११ भोजनक्रमः

Others also, friends and the rest, that may come to his house out of affection, he should feed on food specially prepared, to the best of his ability, together with his wife.—(113)

सखा मित्रं स आदिर् येषाम् । आदिशब्दः प्रकारे ज्ञातिबन्धुसंगतसहाध्यायिप्रभृतीन् गृह्णाति, गुरुवर्जम् । संप्रीत्यागतान् । अतिथेर् धर्मस्य प्रकृतत्वान् निषेधार्थं संप्रीतिग्रहणम् । तान् भोजयेत् । प्रकृत्य प्रकर्षेणान्नं कृत्वा संस्कृत्य । यथाशक्तीति उपलक्षणार्थः शक्तिशब्दः । यावती शक्तिर् यादृशं च यो ऽर्हति तम् उद्दिश्य तादृश एव संस्कारः कर्तव्यः । भार्यया सह । यो भर्तुर् भोजनकालः स एव भार्याया अपि, पृथक् तस्या भोजनकालस्याभावात् । एवं ह्य् उक्तम् “अवशिष्टं तु दम्पती” इति (म्ध् ३.१०६) । महाभारते पत्युर् ऊर्ध्वं भार्याया भोजनं दर्शितम् । द्रौपदीसत्यभामासंवादे (म्भ् ३.२२२) द्रौपद्या स्त्रीधर्मान् कथयन्त्योक्तम्- “सर्वेषु पतिषु भुक्तवत्सु शेषान्नम् अश्नामि” । पतिशेषान्नभोजनं स्त्रीणां धर्मः । तस्मान् न भार्याभोजनकाले सख्यादीनां भोजनं विधीयते । नाप्य् एकपात्राशनं सहार्थः । किं तर्हि नैकाकिनस् ते भोजयितव्याः । अपि तु भार्यापि तत्र भुञ्जीत । ततश् च “अवशिष्टं तु दम्पती” (म्ध् ३.१०६) इति तद् अत्र बाध्यते । यदि पत्युः कश्चिद् अभ्यर्हितः प्रतीक्ष्यः स्याद् अरुच्या वा¹ न भुञ्जीत, तदा भार्या तद्देशे भुञ्जीत । एवं सौहार्दं प्रकाशितं भविष्यति ॥ ३.१०३ ॥

‘Friend’— Companion; they of whom the friend is the first. The term ‘and the rest’ connotes kind, and includes relations, associates, class-fellows, and so forth;—all except the Teacher.

‘That may come out of affection,’—The context pertaining to the guest, the term ‘affection,’ has been added with a view to preclude that character.

‘He should feed them.’

‘Specially prepared’—Having cooked the food with special care.

‘To the best of his ability;’—the term ‘ability’ is meant to be merely illustrative; the meaning is that the cooking and the seasoning should be in accordance with the man’s own ability, and also according to what each guest may deserve.

‘Together with his wife’—the time for the wife’s eating is the same as the husband’s; no time being laid down specifically for the wife; all that is said is that ‘the husband and Wife should eat the remnant’ (verse 116). In the Mahābhārata, however, it is shown that the wife eats after the husband: In the course of conversation between Draupadī and Satyabhāmā, Draupadī, describing the duties of the wife, has said—‘after all my husbands have eaten, I eat what is left’. The eating of food left by the husband is among the wife’s duties. Hence, what is here laid down is not that the Friend and others should eat at the time that, the wife eats; nor does the phrase ‘along with’ mean that, they are to eat out of the same dish. All that is, meant is that they should not be fed alone; the housewife also should eat there. This might go against the rule that ‘the husband and wife should eat what is left,’ What is meant is that if some respectable person is to be waited for, or if the husband feels disinclined to eat, then the husband may not eat with the Friend, etc., and in his place his wife should eat; this will bear testimony to his friendly feelings towards the diners.—(113)

This verse is quoted without comment in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 394);—and in Aparārka (p. 154) as laying down the treatment to be accorded to such relations and friends as happen to arrive after the Householder himself has eaten,—and as implying that the wife should eat after the husband has eaten.

