०१ गृहस्थाश्रमप्रवेशः

Duties relating to the Three Vedas should be observed under the Preceptor for thirty-six years, or for half that period, or for a quarter, or precisely till they have been got up.—(1)

द्विविधो ब्रह्मचारी पूर्वत्र प्रतिपादितः- नैष्ठिक उपकुर्वाणश् चेति । “आ समाप्तेः शरीरस्य यस् तु शुश्रूषते गुरुम्” (म्ध् २.२४४) इत्य् अनेन नैष्ठिकब्रह्मचर्यम् उक्तम् । “आ समावर्तनात्” (म्ध् २.१०८) इति पक्षान्तरम् अपि सूचितम् । तत्र नैष्टिकस्य नामधेयस्य प्रतिलम्भेनैव निमित्तवता अवधिशेषः सुगमितः । निष्ठाम् समाप्तिं गच्छति नैष्ठिकः । श्रुत्यैव कालो विहितः “आ समाप्तेः” इति । उपकुर्वाणस्य-

• अनेन क्रमयोगेन । (म्ध् ६.८५)

• तपोविशेषैर् विविधैर् व्रतैश् च विधिचोदितैः ।

• वेदः कृत्स्नो ऽधिगन्तव्यः ॥ (म्ध् २.१६५)

इति संख्याया अविवक्षाया चैकद्वित्रिचतुःपञ्चषट्सप्तादिशाखाध्ययनं यथाशक्ति प्राप्तं नियम्यते ।

• त्रैवेदिकं व्रतं चर्यम् । त्रयाणां वेदानां समाहारस् त्रिवेदी, तद्ग्रहणप्रयोजनं त्रैवेदिकम् । ग्रहणक्रिया वृत्ताव् अन्तर्भवति वेदाधिगमस्य प्राग्विहितत्वात् । व्रतं ब्रह्मचारिधर्मकलापः । चर्यं चरितव्यम् । कृत्यो विधौ ।

• एवम् आहरणादीनां ग्रहणान्ततायां प्राप्तायाम् आह- षट्त्रिंशदाब्दिकम् इति । गृहीते ऽपि वेदे कालः पूरयितव्यः ।

• यदि स्वाध्यायाध्ययनविध्यर्थो धर्मः, तस्य च स्वाध्यायविधेर् ग्रहणे निवृत्तिः, किमर्था तर्हि द्वादशवार्षिकी ग्रहणोत्तरकालं¹ व्रतचर्यानुवृत्तिः ।

• अत्यल्पम् इदम् उच्यते । दर्शपूर्णमासादिष्व् अप्य् आग्नेयादियागेभ्यः पराञ्चि यान्य् अङ्गानि तत्राप्य् एतद् वक्तव्यम् । समस्ताङ्गानुष्ठान एवाराद्² उपकारकाद्यङ्गयुक्ताद्³ विशिष्टक्रमकाद् विध्यर्थसंपद्य् अवगतायां परिचोदनाशब्दाद् एव विधिः संपद्यते⁴ ।

• अथ महतो लधीयांसस् तदर्धिकपादिकग्रहणावधयः पक्षाः सन्ति । तेषु सत्सु कः खलु महाप्रयासम् अतिचिरकालं तावद् द्वादशवार्षिकं व्रचरणम् आद्रियेतेति चेत्,

• फलभूमार्थिनो ऽङ्गभूयस्त्वम् अनुष्ठास्यन्ति । तद् उक्तं “प्रयत्नविशेषात् फलविशेषेण भवितव्यम्” इति ।

• ननु च नार्थावबोधाद् ऋते ग्रहणद्वारेण स्वाध्यायाध्ययनस्य किंचिद् अपरं फलम् अस्ति । एवं ह्य् आहुः- न तस्याध्ययनमात्रं तत्रभवन्तो याज्ञिकाः फलं समामनन्तीति । तथा “दृष्टो हि तस्यार्थः कर्मावबोधनं नाम” (शब् १.१.१) इति शबरभाष्ये । तस्य न च कश्चिद् विशेषो दृश्यते ।

• यद्य् एवं ग्रहणकाले ऽप्य् अन्तरेण व्रतधर्मानुष्ठानं ग्रहणानुष्ठानप्रसङ्गः⁵ । कश् चैवम् आह- अर्थावबोधार्थः स्वाध्यायविधिर् इति । स्वाध्यायविधिः स्वार्थ एव । नान्यस्यान्यार्थतायां प्रमाणम् अस्ति । अर्थावबोधो हि ग्रहणे सति वस्तुस्वभावत⁶ उत्पद्यते न विधितः ।

• अथ किं⁷ स्वर्गादिफलार्थिनो ऽयं विधिः ।

• एतद् अपि कथं भविष्यति ।

• का तर्हीयं वाचो युक्तिः- “फलविशेषेण” इति ।

• एषा वाचो युक्तिः । संस्कारविधिस् तावद् अयं स्वाध्यायप्रधानः, तस्य स्वाध्याये कर्मण्य् उत्पन्नत्वात् । संस्कारविधयश् च न साक्षाद् अधिकारम् अर्हन्ति, किं तु संस्कार्यद्वारेण साधिकारविध्यन्तरम् अनुप्रविशन्ति । यथा “व्रीहिम् अवहन्ति” इति दर्शपूर्णमासाधिकारविषयाग्नेयादियागसाधनभूतपुरोडाशप्रभृतिव्रीहितुषकण-विप्रमोचनादिसंस्कारद्वारेण दर्शपूर्णमासापूर्वसंबन्धम् अनुभवति अवघातः, न तन्निरपेक्षः, स एव कर्तव्यतया प्रतीयते । एवम् हि वेदस्य संस्कार्यत्वं नान्यत्राशेषभूतस्य⁸ निर्वहति । दृष्टः⁹ स्वाध्यायाध्ययनानन्त्रम् अर्थावबोधः । अत इदम् अध्ययनम् अर्थावबोधपर्यन्तम् अवघात इव तण्डुलनिष्पत्तिपर्यन्तः । एतावांस् तु विशेषः । प्रकरणे ऽधीतत्वाद् अवघातो झट् इति लब्धाधिकारविध्यन्तरसंबन्धः । अयं त्व् अनारभ्याधीतत्वाद् अवबोधपर्यवसायी सकलफलकर्मानुष्ठानोपयोगितया गम्यमानो ऽधिकारः । तथा विध्यर्थनिवृत्तिर् एव फलविशेषो ऽभिप्रेतः । विधेर् हि पुरुषार्थत्वं व्युत्पन्नावगमम्, तत् साक्षाद् भवतु वा परंपरया वेति न विशेषः । गम्यमानाधिकारत्वाच् च स्वतन्त्र एवायं विधिः स्वात्मानम् अनुष्ठापयति, यद्य् अपि नित्यकामश्रुतिष्व् अर्थावबोध उपयुज्यते ।

• ये त्व् अर्थावबोधद्वारेण ज्योतिष्टोमादिविध्येककार्यत्वम् इच्छन्ति तत्फलस्यैव च प्रयत्नविशेषाद् अतिशयम् आहुस् तेषाम् आचार्यकरणविधिना किम् अपराद्धम्, येन महता यत्नेन तदेककार्यता निषिध्यते । अप्रामाण्यं वेदस्य भवतीति चेत्, अस्तु । न प्रयोजनवशेन युक्तिसामर्थ्यायातो ऽर्थो हातुं शक्यते । युक्तिस् तु युक्त्यन्तरेण बलीयसा बाध्यते ।

• आचार्यकरणविध्येककार्यत्वे त्व् अस्य विधिरूपतैव हीयते, स्वार्थस्याविवक्षितत्वात् । तत्तुल्यं ज्योतिष्टोमाद्यनुप्रवेशे ऽपि ।

• यदा तु स्वतन्त्रो ऽयं विधिः स्वार्थानुष्ठापकस् तत्समानस्कन्धस् तदा स्वयम् एवेतिकर्तव्यतया युक्तो ऽनुष्ठीयते ।

• तत्र ये विकल्पिताः कल्पा लघीसांसो गरीयांसश् च, तेषां लघियसा सिद्धे गरीयसाम् अनुष्ठानं विध्यर्थ एव विशेषम् आवहति । यथाधाने “एका देया तिस्रो देया द्वादश देयाः” (वार्श् ३.२.३.४५) इत्यादि¹⁰ । अनुष्ठिते चास्मिन् विधौ स्वसामर्थ्याच् छ्रुतो¹¹ वा भवतु प्रतीयमानो वा कल्पो वा, प्रमाणभेदो ऽयं न संबन्धभेद, सर्वथोभ्यतः स्पर्शतो न मुच्यामहे, यद्य् अस्य विधिः स्वार्थानुष्ठापको ज्योतिष्टोमाद्युपकारकत्वं च¹² ।

• ननु किम् इदं पूर्वापरविरुद्धं प्रलप्यते । प्रागुक्तम्- न साक्षात् संस्कारविधयो ऽधिकारसंबन्धिनः, इदानीं तु स्वतन्त्र एवायं विधिः स्वार्थानुष्ठापक इति । यथायं¹³ विशेषश्रुतेनान्वयिना न संबध्यते, गम्यमानस् त्व् अधिकारः संस्कारविधीनाम् अप्य् अविरुद्ध इति । नायं विशेषो यद्य् अस्य विधिप्रयुक्तम् अनुष्ठानम् अर्थावबोधांश इष्यते । पाठमात्रस्याचार्यविधिप्रयुक्तत्वात् संस्कारविधीनाम् अधिकारसंबन्धो ऽभ्युपगतः स्यात् । अथ विध्यन्तरोपकारकत्वात् तत्प्रयुक्तम् अनुष्ठानम्, तथा सत्य् अधिकृतस्याध्ययनं स्यान् नाधीतवेदस्याधिकारः¹⁴ । तदा च शूद्रस्याधिकारो दुर्निवारः । न चाध्ययनानन्तरं वेदार्थश्रवणं प्राप्नोति । यदैव हि यदृच्छया कुतश्चिद् अधिगतं भवति “ज्योतिष्टोमनाम कर्म वैदिकं स्वर्गफलम्” इति, तदैव तदितिकर्तव्यतां शिक्षेत् । तत्काल एव च तदुपयोगिनो मन्त्रान् याजमानान् अधीयीत ।

