२२ भोजननिषेधाः

The Brāhmaṇa shall never eat at a sacrifice performed by one who has not learnt the Veda; or at one performed by a village-priest, or at one offered by a woman or a eunuch.—(205).

तत्र भोजनम् एव तावद् अर्थित्वाद् यत्र कुत्रचित् प्राप्तं निषिध्यते । अश्रोत्रियो ऽनधीयानस् तेन तते प्रारब्धे यज्ञ ऋत्विग्भिर् वाश्रोत्रियैस् तते न भुञ्जीत ब्राह्मणः । ग्रामयाजी ग्रामयाजकस् तेन यत्र हूयते, यत्र च स्त्री होमं करोति । छान्दोग्ये हि स्त्रीणां गृह्यस्मृतिकारैर् अग्निहोत्रहोम उक्तो ऽतस् तं पश्यन् प्रतिषेधति ।

• अथ वा यत्र यज्ञे स्त्री प्रधानं भर्ता दारिद्र्यादिदोषैर् उपहतः स्त्री च सौदायिकेन धनेन ज्ञातिबलेन च दर्पिता तत्रायं प्रतिषेधः ।

• क्लीबो नपुंसकम् ॥ ४.२०५ ॥

The preceding verse has closed the section on Positive Duties; now begins the section on prohibitions (Negative Duties).

Among the various acts it is that of eating which is likely to be done at random,—food being what is sought after most; hence the text proceeds with prohibitions regarding the act of eating.

‘Aśrotriya,’ ‘Non-śrotriya,’ is one who has not learnt the Veda; at the sacrifice ‘performed’—undertaken—by him,—or at sacrifice at which the officiating priests are ignorant of the Veda—‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not eat.’

‘Village-priest,’—one who officiates as the priest of the entire village; where such a person, or a woman, offers the sacrifice.

In the Chāndogya, the authors of the Gṛhya -rules have described the performance of sacrifices by women, and it is in view of this that the text forbids eating at such sacrifices. Or, the prohibition may refer to that sacrifice at which the woman is the principal performer; her husband being beset with poverty and other disqualifications, and the woman being proud of the wealth acquired by her as dowry, or of the wealth possessed by her relations.

‘Eunuch’— wanting in masculinity.—(205)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 944);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 494), which explains ‘aśrotriyatate’ as ‘that which is performed by such priests or sacrifices as are devoid of Vedic learning’; this prohibition must mean that one should not eat at such a sacrifice, even after Agniṣomīya-Vapāyāga; as regards the time before this, eating at a sacrifice is already forbidden by the general rule that ‘one should not eat the food belonging to one who has been initiated for a sacrificial performance’;—‘grāmayājin’ is one who performs sacrifices for groups of men; and one should not eat at a sacrifice where such a priest makes the offerings;—nor should one eat at a house where Vaiśvadeva and other offerings have been made by a woman; this must be taken as applying to cases where such priests are available, for where they are not available, even women fire permitted to make the offerings;—‘klība’ is ‘impotent’.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 770);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 259), which adds the following notes—‘aśrotrīya’, one who has not learnt the Veda,—‘grāmayājī’, one who officiates as priest at the Śrāddha and other performances by several persons, or performs propitiatory rites for others; one should not go to a sacrifice where such a man happens to be the Hotṛ, priest.

Gautama (17.11).—‘He shall keep away from honour at the hands of unequals.’

Āpastamba (1.19.27).—‘The eunuch also.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.14).—‘He shall not take part in ceremonies performed by one who serves as the priest of many persons, or by one who initiates many persons.’

205 A Brahmana must never eat (a dinner given) at a sacrifice that is offered by one who is not a Srotriya, by one who sacrifices for a multitude of men, by a woman, or by a eunuch.

Where such persons pour the oblations, it is considered indecent by all good men; it is disagreeable to the gods; hence, one should avoid it—(206)

पूर्वस्य प्रतिषेधविधेर् अर्थवादो ऽयम् । अश्लीलम् अश्लाघ्यं साधूनाम् शिष्टानाम् । यत्र ह्य् एते हविर् जुह्वति यज्ञं कुर्वन्ति । देवानां प्रतीपं पर्तिकूलम् । तस्माद् ईदृशे गमनं परिवर्जयेत् ॥ ४.२०६ ॥

This verse is supplementary to the foregoing prohibitive Injunction.

‘Indecent’—blameworthy.

‘By good men’—by all cultured people.

‘Where such persons pour the oblations,’—i.e., offer sacrifices.

‘It is disagreeable’—displeasing—‘to the gods.’

‘Hence one should avoid’—going to—‘these sacrifices.’—(206).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 494), which explains ‘aślīka’ as ‘conducive to adversity’,—and ‘pratīpa’ as ‘disagreeable’;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 250), which remarks that the entire verse is ‘Arthavāda’.

Vaśiṣṭha (14.5).—‘The gods do not partake of the offerings of one who is suffering from white leprosy, or of one who has married a girl after puberty, or of one who is under the subjection of his wife, or of one who permits his wife’s paramour to live in the house.’

206 When those persons offer sacrificial viands in the fire, it is unlucky for holy (men) it displeases the gods; let him therefore avoid it.

He shalll never eat food offered by intoxicated or angry or sick persons; nor that which is contaminated by hair or insects, or that which has been intentionally touched with the foot.—(207)

यावन् मदादियोग एतेषां तावद् अभोज्यता । अन्ये बाहुल्यं मन्यन्ते । बाहुल्येन यः क्षीबो भवति मद्यशौण्डस् तदन्नं न भोक्तव्यम् । एवं क्रोधप्रधानस्य भृशंकोपनस्य च प्रायेण चातुरस्य रोगामयव्यादेः ।

• केशकीटैर् अवपन्नं संसर्गेण दूषितम् । कीटाश् च केचिन् मृता दूषयन्ति न जीवन्तो यथा मक्षिका गृहगोधाश् च । अन्ये तु जीवन्त एव । कीटग्रहणं क्षुद्रजन्तूनां कृमिपतङ्गानाम् अपि पर्दर्शनार्थम् । केशग्रहणं नखरोम्णां दूषिकादीनां मलानाम्, समाचारात् । पादेन बुद्धिपूर्वं कामकारेण स्पृष्टम् । प्रमादतस् तु न दोषः ॥ ४.२०७ ॥

The food offered by such persons is to be avoided, so long as the intoxication and other conditions are actually on them.

Others explain the text to refer to habit; the sense being that one should avoid the food offered by such persons as are frequently drunk,—who are habitual drunkards.

Similarly, with one who has bad temper and is frequently obssessed by rage; or one who is mostly sick, a confirmed invalid.

‘What is contaminated by’—spoilt by the touch of—‘hair and insect.’ Among insects, there are some which contaminate the food by their presence when they are dead; e.g., flies and lizards; while others spoil it even when living.

The term ‘insect’ includes all small creatures, such as worms, flies, etc. And ‘hair’ includes nails and bristles, as also dirt and other things;—on the basis of usage.

‘What is touched with the foot intentionally;’—there is no harm if it is touched simply through chance carelessness—(207).

The first half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3. 290);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 944);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 494), which explains ‘mattaḥ’ as ‘intoxicated, either by wine or by wealth etc.’—and ‘āturaḥ’ as ‘afflicted with a very serious disease.’

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 451), which explains ‘Keśakītāvapanna’ as ‘defiled by the presence of hair or insects’;—and ‘Kāmataḥ’ as ‘intentionally’;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 517), which adds that since the text has added the qualification ‘Kāmataḥ’, there should be no harm if the food happens to be touched by the foot unintentionally;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 610 and 770);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 296);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260), which explains ‘Keśakītāvapannam’ as ‘cooked along with hairs or insects’.

Gautama (17.9-10).—‘What has been contaminated by hair or insect, or what has been defiled by the touch of the feet of a woman in her courses, or of the black bird.’

Āpastamba (1.16.23-28).—‘That food in which there may be hair,—or some other unclean thing;—what has been defiled by unclean things:—or by such insects as live on unclean things:—or by the tail of the mouse;—or what has been defiled by the foot.’

Viṣṇu (5.18-19).—‘What has been intentionally touched by the foot or sneezed upon;—also that belonging to the intoxicated, the enraged and the diseased.’

Yājñavalkya (1.162, 167, 168).—‘The food offered by the physician, the diseased, the enraged, the loose woman, the intoxicated, the enemy, of one who is cruel or of the ‘Ugra,’ the outcast, the apostate, the hypocrite or persons feeding upon leavings;—flesh needlessly prepared and not offered to gods or Pitṛs, what contains hair or insects, food turned sour or kept overnight, touched by the dog or seen by the outcast; or touched by the woman in her courses, or what has been offered publicly or by mistake; what has been smelt by the cow, or partaken of by the dog, or touched by the foot intentionally.’

