Manava Dharmashastra 2.2

2.2

phalābhilāṣaḥ karmapravṛtterheturyasya sa kāmātmā tadbhāvaḥ kāmātmatā | tatpradhānatā 'ātma' śabdena pratipādyate | sā na praśastā ninditā |
"ataśca nindayā pratiṣedhānumāne 'na kartavyeti' pratīyate | arthātsauryādīnāṃ sarveṣāṃ kāmyānāṃ niṣedho'yam | athavā kiṃ viśeṣeṇa brūmaḥ sauryādīnāmiti, sarvameva kriyānuṣṭhānaṃ phalasiddhyarthaṃ, na svarūpaniṣpattaye | na ca kācana niṣphalā kriyā | yadapi-'na kurvīta vṛthā ceṣṭāmiti, bhasmani hutaṃ viṣayāntare deśarājavārtādyanveṣaṇaṃ'-tatrāpi kriyāphalaṃ vidyate | kintu pradhānaphalaṃ svargagrāmādi puruṣasya yad dṛṣṭādṛṣṭaye| rupayujyate tadabhāvād vṛthā ceṣṭetyucyate | athocyate-'bhavatu kriyā phalavatī | tadviṣaye'bhilāṣo na kartavyaḥ vastusvābhāvyātphalaṃ bhaviṣyati'-atrāpi sauryādīnāmaphalatvaṃ, kāmyamānaṃ phalaṃ jñātama | nānicchostadbhaviṣyatīti | na ca laukikī pravṛttirdṛśyate phalābhisandhinirapekṣā | na cātra viśeṣaḥ śrutau-vaidikeṣu karmasu phalaṃ nābhisandheyamiti | tatra phalavatsu śruteṣu kāmanāniṣedhādapravṛttau śrutivirodhaḥ | nityeṣu tu prāptireva nāsti | viśeṣādyanupādānācca laukikavyāpāranivṛttau dṛṣṭavirodhaḥ | tadidamāpatitam, na-kiṃcitkenacitkartavyaṃ sarvaistūṣṇīṃbhūtaiḥ sthātavyam" |
ucyate | yattāvaduktaṃ kāmyeṣu sauryādiṣu niṣedhaprasaṅga iti, -tatra vakṣyati 'yathāsaṅkalpitāṃśceha sarvān kāmān samaśnuta' iti | niṣedhe hi kutaḥ saṅkalpaḥ kutaśca kāmāvāptiḥ | yadapi viśeṣādyanupādānāllaukike'pi prasakta iti-tatropātta eva viśeṣaḥ, 'yo dharmastaṃ nibodhateti' dharmasya prakṛtatvāt | yadapyuktaṃ nityeṣu phalāśravaṇātphalābhisandheḥ prāptireva nāsti, kiṃ niṣedheneti, -tatrāpyucyate | phalābhāvātkaścitsamyakśāstrārthamajānāno na pravarteta, sauryādiṣu ca śrutaphaleṣu phalābhisandhipūrvikāṃ pravṛttiṃ dṛṣṭvā sāmānyatodṛṣṭena yatkartavyaṃ tatphalahetoḥ kriyata ityaśrutamapi phalamabhisandadhīta tannivṛttyarthamidamārabhyate | yadyapyayaṃ nyāyoyatphalavacchrutaṃ tattathaiva kartavyam, yadvāpi niṣphalameva kartavyatayā śāstreṇa yāvajjīvādipadairvineva viśvajinyāyena phalakalpanayā'vagamitaṃ tasyānyathānuṣṭhāne prasaṅga eva nāsti, tathāpi ya cetaṃ nyāyaṃ pratipattumasamarthaḥ sa vacanena pratipādyate | nyāyataḥ pratipattau hi gauravam, vacanāttu laghīyasī sukhapratipattiriti suhṛdbhūtvā pramāṇasiddhamarthamupadiśatisma | kāmaśabdo'yaṃ yadyapi tṛcchḷayavacano dṛṣṭastathā'pi tasyehāsambhavātkāma icchā 'bhilāṣa ityanarthāntaram | tatra vakṣyamāṇaparyālocanayā phalābhilāṣeṇa na sarvatra pravartitavyamityayamarthaḥ syāsyati | parastu kāmātmatāmicchāmātrasaṃbadhamātraṃ padārthaṃ manvānaścodayati | "na caivehāstyakāmatāteti | na ceha loke kācidakāminaḥ pravṛttirastītyarthaḥ | āstāṃ tāvatkṛṣivāṇijyādi vyutpannabuddhinā kriyamāṇam, yaḥ svayaṃ vedādhigamo vedādhyayanaṃ bālaḥ kāryate pitrādinā tāḍyamānaḥ so'pi na kāmamantareṇopapadyate | adhyayanaṃ hi śabdoccāraṇarūpam | na coccāraṇamicchayā binā nirghātadhvanivaduttiṣṭhati | icchati cetkimiti tāḍyata iti | saivatayecchopajanyate | abhimata tu viṣaye svayamupajāyata ityetāvānviśeṣaḥ | yaścāyaṃ vaidiko vedavihitaḥ karma yogo darśapūrṇamāsādikarmānuṣṭhāne nityatvenāvagataḥ so'pi na prāpnoti | na hyanicchato devatoddeśena svadravyatyāgopapattiḥ | tasmātkāmātmatāniṣedhe sarvaśrautasmārtakarmaniṣedhaḥ prasakta iti |
1) | devadarśī sampadyate | anenāpi prakāreṇa svargaprāptirevoktā bhavati | athavā'mara iva lokyate loke |
101 ) iti gamerḍaḥ | 'hṛdayasya hṛditi' ( vyā. sū. 6 |
83 ) iti nāmānte pluto vihitaḥ| taṃ ye na vidusteṣvahamityeva vācyam| vyākaraṇaprayojanopanyāsaprasaṅge na caitanmahābhāṣyakāreṇa pradarśitam | "avidvāṃsaḥ pratyabhivāde nāmno ye na plutiṃ viduḥ | kāmaṃ teṣu tu viprogya strīṣvivāyamahaṃ vadet" ||
83) ṭeḥ plutiṃ smarati | ṭiśabdena yo'ntyoc tadādiśabdarūpamucyate |
126 ) iti | kriyā cātra śrutā- guruvanmānamarhati |

