Manava Dharmashastra 2.1.2

2.1.2

yāvatsaṃsārameṣa dharmaḥ| bāhyadharmāstu sarve mūrkhaduḥśīlapuruṣapravartitāḥ kiyantaṃ kālaṃ labdhāvasaro api punarantardhīyante | na hi vyāmoho yugasahasrānuvartī bhavati | samyagjñānamavidyayā sañchannamapi tatkṣaye nirmalatāmevaiti | na hi tasya nirmalatayā chedaḥ sambhava iti | ahṛṣṭarāgibhiḥ | idaṃ bāhyadharmānuṣṭhāne dvitīyaṃ kāraṇam | vyāmohaḥ pūrvamuktaḥ | anena lobhādaya ucyante, rāgadveṣagrahaṇasya pradarśanārthatvāt | lobhena mantratantrādiṣu pravarttayanti | athavā rāgadveṣayorlobho'ntarbhūtaḥ | tmanyeva ye bhogopāyāsteṣu raktāḥ upāyāntareṇa jīvitumasamarthā liṅgadhāraṇādinā jīvati | taduktaṃ 'bhasmakapālādidhāraṇaṃ, nagnatā, kāṣāye ca vāsasī-buddhipauruṣahīnānāṃ jīviketi' | dveṣo viparītānuṣṭhānakāraṇam | dveṣapradhānā hi nātīva tattvāvadhāraṇe samarthā bhavantyato 'dharmameva dharmatvenādhyavasyantīti | athavābhāvapi rāgadveṣau tattvāvadhāraṇe pratibandhakau | satyāmapi kasyāñcicchāstravedanamātrāyāṃ labdhe'pi vidvadvyapadeśe rāgadveṣavattayā viparītānuṣṭhānaṃ sambhavati | jānānā api yathāvacchāstraṃ kasyacid dveṣyasyopaghātāya priyasya copakārāya kauṭasākṣyādyadharmaṃ sevante | teṣāṃ vedamūlamevānuṣṭhānamityaśakyaniścayaṃ kāraṇāntarasya rāgadveṣalakṣaṇasya sambhavāt | atastatpratiṣedhaḥ | atra codyate | “sadbhiriti sacchabdaḥ sādhutāvacano varṇitaḥ | kīdṛśī ca sādhutā tasya yadi rāgadveṣābhyāmadharme pravṛttiḥ sambhāvyate | tasmādadveṣarāgibhiriti na vaktavyam |” evaṃ tarhi hetutvenocyate | yato rāgādivarjitā ataḥ santo bhavanti |

‘Who are free from love and hate’—What is referred to here is another cause that leads men to take to heterodox dharmas. ‘Delusion’ having been already described (as leading to the same end), the present phrase serves to indicate greed and the rest; the direct mention of ‘love and hate’ being meant to be only illustrative; e.g., it is by reason of Greed that people have recourse to magical incantations and rites. Or ‘Greed’ may he regarded as included (not merely indicated) by ‘Love and Hate.’ People who are too much addicted to what brings pleasure to themselves, on finding themselves unable to carry on their living by other means, are found to have recourse to such means of livelihood as the assuming of hypocritical guises and so forth. This has been thus described—‘The wearing of ashes and carrying of begging bowls, being naked, wearing of discoloured clothes—these form the means of living for people devoid of intelligence and energy.’

‘Hate,’—leads to the performance of acts contrary to those prescribed. People filled with hate are not quite capable of comprehending the truth; and hence they come to regard the wrong act (adharma) as the right one (dharma).

Or, both ‘Love’ and ‘Hate’ may be regarded as obstacles to the discernment of truth. As a matter of fact, even when some slight knowledge of the scriptures has been acquired, and the man has acquired the name of being ‘learned,’—there is every possibility of his acting otherwise (than in strict accordance with the scriptures), if he happens to be under the influence of love or hate. For instance, people, though fully conversant with the scriptures, do commit such wrong acts as the giving of false evidence, with a view either to do harm to some one whom he hates, or to do good to some one whom he loves, and certainly one cannot be sure that such acting of these people is based upon the Veda; for the simple reason that there are present other forces (controlling his action), in the shape of Love and Hate. It is for this reason that these are prohibited.

The following objection is hero put forward:—“In the word ‘sadbhiḥ,’ the term ‘saṭ’ has been explained as denoting righteousness; but what sort of righteousness could belong to the man for whom it is considered possible to do wrong under the influence of Love and Hate? Consequently, it is not necessary to add the epithet ‘free from love and hate’ (this being already implied by the word ‘good’).”

[Our answer to the above is as follows]—As a matter of fact, the epithet in question (‘free from love and hate’) is mentioned as the reason or ground (of the aforementioned ‘goodness’ or ‘righteousness’); the sense being that ‘it is because they are free from Love and Hate that they are good.’

By ‘following’ in the present context is meant capability of acting (in conformity with). The Past-participial affix (in ‘sevitaḥ,’ ‘followed’) indicates the fact of the Dharma having been in force from times without beginning. As a matter of fact, such Dharma as consists of the Aṣṭakā and other rites are not, like ordinary Dharmas or Duties, set up by any person during the present time. This same fact is also indicated by the term ‘ever.’ (The sense is that) this Dharma has continued ever since the world-process has been going on. All other extraneous Dharmas, being set up by ignorant and wicked persons, though they may obtain currency for some time, drop out in course of time; no mere delusion can continue for thousands of ages. True knowledge on the other hand, even though it may for a time be shrouded by ignorance, shines forth in all its brilliance, upon the destruction of that ignorance. Being by its very nature, pure and brilliant, it can never undergo entire destruction.