Manava Dharmashastra 1.2

1.2

aiśvaryādāryayaśovīryādau bhagaśabdaḥ | so'syāstīti, manuḥ | tena saṃbodhana bhagavanniti | varṇā śabdaśca tisṛṣu brāhmaṇādijātiṣu vartate | sarvagrahaṇaṃ śūdrāvarodhārtham | itarathā maharṣīṇāṃ praṣṭṛtvāt traivarṇikaviṣaye praśnaḥ kṛtaḥ syāt | antaraṃ tanmadhyam | dvayorjātyoḥ saṅkarādekā'pyaparipūrṇā jātiḥ | antare prabhava utpattiryeṣāṃ te'ntaraprabhavāḥ anulomapratilomā mūrdhāvasiktāmbaṣṭhakṣattṛvaidehakādayaḥ | na hi te mātāpitroranyatarasyā'pi jātyā vyapadeṣṭuṃ yujyante | yathā rāsabhāśvasaṃyogajaḥ kharo na rāsabho nāśvo, jātyantarameva | ataḥ varṇagrahaṇenāgrahaṇātpṛthagupādīyante | "nanvanulomā mātṛjātīyā iṣyante" | neti brūmaḥ | sadṛśāneva tānāhuriti mātṛjātisadṛśāste na tajjātīyā eva | so'pyeṣāṃ dharmo vācaniko na vastusvabhāvasiddhaḥ | ataḥ pramāṇāntarāgocaratvādadharmapañcapatitatve śāstropadeśārhā eva | pratilomānāmapyahiṃsādayo dharmā vakṣyante | yattu dharmahīnā iti tadvratopavāsādidharmābhāvābhiprāyeṇa | sarvapuruṣopakāritā cānena śāstrasya pradarśyate | yathāvat | 'arhattyarthe vatiḥ'-yena prakāreṇānuṣṭhānamarhati | idaṃ nityamidaṃ kāmyamidamaṅgamidaṃ pradhānam | dravyadeśakālakartrādiniyamaśca prakāro'rhaterviṣayaḥ | anupūrvaśaḥ | ānupūrvaḥ kramaḥ | yena krameṇānuṣṭheyāni so'pyucyatām | "jātakarmānantaraṃ cauḍamauñjīnibandhanetyādi" | yathāvadityatra padārthaviṣayaṃ kārtsnyamupāttam | kramastu padārtho na bhavatyūtaḥ pṛthaganupūrvaśa ityupāttam | dharmaśabdaḥ kartavyakartavyayorvidhipratiṣedhayoradṛṣṭārthayostadviṣayāyāṃ ca kriyāyāṃ dṛṣṭaprayogaḥ | tasya tu kimubhayaṃ padārtha utānyataratra gauṇa iti nāyaṃ vicāraḥ kriyate, graṃthāntare vistareṇa kṛtatvādvihānupayogācca | sarvathā tāvat 'aṣṭakāḥ kartavyāḥ' 'na kalañjaṃ bhakṣayet' ityādāvaṣṭakā viṣayā kartavyatā pratīyate, kalañjabhakṣaṇaviṣayaśca pratiṣedhaḥ | tadaṣṭakākhyaṃ karma dharmastadviṣayā vā kartavyateti phale na viśeṣaḥ | dharmarūpopadeśācca yattadviparītamadharmo'sāvityarthātsiddhyati | ato dharmādharmāvubhāvapi śāstrasya viṣaya ityuktaṃ bhavati | tatrāṣṭakākaraṇaṃ dharmo brahmahatyādivarjanaṃ ca dharmaḥ, aṣṭakānāmakaraṇamadharmo brahmahatyāyāśca karaṇamadharmaḥ-ayaṃ dharmādharmayorvivekaḥ | arhasīti sāmarthyalakṣaṇayā yogyatayā pravacanādhikāramācāryasyāhuḥyatastvaṃ samartho dharmānvaktumato'dhikṛtaḥ saṃnnadhyeṣyase brūhīti | yo yatrādhikṛtastattena kartavyamiti sāmarthyagamyaṃ brūhītyadhyeṣaṇopapadamadhyāhriyate |

May Thou, O blessed One, explain to us, in due form and in proper order, the duties of all castes and intermediate castes!—(2).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The second verse describes what the sages said to Manu, after having approached and worshipped him.

The term ‘bhaga,’ ‘blessings,’ is used for superiority, magnanimity, fame, strength and so forth; and ‘bhagavān’ is he who possesses all this; that is (in the present context) Manu; hence it is he who is addressed by the term ‘O blessed one.’

