Charak Samhita

Progress:48.9%

•

4

siva.sh/caraka-samhita/sharira-sthana/3/4

नेति भरद्वाजः, किं कारणं- न हि माता न पिता नात्मा न सात्म्यं न पानाशनभक्ष्यलेह्योपयोगा गर्भं जनयन्ति, न चपरलोकादेत्य गर्भं सत्त्वमवक्रामति (१) यदि हि मातापितरौ गर्भं जनयेतां, भूयस्यः स्त्रियः पुमांसश्च भूयांसः पुत्रकामाः, ते सर्वे पुत्रजन्माभिसन्धायमैथुनधर्ममापद्यमानाः पुत्रानेव जनयेयुर्दुहितॄर्वा दुहितृकामाः, न तु काश्चित् स्त्रियः केचिद्वा पुरुषा निरपत्याः स्युरपत्यकामा वा परिदेवेरन् (२) न चात्माऽऽत्मानं जनयति| यदि ह्यात्माऽऽत्मानं जनयेज्जातो वा जनयेदात्मानमजातो वा, तच्चोभयथाऽप्ययुक्तम्| न हि जातो जनयति सत्त्वात्, न चाजातो जनयत्यसत्त्वात्, तस्मादुभयथाऽप्यनुपपत्तिः| तिष्ठतु तावदेतत्| यद्ययमात्माऽऽत्मानं शक्तो जनयितुं स्यात्, न त्वेनमिष्टास्वेव कथं योनिषु जनयेद्वशिनमप्रतिहतगतिं कामरूपिणंतेजोबलजववर्णसत्त्वसंहननसमुदितमजरमरुजममरम्; एवंविधं ह्यात्माऽऽत्मानमिच्छत्यतो वा भूयः (३) असात्म्यजश्चायं गर्भः| यदि हि सात्म्यजःस्यात्, तर्हि सात्म्यसेविनामेवैकान्तेन प्रजा स्यात्, असात्म्यसेविनश्च निखिलेनानपत्याः स्युः,तच्चोभयमुभयत्रैव दृश्यते (४) अरसजश्चायं गर्भः| यदि हि रसजः स्यात्, न केचित् स्त्रीपुरुषेष्वनपत्याः स्युः, न हि कश्चिदस्त्येषां यो रसान्नोपयुङ्क्ते; श्रेष्ठरसोपयोगिनांचेद्गर्भा जायन्त इत्यभिप्रेतमिति, एवं सत्याजौरभ्रमार्गमायूरगोक्षीरदधिघृतमधुतैलसैन्धवेक्षुरसमुद्गशालिभृतानामेवैकान्तेनप्रजा स्यात्, श्यामाकवरकोद्दालककोरदूषककन्दमूलभक्षाश्च निखिलेनानपत्याः स्युः, तच्चोभयमुभयत्र दृश्यते (५) न खल्वपि परलोकादेत्य सत्त्वं गर्भमवक्रामति; यदि ह्येनमवक्रामेत्, नास्य किञ्चित् पौर्वदेहिकं स्यादविदितमश्रुतमदृष्टं वा,स च तच्च न किञ्चिदपि स्मरति (६)||४|| तस्मादेतद्ब्रूमहे- अमातृजश्चायं गर्भोऽपितृजश्चानात्मजश्चासात्म्यजश्चारसजश्च, न चास्ति सत्त्वमौपपादुकमिति (होवाचभरद्वाजः)||४||

