with the Commentary of Medhatithi

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 350 из 350

Discourse I - Origin of the Work;

Creation of the World;

Summary of Contents of the Book.

VERSE 1.1 [Question of the Sages]

Section I - Question of the Sages

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

मनुमेकाग्रमासीनमभिगम्य महर्षयः ।
प्रतिपूज्य यथान्यायमिदं वचनमब्रुवन् ॥१॥

manumekāgramāsīnamabhigamya maharṣayaḥ |
pratipūjya yathānyāyamidaṃ vacanamabruvan ||1||

The Great Sages, having approached Manu, paid their respect to him in due form, and finding him seated with mind calm and collected, addressed him these words — (1).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Salutation to the Supreme Brahman! His real character can be known only from the Vedānta texts; He is the cause of the three worlds; and He destroys all evil.

The first four verses describe the fact of the treatise being the work of a highly qualified author, and of its providing instructions bearing upon such ends of man as are not knowable by means of any other source of knowledge; and this is done for the purpose of indicating its importance (and raising it in the estimation of men). When a treatise has secured high position in the estimation of men, its author obtains fame, and also heaven; and both these continue to exist as long as the world exists. A scientific treatise, has its position established only when people engage in studying, in listening to lectures on, and in pondering over, it. Intelligent persons cannot undertake the said study, etc., until they have satisfied themselves as to the purposes served by them. It is for this reason that, the Teacher has composed the four verses with a view to point out that the Treatise is put forth for the purpose of making known the means of accomplishing the ends of man.

It would not be right here to argue as follows: — “Even without the purpose of the Treatise being stated at the very outset, we could easily ascertain what that purpose is, by examining the several parts of the Treatise going to be propounded; what then is the use of making an effort to describe that purpose? Further, even if the purpose is stated at the very outset, one cannot bo sure of it until be has fully examined the subsequent portions of the Treatise; as a matter of fact, all the assertions that a man may make do not always bring conviction. Nor is it necessary that every undertaking must be preceded by the knowledge of purposes served by it; for instance, we find pupils undertaking the study of the Veda, without knowing beforehand the purposes to be served by that study. In the works of human authors also, the practice of stating the purpose is not always followed. For instance, the revered Pāṇini begins hi s Sutras with the words ‘Now follows the teaching of words,’ without having stated the. purpose to be served by his treatise.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — Unless people have ascertained the purpose served by a particular Treatise, they would not, in the first place, take it up at all; and unless they take it up, how could they examine the whole of it? Then again, that same idea which is got at by the examination of the entire Treatise, becomes more easily comprehended if it has been briefly indicated in the beginning. It is with reference to this that there is the assertion that — ‘in ordinary experience, the learned always consider it desirable to carry ideas in their minds briefly as well as in greater detail.’

As regards the argument that — “even when the purpose has been stated there can be no certainty about it, for the simple reason that we do not derive conviction from the words of human beings, — in whose oase the idea that we have is that this man knows the matter as he says, and not that the fact is really as he asserts,” — our answer is that we do not quarrel over the question as to whether the words of human beings do, or do not, bring about conviction; because discussion over this question would swell the size of our work. But as a matter of fact, even though it is possible for a man to have recourse to a certain course of action, even when he is in doubt as to the exact purpose served by it, — yet until there is some statement as to the purpose served by a particular action, even doubts could not arise in regard to it. In fact, if some statement had not been made in regard to the purpose to be served by the present Treatise, the doubt that would arise in men’s minds would be (not as to whether or not it was going to serve any useful purpose, but) as to whether it is a treatise on Law or on Economics, or an aimless attempt in the nature of an examination of such subjects as the ‘Crow’s teeth’ and the like. On the other hand, when the aim of the work has been stated, the idea arising in our minds is — ‘the author of this work asserts that he is going to show us the path leading to our welfare, — there is no harm done by our undertaking the study of the work, — well, let us look into it’; and forthwith we take up the work.

Next as regards the case (cited by the opponent) of pupils taking up Vedic study (without being told of the exact purpose to be accomplished thereby), — the fact of the matter is that the action of the pupil is due to his being urged to it by his Teacher, and not to his recognition of the fact that if behoves him to take up the study (for the accomplishment of any purpose of his own); in fact being quite a child at the time (of beginning Vedic study), it is not possible for him to have any idea as to his being entitled to the study (by virtue of his having an aim that could be served only by that study); and his activity, therefore, is brought about entirely by the direction of another person (his Teacher); who does not bewilder him by pointing out to him that he is entitled to take up the study; and when once the boy has taken up Vedic study (entirely under advice of his Teacher), the motive for further study is provided by the desire to know the meaning of the Vedic texts studied; and thus the study continues to be carried on. [This is the case with the study of the Veda.] As regards the study of the present Treatise (on Law), only such persons are entitled to it as have already studied the Veda, as is clearly indicated by the text — ‘the twice-born person who, without having studied the Vedas, devotes his energies to other subjects [becomes a Shudra]’ (Manu, 2.168); and by that time the pupil has his intelligence aroused, and consequently seeks to know wbat purpose is to be served by any further action that he is going to undertake.

As regards the revered Pāṇini, his aphorisms are extremely brief; so that there is no possibility of their having any other meaning (or serving any other purpose) than the one directly expressed by them; and further, the fame of Pāṇini is well known to even the smallest boy; so that the purpose served by his work is too well known to need reiteration. The present treatise (of Manu) on the other hand is on an extensive scale, abounding in several (commendatory and condemnatory) ‘Descriptions,’ and it helps in the accomplishment of all human ends; so that if its aim is stated in easily intelligible words, there is no harm done.

Of enquirers (and students) there are two classes, — one following reasoning, and another following tradition. The former of these take up the study of Manu; because they know the importance and greatness of the author and his work from such texts as — ‘whatever Manu said is wholesome’ (Kāṭhaka, 11.5), and ‘Manu has said all that has been said in the Ṛgveda, the Yajurveda, the Sāmaveda and the Mantras of the Atharva, as also by the Seven Great Sages.’ And those of the latter class undertake it merely under the influence of the tradition, the source of which they have carefully investigated — that the treatise has been composed by Prajāpati himself. And for the sake of such persons, the mentioning of the name of the Author also is a factor leading to action (towards s tudy).

It is for these reasons that we have here the laying out of the aim of the Treatise, in the form of question and answer: The Great Sages are the questioners, Prajāpati is the expounder, and the subject is Dharma, which being not amenable to the ordinary means of knowledge, can be known only from the Śāstras (Scientific Treatises), — it is so difficult that even the Great Sages have doubts in regard to it. That Prajāpati is the actual expounder is indicated by the words of the text itself, which says — being questioned by them,’ and not ‘I, being questioned by them’; and of himself again Manu speaks (12.123) as being the natural image (representative) of Brahmā. Thus an effort is necessary for the expounding of the Law. Such is the sense of the first four verses.

In what manner the present Treatise is made up of Instructions bearing upon the ends of man we shall show by the interpretation of the words of the text.

Now, in the text we have tho declarations — (l) ‘the Great Sages, having approached Manu, said to him — ‘do please expound to us the Duties of Man,’ and (2) ‘being thus questioned by them, He said — ‘listen’; and these two — the question and its answer — in their import, are expressive of the one idea that the Treatise expounds the Dharmas; (he word ‘Dharma’ is in common parlance used in the sense of that means of accomplishing one’s good which is not cognisable by any of the ordinary means of knowledge, with the sole exception of ‘word.’ Hence when it is said ‘listen to Dharma,’ what is meant is that what is going to be expounded is conducive to the fulfilment of the higher ends of man.

‘Manu’ is the name of a particular person known, in long-continued tradition, as having studied several Vedic texts, as knowing their meaning and as practising the precepts therein contained; — ‘Eating approached’ him, i.e., having gone forward near him, intentionally, giving up all other actions, and not by mere chance, having met with him the special effort made by the Sages to get near Manu shows the importance of the subject-matter of their question, as also the authoritative and trustworthy character of the expounder; a man who is not capable of rightly expounding a subject is never questioned by persons going up to him for that purpose. — ‘Whose mind was calm and collected’ — ‘Seated with mind calm and collected,’ — i.e., whose mind was in a tranquil state; and it does not mean ṭhat he was actually seated upon a mat, or some such seat; os there would be no point in stating this; in fact the word ‘seated’ merely connotes calmness; it is only when one’s mind is calm that he is capable of answering questions. — ‘Having approached’ — has for its object simply ‘Manu’; ‘seated with mind calm and collected’ being an adverbial clause modifying the act of ‘questioning’ (by the sages). The sense of the sentence thus is — ‘they said to him the following words, on finding, from the manner in which he engaged into conversation with them in making enquiries about their welfare, that his mind was not preoccupied, but calm and collected, and he was therefore attentive to their questioning.’

The term ‘ekāgra,’ by ordinary usage, connotes what is meant by (he term is steadiness of the mind, it being concentrated upon the contemplation of the knowledge of truth, following upon the cessation of all doubts and illusions of the person in whom the contact of all defects of passion and the like is set aside by inhibition. It is only when one h as his mind in this condition that he is capable of apprehending sound and other objects that lie within reach of his senses; which is not the case when he is in doubt as to the object being a real entity or otherwise. — Or, etymologically the term ‘agra’ denotes the mind, by reason of the fact that in the act of apprehending things it is the Mind that goes before (agragāmi) the Eye and other sense-organs; and in ordinary parlance that which acts first or goes ahead, is called ‘agra’; — so that the compound ‘ekāgra’ is to be expounded as ‘he who has his agra, or Mind, fixed upon one perceptible object’; there being nothing incongruous in a Bahuvrīhi Compound being taken, if its sense demands it, as referring to things that are not co-existent. By this explanation also ‘ekāgra’ connotes absence of distraction.

‘Saving paid their respects in due form’ — ‘Due form’ stands for the rule prescribed in the scriptures; and they did not transgress any such rule; the scriptures have laid down the rule that on first approaching his Teacher, the pupil should offer his obeisance, attend upon him, and so forth; and it was in this prescribed manner that the sages paid their respects to Manu; which means that they showed due devotion and respect.

The great sages. — The word ‘ṛṣi’ means the Veda; and the word ‘ṛṣi’ is applied also to a person, by virtue of his possessing excellent knowledge of the Veda and all that is prescribed therein and acting up to these. The Ṛṣis, sages, who approached Manu, were great; the said persons become ‘great,’ when the above-mentioned qualities become developed in them to a very high degree; just as Yudhiṣṭhira is called the ‘greatest of the Kurus’ (because he possessed, jn a very high degree, the qualities that distinguished the members of the Kuru-race). — Or the sages may be regarded as ‘great,’ by virtue of their superior austerities, or of the great respect and fame enjoyed by them.

‘They addressed these words’ — ‘Vacana’ is that by which something is spoken of; this refers to the question formulated in the second verse; these being the nearest ‘words’ are what are referred to by the pronoun ‘these.’ Some people have held that the pronoun ‘this’ always refers to something directly perceived at the time; for these people also the question may bo regarded as ‘perceived,’ on account of its being present in the mind. — Or ‘vacana,’ may mean that which is spoken of; and in that case it would stand for the subject-matter questioned about. If it be taken as referring to the sentence (and, not to the subject-matter), then the meaning would be that ‘they pronounced this sentence.’ — If the term ‘vacana’ means that which is spoken of, the sense is that ‘they asked the following question’; and in that case the verb ‘abruvan,’ ‘addressed,’ would have two objects, — ‘Manu’ being the indirect object. In fact, Manu is the object of all the three verbs in the sentence (approach, pay respects to and address). — (1).

Explanatory notes:

‘Pratipūjya’ — has been taken by Kullūka to mean also after mutual salutations’; and be has taken ‘yathānyāyam’ with ‘abravīt.’ Sarvajñanārāyaṇa takes it to mean ‘pratyekam pūjayitvā’, having honoured them severally’.

Medhātithi (p. 1, 1. 18) curiously ascribes the assertion ‘atha śabdānuśāsanam’ to Pāṇini, not to Patañjali.

P. 2, 1. 4 — appears to favour the Prābhākara view in regard to the Śastrārambha (vide Prabhākara-Mīmāṃsa). But on p. 73, 1. 20, the Bhāṭṭa view is also accepted.

P. 2, 1. 12. — ‘Whatever Manu said &c.,’ — This text occurs in several Saṃhitas in varying forms, where it refers to the secred (sacred?) texts ‘seen’ by Manu. But there is nothing to prevent the deduction being drawn that tins declaration proves the antiquity of the ‘Law of Manu’, though it need not be exactly in the form in which it has been handed down to us by Bhṛgu and his pupils.

P. 2, 1. 13. — ‘Manu has said &c.’ — “ṛco yajūṃṣi” &c. — The second half of this verse is quoted by Bidder (XIV) as “maharṣibhistu tatproktaṃ smārtaṃ tu manurabravīt”, and translated as ‘the Vedas were proclaimed by the great sages, but the Smārta, or traditional lore, by Manu.’ It is strange that Buhler did not notice that such a statement as this would not add very much to Manu’s claims to exceptional honour. The right reading of the verse is, as we find in the printed texts of Medhātithi, saptarṣibhistu yatproktaṃ tu(?) sarvammanurabravīt,’ ‘the Ṛk verses......... and all that has been declared by the seven sages, — all this has Manu expounded’. This would mean that the work of Manu contains all the teachings that had gone before him.

P. 3, 1. 11. — ‘Having paid their respects’, &c. — pratipūjyā yathānyāyam — The commentaries on this expression throw a curious light on their own relative antiquity: Medhātithi explains it simply as — yādṛśī śāstreṇābhivādanopāsanādikā guroḥ prathamopasarpaṇe pūjā vihitā tathā pūjayitvā — and he does not seek to Emphasise and explain the anomaly involved in the teacher being a ‘Kṣatriya’ and the questioners ‘Brāhmaṇas’, and the latter offering pūjā to the former. Kullūka has tried to tone down the anomaly by explaining pratipūjya as pūjitāḥ santaḥ pūjāṃ kṛtvā — ‘They offered the pūjā after they had themselves received the pūjā due to themselves;’ and Rāghavānanda goes a step farther and explains as yathānyāyam as “nyāpo'tra kṣatriyeṣu brāhmaṇādīnāṃ na namaskāraḥ kintu vākapūjā |”

P. 3, 1. 13. — ‘The word ṛṣi means the Veda’ — The word ‘ṛṣi’ is explained by Medhātithi as a synonym for the Veda, and in his Bhāṣya on verse 11 below he actually uses the word in that sense. According to him the term primarily denotes the Veda, and only secondarily the person who possesses special knowledge of the Veda.

P. 2, l. 23 — ‘Dharmaśabdaśca — This is a paraphrase of Jaimini’s definition codanālakṣaṇo'rtho dharmaḥ

VERSE 1.2

Section I - Question of the Sages

भगवन् सर्ववर्णानां यथावदनुपूर्वशः ।
अन्तरप्रभवानां च धर्मान्नो वक्तुमर्हसि ॥२॥

bhagavan sarvavarṇānāṃ yathāvadanupūrvaśaḥ |
antaraprabhavānāṃ ca dharmānno vaktumarhasi ||2||

May Thou, O blessed One, explain to us, in due form and in proper order, the duties of all castes and intermediate castes! — (2).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The second verse describes what the sages said to Manu, after having approached and worshipped him.

The term ‘bhaga,’ ‘blessings,’ is used for superiority, magnanimity, fame, strength and so forth; and ‘bhagavān’ is he who possesses all this; that is (in the present context) Manu; hence it is he who is addressed by the term ‘O blessed one.’

The term ‘caste’ is applied to the three castes, ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ ‘Kṣatriya,’ and ‘Vaiśya’ — the term ‘all’ has been added for the purpose of including the ‘Śūdra’; if this was not done, then, the question, emanating from the Great Sages (who represent only the three higher castes), would be restricted to the three castes only.

‘Intermediate’ means middle; from the mixture of two castes there arises another imperfect caste; those that are born out of those imperfect unions are the ‘intermediate castes,’ born in the natural order or the reverse; those known under the names ‘Mūrdhāvasikta,’ ‘Kṣattṛ,’ ‘Vaidehika’ and so forth (Vide, Manu 10.7 et. seq.), these could not be classed under the caste either of the mother or that of the father; just as the Mule born out of the union of the Horse and the Ass is a distinct species, it is neither the ‘horse’ nor the ‘ass’; — on this ground these would not be included under the ‘castes’; hence they have been mentioned separately.

Objection — “But the offspring of ṭhe union of castes mixed in the natural order is regarded as belonging to the caste of the mother.”

It is not so, we reply. From what is said under 10.6 as to these castes being ‘similar,’ it is clear that they are only ‘similar’ to the caste of the mother, and not quite the same as this latter. The functions of these intermediate castes also are such as can be learnt only from scriptures; they cannot be ascertained entirely from their natural inclinations (as in the case of lower animals); and in as much as these functions cannot be ascertained by the help of any other source of knowledge, they fall under the term ‘Dharma,’ ‘duties,’ and as such deserve to be expounded in the scriptures. Of the intermediate castes born of unions in the reverse order, such duties as ‘not harming others’ and so forth are going to be described (by Manu himself under 10.63). When they are spoken of as being ‘without any duties,’ the ‘duties’ meant are such as Observances, Fasts and so forth.

‘Yathāvat,’ ‘in due form.’ — The suffix ‘vati’ denotes propriety; the meaning being — ‘in the form in which performance would be proper.’ This ‘propriety’ also includes such details as — ‘this is compulsory, that is optional,’ ‘this is primary, that is secondary,’ as also rules relating to substance, place, time, agent and so forth.

‘Anupūrvaśaḥ,’ ‘in due order.’ — ‘Order’ means sequence; the meaning is — ‘please explain also the order in which the several duties have to be performed.’ The order meant is such as — after the performance of the ‘Birth-rite,’ come respectively ‘Tonsure,’ ‘Initiation’ and so forth. The phrase ‘in due form’ implies completeness in regard to subject-matter; ‘order’ does not form part of the subject-matter, hence the qualification ‘in due order’ has been added separately.

The word ‘dharma,’ ‘duty,’ is found to be used in reference to — (1) the injunction of what should be done, (2) the prohibition of what should not be done, — both these bearing upon transcendental purposes, — and also (3) action in accordance with the said Injunctions and Prohibitions. Whether the denotation of the term applies equally to both, or it applies primarily to one only, and to another only secondarily, — this we do not discuss on the present occasion; and we have already discussed this in detail in another work (the Smṛtiviveka), and it has no direct bearing on the present context. In any case, when it is declared that the Aṣṭakās should be performed,’ what is clearly understood is the propriety of performing in relation to the Aṣṭakāt; and when it is declared that ‘the meat of the animal killed by a poisoned arrow should not be eaten,' what is dearly understood is the impropriety of performing in relation to the eating of the said meat. Whether the action of the Aṣṭakā is regarded as ‘duty,’ or the propriety of performing that act, — it does not make any difference in the ultimate result. And when the form of ‘duty’ has been duly expounded, that is contrary constitutes ‘Adharma’ (sin) follows naturally by implication. Thus what is meant is that ‘Dharma,’ ‘Duty,’ as also ‘Adharma,’ ‘sin,’ both form the subject-matter of the scriptural treatise: the performance of the ‘Aṣṭakā’ is a Duty, as also is the avoidance of Brāhmaṇa-murder’; the non-performance of Aṣṭaka’ is a sin, as also is the performance of Brāhmaṇa-murder’; such is the distinction (between ‘Duty’ and ‘Sin’ as described in the scriptures).

‘Arhasi,’ ‘may you’ — indicates ability in the shape of possessing the requisite capacity; and as such expresses the fact of the teacher being a lit and proper person for the expounding the duties; the sense being — ‘in as much as you are fully able to expound the Duties, hence you are a fit and proper person for that work, — ns such you are entreated by us to explain to us the said Duties’; it follows by implication that when a man is a fit and proper person for doing a certain act, that act should be done by him. The term of entreaty ‘do please explain to us’ is supplied from without. — (2)

Explanatory notes:

‘O blessed one,’ bhagavan — The title bhagavān means ‘one who possesses Bhaga.’ What ‘bhaga’ stands for is thus described in the Viṣṇupurāṇa quoted by Kullūka — ‘Bhaga is the name for the following six — (1) full sovereignty, (2) strength, (3) fame, (4) glory, (5) knowledge and (6) freedom from passion.’

‘Intermediate castes,’ antaraprabhavān — This refers to the ‘mixed castes’ described under Discourse 10.

P. 3, l. 24 — For manuḥ J reads manoḥ which would be construed with sambodhanam.

P. 3, l. 25 — for jñātiṣu (l. 25) J and Mand. lightly read jātiṣu.

P. 4, l. 3 — Those castes being similar &c. sadṛśāneva tānāhu: — This is Manu, 10. 6, where Medhātithi says — te sadṛśā eva jñeyāḥ, natajjātīyāḥ......tatsadṛśagrahaṇāt mātṛta utkṛṣṭāḥ pitṛto nikṛṣṭāḥ — ‘They should he regarded as equal to, not of the same caste as, their fathers; what is meant is that they are superior to the mother, but inferior to the father.’

P. 4, l. 14 — ‘In another work,’ granthāntare — Does this refer to the author’s Smṛtiviveka from which he has quoted in his comments on 2. 6 below?

Medhātithi does not attach much importance to the account of creation here provided. In more than one place he says that the whole of Adhyāya I is ‘mere Arthavāda.’ In his comments on verse 5, for instance, he says that the process described is in some places in accordance with the account found in the Purāṇas, and in others, in accordance with the tenets of the Sāṅkhya system of philosophy; and that no attention need be paid to this, as it has no direct bearing upon Dharma. Again under verse 9, he says that as this subject does not form the real subject-matter of the treatise, no attention need he paid to what the author says on it.

VERSE 1.3

Section I - Question of the Sages

त्वमेको ह्यस्य सर्वस्य विधानस्य स्वयम्भुवः ।
अचिन्त्यस्याप्रमेयस्य कार्यतत्त्वार्थवित् प्रभो ॥३॥

tvameko hyasya sarvasya vidhānasya svayambhuvaḥ |
acintyasyāprameyasya kāryatattvārthavit prabho ||3||

Thou alone, O Lord, art conversant with what ought to be done, which forms the true import of this entire Veda — which is eternal, inconceivable and not directly cognisable. — (3)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

At this stage the following question arises — “It has been said that the term ‘Duty’ is used in the sense of only that activity which tends to accomplish a transcendental purpose; and such activity may consist in the performing of the Aṣṭakā, as also in bowing to Caityas and such other acts (prescribed in the heterodox scriptures); and what sort of Duties is going to be expounded in the present Treatise?”

In answer to this we have the third verse, which serves the purpose of pointing out what Duties are going to be expounded and also of further indicating the aptitude of Manu already mentioned.

‘Thou alone’ — without any one to help you; without a second.

‘Sarvasya vidhānasya kāryatattvārthavit.’ — The term ‘Vidhāna,’ meaning that by which acts are enjoined, stands for the scripture; — it is called ‘svayambhu’ in the sense that it is eternal, not a product, not the work of man; and its name is ‘Veda’; — ‘entire’ i.e., including the text which is directly found in the Veda, as also that the exact words of which are only inferred; for instance, (a) in the text — ‘one should perform the Agnihotra, it pertains to thousand men, — by means of this verse one should worship the Āhavanīya’ — we have the Veda directly enjoining what is to be done; the term ‘by means of this,’ ending as it docs with the instrumental case-termination, serving to point out the employment of the mantra-text directly quoted; — (b) while in the case of the injunction ‘the Aṣṭakās should be performed,’ which is found in the Smṛti, we infer, on the strength of this Smṛti, the corresponding Veda text; — similarly, when we read the Mantra-text, ‘I am chopping grass, the seat of the Gods,’ we at once infer, on the basis of the indicative power of the words of that text, the Vedic injunction that ‘the said text is to be employed in the chopping of grass this Mantra is found in that section of the Veda which deals with the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa sacrifice, and the chopping of grass is laid down as to be done in course of that sacrifice; but there is no such direct injunction as that ‘the chopping should be done with such and such a Mantra and the above-mentioned Mantra-text is found to be capable, by its very form, of indicating the chopping of grass; while as regards its being connected in a general way, with the sacrifice, this follows the fact of its occurring in the same ‘context’ as the injunction of that sacrifice; and it is by virtue of its own indicative force that it comes to be employed in the chopping of grass. The idea arising in the mind of the student (on noticing the above facts) is as follows: — ‘From the context it follows that the Mantra-text in question should be used in the performance of the pūrṇamāsa sacrifices; — how is this to be done? — well, the natural answer is that it is to be used in the manner in which it is capable of being used; the capacity of a thing, even though not directly mentioned, always help., in determining its use; — what then is the Mantra-text capable of doing? — it is capable of indicating the chopping of grass; — hence from the context, and from the capability of the Mantra itself, it follows that it should be employed in the chopping of grass’; — as soon as this idea has been arrived at, the corresponding words, ‘by this Mantra the chopping of grass should be done,’ present themselves to the mind; because as a matter of fact, every concrete conception is preceded by the corresponding verbal expression. The said verbal expression, thus presenting itself to the mind, is called the ‘inferred Vedic text.’ The Text thus inferred is regarded as ‘Veda,’ by virtue of the fact that it owes its existence to the force of two other Vedic texts — viz., the text laying down the Darśapūrṇamāsa and the Mantra-text referred to above. Such is the opinion of Kumārila.

Or, the term ‘vidhāna’ may be taken as equivalent to ‘vidki’, meaning actual operation, the accomplishment of purpose; this is called ‘svayambhu’ in the sense that it is eternal, i.e., handed down by beginningless tradition, — or that it is prescribed in the eternal Veda; — ‘entire’ — i.e., what is prescribed in the directly available verbal texts, and what is only implied by the force of what is directly expressed by the words of the texts. The Vedic injunction is of two kinds: — (a) There is one kind of injunction which is directly expressed by the words; e.g., ‘desirous of Brahmic glory, one should offer the Saurya-Caru’; here what is expressed is that one who desires Brahmic glory is the ñt and proper person to offer the Saurya-Caru; and when one proceeds to secure Brahmic glory by means of the said offering, he learns that the procedure of the offering is analogous to the Āgneya offering (which is the archetype of all Caru-offerings). In both these cases the idea got at, being derived from the words of the texts, is regarded as ‘derived directly from words;’ though the former is derived directly from the words and the latter from what is ‘expressed by the worlds,’ yet, this difference, due to the removal of the latter by one step, does not deprive it of the character of ‘being derived from words.’ For instance, when the water in the pool is struck by the hand, and it in its turn strikes against some other place; and yet this latter place is regarded as being struck by the hand, though not directly; similarly when pieces of rubber are thrown down, they rise and fall, and all the subsequent acts of rising and falling are the indirect effects of 'the first downward impulse imparted to them. Exactly analogous is the case of the injunctions in question: Every ectypal sacrifice is related to a particular form of procedure (borrowed from its archetype). Similarly when we meet with the injunction ‘one should perform the Viśvajit sacrifice,’ we argue that no injunction is possible except in reference to a fit and proper person capable of (and having a motive for) performing it, and hence come to the conclusion that the person so capable is one who desires Heaven; this idea being thus implied by the force of what is directly expressed by the words of the text. It is in view of this two-fold character of injunctions (and enjoined acts) that we have the term ‘entire.’ In fact the purpose of adding the epithet ‘entire’ is to indicate that Smṛtis have their source in the Veda. This we shall explain under Discourse II.

An objection is raised: —

“As a matter of fact, Vidhi is something in the form of what should be done, expressed by the injunctive and such other verbal expressions; and this, in all cases, must be directly expressed by actual words; under the circumstances, what do you mean by saying that there are two kinds of injunction, — that the term ‘one should offer’ denotes something to be done, and the procedure of the offering is indicated by implication in the manner described above?”

There is no force in this objection. As a matter of fact, in the case of the injunctive words ‘nirvapet,’ ‘should offer,’ ‘yajeta,’ ‘should sacrifice’ and the like, even though what is expressed by the verbal root itself may be comprehended, the full conception of what is to he done is not obtained until we have comprehended the other factors, — such as the character of the person fit for the performance, the procedure to be adopted, and the actual details of the act to be performed; it is only as equipped with all these factors that the Injunction becomes comprehended in its complete form. In view of this fact, there is nothing incongruous in regarding the said factors also as denoted by the Injunctive word.

This is what the text means by the epithet ‘achintya,’ ‘inconceivable’ — which means ‘not directly perceptible.’ What is directly perceived is said to be ‘apprehended,’ and not ‘conceived,’ or ‘remembred’ [so that if the Veda were something directly perceived, the epithet ‘inconceivable’ would have no force; things like the Veda can only be conceived of, and the Veda isnot even that].

‘Not directly cognisable;’ — i.e., that which has got to be assumed or inferred, as forming the source of several assertions made in the Smṛti;as a matter of fact, such Vedic texts are not perceived, hence it is called ‘not directly cognisable.’ — Or ‘not directly cognisable’ may he taken in the sense of incapable of having its extent exactly defined, by reason of its being very extensive; the Veda being divided into several rescensions, cannot be exactly defined by all persons; and on this account also it may be called ‘inconceivable;’ even in ordinary parlance, people are found to say — ‘what to say of others; this cannot be even conceived of.’ The mind can conceive of all things; but the Veda is so extensive that it cannot be conceived of even by the mind. Thus the two epithets (‘inconceivable’ and ‘not directly cognisable’) serve to indicate that the Veda is beyond the reach of the internal as well as the external organs of perception; i.e., it is very extensive; and this mention of the extensiveness of the Veda serves as an inducement to the Teacher; the meaning being — ‘it is you alone who have learnt the Veda which is so extensive, hence you alone are conversant with what ought to be done, which forms the true import of the said Veda.’

The term ‘Kārya,’ ‘what ought to be done,’ stands for the act to be performed; in reference to which the man is prompted to be the performer, (in such terms as) — ‘this should be done by you,’ ‘this should not be done by you,’ ‘the Agnihotra should be performed’ ‘the eating of the flesh of an animal killed by a poisoned arrow should not be done.’ Avoidance also is a kind of ‘acting;’ e.g., the ‘non-doing of Brāhmaṇa-murder’ constitutes the ‘performance’ or ‘acting’ of the avoidance (of Brāhmaṇa-murder). Activity is ‘acting;’ so is also ‘desisting from activity;’ and the name ‘acting’ is not restricted to only that which is accomplished by means of instruments and agents set in motion; in fact, when such ‘acting’ is possible, if one desists from it, this desisting also is ‘acting.’ For instance, when it is asserted that ‘the man who takes wholesome food lives long,’ what is meant is that the man who takes his food at the proper time, and who does not eat at the improper time; as desisting from eating is also ‘wholesome.’

Or, the word ‘Kārya’ may be taken as indicating the Injunction and the Prohibition; as these alone form the essence of the Veda; the other parts of it, which are merely descriptive of certain happenings, — such passages for instance as ‘he wept, and because he wept, he became known as Rudra,’ — are not true; they are not meant to be taken in their literal sense, they are meant to be construed along with an injunctive passage and serving the purpose of commending what has been laid down in that injunctive passage. For instance, the descriptive passage just quoted — beginning with ‘he wept’ and, ending with ‘there is weeping in his house within a year’ — is to be construed with the injunctive passage — ‘Therefore silver should not be placed on the grass;’ and being deprecatory of the placing of silver, it serves the purpose of commending the prohibition of that placing of silver. This is what is meant by the dictum — ‘the Veda is an authoritative source of knowledge in regard to what has to be accomplished, and not what is already accomplished and what is mentioned in the Arthavāda or Descriptive Passages is what is already accomplished; and what is already accomplished cannot be cognised as something to be done; what however is cognised is that the description is supplementary to some injunction; if then it were taken to be true in its own literal sense, it could not be supplementary to any injunction; and this would militate against the syntactical connection between the two passages — descriptive and injunctive; and so long as two passages can be taken as syntactically connected and constituting a single compound sentence, it is not right to take them as two distinct sentences. [The reverse process of taking the injunction as supplementary to the description would not be right; for] as a matter of fact, what is yet to be accomplished could not be subservient to what is already accomplished; specially because, if this were so (and the in junction itself were not literally true), then the Veda would contain no injunction of anything at all; and it would thereby cease to be an authoritative source of knowledge. This would involve the further incongruity, that we would have to deny the well-recognised fact of the injunctive and other words denoting injunction. It is with a view to all this that the revered Manu has declared ‘something to be done’ as the ‘essence’ of the Veda. Jaimini also in the Pūrvamīmānsā-Sūtra (1.1.2) — ‘Duty is that desirable tiling which is prescribed by the Vedic injunction’ — has distinctly declared that the Veda is an authoritative source of knowledge in regard to what is to be done.

The term of address ‘Lord’ has been used on the understanding that the personage addressed is well-known to be possessed of the capacity to expound duty, — such capacity being due to his being endowed with a high degree of knowledge of all things. The meaning thus is — ‘O Lord, may you, who are fully able to expound Duty, explain the Duties to us.’

Being thus questioned by means of the first three verses, he promised, in the following verse, what he was asked to do. (3)

Explanatory notes:

‘Vidhānasya svayambhuvaḥ’ — Buhler has translated this phrase to mean ‘the ordinance of the self-existent’, — evidently taking ‘Svayambhuvaḥ’ as standing for God. This, however, is incompatible with the interpretation of all the commentators, according to whom ‘Svayambhuvaḥ’ is in apposition to ’Vidhānasya’, — the phrase meaning the ‘self-existent ordinance’, ‘the Eternal Law’ (the Veda). Burnell is more to the point when he renders it as ‘self-existent system.’ Medhātithi (p. 5) has suggested another explanation — ‘activity handed down by immemorial tradition.’

‘Aprameyasya’ — Though other commentatoss are satisfied with rendering this epithet as meaning ‘unfathomable,’ Medhātithi imparts to it a special significance by explaining it as ‘not directly knowable, but to be inferred, as the foundation of the Smṛti.’

‘Kāryatattvārtha’ — ‘the purport and nature of the soul’ (Kullū.) — ‘the true purport’ (Medhātithi, Govinda and Nandana)

It is noteworthy that Medhātithi has supplied, under verse 11 below, a totally different explanation of this verse.

VERSE 1.4 [Manu’s Answer]

Section II - Manu’s Answer

स तैः पृष्टस्तथा सम्यगमितोजा महात्मभिः ।
प्रत्युवाचार्च्य तान् सर्वान् महर्षींश्रूयतामिति ॥४॥

sa taiḥ pṛṣṭastathā samyagamitojā mahātmabhiḥ |
pratyuvācārcya tān sarvān maharṣīṃśrūyatāmiti ||4||

Being thus questioned by the high-souled Great Sages, he, possessed op illimitable vigour, received them with reverence, and with proper courtesy answered them — ‘listen.’ — (4)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He’ — Manu — ‘possessed of illimitable being thus questioned by the high-souled Great Sages, answered them — “Listen.”’

‘Thus’ — in the aforesaid manner; the word ‘thus’ which denotes method, includes the matter as well as the manner of the question; hence ‘thus questioned’ means ‘thus questioned, i.e., questioned about Duties — he answered.’

Or, the word ‘thus’ may be taken as denoting manner only. As a matter of fact, however the word ‘questioned’ already brings to the mind the details (matter as well as manner) of what has been questioned about; hence the meaning is — ‘what he was questioned about, that he answered thus the question and the answer come to have the same objective.

Under this explanation the word ‘thus’ become super fluous, and only serves the purpose of filling the gap in the metre. Under the former explanation however, the word ‘thus’ itself serves the purpose of showing that the ‘questioning’ and the ‘answering’ have both the same objective.

The word ‘Samyak,’ ‘with proper courtesy,’qualifies the answering: ‘he answered with proper courtesy’ — i.e., gladly, not with anger or any other form of displeasure.

‘Possessed of inimitable vigour’ — with undiminished power of speech; he whose vigour,’ power, capacity of exposition, is ‘illimitable,’ infinite.

The epithet ‘high-souled,’ serves to show that there is no incompatibility in the persons being ‘Great Sages,’ and at the same time ‘questioners’ (as if they themselves did not know what they were asking about); hence it is said ‘he answered the Great Sages.’ It is the philanthropic person that is called ‘high-souled,’ hence the meaning is that though they themselves knew all about Duties, — otherwise they would not be ‘Great Sages,’ — yet they questioned Manu for the benefit of other people; the idea in their minds being as follows — ‘Manu is a Sage whose authoritative character is better known, — what he says is always respected by people, — he is always approached with trust and confidence, — hence for the expounding of the treatise, we shall make him our Teacher’, — and when he is questioned by us, he will be regarded by the people as still more trustworthy.’

It is this explanation that justifies the statement in the text regarding Manu having ‘received them with reverence.’ If it were not as we have explained, what would be the meaning of the ‘reverence’ shown by the Teacher to the Pupil? The word of the text which means ‘having received with reverence’ must be explained as a participle formed of the root ‘arc’ (to worship) with the prefix ‘ā’ and the participial affix ‘lyap’ [as without the prefix, the form would be ‘arcayitvā’]. Another reading (which removes the difficulty) is ‘tān.’

In connection with the present verse, the following question has been raised — “If the whole of this Treatise has been composed by Manu himself, it is not right to attribute it to another person, as is done in the statement — ‘being questioned by them, he answered’; the proper form would have been — ‘being questioned by them, I answered.’ If, on the other hand, someone else is the author of the Treatise, then why should it be called ‘Mānava’ (of Manu)?”

There is no force in this objection. In the first place, it is a well known fact that in most cases the authors of Treatises state their own views as if emanating from other persons, — making use of such expressions as — ‘in this connection they say’ or ‘they meet this argument thus,’ and so forth; and the form ‘being questioned by them I answered’ would not be in keeping with such usage; the reason underlying this fact is that the older the person the more authoritative he is regarded to be by the people; it is for this reason that we find Jaimini (1.1.5) stating his own view as emanating from ‘Bādarāyaṇa.’

Or (another explanation is that) the Treatise is a compilation made and related by Bhṛgu; and since the original Smṛti [which is, in the present Treatise related by Bhṛgu] was compiled (from teachings received directly from Prajāpati) by Manu, — it is styled ‘Manava’ (of Manu).

He answered the great sages; — what was the answer? — ‘Listen to what I have been questioned about.’ (4).

Comparative notes:

The injunctions and prohibitions in the Institute are the work of Prajāpati himself; — He taught them to Manu, who composed the ‘ordinance’, and taught it to the sages, among whom was Bhṛgu, who was commissioned to relate it to the sages; and the ‘ordinance’ in its present form is what was related by Bhṛgu to the sages at a later time — Vide Bhāṣya on 1.1 and l.56.

VERSE 1.5 [Origin of the World]

Section III - Origin of the World

आसीदिदं तमोभूतमप्रज्ञातमलक्षणम् ।
अप्रतर्क्यमविज्ञेयं प्रसुप्तमिव सर्वतः ॥५॥

āsīdidaṃ tamobhūtamaprajñātamalakṣaṇam |
apratarkyamavijñeyaṃ prasuptamiva sarvataḥ ||5||

This (World) was in existence in the form, as it were, of dense Darkness, — unperceived, undifferentiated, incogitable, (hence) incognizable; as it was wholly merged in deep sleep. — (5).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

At the very outset there arises an objection —

“Where we began and whereto we are carried! Manu was asked to expound the duties laid down in the scriptures, and he promised to expound them; under the circumstances, the description of the world in its undifferentiated state (with which the present verse begins) is wholly irrelevant and purposeless. In fact it becomes a true case of the well-known proverb — ‘ Being questioned about mangoes, he describes the Kovidāra tree.’ Further, there is no authority in support of what is here described; nor is any useful purpose served by it. So the whole of this First Discourse need not be studied at all.”

Our answer to the above is follows: — What the First Discourse does is to describe the fact of the Treatise having an extensive scope; so that what is described here is the whole range of the cosmic process, beginning with Brahman down to the inanimate objects, as forming the basis of Dharma and Adharma, Right and Wrong; for instance, verse 49 describes the vegetable objects as ‘wrapped in manifold Darkness, the result of their own acts’ [which shows that plants also are related to, and affected by, Right and Wrong]; and later on, again in Discourse 1, verse 23, it will be stated that ‘having recognised, by means of his intellect, these transitions of the individual soul, through merit and demerit, (Right and Wrong), one should fix his attention upon the Right.’ From all this it follows that Right is the cause of superiority (in the scale of existence) and Wrong of the reverse; thus the present treatise, expounding the exact nature of Right and Wrong, serves an extensive purpose, and as such should be studied. Such is the purport of the First Discourse.

The authority for what is declared in the present verse consists of Mantra, Arthavāda and Inference. As for the Mantra we have the following (in Ṛgveda, 10.129.3) — ‘Darkness existed, enveloped in darkness, uncognised in the beginning; this whole existed in a fluid state; the gross was contained in the subtile; the one entity that existed came to lie born, by virtue of austerities.’ The meaning is as follows: — ‘At the Universal Dissolution, the Sun, the Moon, the Fire and other sources of light having been destroyed, there existed Darkness alone; — this (subtile) Darkness was ‘enveloped,’ wrapped, in Darkness in the gross form; at this time there was no cogniser; hence, there being no one to cognise things, there was no cognition of anything; therefore Darkness is described as enveloped in darkness; — ‘in the beginning,’ i.e. before elemental creation, it was ‘uncognised,’ unknown; ‘this whole existed in the fluid state,’ i.e. every active or mobile object was motionless; the ‘gross,’ the larger, ‘was contained in the subtile,’ the smaller; i.e. every differentiated object was resolved into its original evolvents; this indicates the undifferentiated state of the world; and the last foot of the Mantra describes the earliest stage of evolution; that ‘one entity’ which ‘existed’ ‘came to be born, by virtue of austerities,’ i.e. by the force of austerity it became manifested in differentiated forms; i.e. under the influence of past acts, it came into existence again; or, it may mean that under the conditions described, Hiraṇyagarbha, came into existence by himself, by virtue of his austerities; as described later on (verso 6) — ‘Thereupon the self-born &c. &c.’

The possibility of Universal Dissolution is proved by Inference: That which has been found to bo destroyed in one part is also found to be destroyed in its entirety; e.g. at one time a single house is found to be burnt, and at another time the entire village is burnt (this is the Major Premise); all such things as are produced by active agents, — such for instance, as houses, palaces and the like are found to be liable to destruction (this is the second step in the inferential process); — this world, consisting of rivers, oceans, mountains &c., is the work of an active agent (this is the third step); — hence it follows that, like the house &c., the whole world will come to destruction (this is the final conclusion). It will not be right to argue that the fact of the world being the work of an active agent is itself not yet established; — for that fact also is deduced from the fact of the world having, like the house and such things, a particular shape; — all this constitutes the Inference (upon which the statements in the present verse are based).

We do not make any attempt either at clarifying (discussing and strengthening) the said proofs, or at refuting (the counter-arguments); because the present treatise does not deal with proofs and reasonings; and reasonings could not be fully grasped until they have been fully stated and examined; and if all this were done, the work would become a treatise on ‘Reasonings,’ not on ‘Law;’ and further, it would become too prolix.

This subject (of Creation and Dissolution) in its details shall be found described (in verses 7 et seq.) and the process described shall be in some places in accordance with the Purāṇas and sometimes in accordance with the Sāṅkhya doctrines. But the knowing or not knowing of those details does not make any difference in Right and Wrong; hence we are not going to deal with it in detail. If any person stands in need of the detailed account of the process, be should search for it in the said sources of information. What we undertake to do is to construe and explain the words of the text, and this is all that we shall do. A brief exposition of the purport of the Discourse we have already given.

‘This,’ world, ‘was in exitence,’ ‘in the form of dense Darkness’ — i.e. as if it were dense darkness; the term ‘which has several meanings, is here used to denote similarity; just as in the statement ‘yat tad bhinneṣvabhinnam chinneṣvachinnam sāmānyabhūtam sa śabdaḥ’ (‘that which remains the same even though the things denoted by it are diverse; which remains undestroyed even when the things denoted are destroyed, which is, as if it were, a Generality, this is the Word’), the word ‘samānyābhūtaḥ’ means ‘as if it were a generality.’ “What is it that constitutes the similarity of the World to Darkness?”

The answer is given by the next word ‘unperceived;’ in as much as all the products with their diverse differentiated forms are at the time resolved in the Evolvent Original, the world is not p erceived.

It might have been cognised by means of Inference; but that also is not possible; as it is ‘undifferentiated’; the ‘differential’ meant is that character which distinguishes one thing from another; and this also is dissolved at the time; for the simple reason that all products, with their distinguishing features, have been destroyed.

‘Incogitable’ — that form in which the World existed was not capable of being even thought of, in that form; ‘cogitation’ here stands, for all forms of Inference; the meaning being that at the time there was no kind of Inference — neither from generals to particulars, nor from particulars to generals — available, by means of which the World could be cognised. — For these reasons it was also ‘incognizable.’

From all this it might follow that the World did not exist at all, and it was only a non-existent World that came into existence (subsequently); with a view to preclude this, the text adds — ‘as if wholly merged in deep sleep.’ As a matter of fact, the existent can never come into existence out of the non-existent; it has been declared in the Upanisads (the Chāndogya) — ‘O dear one, this was, in the beginning existent; how could the existent be born out of the non-existent?’ — All that is meant is that the World is incognizable by the instrumentality of the ordinary means of cognition, which operate through, and bear upon, only differentiated things; that such is its condition is known from the scriptures, which also are as transcendental in their character as the ante-natal condition of the World.

‘As if merged in deep sleep,’ — ‘deep sleep’ stands for that condition of repose which is beyond the conditions of waking and dreaming; and it has been cited only by way of illustration; the meaning being — ‘just as the soul, in the condition of deep sleep, remains entirely unconscious of any thoughts or sufferings, and free from all notions of diversity, — and yet it cannot be said to be non-existent, because on waking, it is recognised as being the same that was asleep, as shown by the idea I have slept soundly, — exactly the same is the case with the World, as is shown by the scriptures that describe things as they have actually existed, and also proved, for those who depend upon reasonings, by what appear to be sound Inferences.’

‘Was in existence’ — the past tense has been used, because the condition described can never be known by any person; hence it is that it has been described as ‘incognizable.’

‘Wholly’ — this shows that the dissolution is not partial but total. (5)

Explanatory notes:

‘Tamas’ is generally taken here in the sense of the ‘Root evolvent’, only Rāghavānanda taking it in the sense of the Vedantic māyā; he is supported by Sāyaṇa who explains the term similarly, under his explanation of Ṛgveda 18. 129. 8.

P. 8, l. 8 — (1) tam āsīt (Ṛgveda 10.129.8) — Sāyaṇa supplies a somewhat different explanation:

Sndt89fb 1(1)

As a Vedāntin, Sāyaṇa identifies tamas with māyā |

VERSE 1.6

Section III - Origin of the World

ततः स्वयम्भूर्भगवानव्यक्तो व्यञ्जयन्निदम् ।
महाभूतादि वृत्तोजाः प्रादुरासीत् तमोनुदः ॥६॥

tataḥ svayambhūrbhagavānavyakto vyañjayannidam |
mahābhūtādi vṛttojāḥ prādurāsīt tamonudaḥ ||6||

Thereafter, the supreme being Hiraṇyagarbha, self-born, unmanifest and bringing into view this (universe), appeared, — dispelling darkness and having his (creative) power operating upon the Elemental Substances and other things. — (6)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

After the above described Great Night; — the ‘Self-born,’ he who comes into existence by himself; i.e. who takes up a body by his own will, his taking the body not being dependent upon his past acts, as it is in the case of beings undergoing births and deaths.

‘Unmanifest,’ — not cognizable by people devoid of ability to contemplate and other powers produced by the practice of yoga. Or, it would be better to read ‘avyakṭam’ (in the Accusative), making it an epithet of ‘idam,’ ‘this;’ the meaning being ‘this universe which was in its unmanifest condition.’

‘Bringing into view’ — making it perceptible in the form of the grosser products; that is, he by whose wish the World comes into existence.

‘Appeared’ — the term ‘Prāduḥ (?)’ — denotes visibility.

‘Dispelling darkness,’ — ‘darkness’ stands for the state of dissolution; he dispells, sets aside, that state; he creates the World afresh and is therefore said to ‘dispel darkness.’

‘Elemental Substances,’ earth and the rest.

‘Other things’ — refers to Sound and other qualities of the said substances; — he has his ‘power’ i.e. creative power — ‘operating,’ acting, upon the said substances &c. The Elemental Substances by themselves are incapable of producing the World; when however the requisite potency is instilled into them by him, they become transformed into the shape of trees and other things. The term ‘Elemental Substances’ here does not stand for the substances, which at the beginning of ‘creation,’ exist in the form of potencies lying latent in Primordial Matter.

Another reading is ‘mahābhūtānuvṛttaujāḥ;’ ‘anuvṛttam, meaning bent upon; the meaning of the epithet remains the same as before. (6)

Explanatory notes:

‘Mahābhūtādī’ — Here again Rāghavānanda, the Vedantin, is at variance with the other commentators, and takes it in the sense of ‘Akaṅkāra,’ and not in that of ‘the Elemental Substances &c,’

‘Prādurāsīt’ — ‘assumed a body of his own free will, not in consequence of his Karma?: (Medhātithi, Kullūka, Govinda, Nandana); — ‘became discernible’: (Nārāyaṇa) — ‘became ready to create’: (Rāghavānanda)

The reader should refer to the latter portion of the Bhāṣya on verse 11, where the present verse is explained as setting forth the self-evolution of Prakṛti, according to the Sāṅkhya.

VERSE 1.7

Section III - Origin of the World

योऽसावतीन्द्रियग्राह्यः सूक्ष्मोऽव्यक्तः सनातनः ।
सर्वभूतमयोऽचिन्त्यः स एव स्वयमुद्बभौ ॥७॥

yo'sāvatīndriyagrāhyaḥ sūkṣmo'vyaktaḥ sanātanaḥ |
sarvabhūtamayo'cintyaḥ sa eva svayamudbabhau ||7||

He, — who is apprehended beyond the senses, who is subtile, unmanifest and eternal, absorbed in all created things and inconceivable, — appeared by himself. (7)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He, who’ — these two pronouns refer to something well-known, that is (in the present context) the ‘Supreme Brahman,’ he who is described, in the Vedanta texts as also in other philosophical systems, in the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, as having the qualities going to be described in the present verse.

‘He appeared by himself’ — i.e. took a body for himself; the root ‘bhā,’ having several meanings, is here used in the sense of coming into existence; or, it may be taken in its usual sense of shining; the meaning being that he was self-effulgent, and did not need the light from the sun or other sources.

‘Atīndriya’ means that which is beyond the senses, the compound being taken as an Avyayībhāva; the compound ‘atīndriyagrāhyaḥ’ being included under the general rule of compounds formulated in Pāṇini’s Sūtra 2.1.4; the mean ing being that he is apprehended beyond the senses, he never comes within range of the senses; it is an entirely different kind of cognition, the intuitive cognition of the yogin, by which he is apprehended. Or, the compound ‘that which is beyond the senses’ may be taken as standing for the Mind, which, being imperceptible, is not perceived by the senses; it is for this reason that the Vaiśeṣikas have held Mind to be ‘cognisable by means of Inference,’ as stated in the Nyāya-sūtra (1.1.16) — ‘The fact that cognitions do not appear simultaneously is indicative of the Mind.’ And it is by means of this Mind alone that the said Being is apprehended. Says the revered Vyāsa also — ‘He is not perceptible by the eye, nor by the other senses; he is apprehended by means of the clear Mind, by persons endowed with subtle powers of cognition’; — i.e. not sullied by the defects of passion &c.; — by persons who have acquired the powers of subtle perception, by virtue of their being entirely devoted to the worship of the said Being.

‘Subtile’ — i.e. as if he were ‘subtile,’ small; inreality he is not the substratum of any such finite or concrete predications or concepts as ‘large’ or ‘small;’ he is, in fact, beyond all such predications; as is declared in the following passage — ‘He is free even from the semblance of all predications; he has been variously conceived of on the strength of scriptures and inference, he is beyond all taint of duality, beyond affirmation and denial, beyond sequentiality and non-sequentiality, beyond reality and unreality; he is the very soul of the universe, and becomes cognised only by means of discriminative wisdom.’

Because he is ‘subtile,’ he is ‘unmanifest, eternal;’ being of subtile nature, he is endowed with beginningless and endless puissance, home people have held that the position of ‘Hiraṇyagarbha’ is attained by (ordinary beings) through (meritorious) acts; according to these people also he is ‘everlasting,’ in the sense that, though lie has beginning, he has no end; because his condition, which consists in being the experiencer of the fruits emanating from his original act of bringing about creation, never comes to an end.

Ho is described as ‘absorbed in all created things’ in the sense that he is the very soul of things, having his mind intent upon the idea that ‘all things are to be created by me;’ when for instance, the jar made of clay, having its body built out of clay, is said to be ‘absorbed in (consisting of) the clay;’ similarly when a certain person ponders too much over a thing, he is described figuratively, as ‘absorbed’ in that thing; as we find in such expressions as — ‘this person is absorbed in women,’ ‘he is absorbed in the Ṛgveda,’ ‘he is absorbed in the Yajurveda,’ and so forth. Or, it may be in view of the Advaita, ‘Nondualistic,’ Philosophy, by which sentient as well as insentient tilings have no existence apart from Hiraṇyagarbha, all being his illusory modifications; so that these modifications consisting of the created things, and these being non-different from him, it is only right that he should be described as ‘absorbed in (consisting of) created tilings.’ —

“But how can the single entity undergo illusory modifications? It would be inconsistent with its unity.”

The answer given by the upholders of the theory of ‘illusory modifications’ is as follows: — When the surface of the sea is struck by the winds, high waves rise out of it, and these waves are not entirely apart from the sea, nor are they totally absorbed in it; and they cannot be described as either ‘different’ or ‘non-different’ from it; exactly similar is the case with the ‘illusory modifications’ of Brahman.

The term ‘also’ may also be supplied to the words of the text; the sense being — ‘even though, in his own pristine form, he is imperceptible, he becomes perceptible in the form of the ‘modifications;’ similarly with the epithet ‘subtile;’ the implication of ‘also’ being that he is gross in the form of the grosser modifications; similarly, he is ‘unmanifest’and also ‘manifest,’ ‘eternal’ and also ‘not eternal,’ ‘absorbed in created things’ and also ‘free from their forms (and limitations);’ all this being in reference to him in the condition of ‘modifications.’

‘Inconceivable’ — i.e. his character is marvellous, he being possessed of remarkable powers. — (7)

Explanatory notes:

Sūkṣmaḥ: — ‘unperceivable by the external senses’: (Kullūka). But this would be a repetition of atīndriyagrāhyaḥ’; hence Govinda renders it as ‘who is perceivable by subtle understanding only;’ and Rāghavānanda — ‘who is without parts’ — which is, as Kullūka makes out to be, the meaning of ‘avyaktaḥ.’

Sarvabhūtamayaḥ — Medhātithi has offered two explanations: (1) ‘entirely taken up by the idea of creating tilings’, and (2) ‘whose modification all tilings are’. The latter explanation is practically accepted by all the commentators.

Udbhabau — ‘Assumed a body’: (Medhātithi and Govinda) or ‘shone forth’ (alternative suggested by Medliātitlii); ‘appeared in the form of the products’: (Kullū.) — ‘became discernible’ (Nandana).

Medhātithi, P. 10, l. 7 — ‘Tathā ca Vaiśeṣikāḥ’; — The sūtra quoted is Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtra, 1.1.10. It seems that even so early as Medhātithi’s time ‘Nyāya’ and Vaiśeṣika’ were used as convertible terms.

VERSE 1.8 [Creation Of Water]

Section IV - Creation Of Water

सोऽभिध्याय शरीरात् स्वात् सिसृक्षुर्विविधाः प्रजाः ।
अप एव ससर्जादौ तासु वीर्यमवासृजत् ॥८॥

so'bhidhyāya śarīrāt svāt sisṛkṣurvividhāḥ prajāḥ |
apa eva sasarjādau tāsu vīryamavāsṛjat ||8||

Desiring to create the several kinds of created things, he, in the beginning, by mere willing, produced, out op his own body, Water; and in that he threw the seed. — (8)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He’ — who, — by virtue of the qualities described in the preceding verse, and also by virtue of such Vedic texts as ‘In the beginning there appeared Hiraṇyagarbha &c.’ (Ṛgveda 10.121.1) — acquired the title of ‘Hiraṇyagarbha.’

‘Several kinds of created things’ — things possessed of various forms.

‘Desiring to create,’ — wishing to bring into existence.

‘In the beginning,’ first of all — ‘produced,’ called into being — ‘water’ ‘out of his own body,’ i.e., the body assumed by himself (on manifestation). Or, according to the Ádvaita Philosophy, ‘Primordial Matter’ is the ‘body’ of Hiraṇyagarbha here spoken of; it is ‘his own’ in the sense that it follows his wish, and is the cause of the production of all bodies.

The next question that arises is — “When he created the body of all living beings, did he do so by means of some physical act, such as digging with the spade and so forth (as the potter does in the making of the Jar)?”

The answer is no. — “How then?” — ‘By mere willing’ — by the mere act of wishing ‘let water be produced.’

The following further question is raised — “Since the Earth and other things were non-existent at the time, what was the receptacle or standing ground of the water that was produced?”

The question is addressed to the winds! [ lit., it is as good as addressed to others!]. It might just as well bo asked — what is the receptacle or standing ground for the Supreme Lord himself when he has assumed a body. If it be explained that so far as the powers of the creator himself are concerned, no questions arise, for the simple reason that he is possessed of unique powers, — then the same may be said in regard to water and the other products also, which may be regarded as having similar unique powers.

In that, water, he threw, scattered, the seed, the semen. (8)

Explanatory notes:

(3) Abhidhyāya — According to those who interpret the process here as ‘described in accordance with the Saṅkhya’, this means ‘independently of all outside force, just as a man does an act by mere thought.’

Āpaḥ — In his eagerness to be literally faithful, Buhler has translated this as ‘waters’, using the plural form in consideration of the plural form of ‘āpaḥ’ in the plural. It has to be borne in mind, however, that the text has used the plural form, because the base ‘ap’ has no singular form at all.

Vide, in this connection, Ṛgveda, 10.121.1, and Viṣṇu-purāṇa I.

Saḥ — Hiraṇyagarbha (acc. to Medhātithi); the Paramātman (according to others.)

Abhidhyāya — According to the interpretation of ‘others’, noted by Medhātithi, under verse 11, this participle means ‘independently of all external activity, just as a man may do some act by merely willing it.’

Medhātithi P. 11, l. 6 — ‘anyebhya idamucyate’ — This is an idiomatic expression used in the sense — ‘This that is urged is spoken, as it were, to others — it does not concern us, — it has no hearing upon what we have said.’

VERSE 1.9 [Birth of Brahmā]

Section V - Birth of Brahmā

तदण्डमभवद्धैमं सहस्रांशुसमप्रभम् ।
तस्मिञ्जज्ञे स्वयं ब्रह्मा सर्वलोकपितामहः ॥९॥

tadaṇḍamabhavaddhaimaṃ sahasrāṃśusamaprabham |
tasmiñjajñe svayaṃ brahmā sarvalokapitāmahaḥ ||9||

That became the golden egg, resplendent like the Sun; in that (egg) he (Hiraṇyagarbha) himself was born as Brahmā, the ‘Grand-father’ of the whole world. — (9)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

First of all Primordial Matter develops in the form of Clay; i.e., on account of the contact of Hiraṇyagarbha’s ‘seed,’ it become solidified; and this is what is described as having become an ‘egg.’ — ‘Golden,’ gold, made up of gold; i.e., in its brilliance it resembled the thing made of gold.

“But this statement (that the egg was of gold) is contained in the scriptures, and we do not find any such term as ‘like’ or ‘resembling’ (which would have justified the interpretation of ‘golden’ as resembling gold), — how then can we, in the absence of any other authority, explain the term figuratively?”

Our answer to the question is as follows: — Later on we find the statement — ‘by means of the two forces, he created Heaven and Earth’ (Verse 13); and as a matter of fact, this Earth is found to consist of clay, and not of gold entirely; and it is in view of this fact that we have taken the epithet ‘golden’ figuratively.

‘Sahasrāṃśuḥ,’ lit. ‘thousand-rayed,’ is the Sun; — ‘aṃśu’ means rays; and the resplendence of the egg was like that of the rays of the Sun.

‘In that egg he himself was born,’ came into existence, as Brahmā,’ — Brahmā is Hiraṇyagarbha himself; — the exact signification of the term ‘himself’ has already been explained; the meaning is that he had originally (as Hiraṇyagarbha) assumed a body by the force of occult powers, he gave up that body and entered within the egg. — Or, it may be that when he created water, Hiraṇyagarbha had no body, hence he took up a body within the egg. — Or again, the being spoken of as ‘he who’ (in verse 7) was different from the Brahmā who is described here as being born in the egg; this would be in keeping with what is going to be stated (in verse 11) in regard to the latter being ‘created by him,’ i.e., created by the Supreme Lord (described in verse 7).

“But (under this last explanation) how could he be said to be ‘himself born?’ — and the text apparently speaks, as ‘Brahmā,’ of him who was ‘himself born’ (in the egg).”

This does not affect the position; the son is often called by the name of the Father, when he is described as the ‘self being born out of itself.’

The fact of the matter however is that what the Teacher has asserted is based upon scriptural texts, which have no bearing upon the matter at all [for being mere Arthavāda, they are not meant to describe what is directly expressed by the words]; so Unit we need not lay stress upon what is said (in the text) in this connection; specially because, so far as the expounding of Duties is concerned, it does not matter at all whether Hiraṇyagarbha himself was born in the egg, or he created some other being.

‘The grand-father of the whole world’ — is a proper name, applied figuratively. That it has to be taken so is proved by the fact that the Being described is not literally the ‘Grandfather’ of the people; what the attributing of this proper name is meant to indicate is that the being described is an object of great reverence, the term ‘Grand-father’ being chosen, because the Grand-father commands greater reverence than even the Father. (9).

Explanatory notes:

Burnell remarks that this ‘Egg’ does not belong to the Sāṅkhya philosophy. The explanation of this, in accordance with that philosophy, is thus given by Medhātithi, under verse 11 — ‘Sarvataḥ pradhānaṃ pṛthivyādibhūtotpattau kāṭhinyameti aṇḍarūpam sampadyate.’

Haimam — The commentators are agreed that this is used figuratively, in the sense of pure or brilliant.

Jajñe svayam Brahmā — (a) ‘He himself was born as Brahmā’, or (b) ‘Brahmā himself was born.’

There has been a great deal of confusion in the mind of modern scholars in connection with the ‘Golden Egg’, — much of which would have been avoided if the figurative character of the term had been recognised.

Medhātithi P. 11. l. 22 ‘Anidamparebhyaḥ — & c.’ — Cf. what has been said in the Bhāṣya on verse 5, to the effect that ‘the process of creation here described is in some places in agreement with the Purāṇas, while in others, in accordance with the doctrine of the Saṅkhyas.’ It is this want of consistency that has led Medhātithi to regard the whole of this discourse as purely ‘arthavāda.’

VERSE 1.10 [Meaning of the term ‘Nārāyaṇa’]

Section VI - Meaning of the term ‘Nārāyaṇa’

आपो नारा इति प्रोक्ता आपो वै नरसूनवः ।
ता यदस्यायनं पूर्वं तेन नारायणः स्मृतः ॥१०॥

āpo nārā iti proktā āpo vai narasūnavaḥ |
tā yadasyāyanaṃ pūrvaṃ tena nārāyaṇaḥ smṛtaḥ ||10||

Water is called ‘nara,’ — water being the offspring of nara; since water was the first thing created by (or, the original residence of) that being, he is, on that account, described as ‘nārāyaṇa.’ — (10)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Being just described is the same who, here and there in the scriptures, is described under the name ‘Nārāyaṇa,’ as possessed of a superior degree of creative and cognitive powers, and hence being the Personal Creator of the world; the mere difference in names does not necessarily imply difference in the things denoted; so that the Beings described under the names ‘Brahmā,’ ‘Nārāyana’ and ‘Maheśvara are one and the same; though they form the objects of diverse forms of worship, yet they do not differ among themselves; as we shall show under Discourse XII.

How this is (i.e. how Brahmā is the same as ‘Nārāyana’) is explained now: — ‘Water is called Nara.’ — described under the name of, — ‘Nara.’

In answer to the objection — “There is no such usage current among experienced persons; nor is it generally known that water is called Nara,” — the Author adds: — ‘Water being the offspring of Nara,’ — the supreme Being (Hiraṇyagarbha, described in verse 8 as having created water) might well be known under the name ‘Nara,’ Person; and water is his ‘offspring;’ hence water is spoken of as ‘Nara,’ the name of the father is often applied to the child, e.g., the ‘sons of Vaśiṣṭha,’ the revered sages Tāvabhru, Maṇḍu and Lomaka, are spoken of as ‘Vaśiṣṭhāḥ’; and such usage is based upon the

figurative identification of the child with the father. — ‘Since’ because — ‘Water,’ known as ‘Nara,’ was ‘the first thing created by’ — or it was his container when he lay in the womb (egg) — ‘he is, on that account, described as Nārāyaṇa.’

In the sense of ‘he whose container is Nara’the compound should be ‘narāyaṇa;’ but the first vowel may be taken as lengthened according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra 6.3.134, which justifies such lengthening in several other cases also,; just as we have in the word ‘pūruṣa’ (which is a variant for ‘puruṣa’); — or we may have the lengthening due to the affix ‘aṇ’ in the sense of ‘mass’ [so that nāra would be ‘mass of water,’ and ‘he who has this mass of water as his container, ayana,’ would he ‘nārāyaṇa’]. (10).

Explanatory notes:

Āpo nārā &c. — This explanation of the name ‘Nārayaṇa’ is found in Viṣṇu Puraṇa I, and also in the Mahābhārata, 3.189.3.

It is curious that Medhātithi reads ‘narāḥ’ (instead of ‘nārāḥ’) and adds a somewhat forced explanation of the elongation of the initial vowel in ‘nā’.

Medhātithi P. 12, l. 6 — Babhrumaṇḍuloniakāḥ — These apparently are three other proper names — ‘Babhru’, ‘Maṇḍu’ and ‘Lomaka’, — which stand on the same footing as ‘Vaśiṣṭha.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata, 12.341.40. — [Same as Manu ; but being placed in the mouth of Nārāyaṇa himself, the second half is put in the First Person.] — “That is why I am Nārāyaṇa.”

VERSE 1.11 [Nature of Brahmā]

Section VII - Nature of Brahmā

यत् तत् कारणमव्यक्तं नित्यं सदसदात्मकम् ।
तद्विसृष्टः स पुरुषो लोके ब्रह्मैति कीर्त्यते ॥११॥

yat tat kāraṇamavyaktaṃ nityaṃ sadasadātmakam |
tadvisṛṣṭaḥ sa puruṣo loke brahmaiti kīrtyate ||11||

That which is the cause — unmanifest, eternal and partaking of the nature of the existent and the non-existent, — the being produced by that (cause) is described among people as ‘brahmā.’ — (11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘cause’ spoken of here is one who is always the never the product; the formation of his body is not dependent upon the will of any other being; he is endowed with a natural supremacy all his own; — ‘unmanifest and eternal’ as already explained (under verse 7); — ‘partaking of the nature of the existent and the non-existent’; — ‘sadasat’ stands for the ‘sat,’ ‘existent,’ and the ‘asat,’ non-existent’; and the said ‘cause’ is one whose ‘nature,’ character, consists of the said ‘existent and non-existent.’

“But how can a single entity partake of the two contradictory characters of the ‘existent’ and the ‘non-existent’?”

The answer to this is as follows: — In as much as people of the present day cannot form any idea of such a heing, the cause becomes incapable of being spoken of as ‘existent,’ and hence is described as ‘partaking of the nature of the non-existent; and yet, in as much as the fact of the said being being the cause of the entire world is known from the scriptures, it is described as ‘of the nature of the existent;’ thus the description of Brahman as both (‘existent’ and ‘non-existent’) is not incongruous, being based, as it is, upon the difference in the character of the persons conceiving of it.

“As a matter of fact, this is true of all things; everything is ‘existent’ in its own form and ‘non-existent’ in the form of other things; why then should it be stated that this is not incongruous in the case of Brahman only?”

The answer to this is as follows: — Under the philosophy of ‘Non-duality’ nothing except Brahman being ‘what is that other thing which (while existent in its own form) could be spoken of as ‘non-existent’ in the form of Brahman?

‘The being produced by that,’ — being brought into existence, being created within the egg; this Being ‘is described among people as Brahmā’; the being, who is found mentioned in the Mahābhārata and other works as seated hero and there for the purpose of granting boons to such Devas, Asuras and Ṛṣis as have performed severe austerities, — he was the first to be created by the afore-mentioned Supreme Being, the Highest Brahman.

Explanatory notes:

Kāraṇam — Rāghavānanda takes this to refer to the above-mentioned ‘Egg’, the undifferentiated root-cause. All others take it to mean the Supreme Soul.

Sadasadātmakam — ‘Existent because cognisable by means of the Vedic texts, and non-existent, because uncognisable by the ordinary means of perception’. (Medhātithi, Govinda and Kullūka); — ‘real, in the shape of the cause, and unreal, in the form of the Products’: (Nandana.)

The relationship between Nārāyaṇa (Virāṭ) and Puruṣa appears to be based upon the Puruṣasūkta, where Puruṣa is described as born from Virāt The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (13.6.1.1) couples the two beings into one and describes him as receiving instructions from Prajāpati.

Medhātithi, P. 12, l. 21 to the end of page 13 offers a totally different interpretation of verses 3-1l.

Medhātithi P. 13, l. 1 — ‘Mahato’haṅkāro &c.’ — Of. Sāṅkhya-kārikā, 38.

‘Viśeṣāḥ. — Why these are called ‘viśeṣa’ is thus explained in the Sāṅkhyatattvakaumudī — pañca mahābhūtāni viśeṣāḥ: — śāntā ghorāśca mūḍāśca | yasmādākāśādiṣu sthū?ṣu kecit tattvapradhānatayā śāntā prakāśā laghavaḥ......... | te'mī parasparavyāvṛttyā'nubhūyamānā ‘viśeṣā’ iti ‘sthūlā’ iti co?pante | tanmātrāṇi tu?smadādinā parasparavyāvṛttāni nānubhūyante — iti ‘aviśeṣāḥ’ ‘sūkṣmā’ iti cocyante |

VERSE 1.12

Section VII - Nature of Brahmā

तस्मिन्नण्डे स भगवानुषित्वा परिवत्सरम् ।
स्वयमेवात्मनो ध्यानात् तदण्डमकरोद् द्विधा ॥१२॥

tasminnaṇḍe sa bhagavānuṣitvā parivatsaram |
svayamevātmano dhyānāt tadaṇḍamakarod dvidhā ||12||

That supreme lord, having dwelt in that egg for a y ear, himself, by his own thought, broke that egg into two parts. — (12)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘That Supreme Lord,’ Brahmā, — ‘for a year,’ during a year, — ‘having dwelt in that egg,’ — the omniscient one, who had come into existence and was seated in the egg, thought of the way in which he would come out of it; — ‘he broke the egg into two parts’; — one year is the time which the embryo takes for its development; so that after a year the egg, having reached its full development, burst (really), by reason of its full development having been reached. It is thus a chance coincidence that the egg burst just at the time that Brahmā was thinking of coming out; and it is in view of this coincidence that he is described as having broken the egg into two parts. — (12)

Explanatory notes:

Parivatsaram — Kullū. alone takes this to mean ‘a year of Brahmā’; all others take it in the sense of the ordinary year; Cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 11. 1. 6. 2.

Dhyānāt — Medhātithi’s robust intellect again asserts itself: The Egg broke, not because the indwelling Brahmā willed it, hut because of its full development; and this coincided with Brahma’s wish to come out.

VERSE 1.13 [Creation of Heaven and Earth]

Section VIII - Creation of Heaven and Earth

ताभ्यां स शकलाभ्यां च दिवं भूमिं च निर्ममे ।
मध्ये व्योम दिशश्चाष्टावपां स्थानं च शाश्वतम् ॥१३॥

tābhyāṃ sa śakalābhyāṃ ca divaṃ bhūmiṃ ca nirmame |
madhye vyoma diśaścāṣṭāvapāṃ sthānaṃ ca śāśvatam ||13||

Out of those two pieces (of the egg) he formed Heaven and Earth, and, between them, the Ākāśa, the eight quarters and the eternal receptacle of water. — (13)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Two pieces’ — the two halves of the egg-shell; out of these two pieces of the egg-shell, — ‘he formed,’ produced, — ‘and Earth’; the lower half being earth [and the upper half Heaven]; — ‘between them Ākāśa,’ empty space, — ‘the eight quarters,’ the East and the rest, along with the intermediate points of the South-East, etc.; — ‘the receptacle of water’ — (1) in the atmosphere, (2) the Ocean and (3) the Ākāśa within the Earth and the Nether Regions. — (13)

VERSE 1.14-15 [Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards]

Section IX - Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards

उद्बबर्हात्मनश्चैव मनः सदसदात्मकम् ।
मनसश्चाप्यहङ्कारमभिमन्तारमीश्वरम् ॥ब्छ्।स्छ्॥

udbabarhātmanaścaiva manaḥ sadasadātmakam |
manasaścāpyahaṅkāramabhimantāramīśvaram ||14||

From out of himself he brought forth the mind, which partakes of the nature of the existent and non-existent; and before the mind, he brought up the all-powerful principle of egoism, whose function consists in self-consciousness. — (14)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The creation of the Elemental Principles is now described. What forms the constituent factor of what, and in what manner, has been already explained by implication.

‘From out of himself’ — i.e., from out of Primordial Matter, which forms his body, ‘he brought forth Mind.’ The creation of the Elemental Principles is set forth here in the reverse order; the meaning thus is that ‘before the mind he brought up the Principle of Egoism, whose function consists in self-consciousness’; the consciousness of self, appearing in the form of the notion of ‘I,’ is a function of the Principle of Egoism; it is called all-powerful in the sense that it is capable of accomplishing its work. — (14)

महान्तमेव चात्मानं सर्वाणि त्रिगुणानि च ।
विषयाणां ग्रहीतॄणि शनैः पञ्चैन्द्रियाणि च ॥१५॥

mahāntameva cātmānaṃ sarvāṇi triguṇāni ca |
viṣayāṇāṃ grahītṝṇi śanaiḥ pañcaindriyāṇi ca ||15||

Also the all-pervading ‘mahat’ (the ‘great’ principle of intelligence); as also all those things that consist of the three constituent attributes, and in due course, also the five organs of sensation which apprehend objects. — (15)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Mahat’ is the name applied by the Sāṅkhyas to one of the Elemental Principles; — ‘all-pervading’ qualifies the ‘Mahat’; this Principle of Intelligence is called ‘all-pervading’ because, it actually pervades through the entire material creation. This he brought out before the Principle of Egoism; this construction being in accordance with that adopted in the preceding verse (in connection with the Principle of Egoism being produced before the Mind); — ‘as also all those things that consist of the three constituent Attributes’; all that has been described, as also all that is going to be described, — i.e., all products or evolutes, — are constituted by the three Attributes; these ‘Constituent Attributes’ being ‘Sattva’ (Harmony), ‘Rajas’ (Energy) and ‘Tamas’ (Tnertia); it is only conscious entities that are free from these three Attributes; while all that is evolved out of Primordial Matter is constituted by the three Attributes. — ‘The five organs of sensation, which apprehend,’ — bring about the perception of, — Colour, Taste (Odour, Touch and Sound), which form the respective ‘objects,’ the ‘five,’ whose specific names are going to be described later on, in 2.90 — ‘Also is meant to include the ‘objects’ themselves, in the form of Sound, Touch, Colour, Taste and Odour, and also the Earth and other elemental substances. — (16)

Explanatory notes:

(verse xiv-xv)

The confusion regarding the account of the process of creation contained in Manu is best exemplified by these two verses. The names of the various evolutes have been so promiscuously used, that the commentators have been led to have recourse to various forced interpretations, with a view to bring the statement herein contained into line with their own philosophical predilections. Medhātithi, Kullūka, Govinda and Rāghavānanda take it as describing the three principles of the Sāṅkhya — Mahat, Ahaṅkāra and Manas; but finding that the production of Ahaṅkāra from Manas, or of Mahat (which is what they understand by the term ‘mahāntam ātmānam’) is not in conformity with the Sāṅkhya doctrine, — they assert that the three evolutes have been mentioned here ‘in the inverted order’. Even, so, how they can get over the statement that ‘Ahaṅkāra’ was produced ‘from Manas’ (‘manasaḥ’) it is not easy to see. Similarly, the ‘ātman’ from which Manas is described as being produced, Medhātithi explains as the Sāṅkhya ‘Pradhāna’, and Kullūka as the Vedantic1 Supreme Soul’.

Buhler remarks that according to Medhātithi by the particle ‘ca’ ‘the subtile elements alone are to he understood.’

This does not represent Medhātithi correctly; his words being — ‘caśabdena viṣayāṃśca śabdasparśarūparasagandhān pṛthivyādīni ca’.

In order to escape from the above difficulties, Nandana has recourse to another method of interpretation, — no less forced than the former. He takes ‘manas’ as standing for Mahat, and ‘mahāntam ātmānam’ as the Manas.

Not satisfied with all this, Nandana remarks that the two verses are not meant to provide an accurate account of the precise order of creation; all that is meant to be shown is that all things were produced out of parts of the body of the Creator himself.

VERSE 1.16

Section IX - Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards

तेषां त्ववयवान् सूक्ष्मान् षण्णामप्यमितौजसाम् ।
संनिवेश्यात्ममात्रासु सर्वभूतानि निर्ममे ॥१६॥

teṣāṃ tvavayavān sūkṣmān ṣaṇṇāmapyamitaujasām |
saṃniveśyātmamātrāsu sarvabhūtāni nirmame ||16||

Having combined the subtile components of the said six principles of illimitable potency with their own evolutes, he created even all beings. — (16)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The said six principles of their own respective evolutes, — to these he joined their subtile components, and thus created all beings.

The number ‘six,’ (mentioned in connection with the Principles) is made up of the five ‘Rudimentary Substances,’ to be described later on, and the ‘Principle of Egoism’ already described.

The ‘own envolutes’ of these Principles, are their respective products; i.e., the elemental substances, which are the products of the‘Rudimentary Substances,’ the Sense-organs which are the products of the ‘Principle of Egoism.’ The Eaṛth and the other Elemental Substances being present, like so many ‘bodies,’ he joined to them the ‘subtile components’; i.e., the Rudimentary Substances and the Principle of Egoism; that is, he placed them in their proper places, and thus ‘created all beings,’ — Gods, men, animals, birds, trees and so forth.

The meaning is as follows: — The six subtile components are productive of one portion of the entire world, the whole of which is evolved out of them; that they are ‘subtile’ is proved by the fact of their being ‘rudimentary’ in their character; — these he ‘combined,’ i.e., brought together, with their own envolutes,’ i.e., their respective products; he produced the material substances and the organs (of action), and through these, the entire material world; these latter being indicated by the word ‘even.’

In place of ‘mātrāsu’ it is better to rend ‘mātrābhiḥ’. — (16)

Explanatory notes:

Six elements — The five Rudimentary Substances and the Principle of Egoism.

Here also, and for reasons similar to the above, there is a difference of opinion among commentators.

Nandana, and Rāghavānanda take the verse as describing the creation of the bodies of things from the body of the Creator, and that of their souls from His Soul.

The ‘six’, Rāghavānanda takes as standing for the six sense-organs, and Nandana as for the six tattvas —

• Mahat,

• Ahaṅkāra,

• Manas,

• Subtile Elements,

• Organs, of Action and

• Organs of Sensation.

Medhātithi takes the verse simply as describing how the Creator created all beings by combining ‘the subtile components of the said six principles’ with ‘their own evolutes.’

Hopkins remarks that ‘ātmamātrā’ stands for ‘the spiritual atom as opposed to the elementary, — not reflexive elements of himself.’

VERSE 1.17

Section IX - Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards

यन् मूर्त्यवयवाः सूक्ष्मास्तानीमान्याश्रयन्ति षट् ।
तस्माच्छरीरमित्याहुस्तस्य मूर्तिं मनीषिणः ॥१७॥

yan mūrtyavayavāḥ sūkṣmāstānīmānyāśrayanti ṣaṭ |
tasmāccharīramityāhustasya mūrtiṃ manīṣiṇaḥ ||17||

Because the six subtile components of the frame (of primordial matter) enter into (produce) these, therefore the wise ones have described the frame of that (primordial matter) as ‘body.’ — (17)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Frame’ — body; the ‘components’ of it are those things that constitute it; these are ‘subtile,’ the ‘six’ already described (viz.,the five Rudimentary Substances and the Principle of Egoism), which are called ‘aviśeṣa,’ the undifferentiated. — Tāni āśrayanti — i.e., the organs and the elemental substances going to be described ‘enter into’ the said components; which means that they are evolved out of them; i.e., the evolution of the organs &c., has for its substratum the six subtile components; this is what has been described in the words ‘the five elemental substances are produced out of the five Rudimentary Substances’ (Sāṅkhya-Kārikā, 22). Because they enter into them, therefore the ‘frame of that,’ i.e., of Primordial Matter, — has been described as ‘Body.’

Manasviṇaḥ, ‘maṇīṣā’ is wisdom; those possessed of wisdom are ‘manasvins,’ i.e., the wise ones.

[The above explanation makes ‘tainīmāni,’ the organs and substances, the nominative, and the ‘components’ the objective; — this construction is found to be incompatible with the nominative ending in ‘avayavāḥ,’ ‘components’; hence the Bhāṣya puts forward another construction, which has been adopted in the rendering of the text.] — Or, the relation of the ‘nominative’ and ‘objective’ may be reversed: the ‘subtile components’ being the nominative, and the ‘organs’ the objective (of the verb ‘āśrayanti,’); the meaning of ‘āśrayanti,’ ‘enter into,’ being that the subtile components serve as the substratum — ‘āśraya’ — of the organs; just as in the phrase ‘he has been fed (upon) by many men,’ the man doing the feeding is spoken of as ‘fed.’ — Or, since verbal roots may have several meanings, ‘enter in’ may be explained as ‘produce.’ — (17)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Nandana explains the verse to mean that ‘the body of Hiraṇyagarbha is called Śarīra, body, because it enters all things mentioned in the preceding verses by means of its portions’; according to Medhātithi on the other hand, it means that — the body of Pradhāna is called Śarīra, because its six components enter into these things, — viz., the organs and the elemental substances. Kullūka refers it to the body of Brahman.

The only important points of difference are — (1) while Medhātithi takes it as referring to the body of Pradhāna, others take it as refering to that of Hiraṇyagarbha or Brahmā; and (2) while according to Medhātithi the evolutes entering into that Body are the organs and the gross elemental subtances, according to Nandana, they are only the six principles named in verses 14-15.

The natural construction of the verse appears to be yat (yasmāt kāraṇāṭ) sūr?yacayacāḥ sūkṣmāḥ tāni imāni ṣaṭ āśrayanti tasmāt — as set forth by Medhātithi But if tāni imāni refers to indriyāṇi then there should be an accusative ending in in order to make it the object of āśrayanti. It is in view of this difficulty that the Bhāṣya has put forward another construction by which sūkṣmāḥ is the nominative and tānīmāni the objective of the verb āśrayanti,

VERSE 1.18

Section IX - Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards

तदाविशन्ति भूतानि महान्ति सह कर्मभिः ।
मनश्चावयवैः सूक्ष्मैः सर्वभूतकृदव्ययम् ॥१८॥

tadāviśanti bhūtāni mahānti saha karmabhiḥ |
manaścāvayavaiḥ sūkṣmaiḥ sarvabhūtakṛdavyayam ||18||

The great elemental substances, along with their functions, as also the mind, along with its subtile components, enter into that which (on that account) is the generator of all things and imperishable. — (18)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘That,’ ‘Primordial Matter — is ‘the generator of all things’: — it is ‘imperishable,’ i.e., in its original (causal) form it is indestructible.

“In what way does Primordial Matter generate all things?”

Because all these enter into it.

“What are all these that enter into it?”

First of all ‘the Mind along with its subtile components,’ — i.e., along with the Rudimentary Substances, the Principle of Intelligence, the Principle of Egoism and the Sense-organs; — and then, the Great Elemental Substances — called ‘Earth,’ ‘Water,’ ‘Fire,’ ‘Wind,’ and ‘Ākāśa;’ — ‘along with their functions; —

sustaining,

conglutination,

cooking,

configuration

and making room (unobstruction) respectively are the ‘functions’ of Earth, &c.

Of these

‘sustaining’ means upholding, keeping in their places, things that are prone to falling;

‘conglutination’ means bringing together things that are loose and disjointed; e.g., loose and disjointed dust-particles are brought togther, cemented into, a mass by means of water; —

‘Cooking’ is the well-known effect produced by fire upon such tilings as medicine and herbs, &c.;

‘Configuration’ means conformation, shaping; —

‘making room’ means non-obstruction by another body; in a point in space where one body is already present, there can be no room for another body; e.g., no object can find room within a piece of gold.

‘Mind’ — is meant to indicate all the organs of sensation; and the term ‘Karma’ may be taken as referring to the organs of action; or again, in the first line of the text, the term ‘Karma’ may be taken to mean the ‘products’ of the elementary substances; the sense of the passage being that ‘subsequently the products of the elemental substances, along with the subtile components, enter into the great elemental substances’ — ‘as also do the organs of sensation,’ this latter being indicated by the word ‘Mind.’ — (18)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Buhler supplies the translation of the verse according to the five interpretations offered by the commentators.

The text here represents the explanation given by Medhātithi: —

According to Govinda and Kullūka the verse means — ‘From Brahman are produced the gross elements, together with their functions, and the Mind, which is the producer of all beings through its minute portions, and imperishable’. —

According to Rāghavānanda — ‘That gross body the gross elements enter, and the Mind, which is the producer of all beings and imperishable, together with the actions and with the limbs.’ —

According to Nandana — ‘As that body of Hiraṇyagarbha, though through its small portions it produces all beings, ye tis imperishable, — even thus the Great Beings and the Mind, with the actions enter it.’ —

According to Nārāyana — ‘That subtile body the gross elements enter, together with the Karma and the Mind, the producer of all beings and imperishable, together with its minute portions.’

Dr. Buhler’s rendering of this verse is not approved by Hopkins. The construction of the sentence is the same in all cases — mahānti bhūtāni karmabhiḥ saha — manaśca sūkṣmaiḥ avayavaiḥ.

Medhātithi himself offers a second explanation.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata, 12.232.12. — (First half is the same as Manu.)

VERSE 1.19

Section IX - Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards

तेषामिदं तु सप्तानां पुरुषाणां महौजसाम् ।
सूक्ष्माभ्यो मूर्तिमात्राभ्यः सम्भवत्यव्ययाद् व्ययम् ॥१९॥

teṣāmidaṃ tu saptānāṃ puruṣāṇāṃ mahaujasām |
sūkṣmābhyo mūrtimātrābhyaḥ sambhavatyavyayād vyayam ||19||

From out of the Subtile constituents of the frames of the said exceedingly potent principles is produced this (Gross Body) — the perishable proceeding from the imperishable. — (19)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

All that is meant by saying that ‘the perishable proceeds from the imperishable’ is that the Gross is produced out of the Subtile; and it is not meant to emphasise whether it is produced out of the particles of six or seven Principles; in fact there are twenty-four Principles, all of which form the cause of the origin of all things. Or, the meaning may be that in the production of the gross oḥjeot only seven Principles form the principal cause, e.g., the six non-differentiated Principles (the live Rudimentary Substances and the principle of Egoism) and the seventh, the Great Principle of Intelligence. Out of these (seven) are produced the Elemental Substances and the Organs; and when these latter have been produced, the gross body becomes formed.

[It has been said that] from out of the imperishable Primordial Matter, — which in its unified form, contains within itself the possibilities of all its evolutes, — is produced this world, which is multifarious in its character and appears in all possible forms.

Now the question arises — Docs the Primordial Matter become modified into all its gross evolutes at one and the same time? And the answer to this is ‘No;’ what really happens is described in the present verse — ‘From out of the subtile, &c., &c.,’ The order in which the things are produced is the same as that which has been described before: that is, from out of Primordial Matter is produced the Great Principle of Intelligence; — from this latter the Principle of Egoism; and from this latter again the ‘group of sixteen’ (kārikā, 22).

The term ‘Puruṣa’ has been used in the sense of the Principles, on the ground that these latter subserve the purposes of the Puruṣa (Soul).

‘Exceedingly potent’ — capable of producing their effects; it is because they are the cause of innumerable products that they have been called ‘exceedingly.’

The said principles have certain ‘subtile constituents of their frames’; — ‘mūrti’ is frame; the constituents that go to form that frame are called ‘constituents of the frame’; from out of these is born ‘this’ (the gross Body). It is in reference to this that it is added — ‘the perishable proceeding out of the imperishable.’

Question — “What are the ‘subtile constituents’ of the said Principles? Certainly the Rudimentary Substances have no other ‘constituents’ (save those that are subtile), in reference to (for the exclusion of) which such specification could be possible (as that intended by the epithet ‘subtile’).”

Answer — The qualification ‘subtile' is not in relation to the constituents of any single Principle itself; what is meant is that (one principle is ‘subtile’ in relation to, in comparison to, another, i.e.) the Great Principle of Intelligence is subtile as compared to the Rudimentary Substances, and the Root Evolvent (Primordial Matter) is ‘subtile’ as compared to the Great Principle.

[Another explanation of the verse is given below, in the form of an introduction to verse 20]. — 19

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The ‘seven’ are made up of —

(1) Egoism, the five subtile elements and the Mahat (Medhātithi, Govinda and Kullūka); — (2) Ātman instead of Mahat (Nārāyana and Nandana). Medhātithi notes another enumeration suggested by ‘others’ — (1) The five organs of Perception, (2) the five organs of Action and (3), (4), (5), (6) and, (7) the five grogs elemental substances.’

The name ‘puruṣa’ has been applied to the Tattvas, Principles, — because ‘they serve the purposes of the, soul’ (Medhātithi), — or because ‘they are produced by the Puruṣa, Ātman,’

VERSE 1.20

Section IX - Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards

आद्याद्यस्य गुणं त्वेषामवाप्नोति परः परः ।
यो यो यावतिथश्चैषां स स तावद् गुणः स्मृतः ॥२०॥

ādyādyasya guṇaṃ tveṣāmavāpnoti paraḥ paraḥ |
yo yo yāvatithaścaiṣāṃ sa sa tāvad guṇaḥ smṛtaḥ ||20||

Among these (Elementary Substances), each succeeding one acquires the quality of what precedes it; and each elemental substance is endowed with as many qualities as the place it occupies (in the order in which the said substances are set forth). — (20)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the preceding verse some people offer a different explanation of the number ‘seven’: — (1) The five organs of sensation, the Eye and the rest, taken together from a single group; they are regarded as ‘one’ on account of their possessing the common character of being the instruments of perception; — (2) similarly the five organs of action; these two, forming two groups, are ‘two principles’; — (3-7) the five elemental substances, being treated individually, by reason of their functions being distinct from one another, are the ‘seven principles’; and the five Rudimentary Substances and the principle of Egoism are the ‘subtile constituents’ that go to make up the ‘bodies’ of the said seven; — i.e., these seven are the products of evolution from the said six. — The rest of the verse is explained in the same manner as set forth above.

Thus, in accordance with this explanation, the Elemental Substances having been spoken of in the preceding verse (19), the pronoun ‘eṣām,’ ‘among these,’ refers to those same substances. Though there are several words intervening (between the mention of Elemental Substances in verse (19) and the pronoun ‘among these’ in the present verse), which are in closer proximity to the pronoun, yet, as a matter of fact, what Is described in the present verse, — the fact of ‘these’ being endowed with a particular number of qualities derived from well-defined sources — is applicable only to the Elementary Substances, and not to other things; even though these latter may form the subject-matter of the context (and may as such, be capable of being referred to by the pronoun in question).

The meaning of the verse thus comes to this: — ‘Among these’ Elemental Substances, — which are set out (later on) in a definite order of sequence, one preceding the other — the ‘succeeding one’ acquires the quality of the preceding one, through its connection with it. — The term ‘quality’ here stands for the five, Sound and the rest; — the ‘preceding’ (and ‘succeeding’) is in reference to the order in which the names of the Elemental Substances are set forth in verse 75 below, where it is said that ‘first of all Ākāśa is produced &c., &c.’ The fact of sound &c., being the qualities of these substances will also bo described in that same verse. — Among Ākāśa and the rest, each one occupies a definite place in the order in which they are set forth; the term ‘yāvatithaḥ’ means the number of the place occupied by it; the word being formed by the adding of the affix ‘ithuk,’ by Pāṇini’s Sūtra 5.2.53. The meaning is that each substance becomes endowed with as many qualities as the place, second or third, &c., occupied by it; that is, the substance occupying the second place in the order of sequence has two qualities, that occupying the third place has three, and so on.

The first half of the verse means that among the Elemental Substances, each succeeding one acquires the quality of its predecessor; and each of them is later on (under verses 75 &c.) described has having one quality inherent in itself; for instance, ‘Ākāśa is known as possessing the quality of sound’ (verse 75); ‘Fire is described as possessing the quality of colour’ (verse 77), and so forth; so that acquiring one quality from its predecessor (and having one inherent in itself) each substance would appear to be endowed with only two qualities, — with the sole exception of Ākāśa (which, having no substance ‘preceding’ it, would have the single quality of Sound, which is inherent in itself); hence with a view to preclude such an idea, the author has added the the second half of the verse — Each Elemental Substance being endowed with as many qualities &c. &c., — which means that Wind has two qualities, Fire has three, Water has four, and Earth has five.

“Why does the Author use the form ‘ādyādyasya’? The correct form should be ‘ādyasyādyasya’, the repetition of the term ‘ādyasya’ being necessitated by Pāṇini’s Sūtra 8.1.4; just as we have in such expressions as ‘paraḥ paraḥ.’”

The form used is due to the exigencies of metre; and exigencies of metre justify the non-observance of rules. — (20)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Nandana places verse 27 before 20. There appears to be no justification for deviating from the order adopted by all other commentators.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata, 12.232.8. — ‘The qualities of the preceding go over to the succeeding and whatever it is and in whatever form and place, so many qualities it is declared to possess.’

VERSE 1.21

Section IX - Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards

सर्वेषां तु स नामानि कर्माणि च पृथक् पृथक् ।
वेदशब्देभ्य एवादौ पृथक् संस्थाश्च निर्ममे ॥२१॥

sarveṣāṃ tu sa nāmāni karmāṇi ca pṛthak pṛthak |
vedaśabdebhya evādau pṛthak saṃsthāśca nirmame ||21||

At the outset he designated distinct names for add things; and devised acts and Laws, on the basis of the words of the veda. — (21)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He,’ Prajāpati, ‘designated the names of all things’; just in the same manner as people assign names to new-born children, or to other things also, for the purpose of speaking of them in ordinary business; as we find done in such assertions as, ‘āt and aich are called Vṛddhi’ (Pāṇini 1.1.1), or ‘Dhi-śrī-strī &c.’ (Piṅgala). What is meant is that he established a connection between a certain thing and a certain term, — such terms, for instance, as ‘ganḥ’ (Cow), ‘Aśvaḥ’ (Horse) and ‘Puruṣaḥ’ (Man).

He devised also the acts, known as ‘Dhaima-Adharma’ (Virtue-Vice), — i.e., such acts as the Agnithotra and the like which lead to transcendental results.

Having devised the acts, he devised also the ‘laws,’ the rules, governing them; such for instance, as, ‘such and such an act should be done by the Brāhmaṇa only, at such and such a time, for the purpose of obtaining such and such a result.’ — Or, ‘laws’ may be taken as referring to the rules governing the ordinary acts with visible worldly results; such, for instance, as ‘cattle should graze in such and such a place,’ ‘this water should not be given for purposes of irrigation of crops to such and such a village until we have secured such and such a benefit from it in return.’ — He devised also those acts that accomplish only visible results; but those acts that accomplish transcendental results he devised on the basis of Vedic declarations.

Objection — “As a matter of fact, all things have been created by Brahmā; and since he is the only independent agent, the proper statement would have been that ‘he devised the Veda for the purpose of safeguarding the performaṅce of acts’; in fact the devising of the Veda by Brahmā is going to be described even in the present context (in verse 23).”

Answer — On the subject of the origin of the Vedas, several theories have been propounded: (1) Some people hold as follows: — Brahmā studied the Vedas in a previous cycle; — at the following Universal Dissolution, they disappeared; — in the succeeding cycle at first they were recollected by Brahmā, just as if he had gone to sleep and had risen from it; in the same manner as people remember a verse that came to their mind during a dream; — the Veda having been thus recollected by him, he remembers the words of such passages as “gauranubandhyaḥ-aśvastuparo mṛgaḥ (Yajurveda-Vajasa. 24.1), and immediately there come to his mind the things denoted by these words; so that as soon as these things are found to have come into existence, he decides that, inasmuch as such as was the name of this thing in the preceding cycle, it may have the same name in this cycle also. So that he devised the names as well as the acts, both on the basis of the words of the Veda. — (2) The other theory is as follows: — Even at universal Dissolution the Vedas do not disappear at all; they continue to exist for ever, just like the Supreme Being postulated by certain philosophers. This same Supreme Being created within the egg the being named Brahmā and taught him the Vedas; and this Brahmā, on the basis of the words of the Vedas, devised every thing.

What the real truth on this point is we have already set forth above; while for one who seeks for an account in accordance with the Purāṇas, we have just described the two theories that have been propounded.

‘Ādau,’ ‘at the outset’ — at the time of world creation; — or, ‘ādau’ may be taken to mean ‘ever-lasting,’ referring to those names whose original form has not become corrupted, as distinguished from such corrupted names as ‘gāvī’ and the like, which owe their origin to the incapacity of men (to pronounce the corect forms).

‘Distinct’ — the names designated were in accordance with that configuration of the body peculiar to each species; what he designated was not merely a collective name (applicable to all animals), — but a distinct name for each species. — (21)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata, 12.232.26. — ‘Out of the words of the Veda itself did He, in the beginning, create the names of the sages, as also of all those creations that are described in the Veda.’

VERSE 1.22 [Creation of the Gods]

Section X - Creation of the Gods

कर्मात्मनां च देवानां सोऽसृजत् प्राणिनां प्रभुः ।
साध्यानां च गणं सूक्ष्मं यज्ञं चैव सनातनम् ॥२२॥

karmātmanāṃ ca devānāṃ so'sṛjat prāṇināṃ prabhuḥ |
sādhyānāṃ ca gaṇaṃ sūkṣmaṃ yajñaṃ caiva sanātanam ||22||

For the sake of living beings intent upon action, he created the eternal sacrifice; as also the host of Gods and the subtile multitude of the lesser divinities, the Sādhyas. — (22)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Living beings intent upon action’ — stands for human beings intent upon the performance of actions; for the accomplishment of the purpose of these, ‘he created the sacrifice.’ Those men are called ‘intent upon action’ who, not giving themselves up to the worship of Brahman, still hanker after such results as the obtaining of sons and cattle, etc., and accepting the philosophy of Dualism, engage themselves in the performance of actions. — The Genitive ending also (in the words ‘Karmātmanām prāṇinām) signifies ‘for the sake of’; hence the meaning is that ‘he created the sacrifice for the sake of the said beings.’ — ‘The hosts of gods’ also he created for the sake of sacrifices. — The particle ‘ca’ is misplaced after ‘Karmātmanām’; its proper place is after ‘devānām’; the meaning thus being — ‘He created the sacrifice, and for the sake of the due fulfilment of the sacrifice, he created also the hosts of gods, such as Agni, Agni-Soma, Indra-Agni and so forth. — He also created the multitude of the divinities called ‘Sādhyas’ — the word ‘gaṇam’ being construed with ‘Sādhyānām’ also. The Sādhyas are mentioned apart from the ‘Gods,’ because they are not entitled to partake of the sacrificial offerings, — they being entitled only to having hymns addressed to them. That the Sādhyas form a particular class of divinities is shown by such passages as ‘In the beginning there were the gods named Sādhyas’ (Ṛgveda 10.90.16). — Or the separate mention of the ‘Sādhyas’ may be explained on the analogy of such expressions as ‘brāhmaṇa-parivrājaka’ and the like [the ‘Parivrājaka’, ‘wandering renunciate’ is a ‘Brāhmaṇa’ with some qualifications; similarly the Sādhyas are Devas with the further qualification that they are not entitled to a share of the offerings], — ‘Subtile’ — the multitude of Sādhyas is Subtile in comparison to such deities as the Maruts and the Rudrāṅgirases. — The mention of the Sādhyas is meant to include all those deities that have no connection with sacrificial offerings, such, for instance, as Veno, (?) Sunīti (?) and so forth.

[Another explanation of the verse.]

Some people construe ‘Karmātmanām-devānām-prāṇimām’ together, taking them as co-extensive. The ‘gods’ being called ‘Karmātmānaḥ’ in the sense that they are of the nature of actions, actions form the very essence of their nature; they are so called, because they help in the accomplishment of sacrificial acts, or because they constitute the most important factor in the sacrificial act. Among the gods there are some who arc described in the Itihāsas, in connection with sacrifices, as possessed of distinctive forms; to this class belong the gods, Indra, Rudra and Viṣṇu; there are others who are gods, not in their own forms, but only at sacrifices; to this class belong the ‘Akṣa’ (wheel-axle), ‘Grāvan’ (Pebbles) and the Rathāṅga (the wheels, or the constituent parts of the chariot). As regards Indra &c., we find in the Mahābhārata descriptions of such deeds of theirs as fighting with Vṛttra and other Asuras; but there is no description of any such acts in connection with the Wheel-axle &c.; and yet in the Vedic hymns connected with sacrificial offerings we find these latter spoken of as ‘deities’; for instance, the wheel-axles are referred to as deities in the hymn ‘prāvepāmā &c’; (Ṛgveda, 10.34.1); the Pebbles are spoken of as deities in the hymn ‘praite vadantu &c.’ (Ṛgveda, 10.94.1) — the Wheels are spoken of as deities in the hymn ‘vanaspate vīdvaṅgu &c.’ (Ṛgveda 6.47.26). — It is in view of (with a view to exclude) these latter (which are inanimate) that we have the epithet ‘prāṇinām’ (Animate). There are two kinds of gods; some are animate, others inanimate; e.g., Indra and others are described in the ‘Purāṇa’ as having human bodies and endowed with life; but the wheel-axle &c. are not found so described. All this conception of the creation of things is based upon Itihāsas. An additional ‘ca,’ also, has to be taken as understood; the meaning being ‘animate and also the inanimate.’ According to the Nirukta also there are three kinds of deities — Horses, mentioned in the hymn ‘mā no mitra &c.’ (Ṛgveda, 1.162.1), Birds mentioned in the hymn ‘Kanikradat &c.’ (Ṛgveda 5.83.1), and Bulls mentioned in the hymn ‘āgāvo agman’ &c. (Ṛgveda, 6.28.1); — all these deities are animate; and the inanimate ones have been already described.

The epithet ‘eternal’ qualifies the ‘sacrifice’; the sacrifice having existed in the previous cycle also, there is a continuity of tradition in regard to it; and it is on this ground that it is regarded as eternal. — (22)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The meaning of this verse, which Buhler attributes to Medhātithi, is one that the latter has not put forward at all. His explanation is somewhat different, as will be clear from the translation. He has however noted an explanation by ‘others’, which is rightly rendered by Buhler as — ‘The Lord created the multitude of the gods whose nature is sacrifice and of those endowed with life.’ — According to Rāghavānanda it means — ‘The Lord created among beings endowed with life the (to us) invisible multitude of the gods who, by the result of their acts, have obtained their divine station, or who subsist on offerings.’

VERSE 1.23 [Creation of the Vedas]

Section XI - Creation of the Vedas

अग्निवायुरविभ्यस्तु त्रयं ब्रह्म सनातनम् ।
दुदोह यज्ञसिद्ध्यर्थं ऋच्।यजुस्।सामलक्षणम् ॥२३॥

agnivāyuravibhyastu trayaṃ brahma sanātanam |
dudoha yajñasiddhyarthaṃ ṛc|yajus|sāmalakṣaṇam ||23||

From out of (the three deities) Agni, Vāyu and Ravi, he extracted, for the due fulfilment of sacrifices, the eternal Brahman, threefold, in the forms of ‘Ṛk,’ ‘Yajuṣ’ and ‘Sāman.’ — (23)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There are only three deities, Agni, Vāyu, and Ravi, — say the followers of the Nirukta; even though these three have several names; and in accordance with this theory the text would mean as follows: — ‘For the due fulfilment of the sacrifices,’ to these three deities, — the Dative ending (in the term ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’) being due to the fact of these three deities being the recipients of the sacrificial offerings, — ‘he milked the Brahman,’ called ‘Veda’, ‘in the forms of Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāman.’

But as a matter of fact, the root (in ‘dudoha’ ‘milked’) is one that should have two objects; it has its primary object in the form of ‘trayam’; and it should have a second, the secondary, object; but there is no such secondary object in the sentence. Hence we conclude that the term ‘ravibhyaḥ’ should be taken in the Ablative case; the meaning being — ‘From out of the three deities, Agni &c, he extracted’ — made to flow, produced — [the Veda].

Question: — “How could the words, the mantra-texts and the Brāhmaṇa-texts (of which the Veda consists) — which are made up of letters — come out of Agni and other deities?” Answer: — Why is this not possible? In regard to invisible forces, who can say that they do not exist?

[An objection is raised against the second interpretation preferred by the Bhāṣya] — “It is not right to alter the meaning of the verb (‘dundoha,’ ‘milked’); so that (if the root retains its own meaning) how could we havo the Ablative (in ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’)? It should take the Accusative ending, according to the grammatical rule under Pāṇini’s Sūtra 1.4.51, which lays down that the roots ‘duhi,’ ‘yāci’ &c., take two objects, and the source from which the ‘milking’ is done is the secondary object. Further, the mind of reasonable men is not satisfied when what is described as having happened in the past is something that is not compatible with the ordinary sources of knowledge.”

This incongruity becomes explained away when we take the statement as referring to the framework of the Vedas; the meaning being that the Ṛgveda came out of Agni, the Yajurveda out of Vāyu and the Sāmaveda out of Ravi. Then again, it has to be borne in mind that Agni and the rest are deities endowed with superior potencies, and Prajāpati is possessed of unexcelled powers; so that what can be impossible for these? Under this explanation full significance should attach to the Ablative; so that the case-relation being already expressed (by the Ablative), and the Ablative being duly significant, it is the Ablative that is used [and not the Accusative, which has been laid down in Pāṇini 1.4.51 as to be used only in cases where the case-relation is not otherwise expressed]; this has been fully justified in the Bhāṣya (of Patañjali).

Question: — “If the said theory be not accepted, what would be the explanation of the word ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’ then?”

Answer: — In that case, we have already said that it could be taken as the Dative; and (as regards the necessity of the verb ‘dudoha,’ ‘milked,’ having a secondary object) it has to be borne in mind that all that is here stated is mere vāda. So that (physical impossibilities being not counted) ‘ātman’ may be taken as the required secondary object, — the meaning being that ‘Prajāpati milked himself (of the Veda)’ [‘for the sake of Agni, and Ravi’]. And further, ‘milking’ may be taken in the sense of teaching, which resembles the act of milking in consisting of transferring a thing from one receptacle into another. [So that the passage would mean that ‘he taught the Veda to Agni &c.’] Even when the word ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’ is taken as Ablative, the statement can be justified on the ground that the opening verses of the Ṛgveda speak of Agni, — this fact being what is meant by the statement ‘the Ṛgveda came out of Agni.’ Similarly, the opening verse of the Yajurveda is ‘Iṣe tvorje’ &c., whore the term ‘iṭ’ (the base in ‘iṣe’) means food, and food is produced by Vāyu, which is present within the food, by the bestowing (upon it) of rain; ‘urk’ (the base in the second word ‘urje’) means life-breath, and this is Vāyu (Air) itself; thus since the Yajurveda opens with the description of the effects of Vāyu, we have the metaphorical expression that ‘it came out of Vāyu.’ Or, the duties of the Adhvaryu and the functions of the Ṛtviks (which form the subject-matter of the Yajurveda) all consist of so many forms of activity; and all activity proceeds from Vāyu; hence it is on the basis of this similarity that the Yajurveda is spoken of as coming out of Vāyu. Lastly, as regards the the singing of the Sāman cannot be done except by persons specially qualified for it; hence the Sāma verses are such as can be duly read by only the best among men, and Ravi (the Sun) occupies the highest point in space [and on this fact is based the statement that the Sāmaveda came out of Ravi ]. — (23)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

There are two explanations of this verse, supplied by Medhātithi: — (1) ‘For the sake of the accomplishment of the sacrifice to Agni, Vāyu and Sūrya, He produced the Veda,’ and (2) ‘Out of Agni......He produced the Veda’; — the latter being preferred, for reasons adduced in the Bhāṣya.

Burnell has a curious note here to the effect that — ‘This myth of the creation of the Vedas differs from the Sāṅkhya account, according to which they are eternal and issue from Brahmā’s mouth.’ It was necessary to supply references to the work on Sāṅkhya here referred to.

Medhātithi (p. 19, 1. 9) ‘Asmindarśane’ — etc. This refers to the passage in the Mahāhhāṣya (Nirṇayasāgara edition, ‘Vol. II, p. 265, l. 18).

A similar use of the Ablative ending we find in 2. 77.

Do. (p. 19, l. 11) ‘Dohanañchādhyāpanam’ — In this case ravibhyaḥ would be the Dative form.

VERSE 1.24 [Creation of Time]

Section XII - Creation of Time

कालं कालविभक्तीश्च नक्षत्राणि ग्रहांस्तथा ।
सरितः सागरान् शैलान् समानि विषमानि च ॥२४॥

kālaṃ kālavibhaktīśca nakṣatrāṇi grahāṃstathā |
saritaḥ sāgarān śailān samāni viṣamāni ca ||24||

[He created] also Time, the Divisions of Time, the Lunar Mansions, the Planets, the Rivers, the Oceans, the Mountains and the tracts of land, plain and rugged. — (24)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author mentions Time, because it belongs to the same category (of ‘action’) as Duty. It is only according to Vaiśesikas that Time is a substance; according to others it is a form of action; it consists in the extension of the motions of the Sun and other planets, and is liable to return.

‘Divisious of Time’ — such divisions as into ‘month,’ ‘season,’ ‘half-year,’ ‘year’ and so forth.

‘Lunar Mansions’ — such as Kṛttikā (Pleiades), Rohiṇī (Aldebaran) and the rest.

‘Planets’ — Sun and the rest.

‘Rivers’ — streams.

‘Oceans’ — seas — and ‘Mountains.’

‘Even tracts of land’ — such tracts of land as are of one uniform form, devoid of ditches and holes. — ‘Rugged tracts of land’ — such as are high and low. — (24)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 19, 1. 21) — It is interesting to note that even so late as Medhātithi’s time, the Lunar Mansions were counted from Kṛttikā onwards, and not from Aśvinī as in the more recent astronomical systems. (See Thibaut on ‘Indian Astronomy’ in Indian Thought Vol. I.)

This verse is quoted in the Gadādharapaddhati — Kālasāra, p. 5, as describing the creation of time and its divisions; — also in the Kālamādhava (p. 45) as describing the creation of time by God; it reads ‘vibhaktim’ for ‘vibhaktiḥ.’

VERSE 1.25 [Creation of Happiness]

Section XIII - Creation of Happiness

तपो वाचं रतिं चैव कामं च क्रोधमेव च ।
सृष्टिं ससर्ज चैवैमां स्रष्टुमिच्छन्निमाः प्रजाः ॥२५॥

tapo vācaṃ ratiṃ caiva kāmaṃ ca krodhameva ca |
sṛṣṭiṃ sasarja caivaimāṃ sraṣṭumicchannimāḥ prajāḥ ||25||

Being desirous of bringing into existence these creatures, he created this entire creation (comprising) austerity, speech, happiness, desire and anger. — (25)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Happiness’ — Satisfaction of the mind ‘Desire’ — Longing or Love; the rest are well known.

‘He created this creation’ comprising the things mentioned and others of the same kind. — The term ‘this’ refers to the creation of things mentioned in this verse as also that described in the foregoing verses.

‘Being desirous of bringing into existence these creatures’ — such, for instance, as the Devas and Asuras, the Yakṣa, the Rākṣasa, and Gandharva and other beings, the vehicle of these beings, in the form of the body equipped with the soul and characteristics, and also Dharma; these he created first of all.

“What sort of verbal expression is this — ‘he created the creation’?” It means exactly what is meant by the expression ‘he wrought or did the creation’; as a matter of fact, all verbal roots express some particular form of action, denoted by the root ‘Kṛ’; e.g., ‘cooks’ is synonymous with ‘does the cooking; ‘sacrifices’ is the same as ‘does the sacrificing’; in the expression under question the peculiar form of the action (of creation) having been already expressed by the verbal noun (‘creation’), the root contained in the verb (‘created’) comes to denote only the action. To guard against such an expression living open to the charge of being a needless repetition, involved in the action being spoken of by means of the root in the verb, after it has been already expressed by the verbal noun, — we may take the mention of the verb to be for the purpose of expressing the tense and the voice (which could not be expressed by the verbal noun). — Or, the term ‘creation’ may be taken as standing for the particular created things known by the ordinary means of knowledge and forming the object of the general act of creating expressed by the verb ‘created’; such usage being analogous to the expression ‘svapoṣam puṣṭaḥ,’ ‘reared the rearing by oneself’ (where the rearing qualified by ‘self’ forms the object of the verb ‘reared’, which denotes rearing in general). — (25)

VERSE 1.26 [Differentiation of Virtue and Vice]

Section XIV - Differentiation of Virtue and Vice

कर्मणां च विवेकार्थं धर्माधर्मौ व्यवेचयत् ।
द्वन्द्वैरयोजयच्चैमाः सुखदुःखादिभिः प्रजाः ॥२६॥

karmaṇāṃ ca vivekārthaṃ dharmādharmau vyavecayat |
dvandvairayojayaccaimāḥ sukhaduḥkhādibhiḥ prajāḥ ||26||

For the due discrimination of actions, he differentiated Virtue and Vice; and he connected these creatures with such pairs of opposites as Pleasure-Pain and the like. — (26)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He differentiated Virtue and Vice’ — He fixed their character by due distinction, i.e., as distinct from each other; in such form — ‘this is Virtue, that is Vice.’

Objection: — “In reality however, there is no such hard and fast distinction; there are several actions that partake of the nature of both and are both virtuous and vicious (sinful); for instance, they say that the actions (of sacrifice) laid down in the Veda are of mixed character, being accomplished, as they are, by means of animal-slaughter; the sacrifice for instance, is by itself a virtuous or meritorious act, but by reason of animal-slaughter forming one of its factors, it is vicious or sinful.”

It is in view of this objection that the text has added the phrase — ‘For the due discrimination of actions’; — the term ‘action’ here stands for the actual process, the performance of actions; as a matter of fact, the same act, if performed in a different manner, acquires an entirely different character; i.e., an act which is virtuous (when done in one way) becomes vicious (when done in another way), and vice versâ; e.g. the act of animal-slaughter itself; animal-slaughter, when done apart from a sacrificial performance, is vicious, sinful, — forming as it does the subject of such Vedic prohibitions as ‘One should not kill any animals’; but when done within the sacrificial altar, during the Agnīṣomīya offering, it in virtous, meritorious — being an act that forms the subject of injunctions. Similarly, Austerity (in itself) is virtuous; but when it is performed through hypocrisy, or by a person unfit for performing it, it is vicious. Similarly again, for women, intercourse with the husband’s younger brother is sinful; but when under orders from her elders, a woman desiring children has intercourse with her brother-in-law, who is besmeared with clarified butter &c. (as laid down in the scriptures), it is virtuous. Thus then, even though the action be one and the same, there is a distinction based upon the way in which it is actually performed. The sameness of the action however is only apparent; in view of other sources of knowledge the acts (done in different ways) are different.

Further, the term ‘action’ may be taken as standing for the effects of the actions, — the cause being figuratively spoken of as the effect. Thus the meaning comes to be as follows: — ‘He differentiated actions for the due discrimination of the effects of actions.’

In view of the question as to what is the ‘discrimination of the effects of actions,’ it is added — ‘he connected them with pairs of opposites, in the shape of Plensure-Pain and the like’; — ‘Pleasure’ being the effect of ‘Virtue’ and ‘Pain’ of ‘Vice.’ It is thus that people performing both kind of actions become associated with these pairs of opposites; by performing virtuous acts they become associated with pleasure, and by performing vicious acts they become connected with pain.

The term ‘dvanḍva’, ‘Pair of opposites,’ is, by usage, applied to such mutually contradictory sources of pain as ‘Heat-Cold,’ ‘Rain-Hot weather,’ ‘Hunger-Satiation,’ and so forth.

The phrase ‘and the like’ refers to the general and special forms of the said sources of pain. For instance, the terms ‘Pleasure-Pain,’ in their general form are denotative either of ‘Heaven-Hell,’ or of ‘excessive joy and sorrow’; while in their special form, they stand for the ‘obtaining of heaven, of landed property, of sons, of cattle and so forth (‘Pleasure’) and the ‘being deprived of these’; all these being implied by the terms ‘Ādi,’ ‘and the like.’

The creation of Actions having been described before (in Verse 18 et seq.), what is described in the present verse is that Prajāpati brought about the distinction in their actual performance, as also the discrimination of their effects; thus there is a difference between what was said before and what is said now. — (26)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The term ‘dharma’, as Burnell rightly remarks, stands for a man’s whole duty, including both secular and religious duty.’

The other ‘Dvandvas’ are Kāma (Desire) — Krodha (Anger) — Rāga (Attachment) — Dveṣa (Hatred) — ‘Kṣut (Hunger) — Pipāsā (Thirst) — Harṣa (joy) — Viṣāda (Sorrow)’ and so forth.

VERSE 1.27 [Creation of Gross and Subtile things]

Section XV - Creation of Gross and Subtile things

अण्व्यो मात्रा विनाशिन्यो दशार्धानां तु याः स्मृताः ।
ताभिः सार्धमिदं सर्वं सम्भवत्यनुपूर्वशः ॥२७॥

aṇvyo mātrā vināśinyo daśārdhānāṃ tu yāḥ smṛtāḥ |
tābhiḥ sārdhamidaṃ sarvaṃ sambhavatyanupūrvaśaḥ ||26||

The evanescent subtile constituents of the half-ten (Elemental Substances) that have been described, — along with those, this whole (world) comes forth, in due order. — (27)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse sums up what has gone before.

‘Of the half-ten’ — i.e., of the five elemental substances; — ‘the subtile,’ — minute, — ‘constituents,’ — parts; i.e., the ‘Rudimentary substances’; these are ‘evanescent’; — they are called ‘evanescent’ (liable to destruction) in the sense that, being liable to undergo modifications, they take up grosser forms. — ‘along with those,' ‘this whole’ — world, — ‘comes forth,’ — is produced; — ‘in due order,’ — in proper sequence; i.e., from the subtile the gross, and from the gross the grosser; or in the order in which they have been described (in the foregoing verses). — (27)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vināśinyaḥ’ — because liable to change into gross substances (Medhātithi, Govinda and Kullūka); or because they are products (Rāghavā.)

The commentators are at some pains to explain the incongruity of the inter-position of the present verse in the middle of what purports to be a connected account of the process of creation. Medhātithi says the verse serves the purpose of summing up what has been said so far; — Govindarāja and Kullūka make it serve the purpose of setting aside the notion that the creation was accomplished by Brahman without the help of the ‘principles’; — and Nārāyaṇa holds that it is meant to lay stress upon the non-eternality of atoms; — Nandana has solved the difficulty by placing this verse after verse 19.

VERSE 1.28-29 [Creation dependent upon ‘Karma’]

Section XVI - Creation dependent upon ‘Karma’

यं तु कर्मणि यस्मिन् स न्ययुङ्क्त प्रथमं प्रभुः ।
स तदेव स्वयं भेजे सृज्यमानः पुनः पुनः ॥२८॥

yaṃ tu karmaṇi yasmin sa nyayuṅkta prathamaṃ prabhuḥ |
sa tadeva svayaṃ bheje sṛjyamānaḥ punaḥ punaḥ ||28||

Each being, when created again and again, naturally conformed to that same act to which the lord had, at first, directed him. — (28)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The meaning of this verse is as follows: — Even though Prajāpati, being the supreme director of the creation of things, can create living creatures just as he chooses, yet, as a matter of fact, he creates them, not without reference to the actions done by them during the preceding cycles; he makes the creature born in that family of creatures which is indicated by the act done by it during the previous cycle, — and never in any other family; if the creature has, in the past, done a good act, it is led to be born in a family in which it would be enabled to experience the good results of that act, — in such families for instance, as ‘God,’ ‘Man’ and so forth; if, on the other hand, the acts of the creature have been bad, it is born in such families as ‘animals,’ ‘evil spirits’ and the like. What happens is that at the beginning of each new creation, the acts done by creatures in the previous cycle come out, after having, during Dissolution, lain latent within their source; just in the same manner as the Elements, the Organs and the Constituent Attributes come out at the beginning of each creation, after having lain latent within their source, in the Boot Evolvent. And the reason for this lies in the fact that the law relating to the ‘residue of the past’ (affecting the future) applies with equal force to the case in question also.

Question: — “If the coming into existence (of a creature) is dependent upon its own past acts, where then does the almighty power of Prajāpati come in? Of what sort too would be the almighty power which is dependent upon extraneous influences?”

