Manava Dharmashastra 2.16

2.16

‘viduṣā brāhmaṇenedamadhyetavyamiti’ paṭhanti | sa cārthavādaḥ | tatra tavyapratyayadarśanātkasyacidvidhibhrāntiḥ syāt | tathā ca sati kṣatriyavaiśyayoradhyayanaṃ nivarteta ityādaśaṅkānivṛttyartho'yaṃ ślokaḥ kṣatriyavaiśyayoḥ prāptiṃ darśayati | tathā yathākāmī śūdro'pyapratiṣedhādadhyatuṃ pravarteta tannivṛttyarthamapītyevamimaṃ ślokaṃ pūrve vyācakṣire | śāstraśabdo'yaṃ mānavagranthavacanaḥ | adhikāro mayaitadanuṣṭheyamityavagamaḥ | na ca śabdarāśeḥ siddhasvabhāvasyānuṣṭheyatvāvagatiḥ sambhavati | na hi dravyamanāśritya kriyāviśeṣaṃ sādhyatayā'vagamyate | ataḥ śāstraviṣayāyāṃ kasyāñcitkriyāyāmadhikāra ityavagamyate | tatra kurvastyastāvanna viṣayatayā pratīyante | śvastyorbhavatyarthatvāt | bhavatisambandhe hyayamarthaḥ pratīyate 'śāstrasya yadbhavanaṃ yā ca sattā tāmanutiṣṭhediti' | na cānyadīyāyāṃ sattāyāmanyasyānuṣṭhātṛtvasambhavaḥ | karotyarthepi na sambhavati | padānāṃ nityatvādvākyānāṃ cānyena kṛtatvāt | ataḥ śāstrasahacāriṇyadhyayanakriyā pratīyate | ato'yamartha ukto bhavati'śāstrādhyayane tasyādhikāraḥ' yathaivādhyayane tathaiva śravaṇe'pi | "na nvādimattvānmānavasya granthasya kathaṃ tadviṣayo vidhiranādivedamūla iti śakyate vaktum |” ucyate | yāni kānicana śāstrapratipādakāni vākyāni na tāni śūdreṇādhyeyānīti śakyate sāmānyato'numānam | yāni vedavākyāni yāni tadartha vyākhyānavākyāni vyākhyātṝṇāṃ tatpratirūpakāṇi tānyapi pravāhanityatā nityanyeva | arthānuṣṭhānaṃ tu śāstraviṣayaḥ | tatra cāturvarṇyasyādhikāraḥ | “nanvevaṃ satyanupāttakartṛviśeṣeṣu sāmānyadharmeṣu śūdrasyādhikāraprasaṅgaḥ |” yathā na bhavati tathā tatra tatra kathayiṣyāmaḥ | “nanu kathamadhyayanāvabodhādhikāraniṣedhe karmādhikāraḥ ? na hyaviditakarmarūpasya tadanuṣṭhānasambhavaḥ, na cādhyayanamantareṇa tadarthāvabodhasambhavaḥ, na cāvaidyo'dhikriyate |” satyam | paropadeśādapi yāvattāvatsiddhayati parijñānam | yaṃ brāhmaṇamāśritaḥ śūdro, yo vā'rthataḥ pravṛttaḥ sa enaṃ śikṣayiṣyatīdaṃ kṛtvedaṃ kurviti | ato na karmānuṣṭhānaprayukte śūdrasyādhyayanavedane, strīvatparapratyayādapyanuṣṭhānasiddheḥ | yathā strīṇāṃ bhartṛvidyaiva prasaṅgādupaṃkaroti na karmaśrutayo vidyāṃ prayuñjate | teṣāmeva svapratyayo'nuṣṭhānaheturyeṣāṃ 'svādhyāyo'dhyetavya' iti vidhirasti puṃsām | sa ca puṃsāṃ traivarṇikānām | teṣāmapi nāthaṃjñānaprayukte'dhyayanavedane, api tu vidhidvayaprayukte ācāryakaraṇavidhinā svādhyāyādhyayanavidhinā ca |
niṣeko garbhādhānaṃ sa ādairyasya saṃskārakalāpasya sa niṣekādiḥ | garbhādhānaṃ ca vivāhādanantaraṃ prathamopagame viṣṇuryoniṃ kalpayatu iti mantravatkeṣāñcidvihitam | pareṣāmāgarbhagrahaṇātpratyṛtu |
śmaśānamanto'syeti śmaśānāntaḥ | śmaśānaśabdena mṛtaśarīrāṇi yatra nidhīyante tatsthānamucyate | tacca sāhacaryātpretasaṃskāraṃ parācīmiṣṭiṃ lakṣayati | sā hi mantravatī, na sthānam |
anena ca dvijātayo lakṣyante | teṣāṃ hi mantravantaḥ saṃskārāḥ | dvijātīnāmiti noktam | vicitrā ślokānāṃ kṛtiḥ svāyambhuvasyāsya manoḥ |
mantrairudita ukto vidhiriti nāyaṃ sambandhaḥ | na hi mantrā vidhiṃ vadanti | kiṃ tarhi prayogāvasthasya vidheyasya smārakāḥ, na vidhāyakāḥ | tasmādevaṃ vyākhyeyam-mantrairyuktaḥ samantrako yeṣāmayaṃ vidhiriti |
nānyasya kasyacidityanuvādo, dvijātīnāṃ niyatatvāt | athavā kaścinmanyeta"dvijātīnāmayaṃ vihito'vaśyakartavyaḥ, śūdrāṇāṃ tvaśiṣṭo'pratiṣiddha' iti" | tadā śaṅkānivṛttyarthamidamuktam |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
In Adhyāya I (Verse 103) are found the words ‘this should be studied by the learned Brāhmaṇa’; and though this is a mere Arthavāda, yet the presence of the potential affix ‘tavya’ (in the term ‘adhyetavyam’) might lead people into the mistake that it is an Injunction; and in that case the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya would be precluded from the study. It is with a view to preclude this possibility that we have the present verse, which shows the capability of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also to study.

