Manava Dharmashastra 2.241

2.241

ayaṃ tvatra vidhiḥ | āpad brāhmaṇādhyāpakābhāvaḥ | āpadaḥ kāla āpatkālaḥ | āpadityeva siddhe kālagrahaṇaṃ vṛttapūraṇārtham | pāṭhāntara‘māpatkalpa’ iti | kalpanaṃ ‘kalpaḥ’ āpadyeṣāṃ kalpanā vidhīyate upadiśyate | yadācāryaḥ prārabdhādhyāpanaḥ prāyaścittenānyena vā nimittena śiṣyaṃ hitvā deśāntaraṃ vrajet, na ca brāhmaṇo'nyo'dhyāpakastasmindeśe labhyate, bālatvādūradeśagamanamaśakyam, tadā'brāhmaṇāt kṣatriyāttadabhāve vaiśyādadhyayanam | prakṛtatvāt—'vedaḥ kṛtsna’ iti— vedamahaṇaṃ vidhīyate | yadyapyatrābrāhmaṇaśabdo brāhmaṇajāteranyatra jātitraye vartamānaṃ puruṣatvamācaṣṭe, tathāpi neha śūdrasya grahaṇam, tasyādhyayanādhikārābhāvāt | satyadhyayane'dhyāpakatvam | atha "śāstrātikrameṇa śūdrasyāpyadhītavedatvasya sambhavaḥ, kṣatriyavaiśyayoradhyāpakatvasyeva"| tadapi na | yato dhāraṇe śarīrabhedastasyāmnātaḥ | tacco daṇḍamahattvāt mahadetadakāryamanumīyate | ninditakarmābhyāse patanaṃ tatsaṃsargācca brahmacāriṇo'tyantaduṣṭatā syāt | "kṣatriyavaiśyayoradhyāpakatvaniṣedhāt tulyadoṣa" iti cedastyatra viśeṣaḥ | yatra daṇḍaprāyaścitte guruṇī tatra mahādoṣatā, svalpayostu svalpadoṣatā | na ca kṣatriyavaiśyayoradhyāpane mahatī daṇḍaprāyaścitte, śūdrasyeva | kiñca dve nindite karmaṇyadhyayanamadhyāpanaṃ ca, kṣatriyavaiśyayostvekameva | niṣiddhādhyāpanasaṃsargastvenenaivānujñātaḥ, nāsau doṣakaraḥ | niṣiddhādhyayanena tu śūdreṇa saṃsarge na kiñcitpramāṇamasti | anuvrajyā ca śuśrūṣā | vandanapādaprakṣālanādiśuśrūṣāpratiṣedhārthamanuvrajyaiva śuśrūṣā, nānyeti | yāvadadhyayanam yāvadgrahaṇam |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
This verse contains the injunction.

The ‘difficulty’ here meant is the absence of a teacher. The compound ‘āpatkālaḥ’ is to be expounded as ‘āpadaḥ kalaḥ,’ ‘time of difficulty.’ What is meant to be expressed being obtained from the term ‘difficulty’ alone, the additional term ‘time’ only serves to fill up the metre.

‘Āpatkalpe’ is another reading. The meaning in this case would be tbat the ‘kalpa,’ ‘kalpana,’ assumption, of these is permitted during difficulties.

If the preceptor, after having begun the course of teaching, should happen, either on account of an expiatory rite or of some other reason, to abandon the pupil and go to another place,—and no other Brāhmaṇa-teacher is available,—and the pupil himself being too young, is unable to go to another place,—then he may receive teaching even from a non-Brāhmaṇa; i.e., from the Kṣatriya, and in his absence, from the Vaiśya. In view of the context, which began with the mention of the ‘learning of the entire Veda’ (165), the ‘learning’ here enjoined is the getting up of the Veda.

Though the term ‘non-Brāhmaṇa’ denoting all the three castes, except the Brāhmaṇa, stands for all men, yet the Śūdra could not be meant here; for the Śūdra is not entitled to learn the Veda; and it is only when one has learnt something that he can teach it.

“But by transgressing the scriptural ordinance, the Śūdra also might learn the Veda, just as the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya do the work of teaching (which is not permitted).”

This also cannot be; because it has been laid down that if the Śūdra happens to learn the Veda, his body should be cut up. And since the penalty is so severe, it follows that the act is a grievous sin; and one who commits a grevious sin is regarded as ‘fallen’; so that if the Religious Student associated with a ‘fallen’ person, he would render himself extremely defiled.

“But the act of teaching has been prohibited for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also; so that the same guilt would be incurred in their case.”

There is a difference between the two cases. That act is to be regarded as extremely heinous in connection with which the scriptures prescribe heavy penalties and expiation; while that in connection with which the penalty and expiation prescribed are slight, should be regarded as slight. In connection with the work of teaching done by the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, the penalty and expiation laid down are not heavy, as they are in the case of the Śūdra. Further, in the case of the Śūdra, there would he two prohibited acts—that of learning the Veda, and that of teaching it; while in the case of the Kṣatriya, there is only one,—that of teaching. Then, as regards the pupil associating with one who does the work of teaching in contravention of the law,—such associating h as been permitted by the present verse itself; hence it cannot be regarded as leading to defilement; for associating with the Śūdra, who learns the Veda in contravention to law, on the other hand, there is no authority at all.

‘Anuvrajyā ca śuśrūṣā,’ ‘service the shape of following’;—this is meant to prohibit such service as saluting, washing the feet, and so forth.

‘During the course of study’;—i.e., during the time required for the getting up of the text.—(241)