Manava Dharmashastra 2.136.1

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?’”