१०

The three twice-born castes, devoted to their duties, shall study; but of these the Brāhmaṇa alone shall expound it, not the other two; such is the established law.—(1)

“वेदः कृत्स्नो ऽधिगन्तव्यः सरहस्यो द्विजन्मना” (म्ध् २.१६५) इति ग्रहणार्थं त्रैवर्णिकानां स्वाध्यायविधिर् उक्तः । गृहीतस्य चाविस्मरणम् अप्य् उक्तं¹ सर्वाश्रमिणाम् । “स्वाध्याये नित्ययुक्तः स्यात्” (म्ध् ३.६५), तथा “नित्यं शास्त्राण्य् अवेक्षेत” (म्ध् ४.१९) । शास्त्रं प्रमुख्यया वृत्त्यैव शासनाद् धि शास्त्रं प्रमाणान्तरानवगतविधिप्रतिपादनाच् च वेद एवेति । तद् एव शास्त्रम् । अन्यत्र ग्रन्थसंदर्भसामान्याच् छास्त्रशब्दप्रयोगः । तथा “नियतो वेदम् अभ्यसेत्” (म्ध् ६.९५), “ब्रह्मोज्झता वेदनिन्दा” (म्ध् ११.५५) इति । यस् तु ब्रह्मयज्ञः स एकेनापि सूक्तेन साम्नानुवाकेन खण्डेन काण्डिकया वैकयैव यावज्जीवम् अधीतया सिध्यति । न तेन ब्रह्मस्मरणम् आक्षिप्यते । तद् एवं निर्विषयत्वाद् अस्य विधेर् अनुवादार्थतैव ।

• प्रब्रूयाद् ब्राह्मणस् तेषां नेतराव् इति क्षत्रियवैश्ययोः प्रवचनं निवर्तयितुम् ।

• ननु च “अध्यापनं ब्राह्मणस्य” (म्ध् १.८८) इत्यादिना तयोस् तद् अप्राप्तम् एव ।

• नैष दोषः । वृत्तिकरणस्य श्रुतत्वात्² तदर्थैव निवृत्तिः संभाव्यते । धर्मार्थं तु विद्यादानं तयोर् अप्य् अस्त्य् एवेत्य् आशङ्कां निवर्तयति ।

• अथास्ति सामान्येन निषेधः । एवं तर्हि ज्ञातिलक्षणप्रसङ्गजननार्थं सिद्धम् एवोच्यते । एवं च कृत्वानुक्रमणीयः संबन्धो न हातव्यो ऽयम् इति भविष्यति- “वैश्यशूद्रोपचारं च संकीर्णानां च संभवः” (म्ध् १.११६) इति ।

• कश्चिद् आह । अध्यापनं शब्दोच्चारणशिक्षणम्, प्रवचनं तु तदर्थव्याख्यानम्³ अपि । अतो भिन्नत्वान् नाध्यापननिवृत्त्या तदर्थव्याख्याननिवृत्तिर् भवतीत्य् अतः पुनर् उपदेशः ।

• ननु च नात्र वेदशब्दो ऽस्ति । कुतस् तत्कर्मता अध्ययनक्रिययाः । अथ लौकिकगद्यपद्यविषयम्⁴ अपीदम् अध्ययनम् उच्यते ।

उच्यते[^५] । तथा सत्य् अदृष्टार्थो विधिः स्यात् । अतश्[^६] चाधिकारकल्पना प्रसज्येत मूलकल्पना च स्यात् । यथा[^७] तु व्याख्यातम् उपलब्धमूलैवेयं स्मृतिर् भवतीति नादृष्टमूलकल्पनाप्रसङ्गः ।

द्विजातय** इति सिद्धे त्रयो वर्णा इति पादपूरणम् । एवं स्वकर्मस्था इति ॥ १०.१ ॥

The injunction for the study of the Veda by the three castes has been set forth in the text—‘The entire Veda, along with the esoteric treatises, shall be studied by the twice-born;’ and for all householders it has been laid down as an obligatory duty that they shall not forget what has been learnt,—in such texts as—‘One shall be always intent upon Vedic study’ (375), ‘He shall constantly ponder over the scriptures’ and so forth; and it is the Veda alone that can be called ‘śāstra,’ ‘scripture,’ in its primary sense of ‘instructing;’ since, it is the Veda alone that propounds injunctions not obtainable by any other means of knowledge; hence the Veda alone is the ‘scripture;’ and this term is applied to other works only indirectly, on the basis of their resembling the Veda in being like it, a literary composition. Thus then, it follows that the Veda shall be constantly recited, and there is evil involved in abandoning its study. As for the ‘Brahmayajña’ (which is done daily), this can he accomplished by the life-long daily repetition of a single hymn, a single Sāma-song, a single mantra or a single section; and hence that does not imply the necessity of remembering the entire text of the Veda.

Thus then, there being nothing left, which could form the original subject-matter of the present injunctive text (‘shall study &c.’), it has to be taken as a mere reiteration,—made for the purpose of precluding the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya from the function of teaching, in the words ‘of these the Brāhmaṇa alone shall teach it, not the other two.’

“As a matter of fact, there can be no possibility of those two castes undertaking the work of teaching, which has been reserved exclusively for the Brāhmaṇa, in such texts as ‘Teaching belongs to the Brāhmaṇa alone.’ [So that there could be no occasion for the preclusion intended by the present text.]”

There is no force in this objection. The texts have hitherto reserved the function of Teaching for the Brāhmaṇa, only as a means of livelihood; so that the exclusion of the other castes would also appear to be with reference to the same; and the imparting of knowledge as a meritorious act would still be permissible for the other two castes; it is this possibility that the present text precludes.

Even granting that there is a general prohibition (of Teaching, for the other castes), the present text maybe taken as reiterating a settled fact, for the purpose of introducing the subject of the admixture of the castes and their functions. In this manner the order of sequence of the original promise would be duly maintained,—as set forth above, in the words ‘The duties of the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, then the origin if the mixed castes’ (1.116).

In this connection some people argue as follows:—The work of ‘Teaching’ consists in instructing one to pronounce the words, and ‘expounding’ includes also the explaining of the meaning of the words. So that the former prohibitions of

‘Teaching’ cannot mean the prohibition of ‘expounding;’ and for this latter, a fresh injunction (in the shape of the present text) becomes necessary.

An objection is raised—“We do not find the word ‘Veda’ in the present verse; wherefore then should the action of studying be taken as pertaining to the Veda? The reading of secular prose and poetry is also called ‘study.’”

The answer to this is as follows:—If the latter were meant, then the injunction would have to be taken as put forth with a view to some invisible result only; and that would necessitate the assuming of some such result as would be desired by the man undertaking the said study, as also the discovering of some authority for such an assumption. On the other hand, if we interpret the text as we have done above, it is found to have its authority in a well-known Vedic text, and there is no need for assuming another basic authority for it.

What is meant being already expressed by the term ‘twice-born,’ the term ‘three castes’ has been added for the purpose of filling up the metre; so also the epithet ‘devoted to their duties’—(1)

‘Vaiśeṣyāt’.—‘Through pre-eminence,—of qualities’ (Medhātithi),—‘of race’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).

‘Niyamasya dhāraṇāt—‘On account of the observance of the restrictive rules, i.e., those prescribed for the Accomplished student’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘on account of his possessing superior knowledge of the Veda’ (Kullūka).

**(verses 10.1-3)
**

[See texts under 71 et seq. below.]

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 512).—‘The Brāhmaṇa controls all the sciences; it is he who expounds them to others.’

Pālakāpyasaṃhitā (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 513).—‘The Brāhmaṇa may teach the other three castes; the Kṣatriya, two castes, and the Vaiśya, only one caste.’

वैश्यशूद्रोपचारानन्तरं शास्त्रानुक्रण्यपेक्षया संकीर्णानां संभवो वक्तव्यः । यतस् तदुपोद्घातार्थं ब्रह्मचारिप्रकरणोपदिष्ट्[आध्ययनापेक्ष्यात्र] “अधीयीरन्न्” इत्य् उक्तम् । एवं चात्राधिपूर्वस्येङो (?) वेदशब्दक्रियस्य वेदशब्दविषयतैव ज्ञायते, अधीयीरन् वेदं पठेयुर् इत्य् अर्थः । ईदृशं च तत्राश्रुतम् अपि विधिवाक्यम् उत्प्रेक्ष्यम् अनुवादसामर्थ्यात् । तथा च ब्रह्मचारिप्रकरण एवं च नियमार्थम् इदम् उक्तम्- “वेदः कृत्स्नो ऽधिगन्तव्यः” इत्येवमादि । स्वकर्मस्था इति चैतत्सामर्थ्याद् ब्रह्मचारिप्रकरणोक्तान् एव गुरूपसदनाभिवादनादीन् अद्ययनव्रतधर्मान् गृह्णाति । अर्थाच् च त्रयाणाम् अध्यापने प्राप्त इदं नियमार्थम् उच्यते क्षत्रियवैश्ययोः प्रब्रूयाद् ब्राह्मणस् त्व् एषाम् इति । एवं च नेतराव् इत्य् एतदर्थसिद्धत्वाद् अनारभ्यं सद् उच्यते विशेषार्थम् । नेतराव् इत्य् अनापद्विषयं प्रतिषेधं कल्पयामः । तद् इदम् उच्यते- आपै त्व् इतराव् अपि क्षत्रियवाइश्यौ प्रब्रूयाताम् । तथा च कृत्वा तत् समञ्जसं भवति यद् उक्तं ब्राह्मणाध्ययनम् अनापत्काले विधीयत इति । अथ वापदि शूद्राध्ययनप्रतिषेधार्थम् । इतरेषां नेतराव् इत्य् एतत् । एवं चापदि क्षत्रियवैश्याव् एव प्रब्रूयाताम्, न शूद्रः । सत्य् अप्य् अविशेषवचन एतस्मिन्न् अब्राह्मणाद् अध्ययनप्राप्तिं शूद्रस्य कृत्वेदम् उक्तम्, न शास्त्रात् । तथा च तद् युक्तरूपं भवति यद् उक्तम् अपाङ्क्तेयप्रकरणे “शूद्रशिष्यो गुरुश् चैव” इति । अथ वा नेतरौ साङ्गं वेदम् अधिकृतं प्रब्रूयाताम्, अन्यत् तु राजशास्त्रधर्नुर्वेदहस्तिशिक्षायुर्वेदाह्यापहं तयोर् न हि वार्यते । तद् अयुक्तम्, अध्ययनानुवादे वक्ष्यमाणप्रकरणाभिसंबन्धार्थे । अथ वा प्रब्रूयाद् ब्राह्मणस् त्व् एषां नेतराव् इत्य् एवमर्थो विज्ञेयः । तथा च तु व्याख्यातम् एतत् । अपरे त्व् आहुः- अयम् एव वेदाध्ययनविधिस् त्रयाणाम् । तत् पुनर् युक्तायुक्ततया विचारणीयम्, उक्तं चेति । यतश् चैतद् एवम् अतः ॥ १०.१ ॥

001 Let the three twice-born castes (varna), discharging their (prescribed) duties, study (the Veda); but among them the Brahmana (alone) shall teach it, not the other two; that is an established rule.

The Brāhmaṇa should know the means of livelihood for all men; he shall duly expound them to the others and himself do accordingly.—(2)

“न चास्योपदिशेद् धर्मम्” (म्ध् ४.८०) इति न कश्चिद् धर्मोपदेशः शूद्रस्य कर्तव्य इत्य् उक्तम् । वृत्तिधर्मा उपदेष्टव्या इति तस्यापवादः । वृत्तिः शरीरकुटुम्बस्थितिः, तदर्था उपायाः, तान् विद्यात् । प्रब्रूयात् सर्वेभ्य इतरेभ्य इति । बहुवचनं शूद्रावरोधार्थम् । स्वयं च तथा भवेत् । तथा उपदिष्टा⁵ वृत्तिनियमा अनुष्ठेया इत्य् अर्थः ॥ १०.२ ॥

It has been already declared that there is to be no ‘teaching of duties’ for the Śūdra, in such texts as ‘he shall not teach his duty to him’ (4.80) and it is as an exception to this that we have the present text laying down that ‘means of livelihood should be explained to him.’

‘Livelihood’—maintenance of the family;—the ‘means’ of that he should know.

‘Expound to the others’—The plural number has been used for the purpose of including the Śūdra [the dual would

have been used if the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya alone had been intended ].

‘Himself do accordingly;’—i.e., he shall have recourse to only such means of livelihood as have been prescribed for him.—(2)

**(verses 10.1-3)
**

[See texts under 71 et seq. below.]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.1].

वृत्तये उपायान् विद्यात् । अथ वा वृत्तिं च विद्याधर्मप्राप्त्युपायांश् च । सर्वग्रहणं चाधिकाराद् वर्णद्वयापेक्षम् एव । अथ वा अस्योभयस्याप्य् अर्थवादः ॥ १०.२ ॥

002 The Brahmana must know the means of subsistence (prescribed) by law for all, instruct the others, and himself live according to (the law)

The Brāhmaṇa is the lord of the castes, on account of his distinctive qualities, of the superiority of his origin, of his observance of restrictive rules, of the peculiar character of his sanctification.—(3)

• यत⁶ एतच्छेषतया प्ररोचनं पठति । वैशेष्यद् विशिष्टत्वाद् इत्य् अर्थः, गुणाधिक्याद् इति यावत् । तद् इदानीम् आधिक्यम् आह- प्रकृतिश्रैष्ठ्यात् । उत्तमाङ्गोद्भवाद् इदम् उक्तम् । प्रकृतिः कारणम् । नियमस्य च धारणात्, मद्यपानप्रतिषेधात् । अयम् एव नियमो ऽभिप्रेतः । स्नातकव्रतानि वा वैणवधारणादीनि ब्राह्मणस्यैव । संस्कारस्य च विशेषो⁷ नियमो ऽभिप्रेतः, स्नातकव्रतानि च विशेषः, “हृदयङ्गमाभिः” (वध् ३.३१) इत्यादेः, उपनयनादेर्⁸ वा बालस्यैव विधानात् । क्षत्रियवैश्ययोस् त्व् अतीतशैशवयोर् एकादशद्वादशयोः⁹ । अतो हेतोर् वर्णानां ब्राह्मणः प्रभुः शासिता ॥ १०.३ ॥

के पुनर् अमी वर्णा नाम । मनुष्यजातिवचनो वर्णशब्दः । नेत्य् आह ।

“What is the reason that the Brāhmaṇa alone is entitled to what has been just stated, and not the Kṣatriya and the rest also?”

The reason for this lies in the fact that it is in connection with the Brāhmaṇa that the scriptures put forth commendatory declarations (like the present text).

‘On account of distinctive qualities,’—i.e., of peculiar characteristics; i.e., the excellence of his qualities.

These excellences are next pointed out—‘of the superiority of his origin,’—the Brāhmaṇa having sprung from the highest part of Prajāpati’s body. ‘Origin’ means source.

‘Observance of restrictive rules.’— Inasmuch as the drinking of wine has been forbidden specifically for the Brāhmaṇa, it is this ‘restrictive rule’ that is meant here. Or they may refer to the ‘observances of the Accomplished Student,’—such as the carrying of the bamboo staff and so forth,—which have been prescribed for the Brāhmaṇa only.

‘The peculiarity of his sanctification;’—this refers to the observances of the Accomplished Student; the ‘peculiarity’ consisting in such rules as ‘water reaching the heart’ (2.162) and so forth. It cannot mean the ‘Initiatory Rite,’ as this is done for the child only (and hence could not refer to the grown up Brāhmaṇa); it is only in the case of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya that it is done after the expiry of childhood.

For these reasons the Brāhmaṇa is the ‘lord’—controller—‘of the castes.’—(3)

‘Vaiśeṣyāt’.—‘Through pre-eminence,—of qualities’ (Medhātithi),—‘of race’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).

‘Niyamasya dhāraṇāt—‘On account of the observance of the restrictive rules, i.e., those prescribed for the Accomplished student’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘on account of his possessing superior knowledge of the Veda’ (Kullūka).

**(verses 10.1-3)
**

[See texts under 71 et seq. below.]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.1].

विशिष्टत्वाद् ज्ञानत इतरेभ्यः । अथ वा प्रतिज्ञैवेयम् । ततो ऽत्र कारणं वक्ति- प्रकृतिश्रैष्ठ्यं तस्य मुखोद्भवत्वम् उक्तं प्रथमे ऽध्याये ब्राह्मणस्तुतौ “उत्तमाङ्गोद्भवात्” इत्य् एतत् । नियमस्य च धारणात् कृत्स्ने वेदाध्ययने धारणाभ्यासलक्षणस्य ब्राह्मणकर्तृकस्यैवोपदेषात् । एवं चातिशयविशेषापेक्षाद् एतद् इतराभ्यां विज्ञेयम् । संस्कारस्य च श्रौतस्मार्तस्योपनयनादेः श्मशानकरणान्तस्य द्विजातिविषयस्य ब्राह्मणहेतुकत्वात् तस्य विशिष्टत्वम् । अथ वाल्पे कर्मण्य् अग्निहोत्रादेर् एकशतविधस्याग्नेर् दर्सनेन संपादनम् अश्वमेधादेर् वा वर्णान्तरकर्मणो दर्शनेन संपादनापेक्षयेदम् उच्यते । संस्कारस्य विशेषो ऽयम् एवमादिः ब्राह्मणस्यैव । चसब्दाज् ज्येष्ठोपसंग्रहः प्रथमे ऽध्याय ब्राह्मणस्तुतिप्रकरणोपदिष्टः समुच्चीयते । यतश् चैवम् एवं[लक्षण]ब्राह्मणस्य सर्ववर्णप्रभुत्वाद् अध्यापनाद्यधिकृतं कार्यम् इत्य् अर्थवादः ॥ १०.३ ॥

003 On account of his pre-eminence, on account of the superiority of his origin, on account of his observance of (particular) restrictive rules, and on account of his particular sanctification the Brahmana is the lord of (all) castes (varna).

The Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya are the three twice-born castes; the fourth is the one caste, Śūdra; there is no fifth.—(4)

चत्वारो वर्णा ब्राह्मणाद्याः शूद्रपर्यन्ताः । अन्ये तु बर्बरकैवर्तादयः संकीर्णयोनयो यथा वक्ष्यन्ते । तत्र चतुर्णां त्रयो द्विजातय, उपनयनस्य तेषां विहितत्वात् । एकजातिः शूद्रह् । न हि तस्योपनयनम् अस्ति, उपनयनविधौ ब्राह्मणादिवर्णविशेषसंयोगात्- “अष्टमे ब्राह्मणम् उपनयीतैकादशे राजन्यं द्वादशे वैश्यम्” इति । न कस्मिंश्चित् काले शूद्रं पठन्ति ।

• ननु कालविशेषानुपादानाद् अनियतकालं शूद्रोपनयनम् अस्तु ।

• भवेद् यद्य् असंयुक्ता सामान्येनोपनयनस्योत्पत्तिः स्यात् । एताश् च वर्णकालविशेषयुक्ताः निमित्तार्थाः¹⁰ स्तुतयः स्युः । न तु पृथगुत्पत्तिर् अस्यास्ति । तत् कस्य प्रमाणस्य सामर्थ्येनास्योपनयनम् अनियतकालं क्रियतां ।

• यद्य् एवम्, किं तर्ह्य् अनेन चतुर्थ एकजातिर् इति ।

• सत्यम् । आशङ्कामात्रनिवारणार्थम् “मन्त्रवर्जं न दुष्यति”¹¹ (म्ध् १०.१२७) इति अमन्त्रकस्यानियतकालस्य¹² प्राप्तिर् आशङ्क्यते ।

• ननु च पाकयज्ञविधाव् एतद् वाक्यम्, तत्संनिधौ श्रवणात्, तत्र कृतार्थं नान्यत्र भवितुम् अर्हति ।

• अत एवाशङ्कामात्रम् इत्य् उक्तम् ।

• परमार्थतस् तु व्यवहारनियमार्थपरः¹³ श्लोकः ॥ १०.४ ॥

What are these ‘castes’? Is the word ‘caste’ denotative of a species of human beings? No; these are four castes, begining with the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and ending with the ‘Śūdra.’ The others—the ‘Barbara,’ the ‘Kaivarta’ and so forth—are only mixed races, as will be described later on.

Of these four, three castes are ‘twice-born,’—the ‘Initiatory Rite’ being prescribed for them.

‘One caste’ is the Śūdra; there is no ‘Initiatory Rite’ for him; since the injunction of this rite contains the distinct mention of the three castes, Brāhmaṇa and the rest;—e.g., ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall be initiated in the eighth year, the Kṣatriya in the eleventh and the Vaiśya in the twelfth;’ and nowhere is the name of the Śūdra mentioned.

“Since no time is specified in connection with the Śūdra, it may simply mean that there is no time fixed for his Initiation.”

This might have been the meaning, if there were a general injunction for Initiation (for all men in general); and in that case all these rules regarding the castes, the times for initiation would have to be taken as purely commendatory details. There is however no such general injunction for Initiation. Under the circumstances, on the strength of what authority could we take the Śūdras’ Initiation as to be done without any restriction regarding time?

“If that is so, then what is the point in reiterating that there is one caste the Śūdra?”

True; but it serves the purpose of removing a suspicion; on the strength of the assertion that it is done without sacred texts, the idea may be entertained that for the Śūdra there is Initiation without any restriction as to time.

“But the assertion quoted occurs in connection with the ‘Food-Sacrifices;’ and having served its purpose in that connection, it could not be made to refer to anything else.”

That is why we have said that there would just be a suspicion. In reality, however, the verse serves the purpose of restricting the actual practices of men.—(4)

Āpastamba (1.1.4-5).—‘There are four castes—Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra;—amongst these, each preceding caste is superior to the one following.’

Baudhāyana (1.16.1).—‘There are four castes—Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.1-2).—‘There are four castes—Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra;—the three castes, Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya are twice-born.’

Yājñavalkya (1.10).—‘The castes are the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra;—the first three are twice-born.’

“अधीयीरंस् त्रयो वर्णा[ः” इत्य् अत्र] विशेष एव वर्णशब्द उक्तः यतस् तद्व्यतिरेकेण शूद्रे न प्राप्ते इष्यते च । तस्यापि स्याद् इत्य् अतस् तदर्थो ऽयं श्लोकारम्भः । व्यवहारार्थो वायं ब्राह्मणादीनां चतुर्णाम् अपि वर्णसंज्ञोपदेशः शास्त्रे । तथा चानया व्यवहार एषां सर्वत्र शास्त्रे दृश्यते । वर्णापशदेषु वा वक्ष्यमाणेषु तदभावज्ञापनार्थं तावद् दर्शयति नास्ति तु पञ्चम इति । एवं च सत्य् एत एव चत्वारो वर्णाः स्वतस् सिद्धाः । कथम् । रसवत् । यथा षट्प्र[कारा] रसाः स्वतस् सिद्धाः । यस् तु तेषां परस्परं संपर्काद् रसविशेष उपलभ्यते, नासौ जात्यन्तरस् तेभ्यो भवति, एवं वर्णानाम् अपि परस्परसंपर्काद् चण्डालादिर् उपलभ्यते । शास्त्रे नासौ जात्यन्तरं तेभ्यो भवितुम् अर्हति । ब्राह्मणशूद्राव् एव वर्णौ प्रतिलोमतः संपृक्तौ यं जनयतः स चण्डालाख्यां लभते । येषाम् अप्य् उत्पद्यते वर्णद्वयसंपर्काज् जात्यनत्रम् इति पक्षः, तेषाम् अपि स्वतो नास्तीति कृत्वा युक्तओ वर्णापशदेषु वर्णसंज्ञाप्रतिषेधः । एतावांस् तु विशेषः । उत्कर्षापकर्षयोस् तेषां कर्मसंबन्धस्य च स्मृतिनिमित्तत्वाद् यथाशास्त्रम् एतद्द्वयं विज्ञायते । ननु च संस्कारानुपदेशाद् एव शूद्रस्यैकजातित्वं सिद्धम् इति । एवं तर्ह्य् अमन्त्रतो ऽ[प्य्] उपनयनसंस्कारप्रतिषेधार्थम् इदम् एकजातिग्रहणं शूद्रस्य । तथा चोक्तम् “मन्त्रवर्जं न दुष्यन्ति प्रशंसां प्राप्नुवन्ति च” इति । तथा सत्य् अनियतकालादिसाधनोपनयनसंस्कारप्रतिषेधार्थम् इदं शूद्रस्यैकजातिग्रहणं युक्तम्, मा भूत् पाकयज्ञवद् अस्यामन्त्रकस्य प्राप्तिर् इति, उक्तानुवादो ऽयं पादपूरणार्थः । एवं चान्यपरे ऽस्मिन्न् एकजातिनिर्देशे नास्ति चोद्यावकासः । अथवोत्तरार्थः । तथा च दर्शयति ॥ १०.४ ॥

004 Brahmana, the Kshatriya, and the Vaisya castes (varna) are the twice-born ones, but the fourth, the Sudra, has one birth only; there is no fifth (caste).

Among all castes, those only who are born of consorts wedded in the natural order, as virgins of equal status, are to be regarded as the same (as their father).—(5)

के पुनर् अमी ब्राह्मणादयो नाम । न ह्य् एषां परस्परो भेदः शक्यो ऽवमातुम् । व्यक्त्यधीनाधिगमा हि जातयः । न च व्यक्तयः स्वावयवसंनिवेशविशेषावगमशून्याः शक्नुवन्ति तासां भेदम् आवेदयितुम् । न च ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियादीनां गवास्वस्येव वाकारभेदो ऽस्ति, येन रूपिसमवायाच् चाक्षुष्यः स्युः । नापि विलीनघृततैलगन्धरसादिभेदेन क्रियान्तरगोचराः । नापि शौचाचारपिङ्गलकेशत्वादिभिर् धर्मैः¹⁴ शक्यं भेदावसानाः, तेषां सर्वत्र संकरोपलब्धेः । व्यवहारश् च पुरुषाधीनः । विप्रलम्भभूयिष्टत्वाच् च पुरुषाणां नान्ततो वस्तुसिद्धिः ।

• इत्य् अतो जातिलक्षणम् उच्यते । सर्ववर्णेष्व् एतल् लक्षणं जातेर् यत् तुल्यासु समानजातीयासु संभूतासु¹⁵ पत्नीषु ऊढासु जातास् त एव जात्या ज्ञेयाः । प्रायेण मातापित्रोर् या जातिः सैवापत्यस्योढायां जातस्य वेदितव्या । संबन्धिशब्दत्वात् पत्नीग्रहणास्यातो¹⁶ वोढा पिता लभ्यते । तेन येनैवोढा तत एव यस् तस्याम् एव जातस् तदा तज्जातीयो भवति ।

• अक्षतयोनिग्रहणं पुनर्विवाहसंस्कारेण पत्नीत्वम् आशङ्कमानं¹⁷ निवर्तयति, सहोढकानीनमातॄणां च ।

• ननु च नैवैतासां विवाहसंस्कारो ऽस्ति, “पाणिग्रहणिका मन्त्राः कन्यासु” (म्ध् ८.२२६) इति वचनात् । यद्¹⁸ अपि “वोढुः स गर्भो भवति” (म्ध् ९.१७३) इति विवाहश्रवणेन शास्त्रीयसंस्कारप्रतिपत्तिः, प्राप्तिमात्रवचनत्वात् तस्य न विहितवचनीयं प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् अस्ति । तस्मात् स्वीकारमात्रे धातुर् वर्तते, स्वीकर्तुर् इत्य् अर्थः । पित्रादीन् वञ्चयित्वा येनैव स्वीकृता तस्यैव सा भवति, ततः पुत्रश् चेति तस्यार्थः, पुनर्भूसंस्कराभावात् । “सा चेद् अक्षतयोनिः स्यात्” (म्ध् ९.१७६) इति पठ्यते । गतप्रत्यागतायाम् अपि पुनःशब्दप्रत्यभिज्ञानाद्¹⁹ भर्तुर् उक्ताः²⁰ । न च ताभिः सहाभिः सहाधिकारो ऽस्ति । यज्ञसंयोगे ऽस्ति पत्नीशब्दः । अतो ऽक्षतयोनिशब्दो ऽतिरिच्यते । अत्र पूर्वे पत्नीशब्दपर्यायेन नारीष्व् इति पठन्ति, तद् अपि न किंचित् । केवले ह्य् अक्षतयोनिशब्दे त्व् असंस्कृतास्व् अपि जातास् तज्जातीयाः²¹ स्युः । पत्नीशब्दपाठेन शास्त्रीयेण विधिना या संस्कृता भार्यात्वम् आपादिता सा गृह्यते । यास् तु कुमर्य एवोपगम्यन्ते, भवन्ति ता अक्षतयोनयः, न तु पत्न्यः । तस्माद् अक्षतयोनिशब्दस्य प्रयोजनं वाच्यम्²² ।

• उच्यते । यत् तावद् उक्तं “न ताः पत्न्यो यज्ञसंयोगाभावात्” इति, यदि विवाह्येरन् स एव यज्ञः स्यात् । तत्रापि पूषवरुणार्यम्णाम् अस्त्य् एव यागः । समानर्थौ च यागयज्ञशब्दौ । तस्मात् स्युर् एव पत्न्यः । अकन्यात्वाद् अविवाह्यतयैव न पत्न्य इति युक्तम् ।

• अतश् चानर्थक्ये ऽक्षतयोनिशब्दस्य प्रयोजनम् उच्यते । दृश्यते लक्षणयासत्य् अपि यज्ञसंयोगे पत्नीशब्दः प्रयुज्यमानो लोके- रजकस्य पत्नी । यथान्यत्रावरुद्धासु स्त्रीषु गृहिणीशब्दः । सो ऽपि भार्यावचन एव केनचिद् धर्मसाम्येन तत्रापि प्रयुज्यते । यद्य् अपि सति मुख्ये लक्षणा न न्याय्या, तथापि मन्दधियां सुहृद् भूत्वा आशङ्कामात्रं निवर्तयति । किं नाम नाशङ्क्यते मूढमतिभिः ।

• आनुलोम्यग्रहणम् उत्तरार्थम् । ये ऽपि “त एव ते” इति पठन्ति तेषाम् अपि स एवार्थस् तज्जातीया इति ।

• अत्रोच्यते । किंप्रमाणमूलम् एतत् स्मृतिकाराणां स्मरणम् । अकार्यरूपत्वान् न धर्माधर्मोपदेशतुल्यम् । प्रमाणान्तरं च²³ नास्तीत्य् उक्तम् । स्मृत्यन्तरमूलत्वे ऽन्धपरंपराप्रसङ्गः प्रमाणश्लोके²⁴ दर्शितः (च्ड़्। म्ध् २.६) ।

• उच्यते । वृद्धव्यवहार एव मूलं साधुत्वस्मृतिवत् ।

• ननु च सापराधासाव्²⁵ इत्य् उक्तम् ।

• अत एव नियामिकाः²⁶ स्मृतयः फलवत्यः । अभियुक्तस्मरणम् अन्यथेति न शक्यते वक्तुम् । शास्त्रस्थाः प्रसिद्धाः प्रमाणतराः । संभवति च तेषाम् अनादिव्यवहारो मूलम् ।

• एतत्स्मृतिसंकृतानां वावगताभिजनजातीयानां प्रत्यक्षम् अप्य् उपपद्यत²⁷ इति केषांचिद् दर्शनम् । एतत् स्मृतिविवेके प्रपञ्चितम् ।

• ननु च स्मृत्यन्तरे नायं विशेषो ऽस्ति ।

• सवर्णेभ्यः सवर्णासु जायन्ते हि सजातयः ।

• अनिन्द्येषु विवाहेषु पुत्राः संतानवर्धनाः ॥ इति । (य्ध् १.८९)

आद्येनार्धेन जातिर् लक्ष्यते, उत्तरेण हि ब्राह्मादिविवाहजातानां संतानवर्धनत्वम्²⁸ । तत्र “सवर्णेभ्यः सवर्णासु” इति नात्र पत्नीशब्दो ऽस्ति ।

• कथं नास्ति । यावता “विन्नास्व् एष विधिः स्मृतः” (य्ध् १.९२) इति । मा वा भूत्, अविशेषस्मृतेर् विशेषस्मृतिर् बलीयसी । अदर्शनाद् दर्शनं बलीयः । यत एकेन विशेषो न दृष्टो ऽपरेण दृष्ट इति संभवत्य् एतत् ।

• अतो ऽभियुक्तस्मरणं संभवन्मूलतया प्रमाणम् ।

• ननु चाव्याप्तेर् अलक्षणम् एतत् । न हि सहोढकानीनपौनर्भवादीनाम् अनेन ब्राह्मण्यं भवति । “कुण्डगोलकयोः,²⁹ क्षेत्रजस्य च । अनभिप्रेतम् एव तत् तेषाम्” इति चेत्, का तर्हि तेषां जातिः । कुण्डगोलकयोश् च असति ब्राह्मण्ये श्राद्धे प्राप्त्यभावाद् अनर्थको निषेधः स्यात्, स्मृत्यन्तरविरोधश् च-

• सजातीयेष्व् अयं प्रोक्तस् तनयेषु मया विधिः । इति । (य्ध् २.१३७)

किं च यद् एव लक्षणं तद् एव लक्ष्यम् । अनिर्ज्ञातं लक्ष्यं भवति, निर्ज्ञातं लक्षणम् । यथा “को देवत्तः” इति संशये, अङ्गदी कुण्डली व्यूढोरस्को वृत्तबाहुः । इह तु यथा कश्चित् ब्रूयात्- “कः काकः” इत्य् उक्ते, “काकाज् जातः” इत्य् उत्तरम्, तादृग् एव “को ब्राह्मण्ः,” “यो ब्राह्मणाज् जातः” इति । जनके ऽपि हि ब्राह्मण्यम् अप्रसिद्धम् एव, न्यायविरोधश् च । सजातीयात् सजातीयायां जातः स लोके सजातीयो भवति । यथा गौर् गवि गौः, अश्वाद् वडवयाम् अश्वः । अत्रोच्यते- यत् तावद् उक्तम् “का तेषां जातिः” इति, किम् अन्यया जात्या । मनुष्यास् तावद् भवन्ति । पुरुषधर्मैश् चाधिक्रियन्ते अनुपात्तजातिविशेषैः, पुत्रत्वाच् छ्राद्धादिभिश् च । दाने च सर्वेषाम् अधिकारः ।

• ननु च विशेषस्योपदेशेन विना व्यवहारो न सिध्यति, सर्वसाधारणत्वान् मनुष्यजातेः । असद् एतत् । सर्वस्यैव स्वसंज्ञाविशेषो विद्यते प्रतिपुरुषम्, देवदत्तो यज्ञदत्त इति । अथाप् संबन्धव्यपदेशः कर्तव्य इति, “कानीनः, सहोढः” इत्य् एव व्यपदिश्यते । सो ऽपि चातुर्वर्ण्ये सद्भावात् सामान्यरूप एवेति चेद् देवदत्तस्य कानीन इत्यादि जनकेन व्यपदेशः करिष्यते । तस्माद् असंबद्धम् एतद् यद् उच्यते व्यपदेशः कथम् इति ।

• एवं तर्हि सर्व एव धर्माश् चातुर्वर्ण्यं प्रति बोध्यन्ते “अन्तरपभावानां³⁰ च” (म्ध् १.२) । तत्र बहुत्वं ब्राह्मणादिजातिचतुष्टयविषयम् । न चैतेषाम् अप्य् एकजातिः, सर्वजातिष्व् एतस्य लक्षणस्य प्रवृत्तेः । यथैव ब्राह्मणाद् ऊढायां ब्राह्मण्यां जातो ब्राह्मणः, एवं क्षत्रियादयो ऽपि समजातीयमातृपितृजाताः । सर्वविशेषाभावे च कुतः सामान्यम् । न हि शिंशपादिसर्वविशेषाभावे वृक्षत्वसंभवः ।

• अन्तरप्रभवाश् चानुलोमप्रतिलोमाः । तत्रानुलोमा मातृजातीयाः, “प्रतिलोमास् तु धर्महीनाः” (ग्ध् ४.२५) अन्यत्राहिंसादिभ्यः । ते च सर्वे स्वसंज्ञाभिर् विशेषतो निर्दिष्टाः । न चैषां नामापि तत्रास्ति । तत्र कतमे ते धर्मा यैर् अमी अधिक्रियेरन् । क्व³¹ च तद्वचनं यद् एतान् अधिकुर्वीत । न हि कश्चिज् जातिविशेषाश्रयो³² धर्मविधिर् अस्ति । सर्ववर्णानाम् अन्तरभावानां चेति शास्त्राद् अधिकृतत्वाच् च ।

• उच्यते । यत् तावद् अहिंसादिषु चातुर्वर्ण्यवचनं (च्ड़्। म्ध् १०.६३) तन् नरमात्रोपलक्षणार्थम् एव, सत्य् अपि प्रतिलोमाधिकारे मुख्यार्थवृत्तेः³³ । प्रत्युत सहचारिजात्यन्तरपरत्वम्³⁴ एव लक्षयितुं क्षमं नान्तरावस्थातुम् अर्हति । तत्रैव (म्ध् ११०.६३) च वक्ष्यामः । इदं चास्ति “शूद्राणां तु सधर्माणः सर्वे ऽपध्वंजाः स्मृताः” (म्ध् १०.४१) इति । अपध्वंसो ऽसंस्कारः । स चाष्टविधः “व्यभिचारेण वर्णानाम्” (म्ध् १०.२४) इत्यादिनोक्तः । व्यभिचारः परस्त्रीषु गमनं सजातीयासु । अन्यद् वक्ष्यामः । तस्माद् असत्य् अपि वर्णत्वे वाचनिक एव तेषाम् अधिकारः ।

• क्षत्रियस्य तु मातृजातीयत्वम् एव, लिङ्गदर्शनात् । “पुत्रो द्व्यामुष्यायणस्य संविधानात्” इति कर्तव्याविशेषः श्रुतः । अन्येष्व् अपि श्रौतेषु तस्य विधानान्तरं दृश्यते । तस्माद् एव ब्राह्मणादिजातीय एव समभागः स्वपितृव्येण, “तस्माद् धर्मेण तं भजेत्” (म्ध् ९.१२१) इति । न च यथोक्ते विधौ तद् युक्तम्³⁵ । तदा ह्य् अयं शूद्रधर्मा । धनस्य यज्ञार्थतायाम् उक्तायां कुतस् तस्य तावद् भागः । कुण्डगोलकौ क्षेत्रजाव् एव । शिष्टसमाचारश् चैवम् एव । पाण्डुधृतराष्ट्रविदुराः क्षेत्रजाः सन्तो मातृजातीयाः । अतो युक्तः श्राद्धे प्रतिषेधः । किं च, पतितो ऽपि तत्र प्रतिषिद्धः, यस्य सर्वधर्मबहिष्कृतत्वात् प्राप्त्याशङ्कैव नास्ति । यत् तु “सजातीयेषु” (य्ध् २.१३७) इति³⁶ स्मृत्यन्तरं तद् उक्तानुवादत्वाद् यथासंभवं व्याख्येयम्, कार्यपुत्रविषयतया वा ।

• यच् च निर्ज्ञातं लक्षणं भवति, तत् किं ब्राह्मणार्थो नैव लोकप्रसिद्धः । यत्र ब्राह्मणादिसब्दः प्रयुज्यते तत्रापध्वंसनिवृत्त्यर्थं वचनम्³⁷ । मातापित्रोर्³⁸ एतद् एव जातिलक्षणं । न चानवस्था, अनादित्वात् संसारस्य ।

• प्रस्तुतन्यायविरोधस् तु साक्षात् व्यवसायगम्यत्वे³⁹ आसां जातीनां स्यात् । तास् तु⁴⁰ स्मृतिलक्षणा यथास्मरणं भवितुम् अर्हति । यथा वा वसिष्ठादयः शब्दा अन्तरेणैवान्वयधर्मम् अनवच्छिन्नस्मृतिपारंपर्यकैश्⁴¹ च विदितार्थेषु प्रयुज्यन्ते, भवन्ति व्यवहारहेतवो वसिष्ठब्राह्मणाः “वासिष्ठाः शृण्वन्त्” इति, तद्वद् एतद् द्रष्टव्यम् । यथा समाने ब्राह्मणत्वे केचिद् भृगवो वत्सा भारद्वाजा इत्यादिविशेषः स्मृत्येकप्रमाणः, तथैव समाने पुरुषत्वे ऽमी ब्राह्मणा अमी क्षत्रिया इत्यादिर् उपपन्नो व्यवहारः ।

• यैर् अपि लिङ्गदर्शनत्वेन⁴² जाबालश्रुतिर् उक्ता “सत्यकामो जाबालो मातरम् अपृच्छत् किंगोत्रो ऽहम् अस्मीति । सैवं प्रत्यब्रवीत्, बह्व् अहं चरन्ती परिचारिणी यौवने त्वाम् आलभे । नाहं तद् वेदेति । स एवम् उपश्रुत्य हारिद्रुमतम् गौतमम् इयाय । तं होवाच ब्रह्मचर्यं भवतो⁴³ विवत्स्यामि । स एवम् उवाच । किंगोत्रस् त्वम् असीति । स प्रत्युचाव । अपृच्छं मातरं सा माता प्रयब्रवीत् यौवने त्वाम् इत्यादि । गौतमो न चैतद् अब्राह्मणो⁴⁴ वक्तुम् अर्हति । समिधं सोम्याहर । उप त्वा नेष्ये” (छु ४.४.१–५) । अस्यायम् अर्थः । बहुभिर् अहं यौवने पुंभिः संगताभूवम्⁴⁵ । न जाने केन जातो ऽसीति । गौतमस् तु सत्यवचनान् निश्चिकाय ब्राह्मणेनायं जातस् ततस्⁴⁶ तम् उपनिन्ये ऽतो मन्यामहे स्वैरिणीष्व् अप्य् अनूढासु समानजातीयाज् जातासु तज्जातीया भवन्ति ।

• तद् एतन् न किंचित् । यतो यौवने त्वाम् आलभे । यौवने किल न स्मृतिर् दृढीभवति, उत्कलिकाबहुलत्वाद् यौवने चेतसः । किं च परिचारिणी परिचारिकाहेतोः⁴⁷ क्षुधापीडिता बहु विचरन्ती नैकस्मिं स्थाने, ततो मे न स्मृतिर् अस्ति भर्तुः किंगोत्रम् इति ।

• अतः स्थितम् एतत् समानजातीयोढायां जातास् तज्जातीया इति । गौतमस्यापि न ततो वचनाद् ब्राह्मणो ऽयम् इत्य् अवगमः । प्राग् एवासौ तं ब्राह्मण इति वेद । गोत्रं तु न वेद । गोत्रप्रश्नेन चरणप्रश्नो वेदितव्यः । तत्र उपनयनभेदो ऽस्ति । न तु गोत्रभेदेनोपनयने प्रयोजनम् । न तु⁴⁸ यथा केचिद् आहुः- जातिप्रश्नो ऽयम् आभिजात्यात्, “गोत्र एव जातिम् अवगमिष्यामि” । साक्षाज्जातिप्रश्ने⁴⁹ हि मुखरता स्यात् ॥ १०.५ ॥

“Who are these that are called ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and the rest? We cannot perceive any difference among men. The determination of the caste is dependent upon a knowledge of individuals belonging to the caste; and individuals, devoid as they are of any knowledge of the disposition of the component atoms, cannot indicate any difference among the castes. Nor is there any difference in the figures of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and the ‘Kṣatriya’ as there is in those of the ‘cow’ and the ‘horse,’ for instance,—by virtue of which the said castes could be perceptible by the eye Nor are the said castes discernible by any other acts; as, for instance, the nature of the oil or the melted butter can be discerned by smelling or tasting. Nor again can the difference among them be discerned by differences in such details as those of purity, conduct, colour of the hair, and so forth; because these details are almost always found to be mixed up. Further, actual usage is dependent upon men, and as men are mostly deceptive, the character of anything cannot be ascertained by a mere reference to them.”

It is in view of these difficulties (in the ascertaining of a man’s caste) that the author is asserting here the definition of the castes.

‘Among all castes,’— the definition that is applicable is that those born of women ‘0f equal status’—of the same caste as the husband,—these women being the ‘wives’—lawfully wedded consorts,—are to be regarded as the same. That is, in most cases, the caste of the child born of parents legally married is the same as that of its parents.

Since the term ‘wife’ is a relative term, it follows that the person who has married her is the ‘father’ of the child. So that the meaning comes to be that the child is of the same caste as the parents, when it is born of the woman from that same person who has wedded her.

The epithet ‘virgin’ has been added, and it precludes the possibility of a remarried woman being regarded as the ‘wife,’—as also of the mother of the ‘Sahoḍa’ and ‘Kānīna’ sons.

Objection:— “As a matter of fact, there is no marriage - sacrament in the case of these latter; since it has been declared (Manu 8. 226) that ‘the sacred texts recited at the marriage-ceremony are applicable to maidens only.’ Though verse 9.173 declares that ‘the child belongs to the person who married her,’ where the mention of the term ‘marry’ indicates that there is legal sacrament in the cases in question also, yet all that this text can be taken as indicating is the possibility (of the sacrament), and there is nothing in it to indicate that it refers to something actually enjoined; so that in this text all that ‘the person marrying’ can mean is ‘the person who accepted her,’—the verbal root signifying mere acceptance; and what the text means is that ‘when a man has accepted a girl for his wife, after having cheated her father and kinsmen, if a son happens to be born from her, he belongs to that man.’

There is in fact no sacrament in the case of remarried women; in regard to whom also it has been laid down that—‘she is fit for a second nuptial ceremony, only if she he still a virgin’ (9.176). In connection with the girl who as ‘gone away and come back’ also, we find the term ‘again’ used (‘she may be married again’), which implies that she belongs to her husband. But none of these are entitled to associate with the ‘duly wedded consort;’ because the term ‘paint,’ ‘consort,’ connotes ‘co-operation at sacrificial rites.’ From all this it would seem that the qualification ‘if she be a virgin’ becomes superfluous. The older commentators read ‘nārīṣu’ (women) in place of ‘patnīṣu’ in the text But this also is nothing. If we had the qualification of ‘virginity’, only then would sons born of unmarried women belong to the same caste as the father. By using the term ‘patnī’ (consort) however it becomes clearly indicated that the women meant are only such as have been married with due religious rites. As for the girl with whom a man has intercourse before they are married, she may be a ‘virgin’ but certainly not a consort. Thus then it becomes necessary to explain the use and purport of the qualification ‘virgin’.”

The answer to the above is as follows:—It has been argued above that “the remarried women are not ‘consorts,’ because they are not entitled to co-operate at sacrificial rites.” But if such girls were wedded, this wedding itself would constitute a ‘sacrificial rite,’ since even at this ceremony offerings are made to Pūsan, Aryaman and Varuṇa; and ‘offering’ and ‘sacrifice’ are synonymous terms. Hence these girls also would be ‘consorts.’ In fact, the right view to take is that, inasmuch as they are no longer ‘maidens,’ they are not fit for the wedding ceremony; and it is on this ground that they cannot be ‘consorts.’ And even so the qualification ‘virgin’ being apparently superfluous, we proceed to explain its use. As a matter of fact, the term ‘consort’ is found to be applied, though figuratively, even to such women as are not entitled to co-operate at sacrificial rites; e.g., in such expressions as ‘the washerman’s consort’ (though no sacrificial performance is possible for the washerman). Similarly in the case of the ‘kept’ woman also, the name ‘housewife’ is applied, in the sense of the ‘wife’; and this on the ground of certain points on which such a woman resembles the real wife. Though it is true that, so long as a word can be used in its direct sense, it is not right to have recourse to its figurative sense,—yet what the writer does is to explain, in a friendly spirit, to dull-headed people, the impropriety of entertaining certain notions; specially what notion is there that may not be entertained by dull-headed people?

The qualification ‘in the natural order’ has been added in view of what follows later on.

Those who adopt the reading ‘ta eva te’, for them also the meaning is the same—i.e., ‘they belong to the same caste.’

The following arguments have been urged in connection with this subject:—“What is the authority at the root of this and similar assertions made by the authors of Smṛtis? Inasmuch as these do not make mention of anything to be done, they cannot stand on the same footing as the teachings regarding Virtue and Vice (what should be done and What should be avoided); and we have already shown that there is no other authority possible. If another Smṛti- text were cited as the requisite authority, then this would come to be a case of ‘the blind leading the blind’; as has been made clear under the verse dealing with the sources of knowledge of ‘Dharma’ (2.6).”

The answer to the above is as follows:—The authority consists in the practices of experienced men; just as in the case of the Smṛti -rules bearing on the correctness of words (i.e., grammar). It is true that the said practices may be defective and misleading. But it is there that the rules laid down in the Smṛti come in useful, as serving to control them. Specially as it cannot be said that the ‘Smṛti,’ ‘recollection,’ of learned men is wrong; for persons intent upon the following of the scriptures are universally known as exceptionally trustworthy; and the basic authority for these would consist in eternal usage.

It is the theory of some people that men who are steeped in the study of the Smṛti and belong to certain selected noble families may be able to have a direct (intuitive) knowledge of things. This we have dealt with in detail in the Smṛtiviteka.

“In another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya, 1.20) there are no such qualifying conditions as we find in the present text; all that is said there is—‘Children born to men of a certain caste from women of the same caste, are also of the same caste;—sons born of unblamable marriages are the perpetuators of the race’;—where the first half indicates the caste of the child, and the latter declares the fact of the products of the ‘Brahma’ and other marriages being ‘perpetuators of the race.’ Now in this text, all that is said is ‘sons born to a man from women of the same caste,’ and there is no mention of the name ‘patnī,’ ‘consort.’”

How can it be said that there is no such qualification, when it is added later on that ‘this rule applies to the case of wedded women’ (Yājña, 1.92)? Further, what if there is no qualifying phrase in this other text? A qualified text is always more authoritative than an unqualified one; as perception is always more reliable than non-perception; it is just possible that the qualifying condition, actually present, may have been seen by one, but missed by the other (writer).

From all this it follows that the ‘recollection of learned men’ is authoritative, on account of the possibility of its being based upon the Śruti.

“The definition provided by the verse is not correct, since it does not include all that should be included. For instance, under the definition ‘Brāhmaṇa-hood’ could never belong to the ‘son taken along with the mother,’ the ‘maiden-born son,’ or the ‘son of the remarried woman.’ It might be argued that—‘as in the cases of the son born of another man to an unwidowed woman, the son born to a widow and the soil-born son, so in the case of these sons also, it is intended that Brāhmaṇa-hood should not belong to them.’ But in that case, what would be the caste of these? Further, if the ‘son of the unwidowed woman born of another man,’ and the ‘son of the widow’ were not Brāhmaṇas, there could be no possibility of anyone thinking of feeding them at Śrāddhas, and hence there would be no point in the prohibition (contained in 3.155, 156) of such feeding. Then again, such a view would he contrary to other Smṛti -texts. For instance, we read—‘This rule that I have described pertains to sons of the same caste as the father.’ (Yājñavalkya, 2.33).

“Further, as a rule, the definition is the same as the thing defined,—the only difference being that ‘what is to be defined’ is not known, while ‘the definition’ is well known. E.g. it being doubtful (not known) who Devadatta is, we have the definition—‘he who is wearing the armlet and the ear-ring, of the developed chest and rounded arms’ (all which is already known). What the present text does is to declare,—in answer to the question who is a Brāhmaṇa?—that ‘he is one born of a Brāhmaṇa;’ and this is exactly as if, on being asked—‘what is a crow?’—one were to say ‘it is what is born of a crow!’ In fact, it is still to be known what is that ‘Brāhmaṇa-hood’ that belongs to the father.

