अज्ञेभ्यो ग्रन्थिनः श्रेष्ठा ग्रन्थिभ्यो धारिणो वराः ।
धारिभ्यो ज्ञानिनः श्रेष्ठा ज्ञानिभ्यो व्यवसायिनः ॥१०३॥

ajñebhyo granthinaḥ śreṣṭhā granthibhyo dhāriṇo varāḥ |
dhāribhyo jñāninaḥ śreṣṭhā jñānibhyo vyavasāyinaḥ ||103||

Better than ignoramuses are those who ‘read the books’; better than the ‘reader of books’ are those who ‘retain’ them; better than the ‘retainers’ are those who have ‘knowledge’; and better than those having ‘knowledge’ are those who act. — (103)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Ignoramuses’ — ignorant men; those who do not read at all.

‘Who read the books’ — those who have studied the texts, and are just able to mention them.

Better than these are those who ‘retain’ them; those who read the books with care; while the former do not read with sufficient care. The ‘retainers’ also are of the books.

What the superiority of these latter means is that they are qualified for being engaged in recitations, for receiving gifts, and so forth.

‘Those who have knowledge,’ are qualified for all purposes; and hence these are still better. Recitations and prayers, when done with knowledge, are productive of more excellent results. This is what has been thus described — ‘Whatever one does with knowledge, faith and with due regard to the esoteric teachings, turns out to be most effective.’

‘Those who act’ — Those who, without any hesitation, act up to the teachings of the Veda; and who never doubt their correctness.

This also is meant to be mere praise: Mere study of the Veda is capable of accomplishing the ends of man, — how much more so the knowledge of what is contained in it! — (103)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ajñebhyaḥ’. — ‘Entirely ignorant’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa), ‘who have not read the Veda’ (Nandana), — ‘who have learnt a little’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka).

‘Granthinaḥ’. — ‘Forgetful students’ (Kullūka and Nandana), — ‘those who learn the verbal text alone and do not ponder, over the meaning’, (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 73), which adds the following notes: — ‘Granthinaḥ,’ who can read only with the help of the book, — ‘Dhāriṇaḥ,’ who can read without the help of the book, — ‘Jñāninaḥ,’ who have studied the scriptures and know their meaning.

VERSE 12.104

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

तपो विद्या च विप्रस्य निःश्रेयसकरं परम् ।
तपसा किल्बिषं हन्ति विद्ययाऽमृतमश्नुते ॥१०४॥

tapo vidyā ca viprasya niḥśreyasakaraṃ param |
tapasā kilbiṣaṃ hanti vidyayā'mṛtamaśnute ||104||

Austerity and knowledge are conducive to the Highest Good of the Brāhmaṇa; by Austerity he destroys sins and by Knowledge he attains immortality. — (104)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What is meant by this is that, even though one may possess knowledge, — until his sins have been destroyed, he does not attain Liberation; — nor if, though his sins may have been destroyed, he has not acquired knowledge of the Self.

Thus there is no truth in the assertion that man attains Liberation by his very nature.

‘Immortality’ — not returning to metempsychic birth; which has also been described as consisting in pure Bliss. — (104)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 512); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 144).

VERSE 12.105

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

प्रत्यक्षं चानुमानं च शास्त्रं च विविधाऽऽगमम् ।
त्रयं सुविदितं कार्यं धर्मशुद्धिमभीप्सता ॥१०५॥

pratyakṣaṃ cānumānaṃ ca śāstraṃ ca vividhā''gamam |
trayaṃ suviditaṃ kāryaṃ dharmaśuddhimabhīpsatā ||105||

If one desires to obtain the correct knowledge of Dharma, he should become fully acquainted with these three: — Perception, Inference and the Scriptures of various traditions. — (105)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In a friendly spirit, the author adds a teaching bearing upon the ordinary business of the world.

‘Dharma’ — is what is taught in the Veda.

