०८ सदाचारः

He shall not look at the Sun when rising, nor when setting, nor when it is eclipsed, nor when it is in water, nor when it has reached the middle of the sky.—(37)

उपसृष्टो ग्रहोपरक्तः । उदके प्रतिबिम्बितो वारिस्थः । नभः अन्तरिक्षं तस्य मध्यगतं पश्येन् न मध्याह्नकाले ॥ ४.३७ ॥

‘Eclipsed’—Hidden by eclipse.’

‘In water’—Reflected in water.

‘When it has reached the middle of the sky’—i.e., at midday—one shall not look at the Sun.—(37).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 180);—in Mitākṣarā (on 1.135), in the sense that looking at the Sun is forbidden only at stated times, not always, as seems to be implied by Yājñavalkya’s words;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 494), which explains ‘uparaktam’ (v. l. ‘upasṛṣṭam’) as ‘eclipsed’;—again on p. 578, as mentioning things that should not be looked at;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 162), which adds that the prohibition of looking at the eclipsed sun is not applicable to that seeing of the eclipse which has been clearly enjoined as conducive to great merit;—in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 476);—in Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 346);—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 388) as prohibiting the house-holder seeing the eclipsed sun;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71);—in Smṛticandrikā (p. 124), which explains ‘upasṛṣṭam’ as ‘eclipsed’;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 292);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 320);—in Varṣakriyākaumudī (p. 94), which says that ‘īkṣaṇa’ cannot be taken as standing for mere knowing (as some people have held), and that it does not prohibit the first seeing of the eclipse, which is necessary to entitle the man to bathe; what is forbidden is only the unnecessary repeated seeing of the eclipse;—and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 218).

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.31.18).—‘One should avoid looking at the sun rising and setting.’

Viṣṇu (7.17, 18).—‘He shall not look at the sun rising,—nor when setting.’

Yājñavalkya (1.137).—‘He shall not look at the sun, nor at a naked woman….’

Pāraskara (2.7.6 ).—‘ He shall not do the following—looking at a water-reservoir, tree-climbing, fruit-gathering, entering a man-hole, public bathing, traversing dangerous situations, looking at the sun, and begging.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.31).—‘He shall not look at the sun at the time of rising or of setting.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 180).—‘He shall not look at the naked man or the naked woman; nor the rising or setting sun and moon.’

Mahābhārata (13.104, 17-18).—[Same as Manu.]

037 Let him never look at the sun, when he sets or rises, is eclipsed or reflected in water, or stands in the middle of the sky.

He shall not step over the rope to which a calf is tied; he shall not run when it is raining; he shall not look at his own figure in water; such is the established rule.—(38).

वत्सबन्धनार्था रज्जुर् वत्सतन्त्री वत्सपङ्क्तिर् वा, तां न लङ्घयेन् नापक्रामेत् । तथा च गौतमः- “नोपरि वत्सतन्त्रीं गच्छेत्” (ग्ध् ९.५२) । स्वरूपं शरीरसंस्थानम् । स्वग्रहणात् परस्य रूपप्रेक्षणं न पर्युदस्यते । इति धारणा एष निश्चयः शास्त्रेषु ॥ ४.३८ ॥

‘Vatsatantrī’ is the rope to which the calf is tethered; or, it may mean ‘a line of calves.’ This ‘he shall not step over’— not cross over. Says Gautama (9.52)—‘One shall not pass over the vatsatantrī.’

‘Figure’—shape of the body.

‘Own’— The addition of this implies that looking at the figure of other persons is not forbidden.

‘Such is the established rule,’—ordained in the scriptures—(38).

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71), which explains ‘vatsatantrī’ as ‘the rope to which a calf is tied’, and quotes Haradatta to the effect that ‘vatsa’ here stands for the entire bovine species.

Gautama (9.52).—‘He shall not go over the rope to which a calf is tied.’

Baudhāyana (2.2-36).—[Same as above.]

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.31.13).—[Same as above.]

Vaśiṣṭha (12.5).—‘He shall not cross over the rope to which the calf is tied, when it is spread out.’

Viṣṇu (71.23).—‘He shall not look at his own reflection in water, or in oil.’

Do. (63.42-43).—‘He shall not cross over the rope to which the calf is tied; he shall not run while it is raining.’ Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3.9.6).—He shall not bathe during the night; he shall not bathe naked; he shall not sleep naked; he shall not look at a naked woman, except……; he shall not run while it is raining.’

Pāraṣkara (2.7.8).—‘He shall not look at himself in water.’

Gobhila (3.5.11).—‘He shall not run while it is raining.’

038 Let him not step over a rope to which a calf is tied, let him not run when it rains, and let him not look at his own image in water; that is a settled rule.

By a mound of clay, a cow, a deity, a Brāhmaṇa, clarified butter, honey, a cross-way and the well-known trees—he shall pass in such a manner as to leave them on his right.—(39)

प्रस्थितस्याभिमुखागतान् मृदादीन् प्रत्ययं विधिः । मृदादयो येन दक्षिणो हस्तः तेन कर्तव्याः । उद्धृता च मृदेवं कर्तव्या । एवं हि शास्त्रान्तरं प्रस्थानाधिकारे पठति “प्रदक्षिणम् आवर्त्य” इति । दैवतं पटादिलिखितम् अर्चार्थम्¹ । गौतमस् तु “देवतायतनानि सप्रदक्षिणम् अनुवर्तेत” (ग्ध् ९.६६) इति पठति । लोकप्रसिद्ध्या चतुर्भुजमार्तण्डागारादि देवतायतनं विज्ञेयम् । “यज्ञगृहाणि च” इत् वक्ष्यति । मधु घृतमहाचर्यात्² सारघम्, मङ्गल्यमध्यपाठाच् च । प्रजाता वनस्पतयो महाप्रमाणाः प्रसिद्धा वनस्पतयो महावृक्षाह् प्रमाणतः पुष्पफलातिशयतो वा प्रसिद्धा उदुम्बरादयः । “ऊर्ग् वा उदुम्बरः” (म्स् १.११.८) इत्य् अर्थवादः । ये तु गुणाधिकान् प्रज्ञातान् आचक्षते ते निर्मूलप्रसिद्धिमात्रप्रमाणका उपेक्षणीयाः ॥ ४.३९ ॥

This rule applies to cases where, when a man has started to go, the said things happen to come in his way. He should go in such a manner that-they remain to his right. Another Smṛti has laid down, in connection with depatures, that—‘he should walk round rightwards.’

‘Deity’—as painted on scrolls, for purposes of worshipping. Gautama has declared that—‘One shall pass round the temples of gods leaving them on his right;’ and, on the strength of popular opinion, the term ‘deity’ of the text is to be taken as standing for the temples containing images of the Four-armed Viṣṇu, the Sun and other gods;—and the same should be done with sacrificial houses also, as the author is going to declare later on.

‘Madhu’—should be taken here as standing for Honey, on the strength of its being mentioned along with ‘clarified batter;’ also because it is mentioned in the middle of a number of auspicious things.

‘Well-known trees’— Large trees, well known for their great utility and size, or, for the large produce of flower and fruits; such trees, for instance, as the Udumbara, and the like. ‘The Udumbara is vigour itself,’ says a Vedic description.

Some people have explained ‘well known’ as ‘of superior quality.’ But these people, have no support for this, except certain popular notions; and they should be ignored.—(39)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 176), which explains that the ‘mud’ meant is that which has been dug out;—and in Mitākṣarā (on 1.133).

Gautama (9.66).—‘A praiseworthy object, an auspicious object, a temple, a cross-way and such objects,—he shall go round in such a manner as to leave them on his right.’

Viṣṇu (63.26-30).—‘He shall go round the cross-ways in such a manner as to leave them to his right; also a place where deities are being worshipped; also well-known trees; also the fire, the Brāhmaṇa, the courtesan, full water-jar, the mirror, the umbrella, the flag, the banner, the Bel- tree and river-whirlpools; also the fan, the cāmara, the horse, the elephant, the cow, curd, milk, honey and fried grains.’

Yājñavalkya (1.133).—‘The deity, the cow, the Brāhmaṇa and the trees,—he shall pass by in such a manner as to leave them to his right.’

Mārkaṇḍeya (Aparārka, p. 176).—‘The road-crossing, and the important trees he shall salute; and he shall pass by all auspicious objects in such a way as to leave them to his right.’

039 Let him pass by (a mound of) earth, a cow, an idol, a Brahmana, clarified butter, honey, a crossway, and well-known trees, turning his right hand towards them.

Even though mad, he shall not approach a woman during her courses; nor shall he sleep on the same bed with her.—(40)

प्रमत्तः कामशरैः पीडितो ऽपि । आर्तवं स्त्रीलिङ्गशोणितं मासि मासि प्रसिद्धम् । तद्दर्शने न गच्छेत् । एकस्यां च शय्यायां तया सह न शयीत । स्पर्शप्रतिषेधाद् एव तत् सिद्धम् इति चेन् नायं प्रतिषेधः । व्रतम् इदम्, प्रायश्चित्तभेदश् च ॥ ४.४० ॥

‘Mad’—even though suffering from the darts of passion.

‘Courses’—stands for the blood that appears every month in the woman. When this is visible, he shall not approach her. Nor shall he sleep on the same bed with her.

It may be argued that—‘the prohibition put forward is already implied in the aforesaid prohibtion of touching a woman in her courses.’

But what the present text contains is not a prohibition) but the injunction of a positive observance. And there is a difference in the expiatory rite prescribed in connection with the omission of this observance.—(40)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 562);—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 726);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 25a).

(verses 4.40-42)

Gautama (9.30-31).—‘Not when she is in her courses;—nor shall he embrace her in this condition.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.4).—‘He shall not associate with a woman with dirty clothes: nor with one in her courses; nor with one who is unfit.’

Viṣṇu (69.11).—‘Not when she is impure.’

Gobhila (3.5.5).—‘Not when she is in her courses.’

Bṛhannāradīya (28, 87-88).—‘If one touch a woman in her courses, or a Cāṇḍāla, or one who has committed a heinous crime, or a newly delivered woman, or the leavings of food, or the washerman and such others,—he shall bathe forthwith with his clothes on, etc., etc.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 562).—‘One shall not approach his wife before she has bathed or when she is ill, or in her courses.’

040 Let him, though mad with desire, not approach his wife when her courses appear; nor let him sleep with her in the same bed.

Of the man who approaches a woman covered with impurity,—intelligence, vitality, strength, sight and longevity wear off.—(41)

रजः पूर्वोकम् आर्तवम् । अभिप्लुतां तेन संबद्धाम् । पूर्वस्यार्थवादः ॥ ४.४१ ॥

Impurity—is the same as what has been spoken of above as ‘courses.’

‘Covered.’—connected with.

This verse is supplementary to the preceding Verse.—(41)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 562), which explains it to mean that if he approaches her during the first four days, he loses his wisdom &c.—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 726);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 25a).

**(verses 4.40-42)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.40].

041 For the wisdom, the energy, the strength, the sight, and the vitality of a man who approaches a woman covered with menstrual excretions, utterly perish.

Of that same man, if he avoids the woman covered with impurity, intelligence, vitality, strength, sight and longevity flourish.—(42)

वृद्धिवचनं स्तुतिर् एव ॥ ४.४२ ॥

This mention of flourishing also is purely commendatory.—(42)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 562), which explains it to mean that if the man avoids her during the first four days, his wisdom and other things become enhanced;—and in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 726).

**(verses 4.40-42)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.40].

042 If he avoids her, while she is in that condition, his wisdom, energy, strength, sight, and vitality will increase.

He shall not eat with his wife; nor shall he look at her while she is eating, or snoring, or yawning, or sitting at her ease.—(43)

“नित्यम् आस्यं शुचि स्त्रीणाम्” (म्ध् ५.१३०) इति शुचित्ववचनम्, “स्त्रीशूद्रोच्छिष्टम्” (म्ध् ११.१५२) इति च प्रतिषेधः । द्वयम्³ अपि विषयविभागेन व्यवस्थितम् । तत्र शुचित्ववचनं “स्त्रियश् च रतिसंसर्गे” (ब्ध् १.९.२) इति स्मृत्यन्त्रदर्सनेन रतिस्त्रीविषयं विज्ञायते । अतः प्रतिषेधो ऽपि पारिशेष्याद् अरतिस्त्रीषु मातृभगिन्यादिषु द्रष्टव्यः । यतो रतिर् नेह प्रीतिमात्रम्, किं तर्हि मन्मथनिमित्तो भावविशेष इति शृङ्गारपूर्वको ऽभिलाषादिरूपः । अतस् तद्युक्तासु शुचित्वम्, विपरीतासु प्रतिषेधः ।

• रतिनिमित्तार्थतया भार्यया सह भोजने प्राप्ते वचनम् इदम् आरभ्यते- नाश्नीयाद् भार्यया सार्धम् इति ।

• अथ संसर्गग्रहणेन वृषस्यतो संप्रयोगविशेषः कथ्यते । तदानीं परिचुम्बनाद् एव शुचित्वम् इति नास्ति भार्यया सह भोजनप्राप्तिः ।

• तत्रेदं पुनर्वचनं व्रतज्ञापनार्थम् । ततश् च यावज्जीविकः संकल्पः कर्तव्यो यथा भार्यया सह भोजनं न भवति ।

• एतच् च सहभोजनम् एकाधिकरणम् एककालदेशं नञर्थविषयतया चोद्यत इति गतोच्छिष्टप्रतिषेधगतार्थशङ्केति⁴ । स पुनर् अयम् ईदृशः सहार्थविशेषः प्रमाणान्तरतः स्मृत्यन्तरसमाचारादेः । शेषशब्दार्थो⁵ ह्य् अन्यापेक्षितमात्रम् । तथा “इतरान् अपि सख्यादीन् । । । भोजयेत् सह भार्यया” (म्ध् ३.१०३) इति । नात्रैकाधिकरणता भुजेर् अवगम्यते, किं तर्हि भार्यया समानदेशता भोक्तुः, समानकालता वा ।

• अन्ये त्व् अन्यद् उच्छिष्टम् इति व्याचक्षते- भुक्तोज्झितम् उच्छिष्टम् । एकस्यां तु पत्न्यां एकस्मिन् कार्ये सह भोजनम् ।

• एवं तु व्याख्यायमाने शूद्रेण सह भोजनं प्रतिषिद्धं स्यात्, प्रसिद्धिश् च त्यक्ता भवेत् । अस्य संस्पर्शाद् उच्छिष्टव्यवहारः, सहभोजनेनापि तद् अस्ति⁶ ।

• केचित् तु समानदेशकालम् एव भोजनं प्रतिषिद्धम्, दृष्टार्थत्वाद् उपदेशस्येति । पुंसा स्वभावभेदात् कश्चिद् बहुभोजिन्या न तुष्येत्, अन्यः स्वल्पभोजिन्याम् अपि विश्रम्भयतीति छद्मना वर्तते- मम पुरतः स्वल्पम् अश्नाति इति ।

• तथासदृशा एवम् अन्ये ऽपि नियमाः । नैनाम् ईक्षेत चाश्नतीम् । पश्यतो हि भुञ्जाना विवृतास्यतया रूपविकारेण भर्त्रे न रोचेत । क्षवथुः शिरस्थेन वायुना पूर्यमाणाया⁷ नासिकायाः शब्दस् तत्रापि वक्त्रवैकृत्यात् प्रीतिर् न स्यात् । जृम्भमाणास्येन विलम्बितं वायोर् उच्छ्वसनम् अङ्गप्रत्यङ्गप्रसारणं वा । तद् अप्य् एवम् एव । यथासुखं चासीना⁸ अनवग्रथितकेशी भूमौ निपतितगात्री वा ॥ ४.४३ ॥

Under 5.130, it is said that ‘the mouth of women is always pure,’ and again one is advised to avoid ‘the leavings of women and Śūdras.’ Both of these are true within their own limited sphere. When the mouth is said to be ‘ever pure,’ it refers to the time of sexual intercourse, in view of what has been declared in another Smṛti regarding ‘the purity of the woman during sexual intercourse.’ From this it follows that the prohibition applies to such a woman with whom one can never have such intercourse; e.g., the mother, the sister, and the like. Specially because what is prohibited here is not simply affectionate treatment, but the entertaining of thoughts of love and longing preceded by the erotic sentiment. Hence it follows that the ‘purity’ pertains to woman related to such intercourse, and the prohibition to those not so related.

The above considerations would give rise to the notion that one may eat with one’s wife, who serves the purposes of sexual intercourse; hence with a view to preclude such an idea, the text proceeds to declare—‘he shall not eat with his wife.’

“As a matter of fact, what has been said regarding the ‘purity’ of the woman’s mouth, refers to a particular form of advances that the man in love generally makes, so that the purity can refer only to the act of kissing; and there is no possibility of its making any one inclined to eat with his wife.”

But the reiteration contained in the present verse is meant to show the form of the observance; which means that one should make a life-long vow that ‘he shall never eat with his wife.’

The ‘eating together’ that is mentioned here as the object of prohibition is—(a) eating out of the same dish, (b) eating at the same time and (c) eating at the same place. So that there can. be no room for the idea that the pohibition applies to ‘leavings.’ That the meaning of ‘eating together’ is as just mentioned we gather from other Smṛti texts and from usage; as for ‘leavings,’ this term can only mean what has been left.’ Thus, then, when it is said that—‘his friends and others he shall feed with his wife’ (3.113),—it is clear that what is meant is, not that they shall eat out of the same dish with the wife, but that they shall eat at the same time and place with her. [Hence, it must be these latter that are forbidden by the present verse].

Others have explained ‘leavings’ as something different—as what has been left after one has eaten. So that it would not be a case of ‘eating the leavings’ when one eats in the same dish with one’s wife.

According to this explanation, what would be the object of the prohibition would be the eating with Śrūdas (Śūdras?) only; and this would involve the abandoning of universally accepted notions, under which mere touch (of the Śūdra) is regarded as constituting ‘ucciṣṭa,’ ‘leaving;’ and this touch is present also when two persons are ‘eating together.’

Some people hold that what is forbidden is eating at the same time and place; that this is so, follows from the fact that the teaching herein contained is with a view to a visible purpose; the prohibition therefore being based upon the fact that men differ in their nature, some men are not pleased with their wife eating large quantities, while there are others who, on finding their wife eating little, think that she is deceiving him by eating little in his presence.

Similar to the above are the other restrictions: ‘he shall not look at her while she is eating;’ if he sees her while eating, when she may be opening her mouth wide, she may look ugly and thus fail to please her husband.

‘Snoring’—is the sound made by the nose filled with the wind passing down from the head. Here also the disfiguring of the face is likely to make the husband displeased.

‘Yawning’—the prolonged breathing out of air with the mouth, or the spreading out of the body and limbs. This also is undesirable on the said grounds.

‘Sitting at her ease’—with hair diśevelled, with the body thrown upon the ground.—(43)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 180);—in Mitākṣarā, (on 1.125);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 123);—in Vīramitrodaya. (Āhnika, p. 479, and again in Saṃskāra, p. 578);—in Saṃskāramayūkha, (p. 71);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra, (p. 320).

**(verses 4.43-44)
**

Viṣṇu (68.46).—‘He shall not eat with his wife, nor in the sky, nor standing, nor while many men are looking on.’

Viṣṇu (71.25).—‘He shall not look at his wife while she is eating.’

Viṣṇu (72.26)—‘Nor a naked woman.’

Gautama (9.33).—‘He shall avoid the following:—kindling fire with the mouth, wrangling, obtrusive wearing of garlands and sandal-paste, eating with his wife, looking at her while she is applying collyrium to her eyes, entering by the wrong door, eating while seated on a chair, swimming in rivers, climbing of trees, etc., etc.’

Śukranīti (4.4.29).—‘Then her husband and lastly she herself shall partake of food at the instance of her husband. She should then devote her time to the examining of income and expenditure.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.29).—‘Not between two fires, nor between two Brāhmaṇas, nor with his wife, shall one eat; by so doing, one obtains offspring devoid of virility; this we learn from the Vājasaneya texts.’

Yājñavalkya (1.131).—‘He shall not eat where his wife can see him, nor with a single cloth, nor standing.’

Yājñavalkya (l.135).—‘He shall not look at the naked woman, nor after intercourse.’

Aṅgiras (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 479).—‘The wise do not perceive any harm in a man eating with his own wife, or her leavings.’

Smṛtyarthasāra (Do.).—‘He shall not eat with his wife.’