Viṣṇu (67.38).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Yājñavalkya (1.108).—‘He shall also feed such friends and relations as may arrive at the time.’

113 Even to others, personal friends and so forth, who have come to his house out of affection, he may give food, garnished (with seasoning) according to his ability, (at the same time) with his wife.

Newly married girls, maidens, sick persons and pregnant women,—these he should, without hesitation, feed immediately after the guests.—(114)

सुवासिन्यो² वध्वो नवोढा स्त्रियः स्नुषा दुहितरश् च । अन्ये तु “जीवच्छ्वशुरा जीवत्पितृकाश् च प्रसूता अपि सुवासिन्य³ उच्यन्ते” इत्य् आहुः । अतिथिभ्यो ऽन्वग् एवैतान् अनुगतान् एव भोजयेत् । प्रारब्धभोजनेष्व् एवातिथिषु तत्समकालं भोजयेत् । अन्ये त्व् “अग्र” इति पठन्ति । अविचारयन् । कथम् अतिथिष्व् अभोजितेषु बाला भुञ्जत इत्य् एवं विचिक्त्सा न कर्तव्या ॥ ३.१०४ ॥

The term ‘Suvāsinī’ stands for newly married girls, daughters as well as daughters-in-law. Others have held that ‘girls whose father-in-law and father are both living are called Suvāsinī, even after they have given birth to children.’

‘These……immediately after the guests’—in continuation of them—‘he should feed.’ That is, as soon as the guests have commenced eating, they should be fed at the same time.

Others read ‘agre’ ‘before’ (the guests).

‘Without hesitation’—i.e., he should not entertain any doubt as to the propriety of feeding youngsters before the guests have eaten.—(114)

‘Suvāsinīḥ’—‘Newly married girls i.e., daughters and daughters-in-law’ (Medhātithi);—‘women whose fathers and fathers-in-law are living, even though they may have got children’ (‘others,’ quoted by Medhātithi).

‘Agre’—‘Before (the guests)’ (Kullūka);—Medhātithi adopts the reading ‘anvak’ and explains it to mean ‘along with (the guests)’; and not as ‘even if they come later,’ as Hopkins interprets him.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 455), which explains ‘agre’ as ‘first’;—and in Aparārka (p. 147).

Viṣṇu (67.39).—[Reproduces Manu, but using the singular number throughout the first half.]

Gautama (5.26).—‘First he shall feed the guests, the young boys, the sick, the woman with child, the newly-married girls, the old and the dependents.’

Baudhāyana (2.7.19).—‘They quote here the following text:—First of all he shall feed the guests, after them the woman with child, then the boys, the old persons, the weak and the sick.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.4.12).—‘The boys, the old, those suffering from disease, women with child.’

Yājñavalkya (1.5.105).—‘Boys, newly-married girls, old persons, pregnant women, the sick and the maidens, guests and servants,—it is only after these have been fed that the householder and his wife shall eat whatever is left.’

Pāraskara (1.9.13).—‘The younger and the older members of the family shall take their food in the manner befitting them.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 364).—‘Then with cooked food he shall feed the newly married girls, the sick, the pregnant women, the old and the young; after that he should himself eat.’

Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa (Do.).—‘Having honoured the Brāhmaṇa guests, relations, paternal and maternal, and also persons seeking for food, he shall feed the young and old and the sick.’

114 Without hesitation he may give food, even before his guests, to the following persons, (viz.) to newly-married women, to infants, to the sick, and to pregnant women.

