०२ जीविका

[While living in the house], The Brāhmaṇa shall, in normal times, subsist by taking to that means of livelihood which involves no trouble—or very little trouble—to living beings.—(2)

“देहि देहि” इति याचमानस्य यः परस्य चित्तविकारः खेदात्मको जायते, स द्रोहो ऽभिप्रेतः, न पुनर् हिंसैव, तस्याः सर्वसामान्येनैव प्रतिषेधात् । अल्पद्रोहेणेति । याच्ञया विना यदि न वर्त्यते तदा स्वल्पं याचितव्यम्, एषो ऽल्पद्रोहः । या वृत्तिर् जीवनोपायः कृषिसेवादि, यस्यां वृत्तौ परस्य पीडा न भवति सा आश्रयितव्या । सामान्योपदेशो ऽयम् । समास्थाय आश्रित्य जीवेत् ।

• आपदि दशमे विधिर् भविष्यति । अस्माच् चोपदेशाद् वक्ष्यमाणाभ्य अन्यापि वृत्तिर्¹ भवतीति गम्यते । अन्यथा वक्ष्यमाणविशेषनिष्ठत्वे सामान्यस्योपदेशस्यानर्थक्यम्² एव स्यात् । तेन च याजनाध्यापने, कुसीदम् अमृतादिमध्ये अपठितम् अपि लभ्यते ।

• अल्पीयसी या उञ्छवृत्तिर् गृहीता असौ ह्य् अल्पद्रोहः । तथा च गौतमः- “कृषिवाणिज्ये चास्वयं³ कृते । कुसीदं च” (ग्ध् १०.५–६) । जीवनमात्रो ऽयं विधिः, धनसंचयस् तु वक्ष्यमाणैर् एव नियतैः कर्मभिः ॥ ४.२ ॥

By ‘trouble’ here is meant, not only harm, but the unpleasant feeling or displeasure that is produced in the mind of one who is constantly begged with the words ‘give me this,’ ‘give me that;’—the harming of others being already generally prohibited.

‘Little trouble;’—If he cannot manage to live without begging, he should beg very little. This is what.is meant by ‘little trouble.’

That ‘means of livelihood’—means of subsistence, such as agriculture, service, and the like—which means does not cause trouble to other persons,—such a means of subsistence should be taken to.

This is a general advice.

‘By taking to that means…he should subsist.’

What is to be done in abnormal times of distress shall be laid down in Discourse X.

From what is said here it follows that there are also other means of living than those that are going to be described. Otherwise, if the present text referred to those only that are going to be described, there would be no point in the general injunction here put forward. Thus it is that we get at such means of living as ‘officiating at sacrifices,’ ‘teaching,’ ‘money-lending,’ and so forth,—even though these are not mentioned among ‘amṛta’ and the rest enumerated here.

‘Living on gleanings,’ which has been accepted as a very small means of subsistence, is what is meant by ‘involving little trouble.’ Says Gautama (10.6)—‘Agriculture and Trade, done through others, as also money-lending.’

What is here laid down is the means of mere subsistence; the amassing of wealth is to be done by the few specialised means going to be enumerated.—(2)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.128), which says that what is here stated is confined to the Brāhmaṇa only;—in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 246);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 215);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, p. 37a),

Viṣṇu (2.11).—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, officiating at sacrifices and receiving of gifts.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.4-6).—‘The Brāhmaṇa’s own occupation, consists of studying, teaching, sacrificing, officiating at sacrifices, making gifts, receiving gifts, inheriting of property and gleaning and picking; also such others as may not have been adopted by others.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.69).—‘If unable to maintain himself by teaching, officiating at sacrifices, and receiving of gifts, he may live by the occupation of the Kṣatriya; this being the next best for him.’

Atri (13).—‘The occupation of the Brāhmaṇa consists of sacrificing, making gifts, studying, austerities, receiving gifts, teaching and officiating at sacrifices; these are the means of his livelihood.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 29).—‘For the householder, living by the means prescribed for him, marrying in families not belonging to the same Ṛṣi-gotra, approaching his wife only during her periods, making offerings to gods, Pitṛs, guests and dependants and feeding on what remains.’

002 A Brahmana must seek a means of subsistence which either causes no, or at least little pain (to others), and live (by that) except in times of distress.

For the accomplishment of bare maintenance, one shall accumulate wealth by means of one’s own irreproachable occupations, without causing trouble to the body.—(3)

पूर्वेणान्वाहिकजीवनविधाव् उपाय उक्तः, अनेन धनसंचये नियम उपदिश्यते । स्वैः कर्मभिः धनसंचयं कुर्यात् । तानि च कर्माण्य् उत्तरत्र वक्ष्यन्ते । संचयप्रयोजनम् आह- यात्रामात्रप्रसिद्ध्यर्थम् । न भोगाय धनसंचयक्लेशः कर्तव्यः, किं तर्हि, यात्रामात्रप्रसिद्ध्यर्थम् । आत्मकुटुम्बस्थितिर् यात्रा, तत्परिमाणं यात्रामात्रम्, तस्य प्रसिद्धिर् निष्पत्तिः, तदर्थस् तत्प्रयोजनम् ।

• नित्यकर्मनिवृत्तिर् आत्मस्थिताव् एवान्तर्भूतानि ह्य् अकुर्वत न आत्मस्थितिः⁴ । आह च “न निर्वपति पञ्चानाम् उच्छ्वसन् न स जीवति” (म्ध् ३.६२) । अथ वा⁵ सत्य् अपि शास्त्रीयत्वे यत्र लोको⁶ गर्हते तद् वर्ज्यम् एव । यथा नरस्य महाकुलीनस्य भुक्तविभवस्य निकृष्टकुलात् प्राप्तश्रीकात् समानजातीयाद् अपि प्रतिग्रहादिना केनचिद् उपायेन जीवनम् ।

• अक्लेशेन शरीरस्य । सेवावाणिज्ये महाक्लेशे दूराध्वगमनादिना । तादृशे न कर्तव्ये । संचयो राशीकृतपरिरक्षणम् ॥ ४.३ ॥

तानीदानीं कर्माणि नामतस् तावद् आह ।

The preceding verse has described the means of daily subsistence; the present verse is going to mention rules regarding the accumulating of wealth.

‘One shall accumulate wealth by means of one’s own occupations.’—These occupations shall be described later on.

The author states the purpose for which wealth is to be accumulated: ‘For the accomplishment of bare maintenance’—Wealth shall be accumulated, not for the purposes of pleasure, but simply for the sake of maintenance. ‘Maintenance’ stands for the subsisting of oneself and one’s family; and what just suffices for that is called ‘bare maintenance;’—‘the accomplishment,’ or bringing about of this, is the ‘purpose’ of the accumulation. The performance of obligatory duties is included under one’s ‘own subsistence;’ for, until one performs these, one’s own subsistence is not accomplished. It has been said above (3.72)—‘he who does not make the five offerings, is not alive, even though he may be breathing.’

Or, what is meant is that, even though a certain means of accumulating wealth may be sanctioned by the scriptures, if it happen to be such as is considered reproachable in the eyes of men, it shall be avoided. For instance, when a man of noble family has spent all his belongings, he shall avoid living by such means as the receiving of gifts from a person of his own caste, but of a low family, who may have acquired wealth.

‘Without causing trouble to the body’—Service and Trade are sources of great suffering to the body, involving as they do long journeys and other troubles: so that these should be avoided.

‘Accumulation.’—Collecting and keeping.—(3).

003 For the purpose of gaining bare subsistence, let him accumulate property by (following those) irreproachable occupations (which are prescribed for) his (caste), without (unduly) fatiguing his body.

He shall live in “Truth” and “Nectar,” or by “Death” and “Super-death;” or, even by “Truth and Falsehood;” but never by the “living of the dog.”—(4)

नाम्नैव केषांचित् स्तुतिः प्रतीयते । प्रयोजनं च⁷ प्रशस्ताभावे निन्दितेषु प्रवृत्तिः । तत्र मृतप्रमृते अत्यन्तनिन्दिते । ततो ऽपि सत्यानृतम् । यत आह- “तेनैव वापि⁸ जीव्यते”⁹ (च्ड़्। म्ध् ४.६) इति । अपिशब्दो ऽरुचिसूचनार्थः¹⁰ ॥ ४.४ ॥

नामतो निर्दिश्य स्वरूपतो व्याचष्टे ।

The author now mentions the “occupations” by name; and their mere names imply the excellence of some of them; and from this it follows that one should have recourse to the deprecated ones only when the commended ones are not possible.

Of these, the “Death” and the “Super-Death” are the most deprecated; and worse than these is the “Truth and Falsehood,” as is clear from the fact that the Text says that one may live ‘even by these;’ where the term ‘even’ clearly indicates undesirability.—(4)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 309);—in Vidhānapārijāta (II. p. 246);—and the second half in Madanapārijāta (p. 216).

Agnipurāṇa (100.5).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Kūrmapurāṇa (1.2.25.22).—‘The householder is of two kinds—the Sādhaka and the Non-sādhaka; for the former, teaching, officiating at sacrifices, receiving of gifts, gleaning and picking; for the Non-sādhaka householder, gleaning and picking have been declared to be the only two means of livelihood.’

004 He may subsist by Rita (truth), and Amrita (ambrosia), or by Mrita (death) and by Pramrita (what causes many deaths); or even by (the mode) called Satyanrita (a mixture of truth and falsehood), but never by Svavritti (a dog’s mode of life).

