with the Commentary of Medhatithi 342 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 348 из 350Следующая ⇒

daśāvarā vā pariṣadyaṃ dharmaṃ parikalpayet |
try'varā vā'pi vṛttasthā taṃ dharmaṃ na vicālayet ||110||

When an assembly consisting of at least ten men, — or of at least three men firm in their duty, — declares a certain law, one should not seek to dispute it. — (110)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That in which there are at least ten men; — if more cannot be brought together, there should be at least ten.

If this be not possible, there should be at least three.

‘Firm in their duty.’ — This is a reference to what has been said under 2.13.

What is meant to be emphasised here is not the number, but the qualification; as in clear from what is going to be said in Verse 113 below, regarding ‘even a single Brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda, etc., etc.,’ and the larger numbers are mentioned only in view of the fact that it may be difficult to find any single person possessed with all the requisite qualifications.

The qualifications for membership of the Assembly are next enumerated. — (110)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 69).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (28.49). — ‘They declare that a Pariṣad, Assembly, shall consist of at least the ten following — four men who have completely studied the four Vedas, three men belonging to the first three orders, and three men who know the different institutes of Law.’

Baudhāyana (1.1.7, 9). — ‘On failure of the śiṣṭas, an assembly consisting of at least ten members shall decide disputed points of Law.’

VERSE 12.111

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

त्रैविद्यो हेतुकस्तर्की नैरुक्तो धर्मपाठकः ।
त्रयश्चाश्रमिणः पूर्वे परिषत् स्याद् दशावरा ॥१११॥

traividyo hetukastarkī nairukto dharmapāṭhakaḥ |
trayaścāśramiṇaḥ pūrve pariṣat syād daśāvarā ||111||

A person learned in the three Vedas, a logician, an investigator, a person knowing the Nirukta, a lawyer and three men belonging to the first three life-stages, shall constitute the ‘Assembly’; which shall consist of at least ten members. — (111)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the text speaks of the number of members as the more important factor, yet it should be understood as laying greater stress upon the qualifications.

‘A person learned in the three Vedas’ — he who has learnt the three Vedas, and knows their meaning.

‘Logician’ — who is an expert in drawing Inferences; endowed with the faculty of considering the pros and cons of a subject.

“It has been said under that a Logician can never be learned in the Veda.”

True; but, even though he may not himself learn the Veda, yet he may know its contents from other men; and the knowledge of Logic will enable him to put forth special efforts in this line.

This same remark applies to the person knowing the Nirukta also.

‘Lawyer’ — one who has studied the Ordinances of Manu and other law-books.

‘Three men belonging to the life-stages’; — those who are devoted to the actual performance of their duties become specially adept in matters relating to Dharma.

‘First.’ — Some people explain this to mean, (1) the Religions Student, (2) the Householder and (3) the Wandering

Mendicant; since it is only these persons whose entry into villages has not been forbidden; and it is in this order that the life-stages have been named by Gautama (3. 2) — ‘The Student, the Householder, the Wandering Mendicant, and the Recluse.’ Others however argue that ‘causing injury’ being not permitted for the Mendicant, how could he decide points of law (which may involve loss and injury to certain persons)? Hence the Recluse should be the third. — (111)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.301) as describing the constitution of the Assembly or Court; it adds the following notes: — ‘Haitukaḥ’, who is conversant with the essential principles of the Mimānsā, — ‘tarkī,’ who is expert in the science of reasoning; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 77 4), which adds the following notes: — ‘Hetukaḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘haitukaḥ’), expert, in inference; — ‘tarkī’, one who is expert in ‘Tarka’, which is the name given to that process of reasoning by which one comes to the correct conclusion on a definite question, by rejecting all other possible alternatives; the ‘tarka’ ‘argumentation’ meant here is one that does not go against the Vedic scriptures.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 199), which adds the following notes — ‘Traividyaḥ’, one who knows the three Vedas, — ‘haitukaḥ’, one who acts in a reasonable manner; — and in Aparārka (p. 22).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.1, 8). — ‘They quote the following: — “Four men, each of whom knows one of the four Vedas, a Mīmāṃsaka, one who is conversant with the subsidiary sciences, one who recites the sacred law, and three Brāhmaṇas belonging to three different orders, constitute an Assembly consisting of at least ten members.’