‘Śuddhi’ — correct knowledge, consisting of the rejection of the prima facie view of things and the acceptance of the correct conclusion, is obtained only when one has formed correct notions regarding Perception and the other means of knowledge. For instance, it is only when one has a correct conception of the perception of things that he is cognizant of the fact that flame is something fleeting, and when he finds that the case with sound is not so, he grasps the truth that ‘sound is eternal.’ If, on the other hand, the man has no correct conception of things perceived, he will entertain the same notion regarding the perception of both sound and flame. So that perceiving that flame is fleeting, he would conclude that sound also is fleeting; and for this man the Veda would only be ‘an aggregate of fleeting sounds’...(?)

Similarly ‘Inference’ should be duly learnt. If a man does not become acquainted with the right process of Inference, he would be liable to draw inferences from the Minor Term only, or only from that which does not contain the major term, and thus infer the existence of an author for the Veda also. When on the other hand, he understands the nature of Inference, he concludes that the Veda is not the work of an author, from the premiss that no work of the nature of the Veda is ever found to be the work of an author.

‘Scriptures o f various traditions.’ — The Scriptures contain many Injunctions and Prohibitions; and hence there are several ‘traditions’ regarding them. ‘Āgama’ literally means ‘āgamyate,’ ‘that which comes down to one.’ There being several rescissions of the Veda, it is spoken of as having ‘several traditions,’ specially with reference to the distinction drawn between ‘Śruti’ and ‘Smṛti.’

This fact, already implied by the Injunction of ‘Vedic Study,’ has been recalled here by the Author, in a friendly spirit. All this may be regarded as mere praise. — (105)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Śāstram’. — ‘Veda’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘Veda and Smṛti’ (Medhātithi), — ‘Smṛti’ (Kullūka).

VERSE 12.106

Section XI - Supremacy of the Veda

आर्षं धर्मोपदेशं च वेदशास्त्राविरोधिना ।
यस्तर्केणानुसन्धत्ते स धर्मं वेद नैतरः ॥१०६॥

ārṣaṃ dharmopadeśaṃ ca vedaśāstrāvirodhinā |
yastarkeṇānusandhatte sa dharmaṃ veda naitaraḥ ||106||

If a man explores, by ratiocination, the Vedic teaching regarding Dharma, he alone, and no other, understands Dharma. — (106)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Ārṣa’ means ‘pertaining to a Ṛṣi,’ and the term ‘ṛṣi’ here means the Veda; hence ‘Ārṣa Upadeśa’ means ‘Vedic teaching.’

This, if a man ‘explores’ — tries to find out — ‘by ratiocination’ — by means of inferences, — ‘he understands Dharma’ — such is the verbal construction of the passage.

‘Ratiocination’ — is the process of reasoning where a certain proposition is set up, and rejected, if found to be wrong on examination; the man coming to such conclusions as — ‘It is right to accept this, and reject that.’ For instance, the sacred text used at the Āgneya sacrifice is — ‘Devasya tvā savituḥ...agnaye tvā juṣṭam nirvapāmi’ (Vājasaneya Saṃhitā, 2.11); now an ectype of this Āgneya is the ‘Saurya’ Sacrifice of which the deity is Sūrya; — and in accordance with the general law that ‘the ectype shall be performed in the same manner as its archetype,’ it would follow that the sacred text just quoted shall be used at the Saurya sacrifice also; — but here one argues that though ‘agnaye tvā’ would be the right form for the Āgneya, where the deity is Agni, it could not be right for the Saurya, where the deity is Sūrya; hence while at this latter, the rest of the text shall be used in the same form, the words ‘agnaye tvā’ should be altered into ‘sūryāya tvā.’ Such a reasoning would not be inconsistent with the Veda.

Some people may argue thus: “At the Saurya sacrifice, Agni is not the deity; and it is in accordance with their meanings that sacred texts are employed at sacrifices; so that when one part of the said text is not applicable to the Saurya sacrifice, if that portion were dropped, it would cease to be a Sacred text; — hence the whole text should be dropped.”

