Manava Dharmashastra 3

3.1.1

dvividho brahmacārī pūrvatra pratipāditaḥ, naiṣṭhika upakurvāṇaśceti | “ā samāpteḥ śarīrasya yastu śuśrūṣate gurum” ( a0 2 ślo0 244 ) ityanena naiṣṭhikabrahmacaryamuktam | “ā samāvartanāditi” ( 2|108 ) pakṣāntaramapi sūcitam | tatra naiṣṭhikasya nāmadheyasya pratilambhenaiva nimittavatā avadhiśeṣaḥ sugamitaḥ | niṣṭhāṃ samāptiṃ gacchati ‘naiṣṭhikaḥ’ | śrutyaiva kālo vihitaḥ “ā samāpteriti” | upakurvāṇasya “anena kramayogena” ( a0 6 ślo0 85 )— “tapoviśeṣairvividhairvrataiśca vidhicoditaiḥ, vedaḥ kṛtsno'dhigantavyaḥ” ( a0 2 ślo0 165 ) iti saṃkhyāyā avivakṣāyāṃ caikadvitricatuḥpañcaṣaṭsaptādiśākhādhyayanaṃ yathāśakti prāptaṃ niyamyate | traivedikaṃ vrataṃ caryam | trayāṇāṃ vedānāṃ samāhārastrivedī, tadgrahaṇaprayojanaṃ traivedikam | grahaṇakriyā vṛttāvantarbhavati vedādhigamasya prāgvihitatvāt | vrataṃ brahmacāridharmakalāpaḥ | caryaṃ caritavyam | kṛtyo vidhau | evamāharaṇādīnāṃ grahaṇāntatāyāṃ prāptāyāmāha— ṣaṭtriṃśadābdikamiti | gṛhīte'pi vede kālaḥ pūrayitavyaḥ | “yadi svādhyāyādhyayanavidhyartho dharmaḥ, tasya ca svādhyāyavidhergrahaṇe nivṛttiḥ, kimarthā tarhi dvādaśavārṣikī grahaṇottarakālaṃ vratacaryānuvṛttiḥ ?” atyalpamidamucyate | darśapūrṇamāsādiṣvapyāgneyādiyāgebhyaḥ parāñci yānyaṅgāni tatrāpyetadvaktavyam | samastāṅgānuṣṭhāna evārādupakārakādyaṅgayuktādviśiṣṭakramakādvidhyarthasaṃpadyavagatāyāṃ paricodanāśabdādeva vidhiḥ sampadyate |

Duties relating to the Three Vedas should be observed under the Preceptor for thirty-six years, or for half that period, or for a quarter, or precisely till they have been got up.—(1)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Two kinds of Religious Students have been described above—the life-long student and the student for a limited period. Verse 2.244—where it is said that ‘he serves the Preceptor till the dissolution of his body’—has described the life-long studentship; while verse 2.108—where the ‘Final Return’ has been described as the limit—has indicated the other alternative. As regards the ‘Life-long Student,’ the mention of the name, itself, which is based upon reason, serves to indicate the limit of the period of studentship; the term ‘naiṣṭhika’ meaning that which goes to the very ‘niṣṭhā.’ or end of a thing; and the exact period has been stated by the direct declaration that ‘it extends to the dissolution of the body.’ As regards the ‘limited’ studentship, we have the following texts bearing upon it:—(a) ‘by this course of application etc.,’ (6. 85), (b) ‘the entire Veda should be acquired by means of particular austerities and several observances prescribed by Injunctions’ (2.165); and since these texts do not specify any particular number of Vedas to be learnt, it would seem as if these injunctions intended the pupil to learn one, two, three, four, five six, seven or any other number of Vedic texts, in fact, as many as he could learn. The present verse proceeds to restrict the number of Vedas to be learnt.