207 Let him never eat (food given) by intoxicated, angry, or sick (men), nor that in which hair or insects are found, nor what has been touched intentionally with the foot,

Nor that which has been looked at by the Brāhmaṇa-slayer, or what has been toughed by a woman in her courses, or what has been pecked by the birds, or what has been touched by a dog.—(208)

भ्रूणहा ब्रह्मघ्नस् तेन्आवेक्षितं निपुणतो दृष्टम् । प्रदर्शनं चैतद् अन्येषाम् अपि पातकिनाम् । पातकिभिः स्पृष्टस्य¹ तु प्रतिषेधः² । तैः स्पृष्टस्य तु प्रतिषेधः³ स्नानविधानाद् एव सिद्धः । उदक्या रजस्वला, तया स्पृष्टस्य प्रतिषेधः, नावेक्षितस्य ।

• ननु च तत्स्पर्शिनो ऽपि यावत् स्नानं वक्ष्यति, अतस् तेनैवाशुचित्वे सिद्धे कुतस् तत्स्पृष्टस्य भोजनप्राप्तिः ।

• उच्यते । प्रक्षाल्य तद् अन्नं भोज्यम् । अथ वा भ्रूणहग्रहणं प्रदर्शनर्थम् इत्य् उक्तम् । तत्र कश्चिन् मन्येत दिवाकीर्तिश्लोकपठितानां प्रदर्शनार्थम् इति (म्ध् ५.८४) । तथा चोद्क्यावेक्षितस्यापि प्रतिषेधः स्यात् ।

• एतेन शुना संस्पृष्टं व्याख्यातम् ।

• अत उक्तं पतितानाम् एवान्येषां प्रदर्शनार्थम् । तद् अत्र युक्तः पतितसूतिकेत्यादीनाम् । उदक्याग्रहणं सूतिकाया निदर्शनार्थम् ।

• पतत्रिणा । पतत्री पक्षी स च क्रव्यादो गृध्रवायसादिः समाचारान् न तु हंसादिः ॥ ४.२०८ ॥

‘Bhrūnahā’ is the Brāhmaṇa-slayer; what has been ‘looked at’—eagerly seen—by such a person. This is only illustrative; it indicates other sinful persons also. The prohibition of food touched by these persons follows from the rule that lays down the necessity of bathing on being touched by such sinners.

‘Udakyā’ is the woman in her courses; and what is forbidden is food touched—not merely seen—by her.

“As a matter of fact, the Text is going to lay down the necessity of bathing on touching a woman in her courses; this alone being sufficient to indicate her impurity, how could there be any possibility of any one taking the food touched by her (that the Author should have found it necessary to forbid it)?”

Our answer to this is as follows:—[ This prohibition was thought necessary, because ] in the first place, people might be led to eat food touched by her after having washed it; or secondly, in view of what has been said regarding the mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa-slayer’ being illustrative, some one might be led to believe that this latter term is indicative of all those that are mentioned in verse 5.85; and, in that case, the prohibition would apply to the food even seen by the woman in her courses.

This same explanation applies to the prohibition of ‘what has been touched by a dog.’

It has been said that the term ‘Brāhmaṇa-slayer’ is indicative of other sinful outcasts also; and what are thus included are the ‘outcast,’ ‘the newly-delivered woman’ and others mentioned later on (in 5.85); and the ‘woman in her courses.’ also includes the newly-delivered woman.

‘Patatri’ is bird; and the birds meant are the carnivorous ones, the vulture, etc., and not the swan and other non-carnivorous ones; such being the usage among men.—(208)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 451), which explains ‘bhrūṇaghna’ as ‘an outcast,’—‘udakīyā’ as ‘the woman in her courses,’—and ‘patatriṇavalīḍham’ as ‘what has been eaten by the crow and other birds.’

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 518), which explains ‘udakīyā’ as ‘the woman in her courses,’—‘patatrin’ as ‘birds,’—and ‘avalīḍham’ as ‘eaten’;—in Hemādri (Shraddha, p. 610);—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 296).

Gautama (17.10-11).—‘Touched by the woman in the courses or by the feet of birds;—seen by an abortionist, or smelt by the cow, or defiled in thought.’

Āpastamba (1.16.29-30).—‘Seen by the dog or by an improper person.’

Viṣṇu (51.17).—‘Seen by the abortionist, touched by the woman in her courses, pecked by birds, touched by the dog, smelt by the cow.’

Yājñavalkya (1.167.168).—(See above.)

Āpastamba (1.19.1).—‘One who is intoxicated or insane or imprisoned, the paramour living in the house of his ladylove, or one who permits his wife’s paramour to live in the house—(the food of these should he avoided).’

208 Nor that at which the slayer of a learned Brahmana has looked, nor that which has been touched by a menstruating woman, nor that which has been pecked at by birds or touched by a dog,

Nor the food that has been smelt by the cow, nor particularly that food which has been publicly offered, nor the food that belongs to a multitude, nor the food of the harlot, nor that which has been censured by the learned.—(209)

घुष्टान्नं यद् उद्घुष्य दीयते ऽनामन्त्रिताय कस्मैचिद् अर्थिने मठसत्रभक्तादिविशेषानुद्देशेन । यद् वान्यस्मै प्रतिश्रुत्यान्यस्मै दीयते । प्रतिपत्तिज्ञाने ह्य् अयं धतुः पठ्यते । तदभावे बाधितं स्मरन्ति यज्ञविवाहादिष्व् अनामन्त्रितभोजनम् ।

• अयं च गणः संघातस्⁴ तस्माद् भ्रातॄणां त्व् अविभक्तानां न गणव्यपदेशः । “भ्रातॄणाम् अविभक्तानाम् एको धर्मः प्रवर्तते” (च्ड़्। म्ध् ९.२१५) इति वचनाद् एकश् च धर्मस् तेषाम् आतिथ्यादिक्रियैवेति नवमे दर्शितम्- “ज्येष्ठ एव तु गृह्णीयात् पित्र्यं धनम् अशेषतः” (म्ध् ९.१०५) इति । तस्य च ग्रहणम् अवश्यकर्तव्येष्व् अधिकार इति दर्सयति । साधारणस्यापि अन्यस्यातन्मध्यगतस्य प्रतिषेधः । गणिका वेश्या । जुगुप्सितं निन्दितम् । विदुषा वेदार्थविदा । भक्ष्यम् अपि बिसखल्यादि ॥ ४.२०९ ॥

‘Food publicly offered,’—the food that is given at temples or sacrificial sessions, by public notice, to all coiners, without any invitation to individuals. Or, it may mean ‘what is given to one person after having been promised to another.’

The root, ‘Ghuṣ’ has been declared to mean to announce; so that people regard the present verse as refering to cases where there is no announcement; and what is forbidden, therefore, is eating, without invitation, at sacrifices, marriages and such other functions.

The ‘gaṇa,’ meant by the text is multitude, company; hence the name is not applied to a number of brothers living together undivided. It is declared in Discourse IX that ‘there is a single duty operating among brothers living jointly’; and the duty therein referred to is the receiving of guests, and so forth; all which is made clear under 9.105, where the ‘eldest brother’ is declared as inheriting the entire parental property; and it is this inheritance that indicates his liability to fulfil the duties also.

What is forbidden is what is not induced in the parental heritage, even though it belong in common to all.

‘Harlot’ is the public woman.

‘Censured’— deprecated,—‘by the learned’,—even though it be something edible; e.g., the lotus-stalk, the oil-cake, and so forth.—(209)

The second half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290).

The verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 451), which explains ‘ghuṣṭānnam’ as ‘the food that is offered at sacrificial sessions and other similar occasions, to all and sundry by public proclamation’;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 495), which explains ‘ghuṣṭānna’ in the same manner as Smṛtitattva, but quotes Medhātithi’s second alternative explanation of it as ‘what had been previously promised to another person’; ‘viśeṣataḥ’ has been added with a view to indicate the exceptional objectionability of the food;—‘gaṇa’ is ‘multitude,’—this term is not applicable to brothers who have not separated;—‘gaṇikā’ is a ‘prostitute’;—‘what has been condemned by a disinterested person learned in the Veda, even without his detecting any of the specified defects.’

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 510 and 771);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260), which adds the following notes: —‘Ghuṣṭānnam’, that food which is offered publicly with such words as ‘who is there who will take this food?’,—‘gaṇānnam’ food cooked by several persons jointly.

Gautama (17.11).—(See above.)

(Do.) (17. 15).—‘What has been touched by the unchaste woman, the accused person, or one who is unknown, or one who is undergoing punishment, or the carpenter, the miser, the physician, the fowler, one who lives upon leavings,—of the multitude or of enemies.’

Āpastamba (17.5).—‘What has been smelt by men, or by other unclean animals.’

(Do.) (18.16-17).—‘The food belonging to a multitude should not be eaten, or what has been censured.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.4).—‘What has been publicly offered, or the food belonging to a multitude or to a harlot.’

Viṣṇu (61.7, 9, 17).—‘The food belonging to a multitude or to a harlot or to a thief or to a singer—if one eats this he should live for seven days on milk only,—also the food belonging to a woman, a miser, one who has been initiated for a sacrifice, one who is accused of a crime, or the eunuch. What has been seen by the abortionist, or touched by the woman in her courses, or pecked by birds, or touched by the dog or smelt by the cow.’

Yājñavalkya (1.168).—(See above.)

(Do.) (1.161.).—‘Food belonging to a miser, a prisoner, a thief, a eunuch, an actor, a dealer in bamboos, one accused of a crime, an usurer, a harlot, a multitude, or the person initiated for a sacrifice.’

209 Nor food at which a cow has smelt, nor particularly that which has been offered by an invitation to all comers, nor that (given) by a multitude or by harlots, nor that which is declared to be had by a learned (man),

Nor the food of the thief or the singer, nor of the carpenter, the usurer, of the initiated person, of the miser, the prisoner and the fettered.—(210)

गायनो यो गीतेन जीवति । अन्यस्य त्व् अपरान्तकादिगानं विहितम् एव । कदर्यः कृपणः । बद्धनिगडयोर् विशेषः- एको वाङ्मात्रेणावरुद्धः अपरो रज्ज्वायसनिगडैर् यन्त्रितः । “विशदस्य च” इत्य् अन्ये पठन्ति । कष्टं च विशदम् आचक्षते ॥ ४.२१० ॥

‘Singer,’— Who lives by singing. The ordinary occasional singing of popular songs is actually laid down.

‘Miser’— niggard.

The difference between the ‘prisoner’ and the ‘fettered’ is, that the former may be imprisoned by mere words (verbal orders), while the latter is actually bound in ropes and iron-chains.

