Manava Dharmashastra 1.30

1.30

atra dṛṣṭāntaḥ | acetanā api yathā bhāvāstanmaryādyaiva vyavasthitasvabhāvāḥ evaṃ cetanā api puruṣakṛtakarmasahāyena prajāpatinā kṛtāṃ maryādāṃ nātikrāmanti, yasyāṃ jātau jātāstadeva kurvanti nānyadicchanto'pi śaknuvanti kartum |
ṛtavo basantādayaḥ | svaliṅgāni cihnāni patraphalakusumaśītoṣṇavarṣādīni | paryāye | yasyetoryaḥ paryāyaḥ svakāryāvasaraḥ tasmin sa ṛtustaṃ dharmaṃ svayameva pratipadyate, na puruṣaprayatnamapekṣate | cūtamañjaryāṃ vasante svayameva puṣyanti, na mūle salilasekamapekṣante | evaṃ puruṣakarmāpyadṛṣṭāni | nāsti sa padārtho yo na karmāpekṣate | tathāhi | varṣāṇāṃ svasvabhāvo yo vṛṣṭipradaḥ--bhavati ca rājadoṣādrāṣṭradoṣādvā kadācidavagrahaḥ | tasmātkarmaśakti revānapasāryā |
vṛttānurodhādasakṛdṛttugrahaṇam | anye tu ślokatrayamapyanyathā vyācakṣate | karmaśaktīnāṃ svābhāvaniyamo'nenocyata ityāhuḥ |
(28) yatphalaṃ yasminkarmaṇyāhitaṃ prajāpatinā sa karmaviśeṣaḥ punaḥ punaḥ sṛjyamāno'nuṣṭhī yamānaḥ svayaṃ tatphalaṃ bhajate dadātītyarthaḥ | tena yāgaḥ kṛto yadā phaliṣyati na tadā kiñcidanyadapekṣata iti pratipāditaṃ bhavati | sevā hi svakṛtā'pi mantripurohitādivākyamapekṣate | naivaṃ yāgaḥ | dṛṣṭastu vyāpārastenāpekṣyate | dṛṣṭādṛṣṭakāraṇadvayajanyatvātsarvasya kāryasyādṛṣṭāntarāpekṣā niṣidhyate tadānīm |
(26) karmāṇīṣṭāniṣṭaphalapradāni vidhipratiṣedhaviṣayāṇi| karmāṇi dviśa udāharati | hiṃsrāhiṃsre iti | hiṃsā pratiṣiddhā | tasyā narakādiphalapradānaṃ niyamitam, yo brāhmaṇāyāvaguret yo māmakāyāvagurettaṃ śatena yātayāditi vākyaśeṣebhyaḥ | sā tataḥ svabhāvātra cyavate | prāyaścitteṣu viśeṣaṃ vakṣyāmaḥ | ahiṃsraṃ vihitam | tasyāpi neṣṭaphaladānāt svabhāvacyutirasti | dharmādharmayoreva viśeṣādyate | vihitaṃ karma dharmaḥ, pratiṣiddhamadharmaḥ, tayorviśeṣāḥ satyā'nṛtādayaḥ | satyaṃ vihitamanṛtaṃ pratiṣiddham | evaṃ sarvāṇi pūrvottarapadāni vihitapratiṣiddhaviśeṣapradarśanāni |
(30) avyabhicaritadṛṣṭakāryakāraṇasaṃbandhīni karmāṇi | dṛṣṭāntaḥ yathartuliṅgānīti | śeṣaṃ samānam |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
In support of what has been said in the foregoing verses, an illustration is cited. Just as even inanimate things have their character fixed by the law of God,—so animate beings also do not go beyond the law laid down by Prajāpati, in accordance with the past acts of men; they have recourse to that same line of action which has been assigned to the family of beings in which they are born; any other line of action they cannot take up, even though they may wish to do so.

‘The seasons’—Spring and the rest;—‘its own seasonal characteristics’—in the form of leaves, flowers, cold, heat, rain and so forth.—‘at the approach of the turn’—when the turn, the occasion for functioning, of a particular season arrives,—that season acquires its character, by itself; and it does not stand is need of any act of man. For instance, at the advent of spring, mango-blossoms bloom forth by themselves, and they, do not stand in need of watering at the roots. In the same manner the ‘lines of action’ of men—which exist in their ‘unseen’ or latent form—[operate by themselves]. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as is not affected by the ‘acts’ (of men); for instance, it is in the nature of the Rainy Season that there should be rain, and yet on account of the faulty action, either of the king or kingdom itself, there is sometimes drought. From all this it follows that the force of ‘action’ is irrepressible.

The frequent repetition of the term ‘ṛtu’ season,’ is due to the exigencies of metre.

Other a offer a different explanation of these three verses:—They assert that these verses describe the limitations of the powers of action.

A definite result having been assigned by Prajāpati to an action, whenever that particular action is brought into existence, that is, performed, it naturally bears, i.e., imparts, that same result. This means that whenever a sacrifice that has been performed bears its fruit, it does not stand in need of anything else. Even in the case of kings (who are supposed to be all-powerful), [such ordinary acts as] Service, even though done well, depends (for its fruition, in the shape of rewards from the Master, the King) upon the words (favourable reports) of Ministers and Priests:—not so the act of ‘Sacrificing’; all that it requires is the visible act; that is to say, though all effects are found to be introduced by two sets of causes,—seen and unseen—the effect brought about by the sacrifice does not require (for its fruition) any other unseen cause. (Verse 28).—Actions bringing about desirable results form the subjects of Injunctions, while those leading to undesirable results are the subjects of Prohibitions; these two kinds of Actions are described in verse 29, beginning with ‘Hurṭfulness or Harmlessness.’ ‘Hurtfulness’ is prohibited; and it is known that it must lead to hell, as we gather from such sentences as—‘he who threatens the Brāhmaṇa, and who threatens my people, should be punished with a hundred,’ and so forth; and the act of ‘hurtfulness’ never renounces its character of leading to the undesirable results. In fact, the several actions mentioned in the verse are only particular forms of ‘Virtue’ and ‘Vice’; what is enjoined is ‘Virtue,’ and what is prohibited is ‘Vice,’ and ‘Truthfulness and Truthlessness’ and the rest are only particular forms of Virtue and Vice: ‘Truthfulness’ is what is enjoined and ‘Truthlessness’ is what is prohibited; similarly in each of the several pairs mentioned, the former is a particular form of what is prescribed, and the latter a particular form of what is prohibited. (Verse 29).—That Actions are never found to fail in their causal operations is described by means of an example (in Verse 30)—Just as at the approach of the turn of the reasons &c. The rest is as already explained.—(30)