Manava Dharmashastra 2.145

2.145

stutyakrameṇa prakṛṣṭapūrvavidhānam | upādhyāyācchreṣṭha ācāryastasmātpitā tato'pi māteti | daśādisaṅkhyānirdeśaḥ stutimātram | pūrvasmāt pūrvasmātparasya parasyātiśayo vivakṣitaḥ | ata eva sahasraṃ pitṝniti vacanam | upādhyāyāndaśā'tiricyate | daśabhya upādhyāyebhyo'dhikaḥ | ‘‘kathaṃ punaratra dvitīyā’’ | atirayaṃ karmapravacanīyaḥ | upādhyāyānatikramyātikramyātiricyate gauraveṇa sātiśayena yujyate | athavā''dhikyamatirekaḥ taddhetuke'bhibhave dhāturvartate | gauravādhikyenopādhyāyānabhibhavati | atiricyata iti karmakartari dvitīyā cāviruddha | ‘duhipacyorbahulaṃ sakarmakayoḥ’ (vārtika pā. sū. 3|
‘‘mukhyācāryasannidhau pitari ca saṃskartari sannihite kaḥ kramaḥ |’’ ata āha—

In veneration, the Preceptor excels ten Sub-teachers; the Father a hundred preceptors, and the Mother a thousand Fathers.—(145)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
This verse lays down the relative superiority among the persons intended to be eulogised. The Preceptor is superior to the Sub-teacher, the Father is superior to the Preceptor, and the Mother is superior even to the Father. The specification of the numbers ‘ten’ and the rest is purely valedictory. All that is meant is that the following is superior to the preceding; hence it is that we have the expression ‘a thousand Fathers.’

‘Excels ten Sub-teachers’—i.e., he is superior to ten Sub-teachers.

“Why have we the Accusative ending here?”

The ‘ati’ (in ‘atiricyate’) is a preposition; the construction being—upādhyāyān ati (in reference to Sub-teachers);—and this means that ‘surpassing each of the ten sub-teachers, he becomes endowed with greater honour.’ Or, the ‘atireka,’ excelling (denoted by the verb ‘atiricyate’), means excess, the verbal root being used here in the sense of‘subjugation caused by excess’; the sense being that ‘by excess of respect he subdues ten sub-teachers’. Lastly, if we take the verb ‘atiricyate’ as the reflexive passive form, the Accusative ending becomes quite consistent; specially as the Vārtika (on Pāṇini, 3.1.87) speaks of ‘wide usage’ in connection with such transitive verbs as ‘milk,’ ‘cook’ and the like.

Objection.—“The very next verse is going to assert that the ‘Father who imparts the Veda is the superior while the present verse declares the Father to be superior to the Preceptor: and this is mutually contradictory.”

There is no force in this objection. According to etymologists the “Ācārya’ is not one who teaches; hence in the present verse the term stands for one who only performs the sacramental rites and teaches merely the rules of conduct;—Ācārya being one who makes one learn ā cāra. It is not necessary that one should always use only such names as arc current in one’s own science; e.g., the term ‘guru’ in the present treatise, has been declared to stand for the father, and is also used here and then; for the preceptor. From all this it is clear that the superiority of the father here meant is only over that person who confers upon one only a slight benefit, who only performs the Initiatory Rite and teaches the Rules of Conduct, and does not do any teaching.

The order of precedence being as here laid down, it follows that at a place where all these are present, the Mother is to be saluted first, then the Father, then the Preceptor, then the Sub-teacher.—(145)