१३ सदाचारान्तरम्

He shall not injure his Preceptor, or Teacher or Father, or mother, or another elder, or Brāhmaṇas, or Cows, or any persons performing austerities.—(162)

आचार्य उपनेता । प्रवक्ता अध्यापको व्याख्याता । गुरुस् ताभ्याम् अन्यः पितृव्यमातुलादिः । सर्वांश् चैव तपस्विनः । प्रायश्चित्तप्रवृत्तान् पातकिनो ऽपीति सर्वग्रहणम् । अविशेषेण सर्वभूतानां तत्र तत्र हिंसा निषिद्धा ।

• पुनर्वचनम् आचार्यादीनाम् आततायिनाम् अपि निषेधार्थम् इति केचित् । यस् तु “गुरुं वा बालवृद्धौ वा” (म्ध् ८.३५०) इत्यादिर् अर्थवादो ऽस्यैव प्रतिप्रसवः ।

• उपाध्यायस् त्व् आह । नायं प्रतिषेधः । पर्युदासो ऽयम् । संकल्पविधानार्थो “नोद्यन्तम् आदित्यम् ईक्षेत” (म्ध् ४.३७) इतिवत् । अतः प्रयत्ने ऽतिक्रान्ते¹ भवत्य् अयं² संकल्पप्रतिषेध इति³ ।

• अथ वा दुरुक्तभाषणं हिंसा, “वाग्भिस् तैस् तैर् जघान ताम्” इति प्रयोगदरसनात् ।

• अथ वा प्रतिकूलाचरणे हन्तिः प्रयुक्तः ॥ ४.१६२ ॥

‘Preceptor’—who initiated him.

‘Teacher’—who taught him, and explained to him (the Veda).

‘Elder’—other than the aforesaid two; i.e., the paternal uncle, the maternal uncle, and so forth.

‘Any persons performinq austerities.’—The term ‘any’ has been added with a view to include those sinners also who may be engaged in the performance of Expiatory Rites.

In various places, the injuring of all living beings has been forbidden: and some people think that the repetition of the same in the present text is meant to forbid the injuring of even such Preceptors and Teachers, etc., as may be great sinners and dangerous enemies; and that what is stated in 8.350 regarding the propriety of striking ‘the teacher, or the boy, or the old man,’ etc., is only a counter-exception to what is forbidden in the present verse.

Our Teacher, however, says as follows:—The present verse is not a ‘prohibition,’ it is of the nature of ‘preclusion;’ and it is meant to prescribe the determination (not to injure the persons, just like the text—‘he shall not look at the rising sun,’ etc. Hence, the mere act of injury having already gone before, the present may be taken as forbidding even the idea of injuring the persons mentioned.

Or, the term ‘hiṃsā,’ ‘injury,’ may be taken to mean ‘the saying of disagreeable words;’ in view of such expressions as ‘he struck her with words.’

Or, the root ‘hanti’ (in ‘hiṃsa’) may he taken as used in the sense of acting against.—(162).

‘Hiṃsyāt’—‘Strike, or talk in an offensive manner, or act against’ (Medhātithi);—‘act against’ (Kullūka);—‘injure’ (Govindarāja).

‘Tapasvinaḥ’—‘All persons engaged in austerities, including those engaged in expiatory penances’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja);—‘ascetics’ (Nandana and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 223);—in Mitākṣarā (on 2.21), in the sense that no injury should be inflicted upon the persons mentioned, even though they attack one with murderous intent;—in Vyāvahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 118);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyāvahāra, p. 7a), which explains the meaning to be that the persons mentioned should not be killed, even if they turn out to be ‘ātatāyin’, ‘dangerous criminal’.

Āpastamba (1.1.15).—‘He shall never hear ill-will towards him (the Teacher).’

Gautama (2.15).—‘There should never be any misbehaviour towards parents.’

Mahābhārata (Śānti, 132.9).—‘He shall never injure the Brāhmaṇas.’

Viṣṇu (30.43.47).—‘He shall never hear ill-will towards the person from whom he acquires any knowledge, temporal or scriptural or spiritual…… one who fills the ears with truth…… him one shall regard as Father and as Mother, and shall never bear ill-will towards him.’

162 Let him never offend the teacher who initiated him, nor him who explained the Veda, nor his father and mother, nor (any other) Guru, nor cows, nor Brahmanas, nor any men performing austerities.