043 Let him not eat in the company of his wife, nor look at her, while she eats, sneezes, yawns, or sits at her ease.

The brāhmaṇa, desiring brightness, shall not look at a woman who is a pplying collyrium to her own eyes, or who has anointed herself, or who is uncovered, or is bringing forth a child.—(44)

परस्य्आञ्जयन्ती⁹ शोभत एव । अनावृतां अपावृतवसनाम् । अवगुण्ठिताम् एव हि वेशेषेण स्पृहयन्ति¹⁰ । निर्वसनाङ्गीं निपुणतरं वक्ष्यमाणां न सर्वतः सर्वा सुसंस्थाना¹¹ भवतीति निरम्बरा नेक्षणीया¹² । तेजःकामः । तेजः वर्णोज्ज्वलता, उत्साहप्रयोगश् च ॥ ४.४४ ॥

One who is applying collyrium to another’s eyes, looks beautiful (hence there is no harm in looking at her).

‘Uncovered’— with her clothing removed. As a rule, men long for locking at a woman only when she is veiled; while, when the woman is undressed, all her limbs become visible, and, on scrutiny, nil these may not turn out to be shapely; consequently, one should avoid looking at a naked woman.

‘Desiring brightness.’—‘Brightness’ stands for brightness of complexion, as also for energy.—(44)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 180);—in Mitākṣarā, (on 1.135);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 123);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 578);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra, (p. 320);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71).

**(verses 4.43-44)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.43].

044 A Brahmana who desires energy must not look at (a woman) who applies collyrium to her eyes, has anointed or uncovered herself or brings forth (a child).

He shall not eat food with only one piece of cloth on him; he shall not bathe naked; he shall not pass urine on the road, nor on ashes, nor on the haunts of cows.—(45)

सत्य् अपि यज्ञोपवीते नित्यानुगतत्वात् तस्य अनाच्छादकत्वाद् उपनयनविभेदेनोपदेशात् एकवासाः । अङ्गच्छादकादि¹³ द्वितीयं वासो भोजनकाले स्यात् । न मूत्रम् । मूत्रग्रहणम् अत्रोत्सर्गस्योपलक्षणार्थम् । पथि रथ्यायाम् । गोव्रजे । येन यत्र वा गावश् चरितुं व्रजन्ति ॥ ४.४५ ॥

Even though the man always wears his sacred thread (and hence, correctly speaking, he is never with only one piece of cloth on), yet, since the sacred thread is always on the body and it does not cover any part of the body, and since the present injunction is apart from the section dealing with Upanayana (where the wearing of the sacred thread is prescribed),—he is regarded as ‘having only one piece of cloth on himself.’ What the text means is that, at the time of eating, he shall have on his body a second piece of cloth capable of covering his body.

‘He shall not pass urine.’—‘Urine’ here stands for excretions of all kinds.

‘Pathi’—on the road.

‘On the haunts of cows’—the path by which cows pass, or the place where they go to graze.—(45)

‘Govraje’—‘The path by which, or the place at which, cows go to graze’ (Medhātithi);—‘cow-pen’ (Kullūka and Govindarāja).

This verse is quoted in its second half in Aparārka, (p. 179);—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 33), where ‘Govraja’ is explained as ‘Goṣṭha’;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 329);—in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 153);—in Nityācārapradīpa, (p. 250);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71).

**(verses 4.45-49)
**

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 35).—‘Pools, tanks, streams, hills, cowdung, ashes, ploughed fields,—these he shall avoid; as also chaff, fire-embers, potsherds, temples, public roads, cremation-ground, fields and harvesting enclosures; he shall not do it in a shady place, or on a visible road-crossing, or on beautiful spots; water, proximity of water, path, tree-bases, worshipped trees and holes,—these he shall avoid.

Brhannāradīya (Do., p. 37).—‘On the road, in the cowpen, on river-bank, in a tank, near a wall, under the shade of trees, in a forest, near the fire, near Brāhmaṇas, cows, or elderly women,—one shall not pass stool or urine.’

Gautama (9.45.13).—Not on ashes, nor on dry cowdung, nor on cultivated ground. He shall not pass urine or excreta or throw any impure things, while looking towards the wind, the fire, the Brāhmaṇa, the water, deities or cows.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, pp. 35 and 38).—‘Not near a garden, or a water-reservoir, or on barren ground, or on ground rendered unclean by others; nor with shoes or sandals on; nor with umbrella, nor in the sky nor facing women, or elders, or Brāhmaṇas, or cows, or temples, or deities, or stars, or the wind.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11).—‘Urination should not be done in a river; nor on ashes, nor on cowdung, nor in ploughed fields, nor in fields sown with seed, nor on grass.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 35).—‘He shall not pass urine or stool either in the public square or near the side-gate; nor in a tīrtha, or sacrificial ground, or under sacrificial trees.’

Baudhāyana (3.2.44).—‘He shall not bathe naked.’

Viṣṇu (60.11).—‘Not on the road, nor on ashes, nor in haunts of cows.’

Viṣṇu (Aparārka, p. 180).—‘He shall not pass urine or stool on barren ground; nor near a garden or a water-reservoir; nor in the sky.’

Viṣṇu (64.5).—‘Nor naked (shall he bathe).’

Viṣṇu (68.14).—‘Nor with a single cloth.’

Viṣṇu (60.4-22).—‘[He shall not urinate or pass stool) on ploughed ground; nor under a shadow; nor on barren ground; nor on grass; nor where there are living creatures; nor in a hole; nor on an ant-hill, nor on the road; nor on the lane; nor in a garden; nor near a garden or a water-reservoir; nor on ashes; nor on fire-embers; nor on cowdung; nor in places haunted by cows; nor in the sky; nor in water; nor before the wind, the fire, the moon, the sun, a woman, the preceptor or the Brāhmaṇa.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 36).—‘One shall never urinate in one’s own shadow, or in the shade of a tree, or facing the cow, the sun, fire, wind, elders or twice-born men.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.30.18).—‘One shall not urinate or pass stool with shoes on;—nor on ploughed ground, nor on the path, nor in water. Spitting and sexual intercourse also should be avoided in water. He shall avoid urinating and passing of stool in the presence of fire, the sun, water, Brāhmaṇas, cows, or deities.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 36).—‘He shall avoid the passing of urine and stool under the shade.’

Yājñavalkya (1.131).—‘He shall not eat within sight of his wife, nor with a single cloth, nor standing.’

Yājñavalkya (1.134).—‘He shall not urinate in a river, or under shade, or on the path, or in water, or on ashes; nor before the fire, or the sun, or the cow, or the moon, or water, or twice-born men.’

Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhyasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 38).—‘Not facing the sun, nor with knees towards the sun.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3.9.6).—‘He shall not bathe during the night; he shall not bathe naked; he shall not sleep naked; he shall not look at a naked woman, except… he shall not run while it is raining.’

Pāraskara (2.7.6).—‘Looking at sunrise, tree-climbing, fruit-gathering, naked bathing,…… these he shall not do;—nor shall he beg for food after bathing.’

Do. (2.7.15).—‘He shall not urinate or pass stool on fertile ground, or on bare ground, or while walking or standing.’

Śaṅkha.—‘One shall not urinate either on cowdung or on ploughed ground, or in a sown field, or on grass, or on ṭhe cremation-ground, or on an ant-hill, or on the path, or in a place where grains are husked, or in a place where cattle congregate, or in a hole, or on a hill, or on a sandbank;—since all these are the receptacles of living beings.’

Do. (p. 180).—‘he shall not urinate facing the sun; those who do it, facing the sun or the wind or the cow or the Brāhmaṇas, or the moon, or the water or the twilights or the public road, lose their intelligence and become short-lived.’

Devala (Do.).—‘One shall not pass urine or stool on road-crossings and side-gates, nor in ploughed fields, nor in a field with standing corns, nor in sacrificial ground, nor under sacrificial trees.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 180).—‘He shall not pass urine or stool in an uncovered place; nor with his lower garment on, nor naked.’

045 Let him not eat, dressed with one garment only; let him not bathe naked; let him not void urine on a road, on ashes, or in a cow-pen,

Nor on ploughed land, nor in water, nor on an oven, nor on a mountain, nor in a ruined temple, nor on an ant-hill. (46)

चित्याम् अग्न्यर्थ इष्टकाकूटे । पर्वतग्रहणम् अरण्योद्यानोपलक्षणार्थम् । तथा हि विशेषप्रतिषेधो भविष्यति “पर्वतमस्तके” (म्ध् ४.४७) इति । सामान्येन च¹⁴ प्रतिषेधे¹⁵ पर्वतवासिनाम् अमेहणप्रसङ्गः । वल्मीकः कृमिकृतो मृत्तिकासंचयः ॥ ४.४६ ॥

‘Oven’—a structure of bricks, for the depositing of fire. ‘Mountain’—here stands for forests and gardens; as the mountain-top is going to be specifically forbidden (in the next verse). If the word were really meant to stand for the mountain itself, and the prohibition applied to the mountain as a whole, then people living on the mountains would have to go without passing urine at all.

‘Ant-hill’—the mound of earth set up by insects.—(46)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 179);—in Vīramitrodaya, (Āhnika, p. 33), which explains ‘cityām’ as the Śyena and other altars built of bricks, or ‘at a place where a dead body has been cremated’ (according to some); and in connection with ‘dilapidated temples’ it remarks that, inasmuch as the making of water in all kinds of temples is expressly forbidden, the addition of the epithet ‘dilapidated’, ‘jīrṇa’, must be understood to have been added with a view to the perceptible physical danger involved in the act,—i. e., of loose bricks and other things falling and the like;—‘Valmīka’ is ‘the mound of mud collected by a particular kind of insect’

This verse is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (p. 329);—in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 153);—and in Nityācārapradīpa, (p. 250), which explains ‘cityām’ as ‘On a fire-altar.’

**(verses 4.45-49)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.45].

046 Nor on ploughed land, in water, on an altar of bricks, on a mountain, on the ruins of a temple, nor ever on an ant-hill,

Nor in holes inhabited by living creatures, nor walking, nor standing, nor on reaching the banks of a river, nor on the mountain-top.—(47)

न गच्छन् नापि च स्थितः । गच्छतस् तिष्ठतश् च प्रतिषेधाद् आसीनस्याभ्यनुज्ञानम् । न चासन्ने¹⁶ नद्यास् तीरे, नदीजले न । संसर्गशङ्का यत्र भवति तदासन्नम् । पर्वतस्य¹⁷ मस्तकं शृङ्गम् ॥ ४.४७ ॥

‘Nor walking, nor standing.’—By the prohibition of passing urine while walking or standing, it is implied that one should pass urine sitting. Nor very close to the river, nor in the river itself; that is to be regarded as ‘very close’ where there is fear of the urine touching the river.

“Mountain-top”—Peak.—(47)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 179), which adds that, the ‘parvata’ having been already mentioned in the preceding verse, the ‘top of the mountain’ is mentioned here with a view to indicate that if, under certain circumstances, it cannot be avoided, one may pass urine on a mountain elsewhere than on the ‘top’;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 33), which quotes only the first foot, and explains ‘sasattveṣu’ as ‘with living creatures’; the second foot being quoted on p. 37, where ‘sthitaḥ’ is explained as ‘standing’.

**(verses 4.45-49)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.45].

047 Nor in holes inhabited by living creatures, nor while he walks or stands, nor on reaching the bank of a river, nor on the top of a mountain.

One should never pass faeces or urine, while looking at the wind or fire, or a Brāhmaṇa, or the sun, or water, or cows.—(48)

संमुखीनत्वाद् वाय्वादीनाम् अङ्गविप्रेक्षितेनापि न मूत्रयन् पश्येत् । वायोश् चारूपत्वाद् दर्शनं तत्प्रेरितवर्णलोष्ठादिभ्रमणाद् अवसेयम् । वायुचक्रे¹⁸ त्व् अयं प्रतिषेधो विप्रयुक्तः । सर्वतो हि वायुर् वाति ॥ ४.४८ ॥

अस्यार्थवादः ।[^११८]

What is meant is that one shall not do the act facing the wind; and the other things he shall not look at, while urinating, even by turning his body towards them. Since wind is colourless, its seeing can only he ascertained by seeing the flight of leaves, hits of earth and other things waft

ed by the wind. This prohibition would be incongruous if it applied to the entire air-circle (atmosphere); since wind is blowing everywhere.—(48)

As a commendatory supplement to this we have the next verse.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 43), which explains ‘paśyan’ as ‘before’, ‘sammukhaḥ’;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 37), which explains ‘paśyan’ as ‘looking at, in front of’, in order to make it applicable to the wind, which is not ‘visible’ with the eye.

**(verses 4.45-49)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.45].

048 Let him never void faeces or urine, facing the wind, or a fire, or looking towards a Brahmana, the sun, water, or cows.

केचिद् इमं श्लोकम् अस्मिन्न् अध्याये नाधीयते¹⁹ ।

• ननु चोदङ्मुखस्य मेहनविधानात् पूर्वस्याम् उदयाच् च सूर्यस्य कुतस् तदाभिमुख्यं भवेद् येन प्रतिसूर्यं निषिध्यते ।

• अर्थवादो ऽयम्, “नातरिक्षे न दिवि” इतिवत् । अथ वोदगयने उदीचीं दिशम् आक्रमेत् स्यात् संभवः । प्रकृतविषयो वा प्रतिषेधः ।

• “प्रतिसंध्यम्” इति पठन्ति । तद् अयुक्तम् । “संध्ययोष् च यथा दिवा” (म्ध् ४.५१) इत्य् अनुज्ञानात्, वेगधारणस्य च निषिद्धत्वात् । तस्मात् “प्रतिवातम्” इति पठितव्यम् ।

• पूर्वशेषो ऽयम् ।

• मेहतः । शत्रंतस् तसन्तो वा । मेहतः पुरुषस्य, मेहनाद् वा ॥ ४.४९ ॥

“Since it has been laid down that one should pass urine, facing the north,—and the sun rises in the east,—how can one ever face the sun, in view of which possibility we have the present prohibition?”

The present verse is a commendatory supplement; just like the assertion—‘not in the sky, nor in heaven, &c.’ Then again, during the northern solstice, the sun moving towards the north, it would be possible to face the sun. Or, the prohibition may be taken as meant for the common people (who may not know the rule regarding urinating with face towards the north).

Some people read ‘pratisandhyam.’ But this is not right; because regarding the passing of urine we have the rule that ‘during the two twilights it shall be done as during the day;’ and also because the forcible checking of urine, etc., has been forbidden. For these reasons, we should read ‘prativātam,’ facing the wind.’

This verse is supplementary to the foregoing one.

‘Mehakaḥ’—may be construed either as ending with the Present-participial affix ‘śatṛ,’ or with the affix ‘tas’ (having the sense of the Ablative); the meaning being—‘the man passing urine,’ or ‘by the passing of urine.’—(49)

This verse, which is 52 in Buhler, Burnell and Kullūka and other commentators, is 49 according to Medhātithi, who remarks that ‘some people do not read this verse in the present Discourse’. It is interesting, in the light of this remark, to note that this verse is not quoted in any of the important Nibandhas.

This verse is quoted in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 248), which explains ‘saṃvītāṅgaḥ’ as ‘with the sacred thread hanging by the neck.’

**(verses 4.45-49)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.45].

049 He may ease himself, having covered (the ground) with sticks, clods, leaves, grass, and the like, restraining his speech, (keeping himself) pure, wrapping up his body, and covering his head.

He shall pass it after placing a stick, or a clod, or leaves, or grass, or some such thing, restraining his speech, clean, his b ody wrapped and covered.—(50)

तिरस्कृत्य अन्तर्धाय काष्ठादि तदुपरि मूत्रयेत् । आवरणं वा तिरस्कारः काष्ठादिभिर् भूमिं छादयित्व्ओच्चरेत् । तृतीयान्तपाठस् तदा स्पष्टतरः । काष्ठे पत्रेण तृणेन वाभ्युच्चरेत् मूत्रं पुरीषं चोत्सृजेत् । नियम्य वाचं प्रयतः लोष्ठैः अनुच्छिष्टः । संवीताङ्ग आच्छादितश्रीरः । अवगुण्ठितः शिरः प्रावृत्य अन्यत्रोक्तम् “कर्णस्थब्रह्मसूत्रः” (य्ध् १.१६) इति ॥ ४.५० ॥

‘Tiraskṛtya’—‘placing between’—the stick, etc.; on that he shall pass urine. Or, ‘tiraskṛtya’ may mean ‘having covered;’ in which case, the meaning would be that ‘he should cover the ground with sticks and then pass urine.’ In this latter case, the reading with the lnsturmental-ending—‘tṛṇādinā—would be clearer; the construction being—‘having covered with sticks or with clods, or with leaves, or with grass.’

‘Pass it’—i.e., pass urine and evacuate his bowels.

‘Restraining his speech, clean’—i.e., with mouth not unwashed (not having anything in his mouth).

‘Body wrapped’—covered with cloth.

‘Covered’—the head tied up. The rule prescribed is—‘with the sacred thread on his ear, etc.’—(50).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 34), which explains the meaning to be that ‘one should cover the ground either with sticks, or with clods, or with leaves, or with grass and then ease himself,’—‘saṃvītāṅgaḥ’ means ‘with body wrapped’, and ‘avaguṇṭhitaḥ’, ‘with head covered’;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 25), which explains ‘vācam niyamya’ as ‘silent’,—‘saṃvītaṅgaḥ’ as ‘with the sacred thread hanging by the neck over the back’;—it notes that Kullūka and others explain the word as ‘with body wrapped’,—and ‘avaguṇṭhitaḥ’ as ‘with head covered’;—in Smṛtikaumudī (p. 57);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, p. 3a);—and in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 45), which explains ‘uccāra’ as ‘stools’,—‘samutsarga’ as ‘evacuation’.

**(verses 4.50-51)
**

Bṛhannāradīya (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 28).—‘During the day and the twilights, facing the north, at night, facing the south, he shall pass urine and stool.’

Gautama (9.38).—‘Urination and stooling [Should be done with body covered].’

Baudhāyana (1.5.68).—‘Placing on the ground dry grass, or wood which is not sacrificial, or earth-clod,—facing the north during the day and the south during the night,—and covering his head,—he shall urinate and pass stool.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.30.14-15).—‘During the day, covering of the head should he avoided, except during urination and stooling. Urination and stooling shall he done with covered head and after placing something on the ground.’

Do. (1.31.1).—‘Facing the east, he shall eat food; facing the south, he shall pass it out; facing the north, he shall urinate; facing the west, he shall wash his feet.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12-10).—‘With head wrapped up, placing on the ground such grass as is not sacrificial, he shall urinate and pass stool.’

Do. (6.10).—‘Both urinating and stooling he shall dofacing the north during the day; and the south during the night. Thus is life not cut short.’

Viṣṇu (60.1, 3, 23).—‘Rising at the Brahmic moment, he shall go to stool and urinate; hut not on uncovered ground, nor with head uncovered.’

Do. (60.2).—‘Facing the south at night, and the north in the day and at the twilights.’

Pāraskara (2.7.15).—‘On fertile ground, covered over, one shall urinate and stooling but not walking or standing.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 25).—Covering the mouth and the nostrils with cloth, he shall pass stool.’

Yājñavalkya (1.16).—‘During the day, and at the twilights one shall perform urination and stooling with the sacred thread resting on his ears—facing the north; but at night, facing the south.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 34).—‘The passing of urine and Stool should be done with head covered, covering the ground with such grass as are not sacred or wet; facing the west in the forenoon, and the east in the afternoon, and the south at night.’

Aṅgiras (Aparārka, p. 34).—‘Covering the ground with grass, and covering his head with cloth, with speech in check, avoiding spitting and breathing one shall pass urine and stool on a clear spot.’

Vāyupurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, 25)—‘Covering the ground with dry grass or wood or leaves or split bamboo or earthen vessels.’

050 Let him void faeces and urine, in the daytime turning to the north, at night turning towards the south, during the two twilights in the same (position) as by day.

मूत्रोच्चारसमुत्सर्गं त्यागम् ॥ ४.५१ ॥

‘Samutsarga’—passing.—(51)

Burnell is not right in saying that “Medhātithi omits this verse” (see Translation). He adds—“The verse occurs in the Mahābhārata 13.104.76, following the one that is equivalent to Manu 52, but with the var. lec. (a) ubhe mūtrapurīṣe tu (b) (in the second pāda) tathāhyāyurna ṛsyate.”

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 27), which explains ‘yathādivā’ as ‘facing the North’;—and again on p. 30;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 328), which explains ‘uccāra’ as ‘excreta’;—in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 152);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 265), which notes that the freedom herein set forth is meant only for occasions when one is unable to determine the exact directions, and when there is danger to life;—in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 45), which explains ‘prāṇabādhābhayeṣu’ as ‘when there is danger to life from tigers and other things’;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, p. 3b);—and in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 250).

**(verses 4.50-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.50].

051 In the shade or in darkness a Brahmana may, both by day and at night, do it, assuming any position he pleases; likewise when his life is in danger.