‘Duties relating to the Three Vedas should be observed.’—‘Relating to the three Vedas’ means ‘conducive to the learning of the three Vedas;’ the act of ‘learning’ being implied by the compound, on the strength of the fact that the ‘getting up of the Veda’ has been presented before.—‘Duties’—i.e., the whole lot of duties laid down for the Religious Student,—‘should be observed’—one shall observe them; the verbal affix having the injunctive force.

From the above it might be assumed that the duty of ‘fetching the fuel’ and the rest also should continue to be kept up only till the texts have been got up (and no longer); and, in order to preclude this notion, the text adds—‘for thirty-six years;’ which means that even after the Veda has been got up, the full period has to be completed.

“If the detailed duties, that have been laid down are related to the injunction of learning the Veda,—and this Injunction ceases to be operative after the Veda has been learnt,—then why should the observances of studentship be continued for twelve years, even after the Veda has been learnt?”

What you say is too little. You might say the same in regard to the performance, at the Darṣa-pūrṇamāsa, of all those secondary details that come after the Āgneya and other primary offerings. The fact of the matter is that, just as in the case of the sacrifice, the due result is obtained only when the act is performed along with all its details, so in the case in question also the fulfilment of the Injunction (of Learning) is complete only after the act has been performed along with all the details in the duly prescribed order.

3.1.2

atha “mahato laghīyāṃsastadardhikapādikagrahaṇāyadhayaḥ pakṣāḥ santi | teṣu satsu kaḥ khalu mahāprayāsamaticirakālaṃ tāvad dvādaśavārṣikaṃ vratacaraṇamādriyeteti” cet | phalabhūyārthano'ṅgabhūyastvamanuṣṭhāsyanti | taduktam ‘prayatnaviśeṣātphalaviśeṣeṇa bhavitavyamiti |’ "nanu ca nārthāvabodhādṛte grahaṇadvāreṇa svādhyāyādhyayanasya kiñcidvaparaṃ phalamasti | evaṃ hyāhuḥ---'na tasyādhyayanamātraṃ tatra bhavanto yājñikāḥ phalaṃ samāmanantīti' | tathā "dṛṣṭo hi tasyārthaḥ karmāvabodhanaṃ nāmeti" śābarabhāṣye | tasya ca na kaścidviśeṣo dṛśyate |" yadyevaṃ grahaṇakāle'pyantareṇa vratadharmānuṣṭhānaṃ grahaṇānuṣṭhānaprasaṅgaḥ | kaścaivamāha--'arthāvabodhārthaḥ svādhyāyavidhiriti' | svādhyāyavidhiḥ svārtha eva | nānyasyānyārthatāyāṃ pramāṇamasti | arthāvabodho hi grahaṇe sati vastusvabhāvata utpadyate na vidhitaḥ | "atha kiṃ svargādiphalārthino'yaṃ vidhiḥ" | etadapi kathaṃ bhaviṣyati ? "kā tarhīyaṃ vācoyuktiḥ---phalaviśeṣeṇeti" | eṣā vācoyuktiḥ | saṃskāravidhistāvadayaṃ svādhyāyapradhānaḥ tasya svādhyāye karmaṇyutpannatvāt | saṃskāravidhayaśca na sākṣādadhikāramarhanti kintu saṃskāryadvāreṇa sādhikāravidhyantaramanupraviśanti | yathā vrīhimavahantīti darśapūrṇamāsādhikāraviṣayāgneyādiyāgasādhanabhūtapuroḍāśaprakṛtivrīhituṣakaraṇavipramocanādisaṃskāradvāreṇa darśapūrṇamāsāpūrvasambandhamanubhavati avaghātaḥ, na tannirapekṣaḥ, sa eva kartavyatayā pratīyate | evamiha vedasya saṃskāryatvaṃ nānyatrāśeṣabhūtasya nirvahati | dṛṣṭaḥ svādhyāyādhyayanānantaramarthāvabodhaḥ |

“There are several lesser alternative periods—half, and quarter of the full period—mentioned as the limit for study; and when these are permitted, who is there who would keep up the observances, which require such effort, for twelve years?”

