१० स्नेहादरक्रमः

One should first salute him from whom he receives knowledge, either temporal or scriptural or spiritual.—(117)

अतिक्रान्तं प्रासङ्गिकम् । अभिवादनविधिर् इदानीं प्रक्रम्यते ।

• लोके भवं लौकिकं लोकाचारशिक्षणम् । अथ वा गीतवादित्रकलानां ज्ञानं वात्स्यायनविशाखिकलाविषयग्रन्थज्ञानं वा । वैदिकं विधिनोदितं वेदवेदाङ्गस्मृतिविषयम् । आध्यात्मिकविद्यात्मोपनिषद्विद्या । आत्मोपचाराद् वा शरीरस्य वैदिकम् । एतज् ज्ञानं यतः शिक्षेत तं पूर्वम् उपदेष्टारं पुरुषम् अभिवादयेत् । प्रथमसंगमे यद् आशीःप्रयोगार्थं वक्ष्यमाणस्वरूपेण प्रयोगेण शब्देन संमुखीकरणं सो ऽभिवादयतेर् अर्थः । पूर्वम् इति प्रथमम् । तेनासौ संबोध्यः, न पुनस् तदीयं वचनम् अपेक्षितव्यम् । तदा हि प्रत्यभिवादयिता भवेत् । अभिवादयेद्¹ इत्य् अनेनैव सिद्धत्वात् पूर्वशब्दो ऽनर्थक इति चेत् तन् न । सति ह्य् अस्मिन्न् अयम् अर्थो लभ्यते । धातूपसर्गार्थपर्यालोचनया ह्य् आभिमुख्येन वदनमात्रं प्रतीयते । अन्येनापि संबोधितस्य भवत्य् एव । ये तु पूर्वं स्वयोनिगुरुभ्य² इति व्याचक्षते, तद् अप्रकृतसंशब्दितम् इत्य् उपक्ष्यम् ॥ २.११७ ॥

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)

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).

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.’

117 (A student) shall first reverentially salute that (teacher) from whom he receives (knowledge), referring to worldly affairs, to the Veda, or to the Brahman.

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)

अभिवादनाद्याचारविधेः स्तुतिर् इयम् । सावित्रीमात्रं सारं प्रधानं यस्य स एवम् उच्यते, सावित्रीमात्राध्ययनः । वरं श्रेष्ठो विप्रो यदि सुयन्त्रितो भवति शास्त्रनिगृहीतात्मा । अयन्त्रितस् त्रिवेदो ऽपि शास्त्रविद् अपि । सर्वाशी³ सर्वम् अश्नाति लोकाचारगर्हितं साक्षाद् अप्रतिषिद्धम् अपि । एवं सर्वविक्रयी । प्रदर्शनार्थाव् अशनविक्रयाव् अन्यस्यापि प्रतिषिद्धस्य ।

• एतद् उक्तं भवति । यथान्यनियमत्यागान् निन्द्यते एवं प्रत्युत्थानादित्यागाद् अपि । अथ कथं वरं विप्र इति, यावता वरो विप्र इति भवितव्यम् । केचिद् आहुः सामान्योपक्रमस्य विशेषस्याभिधानात्, वरम् एतत्, किं तत्, यत् सुयन्त्रितो विप्र इति । अन्ये त्व् आहुर् आविष्टलिङ्गो वरशब्दो नपुंसकलिङ्गो ऽप्य् अस्ति ॥ २.११८ ॥

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)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 460).

118 A Brahmana who completely governs himself, though he know the Savitri only, is better than he who knows the three Vedas, (but) does not control himself, eats all (sorts of) food, and sells all (sorts of goods).

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)

शय्या चासनं चेति “जातिर् अप्राणिनाम्” (पाण् २.४.६) इति द्वन्द्वैकवद्भावः । तस्मिन् श्रेयसा विद्याद्यधिकेन गुर्वादिना च न समाविशेन् न सहासीत । किं सर्वस्मिन्न् एव । नेत्य् आह । अध्याचरिते कल्पिते शय्यात्वेनासनत्वेन च । यत् तु शिलाफलकादिस् तत्र न दोषः । वक्ष्यति च “आसीत⁴ गुरुणा सार्धम्” (म्ध् २.२०४) इति तस्यैवायम् अनुवादः ।

• अन्ये व्याचक्षत अध्याचरिते अधिष्ठित इति । न समाविशेत् तत्रोत्तरकालम् अपि, न केवलं सहासनप्रतिषेधः । स हि वक्ष्यमाणेनैव सिद्धः । विधौ च संभवति नानुवादो युक्तः ।

• तत्र केचिद् आचारतो भेदं व्याचक्षते । यद् गुरोर् असाधारण्येन शय्यात्वेनासनत्वेन च विज्ञातम्, यत्र गुरुः शेते आस्ते च, तत्र शिष्यः प्रत्यक्षं प्रोक्षं च नोपविशेत् । यत्र तु कथंचिद् एते क्रिये गुरुणा कृते तत्र गुरोर् अप्रत्यक्षं प्रतिषेधः । ईदृशम् एव्आध्याचरितम् उच्यते, न स्वस्वामिसंबन्धेन यद् अधिष्ठानम् ।

• शय्यासनस्थस्य च यदि श्रेयान् आगच्छति तदा तत उत्थायाभिवादनं कर्तव्यम् । यत् तु “यानासनस्थः” (म्ध् २.२०२) इति तद् गुरूद्दिष्टम्⁵ अवरोहणम् । शय्यासनत्याग एव भूमिष्ठेन कर्तव्य इति तस्यार्थः । इदं त्व् अगुरोः श्रेयसः प्रत्युत्थानम् आसनस्थस्यैव संभवति ॥ २.११९ ॥

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)

‘Adhyācarte’—‘Prepared’ (Medhātithi);—‘occupied’ (Kullūka). This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 460).

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.’

119 One must not sit down on a couch or seat which a superior occupies; and he who occupies a couch or seat shall rise to meet a (superior), and (afterwards) salute him.

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)

पूर्वस्यार्थवादः । स्थविरे वृद्धवयस्य् आयात्य् आगच्छति, यूनस् तरुणस्य ऊर्ध्वं प्राणाः जीवितहेतवो ऽन्तर्मरुत ऊर्ध्वम् आस्याद् बहिर् निक्रामन्ति । अपानवृत्तिं परित्यज्य जीवविच्छेदं चिकीर्षन्ति । प्रत्युत्थाय यद् अभिवादनं क्रियते तेन यथापूर्वं जीवितस्थेम्ने कल्पन्ते । प्रतिपद्यते प्रत्युज्जीवति ॥ २.१२० ॥

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)

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.

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).

120 For the vital airs of a young man mount upwards to leave his body when an elder approaches; but by rising to meet him and saluting he recovers them.

For one who is in the habit of saluting and constantly revering elders,—four things prosper: viz., longevity, merit, fame and strength.—(121)

सर्वान् एव प्रति पूर्वाभिभाषिता यथार्हाभिवादनशीलता न पुनर् अभिवादनशब्दोच्चारणम् एव । शीलशब्देन प्रयोजनापेक्षाभाव उच्यते । नित्यं वृद्धान् उपसेवते प्रियवचनादिना । यथाशक्त्या ह्य् उपकारेण चाराधयते । तस्य चत्वारि संप्रवर्धन्ते । आयुर् धर्मो ऽमुत्र स्वर्गादिफलपादपः । यशोबले च प्रागुक्ते । अर्थवादो ऽप्य् अयं फलावगमहेतुः ॥ २.१२१ ॥

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)

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).

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.’

121 He who habitually salutes and constantly pays reverence to the aged obtains an increase of four (things), (viz.) length of life, knowledge, fame, (and) strength.

The Brāhmaṇa, when greeting an elder, should, after the accosting, pronounce his name, (saying) “this here, I am named so and so,”—(122)

येअन् शब्देन परः संबोध्यते, आशिषं प्रति प्रयोज्यते, कुशलप्रश्नं वा कार्यते, सो ऽभिवादः । अस्माद् अभिवादाद् अभिवादप्रतिपादकाच् छब्दात् परम् अव्यवहितपूर्वं इमं⁶ शब्दम् उच्चारयेत्- असौ नामाहम् अस्मीत्य् । असाव् इति सर्वनाम सर्वविशेषप्रतिपादकम् । अभिमुखीकरणार्थो ऽयम् ईदृशः शब्दप्रयोगः “मया त्वम् अभिवाद्यसे आशीर्वादार्थम् अभिमुखीक्रियसे” । ततो ऽध्येषणाम् अवगम्य प्रत्यभिवादम् आशीर्दानादि कर्तुम् आरभते ।

• न च सामान्यवाचिना सर्वनाम्ना प्रयुज्यमानेनैतद्⁷ उक्तं भवतीदं नामधेयेन मयाभिवाद्यसे इत्य् अतो ऽध्येषणाम् अनवबुध्य कस्याशिषं प्रयुङ्क्ताम् ।अपि च स्वनाम परिकीर्तयेद् इति श्रुतम् । तत्रासौ देवदत्तनामाहम् इत्य् उक्तेनाभिवादनं प्रतिपद्येत । असाव् इत्य् एतस्य पदस्यानर्थक्याद् अर्थानवसायः ।

• स्मृत्यन्तरतन्त्रेणापि व्यवहरन्ति च सूत्रकाराः । यथा पाणिनिः- “कर्मणि द्वितीया” (पाण् २.३.२) इति द्वितीयादिशब्दैः । इहाप्य् असाव् इति । “स्वं नामातिदिशत” इति यज्ञसूत्रे ऽपि परिभाषितम् । यद्य् एवं स्वं नामेत्य् अनेनैव सिद्धे ऽसौ नामेत्य् अनर्थकम् । नामशब्दप्रयोगार्थम् । कथम् । स्वं नाम कीर्तयेद् इदं नामाहम् इति । अनेन स्वरूपेणाहम् अस्मीति । समानार्थत्वाद् विकल्पं मन्यन्ते ।

• अत्र श्लोकद्वये⁸ एतावद् अभिवादनवाक्यस्य रूपं सिद्धम्- “अभिवादये देवदत्तनामाहं भोः” । उत्तरेण श्लोकेन भोर् इत्य् एतद् विधास्यते । ज्यायांसम् इति वचनात् समहीनानाम् अप्य् अभिवादनम् अस्ति, न त्व् अयं प्रकारः, ज्यायोविषयत्वाद् अस्य ॥ २.१२२ ॥

‘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)

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

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.’

