Manava Dharmashastra 2.142

2.142

niṣekagrahaṇātpiturayaṃ gurutvopadeśaḥ | niṣeko retaḥ sekaḥ sa ādiryeṣāṃ karmaṇām| ādigrahaṇātsarve saṃskārā gṛhyante | tāni yaḥ karotyannena ca yaḥ sambhāvayati saṃvardhayati | caibainamiti vā pāṭhaḥ | arthastu sa eva, annenaiva sambhāvanopapatteḥ | arthāntaranirdeśaḥ ‘enaṃ’ kumāram | “nanu cānvādeśaḥ | na ceha kumārasya pūrvamupadeśaḥ” | naivam | kasyāpyanyasya niṣekādīni kriyante | sāmarthyādapi nirdeśo na nirdeśata eva | tāni yaḥ karoti | evamābhyāṃ guṇābhyāṃ hīnaḥ kevalajanakatve pitaiva bhavati na guruḥ | na caivamantavyamasati gurutve nāsau mānyaḥ | sarvaprathamamasāveva mānyaḥ | tathā ca bhagavānvyāsaḥ “prabhuḥ śarīraprabhavaḥ priyakṛtprāṇado guruḥ | hitānāmupadeṣṭā ca pratyakṣaṃ daivataṃ pitā” iti | vipragrahaṇaṃ pradarśanārtham |

That Brāhmaṇa, who performs, in the prescribed manner, one’s sacramental rites beginning with the rites of impregnation, and supports him with food, is called the “Guru,” “Mentor.”—(142)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The mention of the ‘Rites of Impregnation’ indicates that the present verse lays down the fact of the Father being a ‘Mentor.’

‘Niṣeka’ ‘Impregnation,’ is the ‘Sprinkling of the semen’:—those acts of which the ‘Impregnation’ is the first or beginning; the term ‘beginning’ shows that all the Sacramental Rites are meant.

He who performs these rites and also ‘supports’—fosters—‘with food.’

‘Chaivainam’ is another reading (for ‘cānnena’). The meaning remains the same; as ‘supporting’ can be done only by means of food. The only additional sense obtained from this other reading is the reference, by means of the pronoun ‘enam,’ to the boy.

“As a matter of fact, ‘enam is only a relative pronoun; and the ‘Boy’ does not appear anywhere here as its antecedent.”

There is no force in this; for whom else (if not for the boy) are the Kites of Impregnation and the rest performed? And ‘reference’ is often only implied, not always expressly stated.

He who does not fulfil these two conditions, but gives one birth, is only a ‘progenitor,’ not a ‘mentor.’ Nor should the notion be entertained that, not being a ‘mentor,’ he should not be respected; as a matter of fact, he is the very first to deserve respect; as says the revered Vyāsa—‘The Father is the master, the source of the body, the benefactor, the life-giver, the mentor, the advisor, of all that is good, the visible God.’

The mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ is only illustrative.—(142)