Verse 1.84

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

वेदोक्तमायुर्मर्त्यानामाशिषश्चैव कर्मणाम् ।
फलन्त्यनुयुगं लोके प्रभावश्च शरीरिणाम् ॥ ८४ ॥

vedoktamāyurmartyānāmāśiṣaścaiva karmaṇām |
phalantyanuyugaṃ loke prabhāvaśca śarīriṇām || 84 ||

The full age of mortals spoken of in the Veda, the results of actions and the powers of embodied beings,—are obtained in accordance with the character of the Cycle.—(84)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some people offer the following explanation:—What is meant ‘the age spoken of in the Veda’ is the age of a thousand years and so forth, which is indicated by the Veda prescribing such rites as are mentioned as extending over ‘thousand years’; and this age is ‘obtained’, reached, only in accordance with the nature of the Cycle, and not in all Cycle; for instance, now-a-days no one ever lives for ‘thousand years’ he who lives long, lives for a hundred years.

There are others who do not accept this explanation, and for the following reasons:—It has been decided (under Mīmāmsā-Sutras 6. 7.31-40) that when the term ‘year’ occurs in the Veda in connection with the long sacrificial sessions, it stands for ‘days’; so that if something else (in the shape of years) were taken as enjoined, then there would he an inconsistency, and this would lead to the ‘splitting of the sentence’;—the text in connection with the subject is in the form ‘pañcapañc??hatah tṛvṛtaḥ samvatsarāḥ’, ‘the fifty-five trios, years’ (literally); now hero what is definitely indicated by the context is that the term ‘trio’ stands for the three days of the ??vāmayana Sacrifice; so that it is in regard to these that the particular number (Fifty-five) is laid down; under the circumstances, if the sentence, by virtue of the term ‘Samvatsarāḥ’, ‘years’, were taken as laying down the further unknown fact? the said (trios) being ‘years’,—then there would be a?it in the sentence; in order to avoid this, it becomes necessary to take one or the other of the words as merely reite??ive (not injunctive);—now

as regards the term ‘Samvatsara’, ‘year’, we find that, on the basis of diverse calculations, known as the ‘Saura’, the ‘Sāvana’ and so forth, it is often used in a sense other than that of a collection of exactly three hundred and sixty day; so that it is only right that this term (and not the term ‘fifty-five’) should be taken figuratively, as being descriptive of ‘days’.

Others again argue as follows:—Among the Mantra and Arthavāda texts of the Veda we find such egressions as—‘The gods live for a hundred years’, ‘the man’s life is of hundred years’, and so forth,—where the term ‘hundred’ is found used in the sense of ‘many’ and ‘man’ is purely indefinite; hence the meaning (of our text,) is that ‘men are short-lived or long-lived according to the Cycle’.—If the verse were taken in its literal sense, it would mean that during Kali all men live for a hundred years, and this would not be true],—Or, it may mean that the exact extent of ‘full age’—which is found mentioned as the result of sacrifices performed by the man desiring full age—being nowhere defined the extent should be taken as determined by the character of the particular Cycle.

‘Results’—i.e., the things desired as results. described in the Veda, proceeding from acts performed with a purpose.—Though ‘full age’ also is a desired result, yet it has been mentioned separately in view of its importance; as declared in such words as—‘Full age is the highest desirable object’.

‘Power’—i.e. the superphysio faculties, consisting in being equipped with aṇimā (the faculty of becoming as small as one likes) and such other faculties’,—or in the form of ability to pronounce effective curses, as? bestowing effective boons

‘Are obtained in accordance with the character of the Cycle’—this has to be construed with all (three phrases)—(84).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Medhātithi (p. 39, l. 5)—‘Dīrghasatreṣu’—Sec Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 6.7.31-40 and Śabara on 6.7.7—

yadi pañca pañāśataḥ ‘trivṛtaḥ’ (i. e., the three days of the Gavāmayana), na saṃvatsarāḥ | yadi saṃvatsarāḥ ‘trivṛtaḥ’, na pañcapañcāśataḥ | tasmāt virodhādanyatarad gauṇam |

This is the virodha mentioned by Medhātithi in line (6] Which of the two is to be taken as gauṇa is explained by Śabara on 6.7.38, where the conclusion is that the term saṃvatsara should be regarded as gauṇa.

Medhātithi ( p. 39, l. 12 )—Śataśabdaśca bahunāmasu pāṭhitaḥ’—e.g., Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad 2. 11; Īśā Upaniṣad 2; Mahānarāyaṇa Upaniṣad 6,—in addition to the passages quoted by Medhātithi himself.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(Verse 81-86)

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.81 (Dharma in the Kṛta-yuga).