122 After the (word of) salutation, a Brahmana who greets an elder must pronounce his name, saying, ‘I am N. N.’

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)

वित्ताद्याधिक्येनाविदुषो ऽपि यथाविध्य् अभिवाद्यतायां प्राप्तायां तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् इदम् । ये केचिद् अविद्वांसो नामधेयस्य संस्कृतस्योच्चारितस्य अभिवादम् अभिवादार्थम् । अभिवादिता एतेन वयम् इत्य् अवैय्याकरणा न जानतेम् संस्कृतं नावबुध्यन्ते, तान् प्राज्ञो नारीश् चाभिवाद्याः । एते न संस्कृतम् उच्यमानं प्रतिपद्यते, तत्र विध्येकदेशं स्वनामग्रहणं हित्वा “अभिवादये ऽहम्” इत्य् एतावद् एव ब्रूयात् । तद् अपि चेन् नावबुध्यन्ते, लौकिकेनापभ्रंशेनाप्य् अभिवाद्या इत्य् एवमर्थं प्राज्ञग्रहणम् । तदीयाम् अबोधशक्तिं ज्ञात्वोहितव्यो ऽभिवादप्रयोगो नोपदेश एवादर्तव्यः । स्त्रियो ऽप्य्⁹ एवम् एव । सर्वग्रहणं गुरुपत्नीनां संस्कृतप्रयोगज्ञानाम् अपि ।

• अन्ये तु य उपनामिकया प्रसिद्धो वनमालीवर्ण इति, पितृकृतं यत् तस्य नाम तन् न प्रसिद्धम्, यत् प्रसिद्धं न तन् नामेत्य् अतो ऽसौ स्वनाम कीर्तयेत् ।

• अन्ये तु प्रत्यभिवादं न जानत इति वर्णयन्ति । “प्रत्यभिवादे ऽशूद्रे” (पाण् ८.२.८३) इति नामान्ते प्लुतो विहितः । तं ये न विदुस् तेष्व् अहम् इत्य् एव वाच्यम् । व्याकरणप्रयोजनोपन्यासप्रसङ्गेन चैतन् महाभाष्यकारेण प्रदर्शितम् ।

• अविद्वांसः प्रत्यभिवादे नाम्नो ये न प्लुतिं विदुः ।

• कामं तेषु तु विप्रोष्य स्त्रीष्व् इवायम् अहं वदेत् ॥ (पत् इ- ३)

स्मृत्यन्तरसामर्थ्याद् एवायम् अभिवादशब्दः प्रत्यभिवादे वर्तत इत्य् आहुः ।

• यदि चैतद् एवं न व्याख्यायते तदा नाभिवाद्यः स विदुषेति सर्वेण सर्वम् अभिवादप्रतिषेधः आश्रीयमाणे “अयम् अहं वदेद्” इति स्मृत्यन्तरविरोधः । अस्मिंस् त्व् एवं व्याख्याते स प्रतिषेधः स्तुत्यालम्बनो न विधायक एतद् अर्थानुसारितया नीयते ॥ २.१२३ ॥

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)

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!’

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.’

123 To those (persons) who, when a name is pronounced, do not understand (the meaning of) the salutation, a wise man should say, ‘It is I;’ and (he should address) in the same manner all women.

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)

स्वस्य नाम्नो ऽन्ते भोःशब्दं कीर्तयेत् । स्वग्रहणम् अभिवाद्यमानप्रतिषेधार्थम् । परिशिष्टो ऽर्थवादः । न च नामाक्षराणाम् एवान्ते ऽपि तु ततः परेषाम् “अहम् अस्मि” इति । एष हि तत्रेतिकरणं प्रयोगावधारणार्थम् । एवम् एव प्रयोक्तव्यः । अपि च “देवदत्तो भो अहम्” इति दुःशिष्टे प्रयोगे विलम्बितायां प्रतिपत्तौ संमुखीभावश् चिरेण स्यात् तत्र कार्यविरोधः । व्यवहितसंबन्धे कश्चिन् नैवावधानवान् स्यात् ।

• स्वरूपभावः स्वरूपस्य सत्ता । अथ वाभिवाद्यनाम्नां स्वरूपे भवति, तत्स्थाने भवत्य् अतस् तन्नामनिवृत्तिः । भावसाधनः कर्तृसाधनो वा भावशब्दः । स्वरूपभाव इति सप्तम्यन्तो वा पठितव्यः । भोभावः¹⁰ । भो इत्य् एतस्य यद् भवनं यत् स्वरूपं तन् नाम्नां स्वरूपम् । यथैव नाम गृहीत्वा कस्यचित् संबोधनं क्रियते “देवदत्त श्रूयताम्” इति, एवं भोःशब्दो ऽप्य् आमन्त्रितविभक्त्यन्तः संबोधनायैवं ऋषिभिः स्मर्यते ॥ २.१२४ ॥

‘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)

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).

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (28.17.)—‘In salutation, he should pronounce his own name and at the end the word bhoḥ.’

124 In saluting he should pronounce after his name the word bhoh; for the sages have declared that the nature of bhoh is the same as that of (all proper) names.

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)

nanu mārtaṇḍa ityatra mārtaśabdāntyāc takārākāraḥ sa ādiryasyetyanyapadārtho durlabha iti cenna | ekasminneva samudāyatvāropeṇa tadavayavatvāropeṇa ca tadupapatteḥ ||

अभिवादने कृते प्रत्यभिवादः पित्राभिवादयिता एवं वाच्यः आयुष्मान् भव सौमेति । इत्य्शब्दः प्रकारे । आयुष्मान् एधि दीर्घायुर् भूयाश् चिरञ्जीवेत्य् एवमादिशब्दपरिग्रहः शिष्टाचारप्रसिद्धो भवति ।

• अकारश् चास्य प्रत्यभिवाद्यस्य यन् नाम तदन्ते यो ऽकारः स प्लुतः कर्तव्यः । प्लुत इति त्रिमात्रस्य संज्ञा । अकारग्रहणम् इकारादीनाम् अपि प्रदर्शनार्थम् । अजपेक्षम् एव चान्तत्वं द्रष्टव्यम् । व्यज्ञनान्तस्यापि यो ऽन्त्यः स्वरस् तस्य भवति । पूर्वाक्षर एव प्लुतभाविनो ऽकारस्य विशेषणम् एतत् । अक्षरम् अत्र व्यञ्जनम् । तत्र पूर्वश्लिष्टः¹¹ स एवम् उच्यते । एतद् उक्तं भवति । पूर्व एव नागन्तुर् अकारः प्लुतः कर्तव्यः । किं तर्हि, य एव नाम्नि विद्यते स एव प्लावयितव्यः ।

• सर्वं चैतद् एवं व्याख्यानं भगवतः पाणिनेः स्मृतिसामर्थ्येन¹² । शब्दार्थप्रयोगे च मन्वादिभ्यो ऽधिकतरः प्रामाण्ये भगवान् पाणिनिः । स च “प्रत्यभिवादे ऽशूद्रे” (पाण् ८.२.८३) टेः प्लुतिं स्मरति । टिशब्देन यो ऽन्त्योच् तदादिशब्दरूपम् उच्यते ।

• विप्रग्रहणम् अविवक्षितम् । क्षत्रियादीनाम् अप्य् एष एव विधिः । स्मृत्यन्तरसमाचारो ह्य् एवम् एव स्थितः । न चैषां विध्यन्तरम् अस्ति । अत्रोदाहरणम् “आयुष्मान् देवदत्त३” । व्यञ्जनान्तस्य “आयुष्मान् एधि सोमशर्म३न्” ॥ २.१२५ ॥

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)

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.

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.’

125 A Brahmana should thus be saluted in return, ‘May’st thou be long-lived, O gentle one!’ and the vowel ‘a’ must be added at the end of the name (of the person addressed), the syllable preceding it being drawn out to the length of three moras.

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)

यो न वेत्ति प्रत्यभिवादनम् इत्य् एवं वाच्यम् अभिवादस्येत्य् अतिरिच्यते, न संगच्छते । नैवम् । अभिवादस्य अनुरूपं प्रत्यभिवादनम् इत्य् एवं योजना क्रियते । येन स्वनामोच्चार्याभिवादनं कृतं तस्य नामान्ते प्लुतिः कर्तव्या । यस् त्व् “अहं भो” इत्य् एवम् अभिवदेन् न तस्य नामोच्चारणं¹³ नापि प्लुतिर् इति ।

• नाभिवाद्य इत्य् अभिवादनशब्दोच्चारणप्रतिषेधः । यथा विहितम् अभिवादनं कर्तव्यम्, न पुनर् “अहं भो” इत्यादि, तस्य प्राग् दर्शितत्वात् । यथा शूद्र इति च दृष्टान्तेनैतद् एव ज्ञायते । शूद्रस्यापि वृद्धवयसो ऽभिवाद्यत्वं पूर्वाभिभाष्यत्वम् इष्यते । विदुषेति पादपूरणार्थम् ॥ २.१२६ ॥

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)

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).

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.’

126 A Brahmana who does not know the form of returning a salutation, must not be saluted by a learned man; as a Sudra, even so is he.

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)

कृताभिवादनप्रत्यभिवादनयोः सौहार्दे प्राप्ते जिज्ञसाप्रश्ने जातिभेदाश्रयः शब्दनियमो ऽयम् इष्यते । प्रष्टव्यानां जातिनियमो ऽयम्, न प्रष्टॄणाम् । नात्यन्तभिन्नार्थत्वाच् च एतेषां स्वरूपनियमो ऽयं विधीयते । आरोग्यानामयशब्दौ समानर्थौ । एवं क्षेमकुशलशब्दाव् अपि नात्यन्तभिन्नौ । कुशलशब्दो यद्य् अपि प्रावीण्यवचनस् तथापीह संयोगिनाम् अर्थानां शरीराणां चानपाये वर्तते । एते ऽवश्यं प्रयोक्तव्याः । अन्येषाम् अपि यथाप्रतिभं विशेषजिज्ञासयाप्रतिषेधः¹⁴ । तथा महाभारते कस्मिंश्चिद् अध्याये दर्शितम् ।

• केचिद् इह समागम्येति लिङ्गान् न गुर्वादिविषयो ऽयं प्रश्नः, किं तर्हि सवयसाम् एव । अभिगमनं हि गुरौ विहितम्, न यदृच्छया समागमः । अभिगमने ऽपि समागमो ऽस्तीति यत्किंचिद् एतत् ॥ २.१२७ ॥

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)

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).

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.’

127 Let him ask a Brahmana, on meeting him, after (his health, with the word) kusala, a Kshatriya (with the word) anamaya, a Vaisya (with the word) kshema, and a Sudra (with the word) anarogya.

A person who has been initiated (for a rite), even though he be younger, should not be addressed by name; one who knows the law should address him beginning with such terms as “sir” and “your worship.”—(128)

प्रत्यभिवादनकाल अन्यत्र च दीक्षितो ज्योतिष्टोमादिषु दीक्षणीयातः प्रभृत्या अवभृथान् नाम्ना न वाच्यस् तस्य यन् नामधेयं तन् नोच्चारयितव्यम् । यवीयान् कनीयान् अचिरकालजातः । अपिशब्दात् ज्येष्ठस्यादीक्षितस्यापि नामग्रहणनिषेधो ऽनुमीयते । तथा च गौतमः- “नामगोत्रे गुरोः समानतो निर्दिशेत्” (ग्ध् २.२३) । मानः पूजा, तत्पूर्वकं नाम ग्रहीतव्यम्- तत्रेश्वरो जनार्दनमिश्र इति ।

• कथं तर्हि दीक्षितेन कार्यार्थं संभाषः कर्तव्यः । भोभवत्पूर्वकम् । भोःशब्दं पूर्वं प्रयुज्य, एनं दीक्षितम् अभिभाषेत, दीक्षितयजमानादिशब्दैर् यौगिकैः । न तु भोःशब्दपूर्वकं नामग्रहणम् अभ्यनुज्ञायते ।

• भोभवच्छब्दः पूर्वो यस्याभिभाषणस्य तद् एवम् उक्ते द्वयोश् चैतयोः शब्दयोर् एकत्र वाक्ये प्रयोगाभावाद् व्यवस्थां व्याचक्षते । यदा तेन सह संभाषणं भवति तदामन्त्रितविभक्त्यन्तेन भोःशब्देन संबोध्यः । यदा तु तदीयगुणाख्यानं परोक्षं करोति- “तत्रभवता दीक्षितेनैवं कृतम्,” “तत्रभवान् एवं करोति” इत्य् एवं प्रयोक्तव्यम् । भवद् इति च प्रातिपदिकमात्रम् उपात्तम्, यथा विभक्त्या संबन्धम् उपैति तदन्तं प्रयोक्तव्यम् ॥ २.१२८ ॥

At the time of answering a greeting, as also on other occasions, one who has been ‘initiated,’—that is, during the time beginning from the performance of Dīkṣaṇīyā Īṣṭi and ending with the Final Bath—should not be addressed by name; i.e., his name should not he uttered.