“The definition is illogical also: In the world one born of a female from a male of the same genus always belongs to that same genus; e.g., what is born of the cow is of the genus of the ‘cow,’ what is born of the ‘mare’ is of the genus of the horse’ [and certainly in all these eases marriage does not enter as a necessary factor].”

The answer to the above is as follows:—First of all it has been asked—what would be the caste of certain kinds of sons? Well, what is the need for any ‘caste?’ They belong to the genus ‘man;’ and even without having any specific caste-distinction attributed to them, they become entitled to all that characterises the man,—both as ‘sons’ and as persons dealing with Śrāddhas. Specially as all men are equally entitled to making gifts.

“But in the absence of further distinction, dealings with the man could not proceed (merely on the basis of his belonging to the genus ‘man’); for the simple reason that the genus ‘man’ is common to all human beings.”

There is no force in this; every person has his own distinctive appellation; every man is called either ‘Devadatta’ or ‘Yajñadatta.’ Then, if it be considered necessary to specify the particular relationship of the persons in question,—well, they have such appellations as ‘Kānina’ (‘maiden-born’),

‘Sahoḍha’ (‘taken with the mother’) and so forth.

“But all these names are found among all the four castes; so that they also would be general (just like the genus ‘man’).”

In that case, they would be distinguished by the name of their father—‘he is the maiden-born son of Devadatta,’ and so forth.

Thus there is no force in the argument based upon the difficulty of distinguishing these sons.

All the laws that are formulated herb are with reference to all the four castes; as is clear from what has been declared in 1.2 above. That is why we have the plural number in the text, which refers to the four castes, ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and the rest. The persons here mentioned do not all belong to any one caste; since the definition set forth is such as is applicable to all castes. Just as the son born to a Brāhmaṇa from his wedded Brāhmaṇī wife is a Brāhmaṇa, so is the son born to a Kṣatriya and the other castes also, born of parents of the same caste, belong to that same caste. Then again, there could be no ‘genus’ in the absence of all particulars. E.g., in the absence of the particular trees, Śiṃśapā and the rest, where could there be the genus ‘tree?’

The mixed castes are of two kinds—the product of marriages ‘in the natural order,’ and the product of marriages of the ‘reverse order.’ Now those of the former class take the mother’s caste; while the products of marriages of the ‘reverse order’ have no duties save the most general ones of ‘not injuring living beings’ and so forth (enumerated in 10.63). All kinds of sons have been duly specified with their own distinctive names, and yet even the name of the products of ‘reverse marriages’ is not found mentioned.

“What are those duties to the performance whereof these people would be entitled? Where too is the text that makes them so entitled? The duties described here are not with reference to any particular caste; the text—‘Of the mixed castes etc., etc.’ (1.2) clearly indicates that what is described pertains to all castes.”

The answer to the above is as follows:—As regards the mention of the general duties of ‘not injuring others’ and the rest, with reference to the four castes, it is clearly meant to be applicable to every human being.

Even though the text occurs in connection with sons born of ‘marriages in the reverse order,’ yet its direct meaning bears upon all men. In reality however it is more logical to take it as pertaining to such castes as stand on the same footing as those born of ‘reverse marriages,’ and it cannot stop short only at what is indicated by the context This we shall explain under the text (10.63) itself.

Then again, we have the following declaration—‘All those born of violation of the law are equal to Śūdras;’ (Manu 10.41),—where ‘violation of the law’ stands for ‘absence of sacramental rites;’ and this is of eight kinds, as described under verse 24 below;—where ‘adultery’ stands for sexual intercourse with the wives of other men belonging to one’s own caste; other matters relating to this matter we shall explain later on.

Thus then it follows that, even though the sons born of such ‘violations of the law’ do not belong to any caste, yet their title to the performance of certain acts rests upon the direct declarations of the texts.

In the case of the Kṣatriya the child should be taken to belong to the mother’s caste; because there are texts indicative of this: In connection with the ‘Dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa’ son a peculiar ceremony has been prescribed (?); and in connection with other Śrauta rites also, we find a distinct procedure laid down with reference to him (?)

From all this it follows that it is only the son belonging to the Brāhmaṇa caste who is entitled to an equal share with his uncle; hence it is that it is declared that ‘one should receive him legally.’ (?) All this would not be well if the injunction were in the aforesaid form. Because according to that‘he would be equal to the Śūdra;’ and as property is meant for sacrificial performances (to which the Śūdra is not entitled), how could he be entitled to any share of it?

As for the son ‘born of another man while the husband is alive,’ and that ‘born of a widow,’ these are only ‘soil-born’ sons. Such is the custom among all civilised men; e.g., Pāṇḍu, Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Vidura, all ‘soil-born’ sons, took the caste of their respective mothers.

Then again, the ‘outcast’ also has been excluded from being invited at Śrāddhas; and yet as he would be beyond the pale of all morality, there could be no possibility of any idea being entertained regarding his admissibility [so that the objector was not justified in drawing any conclusions from the exclusion of the ‘soil-born’ sons from Śrāddhas ],

As regards the text quoted above (from Yājñavalkya, 2.133),—since it is a mere reference, it may be explained away somehow. Or we may take it as referring to the ‘appointed’ son.

Then as regards the argument that “it is only what is well-known that can serve as the definition (the distinguishing feature) of anything”—we ask—Is not the meaning of the term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ already known? In fact what the text does is to preclude the idea of ‘illegitimacy’ bang entertained regarding persons to whom die name ‘Brāhmaṇa’ is applied,—the sense being that they belong to the caste of their parents. Nor can it be argued that this would lead to a regressus ad infinitum; as the world has had no beginning in time.

It has been urged that what is here stated is illogical But this could be so only if the matter of castes were something negotiable by direct perception. As a matter of fact however it is something that can be determined only with the help of Smṛtis, and as such must be as they are declared to be in these texts. Just as in the case of such titles as ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ and the like (family-names), it is found that, even in the absence of any blood-relationship with the personage named, they are applied to men on the basis of uninterrupted tradition handed down from times immemorial; and serve as the basis of such expressions as ‘the Vaśiṣṭhas are listening.’ And the case of the castes also should be taken as standing on the same footing. Just as in the case of a number of Brāhmaṇas, all of whom are equally ‘Brāhmaṇas,’ they are classified as ‘Bhṛgus,’ ‘Vatsas; ‘Bhāradvājas,’ and so forth—such distinction being based entirely upon ‘Smṛti,’—so in the case of a number of persons, all of whom are equally ‘men,’ they come to be distinguished as ‘Brāhmaṇas,’ ‘Kṣatriyas’ and so forth.

Some people have brought forward (against the view that Brāhmaṇas must be born of duly wedded Brāhmaṇa couples) the case of Jābāla: Satyakāma Jābāla asked his mother—To what gotra do I belong? She answered—I do not know, as I obtained you while I was, during my youth, attending, as a maid, upon several men. Having heard this, the boy went over to Hāridrumata Gautama, and said—Revered Sir, I wish to reside with you as a Religious Student. The sage asked him—To what gotra do you belong? The boy answered—I asked my mother, and she told me that in her youth, she obtained me etc., etc.;—whereupon Gautama concluding that no non-Brāhmaṇa could speak so frankly, directed him to fetch fuel and said—‘I shall initiate thee.’ What the mother meant was that in her youth she met many men, and she knew not from whom the child was born; and what Gautama did was to infer, from the boy’s truthfulness, that he must have been begotten by a Brāhmaṇa, and hence he initiated him. From this those people conclude that sons born to persons from such women of the same caste as are not duly wedded, are also of the same caste.

There is however no force in this. All that the mother’s statement means is—‘I obtained you during my youth’—at a period of life when the mind is fickle, being beset with fancies—‘when I was attending’—as a maid-servant, suffering from hunger—‘wandering in several places’—not living at any one place,—‘hence I have no recollection of the gotra-name of my husband.’

From all this it becomes established that sons born to a person from a duly wedded wife of the same caste as himself belong to the same caste. And in the case of Jābāla also, Gautama inferred from the words of the boy, that he must be the son of Brāhmaṇa- parents; hence though he recognised him as a Brāhmaṇa, he did not know his gotra. What he wished to ascertain by means of the question regarding the boy’s gotra, was the special Vedic Rescension to which he belonged; and this for the reason that the exact method of his initiation would vary with the Rescension to which one belonged; while his gotra has no bearing upon the initiation at all. And it is not, as some people have explained, that “the question really referred to the boy’s caste, the idea in the sage’s mind being that he would deduce the caste from the nobility of his race, while a direct question about caste would be impolite.”—(5)

‘Ānulomyena’.—‘In the direct order, i.e., by a Brāhmaṇa on a Brāhmaṇī and so forth’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘the bridegroom being always older than the bride” (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 511), which explains the meaning to be that children born of a Brāhmaṇa couple are Brāhmaṇa by caste; so also in the case of Kṣatriya couples and so forth;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra 76a).

Āpastamba (2.13.1).—‘Sons begotten by a man who approaches in the proper season a woman of equal caste, who has not belonged to another man, and who has been married legally, have a right to follow the occupations of their castes.’

Viṣṇu (16.1).—‘On women equal in caste to their husbands, sons are begotten who are equal in caste to their fathers.’

Yājñavalkya (1.90).—‘From women of the same caste as their husbands are born sons of the same caste.’

Baudhāyana (1.17.2).—‘Sons of equal caste spring from women of equal caste.’

Do. (1.16.6).—‘Sons begotten on wives of equal caste or of the next lower caste are of the same caste as the father’

सर्ववर्णेष्व् इति, न द्विजातिष्व् एव यथाधिकृतेषु । तुल्यासु नारीषु । केन । पतिभिः । कथम् । तुल्यासु जातितः अक्xअतयोनिष्व् इति शास्त्रत ऊढास्व् इत्य् अर्थः । ननु च पत्नीग्रहणाद् एवाक्षतयोनित्वं सिद्धम् । येन यज्ञीयाः पत्न्यो भवन्ति ता अक्षतयोनय एव नेतराः । नारीशब्दपाठे न चोद्यम् इदम् । पत्नीपाठे ऽपि तु हेत्वर्थो ऽयम् अक्षतयोन्युपदेशः । पत्नी कस्मात्, अक्षतयोनित्वात् । गुणतो ऽपि च पत्नीशब्दो दृष्टः । यतो अक्षतयोनिवचनं मुख्यार्थं विज्ञेयम् । सर्ववर्णेषु तुल्यास्व् इत्य् अनेन च्आनुलोम्यग्रहणम् इहानर्थकं सद् अनन्तरश्लोकार्थं वेदितव्यम् । अत एताभ्यां ये संभूताः वर्णास् ते जात्या ज्ञेयास् त एव । त एवेत्य् अनेन पितृवर्णग्रहणम् इत्य् एतद् उक्तार्थम्, यथा ब्राह्मणजातिभ्यां मातापितृभ्यां संभूतो वर्णस् तज् जातिर् भवति । एवं क्षत्रियादिभ्यो ऽपि संभूतास् तज्जातीया विज्ञेयाः गवादिवत् । ननु चैवं सत्य् अवक्तव्यम् एवेदं जातिलक्षणं भवति । वक्तव्यम् एव ब्राह्मणत्वस्यान्यकारणनिवृत्त्यर्थम् । तथा चार्थवादास् तत्त्वदृष्टिसंवादनहेतवः, “वृत्तस्थम् अपि चण्डालं देवा ब्राह्मणं विदुः” इत्य् एवमादयः । यतो न संस्काराध्ययनवृत्तादिभिर् ब्राह्मणम्, किं तर्ह्य् उभयाभिजनतः यथावोचामेति, जातिस् त्व् अधिकरणकारणं संस्कारादीनां विज्ञेयम् । न च वृत्तिर् एवोत्कर्षहेतुः । यतश् च न ब्राह्मणादीनां जातिभेदः प्रत्यक्षो ऽनुमेयो वा मनुष्यत्वाविशेषे तद्व्यतिरिक्तसंस्थानविशेषानुपलब्धेः गोमहिषाश्वखरादिवत् । एवं च सति प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम् अप्राप्ते शास्त्रम् अर्थवद् इदं बोधव्यम् । यथा कुशलाकुशलकर्मणोः पुरुषव्यापाराभिसंबन्ध इति । एवं च समानप्रसवात्मकत्वमात्रे गवादय उदाहरणत्वेन ज्ञेयाः । तथा चाभ्युपगतम् एतद् भवत्य् एकवर्णजननसंनियोगेनायं ब्राह्मणत्वादिजातिसंबन्ध इति । यद्य् एवम् अ[प]त्यं जनयितृजातिसदृशं भवतीति मन्यसे जनयित्रोस् तर्हीदं जातिलक्xअणम् एतद् एव, साधारणत्वात् तल्लक्षणस्येति । नन्व् एवं सत्य् अनवस्था । भवतु । को दोषः । अनवस्थायाम् एवैतल् लक्षणं समर्थं भवति, नान्यथा, गवादिवत् । न चैवं सति दृष्टविरोधः शास्त्रविरोधो वा । यतो न किंचिद् एतद् इति ॥ १०.५ ॥

005 In all castes (varna) those (children) only which are begotten in the direct order on wedded wives, equal (in caste and married as) virgins, are to be considered as belonging to the same caste (as their fathers)

The sons begotten by twice-born men on wives of the next lower castes, they declare to be equal, tainted as they are by the defect of their mothers.—(6)

अनन्तरास्व् अव्यवहितास्व् आनुलोम्येन ये उत्पन्नाः पुत्रास् ते सदृशा ज्ञेयाः, न तु तज्जातीयाः । यथा ब्राह्मणात् क्षत्रियायां क्षत्रियाद् वैश्यायाम् । तैः⁵⁰ सदृशाः, न तु “त एव” (म्ध् १०.५) । अत्र हेतुः- मातृदोषविगर्हितान् । तत्सदृशग्रहणान् मातृत उत्कृष्टान् पितृतो निकृष्टान् । द्विजैर् इति बहुवचननिर्देशान् मातृतश् च दोषस्य⁵¹ ग्रहणाद् आनुलोम्येष्व् एतत् संभवति । प्रातिलोम्ये पितृतो ग्रहणेन, मतृतः पितुर् निकृष्टजातीयत्वात् । अत “आनुलोम्यग्रहणं” पूर्वश्लोके यद् उक्तम् “उत्तरार्थम्”⁵² इति तद् इहानर्थकम् । अतः⁵³ परेषु श्लोकेषूपदिश्यते ॥ १०.६ ॥

Sons begotten,—in the natural order—on wives of the next lower caste’—i.e., the caste immediately lower—are to be regarded as ‘equal,’—not of the same caste. That is the son of a Brāhmaṇa father from a Kṣatriya mother, or of a Kṣatriya father from a Vaiśya mother, is ‘equal’ to the father, and not the very same.

And the reason for this is that they are ‘tainted with the defect of their mother.’

This declaration of ‘equality’ implies that the sons are superior to the mother, but inferior to the father.

‘By twice-born men.’—The use of the plural number and the fact that the caste is determined with reference to the mothers, indicates that this is possible only in the case of marriages ‘in the natural order.’ For in the case of marriages ‘of the inverse order,’ the caste would be determined with reference to the father, who is of a lower caste than the mother. It is for this reason that the preceding verse has added the phrase ‘in the natural order.’ What we said in the Bhāṣya on the preceding verse, that this phrase had been added ‘with a view to what follows,’ did not refer to this, but to the forthcoming verses.—(6)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 512), which explains the meaning to be that the child born to a Brāhmaṇa from a legally married Kṣatriya wife, is ‘like the Brāhmaṇa’, not quite a Brāhmaṇa,—its inferiority being due to the inferior caste of the mother.

(verses 10.6-41)

Arthaśāstra (pp. 42-45).—‘Sons born to the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya fathers from wives of the next lower caste are of the same caste as their fathers;—the son born to the Brāhmaṇa from a Vaiśya wife is the Ambaṣṭha; on Śūdra wife, the Niṣāda or the Pāraśava; to the Kṣatriya from a Vaiśya wife, the Ugra; that born to a Vaiśya from a Śūdra wife is the Śūdra. Sons born to these (Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya) from wives of the same caste as themselves, hut married before Upanayana, are Vrātyas. These are sons born in the regular mixtures. From the Śūdra father, on wives of the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya castes are born the Caṇḍāla, the Kṣattṛ and the Āyogava respectively; from the Vaiśya father, on wives of the Brhāmaṇa and Kṣatriya castes, the Vaidehaka and the Māgadha respectively;—from the Kṣatriya father, on a wife of the Brāhmaṇa caste, the Sūta. These are the sons born of the irregular mixtures. From Ugra father and Niṣāda mother is born the Kukkuṭaka; from Niṣāda father and Ugra mother, the Pulkasa; from Ambaṣṭha father and Vaidehika mother is born the Vaiṇa; from Vaidehika father and Ambaṣṭha mother is born the Kuśīlava; from Kṣattṛ mother and Ugra father, is born Śvapāka; by profession, the Vaiṇa is the chariot-maker. All these, with the exception of the Caṇḍāla, have the same duties as the Śūdra.’

Baudhāyana (1.16.7-12, 16; 1.17.7, 8, 11-14).—‘Sons born of wives of the second or third lower castes are Ambaṣṭhas, Ugras and Niṣādas. Of females wedded in the inverse order are born Āyogavas, Māgadhas, Vaiṇas, Kṣattṛs, Pulkasas, Kukkuṭas, Vaidehakas and Caṇḍālas. An Ambaṣṭha begets on a woman of the first caste, a Śvapāka; an Ugra on a woman of the second caste, a Vaiṇa; a Niṣāda on a woman of the third caste, a Pulkasa; in the contrary case, a Kukkuṭaka is produced. I may quote the following—“Those sons whom an uninitiated man begets, the wise call Vrāṭyas, who are excluded from the Śāvitrī.” A Brāhmana begets on a woman of the Ksatriya caste, a Brāhmaṇa; on a woman of the Vaiśya caste, an Ambaṣṭha; on a woman of the Śūdra caste, a Niṣāda,—according to some, a Pāraśava. A Kṣatriya begets on a female of the Vaiśya caste, a Kṣatriya; on a female of the Śūdra caste, an Ugra. A Vaiśya begets on a female of the Śūdra caste, a Rathakāra. A Śūdra begets on a female of the Vaiśya caste, a Magadha; on a female of the Kṣatriya caste, a Kṣattṛ; but on a female of the Brāhmaṇa caste, a Caṇḍāla. A Vaiśya begets on a female of the Kṣatriya caste, an Āyogava; on a female of the Brāhmaṇa caste, a Sūta. If among these a n Ambaṣṭha male and an Ugra female unite, their son shall be born in the regular order; if a Kṣattṛ male and a Vaidehaka female unite the son born shall be in the inverse order. An Ugra begets on a female of the Kṣattṛ caste, a Śvapāka; a Vaidehaka on a female of the Ambaṣṭha caste, a Vaiṇa; a Niṣāda on a female of the Śūdra caste, a Pulkasa; a Śūdra on a woman of the Niṣāda caste, a Kukkuṭaka.—The wise declare that those sprung from an intermixture of castes are Vrātyas.’

Āpastamba (2.13.1-5).—‘If a man approaches a woman who had been married to another man, or was not legally married to himself, they both commit sin;—through their sin, their son also becomes sinful.’

Gautama (4.16, 21).—‘Children born in the regular order of wives of the next second or third lower castes are of the same caste as the father, and these are Ambaṣṭhas, Ugras, Niṣādas and Dauśyantas or Pāraśavas.—Children born in the inverse order of wives of higher castes, are Sūtas, Māgadhas, Āyogavas, Kṣattṛs, Vaidehakas and Caṇḍālas. Some declare that a woman of the Brāhmaṇa caste bears respectively to the husband of the four castes, sons who are Brāhmaṇas, Sūtas, Māgadhas and Caṇḍālas; and that a woman of the Kṣatriya caste bears to the same, Mūrdhābhiṣiktas, Kṣatriyas, Dhīvaras, Pulkasas;—a woman of the Vaiśya caste to the same, Bhṛjyakaṇṭhas, Māhiṣyas, Vaiśyas, and Vaidehas;—and a woman of the Śūdra caste, to the same, Pāraśavas, Yavanas, Karanas and Śūdras.’

Vaśiṣṭha (18.19).—‘They declare that the offspring of a Śūdra father and Brāhmaṇa mother is Caṇḍāla,—that of Śūdra father and Kṣatriya mother, the Vaiṇa,—that of Śūdra father and Vaisya mother, the Anlyāvasāyin;—they declare that the son of a Vaisya father and Brāhmaṇa mother is the Rāmaka; that of Vaisya father and Kṣatriya mother, the Pulkasa; that of Kṣatriya father and Brāhmaṇa mother is the Sūta. They quote the following—“One may know by their deeds those who have been begotten secretly, and to whom the stigma of springing from unions in the inverse order of the castes attaches; because they are destitute of virtue and good conduct.”—Children begotten by Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaisyas on females of the next lower, second lower and third lower castes become respectively, the Ambaṣṭha, the Ugra and the Niṣāda.—The son of a Brāhmaṇa father and Śūdra mother is the Pāraśava.

Yājñavalkya (1.91-95).—‘From Brāhmaṇa father and Kṣatriya mother is born the Mūrdhābhiṣikta; from Brāhmaṇa father and Vaiśya mother, the Ambaṣṭha; and from Brāhmaṇa father and Śūdra mother, the Niṣāda or Pāraśava.—From Kṣatriya father and Vaiśya or Śūdra mother is born the Māhiṣya or the Ugra respectively. From Vaiśya father and Śūdra mother, the Karaṇa. Such is the law regarding children of married wives.—From Kṣatriya father and Brāhmaṇa mother is born the Sūta; from Vaiśya father and Brāhmaṇa mother, the Vaidehaka; from Śūdra father and Brāhmaṇa mother is born the Caṇḍāla, who is outside the pale of all righteousness.—From Vaiśya father and Kṣatriya mother is born the Māgadha; from Śūdra father and Kṣatriy a mother, the Kṣattṛ; from Śūdra father and Vaiśya mother, the Āyogava.—From Māhiṣya father and Karaṇa mother is born the Rathakāra. The sons born in the inverse order of castes are declared to he bad and those in the regular order, good.’

Viṣṇu (16.4.-7, 17).—‘The son of a Śūdra from a Vaiśya woman is called Āyogava;—the Pulkasa and Māgadha are sons of a Vaiśya and Śūdra respectively from a Kṣatriya woman.—The Caṇḍāla, Vaidehaka and Sūta are the sons of a Śūdra, Vaiśya and Kṣatriya respectively, from a Brāhmaṇa woman.—Besides these there are innumerable other castes produced by further intermixture among those that have been just mentioned…. All members of mixed castes, whether their descent has been kept secret or is generally known, may be found out by their deeds.’

Mahābhārata (13.48.14-28, 49).—(On lines similar to Manu.)

Nārada (12.103-113).—‘There are Anantara, Ekāntara and Dvyantara sons, both in the direct and inverse order of the castes. Of this description are the Ugra, Pāraśava, and Niṣāda, who are begotten in the direct order; as well as Ambaṣṭha, Māgadha and Kṣattṛ, who spring from a Kṣatriya woman. One of these latter is begotten in the direct order; of the two others, it must be known that they are begotten in an inverse order. The Kṣattṛ and the rest are begotten in an inverse order; the three mentioned first, in the direct, order. The son of a Brāhmaṇa father and Brāhmaṇa mother is equal in caste to the father. The son of a Brāhmaṇa from a Kṣatriya woman is an Anantara;—an Ambaṣṭha and an Ugra are begotten in the same way by Kṣatriya men and on Vaiśya women respectively. An Ambaṣṭha is an Ekāntara, the son of a Brāhmaṇa father from a Vaiśya woman. The son called Niṣāda springs from the union of a Kṣatriya with a Śūdra woman. A Śūdra woman obtains from a Brāhmaṇa a son called Pāraśava, who is superior to the Niṣāda. The Sūta, the Māgadha, the Āyogava, the Kṣattṛ and the Vaidehaka are begotten in the inverse order of castes. The Sūta is an Anantara begotten by a Kṣatriya on a Brāhmaṇa woman. Similarly the Māgadha and Āyogava are respectively the sons of Vaiśya and Śūdra fathers from a Brāhmaṇa mother. A Brāhmaṇa woman obtains from a Vaiśya father an Ekāntara son, called the Vaidehaka. A Kṣatriya woman obtains from a Śūdra, an Ekāntara son, called the Kṣattṛ. A Dvyantara son in the inverse order, the most abject of men, being the fruit of sinful intercourse, by name Caṇḍāla, is born of a Śūdra when a Brāhmaṇa woman forgets herself with him.’

Śukranīti (4.4, 71-72).—‘Sons born of Vaiśya women and Kṣatriya or Brāhmaṇa fathers should be treated as Śūdra; also those born of Śūdra mothers.’

किम् अर्थम् इदम् । अधिकाराद् अनुलोमस्तुत्यर्थम् । द्विजैर् हि ब्राह्मणादिभिः क्षत्रियाद्यासु स्त्रीष्व् अनन्तरजातासूत्पादितान् सुतान् सदृशान् एव तान् आहुः । केन । पित्रा । न तु तज्जातीयत्वम् एव सादृश्यवचनात् । यथा गोसदृशो गवय इति । अत्र कारणाम् वक्ति । यस्मान् मातृदोषविगर्हितास् ते । उक्तं चास्माभिर् जातिलक्षणम् “सर्ववर्णेषु तुल्यासु” इति । ये तु मातृसदृशान् आहुः तेषाम् एतद् विरुध्यते- मातृदोषविगर्हितान् इति । यस्माद् अनुलोमेष्व् एवैतत् समर्थं भवति, पितृदोषाद् धि विगर्हणात् प्रतिलोमेषु । एवं च सति किंचिद्धीनास् ते पितृभ्य इति गम्यते । मातृतश् चोत्कृष्टाः । तथा च सत्यानुलोम्यवचनं पूर्वश्लोकोक्तम् अधिकारार्थं वेदितव्यम्, न तच्छ्लोकार्थार्थः, अनन्तराभिधानसामर्थ्याद्, बहुवचनाच् च, द्विजाइर् इति ॥ १०.६ ॥

006 Sons, begotten by twice-born man on wives of the next lower castes, they declare to be similar (to their fathers, but) blamed on account of the fault (inherent) in their mothers.

Such is the eternal law relating to those born of wives of the next lower castes; know this (following) to be the right rule pertaining to those born of wives two or three degrees lower.—(7)

आद्येनार्धश्लोकेनोक्तम् अर्थम् अनुवदति, द्वितीयेन वक्ष्यमाणसंक्षेपः । द्व्येकान्तरा । द्व्यन्तरा ब्राह्मणस्य शूद्रा, एकान्तरा वैश्या । नातीव श्लोकः सप्रयोजनः ॥ १०.७ ॥

The first half of the verse reiterates what has gone before; and the second half contains a brief indication of what follows.

‘Two or three degrees lower.’—For the Brāhmaṇa, the wife ‘three degrees lower’ would be the Śūdra; and the Vaiśya would be ‘two degrees lower.’

There is not much useful purpose served by this verse.—(7)

“Regarding the term Pāraśava, see above, 9.178. Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa remark that the second name Pāraśava is added in order to distinguish the Niṣāda, who is Pratiloma and subsists by catching fish.”—Buhler.

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

अनुलोमाधिकाराद् अयम् अप्य् एकान्तरद्व्यन्तरासु पूर्ववद् धर्म्यो विधिर् वचनसामर्थ्याद् विज्ञेयः । सो ऽयम् एकान्तरासूच्यते ॥ १०.७ ॥

007 Such is the eternal law concerning (children) born of wives one degree lower (than their husbands); know (that) the following rule (is applicable) to those born of women two or three degrees lower.

From the Brāhmaṇa on a Vaiśya maiden is born the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ and on a Śūdra maiden the ‘Niṣāda,’ who is called ‘Pārośora.’—(8)

एकान्तरा ब्राह्मणस्य वैश्या, तत्र जातो ऽम्बष्ठः । स्मृत्यन्तरे “भृज्यकण्ठः” (ग्ध् ४.२०) इत्य् उक्तः । द्य्वन्तरायां शूद्रकन्यायां निषादः प्रारशवश् च । निषादशब्दः प्रतिलोमजातीये ऽपि वर्तते । कन्याग्रहणं स्त्रीमत्रोपलक्षणार्थम् इति व्याचक्षते । वैश्यस्त्रियाम् इत्य् अर्थः । एवं सर्वत्र द्रष्टव्यम् ॥ १०.८ ॥

For the Brāhmaṇa, the Vaiśya girl is ‘two degrees lower,’ and the child born of her is the ‘ambaṣṭha’; called in another Smṛti (Gautama, 4.20) ‘Bhṛjyakaṇṭha.’

The child born of the Śūdra girl, who is ‘three degrees lower,’ is the ‘Niṣāda,’ also called ‘Pāraśara.’

The name ‘Niṣāda’ also belongs to a caste born from a marriage of the ‘inverse’ order. (See verse 15 below).

The term ‘maiden’ stands for woman in general,—say some people; ‘Vaiśya maiden’ meaning Vaiśya woman; and so on throughout—(8)

Buhler is not right in saying that “Medhātithi does not give this verse”.

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

नामतः न वर्णतः । यः स्मृत्यन्तरे भृज्यकण्ठनामा । द्व्यन्तरायां तु ब्राह्मणाद् एव निषादः शूद्रकन्यायाम् ॥ १०.८ ॥

008 From a Brahmana a with the daughter of a Vaisya is born (a son) called an Ambashtha, with the daughter of a sudra a Nishada, who is also called Parasava.

From the Kṣatriya on a Śūdra maiden is born a being called ‘Ugra,’ of the stuff of the Kṣatriya and Śūdra, cruel in his deeds and dealings.—(9)

आचारविहारौ कायचेष्टा वाग्व्यपारश् च । ताव् अस्य क्रूरौ भवतः । स्वाभावानुवादो यम् । वपुःशब्दः स्वभाववचन एव । उभयजातिसंभूतत्वाद् उभयधर्मा भवति ॥ १०.९ ॥

‘Deeds and dealings’—stand for actions of body and speech. Both these are cruel in the case of the caste mentioned.

This is only a description of the character of the man;—the term ‘stuff’ standing for nature. The two natures assert themselves, since the child is born of the two castes.—(9)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 541).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

क्षत्रियनिमित्तस्य क्रूराचारतास्य विधीयते । एवं च सत्य् अनुलोम्येन संभूता इत्य् एकाधिकारसामर्थ्यान् न केवलम् अनन्तरजाता एवानुलोमा उत्कृष्टा भवन्ति, “स्त्रीष्व् अनन्तरजातासु” इत्य् एवमादिवचनात्, किं तर्ह्य् एकान्तरद्व्यन्तरा अपितृसदृशा मातृदोषविगर्हणात् ज्ञेयाः । तथा च दर्शयति ॥ १०.९

009 From a Kshatriya and the daughter of a Sudra springs a being, called Ugra, resembling both a Kshatriya and a Sudra, ferocious in his manners, and delighting in cruelty.

Children of the Brāhmaṇa from the three lower castes, of the Kṣatriya from the two lower castes, and of the Vaiśya from the one lower caste,—these six have been declared to be ‘lowborn.’—(10)

अत्र त्रिपादी अनुवाद एव । चतुर्थस् तु पादो ऽपसदाभिधानार्थः । एते त्रैवर्णिकानाम् एकान्तरद्व्यन्तरस्त्रीजाता अपसदा⁵⁴ वेदितव्याः । अपसदाः पुत्रार्थफलाद् अवसन्नाः⁵⁵ समानजातीयपुत्रापेक्षाया निन्द्यन्ते⁵⁶ ॥ १०.१० ॥

The first three quarters of this verse contain a mere reiteration of what has gone before; and the fourth serves the purpose of pointing out the meaning of the term ‘Apasada,’ ‘Lowborn’;—the meaning being that the children of the three castes born of women one, two and three degrees lower should be known as ‘low-born.’

These are called ‘low-born’ because, though they serve the purposes of the ‘son,’ they are of a lower status than the son born of a wife of the same caste.—(10)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 512), which adds that these are called ‘apasada,’ ‘base-born,’ on account of their being devoid of the pure caste of the Father,—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasadā (Saṃskāra 76a).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

मातृदोषविगर्हणायापशदा उच्यन्ते । अवसन्ना मातृजातिभ्यो ऽन्येभ्यो मनुष्येभ्यः । एवं च सत्य् आपेक्षिको ऽयम् अपशदस् तेषु विज्ञेयः । उत्कृष्टेष्व् एव पुनस् त्रिप्रतिलोमहीनतयापशदाः । अपशदा इत्य् अपशीर्णाः शदार्थवान् । पुत्रकार्याद् हीना इत्य् अर्थः । स्वर्णासुतापेक्ष्योच्यन्ते । एवम् अनुलोमानन्तरम् अधुना प्रतिलोमान् आह ॥ १०.१० ॥

010 Children of a Brahmana by (women of) the three (lower) castes, of a Kshatriya by (wives of) the two (lower) castes, and of a Vaisya by (a wife of) the one caste (below him) are all six called base-born (apasada).

One born from the Kṣatriya on the Brāhmaṇa maiden is ‘Sūta’ in caste; and the sons born on the Kṣatriya and the Brāhmaṇa maiden from the vaiśya are ‘Māgadha’ and ‘Vaideha’ respectively.—(10)

आनुलोम्ये पूर्वो विधिः । प्रातिलोम्येन⁵⁷ त्व् अयम् उच्यते । कन्याग्रहणम् उक्तार्थम् (च्ड़्। १०.८) । वैश्यान् मागधवैदेहौ यथासंख्येन, राजस्त्रियां मागधः ब्राह्मण्यां वैदेहः ॥ १०.११ ॥

The foregoing rules apply to marriages in the ‘natural order,’ those pertaining to the marriages of the ‘reverse order’ are now stated.

The significance of the terra ‘maiden’ has been already explained.

From the Vaiśya are born the ‘Māgadha’ and the Vaideha,’ respectively; i.e., that born from the Kṣatriya girl is the ‘Māgadha’ and that born of the Brāhmaṇa girl, the ‘Vaideha.’—(11)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 540);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Āchāra, p. 513).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

प्रातिलोम्येन यथाक्रमं क्षत्रियाद् ब्राह्मण्यां सूतः । विस्यात् क्षत्रियायां मागधः। ब्राह्मण्यां वैदेहकः ॥ १०.११ ॥

011 From a Kshatriya by the daughter of a Brahmana is born (a son called) according to his caste (gati) a Suta; from a Vaisya by females of the royal and the Brahmana (castes) spring a Magadha and a Vaideha.

From the Śūdra on the Vaiśya, the Kṣatriya and the Brāhmaṇa maiden are born the mixed castes, ‘Āyogava,’ Kṣattṛ and the ‘Caṇḍāla,’ the lowest of men.—(12)

अत्रापि यथासंख्यम् एव । वैश्यराजन्य इति निर्देशे जातिपरे ऽपि सामर्थ्यात् स्त्रीलिङ्गप्रतिपत्तिः, मृगक्षीरं कुक्कुटाण्ड इति यथा । वृत्तानुरोधात् स्त्रीप्रययो न कृतः ॥ १०.१२ ॥

Here also the names are to be taken respectively.

Though the terms ‘Vaiśya’ and ‘Rājanya’ (without the feminine ending are denotative of the mere castes, yet from the force of implication they are understood to mean the girls of those castes; just as in the case of such expressions as ‘Mṛgakṣīram’ and ‘Kukkuṭāṇḍam’ (where the mṛgī, the female deer and the Kukkuṭī, the hen, are meant). The feminine endings have been dropped on account of metrical considerations.—(12)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 540);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 513).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

एवं प्रातिलोम्येन शूद्राद् वैश्यायाम् आयोगवः, क्षत्रियायां क्षत्ता, ब्राह्मण्यां चण्डाल इति । अत्र तु श्लोके वैश्यराजन्ययोर् वर्णनिर्देशात् स्त्रीलिङ्गम् अविवक्षितम् । तदविवक्षा च पद्यग्रन्थानुविधानेन, इतरथा हि स्त्रीलिङ्गापाठे श्लोकभङ्गः स्याद् इति । एवम् एतान् प्रतिलोमान् उक्त्वा तद्विशेषविव्क्षयेदम् अधुनोच्यते ॥ १०.१२ ॥

012 From a Sudra are born an Ayogava, a Kshattri, and a Kandala, the lowest of men, by Vaisya, Kshatriya, and Brahmana) females, (sons who owe their origin to) a confusion of the castes.

As the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ and the ‘ugra’ are born in the ‘natural order’ from a woman two degrees removed,—even so have been declared to be the ‘Kṣattṛ’ and the ‘Vaideha,’ though born in the ‘inverse order.’—(13)

एकान्तरे वर्णे ब्राह्मणाद् वैश्यायाम् अम्बष्ठः, क्षत्रियाच् छूद्रायाम् उग्रः । एताव् आनुलोम्येन । एवम् एकान्तरे प्रातिलोम्येन शूद्रात् क्षत्रियायां क्षत्ता, वैश्याद् ब्राह्मण्यां वैदेहः । तौ तुल्यौ भवनादिक्रियासु । न तु यजनादिषु⁵⁸ । चण्डाल एकः प्रतिलोमो ऽस्पृश्यः । यथा च दिवाकीर्तिश्लोके तत्स्पर्श एव⁵⁹ स्नानं नान्येषु⁶⁰ प्रतिलोमेषु । सूतमागधायोगवानाम् अनन्तरजातानां चण्डालवद्⁶¹ दण्डापूपिकायां सिद्धः स्पर्शादिसंबन्धः ॥ १०.१३ ॥

From the Brāhmaṇa, on the Vaiśya girl—who is two degrees lower—is born the ‘Ambaṣṭha,’ and the ‘Ugra’ is born from the Kṣatriya on the Śūdra girl—who is two degrees lower;—both these being ‘born in the natural order.’ Similarly ‘in the inverse order’ the ‘Kṣattṛ’ is born from the Śūdra on the Kṣatriya girl—who is two degrees higher,—and the ‘Vaideha’ is born from the Vaiśya on the Brāhmaṇa girl—who is two degrees higher.

And both these two sets stand on the same footing, as regards the performance of the sacred rites,—but not as regards the functions of officiating at sacrifices and so forth.

Among the products of the ‘inverse marriages,’ the ‘Caṇḍāla’ alone is untouchable; as under verse 5.85, bathing has been prescribed as to be done only when one touches the Caṇḍāla, and not any other product of ‘inverse marriages.’ So that as regards the mixed castes, ‘Sūta,’ ‘Māgadha’ and ‘Āyogava,’ their treatment as regards touchability and so forth is to be like the ‘Caṇḍāla,’ on the ground of their being mentioned along with this latter, and this on the principle of the ‘stick and the cake’ (where the stick being placed within the cake, what happens to the one happens to the other also).—(13)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

एकान्तराव् अनुलोमाव् अम्बष्ठोग्रौ यथा संस्पर्शनादौ व्यवहारे अवर्जीयौ, एवं प्रतिलोमाव् अपि गन्तौ क्षत्तृवैदेहकौ तद्वद् विज्ञेयौ । सूतमागधायोगवानां तु प्रातिलोम्ये ऽनन्तरत्वाद् दण्डापूइकया सिद्धः क्षत्तृवैदेहकाभ्याम् उत्कर्ष इति । एवं च चण्डालप्रयुदासो ऽत्र विवक्षितः । तथा चोक्तम् एव “दिवाकीर्त्[इम् उदक्य्]आं च” इत्येवमादिः ॥ १०.१३ ॥

013 As an Ambashtha and an Ugra, (begotten) in the direct order on (women) one degree lower (than their husbands) are declared (to be), even so are a Kshattri and a Vaidehaka, though they were born in the inverse order of the castes (from mothers one degree higher than the fathers).

The sons of twice-born men from women of the next lower caste, who have been enunciated in due order, are called by the name of the lower caste, on account of the taint attaching to their mothers.—(14)

यथा ब्राह्मणात् क्षत्रियायां वैश्यायां च एवं क्षत्रियाद् उभयोस् तान् अनन्तरनाम्ना⁶² प्रचक्षते । अनन्तरा अनुलोमा⁶³ जातिः समाना तेषाम्, मातृजातीया इत्य् अर्थः । अनन्तरग्रहणम् अविवक्षितम् । अत एवाह मातृदोषाद् इति । पितृजात्युत्कर्षेण नो दुष्यन्ते । अतश् च सत्य् अपि वर्णसंकरत्वे वचनान् मातृजात्याः स्मृताः । संस्कारास् तेषु कर्तव्या इत्य् उक्तं भवति । न ह्य्⁶⁴ एतद् वचनम् अन्तरेण क्षत्रियादिसंस्कारास् तेषु लभ्यन्ते, अश्वतरवज् जात्यन्तरत्वात् । वचनेन तु मातृजाताव् उक्तायाम् अदोषः ॥ १०.१४ ॥

The child born of the Brāhmaṇa on the Kṣatriya or the Vaiśya mother, as also one born of the Kṣatriya father from the Vaiśya or the Śūdra mother,—they call by the name of the lower caste; i.e., their caste is the next lower in the natural order; which means that they are of their mother’s caste.

Ṃuch significance is not meant to attach to the term ‘next lower,’ hence it is added—‘on account of the taint attaching to their mothers.’ That is they are not affected by the superior caste of their father. Hence, even though in reality they belong to ‘mixed castes,’ yet they have been declared to be of their mother’s caste. And this means that the proper sacramental rites should be performed. Apart from the present text, there is nothing to indicate that for the persons concerned the sacramental rites proper for the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya should be performed. And the reason is that like the mule, their caste is a totally different one. But since the present text declares that they are of their mother’s caste, there can be nothing wrong in the performance of their sacramental rites.—(14)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtikaumudī (p. 4), which adds the following notes:—‘Anantarastrījāḥ,’ born of wives of inferior castes;—‘mātṛdoṣāt,’ by reason of the inferiority of the mother’s caste,—‘anantaranāmnaḥ,’ named after the mother’s caste.

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

ब्राह्मणाद् अनन्तरा क्षत्रिया । तस्यां जातो वर्णेनानन्तरनामा भवति । मातृजातिः क्षत्रियशब्देनोच्यते । प्रयोजनं क्षत्रियजाति[विहितेषु व्यवहा]रेष्व् अस्यापि ग्रहणं यथा स्याद् इति । कथं च न स्यात् । मातृजातितो यस्माद् उत्कृष्टा अनुलोमा उक्ताः “स्त्रीष्व् अनन्तरजातासु द्विजैर् उत्पादितान् सुतान्, सदृशान् एव तान् आहुर् मातृदोषविगर्हितान्” [इति पूर्व]श्लोके । अत उभयवर्णजर्जितानाम् उभयत्राप्राप्तौ सत्याम् इदम् आह । एवं क्षत्रियेण वैश्यायाम् जातो वैश्य्नामा भवति । तत्प्रयोजनं चोक्तम् । नन्व् एवं सति ब्राह्मणेन वैश्यानाम् आनन्तर्याभावात् तत्रोत्पन्नस्य वैश्यव्यपदेशो न प्राप्नोति । एवं क्षत्रियेण शूद्रायां ब्राह्मणेन वा । नैव दोषः । आनन्तर्यस्याविवक्षितत्वाद् अपरवर्णासु स्त्रीषु जाताः सन्तः स्त्रीजातिनामानस् ते भवन्तीति । एवं च सति ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियाभ्यां वर्णद्वयजानाम् अनुलोमानां त्रयाणाम् उपनयनादिसंस्कारार्थम् इदं विज्ञेयम् । तथा च सति शूद्रायाम् उत्पन्नास् त्रयो ऽपि ब्राह्मणादिभ्यस् तन्नामानो मातृदोषाच् छूद्रवद् असंस्कार्याः । एवं च गौतमः- “प्रतिलोमास् तु धर्महीनाः,” इत्य् उक्त्वानन्तरम् एवाह- “शूद्रायां च,” (ग्ध् ४.२५–२६) अनुलोमा अपीति । इदानाईं यत्र मातृजातित्वम् उत्कृष्टजातेर् अपि नेच्छति तत्रेमं प्रतिषेधम् आरभते ॥ १०.१४ ॥

014 Those sons of the twice-born, begotten on wives of the next lower castes, who have been enumerated in due order, they call by the name Anantaras (belonging to the next lower caste), on account of the blemish (inherent) in their mothers.

ब्राह्मणाद् उग्रकन्यायाम् आवृतो नाम जायते ।

न मातृजातिः, किं तर्हि जात्यन्तर एव-

आभीरो ऽम्बष्ठकन्यायाम्

जातो वेदितव्यः । ब्राह्मणाद् इति वर्तते । अनुलोमस्त्रीषु तावद् एवम् उत्कृष्टत्वात् । यथा चानुलोमस्त्रीषु जात्यान्तरम्, एवं प्रतिलोमस्त्रीष्व् अपि दर्शयति-

आयोगव्यां तु धिग्वणः ॥ १०.१५ ॥

ब्राह्मणजात एव न मातृजातिर् भवति । यथा च ब्राह्मणादिभ्यः क्षत्रियाद्यास्व् अनुलोमजाता मातृनामानो भवन्ति मातृदोषविगर्हणया, एवं शूद्रादिभ्यो वैश्याद्यासु जाताः प्रतिलोमाः पितृदोषविगर्हणयापि च न तज्जातीया भवन्ति, किं तर्ह्य् उभयजातिविवर्जिता जात्यन्तरम् । यतस् तान् दर्शयति ॥ १०.१५ ॥

015 A Brahmana begets on the daughter of an Ugra an Avrita, on the daughter of an Ambashtha an Abhira, but on a female of the Ayogava (caste) a Dhigvana.

यथा च शूद्राद् एते त्रयास् त्रिषु, एवम्-

016 From a Sudra spring in the inverse order (by females of the higher castes) three base-born (sons, apasada), an Ayogava, a Kshattri, and a Kandala, the lowest of men;

वैश्यान् मागधवैदेहौ

उत्कृष्टवर्णद्वये यथासंख्येन प्रतिलोमौ भवतः,

क्षत्रियात् सूत एव तु ।

एवं च,

प्रतीपम् एते जायन्ते परेऽप्य् अपशदास् त्रयः ॥ १०.१७ ॥

तथा च निदर्शनार्थम् अन्यान् अपि दर्शयति-

017 From a Vaisya are born in the inverse order of the castes a Magadha and a Vaideha, but from a Kshatriya a Suta only; these are three other base-born ones (apasada).

The ‘Āvṛta’ is born from the Brāhmaṇa on the ‘ugra’ maiden, the ‘Ābhīra’ on the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ maiden and the ‘Dhigvaṇa’ on the ‘Āyogava’ maiden.—(15)

From the Śūdra spring in the inverse order three low-born sons—the ‘Āyogava’ the ‘Kṣattṛ,’ and the ‘Caṇḍāla,’ the lowest of men.—(16)

From the Vaiśya are born in the inverse order the ‘Māgadha’ and the ‘Vaideha’; but from the Kṣatriya, the ‘Sūta’ only; these three being the other ‘low-born’ ones.—(17)

One born from the ‘Niṣāda’ on the Śūdra woman is a ‘Pukkasa’ by caste; but one born from the Śūdra on the ‘Niṣāda’ woman is called the ‘Kukkaṭaka’.—(18)

अयं निषादो ऽस्मिञ्श्लोके न शूद्रायां ब्राह्मणाज् जातो यः प्राग् उक्तः । किं तर्हि, यः प्रतिलोमो वक्ष्यमाणः, प्रतिलोमाधिकारात् प्रतिलोमा हि⁶⁵ पुल्कसाजातिः प्रसिद्धा । एवं शूद्रान् निषाद्यां कुक्कुटकः ॥ १०.१८ ॥

(verses 10.15-18)

The ‘Niṣāda’ meant here is not the caste born from the Brāhmaṇa on the Śūdra girl, which has been described above (Verse 8), but the child born in the ‘inverse order,’ which is going to be mentioned later on. That this must be so is clear from the fact that the present context deals with ‘inverse-born castes;’ it being well-known that the ‘Pukkasa’ is a caste of this latter class.—(15- 18)

(verse 10.16)

“Kullūka thinks that the Pratilomas are enumerated once more in order to show that they are unfit to fulfil the duties of sons.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 513).

**(verse 10.17)
**

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 514).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

जातो निषादाच् छूद्रायां जात्या भवति पुल्कसः ।

उभयवर्जितो जात्यन्तरम् । एवम् एव-

शूद्राज् जातो निषाद्यां तु स वै कुक्कुटकः स्मृतः ॥ १०.१८ ॥

अयं निषादो ऽस्मिञ् छ्लोके न शूद्रायां ब्राह्मणाज् जातो यथोक्तः । प्रतिलोमाधिकारसामर्थ्यात् । इतरथा हि ब्राह्मणजातः शूद्रायां यो निषाद उक्तः तस्माच् छूद्रायां जातस्यानुलोम्यात् पुल्कसत्वम् अयुक्तम्, प्रतिलोमत्वात् पुल्कसजातेर् इति । एवम् एव,

018 The son of a Nishada by a Sudra female becomes a Pukkasa by caste (gati), but the son of a Sudra by a Nishada female is declared to be a Kukkutaka.

One born from the ‘Kṣattṛ’ on the ‘Ugrā’ woman is called ‘Śvapāka;’ and one begotten by the ‘Vaideha’ on the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ woman is called ‘Veṇa.’—(19)

अनुलोमाः स्त्रियः, प्रतिलोमाः पुमांसः, तयोः संभवे श्वपाकवेणौ प्रतिलोमजातीयौ ॥ १०.१९ ॥

The women are of the ‘inversely’ mixed castes, and the men of the ‘naturally mixed castes;’ from the union of these are born the ‘Śvapāka’ and the ‘Veṇa’, both inversely mixed castes.—(19)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyascitta, p. 56).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

उत्कर्षापकर्षौ चैतेषां शास्त्रतः कल्पयितव्यौ । वर्णसंकरप्रकरणे चाप्रतिलोमा अपि संकीर्णयोनयो व्रात्याज् जाता वक्तव्या इति । यत इदम् उच्यते ॥ १०.१९ ॥

019 Moreover, the son of by Kshattri by an Ugra female is called a Svapaka; but one begotten by a Vaidehaka on an Ambashtha female is named a Vena.

The sons that the twice-born men beget on wives of equal caste, but who, not fulfilling their sacred duties, become excluded from the Sāvitrī—should be designated as ‘Vrātyas’ (apostates).—(20)

नैते प्रतिलोमवर्णसंकराः स्युः । अतो ऽस्मिन् विधाव् उच्यन्ते । द्विजातयो यान् सवर्णासु जनयन्ति ते ऽवेदव्रता भवन्ति, अब्रह्मचारिणः सावित्रीपरिभ्रष्टा उपनयनहीनाश् च तदा व्रात्या इति तान् निर्दिसेत् । अव्रताञ् जनयन्तीति नायं संबन्धः । न हि व्रतिनो ऽव्रता वा जनयन्ते, जातानाम् उपनयनसंस्कारविधानात् । उक्तव्रात्यलक्षणानुवादः, उत्तरविवक्षया । यस् त्व् अयं पाठः- “अव्रतायां जनयन्ति तान् व्रात्यान् विनिर्दिशेत्,” तद् असत्, उक्तव्रात्यलक्षणविरोधात् ॥ १०.२० ॥

These do not belong to any inversely mixed caste; and yet they are mentioned here with a view to what follows in the following verses.