Gleaning and picking is to be known as “Truth;” and what is obtained unasked, “Nectar”; alms obtained by begging is “Death,” and cultivation is declared to be “Super- death.”—(5)

उञ्छश् च शिलश् च उञ्छशिलम् । तद् ऋतं ज्ञेयं सत्यव्रततुल्यम् । क्षेत्राल् लूनस्य व्रीह्यादेर् गृहं खलं वा नीयमानस्य यः पुलाकः पतितः स्वामिनो ऽनपेक्षितस् तस्योच्चयनम् उञ्छः, तद् ऋतम् । न तत्रेयं बुद्धिर् आधेया- “परकीयम् एतत्, न गृह्णामि” इति । एवं च खलात्¹¹ परिभ्रष्टस्य लूनस्यालूनस्य वानेकप्ररोहवतो ग्रहणं शिलः ।

• अमृतं स्याद् अयाचितम्, अत्यन्तप्रीतिकरत्वात् । मृतम् इव याचितम् भैक्षम्¹² इति । याचितम् इत्य् एव सिद्धे भैक्षशब्देन सामूहिकतद्धितान्तेन बहवो याचितव्या इत्य् उच्यते, नैकः कदर्थनीयः । तद् उक्तम्- “अल्पद्रोहेण” (म्ध् ४.२) इति । प्रायेण च भैक्षशब्दस्य “भैक्ष्याश्य् आत्मविशुद्ध्यर्थम्”¹³ (म्ध् ११.७१) इत्य् एवमादौ सिद्धान्नविषये प्रयोगसिद्धेः, सामान्यविषयार्थं याचितशब्दोपादानम् । तेन नेदं सिद्धान्नभिक्षणम् एव, अग्निमतः पराग्निपक्वेन वैश्वदेवादिविरोधात् । न चेदं भोजनार्थम् एव भिक्षणम्, किं तर्हि, स्थित्यर्थम् । स्थितिश् च न भोजनमात्रसाध्या गृहस्थस्य, किं तर्हि, यावत्¹⁴ किंचिद् गृहोपयोगि । अत एधोदकपरिधानाद्य्¹⁵ अपि भिक्षितव्यम्, गृहोपकरणं च स्थाल्यपिधानादि । ब्रह्मचारिणस् तु भोजनकाले विधिना पाकासंभवान् नियमतः सिद्धान्नविषयं भैक्ष्यं प्रतीयते । भिक्षाशब्दश् चायं भिक्ष्यमाणद्रव्यगतं परिमाणम् अप्य् आचष्टे । भिक्षामात्रं न ददाति याचितः, प्रसृतिमात्रं भिक्षेति । तेन गोहिरण्यादिभिक्षणं न प्रसृतशब्देनाभ्यनुज्ञायते,¹⁶ प्रतिग्रहाद्यर्था¹⁷ याच्ञेति ।

• ननु भैक्षग्रहणम् अपि प्रतिग्रह एव ।

• नैवम्,¹⁸ ग्रहणमात्रं प्रतिग्रहः । विशिष्ट एव स्वीकारे प्रतिपूर्वो गृह्णातिर् वर्तते । तेन न स्वीकारमात्रे । “प्रतिग्रहसमर्थो ऽपि” (म्ध् ४.१८६) “प्रतिग्रहः प्रत्यवरः” (म्ध् १०.१०९) इति, अदृष्टबुद्ध्या दीयमानं मन्त्रपूर्वं गृह्णतः प्रतिग्रहो भवति । न च भैक्षे “देवस्य त्वा” (व्स् २.११) आदिमन्त्रोच्चारणम् अस्ति, न च प्रीत्यादिना दानग्रहणे । न च तत्र प्रतिग्रहव्यवहारः ।

• अतः प्रतिग्रहाद् अर्थान्तरम् एवेदं मृतामृतशब्दाभिधेयम्¹⁹ । अतश् च नात्र याच्यमानस्य अयाच्यमानस्य वा महासत्त्वतया उपकारान्तरापेक्षा जायते, येन वा ददतो जात्याद्यपेक्षा युक्तिमती²⁰ प्रतिग्राह्यस्य । एवं करुणया²¹ च प्रदीयमानं गृह्णतो न प्रतिग्रहः ।

• ननु च करुणया दानम् अदृष्टायैव ।

• नेति ब्रूमः । न च तत्र दानधर्मः, किं तर्हि, करुणाभ्यासात् परोपकाराद् वा । तत्र यथा हितोपदेशादाव् अनुग्राह्यस्य²² विधिर् जात्यादि²³ नापेक्षते तद्वत् करुणया दाने । तथा च शिष्टा नैवंविधे दाने “वेदतत्त्वार्थविदुषे ब्राह्मणाय” (म्ध् ३.८६) इत्य् एतद् अनुरुध्यन्ते । अत एवाब्राह्मणा अपि दैन्यम् आपन्नाः परेण दत्तं गृह्णाना न ब्राह्मणवृत्तिं²⁴ प्रतिग्रहम् आश्रिता भवन्ति ।

• स्थितम् एतत् । प्रतिग्रहे यद्य् अपि याचितायाचितपूर्वकत्वं विद्यते तथापि न तेनैव मृतामृतशब्दार्थः, विषयान्तरस्य दर्शितत्वात् । याजनाध्यापनयोर् अप्य् एतद् रूपम् अस्ति । कश्चिद् याजयित्वा याजकत्वं लभते, कश्चित् प्रार्थ्यते । एवम् अध्यापने योज्यम् । अतो यावता काचिद् वृत्तिर् याच्ञया²⁵ सा दैन्यावहत्वात् मरणम् इवेति मृतशब्देनाभिधीयते । कर्षणं तु मरणाद् अपि पापीयः । लाङ्गलाकर्षणं हि भारवाहत्वम् । तच् च खलु जनपदकर्म²⁶ ॥ ४.५ ॥

The corn that is gleaned is to be known as ‘Truth;’ living by this means being regarded as equal to the strict observance of truth. When after harvesting, corn is being carried either home or to the granary, if certain ears of corn fall down on the ground, and are left by the owner’—the picking up of these is what is called “gleaning;” and this is called ‘Truth;’ and in regard to this, one need not entertain any such idea as ‘this belongs to another person, so I shall not take it.’

Similarly, when one takes away what has fallen off from the sheaf—either before or after harvesting,—and what forms part of several offshoots,—this is ‘picking.’

‘What is obtained unasked is Nectar’—so called, because it is a source of great pleasure.

‘The alms obtained by begging is Death.’— The term ‘begging’ itself signifying the fact of what is obtained being ‘alms,’ the addition of this latter term—which is formed by the adding of a Nominal Affix denoting a group or collection,—is meant to imply that several persons shall be begged, and no single person shall be constantly troubled, as is shown by what has been said above regarding ‘what involves very little trouble to living beings.’ Then again, as a rule, the term ‘bhaikṣa,’ ‘alms,’ is found to be used in the sense of cooked food; as we find in the case of such passages as—‘for the purpose of cleansing oneself from alms;’ hence the adding of the term ‘begging’ serves to indicate that ‘alms’ stands here for food in general; hence what is meant here is not cooked food only; specially as for one who has set up the Fire, it would be wrong to make the Vaiśvadeva and other offerings with food cooked in any other fire.

The begging of alms here spoken of is not meant to be that only which is got for eating; it stands for what enables the man to maintain himself; and the maintenance of the householder is not accomplished merely by eating; in fact, it requires all such things as are necessary for house-keeping; hence it is that water-vessels and other such articles should also be begged; as also such household-requisites as dishes and covers, etc. So far as the Student is concerned, since for him it is impossible that just at the time of his eating, cooking should be done in the proper manner;—it follows that in his case ‘alms’ must mean cooked food only.

The term ‘bhikṣā,’ ‘alms,’ also indicates the quantity of the article obtained by begging; this quantity being a mere handful. But when a man is begged, he does not give mere alms, a mere handful; so that the begging of the cow, gold and such other things could not be regarded as sanctioned by the mere ‘handful.’ In fact, begging is always done for the purpose of receiving all kinds of gifts.

“The receiving of alms also would be a receiving of gifts.”

No; mere acceptance does not constitute the ‘receiving of gifts;’ the root ‘graha,’ with the preposition ‘prati,’—i.e., the term ‘pratigraha,’ ‘receiving of gifts’—is applied to a particular form of ‘acceptance,’ and not to any and every acceptance. Wherever the term ‘pratigraha,’ ‘gift,’ is used—e. g., under 4.186 and 10.100—it is used in the sense of such gift as is offered with a view to some transcendental result, and is received with due mantras. In the receiving of mere ‘alms,’ however, there is no reciting of any such mantra as ‘devasya tvā, etc.’ Nor again, is the term applied to the accepting of friendly and other presents; in the sense of this latter, the term is never used.

From all this it follows that the terms ‘Truth’ and ‘Nectar’ are used in the sense of things other than ‘gifts.’ Hence, in this case, the man who gives, whether begged or un-begged, is a high-souled person, and, hence, in his mind there does not arise any desire for any form of return (for the gift he makes); so that there would be no grounds for any restriction as to the caste, etc., of the recipient or giver. When a present is made entirely through sympathy for the receiver, it does not become a ‘gift’ (which always connotes the presence of desire for some transcendental result).