‘Younger’—born not very long ago.

The term ‘api’ ‘even,’ leads us to infer that of the elder person one should not utter the name, even though he he n ot initiated. Says Gautama (2.23)—‘The name and gotra of one’s superior should bo uttered with māna, reverence’;—‘māna’ here stands for reverence’, and the meaning is that the name should he uttered with reverence; e.g., in some such form as ‘the highly revered lord, Janārdana Miśra.’

Question—“How then is one to converse with an initiated person, on matters of business?”

It should begin with such terms as ‘sir’ and ‘your worship.’ That is, ono should address the initiated person, after having pronounced the word ‘Sir,’ and then by such names as ‘Initiate’ (), ‘sacrificer’ (‘yajamāna’) and the like, which are applicable to him in their denotative sense. It does not mean that after having pronounced the term ‘sir,’ he should be addressed by name.

The passage being construed as—‘the address which is preceded by the terms sir and your worship,’—in view of the fact that it is not possible to use both the terms in the same sentence, people have laid down the following rule—(a) when one is conversing with him directly, then he should be addressed with the term sir, Bhoḥ, which contains a vocative ending; (b)and when his qualities are being described to some one else, then one should use such words as ‘such and such a thing has been done by his worship the Initiate,’ ‘his worship does so and so.’ The text mentions only the basic from ‘bhavat’ (‘your worship’), and it is to be used with such case-endings as may fit in with the sentence in which it is contained.—(128)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 466), where the following explanation is added:—At the time of returning the salutation, the person initiated for a sacrifice even though he be younger in age, should not be addressed by name, after the performance of the Dīkṣaṇīyā Iṣṭi, the Initiatory Sacrifice, till the completion of the Final Bath of the Avabhṛtha; he should be addressed by such words as ‘Dīkṣita’ and the like, following after the syllable ‘bhoḥ’ or ‘bhavat—i. e. ‘bho dīkṣita’.

It is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 28) in support of the view that even in the return greeting, the name of the initiate should not be pronounced; and is explained to mean that the initiate should be addressed with such words as ‘bho dīkṣita or ‘bhavān dīkṣita, or some such other expressions containing a synonym of the word ‘dīkṣita’.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (6.19).—‘The Initiated also, upon the Purchase (of Soma) [should be addressed as Sir].’

128 He who has been initiated (to perform a Srauta sacrifice) must not be addressed by his name, even though he be a younger man; he who knows the sacred law must use in speaking to such (a man the particle) bhoh and (the pronoun) bhavat (your worship).

A female who is the wife of another person, and is not related to one by birth, should be addressed as “Lady,” and also “blessed,” or “sister.”—(129)

अर्थप्रयुक्तं संभाषणं स्त्रिया सह यदा भवति तदैवं कर्तव्यम् । या तावत् परस्य पत्नी सा “भवति सुभगे” अथ वा “भवति बगिनि” । भवच्छब्दो ऽयं स्त्रीप्रत्ययान्तः संबुद्धौ कृतह्रस्वः । भवतीत्य् अत्रेतिकरणं पदार्थविपर्यासकृतस्वरूपं परं¹⁵ बोधयति, सुभगे भगिनीत्य् अत्र प्रकारे । ब्रूयाद् इत्य् अधिकाराच् छब्दस्वरूपग्रहणं सिद्धम् । आचार्यतायां¹⁶ च मातर् यशस्विनि, कनीयसी च दुहितर् आयुष्मतीत्य् एवमादिभिः शब्दैः संभाष्या । पत्नीग्रहणात् कन्याया नैष विधिः । असंबद्धा च योनितः । मातृपक्षपितृपक्षाभ्यां या ज्ञातित्वं नागता मातुलदुहित्रादिस् तासाम् अन्यं विधिं वक्ष्यति “ज्ञातिसंबन्धियोषितः” इति (म्ध् २.१३२) ।

• ननु च तेनैव तत्सिद्धम्,¹⁷ अस्योत्सर्गस्यान्यत्र चरितार्थत्वात् किम् असंबद्धा चेत्य् अनेन । नात्र पौनरुक्त्योद्भावने यतितव्यम्, पद्यग्रन्थो ऽयम् ॥ २.१२९ ॥

When conversation is held with a female in connection with some business, then one should do as directed in this verse.

She who is the wife of another person should be addressed either as ‘blessed lady,’ or as ‘lady, my sister.’ The term ‘bhavati’ ending in the short vowel is derived from the base ‘bhavat’ with the feminine affix, and with the vocative Case-ending. The particle ‘iṭi’ after ‘bhavati’ indicates that it is used in addition to the terms ‘blessed’ and ‘sister.’

‘One should address’;—this conclusively proves that the terms in question arc meant to he used in their verbal forms.

If the lady happens to he an elderly one, she should he addressed as ‘mother,’ ‘glorious one’ and so forth; and if she is younger in age, she is to be addressed as ‘daughter,’ ‘long-lived one,’ and so forth.

The presence of the term ‘wife’ shows that the form laid down is not to be used in connection with unmarried girls.

‘Who is not related to one by birth,’—one who, like the daughter of the maternal uncle, has not become a ‘relative’ either from the father’s or the mother’s side. Special rules regarding these are going to be laid down below (under 132).

Objection.—“In that case this latter verse would suffice to signify that the present rule does not apply to relatives; and the general rule here laid down would he applicable to other cases; under the circumstances, where is the use of adding the clause ‘who is not related, etc.’?”

Answer.—This being a metrical treatise, we should not be very particular about superfluous repetitions.—(129)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 298);—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 4(57);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 101) as laying down the mode of addressing ladies.

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (32.7).—‘The wife of another man, even though not known, should be addressed as sister, or daughter, or mother.’

129 But to a female who is the wife of another man, and not a blood-relation, he must say, ‘Lady’ (bhavati) or ‘Beloved sister!’

One should rise and say ‘here (so and so) I am,’ to such maternal uncles, paternal uncles, fathers-in-law and superiors as happen to be younger.—(130)

ṛtvikśvaśurapitṛṣyamātulānāṃ tu yavīyasāmprasyutthānamanabhivādyāḥ (?)

vittabandhūkarmajātividyāvayāṃsi para?tīyāṃsi,

गुरून् इति वचननिर्देशान् न य एवात्र गुरुर् उक्तः स एव गृह्यते । किं तर्हि गौतमीय (ग्ध् ६.२०) इव सामान्यशब्दो वित्तादिज्येष्ठवचनः । तान् यवीयसो भागिनेयादेः स्ववयोपेक्षया हीनवयसः । असाव् अहम् इति स्वं नाम निर्दिश्यते । तत्परश् चाहंशब्दो ऽभ्यनुज्ञायते । एतच् च प्रत्युत्थायागतानां कर्तव्यम् । अभिवादने भोःशब्दप्रयोगो निषिध्यते । उक्तं च गौतमीये “प्रत्युत्तानम् अभिवाद्याः”¹⁸ इति ॥ २.१३० ॥

The plural number in the word ‘superiors’ indicates that this word does not stand for those superior persons that are mentioned in the present verse; it is meant to be a generic name, standing for persons superior in the point of wealth, etc., as mentioned by Gautama (in 6.20).

These when they are ‘younger’—whose age is lower than that of the nephew, etc.

‘Here l am’—indicates the name of the accoster; the term ‘I’ being meant to come after the name.

When the said persons have arrived, one should rise to meet them and accost them in the manner here prescribed. The present direction prohibits the use of the vocative term ‘bhoḥ,’ ‘sir,’ in the greeting. Gautama also has said—‘There should be rising to meet; these are not to be saluted.’ (6.9).—(130)

‘Gurūn’—‘Superiors, in point of wealth, &c.’ (Medhātithi);—‘those venerable on account of learning and austerities (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘the husband of a maternal aunt and so forth, but not those more learned than himself’ (Govindarāja);—‘the teacher and the rest’ (Nandana);—‘Subteachers’ (Nārāyaṇa).

Medhātithi (p. 133, 1. 27)—‘Gautamīye’—This refers to Gautama 6.9, which reads—

ṛtvikśvaśurapitṛṣyamātulānāṃ tu yavīyasāmprasyutthānamanabhivādyāḥ (?)

Ibid. (p. 133, 1. 28)—‘Bhāgineyādeḥ’—See Gautama, 6.20—

vittabandhūkarmajātividyāvayāṃsi para?tīyāṃsi,

cf. also Manu, 2.136.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 456), where it is explained that the term ‘gurūn’ stands for those who are possessed of superior learning and other qualifications.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (6.9).—‘One should rise to welcome the priest, the father-in-law, the paternal uncle, and the maternal uncle; but they should not be saluted, if they are junior in age.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra (2.46).—‘The priest, the father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle, when they are junior in age,—one should accost after rising from the seat.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.14.11).—‘One should rise and accost,—or silently embrace—the priest, the father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle, if they are junior in age.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (13.13)—(reproduces the words of Āpastamba).

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (32.4).—‘In the case of the father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle, if these are junior in age—salutation consists in rising to welcome.’

130 To his maternal and paternal uncles, fathers-in-law, officiating priests, (and other) venerable persons, he must say, ‘I am N. N.,’ and rise (to meet them), even though they be younger (than himself).

Mother’s sister, maternal uncle’s wife, mother-in-law, and father’s sister deserve to re honoured like the teacher’s wife; all these are equal to the wife of the Teacher.—(131)

एताश् च गुरुपत्नीवत् संपूज्याः प्रत्युत्थानाभिवादनासनदानादिभिः । गुरुपत्नीवत् इत्य् अनेनैव सिद्धे समास्ता इति वचनम् अन्यद् अप्य् आज्ञादि गुरुपत्नीकार्यं कदाचिद् अनुजानाति । इतरथा प्रकरणात् संपूज्या इत्य् अभिवादनविषयम् एव स्यात् । पलितवयसश् च स्त्रियः स्मर्यन्ते । कनीयसीनाम् अप्य् एष एवाभिवादनविधिः ॥ २.१३१ ॥

These ‘deserve to be honoured like the Teacher’s wife’—by rising to meet them, saluting them, offering them seat and so forth.

The equality of these to the Teacher’s wife haviug been already mentioned by the phrase ‘like the Teacher’s wife,’ the addition of the words ‘they are equal, etc,’ is meant to indicate that one should do for these persons other things also;—such as carrying out their wishes and so forth—that one does for the Teacher’s wifìe. If this were not so indicated, the implication of the context would be that it is only in the matter of salutation that they have to be treated ‘like the Teacher’s wife.’

The text speaks of only ladies of older age; but in the case of younger ladies also the same rule of salutation has to be observed.—(131)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 458) in support of the view that the mother-in-law should be accosted with the clasping of her feet, whereby the prohibition of clasping of the feet of the mother-in-law, met with in some Smṛtis, has to be taken as referring to eases where the mother-in-law happens to be a youthful woman,—under which circumstances the Teacher’s wife also should not be clasped in the feet.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (6.7).—‘Unless one has returned from journey, one shall not touch the feet of a woman, except his mother, paternal aunt and sister.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.14.6.9).—‘The Mother and the Father should be attended upon like the Teacher;—on the completion of his study, he should clasp the feet of all his elders;—also when he meets them on returning from a journey;—in the case of brothers and sisters, clasping of feet should be done in order of seniority.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (32.3).—‘Mother’s sister, father’s sister and the elder sister also.’

Smṛtyantara (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 458).—‘Feet-clasping should be done of the mother’s sister, also of the wives of one’s paternal uncle.’

