०९ शिष्यलक्षणम्

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)

सायंप्रातः समिद्भिर् अग्नेर् आदीपनम् अगीन्धनम् । अपर्यङ्कारोहणम् अधःशय्या । न तु स्थण्डिलशायित्वम् एव । गुरवे हितम् उदकुम्भाद्याहरणं शुश्रूषणलक्षणम् । यत् तु तदुपकारकरणं तद् यावज्जीविकम् । एतद् आ ब्रह्मचर्यसमाप्तेर् गुरुकुलनिवृत्तिलक्षणात् स्नानात् कर्तव्यम्, स्वाध्यायाध्ययनविध्यर्थत्वात् । ब्रह्मचर्यस्य तद्धर्माणां च यावद् ग्रहणम् अनुवृत्तिस् तन्निवृत्त्या च निवृत्तिः सिद्धैवेति ।

• अग्नीन्धनादीनां पुनर्वचनं तद्व्यतिरिक्तस्यातिक्रान्तस्य धर्मकलापस्योत्तरेषाम् अप्य् आश्रमिणाम् अनुष्ठानार्थम् । तथा च गौतमः- “उत्तरेषां चैतद् अविरोधि¹” इति (ग्ध् ३.९) ।

• अथैवं कस्मान् न भवति एते यावद् ब्रह्मचर्यभाविनः, अन्ये पुनर् अर्वाग् अपि निवर्तन्त इति । स्मृत्यन्तरम् अत्रदर्शितम्² । प्रधानकानानुवर्तिनश् च नियमा इत्य् एष न्यायः सत्यां गतौ³ स्यात् ।

• गुरवे हितम् इति हितयोगे चतुर्थी (पाण् २.१.३६) न्याय्या ॥ २.१०८ ॥

‘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)

‘Āsamāvartanāt ’—See 3. 3-4.

This verse, is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra. p. 455), as laying down the duties of the Student;—inVīramitrodaya (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.

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.’

108 Let an Aryan who has been initiated, (daily) offer fuel in the sacred fire, beg food, sleep on the ground and do what is beneficial to this teacher, until (he performs the ceremony of) Samavartana (on returning home).

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)

वक्ष्यति⁴ “सर्वेषाम् एव दानानां ब्रह्मदानं विशिष्यते” (म्ध् ४.२३३) इति । तत्र कीदृशाय विद्या दातव्या इति पात्रलक्षणार्थः श्लोकः । ब्रह्मचारिधर्मप्रसङ्गेनाध्यापनविधिर् अयम् उच्यते ।

• आचार्यस्य पुत्रः । शुश्रूषा परिचर्या गृहोपयोगि शक्तितः कर्म करणं शरीरसंवाहनं च । ज्ञानादः यः कश्चिद् ग्रन्थ आचार्यस्य न विदितः, शिष्येण कथंचिच् छिक्षितो ऽर्थकामकलाविषयो धर्मविषयो वा । विद्याविनियमेनेदम् अध्यापनम् । धार्मिकः अग्निहोत्रादिकर्मानुष्ठानप्रधानः । शुचिर् मृद्वारिशुद्धः अर्थशुद्धश् च । गोबलीवर्दवत् पदत्रयस्य पुनर् उक्तम्- धार्मिकः शुचिः साधुर् इति । आप्तः सुहृद्बान्धवादिः पर्त्यासन्नः । शक्तः ग्रहणधारणसमर्थः । अर्थदः⁵ । स्वः पुत्रः उपनीतश् च । पूर्वे⁶ अन्योपनीता अप्य् अध्याप्याः ।

• ननु च धर्मत इत्य् उच्यते, एतैर् अध्यापितैर् धर्मो भवति । अर्थदश् च दृष्टेनोपकरोति । तत्र कुतो ऽदृष्टकल्पना । केनोक्तं कल्पनेति⁷ । श्रुते का कल्पना । साक्षाद् एव हि श्रुतम् अध्याप्या दश धर्मत इति ।

• उपाध्यायस् त्व् आह धर्मशास्त्रव्यवस्थोच्यते । एतैर् अध्यापितैर् धर्मातिक्रमो न भवति, न पुनर् अर्थदे अध्यापिते विद्यादानलक्षणो धर्मो भवति ॥ २.१०९ ॥

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)

‘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.