sanskrit

Sage Bharadvaja said: “No. because neither mother, nor father, nor the soul, nor suitability (or articles that the person is accustomed to), nor the utilization of pana(drinks), ashana(foods), bhakshya (solid eatables) and lehya (semisolid eatables) can produce an embryo. Nor does the mind come from the world beyond to enter into the zygote”. [4.1] If only parents could create a baby, then many couples who desire sons could beget them by simply resorting to coitus. Similarly, those who desire daughters could beget daughters. Childless couples would not have been craving for a child. [4.2] Soul is not born out of another soul. If one soul could beget another soul, it would lead to a question – which kind - born or unborn soul -would beget the other soul? Any argument supporting either of these would not be feasible. As the born soul already exists, it cannot beget itself. As the unborn soul does not exist, it cannot beget itself either. Therefore, the argument is unsustainable either ways. Let us view this from another perspective. If the soul could reproduce itself, then how come it does not choose a noble birth endowed with authority, unrestricted movement, capacity to take the forms as he wishes, luster, strength, agility, good complexion, healthy mind, structural integrity and free from aging, illness and death? The soul desiring to become so, should become so or even better. [4.3] Regimen (suitable to one’s nature or accustomed to) is not responsible for embryogenesis. If it were so, then only those who practice such regimen should beget children and the others who do not should never beget a child. However, we see that there is clearly no correlation. [4.4] The embryo is not formed of rasa. If it were so, then none of the couples would remain without a child, as none of them can live without rasa. If only the individuals having rasa of the best quality were supposed to have children, then only those who consumed meat soup of goat, sheep, deer, and peacock, milk, yoghurt and ghee of the cow, honey, oil, rock salt, sugarcane juice, green gram and shali rice for nourishment should have been begetting children and the others who consume syamaka, varaka, uddalaka, koradushaka,rhizomes and roots should have been childless. However, in both these scenarios, we can see that that’s not the case. [4.5] To enter into the embryo, the sattva (mind) does not come from another world. If it were so, not even a little of its previous existence should remain unknown, unheard and unseen by it. However, it does not remember even a little bit of it. [4.6]

english translation

neti bharadvAjaH, kiM kAraNaM- na hi mAtA na pitA nAtmA na sAtmyaM na pAnAzanabhakSyalehyopayogA garbhaM janayanti, na caparalokAdetya garbhaM sattvamavakrAmati (1) yadi hi mAtApitarau garbhaM janayetAM, bhUyasyaH striyaH pumAMsazca bhUyAMsaH putrakAmAH, te sarve putrajanmAbhisandhAyamaithunadharmamApadyamAnAH putrAneva janayeyurduhitRRrvA duhitRkAmAH, na tu kAzcit striyaH kecidvA puruSA nirapatyAH syurapatyakAmA vA parideveran (2) na cAtmA''tmAnaM janayati| yadi hyAtmA''tmAnaM janayejjAto vA janayedAtmAnamajAto vA, taccobhayathA'pyayuktam| na hi jAto janayati sattvAt, na cAjAto janayatyasattvAt, tasmAdubhayathA'pyanupapattiH| tiSThatu tAvadetat| yadyayamAtmA''tmAnaM zakto janayituM syAt, na tvenamiSTAsveva kathaM yoniSu janayedvazinamapratihatagatiM kAmarUpiNaMtejobalajavavarNasattvasaMhananasamuditamajaramarujamamaram; evaMvidhaM hyAtmA''tmAnamicchatyato vA bhUyaH (3) asAtmyajazcAyaM garbhaH| yadi hi sAtmyajaHsyAt, tarhi sAtmyasevinAmevaikAntena prajA syAt, asAtmyasevinazca nikhilenAnapatyAH syuH,taccobhayamubhayatraiva dRzyate (4) arasajazcAyaM garbhaH| yadi hi rasajaH syAt, na kecit strIpuruSeSvanapatyAH syuH, na hi kazcidastyeSAM yo rasAnnopayuGkte; zreSTharasopayoginAMcedgarbhA jAyanta ityabhipretamiti, evaM satyAjaurabhramArgamAyUragokSIradadhighRtamadhutailasaindhavekSurasamudgazAlibhRtAnAmevaikAntenaprajA syAt, zyAmAkavarakoddAlakakoradUSakakandamUlabhakSAzca nikhilenAnapatyAH syuH, taccobhayamubhayatra dRzyate (5) na khalvapi paralokAdetya sattvaM garbhamavakrAmati; yadi hyenamavakrAmet, nAsya kiJcit paurvadehikaM syAdaviditamazrutamadRSTaM vA,sa ca tacca na kiJcidapi smarati (6)||4|| tasmAdetadbrUmahe- amAtRjazcAyaM garbho'pitRjazcAnAtmajazcAsAtmyajazcArasajazca, na cAsti sattvamaupapAdukamiti (hovAcabharadvAjaH)||4||

hk transliteration

Chapter 3

Verse 5