‘The sons begotten by the twice-born men on wives of the same caste’,—if they deviate from the duties in connection with the Veda—i.e., if they fail to become regular Religious Students and so forth,—and as such ‘become excluded from the Sāvitrī’,—and hence fail to pass through the Initiatory Ceremony,—they should be designated as ‘Apostates.’

‘Avratān janayanti’—would not be the right construction; because when children are born they are neither ‘fulfillers,’ nor ‘non-fulfillers,’ ‘of sacred duties;’ since the Initiatory Rite is prescribed as to be performed only after the child has been born. Hence the term ‘avratān,’ ‘not fulfilling their sacred duties,’ has to be taken as representing what is meant by the definition of the ‘Apostate’ as provided here,—such representing being necessary for the setting forth of what follows.

Some people read—‘avratāyāñjanayanti tan vrātyān, etc.’—‘they should designate as Apostates those whom the twice-born men beget on wives who are unfaithful.’

But this is not right; as this would be incompatible with the accepted definition of the ‘Apostate’.—(20)

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 87).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

सावित्रीपतिताद् व्रात्यो जायते । न तु सावित्रीपतितो व्रात्यो भवति । एवं च व्रात्यस्तोमप्रायश्चित्तं सावित्रीपतितो व्रात्यो भवति । एवं च व्रात्यस्तोमप्रायश्चित्तं सावित्रीपतितस्य न भवति, अन्यत् त्व् अस्य प्रायश्चित्तं कल्प्यम् । इतः प्रभृति चैते व्रात्या जाताः । पुत्रपौत्रा व्रात्या इति केचित् । तद् अयुक्तम् । उक्तत्वाद् व्रात्यलक्षणस्योपनयनप्रकर्णे, “अत ऊर्ध्वं त्रयो ऽप्य् एते” इत्यादि । तस्मान् नेदं व्रात्यलक्षणम्, अव्रताद् यो जायते स व्रात्य इति, किं तर्ह्य् अव्रत एव व्रात्य इत्य् उक्तम् । यतः तेनास्य विरोधाद् अनर्थो ऽयम् । विप्रतिषिद्धं चैतत् । यदि द्विजातयः कथम् अव्रताः । अथाव्रताः कथं द्विजातयः । कथं तर्ह्य् अस्य पा[ठः], “द्विजातयः सवर्णासु जनयन्त्य् अव्रतांस् तु यान् तान् सावित्रीपरिभ्रष्टान्” — उपनयनादिसंस्कारकीनान् — “व्रात्यान् इत्य् अभिनिर्दिशेत्” । उक्तव्रात्यलक्षणानुवाद उत्तरप्रकरणादिसंबन्धर्थः । सो ऽय[म् एव] ॥ १०.२० ॥

020 Those (sons) whom the twice-born beget on wives of equal caste, but who, not fulfilling their sacred duties, are excluded from the Savitri, one must designate by the appellation Vratyas.

From the ‘Apostate’ Brāhmaṇa is born the evil- natured ‘Bhṛjjakaṇṭaka,’ the Āvantya, the ‘Vāṭadhāna’ the ‘Puṣpadha,’ and the ‘Śaikha.’—(21)

“स्ववर्णासु” इति⁶⁶ पूर्वश्लोकाद् अनुवर्त्यते, इह स्त्रीजातेर् अनुपादानाद् अवश्यंभावाच् च तदपेक्षायाः । स्मृत्यन्तरे वैश्यायां ब्राह्मण्ज् जातो भृज्जकण्टकः स्मर्यते । अतो विशिनष्टि पापात्मेति । स ह्य् अनुलोमत्वान् न पापात्मा । अयं चासंस्कृतात्मनो व्रात्याज् जातो ऽनधिकारित्वाद् युक्तं यन् निन्द्यते । न च पर्यायशब्दा देशभेदेन प्रसिद्धप्रयोगभेदाः ।

• पूर्वैस् तु व्याख्यातम्- तत्पुत्रपौराणाम् एता आख्याः । भृज्जकण्टको ब्राह्मण्यां जातः । आवन्त्यश् चावन्त्याम् । तस्याम् एव वाटधानः । वाटधानात् पुष्पशेखरः । एवम् उत्तरेष्व् अपि ॥ १०.२१ ॥

‘On wives of the same caste’—of the preceding verse—is to be construed with this also.

Though the caste of the women is not specified in this text, and yet it being necessary to know her caste, we learn it from another Smṛti, where it is said that—‘The, son born to the Brāhmaṇa from a Vaiśya woman is called Bhṛjjakanṭaka’ (Gautama, 4.20).

The characteristic of this caste is stated—‘evil-natured.’ The one described before (under 8) is not ‘evil-natured,’ because he is born ‘in the natural order’; the one mentioned here is rightly decried, because he is born of an Apostate for whom the sacramental rites have not been performed, and is, as such, not entitled to any religious acts.

The several names are mentioned not merely by way of synonyms, but in order to show by what names the particular mixed caste is known in different countries.

The older writers however explain that the second and following names are those of the successive descendants of the ‘Bhṛjjakaṇṭaka.’ That is, the son born from the Brāhmaṇa mother is the ‘Bhṛjjakaṇṭaka,’ that born from the ‘Āvantya’ mother is the ‘Āvantya’ or the ‘Vāṭadhāna’; from the ‘Vaṭadhāna’ mother is born the ‘Puṣpadha,’ and from the ‘Puṣpadha’ the ‘Shaikha,’ and so on.—(21)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

व्रात्याद् विप्राद् वर्णायाम् एव, तस्याः पूर्वश्लोके ऽधिकृतत्वाद् इहावचनात् स्त्री[जातेः । तस्यां यो जातः] स भूर्जकण्ठनामा भवति व्रात्याभिजनः । स्मृत्यन्तरे वैश्यायां ब्राह्मणाज् जातो भृज्जकण्ठः स्मर्यते । स चानुलोमत्वाद् अपापात्मा । यतः इदं तदपेक्षं विशेषणम् उच्यते- पापात्मत्वम् अस्य व्रात्याज् जातत्वाद् असंस्कृतात्मनः । ततो ऽपि ब्राह्मण्याम् एवावन्त्यः पापतरः, न तु भूर्जकण्टः स्त्रियां तस्यां हि जातो ऽवर्णस् तन्नाम भवति । अत इदं विशेष्यते । ब्राह्मण्याम् एव । एतेनोत्तरा व्याख्याताः- एवम् अवन्त्याद् वातधानः पापतमः, तस्मात् पुष्पधः, ततो ऽपि शैख इति । ईषद्विकारत्वाद् वयम् निर्देशः, पञ्चधा ब्राह्मणव्रात्यजातानां निदर्शनार्थो वा । एवम् उत्तरयोर् अपि बोद्धव्यम् । क्xअत्रियव्रात्याज् जाताः क्षत्रियायाम् अधुनोच्यन्ते ॥ १०.२१ ॥

021 But from a Vratya (of the) Brahmana (caste) spring the wicked Bhriggakantaka, the Avantya, the Vatadhana, the Pushpadha, and the Saikha.

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

एते च पूर्ववद् व्याकरणीयआः ॥ १०.२२ ॥

022 From a Vratya (of the) Kshatriya (caste), the Ghalla, the Malla, the Likkhivi, the Nata, the Karana, the Khasa, and the Dravida.

From the ‘Apostate’ Kṣatriya is born the ‘Jhalla,’ the ‘Malla,’ the ‘Licchivi,’ the ‘Naṭa,’ the ‘Karaṇa’ the ‘Khasa’ and the ‘Draviḍa.’—(22)

And from the ‘Apostate’ Vaiśya is born the ‘Sudhanvan’ the ‘Ācārya,’ the ‘Karuṣa,’ the ‘Vijanman,’ the ‘Maitra’ and the ‘Sāttvata.’—(23)

एताभिः संज्ञाभिः प्रसिद्धा एवंजातीया वेदितव्याः ॥ १०.२२–२३ ॥

**(verses 10.22-23)
**

These several Castes should be known by these names.—(22-23)

(verse 10.22)

“As ‘a’ and ‘i’ are constantly exchanged ‘licchivi’ may be considered as a vicarious form for ‘licchavi,’ and it may be assumed that the Manusaṃhitā considered the famous Kṣatriya race of Magadha and Nepal as unorthodox.”—(Buhler).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

वैश्याच् च व्रात्यात् सुधन्वादयः पूर्ववद् विज्ञेयाः । नामनिर्देशे च प्रयोजनम् । य एभिर् नामभिः कस्मिंश्चिद् देश उच्यन्ते ऽवर्णाः त एवंप्रकारा विज्ञेयाः, अविज्ञेतयोनयो (?) पि सन्तः । किम् अर्थं पुनर् अन्तरप्रभवानाम् अभिधानप्रकरणे ब्राह्मणादिव्रात्यजाता उच्यन्ते इति । यस्मात् ॥ १०.२३ ॥

023 From a Vratya (of the) Vaisya (caste) are born a Sudhanvan, an Akarya, a Karusha, a Viganman, a Maitra, and a Satvata.

‘Confused castes’ are produced by infidelity among the castes, by the marrying of women unfit for marriage, and by the neglect of one’s duties.—(24)

व्यभिचारः परस्त्रीगमनम् । तत् समानजातीयासु परकीयास्व् अनुलोमप्रतिलोमासूढास्व् अनूढासु च स्वयम्⁶⁷ । अवेद्यावेदनम् अविवाह्याविवाहः । अविवाह्याः स्वसृनप्त्रादयस् तद् अयोन्यः । स्वकर्मणां त्याग उपनयनवेदग्रहणादीनाम् । क्षात्रवृत्त्यादयो⁶⁸ ऽपि पुत्रपौरान्वयिन एवमुक्ताः इति⁶⁹ केचित् ॥ १०.२४ ॥

‘Infidelity’—Adultery, with women of the same caste, either unmarried, or married to others either in the ‘natural’ or the ‘inverse’ order.

‘The marrying of women unfit for marriage,’—i.e., those that should not be married; e.g., sister, grand-daughter and so forth.

‘Neglect of one’s duties’—such as Initiation, study of the Veda and so forth;—according to some people the profession of the Kṣatriya also would be the Brāhmaṇa’s ‘duty’ if it happens to have been followed in the family for two or three generations.—(24)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

व्यभिचारो वर्णानां प्रतिलोमस्त्रीग्रहणेन मुख्यः, अनुलोमे ऽपि मुख्यवर्णापेक्षयोच्यते । अवेद्यावेदनं पुनर् एतत्विलोमचारिपुनर्भुवादिस्त्रीपरिग्रहेण । स्वकर्मणां च त्यागः उपनयनसंस्कारहानिर् अधिकृता[नाम्] । एवं च सति वर्णसंकरहेतुप्रदर्शनार्थम् इदं युक्ताभिधानं परिहारार्थं चैषाम् ॥ १०.२४ ॥

024 By adultery (committed by persons) of (different) castes, by marriages with women who ought not to be married, and by the neglect of the duties and occupations (prescribed) to each, are produced (sons who owe their origin) to a confusion the castes.

I am going to describe those persons of mixed origin who are born in the natural and in the inverse order and are mutually connected.—(25)

व्यतिषङ्गः संबन्धः । इतरेतरम् अनुलोमानाम् अनुलोमैः प्रतिलोमैश् चैवं प्रतिलोमानाम् अन्यैः प्रतिलोमैर् अनुलोमैश् च । वक्ष्यमाणसज्ञायै वचनम् ॥ १०.२५ ॥

‘Connection’ means relationship—of ‘natural’ sons with those of the ‘inverse’ order, and also with others of the ‘natural’ order,—of sons of the ‘inverse’ order with other sons of the same kind as also with those of the ‘natural’ order.

This verse serves to introduce the enumeration of the names in the following verses.—(25)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

अन्योन्यव्यतिषक्तानां प्रतिलोमैर् अनुलोमैश् चैवम् अनुलोमा अपि विज्ञेयाः । वक्ष्यमाणार्थोपक्षेपतश् चित्तप्रणिधानार्थम् । यतस् तदर्थम् अयं पूर्वश्लोकोतानां प्रतिलोमानाम् अनुवाद उत्तरार्थः ॥ १०.२५ ॥

025 I will (now) fully enumerate those (sons) of mixed origin, who are born of Anulomas and of Pratilomas, and (thus) are mutually connected.

(1) the ‘Sūta’ (2) the ‘Vaideha,’ the ‘Caṇḍāla,’ the lowest of men, (4) the ‘Māgadha,’ (5) the ‘Kṣattṛ’ caste, and (6) the ‘Āyogava.’—(26)

उक्तलक्षणा एते प्रातिलोमा उत्तरार्थं⁷⁰ पुनर् उपन्यस्यन्ते ॥ १०.२६ ॥

These ‘inverse’ castes, defined above, are mentioned here, for the purpose of laying down what follows.—(26)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

उत्तरविवक्षार्थम् एषां पुनर्ग्रहणम् । तद् इदम् उच्यते ॥ १०.२६ ॥

026 The Suta, the Vaidehaka, the Kandala, that lowest of mortals, the Magadha, he of the Kshattri caste (gati), and the Ayogava,

These six beget similar castes on women belonging to the same caste as themselves; so also those belonging to the mother’s caste procreate (on women of the same caste), as also on women of higher castes.—(27)

एते सूतादयः प्रतिलोमाः स्वयोनिषु⁷¹ सदृशान् जनयन्ति, तज्जातीयान् इत्य् अर्थः । तद् यथा । सूतः सूतायां सूतम् एव जनयति । एवं चण्डालः चण्डालायाम् । ये च मातृजात्याः प्रसूयन्ते ऽनुलोमा मातृजातीया ये पूर्वम् उक्ताः “तान् अनन्तरानाम्नः” (म्ध् १०.१४) इति, ते ऽपि स्वयोनिषु सदृशान् एव जनयन्ति । यथाम्बष्ठो ऽम्बष्ठायाम्⁷² । तथा वैश्यायाम् आत्मनो हीना वैश्याज् जनयन्ति, मातृजातित्वस्योक्तत्वात् ।

• अन्ये पुनः पठन्ति “मातृजातौ प्रसूयन्ते” । अर्थश् चायम्- स्वयोनिषु⁷³ अम्बष्ठादौ मातृजातौ च वैश्यायां सदृशान् एव जनयन्ति । यद्य् अपि शुद्धवैश्येभ्य उत्कृष्टा अम्बष्ठादयस् तथापि साम्यम् उच्यन्ते, वैश्यधर्म उभयेषाम् अधिकारात् ।

• अनुलोमग्रहणं मातृजातिपदसामर्थाल् लभ्यते सत्य् अपि प्रकृतिप्रतिलोमप्रत्यवमर्शकत्वे एत⁷⁴ इति । प्रवरासु च योनिषु प्रतिलोमा गच्छन्तो जनयन्ति हीनतरम् इत्य् एवं ज्ञेयम्, वक्ष्यमाणपर्यालोचनया । न हि आयोगवादिभिः स्वजातीयासु जनिता आयोगवादिव्यपदेशं लभन्ते । सदृशग्रहणं तु प्रातिलोम्यसामान्येन⁷⁵ । हीनतरत्वं चावान्तरविशेषम् अनपेक्ष्य प्रयुक्तम् । तेनायम् अत्र वाक्यार्थः । प्रतिलोमेभ्यः समानजातीयासूत्कृष्टजातीयासु च प्रतिलोमा एव भवन्ति ॥ १०.२७ ॥

‘These’—the ‘Sūta’ and the other sons of the ‘inverse order’—‘beget similar castes on women belonging to the same caste as themselves,’—i.e., children belonging to the same caste; e.g., on a ‘Sūta’ mother, the ‘Sūta’ father begets a son of the ‘Sūta’ caste; similarly on a ‘Caṇḍāla’ mother the ‘Chaṇḍāla’ father begets a son of the ‘Caṇḍāla’ caste.

‘So also those belonging to the mother’s caste procreate’—the sons of the ‘natural order,’ who belong to their mother’s caste,—those described above as ‘called by the name of the lower caste.’ (14).

These also beget sons of their own caste on women belonging to the same caste as themselves; e.g., the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ father on the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ mother. So also on a Vaiśya woman, a person of the lower caste, begets Vaiśyas; because of the mention of the ‘mother’s caste.’

Others read ‘mātṛjātau prasūyante’; and this means as follows:—On women of their own caste,—i.e., the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ and the rest,—as also on those of their mother’s caste—i.e., the Vaiśya—they beget sons of the same caste as themselves.

Though the ‘Ambaṣṭha’ and the rest are superior to the pure Vaiśya, yet the text speaks of equality; because both are equally entitled to the rights and privileges of the Vaiśya.

That ‘sons of the natural order’ are meant is indicated by the term ‘mother’s caste’,—even though the context clearly pertains to ‘sons of the inverse order.’

‘As also on women of higher castes’— People, born in the ‘inverse order,’ having intercourse with women of higher castes, beget sons; and these are of a lower status,—this being understood from the consideration of what follows.

As a matter of fact, sons begotten by the ‘Āyogava’ and the rest on ‘Āyogava’ women do not obtain the title of ‘Āyogava’; and the ‘similarity’ meant is simply that they are of the ‘inverse order’; and when some sons are declared to be of a ‘lower status,’ this is based upon the relative status (of the several kinds of sons of the inverse order).

Thus the meaning of the sentence comes to be that—‘From persons born in the inverse order are born persons of the same order, on women belonging to the same or to higher castes.’—(27)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

एते सूतादयस् स्वयोनिष्व् एव सदृशान् जनयन्ति । तद् यथा । आयोगव आयोगव्याम् एव सदृशं जनयति । यथाम्बष्ठो ऽम्बष्ठ्याम् सदृशायाम् एव वैश्ययां (?) चैवात्मनो हीनायां वैश्यं जनयति । नान्यस्याम् । एवम् इतरे ऽप्य् अनुलोमाः पारशवादयः । यद्य् अपि चैतेषाम् अम्बष्ठादीनां केवलवैश्यादिभ्य उत्कर्षतो विशेषो ऽस्ति, तथापीदं सादृश्यम् उच्यते, येनोभयेषाम् अप्य् एतेषां वैश्यादिधर्मान् प्रति विशेषो नास्ति । यत इदम् उच्यते, स्वयोन्यां मातृजातौ च सदृशान् जनयतीति । तथा चोक्तम्,

पुत्रा ये ऽनन्तरस्त्रीजाः क्रमेणोक्ता द्विजन्मनाम् ।
तान् अनन्तरनाम्नस् तु मातृदोषान् प्रचक्षते ॥ इति ।

आयोगवादयस् तु प्रतिलोमजाता मातृजातौ प्रसूयमाना प्रवरासु च योनिषु धर्महीनतरान् जनयन्ति । एवम् आनुलोम्या अप्य् अम्बष्ठादयो वेदितव्याः ॥ १०.२७ ॥

027 These six (Pratilomas) beget similar races (varna) on women of their own (caste), they (also) produce (the like) with females of their mother’s caste (gati), and with females (of) higher ones.

As to one his own alter-ego is born from two out of the three nearest castes, as also from his own caste,—even so is the order among those out of the outer circle.—(28)

अस्य ब्राह्मणस्य त्रयाणां वर्णानाम् आत्मा जायते । द्वयोर् वर्णयोः क्षत्रियवैशयोर् द्विजत्वं जायते, तथा स्वयोनौ । एवं त्रयाणां वर्णानां ब्राह्मणो द्विजान् जनयति । एवं बाह्येष्व् अपि प्रातिलोम्येन वैश्यक्षत्रियाभ्यां क्षत्रियब्राह्मणोर् आत्मा द्विजत्वं भवति । सति च द्विजत्वे उपनयनं कर्तव्यम् । वक्ष्यति च “एते षट् द्विजधर्माणः” (म्ध् १०.४१) इति । एतावांस् तु विशेषः । अनुलोमाज् जाता⁷⁶ “मातृजात्या” (१०.२७) मातृजातीया मातृजातीया । स्तुतिमात्रम् इदं वक्ष्यामः ॥ १०.२८ ॥

‘For one’—to the Brāhmaṇa—‘his alter-ego is born from two out of the three castes—i.e., from the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya woman is born a son invested with the character of the ‘double birth,’—‘as also from his own caste’ Thus on three castes the Brāhmaṇa begets ‘twice-born men.’

‘Even so is among men of the outer circle’;—i.e., sons born in the ‘inverse order,’ for the Vaiśya and the Kṣatriya father from the Kṣatriya and the Brāhmaṇa mother, respectively, are invested with the ‘double birth.’

And when these sons are invested with ‘double birth,’ they should have the Initiatory Ceremony performed for them; as is going to be added—‘These six partake of the character of twice-born persons.’ (41)

The only difference however is that those born ‘in the inverse order’ take the mother’s caste.

As we are going to explain later on, all this is mere commendatory exaggeration.—(28)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 405).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

यथा ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियाभ्यां जनयितृभ्यां क्षत्रियावैश्ययोर् आत्मास्य द्विजत्वं जायते जातः सन्न् अधिकारसामर्थ्याद् द्विजो भवति, एवम् एव बाह्येष्व् अपि प्रातिलोम्येन वर्तमानेषु द्वाभ्याम् एव वैश्यक्षत्रियाभ्यां क्षत्रियाब्राह्मणयोर् आत्मा द्विजत्वं भवति । सति च द्विजत्व उपनयनादेः संस्कारस्य्[आनि]षेधं वक्ष्यति, “षड् एते द्विजधर्माणो भवन्ति” इति । एतावांस् तु विशेषः । यथैवानुलोमजाताः मातृदोषान् मातृहान्या न मातृजातीयाः, एवं प्रतिलोमजाताः पितृहान्या न पितृजातीयाः । [एवं च वैश्यक्षत्रियाभ्यां] प्रातिलोम्येन क्षत्रियाब्राह्मण्योर् यौ मागधसूतौ तयोर् अनुलोमजाताभ्यां सामान्यापादनं स्तुत्यर्थम्, स्तुतिश् च व्यवहारार्थ । अथ वा चण्डालादिप्रतिलोमपर्युदासार्था स्तुतिः ॥ १०.२८ ॥

028 As a (Brahmana) begets on (females of) two out of the three (twice-born castes a son similar to) himself, (but inferior) on account of the lower degree (of the mother), and (one equal to himself) on a female of his own race, even so is the order in the case of the excluded (races, vahya).

Those also beget on each other’s wives several ‘alien’ sons, greatly tainted and despised.—(29)

ते चाप्य् आयोगवादयः षट् बाह्यान् सुबहून् परस्परदारेषु जनयन्ति । तद् यथा- आयोगवः क्षत्तृजायायां क्षत्ता आयोगव्या⁷⁷ परस्परम् आत्मापेक्षया गर्हितान् जनयन्ति । तद् यथा- आयोगवः क्षत्तृजायायाम्⁷⁸ आत्मनो बाह्यतरं जनयति, ततो ऽपि बाह्यतरं चण्डाल्याम्⁷⁹ । एवं सर्वत्र ॥ १०.२९ ॥

‘Those’—the six castes, ‘Āyogavas’ and the rest—beget several alien sons, on each other’s wives;—i.e., the Kṣattṛ on the wife of the ‘Āyogava’ and so forth,—‘beget sons, despised’—lower in grade than their father,—e.g., the Āyogava begets on the wife of the Kṣattṛ, a son who is more ‘alien’ than himself; and one still more ‘alien’ on the wife of the Caṇḍāla, and so forth.—(29)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

ते चायोगवादयः षड् अपि बाह्यान् सुबहून् परस्परस्य दारेषु, तद् यथा आयोगवः क्षत्त्र्यां क्षत्त्रायोग[वम् इ]त्य् एवं जनयन्तस् ततो ऽभ्यधिकदूषितान् अनन्तरान् जनयन्ति । तद् यथा आयोगवः क्षत्त्र्याम् आत्मनो बह्यं हीनतरं जनयति । ततो ऽपि बाह्यतरं चण्डाल्याम् । तथा क्षत्ता आयोगव्याम् आत्मनो बाह्यतरं जनयति, ततो ऽपि चण्डाल्याम् । एवं चण्डालः क्षत्त्र्याम् आत्मनो बाह्यतरम् । [एवम्] आयोगव्याम् । अनेनैव न्यायेन मागधो वैदेह्याम् आत्मनो बाह्यतरं जनयति । ततो ऽपि बाह्यतरं सूतायाम् । तथा वैदेहको मागध्याम् [आत्मनो] बाह्यतरं जनयति । ततो बाह्यतरं सूतायाम् । तथा च सूत आत्मनो बाह्यतरं मागध्याम्, ततो ऽपि वैदेह्याम् । एवम् अनेन क्रमेण पुनः पुनर् अभ्यावृत्तिं जनयन्तः परस्परदारेषु सुबहून् पञ्चदशविधान् जनयन्ति । एवं च परस्परस्य दारेषु व्याख्याय “चातुर्वर्ण्ये” त्व् आचष्टे ॥ १०.२९ ॥

029 Those (six mentioned above) also beget, the one on the females of the other, a great many (kinds of) despicable (sons), even more sinful than their (fathers), and excluded (from the Aryan community, vahya).

As the Śūdra begets an ‘alien’ being on a Brāhmaṇa woman,—even so an alien propagates on females of the four castes, a still more alien being.—(30)

एवं परस्परगमने स्त्रीप्रतिलोमानां पूर्वेण बाह्यतरोत्पत्तिर् वर्णिता⁸⁰ । इदानीं चातुर्वर्ण्यं कथ्यते । सूयतिर् जनिनात्यन्तसमानार्थो ऽत्र प्रकरणे प्रयुक्तः । प्रसूयते जनयतीत्य् अर्थः । तद् उत्तरश्लोकेन निर्दिश्यते ॥ १०.३० ॥

The birth of sons among persons of the ‘inverse’ castes themselves, from each other’s wives has been described. Now the birth of sons from women of the four castes is described.

The verbal root ‘Sū’ (to be born) has been used in this text as synonymous with to produce; ‘prasūyate’ moaning begets.

This is indicated in the next verse.—(30)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

तद् इदानीम् उच्यते-

030 Just as a Sudra begets on a Brahmana female a being excluded (from the Aryan community), even so (a person himself) excluded pro creates with (females of) the four castes (varna, sons) more (worthy of being) excluded (than he himself).

Aliens behaving discordantly, beget fifteen castes, still more alien, disgraced and not disgraced.—(31)

एकैकस्य तु वर्णस्य संकीर्णयोनयो भवन्ति । कस्यचिद् अनुलोमाः, कस्यचित् प्रतिलोमाः, कस्यचिद् अनुलोमप्रतिलोमाः । ब्राःमणस्यानुलोमाः, शूद्रस्य प्रतिलोमा एव, क्षत्रियवैशयोर् अनुलोमाः प्रतिलोमाः । क्षत्रियस्य द्वाव् अनुलोमौ, एकः प्रतिलोमः । वैश्यस्यैको ऽनुलोमः, द्वौ प्रतिलोमौ । एवम् एते द्वादशानुलोमप्रतिलोमाः । एतेषाम् एकैकस्य चतुर्षु गच्छतश् चत्वारो भेदा भवन्ति । ते च केचिद् धीनाः केचिद् अहीनाः । बाह्यतरास् तु सर्व एव । बाह्यतरत्वं मातापितृजातेर् विप्रकर्षः, कर्मभ्यो हीनत्वात् । तद् एतद् उदाहरणैः स्फुटीक्रियते ।

• प्रतिलोमांस् तावद् गृहीत्वा वक्ष्यामः ।

• आयोगवो वैश्यायां शूद्राज् जातः शूद्रायां वैश्यायां क्षत्रियायां ब्राह्मण्यां चतुरो जनयति । सो ऽयम् आत्मना सह पञ्चधायोगवः । एवं क्षत्तृचण्डालाव्⁸¹ अपि । एवं शूद्रात् त्रयः⁸² पञ्चकाः पञ्चदशधा भवन्ति ।

• एवं वैश्यप्रभवौ द्वौ प्रतिलोमौ, क्षत्रियायां मागधो ब्राह्मण्यां वैदेहकः । शूद्रायाम् अनुलोमः । तत्र यः शूद्रायां जातः स यदा चातुर्वर्ण्यं जनयति तदैष एव प्रकारः । स यदा शूद्रां गच्छति तदा हीनतरो वर्णो जायते तदपेक्षया । एवं वैश्यां गच्छन् हीनतरं जनयति । एवं क्षत्रियायां ब्राह्मण्यां च केवलशूद्राज् जाता उत्कृष्टा । एवम् इत्य् अपेक्षावशाद् धिणांश् चाहीनांश् च । एवं क्षत्रिये ब्राह्मणे च द्रष्टव्यम् । ब्राह्मणस्य त्व् अयं विशेषः । अनुलोमा एव तस्य भवन्ति ।

• एवं चतुर्वर्णानां प्रत्येकं पञ्चदशधा भेदाः षष्टिः संपद्यन्तो मुख्याश् चत्वारो वर्णाः सा चतुःषष्टिर् भवति । परस्परसंपर्कात् तेषाम् अन्ये ऽनन्तभेदा भवन्ति । तद् उक्तम्- “ते चापि बाह्यान् सुबहून्” (म्ध् १०.२९) इति ।

• प्रतिकूलं शास्त्रव्यतिक्रमेण । वर्तमाना मिथुनीभवन्तः⁸³ । हीनाहीनान् इत्य् एकं पदम् । अथ वा हीनाः सन्तो हीनान्⁸⁴** प्रसूयन्ते** जनयन्तीत्य् अर्थः । वर्णान् पञ्चदशैवेति “नास्ति तु पञ्चमः” (म्ध् १०.४) इति पञ्चमस्य वर्णत्वाभावात्⁸⁵ पञ्चदशसु वर्णत्वम् उपचाराद् द्रष्टव्यम् ॥ १०.३१ ॥

Each caste gives rise to several ‘mixed castes;’ from some castes proceed castes in the ‘natural order,’ and from some in the ‘inverse order,’ while from some both ‘natural’ and ‘inverse.’ From the Brāhmaṇa only those in the ‘natural’ order (1-3) and from the Śūdra only those in the ‘inverse’ older (4-6); and from the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya proceed those in the ‘natural’ order, as well as those in the ‘inverse’ order. From the Kṣatriya proceed two ‘natural,’ and one ‘inverse’ sub-caste; (1-9) from the Vaiśya two ‘inverse’ and one ‘natural’ (9-12).

These make twelve sub-castes, ‘natural’ and ‘inverse.’

When each of these has intercourse with women of each of the four castes, they give rise to four divisions of each of these twelve.

Among these some are ‘disgraced,’ and others ‘not disgraced’; but all of them are ‘still more alien’ than their fathers;—what is meant by this ‘alien’ character is that they are several degrees removed from their parents, specially on account of their having fallen off from their sacred duties.

All this is explained by means of examples.

We shall enumerate the ‘inverse’ sub-castes in detail—(A) The Āyogava, born from the Śūdra father and the Vaiśya mother, begets four sons on women of the Brāhmaṇa the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra castes; these along with the Āyogava himself make five. Similarly the Kṣattṛ and the Caṇḍāla. Thus of the Śūdra there are three groups of five; which make fifteen; (B) Similarly born of the Vaiśya father there are two ‘inverse’ sub-castes,—the ‘Māgadha’ born of a Kṣatriya mother and the ‘Vaidehaha’ of a Brāhmaṇa mother; of the Śūdra mother, the son born is of the ‘natural’ order. Of these when the son born of the Śūdra mother begets sons on the four castes, then the same process takes place. When he has intercourse with a Śūdra woman, then the sub-caste that is born is a degree lower than himself; similarly having intercourse with a Vaiśya woman, he begets one still lower. (C) But those born to the Śūdra father from the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya women are ‘superior.’ Thus it is that while some are ‘disgraced,’ others are ‘not disgraced.’ The same holds good regarding the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya father. But in the case of the Brāhmaṇa there is this peculiarity that to him all the sons that are born are in the ‘natural’ order. A combination among these sub-castes gives rise to endless divisions. This is what has been spoken of above (in 29)—‘that beget many alien sons etc.’

‘Discordantly’— contrary to law.

‘Behaving’—having intercourse.

‘Hīnāhīnān’— is one compound word. Or (taken as two distinct words), it may mean—‘while disgraced themselves (hīnāḥ) they beget sons not disgraced (ahīnān).

‘Fifteen castes’;—inasmuch as it has been declared that ‘there is no fifth caste’ (Verse 4), the term ‘caste’ must be taken here as used figuratively.—(31)

“Kullūka thinks that the terms vāhya and hīna may either refer (a) to two sets of men or (b) to one only; (a) under the former supposition, the Vāhyas must be understood to be the Pratiloma offering of a śūdra, i.e., Āyogavas, Kṣattṛs and Caṇḍālas,—and the Hīnas the Pratiloma offspring of Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas i.e., Sūtas, Māgadhas and Vaidehas. Each of these two sets produce fifteen lower races by union with women of the four chief castes and of their own (verse 27):—(b) But if the two terms vāhya and hīna are referred to one set of males only, they must be understood to denote the six Pratilomas, Caṇḍālas, Kṣattṛs, Āyogavas, Vaidehas, Māgadhas and Sūtas; and it must be assumed that the verse refers to unions between these six Pratiloma races alone. Then the lowest among them, the Caṇḍāla may produce, with females of the five higher Pratiloma tribes, five more degraded races; the Kṣattṛ with the four above him, four; the Āyogava with the three above him; the Vaideha, ‘two, and the Māgadha one. The total of 5+4+3+2+1 is thus 15.—Rāghavānanda agrees with this interpretation.—Nārāyaṇa, on the other hand, refers the terms vāhya and hīna to one set of males, the three Pritilamas springing from the Śūdra; and assumes that the verse refers to unions of these three with females of the four principal castes and of their own.”—Buhler.

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

एत एव षट् चातुर्वर्ण्ये प्रसूयमाना आत्मनो बाह्यतरान् जनयन्ति । तद् यथा चण्डालः शूद्रायाम् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति । ततो ऽपि बाह्यतरं वैश्यायां ततो ऽपि क्षत्रियायां ततो ऽपि ब्राह्मण्याम् । एवम् एव क्षत्ता चतुर्षु वर्णेषु चतुरो जनयन् परस्परम् आत्मनो बाह्यतरं जनयति । तथायोगवश् चतुर्षु वर्णेष्व् एवम् एव नवतरं नवतरं जनयति । एते शूद्रप्रभवेभ्यश् चण्डालक्षत्त्रायोगवेभ्यश् चतुर्षु वर्णेषु द्वादश वर्णभेदा जायन्ते । आत्मानश् च त्रयश् चण्डालक्षत्त्रयोगवा[ः । एवं] शूद्रप्रभवाः प्रतिलोमेन पञ्चदशवर्णभेदा भवन्ति । एते च शूद्रप्रभवाः पञ्चदसवर्णाः पुनः पुनश् चातुर्वर्ण्ये बाह्यतरान् अन्तर्यकल्पान् जनयन्ति । अथ वैश्यप्रभवाः प्रतिलोमाः पञ्चदशवर्णाः उच्यन्ते । वैश्यस्य द्वौ प्रतिलोमौ, एकस् त्व् अनुलोमजः । मागधवैदेहकौ क्षत्रियायां ब्राह्मण्यां च, शूद्रायां त्व् अस्यानुलोमजः । एतेषां वैश्येन शूद्रायाम् जातो यदा चातुर्वर्ण्ये प्रसूयते तदा शूद्राद् आत्मनो बाह्यतरं शूद्रम् जनयति । ततो ऽपि हीनतरं वैश्यायाम् आयोगवः । ततो ऽपि हीनतरं क्षत्रियायां क्षत्ता । तस्माद् अपि हीनतरं ब्राह्मण्यां चण्डालः । एते तु पूर्वेभ्यः केवलशूद्रप्रभवेभ्यः उत्कृष्टतरा विज्ञेयाः । एवं मागधः शूद्रायां जनयन् केवलवैश्यजाताच् छूद्राद् धीनतरं जनयति । एवं क्षत्रियायाम् आत्मनो हीनतरं मागधं जनयति । तथा ब्राह्मण्यां केवलवैश्यजाताद् वैदेहकाद् धीनतरं जनयति । एवं मागधश् चातुर्वर्ण्य चतुरो जनयति । एवं वैदेहकस्य वक्ष्यामः । वैदेहकः शूद्रायां जनयन् केवलवैश्यजाताद् धीनतरं जनयति । एवं वैश्यायां क्xअत्रियायां ब्राह्मण्यां च केवलवैश्यजातेभ्यो मागधजातेभ्यश् च हीनतरं जनयति । एवं वैदेहको ऽपि चातुर्वर्ण्ये चतुरो जनयति । एवम् एतेभ्यो वैश्यप्रभवेभ्यस् त्रिभ्यः चातुर्वर्ण्ये द्वादश भवन्ति । आत्मानश् च त्रय इति एवं वैश्यप्रभवा अपि पञ्चदसवर्णा वेदितव्याः । अथ क्षत्रियस्य वैश्यायां [शूद्रायां चानुलोमजौ], ब्राह्मण्यां प्रतिलोमजः । क्षत्रियेण जातः शूद्रायां चात्रुवर्ण्ये प्रसूयमानः उग्रनामा शूद्रायाम् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति, वैश्यजातात् तु शूद्राद् उत्क्[ऋष्टम् । तथा वैश्यायां क्षत्रियायां] ब्रह्माण्यां (?) चायोगवक्षत्तृ(?)चण्डालानुत्तरोत्तरं हीनं जनयति । एते तु वैश्यप्रभवेभ्यः आयोगवादिभ्य उत्कृष्टतरा वेदितव्याः । एवम् एत उग्रपुत्राश् चत्वारः । क्षत्रियेण वैश्यायां जातश् चातुर्वर्ण्ये प्रसूयमानः शूद्रायाम् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति । एते क्षत्रियायां तु मागधं जनयन्[तो] केवलवैश्यजातान् मागधाद् उत्कृष्टतरं जनय[न्]ति । तथा ब्राह्मन्यां वैदेहकं जनयन्तो केवलवैश्यवैदेहकाद् उत्कृष्टतरं जनय[न्]ति । तथा प्रतिलोमजाः — क्xअत्रियेण ब्राह्मण्यां जातः सूतनामा चातुर्वर्ण्ये प्रसूयमानशूद्रायाम् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति, मागधवैदेहकशूद्रेभ्यस् तूत्कृष्टम् । एवं वैश्यायां क्षत्रियायां ब्राह्मण्यां चात्मनो हीनतरं मागधवैदेहकजातेभ्यस् तूकृष्टतरम् । एवं सूतनामा चातुर्वर्ण्ये चतुरो जनयति । एवं क्षत्रियपुत्रेभ्यो द्वादश, आत्मानश् च त्रय इति क्षत्रियप्रभवाः पञ्चदस वर्णा भवन्ति । ब्राह्मणस्य त्व् अनुलोमजा एव त्रयः । तत्र पारशवः सर्वशूद्रेभ्य उत्कृष्टस् चातुर्वर्ण्ये प्रसूयमानः शूद्रायाम् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति, केवलवैशयाताच् चोत्कृष्टम्, क्xअत्रियजातात् तूग्राद् धीनतरम् । तथा वैश्यायाम् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति, वैश्यजाताच् चोत्कृष्टम् । क्षत्रियायां तु केवलवैश्यक्षत्रियाभ्याम् उत्कृष्टतरं मागधं जनयति । एवं वैदेहकं ब्राह्मण्यां जनयति । एवम् वैदेहकं ब्राह्मण्यां जनयन् पूर्वाभ्यां क्षत्रियवैश्यप्रभवाभ्यां सूतवैदेहकाभ्याम् उत्कृष्टतरं जनयति । एवम् एतेषु पुत्राश् चत्वारः । तथा च क्षत्रियायां ब्राह्मणेन जातश् चातुर्वर्ण्ये प्रसूयमानः शूद्रायां पुत्रं जनयन् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति, क्षत्रियप्रभवात् तूग्राद् उत्कृष्टतरं जनयति । एवम् एतेषु पुत्राश् चत्वारः । तथा च क्षत्रियायां ब्राह्मणेन जातश् चातुर्वर्ण्ये प्रसूयमानः शूद्रायां पुत्रं जनयन् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति, क्षत्रियप्रभवात् तूग्राद् उत्कृष्टतरम् । तथा वैश्यायां जनयन्न् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति, वैश्यक्षत्रियजाताभ्याम् उत्कृष्टतरम् । तथा क्षत्रियायाम् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति, केवलक्षत्रियात् तूत्कृष्टतरम् । एवं ब्राह्मण्यां सूतं जनयन्न् आत्मनो हीनतरं जनयति पूर्वसूताद् उत्कृष्टम् । एवं च ब्राह्मणजातात् क्षत्रियाच् चत्वारः । त एवं ब्राह्मनप्रभवेभ्यस् त्रिभ्यो द्वादश आत्मनश् च त्रय इत्य् एवं ब्राह्मणप्रभवाः पञ्चदश वर्णा भवन्ति । एवम् एते चतुर्भ्यो वर्णेभ्यः षष्टिर् वर्णाः । आत्मानश् चत्वारः इत्य् एते चतुःषष्ट्तिवर्णभेदाः यथास्थूलं वेदितव्याः । एतेषां पुनः पुनर् भिद्यमाना असंख्येया वर्णभेदाह् भवन्ति । तद् एवम् “संकीर्णयोनयो ये तु प्रतिलोमानुलोमजाः, अन्योन्यव्यतिषक्ताश् च” इत्य् अस्यायं श्लोकस्य प्रपञ्चो विज्ञेयः । वर्णापशदा अपि सन्तो वर्णवद् उपचर्यन्ते । “इव"शब्दलोपेन वर्णा इव वार्णाः । तथा चोक्तम्- “ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियो वैश्यस् त्रयो वर्णा द्विजातयः, चतुर्थ एकजातीयः शूद्रो नास्ति तु पञ्चमः” इति ॥ १०.३१ ॥

031 But men excluded (by the Aryans, vahya), who approach females of higher rank, beget races (varna) still more worthy to be excluded, low men (hina) still lower races, even fifteen (in number).

The ‘Dasyu’ begets on the ‘Āyogava,’ the ‘Sairandhra,’ skilled in toilet and attendance, who, though not a slave, makes his living like a slave, and also lives by catching animals.—(32)

प्रसाधनं मण्डनम् । उपचारो ऽनुवृत्तिः । केशरचनाकुंकुमचन्दनादिना अनुलेपनविच्छित्तिः पाणिपादविमर्दनं प्राप्तिलोभात्⁸⁶ कर्मकारिक्षिप्रकारिकार्याणाम्⁸⁷ अवसरम्⁸⁸ इत्यादिविधिज्ञ एवम् उच्यते । अदासं दास्यजीवनम् । वत्सरभृत्या षण्मासभृत्या च कंचन सेवते । अथ वैतद् विधिज्ञतया सर्वोपस्थापको भवति जीवनाय । मता वागुरावृत्तिम्⁸⁹ । द्वितीयो ऽयं वृत्त्युपायः । वागुरा अरण्यपशुहिंसनम् । तच् चार्याणां दैवपित्र्यार्थं⁹⁰ क्षुधार्थं च, न तु व्याधवत् पशून् हत्वा मांसविक्रयेण जीवनम् । राजनियोगाद् बहुप्राणिवधो जीविकार्थः । सैरन्ध्रनामानं सूते उत्पादयति⁹¹ । दस्युर् नाम वक्ष्यमाणः । अयोगवे जातिविशेषे । सामर्थ्यात् स्त्रीत्वलाभः ॥ १०.३२ ॥

(a) ‘Toilet’—adorning.—(b) ‘attendance’—service. That is (a) arranging the hair, painting the body with red powder, sandal-paste and such things; and (b) shampooing of the hand and feet.

The name here mentioned is applied to a man who knows the exact time when to act, and is capable of acting quickly,—all with the motive of making money.

‘Though not a slave, makes his living like a slave’;—i.e., engaged by his master for a term of one year or six months. Or, it may mean that being skilled as above, he is ever, ready, like the slave, to do all he can.

‘Living by catching animals’;—this is a second means of subsistence.

‘Vāgurā’ stands for the killing of wild animals. For the Āryas this is permitted only for the purpose of making offerings to gods and Pitṛs, or of allaying hunger; and not for that of in making a living by selling flesh in the manner of fowlers.

It is under orders of the king that men take to the profession of killing wild animals.

‘Sairandhra’— by name.

‘Begets’—produces.

‘Dasyu’—a mixed caste going to be described below.

‘Āyogava’—a particular caste of that name. That a female is meant is implied by the sense of the passage.—(32)

‘Dasyu’—‘One of the tribes described under verse 45’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘one of this above-mentioned 15 Pratiloma races’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

प्रसाधनोपचारज्ञम् इति, वृत्त्युपदेशः । अदासस् सन् दास्यजीवनः । प्रसाधनोपचरज्ञतया । परमतजीवी यस्मात् । सैरन्ध्रम् इति वर्णनामेदम् । अन्यस् त्व् आह, ग्रन्थिकारः सैरन्द्रः द्रौपदीदर्शनात् । वागुरावृत्तित्वम् आरण्यपसुहिंसनाख्यं युक्तम् आर्याणां देवपित्रर्थम् औषधार्थं च । प्राणयात्रामात्रार्थं वा पुत्रदारात्ययम् प्राप्तस्य ॥ १०.३२ ॥

032 A Dasyu begets on an Ayogava (woman) a Sairandhra, who is skilled in adorning and attending (his master), who, (though) not a slave, lives like a slave, (or) subsists by snaring (animals).

But the ‘Vaideha’ begets the Madhūka-like ‘Maitreyaka,’ who constantly praises men, and serves as the bell-ringer at sunrise.—(33)

मैत्रेयकं नाम्ना वर्णम् आयोगव्यां संप्रसूयते जनयति । वैदेहनामा ब्राह्मण्यां वैश्याज् जातो यः । पाठान्तरं “मैरेयकम्” इति । माधूकम् । उपमापदम् एतत् मधूककुसुमतुल्यम्, मधुरभाषित्वात् । अथ वा मधुकायतीति “अन्येष्व् अपि दृश्यते” (पाण् ३.२.१०१) इति डः । “अन्येषाम् अपि” (पाण् ६.३.१३७) इति दीर्घः । स्वार्थिकेन चादिवृद्धिः । तस्य वृत्तिः- नॄन् मनुष्यान् प्रशंसन्ति⁹² अजस्रं सर्वदा, बन्दीति यः कथ्यते । अरुणोदये प्रबोधकाले घण्टां ताडयन्त्य् आहन्ति, राज्ञाम् ईश्वराणां चान्येषां प्रबोधाय । आयोगव्याम् एवानुजनयति⁹³ प्रकृतत्वात् ॥ १०.३३ ॥

‘Maitreyaka’—by name.

‘Begets’—i.e., on the ‘Āyogava’ woman.

The ‘Vaidehaka’—i.e., one who is born from a Brāhmaṇa mother and a Vaiśya father.

‘Maireyaka’ is another reading for ‘Maitreyaka.’

‘Madhūka-like’—This word expresses a simile; it means that the man is ‘as sweet as the madhūka flower,’ being possessed of a sweet voice. Or, it may mean ‘he who behaves like the madhūka flower’;—the word being formed with the ‘Da’ affix; and the elongation of the second vowel being one that is permitted in the case of several words; the elongation of the first vowel being due to the reflexive affix.

‘Who praise men constantly’—and are called on that account ‘bards.’

‘At sun-rise’—at the time of the rising of the sun,—these people ring the bell; with a view to awaken the King and other rich men.

The caste here mentioned is begotten on the ‘Āyogava’ woman,—she being the woman mentioned in this connection.—(33)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

मैत्रेयकं तु नाम्ना मैरेयकं वा पाठान्तरेण वैदेहको जनयति, वैश्यजातो ब्राह्मण्यां य उक्तः । मैत्रेयकं च गुणेन विशिनष्टि माधूकं मधुरभाषिणम् । संप्रसूयते आयोगव्याम् एवाधिकृतायाम् । तस्य वृत्तिनिर्देशः- नॄन् प्रशंसत्य् अजस्रं यो घण्टाताडो ऽरुणोदये, प्रातर् गायंस् तु वन्दनादिभिः ॥ १०.३३ ॥

033 A Vaideha produces (with the same) a sweet-voiced Maitreyaka, who, ringing a bell at the appearance of dawn, continually. praises (great) men.

The ‘Niṣāda’ begets the ‘Mārgava’ or ‘Dāsa,’ who subsists by working the boat, and whom the inhabitants of Āryāvarta call ‘Kaivarta.’—(34)

प्रतिलोमप्रकरणान् न यः शूद्रायां ब्राह्मणाज् जातो निषाद पूर्वम् उक्तः स इह गृह्यते, अपि तु दस्युवत् प्रतिलोम एव । मार्गवं नाम प्रतिलोमं सुते, आयोगव्याम् एव । यस्येमे अपरे नामनी दासः कैवर्त इति । आर्यावर्तः प्रसिद्धः । तस्य वृत्तिः- नौकर्मणा नौवाहनेन जीवति ॥ १०.३४ ॥

Inasmuch as the present context deals with the castes of the ‘inverse’ order, the ‘Niṣāda’ meant here cannot be the one described above as ‘one born of the Brāhmaṇa father and the Śūdra mother;’ it must stand for some other ‘inverse’ caste, akin to the ‘Daṣyu.’

He begets—produces on the ‘Āyogava’ woman,—the ‘inverse’ caste called ‘Mārgava.’

The other two names of this caste are ‘Dāsa’ and ‘Kaivarta.’

‘Āryāvarta’ is well-known.

The working of the boat is the livelihood—means of subsistence—for this caste—(34)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

निषादो नाम ब्राह्मणजातात् शूद्रात् प्रतिलोमो वेदितव्यह्, प्रतिलोमाधिकारसामर्थ्यात् । न तु ब्राह्मणजातः शूद्रायाम् । अनुलोमत्वात् । स निषादो ऽधिकृतायाम् एवायोगव्यां मार्गरवर्णं नाम्ना जनयति दासद्वितीयनामानम् । तस्य वृत्त्युपदेशः नौकर्मजीवनम् इति । कैवर्तम् इति यं प्राहुस् तृतीयेण नाम्ना आर्यावर्तनिवासिनो जानपदाः । आयोगवी पितृबाह्यतरा वेदितव्याः, निषादवत्, न तु शूद्रेण वैश्यायां जाता । तथा च दर्शयति ॥ १०.३४ ॥

034 A Nishada begets (on the same) a Margava (or) Dasa, who subsists by working as a boatman, (and) whom the inhabitants of Aryavarta call a Kaivarta.

These three, devoid of caste, are severally born from ‘Āyogava’ women, who wear the clothes of the dead, are ignoble, and eat despised food.—(35)

ये ऽनन्तरम्⁹⁴ उपदिष्टास् त्रयो मार्गवपर्यन्तास् तेषां मातृजातिर् नोक्ता, तत्प्रतिपादनार्थो ऽयं श्लोकः⁹⁵ । आयोगवीषु स्त्रीष्व् एते जायन्ते । तासां च विशेषणम्- मृतवस्त्रभृत्सु शववासांसि परिदधतीष्व् इत्य् अर्थः । अनार्या अस्पृश्याः । गर्हितम् उच्छिष्टं मांसादि चान्नम् अश्नन्ति ॥ १०.३५ ॥

The caste of the mother of the three castes just mentioned, ending with the ‘Mārgava,’ having not been mentioned, the present verse gives the purpose of specifiying that caste.

All these are born from ‘Āyogava’ women.

The qualifications of these women are next added—‘Who wear the clothes of the dead’—i .e., those who put on the clothes found on dead bodies.

‘Ignoble’—Untouchable.

They eat ‘despised food’—i.e., leavings.—(35)

‘Vaidehikāt’—‘From a Vaidehika father, by women of the Kārāvara and Niṣāda castes (Medhātithi and Kullūka);—by women of the Vaideha caste’ (Govindarāja).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

त्रिभ्यो यथोपदिष्टेभ्यो वर्णेभ्यो दस्युवैदेहकनिषादेभ्यः श्लोकत्रयाधिकृतेभ्यः । ये तु पुनः “सूतो दस्युर् आयोगवे” (?) इत्य् एवं प्रथमश्लोकस्यान्त्यपादं पठन्ति तेषां तत्र क्षत्रियजातो ब्राह्मण्यां सूत उक्तः । एवं सूतवैदेहकनिषादेभ्यः एवंविधेभ्य आयोगविषु श्लोकत्रयोपदिष्टा नामतो वर्णा जायन्ते ॥ १०.३५ ॥

035 Those three base-born ones are severally begot on Ayogava women, who wear the clothes of the dead, are wicked, and eat reprehensible food.

From the ‘Niṣāda’ is born of the ‘Kārāvara,’ who works in leather; and from the ‘Vaiḍehaka’ the ‘Andhra’ and the ‘Meda,’ who have their dwellings outside the village.—(36)

उत्तरत्र “वैदेह्याम् एव जायते”⁹⁶ (म्ध् १०.३७) इत्य् एवकरकरणाल्⁹⁷ लिङ्गाद् इहापि वैदेह्यां निषादात् कारावरो नाम जायत इति संबन्धप्रतीतिः । वैदेहिकाद् द्वाव् आन्ध्रमेदौ । कस्यां स्त्र्याम् । कारावरीनिषाद्योः,⁹⁸ तयोर् अत्र संनिधानात् । वैदेह्यां च वैदेह्याद्⁹⁹ भिन्नवर्णसंभवाद्¹⁰⁰ एवं व्याख्यायेते । स्त्रीभेदेन चैकस्माद् वर्णाद् एते द्वे जाती । बहिर्ग्रामं प्रतिशयो निवासो ययोः ॥ १०.३६ ॥

In view of the term ‘on Vaideha woman’ occurring later on (37), the meaning must be that ‘on the Vaideha woman, from the Niṣāda is born the Kārāvara.’

From the Vaidehaha are born the two castes ‘Andhra’ and ‘Meda,’— on what women?—on the Kāravara and the Niṣāda women respectively. That such is the meaning is implied by the fact of these two being the last spoken of. We explain the verse to mean this in view of the fact that an entirely different caste is born from the Vaideha father on a Vaideha mother. Thus then what is meant is that from the father of the same caste are born two different castes,—this difference being due to the difference in the castes of the mothers.

‘Outside the village’— is their ‘dwelling,’ livinghouse.—(36)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

वैदेह्याम् एव जायते इति, वक्ष्यमाणश्लोकलिङ्गान् । निषादात् कारावरनामा वर्णश् चर्मकरणवृत्तिर् वैदेह्यां जायते । वैदेहकाद् अन्ध्रमेदौ कारावरनिषादवर्णयोः स्त्रियोः, अन्ययोर् असंभवाद्, एतच्छ्लोकोपदिष्टयोश् च वर्णयोः संनिहितत्वाद्, वैदेहकाच् च वैदेह्याम् अन्ध्रमेदयोर् वर्णयोर् असंभवात् परिशेषात् कारावरनिषादस्त्रियाव् एव गृहेते । एवं हि स्त्रीवर्णभेदे वैदेहकाद् अन्ध्रमेदौ भिन्नवर्णौ युक्तौ न तु वैदेह्याम् ॥ १०.३६ ॥

036 From a Nishada springs (by a woman of the Vaideha caste) a Karavara, who works in leather; and from a Vaidehaka (by women of the Karavara and Nishada castes), an Andhra and a Meda, who dwell outside the village.

On the ‘Vaideha’ woman from the ‘Caṇḍāla’ is born the ‘Paṇḍusopāka’ who deals in bamboos; as also the ‘Āhiṇḍika’ from the ‘Niṣāda.’—(37)

चाण्डालात् वैदेह्यां पाण्डुसोपाको नाम वर्णो जायते । तस्य वृत्तिस् त्वक्सारव्यवहारवान्¹⁰¹ । त्वक्सारो वेणुः, तद्व्यवहारेण वंशक्रयविक्रयादिना कटादिकरेण वा जीवति । निषादात् तस्याम् एव्आहिण्डकस् तस्य वृत्तिर् एषैव, अन्वेष्या वा ॥ १०.३७ ॥

‘From the Caṇḍāla, on the Vaideha woman, is born’, the caste, named Paṇḍusopāka.

His livelihood is next stated.—He ‘deals in bamboos’,—‘tvaksāra’ being a name of the Bamboo; it is by bamboos,—i.e., by buying and selling bamboos and by making mats and other things—that these people live.

‘From the Niṣāda’—on the same woman—is born the Āhiṇḍika. The livelihood of these men may be the one implied by the name itself (i.e., snake-catching), or something else may be found out—(37)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

चण्डालाद् वैदेह्याम् एकजातौ वर्णद्वयम् इदं पाण्डुसोपाखाहिण्डिकलक्षणं जायते । एवं चात्र वर्णापशदप्रकरणे मातृभेदाद् वा एकवर्णजातयोर् अपि भेदः, पितृभेदाद् वा एकस्याम् एव स्त्रियां भेदो विज्ञेयः ॥ १०.३७ ॥

037 From a Kandala by a Vaideha woman is born a Pandusopaka, who deals in cane; from a Nishada (by the same) an Ahindika.

By the ‘Caṇḍāla,’ on the ‘Pukkasa’ woman is begotten the ‘Sopāka,’ whose livelihood consists of death, and who are wicked and despised by good people.—(38)

व्यसनं दुःखम्, तस्य मूलं मारणम्, तद्वृत्तिः । वध्यमारणं राजादेशाद् अनाथशववहनं तद्वस्त्रादिग्रहणं प्रेतपिण्डभोजनम् इत्य् एवमादिवृत्तिः । पुल्कस्यां¹⁰²** चाण्डालेन जायते** । अथ वा मूलादिवृक्षादीनां तद्व्यसनं विभागकरणं सा वृत्तिर् व्यवच्छिन्नेषु वृक्षेषु यदनुवृत्तं मूलं तद् उद्धृत्य विक्रयादिना जीवति ॥ १०.३८ ॥

‘Vyasana’ is suffering;—the ‘mūla,’ of it is killing; what is meant is that the livelihood of these men is the executing of criminals, the carrying of the dead bodies of men dying without any relations, the taking away of their clothes, eating the cakes offered to the dead, and so forth.

This caste is born from the ‘Caṇḍāla’ on the ‘Pukkasa’ woman.

Or, ‘mūla’ may be taken as standing for the roots of trees, and the ‘vyasana’ would stand for the dissecting of these; and this forms their livelihood. That is, they live by selling the roots and other things extracted out of the trees that have been cut down.—(38)

‘Mūlavyasanavṛttimān’—‘Who lives by executing criminals.’ (Govindarāja and Rāghavānanda);—‘who lives by digging roots for selling them as medicines or for curing homorhoids (hemorrhoids?)’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

मूलव्यसनं मारणवृत्तिर् इत्य् अर्थः । वध्यमारणं राजदेशाद् अनाथशवनिर्हरणं तद्वस्त्रादिग्रहणं प्रेतपिण्डभोजनम् इत्य् एवमादिवृत्तिः पुल्कस्यां चण्डालेन जायते ॥ १०.३८ ॥

038 But from a Kandala by a Pukkasa woman is born the sinful Sopaka, who lives by the occupations of his sire, and is ever despised by good men.

The ‘Niṣāda’ woman bears to the ‘Caṇḍāla’ the son called ‘Antyāvasāyin,’ working in the cremation-ground, despised even by out-casts.—(39)

अन्त्यावसायिनं चण्डालम् एव वदन्ति । अथ वा निषाद्यां चण्डालाद् उत्पन्नस्य्आन्त्यावसासीति नामधेयम् । श्मशानगोचरं शवदहनादिवृत्तिः । अतश् चाण्डालाद्¹⁰³ अपि कुत्सिततरो विज्ञ्ēयः । तद् एतद् आनन्त्यात् संकराणां प्रदर्शनमात्रं कृतम् ॥ १०.३९ ॥

They call the Antyāvasāyin also ‘Chaṇḍāla’

Or ‘Antyāvasāyin’ may be the name of the caste born from the ‘Niṣāda’ mother and the ‘Chaṇḍāla’ father.

‘Working in the cremation-ground’—i.e., living by burning the dead body and so forth.

He is to be regarded as more despised than even the ‘Chaṇḍāla.’

As a matter of fact, the number of mixed castes is endless. Hence what the text has done is to give merely an indication of a few of them.—(39)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

श्मशानगोचरस् तद्वृत्तिस् तत्स्थाननिवासश् च । एवं च सत्य् अयं चण्डालाद् अपि पापतरो विज्ञेयः । तद् एतद् आनन्त्यात् संकरस्य प्रदर्शनमात्रं विज्ञेयम् ॥ १०.३९ ॥

039 A Nishada woman bears to a Kandala a son (called) Antyavasayin, employed in burial-grounds, and despised even by those excluded (from the Aryan community).

These castes, proceeding from mixtures, have been described in relation to their fathers and mothers; and whether manifest or unmanifest, they may be known by their occupations.—(40)

यान्य् एतान्य् अनन्तरम् उद्दिष्टानि त्वक्सारव्यवहारादीनि कर्माणि तैर् अप्रसिद्धाः सोपाकादिनामतया तज्जातीया वेदितव्याः । पित्रा मात्रा च विभागेन दर्शिताः । प्रच्छन्ना वा प्रकाशा वा तज्जातीया वेदितव्याः । आयोगव्यां मात्रा विभागो निषादाद् वैदेहिकाद् आन्ध्रभेदाव् इति पित्रा दर्शितो विभागः ॥ १०.४० ॥

The ‘occupations’ that have been just described,—such as dealing in bamboos and so forth,—by means of these even the little known castes of the ‘Sopāka’ and the rest can be known.

All these have been described through the character of their fathers and mothers.

‘Manifest or unmanifest,’—they shall be known as belonging to those castes.

In the case of the ‘Āyogavī,’ the description was through the caste of the mother, and it was through that of the father in the case of the description of the ‘Andhra’ and the ‘Meda’ as born from the ‘Niṣāda’ and the ‘Vaidehaka’ fathers respectively.—(40)

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

कर्मणा शास्त्रोपदिष्टजातिर् अनुमातव्या । जातिप्रदर्शनाच् च स्वकर्मस्व् एते नियोज्याः ॥ १०.४० ॥

040 These races, (which originate) in a confusion (of the castes and) have been described according to their fathers and mothers, may be known by their occupations, whether they conceal or openly show themselves.

Six sons born or women of the same caste and of those of the next lower castes partake of the character of ‘twice-born’ persons. But all those born of violation have been declared to be of the nature of Śūdras.—(41)

स्वजातीयास् त्रैवर्णिकेभ्यः समानजातीयासु¹⁰⁴ जातास् ते द्विजधर्माण इत्य् एतत् सिद्धम् एवानूद्यते । अनन्तरजानां तुल्यताभिधानं तद्धर्मप्राप्त्यर्थम् । अन्तरजा अनुलोमाः । ब्राह्मणात् क्षत्रियवैश्ययोः क्षत्रियाद् वैश्यायां जाताः, ते ऽपि द्विजधर्माण उपनेया इत्य् अर्थः । उपनीताश् च द्विजातिधर्मैः सर्वैर् अधिक्रियन्ते ।

• ननु च “तान् अनन्तरनाम्नः” (म्ध् १०.१४) इति मातृजातीयत्वम् एषाम् उक्तम् एव । ततश् च तज्जात्या समेषु धर्मेषु सिद्ध एवाधिकारः ।

• सत्यम् । अनन्तरनाम इति नामग्रहणात् संज्ञैवैषां न तु जात्यतिदेश इति कस्यचिद् आशङ्का स्याद् अतः स्पष्टार्थं षट् सुता द्विजधर्मिणः इति वचनारम्भः ।¹⁰⁵ ये पुनर् अपध्वंसजाः संकरजास् ते शूद्राणां सधर्माणः समानाचारास् तद्धर्मैर् अधिक्रियन्त इत्य् अर्थः । प्रतिलोमानां तु विशेषो वक्ष्यते । अनन्तरग्रहणम् अनुलोमोपलक्षणार्थम् एव । तेन व्यवहितो ऽपि ब्राह्मणाद् वैश्यायां जातो गृह्यते । षट्संख्यातिरिक्तत्वान् न शूद्रायां पारशवः ॥ १०.४१ ॥

From ‘twice-born’ persons, sons born of women of the same caste as themselves belong to the same caste; and all these ‘partake of the character of twice-born persons’;—this is the reiteration of a well-known fact And the assertion that sons born of women of the next lower caste also stand on the same footing is made for the purpose of indicating that the same rights and privileges belong to those also.

‘Those born of women of the next lower caste’—i.e., in the ‘natural order’; of those born to the Brāhmaṇa father and the Kṣatriya or Vaiśya mother, or those born to the Kṣatriya father from the Vaiśya mother.

These ‘partake of the character of twee-born persons’—i.e., they should have the Initiatory Rite performed for them, and having become initiated, they become entitled to all that pertains to a twice-born person.

“It has been declared under 14 above that ‘they are called by the name of the next lower caste,’ which means that all such sons of the natural older belong to their mother’s caste; so that it would naturally follow that they are entitled to all that pertains to that caste.”

True; but since the passage referred to uses the term ‘name,’ people might have the idea that the sons are only so by name, and not by caste; hence with a view to make the point dear, we have another assertion in the present text, which asserts that ‘the six sons partake of the character of twice-born men.’

Those sons however who are born of ‘violation’—i.e., of a mixture of the castes—‘are of the nature of Śūdras,’—i.e., having the character of the Śūdra, they are entitled to the rights and duties of that caste.

The peculiarity in connection with sons born in the ‘inverse order’ is going to be described later on. The term ‘next lower Caste’ in the present text has been added only for the purpose of indicating that what is said here applies to the sons of the ‘natural order’ only. So that the son born to the Brāhmaṇa from a Vaiśya women, who is one step removed from the ‘next lower caste’—also becomes included. But, the number being limited to ‘six,’ the son bora to the Brāhmaṇa from the Śūdra woman,—i.e., ‘Pāraśara’—is not included here.—(41)

‘This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 570).

**(verses 10.6-41)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.6].

स्वजाति जास् त्रिभ्यो द्विजातिभ्यः त्रयो ब्राह्मणीक्षत्रियावैश्यासु जाताः संस्कारार्हाः तथानन्तरजाः ब्राह्मणक्xअत्रियाभ्यां क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् जाताः षट् सुता द्विजधर्मिणः । एवं च स्वजातिजानाम् अनन्तरजार्थं ग्रहणम्, न स्वार्थम् । ननु च ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियाभ्याम् अनन्तर्वर्णयोः क्षत्रियाविश्ययोर् जातौ द्वाव् एव भवतः, येन ब्राह्मणजातः वैश्यायां नानन्तरजः । असाव् अप्य् अनन्तरज एव, अनुलोमार्थत्वात् । द्विजधर्मत्वं प्रवर्तन् निवर्तयति, “शूद्रायां तु सधर्माणः सर्वे ऽपध्वंसजाः स्मृताः” इति ब्राह्मणादिजाता अपि सन्तः । एवं च नैभिः सहेदं षड् ग्रहणम्, किं तर्हि स्वजातिजैः सहानन्तरजानाम् । तथा च गौतमः- “प्रतिलोमास् तु धर्महीनाः, शूद्रायां च” इति । ननु च “पुत्रा ये ऽनन्तर[स्त्री]जा” [इत्य् अत्रोक्ता]र्थे ऽयं पुनरुक्तः श्लोक इति। [न] पुनरुक्तः । तत्र ह्य् उक्तम् “तान् अनन्तरनाम्नो हि मातृदोषान् प्रचक्षते” इति । अनन्तरनामत्वं चोभयथा प्रसज्यते व्यवहारार्थं [सं]ज्ञया, संस्कारार्थं च यतः संदेहनिवृत्त्यर्थम् इदं त्रयाणां द्विजातिधर्मत्वाभिधानम् । अथ वा हेत्वर्थम् इदं पूर्वश्लोकस्य । कथम् । “तान् अनन्तरनाम्नो हि मातृदोशान् प्रचक्षते” इत्य् अत्र कारणं वक्ति । यस्मात् षट् सुता द्विजधर्माण इति एवम् अपुनरुक्तत्वम् अस्य पूर्वश्लोकाद् विज्ञेयम् ॥ १०.४१ ॥

041 Six sons, begotten (by Aryans) on women of equal and the next lower castes (Anantara), have the duties of twice-born men; but all those born in consequence of a violation (of the law) are, as regards their duties, equal to Sudras.

By the force of austerities and the seed they attain higher or lower rank among men, through birth, cycle after cycle.—(42)

त एते ऽनन्तरजाः तपःसामर्थ्येन बीजसामर्थ्येन युगे युगे जन्मनि जन्मनि उत्कर्षम् अपकर्षं च गच्छन्ति । तद् वक्ष्यामः “शूद्रायां ब्राह्मणाज् जातः” (म्ध् १०.६४) इत्य् अत्र ॥ १०.४२ ॥

यद् उक्तम् “स्वकर्मणां त्यागेन” (म्ध् १०.२४) इति तस्यैवायं प्रपञ्चः ।

‘They’—i.e., the sons born of the next lower castes,—‘by the force of austerities’ and ‘by the force of seed’;—‘cycle after cycle,’—i.e., in each successive birth;—‘attain higher or lower rank.’

All this is going to be described under verse 64 et. seq.—(42)

‘Yuge yuge’—‘In successive births’ (Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana);—‘in each of the ages of the world’ (Kullūka).

Śukranīti (4.4, 80-81).—‘Viśvāmitra, Mātaṅga, Vaśiṣṭha, Nārada and others became elevated by special penances, not by birth.’

Yājñavalkya (1.96).—‘Caste becomes elevated during the fifth or the seventh generation; similarly after five or seven generations one acquires that caste of which he has followed the occupations.’

Gautama (4.22-24).—‘In the seventh generation, men obtain a change of caste, being either raised to a higher one or degraded to a lower one. The venerable teacher declares that this happens in the fifth generation, and the same rule applies to those born from parents of different castes that are intermediate between two of the castes originally created by Brahmā.’

Āpastamba (2, 11.10-11).—‘In successive births, men of the lower castes are born in the next higher one, if they have fulfilled their duties. In successive births, men of the higher castes are born in the next lower one, if they have neglected their duties.’

अयं च श्लोको ब्राह्मणादिजातानां क्षत्रियाद्यासु पूर्वश्लोकविहितस्य संस्कारस्य स्तुत्यर्थो विज्ञेयः । तथा वक्ष्यति “शूद्रायां ब्राह्मणाज् जातः” इत्येवमादि । एवं च सत्य् एष वर्णविभाग उत्कर्षापकर्षसंबन्धो मनुष्यविषय एव द्रष्टव्यः । न गवादिषु । अतश् च गवादीनां मतरि स्वसरि वा जातस्यापरिहारः (?) ॥ १०.४२ ॥

042 By the power of austerities and of the seed (from which they sprang), these (races) obtain here among men more exalted or lower rank in successive births.

But by the omission of the sacred rites, and also by their neglect of Brāhmaṇas, the following Kṣatriya castes have gradually sunk to the position of the low-born.—(43)

क्रियालोपो यत्र संस्कार्यतया संबध्यते, यथोपनयनादिषु,¹⁰⁶ यत्र वा कर्तृतया, यथा नित्याग्निहोत्रसंध्योपासनादिषु । तासां लोप उभयासाम् अप्य् अननुष्ठानम् । अतश् च न केवलम् उपनयनसंस्काराभावेन जातिभ्रंशः, अपि तूपनीतानां विहितक्रियात्यागेनापि । तथा चाह शनकैर् इति । पुत्रपौत्रादिसंततेः प्रभृति शूद्रत्वम्, न तु जातस्यैव¹⁰⁷ । उपनयनाभावे तु तस्यैव व्यपदेशान्तरं प्रवर्तते । यद्य् अपि सा जातिर् न निवर्तते तत्पुत्रपौत्राणां भृज्जकण्टकादिजात्यन्तरम् एव व्यपदेशहेतुकम् इति ब्राह्मणातिक्रमेण ब्राह्मणविधिविहितातिक्रमेणेत्य् अर्थः । अथ वा शास्त्रार्थसंशये प्रायश्चित्ते वा परिषद्गमनाभावः ॥ १०.४३ ॥

Now follow the details regarding ‘the omission of one’s duties’ spoken of above.

‘Omission of sacred rites’— This includes the rites that are done for the person, such as Initiation and the rest, as also those that he does himself, such as the Agnihotra, the Twilight Prayers and so forth. And the ‘omission’ of these is the non-performance of both these sets of rites. Thus one loses his caste not only by the omission of the Initiatory Rite, but also by the neglecting of those that have been enjoined as to be done after the Initiation.

This is what is meant by ‘gradually—which means that the continued neglect of the rites reduces successive generations to the position of the Śūdra; and this does not refer to the new-born child, who loses his title only by the omission of his Initiation.

It is not that the man’s caste becomes lost; all that happens is that he becomes liable to be called by such castes-names as the ‘Bhṛjjakaṇṭaka’ and the rest.

‘By the neglect of Brāhmaṇas,’—i.e., by transgressing the injunctions pertaining to Brāhmaṇas. Or it may refer to not consulting the Council of Brāhmaṇas in doubtful matters arising out of the scriptures, in regard to expiatory rites and other cognate matters.—(43)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtattva II (p. 268) to the effect that even in in modern times Kṣatriyas can become degraded to śūdrahood.

**(verses 10.43-44)
**

Mahabharata (13.33.21-22; 13.35.17-18).—‘Śākas, Yavanas, Kāmbojas and other Kṣatriya castes became degraded by not seeing the Brāhmaṇas. Drāviḍas, Kaliṅgas, Pulindas, Uśīnaras, Kolisarpas and Māhiṣakas and other Kṣatriya castes became degraded by not seeing the Brāhmaṇas. Kirātas, Yavanas and other Kṣatriya castes became degraded because they would not bear with the Brāhmaṇas.’

Śukranīti (4.4.74).—‘The Yavanas have all the four castes mixed together; they recognise authority other than the Vedas and live in the North and West. Their Śāstras have been framed for their welfare by their own teachers.’

व्यभिचारेण वर्णानाम् अवेद्यावेदनेन च ।
स्वकर्मणां च त्यागेन जायते वर्णसंकरः ॥ (म्ध् १०.२४)

इति यद् उक्तं तस्य प्रपञ्चो ऽयम् । शूद्रवत् कर्मानधिकारः । क्रियालोपे चात्र हेतुः ब्राह्मणादर्शनेन चेति । तदभावात् प्रायश्चित्ताभावम् आह । अथ वोभयार्थं ब्राह्मणादर्शनं क्रियालोपहेतुः प्रायश्चित्ताभावहेतुश् च । अपकर्षहेतुप्रदर्शनं च परिहारार्थम् । यतस् ते प्रदर्श्यन्ते ॥ १०.४३ ॥

043 But in consequence of the omission of the sacred rites, and of their not consulting Brahmanas, the following tribes of Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the condition of Sudras;

The Puṇḍrakas, the Coḍas, the Draviḍas, the Kāmbojas, the Yavanas, the Śākas, the Pāradas, the Pahlavas, the Cīnas, the Kirātas, the Daradas and the Khaśas.—(44)

पुण्ड्रकादयः शब्दाः परमार्थतो जनपदशब्दाः, इह तु “क्षत्रियेषु मुख्यास् तत्संबन्धत्वाज् जनपदेषु वर्तन्ते” इत्य् एतद्दर्शनम् आश्रितम् । यथा लुब्विधौ¹⁰⁸ “तस्य निवासः” (पाण् ४.२.६९) “जनपदे लुप्”¹⁰⁹ (पाण् ४.२.८१) इति, न तु यथा “लुब् योगाप्रख्यानात्”¹¹⁰ (पाण् १.२.५४) इति । नैतेषु देशेषु बाहुल्येन चातुर्वर्ण्यम् अस्तीत्य् एतदालम्बनं वृषलत्ववचनम् । यदि वा पुण्ड्रादयः शब्दाः कथंचिद् देशसंबन्धेन विना दृश्यन्ते, तदैतज्जातीया वेदितव्याः । महाभारतादौ क्षत्रिया वर्ण्यन्ते, तथाद्यत्वे ऽप्य् एते क्षत्रिया एवेति कस्यचित् भ्रान्तिः स्याद् अत एवम् उक्तम् “एते वृषलाः” इति । ये चैते दिगन्तवासिनः किरातवेनदरदादयस् तेषाम् अप्राप्तरूपं वेदेनानूद्यते “न जनम् इयान् नान्तम् इयात्” (बाउ १.३.१०) इति ॥ १०.४४ ॥

‘Puṇḍra’—and the rest originally stood as names of countries; but in the present context they have been used according to the theory that ‘these names really denote the particular Kṣatriya castes, and are only indirectly applied to countries inhabited by them.’

Pāṇini 4.2.69 lays down the adding of the ‘aṇ’ affix in the sense of habitation, and Sūtra 4.2.81 lays down the elimination of this affix; it is in accordance with this that we have the form ‘Puṇḍra’ (which is formed of the term ‘puṇḍra’ with the ‘aṇ’ affix);—and the elimination is not according to Pāṇini 1.2.54.

The assertion that these people have become ‘low-born’ is based upon the fact that in these countries we do not meet with any dear division of the ‘four castes.’

If however these terms be tried to be used irrespectively of the names of countries, then they should be taken as the names of so many castes.

Some people might be led to think that all these races here named are found to be described as Kṣatriyas, so that they must be Kṣatriyas still. And it is with a view to preclude this idea that it is asserted that these are low-born.

All the people here spoken of form the races inhabiting the borders of Āryāvarta,—such races for instance, as the Kirāta, the ‘Vena’, the ‘Darada’ and so forth; and it is with reference to this that we have the declaration that ‘one should not go to the borders’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 1.3.10).—(44)

**(verses 10.43-44)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.43].

पुण्ड्रकादयो दरदान्राः क्षत्रियाः सन्तः क्रियालोपाच् छूद्रीभूताः ॥ १०.४४ ॥

044 (Viz.) the Paundrakas, the Kodas, the Dravidas, the Kambogas, the Yavanas, the Sakas, the Paradas, the Pahlavas, the Kinas, the Kiratas, and the Daradas.

All those races of the world which are outside the pale of the people ‘born of the mouth, the arms, the thighs and the feet,’—speaking the ‘barbaric’ or the ‘refined’ language—are called ‘Dasyu.’—(45)

असद्विद्यमानार्थासाधुशब्दान्वया वाक् म्लेच्छोच्यते । यथा शबराणां किरातानाम् अन्येषां वान्त्यानाम् । आर्यवाच आर्यावर्तनिवासिनः । ते चातुर्वर्ण्याद् अन्यजातीयत्वेन प्रसिद्धास् तदा दस्यव उच्यन्ते । एतद् उक्तं भवति । न देशनिवासेन म्लेच्छवाक् संकरत्वे कारणम्, अपि तु यथोक्तबर्बरादिशब्दप्रसिद्धिः । मुखादिजानां बहिष्क्रियन्ते¹¹¹ ब्राह्मणादिशब्दैर् अप्रसिद्धा¹¹² इत्य् अर्थः । ते सर्वे दस्यव उच्यन्ते ॥ १०.४५ ॥

That language is called ‘mlecchaa,’ ‘barbaric,’ which consists of words that either have no meaning, or have a wrong meaning, or are wrong in form. To this class belong the languages of such low-born tribes as the Śabara, the Kirāta, and so forth.

‘Refined language’ is the language of the inhabitants of Āryāvarta.

These persons, being other than those named as the ‘four castes,’ are called ‘Dasyu.’

The meaning is that neither habitation nor barbaric speech is a ground for regarding a caste as ‘mixed’; it is the fact of people being known by the particular names that makes them to be so regarded. It is thus that they come to be called ‘Dasyu.’—(45)

‘Vaidehikāt’—‘From a Vaidehika father, by women of the Kārāvara and Niṣāda castes (Medhātithi and Kullūka);—by women of the Vaideha caste’ (Govindarāja).

न केवलं क्षत्रियाणाम्, किं तर्हि सर्ववर्णानाम् एव क्रियालोपाद् बाह्यत्वं ब्राह्मणादर्शनेन चेति । यतश् चैतद् एवम् अतस् त्रयो ऽप्य् अपभ्रंशहेतवो यत्नतः परिहरणीयाः । ते च बर्वरा मण्डिका इत्य् एवमादयः । “सूते दस्युर् आयोगवे” इत्य् अत्राप्य् अयम् एव वेदितव्यः ॥ १०.४५ ॥

045 All those tribes in this world, which are excluded from (the community of) those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman), are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlekkhas (barbarians) or that of the Aryans.

The base-born sons of the ‘twice-born,’ as also those who have been declared to be ‘born of transgression,’ shall subsist by lowly services of ‘twice-born’ persons.—(46)

अपसदा अनुलोमाः प्रतिलोमाः, अपध्वंसजाः, गोबलीवर्दवद् भेदः । द्विजानाम् उपयोगिभिः प्रेष्यकर्मभिर् वर्तयेयुः आत्मानम्¹¹³ । निन्दितैः प्रेष्यकार्यत्वान् निन्दितानि ॥ १०.४६ ॥

तथा च वक्ष्यते ।

‘Base-born’—in the natural as well as the inverse order. ‘Born of transgression,’—the distinction between these and the former is like that between the ‘go’ (General term) and the ‘balīvarda’ (Particular term).

‘Services’—menial duties—for the benefit of ‘twice-born’ persons.

‘Subsist’—maintain themselves.

‘Lowly’—because of their menial character.—These are going to be described.—(46)

Mahābhārata (13.48.32).—(Same as Manu 50.)

Viṣṇu (16.8-13).—‘Āyogavas should live by artistic performances;—Pukkasas, by hunting;—Māgadhas, by proclaiming the good qualities;—Caṇḍālas, by executing criminals sentenced to death;—Vāidehakas, by keeping women and profiting by what they earn;—Sūtas, by training horses.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 119).—‘The livelihood of the Rathakāra consists of training horses, driving chariots, masonry and the teaching of the science of Architecture.’

द्विजातिस्त्रीषु शूद्राभिः प्रतिलोमजाता आयोगवादयश् चण्डालवर्जं ये चापध्वंसजाः शूद्रायां द्विजातिभिर् अनुलोमा अपि सन्तः । तथा चोक्तम्- “शूद्रायां तु सधर्माणः सर्वे ऽपध्वंसजाः स्मृताः” । ते निन्दितैर् वर्तयेयुर् आत्मानम् । वृत्तिनियमार्थो ऽयम् उपदेशस् तेषाम् । तथा च दर्शयति ॥ १०.४६ ॥

046 Those who have been mentioned as the base-born (offspring, apasada) of Aryans, or as produced in consequence of a violation (of the law, apadhvamsaga), shall subsist by occupations reprehended by the twice-born.

For Sūtas, the management of horses and chariots; for Ambaṣṭhas, the art of healing; for Vaidehakas, the service of women; and for Māgadhas, trade.—(47)

स्त्रीकार्यम् अन्तःपुररक्षाकारित्वम् । विणिक्पथः स्थलपथवारिपथादिः¹¹⁴ प्रसिद्धः ॥ १०.४७ ॥

‘Service of women’—Keeping guard over the inner apartments and so forth.

‘Trade’—by land and by water.—(47)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 119).

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.46].

सूतानाम् अश्वसारथ्यम् अम्बष्ठानां चिक्तिसितम् ।

तत्राम्बष्ठजातः प्रतिलोमो गृह्यते सामर्थ्यात् । अम्बष्ठ्यां वा प्रतिलोमेन ।

वैदेहकानां स्त्रीकार्यम्

स्त्रीरक्षान्तःपुरादिषु काञ्चुकीयत्वेन

मागधानां वण्क्पथः ॥ १०.४७ ॥

हंसपथवारिपथाख्याः । एवम् ॥ १०.४७ ॥

047 To Sutas (belongs) the management of horses and of chariots; to Ambashthas, the art of healing; to Vaidehakas, the service of women; to Magadhas, trade;

For Niṣādas, the killing of fish; for Āyogavas, carpentry; and for medas, andhras, Cuñcus and Madgus, the killing of wild animals.—(48)

त्वष्टिर् दारुतक्षणं तक्षकर्म¹¹⁵ ॥ १०.४८ ॥

‘Carpentry’—Wood-cutting and other works of the carpenter.—(48)

“Govindarāja quotes a verse of Yama according to which the Cūcuka is the son of a Vaiśya by a Kṣatriya female and the Madgu the offspring of a Śūdra and a Kṣatriya”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in the Aparārka (p. 119.)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.46].

निषादप्रभवा बाह्याः निषादशब्देन गृह्यन्ते सामर्थ्यात् । तथा च कृतव्याख्यानम् एतत् पुरस्ताद् इति ॥ १०.४८ ॥

048 Killing fish to Nishadas; carpenters’ work to the Ayogava; to Medas, Andhras, Kunkus, and Madgus, the slaughter of wild animals;

For Kṣattṛs, Ugras and Pukkasas, the killing and catching of animals living underground; for Dhigvaṇas, work in leather; and for Veṇas the beating of drums.—(49)

बिलौकसो ऽहिनकुलगर्गरादयः । तेषां वधबन्धनं क्षत्रादीनां जीविका । चर्मकार्यं कवचादिसीवनम् उपानद्ग्रथनम् इत्य् एवमादि । भाण्डवादनं मुरजार्धमुर्जादीनाम् ॥ १०.४९ ॥

‘Animals living underground’—Snakes, mangoose, the ‘gargara’—fish, and so forth;—‘the killing and catch ing’ of these is the livelihood of the Kṣattṛ and the rest.

‘Working in leather’;—the sewing of armour and other things, shoe-making and so forth.

‘Beating of drums’—such as the Muraja, the Ārdhamuraja and the rest.

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.46].

049 To Kshattris, Ugras, and Pukkasas, catching and killing (animals) living in holes; to Dhigvanas, working in leather; to Venas, playing drums.

Near worshipped trees and cremation-grounds, on hills and in groves, these shall dwell, duly marked, subsisting by their respective occupations.—(50)

बहिर्ग्रामनिवासिनः पर्वतलक्षणप्रदेशे निवसेयुः¹¹⁶ । विज्ञाता जातिचिह्नं¹¹⁷ विदुषाम् । यद् यस्य कर्म विहितं स तेनैव जीवेत् । उत्कृष्टं कर्म संकरं च¹¹⁸ कर्तुं न लभते ॥ १०.५० ॥

They shall dwell outside the village; in hilly tracts and other such places.

‘Duly marked’—Bearing their distinctive caste-mark. They shall subsist by the particular occupation prescribed for each. That is, mixed castes should not take to the occupations of the superior castes.—(50)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.46].

050 Near well-known trees and burial-grounds, on mountains and in groves, let these (tribes) dwell, known (by certain marks), and subsisting by their peculiar occupations.

The dwelling of Caṇḍālas and Śvapacas shall be outside the village; they shall be made ‘Apapātra,’ and their wealth shall consist of dogs and donkeys.—(51)

प्रतिश्रयो निवासस् तेषां ग्रामान् निष्क्रान्तः स्यात् । अपपात्राश् चिरवसानीयास् तैर् येषु पात्रेषु भुक्तं तानि न संस्कार्याणि, त्यक्ताव्यानि । सौवर्णराजताभ्याम् अन्यानि । तयोः शुद्धिविशेषा उक्ताः । अथ वा “अवपात्राः”¹¹⁹ । तदीयेषु च सक्तेषु¹²⁰ पात्रेषु सक्तुभक्तादि न दातव्यम् । भूमिष्ठे पात्रे ऽन्यहस्तस्थे वा दत्वा तत्पात्रं भूमौ स्थितं तद् गृह्णीयुः । भिन्नं वा पात्रम् “अवपात्रम्” यथा वक्ष्यति “भिन्नभाण्डे च भोजनम्” (म्ध् १०.५२) इत्यादि । धनम् एषां श्वगर्दभम् । गवाश्वादि सुवर्णरजतादि न¹²¹ धनत्वेन गृह्णीयुः ॥ १०.५१ ॥

‘Dwelling’—living place; this should be far removed from the village.

‘Apapātra,’—(a) Kept aloof; the vessels in which they have eaten shall not be cleaned for further use; they shall be thrown away; with the exception of gold and silver vessels, in connection with which special methods of cleaning have been prescribed.

(b) Or, the term ‘Apapātra’ may mean that when cooked rice, fried flour or some such food is given to them, they shall not be given in vessels that are in contact with their body; the food shall be given into the vessel lying on the ground, or held in the hand by some one else, and when the vessel thus filled has been placed on the ground, it shall be taken away by them.

(c) Or again, ‘Apapātra’ may mean broken vessel; as it is going to be asserted (in the next verse) that ‘they shall eat in broken dishes.’

‘Their wealth shall consist of dogs and donkeys’—They shall not receive cows or horses, or gold and silver, as their wealth.—(51)

(verses 10.51-56)

Mahābhārata (13.48.82).—‘They shall betake themselves to road-crossings, crematoriums, hills and trees; and shall wear iron-ornaments.’

Viṣṇu (16.11, 14).—‘Chaṇḍālas should live by executing criminals sentenced to death. Caṇḍālas should live out of the town and their clothes should consist of the mantles of the deceased.’

051 But the dwellings of Kandalas and Svapakas shall be outside the village, they must be made Apapatras, and their wealth (shall be) dogs and donkeys.

The clothes of dead bodies shall be their dress; they shall eat in broken dishes; their ornaments shall be of iron, and they shall be constantly wandering.—(52)

सर्वकालं परिव्रज्या, नैकत्रस्थाने वसेयुः ॥ १०.५२ ॥

They shall be always wandering; not remaining at any one place.—(52)

052 Their dress (shall be) the garments of the dead, (they shall eat) their food from broken dishes, black iron (shall be) their ornaments, and they must always wander from place to place.

One who follows the law shall not seek intercourse with them; their transactions shall be among themselves and their marriages with their equals.—(53)

समयः संकेत एककार्यता, संगतिर् इत्य् अनर्थान्तरम् । एकत्र स्थानासनविहारास् तैः सह न कर्तव्या इत्य् अर्थः । विवाहो दारग्रहणादिः । सो ऽप्य् एवम् एव ॥ १०.५३ ॥

‘Intercourse’—‘agreement,’ ‘co-operation,’ ‘association’ are all synonymous. The meaning is that one should not stand or sit or walk about in their company.

‘Marriage’—taking of wife, and such other acts, should also be done by them among equals only.—(53)

053 A man who fulfils a religious duty, shall not seek intercourse with them; their transactions (shall be) among themselves, and their marriages with their equals.

Their food should be given to them, through others, and in a broken dish; they shall not wander about in villages or cities during the night.—(54)

तत् साक्षाद् एषां न दातव्यम् । प्रेष्यैः कैश्चित् पूर्वोक्तेन प्रकारेण दापयितव्यः । रात्रौ स्पर्शाशङ्कयान्तर्ग्रामनगरचर्याप्रतिषेधः ॥ १०.५४ ॥

The householder shall not give the food with his own hands; he shall cause it to be given by his servants, in the manner described above.

The prohibition of wandering about at night in villages, and cities is with a view to prevent the chance of people being touched.—(54)

“Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa take the beginning of the verse differently—Their food shall be given to them by others in a broken vessel.”—Buhler.

054 Their food shall be given to them by others (than an Aryan giver) in a broken dish; at night they shall not walk about in villages and in towns.

During the day they may go about on business distinguished by royal signs; they shall carry out corpses of people without relations; such is the law.—(55)

दिवा विचरन्ति कार्यार्थं क्रयविक्रयस्वकार्यसिद्ध्यर्थम् । राजकार्याय वा चरेयुर् नगरोत्सवप्रेक्षादिनिमित्तम् । तत्रापि च चिह्निता राजशासनैर् उपलक्षिता राजादिष्टैर् वज्रादिचिह्नैः, वध्यवधशासनैर् वा परशुकुठारादिभिः स्कन्धारोपितैः ॥ १०.५५ ॥

तथा चाह ।

‘During the day’—they ‘go about on business,’—‘i.e., for the purpose of effecting purchases and sales; or on the King’s business, for looking after rejoicings in the city and such other purposes. All this time too they shall be ‘distinguished by royal signs’—i.e., marked by such signs as those of the thunderbolt and the like, which may be determined by the King;—or by carrying on their shoulder the axe or the chopper or some such weapon as is used in the execution of criminals.—(55)

‘Chihnitāḥ’—‘Distinguished—by a thunder-bolt or some such weapon carried on the shoulder’ (Medhātithi),—“by sticks and so forth (Govindarāja),—‘by iron ornaments and peacock’s feathers’ (Nārāyaṇa),—‘branded on the forehead and other parts of the body’ (Rāghavananda).

055 By day they may go about for the purpose of their work, distinguished by marks at the king’s command, and they shall carry out the corpses (of persons) who have no relatives; that is a settled rule.

They shall always execute criminals, in accordance with law, under the orders of the king; and they shall take away the clothes, the beds and the ornaments of those executed.—(56)

All this has been already described.—(56)

वृत्तिनिवासप्रकरणं वर्णापशदानाम् एवैतत् । आगमाभावे चानुमानतः एतं प्रतिलोमं निन्दितकर्माभ्याससामर्थाद् अविज्ञातम् आगतम् इत्य् आहुः ॥ १०.५६ ॥

056 By the king’s order they shall always execute the criminals, in accordance with the law, and they shall take for themselves the clothes, the beds, and the ornaments of (such) criminals.

The man of impure origin, who is devoid of caste, unknown, a non-Aryan, even though having the appearance of an Aryan,—one shall discover by his acts.—(57)

वर्णाद् अपेतं चातुर्वर्ण्याद् भ्रष्टम्¹²² । अविज्ञातं सत्यां शङ्कायाम्, जारजातं वक्ष्यमाणैः कर्मभिः स्वभावातिशयैश् च निश्चिनुयात् । हीनकर्मरतिः क्रूरकर्मा च सत्यां शङ्कायां कलुषयोनिजो जारजातो वेदितव्यः ॥ १०.५७ ॥

‘Devoid of caste’—fallen off from the four castes.

‘Unknown’—i.e., there being doubts regarding his parentage, known to be born illegitimately.

‘By acts’—going to be described,—as also by the distinctive features of their character,—they shall be recognised. That is, if a man is found to be addicted to wicked acts, and of cruel disposition, and if his parentage is doubtful, it should be concluded that he is of low birth, born illegitimately.—(57)

**(verses 10.57-61)
**

Vaśiṣṭha (18.7).—‘They quote the following—“One may know by their deeds those who have been begotten secretly, and to whom the stigma of springing from unions in the inverse order of the caste attaches, because they are destitute of virtue and good conduct.”’

Viṣṇu (16.17).—‘All members of the mixed castes may be found out by their deeds, whether their descent has been kept secret or is generally known.’

Mahābhārata (13.48.41-44).—‘The purity of one’s birth can be found out from his deeds (then the same as Manu 58 and 59).’

वर्णेभ्यो ब्राह्मणादिभ्यो [ऽपेतम् अ]नार्यं कर्मभिः स्वैः कलुषयोन्य्अनुरूपैर् इत्य् अर्थः । कानि पुनस् तानि । यत इदम् उच्यते ॥ १०.५७ ॥

057 A man of impure origin, who belongs not to any caste, (varna, but whose character is) not known, who, (though) not an Aryan, has the appearance of an Aryan, one may discover by his acts.

Snobbishness, harshness, cruelty, and proneness to neglect duties, mark the man of impure origin in this world.—(58)

अनार्यो द्वेषमत्सरप्रधानः । निष्ठुरः स्वार्थपरः । क्रूरो लोभहिंसापरः । निःक्रियात्मा विहितक्रियावर्जितः । एतैः स्वभावैः कलुषयोनिता व्यज्यते ॥ १०.५८ ॥

That man is called a ‘snob’ in whose character jealousy and envy form the predominant features, who is entirely selfish; and he is called ‘cruel’ when he is addicted to greed and injuring others.

‘Neglect of duties’—omission of prescribed duties. These characteristics betray the man of low origin.—(58)

**(verses 10.57-61)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.57].

[अनार्यम् अन्त्यजम् अनार्य]बाष्यम् इमं वेतु [अनार्यता] निष्ठुरता क्रूरता निष्क्रियात्मतेति एवमादीनां कलुषयोनिलिङ्गानां निदर्शनार्थान्य् एतानि नान्यनिवृत्त्यर्थानि । एवं च सत्य् एवमादीनि पुरुषं व्यञ्जयन्तीह लोके कलुषयोनिजं मुख्यकुलसंभूतम् अपि । कस्य पुनर् हेतोः । बीजानुविधानात् तत्कार्याणाम् । तथा दर्शयति ॥ १०.५८ ॥

058 Behaviour unworthy of an Aryan, harshness, cruelty, and habitual neglect of the prescribed duties betray in this world a man of impure origin.

The base-born man bears the character or his father, or of his mother, or of both; he can never conceal his origin.—(59)

दुर्योनिः संकीर्णजन्मा । प्रकृतिं स्वाम् आत्मीयं कारणं न नियमेन गृह्णाति ॥ १०.५९ ॥

‘Base-born’—of mixed origin.

‘His origin’;—he cannot hide his birth.—(59)

**(verses 10.57-61)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.57].

पित्र्यं वा भजते शीलं मतुर् वोभयम् एव वा ।

एवं च लोके कार्याणां कारणानुविधानं दृष्टम् । यतश् चैतद् एवम् अतः ।

न कथंचन दुर्योनिः प्रकृतिं स्वां नियच्छति ॥ १०.५९ ॥

एवं चागमतो ऽविज्ञातस्य प्रतिपत्तये ऽनुमानं युक्तम् । एवं च दर्शयति ।

059 A base-born man either resembles in character his father, or his mother, or both; he can never conceal his real nature.

Even when one is born in a great family, if there be a confusion regarding his parentage, he surely imbibes the traits thereof, to a greater or less extent.—(60)

तस्य शीलं येन जातः, न तु यस्य क्षेत्रम् । स लोके प्रसिद्धः ॥ १०.६० ॥

He imbibes the traits of the man who begot him, and not of him to whom the ‘soil’ belonged (i.e., his mother’s husband), who is known as his ‘father.’—(60)

**(verses 10.57-61)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.57].

कुले मुख्ये ऽपि जातस्य अस्य स्याद् योनिसंकरः ।

प्रच्छन्नतयाविज्ञातः ।

संश्रयत्य् एव तच् छीलं नरो ऽल्पम् अपि वा बहु ॥ १०.६० ॥

यथा[श्वतरो] रासभजातः, तस्माद् अव्यभिचार्ये तदनुमानं विज्ञेयम् । यथा भद्रे ऽन्यमृगसंकीर्णानां जातिविशेषाणां शास्त्रलक्षणाद् अनुमानात् तद्विशेषप्रतिपत्तिः, एवम् इहापीति । अस्य चोपदेशप्रयोजनम् । यथैवागमतो विज्ञातैः वर्णापशदैः सह व्यवहारो न क्रियते, एवम् अनुमानतो विज्ञतैः सहेति । यतश् चैतद् एवम् । अतो वर्णसंकरो राज्ञो ऽपि प्रयत्नतो रक्षणीयः । यस्माद् आह ॥ १०.६० ॥

060 Even if a man, born in a great family, sprang from criminal intercourse, he will certainly possess the faults of his (father), be they small or great.

That kingdom in which such caste-defilers are born of criminal intercourses, speedily perishes, along with the people.—(61)

तस्माद् वर्णसंकरो राज्ञा परिवर्जनीयः । राष्ट्रिया जानपदाः । राष्ट्रम् अमात्यादयः ॥ १०.६१ ॥

For this reason the King should prevent such caste-confusions.

‘People’—inhabitants of the Kingdom.

‘Kingdom’—the Minister and others.—(61)

**(verses 10.57-61)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.57].

राज्ञो रक्षणार्थम् इदं निन्दावचनं विज्ञेयम्, विपर्ययस्तुत्यर्थम् । इदानीम् एषां कर्मस्व् अनधिकृतानां शुद्धिहेतुर् अयम् उच्यत उत्कर्षार्थम् ॥ १०.६१ ॥

061 But that kingdom in which such bastards, sullying (the purity of) the castes, are born, perishes quickly together with its inhabitants.

For aliens perfection is secured by unrequitedly giving up the body for the sake of Brāhmaṇas and cows, and in defence of women and children.—(62)

अनुपस्कृतो धनम् अगृहीत्वा । अभ्यवपत्तिर् अनुग्रहः । बाह्यानां प्रतिलोमानाम् । सिद्धिकारणम् उत्कृष्टजातौ जन्मसिद्धेः सिद्धिहेतुत्वाद्¹²³ एवम् उच्यते । तादृशं जन्म लभन्ते यथाधिकृता भवन्ति । स्वर्गादिप्राप्तिर् वा सिद्धिः ॥ १०.६२ ॥

‘Unrequitedly’—without: receiving any reward.

‘Defence’—favour.

‘Aliens’—children born in the ‘inverse order.’

‘Perfection is secured’;—the attaining of a superior caste is called ‘perfection,’ on the ground of its leading up to it; the meaning being that these people come to be born in a caste where they become entitled to the rights and responsibilities of the higher caste.

Or, ‘perfection’ may stand for the attaining of heaven.—(62)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 119):—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 7b.)

Mahābhārata (13.48.34-35).—‘Rendering help to cows and Brāhmaṇas, and practising sympathy, mercy, truthfulness, forgiveness and protecting others even by one’s own body,—these are the means of success for outcasts.’

Viṣṇu (16.18).—‘Giving up life, regardless of any reward, in order to save a Brāhmaṇa, or a cow, or for the sake of a woman or a child,—may confer heavenly bliss even upon members of the base castes.’

बाह्याः प्रतिलोमा गृह्यन्ते । अनुपस्कृतो धनेनापरिक्रीतः । देहत्यागविशेषणम् इदम् । सिद्धिर् अधिकारस्यान्यजन्मनि सिद्धिर् इति कारणाद् उच्यते अधिकारसामर्थ्यात् । अथ वा व्यवहितैव स्वर्गप्राप्तिः । नियोगार्थम् इदं प्रायश्चित्तशास्त्रं प्रतिलोमानाम् एवेति केचित् कल्पयन्ति । अपरे तु दण्डापूपिकया सर्वेषाम् अविशेषेनेदम् इच्छन्ति । अस्य देहत्यागस्य प्रायश्चित्तार्थम् उपदेशाद् बाह्यानां पुरुषधर्मार्थम् इदम् उच्यते ॥ १०.६२ ॥

062 Dying, without the expectation of a reward, for the sake of Brahmanas and of cows, or in the defence of women and children, secures beatitude to those excluded (from the Aryan community, vahya.)