Gautama (28.49). — (See above under CX.)

Vaśiṣṭha (3.20). — ‘Four students of the four Vedas, one knowing Mīmāṃsā, one knowing the subsidiary sciences, a teacher of the sacred law, and three eminent men of the three different orders compose a legal assembly consisting of at least ten members.’

Parāśara (8.34). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 12.112

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

ऋग्वेदविद् यजुर्विद्च सामवेदविदेव च ।
त्र्य्ऽवरा परिषद्ज्ञेया धर्मसंशयनिर्णये ॥११२॥

ṛgvedavid yajurvidca sāmavedavideva ca |
try'varā pariṣadjñeyā dharmasaṃśayanirṇaye ||112||

A person knowing the Ṛgveda, a person knowing the Yajurveda, and a person knowing the Sāmaveda, shall be understood to form the assembly of at least three members, competent to decide doubtful points of law. — (112)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The meaning of the Veda is understood with the help of Nirukta, Vyākaraṇa and Mīmāṃsā. A knowledge of these should be possessed by all the three persons, as these do not help the comprehending of the meaning of any one Veda only, and not of others. Hence a knowledge of these is essential in all cases.

The distinction of the three Vedas — Ṛgveda and the rest — has been mentioned on the basis of the distinction made in the Gṛhyasūtras. — (112)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.300) as prescribing a second kind of ‘Assembly’; — in Aparārka (p. 21); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 8).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (1.9). — ‘Four persons well versed in the Veda and in Law, or learned in the three Vedas, constitute the Pariṣad, Assembly; whatever this Assembly declares is the Law; or what is declared by a single person thoroughly cognisant of the Self.’

VERSE 12.113

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

एकोऽपि वेदविद् धर्मं यं व्यवस्येद् द्विजोत्तमः ।
स विज्ञेयः परो धर्मो नाज्ञानामुदितोऽयुतैः ॥११३॥

eko'pi vedavid dharmaṃ yaṃ vyavasyed dvijottamaḥ |
sa vijñeyaḥ paro dharmo nājñānāmudito'yutaiḥ ||113||

That which even a single Brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda decides to be the law, shall be understood to be the highest law, — and not what is asserted by ten thousand ignoramuses. — (113)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Decides’ — finds out and declares.

Not what is proclaimed by ten thousand ‘ignoramuses’ — not learned in the Veda.

This has been already explained before. — (113)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

expert in the science of reasoning; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 77 4), which adds the following notes: — ‘Hetukaḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘haitukaḥ’), expert, in inference; — ‘tarkī’, one who is expert in ‘Tarka’, which is the name given to that process of reasoning by which one comes to the correct conclusion on a definite question, by rejecting all other possible alternatives; the ‘tarka’ ‘argumentation’ meant here is one that does not go against the Vedic scriptures.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 199), which adds the following notes — ‘Traividyaḥ’, one who knows the three Vedas, — ‘haitukaḥ’, one who acts in a reasonable manner; — and in Aparārka (p. 22).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (28.50). — ‘On failure of the Assembly, the decision of one Śrotriya, who knows the Veda and is properly instructed, shall be followed.’

VERSE 12.114

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

अव्रतानाममन्त्राणां जातिमात्रोपजीविनाम् ।
सहस्रशः समेतानां परिषत्त्वं न विद्यते ॥११४॥

avratānāmamantrāṇāṃ jātimātropajīvinām |
sahasraśaḥ sametānāṃ pariṣattvaṃ na vidyate ||114||

Even if thousands of Brāhmaṇas come together, — who have not fulfilled their duties, who are ignorant of the sacred texts, who subsist merely by the name of their caste, — the character of the ‘Assembly’ cannot belong to them. — (114)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Who have not fulfilled their duties’; — what has been already asserted before is stated here in the negative form.