Answer: — It is only when the said almighty power is there and (active) that the world comes into existence; how then can the said power he said to have no effect at all? In fact, neither continuance, nor production, nor dissolution (of the world) is possible except when that power is present, — the power of God being ever present, at all times. In reality, what lead to a creature being born are (1) acts done by itself, (2) the will of Prajāpati and (3) the evolution of the Root Evolvent. It is by all this set of causes that this world is produced, exists and becomes dissolved. The mere fact of Prajāpati being influenced by the things does not deprive him of his almighty power. The case stands upon the same footing as a king bestowing upon his servants and dependents the rewards for acts done by them; exactly in the same manner Prajāpati assigns to each creature what is in accordance with its previous acts; and yet neither the King nor Prajāpati cease to be ‘all-powerful.’

Objection: —

“The meaning assigned to the verse does not appear to be its right meaning at all. What appears to be its right meaning is that the Creator is entirely independent in assigning their work to the creatures. The verse thus means as follows: — ‘Every creature conformed to, — i.e., carried on — that same action — in the form either of doing harm to others, or its contrary, — to which the Lord had directed it at — at the beginning of creation’; that is, man does not have recourse to actions, cither entirely on the advice of his father and other elders, or by his own will; in fact, whatever good or bad action he performs, he does wholly in accordance with Prajāpati’s directions, entirely uninfluenced by the advice of any other person.

‘When created again’ — i.e., when born again, whether in another cycle, or in this same cycle, — it is Prajāpati alone who directs all animate beings to be the doers of actions; hence even past good and bad acts arc done by them only in obedience to the directions of Prajāpati; this has been thus declared: — ‘They become agents without being masters of their own actions; to the good or the bad act they are led on by God’; and again ‘this ignorant creature has no control over his pleasure and pain; it is only as led on by God that he goes to heaven or to hell.’”

To the above we make the following reply: — If the suggested explanation were accepted, (1) it would mean the abandoning of the idea of an inseparable connection between Actions and their results, — (2) it would also mean that all human effort is useless (everything being determined entirely by the independent will of God), — (3) and it would mean that the injunctions of the Agnihotra and such acts, as well as the worshipping of Brahman, are entirely futile; in fact it would come to this that actions for visible or invisible results would be undertaken by only such men as are ignorant of the nature of God; while those who are of opinion that the doing of actions and the enjoying of their results are dependent on the will of God would never engage in any form of activity; they would keep away from activity under the impression that ‘even though an action may be done, its result may not follow (if God so wished it), and even though we may not do the act, we may enjoy its results (if God so willed it).’ Especially because the desire for being the doer of a certain act does not arise in the man forcibly through the prompting of God, as illness arises from unwholesome food; on the other hand, if the said desire is held to be determined by the connection between the action and its result, — the idea being that ‘this result follows from this action’ — then it would not be true that ‘the Lord directed the man to the act’ (as the text says).

The direction by God, spoken of in the text can be admitted only on the authority of the scriptures; and in the statement — ‘that action to which the Lord directed him at first,’ — the phrase ‘at first’ is used in reference to the present, since the world is beginningless (so that ‘at first’ could not mean at the beginning of creation)’, and as regards the ‘direction’ or ‘supervision’ by the Lord, this extends over all tilings (not only to Actions), he being the efficient cause of Time and Space (within which all things have their being). [In this way the idea of God’s supervision is not incompatible with the theory that results accrue to men from their own acts.]

Other people offer the following explanation of the verse: — When a personality happens to be born in a different animal-species (from that in which it was born in its former life), it does not require the effects of its former conditions; nor is there the resultant continuity of its former nature; when, for instance, a certain personality happens to be born in the foline species, which species God originally prompted to such acts as the killing of others and the like, — it renounces the quality of mercy which it may have practised during its human existence, and acquires the quality of that species in which it is born, even though this latter quality may not have been taught by any one. What is meant is that the actions due to the nature of the personality being ordained by God are extremely potent, and make the personality forget its former habits.

The idea contained in this verse is further expanded in the following verse. — (28)

हिंस्राहिंस्रे मृदुक्रूरे धर्माधर्मावृतानृते ।
यद् यस्य सो'दधात् सर्गे तत् तस्य स्वयमाविशत् ॥२९॥

hiṃsrāhiṃsre mṛdukrūre dharmādharmāvṛtānṛte |
yad yasya so'dadhāt sarge tat tasya svayamāviśat ||29||

Hurtfulness or harmlessness, tenderness or hard-heartedness, virtue or vice, truthfulness or truth-lessness, — each of these accrued to that being in which he implanted it at creation. — (29)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Hurtful’ is that which deprives living beings of life, such for instance, as the Serpent, the Lion and the Elephant; — the opposite of this is the ‘Harmless’; for instance, the several species of the Deer, the Ruru, the Pṛṣat and the like; — ‘Tender’ is that which is kind, which causes no suffering to any one; — ‘Hard-hearted’ is that which causes pain to others; — the rest are well known.

Out of the said pairs of the line of actions, that which ‘he,’ Prajāpati, in accordance with its previous conduct, ‘implanted,’ assigned, ordained, — in a being, — ‘at creation’ — at the beginning of creation, — that line of action the created living being acquires by itself.

No significance is meant to be attached to the past tense in ‘accrued’: for even now-a-days we find the qualities inherent in a certain class of beings coming to the individual without teaching, spontaneously. — (29)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verse xviii)

Medhātithi notes two explanations of this verse.

The natural meaning appeal’s to be that ‘each being continues, in each succeeding Birth, to betake itself to the same function that was assigned to it in the beginning by Prajāpati.’

But this being incompatible with the law of Karma, which has been regarded as adumbrated by Manu in I. 41, — Medhātithi has tried his best to get out of the words the meaning that the conditions and activities of each being are ordained in accordance with his past deeds; — but the only argument that he puts forward in support of assigning this meaning is that the literal meaning of the words would give rise to a number of undesirable contingencies. According to Medhātithi, creation is due to the joint action of the three causes — (1) the being’s past acts (2) God’s will and (3) Evolution of Prakṛti.

The confusion of thought in regard to the exact meaning of this and the following two verses is further shown by the fact that Medhātithi (p. 22, l, 27 under verse 30) has thought it necessary to set forth ‘another explanation’ of these texts.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verse xviii-xix)

Mahābhārata, 12.232.16. — ‘Of the created things, whatever functions became assigned to whichever thing at the beginning of creation, that thing take to those same functions, whenever they are created again and again.’ ‘Harmfulness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferociousness, righteousness or unrighteousness, truthfulness or untruthfulness, with one or the other of these they are obsessed, and hence are they fond of just those.’

VERSE 1.30

Section XVI - Creation dependent upon ‘Karma’

यथर्तुलिङ्गान्यर्तवः स्वयमेवर्तुपर्यये ।
स्वानि स्वान्यभिपद्यन्ते तथा कर्माणि देहिनः ॥३०॥

yathartuliṅgānyartavaḥ svayamevartuparyaye |
svāni svānyabhipadyante tathā karmāṇi dehinaḥ ||30||

Just as on the approach of the turn of the Seasons, each season, by itself, acquires its own seasonal characteristics, — so in the same manner living beings take up their respective lines of action. — (30)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In support of what has been said in the foregoing verses, an illustration is cited. Just as even inanimate things have their character fixed by the law of God, — so animate beings also do not go beyond the law laid down by Prajāpati, in accordance with the past acts of men; they have recourse to that same line of action which has been assigned to the family of beings in which they are born; any other line of action they cannot take up, even though they may wish to do so.

‘The seasons’ — Spring and the rest; — ‘its own seasonal characteristics’ — in the form of leaves, flowers, cold, heat, rain and so forth. — ‘at the approach of the turn’ — when the turn, the occasion for functioning, of a particular season arrives, — that season acquires its character, by itself; and it does not stand is need of any act of man. For instance, at the advent of spring, mango-blossoms bloom forth by themselves, and they, do not stand in need of watering at the roots. In the same manner the ‘lines of action’ of men — which exist in their ‘unseen’ or latent form — [operate by themselves]. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as is not affected by the ‘acts’ (of men); for instance, it is in the nature of the Rainy Season that there should be rain, and yet on account of the faulty action, either of the king or kingdom itself, there is sometimes drought. From all this it follows that the force of ‘action’ is irrepressible.

The frequent repetition of the term ‘ṛtu’ season,’ is due to the exigencies of metre.

VERSE 1.31 [Creation of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes]

Section XVII - Creation of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes

लोकानां तु विवृद्ध्यर्थं मुखबाहूरुपादतः ।
ब्राह्मणं क्षत्रियं वैश्यं शूद्रं च निरवर्तयत् ॥३१॥

lokānāṃ tu vivṛddhyarthaṃ mukhabāhūrupādataḥ |
brāhmaṇaṃ kṣatriyaṃ vaiśyaṃ śūdraṃ ca niravartayat ||31||

With a view to the development of the (three) regions, He brought into existence the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, from out of His mouth, arms, thighs and feet (respectively). — (31)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘With a view to the development of the regions.’ terrestrial and the rest; — ‘development’ stands for Nourishment and expansion; it is only when the four castes, Brāhmaṇa and the rest, are there that there is development of the three regions; for the Gods live upon offerings made by these castes, — these castes alone being entitled to the performance of sacrifices; so that the action done by these nourishes the two regions (celestial and subterranean); then again, the Gods also are prompted by men’s action to act; from the Sun-God comes rain; and thus the said creation (of the Brāhmaṇa) tends to the nourishment of this (terrestrial) region also.

‘He brought unto existence,’ — i.e., produced, the Brāhmaṇa and other castes, — ‘from out of his mouth, arm’, thighs and feet’ respectively; i.e., the Brāhmaṇa from out of his mouth, the Kṣatriya out of his arms, the Vaiśya out of his thighs and the Śūdra out of his feet. — The affix ‘tasi’ (in ‘mukha bāhārupādataḥ’) has the sense of the Ablative; the effect is, as it were, drawn out of the cause; and this implying a sort of separation, the use of the Ablative becomes fully justified.

It was only a certain primeval Brāhmaṇa whom Prajāpati produced, by his divine power, out of the component particles of his own mouth; because so far as the Brāhmaṇas of the present day are concerned, they are all actually found to he produced by intercourse between human couples, out of the material principles.

In reality however, what is stated here is merely commendatory, intended to show the relative superiority and inferiority of the castes; — the meaning being — ‘of all beings Prajāpati is the highest, — among all the limbs of Prajāpati, the mouth is the highest, — similarly the Brāhmaṇa is the highest, most praiseworthy, of all the castes;’ and on the basis of this similarity the Brāhmaṇa is described as produced out of Brahma’s mouth.

Or, the description of the Brāhmaṇa coming out of Brahma’s mouth may be due to the fact that the work of the mouth, such as teaching and the like, belongs preeminently to the Brāhmaṇa; to the Kṣatriya belongs the work of the arms, lighting; to the Vaiśya the work of the thighs, such as wandering about with the cows, when tending cattle, and also travelling for trade on land and water; and to the Śūdra belongs the work of the feet, i.e., service. — (31)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Lokavivṛddhyartham’ — ‘in order that the inhabitants of the worlds might multiply (or prosper)’ — (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka); — ‘in order to protect the world by means of the castes, and to make it prosperous’ (Nārāyaṇa).

It is refreshing to find Medhātithi regarding this account of the castes issuing from the mouth and other parts of the body of the Lord as mere ‘stuti’ — not to be taken as literally true.

VERSE 1.32 [Creation of the Male and the Female]

Section XVIII - Creation of the Male and the Female

द्विधा कृत्वाऽत्मनो देहमर्धेन पुरुषोऽभवत् ।
अर्धेन नारी तस्यां स विराजमसृजत् प्रभुः ॥३२॥

dvidhā kṛtvā'tmano dehamardhena puruṣo'bhavat |
ardhena nārī tasyāṃ sa virājamasṛjat prabhuḥ ||33||

Having divided his body into two halves, with the one half, the Lord became Male, and with the other half, Female; from her he produced Virāj. — (32)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The creation described here is apparently of another Being; but others have held that it is of the same Brahmā; the meaning being that the body that came out of the Egg being divided into two halves, ‘with one half he became Male’ — i.e., he became a male being, capable of instilling semen — and ‘with the other half he became the Female’; that is, his body assumed the form of the Hermaphrodite, like Gaurī-Śaṅkara (combined in a single body). Or, it may mean that he crested the Female apart (from the Male). — Having created her, he produced, from her, by the act of procreation, that being whose well-known name is ‘Virāj.’ What is meant is that Prajāpati had recourse to his own daughter.

This mention of the bifurcation of Prajāpati’s body is based upon the fact that the husband and wife differ only in their bodies, and in all functions they are entirely united. — (32)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The ‘Virāṭ’ whose birth is here described is, according to some, the same as, — and according to others, different from — the ‘Brahmā’ described above, in verse 9. That Medhātithi leans towards the latter view is indicated by his assertion that what happened was that ‘the body of Brahmā (described in verse 9) now took the form of the Hermaphrodite,’ — or as he adds later, ‘the Female form was separated from His own Male form.’

VERSE 1.33 [Creation of Manu]

Section XIX - Creation of Manu

द्तपस्तप्त्वाऽसृजद् यं तु स स्वयं पुरुषो विराट् ।
तं मां वित्तास्य सर्वस्य स्रष्टारं द्विजसत्तमाः ॥३३॥

tapastaptvā'sṛjad yaṃ tu sa svayaṃ puruṣo virāṭ |
taṃ māṃ vittāsya sarvasya sraṣṭāraṃ dvijasattamāḥ ||33||

O best of Brāhmaṇas, know me, the creator, of this whole (would), to be that whom the said Being Virāj himself, after having performed austerities, produced. — (33)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The said Virāj, having performed austerities,’ produced a person; know — i.e., recognise — that person to be myself; — there is nothing that is not already known to you, by tradition, which I could describe to you; all that the speaker intends to point out is the purity of his own birth.

The phrase ‘the creator of this whole world’ indicates his almighty character. The idea of the speaker is that ‘the describing of myself as one of excellent birth and superior powers of action will make me more trustworthy.’

Or, the mention of his own birth might be for the purpose of carrying conviction (removing all doubts); that such may be the sense is shown by the fact that, though the origin of Manu is already known from other sources, yet he himself mentions it; for instance, even though a person is already known from other sources (as the son of a certain person), yet he is asked — ‘are you Devadatta’s son?’ — and he answers ‘yes’; whereupon certainty of conviction is brought about.

Poets are not ashamed of describing the nobility of their own birth, even though their glories may be already well known.

‘O best of Brāhmaṇas’ — is the form of address; ‘best’ means most perfect, most superior. — (33)

VERSE 1.34-35 [Creation of Marīci and other Sages]

Section XX - Creation of Marīci and other Sages

अहं प्रजाः सिसृक्षुस्तु तपस्तप्त्वा सुदुश्चरम् ।
पतीन् प्रजानामसृजं महर्षीनादितो दश ॥३४॥

मरीचिमत्र्यङ्गिरसौ पुलस्त्यं पुलहं क्रतुम् ।
प्रचेतसं वसिष्ठं च भृगुं नारदमेव च ॥३५॥

ahaṃ prajāḥ sisṛkṣustu tapastaptvā suduścaram |
patīn prajānāmasṛjaṃ maharṣīnādito daśa ||34||

marīcimatryaṅgirasau pulastyaṃ pulahaṃ kratum |
pracetasaṃ vasiṣṭhaṃ ca bhṛguṃ nāradameva ca ||35||

Being desirous of bringing into existence the (various kinds of) created beings, I, at the very outset, performed most arduous austerities and called into being the ten great sages, the directors of all created things; (34) — viz: Marīci, Atri, Aṅgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Pracetas, Vaśiṣṭha, Bhṛgu and also Nārada. — (35)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘I called into being,’ — produced, — ‘the ten Great sages,’ who are ‘the directors of all created things’; — ‘at the very outset, having performed most arduous austerities’ — austerities that were performed with great difficulty; i.e., which bring suffering and take a long time.

The ten great sages are mentioned by name (in verse 35). — (34-35)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

These are quoted in Hemādri-Dāna, p. 242, as describing the ‘munis’, sages. It reads ‘dustaram’ for ‘duścaram’, and ‘āṅgirasam’ for ‘aṅgirasam’.

VERSE 1.36

Section XX - Creation of Marīci and other Sages

एते मनूंस्तु सप्तान् यानसृजन् भूरितेजसः ।
देवान् देवनिकायांश्च महर्षींश्चामितोजसः ॥३६॥

ete manūṃstu saptān yānasṛjan bhūritejasaḥ |
devān devanikāyāṃśca maharṣīṃścāmitojasaḥ ||36||

These mighty (Sages) called into being the seven Manus, gods and gods’ habitations, as also Great Sages, — all possessed of illimitable power. — (36)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The aforesaid Great Sages. ‘called into being the seven Manus’; ‘Manu’ is the name of the office; that person is called ‘Manu’ who, during a particular ‘Manvantara’ (Cycle), controls the creating and maintaining of all created things, in the manner described.

‘Bkūritejasaḥ,’ ‘mighty,’ and ‘amitaujasaḥ,’ ‘possessing illimitable power,’ — both terms mean the same thing; the former with the nominative ending qualifies the creators, and the latter, with the accusative ending, qualifies those created, Manus and the rest.

Question: — “But the gods were created by Brahmā himself (as already described in Verse 22).”

Answer: — True; but not all of them; there are endless kinds of gods.

‘Gods’ habitations’ — The abode of the gods, such as the Celestial Region, the ‘Region of Brahman,’ and so forth. — (36)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Manūn’ — The name ‘Manu’ here stand for that Being whose function it is to create all creatures and to maintain the entire world during a manvantara, and apparently belongs to the office. Some Mss. read ‘munīn’.

‘Devanikāyān — ‘Classes of gods’ (according to Nandana and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘abodes of gods’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); the last of these suggests also the meaning ‘servants of the gods’.

VERSE 1.37 [Creation of the Semi-divine Beings]

Section XXI - Creation of the Semi-divine Beings

यक्षरक्षः पिशाचांश्च गन्धर्वाप्सरसोऽसुरान् ।
नागान् सर्पान् सुपर्णांश्च पितॄणांश्च पृथग्गणम् ॥३७॥

yakṣarakṣaḥ piśācāṃśca gandharvāpsaraso'surān |
nāgān sarpān suparṇāṃśca pitṝṇāṃśca pṛthaggaṇam ||37||

[They called into being] also Yakṣas, Rakṣasas, Piśācas, Gandharvas, Apsarases, Asuras, Nāgas, Sarpas, Suparṇas, and the several orders of Pitṛs. — (37)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The various forms of the Yakṣa and other beings here mentioned can be known only from the Itihāsas and such other sources; they cannot be known by any of the ordinary means of cognition, perception and the rest. — The ‘Yakṣas’ are the followers of Kuvera; — ‘Rākṣasas,’ Bivīṣaṇa and others; — beings more cruel than these last are ‘Piśācas,’ who live in unclean places and in deserts, &c., and are inferior to Yakṣas and Rākṣasas; though all three are mischievous; by trickery they draw out the life of living beings, and by some invisible power they bring about diseases: so say persons knowing the Itihāsas (stories) and Mantra (Incantations). — ‘Gandharvas,’ are those followers of the Gods whose chief work consists of singing and dancing; — ‘Apsarases,’ the courtezans of the Gods, Urvaśī and the rest; — ‘Asuras,’ the Gods’ enemies, Vṛttra, Virocana, Hiraṇyāksa and so forth; — ‘Nāgas’ (the Great Serpents), Vāsuki, Takṣaka and the rest; — ‘Sarpas’ (Serpents) are well known; — ‘Suparnas,’ the great Birds, Garuḍa and the rest; — ‘Pitṛs,’ named ‘Somapa,’ ‘Ayyapa’ and so forth, who reside, like Gods, in their own regions; the ‘several orders’ of these also; — all these (the mighty sages) called into being. — (37)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Pitṛṇām gaṇān’ — The ‘pitṛs’ are not actually the ‘fathers,’ as is clear from the present text; they are a particular class of divine beings, though it is from these that human beings are descended. See III, 194 — 199.

VERSE 1.38 [Creation of Clouds, etc.]

Section XXII - Creation of Clouds, etc.

विद्युतोऽशनिमेघांश्च रोहितैन्द्रधनूंषि च ।
उल्कानिर्घातकेतूंश्च ज्योतींष्युच्चावचानि च ॥२८॥

vidyuto'śanimeghāṃśca rohitaindradhanūṃṣi ca |
ulkānirghātaketūṃśca jyotīṃṣyuccāvacāni ca ||38||

[They called into being] Lightnings, Hails, Clouds, Vertical Phosphorescence, Rainbows, Meteors, Portentous Sounds, Comets, and Stars of varying magnitudes. — (38)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The semi-brilliant flash of light seen within the clouds is called ‘lightning,’ of which the other names are ‘Sandāminī’ and so forth, which are based upon certain peculiar characteristics; — ‘Hails’ — stone-like finely visible snow-particles, which, propelled by strong winds, fall like torrents of rain and destroy corns and other things; — ‘Clouds,’ consist of the combination, in the atmosphere, of vapour, water, air and light; — ‘Vertical phosphorescence,’ is an upright mass of violet-colon red luminous matter, occasionally visible in the sky; it is seen sometimes attached to the disc of the sun, and sometimes in other places also; — a particular Form of the same is called ‘Rainbow,’ which differs from the former in being curved in the form of a bow; — ‘Meteors,’ are those stars which are seen to fall as portents during twilights and at the advent of night, diffusing their brilliance all round; — ‘Portentous sounds,’ are sounds emanating from the Earth or Sky, which are regarded as foreboding calamity; — ‘Comets,’ the well-known stars with protruding crowns, seen during a public calamity; — as also various kinds of other stars, Dhruva, Agastya, Arundhatī and so forth. — (38)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Rohita’ — This is the name of the violet -coloured pillar of light that appears in the sky, in the manner of rainbows, generally attached to the solar disc, but sometimes in other parts of the sky also. Another name for it, according to Govindarāja, is ‘śastrotpāta’. Buhler says it is an imperfect

VERSE 1.39 [Creation of Birds and Animals]

Section XXIII - Creation of Birds and Animals

किन्नरान् वानरान् मत्स्यान् विविधांश्च विहङ्गमान् ।
पशून् मृगान् मनुष्यांश्च व्यालांश्चोभयतोदतः ॥३९॥

kinnarān vānarān matsyān vividhāṃśca vihaṅgamān |
paśūn mṛgān manuṣyāṃśca vyālāṃścobhayatodataḥ ||39||

[They called into being] Kinnaras, Apes, Fishes, Birds of various kinds, Cattle, Deer, Men and wild beasts with two rows of teeth. — (39)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Kinnaras’ are horse-faced beings living in the Himalaya and other mountains. — ‘Apes’ are animals with the face of the monkey and the body of the man. — ‘Birds’ feathered animals. — ‘Cattle’ goats, sheep, camels, asses and the rest, — ‘Deer,’ the Ruru the Pṛṣat and the other species. — ‘Wild beasts’ — wicked animals, like the Tiger and the rest; — ‘with two rows of teeth’ having two rows of teeth, one above and another below. — (39)

VERSE 1.40 [Creation of Insects and Reptiles and Immovable Things]

Section XXIV - Creation of Insects and Reptiles and Immovable Things

कृमिकीटपतङ्गांश्च यूकामक्षिकमत्कुणम् ।
सर्वं च दंशमशकं स्थावरं च पृथग्विधम् ॥४०॥

kṛmikīṭapataṅgāṃśca yūkāmakṣikamatkuṇam |
sarvaṃ ca daṃśamaśakaṃ sthāvaraṃ ca pṛthagvidham ||40||

[They called into being] Worms, Beetles and Moths; Lice, Flies and Bugs; Gadflies and Gnats; and also the entire host of the several kinds of immovable things. — (40)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Worms’ — extremely small living tilings. — ‘Beetles’ — are slightly larger than worms and crawl on the ground. — ‘Moths,’ locusts. — ‘Immovable things’ — trees, mountains, etc.; — ‘of several kinds,’ of different varieties.

The copulative compounds in the singular are in accordance with Pāṇini’s Sutra 2.1.8, by which copulative compounds formed of the names of small living beings take the singular ending. — (10)

VERSE 1.41

Section XXIV - Creation of Insects and Reptiles and Immovable Things

एवमेतैरिदं सर्वं मन्नियोगान् महात्मभिः ।
यथाकर्म तपोयोगात् सृष्टं स्थावरजङ्गमम् ॥४१॥

evametairidaṃ sarvaṃ manniyogān mahātmabhiḥ |
yathākarma tapoyogāt sṛṣṭaṃ sthāvarajaṅgamam ||41||

In this manner was all this, movable and immovable, called into being, through the force of austerities, by these high-souled sages, under my direction, — in accordance with their actions. — (11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘In this manner,’ — refers to the manner discribed above; — ‘by these high-souled sages,’ — Marīci and the rest; — ‘all this, movable and immovable, teas called into their actions,’ — the creation of each being was in keeping with the nature of the action done by it during other lives; that is, each being was made to be born in that family of animals which was the right one for it, in view of its past acts; — ‘under my direction’ — by my order; — ‘through the force of austerities,’ — having performed severe austerities; what this is meant to show is that any kind of great power can be acquired only by means of austerities. — (41)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Yathākarma’ — Here we have a distinct enunciation of the Law of Karma.

VERSE 1.42

Section XXIV - Creation of Insects and Reptiles and Immovable Things

येषां तु यादृशं कर्म भूतानामिह कीर्तितम् ।
तत् तथा वोऽभिधास्यामि क्रमयोगं च जन्मनि ॥४२॥

yeṣāṃ tu yādṛśaṃ karma bhūtānāmiha kīrtitam |
tat tathā vo'bhidhāsyāmi kramayogaṃ ca janmani ||42||

That kind of action which belongs to the several beings has been described here. I am now going to explain the manner of their birth. — (42)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘That kind of action which belongs to the several beings,’ — i.e., hurtful or harmless — ‘has been already described’; — now ‘I am going to explain the manner of their birth.’

Objection. —

“Where has the action been described? In Verses 37 et seq. what occurs is only the mention of the names of several beings, Yakṣa, Rākṣasa and the rest; and their action is not mentioned at all.”

Our answer is as follows: — The action of each being is indicated by its name; the particular name being acquired by each being by reason of its actions: for instance, the Yakṣas are so called because of the act of worshpping, or pervading (‘Yakṣaṇa’); — the ‘Rākṣasa’ are so called because of the act of destroying in secret (‘rahasi kṣaṇana’); — the Piśāchas are so called because of the act of devouring flesh (‘piśitāśana’); — the Apsarases are so called because of the act of issuing forth from water (adbhyaḥ ṣṛtāḥ); — the Asuras are so called because of the act of not obtaining surā, in the form of nectar; and so on, the significance of the other names may be traced.

‘The manner of their birth’ — i.e., they are viviparous, oviparous and the like; going to be described in the following verses. — (42)

VERSE 1.43 [The Viviparous, Oviparous, Sweat-born and Vegetable Beings]

Section XXV - The Viviparous, Oviparous, Sweat-born and Vegetable Beings

पशवश्च मृगाश्चैव व्यालाश्चोभयतोदतः ।
रक्षांसि च पिशाचाश्च मनुष्याश्च जरायुजाः ॥४३॥

paśavaśca mṛgāścaiva vyālāścobhayatodataḥ |
rakṣāṃsi ca piśācāśca manuṣyāśca jarāyujāḥ ||43||

Cattle, Deer, Wild Beasts with two rows of teeth, Rākṣasas, Piśācas and Men are viviparous. — (43)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

These are ‘viviparous,’ ‘born from the Jarāyu’; Jarāyu is the womb, the place where the fœtus lies; it is in the womb that these beings are conceived first, and it is only when they are emitted from the womb that they become born; this is the manner of the birth of these beings.

The term ‘dat’ is synonymous with ‘danta,’ and is totally different from it; hence it is that we have the nominative plural form ‘ubhayatodataḥ’ (‘with two rows of teeth’). — (43)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ubhayatodataḥ’ — A compound difficult to explain. The word ‘danta’ becomes transformed into ‘dat’ only in special cases, laid down in Pāṇini 5.4.141-145. The only explanation possible is that given by Medhātithi, — that the term ‘dat’ is an entirely different word from ‘danta’

VERSE 1.44

Section XXV - The Viviparous, Oviparous, Sweat-born and Vegetable Beings

अण्डजाः पक्षिणः सर्पा नक्रा मत्स्याश्च कच्छपाः ।
यानि चैवं।प्रकाराणि स्थलजान्यौदकानि च ॥४४॥

aṇḍajāḥ pakṣiṇaḥ sarpā nakrā matsyāśca kacchapāḥ |
yāni caivaṃ|prakārāṇi sthalajānyaudakāni ca ||44||

Birds, Serpents, Crocodiles, Fishes, Tortoises, and other animals of similar kinds, terrestrial as well as aquatic, — are oviparous. — (44)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Crocodiles’ — includes the Porpoise and the rest; — ‘Kacchapāḥ’ are the Tortoises; — ‘other animals of similar kinds’ — i.e., wizards (lizards?) and the like, which are ‘terrestrial,’ born on land, and such others of similar kinds as are ‘aquatic’ born in water; such, for instance, as conches and the rest. — (44)

VERSE 1.45

Section XXV - The Viviparous, Oviparous, Sweat-born and Vegetable Beings

स्वेदजं दंशमशकं यूकामक्षिकमत्कुणम् ।
ऊष्मणश्चोपजायन्ते यच्चान्यत् किं चिदीदृशम् ॥४५॥

svedajaṃ daṃśamaśakaṃ yūkāmakṣikamatkuṇam |
ūṣmaṇaścopajāyante yaccānyat kiṃ cidīdṛśam ||45||

Gadflies and Gnats, Lice, Flies and Bugs, are sweat- born; whatever else is of similar character is born from heat — (45)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Crocodiles’ — includes the Porpoise and the rest; — ‘Kacchapāḥ’ are the Tortoises; — ‘other animals of similar kinds’ — i.e., wizards (lizards?) and the like, which are ‘terrestrial,’ born on land, and such others of similar kinds as are ‘aquatic’ born in water; such, for instance, as conches and the rest. — (44)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The two halves form two distinct sentences. So Burnell; but Buhler takes the whole as one sentence.

VERSE 1.46

Section XXV - The Viviparous, Oviparous, Sweat-born and Vegetable Beings

उद्भिज्जाः स्थावराः सर्वे बीजकाण्डप्ररोहिणः ।
ओषध्यः फलपाकान्ता बहुपुष्पफलोपगाः ॥४६॥

udbhijjāḥ sthāvarāḥ sarve bījakāṇḍaprarohiṇaḥ |
oṣadhyaḥ phalapākāntā bahupuṣpaphalopagāḥ ||46||

All those immovable brings that are produced by splitting (i.e., Plants) grow out of seeds and slips. those that, abounding in flowers, perish with the ripening of their fruit, are called ‘oṣadhis’ (‘Annuals’). — (46)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Udbhid’ stands for ‘udbhedana,’ the act of splitting; the ‘kvip’ affix having a nominal force; — ‘those that are duced by splitting are ‘udbhijja’; they are so called because they come into existence by splitting the seed and breaking through the soil; and these are plants; all these plants ‘grown out of seeds and slips’ and become fixed in their places by means of roots and trunks and other such things.

‘Oṣadhyaḥ’ — the right form is ‘oṣadhayaḥ’ (because the base ends in short i). Or we may take the word as a form of the base with the long ī; this lengthening of the vowel being explained, either as according to the Vārtika on Pāṇini 4.1.45, or as a Vedic anomily.

The natural characteristic feature of these oṣadhis — i.e., Annuals — is as follows: ‘They with the ripening of their fruit’; — i.e, the ripening of the fruit constitutes their end or perishing; as a matter of fact, the paddy and other such plants perish as soon as their fruit has ripened. They also abound in, are endowed with, many fruits and flowers.

What is stated in this verse is the distinguishing characteristic of oṣadhis (Annual plants), and what follows in the following verse, constitutes the distinguishing feature of Vṛkṣas (Perennial Trees); the characters mentioned being attributed to them in accordance with actual facts. — (40)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi takes ‘udbhijjāḥ sthāvarāḥ’ as the subject, and ‘bījakāṇḍaprarohiṇaḥ’ as the predicate of the sentence. Buhler reverses this.

VERSE 1.47 [Different ways of Fruit-bearing]

Section XXVI - Different ways of Fruit-bearing

अपुष्पाः फलवन्तो ये ते वनस्पतयः स्मृताः ।
पुष्पिणः फलिनश्चैव वृक्षास्तूभयतः स्मृताः ॥४७॥

apuṣpāḥ phalavanto ye te vanaspatayaḥ smṛtāḥ |
puṣpiṇaḥ phalinaścaiva vṛkṣāstūbhayataḥ smṛtāḥ ||47||

Those trees that are called ‘vanaspati’ bear fruits without flowers; and those called ‘vṛkṣa’ bear both flowers and fruits. — (47)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

[The ordinary meaning of the verse is as follows] — Those trees, in whom fruits are produced without flowers, are called ‘Vanasputi,’ not ‘Vṛkṣa’; while those that bear flowers as well as fruits are, by reason of the presence of both, called ‘Vṛkṣa’ As a matter of fact, however, Vanaspatis are also called ‘Vṛkṣa,’ and Vṛkṣas are spoken of as ‘Vanaspati.’ The particular grounds of such usage will have to be shown later on.

What we hold however (as to the real meaning of this verse), is as follows: — The present work does not make it its business to lay down the meanings of words, in the manner of grammatical works; so that the meaning of the verse cannot be that ‘those that have such and such a character are denoted by the word Vanaspati, and so forth.’ In fact what is described here is the manner of the birth of fruits; this (manner of birth) having been put forward (in Verse 42) as the subject ih hand. The meaning thus is as follows: — Fruits are produced in two ways: they are produced without flowers, and also from flowers; and flowers are produced from trees (called Vṛkṣa). Thus then, it follows that, even though the statement is apparently in the form 'those that bear fruits without flowers are to be known as Vanaspati,’ — yet in view of what forms the subject-matter of the context, the ‘yat’ (‘which’) and ‘tat’ (‘that’) should be made to change their places; the construction being — ‘those trees that are known by the name Vanaspati have no flowers, and yet they bear fruits’; — i.e., in these trees fruits grow without flowers; this construction is adopted on the strength of actual facts. Such altering of the construction on the strength of facts we also find in such cases as the following Though the actual words are in the form ‘vāsasā pariveṣṭayeṭ,’ ‘the post should bo surrounded with cloth,’ — yet in as much as the cloth has got to be worn by the man, the words are constructed as ‘stambhe nidhāya vāsaḥ paridhāpayet’ ‘the cloth should be hung on the post and then made to be worn.’

Though what is stated in the present verse is a well known fact (and as such did not need to be mentioned in the Smṛti), yet it has been mentioned with the purpose of serving as an introduction to what is going to be stated below in Verse 49 — ‘Enveloped in darkness, &c. &c.’ — (47)

VERSE 1.48 [Clumps, thickets and grasses. &c.]

Section XXVII - Clumps, thickets and grasses. &c.

गुच्छगुल्मं तु विविधं तथैव तृणजातयः ।
बीजकाण्डरुहाण्येव प्रताना वल्ल्य एव च ॥४८॥

gucchagulmaṃ tu vividhaṃ tathaiva tṛṇajātayaḥ |
bījakāṇḍaruhāṇyeva pratānā vallya eva ca ||48||

The various kinds op clumps and thickets, and the other species of grass, as also low-spreading tendrils and creepers — all these grow out of seeds and slips. — (48)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Clumps and Thickets’ — is the name given to the cluster of those shoots that grow together in large numbers, having one or several roots, and do not attain any considerable height; e.g., Copses and the like. Or ‘guccha’ ‘Clump’ and ‘gulma’ ‘thicket’ may be taken as two different things; the difference between the two being that, while one bears flowers, the other is flowerless. — Other ‘species of grass — e. g., kuśa, śādbala, śaṅkhapuṣpī and so forth. — Lowspreading tendrils — the long shoots of grass spreading on the ground. — ‘Creepers’ — are those shoots that grow out of the earth and clinging round a tree or some other object, rise upwards. — All these, like trees, ‘grow out of seeds and slips’ — (48)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Burnell represents Medhātithi to explain ‘guccha-gulma’ as ‘one root and many roots’. This is not fair. What Medhātithi says is that the names ‘guccha-gulma’ are applied to clusters of short-growing creepers which may have one root or several roots.’ Kullūka defines ‘guccha’ as the single shoot springing from the root and having no boughs, and ‘gulma’ as a clump of shoots coming up from one root According to Medhātithi the difference between the two consists in the fact that while the former has flowers, the latter has none.

VERSE 1.49

Section XXVII - Clumps, thickets and grasses. &c.

तमसा बहुरूपेण वेष्टिताः कर्महेतुना ।
अन्तस्सञ्ज्ञा भवन्त्येते सुखदुःखसमन्विताः ॥४९॥

tamasā bahurūpeṇa veṣṭitāḥ karmahetunā |
antassañjñā bhavantyete sukhaduḥkhasamanvitāḥ ||49||

All these (vegetable beings) are invested by manifold ‘darkness’ (inertia), the result of their acts; and possessing inner consciousness, they are affected by pleasure and pain. — (49)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

They are ‘invested,’ pervaded over, by that ‘Darkness’ (Inertia) of which the cause is ‘action,’ in the form of vice; — ‘manifold,’ being the cause of the experiencing of various kinds of pain. As a matter of fact, all things are made up of three Constituent Attributes; so what is meant is that in the beings here described the Attribute of ‘Darkness’ is in excess, and those of ‘Harmony’ and ‘Energy’ are present in less degrees; hence as abounding in ‘Darkness’ (Inertia), and beset with pain and humiliation, they continue, for a long time, to experience the results of their vicious acts.

In as much as the Attribute of ‘Goodness’ (Harmony) also is present in them, they do enjoy, in certain conditions, small measures of pleasure also; it is in view of this that they are described as ‘affected by pleasure and pain.’

‘Possessing inner consciousness,’ — the term ‘saṃjñā’ stands for Buddhi, Intelligence (Consciousness); and in as much as activity in the form of going out, speaking and the like, — which are the effects indicative of the presence of consciousness, — is absent (in Trees), they are described as ‘possessing inner consciousness.’ This must be the meaning of the epithet ‘inner’; as otherwise, since every person exercises consciousness only within himself [there would be no point in the epithet at all]. Or, the meaning may be that plants are unable to have any cognisance of the prickings of thorns and other small things, to the extent that human beings are; in fact for the experiencing of pain they stand in need of such massive strokes as cutting with the axe and the like; — being, in this respect, like animate beings in the state of sleep, intoxication or swoon. [Which shows that plants have their consciousness lying far deeper within than in animals.] — (49)

VERSE 1.50

Section XXVII - Clumps, thickets and grasses. &c.

एतदन्तास्तु गतयो ब्रह्माद्याः समुदाहृताः ।
घोरेऽस्मिन् भूतसंसारे नित्यं सततयायिनि ॥५०॥

etadantāstu gatayo brahmādyāḥ samudāhṛtāḥ |
ghore'smin bhūtasaṃsāre nityaṃ satatayāyini ||50||

Thus have been described the conditions of life, beginning with brahmā and ending with those just mentioned, which occur in this ever frightful and constantly fluctuating cycle of births and deaths of created beings. — (50)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Ending with those just mentioned’; — those conditions of life of which the end, or last, is the condition of the Creeper. — ‘Condition’ — stands for the connection of the soul with a particular body for the experiencing of the result of past acts; and there is no worse — i.e., more painful, — ‘condition’ of life than that of Plants; and than the condition of ‘Brahmā’ there is none higher or superior — i.e., more full of bliss. These ‘conditions’ are attained by means of good and had acts, respectively called ‘Virtue’ and ‘Vice’; as regards the attaining of the Supreme Brahman, which consists in Salvation, and is in the form of pure bliss, — this proceeds either from pure Knowledge, or from a combination of Knowledge and Action; this we shall describe later on (in Discourse XII).

‘In this cycle of births and deaths of created beings;’ — in this ‘samsāra,’ cycle, series of births and deaths, of ‘created beings,’ conscious entities; i. e., in which (ordinarily) the entity is not born in a genus other than in which it was in the previous existence; — ‘frightful,’ — full of fear, for those that are careless and lazy; it is ‘full of fear’ in the sense that there is losing of the desirable and coming by the undesirable; — ‘constantly,’ at all times, — ‘fluctuating,’ i.e., liable to go off, destructible, (hence) devoid of essence; — it is ‘ever frightful,’ i.e., it is never not- frightful; it is spoken of as ‘ever frightful’ because even when one has attained the condition of gods, and remains there for a long time, he has to return to death.

This description of the cycle of births and deaths as being due to Virtue and Vice serves to show that Scripture serves an all-important purpose; it has to be born in mind that it is only from Scripture that we can obtain a knowledge of the distinction between ‘Virtue’ and ‘Vice.’ — (50)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Bhūta’ — here stands for the Kṣetrajña, the Conscious Being ensouling the body — according to Govindarāja and Kullūka.

‘Nityam’ — qualifies ‘ghore’; ‘Ever terrible’ according to Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa, the last, along with Nandana, however, suggests the reading ‘nitye’ meaning ‘in this eternal samsāra.’

VERSE 1.51 [Disappearance of Brahmā]

Section XXVIII - Disappearance of Brahmā

एवं सर्वं स सृष्ट्वैदं मां चाचिन्त्यपराक्रमः ।
आत्मन्यन्तर्दधे भूयः कालं कालेन पीडयन् ॥५१॥

evaṃ sarvaṃ sa sṛṣṭvaidaṃ māṃ cācintyaparākramaḥ |
ātmanyantardadhe bhūyaḥ kālaṃ kālena pīḍayan ||51||

Thus repeatedly suppressing time (of dissolution) by time (of creation and maintenance), he, of inconceivable power, created all this and also myself; [he directed me to maintain it] and then disappeared within himself. — (51)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Thus’ — i.e., something directly himself, and some under Prajāpati’s directions, the Blessed Lord, — having created produced, — all this world, — and having directed to maintain (keep going) this world; — ‘He’ whose ‘power,’ sovereignty over all things, is ‘inconceivable,’ amazingly great, the Creator, — ‘disappeared,’ — brought about his own absorption i.e., having renounced the body that he had, of his own will, taken up, He again became unmanifest; — ‘within himself; — other things become absorbed in the Root Evolvent; but He did not become absorbed in any thing else, He disappeared within his own self; He has no other source wherein He could, like other things, become absorbed; for the simple reason that all beings have their source in Him. Or ‘disappearing’ may mean desisting from the entire worldly process.

‘Repeatedly suppressing time by time’ — the Present-participle (‘suppressing’) is connected with the verb ‘having oreated’; the meaning being — ‘destroying the time of dissolution by the time of creation and maintenance’; — ‘again and again; it will lie described later on that ‘there are endless creations and dissolutions.’ — (61)

VERSE 1.52

Section XXVIII - Disappearance of Brahmā

यदा स देवो जागर्ति तदेवं चेष्टते जगत् ।
यदा स्वपिति शान्तात्मा तदा सर्वं निमीलति ॥५२॥

yadā sa devo jāgarti tadevaṃ ceṣṭate jagat |
yadā svapiti śāntātmā tadā sarvaṃ nimīlati ||52||

When that divine being is awake, then this world is active; when he slumbers, with his mind in calm repose, then all vanishes. — (52)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘When that Divine Being is awake — i. e., when he wills, that ‘this world may come into being and may continue to exist for such a time,’ — ‘then this world is active’; that is, it becomes accompanied by such internal activities as mental, verbal and material, and such external activities as inspiration, respiration, eating, walking, cultivation, sacrifice and so forth.

‘When he slumbers’ — when his will desists from the creation and maintaining of the world, — ‘then all vanishes,’ undergoes absorption.

‘Waking’ and ‘sleeping’ here stand respectively for the prevalence and cessation of his will.

‘With his mind in calm repose’ — means that he has withdrawn from his state of diversity. — (52)

VERSE 1.53

Section XXVIII - Disappearance of Brahmā

तस्मिन् स्वपिति तु स्वस्थे कर्मात्मानः शरीरिणः ।
स्वकर्मभ्यो निवर्तन्ते मनश्च ग्लानिमृच्छति ॥५३॥

tasmin svapiti tu svasthe karmātmānaḥ śarīriṇaḥ |
svakarmabhyo nivartante manaśca glānimṛcchati ||53||

When he slumbers, having retired within himself, all active embodied beings desist from their actions, and their mind falls into depression. — (53)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The meaning of this verse is quite clear, its meaning having been already explained.

‘Having retired within himself’ — i.e., in calm repose, i e., in pure pristine nature of the Soul at rest; — ‘retiring within himself’ stands for the cessation of all accidental diversities.

‘Active’ — the conscious beings who are fallen in the cycle of births and deaths, and for whom Action is of the greatest importance; — ‘embodied beings,’ — so called because they feel the effects of being connected with a body which is the effect of their own past acts.

‘When he slumbers,’ all these ‘desist from their actions,’ — this stands for the cessation of their bodily activity; — ‘their mind falls into depression’ — this stands for the cessation of their mental activity. Thus this cessation of bodily and mental activities indicates the state of Dissolution. — ‘Depression’ means absence of energy, disability to carry on its functions; this is what the Mind falls into, — attains. — (53)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Karmāṭmānaḥ’ — It is not correct to say, as Buhler does, that this term according to Medhātithi, means ‘who, in consequence of their actions, become incorporate because as a matter of fact, this latter explanation is supplied. by Medhātithi in reference to the term ‘śarīriṇaḥ’; what he means is that th e Beings are called ‘śarīriṇaḥ’ not because the Body is their natural accompaniment, but because they become equipped with, them in consequence of their acts,

VERSE 1.54 [The Great Dissolution]

Section XXIX - The Great Dissolution

युगपत् तु प्रलीयन्ते यदा तस्मिन् महात्मनि ।
तदाऽयं सर्वभूतात्मा सुखं स्वपिति निर्वृतः ॥५४॥

yugapat tu pralīyante yadā tasmin mahātmani |
tadā'yaṃ sarvabhūtātmā sukhaṃ svapiti nirvṛtaḥ ||54||

When this Soul of all things sleeps happy and contented, then all things become absorbed all at once in that Great Soul. — (54)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse has to he explained by reversing the position of ‘when’ and ‘then’; otherwise, from what has been said in the foregoing verses, there would be mutual interdependence: it has been stated (in Verse 52) that when He sleeps then all things vanish [and if the persent verse is taken to mean, as the words suggest, that when the things vanish into the Great Soul, then this Great Soul retires to sleep, then we would have the vanishing of things dependent upon his going to sleep, as stated in 52, and his going to sleep dependent upon the vanishing of things, as stated in 54].

‘Sleeps happy and contented,’ — Happiness forms the very nature of the Supreme Brahman; hence it is not meant that He is happy during sleep and unhappy at other times; — of what nature his ‘sleep’ is has already been explained; — as regards his ‘contentment,’ that is everlasting; consisting of pure bliss, this Supreme Soul is never affected by the waves of agitation that are set up in Nescience. Though (even with all this) it is possible for him to be the Creator of all things. In the ordinary world, a man retires from his household duties after having done that he had to do, — with the feeling, ‘I have earned all the wealth that was necessary for my family; I am free from troubles,’ — and thus sleeps in happiness and contentment, without fearing any trouble to himself. To such a person is the Supreme Soul compared; this whole world being in the position of ‘family’ to him; — this being intended as his praise.

Or [in order to avoid the necessity of having to reverse the order of the words] the verse may be taken as referring to Primordial Matter: When Primordial Matter sleeps, then all things become absorbed into it all at once; that is, they become resolved into the form of Primordial Matter, being reduced to the position of their cause; that is, they are reduced to a ‘condition in which they cease to undergo modifications.’ — ‘All at once,’ all things contained in the womb of the three regions. — The ‘sleep’ of Primordial Matter, which is devoid of consciousness, can mean only cessation of evolution, and not inhibition of consciousness; — ‘happiness’ also is only figurative, for the same reason that Matter is devoid of consciousness. — (54)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Govindarāja and Kullūka make this out to be the description of the Mahā-pralaya, and the preceding verse of. the Intermediate — Khaṇḍa — pralaya.

Sarvabhūtātmā — stands for the Sāṅkhya ‘Pradhāna’; — according to the second explanation put forward by Medhātithi; — according to the other explanation, accepted by Govindarāja and Kullūka, the term stands for the Supreme Self of the Vedānta.

VERSE 1.55 [Exit of the Individual Soul]

Section XXX - Exit of the Individual Soul

तमोऽयं तु समाश्रित्य चिरं तिष्ठति सैन्द्रियः ।
न च स्वं कुरुते कर्म तदोत्क्रामति मूर्तितः ॥५५॥

tamo'yaṃ tu samāśritya ciraṃ tiṣṭhati saindriyaḥ |
na ca svaṃ kurute karma tadotkrāmati mūrtitaḥ ||55||

This (individual Soul), on entering into ‘Darkness,’ remains, for a long time, equipped with the sense-organs, but does not perform its functions; then it departs from the body. — (55)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Now by means of these two verses the author is going to describe the dying and the obtaining of another body by the Soul fallen in the cycle of births and deaths.

‘Darkness’ — stands for cessation of consciousness (preceding death); — entering into, falling into, this unconsciousness it remains for a long time, equipped with the sense-organs; but does not perform its functions — of breathing in and out; then it departs — goes out — from the body, the corporeal frame.

Question: — “As a matter of fact, the Soul is omnipresent, and all-pervading like Ākāśa; so that what kind of ‘departure’ is it that occurs in its case?”

Answer, — ‘Departure’ means only the renouncing of the body that had been obtained as the result of past acts; and it does not mean that, it goes from one place to another, like a material object. — Or, the answer may be, as held by some people, that the ‘departure’ spoken of is that of another and a more subtle body which comes into existence in between (the two bodies). But this intermediate body is not admitted by others; as for instance, it has been declared by the revered Vyāsa — ‘This present body having disappeared, the sense-organs forthwith enter into another body; so that there is no intermediate body.’ Some followers of the Sāṅkhya such as Vindhyavāsin and the rest, also do not admit of an intermediate body.

“What is this ‘intermediate body’?”

When this (physical) body has been destroyed, so long as a place in the womb of the (future) mother is not secured, where the second (physical body) would be formed, there exists during the interval, a subtle body entirely devoid of all sensation, which cannot come into contact with any thing, which is not burnt by fire and which is not obstructed by elemental substances.

Others explain the ‘mūrti’ of the text as the Supreme Self. The Supreme Self, which is the Soul of all things, is like the Ocean; out of that emerge the Jīvas (Individual Souls) under the influence of nescience, just in the same manner as waves emerge from the Ocean; and when the Individual Soul thus emerges out of the Supreme Soul, it assumes, by virtue of its past Virtue and Vice, a form known by the name ‘Puryaṣṭaka’; and this is the ‘subtle body,’ which serves as the clothing of the Individual Soul. This has been thus declared in the Purāṇa — ‘He becomes united with the Puryaṣṭaka- form, which is known as Prāṇa (Life); when bound up with this, he is in bondage, and when freed from it, he is released.’ The ‘puryaṣṭaka,’ ‘eight-fold’ frame consists of the five life-breaths, — Prāṇa, Apāna, Samāna, Udāna and Vyāna — the Group consisting of the five organs of sensation, the Group consisting of the five organs of action, and the Mind as the eighth. This body is not destroyed, until the condition of Final Release is attained. This is thus stated (in Sāṅkhyakārikā 40) — ‘What migrates is the subtle body, which is devoid of feeling, but invested with tendencies.’ — (55)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Under this verse Hopkins translates a passage from Medhātithi, which, as will be clear from the text, has been entirely misunderstood and hence wrongly rendered.

Verses 55 and 56 have been variously interpreted. (1) According to Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka, it describes the process of transmigration. When an individual is dying, his individual Soul enters darkness, — i.e. becomes unconscious; and even though It continues to be connected with the dying body, the physical functions gradually cease; — then It leaves the body, — and enveloped in a subtle body — formed of the eight constituents (variously enumerated), It enters the embryo determined for It by its own past acts, and there becomes clothed with a new physical body which accompanies It through Its next life on Earth. (2) Nārāyaṇa holds that verse 55 provides the description of the soul during a swoon, and the second alone refers to the method of transmigration. (3) The explanation given by Nandana is entirely different. He; takes the verses as referring to what is done by the Supreme Being, the Creator; — verse 55 describing His action during Dissolution and 56 referring to a fresh creation following it. The Supreme Lord ‘enters darkness — i.e. the Pradhāna, — and having remained therein during the entire period of the Dissolution, becomes endowed with organs and a visible shape, — i. e., the shape of the Created Universe.’

VERSE 1.56 [Transmigration of the Individual Soul]

Section XXXI - Transmigration of the Individual Soul

यदाऽणुमात्रिको भूत्वा बीजं स्थाणु चरिष्णु च ।
समाविशति संसृष्टस्तदा मूर्तिं विमुञ्चति ॥५६॥

yadā'ṇumātriko bhūtvā bījaṃ sthāṇu cariṣṇu ca |
samāviśati saṃsṛṣṭastadā mūrtiṃ vimuñcati ||56||

When, invested with minute particles, the Individual enters the moveable or immoveable Seed; — then, becoming united with the aforesaid (Subtile body), it assumes the (new) body. — (56)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Invested with minute particles’ — that which is constituted by minute, subtile, particles, parts. This may refer either to the ‘Puryaṣṭaka,’ or the ‘Intermediate Body’; or to the Soul itself; — all Souls being by their very nature, subtile; as stated in such texts as ‘This Self within the heart, is extremely minute.’

‘Seed’ — The source of the physical body; — ‘Immoveable,’ that which is the cause of the birth of trees, &c.; — ‘Moveable,’ animate. — ‘Enters into,’ becomes enclosed in; — then ‘united with the aforesaid,’ — i.e., with Prāṇa and other constituents of the subtile body) — then ‘it assumes,’ attaches to itself, the body; i.e., takes up the new corporeal frame. — (56)

VERSE 1.57 [Creation of all things by Brahmā’s waking and sleeping]

Section XXXII - Creation of all things by Brahmā’s waking and sleeping

एवं स जाग्रत्स्वप्नाभ्यामिदं सर्वं चराचरम् ।
सञ्जीवयति चाजस्रं प्रमापयति चाव्ययः ॥५७॥

evaṃ sa jāgratsvapnābhyāmidaṃ sarvaṃ carācaram |
sañjīvayati cājasraṃ pramāpayati cāvyayaḥ ||57||

Thus by waking and sleeping, the Imperishable One incessantly brings to like and destroys all this that is moveable and immoveable. — (57)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse recapitulates what has been said before.

By means of his own ‘waking and sleeping,’ he produces and destroys the world consisting of moveable and immoveable beings, i.e., vegetables and animals. ‘Imperishable’ — Indestructible. — (57).

VERSE 1.58 [Origin of the Law]

Section XXXIII - Origin of the Law

इदं शास्त्रं तु कृत्वाऽसौ मामेव स्वयमादितः ।
विधिवद् ग्राहयामास मरीच्यादींस्त्वहं मुनीन् ॥५८॥

idaṃ śāstraṃ tu kṛtvā'sau māmeva svayamāditaḥ |
vidhivad grāhayāmāsa marīcyādīṃstvahaṃ munīn ||58||

Having prounded this Law, he himself, first of all, taught it to me with due care; I then taught it to Marīci and other Sages. — (58)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the present context the term ‘Law’ stands for the whole collection of Injunctions and Prohibitions contained in the Smṛtis, and not for any particular treatise; as this latter was composed by Manu; that is why the Treatise is called ‘Mānava’ (of Manu); otherwise [ i.e., if the Treatise were the ‘Law’ propounded by the Imperishable One], it would have been ‘Hairaṇyagarbha,’ ‘of Hiraṇyagarbha.’

Others however have held that the Treatise itself was composed by Hiraṇyagarbha [and is spoken of in the text as the ‘Law’ propounded by him], and since it came to be revealed to, and published among, many persons by Manu, it is only right that it should he called after the name of the latter. For instance, the Ganga has its real source somewhere else (in Heaven), and yet since it is seen for the first time in the Himavat (Himālaya), it is called ‘Haimavatī’ (proceeding from Himavat), after the name of the latter; — similarly though the Vedic text is eternal, yet since it was expounded by Kaṭha, it is called ‘Kāṭhaka,’ after his name; even though there are several other expounders and learners of that Veda, yet it is called after Kaṭha, on account of the superiority of his expounding. Nārada also has declared thus: — ‘This Treatise, consisting of 100,000 verses, was composed by Prajāpati, and, in due course, it came to be abridged by Manu and others.’ Thus, even though the Treatise may have been originally composed by some one else, there is nothing incongruous in its being called ‘Mānava,’ ‘of Manu.’ As for the term ‘Śāstra,’ ‘Law’ (of the text) standing for the Treatise, we often find it so used, in the sense that the subject expounded by it is instruction, ‘śāṣana.’

‘He taught it to me,’ I was taught by him. — ‘Himself,’ ‘first of all,’ ‘with care,’ — these words indicate the fact that there was no break in the continuity of tradition in regard to the Law. As a matter of fact, when the author of a book ‘himself’ teaches it first of all, not a single syllable of it is lost; while when the book composed by one person is taught by another person who has learnt it from the former, there is not the same ‘care’ taken in guarding the text from loss. In fact, in the case of the author himself, when he has taught it once and established its position, he feels confident that he has already taught it once, and hence when he comes to teach the work a second time, he is likely to be careless and lazy; so that lapses in the text become possible; hence the text has added the phrase ‘first of all’. — ‘With due care,’ — the term ‘vidhi,’ ‘care,’ stands here for the quality, in the teacher and the pupil, of having undiverted attention, a concentrated mind; and the affix ‘vati’ (in the term ‘vidhivat’) signifies capability, possession.

‘Then I taught it to Marīci and other sages.’ — In as much as Marīci and the other sages are persons of well-known reputation, when Manu speaks of such well-known persons having learnt the Law from him, he describes his connection with specially qualified pupils, and thereby indicates his well-established professional dignity; and by pointing out the importance of the Law, he produces in the minds of the great sages (who have asked him in verse 1 et seq. to propound the Law) faith and confidence, so that they may be unremitting in their study; the idea being — ‘So important is this Law that oven such great sages as Marīci and the rest have learnt it, — Manu also is such a high personage that he is the Teacher of those great sages, — so that it is highly proper that this Treatise should be learnt from him with this idea in their minds, the enquirers who have come to hear the Law propounded would not cease to give their attention to it. — Both these facts are mentioned with a view to eulogise the Law. — (58)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vidhivat’ — ‘With due attention’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja); — ‘according to rule, — with due ceremonies’ (Kullūka).

In connection with the authorship of the Smṛti see Bhāṣya (Printed edition, Gharpure, p. 7) and also Buhler’s Introduction p. xv. Burnell in his footnote on Verse 58, misrepresents Medhātithi, by imputing to him a view which he has put forward only as held by ‘some people’ ‘Kechit’.

Parāśara-mādhava (Ācāra — p. 106) quotes this verse in support of the view that the Smṛtis are the work of Brahmā; and it adds that — ‘as Brahmā, so Svāyambhuva Manu also, compiles the Duties that have been ordained in the Veda; — which establishes the beginningless and immutable character of Dharma.’

VERSE 1.59 [Advice to Learn from Bhṛgu]

Section XXXIV - Advice to Learn from Bhṛgu

एतद् वोऽयं भृगुः शास्त्रं श्रावयिष्यत्यशेषतः ।
एतद् हि मत्तोऽधिजगे सर्वमेषोऽखिलं मुनिः ॥५९॥

etad vo'yaṃ bhṛguḥ śāstraṃ śrāvayiṣyatyaśeṣataḥ |
etad hi matto'dhijage sarvameṣo'khilaṃ muniḥ ||59||

This Bhṛgu will fully describe to you this (Law); this sage has learnt the whole of this in its entirety, from me. — (59)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘This,’ Law; — ‘to you’; — ‘Bhṛgu will describe fully,’ will carry it to your cars, will teach and will explain: The pronoun ‘this’ (in the second line) refers to the Law; the whole of this Law this Sage has ‘learnt,’ read, ‘in its entirety,’ ‘from me’ at my hands. The teaching proceeds as it were, from the Teacher’s mouth, and the pupil takes hold of it, as it were; it is for this reason that we have the affix ‘tasi,’ in the word ‘mattaḥ,’ in the sense of the Ablative.

Bhṛgu is a person whose greatness is very well known to the sages; so that by directing him to explain the Law, Manu shows that the Law has come down through a tradition of teaching handed down by a long line of several persons possessing exceptional knowledge of all sciences. It is for this reason that some people are to undertake the study of the Law by the following considerations: — ‘This Law has come down from several high-souled persons, — why then should we not study it.’ This consideration serves to prompt men to study and thus attracts them to the Law. — (59)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This Verse is quoted by the Aparārka (p. 4) with a view to show that the writer of a work often quotes himself, — and wherever manurabravīt occurs, it is Manu’s own words that are quoted, not those of Bhṛgu, the compiler.

VERSE 1.60 [Bhṛgu Begins]

Section XXXV - Bhṛgu Begins

ततस्तथा स तेनोक्तो महर्षिमनुना भृगुः ।
तानब्रवीद् ऋषीन् सर्वान् प्रीतात्मा श्रूयतामिति ॥६०॥

tatastathā sa tenokto maharṣimanunā bhṛguḥ |
tānabravīd ṛṣīn sarvān prītātmā śrūyatāmiti ||60||

Thereupon, being thus directed by Manu, the great sage Bhṛgu, with a gladdened heart, said to the sages — ‘Listen.’ — (60)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That great sage ‘Bhṛgu,’ ‘bring thus directed’ — prompted, by means of the words ‘Bhṛgu will describe it to you’; — ‘thereupon,’ — after that, — ‘said to the sages’ — ‘Listen.’

‘With a gladdened heart’; — his gladness being due to the idea of respectability implied by the fact that from among the several pupils (of Manu) he had been directed to teach; Bhṛgu’s idea of his own respectability was based upon this idea — ‘I, who am an obedient pupil of Manu, have been thus honoured by him, by reason of my special aptitude to expound the Law.’ — (60)

[Here ends the introductory Section — describing the true origin of the Law and the authorship of the present Treatise.]

[Now begins the actual Text of the Treatise, as expounded by

Bhṛgu, to the sages who had questioned Manu.]

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

With this verse ends the Introductory Section of the work, describing the Origin of the Law and the authorship of the ordinances.

VERSE 1.61 [Manvantara and the Seven Manus]

Section XXXVI - Manvantara and the Seven Manus

स्वायम्भुवस्यास्य मनोः षड्वंश्या मनवोऽपरे ।
सृष्टवन्तः प्रजाः स्वाः स्वा महात्मानो महौजसः ॥६१॥

svāyambhuvasyāsya manoḥ ṣaḍvaṃśyā manavo'pare |
sṛṣṭavantaḥ prajāḥ svāḥ svā mahātmāno mahaujasaḥ ||61||

There are Six other Manus, high-souled and mighty, who belong to the same race as this Svāyambhuva Manu, and have called into being, each his own offsprings. — (61)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When the Teacher (Manu) was asked (in the beginning of this work) to explain Duties, he proceeded to describe the origination of the world and other cognate matters; hence when the pupil (Bhṛgu) has been directed to expound the Law, he also begins with the remaining parts of the same process of world-creation.

‘Of this’ — the pronoun refers to the Manu before their eyes; — our teacher, who is known as ‘Svāyambhuva.’ There are six other Manus who belong to the same race as himself, — persons horn in the same family are said to ‘belong to the same race,’ and since all Manus are called into being directly by Brahmā himself, they are born in the same family, and are hence said to ‘belong to the same race.’ Or, persons engaged in the same work are also said ‘to belong to the same race’; as a matter of fact, living beings are often distributed among ‘races’ in accordance with the work done by them; e.g., we have such statements as — ‘related to grammar there are two sages who belong to the same race.’

The text proceeds to point out one such work common to the Manus: — “They have called into being each his own offsprings”; in each Manvantara, created beings destroyed during the previous Manvantara are again created and protected by that particular Manu who holds sway over that Manvantara; hence the offsprings that each of them creates are called ‘his own.’ — (61)

VERSE 1.62

Section XXXVI - Manvantara and the Seven Manus

स्वारोचिषश्चोत्तमश्च तामसो रैवतस्तथा ।
चाक्षुषश्च महातेजा विवस्वत्सुत एव च ॥६२॥

svārociṣaścottamaśca tāmaso raivatastathā |
cākṣuṣaśca mahātejā vivasvatsuta eva ca ||62||

[These six Manus are] — Svārociṣa, Uttama, Tāmasa, Raivata, Cākṣuṣa, and the glorious Vivasvat-suta (the Son of Vivasvat). — (62)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The aforesaid Manus are now mentioned by name.

‘Glorious' is a qualifying epithet. — The other words are names; some being merely conventional, and others based upon relationship; the last name ‘Vivasvat-suta,’ ‘Son of Vivasvat,’ is a different kind of word; it is a name bearing the form of a compound; just like the names ‘Black-serpent,’ ‘Narasiṃha’ (Man-Lion) and the like.

VERSE 1.63

Section XXXVI - Manvantara and the Seven Manus

स्वायम्भुवाद्याः सप्तैते मनवो भूरितेजसः ।
स्वे स्वेऽन्तरे सर्वमिदमुत्पाद्यापुश्चराचरम् ॥६३॥

svāyambhuvādyāḥ saptaite manavo bhūritejasaḥ |
sve sve'ntare sarvamidamutpādyāpuścarācaram ||63||

These seven almighty Manus, of whom Svāyambhuva is the first, having called into existence the whole of this world, consisting of movable and immovable beings, sustained it, each during his own regime. — (63)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Here seven Manus have been mentioned by me; elsewhere they are spoken of as fourteen.

‘Each during his own regime’ — during his time, i.e., during the time of his sovereignty. — ‘Having called into being’ the offerings, they ‘maintained,’ nourished, them. — ‘During his own regime’ — means during the time of his sovereignty; i.e., that Manu whose time or turn it was to create and maintain the continuity of the world.

Others explain the term ‘antara’ as denoting a particular time-period, just like the words ‘month’ &c.

But this is not right; it is only when the term ‘antara’ occurs along with the term ‘Manu’ (i.e., in the compound ‘Manvantara’) that it becomes expressive of a time-period, — i.e., the time-period known ns ‘Manvantara,’ — and not when it stands by itself (as it does in the text).

VERSE 1.64 [Measures of Time]

Section XXXVII - Measures of Time

निमेषा दश चाष्टौ च काष्ठा त्रिंशत् तु ताः कला ।
त्रिंशत् कला मुहूर्तः स्यादहोरात्रं तु तावतः ॥६४॥

nimeṣā daśa cāṣṭau ca kāṣṭhā triṃśat tu tāḥ kalā |
triṃśat kalā muhūrtaḥ syādahorātraṃ tu tāvataḥ ||64||

Ten and eight ‘nimeṣas’ (should be known as) one ‘Kāṣṭhā’; thirty such (Kāṣṭhās) one ‘Kalā’; thirty ‘Kalās’ one ‘muhūrta’; and as many ‘muhūrtas’ one ‘Ahorātra’ (Day and Night). — (64)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author now begins to describe the measures of time, which are taught in the Science of Astronomy, for the purpose of determining the exact duration of time of the continuance of the world and its dissolution.

Eighteen ‘nimeṣas’ go to make that measure of time which is known as ‘Kāṣṭhā’; — thirty ‘Kāṣṭhās’ make one ‘Kalā’; — thirty ‘Kalās’ make one ‘Muhūrta,’ and ‘as many’ — i.e., thirty; — thirty ‘muhurtas’ make one ‘Ahorātra’ (Day and Night).

‘Should be known as’ — this verb has got to be supplied.

‘Tāvataḥ,’ ‘a s many,’ is the Accusative Plural form.

“What is it that is called Nimeṣa?”

‘Nimeṣa is the natural winking of the Eye-lashes, which accompanies every opening of the eye. Other people have declared that ‘Nimeṣa’ is that time which is taken in the distinct utterance of one letter-sound. — (64)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Nimeṣa’ — (1) The time taken by one wink of the eye, or (2) the time taken in the distinct pronouncing of one syllable.

‘Tāvaṭaḥ’ — in the Accusative necessitates the supplying of the Transitive verb ‘vidyāṭ,’ ‘one should know’. Nārāyaṇa and Nandana however favour the nominative form ‘ṭāvanṭaḥ’ which obviates the necessity of adding any words.

Cf. in this connection Wilson’s Viṣṇu-Purāṇa — Ed. Hall, Vol. I, pp. 47-50.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 64-73)

Mahābhārata, 12.231.12-31. —

15 Nimeṣas make one Kāṣṭhā,

30 Kāṣṭhās make one Kalā,

30 Kalās     make 1 Muhūrta,

30 Muhūrtas make 1 Day or Night,

30 Days and Nights make 1 Month,

12 Months make 1 Year

2 Ayanas solstices (Northern and Southern).       make 1 Year

‘In the world of human beings it is the Sun that divides the Day and Night, the night is for the sleep of creatures and the day for active operations; — the Month constitutes the Day-Night of the Pitṛs, the brighter half being the Day, for active operations and the darker half, the Night, for sleeping. The year constitutes the Day-Night of the gods, the northern solstice, the Night.... 4,000 years constitute the Kṛtayuga and each succeeding yuga [Tretāyuga, Dvāparayuga, Kaliyuga] is a quarter less, etc., etc.’

Arthaśāstra, p. 265. — ‘The divisions of these are the following — Tuṭa, Lava, Nimeṣa, Kāṣṭhā, Kalā, Nāḍīkā, Muhūrta, Divasa, Rātri, Pakṣa, Māsa, Ṛtu, Ayana, Saṃvatsara and Yuga.

2 Tuṭas       make one Lava

2 Lavas      make one Nimeṣa

5 Nimeṣas  make one Kāṣṭhā

30 Kāṣṭhās make one Kalā

40 Kalās     make one Nāḍīkā

2 Nāḍīkās  make one Muhūrta

15 Muhūrtas make one Divasa*

15 Muhūrtas make one Night*

*= During the months of Chaitra and Aśvina; during other months the extent of the day and night vary to the extent of three Muhūrtas.

15 Divasa-Rātris    make one Pakṣa

2 Pakṣas     make make one Māsas

2 Māsas      make one Ṛtu

3 Ṛtus make one Ayana

2 Ayanas    make one Saṃvatsara

5 Saṃvatsaras make one Yuga

VERSE 1.65

Section XXXVII - Measures of Time

अहोरात्रे विभजते सूर्यो मानुषदैविके ।
रात्रिः स्वप्नाय भूतानां चेष्टायै कर्मणामहः ॥६५॥

ahorātre vibhajate sūryo mānuṣadaivike |
rātriḥ svapnāya bhūtānāṃ ceṣṭāyai karmaṇāmahaḥ ||65||

The Sun divides the ‘Day’ and ‘Night’ of Men and Gods; [of others] what is conducive to the repose of beings is ‘Night,’ and what is conducive to activity is ‘Day.’ — (65)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Ahorātra’ — ‘day’ and ‘night’; of these the Sun makes the division; the Sun having risen, so long as his rays are visible, it is called ‘day’; and from the time that the Sun sets to the time that he rises again, it is called ‘night.’ Such is the case in the region of men and in the region of Gods.

“In a place where the Sun does not reach with his rays, — how is one to make this division of ‘day’ and ‘night’?”

The answer to this is given in the second line — ‘what is conducive &c.’ For such beings as are self-illumined, as the light is always there (and it never ceases) the division of ‘day’ and ‘night’ is made according to the undertaking of actions and going to sleep. Just as in the case of herbs, the time for sprouting is fixed by nature, exactly in the same manner, in the case of the beings in question, the times of ‘activity’ and ‘repose’ are fixed by the nature, of time itself [and are not variable]. — (65)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Rātriḥ svapnāya &c.’ — This line supplies the definition of ‘Day’ and ‘Night’ for those regions that are beyond the reach of the Sun; — ‘Day’ being the period of activity, and ‘Night’ the period of repose.

Comparative notes by various authors:

See the comparative notes for Verse 1.64 (Measures of Time).

VERSE 1.66 [‘Day and Night’ of the ‘Pitṛs’]

Section XXXVIII - ‘Day and Night’ of the ‘Pitṛs’

पित्र्ये रात्र्यहनी मासः प्रविभागस्तु पक्षयोः ।
कर्मचेष्टास्वहः कृष्णः शुक्लः स्वप्नाय शर्वरी ॥६६॥

pitrye rātryahanī māsaḥ pravibhāgastu pakṣayoḥ |
karmaceṣṭāsvahaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ śuklaḥ svapnāya śarvarī ||66||

One month (of men) forms the ‘day and night’ of the ‘Pitṛs’; and their division is by fortnights: the darker fortnight, conducive to activity, is ‘Day,’ and the lighter fortnight, conducive to repose, is ‘Night.’ — (66)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That which is the ‘month’ of men is a ‘day and night’ of the ‘Pitṛs.’ As regards ‘division’ as to which part is ‘day’ and which ‘night,’ — this division, that ‘this is day and that is night,’ is determined ‘by fortnights,’ i.e., the fifteen days, which are known by the name of ‘half-month.’ That is, the said division is based upon fortnights: one fortnight is ‘day,’ and another fortnight is ‘night.’ In view of the fact that ‘day’ and ‘night’ differ in their character and occur in a fixed order of sequence, the author adds the following distinction: — The darker fortnight is ‘day,’ and the brighter fortnight, ‘night.’

The right reading (in view of the meaning intended) would be ‘Karmaceṣṭābhyaḥ’ (the Dative form), just as we have ‘svapnāya’; for the meaning meant to be conveyed is that the day is for the purpose of ‘activity.’ Hence the Locative ending in the text can be explained only as used on account of the exigencies of metre. — (66)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The ‘day’ and ‘night’ of Pitṛs is regulated by the Moon, just as those of gods and men is by the Sun.

This verse has been quoted in the Kālaviveka (p. 112) in support of the view that the seasons and other calculations are not governed by the ‘Lunar Month,’ — which only serves the purpose of being the ‘Day-Night’ of Pitṛs; the darker fortnight being their ‘day,’ and the brighter fortnight ‘night’.

The same work quotes it again on p. 308, in support of the view that ‘from Pratipat to Amāvāsyā is the dark fortnight, and from Pratipat to Purṇamāsi is the Bright Fortnight.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

See the comparative notes for Verse 1.64 (Measures of Time).

VERSE 1.67 [‘Day’ and ‘Night’ of the ‘Gods’]

Section XXXIX - ‘Day’ and ‘Night’ of the ‘Gods’

दैवे रात्र्यहनी वर्षं प्रविभागस्तयोः पुनः ।
अहस्तत्रोदगयनं रात्रिः स्याद् दक्षिणायनम् ॥६७॥

daive rātryahanī varṣaṃ pravibhāgastayoḥ punaḥ |
ahastatrodagayanaṃ rātriḥ syād dakṣiṇāyanam ||67||

One ‘year’ (of men) forms the ‘Day and Night’ of the Gods; and the division of these is that the ‘Northern course’ is the ‘Day,’ and the ‘Southern Course’ the ‘Night.’ — (67)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘One year,’ of men, — i.e., twelve months, — ‘forms the Day and Night of the Gode.’ — The division of these is by means of the ‘Northern Course’ and the ‘Southern Course’; the six months during which the Sun moves towards the North is the ‘Northern Course,’ ‘Udagayanam’; the term ‘ayana’ standing for moving or occupying; the meaning being that during the six months the Sun rises towards that particular quarter. Turning hack from that, there comes the ‘Southern course’; during these six months the Sun abandons the Northern quarters and rises towards the South. — (67)

VERSE 1.68 [The ‘day’ of Brahmā and the ‘Yugas’]

Section XL - The ‘day’ of Brahmā and the ‘Yugas’

ब्राह्मस्य तु क्षपाहस्य यत् प्रमाणं समासतः ।
एकैकशो युगानां तु क्रमशस्तन्निबोधत ॥६८॥

brāhmasya tu kṣapāhasya yat pramāṇaṃ samāsataḥ |
ekaikaśo yugānāṃ tu kramaśastannibodhata ||68||

Learn in brief, in due order, the measure of the Brahmic ‘day and night,’ as also that of the ‘Time-cycles’ (Yugas) one by one. — (68)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Brahmā,’ — The creator of living beings, has a region of his own; and what is going to be described is of Day and Night as obtaining in that region; — ‘as also of the Time-cycles.’ — ‘Learn’ all this, ‘in brief,’ summarily; i.e., hear it from me. — ‘one by one’ — that is, of each time-cycle separately.

The present verse serves as the summary of what is going to be described, intended to draw the attention of the audience; it is with this view that they are exhorted to ‘learn.’ — The ‘division of time’ having been already mentioned as the subject-matter of the context, the reiterated promise (implied in the exhortation to ‘learn’) is meant to indicate that a fresh subject is going to be introduced; the idea being that what is going to be described now is not merely what remains of the afore-mentioned ‘division of time,’ but it is also conducive to merit; as will be directly stated in verse 73, where it is stated that ‘Brahma’s day is known to be sacred’; which means that the knowledge of it brings merit. — (68)

VERSE 1.69

Section XL - The ‘day’ of Brahmā and the ‘Yugas’

चत्वार्याहुः सहस्राणि वर्षाणां तत् कृतं युगम् ।
तस्य तावत्शती सन्ध्या सन्ध्यांशश्च तथाविधः ॥६९॥

catvāryāhuḥ sahasrāṇi varṣāṇāṃ tat kṛtaṃ yugam |
tasya tāvatśatī sandhyā sandhyāṃśaśca tathāvidhaḥ ||69||

They say that four thousnd ‘years’ are what is the ‘Kṛta-cycle’; as many hundred ‘years’ form the ‘Juncture’ (Morning); and of equal measure is the ‘Juncture-end’ (Evening). — (69)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘years’ here spoken of are taken as the years of the Gods; as it is this that has been mentioned last. Says the Author of the Purāṇas — ‘O Brāhmaṇas, all this has been described by the divine measure: the measure of the Time-Cycles has been described by the divine measure.’ — ‘Four thousand’ such ‘years’ of the Gods constitute the Time-Cycle known as ‘Kṛta’: — of the ‘Kṛta’ cycle, ‘as many’, i.e. four ‘hundred’ ‘years’ form the ‘Juncture’; and of the same ‘Kṛta’ Cycle, the ‘Juncture-end’ is consisting of a period of four hundred years. That period of time which partakes in equal degree of the character of the preceding as well as that of the succeeding Cycle, is called ‘Juncture’; and ‘Juncture-end’ is that period of time which also partakes of the character of both, but in a less degree, of the preceding and, to a greater degree, of the succeeding Cycle.

The text contains the word ‘tāvacchatī’; and it is necessary to And out the rule under which the final I has been lengthened. The only grammatical explanation of the word possible is that it should be expounded as ‘tāvat śatānām sa māhārah’, ‘the collection of as many hundreds’; the term ‘tāvat’, ending in the ‘vatu’ affix, becomes a numeral according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra 1.1.23, by which words ending in ‘vatu’ are regarded as ‘numerals’; so that the said compound having a numeral for its first number becomes a ‘Dvigu’, according to Pāṇini 2.1.25; and since the Feminine affix ṭāp is precluded from Dvigu compounds, we have the Feminine affix ṅīp; and the word ‘tāvat’ means ‘one whose measure is tat (that)’: it being derived from the pronoun ‘tat’ with the ‘vatup’ affix, added according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra 5.2.39; the vowel in ‘tat’ being lengthened by the sūtra 6.3.91. If the form ‘tāvātī’ were explained in any other way, — for instance, if it were taken as a Bahubrīhi compound, being expounded as ‘tāvanti śatāni yasyāḥ’, — then, since the word ‘śata’ ends in ‘a’, it would take the Feminine affix ‘ṭāp’ according to Pāṇini 4.1.1; so that the form would be ‘tāvaccatā.’ This is the meaning. — (69)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Sandhyā’ — it is not clear whether the succeeding or preceding twilight is meant. Kullūka, and possibly Medhātithi, accepts the former view.

Medhātithi (p. 34, l. 24) for ‘Svabhāvānuvṛttiḥ’; how would it do to read ‘Svabhāvānanuvṛttiḥ’ — the meaning being that the preceding Twilight has the character of neither Day nor Night?

VERSE 1.70

Section XL - The ‘day’ of Brahmā and the ‘Yugas’

इतरेषु ससन्ध्येषु ससन्ध्यांशेषु च त्रिषु ।
एकापायेन वर्तन्ते सहस्राणि शतानि च ॥७०॥

itareṣu sasandhyeṣu sasandhyāṃśeṣu ca triṣu |
ekāpāyena vartante sahasrāṇi śatāni ca ||70||

In each of the other time-cycles, along with their ‘junctures’ and ‘juncture-ends’, the ‘thousands’ and ‘hundreds’ are reduced by one. — (70)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Among the three Time-cycles other then the Kṛta, — i.e. in Tretā and the rest, — along with their ‘junctures’ and ‘juncture-ends’, — the ‘thousands’ are reduced (in each) by one; ‘reduction’ means dimunition. That is in Tretā, the number of ‘thousand,’ is one less than that in Kṛta; similarly the number in Dvāpara is one less than that in Tretā; and that in Kali is one less than that in Thus Tretā consists of three thousand years, Dvāpara of two thousand years, and Kali of one thousand years. Similarly the number of ‘hundred’ goes on diminishing in the ‘junctures’ and ‘juncture-ends’ of the Cycles.

‘Time-cycle’, ‘yuga’, is the name given to a particular aggregate of days; and ‘Kṛtā’ and the rest are particular names of the said ‘Time-cycle’. — (70)

VERSE 1.71 [The Yuga — Time-Cycle — of the Gods]

Section XLI - The Yuga — Time-Cycle — of the Gods

यदेतत् परिसङ्ख्यातमादावेव चतुर्युगम् ।
एतद् द्वादशसाहस्रं देवानां युगमुच्यते ॥७१॥

yadetat parisaṅkhyātamādāveva caturyugam |
etad dvādaśasāhasraṃ devānāṃ yugamucyate ||71||

This period of the four time-cycles that have been just computed, — twelve thousand such periods are called the ‘time-cycle of the gods.’ — (71)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Yadetat’ (in the sense of ‘this’) is an ordinary expression; and as a whole it means that which has been spoken of. — ‘This period of four Time-cycles that has been computed’ — i.e., the exact number of years in which have been definitely determined before this verse, — e.g. in verse 69, where the number of years in the Time-cycles is declared to be four thousand etc., etc., — ‘Twelve thousand’ of this period of four Time-cycles are called the ‘Time-cycle of the Gods’. That is to say the Divine Cycle consists of twelve thousand ‘Four-Cycles.’

The word ‘Sāhasram’ is derived from the word ‘sahasra’ with the reflexive affix ‘aṇ’; and the compound ‘dvādaśasāhasram’ is to be expounded as ‘dvādaśa-sahasrāṇi parimāṇe yasmin’, ‘that in which the measure is that of twelve-thousands’. — (71)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Burnell remarks — “According to the commentators the translation should run thus: ‘The four Yugas just reckoned (consisting of) twelve thousand years are called a Yuga of the gods.” This is the translation adopted by Buhler also. What is not quite accurate is the statement that such a translation is “according to the commentators”, — when we find that according to Medhātithi at least, the meaning of the verse is as it is represented by Burnell in his text. Medhātithi says explicitly — ‘dvādaśa-chaturyuga — sahasrāṇi devayugam nāma kāla ityarthaḥ’.

In face of the fact that the words of the text themselves convey this meaning — which involves the ‘lengthening’ of the ordinary into divine years, — it is difficult to understand Burnell’s remark that this ‘lengthening’ ‘is the work of commentators.’ On the contrary, on Burnell’s own showing, the ‘commentators’ would appear to have shortened the great length of the divine year clearly expressed by the words of the text.

VERSE 1.72 [‘Day and Night’ of Brahmā]

Section XLII - ‘Day and Night’ of Brahmā

दैविकानां युगानां तु सहस्रं परिसङ्ख्यया ।
ब्राह्ममेकमहर्ज्ञेयं तावतीं रात्रिमेव च ॥७२॥

daivikānāṃ yugānāṃ tu sahasraṃ parisaṅkhyayā |
brāhmamekamaharjñeyaṃ tāvatīṃ rātrimeva ca ||72||

The ‘Time-cycles’ of the Gods, one thousand in number, should be regarded as one ‘day’ of brahmā; and (his) ‘night’ also is of the same extent. — (72)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Thousand ‘Time-cycles’ of the Gods make one ‘day’ of Brahmā. — Brahmā’s night also ‘is of the same extent’ — i.e., as long as thousand ‘Time-cycles’ of the Gods. — ‘In number’ — i.e., which in computation, is one thousand; the adding of this term is only for the purpose of tilling up the verse; for a thing cannot be spoken of as a‘thousand’ except in number.

The instrumental ending (in ‘Sāṅkhyayā’) denotes causality.

VERSE 1.73

Section XLII - ‘Day and Night’ of Brahmā

तद् वै युगसहस्रान्तं ब्राह्मं पुण्यमहर्विदुः ।
रात्रिं च तावतीमेव तेऽहोरात्रविदो जनाः ॥७३॥

tad vai yugasahasrāntaṃ brāhmaṃ puṇyamaharviduḥ |
rātriṃ ca tāvatīmeva te'horātravido janāḥ ||73||

Those who know the ‘Day of Brahmā’ as ending with the (said) thousand ‘time-cycles,’ and the ‘night’ also as of the same extent, — are people who alone know what is ‘day and night’, and acquire merit. — (73)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Yugasahasrāntam,’ — ‘that of which the thousand cycles are the end;’ — those men who know this, ‘they are the people who alone know what is Day and Night.’

If it be asked — what happens to the people who know this? — it is added that ‘they acquire merit.’ Such is the connection (of the word ‘puṇyam’). The sense is that ‘knowledge of Brahmā’s Day and Night is conducive to merit, and hence this knowledge should be acquired;’ — this injunction (of acquiring the said knowledge) being implied by the valediction contained in the verse. — (73)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Puṇyam’ — Medhātithi takes this not merely as an epithet of ‘ahaḥ,’ but as constituting a distinct sentence by itself.

VERSE 1.74 [Brahmā creates the Mind and applies it to creation]

Section XLIII - Brahmā creates the Mind and applies it to creation

तस्य सोऽहर्निशस्यान्ते प्रसुप्तः प्रतिबुध्यते ।
प्रतिबुद्धश्च सृजति मनः सदसदात्मकम् ॥७४॥

tasya so'harniśasyānte prasuptaḥ pratibudhyate |
pratibuddhaśca sṛjati manaḥ sadasadātmakam ||74||

At the end of the said ‘Day and Night,’ Brahmā, who was asleep, wakes up, and ha vino woken up, he creates mind, which partakes op the nature op the existent and the non-existent. — (74)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Brahmā, having slept daring the long night or the said extent, ‘wakes up,’ and then proceeds to create the world again. — The ‘sleep’ of Brahmā is of the character already described (in verse 54); and he does not sleep in the manner of ordinary men, as he is ever awake (conscious).

The order of creation is next stated: — [He created] ‘the Mind, which partakes of the nature of the existent and the nonexistent.’

Question — “It has been stated above (in verse 8) that ‘at first he created water’.”

In answer to this some people offer the following explanation: — There are two kinds of ‘Dissolution’ — the ‘Great Dissolution’ and the ‘Intermediate Dissolution’; and what is stated in the present context is the order in which things are created after the ‘Intermediate Dissolution’; and the ‘Mind,’ in this case, is not one of the ‘Principles,’ — this ‘Principle’ Mind having come into existence already (after the Great Dissolution); what the text means is that ‘Brahmā’, having woken up, ‘creates’ — i.e., applies — the Mind — to creation.

If, however, the text be taken to refer to the creation following on the ‘Great Dissolution,’ — then ‘Mind’ should be taken as standing for the ‘Great Principle of Intelligence,’ — it being called ‘Mind’ because it is the cause of the Mind; and thus the order here mentioned would not in any way militate against that stated before (in verse 14-15). In the Purāṇa we read — ‘It is described as Mind, Mahān, Mati, Buddhi and Mahattattva; all these have been described as words synonymous with Mahat (the Great Principle of Intelligence)’; [and thus there is nothing wrong in taking ‘manas’ of this verse as standing for the Great Principle]. — (74)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Of the second half of the verse, two explanations have been mentioned by Medhātithi and Kullūka: (1) ‘on waking from sleep, Brahmā creates the Manas (i. e., the Mahat)’; and (2) ‘He employs his own Manas (Mind) in creating die world’. Govindarāja adopts the latter explanation only; Nārāyaṇa and Nandana accept the former only. Nandana takes ‘Manas’ as standing for Mahat, Ahaṅkāra and Manas, — and Sadasadāt makam as ‘prakṛtivikṛtyātmakam’.

VERSE 1.75 [Ākāśa produced out of ‘Mind’ [the Great Principle of Intelligence]]

Section XLIV - Ākāśa produced out of ‘Mind’ [the Great Principle of Intelligence]

मनः सृष्टिं विकुरुते चोद्यमानं सिसृक्षया ।
आकाशं जायते तस्मात् तस्य शब्दं गुणं विदुः ॥७५॥

manaḥ sṛṣṭiṃ vikurute codyamānaṃ sisṛkṣayā |
ākāśaṃ jāyate tasmāt tasya śabdaṃ guṇaṃ viduḥ ||75||

The ‘Mind’ impelled by (Brahmā’s) desire to create, evolves creation; — from out of that (Mind) is produced Ākāśa; of this they know sound to be the quality. — (75)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the creation of the ‘Principles’ has been already described, it is stated again for the purpose of pointing out the details not set forth before.

Vikurute, ‘evolves,’ — i.e., being impelled, by Brahmā, it brings about creation in a particular manner; — from out of the ‘Mind’ (i.e., the Great Principle of Intelligence), thus propelled (to modification) is produced Ākāśa; and this Ākāśa possesses the quality known as ‘Sound ‘Quality’ is that which subsists (in a substance); and the substratum of the quality of Sound is Ākāśa, in the sense that no Sound is possible apart from Ākāśa. — (75)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 75-78)

Mahābhārata, 12.232.4-7. — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 1.76 [Wind (vāyu) after Ākāśa]

Section XLV - Wind (vāyu) after Ākāśa

आकाशात् तु विकुर्वाणात् सर्वगन्धवहः शुचिः ।
बलवाञ्जायते वायुः स वै स्पर्शगुणो मतः ॥७६॥

ākāśāt tu vikurvāṇāt sarvagandhavahaḥ śuciḥ |
balavāñjāyate vāyuḥ sa vai sparśaguṇo mataḥ ||76||

After Ākāśa, from out of the same evolvent [‘Mind’], there comes into existence the pure and potent Wind, the vehicle of all odours; and it is held to be endowed with the quality of Touch. — (76)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the creation of the ‘Principles’ has been already described, it is stated again for the purpose of pointing out the details not set forth before.

Vikurute, ‘evolves,’ — i.e., being impelled, by Brahmā, it brings about creation in a particular manner; — from out of the ‘Mind’ (i.e., the Great Principle of Intelligence), thus propelled (to modification) is produced Ākāśa; and this Ākāśa possesses the quality known as ‘Sound ‘Quality’ is that which subsists (in a substance); and the substratum of the quality of Sound is Ākāśa, in the sense that no Sound is possible apart from Ākāśa. — (75)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi forces the Sāṅkhya doctrine on Manu, whose words clearly favour the Vaiśeṣika view.

The words clearly mean ‘From out of Ākāśa, undergoing modifications, proceeds Vāyu.’ But Medhātithi construes them to mean — ‘After Ākāśa — (from out of Mahat) which undergoes modifications — proceeds Vāyu &c.,’ — in order to make it agree with the Sāṅkhya doctrine that Vāyu, like every other elementary substance, proceeds from Mahat.

Comparative notes by various authors:

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.75 (Ākāśa produced out of ‘Mind’).

VERSE 1.77 [Light (jyoti) after Wind (vāyu)]

Section XLVI - Light (jyoti) after Wind (vāyu)

वायोरपि विकुर्वाणाद् विरोचिष्णु तमोनुदम् ।
ज्योतिरुत्पद्यते भास्वत् तद् रूपगुणमुच्यते ॥७७॥

vāyorapi vikurvāṇād virociṣṇu tamonudam |
jyotirutpadyate bhāsvat tad rūpaguṇamucyate ||77||

After wind, from out of the same Evolvent, emanates the bright and radiant light, the dispeller of darkness; it is said to be endowed with the quality of colour. — (77)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The two words ‘bright’ and ‘radiant,’ which are synonymous, have been used with a view to indicate that Light is itself bright, and it also illumines other things; that it is itself endowed with brilliance and it makes other things also brilliant. — (77)

Comparative notes by various authors:

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.75 (Ākāśa produced out of ‘Mind’).

VERSE 1.78 [Water (ap) after Light (jyoti): Earth (bhūmi) after Water]

Section XLVII - Water (ap) after Light (jyoti): Earth (bhūmi) after Water

ज्योतिषश्च विकुर्वाणादापो रसगुणाः स्मृताः ।
अद्भ्यो गन्धगुणा भूमिरित्येषा सृष्टिरादितः ॥७८॥

jyotiṣaśca vikurvāṇādāpo rasaguṇāḥ smṛtāḥ |
adbhyo gandhaguṇā bhūmirityeṣā sṛṣṭirāditaḥ ||78||

After light, from out of the same Evolvent, emanates water, which has been declared to be endowed with the quality of taste. and after water, comes earth, endowed with the quality of odour. — Such is creation at the outset. — (78)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Taste’ — such as ‘sweet’ and the rest., — is the quality of Water. — ‘Odour’ good smell and evil, is the quality of earth; as say the Vaiśeṣikas — ‘odour subsists in earth alone.’

Each of the single qualities that have been mentioned as belonging to each of the elemental substances, is what is inherent in it by its very nature; when, however, the substances come to be mixed up, their qualities also become intermingled. It is in view of this that we have the statement in verse 20 that — ‘each elemental substance is endowed with as many qualities as the place it occupies’.

This description of the qualities comes useful in meditation on the soul. This has been thus declared by the author of the Purāṇa. — ‘Those who meditate upon the sense-organs (as the soul) stay here for ten manvantaras; those who meditate upon the Elemental Substances stay for a hundred, and those who meditate upon the Principle of Egoism stay for a thousand manvantaras; [‘abhimāninaḥ’ means those who think of the Principle of Egoism]; those who meditate upon the great Principle of Intelligence stay for ten thousand manvantaras, freed from all sufferings; for full hundred thousand years stay those who meditate upon the Unmanifest (Primordial Matter); when one has reached the soul, devoid of all qualities, all limitation ceases.’ — (78)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Āditaḥ’ — (a) ‘after the Mahāpralaya’ (Kullūka); — (b) ‘after the Khaṇḍapralaya’ (Govindarāja and NārāyaḌa); (c) ‘Before the creation of the Egg’ (Nandana).

Comparative notes by various authors:

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.75 (Ākāśa produced out of ‘Mind’).

VERSE 1.79 [Regime of one Manu]

Section XLVIII - Regime of one Manu

यद् प्राग् द्वादशसाहस्रमुदितं दैविकं युगम् ।
तदेकसप्ततिगुणं मन्वन्तरमिहोच्यते ॥७९॥

yad prāg dvādaśasāhasramuditaṃ daivikaṃ yugam |
tadekasaptatiguṇaṃ manvantaramihocyate ||79||

The ‘Time-cycle of the Gods’ which has been described above as consisting of ‘twelve thousand periods,’ — this multiplied by ‘seventy-one’ forms what is known here as ‘Manvantara’ (Regime of a Manu). — (79)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The period of time named ‘manvantara’ consists of seventy-one ‘Time-cycles of the gods.’ — (79)

VERSE 1.80 [Manvantara]

Section XLIX - Manvantara

मन्वन्तराण्यसङ्ख्यानि सर्गः संहार एव च ।
क्रीडन्निवैतत् कुरुते परमेष्ठी पुनः पुनः ॥८०॥

manvantarāṇyasaṅkhyāni sargaḥ saṃhāra eva ca |
krīḍannivaitat kurute parameṣṭhī punaḥ punaḥ ||80||

Innumerable Manvantaras, as also Creation and Dissolution — all this the supreme lord calls into being again and again, as if in amusement — (80).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Innumerable’ — Whose number is not limited.

Objection — “In works on Astronomy and other subjects we find the number of Manvantaras stated as fourteen.”

Our answer is that they are ‘innumerable’ in the sense that they revert repeatedly; in the same manner as the ‘twelve months.’

Of ‘Creation’ and ‘Dissolution’ also the repitition never ceases.

‘He calls into being all this as if in amusement’: — An objection is raised — “A man takes to an amusement only when he seeks for pleasure; as for the Supreme Lord, since he has all his desires fulfilled, and since his very form consists of pure Bliss, his acts of creation and dissolution could not be due to amusement.”

It is in view of this fact that the author has added the qualifying term ‘as if.’ The real answer to the objection however is what has been stated above [in the Bhāṣya on verse 21, where it has been pointed out that creation and dissolution are primarily due to the previous acts of living beings.] The answer provided by the ‘Knowers of Brahman’ (Vedāntins) is that in ordinary life also, in the case of kings and other such persons, it is found that they often act for mere diversion, without desire for any particular thing — (80).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Krīḍan’ — cf. Brahmasūtra — ‘Lokavattu līlākaivalyam.’ This idea of creation being a ‘sport’ for God is common in Hindu Theism.

VERSE 1.81 [Dharma perfect in the Kṛta Cycle]

Section L - Dharma perfect in the Kṛta Cycle

चतुष्पात् सकलो धर्मः सत्यं चैव कृते युगे ।
नाधर्मेणागमः कश्चिन् मनुष्यान् प्रति वर्तते ॥८१॥

catuṣpāt sakalo dharmaḥ satyaṃ caiva kṛte yuge |
nādharmeṇāgamaḥ kaścin manuṣyān prati vartate ||81||

In the Kṛta Cycle Virtue exists in its perfect form, with all its four feet; and so does Truth; — No benefit accrues to men by vice — (81).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Virtue is that which has “four feet.” What constitutes ‘virtue’ is the action of sacrifice and the like; and as this latter is something to he performed, it has no body; hence the word ‘feet’ in the text cannot be taken as denoting the part of a body; it stands for ‘part’ or ‘factor.’ As a matter of fact, Virtue has no body, either like men or like birds and animals. Hence what is meant by Virtue having all its ‘four feet’ is that it is equipped with all its four factors. The meaning of the text thus is that such virtue as is perfect and equipped with its four factors existed in the Kṛta Cycle. — [The ‘four factors’ are now illustrated] — At the sacrifice, when it is in course of performance, there are four priests — viz., the ‘Hotṛ,’ the ‘Brahman,’ the ‘Udgātṛ’ and the ‘Adhvaryu’; — of the performers there are four castes, or four life-stages. ‘Virtue’ as it is described in the Veda was performed during that cycle in its entire and perfect form; i.e., it was not deficient in even the smallest factor, and it was not wanting in any of its details. The number ‘four’ is applicable to Virtue in many ways. For instance, in the case of the action of ‘giving’ also, there is the giver, the thing given, the recipient and his satisfaction. Or the ‘four factors’ of Virtue may be sacrifice, charity, austerity, and knowledge. This would he in accordance with what is going to be described in verse 86 as regards ‘Austerity’ being the chief virtue in the Kṛta age.

Or, the term ‘Dharma’ ‘Virtue’ in the text, may be taken as standing for the words descriptive of Virtue; and of such words the ‘four feet’ are the four kinds of words — Nouns, Verbs, Prepositions and Indeclinables. This is thus declared in Ṛgveda 1.164.45 — ‘There are four words contained in speech, these the wise Brāhmaṇas know’ — (in this passage) the epithet ‘manīsiṇaḥ,’ ‘wise,’ stands for those ‘who are of powerful minds,’ i.e., learned, virtuous; — (the passage goes on) ‘these, placed in the cave, do not appear to view,’ — i.e., are not perceptible — ‘the fourth speech people speak’ — the fourth, people versed in the Veda speak. The meaning of this passage is that — ‘in the beginning, no Vedic sentence was hidden from view, nor was any Vedic Rescensional Text lost, while now a days, much has become lost.’

‘So does truth,’ — that is, truth also exsists in its perfect form. Though truth also, being what is prescribed in the Veda, is a ‘virtue’ (and as such already included in the latter term), yet it has been separately mentioned with a view to show its special importance, or to indicate that it forms the basis of all virtues, the performance of ‘virtue’ in its entire form is based upon truth; and those who are untruthful, perform, for the purpose of gaining popularity, only a part of what constitutes ‘virtue’ and ignore the rest of it.

‘By vice’ — i.e., by following the prohibited path , — ‘no benefit’ — in the shape of either learning or wealth, — ‘accrues’ — comes — to the performer; this is by virtue of the special character of the age. (During that age) men do not acquire learning, nor do they earn wealth, by vicious means. Learning and wealth are the means by which virtuous acts are performed; hence when it is said that these are pure, what is meant is that this is what tends to virtue being performed in its entire and perfect form — (81).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Dharma with its ‘four feet’ is a common idea in Hinduism. In VIII. 16 we have the picture of Dharma as a ‘bull’; its ‘four feet’ have been variously identified: — (a) according to Medhātithi, they represent the four principal sacrificial priests — Adhvaryu, Hotṛ, Brahman and Udgātṛ; — (b) he also suggests, along with Nandana, that they may stand for the four castes; — (c) they have been held by Medhātithi, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa to stand for the four means of acquiring merit — Tapas, Jñāna, Yajña and Dāna; — (d) and last, they have been identified by Medhātithi with the four kinds of speech described in Ṛgveda 1.164.45 — ‘Three being hidden in the cave and the fourth being spoken by men.’

‘Satyam’ — Though included in ‘Dharma,’ this has been mentioned separately, for the purpose of showing its special importance. The Aparārka (p. 1012) quotes the first line of this verse as showing the diverse character of the various cycles. — The verse is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya — Parībhāṣā, p. 50.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 81-86)

Mahābhārata, 12.231.23-28. — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 1.82 [Virtue loses one ‘foot’ in each succeeding Cycle]

Section LI - Virtue loses one ‘foot’ in each succeeding Cycle

इतरेष्वागमाद् धर्मः पादशस्त्ववरोपितः ।
चौरिकानृतमायाभिर्धर्मश्चापैति पादशः ॥८२॥

itareṣvāgamād dharmaḥ pādaśastvavaropitaḥ |
caurikānṛtamāyābhirdharmaścāpaiti pādaśaḥ ||82||

In the other Cycles, virtue fell off from the scriptures, foot by foot; and on account of theft, falsehood and fraud, virtuous acts deteriorated foot by foot — (82).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the Cycles other than the Kṛta; — ‘from the scriptures,’ called ‘Veda’; — ‘virtue’ — ‘foot by foot’ — by one foot in each succeeding Cycle, — ‘fell off,’ was carried away; — the Vedic Texts disappeared, by reason of the deterioration in the powers of learning and assimilating of men (le arning the texts).

The ‘virtuous acts’ — in the form of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices, that are performed now a days, — these also ‘deteriorated foot by foot’ on account of ‘theft’ &c.; i.e., since Priests, Sacrifices, Bestowers and Recipients of gifts, are all beset with the said evils, the virtuous act is not accomplished in the proper manner, and hence the result mentioned (as accruing from that act) also is not attained. In as much as this is the real meaning, we do not take ‘theft’ and the rest as applied to each of the three Cycles respectively; specially as all of them (theft &c.,) are found prevalent even now a days (in Kali) — (82).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse also has been variously interpreted: — (a) According to Medhātithi it means that during the Tretā, Dvāpara, and Kali cycles, ‘Dharma fell off from the scriptures, foot by foot, and that there was deterioration foot by foot in the fruit of Dharma also, — the reason for this latter fact lying in the prevalence of theft, falsehood and fraud during all these three cycles’; and he emphasises the fact that theft eta, are not to be token as pertaining to the three cycles respectively; — (b) according to Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, the meaning is that during the three cycles, by reason of unjust gains (‘āgamāt’) Dharma successively loses one foot etc., eta; — (c) Govindarāja agrees with Medhātithi, hut with this difference that he appears to favour the view that the deterioration in the results of acts is due to theft, falsehood and fraud respectively, — the view that has been repudiated by Medhātithi; — (d) according to Nandana — ‘it having been declared in the preceding verse that in the Kṛta-cycle there were no scriptures, it is now said that during the other three cycles, Dharma is determined by the scriptures, — and it diminishes successively in each age by one quarter.’

This verse is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya — Paribhāṣā, p. 50.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 81-86)

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

VERSE 1.83 [The span of Human Life in each Cycle]

Section LII - The span of Human Life in each Cycle

अरोगाः सर्वसिद्धार्थाश्चतुर्वर्षशतायुषः ।
कृते त्रेतादिषु ह्येषामायुर्ह्रसति पादशः ॥८३॥

arogāḥ sarvasiddhārthāścaturvarṣaśatāyuṣaḥ |
kṛte tretādiṣu hyeṣāmāyurhrasati pādaśaḥ ||83||

During the Kṛta Cycle, men are free from disease, they have all their aims fulfilled, and their life lasts trhough four hundred years; — During the Tretā and other Cycles, their life becomes shortened, quarter by quarter. — (83).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

By reason of the absence of vice, which is the cause of disease, men are ‘free from disease’; ‘disease’stands for sickness. — ‘All,’ the four castes, have their desired purposes accomplished; ‘aim’ stands for purpose; or (it may mean) the results following from all their acts with purposes are duly obtained; on account of the absence of obstacles, all result are obtained without fail.

‘Their life lasts through four hundred years’ — “But we find the highest age described as 1600 years, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.16.7), where it is said ‘he lived for sixteen hundred years’.”

It is in view of this that it has been held that the term ‘hundred years’ here stands for the stages of life; the meaning thus being that ‘they live through all the four stages of life,’ — man’s life is never shortened, they never die without having reached the fourth stage. That such is the meaning is shown by the fact that in the second half of the verse we have the assertion ‘vayo hrasati,’ ‘life becomes shortened’; this subsequent mention of the ‘shorterning of life’ would have some point only if the ‘lengthening of life’ were spoken of in the preceding sentence.

‘Quarter by quarter’ — the term ‘quarter’ here does not stand for the fourth part, it stands only for part; the meaning being that ‘man’s life becomes shortened in part’, i.e. some die while they are young children, others on reaching youth, and others on attaining old age; and the full span of life is difficult to attain. — (83)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Quarter by quarter’ — The natural meaning is that men lived for 400 years during Kṛta, 300 years during Tretā, 200 years during Dvāpara and 100 years during Kali But in view of the assertion in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad of a man having lived for 1600 years (3.16.17) Medhātithi has been forced to remark that ‘quarter’ here stands for part, and not for the precise fourth part, and to explain the text to mean that ‘man’s life becomes shortened in part; some die while they are young children, others on reaching youth and others on attaining old age.’

The Aparārka (p. 1012) quotes the first line in support of the view that each cycle has a distinct character of its own.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 81-86)

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

VERSE 1.84

Section LII - The span of Human Life in each Cycle

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).

VERSE 1.85 [Characteristics of the Cycles]

Section LIII - Characteristics of the Cycles

अन्ये कृतयुगे धर्मास्त्रेतायां द्वापरेऽपरे ।
अन्ये कलियुगे नॄणां युगह्रासानुरूपतः ॥८५॥

anye kṛtayuge dharmāstretāyāṃ dvāpare'pare |
anye kaliyuge nṝṇāṃ yugahrāsānurūpataḥ ||85||

During the Kṛta-cycle, the characteristics of men are of one kind, — of different kinds during the Tretā and the dvāpara, — and of yet another kind during the Kali-cycle; — this being due to the deterioration of each suceeding Cycle. — (85)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse sums up what has been said in regard to the diversity in the nature of things based upon the difference in time.

The word ‘Dharma’ here is not restricted to the sense of sacrifice and such other acts (prescribed by the Veda); it stands for the characteristic of things in general. The meaning thus is that in each Cycle, the character of things varies, as shown before (in verses 83 and 84); just as, for instance, the character of things during the Spring is of one kind, of a different kind during the Summer, and of yet another kind during the Rains, — so it is in connection with the Cycles also.

By ‘difference’ it is not meant that things cease to bring about effects that they are found (at one time) to produce, and bring about other effects; what is meant is that they become incapable of bringing about their complete effects; and this by reason of the decrease in their potency. This is what is meant by the phrase — ‘this being due to the deterioration of each succeeding Cycle,’ — ‘deterioration’ meaning inferiority. — (85).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Buhler translates the verse to mean that the diversity of Dharma is due to the decrease in the length of the yugas. This however is not countenanced by any of the commentators, all of whom agree that the said diversity is due to the relative inferiority of fine age to the other.

Medhātithi’s interpretation of 85 is not quite consistent with what follows in 86; but he has taken care to disconnect 85 from 86; he distinctly says that what is said in 86 is a ‘diversity in the character of the yugas’ distinct from what has been set forth in 85. Really this is made clear by the fact that in 85, the word ‘Dharma’ stands, according to Medhātithi, not for duty, but for characteristic.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri — Pariśeṣa — Kāla, p. 657; — and in the Smṛticandrikā — Saṃskāra, p. 27.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 81-86)

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

VERSE 1.86 [Variation of ‘Virtue’ in the four Cycles]

Section LIV - Variation of ‘Virtue’ in the four Cycles

तपः परं कृतयुगे त्रेतायां ज्ञानमुच्यते ।
द्वापरे यज्ञमेवाहुर्दानमेकं कलौ युगे ॥८६॥

tapaḥ paraṃ kṛtayuge tretāyāṃ jñānamucyate |
dvāpare yajñamevāhurdānamekaṃ kalau yuge ||86||

In the Kṛta Cycle, ‘Austerity’ is the highest; in the Tretā ‘knowledge’ is described as such; in the Dvāpara they call the ‘Sacrifice’ the highest, and ‘Charity’ alone in the Kali-Cycle — (86).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Another difference in the character of the Cycles is now described.

As a matter of fact, Austerity and the other Virtues are not prescribed in the Veda with reference to any particular Cycle, all of them should be performed at all times; hence the description contained in the present verse has got to be explained somehow or other. In fact it is in the Itihāsas that the distinction herein set forth is met with. [When ‘Austerity’ is relegated to the Kṛta Cycle] what is meant is that it is the principal — and hence the most effective — Virtue cultivated; and the men being longlived and free from disease are most capable of performing Austerities.

‘Knowledge’ — i.e. of spiritual matters. Though the men [being not quite so healthy in the Tretā as in the Kṛta ], suffer in the body, yet this bodily suffering does not render the internal discipline (necessary for spiritual knowledge) very difficult.

In as much as there is not much trouble in the performance of Sacrifices, sacrifice forms the chief virtue in Dvāpara.

In Charity, there is neither physical suffering, nor need for internal discipline or much learning; hence it is easily done. — (86)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri — Pariśeṣa — Kāla, p. 657, where ‘Tapas’ is explained as ‘Kṛcchra, Cāndrāyaṇa etc.,’ and ‘jñāna’ as ‘dhyāna’ ‘meditation’; — in the Vīramitrodaya — Paribhāṣā, p. 48; — in the Smṛticandrikā — Samskāra, p. 27, which explains ‘par am’ as ‘the most important;’ — and in the Kṛtyasārsamuccaya, p. 80.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 81-86)

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

VERSE 1.87 [Distribution of Functions among the several castes, part 1: of the Brāhmaṇa]

Section LV - Distribution of Functions among the several castes, part 1: of the Brāhmaṇa

सर्वस्यास्य तु सर्गस्य गुप्त्यर्थं स महाद्युतिः ।
मुखबाहूरुपज्जानां पृथक्कर्माण्यकल्पयत् ॥८७॥

sarvasyāsya tu sargasya guptyarthaṃ sa mahādyutiḥ |
mukhabāhūrupajjānāṃ pṛthakkarmāṇyakalpayat ||87||

With a view to the protection of this entire creation, the Resplendent One ordained the distinct functions of those who sprang from the mouth, the arms, the thighs and the feet — (86).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The divisions of time have been described. The qualifications of the Brāhmaṇa and the other people are now described; and the present verse serves as an introduction to that subject.

‘Of this entire creation,’ — i.e., of all beings, — ‘with a view to the protection’ — for the purpose of their safety; — the Resplendent One, Prajāpati, — ‘ordained,’ — distributed — ‘the functions,’ — i.e., actions, leading to perceptible as well as imperceptible results, — of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes, that sprang from his mouth and other limbs. (87).

VERSE 1.88

Section LV - Distribution of Functions among the several castes, part 1: of the Brāhmaṇa

अध्यापनमध्ययनं यजनं याजनं तथा ।
दानं प्रतिग्रहं चैव ब्राह्मणानामकल्पयत् ॥८८॥

adhyāpanamadhyayanaṃ yajanaṃ yājanaṃ tathā |
dānaṃ pratigrahaṃ caiva brāhmaṇānāmakalpayat ||88||

For the Brāhmaṇas he ordained teaching, studying, sacrificing and officiating at sacrifices, as also the giving and accepting of gifts. (88).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The said ‘functions’ are now described. (88).

VERSE 1.89 [Distribution of Functions among the several castes, part 2: of the Kṣatriya]

Section LVI - Distribution of Functions among the several castes, part 2: of the Kṣatriya

प्रजानां रक्षणं दानमिज्याऽध्ययनमेव च ।
विषयेष्वप्रसक्तिश्च क्षत्रियस्य समासतः ॥८९॥

prajānāṃ rakṣaṇaṃ dānamijyā'dhyayanameva ca |
viṣayeṣvaprasaktiśca kṣatriyasya samāsataḥ ||89||

For the Kṣatriya he ordained protecting of the people, giving of gifts, sacrificing and studying, as also abstaining prom being addicted to the objects of sense. (89).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What are referred to here are such things as Musical Sounds and the like which tend to give rise (in the minds of men) to a longing for the objects of sensual enjoyment; and the ‘abstaining from being addicted to them’ means not being attached to them; that is, not to have recourse to them frequently. (89).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya — Paribhāṣā, p. 45, which reads ‘saktim’, and explains ‘viṣayeṣu aprasaktim’ as ‘control, of the senses;’ and in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, Saṃskāra, p. 73b.

VERSE 1.90 [Distribution of Functions among the several castes, part 3: of the Vaiśya]

Section LVII - Distribution of Functions among the several castes, part 3: of the Vaiśya

पशूनां रक्षणं दानमिज्याऽध्ययनमेव च ।
वणिक्पथं कुसीदं च वैश्यस्य कृषिमेव च ॥९०॥

paśūnāṃ rakṣaṇaṃ dānamijyā'dhyayanameva ca |
vaṇikpathaṃ kusīdaṃ ca vaiśyasya kṛṣimeva ca ||90||

For the Vaiśya, tending of cattle, giving of gifts, sacrificing and studying; as also trade, money-lending and cultivating of land. (90).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Trade,’ — i.e., the acquiring of wealth by carrying on trade, on land and on water, and the importing of useful goods from foreign countries into the state of that king in whose kingdom he lives.

‘Money-lending’ — giving out money on interest. (90).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśara-mādhava (Ācāra, p. 416), in support of Parāśara, verse 63; — and in the Vīramitrodaya — Paribhāṣā (p. 45), which explains ‘Vaṇikpatham’ as ‘trade’ and ‘Kusīdam’ as ‘lending money on interest’.

VERSE 1.91 [Distribution of Functions among the several castes, part 4: of the Śūdra]

Section LVIII - Distribution of Functions among the several castes, part 4: of the Śūdra

एकमेव तु शूद्रस्य प्रभुः कर्म समादिशत् ।
एतेषामेव वर्णानां शुश्रूषामनसूयया ॥९१॥

ekameva tu śūdrasya prabhuḥ karma samādiśat |
eteṣāmeva varṇānāṃ śuśrūṣāmanasūyayā ||91||

For the Śūdra the Lord ordained only one function: the ungrudging service of the said castes. (91).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The Lord’, Prajāpati, ordained ‘one function, for the Śūdra’; [in the form] — ‘Thou shalt perform the ‘service of the said castes,’ — i.e., of the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya; — ‘Ungrudging’ — i.e., without complaining; no resentment should be felt even in the mind.

‘Service’ stands for attending; i.e., doing of acts conducive to their convenience; such as massage of the body, and the obeying of wishes.

What is mentioned here is only such function of the Śūdra as leads to visible results (in the shape of livelihood); and in as much as the phrase ‘one only’ is not injunctive, it does not preclude the giving of gifts (and such other acts, leading to invisible results); specially as we shall find later on the actual injunction of these acts (for the Śūdra also). And it will be on that occasion that we shall set forth the classification of sacrifices and other acts (as to which of these should be done by which castes, and so forth). (91).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya — Paribhāṣā, p. 45; — and in the Varṣakriyākaumudī (p. 568), which explains ‘Prabhuḥ,’ ‘as Brahmā,’ and ‘Anasūyayā’ as ‘without dishonesty.’

VERSE 1.92 [Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa]

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

ऊर्ध्वं नाभेर्मेध्यतरः पुरुषः परिकीर्तितः ।
तस्मान् मेध्यतमं त्वस्य मुखमुक्तं स्वयम्भुवा ॥९२॥

ūrdhvaṃ nābhermedhyataraḥ puruṣaḥ parikīrtitaḥ |
tasmān medhyatamaṃ tvasya mukhamuktaṃ svayambhuvā ||92||

Man is described as purer above his naval; hence the Self-existent One has declared the mouth to be his purest part. (92)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Down to the very sole of his feet, Man is pure; that part of his body which is ‘above the naval’ is extremely pure; and purer even than that is his mouth. This has been declared by that person himself who is the creator of the world. (92)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

See 5.132.

VERSE 1.93

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

उत्तमाङ्गोद्भवाज् ज्येष्ठ्याद् ब्रह्मणश्चैव धारणात् ।
सर्वस्यैवास्य सर्गस्य धर्मतो ब्राह्मणः प्रभुः ॥९३॥

uttamāṅgodbhavāj jyeṣṭhyād brahmaṇaścaiva dhāraṇāt |
sarvasyaivāsya sargasya dharmato brāhmaṇaḥ prabhuḥ ||93||

In matters regauding ‘Dharma’, the Brāhmaṇa is the Lord of this whole world; — because he sprang out of the best part of (Prajāpati’s) body, because he is the eldest ok all, and because he upholds the Veda. — (98)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse explains what follows from what has been said in the preceding verse. ‘The best part of the body,’ — the head; from out of that sprang, was born, the Brāhmaṇa. — He is also ‘the eldest of all,’ — the Brāhmaṇa was produced before the other castes . — ‘Because he upholds the Brahman, i.e., Veda’; the upholding of the Veda has been specifically prescribed for him. — ‘Hence,’ — for all these three reasons, — ‘the Brāhmaṇa is the lord,’ — i.e., as if he were the lord — ‘of this whole world’; i.e., he should be approached (treated) like the lord; and people should obey his orders in matters relating to Dharma. — ‘Dharmataḥ prabhuḥ’ means ‘dharme prabhuḥ,’ — ‘Lord in matters regarding Dharma,’ — the affix ‘tasi’ (in ‘dharmataḥ’) being added according to the Vārtika on Pāṇini 5.4.44, which lays down the use of this affix in connection with such terms as ‘ādya’ and the like. (93)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Dharmataḥ prabhuḥ’ — ‘The lord, by law’ — according to Nārāyaṇa and Nandana. But Medhātithi takes it to mean that ‘he is the lord, in matters relating to Dharma’; i.e., he is the person entitled to prescribe the duties of men and as such, is like the lord; — Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda accept the latter explanation.

VERSE 1.94

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

तं हि स्वयम्भूः स्वादास्यात् तपस्तप्त्वाऽदितोऽसृजत् ।
हव्यकव्याभिवाह्याय सर्वस्यास्य च गुप्तये ॥९४॥

taṃ hi svayambhūḥ svādāsyāt tapastaptvā'dito'sṛjat |
havyakavyābhivāhyāya sarvasyāsya ca guptaye ||94||

Him the Sself-existent one, after performing austerities, created, in the beginning, out of his own mouth, for the conveying of offerings (to the gods) and of oblations (to the Pitṛs), and for the preservation of this entire creation. (94).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse serves the purpose of pointing out the details of the three reasons set forth in the preceding verse.

In the case of the ordinary man also, the head is the most important part of his body. ‘Him’ — the Brāhmaṇa; — ‘Self-existent one created out of his own mouth’; and this creation out of his mouth came about after he had performed austerities.

The fact of the Brāhmaṇa being the ‘eldest’ is vindicated by the term ‘in the beginning.’

That which is done for the benefit of the Gods is called ‘offering’; and that which is done for the benefit of the Pitṛs is called ‘oblation’; — ‘for the conveying of’ these two, — i.e., for presenting them to the Gods and the Pitṛs. In the term ‘abhivāhyāya,’ the verbal affix (ṇyat) has the nominal force, which may be explained somehow or other; the root ‘vaḥ’ being transitive.

By the said act (of conveying the oblations and offerings) is accomplished ‘the preservation,’ — nourishment — of this whole Trio of Worlds: the gods live upon offerings made from this world (by men), — the Gods again nourish plants and herbs and make them ripe by means of cold, heat and rains; this mutual benefit leads to ‘preservation.’ (94).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 94-99)

Yājñavalkya, 1.198-109. — ‘Having performed austerities, Brahmā created the Brāhmaṇas, for the guarding of the Vedas, for the satisfaction of Pitṛs and Gods and for the protection of Dharma. Those Brāhmaṇas who are devoted to learning and study, are the source of everything, superior to these are those who are devoted to religious acts; and superior even to these are those who are the best knowers of the science of the self.’