But such reasoning would be contrary to the teaching of the Veda.

Similarly if one were to argue that — ‘Since the sacred text has to be used, it must be always used in its original unaltered form only,’ — this also would be contrary to the Veda.

In fact, what is set forth here is not an Injunction, but a commendatory statement; and the purport of it is that what should be done in such cases is to be ascertained by the process of reasonings embodied in the Mīmāṃsā; — hence it is the study of Mīmāṃsā that is indirectly enjoined for the purpose of obtaining a correct knowledge of Dharma.

Others explain the text in the following manner: —

‘Tarka,’ ‘Ratiocination,’ stands for works of which reasoning forms the main subject; which make it their business to set forth the ordinary means of cognition, — i.e., works on Nyāya, on Vaiśeṣika and on the materialistic Systems of Philosophy. From among these however, those belonging to the last category, — i.e., works written by Bauddhas, Nirgranthas and others — which are inconsistent with the Veda — are rejected; since for these writers the Veda is not an authoritative source of knowledge; as it is for Kapila, Kaṇāda (and the Naiyāyika). This is shown by the following Sūtra of Gautama — ‘Perception, Inference, Analogy and Word are the pramāṇas’ (1.1.3); and the Vaiśeṣikas also — ‘the authoritative character of the Veda is due to its being His declaration’ (Vaiśeṣika Sūtra). Hence these latter should be carefully listened to (and learnt). In the Mahābhārata also, the revered Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana has declared — ‘O king, your intellect seems to be bewildered by the words of the text, just like that of the foolish Vedic scholar, and hence it fails to grasp the subtle aspects of things’; — where the mention of ‘bewilderment caused by the words of the text’ implies the propriety of applying reasonings. There is yet another statement — ‘One who follows the Smṛtis should never attend to materialistic Brāhmaṇas, since these are adepts in evil and proud of their learning.’ This forbids listening to unsound reasonings; while the former text (from the Mahābhārata) lays down the propriety of attending to sound reasonings.

The authoritative character of the Veda some people would seek to prove by the fact of its being the work of God. But this is not possible; as according to this view the Veda cannot he authoritative, as its whole fabric would rest upon the will of God, and when we find contradictory statements, we are prone to take the opposite view that the Veda is not trustworthy.

For this reason the reasonings set forth by these persons would also have to be rejected as ‘unsound’; specially as these do not help in any way towards the understanding of the meaning of Vedic texts. Says the Sāṅkhya, for instance (in regard to the Veda) — ‘it is beset with impurity, destruction and excess’ (Kārikā, 2). The followers of Gautama also have put forward certain arguments, which embody the prima facie position against the Ritualistic Section of the Veda (Nyāya Sūtra, 2.1.5, et. seq.); — though these arguments are represented as proceeding from another party.

It is only in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and the Vedānta that we find the authority of the Veda unequivocally stated, in the form in which it is set forth in such Vedic texts as — ‘The gods came down from the heavenly regions to this world, — the sages followed them, — and the men said to them — How are we going to live? — To them the sages revealed all their duties, — hence the reasonings that the good Brāhmaṇas propound are Vedic.’ This is a passage that explains the exact nature of what is meant by ‘ratiocination’ in the present context. — (106)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 22); — and in Smṛtitattva (p. 511).

VERSE 12.107 [Doubtful Points of Law to be decided by the Assembly]

Section XII - Doubtful Points of Law to be decided by the Assembly

नैःश्रेयसमिदं कर्म यथोदितमशेषतः ।
मानवस्यास्य शास्त्रस्य रहस्यमुपदिश्यते ॥१०७॥

naiḥśreyasamidaṃ karma yathoditamaśeṣataḥ |
mānavasyāsya śāstrasya rahasyamupadiśyate ||107||

The act conducive to the Highest Good is as has been here fully declared. Now is going to be set forth the secret of the Teachings of Manu — (107)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is intended to attract the attention of the Vedic scholar, and to arouse in his mind a special regard for what is going to be set forth.

