Manava Dharmashastra 2.4

2.4.1

“pūrveṇa śāstrīye pravṛttinivṛttī saṃkalpādhīne vyākhyāte | anena laukikeṣu karmasu tadadhīnatocyata iti viśeṣaḥ | neha loke karhicitkadācidapi jāgradavasthāyāṃ kriyā kācid tuṣṭheyatvenānicchataḥ sambhavati | yatkiñcillaukikaṃ vaidikaṃ vā kurute karma vihitaṃ pratiṣiddhaṃ ca tatsarvaṃ kāmasya ceṣṭitam | hetutvācceṣṭitaṃ kāmasyaivetyuktam | tadidamatisaṅkaṭam-kāmātmatā na praśastā, na cānayā vinā kiñcidanuṣṭhānamasti” | 10) | atra tu yaivaṃ mahāprayojanā śākhā yasyāṃ sarve smārttā gārhyāśca sarvavarṇāśramadharmā āmnātāstasyā rūpekṣaṇamasambhāvyam, sarvādhyetṝṇāṃ cotsāda ityādi bahudṛṣṭaṃ prakalpyam | viprakīrṇānāṃ tvarthavādagahanānāṃ kratvarthapuruṣārthatayā ca durvijñānānāṃ prayogonnayanamabhiyuktānāṃ nyāyato niścitārthānāṃ ghaṭate | asmiṃstu pakṣe virodhadvayasyāpi pratyakṣaśrautatvādvikalpena smṛterbādhaḥ | sa ca viśiṣṭānāṃ nābhipretaḥ | smṛtikārāśca bādhamanumeyaśrutimūlatvaṃ ca pratipannāḥ | evamapyāha gautamaḥ (3|35)-"aikāśramyaṃ tvācāryāḥ pratyakṣavidhānādgārhasthyasyeti" | yadi hi manvādīnāṃ pratyakṣāstāḥ śākhā abhaviṣyaṃkeyaṃ vācoyukti gārhasthyasya pratyakṣavidhānāditi | nanu sarve evāśramāḥ pratyakṣavidhānāḥ | svamatameva caitadgautamenācāryapadeśenopadiṣṭam 'tasyāśramavikalpam' (3|1) ityādyupakramyānenopasaṃhṛtatvāt | mantrārthavādapramāṇābhāvo'pyaviruddhaḥ | yadyapyarthavādā vidhyuddeśastutiparā na svārthasya vidhāyakāstathāpi keṣāñcidanyaparataiva nopapadyate yāvatsvārthaviṣayo vidhirnāvagamitaḥ |

(A) First, as regards Arthavādas, these are not meant to be construed apart from the injunctive passages; it is only if they were so construed that they would fail to help in the knowledge of dharma. As a matter of fact, we find that if the Arthavāda is taken apart by itself, it remains syntactically defective; and this leads us to conclude that they subserve the purposes of the corresponding injunctive passages; being so subservient to these latter, they come to be construed along with them; and hence they have got to be explained in such a manner as to make them fit in with the corresponding injunction. Thus the mention of Prajāpati having cut his fat cannot be taken by itself; it has to be taken as supplementing an injunction; in view of the fact however that the Arthavādas do not denote a substance, a sacrificial accessory, or any such thing as generally forms the direct object of injunction, they are construed differently, as eulogising what is directly enjoined, and thus come to be recognised as supplementing the injunction. This praise of the enjoined thing is also expressed by the Arthavāda; for instance, the sense of the passage in question is this—‘it is so necessary to perform animal-sacrifices that, at a time when no animals were available, and there was no other remedy, Prajāpati constituted himself into the animal and cut out his own fat.’ That such is the construction to be put upon the Arthavāda is shown by the fact that whenever we have Arthavādas, they always accompany injunctive passages. Thus even though the sense of the injunction is comprehended even without the accompanying Arthavāda,—e.g., in the case of the injunction ‘one should offer the Kapiñjala birds to Vasanta,’ we comprehend the injunction from the sentence itself,—yet the Arthavādas are not absolutely useless; for when the Arthavāda is there, it is not right to deduce the injunction from the injunctive sentence only. The Veda is not the work of any author; we cannot argue (from the analogy of human speeches) that ‘since in one case the injunction has no Arthavāda to help it, it need not have it in another case also’;—the Arthavādas are there, we have to construe them; and what we have shown above is the only right way in which the particular Arthavāda can be construed. Nor is there anything very extraordinary in this; in ordinary practice also, we find eulogistic words accompanying injunctions; for instance, at the time that the master is paying -wages to his servants, some servant says affectionately (in regard to another)—‘This Devadatta is a good servant, he is always present, knows the occasions of service and is always careful about it.’ Thus we find that Arthavādas also serve the purpose of enjoining, through the eulogising of what is enjoined by the injunction. In fact, in certain cases, details of what is enforced by the injunction are got at from the Arthavāda only; for instance, when the injunction says, ‘wet pebbles are to be put in,’ this injunction stands in need of some wetting substance, such as butter oil, etc.; so that when it is followed by the Arthavāda ‘Butter is glory,’ this praise of Butter leads us to conclude that Butter is the welting substance to be used. Similarly the Arthavāda ‘those who have recourse to these Rātris become respected’serves to point out the qualifying conditions for the performers of the Rātri-satra sacrifice. From all this it is clear that Arthavādas also are ‘the root of Dharma.’

