११ आचार्यादिलक्षणम्

The Brāhmana who, having initiated a pupil, teaches him the Veda along with the Ritualistic and esoteric treatises,—him they call, ‘Ācārya,’ ‘Preceptor’—(140)

आचार्यादिशब्दानाम् एवार्थनिरूपणार्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते । सोपचारो हि लोके एषां प्रयोगः । न च शब्दार्थसंबन्धस्य स्मर्तृभिर् आचार्यपाणिनिप्रभृतिभिर् एतन् निरूपितम् । इयं चाचार्यपदार्थस्मृतिर् व्यवहारमूला, न वेदमूला, पाणिन्यादिस्मृतिवत् । न ह्य् अत्र किंचित् कर्तव्यम् उपदिश्यते । अस्य शब्दस्यायम् अर्थ इति सिद्धरूपो ऽयम् अर्थः, न साध्यरूपः ।

• उपनीय उपनयनं कृत्वा यो वेदम् अध्यापयति ग्राहयति स आचार्यः । ग्रहणं चात्राध्येत्रन्तरनिरपेक्षं वाक्यानुपूर्वीस्मरणम् । कल्पशब्दः सर्वाङ्गप्रदर्शनार्थः । रहस्यम् उपनिषदः । यद्य् अपि ते ऽपि वेदशब्देनैव गृहीतास् तथापि द्वितीयस् तेषां व्यपदेशो ऽस्ति, वेदान्ता इत्य् अन्तशब्दं समीपवचनं मन्यमानो नैते वेदा इति मन्येत तदाशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थं रहस्यग्रहणम् ।

• अन्ये तु रहस्यं वेदार्थं वर्णयन्ति । तेन न स्वरूपग्रहणमात्राद् आचार्यकनिष्पत्तिः,¹ अपि तु तद्व्याख्यानसहितात् । तथा चाभिधानकोशे ऽभिहितम्- “विवृणोति च मन्त्रार्थान् आचार्यः सो ऽभिधीयते” (म्भ् १४. अप्प्। ४- २५२८) इति । मन्त्रग्रहणं वेदवाक्योपलक्षणार्थम् ।

• अस्मिंश् च व्याख्याने ऽर्थावबोधो ऽप्य् आचार्यकरणविधिप्रयुक्तः स्यान् न केवलं संपाठमात्रम् । ततश् च सर्वस्य सर्वः² स्वाध्यायविधेर्³ अनुष्ठापकः स्यात् । अस्तु परप्रयुक्ते ऽप्य् अनुष्ठाने स्वाध्यायविधेर् ब्रह्मचारिणः स्वार्थसिद्धिः । यदा तर्हि काम्यत्वाद् आचार्यकरणविधेर् आचार्यो न प्रवर्तते, तदा स्वाध्यायविध्यर्थानुष्ठानं न प्राप्नोति । ततश् च नित्यः⁴ स्वाधायविधिः स्यात् । न च रहस्यशब्दो वेदार्थवचनतया प्रसिद्धः । तस्मात् पूर्वम् एव रहस्यग्रहणस्य प्रयोजनम् । प्राधान्याद् वा पृथग् उपादानम् । यत् तु “विवृणोति च मन्त्रार्थान्” इत्य् अस्मृतिर् एवैषा, मन्त्रशब्दस्योपलक्षणत्वे प्रमाणाभावात् । तस्मात् पाठाभिप्रायम् अस्य विधेः प्रयोजकत्वम्⁵ । अतो वेदस्वरूपग्रहणे माणवकस्य जाते आचार्यकरणविधिनिर्वृत्तिः⁶ ॥ २.१४० ॥

The present section is taken up for determining the exact signification of ‘Ācārya’ (Preceptor) and other terms. As a matter of fact, people make use of these names on the basis of certain qualifications; and this particular matter has not been dealt with by Pāṇini and other writers on the subject of the meanings of words. What the present text says regarding the meaning of the titles is based, like the Smṛti of Pāṇini and others, upon usage, not upon the Veda; as it does not prescribe anything to be done; that such and such a word means such and such a thing is a well-established fact, not something to be accomplished.

‘Having initiated,’—i.e., having performed the Initiatory Rite,—‘he who teaches’—makes him get up—‘the Veda’—is the ‘preceptor.’ The ‘getting up’ of the Veda here meant consists in the remembering of the exact words of the text, independently of other learners.

‘Kalpa,’ ‘Ritualistic Treatise,’—stands here for all the Subsidiary Sciences.—‘Esoteric Treatises’ are the Upaniṣads. Though these latter also are inoluded under the name ‘Veda,’ yet the text has mentioned them separately by the name ‘Esoteric Treatises,’ with a view to remove the misconception that these are not Veda,—a misconception that might arise from the fact that they have a second name ‘Vedānta,’ where the term ‘anta’ denotes ‘proximity’ (only, not identity).

Others have explained the term ‘rahasya,’ ‘Esoteric Treatises,’ to mean ‘the meaning of the Vedic texts’; and by this explanation, the teaching of the verbal text only would not make one a ‘Teacher,’ it would be necessary ‘for him to explain the meaning also.’ To this effect we have the following declaration in the Abhidhāna-Kośa;—‘He who expounds the meanings of mantras is called the Preceptor”;—here the term ‘mantra’ stands for all Vedic passages.

In accordance with this explanation, the learning of the meaning also, and not the mere getting up of the Text, would be prompted by the injunction of ‘becoming a Preceptor so that for every man the injunction of Vedic study would come to be carried out by other persons.

“That may be so; but even when the Injunction of Vedic study is carried out by other persons, the purpose of the student becomes accomplished all the same.”

In that case then, since ‘becoming a Preceptor’ is a purely voluntary act, if the Teacher does not have recourse to the necessary activity, then the carying out of the injunction of Vedic study would remain unaccomplished; so that this injunction of Vedic study would no longer be compulsory.

Then again, as a matter of fact, the term ‘rahasya,’ ‘esoteric treatise,’ is not ordinarily known as denoting the ‘explanation of the meaning of Vedic texts.’

From all this it is clear that the purpose of adding the term ‘rahasya’ is as explained before.

Or, the separate mention of the ‘Upaniṣads,’ may be explained as indicating the importance of that part of the Veda.

As regards the declaration quoted above—‘he is called Preceptor who explains the meaning of mantras,’—this is not a Smṛti (and hence not authoritative). Nor is there any ground for taking the term ‘mantra’ as standing for Vedic texts in general.

For all these reasons it is dear that the purpose of the present Injunction lies in the reading of the mere Text. So that when the boy has accomplished the getting up of the words of the Veda, this also means that he has carried out the injunction of ‘becoming a Teacher.’—(140)

‘Rahasyam’—‘The Upaniṣads, along with their explanations—(Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nandana, and Rāghavānanda);—‘the esoteric explanations of the Vedas and the subsidiary sciences,—not the Upaniṣads, these being included in the term ‘Veda’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse has supplied Prabhākara with his text on which to base the entire enquiry into the nature of Dharma. Kumārila has taken as his basic text the Vedic text ‘svādhyāyo’dhyetavyaḥ’ (), and has proceeded to explain that the ‘Svādhyāya,’ ‘Vedic Study,’ herein enjoined cannot be the mere reading up of the verbal text of the Veda, but also a due understanding of its meaning; and as this meaning could not be comprehended without careful investigation, it becomes necessary to undertake the investigation initiated by the Mīmāṃsā Śāstra,

The sentence ‘svādhyāyo’dhyetavyaḥ’ contains in reality the injunction of that Vedic recitation which is done daily, and not of the initial study and scrutiny of the sense etc. Hence Mādhava (in Parāśaramādhava, Ācāra, p. 1'40) has suggested that the basic text for Kumārila should have been that Vedic text which we assume on the basis of the Smṛti-rules relating to Upanayana.

Prabhākara does not accept Kumārila’s view. He argues that, according to the view of Kumārila, any and every man—twice-born or otherwise—would be entitled to Vedic study, only if he fulfils the condition of desiring to know Dharma. Prabhākara bases his enquiry into Dharma and Vedic study on the rule ‘aṣṭavarṣam brāhmaṇam upanayīta’, where the Ātmanepada standing in ‘upanayīta’ clearly implies that the Upanayana, Initiation of the Pupil, is meant to serve some purpose for the Initiator himself; this purpose is no other than the acquiring of the title of ‘Ācārya—how this title can be acquired is explained in the present text of Manu, according to which that man alone is to be called Ācārya. who (a) initiates the pupil, and (b) teaches him the Veda along with the Ritualistic and Esoteric Treatises. The motive-desire thus, for all this study and investigation is on the part of the teacher, and not on that of the pupil; it is the Teacher who desires to acquire for himself the title of Ācārya and as this cannot be done without teaching, the pupil comes in only as the person to be taught; and as the latter cannot be a pupil until he studies, this studying by the pupil is implied by the above texts. This explanation avoids the difficulty of a non-dvija undertaking. Vedic study; the prospective Teacher being a learned man, conversant with the law, would never admit a non - dvija pupil. Though the injunction of Vedic study is thus implied in the above-quoted texts, yet they do not supply the motive for the pupil; the Teacher’s desire for obtaining a title and honor cannot serve as a motive for the pupil; hence, it is explained, the motive purpose of the pupil lies in his desire to learn the meaning of the Veda; this is what leads him to proceed with the investigation into Dharma.