When persons fulfilling their duties and learned in the Veda lay down a certain law, no doubts should be entertained regarding it, — either by learned or by ignorant men. Nor should any optional alternatives be admitted in such cases. — (114)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.1.16). — ‘Many thousands cannot form an Assembly, if they have not fulfilled their sacred duties, are unacquainted with the Veda, and subsist only by the name of their caste.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.5). — (Same as above.)

Parāśara (8.12). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 12.115

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

यं वदन्ति तमोभूता मूर्खा धर्ममतद्विदः ।
तत्पापं शतधा भूत्वा तद्वक्तॄननुगच्छति ॥११५॥

yaṃ vadanti tamobhūtā mūrkhā dharmamatadvidaḥ |
tatpāpaṃ śatadhā bhūtvā tadvaktṝnanugacchati ||115||

When ignorant men, partaking of the quality of ‘Tamas,’ declare a certain act as right, without knowing what ‘right’ means, — the sin of that act falls hundred-fold upon those who propound it. — (115)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This describes the evil effects befalling those ignorant men who go about propounding the law. — (115)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana (1.1.11). — ‘That sin which dunces, perplexed by ignorance and unacquainted with the sacred Law, declare to be Dharma, falls, increased a hundredfold, on those who propound it.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.6). — (Same as above.)

Parāśara (8.13). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 12.116

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

एतद् वोऽभिहितं सर्वं निःश्रेयसकरं परम् ।
अस्मादप्रच्युतो विप्रः प्राप्नोति परमां गतिम् ॥११६॥

etad vo'bhihitaṃ sarvaṃ niḥśreyasakaraṃ param |
asmādapracyuto vipraḥ prāpnoti paramāṃ gatim ||116||

All that is conducive to the Highest Good has been thus expounded to you; the Brāhmaṇa who has not deviated from this, attains the highest state. — (116)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The verse sums up what was promised to be done. What was promised under l.2 and 1.4 as going to be done, has all been duly done. This indicates the end of the Ordinances.

“As a matter of fact, we find teachings even after this; and that too in the direct injunctive form. Why then is it said that the Ordinances are summed up here?”

What comes after this is pure knowledge, which is a necessary complement of all actions. So that there is no incongruity in what we have stated. In fact, in all cases, the propounding of Dharma forms the most important factor in all teachings, and Knowledge comes always in the end. This was what we meant when we said that the present verse sums up the Ordinances. — (116)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1027).

VERSE 12.117 [Summing up of the Esoteric Teaching]

Section XIII - Summing up of the Esoteric Teaching

एवं स भगवान् देवो लोकानां हितकाम्यया ।
धर्मस्य परमं गुह्यं ममेदं सर्वमुक्तवान् ॥११७॥

evaṃ sa bhagavān devo lokānāṃ hitakāmyayā |
dharmasya paramaṃ guhyaṃ mamedaṃ sarvamuktavān ||117||

Thus has the blessed Lord explained to me, with a desire to benefit mankind, the highest secret of Dharma. — (117)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The blessed Lord’ — Manu — propounded these Ordinances for the ‘benefit of mankind.’ This is what Bhṛgu says to his pupils.

This sets at rest all doubts regarding persons entitled to seek for knowledge.

‘Secret’ — the true philosophy of the Self also, the revered Manu has disclosed to me; and I also have disclosed it to you just as I heard it. So that you should not seek for any further knowledge on the subject. — (117)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1027).