Pupils, desirous of more extensive results, will have recourse to the carrying out of the larger details. To this effect we have the saying—‘when there is greater effort, there must follow larger results.’

“As a matter of fact, the learning of the Veda, through study, does not lead to any other result except the understanding of the meaning of Vedic texts. They say that—‘the revered Ritualists do not regal’d mere learning as the result;’ and in the Śabara-bhāṣya also we read—‘the purpose served by it has been found to consist in the comprehension of what should be done.’ And certainly, there is no diversity (or divergent grades) in the said comprehension.”

If that be so (if the comprehension of meaning were the sole end of Vedic Study), then, inasmuch as such comprehension could come about at the time of learning the Text, even without the keeping of any observances, there should be no keeping of the observances at all. Then again, who says that the Injunction of Vedic Study is for the purpose of comprehending the meaning of Vedic texts? In fact, the Injunction of Vedic Study is for the purpose of Vedic Study itself; there is no reason for regarding one thing as being for. the purpose of another thing. As for the comprehension of meaning, it follows after the Text Las been learnt, by the very nature of things, and not by virtue of the Injunction.

“Then, is the Injunction meant for one who desires Heaven?”

How can this also be possible?

“What, then, is the meaning of your assertion that there are larger results obtained (when the act is performed along with more extensive details)?”

The meaning of the statement is as follows:—The whole Injunction prescribes a sanctiticatory process, in which ‘Vedic Study’ forms the predominant factor, by reason of the sanctification being accomplished during that ‘study.’ And Injunctions of sanctifications do not stand in need of the direct mention of the result the seeker whereof would be entitled to their performance; in fact, through the object sanctified, they become part and parcel of another Injunction in connection with which a particular result has been mentioned. For example, we have the Injunction ‘the corns should be threshed and this ‘threshing’ becomes related to the transcendental results proceeding from the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa sacrifices,—not by itself, but—only through the removal of the chaff which goes to purify the corns of which is made the cake used at the Āgneya and other offerings making up the Darśa-Pūrnamāsa; and it is thus that the threshing comes to be recognised as something to be done. In the same manner, the Veda cannot be regarded as something to be sanctified or refined, except as subordinate to something else. As a matter of fact, we find that the comprehension of meaning actually follows after ‘Vedic Study from which it follows that this act of ‘study’ itself extends up to the comprehending of the meaning, just as the act of ‘threshing’ extends up to the accomplishment of the Rice. The only difference in the two cases is as follows:—By reason of its injunction occurring in the same context, the ‘threshing’ becomes quickly recognised as related to another Injunction mentioning a result; while the Injunction in question (of Vedic Study) does not occur in the context of any particular act, and is regarded as extending up to the comprehension of meaning; so that its connection with results is only implied by the fact of its being of use in the performance of all those acts that are enjoined as leading to various results. Thus the fact that an Injunction aims at some useful purpose of man is readily understood; and it makes no difference whether it does so directly or indirectly. And since its connection with a result is clearly implied, the Injunction in question gets itself carried out independently by itself, even though the comprehension of meaning is of use in connection with the injunctions of compulsory and voluntary acts.