The foolish man, who eats before giving food to these, does not understand, that, in thus eating, he is himself devoured by dogs and vultures.—(115)

एतेभ्यो ऽतिथ्यादिभ्यो भृत्यपर्यन्तेभ्यो यो भोजनम् अदत्त्वा पूर्वं प्रथमम् अविचक्षणः शास्त्रार्थम् अजानानो भुङ्क्ते स श्वगृधैर् अद्यते प्रेतः । ताम् जग्धिम् आत्मनस् तैः खादनं न जानाति । एवं हि स मन्यते मूढमतिर् अत्राहम् एव भुञ्जे, एवं तु न बुध्यते यद् ईदृशम् अशनं तत् स्वशरीरस्य श्वगृध्रैर् अदनम् । तत्फलत्वाद् एवम् उच्यते ॥ ३.१०५ ॥

‘Before giving food to these’—i.e., to those just mentioned, beginning with the guest and ending with the servant—‘the foolish man’— who does not know the law—‘eats’— is devoured, after death, by dogs and vultures.

This ‘being devoured’—being eaten—by them, he does not understand. The foolish man simply feels that ‘I am eating now,’ and he does not understand that his eating in this manner means the eating of his own body by dogs and vultures. This latter is the result of such eating; hence it has been thus described.—(115)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 455) without comment; and also on p. 395, where it is explained as setting aside the view that the Vaiśvadeva and Bali offerings should be made only once in the morning when the man himself eats,—and as indicating the necessity of making them both in the morning and in the evening, even though the man himself may not eat at both times. There is this difference, however, that if the man omits the offerings while he himself eats, he incurs two sins—that of eating without offering, and that of omitting the offerings; whereas if he drops them when he himself does not eat, he incurs only one sin, that of omitting the offerings. Thus on the Ekādaśī and other fasting days also, the said offerings have got to be made; and food has got to be cooked for that purpose; but in the event of his being unable to do the cooking, the offerings may be made even with uncooked food.

This is quoted also in Aparārka (p. 147), which explains the second line to mean ‘he does not understand that he is himself being devoured by dogs and vultures’, and deduces the conclusion that it is not sinful to eat along with the persons mentioned in the preceding verse.

Viṣṇu (67.40).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Baudhāyana (2.7.20).—‘If one eats before having fed these in the proper manner, he is himself eaten; he does not eat; though he knows not this.’

Baudhāyana (3.17.18).—‘They quote the following declaration made by the Food:—If one eats rice without offering rice to the Pitṛs, the gods, dependents, guests and friends, he eats poison; him I devour; for him I am Death.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 364).—‘If one eats before these have been fed, he eats sin, and after death, he goes to hell and is born as a feeder on phlegm.’

115 But the foolish man who eats first without having given food to these (persons) does, while he crams, not know that (after death) he himself will be devoured by dogs and vultures.

After the Brāhmaṇas, his own people and servants have dined,—the husband and wife should afterwards eat what is left.—(116)

विप्रा अतिथयः, स्वा ज्ञात्यादयः⁴ । तेषु कृतभोजनेषु तद्अवशिष्टं दम्पती जायापती अश्नीयाताम् । पश्चात् कदाचित् तेभ्यः कल्पयित्वा शिष्टव्यपदेशे सत्य् आदौ भोजनं स्यात् तदर्थम् उक्तं पश्चाद् इति । दम्पत्योर् भोजनकालविधानर्थम् इदम्⁵ । आद्यो ऽर्धश्लोको⁶ ऽनुवादः ॥ ३.१०६ ॥

‘Brāhmaṇas’—i.e., guests.

‘His men people’—people of the same caste, and so forth. When all these have eaten, then ‘what is left by them,’ the husband and wife should eat.

‘Afterwards’—this is added with a view to perclude the notion that a portion of the food having been assigned to the guests and others, and kept aside, the remainder might be called ‘what is left,’ and as such might be eaten by the householder and his wife, even before the guests, &c.

Half of this verse is meant to be the injunction of the time for the husband and wife to eat; the rest of it is a purely descriptive reference.—(116)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 364), as laying down the manner in which the Householder himself should take his food;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 456) without comment.

Viṣṇu (67.41).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.8.2).—‘He shall eat what has been left by the guests.’

Yājñavalkya (1.105).—‘The husband and wife shall eat what is left after the guests and dependents have been fed.’

