१० आतिथ्यम्

A Brāhmaṇa staying for a single night has been declared to be a “guest” (Atithi). Because his stay is not long, therefore he is called “Atithi” (guest).—(102)

नातिप्रसिद्धो लोके ऽतिथिशब्दार्थ इति तदर्थलक्षणम् आह । एकरात्रं वसतः परगृहे ऽतिथित्वम् । तच् च ब्राह्मणस्य न जात्यन्तरे । द्वितीये ऽह्नि पूजाविधौ कामचारः । अभ्युदयविशेषार्थिनस् तदधिकारः, न नैयमिकः । तथा चापस्तम्बः- “एकरात्रिं वासयेत् पार्थिवांल् लोकान् अभिजयति द्वितीयाम् आन्तरिकांश् तृतीयां दिव्यान्” (आप्ध् २.७.१६) इति फलकामस्य द्वितीयादिरात्रिष्व् अधिकारं दर्शयति । अत्रैव निर्वचनं दार्ढ्यार्थम् आह- अनित्यं हि स्थितिः । तिष्ठतेर् अतिपूर्वस्यायं शब्दः । औणादिकैः कथ्ंचिद् व्युत्पत्तिः॥ ३.९२ ॥

Inasmuch as the meaning of the term ‘Atithi’ (guest) is not well-known among men, the author provides a definition of the same.

One becomes a ‘guest’ by staying in another man’s house for one night; and this character belongs only to a Brāhmaṇa, to none else.

Whether the next day also the guest should be honoured or not, depends upon the wish of the Householder; it is not. obligatory. It being done by persons desiring prosperity, the incentive to it is something totally different (from that of the obligatory honouring during the first night). Says Apastamba (2.7.16)—‘One should lodge him for one night;’ whereby he wins the regions of the earth; by keeping him on the second night, the regions of the sky; and on the third night, the regions of Heaven”—which shows that the incentive to the entertaining of the guest on the second and following nights consists in the desire for particular rewards.

For the purpose of lending strength to the above explanation, the author provides the etymological meaning—‘His stay is not long; which means that the word ‘atithi’ is derived from the root ‘sthā’ (to stay), preceded by ‘ati;’ the term being formed somehow by the addition of an Uṇādi affix.—(102)

The first half of this verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 351) in support of the view that a guest is to be treated as such only on the day on which he arrives, not if he stays till the next day.

The verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 438) as explaining what is meant by the term ‘atithi’ (guest);—in Aparārka (p. 155);—in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 676 and Śrāddha, p. 427).

(verses 3.102-103)

Vaśiṣṭha (8.7,8).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Viṣṇu (67.34, 35).—[Do.]

Gautama (5.41).—‘The guest, Atithi, is one who is not an inhabitant of the same village, who arrives at the time when the sun is just sinking below the tree-tops, and who stays for one night only.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 438).—‘That high-souled man who has renounced all observances relating to particular dates of the month, to special days of worship and to special festivals, is the Atithi, guest, for all beings; others are only Abhyāgatas, arrivals.’

Markaṇḍeya (Do.).—‘Neither a friend, nor an inhabitant of the same village, should he treated as a guest; that Brāhmaṇa is called a guest, whose name and family are not known to the householder, who arrives by chance at the time, hungry, fatigued, without any belongings, seeking for food.’

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika, Do.).—‘To one who is suffering from hunger and thirst, who has arrived at the right time and the right place, he shall offer food after having welcomed him with due respect. Him should he regard as a guest who has come from a distance, at the time of the Vaiśvadeva offering.’

Parāśara (Ācāra, 9.41, 42).—‘One who has come from a distance, is fatigued and has arrived at the time of the Vaiśvadeva offering,—shall be regarded as a guest, not one who has come previously. One should never receive a co-villager as a guest; because a guest, Atithi, is so called because he does not come always.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.6.5).—‘To one who is a householder, firm in his duties, if some one comes without any purpose, he is a guest whose reception is a sacred duty.’

Vyāsa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 351).—‘That man is honoured as a guest who has come to one’s house from a distance, suffering from hunger, thirst and fatigue.’

Pracetas (Do.).—‘One who arrives in the evening, or at the end of the Vaiśvadeva offering, is to be honoured like a god; brought up by the sun, he is called the guest.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 352).—‘One shall honour as guest that person who comes to one’s house, whose family or name is not known,—who is not an inhabitant of the same village; he should be one who is not related to the householder; he should be one who has nothing with him, and has come from another country.’