3.1.3

ata idamadhyayanamarthāvabodhaparyantamavaghāta iva taṇḍulaniṣpattiparyantaḥ | etāvāṃstu viśeṣaḥ | prakaraṇe'dhītatvādavaghāto jhaṭiti labdhādhikāravidhyantarasambandhaḥ | ayaṃ tvanārabhyādhītatvādavabodhaparyavasāyī sakalaphalakarmānuṣṭhānopayogitayā gamyamāno'dhikāraḥ | tathā vidhyarthanirvṛttireva phalaviśeṣo'bhipretaḥ | vidherhi puruṣārthatvaṃ vyutpannāvagamam , tatsānkṣādbhavatu vā paramparayā veti na viśeṣaḥ | gamyamānādhikāratvācca svatantra evāyaṃ vidhiḥ svātmānamanuṣṭhāpayati, yadyapi nityakāmaśrutiṣvarthāvabodha upayujyate | ye tvarthāvabodhadvāreṇa jyotiṣṭomādividhyekakāryatvamicchanti tatphalasyaiva ca prayatnaviśeṣādatiśayamāhusteṣāmācāryakaraṇavidhinā kimaparāddhaṃ, yena mahatā yatnena tadekakāryatā niṣidhyate | aprāmāṇyaṃ vedasya bhavatīti cedastu | na prayojanavaśena yuktisāmarthyāyāto'rtho hātuṃ śakyate | yuktistu yuktyantareṇa balīyasā bādhyate | "ācāryakaraṇavidhyekakāryatve tvasya vidhirūpataiva hīyate, svārthasyāvivakṣitatvāt" | tattulyaṃ jyotiṣṭomādyanupraveśe'pi | yadā tu svatantro'yaṃ vidhiḥ svārthānuṣṭhāpakastatsamānaskandhastadā svayamevetikartavyatayā yukto'nuṣṭhīyate | tatra ye vikalpātāḥ kalpā laghīyāṃso garīyāṃsaśca, teṣāṃ laghīyasā siddhe garīyasāmanuṣṭhānaṃ vidhyartha eva viśeṣamāvahati | yathā''dhāne 'ekā deyā tisro deyā' ityādi |

Some people have held the view that—“the injunction of Vedic Study serves, through the comprehension of meaning, the same purpose as the injunctions of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts, and that the additional effort (involved in Vedic Study and comprehension of meaning) serves to enhance the quality of the results brought about by those acts.” But what fault has the Injunction of ‘becoming a Teacher’ done for those people, that they should have made great efforts to deny the view that this latter also serves the same purpose as the Injunction of ‘Vedic Study?’ If it be urged that—“under this view, the Veda would become unauthoritative,”—our answer is that, that might be so; but when a certain fact is well established by reason and arguments, it is not abandoned or rejected for the sake of accomplishing any purpose. In fact, an argument is set aside only by another and a more cogent argument.

“But if the Injunction of Vedic Study were taken as serving the same purpose as that of ‘becoming a Teacher,’ then the former would lose its injunctive character; as in that case no significance would attach to what is expressed by its own words.”

The same thing happens also when the Injunction in question is made a part and parcel of the Injunction of the Jyotiṣṭoma, etc.

If, on the other hand, the Injunction of Vedic Study is regarded as independently by itself conducive to the carrying into effect of what it enjoins, then, standing upon an equal footing with all other Injunctions, it rightly comes to be acted up to by itself, as a necessary factor (of all performances).

The meaning of the statement is as follows:—The whole Injunction prescribes a sanctiticatory process, in which ‘Vedic Study’ forms the predominant factor, by reason of the sanctification being accomplished during that ‘study.’ And Injunctions of sanctifications do not stand in need of the direct mention of the result the seeker whereof would be entitled to their performance; in fact, through the object sanctified, they become part and parcel of another Injunction in connection with which a particular result has been mentioned. For example, we have the Injunction ‘the corns should be threshed and this ‘threshing’ becomes related to the transcendental results proceeding from the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa sacrifices,—not by itself, but—only through the removal of the chaff which goes to purify the corns of which is made the cake used at the Āgneya and other offerings making up the Darśa-Pūrnamāsa; and it is thus that the threshing comes to be recognised as something to be done. In the same manner, the Veda cannot be regarded as something to be sanctified or refined, except as subordinate to something else. As a matter of fact, we find that the comprehension of meaning actually follows after ‘Vedic Study from which it follows that this act of ‘study’ itself extends up to the comprehending of the meaning, just as the act of ‘threshing’ extends up to the accomplishment of the Rice. The only difference in the two cases is as follows:—By reason of its injunction occurring in the same context, the ‘threshing’ becomes quickly recognised as related to another Injunction mentioning a result; while the Injunction in question (of Vedic Study) does not occur in the context of any particular act, and is regarded as extending up to the comprehension of meaning; so that its connection with results is only implied by the fact of its being of use in the performance of all those acts that are enjoined as leading to various results. Thus the fact that an Injunction aims at some useful purpose of man is readily understood; and it makes no difference whether it does so directly or indirectly. And since its connection with a result is clearly implied, the Injunction in question gets itself carried out independently by itself, even though the comprehension of meaning is of use in connection with the injunctions of compulsory and voluntary acts.