“But what is given through sympathy or pity is also conducive to transcendental results.”

We say—no; because it does not fulfil the conditions of ‘dāna,’ ‘giving’ (formal); it being prompted either by pity or by the desire to do good to others. Hence, just as in offering advice, through sympathy, considerations of caste do not come in; so in the case of giving through pity also. It is for this reason that in the case of such giving, cultured people do not observe any such restrictions as ‘gifts should be offered to the Brāhmaṇa who knows the real meaning of the Veda,’ and so forth. It is for this same reason, again, that even non-Brāhmaṇas, on becoming poor, accept gifts offered by others, but are not, on that account, regarded as having ‘received gifts,’ and thus transgressed upon the Brāhmaṇas ‘livelihood.’

The conclusion, therefore, is as follows:—Though in the regular ‘gift,’ considerations of its being asked or unasked do come in, yet it does not, merely on that account, become either ‘Truth’ or ‘Nectar;’ because it has been shown that these terms have a different connotation.

This same connotation is applicable to ‘officiating at sacrifices’ and ‘teaching’ (the other two means of livelihood for the Brāhmaṇa): Some one obtains the post of officiating at a sacrifice after having begged for it from some one. Similarly with the work of Teaching also.

Any such means of living as is obtained by begging, involves humiliation; and hence, resembling death, it is called ‘death.’

Cultivating is worse even than Death; specially as the act of ploughing and carrying of burdens is the work of lower people.—(5)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 309), which explains the difference between ‘uñcha’ and ‘śila’ by taking ṭhe former to mean the picking up of single grains, of corn and the latter that of ears of com fallen on the ground;—and in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 246).

**(verses 4.5-6)
**

Kūrmapurāṇa (1.2.25.23).—‘He may live either by Nectar or by Death; Nectar is that which is obtained unasked, and Death is the alms obtained by begging.’

Bṛhad-Yama (60, 62).—‘The Brāhmaṇa is ruined by serving the king. Those Brāhmaṇas who serve such masters as should not be served, and who officiate at sacrifices for those for whom it should not be done, are to be regarded as impure and beyond the pale of all Dharma.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.27).—‘When unable to maintain himself by means of his own occupations, he shall never have recourse to a sinful occupation.’

Yājñavalkya (3.25).—‘In abnormal times of distress, the Brāhmaṇa may maintain himself by the occupation of the Kṣatriya, or by that of the Vaiśya.’

Viṣṇu (2.15).—‘In times of distress, the occupation of the next (caste).’

Baudhāyana (2.2.69, 72).—‘Being unable to maintain himself by teaching, officiating at sacrifices, and receiving of gifts, he shall live by the occupation of the Kṣatriya; this being the next best for him;—he may also have recourse to the occupation of the Vaiśya; this being the next best.’

Gautama (7.6-7).—‘In the absence of the aforesaid, the occupation of the Kṣatriya; in the absence of this latter also, the occupation of the Vaiśya.’

005 By Rita shall be understood the gleaning of corn; by Amrita, what is given unasked; by Mrita, food obtained by begging and agriculture is declared to be Pramrita.

Trade is “Truth and Falsehood;” even by that one may live. Service has been declared, to be the “living of dogs;” hence one should avoid it.—(6)

नैवं मन्तव्यं सत्यानृतोभयरूपता शास्त्रेण वाणिज्ये ऽभ्यनुज्ञायत इति । किं तर्हि, वस्तुस्वभाववादो ऽयम् । लोभग्रहणम् एवानृतम् । जीव्यत इति वचनाद् वाणिज्या जीवनायैव, न धनसंचयाय । सेवा श्ववृत्तिः । यथा हि श्वा प्रेर्यते, कृच्छ्रेण च लभते, तथा च सेवकः । सेवा प्रेष्यत्वम् । यत्र कुत्रचित् कर्मणि प्रेष्यते, उचिते ऽनुचिते वा, स सेवकः । अत उत्कृष्टेनायुधकर्मादिना ये राजानम् उपसर्पन्ति ते न श्ववृत्तयः ॥ ४.६ ॥

It should not be understood that the scripture here lays down the fact of Trade being both ‘true’ and ‘false;’ it only describes the nature of the thing; and what constitutes the ‘falsehood’ of Trade is the element of avaricious grabbing involved in it.

‘May live.’—This implies that Trade may be had recourse to, only for the purposes of livelihood, never for that of accumulating wealth.

‘Service is the living of the dog.’—The dog is made to work hard, and gets little and with difficulty; so also the servant. ‘Service’ here connotes being ordered about; the servant is always commanded to do this and that work, right as well as wrong. Hence, when people serve kings with such superior kind of work as the carrying of arms and the like, these are not regarded ‘as the living of dogs,’—(6)

The first half of this verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 309);—and the entire verse in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 246).

**(verses 4.5-6)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.5].

006 But trade and (money-lending) are Satyanrita, even by that one may subsist. Service is called Svavritti; therefore one should avoid it.

He shall be either one possessing a granary full of grains, or one possessing a jar full of grains; he may be one possessing what is wanted for three days, or one who does not possess enough for the morrow.—(7)

उक्तम्- आत्मकुटुम्बस्थित्यै धनसंचयः कार्यः, न भोगाय क्लेश आश्रयणीयः । तत् तु किम् अन्वहम् अर्जनीयम्, उतैकदैव चिरकालपर्याप्तम् इति, नोक्तम् । तत्र कालविलम्बार्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते ।

• कुसूले धान्यम् अस्येति गमकत्वाद् व्यधिकरणो बहुव्रीहिः । पाठान्तरम् “कुशूलधान्यकः” इति । कुसूलपरिमितं धान्यं कुसूलधान्यम्, तद् अस्यास्तीति मत्वर्थीय इकशब्दः । धान्याधिकरणम् इष्टकादिकृतं कुसूलः कोष्ठ इति चोच्यते । तेन चात्र परिमाणं²⁷ लक्ष्यते । तत्र यावन् माति तावत् संचेतव्यम् । न पुनर् आधारनियमो ऽस्ति । कुसूलेन²⁸ च महापरिग्रहणस्यापि बहुभृत्यबन्धुदारदासपुत्रगवाश्वादिमतो ऽपि यावता सांवत्सरी स्थितिर् भवति तावद् अनुज्ञायते । यतो वक्ष्यति “यस्य त्रैवार्षिकं भक्तम्” (म्ध् ११.७) इति । धान्यग्रहणम् अप्य् अविवक्षितम् । सुवर्णरूप्याद्य् अपि तावत्याः स्थितेः पर्याप्तम् अर्जयतो न दोषः । सर्वथाधिकं ततो नार्जनीयम् इति वाक्यार्थः ।

• कुम्भी उष्ट्रिका । षण्मासिको निचय एतेन प्रतिपाद्यत इति स्मरन्ति । त्र्यहम् ऐहिकम् अस्येति त्र्यहैहिकः । कुटुम्बस्य नित्यकर्मार्थं च भक्तचयं करोति यः स त्र्यहैहिकः । श्वो भवं श्वस्तनं भक्तम्, तद् अस्यास्तीति पूर्ववत् मत्वर्थीयं कृत्वा नञ्समासः कर्तव्यः । सद्यस् तात्कालिको भवेत् । तदहरर्जितं व्ययीकर्तव्यम् ॥ ४.७ ॥

अस्य विकल्पस्य व्यवस्थाम् आह ।

It has been declared that wealth should be accumulated for the maintenance of oneself and family; and no trouble shall be undertaken for mere pleasure; it has not been said whether the man is to acquire wealth day by day, or only once, sufficient to last for a long time. Hence the Text now proceeds to show how one is to earn a living lasting for some length of time.

‘Kusūladhānyakaḥ.’—One who has grains in a granary; the compound being a Bahuvrīhi, where the members are not in apposition to each other.

Another reading is ‘Kusūladhānyikaḥ;’ in which case, the term Kusūladhānya would mean ‘grains enough to fill a granary;’ and one who possesses this would be ‘Kusūladhānyika;’ the word being formed with the Possessive affix ‘ik.’

Receptacles built of bricks and such things, which contain grains, are called ‘Kusūla’ or ‘Koṣṭha,’ ‘granary;’ and this term serves to indicate the quantity; the sense being that ‘one shall accumulate grains in such quantities as may fill a granary and it does not mean that ‘he must use the granary only as the receptacle for grains.’ What the text permits, by means of the word ‘granary,’ is the accumulating of just that quantity of grain which may suffice to maintain for one year the family of a man with large responsibilities, having a large number of servants, relations, wives, slaves, children, cattle, horse, and such other things. That such is the sense, is shown by what is going to be said (in 11.7) regarding the man who has grains sufficient for three years.

Significance is not meant to be attached to the term ‘grains’ also; in fact, there would be nothing wrong in the man acquiring such quantities of gold, silver and such things as would suffice for the said maintenance. All that the text means is that one should not accumulate more than that.

‘Kumbhī’ is the same ‘uṣṭṛka,’ ‘jar.’ They say that this stands for such quantity as would suffice for six months.

‘Trayahaihika;’—‘aihika’ means ‘wanted;’ he who has what is wanted for three days is ‘trayahaihika;’ which is the name given to one who collects what is enough for the requirements of his family for three days.