This view of Prabhākara has been combated, in its turn, by Mādhava (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, pp. 138-139), who argues that Teaching having been laid down as means of livelihood, it is clearly a Kāmya-karma—an act prompted by physical motives—and hence anitya, non-obligatory; as such it cannot be accepted as the sole prompter of the act of Vedic Study, which is nitya, obligatory; the latter must have an independent injunction for itself.

It is in connection with the above discussion in course of its presentation of Prabhākara’s view, that the present verse has been quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 137); and again on p. 304, where it is put forward as setting forth the definition of the ‘Ācārya’ as distinguished from the ‘Upādhyāya.’

The verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477), as defining the ‘Ācārya’—where ‘Kalpa’ is explained as a particular treatise which lays down, on the basis of clearly perceptible Vedic texts, the practical details of ritual; and as including the other subsidiary sciences also;—and ‘rahasya’ as Upaniṣads,—these being mentioned separately (from the Veda) by reason of their importance;—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 45) which explains ‘rahasyam’ as standing for the Upaniṣads.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 30);—in Aparārka (p. 65), which adds that the term ‘Kalpa’ includes Grammar and the other subsidiary sciences, as also Mīmāṃsā and Nyāya,—the etymological meaning of the term being ‘that which determines (kalpayati) the meaning of the Veda;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 90) to the effect that the Ācārya is to teach not only the Veda, but the Upaniṣads, and the Ritualistic Manuals &c., also.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.10-11.—‘The Upanayana is the second birth…. He from whom this is received is the Ācārya.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.24-27.—‘He from whom one gathers (learns, ācinoti) his duties is the Ācārya; he brings about the essence of knowledge; this constitutes the highest birth.’

Vaśiṣṭha-smṛti, 3. 24.—‘He who having initiated him, teaches him the entire Veda is the Ācārya.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 29.1.—‘He who having initiated the pupil and taught him the observances, teaches him the Veda, should be known as the Ācārya.’

Yājñavalkya-smṛti, 1.34.—‘He who, after initiating, teaches the Veda is called the Ācārya.’

Tama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 478).—‘He is called Ācārya who is truthful in speech, steady, expert, kind to all beings, orthodox, devoted to the Veda and pure.’

140 They call that Brahmana who initiates a pupil and teaches him the Veda together with the Kalpa and the Rahasyas, the teacher (akarya, of the latter).

He is called “Upādhyāya,” “Sub-teacher,” who teaches, for a living, only a part of the Veda, or only the Vedic subsidiary sciences.—(141)

वेदस्यैकदेशो⁷ मन्त्रः ब्राह्मणं वा । वेदवर्जितानि वा केवलान्य् अङ्गान्य् एव यो ऽध्यापयति तथा सर्वम् अपि वेदम् । वृत्थ्यर्थं जीविकार्थम्, नाचार्यकरणविधिवशेन, स उपाध्यायो नाचार्यः । अन्येनोपनीतं यः कृत्स्नम् अपि वेदम् अध्यापयति नासाव् आचार्यः । उपनीयापि यः कृत्स्नं वेदं नाध्यापयति सो ऽपि नाचार्यः ।

• यद्य् एवम् एकदेशग्रहणम् उपाध्यायलक्षणे कृतम् आचार्यलक्षणे उपनयनग्रहणम्, यस् तर्ह्य् अनुपनेता कृत्स्नवेदाध्यापकश् च, तस्य किं लक्षणम् । नासाव् आचार्यो नाप्य् उपाध्यायः । न चापि नामान्तरं तस्य श्रुतम् ।

• उच्यते । “अल्पं वा बहु वा यस्य श्रुतस्य” (म्ध् २.१४९) इत्य् अनेन गुरुर् असाव् आचार्यान् न्यून उपाध्यायाद् अप्य् अधिकः । अपि पुनः शब्दौ पादपूरणार्थौ ॥ २.१४१ ॥

‘A part of the Veda.’—The Mantra only or the Brāhmaṇa portion only;—Or, without the Veda itself, only the Vedic subsidiary sciences;—he who teaches this,—and also even the whole Veda, (but)—‘for a living,’—i.e., not prompted purely by the injunction of ‘becoming a preceptor,’—he is an Upādhyāya, a ‘Sub-teacher,’ not an Ācārya, ‘Preceptor.’

He who may teach even the entire Veda to a pupil initiated by another person, is not a ‘Preceptor’; nor is he a ‘Preceptor’ who, having initiated a pupil, does not teach him the entire Veda.

“If the teaching of a portion of the Veda is made the distinguishing feature of the ‘Sub-Teacher,’ and the Initiating is the characteristic of the ‘Preceptor,’—then what would be the character of that person who does not do the initiating, but teaches the whole Veda? He would be neither a ‘Preceptor’ (since he has not done the initiating), nor a ‘Sub-teacher’ (as he has not taught only a portion of the Veda). Nor has any other name been heard of for such a teacher.”

Our answer is as follows:—According to what is going to be said in 149 such a person would be the ‘Teacher,’ ‘Guru,’ Who is inferior to the ‘Preceptor,’ but superior to the ‘Subteacher.’

The terms ‘api’ ‘punaḥ’ in the Text only serve to fill in the metre.—(141)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 304), as defining the Upādhyāya, the Sub-teacher, in view of the declaration that the ‘Ācārya’ is equal to ten ‘Upādhyāyas’;—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477), which adds the following notes—‘Ekadeśam’—i.e. either the Brāhmaṇa portion alone, or the Mantra-portion alone;—‘Vṛttyartham’—for his own livelihood.

Madanapārijāta (p. 30) having quoted the verse adds—Ekadeśam—of the Veda, i.e. either the Saṃhitā, or the Brāhmaṇa or subsidiary sciences;—he who teaches any one of those either without payment,—or with payment (without previously stipulating for it),—is an ‘Upādhyāya.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 65), as providing the definition of Upādhyāya;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 45);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 91), which explains ‘vṛtti’ as living.

Vaśiṣṭha-smṛti, 3-27.—‘He who teaches a portion of the Veda, as also the subsidiary sciences, is the Upādhyāya.’

Yājñavalkya, 1-35.—‘The Upādhyāya is one who teaches a portion of the Veda.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 29.2.—‘He who teaches for payment received o r who teaches a portion of the Veda, is the Upādhyāya.’

141 But he who for his livelihood teaches a portion only of the Veda, or also the Angas of the Veda, is called the sub-teacher (upadhyaya).

That Brāhmaṇa, who performs, in the prescribed manner, one’s sacramental rites beginning with the rites of impregnation, and supports him with food, is called the “Guru,” “Mentor.”—(142)

निषेकग्रहणात् पितुर् अयं गुरुत्वोपदेशः । निषेको रेतःसेकः, स आदिर् येषां कर्मणाम् । आदिग्रहणात् सर्वे संस्कारा गृह्यन्ते । तानि यः करोत्य् अन्नेन च यः संभावयति संवर्धयति । “चैवेनम्” इति वा पाठः । अर्थस् तु स एव, अन्नेनैव संभावनोपपत्तेः । अर्थान्तरनिर्देशः एनं कुमारम् ।

• ननु चान्वादेशः । न चेह कुमारस्य पूर्वम् उपदेशः । नैवम् । कस्यान्यस्य निषेकादीनि क्रियन्ते ।⁸ सामर्थ्याद् अपि निर्देशो न निर्देशत एव । तानि यः करोति । एवम् आभ्यां गुणाभ्यां हीनः केवलजनकत्वे पितैव भवति न गुरुः । न चैवं मन्तव्यम् असति गुरुत्वे नासौ मान्यः । सर्वप्रथमम् असाव् एव मान्यः । तथा च भगवान् व्यासः-

• प्रभुः शरीरप्रभवः प्रियकृत् प्राणदो गुरुः ।

• हितानाम् उपदेष्टा च प्रथ्यक्षं दैवतं पिता ॥ इति ।

विप्रग्रहणं प्रदर्शनार्थम् ॥ २.१४२ ॥

The mention of the ‘Rites of Impregnation’ indicates that the present verse lays down the fact of the Father being a ‘Mentor.’