Thus then, out of the several alternative options—some heavier than the rest—that have been set forth (in the verse), if the lighter alternative serves to accomplish the desired purpose, all that the undertaking of the heavier option can do is to add something to the quality of what has been prescribed by the Injunction. Just as is the case with the options of giving ‘one, three or twelve cows’ as a fee in connection with the Laying of Fire. Thus then, if the Injunction of Study has been carried into effect on its own accouut (and the Veda has been studied), we cannot escape from its twofold relation—viz.: (1) its leading to the performance of what it itself prescribes, and (2) its helping the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts; it matters little whether such relation is directly stated, or implied, or assumed; for this latter fact would involve a diversity only in the means whereby the knowledge of the relation is obtained, and not any in the relation itself.

3.1.4

anuṣṭhite cāsminvidhau svasāmarthyācchruto vā bhavatu pratīyamāno vā kalpyo vā, pramāṇabhedoyaṃ na sambandhabhedaḥ, sarvathobhayataḥ sparśīto na mucyāmahe-yadyasya vidhiḥ svārthānuṣṭhāpako jyotiṣṭomādyupakārakatvañca | ''nanu kimidaṃ pūrvāparaviruddhaṃ pralapyate ? prāguktam-na sākṣātsaṃskāravidhayo'dhikārasambandhinaḥ, idānīṃ tu svatantra evāyaṃ vidhiḥ svārthānuṣṭhāpaka iti | 'yathāyaṃviśeṣaśrutenānvayinā na sambadhyate, gamyamānastvadhikāraḥ saṃskāravidhīnāmapyaviruddha' iti| nāyaṃ viśeṣo yadyasya vidhiprayuktamanuṣṭhānamarthāvabodhāṃśa iṣyate | pāṭhamātrasyācāryavidhiprayuktatvātsaṃskāravidhīnāmadhikārasambandho'bhyupagataḥ syāt | atha vidhyantaropakārakatvāttatprayuktamanuṣṭhānaṃ, tathā satyadhikṛtasyādhyayanaṃ syānnādhotavedasyādhikāraḥ | tadā ca śūdrasyādhikāro durnivāraḥ | na cādhyayanānantaraṃ vedārthaśravaṇaṃ prāpnoti | yadaiva hi yadṛcchayā kutaścidadhigataṃ bhavati 'jyotiṣṭomanāma karma vaidikaṃ svargaphalamiti', tadaiva taditikartavyatāṃ śikṣeta, tatkāla eva ca tadupayogino mantrānyājamānāndhīyīta |'' atra kecidāśrayinyāyena ( mī0 sū0 4| 18 ) pariharanti | yathaiva hi sviṣṭakṛdādaya ubhayarūpāḥ saṃskā rārthakarmatayā, evaṃ svādhyāyādhyayanamapyabhidhānaviniyogānusāritayā kriyāphalāvabodhadarśanena ca saṃskārakarma phalavatkarmārthakarma | ataḥ sādhikāratvasiddhiḥ | ''kaḥ punaradhikārī''| upanītastraivarṇiko māṇavaka iti brūmaḥ | brahmacāridharmeṣu hyetadāmnāyate | liṅādayo hyavinābhūtaniyojyārthavidhyarthapratipādakāḥ |

