१६ बन्धुषु नयः

He shall tread the path of the righteous by the same way in which his fathers and grandfathers have trodden; going by that way, he shall not suffer.—(178)

यो धर्मः पित्रादिभिर् अनुष्ठितः, यैश् च सह प्रीतिर् भाविता, यैः सह कन्याविवाहादिः कृतः, यैव च शाखा अधीता, स एव पन्था आश्रयणीयः । तथा कुर्वन् न रिष्यति न बाध्यते, लोके न निन्द्यते ।

• अन्ये त्व् अविदुषः पुरुषधर्मेष्व् अहिंसादिषु प्रत्युपायो ऽयम्, राजपटह इव म्लेच्छादीनाम् । अग्निहोत्रादयस् तु स्वप्रत्ययापेक्षा एव ।

• अत्र चोदयन्ति । यदि निर्मूलः पित्रादिभिर् अनुष्ठितो ऽर्थः, कथं तस्य धर्मत्वम् । अथास्ति मूलम्, तत् पुत्रस्यापि भविष्यति, किं पित्रादिग्रहणेन ।

• तद् एतत् परिहृतम्, अविदुषां मूलम् अजानानाम् उपदेशो ऽयम् इति ।

• अन्ये तु यत्र निपुणतो ऽपि निरूप्यमाणे संदेहो न निवर्तते, उभयथा वाक्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिः, तत्र पित्राद्याचरितः पन्था आश्रयणीय इत्य् आहुः ।

• एतद् अपि चिन्त्यम् । न हि नित्यसंदिग्धं नाम प्रमाणम् अस्ति । अवश्यं ह्य् एकार्थनिष्ठेन वाक्येन भवितव्यम् ।

• विकल्पितेषु वा पदार्थेषु पित्राद्याचरितं कर्मानुचरणीयम्, यतो ऽन्य आचरितवन्तः ।

• सतां मार्गम् इति । यदि पितृपितामहादिभिः कैश्चित् कथंचिद् अधर्म आचरितपूर्वः स न आश्रयणीय इति सतां मार्गम् इत्य् आह ॥ ४.१७८ ॥

The ‘rightious path’ that has been followed by his forefathers,—in the way of forming friendships with certain persons, the forming of marriage-alliances with certain people, the studying of a certain rescensional text of the Veda, and so forth that same path should be followed by the man himself. By acting thus, he ‘shall not suffer’—i.e., he does not suffer harm, is not blamed in the world.

What is here laid down is the means of knowing one’s duty, that is open to ignorant men,—especially in regard to such acts as not injuring others, and so forth; just like the beat of the royal drum, which announces to the Mlecchas and other people what they should do.- So far as the Agnihotra and such acts are concerned, these are to be learnt only by the texts bearing upon each of them.

Some people urge the following objection here:—“If what has been done by the forefathers happen to be such as has no basis in the scriptures,—how can that be regarded as ‘dharma,’ a ‘rightious act?’ If, on the other hand, it has some basis in the scriptures, then that same would be the source of knowledge open to the son also; and in that case, what would be the point in referring him to the practice of his forefathers?”

This objection we have already answered by pointing out that what is here laid down as the means of knowing duty that is open to illiterate persons.

Others, again, make the following assertion:—“In a case where, even on careful examination, one’s doubt regarding one’s duty does not cease,—and the texts available are capable of lending support to both the courses open to him,—in such cases, one should act according to the practice of one’s forefathers.”

This view also needs to be examined. There is no valid source of knowledge that can be always doubtful; the text bearing upon a question must always point to only one efficient course of action.

It may be that what is meant is that, in the matter of optional alternatives, one should adopt the practice of one’s forefathers; simply because it has been adopted by others in the past.

‘The path of the righteous.’—This has been added with a view to emphasize the fact that, if one’s forefathers may have followed an unrighteous path, one shall not follow such a practice, in such cases.—(178).

Mahābhārata (Ādi, 210.29)—‘Dharma, O king, is very subtle, we know not its ways; all we do is that we follow the footsteps of our forefathers.’