‘Niṣeka’ ‘Impregnation,’ is the ‘Sprinkling of the semen’:—those acts of which the ‘Impregnation’ is the first or beginning; the term ‘beginning’ shows that all the Sacramental Rites are meant.

He who performs these rites and also ‘supports’—fosters—‘with food.’

‘Chaivainam’ is another reading (for ‘cānnena’). The meaning remains the same; as ‘supporting’ can be done only by means of food. The only additional sense obtained from this other reading is the reference, by means of the pronoun ‘enam,’ to the boy.

“As a matter of fact, ‘enam is only a relative pronoun; and the ‘Boy’ does not appear anywhere here as its antecedent.”

There is no force in this; for whom else (if not for the boy) are the Kites of Impregnation and the rest performed? And ‘reference’ is often only implied, not always expressly stated.

He who does not fulfil these two conditions, but gives one birth, is only a ‘progenitor,’ not a ‘mentor.’ Nor should the notion be entertained that, not being a ‘mentor,’ he should not be respected; as a matter of fact, he is the very first to deserve respect; as says the revered Vyāsa—‘The Father is the master, the source of the body, the benefactor, the life-giver, the mentor, the advisor, of all that is good, the visible God.’

The mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ is only illustrative.—(142)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 302) as defining the ‘guru’, the clasping of whose feet has been prescribed;—also in the Prāyaścitta-kāṇḍa of the same work (p. 259), in support of the view that the term ‘guru’ denotes primarily the father only;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477), which adds the following explanatory notes:—‘Niṣeka’—the rites of conception; and the sacramental rites referred to are those beginning with these and ending with the ‘imparting of the Veda’;—‘sambhāvayati’ means nourishes. The performance of the rites of conception alone is sufficient to entitle the man to the title of ‘guru’; the other qualifications have been added only with a view to indicate that the person referred to here deserves higher honor than the Ācārya;—such is the view of Śūlapāṇi.

Madanapārijāta (p. 31) on the other hand, states that the term ‘vipraḥ’ stands here for the Father; from which it follows that a father who does not fulfil the conditions stated is not a ‘guru’ at all.

The verse is also quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.- 259, p. 1297) in support of the view that the term ‘guru’ primarly denotes the Father, the title ‘guru ‘ belonging to the person who performs the conception and other rites, i.e., the progenitor himself;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta, p. 11 b);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 88), which explains ‘niṣeka’ as garbhādhāna, and adds that ‘annasambhāvana’ includes the ‘teaching of Veda’ also;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 44), to the effect that the Father alone is the ‘guru’;—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 356) to the same effect;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 128) to the same effect; but it combats the view that the Father only is entitled to be called ‘guru’.

See also Manu, 149.

Yājñavalkya, 1.34.—‘He is the Guru who, having performed all the rites, imparts the Veda to the pupil.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 478).—‘He is a Guru who is fully equipped with knowledge of the Veda, has excellent character, with senses under control.’

Hārīta (Parāśaramādhava, p. 303),

Devala (Aparārka, p. 65),

‘The sub-teacher, the father, the elder brother, the king, the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the protector, the maternal and paternal grand-fathers, the uncle, one of the superior caste,—these are gurus among males. The mother, the maternal and paternal grandmothers, the teacher’s wife, the uterine sisters of the father and of the mother, the mother-in-law, and the elderly nurse,—these are gurus among females,’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 65).—‘Maternal grandfather, maternal uncle, paternal uncle, father-in-law are gurus; the elder brother, the Accomplished Student and the Ṛtvik are to be inspected like the guru. The mother’s sister, the maternal aunt, the mother-in-law, the nurse, the father’s sister, the paternal grandmother, the paternal aunt and the teacher’s wife are to be treated as the mother.’

142 That Brahmana, who performs in accordance with the rules (of the Veda) the rites, the Garbhadhana (conception-rite), and so forth, and gives food (to the child), is called the Guru (the venerable one).

He who, being duly appointed, performs, for one the Fire-laying rite, the Cooked Sacrifices and the Agniṣṭoma and other sacrifices,—is called his “officiating priest.”—(143)

आहवनीयादीनाम् अग्नीनाम् उत्पादककर्म अग्न्याधेयम् उच्यते । “वसन्ते ब्राह्मणो ऽग्नीन् आदधीत” (त्ब् १.१.२.६) इति विहितम् । पाकयज्ञा दर्शपूर्णमासादयः । अग्निष्टोमादयो मखाः सोमयागः । मखशब्दः क्रतुपर्यायः । एतानि कर्माणि यस्य यः करोति स तस्यर्त्विग् इत्य् उच्यते । यस्य तस्येतिशब्दौ संबन्धितां दर्शयतः । यस्यैवैतानि कर्माणि करोति तस्यैवासाव् ऋत्विग् उच्यते नान्यस्य । सर्व एत आचार्यादयः संबन्धिशब्दाः । वृतः प्रार्थितः शास्त्रीयेण विधिना कृतवरणः । मान्यताप्रसङ्गाद् ऋत्विक्संज्ञोपदेशो ऽत्र न हि ब्रह्मचारिधर्मेषु ऋत्विजाम् अवसरः । आचार्यादिवत् पूज्य इत्य् अस्मिन्न् अवधौ तल्लक्षणम् उच्यते ॥ २.१४३ ॥

The rite that brings about the existence of the Āhavanīya and other (sacrificial fires) is called the ‘Fire-laving Rite,’ prescribed in such sentences as ‘the Brāhmaṇa should lay fire during the spring.’

‘Cooked sacrifices’—the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and the rest.

‘The Agniṣṭoma and other sacrifices,’—i.e., the Soma-sacrifices. The term ‘makha’ is synonymous with ‘kratu,’ ‘sacrifice.’

He who perfoms these acts for one is called his ‘priest.’ ‘For him’ and ‘his’ denote relation; the meaning being that ‘the performer is the officiating priest of only that man for whom he performs the acts, and not of any other person.’

All these terms, ‘Preceptor’ and the rest, are words denoting relation.

‘Being appointed’—being requested; i.e., whose appointment has been made in accordance with the rules laid down in the scriptures.

The ‘Priest’ has been described here, in connection with the mention of persons entitled to respect; and priests have nothing to do with the duties of the religious student. This description is supplied here only for the purpose of indicating that the Priest also is entitled, like the Preceptor and the rest, to respect.—(143)

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (H, p. 5) as supporting the view that the title ‘Ṛtvik’ is applicable to the man from the moment of ‘appointment’ till the end of the performance of the rites for which he has been appointed; and that during this time any impurity attaching to the man would be only ‘immediate’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 91) as defining the Ṛtvik’

It is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477) where ‘agnyādhāyam’ is explained as agnyādhānam, and ‘Pākayajña’ as the Aṣṭaka and the rest;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 31);—and in Aparārka (p. 66) as meaning that the title ‘Ṛtvik’ applies to that man whose services are paid for by a sacrificer for the performance of the sacrificial rite;—and again on p. 919.

Yājñavalkya, 1.34.—‘He who performs, for one, sacrifices, is called the Ṛtvik.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 3.3.—‘He who performs, for one, the sacrificial rites, him he should know as the Ṛtvik.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 66).—‘The Ṛtvik is of three kinds called—(1) the Kṣirahotā, i.e., one who helps one, in the Firelaying, (2) the Ahāryavṛtā, i.e., one who, in the absence of the (1) is appointed for purposes of the obligatory rites, (3) the Viśesavṛta, i.e., one who is appointed at the subsequent sacrifices.’

143 He who, being (duly) chosen (for the purpose), performs the Agnyadheya, the Pakayagnas, (and) the (Srauta) sacrifices, such as the Agnishtoma (for another man), is called (his) officiating priest.