Paraskara (3.9.14).—‘The householder and his wife, after all the rest.’

116 After the Brahmanas, the kinsmen, and the servants have dined, the householder and his wife may afterwards eat what remains.

Having worshipped the gods, sages, men, the Pitṛs and the household deities, the Householder shall eat afterwards what remains.—(117)

अनुवादमात्रम् इदं पूर्वस्य पञ्चयज्ञानुष्ठानविधेर् गृहस्थभोजनकालस्य च ।

• अन्ये त्व् अर्थान्तरविधानम् अपि वर्णयन्ति । पूर्वत्र जायापत्योर् एककालम् अवशिष्टभोजनं विहितम् । अनेन स्त्रिया अपोह्य पुंस एव विधीयते । ततश् च पूर्वं⁷ भृत्येभ्यः प्राक् पत्युर् भार्या भुञ्जीत । एवं वा कृत्वा भोजयेत् । एतद् अप्य् उपपन्नं भविष्यति । इतरथा तैः सह भार्या न भुज्ञीतेत्य् अर्थकल्पनायां तथाश्रुतपदान्वयभङ्गः स्यात् । यत् तु महाभारते दर्शनं तद्दर्शनम् एव न⁸ विधानम्, विधौ विकल्पयिष्यते ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् अनुवादत्वाद् अस्य । न च गृहस्थ इत्य् एकवचनविरोधः, सहाधिकाराज् जायापत्योः । तत्र च सहार्थस्य प्राधान्यान् न द्विवचनापत्तिः । यथा “ब्राह्मणो ऽग्नीन् आदधीत” इति सत्य् अपि भार्यया सहाधिकारे नैकवचनं विरुध्यते । तत् कस्य हेतोः । एको हि तत्र प्रधानम् अपरो हि गुणभूतः । न च गुणः स्वसंख्याम् उपजनयितुं शक्नोति । अतः प्रधानस्यैकसंख्यत्वात्, सत्य् अपि पत्यर्थानुप्रवेशे, एकवचनम् एव युक्तम् । एक एव गृहस्थशब्दः पत्न्यां वर्तते, स च सहविवक्षायाम् । सा चैकबुद्धिविषयत्वेन प्रधानयोर् गुणयोर् वा । तस्मान् न पत्न्याः प्राक् पुंसो भोजनम् । अतः स्थितम् अनुवादो ऽयम्, प्रतिपत्तिदार्ढ्याय ।

• ये ऽपि गृह्याश् च देवताः पूजयेद् इत्य् अर्थवादवचनं देवतापदं मत्वा पूजयेद् इति संबन्धाद् गौणम् एवार्चाविधित्वं समर्थयन्ते । न हि मुख्यस्य देवतार्थस्य पूज्यत्वसंभवः, यजिस्तुतिसंबन्धेनैव देवतात्वस्य मुख्यत्वात् । तथा च गृह्या इत्य् आह । गृहे भवा गृह्याः । ताश् च प्रतिकृतय एव । न हि यागसंप्रदानभूतानां गृहसंबन्धितासिद्धिः ।

• तेषाम् अपि देवतार्थो गौणो न पूजार्थः । कुत एतत् । गृहस्थस्य या यष्टव्यास् ता गृह्या इत्य् उपपद्यते ॥ ३.१०७ ॥

This is a mere reiteration of the foregoing injunction of the performance of the Five Sacrifices, and of the time for the Householder’s eating.

Others, however, have explained this verse its actually laying down something different: The former verse has laid down the eating of remnants by both husband and wife; while this verse leaves aside the woman and lays down the eating by the man alone. And from this it would follow that the wife should eat before the servants and before also the husband. In this way, this becomes reconciled also with what has been said before (113) regarding ‘the feeding of friends, &c., together with the wife.’ Otherwise, if we assumed the latter to mean that the wife should not eat with them, we would be abandoning the most palpable construction of the sentence. As for what has been described in the Mahābhārata (regarding Draupadī eating after her husbands), that is a mere description, not an injunction. Even if it were an injunction, it could only be regarded as laying down an option.