102 But a Brahmana who stays one night only is declared to be a guest (atithi); for because he stays (sthita) not long (anityam), he is called atithi (a guest).

One should not regard as “guest” a Brāhmaṇa who lives in the same village or who is a companion. He should regard him as such when he arrives at his house, or where the wife and the fires are at the time.—(103)

एकस्मिन् ग्रामे यो वसति वैश्वदेवकलोपस्थितो ऽपि नातिथिः । सांगतिकः सहाध्यायी¹ सख्युर् अन्यः । तस्य ह्य् उत्तरत्र विधिर् भविष्यति “वैशशूद्रौ सखा च” इति (म्ध् ३.१००) । यो ऽपि सर्वेण संगच्छते विचित्रपरिहासकथादिभिः, सांगतिकशब्देन युक्तः प्रतिषेद्धुं प्राग् अदृष्टपूर्वो ऽपि ।

• न च गृहस्थस्य प्रोषितस्यास्य सर्वलक्षणलक्षितो ऽप्य् अतिथिः । किं तर्हि उपस्थितं गृहे विद्यात् । यत्रास्य नित्यं स्थानम्, वसतिस्थानम् यद् उच्यते । प्रोषितस्यापि भार्या यत्राग्नयश् च तत्रासंनिहितस्यापि गृहस्थस्य भवत्य् एवातिथिः । अतो यथा संविधायाग्निहोत्रदर्शपूर्णमासादिषु प्रवसति, तद्वद् अतिथये ऽपि संविधातव्यम् ।

• वाशब्दात् त्व् एवं प्रतीयते । भार्याग्निभिः सह यदा प्रवासस् तदा भवत्य् एव ग्रामान्तरस्थस्याप्य् अतिथिः । असंनिहितस्यापि गृहे भार्याग्निषु सत्सु । ततश् च यदि भार्यया सह प्रवसेद् अग्नयश् च गृह एव भवेयुस् तदा नातिथिपूजानियम इति । वाशब्द उपस्थितं गृहे विद्याद् इत्य् एतदपेक्षया, न परस्परापेक्षया भार्याग्नीनाम् ॥ ३.९३ ॥

One who fives in the same village is not a ‘guest,’ even though he may happen to come just at the time of the ‘Vaiśvadeva’ offerings.

‘Companion’—a fellow-student, other than one’s ‘friend;’ the rule regarding the entertaining of the latter will come later—‘the Vaiśya and the Śūdra and one’s friend, &c., &c.’ (Verse 110).

It appears right to take the term ‘sāṅgatika’ as excluding the man who is in the habit of meeting all men on terms of equality, entertaining them with jokes ami stories,—oven though he be such as has never been met before.

For the Householder, when away from home, no one can be a ‘guest,’ even though he may fulfil all the conditions of one; one is to be regarded as such only when he ‘arrives at one’s house;’ i.e., to the place where one lives permanently, that which is called his ‘abode.’ But even when the man is away from home, if his wife and Fires happen to be there, then the Brāhmaṇa arriving will be his ‘guest,’ even though he himself may not be there. Hence the householder should provide for the entertaining of guests during his absence, in the same manner as he does for the maintenance of the Fires and the performance of the Darśa-Pūrṇmāsa and other periodical sacrifices.

The term ‘or’ implies that (a) when the man goes on a journey taking his wife and the fires with him, then, even during his stay in another village, if some one arrives, he should be treated as a ‘guest;”—(b) that the same is the case at his own house, during his absence, if his wife and Fires are there that hence, when one goes out with his wife, but leaves the Fires at home, the rule regarding the entertaining of guests does not apply.

The term ‘or’ is to be construed with ‘should regard’ not as between the ‘wife’ and the ‘fires.’—(103)

‘Sāṅgatikam’—‘Fellow-student, other than a friend; or one who is in the habit of meeting all men on terms of equality, entertaining, them with jokes and stories.’ [Medhātithi; whom Buhler quotes wrongly by including ‘the Vaiśya or a Śūdra or a friend’ in the latter explanation; the word ‘vaiśyaśūdrau sahhā cheti’ stands for verse 110, where, Medhātithi says, ‘the rule regarding the entertaining of a Friend will come in’];—‘One who makes a living by telling wonderful or laughable stories and the like’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘one who comes on account of his relationship to the Householder’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Bhāryā yatrāgnayaḥ’—‘Where the wife and the fires are at the time’ (Medhātithi);—‘when the man who has arrived is accompanied by his Wife and Fires’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa). Buhler is again in the wrong in translating Kullūka’s view. What Kullūka says is “etena bhāryāgnirahitasya pravāsino nātithitvamiti bodhitam”—i.e., ‘what is meant is that the character of a guest does not belong to that wanderer from home, who is devoid of wife and fires’; and not (as Buhler puts it) that ‘a Householder who has neither (wife or fires) need not entertain guests.’