“How is it that you are making statements, of which the succeeding ones are inconsistent with the preceding ones? It has been asserted above that Injunctions of sanctification are never directly related to results; while now it is stated that the Injunction in question is by itself conducive to itself being carried into effect. It might be urged that—‘Though it is true that the Injunction of Sanctification is not related to any directly mentioned result, yet there is nothing incompatible in its being related to such results as are indirectly indicated.’ But even this makes no difference, if the performanceof the act (of Study), as prompted by the injunction in question, is made to extend to the comprehension of meaning also. Even so, the mere learning of the Text being got at in accordance with the Injunction of ‘having recourse to a teacher &c.,’ it would become admitted that Injunctions of sanctification are related to definite results. If, on the other hand, the performance of the act (of study) were in accordance with the Injunction as helping other Injunctions (i.e., those of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts), then, in that case, it would come to this that the Veda would be studied by one seeking after the stated result, and not that the person who has studied the Veda is entitled to the performance of acts leading to that result; and in that case, the Shudra’s title could not be denied. Nor does it necessarily follow that the meaning of Vedic texts should be learnt immediately after the texts have been learnt. In fact, whenever one might, by chance, come to understand that ‘a certain Vedic act, named Jyotiṣṭoma, leads to Heaven,’ he would learn the details of the procedure of that act, and at that same time he would also read up such Vedic texts related to that act as would have to be recited by the sacrificer.”

To the above, some people make the following answer, on the basis of the principle enunciated in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā—Sutra 4.1. 18 et. seq. The Sviṣṭakṛt and other similar offerings have been regarded as being of both kinds, serving the purposes of sanctification and also leading to specific results; and, on the same analogy, ‘Vedic Study’ also would be of both kinds—being purely sanctificatory, as indicated by the words of the Injunction prescribing it, and also leading to particular results, by virtue of its bringing about the comprehension of the meaning of texts which ultimately leads to the performance of acts (directly bringing about those results). It is in this manner that the Injunction of Vedic Study becomes conducive to definite results.

“But who is the person to whom the results accrue (and who, by seeking for that result, comes to perform the act)?”

Thus then, out of the several alternative options—some heavier than the rest—that have been set forth (in the verse), if the lighter alternative serves to accomplish the desired purpose, all that the undertaking of the heavier option can do is to add something to the quality of what has been prescribed by the Injunction. Just as is the case with the options of giving ‘one, three or twelve cows’ as a fee in connection with the Laying of Fire. Thus then, if the Injunction of Study has been carried into effect on its own accouut (and the Veda has been studied), we cannot escape from its twofold relation—viz.: (1) its leading to the performance of what it itself prescribes, and (2) its helping the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts; it matters little whether such relation is directly stated, or implied, or assumed; for this latter fact would involve a diversity only in the means whereby the knowledge of the relation is obtained, and not any in the relation itself.

Our answer is that it is the Boy belonging to one of the three higher castes, who has gone through the Initiatory Rite. That this is so is clear from the fact that the act (of Vedic Study) has been prescribed among the duties of the Religious Student. The Injunctive and other similar affixes are expressive of that injunction or persuasion which is inseparable from the person sought to be persuaded; and when the question arises as to particular details regarding that person, (a) sometimes the information is supplied by the words of the Injunction itself—e.g., in the sentence ‘one desiring heaven should perform the Agnihotra throughout his life (b) sometimes, even though not directly mentioned, he comes to be assumed on the basis of what is directly stated;—e.g., in the case of the Viśvajit and other sacrifices;—(c) sometimes, again, he is indicated by the examination of other Injunctions in view of the force of the context and the nature of things. In the present case, all this is present:—(a) the Religious Student happens to be the person dealt with in the context (in which the injunction of Vedic Study occurs); (b) the comprehension comes about from the nature of things; and (c) the Study is of use in connection with all other Injunctions, as it is only one who has learnt the Veda that is entitled to the performance of any Vedic act.