VERSE 1.95

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

यस्यास्येन सदाऽश्नन्ति हव्यानि त्रिदिवौकसः ।
कव्यानि चैव पितरः किं भूतमधिकं ततः ॥९५॥

yasyāsyena sadā'śnanti havyāni tridivaukasaḥ |
kavyāni caiva pitaraḥ kiṃ bhūtamadhikaṃ tataḥ ||95||

What being is superior to him through whose mouth the gods always eat the offerings and the Pitṛs the oblations? (95).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author proceeds to show the above-mentioned ‘conveying of oblations.’

‘Tṛdivaukasaḥ’ — are those whose habitation consists of the ‘third heaven,’ i.e., the denizens of heaven, the Gods. — The Gods accept the food that is eaten by the Brāhmaṇa: in connection with ‘Śrāddha’ offerings also, the feeding of Brāhmaṇas has been laid down as to be done for the sake of the Viśvedevas (a class of Gods), — this feeding being a part of the offering to the Pitṛs. What is stated in the text is with reference to these facts.

‘What being is superior’ — i.e. greater — ‘to him’ — than him? This means that the author himself ‘forgets’ (cannot think of) any being who could be so superior.

The Gods, occupying the highest regions, and the Pitṛs occupying the intermediate regions, — both are imperceptible; hence there is no other means of feeding them except though the feeding of Brāhmaṇas; — hence the Brāhmaṇa must be superior. (95).

Comparative notes by various authors:

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.94 (Brahmā created the Brāhmaṇas).

VERSE 1.96

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

भूतानां प्राणिनः श्रेष्ठाः प्राणिनां बुद्धिजीविनः ।
बुद्धिमत्सु नराः श्रेष्ठा नरेषु ब्राह्मणाः स्मृताः ॥९६॥

bhūtānāṃ prāṇinaḥ śreṣṭhāḥ prāṇināṃ buddhijīvinaḥ |
buddhimatsu narāḥ śreṣṭhā nareṣu brāhmaṇāḥ smṛtāḥ ||96||

Among beings, aminated ones are regarded as foremost; among aminated ones, those that subsist by reason: among rational beings men are foremost; and among men, Brāhmaṇas. (96).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The word ‘being’ stands for all such things on earth as Trees and other immovable things, and also such movable

things as insects, beetles and the like. — Among these, the ‘animated ones’ — i.e., those that are capable of such activities as eating, moving and so forth, — are ‘foremost’; being aminated, they experience more powerful pleasures. — Among these latter, ‘those that subsist by reason,’ — i.e., those that discriminate between wholesome and unwholesome, such for instance, as dogs, jackals and other animals [are foremost]; these animals, when suffering from heat, more into the shade; when suffering from cold, they betake themselves to the sun; they give up a place where they find no food. — Among these latter again, ‘men are foremost’; and of them, ‘Brāhmaṇas.’ They are the most highly honoured; they are never ill treated by any person; in fact the killing of the Brāhmaṇa involves a serious expiatory rite, which is due entirely to considerations of caste. (96).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi, (p. 41, l. 20) — ‘Parasparopokārāt’ — c.f. Bhagavadgītā — devān bhāvayatānena te

devān bhāvayatānena te devā bhāvayantu vaḥ |
parasparaṃ bhāvayantaḥ śreyaḥ param avāpsyatha ||3.11||

Comparative notes by various authors:

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.94 (Brahmā created the Brāhmaṇas).

VERSE 1.97

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

ब्राह्मणेषु च विद्वांसो विद्वत्सु कृतबुद्धयः ।
कृतबुद्धिषु कर्तारः कर्तृषु ब्रह्मवेदिनः ॥९७॥

brāhmaṇeṣu ca vidvāṃso vidvatsu kṛtabuddhayaḥ |
kṛtabuddhiṣu kartāraḥ kartṛṣu brahmavedinaḥ ||97||

Among Brāhmaṇas, the learned are the best, among the learned, those with firm convictions, among the men with firm convictions, those that act up to them; and among the actors, those that know Brahman. — (97).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The superiority of the learned rests on the fact that it is they alone that are entitled to the performance of sacrifices that lead to great results. Among these ‘those with firm convictions’ — who have acquired firm knowledge of the essence of the Veda, and are never affected (adversely) by Bauḍḍhas and other heretics. — Among these again ‘those that act up to them’ — i.e., the performer of actions; these persons doing what is enjoined and avoiding what is prohibited, are never attacked (by evil). — Among these, those that know ‘Brahman’; those that know Brahman become of the nature of Brahman, and therein lies imperishable bliss. (97).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kṛtabuddhayaḥ’ — ‘who know the Veda and its meaning (Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana); — ’ ‘Knowing the truth’ (Sarvajña-nārāyaṇa and Rāmacandra), — ‘who recognise the necessity of doing what is prescribed in the scriptures’ (Kullūka); — ‘determined’ (Rāghavānanda).

Comparative notes by various authors:

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.94 (Brahmā created the Brāhmaṇas).

VERSE 1.98

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

उत्पत्तिरेव विप्रस्य मूर्तिर्धर्मस्य शाश्वती ।
स हि धर्मार्थमुत्पन्नो ब्रह्मभूयाय कल्पते ॥९८॥

utpattireva viprasya mūrtirdharmasya śāśvatī |
sa hi dharmārthamutpanno brahmabhūyāya kalpate ||98||

The very genesis of the Brāhmaṇa is the eternal incarnation of Virtue; for he is born for the sake of Virtue; and this (birth) leads to the state of Brahman. (98).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The peculiarity of the Brāhmaṇa endowed with the qualities of learning and the like having been described, some people might be led to ill-treat the mere Brāhmaṇa by birth; hence with a view to prevent this, the author has added this verse.

‘The very genesis’ — i.e., irrespective of his qualities, his mere birth, the mere ‘Brāhmaṇa caste’ — ‘is the eternal incar nation’ — body — ‘of Virtue.’

‘Born for the sake of virtue,’ — when the Brāhmaṇa has been duly initiated with the rites of initiation, this is what constitutes his ‘being horn for the sake of Virtue’; and ‘this birth leads to the state of Brahman’; on abandoning the ‘body of Virtue’, the Brāhmaṇa becomes the partaker of Supreme Bliss. — says the Śruti. (98).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Brahma’ — stands here for the Highest Spiritual Being; and not for the Veda, as Burnell understands it to mean, even after entertaining doubts on the matter. All the commentators agree in explaining the phrase ‘brahmabhūyāya kalpate’ as ‘becomes fit for being liberated — by being absorbed into Brahman, the Supreme Self.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.94 (Brahmā created the Brāhmaṇas).

VERSE 1.99

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

ब्राह्मणो जायमानो हि पृथिव्यामधिजायते ।
ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां धर्मकोशस्य गुप्तये ॥९९॥

brāhmaṇo jāyamāno hi pṛthivyāmadhijāyate |
īśvaraḥ sarvabhūtānāṃ dharmakośasya guptaye ||99||

The Brāhmaṇa, on coming into existence, becomes supreme on earth; he is the supreme lord of all beings, serving the purpose of guarding the treasure of Virtue. (99).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Brāhmaṇa comes to the top of the entire world; this ‘coming to the top’ indicates his supremacy.

‘He is the Supreme Lord of all beings’, — and this supremacy comes about for the ‘purpose of guarding the treasure of Virtue.’ — ‘Treasure’ means a collection of objects; hence through similarity, the collection of Virtues is called ‘treasure’ (99).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The Aparārka (p. 281) quotes this verse in support of the view that the learned Brāhmaṇa is the master of everything in the world.

Comparative notes by various authors:

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.94 (Brahmā created the Brāhmaṇas).

VERSE 1.100

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

सर्वं स्वं ब्राह्मणस्येदं यत् किं चित्जगतीगतम् ।
श्रैष्ठ्येनाभिजनेनेदं सर्वं वै ब्राह्मणोऽर्हति ॥१००॥

sarvaṃ svaṃ brāhmaṇasyedaṃ yat kiṃ citjagatīgatam |
śraiṣṭhyenābhijanenedaṃ sarvaṃ vai brāhmaṇo'rhati ||100||

Whatever is contained in this world is all the property of the Brāhmaṇa; the Brāhmaṇa verily deserves all by virtue of his superiority and noble birth. (100).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Having raised the question that, if the Brāhmaṇa happen to be discontented and should again undertake to receive gifts, he would incur sin, — the Author offers his answer to it in this verse.

‘All this’ — i.e., whatever wealth exists in the three worlds — ‘is the property of the Brāhmaṇa’; so that for him there can he no ‘acceptance of gifts’; what he takes possession of, he does by virtue of his being its possessor, and not as the receiver of a gift.

This is mere praise, not an injunction; hence we have the word ‘deserves’.

‘Noble birth’ — high hirth, superior character. (100). VERSE CI.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Aparārka (p. 282) as indicating that the learned Brāhmaṇa is the owner of all things.

VERSE 1.101

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

स्वमेव ब्राह्मणो भुङ्क्ते स्वं वस्ते स्वं ददाति च ।
आनृशंस्याद् ब्राह्मणस्य भुञ्जते हीतरे जनाः ॥१०१॥

svameva brāhmaṇo bhuṅkte svaṃ vaste svaṃ dadāti ca |
ānṛśaṃsyād brāhmaṇasya bhuñjate hītare janāḥ ||101||

What the Brāhmana eats is his own; his own what he wears and his own also what he gives; it ts due to the good will of the Brāhmaṇa that other people enjoy (things). (101).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What the Brāhmaṇa eats as a guest in the house of others is really his own; it should not be thought that he is receiving food from another person’s kitchen. — Similarly ‘what he wears is his own’; — i.e., when he obtains clothing, either by begging or otherwise, it does not mean that he has acquired it from others; what it means is that he is employing what is his own in the covering of his body. — What he obtains for his own use, in that he may lie exercising his own right of possession; hut when he gives away to people what belongs to others, this also is nothing wrong for him; it is only his good will, benevolence. It is by reason of the large-heartedness of the Brāhmaṇa that Kings on earth enjoy their possessions; otherwise, if the Brāhmaṇa were to wish — ‘I should take all this and apply it to my own use,’ — then all others would become penniless, having nothing that they could use for their own benefit. — (101)

VERSE 1.102

Section LIX - Superiority of the Brāhmaṇa

तस्य कर्मविवेकार्थं शेषाणामनुपूर्वशः ।
स्वायम्भुवो मनुर्धीमानिदं शास्त्रमकल्पयत् ॥१०२॥

tasya karmavivekārthaṃ śeṣāṇāmanupūrvaśaḥ |
svāyambhuvo manurdhīmānidaṃ śāstramakalpayat ||102||

It was for the purpose of regulating the actions of the Brāhmaṇa, — and incidentally of others also, — that the wise Manu Svāyambhuva Elaborated these institutes. — (102)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse serves the purpose of indicating the upshot of the entire eulogium pronounced on the Brāhmaṇa (in the foregoing verses); — [the sense being] — ‘These institutes are so important that they serve the purposes of the Brāhmana who is endowed with a high degree of supremacy due to his own inherent excellence’; — ‘for the puryose of regulating the actions,’ — i.e. for the purposes of regulating, in the form ‘such and such acts should be done, and such and such others should be avoided’; — ‘of others also,’ i.e. of the Kṣatriya and the rest; — ‘Incidentally,’ — i.e. primarily for the Brāhmaṇa, and only incidentally for the Kṣatriya and other castes; — ‘he elaborated.’ — set forth, — ‘these institutes .’ — (102)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Svāyambhuvo manuḥ’ — This does not mean ‘Manu, who sprang from the self-existent’; it means only ‘Manu, Svāyambhuva by name’; — ‘Svāyambhuva’ being the proper name of one of the Manus.

Anupūrvaśaḥ; — ‘Incidentally’ (Medhātithi); — ‘in due order’ (Rāmacandra).

VERSE 1.103 [Institutes to be studied by the Brāhmaṇa]

Section LX - Institutes to be studied by the Brāhmaṇa

विदुषा ब्राह्मणेनैदमध्येतव्यं प्रयत्नतः ।
शिश्येभ्यश्च प्रवक्तव्यं सम्यङ्नान्येन केन चित् ॥१०३॥

viduṣā brāhmaṇenaidamadhyetavyaṃ prayatnataḥ |
śiśyebhyaśca pravaktavyaṃ samyaṅnānyena kena cit ||103||

This may he studied with care, and duly taught to pupils, by the learned Brāhmaṇa, — not by any one else. — (103)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Adhyetavyam-pravaktovyam’ — ‘can be studied and can be taught’ — the verbal affix denotes capability, not injunction [ i.e. the meaning is that the institutes deserve to be studied and taught &c.]; for actual injunctions are going to begin only from the Second Discourse onward; and the present Discourse is purely descriptive, it contains no injunctions. Hence, just as the assertion, ‘Rice forms the food of Kings,’ is regarded as a mere praise of the Rice, and it is not taken us a prohibition of its eating by people other than Kings, — in the same manner, in the present passage the phrase ‘not by any one else’ is not a prohibition (of study by others), but only a praise of the institutes; the sense thus is as follows: —

‘The Brāhmaṇa is the highest being in the world, — these institutes are the best of all institutes, — hence these are capable of being studied and taught only by the said learned Brāhmaṇa, — and they cannot be either studied or taught by any ordinary man.’ It is in view of this that the author adds the term ‘with great care’; unless great care is taken, until the self has been duly equipped with the knowledge of other sciences, — such as Logic, Grammar and Exigetics, — these institutes cannot be taught. Thus it is that ‘study’ implies ‘hearing’ (from the lips of the Teacher) also; and the justification for this implication lies in the fact that the ‘learning’ (spoken of by the epithet ‘learned’) comes in useful only in the case of hearing from the teacher’s lips, — (which presupposes intelligent following of the oral lectures); it would not be necessary for the mere reading of the words. If the present verse were taken as an injunction of ‘study,’ the said ‘learning’ could he regarded only as serving some transcendental purpose. It would not he right to argue that — “in the injunction also hearing would be implied by the studying”; for it is not right to take what is enjoined as subserving the purposes of implications. In the case of Declamatory passages (Arthavāda) on the other hand, there is nothing incongruous in admitting of indirect implications on the basis of other sources of knowledge (while a direct Injunction by its very nature, cannot be diverted from its direct meaning, on any account whatsoever],

From all this it follows that all three castes are entitled to the study of the Institutes. This we shall explain in detail later on. — (103)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Mitākṣarā (on I, 3) — along with another verse from Manu (2-16) — in support of the view that, though all the three twice-born castes are entitled to study the Dharmaśāstra, the Brāhmaṇa alone is entitled to teach it. In support of this it also quotes a text from Śaṅkha to the effect that the Brāhmaṇa alone is entitled to these, and it is he that explains their duties to the other castes. To this same view we find the verse quoted in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 512); — also in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 10) which reads vidvadbhiḥ for ‘śisyebhyaḥ’ and explains it as meant simply to exclude the Śūdra only.

VERSE 1.104 [Results accruing from the study of the Institutes]

Section LXI - Results accruing from the study of the Institutes

इदं शास्त्रमधीयानो ब्राह्मणः शंसितव्रतः ।
मनोवाक्देहजैर्नित्यं कर्मदोषैर्न लिप्यते ॥१०४॥

idaṃ śāstramadhīyāno brāhmaṇaḥ śaṃsitavrataḥ |
manovākdehajairnityaṃ karmadoṣairna lipyate ||104||

The Brāhmaṇa studying these institutes, and (thence) discharging all prescribed duties, is never defiled by sins of commission (or omission), proceeding from mind, speech or body. — (104)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Having thus, indirectly through its co-relative, eulogised the Institutes as serving the purposes of the Brāhmaṇa, the Author now proceeds to eulogise them directly.

Knowing these Institutes, the Brāhmaṇa, comes to ‘discharge all prescribed duties,’ — i.e. he observes all observances and practises full self-control; having learnt from the institutes that the omission of duties is sinful, he, fearing sin, fulfils all active and passive obligations (relating to observances and self-control), — doing everything in full conformity to the Institutes. Thus fulfilling all his duties, ‘he is not defiled’ — affected — ‘by the sins’ arising from the omission of duties prescribed and the commission of deeds prohibited. — (104)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 10) which reads ‘saṃśita’ for ‘śaṃsita’ and adds that the term here stands for ‘twice-born’ persons.

VERSE 1.105

Section LXI - Results accruing from the study of the Institutes

पुनाति पङ्क्तिं वंश्यांश्च सप्तसप्त परावरान् ।
पृथिवीमपि चैवेमां कृत्स्नामेकोऽपि सोऽर्हति ॥१०५॥

punāti paṅktiṃ vaṃśyāṃśca saptasapta parāvarān |
pṛthivīmapi caivemāṃ kṛtsnāmeko'pi so'rhati ||105||

He purifies his company, and also his kindreds — seven higher (ancestors) and seven lower (descendants). he alone deserves this entire earth. — (105)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He becomes the sanctifier of his company; ‘company’ stands here for a number of persons arranged in a particular order; this ‘he purifies,’ makes free from taint; i.e., all sinful men, by associating with him, become sinless.

‘Kindreds’ — persons born in his own family ; — ‘seven higher,’ those above him, the Father &c., and ‘seven lower,’ those that are to come, yet to be born.

He alone is entitled to receive the gift of this earth extending to the oceans; ‘knowledge of Dharma’ establishes a claim to become the recipient; hence it is that a full knowledge of Dharma is sought to be acquired. — (105)

VERSE 1.106

Section LXI - Results accruing from the study of the Institutes

इदं स्वस्त्ययनं श्रेष्ठमिदं बुद्धिविवर्धनम् ।
इदं यशस्यमायुष्यं इदं निःश्रेयसं परम् ॥१०६॥

idaṃ svastyayanaṃ śreṣṭhamidaṃ buddhivivardhanam |
idaṃ yaśasyamāyuṣyaṃ idaṃ niḥśreyasaṃ param ||106||

This (treatise) is ever conducive to welfare; it is most excellent; it expands the understanding brings fame and constitutes the highest good. — (106)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Svasti,’ ‘Welfare’ — is the non-hindrance (fulfilment) of what is desired; ‘dyana’ ‘conducive,’ is that which brings about; hence ‘svastyayana,’ ‘conducive to welfare,’ means that which brings about the fulfilment of what is desired.

‘Most excellent’ — in comparison to such acts as the telling of beads, pouring of libations and so forth; without this treatise the performance of such acts is not possible; hence as leading to their performance, it is described as ‘most important.’ Or, it may mean that the words and sentences that serve to bring about the knowledge of virtue are excellent; while the actual performance is painful; hence the former are spoken of as ‘most excellent.’

‘It expands the intellect’ — when the treatise is duly studied, its subject-matter becomes illuminated, and the hard knots become untied; hence follows the expansion of the understanding, as is well known.

‘it brings fame,’ — when a man knows Dharma his opinion is sought for by enquirers, and thus he acquires fame. The term ‘Yaśasyam’ means that which is the cause of fame’, ‘fame’ consists in being known as possessing the qualities of learning, nobility and so forth.

‘The highest good’ — It brings about the due knowledge of Actions and Wisdom, which lead to the attainment of bliss unalloyed with pain, such bliss appearing in the form of ‘Heaven’ and ‘Final Release’; and for this reason this treatise constitutes the ‘highest,’ most excellent, ‘good’ — (106).

VERSE 1.107

Section LXI - Results accruing from the study of the Institutes

अस्मिन् धर्मेऽखिलेनोक्तौ गुणदोषौ च कर्मणाम् ।
चतुर्णामपि वर्णानामाचारश्चैव शाश्वतः ॥१०७॥

asmin dharme'khilenoktau guṇadoṣau ca karmaṇām |
caturṇāmapi varṇānāmācāraścaiva śāśvataḥ ||107||

Herein has been expounded Dharma in its entirety: the good and bad features of actions of all the four castes; as also eternal Morality. — (107)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Author now proceeds to describe the fact that his treatise, in regard to its subject-matter, is complete in itself, and does not stand in need of anything else.

That which is called ‘Dharma,’ ‘is expounded,’ in this Treatise, ‘in its entirety,’ wholly; that is, for acquiring the knowledge of Dharma, one need not have recourse to any other treatise. This is a hyperbolic eulogium; what is meant is only that such Dharma as is adumbrated in the Smṛtis has been expounded in its entirety in this Treatise.

‘The good and had features of actions,’ — the desirable and undesirable results form the ‘good and bad features of actions’ — i.e. of such actions as sacrifice and Brāhmāṇa-killing (respectively). ‘Entirety’ refers to the details relating to (1) the form of the acts, (2) their procedure, (3) their results, also (4) their relation to a particular kind of Agent, and (5) their distinction into ‘compulsory’ and ‘optional’; — it is all this that is meant by the term ‘good and bad features' ‘Dharma’ having been already mentioned in the preceding clause, the mention again of the term ‘action’ (which means the same thing) is for the purpose of filling up the verse.

‘Of all the four castes’; — this also is meant to indicate the complete charactcr of the Treatise; the meaning being that ‘whoever is entitled to the performance of Dharma can derive his knowledge of it from this Treatise’.

‘Eternal morality’ — Dharma or Action, based upon, indicated by, Morality is what is called ‘Eternal Morality’ here; i.e. Right Behaviour. This we shall examine in detail under Discourse II (verse 4). ‘Eternal’ — i.e. established by long-tradition, not merely set up by people of the present day. — (107).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Guṇadoṣau ca karmaṇām’ — ‘The desirable and undesirable results of actions’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nandana); — ‘the prescribed acts’ (Rāghavānanda and Nārāyaṇa).

VERSE 1.108

Section LXI - Results accruing from the study of the Institutes

आचारः परमो धर्मः श्रुत्योक्तः स्मार्त एव च ।
तस्मादस्मिन् सदा युक्तो नित्यं स्यादात्मवान् द्विजः ॥१०८॥

ācāraḥ paramo dharmaḥ śrutyoktaḥ smārta eva ca |
tasmādasmin sadā yukto nityaṃ syādātmavān dvijaḥ ||108||

Morality [Right Behaviour] is highest Dharma; that which is prescribed in the śruti and laid down in the Smṛti. hence the twice-born person, desiring the welfare of his soul, should be always intent upon Right Behaviour. — (108)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Highest Dharma is Morality’ [Right Behaviour]; that which has been prescribed in the Śruti, i.e. Veda; and also ‘that laid down in the Smṛti.’ Hence one should be ever intent upon Dharma in the shape of Right Behaviour i.e. he should carry it into practice.

‘Ātmavān’ — lit. ‘endowed with soul,’ really means ‘desir ing the welfare of his soul’; all men are ‘endowed with soul’; hence the affix ‘matup’ is taken to mean ‘welfare of soul.’ — (108).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 108-109)

Vaśiṣṭha, 6.1-5. — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 1.109

Section LXI - Results accruing from the study of the Institutes

आचाराद् विच्युतो विप्रो न वेदफलमश्नुते ।
आचारेण तु संयुक्तः सम्पूर्णफलभाग् भवेत् ॥१०९॥

ācārād vicyuto vipro na vedaphalamaśnute |
ācāreṇa tu saṃyuktaḥ sampūrṇaphalabhāg bhavet ||109||

The Brāhmaṇa who departs from Right Behaviour, does not obtain the fruit of the Veda; he however who is equipped with Right Behaviour obtains the full reward. — (109)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse eulogises Right Behaviour iu another manner.

‘He who departs from Right behaviour,’ — i.e. is devoid of Right Conduct — does not obtain the ‘fruit of the Veda’; what is called ‘the fruit of the Veda is the result proceeding from the performance of acts prescribed in the Veda. Even though the man may perform the acts prescribed in the Veda, in their entire and perfect forms, yet if he happens to be one who has fallen off from Right Behaviour, he does not obtain their results, in the shape of the ‘birth of a son’ and so forth. This is the deprecation of men not following Eight Behaviour.

This same idea is expressed obversely in the next sentence.

‘He who is equipped with Right Behaviour obtains the full reward,’ — of all those optional acts that are done with a purpose.

In this connection some people argue as follows: — “In as much as the text contains the qualification ‘full,’ it follows that the man devoid of Right Behaviour does also obtain the results of his optional acts done with a purpose, — only the full result does not accrue to them.”

This is not right; because the term ‘full’ is purely commendatory [and hence cannot be taken as having any serious import]. — (109).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(Verse 108-109)

See Comparative notes for Verse 1.108 (On morality [right behaviour]).

VERSE 1.110 [Contents of the Treatise]

Section LXII - Contents of the Treatise

एवमाचारतो दृष्ट्वा धर्मस्य मुनयो गतिम् ।
सर्वस्य तपसो मूलमाचारं जगृहुः परम् ॥११०॥

evamācārato dṛṣṭvā dharmasya munayo gatim |
sarvasya tapaso mūlamācāraṃ jagṛhuḥ param ||110||

Having thus seen that virtue is got at from Right Behaviour, the sages regarded Right Behaviour as the very root of all Austerity. — (110)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Of all Austerity, — i.e. Breath-control, silence, observances, self-control, and the busts of ‘Kṛcchra, Chāndrā yaṇa, and also absolute Fasting’; — of all this ‘Austerity,’ Right Behaviour is ‘the root,’ — the direct cause, leading to the growth of their fruit. — For the reason given, the sages regarded, accepted, it as being the root, — i.e. the cause, — of Austerity, performed by men desiring results. — ‘Having seen that virtue is got at,’ — acquired — ‘from Right Behaviour.’ — However difficult the Austerity performed, it is not fruitful for the man that is without Right Behaviour so says the Śruti. — (111).

VERSE 1.111

Section LXII - Contents of the Treatise

जगतश्च समुत्पत्तिं संस्कारविधिमेव च ।
व्रतचर्यौपचारं च स्नानस्य च परं विधिम् ॥१११॥

jagataśca samutpattiṃ saṃskāravidhimeva ca |
vratacaryaupacāraṃ ca snānasya ca paraṃ vidhim ||111||

The coming into existence of the world, — the rule relating to the sacramental Rites, — the method of keeping observances, — as also the excellent rules bearing upon the Final Ablution. — (111).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘Virtues’ expounded in the Treatise are here specified in detail. With a view to attract the attention of the hearers, it has been described in Verse 50, et. seq., that the results of ‘Virtue’ are endless. But it is passible that hearers might become discouraged by the idea that ‘Virtue’ is interminable, without end; hence with a view to encourage them, the Author is now providing a summary of the institute, in the shape of a list of contents: — the sense being — ‘only so many are the subjects dealt with, not too many, and they can certainly be learnt by people who are endowed with due regard and amount of confidence the idea is that if the path traversed is one that has been described briefly, it is not unbearable.

‘The coming into existence of the world,’ — i.e. the measure of time, the delineation of the characteristics of principles and things, the praise of the Brāhmaṇa, and so forth, — all these are included under the ‘coming into existence of the world’; this subject has been dealt with in the Treatise as a commendatory description, and not as something to be actually accepted as absolutely true.

‘The rates relating to sacramental rites,’ ‘the method of keeping observances.’ By ‘sacramental rites’ are meant those connected with ‘Impregnation’ and the rest; the ‘rules’ i.e., procedure — relating to these; — the keeping of ‘observances’ — i.e., by the Initiated Student, — of these the ‘method,’ the actual performance, the procedure; — this sums up what has been proclaimed in Discourse II. — ‘Final Ablution,’ — i.e. the particular ceremony performed by one who is returning from the house of his Preceptor (after finishing his course of study). — (111)

VERSE 1.112

Section LXII - Contents of the Treatise

दाराधिगमनं चैव विवाहानां च लक्षणम् ।
महायज्ञविधानं च श्राद्धकल्पं च शाश्वतम् ॥११२॥

dārādhigamanaṃ caiva vivāhānāṃ ca lakṣaṇam |
mahāyajñavidhānaṃ ca śrāddhakalpaṃ ca śāśvatam ||112||

The taking of wife, — the definition of the several forms of Marriage, — the method of the Great Sacrifices, — the eternal regulations relating to the offering to Pitṛs. — (112)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Taking of wife,’ — the accepting of a wife in marriage; — ‘the definition’ — i.e., the means of distinguishing the exact character — ‘of marriages,’ — such as the ‘Brahma’ and the rest, which form the means by which the wife is taken. — ‘The great sacrifices’ — the five offerings of the ‘Vaiśvadeva’ and the rest. — ‘The regulations,’ rules, method, relating to śrāddhas, ‘offering to the Pitṛs.’

The terms ‘para,’ ‘excellent’ (in verse 111), and ‘eternal’ (in 112) only serve to fill in the metre.

All this forms the subject-matter of discourse III. — (112)

VERSE 1.113-116

Section LXII - Contents of the Treatise

वृत्तीनां लक्षणं चैव स्नातकस्य व्रतानि च ।
भक्ष्याभक्ष्यं च शौचं च द्रव्याणां शुद्धिमेव च ॥११३॥

स्त्रीधर्मयोगं तापस्यं मोक्षं संन्यासमेव च ।
राज्ञश्च धर्ममखिलं कार्याणां च विनिर्णयम् ॥११४॥

साक्षिप्रश्नविधानं च धर्मं स्त्रीपुंसयोरपि ।
विभागधर्मं द्यूतं च कण्टकानां च शोधनम् ॥११५॥

वैश्यशूद्रोपचारं च सङ्कीर्णानां च सम्भवम् ।
आपद्धर्मं च वर्णानां प्रायश्चित्तविधिं तथा ॥११६॥

vṛttīnāṃ lakṣaṇaṃ caiva snātakasya vratāni ca |
bhakṣyābhakṣyaṃ ca śaucaṃ ca dravyāṇāṃ śuddhimeva ca ||113||

strīdharmayogaṃ tāpasyaṃ mokṣaṃ saṃnyāsameva ca |
rājñaśca dharmamakhilaṃ kāryāṇāṃ ca vinirṇayam ||114||

sākṣipraśnavidhānaṃ ca dharmaṃ strīpuṃsayorapi |
vibhāgadharmaṃ dyūtaṃ ca kaṇṭakānāṃ ca śodhanam ||115||

vaiśyaśūdropacāraṃ ca saṅkīrṇānāṃ ca sambhavam |
āpaddharmaṃ ca varṇānāṃ prāyaścittavidhiṃ tathā ||116||

The description of the means of livelihood, — the observances of the initiated Householder, — lawful and forbidden food, — Purification, — the cleansing of things. — (113)

The conditions of Women, — the Duties of the Recluse, — Final Release, — Renunciation, — the entire duty of the King, — and the decision of law-suits. — (114)

The Rules regarding the examination of witnesses, — the Duties of Husband and wife, — Law relating to the Division of Property, — Gambling, — the exterminating of bad characters. — (115)

The duty of the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, — the birth of the mixed castes — the duties of all castes during times of distress — the method of expiation. — (116)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘description of the means of livelihood,’ — i.e., of the means of subsistence, in the form of acquiring wealth and the like. — ‘Of the Initiated Householder,’ — i.e., of one who has finished his Vedic study and has returned home from his teacher’s house; ‘the observances,’ such as ‘he should not look at the rising sun’ and so forth. All this forms the subject-matter of Discourse IV.

‘Lawful and forbidden food,’ — ‘five five-nailed animals are permitted food,’ and ‘forbidden food’ — such as onion, etc. — ‘Purification,’ — by lapse of time, as in the case of childbirth — ‘cleansing of things,’ with water. — ‘The condition of women’ — such as childhood, youth and so forth. All this is dealt with in Discourse V.

‘Duties of the Recluse’ — the Recluse is one whose chief work consists in the performing of austerity, — i.e., the ‘Vānaprastha,’ the Hermit; and the duty of these is called ‘Tapasyā.’ — ‘Final Release,’ — i.e., the duty of the Wandering Mendicant. — ‘Renunciation,’ is a particular form of the said ‘duty’ (of the Mendicant); how this is so will be explained in the chapter referred to. All this forms the subject matter of Discourse VI.

‘The entire duty,’ — those leading to visible (physical) as well as invisible (super-physical) results, — ‘of the king,’ — i.e., of the man whose business it is to protect the Earth, and who has obtained sovereignty. This forms the subject-matter of Discourse VII.

‘Of law-suits,’ — such as the non-payment of debts, etc.; — ‘decision,’ — i.e., dispelling all doubts, ascertaining the facts and deciding upon the course of action to be adopted. — ‘The method of examination of witnesses,’ — this has been mentioned separately (though already included in the foregoing), because of its great importance. This is the subject-matter of Discourse VIII.

‘Duties of husband and wife,’ — i.e., behaviour towards each other, when living together, and also when living apart. — ‘Laws relating to division’ — i.e., of Property. ‘Gambling’ — i.e., Laws relating to gambling are here spoken of as ‘gambling’ — ‘The extermination of,’ — means of banishing, — ‘bad characters’ — such as thieves, robbers and the like. Though in reality the ‘Division of Property,’ forming one of the eighteen ‘matters of dispute,’ is included under ‘law-suits’ and as such, standing on the same footing as the ‘nonpayment of debts,’ need not have been mentioned separately, yet it has been mentioned separately because it forms the subject-matter of a distinct Discourse. The duties of the Vaiśya and the Śūdra,’ — i.e., the performance of their respective duties. All this is dealt with in Discourse IX.

‘The birth’ coming into existence, ‘of the mixed Castes,’ — i.e., of the ‘Kṣattṛ,’ the ‘Vaideha,’ etc., etc. — ‘Duties during times of distress,’ — i.e„ when failing to carry on livelihood by the means prescribed for them, they are reduced to the point of death; and then there are certain duties that devolve upon the various castes. — This is dealt with in Discourse X.

‘The method of expiation,’ — is dealt with in Discourse XI. — (113-116)

VERSE 1.117

Section LXII - Contents of the Treatise

संसारगमनं चैव त्रिविधं कर्मसम्भवम् ।
निःश्रेयसं कर्मणां च गुणदोषपरीक्षणम् ॥११७॥

saṃsāragamanaṃ caiva trividhaṃ karmasambhavam |
niḥśreyasaṃ karmaṇāṃ ca guṇadoṣaparīkṣaṇam ||117||

The threefold transmigration of the Soul, arising from actions, — the highest good, — and the examination of the good and bad features of actions. — (117)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Saṃsāragamana,’ — the property, ‘saṃsāra,’ ‘series of births and deaths,’ stands here for the possessor of the property, i.e., the personality or Soul, undergoing births and deaths; — the ‘gamana’ of that is its migration from one body to another. — Or, ‘saṃsāra’ may be taken as standing for the objects of the world, i.e., the three Regions of the Earth, etc.; — the ‘gamana’ is being born in those regions, as described before. — ‘Threefold,’ high, low and middling. — ‘Arising from actions’ — brought about by good and bad deeds.

‘Highest good’ — the work describes not only the conditions brought about by deeds, but also that higher than which there is nothing, — i.e., spiritual knowledge, — the means of attaining that also has been described.

‘Of actions’ — i.e.. those that are enjoined and those that are prohibited, — ‘the examination of the good and bad features.’ — (117)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

See 12. 51 et seq.

VERSE 1.118

Section LXII - Contents of the Treatise

देशधर्मान्जातिधर्मान् कुलधर्मांश्च शाश्वतान् ।
पाषण्डगणधर्मांश्च शास्त्रेऽस्मिन्नुक्तवान् मनुः ॥११८॥

deśadharmānjātidharmān kuladharmāṃśca śāśvatān |
pāṣaṇḍagaṇadharmāṃśca śāstre'sminnuktavān manuḥ ||118||

The eternal laws op countries, duties op castes and laws of dynasties, — also the laws relating to heretics and to guilds, — all this manu has expounded in these Institutes. — (118)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse further confirms the complete character of the Treatise. ‘Laws of countries’ — those that are observed in particular countries, and not over the whole earth; — ‘Duties of castes’ — those pertaining specifically to the Brāhmaṇa and other castes. — ‘Laws of dynasties’ — those promulgated by famous dynasties; — ‘Heresy’ consists in the keeping of such observances as are prohibited; and ‘laws of heretics’ are those laws that are based upon heterodox treatises; the ‘heretics’ being described (in 430) as ‘persons addicted to improper deeds.’ — ‘Guilds,’ companies; of traders, artisans, actors and so forth.

All these laws and duties the revered ‘Manu has expounded in these Institutes’ — (118)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Deśadharma’ — is local custom, e.g. the ‘Holāka’ or Holi festival, which is peculiar to ‘North India’; and there also it is observed in different ways in different parts of the country.

Burnell — ‘It is worth while to compare the twelfth lecture with the first, on which it throws considerable light.’

This has been improved upon by Hopkins who, with a transcendent insight peculiar to a certain well-known sect of orientalists, opines the ‘whole character’ of the first lecture ‘as that of a later prefix to the work.’ It is really a treat to see how far people are carried away by their eagerness to say something ‘new.’

One fails to see the logic of the argument that, because the first lecture contains much more mingling of philosophical views, therefore it must be a later prefix. It would indeed be more logical to expect the ‘later prefix’ to be more accurate and lucid than what has preceded it! In fact the whole trouble regarding the first Discourse has arisen from the efforts made by commentators — Sanskrit and English — to read in the verses a systematic account of one or the other of the two well-known systems of the ‘Sāṅkhya’ and the ‘Vedānta’. Hopkins himself finds it ‘difficult to bring such verses as 53 ff. into harmony with the Sāṅkhya doctrine.’ But has Manu himself anywhere told him that he was expounding things in accordance with the ‘Sāṅkhya doctrine’? It does not appear to be fair to impose a doctrine upon the writer and then to take him to task for not being in harmony with that doctrine.

VERSE 1.119

Section LXII - Contents of the Treatise

यथैदमुक्तवांशास्त्रं पुरा पृष्टो मनुर्मया ।
तथैदं यूयमप्यद्य मत्सकाशान्निबोधत ॥११९॥

yathaidamuktavāṃśāstraṃ purā pṛṣṭo manurmayā |
tathaidaṃ yūyamapyadya matsakāśānnibodhata ||119||

You also learn from me to-day, these teachings, — just as they were, in the past promulgated by Manu, on being questioned by me. — (119)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This address to the sages is for the purpose of attracting their attention. — (119)

Thus in the Institutes of Law promulgated by Manu, in the compilation expounded by Bhṛgu, the first Discourse.

Also

In the Bhāṣya by Bhatta Medhātithi.

***

Discourse II - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

VERSE 2.1 [Dharma defined]

Section I - Dharma defined

विद्वद्भिः सेवितः सद्भिर्नित्यमद्वेषरागिभिः ।
हृदयेनाभ्यनुज्ञातो यो धर्मस्तं निबोधत ॥१॥

vidvadbhiḥ sevitaḥ sadbhirnityamadveṣarāgibhiḥ |
hṛdayenābhyanujñāto yo dharmastaṃ nibodhata ||1||

Learn that Dharma, which has been ever followed by, and sanctioned by the heart of, the learned and the good, who are free from love and hate. — (1)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The First Discourse was undertaken for the purpose of showing the real character of the subject-matter dealt with by the Treatise; the description of the creation of the World and such other subjects have also been explained as supplementary to the said delineation of the subject-matter of the Treatise. It is now that the Treatise actually begins. As the promised subject of the Discourse, interrupted by the description of world-creation and such other subjects, may have been lost sight of, — the Teacher again addresses his pupils with a view to recall the subject to their minds.

That ‘Dharma,’ which you desired to learn is now being expounded by me, — please now ‘learn,’ — i.e., be attentive and listen.

In Discourse I, five or six verses (85 — 91) were meant to point out the purpose of the Treatise; the rest of it is mere ‘declamatory description’ (Arthavāda). So that, if all that has not been carefully learnt, there is not much harm; in the present Discourse however ‘Dharma’ itself is being directly expounded; hence this subject should be carefully learnt. This is the meaning of the re-iteration (in this verse, of Dharma being the subject-matter of the Treatise).

The term ‘dharma,’ as already explained, denotes the performance of the Aṣṭakā and such other prescribed acts. External philosophers regard as ‘dharma’ also such acts as the wearing of ashes, the carrying of begging-bowls, and so forth; — and it is with a view to exclude these from the category of ‘Dharma’ that the author adds the qualifications — ‘followed by the learned,’and so forth.

The ‘learned’ are those whose minds have been cultured by the study of the sciences; those that are capable of discerning the real character of the means of knowledge and the objects of knowledge. The ‘learned’ (meant here) are those who know the real meaning of the Veda, and not others. In fact those persons that admit sources other than the Veda to be the ‘means of knowledge’ in regard to Dharma are ‘unlearned,’ ‘ignorant’; in as much as their notions of the means and objects of knowledge are wrong. That this is so, we learn thoroughly from Mīmāmsā (Sūtra, Adhyāya I).

The ‘Good,’ — i.e., righteous men; those who translate into action what is known from authoritative sources, and who always try to obtain what is wholesome and avoid what is not wholesome; — what is ‘wholesome’ and ‘not wholesome’ among visible things is well known; among the ‘Unseen,’ that which forms the subject of ‘Injunction’ is ‘wholesome,’ while that which forms the subject of ‘prohibition’ is ‘not wholesome.’ Those who are outside the said pale of acting in accordance with the said authoritative sources of knowledge are called ‘not good’ (unrighteous). It is for these reasons that both knowledge and acting have been mentioned here (by means of the two epithets, ‘learned’ and ‘good’).

It is not possible for the term ‘saṭ' (in ‘sadbhiḥ’) to be taken in the sense of existing at the present time; because in this sense the epithet would be entirely superfluous: when a certain thing is ‘followed’ by one, it is only when this latter exists at the time [so that existence would be already implied by the other epithet.]

By ‘following’ in the present context is meant capability of acting (in conformity with). The Past-participial affix (in ‘sevitaḥ,’ ‘followed’) indicates the fact of the Dharma having been in force from times without beginning. As a matter of fact, such Dharma as consists of the Aṣṭakā and other rites are not, like ordinary Dharmas or Duties, set up by any person during the present time. This same fact is also indicated by the term ‘ever.’ (The sense is that) this Dharma has continued ever since the world-process has been going on. All other extraneous Dharmas, being set up by ignorant and wicked persons, though they may obtain currency for some time, drop out in course of time; no mere delusion can continue for thousands of ages. True knowledge on the other hand, even though it may for a time be shrouded by ignorance, shines forth in all its brilliance, upon the destruction of that ignorance. Being by its very nature, pure and brilliant, it can never undergo entire destruction.

‘Who are free from love and hate’ — What is referred to here is another cause that leads men to take to heterodox dharmas. ‘Delusion’ having been already described (as leading to the same end), the present phrase serves to indicate greed and the rest; the direct mention of ‘love and hate’ being meant to be only illustrative; e.g., it is by reason of Greed that people have recourse to magical incantations and rites. Or ‘Greed’ may he regarded as included (not merely indicated) by ‘Love and Hate.’ People who are too much addicted to what brings pleasure to themselves, on finding themselves unable to carry on their living by other means, are found to have recourse to such means of livelihood as the assuming of hypocritical guises and so forth. This has been thus described — ‘The wearing of ashes and carrying of begging bowls, being naked, wearing of discoloured clothes — these form the means of living for people devoid of intelligence and energy.’

‘Hate,’ — leads to the performance of acts contrary to those prescribed. People filled with hate are not quite capable of comprehending the truth; and hence they come to regard the wrong act (adharma) as the right one (dharma).

Or, both ‘Love’ and ‘Hate’ may be regarded as obstacles to the discernment of truth. As a matter of fact, even when some slight knowledge of the scriptures has been acquired, and the man has acquired the name of being ‘learned,’ — there is every possibility of his acting otherwise (than in strict accordance with the scriptures), if he happens to be under the influence of love or hate. For instance, people, though fully conversant with the scriptures, do commit such wrong acts as the giving of false evidence, with a view either to do harm to some one whom he hates, or to do good to some one whom he loves, and certainly one cannot be sure that such acting of these people is based upon the Veda; for the simple reason that there are present other forces (controlling his action), in the shape of Love and Hate. It is for this reason that these are prohibited.

The following objection is hero put forward: — “In the word ‘sadbhiḥ,’ the term ‘saṭ’ has been explained as denoting righteousness; but what sort of righteousness could belong to the man for whom it is considered possible to do wrong under the influence of Love and Hate? Consequently, it is not necessary to add the epithet ‘free from love and hate’ (this being already implied by the word ‘good’).”

[Our answer to the above is as follows] — As a matter of fact, the epithet in question (‘free from love and hate’) is mentioned as the reason or ground (of the aforementioned ‘goodness’ or ‘righteousness’); the sense being that ‘it is because they are free from Love and Hate that they are good.’

What is really meant is the absence of undue predominance of Love and Hate (and not absolute absence); because no man, even though there be forces at work tending to make him free from Love and Hate, can get rid of these entirely, as declared by Śruti (Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 8-12-1) — ‘So long as one has a body, there can be no cessation of the agreeable and the disagreeable.’

‘Love’ here stands for hankering after the enjoyment of things; and ‘Hate’ is that which leads one to avoid or escape from a certain thing. ‘Greed’ is the jealous hankering after the sole possession of an object; the feeling being in the form ‘may all this prosperity, fame and the like not belong to any other person.’ All these are functions of the Mind. Or, ‘Love’ may be taken as standing for the affection one feels towards sentient beings, like one’s wife, son, relations and so forth; and ‘greed’ for the longing that one has for riches and such insentient things.

‘By the heart.’ — ‘Heart’ here stands for the Mind; — ‘sanction’ is satisfaction of mind. The real condition of things is this: Buḍḍhi and other principles are located inside the Heart; and even though deluded persons have recourse to such unrighteous acts as the killing of animals apart from sacrifices, the eating of prohibited food and so forth, — thinking them to be right ‘Dharma,’ — yet they have compunctions in their hearts; in the case of the performance of actions prescribed in the Veda, on the other hand, the Mind feels satisfied.

The sense of all this is as follows: — ‘The Dharma that I am going to expound is not one beset with the said defects; — it is one that is actually followed by high-souled persons and towards which the Mind itself urges us. For these reasons it is only right that great regard should be paid to the Dharmas that are going to be propounded.’

Or, ‘Heart’ may be taken as standing for the Veda; the Veda, duly studied and borne within the heart in the form of ideas and conceptions, is called ‘heart.’

The present statement refers to the following three cases: — (1) when a person, without much thought, undertakes an action, through sheer impulse, — it must be right; this is what is meant by ‘sanctioned by the heart’; — (2) the same expression also includes the case when one acts according to custom, depending upon the dictum ‘that is the right path by which great men have gone’; — (3) when ‘learned’ persons, without any ulterior motives, are found to act in a certain manner they are never blamed for it, and even when people do not find their action authorised (by the Veda), they accept the fact that it must be based upon the Veda. In every way the present verse makes men have recourse to activity.

Other people explain this verse as serving the purpose of providing a general definition of ‘Dharma’; the sense being — ‘that which is done by such persons should be regarded as Dharma’; this definition is applicable to all forms of Dharma, — that which is directly prescribed by the Veda, that which is laid down in the Smṛti and also that which is got at from Right Usage. In accordance with this explanation, however, the right reading would be — ‘yaḥ elaih sevyate tam dharmam nibodhata.’

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Hṛdayenābhyanujñātaḥ’ — The term ‘hṛdaya’ stands for the heart — conscience. The phrase stands for what is spoken of later on, in verse 6 below, as ‘ātmanastuṣṭih’ Medhātithi has suggested that ‘hṛdaya’ may stand for the Veda.

Medhātithi (p. 48. l. 15). ‘Mīmāṃsātaḥ’ — This refers to Mīmāṃsāta Sūtra I. i — 2 ‘Chodanālakṣaṇo'artho dharmaḥ.’

This verse has been quoted in the Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 80), in corroboration of the definition of Dharma provided by Viśvāmitra, that ‘Dharma is that which when done is praised by good men learned in the scriptures.’ From this it follows that according to this writer ‘hṛdayenāvhyanujñātaḥ’ means the samething as ‘Yam āryāḥ praśaṃsanti’ in Viśvāmitra’s definition. — It is quoted in Hemādri (Vrata, p. 10), which explains hṛdayenābhyanujñātaḥ as ‘which is definitely known in the mind, for certain,’ find ‘adveṣarāgibhiḥ’ as ‘persons free from improper love and hate — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 80), which adds the following notes — This verse supplies a definition of Dharma in general. ‘Vidvadbhiḥ’ those conversant with what is contained in the Veda; — ‘Sadbhiḥ,’ those who have the right knowledge of things; — these two qualifications are meant to indicate that ‘Dharma’ is rightly known by means of the Veda; — ‘adveṣarāgibhiḥ,’ free from such love and hate as are conducive to evil this is meant to indicate that Dharma is that which is not conducive to any undesirable effects; — ‘ hṛdayenabhyanujñātaḥ indicates that Dharma is conducive to all that is good; as it is only the good to which men’s minds are attracted: — thus then the complete definition of Dharma, as indicated by the text, is that it is that which, not being conducive to any evil effects, is known through the Veda as conducive to good. The three qualifications serve the purpose of excluding such acts as the performance of the Śyena sacrifice. — This definition of ‘Dharma,’ ‘Right,’ also implies that of ‘Adharma,’ ‘Wrong,’ as that which is known through the Veda as conducive to evil.’

This is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 13); and in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 156).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha, Dharmaśāstra — ‘Dharma is that which is enjoined in Śruti and Smṛti.’

Jaimini, Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, 1.1.2. — ‘Dharma is that which is described in the Veda as conducive to good.’

Kaṇāda, Vaiśeṣika-Sūtra, 1.2.2. — ‘That is Dharma which brings about prosperity and the highest good.’

Āpastamba, Dharma-Sūtra, 1.20.7. — ‘That the doing whereof gentlemen praise is Dharma, and that which they deprecate is Adharma.’

Kumārila, Ślokavārtika, 2.14. — ‘The fact of these acts being conducive to good is, in every case, learnt from the Veda; and in this sense are they regarded as Dharma; and for this reason Dharma is not perceptible by the senses.’

Viśvāmitra (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 80). — ‘That the doing of which men learned in the scriptures praise is Dharma; that which they deprecate is called Adharma.’

Under all these definitions ‘Dharma’ is the name of the ‘meritorious act’; but the term has also been used in the sense of the merit acquired by the doing of the act.

Nyāya view (quoted in Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, p.29). — ‘Dharma is that quality of man which is brought about by the performance of the enjoined act: Adharma is that quality of man which is brought about by the performance of the forbidden act.’

VERSE 2.2 [Selfishness Deprecated]

Section II - Selfishness Deprecated

कामात्मता न प्रशस्ता न चैवैहास्त्यकामता ।
काम्यो हि वेदाधिगमः कर्मयोगश्च वैदिकः ॥२॥

kāmātmatā na praśastā na caivaihāstyakāmatā |
kāmyo hi vedādhigamaḥ karmayogaśca vaidikaḥ ||2||

It is not right to be absorbed in desires — “But there is in this world, no absolute absence of desire; for the study of the Vedas itself is prompted by desire, as also every act prescribed in the Veda.” — (2)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The man for whom desire for reward forms the sole motive to act is said to be ‘absorbed in desires’; and it is this character that is expressed by the abstract noun; the term ‘ātman’ in this compound denoting preponderance.

‘It is not right?,’ — i.e., it is deprecated.

[An objection is raised] — “This deprecation leads us to infer that the said absorption in desires is prohibited. — This means that the text contains the prohibition of all such sacrifices as the Saurya and the like, which are performed with a desire for a definite reward. Or, why should we specify the Saurya and other sacrifices? All performance of actions is for the accomplishment of a desirable end; no one acts simply for the accomplishing of the act itself; in fact there is no action without results. As for the assertion (contained in 4.63) that ‘one should not act aimlessly’ [which might be taken to imply that there are aimless actions, such as] pouring libations on extinguished fire, or seeking for information regarding what is happening to kings and places of other countries, — in reality, in these cases also there is some result following from the act; and all that is meant by calling them ‘aimless’ is that they do not bring about any important results, in the shape of attainment of Heaven, acquisition of village-property and so forth, which are useful to men in the invisible and visible spheres. It might be argued that — ‘It may be that the action brings about a reward; what is meant is that the man should have no desire for that reward; even though, in the very nature of things, the reward will follow.’ Even so the Saurya and other sacrifices would be without rewards; that alone is regarded as ‘reward’ which is actually desired; so that there could be no ‘reward’ for one who has no desires. In the ordinary world, we do not find any such activity as is absolutely independent of a desire for reward. Nor have we any such Vedic declaration as that ‘in connection with Vedic actions alone there should be no desire for reward.’ On the contrary, all Vedic acts have been prescribed as bringing definite rewards; so that if desire for rewards is interdicted, it would mean that the acts would not be done; and this would militate against the spirit of the Vedas. As regards the compulsory acts (prescribed in the Veda), there is no possibility of rewards in their case. Then again, since the prohibition in the text is a general one (and not restricted to Vedic acts only), it would lead to the cessation of all ordinary activity of the world, and would thus run counter to visible practice also, and it comes to this that no one should do anything, all should sit silent.”

To the above objection we make the following reply: —

(1) It has been argued that the Text implies the prohibition of the Saurya and such other sacrifices, which are admittedly prompted by desire for rewards; as regards this, the author is himself going to say (in Verso 5) that ‘the man fulfils the desires he may have entertained’; if he had meant to prohibit (by the present verse) such acts, how could there be any ‘entertainment’ or ‘fulfilment’ of desires?

(2) The second point urged is that, since the text does not specify Vedic acts alone, the interdict would apply to ordinary actions also. But the required specification has already been made by the text (in the preceding verse), where it says — ‘Learn that Dharma’; which shows that it is Dharma (and not the ordinary activity of the world) that forms the subject-matter of the present discourse.

(3) The third point raised is that — “in as much as no rewards are mentioned in connection with the compulsory acts, there can be no possibility of any desire for rewards in the case of these; so that no useful purpose could be served by the prohibiting of such desires.” —

Now in answer to this we make the following observations: —

(a) By reason of no rewards being spoken of, no one would ever undertake the performance of any compulsory act, unless he were a person thoroughly conversant with the scriptures (and hence realising the importance of compulsory duties):

and (b) in the case of the Saurya and such other acts as have rewards mentioned in connection with them, finding that men are prompted to their performance by desire for those rewards, people might be led to the generalisation that whatever one is to do should be done with the desire for a definite reward; and thus come to undertake the performance of the compulsory acts also only through a desire for reward, oven though no such reward has been spoken of in the scriptures.

And it is with a view to preclude these possibilities that the text lays down the interdict. Though the general rule is that —

(a) an act which is mentioned as leading to a definite result can only be performed with a view to that result,

(b) while that which is laid down in the scriptures as not bringing any reward, and in connection with which one cannot assume a reward according to the principle enunciated in relation to the Viśvajit -sacrifice [Pūrvamīmāmsā-Sūtra, 4.3. 15-16; that where no reward is mentioned, the attainment of heaven should be regarded as the reward], can never be performed otherwise (than in the purely disinterested manner), — yet there may be persons who are conversant with this principle; and it is to these persons that the text addresses the exhortation; specially as it would be rather difficult to carry conviction to such persons by mere reasoning; and the requisite knowledge is conveyed in a simpler and easier manner by means of direct advice.

It is for this reason that the author has, in a friendly spirit, conveyed a teaching which is thoroughly established by proofs.

Though the word ‘Kama’ is generally found to be used in the sense of sexual desire, yet, since in the present context that sense is not applicable, it has to be taken as synonymous with ‘icchā’ (Desire) and ‘abhilāṣa,’ (Longing). So that in view of what follows, the meaning of the text comes to be that ‘one should not undertake the performance of all acts simply with a desire for reward.’

The opponent, taking the ‘absorption in desires’ to mean mere presence of desire in general, urges the following objection: —

“But there is in this world, no absolute absence of desires; that is, as a matter of fact, in this world, there is no activity for one who is entirely without desire. To say nothing of such acts as cultivation of land, trade and the like, which are done by men of experience, — even the ‘study of the Veda,’ the learning of the Veda, which the boy is made to do by his father and others, being even chastised by them, even this is not possible without some desire; reading consists in the uttering of words; and utterance never proceeds, like the sound of thunder, without desire. — ‘Well, if the Boy desires to read, why is he beaten?’ — It is by beating that his desire is aroused; the only difference is that in connection with things that the person likes, the desire arises of itself (and does not need an incentive in the shape of the beating). — Similarly ‘the acts prescribed in the Veda,’ — as compulsory in connection with the Darśapūrṇa nāṣa and other sacrifices are not possible without desire. There is no possibility of a man giving away to Deities things that belong to himself, unless there is a desire in him for doing so. Hence the prohibition of ‘absorption in desires’ becomes an interdict upon all acts prescribed in the Veda and iu the Smṛtis.” — (3)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Much ingenuity has again been displayed to show that verses 2 — 5 are a ‘later interpolation.’ Burnell remarks that it must be so, because ‘in the old Vedic religion, all ceremonies and sacrifices were avowedly performed in order to gain desired objects of various kinds.’ He evidently forgot that what is expounded by Manu is not exactly what the writer speaks of as ‘the old Vedic religion.’

‘Na praśastā’ — Because leading to new births, and obstructing Final Release.

Medhātithi, (p. 50, 1. 27) — Viśvajit-nyāya — see Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 4.3.15 — 16.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bhagavadgītā, 3.5. — ‘Apart from action done for sacrifice, all action tends to the bondage of men.’

Bhagavadgītā, 5. — ‘Renouncing the fruit of the act, if one engages himself in it with a concentrated mind, he attains eternal peace; doing it without concentration, and drawn by desire to the fruit of the act, he becomes bound.’

Ibid, 6.27. — ‘If one performs an act as a duty, without any regard for its fruit, etc.’

Ibid, 9.20. — ‘Men learned in the three Vedas, drinking Soma, having their sins washed off, perform sacrifices and seek to go to heaven; having reached the sacred regions of Indra, they enjoy, in heaven, pleasures fit for the gods.’

Sūtasaṃhitā, 3.4. — ‘It is only the unfortunate people who, imbued with due faith, betake themselves to acts prescribed as leading to certain desirable results; those are extremely fortunate who engage themselves only in those daily and occasional acts that are obligatory; for these latter liberation is obtained without effort; doing with due faith, as they do, every act simply because it is enjoined by the scriptures.’

Āpastaṃba, Dharmasūtra, 1.20.1-2. — ‘One should not do his duties with the view to attain worldly ends; — those that bring no fruits are conducive to good.’

Ibid, 1.21-5. — ‘Having fully comprehended the nature of acts, one should undertake that which he likes.’

VERSE 2.3 [Pūrvapakṣa continued]

Section II - Selfishness Deprecated

सङ्कल्पमूलः कामो वै यज्ञाः सङ्कल्पसम्भवाः ।
व्रतानि यमधर्माश्च सर्वे सङ्कल्पजाः स्मृताः ॥३॥

saṅkalpamūlaḥ kāmo vai yajñāḥ saṅkalpasambhavāḥ |
vratāni yamadharmāśca sarve saṅkalpajāḥ smṛtāḥ ||3||

Desire has its root in Thought; Sacrifices proceed from Thought; Vows and Restraints — all these have been described as originating in Thought. — (3)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Thought is the root of sacrifice and other acts, as also of desire; when a man is going to perform a sacrifice, or any act, he must think of it: and when the thinking has been done, there must follow, from the said Thinking, Desire, — however undesirable this latter may be; for instance, when a man, going to cook, lights fire, there arises, from the fire, the undesirable smoke also. Thus it is impossible that sacrifices should be performed and there should be no desire at all.

Question. — “What is this Thought, which is the root of all action?”

Answer. — We explain it as follows: — Thought is that function of the mind which precedes Desire and Resolution; all these three are functions of the mind, and they are at the root of all activity. As a matter of fact, no physical activity is possible without Thought. What happens in the case of all activity is that — (a) first of all we have the Thought or Idea of the exact nature of a thing, and what is meant by ‘Thought,’ in the present context is the cognition that one h as of a certain thing as capable of accomplishing a definite desirable purpose; — (b) after this follows a longing, a wish; and this is ‘desire’; — (c) after the desire has arisen in the form ‘how may I obtain it,’ the man resolves, determines, that he shall act (towards the obtaining of the thing); and this is ‘Resolution.’ It is only after these three mental operations have been gone through that the man proceeds to that external activity which would accomplish the desired end. For instance, when a man is hungry, (a) he thinks of — has the idea of — the action of eating, — (b) then he desires ‘may I eat,’ — (c) then comes the resolution ‘I shall desist from all other activity and take to eating,’ — (d) then he says to the persons in charge of the place where the act of eating is to be done — ‘make ready,’ ‘set the kitchen going.’ [ Objection ] — “If this is so, then Sacrifices and other acts do not proceed from mere Thought, but from Thought, Longing and Resolution; then why is it said that Sacrifices proceed from Thought?”

[ Answer ] — There is no force in this objection, since Thought is the prime cause. It is in view of this that the author is going to assert (in the next verse) that ‘there is no action done by one who is entirely without desires.’

Votes — A ‘vow’ consists in a mental resolve, in the form ‘this shall be done by me as long as I live’; to this class belong the vows of the Snātaka.

Restraints — are negative in their character, — such as desisting from, killing and so forth.

[The meaning of all this is that] without thought there is neither activity towards what ought to be done, nor desisting from what is prohibited and ought not to be done.” — (3)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Saṅkalpamūlaḥ kārnaḥ’ — Nandana explains this as — ‘The desire for rewards is the root of the will to act.’

‘Vratāni’ — The term stands for all those duties that one makes up his mind to perform all through life, — according to Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa; — ‘the vow of the Religious Student’ — according to Nandana.

‘Yamadharmāḥ’ — ‘The prohibitive rules’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘the rules pertaining to the Recluse and the Renunciate’ (Nandana).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya, 1.7 . — ‘ The desire that has its source in proper reflection is the source of Dharma.’

Āpastaṃba, Dharmasūtra, 1.5. — ‘They teach that whatever one determines and thinks of with the mind, or speaks of with speech, or sees with the eyes, — he becomes that same.’

Bhagavadgītā — ‘Desires have their source in the will,’

VERSE 2.4 [Pūrvapakṣa concluded]

Section II - Selfishness Deprecated

अकामस्य क्रिया का चिद् दृश्यते नैह कर्हि चित् ।
यद् यद् हि कुरुते किं चित् तत् तत् कामस्य चेष्टितम् ॥४॥

akāmasya kriyā kā cid dṛśyate naiha karhi cit |
yad yad hi kurute kiṃ cit tat tat kāmasya ceṣṭitam ||4||

No action is ever found in this world to be done by a man entirely without desires; whatever a man does is. the outcome of desire. — (4)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The preceding verse has described the fact that such activity and cessation from activity as are laid down in the scriptures are dependent upon knowledge; and the present verse speaks of similar dependence in the case of ordinary acts of the world; this is the difference between the two verses.

‘Iha’ means ‘in this world’; — ‘Karhichit’ means ‘ever,’ ‘at any time.’ During the waking state, action is ever found in this world to be done by any person who is without desire for performing that action.

Whatever act, scriptural or temporal, — the permitted or the prohibited — is done is the outcome of desire. Since desire is the cause of all activity, every act is called the ‘outcome of desire.’

Thus the position becomes extremely difficult: ‘It is not right to be absorbed in desires’ (as declared in Verse 2), and yet there is no activity without desire. — (4)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastaṃba, Dharmasūtra, 1.2.7. — ‘Having fully understood the nature of actions, one should perform that which he wishes.’

VERSE 2.5 [Answer to the above Pūrvapakṣa]

Section II - Selfishness Deprecated

तेषु सम्यग् वर्तमानो गच्छत्यमरलोकताम् ।
यथा सङ्कल्पितांश्चैह सर्वान् कामान् समश्नुते ॥५॥

teṣu samyag vartamāno gacchatyamaralokatām |
yathā saṅkalpitāṃścaiha sarvān kāmān samaśnute ||5||

Behaving in the right manner, in regard to these (desires), a man attains the position of Immortals; and even in this world he obtains all the desires that he may have thought of. — (5)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

To the above Pūrvapakṣa, the Author replies in this verse.

[What is meant is that] one should behave in the right manner in regard to these — desires.

“What is this right behaviour?”

It consists in doing an act exactly in the manner in which it is found mentioned in the scriptures. That is, in regard to the compulsory acts one should not think of rewards at all, for the simple reason that no rewards have been mentioned in connection with them; while in regard to the voluntary acts, there is no prohibition of thinking of rewards, for the simple reason that these acts are actually mentioned as bringing definite rewards; in fact what we know of these acts from the scriptural injunctions is that they are the means of obtaining certain rewards; so that the performance of these by a man who has no desire for those rewards would be doing something that is not enjoined in the scriptures at all. As regards the compulsory acts however, to think of rewards would be a pure mistake; for when the acts have not been prescribed as leading to any results, no results could proceed from them by merely the man’s seeking for them.

By doing so [ i.e., by behaving rightly in regard to desires] one goes to — attains — the position of Immortals. ‘Immortals’ are the Gods; their ‘position’ is Heaven; and by reason of the Gods residing in Heaven, the term ‘position’ is applied to the gods themselves, the position being identified with the occupier of the position; just as we have in the expression ‘the elevated sheds are shouting’ [where the ‘sheds’ stand for the men occupying them]. Hence the compound ‘Amaraloka’ is to be expounded as a Karmadhāraya — ‘the immortal positions’; and with the abstract affix ‘tat' we have the form ‘amaralokatā’ So the meaning is that ‘he obtains the character of a divine being,’ ‘he attains divinity.’ The author has made use of this expression in view of metrical exigencies.

Or, the compound ‘amaralokatā’ may he explained as one who sees — ‘lokayati’ — the gods — ‘amarān’; the term ‘loka’ being derived from the root ‘loka’ with the passive affix ‘aṇ’ (according to Pāṇini 3.2.1); and then the abstract affix tal added to it; so that the meaning is that ‘he becomes capable of seeing the Gods’; and this also means that he attains heaven.

Or again, the expression may mean that ‘he is looked upon as a God’ — ‘amara iva lokyate’ — among men.

This whole passage is mere declamatory Arthavāda; and if does not lay down Heaven as the result actually following from the action spoken of; because as a matter of fact, the compulsory acts do not lead to any results at all, while the voluntary acts are prescribed as leading to diverse results. So that what the ‘attaining of heaven’ spoken of in the text means is the due fulfilment of what is enjoined in the scriptures; which is only an indirect way of saying that ‘that particular end is attained with a view to which the action was done.’ Thus in the case of the compulsory acts, the end in view would be either the avoiding of the sin (that might be incurred by the omission of the act), or the due fulfilment of what has been enjoined in the scriptures; and in the case of the voluntary acts, the end is the attaining of rewards thought of, i.e., those contemplated as mentioned in the scriptures; when a man is going to perform an act, he thinks, in his mind, of that reward which has been mentioned in the scriptures as following from that act; having thought of that reward, he has a desire for it — ‘May I obtain this reward by the doing of this act’; and then he obtains all those desires — i.e., the desirable things.

In the manner above described we have set aside the difficulty (that had been set up by the Pūrvapakṣa); for what the text prohibits is not the desire for each and everything, but the entertaining of desires only in connection with the compulsory acts; and in regard to these also there must be desire for the obtaining of things necessary for the due performance of them.

The Brahmavādins (Vedāntins) however regard the words ‘it is not right to be absorbed in desires’ as a prohibition of the Saurya and all such other acts as are laid down as bringing rewards; and their reason is that all actions done with a view to rewards become setters of bondage; and it is only when an act is done without any thought of rewards — doing it simply as an offering to Brahman — that the man becomes released. This is what the revered Kṛṣṇa-Dvaipāyana has declared in the words (a) ‘May there be no action done with a view to rewards’ (Bhagavadgītā, 2.47), — and again, ‘The perform nce of an act becomes vitiated, (a) by the incompleteness of accessories, (b) by the illiteracy of the performer, and (c) by the thought of rewards.’

Various explanations have been offered of the present verse; but we have omitted them because they are of no importance.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha, Smṛti, 1-2. — ‘The righteous man who acts with full knowledge is highly praised among men and after death, attains heavenly regions.’

Āpastaṃba, Dharmasūtra, 1.5.2-9. — ‘When the religious student acts with concentrated mind, then alone are his aots fruitful.’

Ibid, 2.2.2. — ‘For all castes, the highest happiness is attained only when they are engaged only in their own duties.’ Ibid, 2.23.7. — ‘Thus alone are all desires fulfilled.’

Ibid, 2.23-12. — ‘They win Heaven till the very dissolution.’

Gautama, Dharmasūtra, 11-31. — ‘Men of all castes and in all life-stages, adhering to their own duties, on death, enjoy the fruits of their acts, and then become born in a pleasant country, and in families of high castes, excellent learning, character and intelligence.’

Gautama, 27-54. — ‘One who knows his duty wins by his knowledge and adherence, the heavenly regions.’

Baudhāyana, Dharmasūtra, 1.3.13. — ‘In this manner great sages attain the highest position of Prajāpati.’

VERSE 2.6 [Sources of Knowledge of Dharma]

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलं स्मृतिशीले च तद्विदाम् ।
आचारश्चैव साधूनामात्मनस्तुष्टिरेव च ॥६॥

vedo'khilo dharmamūlaṃ smṛtiśīle ca tadvidām |
ācāraścaiva sādhūnāmātmanastuṣṭireva ca ||6||

The entire Veda is the root-source of Dharma; also the Conscientious Recollection of righteous persons versed in the Veda, the Practice of Good (and learned) Men, and their self-satisfaction. — (6)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

[The opponent raises an initial objection] —

“What is the relevanoy of what is stated in this verse? It is Dharma that has been declared as the subject to be described; and Dharma can be described only by means of Injunctions and Prohibitions. Now as regards the fact of the Veda being the source of Dharma, this cannot form the subject of any injunction such as ‘the Veda should be known as the source of Dharma, as the authoritative means of ascertaining Dharma because this fact can be known without its being enjoined in so many words; certainly the fact of the Veda being the source of Dharma does not stand in need of being notified by any injunctions of such writers as Manu and others; in fact the authoritativeness of the Veda regarding matters relating, to Dharma is as self-evident as that of Direct Perception, — being based upon the facts that (1) it brings about cognitions that are never sublated, (2) that it is not the work of any person, and as such it is entirely free of any suspicion of falsity that might be due to the defects of such authors, and (3) that the words of the Veda itself are free from all defects.

“It might be argued that — ‘what the text does is to refer to the well-established fact of the Veda being authoritative, with a view to indicate that the Smṛtis of Manu and others are based upon the Veda.’

“But this explanation cannot be accepted. For this fact also does not need to be stated; as (l) every Smṛti, by its very nature, must, be dependent upon a previous cognition, (2) the chances of mistake in the Smṛtis are precluded by the fact of their being accepted by great men, (3) the super-sensuous things spoken of in the Smṛtis could not be known to M anu and others (by any ordinary means of knowledge), and (4) every man knows it from his own experience that there is “recollection” of things taught in the Veda; so that the only possible view that could be entertained regarding the Smṛtis is that they are based upon the Veda [which, therefore, need not have been re-iterated in the Text]. Further, persons who know the Veda cannot stand in need of any Smṛti for learning what they should do; and lastly, when the Veda itself is the source of Dharma, there can be no need for postulating any other sources (in the shape of Smṛti, etc.).

“Nor is it right to assert that ‘the conscientious recollection of persons versed in the Veda is also merely referred to for the purpose of pointing out the unauthoritative character of the heterodox Smṛtis’; because the unauthoritative character of these latter is already well established by reasoning. For such heterodox people as the Śākya, the Bhojaka, the Kṣapaṇaka and the rest, there is no possibility of any knowledge of the Veda, by virtue of which they might be regarded as authoritative on matters treated of in their Smṛtis; because in the first place they do not admit any connection with the Veda; secondly, they openly declare that the Veda is hot authoritative; thirdly, they contain teachings directly opposed to the Veda; and lastly, these Smṛtis clearly prohibit the study of the Veda. If Buddha and others had been students of the Veda, then alone could there be any question as to whether or not their Smṛtis are based upon the Veda. When however, as a matter of fact, any connection with the Veda is not even remotely possible, how could there be any possibility of these being based upon the Veda? On the contrary, these writers themselves put forward an entirely different basis for their codes, — in the form of tradition (handed down through a series of several Buddhas); as for example, in the following words: ‘with my divine eyes I perceive the good and bad conditions of Bhikṣus.’ Exactly in the same manner, all such heterodox people as the Bhojaka, the Pañcarātra, the Nirgrantha, the Anarthavāda, the Pāśupata and the rest hold that their scriptures are the works of gifted personalities, particular deities, capable of directly perceiving the subjects dealt with by them; and they do not admit that Dharma has its source in the Veda; in fact their scriptures contain teachings directly opposed to the Veda; e.g., some of these people, holding that death frees the living being from the troubles of living, hold all Killing to be meritorious; and this (reckless) killing is distinctly prohibited in the Veda; similarly, others hold Bathing at sacred places to be sinful, while the Veda directly enjoins daily bathing and living at sacred places; so again, according to some people, the killing of animals at the Agniṣṭoma sacrifice is sinful; and this is against the Vedic injunction laying down the performing of that sacrifice; — lastly, some people hold that all such acts as the offering of libations and sacrifices are entirely selfish, while according to the Veda, which prescribes various deities in connection with the said acts, they are performed for the sake of these several deities. So that there is distinct disagreement between the Veda and the said heterodox scriptures.

“Some people have argued as follows: —

‘In the Veda also we find contradictory assertions e.g., one passage lays down the holding (of the Śodaśī-vessel, at the Atirātra sacrifice), while another says it should not be held; similarly one passage prescribes the time after Sunrise as best suited to the pouring of libations, while another lays down the time before Sunrise; so that it is quite possible that in the Veda itself — either in its lost Rescensions or even in such Rescensions as are not completely lost — there may be found injunctions contrary to a certain Vedic injunction [and these contrary Vedic passages would form the basis for the non-Vedic teachings of the heterodox Smṛtis ]. The number of Vedic Rescensions is endless; how could all of them be known to any one person? And it is quite possible that some of them might have become lost. So that it is quite possible that there may be some such Vedic Rescensional text as contains direct injunctions of such acts as Eating in a vessel made of human bones, remaining naked-skinned and so forth (which have been prescribed in some heterodox scriptures).’

“Our answer to the above is as follows: — We do not deny the possibility of mutually contradictory teachings being found in the Veda; what we mean is that in all such cases (where both the injunctions are equally directly perceived), both injunctions stand upon the same footing, and consequently the two acts are regarded as optional alternatives. In the case in question however (i.e., when the teaching of a heterodox scripture is found to contradict the direct teaching of the Veda), the Vedic text (in support of the heterodox teaching) could only be assumed; but there can be no occasion for the assumption of a text directly contradictory to one that is directly perceived. The mere possibility of a Vedic text (in support of the heterodox teaching) cannot lead to any certainty regarding its actual existence; while the Vedic injunction to the contrary is directly perceptible and certain; and certainly a certain text can never be sublated by an uncertain one. As for the theory of ‘lost Rescensions,’ we shall deal with it in detail later on, in our comments on this same verse. As regards the (orthodox) Smṛtis of Manu and others, their relationship to directly perceptible Vedic texts is quite patent; in some cases they are related to the Vedic mantras, in others to the Vedic deities, and in others again with substances and other details. No such relationship is possible in the case of the heterodox Smṛtis; hence no authority can ever belong to them (for the purpose of re-iterating which fact there could be a reference to the ‘Recollection of persons versed in the Veda.’)

“As regards Practice, — that which consists in what is actually done, with a view to invisible results, by persons learned iu the Veda, — its authoritative character is exactly like that of Recollection (Smṛti); because that also has its basis in the Veda. On the other hand, wrong Practice is generally based upon visible causes (of greed, &c.), and unlearned persons are apt to commit mistakes; hence it can not have any authority at all.

“Similarly with Self-satisfaction.

“If again the authority of the Veda, of Recollection and of Practice were dependent upon the teachings of Manu and others (in the shape of the present verse), on what would the authority of these latter rest? If on other teachings — such as ‘the Smārta Dharma has been expounded by Manu,’ — then, whence the authority of these latter? In fact, the ultimate criterion as to what is authoritative and what is not authoritative, would be a purely logical one, and it would not consist in any teaching at all. So that the present verse is absolutely useless; and so also other similar verses that follow.”

Our answer to the above objection is as follows: —

The authors of treatises on Dharma proceed to compose their works for the expounding of their subject for the benefit of such persons as are not learned (in the Vedas). Hence it is that having themselves learnt from the Veda that the Aṣṭakā and such other acts should be performed, they incorporate in their own work the injunctions of these acts, for the purpose of conveying the same knowledge to others similarly in the case of such matters as the authoritative character of the Veda [which are known by the Smṛti- writers themselves from the Veda, and yet they proceed to include that information in their work for the edification of persons not equally learned]. As a matter of fact, there are many enquirers who are incapable of ascertaining truth by means of independent reasoning, — not being endowed with an intellect capable of ratiocination; and for the benefit of these persons even a logically established fact is stated by the writers in a friendly spirit. Hence what is herein stated regarding Veda being the source of Dharma is a well-established fact. What the statement ‘Veda is the source of Dharma’ means is that ‘the fact of Veda being the source of Dharma has been ascertained after due consideration, and one should never doubt its authoritative character.’ Even in ordinary experience we find people teaching others facts ascertained by other means of knowledge; e.g. [when the physician teaches] — ‘you should not eat before the food already taken has been digested, for indigestion is the source of disease.’ It cannot be rightly urged that “those who are unable to comprehend, by reasoning, the fact of Veda being the source of Dharma, can not comprehend it through teaching either”; for as a matter of fact we find that when certain persons are known to be ‘trustworthy,’ people accept their word as true, without any further consideration. The whole of the present section therefore is based on purely logical facts, and not on the Veda, in other cases also, — e.g., in the case of Smṛtis dealing with law-suits, &c. — what is propounded is based upon logic, as we shall show later on, as occasion arises. How the performance of the Aṣṭakā, etc., is based upon the Veda we shall show in the present context itself.

The word ‘Veda’ here stands for the Ṛg, Yajuṣ and Sāman, along with their respective Brāhmaṇas; all these are fully distinguished, by students, from all other sentences (and compositions). Learners who have their intellect duly cultured through series of teachings, understand, as soon as a Vedic passage is uttered, that it is Veda, — their recognising of the Veda being as easy as the recognition of a man as a Brāhmaṇa. This word ‘Veda’ is applied to the whole collection of sentences, — beginning with ‘Agnimīle purohitam,’ ‘Agnirvai devānāmvarua,’ and ending with ‘atha mahāvāratam’ (Ṛgveda); as also to the several individual sentences forming part of the said collection; and this application of the word is not direct in the one case and indirect in the other, — as is the case with the word ‘village’ as applied (directly) to the entire group of habitations, and (indirectly) to each individual habitation. In the case of the word ‘village’ the twofold usage is based upon the principle that words denoting the composites are also applicable to the components; the word ‘village’ is known to be used generally in the sense of ‘a group of houses,’ and yet in the case of such expressions as ‘the village is burnt,’ it ìb used in the sense of a few individual houses in the village; as it is when people say ‘the village has been burnt,’ when in reality only a few houses have be in burnt. Or, in this ease also the word ‘village’ may be regarded as used in the sense of the group only; and what happens is that it is the burning, which, though really pertaining to only a portion of that group, is spoken of as pertaining to the entire group as related to the said portion; specially as it is only through its components that a composite can have any connection with an act; in fact the composite’s connection with acts can be none other than that of the components; apart from the components, the composite cannot be either seen or touched.

We now proceed to explain the etymology of the word ‘Veda.’ The ‘Veda’ is that from which people derive their knowledge of Dharma, which cannot be known from any other source of knowledge — [ vidanti asmāṭ iti vedaḥ ]; and this knowledge of Dharma is derived from each individual sentence; hence the name is not restricted to the entire collection of Adhyāyas and Anuvākas that go under the name ‘Ṛgveda.’ It is on this understanding that the penalty of having the tongue cut off is inflicted (upon the Śūdra) when he pronounces a single sentence out of the Veda. On the same principle also is the epithet ‘whole’ found in the injunction that ‘the whole Veda should be studied,’ where it serves to indicate the necessity of studying all the sentences contained in the Veda; otherwise (if the epithet ‘whole’ were not there) the learner would be satisfied with the reading of only a few sentences, and would not read the whole Veda. All this we shall explain in detail in the present work.

This Veda is variously divided. The Sāma Veda is said to have a thousand ‘paths’ (i.e., Rescensions), in the shape of ‘Sātya,’ ‘Mugri,’ ‘Rāṇāyanīya’ and so forth; there are a hundred Rescensions of the Yajurveda, in the shape of ‘Kāṭhaka,’ ‘Vājasaneyaka’ and the rest; there are twenty-one Rescensions of the Ṛgveda; and nine of the Atharva Veda in the shape of ‘Modaka’ ‘Paippalādaka,’ and so forth.

[Objection] —

“No one regards the Atharva as a Veda: (a) ‘The science is three-fold, consisting of the Ṛk, the Yajuṣ and the Sāman,’ (b) ‘The Sun moves forward, endowed with the three Vedas’ (Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, 3.12.91), (c) ‘One should keep up the observance of studying the three Vedas’; [all these speak of only three Vedas]. In fact we also find a prohibition regarding the Atharva — ‘One should not recite the Atharvaṇas.’ It is in view of all these that people regard the followers of the Atharvaṇa as heretics, beyond the pale of the Vedic Triad.”

[Answer] — This is not right; all good men agree in regarding the Atharvaṇa as a Veda. In this Smṛti itself (11.33) we find the expression ‘śrutīratharvāṅgirasīḥ,’ where the Atharva is spoken of as ‘śruti,’ and ‘śruti’ is the same as ‘Veda.’

Further [whether a certain Veda is called ‘Veda’ or not is of no import]; when certain passages — those prescribing the Agnihotra and other sacrifices, which all people call ‘Veda’ — are regarded as authoritative in matters regarding Dharma, they are so accepted, not because they are called by the name of ‘Veda’; — because the name ‘Veda’ is sometimes applied to Itihāsa and the Āyurveda also, when, for instance, it is said that ‘Itihāsa and Purāṇa are the fifth Veda’ (Chandogya Upaniṣad, 7.1.2), [and yet these are not regarded as authorities on Dharma]; — but because they are independent of human agency, and help to make known our duties, and because they are free from mistakes; and all these conditions are fulfilled by the Atharva: such acts as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the like are prescribed in the Atharva just as they are in the Yajuṣ and the other Vedas. Some people have fallen into the mistake that the Atharva cannot be Veda because it abounds in teachings of acts dealing with malevolent magic (witchcraft). As a matter of fact, malevolent magic, as leading to the death of living beings, is always prohibited.

[It is described, because] it is employed by the priests of kings who are well versed in magical spells; but it is deprecated.

It has been argued above that “the Atharva is not mentioned among Vedas, in such passages as ‘the Sun moves, endowed with the three Vedas.’” — But the passages quoted are merely declamatory (Arthavāda); it is therefore of no consequence whether or not the Atharva is mentioned among them. Or, the passages that speak of ‘three Vedas,’ ‘the triple science,’ and so forth may be taken as referring to the three kinds of mantras; besides the three kinds of mantras found in the Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāma Vedas, there is no fourth kind, — the Exhortations, the Invocations, the lowly recited Prayers and the Hymns to Indra, and such other Mantras being all included under these three. In the Atharva Veda also, the mantras mentioned are all of the ‘Ṛk’ class; hence so far as the classification according to the kind of mantra is concerned, it comes under the ‘Ṛgveda.’

As regards the interdict placed upon the study of the Atharva Veda, it indicates a conclusion quite the reverse of that which it has been cited (by the opponent) to prove: A prohibition is possible only of what is otherwise possible [so that the very prohibition proves that the said study was, and should be, prevalent, except under the circumstances referred to in the interdict]. Or, the passage quoted may simply mean that ‘one should not mix up the performance of acts enjoined in the other three Vedas with that of those prescribed in the Atharva Veda; for instance, during the performance of the Vācastoma sacrifices, the reciting of all Ṛk, Sāman and Yajuṣ mantras is enjoined, and the said prohibition precludes the reciting, at this sacrifice, of the mantras occurring in the Atharva Veda.

The above-described Veda — which is a particular kind of literary compilation, not by any human author, which is divided into several ‘Rescensions,’ and known under the name ‘Mantra-Brāhmaṇa’ — is the ‘root’ — i.e., the authority, the means of knowing — ‘of Dharma.’ ‘Root,’ here means cause. The Veda and Smṛti can be a ‘cause’ only in the sense that they serve to make known, — not in that of producing, nor in that helping to stand, which are the two senses in which the ‘root’ is the cause of the Tree.

The term ‘dharma’ we have already explained above; it is that which a man should do, and which is conducive to his welfare, and of a character different from such acts as are amenable to perception and the other ordinary means of knowledge. Land-cultivation, service, &c., also are conducive to man’s welfare; but this fact of their being so beneficial is ascertained by means of positive and negative induction; and as regards the sort of cultivation that brings a good harvest of grains, this is ascertained by direct perception and other ordinary means of knowledge. On the other hand, the fact of sacrifices being conducive to welfare, and the manner in which they are beneficial, through the intervention of the ‘Apūrva,’ — all this is not amenable to perception or other ordinary means of knowledge. ‘Welfare’is that which is, in its most general form, spoken of as ‘pleasure,’ consisting of the attaining what is desirable, in the shape of Heaven, landed property and so forth, and also (b) the avoiding of what is generally spoken of as ‘pain,’ which consists of illness, poverty, unhappiness, Hell and so forth. Others regard the attaining of Supreme Bliss only as ‘welfare.’

This Dharma is learnt from such passages in the Brāhmaṇas as contain the ‘liṅ’ and other injunctive expressions. In some cases we learnt it also from mantras; e.g., from such mantras as ‘Vasantāya kapiñjalān ālabhale,’ ‘offers the Kapiñjala birds to Vasanta’ (Vājasaneyi Samhitā, 24. 20). Among these such passages as contain the word ‘Kāma’ (‘desire’) indicate that the act therein enjoined is to be performed for the purpose of obtaining a definite result; e.g., ‘brahmavarcasakāmaḥ,’ (‘one desirous of acquiring Brahmic glory should offer cooked rice to Sūrya’), ‘Vaiśvadevīm sāṅgrahiṇīṃ nirvapet grāmakāmaḥ’ (‘one desirous of acquiring landed property should offer the Śāṅgrahini to the Viśvedevas’); and the actions thus enjoined are not done by one who is not desirous of obtaining the particular results spoken of. There are other acts which are pointed out as compulsory, by means of such words as ‘yāvajjīvam’ (‘throughout one’s life’) and so forth. These are not performed with a view to any results, — there being no results mentioned as following from them. Nor will it he right to assume, in this case also, a definite result in the shape of Heaven, in accordance with the ‘Viśvajit’ — principle (laid down in the Pūrva-Mimānsā Sūtra 4.3.15-16); because the presence of such words as ‘throughout life’ and so forth already indicates that these are to be performed without any reference to results, and the omission of these acts simply involves the sin of disobeying the scriptural injunction. So that it is with a view to avoid this sin that the acts thus prescribed are performed. This same holds good regarding prohibitions — such as ‘the Brāhmaṇa should not he killed,’ ‘wine should not be drunk’; the avoiding of the prohibited act is not for the purpose of any reward, but simply for the purpose of avoiding something sinful;

‘Entire,’ — whole. That is, there is not a single word, consonant or vowel (of the Veda) that is not conducive to Dharma.

Some people raise the following objection against this: —

“It has been asserted that the Veda consists of injunctions, descriptions, mantras and names, and Dharma is of the nature of what should be done. Now it is only right that the Injunctive passages should be the means of knowing Dharm a; as it is from these that we learn that sacrifice and other acts should he done, — e.g., ‘the Agnihotra should be offered,’ ‘an offering of curds should be made,’ ‘offerings should he made in the morning and in the evening, to Agni and Prajāpati,’ ‘one desirous of attaining Heaven should pour libations into the fire.’ The whole set of these passages points to the particular action of ‘Agnihotra’ as one that should he done; ‘curds’ are the substance to be offered at the same sacrifice, Agni and Prajāpati are the deities to whom the offerings are to be made, — and the ‘desire for heaven’ is the qualifying condition for the performer.

“But in the Veda there are many such passages as — (a) ‘Agni is all the deities, Agni is the divine power of oblations, he invites the Gods and makes offerings to them,’ &c., and again (b) ‘Prajāpati cut out his own fat’ and so forth; and certainly such passages do not lay down anything to be done; all that they do is either to relate some past event or to describe some entirely irrelevant thing. If his own fat was cut out by Prajāpati, let him cut it; what is that to us? Similarly the fact of Agni being all deities does not help in the offerings to Agni; that Agni is the deity to whom the offering should be made having been declared by the word ‘Agni’ itself; if Agni is some other deity, then the mere fact of his being another deity would rule him out as a recipient of that offering. As for inviting, that also is laid down by another passage ‘we invite Agni, O Agni!’ Ac. And lastly, as for the mention of Agni inviting and making offerings to the Gods, this is absolutely meaningless.

“As regards mantras again, there are some, — e.g., (a) ‘There was neither death nor immortality, &.,’ (Ṛgveda, 10.129.2), (b) ‘Sudeva might fall to-day never to return, &c.,’ (Ṛgveda, 10.95.14) and so forth — which either describe some past event or contain a wailing; and what Dharma could such mantras expound? At that time there was neither death, nor immortality, nor life — certainly no living being having been born before creation, there, was no life or death of any one; during the universal dissolution also, there may come about the death of all things, or it may not come about, — it does not teach us anything as to anything to be done. Similarly, Sudeva, a certain highly meritorious godlike man, might to-day fall, i.e., — might throw himself into a pit — never to return — i.e., after which fall he cannot come back to life; — this is how Purūravas, separated from Urvaśī, bewailed.

Similarly as regards Names, — e.g, as ‘one should sacrifice with the Udbhid,’ ‘one should sacrifice with the Balabhid,’ &c., &c., — they do not enjoin any act or substance; the enjoining of the action being done by the verb (‘should sacrifice’), and the word ‘Balabhid’ and ‘Udbhid, &c., not being expressive of any substance; specially as the substance for the sacrifice iu question in the form of Soma — is got at from its archetype by virtue of the direct injunction. [that ‘the ectypal sacrifices are to be performed in the manner of their archetypes,’ and the archetype of the Udbhid sacrifice is the Jyotiṣṭoma at which soma-juice is the substance offered]; and hence there is no necessity for twisting the words ‘udbhid,’ &c., to yield the name of some sacrificial material [such as tree or spade, which may be indicated by the etymology of the word ‘udbhid,’ which means ‘that which shoots out’ or ‘that with which digging is done’]. Thus it is clear that no dharma is indicated by the names. How then can it be said that ‘the entire Veda is the root of dharma?’”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — It is just in view of these doubts that the Author has added the epithet ‘entire’; by which it is meant that all these passages that have been cited by the objector help in providing knowledge of Dharma.

(A) First, as regards Arthavādas, these are not meant to be construed apart from the injunctive passages; it is only if they were so construed that they would fail to help in the knowledge of dharma. As a matter of fact, we find that if the Arthavāda is taken apart by itself, it remains syntactically defective; and this leads us to conclude that they subserve the purposes of the corresponding injunctive passages; being so subservient to these latter, they come to be construed along with them; and hence they have got to be explained in such a manner as to make them fit in with the corresponding injunction. Thus the mention of Prajāpati having cut his fat cannot be taken by itself; it has to be taken as supplementing an injunction; in view of the fact however that the Arthavādas do not denote a substance, a sacrificial accessory, or any such thing as generally forms the direct object of injunction, they are construed differently, as eulogising what is directly enjoined, and thus come to be recognised as supplementing the injunction. This praise of the enjoined thing is also expressed by the Arthavāda; for instance, the sense of the passage in question is this — ‘it is so necessary to perform animal-sacrifices that, at a time when no animals were available, and there was no other remedy, Prajāpati constituted himself into the animal and cut out his own fat.’ That such is the construction to be put upon the Arthavāda is shown by the fact that whenever we have Arthavādas, they always accompany injunctive passages. Thus even though the sense of the injunction is comprehended even without the accompanying Arthavāda, — e.g., in the case of the injunction ‘one should offer the Kapiñjala birds to Vasanta,’ we comprehend the injunction from the sentence itself, — yet the Arthavādas are not absolutely useless; for when the Arthavāda is there, it is not right to deduce the injunction from the injunctive sentence only. The Veda is not the work of any author; we cannot argue (from the analogy of human speeches) that ‘since in one case the injunction has no Arthavāda to help it, it need not have it in another case also’; — the Arthavādas are there, we have to construe them; and what we have shown above is the only right way in which the particular Arthavāda can be construed. Nor is there anything very extraordinary in this; in ordinary practice also, we find eulogistic words accompanying injunctions; for instance, at the time that the master is paying -wages to his servants, some servant says affectionately (in regard to another) — ‘This Devadatta is a good servant, he is always present, knows the occasions of service and is always careful about it.’ Thus we find that Arthavādas also serve the purpose of enjoining, through the eulogising of what is enjoined by the injunction. In fact, in certain cases, details of what is enforced by the injunction are got at from the Arthavāda only; for instance, when the injunction says, ‘wet pebbles are to be put in,’ this injunction stands in need of some wetting substance, such as butter oil, etc.; so that when it is followed by the Arthavāda ‘Butter is glory,’ this praise of Butter leads us to conclude that Butter is the welting substance to be used. Similarly the Arthavāda ‘those who have recourse to these Rātris become respected’serves to point out the qualifying conditions for the performers of the Rātri-satra sacrifice. From all this it is clear that Arthavādas also are ‘the root of Dharma.’

(B) Next as regards Mantras, some of them are directly injunctive; e.g., the Mantra ‘Vasantāya kapiñjalān ālabhate’ (‘offers the Kapiñjala birds to Vasanta’); — in connection with the Āghāra-offering, the deity to whom the offering is to be made is pointed out by the mantra ‘Ita Indra urdhvo’ dhvaraḥ, etc.’ In this case the Deity is not mentioned in the passage that enjoins the offering, nor is it mentioned in any other purely injunctive passage; the particular mantra to be used however is directly enjoined as being the one that begins with ‘Ita Indra’; hence it is from the words of this mantra that we learn the name of the requisite Deity. There are thousand, of such instances where the Deity is indicated by the words of the mantra. Then, there are certain mantras that are only descriptive of what is being done; and these also serve the purpose of making known Dharma by reminding (the persons engaged in the act, of what is to be done); and thus these also become ‘root of Dharma’ by indicating what should be done.

(C) Thirdly, as regards the Names, they are never found apart from verbs, and hence, like verbs, they have their character of being the ‘root of Dharma’ well established, Then again, as a matter of fact, the accessory details of sacrifices are generally enjoined through these names (of sacrifices); e.g., (a) ‘In the Śarat season one should perform the sacrifice,’ (b) ‘one desirous of Kingdom of Heaven should perform the Vajapeya’ [in the former we have the injunction of the time of performance, and in the latter, of the Result, and both are mentioned along with the name of the sacrifice ‘Vājapeya’].

Thus it is proved that the ‘entire Veda’ is the ‘root of Dharma.’

Other people have taken the word ‘entire’ as added with a view to the possible objection that no knowledge of Dharma is provided by the Vedic passages laying down the Shu??a (Śyena?) and such other objectionable acts, or by the Prohibitions — such as ‘one should not eat garlic.’

The objection anticipated by these people is as follows: —

“The Śyena and other sacrifices of the kind are in the form of malevolent spells; and partaking of the character of murder, they are distinctly of the nature of ‘Himsā’ (Injury); and since all form of injury is cruel, and all evil spells have been prohibited, these sacrifices must be ‘Adharma,’ the opposite of ‘Dharma’ (sinful). [And since the Veda lays down such sacrifices] the ‘entir’ Veda cannot be the ‘root of Dharma.’ Por ‘Dharma’ has been explained as ‘what should be done,’ and certainly the killing of the Brāhmaṇa is not ‘what should be done.’ How then can the passages laying down such acts be the ‘root of Dharma’? Further, even the animal-sacrifices — Agniṣomīya and the rest, — involve the killing of animals, and as such are very far removed from the character of ‘Dharma.’ That killing is sinful is admitted by all enquiries. To this end it has been said ‘where the killing of living beings is Dharma, what can be Adharma?’”

Now how is this objection anticipated? It is anticipated (say these other people) by the adding of the epithet ‘entire.’ There is no other use for this epithet.

It might be asked why no reason has been given [by Manu, why and how the entire Veda is the root of Dharma]; but our answer is that this is a work in the form of Precept, and as such states well-established conclusions; and those persons who seek after the ‘why’ and ‘wherefore’ of these conclusions are instructed by Pūrvamīmāmsā.’We have already said that this work is addressed to persons who are prepared to learn tilings from Precept alone.

The author of the Vivaraṇa however puts forward a few arguments also: — It has been argued by the opponent that the Śyena and other such sacrifices, being prohibited, must be ‘adharma’ sinful. This is quite true. But even though these acts are prohibited, yet in certain cases it so happens that some people may have their animosity too strong to allow of their submitting to the general prohibition of killing, — in such other passages has ‘no living beings should be killed,’ — and such persons derive from the Śyena, the pleasure of killing their enemy; and to that small extent, as conducive to this pleasure, the Śyena may be regarded as ‘dharma’; so that the passage prescribing the Śyena does not cease to be the ‘source of Dharma.’ Secondly, as for prohibitions, it is only a person who is moved by passion to do the killing that is guided by the prohibition; and the acting up to the prohibition only consists in not doing what is prohibited [and this desisting from the prohibited act is meritorious, Dharma ] Thirdly, the prohibition of killing does not apply to the killing that is done in course of the and other such offerings; and what is prohibited by the general prohibition of killing is only that killing in ordinary practice which is done through malice. That killing, on the other hand, which is distinctly enjoined and has scriptural sanction, can never form the subject of prohibition; specially as the prohibition has its use in connection with ordinary killing. Nor is it possible to deduce the sinfulness of the scriptural killing, on the analogy of ordinary killing, from the general proposition that ‘all killing is sinful.’ Because what makes the killing sinful is not merely its character of ‘killing,’ but also the fact of its being prohibited; and we have already pointed out that the prohibition does not apply to the scriptural killing.

-----------------------------------------------

Some people explain the word ‘mūla,’ ‘root’ to mean cause; — the meaning being that ‘of Dharma Veda is the root, — the basis, the cause — either directly or indirectly.’ It is the ‘direct cause of Dharma’ in such passages as ‘one should study the Veda,’ ‘one should get up the Ṛgveda, etc.’; and it is the ‘indirect cause’ when it points out the detailed form of the Agnihotra and such other acts.

-----------------------------------------------

‘Smṛtiśīle ca tadvidān’ — ‘Conscientious Recollection of persons versed in the Veda’; — ‘Smṛti,’ ‘Recollection’ is the idea that one has of what has been apprehended before. — The pronoun. ‘tat’ (in the compound ‘tadvidām’) stands for the Veda; and those who know the Veda are called ‘Vedavidaḥ,’ ‘versed in the Veda.’ The meaning thus is that another ‘authority’ (means of knowing) for Dharma. consists in the idea, ‘this should be done, that should not be done,’ entertained by people learned in the Veda.

“It has been held that Recollection is not a reliable means of knowledge; and the reason for this that is given is that Recollection only serves to recall what has been apprehended by other means of knowledge, and does not lead to the apprehension of anything new.”

This is true; for the persons to whom the recollection belongs, it is the original means of knowledge — Trustworthy Assertion or Perception, etc. — that constitutes the reliable source of knowledge; and one’s own Recollection is not a reliable source of knowledge for himself. But for us (ordinary mortals), it is the Recollection of Manu and such other persons that forms a reliable source of knowledge; we have no other means, except the said Recollection, for knowing that the Aṣṭakā and such other acts should be done. That the Recollection of Manu, etc., was actually in a certain form, we learn from the assertions made by themselves that have come down to us through a long line of tradition. And from this Recollection we come to the conclusion that the subject-matter of them was actually apprehended by Manu, etc., by the ordinary means of knowledge; and this is indicated by the fact of the Recollection being there, and no.Recollection being possible without previous apprehension.

“It is quite possible that Manu and others have compiled their ‘Recollections’ from imagination, without having actually apprehended what they speak of; in the same manner as certain poets compose a story after having created the whole plot from imagination.”

The answer to this is as follows: — This might be so, if the works under consideration did not contain teachings regarding what ‘should he done.’ Teachings regarding what should he done are meant to lead to the performance of those acts; and certainly no ìational person can ever perform what is taught on an imaginary basis.

“But people might he led to perform it by mistake.”

One man might fall into such a mistake; that the entire world has fallen into a mistake, and this mistake has persisted ever since the beginning of creation, — this would certainly be a most extraordinary presumption. And when it is quite possible that the assertions of Manu, etc., are based upon the Veda, there is no room for the assumption that in following them.people have fallen into a mistake. We also do not admit that Manu and others directly perceived the Dharmas; because ‘Perception’ is that cognition which follows when the sense-organs are in contact with the objects cognised; and certainly no such contact with the sense-organs is possible for Dharma, for the simple reason that it is what should be done, and what should be done is not an accomplished entity, and it is only an accomplished entity that comes into contact with anything. It is true that (though perception does not apprehend non-existent things) Inference and the other means of cognition do bring about the apprehension of things not existent at the time, — e.g., when people see a line of ants moving along with their eggs, they infer the coming rain; but even these latter means of cognition do not provide any knowledge of what should be done.

All this leads, us to conclude that, in as much as the Recollection pertains to what should be done, it must have a source that is similar to itself; and such source can be the Veda only. The Veda that we thus infer (to be the source of the Recollections) must have been directly perceived by Manu and others and the Vedic texts in which the Dharmas laid down in the Smṛtis were originally prescribed (and which we do not find in the Vedas now) must have been contained in such Rescensions as have been lost.

On this point, the following alternative views suggest themselves as possible: —

(a) The Rescensions may be one or several; and it is inferred that from among these some contain the injunction of the Aṣṭakā and some that of others. (b) Or, it may be that all the Rescensions are available even at the present day; but the details of the Dharmas are scattered about among them; so that while one Rescension contains the originative injunction of the Aṣṭakā, another contains the injunction of the substance to be used at it, a third enjoins the Deity, and yet another lays down the Mantra; and what Manu and other compilers have done is to bring together in one place all these scattered details, with a view to make them more easily understood. (c) Or, that the Dharmas in question have their origin only in the indications of Mantras and Arthavādas. (d) Or, these Dharmas, having been performed by men from time immemorial, and having been handed down by an unbroken line of tradition, must be regarded to be as eternal as the Veda itself. (e) Or, the action of Manu and others also, like that of ourselves, must have been based upon the authority of some other source, and as such their assertions must be based upon such Vedic texts as have always been assumed by inference (and never actually perceived by any one in any Veda).

These and such other alternative views have been fully considered by the author of the Vivaraṇa; and the definite conclusion arrived at is as follows: — The performance of the Aṣṭakā and such other acts laid down in the Smṛtis must be regarded as sanctioned by the Veda; because they are found to be connected with purely Vedic injunctions, on perceiving which latter the performers undertake the performance. The said connexion we have already shown above; — in some cases what is prescribed in the Veda is subservient to what is laid down in the Smṛti, and sometimes it is the contrary; sometimes the Veda contains the originative Injunction of the act in question, sometimes its qualifying conditions, and sometimes it lays out a mere Arthavāda, an eulogistic description. In this manner all those acts that are prescribed in the Smṛtis are connected with Vedic injunctions.

We have discussed this matter fully in the as follows: —

‘Between what is laid down in the Smṛti and what is prescribed in the Veda, there is a close connection. There is not much difference between the two, either as to the character of their performers or to the nature of the acts themselves. Those same persons who perform the acts prescribed in the Veda, — if they also do what is mentioned in the Smṛtis, it follows that these latter have their source in the Veda. The principal criterion of the authoritative character of a certain text is its acceptance by persons learned in the Veda; and the fact of the performing agents being the same in both cases has been put forward (in the Pūrvamīmānsā Sūtra 1.3.2) as a ground for inferring the existence of Vedic texts in corroboration of the Smṛtis.’

For going any further than this and for coming to particulars (as to where these corroborative Vedic texts are to be found etc., etc.), there is no reasonable ground; nor is there any necessity (it being sufficient for our present purpose that all that is contained in the Smṛti has its source in the Veda).

It is quite possible that certain rescensional texts of the Veda may have been lost. Even at the present day we find several such texts as are read by very few students. And some people have held that what the authors of the Smṛtis have done is to bring together the purely injunctive passages, shorn of their accompanying arthavādas, contained in such rescensional texts as were found by them to be likely to be lost (for want of learners). Āpastamba (1.4.10) for instance, says — ‘the injunctions are those laid down in the Brāhmaṇas, — their exact words have been lost — but they can be inferred from the details of the actual performance.’

But this theory involves many impossible and unheard of assumptions, such as the neglect of, and the total disappearance of all the learners of, just that Vedic text which was the most useful, being that in which were declared all those Dharmas pertaining to castes and life-stages that are set forth in the Smṛtis and the Gṛhyasūtras.

The other view however is more reasonable, — that learned persons, who have formed definite conclusions of their own on all important matters, should compile a practical compendium of all such injunctions as are scattered over (in various sections of the Veda), beset with arthavādas, and difficult to determine what is conducive to the good of man and what is meant only to complete the sacrificial performance.

But under this hypothesis also, there is this difficulty, that in cases where the Smṛti rule runs counter to a Vedic rule, hoth would have to be regarded as equally directly Vedic, and as such representing optional alternatives; so that the Smṛti could not be set aside by the Veda. And this certainly cannot be accepted by the learned. In fact the authors of the Smṛtis themselves admit that the basis of the Smṛti in the Veda is only inferred, and that the former is always set aside in favour of the latter. For instance, Gautama says (3.35) — ‘There is only one life-stage, say the revered Teachers; since the householder’s life is the only one that is directly enjoined.’ If Manu and the other writers (who speak of four life-stages) had actually found the Vedic texts (upon which they based their division of the four stages), — then what would be the sense of the expression that ‘the house-holder’s life is the only one that is directly enjoined (by the Veda)’? For according to the hypothesis under discussion all the four stages would be equally directly enjoined. [Nor is the above-quoted Sūtra the statement of a foreign opinion.] In fact it embodies Gautama’s own opinion, which he has put forward as the opinion of ‘revered teachers.’ This is clear from the fact that he has begun the section with the statement ‘Now as regards the various views that h ave been held regarding the life-stages’ (3.1), and he has concluded with the Sūtra (3.35) quoted above.

The authoritative character of Mantras and Arthavādas (as means of knowing Dharma) is not inconsistent. Though it is true that Arthavādas only serve to eulogise what has been enjoined by an Injunctive sentence, and they do not exercise the function of enjoining anything, — yet there are instances in which even the connection of the Arthavāda with an Injunctive sentence is not possible unless the former has afforded some; idea of an injunction in regard to something expressed by its words. For instance the Arthavāda passage ‘Theft of gold, drinking of wine, etc., etc.’ (Upaniṣad, 5.10.9) cannot be understood as pertaining to the Injunction of the ‘Science of the Five Fires,’ until it is known that the ‘theft of gold’ and the rest are prohibited; the sense of the whole being that ‘he who studies this science of the Five Fires does not fall, even though he commits the theft of gold, etc., or associates with persons who have committed them — otherwise he does fall’?

“Who has laid down the law that in the said passage the Injunction is conveyed, not directly by the Arthavāda itself, but by the fact of its being connected with another Injunctive passage? As a matter of fact, the passage itself contains an independent finite verb of its own — ‘these four fall’ [and this would serve as the direct prohibition). It might be argued that the verb does not contain the Injunctive affix: But the passage ‘they obtain a standing who per form the Rātrisatra’ also contains no verb ending with the Injunctive affix. It might he argued that — ‘in the case of the Rātrisatra, the need for a qualifying condition being distinctly felt, the two sentences (they obtain a standing and they perform the Rātrisatra) come to be taken as syntactically connected, and the necessary injunction is got at by assuming the verb to contain the Let ending.’ — But the same may be said in regard to the passage in question also. In fact, there are several injunctions of substances and deities that are obtained from Arthavādas. In a case where the Arthavāda is distinctly subservient to an Injunctive passage, — since this latter injunction would be in need of the mention of a substance or a deity (for the act enjoined) [that may be found mentioned in the corresponding Arthavāda], it may not be improper to take the Arthavāda as simply serving to supply the needs of the corresponding Injunction (and not as enjoining anything independently by itself). In the present instance however (of the Arthavāda passage ‘the theft of gold, etc., etc.’), if we are to seek for an injunction that has no connection with the Arthavāda (and this injunction were sought to be derived from the words of the Arthavāda itself), then this would give rise to a syntactical split; hence it cannot be taken as subservient to the main subject-matter of the context (i.e., the science of the Five Fires); and in the absence of such subserviency, the Arthavāda could not provide any idea of the Prohibition. This is the point on which the case of the Arthavāda in question is not analogous to that of the sentences — ‘One should put in wet pebbles’ and ‘Butter is glory’ [where the connection between the two is quite clear].”

This is not right; for even though the Arthavāda has a distinct meaning of its own, yet since its connection with the Injunction is based upon syntactical connection, there can be no room for any objection as regards syntactical split.

As regards the Mantras, they are, by their very nature, indicative of the form of action; and since the action cannot be got at from any other sources, we are led to assume an act indicated by the Mantra, specially with a view to justify its indicative character. And since in connection with the Aṣṭakā, it is not possible to have an indication of such origination and qualifying condition as are absolutely nonexistent, wo take the Mantras as suggestive of the action, its qualifying condition and its very origination. It is in this way that Injunctions are accepted as supplied by the words of a Mantra. As for instance, the injunction of the Deity of the Āghāra offering (is supplied by the Mantra ‘Ita Indra urdhva, etc., etc.’)

It is admitted on all hands that Dharma has four ‘feet’; now, it is only a small portion of this vast fabric of Dharma that has been directly prescribed in the Veda; and the source of the knowledge of all the remaining factors also must be similar in character to the Veda, for the simple reason that the factors of Dharma can only be known through some sort of an injunction. So that (directly or indirectly) the connection (of Dharma) with Veda is inevitable.

Now (as regards the work of Manu) what happened was that Manu got together pupils who had studied several Vedic texts, as also other Vedic scholars, and having heard from them the several texts, he compiled his work; and he has therefore clearly stated that Vedic texts are the source of what he has written, and thereby established the trustworthy character of his work. Others that came after him performed the several duties, relying upon Mann’s own words, and did not try to trace his words to their source (in the Veda). All this is what we infer (from the circumstances of the case).

Thus even in cases where a Smṛti rule may run counter to what is found to he laid down in the Veda, both must he equally ‘Vedic’ [since the Smṛti also is based upon Vedic texts actually found by the writer]; and yet it is quite reasonable that the former should he discarded in favour of the latter; for when all that we need for the performance of a certain act is found by us in the Vedic text itself, there is no desire on our part to seek for, and infer the existence of, any other Vedic texts (in support of anything that may he found in the Smṛtis). Just as in the case of the Sāmidhenī verses, though the two numbers, seventeen and fifteen, are both equally mentioned in available Vedic texts, yet when we have once found that the number fifteen is applicable to the action in hand, we have no desire to have recourse to the number seventeen, even though this also is directly mentioned in the Veda. Then again, it is only natural that what is directly expressed by the words of a text should set aside what is only indirectly indicated by the requirements of what has been directly expressed, this indicated factor being admittedly remoter and hence weaker than the directly expressed one. But this does not mean that what is indirectly indicated has no force at all. In fact such a case would be analogous to the case where, even though the employment of the details of the archetypal sacrifice at the ectypal one is admissible by the general injunction (that ‘the ectype should be performed in the manner of its archetype’), yet when any such archetypal details are found to be incompatible with those that may be found to be expressly prescribed specifically in connection with ectype, the former are unhesitatingly discarded. [Similarly when the indicated factor is incompatible with the expressed one, it is discarded.]

Under the view [previously put forward as (d)] that the Smṛtis are based upon an unbroken Unit of performers, the position of the Smṛtis would be no better than that of mere current tradition, which does not, at any stage (however longstanding it may have become), attain reliability (based upon direct Vedic support).

The other view [put forward as (e)] also, according to which Vedic texts in support of what they did and wrote were always inferred by Manu and others, — does not differ very much from the view that they are based upon tradition. We have proceeded to examine the source of the Smṛti or Recollection of Manu and others; and if they also only inferred the Vedic texts, just as we are doing now, then, like ourselves, they also would not be recollectors (of Vedic texts). Nor is it possible to infer a thing that has never been directly perceived by any one; as no affirmation (and hence no premiss) could be possible with regard to such a thing. As regards the inference (that has been cited by Śabara), of the motion (of the Sun) and such other things, a general connection (between motion and change of location) is always perceived; or such motion may be deduced from Presumption based on apparent inconsistency. Such basis of presumption however is not available in the case in question.

From all this it follows that in the matter of Dharma, there is certainly some sort of connection between Manu and others and the Veda; but the exact character of this connection we are unable to ascertain. In fact, when persons learned in the Veda have the firm conviction that a certain act should he done, it is only right to assume that this conviction is based on the Veda, and not upon a misconception; it is only thus that wo would be assuming a source of knowledge in keeping with the character of the knowledge itself. And this assumption rests upon the possibility of such source being found in Vedic texts, in the form of mantras and arthavādas scattered far and wide by reason of lapses (of time, etc.). In some cases we also find direct Vedic Injunctions themselves, as the source (of what is found in the Smṛti); e.g., the injunction that ‘one should not converse with a woman in her courses,’ which is found in the Veda in connection with Upanayana and Study (supplies the basis for the general prohibition of such conversation, contained in the Smṛtis).

What we have stated here is only a small portion of this vast subject; more of this should be learnt from the Smṛtiviveka [as follows]: —

‘The view that some Vedic texts have become lost is not accepted by me; as this view necessitates several unwarrantable assumptions. It is far more reasonable to accept the view that the Smṛtis have brought together the injunctions of actions scattered about here and there. In fact even at the present day we find that a person who is surrounded by several Vedic scholars and teachers is capable of composing works after having heard from those persons the several Vedic texts. It is only natural that persons who have actually seen the writer at the time, basing his statements upon direct Vedic texts should accept them as trustworthy; and we also come to have due confidence in them as far as possible. As a matter of fact, the details of performance are indicated by Mantras; and there is indication of them also by Names; there can be no performance, unless there is some sort of indication regarding the nature of the action and the qualifying conditions. For instance, the connection of a particular deity with the Āghāra -offering is indicated by the words of a Mantra; and the reason for this lies in the indicative character of Mantras, which character becomes possible only if the Deity is taken to be indicated by them. When one action enters into the constitution of another well-accomplished one, it does not interfere with the form of this latter [so that when a Deity indicated by the Mantra is introduced into an action enjoined by a distinct Injunctive passage, it does not interfere with the nature of this action]. For instance, in connection with the Viśvajit sacrifice, we find that the desirable result proceeding from it is got at from sources other than its originative Injunction. Thus it is quite reasonable to assume details in connection even with a well-established injunction, specially when the needs of the Injunction are not supplied even by Mantras and Arthavādas.

‘[An objection is raised] —

“The revered Pāṇini has laid down that Injunction is expressed only by the Injunctive and other cognate affixes. So that Mantras and Arthavādas, describing as they do only accomplished entities, can never express an injunction. If then, from theArthavāda, which is not directly injunctive, some sort of Injunction were deduced by means of an indirect interpretation put upon the Arthavāda, — how could any reliance be placed upon such an Injunction? In fact such an interpretation would lead to a syntactical split; specially as (in such arthavādas as they obtain a standing who perform the Rātrisatra) the Rātris tra offerings do not necessarily stand in need of the ‘standing.’ In fact it is only a detail of the direct Injunction (and not that of the vāda) which can be accepted as indicated by supplementary sentences. As regards the prohibition of Theft, etc. (which has been sought to be deduced from the Arthavāda passage ‘the theft of gold, etc., etc.’), this will certainly be amenable to a direct Injunction; and as in the event of the arthavāda being made to yield the necessary injunction, syntactical split would be inevitable. Nor is there any analogy between the Vācastoma and the Aṣṭakā; for in the sacrifice all the details are performed in accordance with injunctions deduced from mantras; while in the case of the Aṣṭakā there are no grounds for regarding the mantra as indicative of any details of performance. Further, no indicative power of the mantra can prompt one to any course of action, unless there is some sort of a general connection; and in the case in question there is no such connection either of context or of any such factor.”

‘To the above objection the following reply is given by those who hold the view that also are the source of Dharma: — (a) In the case of the passage “they obtain a standing, etc.,” even though there is no directly injunctive agency in the form of the Injunctive affix and the rest, yet the idea of injunction is held to be supplied by the conjugational affix let (in the verb “upayanti,” “offer”). (b) Similarly in the case of the verb “patanti” “they fall” (occurring in the passage “Theft of gold, etc.”), or in that of the verb “use corrupt words” (occurring in another arthavāda passage), (c) In connection with the Vācastoma, we have the distinct injunction beginning with the expression ‘sarvadāśa ṭayīḥ anubrūyāt,’ — this name “dāśatayī” being applied to the ten Ṛk. verses selected each out of the ten maṇḍalas of the Ṛgveda. (d) As regards the general connection (of the mantra) with the action, this is said to be brought about by the force of the Name, — the Gṛhyamantras being named after the acts (with which they are connected). (e) As regards the arthavāda passage “Theft of gold, etc., etc.,” that this is subservient to the Science of the Five Fires is indicated by the fact that it contains a deprecation of the said Theft, etc.; and this cannot be possible except when the Prohibition (of the Theft, etc.) is also implied. That the passage is subservient to the Science of Five Fires is indicated by the trend of the whole context; and the idea that the Theft, etc., should not be done serves to emphasise the said subserviency; and there is no incompatibility between these two [the idea of subserviency and that the acts should not be done ]. Lastly, as regards the view that the Vedic texts in corroboration of the Smṛti rules h ave always been inferred (and never actually found by any one in the Veda), — it stands on the same footing as the notion of long-standing tradition; both would be of the nature of the “blind following the blind”; and we do not perceive any difference between these two views.’

From all this it follows that when Gautama speaks of the Householder’s Life being ‘directly enjoined’ (by the Veda), what he means is that the words of the Veda enjoin it directly, without the intervention of any other process; that which is cognised immediately after the hearing of the words is said to be ‘directly known’; while after something has been cognised, if the reflection over the capacities of that thing leads to the cognition of another thing, this latter is not said to be ‘directly perceived.’ Thus everything becomes duly established.

-----------------------------------------------

[Having discussed the idea expressed by the expression ‘Smṛtiśīle ca tadvidām,’ the Author next proceeds to explain the words themselves] — ‘Smṛtiśīle tadvidām’ ‘the conscientious re-collection of those versed in the Veda,’ — The compound ‘smṛtiśīle’ stands for ‘Smṛti and śīla.’ — ‘Śīla’ has been explained as the abandoning of love and hate; and this is a ‘root of a Dharma,’ — not like the Veda and Smṛti, which are ‘root of Dharma’ in the sense of being the source of knowledge of Dharma, — but in the sense that it is a means of accomplishing Dharma; for by abandoning love and hate one acquires merit (Dharma).

Question: — “Dharma has been described as what leads to welfare; and certainly the abandoning of love and hate is itself of that character (of Dharma); so that there being no difference between the two (i .e., between Dharma and the abandoning of love and hate), how can it be said that the said abandoning accomplishes Dharma?”

Answer: — We have already pointed out that the authors of Smṛtis use the term ‘dharma s,’ ometimes in the sense of acts which form the subjects of Injunctions and Prohibitions (i.e., meritorious and unmeritorious deeds), and also sometimes in the sense of that peculiar thing (force, i.e., merit) which proceeds from the performance of acts and continues to exist until it has brought its reward (to the doer). That there is such a thing as this latter can be believed only on the authority of the scriptures. If the sacrificial performance were to disappear without bringing about any such force, then, bow could its results appear at some remote period of time? It is this peculiar something that is meant by the term ‘dharma’ here [when it is said that ‘the abandoning of love and hate accomplishes Dharma.’] And certainly the said ‘Śīla’ is the ‘root’ of ‘Dharma’ in this sense; so that there is nothing incongruous in this. The use of the word ‘Dharma’ in this sense is common; e.g., in the verse — ‘Dharma is the only friend that accompanies one even on death’ (Manu, 8.17). Since the act disappears immediately after it has been done, bow could it continue to exist at any other time (as mentioned in this verse)?

Some people bring forward the following objection: —

“As a matter of fact, everything that is enjoined in the Veda and in the Smṛtis is the source of Dharma; and since ‘Śīla’ also is included among the acts thus enjoined, there is no point in mentioning it separately. In fact Manu himself is going to enjoin it in the following verse — ‘Day and night one should take care to subdue the senses’ (7.41), — and again — ‘When the mind has been subdued, the two groups of five become subdued.’ And it is this ‘subjugation of the mind’ which constitutes the ‘abandoning of love and hate,’ as we shall explain later on.”

Some writers answer this by saying that ‘Śīla’ has been separately mentioned with a view to indicate its superior importance; it is something that comes useful in the performance of all acts; and is important also by itself; being just like the Agnihotra and such other acts; and further, it is a ‘Dharma’ for all castes and conditions. It is for these reasons that it has been specifically mentioned in the present verse, which sets forth the most general conception of Dharma.

Our explanation however is as follows: — ‘Śīla’ stands for Samādhi, ‘composure of the mind;’ the root ‘Śīl’ signifies ‘composing,’ and ‘composure’ is a property of the mind; so that ‘Śīla’ here stands for the withdrawing of the mind from other things and concentrating it upon what is enjoined in the scriptures.