‘Śvastana’ is what is needed for the morrow; he who possesses this is, as before, ‘Śvastanika;’ and this compound, with the negative particle, gives the term ‘aśvastanika;’ ‘who does not possess enough for the morrow.’ The meaning is that he should acquire what just suffices for the time, what he earns he should spend all that the same day.—(7)

The author next states the law relating to the options just mentioned:—

‘Kusūladhānyakaḥ’—Having as much grain as is contained in a Kusūla, a granary, i. e., enough to feed the household for one year’ (not three as mentioned by Buhler) [Medhātithi];—‘enough to last twelve days’ (Govindarāja);—‘enough for three years’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘enough for twelve, six or three months’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Kumbhīdhānyakaḥ’—‘Having as much grain as may be contained in a Kumbhī, i.e., enough to last for six months’ (Medhātithi);—‘enough to last for six days’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa);—‘enough for one year’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 169);—in Mitākṣarā, (on 1.128), which adds that this refers, not to all Brāhmaṇas, but to those only who are ‘yāyāvara’ i.e., ‘who devote themselves entirely to study, sacrifice and making gifts, and do not have recourse to teaching, sacrificing for others and receiving gifts, or amassing of wealth’ (according to Devala);—also on 3.29, as describing the four kinds of ‘Householder’;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 216);—in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 246), which explains ‘Kusūla’ as ‘Koṣṭhakam,’—‘Kumbhī’ as ‘aṣṭrikā,’ and the whole compound as ‘one who possesses grain enough to fill the one or the other’;—‘tryahika’ as ‘one who has grains enough to last for three days,’ and ‘aśvastana’ as ‘one not having grains for the morrow’;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, p. 37a).

**(verses 4.7-8)
**

Yājñavalkya (1.228).—‘He may be the possessor of a granary-full or a jar-full of grains, or of grain enough for three days, or of grain not enough for the morrow; or he may live by gleaning and picking; the succeeding being superior to the preceding among these.’

Laghu-Viṣṇu (2.16-17).—‘The virtuous householders are divided into four classes according to the difference in their means of livelihood; of these the following is superior to the preceding. [Three quarters of Manu’s text being reproduced, the fourth part is read as sadyaḥprakṣālakaḥ, one who had just enough for the last meal that he has had.]’

Mahābhārata (12.249.2-3).—‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise—the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’

007 He may either possess enough to fill a granary, or a store filling a grain-jar; or he may collect what suffices for three days, or make no provision for the morrow.

Among these four Brāhmaṇa-householders, each later should be regarded as superior, and a superior winner of worlds by virtue of his merit.—(8)

यो यः स्वल्पकालसंचयः स स धर्मैर् ज्यायान् अधिकः । धर्माधिक्याच् च फलाधिक्यं भवति । लोकजित्तमः । लोकाञ् जयत्य् आधिपत्येनावतिष्ठते, भोग्यतया स्वीकरोति । प्रकर्षविवक्षायां तमः । अविशेषोपादानाल् लोकः स्वर्गः प्रतीयते । तेनेयम् अत्र व्यवस्था । महापरिग्रहो²⁹ यो बह्वपत्यो³⁰ ऽसंविभक्तपुत्रः अकृतकन्याविवाहश् च स कुसूलधान्यकः । यस् तु परिणतवयाः प्राप्तपुत्रः³¹ कृतकरणः स यावद् यावच् छमम् एति तावत् तावद् इतरान् कल्पान् आश्रयेत् ॥ ४.८ ॥

The person who accumulates wealth enough for a shorter time is superior, better, in point of merit; and superiority of merit leads to superiority of reward—‘he is a superior winner of worlds’—he wins the wolrds; i.e., takes possession of them, as their master; i.e., obtains them for his enjoyment. The suffix ‘tama’ denotes excellence. In the absence of qualifications, the term ‘worlds’ here is taken as standing for the heavenly regions.

For these reasons, the rule on this point would be as follows:—

(a) He who has vast responsibilities, having many children, whose sons have not set up separate houses, who has not married away his daughters,—such a person should possess a granary full of corns;—(b) he, however, who has become advanced in age, has got children, has done all that he had to do,—such a person, as he goes on withdrawing from activities, should have recourse to the other alternatives.—(8)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 169);—and in Madanapārijāta, (p. 216).

**(verses 4.7-8)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.7].

008 Moreover, among these four Brahmana householders, each later-(named) must be considered more distinguished, and through his virtue to have conquered the world more completely.

From among these one follows the six occupations; another lives by three; one again with two; while the fourth lives by “Brahmasattra.’—(9)

एषां कुसूलधान्यकादीनां गृहस्थानाम् एकः षट्कर्मा भवति । यो महापरिग्रहः प्रागुक्तस् तस्य षड् वृत्तिकर्माणि भवन्ति । कानि पुनस् तानि । प्रकृतानि³² उञ्छशिलायाचितयाचितलाभकृषिवाणिज्यानि । अध्यापनयाजनप्रतिग्रःआः³³ याचितायाचितग्रहणाद् अन्तर्भवन्ति । बहुकुटुम्बको नित्यकर्मसंपत्त्यर्थं च सर्वा वृत्तीः समुच्चिताः कुर्यात्, कृषिवाणिज्ये अपि ।

• ये ऽपि “अध्यापनम् अध्ययनम्” (म्ध् १.८८) इत्यादीनि प्रथमाध्यायपठितानि षट्कर्माणि व्याचक्षते, तेषां प्रकरणविरोधो निष्प्रयोजनं वाध्ययनादीनाम्³⁴ उपादानम्, अन्यत्रैव तेषां विहितत्वात् ।

• अन्यः द्वितीयः कुंभीदान्यस् त्रिभिः प्रवर्तते । प्रो ऽनर्थकः, यावद् वर्तते तावत् प्रवर्तत इति । वर्तनं च स्थितिसंपत्तिः । प्रकृतानां च यानि कानिचित् क्वचित् कृषिवाणिज्ये विहाय । प्रशस्ततरो हि पूर्वस्मात् कुम्भीधान्यकः । यतो वक्ष्यति “सा वृत्तिः सद्विगर्हिता,” (म्ध् १०.८४) “गोरक्षकान् वाणिजिकान्” (म्ध् ८.१०२) इति । यद् अप्य् उक्तं गौतमेन- “कृषिवाणिज्ये वास्वयंकृते कुसीदं च” (ग्ध् १०.५–६) इत्य् अनापद्य् एव । तत्राप्य् अस्वयंकरणपक्षे दोषो ऽस्त्य् एव, लघीयांस् तु भविष्यति ।

• द्वाभ्याम् एकः । अत्रापि याचितलाभं वर्जयित्वा त्रयाणां यथासंभवं द्वे गृह्येते । अयाचितम् अपि तावद् गृह्यते यावत् त्र्यहपर्याप्तम् ।

• चतुर्थस् तु ब्रह्मसत्रेण जीवति । ब्रह्मसत्रं शिलोञ्छयोर् अन्यतरा वृत्तिः । सततभवत्वात् सत्रम् इव, न तदहःपरिसमापनीया वृत्तिः, अतः सत्रम् इत्य् उच्यते, अहर् अहर् नित्यम् अनुष्ठानात् । ब्रह्मशब्दो ब्राह्मणपर्यायः । तेषाम् इदं सत्रम् । अस्माद् ब्रह्मशब्दात् पूर्वो ऽयं वृत्तिप्रपञ्चो ब्राह्मणविषय एव विज्ञेयः । क्षत्रियादीनां तु तत्र तत्र³⁵ वक्ष्यति ।

• कथं पुनः शिलोञ्छवृत्त्या जीवनं संभवति, यावता शरद्ग्रीष्मयोर् एव क्षेत्रे खले वा शिलपुलाकपातसंभवः । अथोच्यते । “ग्रैष्मेभ्यो ग्रैष्माणि, शारदानि शारदेभ्यो ऽर्जयिष्यति” इति । षाण्मासिकवृत्तिर् एव स्यात्, नाश्वस्तनिकः । अथान्यथापि संभवति यावतस् तावतो व्रीह्यादेः कथंचित् पतितस्योपादानम् । सत्यम् । न तद्भोजनाय पर्याप्तम् । संचिन्वानो यदा पर्याप्तं प्राप्स्यति तदाशिष्यति पञ्चाहाद्यसंभवात् । तथा च महाभारते शिलोञ्छवृत्तिः पक्षान्ताशनो वर्ण्यते । सो ऽयम् अस्याम् अवस्थायां गृहस्थस् तापसः संवृत्त इति चेत्, किं त्व् एवम् अप्य् अश्वस्तनिकत्वं विरुध्यते । यथोपपादस्थितिकस् तदा स्यात्, नाश्वस्तनिकः । अश्वस्तनिको ह्य् उच्यते य अहन्य् अहन्य् अर्जयति यात्रिकम्, तद् अहर् एव च व्ययीकरोति, न द्वितीये ऽह्णि स्थापयति । यदि च न प्रत्यहं शिलोञ्छवृत्तेर् भोजनं निवर्तते,³⁶ कुतो ऽश्वस्तनिको भवेत्, कथं च तथाविधस्य जीवनं पुत्रदारभरणं च ।

• अत एव केचित् त्रिभिर् अन्यः प्रवर्तत इत्य् अत आरभ्यान्यथा व्याचक्षते । त्रिभिर् याजनाध्यापनप्रतिग्रहैः, द्वाभ्याम् “प्रतिग्रहः प्रत्यवरः” (म्ध् १०.१०९) इति प्रतिग्रहव्युदासेन याजनाध्यापने प्रतिगृह्येते । ब्रह्मसत्रम् अध्यापनम् । तद् धि वृत्तये पर्याप्तम् । यत् तु “वर्तयंश् च शिलोञ्छाभ्याम्” (म्ध् ४.१०) इति स चतुष्टयव्यतिरिक्तो ऽन्य एव ।