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 353), which adds the following notes:—An inhabitant of the same village, even though he may arrive in the character of a guest, is not to be entertained as such;—similarly, the ‘Sāṅgatika,’ i.e., ‘an old acquaintance,’—is not to be treated as a guest, if he happens to arrive as one;—an arrival is to be treated as a guest only when he comes to the house—either his own or some one else’s—where the Householder’s ‘wife and fires’ happen to be at the time.

(verses 3.102-103)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.102].

103 One must not consider as a guest a Brahmana who dwells in the same village, nor one who seeks his livelihood by social intercourse, even though he has come to a house where (there is) a wife, and where sacred fires (are kept).

Those foolish householders who wait upon the food cooked by others, become, after death, on that account, cattle belonging to the givers of food.—(104).

उपासनं तदभ्यासः । यो ब्राह्मणो ऽनयैव बुद्ध्या तत्र तत्रोपतिष्ठेत यथातिथिर् अवश्यं भोजनं लभेत तस्येयं निन्दा । यस् तच्छीलः परस्य संबन्धिनं पाकम् अन्नम् उपास्ते, न तु कदाचित् । तेन कर्मणा प्रेत्य पशुतां बलीवर्दादिजातिं व्रजति प्राप्नोति । अन्नादिदायिनस् तद्गृहे दन्तितां गर्दभताम् अश्वतां वा प्राप्नोति । गृहस्थस्यैष दोषः, उत्पन्नस्थालीपाकस्य ॥ ३.९४ ॥

‘Waiting upon’ means attending repeatedly. Some Brāhmaṇas wander from house to house with a view to the fact that at such and such a house the guest is sure to be fed; and it is this that is deprecated in the present verse.

One who is in the habit of waiting upon the food cooked for others,—rand not one who happens to do it only once by the way,—‘on that account’—by reason of that act—‘after death, cattle’—are born as a bull, &c., in the house of the ‘givers of food;’ i.e., are born as his elephant, mule or horse.

This is a defect only in the Householder, who has established his own domestic hearth.—(104)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 769) and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 250).

Yājñavalkya (1.112).—‘One should not have a longing for food cooked in the house of others, except when one has been invited; he should avoid fickleness of hands, feet and speech, and also over-eating.’

104 Those foolish householders who constantly seek (to live on) the food of others, become, in consequence of that (baseness), after death the cattle of those who give them food.

The guest brought by the sun in the evening should not be driven away by the house-holder. Arrived in time, or not in time, he shall not stay in his house without taking food.—(105)

सायंकालो ऽस्तमयादिः प्रदोषान्तः । तस्यां वेलायाम् अतिथिर् आगतो ऽप्रणोद्यः अप्रत्याख्येयः, भोजनशयनासनादिभिः प्रतिपूज्यः । केन । गृहमेधिना । मेधो यज्ञः । गृहमेधो महायज्ञानाम् इयम् आख्या । तत्राधिकारी गृहमेधी । गृहस्थ इति यावत् । सूर्योढ इत्य् अर्थवादः, सूर्येणोढः प्रापितः । दैवोपनीतत्वाद् अवश्यं पूनार्हः । काले द्वितीये वैश्वदेवकाले प्राप्तः, अकाले वा सायं भोजने निवृत्ते ऽपि । नास्य गृहस्थस्य अनश्नन् गृहे वसेत् । यदि शेषम् अस्ति तन् निवेदनीयम् । न चेद् द्विः² पाकः कर्तव्यः ॥ ३.९५ ॥

‘Evening’—is the time of sunset, the beginning of night. At that time if a guest arrives, he ‘should not be driven away’ he should not be refused admission; i.e., he should be entertained with food, bed, seat, and so forth.—“By whom ?”—‘By the householder’—‘medha’ means sacrifice; ‘gṛhamedha’ is the name applied to the Five Great Sacrifices; one who is entitled to these is the ‘gṛhamedhin,’ the Householder.

‘Brought by the sun’—this is purely laudatory. ‘Brought’—made to arrive—‘by the sun.’ Being brought by a god, he certainly deserves honour.

‘In time’—i.e., the second part of the day; the time at which the Vaiśvadeva offerings are made. ‘Not in time’—in the evening; after breakfast has been finished.