3.1.5

tatra viśeṣākāṅkṣāyāṃ kvacicchabdasamarpito viśeṣo bhavati-'svargakāmo yāvajjīvamagnihotraṃ juhoti' | kvacidaśruto'pyanvitābhidhānasāmarthyabalena kalpyo, viśvajidādiṣu | kvacitprakaraṇādvastusāmarthyādvidhyantaraparyālocanayā'pi ca pratīyate | tadetadiha sarvamasti | prakṛto brahmacārī | vastusāmarthyena cārthānvabodha upajāyate | sa ca sarvavidhiṣūpayujyate, viduṣo'dhikārāt | tadidamapare na mṛṣyanti | saṃskāravidhitvenaivāsya pratīyamānādhikāratā | yataḥ saṃskārakarmāṇi saṃskāryārthatayā'nuṣṭhīyante | yadi ca saṃskārye na dṛśyeta viśeṣastataḥ saktuvatsaṃskārarūpatā hīyeta | asti cātra phalavatkarmāvabodhalakṣaṇo viśeṣaḥ | yattu ''sviṣṭakṛdādivaditi'', tatprakṛtipratyayavijñānāgamyatvarūpahānitayā yuktobhayarūpatā | tasmātsthitaṃ svatantro'yaṃ vidhirmāṇavakasyeti | ataśca svata evānuṣṭheyo nāvaghātādivaddarśapūrṇamāsādyadhikāraniyogāccepyaḥ | evamanekavedādhyayanamapi draṣṭavyam | tatrāpi hyekena vedena nirvṛtte vidhyarthe kimityanekavedādhyayanam | phalabhūmnā tu yujyate | phalaṃ ca pūrvavat, na tu vākyaśeṣādhītaṃ payodadhyādi | evaṃ sthita ekavedādhyāyinaḥ svaśākhānadhītānāṃ mantrāṇāṃ karmopayogināṃ karmānuṣṭhānakāle sāmarthyāttadākṣiptamadhyayanamanujñātaṃ bhavati | yadyapyadhītavedasyādhikāre “adhītya” iti | anye tu ‘brāhmaṇena niṣkāraṇo dharmaḥ ṣaḍaṅgo vedo'dhyeya’ iti niṣkāraṇa ityetasyādhikārapadatāṃ manyante | ‘niṣkāraṇaḥ’, kāraṇaṃ prayojanamanuddiśya, nityakarmavatkartavyam |

This explanation is not accepted by others. [According to these] it is in the character of the ‘Injunction of Santcification’ itself that the Injunction in question has (he corres-pondiṇg result indicated. As a matter of fact, all sanctificatory acts are done for the sake of the thing sought to be sanctified; and if no peculiarity is perceived in that object, then the act would lose its very character of ‘sanctification,’ as it happens in the case of the ‘Saktu.’ In the case in question, however, there does appear a peculiarity in the shape of the comprehension of acts conducive to definite results. The case of the ‘Sviṣṭakṛt’ offering has been cited above; but in that case the two-fold character has to be admitted, as if both were not held to be denoted by the root and the affix, then the act (of ‘sacrifice’) would cease to be itself.

From all this it follows that the Injunction in question stands by itself, and pertains to the initiated boy; and hence the act (of ‘study’) has to be done fo r its own sake, and not as subserving, like the threshing of corn, the purpose of results proceeding from the performance of the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices.

The same should be understood to be the case with the learning of more than one Veda; In connection with this also, the question might arise as to why one should learn several Vedas, when the Injunction is duly fulfilled by the learning of one Veda only? And here also the answer would be that the learning of several Vedas would be conducive to large results. The result of such learning also would be of the nature described above, and not of the nature ‘milk,’ ‘curd,’ and the like. Such being the case, if one has learnt a single Veda, when he comes to undertake the performance of acts requiring the use of mantras not occurring in the particular Vedic Rescension learnt by him, the very force of circumstances permits his learning of those Mantras; though in describing the title to the performance of Vedic acts, as belonging to ‘persons who have learnt the Veda,’ the qualification mentioned is that he should have duly learnt the Veda. [But the peculiar circumstances of the case render it permissible for the performer to leam the mantras at the time].