• अत्रोच्यते । यः शिलपरिमाणान् दशद्वादशान् यवान् व्रीहीन् वा बहुभ्य आदत्ते यावद् एकाहयात्रिकं स शिलवृत्तिः । यस् त्व् एकैकं यात्रार्थम् आहरति स उञ्छवृत्तिः । स्मृत्यन्तरे चायं यायावरवृत्तिर्³⁷ उक्तः । अतश् च सार्वकालिकम् अप्य् उपपद्यते । न च वैश्वदेवादिक्रियाविरोधः, न च³⁸ पुत्रदाराणाम् अभरणदोषश्³⁹ च, याचितभैक्षाद् अत्यन्ताल्पग्रहणात् ॥ ४.९ ॥

‘From among these’—from among the four kinds of householders, one having a granary full of grains, and so forth,—‘one follows the six occupations;’ i.e., the person with vast responsibilities described above, follows all the six occupations.—“Which are these?”—These arc—(1) gleanings, (2) pickings, (3) earning by begging, (4) earning without begging, (5) agriculture and trade; ‘teaching,’ officiating at sacrifices’ and ‘receiving gifts’ being included under ‘earning by begging, and without begging.’ The man with a large family should have recourse to all these occupations, for the due fulfilment of his daily work; in fact he may have recourse to even agriculture and trade.

Some people explain the ‘six occupations’ of the present context as standing for—‘Teaching, studying’ and the rest mentioned in Discourse I (88). But this explanation is in-compatible with the context [since Study, offering of sacrifices and making gifts can nut be ‘means of livelihood’]; and further, there would be no point in prescribing study and the rest here, they having been already enjoined elsewhere (in 1.88 and in 10.75).

‘Another’—the second, who possesses a jar full of corns—‘lives by three;’ the prefix ‘pra’ in ‘pravartate’ is superfluous; ‘pravartate’ standing for ‘vartate.’ Any three occupations of those mentioned are meant here,—with the exception of Agriculture and Trade.

The person possessing only a jar full of corns is more commendable than the former. Since it is going to be declared later on that—‘this means of living has been deprecated by the good;’ this with reference to the ‘tending of cattle, trade,’ and so forth (8.102). Gautama has mentioned (10.5-6)

‘Agriculture and Trade, not carried on by oneself, and money-lending’ as permissible in normal times. But even when one carries on trade and agriculture, not by oneself, but through others,—there is something improper in this also; though the impropriety may be a small one.

‘One lives with two.’—Here also, leaving off ‘earning by begging,’ any two of the six may be adopted. The acquiring of wealth without begging also is permissible only to the extent of what may suffice for three days.

‘The fourth lives by Brahmasattra.’—‘Brahmasattra’ stands for either one of the two, ‘picking’ and ‘gleaning.’ These means of living are called ‘sattra’ (Sacrificial Session), because they are carried on continuously and are not to be finished on any one day. For this reason they are called ‘sattra,’ specially as they have to be carried on every day. The term ‘brahma’ is synonymous with ‘Brāhmaṇas;’ the meaning being that this is a sacrifical session for Brāhmaṇas. From the use of this term ‘brahma’ here, it follows that all that has been said before this regarding the means of living, pertains to ‘Brāhmaṇas;’ those pertaining to the Kṣatriya and others will be described on various occasions.

Question—“How can any living be possible by pickings and gleanings alone? since it is only during the autumn and the summer that it is possible for ears of corns to fall either in fields or in harvest-yards, it might be said that ‘the man would earn summer-grains from the summer-harvests, and the autumnal grains from the autumnal harvests.’ But in this way the man would have to collect grains lasting for six months; and he could never be ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow.’ It might be argued that—‘it would be possible for the man to pick and glean grains that may have fallen here and there (even apart from harvesting).’ This is true; but the grain collected in this fashion could never suffice for feeding.—‘When the man is picking and gleaning, just as he will have collected enough, he will eat; it being impossible for him to make a collection for five or more days. In the Mahābhārata, the person who eats at the end of a fortnight has been called ‘one who lives by pickings and gleanings which means that, under such circumstances, the Householder has become the Hermit.’—But even so, this would be incompatible with the character of ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow;’ as, under the circumstances mentioned, the man would be ‘one who lives upon whatever he obtains,’ and not‘ one who does not possess enough for the morrow.’ That man is called ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow,’ who earns everyday just enough for the day, and spends it all on the same day, and does not keep anything for the next day. If the daily ‘picking and gleaning’ does not suffice for his daily feeding, how could he be ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow?’ How could such a person live and maintain his wife and children?”

It is in view of these difficulties that some people offer another explanation of the Text beginning with the words ‘another lives by three’:—‘By three’—i.e., by officiating at sacrifices, by teaching and by receiving gifts.—‘By two’—i.e., by officiating at sacrifices and by teaching; the ‘receiving of gifts’ being precluded in view of what is said (in 10.109) regarding ‘the receiving of gifts being demeaning.’—‘Brahma - sattra’ is teaching; and this would be enough for a living. The person described (in 4.10) as ‘one who lives by picking and gleaning, etc.,’ must be different from the four described in the present text.

On this point, we offer the following explanation:—‘The person living by picking’ is one who obtains from several persons—taking ten or twelve barley grains from each—just enough to serve for the day; while one who obtains from each person enough for the day is called ‘one living by gleanings.’ In another Smṛti text, this means of living has been called ‘Yāyāvara.’ in view of this, such livelihood may pertain to all time. Nor would there be any incompatibility between the performance of the Vaiśvadeva and other rites and the maintaining of wife and children; as for purposes of the former, a very small quantity would be taken out of the alms obtained.—(9)

‘Ṣaṭkarma’—Medhātithi is again misrepresented by Buhler. (See Translation); the ‘six’ described by him are (1) ‘uñcha,’ (2) ‘śila,’ (3) ‘ayācitalābha,’ (4) ‘yācitalābha,’ (5) ‘kṛṣi’ and (6) ‘vāṇijya’; and he adds that ‘Teaching, sacrificing for others and receiving gifts’ are included under ‘yācita-ayācitalābha’—they are those mentioned in verses 5 and 6, according to Govindarāja, which agrees with Medhātithi;—those mentioned in 5 and 6, excepting ‘service’ and substituting in its place ‘money-lending,’ according to Kullūka and Rāghavānanda;—according to Nārāyaṇa, those mentioned in verses 5 and 6, and also those enumerated in 1.88;—those mentioned in 1. 88, according to Nandana, which explanation Medhātithi notes and rejects.

‘Tribhiḥ’—Here also Buhler misrepresents Medhātithi; Medhātithi does not restrict ‘three’ to the ‘first three mentioned in verses 5-6’; what he clearly says is ‘any three out of those mentioned excepting agriculture and trade’;—‘teaching, sacrificing and accepting gifts’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana);—‘teaching, sacrificing and accepting gifts, as also the first three mentioned in verses 5-6’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Dvābhyām’—Here also what Medhātithi says is—any two out of the three just recommended, excepting gifts received for asking—and not ‘gleaning and accepting voluntary gifts’ as stated by Buhler;—‘sacrificing and teaching’ (Govindarāja Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana);—‘gleaning ears and single grains’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Brahmasattra’—‘Any one of the two, gleaning ears and gleaning single grains’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa);—‘teaching’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 169), which adds the following notes:—‘ṣaṭkarma’ stands for the six occupations of sacrificing for others, offering sacrifices and the rest, that have been recommended for the Brāhmaṇa; and these are referred to for the purpose of prescribing the three occupations of receiving gifts and the rest;—‘tribhiranyaḥ’—i. e., for the ‘kumbhīdhānya’ also the three occupations are enjoined;—‘dvābhyām ekaḥ’,—this permits sacrificing and teaching for the Tryahaihika,—the receiving of gifts being forbidden, as they may come from evil persons;—the fourth, ‘Aśvastana’ should live by ‘Brahmasattra’, i. e., teaching alone. Thus it follows that the ‘Kusūladhānya’ and the rest are meant for the Brāhmaṇa only; as the receiving of gifts and the rest are not possible for any other caste.

Mitākṣarā (on 1.128) quotes the verse in support of the view that the first refers to ‘sacrificing, teaching, receiving gifts, agriculture, trade and cattle-tending,’—the second to ‘sacrificing, teaching and receiving gifts,’—the third to ‘sacrificing and teaching’ and the fourth to ‘teaching’ only.

The verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 216), which provides an explanation more in keeping with Medhātithi’s:—The Kusūladhyāna has six occupations,—viz. uñcha, śila, ayācita, yācita, kṛṣi and vāṇijya;—the other, ‘Kumbhīdhānya’ lives by three—i.e., uñcha, śila and ayācita;—the ‘Tryahaihika’ by two—i.e., uñcha and śila;—and ‘Aśvastanika’ by the ‘Brahmasattra’ i.e., by the u ñ cha alone, which leads him to the ‘regions of Brahman, and as such is equal to the Sattra sacrifice.’

