Manava Dharmashastra 2.245

2.245

naiṣṭhikasyāyaṃ gurave'rthadānaṃ pratiṣidhyate | snāsyato gurvarthavidhānāt | na ca naiṣṭhikasya snānamasti | prakṛtaśca naiṣṭhika eva | upakurvāṇasya tu upanayanātprabhṛti yāvatsnānamastyeva sati sambhave yathāśaktyā dānam | pūrvaṃ snānād gurave kiñcidupakurvīta dadyād dadātyarthe dhātuḥ sopasargo'taśca svasādhyā caturthī | athavā kriyāgrahaṇamapi kartavyamiti, tataḥ sampradānatvam | dharmavitpadmanuvādaḥ | snāsyaṃstu snānakāle prāpte guruṇā ādiṣṭam 'amumarthamāhareti' | tataḥ śaktyā yāvantaṃ śaknoti tāvantam | gurvartham | guroridaṃ gurvartham | guroryena prayojanaṃ tamāharedupa nayet | "nanvayaṃ naiṣṭhikasya gurvarthakaraṇapratiṣedhaḥ |" na hyete dve vākye, ekena pratiṣedhaḥ, apareṇa gurvarthavidhiḥ | snāne gurvartho'vaśyaṃ kartavya ityayaṃ vidhiḥ | pratiṣedhastvaśleṣaḥ | upakārapratiṣedhe ca sarvaśuśrūṣāvidhiranarthakaḥ syāt | na ca dānamevopakāro, yena dhanopakāra eva niṣidhyeta, nānyaḥ priyahitādiḥ | arthavādatve tvayathārthatā na doṣaḥ | gamyate cātraikavākyatā |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
This verse should be taken as prohibiting the making of presents to the Teacher by the Life-long Student; since it lays down the gift to the Teacher as to be presented only by the pupil who is going to take the Final Bath, which the Life-long Student never takes; and it is the Life-long Student that forms the subject of the context. As for the (the other kind of student, who is only in temporary residence), he does go on making presents to the Teacher, on every possible occasion, since the very day of the Initiatory Rite.

‘At first’;—i.e., before the final Bath.

‘Should not give anything to his Teacher’;—the verb ‘upakurvīta’ stands here for giving, such being the force of the prefix; so that the Dative in gurave is due to this verb itself. Or, the Teacher may be regarded as the person aimed at by the act (denoted by upakurvīta); and in this case the Dative would be in accordance with the Vārtika on Pāṇini 2.3.13.

‘But when going to take the Final Bath’;—i.e., when the time for the Final Bath has arrived;—‘being ordered by the teacher,’—in such words as ‘bring me such and such a thing,’—he should ‘to the best of his capacity’—as much as he may be able to bring,—‘present somethin,’ useful, ‘to the teacher.’

“But this verse contains (as you have asserted at the outset) the prohibition of the Life-long Student presenting anything to the Teacher [and how do you reconcile this with the latter half, which prescribes such giving?].”

True; but the verse does not contain two independent sentences,—one (the first half of the verse) prohibiting the gift, and the other (the second half) permitting it. The fact is that there is a clear injunction that at the Final Bath a gift should be made to the Teacher; and it is to this injunction that the preceding prohibition is subservient; for, If the present prohibition related to all kinds of beneñt to the Teacher, the entire body of injunctions laying down the service of the Teacher would become nullified; further, ‘gift’ is not the only benefit that can be conferred; so that there is no justification for restricting the prohibition of ‘benefit’ to the gift of money only, and not to the ‘doing of what is agreeable and beneficial to him.’ There is nothing incongruous in taking the passage in a sense which is not the literal meaning,—when the passage is a purely commendatory one; and it is quite clear that the two halves of the verse form one syntactical whole [hence the former is taken as subservient and supplementary to the latter].—(245)