2.4.2

yathā 'steno hiraṇyasya surāṃ pibaṃśce' tyādeḥ pañcāgnividhiśeṣataivametāvattaiva nopapadyate yāvaddhiraṇyasteyādeḥ pratiṣedho nāvagamitaḥ | ya etāṃ vidyāmadhīte sa hiraṇyasteyādyapyācaraṃstaiśca saṃvasanna patati, anyathā tu patatītyavagatiraviruddhā | "atha vidhyuddeśo vidheḥ pratipādako, nārthavāda iti kenaiṣā paribhāṣā kṛtā | 'ete patanti catvāra' ityatrāpyākhyātaśravaṇamasti | 'liṅādayo na santīti' cet 'pratitiṣṭhantīti' rātriṣvapi naiva liṅaśrutirasti | atha 'tatrādhikārākāṅkṣāyāmekavākyatāyāṃ satyāṃ pañcamalakārikalpanayā vidhyavasāyaḥ', evamatrāpi bhaviṣyati | bahavaśca dravyadevatāvidhayo'rthavādāvagamyāḥ santi | tatra yasya vidheḥ śeṣā arthavādāstadvidhinaiva dravyadevatāderapekṣitatvādviśeṣasamarpaṇamātre vyāpārāntargataviśeṣāvagatirarthavādādhīnā na doṣāya | iha tu tadasambaddhasya vidhyantarasyeṣyamāṇatvādvākyabhedāpattirataśca na prakṛtiśeṣatā | tadabhāve ca tanmūlā pratiṣedhāvagatirna syādataśca 'aktāḥ śarkarā upadadhāti' 'tejo vai ghṛtami'tyanena vaiṣamyamityāhuḥ |" tadasat | satyapyarthāntaratve tadekavākyatāmūlatvādasyāvagaternāsti vākyabhedābhidhodyāpattiḥ | mantrāḥ prayogaprakāśatvena rūpādevāvagatāstasya prayogasyānyato'siddheḥ prakāśakatvanirvahaṇāya prakāśyaṃ kalpayanti | na cā'satohatpatyadhikārayoḥ prakāśanamaṣṭakāyāḥ sambhavatītyutpatyadhikāraviniyogaprayogabodhakā mantrāḥ | evaṃ māntravarṇikāśca vidhayo'pyupagamyante | yathā''ghāre devatāvidhiḥ |

(A) First, as regards Arthavādas, these are not meant to be construed apart from the injunctive passages; it is only if they were so construed that they would fail to help in the knowledge of dharma. As a matter of fact, we find that if the Arthavāda is taken apart by itself, it remains syntactically defective; and this leads us to conclude that they subserve the purposes of the corresponding injunctive passages; being so subservient to these latter, they come to be construed along with them; and hence they have got to be explained in such a manner as to make them fit in with the corresponding injunction. Thus the mention of Prajāpati having cut his fat cannot be taken by itself; it has to be taken as supplementing an injunction; in view of the fact however that the Arthavādas do not denote a substance, a sacrificial accessory, or any such thing as generally forms the direct object of injunction, they are construed differently, as eulogising what is directly enjoined, and thus come to be recognised as supplementing the injunction. This praise of the enjoined thing is also expressed by the Arthavāda; for instance, the sense of the passage in question is this—‘it is so necessary to perform animal-sacrifices that, at a time when no animals were available, and there was no other remedy, Prajāpati constituted himself into the animal and cut out his own fat.’ That such is the construction to be put upon the Arthavāda is shown by the fact that whenever we have Arthavādas, they always accompany injunctive passages. Thus even though the sense of the injunction is comprehended even without the accompanying Arthavāda,—e.g., in the case of the injunction ‘one should offer the Kapiñjala birds to Vasanta,’ we comprehend the injunction from the sentence itself,—yet the Arthavādas are not absolutely useless; for when the Arthavāda is there, it is not right to deduce the injunction from the injunctive sentence only. The Veda is not the work of any author; we cannot argue (from the analogy of human speeches) that ‘since in one case the injunction has no Arthavāda to help it, it need not have it in another case also’;—the Arthavādas are there, we have to construe them; and what we have shown above is the only right way in which the particular Arthavāda can be construed. Nor is there anything very extraordinary in this; in ordinary practice also, we find eulogistic words accompanying injunctions; for instance, at the time that the master is paying -wages to his servants, some servant says affectionately (in regard to another)—‘This Devadatta is a good servant, he is always present, knows the occasions of service and is always careful about it.’ Thus we find that Arthavādas also serve the purpose of enjoining, through the eulogising of what is enjoined by the injunction. In fact, in certain cases, details of what is enforced by the injunction are got at from the Arthavāda only; for instance, when the injunction says, ‘wet pebbles are to be put in,’ this injunction stands in need of some wetting substance, such as butter oil, etc.; so that when it is followed by the Arthavāda ‘Butter is glory,’ this praise of Butter leads us to conclude that Butter is the welting substance to be used. Similarly the Arthavāda ‘those who have recourse to these Rātris become respected’serves to point out the qualifying conditions for the performers of the Rātri-satra sacrifice. From all this it is clear that Arthavādas also are ‘the root of Dharma.’

(B) Next as regards Mantras, some of them are directly injunctive; e.g., the Mantra ‘Vasantāya kapiñjalān ālabhate’ (‘offers the Kapiñjala birds to Vasanta’);—in connection with the Āghāra-offering, the deity to whom the offering is to be made is pointed out by the mantra ‘Ita Indra urdhvo’ dhvaraḥ, etc.’ In this case the Deity is not mentioned in the passage that enjoins the offering, nor is it mentioned in any other purely injunctive passage; the particular mantra to be used however is directly enjoined as being the one that begins with ‘Ita Indra’; hence it is from the words of this mantra that we learn the name of the requisite Deity. There are thousand, of such instances where the Deity is indicated by the words of the mantra. Then, there are certain mantras that are only descriptive of what is being done; and these also serve the purpose of making known Dharma by reminding (the persons engaged in the act, of what is to be done); and thus these also become ‘root of Dharma’ by indicating what should be done.

2.4.3

catuṣpāddhi dharmo'bhyupagatastatrālapatarāṃśaḥ śrutaḥ, sakaletarāṃśabodhahetustathāvidha eva, vidhau sambandhagrahaṇāditi | sarvathā tāvatsambhavati vedasaṃyogaḥ | 6) | tatra pūrvayorarthayorasambhavāttṛtīyo'rtho gṛhyate | dvāviṃśateḥ pūraṇo dvāviṃśo'bdaḥ taddhitārthaḥ | 46 ) sthā ā āsābhityāṅā praśleṣātkarmatvam | pari upa ā āsīna iti ihāpyāṅā śliṣṭanirdiṣṭo draṣṭavyaḥ | paryupaśabdāvanarthakau | pavitrairdarmaireva pāvitaḥ śucitvamāpāditaḥ | aghamarṣaṇādistu mantro neha pavitraśabdenocyate, brahmacāriṇastadānīmanadhītatvātteṣām | na ca darbhāḥ svasattāmātreṇa kāñcitkriyāmakurvataḥ pāvane karaṇaṃ bhavantīti | avāntaravyāpārāpekṣayā smṛtyantare prāṇopasparśanaṃ pratīyate | āha ca gautamaḥ | ( a. 1 sū. 46|50) “prāṇopasparśanaṃ darbhaiḥ | prākkūleṣvāsanaṃ ca” | prāṇāyāmaistribhiḥ pūtaḥ | mukhanāsikāsañcārī vāyuḥ prāṇaḥ tasyāyāmo nirodhaḥ śarīre dhāraṇaṃ, bahirniṣkramaṇaniṣedhaḥ, tasya smṛtyantare dhāraṇakālasya mānaṃ samāmnātam | mantrānusmaraṇaṃ ca | “pratipraṇavasaṃyuktāṃ gāyatrīṃ śirasā saha | trijapedāyataprāṇaḥ prāṇāyāmaḥ sa ucyate” | vasiṣṭhena bhagavatā mahāvyāhṛtayo'pyuktāḥ | mantrāvasāna eva nirodhāvadhiḥ anyasyānāmnātatvātsarvasmṛtīnāṃ cāsati virodha ekārthatvādikāpyevamevānuṣṭhānam | “nanvevamitaretarāśrayaḥ syāt kṛteṣu prāṇāyāmeṣu oṃṅkāro na kartavyo, na coṅkāreṇa vinā prāṇāyāmo nirvartate |” naiṣa doṣaḥ | trijapediti prāṇāyāmeṣu mānasavyāpāreṇoṅkārasya smaraṇamucyate | na hi niruddhaprāṇasya śabdoccāraṇaṃ sambhavati | yadyapi japaḥ kaścidvāgvyāpārasādhyo bhavati |

(B) Next as regards Mantras, some of them are directly injunctive; e.g., the Mantra ‘Vasantāya kapiñjalān ālabhate’ (‘offers the Kapiñjala birds to Vasanta’);—in connection with the Āghāra-offering, the deity to whom the offering is to be made is pointed out by the mantra ‘Ita Indra urdhvo’ dhvaraḥ, etc.’ In this case the Deity is not mentioned in the passage that enjoins the offering, nor is it mentioned in any other purely injunctive passage; the particular mantra to be used however is directly enjoined as being the one that begins with ‘Ita Indra’; hence it is from the words of this mantra that we learn the name of the requisite Deity. There are thousand, of such instances where the Deity is indicated by the words of the mantra. Then, there are certain mantras that are only descriptive of what is being done; and these also serve the purpose of making known Dharma by reminding (the persons engaged in the act, of what is to be done); and thus these also become ‘root of Dharma’ by indicating what should be done.

2.4.4

svādhyāyādhyayane tu punaruccāraṇaṃ vivakṣitam| adhyayanakriyāyā evaṃrūpatvācchabdakriyāyāṃ hyayaṃ dhātuḥ, śrotragrāhyaśca śabdo na kevalena manasā gṛhyate | na cāyamoṅkāradharmo yenānyatrāpi tasminnuccāryamāṇe'pi prasajyeta | uktaṃ ca “svādhyāyārambhe kartavya” iti | oṅkāradharmatve hi laukikeṣu vākyeṣvomiti brūma ityādiṣu prasajyeta | gautamena tu paṭhitam (a.1 sū.46) -“prāṇāyāmāstrayaḥ pañcadaśamātrā” iti | mātrāśabdena cāvikṛtasya svarasyākārāderyāvānkālaḥ sa ucyate | tatra virodhātsmṛtyantaroktaḥ kālo nāsti, na ca mantrasmaraṇaṃ, tatrānoṅkārā api prāṇāyāmāḥ santīti netaretarāśrayadoṣāpattiḥ | tatoṃkāramarhati kartumiti śeṣaḥ, yadā'yaṃ samudāya eva rūḍhirūpeṇa praṇavavacanaḥ | yadā tu karaṇaṃ kāraḥ | oṃmityetasya 'kāra' uccāraṇe'moṅkāra'stadā nāsti padāntarāpekṣā | praṇavaśabdena kartavyatāmuktvā'troṅkāramityanuvadatyata etāvekārthau | tathā ca darśitam | 43) paṭhyate | tatra vīpsārthaḥ kathañcit dyotayitavyaḥ | anye tu śasastiṣṭhatyarthasya kvipi rūpaṃ varṇayanti | kriyāviśeṣaṇaṃ caitat napuṃsakam | nityasthitena jñānenetyarthaḥ | 26 ) iti | apāyasya vā gamyamānatvād brahma hyadhyeturniṣkrāmatīva | lyablope vā karmaṇi | adhīyānaṃ śrutvā''pnoti śikkate | 6) dvandvaikavadbhāvaḥ | tasmin śreyasā vidyādyadhikena gurvādinā ca na samāviśenna sahāsīta | kiṃ sarvasminneva netyāha adhyācarite kalpite śayyātvenāsanatvena ca | yattuśilāphalakādistatra na doṣaḥ | vakṣyati ca ( ślo. 204 ) "āsīta guruṇā sārdhamiti", tasyaivāyamanuvādaḥ |

No action is ever found in this world to be done by a man entirely without desires; whatever a man does is. the outcome of desire.—(4)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The preceding verse has described the fact that such activity and cessation from activity as are laid down in the scriptures are dependent upon knowledge; and the present verse speaks of similar dependence in the case of ordinary acts of the world; this is the difference between the two verses.

‘Iha’ means ‘in this world’;—‘Karhichit’ means ‘ever,’ ‘at any time.’ During the waking state, action is ever found in this world to be done by any person who is without desire for performing that action.

Whatever act, scriptural or temporal,—the permitted or the prohibited—is done is the outcome of desire. Since desire is the cause of all activity, every act is called the ‘outcome of desire.’

Thus the position becomes extremely difficult: ‘It is not right to be absorbed in desires’ (as declared in Verse 2), and yet there is no activity without desire.—(4)

Comparative notes by various authors
Āpastaṃba, Dharmasūtra, 1.2.7.—‘Having fully understood the nature of actions, one should perform that which he wishes.’

2.4.5

3 ) iti gṛhyakārairudakasādhano'yaṃ vidhiruktaḥ | udakatarpaṇamiti caitatsaṃvijñāyate |