Manava Dharmashastra 2.136

2.136.1

uktaṃ jāterutkarṣahetutvam | hīnajātīyenottamajātīyaḥ pūjyaḥ | idānīṃ samānajātīyānāṃ ya abhivādanādipūjāhetavasteṣāṃ balābalamucyate | tatra vayasaḥ punarabhidhānaṃ balābalārtham | vittādisambandho'tra sarvatra pūjāhetuḥ | vittavattvaṃ bandhumattvaṃ mānasthānamiti | ayamatrārthaḥ | na viśiṣṭabandhutaiva pitṛvyamātulādirūpatā mānakāraṇaṃ, bandhumānyo bahubandhuḥ sa pūjyaḥ | vayaḥ prakṛṣṭamiti jñeyam | īdṛśa eva cārthe prāyeṇāyaṃ prayujyate | ‘‘pitrā putro vayaḥstho'pi satataṃ vācya eva saḥ’’ iti | yāvacca vayaḥ pūjāhetuḥ taduktameva ‘daśābdākhyamiti |’ karma śrautaṃ smārtaṃ tadanuṣṭhānaparatā | vidyā sāṅgopakaraṇavedārthajñānam | ‘‘nanu vidvā‌nyajate vidvāṃnyājayatītyavidyasya karmānuṣṭhānānadhikārādvidyayā vinā kathaṃ karmaṇāṃ mānahetutā ?’’ naiṣa doṣaḥ | prakarṣo'trābhipretaḥ | atiśayavatī vidyā mānahetuḥ | svalpavidyasyāpyanuṣṭhānopapattiḥ | yo yāvajjānāti sa tāvatyadhikriyate | na vidyāyā vācanikamadhikārahetutvamapi tu sāmarthyalakṣaṇam | ‘‘aviditakarmasvarūpo hyavaidyastiryakkarmo kādhikriyatām ?’’ śakyaṃ hyanena katicitsmṛtivākyānyupaśrutya japatapasyanuṣṭhātum | agnihotrādikarmaṇāṃ tu vedavākyāvabodha upakaroti | tatrāpi yo yāvajjānāti sa tāvatyadhikriyate | agnihotravākyānāṃ yo'rthaṃ vetti sa tatrādhikriyate | kalpantarajñānaṃ na tatropakārakam | athocyate—‘‘‘vedaḥ kṛtsno'dhigantavyaḥ’ iti kṛtsnavedaviṣayo'yaṃ vidhiravabodhaparyantaḥ | tatra kṛtsnasya vedasyāvabodhe kartavye kuto'yaṃ pratibhāgāvabodhasambhavaḥ |

Wealth, Relation, Age, Action and Learning, as the fifth,—these are the grounds of respect; (among them) that which follows is weightier (than that which goes before it).—(136)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Caste has been described as a ground of superiority; so that one belonging to a higher caste should be respected by one of a lower caste. The text now proceeds to describe the relative strength of those factors that entitle persons of a caste to salutation and honour among themselves.

Age is mentioned here again only for the purpose of indicating its position as compared with others.

In the case of all that is mentioned here it is the connection of the person with them that entitles him to respect. That is, the possession of wealth and the possession of relations constitute titles of respect. It is not meant that the peculiar relationship borne by the man—such as that of being a paternal or a maternal uncle—constitutes the title of respect; what is meant is that one who has many relations deserves to be respected.

‘Age’—i.e., advanced age. The term is generally used in this qualified sense ; e. g., in such passages as—‘Even though the son be of age, he should be advised by his father.’ Verse 134 has already explained what age entitles one to respect

‘Action’—such as is laid down in Śrutis and Smṛtis; i. e., one’s assiduity in performing such actions.

‘Learning,’—the knowledge of the Veda along with the subsidiary sciences and their auxiliaries.

Objection.—“In view of such declarations as ‘the learned man offers sacrifices,’ ‘the learned man officiates at sacrifices,’ the unlearned person can never be entitled to the performance of religious acts; under the circumstances, how can mere ‘action,’ without ‘learning,’ be a ground for respect?”

Answer.—There is no force in this objection. Excellence is what is meant here. Superior or efficient learning is what constitutes a title to respect; and as for the performance of actions, this can be done also by men possessed of limited learning; for a man is entitled to perform actions in accordance with the knowledge possessed by him: specially as ‘learning’ entitles a person to the performance of actions simply because it serves to capacitate him for it, and not because it has been declared to be a necessary condition.

“But the man devoid of learning cannot know the form of the action to be performed, and being capable of acting only like lower animals, to the performance of what could he be entitled?”

Even such a person can, on having heard a few Smṛti-texts, perform austerities and repeat mantras. It is only in the performance of the Agnihotra and such other Vedic rites that one requires the knowledge of Vedic texts. But here also the title to perform the rites is dependent upon the extent of knowledge possessed by the man; e.g., one who knows the meaning of tho texts bearing upon the Agnihotra is entitled to its performance; the knowledge of other sacrifices is of no use in that.

The following argument might be urged here—“We have the injunction ‘the entire Veda should be studied,’ which pertains to the whole Veda, and implies the thorough understanding of the whole; and when it is necessary to understand the meaning of the entire Veda, how can there be any such partial knowledge as could justify such an assertion as that ‘he who knows the meaning of the texts bearing on the Agnihotra shall be entitled to the performance of that act, even though he be ignorant of the meaning of other texts?’”

2.136.2

yenocyate‘yo'gnihotravākyasyārthaṃ vetti vākyāntarārthamavidvānapyadhikriyata’ iti |’’ atrocyate | ekaśākhādhyayanaṃ tāvadavaśyaṃ kartavyam | tatra yenaikaśākhā'dhītā tasyāścārtho'vadhṛtaḥ so'navadhṛtaśākhāntarārtho'dhikriyate | ‘‘nanu ca sarvatraika eva śāstrārthaḥ | yadi nāma padavarṇānupūrvībhedaḥ, śāstrarūpaṃ tvabhinnam | padārthanyāyavyutpattyā cā'vabodhaḥ | na ca pratiśāstraṃ padārthā bhidyante | nā'pi nyāyaḥ | tatra yenaiva hetunaikasyāḥ śākhāyā artho'vadhāryate śākhāntare'pyasāvasti, na vyutpattyantaramapekṣyate | tatra yadyekā śākhā'vagatā, sarvā evāvagatā bhavanti |’’ satyam | yānyekasyāmagnihotrādīnyupadiṣṭāni teṣāṃ śākhāntare'pyupadiśyamānānāṃ mā bhūd bhedaḥ | kintu kasyāñcicchākhāyāṃ kānicitkarmāṇi naivopapadiśyante | yathā bāhvṛce āśvalāyanake darśapūrṇamāsau śyenādirābhicārikaḥ, anye ca somayāgavājapeyabṛhaspatisavādayaḥ | tatra yattacchākhādhīna magnihotrajyotiṣṭomādi tatrādhikriyate | śākhāntaraṃ tvanadhītamaśrutaṃ kathaṃ tadvihitāni karmāṇyatacchākhādhyāyī vettu | na caite somayāgā nityā, yenānanuṣṭhānapratyavāyabhayātparijñānāya śākhāntaramanviṣyeta | ādhānaṃ tu yadyapi tatra na paṭhitaṃ tatrā‘pyuddharāhavanīyami’tyāhavanīyasya vidhānam | lokāttadarthamanavabudhyamānaḥ ko'yamāhavanīyo yasyādhānamiti śākhāntaramanviṣyati | tataḥ śākhāntare paṭhyamānamādhānaprakaraṇaṃ sarvaṃ paryālocayati | evamāmāvāsyena vā haviṣeṣṭvā paurṇamāsena veti śrutvā kīdṛśa-

Our answer to the above is as follows:—It is the study of one Vedic Recension that is necessary; and what we mean is that he who has studied one Recension and has fully understood its meaning, becomes entitled to the performance of Vedic acts, even without studying the other Recensions.

“The purpose of the Scripture is the same in all cases; even though there may be some difference in the order of a few words and syllables, yet the main feature of the Scripture remains the same. Then again, as for the understanding of the meaning, this is obtained by the due comprehension of the meanings of words and reasonings; now, neither the meanings of words, nor the reasonings, differ in the different Recensions. So that the means by which one learns the meaning of one Recension serves the same purpose in regard to the other Recensions also; and one does not stand in need of any other learning; so that if One Recension has been learnt, all become learnt.”

True. Such Agnihotra, etc., as are enjoined in one Recension may not differ from the same acts as enjoined in other Recensions; but there are certain actions which are not enjoined at all in certain Recensions. E.g., the Śyena and other malevolent rites in connection with the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa are not found in the Aśvalāyana Recension of the Ṛgveda; nor the Somayāga, the Vājapeva, the Bṛhaspatisava and so forth. So that when a man has learnt one Recension, he becomes entitled to that Agnihotra and that Jyotiṣṭoma, etc., which are enjoined iu that Recension; and if one who has not studied another Recension, and has neither read nor heard of it, how can he know anything about the acts enjoined in that other Recension? Nor ore the Soma-sacrifices compulsory; so that, through fear of incurring the sin of omitting a compulsory act, one might be forced to seek for the knowledge of them from other Recensions. As for the ‘Kindling of Fire,’ even though this also is not found enjoined in the said Āśvalāyana recension of the Ṛgveda, yet it does contain the injunction of preparing the ‘Āhavanīya’ fire; as is clear from such passages as ‘bring up the Āhavanīya’; so that, not understanding the meaning of this passage with the help of ordinary people, the student naturally seeks, from other Recensions, for the knowledge of what this ‘Āhavanīya’ is; and thus he comes to look over the entire section of the other Recension dealing with the ‘Kindling of Fire.’ Similarly having heard the passage—‘Having offered either the Amāvāsyā or the Paurṇamāsa libations, etc.,’ one seeks from other Recensions for the knowledge of the exact form of the two acts (of Amāvāsyā and Paurṇamāsa offerings). Similarly in the case of other compulsory and optional acts that have to be performed, when it is found that some of their details arc not laid down in a certain Recension,—-such details, for instance, as pertain to the Adhvaryu (and are mentioned in the Yajurveda) or to the Udgātṛ (and are mentioned in the Sāma-Veda),—the requisite knowledge is sought for from those other texts. It is not possible for one to know the act that is laid down in Recensions other than the one studied by him. To the student who learns several Recensions, and studies their meanings, all this becomes quite clear. But even in the absence of such knowledge as this last, the performance of acts is quite possible. Or, such performance could be possible even on a slight understanding (of the Vedic texts).

