Manava Dharmashastra 2.160

2.160

yasyādhyāpayituranyasya vā saṅkṣobhahetau sati vāṅmanasī śuddhe na kāluṣyaṃ gacchataḥ | samyaggupte cotpanne'pi kāluṣye na paradrohavyavasāyo na ca tatpīḍārthaḥ karmārambhaḥ,—etatsamyaggopanaṃ vāṅmanasayoḥ | sarvadāgrahaṇaṃ puruṣamātradharmārthaṃ, nādhyāpayitureva adhyāpanakāle | sa vai sarvamavāpnoti | vedāntā vedasiddhāntāḥ | siddhaśabdasyātyantaṃ siddha iti 'siddhe śabdārthasambandhe' ityatrātyantaśabdasyeva lopaḥ | vaidikeṣu vākyeṣu yaḥ siddhānto vyavasthitārtho'sya karmaṇa idaṃ phalamityupagataḥ, abhyupagato vedavidbhiḥ, tatphalaṃ sarvaṃ prāpnoti | evaṃ ca vadatā vāṅmanasasaṃyamasyānena vākyena kratuṣu puruṣobhayadharmatoktā bhavati | kevalapuruṣadharmātikrame hyasati kratuvaiguṇye'saṃyato'pi vāṅmanasābhyāṃ kimiti kṛtsnaṃ phalaṃ na prāpnoti, yenocyate 'saṃyamī sarvamāpnoti' iti | anye tu vedāntān rahasyabrāhmaṇānyācakṣate | teṣu yadabhyupagataṃ phalaṃ, nityānāṃ karmaṇāṃ niṣphalānāṃ ca yamaniyamānāṃ tatphalaṃ brahmaprāptilakṣaṇaṃ sarvamāpnoti | "kathaṃ punarnityāni brahmaprāptyarthānīti" cedastikeṣaṃciddarśanam | athavā vedasyānto'dhyāpanasamāptistato yatphalamācāryakaraṇavidhisrtatprāpnoti | evaṃ tu vyākhyāne'dhyāpanavidhyarthataiva syāt |

He, whose speech and mind are pure and ever properly guarded, obtains the whole reward recognised by the canons of the Veda.—(160)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
That, teacher, or any person, whose ‘speech and mind,’ even in the presence of disturbing causes,—‘are pure’—do not become perturbed;—‘and properly guarded,’—i.e., even when perturbation has been caused, he does not make up his mind to injure other persons, nor does he have recourse to activity calculated to harm them: all this is what is meant by the ‘guarding’ of speech and mind.

‘Been’—is added with a view to show that what is laid down applies to each and every man, and not to the teacher only, and that also only at the time of teaching.

‘He obtains the whole reward.’

The term ‘vedānta’ in the text stands for ‘vedasiddhānta,’ ‘canons of the Veda’; the term ‘siddha’ being deleted in the same manner as the term ‘atyanta’ has been held to be dropped in the term ‘siddhe’ as occurring in the declaration ‘siddhe śabdārthasambandhe, etc.’ (in the Mahābhāṣya),

The term ‘vedānta’ therefore stands for the ‘canons’—established doctrines—contained in the Vedic texts—wherein it lias teen ‘recognised’ that ‘such and such results proceed from such and such an act’—a fact that is accepted by all persons learned in the Veda;—the whole of such results ‘he obtains.’

By the present statement the author has made it clear that the proper control of speech and mind is helpful in the ordinary life of man, as also in sacrificial performances. For, if it were meant to he helpful only in ordinary life, then its transgression would involve the omission of only what is helpful to man in his ordinary life; and in that case the transgression not causing any deficiency in any sacrificial performance, why should not the man with unguarded speech and mind obtain the full reward of these latter? And yet what the text says is that ‘it is the self-controlled man that obtains the whole reward.’

Others have explained the term ‘vedānta’ to mean the Esoteric Brahmaṇas (Upaniṣads). And by this explanation the passage means that the man obtains the whole of that reward which consists in the ‘attaining of Brahman,’ which has been postulated, in the said esoteric treatises, as proceeding from the performance of the compulsory duties, and also from that of those restraints and observances which have been laid down without reference to any rewards.

If it be asked how pan the compulsory acts be held to bring about a result in the shape of attaining Brahman?”—our answer is simply that such an opinion has been held by some persons.

Or again, the term ‘redānta’ may be explained as the ‘end’ of the teaching ‘of the Veda’; and the result obtained is that which proceeds from this teaching;—i.e., the result in the form of having fulfilled the injunction of ‘becoming a teacher.’ By this explanation, what is laid down in the text would become entirely subservient to the ‘injunction of teaching.’—(160)