178 Let him walk in that path of holy men which his fathers and his grandfathers followed; while he walks in that, he will not suffer harm.

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

179 With an officiating or a domestic priest, with a teacher, with a maternal uncle, a guest and a dependant, with infants, aged and sick men, with learned men, with his paternal relatives, connexions by marriage and maternal relatives,

He shall not have a quarrel with the officiating priest, the priest, or his Teacher, or with his maternal uncle, or his guests or dependants, with children, or with old or sick persons, or with doctors, with his paternal relations or marriage relations, with his parents, or female relations, or brother or son, or wife, or daughter, or with his slaves.—(179-180).

न समाचरेद् इत्य् एकैकेन संबध्यते । संश्रिता आश्रयागता उपजीविनः । वैद्या विद्वांसो भिषजो वा । ज्ञातयः पितृपक्षाः । संबन्धिनो वैवाह्याः । बान्धवा मातृपक्षा मातृष्वस्रीयप्रभृतयः । जामयो भगिन्याः स्ववासिनश् च । विवादो विरोधः प्रतिकूलाचरणं वाक्कलहश् च । एतैर् न कुर्यात् ॥ ४.१७९–८० ॥

‘He shall not have’—is connected with each of the persons.

‘Dependants’—who derive their livelihood from him.

‘Doctors’—learned men, or physicians.

‘Jñāti’—paternal relations.

‘Sambandhi’—relations by marriage.

‘Bāndhava’—maternal relations; sons of maternal aunt, and so forth.

‘Female relations’—sisters and other married relations.

‘Quarrel’—any sort of misunderstanding or unpleasant dealing, and even wordy quarrel—‘he shall not do’—with any of these.—(180).

**(verses 4.179-180)
**

These verses are quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 573);—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 120).

**(verses 4.179-181)
**

Mahābhārata (Śānti, 249.14-17).—(Same as Manu; but reading ‘Etān vīmucya saṃvādān’ for ‘etairvivādān santyajya and ‘jitaḥ.’ for ‘jitaiḥ.’)

Yājñavalkya (1.157-158).—‘The Householder wins all regions by avoiding quarrels with his mother, father, brother, female relations, relations by marriage, maternal uncle, aged persons, boys, sick persons, his teacher, doctors, dependants and relations, his priest, the officiating priest, his own children, wife, slaves and paternal relations.’

180 With his father and his mother, with female relatives, with a brother, with his son and his wife, with his daughter and with his slaves, let him not have quarrels.

Having renounced quarrel with these, the householder becomes freed from all sins; and, by ignoring them, he wins all these worlds.—(181)

एतैर् विवादैः क्रियमाणैर् यः पापयोगो भवति, अकर्तुस् तेन न संबन्धः । सर्वपापैः प्रमुच्यत इत्य् उच्यते । एतैश् च जितैर् उपेक्षितैः सर्वांल् लोकाञ् जयति स्वीकरोतीत्य् अर्थवादः ॥ ४.१८१ ॥

The sin that accrues from such quarelling, does not accrue to him who avoids them;—this is what is meant by the phrase, ‘becomes freed from all sins.’

When these are ignored, he ‘wins’—makes his own—‘all these worlds.’

This is a purely commendatory exaggeration.’—(181).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 573).

**(verses 4.179-181)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.179].

181 If he avoids quarrels with these persons, he will be freed from all sins, and by suppressing (all) such (quarrels) a householder conquers all the following worlds.

The teacher is the lord of the world of Brahmā; the Father is sovereign of the world of Prajāpati; the Guest is the master of the world of Indra; and the Priests are the lords of the world of gods.—(182)

आचार्यो ब्रह्मलोकस्येशः प्रभुस् तस्मिन् परितुष्टे ब्रह्मलोकः प्राप्यते । अतो गुणतो ब्रह्मलोकेश इत्य् उच्यते । प्राजापत्ये लोके पिता प्रभुः ॥ ४.१८२ ॥

The Teacher is the lord of Brahma’s world; so that, when the Teacher is satisfied, that world is attained. It is this fact that is figuratively described as the Teacher being the lord of that region.