It is not right to be absorbed in desires—“But there is in this world, no absolute absence of desire; for the study of the Vedas itself is prompted by desire, as also every act prescribed in the Veda.”—(2)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The man for whom desire for reward forms the sole motive to act is said to be ‘absorbed in desires’; and it is this character that is expressed by the abstract noun; the term ‘ātman’ in this compound denoting preponderance.

‘It is not right?,’—i.e., it is deprecated.

[An objection is raised]—“This deprecation leads us to infer that the said absorption in desires is prohibited.—This means that the text contains the prohibition of all such sacrifices as the Saurya and the like, which are performed with a desire for a definite reward. Or, why should we specify the Saurya and other sacrifices? All performance of actions is for the accomplishment of a desirable end; no one acts simply for the accomplishing of the act itself; in fact there is no action without results. As for the assertion (contained in 4.63) that ‘one should not act aimlessly’ [which might be taken to imply that there are aimless actions, such as] pouring libations on extinguished fire, or seeking for information regarding what is happening to kings and places of other countries,—in reality, in these cases also there is some result following from the act; and all that is meant by calling them ‘aimless’ is that they do not bring about any important results, in the shape of attainment of Heaven, acquisition of village-property and so forth, which are useful to men in the invisible and visible spheres. It might be argued that—‘It may be that the action brings about a reward; what is meant is that the man should have no desire for that reward; even though, in the very nature of things, the reward will follow.’ Even so the Saurya and other sacrifices would be without rewards; that alone is regarded as ‘reward’ which is actually desired; so that there could be no ‘reward’ for one who has no desires. In the ordinary world, we do not find any such activity as is absolutely independent of a desire for reward. Nor have we any such Vedic declaration as that ‘in connection with Vedic actions alone there should be no desire for reward.’ On the contrary, all Vedic acts have been prescribed as bringing definite rewards; so that if desire for rewards is interdicted, it would mean that the acts would not be done; and this would militate against the spirit of the Vedas. As regards the compulsory acts (prescribed in the Veda), there is no possibility of rewards in their case. Then again, since the prohibition in the text is a general one (and not restricted to Vedic acts only), it would lead to the cessation of all ordinary activity of the world, and would thus run counter to visible practice also, and it comes to this that no one should do anything, all should sit silent.”