‘Secret’ — hidden meaning. — (107)

VERSE 12.108

Section XII - Doubtful Points of Law to be decided by the Assembly

अनाम्नातेषु धर्मेषु कथं स्यादिति चेद् भवेत् ।
यं शिष्टा ब्राह्मणा ब्रूयुः स धर्मः स्यादशङ्कितः ॥१०८॥

anāmnāteṣu dharmeṣu kathaṃ syāditi ced bhavet |
yaṃ śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā brūyuḥ sa dharmaḥ syādaśaṅkitaḥ ||108||

If the question should arise — “How should it be in regard to those points upon which the laws have not been declared?” — [the answer is] — what the cultured Brāhmaṇas declare, that shall be the undoubted law. — (108)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“How can there be any doubt on points not dealt with by the Ordinances? For the matter would be wholly unknown.”

The answer to this is that what is meant is not what is not spoken of at all, but that in regard to which the law has been stated only in a general form, and the particular applications of it cannot be ascertained.

“Even in such cases why should there be any doubt? A general statement always applies to all particular cases; so that if any particular form of it is followed, the ordinances become followed.”

For instance, when we have the law that ‘one should rinse his mouth with water,’ — with what water, of a well, or a tank, or a river, being not specified, — the behests of the law would be duly obeyed by rinsing the mouth with water obtained from any one of these sources.

True; but there are cases where we have a text prohibiting a certain act, but no expiation is laid down in reference to that act; and it is such cases that are contemplated by the present verse.

For instance, there is the following case — There is a vessel polluted by the touch of the Śūdra’s mouth, — and before it has been cleansed some one takes his food out of it; — now what would be the expiation in this case? This question cannot be answered by anything that has been laid down. There is the text laying down the expiation in connection with pollution caused by the touch of the mouth of ‘the woman and the Śūdra’; but what is polluted by the ‘woman and the Śūdra,’ cannot be held to be ‘polluted by the Śūdra (only).’

In such doubtful cases, one should act up to the declaration of cultured men. For such doubts can arise only in the minds of Śūdras and others, who are not learned Brāhmaṇas; and it is only right that they should do what is taught by cultured men; so that in all cases, reductions or enhancements in the exact expiation should be always accepted in accordance with the decision of these people.

Nor would these cultured men be doing anything wrong in declaring the law on doubtful points; since it is declared that — ‘that should be the undoubted law.’ If they pronounced a wrong opinion they would certainly be doing something wrong. For in matters relating to Dharma there can be no two opinions. In a case where there is a doubt regarding the exact ‘gotra’ and ‘pravara’ of a certain person, — when no one happens to remember them, how could the exact gotra or pravara be determined by any declaration of the Brāhmaṇas? It is for this reason that it has been asserted that where the gotra or pravara is doubtful, it shall remain doubtful. The pravara is doubtful only when the gotra is doubtful; when there is no doubt regarding the gotra, there can be none regarding the pravara, as the exact pravaras relating to each gotra have been clearly described. But since there are several pravaras mentioned in connection with several gotras, the gotra would remain doubtful even when the pravaras are known. — (108)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 21); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 7), which explains ‘Dharmeṣu’ as ‘the sources of the knowledge of Dharma.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (28.48). — ‘In cases where no rule has been given, that course should he followed which is approved of by at least ten such Brāhmaṇas as are well-instructed, skilled in reasoning and free from covetousness.’