• अत्र केचिद् आश्रयिन्यायेन (प्म्स् ४.१.१८) परिहरन्ति । यथैव हि स्विष्टकृदादय उभयरूपाः संस्कारार्थकर्मतया, एवं स्वाध्यायाध्ययनम् अप्य् अभिधानविनियोगानुसारितया क्रियाफलावबोधदर्शनेन च संस्कारकर्म फलवत् कर्मार्थकर्म । अतः साधिकारत्वसिद्धिः । कः पुनर् अधिकारी । उपनीतस् त्रैवर्णिको माणवक इति ब्रूमः । ब्रह्मचारिधर्मेषु ह्य् एतद् आम्नायते । लिङादयो ह्य् अविनाभूतनियोज्यार्थविध्यर्थप्रतिपादकाः । तत्र विशेषाकाङ्क्षायां क्वचिच् छब्दसमर्पितो विशेषो भवति- “स्वर्गकामो यावज्जीवम् अग्निहोत्रं जुहोति” । क्वचिद् श्रुतो ऽप्य् अन्विताभिधानसामर्थ्यबलेन कल्प्यो विश्वजिदादिषु । क्वचित् प्रकरणाद् वस्तुसामर्थ्याद् विध्यन्तरपर्यालोचनयापि च प्रतीयते । तद् एतद् इह सर्वम् अस्ति । प्रकृतो ब्रह्मचारी । वस्तुसामर्थ्येन चार्थावबोध उपजायते । स च सर्वविधिषूपयुज्यते, विदुषो ऽधिकारात् ।

• तद् इदम् अपरे न मृश्यन्ति । संस्कारविधित्वेनैवास्य प्रतीयमानाधिकारता । यतः संस्कारकर्माणि संस्कार्यार्थतयानुष्ठीयन्ते । यदि च संस्कार्ये न दृश्येत विशेषस् ततः सक्तुवत् संस्काररूपता हीयेत । अस्ति चात्र फलवत्कर्मावबोधलक्षणो विशेषः । यत् तु “स्विष्टकृदादिवत्” इति, तत् प्रकृतिप्रत्ययविज्ञानागम्यत्वरूपहानितया युक्तोभयरूपता ।

• तस्मात् स्थितं स्वतन्त्रो ऽयं विधिर् माणवकस्येति । अतश् च स्वत एवानुष्ठेयो नावघातादिवद् दर्शपूर्णमासाद्यधिकारनियोगाक्षेपेण ।

• एवम् अनेकवेदाध्ययनम् अपि द्रष्टव्यम् । तत्रापि ह्य् एकेन वेदेन निर्वृत्ते विध्यर्थे किम् इत्य् अनेकवेदाध्ययनम् । फलबूम्ना तु युज्यते । फलं च पूर्ववत्, न तु वाक्यशेषाधीतं पयोदध्यादि । एवाम् स्थित एकवेदाध्यायिनः स्वशाखानदीतानां मन्त्राणां कर्मोपयोगिनां कर्मानुष्टानकाले सामर्थ्यात् तदाक्षिप्तम् अध्ययनम् अनुज्ञातं भवति । यद्य् अप्य् अधीतवेदस्याधिकारे “अधीत” इति ।

• अन्ये तु “ब्राह्मणेन निष्कारणो धर्मः षडङ्गो वेदो ऽध्येयः” (पत् इ- १) इति निष्कारण इत्य् एतस्याधिकारपदतां मन्यन्ते । निष्कारणः, कारणं प्रयोजनम् अनुद्दिश्य, नित्यकर्मवत् कर्तव्यम्। न ह्य् अस्याधिकारसमर्पकत्वम् अन्तरेण विषयद्वारेण क्रियाकारकतद्विशेषणत्वादिनान्वयः संभवति । तस्मात् सत्य् अपि संस्कारविधित्वे गम्यमानाधिकारत्वं श्रूयमाणाधिकारत्वं वाविरुद्धम् ।

• अपरे तु संस्कारविधित्वाद् अनधिकारताम् एव ज्यायसीं मन्यन्ते । अनुष्ठानविशेषलाभार्थो ह्य् अधिकार उपास्यते । स चेह संस्कार्यविशेषदर्शनाद् एव सिद्धः । संस्कारविधयः प्रयोजनापेक्षाः¹⁵ । क्रियाफलम् एवात्र विधिसाध्यम् । तच् च कर्मस्थं ग्रहणलक्षणं दृश्यत एवाविरुद्धम् ।

• अश्रुते विभागे स्मृत्यन्तराद् विभागावगतिः- “प्रतिवेदं ब्रह्मचर्यं द्वादशाब्दानि” (य्ध् १.३६) इति । के पुनर् अत्र त्रयो वेदा अभिप्रेताः । ऋग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेद इति । अथ किं नाथर्वणो वेद इति ।¹⁶ क एवम् आह । किं त्व् अत्र यथाश्रुतं संस्कार्यत्वनिर्बर्हणायाम् अर्थावबोधनिष्ठतया तस्य विधेर् अनुष्ठानलाभः । अवबोधो हि सकलकर्मानुष्ठानोपयोगीति । आथर्वणश् चाभिचाराद्युपदेशबहुलः । तस्मान् न ज्योतिष्टोमादिकर्माणि विधीयन्ते । नापि तेषां किंचिद् आङ्गम् । त्रय्यैव हौत्राध्वर्यवौद्गात्रादिसकलतदङ्गपरिसमाप्तिः । प्रधानोत्पत्तिविधयश् च त्रय्याम् एव ज्योतिष्टोमादीनां सन्ति । ब्रह्मत्वम् अपि त्रय्याम् एव विद्यते । त्रिशब्दश् च संख्यावचनः । न च संख्याशब्दाः कंचिद् धर्मम् एकम् अनपेक्ष्य प्रवर्तन्ते । अतो येषाम् एवेह कर्योपदेशपरता त एव त्रिशब्देनाभिगदितुं शक्यन्ते । न चाथर्वणस्य तत्कार्यानुप्रवेशः । न तत्र प्रधानविधयो ज्योतिष्टोमादीनाम्, नाङ्गविधयः । श्येनादिष्व् अभिचारयज्ञेषु त एवर्त्विजः सैवान्यापीतिकर्तव्यता । वेशेषो ऽपि यः सो ऽपि त्रय्याम् एवोपदिष्टः । अत ऋग्यजुषाम् ऋक्सामभ्यां¹⁷ चैकत्र कर्मणि समावेशाभावात् त्रिवेदीव्यपदेशानुपपत्तेर् नाथर्वणस्येह¹⁸ ग्रहणं स्वाध्यायशब्दवाच्यत्वात् त्व् अध्ययनविधेस् तद्विषयत्वम् अविरुद्धम् ।

• तदर्धिकम् । षट्त्रिंशत्संख्या प्रत्यवमृश्यते । ततो ऽर्धम् अष्टादशवर्षाणि । अत्रापि विभागकल्पना षड्वर्षाणि । अत्रापि पादिकम् । पादश् चतुर्भागभागिनी सैव संख्या । नव वर्षाणि । चतुर्थो भागः । प्रतिवेदं त्रीणि ।

• कथं पुनस् त्रिभिर् वर्षैर् वेदः शक्यो ग्रहीतुम् ।

• ¹⁹भवति कश्चिन् मेधावितमः²⁰ ।

• अपर आह । न ग्रहणस्वरूपप्रयुक्ता धर्माः, किं तर्हि तद्विषयेण विधिना प्रयुज्यन्ते । तत्रापि निवृत्ते ग्रहणे यदि कानिचिद् अहानि नियमानुपालनम् अध्ययनकाले क्रियते तावत् संपाद्यत एव शास्त्रार्थः । भवेत् स्वाध्यायविध्यर्थं तावतैवाङ्गकलपानुष्ठानम् । असमाप्तग्रहणस्य तद्व्रतनिवृत्तौ व्रतस्नातकव्यपदेशः । अतः कालविशेषविधानं युक्तम् । त्रिभिर् वर्षैः विना न व्रतस्नातको भवति । तद् यद्य् अपि “स्नानं वेदसमाप्ताउ” इति केचित् स्मरन्ति, तथापि तदर्थव्रतसमाप्ताव् अपि प्रयोग उपचाराद् उक्त एव ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । सत्य् अपि विधिप्रयुक्ते यावदध्ययनभावितैव व्रतानां युक्ता । अध्ययनसंयोगेन हि तानि चोद्यन्ते । यावदध्ययनं भवितुम् अर्हन्ति²¹ । वचनाद् एव हि त्रिसांवत्सरी व्रतवर्या प्राग् अपि ग्रहणाद् यद्य् एतत् पृथग्वाक्यम् । अथ तु ग्रहणान्तिकम् एवेत्य् एकं वाक्यम्, ततो नास्त्य् अगृहीते वेदे व्रतनिवृत्तिः । एवकारेणैवम् एव पक्षम् अनुमन्यन्ते ।

• यदि नास्त्य् अगृहीते वेदे तन्निवृत्तिः, कथं तर्हि व्रतस्नातको वेदस्नातक इति भेदेन व्यपदेशः ।

• चतुर्थे वक्ष्यामः ।

• षट्त्रिंशदब्दाः समाहृताः “षट्त्रिंशदब्दम्”, तत्र भवं षाट्त्रिंशदाब्दिकम् । एवं त्रैवेदिकम् । तदर्धपरिमाणं तदर्धिकम् । एवं पादिकं ग्रहणान्तिकम् इति । सर्वत्र “अत इनिठनौ” (पाण् ५.२.११५) इति मत्वर्थीयः । न तु यस्य यत्परिमाणं तत् तस्यास्तीति शक्यते ऽपदेष्टुम् ॥ ३.१ ॥

Two kinds of Religious Students have been described above—the life-long student and the student for a limited period. Verse 2.244—where it is said that ‘he serves the Preceptor till the dissolution of his body’—has described the life-long studentship; while verse 2.108—where the ‘Final Return’ has been described as the limit—has indicated the other alternative. As regards the ‘Life-long Student,’ the mention of the name, itself, which is based upon reason, serves to indicate the limit of the period of studentship; the term ‘naiṣṭhika’ meaning that which goes to the very ‘niṣṭhā.’ or end of a thing; and the exact period has been stated by the direct declaration that ‘it extends to the dissolution of the body.’ As regards the ‘limited’ studentship, we have the following texts bearing upon it:—(a) ‘by this course of application etc.,’ (6. 85), (b) ‘the entire Veda should be acquired by means of particular austerities and several observances prescribed by Injunctions’ (2.165); and since these texts do not specify any particular number of Vedas to be learnt, it would seem as if these injunctions intended the pupil to learn one, two, three, four, five six, seven or any other number of Vedic texts, in fact, as many as he could learn. The present verse proceeds to restrict the number of Vedas to be learnt.

