१२ शिष्यानुशासनम्

Teaching for good should be imparted to living beings, without injury to them; and sweet and soft words should be employed by one who seeks for merit.—(159)

अध्यापयितुः क्रोधोत्पत्तौ ताडनपरुषभाषणाद्यम् अत्यर्थं प्राप्तं निषिध्यते । अहिंसया अताडनेन भूतानां भार्यापुत्रदासशिष्यसोदर्याणाम् । श्रेयोऽर्थम् अनुशासनं कार्यम् । भूतग्रहणान् मा शिष्यस्यैव विज्ञायि । दृष्टादृष्टफलावाप्तिः श्रेयः तदर्थम् अनुशासनम् । अग्रन्थको वोपदेशः, शास्त्राध्यापनव्याख्याने वा । यथासंभवम् अतिताडनं क्रोशनं चात्र प्रतिषिध्यते । ईषत्ताडनं त्व् अभ्यनुज्ञातम् एव “रज्ज्वा वेणुदलेन वा” (म्ध् ८.२९९) इति । कथं तर्हि मार्गे स्थाप्याः । वाक् चैव मधुरा सान्त्वपूर्विका । प्रियया वाचा श्लक्ष्णया नोच्चैर् उद्धतेन काकरूक्षेण स्वरेण, प्रियेणापि “अधीष्व पुत्रक मा चित्तम् अन्यत्राबद्धाः श्रद्धया समाप्य शीघ्रं प्रपाठकं तत्क्षणं विहरिष्यसि शुशुभिः सवयोभिः” । यस् तु न तथा श्रद्धाम् उपैति तस्योक्तो विधिः- “वेणुदेनेन” इति । प्रोयोज्या वक्तव्या । धर्मम् इच्छता । एवं सातिशयो ऽध्यापनधर्मो भवति ॥ २.१५९ ॥

‘Without injury’—without beating.

‘To living beings’—i.e., to one’s wife, children, servants, pupils and brothers;—‘teaching for good should be imparted.’ The generic term ‘beings’ has been used with a view to guard against the notion that what is stated here should he done to pupils only. ‘Śreyas’ ‘good’ stands for the acquiring of seen and unseen results; the ‘teaching’ is for the purpose of that acquisition; and it consists either in instruction without the help of hooks, or in the teaching and expounding of the scriptures.

What the present verse means is that, as far as possible one should avoid too much heating and chiding; some slight chastisement has been already permitted under Gautama 2. 42. 43.

Question.—“How then are they to he kept in the right path?”

The answer is supplied by the next line:—‘Words sweet’—gentle and loving;—‘soft’—i.e., even when gentle, they should not he very loud or haughty or harsh like that, of the crow. E.g., ‘dear child, read on,—do not direct your attention elsewhere,—attentively finish this chapter quickly and then you can immediately proceed to play with boys of your own age.’ He who does not pay attention, even after being thus spoken to—for him the proper method has already been laid down—‘by means of a bamboo-piece.’

‘Should he employed’—spoken.

‘By one desiring merit’;—i.e., only by so doing does he acquire the full merit of teaching.—(159)

‘Ahiṃsayā’—cf. Gautama 2. 42—śiṣyaśiṣṭaravadhena

Medhātithi (P. 140, 1. 13)—‘Rajjvā veṇudálena vā—See 8. 299; also Gautama II. 43: aśaktau rajjuveṇudalābhyāṃ tanubhyām | anyena ghan rājñā śāsyaḥ |

Gautama, 2.49-50.—‘The training of the pupil should be done without hurting him; in case of this being impossible, the chastisement should be inflicted by means of a thin rope or a thin piece of split bamboo.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.8.28-29.—‘In the case of the pupil committing some fault, the Teacher should admonish him; and until the pupil desists, the following punishments may be inflicted in accordance with the gravity of the offence: threatening, fasting, water-bath, refusing to see him.’

159 Created beings must be instructed in (what concerns) their welfare without giving them pain, and sweet and gentle speech must be used by (a teacher) who desires (to abide by) the sacred law.

He, whose speech and mind are pure and ever properly guarded, obtains the whole reward recognised by the canons of the Veda.—(160)

यस्याध्यापयितुर् अन्यस्य वा संक्षोभहेतौ सति वाङ्मनसी शुद्धे न कालुष्यं गच्छतः । सम्यग्गुप्ते चोत्पन्ने ऽपि कालुष्ये न परद्रोहव्यवसायो न च तत्पीडार्थः कर्मारम्भः, एतत् सम्यग्गोपनं वाङ्मनसयोः । सर्वदाग्रहणं पुरुषमात्रधर्मार्थं, नाध्यापयितुर् एव अध्यापनकाले । स वै सर्वम् अवाप्नोति । वेदान्ता वेदसिद्धान्ताः । सिद्धशब्दस्यात्यन्तं सिद्ध इति “सिद्धे शब्दार्थसंबन्धे” (पाण् वार् इन् पत् इ- ६) इत्य् अत्रात्यन्तशब्दस्येव लोपः । वैदिकेषु वाक्येषु य सिद्धान्तो व्यवस्थितार्थो ऽस्य कर्मण इदं फलम् इत्य् उपगतः, अभ्युपगतो वेदविद्भिः, तत्फलं सर्वं प्राप्नोति । एवम् च वदता वाङ्मनससंयमस्यानेन वाक्येन क्रतुषु¹ पुरुषोभयधर्मतोक्ता भवति । केवलपुरुषधर्मातिक्रमे ह्य् असति क्रतुवैगुण्ये² ऽसंयतो ऽपि वाङ्मनसाभ्यां किम् इति कृत्स्नं फलं न प्राप्नोति, येनोच्यते “संयमी सर्वम् आप्नोति” इति ।

• अन्ये तु वेदान्तान् रहस्यब्राह्मणान् व्याचक्षते । तेषु यद् अभ्युपगतं फलं नित्यानां कर्मणां निष्फलानां च यमनियमानां तत्फलं ब्रह्मप्राप्तिलक्षणं सर्वम् आप्नोति । कथं पुनर् नित्यानि ब्रह्मप्राप्त्यर्थानीति चेद् अस्ति केषांचिद् दर्शनम् ।

• अथ वा वेदस्यान्तो ऽध्यापनसमाप्तिस् ततो यत् फलम् आचार्यकरणविधिस् तत् प्राप्नोति । एवं तु व्याख्याने ऽध्यापनविध्यर्थतैव स्यात् ॥ २.१६० ॥

That, teacher, or any person, whose ‘speech and mind,’ even in the presence of disturbing causes,—‘are pure’—do not become perturbed;—‘and properly guarded,’—i.e., even when perturbation has been caused, he does not make up his mind to injure other persons, nor does he have recourse to activity calculated to harm them: all this is what is meant by the ‘guarding’ of speech and mind.

‘Been’—is added with a view to show that what is laid down applies to each and every man, and not to the teacher only, and that also only at the time of teaching.

‘He obtains the whole reward.’

The term ‘vedānta’ in the text stands for ‘vedasiddhānta,’ ‘canons of the Veda’; the term ‘siddha’ being deleted in the same manner as the term ‘atyanta’ has been held to be dropped in the term ‘siddhe’ as occurring in the declaration ‘siddhe śabdārthasambandhe, etc.’ (in the Mahābhāṣya),

The term ‘vedānta’ therefore stands for the ‘canons’—established doctrines—contained in the Vedic texts—wherein it lias teen ‘recognised’ that ‘such and such results proceed from such and such an act’—a fact that is accepted by all persons learned in the Veda;—the whole of such results ‘he obtains.’

By the present statement the author has made it clear that the proper control of speech and mind is helpful in the ordinary life of man, as also in sacrificial performances. For, if it were meant to he helpful only in ordinary life, then its transgression would involve the omission of only what is helpful to man in his ordinary life; and in that case the transgression not causing any deficiency in any sacrificial performance, why should not the man with unguarded speech and mind obtain the full reward of these latter? And yet what the text says is that ‘it is the self-controlled man that obtains the whole reward.’

Others have explained the term ‘vedānta’ to mean the Esoteric Brahmaṇas (Upaniṣads). And by this explanation the passage means that the man obtains the whole of that reward which consists in the ‘attaining of Brahman,’ which has been postulated, in the said esoteric treatises, as proceeding from the performance of the compulsory duties, and also from that of those restraints and observances which have been laid down without reference to any rewards.

If it be asked how pan the compulsory acts be held to bring about a result in the shape of attaining Brahman?”—our answer is simply that such an opinion has been held by some persons.

Or again, the term ‘redānta’ may be explained as the ‘end’ of the teaching ‘of the Veda’; and the result obtained is that which proceeds from this teaching;—i.e., the result in the form of having fulfilled the injunction of ‘becoming a teacher.’ By this explanation, what is laid down in the text would become entirely subservient to the ‘injunction of teaching.’—(160)

‘Vedāntopagatam’—‘Vedānta’ stands for the Upaniṣads, and the ‘reward’ is Final Release (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa Nandana and Rāghavānanda);—it stands for the ‘doctrines of the Veda’, and ‘reward’ stands for the results accruing from the sacrifices and rites prescribed in the Veda (Medhātithi).

Medhātithi (P. 140, l. 26)—‘Kratupuruṣobhayadharmatā’—Details prescribed in the Veda have been grouped under three heads—(1) puruṣārtha, (2) kratvartha and (3) kratupuruṣobhayārtha.

(1) The Darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifices belong to the puruṣārtha class, as they accomplish something agreeable and desirable for the agent;—

(2) all material substances and their purifications and preparations are kratvartha, as they are directly helpful in the accomplishment of the sacrifice;—

(3) certain things come under both categories; e.g. Curd is mentioned in one place simply as a substance to be offered, where it is only kratvartha; while in another place, it is mentioned as the substance to be offered for the sake of one who desires efficient sense-organs, in which case it becomes puruṣārtha. (See Prābhākara Mīmāṃsā, pp. 197-199).

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2-5-19.—‘The Teacher who does not lose control over his mind, his speech, his nose, his ears, his eyes, his tactile organ, his generative organ, and his stomach, attains immortality.’

160 He, forsooth, whose speech and thoughts are pure and ever perfectly guarded, gains the whole reward which is conferred by the Vedanta.

Even though pained, one should not (use such words as) cut to the quick; he should not do, or think of, injury to others; he should not utter words by which others are pained, and which (therefore) will obstruct his passage to (higher) regions.—(161)

nāruntudaḥ syānna nṛśaṃsavādī na hīnataḥ paramabhyādadīta ||

arthaḥ prakaraṇaṃ liṅgaṃ vākyasyānyasya sannidhiḥ |

yo’rthasya nyārthadhīhetuḥ etc., etc.

अयम् अपरः पुरुषार्थमात्रधर्मः । अरूंषि मर्माणि तुदति व्यथयतीत्य् अरुंतुदो मर्मस्पर्शिनीर् वाचो ऽत्यन्तोद्वेजनकरीर् आक्रोशवाचो यो वदति । आर्तः पीडितो ऽपि परेण न तादृशम् अप्रियं भाषेत । तथा परद्रोहः परापकारः तदर्थं कर्म तद्धीश् च न कर्तव्या । अथ वा परद्रोहश् चासौ कर्म च तत्र धीः बुद्धिर् अपि न कर्तव्या । यया वाचा नर्मप्रयुक्तयापि पर उद्विजते अथ च तां वाचं नोदीरयेत् । वाक्यैकदेशम् अपि तादृशं नोच्चारयेद् यत एकदेशाद् अर्थप्रकरणादिनार्थान्तरसूचनं प्रतीयते । यतः सा वाग् अलोक्या स्वर्गादिलोकप्राप्तिप्रतिबन्धिनी ॥ २.१६१ ॥

This is another duty laid down for man in relation to ordinary life.

‘Aruntadaḥ (?)’ means that which cuts—‘tudati’—the ritats (?)—‘arūṃṣi’; i.e., affecting the vitals;—he who utters such words—i.e., such words of chiding as are extremely painful,—is called ‘aruntudaḥ.’

‘Pained’;—even though pain may have been indicted on him by the other person, he should not utter unpleasant words.

Similarly ‘injury to others’ is ‘harming others’; and one should not do an act conducive to it; nor should he think of it.

Or, ‘paradrohakarmadhīḥ’ may he taken to mean ‘think of doing injury to others.’

Such words by which—even though uttered in joke—other persons are pained—one should not utter.

Even a part of the sentence uttered by one should not he so disagreeable; for even portions of sentences may become indicative of unpleasant notions, through the force of their meaning, the particular context (occasion) and so forth.

One should not utter such words as they are ‘alokyā,’—i.e., obstructing his passage to the heavenly regions.

Compare with this, Mahābhārata (13.104-31)—Vidura’s advice to Duryodhana—

nāruntudaḥ syānna nṛśaṃsavādī
na hīnataḥ paramabhyādadīta ||

Medhātithi (P. 147, 1. 13)—‘Arthaprakaraṇādinā’—cf. Kāvyaprakāśa.

arthaḥ prakaraṇaṃ liṅgaṃ vākyasyānyasya sannidhiḥ |

* * *

yo’rthasya nyārthadhīhetuḥ etc., etc.

Gautama, 2-25.—‘One should avoid harsh speech.’

Gautama, 90.50-51.—‘Ever harmless, kind, firm in his actions, self-controlled and charitable; the Accomplished Student who behaves thus never falls from the regions of Brahman.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.1-15.—‘One should bear no malice towards him.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.3.23-24.—‘Free from anger, free from jealousy.’

Baudhāyana, 3 3-19.—‘He shall not seek to injure insects and mosquitoes.’

Viṣṇu (96.19-20).—‘He should avoid exaggerations; he should not show disrespect towards any one.’

161 Let him not, even though in pain, (speak words) cutting (others) to the quick; let him not injure others in thought or deed; let him not utter speeches which make (others) afraid of him, since that will prevent him from gaining heaven.

The Brāhmaṇa should ever shrink from reverence, as from poison; and he should always seek for disrespect, as for nectar.—(162)

भिक्षमाणस्य ब्रह्मचारिणो गृहे वोपाध्यायस्य जीविकयाध्यापयतो यत्र संमानं न स्यान् न तेन चित्तसंक्षोभम् आददीत, अपि तु संमानाद् एव्ओद्विजेत पूजयैव दीयमानं न बहु मन्येत । अमृतम् इवाकाङ्क्षेद् अभिलषेद् अवमानम् अवज्ञां सर्वदा । उत्कण्ठासामान्यात् अधीगर्थत्वम्³ आकाङ्क्षेर् आरोप्य षष्ठी कृता (पाण् २.३.५२) ।

• ननु चानर्चितम् अभोज्यम् (म्ध् ४.२१४) । सत्यं चित्तसंक्षोभप्रतिषेधार्थम् एतत् । न तु तादृशस्य भोज्यतोच्यते । संमानावमनयोः समेन भवितव्यं न पुनर् अवमानं प्रार्थनीयम् । ब्रह्मचारिणस् त्व् अवमतम् अपि भिक्षादानम् । न चायं प्रतिग्रहः, “यो ऽर्चितं प्रतिगृह्णाति” (म्ध् ४.२३६) इत्त्य् एतस्य येन विषयः स्यात् ॥ २.१६२ ॥

When the student goes to beg for food, or when the teacher is teaching at home for livelihood,—if he fails to win reverence, he should not allow his mind to be perturbed by it; on the other hand, ‘he should shrink from reverence’; i.e, if what is given to him is given with due respect, he should not regard it as sufficient (simply on that account).

‘Like nectar,’ ‘he should a lways seek for disrespect,’—ill-treatment. The genitive ending has been used (in ‘avamānusya’) by imposing upon the root ‘ākāṅkṣa’ the sense of the root ‘iṅ’ with the preface ‘aḍhi,’ i.e., the sense of thinking of; and thus bringing it under Pāṇini’s sūtra 2.3.52, by which the root ‘iṅ’ with ‘aḍhi,’ governs the genitive. It is on the basis of this similarity that ‘anxiety’ is present in both (desire and thought).

“But what is not offered with respect should not be eaten.”

True; but what the present verse does is to prohibit the perturbation of mind; and.it does not mean tbat food offered with disrespect should be eaten. The sense of all this is that one should look equally upon respect and disrespect; and not that he should actually hanker after disrespect.

Further, the Religious Student may accept even such food as is offered with disrespect; for it is not a regular gift, and hence, does not come under 4.235, where the receiving of gifts offered without respect is decried.—(163)

(verses 162-163)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.13.4.—‘If overjoyed, he becomes arrogant; when arrogant, he transgresses Dharma; and transgression of Dharma leads to hell.’

162 A Brahmana should always fear homage as if it were poison; and constantly desire (to suffer) scorn as (he would long for) nectar.

One who is scorned sleeps in comport and wakes up in comfort and goes about in the world in comport; it is the scorner that perishes.—(163)

पूर्वस्य विधेर् अर्थवादो ऽयं फलदर्शनार्थः । सो ऽवमानान् न क्षुभ्यति स सुखं शेते । अन्यथा द्वेषेण दह्यमानो न कथंचिन् निद्रां लभते । प्रतिबुद्धश् च तच्चिन्तापरो न सुखं विन्दति । उत्थितश् च शयनात् कार्येषु सुखं चरति । यस् त्व् अवमानस्य कर्ता स तेन पापेन विनश्यति⁴ ॥ २.१६३ ॥

The present verse is commendatory of the injunction contained in the preceding verse, and it serves the purpose of indicating the result proceeding from what has been enjoined.

He who is not perturbed by dishonour or scorn ‘sleeps in comfort’: otherwise he would be burning with resentment and would not get any sleep; and on waking up, he would still be thinking of the dishonour, and would find no comfort. On rising from sleep, he moves about his business in comfort.

That person however who has done the scorning perishes by that very sin.—(163)

**(verses 162-163)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.162].

163 For he who is scorned (nevertheless may) sleep with an easy mind, awake with an easy mind, and with an easy mind walk here among men; but the scorner utterly perishes.

Sanctified in self, the twice-born man, while dwelling with his Teacher, should, by the adoption of this course, generally accumulate sanctity for the learning of the Veda.—(164)

संस्कृतात्मा उपनीतो द्विजो ऽनेन क्रमयोगेन तपः संचिनुयात् । “अध्येष्यमाण” (म्ध् २.७०) इत्य् अत आरभ्य यद् ब्रह्मचारिणः कर्तव्यम् उक्तम्, तस्य “अनेन” (म्ध् २.१६४) इति प्रत्यवमर्शः । अनेन विधिसंघातेन क्रमयोगेन क्रमेणानुष्ठीयमानेन तप आत्मसंस्कारं निष्कल्मषत्वलक्षणम् । यथा तपसा चान्द्रायणादिना निष्कल्मषत्वं भवत्य् एवम् अनेनापि वेदग्रहणार्थेन यमनियमसमूहेन । अतः संचिनुयात् शनैर् अत्वरयार्जयेच् च वर्धयेच् च । क्रमः परिपाटी इदं कृत्वेदं कर्तव्यं, “ॐकारपूर्विकाः” इत्यादिः । तेन योगः संबन्धो यस्यानुष्ठानस्येति यावत् । ब्रह्मणः आधिगमिकम् अधिगमार्थम् । अध्ययनबोधाव् अधिगमः ॥ २.१६४ ॥

‘Sanctified in self’—i.e., duly initiated,—‘the twice-born man should, by the adoption of this course, accumulate sanctity.’ ‘This’ refers to all those duties that have been laid down for the Religious Student, from verse 70 onwards. The meaning is that anena kramayogena—by the orderly carrying out of the host of injunctions, one should accumulate ‘sanctity’—self-purification, consisting in freedom from sin; just as freedom from sin is attained by means of the Cāndrāyaṇa and other austerities, so also is it attained by means of the course of restraints and observances prescribed in connection with the study of the Veda. For this reason one should accumulate it, ‘gradually,’—without haste, be should acquire it and go on enhancing it.

‘Course’ is ‘process’;—‘this should be done after having done that, and so forth’; e.g., ‘Preceded by the uttering of the syllable om, etc.’ (as laid down in verse 81); and the ‘adoption’ of this is taking up of the performance.

‘For the learning of the Veda,’—for the purpose of learning it; learning stands for the getting up of the text and understanding of the meaning.—(164)

Curiously enough Buhler’s translation omits the phrase ‘gurau vasan’, rightly rendered by Burnell as ‘while dwelling with his guru.’

‘Vedādhigamikam tapaḥ.’—“Sanctity for the learning of the Veda” (Medhātithi);—‘austerity consisting of Vedic study’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2-12.—‘For the initiated, there is residence in the Teacher’s house, as a Religious Student.’

Vaśiṣṭha, 7.3.—‘The Religious Student should serve the Teacher.’

Viṣṇu, 27.1.—‘Residence in the Teacher’s House is for Religious Students.’

164 A twice-born man who has been sanctified by the (employment of) the means, (described above) in due order, shall gradually and cumulatively perform the various austerities prescribed for (those who) study the Veda.

The entire Veda, along with the Esoteric Treatises, should be learnt by the twice-born person,—by means of various kinds of austerities and observances prescribed by rule.—(165)

तपोविशेषैः कृच्छ्रचान्द्रायणादिभिर् विविधैर् बहुप्रकारैर् एकाहारचतुर्थकालाहारादिभिर् अभिक्षिण्वता शरीरम् । व्रतैश् चोपनिषद्महानाम्निकादिभिः । विधिनोदितैर् गृह्यस्मृतिष्व् आम्नातैर् अनुष्ठीयमानैर् वेदः कृत्स्नो ऽधिगन्तव्यः ।

• ये तु पूर्वश्लोके तपः शब्दो ब्रह्मचारिधर्मे प्रयुक्त इहापि तपोविशेषास् त एवाभिप्रेता इत्य् आहुः, न ते सम्यङ् मन्यन्ते, व्रतशब्देनैव तेषां संगृहीतत्वात् । व्रतम् इति हि शास्त्रतो नियम उच्यते । सामान्यशब्दत्वाच् च व्रतशब्दस्य महानाम्निकादीनाम् अपि ग्रहणसिद्धिः । तस्मात् तपांस्य् उपवासादीन्य् अभिप्रेतानि ।

• इह केचिद् वेद इत्य् अत्रैकवचनं विवक्षितं मन्यन्ते । यद्य् अपि तव्यप्रत्ययनिर्देशाद् विनियोगतो वेदस्य प्राधान्यं संस्कार्यतया प्रतीयते, तथापि विधितो वस्तुतश् चार्थावबोधे गुणभाव एव । गुणे च संविवक्षिते ऽर्थावबोधपर्यन्तो ह्य् अयं वेदविषयो माणवकस्य व्यापारो विधिवृत्तपर्यालोचनयावसीयते । अयं ह्य् अत्र विध्यर्थः “अधीतेन वेदेनार्थावबोधं कुर्यात्” न संस्कार्यत्वम् अन्यथा निर्वहति । सर्वो हि कार्यान्तरे शेषभूतः संस्क्रियते । वेदस्य च दृष्टम् एव कार्यम् अधीतस्य स्वार्थबोधजनकत्वम् अन्यथा “सक्तूञ् जुहोति” इतिवत् प्राधान्यं श्रुतम् अप्य् उत्सृज्येत । धातुर् अप्य् अवबोधार्थ एव । अधिगमनं हि ज्ञानम् उच्यते । “सर्वे गत्यर्था ज्ञानार्थाः” इति स्मृतम् । स्वरूपग्रहणं च वेदस्य प्राग् एव विहितम् “संहत्य हस्ताव् अध्येयम्” इत्यादिना (म्ध् २.७१) । तस्यैवार्थग्रहणपर्यन्ततानेन प्रतिपाद्यते । विवक्षाम् एव मत्वानेकवेदाध्ययनम् अप्राप्तं प्रतिप्रसविष्यते “वेदान् अधीत्य” (म्ध् ३.२) इति । यद्य् अप्य् अनेकवेदाध्ययनम् अस्ति क्वैकत्वविवक्षोपयुज्यते । बाढम् उपयुज्यते । एकस्याम् एव शाखायाम् अधीतायां “स्वाध्यायो ऽध्येतव्यः” इति विध्यर्थनिवृत्तिः । इच्छातस् त्व् अनेकवेदाध्ययनम्। यदि न विधिचोदितं क उन्मत्तो दन्तकलशिकयात्मानं क्लेशयिष्यति । अस्त्य् एवात्र विध्यन्तरं “वेदान् अधीत्य” इति तच् च फलकामस्य । फलं च स्वर्गः । अथास्य विधेर् वाक्यशेषे किंचिद् आम्नायते, घृतकुल्यादयो ऽन्यद् वा, ततस् तद् एव भवितुम् अर्हति । ब्रह्मचारिणो हि विधिर् अर्थावबोधविषयो दृष्टप्रयोजनश् च, अवबोधस्य कर्मानुष्ठानोपयोगदर्शनाद्⁵ विदुषः कर्मण्य् अधिकारात् । एकैकवेदाध्ययनम् अदृष्टायैव । अन्यथैकवेदाध्ययनेनैव स्वाध्यायविधिनिर्वृत्तेर् असति धर्माय विधौ वेदान् अधीत्येत्यादिवचनम् अनर्थकम् एव स्यात् ।

• अत्रोयते । कथम् अयं पक्षः संगच्छेत यावतैको ऽयं विधिर् वेदो ऽधिगन्तव्य इति, स चेत् संस्कारविधित्वाद् दृष्टकर्मानुष्ठानोपयोगाच् च नादृष्टार्थः कल्प्यते, तद् अनेकवेदाध्ययने ऽपि तुल्यम् । तत्रापि ह्य् अयं प्रकारो ऽस्त्य् एव । वैरूप्यं च स्यात् । क्वचिद् आधानविधिवद् अवबोधद्वारेण नित्यकाम्यकर्मसंबन्धः, क्वचित् साक्षात् फलार्थतेति ।

• अथ मतम् “वेदान् अधीत्य” इति विध्यन्तरम् एतत्, न वाचार्यकरणविधिप्रयोज्यम्⁶ । तत् फलकाम एवात्राधिक्रियत इति ।

• तद् असत् । न चैतद् विध्यन्तरम् । प्रकृतस्यैव विधेर् असत्यां संख्याविवक्षायां पञ्चषट्सप्तादिशाखाध्ययनं यावच्छक्तिप्राप्तं त्रयं नियमयति । न चाधीयीतेति विधिर् अत्र श्रूयते । अपि तु “गृहस्थाश्रमम् आवसेत्” (म्ध् ३.२) इत्य् अयम् अत्र विधिः ।

• यद् अपि संख्याया विवक्षितत्वम् उक्तं तद् अत्यन्तासंबद्धम् । विनियोगतो हि संख्याविवक्षा, नोपपादनतः । स च विनियोगः स्वाध्यायार्थम् अध्ययनम् आह । नार्थेन गुणभावेन द्वितीयान्ताभ्याम् अवगतं प्राधान्यम् अपैति । एवं ह्य् आश्रीयमाणे ग्रहे ऽप्य् एकत्वं विवक्ष्येत “ग्रहं संमार्ष्टि” इति । प्रधानभूतस्यापि हि तस्य संमार्गं प्रत्यस्त्य् एव साधनभावः । न त्व् असौ शब्देनाभिधीयते । यथा⁷ ग्रहैर् जुहोतीति होमे ऽपि गुणभावः । तस्माद् अभिधानविनियोगाभ्यां प्राधान्यं स्वाध्यायस्य । सति च प्राधान्ये न विवक्षितम् एकत्वम् ।

• हन्त तर्हि यद्य् एकेनापि वेदेन गृहीतेन निवर्तेत स्वाध्यायविध्यर्थः, वक्तव्यम् अनेकवेदाध्ययनप्रयोजनम् । तृतीये वक्ष्यामः ।

• ननु यद्य् अवबोधपर्यन्तो ऽयं विधिस् तदा गृहीते ऽपि स्वरूपतो वेदे यावदर्थावबोधो न जातस् तावदन्तरा मधुमांसादियमनियमानुष्ठानम् अव्यावृत्तं स्यात् । तत्र को दोषः । शिष्टसमाचारविरोधः । न हि शिष्टा अधीते वेदे तदर्थम् उपशृण्वन्तो ऽपि मधुमांसादि वर्जयन्ति ।

• नैष दोषः । अस्ति हि स्मृत्यन्तरं “वेदम् अधीत्य स्नायात्” इति (बौग् २.५.६) । तत्राधीत्येति पाठमात्रम् उच्यते । स्नायाद् इति च स्वकालस्वाध्यायविध्यङ्गयमनियमनिवृत्तिर् लक्ष्यते । यथैव मधुमांसे प्रतिषिद्धे एवं स्नानम् अपि । तत्र स्नानम् अनुज्ञायमानं साहचर्यान् मधुमांसादीन्य् अपि तुल्यप्रकरणत्वाद् अनुजानाति । स्त्रीसंप्रयोगस् तु वचनान्तरेण “अविप्लुतब्रह्मचर्यः” (म्ध् ३.२) इति प्रतिषिद्धः । तद्व्यतिक्रमे च न स्वाध्यायविधेर् अर्थावबोधकाले किंचित् परिहीणम् । न हि तस्याम् अवस्थायां तदङ्गम्, सर्वेषां यमनियमानां ग्रहणान्तत्वात् । पुरुषार्थस् त्व् अयं प्रतिषेधः । अत एव कथंचिद् विप्लवे नावकीर्णिप्रायश्चित्तम् । ⁸व्रस्थस्य हि रेतःसेको विकारः, न च व्रतस्थश् चान्द्रायणादिनानेनोपपातकप्रायश्चित्तेनाधिक्रियते ।

• किं पुनः स्नायाद् इति लक्षणत्वे कारणम् । उच्यते । न तावद् इदं स्नानम् अद्भिः शरीरक्षालनरूपम्, अदृष्टार्थत्वप्रसङ्गात् । ब्रह्मचारिनियमानां चावध्यप्रेक्षत्वाद् अस्य चावधिसमर्पकत्वेनापेक्षितार्थविधिनोपपत्तेः । न पुनर् एवं तेषाम् अवध्यन्तरापेक्षा । स्वाध्यायविध्यर्था हि ते ऽतस् तन्निवृत्तिर् एव तेषाम् अवधिः । तस्य च निवृत्तिर् विषयनिवृत्त्या । अध्ययनं च तस्य विषयः । तन्निवृत्तिः प्रत्यक्षैव ।

• सत्यम्, यद् यस्य श्रुतविषयनिष्ठतैव स्यात् । अश्रुतो ऽप्य् अस्य विषयः फलभूतो ऽर्थाधिगमो ऽपि संस्कारविधित्वान्यथानुपपत्त्या विषयताम् आपन्नः । यतः श्रुताध्ययननिष्ठत्वे विधित्वम् एवास्य व्याहन्येत । विधेर् हि स्वार्थानुष्ठापकत्वं रूपम् । स्वार्थश् च कार्यकरणेतिकर्तव्यतात्मकः⁹ । तच् च विध्यर्थव्यतिरेकेण नान्यत् किंचित् । न कार्यं करणं विषयः, एकपदोपादानात् । अधीयीतेत्य् अध्ययनादिधात्वार्थावच्छिन्नो¹⁰ भावार्थः । यमनियमानुष्ठणम् इतिकर्तव्यता । न तत्र तावद् अस्य विधेः स्वार्थानुष्ठापकत्वसंभवः । यतो विषयानुष्ठानद्वारिका सर्वा विधीनां स्वार्थानुष्ठानसंपत्तिः । तस्यास्य विषयानुष्ठानं विध्यन्तरवशाद् एव सिद्धम् । आचार्यस्य हि विधिर् अस्ति “उपनीय शिष्यं वेदम् अध्यापयेत्” (म्ध् २.१४०) इति । न चाध्यापनम् अन्तरेणाध्ययनसिद्धिः । अत आचार्यः स्वविधिसंपत्त्यर्थम् अध्ययने माणवकं प्रवर्तयति स्वयं च ज्ञात्वा नाचार्येणाप्रवर्तितस्यानुष्ठानसंभवः । अतो ऽवश्यम् आचार्यविधिप्रयुक्तता एषितव्या । तत्प्रयुक्तत्वे सति सिद्धम् अनुष्ठानम् इति न स्वाध्यायाध्ययने माणवकस्य विधिना कश्चिद् अर्थः । अतः प्रयोक्तृत्वासंभवात् कीदृशी विधिरूपतास्य विधेः । स्वरूपनाशे प्रसक्ते स प्रकारो ऽन्विष्यते, यथास्य प्रयोक्तृत्वं लभ्यते । तत्र निश्चितस् तावद् अयं संस्कारविधिः । न च निष्फलः संस्कारः । अध्ययने सति यादृशस्य तादृशस्यार्थबन्धस्य दर्शनात् तस्य च सकलतत्कर्मानुष्ठानोपयोगित्वात् । अतः श्रुताध्ययनविषयसंबद्धावबोधकर्तव्यतातो विधिः प्रतीयते । यद्य् अपि च वस्तुस्वाभाव्येन वाक्यग्रहणसमन्तरम् अवबोधो जायते, न तु निश्चितरूपो भवति । अतो येन प्रकारेण निश्चयो भवति तस्मिन्न् अंशे विधेः प्रयोक्तृत्वम् । निश्चयो विचार्य संशायादिव्युदासेन भवति । न च विचारो ऽन्यतः प्राप्तः । नाचार्यविधेः, तस्याध्ययनमात्रेण निवृत्तेः । नापि दृष्टकार्यप्रयुक्तः, किं विचारम् अन्तरेण पुरुषस्य न सिद्ध्येद् यदर्थं प्रवर्तेत ।

• यदृच्छया ग्रामादिकामस्येव विचारो ऽपि प्राप्त इति चेत्, एवं तर्ह्य् अनियतत्वात् पुरुषेच्छायाः कश्चिन् न विचारयेत् । यदि विचारयेन् नाध्ययनसमनन्तरम् । अतो ऽस्यांशस्याप्राप्तत्वाद् यावद् अप्राप्तं विधेर् विषय इत्य् अस्ति विधेर् व्यापारः । तस्माद् अध्यनस्यान्यतः प्राप्तत्वात् तत्संबन्धस्यावबोधस्यानिश्चितरूपस्य वस्तुस्वाभाव्येनोत्पत्तेस् तादृशस्य न क्वचिद् अर्थवत्त्वात् सत्य् अपि तस्मिन् संस्कारकत्वान् निर्व्यूढे निश्चितस्यैव फलवत्कर्मानुष्ठानोपयोगित्वान् निश्चयस्य विचारसाध्यत्वात् तस्य च नियतकालावश्यकर्तव्यताप्राप्तेस् तन्निवृत्त्यर्थं विचारपर्यवसायी विधिर् अयम् अवतिष्ठते ।

• अतो भवत्य् आकाङ्क्षा नियमानाम् । किं श्रुताध्ययनपर्यवसानावधिर् उताक्षिप्तनिश्चितावबोधजननार्थविचारपर्यवसानः । अतो ऽस्यां अपेक्षायां “वेदम् अधीत्य स्नायात्” इत्य् अनेनावधिसमर्पणं क्रियते । तत्र प्रकृतस्यापेक्षायाश् चाविशेषाद् युक्ता लक्षणा ।

• ननु किम् इदम् उच्यते ऽश्रुतोवबोधः, यावता “अधिगन्तव्यः” (म्ध् २.१६५) इति श्रूयत एव । वेदे स्मृतिषु चान्यासु “वेदम् अधीते,” “स्वाध्यायो ऽध्येतव्यः” इति च पठ्यते । मानव्या अपि स्मृतेर् एतत् स्मृतिमूलत्वाद् अभिन्नार्थतैव । आक्षिप्तावबोधाभिप्रायो ऽयम् अधिगमः । यदि वा स्वरूपग्रहणम् एवाधिगमः । अवबोधपर्यन्तता तु तेनैव न्यायेन लभ्यते । न च विसमञ्जसम् एको ऽयं विधिस् तस्य च विषयांशः कश्चिद् आचार्यविधिना प्रयुज्यते, कस्यचिद् अंशस्य स एव प्रयोजक इति वैरूप्यम् । किम् अत्रानुपपन्नम्, अर्थभूतस्यैवावगमात् ।

• यत् तूक्तम् “अनेकवेदाध्ययनम् अदृष्टार्थं युक्तम्” इति, तस्य “षट्त्रिंशदाब्दिकम्” (म्ध् ३.१) इत्य् अत्र परिहारं वक्ष्यामः ।

• वेदशब्दो मन्त्रब्राह्मणवाक्यसमुदायात्मिका शाखाम् आचष्टे । तदवयवे ऽपि वाक्ये वेदशब्दस्य प्रयोगदर्शनात् तदाशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थः कृत्स्नशब्दः । यद्य् अप्य् एकस्मिन् वाक्ये ऽधीते वाक्यान्तरस्यापि वेदशब्दवाच्यत्वाद् अनिवृत्तम्¹¹ अध्ययनं संस्कारकर्मत्वाद् ग्रहवत्, तथापि विस्पष्टार्थं कृत्स्नग्रहणम् ।

• अन्ये त्व् अङ्गविषयं कृत्स्नशब्दं वर्णयन्ति । वेदशब्दो ह्य् उक्तपरिमाणस्य वाक्यसमुदायस्य वाचकः । तत्र ऋङ्मात्रेणापि न्यूने न स्वाध्यायो ऽधीतो भवति । तस्मात् कृत्स्नशब्दो ऽङ्गाध्ययनप्राप्त्यर्थः । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम् “ब्राह्मणेन निष्कारणो धर्मः षडङ्गो वेदो ऽध्येयः” इति ।

• ननु यो वेदः स कृत्स्न इत्य् एतद् अत्र प्रतीयते । न चाङ्गानि वेदशब्दवाच्यानि । तत्र कूतो ऽङ्गैः¹² साहित्य । या त्व् एषा स्मृतिः- “षडङ्गो वेदो ऽध्येयः” इति, तत्र स्वशब्देनाङ्गान्य् उपात्तानि । इह तु वेदविशेषणत्वात् कृत्स्नशब्दस्य कथम् इवाङ्गानि गृह्येरन् ।

• उच्यते । “स्वाध्यायो ऽध्येतव्यः” इति मूलैवैषा स्मृतिः । सा चावबोधपर्यन्ता व्यवस्थापिता । अवबोधश् च नान्तरेणाङ्गानि कल्पत इत्य् अर्थसिद्धम् अङ्गानाम् उपादानम् । अतो निगमनिरुक्तव्याकरणमीमांसावेदनम् अपि विध्याक्षिप्तम् । एवम् अर्थम् अङ्गानाम् उपादानम् अङ्गीकृत्य कृत्स्नशब्दो द्योतकत्वेन युक्त उपादातुम् । तत्र यथारम्भकाणि पुरुषस्य हस्तपादादीन्य् अङ्गान्य् उच्यन्ते, नैवं वेदस्य निरुक्तादीन्य् आरम्भकाणि । अथ च भक्त्याङ्ग्त्वेन वेदस्योच्यन्ते । न किल तैर् विना वेदः स्वार्थाय प्रभवन्त्य् अतो ऽङ्गानीवाध्यासो ऽत्र । एवम् अध्यारोपितवेदत्वेन कृत्स्नशब्द उपपद्यते ।

• सरहस्य इति । रहस्यम् उपनिषदः । सत्य् अपि वेदत्वे प्राधान्यात् पृथग् उपादानम् ॥ २.१६५ ॥

‘By means of austerities’—such as the Cāndrāyaṇa and the like;—‘of various kinds’—of such diverse forms as eating only once, eating during the fourth part of the day and so forth; but without injuring the body.

‘Observances’—such as the ‘Upaniṣad,’ (?) the ‘Mahā nāmnikā’ and so forth.

‘Prescribed by rule’—laid down in the Smṛtis dealing with domestic rites.

By means of the above, duly performed, one should learn the entire Veda.

Some people have held that—“in the preceding verse the term ‘tapas’ stood for the duties of the Religious Student, and those same are meant by the term tapoviśeṣa in the present verse.”

But this is not right; because all those are included under the term ‘vrata’ ‘observances.’ The term ‘vrata’ stands for those restrictions that are based upon scriptures; and thus ‘vrata’ being a generic term, the Mahānāmnikā and the rest also become included under it. Hence by ‘observances’ here are meant fasting and the rest.

In connection with this verse some people have held that significance is meant to be attached to the singular number in ‘vedaḥ’; and they argue thus:—

“It is true that the affix ‘tavya’ (in the word ‘adhiganta vyaḥ’) already indicates that the injunction intends the Veda to be the predominant factor; but in view of the injunction and its subject-matter, it is clear that the Veda is really subservient to the ‘learning of its meaning’; and the subserviency of the Veda being accepted as meant, the proper examination of the injunction leads to the conclusion that the function of the pupil in regard to the Veda extends up to the learning of the meaning. The sense of the injunction thus comes to be this—

‘By means of the Veda duly studied one should learn its meaning.’ If the injunction did not mean this, the Veda could not be regarded as something to be cuff incited; anything that is cultivated or refined, is so done only as subservient to, and aiding in, something else; and as regards the Veda, it has been already found that its use lies in bringing about the knowledge of what is contained in it. If this were not so, the predominance (of the Veda), even if directly expressed, would he abandoned; just as in the case of the injunction ‘juhoti,’ the predominance of saktu is relinquished and the text is construed as ‘saktubhiḥ,’ (thus making the subordinate to the Libation). Further, the verbal root actually used in the text denotes understanding: ‘adhigamana,’ ‘learning’ (which is what is expressed by the root in ‘adhigantavyaḥ’), means knowledge, in accordance with the dictum that ‘all roots denoting motion denote knowledge’; and as for the getting up of the verbal text of the Veda, this has been already laid down before, under verse 71; so that what the present injunction does is to lay down that the said getting up of the text is to be carried on till the meaning becomes duly comprehended.

“Then again, it is just because the singular number in ‘vedah’ in this passage is regarded to be significant that the injunction herein contained is not recognised as laying down the study of several Vedas, and hence its scope is going to be extended with a view to include such study by what is going to be said later on, under 3.2.

“If then, there is to be a study of s everal Vedas, where would be the use of significance being attached to the singular number in the present verse?

“It is certainly of use; it serves to indicate that even by the study of a single rescensional text one is to be regarded as having fulfilled the injunction of ‘Vedic study,’ and that the study of several Vedas is purely optional.

“If the study of several Vedas is not actually prescribed by injunction, what lunatic would he there who would torture himself by the tattering of teeth (involved in the learning of several Vedas)?

“But there is the other injunction—‘Having learnt the Vedas, etc.’ (3.2); this learning is for one who desires a particular reward, and this reward is Heaven. Or, if we have some assertions made in continuation of the said injunction, referring to ‘streams of butter’ or some such thing,—then these may be regarded as the reward (of learning several Vedas).