131 A maternal aunt, the wife of a maternal uncle, a mother-in-law, and a paternal aunt must be honoured like the wife of one’s teacher; they are equal to the wife of one’s teacher.

The brother’s wife, if of the same caste, should be clasped in the feet day by day; but the wives of other paternal, maternal and other relatives should be so clasped only when one has gone on a journey.—(132)

भ्रातुर् ज्येष्ठस्येति द्रष्टव्यम् । उपसंग्राह्या पादयोर् अभिवाद्या । सवर्णा समानजातीया । क्षत्रियादिस्त्रीणां तु ज्ञातिसंबन्धिधर्मो भ्रातुर् भार्याणाम् अपि । विप्रोष्य ज्ञातिसंबन्धियोषितः । विप्रोष्य प्रवासात् प्रत्यागतेन । न हि प्रोषितस्योपसंग्रहणसंभवः । ज्ञातयः पितृपक्षाः पितृव्यादयः, संबन्धिनो मातृपक्षाः श्वशुरादयश् च, तेषां ज्येष्ठानां याः स्त्रियः । पूजारूपत्वाद् उपसंग्रहणस्य, न कनीयांसः पूजाम् अर्हन्ति ॥ २.१३२ ॥

‘Brother’s’—should be understood to mean ‘of the elder brother.’

‘Should be clasped in the feel,’—should be saluted on their feet.

‘Of the same caste’—belonging to the same caste as her husband. As for the brother’s wires who belong to the Kṣatriya and other castes, they are to be treated as ordinary relatives.

‘The wives of other paternal and maternal relatives—only when one has gone on a journey’;—i.e., by one who has returned from a journey; for no clasping of the feet could be done by one who is away on a journey.

‘Jñāti’ stands for paternal relatives;—‘Sambandhi’ for maternal relatives; as also other relatives, such as the father-in-law and the rest. The wives of these—when they are of older age; this is clear from the fact that ‘the clasping of the feet’ is a form of worship which cannot be right in the case of relatives of younger age.—(132)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 458) in support of the view that the clasping of the feet of the brother’s wife should be done when one belongs to the same caste as her husband; and the prohibition of such clasping met with in some Smṛtis should be taken as referring to cases where the sister-in-law happens to belong to a lower caste;—also in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 103).

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (6.8).—‘Of the brother’s wife and the mother-in-law, there should be no clasping of the feet.’

132 (The feet of the) wife of one’s brother, if she be of the same caste (varna), must be clasped every day; but (the feet of) wives of (other) paternal and maternal relatives need only be embraced on one’s return from a journey.

Towards his father’s sister, his mother’s sister, and his own elder sister, one should adopt the same behaviour as towards his mother; but the mother is more venerable than these.—(133)

पितुश् च या भगिनी मातुश् च या भगिनी तस्याम्, स्वसरि चात्मीयायां ज्येष्ठायां भगिन्यां मातृवद् वृत्तिर् अतिदिश्यते ।

• ननु च मातृष्वसुः पितृष्वसुश् चायम् उक्त एव धर्मो “मातृष्वसा मातुलानी” (म्ध् २.१३१) इत्य् अत्र । अथोच्यते । तत्र गुरुपत्नीवद् इत्य् उक्तम् । इह तु मातृवद् वृत्तिर् इत्य् उच्यत इति । नैष भेदः । तुल्या हि गुरुपत्न्यां मातरि च वृत्तिः ।

• केचिद् आहुः माता ताभ्यो गरीयसीत्य् एतद् वक्तुम् अनूद्यते भगिन्योः पितुर् मातुश् च गरीयस्त्वम् । यदा माताज्ञां ददाति स्वस्रादयश् च तदा मातुर् आज्ञा क्रियते न तासाम् । न चैतद् वाच्यम् एतद् अपि सिद्धम् “माता गौरवेणातिरिच्यते” (म्ध् २.१४५) इति, अर्थवादत्त्वात् तस्य ।

• अन्ये तु गुरुपत्न्या मातुश् च वृत्तिभेदं मन्यन्ते । गुरुपत्न्याः पूर्वाज्ञाद्यावश्यकम् । मातुश् तु शैशवात् वाल्लभ्येनान्यथात्वम्¹⁹ अपि । लालनात् तत्रोभयापदेशान् मातृष्वसुः पितृष्वसुश् च व्यवस्था । शैशवे लालनं तुल्यम् एव स्वस्यां स्वसरि । अतीतशैशवस्य तु गुरुपत्नीवत् संपूज्यत्वम् इति । न चानेनैवैतत् सिध्यति । असति हि वाक्यद्वये मातृवद् वृत्तिर् इत्य् एतावता प्राकरणिकी अभिवादननिवृत्तिर् एव विज्ञायेत ॥ २.१३३ ॥

अथ पुनः स्नेहवृत्तिर् अतिदिश्यते ।[^३६६]

The present text serves to indicate the propriety of behaving, as towards one’s mother, towards the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, and also towards bis own elder sister.

Objection.—“The treatment to be accorded towards the father’s and the mother’s sister has already been prescribed under 131 above. It might be argued that in verse 131 it is said that they should be treated like the Teacher’s wife, while in the present verse they are described as to be treated like one’s mother. But this makes no difference; as the behaviour towards the mother is precisely the same as that towards the Teacher’s wife.”

To this some people make the following answer: The venerable character of the father’s and the mother’s sister has been re-asserted only for the purpose of adding that ‘the mother is more venerable than these.’ The meaning is that when one’s mother directs him one way, and the father’s sister and the rest another way, he should act according to the directions of his mother, and not according to those of the others. It will not be right to argue that this (superiority of the mother) is also already declared under verse 145; because this latter verse is purely valedictory.

Others however hold that, there is some difference in the treatment to be accorded to the mother and to the Teacher’s wife. In the case of the Teacher’s wife, worship, etc., are necessary; while in the case of the mother, it is often otherwise also, because of the son being too young, or because of the mother being too fond of him. And since the father’s sister and the mother’s sister also fondle the child (like his mother), it is only natural that these should be treated like the mother. Fondling during childhood is done by one’s own older sister also. But when one has passed beyond childhood, his treatment of these relatives should be like that of his teacher’s wife. All this is not got out of the present verse only. And if we did not have both declarations (one in the present verse, and Another in 131), then the mere assertion of ‘behaviour as towards his mother’ would be liable to be understood as referring to salutation only, as it is this that forms the subject-matter of the context; while as a matter of fact, it is the loving behaviour that is here intended to be accorded.—(133)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 459) in support of the view that the ladies herein mentioned should be accosted by the clasping of the feet, as they are here declared to be treated ‘like the mother’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 90).

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (32.3).—‘Mother’s sister, father’s sister, and the elder sister also.’

133 Towards a sister of one’s father and of one’s mother, and towards one’s own elder sister, one must behave as towards one’s mother; (but) the mother is more venerable than they.

Among citizens friendship and equality are regarded as ranging within ten years (of age-difference); among artists, it is regarded as ranging within five years; among learned men, it proceeds up to three years; and among blood-relations, it ranges only within a very short period of time.—(134)

ṛtvikśvaśurapitṛ?yamātulānāṃ tu yaviyasāṃ pratyutthānābhibhāṣaṇam.

उक्तं पूर्वम् “प्राणा ह्य् उत्क्रामन्ति यूनः स्थविर आयति” (म्ध् २.१२०) इति । तत्र कियद्भिर् वर्षैः स्थाविर्यं भवति । लोके हि शिरःपालित्ये स्थविरव्यवहारः, तन्निरूपणार्थम् इदम् ।

• दशभिर् वर्षैर् जन्मनो ऽधिकैर् अपि पौराणां सख्यम् आख्यायते । तेन दशवर्षाधिको ज्येष्ठो भवति, अपि तु मित्रवद् व्यवहर्तव्यः । यथोक्तं भो भवन्न् इति वयस्येति । दशभ्यो वर्षेभ्य ऊर्ध्वं ज्येष्ठः । आख्यानम् आख्या । दशाब्दा आख्या यस्य सक्यस्य । त्रिपदो बहुव्रीहिः । आख्यानिमित्तत्वाद् वर्षाणां सामानाधिकरण्यम्, निमित्तनिमित्तिनोर् भेदस्याविवक्षितत्वात् । एतावांश् च समासान्तर्भूतो ऽर्थः- यः पूर्वजो दशवर्षाणां यावत् स सखैव भवति ।

• पुरे भवाः पौराः तेषाम् । पुरग्रहणं प्रदर्शनार्थम्, ग्रामवासिनाम् अप्य् एष एव न्यायः । ये केचिद् एकस्मिन् ग्रामे वसन्ति²⁰ तावद् यस्मिन्²¹ परस्परप्रत्यासत्तिहेतुर् विद्यते ते सखायः ।

• ये तु कलां कांचन बिभ्रति शिल्पगीतवाद्यादिकां तेषां पञ्चवर्षाणि यो ऽधिकः स सखा, तत ऊर्ध्वं ज्येष्ठः । त्रयो ऽब्दाः पूर्वे यस्य तच् छ्रोतियाणां सख्यम् ।

• अल्पेनापि कालेन स्वयोनिष्व् एकवंश्येषु कतिचिद् अहानि यो ऽधिकः स ज्येष्ठः । कियान् पुनः स्वल्पकालः । न तावद् अब्दः । त्र्यब्दपूर्वम् इति निर्दिश्याल्पेनेत्य् उच्यमानस् ततो न्यूनः प्रतीयते । एकवचननिर्देशाच् च न वर्षद्वयम् । नाप्य् एको ऽब्दः, स्वल्पेनेति वेशेषणानुपपत्तेः । परिच्छिन्नपरिमाणो ह्य् अब्दवाच्यो ऽर्थस् तस्याहोरात्रमात्रेण न्यूनस्य नाब्दत्वम् अस्ति । तस्माद् अल्पेनेति कालसामान्यम् अपेक्षते । संवत्सराद् अवरश् च तस्य विशेषः । अपिशब्दश् चैव शब्दस्यार्थे द्रष्टव्यः । अल्पेनैव कालेन सख्यम्, बहुना तु ज्येष्ठत्वम् एव । एतच् च समानगुणानां समानजातीयानां च द्रष्टव्यम् । एतेन लौकिकं स्थविरलक्षणं निवर्तितसापेक्षिकम् आश्रितम् ।

• अन्ये तु व्यचक्षते । नानेन स्थविरत्वं लक्ष्यते, किं तर्हि सखित्वम् एव । यथाश्रुतत्यागेन स्थविरलक्षणं स्यत्, “इयता कालेन सखा परतस् तु ज्येष्ठः” इति । अयं च श्लोकार्थः । एकत्र पुरे वसन्ति दशवर्षाणि यावत् तानि मित्राणि । कलाश् चतुःषष्टिस् तद्विदां संगत्या पञ्चभिर् वर्षैः । स्वयोनिषु स्वल्पेनापि च कालेन सह वसतां मित्रत्वम् एव । अतश् च सर्वो वयसा तुल्यो वयस्यः, किं तर्हि एतद् एव । समानवयस्त्वे चैतल्लक्षणम्²² ।

• युक्तम् एतत् । किं तूत्तरश्लोको विरुध्यते । तत्र हि जातेः प्राधान्यम्, न वयसः । यदि चात्रेयता कालेन ज्यैष्ठ्यम् उक्तं भवति तदा विजातीयानाम् अप्य् आशङ्क्यमानं न निवर्त्यत इति युक्तम् । पूर्वे च व्याख्यातार आद्यम् एव व्याख्यानं मन्यन्ते ॥ २.१३४ ॥

It has been said above (under 120) that ‘the life-breaths of the younger men rush outwards at the approach of the elder now the present verse proceeds to determine by bow many years one may be regarded as an ‘elder’; among ordinary men people come to be regarded as ‘elderly’ when they become grey-headed.