Some people read ‘viśadasya’ for ‘nigadasya;’—‘viśaḍa’ being explained as ‘man in trouble.’—(210)

‘Baddhasya nigaḍasya;’—‘One who is only verbally confined and one who is bound with cords or iron chains’ (Medhātithi);—‘one bound with chains’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 944);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 451);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 495) which adds the following notes:—‘Stena’ is ‘one who takes away what belongs to another,’—‘gāyana’ is ‘one who makes a living by singing,’—‘takṣan’ is ‘one who has carpentery for his livelihood,’—and ‘Vārdhuṣika’ is ‘one who makes a living by charging improper rates of interest, or by making undue profits by trade; and adds that the term is also applied to one who brags of his own superior virtues and decries others’—this on the strength of a text quoted from Viṣṇu;—‘dīkṣita’ is ‘one who has been consecrated by means of the Dīkṣaṇīya-Iṣṭi,’—whose food should not be eaten prior to the ceremony of purchasing the Soma, or before the Agnīṣomīya vapāyāga;—‘kadarya’ is ‘the miser,’ defined by Devala as ‘one who, through greed for amassing wealth, causes suffering to himself, his wife and children, as also hinders the right fulfilment of his religious duties’;—‘baddhasya’ means ‘bound with ropes,’ or ‘bound only verbally,’—and ‘nigaḍasya’ means ‘one who is in chains’; though ‘nigaḍa’ means ‘chains’ only, yet it stands here for one who is in chains; [this is as Medhātithi has explained the terms]; or the genitive in ‘nigaḍasya’ may be taken in the sense of the instrumental, so that, the two words ‘baddhasya nigaḍasya’ may be taken together as ‘nigadena baddhasya’ (one bound in chains);—this according to Kalpataru.

This is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 710);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260), which defines ‘Vārdhuṣika’ according to Yama as ‘one who buys things cheap, and sells them dear, as also one who makes a living by lending money on interest’; and explains ‘dīkṣitaḥ’ as ‘the person who has performed the Dīkṣaṇīya Iṣṭi’; his food is forbidden till the end of the sacrifice in connection with which that Iṣṭi has been performed,—and ‘kadarya’as ‘he who amasses wealth at the cost of much discomfort to himself, his religious performances, his wife and children;—‘baddhasya,’ one who is tied with a rope,—‘nigaḍa,’ chain.

Gautama (17.15).—(See above.)

Āpastamba (1.18.18, 22, 23).—‘Of all those who live by arts and crafts;—also the usurer,—also one who has been initiated for the sacrifice, until he has bought the Soma.’

(Do.) (1.19.1).—(See above, under 208.)

Vaśiṣṭha (14.2-3).—‘The food offered by the following should not be eaten—the physician, the fowler, the loose woman, the thief, the accused, the eunuch, the outcast;—the miser, the initiated person, the invalid, the Soma-seller, the carpenter, the dyer, the oil-presser, the usurer, the leather-dealer.’

Yājñavalkya (1.161).—(See above, under 209.)

Viṣṇu (51.7).—(Do.)

Mahābhārata (Śānti, 35.29).—‘Of the initiated person, of the sacrifice-seller, of the carpenter, of the leather-dealer, of the loose’woman and of the dyer (the food should not be eaten).’

210 Nor the food (given) by a thief, a musician, a carpenter, a usurer, one who has been initiated (for the performance of a Srauta sacrifice), a miser, one bound with fetters,

Nor the food of an accused person, or of the hermaphrodite, or the unchaste woman, or the hypocrite; nor the food turned sour, or that kept overnight, or what forms the leavings of the Śūdra.—(211)

पुंश्चली यस्य कस्य्चिन् मैथुनसंबन्धेन घटते ।

• ननु च गणिकान्नं प्रतिषिद्धम् एव ।

• नैतद् एवम् । अन्या गणिका, अन्या पुंश्चली । गणिका वेश्यावेशेन जीवति । पुंश्चली त्व् इन्द्रियचपला ।

• दाम्भिको बैडालव्रतिकादिः सोपधो धर्मचरणः । प्रायश्चित्तविशेषार्थं शूद्रोच्छिष्टं प्रतिषिध्यते, सर्वस्यैवोच्छिष्टभोजनप्रतिषेधात् । अन्ये तु शूद्रोच्छिष्टं स्थालीस्थं भोज्यान्नं शूद्रभुक्तशिष्टम् उच्छिष्टम् उच्यत इत्य् आहुः । पाठान्तरं तु “उच्छिष्टम् अगुरोस् तथा” इति । उच्छिष्टम् उच्यते यत् परस्य स्पर्शनाद् अशुद्धं भुक्तोज्झितं च । आत्मीये ह्य् अभुक्तो ऽज्झित एकग्रासाशनम् एव स्यात् । न चैष शिष्टानां समाचारो यत् सकृदन्नं दत्तं भुक्त्वा पुनर् आचम्य पात्रान्तरे गृहीतं भुज्यते । तथा नाद्याद् अन्नम् । तथान्तरे ऽभ्युत्थानादिक्रियान्तरस्य प्रतिषेधः । अत आ तृप्तेः प्राग् आचमनात् पश्चात् स्पर्शे न दोषः । सहभोजनं तु सत्य् अपि परस्य स्पर्शे पदार्थान्तरत्वान् नोच्छिष्टभोजनम् । अत्र पित्रा पुत्रादिभिः शिष्टं सह भुज्यते । तथा चापस्तम्बादयो देशग्रहणात् प्रसङ्गेन “अनुपनीतेन सह भोजनम्”⁵ (च्ड़्। ब्ध् १.२.३) निन्दन्ति, नोपनीतेन । अस्मिंस् तु पक्षे विजातीयैः सह भोजनप्रतिषेधः । व्यवधानान्तरम् आश्रयणीयम् । भुक्तोज्झितं तु धात्वर्थयोगाद् उच्छिष्टम् अन्यदीयम् अपि ॥ ४.२११ ॥

‘Unchaste woman’—one who has sexual intercourse with any and every person.

“The food of the harlot has been already forbidden [so that the present text would appear to be superfluous].”

It is not so; the ‘unchaste woman’ is totally different from the ‘harlot.’ The ‘harlot’ is one that makes a living by her beauty; while the ‘unchaste woman’ is one who is unstable in her sexual passions.

‘Hypocrite’—the ‘man of cat-like behaviour’ and others of similar bad conduct.

‘The Śūdra’s leavings’ are specially forbidden here for the purpose of indicating the heaviness of the expiatory panance necessitated by it;—the partaking of the leavings of all men having been already forbidden.

Others explain the terms, ‘Śūdra’s leavings,’ to mean the food left in the dish, after the Śūdra has eaten out of it.

Another reading is ‘ucchiṣṭamagurostathā,’ ‘the leavings of persons other than one’s teacher.’

As a matter of fact, the term ‘ucchiṣṭa’ stands for that which has been defiled by the touch of another person, as also for that which has been left after another person has eaten. In the latter sense, if one’s own ‘leavings’ were prohibited, then every one would have to cat the whole of one’s food as a single morsel. Nor is it the custom among cultured people that, after having eaten one morsel of food, the man washes his hands and mouth and eats the next morsel out of another dish. As for the prohibition that ‘one Should not cat the food once partaken of,’ what this forbids is the interruption of the meal by such acts as rising to receive a guest, and so forth, till one has had one’s fill and till one has washed; after which the touch of others involves no harm.

Where several persons are dining together, even if they happen to touch one another,—as this touching is something totally different,—it would not be a case of ‘eating the leavings.’ As a matter of fact, the Father, along with his sons, always partakes of the food left by guests. Āpastamba and others have deprecated eating with uninitiated sons,—not with the initiated ones.

According to this view, the prohibition would apply to eating in the company of men of other castes; and, in all such cases, some intervening screen shall he set up between the two persons. As for ‘leavings,’ in the sense of what has been left after one has eaten,—this is forbidden, whether it be one’s own ‘leavings’ or those of some other person,—(211).

‘Śūdrasyocchiṣṭam’—‘Food of a Śūdra, and the leavings of any man’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa);—‘the leavings of a Śūdra’ (Medhātithi, Rāghavānanda, Govindarāja and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3. 290);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 451) which explains ‘paryuṣitam’ as ‘food kept overnight’, and ‘ucchiṣṭa’ as ‘leavings’;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 495) which adds the following notes:—‘Abhiśasta’ is ‘one accused of such crimes as make one outcast,’—‘ṣaṇḍaka’ is ‘hermaphrodite,’—‘puṃścalī’ is ‘unchaste woman,’—‘dāmbhika’ is ‘the religious hypocrite,’—‘śukta’ is that which has been very much soured by the contact of the juice of other things,—‘paryuṣita’ is ‘food kept over-night,’ even though not soured;—according to Haradatta, food cooked during the day becomes ‘paryuṣita’ after sunset, and that cooked during the night becomes so after sunrise;—one should not eat the ‘leavings’ of a Śūdra; though the eating of all ‘leavings’ has been forbidden, yet that of the Śūdra has been specified for the purpose of indicating that this is doubly objectionable;—or the meaning of the clause ‘śūdrasyocchiṣṭam’ may be that ‘one should not eat a Śūdra’s food, nor the leavings of any person’;—or ‘out of the dish out of which a Śūdra has eaten and left some food.’

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 772);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 250) which explains ‘ṣaṇḍaka’ as ‘sexless’; and adds that of ‘śaktu’ and ‘paryuṣita’ food, only repeated eating involves expiation.

Gautama (17, 14-16).—‘Food kept overnight (should be avoided), with the exception of vegetables, oils, meat and honey:—also the food of the loose woman, the accused, etc., etc.,—of those unfit for company, except the baldheaded.’

Āpastamba (1.17.17-20).—‘Cooked food kept overnight,—food turned sour, etc.’

(Do.) (1.18.13).—‘One may eat food offered by men of all castes, who are devoted to their duties; except the Śūdra.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.2, 3, 16. 17, 28, 29).—‘The food offered by the following shall not bo eaten—the physician,…… the loose woman, the accused, the eunuch and the outcast;—the Śūdra, who wields weapons, the paramour, one who permits the paramour in his house,—of the eunuch, the unchaste woman, it is not accepted; no leavings except those of the teacher shall be eaten; nor what has been defiled by the touch of leavings.’

Viṣṇu (51.9,10).—‘Of the usurer, the miser, the initiated, the accused, the eunuch, the loose woman, the hypocrite, the physician, the fowler, the cruel man, the Ugra, and those who live upon leavings.’

Yājñavalkya (1.161).—(See above.)

(Do.) (1.162).—‘Of the physician, the invalid, the enraged, the loose woman, the intoxicated, the enemy, the cruel man, the Ugra, the outcast, the apostate, the hypocrite, and those who live on leavings.’

Gobhila (3.5.9,10).—‘Not what has been left overnight;—except vegetables, meat and preparations of barley-flour.’

211 By one accused of a mortal sin (Abhisasta), a hermaphrodite, an unchaste woman, or a hypocrite, nor (any sweet thing) that has turned sour, nor what has been kept a whole night, nor (the food) of a Sudra, nor the leavings (of another man),

Nor the food of this physician, or of the hunter, or of a cruel person, or of one who lives on leavings; nor the food of the “Ugra;” nor what has been cooked for the newly-delivered woman, until ten days have passed; nor that which has been interrupted by washing.—(212)

स्मृत्यन्तरे विशेषः श्रूयते- “शल्या नर्तकजीविनः”⁶ । मृगयुर् मृगव्याधः । आखेटकार्थं मांसविक्रयार्थं वा यो मृगान् हन्ति । क्रूर अनृजुप्रकृतिः दुष्प्रसादः । उच्छिष्टभोजी निषिद्धोच्छिष्टभोजी । उग्रो जातिविशेषः । राजेत्य् एतस्य वेदे प्रयोगो दृश्यते । “उग्रो मध्यमशीरिव” (र्व् १०.९७.१२) इति । न च तस्यान्यः प्रतिषेधो ऽस्ति, दोषप्रदर्शनप्रकारेण च न श्रूयते “राजान्नं तेज आदत्ते” (म्ध् ४.२१८) इत्य् अर्थवादाच् च प्रतिषेधः ।

• सूतिकान्नं सूतिकाम् उद्दिश्य यत् कृतं तत्कुलीनैर् अपि तद् अभोज्यम् । तद् अनाद्यम् अनिर्दशं दशाहानि यावत् । तेन यद्य् अपि क्षत्रियादीनां दशाहाद् ऊर्ध्वम् आशौचं तथापि दशाहानि न भोज्यम् । पाठान्तरं “सूतकान्नम्” इति । सूतकशब्देन च तद्वन्तः पुरुषा लक्ष्यन्ते । येषां कुले सूतकं ते दशाहं न भोज्यान्ना इति । यस्मिन् पक्षे सर्वेषां दशाहं सूतकाशौचं तत्रायं प्रतिषेधः । यदा तु मातापित्रोः सूतकं मातुर् वेति पक्षस् तदा यावद् आशौचं न भोज्यम् । अनिर्दशग्रहणम् आशौचनिवृत्त्युपलक्षणार्थम् । तेन क्षत्रियादीनां यस्य यावद् आशौचकालः स तावत्कालम् अभोज्यान्नः । “सूतकान्नम् अनिर्दशम्” इति पठितव्ये वृत्तानुरोधात् पर्याचान्तपदेन व्यवधानम् ।

• अन्यैस् तु स्वतन्त्रम् अनिर्दशग्रहणं व्याख्यातम् । सूतकशब्देन आशौचकालो ऽनुद्योत्यते । अनिर्दशं गवादीनां पयः । पर्याचान्तं शौचाचमनव्यपेतम् अर्धभुक्ते केनचित् कारणेन यद्य् आचामति तदा पुनर् भुक्तोज्झितं नाशितव्यम् ॥ ४.२१२ ॥

‘Hunter,’—the professional hunter of animals; one who kills animals for purposes of hunting, or for the purpose of selling their flesh.

‘Cruel,’—whose nature is not straightforward, who is difficult to please.

‘One who lives on leavings,’—i.e., one who eats such leavings as have been forbidden.

‘Ugra’—is the name of a special sub-caste. In the Veda, the term is applied to a kind of king, one who forms the central link in the chain of the king’s alliance. There is no other prohibition regarding such a king; it is only in course of showing the evils arising from eating the food of such kings that we rend—‘the food given by kings deprives one of one’s energy,’ from which some sort of prohibition may be inferred. [For all these reasons, the term ‘Ugra’ in the text must be taken to stand for a particular mixed caste, and not for the king ].

‘Sūtikānnam’ is food prepared for the woman in childbed; and this should not be eaten even by men of her own family.

This food is to be avoided ‘until, ten days have passed.’ Though, in the case of the Kṣatriya and other castes, the period of impurity lasts longer than ten days, yet the food is to be avoided for ten days only.

Another reading is ‘sūtakānnam;’ and the term ‘sūtaka,’ ‘impurity,’ due to child-birth, in this case, would indicate the persons under that impurity; the meaning being that ‘one should not eat for ten days the food offered by persons, in whose family there is impurity due to child-birth.’ This prohibition applies to those cases in which, for all persons, the period of impurity due to child-birth extends over ten days. But if the view be taken that impurity due to childbirth applies to the parents only, or to the mother only,—then food is to be avoided as long as the period of impurity may last in each particular case;—the term ‘until ten days have passed’ being indicative of the ‘period of impurity.’ Thus Kṣattñyas and others would have their food avoided during such time as the period of impurity may last in each individual case.

‘Sūtikānnamanirdaśam’ being the right form of the expression, the term ‘paryācāntam,’ ‘that which has been interrupted by washing,’ has been made to intervene (between the words, ‘sūtikānnam’ and ‘anirdaśam’) by considerations of metrical exegencies.

Others have taken ‘anirdaśam’ separately, by itself (and not as qualifying ‘sūtakānnam’). Under this, the term ‘sūtaka’ would indicate the period of impurity, and ‘anirdaśam’ would stand for the milk of the cow and other animals (within ten days of their calving).

‘Interrupted by washing’— in course of which rinsing and washing have been done. If, for some reason, the person washes his hand, then he should not eat of the food left in the dish.—(212)

‘Ugra’—‘A man of the Ugra caste’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana)—‘a king’ (suggested by Medhātithi, and Govindarāja);—‘one who perpetrates dreadful deeds’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 451), which adds the following notes:—The food that has been cooked for the newly-delivered woman should not he eaten by members of her family;—‘paryācānta’—when several men are eating in a line, if any one of them happen to rinse his mouth, the others should not continue to eat;—‘anirdaśam’ is the food of a man who has not got rid of the impurity due to child-birth.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 945);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 495), which adds—‘chikitsaka’ is ‘one who makes a living by administering medicine’;—‘mṛgayu’ is one who kills animals by means other than arrows, i.e., by means of traps and such contrivances;—‘Krūra’ is the man who harbours within him much anger, i.e., ill-tempered;—‘ucchiṣṭabhojī’—who eats such leavings as are forbidden;—‘ugra’ is one who does cruel deeds, or one who is born of a Kṣatriya father and Vaiśya mother, or a king;—‘Sūtikānnam’—the food that has been cooked for a newly-delivered woman should not be eaten even by members of her own family;—‘paryācāntam,’—when several men are eating in a line, if some one should ignore the presence of others and rinse his mouth, then the food before the others becomes ‘paryācānta’; but there is no harm if the person rinsing his mouth happen to be one’s ‘elder’;—or ‘paryācānta’ may be explained as that food over which the water of mouth-washing has been thrown;—‘anirdaśam’ is the food of a person still impure by reason of child-birth.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 772);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 200) which has the following notes:—‘sūtikānnam’, food cooked for a woman newly delivered; ‘within ten days of the delivery’ (‘anirdaśam’), according to the commentator who says that ‘anirdaśam’ qualifies ‘sūtikānnam’;—‘paryācāntam’, which is in close proximity to the water dropped in rinsing the mouth.

Gautama (17.15).—(See above.)

(Do.) (17. 20).—‘The milk of the cow before the lapse of ten days since her calving.’

Āpastamba (1.19.14-16).—(See above.)

(Do.) (1. 16. 18).—‘When any one dies in a family, one should not eat there until ten days have passed.’ Āpastamba (1.18.21).—‘The physician.’

Viṣṇu (51.10).—‘The food of the loose woman, the hypocrite, the physician, the fowler, the cruel man, and those who live upon leavings.’

Yājñavalkya (1.162).—(See above.)

Mahābhārata (Śānti, 35.30)—‘The food of the physician, of the guard, of the multitude, of people accused of crimes, and of those who make a living by acting or by women.’

212 Nor (the food given) by a physician, a hunter, a cruel man, one who eats the fragments (of another’s meal), nor the food of an Ugra, nor that prepared for a woman in childbed, nor that (given at a dinner) where (a guest rises) prematurely (and) sips water, nor that (given by a woman) whose ten days of impurity have not elapsed,

Nor what is offered without respect, nor improper meat, nor food belonging to a male-less female, nor the food of an eneny, nor the food of the city-lord, nor the food of an outcast, nor that which has been sneezed at.—(213)

अर्चार्हस्य यद् अवज्ञया दीयते तद् अनर्चितम् । न तु सुहृदादेः । वृथामांसं देवाद्यर्चनशिष्टं यन् न भवत्य् आत्मार्थं यत् साधितम् । अविरा स्त्री यस्या न भर्ता नापि पुत्रः । द्विषञ् छत्रुः । नगरी नगरस्वाम्य् अराजापि । अवक्षुतम् उपरि यस्मिन् क्षवथुः कृतः ॥ ४.२१३ ॥

‘Offered without respect,’—that which is given in a disrespectful maimer, to a person who deserves to be treated with respect. This does not refer to food that may be offered by friends and others.