“As for the injunction of the study (of one Veda) by the Religious Student, it pertains to the learning of the meaning, and serves a perceptibly useful purpose; e.g., the knowledge of what the Veda says is found to be of use in the actual performance of religious acts; and in fact it is only the man so learned that is entitled to their performance. The learning of several Vedas, on the other band, serves a purely imperceptible purpose. If this were not so, then, the injunction of ‘Vedic Study’ having been fulfilled by the study of a single Veda, the assertion of ‘having studied the Vedas’ (3.2) would be entirely superfluous,—if it were not an injunction of learning several Vedas for the purpose of acquiring merit (an imperceptible reward).”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—How can the view here put forward be acceptable?—since there is the single injunction—‘the Veda should be learnt’; and if this be regarded as not pertaining to an imperceptible transcendental result,—on the ground (1) that it is an injunction of sanctification, and (2) tbat it is of use only in the performance of perceptible acts—then the same can be said in regard to the study of several Vedas also; for the same conditions are present there also. And further, according to the view in question, there would be a diversity (in regard to the Veda): in one case (that of the single Veda) it would, like the injunction of fire-laying, be related to all compulsory and optional acts, through the comprehension of its meaning; while in the other (that of several Vedas), it would be directly conducive to a desirable result.

It might be argued that “the injunction of the learning of several Vedas is a distinct injunction, and it is not based upon the injunction of ‘becoming a teacher’ (as the injunction of learning one Veda is); so that it is only one who desires a particular reward that is entitled to the former.”

But this is not right; as a matter of fact, it is not a distinct injunction at all; there is only one injunction bearing upon the question,—viz., ‘ The entire Veda should be learnt’; and what the other passage—‘Having learnt the Vedas, etc.’ (3.2)—does is to restrict the number of Vedas learnt to three only, in view of the possibility of the idea being entertained that the singular number (in the injunction ‘the Veda should be learnt’) not being meant to be significant, one might study as many recensional texts as he could,—five, six, even seven. Then again, in the passage under question (3.2) we do not find the injunction in the form ‘one should learn,’ the actual words of the injunction being ‘O should enter the state of the House-holder.’

Then again, what has been said above iu regard to significance being attached to the singular number in ‘Vedaḥ’ is absolutely incoherent. Such significance should be based upon direct injunction, and not merely upon argument and reasoning; and in the case in question what the Injunction lays down is‘learning for the acquiring of the Vedic text,’ and the predominance of this ‘learning of the text,’ indicated by means of the two words ending with the Accusative ending, does not cease merely on the ground of its subserviency to the ‘comprehension of the meaning.’ If such reasoning were accepted, significance would have to be attached to the singular number in ‘graham’ (in the passage ‘graham sammārṣṭi,’ ‘wash the cup,’); for the cup, even though the predominant factor, does become subservient to the ‘washing’; but no such subserviency is directly expressed by word,—as there is in the case of the passage ‘grahair-juhoti,’ where the words directly express the subserviency of the ‘cups’ to the ‘Homa.’ Thus it is clear that the predominance of ‘Vedic Study’ is distinctly indicated by the direct denotation (of the Accusative ending), and also by Injunction; and the predominance being thus expressed, no significance can be attached to the singular number.

“Well, if the purposes of the injunction of ‘Vedic Study’ are accomplished by the getting up of a single Veda, it behoves you to point out the use of learning several Vedas.”

This we shall explain under Chapter III.

“If the Injunction of Vedic Study extends up to the learning of the meaning also, then, even after the text of the Veda has been got up, so long as the meaning has not been learnt, there would be no cessation of the performance of such Restraints and Observances as the avoiding of honey, meat, etc.—‘What harm is there in that?’—It would be contrary to the usage of cultured persons: cultured persons do not avoid the eating of honey, meat, etc., after they have got up the Vedic text, even though they continue to listen to the expounding of its meaning.”

There is no force in this objection. For there is another law which says—‘Having learnt the Veda, one should bathe’; and here ‘having learnt’ refers to the mere reading of the text, and ‘should bathe’ indicates the abandoning of all those Restraints and Observances that constitute the auxiliaries to ‘Vedic Study’; for Bathing is as much prohibited (for the Vedic Student) as Honey and Meat; so that when Bathing is permitted by the said law, it permits the use of Honey and the rest also, by reason of their association, and also on account of the prohibition of all these occurring in the same context. As for intercourse with women (which also is prohibited along with Bathing, etc., for the Vedic Student), this forms the subject of a separate prohibition—‘With his life of continence unperturbed, etc.’, (Manu, 3-2); and the transgression of this during the time that one is learning the meaning of Vedic texts would do no violation to the Injunction of Vedic Study; for during the said time, ‘continence’ does not form a necessary factor of ‘study’; as all Restraints and Observances cease after the getting up of the text. Then again, this prohibition (of intercourse with women) is meant to fulfil some purpose for the man (and hence not compulsory); it is for this reason that in the event of transgression occurring in some way or the other, there is the expiation laid down (in 11.118) for the Vedic Student commiting adultery; and what the prescribing of this special expiation indicates is that the emission of semen being a delinquency on the part of the person who is still keeping the Restraints and Observances (as is clear from 11.120),—this case would not be met by the ordinary expiatory rites of the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ and the rest, laid down in connection with ‘minor sins.’

“What are the grounds for taking the expression ‘should bathe’ as figurative (and indicative of the discontinuance of Restraints and Observances)?”

Our answer is as follows:—The ‘bathing’ herein laid down could not consist of the mere washing of the body with water; for if it were so, then what is enjoined would have to be regarded as serving some transcendental purpose; on the other band, the Restraints imposed upon the Vedic Student stand in need of the mention of some time at which they could be discontinued; so that if the Injunction is taken as indicating this limit of time, it comes to supply a much-needed information.

“But these Restraints do not stand in need of any other limit; they are meant to subserve the injunction of Vedic Study; so that the fulfilment of that injunction would be their natural limit; the fulfilment of the injunction consists in the accomplishment of its object; its object is study; and the accomplishment of study is something that is easily perceived. [Hence there can be no point in taking the expression ‘should bathe’ as indicative of the limit of the Restraints and Observances.]”

This would be quite true, if the injunction of Vedic Study rested merely on what is directly expressed by it. As a matter of fact, however, its object embraces things not so expressed; for instance, the comprehension of the meaning of Vedic texts resulting from the said study is also included in the object of the said Injunction; because if it were not so, then the Injunction would fail to be sanctiftcatory in character. In fact, if the Injunction rested entirely in what is directly expressed by it, it would lose its injunctive character itself; for the injunctiveness of the Injunction consists in its urging the agent to accomplish what it denotes; and ‘what it denotes’ consists of (a) the result to be accomplished, (b) the means of accomplishing it and (c) the procedure adopted; and iu as much as all these three are expressed by a single word, none of them can be regarded as beyond what is denoted by the Injunction. Thus then, in the injunctive verb ‘udhīyīta’ ‘should study,’ the thing to be accomplished is what is determined by the verbal root ‘to study,’—and the ‘procedure’ consists of the keeping of Restraints and Observances. As a matter of fact, this injunction, by itself, is not capable of bringing about the fulfilment of what it denotes; because in the case of every Injunction the full accomplishment of what it denotes is obtained through the execution of an object; and the execution of the object of the injunction in question is already accomplished by the force of another Injunction. For instance, for the Teacher, there is the Injunction—

‘Having initiated the pupil, he should teach him the Veda’; and as the work of ‘teaching’ cannot be accomplished without the work of ‘learning,’ the Teacher, with a view to the accomplishing of the injunction of his own duty, urges the boy to the work of ‘learning’; and it is not possible for the boy, without being urged by the Teacher, to accomplish the act, merely on the strength of his own knowledge of the injunction. From all this it follows that the act of ‘learning the Veda’ should be regarded as prompted by the injunction addressed to the Teacher. And when the act is accomplished by being prompted by that injunction, there is no need for any other injunction proscribing the pupil’s act of ‘learning.’ Thus then, being devoid of prompting force, what sort of injunctive character could belong to the Injunction in question (‘the entire Veda should be learnt’)? In face of this possibility of the Injunction losing its character, we have to look out for some such method whereby it would acquire the requisite prompting force. And the only sure way of doing this is to regard it as an injunction of embellishment. Nor would the embellishment in question be entirely useless; for it is only when the learning (of the Vedic text) has been accomplished, that the pupil derives knowledge of some sort of meaning, which latter knowledge becomes useful in the performance of all those acts (that are laid down in the Veda). From this it is clearly perceived that the Injunction in question lays down the necessity of acquiring the knowledge of the meaning of the texts that have been learnt in the course of ‘Vedic Study.’ Though from the very nature of things, the meaning of the texts becomes comprehended as soon as the texts have been heard,—yet such a comprehension is never definite and sure. Hence the prompting done by the Injunction is towards that method by which the said knowledge may become definitively certain. This certainty comes about when one has pondered over the subject and succeeded in setting aside all doubts; and the doing of this pondering is not found to be indicated by any other means of knowledge; it is certainly not prescribed by the injunction of ‘becoming a Teacher,’—as this latter is accomplished by the learning (by the pupil) of the mere verbal text. Nor is it indicated by any visible purpose to be served by it; for what purpose of man is there which could not be fulfilled without the said pondering,—and for the fulfilling of which one would undertake it?

“Just as for one who desires to acquire landed property, the performance of the act conducive to it is likely to be taken up by chance (or whim),—the same might be the case with the pondering in question also.”

But in that case, there being no certainty regarding the whims and desires of men; it is just possible that some one might not do the pondering at all; or even if he did do it, he might not do it immediately after the learning of the Vedic text.

Thus then, this part (of study) not being indicated by any other means, it comes to be regarded as falling within the province of the Injunction in question, in accordance with the principle that that alone forms the subject-matter of an Injunction which is not got at by any other means. Since then, (a) the ‘learning of the text’ is already got at by other means,—(b) since the comprehension of the meaning which follows, by the very nature of things, upon the mere reading is uncertain and indefinite,—(c) since such comprehension serves no useful purpose,—(d) since even after the sanctificatory learning of the text has been accomplished, it is only the definite knowledge of its meaning that serves the useful purpose of helping the performance of acts,—and (e) since the said definite-knowledge is obtained only by means of pondering,—it follows that it is necessary to do this pondering during a well-defined time; and for the due accomplishment of this pondering, the Injunction in question comes to be one pointing to it as its ultimate purpose.

It is for this reason that in regard to the Restraints there arises the doubt as to whether they arc to end with the learning of the words heard from the mouth of the Teacher, or they are to go on with the enquiry into the meaning of these texts, till this is definitely ascertained,—the necessity of learning this meaning being indirectly implied. Such being the doubt, the direction that, ‘One should bathe after having learnt the Veda,’ serves to indicate the limit of the observance if the said Restraints; and since the indirect indication of this direction is equally helpful to the subject-matter in question, and to the settling of the doubtful point, it is only right to accept the said indication.

“Why is it said that the comprehending of the meaning is not directly laid down? As a matter of fact, the words used are that ‘the Veda should be learnt,’ which directly speaks of the said comprehension. In the Veda as well as in other Smṛtis, we find such directions as ‘Learns the Veda,’ and ‘The Veda should be studied.’ And since the rule laid down by Manu also is based upon those directions, its meaning must be the same as that of these directions.”

The ‘learning’ spoken of in the directions (‘tatyaḥ’) refers to that comprehension of meaning which is only indirectly implied. Or, ‘learning’ may stand for the getting up of the verbal text only; and the necessity of learning the meaning would be deduced from the reasoning expounded above. Nor is there any incongruity in the conclusion that, though the Injunction in question is one only, yet one part of it—that pertaining to its subject-matter—is prompted by the Injunction of ‘becoming a teacher,’ and another portion of it is prompted by itself. Though this involves a diversity, there is nothing wrong in this,—representing as it does, what is a mere fact.

It has been urged that “it is only right that several Vedas should be learnt for the purpose of accomplishing a transcendental result.”

We shall answer this under 3.1.

The term ‘veda’ denotes that textual rescension which consists of the collection of Mantra and Brāhmaṇa passages. But in actual usage the term ‘veda’ is applied to portions of that collection also. Hence, in order to remove all doubts on the point, the text has added the qualification ‘entire.’ As a matter of fact, the learning of a single sentence cannot be regarded as fulfilling the ‘learning of the Veda,’ for the simple reason that the other sentences also are ‘Veda,’ and the said ‘learning of the Veda’ is a sanctificatory act; just as in the case of the ‘sacrificial cups’ [the ‘washing’ of a single cup is not regarded as fulfilling the ‘cup-washing,’ which h as been proscribed as a sanctificatory act]. Still, with a view to make this quite clear, the text has added the word ‘entire.’

Others explain the term ‘entire’ as meant to include the Subsidiary Sciences. The term ‘veḍa’ itself stands for the entire collection of sentences above referred to; so that if one were to learn a single verse less than that, he would not be regarded as having ‘learnt the Veda.’ Thus (the learning of the whole Veda being implied in the term ‘Veda’ itself), the addition of the epithet ‘entire’ could only be for the purpose of including the Subsidiary Sciences. This is what h as been declared in another Smṛti also—‘That the Veda along with its six subsidiaries shall be learnt is the duty of the Brāhmaṇa.’

“All that the present verse says is that what is called ‘Veda’ should be learnt entire; and certainly the Subsidiary Sciences are not called by the name ‘Veda’; what then is there which signifies that the Veda should be learnt along with the Sciences? As for the law—‘the Veda with its six subsidiaries should be learnt,’—here we find the Subsidiary Sciences mentioned by their own name; while in the present verse the adjective ‘entire’ qualifying the ‘Veda,’—how could the Subsidiaries be included?”

Our answer is as follows:—As a matter of fact, the present verse is based upon the Śruti—‘the Veda shall be learnt’; and it has been established that this ‘learning’ is meant to extend up to the full comprehension of the meaning; this comprehension is not possible without the help of the Subsidiary Sciences. It is thus that these sciences become included by implication; and thus the learning of Elucidations, Etymologies, Grammar and Exigetics also becomes implied by the same Injunction. For these reasons, the inclusion of the Subsidiary Sciences being admitted, it is only right that the term ‘entire be taken as indicating the same fact.

The Nirukta (Etymological Explanations) and the rest are ‘aṅgas,’ ‘parts,’ of the Veda, but not in the sense in which the hands and feet are ‘limbs’ of man’s body, being its component parts; the Subsidiary Sciences are not components of the Veda; in fact they are called ‘limbs,’ ‘aṅgas,’ of the Veda only figuratively; the sense being that without these the Veda is not able to accomplish its purposes; and hence they are as if they were ‘limbs’ of it. It is in view of this figurative signification of the term ‘Veda,’ that the adjective ‘entire’ should be explained.

‘Along with the Esoteric treatises.’—The Upanisads are the ‘esoteric treatises.’ Though these also are ‘Veda’ they have been mentioned separately, on account of their great importance.—(165)

‘Vedaḥ kṛtsnaḥ’—‘One whole śākhā, including the Mantra and the Brāhmaṇa texts’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘The Veda with the Aṅgas’ (‘others’ quoted by Medhātithi, and Nārāyaṇa).

‘Rahasya’—‘Upaniṣads’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, and Nandana);—‘Esoteric explanations of the Veda’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Tapoviśeṣa’—‘Fasting, Kṛcchra and the rest’ (Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana);—‘the rules laid down for the observances of Students’ (‘others’ quoted by Medhātithi Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘Particular observances, such as feeding the horse while reading the Aśvamedha texts’ (Rāghavānanda).

‘Vrata’—“The Mahānāmni and the rest; see Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhyasūtra I. 11-13”—Buhler.

Medhātithi—(P. 149, 1. 16)—Graham sammārṣṭi’—See Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 2. 1. 9; and 3. 1. 13.

Ibid (pp. 149—150)—‘Avokīrṇiprāyaścittam’—prescribed in Manu 11. 118-120.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 505), where it is explained that though the adjective ‘kṛtsnaḥ,’ ‘entire,’ qualifies ‘Veda’, yet what is meant is one entire śākhā of the Veda, and not all the śākhās of a Veda; and hence the upshot is that the entire śākhā of a Veda should be studied by one who has been sanctified by the sacraments prescribed in the Gṛḥyasūtra of that śākhā to which his forefathers belonged.

Medhātithi (P. 152, 1. 1)—‘Satyapi vedatve?—On p. 140, 1. 3, Medhātithi has given a somewhat different explanation of the separate mention of ‘Rahasya?

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 76), which explains ‘adhigantavyaḥ’ to mean that ‘the verbal text as well as the meaning should be studied,’—‘vrataiḥ’ as ‘the observances, the avoiding of honey, meat, perfumes, garland and the like;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 132), which explains ‘rahasya’ as ‘Upaniṣad’ and ‘adhigantavyaḥ’ as ‘should be studied

**(verses 165-166)
**

Gautama, 2.10.12.—‘The observances begin with the Initiation; fire-kindling, alms-begging, truthfulness of speech.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.5.1-5.—‘The term tapas is applied to the observances; deviation therefrom leads to the dwindling of Knowledge and Duty; on account of deviation from the observances, no sages appear among those who are thereby degraded; whatever the man acquires from the Teacher, with his mind collected, the fruits thereof accrue to him like Brahman itself: and whatever he thinks of acquiring either by mind or speech or eyes, it comes about exactly as he wishes.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.12-1).—‘Vedic study is the austerity.’

Viṣṇu (8.34-36).—‘Thus should he learn one Veda, or two Vedas or three Vedas; and then the Vedic subsidiaries; he who, without having studied the Veda, works on other things, becomes a Śūdra, along with his offspring.’

Yājñavalkya (1.40).—‘For the twice-born, the Veda is what is conducive to his highest good.’

Yājñavalkya (1-90).—‘He should learn the meaning of the Veda, as also the various sciences.’

Kumārila (Vīramitrodaya-saṃskāra, p. 505).—‘It is not right for one to study a rescensional text other than the one pertaining to himself by hereditary tradition.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 505).—‘There should be study of one’s own rescensional text; it is only after he has studied his own text that he should study another.’

Laugākṣi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 507).—‘He who, abandoning his own rescensional text, learns another, should be expelled from all rites performed in honour of the Gods and Pitṛs.’

Parāśara (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 507).—‘For the proper fulfilment of the rites, the meaning of the Veda should be always learnt; he who learns merely the verbal text suffers as badly as the cow in the mud; the learning of the Veda and also of the Dharmaśāstra is futile, if the meaning is not understood.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 508).—‘Dharma cannot be learnt from any other source; as it was out of the Veda that it shone forth; therefore for the purpose of sacrifices, one should make every effort to have recourse to the Veda.’

Dakṣa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 508).—‘The Study of Veda is fivefold—(1) learning up of the text, (2) pondering over it, (3) repeating it, (4) reciting it, and (5) teaching it.’

Śruti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 507).—‘The Brāhmaṇa should study the Veda along with subsidiary sciences, disinterestedly.’ Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 511).—‘Without having read the Veda, one should not study any other science, except the Vedic Subsidiaries.’

Harīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 512).—‘The Veda is the science for the Brāhmaṇa.’

Dakṣa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 306).—‘For the second part, the study of the Veda has been prescribed.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 307).—‘One should then carry on the study of the Veda, to the best of his ability; one should recite it, teach it to pupils, hold it in memory and ponder over it and also look into the scriptures hearing upon Dharma and so forth.’

165 An Aryan must study the whole Veda together with the Rahasyas, performing at the same time various kinds of austerities and the vows prescribed by the rules (of the Veda).

The best of Brāhmaṇas, desiring to acquire piety, should constantly repeat the Veda; because for the Brāhmaṇa, Veda-repeating is declared to be the highest penance on earth.—(100)

प्रकृतशेषतया प्राप्त एव ग्रहणार्थो ऽभ्यासो ऽनूद्यते स्तुत्यर्थम्, न पुनर् विध्यन्तरम् । सदाशब्दो ग्रणकालापेक्ष एव । तपःशब्दः शरीरक्लेशजननेष्व् आहारनिरोधादिषु शास्त्रीयेषु¹³ वर्तते । इह तु तज्जन्यात्मसंस्कारो वराभिशापादिसामर्थ्यं लक्षणयोच्यते । तत् तपस् तप्स्यन् तपसार्जयितुम् इच्छन्, अर्जनाङ्गे संतापे धातुर् वर्तते । कर्मकर्तृत्वस्याविवक्षितत्वात् परस्मैपदम् । हेतुरूपो द्वितीयश्लोकार्धो ऽर्थवादः¹⁴ । वेदाभ्यासो हि यावत् किंचित् प्रकृष्टं तपः, ततः परं श्रेष्ठं वेदाभ्यासस् तत्तुल्यफलताम् आरोप्य स्तूयते ॥ २.१६६ ॥

The repeating of the Text for the purpose of getting it up, which comes up as supplementary to the subject-matter of the context, is here re-iterated for the purpose of eulogising it, and not for enjoining it again.

The term ‘constantly’ refers to the time of study only.

The term ‘tapas,’ ‘piety,’ stands for fasting and such other bodily mortifications; but in the present context it denotes figuratively that spiritual faculty produced by the mortifications which consists in the capacity to grant boons and pronounce curses.—‘Tapasyan’ stands for ‘desiring to acquire’ the said piety by means of bodily mortifications; the root (in ‘tapasyan’) denoting the bodily sufferings undergone in the process of acquiring. The Parasmaipada ending (in ‘tapasyan’) is justified on the ground that the participle is not intended to have the force of the reflexive-passive (in which case alone the Ātmanepada ending would be necessary, by Pāṇini’s Sūtra 3.1.88).

The second half of the verse is a recommendatory reiteration, supplying the reason for what lias been asserted in the first half.

Whatever ‘penance’ there is on the Earth, the ‘repeating of Veda’ is superior to all. This is meant to eulogise the act as leading to results similar to those brought about by all the austerities.—(166)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 307) as eulogising Vedic study;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 509);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 128), to the effect that ‘Vedic study’ forms the best ‘austerity—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 46 b).

**(verses 165-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.165].

166 Let a Brahmana who desires to perform austerities, constantly repeat the Veda; for the study of the Veda is declared (to be) in this world the highest austerity for a Brahmana.

It is said that that twice-born man, who, even though garlanded, recites the Veda daily to the best of his capacity, undergoes the highest penance to his very nail-tips.—(167)

अयम् अपरो वाजसनेयकस्वाध्यायविधिर् ब्राह्मणे ऽर्थवादानुवादः । आ नखाग्रेभ्य एवेति संबन्धः । हशब्द ऐतिह्यसूचकः । परमशब्दात् तपसः प्रकर्षे प्रतिपन्ने नखाग्रग्रहणं प्रकृष्टस्यापि प्रकर्षम् आह । नखाग्राणि निर्जीवानि तान्य् अपि तपसानेन व्याप्यन्ते । तपो हि कृच्छ्रादिकं नखाग्राणाम् अव्यापकत्वान् न निःशेषफलप्रदम् । इदं तु तान्य् अपि व्याप्नोतीति प्रशंसा । तप्यते तप इति । “तपस् तपः कर्मकस्यैव” (पाण् ३.१.८८) इति यगामनेपदे । यः स्रग्व्य् अपि । स्रग् अस्यास्तीति स्रग्वी, कृतकुसुमदामा पुरुष उच्यते । अनेन च ब्रह्मचारिनियमत्यागं दर्शयति । परित्यज्यापि ब्रह्मचारिधर्मान् यदि शक्तितो यावच् छक्नोति स्वल्पम् अप्य् अन्वहं प्रत्यहं वेदम् अधीते सो ऽपि प्रकृष्टेन पुरुषार्थेन युज्यते । स्तुतिर् इयं न पुनर् नियमत्यागे ऽध्ययनम् उच्यते ॥ २.१६७ ॥

This is another commendatory statement pertaining to the injunction of Vedic Study contained in the Vājasaneya-Brāhmaṇa.

The construction is—‘ā nakhāgrebhya eva.’

‘Ha’ denotes hearsay.

The term ‘highest’ having already signified the high character of the penance, the phrase ‘to his very nail-tips’ h as been added with a view to expressing the fact that the penance intended is higher even than the highest; the sense being that even though the nail-tips are insensible, yet they also are affected by the penance; the Kṛcchra and other penances, not pervading over tho nail-tips, are not productive of all that is desirable; but the penance in question reaches even those tips. This is the special praise bestowed upon the penance.

‘Tapyate tapaḥ’;—tbe augment ‘yak’ and the Ātma nepada ending are in accordance with Pāṇini 3.1.88, by which the root ‘tap’ takes the said augment and ending, when governing the noun ‘tapas.’

‘Even though garlanded.’—One who wears a garland is called ‘garlanded,’ i.e., the man who wears a string of flowers.

This epithet indicates the renouncing of the restraints imposed upon the Religious Student. The meaning is that, even if one were to renounce the duties of the Religious Student, and yet recite the Veda ‘to the heat of his capacity,’—as much as he can do, even though that be little,—‘daily’—every day,—he becomes endowed with excellent success.

This is mere praise; it does not moan that one should read the Veda after renouncing the restraints.—(107)

Cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 11. 5. 7. 4.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 509), which adds the following explanatory notes:—The meaning is that the man who, even though wearing the garland,—i.e. though not observing the rules and restrictions strictly,—sedulously carries on Vedic study, carries on excellent austerity ‘to the very fingertips—the particle ‘ha’ indicates that the fact stated is universally recognised. Thus the sense is that “when Vedic study, carried on without strict adherence to the rules, is conducive to excellent results,—what to say of it, when done in strict accordance with the rules.”

This is quoted in Aparārka (p. 69), which gives the Anvaya as—‘ānakhāgrebhyaḥ tapastapyate ha’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 128), which explains the meaning as one who studies the Veda to the best of his capacity performs the ‘highest austerity, to the very finger-tips it adds the notes—‘ha’ indicates that what is stated here is well-known,—‘sragvī’, wearing a garland, i.e. even though not strictly observing the restraints and observances.

Baudhāyana (2. 2. 1).—‘Always wearing the Sacred Thread, always reading the Veda…… the Brāhmaṇa falls not from the Brāhmic regions.’

Smṛtisārasamuccaya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 510).—‘He who hears the Veda in his body is never touched by sin.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 512).—‘Just as fire burns even wet trees, so does one knowing the Veda burn all the evil in one’s self.’

167 Verily, that twice-born man performs the highest austerity up to the extremities of his nails, who, though wearing a garland, daily recites the Veda in private to the utmost of his ability.

The twice-born man, who, not having learnt the veda, labours over other things, soon falls, along with his descendants, even while living, to the state of the śūdra.—(168)

येषां तावत् कृत्स्नशब्दो ऽङ्गपरिग्रहार्थः, तेषाम् अनियतक्रमे ऽध्ययने प्राप्ते क्रमो नियम्यते । प्रथमं वेदो ऽध्येतव्यः, ततो ऽङ्गानि । येषां तु वेदस्यैवासाकल्प्याशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थम्, तेषां त्रैविद्यव्रतान्तरं वेदस्यैव प्राप्तम् अध्ययनम् । अगृहीते वेदे ऽङ्गानाम् अध्ययनं नाभ्यनुज्ञायते¹⁵ ।

• यो द्विजो वेदम् अनधीत्यान्यत्र शास्त्रे अङ्गेषु तर्कशास्त्रग्रन्थेषु वा श्रमम् अभियोगातिशयं कुरुते स जीवन्न् एव शूद्रत्वम् आप्नोति । आशु क्षिप्रम् । सान्वयः पुत्रपौत्रादिसंतत्या सह । श्रमो यत्नातिशयस् तन्निषेधायोगात् तत्समाप्तौ यथावसरम् अन्यान्य् अपि विद्यास्थानानि पठ्यन्ते । शूद्रत्वप्राप्तिवचनं निन्दातिशयः । द्विज इति वचनाद् उपनीतस्यायं क्रमनियमः । प्राक् चोपनयनाद् अङ्गाध्ययनम् अनिषिद्धं शिक्षाव्याकरणादि यद् वेदवाक्यैर् न मिश्रितम् ।

• ननु च स्वाध्यायविधिनाङ्गान्य् आक्षिप्यन्ते । तं च विधिम् आचार्यप्रयुक्तो माणवको ऽनुतिष्ठति । प्राग् उपनयनाद् असत्य् आचार्ये कुतो ऽङ्गाध्ययनसंभवः । नैष दोषः । “तस्माद् अनुशिष्टं पुत्रं लोक्यम् आहुः” (बाउ १.५.१७) इति पित्रा यः संस्कर्तव्यः । स एनं प्राग् उपनयनाद् व्याकरणाद्य् अध्यापयिष्यति ॥ २.१६८ ॥

द्विजातीनां तत्र तत्राधिकारः श्रुतः । तत्राचार्यादिशब्दवत् सुहृत्त्वात् तदर्थनिरूपणार्थम् आह ।

Some persons (as noted above) have explained the term ‘entire’ (of the preceding verse) to include the Subsidiary Sciences; and according to this view, it might be thought that the study of these might be taken up in any order one might choose, without any restriction; hence the present verse proceeds to lay down a definite order,—viz., the Veda should be learnt first, then the Subsidiary Sciences. Others have however taken the term ‘entire’ to preclude the possibility of men being content with the learning of parts only of the Veda; and according to these, the ‘learning of the Veda’ naturally comes up first, after the completion of the ‘Traividya’ observances (of the Upanayana) so that (what the present verse means is that) until the Veda has been learnt, the learning. of the Sciences cannot be permitted.

‘The twice-born man’—Brāhmaṇa—‘who, not having learnt the Veda, labours’;—devotes attention—‘over other subjects,’ i.e.,—the Subsidiary Sciences, or treatises on Reasonings—‘falls, even while living, to the state of the Śūdra’—‘soon’—quickly,—‘along with his descendants’;—i.e., accompanied by his son, grandson and other descendants.

‘Labour’—is great effort. Since the absolute prohibition of labour over the study of the Sciences cannot be intended, all that is meant is that these latter are to be studied during the time available, after the Veda has been learnt.

The mention of ‘falling to the state of the Śūdra’ is meant to express excessive deprecation.

The use of the term ‘twice-born’ implies that the restriction herein laid down regarding the rules of study applies to only one who has gone through the Initiatory Rites; and before Initiation, the study of such Subsidiary Sciences as of Phonetics, Grammar, and the rest as are not interspersed with quotations from the Veda, is not prohibited.

“The study of the Subsidiary Sciences is implied by the Injunction of Vedic Study; and this injunction is acted up to by the boy prompted by his Teacher; so that before Initiation, there being no Teacher, how can there be a study of the Subsidiary Sciences?”

There is no force in this objection. According to the assertion—‘the child who is taught by his father they call efficient’—the Initiatory sanctification might be performed by the father; who, before the Initiation, will teach him the Science of Grammar and the rest.—(168)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 510) as declaring the omission of Vedic study to be sinful; and adds that this text lays down directly the compulsory character of the study, which has been already indirectly indicated by the injunction of the compulsory daily duties: and the effect of this direct declaration comes to be this that the omission of the study (as a compulsory duty) involves sin; specially as for this omission special expiatory rites have been prescribed.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 49) as declaring that there is sin in the omission of Vedic study, which is a duty duly enjoined. It is interesting to note however that this assertion has come from the Pūrvapakṣin, and the Siddhānta view put forward is that what this verse is pointing to is only that ante-natal sin which is the cause of the sloth to which the omission of the study and such other duties is due; and it is added that what the due performance of the obligatory duty does is either (1) to maintain the ‘absence of sin’ or (2) to destroy the said ante-natal sin.

The same work quotes the verse again, on page 140, in support of the view that Vedic study is an obligatory duty.

The same work quotes it again in its Prāyaścitta section (p. 15) as an instance of what is meant for the male only.

The Madanapārijāta (p. 102) simply quotes it among a number of other texts laying down the thorough study of the Veda.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 129) to the effect that Vedic study should be the very first care of the twice-born.

Viṣṇu (28.36).—‘He who, without having studied the Veda, labours over other studies, becomes a Śūdra, along with his offspring.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3. 3)—(reproduces Viṣṇu’s words).

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 511).—‘A Brāhmaṇa without the Veda is not a Brāhmaṇa.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra).—‘Until one has studied the Veda, he should not study any other science, except the Vedic Subsidiaries.’

168 A twice-born man who, not having studied the Veda, applies himself to other (and worldly study), soon falls, even while living, to the condition of a Sudra and his descendants (after him).

According to the directions of the Revealed Word, the first birth of the twice-born man is from the mother, the second, after the Ggirdle-tying ceremony, and the third, after sacrificial initiation.—(169)

मातुः सकाशाद् अग्रे आदाव् अधिजननं जन्म पुरुषस्य । द्वितीयं मौञ्जिबन्धने उपनयने । “ङ्यापोर् बहुलम्” (पाण् ६.३.६३) इति ह्रस्वः । तृतीयं ज्योतिष्टोमादियज्ञदीक्षायाम् । दीक्षापि जन्मत्वेन श्रूयते- “पुनर् वारं तद् ऋत्विजो गर्भं कुर्वन्ति यद् दीक्षयन्ति” इति (ऐत्ब् १.३) । त्रीणि जन्मानि द्विजस्य श्रुतिनोदितानि ।

• ननु एवं सति त्रिजः प्राप्नोति । अस्तु । द्विजव्यपदेशे तावद् उपनयनं निमित्तम् । तद्व्यपदेशनिबन्धश् च श्रौतस्मार्तसामयिकाचारिककर्माधिकारः । प्रथमतृतीयजन्माभिधानं द्वितीयजन्मस्तुत्यर्थम् । सर्वजन्मश्रेष्ठं तत् । अदीक्षितो हि यज्ञ एव नाधिक्रियते, अनुपनीतस् तु न क्वचिद् एव ।

• अन्ये त्व् आद्यत्वसामान्याद् आधानं यज्ञदीक्षां मन्यन्ते । तस्यापि जन्मसंभवो ऽस्ति “अजात एवासौ यो ऽग्नीन् नाधत्त” इति ॥ २.१६९ ॥

‘Mātuḥ—from the mother;—‘agre’—first—‘adhijananam,’—birth, of man.

‘The second, after the girdle-tying ceremony’;—i.e., after the Upamyana. The short vowel ‘i’ in the term ‘mauñjibandhane’ is according to Pāṇini 6-3-63, by which there is much latitude given in regard to vowels contained in proper names.

‘The third, after sacrificial initiation,’—such as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest. This initiation also has been described as ‘birth’ in such passages as—‘when the priests initiate the sacrificer, they bring about a repetition of birth.’

These arc the three births of twice-born men, described in tho Veda.

“In that case the man becomes thrice-born.”

Let that be so; as a matter of fact, the Upanayana is the basis of the name ‘twice-born’;—and it is on this name that the man’s title to the performance of Śrauta, Smārta and conventional rites is based. Tho mention of the first and third

‘births’ is simply for the purpose of eulogising the second one, which is the best of all births; [As regards the third birth] it is only the performance of sacrifices to which the uninitiated man is not entitled; while the one who has not undergone the Upanayana ceremony is not entitled to any religious act at all.

Others hold, that it is ‘Fire-kindling’ that is here spoken of as ‘sacrificial initiation,’ on the ground of its Leing the forerunner of all sacrifices. That Fire-kindling also is regarded as a ‘birth’ is shown by such passages as—‘he who does not kindle the fire is as good as unborn.’—(169)

Hopkins is not quite accurate in his interjectory remark—“So the twice -born has three births!” It is not every twice-born person that has three births; the third ‘birth’ belongs to only that twice-born person who is initiated for a sacrifice. Hopkins might as well exclaim in connection with the next verse—“So the twice-born has two mothers and two fathers!”

Vaśiṣṭha (2. 3)—(reproduces the first part of Manu).

Viṣṇu (27. 37)—(reproduces the first part of Manu).

Yājñavalkya (1. 39).—‘For the first time, the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya are born from their mother; for the second time, out of the girdle-tying Rite (of Upanayana); it is for this reason that they have been declared to be twice-born.’

169 According to the injunction of the revealed texts the first birth of an Aryan is from (his natural) mother, the second (happens) on the tying of the girdle of Munga grass, and the third on the initiation to (the performance of) a (Srauta) sacrifice.

Among these, at that Brahmic birth which is. marked by the tying of the girdle, the Sāvitrī has been declared to be his “Mother,” and the Teacher his “Father.”—(170)

तत्र एतेषु त्रिजन्मसु¹⁶ यद् एतद् ब्रह्मजन्म उपनयनं मौञ्जीबन्धनचिह्नितं मेखलाबन्धनेनोपलक्षितम् । तत्रास्य माता सावित्री । तया ह्य् अनूक्तया तन्निष्पन्नं भवति । अनेन च सावित्र्यनुवचनम् उपनयने प्रधानं दर्शयति, तदर्थं ह्य् असौ समीपम् आनीयते । पिताचार्यः । मातापितृनिर्वर्त्यं जन्म । अतो रूपकभङ्ग्या तत्राप्य् आचार्यसावित्र्यौ मातापितराव् उक्तौ ॥ २.१७० ॥

मौञ्जीबन्धनचिह्नितम् इत्य् उक्तम् । तत्र रज्ज्वासञ्जनाद् आचार्यः पितृवन् मान्यः स्यात् तदर्थम् उच्यते ।

‘Among these’—above-mentioned births;—that which is ‘Brahmic birth’—i .e., U panayana—‘which is marked by the tying of the girdle,’—which is symbolised by the tying of the girdle made of Muñja-grass; at this ‘Sāvitrī is his mother,’—i.e., it becomes accomplished by the expounding of the Sāvitrī-mantra. This shows that in the whole Upanayana ceremony, the expounding of the Sāvitrī is the most important factor; it is for this purpose that the child is ‘brought near’ (upa-nīyate). ‘The Teacher is his father.’

Birth is always brought about by the Father and Mother; hence metaphorically the Teacher and the Sāvitrī hare, been described as ‘father’ and ‘mother.’—(170)

The Upanayana has been described as ‘marked by the tying of the Girdle’; and this might be understood to mean that it is on acoount of tying the girdle that the Teacher is to be honoured like the father; hence the next verse is added

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 335), as laying down that the Upanayana constitutes the ‘brahmajanma,’ ‘brahmic’ or ‘Vedic’ ‘birth.’ The compound ‘brahmajanma’ is expounded as ‘brahmaṇā vedena gāyatrīrūpeṇa janma iva,’—i. e. the rite which is like birth, through the Brahman or Veda, in the form of Gāyatṛī;—i.e. it is a rejuvenation brought about by the sanctificatory rite. The idea of this being a ‘birth’ has been spoken of in the Śruti also—‘Gāyatryā-brāhmaṇamasṛjat tṛṣṭubhā rājanyam jagatyā vaiśyam na kenachicchandasā śūdram—That the term ‘brahma’ (in the compound ‘brahmajanma’) does not stand for the whole Veda is made clear by the qualification ‘mauñjībandhana-chihnitam,’ ‘marked by the tying of the girdle—this tying of the girdle being done immediately after the imparting of the Gāyatrī, and not after the whole Veda has been taught It goes on to add that this same fact has been stated by Medhātithi negatively, in the passage ‘tayāhi anuktayā tanna niṣpannam bhavati, (until the Gāyatrī has been imparted, the Upanayana is not accomplished). [This passage occurs on p. 153, 1. 22 of Medhātithi, where however the reading found is tanniṣpannambhavati ‘It becomes accomplished by the expounding of the gāyatrī’ (Translation, p. 459); which is a positive, and not a negative, assertion, though the meaning is the same in both cases].—The conclusion therefore is that the name ‘Upanayana’ pertains to the imparting of the Gāyatri-mantra.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 59) as supplying the reason for regarding Upanayana as a second ‘birth.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.4),
Viṣṇu (28.37),
—(reproduce the second half of Manu).

Śruti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 335).—‘With the Gāyatrī, he created the Brāhmaṇa; with the Triṣṭup, the Kṣatriya; with the Jagatī, the Vaiśya; and the Śūdra without any Vedic verse.’

Gautama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 335).—‘This is his second birth, whereat the Sāvitrī is the mother, and the Teacher the father

170 Among those (three) the birth which is symbolised by the investiture with the girdle of Munga grass, is his birth for the sake of the Veda; they declare that in that (birth) the Sivitri (verse) is his mother and the teacher his father.

They call the Teacher “father,” on account of his imparting the Veda. Before the tying of the girdle, the performance of no religious act is proper for him.—(171)

वेदप्रदानाद् आचार्यं पितरं परिचक्षते । कृत्स्नवेदाध्यापनान् नोपनयनाङ्गभूतसावित्र्यनुवचनमात्राद् एव । प्रदानं माणवकस्य वेदाक्षरोच्चारणे स्वीकारोत्पादनम्¹⁷ । यद्य् एवम्, यावन् नाचार्येण पितृत्वं प्राप्तं तावन् न माणवको द्वितीयं जन्म समश्नुते । अप्राप्तद्विजभावश् च प्राग् इवोपनयनात् कामचारः स्यात् । अत आह- न ह्य् अस्मिन् प्राङ् मौञ्जिबन्धनाद् अस्य माणवकस्य किंचित् कर्म श्रौतस्मार्तम् आचारप्रतिष्ठं वादृष्टार्थं प्रयुज्यते, न तत्राधिक्रियते । उपनयनसमनन्तरम् एव सर्वैर् द्विजातिपुरुषधर्मैर्¹⁸ अधिक्रियते ।

• ननु अवैद्यत्वात् तस्याम् अवस्थायां कथम् अधिक्रियताम् । एतदर्थम् एवोक्तम्- “गुरौ शिष्यश् च याज्यश् च” इति (म्ध् ८.३१७) । आचार्येणासौ शिक्षयितव्यः । तद् उक्तम् “शौचाचारांश् च शिक्षयेत्”¹⁹ (य्ध् १.१५) । यथा च गौतमः- “उपनयनादिर् नियमः” इति (ग्ध् २.६) । आचार्यस्य तु वेदसमापनान्तो व्यापारः ॥ २.१७१ ॥

‘They call the teacher “Father,” on account of his imparting the Veda,’—i.e., On account of his teaching the entire Veda, not merely of expounding the Sāvitrī. ‘Imparting’ stands for making the boy agree to pronounce the words of the Veda.

“If it be as described here, then, until the teacher has acquired the position of the father, the boy cannot obtain his second birth; and until he has become ‘twice-born,’ he would be as unrestrained in his conduct as he is prior to the Upanayana.”

In view of this difficulty the text adds—‘before the tying of the girdle for him’—no religious act—any act, Śrauta, or Smārta or conventional, for the acquiring of transcendental results,—is performed; i.e., he is not entitled to perform any such act. In fact it is only after his Upanayana that the boy becomes entitled to the performance of the duties of his caste and of humanity.

“How could there be any question of the boy being entitled to the performance of any such acts, when he is lacking in the requisite knowledge (prior to Initiation and Vedic Study)?”

It is in view of this that it has been declared that “the pupil is to his teacher both pupil to be taught and person to he helped in the performance of sacrifices”; [and while he is himself kicking in the requisite knowledge] he should be taught by his teacher (how to perform the acts); as it has been said above (2.69)—‘The teacher should teach him the rules of cleanliness and right conduct.’ Says Gautama also (2.6)—‘The restraints begin with the Upanayana.’ The business of the teacher extends up to the completion of Vedic Study.—(171)

The second half of this verse is quoted along with the next verse in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 348);—in Vyāvahāra Bālambhaṭṭi (p. G55);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, pp. 66 and 69).

Vaśiṣṭha (2.5).—‘By reason of his imparting the Veda, they call the Teacher father.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.1.16).—‘He gives him birth through knowledge.’

Gautama (1.10-11).—‘This is his second birth; he from whom this is obtained is the Teacher.’

Gautama (2.1).—‘Before the Upanayana, the boy may do what he likes, say what he likes and eat what he likes.’

Baudhāyana (2.7).—‘Till the Upanayana, they lay no restriction on the actions of the boy.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2)—(reproduces the second half of Manu).

171 They call the teacher (the pupil’s) father because he gives the Veda; for nobody can perform a (sacred) rite before the investiture with the girdle of Munga grass.

He should hot pronounce Vedic texts, apart from the Svadhā-offering; because so long as he is not born in the Veda, he is equal to a śūdra.—(172)

“आ मौञ्जिबन्धनात्” इत्य् अनुवर्तते । यदि वा यावद् वेदे न जायत इत्य् अर्थवादतो ऽवधिपरिनिश्चयः । ब्रह्म वेदस् तन् नोच्चारयेत् । पितुर् अयम् उपदेशः । यथा मद्यपानादिभ्यो रक्षेत् तथा वेदाक्षरोच्चारणात् ।

• केचित् त्व् इमम् एव ब्रह्माभिव्याहारनिषेधं प्राग् उपनयाद् व्याकरणाद्यङ्गध्ययने ज्ञापकं वर्णयन्ति । णिजर्थं व्याचक्षते- पित्रा न वचनीयः, बाल्यात् तु कानिचिद् अव्यक्तानि वेदवाक्यानि स्वयं पठतो न दोषः ।

• एतत् तु न युक्तम् । स्मृत्यन्तरे हि पठ्यते- “न ब्रह्माभिव्याहरेत्” इति (ग्ध् २.५) । अर्थवादे च श्रुतं शूद्रेण हि समस् तावद् इति । यथा शूद्रो दुष्यति तद्वद् अयम् अपीत्य् उक्तं भवति ।

• स्वधाशब्देन पितृभ्यः कल्पितम् अन्नम् इहोच्यते । अथ वा पित्र्यं कर्म स्वधाशब्देनोच्यते । तन् निनीयते त्यज्यते प्राप्यते येन मन्त्रेण स स्वधानिनयनः- “शुन्धन्तां पितरः” (आश्श् २.६.१४) इत्यादिः । तं वर्जयित्वान्यमन्त्रो नोच्चारयितव्यः । अनुपनीतेनोदकदाननवश्राद्धादि पितुः कर्तव्यम् इत्य् अस्माद् एव प्रतीयते । पार्वणश्राद्धादौ त्व् अग्निमत्त्वाभावाद् अनधिकारः । पिण्डान्वाहार्यके²⁰ हि तद् वक्ष्यते । तृतीये चैतन् निपुणम् उपपादयिष्यामः ॥ २.१७२ ॥

The phrase ‘till the tying of the girdle’ has to be construed with this verse; or the intended limit may be taken as supplied by the commendatory statement contained in the second half—‘so long as he is not born in the Veda.’

‘Brahma’—Vedic text—‘he should not pronounce.’ This is an instruction to the father of the boy; the sense being that he should guard the child from pronouncing Vedic texts in the same manner as ho guards him from the drinking of wine and such other acts.

Some people interpret this prohibition of pronouncing Vedic texts to indicate the propriety of learning the Subsidiary Sciences before Upanayana. They further explain the causal affix (in ‘abhivyāhārayet’) to mean that the child should not be made by his father to pronouce Vedic texts, there is no harm done if the child himself pronounces a few indistinct words of the Veda.’

But this is not right; as we read in another Smṛti—‘He should not pronounce Vedic texts’ (Gautama, 2.5). And in the following commendatory statement also it is stated that ‘he is equal to a Śūdra,’ which means that the child pronouncing Vedic texts is just as reprehensible as the Śūdra.

The term ‘svadhā’ stands for the food offered to Pitṛs; or, the term may stand for the ‘rites performed in honour of Pitṛs’.; and the term ‘svadhāninayana’ means ‘that mantra by means of which the said food is offered or given’; e.g., such mantras as ‘śundhantām pitaraḥ’ and so forth. With the exception of such mantras, the boy should not pronounce any Vedic texts.

It is from this that we deduce the fact that the uninitiated boy should offer to his father libations of water, the ‘nava-śrāddha’; etc. That he is not entitled to the Pārvana and other śrāddhas follows from the fact of his still being without the ‘Fire.’ These latter shall be described under the section on ‘Piṇḍānrāhāryaka (?).’ We shall explain all this in full detail in Adhyāya III.—(172)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (I, p. 24) in support of the view that the uninitiated twice-born is like the Śūdra, and as such should not pronounce Vedic mantras except in Śrāddha;—again in the same work, on p. 795, to the same effect, where it adds the following notes:—‘svadḥā’ is śrāddha’, and ‘svadhāninayana’ means ‘that group of mantras by which the śrāddha is accomplished’ (‘svadhā śrāddham ninīyate yena mantrajātena’);—barring this group of mantras, he shall pronounce none other; in every other case the mantra would be recited for him by a Brāhmaṇa.—The same work (II, p. 383) quotes the verse again, in support of the view that the uninitiated boy also is entitled to recite Vedic mantras at śrāddhas;—where ‘abhivyāhārayet’ is explained as ‘vadet’, should pronounce, the causal affix ‘ṇich’ being used reflexively.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 327) quotes the second line, in support of the view that whenever the twice-born person is described as having the character of the Śūdra, it is by reason of his being not entitled to Vedic Study;—again on p. 348, where it is explained that ‘equality to the Śūdra’ is a ground for the man’s not being entitled to rites involving the use of Vedic mantras;—that this is so is indicated by the particle ‘hi,’ (which means because)…… In fact whenever a twice-born person is spoken of as being like the Śūdra, what is meant is that he is not entitled to the performance of rites involving the use of Vedic mantras.

It is quoted in Vyāvahāra Bālambhaṭṭi, (p. 656);—and in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 23), as laying down the law for the uninitiated.

Vaśiṣṭha (2.12).—‘In character, he should be regarded as a Śūdra, until he is born in the Veda.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.7).—‘Until he becomes born in the Veda, he remains, in character, equal to the Śūdra.’

Gautama (2.4, 5, 9).—‘The boy may urinate or stool as he pleases; for him there are no rules regarding water—sip-piug; he should not pronounce Vedic texts, except at offerings to Pitṛs.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 327).—‘So long as the boy has not been initiated there is no harm done if he does not observe rules regarding what should or should not be eaten or what should or should not be spoken or regarding lying.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra).—‘He may do and eat and say what he likes, short of committing degrading sins.’

172 (He who has not been initiated) should not pronounce (any) Vedic text excepting (those required for) the performance of funeral rites, since he is on a level with a Sudra before his birth from the Veda.

For the boy whose initiatory rite has been performed, instruction regarding; observances is considered desirable; as also the getting up of the Veda, in due course, according to the prescribed rule.—(173)

कृतोपनयनस्याऽस्य
व्रतादेशनम् इष्यते ।
ब्रह्मणो ग्रहणं चैव
क्रमेण विधि-पूर्वकम् ॥ २.१७३ ॥

Verse 2.69 has laid down the order of sequence among Cleanliness, Right Conduct and Vedic Study: and hence the Veda should be read in that same order. The learning of the Veda having become possible after the Initiatory Rite, the present verse serves to lay down the order in which it is to be done. The boy, on being initiated, should keep the ‘Traividya’ and other observances; and then proceed to study the Veda.

‘For the boy whose Initiatory rite has been performed,’—i.e.,—for tho Religious Student—‘instruction reagarding obser vances is considered desirable,’—and is actually done by teachers. As a matter of fact, it is on the strength of the scriptures that the said instruction is ‘considered desirable’; hence the ‘desirability’ spoken of stands for the ‘necessity of doing’ it.

After this instruction follows the ‘getting up of the veda,’—‘in due order’—as here described ,—‘according to the prescribed rule.’—This is a reiteration, for the purpose of filling up the metre.—(173)

‘Vrata’—‘The Vedic vratas, of the Godāna and the rest’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, and Rāghavānanda);—‘the observances and restrictive rules, such as offering fuel, the prohibition of sleeping in the day-time, and the like’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa);—‘Penances, like the Prājāpatya’ (Nandana and Nārayāṇa).

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (22.1-2).—‘Having tied the girdle, and handed over the staff, he should direct him to Religious Studentship—“Thou art a Religious Student, sip water, do your duty, sleep not during the day, study the Veda under the Teacher.”’

Yājñavalkya (2-15).—‘The Teacher, having initiated the boy, should teach him the Veda preceded by the mahāvyāhṛtis, and instruct him regarding cleanliness and conduct.’

Gautama (2-20).—‘The restrictions begin with the Upa nayana.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.2.11, 17-20).—‘On being initiated, the boy should reside in the Teacher’s family, as a Religious Student; there is no fasting for the Religious Student desirous of acquiring knowledge; the rule for the Religious Student is that he should he entirely under the Teacher, except as regards the committing of degrading sins; he should he ever bent upon the good of the Teacher, never crossing him in speech.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (4.13, 14, 16).—‘Morning and evening, he should fetch a jar of water;—every day he should bring fuel from the forest and keep it on the ground;—having kindled the fire and swept round it, he should lay fuel on it, morning and evening, in accordance with the instructions he receives.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (5.5).—‘He should do such acts as might be pleasing to the Teacher.’

Viṣṇu (28.1).—‘For Religious Students, residence in the Teacher’s house.’

Viṣṇu (2,14).—‘The offering of the two Twilight Prayers; and after offering it, he should salute the Teacher.’

Viṣṇu (34-35).—‘Thus he should make his own either one Veda, or two Vedas, or three Vedas; then the Vedic Subsidiaries.’

Viṣṇu (34-42).—‘After having made the Veda his own, he should obtain the Teacher’s permission and offer him an excellent thing and then bathe.’

Viṣṇu (19.1).—‘Him should one know as the Teacher who initiates him, teaches him the observances and teaches tho Veda.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (2.20. 33-34).—‘Then he directs the boy—thou art a Religious Student,—fetch fuel, sip water, do thy duty, sleep not during the day.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3. 4. 1).—‘The Religious Student should study the Veda.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (1. 1. 7).—‘The Religious Student having studied the Veda, should make the final offering of fuel on the fire.’

Śaṅkha (3.1-2).—‘Having initiated the pupil, the Teacher should first of all instruct him regarding cleanliness, course of conduct, fire-tending, the offering of Twilight-Prayers. That person is the Guru who having performed all the rites, imparts to him the Veda.’

173 The (student) who has been initiated must be instructed in the performance of the vows, and gradually learn the Veda, observing the prescribed rules.

That skin, that sac red thread, that girdle, that staff and that garment, which has been prescribed for one, stand during the observances also.—(174)

गृह्यकारैर् व्रतनामधेयकानि कर्माण्य् उपदिष्टानि । “संवत्सरं वेदं भागं वा किंचिज् जिघृक्षत” । इयं व्रतचर्या यो यमनियमसमूहः । तत्र पूर्वव्रतसमाप्तौ व्रतान्तरारम्भे उपनयने ये विधयस् तादृश एव व्रतादेशेषु । अथ प्रागुपात्तानां का प्रतिपत्तिः । अप्सु प्रासनम् । ननु च तद् उक्तं प्रागुपात्तानाम् । विनष्टानां का प्रतिपत्तिः । विनाशे शास्त्रनोदितं चैषां कार्यम् अन्योपादानाच् च तेषां निवृत्तिः । यच् चर्म यस्य ब्रह्मचारिणो विहितं यथा “कार्ष्णं ब्राह्मणस्य रौरवं क्षत्रियस्य” (च्ड़्। म्ध् २.४१) इति । एवं दण्डादिष्व् अपि द्रष्टव्यम् । तस्य व्रतेष्व् अपि । प्रकृतत्वाद्²¹ व्रतशब्दो व्रतादेशे वर्तते ॥ २.१७४ ॥

The authors of Gṛhyasūtras have laid down certain acts called ‘observances’; such for instance as, ‘for one year one desires to get up the Veda or a part of it,’—in which connection there are observances and vows and restraints prescribed; when one of these observances has been completed, and another is taken up, then all the rules and regulations that have been prescribed in connection with the Upanayana have to be followed.

“In that case how are the skin, etc., previously taken up to be disposed of?”

They are to be thrown into the water.

“That has been declared to be the method of disposing of things previously taken up; but of what form would be the disposal of such of those things as might have been destroyed (or lost)?”

As regards cases of loss, in as much as each of the things has its use definitely prescribed in the descriptions, it naturally follows that when one is lost, it is replaced by another; and this taking up of the latter would constitute the ‘disposal’ of the former.

‘That skin’ which has been prescribed for a particular Religious Student, e.g., ‘the skin of the Kṛṣṇa deer for the Brāhmaṇa, that of the Ruru deer for the Kṣatriya and so forth.

Similarly with the staff and other things.

All this stands ‘during the observances, also.’ In view of the context, ‘observances’ here must he taken as standing for ‘instruction regarding observances.’—(174)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 58), which explains ‘vrateṣu’ as standing for the Sāvitrya and the rest.’

174 Whatever dress of skin, sacred thread, girdle, staff, and lower garment are prescribed for a (student at the initiation), the like (must again be used) at the (performance of the) vows.

With a view to enhancing his own piety, the Rreligious Student should, while living with his Teacher, observe all these rules,—having fully subjugated all his organs.—(175)

वक्ष्यमाणस्य यमनियमसमूहस्य पृथक्प्रकरणत्वेन श्लोको ऽयं गौरवख्यापनार्थः । एवं तु यत् पूर्वम् उक्तं तद् अवश्यकर्तव्यम् । इदं तु ततो गुरुतरम् अनुष्ठीयमानं महते फलाय ।

• ब्रह्मचारिग्रहणं प्रकरणान्तरत्वेनातद्धर्माशङ्कयानुसंधानार्थम्- यदि ब्रह्मचारिधर्म एव आसीत् किं तर्हीदम् उच्यते प्रकरणान्तरम् इति । पूर्वेभ्य एतेषाम् अतिशयात् समानधर्मत्वाद् एतावता वैलक्षण्येन प्रकरणान्तरत्वव्यवहारः । परिशिष्टानि पदानि श्लोकपूरणार्थतयानूद्यन्ते ।

• सेवेत अनुतिष्ठेत । इमान् वक्ष्यमाणान् । बुद्धौ संनिहितत्वाद् इदमा निर्दिश्यन्ते । गुरौ वसन् गुरुसमीपे विद्याध्ययनार्थं वसन् इति नित्यसंनिधानम् आह²² । संनियम्येन्द्रियग्रामं प्रागुक्तेन मार्गेण । तपोवृद्ध्यर्थम् अध्ययनविध्यनुष्ठानजन्यात्मसंस्कारार्थम्²³ ॥ २.१७५ ॥

तानीदानीं पूर्वेण प्रतिज्ञातान् नियमान्²⁴_ आह ।_

The Author is going to set forth a set of restraints and observances, in a section by themselves; and the present verse is intended to emphasise the importance of these; the sense being that what has been said before must be done, but what is coming next is even more important and conducive to superior results.

The term ‘Religious Student’ has been added in order to preclude the suspicion that a fresh section having begun here, the duties that are going to bo described are not meant for the student.

“If the text is continuing to describe the duties of the Religious Student, why should this be regards as a different section?”

Even though what are going to be described are similar in character to those that have gone before, yet there is a certain superiority attaching to them; and it is purely on the ground of this slight distinction that their?tr?eatment has been regarded as forming a different section.

The remaining words of the Text are explained as added for the purpose of making up the verse.

‘Should observe,’—Should follow.

‘These’—Those going to be described. The pronoun ‘this’ always refers to what happens to be uppermost in the mind.

‘Living with his Teacher’—for the purpose of acquiring learning. The participle ‘living’ indicates permanent proximity.

‘Having fully controlled his organs’—in the manner described above. (Verses 88—100.)

‘With a view to enhancing piety’;—i.e., for the purpose of that embellishment of himself which is brought about by the proper observance of the Injunction of Vedic Study.—(175)

The Author proceeds to describe the rules spoken of in the preceding verse.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 493) as laying down the necessity of observing the rules and regulations prescribed for the Student;—in Aparārka (p. 62), which explains that the particle ‘ca’ is added with a view to include those observances and restrictions that Have been prescribed’for the Religious Student in other Smṛtis;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 122).

Laghvāśvalāyana Smṛti (1.5).—‘The Religious Student, firm in his own duty, should remain devoted to the service of the Teacher.’

Laghvāśvālāyana Smṛti (12.15-16).—‘Then he should make the student get up the Veda on such days as are fit for study; being initiated, from that day onwards for six months, he should serve the Teacher and study the Veda in the prescribed manner.’

Vaśiṣṭha (5.2-3).—‘Having studied either one Veda, or two Vedas, or three Vedas,—his studentship unruffled, the Religious Student should serve the Teacher.’

Vaśiṣṭha (26.18-19).—‘As horses, without a chariot, or a chariot without horses, so is Austerity without Knowledge, and Knowledge without Austerity. Just as food mixed with honey, or honey mixed with food, is wholesome, so also are Knowledge and Austerity united.’

Gautama (3.9.5).—‘Conducting himself thus, with senses subdued, he reaches Brahmic regions.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.2,11,12,19,26).—‘After initiation, residence in the Teacher’s house…… He should never have sexual intercourse.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (4. 23, 29).—‘He should every day safeguard the interests of the Teacher by means of virtuous and prudent acts; the Religious Student, with mind concentrated, should perform all useful acts.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (5.1, 5, 9-11).—‘The term Austerity stands for the Restrictions; he should perform such acts as may be pleasing to the Teacher;—attentive to Vedic study, bent upon Dharma, fixed in austerity, straightforward and merciful, thus does the Religious Student become accomplished.’

Viṣṇu (27.47).—‘The Brāhmaṇa who carries on his studentship in this manner goes to the highest place and is not born again.’

Viṣṇu (1.24).—‘Delighting in learning the Veda, living under the Teacher, bent upon the Teacher’s good.’

Vyāsasmṛti (1.24).—‘Being initiated, he should reside in the Teacher’s house, ever calm and collected; on a sacred day, having pronounced the Praṇava and the Gāyatrī, he should begin the study of the Veda, also the Dharmaśāstra, for the purpose of understanding cleanliness and conduct; having duly read all this from the Teacher, he should act so as to please him; in this manner should he keep the observances of his studentship. He should ever attend upon him till he completes his Veda study.’

Nārada (5.8-15).—‘Till he has mastered the sciences, the student shall attend diligently on his Teacher; the same conduct has to be observed by him towards the Teacher’s wife and son. He shall preserve chastity and beg alms, lying on a low couch and using no ornaments. He shall go to rest after, and rise before, all persons in the Teacher’s house. He shall never come or stay without his Teacher’s bidding; his Teacher’s call he must obey without hesitation, when he is able to do so. He shall read at the proper time, when his Teacher is not averse to it, sitting on a lower seat than his Teacher, by his side, or on a bench and paying attention to what he says. Science, like the current of a stream, is constantly advancing towards the plain; therefore one studying science should be humble towards his Teacher. His Teacher shall correct him, if he is not obedient, scolding him or chastising him with a rope or with a small shoot of cane. The Teacher shall not strike him a heavy blow; nor on the head or on the chest; and he must encourage him after having chastised him. Otherwise the king shall punish the Teacher. After having completed his studies, he shall give the customary present to his Teacher and return home. Thus should be the conduct of the Student.’

175 But a student who resides with his teacher must observe the following restrictive rules, duly controlling all his organs, in order to increase his spiritual merit.

Every day, having bathed and become clean, he should make offerings to deities, Sages and Fathers, and do the worshipping of the deities and the placing of fuel.—(176)

प्रत्यहं स्नात्वा शुचिः स्नानेनापनीताशुचिभावो देवर्षिपितृतर्पणं कुर्यात् । यदि पुनः शुचिः न²⁵ तदावश्यं स्नायात् । शुचिग्रहणेन शुद्धिहेतुतयात्र स्नानस्योपदिष्टत्वान् न स्नातकव्रतवत् तदनुष्ठेयम् । अत एव स्मृत्यन्तरे च स्नानं प्रतिषिद्धम् । स प्रतिषेधो मृदा स्नानस्य प्रसाधनलक्षणस्य । गौतमेन तु स्नानम् एवं विहितम्- “दण्द इवाप्सु परिप्लवते” (च्ड़्। आप्ध् १.२.३०) । मलापकर्षणं करनिघर्षणादिना न²⁶ कर्तव्यम् । असत्य् अमेध्यादिसंसर्गे, न यत् स्वेदजं वस्त्ररेणुसंयोगादिसहजं मलं तद् अशुचित्वम् आपादयति । तद् धि नियतरूपम् एव । तथा च ब्राह्मणं “किं नु मलं किम् अजिनं किम् उ श्मश्रूणि किं तपः” (ऐत्ब् ७.१३) इति धर्मसाधनताम् एवंविधस्य मलधारणस्य दर्शयति ।

• कथं पुनः स्नानस्य शौचार्थता प्रतीयते । न पुनः स्नातः शुचिश् चोभयविशिष्टो देवकार्ये विनियुज्यते । स्नातस्याशुचित्वाभावात्, कृतशौचाचमनादेः स्नानविधानात्, “स्नात्वा चाचान्तः पुनर् आचामेत्” (वध् ३.३८) इति च स्नातस्यापि शुचिर् इत्य् एतावता यादृशी सुद्धिस् तस्यां विज्ञायमानायां स्नानम् अपि सति निमित्ते प्राप्तं पुनर् उच्यते । स्मृत्यन्तरं चेदम् असत्य्²⁷ अशुचित्वे निमित्ते प्रतिषेधार्थम् । तथा च “वेदम् अधीत्य स्नायात्” (बौग् २.५.६) इति समाप्ते स्वाध्यायविधौ प्रतिप्रसविष्यति ।

• कुर्याद् देवर्षिपितृतर्पणम् । उदकदानं देवादिभ्यो गृहस्थधर्मेषु यद् उक्तं तादृशम् एव प्रतीयते, तर्पणशब्दसाहचर्यात् । “यद् एव तर्पयत्य् अद्भिः” (म्ध् ३.२८३) इति, तथा “देवतास् तर्पयति” (आश्ग् ३.४.१) इति गृह्यकारैर् उदकसाधनो ऽयं विधिर् उक्तः । उदकतर्पणम् इति चैतत् संविज्ञायते । ते देवा गृह्यकारैः पठिता अग्निप्रजापतिब्रह्मेत्यादयः । तेषां च तर्पणं न सौहित्योत्पादनम्, किं तर्हि तदुद्देशेनोदकाञ्जलिप्रक्षेपः । अतो ऽयम् उदकद्रव्यको याग एवोक्तो भवति । न ह्य् अन्यथा देवतात्वं भवति । यागसंप्रदानं हि सेति स्मर्यते, न तृप्तेः कर्त्री ।

• एतावद् धि देवतालक्षणम्- सूक्तभाजो हविर्भाजश् च देवताः । तत्र सूक्तं स्तुत्यतया भजन्ते, हविः संप्रदानतया । तर्प्यत्वेन चोदकदानसंप्रदानताम् एव गुणवृत्त्या वक्ति । गुर्वादिसंप्रदानं गवादिना तदुद्दिश्यमानस्वाम्येन²⁸ प्रतीयते । देवतापि संप्रदानभूतः²⁹ । संप्रदानत्वसाम्यात् तृप्यन्तीत्य् उच्यते । यदि देवतातृप्त्यर्थम् एतत् स्यात् तदा संस्कारकर्मोदकतर्पणं स्यात् । न च देवतानां संस्कार्यत्वोपपत्तिः । न हि ताः क्वचिद् उपयुक्ता उपयोक्ष्यन्ते वा । न चाकृताकरिष्यमाणकार्यस्य³⁰ संस्कारतोपपत्तिः ।

• ऋषयो ये यस्यार्षेयाः । यथा पराशराणां वसिष्ठशक्तिपारशर्या इति³¹ । गृह्यकारैस् तु मन्त्रदृश ऋषयस् तर्पणीयत्वेनोक्ताः, मधुच्छन्दो गृत्समदो विश्वामित्र इति । अविशेषाभिधानाद् ऋषिशब्दस्योभये ऽपि प्राप्ताः । विशेषस्मृतित्वात् गृह्यस्मृतेस् त एव ग्रहीतुं न्याय्याः ।

• पितरः पूर्वप्रेताः पितृपितामहाः सपिण्डाः समानोदकाश् च । पितॄणां तर्पणं तर्पणम् एव । एतच् च श्राद्धविधौ प्रत्यक्षेण वक्ष्यते ।

• देवताभ्यर्चनम् । अत्र केचिच् चिरन्तना विचारयांचक्रुः- का एता देवता नाम यासाम् इदम् अभ्यर्चनम् उच्यते । यदि तावच् चित्रपुस्तकन्यस्तः चतुर्भुजो वज्रहस्त इत्याद्याः, प्रतिकृतय इति लौकिका व्यवहरन्ति । अतो गौणस् तत्र देवताव्यवहारः । अथ याः सूक्तहविःसंबन्धिन्यो वैदिकीभ्यश् चोदनाभ्यो मन्त्रवाक्येभ्यश् चावगम्यन्ते, शब्दार्थसंबन्धविदश् च स्मरन्ति “अग्निः अग्नीषोमौ मित्रावरुणौ इन्द्रो विष्णुः” इति । यद्य् एवं तत्क्रियासंबन्धितयैव तेषां देवतात्वं नार्थसंबन्धितया । तत्रापि यस्यैव हविषो या देवता तेन चोदिता तस्यैव सा भवति । तथा हि आग्नेयो ऽष्टाकपाल इत्य् आग्नेये पुरोडाशे देवता,³² न सौर्ये चरौ । अयं च तेषां निर्णयः- मुख्यासंभवाद् गौणस्यैव ग्रहणं न्याय्यम्, समाचाराच् च । अतः प्रतिमानाम् एवैतत् पूजाविधानम् । यच् चात्र तत्त्वं तद् “व्रतवद् देवदैवत्ये” इत्य् अत्र वक्ष्यामः (च्ड़्। म्ध् २.१८९) ।

• समिदाधानं सायम्प्रातर् अग्नौ दारुशकलप्रक्षेपणम् ॥ २.१७६ ॥

Everyday, ‘having bathed and become pure,’—i.e., having his uncleanliness removed by bath,—‘he should make offerings to Deities, Sages and Fathers.’ If he is already clean, he need not bathe; as the adding of the term ‘clean’ clearly shows that the ‘bathing’ here laid down is only for the purpose of cleanliness, and hence its performance is absolutely compulsory, like the ‘bathing’ to be done by the Snālaka, Accomplished Student. It is for this reason that in another Smṛti bathing has been prohibited (for the Religious Student); though this prohibition refers to bathing with clay, for purposes of personal adornment. Gautama however has prescribed actual bathing. Hence what is meant is that one should plunge into water like a stick, and he should remove dirt, etc., by rubbing the body with his hauds. Unless there is touching of an unolean thing, such dirt as arises from perspiration, or from contact with the dust contained in the clothing, etc., does not make one ‘unclean’; for the presence of such dirt is inevitable. Says the Brāhmaṇa—‘What is dirt? Is it the skin, or hairs of the beard or penance?’—which shows that the presence of such ‘dirt’ is conducive to spiritual merit.

“How is it known that the bathing (here laid down) is for the purposes of cleanliness?”

The present injunction cannot be taken as prompting, to the performance of divine service, a person who fulfills the two distinct qualifications of ‘having bathed’ and ‘become clean’;

(1) because as a matter of fact, one who has bathed can never remain unclean;

(2) because even for a person who has adopted cleanliness by having sipped water, etc., bathing is found to be enjoined;

(3) because we meet with such passages as ‘having bathed, sipped water, one should sip water again,’ where even for the person who has bathed a method of further cleanliness is enjoined.

From all this it is clear that what the present verse enjoins is that whenever occasion (in the shape of the contact of unclean things, etc.) arises, one should bathe, even though there be already present the ‘cleanliness’ that is generally understood as such.

Or, the present verse may be regarded as a totally independent rule, intended to prohibit bathing without special occasion arising in the shape of uncleanliness; and it is iu view of this, prohibition that we have the counter-exception—‘one should bathe after having learnt the Veda,’—which enjoins bathing at the end of Vedic Study (even in the absence of any uncleanlincss).

“He should make offerings to Deities, Sages and Fathers.”—By reason of the mention of ‘tarpaṇa,’ the ‘offering’ here meant appears to be that offering of water to the Deities and others which has been prescribed among the duties of the house-holder, under 3.283. The authors of Gṛhyasūtras also have declared this act as to be done, with water only; e.g., says Āśvalāyana (3.1.3)—‘He satisfies the Deities.’ Inordinary life also this act is known as the ‘offering of water.’

The Deities to whom this offering is to be made have been enumerated by the writers on Gṛhya—vis., Agni, Prajāpati, Brahmā and so forth. The ‘tarpaṇa,’ ‘offering,’ to these does not consist of producing in them the feeling of satisfaction (which is the etymological meaning of the term ‘tarpaṇa’); it consists only in the pouring, on their behalf, of water with joined hands. Hence what is here laid down comes to be only a sacrificial offering, in which water is the substance offered. Specially as the character of ‘deity’ could not otherwise have belonged to those to whom the offering is made; for that alone has been called ‘deity’ to whom a sacrifice is offered; it is not one who becomes satisfied. The only definition of ‘deity’ that we have is—‘Deities are recipients of hymns and recipients of offerings’; they become ‘recipients of hymns’ by becoming the objects of eulogy, and they become ‘recipients of offerings’ by becoming those to whom offerings are made. When therefore our author speaks of them as ‘tarpya,’ ‘to be satisfied,’ he uses the term in its figurative sense of ‘being recipients of the offering of water.’ The teacher and such other persons are recognised as ‘recipients’ when the cow and such things are transferred to their ownership; and the Deities also are ‘recipients.’ Thus both having the common character of ‘being recipients,’ they are described as ‘being satisfied.’ If what is laid down here meant actual ‘satisfying’ of the Deities, then this^(:) water-offering’ would become a purely sanctificatory act; and yet no ‘Sanctification’ is possible in the case of Deities; for the simple reason that they have not been, nor are they ever likely to lie, employed; and what has never been employed, or is not likely to be employed, cannot rightly be regarded as an object of sanctification.

‘Sages,’—i.e., those sages that happen to be one’s ‘Gotra-ṛṣis’; e.g., for those belonging to the ‘Parāśara-gotra,’ Vaśiṣṭha, Śakti and Pārāśarya would be the ‘sages’ (to whom the offering is to be made). The author of Gṛhyasūtras have however spoken of the ‘seers of Vedic Mantras’ (and not the Gotra-ṛṣis) as the ‘sages’ to whom the offering is to be made; i.e., the sages Madhucchandas, Gṛtsamada and Viśvāmitra. Since the text speaks of ‘sages’ without any qualification, it is open to us to take it as standing for both kinds of sages; but in view of the fact that the Gṛhyasūtras have specified them (as being the ‘seers of mantras’), it is only right to take these latter as meant.

‘Fathers.’—One’s dead ancestors,—father, grandfather, etc., all Sapiṇḍas and Samānodakas. In the case of the ‘Fathers,’ the ‘offering’ is to be the actual ‘Tarpaṇa’ itself. This is going to be distinctly laid down under the rules bearing upon Śrāddha.

Worshiping of the Deities.—In connection with this some ancient writers have made the following observations:—“Who are these deities, whose ‘worship’ is here laid down? If they are meant to be those pninted in picture-books—figures with four arms, with a thunderbolt in the hand and so forth,—then, since ordinary men regard these as ‘images’ (which connotes unreality), they can be called ‘Deity,’ only figuratively. If, on the other hand, they are meant to be those related to hymns and offerings,—which are indicated by Vedic injunctions, and also by the words of mantras, and which are called so by persons versed in the use of words and their denotations,—such as ‘Agni,’ ‘Agni-Soma,’ ‘Mitra-Varuṇa,’ ‘Indra,’ ‘Viṣṇu,’ and so forth—then, in that case, their character of ‘Deity,’ would be dependent upon the said acts (of offering, etc.), and not upon the fact of their having any connection with the denotation (of the term ‘Deity’); and further, a particular (Deity) would be the ‘Deity’ for only that offering which is enjoined as to be offered to him; e.g., when the ‘Cake baked upon eight pans,’ is called ‘āgneya’ (dedicated to Agni), Agni becomes the ‘deity’ only of that cake, and not of that which is called ‘saurya’ (dedicated to Sūrya).”

From the above considerations the conclusion that the ancient writers have deduced is as follows:—In cases where the term cannot be. taken in its direct denotation, it is only right to take it in the figurative sense; specially as such is the actual usage. Hence the ‘worship’ enjoined in the present verse is that of images.

What the truth on this point is we shall explain below, under verse 189.

‘Placing of fuel’—throwing into the fire pieces of wood, every morning and evening.—(176)

‘Snātvā’—“He should bathe for cleanliness, not for pleasure; according to Gautama 2.8,2 and 9.61; Baudhāyana 1.2.3.39 and Viṣṇu 28.5”.—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 62);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 117).

Viṣṇu (28. 4, 5).—‘Both times, there should he bath and fire-tending;—dipping in water like a wooden log.’

Vaśiṣṭha (7.7).—‘With speech controlled, eating at the fourth, sixth and eighth parts of the day,—he should go alms-begging.’

Yājñavalkya (1.22).—‘Bathing with mantras dedicated to the deity Apas, water-sprinkling, breath-control, praying to the Sun, and repetition of the Gāyatrī.,—daily.’

Gautama (2.12, 14).—‘Fire-kindling, alms-begging;—bathing in water.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 02).—‘With sleep, indolence, anger and his own self under control, he shall avoid sleeping and sitting on the couch, and the cleansing of the teeth; he shall sleep alone on kuśa-gass, and shall never emit his semen anywhere.’

176 Every day, having bathed, and being purified, he must offer libations of water to the gods, sages and manes, worship (the images of) the gods, and place fuel on (the sacred fire).

He should abstain from honey, meat, scent, garland, flavours, women, all fermented acids and also the killing of living creatures.—(177)

मधु सारघम् । माध्वीकस्य तु मद्यत्वात् प्राग् अप्य् उपनयनात् प्रतिषेधो “नित्यं मद्यं ब्राह्मणो वर्जयेत्” (च्ड़्। ग्ध् २.२०) इति । मांसं प्रोक्षिताद्य् अपि । गन्धशब्देन सुरभित्वातिशययुक्तानि कर्पूरागुरुप्रभृतीनि द्रव्याणि संबन्धिलक्षणया प्रतिषिध्यन्ते । तेषाम् अनुलेपनाद्युपभोगप्रतिषेधः । गन्धस् तु स्वदेशान् निर्गत आगच्छतीत्य् अशक्यो निषेद्धुम् । तत्राप्य् आकस्मिकस्याप्य् अप्रतिषेधात्, भोगेच्छया त्व् अगुरुधूपादौ दोष एव । अत उपाध्यायेन चन्दनवृक्षादिच्छेदने नियुक्तस्य तद्गन्धस्याघ्राणे वस्तुस्वभावत उत्पद्यमाने न दोषः । माल्यसाहचर्याच् चेदृशो गन्धः प्रतीयते । यस् तु नेदृशो हृदयोन्मादकरः कुष्ठघृतपूतिदार्वादिगन्धस् तस्याप्रतिषेधः³³ । माल्यं कुसुमं ग्रथितम् । रसाः मधुराम्लादयः ।

• ननु च नीरसस्य भोज्यत्वासंबवात् प्राणवृत्तिर् एव न स्यात् । सत्यम् । उद्रिक्तरसाः केवला गुडादयो निषिध्यन्ते । संस्कारकरणे द्रव्यान्तर्गतानाम् अपि प्रतिषेधः । अथ वात्यन्तरसिनः संस्कृतस्यान्नस्य सक्तिप्रतिषेधो³⁴ ऽयम् । यथोक्तम्-

• यो ऽहेर् इव धनाद् भीतो मिष्टान्नाच् च विषाद् इव ।

• राक्षसीभ्य इव स्त्रीभ्यः स विद्याम् अधिगच्छति ॥ इति । (म्स्सं ४१२१)

• अन्ये तु शृङ्गारादीन् मन्यन्ते । नाटकादिप्रेक्षणेन काव्यश्रवणेन वा रसपुष्टिर् न कर्तव्या³⁵ । अन्येषां तु दर्शनम्, इक्ष्वामलकादीनां यो ऽन्तर्द्रवरूपोदकवत् स रसस् तस्य निष्पीडितस्य पृथक् कृतस्य³⁶ प्रतिषेधो न पुनस् तदन्तर्गतस्य । तच् चैतद् अयुक्तम् । न हि रसशब्दो द्रवपर्यायः प्रसिद्धः । यत्र च यस्योचितम् उपभोगान्तत्वं तद् एव तस्य निषिध्यते । तेन मधुमांस्योर् भोजने प्रतिषेधः, न दर्शनस्पर्शनयोः । गन्धमाल्यस्यापि सरीरमण्डनाभिमानतयोपादानं निषिध्यते, न तु कथंचिद् धस्तादिना ग्रहणम् । एवं स्त्रियो मैथुनसंबन्धेन । तदाशङ्कयैव च प्रेकणालम्भौ निषेत्स्यति । तथा च गौतमः- “स्त्रीप्रेक्षणालम्भने मैथुनशङ्कायाम्” इति (ग्ध् २.१६) ।

• शुक्तानि प्राप्ताम्लरसानि³⁷ केवलात् परिवासाद् द्रव्यान्तरसंसर्गाद् वाम्लताम् आपन्नानि । तेषां च द्विजातिधर्मत्वाद् एव सिद्धः प्रतिषेधः । पुनर्ग्रहणं गौणशुक्तपरिग्रहणार्थम् । तेन रूक्षपरुषा वाचो निषिद्धा भवन्ति । यद् उक्तं गौतमेन “शुक्ता वाचः"इति (ग्ध् २.१९), तद् इदं सर्वग्रहणं चास्यैवार्थस्याविष्करणार्थम् । रसशुक्तान्य् अनूद्य सर्वाणीति विधीयते । ततो गौणपरिग्रहः सिद्धो भवति ।

• ये त्व् एवं व्याचक्षते शुक्तशब्देन रसप्रतिषेधः सर्वशब्देनामानसानि³⁸ वचांसि, त इदं प्रष्टव्याः । अर्थप्रतिषिद्धानां प्रतिषेधार्थं सर्वग्रहणं कस्मान् न भवति । तथा सति च दध्यादेः शुक्तीभूतस्य प्रतिषेधः प्राप्नोति । यदि तु प्राप्तिम् आश्रित्य पुनः प्रतिषेध उक्तार्थो व्याख्यायते, तथा सति न कश्चिद् दोषः ।

• प्राणिनां मशकमक्षिकादीनां बाल्याद् धिंसने प्राप्ते यत्नतः परिहारार्थं पुनः प्रतिषेधः । स्वाध्यायविध्यङ्गत्वार्थो वा । न केवलं हिंसायां पुरुषार्थप्रतिषेधातिक्रमो³⁹ यावत् स्वाध्यायविध्यर्थातिक्रमो ऽपि । शुक्तादिष्व् अप्य् एवं कस्मान् न कल्प्यत इति चेद् अस्ति तत्र विषयान्तरे सावकाशत्वम्, एकरूपस्य विषयस्य व्यर्थत्वं सति गत्यन्तरे गरीयः ॥ २.१७७ ॥

‘Madhu’—stands for the honey produced by bees. As for wine (which also is called ‘madhu’), it is an intoxicant; and hence its use is prohibited even before the Upanayana: ‘The Brāhmaṇa should ever abstain from intoxicants’—says Gautama (2.20).

‘Meat,’—even such as has been offered (to deities And fathers).

The term ‘scent’ stands for camphor and such other things as are of extremely sweet scent,—the name of the quality (scent) being used figuratively for things possessed of it. All highly perfumed substances are prohibited, and what is prohibited is the applying of these perfumes to the body; as for the scent itself, when it proceeds from the fragrant substance, it cannot, be checked. Nor does the prohibition apply to the case where the perfume reaches the student by chance. What is reprehensible therefore is the intentional using of fragrant incense and such things as luxury. It is for this reason that there.is nothing reprehensible in the case where the pupil is told by his Teacher to cut a Sandal-tree and the sweet smell of the wood reaches him it its natural way. It Is by reason of its being mentioned along with ‘garland’ that we take it to mean strong scent. That which is not strong enough to exhilarate the mind,—e.g., the smell of such things as Kuṣṭha, Ghṛta, Pūtidāru, etc.—is not prohibited.

‘Garland’—flowers strung together.

‘Flavours’—Sweet, acid and the rest.

“Since things absolutely devoid of flavour could not be eaten, living itself would be impossible (if one were to avoid all flavours).”

True; but what are prohibited are highly tasty things, like sugar. This prohibition applies also to such substances as are mixed with other things, by way of condiments. Or, the prohibition may apply to too much indulgence in too richly cooked and tasty food. To the same end we have the following saying—‘He alone acquires learning who shuns wealth like serpent, sweets like poison and women like demonesses.’

Others explain ‘rasa,’ ‘flavour,’ to stand for the poetic emotions, Erotic and the rest; the sense being that one should not arouse his emotions by witnessing dramatic performances or listening to poetical recitations.

Others again have held the view that the prohibition applies to the pieces of sugar-cane, Dhātri and such other substances, when extracted and separated from them,—and not as contained within them.

This however is not right; the term ‘rasa’ is not known as symonymous with ‘fluid.’

As a matter of fact, what is prohibited with regard to each of the things named is its enjoyment, in whatever form this may be possible. For instance, of honey and meat, what is prohibited is the eating, and not the seeing or touching; of scent and garland, what is prohibited is using them with the idea of adorning the body, and not merely holding them by the hand; similarly in the case of women, it is sexual intercourse that is prohibited; and it is by reason of there being a fear of such’intercourse following that the author is going to prohibit later on, the looking at, and touching of, women. As says Gautama (2.16)—‘The looking at, and touching of women (are reprehensible), for fear of its leading to actual intercourse.’

‘Fermented acids’—such things as turn acid; that is those that turn acid either by being kept overnight, or by being mixed with other substances. Such substances are prohibited by reason of the avoiding of these being among the duties of all twice-born persons; and yet it has been re-iterated here for the purpose of including all those things that are named ‘acid’ only figuratively; it is thus that ‘harsh words’ become prohibited. Says Gautama—‘Acid words (should be avoided).’ It is for the purpose of including all this that the author has added the epithet ‘all.’ This epithet ‘all’ is meant to refer to ‘flavours’ and ‘acids.’ It is thus that the figurative use becomes established.

Some people offer the following explanation:—“The term ‘acid’ prohibits the acid flavours, and the term ‘all’ prohibits unpleasant words.”

These people should be asked the following question:—Why cannot the epithet ‘all’ be taken as prohibiting those things that are prohibited only by implication r In this way we could obtain the prohibition of curds and like things which have turned acid. If however the prohibition (by ‘all’) be explained as referring to things whose use is possible,—then there can be no objection to it.

‘Of living creatures,’—such as insects and fleas; the killing of these is done through childishness; hence we have the present prohibition with a view to emphasise the necessity of making special efforts to avoid it. Or, the re-iteration of the prohibition may be meant to be indicative of the fact that the avoidance of killing is auxiliary to ‘Vedic Study.’ So that the killing would involve the transgression, not only of the prohibition calculated for the benefit of the agent, but also that of the due observance of the injunction of Vedic Study.

“Why is not the same assumption made regarding the fermented acids and other things also?”

The prohibition of the acids, etc., is such as has room for it in other cases also [ e.g. Harsh words are prohibited for other people and under other circumstances also; the prohibition of killing has no such room for application, since it is necessary during sacrificial performances]. And when between two things it is found that one becomes absolutely null and void, while there is still room for the other, then preference is given to the former.—(177)

‘Rasān’—“Molasses and the like’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa);—‘clarified butter, oil and the like’ (Nandana);—‘sweet, acid and the rest;—i.e. very richly flavoured food’ (Medhātithi, who also notes one‘other’ explanation, juices of sugar-cane, tamarind and other fruits, which he rejects);—Nārāyaṇa mentions one explanation, ‘poetic sentiments’.

This is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 456), along with the next two verses and a half, as enumerating the things to be avoided by the Student;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 494), which adds the notes: ‘Rasān’ stands for the juices of sugar-cane and other things;—even though Honey also is a juice, yet it has been mentioned separately in view of the heavier expiatory rites prescribed for the transgressors of the rule prohibiting it.

The verse is quoted also in Madanopārjāta (p. 39) as enumerating the things prohibited for the Student;—and in Aparārka (p. 62);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 42);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 125), which adds the following notes:—‘Rasa’ stands for the sugar-cane juice and the rest; though ‘madhu’ also is a ‘rasa,’ yet it is mentioned separately with a view to indicate that the taking of it involves a heavier expiation.

**(verses 177-179)
**

Gautama (2.19).—‘He should abstain from honey, meat, scents, garland and the like, sleeping during the day, anointing, riding on conveyances, applying collyrium, wearing shoes, umbrella, attachment, anger, avarice, delusion, wrangling, bathing, teeth-cleansing, rejoicing, dancing, singing, calumniating and dangers.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.23-26).—‘Avoiding saline salts, honey and meat; not using scents;—he should never have recourse to sexual intercourse;—free from anger, and jealousy.’

Yājñavalkya (1-33).—‘Honey, meat, collyrium, eating of leavings, fermented acids, woman, killing of living creatures, gazing at the Sun, indecent talk and so forth,—these he shall avoid.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2.5).—‘He should avoid honey, meat, collyrium, sitting on a raised seat, approaching women, lying, taking what is not given.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3.1,16.25).—‘Sexual intercourse, dramatic acting, scents, collyrium, honey and meat, anger, lying, sleeping on raised bed, bathing, scratching of ground, teeth-washing, feet-washing, use of the razor, riding on conveyances yoked with bulls, wearing of shoes within the village,—he shall avoid.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.25).—‘Dancing, singing, playing on musical instruments, scents, garlands, shoes, holding of umbrella, anointing,—these he shall avoid.’

Viṣṇu (28.11).—‘He should abstain from śrāddhas, artificial salts, fermented acids, food kept over-night, dancing, singing, women, honey, meat, collyrium, eating of leavings, killing of animals, indecencies.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 495).—‘He shall abstain from riding on horses and elephants and oxen, walking over funeral pyres, ascending trees, much talking, passing through crevices and openings, crossing of large rivers and oceans, dangerous positions.’

Kūrma-Purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava).—‘He shall not look at the mirror; he shall not cleanse his teeth; the leavings of his teacher also he shall use as a medicine, not with an eager longing for them.’

177 Let him abstain from honey, meat, perfumes, garlands, substances (used for) flavouring (food), women, all substances turned acid, and from doing injury to living creatures.

From anointing, applying collyrium to the eyes, shoes, holding the umbrella, attachment, anger, avarice, dancing, singing and playing on musical instruments.—(178)

घृततैलादिना स्नेहेन शिरःशरीरम्रक्षणम् अभ्यङ्गः । अञ्जनं चाक्ष्णोः । अक्षिग्रहणं वृत्तपूरणार्थम् । अनयोश् चापि देहमण्डनार्थतया प्रतिषेधो नौषधार्थतया, गन्धमाल्यादिसाहचर्यात् । उपानहौ चर्मपादुके, न केवले । छत्रधारणं च स्वहस्तेन परहस्तेन वोभयस्यापि निषेधः । कामो रागः⁴⁰ । मन्मथस्य स्त्रीप्रतिषेधाद् एव सिद्धः । क्रोधो रोषः । लोभो मोहः । अहंकारममकारौ चित्तधर्माव् एते । नर्तनं प्राकृतपुरुषाणां हर्षाय गात्रविक्षेपो भरतादिदृष्टाभिनयप्रयोगश् च । गीतं षड्जादिस्वरप्रदर्शनम् । वादनं⁴¹ वीणावंशादिभिः स्वरवच्छब्दकरणं पणवमृदङ्गाद्यभिघातश् च तालानुवृत्त्या ॥ २.१७८ ॥

‘Anointing’—rubbing of the head and body with butter, oil or such other oily substances.

‘Applying collyrium to the eyes—the addition of the word ‘eyes’ is only for the purpose of filling up the metre.

What is prohibited in regard to these two is the having recourse to them by way of ornamentation; and not their use as medicine. That this is so is. dear from their being mentioned along with ‘scents and garlands.’

‘Shoes’—foot-covers made of leather; not all kinds of foot-cover.

‘Holding of the umbrella’—either by one’s own hand or by the hand of another person; both are prohibited.

‘Kāma’ here stands for attachment; the preclusion of sexual desire being already included under the prohibition of association with women (in 177).

‘Anger’—rage.

‘Avarice’—selfishness. Notions of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ are the characteristics of the mind.

‘Dancing.’—The throwing about of one’s limbs for the delectation of ordinary people, as also the acting of dramas according to the rules laid down by Bharata and others.

‘Singing’—the exhibition of the ‘Ṣaḍja’ and other musical notes.

‘Playing upon musical instruments,’—the producing of musical sounds by means of the lute, the flute and so forth, as also the striking, to time, of such instruments as the drum, mṛdaṅga and the like.—(178)

This is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 456);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 39);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 494);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 189);—in Aparārka (p. 62);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 42);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 125).

**(verses 177-179)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.177].

178 From anointing (his body), applying collyrium to his eyes, from the use of shoes and of an umbrella (or parasol), from (sensual) desire, anger, covetousness, dancing, singing, and playing (musical instruments),

From gambling, quarelling with people, calumniating, and also lying; prom gazing at and touching of women, and prom the injuring op others.—(179)

द्यूतम् अक्षक्रीडा । समाह्वयः कुक्कुटादिभिः प्रतिषिद्धः, द्यूतशब्दस्य सामान्यशब्दत्वात् । जनैर् वादः अकारणेन लौकिकेष्व् अर्थेषु वाक्कलहः, देशवार्ताद्यन्वेषणं प्रश्नो वा । परिवादः असूयया परदोषकथनम् । अनृतम् अन्यथा दृष्टम् अन्यथा च श्रुतं यद् अन्यथोच्यते । “सर्वत्र वर्जयेत्” इत्य् अनुषङ्गाद् द्वितीया । स्त्रीणां च प्रेक्षणालम्भौ । अवयवसंस्थाननिरूपणं प्रेक्षणम् इदम् अस्याः शोभते ऽङ्गम् इदं नेति । आलम्भः आलिङ्गनम् । मैथुनशङ्कायां चैतौ प्रतिषिध्येते बालस्य यथातथम् । परस्योपघातो ऽपकारः कस्यांचिद् अर्थसिद्धौ प्रबन्धः । कन्यालाभादौ पृच्छ्यमानेन अयोग्यस्याप्य् अयोग्यत्वं⁴² न वक्तव्यम्, तूष्णीम् आसितव्यम्, अनृतप्रतिषेधात् ॥ २.१७९ ॥

‘Gambling;’—playing with dice. Cock-fighting, etc., are also prohibited by this,—the term ‘gambling’ being used in its most general sense.

‘Quarelling with people’;—wordy dispute, without any reason, on common matters; or asking people at random for news.

‘Calumniating.’—Recounting the defects of other people through sheer ill-will.

‘Lying’—describing things otherwise than what is actually seen or heard.

Every one of these words has the Accusative ending, on account of its being governed by the verb ‘should abstain from’ (in the preceding verse).

‘The gazing at and touching of women’;—‘gazing at’ means looking intently with a view to observe the shape of limbs; ‘this part of her body is beautiful—that is not so,’and so forth.

‘Touching’ stands for embracing. These two are prohibited for fear of their leading up to sexual intercourse; and this is to be applied to the case of the young boy in some way or other.

‘Injuring of others,’—i.e., doing harm; obstructing the fulfilment of some purpose. For instance, if he is questioned on matters relating to the marriage of girls, he should not say that a certain bridegroom is unfit, even if he be really so; he should remain quiet (say nothing), as lying has been prohibited.—(179)

‘Janavādam’—‘Quarelling with people’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘asking people at random for news’ (alternative suggested by Medhātithi, and Nārāyaṇa).

This is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 456);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 39);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 495);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 42), which notes that ‘prekṣanālambhana’ of women is forbidden, lest they lead on to intercourse;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 125), which has the same notes and adds that in ordinary crowds and other places, the seeing and touching cannot be avoided;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 292), which explains ‘dyūta’ as gambling with dice, and ‘janavāda’ as talking of the people in general.

**(verses 177-179)
**

Include Comparative notes for [Verse 2.177].

Gautama (2.22.24).—‘Looking at and touching of women should be avoided, for fear of the intercourse proceeding further; also gambling, service of low people, appropriating what is not given, killing;—also harsh words.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.23-24).—‘Truthful in speech, modest, free from egotism;—conversing with women, only to the extent that may be necessary.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.3.11, 23).—‘He should not see any dancing; he should not talk ill of people.’

Viṣṇu (28.26).—‘He should not stay at a place where calumniating is going on.’

179 From gambling, idle disputes, backbiting, and lying, from looking at and touching women, and from hurting others.

He should always sleep alone; nowhere should he allow his manhood to run out; by intentionally allowing his manhood to run out, hr breaks his vow.—(180)

एकः शयीत सर्वत्र न रेतः स्कन्दयेत् क्वचित्, अयोनाव् अपि, योनौ⁴³ स्त्रीप्रतिषेधाद् एव सिद्धत्वात् । अत्रार्थवादः कामाद् धि स्कन्दयन् । इच्छात्र कामः । हस्तव्यापारादिनायोनौ मैथुनेन च रेतः शुक्रं स्कन्दयन् क्षरयन् हिनस्ति नाशयति ब्रह्मचर्य**व्रतम् आत्मनः **॥ २.१८० ॥

‘He should always sleep alone; nowhere should he allove his manhood to run out,’—i.e., not even outside; intercourse with women having been already prohibited.

Next follows a commendatory statement—‘Intentionally, etc.’ ‘Intention’ means wish…… By allowing his manhood to run—by any means—he ‘breaks’—destroys—‘his vow’ of studentship (continence).—(180)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 39), which explains ‘Vratam’ as ‘brahmacharyam’;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 496);—only the first half in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 456);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 46b);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 127), which explains ‘vratam’ as the vow of Studentship;—unintentional emission involves only an expiation, and not a breach of the vow.

Viṣṇu (28.48).—‘Those Vedic Scholars who know Dharma have declared that in the case of the Brāhmaṇa under vow of studentship, intentional emission is a transgression.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (2.26).—‘He should avoid giving vent to his organ.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 496).—‘Sitting and sleeping on a couch and teeth-cleansing should be avoided; he should sleep alone, on kuśa-grass, and should never emit his semen anywhere.’

180 Let him always sleep alone, let him never waste his manhood; for he who voluntarily wastes his manhood, breaks his vow.

The twice-born religious student, haying unintentionally dropped his manhood during a dream, should thrice recite the three vedic verses beginning with “punarmām,” after having bathed and worshipped the sun.—(181)

कामाद् व्रतलोपेनावकीर्णिप्रायश्चित्तम्,⁴⁴ अकामात् त्व् इदम् आह । स्वप्नग्रहणम् अविवक्षितम्, अकामत इत्य् एतद् एव निमित्तम् । न हि स्वप्ने कामसंभवः । अतो यद्य् असुप्तस्यापि कथंचिद् अनिच्छया स्वमलासृगवयववत् प्रक्षरति शुक्रं तत्राप्य् एतद् एव प्रायश्चित्तम् । अकामतो रेतः सिक्त्वेदं प्रायश्चित्तं कुर्यात्, पुनर् माम् इत्य्⁴⁵** **एतद्⁴⁶ ऋचं जपेत् ॥ २.१८१ ॥

When one renounces his vow of continence intentionally, then he has to perform the expiatory rite prescribed for the ‘Avakīrṇī’ (11.120 et. seq.); the present verse lays down what one should do when he does it unintentionally.

No significance attaches to the mention of ‘dream’; the absence of intention is the only necessary condition; and no intention can be present during dreams. Hence this same expiatory rite is to be performed in a case where, even though he may be not asleep, the flow occurs involuntarily, in the same manner as certain other fluids flow out of the body.

The sense of the verse thus is that—‘if one drops his manhood unintentionally, he should perform this expiatory rite that he should recite the three verses, etc., etc.—(181)

‘Punarmām’—“This verse occurs in Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 1. 30,”—Buhler.

Punarmāmaitvindriyam—Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 1. 30. Such uses of texts are frequent in the later Vedic works; e.g. the Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa and the several Ṛgvidhānas,”—Burnell.

This verse is quoted in Parāśatramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 394), as laying down what should be done by the Religious Student, in the event of a ‘wet dream—in Madanapārijāta (p. 39);—in Aparārka (p. 1141);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 127) as showing that unintentional emission involves only an expiation;—and in Prāyoscittaviveka (p. 462).

Yama (Aparārka, 11.41).—‘The Religious Student involuntarily emitting semen during a dream shall bathe, look at the Sun and repeat the Gāyatrī a hundred and eight times.’

Viṣṇu (28.53)—(reproduces Manu’s words).

181 A twice-born student, who has involuntarily wasted his manly strength during sleep, must bathe, worship the sun, and afterwards thrice mutter the Rik-verse (which begins), ‘Again let my strength return to me.’

He should fetch the jar of water, flowers, cowdung, earth and kuśa-grass,—as much as may be required; and day by day he should beg for alms.—(182)

यावद्भिर् अर्थः प्रयोजनम् उपाध्यायस्य सिध्यति तावद् उदकुम्भादि आहरेत् । प्रदर्शनार्थं चैतत् । अन्यद् अपि गृहोपयोगि यद् अगर्हितं कर्म तत् कुर्यात् । गर्हितं गुरुव्यतिरेकेणोच्छिष्टापमार्जनादि न कारयितव्य इत्य् एवमर्थो ऽयं श्लोकः । यतः सामान्येन शुश्रूषा गुरौ विहिता । यावान् अर्थ एषाम् इति विग्रहः ।

• भैक्षं चाहर् अहश् चरेत् । सिद्धम् अन्नम् अत्यन्ताल्पं यात्राविषयं भैक्षम् अत्रोच्यते । “नैकान्नादी” इति⁴⁷ (म्ध् २.१८८) प्रतिषेधे ऽन्नशब्दोपादानाद् अन्नं प्रतीयते । “समाहृत्य भैक्षं निवेद्याश्नीयात्” (च्ड़्। म्ध् २.५१) इति सामानाधिकरण्यात् सिद्धान्नप्रतिपत्तिः । शुष्के ह्य् अन्ने भिक्षिते कुतस् तस्याशनम् । समाहृत्य गुरुगृहे पच्यमानस्य भैक्षप्रकृतिता स्यान् न भैक्षता । प्रसिद्ध्या चेदृशम् एव भैक्षम् उच्यते । अहर् अहः । ननु “बैक्षेण वर्तयेन् नित्यम्” (म्ध् २.१८८) इत्य् एतस्माद् एव सुद्धम् अहर् अहश् चरणं सिध्यति । वृत्तिविधानार्थं नित्यग्रहणम् । पर्युषितेनापि घृतादिस्नेहसंयुक्तेन स्याद् वृत्तिस् तदर्थम् इदम्- अहर् अहर् भिक्षित्वाशितव्यम् । न पुनर् एकस्मिन्न् अहनि भिक्षितम् अपरेद्युः परिवास्य यत् किंचित् स्नेहयुक्तम् इति प्रतिप्रसवेन भुञ्जीत ॥ २.१८२ ॥

येभ्यो भैक्षम् आसादयितव्यं तान् वक्ति ।

He should fetch as much of water in jars and other things as might serve the purposes of the Teacher.

This is only by way of illustration; the meaning being that he should do other household-work also,—all that is not absolutely demeaning. What this verse is meant to indicate is that the pupil should not be made to do any demeaning work,—such as touching the utensils in which food has been eaten by persons other than the Teacher himself. For as regards the Teacher himself, his service has been already prescribed in a general way.

The compound ‘yāvadarthāni’ is to be expounded as ‘yāvān arthaḥ eṣām.’

‘Day by day he should beg for alms’;—‘alms’ here stands for a very small quantity of cooked, just enough for sustenance. It would not be right to argue that it stands for food in general (not necessarily cooked); since the generic term ‘anna’ (food) is found to be used in the prohibition coming later on (in 188) regarding ‘the food of one person’; because in view of the injunction ‘having collected the alms, he should present it to the Teacher and then eat it,’ where the bringing and eating are mentioned together, it is clear that cooked food is meant; if dry grains had been brought in, how could they be eaten forthwith? If the grain were collected and then cooked in the Teacher’s house, the food thus cooked would be one that has the alms for its source, it would not be the aims itself. In common usage also it is cooked food that is called ‘alms.’

‘Day by day.’—“The daily begging for alms is already implied in what follows later on (in 188)—‘He should live every day on alms.’

In 188, the term ‘every day’ has been added for the purpose of laying down the means of subsistence; while the term ‘day by day’ in the present verse is meant to preclude the possibility of some one keeping the food mixed with butter, etc., overnight and then eating it next day; the sense being that he should beg for alms and eat it day by day; and he should never beg on one day and then, having kept it over-night, eat it next day after mixing it with butter, etc—(182)

The Author next mentions the persons from whom the alms are to be begged.

This verse is quoted in Parāśatramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 394), as laying down what should be done by the Religious Student, in the event of a ‘wet dream—in Madanapārijāta (p. 39);—in Aparārka (p. 1141);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 127) as showing that unintentional emission involves only an expiation;—and in Prāyoscittaviveka (p. 462).

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.4.13.14).—‘Morning and evening he should fetch jars of water; every day fetching fuel from the forest, he should keep it on the ground.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (22.5).—‘He should beg alms morning and evening.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (5.2.27).—‘Wearing of the girdle, begging of alms, carrying of the staff, fetching of fuel, bathing in water, and morning-salutation,—these are the daily obligatory duties.’

182 Let him fetch a pot full of water, flowers, cowdung, earth, and Kusa grass, as much as may be required (by his teacher), and daily go to beg food.

The Religious Student, being pure, should fetch alms daily from the houses of persons who are not devoid of Veda and sacrifices, and who are famed for their deeds.—(183)

वेदज्ञैश् च य अहीना वेदाध्ययनेन संयुक्ताः यज्ञानां च सत्य् अधिकारे कर्तार अहीना अवर्जिता तदुपेता इति यावत् । स्वकर्मसु च प्रशस्ताः । येषां यज्ञ्ē ऽधिकारो नास्त्य् अन्यस्मिन् शस्ते कर्मणि तत्पराः । अथ वा स्वकर्मप्रशस्तास् ते उच्यन्ते ये स्ववृत्ताव् एव संतुष्टा न वार्द्धुषिकादिवृत्त्युपजीविनः । तेषां गृहेभ्यो भैक्षम् आहरेद् याचित्वा गृह्णीयात् प्रयतः शुचिः । अन्वहम् इत्य् अनुवादः ॥ २.१८३ ॥

‘Who are not devoid of Veda and sacrifices—who are equipped with Vedic learning, and perform the sacrifices to which they are entitled;—‘not devoid’ means not without, i.e., fully equipped.

‘Famed for their deeds;’—thoso who may not be entitled to the performance of sacrifices, but who are accustomed to meritorious acts. Or, those persons may be called ‘for their deeds’ who are content with their own means of livelihood, and do not go in for such means of living as usury and the like.

‘From the houses of’ these people ‘he should fetch alms’—i.e., beg and bring it away.

‘Pure’—Clean.

‘Daily’—This is a descriptive reiteration.—(188)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 453) in support of the view that alms are to be begged only from ‘praiseworthy’ persons;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 381), as laying down the special qualifications of the Brāhmaṇas from whom the Brāhmaṇa Student is to beg alms;—and in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 496) in support of the view that even among people of his own caste, alms should be begged only from the houses of specially qualified men.

This is quoted in Aparārka (p. 59);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 60);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p.

288), which adds the following notes:—Those who are not devoid of the knowledge of one or two or three Vedas,—those who have not omitted to perform the sacrifices,—and those who are carrying out in a praiseworthy manner all the duties prescribed for them,—from the house of such parsons, the Brahmacārī—ha who is keeping the vows for the sake of Vedic study—keeping all the restraints and observances—should daily obtain ‘alms’—‘bhaikṣam’ being a collective noun;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 109).

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.3.1).—‘All that he obtains he should present to the Teacher, going out pot in hand, morning and evening, for begging alms from all except those that are considered unfit for this purpose and also those of ill-repute.’

Baudhāyana. (1.2.19).—‘Persons to be begged from are the Brāhmaṇa and the rest, who are firm in their duties.’

Gautama (2.42).—‘Alms-begging should be done from all castes, except from those who are accused or outcast.’

Viṣṇu (29.9).—‘Alms-begging should be done from qualified persons, except from the teacher’s family.’

Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 482).—‘Alms should be begged from the good people among Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas who are firm in their duties; from all four castes in times of distress.’

Yājñavalkya (1.29).—‘For his own subsistence, he should beg alms from irreproachable Brāhmaṇas.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 482).—‘They should daily beg alms from Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas, only from the houses of people belonging to one’s own caste, or from those of all castes.’

Bhaviṣya Purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 482).—‘In the absence of the above, he may go for alms to the entire village, with the exception of the Caṇḍāla.’

Aṅgiras (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 482).—‘In the absence of any other means of subsistence, he may accept uncooked food from the Śūdra, enough to keep him for a day and night.’

Parāśara (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 483).—‘The Renunciate and the Religious Student are entitled to cooked food only.’

Bhaviṣya Purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 453).—‘If he does not obtain it from the right sources, he may heg from all the four castes.’

183 A student, being pure, shall daily bring food from the houses of men who are not deficient in (the knowledge of) the Veda and in (performing) sacrifices, and who are famous for (following their lawful) occupations.

He should not beg for food from his Teacher’s family; nor from the family of his paternal or maternal relations. But when other houses are not available, he should avoid the preceding in preference to the succeeding.—(184)

सत्य् अप्य् एतद्गुणयोगे गुरुगृहे न भिक्षेत । पूर्वं कुलं वंशस् ततो गुरोर् ये पितृव्यादयस् तेभ्यो ऽपि न ग्रहीतव्यम् । ज्ञातयो ब्रह्मचारिणः पितृपक्षाः, तेषां कुले । बन्धुषु च मातृपक्षेषु मातुलादिषु । नैवम् अभिसंबन्धः कर्तव्यो गुरुज्ञात्यादिष्व् इति, यतो⁴⁸ गुरोः कुल इति कुलशब्देनैव तेषां संगृहीतत्वात् । कुतस् तर्हि भिक्षेत । एतद्व्यतिरेकेणान्यगेहेभ्यः । अलाभे ऽसंभवे ऽन्यगेहानां सर्व एव यदि ग्रामो गुरुज्ञातिबन्धुभिर् व्याप्तो भवत्य् अन्ये नैव सन्त्य्⁴⁹, सन्तो⁵⁰ वान्नं न ददति । एतेष्व् अपि गृहेषु भिक्षितव्यम् । अन्याभावे प्रथमं बन्धुं भिक्षेत, तदभावे ज्ञातिं, तदभावे गुरुकुलम् ॥ २.१८४ ॥

Even though the Teacher’s family may fulfil the aforesaid conditions, yet ‘he should not beg for food’ from that family. ‘Kula,’ ‘family,’ stands for ‘relations’; hence one should not receive alms from the uncle and other relations of the Teacher.

‘Paternal relations’—from the family of those related to the student on his father’s side.—‘From his maternal relations’—i.e., from his maternal uncle and others.

This verse should not be construed in such a way as to connect the words ‘paternal relations, etc.,’ with the Teacher; since the Teacher’s relations have all been included under the term ‘Teacher’s family.’

“From whom then is he to beg for food?”

From houses other than those here mentioned.

‘When other houses are not available’—i.e., not possible;—when, for instance, the entire village is inhabited either by the Teacher’s family, or by his own paternal and maternal relations; and there are no other families;—or even though they are there, they do not give him alms;—then the student may beg from those just mentioned; when, others are uot available, he should first beg from his maternal relations; if these latter be not available, then from his paternal relations; and when even these arc not available, then from the Teacher’s family.—(184)

‘Vihāyasi’—In the air, i.e. on the roof of the house (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘on a platform’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘in the open air (Nandana);—‘in any pure place except the ground’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 451), as laying down the method of ‘tending the fire’, and ‘explains it that ‘he should place the fuel somewhere in the open, not on the grouhd;’—in Smṛtitattva (p. 936) as laying down the morning and evening offerings into the Fire;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 448), where ‘dūrāt’ is explained as from a spot not owned

Gautama (2.44-45).—‘Food should be begged from the house of the Ācārya, or one’s relations, or the Guru; from one’s own family, only in the event of its not being obtained elsewhere,—the succeeding one of these being preferred to the preceding.’

184 Let him not beg from the relatives of his teacher, nor from his own or his mother’s blood-relations; but if there are no houses belonging to strangers, let him go to one of those named above, taking the last-named first;

In the event of al the afouesaid being not available, he may wander over the whole village, remaining pure and having his speech well-controlled; but he should avoid persons of ill-repute.—(185)

पूर्वोक्तानां वेदयज्ञैर् अहीनानां असंभवे सर्वं ग्रामम् अनपेक्षवर्णविभागं विचरेत् भ्राम्येज् जीवनर्थम् । केवलम् अभिशस्तान् कृतपातकत्वेन प्रसिद्धान् अदृष्टपातकान् अपि वर्जयित्वा । तथा च गौतमः- “सार्ववर्णिकं भैक्ष्यचरणम् अभिशस्तपतितवर्जम्” (ग्ध् २.३५) । नियम्य वाचं भिक्षावाक्यं वर्जयित्वा आ भैक्षलाभाद् अन्यां वाचं नोच्चरेत् ॥ २.१८५ ॥

‘All the aforesaid’—i.e., those not devoid of the Veda and sacrifices and so forth—‘being unavailable’;—‘wander over the whole village’;—he may go over the whole village, irrespectively of caste and other distinctions, for the purpose of obtaining his means of subsistence. Only ‘he should avoid persons of ill-repute’—i.e., those who are known to have committed serious sins, even though they may never have been seen to commit them; Says Gautama (2-35)—‘The begging of alms may be done from all castes, save the disreputable and the fallen.’

‘Having his speech well-controlled’;—i.e., till he obtains the alms, he should not utter any words save those used in the actual begging.—(186)

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 60), which adds that the prohibition of the ‘abhiśasṭa’ naturally implies that of the ‘patita’ ‘outcast’, also;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 110), which says that this does not sanction begging from a Śūdra.

Gautama (2.42).—‘Food should be begged from all castes, except from the outcasts and persons of ill-repute.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.3.25).—‘Pot in hand, one should beg for food from qualified Brāhmaṇas, excepting the Teacher’s house; and avoiding those unfit and of ill-repute.’

Bhaviṣya Purāṇa (see under 183).

Aṅgiras (Parāśaramādhava, p. 453).—‘From the Śūdra he shall accept only raw food, that also just enough for one night.’

185 Or, if there are no (virtuous men of the kind) mentioned above, he may go to each (house in the) village, being pure and remaining silent; but let him avoid Abhisastas (those accused of mortal sin).

Having fetched fuel-sticks from a distance, he should place them in the air; and with these he should, without fail, make offerings to the fire, morning and evening.—(188)

दूरग्रहणम् अपरिगृहीतदेशोपलक्षणार्थम् । ग्रामात् किल दूरम् अरण्यम्, न च तत्र कस्यचित् परिग्रहः । अनुपलक्षणे हि दूरार्थे कियद् दूरम् इत्य् अनवस्थितः शास्त्रार्थः स्यात् । आहृत्य आनीय । संनिदध्यात् स्थापयेत् । विहायसि गृहस्योपरि । न हि निरालम्बने ऽन्तरिक्षे निधानं संभवति । ताभिः सायंप्रातर् जुहुयात् । आहरणं तु तात्कालिकम् अन्यदा वेच्छया । विहायसि⁵¹ निधानम् अदृष्टार्थम् इत्य् आहुः । अन्ये तु ब्रुवते संप्रत्यानीय्मानं वृक्षाद् दारु आर्द्रं भवतीति, गृहस्योपरि अन्यस्य वा प्रकारादेस् तत एवावगन्तव्यम् ॥ २.१८६ ॥

The term ‘distance’ is meant to stand for such plots of land as are not owned by any one; for instance, the forest is ‘distant’ from the village, and it is not owned by any one. If such were not the meaning, and ‘distance’ simply meant ‘remote places,’—then since the exact degree of remoteness is not specified, the manning of the injunction would remain indefinite.

‘Having fetched’—having brought.

‘Should place’—should keep.

‘In the air’—i.e., on the roof of the house; no placing is possible in the open air, without some support.

‘With these he should make offerings morning and evening.’

The fetching of the fuel may he at that or at any other time, according as the student pleases.

Some people regard the ‘placing in the air’ as serving some transcendental purpose. Others have however held that the fuel brought fresh from the tree is wet; and hence it is necessary to place it either on the top of the house or on that of a wall, etc. (for the purpose of drying).—(186)

‘Vihāyasi’—In the air, i. e. on the roof of the house (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘on a platform’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘in the open air (Nandana);—‘in any pure place except the ground’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 451), as laying down the method of ‘tending the fire’, and ‘explains it that ‘he should place the fuel somewhere in the open, not on the grouhd;’—in Smṛtitattva (p. 936) as laying down the morning and evening offerings into the Fire;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 448), where ‘dūrāt’ is explained as from a spot not owned by any one’;—in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 498), where vihāyasi is explained as ‘antarīkṣe’ ‘in the open air—in Madanapārijāta (p. 24), where ‘dūrāt’ is explained as ‘from a spot not owned by any other person’, and ‘vihāyasi’ as ‘maṇḍapādau’ ‘oh an altar or some such place’;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 43), which says that, according to Dharmaprakāśa, ‘vihāyasi’ means ‘on the house-top’;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 86), which explains dūrāt, as ‘from places not belonging to any person’, and vihāyasi as ‘on the house-top’,—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 34a).

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.4.16).—‘Having kindled fire and swept the place, he should lay fuel on it, morning and evening, in accordance with instructions received.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 448).—‘He should not go for fetching fuel in the evening.’

Viṣṇu (28.4).—‘Both times, bathing and fire-tending.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (2.22.6).—‘Morning and evening, he should fetch fuel.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2.5.9)—‘Without causing injury, he should fetch fuel from the forest, lay it on the fire and then utter speech.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3-2-27).—‘Girdle-wearing, alms-begging, staff-carrying, fuel-fetching, water-bathing, morning salutation,—these are the daily compulsory duties.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.54).—‘Therefore, the Religious Student should fetch fuel.’

Āpastamba (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 448).—‘Some people say that Fire-kindling should be done in the evening only.’ Laugākṣi (Do.)—(same as above).

Baijavāpa (Do.).—‘Before sunset, and also in the morning, going northward, without causing injury, he should fetch fuel,—wet, if desirous of food; dry, if desirous of Brahmic glory; both, if desirous of both.’

Vāyu-purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 452).—‘The fuel should he of Palāśa; in the absence of that, Khadira or Śamī or Rohitaka or Aśvattha; and in the absence of these, Arka and Vetasa.’

186 Having brought sacred fuel from a distance, let him place it anywhere but on the ground, and let him, unwearied, make with it burnt oblations to the sacred fire, both evening and morning.

He who, without being ill, omits for seven days, to beg alms and to offer fuel to the fire, shall perform the rites prescribed for the Avakīrṇin.—(187)

अग्नीन्धनभैक्षचरणे नैरन्तर्येण सप्तरात्रं सप्ताहम् अकृत्वा⁵² । अनातुरः अव्याधितस्य सन्⁵³ अवकीर्णिव्रतं नाम प्रायश्चित्तम् एकादशे (म्ध् ११.११७) वक्ष्यमाणस्वरूपं चरेत् कुर्यात् । दोषगुरुत्वख्यापनार्थम्, न⁵⁴ त्व् एतद् अत्र प्रायश्चित्तम् एव । स्मृत्यन्तरे ह्य् अत्रालपम् अन्यत् प्रायश्चित्तम् उक्तम्- “आज्यहोमः सवितुर् वा रेतस्यास्याम्” इति (च्ड़्। ग्ध् २३.२०) । इहापि च लिङ्गं यदि प्रायश्चित्तम् इदम् अभविष्यत् तदा स्त्रीगमनम् इवावकीर्णिप्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणे निमित्तत्वेनापठिष्यत् ।

• ये तु व्याचक्षते सप्तरात्रम् एतद् उभयम् अवश्यकर्तव्यम् । अकरणात् तत्र दोषः । कृतसप्तरात्रस्य तु परतो ऽक्रियायां न दोषः । तानि च सप्ताहानि प्राथम्याद् उपनयनात् प्रभृति गृह्यन्ते । तद् एतद् अयुक्तम् “आ समावर्तनात् कुर्यात्” (म्ध् २.१०८) इति विरोधात् । उपरितनानन्तरश्लोकविरोधाच् च ॥ २.१८७ ॥

‘He who, for seven days’—consecutively, ‘has omitted to beg alms and to offer fuel to the Fire,—without being ill’—while not suffering from any disease,—‘shall perform the rites prescribed for the Anakīrṇin’;—i.e., the expiatory rite the exact form of which is going to he described in Chap. 11?. (verse 118).

This is said here only for the purpose of showing the gravity of the offence; and it does not mean that the rite mentioned is to he actually performed in expiation of the omission. That this is so is shown by the fact that another Smṛti has laid down a much simpler expiation for this omission, viz.: ‘offering of clarified butter, etc.’ The following fact also is another indicative of the same conclusion:—If what is mentioned here were a real expiatory rite, then on the occasion of mentioning the conditions under which the ‘Amkīrṇin-rite’ are to be performed as an expiatory rite, the author would have mentioned these omissions also, in the same way in which he has mentioned ‘sexual intercourse with women.’

Some people interpret this verse to means as follows:—“It is necessary to do the two acts (of begging alms and offering fuel) for seven days only; having done them for seven days, if one drops them, there is no harm in this; and these seven days are to be the first ones after Upanayana.”

This however is not right; as it would lie in direct contravention to the direction that ‘this should be done till the Final Return from the teacher’s house,’—as also to what follows in the next verse.—(187)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 438) as laying down the Avakīrṇivrata (actually prescribed in 11.118 in connection with the loss of chastity on the part of the Student) as applicable to other omissions also;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 485), in support of the view that the Begging of Alms is not optional, but compulsory, since the present verse prescribes an expiation for its omission, which clearly implies that the omission is sinful;—in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 498) to the effect that the omission of Begging alms involves sin; and again on page 500, where it is explained that the expiation here prescribed is to be performed in the event of repeated omissions;—and in Mitākṣarā (p. 1345, on 3. 281), where it is explained as laying down an expiation for those cases where the duty of ‘fire-tending’ is omitted without any such extenuating circumstance as being occupied with some other duty.

Nirṇayosindhu (p. 190) quotes it as laying down the expiatory rites due on the omission of the duties laid down for the Student.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1142) as laying down the expiation for omitting the said duties, without sufficient reason;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 111) to the effect that alms-begging is an obligatory duty;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 357).

Baudhāyana (1.2.5).—‘There is sin in omitting the alms-begging, sin in the non-kindling of fire; one who omits these for seven days should perform the Avakīrṇi-vrata.’

Viṣṇu (28.52)—(reproduces Manu’s words).

187 He who, without being sick, neglects during seven (successive) days to go out begging, and to offer fuel in the sacred fire, shall perform the penance of an Avakirnin (one who has broken his vow).

The avowed student should subsist on alms; he should not (habitually) eat the food given by one person. for the student, subsisting on alms has been declared to be equal to fasting.—(188)

• केचिद् आहुः- अनूद्यते नैकान्नादी भवेद् व्रतीति वक्तुम् ।

• एतद् अप्य् असत्, भैक्षशब्देनैवैकान्नादनस्य निषेधात् । भिक्षाणां समूहो भैक्षम् उच्यते । ततः कुत एकान्नादनप्राप्तिः । तस्य पित्र्येभ्यो ऽनुज्ञानार्थं⁵⁵ सर्वम् एतद् अनूद्यते । बैक्षेण वर्तयेद् अत्मानं भैक्षभोजनेन पालयेत् । जीवितस्थितिं⁵⁶ कुर्यान् नैकस्य संबन्धि अन्नम् अद्यान् नैकभिक्षान्नं भुञ्जीत ।

• न पुनर् इयम् आशङ्का कर्तव्या “नैकस्वामिकं भुञ्जीत, अपि तु बहुस्वामिकम् अविभक्तभ्रातृसंबन्धि” । एकस्यान्नम् एकं वान्नम् एकान्नम्, तद् अत्ति भुङ्के एकान्नादी । व्रती ब्रह्मचारी । प्रकर्णाद् एव लब्धः, श्लोकपूरणार्थो व्रतिशब्दः ।

• अत्रार्थवादः⁵⁷ । भैक्षेणैव केवलेन व्रतिनो या वृत्तिः शरीरधारणम् उपवासतुल्यफला सा वृत्तिः स्मर्यते ॥ २.१८८ ॥

Objection.—“It has already been laid down that he should go about begging alms every day (183).”

What is there said would show that the begging of Alms is meant to serve the visible purpose (of sustaining the body); specially as it has been subsequently laid down that ‘having offered it to the Teacher, he should eat it’; and this ‘eating’ cannot be sanctificatory of the alms; which alone could prevent us from taking it as serving the purely visible purpose of sustaining the body.

Some people have explained that the re-iteration of the ‘daily begging of alms’ is made for the purpose of adding the further direction that ‘he should not eat the food given by one person.’

But this is not right. Since the eating of the food given by one person is precluded by the term ‘alms’ itself. ‘Alms’ stands for an aggregate of what is obtained by begging; whence then could there be any possibility of eating the food given by one person?

The conclusion on this point is that the whole rule has been re-iterated here with a view to adding (in the next verse) that such eating of the food given by one person is permissible at Śrāddhas.

‘He should subsist on alms’;—he should nourish his body—sustain his life—by means of food obtained by begging; and he should not eat food received from a single person.

The verse should not be taken to mean that “he should not eat what belongs to a single person,—he should eat what belongs to several owners; e.g., what belongs to several undivided brothers.” For the word in the text means simply ‘one who eats one food—or one person’s food.’

The term ‘Vrati’ here stands for the Religious Student; and as the fact of the rule pertaining to him is clear from the context, the addition of the word can be taken only as filing up the metre.

Next follows the commendatory statement:—‘The subsisting—sustaining of the body—of the student on alms only has been declared to be equal to fasting.’—(188)

The first half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 454) in support of the view that the Student should not accept food from one and the same house day after day; and adds that this is meant to apply to normal times; in abnormal times it is not meant to be strictly adhered to; this on the strength of Yājñavalkya’s declaration (1. 32.)

The same work quotes the second half of the verse on p. 485, as declaring the reward accruing to the Student from strictly following the rules of alms-begging.

The whole verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 498) as prohibiting the habit of seeking for food from one and the same person regularly;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 61);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 111), which says that this refers to normal times, not to abnormal times of distress.

**(verses 2.188-189)
**

Yājñavalkya (1.32).—‘The student firm in his vow should not, except in times of distress, habitually eat food given by a single person; at a Śrāddha the Brāhmana may eat when he likes, without injuring his vow.’

188 He who performs the vow (of studentship) shall constantly subsist on alms, (but) not eat the food of one (person only); the subsistence of a student on begged food is declared to be equal (in merit) to fasting.