Abstention from injuring, truthfulness, abstention from unlawful appropriation, purity and control of the sense-organs,—this Manu has declared to be the sum and substance of duty for the four castes.—(63)

शौचं मृज्जलादिबाह्यगतम् । सामासिकं समस्तस्य सर्वमुष्यभेदजातेर् उक्तम्, न ब्राह्मणादिजतिविभागेन । व्याख्यातम् अन्यत् । यद्य् अहिंसा प्रतिलोमानां धर्मः स्यात्, कथं तर्हि तद् उक्तम्- “मत्स्यघातो निषादानाम्” (म्ध् १०.४८), “बिलौको वधबन्धनम्” (म्ध् १०.४९), क्षत्रादीनाम् “अरण्यपशुहिंसनम्” (म्ध् १०.४८) एवं च¹²⁴

केचिद् आहुः- ये जीविकाहेतुतया वध्यत्वेनोक्तास् ततो ऽन्यत्राहिंसा । अन्ये मन्यन्ते- अहिंसा तेषाम् अभ्युदयसाधनहेतुत्वेन धर्मः, न तु प्रतिषेधो हिंसायाः संमत इति । यथा “न मांसभक्षणे दोषः” (म्ध् ५.५६) इतिवत् । यद्य् अहिंसा धर्मस् तेषाम्, कथं तर्हि तैर् जीवितव्यम् । यथा कुतश्चिद् अवगमात्¹²⁵ तेषाम् अनुपपन्ना ¹²⁶ हिंसानिवृत्तिर्¹²⁷ धर्मायेति चेत्, तदा को जीवनोपायः । अन्याश् च वृत्तयः प्रतिवर्णनियताः । अध्यापनादयस् तावद् अत्यन्तासंभवाद् अप्राप्ताः । कृष्यादयो ऽपि वैश्यनियताः । शूद्रस्य सेवा, अन्या वा साधारणी वृत्तिर् अस्ति । यथा वर्तेरन् “विद्या शिल्पम्” (म्ध् १०.११६) इत्य् अत्र दर्शयिष्यामः । यद् अपीदम् उच्यते “ते निन्दितैर् वर्तेयुर् द्विजानाम् एव कर्मभिः” इति तत्र किम् अस्ति निन्दिततरम् अन्यद् अतो हिंसायाः । न च मत्स्यघातो द्विजानाम् उपयुज्यते । श्राद्धे ऽतिथिभोजनादौ च कदाचित्क उपयोगः, न सार्वकालिको जीविकाभावः । तस्मान् न घातादि स्वतन्त्रम् ॥ १०.६३ ॥

‘Purity’—refers to external purity, brought about by the use of clay, water and such things.

‘Sum, and substance.’—This means that this is what pertains to entire human community, and not only to the Brāhmaṇa and the other castes.

The rest has been already explained.

“If ‘abstention from injuring creatures’ is the duty of the mixed castes of the ‘inverse’ order, how is it that it has been declared that—‘killing fish is the livelihood of the Niṣādas’ (48), ‘and the catching of animals,’ living underground’ (49), and ‘the killing of wild animals for the Kṣattṛ and others?’”

In answer to this some people offer the explanation that the ‘abstention from injuring’ refers to injury other than that which has been prescribed as one’s livelihood.

Others think that what is here meant is that ‘abstention from injury’ is that kind of duty which is the source of spiritual welfare, and it does not mean the absolute prohibition of all injury. Just As it is in the case of the assertion—‘there is no harm in the eating of meat etc., etc.’

“If ‘abstention from injury’ is a duty, how are the men to subsist? Other sources of income being not available to them, and abstention from injury being regarded sis conducive to spiritual welfare, what would be their means of livelihood? Specially as all other professions have been restricted to each distinct caste. For instance, teaching and other similar professions; are absolutely impossible, and cannot be available; agriculture and cognate professions are restricted to Vaiśyas; and service is the exclusive duty of the Śūdra.”

How these men are to subsist we shall explain below, under 116. It is further stated (in 46) that ‘they shall subsist by doing undespised manual labour for the twice-born people’; and what could be more ‘despised’ than injuring living beings? As for the ‘killing of fish,’ this could be of no use to twice-born men? It is true that an occasional use for it has been spoken of in connection with Śrāddhas and the reception of guests; but that could not serve as a permanent means of livelihood.

From all this it follows that no one is free to do any killing or injuring of living beings.—(63)

Yājñavalkya (1.122).—‘Abstention from injury, Truthfulness, Abstention from theft, Purity, Control of the senses, Liberality, Self-control, Mercy, Tolerance,—these are the means of righteousness for all men.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 164).—‘Freedom from cruelty, Abstention from injury, Kindness, Liberality, Performance of Śrāddha, Honouring guests, Truthfulness, Freedom from anger, Contentment with one’s own wife, Purity, Freedom from envy, Self-knowledge and Patience are the common virtues…… Truth, Self-control, Austerity, Purity, Contentment, Shyness, Tolerance, Straightforwardness, Wisdom, Calmness, Mercy, Concentrated mind—these constitute the eternal Dharma.—That is Truth which is beneficial to living beings; Self-Control consists in controlling the mind; Austerity consists in remaining firm in one’s own duty; Purity consists in the evading of inter-mixtures; Contentment consists in giving up objects of sense; Shyness consists in desisting from evil deeds; Tolerance consists in the capacity to bear the pairs of opposites; Straightforwardness consists in balance of mind; Wisdom consists in discerning the true nature of things; Calmness consists in peacefulness of mind; Mercy consists in the inclination to do good to living beings;—this is eternal Dharma.’

Bṛhaspati (Do.).—‘Mercy, Tolerance, Freedom from envy, Purity, Abstention from over-exertion, Propitiousness, Freedom from miserliness, Freedom from desires,—these are common to all men.—When one protects another person in times of trouble,—whether he be a stranger or a relation, an enemy or a friend,—this is what is meant by Mercy. Tolerance is that by virtue of which one does not become angry on suffering pain. When one does not feel unhappy at the good qualities of another, and eulogises even those whose qualities are not of the best;—this is called Freedom from envy. Purity consists in avoiding forbidden food and in associating with blameless persons. When one avoids those acts which, though good, bring suffering to the body, that is Abstention from over-exertion. Propitiousness consists in doing what is good and desisting from what is not commended. Freedom from Miserliness is that by virtue of which one gives away, without pain, even the little that he possesses. Freedom from Desires is that by which one remains contented with whatever he obtains, without thinking of what others have got.’

Gautama (8.22-23).—‘Now follow the eight qualities of the soul—Compassion on all creatures, Forbearance, Freedom from anger, Purity, Quietism, Propitiousness, Freedom from avarice and Freedom from covetousness.’

Āpastamba (1.23-6).—‘Freedom from anger, from exultation, from grumbling, from covetousness, from perplexity, from hypocrisy and hurtfulness,—Truthfulness, Moderation in eating, Silencing slander, Freedom from envy, Self-denying, Liberality, Avoiding of gifts, Uprightness, Affability, Extinction of the passions, Subjugation of the senses, Peace with all beings, Concentration of mind, Regulation of conduct according to the Āryas, Peacefulness and Contentment;—these good qualities have been settled by the agreement of the wise for all the four orders. He who, according to the precepts of the sacred Law, practises these, enters the Universal Self.’

Viṣṇu (2.16-17).—‘Forbearance, Veracity, Restraint, Purity, Liberality, Self-control, Avoiding the killing of animals, Obedience to elders, Pilgrimage, Sympathy with the afflicted,—Straightforwardness, Freedom from covetousness, Reverence towards God and Brāhmaṇas, and Freedom from anger are duties common to all.’

एवं च प्रकरणसामर्थाच् चातुर्वर्णान्तरप्रभावानाम् अप्य् अहिंसादिपुरुषधर्मो विज्ञेयः । एवं चायं शनकैः सिद्धिहेतुर् एषाम् । पूर्वस् तु सामर्थ्यात् सद्य एव इति विज्ञायते, पूर्वस्माद् ब्राह्मणादिवर्णलक्षणशस्त्रात् “सर्ववर्णेषु तुल्यासु” इत्य् एवमादेः । अन्यथा ब्राह्मणत्वादीन्य् अप्राप्तानि । इष्यन्ते च तान्य् उत्कर्षापकार्षाभ्याम् अपि । यत इदम् आरभ्य[ते] ॥ १०.६३ ॥

063 Abstention from injuring (creatures), veracity, abstention from unlawfully appropriating (the goods of others), purity, and control of the organs, Manu has declared to be the summary of the law for the four castes.

If the child born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa goes on being wedded to a superior person,—the inferior attains the superior caste, within the seventh generation.—(64)

“गर्भे गृह्णाति,” “गर्भश् च श्रवणाज् जातः” इति पुंल्लिङ्ग्निर्देशे ऽपत्यार्थयोगता¹²⁸ विज्ञेया । अत इदम् उक्तं भवति । शूद्रायां ब्राह्मणात् या जाता कुमारी, सा चेच् छ्रेयसा जात्युत्कर्षवता ब्राह्मणेनैव प्रजायते विवाहादिसंस्कृतापत्योत्पत्तिहेतुसंबन्धं प्राप्नोति । तस्याम् अपि यदि कुमारी जायते सा ब्राह्मणेनैव विवाह्यते । एवम् अनया परंपरया सप्तमे पुरुषे प्राप्ते ब्राह्मण्यां यस् तत्र जायते तस्य भवति । श्रेयसेति यद्य् अप्य् उत्कृष्टजातीयमात्रे वर्तते, तथापीह ब्राह्मणपदसंनिधानात्, उत्तरत्र च “शूद्रो ब्राह्मणताम् एति” (म्ध् १०.६५) इति वचनात्, ब्राह्मण्यप्राप्तिः शूद्रवर्णस्य विज्ञेया । अनयैव कल्पनया पञ्चमे वैश्यायां जातस्य वर्णस्य, तृतीये क्षत्रियायाम् । अत्रापि स्त्रीत उत्कर्षः । एवं वैश्यस्य तृतीये क्षत्रियत्वम् । शूद्रायां जातायाः कुमार्या वैश्यान्तरेण संयोगे तृतीये जन्मन्ति वैश्यत्वम् । क्षत्रियजातायाः शूद्रायाः पञ्चमे युग इति । युगशब्दो जन्मवचनः । अश्रेयान् निकृष्टजातीयः स्रेयसीम् उत्कृष्टां जातिं गच्छति प्राप्नोति । आङ् अभिविधौ व्यापकार्थः ॥ १०.६४ ॥

The offspring here referred to (though mentioned by a masculine noun) stands for the child in general, just as in the case of such assertions as ‘garbhe gṛhṇāṭi,’ ‘gorbhe jātaḥ’ and so forth. The sense of the verse thus comes to be this:—‘A maiden born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa father,—if she is ‘wedded to’—acquires the capacity for bearing children, by becoming conjoined in wedlock to—a person of a superior caste i.e., the Brāhmaṇa,—and the girl born of this maiden is again married to a Brāhmaṇa,—and this goes on for seven generations, then in the seventh generation, the child that is born becomes a regular Brāhmaṇa.’

Though the text speaks of the ‘superior caste’ in general, yet it should be taken as meaning that the Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa; and this because the Brāhmaṇa is mentioned in the text, and also because the next verse speaks of the Śūdra attaining the position of the Brāhmaṇa.

On the principle enunciated here, the child born from the Vaiśya mother (and the Brāhmaṇa hither) attains the superior caste in the fifth generation; and that born from the Kṣatriya mother, in the third generation.

In all these cases the ‘superiority’ is in comparison to the caste of the mother. So that if the girl born to a Vaiśya father from a Śūdra mother is married to a Vaiśya, she attains the superior caste in the third generation; and the girl born of the Śūdra mother to the Kṣatriya hither, on marrying the Kṣatriya, acquires the higher caste in the fifth generation. The term ‘yuga’ here stands for birth, generation.

The ‘inferior’—one belonging to a lower caste—attains the ‘superior’—the higher caste.

The article ‘ā’ (in the expression ‘ā saptamāt’) indicates limit.—(64)

If the daughter of a Brāhmaṇa from a Śudrā female and all their descendants marry Brāhmaṇas, the offspring of the sixth female descendant of the original couple will become a Brāhmaṇa (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).—If the son of a Brāhmaṇa from a Śūdra female marries a similar girl possessed of excellent virtues and if his descendants go on doing the same, the child born of the sixth generation will become a Brāhmaṇa (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana)

**(verses 10.64-65)
**

[[See texts under 42.]]

Gautama (4.22).—‘In the seventh generation, men obtain a change of caste, either being raised to a higher, or degraded to a lower one.—The venerable teacher declares that this happens in the fifth generation.’

Yājñavalkya (1.96).—[(See under 24 above.)]

शूद्रायां ब्राह्मणाज् जातो वर्णः स्त्रीलक्षणः पारशवाख्यः, श्रेयसा चेद् ब्राह्मणेनैव पुंनाम्ना पुनः पुनः प्रजायते, एवम् अनेन प्रकारेणासाव् अश्रेयाञ् छौद्रो वर्णः श्रेयसीं ब्राह्मणजातिं गच्छत्य् आ स्पतमाद् युगाज् जन्मन इत्य् अर्थः । बीजप्राधान्येन । अतश् चानेन युगपरिवर्तक्रमेण ॥ १०.६४ ॥

064 If (a female of the caste), sprung from a Brahmana and a Sudra female, bear (children) to one of the highest caste, the inferior (tribe) attains the highest caste within the seventh generation.

The Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa and the Brāhmaṇa sinks to the position of the Śūdra; the same should be understood to be the case with the offspring of the Kṣatriya or of the vaiśya.—(65)

शूद्रो ब्राह्मणताम् एतीत्य् उक्तो अर्थः । ब्राह्मणश् चैति शूद्रताम् । ब्राह्मणो ऽत्र पारशवो ब्राह्मणजातो विज्ञेयः । स चोक्तलक्षणशूद्रां यदि परिणयते तदापकर्षं जन्मनि प्राप्नोति । तृतीय इति व्याचक्षते । यथोक्ते¹²⁹ युगपरिवर्ते उत्कर्षं प्राप्ता¹³⁰ यथा संस्कारैः कर्मभिश् चाधिक्रियन्ते ॥ १०.६५ ॥

That ‘the Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa’ is what, has already been asserted above.

‘The Brāhmaṇa sinks to the position of the Śūdra’.—The ‘Brāhmaṇa’ meant here should be understood to be the Brāhmaṇa-born ‘Pārāśatra.’ If he marries a Śūdra girl of the nature described above, he sinks down to the lower level, in the third generation. This is how they explain this.

People who attain the higher caste, according to the principle here enunciated, become entitled to the sacraments and rites pertaining to that caste.—(65)

**(verses 10.64-65)
**

[[See texts under 42.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.64].

यथा शूद्र एवम्

ब्राह्मणश् चैति शूद्रताम् ।

पारशवाख्यः शूद्रपुरुषसंबन्धेन । एवं च शूद्रपुरुषाद् अपकर्षः । पारसववर्णस्य शूद्रत्वम् आ सप्तमाद् युगाद् विज्ञेयम् ।

क्षत्रियाज् जातम् एवं च विद्याद् वैश्यात् तथैव च ॥ १०.६५ ॥

शूद्रायाम् उत्कर्षापकर्षौ च विद्यात् । पञ्चमे युगपरिवर्तने । अत्रापि स्त्रीत उत्कर्षः पुरुषाद् अपकर्षः । वैश्याज् जातो ऽपि वर्णशूद्रायाम् एवम् उत्कर्षापकर्षाभ्यां तृतीये जन्मनि सामर्थ्याद् विज्ञेयः । अनेनैव न्यायेन ब्राह्मणजातो ऽपि वर्णक्xअत्रियस् तृतीये जन्मनि क्षत्रियसंबन्धेन क्षत्रियवर्णाद् विज्ञेयः । तथा च ब्राह्मणाद् वैश्यायां पञ्चमे जन्मन्य् उत्कर्षापकर्षौ सामर्थ्याद् विज्ञायेते । क्षत्रियेण च वैश्यायाम् अनन्तरायाम् एष एव न्यायः । यथा ब्राह्मणस्य क्xअत्रियायाम् इति । अशाब्दं चैतत् सामर्थ्यसिद्धं व्याख्येयम्, प्रथमश्लोकलिङ्गात् । अथ वा दृष्टा[र्थ् ऽयम् उपदेशः । यथा] ब्राह्मनवर्णो योनिदोषात् पारशवात्मना शूद्रसंबन्धेन निष्कृष्तमाणः शूद्रो भवत्य् आ सप्तमाद् युगात्, एवं पारशवो वर्णः स्त्र्याख्यः ब्राह्मण[योनिसंबन्धे] वर्तमानो ब्राह्मणवर्णो भवति । अस्य च ब्राह्मणसंस्कारः श्रौतस्मार्तकर्माधिकारश् च पूर्वस्मरणवद् युक्तः । अपरस् त्व् आह- स्रौतेष्व् अस्य कर्मस्व् अनधिकारः । तद् अयुक्तम्, समानशास्त्रत्वात् पूर्वोत्तरयोः । तथा चोक्तं पुरस्ताद् इति । एवम् इदं बीजप्राधान्यम् उपश्रुत्याह यदि शूद्रो ब्राःमणताम् एति बीजप्राधान्येन ब्राह्मणश् चैति शूद्रतां क्षेत्रप्राधान्येन । एवं च सति ॥ १०.६५ ॥

065 (Thus) a Sudra attains the rank of a Brahmana, and (in a similar manner) a Brahmana sinks to the level of a Sudra; but know that it is the same with the offspring of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya.

(question).—If a child is somehow born to a Brāhmaṇa from a non-Aryan woman, and another is born to a non-Aryan from a Brāhmaṇa woman,—with which of these would the ‘superiority’ lie?—(66)

किंशब्दः क्षेपे । यदि बीजप्राधान्याद् धीनजातीयासु जाता मातृजातेर् उत्कृष्टाः क्रमेण पितृजातितां प्राप्नुवन्ति, इदं तर्हि क्षेत्रप्राधान्ये ऽपि द्रष्टव्यम्, यथा क्षेत्रजः पुत्रः । अतश् च यथा अनार्यायां शूद्रायां ब्राह्मणाज् जत उत्कृष्टो भवति, यदृच्छया यथा कथंचिद् अनूढायाम् अपि, एवं ब्राह्मण्याम् अनार्याच् छूद्रात् क्षेत्रप्राधान्येन श्रेयस्त्वम् । यथोक्तम् “क्वचित् बीनं क्वचिद् योनिः” (म्ध् ९.३४) इति ॥ १०.६६ ॥

‘Which’—denotes question.

If the ‘seed’ forms the more important factor, the children born from mothers of lower castes gradually attain the higher caste of the father; and the same principle might be applied to the case of the ‘soil’ being regarded as the more important factor. So that, just as the child born to the Brāhmaṇa father from a ‘Non-Aryan,’—i.e., Śūdra—mother—‘some-how’—i.e., even when the woman is not his married wife,—would attain the higher caste—so also ‘the child born to a non-Aryan from the Brāhmaṇa woman’ would attain the higher caste, on the ground of the ‘soil’ being the more important factor;—it having been declared (under 9.34) that ‘predominance attaches sometimes to the seed and sometimes to the soil’— (66)

‘Anāryāyām’—‘A Śūdra female’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana);—‘the daughter of a Vrātya and the like’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Yadṛcchayā’—‘By chance, i.e. even on an unmarried one’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja);—‘unknowingly’ (Nārāyaṇa).

**(verses 10.66-73)
**

[[See texts under 9.33 et seq.]]

अनार्यतो वा ब्राह्मण्यां स्रेयस्ताम् अनार्यायां शूद्रायां समुत्पन्नो ब्राह्मणात् तु यदृच्छया अप्य् अनूढायां किं पुनर् ऊढायाम् । यथा न गर्ह्यत्वं प्रशस्तश् च केवलशूद्रवैश्यक्षत्रियजातेभ्यो भवति, एवं ब्राह्मण्यां अप्य् अनार्याच् छूद्राज् जातस्यागर्ह्यत्वं पारशववत् प्राप्नोति, क्षेत्रप्राधान्यात्, स्रेयस्त्वं चास्य क्षत्रियावैश्यजाताभ्यां प्राप्नोति क्षेत्रसामर्थ्यात् । तथा च क्षेत्रजाताः सुता उपदिष्टाः शास्त्रत इति बीजप्राधान्याक्षेपाभिप्रायो ऽयं श्लोको वेदितव्यः । न संशयप्रश्नाख्यः । यथा न केचिद् आहुः । क्वचिद् बीजं क्वचिद् योनिर् इति बीजयोन्योः प्राधान्यानवस्थानात् संमोह इव जायत इति । एवं च सति बीजप्राधान्यप्रकरणम् अनुगृहीतं भवति । अस्योत्तरम् ॥ १०.६६ ॥

066 If (a doubt) should arise, with whom the preeminence (is, whether) with him whom an Aryan by chance begot on a non-Aryan female, or (with the son) of a Brahmana woman by a non-Aryan,

The decision is that—‘one born to an Ārya from a Non-Ārya woman may be an Ārya in quality; but one born to a Non-ārya even from an Ārya woman is always Non-Ārya’—(67)

नार्यां स्त्रियाम् अनार्यायां हीनजातीयायाम् आर्याज् जात उत्कृष्टजातीयाद् ब्राह्मणाद् आर्य एव भवेत् । किं ब्राह्मणजातीयत्वम् । नेत्य् आह- गुणैः । गुणतो गौण्या वृत्त्या पाकयज्ञाद्यधिकारमात्रेण । वक्ष्यमाणान् आर्यापेक्षय्आर्य इत्य् उच्यते । अनार्याच् छूद्राद् आर्यायां ब्राह्मण्यां जातो ऽनार्य एवैष निश्चयः । एतद् उक्तं भवति । यावद् वचनम् एव प्राधान्यम् अवतिष्ठते, नानुमानेन शक्यम् अन्यत् प्रसञ्जयितुम्¹³¹ । अतः समानजातीयागमनम् एव युक्तम्, क्षेत्रप्राधान्यं क्षेत्रज एव नान्यत्र¹³² ॥ १०.६७ ॥

एवं च कृत्वा ।

‘Woman’—female.

‘Non-Ārya’—belonging to a low caste.

‘To an Ārya’—to one belonging to a high caste.

Such a person would be an Ārya.

“Does he actually become a Brāhmaṇa?”

No; he is an ‘Ārya’ only ‘in quality,’—only figuratively; i.e., only so far as being entitled to the performance of the Pākayajña rites.

This person is called an ‘Ārya’ only in comparison with the person going to be described in the latter half of the text.

‘One born to a non-ārya’—a Śūdra—‘from an Ārya woman’—a Brāhmaṇa female—‘is always non-ārya’.

This is the decision.

The meaning of all this is that the pre-eminence of any mixed caste is to be accepted only in accordance with what is distinctly stated in the text, and no inferences should be drawn regarding this matter. Hence the right course would always be that one should have intercourse with a woman of the same caste as himself; and what is said regarding the^(‘)soil’ being the important factor, pertains only to the case of the^(‘)soil-born’ son, and not to any other cases.—(67)

This verse is quoted in ‘Vīramitrodaya’ (Saṃskāra, p. 396).

**(verses 10.66-73)
**

[[See texts under 9.33 et seq.]]

जातो नार्याम् अनार्यायाम् आर्याद् आर्यो भवेद् गुणः ।

पाकयज्ञादिभिः पारशवादिभिः,

जातो ऽप्य् अनार्याद् आर्यायाम् अनार्य इति निश्चयः ॥ १०.६७ ॥

चाण्डालादिभिः, तस्य शूद्रधर्मे ऽप्य् अनधिकारात् । अस्याभिप्रायः को हि शक्तो भगवतो धर्मस्य हेतुतः साधुत्वम् अवधारयितुम् । एवं हि हेत्वनवस्थानात् धर्मानवस्थानम् अपि प्रसज्येत । तथा चैतत् पुरस्तात् प्रत्याख्यातम् एव “अचिन्त्यस्याप्रमेयस्य” इत्य् अत्र । एवं च सति यथोपदेशं बीजयोन्योः प्राधान्यम् अभ्युपगन्तव्यम्, न त्व् अनुमानतः । उपदेशविषयाद् अन्यत्रापि यथा सुखदुःखयोर् धर्माधर्मोत्पत्ताव् इति । तथा च कृत्वा ॥ १०.६७ ॥

067 The decision is as follows: ‘He who was begotten by an Aryan on a non-Aryan female, may become (like to) an Aryan by his virtues; he whom an Aryan (mother) bore to a non-Aryan father (is and remains) unlike to an Aryan.’

The settled law is that both these are unfit for the sacraments:—the former on account of the defect in his birth and the latter by reason of his being horn ‘in the inverse order.’—(68)

उभाव् अपि, चण्डालः पाराशवश् चासंस्कार्याव् अनुपनेयौ । अत्र हेतुमन् निगदो ऽरथवादः । वैगुण्याज् जन्मतः पूर्वः । ब्राह्मणाद् यः शूद्रायां जातः, सत्य् अपि बीजप्राधान्ये विगुणम् एतस्य जन्म, योनिदोषात् । उत्तरश् चण्डालः । स प्रतिलोमो ऽत्यन्तप्रातिलोम्यात्, सत्य् अपि क्षेत्रप्राधान्ये, पितृदोषात् ॥ १०.६८ ॥

Both kinds of children just described,—i.e., the Caṇḍāla and the Pārāśara—‘are unfit for the sacraments’;—i.e., should not be ‘initiated.’

The text proceeds to add a declamatory statement by way of an argument for what has been just asserted—^(‘)The former on account of the defect in his birth’;—in the wise of the child born to a. Brāhmaṇa from the Śūdra woman, even though predominance may attach to the ‘seed,’ his birth is really defective, by reason of the lowness of his origin. ‘The latter,’—the Caṇḍāla, is born ‘in the inverse order,’ and is the. worst of the ‘inversely horn sons,’ on account of the lowness of his father, even though the ‘soil’ be regarded as the more important factor.—(68)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 396).

**(verses 10.66-73)
**

[[See texts under 9.33 et seq.]]

ताव् उभाव् अप्य् असंस्कार्याव् इति धर्मो व्यवस्थितः ।

न केवलं चण्डालादिः, किं तर्हि पारशवादयो ऽपि । तथा चोक्तम् ।

वैगुण्याज् जन्मनः पूर्व उत्तरः प्रतिलोमतः ॥ १०.६८ ॥

पारशवादिः सत्य् अपि बीजप्राधान्ये क्वचित्, उत्तरः चण्डालादिः प्रतिलोमतः पितृदोषात् सत्य् अपि योनिप्राधान्ये क्वचित् । लोकदृष्ट्या तु स्वजातिजान् अन्तरजान् पुनः स्तौति ॥ १० ६९ ॥

068 The law prescribes that neither of the two shall receive the sacraments, the first (being excluded) on account of the lowness of his origin, the second (because the union of his parents was) against the order of the castes.

Just as good seed grown in a good soil turns out well, so is the child born to an Ārya from an Ārya woman worthy of all sacraments.—(59)

पूर्वोकाव् असंस्कार्यौ, स्वजातिजास् तु संस्कार्याः, इत्य् उभयत्राप्य् अर्थवादः । अत एतद् एव स्थितम् । “क्वचिद् बीजं क्वचिद् योनिः” (म्ध् ९.३४) इति यथोपदेशात् । एकान्तरपरिग्रहस् तु न युक्तः ॥ १०.६९ ॥

The two spoken of above are not fit for the sacraments; but children born to one from his own caste are quite worthy of the sacraments. Both these are declamatory assertions. Hence the final conclusion on this matter remains that ‘in some cases it is the seed, and in others the soil, that is the predominant factor,’ just as it may be found to be definitely stated in the texts; but the marrying of a woman two degrees removed would not be proper.—(69)

**(verses 10.66-73)
**

[[See texts under 9.33 et seq.]]

सुबीजम् एव सुक्षेत्रे जातं संपद्यते यथा ।

एवं दृष्टान्तो लौकिकः,

तथार्यजातस् त्व् आर्यायां सर्वं संस्कारम् अर्हति ॥ १०.६९ ॥

उपदेशसामर्थ्याच् छ्रौतं स्मार्तं च । कः पुनर् असौ । स्वजातिजो ऽनन्तरजश् च शूद्रवर्जम् । पारशवादिस् त्व् अनुलोमो ऽपि स्मार्तम् एव पाकयज्ञादिकं, न श्रौतं “मातृदोषविगर्हणाद्” इत्य् उक्तम् । प्रतिलोमाः पुनर् आयोगवादयः पुरुषधर्मैर् अप्य् अहिंसादिभिर् अधिरियन्ते, ब्राह्मणादित्राने च देहत्यागेन । एवं च सत्य् एकान्तपरिग्रहेण सर्वत्र यत्,

069 As good seed, springing up in good soil, turns out perfectly well, even so the son of an Aryan by an Aryan woman is worthy of all the sacraments.

Some wise men extol the seed, while others the soil; while yet others extol both the seed and the soil. The decision on this point is as follows.—(70)

यथा त्रय एते पक्षाः । तेषां कश्चित् पक्षः केनचित् परिगृहीतः । केचिद् आहुर् बीजम् एव ज्यायः । तथा च ब्राह्मणाज् जातः क्षत्रियादित्रिषु मातृजातित उत्कृष्टः । अन्ये पुनर् आहुः- क्षेत्रं श्रेष्ठम्, यतः क्षेत्रियो यत्रो क्षेत्रे जातः तज्जातीयो भवति, तस्यैव च तदपत्यम् । अपरे मन्यन्ते- उभये बीजक्षेत्रे ज्यायसी । तद् उक्तम् “सुबीजं चैव सुक्षेत्रे” (म्ध् १०.६९) इति ।

• तद् एतत् सर्वम् अरोचयमान¹³³ आह- तत्रेयं तु व्यव्स्थितिः । इयम् अत्र निरूप्यावस्थितम् ॥ १०.७० ॥

There are three theories, each being held by some sage or the other.

(1) Some people assert that the ‘seed’ is the more important factor; so that the child born to a Brāhmaṇa from a woman of the Kṣatriya or other castes, is superior to his mother’s caste.

(2) Others declare the ‘soil’ to be the more important; whence the ‘soil-born’ son belongs to the caste of the mother from whom he is born, and to whom he belongs.

(3) Others again hold that both are equally important; as declared in 69—‘as good seed sown in good soil etc, etc.’

Not satisfied with any of these views, the Author adds—‘The decision on this point is as follows;’—i. e., after full consideration the following decision has been arrived at.—(70)

**(verses 10.66-73)
**

[[See texts under 9.33 et seq.]]

बीजम् एके प्रशंसन्ति

तद् अयुक्तम् । एवं यत्

क्षेत्रम् एके मनीषिणः ।

उभयत्रैकान्तयोर् दोषदर्शनात्,

बीजक्षेत्रे तथैवान्ये तत्रेयं तु व्यवस्थितिः ॥ १०.७० ॥

यद् अप्य् एकान्तत आहुः तद् अप्य् असाधु । यस्मात् क्षेत्रे वैगुण्ये ऽपि सति क्षत्रियावैश्ययोर् ब्राःमणक्षत्रियाभ्यां च गर्ह्यास् त्रयो ऽधिकृताश् च यथासंभवं कर्मभिर् दृश्यन्ते । तत्रैवम् एकान्तत्रये ऽपि दोषदर्शनाद् इयम् एव स्थितिः यथोक्ता विज्ञेयेति । अथ वा “सुबीजम् एव सुक्षेत्रे” इतीयम् उत्कर्षापेक्षा व्यवस्थोच्यते । पूर्वा तु यथाविषयम् उपदेशसामर्थ्याद् विज्ञेया । उभयप्राधान्यम् एव च परिगृह्येमाव् अन्वयव्यतिरेकाव् उच्येते ॥ १०.७० ॥

070 Some sages declare the seed to be more important, and others the field; again others (assert that) the seed and the field (are equally important); but the legal decision on this point is as follows:

The seed sown on barren soil perishes prematurely; and soil without the seed would be a mere barren plot.—(71)

अक्षेत्रे ऊषरे उत्सृष्टम् उप्तम् अपि बीजम् **अन्तरैव **अदत्वैव फलं नश्यति । अबीजकम् अयोग्यबीजकं वा¹³⁴ क्षेत्रं स्थण्डिलम् एव भवेत् खिलम् एव¹³⁵ । ततो न फलं लभ्यत इत्य् अर्थः ॥ १०.७१ ॥

‘Akṣetra’—barren ground.

‘Sown’—thrown in.

‘Perishes prematurely’—without yielding any harvest.

‘Without seed’—or sown with bad seed,—the soil is only a ‘barren plot’—an uncultivated land; and from this also no harvest is obtained.—(71)

**(verses 10.66-73)
**

[[See texts under 9.33 et seq.]]

अक्षेत्रे

शिलादौ

बीजम् उत्सृष्टम् अन्तरैव विनश्यति ।

अदत्तफलम् इत्य् अर्थः अथ वान्तरैव पटलादौ विनश्यति ।

अबीजकम् अपि क्षेत्रं केवलं स्थण्डिलं भवेत् ॥ १०.७१ ॥

सूपस्कृतम् अपि केवलं बीजरहितं स्थण्डिलम् निष्फलं भवेत् । अथ चोभयप्राधान्यं क्वचिद् उच्यते-

071 Seed, sown on barren ground, perishes in it; a (fertile) field also, in which no (good) seed (is sown), will remain barren.

Because through the power of the seed, those born of animals became sages, honoured and extolled, therefore it is the seed that is more important.—(72)

पूजिताः सर्वेण केनचित् प्रणम्यन्ते । प्रशस्ताः स्तुतिवचनैः स्तूयन्ते । तस्माद् बीजं विशिष्यत इति बीजप्राधान्यवादिनः । तद् एतद् अयुक्तम् इत्य् उक्तम्- “तत्रेयं तु व्यवस्थितिः” (म्ध् १०.७०) इति । अथ वा बीजप्रभावेणेति न बीजप्राधान्यं दर्शितम्, अपि तु दूषणम् एव । यदाशङ्क्यते¹³⁶ बीजप्राधान्यान् मन्दपालादीनां तिर्यग्जा ऋषय इति बीजप्राधान्यं तद्दर्शनात्, न तत्र बीजप्राधान्येन तदपत्यानाम् ऋषित्वम्, अपि तु तपःश्रुतादिजेन प्रभावेन धर्मविशेषेण ॥ १०.७२ ॥

‘Honoured’—saluted by men.

‘Extolled’—are eulogised with eulogistic words.

‘The seed is the more important’;—as held by those who declare the seed to be the more, important factor. This however is not right; as has been dearly indicated by [what was said under 70 above].

Or, what the expression ‘through the power o f the seed’ implies is, not the importance of the seed, but a defect;—the sense being that—‘people might be led to think that, the fact of Mandapāla and others, born of animals, having become sages through the power of the seed, proves the importance of the seed; but in reality, that the children became sages was due, not to the importance of the seed, but to the force of their learning and austerities and to their particularly meritorious acts.—(72)

**(verses 10.66-73)
**

[[See texts under 9.33 et seq.]]

यस्माद् बीजप्रभावेण तिर्यग्जा ऋषयो ऽभवन् ।

बीजं च प्रभावश् च- भीजप्रभावे द्वन्द्वैकवद्भावो नपुंसकलिङ्गः । बीजं यथोक्तम्, प्रभावः प्रतिनिविष्टधर्मविशेषाविष्कृतात्मत्वम्, तेन बीजप्रभ्[आवेण तिर्यग्जा] अपि सन्तः ऋषयो ऽभवन्-

**पूजिताश् च प्रशस्ताश् च **

ऋष्यशृङ्गप्रभृतयः यस्मात्,

तस्माद् बीजं प्रशस्यते ॥ १०.७२ ॥

इत्य् आहुः एतच् चैकान्तपरिग्रहे सत्य् उक्तदोषं बीजप्राधान्यं पुनर् निगमनायैतज् ज्ञापयति । बीजयोन्योः बीजोत्कृष्टजातिः प्रशस्यत इति । तथा च सत्य् अनुलोमान् उत्कृष्टान् एव सतः स्तौति क्षत्रियावैश्याजान् शूद्रावर्जम् । अयं च बीजयोन्योर् एवम् आत्मेति ॥ १० ७२ ॥

072 As through the power of the seed (sons) born of animals became sages who are honoured and praised, hence the seed is declared to be more important.

Having examined the Non-ārya behaving like an Ārya and the Ārya behaving like the Non-Ārya, the creator declared ‘that these are neither equal nor unequal.’—(73)

अनार्यः शूद्रः । स आर्यकर्मा द्विजातिशुश्रूषादिरतः पाकयज्ञयाजी च देवद्विजनमस्कारपरः । आर्यो ब्राह्मणादिः । सो ऽनार्यकर्मा प्रतिषिद्धाचरणो विहितकर्मत्यागी । ताव् उभौ संप्रधार्य तद्गुणत्वेनावगम्य तयोः किं कस्यचित् सातिशयो गुणः कस्याश्चिद् वा अन्ते निरूपणबुद्धिः । संप्रधार्य धाता प्राजपतिर् मनुर् बुद्ध्या¹³⁷ निरूप्य्आब्रवीत् । न समौ जातेर् गरीयस्या¹³⁸ उत्कृष्टगुणो ऽपि शूद्रः तुल्यः न स्यात्¹³⁹ । पुनर् आह- नासमौ । किं जात्या तूत्कृष्टयापि बहुदोषावगृहीतस्य । एतद् उक्तं भवति- न जातिबलम् आश्रित्य नरो माननीयः, किं तु गुणा माननीयाः । न गुणहीनं जातिः परित्रातुम् अलम्, प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशवैयर्थ्यप्रसङ्गात् । “अनार्यायां समुत्पन्नः” (म्ध् १०.६६) इत्य् अत आरभ्य यावद् अयं श्लोको वर्णसंकरनिन्दाकर्मप्रशंसार्थः । नात्र किंचिद् विधीयते प्रतिष्ध्यते वा, नापूर्वार्थो ज्ञाप्यते ऽभिलक्षणवत् । तस्मात् प्रशंसार्था एवैते ॥ १०.७३ ॥

‘Non-ārya,’— Śūdra.

‘Behaving like an Ārya,’—devoted to the service of twice-born men, performing the Pākayajña sacrifices, always respectful towards Gods and Brāhmaṇas.

‘Ārya’—Brāhmaṇa and the rest.

^(‘)Behaving like a non-ārya,’—doing what is forbidden and omitting what is enjoined.

Having ‘examined these two,’—i.e., having considered their relative merits; having pondered over the question whether the one or the other was superior in his qualities,—Prajāpati, Manu, made the declaration.

^(‘)They are not equal.’—Inasmuch as ‘caste’ is the most important factor, the Śūdra, even though possessed of superior merit, can never be equal to the Brāhmaṇa.

He said again—^(‘)they are not unequal’;—for though of superior caste, the Brāhmaṇa is beset with many defects.

The meaning of all this is that no man can be respected simply on the strength of his caste; what wins respect is quality; if one is devoid of good qualities, his caste cannot come to his rescue; for if it did, then there would be no point in the prescribing of expiatory rites.

[From verse 66] to the present one, the text is intended to be a deprecation of the ‘confusion of castes,’ and the praise of the due performance of one’s duties; there is nothing either enjoined or forbidden, nor is anything new asserted. Hence all these verses should he taken as purely commendatory.

**(verses 10.66-73)
**

[[See texts under 9.33 et seq.]]

अनार्यस् तावच् छूद्रः आर्यकर्मा द्विजातिकर्मापि सन् न समो द्विजातिभिः । कस्मात् । तस्य तेनानधिकाराद् उत्कर्षाभावात् । न केवलम् उत्कर्षाभावः, अपरश् च प्रात्यवायः, प्रतिषिद्धसेवनात् । ब्राह्मणः शूद्रकर्मापि सन् न समः शूद्रेण, जातेर् माहाभाग्यात् प्रतिषिद्धसेवने ऽपि । एवं तावद् अनयोर् असाम्येन नासमौ, येनोभाव् अपि तौ प्रतिषिद्धसेवनया पतितौ । तथा च गौतमः- “आर्यानार्ययोर् व्यतिक्षेपे कर्मणः साम्यम्” इत्य् आह । सेयम् एवं कर्मप्रशंसा सामर्थ्याद् विज्ञायते । एवं च सति न जातिबलम् आश्रित्य कर्माणि हापयेत् । यस्मात् संयुक्ते हि जातिकर्मणी कार्यम् अदृष्टं पुरुषार्थाख्यं साधयतः । इदानीम् आपत्कल्पप्रकर्णोपन्यासार्थम् इदं प्रस्तूयते ब्राह्मणादीनां वर्णानाम् ॥ १०.७३ ॥

073 Having considered (the case of) a non-Aryan who acts like an Aryan, and (that of) an Aryan who acts like a non-Aryan, the creator declared, ‘Those two are neither equal nor unequal.’

Brāhmaṇas of pure Brāhmaṇa-birth, intent upon their duties, should duly perform the six acts in due order.—(74)

आपद्धर्माणाम् उपोद्घातः । योनिः कारणम् । ब्राह्मणा ब्रह्मयोनिस्थास् ते षट्कर्माण्य् उपजीवेयुर् अनुतिष्ठेयुः । अनेकार्था धतवः । यथाक्रमं यथाधिकारम्¹⁴⁰ । यस्मिन् कर्मणि यो ऽधिकारी । कानिचिद् विध्यर्थानि कानिचिद् दृष्टार्थानि ॥ १०.७४ ॥

This is meant to serve as an introduction to the subject of ‘Duties in abnormal times.’

‘Yoni’ is source, birth.

Brāhmaṇas of pure Brāhmaṇa-birth should perform the six acts:—the root ‘upa-jīva’ denoting performance here.

‘In due order’—in accordance with their rights and capacities; i.e., each one doing the act to which he is entitled.

Some of the acts serve spiritual purposes, while others fulfill only material purposes.—(74)

‘Brahmayonisthāḥ.’—‘Intent upon the source of the Veda’(Medhātithi),—‘Intent upon the means of union with Brahman’ (Kullūka);—‘of pure Brahmanical race’ (Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘who abide by what springs from the Veda, i.e. the sacred law,—or who are the abode of the Veda’ (Nandana).

**(verses 10.74-76)
**

Vaśiṣṭha (2.13-14).—‘The lawful occupations of the Brāhmaṇa are six: studying the Veda, teaching, sacrificing for himself, sacrificing for others, giving gifts and accepting gifts.’

Gautama (10.1-3).—‘The lawful occupations common to all twice-born men are—studying the Veda, offering sacrifices for themselves and giving gifts.—Teaching, offering sacrifices for others and accepting gifts are the additional occupations for the Brāhmaṇa.—But the former three are obligatory.’

Baudhāyana (1.18.2).—‘Brahman forsooth, placed Its majesty in the Brāhmaṇas, together with the duties and privileges of studying, teaching, sacrificing for themselves, sacrificing for others, giving gifts and accepting gifts,—for the protection of the Vedas.’

Āpastamba (2.10.4-5).—‘The lawful occupations of the Brāhmaṇa are—studying, teaching, sacrificing for himself, sacrificing for others, giving gifts, receiving gifts, inheriting and gleaning corn in the fields; and he may live by taking other things that belong to nobody.’

Viṣṇu (2.5, 9, 11).—‘For a Brāhmaṇa, to teach the Veda,—to sacrifice and to study the Veda,—for a Brāhmaṇa, to sacrifice for others and to receive gifts.’

Yājñavalkya (1.118).—‘Sacrificing, studying and giving gifts are common to the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya; for the Brāhmaṇa there are in addition to these, accepting gifts, sacrificing for others and teaching.’

Śukranīti (4.3.31-32).—‘Sacrificing, studying, giving gifts,—these are the functions of the twice-born;—the additional special functions of the Brāhmaṇa are—receiving gifts, teaching and sacrificing for others.’

Kāmandaka (2.18-19).—‘The celebration of sacrifices, the study of the Vedas, and the giving away of wealth to others, according to the rules of the Śāstras,—these are considered to be the common customary observances of the three castes, Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya.—The holy acts of teaching, of conducting sacrifices for others, and of accepting gifts from the pious—these have been enumerated by the sages to be the means of livelihood for those belonging to the highest caste.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 29).—‘The special duty of the Brāhmaṇa is to study, to teach, to sacrifice for himself, to sacrifice for others, to give gifts and to receive gifts.’

ब्राह्मयोनिस्था इत्य् एतत् स्वयम् एव विवृणोति- ये स्वकर्मस्व् अवस्थिताह् न वर्णान्तरकर्मसु, ते सम्यग् उपजीवेयुः षट् कर्माणि । तथा च वक्ष्यति “वैश्यवृत्तिम् अनातिष्ठन्” इत्य् एवमादि । यथाक्रमम् इति शास्त्रविहितेन क्रमेणानुपरिपाट्या आचारोपक्रमः । तेन तथा चैतिहासिकान् प्रवरान् श्रुतिक्रमाद् अधीत इत्य् एवमादिकर्ममात्रानुष्ठाने चोपजीवनशब्दो विज्ञेयः, आजीवनकर्मसंबन्धेन वा । तानि पुनः॥ १०.७४ ॥

074 Brahmanas who are intent on the means (of gaining union with) Brahman and firm in (discharging) their duties, shall live by duly performing the following six acts, (which are enumerated) in their (proper) order.

Teaching, studying, sacrificing for oneself, sacrificing for others, giving and receiving gifts are the six functions for the ‘first born’.—(75)

प्रथमे ऽध्याये शास्त्रस्तुत्यर्थ एषां पाठः । इह तु विध्यर्थम् । यद्य् अपि तेषां केवलानां विधिर् उक्तस् तथापीह समस्य निर्दिश्यते सौहार्देन । विध्यन्तरसापेक्षम्¹⁴¹ एवेदं रूपम्, वचनाच् चैतेषां कर्मणाम् । अतो यथाविहितम् अनूद्य वक्ष्यमाणो ऽर्थो विधीयते ॥ १०.७५ ॥

These were mentioned under Discourse I, only with a view to eulogising the Treatise; on the present occasion they are mentioned for being enjoined. Though the injunction of each of them singly has already gone before, yet, in a friendly spirit, the author, sets them forth here collectively. And as this statement is dependent upon other injunctions, it is to be taken as reiterating what has Been enjoined before, for the purpose of introducing the forthcoming injunction.—(75)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 45).

**(verses 10.74-76)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.74].

विध्यर्थम् एषाम् इहोपदेशः । प्रथमे ऽध्याये शास्त्रस्तुत्यर्थ उक्तः । अथ तु विधिर् एषां पूर्वशास्त्राद् एव विज्ञातुं शक्यस्, तत आपत्प्रकरणार्थम् एषाम् इहोपदेशो विज्ञेयः । इदानीं वर्गद्वयप्रविभागो दृष्टादृष्टार्थत्वाद् एषां प्रतिक्रियते ॥ १०.७५ ॥

075 Teaching, studying, sacrificing for himself, sacrificing for others, making gifts and receiving them are the six acts (prescribed) for a Brahmana.

From among these six functions, three are his means of livelihood: viz., sacrificing for others, Teaching and Receiving gifts from pure men.—(76)

कर्मत्रिकविभागः स्पष्टप्रयोजनः । एकं त्रिकं दृष्टार्थम् उपात्तम्, सामर्थ्यात् । अन्यस्यादृष्टार्थता । विशुद्धो ऽपापकर्मा ।

• एवं शूद्रो ऽपि विशुद्धः प्राप्नोति ।

• को भवतो मत्सरः ।

• स्मृत्यन्तरविरोध्अः प्राप्नोति । “प्रशस्तानां स्वकर्मसु द्विजातीनां ब्राह्मणो भुञ्जीत प्रतिगृह्णीयाच् च” (ग्ध् १७.१–२) इति । एवं तर्हि यथाविरोधो भवति तथा व्याख्येयम् । न ह्य् अविरोधे संभवति विरोधो न्याय्यः ।

• अपि वानुवाद¹⁴² एवायम्, “राजतो धनम् अन्विच्छेत्” (म्ध् ४.३३) इत्येवमादाव् अस्यार्थस्य विहितत्वात् ॥ १०.७६ ॥

The division of the functions into groups of three is for a distinct purpose. One group of three has been put forward as serving (temporal) ends, while the other is conducive to invisible (spiritual) ends.

‘Pure’— Not. addicted to sinful deeds.

“But the Śūdra also could be pure.”

Why should you have an aversion to that.?

“It would he contrary to other Smṛti texts, where it is laid down that ‘the Brāhmaṇas feed at the house of, and receive gifts from, such twice-born persons as are praiseworthy for their actions.’ In face of this the present text should be explained in such a manner as to avoid the contradiction of those other texts. For so long as a reconciliation of varying texts is possible, it is not right to admit of such contradiction.”

As a matter of fact, the present text is merely reiterative; the real injunction having gone before, in such texts as—‘he shall seek to obtain wealth from Kṣatriyas, etc., etc.’ (4.33).

This verse is quoted in. Madanapārijāta, (p. 215);—in Mitākṣarā, (1.118) to the effect that three out of the six functions are conducive to merit and these are to be practised as means of livelihood; so that while the former are obligatory, the latter are not so;—in Par ā śaram ā dhava (Ācāra, p. 140), to the same effect;—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī, (p. 424);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 122).

**(verses 10.74-76)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.74].

विशुद्धात् प्रतिग्रहो ऽयम् उच्यते, यतः स विचार्यते कः पुनर् इह शुद्धः । “यो जात्या कर्मणा च” इति । नन्व् एवं सति ब्राह्मण एवैको विशुद्धः प्रत्ययः । स्मृत्यन्तरे तु “प्रशस्तानां स्वकर्मसु द्विजातीनां ब्राःमणो भुञ्जीत प्रतिगृह्णीयाच् च” (ग्ध् १७.१–२) इति, क्षत्रियवैश्याव् अपि गृह्येते । इह तु यदि विशुद्धशब्दः क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् अपि ग्राहकः परिकल्प्यते ब्राह्मणव्यतिरेकेण तेन शूद्रेण को मत्सरः । असाव् अपि हि जात्या कर्मणापि शुद्धः । विशेषो ऽस्ति चेत् क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् अपि ब्राह्मणात् परस्परविसेषो ऽस्ति । यतः शूद्रो वा ग्राह्यो वृत्तस्थः क्षत्रियवैश्यौ वोत्सृष्टव्यौ ब्राह्मणं परिगृह्य । उच्यते । सत्य् अप्य् एतस्मिन् वेदाह्ययनं वैदिककर्मसंबन्धम् चवेक्ष्य त्रयाणाम् अप्य् अविशिष्टैव कर्मशुद्धिर् अधिकारसाम्याद् उच्यते । तथा चाविशेषेण त्रिभ्यो ऽपि स्मृत्यन्तरे प्रतिग्रहो ऽनुज्ञायते स्वकर्मस्थेभ्यः । न तु शूद्रात् । एवं च सति तथाइवेहापि व्याख्येयम् । विशुद्धग्रहणं च प्रतिग्रहसंबद्धम् अपि सद्याजनाध्यापनार्थम् इति सामर्थ्याद् द्रष्टव्यम् । इतरथा हि ताभ्याम् असंबद्धं शूद्रार्थम् एवैतत् स्यात्, एतस्य् याजनाध्यापनाधिकारात् ॥ १०.७६ ॥

076 But among the six acts (ordained) for him three are his means of subsistence, (viz.) sacrificing for others, teaching, and accepting gifts from pure men.