The copulative compound (‘Smṛtiśīle’) connotes interdependence; hence what is meant to be the ‘source of Dharma’ is ‘Smṛti’ (Recollection) and ‘śīla’ (composed mind, Conscience) as interdependent; and ‘śīla’ does not stand for being the means of accomplishing Dharma (as explained by some people, above). The sense therefore comes to be that what is the ‘source of Dharma’ is Conscientious Recollection, and not mere Recollection. Hence, even though some persons may be ‘versed in the Veda,’ yet any recollection that they may have at a time when they are not duly attentive to the subject cannot be regarded as a valid source of knowledge of Dharma; and this for the simple reason that unless people have fixed their attention upon what is prescribed in the scriptures, they are liable to fall into error.

As regards the particle ‘ca’ found in the verse, this ‘should be construed after the term ‘tadvidām,’ ‘of people versed in the Veda’; and it is due to the exigencies of metre that it has been placed before that term. This particle has a copulative force; and since nothing that has gone before can be copulated, it serves to bring in here the epithet ‘sādhūnām’ (good, righteous) that comes next. So that there are three qualifications intended here: the ‘Recollection’ that is authoritative is of such persons as (1) are learned, having learnt the soiences from a qualified teacher ( ), (2) are attentive to what is prescribed in the scriptures (śīla) and (3) are in the habit of acting up to the injunctions of the scriptures (sādhu, good, righteous). It has been declared that all these qualifications existed in Manu and other writers (of Smṛtis). If it were not so, then it would never have been possible for their words to have been accepted by the wise.

“If this is what is meant, it should be stated dearly, in the form ‘the words of Manu and others, are the sources of Dharma’; what is the use of setting forth the characteristics (of the writers)?”

True; but there might be persons who may not agree to the words of Manu and others being authoritative; and it is with reference to such persons that the text has set forth the well-established grounds for regarding them as trustworthy. Even, at the present day, a man who is possessed of the qualifications mentioned in the text, has his words accepted with the same amount of trust and confidence as the words of Manu and others; as we find in cases where learned men pronounce their opinion upon the precise character of the expiatory rite to be performed by one who has committed a certain sin. In fact a person possessed of the said qualifications has ever been recognised as constituting the ‘pariṣad’ ‘court,’ by himself alone: ‘The Brāhmaṇa should act up to that Dharma which even a single person learned in the Vedas should declare to be Dharma’ — says Manu (12.113). For these reasons, there can be no reasonable ground for enumerating the names of ‘Recollectors,’ as ‘Manu, Viṣṇu, Yama, Aṅgiras’ and so forth. For we find that many such persons as Paiṭhīnasi, Baudhāyana, Pracetas and the rest are recognised by the wise and learned as reliable ‘Recollectors,’ and yet these names are not found in any of the lists (supplied by various Smṛtis).

What thus the words ‘Smṛtiśīle ca tadvidām’ mean is that ‘when a person is found to be recognised and spoken of by all wise and learned persons as endowed with the said qualifications, and they also accept a certain work as really by that person, — the word of such a person (and of the work composed by him), even though proceeding from a human source, should be recognised as an authoritative source of the knowledge of Dharma. So that even at the present day if there were a person possessed of the said qualifications, and he were to compose a work by reason of just those qualifications, then for later generations they would be accepted to be just as authoritative as the words of Manu and others. People of the present generation — who would be contemporaries of the said writer — would not derive their knowledge of Dharma from the words of such a writer, because the sources of information available to him would be all available to them also. Hence it is that until a teacher of the present day clearly indicates the source from which he has derived a certain information, learned people do not accept his word as reliable. When however he has pointed out his source and his work has been accepted as authoritative, then at some future time if the case of his work be found to be analogous to that of the Smṛti rules regarding Aṣṭakā and other acts (whose basis in the Veda we of the present day cannot find), it would be only right to infer its authoritative character from the fact of its being accepted by the wise and the learned (which fact could not be explained except on the basis of its being duly authoritative).

-----------------------------------------------

‘Ācārascaiva sādhūnām’ ‘The practice of Good Men’; — the particle ‘ca’ connects the epithet ‘vedavidām’ (of persons versed in the Veda) with this phrase also. These two qualifications (‘goodness’ and ‘Vedic learning’) indicate the ‘Śiṣṭa,’ ‘the cultured man.’ The ‘practice of cultured men’ also is ‘source of Dharma.’ — ‘Practice’ means conduct, behaviour. When, in regard to any action, there are no Vedic or Smṛti statements, but cultured men are found to regard it as ‘Dharma’ and do it, — then that act also should be accepted as ‘enjoined by the Veda,’ just like the act prescribed in the Smṛti. To this category belong such acts as the following — (a) the tying of the bracelet and such other auspicious rites performed during marriage, etc., (b) the worshipping of famous trees, Yakṣas, road-crossings and such things, varying in various countries, done by the girl on her day of marriage, (c) the number of hair-locks kept on the head, varying with different countries; (d) the exact manner of attending on guests, teachers and other respectable persons, consisting in the addressing of sweet and agreeable words, saluting, rising to receive and so forth; for instance, it is customary with some people to recite the Pṛṣṇi-sūkta with grass in hand, when banding over the horse consecrated for the Aśvamedha sacrifice. It is such customs that are meant by ‘Practice’ here. It is not possible to collect in any compilation all such practices, there being endless forms of them, varying with the diversities in the nature of men, caused by such variable circumstances as the calm or disturbed condition of their mind and so forth. The same act that may have been found, on several, occasions, to be pleasing (to one person), may, on another occasion, turn out to be unpleasant (to another person). For instance, a house-holder may be in the habit of being in constant attendance upon his guests; — this may be quite pleasing to one guest, who may be pleased at finding the man attending upon him like a servant; but the same close attendance becomes unpleasant to another guest, who may feel — ‘the feeling of restraint caused by this man’s constant presence is so galling that I do not find an opportunity to sit at ease.’ Hence, in corroboration of such ‘Practices’ it is not possible for us to assume Vedic texts, corroborating them either collectively or individually. The Aṣṭakā and such other acts, on the other band, have a fixed form; and hence we have Smṛti rules regarding their performance. This is what constitutes the difference between ‘Recollection’ and ‘Practice’ (Smṛti and Ācāra).

-----------------------------------------------

‘Ātmanastuṣṭireva ca’, — ‘Self-satisfaction also’ — ‘is source of Dharma’ is to be construed here also. This ‘self-satisfaction’ also is meant to be of those only who are ‘learned in the Veda and Good’ (‘Vedavidām sādhūnām’). The fact of this ‘Self-satisfaction’ being ‘source of Dharma’ has been held to be based upon the trustworthy character (of the people concerned). When such persons as are possessed of the stated qualifications (of being good and learned) have their mind satisfied with a certain act, and they do not feel any aversion towards it, that act is ‘Dharma.’

“But it may happen that a man’s mind is satisfied with a prohibited (sinful) act; and this would have to be regarded as Dharma. Again, a man may have hesitation (and doubt) regarding what is enjoined in the Veda; and this latter would h ave to be regarded as n ot‘ Dharma.’”

(a) As a matter of fact, the ‘self-satisfaction’ of the high-souled and extremely good men endowed with the said qualifications, is possessed of such tremendous force that, under its influence ‘Dharma’ may become ‘Adharma’ and ‘Adharma’ become ‘Dharma’; but this cannot be so in the case of men tainted with love and hate, etc. Whatever goes into a salt-mine, becomes transformed into salt; similarly everything is rendered pure by the unpremeditated ‘self-satisfaction’ of persons learned in the Veda. [The mere fact of an act being prohibited does dot make it Adharma ] for though the ‘holding of the Ṣoḍaśi vessel’ has been prohibited at the Atirātra sacrifice, yet when the holding comes to be done, in accordance With a Vedic injunction, it is not sinful. But in the present case, there is no question of option, as there is in the case of the ‘holding of the Ṣoḍaśi’. What happens in this case is that the Prohibitions take effect in regard to all cases except the one that falls within tho purview of the said ‘self-satisfaction.’

(b) Or (the second answer to the objection is that), people like those mentioned in the verse can never feel any self-satisfaction at what is ‘Adharma.’ The mongoose bites only that herb which is an antidote of poison, and not any other herb; hence the notion that ‘whatever herb is bitten by the mongoose is destructive of poison.’

(c) (Thirdly) The revered teachers have explained as follows: — What is meant is that, in cases of optional alternatives, that alternative should be adopted in regard to which the mind feels satisfied. It is in accordance with this that the Author will say later on, in connection with the purification of things and expiatory rites — ‘the penance should be performed until the mind may feel satisfied.’

(d) Or, what is said in the Text may be taken as ruling out the unbelieving Atheist; as a matter of fact, the Atheist does not feel any ‘self-satisfaotion’ in doing even those aots that are enjoined in the Veda; hence such acts though done by him are absolutely useless.

(e) Or, what the Text teaches is that in the performance of all acts, one should have a tranquil mind; i.e., at the time of doing anything one should keep his mind free from anger, stupefaction, grief and so forth, and should remain happy. Hence like ‘Śīla’ this also is laid down as pertaining to all acts.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. Āpastamba, 1.1.11.1 — 3; Gautama, 1.1 — 4 and 28. 48; Vaśiṣṭha, 1. 4 — 6; Baudhāyana, 1.1.1.1 — 6; Yājñavalkya, 1.7.

The meaning of ‘Śīla’ and ‘Ācāra’ separately has been the source of much misunderstanding. The difficulty has been solved by Medhātithi taking the term ‘Smṛtiśīle, as standing, not for ‘Smṛti’ and ‘Śīla,’but for ‘Smṛti’ as qualified by ‘Śīla,’ this being ‘freedom from hatred and attachment;’ ‘Smṛti — Śīla’ stands for that ‘Smṛti,’ recollection, which the learned have when their mind is calm and collected, not perturbed by passions of any kind. The reason suggested by Buhler is not satisfactory.

Kullūka has explained ‘Śīla’ as standing for the virtues enumerated by Hārīta — ‘Brāhmaṇa-like behaviour, devotion to gods and Pitṛs, gentility, kindness, freedom from jealousy, sympathy, absence of cruelty, friendliness, agreeable speech, gratefulness, being prepared to grant shelter, mercy, and calmness.’ Nārāyaṇa puts it vaguely as ‘that to which learned men are prone.’

‘Self-satisfaction’ — This is meant to apply to cases where the scriptures provide options (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka); — or to cases not covered by any of the aforesaid sources (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

In connection with this verse, the student desirous of carrying on further investigation, is advised to read Kumārila’s Tantravārtika, Adhyāya I (Translation — Bibliotheca Indica).

Medhātithi (p. 57, l. 8) — ‘Viśvajitā’ — See Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 4.3.15 — 10.

Medhātithi (p. 57, l. 20) — ‘Kvachidarthavādādeva’ — for an example, see Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1.4.29.

Medhātithi (p. 60, l. 29) — ‘Kartṛsāmānyāt’ — This refers to Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1.3.2.

Medhātithi (p. 62, l. 2) — ‘Yathā āghāre devatāvidhiḥ — Śabara on Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 2.2.10 says —

[ādhāre] māntravarṇako devatāvidhiḥ | ita indra ūrdhvo'dhvaro divi...indravāna svāhesyādhāramādhārayati — ityevamasāvādhāro yadyasyendro devatā

Medhātithi (p. 60, ll. 7-8) ‘Tulye śrautatve’ — Though in regarding both the Śruti-rule and the Smṛti-rule to be equally ‘Śrauta,’ ‘Vedic’ — Medhātithi apparently accepts the view of Kümārila as against Śabara (according to whom’ the Smṛti-rule is not Śruti, but stands on a distinctly inferior footing), — ultimately his view comes to be the same as Śabara’s — viz., that in case of conflict between Śruti and Smṛti, the latter is set aside in favour of the former; while according to Kumārila, there is option.

Medhātithi (p. 63, l. 1) — ‘Viśvajityodhikāravat’ — See Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 6.7.18 — 19. In connection with the Viśvajit sacrifice we have the text — ‘one should give away his entire property, sarvasva.’ The conclusion is that the injunction of the giving away of one’s entire property having been already found in connection with the Jyotiṣṭoma, — at which one is bound to pay as fee either 1,200 gold pieces or his entire property, — what the mention of the giving of entire property at the Viśvajit means is that at this latter sacrifice, the fee must consist of the entire property, and not of 1,200 gold pieces; and this has been taken to imply that the man who seeks to perform the Viśvajit must possess more than 1,200 gold pieces.

Medhātithi (p. 64, 1. 4) — ‘Indriyāṇām &c’ — The first part of this quotation occurs in Manu 7. 44; but the second half is from some other work.

This verse has been quoted in the Vidhānapārijāta (vol. II, p. 511) in support of the authority of Sadāchāra, as bearing upon the propriety of tasamudrādhāraṇa; — also in the Smṛtikaumudī (p. 1) which remarks that the Practice of cultured men is authoritative only when it is not repugnant to Śruti and Smṛti.

The Aparārka (p. 82) quotes the verse in support of the view that the Practices of Good Men also, as distinct from the Smṛti, are an authoritative source of our knowledge of Dharma. It is interesting to note that it reads vedavitsmṛtiśīlatā in place of ātmanastuṣṭireva ca.

It is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 5), which adds the following explanation: —

Veda is the means of knowing Dharma; so also are the ‘Smṛti’ and ‘Śīla’ — i.e. freedom from love and hate, — of persons learned in the Veda; — ‘āchāra’ such as the tying of the bracelet and so forth; — and ‘ātmatuṣṭi’, i. e., when there are several options open to us, it is our own satisfaction that should determine the choice of one of them; — also in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 17b); — and in Hemādri (Vrata, p. 17).

This is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣa, p. 10), which adds the following notes: —

‘Vedaḥ’ is the collection of Mantra and Brāhmaṇa texts, as defined by Āpastamba; — ‘akhilaḥ’, the actual texts available, as also those presumed on the strength of ‘transference’ and that of ‘Indicative Power’, ‘Syntactical Connection’, ‘Contest’, ‘Position’ and ‘Name’ (Jaimini iii); — or ‘akhilaḥ,’ ‘entire,’ may be taken as meant to preclude the notion that the said authority belongs only to the three Vedas, and not to the Atharva’, which is based upon such assertions of Āpastamba and others as ‘Yajña is enjoined by the three Vedas’. That the ‘Atharva is an authority for Dharma is due to the fact that it prescribes the performance of the Tulāpuruṣa and other propitiatory rites for all castes, even though it does not deal mainly with the performance of the Agnihotra or other Śrauta rites. — When the text says that these are the means of knowing ‘Dharma’ Right, it implies that they are the means of knowing also what is ‘Adharma,’ ‘wrong’ it being necessary for the scriptures to furnish an idea of all that is wrong and hence a source of impurity of the mind, which obstructs the acquiring of true knowledge. — ‘Mūlam’, ‘Source’, the means of knowing; — ‘Todvidām’, those learned in the Veda; this implies that in the case of ‘Smṛti’ and the rest, tḥe authority is not inherent in themselves, but due to their being based upon the Veda —

‘Smṛti’ the Dharmaśāstra compiled by Yājñavalkya and others. — ‘Śīla’ implies the thirteen qualities enumerated by Hārīta — viz., Faith in Brahman, Devotion to Gods and Pitṛs, Gentility, Harmlessness, Freedom from jealousy, Freedom from harshness, Friendliness, Sweetness of speech, Gratefulness, Kindness for sufferers, Sympathy, Calmness. This ‘Śīla’ differs from ‘Ācāra’; it stands for the negative virtues, the avoidance of wrong, while the former stands for the positive active virtues; the doing of right. — ‘Ācāra’, the tying of the bracelet during marriage and so forth. — ‘Sādhūnam atmanastuṣṭiḥ’, whenever doubt arises regarding what is right, what determines the question is the ‘self-satisfaction’ of those that are ‘Sādhu’ i. e., have their minds replete with the knowledge of the Veda and the impressions gathered therefrom; i. e., that course is to be accepted as ‘light’, which commands the unanimous approval of the said persons; — such is the explanation suggested by the Kalpataru. In support of this view we have the following passage from the Taittirīya, relating to cases of doubt regarding Dharma, — ‘Thou shouldst behave in that manner in which behave those Brāhmaṇas who are impartial, honest, steady, calm and righteous.’ This implies the authority of the Pariṣat ‘Assembly’. — Or ‘sādhūnām’ may be construed with ‘āchāraḥ’, which would imply the authority also of those ‘good men’ — men free from all evil qualities, — who are not ‘learned in the Veda’; so that for superior Śūdras, the practices of their forefathers would be authoritative. — ‘Self-satisfaction’ is the determining factor in the case of options; but this is an authority for the man himself, not for others.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 6, 10 and 12)

Baudhāyana, Dharmasūtra, 1.1.6. — ‘Dharma has been enjoined in each Veda.’ ‘The second source of knowledge consists of the Smṛtis.’ ‘The third is what proceeds from the cultured, i. e., those persons who are free from jealousy and selfishness, fairly well off, free from avarice, haughtiness, greed, delusion, and anger.’ ‘Those persons are cultured who have studied the Vedas along with their supplements and who are versed in the art of making deductions from them; those are the persons from whom the direct knowledge of Śruti can be derived.’

Gautama, Dharmasūtra, 1.1-2. — ‘Veda is the source of Dharma’: ‘the Smṛti and Śīla of persons learned in the Veda.’

Āpastamba, Dharmasūtra, 1.2-3. — ‘The convention of persons knowing Dharma is authoritative’: ‘and also the Vedas.’

Vaśiṣṭha, Smrti, 1.4-6. — ‘In the absence of Śruti and Smṛti, the custom of the cultured is authoritative’: ‘those persons are cultured whose mind is free from selfish desires’: ‘that is to be regarded as Dharma which is not prompted by a selfish motive.’

Yajñavalkya, Smṛti, 1-7. — ‘Śruti, Smṛti, the practice of good men, self-satisfaction determination based upon right volition, — these four are the source of Dharma.’

Āpastamba, Dharmasūtra, 1.4.7. — ‘The Śruti is more authoritative than custom which derives its authority only from assumption (of corroboration of Śruti).’

Ibid, 30.9. — ‘In cases of conflict, what is stated in the Śruti is more authoritative.’

Jaimini, the writer of the Mīmāṃsā-sūtra (1.1.2), has emphatically declared that the Vedic Injunction is the only trustworthy source of our knowledge of Dharma, i.e., of what is right, i.e., what is conducive to good, temporal and spiritual (Vaiśeṣika-Sütra 1.1.2); though he knew of the later ‘lawbooks, Smṛtis, and customs,’ yet he had no hesitation in declaring that these are to be relied upon only so far as they are not repugnant to anything declared in the Veda.

Coming to the strictly legal writers we find — 1. Baudhāyana, (1.1.1-6) naming — (a) Veda, (b) the Smṛti, and (2) ‘Śiṣṭāgama,’ — the ‘Āgama,’ teaching, of the ‘Śiṣṭas’ ‘cultured’ men; — i. e., ‘those who are free from ill-feeling, devoid of vanity, possessed of sufficient grain, not greedy, devoid of hypocrisy, haughtiness, avarice, stupidity and anger; — those who have studied, in the right manner, the Veda along with its supplements and are well versed in making deductions out of them.’

[There is no mention of ‘custom’ here at all. It is ‘scripture’ pure and simple; but no longer the Veda only, but also the Smṛtis, and the deductions therefrom and teachings based thereupon by persons with very special qualifications.]

Parāśara, 1.20. — ‘At the beginning of each Kalpa, there appear Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva......... the propounders of (1) Śruti, (2) Smṛti and (3) Sadāchāra.’

kalpe kalpe kṣayotyattau brahmaviṣṇumaheśvarāḥ |
śrutismṛtisadācāranirṇetāraśva sarvadā ||

To the same end we have Āpastamba (1.1.2-3) declaring that the ‘convention or opinion of those versed in Dharma’ and ‘also the Veda,’ are the authority. It only means that when those learned in Dharma are agreed in regard to the righteousness of a certain course of action, that is to be accepted as authoritative.

This is made clear by Vaśiṣṭha (1.4-6) — ‘In the event of the aforesaid’ (i.e., Śruti and Smṛti) not being available, the practice of cultured men is the authority, — the cultured man being defined as one who is entirely unselfish, having no desires of his own.

The same opinion is expressed more definitely by Gautama (1.1. 1-2) — ‘Veda is the source of Dharma, also the Smṛti (Recollection) and Śīla of those learned in the Veda.’

[In all this ‘custom’ begins to be admitted; but only that of the ‘cultured.’]

The next step in advance is taken by Manu (2.6) —

vido'khilo dharmamūlaṃ smṛtiśīle ca tadvidām |
ācāraśvaica sādhūnāmātmanastuṣṭireva ca ||

Also Vyāsa —

dharmamūlaṃ vedamāhuḥ grantharāśimakṛtrimam |
tadvidāṃ smṛtiśīle ca sādhvācāraṃ manaḥpriyam ||

By this the sources of Dharma are (1) Veda, (2) Smṛti, (3) Sadāchāra and (4) ‘Svasya priyam.’

[What is exactly meant by these terms we shall see later on.] The same is recapitulated in Manu (2.12) —

vedaḥ smṛtiḥ sadācāraḥ svasya ca priyamātmanaḥ |
etaccaturvidhaṃ prāhuḥ sākṣāddharmasya lakṣaṇam ||

This is slightly improved upon by Yājñavalkya (1.7) —

śrutiḥ smṛtiḥ sadācāraḥ svasya ca priyamātmanaḥ |
samyaksaṅkalpajaḥ kāmo dharmamūlamidaṃ smṛtam ||

By which the sources of law are fivefold: — (1) Veda, (2) Smṛti, (3) Sadāchāra, (1) Svasya priyam and (5) Samyak-saṅkalpaja Kāma. [For the exact signification of these, see below.]

Thus the sources of Law are: (1) ‘Śruti,’ (2) ‘Smrti’ (3) ‘Sadāchāra’ — ‘practices of the good’ (with regard to these there is unanimity among all old authorities), (4) ‘Svasya priyam’ or ‘ātmanastuṣṭiḥ,’ ‘self-satisfaction.’ In regard to the fourth also Manu and Yājñavalkya are agreed. In Manu however we find one thing more, which is not found in Yājñavalkya — viz., ‘Sīla’; and Yājñavalkya speaks of ‘Samyaksaṅkalpajaḥ kāmaḥ,’ which is not found in Manu. Vīramitrodaya on Yājña has identified these two.

We shall see now what these terms mean according to the Commentators and the more important Digest-writers.

(A) Śruti

Medhātithi on Manu, 2.6. — The word ‘Veda’ stands for the Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, and Sāmaveda (also Atharva Veda), along with their respective Brāhmaṇas, There are 21 Recensions of the Ṛgveda, 100 of the Yajurveda, 1,000 of the Sāmaveda and 9 of the Atharvaveda. The Vedic character of the Atharva cannot be denied, because, like the other Vedas, this also is not the work of a human author, it helps to make known man’s duties, it is free from mistakes, it prescribes the Jyotiṣṭoma and such other rites exactly in the same manner as the other Vedas do. [This is denied by Vīramitrodaya on Yājñavalkya; see below.] Though there are certain texts that forbid the study of the Atharva Veda, yet all that this means is that one should not confuse the teachings of the other Vedas with those of the Atharva; for instance, at the performance of rites in accordance with the three other Vedas, one should not use Mantras of the Atharva Veda.

This ‘Veda’ is the ‘root,’ i.e., source, cause, of dharma, in the sense that it makes it known, and it does this by means chiefly of such passages in the Brāhmaṇas as contain injunctive expressions; sometimes also by means of Mantras. And the other parts of the Veda — the Arthavāda or Declamatory Passages — have their use in eulogising what is enjoined by the corresponding injunction; Mantras and names help in indicating the details of the acts prescribed.

Sarvajñanārāyaṇa on Manu, 26. — When Manu speaks of the ‘entire Veda,’ he means to include the Arthavādas, commendatory and condemnatory exaggerations, also.

Kullūka on Manu, 26. — ‘Veda’ stands for the Ṛk, Yajus, Sāman and Atharvan; the whole of these, including the injunctions, Mantras and Arthavādas, the last also serving the purpose of helping the injunction by persuasion. Both Mantras and Arthavādas serve the useful purpose not only of persuasion, but also of reminding the agent of the details of the action undertaken. The authority of Śruti and the rest also rests upon.the fact of their having their source in the Veda.

Rāghavānanda on Manu, 2.6. — Ṛk, Yajus, Sāman and Atharvan are the authority for Dharma.

Viśvarūpa on Yājña, 1.3-7. — ‘Śruti’ is to be taken, not in the strictly limited sense of the ‘Mantra and Brāhmaṇa texts,’ but for all the fourteen ‘Sciences’ — the Four Vedas, their six ‘subsidiaries’ or ‘limbs,’ Purāṇa, Nyāya, Mīmānsā, and Dharmaśāstra.

Mitākṣarā on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Śruti’ is Veda.

(I) Aparārka on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Śruti’ is Veda — it is the only determining factor in all matters relating to the Agnihotra and other rites. As Vyāsa says, this is the only pure authority (i.e., entirely trustworthy), all the rest being ‘adulterated,’ i.e., of doubtful authority; that law is the highest which is learnt from the Veda, what is propounded in the Purāṇas and other works being of a lower grade.

Says Manu — ‘The Veda embodies all knowledge’ (2.7).

‘The learned man should enter upon his own duties, resting upon the authority of the Revealed Word’ (2.8). ‘The Veda should be known as the Revealed Word, Śruti’ (2.10).

Vīramitrodaya-Tīkā on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Śruti’ is Veda — as in Manu (2.10). It is the sole authority in regard to Agnihotra and such rites.

Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, pp. 8-25. — ‘Śruti’ stands for ‘Veda,’ which, according to Āpastamba’s definition, is the name given to the ‘collection of Mantra and Brāhmaṇa texts’; — the ‘whole’ of this authoritative, i.e., the direct, texts themselves, as also those that are deducible from the implications of ‘Indication,’ ‘Syntactical Connection,’ ‘Context,’ ‘Position’ and ‘Name,’ and also the transformations undergone by the original texts under well-recognised principles. Another implication of the epithet ‘entire’ is that the Atharva Veda also is to be accepted as authoritative, and not only the ‘trinity of Vedas,’ as one might be led to suppose from the words of Āpastamba, who says that ‘Dharma is to be learnt from the three Vedas.’ It would be wrong to deny the authority of the Atharva Veda, because, even though it has nothing to say regarding the setting up of the Sacrificial Pires or the details of the Agnihotra and other rites, yet on certain matters it is our only authority; such propitiatory rites for instance as those relating to the ‘Tulāpuruṣa’ and the like, which affect all the castes. When we speak of these being the ‘source of dharma,’ ‘means of knowing what Dharma, Right, is,’ it follows that they are the means of knowing also what ‘Adharma’ ‘wrong’ is; it is necessary to understand what is ‘wrong’ in order to discard it and thereby prepare the mind for perceiving what is ‘right.’

This ‘Śruti’ operates in the following seven forms:

(1) The Injunction or Mandatory text — e.g., ‘one shall sacrifice the goat to Yāyu’ — this is a trustworthy guide as to what one should do.

(2) The Prohibitive Text — e.g., ‘one shall not eat the flesh of an animal killed by the poisoned arrow this is a guide as to what one shall avoid.

(3) The ‘Declamatory’ text of two kinds: the commendatory and the condemnatory; the former serves the purpose of delineating the excellence of the course of action enjoined by the Mandatory text; e.g., the text ‘Vāyu is the eftest deity,’ serves to indicate the excellent properties of the deity Vāyu to whom the offering of the goat has been enjoined; the condemnatory text serves to deprecate the course of action prohibited; e.g., the assertion that ‘the tears of weeping Rudra became silver’ is meant to deprecate the giving of silver as the sacrificial fee, which has been forbidden by a prohibitive text. Texts of this declamatory kind are of use sometimes in settling a doubtful point: e.g., it having been enjoined that one should place wet pebbles under the altar, and the injunction being silent as to the substance with which the pebble is to be wetted, the doubt on this point is settled by a subsequent ‘declamatory’ text, ‘clarified butter is glory itself,’ which clearly indicates the clarified butter as the substance with which the pebbles are to be wetted.

(4) The Mantra text — e.g., ‘Devasya tvā savituḥ,’ etc., serves to remind the performer of the details of the performance in the shape of the deity and so forth.

(5) The proper names of particular sacrifices help in the determining of the exact action connoted by the common root ‘yaji,’ ‘to sacrifice’ occurring in the injunctive text.

(6) The meaningless syllables, stobhas, introduced in the Sāma-chant, serve the purpose of marking time and cadence;

and (7) the Upaniṣad text serves to promulgate that knowledge of Brahman which destroys all evil.

Parāśara, 1-20 — speaks of the ‘propounders of Śruti’ appearing at the beginning of each kalpa. From the words it would seem as if the three gods — Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara were the said ‘propounders.’ But Mādhava (p. 98) takes the ‘propounders of Śruti, Smṛti and Sadāchāra’ separately from Brahmā, etc., and he supplies a peculiar account of the ‘propounders of Śruti’ — which extends the scope of the authority of this source of knowledge. He says that by the ‘propounders of Śruti’ here are meant

(1) Vyāsa, who divided the Vedic text into the several recensions;

(2) the expounders of those Recensions — such as Kaṭha and Kuthuma;

(3) the contents of Kalpasūtras, such as Baudhāyana, Āśvalāyana, aud Āpastamba, and also the ‘authors’ of the Mīmāṃsāsūtras, Jaimini and the rest.

Nṛsiṃhaprasāda-Saṃskara-Sāra MSS. — The Veda is the main authority for Dharma. Any inconsistencies that may be found in it can be easily explained away. This authority belongs not only to the Injunctions, but also to Mantras, names and declamatory passages.

Smṛticandrikā, p. 3. — The Veda is authoritative as it is independent of human authorship.

(B) Smṛti

Medhātithi on Manu, 2.6. — ‘Smṛti’ is Recollection and ‘Śīla’ denotes freedom from love, hatred and such improper feelings; this latter, according to one explanation, is a means of accomplishing Dharma, and not a means of knowing it; and it has been separately mentioned in the present connection only with a view to emphasise its importance. Not satisfied with this, he has taken the two terras ‘Smṛti’ and ‘Śīla’ in the compound as inter-related; and as together standing for a single means of knowing Dharma, in the shape of ‘Recollection during that state of the mind when it is calm, free from all disturbing influences of love, hatred and so forth’, — i.e., ‘Conscientious Recollection.’ The authority of ‘Smṛti’ thus becomes qualified. Even though a certain writer may be a Ṛṣi versed in Veda, yet if his ‘recollection’ and its compilation come about at a time when his mind was perturbed by discordant feelings, much trust cannot be placed upon such ‘Recollection.’

This again has to be taken along with ‘Sādhūmām’; so that we have a threefold condition for the trustworthiness of a writer of Smṛti: —

he must be learned (‘tādvidām’),

he must be ‘conscientious,’ ‘free from love and hatred’ (‘Śīla’),

and he must be ‘righteous’ (‘Sādhūmām’), be habitually engaged in carrying out the injunctions of the Veda.

The upshot of the whole is that when a person is found to be recognised and spoken of by all wise and learned persons as endowed with the said three qualifications — and a certain compilation is also recognised as made by that person, — the word of such a person as found in his recognised work, should be recognised as an authoritative exponent of Dharma. Sc that even at the present day if there were such a person and he were to compose a work, then for all later generations that work would be regarded just as highly as those of Manu and others. This is the reason why Medhātithi is averse to the practice of enumerating the authoritative ‘Smṛtis.’ (Trans., p. 204.)

Sarvajñanārāyaṇa on Manu, 2.6. — In cases where no Vedic texts are available, the law can be determined with the help of the Smṛti of persons learned in the Veda — the term ‘Smṛti’ standing for the reflections over a certain subject, as also the treatises embodying those reflections.

Kullūka on Manu, 2.6. — The Smṛti of ‘persons learned in the Veda’ is authoritative, — this last qualification being added for the purpose of indicating that the authority of Smṛti is due to its having its source in the Veda.

Rāghavānanda on Manu, 2.6. — ‘Smṛti’ stands for the work of Manu and others. It stands here for only such Smṛti as is not incompatible with tho Veda. All the rest are to be rejected whenever they are found to be repugnant to any direct text of the Veda. But where there is no such repugnance, we are justified in assuming that the Smṛti must be based upon a Vedic text now lost to us; and it is on this assumption that its trustworthiness rests.

Nandana on Manu, 2.6. — The ‘Smṛti of men learned in the Veda.’ This stands for Smṛtis, Purāṇas and Itihāsas.

Viśvarūpa on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Smṛti’ and ‘Dharmaśāstra’ are synonymous terms. “How do we know that the Smṛtis are all based upon the Veda, from which they derive their authority? Certainly we do not find Vedic texts in support of everything that is ordained in the Smṛtis. As for the Vedic texts that are found to support some Smṛti assertions, such support is found also in the case of the heterodox scriptures.” — The simple answer to this question is that in the face of the direct assertion of Manu and other Smṛti-writers that their work is ‘based on the Veda,’ we have no justification for thinking otherwise. They being great Vedic scholars, could not have lied on this point. As a matter of fact also we find that every one of the injunctions contained in the Smṛtis has its source in the Veda; in some cases the connection is direct, in others indirect; for instance, we have the single Vedic injunction ‘one should study the Veda’; now studying is not possible without teaching, hence the injunction of teaching is implied by the former — the teaching cannot be done without some one to teach; this implies the receiving and initiating of a pupil; this implies the necessity of having children; this again that of marrying and so on; most of the other injunctions may have their source traced in the single Vedic text.

(I) Aparārka on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Smṛti’ is that ordinance which, in matters relating to Dharma, has its source in the Veda; its authority is ‘adulterated,’ i.e., not so absolute as that of Śruti; it supplies us with information regarding the duties of all castes and the four life-stages; one should carefully do all that has been ordained, Smṛtam, by persons most learned in the Veda and eschew what is forbidden by them. [This writer like Kumārila makes a distinction between ‘Smṛti’ and ‘Purāṇa.’] There are chances of our going astray in the matter of interpreting a Vedic text and learning the law from it; but there is no fear of any such mistake being committed by the Smṛti-writers who were thoroughly well-versed in the Vedic lore. [From this it would seem that this writer flourished during the transition period, when the centre of gravity was beginning to shift from the Veda towards the Smṛti.]

Mitākṣarā on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Smrti’ is Dharmaśāstra.

Vīramitrodaya on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Smṛti’ is ‘Dharmaśāstra’ — ‘Legal Ordinances’ (Manu 2-10); it is the sole authority regarding the Aṣṭakā and such rites.

Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, pp. 8-25. — ‘Of persons learned in the Veda’; this has been added with a view to make clear that the authority of the Smṛtis does not rest upon themselves: it is derived entirely from the fact of their having their source in the Veda. The name ‘Smṛti’ stands for the legal ordinances, ‘Dharmaśāstra,’ compiled by Yājñavalkya and others.

Madanapārijāta, p. 11. — Manu is the most important of the expounders of law. Among others, some are mentioned by Yājñavalkya (see above). But this list is not exhaustive. Though all these ‘expounders’ do not always agree, yet, on the main principles, they are all agreed; the differences, if any, are confined to minor points; and these latter discrepancies can always he explained.

Nṛsiṃhaprasāda-Saṃskāra MSS. — “How can any authority attach to the Smṛtis of Manu and others, which being of human origin are open to the suspicion of the possibility of all those defects to which human writers are liable; and for this reason these cannot be regarded as authoritative in the same manner as the Vedas are, whose authority is above suspicion.” — The answer to this is that inasmuch as these Smṛtis are found to be mere reproductions of what is contained in the Veda, they must be regarded as duly authoritative. The very name ‘Smṛti,’ ‘Recollection,’ implies that they only reproduce what the authors have learnt elsewhere; and as Manu and others are known to have been learned in the Veda it stands to reason that knowing as they did that the Veda was the sole authority on Dharma, when they proceeded to note down for the benefit of others what the laws were that regulated Dharma, they could not but have drawn upon the Veda. It is true that they arc found to contain many rules that we cannot trace to the Veda as known to us; but if they were mere reproductions of whatever is found in the Veda, no one would care for them. So we are led to the inference that as on most of the points dealt with by them, their assertions are found to be based on Vedic texts, the other points also must have had their source in the Veda; but in those Vedic texts that have become lost to us. We have the Veda itself testifying to the trustworthy character of at least one Smṛti-writer, Manu — ‘Whatever Manu has said is wholesome.’

Smrticandrikā, pp. 1 et scq. — The ordinances composed by Manu and other writers, being based on the Veda, are our sole authority on Dharma. That the Smṛtis have their source in the Veda is deduced from the fact that they only expound what is contained in the Veda. Says Bhṛgu — ‘Whatever Dharma has been expounded by Manu has all been set forth in the Veda.’ Śaṅkara also says that ‘the Smṛtis have their source in the Veda.’ But this refers to only what the Smṛti says regarding spiritual matters, and not to what they lay down regarding temporal matters; as is distinctly declared in the Purāṇa — ‘All these (smṛtis) have their source in the Veda — save those portions that deal with visible (temporal) matters.’

Question. — “When the Smṛti itself only expounds whatever is already set forth in the Veda and is on that account, based upon the Veda, then the Veda itself being sufficient for all purposes, what is the use of the Smṛti or Dharmaśāstra?” — The Smrticandrikā quotes Marīci as giving the answer to this question — ‘The requisite texts of the Veda are difficult to understand and are scattered about in various places; all these are collected and explained by the Smṛtis.’

The Purāṇas are also included under Smṛti, as the Veda itself names ‘Itihāsa-Purāṇa’ along with ‘the four Vedas.’ Viṣṇu also places the Purāṇas on the same footing as ‘Manu-Smṛti,’ ‘Veda and its subsidiary sciences,’ ‘Science of Healing.’

This establishes the authority of the authors of the Gṛhyasūtras also; since all that these do is to lay down practical manuals setting forth the details of the various rites along with the necessary Mantras belonging to that individual Vedic recension to which the manual is inferred to appertain. As says Devala — ‘Manu and others are the expounders of the Law; the authors of the Gṛhyas are the expounders of the application of Law.’

Saṃskāra-Mayūkha, p. 2. — The Smṛti includes the Āyurveda Smṛtis also, as also Purāṇa and the astronomical ‘Saṃhitās,’ compilations of Varāhamihira and others; as also the Saṃhitā texts which are included in the Skandapurāṇa.

Now we have got to determine what works are entitled to be classed under ‘Smṛti’ or ‘Dharma-Śāstra,’ which latter is what is meant by ‘Smrti.’

The original Smṛti-writers are thus enumerated by Yājñavalkya (1.4-5): —

Manu,

Viṣṇu,

Yama,

Aṅgiras,

Vaśiṣṭha,

Dakṣa,

Saṃvarta,

Śātātapa,

Parāśara,

Āpastamba,

Uśanas,

Vyāsa,

Kātyāyana,

Bṛhaspati,

Gautama,

Śaṅkha-Likhita,

Hārīta,

Atri,

and Yājñavalkya himself.

The following is from Parāśara (Ācāra 12-15), where Vyāsa relates to his father the Smṛtis he has already learnt:

Manu,

Vaśiṣṭha,

Kaśyapa,

Garga,

Gautama,

Uśanas,

Atri,

Viṣṇu,

Saṃvarta,

Dakṣa,

Aṅgiras,

Śātātapa,

Hārīta,

Yājñavalkya,

Āpastamba,

Śaṅkha,

Likhita,

Kātyāyana,

Pracetas.

On Parāśara (1.20), which speaks of ‘propounders of Smṛti,’ Mādhava (p. 98), mentions the following additional names:

Vyāsa,

Yama,

Parāśara,

Bhṛgu,

Nārada,

Baudhāyana,

Pitāmaha,

Sumantu,

Kāśyapa,

Babhru,

Paiṭhīnasi,

Vyāghra,

Satyavrata,

Bharadvāja,

Kārṣṇājini,

Jābāli,

Jamadagni,

Lokākṣi.

The Smṛticandrikā reproduces the same list.

Yājñavalkya and Kātyāyana being omitted, these two lists make the number 36.

The same writer quotes from the Mahābhārata the following: —

Umā-Maheśvara,

andi,

Brahmā,

umāra,

Dhūmrāyaṇa,

Kaṇva,

Vaiśvānara,

Bhṛgu,

Yājñavalkya,

Mārkaṇḍeya,

Kuśika,

Bharadvāja,

Bṛhaspati,

Kuni,

Kuṇibāhu,

Viśvāmitra,

Sumantu,

Jaimini,

Śakuni,

Pulastya,

Pulaha,

Pāvaka,

Agastya,

Mudgala,

Śāṇḍilya,

Solabhāyana,

Bālakhilya,

Saptarṣi,

Vyāghra,

Vyāsa,

Vibhāṇḍaka,

Vidura,

Bhṛgu,

Aṅgiras,

Vaiśampāyana.

The Smṛticandrikā reproduces Paiṭhīnasi’s list (given by Mādhava), but adds that the list is not exhaustive, as in addition to them there are others also, eg., Vatsa, Marīci, Devala, Pāraskara, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Ṛṣyaśṛṅga, Likhita and Chāgaleva. It quotes Śaṅkha as enumerating

Manu,

Yama,

Dakṣa,

Viṣṇu,

Aṅgiras,

Bṛhaspati,

Uśanas,

Āpastamba,

Gautama,

Saṃvarta,

Ātreya,

Hārīta,

Kātyāyana,

Śaṅkha,

Likhita,

Parāśara,

Vyāsa,

Śātātapa,

Pracetas,

Yājñavalkya.

Also Aṅgiras quoted mentions the following and calls them Upa-Smṛti:

Logākṣi,

Kāśyapa,

Vyāsa,

Sanatkumāra,

Śāntanu,

Janaka,

Vyāghra,

Kātyāyana,

Jātūkarṇa,

Kapiñjala,

Baudhāyana,

Kaṇāda,

and Viśvāmitra.

Yājñavalkya’s and Paiṭhīnasi’s lists are reproduced also by the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 2). To them it adds ‘Viśvāmitra and the rest.’

The Purāṇa has been defined as that which has five characteristic features in the shape of the accounts of (1) Creation, (2) Dissolution, (3) Genealogy, (4) Age-Cycles, and (5) History of Dynasties.

The Viṣṇupurāna names the following eighteen Purāṇas and the Bhāgavata adds the number of verses in each:

Brahma, 10,000,

Padma, 55,000,

Viṣṇu, 23,000,

Śiva, 24,000,

Bhāgavata, 18,000,

Nāradīya, 25,000,

Mārkaṇḍeya, 9,000,

Agni, 15,400,

Bhaviṣya, 14,500,

Brahmavaivarta, 18,000,

Liṅga, 10,600,

Varāha, 24,500,

Skanda, 81,000,

āmana, 10,000,

Kūrma, 17.000,

Matsya, 14,000,

Garuḍa, 19,000

and Brahmāṇḍa, 12,000.

Total number of verses, 4,00,000.

The Brahmavaivarta has the Vāyupurāṇa in place of the Brahmāṇḍa, and this diversity is due to the two enumerations referring to two distinct cycles.

In addition to these eighteen ‘Purāṇas,’ there are 18 ‘Upapurāṇas,’ ‘secondary Purāṇas.’ These have been named in the Kūrmapurāṇa:

Sanatkumāra,

Narasiṃha, 18.000,

Nānda (recited by Kumāra),

Śivadharma (recited by Nandīśvara),

Nāradīya,

Durvāsas,

Kāpila,

Mānava,

Uśanas,

Brahmāṇḍa,

Vāruṇa,

Kālikā,

Māheśvara,

Śāmba,

Saura,

Parāśara,

Mārīca,

and Bhārgava.

In place of ‘Nānda,’ the Brahmavaivarta has Vāśiṣṭha-Laiṅga.

The Saṃskāramayūkha also reproduces the lists of the Viṣṇupurāṇa (for Purāṇas) and of Kūrmapurāṇa (for Upapurāṇas).

Vīramitrodaya, Paribhāṣā, pp. 10-24. — The knowledge of ‘Veda’ implies also the knowledge of certain other branches of study, which is essential to the proper understanding of the Veda. These have been thus enumerated by Yājñavalkya — ‘There are fourteen departments of knowledge and of Dharma. The four (1-4) Vedas along with (5) Purāṇas, (6) Nyāya, (7) Mīmāṃsā, (8) Dharma-Śāstra, (9-14) the six ‘Limbs’ or subsidiary sciences of the Veda.’

Here ‘Nyāya’ stands for the system propounded by Gautama and others, dealing with such subjects as the means of knowledge and so forth, ‘Mīmāṃsā’ for the system of interpretation propounded by Jaimini and that of philosophy propounded by Bādarāyaṇa, ‘Dharmaśāstra’ for the ordinances of Manu and others, and ‘Limbs of the Veda’ for — (a) Phonetics, (b) Rituals, (c) Grammar, (d) Etymology, (e) Prosody and (f) Astronomy.

There is a diversity of opinion regarding the lists of recognised ‘Purāṇas’ and ‘Dharmaśāstras,’ as shown above.

Smṛticandrikā, p. 5. — ‘Purāṇa’ — the Brahma and the rest; — ‘Nyāya’ — Reasoning; ‘Mīmāṃsā,’ discussion relating to the exact meaning of Vedic passages; — ‘Dharmaśāstra,’ the Smṛtis of Manu and others; and the four Vedas with the six ‘subsidiary sciences’ are the ‘means’ of knowing Dharma; and also of Dharma itself, through that knowledge.

(C) Sadācāra

Medhātithi on Manu, 2-6. — ‘Sādhūnām āchāraḥ,’ ‘Practice of good men’ also has to be construed with ‘Vedavidām’ ‘learned in the Veda,’ and the two qualifications ‘Goodness’ and ‘Vedic learning,’ come under ‘culture.’ When in regard to any action, there are no Vedic or Smṛti declarations available, but cultured people are found to do it as ‘Dharma,’ — something right — then that action is to be regarded as ‘enjoined in the Veda’ in the same manner as anything laid down in the Smṛti. What are meant by ‘practices’ here are such customs as the tying of the bracelet at marriage, the keeping of an exact number of hair-locks on the head, the exact manner of receiving guests and so forth. Each of such practices has to be taken on its own merits; it is not possible to assume Vedic texts corroborating those ither severally or even collectively; as the rightness or wrongness of a certain practice varies with circumstances; e.g., a certain cultured man may be very assiduous in attending upon his guests — never leaving them for a single moment unattended, and so forth. This may he quite agreeable to one guest who likes constant attendance; but there may be another to whom all this close attendance is disagreeable; he would prefer much rather to be left alone to himself. There is no such variation possible in regard to what is prescribed in the Smṛti; and herein lies the difference between what is prescribed in the ‘Smṛti’ and what can be learnt from the ‘Practices of the cultured.’

Sarvajñanārāyaṇa on Manu, 2-0. — In cases where we find no guidance either from Vedic texts or Smṛti or the Śīla of learned men, we have to be guided by the ‘Ācāra,’ Practice, of ‘Sādhus,’ persons engaged in the performance of acts in accordance with the Veda. ‘Ācāra’ really stands for the recalling and practising of what has been done by the good men of the past, i.e., Usage or Custom. — This is regarded as inferior to ‘Śīla’ on account of the possibility of suspicion regarding the correctness of tradition upon which it is based.

Kullūka on Manu, 2-6. — ‘Ācāra’ stands for the practice of dressing oneself in blankets or tree-bark and so forth.

‘Sādhūnām’; of the good, i.e., righteous persons.

Rāghavānanda on Manu, 2-6. — Such practice as binding of the bracelet at marriage and so forth, which is current among ‘Sādhus,’ i.e., people free from ill feeling.

Nandana on Manu, 2-6. — Nandana takes ‘Ācāra’ by itself offering no remarks about it, and construes ‘Sādhūnām’ with ‘Ātmanastuṣṭi.’

Viśvarūpa on Yājña, 1-7. — ‘Sadāchāra’ stands for those religious or spiritual (as distinguished from temporal or worldly) acts that are done by such men as are free from selfishness and devoid of hypocrisy and other defects. This is mentioned apart from ‘Smṛti,’ (1) because there is no compilation of the said practices, as there is of the ordinances; and (2) the trustworthiness of practices is doubtful, which is not the case with Smṛti.

Aparārka on Yājña, 1-7. — ‘Sadāchāra’ is the practice of cultured people, i.e., such people as are free from ill-will, vanity, possessed of sufficient funds (i.e., not in want of living), not greedy, free from hypocrisy, haughtiness, avarice, stupidity and anger; those who have studied the Veda and its supplements in the right manner, and are expert in making deductions therefrom (Baudhāyana), — the supplements being the Itihāsas, Purāṇas, and also Grammar and the other subsidiary sciences; ‘those expert in making deductions therefrom’ are those versed in the Smṛtis, — the latter being regarded as indicative of the Veda. When the texts speak of ‘Sadāchāra’ as an authority what they refer to is the fact that the customs obtaining in Brahmāvarta and other civilised lands are all based on the Veda (and not that custom qua custom is to be accepted as in itself authoritative): any custom that is repugnant to any clear text of the Veda is to be rejected. Vaśiṣṭha’s declaration that ‘all the customs current in Āryāvarta are authoritative’ means that most of them are so; as is clear from another declaration of his to the effect that customs of the cultured are to be accepted as authority only on points where no Veda or Smṛti texts are available.

Mitākṣarā on Yājña, 1-7. — ‘Sadāchāra’ — practice of the cultured, not of the uncultured.

Vīramitrodaya on Yājña, 1-7. — ‘Sadāchāra’ is thus defined in the Viṣṇupurāṇa: “Good men, free from all defects, are called Sat, and their practice, Ācaraṇa, is what is called ‘Sadāchāra.’” It is the sole authority in regard to the Holākā and such observances.

Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, pp. 8-29. — Gautama declares that such local, tribal and family customs as arc repugnant to the scriptures are not authoritative; — ‘Scripture’ here stands for ‘Veda, Smṛti and Purāṇa.’ This Ācāra stands for positive virtues, as distinguished from ‘Śīla’ which stands for the negative ones. If we connect ‘Sādhūnām’ with ‘āchāraḥ,’ then the meaning comes to be that the practices of even those not learned in the Veda are to be accepted as authoritative, when these are men free from all weaknesses and defects; it is in this sense that in the case of Śūdraṣ, the practices of one’s ancestors become an authoritative source of knowledge of Dharma.

Parāśaramādhava, p. 100. — ‘Sadāchāra’ — e.g., Holākā, Udvṛṣabha and the like. Those who ‘expound’ or ‘determine’ these are the elders of each family or tribe.

Madanapārijāta, pp. 11-12. — Dharma depends upon ‘Ācāra’ — [But this term is used here in a very wide sense, being defined as] — ‘Ācāra is the name of that course of conduct which is enjoined in Śruti and Smṛti and which is prescribed by the Good.’ — This āchāra is to be learnt from persons born in Madhyadeśa and other countries: — (a) the tract of land between Sarasvatī and Dṛṣadvatī — Brahmāvarta; (b) between Himalaya and Vindhya and between Gaṅgā and Yamunā, West of Prayāga — Madhyadeśa; (e) between Himalaya and Vindhya and the Eastern and Western Oceans — Āryāvarta.

Nṛsiṃhaprasāda-Saṃskāra. — “It is difficult to believe that the endless practices or customs that have grown, and are still growing up from time to time, should be all based upon Vedic texts. Even Manu’s declaration cannot be taken as testifying to the authority of each and every custom. For if their authority rested upon the trustworthy character of the ‘cultured’ persons among whom it is current, then there would be an interdependence; the people would be ‘cultured’ because they follow those practices and the practices would be authoritative because they are followed by those persons. Further, customs and practices are found to vary in different parts of the country; and certainly all of these cannot he authoritative.”

It is not each and every practice of the ‘cultured’ that we regard as authoritative; that alone can be regarded as a trustworthy guide which is done by the cultured people as ‘Dharma,’ that which they do knowing it to be ‘righteous.’ And certainly the many misdeeds of well-known great men that are cited could not have been done by them as ‘dharma’; when the learned regard an act as ‘dharma’ they must do so on the strength of some Vedic text known to them; hence these Practices and Customs also must be inferred to have their source in the Veda.

Smṛticandrikā, p. 5. — ‘Ācāra’ stands for the tying of the bracelet and such practices.

Ibid, p. 6. — The ‘Śiṣṭaṣ,’ ‘cultured,’ are defined by Manu (12-109) —

dharmeṇādhigato yaistu vedaḥ saparibṛṃhaṇaḥ |
te śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā jñeyāḥ śrutipratyakṣahetavaḥ ||

The paribṛṃhaṇa of the Veda being the subsidiary sciences, Itihāsa and Purāṇa. Says Bṛhaspati —

itihāsapurāṇābhyāṃ vedaṃ samupabṛṃhayet |

[This occurs in the Mahābhārata also.]

On questions where we find no Śruti or Smṛti text we are to be guided by the opinion of the ‘Pariṣad,’ ‘Assembly.’ Says Manu (12.108) —

amāmnāteṣu dharmeṣu kathaṃ syāditi ced bhavet |
yaṃ śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā brūyuḥ sa dharmaḥ syādaśaṅkitaḥ ||

This ‘Assembly’ should consist of at least 10 ‘cultured’ men — as declared by Gautama —

anāmnāte daśāvaraiḥ śiṣṭairūhavadbhiḥ alubdhaiḥ praśastaṃ kāryam |

That is, what these people say is ‘good’ should be done. Baudhāyana also prescribes the same number — daśāvarā pariṣat |

Yājñavalkya says —

catvāro vedadharmajñāḥ parṣat traividyameva vā |
sā brūte yaṃ sa dharmaḥ syādeko vā'dhyātmavittamaḥ ||

by which the Assembly should consist either (1) of four men versed in the Veda and the Dharmaśāstra, or (2) of those men each versed in three Vedas, or (3), of only one man who is the best ‘knower of the philosophy of the Self.’

Manu also (12.110 and 112) fixes the number at (1) ten or (2) three of those who are fully learned in the three Vedas.

The opinion of this ‘Assembly’ is as authoritative as the Veda itself, — says Yama.

Manu (4.178) sanctions the authority of ‘Family Custom’ —

yenāsya pitaro yātā yena yātāḥ pitāmahāḥ |
tena yāyāt satāṃ mārgaṃ tena gacchanna riṣyati ||

But this can be a guide only in matters where the scriptures are found to he at variance with one another; — as is clear from the words of Sumantu —

yatra śāstragatirbhinnā sarvakarmasu bhārat |
tasmin kulakramāyātmācāraṃ tvācared brudhaḥ ||

Saṃskāramayūkha, p. 1. — That ‘Sadāchāra’ is authoritative which is not repugnant to Veda and Smṛti texts.

(D) Śīla — Samyak-Saṅkalpaja-Kāma (Mentioned in Manu 2-6.)

Medhātithi on Manu, 2.6. — Medhātithi takes the two terms ‘Śīla’ and ‘Smṛti’ as interrelated, — the two together standing for ‘conscientious recollection’ (see under ‘Smṛti’), so that according to him ‘Śīla’ is not a distinct means of knowing Dharma. He also suggests another explanation of ‘Śīla’ by which it pertains to all acts; the meaning being that whatever one does one should do with the mind free from all ‘love and hate.’

Sarvajñanārāyāṇa on Manu, 2.6. — In cases where neither Vedic nor Smṛti tests are available one’s duty can be determined on the basis of the ‘Śīla’ of a large number of persons learned in the Veda, i.e., their ‘natural inclination,’ ‘temperament.’ In support of the authority of this we have the Vedic text which declares that ‘whatever the learned man feels is to be regarded saintly’; — wherever this is not available, we have to he guided by the ‘āchāra,’ practice, of ‘Sādhus.’

Kullūka on Manu, 2.6. — ‘Śīla’ stands for ‘devotion to Brahman’ and such other qualities enumerated by Hārīta (ride above). According to Govindarāja however it stands for ‘freedom from love and hate.’

Rāghavānanda on Manu, 2.6. — ‘Śīla’ is conduct, action, of those learned in the Veda, i.e., those who know that the injunctions contained in the Veda are to he acted up to; or it may stand for the thirteen qualities spoken of by Hārīta (see above).

Nandana on Manu, 2.6. — Nandana defines it as ‘that excellent quality of the soul which makes a man respected among the wise,’ as defined in the Mahābhārata; as an example is cited that magnanimity which was shown by Yudhiṣṭhira when he asked for the life of his stepbrother Nakula before that of his brother Bhīma and Arjuna, when all of them had been devoured by the alligator.

Yājñavalkya, 1.7. — speaks of Samyakṣaṅkalpajaḥ kāmaḥ, determination or judgment after full reflection.

Aparārka on Yājña, 1-7. — This means ‘that desire to act in a certain way which arises from rightful volition,’ i.e., the determination to attain a certain object by a definite means in accordance with the Scriptures.

According to Viśvarūpa this helps only in determining one out of a number of optional alternatives.

Vīramitrodaya on Yājña, 1-7. — ‘Samyakṣaṅkalpa’ is such volition as is free from love, hatred and such aberrations. ‘Kāma’, a well-considered vow. Or this may be the same as what Manu has called ‘Śīla,’ which has been described in the Mahābhārata as consisting in knowledge and sympathy, in thought, word and act, towards all living beings; — this is called a ‘source of Dharma’ in the sense that it is helpful in the man possessed of this quality being better able to understand what is said in the Veda. Hārīta has described ‘Śīla’ as consisting in the following ten qualities: — ‘Devotion to Brāhmaṇas, Gods and Pitṛs, sympathy, freedom from jealousy, kindly disposition, friendliness, sweet words, mercy and calmness.’ This is to be accepted as authoritative only in regard to those cases of doing (such acts as the helping of a Brāhmaṇa) which are not covered by the Vedic injunctions bearing on the subject. According to others, however, it is the authority in regard to such determinations as ‘I shall not drink water except with food.’

Another interpretation of the whole verse . — ‘ Samyak’ qualifies ‘Śruti,’ and means ‘duly understood’; and it also qualifies ‘Smṛti,’ where it means ‘based upon the Veda’; —

‘Svasya’ is to be taken by itself and construed with ‘āchāraḥ’ the meaning being ‘the practice or custom of one’s own ancestors’: — ‘priyam ātmanaḥ’ means ‘self-satisfaction’; ‘Samyakṣaṅkalpajaḥ kāmaḥ’ means the desire to act in a certain way after proper reflection; this would vary with different individuals; some men would be satisfied with the mere assertion of a trustworthy person,while others would want corroborative texts.

Mitākṣarā on Yājña, 1.7. — Such desire as is not repugnant to the scriptures, e.g., in such cases as the determination not to drink water except with food.

Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, p. 10. — This means a ‘well-considered vow’ such as ‘I shall not drink water except with food’; or it may stand for the ‘desire to do good and so forth which arises from a proper, i.e., philanthropic, determination’; in this sense it stands for the same thing as the ‘Śīla’ in Manu’s text.

Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, pp. 8-25. — The term ‘Śīla’ stands for the thirteen qualities enumerated by Hārīta. It stands, it will be seen, for the negative virtues, and is as such distinguished from ‘Ācāra,’ practice or custom, which stands for the positive ones.

On Yājña. 1.7 the Vīramitrodaya identifies the Śīla of Manu with the ‘Samyakṣaṅkalpajakāma’ of Yājñavalkya.

Smṛticandrikā, p. 5. — ‘Śīla’ connotes freedom from love, hatred and so forth.

(E) Ātmanastuṣṭi — Svasya Priyam

Medhātithi on Manu, 2.6. — This ‘self-satisfaction’ is meant to be of those only who are ‘learned in the Veda and good’ (‘Vedavidām sādhūnām’), the idea of this being that the ‘source of Dharma’ is based upon the trustworthy character of the persons concerned. When the ‘learned and good’ feel satisfied regarding the righteousness of a certain action, that action must be accepted as right; because such men can never feel satisfied with anything that is wrong. The older treatises however have explained the meaning to be that in oases of optional alternatives that alternative should be adopted in regard to which the man’s own mind feels satisfied. There is yet another explanation by which what is meant is that ‘whenever one is doing anything he should keep his mind tranquil and calm’ and in this sense like ‘Śīla,’ ‘freedom from love and hate,’ this ‘self-satisfaction’ also pertains to ‘all acts.’

Sarvajñanārāyaṇa on Manu, 2.6. — In cases where we have no other means of ascertaining the right course of action, we are to he guided by ‘self-satisfaction’; i.e., we should do that the doing of which makes us feel easy at heart and satisfies the conscience. This is inferior to ‘Śīla’ and ‘Ācāra’ as it pertains to the mind of a single individual and hence is lacking in that corroboration by others which is available in the case of the other two.

Kullūka on Manu, 2.6. — ‘Self-satisfaction’ is authoritative only in regard to the choice of alternatives.

Nandana on Manu, 2.6. — Nandana construes this with

‘Sādhūnām,’ by which explanation the meaning is that the self-satisfaction of exceptionally righteous persons is to be regarded as trustworthy.

Viśvarūpa on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Self-satisfaction’ meant here is such as is not incompatible with Vedic texts, and is not due to restlessness; — the taking to renunciation, for instance, during a time when the family is in trouble, would not be ‘lawful,’ even though one may feel self-satisfaction in it......‘Svasya ca priyam ātmanaḥ’ may also mean ‘Liberation.’

Mitākṣarā on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Self-satisfaction’ serves to determine which one of several sanctioned alternatives has to be adopted, e.g., the performance of Upanayan in the 7th or the 8th year.

Aparārka on Yājña, 1.7. — It is that which brings satisfaction to one’s own mind. This is to be accepted as authority only in regard to cases that are distinctly declared to be subject to such authority, in such texts as ‘when one feels that there is a load in his mind until a certain act is done, that act he shall do.’

Vīramitrodaya on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Svasya priyam’ means ‘self-satisfaction’; i.e., the satisfaction regarding the propriety of a certain act, in the mind of such men as arc steeped in Vedic tradition. This same idea is expressed by Bhaṭṭa Kumārila in the verse etena vaidikāneka ‘Trustworthiness belongs to the self-satisfaction of such persons as have their minds steeped in the moral grandeur of the Veda.’ This ‘self-satisfaction’ must be that of the enquirer himself, and he cannot go about seeking for that of all Vedic scholars. This is the sole authority in regard to such questions as to whether or not the performance of the expiation of a certain sin shall be repeated; this having been declared by Bṛhaspati: — ‘One should go, on doing an act until his mind becomes lightened,’ — i.e., free from the incubus of the sinful act committed. Others, however, have held that ‘self-satisfaction’ is what determines which of the several equally authoritative alternative courses of action one shall adopt.

Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, pp. 8-25. — ‘Sādhūnām’ in Manu has to be construed with ‘tuṣṭiḥ’; the sense being that when there is a doubt as to what is ‘right,’ that course of action is to be accepted as ‘right’ with regard to which there is satisfaction among ‘good men,’ i.e., men whose minds are steeped in Vedic lore. Such is the explanation given by the Kalpataru; this view has the support also of a Taittirīya text, which says — ‘When there are doubts regarding what is right, one should act in the manner that those Brāhmaṇas act who are impartial, judicious, trustworthy and highly righteous.’ This implies the authority also of the Pariṣad, ‘Council’ or ‘Assembly.’ This ‘self-satisfaction’ is authoritative only in the determining of one out of a number of optional alternatives, and there too it is authority only for the man himself; and the ‘self-satisfaction’ of one man can have no authority for another.

Nṛsiṃhaprasāda-Saṃskāra - M S. — Mere self-satisfaction is not authoritative. What is meant is that when a cultured and learned man feels satisfied that a certain course of action is righteous, that satisfaction itself is to be regarded as a trustworthy guide.

Smṛticandrikā, p. 5. — This is authority only in determining one of several optional alternatives.

Comparative Authority

Manu, 2.10. — ‘The Veda is to be known as Śruti, R evealed Word, and the Dharmaśāstra, Legal Ordinances, as Smṛti; in all matters these two do not deserve to be criticised.’

According to Medhātithi, ‘Custom’ also is included under ‘Smṛti’ here. Kullūka does not accept this view; according to him the text puts the Smṛti distinctly above Custom, which means that Custom contrary to Smṛti is to he rejected.

Manu (2.14) says — ‘Whenever there is conflict between two Vedic texts, both are to be regarded as lawful’; the same with two Smṛti texts, adds Medhātithi; i.e., the two courses of action laid down by the conflicting texts are to be treated as optional alternatives.

Viśvarūpa on yājñavalkya, 1.7. — According to Manu, in all purely spiritual matters the Veda is the highest authority; the Smṛti-writers themselves regard the authority of the Smṛti as extremely weak in comparison with that of the Śruti; all which leads to the conclusion that when Smṛti conflicts with Śruti, it is to he rejected.

Aparārka on Yājña, 1.7. — In the determining of Dharma, says Vyāsa, the Veda is the only pure source of knowledge, ‘pure,’ i. e., whose authority is beyond suspicion; — all the rest are ‘mixed’ — i. e., their authority is open to doubt. Hence that is the highest Dharma which is learnt from the Veda; what is declared in the Purāṇa anil other works is the lower Dharma. All other works of human origin are to be rejected in the matter of Dharma. Vaśiṣṭha says that “Dharma is that which is prescribed by Śruti and Smṛti; and it is in the absence of these that the ‘Practice of the Cultured’ is to be accepted as authoritative.”

Saṃskāramayūkha, p. 1. —

The order is

Śruti,

Smṛti,

Sadācāra,

Svasya Priyam,

Samyakṣaṅkalpaja-kāma.

Among Smṛtis Manu is most authoritative, as says Aṅgiras — manvarthaviparītā tu yā smṛtiḥ sā na śasyate (i.e., not to be honoured). Also the Veda itself — yad vai manuravadat tad bheṣajam | Smṛticandrikā, pp. 15-17. — Says Manu (2.14) — tu yatra syāt tatra dharmāvabhau smṛtau, i.e., where two Śruti texts are mutually contradictory, both are right; i.e., the two courses laid down are to be treated as optional alternatives. The same rule applies to cases of conflict between two Smṛti texts; says Gautama tustyabalavirodhe vikalpaḥ. — When there is conflict between Śruti and Smṛti the latter is to be rejected; so also when Custom conflicts with Smṛti, the former is rejected, as is clear from Vaśiṣṭha’s words — śrutismṛtivihito dharmaḥ tadabhāve śiṣṭācāraḥ pramāṇam. The same applies to the opinion of the Assembly also. When there is conflict between Manu and another Smṛti, the former is to be accepted; as says Aṅgiras: —

yat pūrvaṃ manunā proktaṃ dharmaśāstramanuttamam |
na hi tat samatikrasya vacanaṃ hitamātmanaḥ ||

Also Bṛhaspati —

vedā(du|rtho)panibaddhatvāt prādhānyaṃ tu manoḥ smṛtaṃ |

In cases where the same act is prescribed in equally authoritative texts in two different forms, we have to accept the more elaborate of the two and reject the simpler.

Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, pp. 25-29. — When there is a conflict between two Vedic texts, both are to be regarded as equally authoritative, and in actual practice the two courses of action are to be treated as optional alternatives. Similarly when there is a conflict between two Smṛti texts or between two ‘customs.’ When there is conflict between a Vedic text and a Smṛti text, preference is to he given to the former as possessed of inherent authority, while the latter owes its authority to an assumed Vedic text. When there is a conflict between a Smṛti text and a Custom, the Smṛti is to he regarded as the more authoritative; e.g., the custom of the marrying of the maternal uncle’s daughter cannot he accepted as authoritative when it is found to be in conflict with the distinct Smṛti text forbidding that practice.

There is a further distinction among authorities of the same class also. For instance, between two Vedic texts, if one is of doubtful import while the meaning of the other is clear, then the latter is to be given preference. If one treats of a more important matter than the other, it is to be given preference; e.g., if one deals with something to be done, while the other, with a minor detail of the act, the former is to set aside the latter. What occurs in the opening sentence sets aside what occurs in the concluding sentence; e.g., the opening sentence speaks of the ‘three Vedas,’ and the concluding sentence speaks of the ‘Ṛk Verse’ as to he recited ‘loudly,’ the signification of the word ‘Ṛk’ in the latter is sublated by that of the word ‘Veda’in the former, and the ‘loudness’ becomes connected with the three Vedas, and not with the Mantras of the Ṛk Veda only. If what is said in one text is beset with more difficulties than what occurs in another, then the former is to be rejected; e.g., one text lays down that a man who accepts the gift of horses should perform as many sacrifices as the horses he receives; while another speaks of Prajāpati having given a horse to Varuṇa and performed a sacrifice to this deity — by which the giver and not the receiver, is to perform the sacrifice; — now if we accept the former, i.e., if we accept the view that the sacrifice is to be performed by the receiver of the gift, then we shall have the following difficulties in the construing of the latter text: (1) it will be necessary to take the Dative in ‘Varuṇāya’ (‘to Varuṇa’) as standing for the Ablative (‘from Varuṇa’), and (2) to take the verb ‘given’ as standing for ‘accepted’; while on the other hand, if we accept the latter text, according to which the sacrifice is to be performed by the giver of the horse, then the only difficulty involved in the construing of the former text is to take the verb ‘accept’ as standing for ‘give’; and hence it is the former text that is rejected, and the conclusion is that the giver of a horse is to perform sacrifices. Where one thing is enjoined in connection with a particular Veda, this is given preference over what would apply to that same, in accordance with what has been prescribed in connection with another Veda; e.g., in connection with the Yajurveda we have the injunction that its Mantras are to be recited in an undertone; in accordance with this rule one may be led to think that the chanting of the Vāravantīya (Sāma-hymn) is to be done in an undertone; but this is precluded by the ‘high pitch’ that has been enjoined in connection with the chanting of the mantras of the Sāma-Veda. What is enjoined in regard to the particular ‘Vedic Recensional School’ to which the performer’s family belongs is given preference over what may have been enjoined in connection with another school. The general law is superseded by the particular, and so on.

In the case of Smṛtis also, — the ‘orthodox’ Smṛti sets aside the ‘heterodox,’ — among the ‘orthodox’ Smṛtis also, if a certain course of action is sanctioned by one, hut condemned by another, the latter sets aside the former, and the action in question is to he avoided. What is laid down in reference to imperceptible transcendental effects sets aside what is enjoined for temporal or worldly ends; e.g., the law prohibiting the killing of the Brāhmaṇa sets aside the law that ‘one may kill a person who is threatening to kill,’ as the latter course of action is meant only to serve the perceptible purpose of saving one’s life.. The Smṛti that is based upon a Vedic Arthavāda is set aside by that which is based upon a Vedic injunction; e.g., the law sanctioning the killing of the cow in honour of an honoured guest, — being based upon an Arthavāda passage commendatory of the ‘churning’ or ‘rubbing’ of sticks, — is set aside by that which prohibits the said killing, — this latter being based upon the Vedic injunctive passage — ‘Kill not Aditi, the hornless cow.’

Among ‘Custom,’ ‘self-satisfaction’ and ‘well considered vow,’ — the preceding is more authoritative than the following; as declared by the Mitākṣarā.

In some cases what is sanctioned by higher authority is rejected by what is said by a lower authority; e.g., the drinking of wine (at the Sautrāmaṇi sacrifice), even though enjoined by the Veda, is not considered right, in view of its prohibition during Kali - Yuga contained in the Smṛti.

Any Smṛti that goes against the ordinances of Manu is to be rejected — as declared by Bṛhaspati (see above). This is the view of the Kalpataru also. — Customs, local, tribal as well as family, are to be rejected if repugnant to the Veda or the Smṛti or the Purāṇa.

As between Śruti and Smṛti, the conclusion arrived at is thus expressed by Vyāsa: — ‘That law which is deduced from the Veda is the higher, while that declared in the Purāṇa and other Smṛtis is the lower; which means that in cases of conflict our first duty is to do what is laid down in the Veda, and the doing of what is declared in the Smṛti can be justified only as a substitute, i.e., to be adopted only when there is no possibility of the other being adopted. And this for the simple reason that according to Manu (11.30), if one follows the ‘second best’ course when the best course is possible, his action becomes futile; so that tho conclusion indicated by this is that even in cases of conflict tho Smṛti does not entirely lose its authoritative character; all that happens is that the course of action sanctioned by it is rendered fruitless by reason of the superiority of authority attaching to the Vedic text to the contrary.

The variability of the Law is unfeignedly declared by Parāśara in 1.22: —

‘The Law or the Right is one in the Kṛta Cycle, different in the Tretā Cycle, yet different in the Dvāpara Cycle, and yet different in the Kali Cycle, — varying as it does with the character of the Time-Cycles.’

On this Mādhava makes the following observations: —

The ‘difference’ spoken of here is, not of the nature or essence, of the Law or Right, but of its modes. If it were the former, then it would imply a corresponding diversity in the Veda also, as the source of that Law; while as a matter of fact, the Veda does not vary with the time-cycles. As regards the modes however, we have several instances of diversity; for instance, though the act of the Agnihotra- offering itself is the same, yet there is diversity in regard to the mode of performing it according as it is performed in the morning or in the evening. For instance, at the evening-performance the sprinkling is to be done with the mantra ‘Ṛtantva satyena pariṣiñchāmi,’ while that at the morning-performance with the mantra ‘Satyantva ṛtena pariṣiñchāmi.’ Thus in the present instance also, the variation lies in the mode of doing what is ‘right,’ and not in what is ‘right’ itself; the variations being due to the nature of the time-cycle and of the capacity of the man doing the acts. This matter has been fully discussed in the Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra VI.3, where the conclusion arrived at is that in the case of the Agnihotra and such other obligatory rites, only those prescribed details have to be performed which it is within the capacity of the performer to perform. Baudhāyana also has declared that the obligatory acts are to be performed to the extent that one can; they should, on no account, be entirely omitted.

The most important instance of variation is cited by Parāśara (1.23) himself — “In the Kṛta Cycle, Austerity is the highest Dharma or Duty; — in the Tretā, Learning; — in the Dvāpara, Sacrifice, — and in the Kali, Charity.” To the last Bṛhaspati adds ‘sympathy and self-control.’

There is variation, according to Parāśara (1.24), not only in Law, but also in the authority: — ‘Duringthe Kṛa, the Laws are those ordained by Manu, — during the Tretā, those ordained by Gautama, — during the Dvāpara, those ordained by Śaṅkha-Likhita, — and during the Kali, those ordained by Parāśara.’ This distinction however has never been observed in actual practice, as even up to the present time, the work of Manu holds the highest position among the Smṛtis.

Conclusion

From the above we conclude that all the authorities are agreed on the following points — (a) The Veda is the first and paramount authority, (b) The Smṛti is authoritative only in so far as it is not repugnant to the Veda, to which it owes its authority; but only on matters on which we have no paramount authority, (c) Practices or Customs are trustworthy guides, only as they are current among the ‘cultured,’ and then too only those that are not repugnant to Vedic or Smṛti texts. (d) The same with regard to Tribal or Family Customs. (e) The judgment of the ‘Assembly’ of the learned is to be accepted as authoritative only when it is not repugnant to the Veda, and only when tho judgment is ‘unbiased’ by improper feelings. There is not a single text, or ‘explanation,’ which favours the opinion that Custom is to override original texts, — an opinion that has been upheld by the Privy Council, and endorsed by eminent writers on Anglo-Hindu Law. Neither Vijñāneśvara (Mitākṣarā) nor Jīmūtavāhana (Dharmaratna) nor Nīlakaṇṭha (Mayūkha) countenances any such view; and these three are regarded by our lawyers as the founders of the principal ‘Schools of Law.’

VERSE 2.7

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

यः कश्चित् कस्य चिद् धर्मो मनुना परिकीर्तितः ।
स सर्वोऽभिहितो वेदे सर्वज्ञानमयो हि सः ॥७॥

yaḥ kaścit kasya cid dharmo manunā parikīrtitaḥ |
sa sarvo'bhihito vede sarvajñānamayo hi saḥ ||7||

Whatever Dharma for whatever person has been described by Manu, — all this is declared in the Veda; since the Veda embodies all knowledge. — (7)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse proceeds to make it clear how the authority of the Smṛti (Recollection) is due to its connection with persons knowing the Veda.

‘Whatever Dharma’ — duties relating to castes, duties relating to life-stages, duties relating to sacramental rites, in their general or special forms — ‘for whatever person’ — for the Brāhmaṇa or other castes — ‘has been described by Manu’ — ‘all this is declared in the Veda’ — i.e., is expounded in it; how this is done has been shown in the preceding verse.

‘Since the Veda embodies all knowledge’; — Veda is the cause, the source, of all that is worth knowing, in regard to superphysical things. The affix ‘mayaṭ’ has been added in the sense that the Veda is made up of all knowledge; applying to ‘knowledge’ the character of being the product of the Veda. When one thing is the produot of another, the latter is spoken of as ‘embodying’ the former, i.e., of the same nature as the other; and Veda, being the source of knowledge, is said to ‘embody’ it. According to the Sāṅkhya theory of the Product being always existent in the Cause, the Cause is of the same nature as the Product.

Or, the meaning may be that ‘the Veda proceeds from all knowledge’ as its source; the ‘mayaṭ’ affix in this sense being used according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra 4.3.81. — (7)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 20.7.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Taittirīya-Saṃhitā, 2-2-6.2. — ‘Whatever Manu has said is wholesome.’

Parāśara-Smṛti, 1.21. — ‘During each Kalpa Manu declares the Dharmas.’

VERSE 2.8

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

सर्वं तु समवेक्ष्यैदं निखिलं ज्ञानचक्षुषा ।
श्रुतिप्रामाण्यतो विद्वान् स्वधर्मे निविशेत वै ॥८॥

sarvaṃ tu samavekṣyaidaṃ nikhilaṃ jñānacakṣuṣā |
śrutiprāmāṇyato vidvān svadharme niviśeta vai ||8||

Having fully perceived all this with the eye of knowledge, the learned man should enter upon his own duties, resting upon the authority of the Revealed Word. — (8)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘All this’ — all tilings that can be known, those that are created as well as those that are uncreated (eternal); all that is dealt with in the scriptures, what is amenable to perception and other ordinary means of knowledge, and also what is not so amenable.

‘Having perceived with the of knowledge’ — in the shape of the learning of and pondering over the various sciences of Reasoning, Grammar, Philology, Mīmāmsā and the rest. The study of the scriptures is called the ‘eye’ in the sense that it is like the eye, in being the instrument of knowledge; the similitude being that ‘Dharma is known by means of scriptures in the same way as Colour is known by means of the Eye.’

‘Honing perceived’ — i.e., after having ascertained by means of due consideration.

‘Resting upon the authority of the Revealed Word.’ — i.e., in accordance with the authority of the Veda.

‘Should enter upon his duties’ — i.e., perform his dharma.

After all the sciences have been studied, the trustworthy character becomes fully established, which is not done until the sciences have been duly studied. When a man carefully ponders over the sciences, he comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds for believing in the authority of these sciences, while there are reasons for trusting the authority of the Veda.

‘Sarvam,’ ‘all,’ qualifies all that is to be known; and ‘nikhilam,’ ‘fully,’ is an adverb modifying the participle ‘samavekṣya,’ ‘having perceived,’ — ‘Having fully perceived,’ — i.e., (1) having stated, in the form of the primâ facie Argument, all possible semi-arguments in support of the view that the other sciences are authoritative, — or that the Veda is not authoritative, — (2) having refuted those arguments by means of perfectly valid reasonings based upon the established theory, — when one states his own finally considered view, the final conclusion arrived at is that the Veda is authoritative; — all this is what is implied by the term ‘fully.’ Thus though the term ‘sarva’ and ‘nikhila’ are synonyms, yet since they serve two distinct purposes, they are not regarded as being a needless repetition.

The term ‘sva,’ ‘own’ is purely explanatory; what is the ‘duty’ of one man is not the ‘duty’ of another. — (8)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Idam’ — The Śāstras (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka); — the ordinances of Manu (Nārāyaṇa); — the various said sources of the knowledge of Dharma (Nandana).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.21.5. — ‘One should undertake that act which he determines upon with due knowledge.’

Āpastamba, 2.2.2. — ‘For all castes, greatest happiness accrues from the performance of their own duties.’

Āpastamba, 2.16.1. — ‘Those who act after proper discrimination become reputed as highly righteous, and these are persons whose act has been described by Manu as Śrāddha.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 11.31. — ‘Men of all castes and in all stages of life, who are firm in their own duties, enjoy the fruits of their acts and then become born in highly qualified countries, and families, wherein they are endowed with learning, character, intelligence and happiness.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 13.2. — ‘Those firm in their own duties are free from all blame.’

Gantama-Dharmusūtra, 13.15. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa should take his food at the house of only those persons who are reputed to he addicted to their own Dharma.’

Atri-Saṃhitā, 25. — ‘Those persons who perform their own duties and remain firm therein, are loved by people, even though they may be at a distance.’

Atri-Saṃhitā, 25. — ‘Even the Śūdra, if he is firm in his Dharma, attains Heaven.

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.19. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa and the rest should remain firm in their own duties.’

VERSE 2.9

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

श्रुतिस्मृत्योदितं धर्ममनुतिष्ठन् हि मानवः ।
इह कीर्तिमवाप्नोति प्रेत्य चानुत्तमं सुखम् ॥९॥

śrutismṛtyoditaṃ dharmamanutiṣṭhan hi mānavaḥ |
iha kīrtimavāpnoti pretya cānuttamaṃ sukham ||9||

For the man performing the duty laid down by the revealed word and the recollections obtains fame here, and after death, unsurpassed happiness. — (9)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There might be some one who, being an unbeliever, might form the misconception that the acts laid down in the Veda are fruitless, and omit to do them; hence with a view to induce such a man to undertake the performance of those acts, the Author, placing himself in the position of a friend, proceeds to indicate the. perceptible results that follow from the acts in question, to say nothing of other kinds of results.

The man who performs the act, known as ‘duty,’ ‘Dharma,’ — which is ‘laid down by the Revealed Word and the Recollections — obtains ‘here,’ in this wold, as long as he lives, ‘fame,’ praise, honour, regard; that is, all men respect him and love him as one ‘who is firm in the rightful path and highly virtuous.’

‘After death,’ — in another body — he obtains that ‘happiness’ superior to which there is no other happiness. As a matter of fact, almost all the acts are prescribed in the Veda as to be done by one who desires Heaven; and ‘Heaven’ stands for ‘unsurpassed happiness’; hence it is that the author speaks of ‘unsurpassed happiness.’

For these reasons, it is only right that the unbeliever also, who seeks for nothing but visible results, should undertake the performance of the acts in question. This is the purport of the text. — (9)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Vrata, p. 14); — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 61), which explains that, ‘anuttamam sukham’ stands for the rewards that are spoken of in connection with each act; — and in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 16b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Atri-Saṃhitā, 16. — ‘By me has been described that Dharma in which remaining firm, men of the various castes acquire reputation in the world and after death attain the highest condition.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2.2.5. — ‘In course of evolution, the man, by the residue of the results of his past acts, obtains his caste, his- body, his complexion, strength, intelligence, knowledge and also other things and activities; and in its revolution, this process brings him happiness in both worlds.’ Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2.2.7. — ‘Through acts conducive to sin, one becomes born in undesirable families.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 11-31. — ‘People of various castes and in various stages of life, remaining firm in their duties, on death, enjoy the fruits of their acts, and by reason of the residue of those, become born again in a good family of superior caste, endowed with long life, learning, wealth, happiness and intelligence.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 1.2. — ‘The man who performs his duties with due knowledge becomes highly praiseworthy in the world, and after death attains Heaven.’

Dakṣa-Smṛti, 2.66. — ‘The Householder, ever intent on his own duties, partakes of Heaven.’

Laghu-Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 2.17. — ‘Whatever has been prescribed in the Śruti and in the Smṛti, — all this should be done by the Housoholder; otherwise, he becomes open to censure.’

VERSE 2.10

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

श्रुतिस्तु वेदो विज्ञेयो धर्मशास्त्रं तु वै स्मृतिः ।
ते सर्वार्थेष्वमीमांस्ये ताभ्यां धर्मो हि निर्बभौ ॥१०॥

śrutistu vedo vijñeyo dharmaśāstraṃ tu vai smṛtiḥ |
te sarvārtheṣvamīmāṃsye tābhyāṃ dharmo hi nirbabhau ||10||

The Veda should be known as the ‘revealed word,’ and the Dharmaśāstra as the ‘recollections’; in all matters, these two do not deserve to be criticised, as it is out op these that Dharma shone forth. — (10)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Objection: — “Is this a treatise on the meanings of words, a lexicon, — like the works beginning with such words as Ātmabhūḥ, Parameṣṭhī (are the names of Brahmā), and so forth, — that it is stated that ‘Revealed Word’ means the Veda, and ‘Recollections’ means the Dharmaśāstra?”

Answer: — In ordinary life, the ‘Practices of Cultured Men’ are not regarded either as ‘Revealed Word’ or as ‘Recollection,’ on the ground of their being not codified; codified treatises alone are known as ‘Smṛtis,’ ‘Recollections’; and it is for the purpose of declaring that these Practices also are included under ‘Smṛti’ that the author has set forth this verse.

‘Dharmaśāstra,’ ‘Dharma-ordinance,’ is that which serves the purpose of ‘ordaining’ (teaching) Dharma as to be done; and ‘Smṛti’ is that wherein Dharma is taught, i.e., laid down as to be done; and codification or non-codification is entirely immaterial. Now as a matter of fact a knowledge of what should be done is derived from the Practices of Cultured Men also; so that these also come under ‘Smṛti.’ Hence whenever mention is made of ‘Smṛti’ in connection with any matter, the Practices of Cultured Men should also be taken as included under the name.

“If all Dharmaśāstra (‘ordinance of Dharma’) is ‘Smṛti’ then the Veda also, which is the ‘ordinance of Dharma’ par excellence, would have to be regarded as Smṛti,” — with a view to preclude the possibility of such an idea being entertained, the author has said — ‘The Veda should be known as the Revealed Word.’ Where the words conveying the ‘Teaching of Dharma’ are directly perceived (heard), it is the ‘Revealed Word’; while where the words of Teaching are only recollected, it is ‘Smṛti’; and since this latter condition is also fulfilled by the ‘Practices of Cultured Men,’ this latter also comes under ‘Smṛti’; as a matter of fact, no authority can attach to any Practice, in corroboration whereof a Vedic text is not ‘recollected.’

Or, the mention of the ‘Revealed Word’ may be explained as serving the purpose of showing that the Smṛti is equal to the Veda.

Question: — “What is that common function of Revealed Word and Recollection which rhe present verse seeks to attribute to the Practices of Cultured Men?”

Answer: — ‘In all matters these two should not be criticised’; — ‘These two’ — i.e., Revealed Word and Recollection. — ‘In all matters’ — i.e., even in regard to apparently inconceivable things, such as are entirely beyond the scope of those means of knowledge that are applicable to perceptible things; e.g., (a) the same act of killing leads, in one case, to good, and while in another case it leads to sin; (b) the drinking of wine leads to Hell, while the drinking of Soma removes sin. In such matters, we should not proceed to discuss the various pros and cons. ‘Criticism’ consists in raising doubts and conceiving of contrary views. For example — “If the act of killing is sinful, then since the act of killing is the same in all cases, that done in the course of Vedic sacrifices should also be sinful; — if the latter killing is a source of good, ordinary killing also should be conducive to good; the act being exactly the same in both cases.”

What is prohibited here is that ‘criticism,’ in which we conceive of the form of an act to be quite the reverse of what is declared in the Veda, and proceeding to examine it by means of reasonings based upon false premisses, begin to insist on the conclusion thus arrived at. It is not meant to prohibit such enquiry and discussion as to whether the Prima Facie View or the Established Thesis is in due accord with the Veda. That such an inquiry is not meant to be prohibited is clear from what the author says later on — ‘He alone, and none else, knows Dharma, who examines it by reasonings.’ (Manu, 12.106)

Question: — “Is this criticism prohibited with a view to some invisible (superphysical) results?”

We say — no. Because it was out of these two that Dharma shone forth. [This is what is intended by the said prohibition.]

This assertion points out the fact that all the arguments, set forth by casuists in support of things contrary to what is laid down in the Veda, are fallacious. These arguments are of the following kind — “The killing of animals in the course of Vedic sacrifices must be sinful, because it is killing, like any ordinary killing.” — Now that killing is sinful is learnt from no other source of knowledge except scriptures; under the circumstances, no reason can be found to establish the sinfulness of killing until the scriptures have been accepted as authoritative; and when once the authority of the Veda has been admitted, it could not be reasonable to bring forward arguments against it, as this would invalidate the (acknowledged) authority of scriptures; and this would involve self-contradiction: at first the scriptures were admitted to be authoritative, and then subsequently they are held to be un-authoritative; and this opinion would be contrary to the person’s own previous assertion, — no casuist ever says ‘my mother is childless’; and it is also contrary to the scriptures.

The Casuist might argue as follows: —

“Scripture is not authoritative; why then should contrariness to it be regarded as undesirable? That the scripture (Veda) is unauthoritative is proved by such discrepancies as (a) untruthfulness, (b) inconsistency and (c) repetition.

(a) Such sacrifices as the Kārīrī (which is laid down as to be performed for obtaining rain) are performed by men desiring min, but as a matter of fact no rain comes after the performance. As regards the rain that might come at some future time, it has been well said — ‘The Kārīrī having been performed during the autumn, when the cornfields were drying up, if the rain falls during the spring, this only leads to cattle-disease!’ Further, as regards the Jyotiṣṭoma and such other sacrifices, which are spoken of as bringing their rewards at some future time, since the acts will have completely disappeared after performance, the assertion that their reward would come after a hundred years would be exactly like the confident assertion of the Vampirist. From this it is clear that the Veda is untruthful,

(b) There is ‘inconsistency’ also: when it is said ‘libations should be offered after sunrise,’ if it were offered before sunrise, it would be clearly wrong; as it is said — ‘those who perform the Agnihotra before sunrise utter falsehood morning after morning.’ Then again, it is said ‘that the libations should be offered before the sun has risen,’ for (it is said) ‘the offering made after sunrise would be like the offering of reception to the guest after he had gone.’ Now in the former we have the injunction of offering after sunrise, and a deprecation of offering before sunrise, while in the latter we have the reverse. So that people are always in doubt as to which alternative they should adopt.

(c) The same Agnihotra that is enjoined in one Vedic Rescension is found to be enjoined in another Rescension also; and it has been held (by the Mīmāmsakas) that the act, mentioned in the various texts, is one and the same (Agnihotra) And this is a clear Repetition.”

That there is no ‘untruthfulness’ in the Veda is what is meant by the last quarter of the Verse (‘it was out of these that Dharma shone forth’). Because out of the Veda ‘Dharma alone — i.e., only that a certain act should be done, in the form of sacrifice, — ‘shone forth,’ is expounded; and it does not say anything definite in regard to the time at which the rewards shall appear; this is clear from the fact that the passages that speak of rewards do not make mention of any time; all that we learn from the Injunction is that a certain result shall follow, and the Injunction does not specify the time. As a matter of fact, divisions of time, past, present and future, are related to what is expressed by the verbal root; while the Result is not denoted by the verbal root at all; it is only implied by the Injunction; what is denoted by the verbal root (i.e., the act of ‘sacrifice’) is actually accomplished at the time (of the performance), in the form of the offering of a substance for the benefit of a certain deity, — the fulfilment of this offering appearing in the form of the transformation of the substance offered (into the fire, for instance). Further in ordinary life also, we find that when a person, who is an obedient servant of another, is directed to go to a certain place, he at once obeys the order; though as regards his wages, in some cases he may obtain it at the very beginning; but also sometimes during the act, or even after the act has been accomplished; and then also he may get them on the same day, or the next day, or at some future time. In the same manner, there is no limit as to the time at which the results spoken of in the scriptures will appear; all that is meant is that (by the performance of the act) the result, in the shape of Heaven, Rain or so forth, is brought within reach, — and not (hat they appear on the very same day. Then again, just as there are obstacles in the way of the realising of results of acts done in the ordinary course of life, so there are also in the case of the acts prescribed by the Veda, — such obstacles consisting of past sins and so forth. This (possibility of the Rain not coming immediately after the act) is clearly shown in the Veda itself when it says ‘if the rain should not come, the man should continue as before.’ And as regards the Sarvasvāra sacrifice (which is laid down as leading the performer to heaven), people have explained that the reward does not consist in the immediate entrance to Heaven, in fact it consists in what the man actually desires, and the desire is in the form ‘may I reach heaven without difficulty [ i.e., after death; immediate translation to heaven would mean immediate death, which no man desires].

As regards the argument that there is no difference in the act of killing as done in ordinary life and as done during a Vedic sacrifice, — what has to be borne in mind is the fact that the sinfulness of the act of killing is known only from the scriptures, it is not amenable to perception or any ordinary means of knowledge; and there is certainly a difference: the ordinary killing is prompted by passion, while the sacrificial killing is prompted by Vedic Injunction; and as the killing of the animal offered to Agni-Soma is prompted by the Vedic Injunction, this constitutes a great difference. From all this it is clear that in the Veda there is nothing ‘untruthful.’

As regards ‘Inconsistency’ (which is the second point urged against the Veda), the Author is going to answer it in the text itself (Verses 14-15 below). — (10)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Amimāṃsye’ — ‘not to be called into question’ (Buhler, acc. to Medhātithi) ‘Irrefutable’ (Burnell, improved by Hopkins into ‘not to be discussed’).

For an interesting discussion regarding the anṛtavyādhātapunaruktadoṣa attaching to the Veda, the reader is referred to Vātsyāyana’s Bhāṣya on the Nyāyasūtra 2.1.58-63.

Medhātithi (p. 69, l. 4) ‘Sarvasvāre tu vivādante’ — The Sarvasvāra is an Iṣṭi sacrifice which is described as leading the sacrificer directly to heaven; and in regard to this there is a difference of opinion among Vedic scholars: some hold that entrance into heaven is not the actual result, the result being the accomplishment of what the man desires — viz., the fulfilment of his wish to go to heaven without any hindrance, whenever he may die.

This has been quoted by the Mitākṣarā under 1.7, in support of the view that the name ‘Smṛti’ is applied to the Dharmaśāstra.

Hetuśāstrāśrayāt’. — ‘Relying upon the argumentative science of the Bauddhas, Cārväkas

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 6, 10 and 12)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.6 (Sources of Knowledge of Dharma).

VERSE 2.11

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

योऽवमन्येत ते मूले हेतुशास्त्राश्रयाद् द्विजः ।
स साधुभिर्बहिष्कार्यो नास्तिको वेदनिन्दकः ॥११॥

yo'vamanyeta te mūle hetuśāstrāśrayād dvijaḥ |
sa sādhubhirbahiṣkāryo nāstiko vedanindakaḥ ||11||

If a twice-born person, relying upon the science of dialectics, should disregard these two sources, he should be cast out by good men, — the detractor of the Veda being an infidel. — (11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

On the ground of ‘untruthfulness’ and ‘unreliability’ if a twice-born person, relying upon the science of dialectics the ‘science of dialectics’ here stands for the polemical works written by Atheists, treatises of Bauddhas and Charvākas, in which it is repeatedly proclaimed that “the Veda is conducive to sin”; — relying upon such a science, if one should scorn the Veda; i.e., when advised by some one to desist from a certain course of action which is sinful according to the Veda and the Smṛti, in the words — ‘Do not do this, it is prohibited by the Veda,’ — if he disregards this advice and persists in doing it, saying, ‘what if it is prohibited in the Veda or in the Smṛtis? They are not at all authoritative’; — even without saying this, if he should even think in this manner, — and if he is found to pay much attention to the science of dialectics; — such a person should he cast out by the good — despised by all cultured persons — out of such acts as ‘officiating at sacrifices,’ ‘teaching,’ ‘honours of a guest’ and so forth. Since the text does not specify the acts (from which the man should be kept out), it follows that he should be kept out of all those acts that are fit for the learned. And the reason for this lies in the fact that it is only the ignorant man, whose mind is uncultured and who smacks of the polemic, that can speak as above (in deprecation of the Veda); and to the said acts (of officiating, etc.) it is only the learned man that can be entitled. It is in view of this that such ‘criticism’ has been prohibited in the preceding verse, — such criticism being due to want or respect, — and it does not deprecate such inquiry as might be instituted for the purpose of elucidating the true meaning of the Veda.

It is in view of all this that the author states the reason for what he has asserted — ‘The detractor of the Veda being an infidel.’ Thus the man, who would set forth arguments in support of the view that ‘the Veda is unauthoritative,’ only by way of a primâ facie statement, would not he an ‘infidel’; because such statement of the arguments would he made only for the purpose of strengthening the final conclusion (that the Veda is authoritative).

The text speaking of tin; ‘detractor of the Veda,’ has not mentioned the Smṛti; hut the idea is that both stand on the same footing, and both equally form the subject-matter of the context; hence the mention of any one of them implies both.

Some people might however take the term ‘Veda’ (in the expression ‘detractor of the Veda’) to be actually restricted to the Veda only, and they would thence conclude that ‘the detractor of Smṛtis’ should not be cast out, the casting out in this verse being declared for the ‘detractor of the Veda’ only. With a view to such people the Author adds the following verse. — (11)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hetuśāstrāśrayāt’. — ‘Relying upon the argumentative science of the Bauddhas, Cārvākas &c.’ (Medhātithi); — ‘Relying on methods of reasoning directed against the Veda’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa).

The argumentative person is always decried: see e. g. 4.30, where the ‘Hetuka’ is described as not fit to be honoured; the ‘Hetuka’ is mentionod in 12. 111. as a person who must be a member of the Pariṣad; though in the latter text the term has been explained as ‘one well-versed in the principles of Mīmāṃsā and the Śāstras’ (see Mitākṣarā on 3. 301, p. 1384).

‘Nāstiko vedanindakaḥ’ — see Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 424) where we read — ‘The detracting of the Veda is of three kinds — (1) The first is that which consists in seeking to prove the untrustworthy character of the Veda by means of arguments culled from Bauddha, Jaina and other treatises; — this has been described by Yājñavalkya as being equal in heinousness to the murdering of a Brāhmaṇa. (2) The second consists in neglecting the acts laid down in the Veda and Śrutis, through one’s tendency to wranglings and disputations; — it is this that is referred to by Manu under 2.11, who further regards it as equal in heinousness to the drinking of wine. (3) The third consists in lack of due faith, — the acts laid down being done only through fear of popular odium, and not through any faith in them; tins has been mentioned among Minor Sins.

This verse has been quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 4) which reads ‘ubhe’ for ‘mūle’ and explains it as ‘Śruti and Smṛti’; for ‘śrayāt’ it reads ‘shraya’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Hārīta-Smṛti, 7.21, — ‘That person is a Nāstika who decries what is said in the Veda, who does not discriminate between virtue and vice and who does not admit the existence of the other world.’

Yājñavalkya, 1-227. — ‘The insulting of the Teacher, the decrying of the Veda, the killing of a friend, all this should be regarded as equal to the killing of the Brāhmaṇa.’

VERSE 2.12

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

वेदः स्मृतिः सदाचारः स्वस्य च प्रियमात्मनः ।
एतच्चतुर्विधं प्राहुः साक्षाद् धर्मस्य लक्षणम् ॥१२॥

vedaḥ smṛtiḥ sadācāraḥ svasya ca priyamātmanaḥ |
etaccaturvidhaṃ prāhuḥ sākṣād dharmasya lakṣaṇam ||12||

The Veda, the Smṛti, the Practice of cultured Men, and what is agreeable to oneself — these directly constitute the fourfold means of knowing Dharma. — (12)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There is no difference here. The prohibition of detracting the Veda implies that there should be casting out of also one who detracts the Smṛti, the Practic Men and Self-satisfaction. These also describe only such Dharma as is based upon the Veda; hence the detractor of these is also the ‘detractor of the Veda.’

Objection: — “There is no need for having both the verses; a single verse would have been sufficient, somewhat to the following effect: — ‘the twice-born person, who, relying upon the Science of Dialectics, should scorn the sources of Dharma, beginning with Veda and ending with Self-satisfaction, should be cast out by all good men, on account of his being an infidel.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — Teachers do not mind the burdening (prolexity) of their works; what they make every effort to avoid is the burdening of the intellect (of the learner); as it is the latter which interferes with the right understanding of Dharma; and this misunderstanding obstructs the fulfilment of the ends of man.

Then again, even if the author had mentioned all the four sources of Dharma (as suggested by the objector), some people might still argue thus — “the author should have mentioned the Veda only, all Dharma being based upon the Veda.” Hence it is for the purpose of clearness that the author has stated the matter in both ways: the former verse being intended for those who like brevity, and both the verses for other persons.

‘What is agreeable to oneself’ is the same as the ‘self-satisfaction’ spoken of before. The term ‘oneself’ is added only for filling up the metre.

‘These constitute directly the means of knowing Dharma’ — ‘Lakṣaṇa’ means cause, indicator; and Sense-Perception is not the means of knowing Dharma, as some people have held, speaking of (the sages as) ‘persons who have directly perceived Dharma.’

In the compound ‘Chaturvidham,’ ‘fourfold,’ the term ‘vidhā’ means kind, form. As a matter of fact, Veda is the only source of knowledge of Dharma, and Smṛti and the rest are only so many forms of the Veda.

Other people have explained this second verse as serving the purpose of recapitulating (all that has been said regarding the sources of Dharma). The description of the means of knowing Dharma having been finished, it is the end of this section that is indicated by the repetition (contained in the present verse). Such is the fashion with treatises on the Vedāṅgas; e.g., ‘saṃsthājapenopatiṣṭhante upatiṣṭhante’ (when; ‘upatiṣṭhante’ is repeated for indicating the end of the section); and when the author sets forth the second verse he has in his mind the sum-total of all that has been said in the present section. It is just as the Naiyāyikas, having propounded the Proposition that ‘Word is non-eternal,’ set forth the reasons in support of it, and then re-iterate the conclusion, saying ‘therefore word is non-eternal.’ In fact such is the way of all writers; e.g., the author of the Mahābhāṣya (Patāñjali) also sometimes states the Sūtra or the Vārtika, and having explained it, repeats it again. — (12)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The first half of this verse is precisley the same as that of Yājñavalkya 1.7.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 6, 10 and 12)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.6 (Sources of Knowledge of Dharma).

VERSE 2.13

Section III - Sources of Knowledge of Dharma

अर्थकामेष्वसक्तानां धर्मज्ञानं विधीयते ।
धर्मं जिज्ञासमानानां प्रमाणं परमं श्रुतिः ॥१३॥

arthakāmeṣvasaktānāṃ dharmajñānaṃ vidhīyate |
dharmaṃ jijñāsamānānāṃ pramāṇaṃ paramaṃ śrutiḥ ||13||

The knowledge of Dharma is ordained for those who are not addicted to the pursuit of wealth and pleasures; and for those seeking for the knowledge of Dharma, the Revealed Word is the highest authority. — (13)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Wealth’ stands for cattle, land, gold and so forth, and ‘addiction’ to it means being entirely taken up with the undertaking of cultivation, service, etc., for the purpose of acquiring and accumulating wealth.

‘Pleasures’ stands for sexual pleasures; and ‘addiction’ to these means constant recourse to it, as also to its accompaniments in the shape of singing and music, etc.

For people who are devoid of these (wealth and pleasures), ‘the knowledge of Dharma,’ the true understanding of Dharma, ‘is ordained,’ specially propounded, accomplished; the verb ‘vidhīyate’ is derived from the root ‘dhīṅ’ to accomplish.

Objection. — How is it that people addicted to wealth and pleasures can have no knowledge of ‘Dharma?’ In fact such persons also, as time permits them, can obtain some knowledge of ‘Dharma,’ — by listening at the time of eating and at such times as do not interfere with their pursuit of wealth and pleasure, to stories and to the precept or example of others (who know Dharma).”

In view of the above objection, the author has added the words — ‘for those who seek the knowledge of Dharma,’ etc. The chief authority for Dharma is the Veda; and the Veda can never be understood by the persons referred to. It is extremely difficult to comprehend and for its due comprehension it requires the thorough study of the sciences of Nigama (Vedic commentaries), Nirukla (Philology), Vyākaraṇa (Grammar), Tarka (Logic) Purāṇa (History) and Mīnāmsā (Exigetics). And this entire mass of literature can never be acquired by a man unless he renounces all other activities. What can be learnt from stories and examples are only a few stray Dharmas, and not the entire body of Dharma, in the shape of the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices, along with all its accessory details, which can be learnt only from the Veda and the other sources of Dharma. It is in view of all this that the text says — ‘the Revealed Word is the highest authority.’ This how ever is not meant to take away the force of ‘Example’ as a source of knowledge.

What is stated in the text is corroborated by the following well-known saying — ‘He alone acquires learning who shuns wealth like snake, sweetmeats like poison, and women like evil spirits?

[ Another explanation of the verse.]

According to others again the expression ‘arthakāma’ stands for hankering after visible rewards — and for people ‘addicted’ to these, — those who hanker after honour, fame, etc., and who, seeking after visible results, have no other end in life save worldly advancement — ‘the knowledge of Dharma,’ i.e., ‘performance of Dharma,’ — is not ‘ordained,’ taught. The term ‘jñāna’ (’knowledge’) stands for’that in which the act becomes recognised’ (jñāyate asmin), i.e., its performance; it is only when the Dharma is performed that it becomes clearly manifest, clearer indeed than that comprehended at the time that the scriptures are studied. It is for this reason that it is the performance that is spoken of as ‘jñāna,’ ‘knowledge.’

What the text means therefore is this: — Even though the performance of Dharma brings worldly advancement, yet one should not undertake it entirely with a view to that fame; it should be undertaken with the sole idea that it is prescribed by the scriptures. The act having been done with this idea, if some visible result also follows, it may do so, but it is not what is thought of by the man. In fact the

Veda itself describes the result following from Vedic study as ‘fame and worldly advancement,’ in the passage — ‘the world progressing endows him with four things — honour, gifts, freedom from taxes and freedom from death.’ To the same effect is the following saying — ‘The water supplied for the growth of sugar-cane waters also the grasses and creepers, in the same manner when a man treads the path of Dharma, he also obtains fame, pleasure and riches.’

Objection. —

“When the act is endowed with a certain faculty, it does not lose that faculty, even though it may be performed with some other end in view; it must always bring about its natural effects; e.g., even though one may drink poison, with the idea that it is an efficacious medicine, yet it does not fail to kill him. Similarly even though the act may be done with a view to some visible reward, yet it cannot fail to bring about the invisible results mentioned in ' the scriptures. Why then should you have this aversion, which makes you assert that an act should not be undertaken with a view to worldly advancement?”

It is in view of this objection that the text adds — ‘For those seeking for the knowledge of Dharma, the Revealed Word is the highest authority.’ And what this means is that ‘those who seek for visible rewards do not obtain any invisible reward, — and it is not only that he does not obtain the invisible result, he commits sin also by being addicted to what is prohibited.’ — (13)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vidhīyate’. — Medhātithi puts forward a second explananation of this.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2.20.1. — ‘In the performance of duties one shall not allow considerations of worldly things.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1-2.7. — ‘In all countries one should imitate the behaviour of all such good men as are self-controlled, experienced, free from greed and haughtiness.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1-30.9. — ‘In cases of conflict what is laid down in the Śruti is more authoritative.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.6. — ‘When there is a conflict between two equally authoritative texts, there is option.’

Jaimini-Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, 1.3.3. — ‘When a Smṛti conflicts with Śruti, it has no authority; where it does not conflict, there is presumption of corroborative Śruti.

Also see the Comparative notes for Verse 2.6 (Sources of Knowledge of Dharma).

VERSE 2.14 [Conflict of Authorities]

Section IV - Conflict of Authorities

श्रुतिद्वैधं तु यत्र स्यात् तत्र धर्मावुभौ स्मृतौ ।
उभावपि हि तौ धर्मौ सम्यगुक्तौ मनीषिभिः ॥१४॥

śrutidvaidhaṃ tu yatra syāt tatra dharmāvubhau smṛtau |
ubhāvapi hi tau dharmau samyaguktau manīṣibhiḥ ||14||

Where there is conflict between two Vedic texts, both are held to be Dharma; both have been rightly pronounced by the wise to be Dharma. — (14)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The objection urged above (in the Bhāṣya on Verse 10) is answered here.

When ‘between two Vedic texts there is ‘conflict,’ — i.e., setting forth of contrary facts, — e.g., what is declared to be ‘Dharma’ by one text is pronounced to bo ‘adharma’ by another; — in such cases both are Dharma, — i.e., to be performed as optional alternatives. The authoritative strength of the two texts is equal; hence it cannot bo discerned which is reliable and which is not. Thus the conflict being between two equally authoritative texts bearing upon the same subject, there must be option.

Objection. —

“The text speaks of both being Dharma, which means that there should be combination (and not option); as it is only when there is combination that both could be Dharma; otherwise ( ), only one of them could be Dharma. (at a time).”

We deny this. The use of the word ‘both’ is incompatible with separate, performance (even acts performed one after the other, and not conjointly, can be spoken of as ‘both’); the word does not necessarily denote two things taken together.

Further, option is distinctly the reasonable course to adopt. The action known as ‘Agnihotra’ is one only; and with reference to this single act, three points of time have been laid down; now the action forms the primary factor, the comes in only as a subordinate element; nor is it possible to adopt all the three points of time in connection with any single performance; nor again can it be right to repeat the performance for the sake of the time; as it is never right to repeat the primary for the sake of the secondary factor. From all this it follows that option is most reasonable, as declared in the words ‘whenever there is conflict between authorities of equal force, there is option.’ (Gautama, 1.3.)

‘Both have bent proclaimed to be Dharma.’ — “What is the difference between this statement and the former one, ‘both are Dharma’?”

There is no difference; in the former statement, the author has stated his own opinion, and in the latter he supports his opinion by the opinion of other teachers, by pointing out that ‘this is what has also been proclaimed by other wise men.’ — (14)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 15) as describing the comparative authority of the several sources. Where there are two Vedic texts setting forth two conflicting views, both are to be accepted, since they have been so accepted by authorities older than Manu himself, i. e. the two are to be regarded as optional alternatives.

It is quoted also in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 136.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.6. — ‘When there is a conflict between two equally authoritative texts, there is option.’

Also see the Comparative notes for Verse 2.6 (Sources of Knowledge of Dharma).

VERSE 2.15

Section IV - Conflict of Authorities

उदितेऽनुदिते चैव समयाध्युषिते तथा ।
सर्वथा वर्तते यज्ञ इतीयं वैदिकी श्रुतिः ॥१५॥

udite'nudite caiva samayādhyuṣite tathā |
sarvathā vartate yajña itīyaṃ vaidikī śrutiḥ ||15||

At sunrise, or before sunrise, or at early dawn, — the sacrificial act may be performed at any time, — such is the pronouncement of the Veda. — (15)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is an instance of the ‘conflict’ spoken of in the preceding verse.

In regard to the offering of the Agnihotra-lilbtions, all these three points of time have been prescribed, — and the injunction of each of these deprecates the others; and the sense of these Vedic texts is that ‘the merificial act may be performed at any time’; — in all ways the offering proceeds, i.e., it should proceed. As regards the deprecation of the offering done after sunrise (which is found in the text enjoining the time before sunrise), this deprecation is not meant to be an interdict; it is only meant to be an injunction of the offering before sunrise. Similarly in the other cases. Thus what is meant is that the act may be performed at any one of the three points of time; and the command of the scriptures becomes fulfilled by the offering being done at any one time.

‘Such is the pronouncement of the Veda.’ — This is what is meant by the Vedic declaration; and it does not mean that what is deprecated is interdicted.

The ‘sacrificial act’ spoken of here is what is known as the ‘Agnihotra-homa’; there is not much difference between ‘yāga’(a sacrifice) and ‘homa’ (libation-pouring). When one renounces his proprietary right over a substance in favour of a certain deity, — the idea in his mind being ‘this belongs to the deity now, and not to me,’ — this is what constitutes ‘yāga’ ‘sacrifice’; and exactly the same is the form of ‘Homa,’ ‘Pouring of libation,’ also. The only difference is that in Homa there is the additional factor of the substance being thrown, deposited in a specified manner, in fire or some such receptacle. It is in view of this similarity that the Homa is spoken of here as ‘yajña.’ That this is so is proved by the fact that the three points of time spoken of have been prescribed in the Veda in connection with Homa, and not all kinds of sacrifice.

The expressions ‘udite’ (‘after sunrise’) and the rest are to be taken as parts of, and as standing for, such declarations as ‘udite hotavyam’ (‘the Homa should be performed after sunrise’) and so forth; — the construction being that ‘the meaning of the declaration that the Homa should be performed after sunrise, not before it, etc., etc., is as follows.’

By the compound word ‘samayā’ the time of early dawn is meant. Others have taken it as consisting of two words: ‘samayā’ meaning near, requires its correlative in the shape of something that is near; and since the two points of time mentioned in the sentence are those ‘before’ and ‘after sunrise,’ the required correlative in the present instance is the time of twilight. ‘Adhyuṣita’ stands for the time of departure of the night, and means ‘at the departure of night.’ [So the compound means ‘that twilight which comes after the departure of night.’]

The words of the text are intended to quote the words of the Veda, which are found to be read in one form in one text, and in another form in another text; so that whether the expression ‘samayādhyuṣita’ is one word or two words can be ascertained only from the original texts.

Thus then, the same act of Homa being laid down in the Veda as to be done optionally at any one of the three points of time, there is no inconsistency. It is only in connection with two accomplished entities that, when found to be incompatible with one another, they are held to be ‘inconsistent’; the same cannot be true in connection with things still to he accomplished [and all actions belong to this latter category]. For what has got to be accomplished may be accomplished either in one way or another; and how could there be any inconsistency in this?

In the case of conflicting Smṛti -texts also, the most reasonable view to take is that they lay down optional alternatives. — (15)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Samayādhyuṣite’; — The dawn (Medhātithi), — or that twilight which comes after the departure of the night (Ibid, and Govindarāja); — the time when neither the sun nor the stars are visible (Kullūka).

This verse has been quoted by the Madanapārijāta (p. 175) as indicating the two divisions of the time ‘before sunrise’; — these two divisions being ‘Anudita’ and ‘Samayādhyuṣita.’ These two are more fully described by Kātyāyana, who defines the ‘anudita’ as ‘the sixteenth part of the night, adorned by stars and planets’, — and the ‘Samayādhyuṣita’ as that time in the morning when the stars have disappeared, but the sun has not risen.

The same authority defines the ‘udita ‘sunrise,’ as that when the mere streak of the sun is visible, not all its rays.

It is quoted also in the the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Ācāra, p. 326); — in the Saṃskāraratnamālā, (p. 2) as laying down the two times for Homa, and it reads ‘homaḥ’ for ‘yajñaḥ’; — in the Ācāramayūkha (p. 65) as laying down the time for the morning Homa; — and in the Nityāchārapradīpa (p. 410.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.1. — ‘One should offer libation of cooked food both morning and evening.’

Kātyāyana-Smṛti, 1.9.35. — ‘Before the stars are distinctly visible and before the redness of the sky has disappeared, one should offer the evening oblation.’

Muṇḍopaniṣad, 1.2.1. — ‘All those detailed acts that the wise ones have found mentioned in the Vedas, — all these one should always perform.’

Muṇḍopaniṣad, 1.2.3. — ‘One who does not perform the Agnihotra, or the Darśapūrṇamāsa, or the Cāturmāsya, or the Vaisvadeva......destroys his entire family.’

Īśopaniṣad, 2. — ‘One should desire to live for a hundred years, all along doing his duties.’

Mahānārāyaṇopaniṣad, 2.1. — ‘The Agnihotra should be continued till death.’

VERSE 2.16 [Persons entitled to the Performance of Dharma]

Section V - Persons entitled to the Performance of Dharma

निषेकादिश्मशानान्तो मन्त्रैर्यस्योदितो विधिः ।
तस्य शास्त्रेऽधिकारोऽस्मिन् ज्ञेयो नान्यस्य कस्य चित् ॥१६॥

niṣekādiśmaśānānto mantrairyasyodito vidhiḥ |
tasya śāstre'dhikāro'smin jñeyo nānyasya kasya cit ||16||

That person alone, and none other, should be regarded as entitled to the scripture, for whom the sacraments beginning with conception and ending with the crematorium, are prescribed as to be done with mantras. — (16)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In Adhyāya I (Verse 103) are found the words ‘this should be studied by the learned Brāhmaṇa’; and though this is a mere Arthavāda, yet the presence of the potential affix ‘tavya’ (in the term ‘adhyetavyam’) might lead people into the mistake that it is an Injunction; and in that case the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya would be precluded from the study. It is with a view to preclude this possibility that we have the present verse, which shows the capability of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also to study.

The older commentators have also taken this verse as serving to preclude the possibility of the Śūdra studying the scripture, which he might be tempted to do.

The term ‘scripture’ here stands for the compilation by Manu.

‘Entitled,’ — the ‘title’ meant here consists in the idea that ‘this should be done by me.’ But no ‘collection of words’ — which is an accomplished entity — can be regarded as ‘to be done’; nor, on the other band, can any action be regarded as ‘to be accomplished,’ except as related to a certain substance. Hence the ‘title’ is understood to pertain to a certain action relating to the scripture. Now in the present context, the action intended is not found to be either making, or being, or existing; as for ‘being’ and ‘existing,’ they both mean ‘to be’; so that if these were the action meant, the meaning would be — ‘one should undertake the being or the existing, as related to the scripture’; but as a matter of fact the ‘being’ of one thing cannot be undertaken by another. The action of ‘making’ also would not be applicable; because so far as the words are concerned, all are eternal (and as such cannot be made); while as regards sentences, they have been already made by another person (the author of the scripture). From all this it follows that the action intended is that of studying as pertaining to the scripture. So that the meaning comes to be this — ‘the man is entitled to the study of the scripture’; and just as to the studying, so also to the learning of its meaning.

“In as much as the work of Manu has had a beginning in time, how could any injunction relating to it (as the present verse is supposed to be) be based upon the Veda, which is beginningless?”

Our answer is as follows: — It is quite open to us to infer some such general (Vedic) injunction as that ‘the Śūdra should not study such sentences as serve to expound the scriptures.’ Further, these statements of the expounders of the Veda that serve to explain Vedic texts bear a certain resemblance to these texts; and hence they are as much the subject of a bcginningless tradition as the Vedic texts themselves.

What forms the subject-matter of the scriptures is actual performance, and to this all the four castes arc entitled [though to the study of the scriptures the three twice-born castes alone are entitled].

“If such be the case, then it would be permissible for the Śūdra to perform all those acts which are prescribed in a general manner, without reference to any specified persons.”

How this contingency does, not arise we shall show, as occasion arises.

Objection: —

“When the Śūdra is not entitled to study the scripture and learn its meaning, how can he be entitled to the performance of the acts therein prescribed? Unless the man knows the exact form of the act, he cannot do it; unless he studies the scriptures, he cannot know what is contained in them; and no unlearned person is entitled to the performance of any (religious) act.”

True; but the requisite knowledge can be obtained from the advice of other persons. The Śūdra may be dependent upon a Brāhmaṇa; or a Brāhmaṇa may be doing the work of instructing people for payment; and such a Brāhmaṇa might very well instruct the Śūdra to ‘do this, after having done that’ and so forth. So that the mere fact of the Śūdra performing the acts does not necessarily indicate that he is entitled to the study and understanding of the scriptures; as performance can be accomplished, even on the strength of what is learnt from others; as is done in the case of women; what helps women (in the performance of their duties) is the learning of their husbands, which becomes available to them through companionship. Then again, the texts laying down the acts do not imply the direct knowledge (of the injunctive texts). It is only in the case of men, to whom is addressed the injunction of Vedic study — contained in the words ‘one should study the Veda’ — that the performance of duties proceeds upon the basis of their own learning; and this injunction is meant only for the male member’s of the three higher castes. But in the case of these also their study and understanding of the scriptures is not prompted by their knowledge of what is contained in them; it is prompted entirely by the two injunctions — (1) the injunction of having recourse to a duly qualified teacher, and (2) the injunction of Vedic study.

‘Conception,’ is ‘ impregnation ’; that series of sacraments which begins with this is called ‘niṣēkādiḥ,’ ‘beyinning conception.’ This sacrament is laid down as to be performed after the marriage (of the parents), — with the mantra ‘viṣṇuryoniṅkalpayatu,’ etc. (Ṛgveda, 10.18.1.1) — on the occasion of the first intercourse only, for some people, while for others at each menstrual period, till conception takes place.

That which has the ‘crematorium’ for its end is called ‘ending with the crematorium.’ The word ‘crematorium’ stands for that place where dead bodies are disposed of; and through association it indicates the rites performed for the dead, called the ‘Antyeṣṭi’; as it is only this performance that is done with mantras, and not the place (which is what is directly denoted by the word ‘crematorium’).

The qualification mentioned in the text points to the Twice-born castes; it is only these persons who have their sacraments done with mantras. The author does not say simply ‘dvijātīnām,’ ‘for the twicc-born’ (and he has taken to the round-about way of saying the same thing), because Manu Svāyambhuva has a peculiar style of composing his verses.

The passage is not to be construed to mean that ‘the sacraments are laid down in mantras’; because mantras do not contain the injunction of any acts; they are not injunctive; they only serve as reminders, during the performance of the act, of the details enjoined in other texts. Hence the passage should be explained as meaning — ‘those for whom the sacraments are laid down as to be done with Mantras.’

‘None other,’ — is purely explanatory; the rest of the sentence having already served the purpose of restricting what is said to the twice-born castes. Or, it may be taken as reiterated for the preventing of the idea that some one might entertain the notion that ‘what is laid down here is something that must be done by the twice-born castes, while for the Śūdra it is neither prescribed nor interdicted.’ — (16)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Mantraiḥ’ — This has been added with a view to exclude the woman and the Śūdra, whose sacraments are not performed ‘with mantras’ (see 2.66 and 10.127).

Burnell remarks — ‘In Vedic times the reception of outsiders into the community was, to a certain extent, recognised, and ceremonies (e. g. the Vrātyastoma) were in use for this purpose.’