During a performance in honour of gods and in honour of ancestors, he may, when invited, eat freely, like an ascetic, in due accordance with his observances. by this his observances do not suffer.—(189)

अयम् अपवादो निमित्तविशेषे भैक्षवृत्त्युपदेशस्य । देवदैवत्ये देवोद्देशेन ब्राह्मणभोजने क्रियमाणे, पित्र्ये च पितॄन् उद्दिश्याभ्यर्थितो ऽध्येषितः, कामम् एकान्नम् अश्नीयात् । न तु स्वयं याचेत । तच् च⁵⁸ व्रतवद् व्रताविरुद्धं⁵⁹ मधुमांसवर्जितम् इत्य् अर्थः । व्रतवद् ऋषिवद् इति च शब्दद्वयेनैक एवार्थ उच्यते, न पुनर् ग्रामारण्ययोः कर्मभेदेन व्यवस्था । वृत्तानुरोधात् तु द्विरभिधानम् । ऋषिर् वैखानसस् तदशनाभ्यनुज्ञाने मांसम् अपि ब्रह्मचारिणो ऽनुज्ञातं स्यात् । तस्य हि “वैष्कम् अप्य् उपभुञ्जीत” (ग्ध् ३.३१) इति मांसाशनम् अप्य् अस्ति । देवा देवता यस्य तद् देवदैवत्यम् । तच् चाग्निहोत्रदर्शपूर्णमासादिषु दैवेषु कर्मसु ब्राह्मणभोजनम् आम्नातम्, आग्रहायण्यादिषु चाम्नातम्⁶⁰ “ब्राह्मणान् भोजयित्वा स्वस्त्ययनं वाचयेत्” इति । तत्रेयम् अनुज्ञा ।

• अन्ये तु सप्तम्यादाव् आदित्यादिदेवोद्देशेन यत् क्रियते ब्राह्मणभोजनं तद् देवदैवत्यं मन्यन्ते । तद् असत् । न हि भुजेर् देवतासंबन्धो ऽस्ति, अयागसाधनत्वात् तस्य । न तूद्देश्यमात्रं⁶¹ देवता, “उपाध्यायाय गां ददाति,” “गृहं संमार्ष्टि” इत्य् उपाध्याये गृहे ऽपि प्रसङ्गात् । भुजेर् हि प्रत्यक्षो भोक्त्रा संबन्धः । आदित्यस् तु न कारकम्, न चोद्देश्यो गृहवत्, न तदर्थं भोजनम् । द्वितीया हि भोक्त्रर्थतां ज्ञापयति, नादित्यार्थताम् । न चैतत् क्वचिन् नोदितम् “आदित्याद्युद्देशेन ब्राह्मणान् भोजयेत्” इति ।

• समाचाराद् विधिः कल्प्यत इति चेन्, न, तस्योपलभ्यमानमूलत्वात् । अस्ति हि मूलम्, बाह्याः स्मृतयः । तत्र तर्हि ब्राह्मणभोजनेन देवताः प्रीणयेद् इति शास्त्रार्थः । न चायम् अर्थः शक्यः कल्पयितुम् । न हि देवताप्रीतिप्रधानः शास्त्रार्थः, किं तर्हि विध्यर्थप्रधानः । न चास्मिन् विध्यर्थ आदित्यादीनां देवताभिमतानां विषयद्वारकः संबन्धः, नाप्य् अधिकारद्वारकः । न हि भेदनादिवन् निमित्तम्, नापि पश्वादिवत् स्वसंबन्धितया काम्यते, अभोग्यरूपत्वात् । अथ तद्गता तुष्टिः काम्यते । साप्य् आत्मसिद्धौ प्रमाणान्तरम् अपेक्षते । न च तद् अस्ति । न ह्य् आदित्यादितुष्टिः प्रत्यक्षादिसिद्धा पश्वादिवद् येन काम्येन परेष्टिविधिना युज्येत ।

• अथ तु मत्प्रभुर् इत् स्वाभिप्रेतेन फलेन् यजयिष्यन्तीति । एतद् अपि प्रमाणाभावाद् उपेक्षणीयम् । न चास्मिन्न् अर्थे विधिः प्रमाणम् । स हि ज्ञातस्यानुष्ठातृविशेषणस्य स्वसंबन्धितया पुरुषं नियुङ्क्ते, न पुनः काम्यमानस्य सद्भावम् अवगमयति । प्रमाणान्तरावगतं हि काम्यम् अनुष्ठातृविशेषणम्, अनुष्ठानसाध्यम्⁶² अनुष्ठातृसंबन्धीति विधिः प्रमाणम् इति मिमीते ।

• अथायं यागस् तस्य च भोजनं प्रतिपत्तिः । भवतु, यदि शिष्टसमाचारः । भोजनं तावन् न देवतासंबन्धि साक्षाद् इति न साध्यम् । यागव्यवहितस् तु संबन्धो न निवार्यते । न चात्र यागबुद्ध्या प्रवर्तते, किं तर्हि ब्राह्मणेषु भोजितेषु देवता तुष्यतीति । अतो न देवता भोजनकारकं न कारकविशेषणम् । ततो न विषयत्वेन⁶³ संबन्धः । उद्देश्यत्वम् अप्य् आदित्यादीनां नास्ति । भोजने हि स उद्दिश्यते यस्मै भोजनं दीयते । तच् च ब्राह्मणेभ्यः । न चोद्देश्यमात्रं देवता “उपाध्यायाय गां ददाति,” “गृहं संमार्ष्टि” इति गृहोपाध्याययोर् अपि प्रसङ्गात् ।

• ननु च पित्र्ये कथं ब्राह्मणभोजनम् । तत्रापि हि न पितरौ देवताः स्युः । न च होमस्य पित्र्यत्वम्, देवतान्तरश्रवणात् । आदित्यादिप्रीतेर् इव पितृप्रीतेः प्रमाणान्तरासिद्धत्वान् न विधेः संबन्धः साध्यतया ।

• अत्र वदन्ति । सिद्धा ह्य् अत्र पितृप्रीतिः । आत्मनाम् अविनाशित्वात् पितरः सिद्धास् तेषां च शरीरसंबन्धः क्रियते कर्मभ्यः⁶⁴ । तद्भोजनं ह्य् अत्र प्रधानम् । तस्य हि फलं श्रुतम् “भोजयन् पुष्कलं फलम् आप्नोति” (च्ड़्। म्ध् ३.११९ [१२९]) । तच् च फलं पितॄणां तस्य तृप्तिः स्याद् इति । तृप्तिश् च प्रीतिमात्रं न मनुष्याणाम् इव भुजिक्रियाफलं सौहित्यलक्षणम् उत्पद्यते । काचित् पितॄणां प्रीतिः स्वकर्मवशतो यत्र तर जाताव् उत्पन्नानाम् । प्रीतिमात्रवचनो ऽयं धातुः सौहित्यं तु विशेषः । स प्रमाणान्तरावसेयः ।

• न चात्रैतच् चोदनीयम्- पुत्रः कर्ता, पितृषु⁶⁵ कथं कर्तृगामिफलम् । न हीमानि कर्माणि वैदिकानि परस्य फलदानीति⁶⁶ न्ययविदो वदन्ति ।

• यतः पितर एवात्राधिकारिणः कर्तारश् च । अपत्योत्पादनेनैव सर्वम् एतत् पितृभिः कृतम् । एवम् अर्थम् एवासाव् उत्पादितः “दृष्टादृष्टम् उपकारं करिष्यति” इति । ततश् च यथा सर्वस्वारे ऽभावाद् औत्तरकालिकेष्व् अङ्गेषु “ब्राह्मणाः संस्थापयत मे यज्ञम्” इति प्रैष्यं मृतस्य कर्तृत्वम् । एवम् अत्रापि द्रष्टव्यम् । एतावान् विशेषः । तत्राधिकारान्तरप्रयुक्ता⁶⁷ जीविकार्थिनो भृतिपरिक्रीता ऋत्विजः कर्तारः । इह तु तद्विधिप्रयुक्त एव पुत्रः । यथैवोत्पत्तिविधिप्रयुक्तस्य पुत्रार्थेषु पितुः संस्कारेषु अधिकारो ऽनुशासनपर्यन्तत्वात्⁶⁸ तस्य विधेः, एवं पित्रर्थे श्राद्धादौ पुत्रस्य । तथैव जीविनः पितुः “वृद्धौ तु मातापितरौ” (म्ध् १११.५ अद्देद् वेर्से) इत्य् अवश्यं कर्तव्यम् । एवं दिष्टं गतं तस्यापि ।

• न चायं वैश्वानरवत् काम्यो ऽधिकारः । “वैश्वानरं द्वादशकपालं निर्वपेत् पुत्रे जाते । यस्मिन्⁶⁹ जात एताम् इष्टिं निर्वपति । पूत एव स तेजस्व्य् अन्नाद इन्द्रियवान् ह⁷⁰ भवति” (त्स् २.२.५.३) इति । एवमादिपुत्रफलार्थिनो ऽधिकारः पितुर् वैश्वानरे न चूडादिष्व् इवावश्यकः । इह तु “पित्र्यम् आ निधनात् कार्यम्” (म्ध् ३.२६९ [२७९]) इति यावज्जीविकः⁷¹ ।

• न⁷² कर्तुर् वैदिकं फलम् इत्य् एतद् अन्यथा परिष्क्रियते⁷³ । यथैव वैश्वानरविशिष्टपुत्रवत्तालक्षणं पितुर् एव फलं, नाकर्तृगामिता फलस्य, एवम् इहापि पुत्रस्यैव तत्फलं या पितुः प्रीतिः । उभयथा पितृकर्तृगामिता फलस्य न विरुध्यते । अपत्योत्पादनेनैवैतादृशस्य फलस्येष्टत्वात्, पितॄणाम् अपि नाकामितफलापत्तिः ।

• यदि न श्राद्धे⁷⁴ पितरो देवताः, कथं तर्हि पित्र्यम् एतत् कर्मेति देवतातद्धितः ।

• उद्देश्यत्वसामान्याद्⁷⁵ इति वदामः । “युष्मदुपकारार्थम् इदं ब्राह्मणभोजनम्” इति पितर उपदिश्यन्ते । पिण्डपितृयज्ञे तु पितरो देवता एव । न श्राद्धे पितॄणां देवतात्वं मन्यन्ते । यत् तु ब्राह्मणा भोज्यन्ते तद् यथाग्नौ होम आज्यपुरोडाशादीनां⁷⁶ ह्य् अवदानस्य । तादृशम् एतत् । तथा च ब्राह्मणाः पितृत्वम् आपद्यन्ते । अतो ऽन्नपरिवेषणकाले पितर एवोद्देश्या “युष्मभ्यम् इदं न मम” इति । ब्राह्मणास् त्व् आहवनीयस्थानीयाः । एतावान् विशेषो यद् आहवनीये हविः प्रक्षिप्यते, ब्राह्मणानां तु संनिधाप्यते, ते तु स्वयम् उपाददत इति ।

न च “श्राद्धं यागो न तत्र[^४८७] देवतार्थः स्वाहाकारः,” स्विष्टकृदादिषु दर्शणात् । अतो यागो ऽपि सन् श्राद्धकर्म पित्र्यर्थं भविष्यति । पितॄणां देवतात्वं फलभावित्वं न विरोत्स्यते[^४८८] । तृतीये किंचिद् अनुक्तम् एव तत्संबद्धं वक्ष्यामः ।

**तस्मान् नादित्यादयो ब्राह्मणभोजने देवता इति स्थितम् । **

• ननु चाव्यापकम् एतद् अपि लक्षणम्- यागे उद्देश्यः देवता” इत्य् अन्तरेणापि यागसंबन्धे देवताव्यवहारदर्शनात् । “देवतानां च पूजनम्,” “दैवतान्य् अभिगच्छेत्” इति न पूजा⁷⁷ नाप्य् आभिमुख्येन गमनं पादविहारात्मकं देवताः प्रति संभवति ।

• नैष दोषः । यत्र देवताचोदना तत्रैतत् पूजाविधानं भविष्यति, वैश्वदेवदेवतास्व् अग्निहोत्रादिसंबन्धिनीषु वा ।

• ननु चैवम् अपि नोपपद्यते । न हि देवतायाः पूज्यत्वं संभवति, स्वरूपहानिप्रसङ्गात् । पूजाकर्मत्वे हि⁷⁸ यागसंप्रदानता स्यात् । उक्तम् “न क्रियान्तरस्य किंचिद् भवति” इति । शक्तिर् हि कारकम्, सा च प्रतिक्रियं भिद्यते⁷⁹ । कार्यावगम्यत्वाच् च तस्या यावत् कार्यं भेदो न्याय्यः । अतो यत् संप्रदानं तत् संप्रदानम् एव, न तस्य कर्मापत्तिः । कथं तर्हि “पाचकाय देहि” पचेः कर्ता ददातेः संप्रदानम् । “शरैः क्षताङ्गः प्रियया कटाक्षैर् निरीक्ष्यमाणो विवशो जगाम” । उक्तो ऽत्र परिहारः । शक्तिशक्तिमतोर् भेदस्यौपचारिकत्वात् सिद्धम् “व्रजति भुक्त्वा” इति । तस्माद् यदि पूजाविषयम् एतत्, न देवतालाभः, अथ देवता आदित्यादयः, न पूजाविधिः । न हि देवतायां सिद्धायाम् उद्दिश्य पूजा विधीयते । न ह्य् आदित्यादीनां देवतासामान्यशब्दः, गोशब्दवच् छागलेयादीनाम् ।

• अत्रोच्यते । सत्यं नादित्यादयः स्वरूपतो देवताः । संबन्धिशब्दो ऽयम् । विधित एव देवतार्थो⁸⁰ ऽवगन्तव्यो “यस्य हविषश् चोद्यते सा तस्य देवता” इति । स एवाग्निर् आग्नेयाद् अन्यत्र न देवतेत्य् उक्तम् । किं तु न पूजाविधिः पूज्यमानम् अन्तरेण संभवति । देवताश् च पूज्यत्वेन श्रुताः । तत्र यदि देवतार्थे मुख्येन पूजा संभवति तदा याग एव पूजा विज्ञेया । तस्य चारुपत्वाद् असति द्रव्यदेवताश्रवणे पूर्वाह्णकालविध्यर्थो ऽयम् अनुवादो विज्ञेयः । अतः पूर्वाह्णे दैवतानि कर्तव्यानीत्य् उक्तं भवति ।

• किम् उच्यते देवता न श्रूयते । यावता न साक्षाद् देवताशब्दो ऽस्ति । नायं सामान्यवचनो देवताशब्दः⁸¹ । यासाम् अन्यत्र देवतात्वं दृष्टं तासाम् एतत् पूजाविधानम् । तेनाग्निर् आदित्यो रुद्र इन्द्रो विष्णुः सरस्वतीत्य् एवमादयः पूज्याः । पूजार्थं च धूपदीपमाल्योपहारादीनां निवेदनम् । तत्रग्नेस् तावत् साक्षात् संबन्धः । तच् च⁸² आदित्यस्य दूरदेशवर्तित्वाच् छुचौ देशे⁸³ तदुद्देशेन गन्धादिप्रक्षेपः । इन्द्रादीनां स्वरूपस्याप्रत्यक्षत्वाद् इन्द्रादिशब्दोद्देशेनैव तथा विधानम् । यद्य् अपि पूज्यमानप्रधाना पूजा, तथापि हि पूज्यमानानां कार्यान्तरशेषभावे पूजैव कर्तव्यतया विज्ञायते । द्रव्यप्रधाने हि न विधिविषयत्वसंभवः । “तानि द्वैधं गुणप्रधानभूतानि” (प्म्स् २.१.६) इति, “यैस् तु द्रव्यं चिकीर्ष्यते” (प्म्स् २.१.७) इति ।

• न्याय्यं तु स्तुतिशास्त्रादिवत् । यथा न स्तुतिः स्तुत्यर्था एव्म् इयम् अपि पूजा न पूज्यार्था । स्तौतिसंसत्योर् निर्देशो नास्तीति चेत्, अत्रोक्तं द्वितीया, सक्तुषु दर्शनात् । एवं “मृदं गां दैवतं प्रदक्षिणानि कुर्वीत” इति दक्षिणाचारता विधीयते । दक्षिणेन दैवानि कर्माणि कर्तव्यानि । न हि मृदादिवद् देवताया⁸⁴ दक्षिणेन मार्गेण स्थानम् अमूर्तत्वात् युज्यते ।

• एवं “दैवतान्य् अभिगच्छेत्” इति । पादविहारव्यापारेण देवतासमीपप्राप्त्यसंभवाद् गमेश् च ज्ञानार्थत्वाद् अभिगमनं स्मरणात् किं विशिष्यते । देवता अभिगच्छेत्, कर्मकाले मनसा ध्यायेच् चित्तव्याक्षेपताम् आकुलताख्यां परिहरेद् इत्य् अर्थः । तथा चोपलभ्यमानमूलैवेयं स्मृतिर् भवति । यस्यै देवतायै हविर् गृहीतं स्यात् तां मनसा ध्यायेद् इति ।

• ननु चैतद् अप्य् उद्देश्यत्वान्यथानुपपत्तेः प्राप्तम् एव । सव्याक्षेपस्याकुलस्य च संभवाद् अदोषः । एवं देवस्वं देवपशवो देवद्रव्यम् इत्यादयो व्यवहारास् तादर्थ्येनोपकल्पितेषु पश्वादिषु द्रष्टव्याः ।

• दण्डाधिकारे तु प्रतिकृतिविषयम् एव देवताव्यवहारम् इच्छन्ति । अन्यथा व्यवस्थाभङ्गः स्यात् । कल्पितदेवतारूपाणां प्रतिकृतीनां कल्पितेनैव स्वस्वामिभावेन यत् संबन्धि तद् एव “देवब्राह्मणराज्ञां तु द्रव्यं विज्ञेयम् उत्तमम्” (न्स्म् १४.१५) इत्यादिषु देवद्रव्यम् । न हि देवतानां स्वस्वामिभावो ऽस्ति, मुख्यार्थासंभवाद् गौण एवार्थो ग्राह्यः ।

• कः पुनर् अत्र गौणो ऽर्थः । सर्वत्र हि साधारणगुणयोगाद् गौणार्थावगतिः⁸⁵ । अग्निर्⁸⁶ माणवक इत्यादिषु शुक्ले⁸⁷ माणवके तद्गुणदर्शनात् । ते च गुणाः प्रत्यक्षाद्यवसेयाः⁸⁸ । इह तु देवतार्थस्य कार्यावगम्यत्वात् कार्यतः स्वरूपविशेषानवगमात् कुतः प्रतिकृतिषु साधारणगुणावसायः ।

• अत्रोच्यते । मन्त्रार्थवादेषु तथाविधरूपश्रवणात् तेषां च गुणवादेन व्याख्यानम् । तन्मूलम् अपश्यन्तो यथाश्रुतार्थग्राहिणस् ताद्रूप्यम् इन्द्रादिषु प्रतिपाद्यमानाः⁸⁹ प्रतिकृतिषु सादृश्यं पश्यन्तीति⁹⁰ युक्तैव गौणता ।

• यत् तु श्राद्ध एव वैश्वदेवब्राह्मणभोजनं दैवदेवत्यम् आचक्षते, तेषां पित्र्याङ्गत्वात् तस्य पित्र्यग्रहणेन गृहीतत्वाद् अनर्थकं पुनर्वचनम् । सामान्यशब्दत्वाच् च कुतो विशेषावगतिः । साहचर्याद् इति चेत्, ⁹¹ यदि न⁹² पित्र्यशब्देन ग्रहणं भवेत् । गोबलीवर्दन्यायो ऽपि असति विषयभेदे भवति ॥ २.१८९ ॥

This verse provides an exception, under certain conditions, to the rules regarding subsisting on alms.

‘In honour of Gods’;—i.e., when Brāhmaṇas are fed in honour of the gods; and also when they are fed in honour of the fathers;—if he is ‘incited,’ requested—‘he may eat freely’—the food given by one person. But he himself should not ask for it.

This again should be ‘in due accordance with his observances’; i.e., he should avoid honey and meat, which are inconsistent with his observances. The two phrases—‘in due accordance with his observances’ and ‘like an ascetic’—express the same meaning; and it does not mean that in a village he is to eat ‘in accordance with his observances,’ while in the forest he is to eat ‘like an ascetic.’ It is with a view to filling up the metre that the two phrases have been used. [There is another reason why the phrase ‘like an ascetic’ should not he taken separately]—‘Ascetic’ here stands for the hermit, so if the student were permitted to eat ‘like the hermit,’ the eating of meat also would become allowed for him; as the hermit is permitted to eat meat, by such rules as ‘he may eat the flesh of dead animals’ (Gautama, 3.31).

‘In honour of Gods’;—i.e., those rites of which gods are the deities; i.e., the feeding of Brāhmaṇas laid down as to be done at the performance of the Agnihotra, the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and the other sacrifices offered to the gods; as we find in such injunctions as ‘at the Āgrahāyaṇa and other sacrifices one should feed Brāhmaṇas and make them pronounce “svasti.”’ It is in connection with these that we have the present permission for the religious student.

Others explain the term ‘performance in honour of the gods’ to mean that feeding of Brāhmaṇas which is done in honour of the Sun-god on the seventh day of the month, and so forth.

This however is not right. For the act of eating has no connection with the gods,—being, as it is, not instrumental in the accomplishment of any sacrifice. Further, the mere fact of an act being done with reference to a god, does not make the latter the ‘deity’ of that act; if it did, then the Teacher would have to be regarded as the ‘deity’ when one gives a cow to him, and the room will have to be regarded as the ‘deity’ when one sweeps it. Then again, it is with the eater that the act of eating is directly connected; and the Sun-god has no active function in the fulfilment of that act (as the Teacher is in the former case); nor is he the thing aimed at (as the room is in the latter case); as the eating is not for his sake. Further, the accusative ending (in the term denoting food) denotes that it is meant for the eater, not that it is meant for the Sun-god. Nor has it been enjoined anywhere that ‘one should feed Brāhmaṇas for the sake of (with reference to) the Sun-god.’

It might be argued that on the basis of usage we assume the existence of such an injunction.

But this cannot be; because there is always some scriptural basis found for such assumption of injunctions.

“In the present case also we have such basis in the shape of the ‘external’ Smṛtis.”

If there were such a Smṛti-rule, its meaning would be that ‘one should please the gods by feeding Brāhmaṇas.’ And it would not be right to assume such a meaning; as scriptural injunctions are aimed, not at pleasin the Gods, but at accomplishing what is prescribed by the injunctions. Then again, if such were the meaning of the Injunction, its connection with the Sun-god and others intended to be deities could not be based either upon an object, or upon a desired result; nor again could they be the purpose, as in the case of the act of piercing; nor are they desired for their own sake, like cattle and other desirable things, for the simple reason that they are not something to be enjoyed. If it were the satisfaction of the Sun-god that were desired,—that also, will need a proof for its own existence; and there is no such proof available. Such a thing as the ‘satisfaction of the Sun-god’ is not known by Perception or other means of knowledge,—in the way that cattle, etc., are,—whereby it could be desired and connected with the performance of sacrifices.

If the motive of the man be held to be the idea that “the Sun-god is my lord and he will endow me with a fruit desired by me”;—this also cannot be accepted, as there is no proof for this either. There is no Injunction in support of this idea. It is only an Injunction that prompts to activity the person who is related to a certain well-known result, which also serves to single out the man so prompted; but it does not point to the presence of the result. What the Injunction points to is the fact that a certain act known by other means of knowledge as leading to a particular desirable result is related to the performance as his qualifying factor.

If it be held that the offering is a kind of ‘sacrifice,’ and the feeding is a kind of disposal of it,—our answer is that that may be so regarded, if such is the usage of cultured people. But the feeding cannot be shown to have any direct connection with the deity; and as for connection through the intervening agency of the sacrife, that we do not object to. Then again, as a matter of fact, when people undertake the performance of such acts, they have no idea that they are performing a sacrifice; the only idea that they have is that when the Brāhmaṇas have been fed, the particular deity would be satisfied. From all this it is clear that the Deity has no sort of action conducive to the act of feeding, nor is it the qualifying factor of any other thing that has such action. Thus then, the Deity is neither the object of the act, nor has it any connection with it. Nor again is it possible for the Sun-god and the rest to be regarded ns aimed at by the act; for in the act of feeding, it is the person fed that is aimed at; and it is the Brāhmaṇas that are fed. Further, the mere fact of being aimed at does not make one the ‘deity’; for in that case, when one gives a cow to the Teacher, or sweeps the room, the Teacher and the room would have to be regarded as ‘deities.’

“How then is there to be Brāhmaṇa-feeding at a performance in honour of ancestors? There also the fathers could not be the ‘deities’ of the act. The offerings made into the Fire could not be regarded as made in honour of the ancestor; as other deities are found to be mentioned in connection with them. And just as the ‘satisfaction of the Sun-god,’ so the ‘satisfaction of ancestors also, cannot be regarded as the result to be accomplished, by the act; for the very same reason that the connection of such satisfaction with the Injunction is not cognisable by any other means of knowledge.”

To this some people make the following answer:—The ‘satisfaction of Ancestors’ is clearly recognised (as the result to be accomplished). That such beings as the ‘Fathers’ do exist is proved by the fact of souls being imperishable; and it is only through their deeds that they become connected with physical bodies. The feeding of these ‘Ancestors’ is the principal business, of which the reward has been described in the passage—‘feeding them, one obtains ample reward.’ This reward could only consist in the satisfaction of the Ancestors; this ‘satisfaction’ again could only be in the form of happiness, mental contentment; it could not be in the form of physical gratification which follows, in the case of men, from the act of eating. This pleasure may sometimes accrue to the fathers during the different conditions of life in which they happen to be born under the influence of their own past deeds. The verbal root ‘tṛp’ denotes only satisfaction; physical gratification is something different, and can be known only by other means of knowledge.

Against this the following objection might be raised:—“In as much as the Son is the nominative agent in the act of feeding, how could the result, which should accrue to the agent, accrue to the Ancestors,—as people versed in law do not regard actions as bringing rewards to persons other than the actual doers.”

Such an objection cannot be rightly taken. Because in this case the Ancestors themselves are the accredited agents; by the mere act of begetting the child, the father has done all this (that the son does on his behalf); in fact the son is begot for the sole purpose that he will confer on the Father benefits, seen as well as unseen. Tims then, just as in the Sarvasvāra sacrifice—where the performer offers his own life and is thus absent when the subsequent details are performed,—some other persons continue to be regarded as the ‘performer,’ by virtue of his having died after having requested the Brāhmaṇas to finish the sacrifice for him, by means of the words

‘O Brāhmaṇas, please finish the sacrifice for me’;—so would it also be in the case in question. The only difference between the two cases is tbat in the case of the Sarvasvāra, the actual doers are the hired priests doing the act with the totally different motive of earning a living, while in the case in question the doer is the son, who has been prompted by tbat same Injunction. Just as the Father performs the sacraments for his son, being prompted to it by the Injunction of begetting sons, which Injunction extends up to the final admonition addressed to the son (after Upanayana),—similarly the Śrāddha and other rites are performed, for the father by the son. Just as the maintaining of the living father is a necessary duty of the son, as laid down in (11.10A), so is it with the dead father also.

The performance of the act in question is not purely voluntary, like the Vaiśvānara sacrifice, in connection with which we read—‘On the birth of a son, one should offer the Vaiśvānara cake baked on twelve pans;—he upon whose birth this offering is made becomes glorious, an enjoyer of food and endowed with efficient organs.’ Here we find that the Father comes to perform the Yaiśvānara sacrifice when he desires certain results for his son; and it is not compulsory, like the Tonsure and other sacramental rites. As regards the act under consideration, on the other hand, we have the direction that ‘the rite in honour of the Fathers should he performed till one’s death,’ which shows that the rite is to be performed throughout one’s life.

As regards the objection that the result of the act, according to this view, does not accrue to the doer of the act,—this is explained in a different manner: just as in the case of the Vaiśvānara sacrifice, the result, in the shape of having a highly qualified son, accrues to the father, who is the doer of the act,—so in the case in question also, the result, in the shape of the ‘Father’s satisfaction,’ accrues to the son, the doer of the act. So that in both ways—whether the result accrue to the father or to the performer of the rite,—there is no incongruity at all. For as regards the father also, a result like the one in question is one that is desired by him in the very act of begetting the child; so that the father also does not obtain a reward not desired by him.

“If the ancestors are not the ‘deities’ of the Śrāddha-rite, how can it be called ‘paitra’ (in honour of ancestors), which term has been formed by the adding of the affix denoting the deity?’”

What we say in answer to this is that the Fathers are regarded as deities on the ground of their being, like deities, the entities with reference to whom the offerings are made. The ancestors are referred to in some such form as ‘this feeding of Brāhmaṇas is done for the purpose of benefiting you.’ In the offering called the ‘Piṇḍapitṝ-Yajña,’ the ancestors are actually ‘deities but of śrāddhas, the ancestors have not been regarded as ‘deities.’ As for this feeding of Brāhmaṇas, it is on the same footing as the offerings tbat are made into the fire of portions of clarified butter, cake and such other things. And in this way the Brāhmaṇas themselves occupy the position of ancestors. Hence at the time that the food is served to them, one should think of it being offered to his ancestors, with some such expression in his mind—‘this is offered to you, it is no longer mine.’ The Brāhmaṇas thus fed attain the position of the ‘Āhavanīya fire’ (into which libations are poured); the only difference being that into the Āhavanīya the offering is actually thrown, while it is only placed near the Brāhmaṇas, and they take it up themselves.

Nor will it be right to argue that “Śrāddhas cannot be regarded as sacrifice, as in them the syllable ‘svāhā’ is not pronounced with reference to the gods.” Because we find the same in the case of the ‘Sviṣṭakṛt’ offerings (which are regarded as sacrifice). Thus then, the Śrādḍha, even though of the nature of a ‘sacrifice,’ can be offered to Ancestors. Nor is there any incongruity in the Ancestors being the ‘deities’ (of the offering) and also the recipients of the result. We are going to explain more about this matter, which is not directly mentioned in the text, under Chapter III.

From all this it becomes established that the Sun and the other gods arc not ‘deities’ in the feeding of Brāhmaṇas.

“The definition of ‘deity’ as one who is aimed at in a sacrifice is too narrow; because as a matter of fact, we find the name ‘deity’ applied even in cases where there is no connection with any sacrifice; e.g., in such statements as—(a) ‘the worshipping of deities,’ ‘one should approach the deities.’ But neither worship, nor going forward (which is what is expressed by approaching), is possible with regard to deities.”

There is no force in this; as the worship may be taken as enjoined in connection with those cases where the deity is actually enjoined; or, it may refer to the deities as related to the Agnihotra and other sacrifices.

“Even so, the difficulty does not cease. The deity can never be the object of worship; as that would deprive it of the very character of ‘Deity’ (which has been defined as consisting in being aimed at in a sacrifice); for if it were the object of worship, it could not be the recipient of the sacrifice. It h as been declared that ‘the active agent of one act cannot be an active agent of another.’ The ‘active agent’ is a particular kind of force, and this force varies with each particular act; and as the presence of such force can be indicated only by its effects, we can reasonably assume only that much of diversity in it as there may be effects. From this it follows that what is the ‘recipient of a gift’ must remain the recipient, it cannot become the object.—‘How then do we have such expressions as give this to the cooker, where the nominative of the action of cooking becomes the recipient,—or having his body wounded by arrows, he went away helplessly, being looked upon by the glances of his beloved, [where the object of the act of looking becomes the nominative of the act of going ].’—The answer to this has already been explained:—such expressions become justified by the difference between the efficiency and the efficient being regarded as secondary and figurative; as is found to be the case in such expressions as ‘having eaten, he goes.’ Thus then, if the aot in question is meant to be a worship, then its object cannot have the character of the ‘Deity’; while if the Sun and the rest are ‘deities,’ then the act enjoined cannot be regarded as ‘worship.’ Nor can it be held that the Sun being well known as a ‘deity,’ the present injunction lays down its worship. Because the term ‘deity’ is not a common name of the Sun and other gods, in the way in which the term ‘go’ (cow) is of the ‘śabaleya’ and other bovine varieties.”

To the above we make the following reply:—It is quite true that the Sun and others are not, in their own form, ‘deities’; the term ‘deity’ is a relative term; and it is only from an injunction that we can learn that a certain being is the ‘deity’ of an act; the fact being that when a certain offering is enjoined with reference to a being, this latter is the ‘deity’ of that offering. It is for this reason that Agni is not the ‘deity’ of any other offering save that ‘dedicated to Agni.’ [All this is quite true] but no injunction of ‘worship’ is possible without the object to be worshipped; and deities are found to be mentioned as objects of worship. Now if the act of ‘worship’ is not possible when the term ‘deity’ is taken in its primary sense, then the ‘worship’ may be taken as being of the nature of ‘sacrifice.’ But, in the absence of any mention (in the injunction of feeding Brāhmaṇas) of the substance to be offered and the deity to whom it is to be offered, the act in question cannot acquire the character of true ‘sacrifice’; so that the text iu question may be regarded as a descriptive reference for the purpose of prescribing the ‘forenoon’ as the proper time for it; the sense being that ‘all acts in honour of the gods should be done during the forenoon.’

“Why is it said that the deity is not directly mentioned?”

For the simple reason that there is no word directly signifying any deity. The term ‘deity’ that is actually found is the common name of all deities; so that the injunction refers to the worshipping of Agni, Āditya, Rudra, Indra, Viṣṇu, Sarasvatī and so forth; and during the worship there is offering of incense, light, garland, presents and such other things. In the case of Agni; the connection with the act of worship offered is always direct; as regards Āditya (the Sun-god) since he is far off, his worship consists in the placing of sandal-paste, flowers, etc., on a clean spot; and as regards Indra and the other gods, since they are not visible, their worshipping is done by the placing of flower, etc., accompanied by a reference to their names. Though in the act of worship, the beings worshipped form the predominant factor, yet inasmuch as they are subservient to the act to be done, it is the act of worship that comes to be recognised as what should be done. If the substance offered were the predominant factor, then the Deity could never form the subject of the injunction. All this is made clear in Jaimim’s Mīmānsā-Sūtra, 2.1.6 and 7. The view put forward on the other hand is perfectly reasonable, the case being analogous to that of the Hymns and Eulogies. The Hymn is not made for the sake of the hymn itself; so the worship also is not for the sake of the worshipped. If might be argued that Hymns and Eulogies are not mentioned here by name. But the answer to this has already been given. The accusative has the sense of the instrumental, as in the expression ‘juhoti,’ where ‘saktūn’ has been taken as ‘saktubhiḥ.’

Similarly the sentence ‘mṛdam gām daivatam pradakṣiṇāni kurvīta,’—‘one should have the clay, the cow, the deity to his right,’—lays down the use of the right hand; the sense being that all acts done in honour of the gods should be done with the right hand; the passage cannot mean that the deities ensouling the clay, etc., should be actually placed on the right; for the simple reason that the deities have no physical form.

The same holds good regarding the injunction ‘one should move up to the gods.’ Since it is not possible for one to go near the gods by walking on foot, and since the root ‘gam’ (as in ‘abhigāccet’) signifies knowledge, why should ‘abhigamana’ differ from Remembrance? The sense thus is that during the act one should think of the gods; i.e., he should avoid all anxiety or distraction of the mind. In this way this Smrti is found to be one whose basis is actually found in the Vedic Injunction, which says—‘One should think in his mind of that deity to whom he may be offering the libation.’

“But this thinking of the deity is already implied in the aiming (which has been put forward in the definition of the Deity),—which cannot be done without thinking.”

This objection has no force; as mere aiming can be done also by a man who is anxious and whose mind is distracted.

Thus then all suoḥ expressions as ‘the property of the gods,’ ‘the cattle of the gods,’ ‘the substance of the gods’ and the like are to be taken as referring to such cattle and things as hare been assigned to (dedicated to) the gods. Some people have held that in the seotion dealing with penalties to be inflicted upon persons stealing the ‘property of gods,’ it is the image of the god that is meant; as otherwise the regulations bearing upon the subject would become liable to he infringed. As regards the images upon whom the character of ‘gods’ has been imposed, things are called their ‘property’ on the basis of an assumed sense of ownership; and it is such property that is referred to as ‘property of the gods,’ in such passages as—‘the highest penalty is to be inflicted on the stealing of the property of Gods, Brāhmaṇas and Kings.’ In reality, gods can have no rights of ownership; and hence the literal sense of the expression being inadmissible, it is only right that we should accept the figurative one.

“In the present case what is the figurative sense? In every instance of figurative use, the presenoe of a common function (or quality) forms the basis; e.g., the expression ‘the Boy is Fire’ is used when the boy is found to possess the white resplendence of fire. Similarly in every case the figurative or secondary sense is recognised only where there is some common property present;—the presence of suoḥ property being cognised by means of perception and other means of cognition. In the case in question however, since the sense of the deity is recognisable only by the purpose served by it,—and the form of the deity cannot be ascertained through that purpose,—how could there be any recognition of common properties?”

Our answer is as follows:—We find particular forms of deities described in the Mantras and Arthavādas; and all these descriptions are interpreted as figurative. People who do not perceive any basis for such interpretation take the passages in their literal sense and regard Indra and the deities as actually possessing those forms; and the similarity of such forms they actually perceive in the images; and in this sense also it is only natural that the description should he regarded as figurative.

Some people have explained that the feeding of Brāhmaṇas at Śrāddha in honour of the Viśvedevas is what is described here as being ‘in honour of the gods.’ But such feeding, being part of what is done ‘in honour of ancestors,’ becomes included under the latter phrase, and the re-iteration of it would he entirely meaningless. Then again, since we have the generic term ‘gods,’ on what grounds could we restrict it to the Viśvedevas only P If such restriction be based upon the association of the term ‘pitrya’ ‘in honour of ancestors,’—then, since the acts thus spoken of would not he included in ‘those done in honour of ancestors,’—the two words could he justified on the analogy of the expression ‘go-balibarda,’ ‘bovine bull,’ which is used even when there is not much difference between what is denoted by the two terms.—(189)

‘Ṛṣivat’—‘Like an ascetic; i.e. avoiding honey, meat and other forbidden food’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka);—‘eating only a little wild-growing rice and other food fit for the ascetic’ (Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

Medhātithi (p. 163, l. 17)—‘Mṛtasya kartṛtvam’—This refers to Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 10. 2. 55-56. The Sarvasvāra, a modification of the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice, has been prescribed for by one who desires his own death; and in course of this the sacrificer surrounds the Post with a new piece of cloth and having addressed the words—‘O Brāhmaṇas, please complete this sacrifce of mine,’—enters the fire. In connection with this it is argued that the performer of the sacrifice having perished, there can be no point in proceeding with it. But the final conclusion is that the sacrifice must be proceeded with to its very end, as the sacrifice as well as its completion is directly enjoined by the Śruti text,—the latter by the words laid down as to be addressed to the Brāhmaṇas.

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 498);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 424);—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 291), which explains the construction as ‘ubhyarthitaḥ kāmamaśnīyāt, abhyarthitaḥ meaning ‘requested,’ ‘invited’.

Buhler in his translation has omitted the sentence vratamasya na lupyate,

**(verses 2.188-189)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.188].

189 At his pleasure he may eat, when invited, the food of one man at (a rite) in honour of the gods, observing (however the conditions on his vow, or at a (funeral meal) in honor of the manes, behaving (however) like a hermit.

This duty has been prescribed by the sages for the Brāhmaṇa only; this duty has not been so ordained for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya.—(190)

यद् एतद् एकान्नभोजनकर्मादिष्टम् एतद् ब्राह्मणस्यैव मनीषिभिर् विद्वद्भिर् वेदाद् उपलभ्य्ओपदिष्टं क्षत्रियवैश्ययोस् तु नैतद् इच्छन्ति । न कदाचित् तयोर् अभैक्ष्यभोजनम् ।

• ननु च श्राद्धभोजने ब्राह्मणानाम् एवाधिकारः । “ये तत्र भोजनीयाः स्युर् ये च वर्ज्या द्विजोत्तमाः । अर्हत्तमाय विप्राय” (म्ध् ३.१२४ [११४]) इति वचनाद् ब्राह्मणस्यैव प्रतिग्रहाधिकारः⁹³ । तत्र कुतो ऽयं प्रतिषेधो राजन्यवैश्ययोर् इति । प्रतिप्रसवश् चायं नापूर्वविधिः । प्राप्तिसव्यपेक्षाश् च प्रतिषेधा भवन्ति ।

• उच्यते । भुक्तवतां ब्राह्मणानाम् एव शिष्टस्यान्नस्य प्रतिपत्तिर् आम्नाता- “ज्ञातिप्रायं प्रकल्पयेत्” (म्ध् ३.२६४ [२५४]) इति । न च तत्र जात्यपेक्षा, यस्य ज्ञातिः स तेन भोजयितव्यः । न च तत्र क्षत्रियादयः प्रतिग्रहीतृतया संबध्यन्ते, अपि तु ज्ञातयः । अतो ऽस्याः प्राप्तेः प्रतिषेधः ॥ २.१९० ॥

The duty—tbat one should eat the food given by one person only under certain circumstances—that has just been prescribed, is meant for the Brāhmaṇa only;—it has been so ordained ‘by the sages’—by the learned, after having learnt it from the Veda. They do not intend this to apply to the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya; which means that students belonging to these two castes should not eat any food except what they get as alms.

Objection.—“As a matter of fact, it is only the Brāhmaṇa that is entitled to eat at Śrāddhas; as is clear from such declarations as—‘Which Brahmaṇas are to be fed at Śrāddhaa, and which to be avoided?’—‘To the most deserving Brāhamaṇa etc.’ and so forth; from which it is clear that the Brāhmaṇa alone is entitled to receive gifts. Further, what we have here is a counter-exception, not an original Injunction; and all denials are dependent upon possibility [and in the present case there is, as just pointed out, no possibility of the feeding pertaining to any non-Brāhmaṇa].”

To the above we make the following reply:—It has been ordained that after the Brāhmaṇas have eaten, the remnant should be disposed of by being made over to ‘relations’; and in this there is no restriction as to caste; the man thus would feed any one who may happen to be his ‘relation’; and in this the recipients are indicated, not by the caste-names ‘Kṣatriya’ etc., but simply by the general name ‘relation.’ It is in view of this possibility of non-Brāhmaṇas partaking of the food at Śrāddhas that we have the prohibition in the Text.—(190)

Medhātithi (P. 166, 1. 20)—‘Na tatra jātyapekṣā’—A better instance than the one cited by Medhātithi is found in Manu 3. 234—‘Vṛatasṭhamapi dauhitram śrāddhe yatnena bhojayet,’ by which ‘feeding at Śrāddha’ is applicable to the Kṣatriya Brahmacārī also.

190 This duty is prescribed by the wise for a Brahmana only; but no such duty is ordained for a Kshatriya and a Vaisya.

Prompted by the Teacher, or even when not prompted, he should put forth his exertion to study, and also to doing what is helpful to the teacher.—(191)

नोदितो⁹⁴ गुरुणानियुक्तो ऽपि कुर्याद् अध्ययने योगं यत्नम् । ननु चाहूतो ऽधीयीत इत्य् उक्तम् । कथम् अप्रणोदितस्य योग उच्यते । गृहीतवेदैकदेशस्य परिशेषकगुणार्थम् एतद् उच्यते । न तत्राचार्यनियोगो ऽपेक्षितव्यः । एवम् आचार्याय हितं यद् उदकुम्भाहरणादि श्रान्तसंवाहनादि तद् अप्य् अनियुक्तेन कर्तव्यम् ॥ २.१९१ ॥

‘Prompted’—ordered—‘by the teacher, he put forth his exertion’—make an effort—‘to study.’

“It has been already laid down that ‘one should rend when wanted by the Teacher.’ How then can there he any exertion put forth by one who is not prompted?”

What is here said refers to the student who has learnt a part of the Veda, and is going to learn the remainder; for this latter the ‘instruction of the teacher’ is not necessary.

Similarly he should do, without being told to do so, such helpful acts for the teacher as fetching jars of water, massaging his body whenever he happens to be fatigued, and so forth.—(191)

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 521);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 100);—in Aparārka (p. 64);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 47a).

Gautama (2.36, 37).—‘Reading, when called upon to do so;—addicted to what is agreeable and beneficial to the Teacher.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.4.24, 26).—‘Engaged in work for the Teacher:—Reading when called upon to do so.’

Viṣṇu (28.6, 7).—‘Reading on being called upon;—doing what is agreeable and beneficial to the Teacher.’

Yājñavalkya (1-27).—‘On being called upon, he should read; whatever he obtains as alms, he should present to the teacher; he should always do, with mind, body and aot, what is good for the teacher.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3.1.15).—‘He should be entirely under the teacher.’

191 Both when ordered by his teacher, and without a (special) command, (a student) shall always exert himself in studying (the Veda), and in doing what is serviceable to his teacher.

Having under control his body and his speech, as also his organs of sensation and his hind, he should stand with joined palms, looking at the face of his Teacher.—(192)

कुतश्चिद् आगतो गुरोर् मुखं वीक्षमाणस् तिष्ठेन् नोपविशेत् । नियम्य च शरीरं । पादहस्तचालनहसितानि न कुर्यात्, न किंचिद् वदेत्, अनुपयोगि । बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि नियच्छेत् । यद् आश्चर्यरूपं किंचिद् गुरुसकाशे न तत् पुनः पुनर् भावयेत् । श्रोत्रादीन्य् अपि । चक्षुर्नियमस् तु गुरुवक्त्रप्रेक्षणाद् एव सिद्धः । मनश् च नियच्छेच् छास्त्रीयान् विकल्पान् गृहकुशूलाद्यारम्भान् मनसा वर्जयेत् । उक्तस् तु “संयमे यत्नम्” (म्ध् २.८८) इति सक्तिप्रतिषेधार्थः⁹⁵ स प्रतिषेधः । गुरुसंनिधौ स्वल्पो ऽपीन्द्रियाणाम् अप्रतिषिद्धे ऽपि विषये प्रसरो न देयः । प्राञ्जलिर् ऊर्ध्वकृतकरकपोतः ॥ २.१९२ ॥

On coming from some other place, ‘he should stand looking at the face of his Teacher,’—he should not sit;—‘having under control, his body’;—i.e., he should not do such acts as the throwing about of hands and feet, laughing and so forth; nor should he speak anything needlessly.

He should control his ‘organs of sensation,’—i.e, if he finds anything wonderful near the Teacher, he should not think of it again and again. He should control the Auditory and other organs also; the control of the visual organ is secured by looking at the Teacher’s face.

He should control the mind also; i.e., he should avoid the thought of difficulties pertaining to soriptural matters, or of the building of houses, granaries and the like.

The prohibition contained under 288 with regard to ‘making an effort to control, etc.,’—is meant to prohibit attachment.

The meaning of all this is that when he is near his Teacher, he should not permit the slightest movement of his organs, even towards such things as are not prohibited.

‘With joined palm’—i.e., with the hands joined together in the shape of a pigeon, turned upwards.—(192)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 106) and in Aparārka (p. 55),

Gautama (1-52, 53).—‘Catching hold of the left hand, leaving the thumb free, he should request the teacher with the words, Teach, Sir;—fixing his eyes and mind thereon.’

192 Controlling his body, his speech, his organs (of sense), and his mind, let him stand with joined hands, looking at the face of his teacher.

He should always have his arm raised, remain well behaved, and well-guarded; when addressed with the words “be seated,” he should sit facing his teacher.—(193)

न केवलं सूत्रकात् पानिर् उद्धर्तव्यः, अपि तु वाससो ऽपि । नित्यग्रहणं न तिष्ठत एवायं पाण्युद्धारः, नाप्य् अध्ययनवेलायां, किं तर्हि ततो ऽन्यत्रापि । साध्वाचारः साधुः अनिन्द्यः⁹⁶ आचारो वाग्व्यवहारादिः कार्यः । अश्लीलादिभाषणम् असंनिधाने ऽपि गुरोर् नित्यग्रहणान् न कर्तव्यम् । सुसंवृतः वाङ्मनश्चक्षुर्भिः नियतात्मा । स्वल्पो ऽपि दोषस् तं परिहरेत् । अनावृतो लोक उच्यते यो यथाकामी, तद्विपरीतः सुसंवृतः ।

• अन्ये तु मन्यन्ते वस्त्रेणाच्छादितशरीरो गुरुसंनिधौ भवेत् नोत्तरीयम् अवतारयेत् ।

एवं तिष्ठेत् । यदा तु गुरुण्**आस्यताम् इत्य् उक्त **एतेन शब्देन भ्रूविक्षेपादिना वा विधेः प्रतिपादनार्थत्वात्, प्रतिपादनं च न शब्दव्यापार एव । तदा आसीत उपविशेत् । अभिमुखं संमुखम्[^५०९] ॥ २.१९३ ॥

The arm should be raised, not only above the saered thread, but also out of the upper garment.

The adverb ‘always’ is meant to imply that the arm is to be raised not only while he is standing, nor only while he is reading, but on other occasions also.

‘Well-behaved’;—he should have his behaviour—speech and other acts—good, above reproach. The word ‘implies that even when not near the Teacher, he should not utter indecorous words, or do any such wrongful act.

‘Well-guarded’;—i.e., fully self-controlled, regarding speech, mind and eyes,—he should avoid even the slightest defects. The man who follows the bent of his desires (and does not restrain them) is called among people ‘unguarded’; and the opposite of this is ‘well-guarded.’

Others explain this to mean that ‘near his Teacher one should keep his body covered, and he should not take off his upper garment.’

In the manner thus described, ‘he should stand’ (as laid down in the preceding verse); but when the Teacher says to him ‘be seated’—either in so many words, or by the gesture of his brows, etc.; the function of the injunction being to convey the direction, and this conveying need not be done only by means of words,—‘he should sit.’

‘Facing his Teacher’—with his face towards the Teacher.—(198)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 100);—in Aparārka (p. 56);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 47a).

Gautama (1.60).—‘Being permitted, the pupil should sit to the teacher’s right, facing either the east or the north.’

193 Let him always keep his right arm uncovered, behave decently and keep his body well covered, and when he is addressed (with the words), ‘Be seated,’ he shall sit down, facing his teacher.

In the peesenge of his Teacher, he should always have inferior food, dress and apparel; he should rise before him, and go to sleep later.—(194)

हीनं न्यूनम् अन्नं भुञ्जीत गुरुसंनिधौ । न्यूनता च परिमाणतः क्वचित् क्वचित् संस्कारतः । यदि संस्कृतम् आज्यदधिक्षीरादिव्यञ्जनं⁹⁷ भिक्षातो लब्धं स्यात्, तदा यदि गुरुणा तादृशम् अन्नं न भुक्तं स्याद् एककाले च गुरुणा सह भोजने । यदि गुरोस् तादृशम् अन्नं गृहे न सिद्धं स्यात्, तदा तत् तेन नाशितव्यम् । अथ गुरोर् अपि तादृशम् अन्नं स्यात् तदापचयः कर्तव्यः । वस्त्रं यदि गुरोर् और्णं स्यात्, तदा न कार्पासादि शिष्येण प्रावरीतव्यम् । वेष आभरणमण्डनादिः । सो ऽपि हीनः । सर्वदा ब्रह्मचर्यात् परेणापि⁹⁸ । अत एव वेषग्रहणम् । न च ब्रह्मचारिणो मण्डनम् इष्यते । उत्तिष्ठेत्⁹⁹ प्रथमं चास्य शय्याया रात्र्युपरमे, आसनाद् वा उत्थानावसरं बुद्ध्वा, प्रथमं पूर्वं गुरोर् उत्थिष्ठेत् । चरमं पश्चात् स्वापकाले सुप्ते गुरौ संविशेच् छय्यां समाश्रयेद् आसने चोपविशेत् ॥ २.१९४ ॥

‘In the presence of his Teacher’—he should eat—‘inferior’—i.e., less—‘food.’This ‘inferiority’ of the food may be sometimes in quantity, and sometimes in quality; that is to say, if he happen to obtain as alms such food as is richly cooked and mixed with butter, milk and vegetables, then he should not eat it,—if his Teacher has already eaten food of not the same quality, or when he is eating with his Teacher, or if equally rich food has not been prepared in the Teacher’s house. If similar food has been got ready for the Teacher, then he should reduce the food he himself eats.

As regards dress, if the Teacher’s happens to be woolen, the pupil should wear cotton.

‘Apparel’—ornaments, toilette, etc. This also should be inferior.

‘Always’—i.e., even after the period of studentship. It is in view of this that ‘apparel’ has been added; for the Religious Student there could be no adornment, etc.

‘He should rise before him’—i.e., from the bed, at the end of night; or from the seat, after he has understood that it is time for the Teacher to rise; he should rise before his Teacher.

‘He should go to sleep’—retire to bed, or take his seat—‘later’—i.e., after the Teacher has gone to sleep.—(194)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 101), where it is explained that the ‘inferiority’ of the food, dress and apparel, is meant to be in comparison to the Teacher’s in Aparārka (p. 56);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 47b).

Gautama (2.28).—‘Sleeping and sitting on the ground, rising before and sleeping after the teacher.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.22).—‘Rising before and sleeping after.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.2.28).—‘Having got rid of all pride.’

Do. Do. (1.4.22).—‘Should avoid sleep.’

Do. Do. (1.4.28).—‘One who sleeps after and rises before the teacher is described as not sleeping.’ Viṣṇu (2.8.13).—‘Rising before the teacher, he should sleep after him.’

194 In the presence of his teacher let him always eat less, wear a less valuable dress and ornaments (than the former), and let him rise earlier (from his bed), and go to rest later.

He should not listen to and converse with (his Teacher), while lying down; nor while seated, nor while eating, nor while standing, nor with his face turned away.—(196)

प्रतिश्रवणम् आहूयमानस्य कार्ये नियुज्यमानस्य गुरुसंबन्धिवचनाकर्णनम् । संभाषा गुरुणा सहोक्तिप्रत्युक्तिकरणम् । ते प्रतिशवणसंभाशे । शयानः स्वे स्रस्तरे निक्षिप्तगात्रः । न समाचरेन् न कुर्यात् । नासीन आसने चोपविष्टः । न भुञ्जानः । न तिष्ठन्न् एकस्मिन्न् एव देशे ऽविचलन्न् ऊर्ध्वं स्थितः । न पुनः पराङ्मुखः । यस्यां दिशि¹⁰⁰ गुरुर् दृश्यते ततः परावृत्य स्थितो¹⁰¹ न कुर्यात् ॥ २.१९५ ॥

‘Listen to’—i.e., listening to the words of the Teacher, when the latter calls him and directs him to do some work.

‘Converse with’—i.e., holding conversation with the teacher.

‘Listening’ and ‘conversing’ form the copulative compound ‘pratiśravaṇasambhāṣe.’

‘While lying down’;—i.e., with his body reclining upon his owa bed.

‘Na samācaret’—should not do.

‘Not while seated’—upon a seat.

‘Nor while eating, nor while stand,’—i.e., standing up right in one place, without moving.

‘Nor with face turned away’—i.e., with face averted from the direction in which the Teacher may be looking.—(195)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 106);—and in Aparārka (p. 56), which explains ‘pratiśravaṇc’ as ‘aṅgīkāra’ ‘acceptance’.

Gautama (2.31).—‘The answering of the teacher should be done while one is not lying down, or sitting or standing.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.6.5, 7).—‘Near the teacher, he should not address the teacher lying down; nor without rising while the teacher is standing.’

Viṣṇu (28.18).—‘He should not address the teacher, while standing, or seated or lying down, or eating, or with face turned away.’

195 Let him not answer or converse with (his teacher), reclining on a bed, nor sitting, nor eating, nor standing, nor with an averted face.

He should do (these) standing, when the teacher is seated; advancing towards him, when he is standing; going forward to him, when he advances; and running after him, when he runs;—(196)

कथं तर्हि । आसीनो यदाज्ञां ददाति तदा स्थित आसनाद् उत्थाय प्रतिश्रवणसंभाषे कुर्यात् । अभिगच्छंस् तु तिष्ठतः । तिष्ठन् गुरुर् यदादिशति तदाभिगच्छंस् तदभिमुखः कतिचित् पदानि गत्वा । आव्रजत आगच्छतः **प्रत्युद्गम्य, **अभिमुखम् एव गत्वा । प्रतिर् आभिमुख्ये । धावतो वेगेन गच्छतः पश्चाद् धावन् । पश्चाद् वा वसतस् तथा¹⁰² ॥ २.१९६ ॥

[The question arising ]—“How then is he to listen to and converse with the Teacher?”—the Text answers:—When the Teacher gives his directions seated, then the pupil should rise from his seat, and do the ‘listening and conversing’ while standing.

‘Advancing towards him, when he is standing’;—when the Teacher gives his orders standing, the pupil should advance towards him a few steps.

‘Going forward to him, when he advances’;—i.e., going up to the teacher. The prefix ‘prati’ has the sense of being face to face.

‘When he runs’—moves with force; he should run behind him.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 106), where ‘abhigacchan’ is explained as ‘Sammukham gacchan’ ‘going forward towards him’,—and ‘pratyudgamanam’ as paścādgamanam, ‘following behind’;—and in Aparārka (p. 56).

Viṣṇu (28.19)—(reproduces Manu).

Gautama (2-34).—‘While the teacher is walking, he should follow him.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.6.G.9).—‘When addressed, he should not answer seated; while the teacher is standing, he should not answer him without standing up; he should walk behind him while he is walking; when he is running, he should run behind him.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2-5-30).—‘If the teacher is lying down, he should be seated^; if he is seated, he should stand; if he is standing, he should be moving; if he is moving, he should be running.’

196 Let him do (that), standing up, if (his teacher) is seated, advancing towards him when he stands, going to meet him if he advances, and running after him when he runs;

Facing him, when the teacher has his pace averted; going near him, when the teacher is at a distance; bowing low, when the teacher is lying down, as also if he is standing close by.—(197)

तथा पराङ्मुखस्य गुरोः संमुखोपविष्टः शिष्यः । यदि गुरुः परावृत्य कथंचित् स्थितः प्रेष्यति, तां दिशं गत्वाभिमुखीभूय पूर्वोक्तं कर्तव्यम् । दूरस्थस्य समीपं अन्तिकम् एत्य आगत्य प्राप्य । आसीनस्यापि शयानस्य प्रणम्य प्रह्वो भूत्वा गात्राण्य् अवनमय्य । निदेशे निकटे तिष्ठतो ऽपि प्रणम्यैव यत् प्राग् उक्तम् अभिगच्छन्न् इति ॥ २.१९७ ॥

‘When the teacher has his face averted,’—the pupil should sit facing him; that is, if the Teacher happen to have his face turned the other way when he gives his directions, the pupil should go over to the side facing the teacher and then do the aforesaid (listening and conversing).

‘When the teacher is at a distance,’—the pupil should go near him, approach him.

When the teacher is seated, as also when he is lying down, the pupil should bow down— humbly bend his body low.

‘Nideśe’ means ‘close by’; when he is sitting close by, then the aforesaid acts should be done after bowing low.—(197)

‘Nideśe tiṣṭhataḥ’.—‘Standing close by’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, and Rāghavānanda);—‘standing in a lower place’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 106), where the following explanation is added:—We have the form ‘osyetya’ (which is the reading adopted by the writer) and ṇot ‘syaitya’ because of the Sūtra ‘mānaśca’;—‘praṇamya’ is to be construed with ‘nirdeśe (the reading adopted by the writer) tiṣṭhataḥ’;—‘nirdeśe’ meaning in a lower place, or, according to others in a place close by;—and in Aparārka (p. 56).

Viṣṇu (28.20, 21, 23).—‘Facing the teacher when he has his face turned away;—if he is far away, he should approach near him;—if he is lying down, he should be saluted.’

197 Going (round) to face (the teacher), if his face is averted, approaching him if he stands at a distance, but bending towards him if he lies on a bed, and if he stands in a lower place.

When near his Teacher, his bed or seat should always be low; and within sight op his Teacher, he should not sit at ease.—(198)

नीचम् अनुन्नतं गुरुशय्याद्यपेक्षया च नीचत्वम् । नित्यग्रहणाद् ब्रह्मचर्याद् उत्तरकालम् अपि । गुरोश् च दृष्टिगोचरे, यत्र¹⁰³ गुरुः पश्यति तत्र न यथेष्टम् आसीत, पादप्रसारणाङ्गनिषङ्गादिना । आसनग्रहणं चेष्टामात्रोपलक्षणार्थम् । यथेष्टचेष्टो न भवेत् ॥ २.१९८ ॥

‘Low’—not high; i.e., low in comparison with theTeacher’s.

‘Always’—i.e., also after the period of studentship.

‘Within sight of his Teacher’—i.e., where the Teacher sees—‘he should, not sit at ease’; i.e., he should not spread his legs or throw about his limbs, and so foch. ‘Sit’ stands for action in general; the sense being that he should not do whatever he likes.—(198)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 491), where it is added that this does not apply to carts and other such conveyances in Madanapārijāta (p. 106);—in Aparārka (p. 56);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 40 ), which explains the last clause to mean that ‘he should not spread out his legs and so forth’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 120), which says that this refers to cases other than riding on a bullock and so forth, where sitting together cannot be avoided.

Gautama (2.20, 21, 27).—‘In the presence of the teacher, the pupil should avoid sitting with the knees tied to the neck, spreading of the legs, spitting, laughing, yawning, cracking of fingers; he should sleep on a lower level, always rising before and sleeping after the teacher.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 2. 21),—‘He should sit and sleep on the ground.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 3. 15).—‘In the teacher’s presence, he should not be unrestrained in his acts.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 6. 13).—‘He should worship the teacher as a god, always attentive to him, never talking ill of him, never showing him any disrespect.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1. 8. 8-10).—‘He should not sit on a higher seat;—nor on one with several legs;—nor on that which is the most honourable.’

Viṣṇu (28. 23).—‘Within range of the teacher’s vision, he should not sit as he likes.’

Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra,p. 491).—‘He should not sit on the same seat with the teacher, except on a stone-slab, or on a boat, or on a conveyance.’

198 When his teacher is nigh, let his bed or seat be low; but within sight of his teacher he shall not sit carelessly at ease.

Even behind the Teacher’s back, he should not pronounce his mere name; nor should he mimic his gait, speech or deportment.—(199)

नोदाहरेन् नोच्चारयेद् अस्य गुरोर् नाम केवलं उपाध्यायाचार्यभट्टाद्युपपदरहितं परोक्षम् अपि । न चैवास्यानुकुर्वीत सदृशं न कुर्यान् नाट्यकार इव । गतिः- एवम् अस्मद्गुरुर् अपक्रामति । भाषितम्- द्रुतविलम्बितमध्यमत्वादि । चेष्टितम्- एवं भुङ्क्ते एवम् उष्णीषं बध्नाति एवं परिवर्तत इत्यादि । उपहासबुद्ध्यायम् अनुकरणप्रतिषेधः ॥ २.१९९ ॥

‘He should not pronounce’—should not utter—‘the teacher’s name.’

‘Mere’—i.e., bereft of such honorific titles as ‘Upādhyāya,’ ‘Ācārya,’ ‘Bhaṭṭa’ and the like;—‘even behind his back.’

‘Nor should he mimic’—should not imitate him, like an actor;—‘gait’—(saying) ‘thus does my teacher walk’;—‘speech’—i,e., swiftly, slowly, at a medium pace and so forth;—‘deportment’—‘thus he eats,’ ‘thus he hinds his turban,’ ‘thus he roams about,’ and so forth.

What is prohibited here is imitating the teacher in a joking spirit.—(199)

‘Kevalam’—Such titles are always to be added as ‘Upādhyāya’ or ‘Bhaṭṭa’ or ‘Ācārya’ (Medhātithi),—‘ācārya’ (Kullūka),—‘caraṇa’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 492) in support of the view that whenever the teacher’s name has got to he pronounced, it should he accompanied with such honorific titles as ‘upādhyāya’ and the like;—also in Madanapārijāta (p. 1 06);—in Aparārka (p. 56);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 42), which says that the name should not be uttered by itself (kevalam), it should always he accompanied by some such title as ‘upādhyāya’ and the like;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 121).

Gautama (2. 24).—‘One should avoid uttering the name of the teacher, of the teacher’s son and of one initiated for a sacrifice.’

Gautama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 492).—‘The teacher’s name and gotra should be uttered with respect.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 8. 15).—‘Poking with the finger, whispering at the ear, laughing, addressing loudly, uttering the name, and directing—these should be avoided, in regard to the teacher.’

Viṣṇu (28. 24. 25).—‘He should not pronounce his mere name;—nor should he mimic his gait, speech or deportment.’

Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Samskâra, p. 492).—^(e) One should not address by name—the Ācārya, the teacher’s son, one initiated at a sacrifice, the guru, father’s sister, mother, maternal uncle, one’s well-wisher, a learned man, father-in-law, husband, and the mother’s sister.’

199 Let him not pronounce the mere name of his teacher (without adding an honorific title) behind his back even, and let him not mimic his gait, speech, and deportment.

Where the censuring or defaming of his Teacher is going on, there he should either close his ears, or go away thence to another place.—(200)

यत्र देशे दुर्जनसंपाते गुरोः परीवादः संभूतदोषानुकथनं निन्दा अविद्यमानानां दोषाणाम् अभिधानं प्रवर्तते तत्र कर्णौ पिधातव्याव् अङ्गुल्यादिना संवरीतव्यौ । ततः प्रेदेशाद् वान्यत्र गन्तव्यम् ॥ २.२०० ॥

‘Where’—in whatever place, in the assembly of wicked people,—his teacher’s censuring—setting forth of wrongs really committed by him,—or defaming—attributing to him of evils not present in him—‘is going on,’—‘there’ ‘he should close his ears’—cover them up with his finger, etc.

‘Thence’—from that place,—‘he should go away to another place.’—(200)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 491), where the distinction is made between ‘parīvāda’ which is the proclaiming of wrongs really committed, and ‘nindā’ the setting forth of wrongs not committed.

It is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 107);—in Aparārka (p. 56);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 120), which says that the ‘parīvāda’ is the mentioning of such defects as are really present, and ‘nindā’ the mentioning of such as are not present;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 41), which notes the same distinction;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 45b);—and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 33).

**(verses 200-201)
**

Viṣṇu (28. 23).—‘One should not stay at a place where the teacher is being defamed or censured.’

Viṣṇu (32. 8-11).—‘He should not address the teacher as thou;—in the event of his insulting the teacher, he should fast for the day, and take food in the evening, only after having propitiated the teacher;—one should not talk to the teacher disputatiously;—should not utter anything defamatory regarding the teacher;—nor anything not agreeable to him.’

Viṣṇu (45. 18).—‘One who is inimical to his teacher suffers from epilepsy.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2. 17).—‘Those persons who, on being taught, respect not their Teacher, by speech, mind and deed,—are as useless to them, as they are to the Teacher.’

200 Wherever (people) justly censure or falsely defame his teacher, there he must cover his ears or depart thence to another place.

Through censure one becomes an ass, and the defamer becomes a dog; he who lives on him becomes a worm, and he who is jealous becomes an insect.—(201)

anumantā viśasitā nihantā krayavikrayī | saṃskartā copahartā ca khādakaśceti ghātakāḥ ||

पूर्वप्रतिषेधशेषो¹⁰⁴ ऽयम् अर्थवादः । अत एवं व्याख्येयम् । परीवादाञ् छ्रुत्वा खरो भवति । हेतौ ल्यप्लोपे वा कर्मणि पञ्चमी- परीवादं श्रुत्वा । निन्दको निन्दाश्रावी, उपचारान् निन्दक उच्यते । तथा संस्कर्तावघातकः । श्रवणनिषेधाद् एव साक्षात् करणनिषेधसिद्धिः । परिभोक्ता यो गुरुम् उपजीवति कुसृत्यानुवर्तते । मत्सरी गुरुसमृद्धिम् अभ्युच्चयं न सहते ऽन्तर् दह्यते । अनयोर् अप्राप्तत्वाद् अपूर्वो विधिः । परिवादपरीवादयोर् “घञ्य् अमनुष्ये¹⁰⁵ बहुलम्” (पाण् ६.३.१२२) इति दीर्घत्वादीर्घत्वे ॥ २.२०१ ॥

This is a statement commendatory of what has been enjoined in the foregoing verses. Hence it has to be explained as follows:—

‘Through cenmre’;—i.e., by listening to the censuring of his Teacher—‘one becomes an ass’; the ablative being taken either as denoting cause, or as having the force of the participle; parīvādāt being construed as ‘parīvādam śrutvā,’ ‘having listened to censuring.’

‘Defamer,’—the person listening to defamation is figuratively called ‘defamer just as one preparing meat has been called the ‘Killer’ of the animal. As for the act of defaming itself, the prohibition of this becomes naturally implied by the prohibition of hearing it.

‘One who lives upon’;—he who supports himself on what he receives from his Teacher; or one who behaves ill-mannerly towards him.

‘One who is jealous’;—who does not brook the rise and advancement of his Teacher and burns within (at its sight).

The two latter have not been spoken of before this; hence what is said in regard to these is to be regarded as direct injunction.

‘Parīvāda’ and ‘parivāda,’ both forms—with long as well as with the short ī—are correct, according to Pāṇini, 6.3.122.—(201)

‘Paribhoktā’—‘He who lives upon the Teacher’ (Medhātithi);—‘he who eats, without the Teacher’s permission, the best food obtained by begging’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

The verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 107) where ‘paribhoktā’ is explained as ‘one who makes use of the Teacher’s wealth, without his permission’;—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 491), which also explains ‘paribhoktā’ as ‘one who lives upon the Teacher’s property, without his permission.’

Medhātithi (P. 169,1. 16)—‘Samskartā…ghātakaḥ’—This is a clear reference to Manu 5.51—

anumantā viśasitā nihantā krayavikrayī |
saṃskartā copahartā ca khādakaśceti ghātakāḥ ||

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 42), which explains ‘paribhoktā’ as one who eats food without presenting it to the Teacher;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 120) as forbidding the decrying of the Teacher by the Pupil himself; it explains ‘paribhoktā’ as ‘one who makes use of the Teacher’s property without his permission.’

**(verses 200-201)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.200].

201 By censuring (his teacher), though justly, he will become (in his next birth) an ass, by falsely defaming him, a dog; he who lives on his teacher’s substance, will become a worm, and he who is envious (of his merit), a (larger) insect.

He should not offer his worship to the teacher while at a distance from him; nor when angry, nor near a woman. If seated upon a conveyance or a seat, he should come down and then salute him.—(202)

अत्र परप्रेषणेन गन्धमाल्यादेर् अर्पणं प्रतिषिध्यते । स्वयंकृते परेण च कारिते तुल्यं कर्तृत्वम् । प्रयोजके ऽपि कर्तृत्वस्मरणाद् इत्य् एतया बुद्ध्या प्राप्ते परमुखेनार्चने प्रतिषेधः । अशक्तौ ग्रामान्तरस्थस्य न दोषः, ग्रामान्तरं गच्छत्य् उपाध्याये भवान् अभिवादयतां स गत्वा तम्¹⁰⁶ अभिवादयत इत्यादिव्यवहारदर्शनात् । न क्रुद्धः । गुरौ क्रोधासंभवाद् अन्यनिमित्ते ऽपि क्रोधे पूजाकाले तत्त्यागेन चित्तप्रसादो¹⁰⁷ ऽभिधीयते । क्रुद्धम् इत्य् अन्ये पठन्ति । नान्तिके समीपे स्त्रियाः कामिन्याः स्थितम् । गुर्वाराधनपरत्वाच् छुश्रूषाकलापस्य येन चित्तखेद आशङ्क्यते स निषिध्यते । अतः स्त्रिया इत्य् एवं व्याख्यातम् । यानं गन्त्र्यादि । आसनं पीठिकामञ्चादि । ततो ऽवरुह्य अवतीर्य अभिवादयेत् ।

• “शय्यासनस्थः” (म्ध् २.११९) इत्य् अत्रासनाद् उत्थानम् उक्तम्, अनेनावरोहणं विधीयते । मञ्चाद् वासनाद् उत्थानम् अनवरोहतो ऽपि संभवति । अवरोहणं तर्हि अनुत्थितस्य च न संभवति । अतो ऽनेनैव सिद्धे शय्यासनेत्य् अत्रासनग्रहणम् अनर्थकम् ।

• नानर्थकम् । यदि शिष्यः पराङ्मुखः प्रत्यग्देशाद् आगतं गुरुं मन्येत तदासनस्थ एव संभ्रमपरावृत्तस् तदभिमुखीभूत उत्तिष्ठेन् न तूत्थायाभिपरावर्तेत । तथा ह्य् उत्थानक्रियया संमुखीभवनं व्यवधीयेत । ततः कुप्येद् गुरुः । पराङ्मुखस्योत्तिष्ठतो गुरुर् एवम् अपि मन्येत- “नायं ममाभ्युत्थितो निमित्तान्तरकृतम् एवास्याभ्युत्थानम्” । तस्माद् अर्थवद् उभयत्राप्य् आसनग्रहणम् ॥ २.२०२ ॥

What is prohibited here is the act of sending sandal-paint, garlands and other articles of worship through a messenger. It being found possible that one might be prompted to offer such worship by the consideration that ‘whether one does an act himself or gets it done by another, he is equally the doer in both cases, since the prompter also has been regarded as the agent,’—the present verse prohibits such offering of worship through other persons. There is no harm in doing this, either when one is himself incapacitated, or when h e happens to be in a different village; for we find people adopting such usage as—when the Teacher has gone to another village, the pupil tells some one who happens to be going to the same village ‘please offer my salutations to my Teacher,’ and this other person goes and salutes him.

‘Nor when angry’;—it being impossible for any one to be angry with his Teacher, the meaning is that if one happens to be angry with some one, he should, at the time of offering hi s obeisance, give up the anger and keep his mind calm. Some people read ‘kruddham,’ (making ‘angry’ qualify the Teacher).

‘Nor near’—in proximity to—‘a woman’—his loving wife; i.e., not while the Teacher is seated near her. The entire process of service of the Teacher being meant for winning his favour, anything likely to displease him has been prohibited. It is in view of this that the term ‘woman’ has been explained as above.

‘Conveyance’—such as the cart and the rest.

‘Seat’—small or large wooden platforms.

From these one should come down and then salute the Teacher.

Under verse 119 what was laid down was simply rising from the seat; while here it is coming down from it that is enjoined. When one is seated upon a wooden platform, it is possible for him to rise without coming down from it.

“But coming down from the seat is not possible without rising; so that the rising being already implied in the present injunction, whàt is laid down in 119 becomes superfluous.”

It is not superfluous; what is meant by it is that when it so happens that the pupil is seated with his face towards one side, and the Teacher approaches from behind him,—as soon tvs the pupil becomes cognisant of his approach, he should turn his face towards the Teacher and then rise; and be should not rise and then turn round; as in so doing the act of turning towards the Teacher becomes intervened by that of rising; and this might displease the Teacher, who would think that ‘he was rising for some other reason, not for honouring me.’

Thus the mention of the ‘seat’ has its use in both places (here and in 119).—(202)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 107);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 461).

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.14.16-17).—‘He should salute him after descending;—in every case, one should stand up and then salute.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 464).—‘The Teacher should not be saluted while he is in a difficult situation; one should come down before saluting the Teacher; one should be calm and collected when saluting, the Teacher also being calm and collected; nor should he salute him with shoes on, or with head covered.’

Gautama (2.30).—‘One should leave off his seat or bed before answering the Teacher.’

Gautama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 464).—‘While one is wearing shoes, one should not eat or salute or address (a superior).’

Baudhāyana (1.2. 29).—‘When the Teacher is seated, the pupil, while addressing him, should not remain seated; when the Teacher is lying down, the pupil addressing him should not remain lying down.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 461).—‘One should not offer salutation while carrying the water-jar, or begging alms, or carrying flowers and such things, or while impure, or while repeating Mantras, or performing rites in honour of Gods or Pitṛs; or in an assembly in an inaudible tone.’

Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 464).—‘In assemblies, at a sacrificial session, or in a King’s palace, one should simply bow down to the Brāhmaṇas, and not offer salutation with the formula prescribed.’

Baudhāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 464).—‘While carrying fuel, or water-jar, or flowers, or food or such things, one should not offer salutation; nor in an assemblage of people.’

Laghu-Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 465).—‘A person who is repeating Mantras, or attending a sacrificial session, or carrying fuel, flowers, kuśa, fire, water-jar or food should not be saluted.’

202 He must not serve the (teacher by the intervention of another) while he himself stands aloof, nor when he (himself) is angry, nor when a woman is near; if he is seated in a carriage or on a (raised) seat, he must descend and afterwards salute his (teacher).

When sitting in the company of his teacher, uk should not sit either to the lee-ward or to the wind-ward of him; nor should he say anything beyond the hearing of his teacher.—(203)

यस्यां दिशि गुरुर् व्यवस्थितस् ततो देशाद् यदा वायुः शिष्यदेशम् आगच्छति शिष्यदेशाच् च¹⁰⁸ गुरुदेशं ते प्रतिवातानुवाते । एकं प्रतिवातम् अपरम् अनुवातम् । तदपेक्षया गुरुणा सह नासीत, अपि तु तिर्यग्वातसेवी गुरोर् भवेत् । अविद्यमानः संश्रवो यत्र तस्मिन्न् असंश्रवे न किंचिद् अपि गुरुगतम् अन्यगतं वा कीर्तयेत् । यत्र गुरुर् व्यक्तं न शृणोति, ओष्ठसंचलनादिना शिष्यसंबन्धिना जानाति किंचिद् अयम् एतेन संभाषते, तन् न कीर्तयेत् ॥ २.२०३ ॥

When the wind comes from the side on which the Teacher is sitting to where the pupil sits,—and when it comes from where the pupil sits to when the Teacher is,—these are called ‘lee-ward’ and ‘wind-ward’; one being ‘lee-ward’ and the other ‘wind-ward.’ In either of these fashions one should not sit in the Teacher’s company; be should sit in such a fashion that he gets the wind sideways.

‘Beyond his hearing’;—i.e., wbat he cannot hear.

‘Nothing,’—with reference either to the Teacher or to other persons.

‘He should say’—nothing, what the Teacher cannot hear, but can see from the moving of the lips that the pupil is saying something.—(203)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 461), where ‘prativāte’ is explained as ‘that place to which wind reaches from the place where the Teacher is sitting’;—Anuvāte’ as ‘that place from where wind blows towards the Teacher’;—at neither of these places should the Student sit;—‘Asaṃśrava’ is that place from where anything spoken is not heard by the Teacher,—sitting in such a place, he should not say anything addressed to the Teacher.

This verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 107), where the following notes are added:—‘Prativāta’ is ‘wind that blows from the teacher towards the pupil’; at such a place the Student shall not sit; as there is the danger of the fire of the teacher’s anger issuing forth that way;—‘Anuvāta’ is wind blowing from the pupil towards the teacher; there also he shall not sit; as he is likely not to hear the words of the teacher;—‘asambhave’ means unless permitted by him.

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.6. 15, 23).—‘He should not be seated to the windward of the Teacher;—or to the leeward,’

203 Let him not sit with his teacher, to the leeward or to the windward (of him); nor let him say anything which his teacher cannot hear.

He may sit with the teacher on carts drawn by oxen, horses and camels, on terraces and on grass-mats; as also on reedmats, rocks, benches and boats.—(204)

यानशब्दः प्रत्येकम् अभिसंबध्यते । गोऽश्वोष्ट्रैर् उक्तं यानं गोऽश्वोष्ट्रयानम् । दधिघटादिवत् समासे युक्तशब्दस्य लोपः । केवलेषु तु अश्वपृष्टादिष्व् आरोहणं नास्ति । यदि स्वतन्त्रो यानशब्दो विज्ञायेत तदा स्याद् अप्य् अनुज्ञा । समाचारात् तु कादाचित्कम् अनुज्ञानं दृश्यते । प्रासाद उपरिगृहादीनां या भूमिस् तस्यां गृहादिभूमिवत् सिद्धं सहासनम् । प्रस्तरः दर्भादितृणाकीर्णः आस्तरः । कटः तु¹⁰⁹ शरवीरणादिकृतः प्रसिद्धः । शिला गिरिशिखरादाव् अन्यत्र वा । फलकं दारुमयम् आसनं पोतवर्तादि । नौर् जलतरणसंप्लवः । तेन पोतादाव् अपि सिद्धं भवति ॥ २.२०४ ॥

The terra ‘cart’ is connected with each of the foregoing terras; and the cart yoked with, drawn by, oxen (), ‘horses’ (‘aśva’) and ‘camels’ (uṣṭra) is called ‘gośvoṣṭvayānam?’; the terra ‘yukta’ (‘yoked,’ ‘drawn by’) being dropped, as in the word ‘dadhighāṭa’ (‘curd-jar’). That this is so is clear from the fact that it is not possible for two men to ride together on the hare back of the ox, etc. If we had the word ‘yāna’ standing by itself, then we might have taken the verse itself as permitting the riding along with the teacher on the bare back of the ox, etc. In some places we do find this to he permitted by usage.

‘Terrace,’—the surface on the top of houses; and in such places sitting with the Teacher is as possible as on the floor of houses.

‘Grass-mats’—beds made of grass and leaves, etc.

‘Reed-mats’—beds made of reeds and sticks.

‘Bocks’—stone-slabs either on the top of hills or elsewhere.

‘Benches’—scats made of wood, called ‘pota,’ ‘varta,’ etc.

‘Boats’;—i.e., contrivances for floating on water, which would include rafts and other similar things.—(204)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 107);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462) where ‘phalakam’ is explained as Kāṣṭhanirmitam dīrghāsanam, ‘a long seat made of wood’, a bench:—also on page 491, where it is quoted in support of the view that the prohibition contained in verse 198 must refer to cases other than those of carts and conveyances. It further adds that though the riding on conveyances drawn by ox etc. is prohibited,—yet the sanction accorded here is in view of the possibility of such lading in abnormal times of distress. It is interesting to note that no such scruples have prejudiced Medhātithi, who apparently belonged to a part of the country where riding on bullock-carts is permissible; while the author of Vīramitrodaya belonged to a part of the country where such riding is prohibited, e.g. in Mithilā.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 120) as sanctioning, in certain cases, the sitting of the pupil with the teacher.

Baudhāyana (1. 2. 35).—‘There is nothing wrong in sitting with the Teacher on a boat, or a stone-slab, or an elephant, or the roof of a house, or a mat, or on a wheeled conveyance.’ Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 8. 12).—‘In a journey he should ascend the conveyance behind the Teacher.’

Viṣṇu (28.27, 28).—‘He should not sit on the same seat with the Teacher;—except on a stone-slab, a boat, or a conveyance.’

204 He may sit with his teacher in a carriage drawn by oxen, horses, or camels, on a terrace, on a bed of grass or leaves, on a mat, on a rock, on a wooden bench, or in a boat.

When the Teacher’s teacher happens to be close by, he should adopt towards him the same behaviour as towards his own teacher; but until permitted by his teacher, he should not pay respects to his own elders.—(205)

उक्ता गुरुवृत्तिर् इदानीम् अन्यत्रातिदिश्यते । अध्ययनधर्मत्वात् सर्वस्यास्य गुरुर् अत्राचार्यो विज्ञेयः । तस्य यो गुरुस् तस्मिन् संनिहिते गुरुवद् वर्तितव्यम् । संनिहित इति न तद्गृहगमनम् अभिवादनाद्यर्थं कर्तव्यम् । गुरुगृहे वसन् गुरुणानिसृष्टो अननुज्ञातः स्वान् गुरून् मातापितृप्रभृतीन् नाभिवादयितुं गच्छेत्, न पुनर् गुरुगृहे स्थितस्य यद् स्वे गुरव आगच्छन्ति तदा तदभिवादने गुर्वज्ञापेक्षितव्या । कुत एतत्, मातापित्रोर् अत्यन्तमान्यत्वात् । पितृव्यमातुलादीनाम् अप्य् अभिवादनप्रवृत्तस्य न कश्चिद् गुरुवृत्तेर् विघ्नः । आराधनार्थ एवायं सर्वः प्रयासः । मातापितृगुरुसंनिपाते कः क्रमो ऽभिवादनस्येत्य् उक्तम् “सर्वमहती माता” । पित्राचार्ययोस् तु विकल्पः । यतः पितृत्वाध्यारोपेणाचार्यस्य गौरवं विहितम् । अतः पिता श्रेष्ठः । यतश् चोक्तम् “गरीयान् ब्रह्मदः पिता” (म्ध् २.१४६) इति तत आचार्यः । अतो ऽयम् विकल्पः ॥ २.२०५ ॥

The present verse permits the afore-mentioned behaviour towards one’s Teacher to be adopted in certain other cases.

Since the whole of the present deals with study, the term ‘guru’ should throughout be taken in the sense of ‘teacher.’ If the teacher of one’s Teacher happens to be near, he should behave towards him as towards his own teacher.

‘When he happens to be close by.’—This implies that it is not incumbent upon the pupil to go over to the house of his teacher’s teacher for the purpose of paying respects to him.

While living in the Teacher’s house,—‘until he is permitted by his Teacher’—allowed by him to do so,—he should not go to pay respects to his own ‘elders’;—to his father, mother, etc. This does not mean that when these elders come to his Teacher’s house, hc shall wait for the Teacher’s permission before he offers obeisance to them.

“Whence do you get this meaning?”

It follows from the fact that one’s parents are the highest objects of veneration; and as regards the paternal uncle, maternal uncle and other relations, if one salutes them, this does not stand in the way of his proper behaviour towards the Teacher. For after all, all his efforts are meant to win the Teacher’s favour.