Among citizens, equality and friendship are regarded as subsisting among people who differ in their age by ten years, so that among these, one conies to be regarded as ‘elder’ when he happens to be more than ten years older; and those less than that should be treated as ‘friends and equals’; and hence accosted as ‘Oh, Sir,’ as declared by Gautama (6.14)—“Equals in age should be accosted as ‘Oh, Sir’; when the difference in age is more than ten years, the person should be regarded as ‘elder.’

In the expression ‘daśābdākhya,’ ‘ākhyā’ stands for ‘ākhyānam,’ ‘description’; and the compound, a three-termed Bahuvrīhi, means ‘that whose description is ten years’; the years being construed as qualifying ‘friendship’ on the basis of ‘description,’ and no significance being attached to the difference between cause and effect (the ‘years’ being the cause of the ‘friendship’), all that the compound means is that—‘one who is senior by about ten years is an equal friend.’

‘Pauras,’ ‘citizens,’ are ‘persons living in cities.’ The mention of ‘cities’ is only by way of illustration; the same rule holds good among inhabitants of villages also. Among people living in the same village, all those come to be regarded as ‘friends’ among whom there happens to be some ground for close intimacy.

Those persons who practise some sort of art—crafts, music and the rest,—among these one who is older by less than five years is an ‘equal’; beyond that, he is ‘elder.’

‘Tryabdam’ means ‘that which is preceded by three years’; and of this kind is the ‘equality’ among learned men.

‘Among blood-relations, it ranges within a very short period of time’;—i.e., among persons belonging to the same family, he who is senior by only a few days is also ‘elder.’

“What period of time is to be regarded as very short?”

It cannot he three years; for having spoken of three ‘years,’ the text mentions ‘short,’ which means that it must be less than that. It cannot mean two years, because of the singular number. Nor lastly, can it mean one year, as in that case there would be no point in the qualification ‘very short.’ Because ‘year’ is the name given to a well-defined period of time; so that a period of time which is less than that even by a single day ceases to be a ‘year.’ For these reasons ‘short’ must refer to time in general (unspecified), the only peculiarity being tbat it, should be less than a year.

The particle ‘ca’ should be taken as standing for ‘?va,’ ‘only’; the meaning being ‘friendship ranges only within a very short period of time, beyond that the man becomes elder.’ All this should be taken as holding good only among people of the same caste, possessed of similar qualifications; so that the definition of ‘elder’ as something relative in sense is that obtaining among ordinary people.

Other persons explain the verso as follows:—This verse does not define what is tho characteristic of being ‘elder’; it only serves to define ‘Friendship.’ It could be taken as defining ‘elderliness’ only if we abandoned its direct meaning; as only then could it be taken to mean that ‘during such time one is a friend, and after that he becomes an elder.’ As a matter of fact, what the verse means is as follows:—(a) People who live in the same city for ten years become ‘friends’; (b) among people knowing the arts—sixty-four in number—companionship during five years establishes ‘friendship’; (c) among blood-relations, friendship is established by living together even for a very short time. Thus then, one does not become a ‘friend’ simply because he happens to be of equal age, in fact the ‘friend’ is as described; but the said conditions of ‘friendship’ all require tbat the parties concerned be of equal age.

All this may be true; but this explanation is inconsistent with the next verse; in the latter, ‘caste’ is mentioned as the pre-eminent factor, and not the age; and the reason is that if the mere fact of being so many years older in age were to make one ‘elder,’ then we could not get rid of the contingency of persons of different (and inferior) castes being regarded as ‘elders.’

Older commentators have all adopted the first explanation (put forward by us).—(134)

“Those who are ‘friends’ and equals may address each other with the words ‘bhoḥ’, ‘bhavat,’ or ‘vayasya’, ‘friend’. The explanation of the verse, which is substantially the same in all the commentaries, is based on Gautama’s passage (6.14-17); while Haradatta’s interpretation of Āpastamba (1.4.13) somewhat differs.”—(Buhler).

“A small difference in age constitutes among relatives a difference in position; but in other cases only a considerable difference as specified.—This ‘equality’ refers to the form of salutation among equals.”—(Burnell—Hopkins).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 466), where the following explanation is given:—Among persons living in the same city, and not possessed of any exceptional learning or wealth or other qualifications, if the difference in the age of two persons extends to within ten years, they are to treat each other as ‘friends,’ and there is to be no salutation; the ‘city’ here includes the village also;—among persons versed in music and other arts, equality extends to within five years of difference in age;—and among those learned in the Veda to within one (as read here) year;—and among Sapiṇḍas, to within a very short period of time. In every case there is ‘superority’ if the difference exceeds the periods mentioned.

It is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 299), where also we have the following explanation Among inhabitants of the same village one is to be treated as ‘friend’ if he is older by less than ten years; beyond that he is to be treated as ‘superior’.—Among men expert in the arts and in learning, there is equality if there is a difference of five years;—among persons learned in the Veda, or students of the Veda, there is equality if there is a difference of three years, after which the older man becomes ‘superior’;—among blood relations, brothers and the rest, the older person is to be treated as an equal only when the difference in age is very small.

Parāśaramādhava raises the question of saluting such Ṛtvik and others as are younger in age. In view of the general rule that these should be saluted, the fact of any one being younger in age does not deprive him of his right to a salute. The conclusion however is that all that is meant is that they have to be ‘treated with respect’; and this implies that one should stand up to receive and welcome them with agreeable words, as is clearly laid down by Baudhāyana, who says,

ṛtvikśvaśurapitṛ?yamātulānāṃ tu yaviyasāṃ pratyutthānābhibhāṣaṇam.

That these are not to he saluted is clearly asserted by Gautama (6.9), which lays down that these are anabhivāthāḥ (?), It is interesting to note that in quoting Gautama, Mādhava has read abhivādanam in place of anabhivādyāḥ; but knowing somehow that the meaning of Gautama was that these are not abhivādyāḥ, he has explained abhivādanam as abhibhāṣaṇam, speech.

The verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 29) as declaring the difference in age which constitutes ‘superiority’. It practically repeats the explanation given in Parāśaramādhava (see above); but at the end adds that among blood-relations, the difference of even one day establishes superiority; while between relations born on the same day there is equality as declared by Āpastamba.—‘One born on the same day is a friend.’

Aparārka (p. 53) quotes this verse and adds the following explanation:—Among citizens even one who is ten years older is a ‘friend and it is only one who is more than ten years older is to be regarded as an ‘elder’; among musicians and other artists one older by five years or less is a ‘friend’, older than that he becomes an ‘elder’; among Vedic scholars, it is upto three years; and among these latter, superority or inferiority is determined by special qualifications.—-The particle ‘api’ means ‘eva’.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 101), which offers the following explanation:—Among citizens, one who is senior by one to ten years is to be regarded as a ‘friend’—an equal; one older than that is an ‘elder’—a superior;—among artists people versed in singing, dancing and so forth there is ‘friendship’ upto a difference of five years; among Vedic scholars it extends to a difference of three years; older than that, is ‘elder’—superior; among blood-relations there is ‘friendship’ within a limit of very few years; one even a little older is to be saluted like an ‘elder’;—all this refers to Brāhmaṇas.

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.24.13).—‘Friendship (equality) among citizens extends up to ten years; among members of the same Vedic sect, up to five years and the elder Vedic scholar deserves salutation if he is senior by three years.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (6.2.5).—‘One born on the same day as oneself is his friend; a citizen who is senior by ten years; an artisan, who is senior by five years; a Vedic scholar of the same Vedic sect, who is senior by three years.’

134 Fellow-citizens are called friends (and equals though one be) ten years (older than the other), men practising (the same) fine art (though one be) five years (older than the other), Srotriyas (though) three years (intervene between their ages), but blood-relations only (if the) difference of age be very small.

The Brāhmaṇa or ten years and the Kṣatriya or a hundred years should be known as father and son; and of the two this Brāhmaṇa is the father.—(135)

दशवर्षाणि जातस्य यस्य स भवति दशवर्षः परिच्छेदकः कालः, तस्य परिच्छेद्यो ब्राह्मणः श्रुतः । न च तस्योच्चनीचतादि कार्श्यादि वा कालेन परिमातुं शक्यम्, किं तर्हि तदीया काचित् क्रिया । सा च जन्मनः प्रभृति नित्यसमवायिनी प्राणधारणलक्षणैव । एवं शतवर्षम् इति । पितापुत्रौ तौ द्रष्टव्यौ । तयोः संप्रधार्यमाणयोर् ब्राह्मणः पिता । चिरवृद्धेनापि क्षत्रियेण स्वल्पवर्षो ऽपि ब्राह्मणः प्रत्युत्तायाभिवाद्यश् चेति प्रकरणार्थः ॥ २.१३५ ॥

One since whose birth ten years have elapsed is ‘of ten years.’ The time is the determining and the Brāhmaṇa the determined factor; but it is not possible to determine, by means of time, either his tallness or shortness or thinness, etc.; what can be determined by it is only a certain act of his; and this act can only be that of maintaining his life-breath, which subsists in him continuously since his birth.

The same explanation applies to the epithet ‘of a hundred years.’

They should be looked upon as ‘father and son.’

‘Of the two’—as compared with each other,—’ the Brāhmaṇa is the father.’

All that this means is that even when the Kṣatriya is very old and the Brāhmaṇa very young in years, the former should rise to meet and salute the latter.—(135)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 474), as showing that the Brāhmaṇa is ‘superior’ to all.

It quotes the same verse as contained in Bhaviṣyapurāṇa.—. It is quoted also in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 44b);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 101) to the effect that as between a Brāhmaṇa and a Kṣatriya, the former is to be saluted by the latter, even though he be very much junior in age.

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.14.25)—(a paraphrase of Manu).

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (32.17)—(reproduces the exact words of Manu).

Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 474)—(has the verse of Manu, to which it adds another verse to the effect that)—‘the Brāhmaṇa has thus been declared by the wise the Kṣatriya’s father, the Vaiśya’s grand-father and the Śūdra’s great-grand-father.’

Śātātapa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, pp. 473-474).—‘Agni is the superior of the Twice-born men, the Brāhmaṇa is the superior of all castes.’

Śātātapa (Parāśaramāḍhava, p. 299).—‘The Kṣatriya and the rest should never be saluted by the Brāhmaṇa, even though they be endowed with knowledge and of good conduct and very learned.’

Mahābhārata (13.8.21).—‘The Kṣatriya, hundred years old and the Brāhmaṇa, ten years old, should he regarded as father and son; of the two, the Brāhmaṇa being the superior.’

135 Know that a Brahmana of ten years and Kshatriya of a hundred years stand to each other in the relation of father and son; but between those two the Brahmana is the father.