VERSE 12.118

Section XIII - Summing up of the Esoteric Teaching

सर्वमात्मनि सम्पश्येत् सत्चासत्च समाहितः ।
सर्वं ह्यात्मनि सम्पश्यन्नाधर्मे कुरुते मनः ॥११८॥

sarvamātmani sampaśyet satcāsatca samāhitaḥ |
sarvaṃ hyātmani sampaśyannādharme kurute manaḥ ||118||

With a concentrated mind, one should perceive in the Self all things, real as well as unreal. One who perceives all things in the Self never turns his mind towards wrong. — (118)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘All things’ — the world — ‘real and unreal’ — i.e., which is liable to be produced and to be destroyed; or that which is eternal like the Ākāśa, or what is an absolute non-entity, like the ‘hare’s horn’ — all this one should perceive in the Self; — that is, he should contemplate upon all this as centred in the Self.

What ‘perceiving’ connotes is a clear conception; and this can only be obtained by constant contemplation; as no dear conception of a thing can be obtained by merely seeing it once. It is for this reason that the Esoteric Science has been propounded. And in connection with the contemplation of the Self, we have such texts as — ‘It should be listened to, thought, upon and meditated upon,’ where the act of seeing is spoken of as extending up to meditation.

That is called ‘Contemplation of the Self’ which consists in repeated meditation upon It, without the intervention of any other foreign object.

Or, mere repetition (of the act of seeing) may be taken as what is implied by the term ‘perceive’ As a matter of fact, all purificatory acts have their purpose fulfilled only when they impart to the purified object a certain peculiar excellence; as is found in the case of the thumping of the corn; where, even though the repetition of the act of thumping is not directly laid down, yet it becomes implied by the fact that without such repeated thumping the corns cannot be cleared of all their husk. If the act were to be left off before this had been accomplished, it could only be regarded as leading to some invisible (transcendental) result; and in that case the act would cease to be ‘purificatory’.

For this reason the term ‘should perceive’ should be taken to mean the giving up of all other acts, and the repeating of the act of perceiving of the one object in view.

In regard to the ‘Self’ spoken of here, people dispute over its exact meaning: — “What is it that is called ‘Self,’ ‘ātman’? (A) If it stands for the Conscious Entity ensouling the body, then this is inconsistent with what follows regarding ‘the Ruler, the Soul, bright like gold, eta, etc.’ (in 122); since we do not hear of anybody appearing for such a being, — since what is declared regarding It is — ‘O Gārgi, the Sun and the Moon remain under the control of this Imperishable One, so also Heaven and Earth have been upheld by him’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad). For those reasons the transmigratory process cannot belong to that Self with regard to which we have the notion of ‘I’; so that some other form will have to be pointed out as belonging to the ‘Self’ spoken of here. Further, under the said explanation, by virtue of what the text lays down regarding ‘perceiving all things in the Self,’ even things external, at least in their spiritual aspects, will have to be regarded as being resolved into the Individual Soul (which is absurd). The only alternative left is to regard the ‘Self’ as standing for that which is the original source of all Being, of the whole Universe, one that interpenetrates all entities. Hut in regard to this it will be necessary to explain what exactly would be meant by‘perceiving all things in the Self.’ Others have held that what is referred to is the Bodily Self, in which all things are to be perceived.

Our explanation is as follows — As regards the term ‘ātman,’ ‘Self,’ it has been already shown that all authorities agree in pointing to its standing for the Supreme Self. As for what has been said above regarding the necessity for pointing out the exact form of the ‘Self’ here meant, — what else could be said on the point, except what is found asserted under the Injunctions of ‘listening to......and knowing’ this Self; — all such injunctions can be found out from the various Upaniṣads belonging to the various Vedic texts. Then again, it is because there are other proofs also of the unity of this Self that Miśra has taken such pains to explain the actual facts of perception (which point to diversity). The following passage is found in the Vākyapadīya — ‘There is nothing in name, etc.’ The fact of this Self being comprehended with the help of Injunctions may be ascertained from the fact of the Body being Its covering, etc.

As for the objection as to how what is ‘asat’ (unreal) can be seen; — in the phrase ‘the real and the unreal’ the term ‘real’ stands for the whole aggregate of worldly products, and ‘unreal’ for such subtle objects as are ordinarily not perceptible.