In the shade, or in darkness, the Brāhmaṇa may—during the day or the night—do it, with his face towards any direction he pleases; as also where there is danger to life, and when there is fear.’—(52)

छाया कुड्यकपाटादिभिः सूर्यरश्मीनाम् आवरणम् । अन्धकारः मेघधूमिकास्वर्भानुरात्रिकृतो²⁰ ज्योतिरन्तरायः । यथासुखं मुखम्²¹ अस्येति । यया दिशा सुखं भवति²² तस्याम् एवोच्चरेत् । यत्र दिग्भागो न ज्ञायते अन्धकारे तत्रायं विधिः । प्राणबाधः प्राणपीडा । भयं चौरादिकृतम् ॥ ४.५२ ॥

‘Shade’—i.e., where the sun’s rays are shut out by walls or doors, etc.

‘Darkness’—the obstruction of light by clouds or fogs or eclipses or by night.

‘With his face towards any direction he pleases.’—He shall pass urine with his face towards that direction which he finds convenient.

This rule pertains to such ‘darkness’ as makes it impossible for the directions to be determined.

‘Danger to life,’ and ‘fear’—due to thieves, etc.—(52)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 42), which adds that this applies to cases where, on account of mist or fog, the man is unable to ascertain the directions.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 30), which adds the following explanation:—During the night, in shade or in darkness,—and during the day, in shade or in darkness caused by fog etc.,—and during suffering to life caused by disease etc.,—and in danger due to thieves, tiger and such other things;—Kullūka Bhaṭṭa reads ‘prāṇabādhābhayeṣu’ and explains it to man ‘when there is danger to life at the hands of thieves etc.,’—‘one should do’—i.e., the ‘mūtrocchārasamutsargam’ (of the preceding verse). This verse supplies an exception to the law regarding the facing of the North or the East etc.; so that this latter law remains applicable to the day, when there is light, and also to the night when there is moon-light. This view has the support of Kalpataru. In view of the present verse specifying ‘day and night’, the facing of the North remains compulsory at the two twilights. The author of Smṛticandrikā, Mādhavācḥārya, Kullūka Bhaṭṭa and others have held the view that the first half applies to cases where one has lost all sense of direction; but this view has been rejected on the ground that there is no authority for restricting the rule in this manner.

This is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 329);—in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 152), which also adds that this refers to cases where the man has lost all sense of direction;—and in Aparārka (p. 34).

Vaśiṣṭha (6.13).—[Reproduces Manu.]

052 The intellect of (a man) who voids urine against a fire, the sun, the moon, in water, against a Brahmana, a cow, or the wind, perishes.

He shall not blow fire with the mouth; nor shall he look at a naked woman. He shall not throw an unclean thing into fire; nor shall he warm his feet at it.—(53)

धवित्रादिनाग्निर् ध्मातव्यः । नग्नां नेक्षेत स्त्रियम् । “अन्यत्र मैथुनात्” इति स्मृत्यन्तरम् । नामेध्यम् । मेध्यो यज्ञस् तदर्थं मेध्यम् । अमेध्यं यद् अयज्ञियं पलाण्डुमूत्रपुरीषादि । तन् नाग्नौ क्षिपेत् । उत्क्षिप्य पादौ²³ साक्षाद् अग्नौ न तापयेत् । अवच्छाद्य तापयित्वा स्वेदाद्यर्थम् अग्नितापनम् अदोषः ॥ ४.५३ ॥

Fire should be blown with deer-skin-fans and such things.

‘He shall not look at a naked woman’—‘apart from sexual intercourse,’ says another Smṛti-text.

‘Unclean thing’—‘ameḍhya—‘medha’ means- sacrifice; ‘medhya’ is fit for use at sacrifice; and ‘amedhya’ is unfit for use at sacrifices; such things, for instance, as onions, urine, excreta, and so forth. Anything like this, he shall not throw into fire.

He shall not raise his feet directly towards the fire and warm them at it. There is no objection to the feet being covered and then warmed for the purpose of exciting perspiration.—(53).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 181);—and in Mitākṣarā (on 1.137).

Gautama (9.33).—‘Blowing fire with the mouth, wrangling, obtrusive wearing of garlands and sandal-paste, eating with his wife, looking at the wife applying collyrium to her eyes, entering by the wrong door, eating while seated on the chair, swimming in the river, climbing trees,—these he shall avoid.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (15.20).—‘He shall not blow (the fire, carelessly).’

Do. (30.20).—‘He shall not stretch his legs towards fire, water, Brahmaṇas, Deities, wind.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.27).—‘He shall not blow the fire with his mouth.’

Viṣṇu (72.26.37).—‘He shall not look at the naked woman,—he shall not throw any unclean object into the fire,—he shall not warm his feet over the fire.’

Do. (Aparārka, p. 182).—‘Blood or poison he shall not throw into the fire.’

Yājñavalkya (1.135).—‘He shall not look at the sun, nor at the naked woman, nor at the woman immediately after intercourse, nor at the urine or at the stool, nor at unclean things, nor at the eclipse or at the stars.’

Yajñavalkya (1.137).—‘He shall not throw into the water spittings or blood, or ordure or urine or semen; he shall not warm his feet over the fire; nor shall he cross over it.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3.9.6).—‘He shall not bathe at night; he shall not bathe naked; he shall not sleep naked; he shall not look at ṭhe naked woman, except…… he shall not run in the rain.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 181).—‘The worshipping tree one shall not cut; nor throw phlegm, semen, poison, urine, ordure, blood, bones, ashes, potsherds, hair or thorns into water.’

Kātyāyana (Do.).—‘Either before or after the offering of oblations one shall not blow the fire with the hand, or with the winnowing basket or with the sphya or fans. He shall blow the fire with the mouth alone, as from the mouth was fire born; the prohibition of blowing fire with the mouth is applied to the ordinary (not sacrificial) fire.’

Devala (Do.).—‘One shall not throw fire into the fire, nor quench it with water.’

053 Let him not blow a fire with his mouth; let him not look at a naked woman; let him not throw any impure substance into the fire, and let him not warm his feet at it.

He shall not place fire under himself; nor shall he step over it; he shall not place it under his feet. He shall not do anything dangerous to life.—(54)

खट्वास्थः अधस्ताद् वह्निधानीं न कुर्यात् । उपधानं स्थानम् । अवलङ्घनम् उत्प्लुत्य गमनम् । पादतः अप्लुतस्य पादौ येन तदुपरि स्यात् तथा न कुर्यात्²⁴ । प्राणाबाधं प्राणपीडाकरम् अतिश्रमवेगागमनादि नाचरेत् ॥ ४.५४ ॥

While lying upon his head, he should not place the fire-pan underneath it. ‘Upadhāra’ means placing.

‘Stepping over’—passing along—after having jumped over it.

‘Under his feet;’—ie., he shall not place it in a place where he might put his foot upon it.

‘Anything dangerous to life’—such as too laborious work, or running with too much force, and so forth; these he should not do.—(54).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.137);—and in Aparārka (p. 181).

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.16.21).—‘He shall not place the fire on the bedstead.’

Do. (1.12.6).—‘He shall not pass between the fire and the Brāhmaṇa.’

Viṣṇu (37.36).—‘He shall not cross over the fire.’

Yājñavalkya (1.137).—‘He shall not cross over the fire.’

054 Let him not place (fire) under (a bed or the like); nor step over it, nor place it (when he sleeps) at the foot-(end of his bed); let him not torment living creatures.

At junction-time, he shall not eat, nor travel, nor sleep. He shall not scratch the ground; and he shall not remove his own garland.—(55).

संध्याकालः संधिवेला । संवेशनं स्वापः । स्वाध्यायं निषेत्स्यति । स्मृत्यन्तरे-

• चत्वार्य् एव तु कर्माणि संध्याकाले तु वर्जयेत् ।

• आहारं मैथुनं निद्रां तथा संपाठम् एव च ॥

न चैव प्रलिखेत् । प्रकर्षेण लेखनं विदारणं भूमेर् निषिध्यते । न तु वर्तिकादिनाक्षरविन्यासः । नात्मनोपहरेत् स्रजम् । ग्रथितानि पुष्पाणि स्रक् । ताम् स्वयं कण्ठे शिरसि वा प्रधृता म्लानतया गुरुत्वेन वात्मनो न व्यपनयेत् । अर्थाद् अन्येनापनयेद् इत्य् उक्तं भवति । सर्व एवायं संध्यायां विधिर् इति केचित् ॥ ४.५५ ॥

‘Junction-time’—twilight.

‘Saṃveśana’—is sleeping.

Vedic Study also during twilight is going to be forbidden later on. Another Smṛti has forbidden intercourse with women also, during twilight, e.g.—‘At the time of twilight, one shall avoid four acts—eating, sexual intercourse, sleeping and reading.’

‘He shall not scratch the ground.’—What is forbidden is the tearing of the ground, and not the writing of letters, &c., with a writing-brush and such things.

‘He shall not remove his own garland.’—Flowers stringed together are called ‘garland;’ and when one has placed this upon his head, or on his neck, he himself should not remove it,—either because it has faded or because it is found to be too burdensome. What is meant is that he shall have it removed by another person.

Some people assert that the whole of the verse pertains to the time of twilight.—(55).

The first quarter of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290).

Viṣṇu (63.8).—‘Not at the twilights (shall he travel).’

Viṣṇu (68.12).—‘Not, at the twilights (shall he eat).’

Viṣṇu (71.42).—‘He shall not scratch the ground.’

Viṣṇu (71.55).—‘He shall not remove his own garland.’

055 Let him not eat, nor travel, nor sleep during the twilight; let him not scratch the ground; let him not take off his garland.

He shall not throw into water urine, or faeces, or spittings, or anything else contaminated by unclean things, or blood or poisons.—(56).

लोहितं रुधिरम् । विषाणीति बहुवचनं कृत्रिमाकृत्रिमभेदेन स्थावरजङ्गमभेदेन गरादिप्रकारभेदेन²⁵ वा ॥ ४.५६ ॥

‘Lohita’—Blood.

‘Poisons.’—The plural number is used, in view of there being several kinds of poison, which are divided into ‘natural’ and ‘artificial,’ or into ‘moveable’ and ‘immoveable,’ or into the various varieties of ‘gara’ and the rest.—(56).

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.30.18).—‘He shall not urinate or stool with shoes on; nor in a ploughed field, nor on the path, nor in water; such acts also he shall avoid as spitting in water.’

Viṣṇu (71.32.35).—‘He shall not throw any unclean thing into the fire, nor blood, nor poison;—not also in water.’

Yājñavalkya (1.137).—‘He shall not throw into water spittings, or blood, or faeces, or urine, or semen.’

056 Let him not throw urine or faeces into the water, nor saliva, nor (clothes) defiled by impure substances, nor any other (impurity), nor blood, nor poisonous things.

Alone he shall not sleep in a deserted house. He shall not offer advice to his superior. He shall not converse with a woman in her courses. He shall not go to a sacrifice uninvited.—(57).

शून्यं गृहं यत्र न कश्चित् प्रतिवसति । न श्रेयांसम् । कनीयान् वृत्तादिभिर् ज्येष्ठम् इदं ते युक्तम् इदम् अयुक्तम् इति हेतूपदेशादिना न प्रबोधयेत् । उदक्या रजस्वला । तया सह संभाषणं न कुर्यात् । यज्ञं गच्छेन् न चावृतः । यज्ञभूमिम् अनिमन्त्रितो न गच्छेत् । “दर्शनाय तु कामम्” इति गौतमः (ग्ध् ९.५५) । अतो यज्ञे भोजनादिप्रतिषेधो ऽयम् अवृतस्य ॥ ४.५७ ॥

‘Deserted house’—i.e., one in which no one lives.

‘His superior.’—One who is inferior, in occupation (learning, wealth, &c.), shall not address to his superior such words of advice as ‘this is proper for you,’ ‘that is improper,’ and so forth, accompanied by a statement of reasons and arguments.

‘Udakī’—a woman in her courses;—with her he shall carry on no conversation.

‘He shall not go uninvited to a sacrifice,’—i.e., to a place where a sacrifice is being performed. Gautama has said—‘For merely seeing it, he may go, if he desires’ (9-55); hence the present prohibition pertains to such things as eating and the like at sacrifices, without invitation.—(57).

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71), which explains ‘avṛtah’ as ‘without invitation from the sacrificer’, he should not go to a sacrifice, with the purpose of getting something; there is nothing wrong in merely going to see the performance, as distinctly stated by Gautama.

Gautama (9.54-55).—‘Uninvited, he shall not go to a sacrifice; but only for seeing it he may go, if he desires.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.39.40).—‘Uninvited, he shall not go to a sacrifice; in case he does go, he shall turn back in such a manner as to leave it on his right.’

Viṣṇu (70.13).—‘He shall not sleep either in the cremation-ground, or in an empty temple or in an empty house.’

Do. (71.56.58).—‘He shall not arouse a sleeping man; he shall not converse with a woman in her courses.’

Yājñavalkya (1.137).—‘He shall not drink water with joined hands; he shall not arouse a sleeping man.’

057 Let him not sleep alone in a deserted dwelling; let him not wake (a superior) who is sleeping; let him not converse with a menstruating woman; nor let him go to a sacrifice, if he is not chosen (to be officiating priest).

In the abode of fire, in the cow-pen, in the presence of Brāhmaṇas, during the reading of Vedas, at the time of eating, he shall uncover his right hand.—(58).

गोष्ठशब्दो ऽयं निवासवचनः समासप्रतिरूपकात्²⁶ शब्दान्तरम् । ब्राह्मणानाम् इति बहुवचनं विवक्षितम् । पाणिग्रहणं बाहूपलक्षणार्थम् । भोजने आत्मकर्तृके ॥ ४.५८ ॥

The term ‘goṣṭha,’ ‘pen’ signifies the dwelling-place; and it is a different word from the compound [ go + sthā, which means an abode of cows, and with which, therefore, the word ‘gavām,’ ‘of cows,’ would be superfluous].

‘Brāhmaṇas.’—Significance is meant to be attached to the plural number. [What is prescribed is to be done only when there are many Brāhmaṇas present].

‘Hand’ stands for the arm.

‘Eating.’—When he himself is eating.—(58).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 90), which explains ‘gavām goṣṭhe’ as ‘goviśisṭe goṣṭhe’,—and ‘dakṣiṇam etc.’ as ‘he should place the upper cloth on his left shoulder and keep the right one outside the cloth’;—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71).

Baudhāyana (2.3.58).—[Reproduces Manu, reading ‘madhye’ for ‘goṣṭhe’].

Viṣṇu (71.60).—‘He shall raise his right arm in the presence of fire, gods and Brāhmaṇas.’

Āpastamba (Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, p. 90).—‘In a temple, at Śrāddhas, in cow-pens, at sacrifices, near Brāhmaṇas, during the twilights, at meeting saintly men, in the fire-house, at marriages, during Vedic-study, during meals, one shall raise the right arm.’

Mahābhārata (12.193.20).—[Same as Manu, the first line being read as ‘Devāgāre gavūm madhye brāhmaṇānām kriyāpathe.’]

058 Let him keep his right arm uncovered in a place where a sacred fire is kept, in a cow-pen, in the presence of Brahmanas, during the private recitation of the Veda, and at meals.

He shall not prevent a heifer while she is drinking, nor shall he point her out to anybody. Having seen the rainbow in the sky, the wise man shall not show it to any person.—(59)

गाम् आत्मीयां परकीयां वा पिबन्तीं अपः पयो वा न वारयेत् । न चान्यस्मै कथयेत् । प्राग्दोहकालाद् अयं विधिः । दोहकाले तु प्रस्रवणं विहितम् । स्त्रीलिङ्गनिर्देशात् पुंवत्सनिवारणे न निषेधः । इन्द्रायुधं शक्रधनुर् विज्ञानच्छायेति या काश्मीरेषु कथ्यते । दिवीत्य् अनुवादः । केचित् तु पर्वतादिस्थस्य दर्शने न दोष इत्य् आहुस् तदर्थं दिवीति ॥ ४.५९ ॥

When a heifer—either his own or some-body’s—is drinking water or milk, he shall not prevent her; nor shall he tell of it to another person.

This rule refers to the time before milking. During milking, it has been enjoined that the flow of milk is to be accelarated (by keeping the calf near, and preventing it from sucking).

The feminine gender (in ‘dhāyantim’) implies that there is no harm in preventing a male calf from sucking.

‘Rainbow’;—that which is called ‘Śakradhanuṣ’ and ‘Vijñanacchāyā’ in Kaśmir. ‘In the sky;’—this is a needless reiteration. But some people have explained that this has been added for the purpose of indicating that there is no harm in seeing and showing the rainbow when it appears over a mountain.—(59)

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (pp. 71 and 68);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 71b).

Gautama (9.24-25).—‘When a heifer is drinking, he shall not point her out to another person; nor shall he prevent her.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.32, 33, 38).—‘He shall not tell another person—there is the rainbow;—if he does speak of it, he should call it the jewel-bow; he shall not tell another person of the heifer drinking.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.31.9, 10, 16).—‘He shall not point out to another person the cow that may he hankering after something; nor shall he, without sufficient reason, point her out to another person while she is joined by the calf; he shall not tell another person—there is the rainbow.’

Yājñavalkya (1.140.).—‘He shall not point out the drinking heifer; nor shall he enter anywhere except through the proper gate.’

Viṣṇu (71.61-62).—‘He shall not give Information regarding the cow that may be grazing in another man’s field; nor shall he point out the calf that may be drinking milk.’

059 Let him not interrupt a cow who is suckling (her calf), nor tell anybody of it. A wise man, if he sees a rainbow in the sky, must not point it out to anybody.

He shall not dwell long in an unrighteous village, nor in one abounding in sickness. Alone, he shall not undertake a journey; nor shall he reside for long on a mountain.—(60)

अधार्मिकाः पातकोपपातकिनो यत्र बाहुल्येन वसन्ति स ग्रामस् तत्संबन्धाद् अधार्मिक इत्य् उच्यते । तत्र न वसेत् । ग्रामग्रहणं निवासदेशोपलक्षणार्थम् । तेन नगरे ऽपि प्रतिषेधः । व्याधिबहुलो ऽनूपो देशः । व्याधिबहुले जाङ्गलदेशे न वसेत् । यत्र दैवदोषाद् व्याधयः प्रवृत्तास् तं देशं त्यजेत् । एकः असहायो नाध्वानं प्रपद्येत ॥ ४.६० ॥

The village, inhabited by many such persons as have committed sins of varying grades of seriousness, is, by reason of their presence, called ‘unrighteous.’ In such a village he shall not dwell. The term ‘village’ stands for human dwelling-places; hence the prohibition applies to cities also.

A marshy country abounds in sickness; in such a country, and in a desert, which also abounds in sickness, he shall not dwell. He shall also leave a country where by chance some epidemic might begin to rage.

^(‘)Alone’—without a companion—‘he shall not undertake a journey.’—(60)

**(verses 4.60-61)
**

Viṣṇu (63.2).—‘He shall not go on a journey, alone.’

Do. (72.64-68).—‘He shall not live in the kingdom of a Śūdra; nor in a place crowded with unrighteous people; he shall not live in a place where there is no physician; nor in a place frequented (by low castes); he shall not dwell for long on a mountain.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (16-22).—‘The dwelling of the Brāhmaṇa should be in a place where there is abundance of fuel and water, and where moving about is dependent upon himself.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (32.18).—‘He shall not attend on Śūdras; nor shall he dwell in places controlled by Śūdras.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.51).—‘The righteous man should try to live in a village where there is abundance of fuel and water, of fodder, sacrificial fuel, kuśa-grass and garlands, which is inhabited by wealthy persons, where idle men do not abound, where cultured people abound, and which cannot be entered by robbers.’

060 Let him not dwell in a village where the sacred law is not obeyed, nor (stay) long where diseases are endemic; let him not go alone on a journey, nor reside long on a mountain.

He shall not dwell in a country with a Śūdra King; nor in one surrounded by unrighteous persons; nor in one occupied by impostors;. nor in one frequented by men of the lowest castes.—(61)

जनपदैश्वर्यं²⁷ राज्यं । यो जनपदः शूद्रवशवर्ती तत्र न वसेत् । मन्त्रिसेनापतिदण्डकारिकाद्याः सप्त प्रकृतयो राज्यम् । यत्र सर्वाः शूद्रजातीयाः तत्र निवासनिषेधो ऽयम् ।

• ननु च “नादार्मिके वसेत्” (म्ध् ४.६०) इत्य् अनेनैव तत्सिद्धम् अधार्मिकजनावृत इति ।

• नैष दोषः । पूर्वप्रतिषेधो यत्र ते निवसन्ति । अयं पुनर् अन्यत्रापि निवासतो ऽन्यत्र संनिहिता यदि भवन्ति तथापि तत्र प्रदेशे न वसितव्यम् । तथा चावृतग्रहणम् अत्र । यः प्रदेश एतैर् आवृतो न तत्र स्थातव्यम् । एवं पाषण्डिजनैर्²⁸ य आक्रान्तो देशः । यद्य् अप्य् अधार्मिकास् ते वेदबाह्यत्वात्, तथापि तेषां धर्मबुद्धिर् इति भेदेन निर्देशः । अन्त्यैर् उपसृष्टे संबद्धे । अथ वा उपतप्ते उपसृष्टे । यथा वाह्लीका म्लेच्छैः ॥ ४.६१ ॥

‘Kingship’ consists in ruling over a country; he shall not dwell in a country which is under the sway of a Śūdra. The term ‘King’ here stands for the seven constituents of Kingship,—vis., the minister! the commander of the army, the judge, and so forth; and the present verse forbids dwelling in a country where all of them belong to the Śūdra caste.