Wealth, Relation, Age, Action and Learning, as the fifth,—these are the grounds of respect; (among them) that which follows is weightier (than that which goes before it).—(136)

उक्तं जातेर् उत्कर्षहेतुत्वम् । हीनजातीयेनोत्तमजातीयः पूज्यः । इदानीं समानजातीयानां य अभिवादनादिपूजाहेतवस् तेषां बलाबलम् उच्यते । तत्र वयसः पुनर् अभिधानं बलाबलर्थम् । वित्तादिसंबन्धो ऽत्र सर्वत्र पूजाहेतुः । वित्तवत्त्वं बन्धुमत्त्वं मानस्थानम् इति । अयम् अत्रार्थः । न²³ विशिष्टबन्धुतैव²⁴ पितृव्यमातुलादिरूपता मानकारणं बन्धुमान्यो बहुबन्धुः स पूज्यः । वयः प्रकृष्टम् इति ज्ञेयम् । ईदृश एव चार्थे प्रायेणायं प्रयुज्यते ।

• पित्रा पुत्रो वयःस्थो ऽपि सततं वाच्य एव सः । इति ।

यावच् च वयः पूजाहेतुः तद् उक्तम् एव “दशाब्दाख्यम्” (म्ध् २.१३४) इति । कर्म श्रौतं स्मार्थं तदनुष्ठानपरता । विद्या साङ्गसोपकरणवेदार्थज्ञानम्²⁵ ।

• ननु विद्वान् यजते विद्वान् याजयतीत्य् अविद्यस्य कर्मानुष्ठानानधिकारात्, विद्यया विना कथं कर्मणां मानहेतुता । नैष दोषः । पकर्षो ऽत्राभिप्रेतः । अतिशयवती विद्या मानहेतुः । स्वल्पविद्यस्याप्य् अनुष्ठानोपपत्तिः । यो यावज् जानाति स तवत्य् अधिक्रियते । न विद्याया वाचनिकम् अधिकारहेतुत्वम् अपि तु सामर्थ्यलक्षणम् । अविदितकर्मस्वरूपो ह्य् अवैद्यस् तिर्यक्कर्मा क्वाधिक्रियताम् । शक्यं ह्य् अनेन कतिचित्स्मृतिवाक्यान्य् उपश्रुत्य जपतपस्यम् अनुष्ठातुम् । अग्निहोत्रादिकर्मणां तु वेदवाक्यावबोध उपकरोति । तत्रापि यो यावज् जानाति स तावत्य् अधिक्रियते । अग्निहोत्रवाक्यानां यो ऽर्थं वेत्ति स तत्राधिक्रियते । क्रत्वन्तरज्ञानं न तत्रोपकारकम् ।

• अथोच्यते । “वेदः कृत्स्नो ऽधिगन्तव्यः” (म्ध् २.१६५) इति कृत्स्नवेदविषयो ऽयं विधिर् अवबोधपर्यन्तः । तत्र कृत्स्नस्य वेदस्यावबोधे कर्तव्ये कुतो ऽयं प्रतिभागावबोधसंभवः, येनोच्यते “यो ऽग्निहोत्रवाक्यस्यार्थं वेत्ति वाक्यान्तरार्थम् अविद्वान् अप्य् अधिक्रियते” इति । अत्रोच्यते । एकशाखाध्ययनं तावद् अवश्यं कर्तव्यम् । तत्र येनैकशाखाधीता तस्याश् चार्थो ऽवधृतः, सो ऽनवधृतशाखान्तरार्थो ऽधिक्रियते ।

• ननु च सर्वत्रैक एव शास्त्रार्थः । यदि नाम पदवर्णानुपूर्वीभेदः, शास्त्ररूपं त्व् अभिन्नम्²⁶ । पदार्थन्यायव्युत्पत्त्या वावबोधः । न च प्रतिशाखं पदार्था भिद्यन्ते²⁷ । नापि न्यायः । तत्र येनैव हेतुनैकस्याः शाखाया अर्थो ऽवधर्यते शाखान्तरे ऽप्य् असाव् अस्ति, न व्युत्पत्त्यन्तरम् अपेक्षते । तत्र यद्य् एका शाखावगता, सर्वा एवावगता भवन्ति ।

• सत्यम् । यान्य् एकस्याम् अग्निहोत्रादीन्य् उपदिष्टानि तेषां शाखान्तरे ऽप्य् उपदिश्यमानानां मा भूद् भेदः²⁸ । किं तु कस्यांचिच् छाखायां कानिचित् कर्माणि नैवोपदिश्यन्ते । यथा बाह्वृचे आश्वलायनके दर्शपूर्णमासौ श्येनादिर् आभिचारकः²⁹, अन्ये च सोमयागवाजपेयबृहस्पतिसवादयः । तत्र यत् तच्छाखाधीनम् अग्निहोत्रज्योतिष्टोमादि तत्राधिक्रियते । शाखान्तरं त्व् अनधीतम् अश्रुतं कथं तद्विहितानि³⁰ कर्माण्य् तच्छाखाध्यायी वेत्तु । न चैते सोमयागा नित्या, येनाननुष्ठानप्रत्यवायभयात् परिज्ञानाय शाखान्तरम् अन्विष्यते । आधानं तु यद्य् अपि तत्र न पठितं तत्राप्य् “उद्धराहवनीयम्” (ऐत्ब् ५.२६; आश्श् २.२.१) इत्य् आहवनीयस्य विधानम् । लोकात् तदर्थम् अनवबुध्यमानः को ऽयम् आहवनीयो यस्याधानम् इति शाखान्तरम् अन्विष्यति । ततः शाखान्तरे पठ्यमानम् आधानप्रकरणं सर्वं पर्यालोचयति । एवम् आमावास्येन वा हविषेष्ट्वा पौर्णमासेन वेति श्रुत्वा कीदृशम् अनयोः कर्मणो रूपम् इति तथैव शाखान्तरं गवेषयते । एवम् अन्यद् अपि यत् काम्यं नित्यं चानुष्ठेयं तस्य यत् किंचिद् अङ्गजातं तत्र नाम्नातम् आध्वर्यवम् औद्गात्रं वा तत् परिज्ञाय तथैव शाखान्तराधिगमः³¹ । यत् तु शाखान्तराधीतम् अनुष्ठेयं तस्य न वेदनसंभवः । अनेकशाखाध्यायिनस् तु तदर्थपरस्य सर्वम् एतत् प्रत्यक्षम् इति । अस्तीदृशीं विद्याम् अन्तरेणापि कर्मानुष्ठानम् । अथ वा ईषद्व्युत्पत्त्यापि संभवत्य् अनुष्ठानं ।

• यस्य तु निर्मला विद्या, व्याख्येयानि विद्यास्थानानि, तस्य विद्या मान्यतास्थानम्³² । गरीय इति द्वयोर् द्वयोः संप्रधारणे ऽयम् ईयसुन्प्रत्ययः । चतुर्दशविद्यास्थनज्ञः पङ्ग्वन्धनिर्धनादिर् अनधिकृतो ऽपि विद्ययैव पूज्यते ।

• तेषां विरोधे बलाबलम् आह- गरीयो यद् यद् उत्तरम् । एकस्य वित्तम् अन्यस्य बहुबन्धुता, तत्र वित्तवतो बन्धुमान् मान्यः । यस्माच् च यत् परं तत् तस्माद् गुरुतरम्³³ । तथा बन्धोर् वयः ततः पूर्वस्माद् अपि वित्तात् तद् गुरु सिद्धम् । अत उपपन्नम् “श्रुतं तु सर्वेभ्यो गरीयस् तन्मूलत्वाद् धर्मस्य” इति गौतमवचनम् (ग्ध् ६.२१–२२) ।

• गरीय इति कथं प्रकर्षप्रत्ययो यावता नैव पूर्वस्य गुरुत्वम् । यदि हि द्वे गुरुणी³⁴ तत्रोत्तरीयस्य गरीयस्त्वम् अस्ति । तर्हि पूर्वापेक्षया वित्तस्य नास्तीति चेत्, समुदाये सामान्येन गुरुत्वे ऽपेक्षिते अपरस्य प्रकर्षविवक्षायां युज्यत ईयसून् ।

• मानः पूजा तस्य स्थानं कारणम् । “मान्यस्थानानि” इति वा पाठे ऽन्तर्भूतभावार्थो द्रष्टव्यः । “मान्यत्वस्थानानि” मान्यत्वकारणानि ॥ २.१३६ ॥

एकैकगुणसंबन्धे परस्य ज्यायस्त्वम् उक्तम् । यत्रेदानीं द्वौ पूर्वाव् एकस्य भवतो ऽपरस्यैकः पर इति तत्र कथम् इत्य् अत आह ।

Caste has been described as a ground of superiority; so that one belonging to a higher caste should be respected by one of a lower caste. The text now proceeds to describe the relative strength of those factors that entitle persons of a caste to salutation and honour among themselves.

Age is mentioned here again only for the purpose of indicating its position as compared with others.

In the case of all that is mentioned here it is the connection of the person with them that entitles him to respect. That is, the possession of wealth and the possession of relations constitute titles of respect. It is not meant that the peculiar relationship borne by the man—such as that of being a paternal or a maternal uncle—constitutes the title of respect; what is meant is that one who has many relations deserves to be respected.

‘Age’—i.e., advanced age. The term is generally used in this qualified sense ; e. g., in such passages as—‘Even though the son be of age, he should be advised by his father.’ Verse 134 has already explained what age entitles one to respect

‘Action’—such as is laid down in Śrutis and Smṛtis; i. e., one’s assiduity in performing such actions.

‘Learning,’—the knowledge of the Veda along with the subsidiary sciences and their auxiliaries.

Objection.—“In view of such declarations as ‘the learned man offers sacrifices,’ ‘the learned man officiates at sacrifices,’ the unlearned person can never be entitled to the performance of religious acts; under the circumstances, how can mere ‘action,’ without ‘learning,’ be a ground for respect?”

Answer.—There is no force in this objection. Excellence is what is meant here. Superior or efficient learning is what constitutes a title to respect; and as for the performance of actions, this can be done also by men possessed of limited learning; for a man is entitled to perform actions in accordance with the knowledge possessed by him: specially as ‘learning’ entitles a person to the performance of actions simply because it serves to capacitate him for it, and not because it has been declared to be a necessary condition.

“But the man devoid of learning cannot know the form of the action to be performed, and being capable of acting only like lower animals, to the performance of what could he be entitled?”

Even such a person can, on having heard a few Smṛti-texts, perform austerities and repeat mantras. It is only in the performance of the Agnihotra and such other Vedic rites that one requires the knowledge of Vedic texts. But here also the title to perform the rites is dependent upon the extent of knowledge possessed by the man; e.g., one who knows the meaning of tho texts bearing upon the Agnihotra is entitled to its performance; the knowledge of other sacrifices is of no use in that.

The following argument might be urged here—“We have the injunction ‘the entire Veda should be studied,’ which pertains to the whole Veda, and implies the thorough understanding of the whole; and when it is necessary to understand the meaning of the entire Veda, how can there be any such partial knowledge as could justify such an assertion as that ‘he who knows the meaning of the texts bearing on the Agnihotra shall be entitled to the performance of that act, even though he be ignorant of the meaning of other texts?’”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—It is the study of one Vedic Recension that is necessary; and what we mean is that he who has studied one Recension and has fully understood its meaning, becomes entitled to the performance of Vedic acts, even without studying the other Recensions.

“The purpose of the Scripture is the same in all cases; even though there may be some difference in the order of a few words and syllables, yet the main feature of the Scripture remains the same. Then again, as for the understanding of the meaning, this is obtained by the due comprehension of the meanings of words and reasonings; now, neither the meanings of words, nor the reasonings, differ in the different Recensions. So that the means by which one learns the meaning of one Recension serves the same purpose in regard to the other Recensions also; and one does not stand in need of any other learning; so that if One Recension has been learnt, all become learnt.”