He who rightly fills one’s both ears with the Veda should be regarded as his Father and Mother; one should not, at any time, do him harm.—(144)

य उभौ श्रवणौ ब्रह्मणा वेदाध्यापनेन आवृणोति स माता स पिता ज्ञेयः । नेदम् अध्यापकस्य मतापितृशब्दवाच्यताविधानम् । आचार्यादिशब्दवत् प्रसिद्धार्थौ हि पितृमातृशब्दौ । जनकः पिता । जननी माता । उपचारेणाध्यापकस्तुत्यर्थं प्रयुज्येते । यथा गौर् वाहीक इति । लोके ह्य् अन्त्यन्तोपकारकौ मातापितरौ प्रथितौ, तौ हितं जनयतो भक्तादिना पुष्णीतः, स्वशरीरानपेक्षम् अपि पुत्रहिते प्रवर्तेते । अतो महोपकारकत्वात् ताभ्याम् उपाध्यायः स्तूयते । यो विद्यायां उपकरोति स सर्वोपकारकेभ्यः श्रेयान् । अवितथं क्रियाविशेषणम् एतत् । अवितथेन सत्येन ब्रह्मणानक्षरविस्वरवर्णितेन तन् न द्रुह्येत⁹ । अपकारो द्रोहस् तद् उपरि अवज्ञानं च । कदाचन निष्पन्नग्रन्थग्रहणे¹⁰ तदुत्तरकालम् अपि न द्रुह्येत । तथा च निरुक्तकारः-

• अध्यापिता ये गुरून् नाद्रियन्ते विप्रा वाचा मनसा कर्मणा वा ।

नाद्रियन्ते अवज्ञां कुर्वन्ति ।

• यथैव ते

शिष्या ।

• न गुरोर् भोजनीयाः

न भोगाय कल्पन्ते ।

• तथैव तान् न भुनक्ति श्रुतं तत् । (निर् २.४)

पाठान्तरम् “आतृणत्ति” इति । अर्थात् कर्णौ¹¹ भिनत्ति विध्यतीत्य् उपमयाध्यापनम् एवोच्यते ।

• अविद्धकर्णः किल स स्मृतो नरः श्रुतं न यस्य श्रुतिगोचरं गतम् । इति । सर्वाध्यापकानाम् आचार्योपाध्यायगुरूणाम् अयं कृतविध्यस्यापि द्रोहप्रतिषेधः ॥ २.१४४ ॥

‘He who fills both ears with the Veda’—by teaching—‘should be regarded as his Father and Mother.’

The present verse does not enjoin that the words ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ denote the teacher; because these two terms, ‘Father and Mother,’ have their denotations as well known as the words ‘Ācārya’ and the rest,—that the term ‘Father’ denotes the progenitor, and ‘mother’ the progenitress. As a matter of fact, these two terms have been applied here for the purpose of indirectly eulogising the Teacher; just as in such expressions as ‘the ploughman is an ox.’ Inordinary experience the father and the mother are known as one’s best benefactors; they give one birth, bring him up with food, and seek to do good to their child, even at the risk of their body. Hence, the Teacher also, being a great benefactor, is eulogised as being equal to them; the sense being that he who helps one by imparting learning is superior to all other benefactors.

‘Rightly’—is an adverb; the sense being that the Veda imparted is right, correct; not vitiated either by the omission of letters or by wrong accent.

‘Harm’ stands for injury, and also for disrespect.

‘At any time’—i.e., even after the learning of books has been accomplished, one should do him no harm. Says the author of the Nirukta—‘ The Brāhmaṇas who, after being taught, do not honour their teachers, by word, mind and act, etc., etc.’;—‘Do not honour,’ i.e., disregard;—‘Just as such pupils are of no use to the teacher’—bring him no benefit—‘so also does the learning bring no benefit to the pupils.’

‘Ātṛṇoti’ is another reading (for ‘āvṛṇoti’ in the Text), which means ‘pierces’ or ‘penetrates’ the two ears; which figuratively implies ‘teaching’; as we find in the line—‘he is called a man with impenetrated ears whose ears hare not been reached by learning.’

This verse prohibits the doing of harm, by one even after he has acquired all the learning, to all the three kinds of Teachers—the Preceptor, the Sub-teacher and the Mentor.—(144)

This verse, along with verse 114, occurs in an older form (as Burnell remarks) in the Viṣṇu and Vaśiṣṭha Smṛtis; and also in Nirukta II. 4, where the verb appears as ‘ātṛṇatti’.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 93), which explains ‘āvṛṇoti’ as ‘fill’, and ‘avitatham’ as ‘free from wrong accentuation and other defects’.

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 30.40.—‘He who fills one’s ears with the truth, imparting nectar, without causing pain,—him I regard as Father and Mother; and knowing what he has done, one should hear no malice towards him.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.1.25.—‘One should never bear malice towards him.’

Nirukta, Naigamakāṇḍa, 4.—‘He who has expounded the Veda is to be regarded as similar to Viṣṇu.’

144 That (man) who truthfully fills both his ears with the Veda, (the pupil) shall consider as his father and mother; he must never offend him.

In veneration, the Preceptor excels ten Sub-teachers; the Father a hundred preceptors, and the Mother a thousand Fathers.—(145)

स्तुत्यक्रमेण प्रकृष्टपूर्वविधानम् । उपाध्यायाच् छ्रेष्ट आचार्यस् तस्मात् पिता ततो ऽपि मातेति । दशादिसंख्यानिर्देशः स्तुतिमात्रम् । पूर्वस्मात् पूर्वस्मात् परस्य परस्यातिशयो विवक्षितः । अत एव सहस्रं पितुर् इति वचनम् ।

• उपाध्यायान् दशातिरिच्यते । दशभ्य उपाध्यायेभ्यो ऽधिकः । कथं पुनर् अत्र द्वितीया । अतिर् अयं कर्मप्रवचनीयः । उपाध्यायान् अतिक्रम्यातिक्रम्यातिरिच्यते गौरवेण सातिशयेन युज्यते । अथ वाधिक्यम् अतिरेकः तद्धेतुके ऽभिभवे धातुर् वर्तते । गौरवाधिक्येनोपाध्यायान् अभिभवति । अतिरिच्यत इति कर्मकर्तरि द्वितीया चाविरुद्धा “दुहिपच्योर् बहुलं सकर्मकयोः” (पाण् वार् १४ ओन् ३.१.८७) इति बहुलग्रहणात् ।

• ननु चानन्तरम् एव वक्ष्यति “गरीयान् ब्रह्मदः पिता” इति, इह चाचार्यात् पितुर् आधिक्यम् उच्यते तद् इतरेतरव्याहतम् । नैष दोषः । इहाचार्यो नैरुक्तदर्शनेनाध्यापकः, संस्कारमात्रेणाचारोपदेशमात्रेण चाभिप्रेतः- आचार्य आचारं ग्राहयतीति । न चैष नियमः स्वशास्त्रसिद्धाभिर् एव संज्ञाभिर् व्यवहारः । गुरुशब्दो ह्य् अत्र पितरि परिभाषितः, आचार्ये च तत्र तत्र प्रयुज्यते । तेन स्वल्पोपकाराद् उपनयनमात्रकराद् आचारग्राहकाद् अध्यापनरहिताद् इदं पितुर् ज्यायस्त्वम् ।

• अस्मिंश् च क्रमे विवक्षिते समवाय एतेषां माता प्रथमं वन्द्या ततः पिता तत आचार्यस् तत उपाध्यायः ॥ २.१४५ ॥

मुख्याचार्यसंनिधौ पितरि च संस्कर्तरि संनिहिते कः¹²_ क्रमः । अत आह । _

This verse lays down the relative superiority among the persons intended to be eulogised. The Preceptor is superior to the Sub-teacher, the Father is superior to the Preceptor, and the Mother is superior even to the Father. The specification of the numbers ‘ten’ and the rest is purely valedictory. All that is meant is that the following is superior to the preceding; hence it is that we have the expression ‘a thousand Fathers.’

‘Excels ten Sub-teachers’—i.e., he is superior to ten Sub-teachers.

“Why have we the Accusative ending here?”

The ‘ati’ (in ‘atiricyate’) is a preposition; the construction being—upādhyāyān ati (in reference to Sub-teachers);—and this means that ‘surpassing each of the ten sub-teachers, he becomes endowed with greater honour.’ Or, the ‘atireka,’ excelling (denoted by the verb ‘atiricyate’), means excess, the verbal root being used here in the sense of‘subjugation caused by excess’; the sense being that ‘by excess of respect he subdues ten sub-teachers’. Lastly, if we take the verb ‘atiricyate’ as the reflexive passive form, the Accusative ending becomes quite consistent; specially as the Vārtika (on Pāṇini, 3.1.87) speaks of ‘wide usage’ in connection with such transitive verbs as ‘milk,’ ‘cook’ and the like.

Objection.—“The very next verse is going to assert that the ‘Father who imparts the Veda is the superior while the present verse declares the Father to be superior to the Preceptor: and this is mutually contradictory.”

There is no force in this objection. According to etymologists the “Ācārya’ is not one who teaches; hence in the present verse the term stands for one who only performs the sacramental rites and teaches merely the rules of conduct;—Ācārya being one who makes one learn ā cāra. It is not necessary that one should always use only such names as arc current in one’s own science; e.g., the term ‘guru’ in the present treatise, has been declared to stand for the father, and is also used here and then; for the preceptor. From all this it is clear that the superiority of the father here meant is only over that person who confers upon one only a slight benefit, who only performs the Initiatory Rite and teaches the Rules of Conduct, and does not do any teaching.

