Manava Dharmashastra 2.188

2.188

"nanu ca bhaikṣamaharahaścarediti śrutamevaitat" | evaṃ hi bhaikṣacaryā dṛṣṭārthā bhavati | uktaṃ ca "nivedya gurave'śrīyāt" iti | na ca tadaśanaṃ bhaikṣasaṃskāraḥ yena na vṛttyarthaḥ syāt | kecidāhuḥ—"anūdyate naikānnādī bhavedvratīti vaktum|" etadapyasat | bhaikṣaśabdenaivaikānnādanasya niṣedhāt | bhikṣāṇāṃ samūho bhaikṣamucyate | tataḥ kuta ekānnādanaprāptiḥ ? tasya pitryebhyo'nujñānārthaṃ sarvametadanūdyate| bhaikṣeṇa vartayedātmānaṃ bhaikṣabhojanena pālayet | jīvitasthitiṃ kuryānnaikasya sambandhi annamaśyānnaikabhikṣānnaṃ bhuñjīta | na punariyamāśaṅkā kartavyā "naikasvāmikaṃ bhuñjīta, api tu bahusvāmikam, avibhaktabhrātṛsambandhi"| ekasyānnamekaṃ vā'nnamekānnaṃ, tadatti bhuṃkte ekānnādī | vratī brahmacārī | prakaraṇādeva labdhaḥ, ślokapūraṇārtho vratīśabdaḥ | atrārthavādaḥ | bhaikṣeṇaiva kevalena vratino yā vṛttiḥ śarīradhāraṇamupavāsatulyaphalā sā vṛttiḥ smaryate |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Objection.—“It has already been laid down that he should go about begging alms every day (183).”

What is there said would show that the begging of Alms is meant to serve the visible purpose (of sustaining the body); specially as it has been subsequently laid down that ‘having offered it to the Teacher, he should eat it’; and this ‘eating’ cannot be sanctificatory of the alms; which alone could prevent us from taking it as serving the purely visible purpose of sustaining the body.

Some people have explained that the re-iteration of the ‘daily begging of alms’ is made for the purpose of adding the further direction that ‘he should not eat the food given by one person.’

But this is not right. Since the eating of the food given by one person is precluded by the term ‘alms’ itself. ‘Alms’ stands for an aggregate of what is obtained by begging; whence then could there be any possibility of eating the food given by one person?

The conclusion on this point is that the whole rule has been re-iterated here with a view to adding (in the next verse) that such eating of the food given by one person is permissible at Śrāddhas.

‘He should subsist on alms’;—he should nourish his body—sustain his life—by means of food obtained by begging; and he should not eat food received from a single person.

The verse should not be taken to mean that “he should not eat what belongs to a single person,—he should eat what belongs to several owners; e.g., what belongs to several undivided brothers.” For the word in the text means simply ‘one who eats one food—or one person’s food.’

The term ‘Vrati’ here stands for the Religious Student; and as the fact of the rule pertaining to him is clear from the context, the addition of the word can be taken only as filing up the metre.

Next follows the commendatory statement:—‘The subsisting—sustaining of the body—of the student on alms only has been declared to be equal to fasting.’—(188)