The Father is the sovereign of the world of Prajāpati.—(182).

Cf. 2.244.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 574), as setting forth reasons for not quarelling with those mentioned in the preceding verses.

**(verses 4.182-185)
**

Mahābhārata (Śānti, 249.17-21).—(Same as Manu, hut reading ‘indralokesya’ for ‘indralokeśaḥ’—‘vaiśvadeve tu jñātayaḥ’ for ‘vaiśvadeve tu bāndhavāḥ,’—‘bāndharā dikṣu’ for ‘no yapām loke,’—‘bṛddhabālāturakṛśāstvākāśe prabhaviṣṇavaḥ’ for ‘ākāśeśāstu vijñeyā bālabṛddhakṛśāturāḥ,’—and ‘sahenni-tyamasañjvaraḥ’ for ‘sahetāsañjvaraḥ sadā.’)

182 The teacher is the lord of the world of Brahman, the father has power over the world of the Lord of created beings (Pragapati), a guest rules over the world of Indra, and the priests over the world of the gods.

183 The female relatives (have power) over the world of the Apsarases, the maternal relatives over that of the Visve Devas, the connexions by marriage over that of the waters, the mother and the maternal uncle over the earth.

Female relatives (have power) over the region of the Heavenly nymphs; maternal relations, over that of the Viśvedevas; marriage-relations, over the region of the Waters; the mother and maternal uncle, over the Earth; the children, the aged, the emaciated and the sick should be regarded as the lords of Ākāśa; the elder brother is equal to the Father; the wife and the son are one’s own body.—(183-184).

भार्या पुत्रः स्व्कीया तनुर् आत्मीयम् एव शरीरम् ॥ ४.१८४ ।

‘The wife and the son are one’s own’—his very own—‘body.’—(183-184)

(verse 4.183)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 574).

**(verse 4.184)
**

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 574).

**(verses 4.182-185)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.182].

184 Infants, aged, poor and sick men must be considered as rulers of the middle sphere, the eldest brother as equal to one’s father, one’s wife and one’s son as one’s own body,

Slaves are one’s own shadow; the daughter is the highest object of tenderness. For these reasons, when offended by these, he shall always bear it without heat.—(185)

यो भृत्यवर्गः स आत्मीया छाया । यथा छाया नित्यानुगता न क्रोधविषय, एवं भृत्यवर्गो ऽपि । दुहिता कृपणम् अनुकम्प्या दयनीया¹ । एतैः पूर्वोक्तैर् अधिक्षिप्तः परुषवचनैर् आकृष्टः कोपितः सहेत क्षमेत । असज्वरो ऽविद्यमानज्वरः ज्वराभावेन च चित्तस्यासंक्षोभो लक्ष्यते । ज्वरितस्य हि चित्तसंक्षोभो भवति तद्वत् क्रुद्धस्य । अथ वा पाठान्तरम्- “असंज्वरः” । संतापः संज्वरः (अम्क् १.१.६०) । स नञा प्रतिषिध्यते ॥ ४.१८५ ॥

One’s slaves are one’s own shadow; just as one’s shadow always follows one, and is never an object of resentment, so also are one’s slaves.

‘The daughter is the object of tenderness ’—i.e., sympathy.

‘By these’—aforesaid persons—‘when offended’—attacked, made angry, by harsh words—‘he shall bear it,’—‘asajavaraḥ,’ ‘without heat;’—this ‘absence of heat’ stands for the total absence of any disturbance of the mind or resentment; a man in feverish heat has his mind disturbed, so is also the man under resentment. Or, we may read ‘asañjvaraḥ,’—‘sañjvaraḥ’ being synonymous with ‘santāpa,’ ‘heat’ (according to Amarakośa); and this is prohibited by means of the negative prefix.—(185).

Cf. Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.13.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 574);—and in Vyāvahāra Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 572).

**(verses 4.182-185)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.182].

185 One’s slaves as one’s shadow, one’s daughter as the highest object of tenderness; hence if one is offended by (any one of) these, one must bear it without resentment.