The order of precedence being as here laid down, it follows that at a place where all these are present, the Mother is to be saluted first, then the Father, then the Preceptor, then the Sub-teacher.—(145)

The question arising as regards the order of precedence when the real Preceptor, and the Father who has performed the Initiatory Rite are both present,—the next verse supplies the answer.

The first quarter of this is referred to in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 304).

The verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 31);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 478), where the following notes are added:—In point of veneration, the ‘Ācārya’ is superior as compared to ten ‘Upādhyāyas’, the Father is superior to a hundred Ācāryas, and the Mother is superior to a thousand Fathers;—the person spoken of as ācārya here is the person who performs the Upanayana and teaches the Sāvtrī only (not the entire Veda),—as is clear from the next verse where the man who performs the Upanayana and teaches the entire Veda is described as superior to the Father.

This same explanation is given by Medhātithi and Kullūka also. Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa on the other hand, hold that the word ‘Pitā’, ‘Father’, stands for that Father who, having begotten the child, performs its Upanayana and himself teaches it the entire Veda.

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 92), which adds that the Father meant here is one who is a mere Progenitor and has not performed any sacramental rites for the boy; in other eases, when he has performed these, it is the Father that is superior.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.58.—‘Among elders the Ācārya is the highest; the mother—say some.’

Vaśiṣṭha, 13.17.—(Manu’s words reproduced.)

Yājñavalkya, 1.35.—‘These deserve to be respected in the order in which they are mentioned; the mother is more venerable than all of them.’

Bhaviṣya-Purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 478).—(Manu’s words reproduced.)

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 479).—‘One should not intervene between his Father and Mother; he may speak in favour of his mother: as she is the person that bore him and brought him up.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra).—‘Of the two the Father is superior, on account of the supremacy attaching to the seed: in the absence of the Father, the Mother is the highest; and in her absence, the elder brother.’

Purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 304).—‘By law these are two gurus for man: the Father and the Mother; between these two, the Father is superior, then the Mother, then the elder brother.’

Vyāsa (Do.).—‘For ten months she keeps the child in her womb, suffering from shooting pains, then she gives him birth, being rendered unconscious in the process; devoted to her son, she regards him as superior even to her very life; who can recompense her even in a hundred years?’

145 The teacher (akarya) is ten times more venerable than a sub-teacher (upadhyaya), the father a hundred times more than the teacher, but the mother a thousand times more than the father.

Between the progenitor and the imparter of the veda, the imparter op the veda is the more venerable father; for the brāhmaṇa’s “birth” is the veda, eternally,—here as well as after death.—(146)

उत्पादको जनकः ब्रह्मदाता अध्यापकः तौ द्वाव् अपि पितरौ । तयोः पित्रोर् गरीयान् पिता यो ब्रह्मदः । अतः पित्राचार्यसमवाये आचार्यः प्रथमम् अभिवाद्यः ।

• अत्र हेतुरूपम् अर्थवादम् आह । ब्रह्मजन्म हि, ब्रह्मग्रहणार्थं जन्म ब्रह्मजन्म । शाकपार्थिवादित्वात् समासः (च्ड़्। पाण् वार् ८ ओन् २.१.६९) । अस्मिन् समासे उपनयनं ब्रह्मजन्म । अथ वा ब्रह्मग्रहणम् एव जन्म । तद् विप्रस्य शाश्वतं नित्यं प्रेत्योपकारकम् इह चोपकारकम् ॥ २.१४६ ॥

‘Progenitor’—is one who gives natural birth; ‘Imparter of the Veda’ is one who teaches;—both these are ‘fathers’; and between these two ‘fathers,’ that Father is ‘more venerable’ who imparts the Veda. So that when the Father and the Preceptor are both present, the Preceptor should be saluted first.

The text adds a valedictory statement in support of what has been said—‘The Brāhmaṇa’s birth is the Veda’; i.e., is for the purpose of learning the Veda; the compound ‘brahmajanma’ being expounded as ‘brahmagrahaṇārtham janma,’ according to the Vārtika on ‘Pāṇini’ 2.1.60. According to this explanation of the compound, the Initiatory Rite would be ‘the birth for the learning of the Veda.’ Or, the compound ‘brahmajanma’ may be explained as ‘birth consisting in the form of learning the Veda.’

This, for the Brāhmaṇa, is eternally—ever—beneficial—‘here’ and ‘beneficial after death’ also.—(110)

For the apparent inconsistency between this and the preceding verse, see note above.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 305), in support of the view that the ‘Ācārya’ also, in certain cases, is superior to the Father and Mother;—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 32), which adds the following notes:—‘Brahmajanma’ means birth from Veda, i. e. Upanayana; ‘after death?—because it creates in the boy the capacity to attain all the good, even the Final Release,—as also ‘here’—by reason of creating the capacity to perform all religious rites,—it is ‘eternally’—the bringer about of lasting good.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 479) simply quotes the verse.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 97) in support of the view that the orders of the Teacher carry more weight than those of the Father;—it explains ‘brahmadaḥ’ as ‘the teacher’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 93), which adds that ‘brahmadaḥ’ stands for the Ācārya, not the Upādhyāya, as is clear from the second line which means—‘because he gives that birth which serves the purpose of Vedic study, i.e. the Upanayana, he is superior.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 30.44.—(Reproduces Manu’s Words.)

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.57.—‘Among elders the Ācārya is the highest.’

Vaśiṣṭha, 2.5.—‘They declare the Ācārya to be highest, because of his imparting the Veda.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.21.—‘The Father and Mother bring forth only the physical body.’

146 Of him who gives natural birth and him who gives (the knowledge of) the Veda, the giver of the Veda is the more venerable father; for the birth for the sake of the Veda (ensures) eternal (rewards) both in this (life) and after death.

When the Father and Mother beget one through mutual desire,—this that he is born in the womb is to be regarded as his “production.”—(147)

श्लोकद्वयम् अर्थवादः । मातापितरौ यद् एनं दारकम् उत्पादयतो जनयतो मिथो रहसि परस्परं तत् कामाद् धेतोर् मन्मथपरवशौ । संभूतिं तस्य तां विद्यात् । तस्य दारकस्य संभवोत्पत्तिर् यद् योनौ मातृकुक्षाव् अभिजायते ऽङ्गप्रत्यङ्गानि लभते । संभवश् च येषां भावानां ते तथैव विनश्यन्ति । अतः किं तेन संभवेन यस्यानन्तरभावी विनाशः ॥ २.१४७ ॥

These two verses are purely valedictory.

‘When the Father and. Mother beget him’—the child—‘through mutual desire’—in secret, under the influence of desire.

‘Should be regarded as his production;’—that the child is born in the womb of the Mother—i.e., b ecomes endowed with his several limbs—this is mere production. And those entities that have their production are sure to be destroyed; so that what is the use of that ‘production’ which is doomed to immediate destruction?—(117)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 480).

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 30.44.—(Reproduces Manu.)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2-2.—‘The parents produce body.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra, 2.5.9.—‘They call the Teacher Father because of his imparting the Veda.’—‘Therefore the learned expounder of the Veda is never regarded as childless.’

147 Let him consider that (he received) a (mere animal) existence, when his parents begat him through mutual affection, and when he was born from the womb (of his mother).

But the “birth” which the Preceptor, well-versed in the Veda, brings about for him, in the lawful manner, by means of the Sāvitrī,—that is real, imperishable, immortal.—(148)

आचार्यात् तु यत् तस्य जन्म तद् अविनाशि । गृहीते वेदे ऽवगते च तदर्थे कर्मानुष्ठानात् स्वर्गापवर्गप्राप्तिर् इत्य् अस्य सर्वस्याचार्यमुलत्वात् स श्रेष्ठः ।

• यां जातिम् उत्पादयति यं संस्कारम् उपनयनाख्यं द्वितीयं जन्मेति जन्मसंस्तुतिं निर्वर्तयति, सावित्र्या तदनुवचनेन सा जातिः सत्या साजरामरा । यद्य् अप्य् एते ऽभिन्नार्थाः शब्दास् तथापीहोपनयनाख्यस्य जन्मनो मातृजन्मनः सकाशाङ् गुणातिशयविवक्षायां प्रयुक्ताः । न हि जरामृत्यू प्राणिनाम् इव जातेः संभवतः । अविनाशित्वं त्व् एकेनैव शब्देन शक्यते प्रतिपादयितुम् । न च तत् प्रतिपाद्यते । वेदपारग आचार्यो यां जातिं विधिवत् सावित्र्या उपनयनाङ्गकलापेन, सावित्रीशब्दस्य तल्लक्षणत्वात्, उत्पादयति सा श्रेयसीति पदयोजना । जातिर् जन्म ॥ २.१४८ ॥

The ‘birth’ that the Boy obtains from his Preceptor is however indestructible. When the Veda has been got up and its meaning duly comprehended, then alone is one enabled to perform religious acts, by which he obtains Heaven and Final Release; and since all this is due to the Preceptor, he is superior.

‘That birth which the Preceptor brings about’—i.e., the sacramental rite called ‘Upanayana’ ‘initiation,’ which is called the ‘second birth,’ which he accomplishes—‘by means of the Sāvitrī’—i.e., by the expounding of it;—‘that’—birth—‘imperishable, immortal.’ Though all these words mean the same thing, yet they have been used with a view to pointing out that the ‘birth’ named ‘Initiation’ is superior to that which one obtains from his mother. As a matter of fact, ‘perishing’ and ‘death’ are not possible for ‘birth,’ as they are in the case of living beings; if mere ‘indestructibility’ were meant, this could have been expressed by means of a single word; and yet this is not what is done (which shows that the meaning is as explained above).

The construction of the sentence is as follows:—‘Vedapāraga ācāryo yāñjātim vidhivat sāvitryā—i.e., by means of the full details of the Initiatory Rite, which is what is indicated by the term sāvitrī—utpādayati—is what is superior.’ ‘Jāti’ stands for ‘janma,’ birth.—(148)

It is also simply quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 480).

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 30.5.—(Reproduces Manu.)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.1-17.—‘That is the highest birth; therein he gives him birth in knowledge.’

Gautama Dharmasūtra, 1.10.—‘That is the second birth.’

148 But that birth which a teacher acquainted with the whole Veda, in accordance with the law, procures for him through the Savitri, is real, exempt from age and death.

If one benefits him by means of knowledge, more or less,—him also one should regard herb as the “mentor,” by virtue of that benefit of knowledge.—(149)

य उपाध्यायो यस्य माणवकस्य्ओपकरोति श्रुतस्य श्रुतेनेत्य् अर्थः । अल्पं वा बहु वा क्रियाविशेषणम् एतत् । तम् अपि स्वल्पश्रुतोपकारिणं गुरुं विद्यात् ।

• एवं तु योजना ज्यायसी । यस्य श्रुतस्य सामानाधिकरण्ये वेदविषयस्य वेदाङ्गविषयस्य वा शास्त्रान्तरविषयस्य तर्ककलाशास्त्रस्य यद् अल्पं बहु वा तेनोपकरोतीत्य् अध्याहारः । श्रुतं च तदुपक्रिया चासौ श्रुतोपक्रिया तया, उपकारक्रियया तद्धेतुत्वाच् छ्रुतम् उपक्रियेति सामानाधिकरण्यम् । गुरुवृत्तिस् तत्र कर्तव्या तद्व्यपदेशो वा तत्राचार्यादिशब्दवत् स्मर्यते ॥ २.१४९ ॥

That teacher who benefits a pupil means of knowledge,—‘more or less’—this is an adverb;—‘him also’—who helps with a little knowledge only—‘one should regard as the mentor.’

The following construction is better:—‘yasya śrutasya’—these are in apposition—i.e., of the knowledge of the Veda, or of the Vedic subsidiaries, or of other Sciences, or of Reasoning and Art—alpam vahu vā—tena—this has to be supplied—upakaroti’ [The meaning, by this construction being—‘that knowledge by a little or more of which he benefits him, etc., etc.’]

The word ‘śrutopakriyayā’ is an appositional compound the apposition being based upon the fact of the ‘knowledge’ being the means of the ‘benefit.’

What is meant by this is that the teacher referred to should be called and treated as a ‘mentor’: just as we haver had above in the case of the terms ‘Ācārya’ and the rest.—(149)

‘Iha’—‘In these Institutes’ (Kullūka);—‘in the section on salutation’ (Govindarāja). It may also mean, as Buhler rightly suggests, ‘in this world’.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā, as applying the title ‘guru’ to the mere Upādhyāya or sub-teacher;—also in Madanapārijāta (p. 81);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477);—in Aparārka (p. 65) as laying down that such a person deserves to be simply respected;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 89), to the effect that all that is meant by such a person being called ‘guru’ is that ‘he deserves to be honoured’, as is indicated by the particle ‘api’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 353);—and in Prāyaścitta-viveka (p. 12) in support of the view that the Father alone is not entitled to be called ‘guru’.

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 303) quotes it as supporting the view that the name ‘guru’ is applied to persons other than the Father only figuratively or indirectly. To the same effect it is also quoted in the same work in the Prāyaścitta section (p. 259) as describing the secondary ‘guru’.

See above, verse 142.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1-12.—‘Also because he expounds the Veda,’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 3.24.—‘He who teaches a portion of the Veda and the Vedic subsidiaries is the Upādhyāya.’

Atri, 9-10.—‘There is no substance in the world by giving which one could become freed from the debt owing to that Teacher who teaches even a single syllable to his pupil. One who honours not the Teacher who has taught him even a single syllable (is a sinner).’

Yājñavalkya, 1-34.—‘He who teaches a portion is the Upādhyāya: he is a Guru who, having performed the rite, imparts to him the Veda.’

Hārīta (see under 142).

149 (The pupil) must know that that man also who benefits him by (instruction in) the Veda, be it little or much, is called in these (Institutes) his Guru, in consequence of that benefit (conferred by instruction in) the Veda.

The Brāhmaṇa, who brings about his Vedic birth, and teaches him his duty,—even though he be a mere child,—becomes in law the father of the old man (whom he teaches).—(150)

ब्रह्मग्रहणार्थं जन्म ब्राह्मम् उपनयनं तस्य कर्ता । स्वधर्मस्य शासिता उपदेष्टा, वेदार्थव्याख्यानेन । स तादृशो बालो ऽपि ब्राह्मणो वृद्धस्य ज्येष्टस्य¹³ पिता भवति । पितृतुल्या तत्र वृत्तिः कर्तव्या ज्येष्ठेनापि ।

• कथं पुनः कनीयाञ् ज्येष्ठम् उपनयते । अष्टमे ह्य् उपनयनम् । यावच् च नाधीतश्रुतवेदस् तावन् नाचार्यकरणविधाव् अधिक्रियते । एवं तर्हि नोपनयनम् अत्र¹⁴ ब्राह्म¹⁵ जन्म, किं तर्हि स्वाध्यायग्रहणम् एव । तस्य कर्ता अध्यापयिता । स्वधर्मस्य वेदार्थस्य शासिता व्याख्याता पिता भवति । धर्मतः पितृधर्मास् तत्र कर्तव्याः । धर्मत इति धर्मनिमित्तं तत्र पितृत्वम् । न च ते धर्मा अध्यापकव्याख्यात्रोः पितृसंबन्धिनः सिद्धाः सन्ति । अतो विधीयते ब्राह्मणवत् क्षत्रिये वर्तितव्यम् इति ॥ २.१५० ॥

The ‘birth’ that is for the purpose of getting up the Veda is called ‘Vedic birth,’—i.e., the Initiatory Rite.—He who brings about this; and ‘he who teaches him his duty—instructs him in it, by expounding the meaning of Vedic texts,—such a Brāhmaṇa,—‘even though he be a child.’—becomes tho father of the old man. That is, even though the pupil be older in age, he should treat the teacher as his father.

Question.—“How can the younger man ‘initiate’ the older? Specially as initiation is performed in the eighth year; and until one has duly learnt and studied the Veda, he is not entitled to act up to the injunction of ‘becoming a teacher.’”

Answer.—Well, in that case, we can take the term ‘Vedic birth’ to mean not necessarily the Initiatory Ṛte, but only the getting up of the Veda. One who ‘brings about’ this—i.e., the Teacher,—and ‘he who teaches’—expounds—‘him his duty’—i. e., the meaning of the Vedic texts,—‘becomes his father.’

‘In law;’—this means that the treatment of the father should be accorded to him; so that what the phrase ‘in law’ means is that the parental character of the teacher is based upon the treatment accorded to him. The ‘treatment of the father’ has not yet been declared as to be accorded to the teacher and the expounder; hence it has been laid down here; in the same manner as the injunction that ‘the Kṣatriya should be treated as the Brāhmaṇa.’—(150)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 31);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 305) in support of the view that when a boy teaches an old man, the former is his superior;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 480).

**(verse 150-154)
**

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2-48.—‘This is found in the case of the infant Āṅgirasa.’

Sūtasaṃhitā, 6-31.—‘To regard the Teacher as a child or a human being or an uncultured person,—is the result of ignorance.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 6.22-23.—‘Learning is superior to all; since it forms the very basis of Dharma.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti (Parāśaramādhava, p. 305).—‘One should behave towards the Teacher,—be he a child or of the same age as oneself,—as towards the Guru.’

150 That Brahmana who is the giver of the birth for the sake of the Veda and the teacher of the prescribed duties becomes by law the father of an aged man, even though he himself be a child.

The child Kavi, the son of Aṅgiras, taught his fathers; and having received and trained them by knowledge, he called them “little sons.”—(151)

पूर्वस्य पितृवद् वृत्तिविधेर् अर्थवादो ऽयं परकृतिनामा । अङ्गिरसः पुत्रः कविर् नाम शिशुर् बालः पितृतुल्यान् पितृव्यमातुलतत्पुत्रादीन् अधिकवयसो ऽध्यपयाञ् चकार अध्यापितवान् । स चाह्वाननिमित्तेषु तान्** पुत्रका** आगच्छत इत्य् आजुहाव । ज्ञानेन परिगृह्य तान् स्वीकृत्य शिष्यान् कृत्वा ॥ २.१५१ ॥

The preceding verse has laid down the ‘fatherly treatment’ (of a youthful teacher); the present verse supplies, in its support, a descriptive eulogy of the kind called ‘Parakṛti.’ The ‘son of Añgiras,’—‘Kavi’ by name,—‘the child,’ youthful ‘His fathers’—i.e., his paternal and maternal uncles; the sons of these, and other elderly persons, equal (in dignity) to the father.

‘Taught,’—instructed.

Whenever occasion arose for calling them, he called them with the words ‘little sons, come here.’

‘Having received and trained them’—i.e., having accepted them and made them his pupils.—(151)

‘Parigṛhya’—‘Having excelled’ (Nandana);—‘having received and trained’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).

‘Pitṛn’—‘The Agniṣvāttas and the rest’ (Nārāyaṇa).

Burnell remarks that the sentiment here expressed, though supported by Baudhāyana, 1. 3. 47, is opposed to Āpastamba 1.13. 15.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 480);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 305).

Medhātithi (p. 144, 1. 13)—‘Arthavādoyam parakṛtināmā’—There are several classifications of Arthavāda passages. The one referred to here is that into the four kinds—(1) ‘Stuti’ (2) ‘Nindā’, (3) ‘Parakṛti’ and ‘Purākalpa’—mentioned in the Nyāyasūtra of Gautama (2. 1. 65), under which Vātsyā-yana gives examples of each kind:—(1) ‘Stuti’, Valedictory—is the name given to that text which eulogises a certain injunction by describing the desirable results following from the enjoined act;—(2) the text that describes the undesirable results following from the act is willed ‘nindā’, ‘Deprecatory—(3) the text that describes a contrary method of action adopted by a certain person is called ‘parakṛti’, ‘illustrative—and (4) that which describes a method as adopted traditionally is called Purākalpa, ‘Narrative’.

Another classification of the Arthavāda is into three kinds—(1) Descriptive by indirect implication, (2) Descriptive by direct intimation and (3) Descriptive of an accomplished fact

The Mīmāṃsā-bāla-prakāśa (pp. 48-58) describes no less than 38 kinds of Arthavāda (see Prābhākara Mīmāṃsā, pp. 115-116)

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p.93).

**(verse 150-154)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.150].

151 Young Kavi, the son of Angiras, taught his (relatives who were old enough to be) fathers, and, as he excelled them in (sacred) knowledge, he called them ‘Little sons.’

They, having their anger aroused, questioned the gods about this matter; and the gods, having met together, said to them—“the child has addressed you in the lawful manner.”—(152)

ते पित्रादिस्थानीया पुत्रका इत्य् आह्वानेन आगतमन्यव उत्पन्नक्रोधास् तम् अर्थं पुत्रशब्दाह्वानं देवान् पृष्टवन्तः । अनेन बालेन वयम् एवम् आहूयामहे । किम् एतद् युक्तम् । ते देवाः पृष्टाः सन्तः सर्वे समवायं कृतवन्तः समेत्य एकमत्यं स्थापयित्व्ऐतान् कवेः पितॄन् ऊचुर् उक्तवन्तो न्याय्यं युक्तं वो युष्मान् शिशुर् उक्तवान् ॥ २.१५२ ॥

The said persons, substitutes of the father, ‘having their anger aroused,’—their resentment excited—by being called ‘little sons’—‘questioned the gods about this matter—of being addressed as ‘little sons’: ‘We are called by this boy little sons, is this proper?’

‘The gods’ thus questioned,—‘having met together’—convened a meeting, and having arrived at a unanimous decision,—‘said to them’—the fathers of Kavi,—‘the child has addressed you in the lawful manner’—i.e., properly.—(152)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 305)—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 480);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 93).

**(verse 150-154)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.150].

152 They, moved with resentment, asked the gods concerning that matter, and the gods, having assembled, answered, ‘The child has addressed you properly.’

The ignorant person is verily a “child,” while the imparted of mantras is the “father.” They have called the ignorant man “child,” and the imparter of mantras, “father.”—(153)

यस्मान्¹⁶ न च वयसा स्वल्पेन बालो भवति किं तर्ह्य् अज्ञो मूखो वृद्धो ऽपि यः । मन्त्रद उपलक्षणम् । मन्त्रान् वेदान् यो ददात्य् अध्यापयति विवृणोति च स पिता भवति । वैशब्द आगमान्तरसूचकः । देवानाम् अप्य् एष आगमः पुराण एव । तथा चैतिह्यसूचकः परोपदेश आहुर् इति । अज्ञं मूर्खं बालम् इत्य् आहुर् अस्मत्पूर्वे ऽपि । पितेति मन्त्रदम् । इतिकरणं स्वरूपपरताम् बोधयति । यतः परतः श्रूयते । बाल इत्य् एतेन शब्देनाज्ञमात्रः । अतश् च बालशब्दाद् द्वितीयाया अभावः । छान्दोग्ये शैशवं ब्राह्मणम् एतद् वस्तुतः स्मृतिकारेण वर्णितम् ॥ २.१५३ ॥

It is not by reason of his younger age that one is known as ‘child’ it is the ‘ignorant’—uneducated person—who, even though old in age, is called ‘child.’

‘Importer of mantras’—is used figuratively; the sense being that ‘he who imparts,—i.e., teaches and expounds,—the Mantras—i.e., the Vedas—becomes the father.’

The particle ‘vai,’ ‘verily,’ indicates the support of other scriptures; and these scriptures (thus referred to) must have been regarded by the said gods as ancient and authoritative. Hence it is that we have the term ‘they have called.’ which points to a traditional belief.

‘The ignorant’—uneducated—‘person,’—‘they’—i.e., even the ancients—have called ‘child’; —and ‘the importer of mantras, the father.’ The particle ‘iti,’ occurring after the term ‘bāla,’ points to the exact form of the traditional belief;—the construction being—‘ajñam bāla iti etena śabdena āhuḥ,’ ‘the ignorant person they have called by the name child.’ It is on account of the presence of this ‘iti’ that the accusative ending is absent in the term ‘bāla.’

This story about the child (Āṅgirasa) occurs in the Chāndogya, and the author of the Smṛti (Manu) has reproduced it here only in sense.—(153)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 305)—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 480);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 93).

**(verse 150-154)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.150].

153 ‘For (a man) destitute of (sacred) knowledge is indeed a child, and he who teaches him the Veda is his father; for (the sages) have always said “child” to an ignorant man, and “father” to a teacher of the Veda.’

Neither by years, nor by grey hair, nor by wealth, nor by relatives (is greatness attained); since the sages have made the law that ‘he who teaches is the greatest among us.’—(154)

इयम् अपराध्यापकप्रशंसा । हायनशब्दः संवत्सरपर्यायः । न बहुभिर् वर्षैः परिणतवया महान् पूज्यो भवति, न पलितैः केशश्मश्रुरोमभिः शुक्लैः, न वित्तेन बहुना, न बन्धुभिः । प्रागुक्तानि मान्यस्थानान्य् आपद्यन्ते । समुदितैर् न महान् भवति, किं तर्हि एकयैव विद्यया । यस्माद् ऋषयश् चक्रिरे । ऋषिर् दर्शनात् । निःशेषवेदार्थदर्शिनो निश्चित्येमं धर्मं व्यवस्थापितवन्तः । यो ऽनूचानः, अनुवचनम् अध्यापनं कृत्स्नाङ्गस्य वेदस्य, स नो ऽस्माकं महाञ् छ्रेष्ठः । करोतिर्¹⁷ व्यवस्थापने वर्तते, नाभूतजनने ॥ २.१५४ ॥

This is another eulogy of the teacher.

‘Hāyana’ is synonymous with ‘samvatsara,’ ‘years.’ One does not become great—venerable—by being advanced in age by many years;—‘nor by grey hair’—i.e., by the hairs of the head and beard becoming white;—‘nor by (much) wealth’;—‘nor by relatives,’—does one acquire the aforesaid title to respect. One does not become ‘great’ even by all these taken together; but by learning alone. And this because ‘the sages have made the law,’—‘Ṛṣi,’ ‘sage,’ is so called by reason of his sublime vision. The meaning is that the ‘seers’ of the text and meaning of the entire Veda, have come to the conclusion and laid down this law—‘he who teaches’—‘teaching’ means instructing in the Veda along with all its subsidiaries—‘is the greatest’—most venerable—‘among us.’

The term ‘made’ stands for laying not for bringing into existence what did not exist before.—(154)

‘Anūcānaḥ’—‘Teacher of the Veda’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja);—‘he who has learnt the Veda’ (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa, Nandana and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 305);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 480);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 93), which explains the meaning as, ‘the sages have not laid down the principle that greatness depends on years and the rest; what they have asserted is that among us he is great who is the best expounder of the ‘Veda.’

“This verse with the following one is proverbial, and is repeated several times in the Mahābhārata and the other law-books.”—Hopkins.

**(verse 150-154)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.150].

154 Neither through years, nor through white (hairs), nor through wealth, nor through (powerful) kinsmen (comes greatness). The sages have made this law, ‘He who has learnt the Veda together with the Angas (Anukana) is (considered) great by us.’

Among Brāhmaṇas seniority is by knowledge; among Kṣatriyas by valour; and among Vaiśyas by grains and riches; among Shudras alone it is by age.—(155)

अयम् अप्य् अर्थवाद एव । यद् उक्तं वित्तादिभ्यः समुदितेभ्यः केवलापि विद्या ज्यायसीति तद् एव सप्रपञ्चम् अनेन निर्दिश्यते ।

• ब्राह्मणानां ज्ञानेन ज्यैष्ठ्यं न वित्तादिभिः, क्षत्रियाणां वीर्यतः ।वीर्यं द्रव्यस्य कौशलं दृढप्राणता च । वैश्यानां धान्यधनतः । धान्यस्य पृथगुपादानाद् धनशब्दो हिरन्यादिवचनः, ब्राह्मणपरिव्राजकवत् । बहुधनो वैश्यः स ज्येष्ठः । आद्यादित्वात् तृतीयार्थे तसिः । “हेतौ तृतीया” (पाण् २.३.२३) ॥ २.१५५ ॥

This also is a purely commendatory description.

It has been asserted above that knowledge singly is superior to wealth and other things taken together; and the same idea is re-iterated in greater detail, in this verse.

‘Among Brāhmaṇas, seniority is by knowledge’—not by wealth, etc.

‘Among Kṣatriyas by valour’;—‘va lour’ stands for the ‘efficiency’ of a substance and also for ‘firmness of strength.’

‘Among Vaiśyas by grains and riches’;—‘grains’ being mentioned separately, the term ‘riches’ is to be taken as signifying gold, etc.; just as in the expression ‘brāhamaṇa-pariv rājaka.’ [Where the Brāhmaṇa being mentioned separately, the term ‘parivrājaka’ is taken as standing for the renunciate of other castes.]

The Vaiśya possessing a large quantity of wealth is regarded as senior.

The affiix ‘tasi’ (in the words ‘jñānataḥ,’ etc.) denotes cause, and is used in accordance with Pāṇini 2.3.23.—(155)

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta II (p. 233);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 32);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 480).

Medhātithi (P. 145,1.16)—‘Brāhmaṇaparivrājakavat’—This maxim is generally cited in cases where an object whose character has become modified is spoken of by a name connotative of its former condition. For instance, when a Brāhmaṇa has become a ‘wandering mendicant’, he is called ‘Brāhmaṇa-mendicant’, in consideration of his past Brahmaṇahood. In the present context however the maxim is used in the sense that where one uses the term ‘Brāhmaṇaparivrājaka’, the Brāhmaṇa being already spoken of by name, the term

Viṣṇu, 32-18.—(Reproduces Manu.)

155 The seniority of Brahmanas is from (sacred) knowledge, that of Kshatriyas from valour, that of Vaisyas from wealth in grain (and other goods), but that of Sudras alone from age.

One does not become venerable by the fact that his hair has turned grey; the gods know him to be venerable who, though young, continues to study.—(156)

न तेन वृद्ध उच्यते येनास्य पलितं धवलं शिरः शिरःस्थाः केशाः । कथं तर्हि यो वै युवापि तरुणो ऽपि अथ चाधीते तं देवाः स्थविरं विदुः ब्रुवते । देवाः किल सर्वस्य वेदितार इति प्रशंसा ॥ २.१५६ ॥

One is not called ‘venerable by the fact that his head has turned grey’;—i.e., the hairs of his head have become white. How then?

He who, ‘though young’—is of young age—and yet carries on his study,—him ‘the gods know’—declare—‘to be venerable.’ The gods know all things, hence this is a praise (of the learned man).—(156)

Gautama (see under 154).

156 A man is not therefore (considered) venerable because his head is gray; him who, though young, has learned the Veda, the gods consider to be venerable.

As the elephant made of wood, as the deer made of leather, so the non-learning Brāhmaṇa,—these three merely bear their names.—(157)

इयम् अध्ययनाध्येतृस्तुतिः। काष्ठमयो दारुणा¹⁸ यः क्रियते क्रकचादिना हस्त्याकृतिः, स यथा निष्फलः, न हस्तिकार्यं राज्ञां शत्रुवधादि करोति, एवं यो ब्राह्मणो नाधीते स काष्ठतुल्यः, न क्वचिद् अधिकारी । चर्ममयो मृगः चर्मविकारो ऽन्यो ऽपि यो मृगः स निष्फलो नाखेटकादिकार्यं करोति । त्रय एते नाममात्रं बिभ्रति, न तस्यार्थम् ॥ २.१५७ ॥

This verse praises learning and the learner.

‘Made of wood’;—the form of the elephant made of wood by means of the said and other implements; just as this is useless, does not serve any useful purpose for the king, in the shape of killing his enemies and so forth,—so the Brāhmaṇa who does not learn is like a piece of wood, not fit for anything.

‘The deer made of leather’;—similarly the deer that has been made out of leather is useless; it is of no use for purposes of limiting, etc.

‘These three only bear their names’—and do not fulfil what is signified by these names.—(157)

‘Kāṣṭhamayo hasti’—“Probably allusions to old stories. Cf. the Bṛhatkathā for the ‘wooden elephant’… In Mahābhārata the same idea is expressed in slightly different words (12. 30. 40 ff.) and with added similes.” (Burnell-Hopkins).

Baudhāyana, 1.1-11,
Parāśara, 8-16,
Vaśiṣṭha, 3.12,
—Reproduce the words of Manu.

Mahāhhārata, 12.3.6-46.—(Same as Manu, but reading ‘bibhrati’ for ‘dhāraka.’)

157 As an elephant made of wood, as an antelope made of leather, such is an unlearned Brahmana; those three have nothing but the names (of their kind).

As the eunuch is useless among women, as the cow is useless among cows, as a gift to the ignorant person is useless, even so is the Bbrāhmaṇa useless who is devoid of the Veda.—(158)

षण्ढो नपुंसक उभव्यञ्जनो ऽशक्तः स्त्रीगमने, यथा स्त्रीष्व् अफलः । यथा गौर् गवि स्त्रीगौः स्त्रीगव्याम्¹⁹ एवं तथा विप्रो ऽनृचो ऽनधीयानो ऽफलः ॥ २.१५८ ॥

सप्ताष्टश्लोकाः अध्येतृवेदित्रोः प्रशंसार्था अतिक्रान्ताः। इदानीम् अश्रद्धस्य शिष्यस्याधीयानस्येतस् ततश् चित्तं व्याक्षिप्यते ।

‘Eunuch’—he who is without masculine virility, having both (male and female) signs and incapable of intercourse with women,—just as this person is ‘useless women’;—as again is ‘the cow useless among cows’;—‘even so is the Brāhmaṇa useless who is devoid of the Veda,’—i.e., who does not learn.—(158)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 511) as deprecating ignorance of the Veda;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 129) to the effect that all acts are futile for one who is ignorant of the Veda.

Parāśara-smṛti (Prā. 8-18).—(Reproduces Manu with a slight verbal variation.)

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 511).—‘For one who is devoid of the Veda, all actions are futile.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do,).—‘One bereft of the Veda is not a Brāhmaṇa.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 512).—‘The Veda is what should be learnt by the Brāhmaṇa.’

Mahāhhārata, 12.36.47.—(First half the same as Manu)—‘as the bird is without wings, so is the Brāhmaṇa devoid of Mantras.’

158 As a eunuch is unproductive with women, as a cow with a cow is unprolific, and as a gift made to an ignorant man yields no reward, even so is a Brahmana useless, who (does) not (know) the Rikas.