True. Such Agnihotra, etc., as are enjoined in one Recension may not differ from the same acts as enjoined in other Recensions; but there are certain actions which are not enjoined at all in certain Recensions. E.g., the Śyena and other malevolent rites in connection with the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa are not found in the Aśvalāyana Recension of the Ṛgveda; nor the Somayāga, the Vājapeva, the Bṛhaspatisava and so forth. So that when a man has learnt one Recension, he becomes entitled to that Agnihotra and that Jyotiṣṭoma, etc., which are enjoined iu that Recension_(;) and if one who has not studied another Recension, and has neither read nor heard of it, how can he know anything about the acts enjoined in that other Recension? Nor ore the Soma-sacrifices compulsory; so that, through fear of incurring the sin of omitting a compulsory act, one might be forced to seek for the knowledge of them from other Recensions. As for the ‘Kindling of Fire,’ even though this also is not found enjoined in the said Āśvalāyana recension of the Ṛgveda, yet it does contain the injunction of preparing the ‘Āhavanīya’ fire; as is clear from such passages as ‘bring up the Āhavanīya’; so that, not understanding the meaning of this passage with the help of ordinary people, the student naturally seeks, from other Recensions, for the knowledge of what this ‘Āhavanīya’ is; and thus he comes to look over the entire section of the other Recension dealing with the ‘Kindling of Fire.’ Similarly having heard the passage—‘Having offered either the Amāvāsyā or the Paurṇamāsa libations, etc.,’ one seeks from other Recensions for the knowledge of the exact form of the two acts (of Amāvāsyā and Paurṇamāsa offerings). Similarly in the case of other compulsory and optional acts that have to be performed, when it is found that some of their details arc not laid down in a certain Recension,—-such details, for instance, as pertain to the Adhvaryu (and are mentioned in the Yajurveda) or to the Udgātṛ (and are mentioned in the Sāma-Veda),—the requisite knowledge is sought for from those other texts. It is not possible for one to know the act that is laid down in Recensions other than the one studied by him. To the student who learns several Recensions, and studies their meanings, all this becomes quite clear. But even in the absence of such knowledge as this last, the performance of acts is quite possible. Or, such performance could be possible even on a slight understanding (of the Vedic texts).

The sense of all this is that in the case of one whose learning is flawless, and who is fit to explain all sciences, such learning constitutes a title to respect.

‘Weightier.’—The comparative ending indicates that the comparison is between two and two out of the five mentioned. Thus one who is fully versed in all the fourteeu sciences, is respected through his ‘learning,’ even though he he not entitled to it on account of being lame, blind or poor.

The text points out the relative superiority of these, with a view to cases where there may i.e a conflict among them.—

‘Among these that which follow is weightier than that which precedes it.’ For instance, when one man has vast wealth, and the other has many relations, then the latter deserves higher respect than the former; for that which follows is ‘weightier’ than that which precedes it. Similarly Age is weightier than Relation. And from this it follows that Age is weightier still than Wealth. From all this it is clear that ‘Learning is superior to all, for all Dharma is based upon it,’ as has been declared by Gautama (6-21—22).

Objection.—“Since the preceding factor is not weighty, how can we have the comparative form ‘weightier’? It is only when there are two weighty things that one can be called weightier; and since in the present case is, ex hypothesi, in relation to something preceding there can be no weightiness in ‘wealth,’ which is not preceded by any thing else.”

What is meant is that the whole lot of five being ‘weighty’ in common, the comparative ending is rightly used as showing that one is weightier than the other.

‘Māna’ means respect; ‘sthāna’ means ground, cause.

If we adopt the reading ‘Mānyasthānāni,’ the term ‘mānya’ is to be explained as having the force of the abstract noun; ‘mānya’ standing for ‘mānyatva.’—(136)

It has just been declared that among persons each of whom possesses only one of the qualifications mentioned, one possessing the latter is to be regarded as superior to one possessing the former. Now the question arises—between two persons, one of whom possesses two former qualifications and the other possesses only one latter qualification, who is to be treated as superior? The following verse answers this question.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 474), where we find the following notes:—‘Vittam’ stands for wealth acquired by lawful means;—‘bandhuḥ’ for uncles and others;—‘vayaḥ’ for older age;—‘karma’ for acts prescribed in the Śruti and Smṛti;—‘vidyā’ for true knowledge;—these are ‘mānyasthānāni,’ i.e. grounds of respectability. (See note below on 137).

Aparārka (p. 159) quotes this verse in support of the view that a man, though belonging to an inferior caste, deserves to be respected by another of the superior caste, if the former happens to be possessed of superior learning and other qualifications.—It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 44b);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 106), which explains ‘mānyasthānāni’ as ‘grounds of respect, and adds that ‘learning’ is the highest of these all.

Viṣṇu Smṛti (32.16)—(words of Manu reproduced).

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (6.20).—‘Wealth, Relationship, Caste, Learning and Age are objects of respect: the succeeding being superior to the preceding; Vedic Learning is superior to all, Dharma being based upon that.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (1.3.21).—‘Learning, Wealth, Age, Relationship and Deeds are objects of respect; when all these are present, the preceding has preference over the succeeding,’

Yājñavalkya (1.116).—‘By reason of Learning, Action, Age, Relationship, etc., and Wealth, in order, does a man become respected.’

136 Wealth, kindred, age, (the due performance of) rites, and, fifthly, sacred learning are titles to respect; but each later-named (cause) is more weighty (than the preceding ones).

Among the three (higher) castes, he, in whom there are present most op these five, and of high degree, deserves (greater) respect; as also the Śūdra who has reached the tenth stage (of life).—(137)

पञ्चानाम् एतेषां मानस्थानानां³⁵ यत्र भूयांसि बहून्य् असर्वाणि स मान्यः । तत्र परत्वम् नातीवादर्तव्यम्³⁶ । एकस्य वित्तबन्धू द्वे अन्यो वृद्धवयाः । तत्र पूर्वे बाधके । सत्य् अपि बहुत्वे यदि न श्रेष्ठानि भवन्ति, एकं चैकस्यात्युत्कृष्टम्, तदा साम्यम् । न पुनः परबाधकत्वम् । गरीय एकापेक्षया चरितार्थत्वात्³⁷ । यदि तु भूयांसि गुनवन्त्य् अत्युत्कृष्टानि तदा साम्ये ऽपि संख्यया परेषां, पूर्वाणि परैश् च समसंख्यानि, तदा न पूर्वतरतया³⁸ बाध्यबाधकभावः । किं तर्हि सामान्यम् एव ।

• ननु च यत्र गुणवन्ति स्युः सो ऽत्र मानार्ह इत्य् अभिधानेन समसंख्यस्यापि पूर्वस्य बाधकत्वम् एव युक्तम् । नैवम् । तुल्यत्वे गुणानाम् एतस्य चरितार्थत्वात् । यथैको ऽपि विद्यावान् अपरो ऽपि, तयोर् यस्य गुणवती प्रकृष्टा विद्या स प्रशस्यते । एवं सर्वत्र ।

• त्रिषु वर्णेषु ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियवैश्येषु । यद्य् एते गुणा भूयांसः प्रकृष्टाश् च क्षत्रियस्यापि भवन्ति तदा हीनगुणेन ब्राह्मणेन जात्युत्कृष्टेनापि क्षत्रियः पूज्यः । एवं क्षत्रियेण वैश्यः । एवं त्रिभिर् अपि द्विजातिभिः शूद्रो ऽपि दशमीम् इतः । दशमी अन्त्यावस्थोच्यते । अत्यन्तवार्धकोपलक्षणम् एतत् । एवं च वित्तबन्धू शूद्रस्य न³⁹ माने हेतू त्रैवर्णिकान् प्रति, दशमीग्रहणात् । कर्मविद्ये तु नैव तस्य संभवतो ऽनधिकारात् ।

• भूयांसीत्य् आधिक्यमात्रं विवक्षितं न बहुत्वसंख्यैव । तेन द्विविषयतापि सिद्धा भवति । न ह्य् अयं संख्यावाच्येव बहुशब्द इत्य् अत्र प्रमाणम् अस्ति । भूयःशब्दश् चायं न बहुशब्द आधिक्ये च तत्र तत्र दृष्टः प्रयोगः । “भूयांश् चात्र परिहारः,” “भूयसाभ्य्दयेन योक्ष्ये” इति प्रत्ययार्थबहुत्वम् अपि न विवक्षितम् । “जात्याख्यायाम्” (पाण् १.२.५८) ह्य् एतद् बहुवचनम् । विवक्षायां हि एकस्य गुणवतो मानहेतुत्वं न स्यात् । ततश् च पूर्वो ऽवगतिर् बाध्यते⁴⁰ । शूद्रो ऽपि दशमीम् इत्य् अत्र च केवलस्यैव वयसः प्रकर्षे मानहेतुत्वं ब्रुवन्न् अविवक्षां दर्शयति । समाचारश् चैवम् एव ॥ २.१३७ ॥

‘Of these five’ grounds of respect;—he in whom there are ‘a larger number’—not all—‘deserves respect.’ And here the mere sequence (or posteriority) of the qualifications should not be much heeded. For instance, when one man possesses wealth and relations, and the other possesses only old age,—the former gets preference over the latter.

But even when there are several qualities present, if they are not of high degree,—while the single quality possessed by the other person is of very high degree,—then both are equal; and the larger number do not get over the latter (superior) qualification.

When the former verse uses the term ‘weightier,’ it only means superiority in comparison to one (not several) of the preceding ones.

When however in one person there are a larger number of preceding qualities and also of high degree,—of great excellence,—while in the other person there are present the same number of succeeding qualities,—so that the number of preceding and succeeding qualifications (possessed by the two men) are equal,—then, there is no getting over the one by the other, simply on the ground of precedence (in enumeration); in this case both are to he regarded as equal.

“Since what the text declares is that he is deserving of respect in whom the qualities are of high degree,—it would he right to conclude that in the case just mentioned where the two persons possess an equal number of qualities (hut the preceding ones are of higher degree), the presence of the preceding set should get over the other.”

Not so; the epithet ‘of high degree’ is meant to apply to the case where the two sets of qualities are equal; e.g., where the one as well as the other is possessed of learning, superiority belongs to one whose learning is of the superior order. Similarly with the other qualities.

‘Among the three Castes,’—i.e., among Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas. If the said qualities, many in number and of high degree, belong to the Kṣatriya, then such a Kṣatriya deserves to be respected by the Brāhmaṇa possessed of inferior qualities, even though he belongs to the higher caste. The Vaiśya, similarly, is to be respected by the Kṣatriya.

Similarly by all the twice-born castes the Śūdra should be respected, ‘when he has reached the tenth stage.’ The ‘tenth’ stands for the last stage of life, and indicates extreme old age. Thus then, in case of the Śūdra, ‘wealth’ and ‘relations’ do not constitute grounds of respect, in relation to tho three higher castes. This is clear from the fact, that the Text specifies the ‘tenth stage.’ ‘Action’ and ‘Learning’ are not possible in the Śūdra; for the simple reason that he is not entitled to these.