‘He should not stay in his’— the householder’s—‘house, without taking food.’ If there is any food left, that should be offered to him; if not, food should be cooked afresh.—(105)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 351), which explains ‘Sūryoḍha’ as ‘one who has been brought to the house by the Sun who has rendered the man incapable of proceeding further on his journey—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 440), which reproduces the exact words of Parāśaramādhava, just quoted.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 152), as laying down that the guest must he fed.

Vaśiṣṭha (8.8).—[Reproduces the second-half of Manu.]

Vaśiṣṭha (8.4, 5).—‘One shall not reject a guest who has arrived in the evening; he shall not live in the house without taking his food.’

Viṣṇu (67.29, 30).—‘If a guest arrives in the evening, he should be welcomed with great regard; one should not permit a guest to reside in the house unless he takes his food.’

Yājñavalkya (1.107).—‘The guest arrived in the evening shall not he deprived of place, sweet words and water.’

Pracetas (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 440).—‘One who arrives after the Vaiśvadeva offerings, or in the evening, should be honoured as a god,—he being called a guest brought by the sun.’

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 152).—‘If any one comes seeking for food, the master and mistress of the house shall not refuse him; if there is no food, they should offer place, water, grasses and sweet words.’

105 A guest who is sent by the (setting) sun in the evening, must not be driven away by a householder; whether he have come at (supper-) time or at an inopportune moment, he must not stay in the house without entertainment.

He himself should not eat what he does not offer to his guest. The honouring of guests is conducive to wealth, fame, longevity and heaven.—(106)

सूपघृतदधिशर्करादि यद् उत्कृष्टम् अन्नं तत् स्वयं नाश्नीयाद् अतिथौ संनिहिते यावत् तस्मै न दत्तम् । यत् तु आतुरस्य यवागूरसकटुकादि तद् अनिच्छते न देयम् । तादृशम् अदत्तम् अश्नतो न दोषः । सर्वथा न संस्कृतम् अन्नं स्वयं भोक्तव्यम्, कदन्नम् अतिथिर् न भोजनीय इत्य् एवंपरम् एतत् । धनाय हितं धनस्य निमित्तं वेति धन्यम् । एवं यशस्यादयः शब्दाः ।

• अर्थवादो ऽयं नित्यत्वाद् अतिथिभोजनस्य, सति संनिधाने ऽतिथेः, पूर्वसेषत्वाच् च । स्तुतित्वेनान्वये संभवति नाधिकारान्तरकल्पना³ युक्ता ॥ ३.९६ ॥

Soup, butter, curds, sugar, and such other rich food, he himself should not eat, so long as he does not offer it to the guest that may have arrived. As for gruel and such other bitter medicinal drinks, he shall not offer these to him, if he does not desire it; there is no harm in the man taking these without offering them to the guest. All that this means is that he should uot himself eat rich food and offer to the guest poor fare.

‘Conducive to wealth’— procures, brings, wealth. Similarly, ‘conducive to fame,’ and so forth.

All this is purely laudatory; because the honouring of guests is a compulsory duty, if he happen to be there, and also because what is here said is clearly supplementary to the foregoing injunction (of guest-honouring). And so long us a passage can be taken as purely laudatory, there is no justification for taking it as putting forward another incentive.—(106)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 451) without comment.

Gautama (5. 38, 39).—‘Honouring and feeding on fresh food; bedding, seat, lodging, attending and following; all this in the same way as in the case of elders.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra.—‘He shall eat what remains after the feeding of guests; of the highly flavoured foods, he shall not eat any except what has been left by the guests;—he shall not have cooked for himself any specially good food.’

Yājñavalkya (l.5.104).—‘One should not cook food for himself.’

Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 451).—‘Meat, grains, vegetables,—these he shall not eat if they have not been offered to the guest.’

106 Let him not eat any (dainty) food which he does not offer to his guest; the hospitable reception of guests procures wealth, fame, long life, and heavenly bliss.

He should offer seat, room, bed, foliowing and attendance of the best kind to superiors, of the inferior kind to inferiors and of the equal (ordinary) kind to equals.—(107)

बहुष्व् अतिथिषु युगपदुपस्थितेष्व् इतरेतरं समहीनज्यायस्स्व् आसनादिप्रकल्पनं गुणापेक्षम्, नाविशेषेण ।

• आसनं बृस्यादि । आवसथं विश्रामभूमिः । शय्या खट्वादि । अनुव्रज्या गच्छतो ऽनुगमनम् । उपासनं तत्समीपे कथाप्रस्तावेन संनिधानम् । एतद् उत्तमेषूत्तमम् । दूरम् अनुव्रज्यत उत्तमः, नातिदूरं मध्यमः, कतिचिदित्पदानि हीनः ॥ ३.९७ ॥

When several guests of several grades—superior, inferior and equal—arrive at the same time, then the seat, &c., that are offered to them should not all be of the same quality; they should be in accordance with their relative merits.