The verse is quoted also in Vidhānapārijāta (II. p. 247), which explains the ‘six occupations’ to be ‘sacrificing, teaching, receiving gifts, agriculture, trade and cattle-tending;—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 131), which explains the meaning as follows:—Some people live by the six means—officiating at sacrifices, teaching, receiving gifts, agriculture, trade and cattle-tending;—others by three only viz., receiving gifts, teaching and officiating at sacrifices; others by two only i.e., by officiating at sacrifices and teaching; and others again by one only, teaching; among these each succeeding one is superior to the preceeding ones.

Mahābhārata (12.244.4).—[Practically the same as Manu—‘Ṣaṭkarmā vartayatyeko tribhiranyaḥ pravartate dvābhyamekaścaturthastu brahmasattre vyavasthitaḥ.’]

009 One of these follows six occupations, another subsists by three, one by two, but the fourth lives by the Brahmasattra.

‘Living by gleanings and pickings, intent upon the performance of Agnihotra, one should constantly offer only those Iṣṭi-sacrificer that pertain to the moonless and full-moon days and to the solstices.—(10);

पर्व चायनान्तश् च तयोर् भवाः पार्वायणान्तीयाः । स्वार्थिकम् अणं कृत्वा “वृद्धाच् छः” (पाण् ४.२.११४) कर्तव्यः । पर्वेष्टिर् दर्शपूर्णमासौ, अयनान्ते च यज्ञ आग्रयणाख्यः । केवलग्रहणात् काम्या इष्टयो निषिध्यन्ते । वैश्वदेवहोमबलिहरणे ऽपि तस्य नान्व्हं भवतः । न हि तस्य सर्वदा तावद् धनं भवति । अतः केवलग्रहणान् महायज्ञनिवृत्तिः ।

• ननु चाग्निहोत्रम् अपि तत् तस्य नैव भवति । तद् अपि द्रव्यसाध्यम्⁴⁰ एव ।

• पक्षहोमान् होष्यति ।

• भार्याभरणं कथम् इति चेत्,

• सापि ताम् वृत्तिम् आश्रयिष्यति । यदा च भार्या व्रतम् एतद् धारयितुम्⁴¹ अशक्ता, तदा भर्तुर् अपि नास्त्य् अधिकारः ।

• अथ चान्द्रायणादिषु प्रवृत्तस्य कथं भार्याया जीवनम् इति चेत्,

• अचोद्यम् एतद् विद्यमानत्वात्,⁴² अतिथ्यादिशिष्टम् अशिष्यत इति ।

• ननु⁴³ वैश्वदेवहोमाभावात् विद्यमाने ऽपि स्त्रीधने न भोजनं युक्तम्, उभयोर् विघसाशित्वविधानात् । अतः स्त्रीधनेन वैश्वदेवं करिष्यति, धर्मकार्ये ऽनुज्ञानात् स्त्रीधनग्रहणस्य ।

• नैवम् । तस्याम् अवस्थायाम् अग्निहोत्रमात्रं धर्मः, न वैश्वदेवहोमः । भवतु वा । यस्यास् तर्हि धनं नास्ति कथं जीवतु ।

• तस्माद् यस्यासमर्था भार्या नासौ शिलोञ्छवृत्ताव् अधिक्रियते ।

• वर्तयन्न् आत्मानं जीवयन् ॥ ४.१० ॥

The term ‘pārvāyaṇāntīyāḥ’ is to be expound as ‘those pertaining to the Parvas and the Ayanāntas;’—the term being formed with the reflexive ‘aṇ’ and the correlative ‘cha’ (according to Pāṇini, 4.2.114).

‘Iṣṭi-sacritices pertaining to the Parvas (the moonless and the full-moon days) are the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa sacrifices; and that ‘pertaining to the solstices’ is the sacrifice called the ‘Agrayaṇa.’

The adding of ‘only’ precludes the voluntary sacrifices that are performed with special ends in view. For the man here referred to, the offering of the Vaiśvadeva oblations and the making of Bali -offerings are not necessary every day; because he does not possess the requisite amount of wealth. Hence the term ‘only’ precludes all the more elaborate sacrifices.

“For that same reason, the Agnihotra also would not be possible for the man; as wealth is needed for that also.”

Yes; but he could offer the fortnightly oblations.

“How would such a man maintain his wife?”

She also will have recourse to the same means of living (i.e., picking and gleaning). In the event of the wife being disabled and unable to carry on this method of livelihood, the husband would not be entitled to the performance of the Agnihotra (or to the livelihood by pickings and gleanings).

“How would the wife, in such cases, manage to live, when the man would be keeping the Cāndrāyaṇa and such other fasts and observances?”

There is no room for this question, in face of the direction that ‘the wife shall eat what is left by the guest and others.’

“In the event of the man not being able to offer the Vaiśvadeva -offerings, the wife could not live upon her own private property; as it has been laid down that both husband and wife shall live upon ‘remnants,’ Hence, the man shall make the Vaiśvadeva -offerings with the help of his wife’s property; specially, as the use of the wife’s property for religious purposes has been sanctioned by the scriptures.”

It is not so; under the circumstances mentioned, it is the Agnihotra, and not the Vaiśvadeva -offering, that is religiously binding.

Or, even granting what you say. How would that woman live who has no private property of her own?

From all this it follows that the man, whose wife is disabled, is not entitled to have recourse to the ‘picking and gleaning’ method of livelihood.

‘Living’—maintaining himself.—(10)

Laghu-Viṣṇu (2.27.29).—‘Whatever means of Dharma have been laid down in the Śruti and in the Smṛti,—every one of these should be carried out in practice by one living in the house; otherwise he becomes open to censure.’

010 He who maintains himself by picking up grains and ears of corn, must be always intent on (the performance of) the Agnihotra, and constantly offer those Ishtis only, which are prescribed for the days of the conjunction and opposition (of the moon), and for the solstices.

He shall never follow the worldly way, for the sake of subsistence; he shall live the straightforward, sincere and pure life of the Brāhmaṇa.—(11)

लोकवृत्तं नामोच्यते येन प्राकृतजनो ऽल्पसत्त्वो वर्तते, दम्भेनासत्प्रियाख्यानेन च “त्वं विष्णुस् त्वं ब्रह्मा जय जीव” इति । तथा विचित्रपरिहासकथाभिः । वृत्तिहेतोः जीविकार्थतया न कर्तव्यम् एतत् । यस् तु नर्मशीलस् तस्य न दोषः । अजिह्माम् । यस्यान्यच् च हृदये ऽन्यच् च बहिः स जिह्म उच्यते । द्वेषमत्सरात्मा दर्शयत्य् अप्रियं⁴⁴ वदताम् । अशठाम् । अग्निहोत्रकर्मानुष्ठानं लोकार्जनेन प्रतिग्रहादिलोभार्थम्, न शास्त्रार्थश्रद्दधानतया कुर्यात् स शठः । आत्मधर्मत्वे ऽपि जैह्म्यशाठ्योर् जीविकाप्य् अभेदोपचराद् व्यपदिश्यते- अजिह्माम् अशठाम् । शुद्धाम् इति । शुद्धिर् वृत्त्यन्तरेणामिश्रीकरणं पूर्वदोषद्वयेन च । एकपदलभ्यो ऽप्य् अयम् अर्थो वृत्तानुरोधाद् गोबलीवर्दवद् बहुददैः प्रतिपाद्यते ।

• अथ कथं ब्राह्मणजीविकां जीवेद् इति द्वितीया, यावता जीवतिर् कर्मकः । कथं चैकस्यैव धातोर् एकत्र द्विः प्रयोगः⁴⁵ । न हि भवति “गमनं गच्छेत्” इति साध्यसाधनभावः ।

• उच्यते । सामान्यविशेषभावात् साध्यसाधनभावो न विरुद्धः । यथा “अश्वपोषं पुष्टः” इति । अनुष्ठानाङ्गे च⁴⁶ वर्तनार्थे जीवतिर् वर्तते । तेन सकर्मकत्वम् इति न दोषः । जीवेत् जीवनर्थम् अनुतिष्ठेत् ॥ ४.११ ॥

त्र्यहैहिकाश्वस्तनवृत्तिदार्ढ्यार्थं प्रसंख्यानम् इदम् आह ।

That is called the ‘worldly way’ which is followed by ordinary people wanting in moral strength;—such methods, for instance, as those of hypocrisy and flattery—(describing the man from whom something is to be gained as) ‘you are Viṣṇu, you are Brahmā! May you conquer and live long!’ and so forth,—and also of reciting pleasing and jocular stories.

‘For the sake of subsistence.’—What is mentioned here should not be done for the purpose of making a living; there is no harm in its being done by way of politeness.

‘Straightforward.’—The man whose exterior is different from the interior, is called ‘dishonest,’ ‘not straightforward;’ such a person.is of a jealous temperament and shows it to persons who speak disagreeable words to him.

‘Sincere.’—That man is called ‘insincere,’ ‘hypocritical,’ who performs the Agnihotra, for obtaining popularity and thereby receiving presents and gifts, and not with a view to carrying out the scriptural injunctions regarding it.

Though ‘straightforwardness’ and the rest are qualities belonging to the soul, yet they are here figuratively attributed to the ‘Life.’

‘Straightforward, sincere and pure’— The ‘purity’ here meant consists in its not being mixed up with the two methods of livelihood described above, and also in its being free from the aforesaid defects.