Objection:—“It having been already said that he shall not dwell in an unrighteous village, what is meant by ‘in a country surrounded by unrighteous persons’ is already implied.”

There is no force in this objection. The former prohibition refers to dwelling in a place inhabited by unrighteous persons; while what the present verse means is that one shall not live in a place where unrighteous persons, living elsewhere, may happen to congregate. That is why the text has used the term ‘surrounded;’ the sense being that ‘one shall not stay at a place which is crowded by such persons.’

Similarly with the country swarming with ‘impostors.’ Though these also, being outside the pale of ‘Vedic religion,’ are included among the ‘unrighteous,’ yet they have been mentioned separately in consideration of the fact that they pretend to be ‘righteous.’

‘Frequented by’—associated with—‘men of the lowest castes.’ Or, ‘frequented’ may mean ‘harassed;’ e.g., the Bāhlīka country, which is frequently outrun by barbarians.—(61)

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (p. 20).

**(verses 4.60-61)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.60].

061 Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Sudras, nor in one which is surrounded by unrighteous men, nor in one which has become subject to heretics, nor in one swarming with men of the lowest castes.

He shall not eat anything from which oil has been extract ed; he shall not commit gluttony; he shall not eat very early in the morning, nor very late in the evening; nor in the evening, if he has eaten in the morning.—(62).

उपनीतः स्नेहो यस्य स नाशितव्यः- पिण्याकयूषमांसानि । तस्य क्रतुपर्युषितानां²⁹ च³⁰ पयोविकाराणां प्रतिप्रसवं करिष्यति (च्ड़्। म्ध् ५.२४–२५) । तक्रकिलाटाद्यपेक्षयैव बहुवचनम् । साक्षाद्विकारो हि दध्य् एव । तन्मात्रप्रसवे ऽभिप्रेते दधिग्रहणम् एवाकरिष्यत् । तेनाविधानार्थः । न हि दध्नः पर्युषितत्वम् अस्ति । तस्माद् उदश्वित्तक्रकिलाटादिकानां पयोविकाराणां नायं प्रतिषेधः ।

• नातिसौहित्यं तृप्तिं न कुर्यात् । तत्र कुक्षेर् भागः । एको ह्य् अन्नस्य अपरो³¹ हि द्रवस्योदकादेः अपरो देषसंचरणार्थ इत्य् एवं भोक्तव्यम् इति — तत्³² कार्यम् । अतिप्रगे प्राह्णे³³ प्रथमोदित एव सूर्ये न भुञ्जीत । प्रहरे अतीते कृशानां पूर्वाह्णे, इतरेषां मध्याह्ने । नातिसायम् अस्तसमयसमये³⁴ न भुञ्जीत । न सायं भुञ्जीत³⁵ प्रातर् आशितस् तृप्तः । तस्मात् साकांक्षम् अशितव्यं कालद्वये ऽपि । तद् उक्तम् “सायं प्रातर् मनुष्याणाम् अशनं देवनिर्मितम्” (म्भ् १३.१४८.१४) इति । यदि तु प्रातस् तृप्तः स्यात् सायं न भुञ्जीत ।

• अथ वैवं व्याख्यायते । न सायं प्रातर् आशितः स्यात्, उभयोर् अन्नकालयोर् न तृप्येत् । तथा च याज्ञवल्क्यः सायम् ईषद्भोजनम् आह (य्ध् १.११४) ॥ ४.६२ ॥

He shall not eat anything from which oil has been extracted; for instance, the oil-cake, juices and meat. Later on (5.24-25), the Author shall provide a counter-exception in the case of sacrificial remnants and preparations of milk kept over-night; and the plural number (in the term ‘preparations of milk’) is used in consideration of the large number of much preparations as whey, coagulated milk and so forth; though curd alone is the direct preparation of milk. But if curd alone were meant to be included in the counter-exception, then the Author would have mentioned that alone by name. So that curd can never be regarded as ‘kept over-night.’ From this it follows that the prohibition contained in the present verse does not apply to whey, coagulated milk and such other preparations of milk.

‘He shall not commit gluttony’—Eat too much. The stomach is divided into three parts: one part is to be filled with solid food, another with water and other liquids, and the third is to be left empty for the moving about of the juices; it is in this manner that one should eat; and this means that he shall not commit gluttony.

‘Very early’—i.e., just at sun-rise, one should not eat. For weaker people, the proper time for eating is after the expiry of three hours in the morning, and for other persons it is midday.

‘Not very late in the evening’—i.e., one shall not eat at sunset; ‘nor in the evening, if the has eaten in the morning’— to his fill. This means that at both times one should eat while some hunger is still left. This is what has been thus asserted—‘Morning and evening are the two times for eating, ordained by the gods. But if one has eaten to his fill in the morning, then he shall not eat in the evening.’

Or, the text may be explained in the following manner:—‘He shall not eat to his fill both in the morning and in the evening.’ It is in view of this that Yājñavalkya (Acāra, 114) has advised light food in the evening.—(62)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 476), which explains ‘uddhṛtasneham’ as refering to ‘piṇyāka’ (residue of seeds ground for oil) and things of that kind; and ‘atiprage’, as ‘before the sun long risen’;—the third quarter is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3. 290);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 30), as precluding the time of sunset and sunrise, and explains

‘Sauhitya’ as ‘over-satisfaction ‘satiation’;—and in Saṃskāramyūkha (p. 71), which remarks that by this the eating of ‘takra’ becomes wrong; as there is nothing to justify an exception in favour of takra; it explains ‘Sauhitya’ as ‘over-eating’.

Gautama (9.58).—‘He shall not eat things out of which the essence has been extracted,—such as oil-cake and the like.’

Viṣṇu (68.12,27).—‘He shall not eat during the twilights; nor things out of which the oil has been extracted.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra, (2.1.3).—‘He shall partake of food—without being entirely satisfied’

Yājñavalkya (1.114).—‘Having said the evening prayers, having offered oblation into the fires and having attended upon them, he shall take his meals, without being entirely satisfied, and then go to sleep.’

Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 475).—‘One should never eat unwholesome food,—neither too early, etc. (as in Manu).’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do., p. 476).—‘One should not eat while there is indigestion,… nor during the twilights, or at midday or at midnight.’

Devala (Do., p. 477).—‘One should never eat without clarified butter.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do., p. 478).—‘One shall not eat at an improper time.’

062 Let him not eat anything from which the oil has been extracted; let him not be a glutton; let him not eat very early (in the morning), nor very late (in the evening), nor (take any food) in the evening, if he has eaten (his fill) in the morning.

He shall not put forth any exertion without a purpose. He shall not drink water with joined hands. He shall not eat articles of food in his lap. He shall never be too curious.—(63)

वृथाचेष्टा दृष्टादृष्टयोर् व्यापारयोर् अनुपकारः । यथा इतरदेशादिवार्तापरत्वम् । संहतौ पाणी अञ्जलिः । तेनोदकं न पिबेत् । वारिग्रहणात् क्षीरादीनाम् अप्रतिषेधः । न उत्सङ्गे । भक्ष्या धानाशष्कुल्यादयः । तान् उत्सङ्ग ऊर्वोर् उपरि न भक्षयेत् । भक्ष्यग्रहणात् फलानाम् अपि प्रतिषेधः । सक्त्वोदनादेस् तु निरुपसेचनीयस्यानदनीयत्वाद् उत्सङ्गे प्राप्तिर् एव नास्ति । कुतूहलं असति प्रोजने किम् एतत् स्याद् इति निश्चये अत्यर्थम् उत्कलिका । न जातु कदाचित् ॥ ४.६३ ॥

‘Exertion without a purpose’—i.e., that which does not bring any benefit, preceptible or imperceptible; e.g., hankering after news of other countries, and so forth.

‘Añjali’ is joined palms;—with this ‘he shall not drink water.’ Since water is mentioned by name, the prohibition does not apply to milk and other liquids.

‘Articles of food in his lap’—fried grains and cakes, &c., he shall not eat, while they are on his thighs. The term ‘articles of food’ extends the prohibition to fruits also. As for rice, the mixture of fried Hour with water and such other semi-liquid things as cannot be eaten without mixing water,—there is no possibility of their being eaten on the lap.

‘Curiosity’—is over-eagerness for information about things, without any purpose.

‘Na jātu’—never.—(63).

Gautama (9.9, 51, 56).—‘He shall not drink with joined hands. He shall not do such acts as cutting, breaking, scratching, crushing, clapping, without reason. He shall not eat articles of food on his lap.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.26).—‘He shall not eat food on his lap.’

Viṣṇu (68.21).—‘Not in his lap.’

Viṣṇu (62.69).—‘He shall not do any purposeless act.’

063 Let him not exert himself without a purpose; let him not drink water out of his joined palms; let him not eat food (placed) in his lap; let him not show (idle) curiosity.

He shall not dance, nor sing, nor play upon musical instruments, nor clap, nor grind his teeth, nor, when satisfied, shall he create enmity.—(64)

नर्तनं गात्रविक्षेपविशेषः लोकप्रसिद्ध एव । गायनं षड्जादिस्वरतः शब्दस्य करणम् । लौकिकस्य चायं प्रतिषेधो न वैदिकस्य, विहितत्वात् । वादित्राणि वीणावंशमृदङ्गादीनि । तेषां स्वयंकर्तृकं वादनं प्रतिषिध्यते । वादकैस् तु वाद्यमानानाम् अप्रतिषेधः³⁶ । न हि ण्यन्ताद् अयं णिजन्त इति प्रमाणम् अस्ति । आस्फोटनं करमर्दास्फोटनादि पाणिना भूमौ बहुनिर्घातः स शब्दः । क्ष्वेडेति अव्यक्तं दन्तैः शब्दकरणम्, क्ष्वेडनिकेति प्रसिद्धा । वल्गनं अन्यत्³⁷ । रागी परितुष्टे³⁸ न विरोधयेत् विरोधं न कुर्यात् । पीडिते न निषेधः । घञन्ताण्णिच् कर्तव्यः ॥ ४.६४ ॥

‘Dancing’—Throwing about of the limbs in a particular manner, as is well known among people.

‘Singing’—is the producing of sound in the ‘Ṣadja’ and other notes of music. What is forbidden here is ordinary temporal, not Vedic, singing; the latter being actually enjoined.

‘Musical instruments’—such as, the lute, the flute, the drum, and so forth. What is forbidden is the man himself playing upon these; and not making other people play upon them; as there is nothing to justify the construing of the verb ‘vādayet’ as containing a two-fold causal affix ‘ṇich’—which alone could afford the meaning of ‘making to play.’

‘Clapping’—the sound made by the clapping of the hands, or by striking the ground with the hand, and so forth.

‘Grinding o f teeth’—the indistinct sound made by the teeth is what is known by the name of ‘Kṣveḍanika.’

If the man happens to be satisfied with anpther person, he shall not create enmity with him. The prohibition does not apply to the case where the man is harassed by the other person. The term ‘virodhayet’ is to be explained as ‘virodham’ (this noun being found by the addition of the nominal affix ‘ghan (?)’) ‘kuryāt’ (this being the connotation of the ‘ṇich’ affix).—(64)

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramyūkha (p. 71).

‘Kṣveḍet’—‘Grind his teeth’ (Medhātithi);—‘roar like a lion’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘snap his fingers’ (Nandana).

‘Sphoṭayet—‘slap’ (Medhātithi);—‘make his fingers crack’ (Nandana).

Gautama (9.51).—[See above.]

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.20.16).—‘Clappings—without reason (should be avoided).’

Viṣṇu (71.70-71).—‘Not dancing or singing;—nor clapping.’

Pāraskara (2.7.3-4).—‘He shall not do, nor go to, any dancing or singing or playing of musical instruments. Singing he may do; but being captivated by the singing of some one else is a totally different thing.’

064 Let him not dance, nor sing, nor play musical instruments, nor slap (his limbs), nor grind his teeth, nor let him make uncouth noises, though he be in a passion.

He shall never wash his feet in a vessel of white brass. He shall not eat out of a broken dish; nor out of one that is felt to be defiled.—(65)

कांस्ये भाजने पादौ न प्रक्षालयेत् । भिन्नभाण्डे एकदेशभिन्ने ऽपि । सर्वभिन्नेष्व् अर्थत एव प्रतिषेधः । पत्रपुटकादीनां तु भिन्नभाण्डाव्यवहारात् छिद्रितानाम् अपि न दोषः । भावः अन्तर्हृदयाभिप्रायः । यत्र मनो न परितुष्यति । शब्ददुष्टे वा पतद्गृहादौ³⁹ । तत्रापि नैवं भावप्रसादो भवति ॥ ४.६५ ॥

He should not wash his feet in a vessel of white brass.

In a broken vessel—even in one that may be broken in a single place;—the use of one that is broken all over would be forbidden by its very nature. In the case of cups, etc., made of leaves, however, since these are never regarded as ‘broken vessels,’ there would be no harm in using them, even though they may have holes.

‘Bhāva’ is feeling in mind; that vessel with which the mind does not feel satisfied; or that which is defiled by name—such as ‘patadgraha,’ ‘spittoon,’ and the like, in the case of these latter also, the mind does not feel satisfied.—(65)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 328), which adds that the prohibition regarding the ‘broken vessel’ applies to vessels of metal other than copper and the like;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71);—and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 839).

Viṣṇu (68-20).—‘Not in a broken dish.’

Viṣṇu (72.39-40).—‘He shall not wash in a vessel of white brass;—nor shall he rub one foot with another.’

065 Let him never wash his feet in a vessel of white brass; let him not eat out of a broken (earthen) dish, nor out of one that (to judge) from its appearance (is) defiled.

He shall not use shoes, on clothes, or sacred thread, or ornament, or garland, or water-pot, which has been used by others.—(66)

पित्रादिभ्यो ऽन्यैर् धृतं न धारयेत् । “निर्णिज्याशक्तौ” इति गौतमः (ग्ध् ९.६) । करकः कमण्डलुस् तस्य पित्रादिधृतस्यापि धारणं समाचारविरुद्धम् । संबन्धिरूपो ऽसाव् इष्यते । यस्यैव संबन्धी तस्यैव शुचिर् नान्यस्य । अलंकारो दन्तवलयादिः । करकादिभिर् अल्पार्थैः साहचर्यात्, मणिमुक्तादेस् तु न निषेध इति केचित् ॥ ४.६६ ॥

He should not wear these things, when they have been worn by his father and others. Gautama says—‘In cases of disability, these may be used after having been washed.’ (97 (9.7?))

‘Karaka’ is the water-pot; the using of the pot that is used by even his father is contrary to usage. The pot is held to be a relative substance, and hence can be used only by one to whom it belongs, and by no other person.

‘Ornament’—bracelet of ivory, and so forth. By reason of this being mentioned along with such cheap articles as the ‘water-pot,’ and the like, it follows that the use of jewelry and pearl-ornaments is not forbidden. This is the view of some people.—(66)

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 671);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 195) as laying down certain rules for the Accomplished Student;—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 313), which explains ‘Karaka’ as Kamaṇḍalu, water-pot;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 71b);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 319), which also explains ‘Karaka’ as Kamaṇḍalu.

Gautama (9.4-5).—‘He shall not wear an obtrusively red cloth, which has been worn by another; nor garland or shoes.’

Viṣṇu (71-47).—‘He shall not wear clothes, shoes, garlands, and sacred thread, which have been worn by others.’

066 Let him not use shoes, garments, a sacred string, ornaments, a garland, or a water-vessel which have been used by others.

He shall not travel with untrained beasts of burden; nor with such as are suffering from hunger or disease; nor with those whose horns, eyes or hoofs are injured; nor with those that are disfigured by their tails.—(67)

अविनीता अदान्ता गावो ऽश्वाश्वतरादयः । धुर्या धुरं वहन्ति युज्यन्ते । गन्त्र्यादेर् उपलक्षणम् । चग्रहणं अनियुक्तैर् अपि धुरि, केवलैर् अदान्तैः⁴⁰ गमनं नेष्यते । भग्नं शृङ्गं यस्य⁴¹ अनडुहः, तस्यैव शृङ्गसंभवः, नाश्वादेः । वालधिः पुच्छस् तेन विरूपिताः छिन्नपुच्छादयः । तादृशेन न यायात् । आरोहणम् एव स्मृत्यन्तरे प्रतिषिद्धम्⁴² ॥ ४.६७ ॥

‘Untrained’—i.e., not trained; oxen, horses, mules and so forth, which are yoked to chariots, etc. The use of ‘ca’ indicates that one shall not ride upon untrained beasts,???en (even?) when they are not yoked to chariots, etc.

The ‘injured horn’ pertains to the ox only; as that alone has horns, and not horses and other animals.

‘Bāladhi’ is tail; those that have been disfigured by their tails; whose tails have been cut off.

One should not travel on such animals. Another Smṛti text prohibits merely getting upon the back of such animals.—(67)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 173);—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 126).

**(verses 4.67-68)
**

Viṣṇu (3.13-17).—‘He shall not be carried by such beasts as are constantly suffering from their tails or some disease;—nor by such as are deficient in their limbs, nor by such as are poorly, nor by bullocks, nor by such as are not trained.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 174).—‘One should not ride on wicked or defective conveyances.’

067 Let him not travel with untrained beasts of burden, nor with (animals) that are tormented by hunger or disease, or whose horns, eyes, and hoofs have been injured, or whose tails have been disfigured.

He should always travel with beasts that are trained, fast, equipped with signs, well endowed with colour and figure,—without striking them much with the goad.—(68)

दृप्यमाना अपि केचिद् विनयं न संगृह्णन्ति । तदर्थम् आह- विनीतैर् इति, सुशिक्षितैः । आशुगैः क्षिप्रगामिभिः । लक्षणान्वितैः प्रशस्तावर्तादियुक्तैः, न शून्यमस्तकादिभिः । वर्णरूपयुक्तैः । शोभनेन वर्णेन रुक्मशोणादिना,⁴³ रूपेण संस्थानविशेषेण । शोभनत्वं च लक्षणविद्यातो ज्ञात्व्यम् । भृशम् अक्षिपन् अपीडयन् । पुनः पुनः प्रतोदेन अङ्कुशादिना अत्यन्तम् उद्वेक्ष्यमाणा विघटयन्ति ॥ ४.६८ ॥

Some people, in their audacity, do not make any attempt at training animals. It is with a view to this that the Author adds this verse.

‘Trained’—well-broken.

‘Fast’—swift going.

‘Equipped with signs’—w ith such signs as auspicious hair-whorls, and the like, and not with such unlucky marks as a bare forehead and the like.

‘Endowed with colour and form’—‘Colour’ stands for the brightness of the skin, etc., and ‘form’ for the shape of the limbs. The ‘goodness’ of these has to be ascertained with the help of treatises dealing with the characterestics of animals, etc.

‘Without striking much’—not causing them pain, again and again ,—‘ with the goad;’ as being struck again and again with the hook, etc., they become perturbed and cause injury. (68)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 126).

**(verses 4.67-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.67].

068 Let him always travel with (beasts) which are well broken in, swift, endowed with lucky marks, and perfect in colour and form, without urging them much with the goad.

The young sun and the smoke from the dead body, should be avoided, as also a broken seat. He shall not cut his nails and hair, nob shall he tear his nails with his teeth.—(69)

प्रथमोदिते सवितरि मुहूर्तत्रयं बालातपव्यपदेशः । प्रेतधूमो दह्यमानस्य शवस्य यः । आसनं भिन्नं⁴⁴ छिद्रितं भग्नम् । एतद् वर्ज्यम् । नखानि रोमाणि च न छिन्द्यात् स्वयं व्यसनेन, अतिप्रवृद्धानि तु नापितेन कारयेत् । दन्तैश् च नखान् नोत्पाटयेत् प्रवृद्धान् अपि ।

• अन्ये त्व् एवम् अभिसंबध्नन्ति । न छिन्द्यान् नखरोमाणि दन्तैर् इति । नखांश् च दन्तेनापि न पातयेत् ।

• नखभङ्गयोजनासु हि कामिन्यो नाना नखान् दारयन्ति ॥ ४.६९ ॥

For three ‘muhūrtas’ after rising, the sun is called the ‘young sun,’

‘Smoke from the dead body’—that which rises from a dead body being burnt.

‘Broken seat’—i.e., that which is torn, or with holes, or injured. All this should be avoided.

