Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

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

षण्णामेषां तु सर्वेषां कर्मणां प्रेत्य चैह च ।
श्रेयस्करतरं ज्ञेयं सर्वदा कर्म वैदिकम् ॥ ८६ ॥

ṣaṇṇāmeṣāṃ tu sarveṣāṃ karmaṇāṃ pretya caiha ca |
śreyaskarataraṃ jñeyaṃ sarvadā karma vaidikam || 86 ||

Among the six aforesaid actions, the performance of ‘Vedic Acts’ should be regarded as the most efficacious for bringing about happiness in this world and as well as after death.—(80)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The six actions—Vedic Study and the rest—are all conducive to Happiness; and among these the most efficacious in bringing about happiness are the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts prescribed in the Veda.

“If the Genitive ending in the term ‘pūrveṣām’ (‘among the aforesaid’) denotes selection,—that cannot be right; as we have ‘selection’ in a case where among a number of things forming a single group as bearing equally upon a common objective, one of them happens to be possessed of some such efficiency as marks it out as pre-eminent; e.g., in the expression ‘among men, the Kṣatriya is the bravest’; where the Kṣatriya, who is included in the class ‘men,’ is selected as the ‘bravest.’ How, then, can there be any ‘selection’ of what has not been mentioned at all among those spoken of in the foregoing verse? ‘Vedic Act’ has not been mentioned. It might be argued that—‘since Vedic Act is also included under Vedic Study, which has been mentioned, how can the former be regarded as not mentioned?’ But in that case t he ‘selection’ of a generic entity out of the same generic entity would be all the more incongruous; one never says—‘among cows, cows are the most milch.’ ‘Vedic Acts’ could have been selected as the most efficient in bringing about happiness only if Non-Vedic Acts had also been spoken of as conducive to happiness. Further, what are the ‘Vedic Acts’ meant here? If it be held that the Jyotiṣṭoma and such sacrificial acts are what are meant,—then it will be necessary to point out what authority there is for taking the term as referring to these in particular; since the ‘Study of the Veda’ and several such acts.also are ‘Vedic.’—In answer to this, the following argument might be brought forward—‘The Study of Veda and such acts are prescribed in the Smṛtis also; and hence they are not Vedic; those alone can be called Vedic which are prescribed directly by Śruti texts only. Nor do the Study of the Veda and such other acts come in as the necessary details of all Vedic Acts. This is what is going to be explained in the next verse, by the words—each of those is fully comprised in the performance of the several rites’—The answer to this would be that, if the said acts were not Vedic, then it would be difficult to explain their forming part of the Agnihotra and other Vedic rites; so that there would be no useful purpose served by the mention of these at all. Study of the Veda and such other acts have to be performed, as also the Agnihotra and other rites; and we do not know in what way one or the other of these would be ‘more efficient’ in bringing about happiness. The results of the two sets of actions not being the same, it is not possible to make any comparison between them on the basis of those results; as there is in the case of the two acts—the giving away of a cow and the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other rites, the former simply leading the agent to Heaven, while the latter is conducive to a long-continued stay in

Heaven, as has been shown under Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā Sūtra, 1.3.17.”

The answer to the above is as follows—As for the argument that the declaration in question is meaningless,—some people offer the following explanation:—What is meant by the Vedic Acts being more efficient is that whenever there is opposition between what is prescribed in the Veda and what is laid down in the Smṛti, the latter is always to be rejected in favour of the former; this is what has been declared in such assertions as—‘when two opposite injunctions are of equal strength, the two courses are to be regarded as optional alternatives, but when they are of unequal strength, the weaker Smṛti is always set aside by the stronger Śruti.’ This is what has been declared under 2.14 above, where it is stated that ‘when they are two contrary Vedic injunctions bearing on the same point, both the courses are to be regarded as lawful; when however there is opposition between Śruti and Smṛti, the latter is to be regarded as only reiterative, not injunctive.’

“If this be the meaning of the present verse, then, inasmuch as it has been already asserted in the text just quoted, why should it have been asserted again in the present text?”

It has been repeated for the purpose of making the fact clearer; so that there is nothing wrong in this.

It may be possible to find some other meaning of the present text. But the actual meaning appears to be as has been just explained. Thus the meaning comes to be that the ‘Vedic Acts’ are more efficient than those laid down in the Smṛtis,—the mention of ‘Vedic Study’ and the rest being meant to include all those that are laid down in Smṛtis. The peculiar form of the assertion being due to the exigencies of metre.

Our own view however is as follows:—What is stated here is a fact established by reasoning; and it is in a friendly spirit that the Author states, without reference to anything particular, a fact so established. In fact, what is directly spoken of Is the ‘Knowledge of Self’; what then could be the need of the mention of ‘Study of Veda’? Writers on Smṛti do not support their statements by their own statements. It might be argued that—“What are meant to be cited in support are the declarations of Yājñavalkya, and not those of the writer himself.” On the strength of the context we take the ‘Study of Veda’ and other acts as distinct from the Agnihotra and other acts prescribed in the Veda. As a matter of fact, the present declaration is not made with special reference to the ‘Knowledge of Self.’ All that is done is to take it as referring to the Śruti texts hearing upon the ‘Knowledge of Self.’ And the purport of it all is that—(a) the ‘Study of the Veda’ and other such acts prescribed in the Smṛtis are good, (b) better than these are the Agnihotra and other acts prescribed in the Veda, and (c) best of all is the ‘Knowledge of Self.’ If this were not what is meant, then the whole section would be found to have started with one subject and ending with a totally different subject.

Another view is that the term ‘Vedic Act’ here stands for the Knowledge of Self; and this on the ground that, the whole purpose of the Veda is the propounding of this knowledge.

As for the Injunctions contained in the Veda regarding the Agnihotra and other such acts,—these are meant to draw on young boys (slowly, to the undertaking, gradually, of the Higher Knowledge, through the simpler acts); just as old men lead children on to the drinking of unpleasant medicines (by beginning with giving them less unpalatable things).

Or, what is meant is that cultured men shall, by means of the ritualistic acts, shake off their inborn beginningless Illusion, which is the source of predispositions and attachments to sensual objects,—and having acquired the faculty of studying the scriptures, they shall in due course acquire dispassion and thereby loosen the bonds of desire, finally come to be led on to the highest purpose. In fact, the Vedāntins hold that the sole purpose of the Ritualistic section of the Veda lies in thus preparing the agent for the higher purpose. Thus what the present assertion—‘the Vedic Act is in every way more efficient in the bringing about of good’—points to is the act of ‘withdrawing from activity’ that is going to be spoken of later on.

Or, lastly, whether we accept Duality, or reject it as a dream, and accept the Non-dual Self as the only real entity,—in either case, the ‘Knowledge of Self’ is the better means (of attaining the highest good). As for the ‘Study of Veda’ and other acts since they involve the notion of duality, they have to be performed, since these also have been laid down in the Veda.

As regards the objection based upon the use of the Genitive ending (in ‘eṣām,’ etc.), this has been answered by pointing out that its use is justified by the explanation that it is based upon a distinction assumed in the mind; just as we have in the expression—‘Māthurāḥ pātaliputrakebhyaḥ āḍhyatarāḥ,’ ‘the inhabitants of Mathurā are wealthier than those of Pātaliputra.’

“But in that case the Ablative ending should have been used (instead of the Genitive in ‘Ṣaṇṇām eṣām,’ ‘among these six’).”

This has been answered by the remark that there would be no difference in the denotations of the Genitive and Ablative endings in the present connection.—(86)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: