Manava Dharmashastra 2.28.3

2.28.3

"nanu ca naiteṣāṃ karmaṇāṃ brahmaprāptiḥ phalaṃ śrutam | tathā hi nityāni tāvadaśrutaphalānyeva | kalpanāyāṃ ca pauruṣeyatvam | yāvajjīvādipadaiśca nityatāyā avagamitatvā dviśvajinnyāyo'pi nāsti | athāsmādeva vacanādetatphalatvamiti yadyucyeta, mokṣārthinaḥ tadādhikāraḥ syāttathā ca nityatvahānistataśca śrutivirodhaḥ | 'niṣphalaṃ na kaścidanutiṣṭhati tatrānarthakyamiti' cet kāmamananuṣṭhānam | pramāṇasya prameyāvagatirarthaḥ | sā cetkṛtā jātamarthavattvam | asti cātra kartavyatāvagatiḥ | satyāṃ ca tasyāmakaraṇe śāstrārthātikramastataśca pratyavāyaḥ | īdṛśa evārthe liṅādīnāṃ vṛddhavyavahāre vyutpattiḥ | yo hi bhṛtyādiḥ kartavyaṃ na karoti kasyacidājñāttuḥ sa vetanārthī vetanaṃ na labhate, yadi vā pratyavāyena yojyate | tatra phalasyāśrutatvānna phalānutpattiḥ pratyavāyaḥ, api tu duḥkhena yojanaṃ nityeṣu | evaṃ sarvapuruṣādhikāro nityaḥ samarthito bhavati | tasmānna nityānāṃ kiñcitphalam | kāmyānāṃ tvanyadeva phalaṃ, na mokṣaḥ, śrutatvāt | tatra kathametatsarvakarmānuṣṭhānasādhyaḥ paraḥ puruṣārtha iti |" ata eva kaiścidarthavādo'yamiti vyākhyāyate | saṃskāravidhistutyarthaḥ | atra ca brāhmīyamiti yatkiñcidālambanamāśritya guṇavādena nīyate | 'brahma' vedastaduccāraṇārhā tatkarmādhikāriṇī ca | "yattarhi gautamenoktam (a. 8 sū. 8) | 'catvāriṃśatsaṃskārāḥ' iti, tatkatham | tatra hi somasaṃsthā'pi saṃskāratvenoktā | na ca pradhānakarmaṇāṃ saṃskāratvopapattiḥ | nāpyetadarthavādatayā śakyaṃ vyākhyātumaviśeṣatvāt |" tatrāpyātmaguṇaśeṣasaṃskāratvādhyāropeṇa stutiḥ |

This [that the Gṛhya of the man is that connected with the Vedic text that he has studied] is what is meant by the assertion—‘He who renounces his won Gṛhyaṣūtra and acts according to another Gṛhyasūtra &c.’ In fact the man can carry into practice the precepts of that text only which he h as studied. Consequently if one were to give up the rules of his own Vedic text to perform a rite in accordance with the Vedic text studied by his forefathers, and adopt the procedure laid down in the Gṛhyas belonging to this latter, he would incur the sin of ‘renouncing his own Vedic text’; or in this case the sin of ‘renouncing the text’ will have been committed by the father who did not teach the boy that particular text which had been continually studied in his family; and no blame attaches, in this, to the boy himself. In a case where the boy has lost his father and betakes himself to the teacher, as Jābāla is described as having done, it would be right for the Teacher to teach him that Text which had been studied in the boy’s family,—in accordance with the law ‘one should proceed by the path by which his father and grandfather have proceeded’ (Manu, 4.178); ‘and the renouncing of the hereditary Vedic text’ would be justifiable only in the event of its study being absolutely impossible.