He shall, avoid atheism, cavilling at the Vedas, abusing of the gods, hatred, haughtiness, pride, anger and hastiness.—(103)

वेदप्रमाणकानाम् अर्थानां मिथ्यात्वाध्यवसाये नास्तिक्यम् । शब्देन प्रतिपादनं निन्दा । पुनरुक्तौ वेदो ऽन्यो ऽन्यव्याहतो नात्र सत्यम् अस्तीति भावदोषेण, न पूर्वपक्षभङ्ग्या । अग्न्यादयो देवतास् तासां कुत्सनं निन्दैव । यथा “दग्धदैवेन हताः स्म” इति दैवे भवन्ति वक्तारः । द्वेषो मात्सर्यादिहेतुकाप्रीतिः । स्तम्भो ऽहंकाराद् अनम्राता । मानो ऽहंकार आत्माभिमानः “पण्डितो ऽहम् आढ्यो ऽहम्” इति । अमर्षः क्रोधस् तैक्ष्ण्यं पारुष्यम् । द्वेषपूर्वकः क्रोधः ॥ ४.१६३ ॥

‘Atheism’ consists in thinking, as untrue, of things that are spoken of in the Veda.

‘Cavilling’ is giving verbal expression to such ideas as—‘the Veda is full of needless repetitions and self-contradictions,’ ‘there is nothing true in it,’—with an evil intent, and not merely by way of propounding a discussion on these points.

‘Gods’—i.e., Agni and the rest; the ‘abusing’ of these stands for ‘talking ill of them.’ E.g. people are found to make such assertions as—‘we have been struck by the wretched gods.’

‘Hatred’—ill-feeling aroused by jealousy, etc.

‘Haughtiness’—want of humility, due to pride.

‘Pride’—Vanity regarding oneself: ‘I am very learned,’ ‘I am very rich,’ and so forth.

‘Anger’—wrath.

‘Harshness’—cruelty; i.e., anger preceded by hatred, (163)

‘Stambham’—‘Want of modesty’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa);—‘want of energy in the performance of duties’ (Kullūka).

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.31.5).—‘He shall avoid harshness towards the gods and the king.’

Do. (1.31.23).—‘He shall avoid anger and other bad feelings painful to living beings.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.38).—‘Disbelief in the Vedas, reviling of the works of sages, absence of restraint in all things,—all this is destructive of the soul.’

Viṣṇu (71.83).—‘He shall avoid the reviling of the gods, Brāhmaṇas, scriptures and great men.’

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 161.37).—(Same as Manu, but reading ‘paranindāñca’ for ‘devatānāñca.’)

163 Let him avoid atheism, cavilling at the Vedas, contempt of the gods, hatred, want of modesty, pride, anger, and harshness.

He shall not, when angry, raise the rod against another person, nor shall he let it fall; except in the case of the son or the pupil; these two he may beat with a view to correction.—(164)

येन दम्यते स दण्डः करलगुडशिफारज्जुविदलादि । तं परस्य क्रुद्धः सन् नोद्यच्छेन् नोत्क्षिपेत् । प्रहारार्थं तिर्यग् अपि न निपातयेत् । निपातणं वेगेन तदङ्गसंयोगः । पुत्रशिष्याव् अनुताडयेच् छिफावेणुदलचपेटाभिर् यथाष्टमे वक्ष्यति, न दण्डेन । तौ च न क्रोधेन, किं⁴ तर्हि शिष्ट्यर्थम् अनुशासनार्थम्, बाल्याद् यदि चापलम् आचरतः । यथा “पृष्टतस् तु शरीरस्य” (म्ध् ८.३००) इतीषत् ताड्यौ । शिष्यग्रहणं दासीदासस्यापि प्रदर्शनार्थम्, समानकार्यत्वात् ॥ ४.१६४ ॥

‘Daṇḍa,’ ‘rod,’ is that whereby one is struck, ‘daṇḍyate;’ that is, the hand, the stick, the whip, the rope, the split-bamboo, and so forth.—This ‘rod’ ‘he shall not raise, when angry, against another person;’ i.e., he shall not hold it up; nor shall he let it fall down; i.e., bring it into contact with the other person’s body.

The son and the pupil one may strike with the whip, the split-bamboo, or the slap,—as is going to be mentioned under Discourse VIII,—but not with the stick. Further, these two are to be beaten, not in auger, but only with a view to correction,’—i.e., for the purpose of correcting them, if through boyishness, they happen to misbehave. And these two are to be punished lightly, as is going to be laid down under 8.299.

The ‘pupil’ is meant to exclude the male and female slaves also; the purpose served (i. e., correction) being the same in both cases—(164).

Cf. 8.298-299 and 4.175.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 231), which adds:—‘Śiṣya’ here means ‘one who has to be taught—the ‘son’ is mentioned separately with a view to emphasis;—and in support of this it quotes the rule of Viṣṇu, which is in the general form ‘Śāsyam śāset tāḍayet’.

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 161.38).—(Same as Manu, but reading ‘Tāḍanam smṛtam’ for ‘tāḍayettu tam’).

Viṣṇu (71.80.82).—‘He shall not raise the rod against another person;—for disciplinary purposes, he shall beat his pupil, on the back, either with a rope or a bamboo-piece.’

Yājñavalkya (1.155).—‘He shall beat his son and his pupil.’

164 Let him, when angry, not raise a stick against another man, nor strike (anybody) except a son or a pupil; those two he may beat in order to correct them.