VERSE 12.109

Section XII - Doubtful Points of Law to be decided by the Assembly

धर्मेणाधिगतो यैस्तु वेदः सपरिबृंहणः ।
ते शिष्टा ब्राह्मणा ज्ञेयाः श्रुतिप्रत्यक्षहेतवः ॥१०९॥

dharmeṇādhigato yaistu vedaḥ saparibṛṃhaṇaḥ |
te śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā jñeyāḥ śrutipratyakṣahetavaḥ ||109||

Those Brāhmaṇas, by whom the Veda, along with its supplements, has been learnt in the right manner, and who are guided directly by the revealed texts, — shall be regarded as ‘cultur ed.’ — (109)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse provides the definition of the ‘cultured’ man.

“The definition of the cultured man has already been provided under 2.13.”

But that verse has been suspected of having a totally different meaning; hence it cannot be regarded as providing the required definition. There is another statement — that man is cultured who is not affected by desires.’ But in this, ‘learning’ is not made a necessary condition. [Hence this also cannot be accepted as the requisite definition.]

When the Veda has been completely learnt and its meaning has been thoroughly grasped, — ‘along with its supplements’ — as described by the revered Vyāsa, — ‘The Veda should be supplemented by Itihāsas and Purāṇas’; — by this the Smṛtis also became included.

The mention of ‘Brāhmaṇas’ is purely reiterative; since none other than the Brāhmaṇa is entitled to expound Dharma.

‘Guided directly by the revealed texts’ — The revealed texts are their ‘direct guide’; — i.e., those for whom the Veda constitutes Perception and all other means of knowledge. What is meant is that they look upon the Veda as free from all defects, to the same extent that direct Perception is regarded as entirely trustworthy, — they do not rely upon those means of cognition that are based entirely on reasonings; they regard the Veda itself as embodying ‘reasoning’ also, and do not seek to establish the authority of the Veda by means of arguments.

Or, the phrase may mean that ‘they rely upon such Vedic texts as are directly found’; — i.e., they look upon these directly perceptible texts as the sole means of ascertaining what is Dharma (right) and what is Adharma (wrong). — (109)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Śrutipratyakṣahetavaḥ’ — ‘Those who have learnt the Vedic text, also facts of perception and reasonings’, or ‘those for whom the perceptible Vedic texts are the sole means of discriminating virtue and vice’ (Medhātithi); — ‘who are the cause of the teaching of the subjects perceptible in the Veda’ (Govindarāja), — ‘who are the causes of making the revealed texts perceptible by reciting them’ (Kullūka); — ‘those for whose knowledge and exposition of the Law, the causes consist of Hearing and Perception by the senses’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 6) as defining the ‘Śiṣṭa.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (1.6-7). — ‘He whose heart is free from desire is called śiṣṭa. Acts sanctioned by the sacred law are those for which no worldly cause is perceptible.’

Vaśiṣṭha (6.43). — ‘Those Brāhmaṇas in whose families the study of the Veda and the subsidiary sciences is hereditary, and who are able to adduce proofs perceptible by the senses from the revealed texts, must be known to be śiṣṭa, cultured.’

Baudhāyana (1.1.5-6). — ‘Śiṣṭa, cultured, forsooth, are those who are free from envy, free from pride, contented with a store of grain sufficient for ten days, free from covetousness, and free from hypocrisy, arrogance, greed, perplexity and anger. Those are called cultured who, in accordance with the sacred Law, have studied the Veda together with its subsidiaries, know how to draw inferences from it, and are able to adduce proofs perceptible by the senses from the revealed texts.’

Āpastamba (2.29.14-15). — ‘The indications for doubtful cases are — “He shall regulate his course of action according to the conduct which is unanimously recognised in all countries by men of the three twice-born castes, who have been properly obedient to their teachers, who are aged, of subdued senses, free from avarice and hypocrisy.” Acting thus he will gain both worlds. Some people say that the remaining duties must be learnt from women and from men of all castes.’

VERSE 12.110

Section XII - Doubtful Points of Law to be decided by the Assembly

दशावरा वा परिषद्यं धर्मं परिकल्पयेत् ।
त्र्य्ऽवरा वाऽपि वृत्तस्था तं धर्मं न विचालयेत् ॥११०॥

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте