०३ देशौचित्यम्

The region lying between the divine rivers Sarasvati and Dṛṣasvatī which has been created by the gods,—they call ‘Brahmāvarta’—(17)

उक्तानि धर्मे प्रमाणानि । विरोधे च विकल्पो ऽभिहितः । अधिकारिणश् च सामान्येनोक्ताः । इदानीं येषु योग्यतया धर्मो ऽनुष्टेयताम् आपद्यते ते देशा वर्ण्यन्ते । सरस्वती नाम नदी । अपरा दृषद्वती । तयोर् नद्योर् यद् अन्तरं मध्यं तं देशं ब्रह्मावर्त इत्य् अनया संज्ञया प्रचक्षते व्यवहरन्ति शिष्टाः । देवग्रहणम् अवध्यवधिमतोः स्तुत्यर्थम् । देवैः स निर्मितो ऽतः सर्वेभ्यो देशेभ्यः पावनतर इति ॥ २.१७ ॥

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)

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).

017 That land, created by the gods, which lies between the two divine rivers Sarasvati and Drishadvati, the (sages) call Brahmavarta.

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)

• उच्यते । प्रायिकम् एतद् अभिधानम् । प्रायोवृत्त्यासमिन् देशे शिष्टानां संभव इत्य् उक्तम्- तस्मिन् देशे य आचारः स सदाचार इति ।

• अन्ये तु, देशान्तरे मातुलदुहितुः परिणयनाद् देशाचारनिषेधार्थम् इदम् इत्य् आहुः ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । अविशेषेणैवोक्तम्-

• तद् देशकुलजातीनाम् अविरुद्धं प्रकल्पयेत् । (म्ध् ८.४६)

स च विरुद्धः “ऊर्ध्वं सप्तमात् पितृबन्धुभ्यः । । । मातृबन्धुभ्यश् च पञ्चमात्” (ग्ध् ४.३, ५) इत्य् एतेन । अस्मिन्न् अपि देशे ऽनुपनीतेन सह भोजनादिर् आचारो नैव धर्मत्वेनेष्यते । न च स्मृतिविरुद्धस्याचारस्य प्रामाण्यसंभवः, श्रुतिविप्रकर्षात् । आचारात् स्मृतिर् अनुमातव्या, स्मृतेः श्रुतिः । स्मृतिस् त्व् अव्यवहिताम् एव श्रुतिम् अनुमापयति । किं च कारणग्रहाच् चैवमादेर् आचारस्य । रूपवतीं मातुलकन्यां कामयमाना राजभयाद् ऊढवन्तः, कन्यागमनं¹ दण्डो मा भूद् इति ।

• अन्ये त्व् अविद्वांसः “येनास्य पितरो याताः” (म्ध् ४.१७८) इत्य् अस्य यथाश्रुतम् अर्थं गृहीत्वा धर्मो ऽयम् इति प्रतिपन्नाः । अपि च² “एतास् तिस्रस् तु भार्यार्थे नोपयच्छेत” (म्ध् ११.१७३) इति प्रायश्चित्तं श्रुतम् अपि, भ्रान्तिहेतुः “आभ्यस् तिसृभ्यो ऽन्या न प्रतिषिद्धा” इति । यथा चास्य नायम् अर्थस् तथा वक्ष्यामः ।

• न च दृष्टकारणयोः स्मृत्याचारयोः प्रामाण्यम् । उक्तं भट्टपादैः-

• विरुद्धा च विगीता च दृष्टार्था दृष्टकारणा ।

• स्मृतिर् न श्रुतिमूला स्याद् या चैषा संभवश्रुतिः ॥[^१०२]

तस्मात् “एतान् द्विजातयो देशान् संश्रयेरन्” (म्ध् २.२४) इत्य् एतद्विधिशेषा देशप्रशंसार्थवादा एते ।

• परंपरैव पारंपर्यम् । अन्यस्माद् अन्यम् उपसंक्रामति, तस्माद् अन्यम्, ततो ऽप्य् अन्यम् इत्य् एवंरूपः प्रवाहः परंपरा । क्रमः तदविच्छेदः, तत आगतः संप्राप्तः । संकीर्णयोनयः अन्तरालाः । तत्सहितानां वर्णानाम् ॥ २.१८ ॥

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.

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.

**(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.’

018 The custom handed down in regular succession (since time immemorial) among the (four chief) castes (varna) and the mixed (races) of that country, is called the conduct of virtuous men.

Next to Brahmāvarta is the ‘Brahmarṣideśa,’ comprising the regions op Kurukṣetra, Matsyas, Pañchālas and Śukasenakas. (19).

देशनामधेयान्य् एतानि । कुरुक्षेत्रं³ समन्तपञ्चकं प्रसिद्धम् । कुरवस् तत्र क्षयं गताः । “कुरु⁴ वा सुकृतं क्षिप्रम् अत्र त्राणं भविष्यति”⁵ इत्य् व्युत्पत्तिः । मत्स्यादयः शब्दा बहुवचनान्ता एव देशवचनाः । ब्रह्मर्षिदेश इति समुदायसंज्ञा । देवनिर्मितो देशो ब्रह्मावर्तः । देवेभ्यः किंचिन् न्यूना ब्रह्मर्षय इत्य् अतो ऽयं देशो ब्रह्मर्षिसंबन्धाद् ब्रह्मावर्तान् न्यूनः । तथा चाह- ब्रह्मावर्ताद् अनन्त्रः ईषद्भिन्नः । नञ् ईषदर्थः । यथा “अनुष्णां यवागूं पिबेद् आमयावी” इतीषदुष्णाम् उपदिशन्ति । अन्तरशब्दो भेदवचनः, “नारीपुरुषतोयानाम् अनतरं महद् अन्तरम्” इति यथा ॥ २.१९ ॥

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)

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.

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

019 The plain of the Kurus, the (country of the) Matsyas, Pankalas, and Surasenakas, these (form), indeed, the country of the Brahmarshis (Brahmanical sages, which ranks) immediately after Brahmavarta.

All men on the earth may learn their respective duties from the Brāhmaṇa born in these countries. (20)

एतेषु देशेषु कुरुक्षेत्रादिषु प्रसूतस्य अग्रजन्मनः ब्राह्मणस्य सकाशात् स्वं स्वं चरित्रम् आचारं शिक्षेरन् जिज्ञासेरन् । “तस्मिन् देशे” (म्ध् २.१८) इत्य् अनेनैतद् व्याख्यातम् ॥ २.२० ॥

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)

This is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya, Paribhāṣā (p. 56) which says that this is meant only to eulogise the particular country.

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

020 From a Brahmana, born in that country, let all men on earth learn their several usages.

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)

उत्तरस्यां दिशि हिमवान् पर्वतः, दक्षिणस्यां विन्ध्यः । विनशनं सरस्वत्या अन्तर्धानदेशः । प्रयागः गङ्गायमुनयोः संगमः । एतान् देशान् अवधीकृत्य⁶ मध्यं मध्यदेशनामानं देशं विद्यात् । नात्युत्कृष्टो नातिनिकृष्ट इत्य् अतो ऽयं मध्यदेशः, न तु पृथिवीमध्यभवत्वात् ॥ २.२१ ॥

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)

‘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).

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

021 That (country) which (lies) between the Himavat and the Vindhya (mountains) to the east of Prayaga and to the west of Vinasana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) is called Madhyadesa (the central region).

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).

आ पूर्वसमुद्राद् आ पश्चिमसमुद्राद् यो ऽन्तरालवर्ती देशअः, तथा तयोर् एव पूर्वश्लोकोपदिष्टयोर् गिर्योः पर्वतयोर् हिमवद्विन्ध्ययोर् यद् अन्तरं मध्यं स आर्यावर्तो देशो बुधैः शिष्टैर् उच्यते । आर्या वर्तन्ते तत्र पुनः पुनर् उद्भवन्त् । आक्रम्याक्रम्यापि न चिरं तत्र म्लेच्छाः स्थातारो भवन्ति । आङ् अत्र मर्यादायाम्, नाभिविधौ । तेन समुद्रद्वीपानि नार्यावर्तः । एते चतसृषु दिक्षु देशावधय उपात्ताः । प्राच्यां पूर्वसमुद्रः, प्रतीच्यां पश्चिमः, उदग्दक्षिणयोर् हिमवद्विन्ध्यौ । एतौ ह्य् अवधित्वेनोपात्तौ, न तयोर् आर्यावर्तत्वम् अस्ति । अतस् तत्र निवासाभावे प्राप्त इदम् आह ॥ २.२२ ॥

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)

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).

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

022 But (the tract) between those two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Aryans).

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)

कृष्णश्वेतः कृष्णपीतो वा कृष्णसारङ्गो⁷ मृगो यत्र चरति निवसति । संभव उत्पत्तिर् यत्र देशे तस्य स्व्भावतः, न पुनर् देशान्तरात् प्राशस्त्योपायनादिना निमित्तेनानीतस्य कियन्तम् अपि कालं निवासः । स देशो यज्ञियो यागार्हो बोद्धव्यः । अतः कृष्णमृगचरणात् परो ऽन्यो म्लेच्छदेशः । म्लेच्छाः प्रसिद्धाः । चातुर्वर्ण्यजात्यपेताः प्रतिलोमजातीया अनधिकृता⁸ मेदान्ध्रशबरपुलिन्दादयः ।

• न चानेन यागाधिकरणतास्य देशस्य विधीयते, “समे यजेत” इतिवत्, चरतीति वर्तमाननिर्देशात् । न हि यत्रैव चरितुं प्रवृत्तस् तदैव तत्र यागः शक्यः कर्तुम् । यागस्य हि देशो ऽधिकरणम्, तत्साधनकर्त्रादिकारकाश्रितद्रवादिधारणद्वारेण । न च द्वयोर् मूर्त्तयोर् एककाले एकदेशे स्थनसंभवः । न च कालान्तरलक्षणा न्याय्या, विधौ लक्षणाया अन्याय्यत्वात् । यथोकं शूर्पाधिकरणे- “एतद् धि क्रियत इत्य् उच्यते” (शब् १.२.२६) इति ।

• ननु च नाभिव्यापक एवाधेयः, येन कृत्स्नाधाराभिव्याप्त्यैवाधिकरणार्थनिर्वृत्तिः स्यात्, “तिलेषु तैलम्” (श्वेउ १.१५) इतिवत् । किं तर्हि, एकदेशसंबन्धिनाप्य् आधेयेन भवति कृत्स्नस्याधारभावः, “प्रासाद आस्ते”, “रथं अधितिष्ठति” इति (च्ड़्। पाण् १.४.४५) । एवम् हि ग्रामनगरसमुदायस्य नदीपर्वतान्ताद्यवधिकस्य देशस्य प्रकृतत्वाद् एकदेशे ऽपि पर्वतारण्यादौ चरन् सर्वम् आधारीकरोति । तेनायम् अदोषः मूर्तयोर् नैकदेशः संभवति ।

• उच्यते । नैवात्र यष्टव्यम् इति विधिर् अस्ति । जानातेः परो विधायकः⁹ श्रुतः, न यजेः । यागस्य तत्रार्हता श्रुता, यागार्हो ऽसौ देश इति । सा च यागार्हतासत्य्¹⁰ अपि विधौ घटते । एतेषु देशेषु यागाङ्गानि दर्भपलाशखदिरादीनि प्रायेण च भवन्ति । अधिकारिणश् च त्रैवर्णिका त्रैविद्याश्¹¹ च तेष्व् एव देशेषु दृश्यन्ते । अत एतदवलम्बनो यागार्हतानुवादः । कृत्यो ऽपि “ज्ञेयः” इत्य् अध्यारोपितविध्यर्थः “जर्तिलयवाग्वा जुहुयाद्” (सेए मुरोय) इतिवद् विधिवन् निगदार्थवाद एव ।

• यच् चोक्तम् म्लेच्छदेशस् त्व् अतः परः इत्य् एषो ऽपि प्रायिको ऽनुवाद एव । प्रायेण ह्य् एषु देशेषु म्लेच्छा भवन्ति । न त्व् अनेन देशसंबन्धेन म्लेच्छा लक्ष्यन्ते,¹² स्वतस् तेषां प्रसिद्धेर् ब्राह्मणादिजातिवत् । अथार्थद्वारेणायं शब्दः प्रवृत्तो म्लेच्छानां देश इति । तत्र यदि कथंचिद् ब्रह्मावर्तादिदेशम् अपि म्लेच्छा आक्रमेयुः, तत्रैवावस्थानं कुर्युः, भवेद् एवासौ म्लेच्छदेशः । तथा यदि कश्चित् क्षत्रियादिजातीयो राजा साध्वाचरणो म्लेच्छान् पराजयेत्, चातुर्वर्ण्यं वासयेत्, म्लेच्छांश् चार्यावर्त इव चाण्डालान् व्यवस्थापयेत्, सो ऽपि स्याद् यज्ञियः । यतो न भूमिः स्वतो दुष्टा, संसर्गाद् धि सा दुष्यत्य् अमेध्योपहतेव । अत उक्तदेशव्यतिरेकेणापि सति सामग्र्ये त्रैवर्णिकेनाकृष्णमृगचरणे ऽपि देशे यष्टव्यम् एव । तस्माद् अनुवादो ऽयम् स ज्ञेयो यज्ञियो देशो म्लेच्छदेशस् त्व् अतः परः इत्य् उत्तरविधिशेषः ॥ २.२३ ॥

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).

‘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).

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

023 That land where the black antelope naturally roams, one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) the country of the Mlekkhas (barbarians).

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).

यदर्थं देशसंज्ञाभेदकथनं तम् इदानीं विधिम् आह । एतान् ब्रह्मावर्तादीन् देशान् द्विजातयो देशान्तरे ऽपि जाताः संश्रयेरन्¹³ । जन्मदेशं त्यक्त्वा ब्रह्मावर्तादिदेशसंश्रयणं प्रयत्नेन कर्तव्यम् ।

• अत्र केचिद् आहुर् अदृष्टार्थ एवायम् एतद्देशसंश्रयणविधिः । सत्य् अपि देशान्तरे¹⁴ ऽधिकारसंभवे एतेषु देशेषु निवासः कर्तव्यः । तत्र कल्प्याधिकारत्वे,¹⁵ यदि वा गङ्गादितीर्थस्नानवद् एतद्देशनिवासविधिः पावनत्वेन कल्प्यते । यथैव काश्चिद् आपः पवित्रतरा एवं भूमिभागा अपि केचिद् एव पवित्राः, यथोक्तं पुराणे । यदि वा संश्रयणाद् एव स्वतन्त्रात् स्वर्गो विश्वजिद्वत् ।

• तत्रैतौ द्वाव् अपि पक्षाव् अप्राप्तौ । यद्य् अप्राप्तः संश्रयो विधीयते, कल्प्येताप्य् अधिकारः । तत्र चिन्त्यते । कतरः पक्षो युक्त इति । स तु नित्यकाम्यानाम्¹⁶ उक्तया रीत्या एतद्देश एवानुष्ठानसंभवाद् अधिकृतानां प्राप्त एव । न ह्य् एतद्देशव्यतिरेकेण कृत्स्नधर्मानुष्ठानसंभवः । तथा हि, हिमवति तावत् काश्मीरादौ शीतेनार्दिता न बहिः संध्योपासने ऽधिक्रियन्ते, न च यथाविधि स्वाध्यायसंभवः “प्राग् वोदग् वा ग्रामाद् उपनिष्क्रम्य” इति । न हि हेमन्तशिशिरयोर् अहर् अहर् नदीस्नानादिसंभवः ।

• इदम् एव च द्विजातय इति वचनलिङ्गम्¹⁷ । न कश्चिद् एव देशो ऽसति म्लेच्छसंबन्धे स्वत एव म्लेच्छदेशः । अन्यथा तद्देशसंबन्धान् म्लेच्छत्वे कथं द्विजातित्वम् ।

• अथोच्यते । न गमनमात्रान् म्लेच्छता, अपि तु निवासात् । स चानेन प्रतिषिध्यते ।

• तच् च न । संश्रयो ऽत्र श्रूयते । स च देशान्तरे भवतस् तत्त्यागेनान्यदेशसंबन्धः । न संश्रितस्यैव संश्रयणम् । अन्यथा एवम् एवावक्ष्यत्- एतान् देशांस् त्यक्त्वा नान्यत्र निवसेत् । अथ सिद्धे संश्रयणे तद्वचनम् अन्यनिवृत्तियर्थम् इति, परिसंख्या तथा स्यात् । तस्याश् च त्रयो दोषाः । अथ श्रुतार्थहानिर्¹⁸ लक्ष्यते- “एतान् देशान् न जह्यात्” इति । न श्रुतार्थसंभवे लक्षणा युक्ता । अत एव न भूतपूर्वगतिः । तस्माल् लिङ्गम्¹⁹ इदं न देशसंबन्धेन पुरुषा म्लेच्छाः, किं तर्हि, पुरुषसंबन्धेन म्लेच्छदेशता ।

• शूद्रस्य द्विजातिशुश्रूषाया विहितत्वात् तद्देशनिवासे सर्वदा प्राप्ते तत्राजीवतो देशान्तरनिवासो ऽभ्यनुज्ञायते । यदा बहुकुटुम्बतया शुश्रूषाशक्त्या वा यं द्विजातिम्²⁰ आश्रितः स एनं²¹ बिभृयात्, तदा देशान्तरे संभवति धनार्जने निवसेत् । तत्रापि न म्लेच्छभूयिष्ठे, किं तर्हि, याज्ञिये, म्लेच्छावृते यानासनाशनादिक्रियानिमित्तस्य संसर्गस्यापरिहार्यत्वात् तद्भावापत्तिप्रसङ्गात् ।

• वृत्तिकर्शितो वृत्त्यभावपीडितः । वृत्तिर् आत्मकुटुम्बस्थितिसमर्थं धनम् । तदभावे यत् कर्शनं तत्संबन्धितयोच्यते, यथा “वर्षाकृते सुभिक्षदुर्भिक्षे” वर्षाभावकृतं दुर्भिक्षं वर्षाकृतत्वेन²² व्यपदिश्यते । यस्मिंस् तस्मिन्न् इति अनियमम्²³ आह²⁴ ॥ २.२४ ॥

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.

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).

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.’

024 Let twice-born men seek to dwell in those (above-mentioned countries); but a Sudra, distressed for subsistence, may reside anywhere.