From the Brāhmaṇa coming to the Kṣatriya, three of these functions cease;—viz., Teaching, Sacrificing for others, and third, the Receiving of gifts.—(77)

जीविकाकर्माण्य् एतानि क्षत्रियस्य न भवन्ति । यानि त्व् अदृष्टार्थानीष्ट्यध्ययनदानानि न निवर्तन्ते । वेदस्य च प्रकृतत्वाद् एतद् अध्यापनं निषिध्यते, न तु धनुर्वेदशिल्पकलाविद्याः ॥ १०.७७ ॥

These three functions, which are the means of livelihood, do not belong to the Kṣatriya; but those that are conducive to spiritual ends—i.e., studying and the rest,—do not cease.

Inasmuch as the Veda is the subject-matter in consideration, it is the teaching of the Veda that is forbidden for the Kṣatriya, and not that of the science of archery and other arts and sciences.—(77)

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, 37a).

**(verses 10.77-80)
**

[[See texts under 9.326 et seq.]]

Gautama (10.1, 7, 15, 49).—‘The occupations common to all the twice-born are—studying, offering sacrifices, and giving gifts,—to protect all beings is the additional function of the king (Kṣatriya), and to learn the management of chariots and the use of the bow;—the additional occupations of the Vaiśya are agriculture, trade, cattle-tending, and money-lending.’

Baudhāyana (1.18.3, 4).—‘In the Kṣatriya, the Brāhmaṇa placed strength, together with the duties and privileges of studying, sacrificing, giving gifts, using weapons and protecting the life and property of all beings,—for the growth of good government.—In the Vaiśyas, the Brāhmaṇa placed the power to work, with the duties of studying, sacrificing, giving gifts, cultivating the soil, trading, and cattle-tending,—for the growth of productive labour.’

Āpastamba (2.10.6, 7).—‘The lawful occupations of the Kṣatriya are the same as those of the Brāhmaṇa; with the exception of teaching, sacrificing for others and receiving gifts; and with the addition of governing and fighting. The lawful occupations of the Vaiśya are the same as those of the Kṣatriya, with the exception of governing and fighting, and with the addition of agriculture, cattle tending and trade.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.15-19).—‘The lawful occupations of the Kṣatriya are three—studying, sacrificing for himself and bestowing gifts;—and his peculiar duty is to protect the people with his weapons; he may earn his livelihood by that means.—The lawful occupations of the Vaiśya are the same besides agriculture, trading, cattle-tending and money-lending.’

Viṣṇu (2.6, 7, 9, 12, 13).—‘For the Kṣatriya, constant practice in arms;—for the Vaiśya, the tending of cattle;—for all the twice-born, to sacrifice and to study;—the mode of livelihood for the Kṣatriya is to protect the world (and receive due reward);—and for the Vaiśya, tillage, keeping cows, trade, money-lending and growing of seeds.’

Yājñavalkya (1.118, 119).—‘Sacrificing, studying and giving gifts are common to the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya (and the Brāhmaṇa);—the principal function of the Kṣatriya is the protecting of the people; money-lending, agriculture, and trade and cattle-tending are the principal functions of the Vaiśya.’

Śukranīti (4.3.33-34).—‘The additional special functions of the Kṣatriya are the protection of the good, suppression of the wicked and realising of revenues. The additional functions of the Vaiśya are agriculture, pasture and trade.’

Kāmandaka (1.20).—‘The King (Kṣatriya) should live by his weapons and by protecting the people. The means of subsistence for the Vaiśya are cattle-rearing, agriculture and trade.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 29).—‘The duties of the Kṣatriya are studying, sacrificing, making gilts, living by arms, and protecting of living beings; of the Vaiśya—studying, sacrificing, giving gifts, agriculture, cattle-tending and trade.’

अत्र च धर्मशब्दो वृत्तिकर्मविषय एव द्रष्टव्यः, तन्निर्देशसामर्थ्यात् । एवं च सति इज्याध्ययनदानानि तस्यादृष्टार्थानि [न] प्रतिषिध्यन्ते । तथा च तानि वक्ष्यति । अत्र चाधिकाराद् वेदाध्यापनं प्रतिषिध्यते क्षत्रियस्य सहाङ्गैः न तु धनुर्वेदादीनाम् ॥ १०.७७ ॥

077 (Passing) from the Brahmana to the Kshatriya, three acts (incumbent on the former) are forbidden, (viz.) teaching, sacrificing for others, and, thirdly, the acceptance of gifts.

For the Vaiśya also these three should cease,—such is the law; since Prajāpati Manu has not prescribed these duties for those two (castes).—(78)

पूर्वेणैतद् व्याख्यातम् । तौ क्षत्रियवैश्यौ प्रत्य् एते ऽध्यापनादयो धर्मा मनुना प्रजापतिना नोक्ताः, न स्मृता इत्य् अर्थः॥ १०.७८ ॥

The sense of this is explained by what has gone before.

‘Those two’—The Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya; for these two, manu Prajāpati has not prescribed the three duties of Teaching and the rest; i.e., he has not declared these to be the duties belonging to them.—(78)

**(verses 10.77-80)
**

[[See texts under 9.326 et seq.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.77].

वृत्तिकर्मप्रति[षेधो वैश्या]नाम् । इज्यादीनां पूर्ववद् इहाप्य् अप्रतिषेधो विज्ञेयः । तथा च तानि वक्ष्यति ॥ १०.७८ ॥

078 The same are likewise forbidden to a Vaisya, that is a settled rule; for Manu, the lord of creatures (Pragapati), has not prescribed them for (men of) those two (castes).

For the Kṣatriya carrying of arms and weapons, and for the Vaiśya, trade, cattle-tending and agriculture, are the means of livelihood; while giving, studying and sacrificing constitute their duty.—(79)

इदं तयोर् जीविकाकर्म । शस्त्रं खड्गादि । अस्त्रं तन्मन्त्राः धनुर्वेदप्रसिद्धाः । अयम् अप्य् उक्तानुवाद एव । वणिक्पशुशब्दौ कर्मान्तर्भावेन¹⁴³ प्रयुक्तौ, वणिज्या पशुपालनं च । यद्य् अप्य् अध्ययनादिधर्माः सर्वेषां सन्ति तथापि प्राधान्यम् एतेषाम् ॥ १०.७९ ॥

These are their functions, which serve to provide them with the means of subsistence.

‘Arms’—The sword and the rest, as also the incantations bearing upon the use of these.

This verse also is only reiterative of what has gone before; the terms ‘vaṇik’ and ‘paśu’ (used here) standing for what have been spoken of before as ‘vāṇijya’ and ‘paśupālaṇa.’ Though studying and the rest are the ‘duty’ of all the three twice-born castes, yet they are chiefly so for these two.—(79)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 397), to the effect that the wielding of weapons for the protection of the weak is the duty of the Kṣatriya only;—and in Mitākṣarā (1.119).

**(verses 10.77-80)
**

[[See texts under 9.326 et seq.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.77].

079 To carry arms for striking and for throwing (is prescribed) for Kshatriyas as a means of subsistence; to trade, (to rear) cattle, and agriculture for Vaisyas; but their duties are liberality, the study of the Veda, and the performance of sacrifices.

Among their respective occupations, the most useful are—constant Vedic study for the Brāhmaṇa, protection for the Kṣatriya and commercial dealings for the Vaiśya.—(80)

वेदाभ्यासो वृत्तिप्रकरणाद् अध्यापनम् । एवं विशिष्टानि स्वकर्मसु । शास्त्रीयवृत्तिकर्मस्व्¹⁴⁴ अन्येभ्यो जीवनकर्मभ्य इमानि श्रेयस्करतराणि ॥ १०.८० ॥

‘Vedic study’.—Since the subject-matter of the section is the means of livelihood, this must be taken as standing for the teaching of the Veda.

‘These are the most useful among their respective occupations.’ That is, among the means of livelihood sanctioned by the scriptures for them, these are most conducive to their welfare, out of all the other occupations carried on for the purpose of livelihood.—(80)

‘Vārtā.’—‘Trade’ (Nandana);—‘trade and cattle-tending’ (Kullūka);—‘trade, cattle-tending and agriculture’ (Govindarāja).

**(verses 10.77-80)
**

[[See texts under 9.326 et seq.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.77].

स्वयम् अभ्यासो ऽध्यापनं च वेदाभ्याससब्देन सामर्थाद् इहोच्यते, न त्व् अध्ययनम्, समानत्वात्, विशिष्टानि स्वकर्मसु इति वचनात् । वृत्तिर् अपि च सत्येषां ब्राह्मणस्यैव ज्यायसी, दृष्टादृष्टपुरुषार्थप्रयोजनत्वात् । तथा च क्षत्रियस्य रक्षणं वृत्त्यर्थं धर्मार्थं च विज्ञेयम् । एवं च वैश्यस्य धनव्यवहारो ब्राह्मणादिपुष्ट्यर्थम् अवश्यानुष्ठेयः । येन तस्य धनातिसर्ग एव विशिष्टो धर्मः । अथ वा विशिष्टानि स्वकर्मस्व् इति वचना इदम् अन्यद् विज्ञायते । यथा अनिज्यादानः वेदाभ्यासमात्रेणैव ब्राह्मणः पूतो भवति, एवं क्षत्रियो ऽनधीयानश् चायजमानश् च प्रजारक्षणमात्रेणैवोत्कृष्यते । वैश्यश् च वार्तयैव द्विजाद्यर्थया इज्याध्ययनासंभवे ऽपीति । एवम् एतानि ब्राह्मणादीनाम् आ - जिवनार्थानि (?) धर्माय च कल्प्याह ॥ १०.८० ॥

080 Among the several occupations the most commendable are, teaching the Veda for a Brahmana, protecting (the people) for a Kshatriya, and trade for a Vaisya.

If the Brāhmaṇa is unable to subsist by his own occupation as described above, he may make a living by the function of the Kṣatriya; since this latter is next to him.—(81)

यदास्य शरीरकुटुम्बनित्यकर्मावसादो भवति, न तेभ्यः पर्याप्तं¹⁴⁵ धनं भवति, तदायम् अजीवन्न् इत्य् उच्यते । यथोक्तेन अध्यापनादिना । तदा क्षत्रियवत् ग्रामनगररक्षादिना शस्त्रास्त्रधारणेन, सति संभवे सर्वाधिपत्येन जीवेत् । जीवतिर् व्याख्यातार्थः शरीरमात्रसंधारणे न वर्तते । किं तर्हि, कुटुम्बस्य कर्माणि नित्यकर्मावस्थितिम्¹⁴⁶ अपि लक्षयति । स ह्य् अस्य प्रत्यनन्तरः । अनन्तर एव प्रत्यनन्तरः । हेतुवचनाद् व्यवहितनिवृत्तिः पापकारी । ॥ १०.८१ ॥

स्ववृत्तिपरित्यागे ऽपि नैवं मन्तव्यं शास्त्रातिक्रमकृतस् तत्र न विशेषो वैश्यशूदेष्व् अपीति । तथा चाह ।

When ho finds it difficult to maintain himself, his family and his business, and he is unable to obtain wealth sufficient for all this, then he is said to be ‘unable to subsist.’

‘As described above’;—i.e., by Teaching and the rest Ho may make, like the Kṣatriya, a living by guarding over villages and towns, by carrying arms and weapons, and also, if possible, by ruling over the people.

The exact meaning of ‘making a living’ has been already explained; it does not stand here for the mere maintenance of one’s own body; it implies the maintenance of the family and also the carrying on of one’s business.

‘He is next to him’—‘pratyanantara’ is the same as ‘anantara.’ Inasmuch as the text has provided this reason, it follows that the occupations of those removed by further degrees (i.e., of the Vaiśya or the Śūdra) involve sin for the Brāhmaṇa. Though the abandoning of his own occupation would be the same in all, yet it should not be thought that there is no difference in the degree of transgression of the law involved in having recourse to the occupations of the Vaiśya and those of the Śūdra; since, as the next verse declares, the Brāhmaṇa may have recourse to the occupation of the Vaiśya).—(81)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 231);—in Vīramitrodaya, (Rājanīti, p. 13), to the effect that Kingship is not altogether forbidden to the Brāhmaṇa;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, 36b).

**(verses 10.81-84)
**

Gautama (7.4-7).—‘In times of distress, it is permissible to offer sacrifices for men of all castes, to teach them and to accept gifts from them; each preceding mode of living being preferable to the succeeding. On failure of the occupations lawful for the Brāhmaṇa, he may live by the occupations of the Kṣatriya; and on failure of these latter, he may live by the occupations of the Vaiśya.’

Baudhāyana (1.4.16-21).—‘A Brāhmaṇa, who is unable to subsist by teaching, sacrificing for others or the acceptance of gifts, shall maintain himself by following the duties of the Kṣatriya, because that is the next following caste. Gautama declares that the Brāhmaṇa shall not act thus; for the functions of the Kṣatriya are too cruel for the Brāhmaṇa. They quote also the following verse:—“Out of regard for the sacred law, a Brāhmaṇa or a Vaiśya may take up arms for the protection of cows or Brāhmaṇas, or when a confusion of castes threatens to take place.” Or, the Brāhmaṇa may adopt the Vaiśya’s means of livelihood; because that is the one following next. If he lives by agriculture, he shall plough before breakfast, and with two bulls whose noses have not been pierced, never striking them with the goad, but frequently coaxing them.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.22-24, 32-33).—‘Those who are unable to live by their own lawful occupation may adopt that of the next inferior caste; but never that of a higher caste. A Brāhmaṇa and a Kṣatriya who have resorted to the Vaiśya’s mode of livelihood and maintain themselves by trade shall not sell the following things—stone, &c., &c., &c. For the purpose of cultivation, he shall plough before breakfast with two bulls whose noses have not been pierced; if he ploughs in the hot season, he shall water his beasts even in the morning.’

Viṣṇu (2.15).—‘In times of distress, each caste may follow the occupation of that next to it in rank.’

Yājñavalkya (3.34).—‘In times of distress, the Brāhmaṇa may maintain himself by the occupation of the Kṣatriya, or by that of the Vaiśya; but having tided over the distress, he shall purify himself by expiations and confine himself to his own path.’

Mahābhārata (3.208.23—12.263.44-45).—(Same as Manu 84.)

Nārada (1.56-60).—‘In times of distress, a Brāhmaṇa is allowed to gain his subsistence in the mode prescribed for the caste next to him in rank; or he may gain his subsistence like a Vaiśya. But he must never resort to the mode of livelihood prescribed for the lowest caste. At no time should a Brāhmaṇa follow the occupations of a man of vile caste, or a vile man the occupations of a Brāhmaṇa; in either case, expulsion from caste would be the immediate consequence… When a Brāhmaṇa has lived through the times of distress, with the wealth acquired by following the occupations of the Kṣatriya, he must perform a penance and relinquish those occupations. When a Brāhmaṇa takes delight in those occupations and persists in them, he is declared to be a Kāṇḍapṛṣṭha and must be expelled from society, because he has swerved from the path of duty.’

धर्मात्मकुटुम्बा[व]सादे अयम् अजीवन् भवति, यतः एतस्याम् अवस्थायाम् उत्सृज्य स्वकर्म क्षत्रियवृत्तिर् ग्रामनगरदेशाद् - रकषणम् (?) अस्य स्यात् । अपरे त्व् एकपुरुषोत्थानेन राजत्वम् आहुः । एवं च प्रत्यनन्तरहेतुवचनाद् अस्येषत्प्रत्यवायता गम्यते । क्रमभेदे च प्रत्यवायगौरवम् ॥ १०.८१ ॥

081 But a Brahmana, unable to subsist by his peculiar occupations just mentioned, may live according to the law applicable to Kshatriyas; for the latter is next to him in rank.

If he is unable to subsist by these two occupations, and the question arises as to how it should be,—he may live the living of the Vaiśya, having recourse to agriculture and cattle-tending.—(82)

उभ्याभ्याम् अप्य् अजीवंस् तु । क्रमो ऽनेन प्रदर्श्यते । प्रथमम् अनन्तरा वृत्तिः, तदभावे व्यवहितेति । कृषिगोरक्षाग्रहणं वैश्यवृत्तिमात्रप्रदर्शनार्थम् । तथा च वणिज्यायाम् अविक्रेयप्रतिषेधं वक्ष्यति- जीवेद् वैश्यस्य जीविकाम् इति । सामान्यविशेषभावेन क्रियायाः साध्यसाधनभावः प्राग् उपपादितः ।

• तत्र कृषिवाणिज्यकुशीदान्य् अनापद्य् एवोकान्य् अध्यापनादिवत्, “प्रमृतं कर्षणं स्मृतम् । सत्यानृतं तु वाणिज्यम्” (म्ध् ४.५–६) इति¹⁴⁷ केचिद् आहुः । “कृषिवाणिज्ये चास्वयंकृते,¹⁴⁸ कुसीदं च” (ग्ध् ९.५–६) इतु उक्तम् । स्वयंकरणम् अत्राभ्यनुज्ञायते ।

• यत् त्व् अध्यापनादिवद् इति साम्यम् आशङ्कितम्, अत्रैव परिहृतम् । यदि सर्वेषां कृष्यादयः समत्वेन स्युः, कथम् इदम् उच्यते “वणिक्पशुकृषीर् विशः आजीवनार्थम्” (म्ध् १०.७९) ब्राह्मणक्षत्रिययोर् अपि नाजीवनार्थस् तदा । किं च “याजनाध्यापने चैव विशुद्धाच् च प्रतिग्रहः” (म्ध् १०.७६) इत्य् अत्र तान्य् अपि समाख्यास्यत् । तस्माद् अध्यापनादिनियमैर् जीवतः कृष्यादयः प्रतिषिद्धा एव । यस् तु प्रकरणाद् अन्यत्रैषाम् उपदेशः स तत्रैव प्रदर्शितप्रयोजनः ॥ १०.८२ ॥

‘If he is unable to subsist by these two occupations.’ The text is meant to lay clown a distinct order of sequence; at first he is to adopt, the occupation of the caste next to him, and then that of the caste removed a degree further.

The mention of ‘agriculture and cattle-tending’ is meant to stand for all the occupations of the Vaiśya. That is why trading is also permitted, in view of which the author is going to forbid (in 85, et. seq.) the selling of certain things by the Brāhmaṇa.

‘He may live the living of the Vaiśya—The two acts (denoted by the terms ‘live’ and ‘living’) are spoken of as cause and effect,—one standing for the general act of living, and the other for the special forms of living.

Some people have held that from among the occupations of the Vaiśya, agriculture, trade, and money-lending have been permitted (for the Brāhmaṇa) even during normal times,—just like Teaching and other occupations—under verses 4.5 and 6. In Gautama (10.5 and 6) also we read—‘Agriculture and trade done by himself, as also money-lending’; which permits the carrying on of agriculture and trade by the Brāhmaṇa himself.

As for the view that these stand on the same footing as Teaching and other occupations (of the Brāhmaṇa himself),—this has been refuted by us already. If agriculture and other occupations of the Vaiśya stood for all three castes, on exactly the same footing,—then, why should ‘trade, cattle-tending and agriculture’ have been mentioned as the most useful occupation ‘for the Vaiśya’ (verse 79)? And for the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya also, these should not have been mentioned as to be adopted only under the stress of want of livelihood; in fact they should have been mentioned along with ‘Teaching, sacrificing for others and receiving gifts from pure men’ (76) [which have been mentioned as the special occupations of the Brāhmaṇa].

The conclusion therefore is that so long as the Brāhmaṇa can make a living by teaching and the other occupations laid down for himself, agriculture and the rest are forbidden to him. As regards the texts (4. 5 and 6) permitting these latter for the Brāhmaṇa, the real meaning of this we have already explained under those texts.—(82)

Nārāyaṇa thinks that ‘Kṛṣi’ means here that agriculture whereat the Brāhmaṇa himself does not do any manual work; bat Govindarāja and Kullūka reject this view.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (3.35), to the; effect that in abnormal times for purposes of livelihood the Br āh maṇa may have recourse to the functions of the Vaiśya, but never to those of the Śūdra;—in Madanapārijāta, (p. 232);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, 36b).

**(verses 10.81-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.81].

कृष्ट्गोरक्षग्रहणं च सर्ववैश्यवृत्तिप्रदर्शनार्थम् । स्वयं करणपक्षे चेयं ब्राह्मणस्य वैस्यवृत्तिर् उच्यते । अस्वयं कृता तु पूर्वम् उक्ता “ऋतामृताभ्यां जीवेत” इत्य् एवमादौ । एवं च वैश्यवृत्तेः प्रकरणभेद उपपद्यते । बहुलम् आसाम् इदम् अधुनोच्यते ॥ १०.८२ ॥

082 If it be asked, ‘How shall it be, if he cannot maintain himself by either (of these occupations?’ the answer is), he may adopt a Vaisya’s mode of life, employing himself in agriculture and rearing cattle.

But even when subsisting by the occupation of the Vaiśya, the Brāhmaṇa or the Kṣatriya shall carefully avoid agriculture, which involves injury to living creatures and is dependent upon others.—(83)

कृषिनिन्देतरवैश्यवृत्तिस्तुत्यर्था, न पुनस् तस्याः प्रतिषेधार्था¹⁴⁹ । तथा च सति उपदेशो व्यर्थो ऽस्या आपद्यते ॥ १०.८३ ॥

This deprecation of Agriculture is meant to eulogise the other occupations of the Vaiśya, and to forbid agriculture itself. If it had been to be entirely forbidden, the permitting of it (under 82) would become absolutely pointless.—(83)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 936), to the effect that even when taking to the Vaiśya’s livelihood, the Brāhmaṇa shall avoid cultivating land himself;—and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācara, p. 426), as prohibiting the Brāhmaṇa’s cultivation of land by himself.

**(verses 10.81-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.81].

083 But a Brahmana, or a Kshatriya, living by a Vaisya’s mode of subsistence, shall carefully avoid (the pursuit of) agriculture, (which causes) injury to many beings and depends on others.

People think agriculture to be good; but that occupation is despised by the righteous; the iron-tipped wood injures the earth and the earthly creatures.—(84)

कृषिं लोकाः साद्व् एव कर्म इति मन्यन्ते । तद् युक्तम्¹⁵⁰ । कर्षतः पुरुषस्य बहु धान्यं भवति, ततो ऽतिथ्यादिभ्यो ऽन्नदानेनोपकरोति, अतः साध्वी । तथा चोक्तम् “नाकृष्यतो ऽतिथिप्रियः” । “कृषिं यत्नेन कुर्वीत मौर्व्या सर्वत्र यत्नतः” । तथा “लाङ्गलं परीरवं सुशेवं सुमतित्सरु । उदित् कृषति गाम् अविं प्रफर्व्यं च पीवरीम्” (त्स् ४.२.५.६) इत्यादि ।

• ते न सम्यक् मन्यन्ते । सा हि वृत्तिः सद्भिर् निन्द्यते । कस्य हेतोः । भूमिं हन्ति काष्टम् अयोमुखं लाङ्गलम् । भूमिशयांश् च । भूमौ शेरते ये प्राणिनस् तृणजलूकादयस् तांश् च हन्ति ।

• ननु च भूमेः कीदृशं हननं न हि सा प्राणिवत् काष्ठहत्यापीडाम्¹⁵¹ अनुभवति ।

• अनुभूतं¹⁵² तु सर्वैर्¹⁵³ विदारणं भूमेर् दोषवद् इति ज्ञापयति ॥ १०.८४ ॥

People think agriculture to be a good occupation; one who carries on agricultural operations obtains much grain, whereby he feeds guests; that is why it is ‘good.’ To the same end we have such assertions as—‘He who does not till the ground is not loved by his guests,’ ‘one should carefully carry on agricultural operations,’ and ‘the plough, the spear, tills the soil etc., etc.,’ (Vājasaneya Saṃhitā, 12.71)

This view however is not the right one to take. This is an occupation that is despised by the righteous;—and the reason for this lies in the fact that ‘the iron-tipped wood’—the plough—‘injures the Earth and the earthly creatures,’—i.e., those creatures that live under the ground, e.g., the caterpillar and the rest.

“What sort of injury is inflicted on the Earth? The Earth certainly does not suffer pain, like the living creatures, by the stroke of the wooden implement.”

What the text means is that the Earth does suffer pain, and thereby forbids all tearing of the ground.—(84)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 426);—and in Aparārka, (p. 937) as supplying the reason for forbidding land-cultivation by the Brāhmaṇa.

**(verses 10.81-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.81].

कृष्यपवादो ऽयम् इतरवैश्यवृत्तिस्तुत्यर्थम् (?), कृषेर् उपदेशसामर्थ्याद् एतद् विज्ञायते । इतरथानुपदेशार्हेव सा प्रसज्येत । “निन्दितं न समाचरेत्” इत्य् अनेनाकरेण भूमिविलेखनप्रतिषेधार्थो ऽर्थवादः । न चैतन्याद् भुवः यथा भूमिशयानाम् । अपरे त्व् आहुः- एतस्माद् एव नखाग्रेणापि भूमिविलेखनं न कर्तव्यम् इति ॥ १०.८४ ॥

084 (Some) declare that agriculture is something excellent, (but) that means of subsistence is blamed by the virtuous; (for) the wooden (implement) with iron point injuries the earth and (the beings) living in the earth.

But there is this, that one who, under the stress of livelihood, renounces the strictness concerning his duties, may, for increasing his wealth, sell such commodities as are sold by Vaiśyas, with certain exceptions.—(85)

इदम् इति वक्ष्यमाणस्य प्रतिनिर्देशः । विशः पण्यं विट्पण्यं वैश्यानां यद्विक्रेयं तद् अपि वृत्तिवैकल्याद्¹⁵⁴ धनाभावाद्¹⁵⁵ ब्राह्मणेन विक्रेयम् । उद्धार्याणि द्रव्याण्य् उद्धारशब्देनोच्यन्ते । उद्धृत उद्धारो यस्मिन् तद् एवम् उच्यते । वक्ष्यमाणानि द्रव्याण्य् अत उद्धृत्यान्यानि विक्रेयाणि । वित्तवर्धनम् इति स्वभावानुवाधः¹⁵⁶ । वाणिज्यायां हि धनवृद्धिः प्रसिद्धा । त्यजतो धर्मनैपुणं धर्मे या निष्ठा । अतस् तेन पण्यविक्रयो न कर्तव्य इति ज्ञापयति । अतश् चेदम् अवगम्यते- सर्वासां वैश्यवृत्तीनां गर्हिता कृषिः, ततो न्यूना वाणिज्या,¹⁵⁷ ततो गोरक्षादयः¹⁵⁸ ॥ १०.८५ ॥

‘This’—refers to what follows.

‘Such commodities as are sold by Vaiśyas.’—If the Brāhmaṇa has no wealth, he may, if pressed for livelihood, sell such things as are permitted to be sold by Vaiśyas.

‘Exceptions.’—This term stands for the commodities excluded. ‘With certain exceptions’;—from which certain articles are excluded. The Brāhmaṇa may sell the things, with the exception of those hereinafter enumerated.

‘For increasing his wealth.’—This describes the nature of things; it being well known that trade is conducive to increased wealth.

‘Renounces the strictness concerning his duties,’—i.e., his strict regard for his duty. This implies that as a rule the said selling should not be done; and the upshot of all this is that from out of the several occupations of the Vaiśya, Agriculture is the worst for the Brāhmaṇa, then trade, and then cattletending and the rest—(85)

**(verses 10.85-93)
**

Gautama (7.8-15).—‘Goods not to be sold by the Brāhmaṇa are—perfumes, flavouring substances, prepared food, sesamum, hempen and linen cloth, skins, garments dyed red or washed, milk and preparations of it, roots, fruits, flowers, medicines, honey, flesh, grass, water, poisons, animals for slaughter; nor under any circumstances, human beings, heifers, female calves, cows big with young. Some declare that traffic in land, rice, barley, goats, sheep, horses, hulls, milch cows and draught oxen is also forbidden.’

Āpastamba (1.20.10-13).—‘Trade is not lawful for a Brāhmaṇa;—in times of distress he may trade in lawful merchandise, avoiding the following, that are forbidden—men, condiments and liquids, colours, perfumes, food, skins, heifers, glueing substances, water, young corn-stalks, substances from which spirituous liquor is extracted, red and black pepper, corn, flesh, arms, and the hope of reward for meritorious deeds. Among the various kinds of grains, he shall specially not sell sesamum or rice.

Yājñavalkya (3.6-38).—‘Fruits, stones, linen, Soma, human beings, cakes, plants, sesamum, rice, liquids, curds, milk, clarified butter, water, arms, wine, wax, honey, lac, grass, clay, skins, flowers, blankets, hairs, Takra, poisons, land, silken cloth, indigo, salt, one-hoofed animals, lead, vegetable, pepper, medicines, oil-cake, animals, perfumes,—these the Brāhmaṇa should never sell, even when living by the occupations of the Vaiśya. But sesamum may be sold for religious purposes, in exchange of paddy.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.27-29).—‘He who sells sesamum, forsooth, sells his ancestors; he who sells rice, forsooth, sells his life; he who gives away his daughter, making a bargain, forsooth, sells portions of his spiritual merit. Grass and wood in their natural state may be sold. They quote the following—“Animals that have only one row of teeth, as well as minerals excepting salt, and undyed thread,—these, O Brāhmaṇa, are the goods thou art permitted to sell.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.24-31).—‘A Brāhmaṇa and a Kṣatriya, who have resorted to a Vaiśya’s mode of living and maintain themselves by trade, shall not sell stones, salt, hempen cloth, silk, linen and skins; nor any kind of dyed clothing; nor prepared food, flowers, fruit, roots, perfumes, substances (used for) flavouring (food); nor water, the juice extracted from plants; nor Soma, weapons, poison, nor flesh, nor milk, nor preparations of it, iron, tin, lac, and lead. Now they quote also (the following verse): By (selling) flesh, lac, and salt a Brāhmaṇa at once becomes an outcast; by selling milk he becomes (equal to) a Śūdra after three days. Among tame animals those with uncloven hoofs, and those that have an abundance of hair (must not be sold), nor any wild animals, (nor) birds, nor beasts that have tusks (or fangs). Among the various kinds of grain they mention sesamum (as forbidden). Now they quote also (the following verse)—If he applies sesamum to any other purpose but food, anointing and charitable gifts, he will be born again as a worm and, together with his ancestors, be plunged into his own ordure.—Or, at pleasure, they may sell (sesamum), if they themselves have produced it by tillage.’

Viṣṇu (54.18-21).—‘He who sells fresh ginger, edible plants, perfumes, flowers, fruits, roots, skins, canes, things made of split bamboo, chaff, potsherds, hair, ashes, bone, cow-milk or curds, oil-cakes, sesamum or oil, must perform the Prājāpatya. He who sells the fruit of the śleśmātaka tree, lac, bees-wax, shells, mother-o-pearl, tin, lead, iron, copper, or sacrificial vessels made of rhinoceros’ horn, must perform the Cāndrāyaṇa. He who sells dyed cloth, tin, precious stones, perfumes, sugar, honey, liquids or condiments, or wool must fast for three days. He who sells meat, salt, lac or milk must perform the Cāndrāyaṇa. And all these persons should undergo initiation a second time.’

धर्मनैपुणत्यागवचनाद् अस्यापि हीनता गम्यते गोरक्ष्यात् । एवं च सति क्ट्षेर् वानिज्यम् उत्कृष्टम् । तथापि गोरक्ष्यं ज्याय इत्य् एतत् सामर्थ्याद् गम्यते । सो ऽयम् अधुना विट्पण्योद्धार उच्यते विक्रीणानस्य पण्यम् ॥ १०.८५ ॥

085 But he who, through a want of means of subsistence, gives up the strictness with respect to his duties, may sell, in order to increase his wealth, the commodities sold by Vaisyas, making (however) the (following) exceptions.

He shall avoid all savoury substances as also cooked food and sesamum, stores, salt, animals and human beings.—(86)

मधुरादयः षड् रसाः । तत्प्रधानानि द्रव्याणि गुडदाडिमकिराततिक्तकादीनि प्रिषिध्यन्ते । न हि केवलानां रसानां संभवः । यद्य् अपि रसशब्दो न स्वयं द्रव्ये शुक्लादिशब्दवद् वर्तते सामानाधिकरण्येन, तथापि लक्षयति द्रव्यम्, “गङ्गायां घोषः” इति यथा¹⁵⁹ । अपोहेत त्यजेत्, न विक्रीणीयाद् इति यावत् । कृतान्नं सिद्धम् अन्नम् ओदनादि तण्डुलादि न¹⁶⁰ । तिलैः सह, तिला अपि न विक्रेयाः । न तु पुनस् तिलकृतान्नयोः सहप्रयुक्तयोः प्रतिषेधः, केवलयोर् अभ्यनुज्ञानम् । अश्मानः सर्वपाषाणाः । लवणम् अपाषाणरूपम् अपि । सैन्दवस्य पाषाणशब्देन ग्रहणम् । रसपक्षे लवणस्य नित्यार्थ आरंबः । तेन मधुरादीनां पाक्षिको विक्रयः । पशवो ग्राम्या आरण्याः । मानुषा मौष्याः ॥ १०.८६ ॥

There are six flavours, rasas,—sweet and the rest; and the term ‘rasa,’ ‘savoury substances’ here stands for substances abounding in one or other of these flavours; such as sugar, pomegranate, the ‘kirāta,’ the ‘tiktaka’ and so forth; all these are forbidden; and not only those that are made of the juices extracted from the trees etc., (which is the literal meaning of ‘rasa’). Though the term ‘rasa’ is not used directly in the sense of substance, in the way in which ‘white’ and such terms are, yet it indirectly indicates it; just as in the case of the expression ‘the ranch on the Gaṅgā,’ (the term ‘Gaṅgā’ indicates the river-bank).

‘Shall avoid’—shall give it up; i.e., shall not sell.

‘Cooked food’—such as rice cooked and ready for being eaten.

‘And sesamum.’—Sesamum also shall not be sold; and it is not meant that what is forbidden is such food as is cooked with sesamum, and the selling of each separately is permitted.

‘Stones’—Of all kinds.

‘Salt’—Even those that are not in the form of stone (solid); rock-salt being already included under ‘stones.’

If the term ‘rasa’ is understood in its literal sense, of the six flavours, then, since ‘salt’ will have been already included under this, the separate mention of ‘salt’ would mean that the selling of this is absolutely forbidden for all time, while that of ‘sweet’ and the rest is only partially so.

‘Animals’— Tame as well as wild.

‘Human beings’— Men.—(86)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta, (p. 232), which explains ‘vyapoheta’ (which is its reading for ‘apoheta’) as ‘should avoid’ i.e. ‘should not sell’; it adds that ‘rasa’ having been already mentioned, ‘lavaṇa’ is mentioned again for the purpose of indicating that the selling of salt is more blameworthy.

**(verses 10.85-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.85].

अत्र च रसप्रधानं द्रव्यं गुऌआदि सामर्थ्याद् रस उच्यते । यथा तगरोशीरचन्दनसमुदायो गन्धप्रधानो गन्धशब्देन । कृतान्नं च तण्डुलादि, पक्वम् अपरे । अश्मानः सर्वपाशाणाः । लवणस्यापाषाणार्थे आरम्भः । न तु सैन्धवार्थः, तस्य पाषाणशब्देन ग्रहणात् । रसपक्षे च लवणस्य नित्यार्थ आरम्भः । पशवो ये च मानुषाः- पशवश् च ग्राम्यारण्या मानुषाश् च पशवो ऽपि ॥ १०.८६ ॥

086 He must avoid (selling) condiments of all sorts, cooked food and sesamum, stones, salt, cattle, and human (beings),

Every kind of woven article dyed (red) as well as that made of hemp, silk or wool, even when not dyed red; and also fruits and roots and medicinal herbs.—(87)

तान्तवं तन्तुनिर्मितं वस्त्रपटबृहतिकादि । रक्तं लोहितम् । लोहिते वर्णे रक्तशब्दः प्रसिद्धतरः । तथा हि रक्तो गौर् लोहित उच्यते, यद्य् अपि शुक्लस्य वर्णान्तरापादनम् अपि रञ्जेर् अर्थः। शाणक्षौमाविकान्य् अरक्तान्य् अपि । यत् आह- अपि चेत् स्युर् अरक्तानि । शिष्टं प्रसिद्धम् ॥ १०.८७ ॥

‘Woven article’—Things made of cotton yarns; i.e., doth, wrapper and so forth.

‘Rakta’—i.e., red; the word ‘rakta’ is known as denoting the red colour more than the others; e.g., it is only the ruddy bull that is called ‘rakta.’ Though what the root ‘rañj’ (to dye) denotes is only the imparting of some sort of colour to what is white. Hempen, silken and woollen articles,—even when not dyed. The rest is clear.—(47)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta, (p. 232), which adds that ‘vyapoheta’ of the preceding verse is to be construed with all that follows;—in Mitākṣarā, (3.38);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha, (p. 123), which says that ‘all these should not be sold.’

**(verses 10.85-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.85].

शाणादीनाम् अरक्तार्थ आरम्भः । तथौषधयो ऽविक्रेयाः ॥ १०.८७ ॥

087 All dyed cloth, as well as cloth made of hemp, or flax, or wool, even though they be not dyed, fruit, roots, and (medical) herbs

Water, weapons, poison, meat, soma and all kinds of perfume; milk, honey, curds, butter, oil, honey-wax, sugar and kuśa-grass.—(88)

शस्त्रं खड्गपाशादि । गन्धास् तगरोशीरचन्दनादयो द्रव्यविशेषाः । रसशब्दवद् एतद् व्याक्येयम् । क्षीरं सविकारं¹⁶¹ स्मृत्यन्तरप्रसिद्धम् (च्ड़्। ग्ध् ७.११) । अतो मस्तुकिलाटोदश्विदादीन्य् अपि न विक्रेयानि । दधिघृतग्रहणं प्राधान्याद् उपात्तम् । मधु मधूच्छिष्टम् एकदेशलोपाद् देवदत्तो दत्त इतिवत् । स्मृत्यन्तरे हि तत् प्रतिषिद्धम् । इह च क्षौद्रशब्देन सारघस्य निषिद्धत्वात्, माध्वीकस्य च मद्यग्रहणेनोत्तरत्र प्रतिषेधात् ।

• अन्ये तु माध्वीकस्यैवाप्राप्तमद्यावस्थस्य प्रतिषेधार्थं मधुशब्दं वर्णयन्ति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । नायं निष्पीडितमृद्विकारसवचनः । किं तर्हि, मद्यरूपतयैव वर्तते । “उभौ मध्वासवक्षीबौ” (म्भ् ५.५८.५) इति प्रयोगदर्शनात्, क्षीबता मद्यकृतैव । गुडस्य रसत्वप्रतिषेधनिवृत्यर्थं ग्रहणम्¹⁶² ।

• अन्ये तु खण्डमत्स्यण्डिकादीनाम् अनुज्ञानार्थं व्याचक्षते ॥ १०.८८ ॥

‘Weapons’—Swords, nooses and so forth.

‘Perfume.’— Such special fragrant substances as the ‘Tagara,’ the ‘Uśīra’, Sandalwood and so forth; the term ‘gandha’ being explained in the same manner as the word ‘rasa’ above.

‘Milk’—Everything made of milk, as described in other ‘Smṛti texts’ such as sour cream, whey, co-agulated milk and so forth;—all these should not be sold. ‘Curd’ and ‘butter’ have been mentioned separately with a view to indicate the special importance of these among all milk—products.

‘Madhu’ stands for ‘madhūcchiṣṭa’ bees-wax,—the part (‘madhu’) standing for the whole ‘madhūcchiṣṭa.’ Just as ‘deva’ is generally used for ‘devadatta.’ That this is so follows from the fact that it is the selling of the ‘bees-wax’ that is expressly forbidden in another Smṛti; and as for honey (Madhu) itself, it is forbidden in the present text by the special name ‘Kṣaudra’,—the grape-juice (which also is called ‘kṣaudra,’ being expressly forbidden in a later verse under the name ‘madya.’

Others however explain the term ‘madhu’ in the present verse as standing for grape-juice before fermentation has set in and it has become ‘wine,’ ‘madya.’

This however is not right. Because the word ‘madhu’ is not denotative of the freshly extracted grape-juice; in fact it always stands for it in the form of wine; as we find in such passages as ‘Ubhau madhvāsavakṣibau,’ where intoxication is spoken of as brought about by ‘madhu,’ and it is only wine that brings about intoxication.

‘Sugar’.—This has been mentioned with a view to show that the prohibition of this could not come under that of “r asa’ (under 86). Others however explain that this has been added with a view to imply that the selling of things made of sugar—such as sweetmeats—is permitted.—(88)

The second half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.38), which adds the following notes:—‘Dadhi and kṣīra’ stand for all preparations of milk and curd; ‘ghṛtam’ for all oily substances;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 232), which adds that ‘kṣaudram’ stands for bees-wax, honey itself being mentioned separately (‘madhu’);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 123).

**(verses 10.85-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.85].

क्षीरदधिघृतग्रहणम् इह सर्वक्षीरविकारप्रदर्शनार्थम् । एवं च मस्तुकिलाटादीन्य् अप्य् अविक्रेयाणि । क्षीऋआदीणां च प्राधान्यात् ग्रहणं प्रदर्शनाथं (?) युक्तम्, न तु परिसंख्यार्थम् । स्मृत्यन्तरे चोक्तम्- “क्षीरं सविकारम्” इति । रसशब्देन गुऌअम् [अपि] निषिद्धं पूर्वश्लोके तत इह गुऌअग्रहणं नित्यार्थम् । एवं चेतररसानां विकल्पेन प्रतिषेधः । अथ तु रसशब्देन गुऌओ न गृह्यते । तत एष रसानां विकल्पो नास्ति । एतेन मधु [व्याख्यातम्] ॥ १०.८८ ॥

088 Water, weapons, poison, meat, Soma, and perfumes of all kinds, fresh milk, honey, sour milk, clarified butter, oil, wax, sugar, Kusa-grass;

All beasts of the forest, fanged animals, and birds, wine, indigo, lac, and also all one-hoofed animals.—(89)

आरण्यपशुश्अब्दौ गुडलवनेनैव व्याख्यातौ । ग्राम्यपश्वनुज्ञातार्थम् । ग्राम्या अपि पशवो हिंसायां संयोग इति निषिद्धार्थः । दंष्ट्रिणः श्वशूकरादयः । वयांसि पक्षिणः । एकशफा अश्वाश्वतरगर्दभादयः । “बहून्” इति “तथा"शब्दस्थाने पठन्ति । एकस्य विक्रये तथा न दोषः ॥ १०.८९ ॥

The terms ‘of the forest’ and ‘beasts’ should be taken as to be explained on the analogy of the words ‘sugar’ a nd ‘salt.’

This has heen mentioned for the purpose of implying that the selling of tame animals is permitted. Where dealing with tame animals is forbidden, it. is in view of the fact that these also, when enraged, become dangerous.

‘Fanged animals’—Dogs, hoars and so forth.

‘Birds’—Winged beings.

‘One-hoofed animals’—Horses, mules, asses and so forth.

Some people read ‘bahūn’ for ‘tathā’; and by that, there would be nothing wrong in the selling of a single one-hoofed animal.—89)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 232);—in Aparārka (p. 931), which adds that this prohibition is meant for the Brāhmaṇa only;—in Mitākṣarā (3.38);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 123).

**(verses 10.85-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.85].

बहून् इत्य् अपरे पठन्ति । आरण्यपशुप्रतिषेधो नित्यार्थः । एवं च “पशवो ये च मानुषाः” इत्य् अत्र श्लोके ग्राम्यपशूनां विकल्पो विज्ञायते । अत्रापि चैकशफग्रहणाद् अस्वाश्वतरगर्दभानाम् अविकल्पः, खरानां च । ये तु पठन्ति “सर्वांश् चैकशफान् बहून्” इति, तेषां विशेषार्थः पुनरारम्भः । एकशफा बहवो ऽविक्रेयाः इति । एवं च सति ॥ १०.८९ ॥

089 All beasts of the forest, animals with fangs or tusks, birds, spirituous liquor, indigo, lac, and all one-hoofed beasts.

But the agriculturist may, if he wishes, sell pure sesamum for sacred purposes, if he has cultivated them himself and has not kept these long.—(90)

“कृतान्नं च तिलैः सह” (म्ध् १०.८६) इति प्रतिषिद्धानां तिलानां स्वरूपप्रयोजनविशेषाश्रयः प्रतिप्रसवः । शुद्धान् अचिरस्थितान् इति च स्वरूपविशेषः । धर्मार्थम् इति प्रयोजनविशेषः । शुद्धा व्रीह्यादिभिर् अमिश्राः । कृशराद्यर्थं मिश्राणां विक्रयासंभवः । अचिरस्थिताः । अर्थादिकं लाभम् अनपेक्ष्य,¹⁶³ “स्वल्पं मूल्यम् अद्य, कालान्तरे चागामिनि¹⁶⁴ बहुमूल्यं लभेय” इत्य् एवं न प्रतीक्षितव्यम् । अथ वा शुद्धा अकृष्णाः । कृष्णतिलानां प्रतिषेधः । अचिरस्थितान् इति वायम् अर्थः-¹⁶⁵ चिरस्थितं हि कृष्णं भवति । कृष्णा उत्पाद्य क्रीत्वा वा¹⁶⁶ न विक्रेयाः । स्वयं कृष्यां कृषीवल इति प्रायिको ऽनुवादः, न विवक्षितानि पदानि । प्रतिग्रहाद्यर्जितानाम् अप्य् अप्रतिषेधः धर्मप्रयोजने यत्र तिलान्¹⁶⁷ विक्रीयन्ते । इह च रूपकैर् गावो दक्षिणाद्यर्थं स्वाध्यायाग्निहोत्राद्यर्थं क्रीयन्ते, व्रीह्यादयो¹⁶⁸ वा दर्शपूर्णमासाद्यर्थम्, स धर्मार्थो विक्रयः । यस्य वा तिला एव दानादिधर्मायोपयुज्यन्ते, भेषजतैलोपयोगे वा क्रेतुः, सो ऽप्य् एवम् एव ॥ १०.९० ॥

[Under 86], the selling of ‘cooked food and sesamum’ has been forbidden; and to this the present verse is an exception, in view of certain special conditions and purposes.

‘Pure,’ ‘not kept long’;—these refer to the condition of the grains; and ‘for sacred purposes’—refers to the purpose.

‘Pure ’— ‘not mixed with Vrīhi and other grains. There is possibility of mixed sesamum being sold for the purposes of preparing ‘mixed food.’

‘Not kept long.’—This implies that the man shall not keep back the grains with the idea that they are selling cheap now, but after a few days they shall fetch higher prices.

Or, ‘pure’ may mean not black; the prohibition applying to black sesamum; and sesamum becomes black if kept for a long time. The meaning is that he shall not sell black sesamum after having grown or bought it.

‘The agriculturist,’ ‘if he has cultivated it himself.’ These words are only descriptive, and much significance is not meant to be attached to them.

The selling of grains obtained in gifts is also not forbidden.

‘For moved purposes.’ For instance, when sesamum is sold for the purpose of obtaining money whereby to buy the cow to be given as a sacrificial fee, or when it is sold for the performance of Vedic study, Agnihotra and such rites, or when it is sold for the purpose of buying with the price thus obtained, Vrīhi and other corns needed for the performance of the Darśapūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices. In all these cases the selling is ‘for a sacred purpose’;—or, when the sesamum itself is used by the purchaser for such religious acts as making gifts, or for getting oil for medicinal purposes.—(90)

‘Śuddhān’—‘unmixed’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘white’ (Nandana);—‘of good quality’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 431) as permitting the selling of sesamum. It notes on this point two views—(a) that what is said here refers to exchanging, and (b) that it permits the selling only for the purpose of paying off a debt not otherwise payable;—aṇd it prefers the latter.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.39), which adds that ‘dharma’ stands for such necessities as medication and the like.

**(verses 10.85-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.85].

तिलानां विक्रयप्रतिषेधाद् अयं तेषां विशेषाश्रयो विक्रयप्रतिप्रसवः । शुद्धग्रहणं मिश्रीकृतान्यद्रव्यप्रतिषेधार्थम् (?) । अथ वा तिलशब्दस्यावधारणार्थत्वं दर्शयति, एवं च नेदम् अन्यप्रदर्शनार्थम्, कारणस्य समानत्वाद् इति । धर्मार्थं नित्यकर्मसङ्गे पुत्रदारात्ययप्राप्तौ । अचिरस्थितान् इत्य् अर्घप्रतीक्षणप्रतिषेधः । अस्यार्थवादः ॥ १०.९० ॥

090 But he who subsists by agriculture, may at pleasure sell unmixed sesamum grains for sacred purposes, provided he himself has grown them and has not kept them long.

If one does with sesamum anything else, except eating, anointing and giving,—he becomes a worm and plunges into the ordure of dogs, along with his ancestors.—(91)

प्रकृततिलविशेषव्यतिरेकेण तिलविक्रयप्रतिषेधे विशेषो ऽयम् अर्थवादः ।

• ननु चोक्तं प्रतिषेधानां दोषसूचनं फलतयैव संबध्यते । तत् किम् भोजनाभ्यञ्जनाद् दानाद् यद् अन्यत् कुरुते तिलैः कृमिभूतः इत्य् अयम् अर्थवाद इति ।

• उच्यते । असंभविनः फलस्य शास्त्रान्तरेण विरुद्धस्य च श्रवणाद् एवम् उच्यते । तथा हि¹⁶⁹ पितृभिः सह इत्य् उच्यते । न च तैः किंचिद् अपराद्धम् । सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः फलं हि कर्तृगामि । न च पितॄणां कथंचिद् अपि कर्तृत्वम् इत्य् एतत् प्राग् उक्तम् एव । किं च “सद्यः पतति मांसेन” (म्ध् १०.९२) इति पतितत्ववचनं परेषां न पातित्यम् इति नियमात्¹⁷⁰ । तस्माद् अस्ति किंचिद् अनिष्टम् इत्य् एतावन्मात्रं प्रतिषेधेन संबध्यते । यथाश्रुतम् एव न¹⁷¹ युक्तम् । भोजनादिक्रिया यत्र तद्व्यतिरेकेण यद् अन्यद् विक्रयस्थानादि तत्र तिलैर् यः कुरुते स कृमित्वं प्राप्नोति यथोक्तेन दोषेण संयुयते ॥ १०.९१ ॥

In connection with the prohibition of the selling of sesamum except under the said conditions, we have this declamatory statement.

“It has been declared that the mention of the wrong involved in the doing of what is forbidden is the purpose served by declamatory assertions; why then should the declamatory statement in the present ease be put forward in the form—‘He becomes a worm if he does anything else with sesamum than eating, anointing and giving?’”