‘He shall not cut his nails and hair’—himself; when they have grown too long, he should get them cut by the barber.

He should not tear his nails—even though they may have become very long—with his teeth.

Others construe as follows:—‘He shall not cut bis nails and hair with his teeth,—aud the nails he shall not cut even with his teeth.’

Young women often tear their nails, in the process of adorning, them.—(69)

‘Bālātapaḥ’—The morning sun’ (Medhātithi);—‘the Sun in the sign of Virgo, i.e., the autumnal Sun’ (Rāghavānanda).

‘Na chindyānnakharomāni’—‘He should not clip his nails or hair,’—‘himself, i.e., he should employ a barber’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja),—‘before they have grown long’ (Kullūka),—‘except at the proper time for dipping’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71), which explains ‘Bālātapa’ as the ‘autumnal Sun’ [‘Bāla’ standing for the zodiacal sign of Kanyā, Virgo, and it is during the month of Kārtika that the Sun (ātapa) is in that sign].

Viṣṇu (71.44, 46).—‘He shall not cut his nails or hair with his teeth; he shall avoid sitting under the young sun.’

Yājñavalkya (1.139).—‘He should avoid the smoke issuing from the dead body.’

069 The morning sun, the smoke rising from a (burning) corpse, and a broken seat must be avoided. Let him not clip his nails or hair, and not tear his nails with his teeth.

He shall not crush clods of earth; nor shall he cut grass with hi s nails. He shall not do an aimless act, nor one that is likely to lead to disagreeable results.—(70)

विमर्दनं खण्डशः करणं लोष्ठस्य मृत्संबन्धिनः ।

• केचित् तु मृदो लोष्ठस्य सुधादिसंबन्धिनो ऽपि । मृदश् च मर्दनम् उत्क्षिप्योत्क्षिप्य पातनम्, हस्तेन संहननं वा ।

• एतच् च मर्दनं यत्किंचनकारितया प्राप्तं नीषिध्यते, न तु शौचाद्यर्थे प्रयोजने । निष्फलग्रहणस्य पुरस्ताद् अपकर्षात् । तेनैव सिद्धे प्रायश्चित्तविशेषार्थः पुनर् आरम्भः ।

• करजा नखाः । न कर्म । ननु च “न कुर्वीत वृथाचेष्टाम्” (म्ध् ४.६३) इत्य् अनेनैव निष्फलं कर्म । अत्राहुः । चेष्टा भौतिको व्यापारः । इह तु सामान्यस्य पर्युदासः । तेन मनोराज्यादिकल्पाः परिहरणीयाः । आयतिर् आगामी कालः । यस्मात् कर्मण आगामिनि काले असुखं दुःखम् उत्पद्यते, यथा अजीर्णभोजनम्, कुटुम्बभृतिम् अचिन्तयित्वा महतो धनस्य व्ययश् च । तं न कुर्यात् ॥ ४.७० ॥

अत्रार्थवादः ।

‘Crushing’ means breaking into pieces—of clods of earth; some people hold that this refers also to such clods of earth as are mixed with lime or other mortar. The ‘crushing’ of the earth-clod, consists either in raising it and then throwing it down, or by pressing it with the hands.

The crushing that is forbidden here is one that is done aimlessly; nor when it is done for the purpose of being used in cleaning the hands, etc.,—the term ‘aimless’ of the next line being construed with this also. Though, as such, the crushing would be included under the ‘aimless act,’ yet it has been mentioned separately, with a view to the different expiatory rite that has been prescribed in connection with it.

‘Karaja’ are nails.

‘No aimless act.’—Objection—“The aimless act has been already prohibited under ‘purposeless exertion’ (63).”

Some people offer the following explanation:—‘Exertion’ denotes physical activity; while what is forbidden here is activity in general (in all its forms); which means that the building of airy castles is to be avoided.

‘Āyati’ denotes future time. That act from which there follows, in the future, some disagreeable, result; e.g., eating to indigestion, spending one’s wealth without any consideration for the maintenance of one’s family and dependants. All this he shall not do.—(70)

In support of the. above, we have the following commendatory description—

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183), which explains ‘āyati’ as ‘pariṇāma’, ‘result’—‘Karma’ as Saṅkalpa ‘volition’, ‘determination’; and this is ‘fruitless,’ ‘niṣphala’, when it turns out to be false, i.e., when the determination is not carried into practice; as regards the crushing of clods etc., what is to be avoided is the habit of doing it;—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 72).

**(verses 4.70-71)
**

Gautama (9.51).—‘Cutting, breaking, scratching, rubbing and clapping—these he shall not do without some purpose.’

Āpastamba (1.32.28).—‘Grass-chopping, clod-crushing, spitting—these, without necessity (should be avoided).’

Viṣṇu (71.42-43).—‘He shall not be a clod-crusher; nor a grass-chopper.’

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 104.15).—‘He who crushes clods of earth or chops grass or eats his nails, is ever unclean and never attains long life.’

070 Let him not crush earth or clods, nor tear off grass with his nails; let him not do anything that is useless or will have disagreeable results in the future.

A man who crushes clods, cuts grass or bites his nails, quickly goes to perdition; so also the back-biter and the unclean man.—(71)

अस्माद् एव केवलाल् लोष्ठग्रहणात् पूर्वोक्तमृल्लोष्ठम् इति षष्ठीसमासो विज्ञायते । उभयप्राधान्ये हि मृद्ग्रहणं लोष्ठ इव अत्राकरिष्यत⁴⁵ । तस्यैव हस्तेन सुमर्दत्वात् प्राप्तः पर्युदासः । सुधायास् तु काठिन्याद् यत्नसाध्यं मर्दनम्, तन् नैवासति प्रयोजने प्राप्तम् । मृल्लोष्ठमर्दनं तु हस्तेन पुरुषाणां स्वभावतः केषांचित् प्राप्नोति । तस्य पर्युदासः ।

• तृणच्छेदी प्रकृतः । दन्तैर् नखान् खादति । सूचकः पिशुनः कर्णेजपः । यः परस्य दोषान् असतः सतो वा परोक्षं व्याख्यापयति । अशुचिर् उक्तार्थः । विनाशम् आशु व्रजति । न यथान्यानि वैदिकान्य् अनियतकालानि फलानि एवम् एतत्, किं तर्हि इहैव जन्मनि अचिराद् धनादिना वियोगो विनाशः ॥ ४.७१ ॥

It is in view of the word ‘loṣṭha,’ ‘clod,’ being used here by itself that the compound ‘mṛlloṣṭha’ of the preceding verse has been taken as a Tatpuruṣa compound; for, if both ‘mṛt’ and ‘loṣṭha’ were meant (and the compound were a Dvandva one) then, in the present verse also, ‘mṛt’ would have been mentioned in the same manner as ‘loṣṭha.’ Since clods are capable of being easily crushed, people are likely to do it; hence it becomes necessary to forbid it. As for lime-mortar, its crushing requires great effort, and hence people are not likely to do it needlessly. As for the crushing of earth-clods, on the other hand, some people are inclined, by their very nature, to do it; hence its prohibition.

‘Who cuts grass’—as mentioned in the preceding verse.

‘He who bites his nails’—with his teeth.

‘Sūcakaḥ’—the informer, the back-biter; he who describes, behind his back, the defects, real or unreal, of another person.

‘Unclean’—already explained.

‘Quickly goes to perdition.’—Other Vedic acts are uncertain regarding the time at which their results appear; but the act here mentioned is not so; its result appears ‘quickly’—in this very life—in the shape of the loss of wealth, &c., which is what is meant here by ‘perdition.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183),—and again on (p. 253), as lending support to the idea that the man himself becomes ‘unclean’ by dealing with ‘unclean things.’

**(verses 4.70-71)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.70].

071 A man who crushes clods, tears off grass, or bites his nails, goes soon to perdition, likewise an informer and he who neglects (the rules of) purification.

He shall hot carry on a wrangling conversatioh. He shall not wear a garland outside. Riding on the back of cows and oxen is altogether deprecated.—(72)

अभिनिवेशेन पणबन्धादिना यल् लौकिकेषु शास्त्रेषु वार्थेष्व् इतरेतरं जल्पनम् अहोपुरुषिका या, सा विगृह्य कथा । बहिर्माल्यम् । वाससो बहिः कण्ठस्थां स्रजं वाससा छादयेत् । तथा च समाचारः ।

• अपरे बहिर् इत्य् अनावृतो देश उच्यते । तत्र नगररथ्यादौ न प्रकटमाल्यो भ्राम्येद् इत्य् आहुः ।

• अथ वा बहिर्गन्धं बहिर्माल्यम्, यस्य गन्धो नातिसंवेद्यते । एवं स्मृत्यन्तरम्- “नागन्धां स्रजं धारयेद् अन्यत्र हिरण्मय्या” इति । गवां च पृष्ठे यानं पर्याणं विना साक्षाद् गवारोहणं प्रतिषिध्यते । सर्वथेति । पर्याणाद्यन्तराये ऽपि गन्त्र्यादियुक्ते ऽपृष्ठयानत्वाद् अप्रतिषेधः ॥ ४.७२ ॥

When, either in ordinary conversation or in literary discussions, one talks with passion and lays a wager, and so forth, always trying to show himself off,—this is what is called ‘wrangling conversation.’

‘Garland outside;’—i.e., if the garland happen to be above the clothing, it should be hidden with a piece of cloth. Such is the custom also.

Others have explained ‘outside’ to mean an open public place. The sense of the text in that case would be that one should not wander about in public places, as the road, &c., with a garland too obtrusively worn.

Or, ‘bahirmālya’ may mean that whose fragrance has gone out; i.e., whose odour is not felt. Says another Smṛti text—‘One should not wear an odourless garland, except that made of gold.’

‘Riding on the back of cows’— What is forbidden is riding on the bare back, without a saddle.—‘Altogether.’ When a saddle has been put on, or the animal has been harnessed to the cart, &c., then it would not be ‘riding on the back;’ and hence these are not forbidden.—(72)

‘Vahirmālyam’—‘Garland over the dress’ (Medhātithi);—‘garland over the head’ (Kullūka);—‘garland on public roads and such uncovered places’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi);—or ‘garland without scent’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 72), which adds that going on carts drawn by bullocks is only slightly reprehensible (not sarvathā, wholly, reprehensible, as riding on their back is).

Gautama (9.33).—‘Blowing fire with the mouth, wrangling conversation, obtrusive wearing of garlands and sandal-paste, touching of unclean things, eating with his wife…… these he shall avoid.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.30).—‘He shall not wear the garland obtrusively.’

Āpastamba (1.32-5).—‘He shall wear garlands and sandal-paste unobtrusively.’

Viṣṇu (71.22).—‘He shall not wear such garland as is either entirely devoid of fragrance or one whose fragrance is very strong, or which is red.’

072 Let him not wrangle; let him not wear a garland over (his hair). To ride on the back of cows (or of oxen) is anyhow a blamable act.

He shall hot enter a walled village or house, except through the gate. At night, he shalt, keep away, at a long distance, from the roots of trees.—(73)

आवृतस्य वाटपरिक्षेपादिना ग्रामस्य अद्वारप्रवेशप्रतिषेधः । अनावृतस्य तु द्वारवतो ऽपि यथाकामम् ॥ ४.७३ ॥

It is only in the case of the walled village that the text forbids entering, except through the gate, by passing over the walls and such other means. In the case of the unwalled village, one might do as one pleases, even though there he gates.—(73)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 184),—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 72).

Gautama (9.33).—‘Blowing the fire with the mouth……, entering by the wrong gate……,—these he shall avoid.’

Āpastamba (1.31.21).—‘He shall not enter the village by the wrong way; if he does so enter it, he shall recite the mantra Namo rudrāya vāstoṣpataye, etc., or some other mantra sacred to Rudra.’

Pāraskara (2.7.6).—‘Looking at the water-reservoir, climbing the tree……, crossing over dangerous places………, these he shall avoid.’

Yājñavalkya (1.140).—‘He shall not enter anywhere except through the right gate.’

Gobhila (3.5.35).—‘He shall not pass into a village by the wrong way.’

073 Let him not enter a walled village or house except by the gate, and by night let him keep at a long distance from the roots of trees.

He shall never gamble with dice; he shall not himself carry his shoes; he shall not eat, seated on a bed; nor what has been placed in his hand or on the seat.—(74)

अन्तरेणापि ग्लहम्, परिहासेन नाक्षैर् दीव्येद् इति । कदाचिद्ग्रहणं शलाकादीनाम् अपि दर्शनार्थम् । तेन सर्वस्य द्यूतस्य प्रतिषेधः । स्वयं चर्ममयं पादत्राणम् उपानहौ⁴⁶, ते आत्मना हस्तेन दण्डादिना वा गृहीत्वा देशान्तरं न नयेत्⁴⁷ । आत्मीययोश् चायं प्रतिषेधः, स्वयम् इति प्रकृतत्वात् । तेन च गुर्वादिसंबन्धिन्योर् अनिषेधः । शयने खट्वादौ उपविश्य न भुञ्जीत, पाणौ च कवलं स्थापयित्वा, भाजनाद्यनन्तरितेन आसने अन्नं स्थापयित्वा । आनन्तर्याद् भोज्यस्य प्रतिनिर्देशः, न भोक्तुः ॥ ४.७४ ॥

Even without stakes, in mere joke also, ‘he shall never gamble with dice.’ The term ‘never’ is used for the purpose of precluding the use of sticks, and such other implements also. Hence all kinds of gambling are forbidden.

His shoes, made of leather, he shall not carry from one place to another, ‘himself’—i.e., taking them in his own hand, or hanging them on his stick. This prohibition applies to one’s own shoes, as is clear from the term ‘himself;’ hence the carrying of the shoes belonging to one’s Teacher or other superiors is not forbidden.

‘On a bed,’—seated on a conch, and such other things—‘he shall not eat;’ nor placing the food-morsel on his hand; nor placing the food on the sent, without an intervening dish. That this pertains to the food, and not to the eater, is clear from the juxtaposition of what has gone before.—(74)

‘Na pāṇistham’—‘Placed in the left hand’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘served in the hand, and not in a dish’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka).

Gautama (9.33).—‘Blowing the fire with the mouth……, eating seated on the stool………, these he shall avoid.’

Baudhāyana (3.2.26-27).—‘He shall not eat food on his lap; he shall not eat seated on the stool.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.33).—‘He shall not eat food on his lap; nor seated on a stool.’

Viṣṇu (6.8.19).—‘[He shall not eat while] on the bed.’

Viṣṇu (71.45).—‘He shall avoid gambling.’

Yājñavalkya (1.138).—‘He shall not drink water in his hands…… nor shall he gamble with dice.’

Gobhila (3.5.12).—‘He shall not carry his own shoes.’

074 Let him never play with dice, nor himself take off his shoes; let him not eat, lying on a bed, nor what has been placed in his hand or on a seat.

Any food containing sesamum, he shall not eat after sunset; he shall never sleep naked; nor go anywhere with mouth unwashed after meals.—(75)

अस्तम् इते आदित्ये । प्रतिलक्षणे कर्मप्रवचनीयत्वात् द्वितीया । न चोच्छिष्टः ।

• ननु च ब्रह्मचर्यधर्मेष्व् एतत् प्रतिषिद्धम् । पुरुषधर्मता च तस्य ज्ञापिता । न तादर्थ्यम् एव ।

• सत्यम् । व्रतरूपताज्ञापनार्थ उपदेशो ऽयम् । तेन यावज्जीविकः संकल्पः कर्तव्यः ॥ ४.७५ ॥

On the sun having set; the accusative ending in ‘astam’ is in accordance with Pāṇini 1. 4. 90.

‘Nor go anywhere, etc.’—“This has already been forbidden in the section dealing with the duties of the Student; where it has been also explained that the prohibition pertains to the men in general, and is not restricted to the Student only.”

True; but the present injunction is for the purpose of pointing out the act as an ‘observance;’ and what is meant is that ‘One should make a life-long determination of not going about with mouth unwashed after meals.’—(75)

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 72).

Gautama (9.60).—‘He shall never sleep naked at night.’

Viṣṇu (69.29).—‘At night, he shall not eat anything mixed with sesamum.’

Viṣṇu (70.3).—‘Nor naked (shall he sleep).’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3.9.6).—‘He shall not bathe during night; he shall not bathe naked; he shall not sleep naked; he shall not look at a naked woman, except……’

075 Let him not eat after sunset any (food) containing sesamum grains; let him never sleep naked, nor go anywhere unpurified (after meals).

He shall eat with wet feet; but he shall not sleep with his feet wet. By eating with wet feet, one would attain long life.—(176)

आदिकर्मणि विधिम् इमं समाचरेत् । आर्द्रपादो भोजनम् आचरेत् । न चातृप्तेः पादौ संचन्न् आसीत । संविशेत्, शयने गात्राणि नावक्षिपेत् । संवेशनं शयने गात्रसंयोजनम् । अस्य फलम् आह- दीर्घम् आयुर् इति । नायम् आयुष्कामस्य विधिः, किं तर्हि पूर्ववन् नित्यः । आयुरनुवादस् त्व् अर्थवाद एव ॥ ४.७६ ॥

Before the act of eating, one shall observe the rule that ‘one should eat with wet feet;’ it is not meant that he should go on wetting his feet till he has finished eating and become fully satisfied.

‘Shall not deep’—i.e., he shall not lay down his body upon the bed; ‘samveśana,’ ‘sleeping,’ standing for the laying down of the body on the bed.

The reason for this is next mentioned—‘Long life.’—It does not mean that the injunction is meant only for one who desires long life (and for none others); in fact, like the preceding ones, this also is obligatory; and the mention of ‘long life’ is purely illustrative.—(76)

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 72).

Mahābhārata (12.191.6-7).—‘He shall eat food with five limbs wet,—facing the east and silent; he shall not decry the food, he should cat it whether it be tasty or otherwise. He shall not rise from his seat with wet hands. He shall not sleep with wet feet.’

Do. (13.104.61).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Viṣṇu (69.34).—‘Nor with unwet feet, nor with unwet hands and mouth (shall he eat).’

Viṣṇu (70.1).—‘He shall not sleep with wet feet.’

076 Let him eat while his feet are (yet) wet (from the ablution), but let him not go to bed with wet feet. He who eats while his feet are (still) wet, will attain long life.

He shall never approach a place difficult of access, which is not within range of his vision; he shall not look at urine or excreta; nor shall he cross a river with his arms—(77)

दुर्गं दुर्गारोहं पर्वतादि तरुगुल्मलतागहनं चारण्यम् । तन् न प्रपद्येत । नाक्रामेन् न गच्छेद् चक्षुर्विषयं सर्पचौरादेर्⁴⁸ अन्तर्हितस्य भावाशङ्कया । चक्षुर्ग्रहणम् आगमादेर् अपि प्रमाणस्य लक्षणम् । न विण्मूत्रम् । उदीक्षणं वर्णादिना निरूपणम् । निरूपणं⁴⁹ च चिरकालप्रक्षणेन भवतीत्य्⁵⁰ अत एव तन् न कर्तव्यम् । दैवात् क्वचिद् दृश्यमाने न दोषः । नदीबाहुतरणं च स्वस्थस्य निषिध्यते, न वृकादिभये⁵¹ ॥ ४.७७ ॥

‘Difficult of access.’— Mountains and such places as can be got at with difficulty; as also a forest dense with trees, shrubs and creepers.

‘He shall not approach.’—He shall not pass over, shall not go to.

‘Which is not within the range of his vision;’—because there is danger of snakes and robbers, etc., lying hidden there. The ‘Eye’ includes also the other sources of knowledge, such as the Scriptures, for Instance.

‘Urine and excreta’—‘Looking at’—these mean examining their colour, etc. This extends over a long time; and hence should not be done. There is no harm in seeing it once by the way.

Swimming a river is forbidden for a man in the normal state; and not when there is danger apprehended from wolves and other animals.—(77)

The last foot of this verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183).

Gautama (9.33).—‘Blowing the fire with the mouth…… crossing the river with arms, climbing difficult places………, these he shall avoid.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.46).—‘He shall not cross the river with his arms.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.43).—[Do.]

Viṣṇu (63.46).—‘Nor with his arms (shall he cross rivers).’

Yājñavalkya (1.135).—‘He shall not look at his urine or excreta; nor anything unclean………’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (3.9.7).—‘He shall not climb a tree; he shall not descend into a well; he shall not cross a river with his arms; he shall not expose himself to danger.’

Pāraskara (1.7.6).—‘Looking into a water-reservoir, climbing trees, fruit-gathering, crossing over difficult places……, these he shall not do.’

077 Let him never enter a place, difficult of access, which is impervious to his eye; let him not look at urine or ordure, nor cross a river (swimming) with his arms.

