Manava Dharmashastra 2.189.1

2.189.1

ayamapavādo nimittaviśeṣe bhaikṣavṛttyupadeśasya | devadaivatye devoddeśena brāhmaṇabhojane kriyamāṇe, pitrye ca pitṝnuddiśyābhyarthito' dhyeṣitaḥ, kāmamekānnamaśnīyāt | na tu svayaṃ yāceta | tacca vratavad vratāviruddhaṃ madhumāṃsavarjitamityarthaḥ | vratavadṛṣivaditi ca śabdadvayenaika evārtha ucyate, na punarmmāraṇayayoḥ karmabhedena vyavasthā | vṛttānurodhāttu dvirabhidhānam | ṛṣivaikhānasastadaśanābhyanujñāne māṃsamapi brahmacāriṇo'nujñātaṃ syāt | tasya hi 'vaiṣṇavamapyupabhuñjīta' iti māṃsāśanamapyasti | devā devatā yasya tad devadaivatyam | taccāgnihotradarśapūrṇamāsādiṣu daiveṣu karmasu brāhmaṇabhojanamāmnātam, āgrahāyaṇyādiṣu cāmnātaṃ 'brāhmaṇānbhojayitvā svastyayanaṃ vācayediti' | tatreyamanujñā | anye tu sapramyādāvādityādidevoddeśena yatkriyate brāhmaṇabhojanaṃ taddevadaivatyaṃ manyante | tadasat | na hi bhujerdevatāsambandho'sti, ayāgasādhanatvāttasya | na taddeśyamātraṃ devatā | 'upādhyāya gāṃ dadāti', 'gṛhaṃ saṃmārṣṭītyu'pādhyāye gṛhe'pi prasaṅgāt | bhujerhi pratyakṣo bhoktṛā sambandhaḥ | ādityastu na kārakaṃ, na coddeśyo gṛhavat, na tadarthaṃ bhojanam | dvitīyā hi bhoktṛrthatāṃ, jñāpayati, nādityārthatām | na caitatkvacinnoditam 'ādityādyuddeśena brāhmaṇānbhojayediti' | “samācārādvidhiḥ kalpyata” iti cet ? na | tasyopalabhyamānamūlatvāt | “asti hi mūlaṃ, bāhyāḥ smṛtayaḥ |” tatra tarhi brāhmaṇabhojanena devatāḥ prīṇayediti śāstrārthaḥ | na cāyamarthaḥ śakyaḥ kalpayitum | na hi devatāprītipradhānaḥ śāstrārthaḥ, kiṃ tarhi vidhyarthapradhānaḥ |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
This verse provides an exception, under certain conditions, to the rules regarding subsisting on alms.

‘In honour of Gods’;—i.e., when Brāhmaṇas are fed in honour of the gods; and also when they are fed in honour of the fathers;—if he is ‘incited,’ requested—‘he may eat freely’—the food given by one person. But he himself should not ask for it.

This again should be ‘in due accordance with his observances’; i.e., he should avoid honey and meat, which are inconsistent with his observances. The two phrases—‘in due accordance with his observances’ and ‘like an ascetic’—express the same meaning; and it does not mean that in a village he is to eat ‘in accordance with his observances,’ while in the forest he is to eat ‘like an ascetic.’ It is with a view to filling up the metre that the two phrases have been used. [There is another reason why the phrase ‘like an ascetic’ should not he taken separately]—‘Ascetic’ here stands for the hermit, so if the student were permitted to eat ‘like the hermit,’ the eating of meat also would become allowed for him; as the hermit is permitted to eat meat, by such rules as ‘he may eat the flesh of dead animals’ (Gautama, 3.31).

‘In honour of Gods’;—i.e., those rites of which gods are the deities; i.e., the feeding of Brāhmaṇas laid down as to be done at the performance of the Agnihotra, the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and the other sacrifices offered to the gods; as we find in such injunctions as ‘at the Āgrahāyaṇa and other sacrifices one should feed Brāhmaṇas and make them pronounce “svasti.”’ It is in connection with these that we have the present permission for the religious student.

Others explain the term ‘performance in honour of the gods’ to mean that feeding of Brāhmaṇas which is done in honour of the Sun-god on the seventh day of the month, and so forth.

This however is not right. For the act of eating has no connection with the gods,—being, as it is, not instrumental in the accomplishment of any sacrifice. Further, the mere fact of an act being done with reference to a god, does not make the latter the ‘deity’ of that act; if it did, then the Teacher would have to be regarded as the ‘deity’ when one gives a cow to him, and the room will have to be regarded as the ‘deity’ when one sweeps it. Then again, it is with the eater that the act of eating is directly connected; and the Sun-god has no active function in the fulfilment of that act (as the Teacher is in the former case); nor is he the thing aimed at (as the room is in the latter case); as the eating is not for his sake. Further, the accusative ending (in the term denoting food) denotes that it is meant for the eater, not that it is meant for the Sun-god. Nor has it been enjoined anywhere that ‘one should feed Brāhmaṇas for the sake of (with reference to) the Sun-god.’

It might be argued that on the basis of usage we assume the existence of such an injunction.

But this cannot be; because there is always some scriptural basis found for such assumption of injunctions.

“In the present case also we have such basis in the shape of the ‘external’ Smṛtis.”

If there were such a Smṛti-rule, its meaning would be that ‘one should please the gods by feeding Brāhmaṇas.’ And it would not be right to assume such a meaning; as scriptural injunctions are aimed, not at pleasin the Gods, but at accomplishing what is prescribed by the injunctions. Then again, if such were the meaning of the Injunction, its connection with the Sun-god and others intended to be deities could not be based either upon an object, or upon a desired result; nor again could they be the purpose, as in the case of the act of piercing; nor are they desired for their own sake, like cattle and other desirable things, for the simple reason that they are not something to be enjoyed. If it were the satisfaction of the Sun-god that were desired,—that also, will need a proof for its own existence; and there is no such proof available. Such a thing as the ‘satisfaction of the Sun-god’ is not known by Perception or other means of knowledge,—in the way that cattle, etc., are,—whereby it could be desired and connected with the performance of sacrifices.