Manava Dharmashastra 2.207

2.207

śreyāṃsa ātmāpekṣayā vittavayovidyādyatiśayayuktāḥ | teṣu guruvadvṛttiṃ yathāsambhavamabhivādanapratyutthānādi samācaret | bahavo'tra śabdā gatārthāḥ prayujyante | teṣāṃ vṛttavaśātprayogo na duṣyati | śreyasvityetāvadvaktavyam | guruvadityācintyate | vṛttimityādi prāptameva | tadetatsarvasminnevāsmingranthe svayamutprekṣyam | guruputre tathācārye | ācāryagrahaṇenādhyāpakatvaṃ lakṣyate | yadyasannihite gurau tatputro'dhyāpayati katicidahāni tadā tasminguruvadvṛttiḥ | pāṭhāntaram ‘guruputreṣvathāryeṣu’ | āryaśabdo guṇavadbrāhmaṇajātivacanaḥ | śūdrācāryoṃ jyāyān iti prayogadarśanāt | na ca sarvasminguruputre vṛttireṣā vidhīyate |
svagrahaṇaṃ guruvaṃśārtham | guruvaṃśasambandhitaivātra nimittam , na vayovidyādyapekṣyate |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Superiors’;—those possessed of greater amount of wealth and learning. Towards these ‘he should behave always as towards the Teacher’;—i.e., he should offer him obeisance, welcome and so forth.

In this verse many such words have been used as are superfluous; but in as much as this is a metrical work, such usage is not objectionable. ‘Towards superiors’ was all that should h ave been said here; ‘as towards the Teacher’ would be already implied; ‘behaviour’ has already been mentioned in the preceding verse. Many such instances can be found in this work.

‘Towards the Teacher’s son who has acquired the position of the Teacher’;—the addition of the word ‘ācārya’ is meant to show that the son should have obtained the position of the Teacher. The sense is that, if during the Teacher’s absence, his son teaches his pupils for a few days, he should be treated as a Teacher

Another reading is ‘guruputresvaṭhāryeṣu.’ The term ‘ārya’ in’this case would mean ‘one belonging to the highly qualified Brāhmaṇa-caste,’ as we find in such instances as—‘śūdrāccāryo jyāyān.’

This verse does not enjoin that such treatment should lie accorded to all the sons of the Teacher.

‘Towards the Teacher’s own blood-relations.’—The epithet ‘own’ has been added for the purpose of restricting the statement to members of the Teacher’s family; the mere fact of being a member of the Teacher’s family is the sole ground for the treatment being accorded to him,—irrespectively of age, learning, etc.—(207)