Though what was meant could be conveyed by means of only one of the three words, yet, in view of metrical exigencies, the author has made use of three words; such, use being analogous to such expressions as ‘go-balīvarda’ (where the go is the same as the balīvarda).

How can there be any such expression as ‘live the life of the Brāhmaṇa,’ ‘Brāhmaṇajīvikām jīvet, ‘when the root to live is intransitive? Why, too, should the same root (to live, jīva) be used twice (once in ‘jīvet’ and again in ‘jīvikām’)? Certainly, the relation of cause and effect is never found to be expressed by such expressions, as ‘gamanam gacchet,’ ‘should go the going.’”

Our answer is as follows:—The relation of cause and effect is based upon the relation of general and particular, and hence there is nothing incongruous in this. We have such usage in expressions like ‘aśvapoṣam puṣṭaḥ,’ ‘fattened like the fattening of the horse,’ Further, the root ‘jīva,’ ‘to live,’ also denotes the act of living as part of the act of acting up to the performance; and in this sense it is transitive also. So that there is nothing objectionable in the expression used; the term ‘jīvet,’ ‘should live,’ being explained as should act up to,’ for the sake of subsistence.—(11)

Mahābhārata (12.249.22).—‘Not with any worldly motives shall he perform any acts or any religious duty.’

Yājñavalkya (1.123).—‘He shall lead a straightforward and sincere life, in due accordance with his age, intelligence, wealth, dress, learning and occupation.’

011 Let him never, for the sake of subsistence, follow the ways of the world; let him live the pure, straightforward, honest life of a Brahmana.

He who wants happiness should adopt perfect contentment and remain self-controlled. Happiness has its root in contentment, and its opposite is the root of unhappiness.—(12)

संतोष आश्रयितव्यः, न बहूनाम् उपजीव्यः स्याम् इति याच्ञाक्लेश आस्थेयः । सुखार्थी संयतो भवेत् । संयमो यात्रिकाद् धनाद् अधिके नाभिलाषः । संतोषो मनस्विनां सुखमूलम् । दुःखस्य मूलं विपर्ययः असंतोषः । महद् विदुषां दैन्यम्, अभिलषिते वस्तुन्य् असंपत्तिः । तस्मात् संतोषम् आश्रयेत् ॥ ४.१२ ॥

With a view to laying stress upon the importance of the two means of living—‘to collect grains for three days’ and ‘not to possess grains enough for the morrow,’—the author adds this verse by way of reflection.

One should have recourse to contentment; that is, one should not make an effort to go about begging on a large scale, with a view to becoming dependent upon several persons.

‘He who wants happiness should remain self-controlled.’—‘Self-control’ consists in not wanting more wealth than what would suffice for bare subsistence.

‘Contentment’ is the root of happiness for all high-minded persons; and its opposite—i.e., Discontent—is the root of unhappiness; the non-accomplishment of what is desired being a source of great humiliation for the learned. For these reasons, one should have recourse to contentment.—(12)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 170), which remarks that in connection with all these ‘vratas’, it has to be borne in mind that what is exactly meant by the term ‘vrata’ is the mental determination that ‘I shall do this—I shall not do that’,—and that all these have to be taken up immediately after the Final Bath.

Yājñavalkya (1.129).—‘He shall ever remain contented.’

012 He who desires happiness must strive after a perfectly contented disposition and control himself; for happiness has contentment for its root, the root of unhappiness is the contrary (disposition).

The twice-born Accomplished Student, living by any one of these means of livelihood, should keep these (following) observances, which are conducive to heaven, longevity and fame.—(13)

वृत्तिविषयो निधिर् वृत्तिशब्देनोक्तः । तेन्आन्यतमयेति न⁴⁷ तदपेक्षम् एकजीवितम् अन्यतमेन निवृत्तिविधानात् । अतो वृत्तिसमुच्चयजीविनः पितृधनं प्राप्तवतश् च व्रताधिकारो न युज्यते । अन्यथा एकवृत्तिजीवन एव स्यात् । व्रतानीमानि । मानसः संकल्पो व्रतम् उच्यते- “शास्त्रविहितम् इदं मया कर्तव्यम् इदं वा न कर्तव्यम्” इत्य् एवम् ।

• स्वर्गायुष्ययशस्यानि व्रतधारणफलानि केचिद् आहुः । अतश् चैतत् फलार्थिनो व्रतेष्व् अधिकारः ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । अनित्यत्वम् एवं सति प्रसज्येत । तत्रोत्तरश्लोके नित्यग्रहणं बाध्येत⁴⁸ । श्रुतौ चैषां नित्यता ज्ञापिता “यावत् हि एनसा युक्तो⁴⁹ भवति” इति ।⁵⁰ स्वर्गादीनां काम्यत्वेनान्वये⁵¹ नाधिकृतविशेषणत्वं प्रतिपद्येरन् ॥ ४.१३ ॥

The term ‘means of livelihood’ stands for the rule regarding subsistence. Hence, ‘by any one’ does not imply that the man’s life should be entirely dependent upon that one; because the rules do not say that he who has recourse to one living should not have recourse to another. It is for this reason,too, that the mail subsisting by a number of means of living, or the man who has inherited his father’s property (and hence does not stand in need of the modes of living just described), does not cease to be entitled to the keeping of the observances. If this were not so, then it would be absolutely necessary for the man to adopt only one mode of living.

‘These observances.’—‘Observance’ means mental determination, in the form—‘such and such an act is enjoined by the scriptures,—I should do this—or I should not do that.’

‘Conducive to heaven, longevity and fame.’— Some people have held that this mentions the results actually following from the keeping of the observances; and hence it is only persons desiring these results, that have to keep the observances.

This, however, is not right. As if this were so, then the observances would cease to be obligatory; and this would be incompatible with the term ‘nitya,’ ‘daily,’ ‘always,’ occurring in the next verse. Further, the Veda has indicated the obligatory character of these observances:—‘By not keeping these, one becomes beset with sin,’ Further, if Heaven and the rest were construed as something desired, they could not attain the position of being qualifications of the persons entitled to the observances.—(13)

Mahābhārata (12.249.25-28).—‘The man who carries on, without complaint, the functions of the householder, purifies ten ancestors and ten descendants…. For householders whose self is under control a place in heaven is effectively secured.’

013 A Brahmana, who is a Snataka and subsists by one of the (above-mentioned) modes of life, must discharge the (following) duties which secure heavenly bliss, long life, and fame.

He shall, without sloth, always perform his own duty as prescribed in the Veda. Performing that, to the best of his ability, he attains the highest state.—(14)

वेदमुलत्वात् स्मृतीनां वेदोदितम् इति श्रूयते । स्वकं कर्म वक्ष्यमाणो व्रतसमूहः । विहितत्वात् स्वकम् इत्य् उच्यते । नित्यं कुर्यात् यावज्जीवम् । अतन्द्रितः अनलसः । एतद् व्रतधारणं कुर्वन् यथाशक्ति । अनेन सत्यां शक्तौ यथासंभवम् अनुष्ठानम् आह । तद् उक्तम्- “मनसा वा तत्समग्रम् आचारम् अनुपालयन्” (ग्ध् ९.६७) । परमां गतिं ब्रह्मत्वप्राप्तिरूपाम् ॥ ४.१४ ॥

‘Prescribed in the Veda.’—This is said in view of the fact that the Smṛtis are all based upon the Veda.

‘His own duty.’—Consisting of the host of observances going to be described. Being prescribed for him, they are called ‘his own.’

‘Should always perform.’—i e., as long as he lives.

‘Without sloth’—i.e., free from laziness.

By doing this—i.e., by keeping the observances,—‘to the best of his ability;’—this implies that one is to perform just what he has the strength to perform. It is in view of this that it has been declared that—‘one may also observe all this mentally only.’

‘Highest state’—i.e., attainment of Brahman.—(14)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 217), which adds the following notes:—‘Nitya’ here stands for all that is done without any desire for personal gain’;—‘paramā gatiḥ’ means ‘deliverance’;—what is meant is that what leads to Deliverance is the performance of duty along with the true knowledge of the Supreme Self.

The verse is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 52),—and in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 48).

Vaśiṣṭha (27.8).—[Reproduces Manu.]

014 Let him, untired, perform daily the rites prescribed for him in the Veda; for he who performs those according to his ability, attains to the highest state.

He shall not seek wealth by clinging pursuits, or by contrary acts; nor when wealth is already there; nor from here and there, even in times of distress.—(15)

प्रसज्येत यत्र पुरुषः स हि प्रसङ्गो ऽभिप्रेतो गीतवादित्रादिः । तत्र हि रागिणः सज्जन्तीव । अतो गीतवादित्रादिभिर् अर्थान् धनानि नेहेत नार्जयेत् । विरुद्धं कर्म प्रतिषिद्धं शास्त्रेण अकुलोचितं च । न च पित्राद्यागतेषु धनेषु कल्प्यमानेषु स्थितिसमर्थेषु । अन्यानि नेच्छेत् । नार्त्यां आपद्य् अपि यतस् ततः । प्रसह्य सत्प्रतिग्रहेण प्रवर्तितव्यम् एकस्यापद्य् एनम् अप्य् अनुज्ञास्यति ॥ ४.१५ ॥

‘Clinging pursuits’ are those to which people become addicted; just as singing and music; to these passionate persons cling, as it were. Hence one shall not ‘seek’ —i.e., earn wealth by means of singing and music.

‘Contrary act’—i.e., that which is forbidden by the scriptures, or iś not in accordance with the usages of one’s family.

‘Nor when wealth’—enough for subsistence—‘is already there’—having been inherited from father and others;—one shall not seek for more,

‘Even in times of distress, not from here and there.’—As a rule, one should subsist on presents received from proper persons; but, in rare cases, the scripture shall permit a contrary course also, in times of distress.—(15)

‘Prasaṅgena’—‘Music, singing and such other things to which man becomes addicted’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka Rāghavānanda and Nandana);—‘with too great eagerness’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 59).

Yājñavalkya (1.129).—‘He shall not seek for such wealth as may be incompatible with Vedic Study; nor from here and there; nor by recourse to what is improper; and he shall remain ever contented.’

Gautama (9.49).—‘Among Dharma, Artha and Kāma, he shall attach the greatest importance to Dharma.’

015 Whether he be rich or even in distress, let him not seek wealth through pursuits to which men cleave, nor by forbidden occupations, nor (let him accept presents) from any (giver whosoever he may be).

He shall not, through desires, become addicted to any sensual objects; excessive addiction to these, he shall avoid by mental reflection.—(10)

इन्द्रियाणाम् अर्था विषया रूपरसादयः, तेषु न प्रसज्येत न सक्तिम् अत्यन्तां सेवां कुर्यात् । मनोहरा युवतयः वंशगीतं स्वादवद् रसः कर्पूरादिगन्धः रागवत् स्पर्शः- एते विषयाः । तान् नात्यन्तं सेवेत । कामतः कामप्रधानतया । सर्वेषु अयाचितोपमं तेष्व् अपि नित्यसेवी स्यात् । अतिप्रसक्तिश् चैवैषाम् । निवृत्त्युपायो ऽनेन कथ्यते । न हि वस्तुप्रसक्तिर् निवर्तितुं शक्त्या, मनसा तु प्रतिपक्षभावनया निवर्त्य । आदौ तावद् दुरुपपदकत्व⁵² । उपस्थितेष्व् अपि भुक्तपूर्वेषु क्षणविरसतास्वभावश् च विनाशित्वं शास्त्रनिषेधाच् च सङ्गस्य नरकापात इत्य् एवमादि चिन्तयेत् । यथोक्तम् “न तथैतानि शक्यन्ते” (म्ध् २.९६) इति ॥ ४.१६ ॥

‘Sensual objects.’— Objects of sense, colour, taste, and the rest; — ‘to these he shall not become addicted,’—i.e., he shall not attend to them too much. Lovely young girls, sounds of flute and music, sweet taste, perfumes of camphor and other things, loving touch,—all these one shall not enjoy over much.

‘Through desire’—i.e., by reason of the predominating influence of desire.

In regard to all these, one should keep one’s own enjoyment under proper check; just in the same manner as one keeps one’s desire for wealth under check, by. restricting one’s earning? only to what one gets without begging.

‘Excessive addiction to these.’—This points out the method of restraining one’s desires. Attachment to objects cannot be checked by the mind; it can be checked by reflecting upon them as inimical to one’s best interests. At first, one should not seek to obtain them; and when they do come to one, and one has enjoyed them once, one should reflect upon the following facts relating to them:—These are such that in a moment they cease to be agreeable,—they are transient,—they are forbidden by the scriptures,—attachment to them leads to hell, and so forth. This is what has been already said under 2.96 above.—(16)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 217);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 10).

Gautama (9.50).—‘He shall not give much scope to the sexual organs, the stomach, the hand, the feet, the speech and the eye.’

Āpastamba (2.5).—‘By controlling the activities of the mind, the speech, the breath, the eye, the ear, the tactile organ, the sexual organ,—he attains immortality.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.1).—‘Always using water, always wearing the sacred thread, daily studying the Veda, avoiding the Śūdra’s food, approaching his wife only during the season, offering oblations according to rule,—the Brāhmaṇa falls not from the region of Brahman.’

Yājñavalkya (1.122).—‘……Control of the senses……these are conducive to the accomplishment of Dharma, for all men.’

016 Let him not, out of desire (for enjoyments), attach himself to any sensual pleasures, and let him carefully obviate an excessive attachment to them, by (reflecting on their worthlessness in) his heart.

He shall relinquish all things impeding study, maintaining himself somehow. This is what constitutes the accomplish ment of his aims.—(17)

ये वेदाभ्यासविरोधिनो ऽर्थास् ते सर्वे त्यक्तव्याः, राजामात्यगृहोपस्थानादयः । ये ऽप्य् अनया लोकयात्रया सक्तस्य कृषिकुसीदाद्यधिकलाभो भवति⁵³ तेन च पोषयिष्यते, तदा कुटुम्बविभववतश्⁵⁴ च दासीदासं बहु भविष्यतीति । सा ह्य् अस्य स्नातकस्य कृतकृत्यता कृतार्थता यं नित्यस्वाध्यायी यथाकथंचित् कुटुम्बकं जीवयतीति ॥ ४.१७ ॥

Those things that are likely to obstruct Vedic study should all be relinquished; such acts, for instance, as attending upon the palaces of kings and ministers; as also the act of being overmuch addicted to worldly Affairs, constantly thinking of earning more and more wealth by means of money-lending and such other means, and thereby maintaining his family, and obtaining a prosperous household teeming with male and female slaves.

‘This constitutes the accomplishment of his aims’—i.e., of the Accomplished Student. The fact that, carrying on his daily study of the Veda, he maintains his family by some means or other, constitutes his highest success in life,—(17)

Viṣṇu (71.4).—‘He shall not do any act that may obstruct Vedic Study.’

Yājñavalkya (1.121).—[See under 15.]

017 Let him avoid all (means of acquiring) wealth which impede the study of the Veda; (let him maintain himself) anyhow, but study, because that (devotion to the Veda-study secures) the realisation of his aims.

He should wander about in this world, keeping his dress, speech and thoughts in conformity with his age, occupation, wealth, learning and family.—(18)

वयस इति सारूप्यापेक्षा षष्ठी । वेषवाक्बुद्धीति समाहारे द्वन्द्वः । सारूप्यम् इति स्वार्थे ष्यञ् । तेनायम् अर्थो भवति- वयाद्युचिता वेषादयः कर्तव्याः । सारूप्यम् औचित्यम्, अन्यस्याकृत्यादेः सादृश्यासंभवात् । वेषः केशाबरणादिविन्यासः⁵⁵ । तत्र प्रथमे वयसि शिखण्डकः, यौवने कौन्तलादिधारणम्, वार्धके जटामुण्डनादि । वयोनुरूपा वाक् । एवं बुद्धिस् त्रिवर्गानुष्ठानधारणं प्रथमम्, जीर्यतः⁵⁶ केवलं धर्मप्रधानम् । कर्मानुरूपो⁵⁷ वेषः अर्थानुरूपतश् च⁵⁸ । तेन हि भवितव्यं कुलानुरूपेण दशनरागधम्मिल्लादि उद्धतम् अपि नौद्धत्यम् आवहति । तद् उक्तम् “अस्य लोकव्यवहारो विषयः” इति । एतद् उक्तं भवति । नायं विध्यर्थः, अपरैर् निश्चितार्थत्वात् । लोकव्यवहारमूलस् त्व् अयम् अनुवादः- एवं वर्तमानो लोकवृत्तानुवर्ती भवति, न लोकद्वेष्यताम् इति ॥ ४.१८ ॥

‘Vayasaḥ,’ ‘with age,’— the genitive ending denotes relationship to^(‘)conformity.’

‘Veṣavāgbuddhi.’—this is a copulative compound.

‘Sārūpyam.’—the affix ‘ṣyan’ has the reflexive force.

Thus the meaning comes to be as follows:—

Dress and the rest should be kept in due conformity with age and other things.

‘Sārūpya,’ means here conformity, compatibility; any other kind of ‘Sārūpya,’ ‘similarity,’—such as that of figure and the like—being impossible in this case.

‘Dress’ stands for the disposition of the hair, of ornaments, and so forth. Fop instance, during boy-hood, hair is to be worn in tufts; during youth, it shall be worn in curls and such other shapes; while in old age it shall be either worn clotted, or shall be clean shaven.

‘Speech’ also should be in conformity with age. Similarly, ‘thoughts’ also; that is, during early life the man should think of the triad (of wealth, pleasure and religious merit); but as he grows old, his thoughts should rest mainly on Religious Merit.

Dress should also be in conformity with one’s occupation, as also with one’s wealth; it should be in conformity with one’s family also. So that such things as painting of the teeth and dressing of the hair, etc., even though otherwise flagrant, cease to be so when they are in keeping with one’s occupation etc.

It has been said that the present verse deals with ordinary worldly activity. That is to say, it does not lay down an Injunction;—the injunctive portion of it having been already got out from other sources. All that the verse does is to describe the ordinary usage of the world; the sense being that if one behaves in accordance with this, one follows the ways of the world, and hence does not become unpopular among men.—(18)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 36);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71).

Viṣṇu (1.5-6).—‘He shall dress in accordance with his age;—also in conformity with his learning, his family, his circumstances and his country.’

Yājñavalkya (1.123).—‘He shall behave in a straightforward and sincere manner, in conformity with his age, intelligence, wealth, speech, dress, learning, family and duties.’

018 Let him walk here (on earth), bringing his dress, speech, and thoughts to a conformity with his age, his occupation, his wealth, his sacred learning, and his race.