One who is desirous of living a long life, shall not step on hair, nor on ashes, bones and potsherds; or on cotton-seed or chaff.—(78)

कपालिकाः भग्नशकलानि⁵² । दीर्घम् आयुः । व्याख्याता द्वितीया ॥ ४.७८ ॥

‘Potsherds’—broken pieces of earthenware.

‘Long life’— This use of the Accusative has been already explained.—(78)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183).

Gautama (9.16).—‘He shall not stand upon ashes, hairs, chaff, potsherds and unclean things.’

Baudhāyana (1.3.37).—‘He shall not stand upon ashes, bones, hairs, chaff, potsherds, and bath-water.’

Āpastamba (2.20.11).—‘Standing upon ashes and chaff.’

Viṣṇu (63.24-25).—‘He shall not stand upon chaff, potsherds, bones, ashes and embers; nor on cotton-seeds.’

Viṣṇu (Aparārka, p. 183).—‘He shall not stand on the roadcrossing, nor under a tree at night, nor in an empty house, nor in a slaughter-house or a prison.’

Yājñavalkya (1.139),—‘He shall avoid all incompatible acts, as also the smoke issuing from a dead body, and swimming in the river; also standing upon hairs, ashes, chaff, embers, and potsherds.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka, p. 183).—‘He shall not stand upon a heap of grass or a heap of pebbles.’

078 Let him not step on hair, ashes, bones, potsherds, cotton-seed or chaff, if he desires long life.

He shall not associate with outcasts, nor with Cāṇḍālas, nor with Pulkasas; nor with the illiterate; nor with the haughty; nor with Antyas; nor with Antyāvasāyins.—(79)

• नेति ब्रूमः । तत्र निवासः प्रतिषिद्धः । इह तु संवासः । यत्र ग्रामे ते वसन्ति न तत्र वस्तव्यं गृहस्थित्येति तत्रोक्तम् । संवासस् तु तैः सह संव्यवहारो दानग्रहणादिभिर् मैत्रीकरणम्, तद्गृहसमीपे च वासो ऽपि एकतः छायोपजीवनम् इत्यादि । आवृतग्रहणाच् च तत्र बाहुल्यं गम्यते । यस्मिन् ग्रामे भूयांसस् ते तस्य⁵³ समीपे ऽपि न वस्तव्यम् इति तस्यार्थः । इह त्व् अबाहुल्ये ऽपि समीपवासादि प्रतिषिध्यत इत्य् एष विवेकः ।

• पुल्कसा निषादाः शूद्रायां जाताः । अन्त्या मेदप्रभृतयो म्लेच्छाः । अन्त्यावसायीति निषादस्त्रियां चण्डालाज् जातो वक्ष्यते “निषादस्त्री चण्डालात्” इत्यादि (म्ध् १०.३९) । अवलिप्ता मदोद्धताः धनादिना गर्विताः ॥ ४.७९ ॥

“What is here said has already been declared above—(a) that ‘he shall not live at a place surrounded by men…… nor in that which is haunted by men of the lowest castes’ (4. 6).”

Not so, we reply. What has been forbidden there, is the inhabiting of such places; while what is forbidden here is associating. What was said there was that ‘one shall not set up as a householder in a village inhabited by such people;’ while the present verse forbids associating with them; this ‘associating’ consisting of the setting up of friendly relations by accepting their gifts, living near their house, sitting with them under the shade of the same tree, and so forth. Further, the former text speaks of the village as being ‘surrounded,’ which implies that the said people live there in large numbers; so that, what it means is that ‘one should not live even near a village where the said people live in large numbers.’ In the present verse, however, what is forbidden is living near a village, where even a few of these people live. Herein lies the difference between the two passages.

‘Pulkasas’ are Niṣādas, born of Śūdra mothers.

‘Antyas,’ i.e.—the Medas and other Mleccchas.

‘Antyāvasāyins’—is born from a Niṣāda mother and Cāṇḍāla father; as will be described later on (10.39).

‘Haughty’—overbearing in vanity due to wealth and such other causes.—(79)

‘Pukkasa… Antyāvasāyin’—Defined under 10—12, 39, 49.

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 71b).

Āpastamba (1.21, 5-6).—‘There is to be no concern with outcasts,—nor with apapātras.’

Baudhāyana (2.42).—‘There is to be no concern with outcasts.’

Baudhāyana (3.42).—‘Nor with outcasts, nor with woman, nor with a Śūdra.’

Baudhāyana (2.62).—‘One falls by associating with outcasts for one year, through sacrifice or teaching or marriage,—also through conveyances, seats or feeding.’

Gautama (9.17).—‘He shall not converse with Mlecchas, or with unclean or unrighteous persons.’

Devala (55, 58, 75).—‘He who has lived with Mlecchas, for a period extending from five to twenty years—for him the expiation has been prescribed to be two cāndrāyaṇas.—If in an assembly, one comes into contact with a Mleccha, he shall bathe with his clothes on and go without food for one day. If a Brāhmaṇa has lived in the dwelling of a Mleccha for one, two, three or four years (he shall perform an expiatory rite).’

079 Let him not stay together with outcasts, nor with Kandalas, nor with Pukkasas, nor with fools, nor with overbearing men, nor with low-caste men, nor with Antyavasayins.

He shall not offer advice to a Śūdra, nor the leavings, nor what has been prepared as an offering to the Gods. He shall hot expound the law to him; nor shall he indicate to him any penance.—(80)

शूद्रस्य दृष्टादृष्टविषये हिताहितोपदेशो न कर्तव्यः । शूद्रस्य मन्त्रित्वं न कर्तव्यम् इति यावत् । वृत्त्यर्थश् चायं निषेधः । सौहार्दादिना तु न दोषः । भवन्ति हि शूद्राः कुलमित्राणि । मैत्र्या चावश्यं हितम् उपदिश्यते । अनुज्ञाता च सर्ववर्णे ब्राह्मणस्य मैत्री “मैत्रो ब्राह्मण उच्यते” (म्ध् २.८७) ।

• ये तु व्याचक्षते, अपृच्छतो न ब्रूयाद् इत्य् उपन्यस्य युक्तं शास्त्रान्तरसिद्धत्वात्- “नापृष्टः कस्यचिद् ब्रूयात्” (म्ध् २.११०) इति,

• तद् अयुक्तम् । तत्र हि स्वाध्यायविषयं स्वरवर्णगतम् अन्यद् वासंगतं⁵⁴ कुर्वतो विनाशितं त्वयेत्यादाव् अपृष्टेन न वक्तव्यम् । तथा⁵⁵ चामी नाध्याप्या इत्य् अस्मिन् प्रसङ्ग इदम् उक्तम् “नापृष्टो ब्रूयात्” इति । अशिष्यस्यापृच्छतो विस्वरं व्यक्षरं वा पठतो न किंचिद् वक्तव्यम् इति तस्यार्थः ।

• नोच्छिष्टम् इति । उच्छिष्टशब्दो ऽयं भुजिनिमित्ते ऽप्राशस्त्ये वर्तते । कृतमूत्रपुरीषो ऽप्य् अनाचान्त उच्छिष्ट उच्यते, यथा वक्ष्यामः “न स्पृशेत् पाणिनोच्छिष्टः” (म्ध् ४.१४२) । बाहुल्येनोच्छिष्टप्रयोगो भुजिसंबन्धेन । भुञ्जानस्य ह्य् अन्तरास्यसंस्पर्शेन बहिरन्तः स्थितस्योच्छिष्टत्वं भवति । तथा च “न स्मश्रूणि गतान्य् आस्यम्”(म्ध् ५,१३९) इति श्मश्रुभ्यो ऽन्यद् आस्यानुप्रविष्टम् उच्छिष्टं करोतीति ज्ञापयति । अतश् च भोक्तुर् भुज्यमानस्य पात्रादेर् अधिकरणस्य चोच्छिष्टव्यवहारः । क्वचिच् चायम् उपयुक्तेतरवचनो ऽपि, “हविरुच्छिष्टं दक्षिणा” इति । तत्र समाचारात् पात्रगृहीतम् उच्छिष्टपुरुषसंबन्धम् ईषद्भुक्तम् उच्छिष्टम् उच्यते । यद् अपि विशदम् ओदनादिपात्रस्थम् अस्पृष्टम् अपि भोक्त्रा तद् अपि संबन्धात् समाचारतः परिह्रियते । तत्र “च्छिष्टम् अपि दातव्यम्,” “नोच्छिष्टम्” इति विधिप्रतिषेधाव् एकविषयाव् ऋतानृतशूद्रव्यवस्थया हविःशेषभेदेन वा विकल्प्येत⁵⁶ । अथ वा स्थालीस्थम् अतिथ्यादिभुक्तशिष्टं पर्युषितप्रायम् उच्छिष्टम्, तन् न शूद्राय दतव्यम् । तत्रोच्यते । जीर्णवसनसाहचर्याच् चैतद् एव प्रतिपत्तुं युक्तम् । उपयुक्तेतरवचनत्वाच् च शिषेर् उपसर्गस्य तदर्थानुगुण्येन वर्तनाद् धविरुच्छिष्टं दक्षिणेतिवत् प्रयोगो ऽप्य् अविरुद्धः । एवम् अनयोः स्मृत्योर् अविरोधो भविष्यति, यद्य् अपि रूढ्याचमनार्हाः प्रायो ऽत्र वचने दृश्यन्ते । यत् तु “वैश्यवच् छौचकल्पश् च” (म्ध् ५.१३८) इति तद् दासशूद्रविषयम् । भुक्तोज्झितम् एव प्रतीयत इति दर्श्यिष्यामः ।

• न हविष्कृतम् । हविषे कृतं हविरर्थं कल्पितम् । बहुवचनः समासस् तादर्थ्येनोपकल्पितप्रतिषेधात् । दण्डापूपिकया यत्र हविर्गन्धो ऽस्ति तत् सर्वं प्रतिषिध्यते । तेन हविरर्थितया संकल्पितस्य हविषः प्रवृत्तस्य हविःशेषस्याभुक्तोज्झितस्य हविषः प्रतिशेषः सिद्धो भवेत् । तथा च कृतम् इति करोतिः क्रियासामान्यवचनः प्रयुक्तः । हविरर्थं यत् कृतं संकल्पितम् इति⁵⁷ वचनम् । तेनोच्छिष्टस्यापि यावत् प्राकृतेन संकल्पेन हविष्कृतव्यपदेशो न यथावत् सर्वावस्थस्य प्रतिषेधो विज्ञायते ।

• अन्यैस् तु हविर्मिश्रं हविष्कृतम् इति व्याख्यातम् । संसृष्टप्रतिषेधाच् च केवस्यापि प्रतिषेधः । विप्रसंसृष्टप्रतिषेधे विप्रस्येवेत्य् उक्तम् ।

• कथं पुनः संसृष्टप्रतिषेधे केवलप्रतिषेधः । केवलप्रतिषेधेनाप्रधानः कदाचित् संसृष्टप्रतिषेधः शक्यते वक्तुम् । यत्र संसृष्टाव् अपि पृथक्त्वेन प्रतिभासेते, यत्र वा चक्षुषा प्रतिभासमाने रूपे रसादिना तत्प्रयोगो भवति, तत्रापि भवत्य् एव तदाश्रयो व्यवहारः । यथा सुरादिसंपृक्तासु सक्तुपिण्डीष्व् अनतर्हिते ऽपि सुरादिरूपे रसे तत्प्रत्ययाद् अस्त्य् एव सुरापानप्रायश्चित्तम् ।

• ननु चैवम् अप्य् अद्रवरूपत्वात् पिण्डीभिर् एकतापन्नायाः सुराया न पानोपपत्तिः ।

• नैष दोषः । प्रायिकेणौचित्यानुवादेन पानम् उपादीयते । अभ्यवहार एव तु निषिध्यते । यथा च भक्ष्याभक्ष्यप्रकरणम् एतत् । भक्षणं चाभ्यवहारमात्रंम् । तस्य विशेषाः पानखादनचर्वणादयः । गन्धस्य पुनर् अनाश्रयस्याप्य् उपलब्धेर् न ततो द्रव्यसद्भावावगमः । दूरस्थे ऽपि कर्पूरादौ गन्ध उपलभयते । सूक्ष्मद्रव्यावयवावगमकल्पनायां द्रव्यस्य परिमाणावयवः स्यात् । यत्र तु संसृष्टयोर् एकीभावो न चान्यस् तत्प्रत्ययः, न⁵⁸ तत्र केवलाश्रयौ विधिप्रतिषेधौ प्रवर्तितुम् अर्हतः । यथा क्षीरं पातव्यम् इति संमिश्रितयोः क्षीरोदकयोः पीतयोर् न क्षीरं भवति नोदकम्, द्रव्यान्तरत्वात् । अन्यद् धि तत्र रूपम् अन्यश् च रससंस्थानादि तत्प्रत्ययहेतुर् अस्तीति द्रव्यान्तरं तत् ।

• यद्य् एवं मद्योदके सह पीते यदि भवेताम्, तदा मद्यपानप्रायश्चित्तं न प्राप्नोति, द्रव्यान्तरत्वात् ।

• नैष दोषः अभिभवति रसान्तराणि मद्यं तिक्तरसवत् । ततो रसप्रत्यभिज्ञानाद् भवत्य् एव तत् प्रायश्चित्तम् । यत्र तु बहूदकं स्वल्पं मद्यादि, तत्र संसर्गप्रायश्चित्तम् अपि निपुणम् एकादेशे निरूपयिष्यामः ।

• तस्मात् केवलाश्रयः प्रतिषेध आस्कन्देद् अपि संसर्गम् । यथा माषा न भोक्तव्या इति मिश्रा अपि न युज्यन्ते । संसर्गाश्रयस् तु केन हेतुनासंसृष्टे वर्तेत । गङ्गायमुनयोः संगमाज् जलम् आनयेत्य् उक्ते न केवलाया गङ्गाया आनयति, न यमुनायाः । समाचार एवेति चेत्, समाचार एवोदाहर्तव्यः ।

• न चास्योपदिशेद् धर्मम् ।

• ननु च “न शूद्राय” इत्य् अविशेषेण दृष्टादृष्टविषयमतिदानप्रतिषेधाद् धर्मोपदेशनिषेधो ऽपि सिद्ध एव ।

• सत्यम् । पुनर्वचनं शेषार्थम् । ततः प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशो ऽनुज्ञातो भवति । “शरणागतं परित्यज्य” (म्ध् ११.१९७) इत्य् अत्र चैतद् दर्शयिष्यामः ।

• अन्ये तु पार्वणश्राद्धपाकयज्ञादिष्व् इतिकर्तव्यतां न शिक्षयेत् याजकत्वादिरूपेणेत्य् आहुः ।

• अत्र चोदयन्ति- यदि धर्मोपदेशः शूद्रस्य निषिध्यते कुतस् तर्हि धर्मवित्त्वम् । अविदुषश् च नानुष्ठानसंभवस् ततः शूद्रानुष्ठातृकधर्मशास्त्रानर्थक्यम् ।

• अचोद्यम् एतत् । अतिक्रान्तनिषेधस्य लिप्सया ब्राह्मणस्य चोपदेष्टृत्वसंभवात् । न हि ब्रह्महत्या सर्वस्वदानचोदनाप्रतिग्रहं प्रयुङ्क्ते । संभवति लिप्सा प्रयोक्त्री ।

• ननु चास्ति⁵⁹ वचनम् “प्रब्रूयाद् इतरेभ्यश् च” (म्ध् १०.२) इति ।

• वृत्त्युपायप्राप्तौ । अत एवं प्रकृतम् “सर्वेषां ब्राह्मणो विद्याद् वृत्त्युपायान् यथाविधि । प्रब्रूयाद् इतरेभ्यश् च” इति (म्ध् १०.२) । यस् त्व् आश्रितशूद्रस् तस्यावश्यम् उपदेशः कर्तव्यः । अविदुषा विधिप्रतिषेधातिक्रमात्⁶⁰ संवासो निषिद्धः “न मूर्खैर् नावलिप्तैश् च” इति (म्ध् ४.७९) ।

• यत् तु व्याचक्षते- धर्मशास्त्रोपदेशस् तदर्थव्याख्यानं वानेन निषिध्यते शास्त्रद्वयेन “न चास्योपदिशेत्”⁶¹ इति । एकेन शास्त्राध्ययनम् अपेरणार्थव्याख्यानम् । अग्रन्थकस् तूपदेशो न केनचिन् निषिद्धः ।

• तेषाम् एवंवदतां “तस्य शास्त्रविचारः” इति सिद्धत्वात्, पुनरुक्तम् ।

• इह वदन्ति⁶² । व्याकरणादौ धर्मावबोधार्थशास्त्रे धर्मशब्दः । तद् धि न धर्मशास्त्रम् अतीन्द्रियार्थम् इति प्रतिषेधानुपदेशात् । भवति तु धर्मशास्त्रवबोधार्थम् । शक्नोति हि वैयाकरणः पदार्थानुसरणेन⁶³ गहनं वाक्यार्थम् उन्नेतुम् । धर्मशास्त्रत्वाच् च तस्य शास्त्र इत्य् अनेन गतत्वात्⁶⁴ पृथग् उच्यते ।

• युक्तम् एतत्, यदि कश्चिन् न ब्रूयात् प्रधाने ऽनधिकृतस्य कुतो ऽङ्गेषु प्राप्तिर् इति । वेदः स्मृतिशास्त्रे च प्रधानम् । न च तत्र शूद्रस्याधिकारः ।

• न चास्य व्रतम् आदिशेत् । व्रतशब्देन कृच्छ्राण्य् उच्यन्ते, “एतैर् व्रतैः” (म्ध् ११.१०१) इति प्रयोगदर्शनात् । तान्य् अभ्युदयकामस्य नोपदिशेत् । प्रायश्चित्तार्थतया त्व् इष्यत एवोपदेशः । स्नातकव्रतानां प्राप्तिर् एव नास्ति, अस्नातकत्वात् । एवं सावित्रादीनाम् अप्य् अध्ययनाभावाद् अध्ययनं चोपनयनाभावाद् उपनयनं च तद्विधौ जातित्रयश्रवणात् ॥ ४.८० ॥

No advice shall be offered to a Śūdra regarding his welfare or otherwise, regarding matters temporal or spiritual; that is to say, one should not become an adviser to a Śūdra.

This prohibition pertains to being an adviser as a means of livelihood; there would be nothing wrong in offering advice in a purely friendly manner; in fact, there may be hereditary friendship between Brāhmaṇas and Śūdras; and certainly through friendship advice for welfare is always offered. Further, it has been declared (by Manu himself) that the Brāhmaṇa should be friendly to all castes—‘the Brāhmaṇa is one who is friendly to all.’

Some people offer the following explanation:—

“From what is said in other texts, it is better to take the present verse to mean that advice shall not be offered unasked; as declared above (in 2. 110),—‘He should not say anything to any one without being asked.’”

This explanation, however, is not right. What has been said under 2,110, is in connection with the reading of the

Veda; the sense being, ‘if a man is found to be committing a mistake in accent, or syllable, or in some other detail, one should not tell him, unless one is asked, that he had murdered the Text.’ Similarly, in connection with the enumeration of persons who shall not be taught the Veda, it has been said—‘One shall not speak unasked;’ and this also means that, in the case of persons other than his own pupils, one should not say anything, even if he finds them reciting the Veda wrongly, either as regards accent or syllables.

‘Nor the leavings’—The term ‘ucchiṣṭa’ denotes impurity, specially in relation to food. One who has paid calls of nature, is also called ‘ucchiṣṭa,’ ‘impure,’ till he has washed; as we shall explain under the text—‘One who is impure, ucchiṣṭa, shall not touch with his hand, &c.’ (142). But, as a rule, the term is used in connection with food. So that, while one is eating, the food that comes into contact with his mouth, whether within the mouth or outside, becomes known as ‘impure.’ It is in this sense that under 5.141—where it is said—‘nor the hairs of the moustache entering the mouth,’—everything, with the exception of the hairs of the moustache, is said to become ‘impure.’ It is in this sense also that the eater, the thing eaten and the dish containing the food, all come to be called ‘impure’; ‘ucchiṣṭa.’