‘Most’;—all that is meant by this is excess, not plurality of number (which would mean at least three); hence what is asserted applies to tho presence of qualities also. There is nothing to justify the notion that the term ‘bahu’ (from which ‘bhūyāmsi is derived’) denotes number. Further, the term actually used is ‘bhūyaḥ,’ not ‘bāhu’; and the former is often found to be used in the sense of excess, much: e.g., ‘bhūyāṅśchātra parihāro,’ ‘there is much that can be said in answer to this,’ ‘bhūyābhyudayena yokṣye,’ ‘I shall become endowed with much prosperity.’ Nor is any significance meant to be attached to the plural number in ‘bhūyāmsi’; the plural number in this case denoting only kind, according to Pāṇini 3.2.58, which lays down that ‘when a kind or genus is spoken of, the plural number is optionally used.’ If significance were really meant to be attached to the plural number, then a person possessed of only one quality (of however high degree) would never be entitled to respect; and this would run counter to what we h ave learnt from the foregoing verse. Furthor, by speaking of —‘the Śūdra who has reached the tenth stage’—where mere age (only one quality) is mentioned as a ground of respect,—the Text has made it clear that no significance is meant to be attached to the plural number (in ‘bhūyāmsi’). Usage also points to the same conclusion.—(1.37)

This verse is quoted along with verse 136 in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 474), which adds the following explanation:—Among the three castes, Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya, the person who possesses a greater amount of the preceding qualification (among the five mentioned in 136) is to be honoured more than one possessed of the succeeding one only. Thus a person possessed of greater wealth and superior relations is higher than one only older in age; one possessed of a higher degree of wealth, relations and age is higher than one superior in action only;—one possessed in a higher degree of wealth, relation, age and action is superior to one possessing learning only;—‘guṇavanti’ means superior; which means that between two persons possessing wealth, he is higher whose wealth is superior; and the ‘superiority’of wealth would consist in its having been acquired by lawful means and such other circumstaṇces. In the case of ‘relations,’ this superiority would consist in being more intimate and so forth;—in the case of ‘age’ it would consist in being very much older;—in that of ‘action,’ in its being equipped with all auxiliary details;—in that of ‘learning,’ in its being acquired in the prescribed manner.—‘Tenth stage’ stands for the age over ninety years; the hundred years of man’s life being divided into ten equal spans, the tenth one coming after the ninetieth year;—-when he has reached this age, the Śūdra also becomes entitled to honour at the hands of the twice-born.

The last foot of the verse regarding the ‘tenth stage’ is quoted on p. 453 also, as declaring the respectability of the Śūdra.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 159), where ‘daśamī’ is explained as ‘the last ten years of the hundred years’;—‘bhūyāṃsi’ as to number and ‘guṇavanti’ as to degree;—hence without considering the caste, one possessed of superior learning is to he respected by another possessed of less; or one who knows more subjects is to be respected by another knowing a lesser number; similarly in regard to ‘karma’ and other qualifications also;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 48), which explains ‘daśamīm gataḥ’ as ‘over ninety years of age,’ and ‘pañchānām’ as ‘among learning and the rest’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 106), which explains ‘daśamī’ as ‘the last part of hundred years, i. e. beyond ninety years,’ and adds that ‘old age’ is meant to be indicative of the presence of wealth and the rest also.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (10.6).—‘The Śūdra also if he has children and is over 80 years in age.’

Yājñavalkya (1.116).—‘When the said qualities (of Learning, etc.) are present in a very large degree, the Śūdra also deserves respect, when he has reached old age.’

137 Whatever man of the three (highest) castes possesses most of those five, both in number and degree, that man is worthy of honour among them; and (so is) also a Sudra who has entered the tenth (decade of his life).

Way should be made for one in a chariot, for one who is in the tenth stage of life, for one suffering from disease, for one carrying a burden, for a woman, for the person who has just passed out of studentship, for the king and for the bridegroom.—(138)

अयम् अन्यः पूजाप्रकारः प्रासङ्गिक उच्यते । चक्री रथिको गन्त्र्यादियानाधिरूढः । तस्य पन्था देयः । येन भूमिभागेन ग्रामादि देशान्तरं गम्यते स पद्धतिः पन्था उच्यते । तत्र यदि पृष्ठतः संमुखतो वा रथिक आगच्छेत् तदा तद्गमनोपरोधिनः पथिप्रदेशात्⁴¹ पदातिर् अपक्रामेत् । दशमीस्थो ऽत्यन्तपरिणतवयाः । रोगी व्याधिनात्यन्तपीडितः । भारी गृहीतव्रीह्यादिगुरुद्रव्यः । सो ऽपि यथोपसर्तुम् अशक्तो ऽनुग्राह्यः । स्त्रिया अनपेक्ष्य जातिगुणभर्तृसंबन्धान् स्त्रीत्वमात्रेणैव । राजा च विषयेश्वरो ऽत्राभिप्रेतः, न क्षत्रिय एव । तथा चोत्तरत्र पार्तिवग्रहणेन निगमने, पृथिव्या ईश्वरः पार्थिवः ।

• ननु चोपक्रमे राजशब्दश्रवणाद् वाक्यान्तरगतः पार्थिवशब्दस् तत्पर एव युक्तः । राजशब्दो हि क्षत्रियजातिवचनो विज्ञातः । स तावद् अनुपजातविरोधित्वाद् उपक्रमगतो मुख्यार्थो ग्राह्यः । बलादिवाक्ये तु तत्सापेक्षक्षत्रियजातिविहितेन धर्मेण पृथिवीपालनाख्येन पार्थिवशब्दस्य प्रयोगसंभवेन जात्यन्तरविषयत्वम् अयुक्तम् ।

• अत्रोच्यते । मान्यतात्र श्रुता । स्नातको नृपमानभागीति । तत्र क्षत्रियजातीयमात्रान् मान्यत्वं स्नातकस्य सिद्धम् एव, “ब्राह्मणं दशवर्षम्” (म्ध् २.१३५) इति । तत्र हि भूमिपशब्दः क्षत्रियजातिमात्रोपलक्षणार्थ इत्य् उक्तम् । उपलक्षणत्वाच् च राजजातेः क्षत्रियस्यापि प्रजेश्वरस्यायं धर्मो विज्ञायते ।

• वरो विवाहाय प्रवृत्तः । एतेषां पन्था देयः । त्यागमात्रं च ददत्यर्थः । त्यागश् च पथो ऽपसरणम् । अत एव चतुर्थी न कृता ॥ २.१३८ ॥

Another method of showing respect is also described by the way.

‘Chakrin’ is the person in a chariot, one who is occupying a cart or some such conveyance. For him ‘way should be made.’ ‘Way’ is that path, that part of the Earth, by which one goes to a village and such other places; while one is on such a ‘way,’ if a man in a chariot should happen to come either in front of him or behind him, then the man on foot should move off from the spot where he might be obstructing the passing of the cart.

‘One who is in the tenth stage of life’—one who is far advanced in age.

‘One suffering from a disease’—one who is suffering very badly from some malady.

‘One who is carrying a burden’—one who is carrying grains and other heavy things; such a man also finds it difficult to move, and hence must bo favoured.

‘A woman,’—i.e., simply by reason of her being a woman, irrespective of her caste or qualifications, or of the position of her husband.

‘King’—stands here for the master of a kingdom, not for the mere Kṣatriya. For in the conclusion (which comes in the next verse) we have the term ‘Pārthiva’ which means the ‘lord of the Earth,’ ‘pṛthivyāḥ īśvaraḥ.’

Objection.—“In as much as in the opening verse (the present) we have the term ‘rājan,’ it would be more reasonable to interpret the term ‘parthiva’ (in the next verse) in accordance with, and as standing for, the ‘Rājā’ (than that ‘Rājā’ should be taken as standing for the ‘pārthiva’), and the word ‘Rājan’ is well-known as denoting the Kṣatriya caste; and as this forms the principal denotation of the term, it should be accepted in the opening of the passage, specially as there does not appear to be any incongruity in it. In the next verse, where the relative merits are mentioned, it is quite possible to take the term ‘parthiva’ as referring to the Kṣatriya; in view of the fact that the ‘protecting of the Earth,’ which is connoted by the term ‘pārtiva.’ is a duty prescribed specifically for the Kṣatriya. So that it cannot be right, to take the term as referring to other castes, merely on the strength of their being ‘in possession of land’ (‘pṛthīvyāḥ īśvaraḥ’).”

To the above we make the following reply:—What is asserted here (in the next verse) is capability being respected;—when, e.g., the person who has just passed out of hi s studentship is described as deserving to be honoured by a king. Under verse 35, it has been pointed out that the term ‘bhūmipa’ stands for the Kṣatriya caste; and since the Kingly caste is merely indicative, what is mentioned here is understood to pertain to such a Kṣatriya as happens to be the ‘lord of men.’

The ‘bridegroom’—who is going to marry. For these persons ‘way should be made;’—what is meant by ‘deyaḥ,’ ‘should be made,’ is simply that one should give up the road; and as ‘giving up’ only means moving off (and not actual giving), the Dative ending has not been used.—(138)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 76);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 48), which explains ‘varaḥ’ as ‘one who is going to marry’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 107), which has the following notes—‘chakrin,’ one who is driving in a cart,—‘snātaka,’ the student who has completed his course of studentship,—‘varaḥ,’ one who is going to marry;—when one meets any of these, he should make way for him, i.e., move away from his path,—among those mentioned here, the Accomplished Student and the King deserve to be respected by the ‘others’, as stated in the next verse.

**(verses 138-139)
**

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti (13.25, 26).—‘Among the following—an aged person, a child, a sick person, a man carrying a load, a woman, a man driving in a chariot,—the succeeding should make way for the preceding; when the King and the Accomplished Student meet, the king should make way for the student; all should make way for a bride who is being married.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 6. 25, 26.—‘One on a chariot, a man in the tenth stage of life, one who deserves kindness (i.e., the sick), a bride, an Accomplished Student, and the King,—for these way should he made; the King should make way for the Vedic scholar.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2. 3. 50 (also Devala quoted in Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 476).—‘Way should he made for the Brāhmaṇa, the cow, the king, the blind person, the aged, the man suffering under a load, a pregnant woman and a weak person.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2. 2. 57.—‘Way should be made for the King until he meets the Brāhmaṇa; but when he meets the Brāhmaṇa, way should be made for the latter. All men should make way for a conveyance, for one carrying a load, one struck with disease, and a woman; to one of superior caste; and also to the Renunciate, and the intoxicated and the lunatic,—these latter for the sake of one’s own safety.’

Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 6.475).—‘Way should be made for the dumb, the blind, the deaf, the intoxicated, the lunatic, the loose woman, one’s enemy, a child and the outcast.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 476).—‘Way should be made for the child, the aged, the intoxicated, the lunatic, one struck with a foul disease, one carrying a load, a woman who is pregnant, the Accomplished Student, the Renunciate, and also persons excelling in learning, arts and other qualities.’

Yājñavalkya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 476).—‘Way should be made for the aged, the man with a load, the King, the Accomplished Student, a woman, the sick, the bridegroom, the man on a chariot; among these the King deserves special honour; but the Accomplished Student deserves honour even from the King.’

138 Way must be made for a man in a carriage, for one who is above ninety years old, for one diseased, for the carrier of a burden, for a woman, for a Snataka, for the king, and for a bridegroom.

Among these, when they come together, the man who has just passed his studentship and the King deserve to be honoured; and between the person just passed his studentship and the King, the person just passed his studentship receives the respects op the King.—(139)

तेषां तु समवेतानाम् एकत्र संनिपतितानां मान्यौ स्नातकपार्थिवौ, प्रकृतेन पथोदानेन । नृपमानभाक् नृपस्य सकाशान् मानं भजते लभते । षष्ठी निर्धारणे (पाण् २.३.४१) । चक्र्यादीनां त्व् अन्योय्नं विकल्पः । स च शक्त्यपेक्षः ॥ २.१३९ ॥

‘Among these, when they come together,’—when they happen to meet,—‘the person just passed his studentship and the King deserve to he honoured’—by the ‘making of way,’ which is the particular form of ‘honouring’ mentioned in the present context.

‘Receives the respects of the King’—i.e., obtains honour from the King.

The genitive case-ending has the sense of selection (according to Pāṇini 2.3.41)

Among the rest—the person riding a chariot and others—there is option, dependent upon their respective capacity.—(139)

This verse also is simply quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 107) to the effect that among the persons mentioned in the preceding verse the accomplished student and the king deserve to be respected by the others’, and between these two the former is to be respected by the latter.

**(verses 138-139)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.138].

139 Among all those, if they meet (at one time), a Snataka and the king must be (most) honoured; and if the king and a Snataka (meet), the latter receives respect from the king.