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.’

109 According to the sacred law the (following) ten (persons, viz.) the teacher’s son, one who desires to do service, one who imparts knowledge, one who is intent on fulfilling the law, one who is pure, a person connected by marriage or friendship, one who possesses (mental) ability, one who makes presents of money, one who is honest, and a relative, may be instructed (in the Veda).

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)

अधीयानेनानुपसन्नेन यदि नाशितम् अपाक्षरं विस्वरं वाधीतं तदापृष्टेन न वक्तव्यम्- “नाशितं त्वयैवम् एतत् पठितव्यम्” इति । शिष्यस्य त्व् अपृच्छतो ऽपि वक्तव्यम् । पृच्छमानो ऽपि यद्य् अन्यायेन पृच्छति तथापि न वक्तव्यम् । प्रशयपूर्वकम् “अस्मिन् वस्तुनि मे संदेहस् तद् उपदेष्टुम् अर्हसि” इति शिष्यधर्मेण प्रश्नो न्यायेन । अन्यथा तु जानन्न् अपि जडवन् मूक इव लोके वर्तेत आचरेद् अज्ञ इव तूष्णीम् आसीत ।

• शास्त्रविषयो ऽयम् अपृष्टसंदेहापनयननिषेधः । व्यवहारे तु वक्ष्यति- “नियुक्तो वानियुक्तो वा धर्मज्ञो वक्तुम् अर्हति” इति । अन्ये त्व् अविशेषेणेच्छन्ति ॥ २.११० ॥

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)

‘Jaḍavat.’—‘Jaḍa’ is ‘dumb’ here (Medhātithi and Kullūka);—an ‘idiot’ (according to others).

This verse is quoted in Yatidharmasaṃgraha (p. 107).

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.’

110 Unless one be asked, one must not explain (anything) to anybody, nor (must one answer) a person who asks improperly; let a wise man, though he knows (the answer), behave among men as (if he were) an idiot.

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)

अस्य प्रतिषेधस्यातिक्रमे दोषम् आह । अधर्मेण पृष्टो ऽन्यायपृष्टश् च यः प्रब्रवीति “एवम् एतद् उक्तम् अध्येतुम्” इति । यश् च पृच्छति । ताव् उभाव् अपि म्रियेते अप्राप्तकालौ । अथैको व्यतिक्रमकारी स एव म्रियते । यद्य् अन्यायेन पृष्टो न वक्ति तदा प्रष्टैव वाथ प्रतिवक्ति तदोभाव् अपि । अनेनान्यायप्रश्ने दोषदर्शनेन प्रष्टुर् न्याय्यः प्रश्नविधिः । दिद्वेषं वा द्वेष्यतां लोके प्राप्नोति ॥ २.१११ ॥

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)

‘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.

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.’

111 Of the two persons, him who illegally explains (anything), and him who illegally asks (a question), one (or both) will die or incur (the other’s) enmity.

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)

यद् उक्तम् “अध्याप्या दश धर्मतः” (म्ध् २.१०९) इति तस्यैवायं प्रकारान्तरेण संक्षेपतः प्रतिनिर्देशः, नापूर्वार्थाभिधानम्, प्रकृतानुवादत्वात् । अर्थशब्द उपकारमात्रलक्षणापरो द्रष्टव्यः, विद्याविनिमयेनापि पूर्वम् अध्ययनस्योक्तत्वात् । तद्विधा अध्यापनानुरूपा । महति महती स्वल्पे स्वल्पेति । तत्र विद्या । विद्यते ज्ञायते यया सर्वो ऽर्थ इति सा विद्या पाठो ऽर्थावबोधश् च । अनुपकारी नाध्याप्यः, न चास्यार्थविवरणं कर्तव्यम् ।