The older commentators have also taken this verse as serving to preclude the possibility of the Śūdra studying the scripture, which he might be tempted to do.

The term ‘scripture’ here stands for the compilation by Manu.

‘Entitled,’—the ‘title’ meant here consists in the idea that ‘this should be done by me.’ But no ‘collection of words’—which is an accomplished entity—can be regarded as ‘to be done’; nor, on the other band, can any action be regarded as ‘to be accomplished,’ except as related to a certain substance. Hence the ‘title’ is understood to pertain to a certain action relating to the scripture. Now in the present context, the action intended is not found to be either making, or being, or existing; as for ‘being’ and ‘existing,’ they both mean ‘to be’; so that if these were the action meant, the meaning would be—‘one should undertake the being or the existing, as related to the scripture’; but as a matter of fact the ‘being’ of one thing cannot be undertaken by another. The action of ‘making’ also would not be applicable; because so far as the words are concerned, all are eternal (and as such cannot be made); while as regards sentences, they have been already made by another person (the author of the scripture). From all this it follows that the action intended is that of studying as pertaining to the scripture. So that the meaning comes to be this—‘the man is entitled to the study of the scripture’; and just as to the studying, so also to the learning of its meaning.

“In as much as the work of Manu has had a beginning in time, how could any injunction relating to it (as the present verse is supposed to be) be based upon the Veda, which is beginningless?”

Our answer is as follows:—It is quite open to us to infer some such general (Vedic) injunction as that ‘the Śūdra should not study such sentences as serve to expound the scriptures.’ Further, these statements of the expounders of the Veda that serve to explain Vedic texts bear a certain resemblance to these texts; and hence they are as much the subject of a bcginningless tradition as the Vedic texts themselves.

What forms the subject-matter of the scriptures is actual performance, and to this all the four castes arc entitled [though to the study of the scriptures the three twice-born castes alone are entitled].

“If such be the case, then it would be permissible for the Śūdra to perform all those acts which are prescribed in a general manner, without reference to any specified persons.”

How this contingency does, not arise we shall show, as occasion arises.

Objection:—

“When the Śūdra is not entitled to study the scripture and learn its meaning, how can he be entitled to the performance of the acts therein prescribed? Unless the man knows the exact form of the act, he cannot do it; unless he studies the scriptures, he cannot know what is contained in them; and no unlearned person is entitled to the performance of any (religious) act.”

True; but the requisite knowledge can be obtained from the advice of other persons. The Śūdra may be dependent upon a Brāhmaṇa; or a Brāhmaṇa may be doing the work of instructing people for payment; and such a Brāhmaṇa might very well instruct the Śūdra to ‘do this, after having done that’ and so forth. So that the mere fact of the Śūdra performing the acts does not necessarily indicate that he is entitled to the study and understanding of the scriptures; as performance can be accomplished, even on the strength of what is learnt from others; as is done in the case of women; what helps women (in the performance of their duties) is the learning of their husbands, which becomes available to them through companionship. Then again, the texts laying down the acts do not imply the direct knowledge (of the injunctive texts). It is only in the case of men, to whom is addressed the injunction of Vedic study—contained in the words ‘one should study the Veda’—that the performance of duties proceeds upon the basis of their own learning; and this injunction is meant only for the male member’s of the three higher castes. But in the case of these also their study and understanding of the scriptures is not prompted by their knowledge of what is contained in them; it is prompted entirely by the two injunctions—(1) the injunction of having recourse to a duly qualified teacher, and (2) the injunction of Vedic study.

‘Conception,’ is ‘ impregnation ’; that series of sacraments which begins with this is called ‘niṣēkādiḥ,’ ‘beyinning conception.’ This sacrament is laid down as to be performed after the marriage (of the parents),—with the mantra ‘viṣṇuryoniṅkalpayatu,’ etc. (Ṛgveda, 10.18.1.1)—on the occasion of the first intercourse only, for some people, while for others at each menstrual period, till conception takes place.

That which has the ‘crematorium’ for its end is called ‘ending with the crematorium.’ The word ‘crematorium’ stands for that place where dead bodies are disposed of; and through association it indicates the rites performed for the dead, called the ‘Antyeṣṭi’; as it is only this performance that is done with mantras, and not the place (which is what is directly denoted by the word ‘crematorium’).

The qualification mentioned in the text points to the Twice-born castes; it is only these persons who have their sacraments done with mantras. The author does not say simply ‘dvijātīnām,’ ‘for the twicc-born’ (and he has taken to the round-about way of saying the same thing), because Manu Svāyambhuva has a peculiar style of composing his verses.

The passage is not to be construed to mean that ‘the sacraments are laid down in mantras’; because mantras do not contain the injunction of any acts; they are not injunctive; they only serve as reminders, during the performance of the act, of the details enjoined in other texts. Hence the passage should be explained as meaning—‘those for whom the sacraments are laid down as to be done with Mantras.’

‘None other,’—is purely explanatory; the rest of the sentence having already served the purpose of restricting what is said to the twice-born castes. Or, it may be taken as reiterated for the preventing of the idea that some one might entertain the notion that ‘what is laid down here is something that must be done by the twice-born castes, while for the Śūdra it is neither prescribed nor interdicted.’—(16)