‘Duties relating to the Three Vedas should be observed.’—‘Relating to the three Vedas’ means ‘conducive to the learning of the three Vedas;’ the act of ‘learning’ being implied by the compound, on the strength of the fact that the ‘getting up of the Veda’ has been presented before.—‘Duties’—i.e., the whole lot of duties laid down for the Religious Student,—‘should be observed’—one shall observe them; the verbal affix having the injunctive force.

From the above it might be assumed that the duty of ‘fetching the fuel’ and the rest also should continue to be kept up only till the texts have been got up (and no longer); and, in order to preclude this notion, the text adds—‘for thirty-six years;’ which means that even after the Veda has been got up, the full period has to be completed.

“If the detailed duties, that have been laid down are related to the injunction of learning the Veda,—and this Injunction ceases to be operative after the Veda has been learnt,—then why should the observances of studentship be continued for twelve years, even after the Veda has been learnt?”

What you say is too little. You might say the same in regard to the performance, at the Darṣa-pūrṇamāsa, of all those secondary details that come after the Āgneya and other primary offerings. The fact of the matter is that, just as in the case of the sacrifice, the due result is obtained only when the act is performed along with all its details, so in the case in question also the fulfilment of the Injunction (of Learning) is complete only after the act has been performed along with all the details in the duly prescribed order.

“There are several lesser alternative periods—half, and quarter of the full period—mentioned as the limit for study; and when these are permitted, who is there who would keep up the observances, which require such effort, for twelve years?”

Pupils, desirous of more extensive results, will have recourse to the carrying out of the larger details. To this effect we have the saying—‘when there is greater effort, there must follow larger results.’

“As a matter of fact, the learning of the Veda, through study, does not lead to any other result except the understanding of the meaning of Vedic texts. They say that—‘the revered Ritualists do not regal’d mere learning as the result;’ and in the Śabara-bhāṣya also we read—‘the purpose served by it has been found to consist in the comprehension of what should be done.’ And certainly, there is no diversity (or divergent grades) in the said comprehension.”

If that be so (if the comprehension of meaning were the sole end of Vedic Study), then, inasmuch as such comprehension could come about at the time of learning the Text, even without the keeping of any observances, there should be no keeping of the observances at all. Then again, who says that the Injunction of Vedic Study is for the purpose of comprehending the meaning of Vedic texts? In fact, the Injunction of Vedic Study is for the purpose of Vedic Study itself; there is no reason for regarding one thing as being for. the purpose of another thing. As for the comprehension of meaning, it follows after the Text Las been learnt, by the very nature of things, and not by virtue of the Injunction.

“Then, is the Injunction meant for one who desires Heaven?”

How can this also be possible?

“What, then, is the meaning of your assertion that there are larger results obtained (when the act is performed along with more extensive details)?”

The meaning of the statement is as follows:—The whole Injunction prescribes a sanctiticatory process, in which ‘Vedic Study’ forms the predominant factor, by reason of the sanctification being accomplished during that ‘study.’ And Injunctions of sanctifications do not stand in need of the direct mention of the result the seeker whereof would be entitled to their performance; in fact, through the object sanctified, they become part and parcel of another Injunction in connection with which a particular result has been mentioned. For example, we have the Injunction ‘the corns should be threshed and this ‘threshing’ becomes related to the transcendental results proceeding from the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa sacrifices,—not by itself, but—only through the removal of the chaff which goes to purify the corns of which is made the cake used at the Āgneya and other offerings making up the Darśa-Pūrnamāsa; and it is thus that the threshing comes to be recognised as something to be done. In the same manner, the Veda cannot be regarded as something to be sanctified or refined, except as subordinate to something else. As a matter of fact, we find that the comprehension of meaning actually follows after ‘Vedic Study from which it follows that this act of ‘study’ itself extends up to the comprehending of the meaning, just as the act of ‘threshing’ extends up to the accomplishment of the Rice. The only difference in the two cases is as follows:—By reason of its injunction occurring in the same context, the ‘threshing’ becomes quickly recognised as related to another Injunction mentioning a result; while the Injunction in question (of Vedic Study) does not occur in the context of any particular act, and is regarded as extending up to the comprehension of meaning; so that its connection with results is only implied by the fact of its being of use in the performance of all those acts that are enjoined as leading to various results. Thus the fact that an Injunction aims at some useful purpose of man is readily understood; and it makes no difference whether it does so directly or indirectly. And since its connection with a result is clearly implied, the Injunction in question gets itself carried out independently by itself, even though the comprehension of meaning is of use in connection with the injunctions of compulsory and voluntary acts.

Some people have held the view that—“the injunction of Vedic Study serves, through the comprehension of meaning, the same purpose as the injunctions of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts, and that the additional effort (involved in Vedic Study and comprehension of meaning) serves to enhance the quality of the results brought about by those acts.” But what fault has the Injunction of ‘becoming a Teacher’ done for those people, that they should have made great efforts to deny the view that this latter also serves the same purpose as the Injunction of ‘Vedic Study?’ If it be urged that—“under this view, the Veda would become unauthoritative,”—our answer is that, that might be so; but when a certain fact is well established by reason and arguments, it is not abandoned or rejected for the sake of accomplishing any purpose. In fact, an argument is set aside only by another and a more cogent argument.

“But if the Injunction of Vedic Study were taken as serving the same purpose as that of ‘becoming a Teacher,’ then the former would lose its injunctive character; as in that case no significance would attach to what is expressed by its own words.”

The same thing happens also when the Injunction in question is made a part and parcel of the Injunction of the Jyotiṣṭoma, etc.

If, on the other hand, the Injunction of Vedic Study is regarded as independently by itself conducive to the carrying into effect of what it enjoins, then, standing upon an equal footing with all other Injunctions, it rightly comes to be acted up to by itself, as a necessary factor (of all performances).

Thus then, out of the several alternative options—some heavier than the rest—that have been set forth (in the verse), if the lighter alternative serves to accomplish the desired purpose, all that the undertaking of the heavier option can do is to add something to the quality of what has been prescribed by the Injunction. Just as is the case with the options of giving ‘one, three or twelve cows’ as a fee in connection with the Laying of Fire. Thus then, if the Injunction of Study has been carried into effect on its own accouut (and the Veda has been studied), we cannot escape from its twofold relation—viz.: (1) its leading to the performance of what it itself prescribes, and (2) its helping the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts; it matters little whether such relation is directly stated, or implied, or assumed; for this latter fact would involve a diversity only in the means whereby the knowledge of the relation is obtained, and not any in the relation itself.

“How is it that you are making statements, of which the succeeding ones are inconsistent with the preceding ones? It has been asserted above that Injunctions of sanctification are never directly related to results; while now it is stated that the Injunction in question is by itself conducive to itself being carried into effect. It might be urged that—‘Though it is true that the Injunction of Sanctification is not related to any directly mentioned result, yet there is nothing incompatible in its being related to such results as are indirectly indicated.’ But even this makes no difference, if the performanceof the act (of Study), as prompted by the injunction in question, is made to extend to the comprehension of meaning also. Even so, the mere learning of the Text being got at in accordance with the Injunction of ‘having recourse to a teacher &c.,’ it would become admitted that Injunctions of sanctification are related to definite results. If, on the other hand, the performance of the act (of study) were in accordance with the Injunction as helping other Injunctions (i.e., those of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts), then, in that case, it would come to this that the Veda would be studied by one seeking after the stated result, and not that the person who has studied the Veda is entitled to the performance of acts leading to that result; and in that case, the Shudra’s title could not be denied. Nor does it necessarily follow that the meaning of Vedic texts should be learnt immediately after the texts have been learnt. In fact, whenever one might, by chance, come to understand that ‘a certain Vedic act, named Jyotiṣṭoma, leads to Heaven,’ he would learn the details of the procedure of that act, and at that same time he would also read up such Vedic texts related to that act as would have to be recited by the sacrificer.”

To the above, some people make the following answer, on the basis of the principle enunciated in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā—Sutra 4.1. 18 et. seq. The Sviṣṭakṛt and other similar offerings have been regarded as being of both kinds, serving the purposes of sanctification and also leading to specific results; and, on the same analogy, ‘Vedic Study’ also would be of both kinds—being purely sanctificatory, as indicated by the words of the Injunction prescribing it, and also leading to particular results, by virtue of its bringing about the comprehension of the meaning of texts which ultimately leads to the performance of acts (directly bringing about those results). It is in this manner that the Injunction of Vedic Study becomes conducive to definite results.

“But who is the person to whom the results accrue (and who, by seeking for that result, comes to perform the act)?”

Our answer is that it is the Boy belonging to one of the three higher castes, who has gone through the Initiatory Rite. That this is so is clear from the fact that the act (of Vedic Study) has been prescribed among the duties of the Religious Student. The Injunctive and other similar affixes are expressive of that injunction or persuasion which is inseparable from the person sought to be persuaded; and when the question arises as to particular details regarding that person, (a) sometimes the information is supplied by the words of the Injunction itself—e.g., in the sentence ‘one desiring heaven should perform the Agnihotra throughout his life (b) sometimes, even though not directly mentioned, he comes to be assumed on the basis of what is directly stated;—e.g., in the case of the Viśvajit and other sacrifices;—(c) sometimes, again, he is indicated by the examination of other Injunctions in view of the force of the context and the nature of things. In the present case, all this is present:—(a) the Religious Student happens to be the person dealt with in the context (in which the injunction of Vedic Study occurs); (b) the comprehension comes about from the nature of things; and (c) the Study is of use in connection with all other Injunctions, as it is only one who has learnt the Veda that is entitled to the performance of any Vedic act.

This explanation is not accepted by others. [According to these] it is in the character of the ‘Injunction of Santcification’ itself that the Injunction in question has (he corres-pondiṇg result indicated. As a matter of fact, all sanctificatory acts are done for the sake of the thing sought to be sanctified; and if no peculiarity is perceived in that object, then the act would lose its very character of ‘sanctification,’ as it happens in the case of the ‘Saktu.’ In the case in question, however, there does appear a peculiarity in the shape of the comprehension of acts conducive to definite results. The case of the ‘Sviṣṭakṛt’ offering has been cited above; but in that case the two-fold character has to be admitted, as if both were not held to be denoted by the root and the affix, then the act (of ‘sacrifice’) would cease to be itself.

From all this it follows that the Injunction in question stands by itself, and pertains to the initiated boy; and hence the act (of ‘study’) has to be done fo r its own sake, and not as subserving, like the threshing of corn, the purpose of results proceeding from the performance of the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices.

The same should be understood to be the case with the learning of more than one Veda; In connection with this also, the question might arise as to why one should learn several Vedas, when the Injunction is duly fulfilled by the learning of one Veda only? And here also the answer would be that the learning of several Vedas would be conducive to large results. The result of such learning also would be of the nature described above, and not of the nature ‘milk,’ ‘curd,’ and the like. Such being the case, if one has learnt a single Veda, when he comes to undertake the performance of acts requiring the use of mantras not occurring in the particular Vedic Rescension learnt by him, the very force of circumstances permits his learning of those Mantras; though in describing the title to the performance of Vedic acts, as belonging to ‘persons who have learnt the Veda,’ the qualification mentioned is that he should have duly learnt the Veda. [But the peculiar circumstances of the case render it permissible for the performer to leam the mantras at the time].

Others have held that in the text—‘that the Veda with its six subsidiary sciences should be learnt is what should be done by the Brāhmaṇa without any other motive,’—the phrase ‘without any other motive’ explains the nature of the act as regards the person to perform it; the term ‘without any motive’ means ‘without having any other end in view;’ so that what is meant is that the act should be done as a compulsory one. Unless we take this term as indicating the nature of the person to perform it, it cannot be construed with the rest of the sentence either in the form of an act, or in that of an agency contributing towards the act, or in that of a qualification of the act, and so forth.

Thus, then, even though the Injunction in question be one of sanctification, yet it may have its result indicated indirectly (as explained before), or stated directly (as now explained); and neither of this involves any incongruity.

Others, again, argue that since it is an Injunction of sanctification, it is better to take it as not related to any result at all. For the result is sought after only for endowing the act with a certain peculiarity; and this peculiarity in the present case is obtained by noting the thing to be sanctified. It is true that Injunctions of sanctification stand in need of the mention of purposes served by them; but all that is sought to be accomplished by an injunction is the result of the act enjoined; and such result, in the present case, is actually found to consist in the ‘getting up’ of the text; and there is nothing incongruous in this.

The present verse not specifying the period for the learning of each Veda, we derive the knowledge of the specific period from other Smṛti-texts, which lay down that the studentship relating to each Veda is to extend over twelve years.

The next question that arises is—which are the ‘three Vedas’ that are meant here?

They are the Ṛgveda, the Yajurveda and the Sāmaveda.

“Then, is the Atharvan not a Veda at all?”

Who says so? All that is meant by the present context is a certain sanctification; and when the sanctification in question is found to be one that can be accomplished by taking the words of the present verse in their literal sense, the Injunction in question has its performance secured by being extended up to the comprehension of meaning; and this for the simple reason that the said comprehension is of use in all performances. As for the Atharvan Veda, it deals for the most part with magical spells, and hence neither the Jyotiṣṭoma and other such acts, nor any details pertaining to these, are prescribed in it; in fact, all the duties relative to the Hotṛ the Adhvaryu and the Udgātṛ are completely laid down in the Three Vedas; the duties of the Brahman-priest also are laid down in the Three Vedas. Then, again, the term ‘three’ denotes a special number, and whenever a particular numeral is used, it is always with reference to a particular character (in which the things included under that number are found to agree). So that, in the case in question, those alone can be taken as included under the number ‘three’ which are found to possess the common character of containing Injunctions regarding what ought to be done. And the Atharvan does not fall within this category; as it does not contain any injunctions of such, primary acts as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest, not of any of their subsidiaries. As regards the Śyena and other malevolent sacrifices, these also are performed by the same priests (as the Jyotiṣṭoma, &c.), and their procedure also is the same, with a few additional details; but even those peculiar details are such as have been prescribed in the Three Vedas. Thus, theu, since the Atharvan Veda is|not found, in the performance of any act, to be grouped either With Ṛk and Yajus, or with Ṛk and Sāman, it cannot be included under the appellation of ‘Three Vedas and this is the reason why it has not been mentioned in the present context But, since it is included under the term ‘svādhyāya,’ ‘veda,’ there is nothing incongruous in its being included under the wider Injunction of ‘Vedic Study.’

‘For half that period’—‘that period’ refers to ‘thirty six years;’ the ‘half’ of which is eighteen years. Here also the division of time would be six years for each Veda.

‘Or for a quarter;’—‘Quarter’ is the fourth part of the said number, i.e., nine years, that is, three years for each of the three Vedas.

“But how can the Veda be got up in three years.”

It is quite possible that a certain pupil may be exceptionally intelligent (and he could get up the Veda in three years).

Other people offer the following explanation:—The duties prescribed in the verse are not made conditional upon the character of the ‘learning they are conditioned by the injunction bearing upon the duties themselves. So that if, before the learning has been accomplished, the rules are duly observed for a few days during the course of learning, the purpose of the Injunction becomes duly fulfilled; as the observance of the details even to that extent would go to fulfil the conditions of the Injunction of Vedic Study. If one puts an end to his observances before he has got up the text, then he comes to be called a ‘Vratasnātaka’ ‘renouncer of observances.’ Thus, inasmuch as both these contingencies are possible, it is only right that a definite period of time should have been prescribed; and the meaning is that one does not become entitled tō the title of ‘Vratasnātaka’ unless he has put in three years’ work (at least). Though some Smṛtis lay down that ‘there is Final Bath only on the completion of Vedic Study,’ yet it is quite reasonable to apply the name ‘Bath’ (snāna) figuratively to the completion of the observances relative to Vedic Study.

This, however, is not right. Though the observances are objects of independent Injunctions, yet the right course to be adopted is that they should be kept up as long as the ‘study’ continues. In fact, the observances having been actually enjoined in connection with Study, they must continue throughout the study. If the first part of the present verse (consisting of the first three feet) were taken separately, then the words of the text themselves would make the observances abandoned after three years only, even before the ‘study’ has been finished. If, on the other hand, the whole verse—including the last quarter—is taken as a single sentence, then the observances cannot cease until the Veda has been wholly learnt. In fact, the particle ‘eva,’ ‘precisely,’ clearly indicates that this last view is the correct one.

“If there is no cessation of the observances until the Vedas have been learnt, how is it that three are two distinct titles (l) ‘Vratasnātaka’, ‘who has completed the observances.’ and (2) Vedasnātaka,’ ‘who has completed the Veda’?”

We shall explain this under Discourse IV.

The aggregate of ‘thirty-six years’ is called ‘ṣaṭtṛṃśadabdam;’ that which pertains to this aggregate is ‘ṣaṭtṛṃśadābdikam’. Similarly, the term ‘traivedikam.’ That whose extent is half of that is ‘tadardhikam.’ Similarly, ‘pādikam’ and ‘grahaṇāntikam.’ The possessive affix in these terms is in accordance with Pāṇini’s Sūtra 5.2.145. The forms cannot come under Pāṇini’s 5.1.57.—(1).

“The Atharva Veda is here, as in most of the ancient Dharmasūtras, left out altogether. Baudhāyana alone states that the term of Studentship extends over forty-eight years, and that rule includes the Atharva Veda.”—Buhler.

Medhātithi (p. 187, l. 10)—‘Yatraiva hi sviṣṭakṛdādayaḥ.”—See Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 4.1.18 et seq. The question being whether the Sviṣṭakṛt offering (which is made with the remnants of the sacrificial materials) serves only as a ‘disposal’, or it also serves some transcendental purpose,—the conclusion is that in tills case a transcendental result, even though not mentioned in the texts, has to be assumed.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 97), where the following notes are added:—‘Traividyā means the three Vedas;—the Studentship over the three Vedas should be made to extend over thirty-six years; that is, one should devote twelve years to studentship over each of the three Vedas;—in the case of ‘half the period six years have to be devoted to each of the three Vedas; and in the ease of ‘quarter of the period only three years.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 557), where the following totally different explanation is added:—The meaning of this is as follows:—In the event, of the Boy studying the three Vedas, his Studentship should extend over thirty-six years; if he studies only two Vedas, then over ‘half, i. e. half of forty-eight years, or twenty-four years; that such is the meaning we deduce from the other texts bearing on the subject;—the ‘quarter’ also has to be similarly explained. If the ‘half’ and ‘quarter’ were taken in relation to ‘thirty-six years’, then the meaning would he that the Studentship should extend over eighteen and nine years respectively; and this would not agree with any other Smṛti text This same consideration gets rid of the fanciful view set forth by the Candrikā that “in the case of ‘half’, the Boy should devote six years to each of the three Vedas, and in that of ‘quarter’, three years to each.”

It is interesting that this last view has been adopted by Medhātithi. (See Translation, p. 11). This view appears to have the support of Yājñavalkya (l.36), which clearly states that—“Studentship should extend over either twelve or five years for each Veda.”

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 67), which adds that the studentship over one Veda is to extend over six years in the case of ‘half’, and over three years in the case of ‘quarter’;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 166), which adds the following explanations:—‘Traivedikam’, pertaining to the three Vedas, Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāman,—this should be carried on for 36 years,—similarly the vow of ‘Studentship’ pertaining to each single Veda is to be kept for 12 years,—in the case of the ‘Ārdhika’ system, 6 years have to be devoted to each Veda,—and 3 years each in the case of the ‘Pādika’ system;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 779).

Gautama (2. 52. 54).—‘One should keep up his studentship over one Veda, for twelve years;—or for twelve years over each Veda;—or over all, till they have been got up.’

Baudhāyana (1. 2. 1-4),—‘The ancient studentship over the Veda lasts for 48 years;—or for 24 years;—or for 12 years over each Veda;—or for one year over each Kāṇḍa;—or till it has been got up.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1. 2. 12-16).—‘For 48 years; or less by a quarter;—or by half;—or by three quarters; or at least for half-twelve years.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 36).—Over each Veda, studentship should continue for 12 years, or for 5 years; or, according to some, for such time as may suffice for its being got up.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (1. 22. 3,4).—‘Studentship over the Veda should continue for 12 years:—or for such time as would suffice for its being got up.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2.5.13-15).—‘One should keep up his studentship over the Veda for 48 years;—or for 12 years over each Veda;—for such time as would suffice for its being got up.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2. 6. 2).—‘Studentship continues for 48 years; according to some, for 12 years.’

001 The vow (of studying) the three Vedas under a teacher must be kept for thirty-six years, or for half that time, or for a quarter, or until the (student) has perfectly learnt them.

Having learnt, in due course, three Vedas, or two Vedas, or one Veda, he should enter upon the state of the householder, having never deviated from the vows of studentship.—(2).

त्रैवेदिकम् अध्ययनम् उक्तम् । एकद्विवेदाध्ययनम् अप्राप्तं विकल्प्यते । वेदशब्दः शाखावचनो व्याख्यातः । तिस्रः शाखा अधीयीत द्वे एकां वैकैकस्माद् वेदान् न त्व् एकस्माद् एव । त्रयी त्रिविद्येति पठ्यते ।

• अधीत्य गृहीत्वा वेदम् उक्तया व्रतचर्यया । गृहस्थाश्रमम् आवसेत् । गृहस्थाश्रमस्य स्वरूपं वक्ष्यति “उद्वहेत द्विजो भार्याम्” (म्ध् ३.४) इत्यादि । आवसेद् अनुतिष्ठेत् । अनेकार्था धातवः । आङ् मर्यादायां वर्तते²² । कृतदारपरिग्रहो रूढ्या गृहस्थ उच्यते । गृहशब्दो दारवचनस् तत्र तिष्ठति । तस्य यो विहितः पदार्थसमूहो विधिनिषेधात्मकः स आश्रमशब्देनोच्यते । यथोपनीतस्य ब्रह्मचर्याश्रम आ समावर्तनात्, कृतविवाहस्य गार्हस्थ्यम् इति ।

• अविप्लुतम् अखण्डितं ब्रह्मचर्यं स्त्रीसंप्रयोगनिवृत्तिर् यस्य स एवम् उच्यते । वाक्यभेदश् चात्र द्रष्टव्यः । आख्यातव्यवहारेण- आविप्लुतब्रह्मचर्यो भवेद् गृहस्थाश्रमं च प्रतिपद्यते । एकवाक्यतायां कदाचन विप्लवे गार्हस्थ्याधिकार एव हीयेत । अद्य पुनः पुरुषार्थतया विधानेन तदतिक्रमे प्रायश्चित्तेन युज्यते, न त्व् अधिकारी न²³ भवति ।

• अधीत्यावसेद् इति च पौर्वापर्यमात्रं विवक्षितम्, नाध्ययनसमनन्तरभाविता विवाहस्य ल्यप्कार्यात्²⁴ पौर्वापर्यविधानाद् आनन्तर्यं न शब्दार्थः । अतश् च स्वाध्यायाध्ययनविवाहयोर् अन्तराले व्याकरणादिशास्त्रश्रवणं वेदार्थज्ञानार्थं लभ्यते । विद्वान् एव हि गार्हस्थ्ये ऽधिक्रियते, न यथाध्ययनविधौ²⁵ मूर्खः । यद्य् अपि बाल्यावस्थायां तिर्यक्समानधर्मा स्वम् अधिकारं प्रतिपत्तुम् असमर्थस् तथापि पित्राचार्येण वानुष्ठाप्यते । वस्तुतस् तयोर् एवाधिकारः । अपत्यानुशासने पितुर् अधिकारो ऽपत्योत्पत्तिविधेस्²⁶ तावताभिनिर्वर्त्यत्वात् । अनुशासनं च विधिनिषेधाधिकारद्वयप्रतिपादनम् । तत्र यत् प्रतिपाद्य्मानो ऽपि नावबुध्यते, तद् अन्ध इव हस्तग्राहिकया कार्यते । यथाग्निसंस्पर्शकूपादिपाताद् गाढहस्तावष्टम्भादिना²⁷ धार्यते, एवम् अदृष्टाद् अपि मद्यपानादेः । यथा वानिच्छन्न् औषधापानादौ²⁸ प्रवर्तते एवं शास्त्रीयेष्व् अपि पदार्थेषु । यदा त्व् ईषद्व्युत्पन्नस् तदैवं नियुज्येत²⁹ “इदम् इदं कर्तुम् अर्हसि” इति । एवं सत्य् अधीतवेदो माणवकः पित्राचार्येणैवैवं प्रतिबोध्यितव्यो “गृहीतवान् असि वेदं त्वम् इदानीं तदर्थजिज्ञासायाम् अधिक्रियसे ततस् तदङ्गानि श्रोतुम् अरहसि” इति । एतावता पितुर् अपत्योत्पादनाधिकारनिवृत्तिः । तद् उक्तं “कियता पुनर् उत्पादितो भवति यावता स्वयम् अधिगतकृत्यो भवति” इति ।

• अतः स्थितम् एतत्- नाधीत्यैव विवाहो यावद् वेदार्थो नाधिगतः । एवं च पदयोजना कर्तव्या । अधीत्य अध्ययने निवृत्ते ऽप्य् अविप्लुतब्रह्मचर्यः स्यात् । प्राप्तायां च निवृत्तौ पुनर्वचनं नियमान्तराणां मधुमांसवर्जनादीनां निवृत्तिपरम् । तेन यावद् अध्ययनं तावत् सर्वे नियमा अनुष्ठातव्याः । समाप्ते त्व् अध्ययने ऽर्थावबोध्काले स्त्रीनिवृत्तिर् एव करणीया, स्त्रीसेवा न विधातव्या³⁰ । ब्रह्मचर्यशब्दो यद्य् अपि ब्रह्मग्रहणार्थं यद्व्रतग्रहणं तत्र व्युत्पाद्यते तथापि स्त्रीनिवृत्तिपर एवास्य तत्र प्रयोग इति दर्शयिष्यामः ।

• यथाक्रमम् । य एवाध्येतॄणां पाठक्रमः प्रसिद्धस् तेनैव, प्रथमं चतुःषष्टिस् ततो ब्राह्मणं पितृपितामहाद्यभिजनप्रबन्धोपक्रमं भवति । न हीदृशे ऽर्थे वक्तारो न कुलेन न शीलेन न क्रमेणेति । एतेन चैतत् प्रतिपादितं भवति- या एव पित्रादिभिः शाखाधीता सा³¹ न त्याज्येति ॥ ३.२ ॥

The ‘learning of Three Vedas’ has been mentioned (in the preceding verse); the learning of ‘two’ and ‘one’ Veda, not having been mentioned anywhere, are here put forward us alternatives. The term ‘veda’ in this connection has been explained as standing for Recensional Text; ‘and what is meant is that one should learn three, or two, or one Recension of each of the three Vedas,—and not that three or two or one Recension of a single Veda should be learnt. Because the work to be learnt has been called the ‘Triplicate Science.’

‘Having learnt’—having got up, by means of the above described course of studentship.

‘He should enter upon the state of the householder’—The exact nature of;the ‘Householder’s stage’ is going to be described later on (Verse 4, below).—‘Enter,’ i.e., live; verbal roots having several meanings. The prefix ‘ā’ denotes limit.

One who has taken a wife to himself is called ‘householder,’ which term is used in its conventional, not etymological, sense; The term ‘house’ standing for wife; and he who takes his stand upon that house is called ‘Householder.’

The term ‘āśrama,’ ‘state,’ stands for all those duties, positive and negative, that have been prescribed (for the married man). Just as for the ‘initiated boy,’ there is ‘state of studentship’ till the Final Return from the Preceptor’s house, so for one who has married, it is the ‘state of the Householder,’

‘Nor deviated from the votes of studentship,’—i.e., he who has not broken the vows of not having intercourse with women. This epithet has to be regarded as a distinct sentence, in accordance with the usage of stories; the sense being that (a) ‘the boy should not deviate from the vows of studentship’ and (b) ‘he should enter upon the state of the Householder.’ If the whole were taken as a single sentence, then, as a result of this, one who has deviated from the vows would never be entitled at all to enter upon the Householder’s state. If, however, we take the epithet as an independent injunction pat forth for the man’s benefit (and not as a necessary condition for entering upon Householdership), then deviation from it makes the man liable to the penalty of expiation, but it does not make him unfit to enter upon Householdership.

By the words, ‘having learnt, he should enter,’ all that is meant is that the two acts should come in this order,—entrance upon Householdership following the ‘learning;’ and it is not meant that marriage should come immediately after study. Because where the words signify mere sequence, immediate sequence is not always meant. Hence daring the time intervening between ‘Vedic Study’ and ‘marriage,’ it becomes possible for the boy to carry on the study of Grammar and. other Sciences, which help in the understanding of the meaning of Vedic texts. In fact, it is only the learned man that is entitled to Householdership; and it is not like the ‘Vedic Study,’ to which the entirely ignorant boy is entitled. Though during boyhood, the boy is like a lower animal, incapable of understanding what he is entitled to, yet he is made to act either by his Father or by his Preceptor. In fact, the act of ‘Vedic Study’ by the boy falls within the Father’s province; the proper-teaching of the child being the Father’s duty; and the reason for this lies in the fact that it is only when the child has been properly taught that the Father is regarded as having duly fulfilled the injunction of ‘begetting a child.’ ‘Teaching’ of the child, again, consists in explaining to him what he should do and what he should not do. And, if the Boy fails to understand his duties when these are explained to him, he is led by the hand, like the blind man, and made to fulfil them; just as he is caught firmly by the hand and saved from falling into the fire or into the well, in the same manner, he is also saved from drinking and other evils leading to imperceptible effects. Or, again, just as a boy is made, against his wish, to drink a wholesome medicine, so in the same manner, he is also made to do acts prescribed in the scriptures. After he has become capable of understanding things a little, he is directed by means of such words ‘you should do such and such an act.’ Such being the case, when the Boy has learnt the Veda, he should be instructed by his Father or Preceptor in such words as—‘You have learnt the Veda, now you are fit for carrying on an investigation into what is contained in it,—hence you should now hear lectures on the subsidiary sciences.’ It is only when this advice has been given that the father is regarded as having fulfilled the duty of ‘begetting a child’; as it has been declared—‘the child is begotten only when he comes to understand his own duties.’

From all this it becomes established that one should not marry immediately after learning the Veda, until he has learnt what is contained in the Veda; and the words of the text have to be construed thus—‘Having learnt—i.e., after learning has been finished—one should continue to be firm in the vows of studentship (i.e., ‘of continence’). The cessation of continence having become permissible (after the Veda has been learnt), its maintenance is reiterated with a view to indicate that the other vows and restraints—such as the avoidance of honey, meat and the rest—may be withdrawn. The conclusion thus comes to be that, so long as the Veda is being learnt, the Boy should keep all his vows of studentship,—but when the learning of the Veda has been completed, and he continues his studies further for under standing what is contained in the Veda, he should abstain only from intercourse with women.

Though the term ‘brahmacharya,’ ‘vows of studentship,’ is ordinarily explained as standing for those observances and restraints that are kept up for the proper learning of the Veda,—yet in the present context it has been used in the sense of ‘avoiding intercourse with women,’—as we shall show later on.

‘In due course,’—i.e., according to that order of reading which is well known among students; i.e. first of all one should read the sixty-four sections of the Saṃhitā (of the Ṛgveda), then the Brāhmaṇa, and so forth, in the same order of sequence in which they may have been studied by his forefathers. In matters like this, no one can rightly say that ‘one should not follow either family traditions, or the dictates of morality, or orderly sequence.’ The meaning of all this is that ‘one should not abandon that Recensional Text which may have been learnt by his father and other ancestors.’—(2)

Medhātithi (p. 189, 1. 14)—‘Vedaśabdaḥ śākhāvacano vyākhyātaḥ’—Hopkins calls this ‘a later view’ and refers to Āpastamba 2. 6.5.

The first quarter of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on p. 24, l. 36), in amplification of Yājñavalkya’s statement that ‘Studentship is to extend over twelve years’, and the meaning is deduced that twelve years should be devoted to the study of each Veda.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 131);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 505), where the note is added that—‘If one intends to perform the Jyotiṣṭoma and such other sacrifices, which can be performed only with the help of the three Vedas, one has to learn all the three Vedas, the Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāman;—if he is going to perform the Prākṣaumika and the Haviryajñas, he has to learn only, two, the Ṛk and the Yajuṣ;—while if he intends to perform only the Pākayajñas, he should learn only his own hereditary rescensional Vedic text; in the case of the other Vedas also, he should confine himself to only those rescensions which may have been studied by his forefathers, and not any one at random.

The verse is also quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 587) in support of the view that every Brāhmaṇa is entitled to the study of various Vedic rescensional texts;—in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 680); in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 568);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 49a).

Yājñavalkya (3. 52).—‘Having unfailingly maintained his studentship, he shall marry a girl endowed with good qualities.’

002 (A student) who has studied in due order the three Vedas, or two, or even one only, without breaking the (rules of) studentship, shall enter the order of householders.

When, by the due observance of his duties, he has acquired the Veda and his heritage from his father, and is so inclined,—his father shall first honour him, adorned with garlands and seated upon a couch, with the “Cow.”—(3)

तं ब्रह्मदायहरं प्रथमं गवार्हयेत् । ब्रह्म च दायश् च ते उभे हरति स्वीकरोतीति ब्रह्मदायहरः । दीयत इति दायो धनं, ब्रह्म वेदो, हरणं अधिगमः । गृहीतवेदः पित्रा कृतविभागो गार्हस्थ्यं प्रतिपद्यते, निर्धनस्यानधिकारात् । यदि तु पिता निर्धनस् तदा सांतानिकतया धनम् अर्जयित्वा विवाहयेत् ।

• अन्ये तु ब्रह्मैव दायो ब्रह्मदाय इति पूर्वोकविध्यनुवादं मन्यन्ते पितुर् इति ।

• ननु चाचार्यस्य माणवकाध्यापने ऽधिकार उक्तः किम् इदम् उच्यते पितुर् ब्रह्मदायहरम् इति ।

• उच्यते । यस्य पिता विद्यते तस्य स एवाचार्यः । अभावे पितुर् अशक्तौ वान्यस्याधिकारः । आचार्यान्तरोपादानेन पितुर् अधिकारो निवर्तत एव । स्वयं वाध्यापयत्व् अन्योपादानेन वेति न विशेषः ।

• यद् अप्य् आहुः- वरो दक्षिणेत्य् उपनयने नित्यवद् दक्षिणाम्नानात् परकर्तृकत्वम् एवेति ।

• तद् असत् । उपनयने³² ह्य् अयं विधिः “वरो दक्षिणा” इति । उपनेता च पिता वाचार्यो वा, तौ द्वाव् अपि स्वाधिकारप्रवृत्तौ नानत्यन्तरम् अपेक्षेते । आनमनार्थं हि दक्षिणादानम् । न चाधिकारान्तरतः प्रवृत्तस्यानतिर् उपयुज्यते । तेनायं दक्षिणाशब्द आनमनार्थाभावाद् अर्थाद् धिरण्यदानवद् अदृष्टार्थदानोपलक्षणार्थो विज्ञेयः । पित्रैव चासौ तावता धनेन स्वामी कर्तव्यो येन वरदानम् अस्य संपद्यते ।

• अथायम् आग्रहः- नानत्यर्थाद् दानाद् ऋते दक्षिणाशब्दस्योपपत्तिः । न वा मुख्ये सति लक्षणा न्यायेति ।

• एवं तर्हि यस्य पिता न तत्स्थानीयो नाचार्यः स यदात्मानम् उपनयेत् सत्यकामवत् तद्विषयो दक्षिणाविधिर् भविष्यति । तस्यापि चेषदपेतशैशवस्यात्मसंस्कारायास्त्येवाधिकार इति प्रतिपादितम् ।

• तस्माद् उभयथा पितुर् अधिकारः, स्वयम् उपनयमानस्यान्यम् आचार्यम् उपाददानस्य वा ।

• प्रतीतम् अभिमुखीभूतं गृहाश्रमप्रतिपत्तौ । न तु नैष्ठिकम्, समाप्ताध्ययनविध्यर्थम् अपि ग्रामप्रतिपत्तौ । स्रग्विणम् । यावन्तः केचन गृह्यकारैर् मधुपर्ककर्मणि धर्मा आम्नातास् तेषां प्रदर्शनार्थम् एतत् । तल्प आसीनं महार्हपर्यङ्कशयनोपविष्टम् । पूजाधिकारार्हं शयानम्³³ । गवा मधुपर्केण । मधुपर्के ऽसौ विधिः पाक्षिक आम्नातः । अतो गोशब्देन तत्साधनकर्मविशेषो लक्ष्यते । अर्हयेत् पूजयेत् । अधिकारात् पिताचार्यो वा । प्रथमं पूर्वं विवाहात्³⁴ । प्रतीतं स्वधर्मेणेत्य् अनुवादः । स्वधर्मेण ब्रह्मदायहरम्, स्वधर्मेण चार्हयेद् इति संबन्धे न विशेषः ॥ ३.३ ॥

‘When he has acquired the Veda and his heritage, the father shall honour him first with the cow,’ He who has acquired both, the Veda (‘Brahman’) and the heritage (‘dāya’) is called ‘brahmadāyādāharaḥ.’ ‘Dāya’ (Heritage) is what is given, i.e., property;—‘Brahman’ is ‘Veda’;—‘haraṇa’ is acquiring. It is only when the boy has learnt the Veda and received his share of the ancestral property from his father that he takes to the Householder’s state; a man without any property not being entitled to enter upon that stage. If the father happens to have no property, he should earn wealth by begging for the avowed purpose of marrying his son (and thereby maintaining his line), and then marry him.

Others explain the Veda itself as being the ‘heritage;’ and regard the present verse as a reiteration of the foregoing Injunction! for the purpose of indicating that it is to be learnt from the Father.

“It having been declared before that it is the Preceptor whose function it is to teach the Veda, why is it that the boy is now spoken of as acquiring the Veda and ‘heritage’ from his father?”

The answer to this is as follows:—For him whose Father is living, the Father himself is the ‘Preceptor.’ It is only when the Father is not living, or when he is somehow incapacitated, that another person may act as the ‘Preceptor.’ By the appointing of another man as the ‘Preceptor,’ the Father’s title to act as one ceases. But, whether the Father himself teaches his son or some one else teaches him, it makes no difference.

Some people have urged the following argument—“In connection with the Upanayana, it has been laid down, as a compulsory duty that the ‘gift should consist of some very superior thing’ (Gautama, 25.6); from which it is dear that the function is to be performed by some one else (and not by the Father himself).”