• उषरो भूमिभाग उच्यते, यस्मिन्न् अखिले ऽपि मृत्तिकादोषाद् बीजं न प्ररोहति । शुभं श्रेष्ठं व्रीह्यादिकं लाङ्गलादिनोप्यते । एवं विद्यापि क्षेत्रे ह्य् उप्ता महाफला भवति । न चैतन् मन्तव्यम्, अर्थम् आदाय यद् अध्यापनं सा भृतिः । न हि पणपरिमाणसंभाषणपूर्विका तत्र प्रवृत्तिः- “यदेयद् ददासि तदैतद् अध्यापयामि” इति । एतद् भृते रूपम् । न पुनर् अर्थोपकारगन्धमात्रेण ।

यत् तु न पूर्वं किंचिद् गुरवे उपकुर्वीतेति, नासौ पूर्वोपकारप्रतिषेधः, किं तु स्नास्यतावशम् आज्ञप्तेन गुर्वर्थो यथाशक्ति संपाद्यः । तच्छेष एव प्रतिषेधो न पृथग् वाक्यम्[^३३८] ॥ २.११२ ॥

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)

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).

**(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.’

112 Where merit and wealth are not (obtained by teaching) nor (at least) due obedience, in such (soil) sacred knowledge must not be sown, just as good seed (must) not (be thrown) on barren land.

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)

समंशब्दः सहार्थे । अप्रतिपादितया स्वदेह एव जर्जरितया⁸ युक्तं ब्रह्मवादिनो वेदाध्यायिनो मरणम्, न पुनर् अपात्रे प्रतिपादनम् ।

• अनेन च ज्ञायते- अध्यापनम् अप्य् अधीतवेदेनावश्यं कर्तव्यम्, न केवलं वृत्त्यर्थम् । नापि वार्यादिदानवत् फलकामस्यैवाधिकारः । तथा च श्रुतिः- “यो हि विद्याम् अधीत्यार्थिने न ब्रूयात् स कार्यहा स्यात् । श्रेयसो द्वारम् अपावृणुयात् । अध्यापयेन् महद् एतद् यशस्यं वाचो ऽधिकारं कवयो वदन्ति । अस्मिन् योगे सर्वम् इदं प्रतिष्ठितम् । य एवं विदुर् अमृता ते भवन्ति” । “स कार्यहा स्यात्” इत्य् अनेनानध्यापने दोषम् अनुवदन्ती⁹ श्रुतिर् एवावश्यकर्तव्यतां ज्ञापयति ।

• इरिणे, पूर्वोक्तप्रयोजनत्रयाभावो यत्र । आपद्य् अपि हि घोरायां कष्टायाम् अपि । कष्टा आपदुक्तशिष्याभावः । एतच् चावश्यकर्तव्ये सत्य् उपपद्यते । नित्यत्वे हि मुख्याभावे प्रतिनिधिशिष्योपादानेनाध्यपननिवृत्तिः¹⁰ प्राप्ता । व्रीह्यभाववन् नीवारैः । अतो ऽस्याम् अवस्थायाम् अध्यापनाधिकारनिवृत्तिर् एव । यथोक्तलक्षणातिथ्यभावे ऽतिथिपूजानिवृत्तिः । वपेद् इति लक्षणया बीजधर्मेणाध्यपनम् उच्यते । बीजं किल क्षेत्रोप्तं बहुफलं भवत्य् एवं विद्यापि ।

• अन्ये¹¹ तु धनाभावनिमित्ताम् आपदम् आचक्षते । अत्यन्तदुर्गतेनापि नेरिणे वप्तव्येति वरं म्रियताम्¹² । “सर्वत एवात्मानं गोपायेत्” (ग्ध् ९.३४) इति नैष विधिर् अतिक्रान्तो भवति सत्य् अपि तथाविधाध्यापने वृत्त्युपाये ।

• तद् एतद् अयुक्तम् । अर्थदो नैवेरिणम्, पूर्वोक्तानुवादत्वाद् इरिणशब्दस्य । यदि चार्थदो ऽपि न भवति कथम् आपदि तत्र प्रवृत्तिः संभाव्यते, या निषिध्यते ॥ २.११३ ॥

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)

This also is quoted along with 112 in Madanapārijāta (p. 103);—also in Vīdhānapārijāta (p, 523).