The answer to this is as follows:—This has been asserted in this form because the result spoken of is one that is impossible and also contrary to what has been asserted in other treatises. For instance, it is said here that the man plunges into ordure ‘along with his ancestors,’—and certainly no wrong is committed by these ancestors; the results of good and bad acts always accrue to the man that does them; in no sense could the ancestors be the persons that did the act in question; all which has been already discussed before. Then again, it is said below (in 92) that—‘by selling meat he at once becomes an outcaste’; where becoming an out-caste could not apply to any one else except the seller himself. From all this it is clear that all that is meant to be really related to the prohibition is that something undesirable happens; and the words of the text cannot be taken as literally true. Hence what is meant is that ‘the man who does anything else—in the shape of selling and the like—with sesamum than eating and the rest, becomes a worm,—i.e., becomes tainted with the evil effects described.’—(91)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 933);—in Mitākṣarā (3.39), to the effect that the selling of sesamum otherwise than what is mentioned in the preceding verse is sinful;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ā cāra p. 431);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 124).

**(verses 10.85-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.85].

091 If he applies sesamum to any other purpose but food, anointing, and charitable gifts, he will be born (again) as a worm and, together with his ancestors, be plunged into the ordure of dogs.

By selling meat, lac and salt, the Brāhmaṇa becomes an outcast at once; and by selling milk the Brāhmaṇa becomes a Śūdra in three days.—(92)

उक्तार्थः ॥ १०.९२ ॥

The meaning of this has been already explained.—(92)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.40);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 422);—in Aparārka (p. 934), where it is pointed out that this refers to a Brāhmaṇa who has not performed the requisite expiatory rites;—again on p. 1046;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 353)—in Madanapārijāta (p. 232);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 124);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika 36b) and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 427), which says that only strong deprecation is what is meant

**(verses 10.85-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.85].

092 By (selling) flesh, salt, and lac a Brahmana at once becomes an outcast; by selling milk he becomes (equal to) a Sudra in three days.

By selling, through greed, other commodities, the Brāhmaṇa assumes, in seven nights, the character of the Vaiśya.—(93)

कामत इत्य्वचनाद् अनापदीत्यनुमीयते¹⁷² । गुरुलघुत्वदर्शनं मांसादीनां प्रायश्चित्तविसेषार्थम् । गुरुणि गुरूणि लघुनि लघूनीति वक्ष्यामः (च्ड़्। म्ध् ११.५८) ॥ १०.९३ ॥

‘Through greed.’— This implies ‘during normal times, not of distress.’

This theory regarding the greater and less degree of wrong involved in the various commodities is for the purpose of indicating that there are special expiatory rites in connection with the selling of meat and other things. We are going to explain how there is heavy expiation in the case of the more heinous selling and less heavy in the case of the less heinous one.—(93)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 232);—in Mitākṣarā (3.40)—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 124), which explains ‘itareṣām’ as ‘all aforesaid articles except milk’;—and adds that all this refers to normal times.

**(verses 10.85-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.85].

मांसादीनां श्लोकद्वयेन गुरुलघुत्वप्रदर्सनं प्रायश्चित्तर्थं विज्ञेयम्, गुरुणि गुरुप्रायश्चित्तं यथा स्याल् लघुनि लघ्व् इति ॥ १०.९३ ॥

093 But by willingly selling in this world other (forbidden) commodities, a Brahmana assumes after seven nights the character of a Vaisya.

Savoury articles should be bartered for savoury articles, but never salt for another savoury article,—cooked food, for cooked food, and sesamum for corn, in equal quantities.—(94)

रसाः पूर्वोकाः । ते रसैर् निमातव्याः । मधुरसं गुडादि दत्वा, आम्लादिरसम् आमलक्यादि ग्रहीतत्वम् । न केवलं लवणं दत्वा रसान्तरम् आदेयम् । पाठान्तरम् “लवणं तिलैः” इति । अस्मिन् पाठे तिलैर् एव लवणस्य प्रतिषेधो न रसान्तरैः । कृतान्नं सक्त्वोदनाद्य् अन्नेन¹⁷³ पायसादिना निमातव्यम् । तिलास् तु धान्येन व्रीह्यादिना तत्समाः । प्रस्थं दत्वा प्रस्थ एव ग्रहीतव्यो नार्घापेक्षयाधिकं¹⁷⁴ वादेयम् । विनिमयो नाम विक्रय एव । क्रीणातिस् तु द्रव्यविनिमये पठ्यते । न हि तद् युक्तम्, विक्रये प्रकृते “विनिमयस् तु”¹⁷⁵ इति गौतमो भेदं दर्शयति¹⁷⁶ । एवं तर्हि प्रसिद्धेन रूपकादिना द्रव्यार्पणं विक्रयः । तदन्यद्रव्यपरिवृत्तौ विनिमयः ॥ १०.९४ ॥

‘Savoury articles’— described above—‘should be buttered for savoury substances .’ That is, one should receive the Āmalakī and other acids after giving, in exchange, sugar and other sweet substances. But in no case should salt be given in exchange for any other ‘savoury substance.’

‘Lavaṇam tilaiḥ’ is another reading; by which the prohibition would be only in regard to the bartering of salt for sesamum only, and not any other substance.

‘Cooked food’— such as fried flour, cooked rice and so forth—should be bartered for other kinds of ‘cooked food’—cakes and the like.

‘Sesamum shall be bartered for corns’—Vrīhi and the rest—‘in equal quantities.’ That is, given one seer (of sesamum), he shall receive one seer in exchange; more or less shall not be received, through any consideration of relative values.

‘Bartering’ also is regarded as a kind of selling; on the ground that the root to ‘sell,’ ‘ Kṛṛ (?)’is found mentioned among the roots signifying the act of ‘exchanging.’

This however is not right. Because Gautama has indicated the difference between the two, by speaking of ‘selling’ and ‘bartering’ in the same sentence. So that when things are given on the receipt of the rupee or such tokens, it is ‘selling’; and it is ‘bartering’ when one article is received in exchange for another article.—(94)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.39), which adds the following notes:—‘Kṛtānna’ is cooked food, and this should be exchanged with cooked food; it notes the. reading ‘Kṛtānnañcākṛtannena’, and explains it as ‘cooked food should be exchanged for uncooked rice and other grains’.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 933);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 233), which explains ‘nimātavyāḥ’ as ‘should be exchanged’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 431), which adds that the law laid down regarding the selling of sesamum applies to that of rasas also;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 124);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 429).

Gautama (7.16-23).—‘But it is permissible to barter one kind of substances used for flavouring for others, and animals. Salt and prepared food must not be bartered, nor sesamum. But for present use, an equal quantity of uncooked food may be exchanged for cooked food.—But if no other course is possible, a Brāhmaṇa may support himself in any way except by following the occupations of a Śūdra. Some people permit even this in case his life is in danger.’

Āpastamba (1.20.14-16—1.21.1-4).—‘The exchange of one of these (above-mentioned goods) for the other is likewise unlawful. But food may be exchanged for food, and slaves for slaves, and condiments for condiments, and perfumes for perfumes and learning for learning. Let him traffic with lawful merchandise which he has not bought, with Muñja grass, Balvaja -g rass, roots and fruits; and with grass and wood which have not been worked up. He shall not be too eager for such livelihood. If he obtains another livelihood, he shall leave off trading.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.37-39).—‘Substances used for flavouring may be bartered for other substances of the same kind, be it for one more valuable or for one worth less. But salt must never be exchanged for other substances used for flavouring. It is permitted to barter sesamum, rice, cooked food, learning, and slaves.’

लवणस्य तिलैर् विनिमयप्रतिषेधाद् रसैर् अन्यैस् तिलानि मातव्याः । तिला धान्येन व्रीह्यदिना; तत्समम् एव प्रस्थः प्रस्थे[न] निमातव्यः । न त्व् अल्पार्घितया ॥ १०.९४ ॥

094 Condiments may be bartered for condiments, but by no means salt for (other) condiments; cooked food (may be exchanged) for (other kinds of) cooked food, and sesamum seeds for grain in equal quantities.

The Kṣatriya, fallen in adverse circumstances, shall subsist by means of all this; but he shall never think of arrogating to himself the higher occupations.—(95)

एतेन सर्वेणापि । प्रतिषिद्धपण्यप्रतिप्रसवो ऽयं राजन्यस्य । न किंचित् तस्याविक्रेयं वैश्यवत् । किं तु सत्य् अपि स्ववृत्तित्यागे न ज्यायसीं ब्राह्मणवृत्तिं कदाचिद् अप्य् अभिमन्येत, **”**इमां करोमि” इति चेतसि न कुर्यात् । प्रतिकूलं दैवम् अनयः । एतद् आपदुपलक्षणार्थम् । गतः प्राप्तः । आपद्गत इति यावत् ॥ १०.९५ ॥

‘By means of all this.’—This indicates that the selling of the interdicted commodities also is permitted for the Kṣatriya; the meaning being that—as for the Vaiśya so far the Kṣatriya also, there is nothing that should not be sold.

But, even when renouncing his own proper occupation, ‘he shall never think of arrogating to himself the higher occupations’ of the Brāhmaṇa. That is, he should never even entertain the idea of having recourse to them.

‘Adverse circumstances’—ill-luck; that is distress; ‘fallen in adverse circumstances’—in distress.—(95)

This verse is quoted in Apararka (p. 934), which explains ‘jyāyasī vṛtti’ as the ‘functions of the Brāhmaṇa.’

(verses 10.95-96)

Nārada (1.5-8).—‘For neither of those are such occupations permitted as are either far above or far below their own rank.’

Gautama (7.26).—‘In times of distress, a Kṣatriya may follow the occupations of the Vaiśya.’

Viṣṇu (2.15).—‘In times of distress, each caste may follow the occupation of that next below it in rank.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.23).—‘One shall never adopt the occupation of a higher caste.’

जीवेद् एतेन राजन्यः सर्वेणाप्य् अनयं गतः ।

सर्वेणेत्य् अयं प्रतिषिद्धपण्यप्रतिप्रसवः पूर्वेणाजीविनः ।

न त्व् एव ज्यायसीं वृत्तिम् अभिमन्येत कर्हिचित् ॥ १०.९५ ॥

ज्यायस्या वृत्तेः प्रतिषेधाद् अत्रानुवादः । न त्व् एव ज्यायसीं वृत्तिम् इति यद् उक्तं तस्य प्रतिषेधस्य निन्दार्थवादः ॥ १०.९५ ॥

095 A Kshatriya who has fallen into distress, may subsist by all these (means); but he must never arrogantly adopt the mode of life (prescribed for his) betters.

If a man of low caste, through greed, subsists by the occupations of his superiors, him the King shall deprive of his property and quickly banish.—(96)

यो जात्याधमो निकृष्टः क्षत्रियादिः । सत्य् अपि प्रकृतत्वे राजन्यस्य, सर्वेषाम् अयं ब्राह्मणवृत्तिप्रतिषेधः । एवम् एवायं श्लोकः । उत्कृष्टो निरपेक्षो ब्राह्मण एव । कर्मभिर् अध्ययनादिभिर् जीवति । दण्ड्यो ऽयं सर्वस्वग्रहणप्रवासनैः ॥ १०.९६ ॥

‘A man of low caste’—The Kṣatriya and the rest Though the context deals with the Kṣatriya, yet this verse is meant to be an interdict upon all occupations of the Brāhmaṇa, for all the other castes.

‘Superior’.—It is the Brāhmaṇa alone who is absolutely (not only relatively) ‘superior.’

‘Occupations’.—Teaching and the rest.

If he subsists by these, he should be punished with confiscation of property and banishment.—(96)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 363), which adds the explanation that—‘if the Vaiśya or other lower castes should have recourse to the modes of living ordained for the higher castes, he should have all his property confiscated and then banished from the kingdom;—and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta p. 101).

(verses 10.95-96)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.95].

तस्य सर्वस्वम् अपहृत्य प्रवासं नियमेन कुर्याद् धार्मिको राजा । यद्य् अपि चैतत्प्रकरणसामर्थ्यात् क्षत्रियविषयं शास्त्रम्, तथापि समानत्वात् कारणस्य वैश्यशूद्रयोर् अपि विज्ञेयम् ॥ १०.९६ ॥

096 A man of low caste who through covetousness lives by the occupations of a higher one, the king shall deprive of his property and banish.

Better one’s own duty imperfectly performed, and not the duty of another performed perfectly; he who subsists by the function of another, instantly falls off from his caste.—(97)

पूर्वस्य विधेर् निन्दार्थवादो ऽयम् । यो यस्य विहितो धर्मो जात्याश्रयेण, विगुणो ऽप्य् अपरिपूराङ्गो ऽपि युक्तो ऽनुष्ठातुम्, न परधर्मः सर्वाङ्गसंपूर्णो ऽपि । अत्र निन्दार्थवादः परधर्मेणेति ॥ १०.९७ ॥

This is a deprecatory declamation in support of the foregoing injunction.

If a certain duty has been prescribed for one, in reference to his caste,—even though this be ‘performed imperfectly’—i.e., incomplete in its details,—it is right to perform that, and not the duty of another man, even though complete in all its details.

In support of this there is the deprecatory declamation—‘He who subsists, etc., etc.’— (97)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.41);—in Aparārka (p. 935);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 233), to the effect that even in times of distress it is better for the Brāhmaṇa to stick to his own functions than take to others;—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 123).

Vaśiṣṭha (2. 2 2-23).—‘Those who are unable to live by their own occupation may adopt that of the next inferior caste; but never that of a higher caste.’

Viṣṇu (2.15).—‘In times of distress, each caste may follow the occupation of that next below it in rank.’

अयम् अपरो निन्दार्थवादः । उत्कृष्टवर्णवृत्त्यनुष्ठानप्रतिषेधे स्वधर्मः परधर्म इति । प्रकरणात् तु वृत्तिविषयो धर्मशब्दः ॥ १०.९७ ॥

097 It is better (to discharge) one’s own (appointed) duty incompletely than to perform completely that of another; for he who lives according to the law of another (caste) is instantly excluded from his own.

The Vaiśya, unable to subsist by his own occupations, may subsist by the occupations of the Śūdra, avoiding all improper acts. But he shall desist from them as soon as he is able to do so.—(98)

स्वधर्मेणाजीवतो वैश्यस्य शूद्रवृत्तिर् अनुज्ञायते । पादधावनादिशुश्रूषया । अनाचरन्न् अकार्याणि । उच्छिष्टापमार्जनाद्यकार्यम्, तत् परिहर्तव्यम् । शक्तिमान् निवर्तेतेति सर्वशेषः ।

• अत्र केनचिद् उक्तम्- सामर्थ्यात् ब्राह्मणक्षत्रिययोर् अप्य् एतद् अतिदिश्यते ।

• तत्रापरेण संदिह्यते । कथं शूद्रवृत्तिं ब्राह्मणः कुर्यात् । एवं हि श्रूयते-

• उत्कृष्टं चापकृष्टं च विद्येते कर्मणी तयोः ।

• मध्यमे कर्मणी हित्वा सर्वसाधारणे हि ते ॥ इति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । न त्व् अस्यायम् अर्थो ब्राह्मणस्य शूद्रवृत्तिर् अनुज्ञायते सामर्थ्याद् इति । किं तर्हि, निवर्तेत च शक्तिमान् इति यद् अस्माभिर् उक्तं सर्वशेष¹⁷⁷ इति ॥ १०.९८ ॥

This verse permits the Śūdra’s occupation for the Vaiśya, when ‘unable to subsist by his own occupations’— such as washing of the feet and so forth.

‘Avoiding all improper acts’— The sweeping of offals and such acts are ‘improper’; and all this should be avoided.

‘He shall desist as soon as he is able to do so.’—This is applicable to all.

Some people have remarked that the clear indication of the text is that what is said here is meant to apply to the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya also.

And in regard to this another party raises the question—How can the Brāhmaṇa ever have recourse to the occupations of the Śūdra?

The answer given by the other party is that it has been declared that—‘High and low are the functions of the two castes; barring the two middle ones, the rest are common to all’. (?)

This however is not right. The text does not mean that the occupations of the Śūdra are permitted for the Brāhmaṇa; the exact meaning of ‘desisting as soon as he is able’ b eing as we have explained it,—that it is applicable to all.—(98)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 233).

Vaśiṣṭha (2.22-23).—‘Those who are unable to live by their own occupation may adopt that of the next inferior caste; but never that of a higher caste.’

Viṣṇu (2.15).—‘In times of distress, each caste may follow the occupation of that next below it in rank.’

सामर्थ्याद् ब्राह्मणक्षत्रिययोर् अप्य् एतद् इष्यते ॥ १०.९८ ॥

098 A Vaisya who is unable to subsist by his own duties, may even maintain himself by a Sudra’s mode of life, avoiding (however) acts forbidden (to him), and he should give it up, when he is able (to do so).

The Śūdra, unable to do service for twice-born people, and threatened with danger to his wife and sons, may subsist by the occupations of craftsmen.—(99)

कारुकाः शिल्पिनः, सूदतन्तुवायादयः । तेषां कर्माणि पाकवयनादीनि प्रसिद्धानि । तैर् जीवेत्¹⁷⁸ । पुत्रदारात्ययस् तद्भरणासमर्थता । एतेन धनतन्त्रभङ्गेन तस्यापदि विवाहादिविधानात् कर्मणाम् एषां¹⁷⁹ निकृष्टतानुमीयते ॥ १०.९९ ॥

‘Craftsmen’— such as cooks, weavers, and the like; the occupations of these are cooking, weaving and so forth. By these, ‘he may subsist.’

‘Danger to wife and sons’—i.e., incapability of maintaining them.

This shows that Handicrafts are very low occupations, since even for the Śūdra these have been permitted only when all other property is lost and the man is in dire distress.—(99)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 233).

**(verses 10.99-100)
**

Gautama (10.57, 60).—‘From the higher castes, he shall seek to obtain his livelihood; and he may live by the mechanical arts.’

Viṣṇu (2.14).—‘For the Śūdra, all branches of art.’

Yājñavalkya (1.120).—‘For the Śūdra, attending upon the twice-born has been ordained; being unable to maintain himself by that, he shall become a trader; or he shall live by the various arts, always doing what is good for the twice-born.’

[See under 121-122 below.]

एतस्माच् च विज्ञायते शूद्रकर्मन्भ्यः कारुकमर्माण्य् अत्यन्तनिकृष्टानि, वर्नापशदानां वृत्तिः ॥ १०.९९ ॥

099 But a Sudra, being unable to find service with the twice-born and threatened with the loss of his sons and wife (through hunger), may maintain himself by handicrafts.

That is, those occupations of craftsmen and other arts by the performance whereof the twice-born men are best served.—(100)

प्रचरितैर् अनुष्ठितैः । शुश्रूष्यन्ते सेव्यन्ते । तदुपयोगीनि यानि कर्माणि शिल्पानि । यद्य् अपि शिल्पम् अपि कारुकर्मैव, तथापीह भेदेनोपादानात् तक्षकिवर्धकिप्रभृतयः कारवः, तेषां कर्माणि तक्षणवर्धनादीनि । शिल्पानि पत्रछेदरूपकर्माण्य् आलेख्यानि ॥ १०.१०० ॥

‘Performance’— doing.

‘Are served’—benefited.

Those handicrafts which are beneficial to the twice-born people (shall be taken up by the Śūdra).

Though ‘arts’ also are the ‘occupation of craftsmen,’ yet, inasmuch as the two have been separately mentioned, the ‘craftsmen’ meant here should be taken as the carpenter, the wood-cutter and so forth, and their occupations are wood-cutting, carpentry and the like.

‘Arts’— such as decorating, toilet, painting and so forth.—(100).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3. 35);—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 233), which notes that the verb ‘kurvīta’ means ‘should perform’.

**(verses 10.99-100)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.99].

[See under 121-122 below.]

कारुककर्माणि वर्धकिलोहकारादि, नानाशिल्पान्यालेख्यादीनि । आपत्काले वृत्त्यर्थम् इदं श्लोकद्वयं प्रकरणसामर्थ्याद् विज्ञेयम् ॥ १०.१०० ॥

100 (Let him follow) those mechanical occupations and those various practical arts by following which the twice-born are (best) served.

If a Brāhmaṇa, distressed through want of livelihood, pines, because resolved to stick to his own path, he does not adopt the occupation of the Vaiśya,—he shall adopt this (following) procedure.—(101)

अनातिष्ठन्न् इच्छया । एतद् उक्तं भवति । क्षत्रवृत्त्यसंभवे यदि वा वैश्यवृत्तिम् आचरेद् असत्प्रतिग्रहं वा । तुल्ये एते वृत्ती । असत्प्रतिग्रहात् क्षत्रवृत्तिः श्रेयसी । अथ वा अनातिष्ठन् वैश्यवृत्तिम्,¹⁸⁰ असंभवे । ततश् चासत्प्रतिग्रहो वैश्यवृत्तेर् हीनतरः । स्वे पथि स्थित इति ब्रुवन्न् आपद्वृत्तीनां समुच्चयो ऽस्तीति ज्ञापयति । अवृत्त्या कर्शितः¹⁸¹** सीदन्न्** अवसादं प्राप्नुवन्¹⁸² ॥ १०.१०१ ॥

‘Does not adopt’—i.e., being unwilling to adopt What this means is that, in the event of the Kṣatriya’s occupation being not available, he may have recourse either to the receiving of gifts from wrong persons or to the occupation of the Vaiśya,—both these standing on the same footing; the occupation of the Kṣatriya however would be superior to the receiving of improper gifts.

Or, ‘does not adopt the occupation of the Vaiśya’ may also mean—‘the occupation of the Vaiśya being not available to him.’ In this case, the receiving of improper gifts would be inferior to the occupation of the Vaiśya.

‘Resolved to stick to his own path.’—This indicates that this sums up all the occupations permitted during times of distress.

‘Distressed through want of livelihood, and Pining’—i.e., fallen in ruin.—(101)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 233);—in Aparārka (p. 935);—in Smṛtitattva I (p. 353);—in Smṛtitattva II (p. 362);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 408).

**(verses 10.101-108)
**

Gautama (7.4).—‘In times of distress, it is permissible to offer sacrifices for men of all castes, to teach them and to accept gifts from them.’

Āpastamba (?.18.5-7, 14-15),—‘In times of distress, if he is unable to keep himself, he may eat food obtained from anybody, after having touched it with gold, or with fire……. In times of distress, even the food of a Śūdra, who lives under one’s protection for the sake of spiritual merit, may be eaten. He may eat it, touching it once with gold or with fire.’

Vaśiṣṭha (27.9).—‘Through sacrificing for wicked people, through teaching them, through intermarrying with them, or through accepting their gifts, learned Brāhmaṇas do not contract guilt; for a learned Brāhmaṇa resembles fire and the sun.’

Yājñavalkya (3.41).—‘Agriculture, arts, service, learning, money-lending, cart, hill, attendance, land covered with wood and water, king, alms-begging,—these are the means of livelihood in times of distress.’

स्वे पथि स्थित इति च लिङ्गात् क्षत्रियवृत्तिम् अप्य् अनातिष्ठन्न् इति गम्यते । एवं च ब्राह्मणस्यासत्पर्तिग्रहः क्षत्रियादिवृत्तेर् अभावे वैकल्पिको गम्यते । न तु समुच्चयेन ॥ १०.१०१ ॥

101 A Brahmana who is distressed through a want of means of subsistence and pines (with hunger), (but) unwilling to adopt a Vaisya’s mode of life and resolved to follow his own (prescribed) path, may act in the following manner.

Fallen into distress, the Brāhmaṇa may receive gifts from all; that anything which is pure should become defiled is not possible under the law.—(102)

सर्वत इति प्रतिग्राह्यजातिगुणानाम् अपेक्षा न कर्तव्या । अत्रापि हीनहीनतरहीनतमेषु क्रमेण पूर्वपूर्वाभावे उत्तरोत्तरप्राप्तिर् अस्त्य् एव । यथा क्षत्रवृत्त्यभावे वैश्यवृत्तिः । पवित्रं गङ्गास्रोतः । तद् अमेध्यसंसर्गे न¹⁸³ दुष्यति “नदी वेगेन शुध्यति” (म्ध् ५.१०७) इत्य् उक्तम् । एवं ब्राह्मणो ऽपीति ॥ १०.१०२ ॥

‘From all’;—i.e., no consideration should be made regarding the castes whose gifts should or should not be accepted.

Here also what is meant is that among gifts from the low, the lower and the lowermost castes, those from the succeeding shall be accepted only when those from the preceding ones are not procurable. Just as the occupation of the Vaiśya is permitted only when that of the Kṣatriya is not available.

‘Pure’—e.g., the stream of the Gaṅgā. This does not become ‘defiled’ by coming in contact with impure substances, since it has been declared that ‘the river becomes purified by its own flow.’ The same is the case with the Brāhmaṇa also.—(102)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 935);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 233);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 326);—in Smṛtitattva II (p. 362);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 409).

**(verses 10.101-108)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.101].

यथैव च वर्णान्तरकर्मानुष्ठान्[ए तद्]अनन्तरम् अस्य कर्मेणोक्तम्, एवं प्रतिग्राह्याणाम् अप्य् अप्रशस्तानां गुरुलघुत्वाल् लघोर् लघोर् अभावे असत्प्रतिग्रहो ऽपि गुरोर् गुरोः सकाशात् स्याद् इति । एवं च [प्रशस्ताभावे] ऽप्रशस्तात् स्यात् । तदभावे अप्रशस्ततरात् । तस्याप्य् अभावे ऽरशस्ततमात् । तथा च वक्ष्यति, “सर्वस्वं वा वेदविदुषे ब्राह्मणायोपपादयेत्” इति । यदि चैतद् एवं न स्यात् । न चैतद् इष्टम् । अतो यथोक्त एव शास्त्रार्थः । पवित्रं च तन् न दुष्यतीत्य् अयम् आपद्धर्मस्तुत्यर्थवादः । ईषत्प्रत्यवाय हेतुर् वेति कृत्वा । अथ वा प्राणधारणस्य प्रयोजनातिशयदर्शनार्थकः स्यात्, येन जीवन्न् अयं शक्ष्यति ह्य् अतिक्रमाकुशलं च निहर्तुम् इति ॥ १०.१०२ ॥

102 A Brahmana who has fallen into distress may accept (gifts) from anybody; for according to the law it is not possible (to assert) that anything pure can be sullied.

No sin attaches to Brāhmaṇas, either by teaching or by sacrificing for others or by receiving reprehensible gifts; for they are like fire and water.—(103)

पूर्वेणासत्प्रतिग्रह उक्तः । अनेन याजनाध्यापने अनुज्ञायेते । गर्हिताद् इति सिंहावलोकितवत् पूर्वाभ्याम् अप्य् अभिसंबध्यते । यथाग्निर् आपश् च सर्वत्र शुद्धा एवं ब्राह्मणा अपीति प्रशंसा ।

• केचिद् आहुः । न¹⁸⁴ असत्प्रतिग्रहवद् असद्याजनाध्यापने अप्य् अनुज्ञायेते । यद्य् अभविष्यतां तदा पूर्वश्लोक एव¹⁸⁵ प्रतिग्रहवद् अपठिष्यताम् । इह तु विधिप्रत्ययाभावाद् दोषो भवति विप्राणाम् इति । वर्तमानप्रत्ययेन सिद्धव्यपदेशद् अर्थवादताप्रतीतेः । किं च प्रतिग्रहवचनं¹⁸⁶ तावद् अर्थवादः, पूर्वेण सिद्धत्वात्, तदेकवाक्यत्वापत्तेर्¹⁸⁷ याजनाध्यापने अप्य् एवं भवितुम् अर्हतः ।

• वयं तु ब्रूमः- असंभवे ऽसत्प्रतिग्रहस्य तत्रापि वृत्तिर् युक्ता । यतः प्रवृत्तिः¹⁸⁸ स्मर्यते- “यथा कथंचित् स आत्मानम् उद्धरेद् अन्यत्र प्रत्यवायेभ्यः” । कर्मार्थस् त्व् आपद्धर्मपाठः ॥ १०.१०३ ॥

The preceding verse having permitted the receiving of improper gifts, the present verse permits the teaching and sacrificing (of unqualified persons). The epithet ‘reprehensible’ is applicable both ways, according to the maxim of the ‘Lion’s glance.’

As Fire and Water, so Brāhmaṇas, are everywhere pure. This is the eulogy bestowed on the Brāhmaṇa.

Some people have held the following view:—“If, like the receiving of gifts from improper persons, the Teaching and Sacrificing for improper persons were meant to be permitted, men, those also would have been mentioned in the preceding verse, just as the Receiving of Gifts. As a matter of fact, however, since there is no idea of injunction in the present verse, sin would certainly attach to Brāhmaṇas (for doing these two acts); for the presence of the Present Tense clearly indicates that the text speaks of a settled fact, and, as such, is purely declamatory. Then again, since every injunction has a corresponding declamatory declaration, the mention of Teaching and Sacrificing in a sentence which is syntactically connected with a foregoing injunction, is certainly open to being regarded as declamatory.”

Our opinion however is that when even gifts from improper persons are not available, the Brāhmaṇa may have recourse to the said Teaching and Sacrificing also; since what the text is providing for is the man’s subsistence; and it has been declared that ‘one should maintain himself by some means or the other, excepting of course the heinous crimes.’ And it is only with a view to their being performed that the said acts have been mentioned in the section dealing with ‘Abnormal Times.’—(103)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 233);—in Aparārka (p. 935);—in Smṛtitattva II (p. 362), which notes that Kullūka Bhaṭṭa explains ‘jvalanāmbusamāḥ’ as ‘like water and fire’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 183), which notes that the reading is ‘agarhitāt’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 326);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 409).

**(verses 10.101-108)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.101].

अत्राध्यापनयाजनयोर् गर्हितयोर् नानुज्ञानम् । असत्प्रतिग्रहस्तुत्यर्थत्वात् तयोर् ग्रहणस्य । स चाधिकृत एव “सर्वतः प्रतिगृह्णीयात्” इति । न त्व् असदध्यापनयाजने ऽधिकृते । तथा च सति पूर्ववद् अयम् अप्य् अर्थवादो व्याख्यातः ॥ १०.१०३ ॥

103 By teaching, by sacrificing for, and by accepting gifts from despicable (men) Brahmanas (in distress) commit not sin; for they (are as pure) as fire and water.

If a man, threatened with loss of life, eats food from stray sources, he does not become tainted with sin, just as Ākāśa is not defiled by mud.—(104)

पूर्वेणासत्प्रतिग्रह उक्तः । अनेन प्रतिग्रहदुष्टम् अन्नम् अभ्यनुज्ञायते । ततस् तत इति जातिकर्मानपेक्षम् अन्नस्वामिनम्¹⁸⁹ आह । शेषो ऽर्थवादः¹⁹⁰ ॥ १०.१०४ ॥

The preceding texts have spoken of receiving gifts from improper persons; the present verse permits the partaking of food defiled by the ownership of low men.

‘From stray sources’—i.e., irrespectively of the caste and actions of the owner of the food.

The rest is all purely declamatory.—(104)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva I (p. 353);—in Aparārka (p. 935);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyasahchitta p. 326);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 183);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 233);—and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 75).

**(verses 10.101-108)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.101].

104 He who, when in danger of losing his life, accepts food from any person whatsoever, is no more tainted by sin than the sky by mud.

Ajīgarta, buffering from hunger, went forward to kill his son; and as he sought a remedy for hunger, he did not become tainted with sin.—(105)

अजीगर्तो नाम ऋषिः । स क्षुत्परिपीडितः पुत्रं सुतं शुनःशेपनामानं हन्तुम् उपासर्पत् प्रचक्रमे । न चासौ क्रव्याद इति युज्यते । शौनःशेपम् आख्यानं बह्वृचि सुप्रसिद्धम् (ऐत्ब् ७.१३) । नात्र विस्तर आगमस्योपयुज्यते । परमार्थस् तु प्रकृतिरूपो ऽर्थवादः । एवं सर्व एते द्रष्टव्याः ॥ १०.१०५ ॥

‘Ajīgarta’—The sage of that name—‘suffering from hunger, went forward to kill his son’—Sunaḥśepa, and yet he was not regarded as ‘carnivorous.’

The story of Sunaḥśepa occurs in the Ṛgveda; and it is not necessary for us to dilate upon what occurs in the scriptures.

As a matter of fact however, this is a declamatory statement in the form of the assertion of an act done by somebody.

All such passages should be understood to be the same.—(105)

See Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.13-16.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 935);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyasahchitta p. 326).

**(verses 10.101-108)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.101].

105 Agigarta, who suffered hunger, approached in order to slay (his own) son, and was not tainted by sin, since he (only) sought a remedy against famishing.

Vāmadeva, expert in the knowledge of right and wrong, when distressed, desired to eat dog’s flesh for saving his life,—and he did not become defiled.—(106)

एवं वामदेवो नाम ऋषिः । स आर्तः क्षुधा श्वमांसम् अत्तुं भक्षयितुम् ऐच्छत् ॥ १०.१०६ ॥

Similarly the sage named ‘Vāmadeva’—‘distressed’—with hunger—‘desired to eat dog’s flesh.’—(106)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 326);—and in Aparārka (p. 935).

**(verses 10.101-108)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.101].

106 Vamadeva, who well knew right and wrong, did not sully himself when, tormented (by hunger), he desired to eat the flesh of a dog in order to save his life.

Bharadvāja, a man of great austerities, accepted many cows from the carpenter Vṛdhu, when tormented by hunger, along with his sons, in a lonely forest.—(107)

वृधो माम तक्षा अप्रतिग्राह्यः । ततो बह्वीर् गा भरद्वाजो नाम ऋषिः प्रतिजग्राह ॥ १०.१०७ ॥

Vṛdhu was a carpenter; a person unfit for receiving gifts from;—from him the sage named Bharadvāja received gifts.—(107)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 935);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 326).

**(verses 10.101-108)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.101].

107 Bharadvaga, a performer of great austerities, accepted many cows from the carpenter Bribu, when he was starving together with his sons in a lonely forest.

Viśvāmitra, expert in the knowledge of right and wrong, when tormented by hunger, proceeded to eat the haunch of a dog, receiving it from the hands of a Caṇḍāla.—(108)

विश्वामित्रो नाम महामुनिः प्रसिद्धः । स कस्मिंश्चिद् अवसरे क्षुधादुःखेन श्वजाघनीं चण्डालहस्ताद् आदायात्तुम् अभ्यागाद्¹⁹¹ आभिमुख्येनाध्यवसितः । न केवलं परिदुष्टे ऽन्ने दोषो ऽस्ति, यावत् स्वभावदुष्टे ऽपीति श्वजाघनीग्रहणम् । सर्वदोषदुष्टम् अप्य् आपदि भक्षयितव्यम् इति श्लोकतात्पर्यार्थः ॥ १०.१०८ ॥

Viśvāmitra is a well-known great sage. On one occasion, when he suffered much from hunger, ‘he proceeded to eat the haunch of a dog, receiving it from the hands of a Carṇḍāla.’

The ‘dog’s haunch’ has been mentioned with a view to show that there is harm in the eating of not only such food as has been defiled, but also of that which is defective by its very nature;—the sense of the verse being that in times of distress one may take even such food as is tainted with all kinds of defects.—(108)

See Mahābhārata 12.141.28 etc. seg.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 935);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 234). which explains ‘śvajāghanī’ as the loins of a dog;—and in Parāśaramadhava (Prāyaścitta p. 326).

**(verses 10.101-108)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.101].

जीवितात्यये सर्वान्नाभ्यनुज्ञानार्थाः पञ्चश्लोकाः परकृत्यर्थवादाः विज्ञेयाः ॥ १०.१०४–०८ ॥

108 Visvamitra, who well knew what is right or wrong, approached, when he was tormented by hunger, (to eat) the haunch of a dog, receiving it the hands of a Kandala.

Among Receiving of Gifts, Sacrificing and Teaching, the Receiving of Gifts is the meanest, and the most reprehensible for the Brāhmaṇa, in respect of his life after death.—(109)

आपदीषद्गर्हितयोर् याजनाध्यापनयोः संभवे न गर्हितप्रतिग्रहे वर्तितव्यम् इति श्लोकार्थः ॥ १०.१०९ ॥

The sense of the verse is that so long as the less reprehensible means of subsistence, in the shape of sacrificing and teaching, are available, the Brāhmaṇa should not have recourse to the receiving of Improper Gifts.—(109)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 935).

**(verses 10.109-111)
**

Vaśiṣṭha (20.45-47).—‘Property received from outcasts, after forming alliances with them, either by teaching the Veda or by marriage, must he relinquished. Let him not associate with such men. It is declared in the Veda that he who has associated with an outcast becomes pure by reciting the Saṃhitā of his Veda, proceeding in the northerly direction, and fasting. They quote also a verse to the effect that a sinner is liberated from guilt by tormenting his body, by austerities, and by reciting the Veda; be becomes free also by bestowing gifts.’

Viṣṇu (54.28).—‘Those Brāhmaṇas who have acquired property by base acts become free from sin by relinquishing it and by reciting Veda-texts and practising austerities.’

Āpastamba (1.28, 11-12).—‘Enjoyments taken unrighteously one shall give up; be shall say—“I and sin do not dwell together.” Clothing himself with a garment reaching from the navel down to the knee, bathing daily, morn, noon and evening, eating food which contains neither milk nor pungent condiments, nor salt, he shall not enter a house for twelve years. After that, he may be taken as purified.’

[See 11.194.]

प्रकरणाद् असत्प्रतिग्रहनिन्दा । ईषद्गर्हितयाजनाध्यापनवृत्तिसंस्तुत्यर्था सामर्थ्यात् । एवं च सति ईषद्गर्हिते याजने ऽध्यापने वा सति वृत्त्यर्थे नासत्परिग्रहे प्रवर्तेत इत्य् अर्थात् विज्ञायते । इतरथा, आपत्कल्पविहितासत्प्रतिग्रहनिन्दा पूर्वशास्त्रविरोधिनी (?) प्रसज्येत । न चैतद् इष्टम् । अतस् तन्निन्दयेत्रवृत्तिस्तुतिर् विज्ञेया । सा च क्रमार्थेत्य् उक्तम् । अत्र कारणम् आह ॥ १०.१०९ ॥

109 On (comparing) the acceptance (of gifts from low men), sacrificing (for them), and teaching (them), the acceptance of gifts is the meanest (of those acts) and (most) reprehensible for a Brahmana (on account of its results) in the next life.

As for Teachng and Sacrificing, these are done always for only such men as have received the sacraments; while the Receiving of Gifts may be done even from the lowest-born Śūdra.— (110)

अत्रैव हेतुरूपो ऽर्थवादः । प्रवृत्तिर् एवेदृशी लोकस्य यद् अनुपनीता नाधीयते न च यजन्ते । अतः सुष्ट्व् आर्त्तो ऽपि न शूद्रं याजयिष्यत्य् अध्यापयिष्यति वा । दानं तु सार्ववर्णिकं प्रसिद्धं । शुद्राद् अपि प्रतिग्रहः कर्तुं प्राप्नोति । अतः स प्रत्यवरः ॥ १०.११० ॥

This verse sets forth a declamatory statement, in the form of an argument in support of what has gone before.

The very nature of men is such that persons not initiated do not study the Veda, and do not perform sacrifices; so that in times of distress, the Brāhmaṇa might very well teach and sacrifice for the Śūdra. As for gifts on the other hand, it is well known that it may be received from all castes; so that it is quite possible to receive it from a Śūdra [so that it is more easily procurable]. It is for this reason that the receiving of improper gifts (from wrong sources, outside the four castes) is the meanest of all.—(110)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 936);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 408).

**(verses 10.109-111)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.109].

[See 11.194.]

यतश् चैतद् एवम् अतो यथोपदिष्टः क्रमः प्रतिपादनीयः ॥ १०.११० ॥

110 (For) assisting in sacrifices and teaching are (two acts) always performed for men who have received the sacraments; but the acceptance of gifts takes place even in (case the giver is) a Sudra of the lowest class.

By the muttering of sacred texts and by the offering of libations is the guilt incurred by teaching and sacrificing removed; while that incurred by receiving gifts is removed only by renouncing them and by austerities.—(111)

जपेन होमेन चैनः पापम् अपैति विनश्यति । तेन न क्षतिः । प्रतिग्रहाद् यद् एनस् तत्त्यागेन तस्य प्रतिग्रहस्य, तपसा वक्ष्यमाणेन “मासं गोष्ठे पयः पीत्वा” (म्ध् ११.१९३) इत्यादि ॥ १०.१११ ॥

‘The guilt is removed’—destroyed—‘by the muttering of sacred texts and by the offering of libations.’ Hence there is not much harm in this.

But the guilt incurred in the receiving of gifts is removed only by the ‘renouncing’— of the gifts—and ‘by austerities’—laid down later on, under 11.195.—(111)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 936);—in Mitākṣarā (3.35);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 404).

**(verses 10.109-111)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.109].

[See 11.194.]

प्रकरणाद् अयं प्रतिग्रहो ऽसत्प्रतिग्रहो विज्ञेयः । छन्दोभङ्गभयात् असच् छब्दो ऽत्र न पठितः प्रतिग्रहोपपदम् । जपहोमत्यागतपसां च प्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणोपदिष्टानाम् इहोपदेशः स्तुत्यर्थः, न विध्यर्थः ॥ १०.१११ ॥

111 The guilt incurred by offering sacrifices for teaching (unworthy men) is removed by muttering (sacred texts) and by burnt offerings, but that incurred by accepting gifts (from them) by throwing (the gifts) away and by austerities.

The Brāhmaṇa, unable to maintain himself, may take to gleaning ears of corn and picking up grains, even from stray places. Gleaning ears of corn is better than receiving gifts; and better even than picking up of grains.—(112)

अस्याप्य् अनुवादो ऽर्थवादम् एवाह । महद् एतद् अन्याय्यं यत् परद्रव्यग्रहणम् । तत्र कदाचिद् अश्रूयमाणस्य ग्रहणे ऽपीदं भवद् दुष्यतो ऽप्य् एतावता प्रशस्यत्वम् । अत्र शिलः प्रतिग्रहसमानजातीयः¹⁹² । स एवायं प्रकर्षप्रत्ययहेतुर् भवति । प्रतिग्रहाच् छिलः श्रेयान् इति । यतो निकृष्टम् अपेक्ष्योत्कृष्टत्वनिमित्तं प्रकर्षं अनुभवति । न हि भवति चण्डालाद् ब्राह्मणः श्रेयान् । अतः शिलोञ्छयोर् अपि ग्रहणे ऽनस्वग्रहणम् । तथापि शिलोञ्छः श्रेयः । यद्य् अपि शिलोञ्छवृत्तिर् अन्त्यन्तोत्कृष्टोक्ता तथाप्य् अस्ति प्रतिग्रहेण किंचित् साम्यम्¹⁹³ । यतस् तत्राधिष्ठितदेवतानिष्ठितभृत्यागतं¹⁹⁴ क्रियावैकल्यम् । असत्प्रतिग्रहे ऽप्य् आत्मनि ग्रह उपपन्नो न कुप्यतीत्य् अयम्¹⁹⁵ इति । तत्रेतरसंनिहितद्रव्यस्यात्मनि ग्रहः । अतः शिलोञ्छवृत्तिर् अपि न निरवद्या । ततो युक्तं प्रतिग्रहाच् छिलः स्रेयान् इत्यादि ॥ १०.११२ ॥

The reiteration of this also is stated in the form of a declamatory statement.

In reality the taking of something belonging to another is very wrong; but some form of it may be less wrong than another. Thus both the receiving of gifts and the gleaning of ears of corn, belonging to the same category (of taking what belongs to another), the latter is said to be ‘better’ than the former. It is only between two bad things belonging to the same category that one is regarded as the ‘better’ of the two; no one says that ‘the Brāhmaṇa is better than the Caṇḍāla.’ Thus then even though the gleaning of ears and picking of grains also involve the taking of what belongs to another, yet these are ‘better.’

Though living by ‘gleaning ears’ and ‘picking grains’ has been described as the best form of living, yet it does bear some resemblance to the ‘receiving of gifts.’ So that in the case of both these—‘gleaning ears’ and ‘receiving gifts’—one should exercise a certain amount of check over himself. Thus it is that living by ‘gleaning ears’ and ‘picking grains’ also is not entirely free from blame; hence it is that we have the declaration that—‘gleaning ears is better than receiving gifts.’—(112)

असत्प्रतिग्रहपक्षे शिलोञ्छाभ्याम् । “दुर्धराव्” इमौ विज्ञेयौ । सत्प्रतिग्रहाद् इत्य् एके । येन सिलोञ्छयोः किलासत्प्रतिग्रहात् साधुवादो न युक्तः । अत्यन्तहीनत्वाद् असत्प्रतिग्रहस्य सिलोञ्छाभ्याम् । “दुर्धरौ हि ताव् अकृतात्मभिः” इति यद् उक्तं तद् एतद् अनादृत्यम् । यस्मात् सिलोञ्छवृत्तिनो यद्य् अप्य् आत्मनिग्रहो ऽस्ति, तथापि देवतातिथिभृत्यगतम् अवश्यम् अस्य क्रियावैकल्यं जायते । असत्प्रतिग्रहे चात्मनिग्रह उच्यते, “न तु तृप्येत् स्वयं ततः” इति वचनात् । तीव्रतरश् च संनिहितद्रव्यस्यात्मनिग्रहः । तथा द्रव्यस्यार्जनरक्षप्रतिपादनेषु प्रयत्ननियमः । अपि च सिलोञ्छवृत्तिनो ऽप्य् असत्सिलोञ्छगन्धो ऽस्ति, यतस् तत इति वचनात्, अविशेषेण सर्वकृषीवलेभ्यः । एताव् इह शिलोञ्चाव् उच्येते । यतः असत्प्रतिग्रहापकरणाल् लिङ्गाच् च विर्पो ऽजीवन् यतस् तत इति एतस्माद् विज्ञायते च । सत्प्रतिग्रहपक्ष एतौ सिलोञ्छौ । एवं च नाधिकार उत्स्रक्ष्यते । न लिङ्गम् । गुणवृत्त्या साधुवाद एतद् गम्यते । तदभावे ऽसत्प्रतिग्रहः स्यात् । यथा याजनाध्यापनयोर् इत्य् उक्तम् ॥ १०.११२ ॥

112 A Brahmana who is unable to maintain himself, should (rather) glean ears or grains from (the field of) any (man); gleaning ears is better than accepting gifts, picking up single grains is declared to be still more laudable.

If Brāhmaṇas, who have completed their study, suffer privation, or seek to obtain wealth and riches, they may beg of the king; and if he be unwilling to give, he should be given up.—(113)

अत्र त्रीणि निमित्तानि राजप्रतिग्रह उच्यन्ते । सीदद्भिः कुटुम्बावसदं प्राप्तैर् आपदीत्य् अर्थः । कुप्यम् इच्छद्भिः कुण्डलकटकाद्य् उष्णीषासनादि काञ्चनादि अन्यद् वा धनं गोहिरण्यादि यज्ञोपयोग्य् अन्यद् वा । विप्रैः¹⁹⁶ पृथिवीपतिर् याच्यो देशेश्वरो ऽभ्यर्थयितव्यः । अत्र यद् उक्तम् “न राज्ञः प्रतिगृह्णीयात्” (म्ध् ४.८४) इति, स दुष्टराजविषयः प्रतिषेधो द्रष्टव्यः । तथा चोक्तम् “लुब्धस्योच्छास्त्रवर्तिनः” (म्ध् ४.८७) इति । अदित्सन् याचितः सन् दातुं यो नेच्छति । स त्यागम् अर्हति । तस्य विषये न वस्तव्यम् । अथ वा त्यागो हानिः । अन्यस्य चानिर्देशाद् धर्महानिं प्राप्नोति ॥ १०.११३ ॥

This verse lays down three occasions on which one may accept gifts from the king.

(1) ‘Suffering privation’—i.e., in times of distress, being threatened with the possibility of the whole family perishing.

(2) ‘Seeking to obtain wealth’—in the shape of ear-rings, bracelets, turbans, seats, gold, etc.

(3) ‘Seeking to obtain riches’—cattle, gold and other tilings necessary for sacrificial performances.

Under these conditions Brāhmaṇas may beg of the ‘king’—the sovereign of their country.

The prohibition contained above in 4.84—‘He shall not receive gifts from the king’—must be taken as referring to a wicked king,—it being added, ‘of one who is avaricious and behaves against the law.’—(‘87).

‘Unwilling to give,’—if on being begged, he be not willing to give what is wanted,—‘he should be given up’— the Brāhmaṇas should cease to live in his kingdom.

Or ‘giving up’ may mean loss; and as nothing else is mentioned, it must mean the ‘loss’ of merit on the part of the king.—(113)

Cf. 4.84, which is rescinded by this verse, according to Govindarāja and Kullūka.

‘Kupyam’.—‘Pots, kettles, wooden stools, and the like’ (Medhātithi);—‘Beds and seats and such articles of small value’ (Govindarāja);—‘also grain and clothes’ (Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana);—‘Brass, copper and other common metals’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Tyāgamarhati’.—‘The realm of such a king should be abandoned by the Brāhmaṇas’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘such a king is to be excluded from teaching and sacrifices’ (Nandana);—‘must be left to himself, i.e., not asked again’ (Kullūka).

**(verses 10.113-114)
**

[[See 4.84 et seq.]]

Vaśiṣṭha (12.2-3).—‘The Accomplished Student shall not beg from any body except from the King and a pupil. But he may ask from any body, if pressed by hunger, for some small gift, such as cultivated or uncultivated field, a cow, a goat or a sheep or, at the last extremity, for gold, grain or food.’

Yājñavalkya (3.42),—‘When he has remained hungry for three days, he may take grains from a non-Brāhmaṇa, and if accused of it, he should rightly state the truth.’

अयं च प्रतिषेधविषयाद् अक्षत्रियाद् राज्ञः, क्षत्रियाद् अपि वा, अलुब्धाच् छास्त्रवर्तिनः सकाशाद् अयं प्रतिग्रहो विज्ञेयः । उपाध्यायस् त्व् आह- क्षत्रियाद् एव राज्ञः [प्रतिग्रहः] प्राथमकल्पको ऽयम् । कुप्यं काष्ठमयं शय्यासनाद्य् असारम् । धनं वा गोहिरण्यादि याच्यम्, द्रव्यस्यायोगे क्षुदवसन्नात्मकालत्रापत्यधर्मतन्त्रेण ॥ १०.११३ ॥

113 If Brahmanas, who are Snatakas, are pining with hunger, or in want of (utensils made of) common metals, or of other property, they may ask the king for them; if he is not disposed to be liberal, he must be left.

Uncultivated land is less reprehensible than cultivated land; and among cows, goats, sheep, gold, grains, and food each preceding one is less reprehensible than the succeeding.—(114)

अकृतम् अकृष्टं क्षेत्रं प्रशस्यम् । अजाविकं च भवति । परस्परविशेष उक्तार्थः श्लोको गम्यते ॥ १०.११४ ॥

‘Uncultivated’— Untilled—land is better.

Between ‘goats’ and ‘sheep’ also there is a difference.

The verse is apparently one the sense of which has been already explained.—(114)

**(verses 10.113-114)
**

[[See 4.84 et seq.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.113].

उत्तरस्योत्तरस्य परित्यागे ऽभ्युदयः ॥ १०.११४ ॥

114 (The acceptance on an untilled field is less blamable than (that of) a tilled one; (with respect to) cows, goats, sheep, gold, grain, and cooked food, (the acceptance of) each earlier-named (article is less blamable than of the following ones).