This is not right. That the Fee should consist of a very superior thing is an Injunction in connection with the Upanayana, the Initiatory Rite; and whether the Initiator is the Father or some other Preceptor, neither of these persons requires any incentive to perform this function; and fees are paid only as incentives to service; nor is any incentive necessary in a case where the person engages in the work under the influence of some other form of prompting. For these reasons, the term ‘Fee’ in the context in question, being found incapable of conveying the sense of an incentive to work, must be taken as standing for some such gift as is made for the purpose of some transcendental results, just like the giving of gold. And it is the Father who should make the Boy the owner of enough wealth to enable him to make a gift of the ‘superior thing.’

If one were to insist upon the following argument—“it is not possible for the term fee to be used in any sense other than what is paid as an incentive to serve, and so long as a word can be taken in its primary sense, it cannot be right to have recourse to any secondary signification,”—then, in that case, the said Injunction of the Fee will have to be regarded as applying to such cases where, as in the case of Satyakāma Jābāla, neither the Father is alive, nor is there any other Preceptor appointed as the Father’s substitute, and where the Boy presents himself (to a Teacher) for Initiation. And it has been already explained that such a boy, having passed his childhood, is fully entitled to have his sacraments performed for himself.

Thus, in both cases, it is the Father’s function; he may do the initiating himself or get it done by another Preceptor.

‘Inclined’—i.e., who is inclined towards entering the life of the Householder,—and not him who is going to be a lifelong student, even though the latter may be returning home simply for the sake of obeying the rule regarding the completion of study.

‘Adorned with garland’—this is meant to include all the details that have been laid down by the authors of the Gṛhyasūtras in connection with the ‘Madhuparka’ offering.

‘Seated upon a couch’—seated upon a valuable sofa.

‘With the cow’—i.e., with the ‘Madhuparka’ offering. The offering of the cow in the ‘Madhuparka’ has been prescribed as an optional alternative; hence the term ‘cow’ here stands for that particular act (of offering) which is done by means of the cow.

‘Shall honour’—this is the duty of the Father or the Preceptor.

‘First’—i.e., before marriage.

‘Inclined’—i.e., lying down upon the couch for the purpose of receiving the offering.

‘By the strict observance of his duties’—this is a super-fluous reiteration; and it makes no difference whether it is construed with ‘acquiring the Veda and his heritage,’ or with ‘shall honour.’—(3).

Medhātithi (p. 190, 1. 21)—‘Sāntānikatayā’—Apte explains ‘sāntānika’ as ‘a Brāhmaṇa who wishes to marry for the sake of issue.’ This is not quite correct. The word occurs in Manu 11. 1, where Kullūka explains it as ‘vivāhārthi,’ which has apparently misled the lexicographer. The word really means ‘he who is desirous of santāna, propagation of his race’, and is applied to the Father who, if poor, has to beg for the purpose of marrying his son.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 76), which adds the following explanation: When the Accomplished Student has been understood (pratīta) as inclined to take a wife;—he being ‘brahmadāyahara’—i.e., equipped with study of the Veda, and inherited property, i.e., being quite able to maintain a family;—if the father be devoid of property, he should acquire enough by means of begging, and then marry; and thus obtain the ‘domestic fire,’ without which he could not perform the Pākayajñas.—‘Sragvin’ indicates the presence of ornaments;—‘talpa’ is bedstead; when the young man is seated upon it his father ‘should worship him first with the cow’—i.e., with the Madhuparka.

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (1. 24. 2).—‘When, an Accomplished Student arrives, one should offer him the honey-mixture.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3. 9. 3).—‘Where people are going to worship him (the next morning), there he should, stay during the night.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3. 4. 28. 33).—‘Having approached the Ācārya seated in his assembly, he shall look upon the assembly,—sitting down, he shall control his breath;—then the Ācārya shall worship him;—having brought over a chariot yoked with a pair of bullocks…;—he is to ascend the chariot;—starting either eastward or northward, he is to go round.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2. 8. 4. 5).—‘The Vedic Student deserves the Cow-honey-mixture;—as also the Ācārya, the Priest, the Accomplished Student, the King endowed with righteousness.’

003 He who is famous for (the strict performance of) his duties and has received his heritage, the Veda, from his father, shall be honoured, sitting on a couch and adorned with a garland, with (the present of) a cow (and the honey-mixture).

The twice-born person, having, on being permitted by the Preceptor, “bathed” and “returned” according to rule, shall take a wife of the same caste as himself, who is endowed with signs.—(4).

सत्याम् अपि वेदव्रतसमाप्तौ गुरुणानुमतः अभ्यनुज्ञातः स्नायात् । स्नानशब्देन गृह्योक्तसंस्कारविशेषो लक्ष्यते, ब्रह्मचारिधर्मावधिः । यथा चात्र लक्षणा तथा प्राग् व्याख्यातम् । तद् अहर् एव गृह्यकारोक्तं कंचिन्³⁵ मधुपर्कपूजाविहितसंस्कारं प्राप्य समावृत्तो गुरुकुलात् पितृगृहं प्रत्यागत इत्य् अनुवादः । उद्वहेतेत्य् एतद्विधिशेषम् एतत् सर्वं प्राप्तम् एव न तु समावर्तनं विवाहाङ्गम् । तेन यः पितृगृह एवाधीतवेदस् तस्य समावृत्त्यसंभवे ऽपि भवत्य् एव विवाहः³⁶ ।

• केचित् समावर्तनं विवाहाङ्गं स्नानं मन्यन्ते । क्त्वाश्रुत्या भेदप्रतिपत्तिर् इति चेद् एवं तर्हि समावर्तनं विवाहाङ्गं स्नानसंस्कारं वक्ष्यति । सविशेषं हि तत्र स्नानम् आम्नातम् एव “स्नातकेन” इत्यादि ।

• अथ वा यमनियमत्यागाभिप्रायं समावृत्तिवचनम् । समावृत्तः प्राक्तनीम् एवावस्थां नियमरहितां प्रतिपन्न इत्य् अर्थः । विशेषाभिप्रायं च नियम्त्यागवचनम् । ब्रह्मचारिणो हि सातिशया यमनियमा न तथोत्तरेषाम् ।

• यथाविधीति स्वधर्मेनेतिवत् । उद्वहेत द्विजो भार्याम् । उद्वहेतेति विवाहविधिः । संस्कारकर्म विवाहः, भार्याम् इति द्वितीयानिर्देशात् । न च प्राग्विवाहाद् भार्या सिद्धास्ति यस्या विवाहसंस्कारः क्रियेत,³⁷ चक्षुष³⁸ इवाञ्जनसंस्कारः । किं तर्हि निर्वर्त्यते विवाहेन । यथा यूपं छिनत्तीति, छेदनादयः संस्कारा यस्य क्रियन्ते स यूपः, एवं विवाहेनैव भार्या भवतीति ।

• विवाहशब्देन पाणिग्रहणम् उच्यते । तच् चात्र प्रधानम् । एवं हि स्मरन्ति “विवाहनं दारकर्म पाणिग्रहणम्” इति । इहापि वक्ष्यति “पाणिग्रहणसंस्कारः” (म्ध् ३.४३) इति लाजहोमाद्यङ्गम् । तच् च गृह्याद् अखिलं ज्ञातव्यम् । “नोद्वहेत् कपिलां कन्याम्” (म्ध् ३.८) इति कन्याग्रहणात् कन्याया अयं संस्कारो न स्त्रीमात्रस्य । कन्याशब्दश् चात्र प्रकरणे ऽप्रवृत्तपुंसंप्रयोगायां योषिति वर्तत इति वक्ष्यामः ।

• स्वर्णां समानजातीयाम् । लक्षाणान्विताम् । लक्षणानि अवैधव्यप्रजाधनसूचकानि वर्णरेखातिलकादिचिह्नानि ज्योतिःशास्त्रावगम्यानि, तैर् अन्वितां युक्ताम्, शुभलक्षणान्विताम् इत्य् अर्थः । यद्य् अप्य् अनिष्टसूचकम् अपि लक्षणं भवति, किं तु सूचकैर् एव शास्त्रैस् तादृशीं विवाहयेत्, अतः प्रशस्तलक्षणा लक्षणवती द्रष्टव्या । अभिप्रेतसूचक एव लक्षणशब्दो लोके प्रयुज्यते । सलक्षणो ऽयं पुरुषः सलक्षणा स्त्रीति या शुभलक्षणा सैवम् उच्यते ।

• तत्राधिकारचिन्ता कर्तव्या । संस्कारविधित्वाद् एवाधानवद् अनुष्ठानलाभात् यथैव ह्य् आधानम् आहवनीयादिद्वारेण नित्यकाम्यकर्मोपयोगि तदङ्गाहवनीयादिनिर्वृत्त्यर्थम् अनुष्ठीयते, एवं विवाहो ऽपि, अस्यापि³⁹ भार्यानिर्वर्तकत्वेन दृष्टादृष्टपुरुषार्थोपयोगित्वात् । तथा हि खेदात् पुंसः स्त्रीमात्रविषयायां⁴⁰ प्रवृत्तौ प्रसक्तायां कन्यापरदारनिषेधात् स्वदारेषु कामिनः खेदनिवृत्तिः । “सहधर्मश् चरितव्यः” (शब् ६.१.१७; च्ड़्। ग्ध् ४.७) इति तया सह सर्वधर्मेष्व् अधिकाराद् अदृष्टपुरुषार्थसिद्धिस् तदधीना ।

• अत्र केचिन् मीमांसन्ते । रागिणः पूर्वोक्तेन प्रकारेण दृष्टसिद्ध्यर्थं विवाहं स्वतः कुर्वन्ति । तेषां च कृतविवाहानां संभवेत् स द्विजातिकर्मविधित्वेन कर्मानुष्ठानसिद्ध्यर्थो विवाहः । यस्य कथंचित् स्त्रीनिष्ठा निवृत्ता, न तस्य विवाहः । असति विवाहे कर्मानधिकाराद् अनधिकृतस्य चाननुष्ठाने दोषाभावात् पुरुषार्थानुष्ठानान्य् अननुतिष्ठतो⁴¹ ऽनाश्रमिणो ऽप्य् अवस्थानम् अविरुद्धम् ।

• तद् एतद् असत् । यथैव कामः पुरुषार्थस् तथैव धर्मो ऽपि पुरुषार्थत्वे प्रयोजकः । सर्वो ऽपि पुरुषार्थसिद्ध्यर्थं प्रवर्तते । यदि चैतद् एवं स्यात् “संवत्सरम् अनाश्रमी बूत्वा” (च्ड़्। मेध् ओन् ६.८७) इत्यादि नोपपद्येतेति । निपुणं चैतद् आश्रमविकल्पावसरे षष्ठे निर्णेष्यामः ॥ ३.४ ॥

यादृशी कन्या वोढव्या ताम् इदानीं दर्शयति ।

Even on the completion of the observances relating to Vedic Study, the Boy shall “bathe” only when ‘permitted by the Preceptor.’ ‘Bathing’ here stands for a peculiar sacrament prescribed in the Gṛhyasūtras, as the limit for the observances of the Religious Student. Why the term ‘bathing’ is used in this figurative sense we have already explained above.