‘Improper meat,’— which has been cooked for one’s own self, and is not the remnant of the worship of gods.

‘Maleless female,’— one who has neither husband nor son.

‘Enemy,’—an adversary.

‘City-lord’—one who is the master of a city, though not a king.

‘Which has been sneered at,’—over which some one has sneezed.—(213)

‘Nagaryannam’—‘Food given by the lord of a city, even though he may not be a king’ (Medhātithi); ‘food belonging to a whole town’ (Kullūka and Govindarāja).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290);—and in Smṛtitattva (p. 451) which says—‘anarcita’ is that which is given in an insulting manner; ‘vṛthā-māṃsa’ is that which has not been prepared for offering to the gods and Pitṛs;—the ‘avīrā’ woman is one who has no husband or son; this prohibition applies to only such women as are not related to one’s self;—‘nagaryanna’ is the food belonging to the master of a city;—‘avakṣuta’ is that over which some one has sneezed.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 945);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 495), which adds the following notes:—‘anarcita’,—the food is so called when it is offered without due respect, to one who deserves respect;—‘vṛthāmāṃsa’ is that meat which has not been cooked for offering to the gods and Pitṛs;—‘avīrā’ is a woman without husband or sons, or grandsons or great-grandsons; this prohibition applies to the case of an unrelated woman, such being the custom, says Śūlapāṇi;—‘dviṣat’,—is one who causes injury;—‘nagarī’ is the master of a city, even though he may not be the king, says Medhātithi;—‘patita’ is the Brāhmaṇa-murderer and the like;—‘avakṣutam’—sneezed upon.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 773);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260), which adds the following notes:—‘Anarcitam’, rejected as bad,—‘avīrā’, a woman without husband or sons or any male relatives,—‘nagarī’ means a ‘person in charge of a city’,—‘avakṣutam’, which has been sneezed upon.

Gautama (17.17-19).—‘Food needlessly cooked;—also food offered without respect.’

Āpastamba (1.17. 4).—‘The food that is given after chiding.’

(Do.) (2.6.19).—‘One should not eat the food of that person towards whom one is unfriendly, or who is unfriendly to one; or defective meat.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.2).—(See above.)

Viṣṇu (51.11, 18, 10).—‘Food of the maleless woman, of the goldsmith, of the enemy, of the outcast;—food intentionally touched with the feet, or sneezed upon; improper meat, and that offered without respect.’

Yājñavalkya (1.162-104).—‘Of the physician…… the enemy, the outcast……;—of the maleless woman, of the goldsmith, of the man who is controlled by his wife, of the village-sacrificer, of the man selling weapons, of the carpenter, of the weaver and of one who makes a living by dogs;—of the cruel king, of the dyer, of the ungrateful man, of the man who lives by slaughtering animals, of the clothes-washer, of the wine-seller, and of the man who permits his wife’s paramour to live in the house.’

213 Nor (food) given without due respect, nor (that which contains) meat eaten for no sacred purpose, nor (that given) by a female who has no male (relatives), nor the food of an enemy, nor that (given) by the lord of a town, nor that (given) by outcasts, nor that on which anybody has sneezed;

Nor the food of the informer and the perjurer, or of the seller of sacrifices; nor the food of the actor or the tailor; nor the food of the ungrateful person.—(214)

पिशुनो यो विश्रब्धम् अर्थं कथितं भिनत्ति परच्छिद्रवादी वा परोक्षम् । अनृती कृतकौटसाक्ष्यः । क्रतुविक्रयकः क्रतुर् यज्ञस् तं कृत्वा विक्रीणीते क्रतुफलं मदीयं तवास्त्व् इति मूल्येन ददाति । यद्य् अपि परमार्थतः क्रतोर् विक्रयो नास्ति तथापि यस्यैवंविधा यात्रान्यविप्रलम्भेन वा प्रवृत्तिस् तस्य प्रतिषेधः । शैलूषो नटः । भार्यापण्य इत्य् अपरे । तुन्नवायः सौचिकः । कृतघ्नः कृतम् उपकारं यो नाशयति । प्रत्युतोपकर्तुर् अपकारे वर्तते न च शक्तः सन् प्रत्युपकारे ऽपि ॥ ४.२१४ ॥

‘Informer,’—one who betrays the confidence reposed in him; or one who talks ill of persons behind their back.

‘Perjurer,’—who has given false evidence.

‘Seller of sacrifices,’— who, having performed a sacrifice, sells its fruit; i.e., says to another person,—‘May the fruit of this sacrifice be yours,’ and receives a price for it. Though, in reality, there can be no ‘selling’ of a sacrifice, yet, what is forbidden, is the food of a person who makes such living, or who undertakes sacrifice with a view to cheat others.

‘Śailūṣa’—is actor; or, according to others, he who exposes his wife for the public. Another Smṛti is more specific—‘he who lives by dancing.’

‘Tailor’—He who works with the needle,

‘Ungrateful person,’—he who nullities the good that has been done to him; on the contrary, proceeds to do harm to his helper, and not to do a good turn to him, even though capable of doing so.—(214)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 945);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 495), which adds the following notes:—‘Piśuna’ is the back-biter,—‘anṛtī’ is the perjuror and such others,—the person who makes over to another person the merit of a sacrificial performance and receives money in return is called ‘Kratuvikrayaka’;—‘śailūṣa’ is one who makes a living by dancing,—‘tantuvāya’ is one who lives by weaving cloth;—‘kṛtaghna’ is the person who does not acknowledge the good done to him;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 773);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260), which adds the following notes:—‘Śailūṣa’ is defined in the Adipurāṇa as ‘an actor who is looking out for a living’,—‘Tunnavāya’ ‘one who works with needles.’

Āpastamba (1.18.30).—‘Of the spy.’

Viṣṇu (51.12-18).—‘Of the informer, the perjuror, the seller of his soul, the seller of juices;—of the actor, the weaver, the ungrateful man and of the dyer.’

Yājñavalkya (1.161-165).—‘Of the miser, the prisoner, the thief, the eunuch, the actor, the seller of weapons, the carpenter, the weaver and those living by dogs;—of the cruel king, of the dyer, of the ungrateful man, the wine-seller; of the informer, the perjuror, the bard, and of the Soma-seller;—the food of these should not be eaten.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.3).—‘Of the miser, the initiated man, the prisoner, the invalid, the Soma-seller and the carpenter.’

Mahābhārata (Śānti. 35.21).—‘Of the initiated person, the miser, the sacrifice-seller.’

214 Nor the food (given) by an informer, by one who habitually tells falsehoods, or by one who sells (the rewards for) sacrifices, nor the food (given) by an actor, a tailor, or an ungrateful (man),

‘Nor or the blacksmith, of the Niṣāda, of the stage-player, of the goldsmith, of the plater of musical instruments, or of the dealer in weapons,—(215).’

कर्मारो ऽयस्करः । निषादो दशमे वक्ष्यते । रङ्गावतरको नटगायनकेभ्यो ऽन्यो मल्लादिः । अथ वा प्रतिरङ्गम् उपतिष्ठते कुतूहली । वेणः वादित्रजीवितः⁷ । शस्त्रविक्रयी कृतस्य खड्गादेरकृतस्य वायसो विक्रेता ॥ ४.२१५ ॥

‘Karmakāra’—the blacksmith.

‘Niṣāda,’—going to be described under Discourse X (as the son of a Brāhmaṇa from a Śūdra wife).

‘Stage-player,’—the wrestler and such other persons, apart from the dancer and the singer (who have been separately mentioned);—or the curious person who visits every kind of stage.

‘Veṇa,’—one who lives by playing on musical instruments.

‘Dealer in weapons,’—who sells either wrought iron weapons, as the sword and the like, or unwrought iron.—(215)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 945);—and in Vīramitrodaya

(Āhnika, p. 495), which adds the following notes:—‘Karmāra’ is the iron-smith,—‘niṣāda’ is a particular mixed caste,—‘raṅgāvatāraka’ persons, other than the dancer and the singer, who help in the stage; or, as Medhātithi says, one who, through curiosity, visits each and every stage;—‘suvarṇakartā’ is one who alters gold,—‘Vaiṇa’ is the person living by piercing bamboos, or, as Medhātithi says, one who makes a living by making bamboo-flutes;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 773);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 260), which explains ‘niṣāda’ as ‘an inversely mixed caste—‘raṅgāvatāraka’ as ‘one who helps, in a subordinate capacity, at theatrical performances by singing or dancing’,—‘veṇa’, one who deals in articles made of bamboo.

Yājñavalkya (1.161-163).—(See above.)

Āpastamba (1.18.19).—‘Those who make a living by weapons.’

Viṣṇu (51. 14).—‘The blacksmith, the Nīṣāda, the stage-player, and dealers in bamboos and weapons.’

Mahābhārata (Śānti., 35, 27, 30).—‘The food of the goldsmith, and of the maleless woman;—of multitudes, of villages, of the accused and of those who make a living by the stage or by women.’

215 By a blacksmith, a Nishada, a stage-player, a goldsmith, a basket-maker, or a dealer in weapons,

Nor of dog-keepers, or of wine-sellers or of the clothes-washer, or of the dyer, or of the bard, or of the man in whose house there is a paramour.—(210)

आखेटकाद्यर्थं ये शुनो बिभ्रति ते श्ववन्तः । शौण्डिका मद्यव्यसनिनस् तत्पण्यजीविनो वा । चैलं वस्त्रं तन् निर्णेनक्ति प्रक्षालयति । कारुकनामधेयम् एतत् । रजको वाससां नीलादिरागकारकः । नृशंसो नॄण् मनुष्याञ् छंसति स्तौति यो लोके बन्दीति प्रसिद्धः । अथ वा निर्दयो नृशंसः । उपपतिर् जारो भार्याया गृहे जारो यस्य⁸ वर्तते ॥ ४.२१६ ॥

Those who keep dogs for hunting purposes are called ‘dog-keepers.’

‘Wine-sellers,’—those who deal in wines; or those who make a living in wine-shops.

‘Clothes-washer,’—he who washes and cleans clothes; another name for them is ‘Kāruka.’

‘Dyer’—one who dyes clothes in blue and other colours.

‘Nṛśaṃsa’—is one who sings the praises of men, known as the ‘bandī,’ ‘bard.’ Or, it may stand for the pitiless man.

He in whose house there lives the paramour of his wife.—(216)

‘Nṛśaṃsa’—‘cruel person’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘a bard’ (Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, also suggested by Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 945),—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 496), which adds the following—‘Śvavān’ is one who keeps dogs for hunting-purposes,—‘Śauṇḍika’ is the liquor-seller,—‘Celanirṇejaka’ is one who lives by washing clothes,—‘rajaka’ is the cloth-dyer,—‘nṛśaṃsa’ is one devoid of pity—and the man in whose house a recognised paramour lives;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 774);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 251), which explains ‘Śvavān’ as ‘one who keeps dogs for hunting purposes’ and remarks that ‘Śauṇḍika’ and the other terms stand for the twice-born person who follows these professions.

Vaśiṣṭha (14.3, 6).—‘The miser, the initiated, the imprisoned, the diseased, the Soma-seller, the carpenter, the dyer, the wine-seller, the spy, the usurer, the dealer in leather, the Śūdra, the weapon-wielder, the paramour, the person who permits a paramour, who burns houses, he who kills for the sake of other people eating the meat. The gods eat not the food of the dog-keeper, nor of the man who has a Śūdra wife, nor of the man controlled by his wife, nor of one who permits a paramour in the house.’

Vyāsa (3.51).—‘The actor, the wine-seller, the intoxicated, the apostate and those who have neglected their vows.’

Gautama (17.18).—(See above.)

Viṣṇu (51.16-16).—‘One who makes a living by dogs, the wine-seller, the oilsman, the clothes-washer, the woman in her courses, and of the man who has a paramour in the house of his wife.’

Yājñavalkya (1.163, 164).—(See above.)

216 By trainers of hunting dogs, publicans, a washerman, a dyer, a pitiless (man), and a man in whose house (lives) a paramour (of his wife),

Nor of thos e who bear the presence of the paramour, or of those who are entirely ruled b y women; nor the food of those in whose house death has occurred and the ten days have not passed; nor that which is disagree able.—(217)

पूर्वो ऽविदितभार्याजारः । अयं तु विदित्वा क्षमते न भार्याया निग्रहं करोति । नापि तस्य अविदुषो ऽन्यत्र गृहाज् जारिणो भोज्यान्नं नैव⁹ । स्त्रीजिताः येषां भार्यैव गृहे कर्त्री हर्त्री च स्वयं परिजनस्य¹⁰ च नेशस् तेन सर्वत्र तद्वशवर्तिनः । प्रेतान्नं मरणाशौचे तत्कुलीना अभोज्यान्नाः । अनिर्दशग्रहणं कालोपलक्षणार्थम् । यदानिर्दशग्रहणं पूर्वत्र स्वतन्त्रम् आशौचसंबन्धिनाम् अविशेषेणान्नं प्रतिषेधति तद् इह प्रेतान्नकृतं¹¹ यस्याप्य् आशौचं नास्ति सुहृद्बान्धवादेः । कारुण्याच् चतुर्थीश्राद्धादिप्रवृत्तस्य यद् अन्नं तन् न भोज्यम् । “दशाहिकं नावमिकं चतुर्थीश्राद्दम् अष्टमी” इत्यादि रामायणे वर्णितम् अन्यैर् अपि गृह्यकारैः । अतुष्टिकरं यस्मिन् भुज्यमाने चित्ततुष्टिर् न भवेत् ॥ ४.२१७ ॥

The man mentioned in the preceding verse is one who does not know of the presence of his wife’s paramour; while the one mentioned here is one who knows it, and suffers it, and does not check his wife. If the man does not know of the presence of the paramour, who comes from another house, then the food given by such a man is not forbidden.

‘Who are ruled by women,’—those persons in whose house the wife is the sole mistress and dispenser; and who are not master of themselves or of their dependants; who are entirely under the control of their wives.

‘Pretānnam;’—when one is impure, on account of death in his house, the food belonging to the members of his family is forbidden.—‘Ten days have not passed;’—this indicates the period of time.

If the term, ‘anirdaśam’ (of verse 212), is to be taken by itself, as forbidding the food belonging to ‘impure’ persons, then ‘the food belonging to persons in whose house there has been death’ being already included there, the present term would stand for the food of those persons who are directly connected with the impurity; such persons, for instance, as the friends and maternal relations of the dead. Similarly, one shall not eat the food belonging to one who may be engaged in the performance of such rites as the

‘Caturthī-Śrāddha,’ and the like, which is undertaken through sympathy with the person in whose house the death has occurred. Such śrāddhas have been mentioned by the Authors of Gṛhyasūtras, as also in the Rāmāyaṇa, in such passages as—‘The tenth-day Śrāddha, the Ninth-day Śrāddha, the Eighth-day Śrāddha, the Fourth-day Śrāddha, etc.’

‘What is disagreeable;’—by eating which one does not feel happy.—(217)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.190) in Madanapārijāta (p. 945);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 496), which adds that one should not eat the food of a person who brooks the presence of a paramour in his house, as also of one who, in all things (sarvaśaḥ) is under the sway of women,—‘anirdaśam pretānnam’ is that food which has been offered to the dead within ten days of the death,—‘atuṣṭikaram’ is that food the taste of which is not agreeable;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 774);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 261).

Mahābhārata (Śānti., 35.26, 28).—‘The food belonging to a house where there has been a death or a birth,—until ten days have passed;—those who permit their wife’s paramour, and those who are controlled by their wives.’

Gautama (17.18).—(See above.)

Āpastamba (1.16.18).—‘In a family where there has been a death,—no food should he eaten until ten days have passed.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.6).—‘The gods do not eat the food belonging to one who is controlled by his wife, or one who permits his wife’s paramour in the house.'

Yājñavalkya (1.163).—(See above.)

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 499).—‘The following are persons whose food should not be eaten:—Actor, dancer, carpenter, cobbler, goldsmith, a brotherless woman, eunuch, prostitute, singer, ironsmith, butcher, weaver, cloth-dealer, dyer, gambler, thief, wine-seller, weigher, Śūdra’s teacher, Śūdra’s sacrificer, potter, painter, usurer, and leather-seller.’

Sumanta (Do.).—‘The accused, outcast, son of a remarried widow, embryo-killer, harlot, weapon-maker, oil-presser, wine-seller, goldsmith, writer, eunuch, loose woman, astrologer, prostitute,—the food of these should not be eaten. The hog-dealer, fowler, vagabond, dyer, stage-maker, bamboo-dealer, cobbler,—of these, the food should not bo eaten, nor gifts accepted.

217 Nor (the food given) by those who knowingly bear with paramours (of their wives), and by those who in all matters are ruled by women, nor food (given by men) whose ten days of impurity on account of a death have not passed, nor that which is unpalatable.

The king’s food takes off one’s vigour and the Śūdra’s food his Brahmic glory; the goldsmith’s food his longevity, and the l eather-cutter’s food hi s fame.—(218)

अथेदानीम् अतिक्रमफलं दर्शयति । राजान्नभोजिनस् तेजोनाशः । एवं सर्वत्र द्रष्टव्यम् । सुवर्णकारादयः शब्दाः शिल्पिविशेषजीविनां वाचकाः । ये सुवर्णं जीविकार्थं घटयन्ति सुवर्णकारा उच्यन्ते । एवं रजकादिष्व् अपि द्रष्टव्यम् । चर्मावक्र्न्तति¹² छिन्दति चर्मावकर्तिनः । तेन कर्मणा ये जीवन्ति तेषाम् एषा रूढिः । इह येषां पूर्वत्र प्रतिषेधो नास्ति केवलं दोषः श्रूयते तेषां तत एव प्रतिषेधो ऽनुमेयः ॥ ४.२१८ ॥

The Text now proceeds to describe the effects of transgressing the above prohibitions.

One who eats the king’s food loses his vigour; and so with all the rest.

The terms ‘goldsmith’ and the rest, are denotative of particular professions; so that those persons who deal in making articles of gold are called goldsmiths. Similarly, with ‘dyer’ and other terms. Those who cut leather are called ‘leather-cutters,’ this name being applied to those who live by this trade.

In the present context, there are some whose food has not been forbidden in the foregoing verses; but the evil results flowing therefrom are now described; the prohibition of these is to be inferred from the latter.—(218)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 507);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 542) to the effect that the eating of King’s food involves a heavy penance;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 782);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 352).

Mahābhārata (35. 27).—[Same as Manu, but reading for the last quarter ‘Avīrāyāśca yoṣitaḥ,’ ‘of the maleless woman.’]

Vaśiṣṭha (14.3).—(See above.)

Viṣṇu (51. 8).—‘The food of the carpenter and of the leather-cutter.’

Āpastamba (9.28).—‘The King’s food takes off one’s vigour, and the Śūdra’s food one’s Brāhmic glory; he who cats unpurified food, eats the dirt of the earth.’

