झा-गङ्गानाथेन क्वचिद् दुष्टोऽनुवादः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

कामं तु क्षपयेद् देहं  

पुष्प-मूल-फलैः शुभैः ।  
न तु नामाऽपि गृह्णीयात्  
पत्यौ प्रेते परस्य तु  ॥ ५.१५७ ॥ 

इति मनुस्मृतेः श्लोकस्य भाष्ये मेधातिथिः - 

अतो मृतपतिकाया अनपत्याया  
असति भर्तृ-धनादौ दायिके च  
कर्तनादिना च केनचिद् उपायेन जीवन्त्या 
जीवितस्यातिप्रियत्वात्, तद्-उपेक्षणस्याशास्त्रत्वात्, प्रतिषिद्धत्वाद्  
आपदि सर्वव्यभिचाराणां "विश्वामित्र-जाघनीम्" इत्य्-आदिना ऽनुज्ञातत्वाद्  
व्यभिचारोपजीविता-प्राप्ताव् इदम् उच्यते । 

तत्र गङ्गानाथानुवादः - 

It may happen so that the widow is childless, has not inherited any property from her husband and has to maintain herself by spinning or some such work; and she does not wish to marry again, because her husband(sic) was very dear to her and any disregard for him would be against the scriptures and is even distinctly forbidden; so that knowing that in abnormal times of distress all transgressions are permissible,—as was the case when Viśvāmitra partook of the dog’s thigh—she might, being pinched for a living, be tempted to some transgression. It is with a view to such a case that the author has put forward the present text.

अत्र मूलश्लोकं मनसि निधाय स्पष्टम् - "जीवित"-शब्दस्य "husband" इत्य् अनुवादो दुष्टः। 

अत्र जीवितं नाम जीवनम्, तद्-उपेक्षा च पूर्वतन-वाक्यचये हि मेधातिथिना श्रुतिविरुद्धम् इत्य् उक्तम् - "तस्माद् उ ह न पुरायुषः प्रेयात्" (श्ब् १०.२.६.७)। 

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

Thanks for transmitting shrI jaya-nityAnanda's opinion.

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 at 07:47, Damodara Dasa <damoda...@gmail.com> wrote:

You may notice that after the statement jivitasya atipriyatvat the immediate statement is tad-upekshanasya ashastratvat. Please note the bold part. If we take the word jivitasya as jivanam, then that gives the meaning that "neglecting life is against shastra", however, this cannot be true. A wife in the said situation can always give up life by ascending to her husband's funeral pyre -- and this is not ashastratvat. Hence, a faithful translation would be that a neglecting the husband, who was her life and very dear to her, is ashastratvat.

I already anticipated and addressed this with -

अत्र जीवितं नाम जीवनम्, तद्-उपेक्षा च पूर्वतन-वाक्यचये हि मेधातिथिना श्रुतिविरुद्धम् इत्य् उक्तम् - "तस्माद् उ ह न पुरायुषः प्रेयात्" (श्ब् १०.२.६.७)। 

So, neglecting of one's life _is_ against the shruti itself, and medhAtithi understands it that way.  

In fact, he concludes his commentary with -

कामशब्दप्रयोगो ऽरुचि-संसूचनार्थम् ।  
देहक्षपणम् अप्य् अकार्यम्  
इदं त्व् अन्यद् अकार्यतरं  
यद् अन्येन पुरुषेण संप्रोयोगः ॥

(The use of the term ‘*kāmam*’—‘well might’—is meant to indicate the author’s displeasure at the course of conduct suggested; the sense being—‘the emaciating of the body is bad, and worse still is the set of having intercourse with another man.’)

The full commentary may be studied at https://vishvasa.github.io/kalpAntaram/dharmaH/smRtiH/manuH/sarva-prastutiH/05/ .

Further, regarding anugamanam, medhAtithi says - 

> यद् अप्य् आङ्गिरसे "पतिम् अनुम्रियेरन्" इत्य् उक्तम्,  

तद् अपि नित्यवद् अवश्यं कर्तव्यम् ।  
फलस्तुतिस् तत्रास्ति ।  
फलकामायाश् चाधिकारे श्येनतुल्यता ।  
तथैव "श्येनेन हिंस्याद् भूतानि" इत्य् अधिकारस्य +अतिप्रवृद्धतर-द्वेषान्धतया  
सत्याम् अपि प्रवृत्तौ न धर्मत्वम् ।

So, as per the text in bold, we can paraphrase medhAtithi's opinion as - धर्म-गर्हिते विशेष-फले काङ्क्षिते भवत्य् अनुगमनम्।

Granted, this is not about sahagamanam  - still, it goes to show that adhikAra for something (due to the desire for a fruit) does not imply it's admirability or dhArmikatA.