It is rather difficult to be very dogmatic regarding what was, or what was not, recognised ‘in Vedic times.’ But if the ceremony of the Vrātyaṣtoma is the sole authority for the statement, then it has to be borne in mind that the writer has not comprehended the purpose of those ceremonies. If he had taken the trouble to find out what ‘vrātya’ meant, he would have found out that the ceremony was performed for the re-admission of those who had become excluded by reason of the omission of certain obligatary rites; and it was not meant for admitting absolute ‘outsiders’.

This verse has been quoted by the Mitākṣarā on 1.3 (p. 6) — in support of the view that it is the Twice-born persons alone who are entitled to study the Dharma Śāstra.

It is quoted also in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 512) to the same effect — also in the Aparārka (p. 14); — in the Smṛticandrikā (p. 18.) which explains ‘Niṣeka as the Garbhādhāna sacrament and ‘smaśāna’ as the ‘after-death rites; — and in the Varṣakriyākaumudī (p. 574) as implying that the rites are to be performed for the Śūdra also, but without Vedic Mantras.

Medhātithi (p. 73, 1. 26) — Ācāryakoraṇavidhinā svādyāyādhyayanavidhināca.’ Here both the Bhāṭṭa and the Prābhākara views of Śāstrārambha are accepted by the writer.

VERSE 2.17 [Qualified Countries]

Section VI - Qualified Countries

सरस्वतीदृशद्वत्योर्देवनद्योर्यदन्तरम् ।
तं देवनिर्मितं देशं ब्रह्मावर्तं प्रचक्षते ॥१७॥

sarasvatīdṛśadvatyordevanadyoryadantaram |
taṃ devanirmitaṃ deśaṃ brahmāvartaṃ pracakṣate ||17||

The region lying between the divine rivers Sarasvati and Dṛṣasvatī which has been created by the gods, — they call ‘Brahmāvarta’ — (17)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The sources of the knowledge of Dharma have been described; it has also been stated that in cases of couflict there is option; persons entitled to the performance of dharma have also been indicated in a general way. Now the author proceeds to describe those countries that are fit for the performance of Dharma, and where (on that account) it becomes incumbent to perform it.

‘Sarasvatī’ is the river bearing that name. ‘Dṛṣadvatī’ is another river; that which lies between these two, that region they call by the name of ‘Brahmāvarta’; that is the region which the cultured speak of by that name.

‘Created by the Gods’ — is for the purpose of eulogising the boundaries and the bounded region; the sense being that ‘the region is created by the Gods, and is therefore more sacred than all other regions.’ — (17)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The Aparārka quotes this verse along with verses 19,21 to 23, as indicating the views that the ‘black antelope’ is to serve as a mark of the ‘yajñīya deśa’ only in the case of the countries other than those described in these verses. This verse and verses 18 to 22 have been quoted in the Madanapārijāta (p. 12) in support of the view that the ‘Custom’ or ‘Right Behaviour’ that is to be regarded as authoritative and trustworthy is that prevalent among the people inhabiting the tract of land herein defined.

Other writers, among whom are Vaśiṣṭha and Śaṅkha define ‘Āryāvarta’ as that tract ‘where the black antelope roams’; which, according to Manu (2.23) is the characteristic feature of the ‘yajñīya deśa’ ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Vrata, p. 27), — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 55), which explains that the epithet ‘devanirūpitam,’ ‘created by the Gods,’ is only meant to be eulogistic; — in the Dānamayūkha (p. 7), — and in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

VERSE 2.18

Section VI - Qualified Countries

तस्मिन् देशे य आचारः पारम्पर्यक्रमागतः ।
वर्णानां सान्तरालानां स सदाचार उच्यते ॥१८॥

tasmin deśe ya ācāraḥ pāramparyakramāgataḥ |
varṇānāṃ sāntarālānāṃ sa sadācāra ucyate ||18||

That practice, which has comb down through an unbroken line op tradition among the several castes and subcastes in that country, is called the ‘Practice of Good Men.’ — (18)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Question — “As regards the usage in the said country, what is the condition of its reliability? Is it learning and culture? Or the connection of the particular country is the only condition, and the practices of the ignorant and the uncultured also arc authoritative? We ask this because if ‘learning’ and ‘culture’ are not regarded as necessary conditions, then the two qualifications mentioned in the sixth verse — in the phrase ‘the Practice of good and learned men’ — become futile. And further, it is not possible for the ‘Practice of Bad men’ to be a source of Dharma, for the simple reason that such persons can have nothing to do with the Veda. If, on the other hand, learning and culture do form the conditions of reliability, then no useful purpose will have been served by the counection of the particular country herein mentioned; because it cannot be said that practice of learned and cultured men of other countries is not authoritative.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — The statement is based upon probability; the chances are that in the country mentioned only learned and cultured men are born. This is what is meant by the assertion that ‘the Practice in that country is called the Practice of good.’

Others have explained that the verse is intended to deny the authority of a purely local ‘Practice’ (Usage), on the ground that in other countries people marry the daughter of the maternal uncle.

This explanation is not right. Because it has been laid down as a general principle that ‘from among the practices of the country, the family and the caste, only that should be done what is not contrary to law’; and the marrying of one’s maternal cousin is actually contrary to the law, as found in the injunction that ‘one should marry beyond the seventh grade of relationship on the father’s side and beyond the fifth on the mother’s’ [and the maternal cousin falls within these prohibited degrees] Further, as regards the said country of Brahmāvarta also there are certain practices — such as eating in the same dish with boys who have not undergone the Brahmanical Initiation — which are not regarded as authoritative. In fact no practice can ever be authoritative which is contrary to Smṛti; because it would be so much further removed from the Veda (the source of all authority); as the Practice leads to the inference of the Smṛti, and the Smṛti leads to the inference of the Veda; while the Smṛti leads to the inference of its corroborative Veda directly. There is another reason why Practices like the one mentioned above can never be even suspected to be authoritative. Such Practices are found to be clearly due to perceptible motives: e.g., some one having fallen in love with a handsome maternal cousin married her, through fear of the King, in order to escape from the penalty that would be inflicted for violating the chastity of an unmarried girl; and others who came after him being themselves illiterate and relying upon the words ‘one should go on on the same path on which his father and grand-father have gone’ (Manu, 4.178), taken in their literal sense, came to regard the said marrying as ‘Dharma’ (something that should he done). Then again, even though the text (4.172) prescribes an expiatory rite in connection with the taking as wife of the three classes of girls (the daughter of the Father’s sister, the daughter of the Mother’s sister and the daughter of the Mother’s brother), — yet people are liable to fall into the mistake that marriage with relatives other than the three specified here is not interdicted. That such is not the meaning of the verse (11.172) wo shall explain later on.

Now no Smṛti or Practice, that is prompted by a perceptible motive, can ever be regarded as authoritative. Says the revered Bhatta (Kumārila) — ‘That Smṛti, which is contrary to the Veda, or deprecated, and which serves a visible purpose, and is prompted by perceptible motives, can never he based upon the Veda.’

From all this it follows that what is contained in this verse is only an arthavāda, eulogising the particular country, — this eulogy being supplementary to the Injunction coming later on that ‘the Twice-born people should betake themselves to these countries’ (verse 21 below).

‘Pāramparya’ is the same as ‘paramparā,’ ‘Tradition’; which goes from one to the other, from him again to a fourth person, and so on; this succession is what is called ‘Tradition’; and ‘Krama,’ ‘line,’ stands for ‘unbroken continuity;’ — ‘come down’ means learnt.

‘Sub-castes’ — are people of mixed birth; — the ‘castes’ along with these are called Sāntarālāḥ.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 75, 1. 5) — Kāraṇagrahaṇāt.’ — When a custom or even a Smṛti rule, is found to be actually based upon some material motive, — no authority can attach to such custom or rule. Read in this connection Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1. 3. 4, which discusses the authoritative character of such Smṛti rules as, while not contradicting any Śruti-rule, are yet found to be due to ignorance or covetousness; e.g. the text laying down that the cloth with which the sacrificial post is covered should be given to the priest. The conclusion on this point is that such rules have no authority. (See, for further details, Prābhākara — Mīmāṃsā, pp. 138-139).

This verse is quoted in the Madanapārijāta (p. 12); — in the Dānamayūkha (p. 7); — in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4), — and in the Vīramitrodaya — Paribhāṣa (p. 55), which adds the following notes: — ‘Paramparya;’ is the same as ‘paramparā’, ‘Tradition,’ — i. e., that whose beginning cannot be traced; — this precludes the authority of modern customs; — ‘antarāla’ are the mixed castes; — it quotes Medhātithi to the effect that the purport of this verse is to eulogise the custom of the particular country, and not to deny the authority of the customs of other countries.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

Vaśiṣṭha, 1.7-12. — ‘Aryāvarta is the country which is to the East of the spot of disappearance, to the West of Kālakavana, to the North of Pāriyātra and the Vindhya and to the South of the Himālaya. The Dharma and practices prevalent in this country should be accepted in all places. Some people apply the name Āryāvarta to the land between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā. Brahmanic glory is coterminous with the tract over which the black antelope roams.

Vaśiṣṭha, 15.9-14. — ‘The Dharmas and Ācāras prevalent in that country should be accepted everywhere. The others are of contrary Dharma. Some people restrict Dharma to the country lying between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā. Others again state that Brahmanic glory extends all over that tract of land over which the black deer roams. The limits of this tract are hounded on the west by the river Sindhu and on other sides by the Vaitariṇī river (in Mālwā, according to Vīramitrodaya, Paribhāṣa, p. 57); and by the spot where the sun rises.’ Vyāsa, 1.3. — ‘The Vedic dharma can prevail only in that country over which the black deer roams naturally.’

Samvarta, 4. — ‘That country where the black deer constantly roams at will is to be known as Dharma-deśa, where alone the duties of the twice-born can be performed.’

Baudhāyana, 1.25.25. — ‘To the East of the spot of disappearance (of the Sarasvatī river), to the West of the Kālakavana, to the North of Pāriyātra and to the South of Himālaya, — this is Āryāvarta; it is the Sadāchāra of this country that is authoritative; according to some people it is the tract included between the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīra-Pari.,p. 57). — ‘That country is noble which lies to the East of the mountain where the Sun sets, to the West of that where the Sun rises, which is interspersed with high mountains and sacred rivers; this is the sacred land; or the land where the black antelope roams, or that to the East of the Sindhu and the Sauvīra, to the West of Kāmpilya, to the North of the Pāriyātra and to the South of the Himalaya, — here Brahmanic glory is complete.’

Paiṭhīnasi (ibid). — ‘From Himālaya to the Kumārī (Cape Comorin), from the Sindhu and the Vaitariṇī and to the place where the sun rises, or where the black antelope roams, — over this land alone is Dharma present in its complete form.’

Viṣṇu, 74.4. — ‘That country where there is no differentiation of the four castes should be known as the mleccha deśa; other than this is Āryāvarta.’

VERSE 2.19

Section VI - Qualified Countries

कुरुक्षेत्रं च मत्स्याश्च पञ्चालाः शूरसेनकाः ।
एष ब्रह्मर्षिदेशो वै ब्रह्मावर्तादनन्तरः ॥१९॥

kurukṣetraṃ ca matsyāśca pañcālāḥ śūrasenakāḥ |
eṣa brahmarṣideśo vai brahmāvartādanantaraḥ ||19||

Next to Brahmāvarta is the ‘Brahmarṣideśa,’ comprising the regions op Kurukṣetra, Matsyas, Pañchālas and Śukasenakas. (19).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

These are the names of the various regions.

‘Kurukṣetra’ is what is known as Samantapañcaka, the place where the Kurus were exterminated. The etymological signification of the name ‘Kurukṣetra h as been explained as meaning — ‘do good deeds here, and salvation shall come quickly,’ ‘kuru sukṛtamatra kṣiprantrāṇam bhavati.’

‘Matsyas’ and the rest are the names of countries, in the plural form.

‘Brahmarṣideśa’ is the name of the entire group. Brahmāvarta is the country ‘created by the Gods’; and since the Brahmarṣis are a little lower in degree than the Gods, this country, being related to Brahmarṣis, is slightly lower in grade than Brahmāvarta. This is what is meant by this being ‘next to Brahmāvarta,’ — i.e., slightly different from it; — the negative particle (in ‘a denoting slightly; just as when it is said that ‘the sick person should drink gruel when it is not-hot,’ it is meant that it should be drunk when it is slightly hot. The term ‘antara’ means different; as it is found in such assertions as ‘mahadantaram,’ ‘in the case of men, women and water, even a slight difference makes a great difference.’ (19)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The tract here described “comprises,” — says Buhler — “the Doab from the neighbourhood of Delhi as far as Mathura,” and Burnell refers us to a map in the Numismata Orientalia, Part I.

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra P. 17) which reads ‘Anantaram’ and explains — it as ‘slightly less important’; — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 56), which adds the following notes: — ‘Matsya, Virātdeśa, — Pāñchāla’ the Kānyakubja and adjacent countries, — Śūrasena, country about Mathura, — ‘anantaraḥ’ slightly inferior; — in the Dānamayūkha (p. 7.) and the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4), which have the same explanations as the Vīramitrodaya.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men).

VERSE 2.20

Section VI - Qualified Countries

एतद् देशप्रसूतस्य सकाशादग्रजन्मनः ।
स्वं स्वं चरित्रं शिक्षेरन् पृथिव्यां सर्वमानवाः ॥२०॥

etad deśaprasūtasya sakāśādagrajanmanaḥ |
svaṃ svaṃ caritraṃ śikṣeran pṛthivyāṃ sarvamānavāḥ ||20||

All men on the earth may learn their respective duties from the Brāhmaṇa born in these countries. (20)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From the ‘agrajanma,’ i.e., the Brāhamṇa — ‘born in these countries’ — Kurukṣetra and the the rest — all men ‘may learn’ — seek to know — ‘their respective duties’ — proper conduct. This has been already explained under Verse 18. — (20)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya, Paribhāṣā (p. 56) which says that this is meant only to eulogise the particular country.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men).

VERSE 2.21

Section VI - Qualified Countries

हिमवद्विन्ध्ययोर्मध्यं यत् प्राग् विनशनादपि ।
प्रत्यगेव प्रयागाच्च मध्यदेशः प्रकीर्तितः ॥२१॥

himavadvindhyayormadhyaṃ yat prāg vinaśanādapi |
pratyageva prayāgācca madhyadeśaḥ prakīrtitaḥ ||21||

The country lying between the Himālaya and the Vindhya, to the east of Vinaśana and to the west of Prayāga, is called the ‘Madhyadeśa,’ the ‘Middle Country.’ (21)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

On the north lies the Himālaya and on the south the Vindhya. ‘Vinaśana’ is the name of the place where the Sarasvatī river has disappeared. — (20)

‘Prayāga’ — is the confluence of the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā.

The region having these four as its boundaries is to be known by the name ‘Madhya-deśa.’ It is called ‘madhya’ or ‘middle,’ because it is neither very superior nor very inferior, — and not because it is located the centre of the Earth. — (21)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vināśana’ — This is the name given to the place where the river Sarasvatī becomes lost in the sands. Buhler says it lies in the district of Hissar, in the Punjab.

Buhler curiously translates ‘pratyak’ by ‘east,’ while it means west.

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (p. 18), which explains ‘vinaśana’ as the place where the Sarasvatī has disappeared; — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣa, p. 56) which locates ‘Vinaśana’ in the Kurukṣetra, — in the Dānamayūkha, (p. 7), — and the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men).

VERSE 2.22

Section VI - Qualified Countries

आ समुद्रात् तु वै पूर्वादा समुद्राच्च पश्चिमात् ।
तयोरेवान्तरं गिर्योरार्यावर्तं विदुर्बुधाः ॥२२॥

ā samudrāt tu vai pūrvādā samudrācca paścimāt |
tayorevāntaraṃ giryorāryāvartaṃ vidurbudhāḥ ||22||

The country extending as far as the Eastern Ocean and as far as the Western Ocean, and lying between the same two mountains, — the learned know as ‘Āryāvarta.’ (22).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The country that lies between the two limits of the Eastern and Western Oceans, — and between the two mountains spoken of in the preceding verse, — i.e., the Himālaya and the Vindhya, — is described as ‘Āryāvarta,’ ‘by the learned,’ — i.e., by cultured people. It is called ‘Āryāvarta’ in the sense that the Āryas line there (‘Āryāḥ vartante tatra’); i.e., it is they that are born there again and again, and the Barbarians, even though attacking it repeatedly, do not remain there.

The particle ‘āṅ’ (in ‘āsamudrāt’) indicates the outer not the inner boundary, and it does not indicate inclusion. Hence the islands in the oceans do not come under ‘Āryāvarta.’

What are mentioned here are the four boundaries of the country: the Eastern Ocean on the east, the Western Ocean on the west, the Hiṁālaya on the north and the Vindhya on the south.

In as much as these two mountains have been mentioned as ‘boundaries,’ they are not included under ‘Āryāvarta’; from this people might be led to conclude that one should not inhabit these mountains. And with a view to (avoiding) this possibility, the Author adds the next verse. — (22)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 18); — in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4), which explains ‘Tayoḥ’ as standing for the Himāvat and the Vindhya; — and in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 56).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men).

VERSE 2.23

Section VI - Qualified Countries

कृष्णसारस्तु चरति मृगो यत्र स्वभावतः ।
स ज्ञेयो यज्ञियो देशो म्लेच्छदेशस्त्वतः परः ॥२३॥

kṛṣṇasārastu carati mṛgo yatra svabhāvataḥ |
sa jñeyo yajñiyo deśo mlecchadeśastvataḥ paraḥ ||23||

But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land op the Mlecchas.’ (23)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Where the deer known as ‘Kṛṣṇasāra’ — that which is either black with white spots, or black with yellow spots — ‘roams,’ — lives — i.e., is found, born, — ‘by nature,’ — i.e., not that where it resides for a time only, having been imported as a present of rare value, and so forth; — ‘that country is to be known’ — regarded — ‘as yajñīya’ — ‘fit for sacrificial acts.’

‘Beyond that’ — i.e., the region other than the one where the Kṛṣṇasāra is indigenous — ‘is the land of the Mlecchas.’ The Mlecchas are the people who are known as lying beyond the pale of the four castes, — not included even among the Pratiloma castes; such as the Medas, the Andhras, the Śabaras and the Pulindas.

It is not meant that the sacrifices are to be performed on the very spot where the deer roams, — in the way in which they are performed ‘on level ground,’ according to the injunction that ‘one should perform sacrifices on level ground’; as we h ave ‘rooms’ in the present tense, and certainly one could not perform a sacrifice on the very spot, and at the very time, at which the deer may have started to roam. Further, a certain place is the ‘locus’ of the sacrifice only in the sense that it holds a all those things that are operative towards its performance, either as instruments or agents and the like, and certainly two material substances (i.e., the Roaming Deer and the Sacrificial Accessories) could never occupy the same spot. Nor can the condition mentioned (the roaming of the deer) be taken as indirectly indicating some, other time (than the one at which the roaming is being done); as no such indirect indication is admissible in the case of Injunctions; as has been shown under the Adhikaraṇa dealing with the ‘winnowing basket’ (Mīmāmsā-Sūtra, 1.2.26 el. Seq.), by Śabara (on 1.2.26), who says — ‘what is meant by is done is that it is capable of being done’ [and the present time is not what is meant to be emphasised].

“As a matter of fact, when one thing is spoken of as located (contained) in another, it does not mean that it occupies the whole of it; so that it is not necessary for the Locus to be occupied in its entirety, as it is in the case of the oil contained in the seasamum-seed. In fact, even when only a portion of one tiling is occupied by another, the whole of the former becomes its locus or container; e.g. when a man is spoken of as ‘sitting in the house,’ or ‘occupying the chariot.’ So that in the case in question what is described here is the entire country, consisting of villages and towns, and bounded by hills and rivers; and when the deer roams even in some part of it, the whole country becomes its locus. Hence there is no force in the argument that ‘two material substances cannot occupy the same spot.’”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — In the present instance there is no direct injunction, such as ‘one should perform sacrifices here (in this country)’; as the injunctive affix is found added to the root ‘to know’ (in the word ‘jñeyaḥ’), and not to the root ‘to sacrifice.’ All that is meant is that the country spoken of is ‘fit for sacrifices’; the meaning being that ‘this country is fit for sacrificial performances’; and this ‘fitness for sacrifices’ is possible even without a direct injunction (of the actual performance). The fact of the matter is that it is only in the countries mentioned that the several sacrificial accessories, in the shape of the kuśa -grass, the Palāśa, the Khadira and other trees, are mostly found; and sacrificial performers also, in the shape of persons belonging to the three higher castes and learned in the three Vedas, are found only in these countries; and it is on the basis of these facts that the countries have been described as ‘fit for sacrifices.’ The verb ‘jñeyah’ ending in the verbal affix (‘yat’) also has the sense of the injunctive only imposed upon it, and in reality it is only an Arthavāda resembling an injunction; just like the passage ‘jartilayavāgvā vā juhuyāt,’ (‘one should offer either the wild seasamum or the wild wheat’) [which, even though cotaining the injunctive word ‘juhuyāt,’ has been regarded as an Arthavāda resembling an injunction],

When again it is said that ‘beyond this is the land the mlecchas,’ this also is purely descriptive of the usual state of things; the sense being that in these other lands it is mostly mlecchas that are born; it does not mean that people inhabiting them are all (on that account) ‘mlecchas’; because what is a ‘mleccha’ is well known, just like the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and other well known castes. In fact, the name ‘mlecchadeśa’ is to be taken literally, in the sense that it is ‘the country of mlecchas’; so that if mlecchas happen to conquer a part of Āryāvarta itself and take their habitation there, that also would become ‘mlecchadeśa.’ Similarly if a certain well-behaved king of the Kṣatriya-caste should happen to defeat the mlecchas and make that land inhabited by people of the four castes, relegating the indigenous, mlecchas to the category of ‘Chāṇḍāla,’ as they are in Āryāvarta, then that which was a ‘country of the mlecchas’ would become a ‘land fit for sacrifices.’ And this for the simple reason that no laud is by itself defective; it is only by association that it becomes defective, just as it is when soiled by impure things. Hence, even apart from the countries designated here as ‘fit for sacrifices,’ if, in a certain place, all the necessary conditions are available, one should perform his sacrifices, even though it be a place where the spotted deer does not roam.

From all this it follows that the statement — ‘this should, be known as the country fit for sacrifices, and beyond is the land of the mlecchas’ is purely descriptive, being meant to be supplementary to the injunction that follows in the next verse. — (23).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kṛṣṇaṣāraḥ — Burnell — “What animal is intended it is impossible to say. In Southern India, a pretty little, but rare, gazelle is taken for it. It does not however answer to the name so far as its colour (light brown) goes.”

From the explanation given by Medhātithi the deer meant is that which is ‘black with white spots’, or ‘black with yellow spots’; and there is no doubt that the animal meant is that which is black in the upper, and white (or yellow) in the lower parts of its body.

Medhātithi (p. 76, 1. 26) — ‘Śūrpādhikaraṇe’ — in Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1-2-26; and the next sentence ‘etaddhi kriyate ityucyate’ is from Śabara on that Sūtra, — the whole sentence being — ‘etat (i. e. shakyate kartumiti) hi kriyate ityucyate, na ca vartamānakālaḥ kaschidasti yasyāyam pratinirdeṣhaḥ.’

‘Mleccadeśastvataḥparaḥ’ — Note the liberalised interpretation of this provided by Medhātithi. Burnell curiously enough regards this to be an ‘order to dwell in this land’. There is no ‘order’ to dwell in the Mleccadeśa. The countries to be inhabited having been defined and all beyond these being designated as ‘Mlechadeśa’, the term ‘these countries’ of verse 24 refers, as Medhātithi clearly points out, to Brahmāvarta, Madhyadeśa, Brahmarṣideśa and Yajñīyadeśa; and the order to dwell contained in verse 24 also refers to those, and not to the ‘Mlecchadeśa’, which is ‘beyond these.’

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 18), which adds that the country described as ‘fit for sacrificial performances’ is meant to be so used only when the aforesaid four countries are not available; — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā,p. 56), which explains ‘Yājñiyaḥ’ as ‘fit for sacrificial performances’, and ‘Mlecca’ as ‘unfit for sacrificial performances’; — and in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men).

VERSE 2.24

Section VI - Qualified Countries

एतान्द्विजातयो देशान् संश्रयेरन् प्रयत्नतः ।
शूद्रस्तु यस्मिन् कस्मिन् वा निवसेद् वृत्तिकर्शितः ॥२४॥

etāndvijātayo deśān saṃśrayeran prayatnataḥ |
śūdrastu yasmin kasmin vā nivased vṛttikarśitaḥ ||24||

The twice-born people should seek to resort to these countries; the Śūdra may however, when distressed for a living, reside in any land. — (24).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author now proceeds to state that injunction for the sake whereof the names of several countries have been set forth.

‘The twice-born people.’ even though they be born in another country, should ‘resort these countries’ i.e. to Brahmāvarta, etc. Abandoning the country of their birth, they should make every effort to reside in Brahmāvarta and the other countries just described.

In connection with this some people hold that the injunction of residing in these countries is with a view to unseen (spiritual) results; the sense being that even though certain results might accrue to one in other countries also, yet people should reside in these countries; and when we come to look for the reward of such residence, — we may conclude, either (a) that the residence in the said countries is enjoined as purificatory, just like bathing in the Gaṅgā and other sacred places, — the idea being that just as the water of one place is more sacred than that of another, so also it is only some regions that are sacred, as has been described in the Purāṇas; or (b) that from the mere residence itself the man goes to Heaven, this assumption being on the analogy of the Viśvajit sacrifice.

Neither of these two views is admissible. If the present verse had laid down such residence as would not be possible (without this injunction), then there might be some justification for assuming a reward, and for considering which of the two alternatives mentioned (in the previous paragraph) is the more reasonable. As a matter of fact however, the possibility of the residence in question is already secured by the fact that it is only in the said countries that the performance of the compulsory and optional rites is possible; in fact, apart from the said countries, there is no possibility of the performance of Dharma in its entirity. For instance, in the snowy regions of Kāśmīra and such places, people suffer so much from cold that they are unable to attend to their evening prayers outside their house; nor (for the same reason) is it possible to read the Veda in the proper manner, going out either to the east or to the north of the village; nor lastly, is it possible to bathe in the river every day during the winter.

-----------------

The implication of the expression ‘twice-born people’ is that no country can be ‘the land of mlecchas’ except when it is inhabited by mlechhas. For otherwise any man entering that country would at once become a ‘mleccha’; and as such how could he be a ‘twice born’ person? It might be argued that — “by merely entering that country one does not become a mleccha, he becomes so only by residing there, and it is this residence that is prohibited here.” — But this can not bo accepted; because what is mentioned here is ‘resorting,’ which connotes the idea of the man being born in one country and then leaving it and going to another country; and there can be no ‘resorting’ to a place which is already inhabited. If this were not meant, then the Author would have simply said that ‘one should never reside in any other country after renouncing these.’ It might be argued that “the ‘resorting’ being already accomplished, the re-iteration of it serves the purpose of precluding others.” — But in that case this would become a ‘Parisankhyā’ a ‘Preclusive Injunction and such injunctions are beset with three defects.

It might be argued that “it is the abandoning (of the countries) that is indirectly indicated, the sense being that one should never abandon these countries.”

But so long as the direct meaning of a text is admissible, there can bo no justification for admitting an indirect indication. For this reason what has been said above cannot be accepted. From all this it follows that what the words imply is that men do not become ‘mlecchas’ by merely coming into contact with a certain country, it is the country that becomes ‘the land of mlecchas’ through the contact of men (mlecchas).

In as much as service of the twice-born people constitutes the prescribed duty of the śūdra, it follows as a matter of course that the latter should reside where the former reside; but if he fails to obtain a living in that country, then he may go. and live in another country; this is what is permitted (in the latter part of the verse). When the man comes to have a large family, or becomes unfit for service, — even though the twice-born person on whom he is dependent may be prepared to support him, — the śūdra may go and live in another country, where there may be a chance for him to acquire wealth. But even so he should never live in a country where mlecchas form the majority of inhabitants; he should betake himself to a land fit for sacrifices; because if he lived in a country abounding in mlecchas it would be impossible for him to avoid their contact, in the course of moving, sitting, eating and so fourth; so that there would be the fear of his becoming a mleccha.

‘Distressed for a living,’ — i.e., suffering from want of a living. ‘Living’ means wealth sníficient for the maintaining of one’s family. In the absence of such ‘living,’ there is a curtain amount of ‘distress;’ and this distress which is caused by the want of living is spoken of as caused by the ‘living’ itself; just as good harvest being the effect of rain, famine is caused by want of rain, but is spoken of as ‘caused by rain.’

‘In any country’ implies want of restriction.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in the Aparārka (p. 6) as permitting the Śūdra to reside, for the sake of livelihood, in ‘Mleccā’ countries also; — in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 56), which explains ‘vṛtti’ as ‘livelihood ‘karṣitaḥ’ as ‘in difficulty’, and the compound ‘vṛttikarṣitaḥ’ as ‘one who is in difficulties regarding livelihood — and in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana, 1-30. — ‘Āraṭṭa, Kāraskara, Puṇḍraka, Sauvīra, Baṅga, Kaliṅga, Prāsūna, — if one goes to those countries, he should perform the expiatory rite of either Punaḥstoma or Sarvapṛṣṭhā.

Baudhāyana. — ‘Anantaka (Dvārakā), Aṅga, Magadha, Surāṣṭra, Dakṣiṇāpatha Upāvṛt, Sindhu, Sauvīra, these countries are of mixed origin.’

Ādipurāṇa (Vīra-Pari., p. 59). — ‘A person horn in Āryāvarta either twice-born or not, should never cross the Karmāda (Karmanāśā), the Sindhu or the Karatoyā. The twice-born person should never go beyond Āryāvarta except on pilgrimage, or in obedience to the order of his parents.’ In Magadha, the sacred places of pilgrimage are Gaya, the river Poonpoon; the Hermitage of Chyavana and the forest of Rājagṛha.’

Vāyu-purāṇa (Ibid). — ‘Kāñchī, Kośala, Saurāṣṭra, Karṇāṭa, Kacheha, Kāverī, Kolvaṇa (land near the Tryambaka Hill, near Nāsik), — these tracts are not commended. That tract of land over which the five rivers (Śatadru, Vipāśā, Airāvaiī, Chandrabhāgā and Vitastā) flow is called Āraṭṭa; the Ārya should not permanently dwell in this country. One who crosses the Narmadā, the Sindhu aud the Kosi, or goes to the West of Puṣkara, and lives there beyond the time of pilgrimage, goes to hell. — Aṅga, Baṅga, Kaliṅga, Andhra, Madra, Mālavika, tract to the South of the Narmadā or to the North of the Sindhu, Pauṇḍra, Surāṣṭra, Vaindhya, Māgadhaka, Khaśa, — these are all sinful tracts.’

Vāyu-purāṇa (Ibid). — ‘The country bounded on the South by the Mahānadī, and on the North by Magadha is the country of Triśaṅku, with an area of 48 square miles; this country should be avoided.’

Vāyu-purāṇa (Ibid, p. 57). — ‘Wise men should take shelter in that country where there is prosperity due to the black antelope, barley, grass, the four castes and the four life-stages.’

Skanda-purāṇa (Vira-Pari., p. GO). — ‘Aṅga, Baṅga, Kaliṅga, Parvata, Khaśa, Sindhu, Sauvīra, Saurāṣṭra, Pārada, Andhra, Mālava, — these the twice-born should avoid. But when pressed for livelihood, the Householder may betake himself to these countries.’

Bhaviṣya purāṇa (Do., p. 55). — Brahmāvarta is the best country; less than that is the Ṛṣideśa; less than this latter is the Madhyadeśa; next to that comes the Āryāvarta.’

Chāndogya Upaniṣad (quoted in Vīra-Paribhāṣā, p. 60). — ‘One shall not approach the Caṇḍāla, nor the inferior country.’

Pitāmaha (Do., p. 60). — ‘One may reside even in the kingdom of the Śūdra, if the Gaṅgā flows through it: even though that country may he inhabited by uncultured people, yet it is a sacred land.

Vyāsa (Do., p. 61). — ‘Those places, those countries, those mountains and those hermitages are sacred through which the best of rivers, the Gaṅgā, flows.’

Viṣṇudharmottara (Do.). — ‘The righteous man should reside at Prabhāsa, at Puṣkara, at Kāśī, at Naimiṣa, at Amarakaṇṭaka, on the Gaṅgā or on the Sarayū.’

VERSE 2.25 [Summing up]

Section VII - Summing up

एषा धर्मस्य वो योनिः समासेन प्रकीर्तिता ।
सम्भवश्चास्य सर्वस्य वर्णधर्मान्निबोधत ॥२५॥

eṣā dharmasya vo yoniḥ samāsena prakīrtitā |
sambhavaścāsya sarvasya varṇadharmānnibodhata ||25||

Thus has the source of Dharma been briefly explained to you, as also the origin of all this (world). Learn now the duties of the several castes. — (25).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Here we have the recapitulation of all that has gone before, — and this for the purpose of refreshing the memory.

‘Yoniḥ’ — ‘source,’ cause.

‘Samāśena’ — ‘briefly,’ in brief.

‘Sambhavaśca’ — ‘also the origin’ — this refers to what has gone in Discourse I.

‘Of all this’ — this refers to the ‘creation of the world,’ which is recalled in the form of a mental picture, and thus brought before the eye (which makes it capable of being referred to by the pronoun ‘this’).

‘The duties of the several castes’ — The duties that should he performed by the various castes.

‘Learn’ — i.e. in detail.

In this connection, the author of the Smṛtivivaraṇa describes five kinds of Dharma or Duty: —

‘Varṇa-dharma,’ ‘duties pertaining to caste;’

‘Āśrama-dharma,’ ‘Duties pertaining to Life-stages,’

‘Varṇāśrama-dharma,’ ‘duties pertaining to caste and life-stage’;

‘Naimittika-Dharma,’ ‘Occasional Duties,’

and ‘Guṇa-Dharma’ ‘Duties pertaining to qualification.’ —

(1) Of these, that which proceeds entirely on the basis of caste, and takes no account of age, life-stage or any such circumstances, is called ‘duty pertaining to castes;’ e.g., what is laid down in such rules as — ‘the Brāhmaṇa should not be killed,’ ‘wine shall not be drank by the Brāhmaṇa’ — refers to a particular caste only, and is meant to apply to every person of that caste till his very last breath.

(2) ‘Duty pertaining to life-stage’ is that which does not depend upon caste only, but takes account of a particular life-stage also; e.g., ‘Fire-kindling and alms-begging are the duties of the Vedic student’ (Gautama 2.8).

(3) ‘Duty pertaining to caste and life-stage’ is that which is related to both; e g., when it is prescribed that ‘the bow-string made of grass is the girdle for the Kṣatriya student,’ it means that what is mentioned does not apply to any other life-stage (than that of the student), nor to any other caste (except the Kṣatriya); — what is meant to he the example here is the wearing of the girdle during student-life, not the first taking of it, which forms part of the Upanayana-rites, and does not pertaiṇ to the particular life-stage; and the Upanayana itself is what ushers in a particular life-stage, and it is not a ‘duty pertaining to the life-stage.’

(4) The ‘Occasional Duty’ consists of such acts as the purifying of things and so forth.

(5) ‘Duty pertaining to qualifications’ is that which is presented in connection with special qualifications; e.g., what is laid down in such rules as ‘he should be absolved from six’ is with reference to the qualification of ‘vast learning;’ to this same category belong also all those duties that are laid down for the ‘annointed’ Kṣatriya.

All these are meant to be included under the ‘of the castes’ (mentioned in the text); and hence the text mentions those only; and it does not make mention of the sub-divisions, because in the first place there are endless subdivisions, and secondly, (if the text went about mentioning all possible kinds of duties) it would have to mention those many duties also which are laid down for men in general, without reference to any particular caste. Similarly with other varieties of ‘Duty.’ In fact the ‘Duties pertaining to castes’ have been mentioned only as an indication; it does not mean that the duties of the mixed castes are excluded from consideration; because this latter has also been promised (in 1.2) as the subject to lie expounded; and the present statement is only meant to be the reiteration of that promise. — (25)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Dharmasya’ — Govindarāja alone takes this to mean ‘spiritual merit others agree in taking it as ‘duties

Medhātithi (p. 78,1.28) — ‘Iha pañcaprakāro dharmoḥ’ — This view is here attributed to the author of the Smṛtivivaraṇa. Kullūka quotes the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa to the same effect.

Modern writers and lecturers on what they call ‘Varṇā-śramadharma’ should note the exact connotation of this name, as here explained by Medhātithi.

VERSE 2.26 [Duties and Sacraments]

Section VIII - Duties and Sacraments

वैदिकैः कर्मभिः पुण्यैर्निषेकादिर्द्विजन्मनाम् ।
कार्यः शरीरसंस्कारः पावनः प्रेत्य चैह च ॥२६॥

vaidikaiḥ karmabhiḥ puṇyairniṣekādirdvijanmanām |
kāryaḥ śarīrasaṃskāraḥ pāvanaḥ pretya caiha ca ||26||

For the twice-born persons corporeal consecration, beginning with ‘Conception,’ should be performed with auspicious Vedic rites; it purifies in this world and also after death. — (26)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘Vedic rites’ spoken of here are mantra-recitations. ‘Veda’ here stands for mantras; and what ‘arises out of them’ (which is what is expressed by the affix in ‘Vaidikaiḥ’) is the ‘reciting’; hence the nominal affix ‘ṭhañ’ comes under the provisions of the Vārtika on Pāṇini, 4. 3. 60.

Or, the word ‘vaidika’ (Vedic) may he taken as figuratively applied to the rites, on the ground of their source lying in the Veda. ‘Karma,’ ‘Rites,’ would, in this case, stand for the act constituting the procedure; and hence becomes possible the differentiation and the relation of cause and effect (between the Karma and the Saṁskāra which is expressed in the assertion — ‘the consecration, saṁskāra, should he performed by means of the Rites?

‘Conception’ — is the depositing of the semen in the womb, and ‘niṣekādiḥ’ stands for that body of sacraments to he described below, which liegins with the said ‘Conception’ and ends with ‘Initiation’ ( Upanayana). The singular number in ‘Śarīrasaṁskāraḥ,’ ‘corporeal consecration,’ is due to the whole body of sacraments being taken collectively. ‘Consecration’ means the preparation of a qualified body; and the Eeveral sacraments serve to produce in the body special qualifications.

This is what is meant by the term ‘pāvanaḥ,’ ‘it nurifies,’ removes impurities.

‘In this world and also after death’. — This means that the person duly consecrated becomes entitled to the performance of all those acts that, like the Kārīri and other sacrifices, lead to material results, -as also those that, like the Jyotiṣṭoma etc., bring spiritual rewards; and hence the consecrations are of use in both worlds.

‘Puṇyaiḥ’ — ‘auspicious,’ ie., propitious; i.e., they bring good luck and remove bad luck. Thus there is a clear difference between the word ‘puṇy a’ and ‘pāvana’ here.

‘For the twice-born persons,’ — this serves to exclude the Śūdras. This word serves to point out who are the persons to be consecrated; and it is only by indirect indication that the three higher castes arc understood to be meant; for before consecration, they are not yet ‘twice-born’ (the ‘second birth’ consisting of the consecration). — (26)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vaidikaiḥ karmabhiḥ’. — The term ‘vaidika-karma’ here stands for Vedic mantras; — or for rites prescribed in the Veda. Both explanations are found in Medhātithi and Govindarāja; Kullūka notes only the latter explanation.

This verse has been quoted in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 132) as laying down the necessity of performing the Saṃskāras. Here also both the above explanations are noted. — It explains the term ‘śarīra’ in the compound ‘Śarīrasaṃskāraḥ’ to stand for the constituents of the body. — ‘In this world and also after death’ — has been explained as implying that the Saṃskāras help ‘after death’ by enabling the man to perform such sacrifices as lead him to heaven, and they help ‘in this world’ by enabling him to perform such sacrifices as the Kārīrī and the like, which bring desirable results in the world, in the shape of rain, children and so forth. — It is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 36), to the effect that sacramental rites are performed with Vedic Mantras in the ease of the Twice-bom persons only; it adds that these sacraments are called ‘pāvana’, ‘purificatory’ of the person, because, performed with Vedic Mantras, they serve to destroy sins.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 7.7. — ‘Sanctified by means of the forty sacraments.’

Gautama-Dharmnsūtra, 7.14. — ‘Four are the Vedic observances.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.10. — ‘From Conception till Death, the rites of the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya are performed with Mantras.’

Yama (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 132). — ‘The Śūdra also should be sanctified; hut without Mantras,’

Baijavapa (Ibid). — ‘For the Śūdra also, the following sacraments have been ordained — Niṣeka, Puṃsavana, Sīmantonnayana, Jātakarma, Nāmakaraṇa, Annaprāśana, and Chaula, — as to he done without Mantras.’

Jātūkarṇya (Ibid, p. 134) — ‘For the Śūdra, there is Marriage as also the Final (Death) Rites.’

VERSE 2.27

Section VIII - Duties and Sacraments

गार्भैर्होमैर्जातकर्मचौडमौञ्जीनिबन्धनैः ।
बैजिकं गार्भिकं चैनं द्विजानामपमृज्यते ॥२७॥

gārbhairhomairjātakarmacauḍamauñjīnibandhanaiḥ |
baijikaṃ gārbhikaṃ cainaṃ dvijānāmapamṛjyate ||27||

Of twice-born men the taint of seed and womb is removed by the ‘Libations in connection with Pregnancy’ and by ‘Jātakarman’ (Rites attendant upon birth), ‘Chauḍa’ (Tonsure) and ‘Mauñjībandhana’ (Tying of the grass-girdle). (27)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The statement that ‘corporeal consecration is purifying and auspicious’ has pointed out the use of the Sacraments Now, ‘purification’ consists in removing the impurities of the impure thing; and the question arises — “whence the impurity of the Body?”

It is in answer to this that the text speaks of ‘the taint of seed and womb,’; — ‘of the seed,’ is that which arises from, or is due to, the seed; — similarly ‘of the womb’ (is that which arises from, or is due to, the womb). ‘Taint’ is evil, an unseen source of pain. All that is meant by this is that the Body is impure, owing its birth to the seed and the womb. The ‘seed’ of man consists of semen and ovule; and these by their very nature, are impure. Similarly the womb, is impure by contamination. And the ‘taint’ of the man thus caused is ‘removed? wiped away, by the sacraments.

These sacrameuts are now mentioned ; some are actually named, while others are left to be indicated by the peculiar circumstances of what is sanctified.

‘Libations in connection with pregnancy,’ — thoso that are offered when the pregnancy of the woman has come about, — or those that are offered for the purpose of bringing about pregnancy; in either case the libations are said to be ‘in connection with pregnancy.’ What prompts the offering is the pregnancy, the woman being only a means to it; so that the libations, being prompted by pregnancy, are said to be in connection with it; and these are the rites of ‘Pumsavana,’ ‘Sīmantonnayana’ and ‘Garbhādhāna.’ The word ‘libation’ here stands for the whole rite; as the ‘Garbhādhāna’ (‘Conception’) is certainly not a ‘Libation.’ The exact details of the rites, regarding the substances to be offered, the duties and so forth — arc to be found out from the Gṛhyasūtras.

Just as by the ‘libations in connection with pregnancy’. so also by the sacrament known as ‘Jātakarman’ (Rites attendant upon birth). Similarly by ‘Tonsure’; — ‘Chauḍa,’ ‘Tonsure,’ is meant that which is performed for the purpose of the ‘cūḍā’ (the- lock of hair left to grow on the crown of the head). ‘Tying of the gross-girdle’ is Upanayana; as it is at this ceremony that the girdle of muñja-grass is tied, this indicates that rite. ‘Nibandhana’ is the same as ‘bandhana’; and the prefix ‘ni’ has been added for filling up the metre.

‘Jātakarman’ and the rest — which are the names of the sacraments — have been made into a copulative compound, and then have the instrumental ending added to show that they are instrumental in the removal of taint.

------------

Every ‘consecration’ brings about some peculiarity, either seen (material) or unseen (spiritual), in the thing consecrated, which is subservient to something else to be brought about, and has either already subserved, or is going to subserve, the purposes of this latter thing. For instance, in the case of the ‘threshing of the corn’ and ‘offering sacrifices with the corn,’ the ‘threshing’ (which is the ‘consecration’ or ‘purification’ in this case) produces in the corns, that are going to help in the accomplishment of the sacrifice, the visible peculiarity, in the shape of the removal of the chaff. [So that in this case the thing consecrated is going to subserve some useful purpose]. When again it is said that ‘removing the garland from the head one should keep it in a clean place,’ the garland is something that has been used (and served its purpose) and has become mangled in shape; so that the special method of its disposal (after use) only produces an invisible effect. Now all the sacraments mentioned in the text are prescribed for the purpose of the purification of the body; but they are not found to bring about in the body any such effects as the removal of bad odour, etc., which is done by washing with clay and water. Hence the ‘purification’ in this case should be understood to consist in some unseen effect; just as has been held to result from the particular time at which the birth of the individual takes place. And when the man has become purified by such purification, he becomes fit for the performance of acts prescribed in the Smṛtis and in the Vedas; just as the Butter sanctified by mantras is fit for use in libations. In connection with ordinary (non-religious) acts, all necessary purity is attained by the (external) purification of things; as in the case of the Butter required for eating. As for that ‘purity’ of the boy which consists in his touchabien?ss, this is brought about by the ‘washing with water’ mentioned as the means of purifying the body (in 5.109). Hence has it been declared that ‘there is no impurity arising from his touch.’

Objection. —

“How can these sacraments be regarded as subserving the purposes of actions? As regards the ‘sprinkling of butter,’ it is only natural that through the butter it should subserve the purposes of the sacrificial act, in Connection with which it has been prescribed. These sacraments however lie entirely, outside the pale of any action; — their injunction not occurring in the context of any sacrificial act. So it is difficult to say that they help in the sacrifice through the man (in the way in which the does through the butter). And unless it subserves the purposes of an act, consecration cannot be performed for its own sake; as in that case it should cease to be a ‘consecration’ (which is always subsidiary to something else), and become a primary act itself, and (when it ceases to be a consecration) this would mean the nullification of the statement ‘corporeal consecration should be performed’ (verse 26), and also of the Accusative ending in the statement ‘when, the boy is born, before he is touched by any other person, the father should etc.’ (which refers to the Birth-rites); and in that case, the sense of the injunction will have to be altered, as is done in the case of the injunction ‘Saktūñjuhoti’ [where the incompatibility of the Accusative ending leads us to alter it into the Instrumental ], — a particular result (as arising out of the consecration, as a primary act by itself) will have to be assumed; and so forth, a number of absurd assumptions will have to be made.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — What we mean by the consecration subserving the purposes of sacrifices is-not that it is a subsidiary integral part of these, — which character is indicated by Direct Vedic Declaration and certain other means; all that we mean is that it is helpful to it; and this helpfulness is possible even without the one forming an integral part of the other. For instance, we have the injunction regarding the ‘laying of fire’ and that relating to ‘Vedic study’; but there is no Direct Injunction or any other indication (of these forming part of any sacrifice); all that we find is the Vedic text ‘offerings are made into the which lays down the ‘Āhavanīya’ (as the receptacle of the offerings); and as the precise nature of the ‘Āhavanīya’ is superphysical, the only way in which it can be brought into existence is by means of the prescribed ‘laying of fire,’ which is contained in the text ‘the Brāhmaṇa should lay the fires during spring’; so that the ‘laying of fire’ helps in the sacrificial performance through the bringing into existence of the Āhavanīya, and yet it does not form an integral part of the performance. ‘Vedic study’ also helps in the sacrificial performance, through the knowledge of the meaning of Vedic texts (acquired by the study).

Analogous to these two is the case of the sacraments:

• the act of Vedic study can be done only by one who has had these sacraments performed,

• it is only when one has carried out the injunction of Vedic study that he can marry,

• it is only when one has married that he can ‘lay the fire,’

• and it is only one who has ‘laid the fire’ that is entitled (to the performance of sacrifices).

It is in this way that even though the sacraments are laid down apart from the sacrificial injunctions, yet their due performance is helpful towards the sacrificial acts.

Since the text speaks of ‘Niṣeka’ (conception, depositing of the semen) as the first of the sacraments, it follows that all the sacraments for the child are to be performed by the father. Thus the mantra for the ‘Rites on Birth’ reads — ‘You are my very soul, bearing the name of son’ (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 14. 9. 4. 8.) [which clearly shows that it is recited by the father]. It is for the father again that the begetting and instructing of children has been prescribed as a duty in the verse — ‘Having paid off the three debts etc.,’ (6.35); and the passage. It is for this reason that the duly instructed son is called the real son,’ speaks of ‘instruction,’ which consists in teaching the boy his duties; and we shall show later on that this ‘instruction’ is accomplished only by teaching hi m the Veda up to the point where the boy comprehends its full meaning. It is thus that the sacraments are of use to both: they help the father in the begetting of the right sort of child, and they help the boy in the performance of those acts that can be done only by one who has been duly consecrated. Thus it is the father on whom devolves the task of having the sacraments properly performed; and on his death, for hi m who takes his place; for instance, it is said ‘he who h as not been consecrated should be consecrated by his brothers who have had their consecration already done.’ (Yājñavalkya, 2.124). — (27)

The author next indicates, by way of illustration, those acts in which the sacraments of the Boy are helpful: —

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 80, 1. 8) — Gṛhyasmṛtibhyo — vasātavyam — see Āśvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra 1-13-14.

Medhātithi (p. 80, 1. 10) ‘Mekhalā badhyate’ — see Gautama, 1-15.

This verse has been quoted by the Mitākṣarā on 3.253 (p. 1285), where it has been taken to mean that the sacrament of the Upanayaṇa wipes off all the sins committed by the boy prior to it.

It is also quoted in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 134) and has been taken to mean that the Sacramental Rites are meant only for the ‘Twice-bom — and in the Aparārka (p. 25), as indicating that the sacraments are meant for the Twice-born only, on the ground that they have been mentioned after the injunction of Upanayaṇa which pertains to the Twice-born only. It is quoted in the Smṛtikaumudī (p. 48), which notes that the term ‘Saṃskāra’ (Sacrament) connotes destruction of sin or impurity.

It is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 36), which adds the following notes: — ‘Bīja’ stands for semen-ovule, the impurity due to defects in that is called ‘baijika’ — that due to residence in the womb is called, ‘gārbhika’; — ‘homaiḥ’ includes the Garbhādhāna and other rites that are accompanied by libations into fire; — and in the Saṃskāra - ratnamālā (p. 5) to the effect that Homa is to be performed by the Twice-bom only; — ‘baijika’ is such impurity relating to the semen-ovule as is due to the intercourse having taken place at a forbidden time, — ‘Gārbhika’ is the impurity due to residence in a womb that is not quite clean; — it quotes Medhātithi to the effect that as.the ‘semen-ovule’ and the ‘womb’ cannot be the effects of any sins of the child, the ‘enaḥ’ mentioned in the text must be taken as standing not for actual sin, but for the impurity or uncleanliness due to the child’s physical connection with them.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 27 and 28)

Sumantu (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 131). — ‘The sacraments common to the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, are the following — Garbhādhāna, Sīmantonnayana, Jātakarma, Nāmakaraṇa, Annaprāśana, Cūḍā, Upanayana, Vratacaryā, Adhyayana, Samāvartana, Vivāha, Yajña and Dāna.’

Hārīta (Ibid, p. 135). — ‘There are two kinds of Sacraments — Brāhma and Daiva; the Garbhādhāna and the rest ending with Snāna, which are proscribed in the Smṛtis, are “brāhma”; the Pākayajñas, the Haviryajñas and the Somayajñas are “daiva”.’

Jātūkarṇya (Ibid, p. 135). — ‘The sixteen sacramental rites are the following —

(1) Ādhāna,

(2) Puṃsavana,

(3) Sīmanta,

(4) Jāta,

(5) Nāma,

(6) Anna,

(7) Chaula,

(8) Mauñjī,

(9-12) the four Vratas,

(13) Godāna,

(14) Samāvartana,

(15) Vivāha,

and (16) Antya.’

Āṅgiras (Ibid). — ‘

(1) Garbhādhāna,

(2) Puṃsavana,

(3) Sīmanta,

(4) Bali,

(5) Jātakṛtya,

(6) Nāmakaraṇa,

(7) Niṣkrama,

(8) Annaprāśana,

(9) Chaulakarma,

(10) Upanayana,

(11-14) the Four Veda-vratas,

(15) Snāna,

(16) Udvāha,

(17) Āgrayaṇa,

(18) Aṣṭakā,

(19) Śrāvaṇī,

(20) Āśvayujī,

(21) Mārgaśīrṣī,

(22) Pārvaṇa,

(23) Utsarga,

(24) Upākaraṇa,

(25) Mahāyajñas;

these are the obligatory sacraments, specially for the Brāhmaṇa. It is by means of the sacraments that Brāhmaṇahood comes to be gradually manifested.’

Āśvalāyana (Ibid, p. 136). — ‘The five mahāyajñas are to be performed daily; the sixteen cuding with Marriage are naimittīka, to be done on prescribed occasions; the Pārvaṇa is to be done every month, or if this be not possible, then every year; the seven sacrifices beginning with Āgrayaṇa are to be performed once in the year.’

Gautama (Ibid, p. 137). — ‘The following are the 10 Sacraments —

(1) Garbhādhāna,

(2) Puṃsavana,

(3) Sīmantonnayana,

(4) Jātakarma,

(5) Nāmakaraṇa,

(6) Annaprāśana,

(7) Chaula,

(8) Upanayana,

(9-12) the four Veda-vratas,

(13) Snāna,

(14) Sahadharmacāriṇīsaṃyoga,

(15-19) the five mahāyajñas,

(20-26) the seven Pākayajñas — Aṣṭakā, Pārvaṇa-Śrāddba, Śrāvanī, Āgrahāyaṇī, Caitrī and Āśvayujī,

(27-33) the seven Haviryajñas — Agnyādheya, Agnihotra, Darśapūrṇamāsa, Cāturmāsya, Āgrayaṇeṣṭi, Nirūdhapaśubandha, and Sautrāmaṇi,

(33-40) the seven Somayajñas — Agniṣṭoma, Atyagniṣṭoma, Ukthya, Ṣoḍasbī, Vājapeya, Atirātra and Āptoryamā’

...‘He who has not had these forty sacraments, nor is endowed with the eight qualities of the soul (sympathy for all beings, forgiveness, freedom from jealousy, purity, equanimity, good character, non-miserliness) is never united to Brahman, nor does he attain the regions of Brahman.’

Hārita (Ibid, p. 130). — ‘He who has been sanctified by the Brāhma Sacraments becomes equal to the sages and becomes united with them and attains their regions; and he who is sanctified by the Daiva sacraments becomes equal to the gods, is united with them and reaches their regions.’

Do. (Aparārka, p. 25). — ‘When the women of the twice-born castes are sanctified by the performance of a single sacrament, every child that they bear thereafter becomes sanctified thereby.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Ibid, p. 110). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa who is endowed with the two sets of sacraments and is equipped with the eight qualities (of the soul) attains the regions of Brahman.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 25). — ‘Just as a picture becomes manifested through the gradual appearance of the several limbs, in the same manner Brāhmaṇahood becomes manifested through the lawful performance of the sacraments.’

VERSE 2.28

Section VIII - Duties and Sacraments

स्वाध्यायेन व्रतैर्होमैस्त्रैविद्येनेज्यया सुतैः ।
महायज्ञैश्च यज्ञैश्च ब्राह्मीयं क्रियते तनुः ॥२८॥

svādhyāyena vratairhomaistraividyenejyayā sutaiḥ |
mahāyajñaiśca yajñaiśca brāhmīyaṃ kriyate tanuḥ ||28||

This body is made godly, — by a thorough study of the three Vedas, by Observances, by libations, by offerings, by children, by the Great Sacrifices and by the Sacrifices. (28)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘svādhyāya’ here stands for the act of studying (in general; and not for Vedic study, which is what it ordinarily means); and the subject-matter of the study is therefore indicated by the term ‘of theThree Vedas,’ ‘traividyena.’ Even though the two terms (‘svādhyāyena’ and ‘traividyena’) do not stand in close proximity, yet they are construed together on account of their denotations being correlated, in accordance with the law that ‘when the denotation of one term is connected with that of another, they should be taken as correlated.’ Hence, even though both the terms are in the same (Instrumental) case, yet one (traividyena) may be taken as denoting the object of the other (svādhyāyena) by altering the signification of the case-ending; the phrase ‘traividyena svādhyāyena’ thus being construed as ‘trayāṇām Vedānām (traividyasya) adhyayanena (svādhyāyena),’ ‘by a thorough study of the three Vedas’

‘Traividya’ is the compounded form of ‘trayo’; the formation of the term being similar to that of such terms as ‘chaturvarṇya’ and the rest.

Or, ‘svādhyāyena' may be taken (as usual) in the sense of the study of the verbal text of the Vedas, and ‘traividyena' in that of the study of their meaning.

‘By Observances’ — by the ‘Sāvitra’ and other observances kept by the Religious Student.

‘By Libations’ — i.e., those that are poured at the time of the Initiation, — or the kindling of fire with fuels, which the Religious Student has to do every morning and evening, may be spoken as ‘libation,’ on account of Fire being the receptacle of the act of kindling (just as it is of the act of pouring libations).

“Is not the putting of fuel on the fire really a ‘libation’ — that you should call it so simply from the said analogy?”

People say that it is not really a ‘libation because ‘libations’ and ‘offerings’ consist only of eatable substances.

“How then does the author himself say (under 2.186) that ‘the Religious Student should, every morning and evening offer the libation (juhuyāt) of fuels into the Fire’?”

It is only in a figurative sense that the ‘laying of fuel’ is called ‘homa’, ‘libation’; the idea being that the fuel for the kindling of fire is thrown into it in the same manner as substances are poured as libations; and it is on the basis of this analogy that the kindling is called ‘libation’ In the original injunction (of fire-kindling) the words used are ‘sami dham-ādadhyat,’ ‘should lay the fuel’ [where the word ‘homa,’ ‘libation’ is not used]. As for the words (in Manu, 2.186) ‘agnim juhuyāt tābhih,’ (‘should offer the libation of fuels into fire’), we shall point out later on that they are purely explanatory (not mandatory), and mean something quite different; and in explanations, figurative expressions are not out of place.

[This is the view of some people]. The right view however is that the offering of any fit and proper substance constitutes the acts of ‘Yāga’ (Sacrifice) and ‘Homa’ (Libation). It is only in this sense that we can rightly comprehend several injunctions. For instance, we have the injunction ‘praitaram praharati,’ where ‘praharati,’ is taken to mean ‘offer in sacrifice’ and ‘prastaram’ (‘bed of Kuśa-grass’) is taken as the substance offered [and certainly the ‘Kuśa-bed’ is not an eatable substance],

“In this particular instance, we have to take the ‘sacrifice’ as consisting of the offering of the Grass-bed, simply because it is so directly enjoined. And further, Kuśa-grass also is eatable for some.”

Well, how is it then in the case of the ‘Śākala-homa’ (where pebbles are offered)?”

“In that case also it has to be done in that way, because of the direct injunction — ‘one should offer the pebbles’.”

What explanation can there be of the case of the ‘Grahayāga,’ where fuels of the arka and other plants are offered to each of the Grahas?

From all this it is clear that wherever we have the term ‘juhuyāt’ (‘should offer libation’) and the connection of a Deity also is mentioned, in the original Injunction, the act is to be regarded as ‘Homa,’ ‘Libation.’

‘By offerings’ — i.e., by offerings to the Gods and Ṛṣis.

Up to this point we had the duties of the Religious Student.

Next follow the duties of the Householder.

‘By children,’ — i.e., by the act of begetting children.

‘By the great sacrifices’ — i.e., by the five ‘sacrifices,’ consisting of Brahtnayajña and the rest.

‘By sacrifices,’ — i.e., by the Jyotiṣṭoma and other Vedic Sacrifices.

The question being raised that — “if there were any useful purpose served by these acts, then alone could there be any use for the sacraments which fit a man for these acts,” — the Author says — ‘this body is made godly,’ ‘tanuḥ.’ — ‘Brahma’ here stands for the Supreme God, the Creator; and this ‘tanu,’ body, is made ‘related to God,’ ‘godly,’ — by all these acts, which are laid down in the Veda and in the Smṛtis. ‘Godliness’ meant here is that which consists in being transformed into the very essence of God; as this is the highest end of man; as for other forms of ‘relation to God,’ this is already an accomplished fact for all beings, — for the simple reason that God is the Creator of all things; and hence these other relations cannot be anything to be longed for. For this reason it is the attainment of ‘Final Release’ that must be meant here.

The term ‘brāhmī,’ ‘godly’ — as also the term ‘tanu,’ ‘body’ — refers to the personality ensouling the body; as it is the personality that is consecrated by the sacraments; and it is the personality that attains Final Release; as for the physical body, it entirely perishes.

Others have explained the phrase ‘it made godly’ to mean that ‘it is made capable of reaching Brahma as (they argue) the actual ‘becoming Brahman’ is not possible by means of acts alone; Final Release (which is what is meant by(becoming Brahman’) is'attainable only by means of Knowledge and Action conjointly. Hence what the text means is that the man, by the said acts, becomes entitled to meditate upon Ātman (Brahman). To this end we have the Vedic text — ‘O Gārgi, when anyone, without knowing the Imperishable One, sacrifices, pours oblations, performs penances, studies the Veda or gives charities, all this becomes perishable’ (Bṛha dāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 3. 8. 10).

-------------

Objection. —

“Nowhere in the Veda is the attaining of Brahman declared to be the reward of the actions here enumerated. For instance, (A) as for the compulsory acts, they are prescribed as being without rewards. If we.were to assume rewards, such an assumption would be purely human in its source (and as such not authoritative). And since the Veda has declared them to be compulsory by means of such phrases ‘throughout one’s life’ and the like, there can be no justification for applying the principle.of the V sacrifice (and assume the reward to consist in the attaining of heaven). If it were argued that — ‘from the present verse of Manu itself we learn that the said Acts bring the mentioned rewards,’ — then it would come to this that only such persons are entitled to these acts as long for Final Release; which would deprive them of their compulsory character; and this would be contrary to what has been declared in the Veda. It may be argued that — ‘inasmuch as no one ever undertakes a fruitless act, (if no rewards were mentioned) the laying down of the acts would be futile.’ ‘But there may be no performance at all; that does not matter; the use of a ‘source of knowledge’ lies in making things known; if it has succeeded in doing this, its purpose has been served; and the present verse does clearly indicate some acts as to be done; and if this indication is accomplished (the purpose of the scriptural injunction has been served); if people do not perform those acts, they transgress the behests of the scripture, and thereby incur sin. All old writers have explained the sense of the Injunctive etc., on these lines. If a servant does not perform his duty, as he is ordered to doby his master, cither he does not obtain his wages, or he incurs sin. Now as regards the compulsory acts, since no rewards are mentioned (in the form of wages), the evil that follows is not in the form of losing the reward, but in the form of suffering pain. It is only in this manner that we can explain the fact of, all men being required to perform the compulsory acts. From all this it follows that in the case of compulsory acts there is no reward. (B) As regards the optional acts, other results have boen declared as following from them, and not Fin l Release (the one mentioned here). How then could this Final Release be such an end of man as is accomplished by the mere performance of acts?”

It is just in view of these considerations that the text has been explained as a mere ‘arthavāda,’ meant to eulogise the injunction of the Sacraments.

Some people have taken the expression ‘godly’ figuratively — on some basis or other — to mean ‘capable of reciting the Veda and of performing the acts prescribed in the Veda’; ‘brahma’ being taken as equivalent to ‘Veda.’

“How is it then that Gautama (8. 8) has spoken of ‘forty sacraments’? There the Soma-sacrifice also has been mentioned as a sacrament; and certainly a primary sacrifice (as the Soma-sacrifice undoubtedly is) can never have the character of a mere consecratory sacrament. Nor is it possible to take this part of Gautama’s Sutra as an arthavāda; as all the forty sacraments are spoken of as being on the same footing.”

As a matter of fact, the statement of Gautama is purely commendatory, the Soma-sacrifice being spoken as a ‘sacrament’ in the sense that it brings about in the performer’s soul a peculiar aptitude.

Similarly in the present context real Sacraments have been mentioned along with non-sacraments with a view to indicate that both equally lead to the same result; and the purpose served by this is to show that the performance of all of them is necessary. It is thus not necesary to take the verse as apart from the section dealing with Sacraments.

Then again, the term ‘is made’ is meant to be commendatory, as is shown by the fact that we have the present tense, and not the injunctive affix. So that there is nothing to justify the idea that ‘the attaining of Brahman’ is the reward (of what is enjoined). In fact the present verse does not enjoin any actions; and hence there cannot arise any desire on our part to know their result, which could justify the assumption that the present tense has the force of the Injunctive; as has been done in the case of the Rātrīsatra, in connection with which even though we have the present tense in the term ‘pratit ṣṭhanṭi’ (‘obtain a standing’), yet it is taken as laying down the result following from the Bātrisatra.

From all this it follows that all that is said in the verse is for the eulogising of the Sacraments.

Some people interpret the verse by breaking it up into two parts — taking it to mean that ‘the attaining of Brahman is the reward of the compulsory acts, and of the optional acts the rewards are such as are actually mentioned in the Veda along with these acts.’

But there is no authority for this; because the entire verse is purely commendatory: specially as it has been already explained that the compulsory acts are performed without the idea of any rewards. It is in view of this that our Author has said (under 2.2) that ‘it is not right to be absorbed in desires.’ — (28)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vrataiḥ’ — (a) ‘The particular observances kept by the student while studying particular portions of the Veda (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘the voluntary restraints, such as abstention from honey, meat and such things’ — (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda) — ‘such observances as the Prājāpatya penance’ (Nandana).

‘Traividyena’ — ‘By learning the meaning of the three Vedas’ (Medhātithi and Nandana); — ‘By undertaking the vow to study the three Vedas in thirty-six years, as mentioned under 3.1 (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

‘Ijyayā’ — ‘Ijyā’ here stands for ‘the offering to the gods, sages and Pitṛs’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — or ‘the Pākayajñas’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

‘Brāhmīyam kṛyate tanuḥ.’ — ‘Related to Brahman;’ i. e. ‘united with the Supreme Spirit’ — according to Medhātithi, who also notes that according to ‘others,’ the meaning is that ‘the body is made fit to attain Brahman.’ As the reference is to the ‘tanuḥ,’ ‘body,’ Burnell understands that ‘Brahman’ stands here for the ‘world-substance, not as a spiritual, but as a physical force’. This however is entirely off the mark.

This verse is quoted in the Mitākṣarā (on 1. 103, p. 76) as setting forth the desirable results acruing to the man who offers the Vaiśvadeva offerings, which latter, on this account, cannot be regarded as sanctificatory of the food that has been cooked.

This verse is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 140), where the words are thus explained: — ‘Svādhyāya’ stands for the learning of the Veda; — ‘Vrata’ for the Sāvitrī and other observances; — ‘Traividyā’ for the knowledge of. the meaning of the three Vedas; — ‘Ijyā’ for the worshipping of the gods and others; — ‘Brahmā’ for related to Brahman, through the knowledge of that Supreme Being.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 27 and 28)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.27.

VERSE 2.29 [The ‘jātakarma’ sacrament]

Section IX - The ‘jātakarma’ sacrament

प्राङ् नाभिवर्धनात् पुंसो जातकर्म विधीयते ।
मन्त्रवत् प्राशनं चास्य हिरण्यमधुसर्पिषाम् ॥२९॥

prāṅ nābhivardhanāt puṃso jātakarma vidhīyate |
mantravat prāśanaṃ cāsya hiraṇyamadhusarpiṣām ||29||

For the male child, before the cutting of the umbilical cord the performance of the Jāta-karma (Birth-rite) has been ordained: (it consists of) the feeding of him with gold, honey and butter, to the accompaniment of Mantras. — (29).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Vardhana’ is cutting.

‘Jātakarma’ is the name of the particular rite. The exact form of this rite is to be learnt from the Gṛhya-sūtras, In answer to the question as to which is the act to which the name ‘Jāta-karma’ is applied, the author adds — ‘the feeding with gold, honey and butter?.’ ‘Of him’ refers to the child; or, it may refer to the rite; the sense being that ‘of rite’ of Jāta-karma, the principal part consists in the feeding of the child to the accompaniment of mantras.

‘To the accompaniment of mantras’, — i.e., the act should be done along with the reciting of mantras. Though the present text does not specify the mantras, yet, since all Smṛtis have the same end in view, we must accept those same mantras that are prescribed in other Smṛtis. Hence it follows that the mantras that should be recited are those that have been mentioned in the Gṛhya-sūtras.

“If it is necessary to call in the aid of the Gṛhya-sūtras, the substances (Gold, Honey and Butter) also need not have been mentioned here; as in the Gṛhya-sūtra we find the following words (in Apastamba’s Gṛhya-sūtra, 1.15.1). — ‘The child should be made to eat butter, honey and the essence of gold with a golden ladle, with the mantra, Prati dadāmi madhuno ghṛtaṣya etc.’ Further, there are many Gṛhya-sūtras; the mantras also that are prescribed in the various Gṛhyaṣūtras are different; the very procedure of the rite is variously prescribed; so that (if we were to seek for information from the Gṛhyas) we would fail to know which one of these we should adopt. It might he argued that the name of the particular Vedic Rescension (which the performer has studied and with which a particular Gṛhyasūtra is connected) would help to determine the exact procedure to be adopted. But in that case, there can be no use in Manu laying down the ‘Birth-rite’ and the other sacraments; as these also could be learnt from the Gṛhyasūtras themselves. Every sūtra is named after a particular Vedic Rescension, — e.g., ‘Gṛhya of the Kaṭhas,’ ‘Gṛyya of the Āśvalāyanas’ and so forth; so that a man would naturally adopt that procedure which is laid down in the Gṛhya that is named after the Rescension to which he belongs.”

To the above our answer is as follows: — The fact that the substances (Honey, etc.) mentioned in the text are just those prescribed in the Gṛhyas in connection with the ‘Jātakarma,’ shows that the rites mentioned (here and in the Gṛhya) are the same. This is what leads us to the recognition that — ‘the rite ordained here having the same name and the same substances as those found in the Gṛhyas, this must be the same as that.’ In several cases we recognise a thing through its qualities. And when the rites are one and the same, if a certain detail is not mentioned in one text, it has to be brought in from the other text, specially when there is no inconsistency between the two. It has been decided that th e act (of Agnihotra) prescribed in the several rescensional Vedic texts is one and the same; and the analogy of this leads us to conclude that the act (of the sacrament) as prescribed in the several Smṛtis (of Manu and of the Gṛhya-sūtras) must be one and the same. As regards the uncertainty that has been urged by the objector as to the exact procedure to be adopted, in face of there being many, Gṛhyas laying down diverse procedures, — our answer to that is that all the Gṛhyas being equally authoritative, what one has got to do is that when the details varying in them are those relating to the end, he may adopt any one of them optionally, while if the details varying relate to different purposes, he should employ them all. The name of the Vedic Rescension can never form the determining factor. Because the name of the Vedic text in relation to a particular individual is not such an invariable factor as his ‘yotra and pravara’ are; for a man is called after that Vedic Rescension which he happens to study: if he has studied the ‘Kāthaka’ rescension he is called ‘Kāṭhaka,’ and if he has studied the Ṛgveda, he is called ‘Bahvṛca’; and in regard to studying there is no such hard and fast rule as that ‘such and such a man should study only such and such a rescensional text.’ Then again, a man very often studies several Vedic texts, as is ordained (by Manu, in 3.2) — ‘Having studied the Vedas &c. &c. and one has studied all the three Vedas comes to be known by all such names — as ‘Ka?thuma’ (Sāmavedin) ‘Kāṭhāka’ (Yajurvedin) and Bahvṛca’ (Ṛgvedin); and in this case one must have recourse to option. For the man however who studies a single Vedic text, it is only right that he should adopt the procedure prescribed in the Gṛhya that is named after that Vedic text; in fact, he can follow only that procedure; as he has studied only the mantras occurring in that particular text; and these alone he can recite (properly). In fact the only knowledge that he possesses of the Rite is what is derived from that particular text.

“As for the man’s knowing the mantras, since the Veda is studied only for the performance of the rites, the man would read up just those mantras (also of the other texts) that might be used in a certain performance.”

Our answer to this is that the study of the Veda is undertaken in virtue of the Injunction of ‘Vedic study;’ and until one has studied the Veda, he is not entitled to perform any religious act; it is not (as the objector thinks) that the Veda is studied only for the performing of the acts. In fact, the name that has been applied to the various Gṛhyas — as ‘this is the Gṛhya of the Kaṭhas,’ ‘this is the Gṛhya of the Vājasaneyins’ and so forth — is simply for the purpose of indicating what particular mantras have to be employed by certain persons; and when the majority of mantras prescribed in a certain Gṛhya happen to be those that have been read in a particular Vedic text, that Gṛhya comes to be named after that text. Further, when Gṛhya Smṛti is a trustworthy source of knowledge, even though it may be named after the ‘Kaṭhas,’ it cannot fail to make its purport known to the Ṛgvedins also; and what forms the purport of the Vedas and the Smṛtis is that ‘such and such an act should be done.’ So that when one has come to know that ‘this should be done,’ there can be nothing to limit the performance of that act to any particular class of persons, unless there is a Vedic text specifying any particular performer; — as for instance, when the performance of the Tanūnapāt Prayāja is restricted to the ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ clan, — or a distinct prohibition sets aside the said ‘performability.’ Neither of these two circumstances is present in the case in question. Nor can it presumed that the Ṛgveda is not an authority for the Kaṭhas, or vice versa. Because until a particular Vedic text has been actually studied, there is no difference between the ‘Kaṭha’ and the ‘Non-Kaṭha.’ As regards the ‘Gotra’ (the Clan-name), this is fixed for each man (being determined by his birth). So that the ‘Gṛhya’ of a man does not stand on the same footing as his ‘Gotra.’

This [that the Gṛhya of the man is that connected with the Vedic text that he has studied] is what is meant by the assertion — ‘He who renounces his won Gṛhyaṣūtra and acts according to another Gṛhyasūtra &c.’ In fact the man can carry into practice the precepts of that text only which he h as studied. Consequently if one were to give up the rules of his own Vedic text to perform a rite in accordance with the Vedic text studied by his forefathers, and adopt the procedure laid down in the Gṛhyas belonging to this latter, he would incur the sin of ‘renouncing his own Vedic text’; or in this case the sin of ‘renouncing the text’ will have been committed by the father who did not teach the boy that particular text which had been continually studied in his family; and no blame attaches, in this, to the boy himself. In a case where the boy has lost his father and betakes himself to the teacher, as Jābāla is described as having done, it would be right for the Teacher to teach him that Text which had been studied in the boy’s family, — in accordance with the law ‘one should proceed by the path by which his father and grandfather have proceeded’ (Manu, 4.178); ‘and the renouncing of the hereditary Vedic text’ would be justifiable only in the event of its study being absolutely impossible.

From all this we deduce the following conclusion: — All the sacraments — ‘Jātakarma’ and the rest — have been prescribed in all the Smṛtis; and where they lay down different details pertaining to diverse purposes, they should all be employed; but when any such details pertain to the same end and are mutually inconsistent, then there should be an option as to the particular detail to be employed.

‘Of the male child’ — is added with a view to exclude the female and the sexless child.

Others however have held that there is no special significance attaching to the masculine gender of the word; because the context refers to all ‘twice-born’ persons in general as to undergo the sacramental rites. That which is meant to be ‘consecrated’ forms the principal factor; and it has been decided that no significance attaches to any such qualifications gender, number and the like, when applied to the principal factor; e.g., even though the washing of the cups is laid down in the words — ‘one should wash the cup’ (in the singular), — yet all the cups are washed. Similarly when it is laid down, that ‘the man who is feverish, or just free from fever, should be fed at the close of the day,’ — the feverish woman also is fed at that same time; and it is because the present verse affords the idea of the sacrament being performed for females also that the Author has added the interdict (in 2.66) that ‘the whole of this is to be done for women without Mantras’ [otherwise, if the present verse itself had excluded the women, there would be no point in this further interdict]. Then again, marriage (which is also a sacrament) is actually spoken of (in 9. 203) in connection with Eunuchs.

Our answer to the above is as follows: — The word ‘male’ does not denote the ‘human’ genus in general, in the way that the word ‘man’ does; and it is only if it did have that denotation that there might he some ground for not attaching any significance to the gender expressed by the particular case-ending. What the word ‘male’ denotes in all cases is a particular gender in the form of masculinity, as pertaining to all things, moving and unmoving, corporeal and incorporeal. In the present case the gender is denoted by the basic noun (‘pumān’ in ‘puruṣaḥ’) itself; and it is only in connection with what is denoted by the case-ending, that the question of significance or non-significance can arise; and the reason for this lies in the fact that the denotation of number (or gender) is not the only function of the case-ending, — it may have its use simply in the denoting of any one of several such factors as the ‘accusative character’ and so forth [so that if no significance is attached to any one of these several factors, it does not matter]. In the present case however (where the gender is denoted by the basic noun itself), if no significance were attached to the gender, then the word ‘pumān’ would become absolutely meaningless. As in the very instance cited above, full significance is actually attached to the denotation of the basic noun ‘Cup’; and this is done simply because the sentence would, otherwise, become absolutely meaningless.

The following argument might be urged — “It is not only what is signified by the case-ending that may be non-significant; as a matter of fact, the denotation of the entire word, if it qualifies the subject, is regarded as non-significant. For instance, in the case of the text which lays down an expiatory rite in the case of one for whom ‘both offering materials have been spoilt.’ — though we have the word ‘both,’ yet the expiatory rite is performed even on the spoiling of even one of the two materials, milk and curd; and no significance is attached to the denotation of the entire word ‘both’ (which qualifies the subject.)”

To this objection some people offer the following answer: — The present case is not analogous to the case just cited. In the latter, the ‘Pañcaśarāva rite’ (which is the expiatory rite referred to) is not done for the sake of the offering-material; all that is meant is that the spoiling of the materials provides the occasion for the performance of the rite; — while in the case in question, the sacraments are done for the sake of the Boy.

This difference (between the two cases) however is of no consequence at all. Because as a matter of fact, it is only with a view to avoid a syntactical split that significance is not attached to qualifications; and even though the Rite were for the sake of the material, that would not prevent the said syntactical split.

Hence the real answer to the objection is as follows: — The passage beginning with ‘vaidikaiḥ karmabhiḥ, etc.,’ (Verse 26) is what constitutes the original injunction of the ‘Jātakarma’ sacrament; and throughout this passage it is the male that is indicated as the person to be ‘consecrated.’ So that if no significance were attached to this male-character, the whole passage would become meaningless. It is this same consideration which leads us (in the case of the passage cited by the objection) to attach due significance to the denotation of the word ‘offering-material’ (even though none is attached to its qualification ‘both’).

“Well, then the sacraments would be performed for the Śūdra also; as the passage does not specify any particular caste.”

Certainly there is no possibility of the sacraments for Śūdras, because sacraments are performed to the accompaniment of Mantras. Or, we may take the term ‘of the twice-born persons,’ occurring in a supplementary passage, as providing the necessary restriction. Nor does the term ‘of the twice-born persons’ in the said passage pertain (as a qualification) only to what is therein enjoined; so that it cannot be urged that, “in as much as the necessity of their consecration has been mentioned in that passage, no significance can attach to the term ‘male’ in the present passage; just as none is attached to the term ‘both’ in the passage referred to above.”

As for the fact of a later text (Verse 66) speaking of the Rites for females being ‘without mantras,’ this could be taken as an independent injunction; without necessarily depending upon the fact of the ‘sacrament with mantras’ being possible for women also (under the present verse; of which the later verse has been regarded as an exception, by the objector above).

As for the ‘marriage of sexless persons’; — ‘sexless’ persons are of various kinds — e.g., (a) those whose semen is ‘airy,’ (Impotent), (b) those who have the signs of both sexes (Hermaphrodite), and (c) those whose organs are inactive. All these people cannot be excluded from all the ‘sacraments’; because, in the first place their impotence, etc., cannot be detected at the time (during infancy) when the ‘Jātakarma’ and the other (earlier) sacraments are performed; and secondly (even when detected) the said impotence, etc., may be such as might be cured, and certainly a characteristic that is not of a permanent character can never serve as a disqualification. For instance, absence of wealth; this is not a permanent characteristic, like the caste of a person; for the man who has no wealth comes to acquire wealth; having remained poor for a long time, a man becomes very rich in a single day. It is on the killing of such a (confirmed and permanent) eunuch that one becomes purified (of the sin) by the giving of a load of dry grass; and the reason for this lies in the fact that he has had no ‘sacraments,’ he has not been ‘initiated,’ and his life is of no use to any person.

From all this it follows that the present text prescribes the sacraments for males only, — the later Verse (66) prescribes them for females as to be done ‘without mantras,’ — and for eunuchs there are no sacraments at all. — (29)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Hiranya-madhu-sarpisām’ — Though the text clearly says that the child is to be fed with gold, honey and butter, it appears from the Gṛhya Sūtras that the last two substances only are to be given to the child, after they have been touched with a piece of gold.’ — Buhler.

‘Mantravat.’ — The mantras are those used by his own sect or his gurus.

Hopkins has the following note here: — “This commentator’s (Medhātithi’s) use of ‘some think’, ‘some explain’ is such, as in this passage, to suggest that they are occasionally used hypothetically, a possible view being set up and overthrown rather than actual statement that other commentators explain the passage so and so; a modification of meaning that would somewhat affect the amount of criticism devoted to the text before Medhātithi’s day.”

Though this may be true, to a certain extent, regarding the references in the form of ‘kechit’, it cannot be so regarding those in the form ‘anye tu’ or ‘anyevya cakṣate’ and such other moṛe definite references to other explanations.

This verse has been quoted by Raghunandana in his Smṛtitattva (Jyotiṣ, p. 648) — dealing with the Jātakarma Sacrament; — also in the Madanapārijāta (p. 353).

This verse is quoted in the Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 433) as laying down the time for the ‘Birth-sacrament’; — in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 23) which adds the following notes — ‘Vardhana’ is cutting; some people have held that no significance attaches to the masculine gender of ‘puruṣaḥ’; but Medhātithi has held that it is meant to be significant, there being no such rite in the case of the child without gender-signs, and for the woman it is performed without mantras in accordance with another text; — it is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 31 b); — in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 583), where‘Vardhana’ is explained as cutting; and again on p. 736, where the same is repeated; — in the same work (Śrāddha, p. 326); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 831) to the effect that the rite is to be performed before the cutting of the umbilical cord; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 49) to the same effect; it reads ‘puruṣam’ for ‘puruṣaḥ’

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 192) quotes it as laying down the exact time for the performance of the sacrament, in the first half, — and the form of the sacrament in the second half. It quotes it again (p. 403) in support of the view that Manu having prescribed the sacraments of Nāmakaraṇa, Niṣkramaṇa, Annaprāśana, Chuḍā, Upanayaṇa and Keśānta, for the male child, — adds a verse (2. 66) to the effect that ‘all this is to be done for the female child &c. &c., — which makes it clear that the Upanayaṇa rite should be performed for the female child also; and the statement (in 2-67) that for women the ‘marriage’ constitutes the ‘upanayaṇa’ only provides a possible substitute for Upanayaṇa in the case of females.

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 171) as laying down the Jātakarma, and explains ‘vardhana’ as ‘cutting.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (Ājagara Parva., 3?). — (The first line of Manu repeated.)

Viṣṇu (Smṛti, 1.27.1). — ‘On the birth of the child, the Jātakarma.’

Āśvalāyana (Gṛhyasūtrā, 15.1.3). — ‘When the boy is born, before he has been touched by any other person, he should be made to eat, with a golden spoon, butter, honey and gold, with the mantra — ‘Pra te dadhāmi, etc.’ — ‘The following mantra is to he recited into the ear of the child — medhānte devaḥ savitā, etc.’ — ‘The shoulders are touched with the mantra — Aśmā bhava’, etc.

Āṣhvalāyana (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 193). — ‘The Jātakarma should be performed by the twice-born immediately on the birth of the child.’

Gobhila (Gṛhyasūtrā, 2.7.21). — ‘Taking hold of the boy as soon as he is born, one should make an offering into his mouth, with the mantra Medhānte mitrāvaruṇau, etc.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 191). — ‘When the boy is born, the Father should perform the Jātakarma sacrament after having performed the Nāndī-śrāddha.’

Jābāli (Ibid). — ‘Before the umbilical cord has been cut, the Śrāddha consequent on child-birth should be performed.’

Garga (Ibid). — ‘The Jātakarma is prescribed as to be performed, as soon as the boy is born, before he is put to the mother’s breast, or before the umbilical cord has been cut.’

Śaṅkha (Parāśaramādhava, p. 110). — ‘To all members of his family he shall give quadrupeds, grains, gold and other things.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Ibid). — ‘On. birth, there is Jātakarma; and feeding of the child with barley-dour, honey, butter, by means of a golden spoon.’

Baijavāpa (Ibid). — ‘As soon as the boy is born, before the cutting of the cord, he should be fed with water touched with gold, and also with curd, honey, butter.’

Viṣṇudarmottara (Parāśaramādhava, p. 440). — ‘On the birth of the son, the Śrāddha should be performed before the cutting of the umbilical cord; or after the expiry of the period of impurity.’

Vyāsa (Do.) — ‘When the man is away from home, or when his wife is in her courses, when he has no materials nor Brāh-niaṇas at hand, lie shall perform the Birth-śrāddha with gold.’

Samvārta (Paraśaramādhava, p. 439). — ‘On the birth of the son, bathing with clothes on has been prescribed for the father.’

Ādityapurāṇa (Ibid, p. 410). — ‘At the Birth-śrāddha one shall not offer cooked food to the Brāhmaṇas.’

Pāraskara (Ibid, p. 440). — ‘When the boy is horn, before the cord is cut, one should perform rites tending to longevity and intelligence; uttering into his right ear, the word ‘Vāk’ and then his secret name.’

Brahmapurūṇa (Aparārka, p. 20) and Ādityapurāṇa, (Parāśaramādhava, p. 440). — ‘Gods and Pitṛs come to the house of the twice-born whenever a son is born; therefore on that occasion, sacred rites should be performed; one should give away gold, land, cows and chariots, umbrellas, goats, garlands, sesamum, houses and much wealth, and after performing the śrāddha, he should offer cooked food to Brāhmaṇas.’

Hārīta (Do.) — ‘On the birth of the son, the Pitṛs become delighted; hence that day is sacred; hence one should give away vessels full of sesamum, along with gold; and having invited Brāhmaṇas, one should make offerings to the Pitṛs; and prior to the cutting of the umbilical cord, they make

VERSE 2.30 [The ‘Naming Ceremony’ (nāmadheya)]

Section X - The ‘Naming Ceremony’ (nāmadheya)

नामधेयं दशम्यां तु द्वादश्यां वाऽस्य कारयेत् ।
पुण्ये तिथौ मुहूर्ते वा नक्षत्रे वा गुणान्विते ॥३०॥

nāmadheyaṃ daśamyāṃ tu dvādaśyāṃ vā'sya kārayet |
puṇye tithau muhūrte vā nakṣatre vā guṇānvite ||30||

One should have his ‘naming’ (Nāmadheya) done on the tenth or the twelfth (day), on an auspicious lunar date and at an auspicious moment. and under a propitious lunar asterism. — (30)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

One should perform the ‘naming,’ ‘Nāmadheya,’ of the child on the tenth or the twelfth day.

No significance is meant to be attached to the sense of the causative affix in ‘Kārayet,’ should have it done.’ For the Gṛhyasūtra simply says — ‘On the tenth day the father should take up the child and perform his naming’ (without the causal form).

The term ‘Nāmadheya’ means simply ‘nāma,’ ‘name’; and it is that word by which a person is called during life.

In as much as the section has started with the mentiou of the ‘Jātakarma,’ as to be done ‘before the cutting of the umbilical cord,’ it follows that the ‘tenth’ and ‘twelfth’ (of the Text) refer to the day as counted from the day of birth; and they do not refer to the lunar dates.

On this point some people have held that the mention of the ‘tenth day’ is only meant to indicate the ‘passing of the days of impurity’; the past-participle epithet ‘atītāyām,’ ‘having passed,’ being understood. So that the meaning is that, ‘for the Brāhmaṇa the Naming should be done after the lapse of the tenth day, for the Kṣatriya after the lapse of the twelfth day, and for the Vaiśya after the lapse of the fifteenth day.’

This explanation, however, is not right. For there being no ground for taking the words in the indirect figurative sense suggested, the ceremony could very well be performed during the period of impurity, just like the ‘Birth-rite.’ If the feeding of the Brāhmaṇas were enjoined (as a necessary accompaniment of the Ṛte), then there might be some justification for the suggested figurative interpretation.

If the ‘tenth’ or the ‘twelfth’ day happen to fulfil the conditions mentioned in the second line of the verse, then the ceremony should be done on those days. Otherwise it should be performed on some other auspicious lunar date.

The ‘auspicious lunar dates’ are the, the fifth (day of the lunar month), and so forth.

‘Puṇya,’ ‘auspicious,’ means commended. The ninth, fourteenth and such other days (of the lunar month), — which are commonly called ‘Riktā,’ — are ‘not commended,’ ‘inauspicious.’

‘Muhūrta,’ ‘moment,’ stands for what is called ‘lagna’ (the point of time indicated by the ‘contact with the Horizon,’ i.e., the ‘rising,’ of a particular Zodiacal Sign), Aquarius, and the rest. ‘At a moment that is auspicious,’ — i.e., which is not possessed by any evil planet, which is looked upon by Jupiter and Venus. Such ‘auspiciousness’ of the moment can be ascertained with the help of the science of Astrology.

‘Under a propitious lunar asterism,’ — the ‘are those beginning with Śraviṣṭhā; and that day on which these happen to be ‘propitious.’ The ‘propitiousness’ of the Lunar Asterism consists in its being free from the contact of ‘malignant’ and ‘evil’ planets, as also from the condition of ‘Vyatīpāta’ (a malignant aspect of the Sun and the Moon).

The particle ‘Vā’ in the Text has a collective sense (meaning ‘and’); hence the meaning is that ‘the ceremony should he performed on an auspicious day, and at an auspicious moment, and under a faultless lunar asterism.’ The due combination of all these conditions can be ascertained with the help of the Science of Astrology.

The final upshot of the whole comes to this: — The ceremony should never be performed before the tenth or twelfth day, — and after these days it may be performed only at the auspicious moment on that day which is found to be under a propitious lunar asterism.’ — (30)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Daśamyām dvādaśyām’ — ‘The tenth of twelfth day of the month’ — Medhātithi, who also notes and rejects the explanation — ‘after the lapse of the tenth or twelfth day — i.e., ‘on the lapsing of the period of impurity’ — which is accepted by Kullūka.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 233) where it notes the latter explanation and says that it has been rejected by Medhātithi and Aparārka. It is curious that having the work of Medhātithi before him, the author of Vīramitrodaya did not note his explanation that the ceremony is to be performed on the 10th or 12th day (tithi) of the month.

The verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 855) also, where however no explanation is given — and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 371), where it is added that what is meant is that the naming of the Brāhmaṇa should be done on the expiry of the tenth day, of the Kṣatriya on the expiry of the twelfth day, of the Vaiśya on the expiry of the sixteenth day and of the Shudra on the expiry of the twenty-first day; — and the second half of the verse lays down substitutes.

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 24), which adds that ‘daśamyām’ has been taken as ‘daśamyām añtāyam’, ‘after the lapse of the tenth day’, — that no significance attaches to the causal affix in ‘kārayet’; — in Saṃskāṛaratnamālā (p. 850), which adds that the causal affix in ‘kārayet’ has the reflexive sense; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 34a); — and in Sṛmticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 52), which explains meaning as ‘on the tenth day from the day of the birth, the father should do the naming’, it being the father’s business to do this.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.5. — ‘The naming should be done after the lapse of the period of impurity.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.12. — ‘The naming on the eleventh day.’ Āśvalāyana (Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.4). — ‘They should give him a name.’

Pāraskara (Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.17.11). — ‘On the tenth day, the father should take him up, and after having fed the Brāhmaṇas, should perform the naming ceremony.’

Gobhila (Gṛhyasūtrā, 2.7.7). — ‘On the expiry of ten days, or hundred days, or a year, after birth, the Naming.’

Jyotirvaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 231). — ‘The naming of the boy should be done either on the day of birth, or on the twelfth day, or in special cases, on the tenth day.’

Maheśvara (Ibid). — ‘The Jātakarma and the naming of the boy should he done either by the father or brothers at the time of birth; or on the twelfth day from birth, or on the first day.’

[The naming on the day of birth refers to the imparting of a secret name, which is done along with the Jātakarma; see above.]

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Ibid). — ‘The father should do the naming on the tenth day.’

Vyāsa (Ibid). — ‘Some wise men hold that the naming is to be done on the tenth day; others mention the twelfth day; and yet others hold that it should be done after the lapse of one full month.’

Nārada (Do.) — ‘From the birth, on the tenth day, or the twelfth day, is performed the naming of Brāhmaṇas; of the other two castes, it is on the expiry of the period of impurity; — so also for Śūdras; hut some people hold that the naming of the Śūdra should be done on the thirty-first day.’

Śaṅkha (Do.) — ‘The naming has been prescribed as to be done on the lapse of the period of impurity.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.) — ‘The naming is prescribed as to be done on the tenth or the twelfth dav.’

Bṛhaspati (Do.) — ‘The naming should he done, for the Brāhmaṇa, on the tenth or tho twelfth day; for the Kṣatriya on the thirteenth day; for the Vaiśya on the sixteenth day; and for the Śūdra either on the nineteenth (v. l. twentieth) or the thirty-second (v. l. twenty-second) day.’

Mahābhārata (Do.) — ‘The naming of the twice-born castes should be done on the twelfth, the sixteenth, the twentieth and the twenty-second day respectively; for the Brāhmaṇa it may be done on the tenth also.’

Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (Do.) — ‘On the expiry of the twelfth night, or, according to others, on the expiry of one month, or, according to others, on the eighteenth day.’

[Thus we find that the choice lies among the following days — the day of birth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-second, thirty-first, hundred and first and the end of a year.]

As regards the ‘puṇya tithi, muhūrta and nakṣatra’ the reader is referred to the Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, pp. 234-237.

VERSE 2.31

Section X - The ‘Naming Ceremony’ (nāmadheya)

मङ्गल्यं ब्राह्मणस्य स्यात् क्षत्रियस्य बलान्वितम् ।
वैश्यस्य धनसंयुक्तं शूद्रस्य तु जुगुप्सितम् ॥३१॥

maṅgalyaṃ brāhmaṇasya syāt kṣatriyasya balānvitam |
vaiśyasya dhanasaṃyuktaṃ śūdrasya tu jugupsitam ||31||

The name of the Brāhmaṇa should be auspicious, that of the Kṣatriya connected with power, that of the Vaiśya associated with wealth; while that of the Śūdra contemptible. — (31)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Author now proceeds to determine the form of the name to be given to the child.

‘Maṅgalyam,’ ‘auspicious,’ means ‘maṅgalāya hitam,’ or ‘maṅgalāya sādhu,’ ‘conducive to welfare.’ The ‘welfare’ meant here is that which consists in the fulfilment of something desirable, in the shape of longevity, wealth and such other things as lead to physical and mental pleasure. And a term can be said to be ‘conducive,’ — ‘hita’ or ‘sādhu,’ — to this welfare, only when it connotes it; and it is in this sense that we have the Nominal Affix (‘yat,’ in ‘maṅgalyam’). Further, by being ‘conducive’ it is not meant that it should always express the actual fulfilment of a desirable thing; but that it may also express the desirable thing itself.

This connotation of the desirable thing may be either (a) by means of compounds, such as ‘āyuḥsiddhi’ (accomplishment, of longevity), ‘dhanasiddhi’ (acquisition of wealth), ‘putralāhha’ (obtaining of a son), and so forth, — or (b) by a nominal affix connoting ‘conduciveness’ ‘effectiveness,’ or ‘purpose.’ But the Gṛhyasūtra has prohibited the use of a name ending in a Nominal affix — ‘One should fix a name ending with a Verbal, not one with a nominal affix’ — says Pāraskara. And as for compounds also, there is a combination of the denotations of two words; so that there is a chance of the name consisting of many letters; the lext is going to lay down certain appendages to the actual names, such as ‘the name of Brāhmaṇa should end in Śarman, and so forth’ (Manu, 2.32); so that if the name consists of three or four letters, along with the appendage ‘śarman,’ it would oome to consist of five or six letters; and this would go against the rule that ‘the name should consist of two or four letters.’ (Baudhāyana and Āpastamba). From all this it follows that such words should he employed as names as are connotative of things that are desired by most people, — e.g., son, cattle, landed property, daughter, wealth and so forth; and these should end with the term ‘śarman.’ Thus it is that such names become possible as ‘Go-śarman.’ ‘Dhana-śarman,’ ‘Hiraṇya-śarman,’ ‘Kalyāṇa-śarman,’ ‘Maṅgala-śarman,’ and so on.

Or, the term ‘maṅgala’ may be taken as standing for ‘Dharma,’ ‘Merit’; and ‘maṅgalya’ in that case would mean that which is conducive to merit (meritorious).

“What is it that is conducive to merit?”

All those words that constitute the names of Deities; e.g., ‘Indra,’ ‘Agni,’ ‘Vāyū’; also the names of sages — e.g., ‘Vasiṣṭha,’ ‘Viśvāmiṭra,’ ‘Medhātithi’; these latter also are ‘conducive to merit’; as is clearly indicated by such directions as — (a) ‘one should make offerings to the sages,’ (b) ‘one should meditate upon the men of pious deeds,’ ‘one who desires prosperity should, on rising in the morning, repeat the names of Deities, sages and of the Brāhmaṇas of pious deeds.’

The epithet ‘mangalya,’ ‘auspicious’ (meritorious) serves to preclude all ‘inauspicious’ names, such as ‘Yama,’ ‘Mṛtyu’ and the like; and also those that are meaningless — such, as ‘Ḍittha’ and the like.

‘That of the Kṣatriya connected with power,’ — i.e., expressive of power. The ‘anvaya’ (expressed by ‘anvita’ in the compound ‘balānvita’ means connection; and the only connection that a word can have with a thing is the relation, of being connotative of it. — ‘Power’ is strength; and the word, that connotes this should be used as the name for the Kṣatriya,e.g., ‘Śatruntapa,’ ‘Duryodhana,’ ‘Prajāpāla.’ The several kinds of names have been mentioned (in the text), as indicative of the several castes.

Similarly, ‘that of the Vaiśya Associated with wealth.’ It is not meant that only synonyms of ‘dhana’ should be used, — such as ‘Dhana’ ‘Vitta,’ ‘Svāpateya,’ — but that any word that may be in any way connotative of wealth should be used. Or, what is meant is that either such words as ‘dhana’ (‘wealth’) and the like should be used, or such as signify connection with wealth; such as ‘Dhanakarman,’ ‘Mahādhana,’ ‘Goman,’ ‘Dhānyag?aha.’

Throughout this verse, such is the meaning — of the term ‘connected with power’ and ‘associated with wealth.’ If this were not what is meant, the text would have said simply ‘the names of power should be used.’ And in that case, since the words actually denotative of power would be very few in number, while the number of individuals to be named would be endless, — all usage (based oh names) would come to an end.

‘That of the Śūdra contemptible,’ — such as ‘Kṛpaṇaka,’ ‘Dīna,’ ‘Śavaraka,’ and so forth. — (31)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 217); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 53) to the effect that the names of the four castes should consist of words expressive respectively, of welfare, strength, wealth and deprecation; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra p. 346); — and in Saṃskāra-mayūkha (p. 25).

Burnell — ‘This is now obsolete. The names of the different castes are now usually epithets or titles of some favourite deity. The caste is known only by the suffixed title.’

This verse has been quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskā ra, p. 242), where we have the following explanations: ‘maṅgalyam’ means expressive of auspiciousness; e.g., the name ‘Lakṣmīdhara’; — ‘Balānvitam’ means expressive of bravery, e.g., the name ‘Yudhiṣṭhira;’ — ‘dhanasamyuktam’, means containing terms expressive of wealth; e.g., the name ‘Mahādhana’; — ‘jugupsitam’ means containing a term denoting depreciation; e.g., the name ‘Naradāsa’.

Madanapārijāta also quotes this verse (on p. 357), where it is explained to mean that ‘the names should be expressive of auspiciousness and the rest’

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 441) quotes it as also the four typical names as — ‘Śrī Śarmā’ ‘Vikramapālo’, Māṇikyaśreṣṭhi and Hīnadāsa; — it is quoted in Aparārka (p. 27) as laying down rules regarding the first part of the name.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Śaṅkha (Smṛti, 2.3). — ‘The name of all castes should consist of an even number of letters; an auspicious one for the Brāhmaṇa, one endowed with strength for the Kṣatriya.’

Viṣṇu (Smṛti, 1.27.6-9). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa’s name should be expressive of auspiciousness — the Kṣatriya’s expressive of strength, — the Vaiśya’s expressive of wealth, — the Śūdra’s expressive of depreciation.’

Vīramitrodaya (Śaṃskāra, p. 237). — Names are of four kinds;

connected with family-deity,

connected with month,

connected with asterism,

and temporal.

(a) Says Śaṅkha. — ‘The father should fix a name connected with the family-deity,’ i.e., a name consisting of words expressive of the Deity.

(b) Gārgya. — ‘The father should impart to the hoy the name of the month and the name of the preceptor. The months have been declared to have the following names: —

Mārgaśīrṣa — Kṛṣṇa,

Pauṣa — Ananta,

Māgha — Achyuta,

Phālguna — Chakrī,

Caitra — Vaikuṇṭha,

Vaiśākha, — Janārdana,

Jyaiṣṭha, — Upendra,

Āṣāḍha — Yajñapuruṣa.

Śrāvaṇa — Vāsudeva.

Bhādra — Hari,

Āśvina — Yogīśa,

Kārttika — Puṇḍarīkākṣa.’

(c) Śaṅkha-Likhita. — ‘Either the father or some other senior member of the family should fix a name connected with the asterism.’ This name has been held to be the one to be used when the person bearing the name accosts a superior.

Says Baudhāyana — ‘This name in accordance with the asterism is the secret one, which is known only to the father and the mother and which the boy is to use in accosting.’

Also Āśvalāyana — ‘The accosting name should be known only to the father and the mother; as it is under this name that the boy is initiated.’

Also Śaunaka, ‘That name under which he is to be initiated, and by which he will do the accosting of the teacher, — should also be fixed at the time of the naming ceremony. This accostive name should be pronounced by the father very silently, so that others may not know it. This initiative name the parents should bear in mind.’

Like the names attached to the months the names attached to the asterisms are as follows: —

Agni (Kṛttikā),

Prajāpati (Rohiṇī),

Soma (Mṛgaśiras),

Rudra (Ārdrā),

Diti (Punarvasū),

Bṛhaspati (Puṣvā),

Sarpa (Aśleṣā),

Pitṛ (Maghā),

Bhaga (Purvaphalgunī),

Aryamā (Uttaraphalgunī),

Savitṛ (Hastā),

Tvaṣtṛ (Chitrā),

Āyuṣ (Svātī),

Indra-Agni (Viśākhā),

Mitra (Anurādhā),

Indra (Jyeṣṭhā),

Nirṛti (Mūlā),

Apas (Pūrvāṣāḍhā),

Viśvedevas (Uttarāṣāḍhā),

Viṣṇu (Śravaṇā),

Vasu (Dhaniṣṭhā),

Varuṇa (Śatabhiṣa),

Ajaikapāt (Pūrvabhādra),

Ahirbudhnya (Uttarabhādra),

Pūṣan (Revatī),

Aśvins (Aśvinī),

Yama (Bharaṇī).

But according to Baudhāyana, the “name connected with the asterism” is in accordance with the names of the asterisms themselves — such as ‘Rohiṇī,’ ‘Bharaṇī,’ and the rest; and not in accordance with the name of the deity attached to each asterism. According to the astrologers however each asterism has four letters assigned to it (such as chū-che-cho-la, assigned to Aśvinī, and so forth, and “the name connected with the asterism of Aśvinī,” would be the name whose first letter consists of one of these four letters).

(d) The ‘temporal name’ has been described by Bṛhaspati as ‘conducive to all kinds of business.’ It is this name that has been laid down by Āśvalāyana as having for its first letter one of the ghoṣa-letters, in its middle one of the antastha letters; ending with the visarga, containing either two or four vowels; and in male names the number of letters should always be even.

But Baijavāpa — ‘The father fixes the name, which consists of either two or three or four letters, or of unlimited number of letters.’

Vaśiṣṭha — ‘The name should consist of either two or four vowels, but those ending in l or r should be avoided.’

The Mahābhāṣya — ‘The first letter of the name should be ghoṣa-vat, the middle one of the antastha letters, it should not be similar to the names of the ancestors, or of the enemy; it should be one formed with a verbal affix, not with a nominal affix.’

Āśvalāyana — ‘That name is best which consists of either four or two letters, which is in consonance with that of the grandfather’ (this last includes also the gods).

Kapila-Saṃhitā — ‘On the eleventh day, in due form, the name should be given, which is in consonance with the family-custom, and resembles the name of the gods or of the parents.’

Baijavāpa (Aparārka, p. 27). — ‘The father gives a name either of one letter or two letters or three letters or four letters, or of letters without limit; it should be one formed with a verbal, never with a nominal, affix.’

VERSE 2.32

Section X - The ‘Naming Ceremony’ (nāmadheya)

शर्मवद् ब्राह्मणस्य स्याद् राज्ञो रक्षासमन्वितम् ।
वैश्यस्य पुष्टिसंयुक्तं शूद्रस्य प्रेष्यसंयुतम् ॥३२॥

śarmavad brāhmaṇasya syād rājño rakṣāsamanvitam |
vaiśyasya puṣṭisaṃyuktaṃ śūdrasya preṣyasaṃyutam ||32||

The name of the Brāhmaṇa should be expressive of ‘peace,’ that of the Kṣatriya, of ‘protection’; that ot the Vaiśya, of ‘prosperity,’ and that of the Śūdra, of ‘submissiveness.’ — (32)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

[What appears to be the meaning is that] the actual term (‘śarman,’ etc.) should form part of the name, — and that the two terms (mentioned in the preceding and the present verse) should appear in the order stated, the ‘auspicious’ term coming at the beginning and the term ‘śarman’ at the end (of the name), — as illustrated above (‘Go-śarman,’ ‘Dhana-śarman’ and so forth).

But this would not be possible in regard to the names of the Kṣatriya and the rest; because the term ‘rakṣā.’ (‘security,’ which is mentioned in connection with the Kṣatriya) is of the feminine gender, and as such could not be co-ordinated with the names of males. Hence in view of conformity, and in view also of actual practice, and also in view of the two verses being syntactically distinct, we should take them as complementary to each other; the sense being that the ‘auspicious name’ (mentioned in the preceding verse) should he ‘expressive of śarman, Peace’ — this term standing for refuge, shelter, happiness. It is only if we take the term ‘śarman’ of the text as standing for what is developed by it, that we have the possibility of names ending in ‘svāmū,’ ‘datta,’ ‘bhūti,’ and the rest; the name ‘Indrasvāmī’ meaning ‘he who has Indra for his shelter’; ‘Indra-datta’ also signifies the fact of Indra being the shelter.

Similarly with all the rest (the names of the Kṣatriya, etc.)

“What does this argument mean — that, in view of the two verses being syntactically distinct, we should take them as complementary to each other? Por the same reason, why are not the two sentences ‘one should sacrifice with Vrīhi’ and ‘one should sacrifice with Yava’ taken as complementary (and not as optional alternatives, as they have been taken)?”

What we have said is only what is indicated (by the words of the Text). The Text being the work of a human writer, if he had intended the statements to be optional alternatives, he should, for the sake of brevity, have said ‘the name should be either auspicious or expressive of peace’; when we have two distinct syntactical constructions, there are two verbs, and this becomes too prolix (and the prolixity cannot be justified except by taking the two as complementary). [All this reason ng, based upon intention and propriety of speech, cannot apply to the case of Vedic sentences, where there is no author.]

‘Rakṣā,’ is ‘protection,’ ‘preservation.’

‘Puṣṭi’ is ‘prosperity’ as well as ‘security.’ Such names as ‘Govṛddha’ ‘Dhanagupta.’

‘Preṣya’ is ‘submissive’; such names as ‘Brāhmaṇa-dāsa,’ and ‘Devadāsa,’ which means (respectively) ‘submissive to, dependent upon, the Brāhmaṇa’ and ‘submissive to and dependent upon a deity.’ — (32)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 243) also; and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra. p. 55) as laying down the subsidiary titles of the four caste-names; — also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 309); — and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 178).

Parāśaramādḥava (Ācāra, p. 441) quoting the verse explains it to mean that ‘śarman’ must be the suffixed word to the Brāhmaṇa’s name.

Nārayaṇa and Rāghavānanda opine that the name of the Brāhmaṇa must always contain the word ‘śarman’ itself. But Medhātithi and several others hold that the name should connote what is connoted by the term ‘śarman.’

The present day practice, however, follows the former explanation — ‘śarman’.being regarded now as the suffixed title to every Brāhmaṇa’s name.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1. 17.4. — ‘Śarma for the Brāhmaṇa, Varma for the Kṣatriya, Gupta for the Vaiśya.’

Vyāsa-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 213). — ‘Śarma is the name commended for the Brāhmaṇa, Varma for the Kṣatriya, Gupta for the Vaiśya, and Dāsa for the Śūdra.’

Yama-Smṛti (Do.). — ‘Śarma and Deva for the Brāhmaṇa, Rājā for the Kṣatriya, Gupta and Datta for the Vaiśya and Dāsa for the Śūdra.

These titles have been thus explained by Āśvalāyanāchārya: — ‘The name of the Brāhmaṇa should end with Śarma because he imparts Śarma (happiness) to the world through his religious character, calmness and self-control; that of the Kṣatriya should end with Varmā, because like the Varma (armour), he protects the world from the three kinds of pain; that of the Vaiśya should end with Gupta, because he fosters (gopāyati) the people by giving them money at certain times; that of the Śūdra should end with Dāsa, because he keeps the twice-born people satisfied by constant service.’

VERSE 2.33

Section X - The ‘Naming Ceremony’ (nāmadheya)

स्त्रीणां सुखौद्यमक्रूरं विस्पष्टार्थं मनोहरम् ।
मङ्गल्यं दीर्घवर्णान्तमाशीर्वादाभिधानवत् ॥३३॥

strīṇāṃ sukhaudyamakrūraṃ vispaṣṭārthaṃ manoharam |
maṅgalyaṃ dīrghavarṇāntamāśīrvādābhidhānavat ||33||

That of women should be easily pronouncible, not harsh, of plain meaning, heart-captivating and auspicious; it should end in a long vowel and contain a benedictory term. — (33)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Inasmuch as significance has been attached to the mention of the ‘male’ child (in verse 29), what has been said in the preceding verses is not applicable to women; and the present verse is going to lay down rules regarding the names of women.

‘Easily pronouncible’; — that which can be easily pronounced; the name of women should be such as can be uttered, with ease, even by women and children. It is mostly women and children that have got to deal with women; and the woman’s organ of speech being not very efficient, she cannot pronounce each and every Sanskrit word; hence the Text lays stress upon this pronouncibility in the case of feminine names. This however docs not mean that the masculine names may be unpronouncible. As examples of ‘pronouncible’ names wo have, ‘Maṅgala-devī,’ ‘Chārudati,’ ‘Suvadanā,’ etc., and as counter-examples (i.e., of unpronouncible names), ‘Śarmiṣṭhā,’ ‘Suśliṣṭāṅgī,’ and the like.

‘Not harsh,’ — i.e., not denoting any thing harsh; names denoting harsh things are such as ‘Ḍākinī’ (Sorceress), ‘Paruṣā’ (Rough) and so forth.

‘Of plain meaning,’ — whose moaning does not need to be explained before it is comprehended; which, as soon as it is heard, couveys its meaning to the learned and the unlearned alike. As examples of names with meanings not plain, we have, (a) ‘Kāmaniḍhā’ and (b) ‘Kāriṣagandhī’; the meaning of these terms is not comprehended until the following explanations have been provided: — (a) ‘who is, as if it were, the very receptacle of love, she in whom all love is contained,’ and (b) ‘Kārīṣagandhī’ is the ‘daughter of Kariṣagandhi.’

‘Heart-captivating,’ — that which pleases the mind; e.g., ‘Śreyasī’; while of the contrary kind we have the name ‘Kālākṣī.’

‘Auspicious,’ — such as ‘Śarmavatī’; of the contrary kind is the name ‘Abhāgā,’ ‘M andabhāgā.’ ‘Ending in a long vowel,’ — that which has a long vowel at the end. Contrary to this is the name ‘Śarat.’

‘Āśīrvāda’ is that which denotes benediction; ‘abhidhāna’ is term; and when the two are compounded in tho dhāraya form, we get the meaning ‘benedictory term’; and the name that contains such a term is called ‘āśīrvādābhidhānavat,’ ‘containing a benedictory term.’ Examples of such names — ‘Saputrā,’ ‘Bahuputrā,’ ‘Kulavāhikā’; these are benedictory names; of the contrary kind are such names as, ‘Apraśastā,’ ‘Alakṣaṇā.’

“What is the difference between ‘auspicious’ and ‘benedictory’?”

None whatsoever. The second epithet has been added only for the purpose of filling up the metre. — (33)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 441), which cites the typical female name ‘Śrīdāsī.’

This is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (p. 631).

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 243) quotes the verse, and having explained the words, cites as examples — ‘Yaśodā’ (easily pronouncible) ‘Kulaghnī’ (harsh) — ‘Indirā’ (not of plain meaning) — ‘Kamahīyā’ (heart-captivating) — ‘Subhadrā’ (auspicious) — and ‘Saubhāgyavatī’ (containing a benedictory term).

Vidhānapārijāta (p. 310) simply quotes the verse; — and Aparārka (p. 27) quotes it as laying down rules regarding the first part of female names.

This is quoted in Smṛti candrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 55), which adds the following notes — ‘sukhodyam,’ easily pronouncible, — ‘maṅgalyam’ denoting auspiciousness; — ‘dīrghavarṇa, the long ī. or ā.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Laghuśātātapa, 35. — ‘The girl should not be named after a river or an asterism or a tree; nor should she have a terrifying name.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.15.9. — ‘The names of girls should consist of an odd number of letters.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtrā, 2.7.15. — ‘The names of girls should be soft and consisting of an odd number of letters.’

Śaunaka (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 213). — ‘The name of males should contain even, and of females odd, number of letters.’

Baijavāpa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 243). — ‘The name of the woman should consist of three letters and should end in the long ī.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 243). — ‘The name of males should contain an even number of letters, and of females odd number of letters.’

VERSE 2.34 [The Ceremony of ‘First Egress,’

(niṣkramaṇa) and that of ‘First Feeding,’ (annaprāśana)]

Section XI - The Ceremony of ‘First Egress,’ (niṣkramaṇa) and that of ‘First Feeding,’ (annaprāśana)

चतुर्थे मासि कर्तव्यं शिशोर्निष्क्रमणं गृहात् ।
षष्ठेऽन्नप्राशनं मासि यद् वैष्टं मङ्गलं कुले ॥३४॥

caturthe māsi kartavyaṃ śiśorniṣkramaṇaṃ gṛhāt |
ṣaṣṭhe'nnaprāśanaṃ māsi yad vaiṣṭaṃ maṅgalaṃ kule ||34||

In the fourth month should be performed the ceremony of the child’s ‘Egress’ from the room; and in the sixth month the ceremony of ‘Feeding’; or, whatever might be regarded as auspicious in the family. — (34)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘In the fourth month’ — from birth — ‘should be performed the ceremony of the child’s egress’ — being taken out of the room and shown the sun. This implies that for three months the child should he kept in the lying-in room itself.

The common name ‘child’ is used, with a view to include the śūdra also.

Similarly ‘in the sixth month,’ the ceremony of First Feeding on grains. For five months the child should he kept purely on milk.

‘Or, whatever might be regarded as auspicious’ — conducive to welfare — ‘in the family’ of the child; such well-known rites, for instance, as making offerings to Pūṭanā, to Śakunika, to certain trees, etc., etc. This may he done at specified times.

This last clause is meant to apply to all ceremonies; so that the naming also may he done according to family custom, even though it be not in strict conformity with the rules laid down above. Hence with different families, such names become possible as — ‘Indrasvāmī,’ ‘Indraśarman’ ‘Indrabhūti,’ ‘Indrarāta,’ Indraviṣṇu,’ ‘Indradeva,’ ‘Indrajyotiṣ,’ ‘Indrayaśaṣ,’ and so forth. — (34)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Yadveṣṭam maṅgalam kule’ — Medhātithi, along with Govindarāja and Kullūka, takes this as applicable to all the sacraments. — ‘Kula’ is family, not tribe.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 442), and the second half in Madanapārijāta (p. 360) and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 267), which latter remarks that this option regarding family-custom applies only to the sacrament of the First Feeding. The verse is quoted in

Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, pp. 55 and 57), which adds that the ‘Gṛha,’ ‘house,’ means the one in which birth has taken place; — in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 218); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 366).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu, 1.1.5. — ‘In the fourth month, showing of the Sun; and in the sixth the feeding on grains.’

Yājñavalkva, 1.12. — ‘During the fourth month the Going Out; during the sixth the feeding on grains.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.16.1. — ‘During the sixth month, feeding on grains.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.17.19-5.1. — ‘The rite of Going Out during the fourth month, and the feeding on grains during the sixth month.’

Bhaviṣya-Burāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250). — ‘On the twelfth day the taking out of the baby from the house.’

Bṛhaspati (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250). — ‘The Going Out on the twelfth day, during the third month.’

Laugākṣi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250). — ‘The showing of the Sun during the third fortnight; and the feeding on grains, during the sixth month, on the cutting of teeth’ (p. 267).

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250). — ‘During the third month should be done the showing of the Sun, and the showing of the Moon during the fourth month; the Going Out during the fourth month.’

[The several texts prescribing the third and the fourth month for this Rite are to be reconciled as referring respectively to the showing of the Sun and the showing of the Moon.]

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 267). — ‘The feeding on grains should be done during the sixth or eighth month.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250). — ‘The Going Out of the baby should be performed during the fourth month, and during the sixth month it may be carried to the temples of gods.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 267). — ‘The feeding on grains is to be done during the sixth month, or during the even months succeeding.’

Śaunaka (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250). — ‘During the fourth or the sixth month is to be performed the Going Out of the baby by the father or guardian.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 267). — ‘The best time for the feeding on grains is during the sixth solar month; if it is not done during that month, it should be done during either the eighth or the ninth or the tenth or the twelfth month.’ [The ninth month is prescribed with special reference to girls.]

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 269). — ‘The first feeding on grains should be for males during the sixth month and for females, during the fifth or seventh month; or during the eighth, ninth or tenth month.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 268). — ‘The feeding on grains on the lapse of a year.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 268). — ‘Feeding on grains after one year; or after half-year, say some.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 26S). — ‘The feeding on grains is to be done after the 150th and before the 180th day.’

[Of the various alternatives laid down, one should adopt that which is in accordance with the practice in his family.]

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 268). — ‘The feeding on grains of male babies should be done during the even months, and that of female babies during the odd months.’

As regards the food to be given, says Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 276). — ‘During the sixth month one should feed the baby with grains mixed with goat-meat, or partridge-meat, or rice mixed with butter, or rice mixed with curd, or rice mixed with honey, or grains mixed with curd and butter.’

Śāṅkhāyaua-Gṛhyasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 277). — ‘The first feeding during the sixth month, with goat-meat or partridge-meat or fish or butter-rice or rice mixed with curd, honey and butter.’

Mārkaṇḍeya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 275). — ‘The child should be fed on rice cooked in milk.’

Purāṇa (Aparārka, p. 25). — ‘During the fourth month, the child shall be shown the moon; O King, the taking out of the house should be done on the twelfth day; such is the opinion of some people.’

Lokāksi (? Laugākṣi; Parāśaramādhava, p. 442). — ‘Showing of the sun during the third fortnight.’

VERSE 2.35 [Tonsure (cūḍākarma)]

Section XII - Tonsure (cūḍākarma)

चूडाकर्म द्विजातीनां सर्वेषामेव धर्मतः ।
प्रथमेऽब्दे तृतीये वा कर्तव्यं श्रुतिचोदनात् ॥३५॥

cūḍākarma dvijātīnāṃ sarveṣāmeva dharmataḥ |
prathame'bde tṛtīye vā kartavyaṃ śruticodanāt ||35||

In view or the injunctions or the Veda, the Tonsure-ceremony of all twice-born children should be performed, according to law, in the first year or the third. — (35)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Cūḍā’ is the tuft of hair on the crown of the bead’; and the ceremony for the purpose of this is called ‘Cūḍākarman,’ ‘Tonsure’; this name ‘Tonsure’ is given to that ceremony which consists in the cutting of the hair in such a manner as to leave well-arranged tufts of hair on certain parts of the head.

This may be done ‘in the first year or the third’; — this option being due to considerations of the good and evil aspects of planets.

‘In view of the injunctions of the Veda’: — this is merely explanatory: the fact of the entire contents of the work being based upon the Veda having been already stated before. Or, the term may he taken here as not necessarily standing for the injunctive texts, but including the Mantras also; and as a matter of fact, we have the mantra, ‘yatkṣureṇa mārjayet, etc.,’ (Pāraskara-gṛhyasūtra, 2.1.1), which is indicative of the Tonsure-ceremony, in the same manner as the Mantra ‘yāñjanā pratinandanti, etc.,’ (Pāraskara, — 3.2.2) indicates the Aṣṭakā-rites. So that what the phrase means is that the ceremony should be performed with mantras. As to the particular details (regarding the mantras, etc.), these are learnt from the Gṛyhasūtra.

From this it follows that this sacrament is not to he done for the Śūdra; which is also clear from the mention of the ‘twice-born.’ As for the shaving of hair without any restriction as to time, this is done for special purposes, and may he done for the Śūdra also: this is not interdicted. — (35)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Dharmataḥ’ — ‘according to Law’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana); — ‘for the sake of spiritual merit’ (Kullūka).

This verse has been quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Saṃskāra, p. 605) for the purpose of showing that even a boy who has not cut his teeth can be ‘one who has had Ids Tonsure performed.’

It is quoted in Smṛti-tattva (p. 653) — which points out that the time most suited for the ceremony is the third, not the first year and it bases this on the distinct declaration by Śaṅkha that — ‘for the rite of Tonsure, the third year is what has been accepted by all the Gṛhyasūtras.’ It also quotes it on p. 922, with a view to show that the time for the ceremony is not fixed, there being an option as to its being done in the first, third, or even the fifth year.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 296), where it is explained that the presence of the particle ‘vā,’ ‘or’, implies that the rite may be performed in the second year also; this latter is also sanctioned by a text from Yama.

Madanapārijāta (p. 34) also quotes it without adding any Explanatory notes. — It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 58); — in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 742); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (pp. 29 and 128), which quotes Medhātithi to the effect that the term ‘dvijātīnām’ indicates that this rite is not to be performed for the Shudra.; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 36c); and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 219).

Medhātithi has described this ceremony as that ‘which consists in the cutting of the hair in such a manner as to leave well-arranged tufts of hair on certain parts of the head.’

Further details have heen supplied in Madanapārijāta (p. 361), which quotes Lokākṣi (called Laugākṣi in Smṛtitattva, p. 653) describing the ‘Cūḍā’as ‘a line of hair, towards the right among the Vaśiṣṭhas, on both sides among the Airis and Kāśyapas, and in five places among the Āṅgirasas; some people keep a single line; others only the top-tuft, shaped like the leaf of the banyan tree — and adds that the exact form is to be determined by the Gṛhyasūtra, of the man concerned.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu, 27.12. — ‘Tonsure is performed in the third year.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.12. — ‘Tonsure is to be performed according to family-custom.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.17.1. — ‘Tonsure in the third year; or in accordance with the custom of the family.’

Pāraskara- Gṛhyasūtrā, 2.1.2. — ‘The performance of Ton-sure for the one-year-old child: or during the third year.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.9.1. — ‘The performance of Tonsure in the third year.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 296). — ‘The performance of Tonsure has been prescribed for all castes; by Tonsure is the life-span enhanced, by Tonsure is it reduced. It should be performed during the third or the fifth year, or according to the practice obtaining in the family. It may be performed also during the seventh year from either birth or the taking of the Fires.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 996). — ‘Before the completion of the year, Tonsure should be performed; or during the second or the third year.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 297). — ‘Tonsure is recommended during the third or the fifth year; or even earlier, but during the odd year, or during the sixth year; or along with the Upanayana.’

Bṛhaspati (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 296). — ‘Counting either from conception or from Birth, — during the fifth or the seventh year should be performed for the male as well as the female child.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 996). — ‘The learned recommend the third vear from Birth as the best; the fifth and the seventh years from Birth are to be regarded as mediocre and the worst time would he the tenth or the eleventh year from Birth. — The Tonsure of children should he performed either, before the end of the first year, or in the third or fifth year, or according to the family-custom.’

Atri (Do., p. 298). — ‘Tonsure during the third year is conducive to the fulfilment of all desires; that during the first year is conducive to longevity and Brāhmic glory; that during the fifth year leads to the acquisition of cattle; during the even years, it is to be deprecated.’

Nṛsiṃha (Do.). — ‘Tonsure is to be performed during either the first or the third or the fifth year; after the lapse of the third part of the year.’

Laugākṣi (Do., p. 299). — ‘Tonsure should be performed during the third year, after the lapse of its third part.’

[The upshot of the whole is that Tonsure may he performed during any of the following years — 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th, 11th, — or on the Upanayana-day; — or according to the custom prevailing in the family.]

[The form in which the Tonsure is to be performed, the shape that is to be given to the hair on the head, the keeping of the Śikhā, — all this is described in detail in the Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 315.]

Baijavāpa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 413). — ‘Tonsure during the third year.’

Śaṅkha (Do.). — ‘Tonsure during the third or the fifth vear.’

Śaunaka (Do.). — ‘Tonsure during the third year, or according to the family-custom.’

Lokākṣi (Do.). — ‘For those belonging to the Vaśiṣṭha Gotra, the tuft is towards the right, for those of Atri or Kāś-yapa, on both sides; for those of Bhṛgu, it should be all shaven; for those of Aṅgiras, there are five tufts; others have the tuft in the form of a semi-circle.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka, p. 29). — ‘Tonsure during the third or the fifth year.’

Vyāsa (Do.). — [Lays down the auspicious days, etc.]

VERSE 2.36 [Initiation (upanayana)]

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

गर्भाष्टमेऽब्दे कुर्वीत ब्राह्मणस्यौपनायनम् ।
गर्भादेकादशे राज्ञो गर्भात् तु द्वादशे विशः ॥३६॥

garbhāṣṭame'bde kurvīta brāhmaṇasyaupanāyanam |
garbhādekādaśe rājño garbhāt tu dvādaśe viśaḥ ||36||

In the eighth year from conception one should perform the initiation of the Brāhmaṇa; of the king in the eleventh year from conception; and of the Vaiśya in the twelfth. — (36)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Counting from the year that one spends in the mother’s womb, when the child reaches the eighth year; — the term ‘garbha’ stands for the year spent in the womb; this indication being due to the presence of the term ‘year,’ ‘abda’; certainly the ‘year’ could never be the ‘eighth’ from ‘garbha,’ if this latter were taken in its direct sense; — in this year one should perform the Initiation of the Brāhmaṇa.

The term ‘aupanāyanam’ stands for ‘upamyanam,’ the ‘aṇ’ affix having the reflexive sense; and the lengthening of the vowel in the latter term (‘nayanam’) being in accordance with (Pāṇini 6.3.198); or the lengthening of the vowels of both terms (‘upa’ and ‘nayanam’) may be regarded as a Vedic anomaly.

‘Upanayana,’ ‘Initiation,’ is the name of a sacrament described in the Gṛhyasūtras and well-known to Vedic scholars, its other name is ‘Mauñjī-bandha,’ ‘Girdle-Investiture.’ That ceremony in which the child is taken over to — made over to — (upanīyate) — the teacher, for the purposes of teaching — and not for any such other purpose as the building of a Avail, or the making of a mat — is what is called ‘Upanayana.’ It is the name of a particular sacramental rite.

‘Of the King in the eleventh year from conception’; — for the Kṣatṭriya the ceremony should be performed in the eleventh year ‘from conception,’ — i.e., ‘beginning from conception,’ or ‘after conception.’

The term ‘king’ ‘rājan’ (in ‘rājñaḥ’) should he taken as standing for the Kṣatriya caste; and does not necessarily mean one who is a duly anointed king; firstly because such is the sense in which the word is generally used in books; secondly because in the present context it occurs along with the terms ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and the rest (which are all denotative of castes); and thirdly because we find the term ‘Kṣatriya’ used in the rules that follow regarding the details of the ceremony; e.g., it is raid that ‘the girdle of the Kṣatriya should consist of the bow-string’ (below, Verse 12). It is true that the term ‘king’ is sometimes used in the sense of the ‘rulers’ of ‘countries,’ and as such applied to Vaiśyas and other castes also; but such usage is purely figurative and indirect. And the figurative meaning of a word can be accepted only when the original direct meaning is found inapplicable. That the term ‘king’ in the text stands for the Kṣatriya is shown by the following words of the author of the Gṛhya-sutra — ‘One should initiate the Brāhmaṇa in the eighth year, the Kṣatriya in the eleventh and the Vaiśya in the twefth.’ It is on this understanding that the revered Pāṇini derives the word ‘rājya’ (‘Kingship’) from the word ‘rājan’ (King), explaining it as ‘the function the King,’ and hence used in the ordinary sense of ‘lord of country’ [ i.e., the ‘function of ruling a country’ really belongs to the Kṣatriya caste, and when persons of other castes arc called ‘King’ their title is based upon their doing ‘the work of the King’].

Of the Vaiśya, the ceremony should be performed in the twelfth year from conception. — (86)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 745); — in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 220), which explains that “Upanayana is to be derived as ‘Nayanam evanāyanam’ and then the prefix ‘Upa’ added; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 32); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 68), which adds that in the case of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also the years are to be counted from the one spent in the womb.

It has been quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 17); and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446).

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 344) explains the reason for the eighth, eleventh and twelfth years being regarded as the best for the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya respectively. The Gāyatrī mantra is sacred for the Brāhmaṇa and its foot contains eight syllables; the Triṣtup for the Kṣatriya contains a foot of eleven syllables, and the Jagati for the Vaiśya has a foot of twelve syllables.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1-7, 8, 13. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the Upanayana daring the eighth year; — for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, during the eleventh and twelfth years, respectively.’

Gautama (Aparārka, p. 32). — ‘Initiation during the eighth, fifth or ninth year; the eighth year from conception is the time fixed for all, the ninth or the fifth only for those with distinct motives.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2.8-10. — ‘The years in this connection being computed from conception, — the Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be performed during the eighth year; — three years after the eighth, of the Kṣatriya; — and after one more year, of the Vaiśya.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.44. — ‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be done during the eighth year from conception, of the Kṣatriya during the eleventh year from conception, and of the Vaiśya during the twelfth year from conception.’ Viṣṇu, 27.15-17. — ‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa during the eighth year from conception; of the Kṣatriya during the eleventh year from conception; of the Vaiśnava during the twelfth year from conception.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.14. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa’s Upanayana?s?? be performed either during the eighth year from conception, or during the eighth year (from birth); the Kṣatriya’s during the eleventh year; the Vaiśya’s during the twelfth year; according to some, it is to be done in accordance with the practice prevailing in the family.’

Āśvalāyana - Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.19.1-4. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa’s, Upanayana should be done during the eighth year, or during the eighth year from conception; the Kṣatriya’s during the eleventh year; the Vaiśya’s during the twelfth year.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1-2.1-3. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa’s Upanayana should be performed during the eighth vear, or during the eighth year from conception; the Kṣatriya’s during the eleventh year; the Vaiśya’s during the twelfth year.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.10.1-3. — ‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be done during the eighth year from conception; of the Kṣatriya, during the eleventh year; of the Vaiśya, during the twelfth year.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.19. — ‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be done during the spring, of the Kṣatriya during the summer, and of the Vaiśya, during the autumn. Of the Brāhmaṇa during the eighth year from conception, of the Kṣatriya, during the twelfth year from conception.’

Śruti (Vīramitrodaya, Saṃskāra, p. 339). — ‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should he performed when he is eight years old.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Do., p. 340). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa should acquire the ‘twice-born’ state during the eighth year from conception, or during the eighth, or the tenth year; the Kṣatriya during the eleventh year: and the Vaiśya during the twelfth year.

Nārada (Do., p. 31-1). — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the Upanayana should be performed during the eighth year, either from conception or from birth; for Kṣatriyas, during the eleventh year, and for Vaiśyas during the twelfth year.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do., p. 310). — ‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should he performed during the fifth year from conception or during the eighth year from conception; of the Kṣatriya during the eleventh year from conception; of the Vaiśya, during the twelfth year.’

Laugākṣi (Do., p. 311'. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa’s Upanayana during the seventh year; of the Kṣatriya during the ninth year, and of the Vaiśya, during the eleventh year.’

Budha (Aparārka, p. 31). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa should get himself initiated in his eighth year from conception, during the spring.'

Shannaka (Do.). — ‘One should initiate the Brāhmaṇa in his eighth year, or in his eighth year from conception; the Kṣattnya in the eleventh and the Vaiśya in the twelfth year.’

VERSE 2.37

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

ब्रह्मवर्चसकामस्य कार्यो विप्रस्य पञ्चमे ।
राज्ञो बलार्थिनः षष्ठे वैश्यस्यैहार्थिनोऽष्टमे ॥३७॥

brahmavarcasakāmasya kāryo viprasya pañcame |
rājño balārthinaḥ ṣaṣṭhe vaiśyasyaihārthino'ṣṭame ||37||

For the Brāhmaṇa desirous of Brahmic glory, it should be done in the fifth year; for the ‘King’ desirous of power, in the sixth; and for the Vaiśya desirous of business, in the eighth. — (37)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What belongs to the father is here attributed to the child; the desire — ‘May my sou attain Brahmic glory!’ — resides in the father; and this desire being attributed to the child, the latter is spoken of as ‘desirous of Brahmic glory.’ The child itself is too youug to have the said desire.

“In that case the action done by one person would have its result accruing to a totally different person; and this would involve the absurdity of a man acquiring what he has not earned. And the assertion that the result accrues to the child without his desiring it is one that is contrary to all reason and scriptural authority.”

There is no force in the objection. The case in question is analogous to that of the Śyena sacrifice: the Śyena is performed by a man seekiug to encompass death, and this death falls upon the person against whom the performance is aimed (and not on the performer himself). It might be argued that — “in this case the result actually accrues to the person seekiug for it; it is the sacrificer who desires the death of his enemy; and it is he who obtains this result; so that the result of the act does not accrue to a person that did not perform it.” — But in the present case also, the result, in the shape of ‘having a child with the particular qualification,’ accrues to the performer of the Initiation (the father); just as the good health of the child brings pleasure to the father, so also the Brahmic glory of the son would be a source of pleasure to the father; so that the result here also would accrue to the performer, who had sought for it. Further, it is only from the construction of the actual words used that we can ascertain the meaning of the scriptural texts; and in the present context, the only construction found possible is that the father should perform the ceremony with the desire of a certain result to accrue to his son; and there are no grounds for abandoning this natural construction of the words.

This same explanation applies also to the case of the benefits of the after-death rites accruing to the father (even though performed by the son); as in that case also the performer is the son, and the result is the satisfaction of the father. Further, we have the text — ‘Thou art my very self called the. non’ — which shows that when the after-death rites are performed by the son, it is the father himself (iṇ the shape of the son) that makes the offerings to himself; specially as it was with a view to this alone that the father begot the son.

Then again, in the Sarvasvāra sacrifice (which is performed by one who wishes to bring about his own death and translation to heaven), — even after the sacrificer himself has died, the subsequent details have got to he performed: and in this performance also the same sacrificer is regarded as the ‘performer,’ in view of the direction that he has given fo the Brāhmaṇas — ‘O brāhmaṇas, please complete this sacrifice,’ — as also of the sacrificial gifts and appointments made by him; by virtue of which the said sacrificer is regarded as the actual instigator or employer of the officiating priests. In the same manner, in the case in question also, in as much as the son was begotten for the purpose of performing the funeral rites, these rites, though performed (by the son) for the sake of the father, are regarded as performed by the father himself.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 90, 1. 15) — ‘Sarvasvāre’ — See Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 10.2.56-57. At the Sarvasvāra sacrifice the sacrificer recites the Ārbhaya hymn just before he enters the fire for self-immolation,

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 27) as laying down the time for the performance of the Upanayaṇa with special ends in view.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446), which quotes Āpastamba as connecting The seventh year with ‘Brāhmic glory,’ the eighth with ‘longevity,’ the ninth with ‘splendour,’ the tenth with ‘food’, the eleventh with ‘efficiency of organs,’ and the twelfth with ‘cattle’.

Madanapārijāta (p. 17) quotes it mentioning the said assertions.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 748); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 12), as mentioning special results to be achieved; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 41 b); and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 68).

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 345) quotes it as describing the Kāmya options.

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 184) quotes it without comment.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.7-8. — ‘When special results are desired, during the ninth or the fifth year.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.21-26. — ‘During the seventh year, if Brāhmic glory is desired for the boy; during the eighth year, if longevity is desired; during the ninth year, if brilliance is desired; during the tenth year, if possession of much food is desired; during the eleventh year, if efficiency of sense-organs is desired; during the twelfth year, if possession of cattle is desired.’

Uśanas (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 315). — ‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be done during the fifth year from birth, of the Kṣatriya during the sixth, and of the Vaiśya during the seventh year, — if strength is desired.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīra-Saṃskara, p. 345). — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa if Brāhmic glory is desired, his Upanayana should be performed during the eighth year (either from conception or from birth); if food is desired, during the ninth year; if intelligence is desired, during the tenth year: if possession of jewels is desired, during the eleventh year; if bodily stoutness is desired, during the twelfth year.’

Aṅgiras (Do., p. 346). — ‘For the Kṣatriya desiring prosperity or strength, it should be performed during the sixth or the twelfth year, respectively; for the Vaiśya desiring success in agriculture or longevity, it should be performed during the eighth or fourth year, respectively.’

Baudhāyana (Do., p. 346). — ‘During the seventh year, if Brāhmic glory is desired; during the eighth, if longevity is desired; during the ninth, if brilliance is desired; during the tenth, if food is desired; during the eleventh, if efficient sense-organs are desired; during the twelfth, if cattle is desired; during the thirteenth, if intelligence is desired; during the fourteenth, if stoutness is desired; during the fifteenth, if the birth of a brother’s son is desired; and during the sixteenth, if all desirable things are desired.’

VERSE 2.38

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

आ षोदशाद् ब्राह्मणस्य सावित्री नातिवर्तते ।
आ द्वाविंशात् क्षत्रबन्धोरा चतुर्विंशतेर्विशः ॥३८॥

ā ṣodaśād brāhmaṇasya sāvitrī nātivartate |
ā dvāviṃśāt kṣatrabandhorā caturviṃśaterviśaḥ ||38||

For the Brāhmaṇa the Sāvitrī does not lapse till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya till the twenty-second year; and for the Vaiśya till the twenty-fourth year. — (38)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For the Initiatory Rite, the principal as well as the optional time have been prescribed. From this it would seem that if, on account of the death of the father, or by reason of illness and such other causes, the boy remains uninitiated and the prescribed time has gone by, — he becomes unfit, for initiation; this idea being countenanced by the faot that, even though the prescribed time is a secondary factor in the rite, yet on the lapse of that time, the performer’s title to the performance ceases; just as we find in the case of omission of the Agnihotra -offerings after the prescribed morning and evening have gone by. It is with a view to this that the present verse propounds an exception to the general rule, and lays down the necessity of performing the rite even after the passing off of the prescribed time.

Till the end of the sixteenth year after conception, the Brāhmaṇa’s title to the Initiatory Bite does not cease. The term ‘Sāvitrī’ in the text stands for the ‘Rite of Initiation,’ which is the means whereby the teaching of the is accomplished. ‘Does not lapse,’ i.e., does not become out of date.

Similarly ‘for the Kṣatriya till the twenty-second year,’ — i.e., for the person belonging to the Kṣatriya caste. Tho term ‘bandhu’ is used (a) sometimes in a deprecatory sense; e.g., in such passages as — ‘how doth thou know this. O Brahma-bandhu! (wretched Brāhmaṇa)?’; — (b) sometimes it is used in the sense of ‘family’; e.g., in the passage — ‘the possession of a number of villages, the presence of a large following, extensive family-connections ( ), and alliances, — these are not to be trifled with even by Indra himself; what to say of persons possessing only parts of the earth!’; — (c) in some cases it also means ‘substance’; e.g., in Pāṇiṇi’s Sutra (5.4.9) — ‘a word ending with the term jāṭi takes the affix ca, when it denotes bandhu (i.e., a substance belonging to a particular class).’ In the present context the first two meanings of the term ‘bandhu’ being inapplicable, we take it in the third sense.

The nominal affix (ḍaṭ) in the term ‘dvāviṃśaḥ’ means that which completes the number twenty-two, i.e., the twenty-second.

‘For the Vaiśya till the twenty-fourth year’. — Here also though the presence of the ‘ḍaṭ’-affix implying completion was necessary, yet it has not been used in view of metrical contingencies; but the sense is there all the same. That this must be so is proved by the fact that the number ‘twenty-four,’ which denotes the entire lot of twenty-four years, could never form the limit of anything; while tine ‘twenty-fourth year' which is one part of the ‘twenty-four,’ can very well form the limit.

People explain the particle ‘ā’ as denoting inclusion.

In support of what is said in this verse people cite the Vedic text — ‘The Brāhmaṇa should be initiated with the Gāyatrī, the Kṣatriya with the and the Vaiśya with the Jagatī’ [the Gāyatrī metre containing 24, three times eight, the Tṛṣtup 33, three times eleven, and the Jagatī, 48, four times twelve, syllables]; the ages spoken of in the text (16, 22 and 24) suffice to complete two quarters of each of the three metres; up till then the metres retain their force and do ṇot abandon the castes that form their receptacles; when however the third quarter has passed, they lose their essence, become aged and having their force reduced, they disappaer, just as the man becomes old at 50 (which represents two quarters of his life of 100 years). It is for this reason that the said metres abandon their respective castes, when they find that they have not been studied by them; and it is thus that (after the said ages) the Brāhmaṇa ceases to be ‘related to the Gāyatrī,’ the Kṣatriya ceases to be ‘related to the Triṣṭup’ and the Vaiśya ceases to be ‘related to the Jagatī.’

‘Sāvitrī’ — is the name of that verse which has for its deity; and that such a verse is the Gāyatrī has been shown above, on the strength of the Gṛhyasūtras.

For the Kṣatriya, the ‘Sāvitrī’ is the verse ‘Ākṛṣṇena, etc.’ (Ṛgveda, 1.35-2; Vājasaneya, 33.43), which is in the Triṣṭup metre; and for the Vaiśya, it is the verse ‘Viśvā rūpāṇi, etc.’ Ṛgveda, 5.81.2; Vājasaneya, 12.3). — (38)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Burnell, in applying the name ‘vrātya’ to ‘Aryans not Brāhmanised,’ should have quoted his authorities.

Kullūka notes that some people have taken the particle ‘ā,’ ‘till,’ in the sense of ‘until the beginning of’.

This verse has been quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 342), where it is pointed out that the ‘sixteenth’ and other years mentioned here should be counted ‘from conception,’ as in the case of the eighth and others in verse 36. It points out that this verse lays down the many secondary occasions for the performance of the ceremony.

This same work on p. 344, refers to the passage in Medhātithi, where a Vedic text is quoted, which connects. the Gāyatrī Triṣṭup and Jagati metres with the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya respectively; and as under 36, so here also, it explains that the limits fixed in this verse too are determined by the number of syllables in a foot of each of the three metres mentioned. A foot of the gāyatrī has eight syllables; so till the bṇy is sixteen years old, the Gāyatrī retains more than a third of its force; and it is only when the boy has passed his sixteenth year (corresponding to the sixteen syllables of the two feet of the Gāyatrī) that the force of the mantra becomes weakened. Similarly twenty two years correspond to the twenty-two syllables of the two feet of the Triṣṭup, sacred for the Kṣatriya, and twenty four years correspond to the twenty four syllables of the first two feet of the Jagati metre, sacred for the Vaiśya.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446); and in Madanapārijāta (p. 36) as the outside age-limit for Upanayana; — in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 751), which adds that ‘ā’ here denotes limit; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra. p. 41b); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 72), as Laying down the secondary times for the initiation.

Vidhānapārijāta, (p. 471) has quoted the verse as laying down the secondary occasion for Upanayana; — so also Nirṇayasindhu (p. 184).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 38-39)

Viṣṇu, 1.27.26. — (Exactly the same words as in Manu.)

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.14.16. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the Sāvitrī does not lapse till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya, till the twenty-second year; for the Vaiśya till two years longer.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.13. — ‘There is no lapse for these till the sixteenth, the twentv-second and the twenty-fourth year, respectively.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.1.27. — ‘Till the sixteenth year there is no lapse for the Brāhmaṇa; till the twenty-second, for the Kṣatriya; and till the twenty-fourth, for the Vaiśya; till then they would be fit for keeping the observances that we are going to describe.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.51.53. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the time does not lapse till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya, till the twenty-second year; for the Vaiśya, till the twenty-fourth year.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.19.5-6. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the time does not lapse till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya, till the twenty-second year; for the Vaiśya, till the twenty-fourth year; after this, they become lapsed from the Sāvitrī.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.36-38. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the time does not become lapsed till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya, till the twenty-second and for the Vaiśya till the twenty-fourth year.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 3-12). — ‘The twelfth, the sixteenth and the twentieth years are the times not deprecated.’

Yājñavalkya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 342). — ‘The time for Upanayana extends up to the sixteenth, the twenty-second and the twenty-fourth year, for the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, respectively.

Yājñavalkya 1.38 (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347). — ‘After these years all the three become fallen, excluded from all religious rites; and become apostates, deprived of the Sāvitrī, until they perform the Vrātyastoma.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 343). — ‘Sixteen years, twenty-two years and twenty-four years constitute the time for Upanayana.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 343). — ‘Sixteen years have been prescribed for the Brāhmaṇa, twenty-two years for the Kṣatriya and twenty-four years for the Vaiśya.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saihskāra, p. 343). — ‘He who has dropped the Sāvitrī for fifteen years, should keep the observance after having shaven his head along with the Śikhā.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347). — ‘The apostates, fallen from Sāvitrī, should be studiously shunned.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 343). — ‘Sixteenth is the limit for Brāhmaṇas for securing the status of the twice-born; twenty-second for Kṣatriyas; and twenty-fourth for Vaiśyas.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347). — ‘After this, not having acquired the status of the twice-born, they fall and become apostates, excluded from Vedic rites.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 345). — The Brāhmaṇa who has passed his sixteenth year, should not have his Upanayana performed; the Kṣatriya after the twentieth year: and the Vaiśya after the twenty-fifth year.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347). — (Has the same defìni-tion of the ‘Apostate’ as Yājñavalkya.)

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347). — (Same as Manu, 39.)

VERSE 2.39

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

अत ऊर्ध्वं त्रयोऽप्येते यथाकालमसंस्कृताः ।
सावित्रीपतिता व्रात्या भवन्त्यार्यविगर्हिताः ॥३९॥

ata ūrdhvaṃ trayo'pyete yathākālamasaṃskṛtāḥ |
sāvitrīpatitā vrātyā bhavantyāryavigarhitāḥ ||39||

Beyond this, all these three, not having received the sacrament at the proper time, become excluded from Sāvitrī (initiation), and thereby come to be known as ‘Vrātyas’ (apostates), despised by all good men. — (39)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Beyond’ — after — the said time, ‘all these three’ castes — the Brāhmaṇa and the rest; — ‘at the proper time’ — at the exact time prescribed for each caste, or even at the secondary period permitted; — ‘not having received the sacrament’ — not having their Upanayana- ceremony performed; — ‘excluded from Sāvitrī’ — become fallen off from Initiation; and also ‘come to he known as Vrātyas’ — ‘despised,’ looked down upon, ‘by all good men’ by respectable and cultured people.

This verse is intended to explain the signification of the well known name ‘Vrātya’ That they become excluded from Initiation has already been implied in the preceding verse.

It has been said that they ‘are despised by good men’; the next verse explains the nature of contempt in which they are held. — (39)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Ācāra, p. 446), and in Madanapārijāta (p. 36), where it is explained that on the expiry of the limit mentioned in verse 38, the boy becomes a ‘Vrātya,’ ‘apostate’, and can be invested only after having become sanctified by the performance of the Vrātyastoma rite.

Madanapārijāta (p. 36) goes on to add that the dumb and the insane, as never fit for the sacraments, are not to be regarded as ‘apostates’ by reason of the omission of the sacraments; so that in the event of their having children these latter do not lose their Brāhmaṇa-hood or their right to the sacraments.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 347) quotes this verse as from Manu and Yama both.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 38-39)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.38.

VERSE 2.40

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

नैतैरपूतैर्विधिवदापद्यपि हि कर्हि चित् ।
ब्राह्मान् यौनांश्च सम्बन्धान्नाचरेद् ब्राह्मणः सह ॥४०॥

naitairapūtairvidhivadāpadyapi hi karhi cit |
brāhmān yaunāṃśca sambandhānnācared brāhmaṇaḥ saha ||40||

The Brāhmaṇa should not in ant case, even in times of distress, establish spiritual or uterine relationship with these persons, until they have been duly purified. — (40)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘With these’ — Vrātyas; — ‘until purified’ — by expiatory rites; — ‘duly,’ i.e., according to rules laid down in the scriptures laying down expiatory rites; e.g., ‘making them undergo three Kṛcchras, etc., etc.;’ — ‘even in times of distress’ — i.e., under no circumstances however distressful; — ‘should not establish,’ enter into, ‘relationship’ with them.

The question arising as to whether or not this prohibits all kinds of relationship, the text supplies the answer in the negative — ‘spiritual or uterine .’

The term ‘brāhma,’ ‘spirit,’ here stands for the Veda; and it is relationships through the Veda that are prohibited; such relationships as officiating at sacrifices, teaching and accepting gifts; the meaning being that one should neither officiate at their sacrificial performances, nor appoint them to officiate at sacrifices, they should not be taught, nor should one read with them. Since it is only one who knows the meaning of the Veda that is entitled to accept gifts, the accepting of gifts also becomes a ‘Vedic’ or ‘spiritual’ relationship.

‘Uterine relationship,’ — the giving and taking of daughters in marriage.

The specification of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ is intended to be illustrative only.

The sense of all this is that, in view of the disqualification here described, the boy whose father is no more should, if he is intelligent, try to avoid the disqualification, by presenting himself (at the proper time) for Initiation. To this end we have the Śruti — “Satyakāma Jābāla went to Gautama Hāridrumata and said — ‘I shall, sir, live with you as a religious student”; where the boy himself requested the teacher to inflate him. The initiating of boys is however entirely optional; so that if the teacher should be found unwilling to take up the initiation, be should be appealed to by the boy by means of presents, etc. — (40)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 144); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 73), which explains ‘brahma-sambandha’ as ‘teaching and so forth,’ and ‘apūtaiḥ’ as those who have not performed the prescribed expiatory rites.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446); — and also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 349), which explains the term ‘apūtaiḥ’ as ‘those who have not performed the prescribed expiatory rites;’ and the ‘relationships’ referred are explained as standing for Initiation, Reading, Teaching, Sacrificing and Receiving gifts.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 68) in support of the view that dealings are permitted with such men as may have performed the expiatory rites laid down for the omission of the sacraments; — it adds that this is made clear by the epithet ‘Apūtaiḥ’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.1.33; 1.2.6. — ‘With these (apostates) one should avoid association, dining and marriage; in the event of their being desirous of expiating (the omission and the consequent apostacy), they should keep, for twelve years, the observances relating to Vedic studies, and then undergo the Upanayana, and be sprinkled with water with Pāvamānī and other mantras.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.55. — ‘They should not perform their Upanayana, nor teach them, nor sacrifice for them, nor marry them.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasütra, 1.19.7. — ‘They should not perform their Upanayana, nor teach them, nor sacrifice for them, nor have any dealings with them.’ [The Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 349, explains ‘dealings’ to mean ‘marriage-connection.’]

Pāraskara - Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.40. — [Exactly the same as above.]

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.6. — ‘They should not perform their Upanayana, nor teach them, nor sacrifice for them, nor have marriage-relations with them.’

Baudhāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 348). — ‘There are no rites for the apostate until he passes through the Upanayana; so long as he is not born in the Veda, he remains like a Śūdra.’

Āśvalāyana-Smrti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 349). — ‘No dealings — either Vedic (tutorial), or marital or commercial, — should he ever held with them by any cultured person who is true to his dharma.’

VERSE 2.41

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

कार्ष्णरौरवबास्तानि चर्माणि ब्रह्मचारिणः ।
वसीरन्नानुपूर्व्येण शाणक्षौमाविकानि च ॥४१॥

kārṣṇarauravabāstāni carmāṇi brahmacāriṇaḥ |
vasīrannānupūrvyeṇa śāṇakṣaumāvikāni ca ||41||

Brahmacāris should wear the skin of the black (deer), of the Ruru deer and of the goat respectively; and also the cloth of hemp, flax and wool.’ — (41)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the term ‘Kṛṣna,’ ‘black,’ is applied to everything that may be endowed with the quality of blackness, — as we find in the expressions ‘the black cow,’ ‘the black blanket,’ and so forth, — yet, in the present context, it is clearly recognised as standing for the ‘black deer’; firstly because of its occurring along with the ‘skin of the Ruru deer,’ and secondly because of the directions contained in other Smṛtis (which clearly mention the black deer).

‘Ruru’ — is a particular species of the deer.

‘Basta’ — is the goat.

In all the three words (‘kārṣṇa’ — ‘raurava’ — ‘vāsta’) the nominal affix (aṇ) denotes either formation or constitution (i.e., either ‘formed out of’ or ‘consisting of’).

‘Should wear’; — the Brāhmaṇa should cover his body with the skin of the black antelope, the Kṣatriya with the skin of the Ruru deer and the Vaiśya with the skin of the goat.

And also cloth made of śaṇa (hemp), kṣumā (flax), and ūrṇā (wool).

The particle ‘ca’ (‘and also’) has the cumulative force.

The cloth made of hemp and the rest are not to be used as upper garments; and the skins are to be used as upper garments; as such is the proper course. For Kaupīna (loin-slip) and wrapping, the cloth is to be used.

‘Respecting’ each of the three castes is not related to all the clothing that is mentioned; nor are they to be connected in the reverse order; in fact the first Brahmacārī is connected with the first skin and first cloth, the second with the second and so forth, as we have shown.

An objection is raised — “Even without the express mention (of the respective order), it would be understood through usage; for instance, such expressions as ‘shattered, scattered an d burnt by thunder, wind and fire’ are always understood to mean ‘shattered by thunder,’ ‘scattered by the wind’ and ‘burnt by fire’ (even though respectivity is not expressly mentioned).”

Answer. — This could be so understood if the three Brahma-charts bad been mentioned separately, and if the number (of Brahmacāris and the clothings) were the same. In the present instance, however, we have the single term ‘Brahmacāris,’ and the three Brahmacāris are not specifically named in any order. Further, the number of Brahmacāris is three, while that of the correlatives is six — three skins and three cloths. When however the text expressly mentions ‘respectivity,’ the order of the Brāhmacāris is deduced from that in which they are found to be spoken of in other texts. And after the ‘three Brahmacharis’ have been construed with the three skins, they are again repeated and construed with the cloths. And in.this manner the compatibility of numbers is maintained. It is primarily with reference to such cases that the revered Pāṇini has taken the trouble of laying down that ‘when an equal number of things are mentioned they are to be taken in their respective order.’ (1.3.10). — (41)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ruru’ — has been described by Rāghavānanda as ‘tiger.’

Medhātithi (p. 92,1. 11) — ‘Smṛtyantara — This refers to Baudhāyana, Gṛhyasūtra, 2. 5. 16.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p.„ 57) as laying down that the skin of the Kṛṣṇamṛga, Ruru and Chāga should be worn as the ‘upper garment,’ respectively, by the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya,

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446), where it is explained that the skins mentioned are to be used as the upper garment, and the hempen and other cloths as the lower garment

Madanapārijāta (p. 20) quotes the second half as prescribing the cloths to be used by the three castes respectively; — and the first half (on p. 22) as laying down the skins.

The second half is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskā ra, p. 411) and the first half also (p. 413).

The verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 36), which adds that the skins of the Black Antelope, the Ruru deer and the goat are to be used as the upper garment: — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 430); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 75).

Burnell is again inaccurate in saying that cotton and silk (with the well to do) are alone used now for outer garments.”

Medhātithi rightly remarks that the triplication cannot apply to the Kṣatriya’s girdle; as on triplication the bowstring would cease to be a ‘bowstring. Govindarāja agrees with him. So also Madanapārijāta (p. 20) and Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra; p. 432), Rāghavānanda explains that as the bow-string itself is a triplicated cord, no further triplication would be necessary.

The ‘Muñja’ grass, in Northern India called muṃja, is, as Burnell notes, the Saccarum Sara of the botanists.

Madanapārijāta (p. 20) explains that the Muñja has ‘tejanī’ as its other name; and a foot-note adds that it is what is called muragā.

This verge is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 447); — also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 432), which explains ‘trivṛt’ not as twisted three-fold, but as ‘going round the waist three times’; — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 189); — in

Aparārka (p. 58); in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 70), which explains ‘trivṛt’ as threefold; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 37), which quotes Medhātithi to the effect that since bowstrings are made sometimes of leather, the author has added the epithet ‘Maurvī’, ‘Murvā grass’; in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 192), which reproduces the above remark of Medhātithi, as also his further remark that the string is to be removed from the bow and then tied round the waist: it adds the following notes: the ‘Samā’, not uneven, thin in one place and thick in another; it should be of uniform thickness all through; — the three-fold twist applies to the hempen cord and not to the bow-string, which would cease to be a bowstring when so twisted; — it is quoted also in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 43 b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.18.23. — ‘Skins of the black deer, the spotted deer and the goat; cloths of hemp, flax, tree-bark and kuśa grass, — for all; also of cotton, pure white; according to some, also red-coloured, for the Brāhmaṇa, dyed in tree-bark, for the other two castes, dyed in mañjiṣṭhā and haridrā.’

Gautama (Aparārka, p. 58). — ‘For all, the cotton cloth in its natural colour.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.15. — ‘The skins of the black deer, the spotted deer and the goat are the skins.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.39-41. — ‘For clothing — hempen, flaxen and skin — some people advice the reddish-brown cloth.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.3.1-9. — ‘For the Kṣatriya, dyed in Mañjiṣṭhā; for the Vaiśya, dyed in Haridrā; for the Brāhmaṇa, the skin of the white or black deer; for the Kṣatriya, the skin of the spotted deer; for the Vaiśya, the skin of the goat; the sheep-skin for all castes; as also the woolen cloth; if the student is desirous of Brāhmic glory, he should wear the skins alone; if desirous of Kṣattric glory, he should wear the cloths alone; if desirous of both kinds of glory, he should wear both.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.47. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the upper garment consists of the skin of the black deer; for the Kṣatriya, of the skin of the spotted deer; for the Vaiśya, of the skin of the cow or of the goat.’ [Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 413, reads for ‘Gavyam,’ ‘āvyam,’ which means ‘of sheep.’ ]

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.49. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the doth new and white; for the Kṣatriya, dyed in Mañjiṣṭhā; for the Vaiśya, dyed in Haridrā, or silken; for all, woven cloth, undyed; the new white cotton cloth, as also the hempen.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.19-20. — ‘The upper garment should he of cotton, hemp and wool; and the skins of the deer, the tiger and the goat.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.19.7. — ‘The hoy should be adorned and having his head shaven according to family-custom, clothed in new cloth or in skin; the Brāhmaṇa in the skin of the black deer, the Kṣatriya in that of the spotted deer, and the Vaiśya in that of the goat.’ [The ‘ahata,’ ‘new,’ cloth has been thus defined by Pracetas: — ‘slightly washed, fresh-white, with ends intact, never worn before’ — Vira-Saṃskāra, p. 411.]

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 411). — ‘If they wear cloth, then the Brāhmaṇa should wear the reddish-brown, the Kṣatṭriya that dyed in Mañjiṣṭhā, and the Vaiśya that dyed in Haridrā.’

Pāraskara- Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.16-19. — ‘Cloths, hempen, flaxen and woolen; for the Brahmaṇa, the upper garment is the skin of the black deer; for the Kṣatriya, that of the spotted deer; and for the Vaiśya, either that of the cow or the goat; or that of the cow for all.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyaṣūtra, 2.10.7-8. — ‘The cloths for these are flaxen, hempen, cotton, and woolen; and the skins, those of the black deer, the spotted deer and the goat.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.10. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa the cloth should be of flax or of hemp; for the Kṣatriya of cotton; for the Vaiśya of wool.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 412). — ‘The clothing to be worn should be always white, whether it consists of flax, or cotton, or grass, or skin, or tree-bark, or wool.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 412). — ‘The water-pot, the sacrificial thread and the reddish-brown cloth — these are common.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskara, p. 413). — ‘The skins of the Kṛṣṇa, the Ruru and the Pṛṣat deer.’

Hīraṇyakeśin (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 413). — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa the skin of the black deer; for the Kṣatriya, that of the spotted deer; for the Vaiśya, that of the goat.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 413). — ‘The upper garment should consist of the skins of the black deer, the spotted deer and the goat.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 413). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa, the skin of the black deer; the Kṣatriya, that of the spotted deer; and the Vaiśya, the skin of the goat; or the skin of the spotted deer, for all.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 58). — ‘For all, the skin of the Rum, the hempen cloth and the woolen cloth, according to their circumstances, should form the lower garment.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 414). — ‘The skin for the Brāhmaṇa is of the black deer; for the Kṣatriya, of the spotted deer; for the Vaiśya of the goat; and the cloths are hempen, flaxen and woolen.’

[The idea is that the lower garment should consist of cloth and the upper garment of skin.]

The size of the ‘skin’ to be worn has been prescribed by Śākala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 414) — as ‘48 aṅgulas long and 4 aṅgulas broad.’

VERSE 2.42

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

मौञ्जी त्रिवृत् समा श्लक्ष्णा कार्या विप्रस्य मेखला ।
क्षत्रियस्य तु मौर्वी ज्या वैश्यस्य शणतान्तवी ॥४२॥

mauñjī trivṛt samā ślakṣṇā kāryā viprasya mekhalā |
kṣatriyasya tu maurvī jyā vaiśyasya śaṇatāntavī ||42||

For, the Brāhmaṇa the girdle should be threefold, of even thickness, soft and smooth, made of muñja grass; for the Kṣatriya it should be the bow-string made of murvā grass; and for the Vaiśya the cord made of hempen fibres.” — (42)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The muñja is a particular kind of grass; the cord made of that grass is called ‘Mauñjī.’ This cord should form the ‘girdle,’ hraid, waist-band. ‘Threefold’ — triple-corded; — ‘of even thickness’ — not such as is thin in one part and thinner in another; but such as is even throughout; — ‘soft and smooth,’ of soft texture, well-rubbed.

‘For the Kṣatriya the bow-string’; — the string of the bow. The bow-string is made sometimes of leathern thong, sometimes of grass or of fibres of hemp or flax; hence the text specifies it as that ‘made of murvā grass’; this string should be taken down from the bow and made into the waist-band.

Even though the qualifications of triplicity and the rest apply literally to all kinds of ‘girdle,’ and not only to that of muñja grass, yet they cannot be applied to the ‘bow-string,’ as with such qualifications it would entirely lose its character of ‘bow-string.’

‘Made of hempen fibres’; — the lengthening of the vowel in the second number of the compound is an archaism. Or, we may take the term ‘tāntavī’ by itself formed with the nominal affix added to the term ‘tantu’ only, and then compound the term ‘tāntavī’ with the term ‘śaṇa’; since the ‘tāntavī,’ the fibre, is a product of the ‘śaṇa,’ hemp, it is naturally spoken of as related to its source (the hemp) [hence the compound śaṇānām tāntavī — ‘śaṇatāntavī’; as we find in such expressions as ‘the cow’s butter,’ ‘Deva-datta’s grand son’ and so forth]. This hempen cord should be made like that of the Muñja cord; as the author of the Gṛhyasūtras have clearly laid down that the Vaiśya’s girdle should have the qualities of triplicity and the rest. — (42)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.17. — ‘The girdles are of Muñja grass, of bowstring and made of Murvā grass, and of fibres respectively.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.14. — ‘The girdles are of Muñja, bowstring and hempen.’

Āpastamba- Dharmasūtra, 1.1.2.33-37. — ‘For the Brahmaṇa, the girdle consists of Muñja-string three-fold; for the Kṣatriya, of bowstring; or of Muñja-string mixed with iron; for the Vaiśya, of woolen yarn; or according to some, of fibres of the Āsana tree, or of those of the Tamāla tree.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.46. — ‘The girdle for the Brāhmaṇa consists of the Muñja-string; for the Kṣatriya, of the bowstring; for the Vaiśya, of hempen fibre.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.18. — ‘For these the girdles are of Muñja, of bowstring and of Balvaja fibres.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasütra, 1.19.11. — ‘The girdle for the Brāhmaṇa is of Muñja grass, for the Kṣatriya, of the bowstring; for the Vaiśya, of wool.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.21-23. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the girdle is of Muñja grass; for the Kṣatriya, of the bowstring; for the Vaiśya, of Murvā grass.’

Gobhilā- Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.10. — ‘The girdles are of Muñja, Kāśa and Kambala.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Aparārka, p. 55). — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the girdle of Muñja and Aśmāntaka.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 433). — ‘The girdle of the Brāhmaṇa is of Muñja grass; of the Kṣatriya of the bowstring made of Murvā grass; and that of the Vaiśyas, of hempen fibre.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 434). — ‘Or, for all, of Muñja grass.’

VERSE 2.43

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

मुञ्जालाभे तु कर्तव्याः कुशाश्मन्तकबल्वजैः ।
त्रिवृता ग्रन्थिनैकेन त्रिभिः पञ्चभिरेव वा ॥४३॥

muñjālābhe tu kartavyāḥ kuśāśmantakabalvajaiḥ |
trivṛtā granthinaikena tribhiḥ pañcabhireva vā ||43||

In the event of Muñja (and thb rest) being not available, they should be made of Kuśa, Ashmantaka and Balvaja, — triplicated with one, three or four knots. — (43)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Writers declare that the phrase ‘and the rest’ is understood, the sense being ‘in the event of Muñja and the rest being not available.’ And the reason for this is that it is only thus that the plural number ‘should be made,’ becomes more appropriate; specially as the diversity of the girdle has been clearly prescribed in accordance with the diversity of castes. If the girdle spoken of in the present verse were meant for that of any one caste only, then the plural number could be justified only by taking it as referring to the girdle worn by the endless individual members of that one caste; and further, it would be necessary in this case to alter the singular number in ‘viprasya’ (of the preceding verse) into the plural number (to bring it into conformity with the present verse); and lastly, in this case all the three alternatives herein mentioned would have to be taken as pertaining to the one girdle (of the Brāhmaṇa only). And no such multiplicity of option should be allowed so long as there is any other way of taking the text.

Thus then the sense of the present verse is as follows — (a) if Muñja is not available, the girdle should be made of Kuśa; if the bow-string is not available, it should be made of Ashmantaka; and (c) if the hempen fibre is not available it should be made of Balvaja.

The terms ‘kuśa,’ etc., denote grasses and herbs.

This verse is meant to restrict the choice of substitutes; so that in the absence of kuśa, etc., one would not be justified in using any other similar substances.

Triplicated by one knot. The various numbers (of knots) are not meant to be restricted to the three castes respectively; they are intended to be optional alternatives for every one of them. This difference in the number of knots in the girdle made of kuśa, etc., as well as the other details laid down in connection with it are to be regarded as regular injunctions, even though the customs laid down in other Smṛtis are not necessarily binding. — (43)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 447), — and also in Madanapārijāta (p. 20), which latter agrees with Medhātithi in taking the Kuśa-Aśmāntaka-Balvaja as pertaining to the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya respectively.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 433) explains that the term ‘Muñja’ in the present verse stands for all its variants mentioned in the preceding verse, and proceeds to quote the view that what is meant is that — (a) for the Brāhmaṇa in the absence of Muñja, Kuśa should be used, — (b) for the Kśatriya in the absence of Murvā, Aśmāntaka, and (c) for the Vaiśya in the absence of Śaṇa, Balvaja; but dissents from it, stating it as its own opinion, that all the three substitutes mentioned are meant for each of the primary substances enjoined before. It cites another view, according to which, since the present verse mentions the Muñja only, the meaning must be that the three substitutes are meant for the Brāhmaṇa only; so that for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, if the substance primarily prescribed under the preceding verse be not available, they should make use of some other suitable material resembling the primary. But this view also is not approved as being in conflict with the text of Yama, which says that — “in the absence, of these i.e. the three, Muñja, Murvā and Śaṇa, the girdle should be made of Kuśa, Aśmāntaka and Balvaja.”

The second half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra) on page 432, where it adds that the options mentioned do not depend entirely on the wish of the wearer, — the number of knots being, in fact, determined by the number of Pravaras of the Gotra to which the boy belongs.

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 189) also quotes this verse; — and Aparārka (p. 58), which explains that the knots are to be made in accordance with one’s ‘Gotra-ṛṣis’; — also Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 37), which quotes Kullūka’s explanation; — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 193) as setting forth substitutes for the girdle-zone; it adds the following notes: — The term ‘ādi’ is understood here, the construction being ‘Muñjādyabhāve’, ‘in the absence of Muñja and other substances’; the number of knots is to be the same as that of the wearer’s Pravara; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 43b); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 80), which adds the note that ‘trivṛt’ means ‘threefold’; and that ‘Muñja’ here stands for the Murvā and other substances specified in the preceding verse.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.24. — ‘In the absence of Muñja, it should consist of Kuśa, Ashman taka and Balvaja.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Sarhskāra, p. 433). — ‘In the absence of these (Muñja, Murvā and Hemp), it should consist of Kuśa, Ashmantaka and Balvaja; and girdles should be made threefold with either one or three knots.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 432). — ‘The girdle should be made triplicated; turned round three times; its knots should he three or five or seven.’

VERSE 2.44

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

कार्पासमुपवीतं स्याद् विप्रस्यौर्ध्ववृतं त्रिवृत् ।
शणसूत्रमयं राज्ञो वैश्यस्याविकसौत्रिकम् ॥४४॥

kārpāsamupavītaṃ syād viprasyaurdhvavṛtaṃ trivṛt |
śaṇasūtramayaṃ rājño vaiśyasyāvikasautrikam ||44||

The Sacrificial Thread worn over the shoulder, — which is triple and twisted upwards, — should be hade op cotton for the Brāhmaṇa, of hempen fibres for the Kṣatriya, and op woolen fibres for the Vaiśya. — (44)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘upavīta’ stands for the peculiar manner in which cloth is worn; as will be explained later in Verse 63; as such, it is only a quality; and since this quality cannot be made of cotton, the quality is taken as standing for the thing to which the quality belongs; the meaning being that the thing that is to be worn in the particular way should be made of cotton; the term ‘upavītam’ being regarded as formed with the ‘ach’ affix, according to Pāṇini 5.2.127, ‘upavītam’ being equivalent to ‘upavītavat.’

‘Twisted upwards’ — i.e., turned round, coiled upwards.

‘Triple’ — consisting of three yarns.

This ‘twisting upwards’ is laid down for that article which, on coming out of the spinning wheel, has acquired the properties of the ‘yarn’ and has then been folded three times. That is to say, three yarns should be brought together and by upward twisting made into a cord, and then used as the ‘sacred thread.’ Of this cord, either only one or three or five or seven should be worn. It comes to be known as the ‘sacrificial thread’ by reason of its being connected with sacrificial performances; in as much as it is worn for the purposes of sacrificial performances, it is so called figuratively.

Now, of the three kinds of sacrifice, the Iṣṭi, the Paśu and the Soma sacrifices, it may be worn single at all these, when they are all looked upon as ‘sacrifices’ in general (and hence, uniform); or it may be worn three-fold, when they are looked upon either as performed with the help of three fires, or as being divided into the three classes of ‘Ahīna,’

‘Ekāha’ and ‘Satra’; or again, it may be worn seven-fold, in view of the number of stages in the Soma sacrifice being seven; or lastly, it may be worn five-fold, in view of there being three ‘Savanas’ (extractions of Soma-juice) and two ‘Sandhyās’ (twilights).

[In the absence of Cotton], the ‘Thread’ may be made of silk and other fibres also; such is the direction given ill other Smṛtis.

‘Avi’ is sheep; the yarn made of wool is ‘woolen fibre’; the term ‘ārik?sūtrikam’ being formed with the ‘ṭhañ’ affix, according to the Vārtika on Paṇini 4.3.60. Or, we may read ‘avikasūtrikam’ this word being formed with the ‘ṭhan’ affix having the sense of the possessive. — (14)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtichandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 80), Which says that ‘trivṛt’ means ‘made of nine yarns’; — and in Nityāchārapradīpa (p. 31).

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 448); in Madanapārijāta (p. 21), — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 414); — also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 190); — in Aparārka (p. 58); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 43a); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 38), which has the following notes: — ‘ūrdhvavṛtam’ and ‘trivṛt’ are to be construed with ‘śaṇasūtramayam’; also, — ‘āvikam’ means ‘of sheep- wool.’

‘Urdhvavṛtam’ — This is thus defined by ‘Saṅgrahākāra.’ a writer quoted in Parāśaramādhava and Madanapārijāta — ‘That which is twisted threefold by the right hand moving upward’ — i.e. twisted towards the right.

‘Trivṛt’ — has been explained in Vīramitrodaya as standing for ‘consisting of nine threads’; and thus on the basis of a Śruti text which defines ‘Trivṛt’ as nine. The same explanation is given in Aparārka also; — so also Smṛtikaumudī (p. 6.)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 5.5. — ‘The Sacred Garment consists of the silken thread triplicated, hanging down to the navel and passing under the right arm.’ [‘Kauśa’ has been taken to mean ‘silken’ by the Kalpataru, but ‘made of kuśa’ by the Vīramitrodaya- Saṃskāra, p. 415.]

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.19. — ‘The sacred garment and the cloths are to be of cotton, hempen fibre and wool.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 415). — ‘Cotton thread is for all.’

Gobhila (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 415). — ‘The sacred garment is made of cotton, cloth or Kuśa -string.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Sarhskāra,p. 415). — ‘The Twice-born should wear the sacred garment made of cotton or flax or cow-hair or hemp or tree-bark or grass.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 449). — ‘The sacred thread should be made of nine-yarned thread.’

Ṛṣyaśṛṅga (Parāśaramādhava, p. 449). — ‘The purposes of the sacred garment should be served by means of the cloth, and in the absence of cloth, by means of the Triplicated Thread.’

Ādityapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 449). — ‘The sacred garment to be worn should consist of either flax or cotton or hemp.’

Bhṛgu and Kātyāyana (Do., p. 416). — ‘The Upavīta should consist of three threads twisted upwards, then twisted downwards, then twisted upwards again.

Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa (Do.). — ‘One thread should be folded thrice and then twisted three times.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘The sacred garment should consist of nine threads, with a single knot.’

Paiṭhinasi (Do.). — ‘The sacred garment should be of cotton for the Brāhmaṇa consisting of six triplicated threads; for the Kṣatriya, of flax, and for the Vaiśya, of wool.’

Bhṛgu (Do., p. 421). — ‘For the Student there should be only one Upavīta, for the Householder and the Recluse, two; and for the Renunciate also only one.’

Bhṛgu (Aparārka, p. 58). — ‘Three threads should he twisted upwards in three folds; the Upavīta shall be triplicated; and it should have a single knot.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.). — ‘For the Accomplished Student there should he two Upavītas.’

Kaśyapa (Do.). — ‘For the Householder, they may he three, four, five, eight or ten; for the Student only one; so also for the Recluse.’

Kātyāyana (Do., p. 422). — ‘One should always wear the Upavīta.’

Kātyāyana (Parāśaramādhava, p. 449). — ‘It should he of three threads three-fold, twisted upward and turned downwards. It has one knot.’

Pariśiṣṭa (Do., p. 423). — ‘During acts in honour of Gods, the garment should be worn on the left shoulder (technically called Upavīta); during those in honour of Pitṛs, on the right shoulder (technically called Prāchīnāvīta); during malevolent rites, on both shoulders, hanging over the chest down to the navel; and during the vulgar act, hanging on the hack (technically called nivīta).’

Śruti (Darśapūrṇamāsa section — quoted by Śabara, 3.4.1). — ‘Nivīta for men, Prachīnāvīta for Pitṛs and Upavīta for Gods.’

VERSE 2.45

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

ब्राह्मणो बैल्वपालाशौ क्षत्रियो वाटखादिरौ ।
पैलवौदुम्बरौ वैश्यो दण्डानर्हन्ति धर्मतः ॥४५॥

brāhmaṇo bailvapālāśau kṣatriyo vāṭakhādirau |
pailavaudumbarau vaiśyo daṇḍānarhanti dharmataḥ ||45||

The Brāhmaṇa should, by law, have staves of Bilva and Palāśa wood; the Kṣatriya those of Vaṭa and Khadira; and the Vaiśya those of Pīlu and Udumbara. — (45).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even though the text uses the Copulative Compound (which implies that two staves have to be carried), yet, in as much as in connection with the detailed qualifications of the staff laid down in the text, we find the singular number used, — e.g., in the next verse, and in Verse 18 below, — it is understood that only one staff is to be carried; specially as in the Gṛhya-sūtra we read — ‘the Brāhmaṇa’s staff’ is of Bilva or Palāśa’; and the Gautama-sūtra speaks of the carrying of one staff only. In the present context all that is done is to lay down the mere possibility of the staff; the expression ‘should have staves’ meaning that the said staves are fit for Brahmacārīs. As regards the question as to the act during which the staff is to be held, we shall have the answer in Verse 48 below; so that the staff being only an auxiliary to that act, the singular number used in that verse must be regarded as significant. For these reasons the

Dual number used in the present verse must be taken merely as referring to all possible staves; just like the plural number in the assertion — ‘if God were to give rain many persons would take to cultivation.’

‘Bilva,’ ‘Palāśa,’ ‘Vaṭa,’ ‘Khadira’ Pīlu’ and ‘bara’ are names of particular species of trees.

‘Bailva’ means ‘made of Bilva’; and so with the rest.

The naming of the woods is meant to be merely illustrative; as the general rule is that ‘staves made of sacred woods are fit for all castes’ (Gautama 1.1.24).

These staves the Brahmacārīs ‘should have’ during the act to be described below (in 48); — ‘by law’ — i.e., in accordance with scriptural injunctions. — (45)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 447); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 22), — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 436); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 930), which last points out that the copulative compound ‘bailvapālaśau’ should not be taken to imply that two staves have to be taken up; because later on, in verse 48, we have the singular form ‘daṇḍam’; — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 189), and Aparārka (p. 57); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra p. 43b); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 77), which adds that the text lays down optional alternatives; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 37), which adds that a combination of all the staves is not meant, only one staff being held, as is clear from the singular number in the next verse; they are to be taken as optional alternatives; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 193), which, along with Mayūkha reads ‘paippala’ or ‘pailava,’ and adds that option is clearly meant.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bodhāyana-Dhannasūtra, 1.2.16. — ‘The staves are to be of a sacrificial tree.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.21.26. — ‘The staff of the Brāhmaṇa is of Bilva and Palāśa; for the rest, of Aśvattha and Pīlu; or for all, of some sacrificial wood.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.37. — ‘The staff for tho Brāhmaṇa is of Palāśa; for the Kṣatriya, of the trunk or of the lower ends of the Nyagrodha tree; for the Vaiśya, of Badara or Udumbara; some people prescribe simply that the staff should be of some tree, without reference to particular castes.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.45. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the staff is of Palāśa or Bilva; for the Kṣatriya of Nyagrodha; for the Vaiśya, of Udumbara.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.21. — ‘Staves are of Palāśa, Khadira and Udumbara.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 19.12-13. — ‘The staff for the Brāhmaṇa is of Palāśa; for the Kṣatriya, of Udumbara; for the Vaiśva, of Bilva.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.25-28. — ‘The staff for the Brāhmaṇa is of Palāśa; for the Kṣatriya, of Bilva; for the Vaiśya, of Udumbara; or all for all.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.11. — ‘Staves are of Palāśa, Bilva and Aśvattha.’

Hīraṇyakeśin (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 134). — ‘The staff for the Brāhmaṇa is of Bilva or Palāśa; for the Kṣatriya, of Nyagrodha; for the Vaiśya, of Udumbara.’

Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (Do., p. 434). — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the staff is of Bilva, Palāśa and Plakṣa; for the Kṣatriya, of Nyagrodha, Khadira and Vetasa; for tho Vaiśya, of Pīlu, Udumbara and Aśvattha.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskara, p. 435). — ‘The staves are of Palāśa, Pippala and Bilva, respectively.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p.437). — ‘Staves of Bilva, Palāśa, Khadira, Aśvattha, Pīlu and Udumbara.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do., 435). — ‘For the Vaiśya, of Udumbara or Badara and Varaṇa.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 57). — ‘In the absence of those enumerated, any sacrificial wood may be used by any caste.’

The ‘sacrificial trees have been enumerated in Brahma-purāṇa, as follows: — ‘Śamī, Palāśa, Nyagrodha, Plakṣa, Vikaṅkata, Aśvattha, Udumbara, Bilva, Chandana, Sarala, Sālva, Devadāru and Khadira.’ (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskara, p. 435).

VERSE 2.46

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

केशान्तिको ब्राह्मणस्य दण्डः कार्यः प्रमाणतः ।
ललाटसम्मितो राज्ञः स्यात् तु नासान्तिको विशः ॥४६॥

keśāntiko brāhmaṇasya daṇḍaḥ kāryaḥ pramāṇataḥ |
lalāṭasammito rājñaḥ syāt tu nāsāntiko viśaḥ ||46||

For the Brāhmaṇa the staff should be made in size reaching up to the end of his hair, for the Kṣatriya it should reach up to the forehead, and for the Vaiśya to the nose; — (46)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘staff’ denotes the particular shape (of the wood carried); — a long piece of wood of a well-defined size is called ‘staff.’

The question arising as to what its length should be, the Text answers it. That which reaches up to the end of the hair is called ‘Keśāntika,’ i.e., reaching up to the head; i.e., in size it should reach from the tip of the foot up to the head. Or, the compound ‘Keśānta.’ may be expounded as ‘that of which the hair forms the end,’ the ka coming in as an additional affix at the end of the compound.

‘In size,’ — the staff — ‘should be made’ of the said size, — ‘for the Brāhmaṇa,’ — i.e., by the Teacher.

‘Reaching to the forehead’ — i.e., of the size reaching up to the forehead. The ‘forehead’ itself is only four inches in width; and as a piece of wood of that size could never be spoken of as ‘staff,’ we have to explain the term ‘lalāṭasamnitaḥ’ (which, as it stands, means ‘of the size of the forehead’) as meaning ‘that which reaches from the tip of the foot up to the forehead.’

Similarly for the Vaiśya, it should reach up to the tip of the nose. — (46)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 930), which adds that in the event of the specified wood not being available any one of the woods recommended for the three castes may be used for any one of these three; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 22); — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 436), which last explains ‘Keśāntikaḥ’ as ‘Mūrdhāpramāṇaḥ’; — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 448); — in Aparārka (p. 57); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p.43b); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 78), which explains ‘Keśāntikaḥ’ as reaching up to the head.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.27. — ‘They are of the size reaching up to the head, the forehead and the nose-tip.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra. — ‘The staves are of a sacrificial wood, reaching up to the head, the forehead and the nose-ṭip.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.46. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, it should reach up to the hair; for the Kṣatriya, up to the forehead; for the Vaiśya, up to tho nose.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 19.13. — ‘For the Brāhmaṇa, reaching up to the hair; for the Kṣatriya, reaching up to the forehead; for the Vaiśya, reaching up to ṭhe Breath (Nose-tip).’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 436). — ‘The staff of the Brāhmaṇa should reach to his hair; of the Kṣatriya, to his forehead; of the Vaiśya, to the Breath.’

Vyāsa (Do.). — ‘Reaching up to the head, the forehead and the nose-tip.’

Śaṅkha (Do., p. 437). — ‘They have been described as ranging between the Hair and the Forehead.’

Viṣṇu (Vīra-Saṃskara, p. 437). — ‘They should reach the Hair, the Forehead and the Nose.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.). — ‘They should reach the Hair, the Forehead and the Mouth.

VERSE 2.47

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

ऋजवस्ते तु सर्वे स्युरव्रणाः सौम्यदर्शनाः ।
अनुद्वेगकरा नॄणां सत्वचोऽनग्निदूषिताः ॥४७॥

ṛjavaste tu sarve syuravraṇāḥ saumyadarśanāḥ |
anudvegakarā nṝṇāṃ satvaco'nagnidūṣitāḥ ||47||

All these should be straight, unimpaired, handsome-looking, not frightening to men, with dark and unspoilt by fire — (47)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Straight’ — not crooked.

‘All’ — refers to those mentioned above; all those mentioned being equally the things under consideration.

‘Unimpaired’ — without holes.

‘Handsome looking’; — whose appearance is pleasing. That is, of pure colour and without thorns.

‘Not frightening’; — they should not be used to frighten anyone, dog or man; ‘to men’ being only indicative (of animals in general).

‘With bark’ — uncut, unpeeled.

‘Unspoilt by fire,’ — not affected by fire either of lightning or of the forest. — (47)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Anudvegakarāḥ’ — ‘not frightening’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja); — Kullūka does not explain the term; — ‘not displeasing to the wearer’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 448); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 930) — in Madanapārijāta (p. 22); — ‘in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 436); — in Aparārka (p. 57); — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 193), which adds the following notes: — ‘Ṛjavaḥ,’ straight, — ‘avraṇāḥ,’ free from holes, — ‘Saumyadarśanāḥ,’ free from thorns, etc., — ‘Agnidūṣitaḥ,’ burnt by fire.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama- Dharmasūtra, 1.27. — ‘They should he uninjured, tapering towards the top, and with bark.’

Visṇu-Smṛti, 27.24. — ‘They should be not crooked, and with bark.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Sarhskāra, p. 436). — ‘They should be tapering like the sacrificial post.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.). — (The same words as Gautama’s.)

VERSE 2.48

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

प्रतिगृह्येप्सितं दण्डमुपस्थाय च भास्करम् ।
प्रदक्षिणं परीत्याग्निं चरेद् भैक्षं यथाविधि ॥४८॥

pratigṛhyepsitaṃ daṇḍamupasthāya ca bhāskaram |
pradakṣiṇaṃ parītyāgniṃ cared bhaikṣaṃ yathāvidhi ||48||

Taking up the staff of his liking, having worshipped the sun and walked round the fire to his right, he should beg for alms according to the prescribed rule. — (48)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

After the skins have been put on, the tying of the girdle should be done; and after having tied the girdle, the Initiation should be performed; the staff is taken up after the ‘sacred thread’ ceremony has been performed. After the staff has been taken up, the Sun should be worshipped; i.e., one should stand facing the sun and worship Him with those Mantras of which the sun is the presiding deity; what are the particular Mantras to be employed can be ascertained from the Gṛhyasūtras; as also the other details of procedure.

The present verse describes only what is common to all persons.

‘Having walked round the fire to his right,’ — having passed all round it.

‘Gharet’ — (lit.) should accomplish; — ‘alms’ is a collective term, stauding for collection of fool; — this he ‘should beg.’

‘According to prescribed rule’ — refers to the rules going to be laid down below. The term ‘bhikṣū’ (food) stands for small quantities of cooked rice, etc. — (18)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 451), where it is explained that the Sun is to be worshiped as the sum total of the connotation of the Gāyatrī-mantra; — and that one is to realise that he is one with that deity. According to this authority the ‘parītyāgnim’means, not that the boy is to ‘walk round the fire’ (as explained by Kullūka and Medhātithi), but that he should tend the fire; and it proceeds to point out that the ‘tending of the fire’ is to be done according to what has been laid down by Manu himself under 2. 186.

It is difficult to see how this writer would construe the adverb ‘pradakṣiṇam.’

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 935) in support of the view that the particle ‘atha’ in the Gṛhya-sūtra: ‘aiha bhaikṣyañcarati’ stands for the Upasthāna of the Sun and ‘pradakṣiṇa’ of the Fire; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 32); the latter explaining ‘īpsitam’ by ‘as prescribed for each individual, and not any other’, adds that the Sun is to be worshipped with mantras sacred to that deity. It accepts Medhātithi’s explanation of the phrase ‘parityāgnim’; and points out that the three acts mentioned here all form part of the procedure of ‘begging.’

It is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 481), according to which also, ‘īpsitam’ means ‘what is prescribed for each particular caste’; — and the phrase ‘bhāskaram upasthāya’ (though it quotes the latter term as ‘abhi-vādya’) as ‘facing the sun’ (which is the explanation, it adds, suggested by Kalpataru); — and ‘Yathāvidhi’ as ‘according to the rule laid down in the next verse.’ It adds that all the three acts are subsidiary to the act of begging.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 60); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 60); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 108), which explains ‘Yathāvidhi’ as ‘according to the ordinances — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyāvahāra, p. 124 a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.12. — ‘Fire-kindling and alms-begging.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.3.25. — ‘Morning and evening, he should beg alms, from proper persons.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 22.5. — ‘He should beg alms, morning and evening.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.6.1. — ‘Alms-begging.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.42. — ‘After this he goes about begging alms.’

VERSE 2.49

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

भवत्पूर्वं चरेद् भैक्षमुपनीतो द्विजोत्तमः ।
भवन्मध्यं तु राजन्यो वैश्यस्तु भवदुत्तरम् ॥४९॥

bhavatpūrvaṃ cared bhaikṣamupanīto dvijottamaḥ |
bhavanmadhyaṃ tu rājanyo vaiśyastu bhavaduttaram ||49||

The Brāhmaṇa, having undergone Initiation, should beg for food with words of which ‘bhavat’ (‘Lady’) forms the beginning; the Kṣatriya with words of which ‘bhavat’ forms the middle; and the Vaiśya with words of which ‘bhavat’ forms the end. — (49)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The word ‘bhaikṣam’ here stands for the words with which the request for alms is preferred; as it is only the words that can have ‘bhavat’ as the ‘beginning’; the food itself could not have any such beginning.

In as much as it is laid down that ladies are the first to be begged from first, and in the request made it is the person begged from that is addressed, it is the feminine vocative form of the term ‘bhavat’ that should be used.

All that the present text does is to lay down the order of the words to he used, there being some transcendental purpose served by the order. The actual words used should be — ‘bhavati bhikṣām dehi,’ ‘O Lady, give me food.’

Question, — “ Wherefore could there be any possibility of

Sanskrit words being used, since they are addressed to women, and they do not understand Sanskrit

Answer. — The Initiatory ceremony, being compulsory, is of an eternal character; and it is in connection with this ceremony that the use of the words is laid down. The vernaculars (corrupt languages) are not eternal; so that there could be no connection between these and an eternal ceremony. Then again, just as when educated people hear corrupt forms of words used, they are reminded, by the resemblance, of the corresponding correct forms and thereby come to comprehend the meaning; — for instance, the (incorrect) word ‘?ā’ leads to the inference (remembrance of) of the (correct) word ‘go' through similarity, according to the theory that ‘the incorrect word is expressive only by inference, and the meaning is comprehended from the inferred correct word’; in the same manner when correct words are addressed to women, they remember, through similarity, the corresponding incorrect words whoso meaning they know, and thus they come to comprehend the; meaning of the words used. Further, the expression in question is a short, one consisting of three words only, and these being well-known words, they would be easily comprehensible by ladies also.

Similarly the Kṣatriya should use words of which the ‘bhavat’ forms the middle; the actual form being ‘bhikṣām bhavati dehi,’ ‘Give me, O Lady, food.’ So the Vaiśya should use words of which ‘bhavat’ forms the end. The word ‘bhavaduttaram’ means ‘that of which bhavat forms the end’; — the compound thus standing for the sentence (give me food, O Lady’).

‘Having undergone Initiation’; — the past-participial ending implies that the rule laid down here is to be observed also in connection with the begging for food for daily living (even after the first day of the initiation); and further, what is said in verse 68 below — ‘such is the procedure of initiation for the twice-born’ — is a summing up of the whole section on ‘Initiation’; and hence shows that the rule laid down in the present verse applies also to that begging for alms whicḥ forms part of the ceremony of Initiation. If we do not take it thus, then what is laid down here would only he taken either as a part of the Initiation-rites (as shown by the context), or as applying to the ordinary begging for food; — in this latter case the implication of the context would be rejected and stress would be laid only upon the sense of the past-participial ending (‘having undergone Initiation’) As a matter of fact, what is here prescribed is applicable to that ‘begging for food’ which forms part of the Initiatory Rites, as also to that which is done for the purposes of livelihood. — (49)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 936); in Madanapārijāta (p. 32), which latter adds, the following notes: —

In the phrase ‘bhaikṣam charet’ the verb indicates begging, as is shown by the objective term ‘bhaikṣam’; it is in view of this that the expression to be used in the begging is — ‘bhikṣām dehi’ (‘give alms’); — and as the words have to be addressed with proper respect, the term ‘bhavat’ with the vocative ending (‘Madam’ or ‘Sir’) has to be added at the beginning, middle or end, according to the caste of the begging boy; — then, inasmuch as in the house, it is, as a rule, the women-folk that give alms, it follows that the feminine-(vocative) form of the term ‘bhavat’ should be used; — thus then the precise form of the expression comes to be this — (a) The Brāhamaṇa boy should say ‘bhavati bhikṣām dehi’, (b) the Kṣatriya, ‘bhikṣām bhavati dehi,’ and (c) the Vaiśya, ‘bhikṣām dehi bhavati’. There is no such hard and fast rule as that ‘alms should be begged from women only.’

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 481) also quotes the verse, and supplies the formula as noted in Madanapārijāta; — Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 60) quotes it, and lays down the formula for the three castes as — (a) ‘bhavati bhikṣām dadātu’, (b) ‘bhikṣām bhavatī dadātu,’ and (c) ‘bhikṣām dadātu bhavati — Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 108), which mentions the formula as given in Madanapārijāta; — and also Vīramitrodaya (Vyāvahāra, p. 124).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmaṣūtra, 2.43. — ‘The term bhavat shall be used in the beginning, middle or end, respectively, according to the caste.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.17-18. — ‘In the formula used, the term bhavat should come in the beginning and the term bhikṣām in the middle. In begging, the Brāhmaṇa should use the term bhavat in the beginning; the Kṣatriya, in the middle; the Vaiśya, in the end.’

Āpastamba-Dharmaṣūtra, 1,3.28-30. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa should beg alms with words beginning with bhavat, the Kṣatriya with words having bhavat in the middle, and the Vaiśya with words having bhavat in the end.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.50. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa should beg alms with words beginning with bhavat, the Kṣatriya, with bhavat in the middle, and the Vaiśya, with bhavat in the end.’

Viṣṇu-Smrti, 27.25. — ‘Alms-begging is accompanied by the term bhavat in the beginning, in the middle and in the end.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.30. — ‘The alms-begging of the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣattnya and the Vaiśya, should be accompanied by the term bhavat in the beginning, middle and end, respectively.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 22.8. — ‘The formula used should be bhavat bhikṣām dadātu.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 5.2.2-4). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa should beg alms with the term bhavat in the beginning; the Kṣatriya, with the term bhavat in the middle; the Vaiśya, with the term bhavat in the end.’

Śaunaka (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 439). — ‘In begging from males, he should say bhikṣām bhavat dadātu, and in begging from females bhikṣām bhavatī dadātu.’

VERSE 2.50

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

मातरं वा स्वसारं वा मातुर्वा भगिनीं निजाम् ।
भिक्षेत भिक्षां प्रथमं या चैनं नावमानयेत् ॥५०॥

mātaraṃ vā svasāraṃ vā māturvā bhaginīṃ nijām |
bhikṣeta bhikṣāṃ prathamaṃ yā cainaṃ nāvamānayet ||50||

First of all he should beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his mother’s own sister, or of such another lady as may not insult him. — (50)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The words ‘mother,’ etc., have their meanings well known; — ‘own’ uterine.

‘As may not insult him’ — ‘insulting’ here means disregard; i.e., refusal — ‘I shall give nothing.’ Says the Gṛhya sūtra — ‘He should beg from such man or woman as may not refuse him.’

What is meant here by ‘first’ is the begging that is done by the boy during Initiation. In the course of the subsequent daily bogging, he should not fear refusal. — (50)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Burnell remarks that ‘this begging of alms is now obsolete But so far as the formality is concerned, it is still gone through at the close of the Upanayaṇa ceremony.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 59) as laying down the rule relating to that alms-begging which is done as part of the Upanayaṇa-ceremony.

It is quoted in Smṛtitittva (p. 936), which adds that these ladies are to be approached only if they happen to be on the spot, and the boy is not to go to their houses; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 34), which latter quotes it only with a view to explain that there is no inconsistency between this injunction and the later prohibition (2. 184) of begging from one’s relations; because the former refers to the begging as part of the Upanayana ceremony, whereas the prohibition applies to the usual begging of food during the entire period of studentship.

It is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 61), which adds that this rule refers to the ‘alms-begging’ which forms part of the Upanayaṇa rite; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 109), which adds the same note; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 288), which has the same remarks, and notes that the first ‘vā’ is meant to be emphatic — ‘nija’ means uterine, — ‘avamāna’ means disregard, refusal to give alms.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 483) also explains that this refers to the first ‘begging’ (at the Upanayaṇa),

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.22.7. — ‘First of all, he should beg alms from a man or woman who would not refuse him.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.5-7. — ‘Three ladies who would not refuse should be begged from, — or six, or twelve, or numberless. Some people hold that the Mother should be the first.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.43. — ‘The Mother first of all, then two other sympathising ladies, or as many as may be near at hand.’

Āslvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 438). — ‘He should beg from such a lady or gentleman as would not refuse him.’

Śaunaka (Do.). — ‘For the purpose of cooking the Brahmaudana for the feeding of Brāhmaṇas, the Student should beg the materials from his relations, — such men and women as would not refuse him, — carrying a bowl in his hand and approaching each person severally; first of all, he should beg from his mother, then from such another lady as could not refuse him; then his father and such other relatives as may be present.’

Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (Aparārka, p. 60). — [Same as Manu, adding ‘She should throw into his begging vessel, gold, silver and gems.’]

VERSE 2.51

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

समाहृत्य तु तद् भैक्षं यावदन्नममायया ।
निवेद्य गुरवेऽश्नीयादाचम्य प्राङ्मुखः शुचिः ॥५१॥

samāhṛtya tu tad bhaikṣaṃ yāvadannamamāyayā |
nivedya gurave'śnīyādācamya prāṅmukhaḥ śuciḥ ||51||

Having collected as much food as may be needed, and having offered it, without guile, to his Teacher, he should eat it, with his face to the east, after having sipped water and become pure. — (51)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘having collected’ shows that the food should be obtained from several ladies, and a large quantity should not be obtained from a single lady.

‘It’ — refers to that which has gone immediately before this, i.e., the food begged for ordinary eating, and not that which is done as part of the Initiation-rites, with which the context deals; specially as with regard to the latter all that the Gṛḥya-Sūtra prescribes is that the food should be ‘cooked,’ and nothing is said regarding ‘eating.’ Further, the injunction that ‘the boy should fast for the rest of the day’ shows that the boy undergoes the Initiatory rite after breakfast; so that the actual eating of the food cannot be part of that rite.

‘As much os way he needed’; — i.e., just as much food as may be necessary for the satisfaction of hunger; large quantities of food should not be begged.

‘Having offered it without guile to the Teacher;’ — i.e., he should not show the teacher only the inferior articles of food, hiding with these the superior ones, with the view that the Teacher would not take any thing out of the inferior articles. The ‘offering’ consists of presenting it to him, saying ‘this is what I have obtained.’

What the teacher does not take, ‘he should eat,’ after having been permitted by the teacher to do so.

“Why should not the offering be regarded merely as an act producing in the food some transcendental effect (and not as a real offering meant to be accepted by the teacher)?”

That it is not so is proved by historical evidence: says the revered Vyāsa in the story of Hṛtakūpa, where it is distinctly stated that the teacher actually took what was offered.

That the boy should eat only after being permitted to do so, is laid down in several Gṛhyasūtras.

‘With his face to the east, after having sipped tenter.’ — Some people have asserted that the facing of the east is meant to be connected with the sipping of water, — the two being in close proximity. But this is not right; as the rule regarding sipping — that it should be done with the face towards the east or north, — will come later on. Hence what is mentioned here is connected with the eating.

‘Pure.’ — This means that after rinsing the mouth he should avoid, during meals, such tilings as looking at the Cāṇḍāla going to unclean places, spitting and so forth. — (51)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 936); — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 454), which latter adds that in the event of the Teacher not being near at hand, the food is to be offered to the Teacher’s wife or son, or to his own companions, — in Aparārka (p. 60); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 61), which explains ‘Amāyayā’ as that he should not conceal the better quality of food obtained - out of fear that the Teacher will take it for himself; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 113).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.46-47. — ‘Having offered it to the Teacher, he should eat it when permitted; in the absence of the Teacher, he should offer it to his wife or to his son or to his own fellow-students.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (Parāśaramādhava, p. 454). — ‘Morning and evening, he shall eat food which is respected, never decried.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasutra, 1.3.31-35. — ‘Having collected it, he should describe it to the Teacher; he should eat it on being permitted by him; during the Teacher’s absence, he should offer it to the Teacher’s family; during the absence of these also, to other Vedic scholars; he should never beg alms for himself alone.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 11.37.1. — ‘Food should be eaten, with face towards the East.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.9. — ‘Alms should be begged from qualified persons, never from the Teacher’s family; the food obtained should be eaten only with his permission.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.31. — ‘Having done his duty to the Fires, he should eat his food silently, with the Teacher’s permission, after having sipped water.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.22.9. — ‘he should offer it to the Teacher and then rest during the rest of the day.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.8. — ‘He offers the alms obtained to the Teacher; and then he should rest (luring the rest of the day, with speech controlled, — ‘so say some.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.11. — ‘He offers the food to the Teacher.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 20.2.0. — ‘He should cat seated, facing the East, not disparaging the food, with attention fixed thereon; and after having eaten, he should touch fire.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 154). — ‘He shall never receive more alms than what would suffice for his meal; if he accepts more, he incurs the sin of theft.’

Gautama-Smṛti (Do.). — ‘In the absence of the Teacher, he shall seek the permission (to eat) from the Teacher’s wife, or his son, or from his fellow-students.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘The alms, examined, taken round the fire, shown to the sun, offered to the Teacher and granted by him, is called Nectar.’

VERSE 2.52

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

आयुष्यं प्राङ्मुखो भुङ्क्ते यशस्यं दक्षिणामुखः ।
श्रियं प्रत्यङ्मुखो भुङ्क्ते ऋतं भुङ्क्ते ह्युदङ्मुखः ॥५२॥

āyuṣyaṃ prāṅmukho bhuṅkte yaśasyaṃ dakṣiṇāmukhaḥ |
śriyaṃ pratyaṅmukho bhuṅkte ṛtaṃ bhuṅkte hyudaṅmukhaḥ ||52||

Eating with face to the East, he does what is conducive to longevity; eating with face to the South, he does what brings fame; eating with face to the West, he does what brings prosperity; and eating with face to the North, he does what leads to the true. — (52)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The preceding verse has laid down the general compulsory rule that the boy should eat with his face to the East, if he is not desirous of obtaining any peculiar results; the text is now laying down rules that are to he observed with a view to definite desired ends.

‘Āyuṣyam’ — is that which is conducive to longevity; and ‘Eating with face to the East, one does what is coducive to longevity’; when the act of eating brings about longevity, it becomes ‘what is conducive to longevity ’; hence the meaning of the text comes to be that ‘if one desires longevity he should eat with face to the East.’ Thus then, in regard to the East, there are two directions — (a) one should always face the East, and (b) one should do so when desiring the said result; so that if a man desires longevity, he should actually have the particular desire in view; while in the other case he should not have any result in view. Just as, though the Agnihotra is an obligatory act, yet if the man seeks heaven, he repeats its performance; and by so doing he fulfills, incidentally, the obligations of the obligatory act also.

Similarly, when one desires fame, he should face the South. All these rules are optional.

Desiring prosperity — the form ‘Shriyan’ is formed by adding the present participial affix ‘śatṛ’ to the nominal root formed by adding ‘kyach’ to the noun ‘Śrī’ Or, we may read ‘Shriyam’ ending in m; the meaning being ‘what brings prosperity’; just as in the case of the other words ‘āyuṣyam’ and the rest.

The use of the root ‘bhuj,’ ‘to eat,’ in its literal sense becomes possible, if we regard ‘longevity’ and the rest as ‘parts of a living being’; the same explanation applies also to the next clause ‘he eats what leads to the true.’ The meaning thus comes to be that by‘eating with face to the west one obtains prosperity.’ In this case we have the reading ‘shriyam’ with the Accusative ending. Or, lastly we may read ‘shriyai,’ with the Dative ending, which would signify ‘for the sake of.’

‘True’ means the real, and also the sacrifice or Heaven as resulting from the sacrifice. The sense thus is that ‘if one seeks heaven he should eat with his face to the north.’

Even though we have no Injunctive affixes in the text, yet, since what is here laid down is something not already known, we take it in the sense of an Injunction, construing the Present Tense as denoting the fifth sense (Leṭ, which is expressive of Injunction).

Thus then we have this rule of eating with face to various directions, with a view to various results.

Eating with face towards the subsidiary quarters, which one might be tempted to do undor special circumstances, becomes precluded by the obligatory injunction of facing the East, etc.

The optional rule here laid down does not apply only to the Religious Student, nor to the eating of the food obtained by begging only, but to all forms of eating by the Householder and others also. That this is so is indicated by the fact that though in the context we have all along had the Injunctive word ‘aśnīyāt,’ the present veise has used a different word ‘bhuṅkte’; if the author had definitely intended the present rule to be as restricted in its application as those that have gone before, then he would have used the same word. When however we find him making use of a different word, ‘bhuṅkte,’ we begin to doubt if what is meant is the particular eating that has been hitherto dealt with in the context, or a general rule applying to all forms of eating; and the conclusion we are led to is that since a different verb is used, it must stand for a different act, and it cannot be regarded as the same that has been dealt with in the context.

Some people have argued that — “in as much as there is no injunctive word in the present verse, it must be taken as merely laudatory of what has gone before.” But this has been answered in Mīmāmsā Sūtra 3.5.21 (where it is asserted that sentences laying down things not already known are to be regarded as injunctive). Nor do we find in the present verse any such signs as would indicate that it is meant to be subsidiary to the preceding verse, — such signs, for instance, as the fact of its being wanting in some integral part, if taken apart from the preceding verse, and so forth. It is possible to take the present verse as referring primarily to the Religious Student only, and then to extend its application to all men, — on the ground that what is laid down here is not incompatible with the duties of ordinary men, as the other duties of the Student are; but in that case the results mentioned in the verse would not accrue to the ordinary man. For authoritative writers 8.1.23, etc.) do not admit of activity by mere implied extension, in cases of special results following from the use of special accessory details. If such rules as ‘for one desiring cattle, water should be fetched in the milking vessel,’ ‘the sacrificial post should be of khadira wood when the man desires vigour,’ are never applied to the case of those sacrifices which are mere ectypes (of the Darśapūrṇāmāsa); and to which the details of the Darśapūrṇamāsa become applicable by extended implication only. — (52)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ṛtam’ — ‘Sacrifice,’ an alternative explanation suggested by, Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa.

Medhātithi (p. 97, L 20) — ‘Guṇakāmanāyām hi, &c.’

This refers to Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 8.1.23 et. seq.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (p. 431) which remarks that the verse refers to cases where a man makes it a rule to always face a certain quarter at meals; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 34), which adḍs the explanation that śrīyam and ṛtam are objects to the present-participle ‘icchan’; — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 377) in support of the view that facing of the south is not interdicted when done with a special motive. Vidhānapārijāta (p. 324) also quotes the verse to show that what is here prescribed applies to that eating which is done with a special motive, the general law being that one should face the east or the north . — Aparārka (p. 61) quotes the verse, and adds the following explanation: — If one eats facing the east, it brings longevity; one who eats facing the west, obtains prosperity; who eats facing the north attains the truth or the sacrifice. — Thus eating with face towards the east is both compulsory (as laid down in the preceding verse) and optional, done with a special motive (as mentioned here).

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 115), which adds the following notes — ‘āyuṣyam’ means ‘conducive to longevity’ — one who eats facing the east obtains longevity; hence the meaning of the text is that ‘one who seeks for longevity should eat facing the east similarly ‘yaśasyam’ meaning conducive to fame’; — eating with face towards the south brings fame — and similarly one who seeks for wealth should eat facing the west, and he who seeks for ‘ṛtā’ i. e., the truth, should eat facing the north.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 67. 40-41. — ‘He should eat facing the East, or the South.’

Gobhila (Parāśaramādhava, p. 377). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa may sit facing the East, or the West; in connection with rites in honour of Pitṛs, even the North; but the South he must avoid.’

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 395). — ‘One shall eat with wet feet, facing the East, with his two feet or even one touching the ground.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 309). — ‘One should eat seated, facing the east, with speech in check, not decrying the food, nor scattering it, with mind concentrated on it: and having eaten he shall sip water.’

VERSE 2.53

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

उपस्पृश्य द्विजो नित्यमन्नमद्यात् समाहितः ।
भुक्त्वा चौपस्पृशेत् सम्यगद्भिः खानि च संस्पृशेत् ॥५३॥

upaspṛśya dvijo nityamannamadyāt samāhitaḥ |
bhuktvā caupaspṛśet samyagadbhiḥ khāni ca saṃspṛśet ||53||

The twice-b orn person should always take his food after having sipped water and with due care; and after having eaten, he should rinse his mouth in the proper manner and touch the cavities with water. — (53).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The terms ‘ācamana’ and ‘spṛśa’ are both synonymous, being found from the usage of cultured people, to signify a particular purificatory act. Though it is true that the root ‘spraha’ has been declared to have an entirely different meaning, and the root ‘chamu’ (from which the word ‘ācamana’ is derived) also has been declared to signify the act of eating, — yet in actual usage we find that with the particular prefixes (upa and a) they are used in a much restricted sense and hence they are taken in that (restricted) sense. So that even though the root ‘spṛśa’ has a very wide denotation, yet actual usage limits its significance. Just as though the root ‘gaḍi’ denotes only part of the face in general, the term ‘gaṇḍa’ (derived from that root) is used in the sense of tho cheek only, and it is not applied to any other part of the face; similarly the root ‘puṣya’ means to accomplish, and the term ‘puṣya’ is laid down as denoting ‘lunar, asterism’ in general, yet in actual usage this latter name is applied to one particular asterism only; similarly again the term ‘dhāyyā,’ though laid down as denoting Sāmidhenī verses in general, is actually used in the sense of the Āvāpikī verses only. Hence the term ‘upaspṛśya’ means exactly what is meant by the term ‘ācamya’; the actual injunction of this act of ‘ācamana’ will come later on. Further, the text itself uses the two terms as synonymous. Having laid down that ‘one should always do the shana,’ it goes on to say that ‘this ācamana’ should be done three times; from which it is clear that the two are synonymous.

Though the ‘rinsing of the mouth’ has been already laid down in verse 51, it is re-iterated again in order to show immediate sequence: the sense being that one should take his food immediately after rinsing the mouth, and no other act should be allowed to intervene. To this end we have the following declaration of the revered Vyāsa — ‘Oh Lord, I shall remain with such people as take their food with five limbs wet’ — this being said by Lakṣmī; the ‘five limbs’ being the two hands, two feet, and month; and these five limbs can remain wet only if one cats immediately after the rinsing, and not if he makes any delay. Manu himself (in 4. 76) is going to declare under the duties of the Snātaka that ‘one should eat with the feet still wet’; and there we shall show that there is no needless repetition involved in this.

‘Always’ — this is added in order to guard against the notion that being laid down in the section dealing with the duties of the Student, what is here prescribed applies to him alone; and to show directly that it is applicable to every form of eating.

Some people have held that “the term ‘twice-born’ is what is meant to make the rule applicable to every form of eating, and that the ‘always’ is merely an explanatory reiteration.”

This however is not right. This would have been the right explanation if the qualification ‘twice-bom’ were incompatible with the ‘student’; as a matter of fact however, the said qualification is quite applicable to the ‘student’; hence with the exception of the adverb ‘always’ there is nothing to indicate that what is here laid down is to be taken as going beyond the particular context.

‘With due care’ — That is, with due consideration of the character of the food and his own (digestive) powers. If one happens to be absent-minded, he cannot avoid indigestible, unwholesome and hot food, nor can he eat only what is wholesome.

‘After having eaten, he should rinse his mouth.’ — That one should remove all traces of oil, etc., has been already prescribed under the section on the ‘purification of substances.’ The ‘rinsing’ here laid down is that which one should do after he has eaten and removed all traces of oil, etc.

In this connection some people have held that one ‘rinsing’ (after food) having been already laid down under 5. 145 — where it is said that ‘one should rinse his mouth after sleep, sneezing and eating,’ — the present verse must be taken as laying down a second ‘rinsing,’ for the purposes of some transcendental result; there being such a general injunction as ‘having rinsed the mouth, one should rinse it again.’

This aspect of the question wo shall deal with under Discourse V.

In the proper manner. — This only re-iterates the injunctive and obligatory character of the ‘rinsing’; the meaning being that ‘one should follow all the details of the Binning that have been enjoined.’

‘Should touch with water the cavities.’ — ‘Cavities,’ i.e., holes in the head.

Objection. — “It is already laid down (under 60, below) that the cavities should be touched with water.”

To this some people reply that the repetition in the present verse is meant to exclude the ‘self’ and ‘head’ (which also are mentioned along with the ‘cavities’ in 60), — and refers to that rinsing which one already clean, does, without reference to Eating. So that according to those who take the first ‘rinsing’ after food as meant for cleanliness and a second ‘rinsing’ as lending to some transcendental result, — the ‘self’ and the ‘head’ are not ‘touched with water’ for the purpose of bringing about a transcendental result; this being done for cleanliness alone. The actual process of this rinsing is going to he laid down in 61. — ‘One desirous of cleanliness should always rinse his mouth, etc., etc..’

Another answer to the aforesaid objection is that what the present verse does is to emphasise the fact of the being recognised as something enjoined by the scriptures; the sense being that this Rinsing is the scriptural (prescribed in the Śāstras), not the ordinary, rinsing. As a matter of fact, where a certain primary act has become known as equipped with particular accessories, wherever that same act is subsequently spoken of, it is at once recognised as being the same as the former one. So that when the text says ‘should rinse his mouth,’ it does not mean merely that a certain substance (water) should be sipped; what is meant is to indicate all that has been prescribed in connection with the scriptural purification, along with its appurtenent details. — (53)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Nityam’ — This, according to Govindarāja, Kullūka Nārāyaṇa and Nandana indicates that the rule refers to householders also. The first half of this verse has been quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 327).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 6 7.34-35. — ‘One should cat without wetted feet or without wetted hands and mouth.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtṛa, 2.48. — ‘While eating, he should keep silent, contented, not greedy; and he should keep water near him; he should touch with water the holes in his head.’

Baudhāyana-Dhaṛmasūtra, 5.1.21 — ‘Touching the holes with water, as also the feet, the head and the left hand.’

Āpastamba-Dhaṛmasūtra, 1.5.2. — ‘When going to eat, he should carefully sip water twice, he should wash twice and should sprinkle water once.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 309). — (See above.) Gadya-Vyāsa (Do., p. 378). — ‘Being satisfied, he shall sip water with the mantra amṛtāpidhānamasi, and moving a little from that place, he shall rinse his mouth in due form.’

Devala (Do.). — ‘Having eaten, he shall wash in due form, cleansing his mouth and hands by rubbing with clay.’

Gautama (Do.). — ‘At the time of rinsing the mouth, if one rubs it with the forefinger, the foolish man falls into the Raurava hell.’

Vyāsa (Do.). ‘Having washed his hand, if the foolish man drinks the water taken for rinsing, he degrades the gods, his Pitṛs and himself. One shall not wash in the vessel in which he has eaten. If he rises from his seat before, washing, he should bathe at once.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 379). — ‘He shall sip water with the mantra amṛtāpidhānamasi; having sipped water, he shall wash again, with the mantra Āyaṅgauḥ, etc

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 61). — ‘Having eaten, he shall wash himself, without any mantra.’

VERSE 2.54

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

पूजयेदशनं नित्यमद्याच्चैतदकुत्सयन् ।
दृष्ट्वा हृष्येत् प्रसीदेच्च प्रतिनन्देच्च सर्वशः ॥५४॥

pūjayedaśanaṃ nityamadyāccaitadakutsayan |
dṛṣṭvā hṛṣyet prasīdecca pratinandecca sarvaśaḥ ||54||

He should always worship the food and eat it without disparaging it. When he sees it, he should rejoice and peel gratified, and he should always welcome it. — (54)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Food,’ ‘aśana,’ is that which in eaten (aśyate), i.e., rice and curry, etc. When the food is brought to him, he should look upon it as a ‘deity’; i.e., he should have the notion — ‘this food is my highest deity.’ (a) The ‘worshipping’ of the food may consist in regarding it as the source of the birth and sustenance of all living beings; or (b) in regarding it as the means of sustaining his life; as the food is declared to have said — ‘he worships me regarding me as sustaining life’; or (c) in receiving it with due obeisance, etc.

‘He should eat it without disparaging it’; — even when there is any such source of disparagement as that the article of food is of bad quality, or it is badly cooked, he should not disparage the food; i.e., he should not make any such disparaging remarks as — ‘this is most disagreeable,’ or ‘it is likely to upset the constitution of the body,’ and so forth. If the food happens to be really defective, he should simply not eat it; he should not eat it and yet find fault with it.

‘When he sees it he should rejoice’ — he should rejoice just as he does when, on returning from a long journey, he sees his wife and children.

‘He should feel gratified’; — on seeing the food, he should remove from his mind even such displeasure as may have been produced by other causes.

‘He should welcome it’; — ‘welcoming’ consists in acclaiming it as a boon; i.e., receiving it with honour, with such words as ‘may we have such food every day.’

‘Always,’ — at all times. The affix ‘shas’ has the sense of the locative, according to the option involved in Pāṇini’s Sūtra 5. 4. 42. Or, wo may read ‘sarvadā’ (instead of ‘sarvaśaḥ’). — (54)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Pūjayet — ‘worship’ (Govindarāja and Nandana.); — Medhātithi offers three explanations as to what is meant by the ‘worshipping’ of the food; — Nārāyaṇa takes it to mean that the mantra (Ṛgveda, 1. 187.1) should be addressed to it Kullūka explains it as ‘meditate upon it as sustaining life’.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 486), which explains the pūjā as standing for saṃskāra, due preparation.

It is quoted again in the Āhnika section of the same work (p. 382), where, on the strength of a statement attributed to Śātātapa, it is said that in the case of food, ‘worship’ can only mean being regarded as a deity.

The verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 433); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 114), which explains ‘akutsayan’ as ‘not decrying.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 54-55)

Yājñavalkya, 1. 31, — ‘He should eat the food, paying due regard to it, not disparaging it.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 7.2.6. — ‘Seated — he should eat the food, intent upon it, without disparaging the food, — not dropping it on the ground; and after earing, he should touch Fire.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 67.42-43. — ‘Worshipping the food, with contented mind, wearing a garland and smeared with sandal-paste.’

Baudhāyana Dhaṛmasūtra, 2.3.17. — ‘[Says the Food] — He who eats me, without having made offerings to Pitṛs, Gods, dependents, guests, and to friends, eats, through foolishness, poison; and him I devour; for him I am death. He who eats me after having made the Agnihotra-ofFerings and the Vaiśvadeva-offerings and after having honoured the guests and fed his dependents, — content, clean and reverential, — for him I am nectar; he alone eats me.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 7.59. — ‘He should eat the food, morning and evening, after worshipping it, never disparaging it.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 369). — (See under 52.)

Vṛddha-Manu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 375). — ‘One should always welcome the food while eating it, with speech in check, not decrying the food.’

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 375). — ‘Silent or not silent, he shall be happy while eating.’

VERSE 2.55

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

पूजितं ह्यशनं नित्यं बलमूर्जं च यच्छति ।
अपूजितं तु तद् भुक्तमुभयं नाशयेदिदम् ॥५५॥

pūjitaṃ hyaśanaṃ nityaṃ balamūrjaṃ ca yacchati |
apūjitaṃ tu tad bhuktamubhayaṃ nāśayedidam ||55||

The food, thus worshipped always, imparts strength and vigour. If eaten irreverently, it destroys them both. — (55)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is only a valedictory supplement to the rule prescribed above; it is not meant to be the statement of definite results following from the observance of that rule. If it were a statement of results, the rule would be an optional one, to be observed only by one who desires vigour and strength; and in that case the adverb ‘always’ would have no sense; — as we have in the expression, ‘the food thus worshipped always, etc.’ For these reasons the rule must be regarded as one to be observed throughout life, just like the rule regarding facing of the east (during meal).

‘If eaten irreverently, it destroys them both,’ — i.e., vigour and strength.

‘Strength' is power, the capacity to lift heavy loads without effort; while ‘vigour’stands for energy and courage, which is found even in a man who is lean (and physically weak): while great strength is found only when the limbs of the body are well-developed and the body has attained huge proportions. — (55)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ūrjam’. — Buhler wrongly attributes to Medhātithi the explanation that this term means ‘bulk’. The term used by him is ‘mahāprāṇatā’ which means the same as ‘vīrya’ of Kullūka or ‘energy’ of Nārāyaṇa. Buhler has apparently been misled by a mis-reading of Medhātithi.

This verse has been quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 486) where ‘pūjitam’ has been explained as, ‘samskṛtam’, well prepared; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 114).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 54-55)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.54.

VERSE 2.56

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

नौच्छिष्टं कस्य चिद् दद्यान्नाद्यादेतत् तथाऽन्तरा ।
न चैवात्यशनं कुर्यान्न चौच्छिष्टः क्व चिद् व्रजेत् ॥५६॥

naucchiṣṭaṃ kasya cid dadyānnādyādetat tathā'ntarā |
na caivātyaśanaṃ kuryānna caucchiṣṭaḥ kva cid vrajet ||56||

He should not give the leavings to anyone; he should not eat in between; he should not do over-rating; and he should not go any-where with particles of food still on him. — (56)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The food left in the dish, and become unclean by being touched with the mouth, is called, ‘leavings;’ — this he should not give to anyone. The prohibition of the offering of the leavings to any person being already contained in this verse, the necessity of having another prohibition of the offering of the leavings to a Śūdra, — which we find among the duties of the Snātakā — we shall explain in connection with the latter verse.

[In ‘Kasyachit’ ] though the dative would he the proper form, we have the genitive in the sense of ‘relationship in general,’ and what is meant is that it should not he given even to such living beings as do not understand that a certain thing has been given to them, — such for instance, as dogs and cats; in this latter case the act cannot he called ‘giving’ in its full sense; as it involves merely the cessation of the proprietary right of the giver, it does not involve the producing of the proprietary right in the recipient [that is why the Dative could not he rightly used: which could imply both giving and receiving ].

The phrase ‘antarā’ ‘in between,’ means middle. There are two times for meals — morning and evening; and one should not eat between these meals. Or, ‘in between’ may mean interruption; in which case the meaning is that ‘having once left off the act of eating, and having interrupted it by some other act, he should not eat the food left in the same dish.’ Another Smṛti lays down the specific rule that ‘one should avoid eating interrupted by rising and washing.’ Others again have explained the phrase ‘antarā,’ as meaning disconnection. The Śruti having declared that ‘holding the dish with the left hand, ono should take up the morsel with the right hand and then offer it to the Life-breath in the mouth,’ — it is the omitting of the act of holding the dish with the left hand which is meant by the terms ‘antarā.’

‘Be should not do over-eating’; — one should not eat too much. This is with a view to health, and hence implies the avoidance of such food as may he either indigestible or unsuitable. Specially because the advice is based upon reason. What is ‘over-eating’ can he learnt from the Āyurveda. The sense is that one should eat only that quantity of food which does not quite fill the stomach, and which is properly digested. Of the three parts into which the stomach is divided, one part itself should bo filled with food, half a part with water, and one part should be left for the action of the bodily humours. If this is not done, health suffers.

‘He should not go anywhere teiṭh particles of food still on him’; — on the very spot where he has oaten, he should clean himself by removing all particles of food from the body and then wash his hands and mouth without rising from the place. — (50)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The second half of this verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 458); in Aparārka (p. 61) in support of the view that by avoiding over-eating one acquires health; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 115).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 56-57)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1. 3. 36-10. — ‘After eating, he should himself wash the dish; he should not have any leavings; what he does not eat he should bury in the ground; or throw into water.’

Āpastamba, 1. 11- 31. 22. — ‘He should not offer the leavings to a non-Brāhmaṇa.’

Āpastamba, 2.1.2-3. — ‘He should eat twice; never satiating himself with food.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 61). — ‘For the ascetic the meal should consist of eight morsels, for the hermit, sixteen, for the householder, thirty-two; for the student, there is no limit.’

[This same text is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 370, as from Āpastamba. ]

Vaśiṣṭha, 17. — ‘Leavings or no leavings, — he should not offer the food to a Śūdra.’

Vaśiṣṭha, 11.17. — ‘Leavings, except those of the Teacher, should never be eaten; nor one’s own leavings.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2. 7. 17. 12. — ‘He should not. offer the leavings to any one who does not possess the necessary qualifications.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 67. 36. — ‘One should not eat clarified butter, with mouth unclean.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 2. 37. — ‘Leavings should he avoided.’

Saṃvarta (Aparārka, p. 61). — ‘Eating in the morning and in the evening has been prescribed for men, by the gods; one shall not eat in between these two meals; this practice is equal to the Agnihotra.’

Mahābhārata. (Aśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 370). — ‘One should never overeat himself, nor eat too little.’

Pulastya (Do.). One shall never eat all that is served to him, except curd, butter, fruits, milk, honey, and sattu.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do., p. 372). — ‘He shall not leave food needlessly; he shall not go anywhere with particles of food still on him.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.47. — ‘[He should eat] contentedly. not greedily.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (Parāśaramādhava, p. 371). — ‘Morning and evening, he shall eat food, which has been worshipped, without decrying it.’

VERSE 2.57

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

अनारोग्यमनायुष्यमस्वर्ग्यं चातिभोजनम् ।
अपुण्यं लोकविद्विष्टं तस्मात् तत् परिवर्जयेत् ॥५७॥

anārogyamanāyuṣyamasvargyaṃ cātibhojanam |
apuṇyaṃ lokavidviṣṭaṃ tasmāt tat parivarjayet ||57||

Over-eating destroys health, cuts off life and bars heaven; it is unrighteous and detested by people; for these reasons one should avoid it. — (57)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse proceeds to show that the prohibition of over-eating is based upon ordinary worldly considerations.

‘Destroys health,’ — is productive of such diseases as fever, pain in the stomach and so forth.

‘Cuts off life,’ — destroys life, bringing on such diseases as cholera and the like.

‘Bars heaven,’ — because implying the neglect of one’s body, it involves the transgressing of such scriptural injunctions as ‘one should guard himself against all things.’ The ‘barring of heaven’ means going to hell.

‘Unrighteous’ — productive of misfortune.

‘Detested by people’; — the man who eats too much is always looked down upon as a ‘glutton.’

For these reasons one ‘should avoid,’ — i.e., not do — over-eating. — (57)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 488); in Aparārka (p. 156); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 115).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 56-57)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.56.

VERSE 2.58

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

ब्राह्मेण विप्रस्तीर्थेन नित्यकालमुपस्पृशेत् ।
कायत्रैदशिकाभ्यां वा न पित्र्येण कदा चन ॥५८॥

brāhmeṇa viprastīrthena nityakālamupaspṛśet |
kāyatraidaśikābhyāṃ vā na pitryeṇa kadā cana ||58||

Every time, the Brāhmana should sip water, either though the receptacle dedicated to Brahmā, or through that dedicated to Prajāpati, or through that dedicated to the ‘Thrice-ten’ (Gods); but never through that dedicated to the Pitṛs. — (58)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘tīrtha,’ ‘Receptacle,’ means a clean vessel containing water; ‘tīrtha’ (literally) is that which exists for the purpose of saving people, i.e., freeing them from their sins. In some places ‘tīrtha’ is explained as ‘that by which people descend into water.’ In the present context however it stands for that part of the palm of the hand which contains water; and we must take the word ‘tīrtha’ as applied to the hand, with a view to eulogise it, only figuratively; for water does not remain in the hand always (and as such it cannot be called tīrtha in its literal sense).

Through the said receptacle, he should sip water.

‘Dedicated to Brahmā’; — this also is a figurative eulogy. The term means ‘that of which Brahmā is the deity’; and certainly the said ‘Receptacle,’ not being of the nature of a ‘sacrifice,’ or of a ‘Mantra,’ could not be said to be ‘dedicated to a deity.’ The special nominal affix in the word ‘brāhma,’ which denotes ‘dedication to a deity,’ may however be justified on the assumption that the said receptacle resembles a ‘sacrifice’ in certain characteristics, such as being the means of sanctification and so forth.

‘Every time’ — i.e., for the purposes of cleanliness, as also as part of religious performances.

‘Kāya’ — ‘Ka’ stands for Prajāpati: hence ‘kāya’ is that which is dedicated to Prajāpati.

Similarly that which is dedicated to the ‘thrice-ten’ — i.e., the Gods — is called the ‘traidaśikam.’ The word ‘traidaśikam’ is derived from ‘tridaśa’ with the deifìc affix ‘aṇ,’ and then the reflexive ‘ka.’ And the deific character in this case also is of the same kind as before (in the term ‘brāhma’).

Through these receptacles one should sip water. The mention of the Brāhmaṇa (Vipra) is not meant to be significant here. For special rules for the Kṣatriya, etc., are going to be added later on (in verse 62, et seq.); and unless we had a general rule, there could he no room for specifications [and it is the present verse alone that could be taken as formulating that general rule, and hence it could not be taken as restricted to. the Brāhmaṇa only.]

‘Not through that dedicated to the Pitṛs’ — i.e., never through that of which the Pitṛs are the deity; even in cases where the aforesaid parts of the hand are disabled by the presence of boils and pimples.

Objection. — “The mere fact of what is sacred to Pitṛs not having been enjoined makes it impossible to be used (why should the negation be re-iterated)?”

Answer. — There is one danger in that: The next verse supplies the description of ‘the receptacle dedicated to Pitṛs’; while there is no use for it laid down in the present context; so that when one would proceed to seek for the use to which this particular receptacle could lie put, he might form the idea that it is to be used in connection with the act (of sipping water) that forms the subject-matter of the context. When, h owever, wc have the direct prohibition (of this receptacle, in connection with water-sipping), we gather the use for it from its very name, and conclude that the offering of water and such other rites for the Pitṛs are to be performed with ‘the receptacle dedicated to Pitṛs.’ In this manner the eulogy also becomes consistent. The ‘receptacles’ dedicated to Brahmā and the rest being directly enjoined as those to be used, people might be led into the mistake that in the absence of these the other may be used; hence with a view to prevent this it was only right to mention the Pitrya-tīrtha also (as that which should never be used). — (58)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 76), where it is noted that according to Hemādri, the term ‘vipra’ stands for all the three twice-born castes, on the ground that Yājñavalkya’s text bearing on the subject uses the generic term ‘dvija — but this view is controverted on the ground that it is more reasonable to take, on the strength of Manu’s use of the particular term ‘vipra,’ the term ‘dvija’ of Yājñavalkya’s text as standing for the Brāhmaṇa only, rather than the other way about; as in this there is no stretching of the term ‘dvija’ which is often used for the Brāhmaṇa only; while in the other case the natural meaning of the term ‘vipra’ is unduly extended to other than Brāhmaṇas. The writer goes on to quote Medhātithi’s words (p. 100, 11.20-21) — “The mention of the Vipra is not meant to be significant here. For special rules for the Kṣatriya etc., are going to be added later on (in verse 62, et seq), and unless we had a general rule there could be no room for specifications; [and it is the present verse alone that could be taken as formulating that general rule, and hence it could not be taken as restricted to the Brāhmaṇa only.”] (Translation pp. 306-307); — and traverses this argument, on the ground that the present text is not injunctive of Ācamana, and hence the special rule that follows in verse 62 regarding ācamana can have no bearing upon this verse; the real injunction of Ācamana is contained in verse 61. Verse 58, therefore, it is concluded, must be taken only as enjoining a particular ‘tīrtha’ for the Brāhmaṇa.

Proceeding with the explanation of the verse, Vīramitrodaya adds — ‘nityakālam’ meaning always; so that whenever ācamana has got to be done, it should be done by the Brāhmaṇa by anyone of the thfee methods herein described; and it adds that such is the ‘svarasa,’ ‘inclination,’ of Medhātithi also, which clearly refers to Medhātithi, p. 100, 1. 22. It goes on to point out, however, that the view of many Digests is that as far as possible the Brāhmatīrtha should be used., — such being the implication of the qualification ‘nityakālam,’ which is more nearly related to the first option; and the other alternatives are to be taken up only when the Brahma tīrtha is disabled. — ‘Kāya’ means ‘dedicated to Prajāpati,’ and ‘Traidaśika,’ ‘dedicated to the gods.’

It goes on to add that, though there was no possibility for the ‘Pitrya tīrtha’ to be employed, — it not being mentioned among those sanctioned, — yet it has been specially interdicted with a view to indicate that the Pitryatīrtha is never to be used, not even when every one of the three tīrthas permitted is impossible, through pimples and sores: so that in such emergencies, the tīrtha to be employed would be the Āgneya and others.

This verse is quoted in Nityāchārapradīpa (p. 64 and p. 253), which notes that ‘Kāyatraidaśikabhyām’ is the secondary alternative mentioned in view of the contingency of there being a wound or some incapacity in the ‘Brāhmatīrtha; — in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 339), which has the following note — ‘Kāya’ is Prājāpatya; ‘Traidaśika’ is Daiva; ‘nityakālam’ indicates that the second and third alternatives are to be resorted to only in the event of the using of the first being impossible; — in Ācāramayūkha (p. 20), which explains traidaśikam’ as daivam; — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 311), which connects the negative particle ‘na’ with the whole of the second line, and explains ‘brāhma’ as the base of the aṅguṣṭha, ‘kāya’ as prājāpatya, the base of the little finger, ‘traidaśika’ as daiva, the tip of the fingers, and ‘pitrya’ the base of the index finger; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā. p. 77), which quotes ‘Medhātithis’ explanation of the derivation of the term ‘traidaśikam’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 58-59)

Vaśiṣṭha-Sṃṛti, 3. 29. — ‘The line beyond the base of the thumb is the Brāhma-tīrtha; through that one should sip water thrice and then wash with water.’

Viṣṇu-Sṃṛti, 62. 6. — ‘He should sip water through the Brahma-tīrtha.’

Yajñavalkya, 1.18. — ‘With hands between his knees, seated on a pure spot, facing the north or the east, the twice-born should sip water.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 5. 11. — ‘One should sip water through the Brāhma-tīrtha.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 5. 1. 12-13. — ‘The base of the thumb is the Brāhma-tīrtha; the tip of the thumb is the Pitrya-tīrtha; the tips of the fingers, the Daiva-tīrtha; the base of the fingers, the Ārṣa-tīrtha; the Pitrya-tīrtha is also that between the thumb and the forefinger.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 62.1-4. — ‘For the twice born, the base of the little finger is the Prājāpatya-tīrtha; at the base of the thumb, the Brāhma-tīrtha; at the tip of the fingers, the Daiva; at the base of the forefinger, the Pitrya.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.19. — ‘The base of the little finger, the base of the forefinger, the base of the thumb, and the tip of the fingers of the hand constitute the Prājāpatya, Pitrya, Brahma and Daiva tīrthas respectively.’

Śaṅkha (quoted in Medhātithi). — ‘The Kāya is at the base of the little finger; the Prājāpatya at the base of the thumb, the Daiva, at the tips of the fingers; the Pitrya, at the base of the index-finger.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Parāśaramādhava, p. 221). — ‘The Brahmatīrtha is situated to the left of the thumb, on the line pointing upwards; the Pitrya between the thumb and the index finger; the Prājāpatya between the palm and the little index: on the top of the finger tips, the Daiva.’

VERSE 2.59

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

अङ्गुष्ठमूलस्य तले ब्राह्मं तीर्थं प्रचक्षते ।
कायमङ्गुलिमूलेऽग्रे देवं पित्र्यं तयोरधः ॥५९॥

aṅguṣṭhamūlasya tale brāhmaṃ tīrthaṃ pracakṣate |
kāyamaṅgulimūle'gre devaṃ pitryaṃ tayoradhaḥ ||59||

The part of the palm at the root of the thumb they call ‘the receptacle dedicated to Brahmā’; that which is at the root of the finger ‘Sacred to Prajāpati’; that on the finger-tops ‘dedicated to the Gods’; and that which is below these two ‘dedicated to the Pitṛs.’ — (59)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘root’ of the thumb is its lower part; and the part, of the hand just below that root is the ‘receptacle dedicated to Brahmā.’ — The term ‘tala’ stands for the inner part (the palm). That inner portion of the hand which extends up to the long palm-line and faces one’s own eyes is the part ‘dedicated to Brahmā.’

That at the root of the fingers, above the horizontal palmline is ‘dedicated to Prajāpati.’

‘That on the tip of the fingers is dedicated to the Gods’ — Even though the term ‘aṅguli’ forms the subordinate factor in the compound (‘aṅguli-mule’), yet it is construed with the term ‘agre,’ for the simple reason that this latter is a relative term (and hence stands in need of a correlative).

‘That below these two is dedicated to the Pitṛs.’ — This also is to be construed with the terms ‘aṅguli’ and ‘aṅguṣṭha,’ though both of these form subordinate factors in the two compounds. The ‘finger’ meant here is the index-finger. Hence it is the part below the thumb and the index-finger which is ‘dedicated to the Pitṛs.’

We interpret the text in this manner on the strength of what is prescribed in other Smṛtis, and also upon that of the practices of cultured people; specially as no sense could be got out of the words as they stand. Says Śaṅkha — ‘Below the thumb and behind the first palm-line is the receptacle dedicated to Brahmā; that between the thumb and the index-finger is dedicated to the Pitṛs; that below the little finger is dedicated to Prajāpati, that at the tip of the fingers is dedicated to the Gods.’ — (59)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Aṅgulimūle’ — ‘at the base of the little finger’ (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda); — ‘at the base of the fingers’ (Medhātithi and Nandana)

Medhātithi (p. 101,1. 8) — ‘Tathā ca Śaṅkhaḥ’ — Though Medhātithi appears to be quoting the very words of Śaṅkha, the actual passage from Śaṅkha reads as follows: —

kāyaṃ kaviṣṭakāmūle tīrthamūktammanīṣibhiḥ
aṅguṣṭhamūle ca tathā prājāpatyaṃ vica?ṇai |
aṅgus?yagre sthitaṃ daivaṃ piś?yaṃ tarjanimūlake |

Here ‘Kāya’ is distinguished from ‘Prājāpatya’ Vīramitrodaya also cites Medhātithi as quoting Śaṅkha’s text.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 77), which offers the following explanation — ‘anguṣṭhamūla’ means the lower part of the thumb; and on the palm-side of this is the ‘Brāhma-tīrtha.’ ‘Tala’ is the palm; and that part of the palm which extends from the base of the thumb to the first long line in it constitutes the ‘Brāhma-tīrtha’; and the part which lies between the base of the fingers and the long line parallel to them is the ‘Kāya-tīrtha’; — and at the tip of the fingers lies the ‘Daiva-tīrtha.’ — The term ‘agre’ is to be construed with ‘aṅguli,’ which is the predominant factor in the compound ‘aṅgulimūle.’ — ‘Pitryam tayoradhaḥ.’ — Here also ‘tayoḥ’ stands for the two terms ‘aṅguli’ and ‘aṅguṣṭha’; and the particular ‘aṅguli’ or ‘finger’ meant here is the ‘fore-finger; so that the ‘Pitrya-tīrtha’ would be ‘below’ the thumb and the forefinger. — The words of the text as they stand, if taken literally, do not yield any sense; that is why recourse has been taken to the more or less indirect construction, as explained above.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 58-59)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.58.

VERSE 2.60

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

त्रिराचामेदपः पूर्वं द्विः प्रमृज्यात् ततो मुखम् ।
खानि चैव स्पृशेदद्भिरात्मानं शिर एव च ॥६०॥

trirācāmedapaḥ pūrvaṃ dviḥ pramṛjyāt tato mukham |
khāni caiva spṛśedadbhirātmānaṃ śira eva ca ||60||

First of all he should sip water thrice; then he should wipe his mouth twice, and touch with water the cavities, the soul and also the head. — (60)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Through any one of the aforesaid ‘receptacles’ he should three times ‘sip water,’ — i.e., he should let water enter his stomach through the mouth.

‘Then’ — i.e., after the sipping of water, — he should ‘twice’ — i.e., by repeating the act — ‘wipe the mouth,’ — i.e., the two lips. This ‘wiping’ consists of removing with a wet hand the drops of water attaching to the lips.

Question. — “Whence do you get the idea that this wiping is to be done with the hand?”

Answer. — We learn this from actual usage, and also deduce it from the fact of the context dealing with ‘receptacles’ (which have been described as parts of the band); — the terms ‘through the receptacle’ and ‘with vrater,’ though occurring elsewhere, being brought in here also.

Further, inasmuch as the wiping is meant only to serve a visible purpose, the term ‘mouth’ is taken to stand for a part of the mouth (i.e., the lips).

‘Cavities’ — holes; — ‘he should touch with water’ — hold in the hand. ‘Upasparśana’ (of the text) is the same as ‘sparśana.’ Since the text has been speaking of the ‘mouth,’ the ‘cavities’ meant to be touched are those pertaining to the mouth (i.e., located in the bead). Says Gautama (1.36) — ‘He should touch the cavities in the head.’

‘The Soul’ — stands for the Heart and the Navel. In the Upaniṣads we read that ‘one should And the Soul in the heart.’ Hence the ‘touching of the heart’ becomes the ‘touching of the Soul,’ the all-pervading entity ensouling the body. (We have to take it in this sense, because) there can be no touching of the Soul itself, which is something incorporeal. In some law-books it is laid down that ‘one should touch the navel’; hence we have included ‘navel’ also (as indicated by the term ‘Soul’ of the text).

‘Head’ — this is well known.

Since all Smṛtis arc meant to serve the same purpose, ‘the washing of hands up to the wrists’ and such other acts (as are laid down in Gauṭama 1.36, for instance) also hare to be done along with those mentioned in the text; such acts, for instance, as not making noise, keeping silent, sprinkling of water on the feet, — or even washing the feet, as laid down in the Mahābhārata. — (60)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 101, l, 21) — ‘Kvachit smaryate’ — Hopkins refers in this connection to Mahābhārata 13.104.39.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 178); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 992), which adds the following notes: — ‘Mukham,’ the two lips, — the whole for the part, — the ‘holes’ to be touched also are those connected with the face, mukha; — ‘ātmānam,’ heart or navel, — the Upaniṣads describing the ‘ātman’ as ‘to be seen within the heart,’ — hence the ‘touching’ is to be of the heart, as the ‘Soul,’ being all-pervading, cannot be touched; — the touching of the navel also is laid down in other texts — [Hence ‘ātmānam may stand for either the heart or the navel. ]

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bodhāyava-Dharmasūtra, 1.5.15-10. — ‘Thrice he should sip water, reaching to the heart, — not laughing, not talking, not standing, not looking this way and that, not stooping, not bowing down, not having his śikhā untied, with throat not covered, nor with head covered, not in a hurry, not without the sacred thread, not spreading out his feet, with the end of his lower garment not tucked into the waist-band, with arms not outside the knees, without making any sound; and he should wash thrice; twice, according to some.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.5.21. — ‘Touching the holes with water, he should touch the feet, navel, head, and lastly, the left hand.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, l.38-42. — ‘Seated on a clean spot, placing his right arm between his knees, wearing the sacred thread, washing his hands up to the wrist, with speech in check, he should sip water, touching the heart, thrice or four times; he should wash twice; the feet also; should touch the holes in the head; should sprinkle water on the heart also.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.5.10. 2-9. — ‘Seated, he should sip water twice, reaching his heart; should wash the lips thrice — twice, say some; once he should rinse his mouth, — twice, say some; washing the left hand with the right, he should touch with water, the feet, the head, the sense-organs, the eyes, the nostrils and the ears; then he should touch water; when going to take food, he should, even though clean, sip water twice, twice wash his lips and once rinse the mouth; he should sip water alter having washed the lips to the ends.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 3.29-30. — ‘With the Brahma-tīrtha, he should thrice sip water and twice wash the lips with water; should touch the holes with water; should sprinkle water on the head.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 62,6-8. — ‘With the Brahma-tīrtha, he should sip water thrice; twice wash; touch with water the holes, the head and the chest.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5-8. — ‘Going to the north of the Fire, washing his hands, seated, he should sip water thrice, and wash twice; having sprinkled water over the feet, he should sprinkle it over the head; touch the organs with water; the eyes, the nostrils and the ears.’

Yājñavalkya, 1-20. — ‘Having sipped water thrice and washed twice, he should touch the holes with water in its natural condition.’

VERSE 2.61

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

अनुष्णाभिरफेनाभिरद्भिस्तीर्थेन धर्मवित् ।
शौचेप्सुः सर्वदाऽचामेदेकान्ते प्रागुदङ्मुखः ॥६१॥

anuṣṇābhiraphenābhiradbhistīrthena dharmavit |
śaucepsuḥ sarvadā'cāmedekānte prāgudaṅmukhaḥ ||61||

One who knows his duties, when desiring cleanliness, should always sip, through the proper receptacle, water which is neither hot nor frothy, — in solitude, with his face towards the North or the East. — (61)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Hot’ hero stands for boiled; elsewhere we read that the sipping should be done ‘with unboiled water.’ So that the prohibition docs not apply to such water as is naturally hot, or has imbibed the beat of the hot atmosphere.

‘Froth’ is meant to include ‘bubbles’ also, as elsewhere we read that ‘the water should be free from froth and bubbles.’

The terms ‘through the proper receptacle’ and ‘one who knows his duties’ have been added only for the purpose of filling up the metre.

‘Desiring cleanliness’ — seeking to attain cleanliness, i.e., purity. The sense is that without the sipping of water he can never be clean.

‘Always’ — i.e., not only at the timo of eating, as would seem implied by the fact of the rule occurring in the section on ‘eating,’ — but also at other times, when, for instance, one seeks cleanliness after passing urine or stool, etc.

Though ‘water’ is the object of the act of sipping, yet it is put in the Instrumental Case, with a view to indicate that what is prescribed is meant to be applicable not only to the water that is sipped but also to that which forms the instrument in such acts as the washing of the feet and the like. What we hold is that in the act of sipping also the water is only the ‘instrument’; specially as the sipping does not constitute the sanctification of the water (in which case alone the water could be the ‘object’).

‘In solitude’ — i.e., in a clean place; a solitary place, being uncrowded by people, is generally clean.

‘With his face towards the North or the East’; — the term ‘face’ is to be construed along with each of the two terms (‘East’ and ‘North’); as Gauṭama (1.35) says that ‘the man should face either the North or the East.’ The compound should be expounded as ‘he who has his face towards the North, East’; the compound being a pure Bahuvrīhi, not a Bahuvrīhi containing another copulative compound [i.e., we cannot expound the compound as ‘North and East,’ and then compound this with the term ‘mukha,’ the sense in this case being ‘one having his face towards the North and the East’]. If wo made tho Bahuvrīhi contain a copulative compound, then if the compound ‘prāṅudak’ were taken as an aggregative copulative, it should have an additional ‘a’ at the end; nor could it be taken as a segregative copulative. Further, it is not possible for the man to face both the North and the East at one and the same time; for in that case, the rule would mean that one part of the sipping should be done with face towards the North, and another part of it with face towards the East; and this would mean that the sipping is not done at one place. Then again, the directions mentioned do not form the principal factor in the predicate of the sentence, which alone could justify their being taken reciprocally; nor does the term ‘prāṅudak’ from a well-known name of the North-East quarter, in the manner in which ‘dakṣina- pūrva’ does of the South-East quarter; hence there can be no justification for the compound being taken as a containing another compound name of a particular quarter, [i.e., we cannot take ‘prāṅudak’ as the name of the North-East quarter and then compound it with ‘mukha’]. For these reasons the. compound cannot be taken as a ‘Bahuvrīhi’ containing within itself another compound. From all this it follows that option, is meant; as is clearly laid down in another Smṛti — ‘Acts of cleanliness should be begun with

face towards the North or the East’ (Gauṭama 1.35). This option is just like the option that we have in the case of the Sāman to be sung at the Ṣaḍoha sacrifice, where the injunction being in the form that ‘the Bṛhadrathantara Sāman should be sung,’ what is actually done is that on some days of the sacrifice (which lasts for six days) they sing the ‘Bṛhat’ while on other the ‘Rathantara’ Sāman; and never on any one day do they ever sing both the Sāmans. — (61)

The ‘sipping,’ as consisting of the drinking of water, has been prescribed; but the exact quantity of the water to be sipped has not yet been laid down. Hence the Text now proceeds to define the precise measure (of the water to be sipped): —

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 66), where it is explained that what the epithet ‘anuṣṇabhiḥ’ means is that the water should not be heated by fire, as is distinctly stated by Viṣṇu; — again on page 77, where it is stated to be the injunction of ācamana in general, for all the three castes; — also on page 79, where it is added that ‘ekānte’ means not crowded, — where alone the mind can be calm and collected, — as is laid down by Viṣṇu.

On the tern ‘prāgudaṅmukhaḥ,’ this work has the following note, criticising Medhātithi’s explanation: — “The term prāgudaṅmukhaḥ must mean the north-east quarter, on the strength of the declaration of Hārīta; and in the Śruti also we see the term used in the sense of the north-east — e. g. in the passage referring to the branch of the Palāśa tree —

‘Prāchīmāharati, udīchīmāharati, prāgudīchīmāharati’ and also in Kātyāyanasūtra, where it is said — ‘prāgudakpravaṇam devayajanam,’ where the term ‘prāgudak’ stands for the north-east. For these reasons the assertion of Medhātithi — that ‘the term prāgudak being never found used in the sense of north-east, it should not be explained as such,’ — must be disregarded. Medhātithi has explained the compound prāguduṅmukhaḥ as a Bahuvrīhi compound composed of three terms, whereby the meaning comes to be that the man must face the East or the North.”

The writer has conveniently ignored Medhātithi’s reference to Gautama 1.35, in support of his interpretation.

The second half of the verse is quoted in Śuddhi-kaumudī (p. 339); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 983), which notes that ‘anuṣṇābhiḥ’ is meant to prohibit the water heated by fire.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Bodhāyanā-Dharmasūtra, 1. 5. 14. — ‘Water-sipping should never be done with the lingers, nor with such water as has hubbies or foam, is brackish or saltish, or muddy, or discoloured, or foul-smelling.’

Baudhāyana (Vīra-Āhnika, p. 71). — ‘Sipping should not be done with water left over after washing the feet; or if this has to be done, it should be done after pouring out some of the water on the ground.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 5. 15. 4-7. — ‘Water should not bo sipped out of rain-showers; nor out of cavities in the Earth; nor with warm water, without reason.’ [‘Reason’ such as sickness.] [Hut according to Vaśiṣṭha, if the cavity contained water enough for satisfying the cow, which is not unclean, then, it may be used.]

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 3. 36. — ‘Sipping should not be done with water with bad colour, bad smell or bad taste, or that proceeding from an unclean source.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 62. 5. — ‘Seated in a clean place, with arms between the knees, facing the East or the North, with happy and concentrated mind, he should sip water, which is not fire-heated, which is free from foam, which has not been brought by the Śūdra, and which is not brackish.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.20. — ‘With water in its natural condition, free from bubbles and foam.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.2.22-23. — ‘With water, not hot, nor with bubbles.’

Śaṅkha (Vīra-Āhnika, p. 66). — ‘With water pulled out, which is free from bubbles and foam, not heated by fire, nor brackish.’

Gautama and Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 67). — ‘Not with water fetched by a Śūdra or an unclean person or by one hand.’ Kūrmapurāṇa (Do.). — ‘With water which is not brackish and which has not been fetched by a Śūdra or by an unclean person; nor with water brought with one hand.’

Saṃvarta (Do.). — ‘Never with water offered by a Śūdra or an unclean person, or with one hand.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 68). — ‘With water pulled out, purified, examined, not brackish, nor heated, nor with foam and bubbles.’

Pracetas (Do., p. 69). — ‘One should twice, thrice or four times sip water, without making any sound, which is not hot, nor with foam, which has been purified by cloth and by the eve, — reaching the heart.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 70). — ‘Nor with water which has not been looked into, which is hot or unclean; discoloured or foul-smelling or foamy.’

Parāśara (Do., p. 71). — ‘Sipping should not be done with water fetched by a Śūdra, or with one hand, or by one who has not kept the observances, or by an unknown person.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 222). — ‘It has been declared that at night, the wise men may be purified by even such water as has not been looked into; as also for sick men.’

VERSE 2.62

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

हृद्गाभिः पूयते विप्रः कण्ठगाभिस्तु भूमिपः ।
वैश्योऽद्भिः प्राशिताभिस्तु शूद्रः स्पृष्टाभिरन्ततः ॥६२॥

hṛdgābhiḥ pūyate vipraḥ kaṇṭhagābhistu bhūmipaḥ |
vaiśyo'dbhiḥ prāśitābhistu śūdraḥ spṛṣṭābhirantataḥ ||62||

The Brāhmaṇa is purified by the water reaching the heart; the Kṣatriya by that reaching the throat; the Vaiśya by water that is just sipped, and the Śūdra by what is touched with the end. — (62)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Reaching the heart’ — that which reaches down to the regions of the heart; the word being derived from the root ‘gam’ with the ‘ḍa’ affix, according to Pāṇini, 6. 2.101; the term ‘hṛdaya’ being changed into ‘hṛd’ according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra, 6.3.50.

‘Is purified’ — Reaches sanctity; that is, gets rid of impurity. The water (reaching the heart) would, in quantity, be just a little less than a handful.

‘The Kṣatriya by that reaching the throat’ — i.e., by that which reaches only down to the throat. The term ‘bhūmipaḥ’ in the text stands for the Kṣatriya; as the ‘lordship of land’ is laid down for the Kṣatriya only; and hence this well-known function (of ruling the land) indicates here the Kṣatriya caste. If actual ‘lordship’ of the land were meant, then what is laid down here would have been prescribed among the ‘duties of tho king.’

‘The Vaiśya by the water that is just sipped,’ — i.e., which is just taken into the mouth; even without reaching the throat, the water thus sipped serves to purify the Vaiśya.

‘The Śūdra by what is touched with the end;’ — ‘anṭataḥ’ stands for ‘antena’; the ‘tasil’ affix having the force of the instrumental, according to the Vārtika on Pāṇini, 5. 4. 44. The term ‘end’ (anta) means proximity; e.g., the phrase ‘udakānta’ means ‘near water’. It also means a part; e.g., in such expressions as ‘vastrānta,’ ‘vasanānta’ and the like. With both these significations the term ‘end’ (being a relative term) stands in need of a correlative; whenever it is used, one always wants to know — ‘near what ’ or ‘part of what.’ Now in the present case, the water-sipping has been laid down for the other castes as to he done with certain parts of the hand and the lips and the tongue; and it is the ‘end’ of these that is meant. It cannot mean mere ‘proxi mity’; because the ‘water-sipping’ prescribed cannot he accomplished by mere proximity. Then again, the ‘touch’ (of the water with the tongue and lips) would involve sipping (which has been laid down for the Vaiśya); for one is sure to feel the taste of that which is touched with the tongue and lips. Hence the conclusion appears to he that the quantity of water sufficient for the Śūdra is just a little less in quantity than that for the Vaiśya; e.g., while for the Vaiśya the water should touch the root of the tongue, for the Śūdra it should touch only its tip.

Water being a fluid substance, its going beyond the limits prescribed would be unavoidable; hence all that is meant is that if the water sipped fails to reach the prescribed limits, it fails to purify the man.

The description of the ‘receptacles’ (parts of the hand) refers to the right hand; as it is this hand that should be used in all washings; specially as it has been laid down that men should perform (religious) acts with the right hand. It is for this reason that we reiterate this fact in the present connection. — (62)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 221); — in Smṛtitattva (p. 335), which points out that for the Śūdra, there is no ācamana, as the verse stops short at the Vaiśya; so in the place of ācamana, the Śūdra should wash his hands and feet; — this is clear from a text of the Brahmapurāṇa; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 74), where it is explained that ‘antataḥ’ means inside of the mouth; and hence what is meant is that there should be no drinking of the water, which should only touch the inner part of the mouth; — such being the opinion of Kalpataru. It is curious that Kalpataru, as quoted in Vīramitrodaya, has quoted Manu 5.13 9, where ‘antataḥ’ does not occur at all, and missed the present verse, which, as Vīramitrodaya rightly remarks, is the text that really supports the explanation provided by Kalpataru. Vīramitrodaya notes Medhātithi’s explanation with approval on p. 75.

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 46); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 985), which adds the following notes: — ‘Hṛdgābhiḥ,’ reaching the regions of the heart, — ‘Pūyate’ acquires purity; — ‘Kaṇthayābhiḥ,’ just touching the throat only, — ‘bhūmipoḥ,’ the Kṣatriya; — ‘prāśitāḥhiḥ’, just taken into the mouth, and not reaching the throat, — ‘antataḥ,’ the affix ‘tasi’ has the force of the Instrumental, — the term ‘anta’ meaning near requires a correlative, that to which nearness is meant, — so that the meaning is that the Śūdra is purified by water reaching that point which is in close proximity to that which the water should reach for purifying the Vaiśya; — and as the tongue is the point for the Vaiśya, for the Śūdra it must be the teeth; though the water that reaches the teeth must touch the tongue also, yet all that is meant is that the quantity for the Śūdra should be just a little less than that for the Vaiśya.

It is quoted also in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 221).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 5. 17. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa becomes pure by water reaching the heart, the Kṣatriya by its reaching the throat and the Vaiśya by water actually drunk off; the woman and the Śūdra by merely touching it.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 62. 9. — ‘The three twice-born castes become pure by water reaching the heart, the throat and the palate respectively, the woman and the Śūdra by touching it once.’

Gautama Dharmasūtra, 1.37. — ‘He should thrice or four times sip water reaching the heart.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 3.33-34. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa is purified by bubble-free and foamless water reaching his heart; the Kṣatriya by it reaching the throat, the Vaiśya by water actually drunk; the woman and the Śūdra by merely touching it.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.21. — [The same words as Viṣṇu, above.]

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.2.29. — ‘He should sip water reaching the heart.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 74). — ‘The woman and the Śūdra are purified by the washing of the hands and lips.’

Uśanas (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 75). — ‘That quantity of water is to be taken as reaching the heart in which a bean sinks; this quantity, less by its fourth part is taken as reaching the throat’, less by half, as reaching the palate; and less by three-fourths, as reaching the teeth.’

Pracetas — (See above.)

VERSE 2.63

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

उद्धृते दक्षिणे पाणावुपवीत्यौच्यते द्विजः ।
सव्ये प्राचीनावीती निवीती कण्ठसज्जने ॥६३॥

uddhṛte dakṣiṇe pāṇāvupavītyaucyate dvijaḥ |
savye prācīnāvītī nivītī kaṇṭhasajjane ||63||

When the right hand is held above (the sacred thread etc.), the twice-born person is described as ‘Upavītin’; when the left hand is held above, ‘Prāchīnāvītin,’ and on its hanging by the neck, ‘Nivītin.’ — (63)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

An objection is raised — “As a matter of fact, in treatises dealing with Dharma, the meanings of words are accepted to be exactly as they are known in ordinary usage; and the works of Manu and others should not make it their business to explain the meanings of words, in the way in which it is done by grammatical and lexicographical works.”

Ānswer. — We have already answered this before; if treatises on Dharma should be found to supply the explanation of such words as are not ordinarily known, are they to be blamed for doing so? Then again, in the present instance, there is another purpose also in view. The term ‘upavītin’ is explained in the course of the explanation of the act of ‘water-sipping,’ with a view to indicate that the method (of wearing the sacred thread, etc.) is auxiliary to that act. Though it is true that the wearing of the sacred thread, — either as part of a religious observance, or as accomplishing certain desirable results for man, — is known as to be done at all times, yet if the ‘water-sipping’ were done without it, it would remain incomplete. So that, if we did not have the present text (as indicating the necessity of wearing the sacred thread during water-sipping), there would be some deficiency in the religious act, as also some defect in the agent. If the sipping were done without the sacred thread, it would be as good as not done, and there would be the additional wrong done, in the shape of sipping the water while unclean.

Question. — “How is it that the Upavīta-method alone is regarded as auxiliary to the ‘water-sipping,’ when as a matter of fact, the present text has spoken of another method, the ‘Prāchīnāvīta,’ also?”

Our answer is as follows: — As for the ‘Prāchīnāvīta’ method, this has been directly prescribed, in so many words, as pertaining to acts of offering to the Pitṛs; so that when its use has been found in connection with these, it could not be taken as an alternative to the ‘Upavīta’ method, whose use has not yet been found. Similarly the ‘Nivīṭa’ method also has its use in connection with acts of sorcery. Though the use of the ‘Nivīṭa’ has not been laid down in the itself, yet since all Smṛtis have the same end in view, the use prescribed in other Smṛtis could be regarded as accepted in the present context also.

The term ‘hand’ stands here for the arm; it is only when the man raises his arm that he is called ‘Upavīṭi’; further, we are going to point out later on that the ‘Upavīṭa’ is the method (of wearing the thread) to be employed at all times (not during religious acts only); and no one is called ‘Upavīṭin’ by merely lifting his hand.

‘When the left hand is held above,’ he is called ‘Prāchīnāvīṭī’; it is the compounded form (‘prāchīnāvīṭī’) that constitutes the name; the text puts it iu the uncompounded form on account of the exigencies of metre.

‘On its hanging by the neck’; — ‘Sajjana,’ ‘hanging’ means being worn, when the sacred thread, or the piece of cloth, is worn over the neck, and neither arm is held over it, then the man becomes ‘nivītī.’ — (63)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 39), which notes that the non-compounding (in ‘prāchīna-āvīti’ is a Vedic anomaly; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 188).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 5.1.5-8. — ‘The Sacred Thread worn at sacrifices to gods (upavīta) consists of the silk or the cotton thread folded three times three: it should reach down to the navel; the right arm being held above; — the reverse (prāchīnāvita) at offerings to Pitṛs; hanging by the neck, it is nivīta; hanging downwards it is adhovīta.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.6.18-19. — ‘He who is wearing the Sacred Thread in the upavīta form is to be regarded as wearing two pieces of cloth; — while he who is wearing it in the Adhovīta form, is to be regarded as wearing only one piece of cloth.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.2.2-3. — ‘Holding aloft the right arm, passing over the head, resting the thread on the left shoulder, hanging down the right arm-pit, — thus does he become the wearer of the Yajñopavīta; lifting the left arm, passing over the head, resting the thread on the right shoulder, hanging down the left arm-pit, — thus does he become the wearer of the Prāchīnāvīta.’

VERSE 2.64

Section XIII - Initiation (upanayana)

मेखलामजिनं दण्डमुपवीतं कमण्डलुम् ।
अप्सु प्रास्य विनष्टानि गृह्णीतान्यानि मन्त्रवत् ॥६४॥

mekhalāmajinaṃ daṇḍamupavītaṃ kamaṇḍalum |
apsu prāsya vinaṣṭāni gṛhṇītānyāni mantravat ||64||

When the girdle, the skin, the staff, the sacred thread or the water-pot becomes damaged, he should throw it into the water and take up another with the proper formulas. — (64)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse enjoins that when these things are damaged, they should be thrown into water and others should be taken up; and the sequence of the ‘throwing’ and the ‘taking up’ is to be just as it is found in the text. In as much as one has got to take up these things again, they cannot be regarded as forming part of the Initiatory Ceremony itself; if it were part of this ceremony, then all their purpose would have been fulfilled by the completion of the ceremony. The right view therefore is that these should continue to be taken up throughout the ‘student-stage.’

“But is it not possible to regard the throwing into water here laid down as the disposal of the things mentioned, if they happen, during the Initiatory Ceremony — and before its completion, — to be damaged by divine or human adverse forces? The taking up of fresh ones, would, in this case, be necessary for the completion of the ceremony; just as there is of the begging-bowl. Is it absolutely impossible for the text to be taken in this manner, that the mere fact of the re-taking being laid down should be made the basis of assuming that the things should continue to be held throughout the student-stage?”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — As for mere ‘holding,’ this has been laid down in connection with the staff only (during the Initiatory Rite); as for the girdle what is to be done during the ceremony is only its tying (round the waist); so that what should be done as part of the Initiatory Ceremony is the peculiar arrangement of strings (which constitutes the act of tying); this being done, the purpose of the Injunction will have been fulfilled; so that if, at some future time, any thing becomes damaged or not, what effect could that have upon the ceremony (which will have been long completed)? As for the particular form of ‘disposal,’ this helps the Rite only when what has become damaged forms an integral part of the Rite itself. Nor again have the scriptures laid down any purpose for which the girdle, etc., are worn, for the fulfilment of which purpose, the re-taking of them (during the ceremony) would be enjoined (in the present text); it is only when the purpose of a certain object has not been fulfilled, that we take it for granted that that object should be taken up again. For these reasons, because the text lays down (a) a particular form of Disposal, and (b) the re-taking of the things, we conclude that, even though the holding of these may form an integral part of the Initiatory Ceremony, the necessity of this holding does not end with the completion of the ceremony. Then again, the girdle, etc., are mentioned in the same category as the ‘water-pot,’ which continues to be held after the ceremony also; and this shows that the other articles also are to continue to be held, and all this ‘holding’ forms part of the observances (of the Religious Student). From all this it follows that the girdle and other things are subservient to both: by the force of ‘context,’ they form part of the Initiatory Ceremony, and since they are found to be held after the completion of that ceremony, they are to continue as long as the ‘student-stage’ lasts. That the ‘water-pot’ has to be carried (always) for the purpose of carrying water is also implied by (the binding and universal character of) the injunction of the ‘Disposal’; otherwise (if the pot were not meant to be carried always), the meaning of the injunction would be that the disposal is to be carried out only when the water-pot may be held; and this would make the Injunction partial and limited in its application.

As regards the ‘holding of the staff,’ this comes to be regarded as part of the ‘begging of food,’ on the basis of sequence enjoined in the rule ‘one should beg for food after taking up the staff’, but on the basis of actual practice, it comes to be done in connection with such ordinary talking also as is not done for the purpose of ‘food-begging.’ But it does not mean that the staff should be held always; for the boy who may be holding the stick would be unable to do such acts as standing, sitting, sleeping, eating and so forth; similarly in Verse 2.70 it is laid down that the boy, when proceeding to read the Veda, should sit with joined palms (and this would not be possible if he held the staff in his hand).

‘With the proper formulas’ — this means that the retaking of the articles should be in the same manner in which they are taken up during the Initiatory Ceremony; and in that connection formulas are laid down in regard to the wearing of the Girdle, and not in regard to the holding of the staff. — (64)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 451), which says that it lays down the method of disposing of the sacred thread and other things whenever they happen to break; — also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 190).

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 934) which says that, as the use of mantras is essential, if a certain Gṛhyasūtra does not mention the mantra, it has to be borrowed from another Gṛhyasūtra; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 423), where also the verse is explained as laying down the ‘disposal’ of the tilings mentioned. The latter quotes the verse again on p. 887, where it is explained that in a case where an injunction lays down a certain act as to be done ‘with the proper mantras’ — as is done in the present verse — and no particular mantra is prescribed? one has to use the mantra that may be found mentioned in a particular Gṛhyasūtra. This is what ‘mantravat’ has beeif explained to mean, in Madanapārijāta (p. 37 also.)

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra,, p. 85) as laying down the disposal of the sacred thread that has been worn out; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 39), which notes that the meaning of the term ‘mantravat’ is that they have to be worn with those same mantras that were used for wearing them at the Upanayana; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 72) as an example of the principle that where the text laying down a certain act as to be done ‘with mantras’ does not specify the particular mantras to be used, these have to be taken as laid down in other Gṛhyasūtras.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.29. — [Reproduces the exact words of Manu.]

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 4.5-7. — ‘When these articles become spoilt by urine, excreta, blood or semen, they should be thrown away; when the water-pot breaks, one should offer a hundred libations with the Vyāhrti mantras; the pieces he should throw into the water, and repeating the Sāvitrī ten times, he should take up another pot.’

Bhṛgu (Vīra-Samskāra, p. 423). — ‘When the sacred thread is torn or broken, the Brāhmaṇa should bathe and then wear a new one.’

VERSE 2.65 [Hair-clipping (keśānta)]

Section XIV - Hair-clipping (keśānta)

केशान्तः षोडशे वर्षे ब्राह्मणस्य विधीयते ।
राजन्यबन्धोर्द्वाविंशे वैश्यस्य द्व्यधिके मतः ॥६५॥

keśāntaḥ ṣoḍaśe varṣe brāhmaṇasya vidhīyate |
rājanyabandhordvāviṃśe vaiśyasya dvyadhike mataḥ ||65||

The sacrament of Keśānta is ordained for the Brāhmaṇa in his sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya in his twenty-second year, and for the Vaiśya two years later. — (65)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Keśānta — Hair-clipping. is — the name of a particular sacrament. This sacrament should be done, for the Brāhmaṇa, in his sixteenth year, from conception. For a knowledge of the exact form of this sacrament our only source is the Gṛhyasūtra.

‘Two years later’ — i.e., in the year, which is two years later than the twenty-second. Or, the compound may be taken as qualifying ‘time,’ so that the meaning is — ‘at the time which comes two years later than the twenty-second,’ — ‘for the Vaiśya.’ The numeral adjective ‘two’ must be taken as qualifying years; as the whole verse refers to years. — (65)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 444); — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 778); — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 107); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 637), which explains Dvyadhike as in the twenty-fourth year; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 353), which explains rājānyabandhuḥ as Kṣatriya and Dvyadhike as twenty-fourth.

Another name for the Keśānta sacrament mentioned in Saṃskāramayūkha is ‘Godāna,’ which has been etymologically explained as — gāvaḥ keśāḥ-dīyante chidyante yasmin.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 457), where it is said that this rite is what is called ‘godāna’; — and in Aparārka (p. 67), which adds that the numbers here mentioned are to be counted from birth and not from conception, for if the latter were meant, the word used would have been ‘garbhaṣoḍaśa’ like ‘garbhaṣṭama.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya, 1 36. — ‘The keśānta is to be done in the sixteenth year.’

Āpastamba- Gṛhyasūtra, 1.17.1-2. — ‘The Godāna (Hair-cutting) in the sixteenth year.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.3. — ‘When the boy is sixteen years old, comes the keśānta.’

Gobhila- Gṛhyasūtra, 3.1. — ‘Now, the Godāna in the sixteenth year; the keśānta ceremony is described by the description of the Cūḍākaraṇa

VERSE 2.66 [Sacraments for Females]

Section XV - Sacraments for Females

अमन्त्रिका तु कार्यैयं स्त्रीणामावृदशेषतः ।
संस्कारार्थं शरीरस्य यथाकालं यथाक्रमम् ॥६६॥

amantrikā tu kāryaiyaṃ strīṇāmāvṛdaśeṣataḥ |
saṃskārārthaṃ śarīrasya yathākālaṃ yathākramam ||66||

For females, this whole series should be performed at the right time and in the proper order, for the purpose of sanctifying the body; but without the Vedic formulas — (66)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘This whole series’ should be done for females, without the recitation of Vedic formulas. — ‘Series’ stands for the entire body of sacraments, beginning with the ‘Birth-rites,’ along with all the acts that constitute their procedure.

‘For the purpose of sanctifying’ — i.e., purifying This means that the purpose of the sacraments in the case of females that is the same as that in that of males.

‘At the proper time,’ — i.e., without letting that time pass which has been prescribed for the several sacraments. The term ‘yathā’ here signifies non-transgression, and hence, not signifying ‘similarity,’ it is compounded according to Pāṇini 2.1.7.

The same explanation applies to the compound ‘yathā-kramam’ also.

In as much as the text has distinctly asserted that it is only the reciting of Vedic formulas that may be omitted, there could be no idea of the sacraments (for females) being performed at a time, or in an order, other than the prescribed ones; so that the prohibition of other times and another order should be taken as merely describing what is already known, and as added only for the purpose of filling up the metre. All that is really meant by the text is that for females the sacraments should be performed without the Vedic formulas.

The ‘series’ spoken of above would imply that like the ‘Birth-rite’ and the other ceremonies, the ‘Initiatory ceremony’ also should be performed for females; with a view to preclude this idea, the Text adds —

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 926); — in Madanapārijāta (p. 362), where āvṛt is explained as jātakarmādikriyā; and yathākramam is to taken to mean that there should ho no deviation from the exact order of sequence — such deviation necessitating expiation; — in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 188); — and in Aparārka (p. 30), which explains āvṛt as ‘kriyā’, act, rite; — ‘aśeṣtaḥ’ as along with all details’, and ‘yathākramam’ as meaning that the order of the sacraments should not be disturbed or else the Sarvaprāyaścitta has to be performed.’

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, at several places, on pages 194, 255, 278, 317 and 403). On p. 194, ‘āvṛt’ is explained as jātakarmādikriyā; and on the term ‘amantrikā’ it is added that what this interdicts is the use of only those mantras that pertain to the primary acts of eating butter, honey and the rest, and not the use of the subsidiary mantras; and this conclusion is in accordance with the principle enunciated in Mīmāṃsā Sutra 3.8. 34-35, where it is declared that the qualification of upāṃśutva (silence) pertains to only the primary rite of the ‘Ātharvaṇa Iṣṭis’ and not to the subsidiary ones. — On p. 255 the verse is quoted in support of the view that the rite of Niṣkramaṇa, is to be performed in the case of the female baby also. — Similarly on p. 278, it is quoted to show that the rite of ‘Annprāśana’ should be performed for the female baby. — On p. 317, it is made to justify performance of the rite of ‘Tonsure’ for girls. — On page 403, it is quoted as laying down the performance of all the sacraments — beginning from the Jātakarma and ending with the Keśānta; whereby it is concluded that the Upanayaṇa also, for girls is to be done ‘without mantras’; another view is noted, whereby the pronoun ‘this ‘iyam in Manu’s text is taken as standing only for the first five sacraments, ending with Tonsure, so that Upanayaṇa and Keśānta become excluded from the category. But this view is rejected; and in answer to the argument that “in view of the declaration in the following verse that for women Marriage constitutes Upanayaṇa, the pronoun ‘iyam’ in the present verse must exclude Upanayaṇa — it is pointed out that all that the next verse means is that in the case of a person following the opinion of another Smṛti and not performing the Upanayana for his girl, — Marriage should be regarded as constituting her Upanayana; and not that in all cases Marriage should take the place of Upanayana. The conclusion is stated thus: — There are two kinds of girls — ‘Brahmavādinī’ and ‘Sodyovodhū’; — for the former there is Upanayana, in the eighth year, vedic study, and ‘return’ (completion of Vedic study) before puberty, — and marriage also before puberty; while for the Sodyovodhū, there is Upanayana at the time of marriage, followed by immediate ‘completion of study,’ which is followed immediately by Marriage. But from the assertion in certain Smṛtis that there used to be Upanayana for women in a ‘previous cycle,’ it seems that in the present cycle, it is not to be performed. (Bee note on the next verse).

The above note regarding the two kinds of women is based on a passage in Hārīta Smṛti (quoted in Madanapārijātā, p. 37), which adds that all this refers to another cycle. The exact words of Hārīta mean as follows: — “There are two kinds of women — Brahmavādinī and Sadyovadhū; for the former, there are Upanayana, fire-laying, vedic study in the house itself and also alms-begging; while for the latter, when the time of marriage arrives, Upanayana should be performed somehow and then marriage.”

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 400); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 00) which explains ‘āvṛt’ as meaning the Jātakarma and other rites, and adds that this implies that none of the rites is to be omitted for the women.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.13. — ‘The same rites for women are done without mantras.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.13. — ‘These rites for women are to be performed silently, but Marriage is to be with manteras.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 15 (16.7) — 1.2. — ‘For the girl, the Āvṛta only’ [‘āvṛta’ standing for the Jātakarma and other rites],

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Samskāra, p. 191). — ‘For women, these rites are to be performed silently, but the Homa is to be done with mantras.’

Śaunaka (Do., p. 278). — ‘All this rite is to be performed for the girl, without mantras.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Do., p. 278). — ‘The rites beginning with the Jātakarma and ending with Tonsure are to be done for women, without mantras; but even in Tonsure, the Homa is to be done with mantras.’

VERSE 2.67

Section XV - Sacraments for Females

वैवाहिको विधिः स्त्रीणां संस्कारो वैदिकः स्मृतः ।
पतिसेवा गुरौ वासो गृहार्थोऽग्निपरिक्रिया ॥६७॥

vaivāhiko vidhiḥ strīṇāṃ saṃskāro vaidikaḥ smṛtaḥ |
patisevā gurau vāso gṛhārtho'gniparikriyā ||67||

For females the Rites of marriage have been ordained to be their ‘Vedic Sacrament,’ the serving of the husbands their ‘residence with the Teacher,’ and the household-duties their ‘tending of fire.’ — (67)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ceremony called ‘Upanaya,’ ‘Initiation,’ has been called ‘Vedic,’ because it is gone through for the purpose of studying the Veda. This ceremony, in the case of females, consists of the ‘Rites of marriage,’ — i.e., those rites that are accomplished by means of marriage. Thus, since ‘marriage’ has been prescribed for them in place of the ‘Initiation,’ the former has been described here as becoming the latter; and this can preclude the necessity of ‘Initiation’ only if the purposes of this latter were taken as served by the ‘marriage.’

Objection. — “Well, the Initiation may be excluded from women, but the study of the Veda and the keeping of the observances have still got to be performed.”

With a view to preclude these two also, the Text adds —

‘The serving of husband is their residence with the Teacher.’ When the woman serves — attends upon and reveres her husband, she does what is meant to bo accomplished by ‘Residence with the Teacher.’ The study of the Veda could be done by the woman only if she resided with the Teacher; and as there is no ‘Residence with the Teacher’ in her case, how can there be any studying of the Veda? ‘Household duties’; — all that she does in the course of her household work, — e.g., cooking, getting together of articles for household use, general supervision, and so forth, which are going to be described in discourse IX, ‘the husband should employ her in saving wealth &c., &c.’ (9.11). These household duties are for the woman what the ‘bringing of fuel’ in the morning and evening is for the Religious Student (male). The term ‘tending of fire’ stands for all the observances and vows that the student keeps.

By reason of the ‘Marriage’ having taken the place of the ‘Initiatory Ceremony’ (for women), it follows that, just as in the case of men, all the ordinances of Śruti and Smṛti and custom become binding upon him after the Initiatory Ceremony, before which they are free to do what they like, and are unfit for any religious duties, — so for women, there is freedom of action before Marriage, after which they become subject to the ordinances of Śrutis and Smṛtis.

Or, we may interpret the text as follows: — Marriage constitutes the Vedic Sacrament — i.e., TJpanayana — for females; even though marriage is not really the Upanayana, yet it is spoken of as such attributively. The question arising as to whence lies the similarity by virtue of which Marriage is spoken of as Upanayana, the text adds — ‘the serving of the husband &c., &c.’ — (67)

The next verse sums up the contents of the section —

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vaivāhikovidhiḥ’ — ‘Sacrament performed with Vedic texts’ (Nandana and Rāghavānanda); — ‘Sacrament for the purpose of learning the Veda’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse has been quotçd in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 220) to the effect that for women Marriage itself is Upanayana; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 61), which notes that for women, ‘attending’ on husband takes the place of ‘service of the teacher,’ and ‘household duties’ take the place of ‘tending the fire,’ and that for girls also, before marriage, there are no restrictions regarding food and other tilings; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, pp. 403-4), where it is discussed along with the preceding verse (see note on 66). This verse has been taken as excluding women from Upanayana, entirely. But the author points out that this is not right; and he sets forth his well-considered opinion at the end (see note on 66); and the present verse he takes only as laying down a substitute for the Upanayana in the case of those women who are not Brahmavādinīs.

Vīramitrodaya proceeds to explain the verse to mean that ‘vaidikaḥ saṃskāraḥ’ — ‘the sacrament which is gone through for the purpose of studying the Veda,’ — i. e., Upanayana — consists, in the case of women, in the ‘rites of marriage’; i. e., consecration brought about by the marriage-rites, as has been “declared’ by the ancients. It points out that such is the meaning of the verse with the words ‘Saṃskāro vaidikaḥ smṛtaḥ’ as read by Medhātithi; but Mitākṣarā and other works adopt the reading ‘aupanāyanikaḥ smṛtaḥ’ instead of ‘saṃskāro vaidikaḥ smṛtaḥ’, which means that marriage rites serve the purpose of Upanayana rite; so that marriage would be for women what Upanayana is for men.

This verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 37), which also adopts the reading ‘aupanāyanikaḥ smṛtaḥ.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 22.32. — ‘For women Marriage is the sacrament.’

Vìsmt-Smṛti, 27-15. — ‘The Marriage of women is with mantras.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.13. — ‘For women, Marriage is with mantras.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 402). — ‘In former times, for girls also there was Upanayana, also the teaching of the Veda and the pronouncing of the Sāvitrī. But she should be taught by her father, uncle or brother, none else. For the girl, alms-begging is to be done in her own home; and she should avoid the skin, the rags and also matted locks.’

VERSE 2.68

Section XV - Sacraments for Females

एष प्रोक्तो द्विजातीनामौपनायनिको विधिः ।
उत्पत्तिव्यञ्जकः पुण्यः कर्मयोगं निबोधत ॥६८॥

eṣa prokto dvijātīnāmaupanāyaniko vidhiḥ |
utpattivyañjakaḥ puṇyaḥ karmayogaṃ nibodhata ||68||

Thus has been described the Initiatory Ceremony of twice-born men, — that which sanctifies them and marks their (real) birth. Learn now the duties to which they should apply themselves. — (68)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

So far we had the section dealing with the Initiatory Ceremony. All that has been said here pertains to that ceremony.

“Well, if so, then the Keśānta (spoken of in 65) would also pertain to the Initiation.”

Not so, as that sacrament has been laid down as to be performed at its own time, which comes long after the

Initiatory Ceremony has been finished. So that, even though it is mentioned in the same context, it becomes connected with other rites by virtue of the force of syntactical connection. Thus it is that some people regard the Keśānta as to be done after the Final Bath (to say nothing of the Initiation).

The term ‘aupanāyanika’ means pertaining to the Upa nayana, the initial vowel being prolonged, as in other cases explained before.

‘Birth’ — being born from their parents; this is what is ‘marked’ — manifested, perfected — by the said ceremony; even though born, the boy, before Initiation, is as good as not born; as till then he is not entitled to any religious acts. Hence the ceremony is what ‘marks’ his birth.

‘Sanctifies’ — this has been already explained.

The duties with which the initiated boy becomes connected — to which he becomes entitled, — those that should be performed by the initiated bov — all these are going to be expounded; — these ‘now learn’ — (68)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.26.9-17. — ‘Those who are not Śūdras, whose acts are not defective, for them, Upanayana, Vedic study, Fire-laying are all effective; — the Upanayana is a Vedic sacrament for purposes of study: it is the best birth.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.10. — ‘The Upanayana is the second birth for the Brāhmaṇa.’

VERSE 2.69 [General Duties of Twice-born Men]

Section XVI - General Duties of Twice-born Men

उपनीयं गुरुः शिष्यं शिक्षयेत्शौचमादितः ।
आचारमग्निकार्यं च सन्ध्यौपासनमेव च ॥६९॥

upanīyaṃ guruḥ śiṣyaṃ śikṣayetśaucamāditaḥ |
ācāramagnikāryaṃ ca sandhyaupāsanameva ca ||69||

Having initiated the pupil, the Teacher should, first of all, teach him cleanliness, right behaviour, firetending and also the twilight-devotions. — (69)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Should teach’ — should make him learn.

‘First of all’; — this does not mean that Cleanliness should be taught before Right Behaviour and the rest; in fact, there is no order of sequence intended among those mentioned here; all that the text is going to lay down is that after the Initiation there should he the teaching of the observances; and after the pupil has been instructed regarding the observances, he should proceed with the study of the Veda. Hence if the text meant that the boy should be taught Fire-kindling and the Twilight-Devotions before being taught the observances, it would be laying down for him the reciting of mantras not prescribed anywhere else, — because each of the two acts mentioned is performed with mantras. As for ‘cleanliness,’ there can be no fixed time for it; and it must be taught on the very day on which the boy has been initiated. So also ‘Right Behaviour.’ For these reasons it is clear that the phrase ‘first of all’ is meant to denote importance, and it does not mean that it is to be taught before everything else.

‘Cleanliness’ — stands for all those acts that begin with the washing of the private parts, once, &c., &c. (5. 136) and ending with the sipping of water.

‘Right Behaviour’ — rising to receive the Teacher and other superiors, offering them seat and saluting them.

‘Fire-tending’ — the kindling of fire, and supplying of fuel.

The devotion offered at twiligh, to the Sun, consists in meditating upon the form of the Sun. This is what is meant by the ‘Twilight-Devotions.’ Or, it may refer to what is going to be prescribed below, in verse 101.

This is what constitutes the ‘Duty relating to Observances.’ — (69)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 491).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya, 1.15. — ‘The Teacher, having initiated the pupil, should teach him the Mahāvyāhṛtis and the Veda, and then instruct him regarding cleanliness and practices.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 22.1. — ‘Having tied the girdle-zone and handed over the staff, he should instruct him regarding the duties of studentship, addressing him thus; — “Thou art a religious student, sip water, do your duty, sleep not during the day, under the guidance of your teacher study the Veda.”

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.12; 3.5. — ‘He is a Teacher, because he expounds the Veda; — the student should remain under the Teacher.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.1.9, 12, 14. — ‘Upanayana is the Vedic sacrament, for one who is seeking after knowledge; for that purpose one should seek an initiator who would belong to a noble family and be endowed with learning and self-control, — and under him one should remain till the completion of his study; — he is called Ācarya because be contributes to the accumulation (ācinoti) of Dharma.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 30). — ‘For the student, Vedic study, Fire-feeding, Bathing, Living on alms, Attending on the Teacher till death, and in his absence, on his son or on a fellow-student.’

VERSE 2.70 [Rules of Study]

Section XVII - Rules of Study

अध्येष्यमाणस्त्वाचान्तो यथाशास्त्रमुदङ्मुखः ।
ब्रह्माञ्जलिकृतोऽध्याप्यो लघुवासा जितैन्द्रियः ॥७०॥

adhyeṣyamāṇastvācānto yathāśāstramudaṅmukhaḥ |
brahmāñjalikṛto'dhyāpyo laghuvāsā jitaindriyaḥ ||70||

When about to study, he shall be taught with his face to the north, when he has sipped water according to law, has formed the Brahmāñjali (with his hands), wears light clothing and has the organs under full control. — (70)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Future ending (in ‘adhyīṣyamāṇaḥ’) denotes the immediate future; and means ‘when engaging in study,’ ‘when beginning to study,’ ‘when desiring to proceed with his study.’

‘He shall be taught, with hist face to the north.’ — Gautama (1.65) has laid down that ‘the pupil should face the east, while the Teacher faces the west.’

‘When he has sipped water according to law’ — refers to the rules prescribed above regarding the sipping of water.

The compound ‘brahmāñjalikṛtaḥ’ is to be expounded as ‘he by whom Brahmāñjali has been formed.’ the past participal adjective (‘kṛtaḥ’)being placed at the end, according to Pāṇini 2.2.37; — the present compound being analogous to such compounds as ‘āhitāgni’ and the like. Or, we may read ‘brahmāñjalikṛt.’

‘Wears light clothing’; — i.e., with clothes thoroughly washed; a thorough washing always makes the cloth ‘light’; hence ‘lightness’ indicates cleanliness. Or, ‘light clothing’ may be taken in its literal sense, the lightness of the clothing being meant to serve a visible purpose: if the boy were

Heavily clad in thick woolen clothes, he would not feel the strokes of the rope with which he would be struck when found to be inattentive, and not feeling the stroke, he would not study in the proper manner; and if the teacher, on this account, found it necessary to remove the cloth from the back (each time that the rope would be laid on the back), this would tire the teacher himself; and further, if the boy were struck with the rope on the naked body, he, would feel great pain.

‘One who has his organs under full control’; — i.e., one who has fully subdued all bis organs, both external and internal. The sense is that he should not turn his eyes this way and that, should not listen to anything and everything that may be talked of, he should devote all his attention to his own study. — (70)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Laghuvāsāḥ’ — Lightly cothed, — clothed with washed, and hence light, dress’ (Medhātithi); — ‘with clean clothes (Kullūka); — ‘clothed in dress which is not gorgeous, i. e. which is less valuable than the Teacher’s’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta, (p. 521); in Madanapārijāta (p. 99); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 523), which having adopted the reading prā?listu kṛtāpośo for ???likṛto'dhvāpyo explains that the presence of the two words ‘āchāntaḥ’ and ‘kṛtāpośo’ — both of which denote ācamana — makes it clear that the ācamana is to be done twice.

Burnell refers to Ch. XV of Prātiśākhya of the Ṛgveda.

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 136), which notes that this ‘ācamana’ forms part of the act of Reading; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 50) which has the same note; — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 315); — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 47a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Kāmandaka (2. 22-23). — ‘The duties of the Religious Student are — to live in the house of his preceptor, to tend the sacred fires, to study the Veda and its auxiliaries, to observe vows, to perform ablutions three times, to beg alms, and live with the teacher all his life In the absence of the preceptor, he may live with the preceptor’s son, or with one of his fellow-students; — or if he likes, he may adopt another mode of life.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1. 52, 54, 60. — ‘Touching the organs with Kuśa-grass; — permitted by the teacher, he should sit to the right of the teacher, facing the East or the North; touching the teacher’s left foot, with his hand, be should address the request to the teacher, saving “Please sir, teach.”

Śaṅkha-Smṛti, 3. 5. — ‘Being permitted by the teacher, one should begin reading, adopting the Brahmāñjali attitude, respectfully looking on the teacher’s face.’

Laghu-Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 524). — ‘He who reads a verse, or a half or a quarter of it, without the teacher’s permission, is a stealer of Veda, and falls into hell.’

VERSE 2.71

Section XVII - Rules of Study

ब्रह्मारम्भेऽवसाने च पादौ ग्राह्यौ गुरोः सदा ।
संहत्य हस्तावध्येयं स हि ब्रह्माञ्जलिः स्मृतः ॥७१॥

brahmārambhe'vasāne ca pādau grāhyau guroḥ sadā |
saṃhatya hastāvadhyeyaṃ sa hi brahmāñjaliḥ smṛtaḥ ||71||

At the beginning and at the end op the (study of) the Veda, the feet of the Teacher should always be clasped; and the veda should me studied with joined palms; this is what has been called the ‘Brahmāñjali.’ — (71)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the term ‘brahma’ has many meanings, yet, in view of the fact of the present context bearing on ‘study,’ it is taken here as standing for the Veda.

‘At the beginning of the Veda’; — the Locative ending denotes occasion; and since the context bears upon ‘study,’ the beginning meant is that of the action of study; and the ‘beginning’ stands for the very first recitation by the person concerned. And it is at this first recitation that the Teacher’s feet are to be clasped. The term ‘beginning’ here cannot stand for the first letters of the Vedas — ‘agnimīle’ (Ṛgveda), ‘ikhe tvorje’ (Yajurveda), ‘agna āyāhi’ (Sāmaveda); because these opening words could never form the occasion (for the clasping of the feet); for the simple reason that (being parts of the eternal Veda) they are ever present; while it is only what is itself occasional (occurring only at certain times) that can be the occasion for anything. Hence what is meant is that — ‘when one is going to begin the study of the Veda, he should clasp the Teacher’s feet, and having done that he should recite the words of the Veda and it does not mean that he should clasp the Teacher’s feet every time that he may study the Veda.

“The first moment of the act is what is called its ‘beginning’; and it is this beginning that is spoken of as the occasion. Now it is only what is existent that can form the occasion for anything; e.g., when living existence is regarded as the occasion for the performance of Agnihotra, it is the existence that is present. It is true that in some cases, the burning of the house and such other past events also are spoken of as the occasion for certain acts; but in these cases we accept them as such because that is what is actually prescribed. In the present instance however, the ‘beginning of study’ and ‘clasping of the feet’ should be regarded as simultaneous.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — What is called ‘beginning’ here is the making up of one’s mind to study, and not the first moment of the act. The Boy makes up his mind to study as soon as the Teacher addresses to him the words ‘now read’; so that it is after this that the feet are to be clasped. This is intended to be the propitiation of the Teacher who is going to bestow a favour. Just as in the ordinary world, when a person is going to bestow a favour upon another, the latte? welcomes him with the words — ‘it is through you that I have been saved from this sin.’

This clasping of the feet is meant to embody the speechless request — ‘we are ready to proceed with our study’; for the Teacher is never to be directed with the words ‘now teach us.’ All that is to be done is that the Boy should approach him (and clasp his feet), with a view to remind him that it is time for study, and it is only after this approaching has been done, that the words of the Veda should begin to he recited.

Further, in view of the rule that ‘one should study the Veda with joined palms,’ if the boy were to study (with joined palms), he would he transgressing the rule regarding the damping of feet (if the study and the were meant to he simultaneous) [for one who would have his hands joined could not clasp the feet].

‘find’ — Ceasing, desisting from study.

Though the term ‘brahma’ is the subordinate factor in the compound (‘brahmārambhe’) yet, in as much as the term ‘end’ is a relative term, it is taken as correlated to the term ‘brahma’; specially because there is no other word in the text with which it could be connected.

‘Always’ — implies that this rule regarding the clasping of feet should he observed at the beginning and end of all future study, every day. If this word were not present, the rule would be taken as applying to only that ‘beginning of study’ which comes immediately after the Initiatory Ceremony; on the analogy of the Ārambhaṇīyā Iṣṭi, which is performed only at the beginning of the first sacrifice performed by the Agnihotrin, after he has done the ‘Fire-kindling,’ and not at that of each succeeding pūrnamāsa, which is performed every month.

From morning till such time as the daily routine of reciting two Chapters has not been finished, the whole is regarded as a single act of ‘study’; so that if at intervals, there is some obstruction, the resuming of study on the same day is not regarded as ‘beginning’; and at each resumption, the feet are not clasped. In another Smṛti we read — ‘The clasping of the Teacher’s feet should be done every day in the morning.’ Gautama, 2.53).

‘Having joined’ — making them touch one another.

‘Should be studied’; — what is meant is that the hands should he placed in that posture which resembles the tortoise.

‘This is Brahmāñjali’; — this explains the meaning of the term ‘brahmāñjali’ — (71)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The first half of this verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (.Saṃskāra, p. 532) where Sadā is explained as everyday at the time of study, and ‘pāda-grahaṇam’ as saluting- — and the second half is quoted on p. 524, as containing the definition of the ‘Brahmāñjali’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 136).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.3.10. — ‘The teacher’s fee? should be clasped at both times, — at the time when one is going to read and also when he has read.’

Viṣṇu-Smrti, 30, 32. — ‘At the beginning and at the end of the reading of Veda, the clasping of the teacher’s feet should be done.’

Yājñavalkya. 1. 26. — ‘Then declaring himself — here I am — he should approach the teacher for purposes of study.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1. 52, 59. — ‘Clasping the left feet with his hand, he should address the teacher “Please sir teach me”; and he should clasp his feet at the beginning and at the end of the expounding of the Veda.’

Aṅgiras (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, pp. 523-524). — ‘At the approach of the Vedic lecture, and also at its close, the teacher’s feet should be clasped, as also when one returns from a journey.’ Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 9. 524). — ‘The left hand with palm upwards, and the right with the palm downwards, the backs of the hands being firmly attached, the thumbs being firmly steady, — this attitude of the hands is called Brahmāñjali, because of its having been adopted first of all by Brahmā. This has to be adopted at the beginning of Vedic study, also at its completion, during the Brahmayajña, and also during the time that the Sāvitrī is being taught.’

Saṃvarta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 9. 524). — ‘Then he should road the Veda, looking at the teacher’s face, keeping the hands in control, placed over the knees.’

VERSE 2.72

Section XVII - Rules of Study

व्यत्यस्तपाणिना कार्यमुपसङ्ग्रहणं गुरोः ।
सव्येन सव्यः स्प्रष्टव्यो दक्षिणेन च दक्षिणः ॥७२॥

vyatyastapāṇinā kāryamupasaṅgrahaṇaṃ guroḥ |
savyena savyaḥ spraṣṭavyo dakṣiṇena ca dakṣiṇaḥ ||72||

The clasping op the teacher’s feet should be done with crossed hands: the left should be touched with the left and the right with the right. — (72)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘clasping of the Teacher’s feet’ mentioned in the preceding verse ‘should be done with crossed hands.’

In answer to the question as to what sort of the ‘crossing’ of hands should be done, the Author adds — ‘the left’ foot ‘should be touched with the left’ hand; it is mere touching that should be done, the Teacher should not be troubled by the foot being held for a long time. This ‘crossing’ is obtained by the two hands being simultaneously moved towards one another. That is, the feet having to be clasped by the pupil standing in front of the Teacher; the left hand is moved towards the right and the right towards the left; it is thus that the left foot becomes touched by the left hand and the right foot by the right hand. This is the ‘crossing of the hands.’

Others read the text as ‘vinyastapāṇinā,’ ‘with well-placed hands.’ The ‘placing’ being implied by the touching, what the addition of the epithet would imply is that the feet should not be touched merely with the finger tips, — in the way in which a red-hot piece of iron is touched, for fear of burning, — but the hands should be ‘well-plaed,’ actually held upon the feet. Pressing of the feet would cause pain to the Teacher, and is as such prohibited. Such is the explanation provided of this version of the text. — (72)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 455), where it is explained that the ‘left’ and ‘right’ of the second half stand for the left and right feet; so that the meaning is that the left foot of the teacher should be touched by the left hand and the right one by the right hand; and it quotes Baudhāyann laying down that the pupil should pass his hands from the knee downwards to the foot.

A similar explanation is given also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 300).

The verse is quoted also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 52.1); — in Aparārka (p. 55), as laying down the ‘feet clasping’ of the teacher; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 40), which says that ‘spraṣṭavyaḥ’ goes with ‘gurucaraṇaḥ’ understood; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 103), which explains the meaning to be that the left and right feet of the teacher are to be touched with the left and right hands respectively.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1. 58. — ‘The clasping of the teacher’s feet.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 6. 1. — ‘Every day on meeting, the feet of the teacher should be clasped.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (Aparārka, p. 55). — ‘Also daily in the morning, as well as at the beginning and end of Vedic lectures.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.5.21-22. — ‘With the right hand clasping the right foot, he should touch it both up and down, along with the ankle; — according to others, the two feet should he clasped with the two hands.’

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 55). — ‘At sunrise, he shall meet the teacher and clasp his feet.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 2. 26. — ‘Clasping the right foot with the right, and the left with the left hand, one obtains long life and goes to heaven.’

Paithīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 455). — ‘With the palms of the two hands turned upwards, he should clasp the two feet of the teacher, the right with the right and the left with the left.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. V56). — ‘The clasping of the teacher’s feet should be done.’

Baudhāyana (Parāśaramādhava, p. 300). — ‘Touching his ears, concentrating his mind, he shall touch the teacher below his knees down to his feet, this is feet-clasping.’

Atri (Aparārka, p. 55). — ‘Ordinarily one should salute by raising the right band; hands should be joined in saluting a Vedic scholar; in the case of the teacher, the feet should he clasped.’

VERSE 2.73

Section XVII - Rules of Study

अध्येष्यमाणं तु गुरुर्नित्यकालमतन्द्रितः ।
अधीष्व भो इति ब्रूयाद् विरामोऽस्त्विति चारमेत् ॥७३॥

adhyeṣyamāṇaṃ tu gururnityakālamatandritaḥ |
adhīṣva bho iti brūyād virāmo'stviti cāramet ||73||

When the pupil is going to study, the Teacher, ever free from indolence, should say — ‘ho, read!’ and he should cease when he says ‘let there be a stop!’ — (73).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘When going to study’ and the other expressions have already been explained before. The present verse adds a direction for the Teacher. When a boy is desirous to read the Veda from a Teacher, he should be invited with the words ‘ho, read!’ Until he is so invited, the Boy should not press the Teacher with such importunate requests as — ‘please teach us this chapter!’ Another Smṛti has declared — ‘One should study on being invited to do so’. (Yājñavalkya, Ācāra, 27).

Saying the words ‘let there be a stop,’ ‘he should cease’ — desist, — ‘who is to cease?’ — The Teacher; as is clear from the nominative case-ending used. Or, it may be taken to mean that the pupil should cease only when dismissed by the Teacher, and not according to his own wish; the construction of the passage in this case being — ‘when the Teacher says let there be a stop, then the pupil should cease.’

Other people have explained this rule regarding the time of ceasing as applying to all readers — the pupil as well as the Teacher. And this is in accordance with another Smṛti, which says — “Having recited the Veda, at the time of ceasing, one should touch the ground with the fore-finger and pronounce ‘svasti’ in the case of the Yajurveda, ‘vispaṣṭām’ in the case of the Sāman, ‘virāmaḥ’ in the case of the Ṛgveda and ‘āramasva’ in the case of the Atharva.”

‘Free from indolence’ — without sloth; ‘indolence’ is sloth; — the man beset with sloth is called ‘indolent’; and when he has given it up he is called ‘from indolence.’ This is meant to be merely descriptive. ‘Indolence’ here does not mean fatigue. The present text should never be taken to mean that what is here laid down is for only one who is free from indolence, while for those beset with indolence there is some other rule. — (73)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Nārāyaṇa and Nandana read ‘adhyeṣyamāṇastu gurum etc,’ which means — ‘the pupil, proceeding to study, shall say to his Teacher etc., etc.’

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 136), where the verse is explained to mean that — ‘each day at the beginning of the teaching, the Teacher should begin the work with the word ‘Ho! read;’ and at the end, should finish with the words ‘Let there he a stop;’ and it adds that all this is to be done for the purpose of ‘pleasing God.’

The verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 100); — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 521); — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 514); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 52); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 142), which explains ārame as ‘should desist from teaching.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama- Dharmasūtra, 1. 52. — ‘Clasping the left, foot with his hand, he should address the request to him — pray read.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.3.10,13,15. — ‘When one desirous of learning meets a learned man, he should obtain his permission and then proceed to read; and having approached near the teacher, he should read after having requested the teacher to please read.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 514). — ‘Regularly rising in the morning, he should cleanse his teeth, bathe, pour libations into fire; then the man should carry on teaching.’

Āpastamba (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra). — ‘One should avoid teaching on the bed; he should never teach on the bed whereupon he sleeps.’

VERSE 2.74

Section XVII - Rules of Study

ब्रह्मणः प्रणवं कुर्यादादावन्ते च सर्वदा ।
स्रवत्यनोङ्कृतं ?? पूर्वं परस्ताच्च विशीर्यति ॥७४॥

brahmaṇaḥ praṇavaṃ kuryādādāvante ca sarvadā |
sravatyanoṅkṛtaṃ ?? pūrvaṃ parastācca viśīryati ||74||

One should always pronounce the Praṇava in the beginning and at the end of the Veda. if it is not accompanied by the syllable ‘oṃ’ in the beginning, it trickles away; and (if it is not accompanied by it) at the end, it becomes shattered. — (74)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Here also, in accordance with what has gone before (under 71), ‘one should pronounce the Praṇava in the beginning and at the end of the Veda’; — which means that the syllable is to be pronounced in the beginning and at the end of the action of reading the Veda.

The term ‘praṇava’ stands for the syllabic ‘oṃ’; as is clear from what the text adds later on — ‘not accompanied by the syllable oṃ.’

‘Always’ — has been added in order to show that the rule applies to every act of study. Without this term it would appear, from the context, that it applies to only that first study by the Religious Student which is done for the getting up of the text. When the adverb ‘always’ has been added, it becomes clear that the rule applies to all forms of studying, — that which is done for the purpose of keeping the memory of the text fresh, or that which is done by the Householder and other people in obedience to the injunction that ‘the Veda should be studied every day.’ As regards the reciting of Vedic mantras during the Twilight Prayer, etc., the use of the syllable ‘oṃ’ the author is going to enjoin directly (in Verse 78). What is laid down here is not meant to be a necessary accompaniment of the Veda, — which would mean that the rule is to be followed whenever one pronounces any Vedic passage; thus it is that the Praṇava is not used with Vedic mantras on the following occasions: at oblations poured into fire, or during the japa of mantras, or in course of the teaching of scriptures, or at the recitation of the ‘Yājyā’ and other hymns, or when Vedic passages are quoted only by way of illustration. From all this it follows that the adverb ‘always’ is meant to show only that the rule laid down applies to that study of the Veda which forms the subject-matter of the context. As for the necessity of using the Praṇava at the beginning of one’s daily study, this is secured by the construing of the term ‘always’ of the preceding verse with the present one.

In praise of what has been enjoined the text adds — ‘If it is not accompanied by the syllable oṁ, etc.’ If, in the beginning, the Veda is not accompanied by the syllable ‘oṃ,’ it trickles off. The compound ‘anoṅkṛtam’ is to be expounded as ‘that which is not accompanied, — i.e., sanctified — by the syllable oṃ’ according to Pāṇini, 2. 1. 32; or, it may be expounded as ‘that Veda in which the syllable oṁ is not uttered,’ — the order of the terms in this case being in accordance with the rule laid down in connection with the ‘Sukhādi’ group, according to Pāṇini, 6. 2. 170.

‘At the end’ — at the close. The particle ‘and’ indicates that the term ‘not accompanied by the syllable om’ is to be construed here also.

‘Trickles off- — becomes shattered.’ — Both these terms are meant to indicate the futility of the study. The sense being that that religious act, in which the Veda studied in the said defective fashion is used, absolutely fails to accomplish its purpose. This is an Arthavāda meant to be deprecatory of the said method of study. When milk is placed in a pot, the milks passes off all round; and this is what is called ‘trickling off’; and if the milk becomes destroyed after it has been boiled and become solidified, this is what is called ‘becoming shattered.’ — (74)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Viśīryati ’ — avasthitim na labhate, ‘does not obtain any standing’ (Kullūka); — ‘becomes absolutely useless’ (Medhātithi); — ‘is not understood’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa),

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 99); — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 521); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 136) in support of the view that the Praṇava should he pronounced at the close of the reading also.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Apastamba-Dharmasūtra, 4. 13. 16. — ‘The syllable Om is the gate of Heaven; therefore when going to read the Veda, one should begin with it.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 30,33. — ‘The Praṇava should be pronounced.’

VERSE 2.75

Section XVII - Rules of Study

प्राक्कूलान् पर्युपासीनः पवित्रैश्चैव पावितः ।
प्राणायामैस्त्रिभिः पूतस्तत ओं।कारमर्हति ॥७५॥

prākkūlān paryupāsīnaḥ pavitraiścaiva pāvitaḥ |
prāṇāyāmaistribhiḥ pūtastata oṃ|kāramarhati ||75||

Seated upon Kuśa-blades pointing eastwards and sanctified by Kuśa-blades, when one has purified himself by means of three ‘breath-suspensions,’ — then alone he becomes entitled to the syllable ‘oṃ.’ — (76)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘kūṭa’ means ‘kuśa-blade’; — ‘Seated upon’ them, — i.e., seated upon kuśa-blades pointing eastwards. The accusative ending in ‘kūṭān’ being in accordance with Pāniṇi 1. 4. 46, ‘adhisthīnsthāsām karma,’ where the latter part consists of the factors ‘athā’ — ‘ā’ — ‘āsām.’ In the word ‘paryupāsīnaḥ’ also we have an ‘ā’, the word containing the factors ‘pari’ — ‘upa’ — ‘ā’ — ‘āsīnaḥ’; the prefixes ‘pari’ and ‘upa’ having no significance at all.

‘Sanctified by kuśa-blades’; — i.e., having been made pure. The term ‘pavitra’ cannot stand for the Aghamarṣaṇa and other mantras; for the simple reason that at the time that the text is being dealt with, the student has not read those mantras. Nor are kuśa-blades capable, by their mere presence, to bring about purification for one who does no (purificatory) act; thus then, the necessity of some intervening act being essential, we are led to conclude, on the basis of another Smṛti, that this act is in the form of touching the sense-organs; Gautama (1.48-50) having prescribed ‘the touching of the organs with Kuśa-blades and seating upon Kuśa-blades pointing eastwards.’

‘Purified by means of three Breath-suspensions’ — The air passing through the mouth and the nostrils is called ‘prāṇa,’ ‘breath’; and the ‘āyāma’ of this is its suspension, holding within the body, preventing its going out. Another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya, Ācāra, 23) has laid down the measure of the time during which the breath is to be suspended — as also the mantra accompanying it, — “One, witholding his breath, should mutter three times the Gāyatrī along with the Praṇava and the Śiras, — this is what is called ‘Breath-suspension’.” The revered Vaśiṣṭha has added to these the Great Vyāhṛtis also. It is the end of the mantra that should mark the end of the suspension, no other limit for it being prescribed. In as much as all Smṛtis are meant to serve the same purpose, we must accept this same method of ‘Breath-suspension’ to be meant by the present text also, specially as there is no inconsistency with it.

Objection. — “What has been said here involves a mutual interdependence: until the Breath-suspensions have been performed one should not pronounce ‘Oṃ,’ while without this syllable ‘Oṃ’ there can be no ‘Breath-suspension’.”

There is nothing wrong in this. When Yājñavalkya lays down that ‘one should mutter three times; etc.,’ all that is meant is the mental act of remembering, thinking of, the syllable ‘Oṃ’; for when the breath is suspended, there can be no utterance of any syllable; though it is true that ‘Japa,’ ‘Reciting,’ is (in most cases) something that can be accomplished only by an operation of speech. In connection with the reading of the Veda however, what is intended is actual utterance of the syllable; and this for the simple reason that the act of reading consists of actual utterance — the root (in ‘adhyayana’) signify ing the waking of sound, and sound is that which is heard by the Ear, and not that which is cognised only by the mind.

What is prescribed here is not something applicable to the syllable ‘Oṃ’ itself, — whereby it could be made applicable to the uttering of the syllable on other occasions also. It has been said that the syllable should be pronounced at the beginning of Vedic study; but if the. rule here laid down were meant to be applicable to all utterances of the syllable, it would have to be observed in connection with such utterances of it in ordinary parlance as when one says ‘we say yes (oṃ).’

Then again, Gautama (l.49) has declared that. ‘the three Breath-suspensions extend over fifteen moments.’ The term ‘mātrā,’ ‘moment,’ stands for that point of time which is taken up in the pronouncing of a simple unmodified vowel; and in as much as this cannot be consistent with the time-limit prescribed by Yājñavalkya, this latter cannot be accepted as applicable to what is prescribed by Gautama; in which connection again no mantras are laid down. From this it is clear that there can be ‘Breath-suspensions’ even without the uttering of the syllable ‘oṃ.’ And thus there need be no mutual interdependence.

Then alone does the man ‘become entitled to the syllable oṃ’; — i.e., to the ‘pronouncing’ of the syllable, — the word ‘pronouncing’ having to be supplied if the entire term ‘oṅkāra’ is taken as standing for the Praṇava. If however we take the term ‘kār’ separately in the sense of making, — so that ‘oṁkāra’ means the making or uttering of the syllable ‘oṃ,’ — then we do not need to supply any other word. The uttering of the syllable having been laid down (under 74), where it is called ‘praṇava’; — the term ‘oṅkāra’ in the present sense simply serves the purpose of explaining what that ‘praṇava’ is.

So that ‘praṇava’ and ‘oṅkāra’ are synonymous terms; as we have already pointed out (in the Bhāṣya on 74). — (75)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Pavitraiḥ’ — ‘Kuśa-blades — by which the seat of the vital airs is touched’ — (Medhātithi); — ‘The Aghamarṣaṇa’ and other Vedic texts (noted by Medhātithi, but rejected by him, though adopted by Nandana). Burnell has translated the term as ‘grass-rings on the third finger’; — this is in exact conformity with the present usage, where a blade of Kuśa, twisted into the form of a ring, is worn on the third finger on the occasion of all religious ceremonies.

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 521); — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 522), which explains ‘prākkūlān’ as prāgagrān ‘pointing eastwards’, — and ‘pavitraiḥ’ simply as ‘pāranaiḥ’ ‘purificatories’; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 49), which explains ‘prākkūlān’ as ‘with tips pointing towards the east’; — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 316) which has the same explanations and adds that it refers to Kuśa-blades; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 135) which has the same explanation and explains ‘pavitraiḥ’ as purificatory; — also in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 471).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.51-56. — ‘The sense-organs should be touched with Kuśa-blades; — there should be three Breath-suspensions, of fifteen units; and the seat should be on Kuśa-grass pointing eastwards.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2.4.5,7. — ‘At the commencement of the performance of all acts, as also before the Twilight Prayers, one should sprinkle himself with the sanctifying blades and thereby prepare himself; — to this effect it is declared that seated on Kuśa-blades, holding Kuśa-blades in the hand, sprinkling himself with water, one should repeat the Gāyatrī a thousand times; — being purified with three Breath-suspensions.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 254). — ‘Seated on Kuśa-blades pointing eastwards, with mind collected, he should perform throe Breath-suspensions and then the Twilight Prayers.’

VERSE 2.76

Section XVII - Rules of Study

अकारं चाप्युकारं च मकारं च प्रजापतिः ।
वेदत्रयान्निरदुहद् भूर्भुवः स्वरितीति च ॥७६॥

akāraṃ cāpyukāraṃ ca makāraṃ ca prajāpatiḥ |
vedatrayānniraduhad bhūrbhuvaḥ svaritīti ca ||76||

Out of the three Vedas, Prajāpati milked the letter ‘a,’ the letter ‘u’ and the letter ‘m’; as also the syllables ‘bhūḥ-bhuvaḥ-svaḥ.’ — (76)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is a valedictory supplement to the foregoing injunction.

The syllable ‘oṁ’ is an aggregate of the three letters ‘a,’ ‘u’ and ‘m’; and the present verse describes the origin of each of these.

‘Out of the three Vedas’ — from the three Vedas.

‘Milked’ — churned out; just as butter is churned out of the curd.

Not only the three letters, but also something else, in the shape of the syllables ‘bhūḥ-bhuvaḥ-svaḥ.’ — (76)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 33), as laying down the exact form of the Praṇava and of the three Mahāvyāhṛtis.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 55.10. — [The same words as Manu.]

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2. 10. 69. — ‘The Praṇava is the soul of the Veda.’

VERSE 2.77

Section XVII - Rules of Study

त्रिभ्य एव तु वेदेभ्यः पादं पादमदूदुहत् ।
तदित्यर्चोऽस्याः सावित्र्याः परमेष्ठी प्रजापतिः ॥७७॥

tribhya eva tu vedebhyaḥ pādaṃ pādamadūduhat |
tadityarco'syāḥ sāvitryāḥ parameṣṭhī prajāpatiḥ ||77||

Out of the three Vedas again, the Supreme Prajāpati milked each foot of the Sāvitrī verse beginning with ‘tat.’ — (77)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse is a valedictory description of the origin of the Gāyatrī -verse beginning with the words ‘tat savitur vareṇyam,’ which serves the purpose of introducing the coming injunction. As for the injunction of the Vyāhṛtis, this is to be deduced from the valedictory description contained in the preceding verse. As for the actual order in which the several syllables have to be pronounced, that is ascertained from the order in which they are found mentioned in tho text. The author is also going to lay down in the next verse — ‘They should pronounce this syllable (om), and this verse (‘tat savitur, etc.’), preceded by the Vyāhṛtis.’

‘Milked’ — churned out.

“Beginning with ‘tat’;” — though this being all that the text says, it might refer to an altogether different verse — ‘tat savitur vṛṇimahe, etc.’ (Ṛgveda, 5. 82. 1), which is not three-footed, — yet it is the three-footed verse that should he taken as referred to here; and it is the ‘Sāvitrī’ verse that is three-footed.

In as much as Kaśyapa and other sagos are also called ‘Prajāpati,’ the text has added the qualification ‘Supreme’; so that it is Hiraṇyagarbha that becomes specified; as it is He who dwells on, the highest spot, from where there is no reversion (to worldliness).

This has been added with a view to show the extreme importance of the Sāvitrī verse; — it was churned by the highest of all Prajāpatis, out of the Vedas. — (77)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Hopkins — “This verse is one of the most famous in literature, Whitney has discussed it in Vol. I., pp. 111-112 of the new edition of Colebrook’s Essays. His translation runs as follows — ‘Of Savitar, the heavenly, that longed-for glory may we win, and may himself inspire our prayers.’

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 52), as supporting the view that the gāyatrīmantra, is ‘born of the Veda’ par excellence-, — also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 338).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 50.11. — [Reproduces the words of Manu.]

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra, 1. 1. 1-10. — ‘By all the Vedas, is the Sāvitrī expounded, — so says the Brāhmaṇa-text.’

VERSE 2.78

Section XVII - Rules of Study

एतदक्षरमेतां च जपन् व्याहृतिपूर्विकाम् ।
सन्ध्ययोर्वेदविद् विप्रो वेदपुण्येन युज्यते ॥७८॥

etadakṣarametāṃ ca japan vyāhṛtipūrvikām |
sandhyayorvedavid vipro vedapuṇyena yujyate ||78||

Reciting, at the two twilights, this syllable and this verse, preceded by the Vyāhṛtis, the Brāhmaṇa, learned in the Veda, becomes endowed with Vedic merit. — (78)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though this verse is syntactically connected with the section dealing with the Injunction of Vedic study, yet it is to be taken as embodying the injunction of recitation during the Twilight-Prayers; and as regards the ‘Gāyatrī’-verse itself, the mention of it (in the present verse) is merely for the purposes of reference (the injunction of its recitation having already gone before), while that of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis forms the direct injunction of the recitation of these, which has not been enjoined anywhere else.

To this some people make the following objection: —

“This cannot be regarded as an Injunction pertaining to the Twilight Prayers; as these do not form the subject-matter of the present context. Even if it was an injunction, it could only be one pertaining to the Religious Student; as it is the Student whose duties are being propounded in the present context. But this is not possible, since the text has added the qualification ‘learned in the Veda’; and certainly the student just initiated could never be ‘learned in the Veda.’ Further, the text also adds a particular fruit — ‘becomes endowed with Vedic merit’; while the Injunction of the Twilight-Prayers is a compulsory one. Then again, we do not understand what is this fruit, called ‘Vedic merit’ which is described as proceeding from the recitation. If what is meant is the merit proceeding from the recitation of the Veda, and if the attaining of this merit is what is meant by being ‘endowed with Vedic merit’ — then, in regard to this view it has to be noted that so far as the Injunction of Veda-reciting is concerned — which forms the subject-matter of the present context, — there can be no other result proceeding from it, except the understanding of the meaning of tho Vedic texts; for the simple reason that no such result has been anywhere mentioned. Further, in as much as there is a perceptible result in the shape of the comprehension of meaning, there can be no room for the assuming of any other results. The injunction of Veda-reciting that there is for the Householder and others, — in the words ‘day after day one should recite the Veda’ — this also is a compulsory one; and the results mentioned in connection with it, in the shape of ‘milk, and honey, etc.,’ this is only a valedictory supplement. From all this it is clear that the present verse cannot be regarded as an Injunction (of recitation during the Twilight Prayers). Specially as, if it were taken as an Injunction, all the above difficulties will have to be explained. On the other band, if the verse be taken as a valedictory reference, then the term ‘reciting’ could be taken as referring to the Reciting of the Veda, which forms the subject-matter of the context; and in that case it would be possible to construe the term ‘Vedic merit’ also in some way or the other.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: —

It has been already explained that the implications of context are always set aside by those of Syntactical Connection; and for the very reason that the terms ‘learned in the Veda’ and ‘Twilight prayers’ are not connected with the subject-matter of the context, — the present Injunction is to be taken as pertaining to something else. The Injunction is simply to the effect that during the two Twilight Prayers one should pronounce the three expressions (Om — Sāvitrī verse — Vyāhṛtis); and the term ‘learned in the Veda’ is merely descriptive?

“But as a matter of fact, it is possible only for persons in the Householder and other stages to be ‘learned in the Veda’; the Student can never be so.

What has this possibility got to do with the matter? If the term is taken as merely descriptive of what is already known from other sources, then the injunction contained in the verse becomes applicable to people in all stages of life. While if the term ‘learned in the Veda’ were taken as a significant epithet of the Nominative agent (of the act enjoined), then the student would not be entitled to the act.

“Why should the term be taken as merely descriptive?”

For the simple reason that there would (otherwise) be a syntactical split. The injunction pertaining to the Injunction of the Twilight Prayers, what has to be enjoined regarding it is the reciting of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis, which has not been enjoined anywhere else, Now, if in addition to these, something else were taken as enjoined, — in the form of ‘being learned in the Veda,’ — then there would be a syntactical split [the sentence in question containing two injunctions, (a) ‘should recite the Praṇava, etc.,’ and (b) ‘should learn the Veda’]; and it is not legitimate to enjoin (by means of a single sentence) several details pertaining to an act already enjoined. Nor is it possible (as another alternative) to take the mention of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis as merely descriptive [because their injunction has not been met with anywhere else].

From all this it follows that what the Text means is as follows: — ‘In connection with the reciting of the Gāyatrī that has been enjoined in relation to the Twilight Prayers, there is this further detail that the said recitation is to lie preceded by the uttering of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis.’

The mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa' is only by way of illustration.

It has been argued above that — “the text speaks of a result, while the Injunction of the Twilight Prayers is a compulsory one.”

But what inconsistency is there in this? While what is enjoined is a compulsory act, the result mentioned may follow from the further detail mentioned in the text; the meaning being that ‘the said result follows from the previously enjoined Twilight Prayer, when it is accompanied by the recitation of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis. Just as when the ordinary Agnihotra is performed with the water brought over in the milking vessel, there comes about the particular result in the shape of cattle; and this in (?) accordance with the injunction that ‘for one desiring cattle water should be brought in the milking vessel.’

It is on the strength of this last injunction that we have made bold to say what we have said above. In reality the injunction contained in the verse is not an optional one at all (meant only for those desiring the particular result mentioned). Specially as another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya, 1. 23) clearly lays it down as a compulsory injunction — ‘One should recite the Gāyatrī along with the Śiras, preceded by the Vyāhṛtis.’

Further, you have yourself argued that the exact nature of the result (‘Vedic merit’) cannot be ascertained (which is an argument against the text being taken as laying down a result). As a matter of fact, what ‘Vedic merit’ means is as follows: — ‘The merit that has been described in the Veda as resulting from the saying of the Twilight Prayers accrues to man only when he recites all the three expressions — and not by reciting the Gāyatrī only.’ ‘Puṇya,’ ‘merit,’ is excellence. Since Smṛtis are based upon the Veda, what is mentioned in the Smṛtis is also called ‘Veda-merit,’ which last expression stands for the ‘merit of the Veda.’

“What is the merit of the Veda?”

That (merit) which is expounded by the Veda. The merit that results from the Veda being recited may also be called ‘the merit of the Veda’; but by virtue of the specific relationship, it is what is expounded by the Veda, — and what is produced by it — that should be spoken of as ‘merit of the Veda.’ As for the producing of merit, this is done by other things also, such as sacrificial performances and the like; while the expounding of it is done by the Veda only.

Some people have taken the last foot of the Verse to mean as follows — “What has been enjoined as compulsory Vedic Study becomes fulfilled merely by reciting the three expressions during the Twilight Prayers.”

But this is not right. For if the present text meant this, then it would be providing an option to what has been laid down as the compulsory ‘Vedic Study’; and this would mean the partial rejection of this study. But so long as we can avoid it, it is not right to admit the rejection of any injunction.

‘This syllable’ — refers to the syllable ‘oṃ.’

“But this is not a single letter, containing as it does, two or three syllables.”

Our answer is that the term ‘syllable’ here stands for ‘vowel-sound’ and ‘contact with consonants.’ Hence the term denotes that which forms the subject-matter of the context.

‘This Verse’ — i.e., the Sāvitrī verse ‘tat saviturvareṇyam, etc.’

‘Preceded by the Vyāhṛtis;’ — i.e., that before which the Vyāhṛtis have been uttered. Here only the three Vyāhṛtis are meant, — these alone having been mentioned in the present context (in verse 76), — and not the seven, ending with ‘Satyam.’

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (P.111,1.11) — Prāpte hi karmaṇi, &c.’ — This is a paraphrase of Kumārila’s dictum —

prāpte karmaṇi nāneko vidhātuṃ śakyate guṇaḥ |
aprāpte tu vidhīyante vahavo'pyekapatnataḥ |

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 50), which explains ‘etadakṣaram’ as the Praṇava; — and in Nityāchārapaddhati, (p. 189).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 78-79)

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 1220). — ‘The Brāhmaṇa stealing gold, or killing a Brāhmaṇa, or violating the teacher’s bed, or drinking wine, becomes absolved from the sin by repeating the Gāyatrī a lakh of times.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘The syllable om, the Vyāhṛtis and the Sāvitrī constitute the Sāvitra Pavitra, by which one becomes absolved from all sins; by repeating it a hundred times he becomes purified in a month; repeating it ten thousand times he has his soul entirely purified of all sins.’

Viṣṇusmṛti, 55.12 — [reproduces the words of Manu].

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 4.6. — ‘They declare that seated on kuśa-grass, holding kuśa-blades and water in the hand, he should repeat the Gāyatrī a thousand times.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2.29. — ‘Breath-suspensions, accompanied by the Vyāhṛtis and the Praṇava, repeated sixteen times daily, purify even the embryo-murderer, in a month’s time.’

Vasiṣṭha-smṛti, 36-5 [reproduces the foregoing text of Baudhāyana].

Vasiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 1220). — ‘On the commingling of all kinds of sin, the best purification consists in repeating the Gāyatrī ten thousand times.’

Nṛsiṃhapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, pp. 254-255). — ‘Having offered the Evening Prayers, while the sun is still visible, he should go on repeating the Gāyatrī till the stars become visible.’

VERSE 2.79

Section XVII - Rules of Study

सहस्रकृत्वस्त्वभ्यस्य बहिरेतत् त्रिकं द्विजः ।
महतोऽप्येनसो मासात् त्वचैवाहिर्विमुच्यते ॥७९॥

sahasrakṛtvastvabhyasya bahiretat trikaṃ dvijaḥ |
mahato'pyenaso māsāt tvacaivāhirvimucyate ||79||

Repeating this Triad a thousand times in open air, the twice-born person becomes freed, in a month, from even great sin, as the snake from its slough. — (79)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘bahiḥ,’ ‘in open air,’ stands for uncovered spot; the sense being that it should be done outside towns and villages, on the bank of rivers and such places.

‘A thousand times, repeating’ — reciting it again and again.

“The affix ‘kṛtvasuch’ (in the term ‘Sahasrakṛtvaḥ’) also signifies repetition, which is again denoted by the word ‘abhyasya’ also; so there is needless repetition.”

The repetition is not objectionable, in view of a distinction between general and particular. That is to say, the word ‘abhyasya’ denotes repetition in general, and when the question arises as to the particular number of repetitions, we have the text adding ‘a thousand times.’ Both the general and the particular could not be regarded as signified by the single word ending with the ‘kṛtvasuch’ affix; because this latter word always stands in need of a particular act (that has to be done a thousand times). The mere expression ‘devadattaḥ pan chakritvo’haḥ,’ ‘Devadatta five times during the day’ does not signify anything until the word ‘bhuṅkte,’ ‘Eats,’ is added.

“But the term ‘repeating’ also does not signify any particular act.”

True; but the act of reciting forms the subject-matter of the context; so that the repeating is understood as pertaining to that act; ‘repetition’ standing for attending to it again and again.

‘Even from great sin’; — he becomes freed from even such heinous sins as ‘Brāhmaṇa-killing’ and the like; what to say of minor offences?

‘Api,’ ‘Even,’ denotes possibility, not cumulation; cumulation is expressed when more things than one are mentioned separately; as in the sentence — ‘there is sovereignty of Devadatta, and of Yajñadatta also.’ There is no such separate mention in the text.

Question — “From what minor offences does the man become freed? Cow-killing and such acts have been regarded as ‘minor offences’; and for every one of these the scriptures have prescribed distinct expiatory rites along with all their details. While as regards those acts that are not done consciously, but which are regarded as must have been done, — though no definite expiation could be prescribed for them, yet they would be got rid of by means of the Twilight Prayers and such other compulsory rites prescribed for daily performance. Then again, if what is mentioned in the present verse were a real expiation, it should have come under the section on Expiatory Rites (Ch. XI); just as it is said (under 11. 77) — ‘One may recite the text of the Veda while keeping due restraint over food.’ Further, if the present verse were meant to prescribe an expiatory rite, the whole section dealing with Expiatory Rites (Ch. XI) would he superfluous. For, what accused person would omit to do the expiation consisting of the mere reciting of mantras, and go in for the very difficult rites endangering the body and very life itself? Says an old saying — ‘If honey were available in a place within easy reach, wherefore should one go to the hills? The desired end having been accomplished, which wise man could put forth further efforts?’ — and again — ‘What can he obtained for a single coin, no wise man purchases for ten coins.’ Nor can the verse be taken as a valedictory supplement to what forms the subject-matter of the context (i.e., Vedic Study), because there is no ground for connecting it syntactically with the context, — such grounds, for instance, as being found defective if taken apart from the context and so forth.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — The present verse is a direct Injunction; and the act laid down is done for the removing of sins. It has been argued that — “What is laid down here (being too easy) could not be regarded as optional with those rites that are prescribed in a different context and are very much more difficult.” But it can certainly be taken as optional with those expiations which consist in Mantra-recitations. For instance, the reciting of the Mantra has been declared as destroying all sins; and with this what is laid down in the present verse could be taken as optional. In connection with the Aghamarṣaṇa-Mantra, three days fasting is prescribed, while according to what is laid down in the present verse, the man becomes freed by doing th e reciting for a month, but taking two ordinary meals every day. Thus the difference between the two is not so great as to lead us to regard them as very diverse in character.

Or, what is mentioned here may be taken as purifying the man from such past sins as arc indicated by the evil position of planets, etc.; and it is from these sins that the man becomes free. ‘Sin’ is something undesirable; from this the man becomes freed, — i.e., is not affected by the results of those sins.

‘Just as the snake from the slough,’ — just as the snake becomes freed from the cast-off skin. This means that the sin is completely removed.

For such past sins as are indicated by the discolouring of the skin and such other diseases, other Smṛtis have prescribed many expiatory rites. All this we shall explain under the section on Expiatory Rites.

It is in view of what, is said in the present verse that we have the saying — ‘There is no fall for people who go on reciting mantras and pouring libations.’ — (79)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vahiḥ’ — Burnell represents Medhātithi as explaining this term to be ‘on a river-island and the like.’ This is not right; the word used by Medhātithi is ‘nadīpulinādau’ — which means ‘on the bank of rivers and such places’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1220) where ‘vahiḥ’ is explained as ‘outside the village’ — and ‘trikam’ as ‘the Sāvitrī along with the Vyāhṛtis’; — and in Gadādharapaddhai (Kālasāra, p. 30), which explains ‘trikam’ as (1) Praṇava. (2) Vyāhṛti and (3) Gāyatrī.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 78-79)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.78.

VERSE 2.80

Section XVII - Rules of Study

एतयाऋचा विसंयुक्तः काले च क्रियया स्वया ।
ब्रह्मक्षत्रियविद्योनिर्गर्हणां याति साधुषु ॥८०॥

etayāṛcā visaṃyuktaḥ kāle ca kriyayā svayā |
brahmakṣatriyavidyonirgarhaṇāṃ yāti sādhuṣu ||80||

Bereft of this verse, and of the timely performance of his own duty, a person of Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya birth incurs the odium of good men. — (80)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘By this verse’ — by the Sāvitrī.

‘Bereft’; — he who fails to observe the Twilight Prayers and neglects Vedic Study.

‘Odium’ — Blame.

‘Among good men’ — Among the highly cultured people.

‘Incurs’ — becomes open to.

With a view to show what sort of odium he incurs, the Text adds — ‘and of the timely performance of his own duty.’ — ‘Timely’ — e.g., the sixteenth year for the Brāhmaṇa and so forth. When the man is bereft of these rites, he becomes despised.

From this it is clear that even though the boy may have been initiated, and as such become qualified for Vedic Study, — yet, if he is bereft of the Sāvitrī, he becomes a ‘Vrātya,’ apostate.

What is meant by ‘his own duty’ is just that duty which is common to the three castes; and this is the duty of Initiation. It is only when we interpret it thus that the qualification ‘timely’ comes to have any sense. If the ‘duty’ meant were the duties of Vedic Study and the rest, the text would have said simply ‘performance of his own duty’ (without the qualification ‘timely’).

The term ‘yoni’ being synonymous with ‘birth’ denotes caste. So what is meant is the person of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes.

The present verse is only a descriptive supplement, added for the purpose of making the Expiatory Rites prescribed for the Vrātya (apostate) applicable to the omissions mentioned here. — (80)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The text of this verse, and hence its meaning, is entirely changed in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 429); the words as quoted here are,

etayar??'pi saṃyuktaḥ kāle?a kriyayā'mu?ā |
?ipra?triya?i?yonirprāha?ya?ṃ yāti prādhuṣu ||

it may be rendered thus — ‘Equipped with this verse, and timely performance of this act, a person of Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya birth becomes acceptable among the good.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.14 — [reproduces, with slight variations, the words of Manu].

Baudhāyana-Dhaṛmasūtra, 2. 4. 15. — ‘Those who offer not the Morning-prayer before the advent of Dawn, nor the Evening-prayer before the lapse of Eve, — how can these be called Brāhmaṇas? Those Brāhmaṇas who offer? not the? Morning and Evening Prayers, them the king should employ in works fit for the Śūdra.

VERSE 2.81

Section XVII - Rules of Study

ओङ्कारपूर्विकास्तिस्रो महाव्याहृतयोऽव्ययाः ।
त्रिपदा चैव सावित्री विज्ञेयं ब्रह्मणो मुखम् ॥८१॥

oṅkārapūrvikāstisro mahāvyāhṛtayo'vyayāḥ |
tripadā caiva sāvitrī vijñeyaṃ brahmaṇo mukham ||81||

The three imperishable Mahāvyāhṛtis preceded by the syllable ‘oṃ,’ and the three-footed Sāvitrī, — these should be regarded as the ‘Mouth of Brahman.’ — (81)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“Preceded by the syllable Oṃ” — in the beginning of which the syllable ‘Oṃ’ occurs. — ‘Mahāvyāhṛtis’; — this refers to the three syllables ‘bhūḥ — bhuvaḥ — svaḥ,’ which form the subject-matter of the present context.

‘Imperishable’; — the syllables are so called in view of the fact that the results proceeding from their repetition are longstanding. If this were not meant, then the qualification would be superfluous, as all words are equally imperishable, eternal.

Three-footed Sāvitrī; — the verse ‘tat savituḥ, etc.’

‘The mouth of Brahman.’ — These are called ‘mouth’ in the sense that they form its opening. Hence this verse is to be regarded as the valedictory supplement of the Injunction that these should be recited at the beginning of Vedic Study.

Or ‘mouth’ may mean portal, the means; — the sense being that union with Brahman is reached by this means. This is what is described in the next verse. — (81)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Brahmaṇo mukham — “Literally, the mouth of Brahman is meant to convey the double sense (of leading to, and leading to union with, Brahman). Both interpretations are given by Medhātithi, Kullūka. and Rāghavānanda; while Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana explain it merely as the beginning or portal of the Veda.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 71) as defining the ‘Brahmamukha’, which has been declared by Nārāyaṇa to be the formula for the Ācamana; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 522), as laying down the beginning of study; — in the same work again (Āhnika, p. 253), where it is explained as meaning that the name ‘sandhyā’ (Twilight Prayers) is applied to all those acts that are performed with the formula herein specified; — also on p. 321, along with the next three verses.

This first line of this verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 1290).

The verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 50), which explains ‘tisraḥ’ as ‘Bhūḥ-bhuvaḥ-svaḥ’ and ‘brahmaṇo mukham’ as ‘to be pronounced at the beginning of Vedic reading — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 135), which notes — ‘om bhūrbhuvaḥsvaḥ’ are the three Vyāhṛtis, — tatsavituḥ &c., is the Sāvitrī; all this forms the ‘mukha’, i.e. beginning, of ‘Brahman’, i.e. the Veda.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 81-82)

Āpastamba (Parāśaramādhava, p. 284). — ‘Seated upon kuśa, holding kuśa and water in his hand, facing the East, one shall repeat the Gāyatrī a thousand times, or a hundred times, or without any limit.’

Yogi- Yājñavalkya (Do., 283). — ‘The Religious Student and the Agnihotrin should repeat the Gāyatrī 108 times: the Hermit and the Renunciate, more than 1,000 times,

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 286). — ‘There is nothing superior to the Gāyatrī for purposes of Japa; there is no penance higher than the Gāyatrī; there is no meditation higher than the Gāyatrī; there is no Homa higher than the Viṣṇusmṛti, 55. 15-16 — [reproduces the words of Manu].

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 429). — ‘He who acquires the three Vyāhṛtis preceded by the syllable om, and the Sāvitrī, Brahmacharya and is called Śrotriya.’

Laugākṣi (Do.). — ‘Having pronounced om bhūrbhuvaḥsvaḥ, he pronounces the Sāvitrī verse beginning with Tat savituḥ.’

‘Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2. 4. 21. — ‘The Brāhmaṇa who daily, at all junctures, meditates upon this, becomes purified to Brahmaṇa and merged in Brāhmaṇ; following the scriptures, he wins the Brahmic regions.’

Vyāsa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 285). — ‘By repeating the Gāyatrī ten times one becomes absolved from all little sins committed during the day; repeated a hundred times, she destroys a host of sins; repeated a thousand times, she destroys all minor sins; by repeating it a lakh of times, all the most heinous sins are destroyed; by repeating it a crore of times, one obtains all that is desired.’

Saṃvarta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 522). — ‘One should utter the Praṇava first: after that, the Vyāhṛtis; and then the Sāvitrī.’

Yogi-Yāmavalkya (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 258). — ‘Gāvatrī is Brahmā and Sāvitrī is Rudra.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 321, also Parāśaramadhava, p. 284). — ‘One should daily repeat the Gāyatrī, which is destructive of all sins, a thousand times, or a hundred times, or at least ten times; the Lord put the Gāyatrī in one pan and the Vedas along with the subsidiary sciences in the other pan of the scale; and the two were found equal.’

Aṅgiras (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 322) — ‘One who is intent upon the Praṇava, the seven Vyāhṛtis, and the three-footed Gāyatrī has no fear anywhere.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 323). — ‘The Praṇava, the Vyāhṛtis the Sāvitrī verse, — these constitute the Sāvitra, whereby one becomes absolved from sins; by hundred repetitions, from sins of thought; by thousand repetitions, from sins of word; and by ten thousand repetitions, from all sins, and has his soul perfectly pure.’

VERSE 2.82

Section XVII - Rules of Study

योऽधीतेऽहन्यहन्येतां त्रीणि वर्षाण्यतन्द्रितः ।
स ब्रह्म परमभ्येति वायुभूतः खमूर्तिमान् ॥८२॥

yo'dhīte'hanyahanyetāṃ trīṇi varṣāṇyatandritaḥ |
sa brahma paramabhyeti vāyubhūtaḥ khamūrtimān ||82||

He who, untired, recites this, day after day, for three years, turns into air, and becoming transfigured into Ākāśa, reaches the supreme brahman. — (82)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He becomes omnipresent, all-pervading, like Ākāśa.

‘Transfigured into Ākāśa’ — means that he acquires the nature of Ākāśa. ‘Mūrti,’ ‘Figure,’ does not stand here for the Body; as Ākāśa has no ‘body’ at all.

“What is this ‘Brahman’ into whose form the man is said to become merged?”

It is the Supreme Soul, of the nature of Bliss; He of whom all these embodied souls are mere inodes, just as waves are of the ocean perturbed by the force of wind. And just as when the ocean becomes calm, the waves become merged into it, in the same manner the embodied souls become transformed and merged into the Supreme Soul. All this is going to be described in detail in Discourse 12.

What is enjoined in the present context is the mere reciting and study of the Gāyatrī verse, not its Japa, repetition; this is shown by the fact that the number of repetitions is not stated.

‘Untired’; — this denotes that the recitation is to be carried out again and again; as a single recitation can never tire a person.

What is enjoined here pertains to persons seeking for Final Release. — (82)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āḥnika, p. 321), which supplies the following Explanatory notes: —

‘Vāyubhūtaḥ’ — as quick- moving as the wind, or ‘encased in the Subtle Body’ — as explained in Kalpataru; — ‘Khamūrtimān’ — becoming as all-pervading as the Ākāśa, becomes the Supreme Self.,

It is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 286) as eulogising the japa of the Gāyatrī mantra; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 236).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 81-82)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.81.

VERSE 2.83

Section XVII - Rules of Study

एकाक्षरं परं ब्रह्म प्राणायामः परं तपः ।
सावित्र्यास्तु परं नास्ति मौनात् सत्यं विशिष्यते ॥८३॥

ekākṣaraṃ paraṃ brahma prāṇāyāmaḥ paraṃ tapaḥ |
sāvitryāstu paraṃ nāsti maunāt satyaṃ viśiṣyate ||83||

The mono-syllable is the highest Brahman; Breath-suspensions are the highest austerity; nothing is higher than the Sāvitrī verse; truth is better than Silence. — (83)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘monosyllable’ is the syllable ‘om.’ — It is the ‘Supreme Brahman,’ in the sense that it is the means of reaching Brahman. This assertion is based upon the fact that Brahman is attained by the ‘repeating,’ and ‘the meditation upon the signification,’ of the syllable (as mentioned in Yogasūtra 1.28). ‘Om’ is a name of Brahman; as says the Yogasūtra (1.23) — ‘The Praṇava is expressive of Him (God).’

“In comparison with what is this the highest?”

It is higher than all other forms of Brahman-meditation. The meditation upon the syllable ‘om’ as Brahman is superior to all the several forms of meditation mentioned in such texts as ‘One should meditate upon food as Brahman’ (Taittirīya Upaniṣad, 2.2.1), ‘The teaching is that the Sun is Brahman’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 3.19.1); and this for the simple reason that the attainment of Brahman has been described as proceeding from the mere recitation of that syllable; and also because the word itself has been described as ‘Brahman,’ in such passages as — ‘One who is well versed in Brahman in the form of Word attains the supreme Brahman.’ (Maitry upaniṣad, 6.22). Nothing is beyond the reach of words, and of' all words the syllable ‘om’ is the very source: as says the Śruti — ‘Just as the needle pierces through all the leaves, so in the same manner is all speech pierced by om, all this is om itself’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 2.23.4). The ‘piercing’ spoken of in this passage means ‘pervasion,’ ‘becoming the receptacle.’ “But in what manner is all speech pierced by om?”

Well, as regards the word of the Veda, it has already been pointed out (in verse 74) that its source lies in the syllable ‘om’ As regards the words of secular speech, it has been declared by Āpastamba (1.4.13.9) that ‘All sentences should be preceded by om.’

The above passage (from the Chāndogya) has been explained differently in the Upaniṣad-bhāṣya; we are not reproducing that explanation here, as it has no bearing on the present context.

The term ‘breath-suspension’ here stands for the act of suspending the breath along with the entire procedure beginning with the sipping of water.

‘Highest austerity — i.e., an austerity higher than the Cāndrāvaṇa and the rest.

“What is the superiority here (meant by the epithet ‘highest’)?”

It is purely figurative.

‘There is nothing higher than the Sāvitrī’; — i.e., no other mantra.

In praise of all this we have the next expression — ‘Truth is better than silence’ ‘Silence’ is control of speech. And the result accruing from the telling of truth is superior to that resulting from the control of speech. Since the telling of truth implies the acting up to a positive injunction, while in silence there is observance of the mere prohibition of telling lies.

This verse is purely valedictory. — (83)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (P. 114, 1. 12) — ‘Āpastamba vacanāt’ — This refers to Āpastamba’s Dharmasūtra 1.4.13.9, the whole of which reads as follows —

loke ca bhūtikarmasvetadīnyeca vākyāni syuryathā pupyāhaṃ svassyṛddhimiti

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 321), where the same verse is attributed to Yama also.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vasiṣṭha-smṛti, 5-6. — ‘The one syllable is Brahman Supreme; Breath-suspension is the highest penance; alms-begging is superior to fasting; and compassion is superior to charity.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55 17 — [reproduces the words of Manu].

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 321). — ‘The syllable om is the highest Brahman; Breath-suspension is the highest penance; there is nothing superior to the Sāvitrī; Truth is superior to silence; — all Vedic acts may dwindle away, but the syllable should be recognised as never dwindling; — the highest Brahman in the shape of the single syllable has been declared

to be the best purifier; there is nothing superior to the Gāyatri; Truth is superior to silence. Daily one should repeat the Gāyatrī, 1,000 or 100 or at least 10 times, as destructive of all sins.’

VERSE 2.84

Section XVII - Rules of Study

क्षरन्ति सर्वा वैदिक्यो जुहोतियजतिक्रियाः ।
अक्षरं दुष्करं ज्ञेयं ब्रह्म चैव प्रजापतिः ॥८४॥

kṣaranti sarvā vaidikyo juhotiyajatikriyāḥ |
akṣaraṃ duṣkaraṃ jñeyaṃ brahma caiva prajāpatiḥ ||84||

All vedic acts of oblation and sacrifice pass away; while this syllable (om) is to be regarded as imperishable; and it is Brahman, and also Prajāpati — (84)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

All acts laid down in the Veda — ‘oblations’ in the form of Agnihotra and the rest, — as also ‘sacrifices’ in the form of Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest, — ‘pass away’; i.e., either they never bring about their results in their entirety, or even when brought about, those results perish quickly.

‘This syllable’ — ‘om’ — is to be known as ‘imperishable,’ i.e., bringing about imperishable results; since for one who has become merged into Brahman, there is no return to worldly existence. Thus leading to an imperishable result, the syllable is itself called ‘imperishable.’ One of the two terms ‘akṣara,’ one is a noun, which forms the subject of the sentence, while the other, is the predicate, and is taken in its literal sense.

That same syllable is also Brahman, and Prajāpati.

This also is purely valedictory.

The expression ‘juhoti-yajati’ mentions two verbal roots; and the term ‘kriyā’ stands for the actions of (oblation) and Yāga (sacrifice) — as denoted by the two roots. The plural number is due to the multiplicity of the acts. Or, the two verbal roots may be taken as standing for the acts of Homa and Yāga themselves, while ' kriyā’ stands for the other acts of charity and the like. The whole is a copulative compound — made up of the three terms ‘juhoti,’ and ‘kriyā’ — the acts of H oma and Yāga being separately mentioned by reason of their importance.

Some people have held that this praise of the syllable ‘om’ by itself (as apart from the and the verse) is meant to enjoin the repetition of the syllable; and they argue that this cannot be taken as merely supplementary to the foregoing injunction of the reciting of the Sāvitrî along with ‘om,’ etc., as no reference to this latter is made in the present verse; as there is in the case of the sacrifice, in connection with which we find two passages — (a) ‘Yadaṣṭākapalo bhavati gāyat chainam brahmavarchasena punāti,’ and (b) ‘Yannavakapalastṛvṝtaivāsmimstejo daḍhāii,’ — where reference is distinctly made to a foregoing injunction; so that so long as it is found possible (on the basis of this reference) to connect the injunctions syntactically (and treat them as a single injunction), there can be no justification for splitting them up into two distinct injunctions. In the present instance, on the other hand, when it is said that ‘this should be regarded as imperishable,’ there is no reference to any thing that has gone before; nor is there any reference made to the Sāvitrī, etc. Por these reasons, the present text is to be taken as a self-contained injunction, and not as supplementary to something else. Further, the verbal affix in ‘jñeyaḥ’ ‘(should be regarded)’ is purely injunctive. And this, taken along with the word ‘brahma,’ gives the sense that ‘this should he regarded — i.e., meditated upon — as Brahman’; and this ‘meditation’ stands for the mental process of repeating the syllable. — (84)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kṣaranti’ — ‘Pass away — do not bring about their complete results, or their results disappear quickly’ — (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa); — ‘Perish — as far as their form and results are concerned’ — (Nandana).

‘Brahma’ — The neuter form is accepted by Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda. Nārāyaṇa and Nandana read the masculine form ‘brahmā’, and explain the phrase as ‘just like Brahmā, the Prajāpati.’

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Ācāra, p. 321), where it is explained that — ‘akṣaram’ stands for the syllable ‘om’, — and this is ‘akṣara’ in the sense that its effect in the form Final Release ‘never perishes’ (na-kṣarati); — and that the syllable ‘om’ is to be regarded as ‘Prajāpati’ on the ground of its being expressive of that deity. Here again this same verse is attributed to Yama also.

Medhātithi’s remarks on p. 115,11. 1-8 are based upon Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1. 4. 17-22.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 79), which reads ‘Akṣaram śreṣṭham’ for ‘duṣkaram jñeyam’ and explains it as ‘Brahma-praṇava.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.18 — [reproduces Manu].

Vasiṣṭhasmṛti, 25.11. — ‘The one syllable winch is the highest Brahman, lias been declared to be the best purifier.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 7. 2. 13. — ‘One should equip himself with the syllable.’

Yama [see preceding verse].

VERSE 2.85

Section XVII - Rules of Study

विधियज्ञाज् जपयज्ञो विशिष्टो दशभिर्गुणैः ।
उपांशुः स्यात्शतगुणः साहस्रो मानसः स्मृतः ॥८५॥

vidhiyajñāj japayajño viśiṣṭo daśabhirguṇaiḥ |
upāṃśuḥ syātśataguṇaḥ sāhasro mānasaḥ smṛtaḥ ||85||

The offering that consists in the repeating of mantras excels the enjoined (ritualistic) offering ten times; the inaudible (repeating) excels this latter a hundred times; and the Mental (repeating) excels it a thousandfold. — (85)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘enjoined offering’ is that which forms the subject of injunctions; such as Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest; such acts are called ‘enjoined offering,’ as they have been enjoined by words like ‘should offer’ and the rest, and are performed by means of external acts, and with the full accompaniment of priests and other innumerable details.

The Japa, ‘ Repeating of Mantras’ is not an ‘offering’; but with a view to eulogise it, it has been spoken as an ‘offering’ only figuratively; consequently this cannot be included under the term ‘enjoined offering.’

This latter ‘excels,’ — is a better, superior, offering than the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest, — ‘ten times’.

What is meant here is that the Repeating of Mantras is highly efficacious; the meaning being that the results proceeding from the Repetition are the same, but larger, as those proceeding from the Ritualistic Offerings. It is not meant that the Repeating of Mantras actually brings about results larger than those brought about by the ritualistic sacrifices; for if it were really so, who ‘would ever undertake the performance of the latter, which involve much physical hardship and the expenditure of much wealth? For these reasons it is clear that what is said here is a mere praise (of the Repeating of Mantras); just like the assertion that ‘One attains all desirable ends by the

Final Oblation.’ All that is meant is that from this act also the same results follow, in the shape of Heaven and the rest; but the difference iu the amount of human effort involved leads to the difference in the degree of the result. And as the text does not specify any particular result, it should be taken to mean that by the Repeating of Mantras one obtains the same results — in the shape of heaven, landed property, children and cattle — as those proceeding from sacrificial performances.

‘The Inaudible, a hundred times’ — That repeating of Mantras is called Inaudible which is not heard by any other person, however near he may be.

‘A thousand times — the Mental.’ — That in which the Mantra in meditated upon by a mere mental operation.

The ‘Inaudible’ and other qualifications pertain to all kinds of Repeating Mantras (and not only to the repeating of the Gāyatrī, etc.); the continuity of the context, starting from verse 82, having been broken. Hence, whenever there is repetition of Mantras — in the course of either Expiatory Rites, or the rites performed for the allaying of portents, or those intended to bring about prosperity, — the said qualifications become applicable.

The term ‘sāhasra’ literally means that which has a thousand; and since the noun spoken of is ‘guṇa,’ ‘times,’ ‘fold,’ the term means ‘thousand-fold’; the term ‘fold’ standing for part. That this refers to the excess of results is clear from the connection of the entire sentence. — (85)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (P. 115,1. 16) — ‘Pūrṇahutyā &c.’ — See in this connection Sāyaṇa-Ṛgvedhbhāṣya — Upodghāta (Introduction).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.19. — [reproduces Manu’s words.]

Vasiṣṭha-smṛti, 26.10 — [the same as Manu, with the exception that for ‘vidhi’ it reads ‘ārambha’].

VERSE 2.86

Section XVII - Rules of Study

ये पाकयज्ञाः चत्वारो विधियज्ञसमन्विताः ।
सर्वे ते जपयज्ञस्य कलां नार्हन्ति षोडशीम् ॥८६॥

ye pākayajñāḥ catvāro vidhiyajñasamanvitāḥ |
sarve te japayajñasya kalāṃ nārhanti ṣoḍaśīm ||86||

The four cooked offerings, along with the enjoined sacrifices, — all these are not worth the sixteenth part of the offering that consists in the repeating of mantras. — (86)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The five ‘great sacrifices,’ leaving off the are what are meant by the ‘four cooked offerings.’

‘Enjoined sacrifices’ — those already described (under the preceding verse); along with these latter, the former (four) ‘are not worth the sixteenth part’ — i.e., are not equal to the sixteenth part.

Or, the root ‘arha’ may be taken in the sense of the price paid for the obtaining of a certain thing. The root ‘arha’ with the Present-Tense-ending ‘tip’ gives the form ‘arhanti.’ — (86)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Pākayajñāḥ’ — This term stands for the last four of the five ‘Mahāyajña’ —

Brahmayajña (Vedic study),

Devayajña (the Vaiśvadeva offerings),

Pitṛyajña (daily Śrāddha offerings),

Bhūtayajña (Bali offerings)

and Manuṣyayajña (Feeding of guests),

according to Medhātithi, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana.

According to Govindarāja and Rāghvānanda, it stands for all Śrauta and Smārta offerings.

The main classification of sacrifices is based upon the difference in the substances offered. On this basis they have been classified as under: —

(l) Haviryajñas, also called ‘Iṣti’, consisting in the offering of such substances as milk, butter, rice, barley and other grains; — the principal representatives of this class are (a) the Darśapūrṇamāsa, which is described in detail in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (I and II); and its six ectypes — (b) the Agnyādhāna, (c) the Agnihotra (d) the Āgrahāyaṇeṣṭi (e) the Cāturmāsya, (f) the Paśubandha and (g) the Sautrāmaṇi; all these are offered into fire specially consecrated by the Agnyādhāna rite, which serving as it does only the purpose of preparing the fire for other sacrifices, is not a sacrifice in the strict sense of the term, — as has been remarked by Karka in his commentary on Kātyāyana’s Śrautasūtra.

(2) Pākayajñas consisting of the offering of cooked substances, not in the consecrated fire, but in the domestic fire and other receptacles. The seven principal sacrifices included under this category are — the five ‘great sacrifices’ (described in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 10-5.7 and in Manu, 3.70), the Aṣṭakās, the Pārvaṇa offerings, the Śrāvaṇī, the Āgrahāyaṇī, the Caitrī and the Āśvāyujī. These are described in the Gṛhya — not Śrauta — Sūtras. Though the substances offered in these are not very different from those in the Iṣṭis on Haviryajñas, yet they are classed separately, on the ground that the receptacle of the offerings in their case is not the consecrated fire.

(3) Somayajñas in which the substance offered is the Soma-juice; it includes the following seven sacrifices — (a) Agniṣṭoma, (b) Atyagniṣṭoma, (c) Ukthya, (d) Śoḍaśin (e) Vājapeya, (f) Atirātra and (g) Āptoryamā. Almost all Somayajñas involve the killing of an animal, hence the Animal-sacrifices, Paśuyāgas, have been included by older writers under this category; though later writers have drawn a distinction between the Somayāga and the Paśuyāga. The very elaborate sacrifices, such as the Aśvamedha, the Rājasūya, the Pauṇḍarīka and the Gosava (according to Devala) — are generally classed apart, under the generic name of Mahāyajñakratu’.

(See in this connection, Prābhākara-Mīmāṃsā, pp. 251-253).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.20 and Vasiṣṭha, 26.11 — [reproduce the Words of Manu].

Bhagavadgītā. — ‘Among sacrifices, I am the Japa-offering.’

VERSE 2.87

Section XVII - Rules of Study

जप्येनैव तु संसिध्येद् ब्राह्मणो नात्र संशयः ।
कुर्यादन्यन्न वा कुर्यान् मैत्रो ब्राह्मण उच्यते ॥८७॥

japyenaiva tu saṃsidhyed brāhmaṇo nātra saṃśayaḥ |
kuryādanyanna vā kuryān maitro brāhmaṇa ucyate ||87||

It is by means of repeating mantras that the Brāhmaṇa succeeds; — there is no doubt in this. he may, or may not, do anything else, one comes to be called a Brāhmaṇa if he is of a friendly disposition. — (87)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

By means of repeating Mantras alone the Brāhmaṇa succeeds; — i.e., acquires all desirable results,and also attains Brahman.

No such doubt on this point should be entertained in the mind, as — “How can one acquire, by means of Mantra-repetition alone, such results as are obtained only by means of such elaborate acts as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest, which cost much effort, or from deep and prolonged meditations?” — Because as a matter of fact, such success floes actually follow.

‘He may do anything else.’ — In the shape of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other non-com pulsory acts, — ‘or not do it.’ — For ‘one comes to be called a Brahmaṇa if lie is of a friendly disposition.’ ‘Maitra’ is the same as ‘mitra.’ The Brahmaṇa should be friendly to all living beings; and how can there be any friendliness (benevolence) in such acts as the killing of animals during the Agnīṣomīya offerings?

This passage is purely valedictory; it is not a prohibition of the killing of animals during sacrifices; because it is only supplementary to what has gone before (and as such it cannot be taken as an independent prohibition), and because such killing is directly enjoined in the Veda itself.

Thus ends the process of Repeating Mantras. — (87)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Maitraḥ’ — ‘of friendly disposition (towards all living beings)’ — Medhātithi; — ‘worshipper of Mitra, Sun’ (suggested by Rāghavāṇanda).

‘Brāhmaṇaḥ’ — ‘one who will be absorbed in Brahman’ (Kullūka); — ‘the best of Brāhmaṇas’ (Rāghavānanda); —

Buhler remarks — “Medhātithi and Govindarāja take the last clause differently: it is declared (in the Veda that) a Brāhmaṇa (shall be) a friend (of all creatures).” But in Medhātithi we find no mention of the Veda here.

The verse is clearly meant to be deprecatory of Animal-sacrifices, which involve the killing of animals, whereas the Brāhmaṇa should be friendly to all creatures.

This verse is quoted in Yatidharmasaṃgraha (p. 127).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.21 and Vasiṣṭha, 26.12 — [reproduce the words of Manu].

VERSE 2.88 [Control of Sensual Desires]

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

इन्द्रियाणां विचरतां विषयेष्वपहारिषु ।
संयमे यत्नमातिष्ठेद् विद्वान् यन्तैव वाजिनाम् ॥८८॥

indriyāṇāṃ vicaratāṃ viṣayeṣvapahāriṣu |
saṃyame yatnamātiṣṭhed vidvān yantaiva vājinām ||88||

The wise man should put forth an effort to restrain his organs roaming among alluring objects; just as the driver restrains the horses. — (88)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

All that the teaching means is that “one should strive to restrain his organs”: the rest of the text is merely descriptive, up to the verse where we have the injunction regarding the Twilight Prayers (101).

‘Restrain’ — means the avoiding of addiction to prohibited objects and the avoiding of excessive addiction to even those objects that are permitted. That the prohibited tilings should be avoided we learn from those prohibitions themselves: hence the present verse and the verses that follow should be taken as laying down the avoiding of over-addiction to even such things as are not prohibited.

This is what is meant by the expression — ‘roaming a many objects,’ — i.e., in course of their natural functioning.

‘Alluring.’ — Things that attract, draw to themselves, overpower, the man, are called ‘alluring objects,’ those that captivate the mind. Roaming among these means ‘functioning among them in manifold ways.’ If the organs did not operate among them, what could even the most alluring objects do? Or, even if the organs were devoid of all restraint, if the objects themselves were repellant, it would he a very simple matter for the agent, to restrain himself. As a matter of fact, however, both are at fault (the objects are alluring and the organs are operative among them); hence it becomes necessary to put forth special effort, the organs being hard to control.

‘As the driver restrains the horses.’ — ‘Driver’ is the charioteer. Just as the charioteer puts forth special effort to coutrol the horses that are naturally restive, and are prone to run wild along the wrong way, and the horses become obedient to him, — in the same way one should curb the organs to his own will. — (88)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Bālambhaṭṭi (Vyāvahāra, p. 606).

Medhātithi (p. 116, 11. 11-12) — Pariśiṣṭorthavādaḥ āṣandhyopāsanavidhiḥ — i.e. upto verse 100, all this is mere Arthavāda. But on p. 110, he says that verse 97 contains a vidhi.

It is interesting to note that what Medhātithi has called Arthavāda, Hopkins calls ‘elaborate interpolation’ (note on verse 91).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 3.9 — ‘One who behaves like this keeps the senses under control attains the regions of Brahman.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 11.4. — ‘Pure, with senses under control, equipped with fully qualified-aids.’

Kaṭha-Upaniṣad, 3.6. — ‘He who is equipped with knowledge, with mind composed, has his senses under control; just as good horses are under ṭhe control of the charioteer.’

Bhagavadgītā, 2.67-68. — ‘When the mind follows in the wake of the roaming sense-organs, it deprives him of his wisdom; just as the storm destroys the boat in water. Therefore that man whose sense-organs have been withdrawn from the objects of sense, has his wisdom firmly established.’

VERSE 2.89

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

एकादशेन्द्रियाण्याहुर्यानि पूर्वे मनीषिणः ।
तानि सम्यक् प्रवक्ष्यामि यथावदनुपूर्वशः ॥८९॥

ekādaśendriyāṇyāhuryāni pūrve manīṣiṇaḥ |
tāni samyak pravakṣyāmi yathāvadanupūrvaśaḥ ||89||

Those eleven organs which the ancient sages have named I shall now fully describe in due order. — (89)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This enumeration of the organs is as laid down in other sources of information; and the present text is not intended to lay down the number of organs. The description is provided by our author only on account of his good will towards his audience. The organs have been named by the ancient sages; and I shall now describe their names and also their function.

‘In due order.’ — Implies absence of confusion.

The reference to the ‘ancient sages’ is meant to indicate that the enumeration of the organs is not something invented by the logicians, it was something already known among the ancient teachers. In fact, people not knowing this are ridiculed by men as ‘not learned in the scriptures’; hence these should be properly understood.

The meaning of the words of the text are well known, and have been already explained. — (89)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 89-92)

Sāṅkhya-sūtra, 2. 17-20. — ‘The eleven rudimentary elements are its products; — the internal organ, along with the five organs of action and ṭhe five organs of sensation constitute the group of eleven; — the Manas is of the nature of both.’

Sāṅkhya-Kārīkā (26-27). — ‘The organs of sensation are the Eye, the Ear, the Nose, the Tongue and Skin; and speech the hands, the feet, the arms and the reproductive organs are the organs of action.’

Śaṅkha (7. 25). — ‘Eye, Ear, Skin, Taste, Nose should be known as the organs of sensation in the body; the two hands, ṭhe two feet, the reproductive organ, the tongue (organ of speech) and the arms are the five organs of action in the body.’

Kāmandaka (1. 31, 33). — ‘The Auditory, the Tactile, the, Visual, the Gustatory and the Olfactory organs, — these five and the arms, the penis, the arms, the legs and the organ of speech constitute what is called the conglomeration of sense-organs. The soul and the mind are styled the internal senses:... by the conjoint action of these two, volition is engendered.

VERSE 2.90

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

श्रोत्रं त्वक् चक्षुषी जिह्वा नासिका चैव पञ्चमी ।
पायूपस्थं हस्तपादं वाक् चैव दशमी स्मृता ॥९०॥

śrotraṃ tvak cakṣuṣī jihvā nāsikā caiva pañcamī |
pāyūpasthaṃ hastapādaṃ vāk caiva daśamī smṛtā ||90||

(They are) the Ear, the Skin, the Eyes, the Tongue and the Nose as the fifth; the Anus, the Generative Organ, the Hands and Feet, and Speech described as the tenth. — (90)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Ear and the rest are well known. We have ‘Eyes’ in the Dual, in view of the two different substrata (of the Visual Organ); in other places we have the singular number in view of the fact that the Faculty itself, subsisting in the said substrata, is one only.

The ‘Generative Organ,’ — the organ secreting the semen (in males), and the ovule and its receptacle (in females).

‘Hands and feet’ — ‘Hastapādam’; — the copulative compound has been put in the singular number according to Pāṇini 2. 4. 2, by which copulative compounds consisting of terras expressive of limbs of living beings are put in the singular.

‘Speech’ here stands for that part of the body which consists of the Palate and the rest, and serve to manifest sound.

This verse mentions the names (of Organs). — (90)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted (along with 92) in Aparārka (p. 982) as enumerating the sense organs.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 89-92)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.89.

VERSE 2.91

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि पञ्चैषां श्रोत्रादीन्यनुपूर्वशः ।
कर्मेन्द्रियाणि पञ्चैषां पाय्वादीनि प्रचक्षते ॥९१॥

buddhīndriyāṇi pañcaiṣāṃ śrotrādīnyanupūrvaśaḥ |
karmendriyāṇi pañcaiṣāṃ pāyvādīni pracakṣate ||91||

Of these the five beginning with the Ear in due order they call “Organs of Sensation’; and five of these, beginning with the Anus, “Organs of Action.” — (91)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author now proceeds to describe the functions of the organs, with a view to determine their precise nature. [This is necessary, because] they are not perceptible.

‘Organs of Sensation’; — i.e., the organs productive of sensation; they bring about effects in the form of sensations. The Genitive (in the compound ‘buddhīndriyāṇāṃ’) denotes the relation of cause and effect.

‘Beginning with the Ear, in due order’; — the phrase ‘in due order’ has been added w ith a view to prevent the notion that the term ‘ādi’ signifies kind. “Order” again is in accordance with position; hence what is meant is the order in which the organs have been mentioned in the foregoing verse.

‘Organs of action’; — it is the ‘action’ of motion that is meant here. — (91)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 89-92)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.89.

VERSE 2.92

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

एकादशं मनो ज्ञेयं स्वगुणेनौभयात्मकम् ।
यस्मिन् जिते जितावेतौ भवतः पञ्चकौ गणौ ॥९२॥

ekādaśaṃ mano jñeyaṃ svaguṇenaubhayātmakam |
yasmin jite jitāvetau bhavataḥ pañcakau gaṇau ||92||

The Mind is to be regarded as the eleventh, which, by its own quality, is of two-fold nature; and on this being subdued, both the aforesaid five-mentioned groups become subdued. — (92)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Mind is what completes the number, which is the number of sense-organs.

The ‘own quality’ of Mind is volition, desire; it is with the Mind that people will or desire both what is good and what is bad. [This is what is meant by its being ‘of twofold nature’]. Or, the Mind may be regarded as ‘of two-fold nature’ in the sense that it partakes of the character of both sets of organs — those of sensation as well as those of action; as the functioning of both these sets of organs is rooted in volition.

‘On this being subdued,’ both five-membered groups, — i.e., the group of the organs of sensation, as well as that of the organs of action, which have been described above, — become subdued.

This only describes a real fact. — (92)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 89-92)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.89.

VERSE 2.93

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

इन्द्रियाणां प्रसङ्गेन दोषं ऋच्छत्यसंशयम् ।
संनियम्य तु तान्येव ततः सिद्धिं निगच्छति ॥९३॥

indriyāṇāṃ prasaṅgena doṣaṃ ṛcchatyasaṃśayam |
saṃniyamya tu tānyeva tataḥ siddhiṃ nigacchati ||93||

By attachment to the organs one incurs evil, without doubt; while by subjugating those same he attains success. — (93)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Attachment’ means addiction; ‘by’ this, as the means, one ‘incurs’ — attains — ‘evil,’ [visible] as well as invisible. There is no doubt in this; it is absolutely certain.

‘By subjugating these’ — organs — one subsequently ‘attains success,’ — the attainment of the desired end; i.e., he acquires in its entirety all the fruits of the performance of acts enjoined in Śruti and in Smṛti. — (93)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Doṣam’ — ‘Guilt’ (Nārāyaṇa); — ‘evil, visible and invisible’ — (Medhātithi and Kullūka) i.e. misery and sin; — ‘evil, in the shape of rebirths’ (Rāghavānanda).

‘Siddhim’ — ‘Success, in the form of the rewards of all acts’ (Medhātithi); — ‘final release’ (Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda); — ‘all human ends, Final Release and all the rest’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 93-95)

Dakṣa-smṛti (7. 12 and 16). — ‘He whose mind is addicted to objects never attains Yoga; therefore the Yogin should make an effort to avoid addiction to objects.’

Vaśiṣṭha-smṛti (30.10-11). — ‘As one grows old, his hairs fade fade also his teeth; but longing for life and longing for wealth never fade, even while the man is fading away. That which cannot be avoided by foolish-minded persons, that which does not fade even while the man is fading away, that which is a mortal disease, — such Desire when one renounces, then alone does he attain happiness.’

VERSE 2.94

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

न जातु कामः कामानामुपभोगेन शाम्यति ।
हविषा कृष्णवर्त्मैव भूय एवाभिवर्धते ॥९४॥

na jātu kāmaḥ kāmānāmupabhogena śāmyati |
haviṣā kṛṣṇavartmaiva bhūya evābhivardhate ||94||

Never is desire appeased by the enjoyment of desires; it only waxes stronger, like fire by clarified butter. — (94)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That no longing for sensual objects should be entertained by reason of the teaching of the scriptures may rest aside for the present; in fact there is even apparent happiness proceeding from the cessation of desires. When sensual objects are enjoyed, they only tend to produce stronger desires. For instance, even after a man has eaten his fill, even to the distension of the stomach, and is fully satisfied, there is still a longing in his heart — ‘why cannot I eat more?’ — and it is only through sheer inability that he does not eat more. This shows that desire can never cease by enjoyment.

‘Desire’ — longing.

‘Of Desires’ — i.e., of things desired, longed for.

‘Enjoyment’ — addiction to.

‘Is appeased’ — ceases.

‘Stronger’ — more and more..

‘By ghṛta’ — by clarified butter.

‘Kṛṣṇavartmā’ — Fire.

Longing is a form of pain; until one has experienced a certain taste, he has no longing for it.

This verso only describes the true state of things. It has been thus described — ‘Whatever corns and grains, gold, cattle and women there are on the earth are not enough to satisfy a single person; — pondering over this, one should betake hi mself to tranquil restraint.’ — (94)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 93-95)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.93.

VERSE 2.95

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

यश्चैतान् प्राप्नुयात् सर्वान् यश्चैतान् केवलांस्त्यजेत् ।
प्रापणात् सर्वकामानां परित्यागो विशिष्यते ॥९५॥

yaścaitān prāpnuyāt sarvān yaścaitān kevalāṃstyajet |
prāpaṇāt sarvakāmānāṃ parityāgo viśiṣyate ||95||

As between one who would attain all these, and another who would renounce them all, the renunciation of desires surf asses the attainment of

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse formulates the conclusion deduced from th e reasons adduced in the foregoing verses. [The sense being] in as much as Desire only waxes stronger by fulfilment, hence if a pleasure-seeking person — in the shape of a young king — ‘? hould attain’ — he addicted to — ‘all those’ desires; — while another person — in the shape of the life-long celibate — ‘renounces them all,’ — i.e., does not touch even the slightest thing; — between these two, the latter surpasses the attainer, the enjoyer. That is, the man who renounces pleasures is vastly superior.

This is self-evident. — (95)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Bālambhaṭṭi (Vyāvahāra, p. 606).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 93-95)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.93.

VERSE 2.96

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

न तथैतानि शक्यन्ते संनियन्तुमसेवया ।
विषयेषु प्रजुष्टानि यथा ज्ञानेन नित्यशः ॥९६॥

na tathaitāni śakyante saṃniyantumasevayā |
viṣayeṣu prajuṣṭāni yathā jñānena nityaśaḥ ||96||

These (organs), being contaminated with objects, are not capable of being subjugated by mere abstinence, as they are by ever present knowledge. — (90)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“Well, if this is so, then the right course, would appear to be that one should retire to the forest; as there will be no objects within reach; and being beyond reach, they would naturally never be sought after.” — With a view to such notions, the text adds that the organs should not be subjugated by mere abstinence; as in that case the man would have no pleasures at all, while the Smṛti has distinctly declared that — ‘Acquiring merit, wealth and pleasures, one should see that his mornings, mid-days and evenings are not useless’ (Gautama, 9.46); and further, the continuance of the body itself would become impossible, by total abstinence. What therefore is meant is to prohibit excessive longing; and even though one may enjoy pleasures, this excessive longing ceases under the influence — (a) of ‘knowledge,’ of defects in the objects, as described in the scriptures, such for instance as in 6.76 below, — (b) of one’s own experience, whereby the said pleasures are found to be unpleasant in their consequences, — and (c) of the constant and gradual practice of nonattachment arising from the due examination of the effects of the pleasures. It is not possible for the said longing to be renounced all at once..

‘Ever present’; — this qualifles ‘knowledge.’

‘Contaminated’ — active, since objects are beset with defects, the addiction to them is called ‘contamination.’

The ‘śas’ used here is one that is frequently used by Vyāsa, Manu and other great sages, — in such expressions as‘nityaśaḥ,’ ‘anupūrvaśaḥ,’ ‘sarvaśaḥ,’ ‘pūrvaśaḥ,’ and so forth. But exceptional efforts have to be made in order to establish the correctness of such usage. And in as much as the rule regarding the use of the affix ‘śas’ as laid down in Pāṇini 5. 4. 43, is that it is added to singular nouns, in the sense of repetition, — it is necessary to make the words in question imply, somohow or other, the notion of repetition. Other people have explained the expression ‘ś as’ as a noun formed from the root ‘ś as’ to stand, with the affix ‘kvip’; and the word thus formed would be neuter and would be treated as an adverb, the meaning being — ‘by knowledge which is ever-standing.’ — (96)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Asevayā” — ‘avoidance of excessive longing for pleasures’ — (Medhātithi); ‘avoidance of places where pleasures are to be obtained’ (Kullūka); — ‘abstinence from pleasures’ (Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Bālambhaṭṭi (Vyāvahāra, p. 606).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Śaṅkha-smṛti (7. 10-11). — ‘That man the Gods regard as a Brāhmaṇa, who is disgusted with birth, with death and with mental and physical ailments. The impurity of the body, the reversal of pleasure and pain, residence in the womb, — from all this one becomes freed.’

VERSE 2.97

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

वेदास्त्यागश्च यज्ञाश्च नियमाश्च तपांसि च ।
न विप्रदुष्टभावस्य सिद्धिं गच्छति कर्हि चित् ॥९७॥

vedāstyāgaśca yajñāśca niyamāśca tapāṃsi ca |
na vipraduṣṭabhāvasya siddhiṃ gacchati karhi cit ||97||

The Vedas, Renunciation, Sacrifices, Restraints and Austerities never attain fulfilment for one whose disposition is vitiated. — (97)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse is clearly injunctive.

‘The Vedas’ — i.e., the study and recitation of them.

‘Renunciation’ — means charity, figuratively; or, it may mean the renouncing of the taking of even such meat and wine as are not prohibited, under the impression that such abstention brings its own reward.

He whose ‘disposition’ — i.e., mind — ‘is vitiated.’

‘Never attain fulfilment’ — they do not bring about their due results, at any time. From this it, follows that at the time of the performance of the said acts, one should not allow his mind to turn towards objects of sensuous enjoyment; for it is only thus that he may disregard all other thoughts and concentrate his mind upon the act itself.

What this text enjoins is that one should avoid of all thought of sensual objects, — this avoidance being a necessary accompaniment of all acts; as in its absence the act becomes futile. The ‘vitiation of disposition’ consists in the fact that at the time when the man is engaged in the performance of an act, he ceases to have his mind concentrated upon that act, and allows it to turn towards vice. — (97)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 119,1. 3) — ‘ayamatra vidhiḥ’ — It is not consistent with what he has said before (p. 116,11. 11-12), to the effect that up to verse 100 it is all Arthavāda.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmaṣūtra (1.2.6). — ‘For those non-Śūdras whose actions are not wicked — there is Upanayana, Vedic Study, Fire-laying and other acts leading to rewards.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (5. 1). — ‘The term Tapas is Applied to the observances; — transgression thereof leads to the trickling away of Knowledge and Religious Acts.’

VERSE 2.98

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

श्रुत्वा स्पृष्ट्वा च दृष्ट्वा च भुक्त्वा घ्रात्वा च यो नरः ।
न हृष्यति ग्लायति वा स विज्ञेयो जितैन्द्रियः ॥९८॥

śrutvā spṛṣṭvā ca dṛṣṭvā ca bhuktvā ghrātvā ca yo naraḥ |
na hṛṣyati glāyati vā sa vijñeyo jitaindriyaḥ ||98||

That man is to be known as having subjugated his sense-organs, who, on having heard, or touched, or seen, or tasted, or smelt, anything, neither rejoices nor grieves. — (98)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Having heard,’ — such things as the sound of the flute, singing, etc., or such flattering words as ‘you are Bṛhaspati himself,’ — ‘does not rejoice.’

‘Does not grieve’ — does not suffer mental sorrow; ‘grief’ means sorrow.

‘Having touched’; — such things as garments made of the hair of the Raṅku deer, or of silk, or of the wool of sheep and goats, he touches with equal feelings. Similarly he has exactly the same feelings in regard to the sight of beautiful young women or of enemies; he eats with equal feelings food cooked with plenty of butter and milk, as well as coarse rava grains; he has the same feelings when smelling such things as the oil of Devadāru and the oil of camphor, etc.

The man should behave so that he is not touched by mental joy or sorrow; it is thus that his organs become subjugated; and not by mere inactivity. So that restraint should be practised up to the said point. — (98)

Objection — “Contact with women alone having been prohibited for the Religions Student, why should the taking of nicely cooked food received in alms be prohibited for him?”

In answer to this we have this next verse: —

Comparative notes by various authors:

Śaṅkha-smṛti (7. 8-9). — ‘One should never mind it — whether his body is smeared with sandal-paste, or ripped by an axe, or he attains prosperity or adversity. Equally friendly towards all beings, looking equally upon gold and Upon a clod of earth, fixed in contemplative meditation, the Brāhmaṇa attains the highest state.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti (96. 23). — ‘While one arm is being ripped with an axe and another is being smeared with sandal-paint, — and while, on the one hand, he meets with prosperity, and on the other, with adversity, — he should not mind either.’

Bhagavadgītā (2. 57). — ‘He who has no attachment to, anything, and on meeting with happiness, neither rejoices nbr‘is grieved, his wisdom is firm.’

Bhagavadgītā (5. 20). — ‘One should not rejoice on coming by happiness; nor should he become ruffled on coming by unhappiness; he whose mind is firm, never deluded, he knows Brahman, and rests in Brahman.’

VERSE 2.99

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

इन्द्रियाणां तु सर्वेषां यद्येकं क्षरतीन्द्रियम् ।
तेनास्य क्षरति प्रज्ञा दृतेः पादादिवोदकम् ॥९९॥

indriyāṇāṃ tu sarveṣāṃ yadyekaṃ kṣaratīndriyam |
tenāsya kṣarati prajñā dṛteḥ pādādivodakam ||99||

From among all the organs, if one happens to ooze out, then thereby his wisdom oozes out, just like water from one part of the leathern bag. — (99)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

[In the term ‘indriyāṇāṃ’] the Genitive has the force of specification.

If even one organ happens to ooze out; — i.e., if on functioning freely in regard to its object, it is not checked, — then ‘his wisdom oozes out’; — i.e., his steadiness in regard to the other organs also (disappears).

‘Leathern bag’; — a vessel for carrying water, made of the skin of the goat and other animals. Even though all the other parts of this bag be closed, if water trickles out of a single part of it, the whole bag becomes empty.

In the same manner, the man’s steadiness acquired through continuous practice of wisdom, — or even true wisdom and knowledge itself — (becomes entirely lost). That is, being addicted to several objects, he has his mind always turned towards them, so that the subjects dealt with by reasonings and scriptures do not present themselves to him in the right manner. — (99)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Prajñā’ — ‘Wisdom, control over the senses’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, and Rāghavānanda); — ‘knowledge of truth’ (Kullūka).

‘Pādāt’ — This may be taken literally in the sense of foot; as Hopkins rightly remarks — “The hide often is used in oriental countries complete, each leg being made water-tight.” This is indicated by Medhātithi’s remarks also.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 493) where the ‘dṛti’ is explained as a ‘leathern bag.’ It is quoted to show that during studentship the strict observance of the vows and restraints is essential.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Kaṭha, (3. 7). — ‘He who is devoid of wisdom, his mind not firm, — his organs get beyond control, — like vicious horses under the charioteer.’

Bhagavadgītā, (3. 67). — ‘When the mind follows in the wake of the roaming senses, it deprives him of his wisdom, and it is lost like the boat at sea.’

VERSE 2.100

Section XVIII - Control of Sensual Desires

वशे कृत्वेन्द्रियग्रामं संयम्य च मनस्तथा ।
सर्वान् संसाधयेदर्थानक्षिण्वन् योगतस्तनुम् ॥१०0॥

vaśe kṛtvendriyagrāmaṃ saṃyamya ca manastathā |
sarvān saṃsādhayedarthānakṣiṇvan yogatastanum ||100||

Having brought the host of organs under control, and having also subdued the mind, one should accomplish all his purposes, taking care not to injure his body. — (100)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse sums up the section.

Even though the Mind also is an ‘organ’ yet it is mentioned separately by reason of its importance.

‘Grama,’ ‘host,’ means group.

Having brought under subjection the organs and the Mind, ‘me should accomplish’ — bring about — ‘all his purposes’ — all those results that are accomplished by means of rites laid down in Śrutis and Smṛtis.

‘Not injuring’ — causing pain to — his body.

‘Yogataḥ,’ ‘taking care,’ — i.e., by careful means. This is added with a view to such cases in which a person with delicate constitution suffers great pain if, all on a sudden, he takes to such austere ways of living as sleeping upon hard beds and wearing the deer-skin and so forth. The sense is that people, who are accustomed to well-cooked and delicious food, and to soft beds, etc., should not abandon these all at once; they should only gradually accustom themselves to things other than those they are accustomed to.

The term ‘Yoga’ may stand for well-graduated activity. In this sense the epithet ‘Yogataḥ is to be construed with ‘having brought under control.’

Or, we may construe the epithet just as it stands, the meaning being that ‘he should have recourse to such methods as not to injure his body.’ That is, he should not hurriedly renounce what may be necessary for his body.

Or again, ‘Yoga’ may stand for care; and the ‘tasi’ affix in this case has the sense of the instrumental; the sense being ‘he should protect his body with care.’ — (100)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Yogataḥ’ — (a) ‘By careful means’ (construed with ‘akṣiṇvan’ or ( b) ‘gradually’ (construed with ‘vaśekṛtvā’) — (Medhātithi); — ‘By the practice of yoga’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 122).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vyāsa-ṣmrti (4.13), (also Vṛddha Śātātapa, 61). — ‘Having brought his senses under control, wherever a man may live, — that place is Kurukṣetra, Naimiṣa and Puṣkara.’

Vyāsasmṛti (4. 60-61). — ‘One does not become heroic by obtaining victory in battle; nor does he become learned by study; nor an orator by mere eloquence; nor liberal by making gifts of wealth; by conquering the organs does one become heroic; by following Dharma, learned, — by truthfulness, an orator; and liberal, by doing good to all beings.’

Vaśiṣṭha-smṛti (25. 8). — ‘Wisdom is attained by Yoga; Yoga is the characteristic of Dharma; Yoga is ever the highest penance; therefore one should be always addicted to Yoga.’

Bhagavadgītā (5. 28). — ‘The wise man, having his senses, Manas and Buddhi under control, having his heart fixed upon Liberation, with all his desires, fear and auger gone, — is ever free.’

VERSE 2.101 [Twilight Prayers]

Section XIX - Twilight Prayers

पूर्वां सन्ध्यां जपंस्तिष्ठेत् सावित्रीमाऽर्कदर्शनात् ।
पश्चिमां तु समासीनः सम्यग् ऋक्षविभावनात् ॥१०१॥

pūrvāṃ sandhyāṃ japaṃstiṣṭhet sāvitrīmā'rkadarśanāt |
paścimāṃ tu samāsīnaḥ samyag ṛkṣavibhāvanāt ||101||

Everyday during the earlier twilight one should stand repeating the Sāvitrī, till the sun becomes distinctly visible; and during the later twilight he should sit till the stars ark clearly seen. — (101)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Earlier twilight’ is that when the morning is ahead; and the ‘later twilight’ is that when the sun sets. During the former ‘one should stand, repeating the Sāvitrī; i.e., rising from the seat, one should desist from moving and continue to remain at the same place. The ‘Sāvitrī’ has already been described as the verse ‘tatsavitur varenyam’; and it is this verse that has been referred to in the verse 2.78 laying down the pronouncing of the syllable ‘om,’ etc., in connection with the reciting of the Twilight Prayers.

‘Till the sun is visible’ — till the blessed God Sun becomes seen.

The present verse contains the injunction of the Repeating (of the Sāvitrī) and the Standing.

Question: — “What is the use of laying down the limit? The ‘twilight’ naturally ceases at sun-rise. For the very definition of ‘Twilight’ is that ‘it is that time during which darkness is not all gone, nor is light quite complete.’ It is also thus described — ‘When there is brightness in the sky and darkness on the earth, this time has been called sacred to the Sun.’ In the Nirukta also it is said that ‘When there is ruddiness below, it is the Sāvitra time.’ In works dealing with animals also it is said — ‘From what similarity — because it is ruddy underneath, and black underneath.’ And as a matter of fact, darkness ceases entirely at sunrise. It is ‘twilight’ when the characteristics of neither day nor night have ceased. The Accusative ending in ‘Sandyām’ denotes duration; hence the meaning is that so long as the time of twilight continues he should remain standing; and after that the man is naturally free.”

In answer to this some people have held that the Accusative ending here does not denote duration, it denotes the objective itself, in accordance with the declaration of the author of the Vārtika that ‘time conies to be called the object of intransitive verbs.’ As regards Pāṇini’s rule (2.3.5) laying down the use of the Accusative in the sense of ‘duration of time and space,’ it refers either to (1) such sentences as do not contain a verb signifying some action, — e.g., ‘the river crooked for two miles (krośam),’ ‘blessed throughout the night (sarva- rātram),’ — or (2) where the verb used is a transitive one, — e.g., ‘the book is studied for a month (māsam).’ In the present instance however, in the sentence ‘pūrvām sandhyām tiṣṭhet,’ — the root ‘sthū’ is intransitive. Hence the injunction in the text must be taken as meant to imply simply that the acts of standing and sitting should be done during the two Twilights. The precise time for the beginning of the acts is not directly laid down; for the simple reason that it is already implied: the time for the beginning of the enjoined act is the same as that of the period of ‘twilight.’ This period of ‘twilight’ is not a lengthy one, like that of the ‘Full Moon Day’ and the like; so that if there were any delay (in the beginning), the time would be difficult to detect; because the time falling between the end of night and the beginning of day is extremely subtle, and the sequence between these two is as difficult to discern as that between the rising of one and the dipping of another pan of the weighing scale. The Sun-god is extremely swift in his movements; and the time intervening between his passing from one zodiacal sign and entering into another has been regarded by astronomers to be a mere ‘truṭi,’ infinitesimal Similarly with the rising and setting of the Sun as indicating the beginning and end of the day. Before sun-rise it is ‘Night,’ and after sun-rise it is ‘Day’; and under this explanation there is no such time as ‘Twilight’; the rising of the sun h aving put an end to the night. It is for this reason that the performance is begun at times approximating to sunrise and sunset; and it ceases as soon as either the sun or the stars become distinctly visible. And hence one who continues the performance during such time is regarded as having fulfilled the injunction at the proper time. Thus what is meant by ‘Twilight’ here is just that time which is ‘Sāvitra’ — pertaining to the Sun, — and not that infinitesimal point of time postulated in astronomical works, which has been referred to above.

Objection. — “If this is so, then the offering of Twilight Prayers becomes impossible for those for whom the said time is exactly at which they perform their Agnihotra.”

Answer. — What is this objection? In the first place it is only right that what is enjoined in the Smṛti (i.e., the Twilight Prayers) should be set aside by what is enjoined in the Śruti (i.e., the Agnihotra). But as a matter of fact, there is no incompatibility between the two acts; for the Agnihotra-oblations (laid down by Śruti) could very well be offered by one while he is standing or sitting (which two acts are enjoined by the present verse).

“But it is not only standing and sitting that are enjoined by the present text; the repeating of the threefold Mantra is also prescribed. So that while one is repeating the (according to the present verse), how could he, at the same time, recite the Mantras prescribed in connection with the Agnihotra - oblations?”

Well, in that case, the repeating (of the Sāvitrī, etc.) might be set aside; but there would be no such incompatibility in connection with the acts of standing and sitting, which are the principal factors in the present injunction. And in accordance with the principle enunciated in Jaimini’s Sūtra (10. 2. 63), it is only right that the act of repeating the Sāvitrī, — which is only a subordinate factor — should be set aside. That the acts of standing and sitting are the principal factors is shown by the fact that the injunctive words ‘tiṣṭhet, (should stand) ‘āsīta’ (‘should sit’) directly enjoin those acts only; and that the repeating of the Sāvitrī is the subordinate factor is shown by the fact that it is spoken of by means of the present participial epithet (‘japan,’ ‘repeating’), which shows that it is only a qualifying adjunct. And the real connection with the injunction is of the acts of standing and sitting only; as is also made clear by what follows in the next two verses.

Some people have held that in the present context standing is the subordinate and the act of repeating the predominant factor, as it is from the latter that we have read of results following (in verse 78).

In answer to this we make the following observations: The present context is not intended for persons moved by personal desires; hence why should the text speak of any desirable results? As regards the misconception that people h ave regarding the declaration in verse 78 — ‘He becomes endowed with Vedic merit’ — describing the syllable ‘om,’ etc., as being a description of results, — this we have already disposed of under that context. Hence we conclude that in the present context, standing and sitting are the predominant factors.

Or, it may be that those who perforin the Agnihotra shall recite the Sāvitrī only once, or shall repeat it thrice; and this much of it will not interfere with the time prescribed for the Agnihotra. [Just as even though it is stated that ‘in the evening one becomes free by muttering prayers for a long time,’ yet this does not interfere with the performance of the Agnihotra. The term ‘aśna’ stands for long time.] And yet the said recitation of the Sāvitrī would accomplish the purpose of the Twilight Prayers; specially as the assertion that the repeating is to go on till the sun is seen is only a subordinate factor in the Injunction (and hence need not be necessarily followed).

[The above applies to such Agnihotrins only as have adopted the time before sun-rise for their offerings.] As for those who have adopted the time after sunrise, (the difficulty does not arise, and) the Agnihotra-oblations would naturally be offered after the Twilight Prayers have been offered.

Gautama (2.17) speaks of the two Twilight Prayers as to be offered ‘(a) while the stars are still visible (at dawn) and (b) till such time as the stars become visible (after sunset)’; and all that this means is that the time described is to be regarded as ‘Twilight’; and it does not mean that this time mentioned is part of the Injunction; nor does it follow that the Sāvitrī is to be repeated during the whole of the time stated. Just as in the case of the Injunction ‘One should offer sacrifices on the full-moonday,’ it does not mean that the act of sacrificing is to be repeated during all the time comprised in the time mentioned; exactly in the same manner, when we have such assertions as that “the Earlier Twilight-Prayers are to be repeated while the stars are visible, and the later ones while the sun is still visible,” — all that is meant is the definition of the two times; the meaning being that ‘such and such a time is what is meant by the term Twilight; and it is at that time that the Twilight-Prayers should be offered.’ Thus then, the term ‘Twilight’ standing for the period of time mentioned, if one should perform the standing or sitting and mantra-ref tenting for only a minute, or for any three or four points of time, he will have accomplished what is prescribed by the Injunction.

The term ‘Sadā,’ ‘Every day,' signifies the compulsory character of the act; and it is to be taken as pertaining to both Twilights.

‘Should sit’; — ‘sitting’ standing for any position other than standing, the meaning is that he should be seated.

‘Ṛkṣa’ means stars. ‘Ā’ — i.e., till — they are seen; — the ‘ā’ (‘till’) occurring in connection with ‘arkadarśanāt’ (in the first time) should be construed also along with ‘ṛkṣavibhāvanāt.’

‘Samyak,’ ‘clearly,’ qualifies both ‘darśana’ and ‘vibhāvana’; the sense being — (a) ‘when the sun is seen clearly, — i.e., the whole disc becomes visible,’ — and (b) ‘when the stars are bright, shining in their full splendour, and not dimmed by the stronger light of the sun.’ — (101)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (p. 121, 1. 26) — ‘Gautamena tu.’ The complete Sutra of Gautama is as follows tiṣṭhet pūrvāmāsīta uttarāṃ sajyotiṣyājyotiṣo darśanāt vāgyataḥ (2. 17)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 447); — also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 281) as laying down the necessity of japa; — and in Hemādri (Śirāddha, p. 695).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Dakṣa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 267). — ‘The junction of Day and Night, devoid of the Sun, and the Stars, is called the Twilight.’

Dakṣa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 269). — ‘Two nādis at the end of night is the beginning of the Twilight; and the appearance of the first streak of the sun is its end.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2. 17. — ‘The morning prayers should be offered while the stars are still visible, and the Evening Prayers, before the stars become visible, — the man being seated and speech held in check.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, (4.2. 10,12,13). — ‘The Morning Prayers should be offered by one seated facing the East; — it may be begun before sunrise, but it should be completed as soon as the sun has risen the Evening Prayers should he begun before sunset; it may be completed later on.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.11.30. 8). — ‘The two Twilight Prayers should be offered outside the village, with speeoh controlled.’

Vaśiṣṭha-smṛti (26. 2-3). — ‘Whatever sins, in act, mind Or speech, may have been committed during the day, — the man casts off by means of Breath-suspensions during the performance of the Evening Prayers; — whatever sins...... during the day... Morning Prayers.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti (27. 2-3). — ‘Prayers during the two twilights; — the Morning one should he offered standing, and the Evening one, sitting.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 24-25). — ‘One should continue to repeat the Sāvitrī in the evening till the appearance of the stars; and in the morning till the appearance of the sun.’

Samvarta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 447). — ‘In the morning the Twilight Prayers should be offered while the stars are still visible; the Evening Prayers while the sun is still visible, being only half-set; the student should offer the morning prayers, standing, and the evening prayers, seated.

Vyāsa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 268). — Since they worship the Twilight at the time of the junction of day and night, they call it the Twilight Prayer.’

Yogi-Yājñavalkya (Parāśaramādhava, p. 268). — ‘One should offer the Twilight Prayers at the junction, not either after sunset or after sunrise.’

Taittirīya-Brāhmaṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 268). — ‘Meditating upon the sun, rising and setting, if the learned Brāhmaṇa offer the Prayers, he obtains all that is good.’

Śaṅkha (Parāśaramādhava, p. 275). — ‘The Morning Twilight is accompanied by stars, and the Evening one by the sun; both these one should observe.’

VERSE 2.102

Section XIX - Twilight Prayers

पूर्वां सन्ध्यां जपंस्तिष्ठन्नैशमेनो व्यपोहति ।
पश्चिमां तु समासीनो मलं हन्ति दिवाकृतम् ॥१०२॥

pūrvāṃ sandhyāṃ japaṃstiṣṭhannaiśameno vyapohati |
paścimāṃ tu samāsīno malaṃ hanti divākṛtam ||102||

One who, during the morning-twilight, repeats (the Sāvitrī) standing, removes the sin of the (preceding) night; while he who, during the evening-Twilight, repeats it seated, destroys the sin committed during the day. — (102).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse describes the motive for the act in question.

‘Sin’ — the guilt born of having recourse to such acts as are prohibited.

‘Removes’ — sets aside.

‘Of the night’ — that which comes about — is committed — during the night.

The term ‘malam’ is synoymous with ‘enaḥ.’

This cannot mean that the act under question is sufficient expiation for all the sin that one may have committed during the night and day. For if it were so, then there would be no point in the prescribing of the Kṛcchra and other specific expiating rites; for the simple reason that — ‘when one can find honey in a frequented place why should he go to the mountain?’ — as the well known saying has it. All that the present verse means is that the act removes just those minor sins that one might commit by chance (not habitually), or which could not be avoided, — for which no specially expiatory rites arc prescribed. For instance, when a sleeping man throws about his arms or turns upon his sides, he might cause the death of small insects; or ho may, during sleep, happen to scratch his private parts, the unnecessary touching of which has been prohibited; or the uncleanliness that might be caused by the flowing out of saliva, which is not cleaned immediately; or the having recourse to prohibited things at improper times. It is in view of such minor sins that we have the assertion that ‘the man who does not offer the Twilight-Prayers should at all times be regarded as unclean.

The mention of such results following from the act in question does not deprive it of its compulsory character; as the sins described are always liable to be committed. For instauce, during the day also while passing on the road one comes across strange women, and looks at their faces, and h as his mind affected by emotions arising therefrom; or, he may happen to talk in anger, or of indecent things; — all such sins are removed by the performance of the two Twilight-Prayers. — (102)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 257) as eulogising the Twilight Prayer, — where ‘malam’ is explained as sin.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (26. 2. 8). — (See under 101.)

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2. 4. 18-21). — ‘The sin committed through the reproductive organs, through the feet, through the arms, through the mind, through speech, — from all this one becomes absolved by offering the Evening Prayers. If one offers the Evening Prayers, him Varuṇa captures not. Similarly by offering the Morning Prayers, one becomes absolved from sins committed during the night.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 278). — ‘Those who constantly observe the Twilight have their sins removed;... whatever sin is committed during the day, by act, mind and word, all that one destroys by means of the Evening Prayers and by Breath-control; whatever sin is committed during the night, all that one destroys by means of the Morning Prayers and by Breath-control.’

VERSE 2.103

Section XIX - Twilight Prayers

न तिष्ठति तु यः पूर्वां नौपास्ते यश्च पश्चिमाम् ।
स शूद्रवद् बहिष्कार्यः सर्वस्माद् द्विजकर्मणः ॥१०३॥

na tiṣṭhati tu yaḥ pūrvāṃ naupāste yaśca paścimām |
sa śūdravad bahiṣkāryaḥ sarvasmād dvijakarmaṇaḥ ||103||

But he who does not stand during the morning-twilight, and who does not sit through the evening-twilight, should be excluded, like the Sśūdra, from all that is due to twice-born persons. — (103)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse, describing the evil accruing from the non-performance of the Twilight-Prayers, serves to emphasise the compulsory character of these.

He who does not keep standing during the morning-twilight and who does not keep seated during the evening-twilight, should be regarded as a Śūdra.

‘From all that is due to twice-born persons’; — i.e., entertaining as a guest, honouring, offering of gifts and so forth. — ‘He should be excluded,’ — i.e., discarded.

For this reason, in order to avoid being treated as a Śūdra one should observe the Twilight Prayers every day.

This verse also points out the motive behind the performance; and standing and seating during the repeating of the Sāvitrī are the acts enjoined in the present context; and that act is to be regarded as of primary importance with which the motive happens to be connected; so that all the rest of what is said in the present connection is only subsidiary and of secondary importance. — (103)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Ācāra, p. 258), — where ‘Dvijakarma’ is explained as studying and the rest, — as precluding the neglector of Twilight Prayers from all Brahmanical functions.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2.4.15). — ‘Here are two verses recited by Prajāpati — One who does not worship the Morning Twilight before its advent, and who does not worship the Evening Twilight before its lapse, — how can they be regarded as Brāhmaṇa? Those Brāhmaṇas who worship not the Morning and Evening Twilights, them the righteous king would be free to employ in the works of Śūdras.’

Dakṣa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 268). — ‘The man devoid of the Twilight Prayers is unclean and unfit for all rites.’

Gobhila (Parāśaramādhava, p. 278). — ‘One who knows not, and observes not the Twilight Prayers, — while living — he remains a Śūdra, and on death becomes born as a dog.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 278). — ‘Those who observe not the Morning or Evening Prayers, those evil-minded ones fall into the darkest hell.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 379). — ‘If one neglects the Twilight Prayers, and devotes his attention to other acts, he falls into ten thousand hells.’

Yājñavalkya (Parāśaramādhava, p. 379). — ‘If a Brāhmaṇa, except when he is ill, omits the Twilight Prayers, he incurs sin and is despised in the world.’

Atri (Parāśaramādhava, p. 379). — ‘Those who, while in good health, observe not the Twilight Prayers, — are wicked and injure the sun.’

VERSE 2.104

Section XIX - Twilight Prayers

अपां समीपे नियतो नैत्यकं विधिमास्थितः ।
सावित्रीमप्यधीयीत गत्वाऽरण्यं समाहितः ॥१०४॥

apāṃ samīpe niyato naityakaṃ vidhimāsthitaḥ |
sāvitrīmapyadhīyīta gatvā'raṇyaṃ samāhitaḥ ||104||

Convinced of the necessary character of the injunction, and retiring to the forest on a spot near water, one may even recite the Sāvitrī only, with a clean body and a collected mind. — (104)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This is another injunction in connection with Vedic study; and as what is here stated has not been mentioned in any other context, the ‘study’ herein laid down must be different from that ‘study’ which is undertaken for the purpose of getting up the Text.

‘Forest’ — stands for some solitary spot outside the village; — ‘retiring’ to such a spot; — ‘near water’ — on the bank of a river or tank, etc.; or in the absence of these, even near water contained in the water-pot and such other vessels.

‘Niyataḥ' — may mean either ‘with clean body,’ or‘with due effort.’

‘Samāhitaḥ,’ ‘with collected mind,’ — i.e., free from all mental distractions.

‘One may even recite the Sāvitrī,’ — i.e., if on account of the interference of some sort of business, he is unable to recite many hymns or sections or chapters.

‘Convinced of the necessary character of the injunction.’ — ‘Naityaka’ is the same as ‘nitya.’ — Having made up his mind that the injunction is a compulsory one.

The injunction of studying the Veda for the purpose of getting up the Text forms the ‘archetype’; and of that the present injunction is the ‘ectype,’ and as such it includes all the details of the former; so that the rules regarding the pronouncing of the syllable ‘om’ at the beginning of Vedic Study (laid down in 74) and the sitting upon Kuśa-grass with ends pointing towards the East (laid down in 75), appertain to the present injunction also.

Others have explained the term ‘vidhi’ to stand for ‘vidhā,’ method, procedure; the meaning (of the phrase ‘naityakam vidhimāsthitaḥ’) being ‘taking his stand upon the procedure laid down for the study of the Veda, which is necessary for, — must be done by — the Religious Student.’ The compulsory character of this method would have to be deduced from what follows in verse 106 below, regarding ‘this being called Brahmasatra.’

The former explanation appears to be the right one; for as a matter of fact, the term ‘vi dhi’ is not known to be denotative of method. Further, if the term ‘naityakam’ stands for what should be done by the Religious Student, then the same term as occurring in verse 106 will also have to be taken in the same sense; and in that case the prohibition of ‘non-study’ therein contained would come to apply to the same, — i.e., to that which must be done by the Religious Student (which is absurd). — (101)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 312), as laying down the place and other details in connection with the Twilight’ Prayers; — in Madanapārijāta (p. 281); in Aparārka (p. 70), as indicating that in the event of the man being unable to perform the entire Brahmayajña he may do it by means of the Sāvitrī alone; and again on p. 136; — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 38a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vyāsa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 275). — ‘In the house, the Twilight prayer is onefold; in cow-pen, tenfold; on the river ten-thousandfold; near Viṣṇu, it is infinite.’

Mahābhārata (Parāśaramādhava, p. 275). — ‘Twilight prayer is tenfold, when performed outside, near a tank or a stream; at a sacred tîrtha, it is a hundredfold; and thousandfold on the bank of the Ganges.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2. 5. 14-15), — ‘They declare that the Praṇava, the Vyāhṛtis and the Sāvitrī, — the five Brahmic Sacrifices, — all this done daily absolves the Brāhmaṇa from sins. — Being purified by the five Brahmic Sacrifices they appease the lords.’

Śātātapa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 276). — ‘Lying, smell of liquor, sexual intercourse during the day, eating of Śūdra’s food, — all these sins are removed by offering the Twilight Prayer outside.’

Śātātapa (Parāśaramādhava 6. 6. 7). — ‘Daily he should carry on Vedic Study beginning with the Praṇava; thus does he fulfil the Brahmic Sacrifice; — Vedic Study constituting the Brahmic Sacrifice.’

VERSE 2.105 [Non-observance of Holidays]

Section XX - Non-observance of Holidays

वेदौपकरणे चैव स्वाध्याये चैव नैत्यके ।
नानुरोधोऽस्त्यनध्याये होममन्त्रेषु चैव हि ॥१०५॥

vedaupakaraṇe caiva svādhyāye caiva naityake |
nānurodho'styanadhyāye homamantreṣu caiva hi ||105||

There is no regard for (observance of) days forbidden for study in connection with the appurtenances to the Veda, and with the mantras recited during oblations. — (105)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Appurtenance’ is that which helps; i.e., aids to Vedic study; the subsidiary treatises on Kalpasūtra, Nirukta and so forth. When these are being studied, no regard — no attention — need he paid to ‘days forbidden for study’; similarly with the Mantras recited during oblations, — holidays need not be observed; that, is, all this study should he carried on also during the days forbidden for study.

Another reading (for ‘anurodhaḥ’) is ‘nīrodhaḥ,’ meaning ‘cessation’; the meaning being that even on ‘days forbidden for study’ there is no cessation of the study of what are specified in the verse.

Though it is one of the necessary conditions of the injunction of ‘study’ that there should be no study on holidays, and this injunction pertains to the ‘study’ of ‘Svādhyāya,’ which is Veda, — and the subsidiary treatises are not called ‘Veda,’ — yet people might be led to think that these latter also are interspersed with passages from the Veda; hence the Text makes it quite clear.

Or, the ‘subsidiary treatises’ may he taken only as an instance; the sense being that ‘just as there is no holiday in the case of the subsidiary Treatises so is there none in the case of the Veda also.’

‘With Mantras recited during oblations’; — i.e., those Mantras that are recited during the Agnihotra-oblations, or those recited during the Sāvitra and other propitiatory oblations. All this is merely by way of illustration. This fact, which is fully sustained by reason, is explained here for the benefit of persons who might think that the rule regarding the ceasing of study on holidays pertains to the uttering of any and every Vedie passage, such as the Mantras included under the ‘śaśvat-japa’ and ‘Praiṣas,’ — all which form the subject-matter of the injunction of Vedic Study, — and might conclude that on the Caturdaśī and such other holidavs, even the Mantras in connection with oblations should not be recited. As a matter of fact, the observing of holidays laid down in connection with Vedic Study prescribed by the injunction of Study does not pertain to all Veda; and there are no holidays in connection with Mantras recited during the performance of religious rites.

‘In connection with the daily study of the Veda’; — i.e., in connection with that study of the Veda which has been enjoined in a preceding text as compulsory for men in all stages of life. — (105)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 149), as an exception to the rule mentioning certain days as ‘unfit for study’; — and the term ‘upakaraṇa’ is explained as aṅgāni, ‘the subsidiary sciences’; and the ‘nitya-svādhyāya’ as that reciting of Vedic texts which constitutes the ‘Brahmayajña’. The same work quotes it again (on p. 314) as precluding the Brahmayajña from the scope of the rule prohibiting the reading of Vedic texts on certain days.

It is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (I, p. 534) as embodying an exception to the rule regarding days unfit for study; — and again in II, p. 262 as embodying an eulogy on Brahmayajña; — also in Madanapārijāta (p. 105) as laying down a case where the rules relating to time unfit for study do not apply; — and also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 537), as the foremost exception to the rules regarding days unfit for study.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 137), where ‘vedopakaraṇa’ is explained as ‘vedāṅga’; — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 141), which construes the passage as ‘vedopakaraṇe naityake nānadhyāyaḥ,’ as otherwise there would be conflict with other texts; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, pp. 148 and 162) which adds the following notes: ‘Vedopakaraṇa’ are the Vedāṅgas — ‘nitya-svādhyāya’ is Brahmayajña; — in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 775); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 59), which supplies the same explanation of ‘nityasvādhyāya’; — and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 338), which explains ‘Vedopakaraṇa’ as the Vedaṇgas, and notes that the singular number is used since the noun is treated as a class-name.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 105-106)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2. 4. 12. 9). — ‘There are forbidden days for study, but none for the reciting of Mantras during religious acts.’

Śaunaka (Parāśaramādhava, p. 149). — ‘For the compulsory recitation, for sacrifices, for a certain purpose and for the repetition of the texts, there are no forbidden days for the Vedas; nor in the reciting or imparting of Mantras.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (4. 12. 3). — ‘Vedic study is Brahma-Yajña.’

Śaunaka (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 537). — ‘There are no forbidden days for the Daily Sacrifices, nor for the subsidiary Sciences, nor for sacrificial performances, nor for the repeating of lessons, nor in the receiving of Mantras. There is no day forbidden for the reciting of Mantras in the worshipping of gods.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 538). — ‘There is no day forbidden for the Obligatory Rites, nor in the offering of Twilight Prayers, nor in the Upākarma rites, nor in the reciting of the Homa-mantras... There are no forbidden Days for the study of the Subsidiary Sciences, or of Itihāsas and Purāṇas... One should always study the Brahmavidyā, and repeat the Sāvitrī, the Śatarudriya Hymn and also the Vedanta texts.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 150). — ‘There is no day forbidden for the study of the Subsidiary Sciences, or of Itihāsas and Purāṇas, or of the Dharmaśāstras. But these should be avoided on the Parva days.’

VERSE 2.106

Section XX - Non-observance of Holidays

नैत्यके नास्त्यनध्यायो ब्रह्मसत्रं हि तत् स्मृतम् ।
ब्रह्माहुतिहुतं पुण्यमनध्यायवषट् कृतम् ?? ॥१०६॥

naityake nāstyanadhyāyo brahmasatraṃ hi tat smṛtam |
brahmāhutihutaṃ puṇyamanadhyāyavaṣaṭ kṛtam ?? ||106||

There is no “day forbidden for study” in regard to the daily recitation; since this has been called “Brahmasatra”; it is meritorious, being offered with the offering of study, and being maintained by the syllable “vaṣaṭ” in the shape of the recitation made on forbidden days. — (106)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse supplies the valedictory supplement to the foregoing Injunction.

For the following reason, ‘in regard to the daily recitation, there is no day forbidden for study,’ because ‘it has been called Brahmasatra.’ That is called ‘Satra’ which is performed continuously; just as the Satra continues to be performed for thousand years and more without a break — and the sacrifice consisting of Vedic Study also is a Satra; and because it is a Satra, there should he no break in it; for if there were a break, it would cease to be ‘Satra.’

That the Recitation is a Satra is further explained by means of a metaphor. (1) This Satra is offered with the offering of ‘Brahman’ — i.e., study; just as the ordinary Satra is offered with the offering of Soma. The root ‘hu’ in this connection stands for unceasing offering, verbal roots being capable of several significations. The term * Brahma’ indicates the act of study pertaining to the Veda. The ‘study of Brahma’ is like an ‘offering’; this compound (‘Brahmā-huti’) being in accordance with Pāṇini 2.1.50.

The recitation that is done on the forbidden days supplies the place of the syllable ‘v aṣaṭ.’ In the ordinary Satra, at the end of each Yājyā-hymn tho continuity is maintained by the uttering of the syllable ‘vaṣat’; and in the same manner, the continuity of ‘Vedic Study’ is maintained by the recitation that is made on the Caturdaśī and other forbidden days; and this recitation therefore takes the place of the syllable ‘vaṣaṭ.’

The term ‘vaṣat’ here indicates the syllable ‘vauṣaṭ.’

The Satra is ‘maintained — i.e.’, accomplished — by this syllable. The compound (‘vaṣaṭkṛtam’) being in accordance with Pāṇini 2.1.32. — (106)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“The last clause of verse 106 finds its explanation by the passage from, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa quoted by Āpastamba, 1. 12. 3.” — Buhler.

Neither Buhler’s, nor Burnell’s, nor Hopkins’ rendering of the verse is in keeping with the explanation provided by Medhātithi or Kullūka.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 282) along with 105, as setting forth an exception to the rules regarding days unfit for study; — in Aparārka (p. 137); — and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 775).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 105-106)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.105 (Non-observance of Holidays).

VERSE 2.107

Section XX - Non-observance of Holidays

यः स्वाध्यायमधीतेऽब्दं विधिना नियतः शुचिः ।
तस्य नित्यं क्षरत्येष पयो दधि घृतं मधु ॥१०७॥

yaḥ svādhyāyamadhīte'bdaṃ vidhinā niyataḥ śuciḥ |
tasya nityaṃ kṣaratyeṣa payo dadhi ghṛtaṃ madhu ||107||

He who, clean and self-controlled, recites the Veda, in due form, for one year, — for him this constantly fours out milk, curd, clarified butter and honey. — (107)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This also is supplementary to the Injunction under consideration. The Injunction has been understood to be a compulsory one; and the mention of results in connection with compulsory injunctions is purely valedictory; nor do we find any Injunctive affix (in the present verse); so that the principle enunciated in the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1.3.5 not applying to the present case, the mention of ‘milk, curd and the rest’ could not be taken as laying down a fresh motive for another action; and when the compulsory character of the Injunction has been ascertained, the principle of the ‘also is not applicable; so tbat ‘milk’ and the rest could not be regarded as of any use. For all these reasons the passage must be regarded as a purely valedictory description; and it is based upon the fact that one who studies the Veda regularly becomes famous among people, and hence becoming the recipient of gifts of cattle, be naturally obtains large quantities of milk, etc.

‘Svādhyāya’ — Veda; — ‘udhīte’ — recites; — ‘for one year’ — for one full year ; — ‘in due form,’ — i.e., seated upon Kuśa-grass with its tips pointing eastwards; — ‘self-controlled,’ — i.e., with the organs under bis full control; — ‘clean’ — by means of bathing, etc.,; ‘for him’ — for that man; — ‘constantly’ — as long as he lives; — ‘pours out’ — makes to flow, supplies; — ‘this’ — recitation; — ‘milk, curd, etc.’

Others hold that the terms ‘payaḥ’ (‘milk’) and the rest stand respectively for Merit, Worldly Prosperity, Pleasure and Pinal Liberation. Merit is called ‘milk’ because the two are similar in the point of purity; Worldly Prosperity is called ‘curd,’ because it resembles the latter in being a source of strengthening the body; Pleasure is called ‘clarified butter,’ because of the resemblance consisting in both containing ‘Sneha’ (smoothness); Pinal Liberation is called ‘honey’ because it combines in one all flavours. The meaning thus is that all the purposes of man are accomplished in a single year, what to say of the study being continued for a longer time!

As the whole passage is purely valedictory, we need not be very particular as to what is the right signification of the terms ‘milk’ and the rest. — (107)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Payo dadhi ghṛtam madhu’ — stand respectively for Merit, Wealth, Pleasure and Final Release, according to Nārāyaṇa and Nandana. Medhātithi notes this explanation as provided by ‘others.’

Medhātithi (p. 124, 1. 15) — ‘Ekasya tūhhayatve’ — This is Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 4. 3. 4. There are two texts — ‘makes an offering of curd’ and ‘for the benefit of one desiring sense-organs, one should sacrifice with curd’; the question that arises is whether these two texts lay down two distinct acts, or both conjointly enjoin a single act; and the conclusion is that the two acts are distinct.

This principle, Medhātithi argues, is not applicable to the present case; the mention of the four distinct substances cannot he taken as supplying the motive for four distinct acts.

Medhātithi (p. 124,1. 16) — ‘Rātrisatranyāyaḥ’ — This is enunciated in Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 4. 3. 17 et seq. In connection with the Rātrisatra sacrifice, it has been held that it is conducive to ‘respectability,’ even though this is a result mentioned in an Arthavāda passage. This principle also is not applicable to the present case where the necessary motive is provided by the compulsory character of the act.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (30. 34-38). — ‘When one recites the Ṛk verses, he satisfies the Pitṛs with clarified butter; — when he recites the Yajuṣ verse, he satisfies them with honey; — when he recites the Sāma verses, he satisfies them with milk; — when he recites the Atharva verses, he satisfies them with meat; — when he reads the Purāṇas, the Itihāsas, the Vedic Subsidiary Sciences and the Dharmaśāstras, — he satisfies them with grain-food.’

Yājñavalkya-Smṛti (1. 41-47). — ‘One who daily reads the Ṛk verses satisfies the gods and the Pitṛs with honey and clarified butter; — he who reads the Yajuṣ verses every day, to the best of his ability, satisfies the gods with clarified butter and the Pitṛs with clarified butter and honey; — he who reads the Sāma verses daily satisfies the gods with Soma and clarified butter, and the Pitṛs with honey and clarified butter; — he who daily reads the Atharvāñgiras texts satisfies the gods with fat and the Pitre with honey and clarified butter; — he who to the best of his capacity, daily reads the Vākovākya, Purāṇa, the Narāśamsī hymns, ītihāsa and the Sciences, satisfies the gods with meat, milk, rice and honey, and the Pitṛs with honey and clarified butter — all these being satisfied endow him with all kinds of prosperity.’

Āpastamba-Gṛhyasūtra (3. 3. 2-3). — ‘When one reads the Ṛk verses he satisfies the gods with offerings of milk; — when he reads the Yajuṣ verses, with offerings of clarified butter; — when he reads the Sāma verses, with offerings of honey; — when he reads the Atharvāñgiras verses, with offerings of Soma; — when he reads the Brāhmaṇas, the Kalpas, the Nārāśamsī hymns, the Itihāsas and the Purāṇas, — with offerings of nectar. When he reads the Ṛk verses, streams of milk reach his Pitṛs; — when he reads the Yajuṣ verses, streams of clarified butter; — when he reads the Sāma verses, streams of honey; — when he reads the tharvāúgiras verses, streams of Soma; — when he reads the Brāhmaṇas, the Kalpas, the Nārāśamsī hymns, the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, streams of nectar.’

VERSE 2.108 [Continuation of the Duties of the Initiated Boy]

Section XXI - Continuation of the Duties of the Initiated Boy

अग्नीन्धनं भैक्षचर्यामधःशय्यां गुरोर्हितम् ।
आ समावर्तनात् कुर्यात् कृतोपनयनो द्विजः ॥१०८॥

agnīndhanaṃ bhaikṣacaryāmadhaḥśayyāṃ gurorhitam |
ā samāvartanāt kuryāt kṛtopanayano dvijaḥ ||108||

The twice-born person, whose Initiation has been performed, should continue to do, till the final Bath of “Return” (Samāvartana), tub kindling of fire, the begging of food, the sleeping on the ground and the acting for the teacher’s well- being. — (108)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The kindling of fire’ — i.e., setting the fire aflame every morning and evening by supplying fuel to it.

‘Sleeping on the ground’; — i.e., not ascending a bedstead, not actually sleeping on the hare ground.

‘Teacher’s well-being,’ — i.e., service consisting of the fetching of water in jars and such other work. As for the doing of things beneficial to him, this is to be done throughout life.

All this should be done till that Final Bath, which consists in returning from the Teacher’s house, and which constitutes the end of Religious Studentship; for the simple reason that all this is included in the Injunction of ‘Vedic Study.’ As a matter of fact, the life of the ‘student’ and its appurtenant details have to continue till the Veda is completely got up; so that as soon as this getting up is done, the discontinuance of the details follows as a matter of course.

The reiteration of the ‘kindling of fire’ and other duties in the present verse is meant to indicate that the duties other than those — which have been previously prescribed for students — are incumbent upon persons in the succeeding stages of life also (and are not confined to the ‘student’ only). As says Gautama (3.9), — ‘All this is not incompatible with the succeeding stages of life.’

“But why cannot we have this that the duties specified in the present verse are to continue during the whole studentship stage, while others might be discontinued even beforehand?”

The opinion of other Smṛtis on this point has been already shown to be that all rules are laid down in connection with their principal time; (and this time in the present case being the entire studentship-stage) if the course just suggested were adopted (and some of the present duties were dropped before the end of that stage), we would be needlessly going against this principle.

In place of the expression ‘gurorhitam’ the right form would have been ‘gurave hitam’ in the Dative, accordingly to Pāṇini 2.1.36, which lays down the use of the Dative in connection with the term ‘hita.’ — (108)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Āsamāvartanāt ’ — See 3. 3-4.

This verse, is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra. p. 455), as laying down the duties of the Student; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 489) as laying down the ‘ miscellaneous duties ’ of the Student; — and in Aparārka (p. 76), as laying down the time-limit up to which the fire-tending and other functions have to be kept up.

‘Acting for the teacher’s well-being.’ The details of this have been described by Hārīta, quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 490) — ‘By fetching of water, Kuśa-grass, flowers, fuel, roots, fruits, sweeping and washing of the house, bodily service and so forth, — he should devotedly attend upon the Teacher, whose cast off clothes, bed and seat he should never step over.’

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 46a); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 118), which adds that those mentioned here indicate the other duties also.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2. 1. 20-21, 43). — ‘Every day he should fetch fuel from the forest and lay it; — he should rise before the Teacher and sleep after him; — during the course of his study, he should attend upon the Teacher and follow him.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 1. 2. 15). — ‘He should never bear malice towards the Teacher.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 1. 2. 11). — ‘After initiation the boy should live with the Teacher as a religious student.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.3.2. 20-21). — ‘Always doing good to the teacher, never crossing him in his words; sleeping on a lower bed.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 1. 4. 13, 14, 16). — ‘Morning and evening he should fetch a jar of water; — always he should fetch fuel from the forest and lay it down; — having kindled the fire and cleaned the place, he should lay fuel upon it, both morning and evening, in accordance with instructions.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.1. 3. 25). — ‘Morning and evening he should beg for food from people other than those that are wicked or accused of evil deeds; and after having presented to the teacher all that he obtains, he should live upon what the Teacher gives him.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (1. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11). — ‘The Religious Student shall serve the Teacher till ṭhe death of his body; — he shall keep his speech under control and having begged food, he shall take it either during the fourth or the sixth or the eighth part of the day; — he shall come to read when called; — whatever food he obtains by begging, he shall present to the Teacher, and shall eat only with his permission; — during the day, he shall avoid sleeping on the bedstead, washing the teeth, applying of collyrium to the eyes, oiling of the body, wearing of shoes and carrying of the umbrella; — he shall rest during the night.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (27. 4, 7, 9, 12). — ‘Both times he shall bathe and tend the fire; — he shall do what is good for and agreeable to the Teacher; — he shall beg alms from respectable families, but not from his Teacher’s family; — he shall sleep on the ground.’

Yājñavalkya-Smṛti (1.25,27, 28). — ‘Both morning and evening he shall attend upon the fire; — he shall always do, with his mind, speech and body what is good for his teacher; for his livelihood, he shall beg food from respectable Brāhmaṇas.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 489). — ‘The Religious Student shall always wear the girdle, the skin, the staff, the Upavīta, the loin-slip and the waist-band.’

Yama (Do. and Parāśaramādhava, p. 455). — ‘Living on food received in alms, he shall live with the Teacher, and keep the staff, the water-pot, the kuśa-bundle, muñja-girdle, and the vow of celibacy. The Religious Student shall always carry the girdle, the skin, the staff, the sacred thread, the loin-slip, and the thread round the loins.’

Vyāsa (Do.). — ‘Sleeping after the Teacher and rising before him, living in the teacher’s house, he shall do all that should be done by the pupil and the servant; he shall always stay by his side, his constant attendant; he shall not eat until the Teacher has eaten; nor shall he drink water until the Teacher has drunk it; he shall not sit while the Teacher is standing, nor sleep while he is sitting.’

Yājñavalkya (Do. 490). — ‘He shall attend upon the Teacher, for purposes of Vedic study; he shall read when he is called upon to do so: whatever he obtains in alms he shall present to the Teacher.’

Hārīta (Do.). — ‘He shall serve the Teacher by fetching water, gathering Kuśa, flowers, fuel, roots and fruits, sweeping, washing, bodily service; he shall attend upon him while he is walking, sitting or sleeping; he shall never sleep over what has been worn by him, or over his bed and seat or wear his sandals or step over his shadow.’

Āpastamba (Do.). — ‘He should be entirely subservient to the Teacher, — except as regards the degrading crimes.’

Yama (Do.). — ‘Subservient to the Teacher, not independent, living in the Teacher’s house, he shall rise before him and sleep after him; he shall keep his sleep and food under control, suppressing indolence and anger, fully self-controlled, ever attentive, free from egotism and devoted to the service of the Teacher.’

Viṣṇu (Do., p. 491). — ‘He shall never sit on the same seat with his Teacher, except upon rafts and boats.’

Sumantu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 455). — ‘Celibacy, austerity, alms-begging, fire-tending during the twilights, Vedic study, service of the Teacher, these the Religious Student shall observe.’

VERSE 2.109 [Specially qualified Pupils]

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

आचार्यपुत्रः शुश्रूषुर्ज्ञानदो धार्मिकः शुचिः ।
आप्तः शक्तोऽर्थदः साधुः स्वोऽध्याप्या दश धर्मतः ?? ॥१०९॥

ācāryaputraḥ śuśrūṣurjñānado dhārmikaḥ śuciḥ |
āptaḥ śakto'rthadaḥ sādhuḥ svo'dhyāpyā daśa dharmataḥ ?? ||109||

The teacher’s son, one who is eager to do service, one who imparts knowledge, one who is righteous, one who is clean, a near relative, one who is competent, one who gives monet, one who is gentle, and one’s own (son) — these ten should be taught for the sake of merit. — (109)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In verse 233 below the author is going to declare that ‘Of all gifts the gift of the Veda is the best’; and the question arising as to the sort of person to whom knowledge should be imparted — the present verse proceeds to describe the characteristics of the recipient of knowledge. And this contains the injunction of teaching, which is connected with the section dealing with the duties of the student.

‘The Teacher’s son.’ — ‘He who is eager to do service,’ i.e., — personal attendance, or other household work in accordance with his strength, such as rubbing the body and so forth.

‘One who imparts knowledge,’ — such knowledge as may not be known to the Teacher, but which may have been learnt somehow by the pupil; e.g., sciences dealing with property, love and the arts, or with Dharma; the teaching of suoh a pupil is by way of exchange of knowledge.

‘One who is righteous '; — he who makes it his chief business to perform the Agnihotra and such religious acts.

‘One who is clean’; — one who keeps his body clean with clay and water.

The three words ‘righteous,’ ‘clean’ and ‘gentle’ are not needless repetitions, — their use being similar to the use of such expressions as ‘go-balīvarda’ (where the second term serves to qualify the first).

‘A near relatice’ — a friend or closely related person.

‘One who is competent’ — capable of getting up and remembering texts.

‘One’s own son,’ — who has been previously ‘initiated.’

These ten, even though ‘initiated’ by others, should be taught.

“The text uses the term dharmataḥ, which means that by teaching them one acquires merit. But one who pays money clearly brings a visible benefit to the teacher; wherefore then can there be any justification for the assuming of an unseen result — in the shape of merit — in this case?”

Who says that there is to be an assumption of unseen results? There can be no assumption of what is directly stated. It has been distinctly declared tbat “these ten should be taught ‘for the sake of merit.’”

The revered teacher however says that what the term ‘dharmataḥ’ means is that what is here stated is the rule of the sacred law; by teaching these persons there is no transgression of the law. It does not mean that by imparting knowledge to one who pays money the teacher acquires the merit that results from the act of imparting knowledge. — (109)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Dharmataḥ’ — ‘According to the sacred law’ (Kullūka and Nandana); — ‘for the sake of merit’ (Medhātithi, Govindarājā and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 517) as laying down the duties of the Teacher; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 51); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 812); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 140) which explains ‘śaktaḥ’ as ‘capable of acquiring knowledge’ and ‘jñānadaḥ’ as ‘one who has imparted knowledge.’

Medhātithi (p. 125, 1. 22) — ‘Upādhyāyastu’ — This ‘Upādhyāya’ is referred to several times. He is either Medhātithi’s teacher, or an older commentator on Manu. The former is more probable.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (1.28). — ‘(1) One who is grateful, (2) who bears no hatred, (3) who is exceptionally intelligent, (4) who is clean, (5) who is not jealous, (6) who is gentle, (7) who is competent, (8) a near relative, (9) who imparts knowledge and (10) who gives money; — these should be taught for the sake of merit.’

VERSE 2.110

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

नापृष्टः कस्य चिद् ब्रूयान्न चान्यायेन पृच्छतः ।
जानन्नपि हि मेधावी जडवल्लोक आचरेत् ॥११०॥

nāpṛṣṭaḥ kasya cid brūyānna cānyāyena pṛcchataḥ |
jānannapi hi medhāvī jaḍavalloka ācaret ||110||

One should not instruct any one unless he is asked; nor any one who asks in an improper manner. even though knowing (the truth), the wise man should behave, among men, as if ignorant. — (110)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If a person, who is not his regular pupil, but is reading near him, should murder the text, or omit certain letters, or read with a wrong accent, — the learned man should not, unless he is asked to (correct), instruct the student and tell him ‘you have murdered the text, you should read it thus.’ If the reader happen to he his own pupil, then he should instruct him, even without being asked. If again the student were to ask, but ask in an improper manner, — then also he should not instruct him. The ‘proper manner’ of asking is to ask with due humility, in the manner of a pupil, with such words as — ‘in this matter I have a doubt, pray instruct me on this point.’ In cases other than this, ‘even though knowing the truth, the wise man should behave’ — continue to live — among men, ‘as if ignorant,’ — as if he were dumb; i.e., he should remain silent, as if he did not know anything.

This prohibition regarding the explaining of doubts without being asked refers to scriptural matters; as regards temporal matters, the author is going to declare that — ‘Employed or not employed (by the king) the man knowing the law should expound it.’ Others have held that the prohibition contained in the present verse applies equally to both scriptural and temporal matters. — (110)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Jaḍavat.’ — ‘Jaḍa’ is ‘dumb’ here (Medhātithi and Kullūka); — an ‘idiot’ (according to others).

This verse is quoted in Yatidharmasaṃgraha (p. 107).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (2.18). — ‘The Veda should not be taught to one who is not prepared to render such respect as lies within his power.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2.50). — ‘If a question regarding the Veda is asked without due respect, it destroys the questioner, as fire burns straw; therefore the Veda should not be expounded to those who do not render proper respect.’

VERSE 2.111

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

अधर्मेण च यः प्राह यश्चाधर्मेण पृच्छति ।
तयोरन्यतरः प्रैति विद्वेषं वाऽधिगच्छति ॥१११॥

adharmeṇa ca yaḥ prāha yaścādharmeṇa pṛcchati |
tayoranyataraḥ praiti vidveṣaṃ vā'dhigacchati ||111||

He who instructs in an unlawful manner, and he who asks in an unlawful manner, — of those two one or the other either dies (untimely), or incurs the ill-will (of the people). — (111)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present text describes the evil effects of transgressing the above prohibition.

He who instructs a pupil — ‘you should read this’ — in an unlawful manner, either when he is not asked, or when he is asked in an unlawful manner; and be also who asks in an unlawful manner; — both of these die, before time. If only one of them happens to be the transgressor, then he alone dies. When asked in an unlawful manner, if the wise man docs not explain, then the questioner dies; but if he does explain, then both of them die. This indication of the evil effects proceeding from improper questioning clearly implies that for the questioner also there is a proper manner of putting questions.

‘Or incurs the ill-will’ — enmity — of the people. — (111)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vidveṣam vādhigacchati’ — ‘Incurs the ill-will of the people’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja); — ‘loses the reward’ (Rāghavānanda); — ‘incurs the other party’s enmity’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 516), as laying down the duties of the Teacher.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (29.7) — (reproduces the words of Manu). Do., (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 516). — ‘One should not teach, or sacrifice for, a person who has not been duly tested.’

VERSE 2.112

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

धर्मार्थौ यत्र न स्यातां शुश्रूषा वाऽपि तद्विधा ।
तत्र विद्या न वप्तव्या शुभं बीजमिवौषरे ॥११२॥

dharmārthau yatra na syātāṃ śuśrūṣā vā'pi tadvidhā |
tatra vidyā na vaptavyā śubhaṃ bījamivauṣare ||112||

Where merit and wealth are not possible, nor is there an adequate desire to serve, there knowledge should not be imparted; just as healthy seed (is not sown) on barren land. — (112)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said above (in 109) that ‘these ten should be taught for the sake of merit ’; of that same injunction the present verse supplies a brief reiteration; it does not prescribe anything new, being merely elucidatory of the preceding injunction.

‘Wealth’ should be taken as standing for benefit of all kinds; since the preceding verse has spoken of teaching by way of exchange of knowledge also.

‘Adequate’; — i.e., commensurate with the teaching; there being much service it the teaching is much; and little service if the teaching is little.

‘There knowledge’; — the term ‘knowledge,’ ‘vidyā,’ stands for that by means of which all things are known; i.e., the reading of the text as well as the grasping of the meaning. The meaning is that he who does not bring any benefit should not be taught the text of the Veda, nor should the explanation of tho meaning of Vedic texts be expounded to him.

‘Ūṣara’ — stands for that plot of land where, on account of the defects in the soil, seeds do not sprout.

‘Healthy’; — corn-seeds of good variety are sown with the help of the plough, etc. Similarly knowledge also bears excellent fruits when sown (imparted) on good soil.

It should not be thought that, when one imparts knowledge when paid for it, it becomes a case of mere barter; because the action (of teaching) is not preceded by any bargaining as regards the price to be paid, such as — ‘if you give me such and such an amount, I shall impart to you such an amount of teaching’; while such bargain is the necessary condition of all ‘barter’; and the mere conferment of the slightest benefit does not constitute ‘barter.’

Though verse 215 below says that ‘one should not confer any benefit upon the teacher previously,’ — yet this does not quite prohibit the previous conferring of benefits; it is merely supplementary to the injunction that ‘when the pupil is going to take the Final Bath, he should, when asked to do so, bring for his Teacher all that may lie within his power’; and it is not an independent statement by itself. — (112)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 515), among texts laying down the Teacher’s duties; — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 523), as mentioning those who should not be taught; — in Madanapārjāta (p. 103) as mentioning certain persons not fit for teaching; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 51); — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 312), which explains the meaning to be that ‘there is no merit in teaching a heretic who neglects the prescribed duties’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 140).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 112-113)

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2.4.9). — ‘Where merit and wealth are not possible, nor is there an adequate desire to serve, there one may rather perish with his learning, than sow it on barren soil.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (29.8). — (reproduces the words of Manu 112).

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 516). — ‘Where there is no merit or wealth, nor desire to serve nor clxance of riches, — there one may perish along with his learning; he should never sow it on barren soil.’

VERSE 2.113

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

विद्ययैव समं कामं मर्तव्यं ब्रह्मवादिना ।
आपद्यपि हि घोरायां न त्वेनामिरिणे वपेत् ॥११३॥

vidyayaiva samaṃ kāmaṃ martavyaṃ brahmavādinā |
āpadyapi hi ghorāyāṃ na tvenāmiriṇe vapet ||113||

The expounder of the Veda may rather perish along with his knowledge; hut he should never sow it on barren soil, even in dike distress. — (113)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘samam’ means ‘along with.’

It is better that the ‘expounder of the Veda’ — the student of the Veda — should die along with his knowledge — unexpounded to any person, and famishing in his own body — than that it should be taught to unfit persons.

From what is here said it follows that one who has studied the Veda should also teach it as a duty, and not merely for making a living; and that it is not only a person desiring a certain result that is entitled to the teaching; just as to the giving of water and such other acts it is not only persons with some motive that arc entitled. Says the Śruti — ‘He who, having studied the Science, does not expound it to those who need it, becomes an undoer of what he has done; — one should open the door to welfare; and should teach others; this function of words the poets describe as leading to fame; all this rests in this act; those that know this become immortal.’

When the text calls the man ‘an undoer of what he has done,’ what it means is that the omission of teaching constitutes an offence; and this implies that teaching is something tbat must be done.

‘On barren soil’; — i.e., to a person in whose case none of the three purposes are fulfilled.

‘Even in dire distress’; — i.e., e ven in times of troublous calamity; the ‘distress’ here meant is the absence of properly qualified pupils.

All this would be justified only if teaching were something that must be done.

“Teaching being compulsory, if fully qualified pupils be not available, one might fulfil his duty of teaching by getting hold of substitutes, for qualified pupils; just as in the absence of Vrīhī corn, sacrifices are accomplished by means of Nīvāra corn.”

(With a view to guard against this, the text has added that) under the said circumstances — when properly qualified pupils are not available, the necessity of performing the work of teaching should cease; just as when a properly qualified guest is not available, the necessity of the duty of ‘honouring the guest’ ceases.

‘Sow’; — this term which is directly applicable to the seed, indicates figuratively the work of teaching. Just as the seed sown in the field produces a large outturn, so does knowledge also.

Others have explained ‘distress’ as standing for ‘want of wealth.’ The sense in this case being that even though the man may be in the worst of conditions, he should not sow in barren soil, he should rather die; and by so doing the man could not be transgressing the injunction that ‘one should protect himself from all dangers,’ even though he could have within his reach the means of livelihood in the shape of teaching unqualified pupils.

This explanation however is not right. The pupils who pay money cannot bo called “barren soil”; the term ‘barren soil’ being only a reference to what has gone in the preceding verses. If the ‘giver of wealth’ also were not a qualified pupil, then how could there be any chance of the teacher undertaking the work of teaching him in times of distress, — which chance is prohibited iu the present verse? — (113)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This also is quoted along with 112 in Madanapārijāta (p. 103); — also in Vīdhānapārijāta (p, 523).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verses 112-113)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.112.

VERSE 2.114

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

विद्या ब्राह्मणमेत्याह शेवधिस्तेऽस्मि रक्ष माम् ।
असूयकाय मां मादास्तथा स्यां वीर्यवत्तमा ॥११४॥

vidyā brāhmaṇametyāha śevadhiste'smi rakṣa mām |
asūyakāya māṃ mādāstathā syāṃ vīryavattamā ||114||

Learning having approached the Brāhmaṇa said to him — “I am thy wealth, guard me; impart me not unto a scorner; thus may I become extremely powerful.” — (114)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Learning’ — in an embodied form, having approached a certain teacher, said to him.

‘I am thy wealth’ — treasure — ‘guard me.’

The question arising as to what would the ‘guarding of Learning, — it is added — ‘Impart me not unto the’ — one who talks ill of, who despises. That is, never teach a scorner.

‘Thus may I become extremely powerful.’ — I shall be extremely useful to you. ‘Vīrya’, ‘power,’ here stands for great efficiency in accomplishing what is useful.

The insertion of the cerebral ‘in the phrase ‘śevadhiṣṭe smi’ is an imitation of a Vedic form. — (l14)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is an adaptation of a very much older text. Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 515) quotes this latter text as ‘śruti’ —

vidyā ha vai brāhmaṇamājagām

gopāya māṃ śevadhiṣṭe'hamasmi |
asūyakāyānṛjave apatāya

nā mām brūyāt avīryavatī tathā syām ||

Burnell and Hopkins remark as follows: — “This with verse 144, which appears to have originally followed these verses as a whole, constitutes a favourite saying of the Brāhmaṇas. These verses in an older form are quoted in the Nirukta (ii-4), and (more like this present text) they occur also in the Viṣṇu and Vaśiṣṭha Smṛtis s they also occur in Saṃhitopaniṣad-brāhmaṇa of the Sāmaveda (pp. 29-30). The older form of these two verses 114 and 115 (as well as 144) was in the Tṛṣṭup metre, as in the Smṛtis just referred to.”

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 103) — where the Amarakoṣa is quoted as explaining ‘Śevadhi’ as ‘nidhi,’ ‘treasure and ‘asūyā’ is defined as ‘tendency to fault-finding.’

It is quoted also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 523).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 114-115)

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (29.9-10),

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (2.14-15).

These authorities, along with Manu, paraphrase the text which is found in Nirukta-Naigama Kāṇḍa, 2.4.

Kūrmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, pp. 514-515). — ‘One who teaches the Vedas, the Dharma, the Purāṇas and the subsidiary sciences to one who is endowed with character and is self-controlled and is ever attentive.’

VERSE 2.115

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

यमेव तु शुचिं विद्यान्नियतब्रह्मचारिणम् । [?? विद्या नियतं ब्रह्मचारिणम्]
तस्मै मां ब्रूहि विप्राय निधिपायाप्रमादिने ॥११५॥

yameva tu śuciṃ vidyānniyatabrahmacāriṇam | [?? vidyā niyataṃ brahmacāriṇam]
tasmai māṃ brūhi viprāya nidhipāyāpramādine ||115||

“Expound me unto the Brāhmaṇa who guards his treasures and is never careless, — and whom thou knowest to be pure, self-controlled and a duly qualified student.” — (115)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That pupil whom thou knowest to be ‘pure’ ‘self-controlled’ — i.e.,having full control over his senses; and a ‘qualified student,’ ever attentive ; — ‘unto him expound me.’ He who guards his treasures, being never careless; he never commits mistakes, never fails, being ever attentive to his business.

What is deduced from this valedictory description is the advice that learning should be imparted to the pupils already described above as qualified (under 109), only when they fulfil the conditions described in the present verse. — (115)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

As a parallel to this Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 515) quotes the following ‘śruti’ —

yameva vidyā śucimapramattaṃ
medhāvinaṃ brahmacaryopapannam |
yaste na duhyet katamañca nāhaṃ
tasmai māṃ vrūyā nidhidāya brahman ||

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 103) also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 523).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(Verse 114-115)

See Comparative notes for Verse 2.114.

VERSE 2.116

Section XXII - Specially qualified Pupils

ब्रह्म यस्त्वननुज्ञातमधीयानादवाप्नुयात् ।
स ब्रह्मस्तेयसंयुक्तो नरकं प्रतिपद्यते ॥११६॥

brahma yastvananujñātamadhīyānādavāpnuyāt |
sa brahmasteyasaṃyukto narakaṃ pratipadyate ||116||

He, who may acquire Veda, without his permission, from one who is reciting it, becomes corrupted with the sin of stealing the Veda, and falls into hell. — (116)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When one is reciting the Veda with a view to getting up the text, or when one is expounding the Veda to another person, — if some one were to come by and acquire the Vedic text for the first time, or should surreptitiously have bis own doubts (on some point connected with the Vedic text) removed, — then to him occurs the sin here described; so long as he does not secure the Teacher’s permission, preferring, his request in such words as — ‘just as these pupils are reading with you, so may I also read, kindly accord me your permission.’ And it is only when the pupil has received this permission that he should be taught. Otherwise, the reading of the Veda would be like ‘stealing’; and the learner, being corrupted with this sin of stealing the Veda, falls into hell — i.e., into a place of condign punishment.

The ablative ending in ‘adhīyānāt,’ ‘from one who is, reciting it,’ is according to Pāṇini 1.4.29, according to which ‘the source of proper instruction is put in the Ablative’; — or the Ablative may have the sense of separation, — separation being implied by the fact that the teaching appears to issue from the Teacher; — or the Ablative may have the sense of the participle, being used in place of the affix ‘lyap,’ the meaning being — ‘he learns after having heard another person who is reciting it.’ — (116)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (30.42-43). — ‘Until permitted by the Teacher, one should not acquire knowledge from another person who may be reading with the Teacher; — such acquisition of knowledge constitutes Veda-stealing and leads one to hell.’

VERSE 2.117 [Rules regarding Salutation]

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

लौकिकं वैदिकं वाऽपि तथाऽध्यात्मिकमेव वा ।
आददीत यतो ज्ञानं तं पूर्वमभिवादयेत् ॥११७॥

laukikaṃ vaidikaṃ vā'pi tathā'dhyātmikameva vā |
ādadīta yato jñānaṃ taṃ pūrvamabhivādayet ||117||

One should first salute him from whom he receives knowledge, either temporal or scriptural or spiritual. — (117)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The subject taken up having been finished, rules regarding salutation are next taken up.

‘Laukika,’ ‘temporal is that which, pertains to worldly affairs; i.e., the teaching of popular usage and custom; or it may mean the teaching of the arts of singing, dancing and playing upon musical instruments; or, it may mean the knowledge of what is contained in works dealing with the Arts, such as those of Vātsyāyana, Viśākhin and others.

‘Vaidika,’ ‘scriptural,’ is that which is expressed by Vedic injunctions; that is the knowledge of the Veda, the Vedāṅgas and the Smṛtis.

‘Knowledge spiritual’ stands for the esoteric science of the spirit or soul; or figuratively, it may stand for that pertaining to the Body, i.e., the science of medicine.

From whom one learns all this knowledge, such a teacher, he should salute first of all; when one meets him for the first time (in the day) he should invite his attention to himself, by means of words indicated later on, for the purpose of obtaining from him words of blessing.

‘First,’ — I.e., the pupil should address him first; he should not wait for being addressed by the teacher; it is only in this way that he would be a ‘saluter.’

Objection. — “If this is what is implied by the root salute itself, the term ‘first’ becomes superfluous.”

Not so; it is only by virtue of the term ‘first’ that we deduce the said meaning. If we took only the root and the prefix (in the verb) ‘abhirādayet’), we could only get the sense of speaking (‘vadanam’) in front (‘ābhimukhyena’); and this speaking in front is possible also when the speaker has been previously addressed by another person.

Some people have explained the term ‘first’ to mean ‘before saluting one’s parents.’ But this does not deserve consideration, as this relative precedence bears no relation to the context. — (117)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 25); — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 501); — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 296), as mentioning the person to whom, among a number of people, the salutation is to be offered first; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 460); where ‘laukikam’ is explained as arthaśāstrīyādi, and ‘ādhyātmikam’ as brahmapratipādakaśāstrīyādi; — ‘pūrvan’ as bahumānyasamavāye prathamam; — and it proceeds to point out that among the teachers enumerated, the succeeding one is to have priority over the preceding one; — also in Aparārka (p. 54) without comment; — and again on p. 142; — also in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 97) as laying down the order in which salutation has to be offered when there are a number of Brāhmaṇas assembled; — and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 44a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, (1.2,15). — ‘He should never bear malice towards him.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (5.19-20). — ‘He should be always saluted; some people hold that the Teacher’s feet should he clasped.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (14.7-9) — ‘When one has completed his study he should clasp the feet of all his superiors; — also when he meets them on returning from a journey; — there should he clasping of the feet of brothers and sisters, in the order of seniority.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (13.12). — ‘The feet should be clasped of one who is superior either in Vedic learning or in birth.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (27. 14-17). — ‘Having offered the Twilight Prayers, he should salute the Teacher: — he should touch his feet with reverent hands, the right with the right and the left with the left; — at the salutation, he should also announce his name, ending with the term bhoḥ.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra (3.1.27). — ‘Wearing of the girdle, begging alms, fetching fuel, water-sipping, morning-salutation, — these are obligatory daily duties.’

Śānkhyāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 460). — ‘Daily, one shall salute the Teacher, as also his elders — of these, the Vedic scholar whenever one meets him; and one who is not learned in the Veda, only when one meets him on returning from a journey.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.). — ‘One should salute, first of all, that person from whom one acquires knowledge, either temporal or scriptural or related to Dharma.’

VERSE 2.118

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

सावित्रीमात्रसारोऽपि वरं विप्रः सुयन्त्रितः ।
नायन्त्रितस्त्रिवेदोऽपि सर्वाशी सर्वविक्रयी ॥११८॥

sāvitrīmātrasāro'pi varaṃ vipraḥ suyantritaḥ |
nāyantritastrivedo'pi sarvāśī sarvavikrayī ||118||

Better the Brāhmaṇa knowing the Sāvitrī alone, if he is thoroughly self-controlled, — and not he who knows all the three Vedas, but is not self-controlled, and eats all things and sells all things. — (118)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is in praise of the rules regarding Salutation, etc.

He for whom the Sāvitrī is the sole essence, his all in all, is called ‘Sāvitrīmātrasāraḥ,’ ‘knowing the Sāvitrī alone.’

‘Better’ — Superior; — ‘the Brāhmaṇa,’ if he is thoroughly self- Controlled, i.e., who governs himself entirely in accordance with the scriptures.

One who is ‘not sell-controlled,’ ‘though the three Vedas’ — fully conversant with the scriptures.

‘Eats all things,’ — things even though not actually prohibited, yet against custom and usage.

Similarly ‘sells all things’ — ‘Selling’ is mentioned only by way of illustration, it stands for all that is prohibited.

The meaning of all this is ns that one becomes as much open to censure by omitting to rise to receive the teacher and other practices ns he is by the omission of other rules of conduct.

Objection. — “How is it that wè have the form ‘varam (neuter) vipraḥ (masculine)’; the correct form would be ‘varo vipraḥ’ (both masculine).”

In answer to this some people say that the phrase opens with the general and ends with the particular: the construction being — ‘It is better,’ — “What is better?” — ‘that the Brāhmaṇa be self-controlled.’

Others however explain that the term ‘vara’ has no particular gender of its own; and it is used in the neuter gender also. — (118)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 460).

VERSE 2.119

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

शय्याऽऽसनेऽध्याचरिते श्रेयसा न समाविशेत् ।
शय्याऽऽसनस्थश्चैवेनं प्रत्युत्थायाभिवादयेत् ॥११९॥

śayyā''sane'dhyācarite śreyasā na samāviśet |
śayyā''sanasthaścaivenaṃ pratyutthāyābhivādayet ||119||

One should not sit with a superior upon the couch or seat prepared for him. and if he himself should happen to be seated on a couch or skat, he should rise to meet (the superior) and salute him. — (119)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The copulative compound ‘śayyāsane’ is formed with the terms ‘śayyā’ and ‘āsana,’ the singular number being in accordance with Pāṇini 2.4.6, by which‘terms expressing in-animate genuses form copulative compounds in the singular.’

‘On a couch and seat,’ ‘one should not sit’ — along with — ‘a superior’; — i.e., one who is superior in learning, such as the teacher and others.

In view of the question as to whether one should not sit with his superior anywhere, the text has added the word ‘adhyācarite,’ ‘prepared,’ i.e., made up, as the couch or a seat; so that there is no harm in sitting upon a seat of stone or such other things.

This is only a re-iteration of what is going to be said under 204 below that — ‘One may sit with his teacher on slabs of stone, a boat.’

Others explain the term ‘adhyācarite’ to mean ‘occupied’; and ‘should not sit’ to mean that ‘he should not sit upon it even afterwards.’ And (according to this explanation) the present prohibition does not apply only to sitting along with the superior; as this prohibition is already contained in 203; and so long as the present verse can be taken as an independent injunction, it is not right to take it as a mere re-iteration.

(In view of this last objection) some people point to a difference (between what is said here and what comes later on in 203), based upon usage. That couch or seat which is known to belong specifically to the Teacher, — that whereupon he, as a rule, lies down and sits, — on that the pupil should never sit, cither in the presence or absence of the Teacher; while that couch or seat upon which the Teacher has slept or sat, once by the way, — sitting upon that during the Teacher’s presence is what is prohibited. And it is this latter that is meant by the term ‘adhyāca’ in the text; which does not mean actual possession of the couch by the Teacher.

While one is seated upon a couch or seat, if the superior should happen to come, he should rise to meet him and offer hi s salutation. What is meant by the second line of the verse is that the pupil should descend from this seat on the advent of the Teacher; the meaning being that standing upon the bare ground he should entirely relinquish the couch or seat. While as for superior persons other than the Teacher, — in their case the rising to meet is done even while one remains (standing) upon the seat. — (119)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Adhyācarte’ — ‘Prepared’ (Medhātithi); — ‘occupied’ (Kullūka). This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 460).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (1.2.20-21). — ‘Within sight of the Teacher one should avoid the following — sitting with a piece of cloth passing round the neck and the two knees, spreading out of the legs, spitting, laughing, yawning, finger-snapping.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (1.2.31). — ‘One should leave his bed or seat before answering the Teacher’s call.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1 6.3-5). — ‘One should not put forward his legs towards the Teacher; — some people hold that no such spreading is reprehensible when the Teacher is seated on a bedstead; — near the Teacher one should speak to him lying down.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.8-11). — ‘One should not sit on the bed or the seat before the Teacher.’

VERSE 2.120

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

ऊर्ध्वं प्राणा ह्युत्क्रमन्ति यूनः स्थविर आयति ।
प्रत्युत्थानाभिवादाभ्यां पुनस्तान् प्रतिपद्यते ॥१२०॥

ūrdhvaṃ prāṇā hyutkramanti yūnaḥ sthavira āyati |
pratyutthānābhivādābhyāṃ punastān pratipadyate ||120||

On the elder approaching, the vital breaths of the younger rush outward; and he recovers them by the acts of rising to meet and salute him. — (120)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is commendatory to what has gone before.

‘On the elder’ — the person of higher age — ‘approaching’ — coming up, — ‘the vital breaths’ — the sources of life, the inner airs — ‘of the younger’ — ‘rush outward’ — move out; i.e., giving up their functions, they intend to cut off his life.

When however he rises to meek him and salutes him, the breaths proceed, as before, to sustain his life.

‘Recovers’ — becomes resuscitated. — (120)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 460); — again in the same work (Ācāra, p. 150), where ‘Āyāti’ is explained as ‘āyocchati’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 97), as laying down that before saluting one should rise.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha-smṛti (13.13). — ‘The Priest, the Father-in-law, the paternal uncle, the maternal uncle — those not junior in age; — these he shall salute after standing to receive them.’ Āpastamba, (Parāśaramādhava, p. 297) — [reproduces Manu].

Mahābhārata (13.104.64-65). — (same as Manu).

VERSE 2.121

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

अभिवादनशीलस्य नित्यं वृद्धोपसेविनः ।
चत्वारि तस्य वर्धन्ते आयुर्धर्मो यशो बलम् ॥१२१॥

abhivādanaśīlasya nityaṃ vṛddhopasevinaḥ |
catvāri tasya vardhante āyurdharmo yaśo balam ||121||

For one who is in the habit of saluting and constantly revering elders, — four things prosper: viz., longevity, merit, fame and strength. — (121)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘habit of saluting’ stands, not only for the uttering of words of salute, but for the act of addressing all men with respect and in the proper manner. The term ‘habit’ indicates that the man does it without any personal motive at all.

‘Constantly reveres elders’ — by talking agreeably, and also attends upon them with such service as he can render.

‘For him four things prosper — longevity, merit’ — which is the tree that hears fruit in the other world, in the shape of Heaven, — ‘fame and strength’ — as described above.

Though this verse is purely valedictory, yet it serves to afford some idea as to the effects that ensue. — (121)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya, (Saṃskāra, p. 460); — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 501) as describing the reward for saluting one’s superiors; — in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 306) as eulogising the act of saluting one’s superiors; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 97).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.5.15). — ‘Desiring Heaven and Longevity (one should salute the Teacher).’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (1.2.26). — ‘Desiring Heaven and Longevity, one should grasp his right foot with the right hand and the left foot with the left.’

VERSE 2.122

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

अभिवादात् परं विप्रो ज्यायांसमभिवादयन् ।
असौ नामाहमस्मीति स्वं नाम परिकीर्तयेत् ॥१२२॥

abhivādāt paraṃ vipro jyāyāṃsamabhivādayan |
asau nāmāhamasmīti svaṃ nāma parikīrtayet ||122||

The Brāhmaṇa, when greeting an elder, should, after the accosting, pronounce his name, (saying) “this here, I am named so and so,” — (122)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Accosting’ here stands for that word by which the other person is addressed, is made to answer, either with words of benediction, or with an inquiry after welfare. ‘After this accosting’ — i.e., after the word expressing such accosting, — i.e., in immediate sequence to the word, one should pronounce the following expression — ‘This here I named so and so.’ ‘This so and so,’ ‘man,’ is a pronoun standing for all particular name-forms. The use of this expression is meant to attract tho attention (of the person accosted); the sense being — ‘you are being greeted by me,’ i.e., ‘you are being invited to pronounce your benediction’; and being thus addressed, the other person, having duly comprehended the invitation and request, proceeds to answer the greeting by means of words expressing benediction.

But the mere use of the generic pronoun ‘this’ would not provide the idea that ‘you are being accosted by me who am named this’; and in that case the other person would not fully comprehend the invitation, and hence to whom would be address the words of benediction? For this reason, it has been declared that ‘he should pronounce his name’; so that where accosted with the words ‘I am named Devadatta,’ the person fully comprehends the greeting.

Objection. — “There being no use for the word ‘this,’ we see no purpose in its use.”

Answer. — Writers often make use of expressions borrowed from the usage of other Smṛtis; for example, they use the term ‘Dvitīyā,’ in the sense of the Accusative, in accordance with the usage laid down by Pāṇini in his Sūtra 2.3.2. In regard to the present subject, we find it formulated in the Yajñasūtra that ‘the mentioning of one’s own name is to be done with the word this.’

Objection. — “In that case that the name should be pronounced having been already expressed by the words ‘he should pronounce his name,’ — it is superfluous for the text to repeat the term ‘name,’ in the expression ‘this I am named’?”

That expression has been added for the purpose of securing the use of the term ‘name’; the sense being that, one should pronounce his name saying ‘I am named so and so’ (and not merely ‘I am so and so.’)

According to others, both expressions mean the same thing ‘this here I am such and such a person’; so that the use of the one or the other expression is optional.

According to this verse, the exact form of the words of greeting comes to be this — ‘abhivādaye devadattanāma’ham bhoḥ,’ ‘I accost thee, Sir, I who am named Devadatta the use of the ‘Sir’ being prescribed in the following verse (124).

‘Elder’ — the addition of this word in the text is meant to imply that there should be accosting of equals and inferiors also, but in their case, the form is not as laid down here, which is meant for the case of elders only. — (122)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 25), where the following notes are added: — ‘abhivādāt,’ i.e., after the word ‘ahhivādaye,’ ‘I salute’ — one should mention his name, ‘I am so and so’; — the term ‘vipra’ stands for all the twice-born men; — also in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 45), which says that what is meant by ‘abhivādāt’ is ‘after having pronounced the words ‘I salute’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 96), which adds the explanation ‘one should pronounce his own name, I am Devadatta, after having saluted.’

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 450), where the following explanation is added: — When saluting the elder — i.e., an aged person — ‘abhivādātparam’ — i.e., after uttering the word ‘abhivādaye’, ‘I salute,’ — one should utter his proper name, ‘I am so and so.’ It has been declared in the Yajñasūtra that the generic pronoun ‘asau’ (‘so and so’) indicates the proper name. Since the text uses the term ‘elder,’ it follows that the method here laid down is not to be employed in saluting such uncles and other superior relatives as are younger in age to the saluter; the method for saluting them is going to be described later on. The term ‘Vipra’ includes the Kṣatriya and the rest also; as is clear from the rules regarding the returning of salutation, under verse 127 below.

On the expression ‘ahamasmi,’ this work quotes Medhātithi’s remark that both ‘aham’ and ‘asmi’ meaning the same thing, the use of the one or the other is optional. But this has been quoted as the opinion of ‘others’ by Medhātithi. This view is rejected by Vīramitrodaya as being repugnant to Manu, verse 122. It rejects the view of Kullūka also, who opines that the term ‘nāma’ need not be used in the formula.

This verse is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 296) where too the term ‘abhivādātparam’ is explained to mean — ‘Having first uttered the words I salute, he should pronounce his name’; — and in Aparārka (p. 52), which says that the formula is ‘abhivādaye caitranāmāhamasmi bhoḥ.’; — and in Aparārka (p. 52), which bìiivādaye caitranāmāhamasmi

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (1.6.5.) — ‘Having announced his name he should say Here I am, — such is the form of salutation on the meeting of a learned man.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (1.2.27). — ‘Saying Here I am Sir, he should touch his ears, for securing attention,’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.5-12). — ‘In the morning one should salute the Teacher, saving Here I am.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti. — ‘ He should say Here I am Sir to all those persons who are entitled to their feet being clasped by him.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (27.17). — ‘He should announce his name and at the end of the salutation should pronounce the word bhoḥ.’

Yajñavalkya (1.26). — ‘Then he should salute the elders, saying Here I am.’

VERSE 2.123

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

नामधेयस्य ये के चिदभिवादं न जानते ।
तान् प्राज्ञोऽहमिति ब्रूयात् स्त्रियः सर्वास्तथैव च ॥१२३॥

nāmadheyasya ye ke cidabhivādaṃ na jānate |
tān prājño'hamiti brūyāt striyaḥ sarvāstathaiva ca ||123||

To those persons who do not comprehend the (significance of the) name (pronounced) in the words of greeting, the wise one should say ‘I’; similarly to all, women. — (123)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From what has come before it might be understood that even an unlearned person deserves to be saluted, by reason of the large amount of wealth he might possess; the present verse serves to preclude such a notion.

‘Those who,’ being uneducated; — ‘of the name’ — in its Sanskrit form that may have been pronounced, — ‘the significance, as pronounced in the words of greeting’; persons, not conversant with grammar do not understand the words to mean that ‘I have been accosted by this person,’ — they do not understand the Sanskrit language. — To such persons, as also to women who deserve to be saluted, — these do not comprehend the Sanskrit language — the wise one should say simply ‘I salute thee,’ thus omitting only the mention of his name, which forms one part of the full injunction. If the persons thus accosted should fail to understand even this much, then they should be saluted even with corrupt vernacular forms of words; it is in view of this that the text has added the epithet ‘wise’; i.e., when one realises the difficulty of the other person’s understanding, he should find out some such form of greeting as might suit each particular case, and he should not stick to the precise form enjoined in the preceding verse.

‘Similarly to all women’; the term ‘all’ implies that the same applies even to the wives of teachers, — even though they be capable of understanding Sanskrit words.

Some people have explained that one should pronounce his name only when it so happens that he is known among people by a pseudonym — some such as ‘Vanamālīvarṇaḥ,’ — so that the real name given to him by his father is not known, and what is known is not his real name.

Others have explained the verse to refer to those who do not know the correct form of answering the salutation; for instance, Pāṇini (8.2.83) has laid down that the vowel at the end of the name pronounced in answering a salutation should he pronounced ultra-long; and to those who do not know this, the wise one should simply say ‘I.’ The author of the Mahābhāṣya (Patañjali) also has said the same in course of his explanation of the uses of the Science of Grammar — “Ignorant people who do not know that in answering a salutation, the name should be pronounced with an ultra-long vowel, — to such persons one may freely say simply ‘I,’ just as to women.” These writers have said that the term ‘abhivāda,’ ‘salutation,’ in the present verse has got to be taken in the sense of ‘answering a salutation,’ specially on account of what has been said in other Smṛtis. If the present verse is not explained on these lines, then, the prohibition of salutation, occurring in verse 126 below would come to be taken as prohibiting the saluting of all unlearned persons; and this would be contrary to what other Smṛti-rules have laid down regarding the use of the simple form ‘it is I’ (in the saluting of unlearned persons). If, on the other hand, we adopt the explanation as here suggested, then the said prohibition (occurring in 1.20) might be taken as purely commendatory, and not mandatory; and this would be quite consistent with the present explanation. — (123)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 501) as laying down the method of salutation also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 451), where the following observations are made: —

‘In the case of such illiterate men as do not comprehend the salutation addressed to them in the form of the Sanskrit sentence declaring the name of the saluter, — i. e. who do not understand that they are being saluted, — as also in the case of all women, literate and illiterate, — one should not omit his own name, and say simply, ‘I salute you and if even this much is not understood, then the salutation may be made even with corrupt vernacular words; — such is the implication of the term ‘prājña,’ wise. The ancients have defined ‘abhivādana ‘salutation’ as obeisance with the prescribed formula.

There is a difference among —

1. Pādopasaṃgrahaṇa (clasping the feet),
2. ‘Abhivādana’ (salutation)
3. and ‘Namaskāra’ (bowing);

 — the (1) being reserved for Teachers and Elders, (2) for people very much older than the saluter, and (3) for those only slightly older; so says Harihara; and Kalpataru also mentions ‘abhivādana’ and ‘Pādopasaṃgrahaṇa’ separately; Manu himself mentions the two separately in verse 216 below.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 54) as laying down that the saluting of illiterate persons is to be done in the same form as that of women; — also in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 98), which adds the explanation: — ‘To persons not conversant with the proper way of returning the salute along with the name of the saluter, — as also to all women — the salutation is to be offered only with the words ‘aham bhoḥ,’ ‘it is I, sir!’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (13.1.1). — ‘Here I am — he should say only this much, when saluting a person who is not learned enough to know the proper form of returning the salutation.’

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 54). — ‘Elderly ladies one shall salute with bowing the head; all ladies are to be saluted with one’s name; not so one’s mother or the wives of Elders — say some.’

VERSE 2.124

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

भोःशब्दं कीर्तयेदन्ते स्वस्य नाम्नोऽभिवादने ।
नाम्नां स्वरूपभावो हि भोभाव ऋषिभिः स्मृतः ॥१२४॥

bhoḥśabdaṃ kīrtayedante svasya nāmno'bhivādane |
nāmnāṃ svarūpabhāvo hi bhobhāva ṛṣibhiḥ smṛtaḥ ||124||

In saluting, one should pronounce the term “Oh, Sir” at the end op his own name; since it has been declared by the sages that the form “Oh, Sir” represents the form of all names. — (124)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘At the end of his own name one should pronounce the term Oh, Sir.’The epithet ‘own’ has been added with a view to precluding the possibility of the name of the saluted person being understood to be meant.

The rest of the verse is purely valedictory.

The term should be pronounced, immediately after the letters of the name, but after some, other letters also, such as the expression ‘I am’ (as laid down in verse, 122, above). The presence of the particle ‘iti’ (in verse 122, after ‘ahamasmi’) is meant to define the actual form of the expression to be used; the sense being that such is the actual form of the expression to be used; Further, if the expression were wrongly used iu the form ‘Devadatta, Oh, Sir, I am,’ the comprehension of its meaning (by the accosted person) would be delayed, and this would still further delay the inviting of his attention; and this would defeat the purpose of the salutation. And it may also happen that when the expression used is one not amenable to simple construction, the other party does not comprehend it at all.

‘Form’ — the existence of very essence. Or, it may mean that it comes in lieu of the name of the accosted person; i.e., comes in place of the name; and the name of the accosted person is. not pronounced. The term ‘bhāta’ may mean either that which is accomplished by means of existence, or that which is accomplished by means of an agent.

Or, we may read ‘svarūpabhāve,’ with the locative ending.

‘The form, Oh, Sir’; — i.e., the presence, the existence, of the term‘Oh, Sir’ — ‘is, the form of all names.’ Just as one is addressed by having his name uttered — ‘Oh, Devadatta, listen to me,’ similarly the term bhoḥ’ (Oh, Sir) — which ends in the Vocative case-ending — is used for the purposes of address; this has been so declared by the sages. — (124)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 26) with the following notes: — The term ‘bhoḥ’ is the ‘marūpabhāva’ of names; i.e. it leads the name uttered to reach the person addressed; the sense being that when addressed with the term ‘bhoḥ’, the person catches the saluter’s name. The root in the term ‘bhāva’ denotes reaching. If we read ‘bhobhāvaḥ’ this would mean ‘the bhāva, or presence, of the term bhoḥ:

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 450) where we have the following notes: — At the end of the name pronounced in the salutation, one should utter the term ‘bhoḥ’ for attracting the attention of the person saluted; because it has been declared by the sages that the term ‘bhoḥ’ stands for the names of the persons addressed; so that, even though the name of the saluted person be not uttered, the term ‘bhoḥ’ becomes the proper form of address. Thus then the formula for saluting comes to be ‘abhivādaye amukanāma ahamasmi bhoḥ.’

This is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 191); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 45), which states the complete formula as ‘Ābhivādaye Devadatto’ham bho’; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 96).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (28.17.) — ‘In salutation, he should pronounce his own name and at the end the word bhoḥ.’

VERSE 2.125

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

आयुष्मान् भव सौम्यैति वाच्यो विप्रोऽभिवादने ।
अकारश्चास्य नाम्नोऽन्ते वाच्यः पूर्वाक्षरः प्लुतः ॥१२५॥

āyuṣmān bhava saumyaiti vācyo vipro'bhivādane |
akāraścāsya nāmno'nte vācyaḥ pūrvākṣaraḥ plutaḥ ||125||

On saluting, the Brāhmaṇa should he answered with the words ‘Be long lived, O Gentle One’; and at the end of his name the vowel “a,” which occurs at the end of the consonant, should be pronounced ultra long. — (125)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

On salutation having been done, the answering greeting should be made by the Father to the accoster, with the words — ‘Be long-lived, Oh Gentle One.’ The particle ‘iti’ in the text is meant to show that the preceding words constitute the formula. The use of such expressions also as (a) ‘āyuṣmān edhi,’ ' Prosper O Long-lived One,’ (b) ‘dīrghāyurbhūyāh,’ ‘Be long-lived,’ (c) ‘cirañjīva,’ ‘Live long’ — is permitted by the usage of cultured men.

‘The vowel “a”’ — which occurs at the end of the name of the person whose salutation is answered — ‘should be pronounced ultra-long.’ The term ‘pluta,’ ‘ultra-long,’ stands for the vowel that is drawn out to the length of three moras. The vowel ‘a’ is mentioned only by way of illustration; it stands for ‘i’ and other vowels also. The ‘end’ spoken of in the text is in relation to the vowels only; so that in the case of names ending in consonants also, the lengthening applies to the vowel that happens to be the last, ‘at the end.’ The term ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ qualities the ‘vowel a,’ which is to be lengthened; and ‘akṣara’ here stands for the consonant; and the compound means ‘that vowel of which the preceding syllable is a consonant’; i.e., the vowel occurring along with the consonant. What is meant is that it is the vowel ‘a’ already there tbat is to be lengthened, and not any such vowel as might be added; that is, the vowel that is already present in the name is to be lengthened out.

All this explanation is in accordance with the rules of the revered Pāṇini; as in the matter of the use of words and their meaning, the revered Pāṇini is more authoritative than Manu and other writers. And Pāṇini has laid down (in 8.2.83) that ‘in answering tile greeting of a non-śūdra, the ṭi should be ultra-long and the name ‘ṭi’ is given to that syllable of which the last vowel forms the beginning (which in tho present case is the ‘a,’ which is regarded as a part of itself and hence ‘having the last vowel for its beginning’). No significance is meant to be attached to the specification of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ in the present verse; as what is here prescribed is applicable to the Kṣatriya and others also. The usage sanctioned by other Smṛtis is also the same, and no separate rules are laid down for these other castes.

As an example we have such expressions as ‘Be long-lived, O Devaḍattā’; and one containing a name ending in consonant, — ‘Be long lived, O Somaśarmān.’ — (125)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Buhler adopts the reading ‘pūrvākṣaraplutaḥ’, which is given by Nandana, and mentioned by Nārāyaṇa. The meaning, according to this, as Buhler remarks, is that the name Devadatta should be pronounced as ‘Devadattā.’ Medhātithi and Kullūka adopt the reading ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ plutaḥ,’ under which the meaning is that ‘the vowel a, which occurs at the end of the consonant, should be pronounced ultra-long.’ “According to this interpretation,” says Buhler, “Manu’s rule agrees with Āpastamba and Pāṇinī (8-2-88). Govindarāja and Rāghavānanda go far off the mark.”

Several commentators note that ‘vipraḥ’ includes all the twice-born persons.

Medhātithi (p. 182, 1. 4) — ‘Tatra pūrvasmin &c.’ — Kullūka’s expounding of the compound is simpler — ‘pūrvam’ nāmagatam — ‘akṣaram’ — vyāñjanam — saṃśliṣṭam yasya sa pūrvākṣaraḥ.’

Ibid, (p. 182, 1. 8) — ‘Bhagavān Paṇinīḥ’ — This refers to the sūtra ‘acontyādi ṭi’ which defines the ‘ṭi’ as ‘that which has for its beginning the last among the vowels’; and the example given in Siddhāntakaumudī under Sūtra 8.283 is, Āyuṣmān bhava Devadattā’; from which it is clear that the name ‘ṭi’ is applicable to the vowel ‘a’ in ‘tta’ and it is ‘tadādi’ — having for its beginning the last of the vowels — in the sense that it ends in itself, it being regarded as its own constituent part, according to Śabdenduśekhara, which has the following note —

nanu mārtaṇḍa ityatra mārtaśabdāntyāc takārākāraḥ sa ādiryasyetyanyapadārtho durlabha iti cenna | ekasminneva samudāyatvāropeṇa tadavayavatvāropeṇa ca tadupapatteḥ ||

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 297), which adds the following notes: — The compound ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ is to be expounded as pūrvara akṣaram yasya; and the ‘purvam akṣaram’, ‘preceding syllable,’ in a name is the consonant, since a vowel can not be ‘preceded’ by another vowel; hence the meaning comes to be that the vowel at the end of the final consonant should be pronounced ultra-long. The term ‘akṣaraḥ’ stands for all vowels that may occur at the end of a name [This is exactly what Medhātithi and Kullūka have said]; the text could not have meant the vowel ‘a’ only; as it is not possible for all names to end in that vowel. Thus the formula comes to be — ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya Devadattā.’

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 26), which supplies three different explanations: — At the end of the words ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya,’ the name of the saluter should be pronounced — ‘Viṣṇuśarman’; (a) at the end of the name an ‘a’ should be pronounced, and of this ‘a,’ the ‘pūrvasvaraḥ,’ the preceding syllable,’.should be ultra-long. The masculine form ‘akṣaraḥ’ is a Vedic archaism, [ the right form being ‘akṣaram’]. Though the syllable ‘preceding’ (the ‘a’ pronounced after the name ‘Viṣṇuśarman’) would be ‘n,’ yet inasmuch as the consonant could not be pronounced ‘ultra-long,’ the term ‘preceding syllable’ would apply in this case to ‘a’ that is contained in the name [ i.e. the ‘a’ after ‘m’]; and it is this ‘a’ that would be pronounced ultra-long [The formula thus being ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya Viṣṇuśarmā3n’]. — (&) ‘Pūrvākṣaram plutam’ is another reading, in which case the construction is all light [and there is no archaism]; the meaning being that ‘the preceding syllable is to be pronounced ultra-long.’ — (c) Or, the sentence ‘akāraśchāsya nāmno’nte’ may be explained as follows: — The vowel ‘a’ (ākāraḥ) that appears at the end of ‘his’ (‘asya’, the saluter’s) ‘name’ (‘nāmnaḥ’) — ‘a’ mentioned only by way of illustration, any vowel at the end of the name being meant, — is what is qualified by the qualifying word ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ — which means, in this case, — that which has the syllables, akṣaram, in the name ‘preceding’ — ‘pūrvāṇi,’ — itself; and such a vowel should be pronounced ultra-long, — and no other ‘a’, either in the name itself, or added after the name.

The formula, according to all these explanations, is ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya Devadattā3.’ This is not accepted by Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 452), which would omit the word ‘saumya,’ which in Manu’s text, it takes as standing for the name of the saluter; so that the formula according to it would be ‘āyuṣmān bhava Devadattā3.’ It argues that if we don’t take the word ‘saumya’ as standing for the name, we would have to seek elsewhere for the injunction for pronouncing the name in regard to which the second half prescribes the ultra-elongation of the final ‘a.’ — As regards the second line of the verse, it takes it to mean that, ‘the a tliat appears at the end of the saluter’s name should be pronounced ultra-long; — and adds that the vowel ‘a’ here stands for vowels in general; as all names do not, and cannot end in ‘a’, in the case of names ending in consonants also, fhe syllable to be ultra-elongated would be the last of the vmvels contained in the name; it is clear from Pāṇini’s rule that the ‘ṭi’ syllable is to be so pronounced (see note, above) — and it is the last vowel that is called ‘ṭi’. — In the compound pūrvākṣaraḥ ‘akṣara’ means consonant, and the compound means ‘that which has a consonant immediately preceding it’; so that the text comes to mean that ‘the vowel that has a consonant immediately preceding it should not be separated from the consonant and then pronounced ultra-long; it should be pronounced along with the consonant.’ It concludes that this explanation is in agreement with Medhātithi and several others. According to this view the formulas would be — (a) ‘āyuṣmān bhava Devadattā3’ (where the name ends in a vowel) and (b) ‘āyuṣmān bhava Somaśarmā3n,’ where the name ends in a consonant.

The same work goes on to add that Haradatta has adopted the reading ‘pūrvākṣaraplutaḥ’ (see note above) and has explained the verse as follows: — At the end of the name is to be pronounced an additional ‘a’ — over and above the syllables in the name itself, — and this additional ‘a’ — is to be ‘pūrvākṣaraplutaḥ,’ — i. e., ‘having its preceding syllable — i. e., vowel — ultra-long’; — i. e., the vowel preceding the additional ‘a’ should be ultra-long; and this may be done also where consonants may be intervening between the two. Thus in the case of there being no intervening consonant, the formula would be āyuṣmān bhava saumya Devadattā3,’ while in that of there being an intervening consonant, it would be āyuṣmān bhava saumya Agnichi3da’ (where the consnant, ‘d’ intervenes between the additional ‘a’ at the end, and the vowel ‘i’ preceding it.)

It further adds that the term ‘vipraḥ’ includes the Kṣatriya and others also, as is clear from the fact that in grammar we find rules (a) making the ultra-elongation of the final vowel optional in the case of the saluter being a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya, and also (b) prohibiting the elongation in the case of the saluter being a woman or a Śūdra.

This work quotes Medhātithi to the effect that the words in the text ‘āyuṣmān bhava saumya’ are meant to be purely illustrative, and it is not meant that these should be the very words used; it is thus that even such returns become permissible as — ‘āyuṣmānedhi,’ ‘dīrghāyurbhūyāḥ,’ ‘cirañjīva’ and others that are in common use among cultured people.

This verse is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 191), where ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ is explained as referring to the letter preceding the ‘n’ in ‘śarman’; — and in Aparārka (p, 53), which adds the following note: — The ‘akāra’ here stands for the final vowel in the name of the saluter; hence whichever. vowel occurs at the end of the name should be pronounced ultra-long; hence ‘pūrvākṣaraḥ’ means ‘that which is preceded by a syllable’; this syllable preceding the final vowel must be a consonant. Hence the meaning is that the vowel, along with the consonant, should be pronounced ultra-long. It does not mean that an additional ‘a’ is to be added at the end of the name.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 98), which adds the following notes: — The vowel ‘a’ here stands for any vowel that occurs at the end of a name; there is no such rule as that every name must end in ‘a’; hence the elongation pertains to the vowel that occurs at the end of a name; and it does not mean that an additional ‘a’ has to be added at the end of every name.

It is quoted also in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 46), which has the same remarks regarding the vowel ‘a’; it adds: — According to some people, the title ‘śarman’ also has to be pronounced; so that the formula would be ‘āyuṣmān bhava Devadattā śarman.’ Others hold that the elongation prescribed is to be done to the ‘a’ contained in the term ‘śarman’ But this is open to doubt, as the term ‘śarman’ does not form part of the name; if it did, then, as some other syllables would necessarily be required to be prefixed to this, it could not be possible to have any name ‘with two letters’, as has been prescribed. This elongation of the vowel is not done in the name of the Śūdra, who is excluded, according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra ‘Pratyabhivāde’śūdre’; this however makes it clear that the salutation of the Śūdra also is to be returned.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.6.17). — ‘The previous letters should he ultra-long in the salutation as also in the returngreeting.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 453). — ‘The last vowel in the greeting is ultra-long.’

VERSE 2.126

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

यो न वेत्त्यभिवादस्य विप्रः प्रत्यभिवादनम् ।
नाभिवाद्यः स विदुषा यथा शूद्रस्तथैव सः ॥१२६॥

yo na vettyabhivādasya vipraḥ pratyabhivādanam |
nābhivādyaḥ sa viduṣā yathā śūdrastathaiva saḥ ||126||

The Brāhmaṇa who knows not the return-greeting of the greeting of salutation does not deserve to be saluted by the learned; he is exactly as the śūdra is. — (126)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Objection. — “It would have sufficed to say ‘he who knows not the return-greeting’; the addition of the phrase ‘of the greeting of salutation’ is superfluous and not quite compatible.”

It is not so; the construction is — ‘the return-greeting in keeping with the greeting of salutation.’ For instance, propriety demands that (a) if the salutation has been offered with the name of the accoster duly pronounced, then in the return-greeting, the final vowel of the name Should be pronounced ultra-long; (b) and he who salutes with the form ‘It is I, Oh, Sir,’ is to be answered without his name being uttered and without the elongation of any vowel.

‘Does not deserve to be saluted’; — this prohibits the uttering of the words of greeting; the sense being that ‘salutation may be offered,’ but not with the words ‘it is I, Sir,’ — the circumstances under which these words are to be used h aving been shown before (under 123).

‘As the Śūdra,’ — this appears to be by way of illustration; for as a matter of fact the Śūdra also, when of great age, is held to be deserving of salutation.

‘By the learned’; — this has been added only for the purpose of filling up the metre. — (126)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 450), where the following explanation is added: — The meaning is that the man who does not know the return greeting in strict consonance with rules of salutation does not deserve to be greeted at all, the correct form of the response being as laid down in the preceding verse — the ultra-elongation of the vowel at the end of the name pronounced by the saluter in the formula of salutation. What is prohibited here is only that salutation which is accompanied by the formula containing the saluter’s name; that all salutation is not entirely interdicted is indicated by the words ‘he is exactly as the Śūdra is’; — the Śūdra also, when over ninety years of age, is deserving of salutation, according to Manu 2. 137. The word ‘pratyabhivādanam’ means the pronouncing, by the elder who has been saluted, of benediction with prescribed formula.

This verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 28), which adds a verse from Yama to the effect that the Brāhmaṇa who, on being saluted, does not return the proper benediction, is born as a tree in the crematorium, inhabited by crows and vultures.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 297) as laying down that no salutation should be offered to one ignorant of the proper form of the response to it; — in Nityāchārapradīpa (p. 407); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 57); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 98).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Vaśiṣṭha (13.14). — ‘He should simply say Here I am, when saluting one who knows not the form of the return-greeting.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 465). — ‘On being saluted, if one does not offer his blessing, a part of the saluter’s sins falls upon the person saluted. To the Brāhmaṇa he should say svasti (all may be well), to the Kṣatriya āyuṣyam (long-life), to the Vaiśya vardhatām (may you prosper), to the Śūdra ārogyam (freedom from disease).’

[Yama also reproduces Manu’s Verse.]

Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 298). — ‘On bring saluted, if one does not return the salutation, or if one does not pronounce the blessing, one falls into many hells.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (7.42). — ‘Welfare, Freedom from Distemper , Freedom from Loss and Freedom from Disease, the asking of these constitutes the return-greeting; the last being for the Śūdra.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.14.26-29). — ‘One should ask one who is not senior, also one of the same age, about his welfare; the Kṣatriya about his freedom from distemper; — the Vaiśya about freedom from loss; — the Śūdra about freedom from disease.’

VERSE 2.127

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation

ब्राह्मणं कुशलं पृच्छेत् क्षत्रबन्धुमनामयम् ।
वैश्यं क्षेमं समागम्य शूद्रमारोग्यमेव च ॥१२७॥

brāhmaṇaṃ kuśalaṃ pṛcchet kṣatrabandhumanāmayam |
vaiśyaṃ kṣemaṃ samāgamya śūdramārogyameva ca ||127||

Having met a Brāhmaṇa, one should ask him his “welfare,” a Kṣatriya his “freedom from distemper,” a Vaiśya his “prosperity,” and a Shudra his “freedom from disease.” — (127)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When a greeting has been offered and answered, and friendly relations have thereby become established, occasion arises for enquiry; and the present verse lays down the verbal forms whose diversity is based upon distinctions of caste; and the caste-distinction pertains to the persons questioned, not to the questioner. And, in as much as there is not very much of a difference in the meaning of the words laid down, the restriction is with reference to the verbal forms only. For instance, the terms ‘anāmaya,’ ‘freedom from distemper,’ and ‘ārogya,’ ‘freedom from disease,’ mean the same thing; nor is there much difference in the meanings of the terms ‘kuśala,’ ‘welfare’ and ‘kṣema,’ ‘prosperity.’ Though the term ‘kuśala’ denotes erpertness, yet it is also used in the sense of the non-deficiency of the body and other things related to it.

The words here laid down must be used; but this does not mean that the man should not make use of other words also, if he wishes to make detailed enquiries; as has been clearly shown somewhere in the

On the strength of the expression ‘having,’ some people explain this verse to mean tbat the questions are to be put only to persons of equal age, and they do not apply to the case of the teacher and other superiors; for the teacher has to be ‘approached,’ not ‘met.’

But, as a matter of fact, there is ‘meeting’ in ‘approaching’ also; so there is no force in the said explanation. — (127)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

According to Govindarāja, the rule refers to friends or relatives meeting, not to every one who returns a salute.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 450) in support of the view that the term ‘vipraḥ’ in verse 125 includes the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also; as it lays down the return-greeting for all these; — and again on page 465, as a verse common to Manu and Yama and laying down the benedictory response to salutation.

It is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 298) as laying down the return-greetings appropriate for the several castes; — in Nityāchārapradīpa (p. 406) as laying down what should be said after salutation has been returned; — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 47); — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 100).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 298). — ‘The response to the Brāhmaṇa shall he svasti; to the Kṣatriya, āyuṣmān; to the Vaiśya, dhanavān; to the Śūdra, freedom from disease.’

VERSE 2.128

Section XXIII - Rules regarding Salutation