This, however, is not right; as the present verse is a mere reiteration.

Nor is there any incompatibility of the singular number in ‘householder’ (with the idea that both husband and wife are meant); because in all things the Husband and wife operate conjointly; so that their companionship being the prime factor, the use of the Dual member does not become necessary. Just as in the text, ‘the Brāhmaṇa should set up the fire,’ even though the husband and wife have got to perform the rite jointly, yet there is no incongruity in the singular number. And why so? Because one of the two is the principal and the other is subordinate; and the subordinate cannot impose its number. Hence it is that the principal being one only, though the wife also comes in in fulfilment of her husband’s purpose, yet the singular number is the right form to use. The single word ‘householder’ denotes the wife also; and this is ip view of the joint functioning of the husband and wife; and this is possible only when both are conceived of jointly, and not if either both are regarded as principal, or both are regarded as subordinate. From all this it follows that the wife is not to eat before her husband; which establishes the conclusion that this verse is only a reiteration, intended to lend strength to the conviction (arising from the foregoing injunctions).

Some people have explained that, in the clause, ‘he should worship the household deities,’ the term ‘deities’ is only a laudatory re-iteration; and on account of its connection with the injunctive verb ‘should worship,’ the sentence contains an injunction of the worshipping as a subordinate factor. And they argue thus—“The primary denotation of the term ‘deity’ is not compatible with the act of worshipping; as the ‘deity’ in the primary sense can only be related to the acts of sacrificing and hymning. It is for this reason that the text has added the epithet ‘household,’—which means those in the house; and these can only be in the form of images. As those to whom sacrifices are offered can have no connection with the house.”

For these people also what is to be taken in the secondary sense is the ‘deity,’ not the ‘worshipping.’

But why all this? The simple explanation is that the deities to whom sacrificers offer sacrifices are called ‘house - hold deities’—(117)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 456) without comment;—also on p. 395, as indieating (along with verse 115) the necessity of making the Vaiśvadeva and Bali offerings both in the evening and in the morning;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 581).

Viṣṇu (67.42).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Baudhāyana (27.21).—‘One should eat the remnant left by the Pitṛs, the gods, the dependents, the parents and the teacher; such is the prescribed law.’

117 Having honoured the gods, the sages, men, the manes, and the guardian deities of the house, the householder shall eat afterwards what remains.

He who cooks for himself eats only sin; for the eating of good mem has been described as the eating of the remains of sacrifices.—(118).

पापं केवलं स भुङ्क्ते, हृदये निधत्ते गृह्णाति, नान्नस्य मात्राम् अपि, यः पचेत् पाकं कारयेद् आत्मकारणाद् आत्मानम् उद्दिश्य- “क्षुधितो ऽहम् इदं वा मह्यं रोचत इति तद् एव पच्यताम्” । तस्माद् अनातुरेण नात्मार्थम् अन्नं⁹ पाचनीयम्¹⁰ । आतुरस्य तु शरीरधारणं येनोपायेन भवति विध्यन्तरातिक्रमेणापि¹¹ तस्याश्रयणं युक्तम्, “सर्वत एवात्मानं गोपायेत्” (ग्ध् ९.३४) इति वचनात् । एवं केचिद् अस्यार्थम् आहुः ।

• एतद् अयुक्तं स्मृत्यन्तरविरोधात् । एवं ह्य् आहुः-

• यद् यद् इष्टतमं लोके यच् चास्य दयितं गृहे ।

• तद् तद् गुणवते देयं तद् एवाक्षयम् इच्छता ॥ (म्भ् १३.५८.७)