Another question that has been raised is — “How can the Supreme Self have any connection with hearing (such as is mentioned in the Injunction that ‘the Self should be heard, etc., etc.)?’”

But what to say of connection with Hearing? In fact the birth, existence and dissolution of the entire Universe has been proved to have its source in that Self.

As for the Injunction regarding the resolving of all things into the Self, — what is actually meant is that ‘whatever appears to be diverse, all that one should resolve into that One Entity.’ And what is meant by everything subsisting in the Self, is that one should cease to have any hankering for the things of the world.

‘With concentrated mind.’ — This ‘Concentration’ means ‘the controlling of the operation of the mind’; and how this is to be done is to be learnt from the Yoga-śāstra.

‘Never turns his mind towards wrong.’ — This connotes the immobility of the intellect and the mind. What is here prescribed should be practised until the mind ceases to be perturbed by disputants; and whatever there may be of diversity should he resolved into the one Supreme Self. — 118

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ātmani’. — ‘In the supreme self’ (Kullūka and Nandana), — ‘in his Own individual self’ (Govindarāja).

‘Sadasat’. — ‘The products and the causes, or the intelligent and the non-intelligent’ (Nandana), — ‘that which has shape and which is shapeless’ (Govindarāja), — ‘that which comes into existence and perishes,’ or ‘that which is an absolute non-entity and that which is eternal’ (proposed by Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1027).

VERSE 12.119

Section XIII - Summing up of the Esoteric Teaching

आत्मैव देवताः सर्वाः सर्वमात्मन्यवस्थितम् ।
आत्मा हि जनयत्येषां कर्मयोगं शरीरिणाम् ॥११९॥

ātmaiva devatāḥ sarvāḥ sarvamātmanyavasthitam |
ātmā hi janayatyeṣāṃ karmayogaṃ śarīriṇām ||119||

The Self alone is all the gods; everything subsists in the Self; it is the Self that brings about the connection of these embodied beings with actions. — (119)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

All sacrificial rites, heaven and other rewards, and all the gods — should be looked upon as the ‘Self’: What is known as the ‘God Agni’ is the Self, apart from which there is no ‘God’ — This is what is meant by such declarations as — (a) ‘This Self is found spoken of in various forms’; — (b) ‘the one Self is the God’; — (c) ‘Indra, Varuṇa, Mitra are described as Agni,’ — ‘One real entity the wise ones speak of in various ways’; — all which goes to show that when men have notions regarding the ‘gods,’ what they have is only the idea of the ‘Self’ in its various forms. The assertion that ‘the man has passed beyond all that exists’ indicates that one should look upon all ritualistic deities as the ‘Self.’

“Does this mean that in actual practice, these gods should not be treated as gods?”

All that is to be done is to be done as being done for the Self. And the reason for this lies in the fact that it is the Self that brings about ‘the connection of all beings with actions’; — and there is no other God, even approaching It in quality. — 119

VERSE 12.120

Section XIII - Summing up of the Esoteric Teaching

खं संनिवेशयेत् खेषु चेष्टनस्पर्शनेऽनिलम् ।
पक्तिदृष्ट्योः परं तेजः स्नेहेऽपो गां च मूर्तिषु ॥१२०॥

khaṃ saṃniveśayet kheṣu ceṣṭanasparśane'nilam |
paktidṛṣṭyoḥ paraṃ tejaḥ snehe'po gāṃ ca mūrtiṣu ||120||

One should withdraw the Ākāśa into the ten cavities, the Wind into the organs of touch and movement, the best Light into the organs of digestion and vision, the Water into the fluids, and the Earth into the solid limbs. — (120)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There are nine cavities in the body; — on these one should ‘withdraw’ — draw in — the Ākāśa, as ‘there is no external Ākāśa, nor any external thing whatsoever.’

‘Anila’ is wind; — this also he shall withdraw.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов