०६ भिक्षा

The Householder shall give as much as he can to those who do not cook their own food; and, for the sake of all living beings, he shall make apportionment, without detriment (to himself).—(32)

अपचमाना ब्रह्मचारिपरिव्राजका इत्य् आहुः ।

• तद् अयुक्तम्,¹ तेभ्यो² नित्यवद् दानं विहितम् एव- “भिक्षां च भिक्षवे दद्यात्” (म्ध् ३.८४) इति । तस्माद् ये दरिद्रा भैक्षजीवनाश् च पाखण्ड्यादयः तेभ्यः शक्तितो दातव्यम् । यावद्भ्यः शक्यते यावच् च पच्यते । पचिक्रियाविरहनिमित्तत्वाच् च सिद्धान्नदानम् एवेदम् ।

• संविभागश् च । अन्येनापि धनेन इन्धनपरिधानौषधाद्युपयोगिना संविभागः कर्तव्यः कश्चिद् अंशो दातव्यः ।

• सर्वभूतेभ्यः । भूतशब्दो ऽयं चेतनात्मकं जगद् आचष्टे । यथा “गायत्री वा इदं सर्वं भूतम्” इति । अचेतनानां चेतनवद् उपकारार्थतया संविभागानुपपत्तेः चेतनावत्स्व् एवावतिष्ठते । अतश् च “प्ररोहधर्मकाश् चेतनावन्तः” इति दर्शने वृक्षादीनाम् अपि जलसेकाद्यर्थो धनसंविभागः कर्तव्यः । बह्वर्थो ऽयं भूतशब्दः । कश्चित् प्राधान्ये वर्तते- “भूतम् इयं ब्राह्मण्य् अस्मिन् गृहे” । क्वचित् पैशाचवचनो “भूतोपसृष्टः” इति । क्वचिद् विपरीते ऽर्थे वर्तते “भूतम् आह” इति । क्वचिद् अतिक्रान्तकालवचनो “भूतो धात्वर्थः” इति । क्वचिद् देवताविशेषे “भूतेभ्यो बलिः” इति । क्वचिच् चेतनावन्मात्रवचनो “न हिंस्याद् भूतानि” इति । क्वचित् प्राप्तिवचनो “महद् भूतश् चन्द्रमा” इति । क्वचिद् उपमायां वर्तते “यथा काव्यभूतः” इति । क्वचिद् उत्पत्तिवचनो यथा “देवदत्तस्य पुत्रो भूतः” इति । इह तु यः पदार्थस् तद् व्याख्यातम् । भूतेभ्य इति तादर्थ्ये चतुर्थी ।

• अनुपरोधतः । आत्मकुटुम्बपीडा यथा न भवति तत्पर्त्याप्तं स्थापयित्वा, अधिकेन संविभागः कर्तव्यः । तद् उक्तम् “भृत्यानाम् उपरोधेन” इति (म्ध् ११.९) ॥ ४.३२ ॥

‘Those who do not cook their own food.’—Students and Renunciates are meant,—say some.

But this is not right, as gifts to students and hermits has already been laid down as an obligatory duty. Hence, what is meant by the present text is that one shall give as much as one can to the poor and also to impostors (who are unable to cook for themselves). That is, his giving shall be in due consideration of what he can give and of the quantity of food cooked in his house. Since the recipients are described as doing no ‘cooking,’ it follows that cooked food is to be given to them.

‘Apportionment.’—He shall distribute out of his other belongings also,—such as fuel, clothing, medicines and other useful things.

‘Among ail beings’—The term ‘beings’ stands for all living things in the world; just as it is used in such declarations as ‘gāyatri is all this being.’ Since inanimate beings cannot be helped in the same manner as living beings, this term here stands for conscious, living, beings only. Thus, according to the view that plants are capable of growing and endowed with consciousness, it would follow that some apportionment of wealth should be made for providing for the watering of plants, &c., also.

The term ‘bhūta,’ ‘being,’ has many meanings: (1) In some cases, it means the principal thing, e.g., in such expressions as ‘this Brāhmaṇa woman is the being in this house;’ (2) sometimes it means ‘ghost;’ e.g., ‘this person is obsessed by a being;’ (3) sometimes it means the contrary thing; e.g., ‘he says, what is bhūta;’ (4) sometimes it is used in the sense of the past,—e g., ‘this verb denotes the bhūta;’ (5) sometimes it stands for particular deities,—e.g., ‘offering to the bhūtas;’ (6) sometimes it stands for all conscious beings,—e.g., ‘one should not kill bhūtas;’ (7) sometimes it denotes approach,—‘our Moon is bhūta, become, large;’ (8) sometimes it denotes similitude,—e.g., ‘this is kāvya—bhūta, as if it were a poem;’ and (9) sometimes it means coming into existence,—e.g., ‘Devadatta’s son is bhūta, born.’ What the term means in the present context we have already explained.