“दयितम्” “इष्टं” स्पृहणीयम् । यदि च न पच्येत कृतस् तादृशस्य दानसंभवः ।

• तस्माद् अयम् अस्यार्थः । तदुद्देशस् तावन् नित्यस्य पाकस्य नैव विद्यते । सुहृत्स्वजनादिष्व् आगतेषु तदुद्देशः । अन्यथा त्व् अनुद्दिष्टविशेषपाके अतिथ्यादिभ्यो दानं विधीयते । तेनैतद् उक्तं भवति । य तेभ्यो ऽदत्त्वा भुङ्क्ते तस्यायं दोषः । अथ वा सर्वस्मिन्न् अतिथ्यादिभिर् भुक्ते नात्मार्थं पुनः पाकः कर्तव्यः । तथा च वसिष्ठः- “शेषं दम्पती भुञ्जीयाताम् । सर्वोपयोगे न पुनः पाकः ।” (वध् ११.११)

• यज्ञशिष्टाशनम् । पूर्वस्य शेषभोजनस्य प्रशंसैव । यज्ञो ज्योतिष्टोमादिः, शिष्टम् उपयुक्तशेषम्, तस्य चैतद् अशनम् । तत्तुल्यफलम्, यत् सतां शास्त्रानुष्ठानपराणां गृहस्थानाम् अतिथ्यादिभुक्तशिष्टं विधीयते¹² ॥ ३.१०८ ॥

‘He eats only sin’—i.e., he accumulates sin in his heart; he places that in his stomach, and not even a morsel of food;—‘who cooks’—gets food prepared —‘for himself’—for his own eating; giving such directions as—‘I am hungry, and I prefer such and such food; hence cook these.’ Hence one should not have food cooked for himself, except when he is in distress. When, one is in distress, then it is incumbent upon him—in accordance with another injunction—to maintain his body, even at the risk of disobeying a certain injunction; specially in view of the law that ‘one should guard oneself against all.’

Such is the meaning attributed to this verse by some persons. But this is not right; being contrary to another Smṛti text, which says—‘whatever may be best, liked in this world, and whatever may be most loved in the house, that should be given to the qualified person, by one who wishes that thing to be inexhaustible.’ Now, if what is best liked by the householder were not cooked, how could it be given to others?

What the text means, therefore, is as follows:—So far as the daily cooking is concerned, it is not with special reference to any person; it is only when friends and relations turn up that special things are cooked for them. If it were not so, then there would be no force in the injunction of giving food to guests and others out of the food that has not been cooked for any person in particular. What is meant is that the evil mentioned in the verse attaches to one who eats food without offering it to the guest, &c.—or that, in the event of all the food cooked being eaten up by the guest and others, the

Householder shall not have more food cooked only for himself. Vaśiṣṭha has declared—‘the Husband and wife should eat the remnant; if the whole has been eaten, cooking should not be done again.’ (11-11-12).

‘The eating of the remains of sacrifices;—this is only laudatory of the ‘eating of what is left,’ enjoined above (in 117).

‘Sacrifice’—the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest.

‘Remains’—what is left after use.—The ‘eating’ of this is called ‘yajñaśiṣṭāśanam’. Equal to this in its effects has been described the eating—of what remains after the feeding of the guest and others,—of all good householders, who are intent upon the obeying of the scriptures.—(118)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 457) as deprecating the conduct of the man who does not entertain guests.

Viṣṇu (67.43).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Baudhāyana (2.7.16).—‘He who eats alone is entirely sinful; the food he takes is futile.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 457).—‘He who cooks for himself eats sin; one should always avoid that futile cooking which is intended only to please his own palate.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika).—‘One shall not cook for himself, nor shall he kill animals for himself; one who cooks for the sake of gods and for the sake of Brāhmaṇas does not become tainted with sin.’

Jābāla (Do.)—‘He who eats without bathing, eats dirt; he who eats without having repeated mantras, eats pus and blood; he who eats without having offered Homa, eats insects; and he who eats food without offering it to others, eats poison.’

118 He who prepares food for himself (alone), eats nothing but sin; for it is ordained that the food which remains after (the performance of) the sacrifices shall be the meal of virtuous men.