218 The food of a king impairs his vigour, the food of a Sudra his excellence in sacred learning, the food of a goldsmith his longevity, that of a leather-cutter his fame;

The food of artisans impairs the offspring, that of the clothes-washer impairs strength; the food of a multitude and the food of the harlot out off the max from the regions.—(219)

कारुकाः सूपकारादयः नातिगर्हितकर्माणः । एष एतेषां शिल्पिभ्यो भेदः । प्रजाया विघातो ऽनुत्पत्तिः ॥ ४.२१९ ॥

‘Artisans,’—the professional cook and others following not very low crafts;—this is what distinguishes these from other craftsmen.

The ‘impairing’ of offspring means that children are not born.—(219)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 507);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 782).

**(verses 4.219-220)
**

Mahābhārata (35.28).—‘The usurer’s food is ordure; and the harlot’s food is semen,’

219 The food of an artisan destroys his offspring, that of a washerman his (bodily) strength; the food of a multitude and of harlots excludes him from (the higher) worlds.

The food of the physician is pus; the food of the unchaste woman is semen; the food of the usurer is ordure, and that of the dealer in weapons is dirt.—(220.)

पूयतुल्यं चिकित्सकस्यान्नं भोजनम् । इन्द्रियं शुक्रम् । विष्ठा मलम् एकम् एव ॥ ४.२२० ॥

The physician’s food is like pus,

‘Indriya’ means semen.

‘Ordure’ and ‘dirt’ are one and the same.—(220)

Cf. 3.180-181.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 507);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 782).

**(verses 4.219-220)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.219].

220 The food of a physician (is as vile as) pus, that of an unchaste woman (equal to) semen, that of a usurer (as vile as) ordure, and that of a dealer in weapons (as bad as) dirt.

The food of those other persons who have been successively mentioned as those whose food should not be eaten,—the wise men describe as skin, bones and hairs.—(221)

प्रतिपदनिर्दिष्टेभ्यो ये ऽन्ये ऽप्य् अभोज्यान्ना अस्मिन् प्रकरणे पठितास् तेषां यद् अन्नं तत् त्वगस्थिरोमादि । यस् तदीयायास् त्वचो भुक्ताया दोषः स एवान्नस्यापि ॥ ४.२२१ ॥

There are other persons who have been mentioned in this section as those whose food should not be eaten; and the food of these men is ‘skin, bones and hairs.’ That is, the eating of their food is as improper as the eating of their skin, etc.—(221)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 507);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha p. 782).

221 The food of those other persons who have been successively enumerated as such whose food must not be eaten, the wise declare (to be as impure as) skin, bones, and hair.

After unknowingly eating the food of any one of these, there should be a three days’ fast. Having eaten it knowingly, as also on eating semen, ordure and urine, one should perform the “Kṛcchra” penance.—(222)

त्र्यहं क्षपणम् अभोजनम् । अमत्या अबुद्धिपूर्वम् । बुद्धिपूर्वे तु कृच्छ्रं चरेत् । तच् च कृच्छ्रं स्मृत्यन्तरैकवाक्यत्वात् तप्तकृच्छ्रम् । तत्र रेतोविण्मूत्रप्राशने तप्तकृच्छ्रम् आम्नातम्- “अमत्या¹³ पाने पयो घृतम् उदकं वायुः प्रतित्र्यहं तप्तातिकृच्छ्रः । ततो ऽस्य संस्कारः” (ग्ध् २३.२) इति । अप्रकरणे च प्रायश्चित्तवचनं दोषातिशयदर्शनार्थम् ।

अन्यतमस्ये**ति षष्ठीनिर्देशात् परिग्रहदुष्ट एवेदं प्रायश्चित्तं मन्यन्ते न कालस्वभावसंसर्गदुष्टे । शुक्तपर्युषितादौ चतुर्विधं ह्य् अभोज्यम् । कालदुष्टं शुक्तपर्युषितादि । संसर्गदुष्टं मद्यानुगतादि । स्वभावदुष्टं लशुनादि । परिग्रहदुष्टं प्रकृताभोज्यान्नानां यत् ।

• अत्रोच्यते । सत्यं । चतुर्विधम् अभोज्यं भवति । षष्टीनिर्देशो ऽप्य् अस्ति । किं तु यदि शुक्तादेर् नेदं प्रायश्चित्तं स्यात् तद् इह प्रकरणे तेषाम् उपादानम् अनर्थकम् एवापद्येत । पञ्चमे हि तयोः प्रतिषेधो नास्ति । तस्माद् इह प्रायश्चित्तार्थम् एवैवमादीनाम् उपादानम् ।

• तत्र तर्हि किम् अर्थम् ।

• तत्रैव वक्ष्यामः । यद्य् अपि “गर्हितानाद्ययोर् जग्धिः” (म्ध् ११.५६), “अभोज्यानां तु भुक्त्वान्नम्” (म्ध् ११.१५१) इति च तत् सर्वम् एकादशे विभागतो निर्णेष्यते ॥ ४.२२२ ॥

‘Three days fast;’—i.e., he shall not eat anything for three days.

‘Unknowingly,’—not intentionally.

In the case of its being done intentionnlly, one should perform the ‘Kṛcchra’ penance. And this ^(‘)Kṛcchra’ should be the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra,’ in view of what other Smṛti texts have laid down. One such text (Gautama 23.2) has prescribed the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra’ as to be performed in the case of eating semen; ordure and urine;—viz., ‘In the event of drinking these intentionally, one shall live upon milk, butter, water and air—upon each of these for three days; this is the Taptātikṛcchra; and then follows his purification,’

The present being not a section dealing with Expiatory Rites, the mention of such a rite is meant to indicate the seriousness of the offence.

In view of the phrase, ‘of any one of these,’ being in the Genitive form, some people have held that the Expiatory Rite here prescribed is meant to apply to only those cases where the food actually belongs to the persons mentioned, and not where it is objectionable by reason of time, or by its very nature, or by contact. Among such articles of food as sour-gruel and the like, non-eatability is of four kinds:—(1) some things are non-eatable, because of time ; e.g., sour-gruel, things kept overnight, and so forth; (2) some are non-eatable, because of contact; e.g, things that have come in contact with wine and such things; (3) some are non-eatble by their very nature; e.g., garlic and such things; (4) some are non-eatable by reason of their owner; e.g., the food of the persons enumerated in the present context.

Our answer to the above is as follows:—It is quite true that there are four kinds of non-eatability; it is true also that the text has used the Genitive form; but if the Expiatory Rite here prescribed did not pertain to such food as sour gruel and the like, but only to what is objectionable in regard to its owner, then the mention of these in the present connection would be entirely meaningless. For the prohibition of these two things is coining under Discourse V. From this it is clear that their mention in the present context is only for the purpose of prescribing the Expiatory Rite.

“Why, then, should they he mentioned in Discourse V.?”

This we shall explain at that place. As for the exact meaning and purpose of such texts as—(a) ‘the eating of the first two is objectionable’ and (b) ‘having eaten the food of persons whose food should not he eaten,’ etc. (11.152),—we shall explain all this in detail under those same texts—(222).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 240), which adds that the term ‘kṛcchra’ here stands for the ‘atikṛcchra,’ on the strength of a text quoted from Śaṅkha;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 300), which adds that what is prescribed in the first half is to be done only in the event of the man being unable to throw out the food eaten; and again on p. 305;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 542);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 252, 261 and 524).

Gautama (23.23.24).—‘If one eats food of the man whose food should not be eaten, he should reduce himself to a condition when there is nothing in his bowels;—he should not eat anything for three days.’

Prajāpati—‘On eating the food of one whose food should not be eaten one should give to the Brāhmaṇa the price of that food; he should remain with wet clothes throughout the day, or he should give a cow.’

222 If he has unwittingly eaten the food of one of those, (he must) fast for three days; if he has eaten it intentionally, or (has swallowed) semen, ordure, or urine, he must perform a Krikkhra penance.

The learned Brāhmaṇa shall, not eat the cooked food of the Śūdra who performs no śrāddhas. In the absence of livelihood, he may receive from him raw grain sufficient for one day.—(223)

अविशेषेण शूद्रान्नं प्रतिषिद्धम् । तस्येदानीं विशिष्टविषयतोच्यते- अश्राद्धिनः ।

• क्व पुनः शूद्रान्नं प्रतिषिद्धम् ।

• “शूद्रस्योच्छिष्टम् एव च” (म्ध् ४.२११) इत्य् अत्र ।

• ननु च तत्र शूद्रस्योच्छिष्टं नान्यद् अन्नम् ।

• नेति ब्रूमः । एवं तत्र संबन्धः- शूद्रस्यान्नं नाद्यात्, उच्छिष्टम् अन्यस्यापि । यत् तु प्राग् व्याख्यातं तत् पूर्वेषां दर्शनम् इत्य् अस्माभिर् अपि संवर्णितम् ।

• अश्राद्धिनः श्राद्धशब्देन पाकयज्ञादिक्रिया शूद्रस्य विहिता लक्ष्यते । ततस् तत्क्रियाननुष्ठायिनः । सच्छूद्राद् अन्यस्य यत् पक्वम् अन्नं तन् नाद्यात् ।

• “अश्रद्धिनः” इति वा पाठः । अश्रद्धावान् इत्य् अर्थः । तथा चोत्तरश्लोके श्रद्धायाः प्राधान्यम् एवाह “वदान्यस्य” (म्ध् ४.२२४) इति ।

• आमं शुष्कं धान्यं तण्डुलादि । तथा एकरात्रिकम् एकस्मिन्न् अहनि पर्याप्तं न बहु ॥ ४.२२३ ॥

Śūdra’s food has been forbidden generally; and particular details regarding it are now laid down—‘who does not perform Śrūddhas.