The Dative ending in ‘bhūtebhyaḥ’ denotes ‘for the sake of.’

‘Without detriment;’—so that no suffering be caused to his own family; that is, he shall keep back enough for his own family, and then, with the remainder, he shall ‘make the apportionment.’ This is what is taught also in 11-10.—(32)

Āpastamba (2.4.13).—‘If any one should beg for food at the time, the master and mistress of the house shall not refuse him.’

Do. (2.10.10).—‘Distribution of food has been laid down for such seekers for food as may be coming daily,—but without detriment (to the master).’

032 A householder must give (as much food) as he is able (to spare) to those who do not cook for themselves, and to all beings one must distribute (food) without detriment (to one’s own interest).

Suffering from hunger, the accomplished student should seek for wealth from the king, or from one at whose sacrificial rites he officiates, or from his pupil; and not from others; such is the rule.—(33)

राजग्रहणम् आढ्यवर्णोपलक्षणार्थम् । तथा च वक्ष्यति- “सीदद्भिः कुप्यम् इच्छद्भिर् धनं वा पृथिवीपतिः । याच्यः स्यात्” इति (म्ध् १०.११३) । तेन राजशब्दः क्षत्रियजातौ मुख्यः, तथापि शास्त्रान्तरपर्यालोचनया³ जनपदेश्वरवचन इति गम्यते । जनपदेश्वरा हि बहुधना भवन्ति । तेनैतद् उक्तं भवति- ये ऽत्यन्तसंपन्ना गोऽजाविधनदान्यैस् तेभ्यः प्रतिग्रहीतव्यम् । तथा सति “अद्रोहेण” (म्ध् ४.२) इत्य् एतद् आदृतं⁴ भवति । आढ्या हि ददतो नातीव पीड्यन्ते । स्वपधनेभ्यस् तु परिगृह्णतो दोषः स्यात् । मुख्यार्थवृत्तौ च राजशब्दे ब्राह्मणादिभ्यः प्रतिग्रहः प्रतिषिध्यते । तत्र सर्वस्मृतिविरोधः स्यात् । स्मृत्यन्तरे हि पठ्यते- “आददीत प्रशस्तद्विजातिभ्यः शुश्रूषोश् च शूद्राद् अपक्वान्नम्” इति । प्रतिषेधे ऽपि “न राज्ञः प्रतिगृह्णीयात्” (म्ध् ४.८४) इति राजशब्दो जनपदेश्वरवचन एव । किं च न क्षत्रियस्य तत्र प्रतिषेधः “अराजन्यप्रसूतितः” (म्ध् ४.८४) इति वचनात् । अत एव न क्षत्रियजातीयात् तत्र तन्निषेधः, तथा सति “अराजन्यप्रसूतितः” इति न वक्तव्यं स्यात् । न ह्य् अराजन्यप्रसूतितः⁵ क्षत्रिया भवन्ति । तेनेयम् अत्र व्यवस्था- क्षत्रियाद् राज्ञो यथाशास्त्रवर्तिनः प्रतिग्रहः कर्तव्यः, अन्यस्मात् पुनर् न⁶ ।

• याज्यान्तेवासिनोः । धनापेक्षा षष्ठी । तसन्तो वा पठितव्यः । क्रियानिमित्तत्वाद् एतयोः शब्दयोर् याजनाध्यापनाभ्यां जीवेद् इत्य् उक्तं भवति ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुः- अन्येषाम् उपपातकप्राप्तिश् चौर्यादीनां चोपायानां निषिद्धत्वात्, ईश्वरम् आराध्य जीवेत् प्रीतिदायेन स्वस्तिवाचनकेन वा । न चायं सेवकः । सा वृत्तिर् निषिद्धा । एवं कृतोपकाराद् अयाजयन्न् अपि याज्याद् आददीत । निवृत्ते⁷ ऽपि संबन्धे कृत्यो वर्तत इति ।

• संसीदन्न् इति । पित्रादिधने सति न कर्तव्यम् । तद् उक्तम् “न कल्पमानेष्व् अर्थेषु” (म्ध् ४.१५) । तस्यैवायम् अनुवादः । न चायम् आपद्धर्मः । न ह्य् अवसाद आपत्, किं तर्हि, अर्जितधनाभावः । आपत् तु विहितोपायाभावो धनक्षयश् च । सत्य् अपि धान्यधनबहुत्वे⁸ अन्नपरिक्षये दुर्भिक्षादाव् आतिथ्यसंनिहितान्नता क्षुत्पीडितस्य आपत्, अक्षुधितस्यापि धनाभावाद् अवसाद इत्य् एष एतयोर् विशेषः ।

• न त्व् अन्यतः स्वल्पधनान्नानुपकार्यात् गृह्णीयात् ॥ ४.३३ ॥

The term ‘king’ here stands for all wealthy castes; as the author is going to declare later on (10-113)—‘The king should be begged by persons suffering from want and seeking for wealth and metals.’ Thus the term ‘rājan,’ ‘king,’ in its primary denotation signifies the Kṣatriya caste; but on the strength of what we see in other treatises, we take it to mean here the ‘king of men,’ specially, as kings of men are wealthy. Thus, what the text means is that—‘gifts’ should be received from such persons as are extremely rich in the possession of cows and bulls, goat and sheep, cash and grains. In doing this, the man shall he also observing the rule that ‘he should live without causing pain to any one;’ as such people do not feel any pain in making gifts; while if one were to beg from men with small wealth, it would be open to objection.

If the term ‘rājan’ were taken in its primary sense of the Kṣatriya caste, the receiving of gifts from Brāhmaṇas and others would become forbidden; and this would be against the teaching of all Smṛtis. In another Smṛti, we read—‘One shall receive gifts from commended twice-born people, and uncooked food also from a Śūdra who is submissive,’ In prohibitions also, we find the term ‘rājan’ used in the sense of ‘king of men;’ e,g., in such passages as—‘One shall not accept gifts from the Rājā,’ where the prohibition cannot apply to the Kṣatriya caste, since the text subsequently adds—^(‘)or from one not born of Kṣatriya parents’ (4-84). It is for this reason that this latter verse cannot be taken as forbidding the acceptance of gifts from the Kṣatriya, because, if that were meant, the text could not add ‘from one not born of Kṣatriya parents;’ for those ‘not born of Kṣatriya parents’ can never be ‘Kṣatriyas,’ For these reasons, the conclusion on this point is as follows:—‘gifts shall be accepted from such Kṣatriya kings as behave according to the scriptures, and not from others,’

‘From one at whose sacrificial rites he officiates, or from his pupil.’— The Genitive ending is used in reference to the ‘wealth.’ Or, we may read the phrase as ending with the ‘Tasi affix’—yājyāntevāsitaḥ.’ Since both these names are based upon the doing of certain acts, the meaning is that—‘he shall live by the occupations of Teaching and Officiating at Sacrifices.’

Others explain as follows:—The receiving of gifts from others would constitute a minor sin, and other means of acquiring wealth, such as theft and the like, are distinctly forbidden. The upshot is that he shall worship God and live upon gifts made through love, and also by pronouncing ‘svasti’ (at sacrificial performances); but in no case shall he do service; as that means of livelihood has been already forbidden. Thus he may accept gifts from such of his sacrificial clients as have received benefit at his hands, even though he may not be officiating at their sacrifices at the time; for even though the actual relationship (of priest and client) may have ceased, their duty towards each other remains.

‘Suffering.’—This means that gifts shall not be sought, if the man has inherited some property; as it has been declared (in verse 15 above) that—‘nor when wealth is already there.’

What is said here is not something to be done in abnormal times of distress; as mere ‘suffering’ does not constitute ‘distress;’ all that it means is ‘absence of earned wealth;’ and it would be a case of ‘distress,’ only if the adopting of any of the sanctioned means of living were impossible, or if all one’s property were destroyed. Even though he may be possessed of much cash and grains, his grain-supply may become exhausted in times of famine; and, in such cases, if entertainment as a guest would be impossible, and the man would be suffering from hunger, this would constitute ‘distress;’ while, if the man were not pining from hunger, this would be simple ‘suffering.’ Such is the difference between the two (distress and suffering).

‘Not from others.’—That is, he shall receive no gifts from persons with little wealth, or from one who receives no benefit from the person (begging).—(33)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 33), which adds that where the text says ‘not from others’, what it means is that ‘in the event of those named here being available, one should not seek for it from others’;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 402), which explains ‘rājan’ as standing for ‘the just king of the Kṣatriya caste’.

Gautama (9.6 3, 64).—‘For the sake of his own maintenance and welfare he shall approach none except those who may he dutiful towards gods and elders.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.2),—‘He shall beg from any one except the king and his own pupils.’

Yājñavalkya (1.130).—‘Suffering from hunger, he may seek for wealth from the king, from his own pupils and from one at whose sacrifices he officiates; and he shall avoid the hypocrite, the sceptic, the impostor and the heron-like.’

Viṣṇu (63.1).—‘For the sake of his maintenance and welfare he shall approach the king.’

033 A Snataka who pines with hunger, may beg wealth of a king, of one for whom he sacrifices, and of a pupil, but not of others; that is a settled rule.