2.136.3

manayoḥ karmaṇo rūpamiti tathaiva śākhāntaraṃ gaveṣayate | evamanyadapi yatkāmyaṃ nityaṃ cānuṣṭheyaṃ tasya yatkiñcidaṅgajālaṃ tatra nājñātamādhvaryavamaudgātraṃ vā tatparijñāya tathaiva śākhāntarādhigamaḥ | yattu śākhāntarādhītamanuṣṭheyaṃ tasya na vedanasambhavaḥ | anekaśākhādhyāyinastu tadarthaparasya sarvametatpratyakṣamivi | astīdṛśīṃ vidyāmantareṇāpi karmānuṣṭhānam | athavā īṣadvyutpannasyā'pi sambhavatyanuṣṭhānam | yasya tu nirmalā vidyā, vyākhyeyāni vidyāsthānāni, tasya vidyā mānyatāsthānam | ‘garīya’ iti dvayordvayoḥ sampradhāraṇe'yamīyasunpratyayaḥ | caturdaśavidyāsthānajñaḥ paṅgvandhanirdhanādiranadhikṛto'pi vidyayaiva pūjyate | teṣāṃ virodhe valābalamāha | garīyo yadyaduttaram | ekasya vittamanyasya bahubandhutā, tatra vittavato bandhumānmānyaḥ | yasmācca yatparaṃ tattasmād gurutaram | tathā bandhorvayaḥ tataḥ pūrvaṃsmādapi vittāttadguru siddham | ata upapannam “śrutaṃ tu sarvebhyo garīyastanmūlatvāddharmasyeti” gautamavacanam ( a.6 sū 19-20) | “garīya iti kathaṃ prakarṣapratyayo yāvatā naiva pūrvasya gurutvam | yadi hi dve gurūṇī tatrottarasya garīyastvamasti | tarhi pūrvāpekṣayā vittasya nāstīti” cet | samudāye sāmānyena gurutve'pekṣite aparasya prakarṣavivakṣāyāṃ yujyata īyasun | mānaḥ pūjā tasya sthānaṃ kāraṇam | ‘mānyasthānānīti’ vā pāṭhe'ntarbhūtabhāvārtho draṣṭavyaḥ, ‘mānyatvasthānāni, mānyatvakāraṇāni | ekaikaguṇasambandhe parasya jyāyastvamuktam | yatredānīṃ dvau pūrvāvekasya bhavato'parasyaikaḥ para iti tatra kathamityata āha |

True. Such Agnihotra, etc., as are enjoined in one Recension may not differ from the same acts as enjoined in other Recensions; but there are certain actions which are not enjoined at all in certain Recensions. E.g., the Śyena and other malevolent rites in connection with the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa are not found in the Aśvalāyana Recension of the Ṛgveda; nor the Somayāga, the Vājapeva, the Bṛhaspatisava and so forth. So that when a man has learnt one Recension, he becomes entitled to that Agnihotra and that Jyotiṣṭoma, etc., which are enjoined iu that Recension; and if one who has not studied another Recension, and has neither read nor heard of it, how can he know anything about the acts enjoined in that other Recension? Nor ore the Soma-sacrifices compulsory; so that, through fear of incurring the sin of omitting a compulsory act, one might be forced to seek for the knowledge of them from other Recensions. As for the ‘Kindling of Fire,’ even though this also is not found enjoined in the said Āśvalāyana recension of the Ṛgveda, yet it does contain the injunction of preparing the ‘Āhavanīya’ fire; as is clear from such passages as ‘bring up the Āhavanīya’; so that, not understanding the meaning of this passage with the help of ordinary people, the student naturally seeks, from other Recensions, for the knowledge of what this ‘Āhavanīya’ is; and thus he comes to look over the entire section of the other Recension dealing with the ‘Kindling of Fire.’ Similarly having heard the passage—‘Having offered either the Amāvāsyā or the Paurṇamāsa libations, etc.,’ one seeks from other Recensions for the knowledge of the exact form of the two acts (of Amāvāsyā and Paurṇamāsa offerings). Similarly in the case of other compulsory and optional acts that have to be performed, when it is found that some of their details arc not laid down in a certain Recension,—-such details, for instance, as pertain to the Adhvaryu (and are mentioned in the Yajurveda) or to the Udgātṛ (and are mentioned in the Sāma-Veda),—the requisite knowledge is sought for from those other texts. It is not possible for one to know the act that is laid down in Recensions other than the one studied by him. To the student who learns several Recensions, and studies their meanings, all this becomes quite clear. But even in the absence of such knowledge as this last, the performance of acts is quite possible. Or, such performance could be possible even on a slight understanding (of the Vedic texts).