As regards the order to be observed in saluting the mother, the father and the Teacher, when all these happen to be together,—it has already been declared that the Mother is superior to all; and as between the Father and the Teacher, there is option: In as much as the respect due to the Teacher is by reason of the position of the ‘Father’ having been imposed upon him, the Father should be regarded as superior; but since it has been declared (in 146) that ‘the father imparting the Veda is superior,’ it would follow that the Teacher is superior. It is for this reason that there is option.—(205)

The first half of the verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 306), in support of the view that the ‘grand-teacher’ also is to be treated like the teacher;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462), where ‘ani sṛṣṭaḥ’ is explained as ‘aniyuktaḥ’, ‘not permitted’,—and ‘svāṅgurūm’ as ‘uncles and other relations

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 54), which explains ‘anisṛṣṭaḥ’ as ‘not permitted—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 46);—and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 34).

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.8.19).—‘When the Teacher and the Teacher’s Teacher are seated together, he should clasp the feet of the latter and then those of the former.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.6.29).—‘In the presence of the Ācārya, he should not clasp the feet of other Teachers of the lower grade.’

Gautama (6. 3, 4).—‘Mother, father, relations, elders, intellectual teachers;—when all these are present, the preceding should be saluted before the succeeding.’

Viṣṇu (28.29, 30).—‘When the Teacher’s Teacher is present, behaviour towards him should be like that towards the Teacher;—until permitted by the teacher, he should not salute his elders.’

Vaśiṣṭha (13.22).—‘When the Teacher’s Teacher is present, the behaviour towards him is prescribed to be like that towards the Teacher.’

205 If his teacher’s teacher is near, let him behave (towards him) as towards his own teacher; but let him, unless he has received permission from his teacher, not salute venerable persons of his own (family).

This same shall be his constant behaviour towards his intellectual teachers, towards his blood-relations, towards persons restraining him from sin and towards those who give him salutary advice.—(206)

अयम् अप्य् अतिदेशः । आचार्याद् अन्ये उपाध्यायादयो विद्यागुरवः । तेष्व् एवम् एव वर्तितव्यम्, “शरीरं चैव” (म्ध् २.१९२) इत्यादिकृत्या । स्वयोनिषु ज्येष्ठभ्रातृपितृव्यादिषु । नित्या वृत्तिर् गुरुवृत्तिः । विद्यागुरूणां त्व् आचार्यव्यतिरेकेण यावद्विद्याग्रहणम् । अधर्माद् अकार्यात् परदारगमनादेः प्रतिषेधत्सु वयस्येष्व् अपि । अभ्यन्तरगत्यारूढतयाकार्यं चिकीर्षन्यः सुहृदादिस् तम्- “आ केशग्रहणान् मित्रम् अकार्येभ्यो निवर्तयेत्” (म्भ् ५.९१.११) इति । तस्मिन् समहीनवयस्के ऽपि गुरुवद् वर्तितव्यम् । हितं च विधिरूपम् अग्रन्थकम् उपदिशत्सु । अथ वा हितस्योपदेष्टारो ऽभिजना उच्यन्ते ॥ २.२०६ ॥

This also is an instance of ‘Transference.’

Teachers other than the Preceptor are called here ‘intellectual teacher’—such as the Sub-Teacher and the rest. One should behave towards these just as it has been detailed above (under 192 et seq.).

‘Towards blood-relations’—i.e., towards the elder brother, the paternal uncle, etc

‘Constant behaviour’—i.e., behaviour as towards the Preceptor.

As distinguished from the ‘Preceptor,’ the other ‘Intellectual Teachers’ are to be so honoured only during the period of one’s learning under them.

‘Towards persons’—friends and others—‘restraining him from sin’—i.e., from evils, such as connection with other women and so forth. It has been said that when one is found to be thinking within himself of doing some evil deed, then his friends and others ‘should restrain him from sin, even to the extent of dragging him by his hairs’; and towards one who restrains him in this way, he should behave as towards his Teacher,—even if he happens to be of equal or inferior age.

Also towards those who give salutary advice, independently of books. Or, ‘giver of salutary advice’ may be taken as standing for noble-minded persons in general.—(206)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462), where ‘vidyāguru’ is explained as ‘teachers other than the Ācārya’,—‘nityā’, as ‘holding for all time’,—‘svayoni’, as ‘uncle and the rest’,—‘hita’ as dharmatattva, ‘the essence of Morality’;—and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 34).

**(verses 206-207)
**

Gautama (2.30).—‘Similarly towards respected superiors.’

Baudhāyana (1.1.37).—‘The eating of the leavings should be avoided in the case of the Ācārya’s son or in that of the expounder of the Veda.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 7. 29, 30).—‘Towards the older fellow-student,—the behaviour towards the Ācārya’s son should be like that towards the teacher, with the exception of eating the leavings.’

Vaśiṣṭha (13.22).—‘Towards the teacher’s son, one should behave like that towards the teacher himself,—so says the Śruti.’

Viṣṇu (32.1).—‘The King, the priest, the Vedic scholar, one who prevents him from doing wrong, the sub-teacher, the paternal uncle, the maternal grandfather, the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the elder brother, one’s relations,—the behaviour towards these should be like that towards the teacher.’

206 This is likewise (ordained as) his constant behaviour towards (other) instructors in science, towards his relatives (to whom honour is due), towards all who may restrain him from sin, or may give him salutary advice.

Towards superiors he should always behave as towards the Teacher, as also towards the Teacher’s son who has acquired the position of the Teacher, and towards the Teacher’s own blood-relations.—(207)

श्रेयांस आत्मापेक्षया वित्तवयोविद्याद्यतिशययुक्ताः । तेषु गुरुवद् वृत्तिं यथासंभवम् अभिवादनप्रत्युत्थानादि सर्वदैव समाचरेत् । बहवो ऽत्र शब्दा गतार्थाः प्रयुज्यन्ते । तेषां वृत्तवशात् प्रयोगो न दुष्यति । श्रेयःस्व् इत्य् एतावाद् वक्तव्यम् । गुरुवद् इत्य् आक्षिप्यते । वृत्तिम् इत्यादि प्राप्तम् एव । तद् एतत् सर्वस्मिन्न् एवास्मिन् ग्रन्थे स्वयम् उत्प्रेक्ष्यम् ।

• गुरुपुत्रे तथाचार्ये । आचार्यग्रहणेनाध्यापकत्वं लक्ष्यते । यद्य् असंनिहिते गुरौ तत्पुत्रो ऽध्यापयति कतिचिद् अहानि तदा तस्मिन् गुरुवद् वृत्तिः । पाठान्तरम्- “गुरुपुत्रेष्व् अथार्येषु¹¹⁰” । आर्यशब्दो¹¹¹ गुणवद्ब्राह्मणजातिवचनः । शूद्राच् चार्यो¹¹² ज्यायान् इति प्रयोगदर्शनात्¹¹³ । न च सर्वस्मिन् गुरुपुत्रे वृत्तिर् एषा विधीयते । गुरोश् चैव स्वबन्धुषु । स्वग्रहणं गुरुवंश्यर्थम्¹¹⁴ । गुरुवंशसंबन्धितैवात्र निमित्तम्, न वयोविद्याद्यपेक्ष्यते ॥ २.२०७ ॥

‘Superiors’;—those possessed of greater amount of wealth and learning. Towards these ‘he should behave always as towards the Teacher’;—i.e., he should offer him obeisance, welcome and so forth.

In this verse many such words have been used as are superfluous; but in as much as this is a metrical work, such usage is not objectionable. ‘Towards superiors’ was all that should h ave been said here; ‘as towards the Teacher’ would be already implied; ‘behaviour’ has already been mentioned in the preceding verse. Many such instances can be found in this work.

‘Towards the Teacher’s son who has acquired the position of the Teacher’;—the addition of the word ‘ācārya’ is meant to show that the son should have obtained the position of the Teacher. The sense is that, if during the Teacher’s absence, his son teaches his pupils for a few days, he should be treated as a Teacher

Another reading is ‘guruputresvaṭhāryeṣu.’ The term ‘ārya’ in’this case would mean ‘one belonging to the highly qualified Brāhmaṇa-caste,’ as we find in such instances as—‘śūdrāccāryo jyāyān.’

This verse does not enjoin that such treatment should lie accorded to all the sons of the Teacher.

‘Towards the Teacher’s own blood-relations.’—The epithet ‘own’ has been added for the purpose of restricting the statement to members of the Teacher’s family; the mere fact of being a member of the Teacher’s family is the sole ground for the treatment being accorded to him,—irrespectively of age, learning, etc.—(207)

‘Ācārye’—is construed as qualifying ‘guruputre’ according to Medhātithi, who explains the two terms as ‘the teacher’s son who imparts instruction for a few days during the absence of the teacher’.—Another reading, suggested by

Medhātithi is ‘āryeṣu’, explained as ‘duly qualified Brāhmaṇas’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka and Govindarāja);—‘virtuous’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana);—‘older in age’ (Vīramitrodaya).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462), where we have the following explanations:—‘Śreyaḥsu’ means ‘those possessed of superior learning and other qualifications;—‘āryeṣu’ means ‘older in age’;—‘guroḥ svabandhuṣu’ means ‘the teacher’s uncles and other relations—and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 34).

**(verses 206-207)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.206].

207 Towards his betters let him always behave as towards his teacher, likewise towards sons of his teacher, born by wives of equal caste, and towards the teacher’s relatives both on the side of the father and of the mother.

Whether he be younger, or of equal age, or a student of sacrificial ritual,—the Teacher’s son, imparting instruction, dfserves the same honour as the Teacher.—(208)

• ननु च विद्याग्रहणनिमित्तत्वाद् गुरुवृत्तिर् अध्यापयद् गुरुवद् गुरुपुत्रे ऽप्य् अध्यापयितरि प्राप्तैव । शैशवब्राह्मणनिदर्शनात् कनीयसो ऽपि सिद्धेत्य् अतो बालः समानजन्मा वा इत्य् एवमर्थम् अपि न वक्तव्यम् ।

• सत्यम् । यो वेदं वेदैकदेशं वाध्यापयति तस्यानाचार्यस्याप्य् एषा वृत्तिर् उक्ता । अयं तु न ग्राहकः, केवलं कतिचिदहान्य् अहर्भागं वाध्यापयति, अतो नाचार्यो नोपाध्याय इत्य् अप्राप्तौ विधिर् अयम् । अस्माद् एव वचनाद् अन्यस्य भग्नमन्त्रादेर् अध्यापकस्य न सर्वा गुरुवृत्तिः कर्तव्येति विज्ञायते ।

• ये च पूर्वत्राचार्यशब्दं पठन्ति तेषाम् उत्तरार्थम् इदम् अनूद्यते । “उत्सादनं च” (म्ध् २.२०९) इति वक्ष्यति ।

• शिष्यो वा यज्ञकर्मणि । यज्ञकर्मग्रहणं प्रदर्शनार्थम् । क्वचिद् अङ्गे वेदैकदेशे मन्त्रभागे कस्मिंश्चिद् ब्राह्मणभागे वा, तथापि गुरुवत् पूज्यः यदि तु गुरुपुत्रः । तस्माद् अनेन प्रकारेण कांचिद् विद्यां शिक्षेत, तदा तेन तस्मिन् गुरुवद् वर्तितव्यम् इत्य् उक्तम्, एवम् अर्थवादत्वाद् अस्यारम्भस्य ।

• ये तु व्याचक्षते- अध्यापयन्न् इत्य् अनेनाध्यापनसामर्थ्यं लक्ष्यते, अध्यापनसमर्थश् चेद् अध्यापयतु, मा वाध्यापयेत्, गृहीतवेदश् चेद् गुरुवद् द्रष्टव्यः — तेषाम् शाब्दम् एतद् व्याख्यानं सत्यं भवति । शता लक्षणार्थः, स तु क्रियायाः “लक्षणहेत्वोः क्रियायाः” (पाण् ३.२.१२६) इति । क्रिया चात्र श्रुता- गुरुवन् मानम् अर्हति ॥ २.२०८ ॥

For those persons who do not adopt, the reading whereby the term ‘ācārya’ (teacher) is made the qualification of the ‘Teacher’s son’ in the preceding verse,—it would follow that the entire treatment of the Teacher is to he accorded to the Teacher’s son who is qualified and belongs to the same caste, even though he may not have done any teaching. And it is this wide rule that is restricted by the present verse.—It is only the Teacher’s son imparting instruction that deserves the same honour as the Teacher,—and not he who does not impart instruction.

“That the Teacher’s son who imparts instruction should be honoured like the teacher follows from the mere fact of instruction having been received from him; and from what we read in connection with the story relating to the infant (vide 151 above) the propriety of similar treatment of the junior is already known; so that even for the mention of the ‘younger or of equal age’ the present verse would not be required.”

True; what has been said before is the treatment to be accorded to one who teaches the Veda, or even a portion of the Veda,—even though he be not the regular preceptor; while the person referred to here is not one who has made one get up the Veda; it is only one who teaches for a few days or even for a part of the day. And since such a person would not be either a ‘Preceptor’ or a ‘sub-teacher,’ his honouring would not be included under what has gone before; so it becomes necessary to enjoin it in the present connection.

It is from this verse that we understand that the entire treatment of the Teacher is not to be accorded to one who teaches only broken parts of a manṭra.

For those however who read ‘ācārya,’ ‘who does the work of teaching’ in the preceding verse,—the present verse would be a mere reference to what has been enjoined before, for the purpose of adding the injunction occurring in the next verse.

‘Or a student of sacrificial ritual’;—the mention of ‘sacrificial ritual’ is only by way of illustration; the meaning is that even though he be a mere student of a subsidiary science, or of a portion of the Veda—Mantra portion or the Brāhamaṇa portion,—yet he deserves to be honoured like the teacher; only if he happens to be the teacher’s son and imparts instruction in some science, he should be honoured like the teacher. Though this has been already said (in the preceding verse) yet that does not matter, as the present verse is meant to be merely re-iterative.

Some people offer the following explanation:—“The phrase ‘imparting instruction’ stands for the capacity of teaching; the sense being that if the teacher’s son has learnt the Vedas and is capable of teaching it, he should be honoured like the teacher;—whether he actually docs the work of teaching or not.”

This explanation is verbally quite correct. The Present Participal affix (in ‘adhyāpayan,’ ‘imparting instruction’) has the sense of characterisation; and this characterisation is that of an act; so that the use is in accordance with Pāṇini 3.2.128; and the act is directly mentioned as that ‘deserving the same honour as the teacher.’—(208)

‘Yajñakarmaṇi’—Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa construe this with ‘śiṣyaḥ’, and explain the phrase ‘Yajñakarmaṇi śiṣyaḥ’ as ‘student of sacrificial ritual (and other Vedic subsidiaries)’;—Nandana construes it with ‘adhyāpayan’, explaining the phrase as ‘who imparts instruction in sacrificial ritual—Kullūka and Rāghavānanda take it by itself, explaining it as ‘who happens to be present at a sacrificial performance’.

‘Adhyāpayan’—‘Teaching’ (Medhātithi); ‘Having the capacity to teach’ (Kullūka, also Vīramitrodaya).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462) where ‘adhyāpayan’ is explained as ‘capable of teaching’; and the construction is explained as yajñakarmaṇi guruvanmānamarhati’—i.e., ‘at a sacrificial performance, he deserves to be honoured like the Teacher’;—thus agreeing on all points with the explanation given by Kullūka.

**(verses 208-209)
**

Viṣṇu (28.31-33).—‘One should behave towards the teacher’s son who imparts instruction to him just as he would towards the teacher himself,—whether he be younger than him or of the same age;—he should not wash his feet;—nor should he eat his leavings.’

Gautama (2.38,39).—‘He should behave similarly towards ṭhe teacher’s wife and his sons;—but should not eat his leavings, or bathe him, or dress his hair, or wash his feet, or rub his body, or clasp his feet.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.37).—‘Towards the teacher’s son, or towards the expounder of the Veda, one should behave similarly, with the exception of eating his leavings.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.7.30).—‘I he behaviour towards the teacher’s son should be like that towards the teacher himself,—with the exception of eating the leavings.’

208 The son of the teacher who imparts instruction (in his father’s stead), whether younger or of equal age, or a student of (the science of) sacrifices (or of other Angas), deserves the same honour as the teacher.

He shall not shampoo the limbs of his teacher’s son, nor assist him in bathing, nor eat of the food left by him; nor should he wash his feet.—(209)

अभ्यक्तस्योद्वर्तनम् उत्सादनं न कुर्यात् । गुरुपुत्रस्य । पादयोश् चावनेजनं प्रक्षालनम् । अस्माद् एव प्रतिषेधाद् गुराव् एतद् अनुक्तम् अपि कर्तव्यतया प्रतीयते । यदा तु गुरुपुत्र एव गुरुः संपद्यते कृत्स्नवेदाध्यापनोपयोगितया, तदा स्वनिमित्तं तत्रोच्छिष्टभोजनाद्य् अस्ति । तद् अनेन न¹¹⁵ प्रतिषिध्यते । आतिदेशिकस्यानेन निषेधो नौपदेशिकस्य ॥ २.२०९ ॥

‘Shampooing’—rubbing after oiling—he shall not do.

‘Washing of his feet’ also he shall not do;—for the teacher’s son.

It is from this prohibition that it follows that, even though not directly enjoined, these acts should be done for the teacher. When however the teacher’s son himself becomes the teacher, by becoming fully equipped to teach the entire Veda,—then the eating of the food left by him, etc., come to be done for his own sake; and the present prohibition does not apply to the acts under such circumstances. For their prohibition refers to what is due to the son, through the injunction transferring to him the treatment accorded to the teacher,—and not to what would be due to him by direct injunction.—(209)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462) as providing exception to the general rule of the preceding verse, which declares that all that is done for the teacher should be done for his son also; and the present verse specifies certain acts of service which, though done for the Teacher, are not permissible for the Teacher’s son. ‘Gātrotsādana’ means ‘nibbing and shampooing the body.’

It is quoted also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 495).

**(verses 208-209)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.208].

209 (A student) must not shampoo the limbs of his teacher’s son, nor assist him in bathing, nor eat the fragments of his food, nor wash his feet.

The teacher’s ladies belonging to the same caste should be honoured like the teacher himself; those not belonging to the same caste should be honoured with rising and salutations.—(210)

गुरुयोषितो गुरुपत्न्यः । सवर्णाः समानजातीयाः । गुरुवत् प्रतिपूज्या आज्ञाकरणादिना । असवर्णास् तु केवलैः प्रत्युत्थानाभिवादनैः । बहुवचनाद् आद्यर्थो ऽत्रान्तर्भवति । तेन हि प्रियहितादि गत्याद्य् अननुकरणाद्य् अप्य् अतिदिश्यते ॥ २.२१० ॥

‘The teacher’s ladies’—wives—‘belonging to the same caste’—of the same caste as the teacher,—‘should be honoured like the teacher’—by carrying out their orders and so forth.

‘Those not belonging to the same caste’ are to be honoured only ‘with rising and salutations.’ The plural number in ‘salutations’ has the sense of ‘et cetera’: hence the doing of what is agreeable and beneficial, the non-mimicking of gait, etc., also become included.—(210)

The verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 300) and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 402);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, pp. 103 and 123) as indicating the figurative use of the title ‘guru’;—and in Smṛtikaustubha (p. 478).

Viṣṇu (32.2,5).—‘ Also the wives of these;—of such wives of the teachers as belong to lower castes, the salutation should be done from a distance; there should be no clasping of the feet.’

Gautama (2. 38).—‘Similarly towards the wives and sons of the teachers.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 7.27).—‘The behaviour towards the teacher’s wives should be similar to that towards the teacher; with the exception of the clasping of the feet and the eating of the leavings.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.38).—‘In the case of the teacher’s wife, one should avoid hair-dressing, dressing, bathing and eating of the leavings.’

210 The wives of the teacher, who belong to the same caste, must be treated as respectfully as the teacher; but those who belong to a different caste, must be honoured by rising and salutation.

Annointing, assisting at bath, shampooing of limbs and dressing of the hair should not be done for the teacher’s wife.—(211)

घृततैलादिना केशकायोपदेहनम् अभ्यञ्जनम् । गात्राणाम् उत्सादनम् उद्वर्तनम् । कार्यसामान्यात् पादधावनम् अपि । सर्वथा शरीरस्पर्शसाध्या या काचिद् अनुवृत्तिः सा सर्वा प्रतिषिध्यते । वक्ष्यति च¹¹⁶ हेतुं “स्वभाव एष नारीणाम्” (म्ध् २.२१३) इति । केशानां च प्रसाधनं विन्यासरचनादिकरणम्, कुङ्कुमसिन्दूरादिना सीमन्तोत्थापनम् । प्रदर्शनार्थं चैतद् उक्तम् । तेन देहप्रसाधनम् अपि चन्दनानुलेपनानि निषिध्यन्ते ॥ २.२११ ॥

‘Annointing’—rubbing of the head and body with oil, butter, and such things.

‘Shampooing’—rubbing—‘of limbs this includes the washing of feet also.

What is prohibited here is every service that involves the touching of the body; and the reason for this the author is going to explain below (in 213).

‘Dressing of the hair’;—arranging the, hair into various shapes, and adorning the frontal hair with Kuṅkuma, Sindūra and other things. This has been mentioned only by way of illustration; hence the adorning of the body also with sandal-paint, etc., becomes interdicted.—(211)

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 301.) quotes this verse as laying down exceptions to the general rule regarding the clasping of the feet and the rendering of other services to the Teacher’s wife.

It is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 495);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 402);—also on p. 493.

Baudhāyana (1. 2. 38).—(See above.)

Gautama (2. 39).—‘There should be no eating of the leavings, bathing, hair-dressing, feet-washing, shampooing and feet-clasping.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 7. 57).—(See above.)

Viṣṇu (32. 6).—‘For the teacher’s wives one should not do shampooing, applying of collyrium, dressing of hair, or touching the feet and such like acts.’

211 Let him not perform for a wife of his teacher (the offices of) anointing her, assisting her in the bath, shampooing her limbs, or arranging her hair.

The teacher’s wife, when young, shall not be saluted at her feet by a pupil who is full twenty years old, and who is conscious of what is good and what is bad.—(212)

पूर्णविंशतिवर्षेण तरुणेनेत्य् अर्थः । बालस्य आ षोडशाद् वर्षाद् अदोषः । पूर्णानि विंशतिवर्षाणि यस्य स एवम् उच्यते । अयं कालो¹¹⁷ यौवनोद्भेदोपलक्षणार्थः । अत एवाह गुणदोषौ विजानता । कामजे सुखदुःखे गुणदोषाव् अभिप्रेतौ स्त्रीगतौ च स्वाकृतिदुराकृतिलक्षणौ धर्यचापले वा । सर्वथातन्त्रा विंशतिसंख्या ॥ २.२१२ ॥

‘One who is full twenty years old’;—i.e., fully grown up. There is no harm in the case of the pupil who is still a ‘child,’ not having passed his sixteenth year. What is meant is one who has completed his twenty years. To the same effect we have the next qualification—‘who is conscious of what is good and what is bad.’ The ‘good’ and ‘bad’ meant here are the pleasures and pains arising from sexual love, also the beauty and ugliness of women, as also their fidelity and infidelity.

In any case stress is not meant to be laid upon the number ‘twenty.’—(212)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462), where it is explained that the term ‘purṇaviṃśativarṣeṇa’ stands for full youth, and stress is not meant to be laid upon the precise age mentioned;—also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 301);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 104).

Viṣṇu (32, 13).—(Reproduces Manu.)

Gautama (2. 39).—‘Feet-washing and feet-clasping shall not be done for the teacher’s wife.’

Baudhāyana (1. 2. 34).—‘One who has become an adult shall not salute (by feet-clasping) the youthful sister-in-law or the youthful wife of the teacher.’

212 (A pupil) who is full twenty years old, and knows what is becoming and unbecoming, shall not salute a young wife of his teacher (by clasping) her feet.

It is the very nature of women to corrupt men. It is for this reason that the wise are never unguarded regarding women.—(213)

एषा प्रकृतिः स्त्रीणां यन् नराणां धैर्यच्यावनम् । सङ्गाद् धि¹¹⁸ स्त्रियः पुरुषान् व्रताच् चावयेयुः । अतो ऽर्थात् त्व् अस्माद् धेतोर् न प्रमाद्यन्ति । दूरत एव स्त्रियः परिहरन्ति । प्रमादः स्पर्शादिकरणम् । वस्तुस्वभावो ऽयं यत् तरुणी स्पृष्टा कामकृतं चित्तसंक्षोभं जनयति । तत्र चित्तसंक्षोभो ऽपि प्रतिषिद्धः तिष्ठतु तावद् अपरो ग्राम्यधर्मसंरम्भः । प्रमदाः स्त्रियः ॥ २.२१३ ॥

It is the nature of women that they make men fall off from their fidelity: by associating with men, women would make them deviate from their vow.

For this reason the wise are never ‘unguarded’; i.e., they shun women from a distance;—‘unguardedness’ would consist in touching her and so forth.

It is in the very nature of things that a young woman, when touched, produces a disturbance in the mind; and this mental disturbance itself has been interdicted, to say nothing of other vulgarities.

‘Pramadā’ means woman.—(213)

**(verses 213-215)
**

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 3. 16).—‘With women one should talk only when necessary.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (7. 3).—‘One should not look at a naked woman.’

Baudhāyana (1. 2. 24).—‘Talking to women only when necessary.’

Gautama (2. 22, 41).—‘Gazing at and touching of women should be avoided; one who has attained majority should not see young women alone.’

Śukranīti (3.27).—‘One should not sit very near bis mother, sister or daughter.’

Mahābhārata (13. 48.47-48).—(Three lines same as Manu.) ‘That is why wise men do not become too much. attached to women.’

213 It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.

In this world women are capable op leading astray the ignorant, as well as the learned, who becomes a servile follower of desire and passion.—(214)

न चैतन् मन्तव्यम्- “नियमितानि येन चिरम् इन्द्रियाणि, अतिगुरुपातकं गुरुदारेषु दुष्टेन भावेन प्रेक्षणम् अपीति य एवं वेद तस्य न दोषः पादस्पर्शादौ” इति । यत एवंविधान् अपि दोषान् यो जानीते, यो वा न किंचिज् जानीते, तौ स्त्रीविषये समानौ । यतो नात्र विद्वत्ता प्रभवति । शक्नुवन्ति स्त्रियः सर्वं उत्पथम्¹¹⁹ अमार्गं लोकशास्त्रविरुद्धं विषयं नेतुं प्रापयितुं कामक्रोधवशानुगं सन्तम् । कामक्रोधाभ्यां यः संबध्यत इत्य् अर्थः ।

• अवथाविशेषोपलक्षणार्थं चैतत् । अत्यन्तबालं अत्यन्तवृद्धं च प्राप्तयोगप्रकर्षणं च वर्जयित्वा, येन निरन्वयम् उच्छिन्ना¹²⁰ संसारपुरुषधर्मास् तद्व्यतिरेकेण, न कश्चित् पुरुषो ऽस्ति यः स्त्रीभिर् नाकृष्यते, अयः कान्तेनेव लोहः । न चात्र स्त्रीणां प्रभविष्णुता, वस्तुस्वाभाव्यात् तरुणीजनदर्शने पुंसाम् उन्मथ्यते चित्तम्, विशेषतो ब्रह्मचारिणाम् ॥ २.२१४ ॥

It should not be thought that the person who has full control over his organs and who is fully aware that even locking at the Teacher’s wife with impure motives is a heinous offence, incurs no danger by touching her feet. Because so far as women are concerned, the person cognisant of the grievousness of the sin, as well as the person not so cognisant, both are equal; for no amount of learning is any use in this matter; women are capable of leading astray—on the wrong path, contrary to usage and scriptures—all men.

‘Who becomes a servile follower of desire and passion,’—Who becomes contaminated with desire and passion. This epithet only serves to indicate a particular condition of man. Barring the too young and too old, and one who has reached the highest stage of Yoga, there is no one, with the exception of one who has entirely destroyed his human susceptibilities, who is not attracted by women, just as iron is attracted by the magnet. This is not due to any powerful influence intentionally exercised; it is in the very nature of things that at the sight of a young woman, the mind of man becomes upset, specially that of young students.—(214)

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 104) as laying down the reason why the young wife of the Teacher should not be touched in the feet by the young pupil, the meaning being—‘Because women are capable of leading the learned as well as the ignorant man, who may yield to to physical desires and other weaknesses’.

**(verses 213-215)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.213].

214 For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger.

One should not sit alone with his mother, sister or daughter. The powerful host of sense-organs overpowers even the learned.—(215)

अतो विविकासनः निर्जने शून्ये गृहादौ नासीत । नापि निःशङ्कम् अङ्गस्पर्षादि कुर्यात् । अतिचपलो हीन्द्रियसंघातो विद्वांसम् अपि शास्त्रनिगृहीतात्मानम् अपि कर्षति हरति परतन्त्रीकरोति ॥ २.२१५ ॥

For reasons above described ‘one should not sit alone’—in a solitary room, etc., one should not sit; nor should he touch the body, etc. Because the host of sense-organs is extremely fickle; and it ‘overpowers’—draws, makes helpless —‘even the learned’—i.e., the person who has his mind fully controlled by wisdom acquired from the scriptures.—(215)

**(verses 213-215)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.213].

215 One should not sit in a lonely place with one’s mother, sister, or daughter; for the senses are powerful, and master even a learned man.

The young man may perform the proper salutation on the ground to the young wives of his Teacher,—saying “here i am.”—(216)

कामम् इत्य् अरुचिं सूचयति । उत्तरेण चैतत् संबध्यते “विप्रोष्य पादग्रहणम्” (म्ध् २.२१७) इति । भुवि तु पादवन्दनम् इष्यत एव । युवतीनां युवा द्वयोर् यूनोर् अयं विधिः । यदि बालो ब्रह्मचारी वृद्धा वा गुरुपत्नी तदा पादोपसंग्रहणम् अविरुद्धम् । असाव् अहम् इति प्राग् उक्तस्य विधेर् अनुवादः । विधिवद् इति व्यस्तपाणिना ॥ २.२१६ ॥

‘May’ signifies dis-satisfaction on the part of the author; or, it may bo construed with the next verse.

‘On the ground’—the clasping of the feet is not necessarily meant to be done.

‘The young man….. to the young wives’;—i.e., what is here laid down pertains to cases where both parties are young. If the student is a child, or the Teacher’s wife is old, then the clasping of the feet is unobjectionable.

‘Here I am’;—this refers to the rule prescribed before (in 123).

‘Proper’—i.e., with upturned hands, etc. (see 72).—(216)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 30l), as laying down how, in view of the foregoing text, the young student is to behave towards the Teacher’s wife;—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462), which remarks that the term ‘yuvā’, ‘young man,’ in this verse makes it clear that the mention of ‘twenty years’ in verse 212 is meant to stand for youth in general;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 47) as laying down the necessity of saluting the Teacher’s wives;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 104).

Viṣṇu (32-14).—[Reproduces Manu.]

216 But at his pleasure a young student may prostrate himself on the ground before the young wife of a teacher, in accordance with the rule, and say, ‘I, N. N., (worship thee, O lady).’

Having returned from a journey, he should clasp the feet of his Teacher’s wife, and daily he should salute her, bearing in mind the duty of the righteous.—(217)

प्रवासाद् एत्य पादयोर् ग्रहणं “सव्येन सव्यम्” (म्ध् २.७२) इति । अन्वहम् अहन्य् अहनि । अभिवादनं भूमौ । सतां शिष्टानां एष धर्म आचार इत्य् अनुस्मरन् ॥ २.२१७ ॥

Having returned from a journey, he should clasp her feet—‘the left foot by the left hand, etc.’ (Verse 72).

‘Daily’—every day.

‘Salute her’—on the ground.

‘Righteous’—Cultured. Bearing in mind that such is this duty of cultured men.—(217)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 301) as laying down how the young student is to behave to towards the Teacher’s wife.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 451) as showing that ‘pādagrahaṇa’ (clasping of the feet) is distinct from abhivādana (saluting);—and again on p. 462 the entire verse is quoted along with the preceding verse.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 104).

Gautama (2. 40).—‘Returning from a journey, he should clasp the feet of the teacher’s wives.’

Āpastamba (1.14.7).—‘Also when meeting her on returning from a journey.’

Viṣṇu (32.15).—[Reproduces Manu.]

217 On returning from a journey he must clasp the feet of his teacher’s wife and daily salute her (in the manner just mentioned), remembering the duty of the virtuous.

Just as a man digging with the spade obtains water,—even so one who is eager to serve acquires the learning that is in the Teacher.—(218)

सर्वस्य शुश्रूषाविधेः फलम् इदम् । गुर्वाराधनद्वारेण स्वाध्यायविध्यर्थवादः¹²¹ । यथा काश्चिन् मनुष्यः खनित्रेण कुद्दालादिना भूमिं खनन् वारि प्राप्नोति, नाक्लेशेन, एवम् अयं विद्यां गुरुगतां शुश्रूषुः गुरुसेवापरो ऽधिगच्छति ॥ २.२१८ ॥

This describes the reward in connection with the entire body of injunctions bearing upon service; and it is commendatory of learning the Veda by means of serving the Teacher.

Just as a certain man digging the earth by a spade, or some such implement, obtains water,—and he does not obtain it without trouble; similarly the pupil who is eager to serve—and attends upon him—acquires the learning that is in the Teacher.—(218)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 525) as laying down the method of acquiring learning;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 139) as describing the results accruing from serving the Teacher.

Baudhāyana (1.2.5).—‘All Vedas enter into him who learns and behaves thus; just as fire supplied with fuel shines brightly, so shines he who knowing this follows the life of the Religious Student.’

Vyāsa Smṛti (1.36, 37).—‘In this manner, living, from day to day, on alms, the Religious Student should keep his vows; speaking agreeably, avoiding.calumny,-, always accomplishing the needs of his teacher; from beginning to end of his Vedio Study, he should constantly attend upon him; studied in this manner, the Vedic Mantra carries the Brāhmaṇa forward.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.14.5).—‘Service of the Teacher is the only means.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 525).—‘Knowledge is acquired by service of the Teacher, or by much wealth, or by knowledge (in exchange); there is no fourth means;—the white ants rear up a huge heap by collecting small particles of dust: it is not strength that accomplishes this but only effort; gradually and slowly is learning acquired, gradually and slowly are riches attained, gradually and slowly is the hill ascended, gradually and slowly is the rags-cover made up; and gradually is the journey accomplished.’

218 As the man who digs with a spade (into the ground) obtains water, even so an obedient (pupil) obtains the knowledge which lies (hidden) in his teacher.

He may have his head shaved, or wear his hair in braids, or have only the top-hair braided. The sun should never set, nor should it rise, while he is still in the village.—(219)

मुण्डः सर्वतः केशवपनं कारयेत् । जटिलो वा । जाटा¹²² परस्परम् अत्यन्तं संलग्नकेशाः,¹²³ तद्वाञ् जटिलः । शिखाजटः¹²⁴ शिखैव वा जटा यस्य । जटाकारां शिखां धारयेत्, प्रैशिष्टे मुण्डः । तथा च कुर्याद् यथा ग्रामे स्थितस्य सूर्यो नाभिनिम्लोचेन् नास्तं गच्छेत् । ग्रामग्रहणम् नगरस्यापि प्रदर्शनार्थम् । अस्तमयसमयम् अरण्ये संभावयेत् । एवं ग्रामे नाभ्युदियाद् उदयो ऽपि सूर्यस्य यथारण्यस्थस्य ब्रह्म्चारिणो भवति तथा कुर्यात् । एनं प्रकृतं ब्रह्मचारिणम् ।

• अन्ये तु ग्रामशब्दं ग्राम्येषु धर्मेषु स्वापादिषु वर्तमानं न निम्लोचेद् इत्य् एवमर्थं वर्णयन्ति । तथा च उत्तरत्र शयानम् इत्य् आह । ततो ऽयं संध्ययोः स्वप्नप्रतिषेधः, नारण्ये तत्कालावस्थानम् । बालो हि ब्रह्मचारी बिभीयात् । गौतमेन तु बहिःसंध्यत्वं परतो गोदानाद् उक्तम् (ग्ध् २.१०) । गोदानव्रतं च षोडशवर्षे, तदा च प्राप्तः शक्नोत्य् अरण्ये संध्याम् उपासितुम् ॥ २.२१९ ॥

‘Muṇḍaḥ’—means that he should shave the whole of his head.

‘Jaṭilaḥ’—one who has hairs braided, i.e., inextricably sticking to one another.

Or one whose ‘śikhā’ top-hair,’ only is braided; and the rest of the head is shaven.

And he should so behave himself that the sun does not set while he is still in the village; ‘village’ here includes the town also. The meaning is that at the time of sun-set he should betake himself to the forest. Similarly the sun should not rise while he is in the village; that is, for the Religious Student, sun-rise also should take place while he is in the forest.

‘Enam’—refers to the Religious Student.

Others have explained this to mean that ‘the Sun should not set while he is still addicted to the vulgar acts of sleeping and the like.’ To this same effect we have the term ‘sleeping’ in the next verse. Under this explanation what the verse prohibits is sleeping during the two twilights; and it does not mean that he should be actually in the forest at those times; for the Student would be still too young and would be frightened (by being in the forest at twilight). In fact Gautama (9.10) has declared that the twilights should be spent outside the village after the ‘Godāna’ ceremony; and this ceremony is laid down as to be performed in the sixteenth year; and arrived at that age, the student can, if he reaches the forest, offer his twilight prayers there.—(219)

‘Grāme’—‘While he stays in the village’ Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana);—‘while he is still sleeping in the village’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 64);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 42), as laying down three distinct alternatives;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 46b).

Gautama (1.29).—‘With head shaven, with hair in braids or with top-hair braided.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.2.31,32).—‘With braided locks;—or others may have the head shaven, leaving the top-hair braided.’

Vaśiṣṭha (7-8).—‘Dependent on the Teacher, with hair braided or with top-hair braided, he shall walk behind the Teacher when he walks.’

Viṣṇu (28.41).—‘The Religious Student shall have either his hair all shaven or all in braids.’

219 A (student) may either shave his head, or wear his hair in braids, or braid one lock on the crown of his head; the sun must never set or rise while he (lies asleep) in the village.

If the sun should rise or set while he is still sleeping, either intentionally or unintentionally, he should fast during the day, reciting. (the Sāvitrī).—(220)

अत्रेदं प्रायश्चित्तं चरेत् । ब्रह्मचारिणं शयानं निद्रावशं गतम्¹²⁵ अभ्युदियात् स्वेनोदयेनाभिव्याप्तदोषं कुर्यात् । “अभिर् अभागे” (पाण् १.४.९१) इति कर्मप्रवचनीयत्वम् । ततो द्वितीया शयानम् इति । इत्थंभूतं सुप्तम् इति लक्षणं वा स्वापकाले यद्य् उद्येत । जपन्न् उपवसेद् दिनम् ।

• केचिद् आहुः¹²⁶- “प्रातर् अतिक्रमे दिनं जपोववासौ, रात्रौ तु भोजनम्, पश्चिमातिक्रमे तु रात्रौ जपोपवासौ, प्रातर्भोजनम् इति । दिनशब्दः प्रदर्शनार्थः” । गौतमवचनं चाप्य् उदाहरन्ति- “तिष्ठेद् अहर् अभुञ्जानो ऽभ्यस्तम् इतश् च रात्रिं जपन् सावित्रीम्” (ग्ध् २३.२१) इति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । उभयत्रापि दिवैव प्रायश्चित्तं युक्तम्, दिनशब्दस्य प्रदर्शनार्थत्वे प्रमाणाभावात् । न ह्य् अस्य तत्सापेक्षस्य स्वार्थप्रतिपादनम् । निरपेक्षं चैतत् । तस्माद् विकल्पो युक्तः । तत्र यस्य सर्वां रात्रिं जाग्रतो न व्याधिः प्रवर्तते स रात्रौ जपिष्यति, अन्यस् तु दिवैव । जपश् च गौतमवचनात् सावित्र्या एव ।

• ननु अत्र कथं गौतमः प्रमाणीक्रियते

• उच्यते । सापेक्षम् इदं वाक्यं जपेद् इति, जपनीयस्यानिर्देशात् । सत्याम् अपेक्षायां श्रुत्यन्तराद् युक्ता विशेषावगतिः । इह तु कालस्य निर्देशः । नास्ति कालान्तरं प्रत्यपेक्षेति न गौतमो ऽपेक्षते । अथ वा संध्यातिक्रमे प्रायश्चित्ताभिधानात् सावित्रीजपः सिद्ध एव । युक्तं च सावित्र्यास् तु परं नास्तीति ।

• कामचारतः¹²⁷ । ज्ञात्वैव संध्याकाले यः स्वपिति । अविज्ञानात्¹²⁸ । चिरसुप्तस्य संध्याकालो ऽयं वर्तत इत्य् अनवबोधो ऽविज्ञानम् । एतद् उक्तं भवति । इच्छया प्रमादकृते चातिक्रमे एतद् एव प्रायश्चित्तम् । यः पुनर् अभ्युदितानस्तमित्संध्याम् अतिक्रामति तस्य प्रायश्चित्तम् अभोजनं नित्यानाम्, कर्मणां समतिक्रम इति । अथ वा यः कामचारेण¹²⁹ शास्त्रातिक्रमणं करोति तस्य तद् अविज्ञानम् एव ॥ २.२२० ॥

In connection with what has gone before one should perform the following expiatory rite.

If while the student is still sleeping, the sun should rise and thereby make him incur sin.—‘Abhi’ is a preposition according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra ‘abhirabhāge’; and hence we have the accusative ending in ‘śayanam.’—The meaning is that if while the student is sleeping, the sun should rise, then he should fast during the day.

Some people oífer the following explanation:—“If the offence is committed in the morning, the reciting and fasting are to be done during the day, food being taken at night; while if the offence is committed in the evening, the reciting and fasting are to be done during the night, food being taken next morning. So that the term ‘day’ is purely illustrative.” And in support of their view they quote the words of Gautama (23.21)—‘He should go without food during the day, and if the sun sets before him he should fast during the night, reciting the Sāvitrī.’

This however is not right. In both cases the expiatory rite should be performed during the day; specially as there is no authority for regarding the term ‘day’ of the text as illustrative; as the term ‘day’ does not have its denotation dependent upon that of the term ‘night’; it is entirely independent. Hence the right meaning appears to he that there should be option; that is, if the person is one who will not fall ill by keeping up the whole night, he might do it during the night; while others would do it during the day.

That the ‘reciting’ is of the Sāvitrī, we gather from the words of Gautama (quoted above).

“How can Gautama be quoted as authority on this point?”

As a matter of fact, the verb ‘should recite’ is incomplete, since it is not mentioned what is to be recited. And when there is such incompleteness, it is only right that the missing detail should be filled in from other scriptural sources.

But what the term ‘day’ mentions is the time; and this does not stand in need of any other time, so that there is no need for calling in the help of Gautama.

Or, the right explanation may be that, since the present verse prescribes the expiatory rite to be performed on the omission of the twilight prayers, the reciting of the SācUrī eorties in naturally; it has been declared above (2.88) that ‘there is nothing higher than the Sāvitrī.’

‘Intentionally;’—i.e., who knowingly sleeps in the evening.

‘Unintentionally;’—when he has been sleeping for a long time and fails to perceive the advent of evening; this is what is meant by ‘absence of intention.’ The sense of all this is as follows:—When the omission is intentional and due to careless-ṇess, it is necessary to perform the expiatory rite here prescribed; he who omits the prayers at sun-set and sun-rise, for him the expiatory rite has been prescribed as ‘fasting,’ which has to be done at the neglect of all compulsory duties.

Or, he who intentionally transgresses the scriptural ordinance, this also is ‘ignorance’ on his part.—(220)

‘Dinam’—“The translation of the last words (Shall fast during the next day muttering the Sāvitrī) follows Govindarāja and Kullūka; while Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda state that the penance shall be performed during the (next) day (or night), and that he who neglects the evening prayer shall fast in the evening and repeat the Gāyatrī during the night.”—Buhler.

Medhātithi is not quite accurately represented here. For his view is clearly put in paras 2 and 3, on page 575 (Translation) where the view, that “if the offence is committed in the evening the reciting and fasting are to be done during the night”, has been rejected in unmistakable terms.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 447), as laying down an expiation for sleeping at sunrise;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 398), as laying down the expiation for repeated delinquency.

**(verses 220-220)
**

Viṣṇu (8-53).—[Reproduces Manu 220.]

Gautama (23.21).—‘The Religious Student before whom the Sun has risen shall remain without food during the day: and he who remains asleep at sunset should remain without food during the night, repeating the Sāvitrī.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.12-13, 14).—‘If asleep, he is forestalled by sunset, he shall remain without food, and silent, during the night; and in the morning, shall bathe and then speak;—if he is asleep at sunrise, he shall remain without food and silent during the day.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.12.22).—‘He who is forestalled by sunrise, he who is forestalled by sunset, he with bad nails… are impure.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.4.6).—‘Forestalled by sunrise, he shall remain standing during the day and repeat the Sāvitrī;—similarly if he, while asleep, is forestalled by sunset, he shall sit up during the night.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.17).—‘He who is forestalled by sunrise, he who is forestalled by sunset, who has bad nails, who has black teeth…… are sinners.’

220 If the sun should rise or set while he is sleeping, be it (that he offended) intentionally or unintentionally, he shall fast during the (next) day, muttering (the Savitri).

If during one’s sleep the sun has set, and if during one’s sleep the sun has risen,—if he does not perform the Expiatory Rite, he becomes tainted by grievous sin.—(221)

पूर्वप्रायाश्चित्तविधेर् अयम् अर्थवादः । निम्लोचनेनाभिदुष्टः अभिनिम्लुक्तः । एवम् अभ्युदितः । प्रायश्चित्तं पूर्वोक्तं न करोति । तदा महता पापेन संबध्यते, न स्वल्पेन । नरकादिदुःखोपभोग्निमित्तम् अदृष्टपापम् उच्यते ॥ २.२२१ ॥

This is a commendatory statement pertaining to the aforesaid injunction of the expiatory rite.

He who becomes tainted by the setting of the sun,—similarly who becomes tainted by the rising of the sun;—and he does not perform the expiatory rite prescribed above,—then he becomes tainted by ‘grievous’—not minor—‘sin.’ ‘Sin’ is the name of that unseen force which leads one to suffer pain in the form of living in hell and so forth.—(221)

**(verses 220-220)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.220].

221 For he who lies (sleeping), while the sun sets or rises, and does not perform (that) penance, is tainted by great guilt.

Having sipped water, with calm and collected mind, he shall daily attend upon the two twilights, in a clean place, reciting the mantras to be recited, according to rule.—(222)

एवं महान् दोषो ऽभ्युदयनिम्लोचनयोः । तस्माद् आचम्य प्रयतस् तत्परः समाहितः परिहृतचित्ततत्कर्म्विक्षेपः¹³⁰ । शुचौ देशे जपञ् जप्यं प्रणवव्याहृतिसावित्र्याख्यम् । उपासीत उभे संध्ये । संध्ययोर् एवात्रोपास्यत्वम् । उपासनं च तत्र भावविशेषः । अथ वोभे संध्ये प्रत्युपासीत भगवन्तं सवितारम् । मन्त्रो हि तद्देवत्यो ऽतस् तम् एवोपासीत । संहृतसकलविकल्पस् तद्गतैकमना भवेत् । प्रागुक्तस्य विधेः शेषो ऽनुवादः । उपासनं केवलं विधेयम् ।

• अन्ये तु “शुचौ देश इत्य् एतद्विध्यर्थो ऽयं श्लोकः” इत्य् आहुस् । तेषां पौनरुक्त्यम् । सर्वस्यैव कर्तव्यस्य “शुचिना कर्म कर्तव्यम्” इति विहितम् । अशुचिदेशसंबन्धे च का शुचिता ॥ २.२२२ ॥

In as much as there is great sin accruing from sleeping at sun-set and sun-rise,—therefore ‘having sipped water—‘with mind calm’—intent upon the purpose—‘and collected’—having set aside all distractions;—‘in a dean place, reciting the mantras to be recited,’—i.e., the Praṇava, the Vyāhṛtis and the Sāvitrī;—‘one should attend upon the two twilights.’ The two twilights are the objects to be attended upon; and ‘attendance’ in this case can only be in the form of a particular disposition of the mind.

Or, the construction may be—‘During the two twilights he shall attend upon—the Sun.’ Since the mantra (Sāvitrī) is one sacred to the Sun, it is the Sun that should be the object of attendance; i.e., having given up all distraction, he should fix his mind upon the Sun.

The rest of the verse is a descriptive commendation of the foregoing injunction; the attending alone being the object of the injunction.

Others explain that the verse is meant to be the injunction of the ‘clean place.’

But in this case there would be a needless repetition. In connection with all acts it has been laid down that ‘it should be done by one who is clean’; and if one were to sit in an unclean place, how could he be regarded as ‘clean’?—(222)

Viṣṇu (28.2).—‘Offering of the two Twilight Prayers.’

Gautama (2-17).—‘The Morning Prayer should be offered standing, the Evening one, seated; the former while stars are visible, the latter before the stars have become visible.’

222 Purified by sipping water, he shall daily worship during both twilights with a concentrated mind in a pure place, muttering the prescribed text according to the rule.

If either a woman; or a junior person, do something good, he should faithfully perform all that; as also that in which his mind finds satisfaction.—(223)

यदि स्त्री आचार्यानी । अवरजः कनीयान् । आचार्याद् उपलभ्य श्रेयः धर्मादित्रिवर्गं¹³¹ समाचरेत्, तत् सर्वम् आचरेत् । संभवति हि तयोस् तदाचार्यसंपर्कात् परिज्ञानम् । शूद्रो वाचार्यभृतक¹³² अवरजः । स यद्य् उपदिशेत् “एवं पायुलिङ्गौ मृद्वारिणा प्रक्षाल्येते, निपुणौ हस्तौ प्रक्षालय, विस्मृतस् ते मृद्वारिक्रमः, त्वदीय आचार्यो ऽसकृन् मया पायुप्रक्षालने जलं ददता दृष्टपूर्वः, पूर्वम् अद्भिः¹³³ शौचं करोति ततो मृद्भिः” इत्य् एवमादि समाचरेत् तत्समाचाराद्युपपन्न उपदिशेत् । तथा चाचार्यानी आचमनं शिक्षयेत् । तत् सर्वम् आचरेद् युक्तः श्रद्दया । न स्त्रीशूद्राचरितम् इत्य् अवजानीत ।

• समाचरेद् इति च समाचारपूर्वक उपदेश एवात्राभिप्रेतः । वक्ष्यति च “धर्मः शौचं । । । समादेयानि सर्वतः” (म्ध् २.२४०) इति । आचार्येणैव कदाचिद् आदिष्टं भवति “ब्राह्मणि आचमय पुत्रस्थानीयम् एतं यथाविधिपूर्वकम्¹³⁴ । ब्रूयाच् च¹³⁵ “अस्य मूत्रपुरीषशुद्ध्यर्थं मृद्वारिणी देये” इति । तत्र तदीयवचनम् अनुष्ठेयम्, एवम् “मृदो गृहाण,” एवम् “अद्भिः प्रक्षालय¹³⁶” इति । अथ वा गुरुगृहे¹³⁷ लोहोपलजलशुद्ध्यादिः स्त्रीशूद्राभ्यां समाचर्यमाणः¹³⁸ प्रमाणीकर्तव्यः । एतावदाचारस्य स्त्रीशूद्रसंबन्धिनः प्रामाण्यार्थो ऽयं श्लोको युज्यते ।

• ननु सर्वस्याचारस्यावेदवित्संबन्धिनः प्रामाण्यं घटते । अनुक्तम् एतत् । न हि स्वल्पो ऽप्य् आचार अवेदविदां प्रमाणीभवति । अथास्ति मूलं वेदवित्संबन्धः स एव¹³⁹ तर्हि प्रमाणम्, किं स्त्रीग्रहणेन¹⁴⁰ । न चैवंविधे विषये स्त्रीशूद्राचारस्य प्रामाण्यम् अभिप्रेतम् । तथा हि सति प्रामाण्याभिधानप्रकरण एवावक्ष्यत् । तस्माच् छ्रेयः पदार्थनिरूपणार्थो ऽयम् उपोद्घात इति परमार्थः ।

• यद् वाचार्यवचसां प्रामाण्यानुवादो ऽयम् । यत्¹⁴¹ स्त्रीशुद्राव् अपि ब्रूयातां तद् अप्य् अनुष्ठातुं युक्तम्, किं पुनर् आचार्योपदिष्टम् ।

• यत्र चास्य रमेत् परितुष्येन् मनः । एतद् अप्य् “आत्मनस् तुष्ठिः” (म्ध् २.६) इत्य् अत्र व्याख्यातम् । सर्वथा नास्य श्लोकस्यातीव प्रयोजनम् अस्ति ॥ २.२२३ ॥

‘If either a woman,’—i.e., the teacher’s wife,—‘or a junior person’—a younger boy,—having learnt from the teacher—‘do something good,’—i.e., perform acts conducive to the triad beginning with ‘dharma’ [ i. e., acts conducive to religious merit, worldly prosperity and pleasure]—‘all that me should perform.’ It is possible that by reason of their association with the teacher they may have obtained the requisite knowledge.

Or ‘junior person’ may stand for the Śūdra employed in the Teacher’s service; and if he should offer such advice as—‘the two excretory organs are to be washed in this manner,—wash your hands thoroughly, you have forgotten the right order of applying mud and water;—when giving him water I have often seen your Teacher washing his posterior parts in this way that he cleans it first with mud, then with water,’—i.e., if being fully cognisant of the right usage he should offer such advice;—similarly if the Teacher’s wife should teach him the right way to sip water; ‘all that he should perform faithfully’—with full faith; and he should not disregard the advice as coming from a Śūdra or a woman.

‘Do.’—What is meant, is practice following the precept. It is going to be declared later on that ‘one should derive knowledge of his duty and cleanliness from all sources.’

It is quite possible that the Teacher himself might have told his wife to help the boy, who is like a son to him, to sip water in the right manner; or he might tell (the servant)—‘you should give him mud and water for cleaning his excretory organs’;—and under all these circumstances, the pupil should follow the advice as to the using of the mud and the pouring of water.

Or, the meaning may be that, in the matter of the purity of metal, stone, and water, etc., he should accept as authoritative the method adopted in the Teacher’s house by his wife and servants. In this way the present verse would be laying down the extent to which the usage of women and Śūdras should be relied upon.

“In this way then, the practice of all persons ignorant of the Veda becomes authoritative; and this is not right; because as a matter of fact, not even the slightest practice of persons ignorant of the Veda should be authoritative. The very root (of the authority of practices) consists of connection with persons learned in the Veda. If this root, in the shape of connection with persons learned in the Veda, is present, then that would supply the requisite authority; where would be the use of mentioning the woman? Specially as in matters like this, no authority can be intended, to rest in the practices of women and Śūdras. If such bad been the intention of the Author, he would have said this under the section dealing with the ‘sources of knowledge of Dharma.’”

From all this it is clear that the truth of the matter is that the present verse is meant to introduce the explanation of what is ‘good’ (coming in the next verse).

Or, it may be regarded as re-iterating the trustworthiness of the words of the Teacher; the sense being—‘Even when the woman or the Śūdra state the words of the Teacher, it is right to act up to them,—what to say of what is told directly by the Teacher himself!’

‘As also that in which his mind finds satisfaction.’—The purport of this has been explained under the term ‘Self-satisfaction’ (2.6).

In every way it is clear that there is not much useful purpose served by this verse.—(223)

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.29.2).—‘He who repeats a good act obtains specially good rewards.’

223 If a woman or a man of low caste perform anything (leading to) happiness, let him diligently practise it, as well as (any other permitted act) in which his heart finds pleasure.

Spiritual merit and wealth are called “good”; or pleasure and wealth; or spiritual merit alone, or wealth alone is “good”; but the truth is that it is the aggregate of the three.—(224)

यत् प्रशस्यं यद् आचर्यमाणं दृष्टादृष्टे नोपहन्ति यच् छ्रेयो लोक उच्यते, किं पुनस् तद् इति सुहृद् भूत्वान्वाचष्टे । नायं वेदमूलो ऽर्थः, नाचार्यादिशब्दवत् पदार्थकथनम् । किं तर्हि, श्रेयोऽर्थी सर्वः पुरुषः प्रवर्तते । तत्रेदम् उच्यते- इदं श्रेयः, एतदर्थं यत्नः कर्तव्यः । तत्र मतान्तराणि तावद् उपन्यस्यति ।

• केषांचित् मतं धर्मार्थौ श्रेयः । धर्मः शास्त्रविहितौ विधिप्रतिषेधौ । अर्थो गोभूमिहिरण्यादिः । एतद् एव श्रेयः, एतदधीनत्वात् पुरुषप्रीतेः ।

• अपरं मतं कामार्थाव् इति । कामस् तावन् मुख्य एव पुरुषार्थः । प्रीतिर् हि श्रेयः, अर्थो ऽपि तत्साधनत्वात् । एवं हि चार्वाकाः आहुः- “काम एवैकः पुरुषार्थस् तस्य साधनम् अर्थः धर्मो ऽपि यद्य् अस्ति” ।

• धर्म एव सर्वेभ्यः श्रेयान्, सर्वस्य तन्मूलत्वाच् च । उक्तं च “धर्माद् अर्थश् च कामश् च” (म्भ् १८.५.४९) इति ।

• अर्थ¹⁴² एवेति वणिजः प्रयोगजीविनः ।

• सिद्धान्तस् तु त्रिवर्ग इति तु स्थितिः । अतो धर्माविरोधिनाव् अर्थकामाव् अपि सेवितव्यौ, न तद्विरोधिनौ । तथा च गौतमः- “न पूर्वाह्णमध्यंदिनापराह्णान् अफलान् कुर्यात् यथाशक्ति धर्मार्थकामेभ्यः” इति (ग्ध् ९.४६) । त्र्यात्मको वर्गस् त्रिवर्गः । त्रिषु समुदितेष्व् अयं रूढः ॥ २.२२४ ॥

In a friendly spirit, the Author now proceeds to explain what it is that is praiseworthy, which, when carried into practice, does no harm either visible or invisible, and which is called ‘good’ in ordinary parlance.

What is stated here is not founded on the Veda, nor is it an explanation of the denotation of words, as we have had before in the case of such words as ‘preception’ and the rest. The fact of the matter is that when a man acts he seeks to obtain something ‘good’; and the Author is going to explain that such and such a thing is the ‘good’ for the sake of which man acts.

On this point he puts forward the different opinions that have been held.

(1) Some people have held that spiritual merit and wealth are “good” ‘Spiritual merit’ consists in the due observance of the Injunctions and Interdictions contained in the scriptures. ‘Wealth’ consists in cattle, lands, gold and so forth. These alone constitute “good”; since man’s happiness depends upon them.

(2) Another opinion is that ‘pleasure and wealth’ constitute the “good.” Pleasure is the one thing desired by men; hence pleasure is the “good and wealth also, since it is conducive to pleasure. The Cārvākas (Atheists) have declared that “Pleasure is the one end of man, and wealth is the means to it, as also is ‘Spiritual Merit,’ if there is such a thing.”

(3) [The third opinion is that] Spiritual Merit is the highest ‘good’ of all,—all this being based upon that. To this end it has been declared that ‘from Spiritual Merit proceed Wealth and Pleasure.’

(4) That Wealth is the sole ‘good’ is held by tradesmen aud professionals.

(5) The real truth is that it consists in ‘the aggregate of the three’ Hence it follows that one should attend to Wealth and Pleasure also, but only such as are compatible with Spiritual Merit, and not such as are contrary to it. So says Gautama (9.46)—‘One should, as far as lies in his power, make his mornings, middays and evenings fruitful with Spiritual Merit, Wealth and Pleasure.’

‘Aggregate of three’;—i.e., a group consisting of three factors. That is, the name ‘good’ is applied by convention to the three taken together.—(224)

Hopkins remarks “four schools are noted but he ignores the fifth,—the Siddhānta—‘trivargamiti tu sthitiḥ’ ‘the truth is that it is the aggregate of the three.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 158), which adds that Dharma, Artha and Kāma are the ‘group of three’;—this constitutes the ‘Śreyaḥ’, which one should constantly bear in mind as the aim to be attained.

Gautama (9.48.49).—‘Either the morning or the midday or tho evening, he shall not make devoid of merit, wealth and pleasure;—from among these he should regard merit as the highest.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.1).—‘The investigation of Dharma for the good of man.’

Viṣṇu (1.8).—‘Merit is the essence of all.’

Āpaslamba Dharmasūtra (1.20.3).—‘When a man does what is meritorious, wealth follows.’

224 (Some declare that) the chief good consists in (the acquisition of) spiritual merit and wealth, (others place it) in (the gratification of) desire and (the acquisition of) wealth, (others) in (the acquisition of) spiritual merit alone, and (others say that the acquisition of) wealth alone is the chief good here (below); but the (correct) decision is that it consists of the aggregate of (those) three.

The preceptor, the father, the mother and the elder brother should not be treated with disrespect, especially by a Brāhmaṇa,—even though he be distressed—(225)

अन्यो ऽपि न कश्चिद् अवमन्तव्यः, एते पुनर् विशेषतः । प्रायश्चित्ताधिक्यम् अत्रेत्य् अर्थः । आर्त्तेन तैः पीडितेनाप्य् । अवमानम् अवज्ञा, प्राप्तायाः पूजाया अकरणं न्यक्कारश् चानादराख्यः । ब्राह्मणग्रहणं पूरणार्थम् ॥ २.२२५ ॥

In fact no one should bo treated with disrespect; specially these. That is to say, the disrespect of these entails a heavier expiation.

‘Distressed’—injured by them.

‘Treating with disrespect’ consists in disregard; the omitting of honour due; as also insulting, which is called ‘want of respect.’

The term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ has been added only for filling up the metre.—(225)

There is a confusion in the position of the two verses 225 and 226. Burnell places 226—‘Ācāryo brahmaṇo mūrtiḥ &c.’—before 225—‘Ācāryaśca pitā chaiva &c.’

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 94).

**(verses 225-228)
**

Gautama (21.15).—‘There should be no remissness in one’s behaviour towards his father and mother.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.14.6).—‘Towards the father and the mother, one’s service shall be as towards the Ācārya.’

Viṣṇu (31.1).—‘For man there are three super-elders;—the Father, the Mother and the Ācārya;—one should ever attend upon these;—one should do what is agreeable and beneficial to these.’

225 The teacher, the father, the mother, and an elder brother must not be treated with disrespect, especially by a Brahmana, though one be grievously offended (by them).

The preceptor is the embodiment of Brahman; the father is the embodiment of Prajāpati; the Mother is the embodiment of the earth, and one’s own brother is the embodiment of the self.—(226)

पूर्वस्यायम् अर्थवादः । यत् परं ब्रह्म वेदान्तोपनिषत्प्रसिद्धं तस्य आचार्यो मूर्तिः शरीरम् । मूर्तिर् इव् मूर्तिः । प्रजापतेर् हिरण्यगर्भस्य पिता । येयं पृथिवी सैव माता, भारसहत्वसामान्यात् । भ्राता च स्वः सोदर्यः आत्मनः क्षेत्रज्ञस्येति प्रशंसा । एते सर्वे देवतारूपाः महत्त्वयुक्ता अवमता घ्नन्ति, प्रसादिता अभिप्रेतैः कामैर् योजयन्ति । एवं तत्समा आचार्यादय इति स्तुतिः ॥ २.२२६ ॥

This verse is commendatory of what has gone above.

That supreme Brahmaṇ which is described in the Vedantic Upaniṣads—of that the Preceptor is the ‘embodiment’—i.e., he is as it were the very image of Brahman. ‘The father is the embodiment of Prajāpati’—i.e., Hiraṇyagarbha. The mother is the same as this earth,—both being equally capable; of bearing burdens. ‘One’s own’—i.e., uterine—‘brother is the embodiment of the self’—the conscious entity within the body.

All the gods here named are possessed of majestic greatness, and destroy one, if they are treated with disrespect, while if propitiated, they endow one with all desirable things; and similar to these are the preceptor and the rest; who thus become eulogised by this verse.—(226)

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 94).

**(verses 225-228)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.225].

226 The teacher is the image of Brahman, the father the image of Pragipati (the lord of created beings), the mother the image of the earth, and an (elder) full brother the image of oneself.

The trouble that the parents undergo in the birth of children,—for that there can be no compensation even in a hundred years.—(227)

भूतार्थानुवादेनेयम् अपरा प्रशंसा । क्लेशं दुःखं माता च पिता च नॄणाम् अपत्यानां संभवे गर्भात् प्रभृति याव्द् दशमाद् वर्षात् । मातुः क्लेशः गर्भधारणम् । प्रसवः प्राणहरः स्त्रीणाम् । जातस्य च संवरणयोगः क्लेशः । स सर्वस्य स्वयं संवेद्यः । पितुर् अप्य् उपनयनात् प्रभृति आ वेदार्थव्याख्यानात् । संभवशब्देनात्र गर्भादाहम् उच्यते । तद् धि न क्लेशावहम्, किं तर्हि तदुत्तरकालभाविन्य एताः क्रियाः, ता हि क्लेशसाध्याः । न तस्य क्लेशस्य निष्कृतिर् आनृण्यं प्रत्युपकारसमत्वं शक्यं कर्तुं वर्षशतैर् जन्मभिर् बहुभिः, किं पुनर् एकेन जन्मना । असंख्यधनदानेन महत्या वापद उद्धरणेन मातापित्रोर् निष्कृतिर् इति ॥ २.२२७ ॥

This is another commendatory statement describing a past event.

‘Trouble’—pain;—‘Parents’–‘father and mother’;—‘of children’—of their offsprings. ‘At the birth’—from conception up to the tenth year of their age. The ‘trouble’ of the mother consists in the bearing of the child in the womb; then again, parturition endangers the very life of women. After the birth of the child, there follows the trouble of rearing him; all this is known by all persons in their own experience. For the father also there is ‘trouble’ beginning with Upanayana and ending in the explanation of the meaning of Vedic texts.

The term ‘birth’ here cannot mean conception; as this act entails no trouble at all; what are meant are all the acts that follow the act of conceiving, all which are troublesome.

‘For that’—trouble—‘there can be no compensation’—payment of the debt; the repayment of the benefits conferred; this cannot be done ‘even in a hundred years’—i.e., even during several lives; what to say of a single life! There may be some compensation for parents if one presents them with innumerable wealth or saves them from a very great calamity.—(227)

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 94).

**(verses 225-228)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.225].

227 That trouble (and pain) which the parents undergo on the birth of (their) children, cannot be compensated even in a hundred years.

He should always do what is pleasing to those two and to the preceptor; on these three being satisfied, all austerity becomes completed.—(228)

तस्मात् तयोर् मातापित्रोर् आचार्यस्य च सर्वदा यावज्जीवं यत् प्रियं तेषां तत् कुर्यात्, न सकृद् द्विस् त्रिर् वा कृत्वा कृती भवेत् । तेष्व् एवाचार्यादिषु त्रिषु तुष्टेषु¹⁴³ भक्त्याराधितेषु तपः सर्वं बहून् वर्षगणांश् चान्द्रायणादितपस् तप्त्वा यत् फलं प्राप्यते तत् तत्परितोषाद् एव लभ्यत इति ॥ २.२२८ ॥

For reasons stated above,—‘of these two’—of the father and the mother,—‘and of the preceptor,’—‘always’—as long as one lives,—‘he should do what is pleasing to’; and one should not be satisfied with acting agreeably to them once, twice or thrice only.

‘On these three’—preceptor and the rest—‘being satisfied’—i.e., when they have been propitiated by devoted service,—‘all austerity’; i.e., the rewards that Are obtained by the performance of the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ and other penances for several years are obtained from the satisfaction of these three.—(228)

**(verses 225-228)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.225].

228 Let him always do what is agreeable to those (two) and always (what may please) his teacher; when those three are pleased, he obtains all (those rewards which) austerities (yield).

The service of these three is declared to be the highest austerity; until permitted by them, one should not perform any other meritorious act.—(229)

कथं पुनस् तपःफलम् अतपसा मात्रादिशुश्रूषया । यस्मात् एतच् च सर्वोत्तमं तपो यत् तेषां पादसेवनम् । तैर् अननुज्ञातो माणवकः धर्मम् अन्यं तत्सेवाविरोधिनं तीर्थस्नानादिरूपं व्रतोपवासादि च शरीरशोषणया तेषां चित्तखेदकरम् । ज्योतिष्टोमानुष्ठाने ऽप्य् अनुज्ञा ग्रहीतव्या । यतो ऽवमानप्रतिषेधः कृतः¹⁴⁴ । महारम्भेषु च कर्मसु बहुधनव्ययायाससाध्येषु मुह्यमाना अवमन्तवाः¹⁴⁵ भवेयुः । नित्यकर्मानुष्ठाने त्व् अनुज्ञा¹⁴⁶ नोपकारिणी ॥ २.२२९ ॥

Question.—“How can the reward of austerities be obtained by means of serving the mother, etc., which is not austerity at all?”

Answer.—Because attending upon the feet of those persons is the best form of austerity.

‘Until he is permitted by them,’—the pupil—‘should not perform any other meritorious act, that may stand in the way of his serving of the three persons; e.g., bathing at sacred places, keeping of vows and fasts, which, by reason of their leading to the boy’s body being emaciated, causes anxiety in their minds. Even for the performing of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices, it is necessary to obtain their permission;

because the disregarding of these persons has been interdicted; and if the boy were not to consult them regarding the performance of acts involving much effort and expenditure of wealth, they would feel bewildered and would feel as if they were disregarded. There is no use in taking permission for the performing of such acts as are compulsory.—(229)

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 95).

Viṣṇu (31.4.6).—‘One should do what they tell him to do;—he shall do nothing until permitted by them.’

Mahābhārata (12.108.5).—(Same as second half of Manu.)

229 Obedience towards those three is declared to be the best (form of) austerity; let him not perform other meritorious acts without their permission.

These have been declared to be the three regions, these the three life-stages, these the three Vedas and these the three fires.—(230)

कार्यकारणयोर् अभेदाद् एवम् उच्यते । त्रयाणां लोकानां प्राप्तिहेतुत्वात् त एव त्रयो लोका उच्यन्ते । त एव च त्रयः प्रथमाद् ब्रह्मचर्याद् अन्ये त्रय आश्रमाः । गार्हस्थ्यादिभिर् त्रिभिर् आश्रमैर् यत् फलं प्राप्यते तत् तैस् त्रिभिस् तुष्टैः । त एव त्रयो वेदा वेदत्रयजपतुल्यफलत्वात् । त एव त्रयो ऽग्नयः । अग्निसाध्यकर्मानुष्ठानफलावाप्तेस् तच् छ्रुश्रूषातः । एषापि प्रशंसैव ॥ २.२३० ॥

What is stated here is on the understanding that there is no difference between the cause and its effects.

‘These have been declared to be the three regions,’—because they are the means by which one is enabled to reach the three regions.

‘These the three life-stages’—i.e., with the exception of the first, that of the Religious Student. The meaning is that the reward obtained by means of the three life-stages beginning with that of the Householder is obtained if these three persons are satisfied.

‘These the three Vedas’;—because service of them brings the same reward that is obtained by reciting the three Vedas.

‘These the three Fires’;—because the serving these brings the rewards that are obtained by the performance of acts done with the help of the three sacrificial fires.

This also is purely eulogistic.—(230)

‘Traya āśramāḥ’;—‘The last three, life-stages’; (Medhātithi and Govindarāja);—‘the first three life-stages’ (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, P. 95).

Viṣṇu (31.7).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Mahābhārata (12.108.6).—(Same as Manu.)

230 For they are declared to be the three worlds, they the three (principal) orders, they the three Vedas, and they the three sacred fires.

The Father has been declared to be the Gārhapatya Fire, the Mother the Dakṣiṇa Fire, and the Preceptor the Āhavanīya fire; and this Triad of fires is highly important.—(231)

केनचित् सामान्येनायं पित्रादीनां गार्हपत्यादिव्यपदेशः । साग्नित्रेता आधानाग्नित्रेता या गरीयसी महाफला । त्राणं त्राणार्थम् इता प्राप्ता त्रेता इति शब्दव्युत्पत्तिः ॥ २.२३१ ॥

The father, etc., have been called ‘gārhapatya’ and the rest by reason of some sort of resemblance.

‘This Triad of Fires’—i.e., the three sacrificial Fires—‘is highly important,’—i.e., conducive to great results.

The word ‘treta’ (Triad) is etymologically analysed as ‘trāṇam itā’ which means ‘got up for the purposes of protection.’—(231)

“For the arrangement of these three fires, see the plan at the end of the first volume of Haig’s Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, and that at page 191 of Hillebrandt’s Das Altindische Neu-und Vollmondsopfer. These fires are on circular, semi-circular and square altars respectively. For the same comparisons, otherwise employed, see Āpastamba, 2.7.2.”—(Burnell—Hopkins).

This verse is quoted in Prāyascittaviveka (p. 128);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 95).

Viṣṇu (31.8).—‘The father is the Gārhapatya Fire; the Mother, the Dakṣiṇāgni; and the Teacher, the Āhavanīya.’

Mahābhārata (12.108.7).—(Same as Manu.)

231 The father, forsooth, is stated to be the Garhapatya fire, the mother the Dakshinagni, but the teacher the Ahavaniya fire; this triad of fires is most venerable.

The Householder who fails not towards these three would win the three regions, and rejoice in heaven, radiant in body, like a God.—(232)

एतेष्व् अप्रमाद्यन्न् आराधने ऽस्खलन् । तथा च तदाराधात् त्रीन् लोकाञ् जयेत् स्वीकुर्याद् आधिपत्यम् आप्नुयात् । गृही । गृहस्थावस्थस्य हि पुत्रस्य पित्रादीनां तत्कृतम् आराधनम् उपयुज्यते । तदा हि तौ वृद्धौ भवतः । दीप्यमानः शोभमानः प्रकाशमानो वा स्वेनैव तेजसा । देववद् आदित्यवद् दिवि लोके मोदते ॥ २.२३२ ॥

‘Who fails not’—who does not omit the servise; i.e., by serving these ‘he wins,’—makes his own, obtains mastery over—‘the three regions.’

‘The householder.’—It is when the son has reached the householder’s stage that his service becomes of great value to his parents and others; as by that time they become old.

‘Radiant.’—Shining, resplendent with his own effulgence. ‘Like a God,’—i.e., like the Sun.

‘Rejoices in heaven’—in the heavenly regions.—(232)

Mahābhārata (12.108.8).—(Same as Manu, but reversing the order—‘Pitṛvṛttyā imam lokam mātṛvṛttyā tathāparam.’)

232 He who neglects not those three, (even after he has become) a householder, will conquer the three worlds and, radiant in body like a god, he will enjoy bliss in heaven.

He acquires this region by devotion to his Mother, the middle region by devotion to his Father, and the region of Brahman by serving his Preceptor.—(233)

अयं लोकः पृथिवी । भारसहत्वात् तुल्या माता पृथिव्या । पितृभक्त्या मध्यमो लोको ऽन्तरिक्षम् । प्रजापतिः पितोक्तः । मध्यमस्थानश् च प्रजापतिर् नैरुक्तानाम् । स हि वर्षकर्मणां प्रजानां पाता वा पालयिता वा । ब्रह्मलोकम् आदित्यलोकम् । आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्यादेशः । लोकः स्थानविशेषस् तम् अश्नुते प्राप्नोति ।

• अर्थवादा एते । तत्र नाभिनिवेष्टव्यम् । न च लोकाधिपत्यकामस्य तदाराधनाधिकारः । नायं काम्यो विधिः । पितृत्वम् एवात्र निमित्तम्, अकरणे शास्त्रातिक्रमः ॥ २.२३३ ॥

‘This region;’—i.e., the Earth; the Mother being equal to the Earth, on account of both of them being capable of bearing burdens.

‘By devotion to his Father, the middle region;’—i.e., the sky. The Father has been described as Prajāpati; and according to the followers of the Nirukta, Prajāpati has his abode in the middle Region; and he is the sustainer or protector of men.

‘The Region of Brahman’—i.e., the solar region; according to the declaration (in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad) that ‘the Sun is Brahman, such is the teaching.’

‘Region’—means a particular place.

‘Acquires’—gains.

All this is a purely commendatory statement; and much attention need not be paid to it. Nor is it that only persons desirous of sovereignty over the said regions are to do honour to the Rather, etc.; for the injunction is not an optional one. In fact, the mere fact of the person being one’s father is the sole condition of his being honoured; and the omission of it involves a transgression of the scriptures.—(233)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 336) under the section ‘Worship of the Guru’;—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 129);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 95).

Viṣṇu (31.10).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Śruti (Parāśaramādhava, p. 336).—‘These objects become manifest to that person who has the highest devotion to God, and as towards God so towards the Guru.’

Śivapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 336).—‘The Guru has been declared to be Śiva.’

Mahāhhārata (12.108.9).—(Same as Manu.)

233 By honouring his mother he gains this (nether) world, by honouring his father the middle sphere, but by obedience to his teacher the world of Brahman.

All the duties have been honoured by him who has honoured these three; and all acts remain fruitless for him who does not honour them.—(234).

आदृताः सत्कृताः । आदृतवचनेन प्रत्युपकारपरत्वं लक्ष्यते । यो ह्य् आदृतो भवति स परितुष्टः प्रत्युपकाराय यतते । अथ वा आदृतः परितुष्टः उच्यते । धर्मस्य चानन्त्यात् परितोषानुपपत्तेः फलदानोत्सुकत्वं लक्ष्यते । सर्वाणि तस्य कर्माण्य् आशु फलदायीनि भवन्ति । यस्यैते त्रय आदृताः शुश्रूषया परितुष्टाः । एतैस् त्व् अनाराधितैर् यत् फलकामेन किंचित् क्रियते शुभं कर्म तत् सर्वं निष्फलम् । सर्वाः क्रियाः सर्वाणि श्रौतस्मार्तानि कर्माणि ।

• अर्थवादो ऽयम् । पुरुषार्थो ह्य् आराधनविधिः । तदतिक्रमे पुरुषः प्रत्यवयन् महता पापेन कर्मोपार्जिते ऽपीष्टफलभोगे प्रतिबध्यते । अत उच्यते सर्वास् तस्याफलाः क्रिया इति ॥ २.२३४ ॥

‘Honoured’—respected. The mention of ‘honouring’ indicates that the person honoured is intent upon repaying the benefits he has received. As a matter of fact, the person who is honoured becomes pleased and tries to repay it. Or, ‘honoured’ may be taken as standing for ‘pleased.’ And as Duties are endless, the entire satisfaction of these would not be possible; so that what is indicated is ‘anxiety to bring about the desired result’; hence what is meant is that ‘all acts done by him bear fruit quickly.’

‘By him who has honoured these three’—who has satisfied them by his service.

If these persons are not honoured, then whatever meritorious act the man does with a view to reward remains fruitless.

‘All acts’,—i.e., rites performed according to Śrauta and Smārta rules.

This verse is purely commendatory. The fact of the matter is that the injunction of honouring the three persons aims at the accomplishment of something desirable for man; so that by transgressing it the man would incur a great sin, which would obstruct the fulfilment of any reward that he might have won by his acts. It is with a view to this that it is said that ‘all his acts remain fruitless.’—(234)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 336) along with verse 233;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 95).

Viṣṇu (31.9).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Mahābhārata (12.103.12).—(Same as Manu, but reading ‘lokāḥ’ for ‘dharmaḥ.’)

234 All duties have been fulfilled by him who honours those three; but to him who honours them not, all rites remain fruitless.

So long as these three live, he should not do anything else; he should always bender service unto them, rejoicing in what is pleasing and beneficial to them.—(235)

उक्तार्थो ऽयं श्लोकः । नान्यं समाचरेद् दृष्टम् अदृष्टं वा तदनुज्ञानम् अन्तरेणेत्य् उक्तम् । तेष्व् एव नित्यं शुश्रूषां कुर्यात् । प्रियहिते रतः । प्रियं च हितं च तत् । यत् प्रीतिकरं तत् प्रियं यत् पालनं तद् धितम् ॥ २.२३५ ॥

What is meant by this verse has already been explained.

‘He should not do anything else.’—Any other act leading to visible or invisible results,—without their permission, as has already been stated above (under 229).

‘He should always render service unto them, rejoicing in what is pleasing and beneficial to them.’—What causes them pleasure is ‘pleasing,’ and what sustains them is ‘beneficial.’—(235)

This also is quoted along with verses 233 and 234, in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 336);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 95).

Viṣṇu (31.3.5.6).—‘One should always attend upon these;—he should do what is agreeable and beneficial to them;—he should do nothing without their permission.’

235 As long as those three live, so long let him not (independently) perform any other (meritorious acts); let him always serve them, rejoicing (to do what is) agreeable and beneficial (to them).

He should communicate to them by thought, word or deed whatever he may do without injury to them, for the sake of the next life.—(236)

परत्र जन्मान्तरे यस्य फलं भुज्यते तत् पारत्र्यम् । छान्दसं रूपम् एतत् । शुश्रूषाया अविरोधेनान्यं यं यं धर्मं समाचरेत् तं तं निवेदयेत् तेभ्यस् तान् ज्ञापयेत् । अनुपरोधग्रहणम् एवमर्थं कृतम् । यत् तेषां विरोधि तत्र नैवानुज्ञां¹⁴⁷ दापयितव्याः¹⁴⁸ । कश्चिद् ऋजुप्रकृतिर् अभ्यर्थमान आत्मपराधर्मम्¹⁴⁹ अवगणय्यानुजानाति, तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् एतत् । मनोवचनकर्मभिः । न निवेदनम् अदृष्टार्थम् अपि तु यादृशम् अनुज्ञानं तादृशम् एव कर्मणा दर्शयेत् ।

• अथ वैवं¹⁵⁰ संबन्धः कर्तव्यः । मनोवचनकर्मभिः पारत्र्यं यद् यद् आचरेत् तत् तन् निवेदयेत् तेभ्य इति ॥ २.२३६ ॥

‘Pāratryam’—‘that which is done for the sake of another life’—is that act whose reward is obtained during the next birth. The form of this word is Vedic.

Whatever religious act he should do, apart from the serving of them, without causing them trouble,—of all that he should inform them; he should make it known to them.

The qualification ‘without injury to’ has been added with a view to convey the following idea:—One should, not

press them to permit the performance of an act that may be injurious to them. It sometimes happens that a simple-minded person, when pressed, permits the doing of an act, not minding the harm that it may do him, and the present verse is meant to prohibit this.

‘By thought, word or deed.’—This communication is not for the purpose of accomplishing some unseen result. The meaning is that he should show by his actual deed that he has acted in strict accordance with the permission accorded to him.

Or, the verse may be construed as—‘whatever act for the sake of the next life he does, by thought word or deed, that he should make known to them.’—(236)

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 95), which explains ‘pāratryam’ as ‘acts pertaining to the other world, spiritual acts.’

Viṣṇu (31.4.6).—‘He shall do what they tell him to do;—he shall not do anything until permitted by them.’

236 He shall inform them of everything that with their consent he may perform in thought, word, or deed for the sake of the next world.

All that ought to be done by man is finished on these three; this is the highest direct duty; every other is a subordinate duty.—(237)

इतिशब्दः समाप्तिवचनः कार्त्स्न्यं गमयति । यत्किंचन पुरुषस्य कर्तव्यं यावान् कश्चन पुरुषार्थः स एतेष्व् आराधितेषु समाप्यते परिपूर्णम् अनुष्ठितो भवति । एष धर्मः परः श्रेष्ठः साक्षात्त्वेन । अन्यश् चाग्निहोत्रादिर् उपधर्मः प्रतिहारस्थानीयो न साक्षाद् राजवत्, इति प्रशंसा । अवमानप्रतिषेधः, प्रियहितकरणम्, तद्विरोधिनः कर्तव्यस्याननुष्ठानम्, अविरोधिनो ऽप्य् अननुज्ञातस्य च । परिशिष्टः श्लोकसंघातो ऽर्थवादः ॥ २.२३७ ॥

The particle ‘iti’ (‘all’)denotes the end, and signifies entirety.

Whatever there is that ought to be done by man, whatever there is that is conducive to the fulfilment of man’s purpose,—all that is ‘finished’—becomes entirely accomplished—‘on these three’ being duly propitiated.

‘This is the highest duty,’—because ‘direct.’

‘Every other,’ duty in the form of Agnihotra and the rest—is ‘subordinate.’ That is, they are like the door-keeper (leading up to the king), and not directly like the king himself. This is a praise (of the act of serving the father, etc.).

The prohibition of disregarding them,—the injunction of doing what is pleasing and beneficial to them,—of not doing what may be injurious to them,—and the non-doing of acts not injurious to them, without their permission apart from these, all the other verses are merely commendatory.—(237)

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 95).

237 By (honouring) these three all that ought to be done by man, is accomplished; that is clearly the highest duty, every other (act) is a subordinate duty.