In some cases, the word is also used in the sense of ‘what has been left unused,’ ‘remnant,’ ‘leaving;’; e.g., in the passage—‘The leavings of the substance offered are to be given as the fee.’ Thus, it is on the basis of usage that the term ‘ucchiṣṭa’ is applied to the food that has been served in the dish for a particular person,. and out of which a little has been eaten by him; and the clean food that is simply placed in the dish and not even touched by the eater,—this also is rejected, on the strength of usage, as ‘impure,’ on the ground of its being in contact with the dish which is in contact with that food out of which the person has eaten (and which therefore has become a ‘leaving’). It is in accordance with this that each passages as—(a) ‘the leavings of food should be given’ (10.125), and (b) ‘leavings shall not be given, etc.’—which contain an injunction and a prohibition, respectively—are taken as pertaining to the same thing, and as applying to the ‘true’ and the ‘untrue’ Śūdra, respectively, and also as referring to the remnants of different kinds of materials offered (and hence not being mutually contradictory). Or, the meaning (of the prohibition) may be that what has been left in the pot, after the guests and others have eaten, and which is as good as ‘stale’ and ‘leavings,’ should not be given to the Śūdra. It is argued that, since the term is found to be used (in 10.125) along with ‘torn clothes,’ this latter explanation is the right one to be accepted. Further, since the root ‘śiṣ’ (from which ‘ucchiṣṭa’ has been derived) denotes ‘other than what has been used,’ and the preposition (‘ut’) has to be construed in accordance with that signification,—there need be nothing incongruous in construing this passage also in the same sense as the passage ‘the leavings of the substance offered are to be given as the fee.’ In this manner, there is no incompatibility between these two Smṛti- texts (‘the leavings of the food shall be given’ and ‘the leavings should not be given’); though in most passages the term is restricted, by convention, to people who stand in need of washing. As for the declaration that ‘the method of purification is like that of the Vaiśya, etc.’ (5.139)—this refers to the Slave-Śūdra; and the term ‘ucchiṣṭa’ in this passage is understood to mean ‘the leavings of food,’ as we shall show under this passage.

‘Nor what has been prepared as an offering to the Gods’—The term ‘haviṣ-kṛtam’ means ‘haviṣe kṛtam,’ ‘prepared as an offering to the Gods.’ The compound is an irregular one; the compounding of the participle ‘kṛṭa’ or ‘kalpita,’ with the noun ending in the Dative, having the sense of ‘for the purpose of,’ is not sanctioned.

According to the maxim of the ‘stick and the cake’—by which, when the stick on which cakes are hanging is brought down by rats, we are led to believe that the cakes have been eaten by them,—the prohibition contained in the text pertains to every such thing as has the slightest possibility of being intended for being offered. And thus it is that the prohibition becomes applicable (a) to what has been set aside as being meant for an’ offering, (b) to the remnant of the substance that has been offered, and (c) to such offering-material as has not been left after having been eaten. It is in view of this that the text has used the term ‘kṛta,’ which is the most general term denoting action of any kind; and the compound ‘haviṣ-kṛta’ means ‘what has been kṛta,’ i.e., determined upon—as to be offered.’ And in this way, the offering-material that is left after the sacrificer has eaten it, does not cease to be included under the term ‘haviṣ-kṛta,’ since that also is what ‘had been determined upon as to be offered.’ And thus the prohibition becomes applicable to the substance in all conditions (after it has been once fixed upon as to be offered).

By others the term ‘haviṣ-kṛtam’ has been explained as ‘mixed with the offering-material;’ and since what is mixed up with something else is prohibited, the unmixed offering-material also becomes forbidden. For instance, when it is intended to forbid what is related to the Brāhmaṇa, the texts use the word ‘Brāhmaṇa’ only.

“But how can the prohibition of the thing mixed with something else imply the prohibition of that thing by itself?”

If the thing by itself were prohibited, then it might have been argued that the prohibition of the mixed thing is secondary. In a case, however, where, even on being mixed up, the two things are percieved as distinct,—or, when, even though the colour of the two things is not visible, yet by means of taste and such other means they are percieved as distinct,—the two things are treated as if they were there by themselves.

For instance, when fried flour and other things are mixed with wine, even though the colour of the wine is not visible, yet, since the taste of the wine is distinctly felt, the eating of such flour entails the expiratory rite prescribed in connection with the drinking of wine.

Objection—“But even so, when the wine is mixed up with the flour, it loses its liquid form; so that it cannot be a case of drinking of the wine.”

There is no force in this objection. ‘Drinking’ has been mentioned, because that is how wine is generally taken; and what is forbidden is the ‘taking’ of wine; as the present context is dealing with what shall be eaten and what shall be not eaten; and ‘eating’ here means only ‘taking,’ of which drinking, eating, chewing and the rest are only special forms. As for smelling, since it is felt even when the substance is not near at hand, it does not necessarily lead to the presence of the substance itself. For instance, even when camphor and such things are at a distance, their odour is felt. If it be assumed that the odour is felt because of the fine particles of the substance (having been wafted into the nostrils),—then such wafting away of the particles should bring out a gradual diminution of the size of the substance (which is not found to take place). In a case where two things become mixed up and form one composite substance, and there is nothing to indicate a reference to either one of them singly,—either a sanction or a prohibition cannot apply to either of them by itself. E.g., when it is said ‘milk should be drunk,’ it applies to the milk and the water both mixed together, and not to the water alone, or the milk alone; as each of these would be a distinct substance (from ‘milk’); each of these by itself would have a distinct colour and a distinct taste indicating its presence; and hence each would be a distinct substance.

“If this be so, then, when one drinks wine mixed with water, it should not entail the expiatory rite that has been prescribed for the drinking of wine; as the mixture would be a distinct substance from the mixture drunk.”

There is no force in this objection. Wine, like the bitter taste, entirely suppresses the taste of everything eke; so that, since in the case cited, the taste of wine will have been clearly felt, the said expiatory rite becomes necessary. When there is much water and only a little wine, the expiatory rite to be performed is that which has been prescribed for ‘contact with wine,’ as we shall explain in detail under Discourse 11.

From all this it follows that where the prohibition is of a certain thing by itself, it might involve that of its mixture also; e.g., when it is said that “māṣa -grains shall not be eaten,’ such grains also become eschewed as have māṣa mixed with them. But the prohibition that pertains to a mixture—on what grounds could it be applied to the unmixed thing by itself? E.g., when it is said—‘bring water from the confluence of the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā,’—the man thus directed does not bring water either from the Gaṅgā alone, or from the Yamunā alone. If usage be cited as the ground for such application,—theu such usage has got to be shown. [Thus, if the term ‘haviṣkṛtan’ of the text were taken as ‘havirmiśram,’ then the prohibition could not apply to the Haviṣ itself.]

‘He shall not expound the law to him.’—“The very first words of this text have forbidden the offering to a Śūdra of any advice on temporal or spiritual matters; and the expounding of law also becomes forbidden by the same words.”

True; but the prohibition has been repeated for the purpose of additional information; in the shape of special expiatory rites—laid down in connection with the expounding of the law to a Śūdra,—which we shall explain under 11.198.

Others have taken this additional prohibition to mean that ‘he shall not, in the craracter (character?) of an officiating priest, instruct the Śūdra regarding the details of procedure pertaining to the Pārvaṇa Śrāddha, the Pākayajña and such other rites.’

Some people urge the following objection here:—“If the expounding of law to the Śūdra is forbidden, from whence is the Śūdra to acquire his knowledge of the law? In the absence of such knowledge, he can perform no rites; so that the whole scripture dealing with the rites to be performed by the Śūdra would be pointless.”

This is not a right objection. It is just possible that the Brāhmaṇa, through avarice, may transgress the prohibition and teach the Śūdra. For instance, when the Brāhmaṇa accepts a gift from a Śūdra, he is urged to it. not by the Injunction relating to the ‘giving away of all one’s belongings’ (which has been prescribed for the Śūdra) in consequence of having killed a Brāhmaṇa; in fact, the motive is supplied by his avarice.

“Well, we have the direct declaration that ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall explain the law to others also.’”

But that refers only to the possible means of livelihood (open to the Śūdra). What the text says is—‘The Brāhmaṇa should know the means of livelihood open to all, and should explain it to others also’ (10.2).

Advice and teachings have to be certainly given to the Śūdra who is dependent upon oneself; for an ignorant person is sure to transgress injunctions and prohibitions; and association with such transgressers has been forbidden under 79 above.

Some people explain the text as follows:—

“The present text contains two injunctions forbidding the teaching of the text of the treatises dealing with Dharma or Law, and the expounding of its meaning: one forbids the teaching of the verbal text and the other that of its meaning. But the expounding of Law, without reference to text, is not forbidden by any.”

But for those who explain the text thus, the present Verse will be a mere repetition of the prohibition of consultation on matters relating to the scriptures.

The following might be urged here—“The term ‘law’ applies to Grammar and all those treatises that help in obtaining the knowledge of Law; but Grammar is not a ‘scriptural treatise,’ in the sense of expounding super-senseous (spiritual) things; hence the teaching of Grammar would not be included under the prohibition here put forward; and yet Grammar is of use in the understanding of Law; specially as the grammarian can, by a close analysis of the words, find out the meaning of the most difficult sentence. So that, since the prohibition relating to the ‘consultation’ (quoted above) pertains to the ‘Law-scriptures’ proper, it would not apply to Grammar; hence it is the teaching of Grammar that has been separately forbidden by the present text.”

All this would be quite right; only if no one urged that one who is not entitled to the primary thing (the Veda), can never be thought of as taking up its subsidiaries (the subsidiary sciences of Grammar, &c.) In the present instance, the Veda and this Smṛti texts constitute the ‘primary;’ and to the study of these the Śūdra is not entitled.

‘Nor shall he indicate to him any vrata or penance.’—The term ‘vrata,’ ‘penance,’ here stands for the kṛcchras; such being the sense in which the term has been used in 11.102 and other texts. These be shall not indicate to the Śūdra who is seeking to acquire prosperity by their means; in connection with expiatory rites, they have got to be indicated. As for the ‘vratas,’ ‘observances,’ prescribed for the ‘accomplished student,’ there is no possibility of these pertaining to the Śūdra; for the simple reason that he can never be an ‘accomplished student.’ Similarly, the imparting of the Sāvitrī to him is impossible, because he can never carry on Vedic Study; Vedic Study is not possible for him, because he has not been initiated; and Initiation is not possible for him, because it has been laid down for the three castes only.—(80).

“Discrepancies between this verse and others in the work (9.125) are explained by the commentators, who say that the Śūdra mentioned in the other rules is the family servant.”—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 220), which explains ‘vratam’ as ‘prāyascittam’, ‘expiatory rite’;—and again on p. 1090, where it is pointed out that the giving of advice regarding ‘expiation’, that is forbidden here, refers to those cases where the Śūdra seeks advice without the mediation of a Brāhmaṇa.

It is quoted also in Mitākṣarā (on 3.262), which remarks that the prohibition refers to those cases where the Śūdra does not seek advice in a meek and suppliant attitude;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 71b);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 72), which says that what is forbidden here is ‘direct teaching.’

(verses 4.80-81)

Āpastamba (21.2.22).—‘He shall not offer the leavings to a non-Brāhmaṇa;—if it is to he given to him, one should scoop the tusk (?), place the leavings in it and then offer it to him.’

Vaśiṣṭha (15.12-13).—[Reproduces Manu ]

Viṣṇu (72.48-52).—‘He shall not offer the leavings to the Śūdra; nor the leavings or the sacrificial materials; nor sesamum; he shall not expound to him the law; nor the penance.’

080 Let him not give to a Sudra advice, nor the remnants (of his meal), nor food offered to the gods; nor let him explain the sacred law (to such a man), nor impose (upon him) a penance.

He who expounds to him the law, and he who indicates the penance to him, will sink, along with him, into the hell called “asaṃvṛta.”—(81).

पूर्वस्य प्रतिषेधस्य निन्दार्थवादः । तेनैव सहेति । उभयोर् दोषम् आह, शृण्वतः श्रावयतश् च । मज्जत्य् अवगाहते, तत् प्राप्नोतीति यावत् ॥ ४.८१ ॥

This is a deprecatory supplement to the foregoing text.

‘Will sink along with him;’—this shows that both parties are considered guilty—he who expounds, as also he who hears it expounded.

‘Will sink’—will fall into, i.e., will reach.—(81).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 220).

**(verses 4.80-81)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.80].

081 For he who explains the sacred law (to a Sudra) or dictates to him a penance, will sink together with that (man) into the hell (called) Asamvrita.

He shall not scratch his own head with both hands joined together; he shall not touch it while unclean; and he shall not bathe without it.—(82).

संहताभ्यां संश्लिष्टाभ्याम् इतरेतरसंसृष्टाभ्यां युगपद् द्वाभ्यां प्रतिषेधः । पाणिभ्याम् इति बाहू संहतौ निषेधति । आत्मन इति न परस्य । अतश् चान्येन संहताभ्यां कण्डूयतो न दोषः । शिरोग्रहणात् पृष्ठादाव् अदोषः । न स्पृशेच् चैव शिरः ।

• हस्तेनात्मनो ऽन्येन⁶⁵ वावयवेनेति केचित् ।

• तन् न,⁶⁶ पाणिभ्याम् इति प्रकृतत्वात् ।

• न च स्नायाच् छिरसा विना । नित्यनैमित्तकयोः स्नानयोर् अयम् विधिः ।

• ननु स्विन्नस्य लौकिके स्नाने कुत एतत् ।

• स्नानविधिनाइकवाक्यत्वात् ।

• विहितस्नानापेक्षा प्रत्यासत्त्या युक्तिमती । लोके तु विधेर् अभावाद् अप्राप्तिः ।

• स्नातिश् चायं सर्वाङ्गसंबन्धिनि सलिलगोमूत्रादि प्रक्षालने वर्तते, शिरोवर्जिते च । तत्र चण्डालादिस्पर्शने शिरोवर्जितम् अपि यदृच्छाप्रसक्तं निवार्यते- न च स्नायाद् विना ततः । अस्ति च लौकिकम् अशिरस्कम् अपि स्नानम्, येन शिरःस्नानम् “शिरःस्नातस् तु तैलेन” (म्ध् ४.८३) इति ॥ ४.८२ ॥

‘Joined together’—joined to one another. This forbids the scratching of the head with both hands at the same time.

Hands; this forbids the use of the two arms joined together.

‘His own’— not that of others; hence there would be nothing wrong in having one’s head scratched with the two hands of another person.

Since the head has been specified, there would be nothing wrong in scratching the back and other parts of the body.

‘He shall not touch it’—his own head, with his own hand,—or with any other part of the body, as some people have explained. But this is not right, as it is the hands that are being spoken of in the text.

‘He shall not bathe without it’—i.e., without the head. This rule applies to all kinds of bathing—the daily obligatory one as well as the occasional one.

“Why should this rule be observed in the case of ordinary bathing, done by a person who has perspired (and only wishes to clean the perspiration)?”

That it should be so follows from the fact that the present rule is meant to be taken along with the rule laying down bathing.

For connecting this rule with the bathing that is directly enjoined,—there may be some reason. But, so far as the ordinary bathing is concerned, since there is no injuction regarding it, there can be no ground for observing the present rule in connection with it.”

Well, as a matter of fact, the root^(‘)to bathe’ denotes the act of washing with water, cow’s urine and such things—the whole body or the rest of the body, barring the head. And, since people might leave off the head, when bathing on having touched a Cāṇḍāla, or some such unclean thing,—the text forbids this by the rule—‘he shall not bathe without the head.’ Ordinary bathing, without washing the head, is of course possible; in view of which we have such assertions as—‘having bathed his head, etc., etc.,’—(82)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183), which explains ‘tataḥ’ as standing for the head.

Viṣṇu (68.38.)—‘He shall not touch his head (while unclean).’

Viṣṇu (71.53).—‘With hands joined together, he shall not scratch his head or his belly.’

Mahābhārata (13.101-69).—[Same as Manu, the second line reading as —‘ Nacābhīkṣṇam śiraḥ snāyāt tathāsyāyurna ṛṣyate ].’

082 Let him not scratch his head with both hands joined; let him not touch it while he is impure, nor bathe without (submerging) it.

Catching of the hair, as also striking on the head,—these he shall avoid; having his head bathed, he shall touch no limb with oil.—(83)

आत्मनः परस्य वेत्य् अविशेषेण केचिद् इच्छन्ति । अन्ये त्व् आत्मन इति प्रकृतम् अभिसंबध्नन्ति । क्रोधनिमित्तश् चायं प्रतिषेधः । सुरतसंभोगे तु कामिन्याः केशग्रहः, स न निषिध्यते । शिरःस्नानं क्षालितम् अनेनेति राजदन्तादेर् आकृतिगणत्वात् परनिपातः (च्ड़्। पाण् २.२.३१) । शिरःस्नात इति बाहुलकेन समासः । नाङ्गम् आत्मीयम् ॥ ४.८३ ॥

Some people hold that this refers to one’s own head, as well as to the head of other persons; while others connect this with the term, ‘his own,’ of the preceding verse.

What is forbidden here is the hair-catching, etc., done in anger; for there is ‘hair-catching’ also during sexual intercourse, and this is not forbidden.

The compound ‘śiraḥ-snāta’ is to be expounded as^(‘)śiraḥ snātam anena,’ he whose head has been bathed, the order of the term being in accordance with the rule governing such compounds as, by appearance, belong to the ‘Rājadanta’ group (Pāṇini 2.2.31).

‘He shall not touch any limb’—of his own.—(83)

‘Tailena’—This, is construed by almost all the commentators with ‘spṛśet’, ‘one should not touch with oil any limb after having bathed his head’; by others with ‘Śiraḥsnātaḥ’, ‘one who has anointed his head with oil shall noṭ touch any limb’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183), which construes the second line to mean ‘having anointed his head with oil, he shall not rub that same oil over any other limb, or he shall not, during the rest of that day, rub his body with any oil at all’.

Viṣṇu (64.12).—‘He shall not touch the oiled limb.’

083 Let him avoid (in anger) to lay hold of (his own or other men’s) hair, or to strike (himself or others) on the head. When he has bathed (submerging) his head, he shall not touch any of his limbs with oil.

He shall not accept gifts from a king not born of the Kṣatriya caste; nor from the keepers of slaughterhouses, oil-presses or grog-shops; nor from those who live on brothels.—(84)

न राज्ञः प्रतिगृह्णीयाद्
अराजन्य(=अक्षत्रिय)-प्रसूतितः ।(4)
सूना-(तैलोत्पादन)चक्र-(सुराविक्रयण)ध्वजवतां
वेशेनैव (→वेश्यावृत्त्या) च जीवताम् ॥ ४.८४ ॥

It has been said above (4.33) that ‘he shall seek for wealth form Kings,’ This word, “king,” denoting the lord of men, has been found to be applied to the Kṣatriya as well as the non-Kṣatriya; e.g., in such expressions as ‘the Kingdom of Brāhmaṇas,’ Hence, in connection with a rule regarding the acceptance of gifts, when we find a prohibition, we take the term as standing for the lord of men; specially, as in the present verse, we have the phrase ‘not born of the Kṣatriya caste,’ Since it is possible for one to accept, through avarice, the gifts of the lords of men, belonging to all castes, the text has specified it; the sense being—‘one shall not accept gifts from such a lord of men as is not born of the Kṣatriya caste; nor even from the Kṣatriya king, who does not behave according to the scriptures as will be made clear by the prohibition coming later on.

‘Sūnā’ is slaughter-house; and he who lives by selling meat, after having slaughtered the animal, is called a butcher,’ a ‘keeper of the slaughter-house.’

Similarly, ‘cakravān’ is one who lives by oil-pressing; who is known among men as ‘khaṭika.’

‘Dhvaja’ is wine-shop; and the ‘dhvajavān’ is he who lives by buying and selling wine

‘Veśa’ is brothel; he who lives by this—be it a man or a woman.—(84)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 218), which adds that the ‘king’ here spoken of is one who tyrannises over his subjects;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 410).

(verses 4.84-85)

Yājñavalkya (1.141).—[‘He shall not accept any gifts from a king who is greedy and who acts against the scriptures.’]

‘In the matter of acceptance of gifts, the butcher, the oil-presser, the wine-vendor, the prostitute and the king are all condemned, each succeeding one being ten times worse than the preceding.’

Yama (4, 58).—‘Gifts from the king should be avoided by those who are desirous of winning the three worlds; by accepting the gift of a king, one’s Brāhmaṇahood disappears.’

Saṃvarta (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 199).—‘The king’s gift is something terrible; it is like wine-drinking, and like poison; it is better to feed on the flesh of one’s own son, than to accept of the king’s gift.’

084 Let him not accept presents from a king who is not descended from the Kshatriya race, nor from butchers, oil-manufacturers, and publicans, nor from those who subsist by the gain of prostitutes.

One oil-press is equal to ten slaughter-houses; one grog-shop is equal to ten oil-presses; one brothel is equal to ten grog-shops; and one king is equal to ten brothels.—(85)

उत्तरस्योत्तरस्य दोषगुरुत्वज्ञापनार्थम् एतत् । आपद्य् उपायो वक्ष्यते ॥ ४.८५ ॥

This is meant to show that the receiving of gifts from the one mentioned later is more reprehensible than that from the one mentioned before it.

As for the means of subsistence during abnormal times, this shall be described later on.—(85)

**(verses 4.84-85)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.84].

085 One oil-press is as (bad) as ten slaughter-houses, one tavern as (bad as) ten oil-presses, one brothel as (bad as) ten taverns, one king as (bad as) ten brothels.