The term ‘caste’ is applied to the three castes, ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ ‘Kṣatriya,’ and ‘Vaiśya’—the term ‘all’ has been added for the purpose of including the ‘Śūdra’; if this was not done, then, the question, emanating from the Great Sages (who represent only the three higher castes), would be restricted to the three castes only.

‘Intermediate’ means middle; from the mixture of two castes there arises another imperfect caste; those that are born out of those imperfect unions are the ‘intermediate castes,’ born in the natural order or the reverse; those known under the names ‘Mūrdhāvasikta,’ ‘Kṣattṛ,’ ‘Vaidehika’ and so forth (Vide, Manu 10.7 et. seq.), these could not be classed under the caste either of the mother or that of the father; just as the Mule born out of the union of the Horse and the Ass is a distinct species, it is neither the ‘horse’ nor the ‘ass’;—on this ground these would not be included under the ‘castes’; hence they have been mentioned separately.

Objection—“But the offspring of ṭhe union of castes mixed in the natural order is regarded as belonging to the caste of the mother.”

It is not so, we reply. From what is said under 10.6 as to these castes being ‘similar,’ it is clear that they are only ‘similar’ to the caste of the mother, and not quite the same as this latter. The functions of these intermediate castes also are such as can be learnt only from scriptures; they cannot be ascertained entirely from their natural inclinations (as in the case of lower animals); and in as much as these functions cannot be ascertained by the help of any other source of knowledge, they fall under the term ‘Dharma,’ ‘duties,’ and as such deserve to be expounded in the scriptures. Of the intermediate castes born of unions in the reverse order, such duties as ‘not harming others’ and so forth are going to be described (by Manu himself under 10.63). When they are spoken of as being ‘without any duties,’ the ‘duties’ meant are such as Observances, Fasts and so forth.

‘Yathāvat,’ ‘in due form.’—The suffix ‘vati’ denotes propriety; the meaning being—‘in the form in which performance would be proper.’ This ‘propriety’ also includes such details as—‘this is compulsory, that is optional,’ ‘this is primary, that is secondary,’ as also rules relating to substance, place, time, agent and so forth.

‘Anupūrvaśaḥ,’ ‘in due order.’—‘Order’ means sequence; the meaning is—‘please explain also the order in which the several duties have to be performed.’ The order meant is such as—after the performance of the ‘Birth-rite,’ come respectively ‘Tonsure,’ ‘Initiation’ and so forth. The phrase ‘in due form’ implies completeness in regard to subject-matter; ‘order’ does not form part of the subject-matter, hence the qualification ‘in due order’ has been added separately.

The word ‘dharma,’ ‘duty,’ is found to be used in reference to—(1) the injunction of what should be done, (2) the prohibition of what should not be done,—both these bearing upon transcendental purposes,—and also (3) action in accordance with the said Injunctions and Prohibitions. Whether the denotation of the term applies equally to both, or it applies primarily to one only, and to another only secondarily,—this we do not discuss on the present occasion; and we have already discussed this in detail in another work (the Smṛtiviveka), and it has no direct bearing on the present context. In any case, when it is declared that the Aṣṭakās should be performed,’ what is clearly understood is the propriety of performing in relation to the Aṣṭakāt; and when it is declared that ‘the meat of the animal killed by a poisoned arrow should not be eaten,' what is dearly understood is the impropriety of performing in relation to the eating of the said meat. Whether the action of the Aṣṭakā is regarded as ‘duty,’ or the propriety of performing that act,—it does not make any difference in the ultimate result. And when the form of ‘duty’ has been duly expounded, that is contrary constitutes ‘Adharma’ (sin) follows naturally by implication. Thus what is meant is that ‘Dharma,’ ‘Duty,’ as also ‘Adharma,’ ‘sin,’ both form the subject-matter of the scriptural treatise: the performance of the ‘Aṣṭakā’ is a Duty, as also is the avoidance of Brāhmaṇa-murder’; the non-performance of Aṣṭaka’ is a sin, as also is the performance of Brāhmaṇa-murder’; such is the distinction (between ‘Duty’ and ‘Sin’ as described in the scriptures).

‘Arhasi,’ ‘may you’—indicates ability in the shape of possessing the requisite capacity; and as such expresses the fact of the teacher being a lit and proper person for the expounding the duties; the sense being—‘in as much as you are fully able to expound the Duties, hence you are a fit and proper person for that work,—ns such you are entreated by us to explain to us the said Duties’; it follows by implication that when a man is a fit and proper person for doing a certain act, that act should be done by him. The term of entreaty ‘do please explain to us’ is supplied from without.—(2)