‘Having returned’—i.e., having gone through a particular consecratory. rite consisting of the offering of the Madhuparka, etc., as laid down in the Gṛhyasūtra, and having returned from the Preceptor’s home to his Father’s home.

All this has been mentioned as supplementary to the Injunction contained in the term ‘shall take,’ being already known from other sources. The ‘return’ spoken of here is not a part of the ‘marriage.’ Hence for him who has learnt the Veda in his Father’s house, though there can be no ‘Return,’ yet marriage is done.

Some people take the ‘Return’ to mean that Bath which forms part of the marriage rites. Against this view it might be argued that the participial ending ‘ktvā’ (in ‘snātvā’) clearly indicates that the two (Bath and Return) are entirely different. But that ceremony of ‘Return’ which coṇsists in ‘bathing’ and which forms part of the marriage rite, is going to be described later; where a particular form of ‘Bathing’ with its details is found laid down, [Hence the ‘Return’ mentioned, in the present verse cannot be regarded as part of Marriage.]

Or, the term ‘Return’ may be taken as intended to connote the renouncing of restraints and observances. In that case, ‘returned’ would mean ‘having resumed the former condition free from all restraint.’ Special stress is laid upon the renouncing of restraints in this connection, because the observances and restraints imposed upon the Religious Student are exceptionally hard, which is not the case with the other subsequent stages of life.

‘According to rule’—this is to be construed like the term ‘in strict accordance with his duties’ (of the preceding verse).

‘The twice-born person shall take a wife’—‘Shall take’ constitutes the injunction of marriage. Marriage is a sacramental rite, a refining process, as is indicated by the Accusative ending in ‘bhāryām.’

“But before marriage there does not exist such a thing as wife for whom the refinement could be effected in the same manner as ornamentation by collyrium is done to the Eye. In fact, it is by means of marriage itself that the wife is brought into existence.”

In the case of the sacrificial post, we find such injunctions as the ‘sacrificial post shall be cut,’ and that same piece of wood becomes the post on which the refining process of cutting, &c., has been performed. Exactly in the same manner it is by means of the refining process of marriage performed upon her that the person becomes a ‘wife.’

The word ‘marriage’ denotes the taking hold of the hand, which forms the principal factor in the ceremony. To this effect we have the assertion—‘marriage is taking a wife, i.e., the taking hold of the hand;’ and in this work also marriage is spoken of as ‘the sacrament of taking hold of the hand’ (verse 43 below). The offering of parched grain and such other rites are the subsidiary details (of Marriage); and all this may be learnt from the Gṛhyasūtras,

Later on (in verse 8) we read—‘one shall not marry a maiden with golden hair, &e., &c.’—and from the use of the term ‘maiden’ there it is clear that marriage is a sacrament for maidens, and not for any and every woman; and we are going to explain later on that in the present context the term ‘maiden’ stands for the female who has had no intercourse with a male.

‘Of the same caste as himself’—i.e., belonging to the same caste.

‘Endowed with signs,’—The term ‘signs’ stands for the colour of the complexion, lines on the body, moles and such other marks which are indicative of unwidowed life, offspring, wealth, and so forth,—which may be learnt from the science of Astrology.—‘Endowed’—i.e., equipped—‘with these signs;’ i.e., bearing auspicious marks. Even though indicators of evil are also called ‘signs,’ yet since what is mentioned here is, that one should marry a girl with these signs, it follows that what is meant is the girl with good, auspicious, signs. In fact, the term, ‘lakṣaṇa,’ ‘sign,’ is used in ordinary parlance in the sense of desirable signs; e.g., men and women are spoken of as ‘endowed with signs’ which means that they bear auspicious marks.

What we have to consider in this connection is the question of title (Who is entitled to marry?).

Since the Injunction of marriage enjoins a sacrament, a consecration, it comes to be performed just like the Laying of Fire; and just as the Laying of Fire serves, through the Āhavanīya and other fires, the purposes of compulsory and voluntary acts, and hence it comes to be performed for the bringing into existence of the Āhavanīya, &c., as subsidiary to those acts,—so the Marriage also brings into existence the ‘Wife,’ and through her serves the fulfilment of the visible and unvisible ends of man. For example, when desire for sexual intercourse arises in man, there arises the possibility of his having recourse to any and every woman; but intercourse with maidens and wives of other men being prohibited, the said desire comes to be accomplished only through one’s own married wife [The married wife thus serves a visible end]. Then again, there is the saying that ‘every religious act shall be done by the husband and wife together,’ which shows that it is only as accompanied by his wife that man is entitled to the performance of religious acts; and thus it is clear that the accomplishment of the invisible (transcendental) purposes of man also is dependent upon the wife.

In connection with this subject, some people make the following observations:—“As just described, persons, with their sexual desire aroused, have, of their own accord, their marriages done for the purpose of accomplishing their visible ends; and after they have married, they happen to perform certain religious acts; and in this case, the marriage might thus turn out to be of use in the fulfilment of religious acts. But in a case where a man’s desire for intercourse with women has entirely ceased, there is no marriage at all;—there being no marriage, the man is not entitled to the performance of religious acts;—in the absence of such title, the non-performance of acts shall involve no sin;—consequently, there need be nothing reprehensible in the conduct of the man who does not take to the Householder’s life and does not perform any religious acts conducive to the ends of man.”

This, however, is not right. Religious acts are as much conducive to the fulfilment of man’s purpose as sexual desire is. In fact, every man engages in activity only for the accomplishment of some purpose of his. If this were not so (i.e., the entrance into the Householder’s state were not essential), then there would be no room for such assertions as ‘desisting for a year from entering into the Householder’s state, &c., &c.’ We shall explain this fully under Discourse VI, in connection with the question of option regarding the Life-stages.—(4)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 462) simply as laying down marriage;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 131) as indicating the necessity for marriage;—also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 673);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 567), as indicating that the ‘Final Bath’ spoken of above (in 1. 245) is meant to be for the purpose of marriage;—on the ground that the Bath is here spoken of in connection with the twice-born person who is going to marry; while we do not meet with any such assertion as ‘Having bathed, he should betake himself to the forest,’ or that ‘having bathed,’ he should bike to Renunciation;—in the same work on p. 585, in support of the view that Marriage is meant to be conducive to the fulfilment of the man’s purpose, the following notes are added:—the term ‘dvija’ serves to show that it is only the twice-born person endowed with the above-mentioned qualifications that is entitled to marriage; and it does not mean that any and every twice-born person is entitled to it; and that this is so is clear from the fact that marriage has been laid down only for one who has had his Initiation and has taken the ‘Final Bath’ of the Studentship. Nor again can the term ‘dvija’ be taken as precluding others; as in that case there would be no marriage for the Śūdra. From all this it follows that the present text should be taken as enjoining a particular act as pertaining to a particularly qualified person.—The term ‘bhāryā,’ ‘wife,’ has been used in view of the future status of the girl; so that the meaning of the injunction comes to be that ‘he should bring into existence a wife by means of the marriage-ceremony.’—The term ‘Savarṇā,’ ‘of the same caste’ is meant to indicate that such a marriage would be in its principal form: and it does not preclude the marrying of girls of other castes; this is in fact sanctioned by other texts.

The same work quotes the verse again on page 747, as laying down the ‘principal’ wife ordained for man.

Vīramitrodaya again in its ‘Lakṣaṇa’ section (p. 118) quotes the second half of this verse under the ‘the characteristics of women.’

It is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (p. 940) to the effect that ‘Samāvartana’ is another name for the concluding rites of Studentship;—in Aparārka (p. 76) as indicating that the ‘Bath’ is distinct from the Samāvartana ceremony;—in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 680);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 403);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 49a.)

Vaśiṣṭha (8. 1).—‘The Householder, with anger and joy under control, when permitted by the teacher, should take up a wife of the same grade as himself, younger in age, not having the same sage (as an ancestor), and who has not had intercourse.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 52).—‘Having gone through his studentship intact, he should marry a qualified girl, one who has not belonged to another man, loving and younger in age, who is not a Sapiṇḍa.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (1. 5. 3).—‘One should marry a girl who is free from disease and endowed with intelligence, beauty, modesty and other good qualities.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3. 9. 4).—‘On the completion of his study, he should approach the teacher with presets and then, permitted by him, he should take the Bath.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyāsūtra (2. 6.1-4).—‘Having finished the Veda,he should take the Bath;……………permitted by the teacher.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (2. 1. 1. 2).—‘One should take to a wife during the Puṣya-Asterism,—one who is endowed with comendable qualities.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3. 4. 1-3).—‘The Religious Student, having studied the Veda, and having offered presents to the Teacher, should take a wife, after being permitted by the Teacher.’

Vyāsa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 586).—‘Having taken the Bath, one should marry a girl of one’s own caste, endowed with good qualities.’

Dakṣa (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 586).—‘Having, with due effort, studied the Veda both verbally and intelligently, he shall marry a girl endowed with good qualities, after having previously taken the Bath.’

004 Having bathed, with the permission of his teacher, and performed according to the rule the Samavartana (the rite on returning home), a twice-born man shall marry a wife of equal caste who is endowed with auspicious (bodily) marks.