‘Seat’— the mat, and so forth.

‘Room’—place for resting.

‘Bed’—bedstead, &c.

‘Following’— going after him when he goes.

‘Attendance’— keeping near him and entertaining him with conversation.

All this should be ‘of the best kind, to superiors.’ &e.,—i.e., the superior guest should be followed to a great distance; the medium guest, not very far: and the inferior, only a few steps.—(107)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 354) as laying down certain distinctions to he borne in mind in entertaining guests;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 450), which adds that as regards food and other things, it must he the same for all, specially when they are all dining together in the same line; as specially laid down by Hārīta;—and in Aparārka (p. 156), which adds that the ‘following’ is to be done when the guest departs.

Yājñavalkya (1. 107).—‘The guest shall not be deprived of sweet words, place, straws and water.’

Yājñavalkya (1.113).—After the Śrotriya guest has become satisfied, one should follow him up to the boundary.’

Gautama (5.39,40).—‘Bedding, seat, lodging, following and attendance, in the same manner as in the case of elders;—in the case of inferior persons, all this has to be done even to a small extent.’

Baudhāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 452).—‘Both morning and evening, whatever food there may be, with that he shall make the Vaiśvadeva offerings and then entertain, to the best of his capacity, such Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra guests as may happen to arrive; in the event of his being unable to entertain several guests, he may offer the food to only one of them, either to one who may be the best qualified among them, or to him who may have been the first to arrive.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.).—‘A non-Brāhmaṇa is not to be treated as the guest of a Brāhmaṇa; it is only the learned and highly qualified Brāhmaṇa that deserves the honours of a guest; the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya are to be received as friends; and the Śūdra is to be entertained only out of kindness and sympathy.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 157).—‘One shall sit with him, at night he shall retire to sleep on being permitted by him, rise before him, and follow him when he leaves, turning back only when he asks him to do so.’

Parāśara (1.43-44).—‘When a guest arrives, one shall receive him with warm welcome and honour him with the offering of water and seat and also with washing of feet, shall offer food with respect and sweet-worded enquiries, and shall follow him when he leaves; by these he shall win his good will.’

107 Let him offer (to his guests) seats, rooms, beds, attendance on departure and honour (while they stay), to the most distinguished in the best form, to the lower ones in a lower form, to equals in an equal manner.

On the Vaiśvadeva having been finished, if another guest should happen to arrive,—for him also he should provide food to the best of his ability; but he shall not make any offering (out of that food).—(108)

सर्वार्थम् अन्नं वैश्वदेवशब्देनोच्यते । तस्मिन् निर्वृत्ते निष्पन्ने, भुक्तवत्सु सर्वेषु, निःशेषिते ऽन्ने, यद्य् अन्यो ऽतिथिर् आगच्छेत् तस्मै दद्यात् पुनः पक्वान्नम् । न तु तस्मात् पाकबलिं हरेत् । अग्नाव् अपि होमो नेष्यते, न केवलं बलिहरणम् । यतः सायंप्रातः पाके होमो बलिहरणम्, न चान्तरालिके । तथा च वक्ष्यति “सायं त्व् अन्नस्य” इति (म्ध्। ३.१११) । एवं च यद्य् अप्य् असकृद् अह्नः पचेत् तथापि न प्रतिपाकं वैश्वदेवम् आवर्तेत । यथाशक्ति संस्कारविशेषेणेतरथा वा ॥ ३.९८ ॥

Food cooked for all is referred to here by the term ‘Vaiśvadeva;’ on this being ‘finished’—i.e., all persons having eaten, and the food having been exhausted,—if another guest should arrive, then for him also he shall provide cooked food; but out of this latter food, he shall not make the offering that is made out of food that is cooked in the household.

The oblation into the tire also—and not only the offering—is not to be made (out of this food); because oblations and offerings have been laid down as to be made out of the food cooked in the morning and evening, and not out of the intervening cookings; as is going to be asserted below (in verse 121). So that, if one happens to cook several times during the day, he should not repeat the Vaiśvadeva offering with each cooking.