There are seven lawful sources of income: inheritance, acquisition, purchase, conquest, investment, industry and receiving of proper gifts.—(115)

दायः अन्वयागतं धनम् । लाभः निध्यादेः । पित्राद्यर्जिताद् वा बन्धात्¹⁹⁷ संविभागः । यद्य् अपि तत्पित्रादिक्रमायातं तथापि न तद् दायशब्देन¹⁹⁸ शक्यम् अभिधातुम्, बहुसाधारण्यात् । तथा च “निबन्धो द्रव्यम्” (य्ध् २.१२४) इति स्मृत्यन्तरे पठितम् । अथ वा मित्राच् छ्वशुरगृहाद् वा यल् लब्धं प्रीत्या स लाभः । क्रयः प्रसिद्धः । जयः संग्रामे । प्रयोगकर्मयोगौ कुसीदकृषिवाणिज्यानि । अतश् च वर्णभेदेनैतेषां धर्म्यत्वम् । तत्राद्यास् त्रयः सर्वसाधारणाः । जयः क्षत्रियस्य । प्रयोगकर्मयोगौ वैश्यस्य । सत्प्रतिग्रहो ब्राह्मणस्य विशेषः । सर्ववर्णे¹⁹⁹ ऽपि प्राग्दर्शनन्यायो विभागः ।

• केचित् क्रये विवदन्ते ।

• तन् न युक्तम्, सर्वव्यवहारोच्छेदप्रसङ्गात् ।

• जयं पणबन्धेनापि²⁰⁰ केचिद् इच्छन्ति सर्वविषयं ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । द्यूतधनस्य स्मृत्यन्तरेष्व् अशुद्धित्ववचनात् “पार्श्विकद्यूत”²⁰¹ (न्स्म् १.४३) इत्य् अत्र ।

• तथापरे प्रयोगम् अव्यापारम् आहुः । तथा हि प्रयोगो दृश्यते “ज्ञानपूर्वप्रयोगः” इति । तत्र शब्दस्य प्रयोग इति गम्यते ।

• तथा कर्मप्रयोगः कर्मप्रचार²⁰² ॥ १०.१५५ ॥

^(‘)Inheritance’—Hereditary property.

‘Acquisition’—of buried treasure and such things; or the share that one obtains out of the property acquired by his father and other relations. Though this also would be inherited from the father, yet it cannot be spoken of as ‘inheritance,’ because it belongs in common to many persons. This is why we find in another Smṛti the declaration regarding ‘property assigned for maintenance’ (Yājñavalkya, 2.121). Or ‘acquisition’ may stand for those loving presents that one receives from his friends, or from his father-in-law.

‘Purchase.’—This is well known.

^(‘)Conquest’—in battle.

‘Investment and Industry’—Money-lending and trade. The legality of these is in accordance with the caste of the person concerned. The first three of them are common to all; Conquest is for the Kṣatriya only; Investment and Industry for the Vaiśya only; and Receiving of proper gifts for the Brāhmaṇa only. All this distinction is based upon theories and arguments already set forth above.

Some people object to ‘Purchase’ (being a source of income).

But this is not right. As it it were not lawful, all transactions would come to an end.

Some people hold that ‘Conquest’ refers to gambling-stakes only, and as such pertains to all castes.

This also is not right; since another Smṛti has clearly declared that wealth acquired by gambling is ‘impure’; specially where Pāraskara speaks of Gambling.

Similarly some people explain ‘prayoga’ as meaning action, on the ground of such usage as ‘jñānapūrvakaḥ prayogaḥ,’ ‘action preceded by knowledge,’—where the word prayoga’ is used in the sense of action. On the same analogy ‘karmaprayoga’ will mean the employment of action.—(115)

‘Lābhaḥ’.—‘Friendly present’ (Medhātithi, Govindaraja and Kullūka);—‘acquisition of treasure-trove’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

‘Jayaḥ’.—‘Conquest in war’ (Medhātithi);—‘winning law-suits’ (Nandana).

‘Prayogaḥ.’—‘Money-lending,’ (Medhātithi);—‘Teaching’ (bandana).

‘Karmayogaḥ.’—‘Trade and agriculture’ (Medhātithi);—‘Sacrificing for others’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 309), which adds the following explanations:—‘Āyaḥ (Dāyaḥ**?)’, ancestral property,—‘lābhaḥ,’ finding of a treasure-trove;—inheriting ancestral property, finding of treasure-trove and purchase are for all the four castes, ‘conquest’ is for the Kṣatriya alone,—‘prayoga’ is lending money on interest,—and ‘karmayoga’ is trade and agriculture;—these two are for the Vaiśya only;—and ‘acceptance of gifts from righteous persons’ is for the Brāhmaṇa only.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 330);—in Smṛtitattva II (p. 350), which adds the following notes:—‘Dāya’ is inheritance of ancestral property,—‘lābha’ is finding of treasure-trove and such tilings,—‘jaya’ is conquest of war,—‘prayoga’ is money-lending,—‘karmayoga’ is trade, agriculture, sons and daughters;—in Vidhānapārijāta II (p. 245);—in Mitākṣarā (2.113);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 525);—in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 41), which explains ‘prayoga’ as ‘monetary transaction for earning interest,’ and ‘karmayoga’ as ‘officiating as priests at sacrifices’;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika 37a).

Gautama (10.39-42).—‘A man becomes an owner by inheritance, purchase, partition, seizure or finding; acceptance of gift is an additional mode of acquisition for the Brāhmaṇa; conquest for the Kṣatriya; and gain by labour for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra.’

Arthaśāstra (II. p. 97).—‘In places where conditions are unsettled, undisturbed possession is the basis for ownership.’

दायं पित्र्यं ज्ञातिधनं वा । लाभो निध्यधिगमः, संविभागो वा, कुतश्चिद् अन्योन्योपकारनिमित्तः । क्रयजयौ प्रसिद्धौ । प्रयोगो धर्म्यः कुसीदः । कर्मयोगः कृषिवानिज्ये ऽस्वयंकृते । सत्प्रतिग्रहो व्याख्यातः । एतेषां दायलाभौ चतुर्णाम् अपि वर्णानां साधारणौ ऽप्रतिषेधात् । क्रये विवदन्ते — चतुर्णाम् इत्य् एके, वैश्यस्येत्य् अपरे, येन क्रयनिमित्त उपकारो न युक्तो ब्राह्मणादीनाम् इति । एवं तर्हि शाकाद्य् अपि क्रीत्वा नोपयोक्तव्यं ब्राह्मणादिभिः । अन्ये तु क्रयविक्रयाद् अप्य् उपजीवनात् प्रतिषेधं मन्यमाना उपभोगे दानादौ च ब्राह्मणादीनां क्रीत्वाप्य् उपयोगं मन्यन्ते । जयस् तु धर्म्यवचनात् क्षत्रियस्येतरेभ्यो विशिष्टः । प्रयोगकर्मयोगौ च ब्राह्मणक्षत्रिययोर् वैश्यवृत्तिप्रवृत्ते सत्यं धर्म्यतरौ । वैश्ये हि कृषिवाणिज्यकुसीदान्य् अविशेषेणाभ्यनुज्ञातानि । तस्यापि तु धर्म्यवचनाद् अस्वयंक्रियां अभ्युदयविशेषसिद्धिम् अविरुद्धां मन्यामहे । एवं च सत्य् एषां दायादीनां धर्म्यनिर्देशात् दायादिभिर् वृत्तिविशेषैः संनिहितद्रव्याणां ब्राःमणादीनां न नियोगतो याजनादिवृत्तिता स्यात् । ब्रह्मचारिभैक्षवत् । अथास्य श्लोकस्यायम् अन्यो ऽर्थः । यथा प्रकृतौ ब्राह्मणस्य सत्प्रतिग्रहादयो धर्म्याः, एवम् अन्यान्य् अप्य् आपत्कल्पोपदिष्टानि ब्राह्मणादीनां कर्माण्यभावे वैकल्पिकानि धर्म्याण्य् एव विज्ञेयानि । तथा च सति विहितार्थानुष्ठानस्तुतिर् आत्मकुटुम्बधारणार्था, आपादितप्रयोजनातिशयदर्शनात् । तथा च सत्य् आह ॥ १०.११५ ॥

115 There are seven lawful modes of acquiring property, (viz.) inheritance, finding or friendly donation, purchase, conquest, lending at interest, the performance of work, and the acceptance of gifts from virtuous men.

Learning, handicrafts, working on hire, service, cattle-tending, trade, agriculture, contentment, begging and money-lending,—these are the ten means of livelihood.—(116)

सर्वपुरुषाणाम् आपदि वृत्तिर् इयम् अनुज्ञायते । तत्र विद्या वेदविद्याव्यतिरेकेण वैद्यकतर्कभूतविषासनविद्या सर्वेषां जीवनार्था न दुष्यति । शिल्पं व्याख्यातम् । भृतिः प्रेष्यकत्वम् । सेवा परवृत्तानुवृत्तित्वम् । धृतिः संतोषः । दृष्टान्तार्थं चैतत् । अतो यथाविहितवृत्तिभावेनैते जीवनोपायाः संकीर्यन्ते, पुरुषमात्रविषयत्वात्²⁰³ ॥ १०.११६ ॥

This verse sets forth the means of livelihood for all men, during times of distress.

‘Learning’—here stands for sciences other than the Veda; such, for instance, as Medicine, Logic, Physics, Toxicology and so forth,—all which are not reprehensible, when used as a means of livelihood.

‘Handicraft.’—This has been already explained.

‘Working on hire’—as a servant

‘Service’—acting according to the wishes of another person.

‘Contentment’—This has been added only by way of illustration.

The meaning of this verse is that in the absence of the particular means of livelihood specifically assigned to each caste, these ten means are open to all men.—(116)

“Govindarāja thinks that teaching for a stipulated fee is also permissible under this rule.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 936);—and in Mitākṣarā (3.42), both of which read ‘giriḥ’ for ‘dhṛtiḥ;’ ‘giriḥ’ is explained by Nandana as ‘selling of fruits and roots growing on hills.’

Yājñavalkya (3.41).—‘Agriculture, mechanical arts, work for wages, learning, money-lending on interest, cart, hill, service, forest-land, King and begging alms—these are the means of livelihood in times of distress.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 937).—‘In times of distress, agriculture may be undertaken.’

धर्माधिकाराद् यस्य यत् प्रतिषिद्धं तत् तस्यैतस्याम् अवस्थायाम् अभ्यनुज्ञायते । यथा “ब्राह्मणस्यार्थेनाध्यापनम्” इत्य् एवमादिः पुत्रदा[रा]त्ययप्राप्तस्य स्थितौ । तथा च कृत्वोक्तं दश जीवनहेतवः इति । अपरे तु धृतिनिर्दिदृक्षया विद्यादीनां निर्देशं मन्यन्ते । यस्मान् न धृतिम् अन्तरेण विद्यादयो जीवनहेतवो भवन्ति । धृत्यनुगतास् त्व् एते जीवनाय पर्याप्ताः । अतः सर्वत्र धृतिः कर्तव्येति धृत्यर्थो ऽयम् उपदेशः ॥ १०.११६ ॥

116 Learning, mechanical arts, work for wages, service, rearing cattle, traffic, agriculture, contentment (with little), alms, and receiving interest on money, are the ten modes of subsistence (permitted to all men in times of distress).

The Brāhmaṇa or the Kṣatriya must not lend money on interest; but he may advance a little to unrighteous men for sacred purposes.—(117)

धर्मार्थम् इति पूर्वोक्तैवापत्तिवृत्तिर्²⁰⁴ वेदितव्या । पापीयस इति वचनाद् धार्मिकाद् अल्पापि न ग्रहीतव्या । यद् उक्तम् “अध्यापनतुल्यानि कृषिवाणिज्यकुसीदानि” तद् आपद्गतेन ॥ १०.११७ ॥

‘For sacred purposes’—This implies that what is here permitted refers to livelihood in abnormal times.

‘To unrighteous men’—This shows that from the righteous man no interest shall be taken.

What has been said regarding ‘Agriculture, Trade and Money-lending being equal to Teaching’ pertains to abnormal times.—(117)

Vaśiṣṭha (2.40-44).—‘A Brāhmaṇa and Kṣatriya shall lend money like usurers. They quote the following—“He who, acquiring property cheap, gives it for a high price, is called a usurer and blamed among those who recite the Veda. Brahmā weighed in the scales the crime of killing a learned Brāhmaṇa against the crime of usury and the slayer of the Brāhmaṇa went upwards.”—They may lend gold, at pleasure, to a person who entirely neglects his sacred duties and is exceedingly wicked,—taking double its value on repayment,—and grain, trebling the original price.’

आपत्कल्पे ऽपीत्य् अर्थः । एवं च सति दण्डापूपिकया प्रकृताव् अपि ब्राह्मणस्य वृद्धेर् अत्यन्तप्रतिषेधः, अस्वयंकरणपक्षे ऽपि । तथा मन्त्रे वार्धुषिकापवादः श्रूयते, “किं ते कृण्वन्ति कीकटेषु गावः” इत्य् एवमादि । अथ वेतरवृत्तिस्तुत्यर्थो ऽयं श्लोकः, क्रमार्थो वा । एवं च सत्य् अन्यास्व् आपत्कल्पवृत्तिष्व् अपि विद्यमानासु नैनं अनुतिष्ठेत् स्वयम् । किं तर्हि तदभावे । गुरुत्वाद् अस्याः । तथा च मन्त्रवर्ण इत्य् उक्तम् ॥ १०.११७ ॥

117 Neither a Brahmana, nor a Kshatriya must lend (money at) interest; but at his pleasure (either of them) may, in times of distress when he requires money) for sacred purposes, lend to a very sinful man at a small interest.

The Kṣatriya, who, in times of distress, takes the fourth fart, becomes freed from sin, if he protects the people to the best of his ability.—(118)

राज्ञः क्षीणकोशस्य षड्भागग्रहणापवादश् चतुर्थभागो ऽभ्यनुज्ञायते । परिशिष्टो ऽर्थवादः । परम् इति क्रियावेशेषणम्, परया रक्षयेत्य् अर्थः ॥ १०.११८ ॥

This verse permits the King’s receiving of the fourth part (of the land-produce), instead of the sixth usually taken, when his treasury has become depleted. The rest of it is purely declamatory.

‘To the best of his ability’—This is an adverb; the meaning being to the best of his power.—(118)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 263).

[[See texts under 7.130 et seq.]]

चतुर्थम् अप्य् आददानो भागम् अन्यय्यम् आपदि रक्षाधिकृतो राजा क्षत्रियः प्रजा रक्षन् किल्बिषात् प्रतिमुच्यते, अन्याय्यभागग्रहणादेः । एवं च सति क्षत्रियचतुर्थभागादानम् अर्थवादः प्रजासंरक्षणस्य । येन ॥ १०.११८ ॥

118 A Kshatriya (king) who, in times of distress, takes even the fourth part (of the crops), is free from guilt, if he protects his subjects to the best of his ability.

Conquest is his peculiar duty; and he should never turn back in danger; he shall realise the legal tax from the Vaiśya, after protecting the people;—(119)

विजयशब्देन विजयफलं युक्तं²⁰⁵ स्वधर्मतया विधीयते । तथा चाहवे न स्यात् पराङ्मुखः । भय उपस्थिते पराङ्मुखो युद्धे न स्याद् इत्य् अर्थः । अनेन प्रकारेण प्रजा रक्षित्वा वैश्याद् बलिर् हारयितव्यः । वैश्या महाधना भवन्ति । ततस् तथा हरणे नियुक्ताः कृतापराधा न हन्यन्ते ॥ १०.११९ ॥

The term ‘Conquest’ should be taken here to mean that which leads to conquest (), which is laid down as the duty of the Kṣatriya.

‘He shall not turn back in danger’—Whenever any danger comes ahead, he shall not turn his back in battle.

In this manner, ‘having protected’ the people, ‘he shall realise the tax from the Vaiśya.’ As a rule Vaiśyas are very wealthy; hence people realising taxes from them, if they are found to behave improperly, are not punished.—(119)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti p. 263).

[[See texts under 7.88.]]

Gautama (12.16, 41).—‘To stand firm in battle and not turn back (is the duty of the Kṣatriya).—Conquest is a means of livelihood for the Kṣatriya,’

प्रजासंरक्षणं कुर्वन् । एवं च सति सो ऽयम् उच्यते ॥ १०.११९ ॥

119 His peculiar duty is conquest, and he must not turn back in danger; having protected the Vaisyas by his weapons, he may cause the legal tax to be collected;

From the people the tax on grains shall be one-eighth, and one-twentieth (on gold), with the minimum of one ‘Kārṣāpaṇa’; Śūdras, craftsmen and artisans discharge their dues by work.—(120)

धान्यव्यवहारिणां लाभाद् अष्टमो भागो ग्रहीतव्यः । विट्शब्दः प्रजावचनः । हिरण्यव्यवहारिणां विंशतितमः । शूद्राः कर्मोपकरणाः । कर्म²⁰⁶ उपकरणम् उपकारो येषां न ते किंचिद् दापयितव्याः । एवं शिल्पिनः कारवः । तद् एवम् उक्तं प्राक् “शिल्पिनो मासि मासि” (म्ध् ७.१३९) इत्यादि । अधिकभागग्रहणार्थो ऽयं श्लोकः ॥ १०.१२० ॥

Those dealing in grains should be made to pay one-eighth part of their profits.

The term ‘viṭ’ here stands for the people.

For those dealing in gold, the tax is one-twentieth part of their profits.

‘Śūdras discharge their dues by work.’—They should not be made to pay any taxes. So also craftsmen and artisans. With regard to them it has been laid down (in 7.138) that ‘they shall work for the king one day every month’; and the present text permits the taking of more work from them in abnormal times.—(120)

“According to Medhātithi, the first line refers to the profits of subjects dealing in corn or in gold. From the former the king may take, in times of distress, one-eighth, and from the latter one-twentieth; the second line indicates that artisans who, according to verse 7.138, in ordinary times, furnish one piece of work in each month, may be made to work more for the king.—According to Govindarāja and Kullūka, husband-men shall give from the increments on grain one-eighth (instead of one-twelfth, and in the direst distress one-fourth, according to verse 118), from all increments on gold and so forth amounting to more than a Kārṣāpaṇa, one-twentieth, instead of one-fiftieth, as prescribed above, 7.130.—Nārāyaṇa says that the tax on grain is to be one-fourth in the case of Śūdras, and one-eighth in the case of Vaiśyas, that the tax on every thing else is to be at least one Kārṣāpaṇa ‘in twenty,’ and that artisans who work for wages shall pay the same rate.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 263), which adds that the verb ‘dadyuḥ’ is to be supplied.

[[See under 7.130], [and 8.398 et seq.]]

Vaśiṣṭha (12.37).—‘They quote a verse proclaimed by Manu referring to duties and taxes—“No duty is paid on a sum less than a Kārṣāpaṇa; there is no tax on livelihood gained by art; nor on an infant, nor on a messenger, nor on what has been received as alms, nor on the remnants of property left after robbery, nor on a Śrotriya, nor on an ascetic, nor on a sacrifice.”’

[राज्ञा धान्यस्याष्टमो] भागो गृहीतव्यो जानपदात् स्ववस्थापेक्षया। हिरण्यव्यवहारिणां च लाभाच् छुल्कं विंशो भागः । सो ऽयम् अनुवादो विज्ञेयः पूर्वोक्तस्य । कर्मोपकरणाः शूद्राः [भवेयुस्] तथा च कारवः शिल्पिनश् च । कारुशिल्पव्यपदेशश् च गोबलीवर्दन्यायेन ॥ १०.१२० ॥

120 (Viz.) from Vaisyas one-eighth as the tax on grain, one-twentieth (on the profits on gold and cattle), which amount at least to one Karshapana; Sudras, artisans, and mechanics (shall) benefit (the king) by (doing) work (for him).

The Śūdra, seeking a livelihood, may serve the Kṣatriya; or the Śūdra may seek to subsist by serving a wealthy Vaiśya.—(121)

शूद्रस् तु वृत्तिम् आकांक्षेत् तदा क्षत्रम् आराधयेत् । वृत्तिग्रहणाज् जीविकार्थम् एव क्षत्राराधनम्, न धर्मार्थम् । ब्राह्मणाराधनं तुभयार्थम् अपीत्य् उक्तं भवति । एवं धनिनं वैश्यम् आराध्य जीवेत् ॥ १०.१२१ ॥

If the Śūdra be in want of a livelihood, he may serve the Kṣatriya. This means that the serving of the Kṣatriya will serve only as a means of subsistence, and will not bring any merit; which means that the serving of a Brāhmaṇa accomplishes both purposes.

Similarly he may make a living by serving a wealthy Vaiśya.—(121)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 161).

**(verses 10.121-122)
**

[[See under 99 above.]]

Gautama (10.56).—‘Serving the higher castes (is the duty of the Śūdra).’

Yājñavalkya (1.120).—‘Attending on the twice-born is the occupation for the Śūdra; not gaining a living by that means, he shall become a trader, or live by means of the various arts, always working for the welfare of the twice-born.’

शूद्रस् तु वृत्तिं कांक्षन्

आपदीति वर्तते

क्षत्रम् आराधयेद् यदि ।

क्षत्रं आराधय्तुम् इच्छेत्, तदभावे

धनिनं वाप्य् उपाराध्य वैश्यं शूद्रो जिजीविषेत् ॥ १०.१२१ ॥

एवं च सति क्षत्रियवैश्याराधनं वृत्तिर् एव केवलया शूद्रस्य ॥ १०.१२१ ॥

121 If a Sudra, (unable to subsist by serving Brahmanas,) seeks a livelihood, he may serve Kshatriyas, or he may also seek to maintain himself by attending on a wealthy Vaisya.

He shall serve Brāhmaṇas either for the sake of heaven, or for the sake of both; when, he has attained the title of the ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ this implies the accomplishment of all his purposes.—(122)

“आराधयेत्” इत्य् उक्तं भवति । तद् आह । जातब्राह्मणशब्दस्य “ब्राह्मणो ऽयम्- इति यदास्य²⁰⁷ एष शब्दो भवति,²⁰⁸ तदासौ कृतकृत्यः कृतार्थो वेदितव्यः । अथ वा जातब्राह्मणव्यपदेशस्येति व्याख्येयम् । ब्राह्मणाश्रितो ऽयम् इति यदास्य²⁰⁹ व्यपदेशो जायते ॥ १०.१२२ ॥

The sense is that he shall serve Brāhmaṇas.

‘When he has attained the title of the Brāhmaṇa,’—i.e., when, on account of his connection with the Brāhmaṇa, that title becomes applied to him;—then he should be regarded as having all his ends accomplished.

Or, the meaning may be, ‘when he has come to be known as related to the Brāhmaṇa.’— (122)

**(verses 10.121-122)
**

[[See under 99 above.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.121].

स्वर्गार्थम् उभयार्थं वा ब्राह्मणान् अभिधारयेत् ।

शूद्रस्येदं ब्राह्मणाराधनं वृत्तिअर्थम् अपि सद्, धर्माय । एवं च सत्य् एषा स्तुतिर् अस्योपपन्ना भवति ।

जातब्राह्मणशब्दस्य सा ह्य् अस्य कृतकृत्यता ॥ १०.१२२ ॥

यतश् चैतद् एवम् अतः ।

122 But let a (Sudra) serve Brahmanas, either for the sake of heaven, or with a view to both (this life and the next); for he who is called the servant of a Brahmana thereby gains all his ends.

The service of the Brāhmaṇa is described as the distinctive duty of the Śūdra; everything else that he does is fruitless for him.—(123)

ब्राह्मणशुश्रूषैव मुख्यः शूद्रस्य धर्मः । ततो यद् अन्यद् व्रतोपवासादि कुरुते तद् अस्य निष्फलम् । न तु दानपाकयज्ञादीनाम् अस्य प्रतिषेधः, प्रत्यक्षविधानात् । इतरप्रतिषेधो ब्राह्मणशुश्रूषास्तुत्यर्थः ॥ १०.१२३ ॥

The serving of the Brāhmaṇas is the chief duty for the Śūdra.

Hence ‘everything else’—in the shape of observances and fasts—‘that he does is fruitless for him.’

This should not be understood to be the prohibition of such acts as making gifts, offering the ‘Pākayajñas’ and so forth; since all these have been distinctly enjoined for him. In fact this prohibition of ‘everything else’ is only meant to indicate the importance of ‘serving Brāhmaṇas.’—(123)

The first half of this verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 161);—in Mitākṣarā (1.120);—and the whole verse in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 421), to the effect that the highest duty of the Śūdra is saving the Brāhmaṇa, that of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya being meant only as a means of livelihood;—in Vidhānapārijāta II (p. 728);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 126);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 46), which explains ‘viśiṣṭam’ as ‘excellent,’ as conducive to both merit and livelihood, and ‘niṣphalam’ as ‘very little effective,’ as conducive to livelihood only.

Mahābhārata (Aparārka, p. 162).—‘The Brāhmaṇa shall he served by the Śūdra from a distance, like the fire.’

Gautama (10.61).—‘The Ārya, under whose protection the Śūdra places himself, should support him, even if he becomes unable to work.’

विप्रसेवैव शूद्रस्य विशिष्टं कर्म कीर्त्यते ।
यद् अतो ऽन्यद् धि कुरुते

क्षत्रियविश्याराधनम् ।

तद् भवत्य् अस्य निष्फलम् ॥ १०.१२३ ॥

अथ वा यद् अतो ऽन्यत् प्रकुरुते पाकयज्ञादि तद् भवत्य् अस्य निष्फलम् इति । एवं च सतीयं विहितकर्मनिन्दा विप्रसेवास्तुत्यर्थम् उपदेशसामर्थ्याद् विज्ञायते ॥ १०.१२३ ॥

123 The service of Brahmanas alone is declared (to be) an excellent occupation for a Sudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit.

They should provide out of their family, a suitable maintenance for him, after considering his own capacity, and the man’s skill and the burden of persons to be supported by him.—(124)

द्विजातीनाम् अयं धर्मः । तस्य वृत्तिः कल्पनीया शुश्रूषमाणस्य । स्वकुटुम्बाद् इति पुत्रवद् असौ पालनीयः । आत्मीयां शक्तिम् अवेक्ष्य,** दाक्ष्यं च** तस्य कार्येषु योग, भृत्यानां च पुत्रदाराणां तदीयानां परिग्रहं कियन्तो ऽस्य भर्तव्या इत्य् एतद् अपेक्ष्य सर्वेषां भरणं कर्तव्यम् ॥ १०.१२४ ॥

What is here laid down is the duty of the twice-born men (who engage Śūdras). When the Śūdra is serving them, they should provide for his maintenance, ‘out of their,family’;—that is, he should be looked after like a son.

‘Having considered’ his own ‘capacity,’ as also, the man’s ‘skill’—application to work, and ‘the burden of persons to be supported by him,’—i.e., his wife and children, they shall take into consideration all the persons to be supported by him, and make provision for the maintenance of all these.—(124)

सत्याम् अपि धर्मार्थायां विप्रसेवायां प्रकल्प्या तस्य तैर् वृत्तिः । अर्थाच् चैतद् आपद्यते वृत्तितो ऽप्य् आश्रितस्य, किं पुनर् अवृत्तेः शूद्रस्य । पुत्रवच् चास्य शुश्रूषा न वृत्तिपरिक्रयेण, येनासौ धर्मोपनतः । एवंविधस्यापि च शूद्रस्य ॥ १०.१२४ ॥

124 They must allot to him out of their own family (-property) a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to support.

Remnants of food and worn-out clothes shall be given to him; as also the grain-refuse and old furniture.—(125)

उच्छिष्टशब्दो व्याख्यातार्थः । अतिथ्यादिभुक्तशिष्टम् आश्रिताय शूद्राय दातव्यम् । एवं वासांसि जीर्णानि धौतानि शुक्लानिम्। पुलाका असारधान्यानि । एवं परिच्छदाः शय्यासनादयः ॥ १०.१२६ ॥

The meaning of the word ‘remnant of food’ has been already explained. The food left after the feeding of guests and others should be given to the Śūdra servant.

Similarly ‘worn-out clothes’—after they have been washed white; ‘grain refuse’—the seedless chaffs, and ‘furniture’—beds and seats.—(125)

This verse is quoted in Varṣakriyākaumudī (p. 571), which explains ‘pulākāḥ’ as ‘chaff,’—‘paricchadāḥ’ as ‘umbrellas, beddings and so forth,’—and adds that the intention appears to he that all this should be given to such Śūdras as are one’s servants.

Gautama (10.58-59).—‘The Śūdra shall use their cast off shoes, umbrellas, garments, and sitting mats; and shall eat the remnants of their food.’

उच्छिष्टम् अन्नं दातव्यम्

प्रतिषिद्धार्थप्रतिप्रसवो ऽयम्, यद् उक्तम् “न शूद्राय मतिं दद्यात् नोच्छिष्टम्” । एवं च सत्य् अनाश्रितशूद्रविषयो ऽयं प्रतिषेधो द्रष्टव्यः । ब्राह्मणाश्रितशूद्रविषयो ऽस्त्व् अयं प्रतिप्रसवः प्रकरणसामर्थ्यात् ।

जीर्णानि वसनानि ।

ब्राह्मणपरिभुक्तानि गृह्यन्ते ।

पुलाकाश् चैव धान्यानाम्

असारद्रव्योपदेशपरम् इदम्

जीर्णाश् चैव परिच्छदाः ॥ १०.१२५ ॥

आसनशयनास्तरणोपधानादयः । एवंविधो ऽपि च ॥ १०.१२५ ॥

125 The remnants of their food must be given to him, as well as their old clothes, the refuse of their grain, and their old household furniture.

For the Śūdra there is no sin; nor is he worthy of any sacraments; he is not entitled to any sacred rites; but there is no prohibition against sacred rites.—(126)

सर्वो ऽयम् अनुवादश्लोकः । यद् अस्याहत्यशृङ्गग्राहिकया न प्रतिषिद्धम्, यथा हिंसास्तेयाद्य् अनादृतवर्णविशेषं सामान्यशास्त्रप्रतिषिद्धम्, न तद्व्यतिक्रमाद् अस्य पापम् उत्पद्यते । श्रुतम् एवास्य शब्देन यथा हिंसास्तेयादिस् तत्रास्य भवत्य् एव दोषः । न च संस्कारम् उपनयनलक्षणम् अर्हति । तद् उक्तम् “त्रयो वर्णा द्विजातयः” (म्ध् १०.४) इति । एवं नास्याधिकारो धर्मे ऽस्ति स्नानोपवासदेवतार्चनादौ नास्य नित्यो ऽधिकारो ऽस्ति । अकरणे न प्रत्यवैति । न धर्मात् प्रतिषेधनम् । येषु स्नानोपवासव्रतादिषु नित्यादिकारो नास्ति, अकरणे प्रत्यवायाभावः, अथ निषेधो नास्ति, तादृशेभ्यो धर्मेभ्यो न प्रतिषेधः । न चेदृशाद् अस्य प्रतिषेधः, अतः शिष्टप्रतिषिद्धत्वाद् अभ्युदयकामस्य तदनुष्ठानं²¹⁰ युज्यते ।²¹¹ एवं लशुनादिभक्षणनिवृत्तिर् अप्य् अभ्युदयायास्य वेदितव्या । सामान्यशास्त्रविहितम् “निवृत्तिस् तु महाफला” (म्ध् ५.५६) इति । अतो न धर्मात् प्रतिषेधनम् इति यत्रारम्भः ॥ १०.१२६ ॥

The whole of this verse is purely reiterative.

Whatever is not directly forbidden for the Śūdra by actual name,—e.g., such acts as injuring living things, stealing, lying, and so forth, which form the subject-matter of general prohibitions (without reference to any particular castes),—by doing these the Śūdra does not incur sin. Guilt does accrue to him in the case of acts that are expressly prohibited for him,—such acts, for instance, as injuring, stealing and so forth.

‘He is not worthy of sacraments’—such as Initiation and the like; all which have been prescribed for the ‘three twice-born castes.’

Similarly, ‘he is not entitled to the sacred rites’;—that is, such acts as bathing, fasting and worshipping of deities are not enjoined as his compulsory duties; and hence the omission of these does not involve sin.

‘There is no prohibition against sacred rites’—Even with regard to bathing, fasting and such acts, which are not among his compulsory duties, and the omission whereof does not involve sin,—there is no absolute prohibition; i.e., the performance of such acts is not actually forbidden to him. So that if he does perforin them, it is conducive to his welfare; this on the analogy of the principle that ‘avoidance is conducive to great results.’

Similarly his not eating garlic and such things should also be understood to be conducive to welfare; as the law ‘avoidance is conducive to great results’ is meant to be of universal application.

This is what is meant by the words that ‘there is no prohibition against sacred rites’

If the man does perform the acts—(what should be done is laid down in the following verse).—(126)

‘Na pātakam’—‘no sin, in eating garlic and other forbidden vegetables and fruits’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka),—‘in keeping a slaughter-house’ (Rāghavānanda),

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 134);—and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 235).

(verses 10.126-127)

Gautama (10.64-65).—‘If permission has been given to him, the Śūdra may use the syllable namaḥ as his mantra. Some people declare that he may himself offer the Pākayajñas.’

Yājñavalkya (1.121).—‘Devoted to his wife, pure, supporting his dependants, devoted to the performance of śrāddha, he should not omit to perform the fire sacrifices with the syllable namaḥ as his mantra.’

[न शूद्रे पातकं किंचिद्] इति सामर्थ्यान् न ब्रह्महत्यादि यथासंभवं प्रतिषिध्यते । किं तर्हि लशुनादिभक्षणजम्, येन तदभक्षणं द्विजातिधर्मः । तथा चोक्तम् “एतद् उक्तं द्विजातीनां भक्ष्याभक्ष्यम् अशेषतः” । अनुवादश् चायम् उत्तरार्थः । कस्मात् पुनर् अभक्ष्यभक्षणजं शूद्र एवंविधे पातकं नास्तीति । यद् अयं न च संस्कारम् उपनयनादिकम् अर्हतीत्य् आह पर्युदासेन, “चतुर्थ एकजातिस्” तद् अनुवादेन । एवं च सति तद् अभावात् नास्याधिकारो धर्मे ऽस्ति, श्रौते ऽग्निहोत्रादौ । कथं पुनर् अयं विशेषप्रतिषेधो विज्ञायते । येनाह- न धर्मात् प्रतिषेधनम् । स्मार्तात् पाकयज्ञादेर् इति गम्यते । तथा चास्यासौ विहितः (?) । एवं च व्यासः “न चेह शूद्रः पततीति निश्चयो ने (?) चेह संस्कारम् इहार्हतीति [वा] श्रुतिप्रयुक्तं न च धर्मम् अश्नुते न चास्य धर्मे प्रतिषेधनं स्मृतौ” इति । अथ वा सर्वम् एवैतत् पूर्वशास्त्रविरुद्धत्वाद् अवचनीयम्, यद् उक्तं न शूद्रे पातकं किंचिन् न च संस्कारम् अर्हति,नास्याधिकारो धर्मे ऽस्तीति । उत्तरार्थस् त्व् इतीदम् आरभ्यते, न धर्मात् प्रतिषेधनम् इति । तथा च वक्ष्यति, “धर्मेप्सवस् तु धर्मज्ञः,” “यथा यथा हि सद्वृत्तम्” इति च । अथ वा विकल्पार्थो ऽस्यारम्भः । शूद्रस्य हि कानिचित् कर्माण्य् अमन्त्रकान्य् अनुज्ञायन्ते पाकयज्ञादीनि । तेषाम् अनुष्ठानाद् ब्राह्मणम् आश्रित्यास्य शूद्रस्याधिकारो धर्मे ऽस्ति नियोगतः । न चैतस्मात् प्रतिषेधनम् । एवं च सत्य् उक्तप्रतिषिद्धत्वात् विकल्पेनैषां क्रिया स्यात् । तस्य चास्य क्रियायाम् अभ्युदयः, अक्रियायां प्रत्यवायाभाव इत्य् एतत् सिद्धं भवति । प्रकरणसामर्थ्याद् ब्राह्मणाश्रितस्याइतत् । इतरस्य वा । तथा च सत्य् आह ॥ १०.१२६ ॥

126 A Sudra cannot commit an offence, causing loss of caste (pataka), and he is not worthy to receive the sacraments; he has no right to (fulfil) the sacred law (of the Aryans, yet) there is no prohibition against (his fulfilling certain portions of) the law.

If those who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt; they obtain praise.—(127)

एतद् एवाह । धर्माप्तुम्²¹² इच्छन्तो ऽभ्युदयकामाः । सतां साधूनां धर्मम् अनुष्ठिताः समाश्रिताः । मन्त्रवर्जं न दुष्यन्ति । अतस् ते अनेकाहोपवासदेवतार्चनगुरुब्राह्मणनमस्कारादि **सतां **वृत्तम् आचरन्तो न दुष्यन्ति । **प्रशंसां **फलं च प्राप्नुवन्ति ।

• न पुनर् एतन् मन्तव्यम् “यानि समन्त्रकाणि ब्राह्मणादीनां कर्माणि दर्शपौर्णमासादीनि तानि मन्त्रवर्ज्यं शूद्रस्य न दुष्यन्ति” इति । यतः समन्त्रेषूत्पन्नेषु मन्त्ररहितेनानुष्ठानम् अशाब्दं स्यात् । मन्त्रवर्जम् इत्य् एतस्य दर्शितो विषयः । तथा च भवगान् व्यासः-

• न चेह शूद्रः पततीति निश्चयो न चापि संस्कारम् इहार्हतीति ।

• स्मृतिप्रयुक्तं तु न धर्मम् अश्नुते न चास्य धर्मे प्रतिषेधनं स्मृतम् ॥ इति ।

एतद् अपि यथाविहितानुवाद्य् एव । लशुनसुरापानादेर् न पतति । संस्कारानर्हतोक्तैव । उक्तं चानुपनीतत्वाच् छ्रुतिविहितधर्माभावे स्मृतिविषये सामान्यविहिता धर्मा यथोक्तप्रकारास् ते नास्य प्रतिषिध्यन्ते । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम्- “पाकयज्ञैः स्वयं यजेत । अनुज्ञातो ऽस्य नमस्कारो मन्त्रः” (ग्ध् १०.६४–६५) इति ।

• ये पुनर् आहुः आवसथ्याधानपार्वणवैश्वदेवान्नपाकयज्ञादिषु शूद्राणां पाक्षिको ऽधिकारः,

• तेषाम् अभिप्रायं न विद्मः । आवसथ्याधानं तावद् गृह्यकारैर् आम्नातं त्रैवर्णिकोद्देशेनैव । मन्वादिभिश् च नैवम् आम्नातम् । तथा केवलम् “वैवाहिकाग्नौ कुर्वीत गृह्यं कर्म” (म्ध् ३.५७) इति तत्र नैवाम्नातम् । कुतः शूद्रस्याधानम् । अथ पाकयज्ञविधानाद् अग्न्याधानाक्षेपः, तद् अपि न । लौकिकाग्नौ वैश्वदेवो भविष्यति । यावद् वचनं²¹³ वाचनिकं नान्यद् आक्षेप्तुम् अलं । “विवाहाग्नौ” इत्य् अत्रैव प्रदर्शितम् । पार्वणशब्देन च यद्य् आमावास्यं श्राद्धम् उच्यते, तद् अभ्यनुजानीमः, अष्टकापार्वणश्राद्धवैश्वदेवानां विहिततात् । अथ दर्शपौर्णमासौ, तद् अपाकृतम् ॥ १०.१२७ ॥

This is what the text proceeds to point out.

‘Desiring to acquire merit’—seeking for spiritual welfare.

‘Imitate the practice of righteous men’— betake themselves to the performance of acts done by good men;—‘with the exception of reciting sacred texts’—‘they incur no guilt.’ That is to say, they do not incur any guilt, if they perform such acts as fasting for a day, worshipping of gods, bowing to elders and Brāhmaṇas—all which are done by good men; in fact ‘they obtain praise’— as the distinct result of their act.

It will not be right to entertain the following notion—“the Śūdra incurs no guilt if he performs, without reciting the sacred texts, the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other rites, which are performed by twice-born men with the sacred texts.” Because these acts having been prescribed as to be done with sacred texts, if they are done without these texts, this would be distinctly contrary to the scriptures.

The exact significance of the phrase ‘with the exception of inciting the sacred texts’ has been already explained.

Says the revered Vyāsa—‘It is certain that the Śūdra does not become an outcast, nor is he worthy of sacraments; he is not entitled to the sacred rites prescribed in the Smṛtis; nor is any prohibition laid down against the sacred rites.

This also is only reiterative of what has been enjoined elsewhere.

The Śūdra does not become an outcast by eating garlic or drinking wine.

What is meant by his being ‘not worthy of sacraments’ has been already explained. It has been pointed out that, inasmuch as the Initiatory Rite has not been performed for him, the performance of the Śrauta rites is not open to him; but there is no prohibition against his performing those rites that are prescribed in the Smṛtis as to be performed by all men. To this end we have other Smṛti texts—‘He shall perform the Pākayajña rites’ (Gautama, 4.65),—‘Salutation also, without sacred texts, is permitted for him’ (Ibid. 4.64).

Some people have remarked that—“the Śūdra is only partially entitled to the performance of such rites as the Āvasathyādhāna (the kindling of the Household Fire), the Pārvaṇa, the Vaiśvadeva, the Pākayajña and so forth.”

But we do not understand what these men mean. By the Gṛhya-writers the Āvasathyādhāna has been prescribed distinctly for the three higher castes; by manu and other Smṛti-writers it has not been prescribed at all; all that they say is—‘they should perform the Gṛhya rites in the marriage-fire’ (Manu, 3.67). So being nowhere laid down, whence could there be any such ādhāna for the Śūdra? If it be held that the rite of kindling fire is implied by the injunction of the Pākayajña rites,—this also is not possible; since the Vaiśvadeva offerings (of the Pākayajña) could be done in the ordinary fire. In fact in all these matters, we have to accept only what is distinctly laid down in the texts, and it is not right to draw inferences. All this has been explained in connection with the term ‘marriage-fire’ (under 3.67).

By the term ‘Pārvaṇa’, if it is the Śrāddha that is meant, then we admit this, since the Aṣṭakā, the Pārvaṇa-śrāddha and the Vaiśvadeva offerings have all been prescribed for the Śūdra also. If however the performance of the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa be meant, this wo have already refuted.—(127)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 381), as prohibiting for Śūdras the performance of rites accompanied with the reciting of mantras;—and in Śāntimayūkha (p. 2), which quotes Medhātithi’s view that ‘this verse entitles Śūdras only to Fasts and such acts as are done without the use of Vedic mantras, and it is not meant that they are to do even those acts that require the use of mantras, but they are not to use mantras,’—and says that this view is not correct, because to Fasts and other such acts they are entitled by virtue of the injunctions of those acts themselves, and the present verse would be superfluous.

(verses 10.126-127)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 10.126].

अप्रतिषिद्धम् आसेवमानाः । प्रकरणाद् ब्राह्मणापाश्रितशूद्रा उच्यन्ते । न चानेन मन्त्रप्रतिषेधेनाग्निहोत्रादिष्व् अप्य् अस्याधिकारो ऽनुज्ञायते, “मन्तर्वर्जं न दुष्यन्ति” इत्य् एतस्माद् । येन श्रुत्याग्निहोत्रादिषु शूद्रः पर्युदस्तः तस्माद् धर्मेप्सवः स्मार्तविषयं नियतसंस्कारेषु पाकयज्ञेषु चावसथ्याधानपार्वणवैश्वदेवान्नप्राशनादिषु शूद्राणां पाक्षिको ऽधिकार इत्य् उक्तम् । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम्- “पाकयज्ञैः स्वयं यजेतेत्य् एके” इति । एवं च ॥ १०.१२७ ॥

127 (Sudras) who are desirous to gain merit, and know (their) duty, commit no sin, but gain praise, if they imitate the practice of virtuous men without reciting sacred texts.

As the Śūdra, free from envy, maintains the right course of conduct, so does he, free from blame, gain this world and the next.—(128)

उक्तार्थः श्लोकः ॥ १०.१२८ ॥

The meaning of this verse has been already explained.—(128)

स्मार्तानां कर्मणां शूद्रक्रियापक्षे स्तुतिर् अनुष्ठानप्ररोचनार्था ॥ १०.१२८ ॥

128 The more a (Sudra), keeping himself free from envy, imitates the behaviour of the virtuous, the more he gains, without being censured, (exaltation in) this world and the next.

Even though he be able, the Śūdra shall not amass wealth; for having acquired wealth, the Śūdra harasses the Brāhmaṇas.—(129)

शक्तेनापि कृष्यादिकर्मणा धनसंचयः शूद्रेण न कर्तव्यः । तत्र हेतुस्वरूपम् अर्थवादम् आह । शूद्रो धनं बह्व् आसाद्य स्वीकृत्य ब्राह्मणान् एव बाधते ।

• का पुनर् ब्राह्मणानां बाधा ।

• महाधनत्वाद् अत्यर्थं ब्राह्मणान् प्रतिग्राहयेत् । शूद्रप्रतिग्रहश् च तेषां प्रतिषिद्धः । तत्र निमित्तभावम् आपद्यमानो दुष्येत् । एतच् च न विहितं कुर्वतः कर्मदोषाशङ्का । तस्माद् ब्राह्मणान् न परिचरेद् इत्य् एषैव बाधा ॥ १०.१२९ ॥

‘Even though he is able’—by means of agriculture and such acts,—wealth shall not be amassed by the Śūdra. In support of this the Author adds an argument in the form of a declamatory statement—‘Having acquired wealth the Śūdra harasses the Brāhmaṇas.’

“What is the harassment caused to Brāhmaṇas?” Becoming very rich, they would make the Brāhmaṇas accept gifts from themselves, and the accepting of gifts from the Śūdra has been forbidden for them; hence becoming a party to their doing what is forbidden, he would incur sin.

The danger of incurring such sin however could not apply to the case of one who goes on fulfilling all that is prescribed for him. Hence the ‘harassment’ of the Brāhmaṇa that is meant is only this that he would no longer serve them.—(129)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 353);—and in Varṣakriyākaumudī (p. 571), which adds that there would be nothing wrong in the Śūdra amassing wealth, for the benefit of ‘Brāhmaṇas and others.’

Gautama (10.63).—‘The Śūdra’s hoard shall serve only the purpose of supporting men of the higher castes in times of distress.’

महाफलैः शिल्पादिभिः वृत्त्यन्तरैः पर्याप्तधनः शूद्रो विशेषतो दानेन गुणवद्ब्रह्मणेभ्यो शूद्रप्रतिग्रहोपच्छन्दनेन महतो ब्राह्मणान् स्वधर्मात् प्रच्यावयेत् । अयं तावन् नार्थः । न हि शास्त्रोपदिष्टं कुर्वतः सत्य् अपि परोपघाते कश्चिद् दोषो ऽस्ति । यदि स्यात्, नवश्राद्धादिष्व् अपि ददतो दोषः स्यात् । असाव् अपि परस्योपघातं करोति, यो ऽर्थमानाभ्यां गुणवतो ब्राह्मणान् प्रतिपूजयति । तस्मान् नायम् अर्थः । धनोत्सेकाच् छूद्रो ब्राह्मणबाधने वर्तेतेत्य् अयम् अपि न शक्यो ऽभ्युपगन्तुम् । सर्वेषां गृह्येत ब्राह्मणादिना तुल्यम् । केन कः शूद्रे विशेषः, येन तस्यैवम् अर्थसंचयो निषिध्यते । अयं तर्ह्य् अन्यो ऽर्थः । न केवलं नित्यदानं शूद्रस्याभ्यनुज्ञायते, किं तर्ह्य् अभ्युदयप्रयोजनम् अप्य् अनेन दानम् अनुष्ठेयम् । एवं च न कार्यो धनसंचय इत्य् अयम् एवमर्थः प्रतिषेधः । अथ वोक्तं “प्रकल्प्या तस्य तैर् वृत्तिः स्वकुटुम्बाद् यथार्हतः” इत्य् एवमादि । एवं च सति ब्राह्मणापाश्रितस्य शूद्रस्यायम् उपदेशः । शक्तेनापि हि शूद्रेण न कार्यो धनसंचय इति । तथा स्मृत्यन्तरम्- “यं चार्यम् आश्रयेद् भर्तव्यस् तेन क्षीनो ऽपि, तेन चोत्तरः, तदर्थो ऽस्य निचयः स्यात्” इति ॥ १०.१२९ ॥

129 No collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra, even though he be able (to do it); for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to Brahmanas.

The duties or the four castes in times or distress have thus been expounded; by properly carrying out which they attain the highest state.—(130)

सम्यग् आपद्धर्मानुष्ठानात् परमा गतिः प्राप्यते । शरीररक्षणाद् विहितातिक्रमो न भवतीति युक्ता शुभपलप्राप्तिः । नापद्गतेनासत्प्रतिग्रहादौ विचिकित्सितव्यम् इति शास्त्रन्यायानुवादः ॥ १०.१३० ॥

By duly performing the duties laid down in connection with times of distress, the highest state is attained. The proper care of the body does not involve any transgression of an enjoined duty. Hence it is only right that a desirable result is attained.

This is the reiteration of the scriptural and logical conclusion that when fallen in distress, one should not hesitate to accept improper gifts and so forth.—(130)

आत्मकुटुम्बप्राणधारणस्य प्रयोजनातिशयदर्शनाद् धर्मतन्त्रसंयोगे च तदनुष्ठानार्थस्याग्निहोत्रादेर् नित्यस्य कर्मणियम् (?) एव स्थितिर् उपपन्ना- यान् सम्यग् अनुतिष्ठन्त इत्य् एवमादि । अथ वा महाफलानाम् अल्पप्रत्यवायानुषङ्गापक्षयेदं स्तुतिवचनम् उपपन्नम्, आपद्धर्मोपसंहारार्थम् ॥ १०.१३० ॥

130 The duties of the four castes (varna) in times of distress have thus been declared, and if they perform them well, they will reach the most blessed state.

Thus has the entire law relating to the duties or the four castes been described; after this I am going to expound the excellent law relating to Expiatory Rites.—(131)

पाठाद् एव सिद्धर्तो ऽयम् इति ॥ १०.१३१ ॥

**इति मानवे धर्मशास्त्रे भृगुप्रोक्तायां संहितायां **

दशमो ऽध्यायः ॥

मान्या कापि मनुस्मृतिस् तदुचिता व्याख्या हि मेधातिथेः सा लुप्तैव विधेर् वशात् क्वचिद् अपि प्राप्यं न यत् पुस्तकम् ।

क्षोणीन्द्रो मदनः सहारणसुतो देशान्तराद् आहृतं जीर्णोद्धारम् अचीकरत् तत इतस् तत्पुस्तकैर् लेखितैः ।

इति भट्टवीरस्वामिसूनोर् भट्टमेधातिथिकृतौ

मनुभाष्ये दशमो ऽध्यायः ॥

The mere reading of the words makes the meaning of this text clear.—(131)

End of Discourse X.

पूर्वार्धश्लोकश् चात्र सर्वधर्मोपसंहारार्थ उत्तरः प्रायश्चित्तोपन्याससिद्दय इति ॥ १०.१३१ ॥

इति भारुचिकृते दषमो ऽध्यायः ।

131 Thus all the legal rules for the four castes have been proclaimed; I next will promulgate the auspicious rules for penances.