A king has been declared to be equal to a butcher who maintains ten thousand slaughter-houses; and terrible is the receiving of gifts from him.—(86)

सूनया चरति सौनिकः । वाहयति स्वार्थसाधने व्यापारयति । घोरः भीषणो ऽयम्, नरकादिहेतुत्वात् ॥ ४.८६ ॥

अवयुत्यवादेन राजप्रतिग्रहे निन्दा ।

‘Saunika’ is one who maintains a slaughter-house.

‘Maintains’—carries on for his own benefit.

‘Terrible;’—it is frightful, as leading to hell, and other places.—(86)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 185).

Viṣṇudharmottara (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 200).—[Reproduces Manu.]

086 A king is declared to be equal (in wickedness) to a butcher who keeps a hundred thousand slaughter-houses; to accept presents from him is a terrible (crime).

He who accepts gifts from a king who is avaricious and behaves contrary to the scriptures, goes, in succession, to these twenty-one hells:—(87)

लुब्ध आदानशीलः सामन्तकादिभ्यः । उच्छास्त्रवर्ती । “श्रुतशीले⁶⁷ च विज्ञाय” (म्ध् ११.२२) इत्यादिशास्त्रम्⁶⁸ अतिक्रम्य व्यवहरति असद्दण्डपरस्त्रीहरणादिना । पर्यायेण एकत्र फलम् अनुभूयान्यत्र गच्छति । नरकशब्दो निरतिशयदुःखवचनः । केवलदुःखश्रवणार्थापत्त्या वा देशविशेषवचनः । एकविंशतिसंख्या अर्थवादः ॥ ४.८७ ॥

This is an exaggerated deprecation of receiving gifts from Kings.

‘Avaricious’—who is in the habit of extracting riches from his subsidiary chiefs.

‘Who behaves contrary to the scriptures’—he who acts against the laws laid down under 11-2 2 et. seq., and inflicts undue punishments, confiscates the women, and so forth.

‘In succession’—i.e., he goes to another hell after having experienced the sufferings of one.

‘Hell.’—This term signifies extreme suffering; and, since extreme suffering is all that is meant to be expressed, the singular number would be the proper form; and the number ‘twenty-one’ is an exaggerated description.—(87)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 185);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 403 and 410), to the effect that one should not accept gifts from a Kṣatriya king who is unrighteous.

**(verses 4.87-91)
**

Viṣṇu (43.1-22).—‘The Hells are as follows—

1. Tāmisra,
2. Andhatāmisra,
3. Raurava,
4. Mahāraurava,
5. Kālasūtra,
6. Mahāmaraka,
7. Sañjīvana,
8. Avīci,
9. Tāpana,
10. Sampratāpana,
11. Saṅghātaka,
12. Kākola,
13. Kuḍmala,
14. Pūtimṛttika,
15. Lohaśaṅku,
16. Ṛcīṣa,
17. Viṣamapathin,
18. Kaṇṭakaśālmali,
19. Dīnapadī,
20. Asipatravana,
21. Lohacāraka.’

Skandapurāṇa (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 199).—‘The man who has been brought up on gifts from the king becomes a Brahmarākṣasa in the water-less desert, and docs not obtain another birth. The man who, having renounced his Brāhmaṇahood, and deluded by greed for riches and for sensual objects, accepts gifts from the king, his fall into the Raurava hell is certain. Even trees burnt by forest-fíres grow again on the advent of rain; but those that have been burnt by gifts from the king never grow again.’

087 He who accepts presents from an avaricious king who acts contrary to the Institutes (of the sacred law), will go in succession to the following twenty-one hells:

तामिस्रम् अन्धतामिस्रं
महारौरव-रौरवौ ।
नरकं कालसूत्रं च
महानरकम् एव च ॥ ४.८८ ॥

088 Tamisra, Andhatamisra, Maharaurava, Raurava, the Kalasutra hell, Mahanaraka,

सञ्जीवनं महावीचिं
तपनं सम्प्रतापनम् ।
संहातं च स-काकोलं
कुड्मलं प्रतिमूर्तिकम् [मेधातिथिपाठः - पूतिमृत्तिकम्] ॥ ४.८९ ॥

089 Samgivana, Mahaviki, Tapana, Sampratapana, Samghata, Sakakola, Kudmala, Putimrittika,

(1) Tāmisra, (2) Andhatāmisra, (3) Mahāraurava, (4) Raurava, (5) Kālasūtra-Naraka, (6) Mahānaraka, (7) Sañjīvana, (8) Mahāvīci, (9) Tāpana, (10) Sampatāpana, (11) Saṃhāta, (12) Sakākola, (13) Kuḍmala, (14) Pūtimṛttika, (15) Lohaśaṅku, (16) Ṛjīṣa, (17) Pathin, (18) Śālmalī, (19) Nadī, (20) Asipatravana and (21) Lohadāraka.—(88-90).

श्लोकत्रयं स्पष्टार्थम् ॥ ४.८८–९० ॥

The meaning of these three verses is clear.—(88-90)

**(verses 4.88-90)
**

“A varied list is found in Yājñavalkya 3.222 et. seq., Viṣṇu 43.1 et. seq. Others occur in our text, 4.81, 4.197, 3.249, 12.76”.—Hopkins.

Nārāyaṇa takes ‘nadī’ as standing for the Vaitariṇī river; while Govindarāja takes it as by itsef forming the name of a particular hell. The Viṣṇupurāṇa has a hell named ‘Dīpanadī’.

All these three verses are quoted in Aparārka (p. 185);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 15), which adds the following explanation of the names:—

1. ‘Tāmisra,’ darkness,
2. ‘Andhatāmisra’, dense darkness,—
3. ‘Mahāraurava-Raurava’, abounding in hot sands,—
4. ‘Kālasūtra,’ resembling the potter’s cutting string,—
5. ‘Mahānaraka’, where all sorts of dire sufferings are gone through,—
6. ‘Sañjīvanam’, where one is repeatedly killed and brought to life,—
7. ‘Mahāvīci’, where large waves tumble about,—
8. ‘Tapana’, resembling flaming fire,—
9. ‘Sampratāpana’ is another name for the Kumbhīpāka,—
10. ‘Saṃhāta’ over-crowded,—
11. ‘Kākola’, where people are devoured by crows,—
12. ‘Kuḍmala,’ where there is whipping with cords,—
13. ‘Pūtimṛttikam’ where the earth smells like filth,—
14. ‘Lauhaśaṅku’, pricks like the needle,—
15. ‘Ṛjīṣa’, where rotten flour is thrown,—
16. ‘Panthā’, where one is constantly on the move,—
17. ‘Śālmala’, where people are pierced by thorns of the Śālmalī tree,—
18. ‘Nadī’, where one is washed away by such streams as the Vaitariṇī and the like—
19. ‘Lohacāraka,’ where there is chaining in irons.

**(verses 4.87-91)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.87].

090 Lohasanku, Rigisha, Pathin, the (flaming) river, Salmala, Asipatravana, and Lohakaraka.

Knowing this, the learned Brāhmaṇas reading the Vedas do not accept gifts from a king, if they desire to secure welfare after death.—(91)

पूर्वस्य प्रतिग्रहनिषेधविधेर् उपसंहार एषः । राज्ञः प्रतिग्रहो विविधदुःखनरकादिहेतुर् इति जानन्तो विद्वांसो ब्राह्मणा न राज्ञः प्रतिगृह्णीयुः । प्रेत्य भवान्तरे, श्रेयः कल्याणम्, ये काङ्क्षन्ति कामयन्ते । प्रेत्येति तु ल्यबन्तप्रतिरूपकं शब्दान्तरम् । ब्रह्म वेदस् तं वदन्ति पठन्ति । विद्वद्ग्रहणं ब्रह्मवादिग्रहणं च दुःखातिशयदर्शनार्थम् । तेषां चातीव⁶⁹ प्रतिग्रहाद् दोषः । वक्ष्यति “तस्माद् अपि विद्वान्⁷⁰ बिभीयात्” (म्ध् ४.१९१) इति ॥ ४.९१ ॥

This is the final summing up of the foregoing rules forbidding the acceptance of gifts.

Knowing that the accepting of gifts from kings is the source of various forms of suffering, learned Brāhmaṇas should not accept gifts from kings.

‘After death’—i.e., in the next birth;—‘welfare’— good;—those who desire. The term ‘pretya,’ which has the form of a participle, is a totally different word.

‘Brahma’ is Veda; those who ‘read,’ study it.

The epithets, ‘learned’ and ‘reading the Vedas,’ have been added with a view to indicate the excessive character of the suffering. Such persons suffer the greatest pains, resulting from the said acceptance of gifts; as it is going to be declared—‘the learned man should fight shy of that.’—(91).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 185).

**(verses 4.87-91)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.87].

091 Learned Brahmanas, who know that, who study the Veda and desire bliss after death, do not accept presents from a king.

He shall wake up at the point of time sacred to Brahman, and then think over the means of acquiring Merit and wealth, of the bodily troubles involved therein, and also of the true meaning of the Veda.—(92).

त्रियामा रात्रिः, तस्याः पश्चिमो ब्राह्मो मुहूर्तः । तत्र निद्रां त्यजेत् । विबुद्धश् च तस्मिन् काले धर्मार्थाव् अनुचिन्तयेत् । यस्मिंश् च धर्म आसेव्यमाने यादृशः शरीरक्लेशो भवति तम् अपि चिन्तयेत् । स्वल्पश् चेद् धर्मो महान्तं कायक्लेशं जनयति, यो धर्मान्तरविरोधी, तं परिहरेत् ।

• अर्थो ऽपि सेवादिः अतिक्लेशकरः, सो ऽपि वर्ज्यः । “सर्वत एवात्मानं गोपायेत्” (ग्ध् ९.३४) इति । अनिश्चित्य न किंचिद् कुर्यात् । न च मनोराज्यादिविकल्पान् कुर्यात् । स्वभावो ह्य् अयं पुरुषाणाम् असति बाह्ये व्यापारे मनसो विकल्पाः परद्रव्याभिलाषादिरूपाः समुद्भवन्ति । तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् इदं पुरुषार्थम् ।

• तस्यां वेलायां साध्यसाधनभावेन चिन्त्यो वेदस्य तत्त्वार्थः । रहस्यम् आत्मज्ञानं चिन्तयेद् वेदान्तविधिनाभ्यस्येत् ।

• अथ वा कर्मकाण्डे ऽपि यो वेदस् तस्यार्थस् तं निरूपयेत् । अयं विधिः, अयम् अर्थः, इदं कर्मैवं रूपम्, इयम् अत्र देवता, इदं द्रव्यम्, अयम् अत्राधिकारी, इयम् इतिकर्तव्यता, इत्यादि स्वबुद्ध्या निश्चिनुयात् । व्याख्यातॄणां मतभेदाद् धेतून् निरूपयेद् अस्य सम्यग्ज्ञानम् अस्य भ्रान्तिर् इति ॥ ४.९२ ॥

The night being divided into three parts, the last part is the ‘point of time sacred to Brahman;’ and it is at this time that one should renounce sleep.

Fully awakened at the said time, he shall ‘think over the means of acquiring merit (i.e., Duty) and Wealth’; he should also think over the bodily trouble involved in the performance of his duties (as bringing merit); and if he finds that a certain duty is an unimportant one, and yet its fulfilment involves much bodily trouble,—or, if he finds that it stands in the way of another Duty,—then he shall omit such a duty. Similarly, the means of acquiring Wealth also—such as service and the like—are the source of much trouble; and this also shall be omitted; in view of the principle that ‘one should protect oneself from all things.’

What is meant is that he should not do anything without having duly thought over it, and that he should not indulge in building castles in the air. It is the very nature of men that, when they are not outwardly engaged, there arise in their minds many fancies, in the form of a longing for obtaining what belongs to others, and so forth. And it is the avoiding of this that the text lays down, with a view to the man’s temporal interests.

At the said time, ‘the true meaning of the Veda’ should also be thought over, in its bearing upon causes and effects. That is, one should meditate, in the manner laid down in the Vedānta, upon the esoteric science of the Soul. Or, in connection with the ritualistic section of the Veda also, he should ponder over the real meaning of the texts; that is, in his own mind he should determine that ‘this is an Injunction,’ ‘this its meaning;’ ‘this the action prescribed,’ ‘this is the form of the act,’ ‘this is the Deity of this sacrifice,’ ‘this the material to be employed,’ ‘such and such a person is entitled to its performance,’ ‘such and such is the procedure to be adopted,’ and so forth. He should also ponder over the diverse explanations provided by the Commentators, and with the help of reason, he should decide whose explanation is correct and whose wrong.—(92).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 158);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 206), which explains ‘Vedatattvārtha’ as ‘the Supreme Self’;—in Madanapārijāta (p, 204);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 13), which explains ‘Brāhma muhūrta’ as ‘the last quarter of the night’, and adds that the time is so called because it is the time for the awakening of Brāhmī, i.e., Bhāratī, the goddess of speech; and that the term ‘muhūrta’ is to be taken as standing for time in general, and not in the restricted technical sense of a period of 48 minutes; and this on the ground that 48 minutes would not suffice for all those acts that are prescribed for being done after rising and before sunrise. It goes on to add that according to other Nibandhas, the last but one Muhūrta (48 minutes) of the night is called ‘Brāhma’, because it is sacred to Brahman. The conclusion that it arrives at is that those who have to perform all the acts of Vedic study and the rest should rise in the beginning of the last quarter of the night, i.e., at 3 a.m. while others in the third Muhūrta of that quarter, i.e., after 4-36 a.m. It explains ‘Tanmūlān’ as ‘due to those acts that are done for the sake of Dharma and Artha’; and the purpose for which all this is to be pondered over is that if the labour involved in a certain act is much, while the resultant Dharma or Artha is little, then it is to be avoided.—‘Vedatattvārtha’—here the term ‘tattva’ has been added for the purpose of excluding such meanings as might be deduced by wrong methods of interpretation; or ‘Vedatattvārtha’ might stand for Brahman.

This verse is quoted in Ācāramayūkha (p. 4), which explains ‘Vedatattvārtha’ as god, but quotes Śrīdatta to explain it as ‘nyāyapratītor’thaḥ’; it explains ‘brāhmamuhūrta’ as the last but one muhūrta of the night.

Viṣṇu (6.1).—‘Waking up at the point of time sacred to Brahman, he should evacuate the bladder and the bowels.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.44).—‘Waking up at the latter end of night, he shall not go to sleep again.’

Vāmanapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 16).—‘One shall rise at the moment sacred to Brahman, and think of the principal gods and sages.’

Yājñavalkya (1.115).—‘Waking up at the point of time sacred to Brahman, he shall ponder over his welfare, and he shall not neglect spiritual merit or wealth or pleasure, each at its proper time.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (1.2.18.3).—‘Waking up at the point of time sacred to Brahman, he shall ponder over spiritual merit and wealth, also over the bodily trouble involved therein; then he shall meditate upon God.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (3.11.5-7).—‘Waking up at the point of time sacred to Brahman, the wise man shall ponder over spiritual merit as also such wealth as may not be obstructive of the former; he shall think also of pleasure to the extent that it does not stand in the way of the other two. Such wealth and pleasure as are obstructive of spiritual merit one must abandon; as also such means of acquiring spiritual merit as may be conducive to pain or condemned by the people.’

Mahābhārata (13.104.15).—‘He shall rise at the point of time sacred to Brahman, and then ponder over spiritual merit and wealth.’

Viṣṇu (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 13).—‘Rising at the moment sacred to Brahman, he shall do all that has been declared to be conducive to Dharma.’

Dakṣa (Do.).—‘During the last two quarters of the night one shall be devoted to Vedic Study.’

Kāśikhaṇḍa (Do., 8.15).—‘The last half-quarter of ṭhe night is the moment sacred to Brahman; at that time should the wise man always rise and ponder over his welfare.’

092 Let him wake in the muhurta, sacred to Brahman, and think of (the acquisition of) spiritual merit and wealth, of the bodily fatigue arising therefrom, and of the true meaning of the Veda.

Having risen, and saving accomplished the necessities of nature, he shall perform the purifications, and, with collected mind, he shall stand, repeating for a long time (the Sāvitrī), during the morning-twilight, as also during the evening-twilight, at its proper time.’—(93).

अनन्तरं प्रभातायां रात्रौ शयनं⁷¹ जह्यात् । आवश्यकं मूत्रविट्त्यागः । प्रायेण तस्यां वेलायां पुरुषास् तं कुर्वन्ति⁷² । तत्र आवश्यकस् त्याग उच्यते मुखदन्तधावनादिश् च, तं कृत्वा कृतशौचः, “एका लिङ्गे” (म्ध् ५.१३४) इत्यादिविधिनाचान्तः । समाहितो विकल्पान्तरतिरस्कारेण संध्यां तिष्ठेत् । जपन् सावित्रीं भगवति सवितरि मनो दध्याच् चिरम् । अर्कदर्शनावधिः काल उक्तः संध्यासमयः । ततो ऽप्य् अधिकं कालं जपेद् आयुःकाम इत्य् एवमर्थम् अयं प्राग् उक्तः सांध्यो विधिर् अन्तर्हितः । अपरां च संध्यां स्वे काले अस्तमयसमयाद् आरभ्य तारकोदयाद् ऊर्ध्वम् अपि ॥ ४.९३ ॥

When the night has passed and the dawn appeared, he should leave his bed.

‘Necessities of nature.’— Evacuating of the bladder and of the bowels. As a rule, people do this act at that time; hence the evacuating has been called a ‘necessity.’

‘Purifications;’—i.e., brushing of the teeth, &c. having done all this; this is what is meant by ‘performing the purifications;’—i.e., having washed and cleansed himself, according to the rules laid down in 5.136.

‘With a collected mind;’—i.e., withdrawing his mind from all other thoughts.

‘He shall stand during the morning twilight,—repeating—the Sāvitrī;—he shall fix his mind upon the god Sun—‘for a long time.’

The time of ‘twilight’ has been described as extending up to the appearance of the Sun; and even longer than this, one shall go on repeating the Sāvitrī, if he desire longevity. It is for the adding of this prolongation that the afore mentioned Injunction regarding the Twilight Prayers (See 2.101) has been reiterated. ‘Also during the evening twilight,—at its proper time;’—i.e., beginning from sunset and prolonging it till after the appearance of the stars—(93)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 13).

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 104.16).—‘Rising from the bed, with joined hands he shall offer the morning Twilight Prayer.’

Viṣṇu (71.77).—‘For a long time he shall continue the Twilight Prayer.’

Aṅgiras (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 19).—‘Rising during the last quarter of the night, one should give up the cloth worn during the night, and having washed his hands, feet and face, think of Hari.’

Kātyāyana (Do., p. 20).—‘Rising, washing his eyes and becoming clean, etc.’

093 When he has risen, has relieved the necessities of nature and carefully purified himself, let him stand during the morning twilight, muttering for a long time (the Gayatri), and at the proper time (he must similarly perform) the evening (devotion).

It was by reason or their prolonged twilight-devotions that the sages obtained long life, wisdom, fame, refutation and Brahmic glory.—(94)

यदर्थो ऽयं पुनर् विधिस् तद् दर्शयति । आयुरादिफलकामो दीर्घकालसंध्याजपं कुर्यात् । सत्य् अपि नित्यत्वे दैघ्याद् गुणात् फलम् इदम् । अनग्निकस्य प्रोषितस्यैतत् संभवति । अन्यस्य त्व् अग्निहोत्रकालोपरोधो दीर्घसंध्याविधिसंपादनात् । दीर्घसंध्या गुणत उच्यते । संध्यासहचरिते जपादिविधौ संध्याशब्दो वर्तते । दीर्घा संध्यैषाम् इति बहुव्रीहिः । ऋषिग्रहणम् अर्थवादः ॥ ४.९४ ॥

The Author proceeds to show for what purpose the aforesaid act has been prescribed. The meaning is that if one desires such rewards as long life and so forth, he should perform the twilight-devotions for a long time. Though the act is an obligatory one, yet the said rewards follow from prolonging it.

This prolongation is possible only for one who is either without Fires, or is away from home. As for others (e.g., the man with the Fires living at home), the prolongation of the Twilight-Devotions would inpinge upon the time laid down for the Agnihotra-offerings.

The twilight devotion is called ‘prolonged,’ only figuratively; the term ‘twilight devotion’ standing for the reciting of Mantras, etc., that is done in connection with the said devotion.

The compound ‘dīrghasandhyā’ is a Bahuvrīhi.

The mention of the sages is by way of a commendatory statement—(94)

This verse is quoted in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 386), which explains that ‘dīrghasandhyatva’ is secured by continuing the Japa till after sunrise.

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 104.18).—[Same as Manu, reading ‘nityasandhya’ for ‘dīrghasandhya.’]

Yama (in Parāśaramādhava, p. 300).—[Same as Manu.]

094 By prolonging the twilight devotions, the sages obtained long life, wisdom, honour, fame, and excellence in Vedic knowledge.