‘To the best of his ability’—i.e., with elaborate seasonings or otherwise.—(108)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on l. 103, p. 76) in support of the view that the Vaiśvadeva offering is not meant to be sanctifìcatory of the food; it is performed only for the accomplishing of certain desirable ends for the Householder—e.g., what is mentioned under 2.28.

Madanapārijāta (p. 311) quotes it, and adds the following note:—The Vaiśvadeva offering having been made, and one guest having been duly entertained, if a second one happens to arrive, and there is no cooked food left for him, then food should be cooked for him; but out of this latter no Vaiśvadeva offering need be made. If this offering were meant to be sanctificatory of the food, then it would be necessary to make it each time the food might be prepared; and the prohibition of the second offering can be justified only if it is not sanctificatory of the food. Some people have held that this offering has the dual character (a) of being sanctificatory of the food, and (b) of fulfilling a desirable purpose for the man.

It is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 305), which also adds that the interdicting of the second Vaiśvadeva offering clearly indicates that it is not regarded as sanctificatory of the food;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 924), which explains ‘nivṛtte’ as ‘after taking his food’;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 284), which adds the following explanation:—‘Where the Vaiśvadeva offering has been made and the Honouring of the guest also done, if another guest arrives and there is no cooked food left, then another food should be cooked and offered to him, but the Vaiśvadeva offering need not be made out of this second instalment of cooking.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.6-16).—‘Having called the cook, he shall have either Vrīhi or Yava cooked for him.’

108 But if another guest comes after the Vaisvadeva offering has been finished, (the householder) must give him food according to his ability, (but) not repeat the Bali offering.

A Brāhmaṇa should not advertise his family and Gotra for the purpose of obtaining a meal. Bragging about these, for the purpose of obtaining a meal, he comes to be called a “feeder on filth” by the wise.—(109)

प्रासङ्गिको ऽतिथेर् अयम् उपदेशः । भोजनार्थ्य् एतत्कुलीनो ऽमुष्य पुत्रो ऽस्मीति न निवेदयेन् न कथयेत् । स्वे कुलगोत्रे आत्मीयं कुलं पितृपितामहाद्यभिजनो गोत्रं गर्गभार्गवादि नामधेयं वा । गोत्रस्खलितं नामान्तरविवक्षायां यन् नामान्तरम् उदाह्रियते तद् उच्यते । अध्ययनम् अपि स्मृत्यन्त्रप्रतिषिद्धम्, तद् अपि न निवेद्यम् । अस्यार्थवादः । भोजनार्थं “भोजनं लिप्से प्रख्यातकुलजातित्वात्” इत्य् अनेनार्थेन हेतुना कुलगोत्रे शंसन् कथयन् वान्ताशी वान्तम् उद्गीर्णम् अश्नाति निगिरतीत्य् एवम् उच्यते बुधैः ॥ ३.९९ ॥

This verse contains an advice offered, by the way, to the guest.

Seeking for food, he shall not say—‘I belong to such and such a family, I am the son of so and son; in this fashion he shall not advertise his ‘family or gotra.’ The ‘family’ consists of his father, grandfather, and so forth;—‘gotra’—may stand either for such Ṛṣi-names as ‘Garga,’ ‘Bhārgava,’ etc.; or for one’s name. That the term ‘gotra’ means name also is shown by such usage as ‘mistake in names,’ ‘gotraskhalita’ which term is used in the event of a man pronouncing a name other than the one he intended to pronounce.

His ‘learning’ also he should not advertise; as this also has been prohibited in another Smṛti.

The Text adds a declamatory, assertion:—‘For the purpose of obtaining a meal’—i.e., with the motive that by advertising my family and gotra I shall succeed in obtaining a meal, if one brags about these—family and gotra,—he is called by the wise ‘Vāntāśin,’ ‘feeder-on filth,’—he who swallows what has been vomitted.—(109)

This verse is quoted^ in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 358) in support of the view that ‘just as the host should not enquire after the gotra and other details regarding the guest, so the guest also should not declare these’;—and in Smṛtitattva (p. 426) without comment.

Baudhāyana (Parāśaramadhava, p. 357).—‘If one offers food after asking about country, name, family and learning,—he does not obtain the reward of that act, and does not go to heaven.’

Parāśara (1.405).—‘If one offers food after making enquiries regarding the name, the family and the learning of the guest, he does not obtain its reward, nor does he go to heaven.’

Parāśara (1.48).—‘One should not ask the guest his gotra or Vedic text, nor the extent of his knowledge of Veda or learning; one should think of him as the god, since he embodies all the gods.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 357).—‘One shall not ask his gotra or Vedic text, or country or family or name or learning—when a Brāhmaṇa traveller arrives seeking for food.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Do.)—‘The householder shall honour the guest as Hiraṇyagarbha, not asking him about his study, gotra, Vedic text or family.’

109 A Brahmana shall not name his family and (Vedic) gotra in order to obtain a meal; for he who boasts of them for the sake of a meal, is called by the wise a foul feeder (vantasin).

In a Brāhmaṇa’s house, the Kṣatriya is not called a ‘guest;’ nor the Vaiśya or the Śūdra, nor his friends or relations, or his Teacher.—(110)

क्षत्रियो ब्राह्मणस्याध्वनीनो ऽपि प्रथमभोजनकाल उपस्थिते ऽपि नातिथिः । अतो न तस्मै नियमतो देयम् । एवं वैश्यशूद्राभ्याम् अपि । सखिज्ञाती आत्मसमे नातिथी । गुरुः प्रभुवद् उपचर्यः, “निवेद्य पचनक्रिया” (ग्ध् ५.२६) इत्य् उक्तम् ॥ ३.१०० ॥

Even though a Kṣatriya, during his travelling, happen to arrive at the Brāhmaṇa’s house, at the time of breakfast,—he is not a “guest.” Hence it is not incumbent upon the Brāhmaṇa to offer food to him.

Similarly with the Vaiśya and the Śūdra.

The ‘friend’ and the ‘relation’ are one’s equals, not guests.

The ‘Teacher’ has to be served as the master; as described in the text—‘the act of cooking should be done after having offered to the Teacher’ (Gautama 5-26).—(110).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 354) in support of the view that in the house of the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and others are not to be entertained as regular guests, they are only to have food offered to them in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 438) to the effect that wherever the term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ is used in the texts laying down the duty of entertaining a ‘guest’, it is meant to exclude the Kṣatriya and other castes;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 428).

**(verses 3.110-112)
**

Gautama (5.43).—‘The non-Brāhmaṇa can be the guest of the Brāhmaṇa only if the former is one who has been engaged in a sacrifice.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 452).—‘The non-Brāhmaṇa cannot be the guest of the Brāhmaṇa; the full honours of the guest are to be rendered only to the Vedic scholar possessed of special qualifications; the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya are to be received as friends; and to the Śūdra something may he offered only by way of favour, to save him from discomfort.’

Viṣṇu (67.36).—[Reproduces Manu, 111 and 112.]

Gautama (5.44-45).—‘To the Kṣatriya food is to be offered after Brāhmaṇas; others are to be fed along with servants, as a favour.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (1.4.18).—‘The Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya (are to be fed); if a Śūdra happen to arrive, he should be directed to do some work, and food should be given to him.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.11-13).—‘Morning and evening, whatever food there may be, out of that he shall make the Vaiśvadeva offerings, and then entertain, to the best of his power, the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra that may happen to arrive; but when the Śūdra arrives, he should be directed to do some work.’

110 But a Kshatriya (who comes) to the house of a Brahmana is not called a guest (atithi), nor a Vaisya, nor a Sudra, nor a personal friend, nor a relative, nor the teacher.

If a Kṣatriya should happen to come to one’s house in the character of a guest, one may feed him also, after the Brāhmaṇas have eaten.—(111)

तत्र अतिथेर् धर्मः- क्षीणपथ्योदनत्वं परग्रामवासो भोजनकालोपस्थानम् । तादृशेन रूपेण यदि क्षत्रियो गृहम् आगतो भवति, तदा तम् अपि भोजयेत् । भोजनवचनाद् अन्या परिचर्या निवर्तते । प्रियहितवचनं त्व् अविशेषेण गृहाभ्यागतस्य विहितम् । अयं च तस्य भोजनस्य कालः । भुक्तवत्सु विप्रेषु ब्राह्मनेष्व् अनतिथिषु वा गृहसंनिहितेषु प्रथमंभोजिषु ततः स भोजयितव्यः । कामम् इति नियमाभावम् आह । काम्यो ऽयं विधिर् न नित्य इत्य् अर्थः । कामश् चानिर्दिष्टः विशेषफलेषु स्वर्गः । यदि वा “धन्यं यशस्यम्” (म्ध् ३.९६) इत्याद्य् अत्र संबन्धनीयम् ॥ १११ ॥

The ‘character’ of the guest consists of—(a) having run short of food during the journey, (b) bring in a strange village and (c) arriving at the time of eating. In this character, if a Kṣatriya happen to come to one’s house, then the householder shall feed him also.