“Where has Śūdra’s food been forbidden?”

It has been forbidden in 4. 211.

“What is forbidden there is Śūdra’s leavings, and not other kinds of food.”

Not so; the said verse (211) is to be construed as—‘the Śūdra’s food should not be eaten, nor the leavings of others.’ The explanation that we gave above of this verse, was in accordance with the older Commentators; as we clearly pointed out there.

‘Who does not perform Śrāddhas.’—‘Śrāddha’ here stands for the sacrificing of cooked food and such other rites as have been prescribed for the Śūdra; hence, the meaning is ‘who does nor perform these rites.’ What is meant is that ‘one shall not eat the cooked food of any Śūdra, except those of the better class.’

Another reading is ‘aśraddhinaḥ’ (for ‘aśrāddhinaḥ); which means, ‘who is devoid of faith;’ in the next verse also we find special stress laid down upon ‘faith,’ by the term ‘vadānya,’ ‘liberal.’

‘Raw’—dry; paddy, rice, and so forth.

‘Sufficient for one day’—just that quantity which may suffice for one day,—not more.—(223)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 341), which explains ‘aśrāddhinaḥ’ as ‘one who does not offer the daily Śrāddhas’; and adds that this is meant to indicate the compulsory character of these Śrāddhas,—and ‘ekarātrikam’ is explained as ‘what is enough for one day.”

Buhler notes that Nārāyaṇa explains ‘aśrāddhinaḥ’ as ‘destitute of faith’. But the reading thus explained must be ‘aśraddhinaḥ’ which is a var: lec: noted by Medhātithi.

The verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 490) which adds that the term ‘Śrāddha’ here must be taken as standing for the Pākayajña, which is prescribed for the Śūdra;—he who performs that is called ‘Śrāddhin’;—if a Śūdra does not perform it, his ‘cooked food’ should not be eaten;—such is the explanation given by Medhātithi. Kalpataru on the other hand, has explained the term ‘Śrāddha’ as standing for the daily Śrāddhas. In some places the word is read as ‘Aśraddhinaḥ’, which means ‘devoid of faith’.—In the event of ‘abnormal distress’—‘avṛttau’—one should receive from him uncooked—not cooked—rice or other grain, just enough to last for one day.

It is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 250);—in Prāyascittaviveka (p. 253), which explains ‘aśrāddhinaḥ’ as the Śūdra ‘who is not entitled to partake of Śrāddha food’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 785);—and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 320).

Parāśara (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 492).—‘The food remains ‘Śūdra’s food’ only so long as as it has not been touched by the twice-born; as soon as it has been touched by the twice-born’s hand, it becomes sacred food.’

Yama (Do.).—‘Śūdra’s food when placed in a vessel belonging to the twice-born is not objectionable.’

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Do.).—‘When Śūdra’s food comes to one’s house, it should be eaten after water has been sprinkled over it.’

Āpastamba (1.18, 3 et. seq.).—‘ He may accept uncooked food; or even cooked food, such as is devoid of relish; he should desist after getting just what would keep him alive.’

Aṅgiras (68-73).—‘He who eats the Śūdra’s food continuously for a mouth, even during that same life, becomes a Śūdra, and after death, is born a dog. There is no rise upwards for one who reads, sacrifices or offers oblations while nourished by food given by the Śūdra. If a man has recourse to his wife after eating of the food given by a Śūdra, the son begotten by him belongs to that Śūdra. If a man dies with Śūdra’s food in his stomach, he is born as a hog, or is born in the family of that same Śūdra.’

Gautama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 489).—‘Food may be begged from all castes, with, the exception of such persons as are accused or outcast.’

Hārita (Do., p. 490).—‘One who dies with Śūdra’s food in his stomach is born as a mule or a camel, and becomes a Śūdra.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.).—‘The twice-born man dying with Śūdra’s food in his stomach becomes a hog, etc., etc.’

Yama (Do., p. 491).—‘The Agnihotrin who does not desist from Śūdra’s food loses his soul, his Veda and his three Fires.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.).—‘The householder who eats Śūdra’s food loses his strength and vigour.’

223 A Brahmana who knows (the law) must not eat cooked food (given) by a Sudra who performs no Sraddhas; but, on failure of (other) means of subsistence, he may accept raw (grain), sufficient for one night (and day).

The gods having compared the food of the miserly Vedic Scholar and that of the liberal usurer, ordained the food of both to be equal.—(224)

यो ब्राह्मणः सर्वगुणोपेतः, श्रोतिर्यग्रहणस्य प्रदर्शनार्थत्वात् । श्रोत्रियो विद्वान् विहितधर्मानुष्ठानपरः । किं तु कदर्यः कृपणो मित्रं ज्ञातिम् अतिथिम् अर्थिनं नाभिनन्दति, न कस्मै किंचिद् अपि दातुम् ईहते । इतरो वार्धुषिर् दुष्टकर्मा वृद्धिजीवी । अथ वदान्य उदारः श्रद्दधानो गृहागतेषु परितुष्यति, श्रद्धया भोजनादिना पूजयति । तयोर् अन्नं देवाः समं तुलयम् अकल्पयन् व्यवस्थापितवन्तः । यदि नामैको गुणवान् साधुचरणस् तथापि कदर्यतयोपहतः । उक्तं हि “लोभः सर्वगुणान् इव” (म्भ् ७.७४.५३[*५३७]) इति । इतरो यदि नाम श्रद्दधनः तथापि कर्मदोषाद् अप्रशस्तः । एवं मीमांसित्वा विचार्य देवैर् व्यवस्था कृता तुल्यम् एतद् इति ॥ ४.२२४ ॥

What is meant is the Brāhmaṇa endowed with all necessary qualifications,—the term ‘Vedic Scholar’ being meant to be purely illustrative. ‘Vedic Scholar’ means the learned man who performs all the duties that have been laid down for him. If such a person happens to be ‘miserly’—who does not take delight in receiving friends, relations and guests, and who does not wish to give anything to any person.

The other person is the ‘usurer,’ living on usury, and thus engaged in objectional business. If he happens to be ‘liberal,’ noble-minded, endowed with faith, is delighted at the arrival of people at his house, and duly honors them with food and other things.

The food belonging to these two persons the gods have ordained to be ‘equal.’

Even though one of them (the former) is possessed of all good qualities, yet he is condemned by reason of his niggardliness. It has been declared that ‘covetousness spoils all good qualities.’ The other person, even though endowed with due faith, is censured by reason of his objectionable business. Hence, ‘having examined’—duly pondered over the matter—the gods have ordained that the food belonging to the two persons stands on the same footing.—(224)

(verses 4.224-225)

Cf. 10.73.

These verses are quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 508);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 768).

They are referred to also in the Mahābhārata (12.264.11) as ‘Brahmagītā gāthā’.

**(verses 4.224-225)
**

Baudhāyana (1.5.63).—‘Having compared the food offered by a man pure but devoid of faith, and that by one impure, but endowed with faith,—the gods declared them to he equal. Prajāpati told them that the two were not equal, hut unequal; what is offered by the faithless being damned, that which is purified by faith is distinctly superior.’

Mahābhārata (Śānti., 270.10).—‘People learned in the ancient lore recite certain verses sung by Brāhmaṇas:—In connection with the sacrificial performance the gods regarded as similar the food offered by the pure hut faithless man and that offered by the impure but faithful; similarly also that offered by the miserly Vedic scholar and by the generous woman,—having compared these two, they regarded them as equal. Prajāpati however told them that they had committed a mistake; that offered by the generous is purified by faith, while the other is damned through want of faith.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.14).—‘One should eat the food offered even by the thief, if he is endowed with faith; but never of that man who sacrifices for, or initiates, many people.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 508).—‘Even food offered by one’s teacher should not be eaten, if it is not offered with respect.’

224 The gods, having considered (the respective merits) of a niggardly Srotriya and of a liberal usurer, declared the food of both to be equal (in quality).

Thereupon Prajāpati came to them and said—“Do not make the unequal equal: what belongs to the liberal man is purified by faith, while the other is defiled by want of faith.—(225)

देवान् प्रजापतिर् आगत्याचष्ट मा कृढ्वम् एवं विषमं समीकरणम् अन्याय्यम् । कः पुनर् अनयोर् अधिक इति देवा ऊचुः । पुनः प्रजापतिर् आह । वदान्यस्य श्रद्धवतो यद् अन्नं तत् पूतं पवित्रं श्रद्दया वार्धुषेः । इतरद् यद् अन्नं श्रोत्रियस्य तत् कर्मणोपहतम् अप्रशस्तम् । देवप्रजापतिसंवादो ऽर्थवादः । अश्रद्दधानस्य गुणवतो ऽपि न भोक्तव्यम् आदरेण शूद्रस्यापि भोक्तव्यम् ॥ ४.२२५ ॥

Prajāpati, having approached, said to the gods —‘Do not in this way, make the unequal eaual’—i.e., do not establish any such improper equalisation.

Then the gods asked—‘Who there is, then, the superior between the two persons?’

Then Prajāpati answered—‘The food that belongs to the liberal-minded usurer, who is endowed with faith, is purified by faith, while the other food, that belongs to the Vedic scholar, is censured, condemned, by his act (faithlessness).’

This dialogue between Prajāpati and the gods is purely imaginary; all that is meant is that ‘one shall not eat food offered by a person, who, though otherwise qualified, is devoid of faith, while that belonging to the Śūdra shall be eaten, if it is offered with due respect.’—(225)

(verses 4.224-225)

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 4.224].

**(verses 4.224-225)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.224].

225 The Lord of created beings (Pragapati) came and spake to them, ‘Do not make that equal, which is unequal. The food of that liberal (usurer) is purified by faith; (that of the) of the) other (man) is defiled by a want of faith.’