**(Verses 112-113)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.112].

113 Even in times of dire distress a teacher of the Veda should rather die with his knowledge than sow it in barren soil.

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)

vidyā ha vai brāhmaṇamājagām gopāya māṃ śevadhiṣṭe’hamasmi | asūyakāyānṛjave apatāya nā mām brūyāt avīryavatī tathā syām ||

अयम् अप्य् अर्थवाद एव । विद्या मूर्तिमती कंचिद् उपाध्यायम् आगत्य आह प्रोक्तवती । शेवधिर् निधिस् तव अस्मि रक्ष माम् । का पुनस् ते रक्षा । असूयकाय कुत्साकराय निन्दकाय मां मादाः । निन्दकं माध्यापय । तथा चैवम् अहं वीर्यवत्तमा अतिशयेन तव कार्यकारिणी¹³ भवामि । वीर्यं कार्यनिवृत्तौ सामर्थ्यातिशयः । “शेवधिष्टे ऽस्मि” इति कृतषत्वं पठितं तच्छान्दसप्रयोगानुकरणम् ॥ २.११४ ॥

‘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)

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).

(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.’

114 Sacred Learning approached a Brahmana and said to him: ‘I am thy treasure, preserve me, deliver me not to a scorner; so (preserved) I shall become supremely strong.’

“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)

yameva vidyā śucimapramattaṃ medhāvinaṃ brahmacaryopapannam | yaste na duhyet katamañca nāhaṃ tasmai māṃ vrūyā nidhidāya brahman ||

यं शिष्यं शुचिं जानीयाः¹⁴ नियतं संयतेन्द्रियं यत्नपरं ब्रह्मचारिणं तस्मै मां ब्रूहि । यो हि निधिं पाति रक्षति । यतो ऽसाव् अप्रमादी न प्रमाद्यति न स्खलति, तत्परत्वात् । शक्ताप्तार्थदादीनां सर्वशिष्याणाम् एतद्गुणसंयोगे देयेत्य् अस्माद् अर्थवादाद् गम्यते ॥ २.११५ ॥

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)

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).

(Verse 114-115)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.114].

115 ‘But deliver me, as to the keeper of thy treasure, to a Brahmana whom thou shalt know to be pure, of subdued senses, chaste and attentive.’

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)

यो ऽभ्यासार्थम् अधीयानस्यान्यं चोद्दिश्यैवं व्याचक्षाणस्य तत्संनिकर्षम् अन्य आगत्य तद्ब्रह्मापूर्वं गृह्णीयात् संदेहं वापनुदेत् तस्यैष दोष उच्यते । यावद् अनुज्ञाम् असौ न दाप्यते, “यथैते त्वत्सकाशाद् अधीयत एवम् अप्य् अहम् अप्य् अधीयीयेत्य् अनुज्ञातुम् अर्हसि” इति लब्धानुज्ञां शिक्षेत । अन्यथा तु यद्ब्रह्माध्ययनं तत् स्तेयम् इव । सो ऽध्येतानेन ब्रह्मचौरेण संयुक्तो नरकं महायातनास्थानं प्राप्नोति ।

• अधीयानाद् इति पञ्चमी “आख्यातोपयोगे” (पाण् १.४.२९) इति । अपायस्य वा गम्यमानत्वाद् ब्रह्म ह्य् अध्येतुर् निष्क्रामतीव । ल्यब्लोपे वा कर्मणि । अधीयानं श्रुत्वाप्नोति शिक्षते ॥ २.११६ ॥

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)

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.’

116 But he who acquires without permission the Veda from one who recites it, incurs the guilt of stealing the Veda, and shall sink into hell.