By specifically mentioning ‘feeding,’ the other factors of the ‘honouring’ of guests become precluded; but the addressing of agreeable and wholesome words has been generally enjoined as to be addressed equally to everyone coming to one’s house. The proper time for feeding him is this:—he should be fed after the Brāhmaṇas—guests as well as such non-guests as are entitled to eat first—have eaten.

‘May’—this shows the absence of compulsion; the sense being that what is here laid down is voluntary, not obligatory. And since the reward has not been mentioned, it follows that Heaven is the reward, as it is in the case of all those acts whose rewards are not specifically mentioned. Or, we might connect with this the phrase ‘conducive to wealth, fame, etc.’ (of verse 106).—(111)

‘Kāmam’—May; i.e., ‘it is not incumbent upon him; it is left to his choice’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa);—‘as much as the person wishes’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Ācāra, p. 354) as laying down what should be done if a Kṣatriya comes to one’s house as a guest;—in Aparārka (p. 152) as laying down that the Householder may, if he likes, entertain guests other than the Brāhmaṇas;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 440), which notes that this lays down the rule that to the Śūdra thus arrived one should offer the food left in the dishes.

**(verses 3.110-112)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.110].

111 But if a Kshatriya comes to the house of a Brahmana in the manner of a guest, (the house-holder) may feed him according to his desire, after the above-mentioned Brahmanas have eaten.

The Vaiśya and the Śūdra also, when arrived in the family in the character of guests, he should feed, along with his servants,—showing his compassionate disposition.—(112)

अतिथेर् धर्मो ऽतिथिधर्मः । स ययोर् अस्ति ताव् अतिथिधर्मिणौ । अतिथिधर्मश् च प्राग् व्याख्यातः । कुटुम्बं गृहम्, तत्र प्राप्ताव् आगतौ वैश्यशूद्राव् अपि भोजयेत्, क्षत्रियवत् । तयोस् तु भोजनकालः क्षत्रियकालात् परेण । यत आह- भोजयेत् सह भृत्यैस् तौ । भृत्या अत्र दासा उच्यन्ते । तेषां च भोजनकालो भुक्तवस्व् अतिथिज्ञातिबान्धवेषु सर्वेष्व् अर्वाग् दम्पतिभ्याम् । सहशब्द एककालतामात्रलक्षणार्थः । आनृशंस्यं कारुण्यम् अनुकम्पां प्रयोजयन् प्रमाणीकुर्वन्न् आश्रयन्न् इति यावत् । अनेन पूज्यतां वारयति । अनुग्राह्यो ह्य् अनुकम्प्यो न पूज्यः । अनुकम्प्येषु यदि च शक्यते ऽनुग्रहः कर्तुं ततः क्रियते ऽभ्युदयार्थिना, न त्व् अकरणाद् अतिथेर् अतिक्रमः । एतद् उक्तं भवति । यादृशो ऽतिथिभोजनाद् उत्कृष्टो धर्मः अनुकम्प्यानुग्रहान् न तादृशस् ततो निकृष्टः ॥ ३.१०२ ॥

Those that have the character of guests are said to arrive ‘in the character of guests;’ the ‘character of the guest’ has been already described.

‘Family’—House.

‘Arrived’—Come.

He should feed the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also, like the Kṣatriya. The time, for feeding them is after the quests, relations and friends have eaten, but before the House-holder and his wife.

‘Along with’ means simply ‘at the same time.’

‘Compassionate disposition’—sympathy, pity.

‘Showing’—providing proof of, having recourse to.

This last clause has been added with a view to show that those here mentioned are not objects of respect. It is one who is to be kindly treated that deserves compassion, and not one who is to be worshipped. Towards pergons deserving kindly treatment, if help can be accorded, this is done by everyone who desires his own welfare. But its omission does not mean ill-treatment of the guest. What is meant is that the merit derived from helping the person deserving compassion is not similar to that derived from entertaining the guest; it is inferior to this latter.—(112)

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 354) quotes this verse without comment;—also Aparārka (p. 152), which explains ‘ānṛśaṃsyam’ as ‘anaiṣṭhuryam,’ ‘absence of hard-heartedness.’—It is quoted also in Varṣakriyā-kaumudī (p. 572), which explains ‘Kuṭumbe’ as ‘in the house’.

**(verses 3.110-112)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.110].

112 Even a Vaisya and a Sudra who have approached his house in the manner of guests, he may allow to eat with his servants, showing (thereby) his compassionate disposition.