२७ आत्मनिवेदनम्

As the man’s character may be, as may be the nature of the work he wishes to do, and as may be the manner in which he may serve,—even so must he offer himself.—(254)

आत्मनिवेदनम् एव व्यक्तीकरोति । अस्य शूद्रस्य यादृश आत्मा भवेत् यत्कुलीनो यद्देशो यच्छिल्पश् च । यच् चिकीर्षितम् । “अनेककार्येण त्वाम् अहम् आश्रितो धर्मेण अन्येन वा प्रयोजनेन राजकुलरक्षादिना” । यथा वोपचरेच् छिल्पेनानेन त्वां सेवे पादवन्दनादि गृहकृत्यकरत्वे सर्वस्मिन् निवेदित आत्मा निवेदितो भवति ।

• अन्ये तु “आत्मा वै पुत्रनामासि” (श्ब् १४.९.४.२६) इत्य् अपत्यवचनम् आत्मशब्दं मन्यमानाः यस्य शूद्रस्य कामतः प्रवृत्ता दुहिता विवाह्यते तस्यानेन भोज्यान्नतोच्यत इत्य् आहुः ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । न तावद् अयम् आत्मशब्दो दुहितरि विस्पष्टं प्रयुक्तः । पुत्रशब्दो हि पुंस्य् एव प्रसिद्धतरः । न च परोक्षशब्दोपदेशेन किंचित् प्रयोजनम् । एतावद् एव वक्तुं युक्तं दद्याद् दुहितरं च य इति ।

• अन्ये त्व् अर्धिकादिग्रहणं शूद्रोपलक्षणार्थं वर्णयन्ति । तेन पारशवस्य श्वशुरस्य च भोज्यान्नता सिद्धा भवति ॥ ४.२५४ ॥

The text proceeds to show the manner of ‘offering himself.’

‘As may be the character of the man,’—i.e., the family, the country and the profession to which the Śūdra concerned may belong.

‘The work he wishes to do;’—saying, ‘This is the work that I shall do under you, either as my duty, or for s ome other purpose, such as saving myself from being pressed for service at the royal palace, and so forth.’

‘The manner in which he may serve;’—‘I shall serve you with this act of mine;’—‘I shall press your feet, and do other household work.’ When one offers to do all this, then is he said to have ‘offered himself.’

‘Others have taken the word,’ ‘Ātman’ ‘himself,’ in the expression, ‘Ātmanām nivedayet,’ ‘offers himself,’ to mean child—according to the text, ‘thou art my own self, named son;’ and have explained it to mean that ‘one may eat the food of the Śūdra, whose daughter (ātma) one may have married, under the influence of sexual passion.’ This, however, is not right. The term, ‘ātmā’ is never used directly in the sense of daughter; it is only the masculine form ‘putra,’ ‘son,’ that is often found to be so used; and there would be no useful purpose served by the Author using a term, in an indirect sense; it would have been enough to say—‘he who gives his daughter to him.’

Others have explained that the mention of the ‘ploughman’ and others is meant to be indicative of the Śūdra in general; so that it follows that one may cat the food of one’s father-in-law of the ‘Pāraśava’ caste (son of a Brāhmaṇa from a Śūdra mother).—(254)

Cf. 5.253.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 492), which explains ‘ātmanivedana’ as ‘declaring his family, his character, his motive in seeking service and the ways in which he is going to serve’;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 785).

254 As his character is, as the work is which he desires to perform, and as the manner is in which he means to serve, even so (a voluntary slave) must offer himself.

He, who describes himself to good men otherwise than what he is, is the worst sinner in the world, a thief stealing himself.—(255)

अन्यथा भूतम् अधार्मिकं सन्तं सत्सु शिष्टेष्व् अन्यथा भाषते धार्मिको ऽहम् इति । अन्येन वा प्रयोजनेन चाश्रितो ऽन्यद् दर्शयति स सर्वेषां पापकृताम् अधिकतमः पापकृत् । स्तेनश् चौरः । आत्मापहारको ऽन्यश् चौरो द्रव्यम् अपहरत्य् अयं पुनर् आत्मानम् एवेति निन्दातिशयः ॥ ४.२५५ ॥

Being of one kind,;—i.e., unrighteous—if he describes himself to ‘good men’—to cultured people—‘otherwise’—describing himself as righteous;—or, when he goes to a man for one purpose, and represents it to be something else,—such a person is the worst of all sinners.

‘Thief’— stealer;—‘stealing himself.’ Other thieves steal things, while this person steals himself. This shows the despicable character of the man.—(255)

255 He who describes himself to virtuous (men), in a manner contrary to truth, is the most sinful (wretch) in this world; he is a thief who makes away with his own self.

All things are regulated by speech, have their root in speech, and emanate from speech. The man who steals such speech is the stealer of all things.—(256)

शब्दार्थयोर् नित्यसंबन्धाद् वाचि शब्दे ऽर्था नियता उच्यन्ते । वाङ्मूला वक्तुः स्वाभिप्रायप्रकाशनस्य तदधीनत्वात् तन्मूला उच्यन्ते । वाचो विनिःसृताः संभूताः श्रोतुर् अपि प्रतिपत्तेस् तत्तुल्यत्वाद् वाग्विनिःसृता उच्यन्ते ।

• न चात्र पौनरुक्त्याशङ्कापरिहारे प्रयतितव्यम्, अनुवादत्वाद् अस्य यथाकथंचिद् वस्तुपरिहारत्वात् ।

• तां वाचं यश् चोरयति मुष्णात्य् अन्यद् उक्त्वान्यद् अनुतिष्ठत्य् अन्येनाभिप्रायेण संगच्छते ऽन्यच् च दर्शयति स सर्वस्तेयकृत् । नास्ति तद् द्रव्यं सुवर्णादि यत् तेन नापहृतं भवतीति निन्दार्थवादो ऽनृतवचनस्य ॥ ४.२५६ ॥

The relation between words and their denotations being eternal, things are described as ‘regulated by speech.’

‘Have their root in speech.’— Things are said to have their root in speech, in view of the fact that the ideas of the speaker depend, for their manifestation, upon speech.

‘Emanate from speech,’—are produced out of speech; things are so called, because the ideas of the hearer also are dependent upon speech.

It is not necessary to suspect, or attempt an explanation of, the repetition here involved; because what is stated here is merely a description of things as they are, and as such may be put forward in any manner possible.

He who ‘steals such speech’—misrepresents, having said one thing, does something else; he says something in one sense, and represents it in another sense;—‘is the stealer of all things;’—there is no substance, gold or anything else, which such a man has not stolen.

This is an imaginary statement, deprecatory of telling a lie.—(256)

256 All things (have their nature) determined by speech; speech is their root, and from speech they proceed; but he who is dishonest with respect to speech, is dishonest in everything.