To the above objection we make the following reply:—

(1) It has been argued that the Text implies the prohibition of the Saurya and such other sacrifices, which are admittedly prompted by desire for rewards; as regards this, the author is himself going to say (in Verso 5) that ‘the man fulfils the desires he may have entertained’; if he had meant to prohibit (by the present verse) such acts, how could there be any ‘entertainment’ or ‘fulfilment’ of desires?

(2) The second point urged is that, since the text does not specify Vedic acts alone, the interdict would apply to ordinary actions also. But the required specification has already been made by the text (in the preceding verse), where it says—‘Learn that Dharma’; which shows that it is Dharma (and not the ordinary activity of the world) that forms the subject-matter of the present discourse.

(3) The third point raised is that—“in as much as no rewards are mentioned in connection with the compulsory acts, there can be no possibility of any desire for rewards in the case of these; so that no useful purpose could be served by the prohibiting of such desires.”—

Now in answer to this we make the following observations:—

(a) By reason of no rewards being spoken of, no one would ever undertake the performance of any compulsory act, unless he were a person thoroughly conversant with the scriptures (and hence realising the importance of compulsory duties):

and (b) in the case of the Saurya and such other acts as have rewards mentioned in connection with them, finding that men are prompted to their performance by desire for those rewards, people might be led to the generalisation that whatever one is to do should be done with the desire for a definite reward; and thus come to undertake the performance of the compulsory acts also only through a desire for reward, oven though no such reward has been spoken of in the scriptures.

And it is with a view to preclude these possibilities that the text lays down the interdict. Though the general rule is that—

(a) an act which is mentioned as leading to a definite result can only be performed with a view to that result,

(b) while that which is laid down in the scriptures as not bringing any reward, and in connection with which one cannot assume a reward according to the principle enunciated in relation to the Viśvajit -sacrifice [Pūrvamīmāmsā-Sūtra, 4.3. 15-16; that where no reward is mentioned, the attainment of heaven should be regarded as the reward], can never be performed otherwise (than in the purely disinterested manner),—yet there may be persons who are conversant with this principle; and it is to these persons that the text addresses the exhortation; specially as it would be rather difficult to carry conviction to such persons by mere reasoning; and the requisite knowledge is conveyed in a simpler and easier manner by means of direct advice.

It is for this reason that the author has, in a friendly spirit, conveyed a teaching which is thoroughly established by proofs.

Though the word ‘Kama’ is generally found to be used in the sense of sexual desire, yet, since in the present context that sense is not applicable, it has to be taken as synonymous with ‘icchā’ (Desire) and ‘abhilāṣa,’ (Longing). So that in view of what follows, the meaning of the text comes to be that ‘one should not undertake the performance of all acts simply with a desire for reward.’

The opponent, taking the ‘absorption in desires’ to mean mere presence of desire in general, urges the following objection:—

“But there is in this world, no absolute absence of desires; that is, as a matter of fact, in this world, there is no activity for one who is entirely without desire. To say nothing of such acts as cultivation of land, trade and the like, which are done by men of experience,—even the ‘study of the Veda,’ the learning of the Veda, which the boy is made to do by his father and others, being even chastised by them, even this is not possible without some desire; reading consists in the uttering of words; and utterance never proceeds, like the sound of thunder, without desire.—‘Well, if the Boy desires to read, why is he beaten?’—It is by beating that his desire is aroused; the only difference is that in connection with things that the person likes, the desire arises of itself (and does not need an incentive in the shape of the beating).—Similarly ‘the acts prescribed in the Veda,’—as compulsory in connection with the Darśapūrṇa nāṣa and other sacrifices are not possible without desire. There is no possibility of a man giving away to Deities things that belong to himself, unless there is a desire in him for doing so. Hence the prohibition of ‘absorption in desires’ becomes an interdict upon all acts prescribed in the Veda and iu the Smṛtis.”—(3)

Or, the compound ‘amaralokatā’ may he explained as one who sees—‘lokayati’—the gods—‘amarān’; the term ‘loka’ being derived from the root ‘loka’ with the passive affix ‘aṇ’ (according to Pāṇini 3.2.1); and then the abstract affix tal added to it; so that the meaning is that ‘he becomes capable of seeing the Gods’; and this also means that he attains heaven.

Or again, the expression may mean that ‘he is looked upon as a God’—‘amara iva lokyate’—among men.