Warrior Taking To Flight In Fear Some Remarks On Manu 7 94 And 95

SR No.: 269579
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Total Pages: 22
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 4 MB

Page 11

410
Albrecht Wezler
The warrior taking to flight in fear
411
well as by the relation in which it evidently stands to its Vedic source(s) "I
But it is equally patent that Kull.'s remarks on 6.79 also call for a thorough analysis, and this in various regards (not all of which can be dealt with by me in the present essay).
This analysis may be conveniently started by noting that Kull. cannot be denied to have given on the whole a quite correct report of what forms the gist of Medh.'s and Gov's explanations of M. 6.79. No doubt, not a few interesting observations could be made if a full comparison between the two originals and Kull.'s 'summary' could be undertaken here. I have, however, to confine myself to merely adding that Kull. clearly amalgamates what his two predecessors have said, and, I think, this is fully
justified; but this apart, he also makes their interpretation more explicit, and this he partially achieves by following Gov.'s rather than Medh.'s formulation.
Before turning to what matters most, viz. the general character and the 'logical structure of Kull.'s commentary on 6.79 as a whole, a further digression cannot be avoided in that the reference to Badardyana, met with here, too, and in a more ela. borate form at that, needs clarification first.
2.3. To repeat BS 3.3.26: hānau tūpāyanasabdasesatvat kusacchandastutyupagdnavat tad uktam. This is thus translated by Thibaut: Where the getting rid (of good and evil) is mentioned (the obtaining of this good and evil by others has to be added) because the statement about the obtaining is supplementary to the statement about the getting rid of), as in the case of the kušas, the metres, the praise and the singing. This (i.e. the reason for this) has been stated in the Pūrva Mimämsā) .
This is clearly quite correct a translation as it agrees not only with Sankara's interpretation, but also meets the intention of the Sätrakära himself. Now, one cannot fail to observe that the author of this sátra does not by any means « quote, here even a single sruti passage as an example, otherwise than Kull. contends (...udahrtya ...); at best he can be said to clearly have in mind passages like the two quoted by Kull. himself on M. 6.79;
51. This - and similar passages of the Manusmrti have also to be taken into account when dealing with the problem of the relation between • Veda and Dharma, which cannot be regarded as definitively solved by J. C. Heesterman (cf. his essay of the same name in The Concept of Duty in South Asia, ed. by W.D. O'Flaherty and J.D. M. Derrett, Delhi, 1978, pp. 80-95).
52. This cannot be said of Bühler, cf. his foot-note, op. cit. (cf. fn. 2). p. 212. Medh.'s Bhasya reads thus (246.16-20) (note that my emendations here and in En. 54 are only sporadic, and I do realize that the texts are still beset with difficulties; but this is, of course, calculated to show the quality of the editions we have so far): pritiparitapaktas cifrasarksobho harsasokddilaksano 'nenopdyena parihartavyah / 'yat kielt priya karoti tant mama sukrasya visisyate (= «that it is what is left of my good deed(s)? Or is visisyate a marginal gloss it is (now?] specified: tasyedari phalait, naisa karta mama srehabuddhyd priyar, ma cdyar me sdtravart saknoti kartun, duşktam pidakaramity evar vimrsya dhydrayogena citte bhdvayet / ato 'sya na priyakarini ragondpriyakarini dreso dyate/evat kurydnak sandanam sasvatar brahmbhyeti abhimukhari prdproti / - //. And what Gov. says is (247.21-25): svadharmdvirodhipriyesu kenacit krtesu na prdejandritasukstam antarena kasyacid gharare/rendyam (read: tena ndyarp) purus mama priyakartapi, ty dtmakasuklam ity ear dhydnd. paydsend (read: abhydsena) armiyam eva sukstart kartvendropya evam apriyesy api kenacit krtesy armiyam eva prdgjanmdritat duskrtam kdra
atvena prakalpya tatsar pddayitdrart purusan prati ragadveşdbhdvdrimi tyarn brahmdbhyeti tadbhavyan (read: tddbhdvyam?) upagacchari //
53. On the basis of such observations it should, I think, be rather easy to get beyond sweeping judgements about Kull. such as J. Jolly's that he
was a mere plagiary (cf. the Preface to his Manufikasangraha, being 4 Series of Copious Extracts from Six Unpublished Commentaries of the Code of Manu.... Calcutta, 1885-89 (repr. Calcutta, 1986), p. 1).
svadu bhane yogene
Dat-sama brahmar ho bhaye Sarkare
54. In fact it can be traced back to Bharuci; for the latter explains 6.79 as follows (44.1-6 (cf. fr. 31: priyesu svesu dharma-viruddhesy (read: aviruddhas) demiyesu syddu-bhaika-labhadisu ca nipatatsu kdranatendimiyat
(va sukar visriya) dhyana-yogena paramartha-darsanene viniyujya tart karanatayd sva-dharmant vyudasya ca far-samtpddayitdraft purusamnt, evam apriyesu duskant visriya dhyana-yogena para brahmdbhyeti, ksmaydnayd (read: kşamdvattayd?) vigata rdga-dveşatayd ca madhyastho bharud
55. The Vedanta Satras of Badardyana with the commentary by Sarkara, Pt. II in Sacred Books of the East XXXVIII, Oxford, 1896 (repr. New York, 1962, etc.), p. 225.
56. Sankara's terse remark on tad uktam. viz. (it) vydkhydtart, is a reference to what has been explained by him earlier in his Bhlsya on 3.3.26. viz. 806.6-8 (cf. fn. 57): srutyantarakstame hi visasari frutyantare 'nabhyudgaccharah sarvatraiva Vikalpah sydt/ sa cdnydyyar satyart gatau / tad uktam dvddašalaksantydm 'api tu wdkyasesatydd itaraparyuddsah sydd praisedhe vikalpah syde' in //. According to Sankara what is referred to in the Stra is hence MS 10.8.15 or rather (cf. Vacaspatimisra, and Bhaskara, too) 10.8.4.