Our answer is that it is the Boy belonging to one of the three higher castes, who has gone through the Initiatory Rite. That this is so is clear from the fact that the act (of Vedic Study) has been prescribed among the duties of the Religious Student. The Injunctive and other similar affixes are expressive of that injunction or persuasion which is inseparable from the person sought to be persuaded; and when the question arises as to particular details regarding that person, (a) sometimes the information is supplied by the words of the Injunction itself—e.g., in the sentence ‘one desiring heaven should perform the Agnihotra throughout his life (b) sometimes, even though not directly mentioned, he comes to be assumed on the basis of what is directly stated;—e.g., in the case of the Viśvajit and other sacrifices;—(c) sometimes, again, he is indicated by the examination of other Injunctions in view of the force of the context and the nature of things. In the present case, all this is present:—(a) the Religious Student happens to be the person dealt with in the context (in which the injunction of Vedic Study occurs); (b) the comprehension comes about from the nature of things; and (c) the Study is of use in connection with all other Injunctions, as it is only one who has learnt the Veda that is entitled to the performance of any Vedic act.

Others have held that in the text—‘that the Veda with its six subsidiary sciences should be learnt is what should be done by the Brāhmaṇa without any other motive,’—the phrase ‘without any other motive’ explains the nature of the act as regards the person to perform it; the term ‘without any motive’ means ‘without having any other end in view;’ so that what is meant is that the act should be done as a compulsory one. Unless we take this term as indicating the nature of the person to perform it, it cannot be construed with the rest of the sentence either in the form of an act, or in that of an agency contributing towards the act, or in that of a qualification of the act, and so forth.

3.1.6

na hāsyādhikārasamarpakatvamantareṇa viṣayadvāreṇa kriyākārakattadviśeṣaṇatvādinā'nvayaḥ saṃbhavati | tasmātsatyapi saṃskāravidhitve gamyamānādhikāratvaṃ śrūyamāṇādhikāratvaṃ vā'viruddham | apare tu saṃskāravidhitvādanādhikāratāmeva jyāyasīṃ manyante | anuṣṭhānaviśeṣalābhārtho hyadhikāra upāsyate | sa ceha saṃskāryaviśeṣadarśanādeva siddhaḥ | saṃskāravidhayaḥ prayojanāpekṣāḥ | kriyāphalamevātra vidhisādhyam | tacca karmasthaṃ grahaṇalakṣaṇaṃ dṛṣṭyata evāviruddham | aśrute vibhāge smṛtyantarādvibhāgāvagatiḥ “prativedaṃ brahmacaryaṃ dvādaśābdānīti”| “ke punaratra trayo vedā abhipretāḥ” | ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmaveda iti | “atha kiṃ nātharvaṇo veda iti” | na evamāha | kintvatra yathāśrutasaṃskāryatvanirvahaṇāyāmayarthāvabodhaniṣṭhatayā tasya vidheranuṣṭhānalābhaḥ | avabodho hi sakalakarmānuṣṭhānopayogīti | ātharvaṇaścābhicārādyupadeśabahulaḥ | tasmānna jyotiṣṭomādikarmāṇi vidhīyante | nāpi teṣāṃ kiñcidaṅgam | trayyaiva hautrādhvaryavaudgātrādisakalatadaṅgaparisamāptiḥ | pradhānotpattividhayaśca trayyāmeva jyotiṣṭomādīnāṃ santi | brahmatvamapi trayyāmeva vidyate | triśabdaśca saṃkhyāvacanaḥ | na ca saṃkhyāśabdāḥ kañciddharmamekamanapekṣya pravartante | ato yeṣāmeveha kāryopadeśaparatā ta eva triśabdenābhigadituṃ śakyante | na cātharvaṇasya tatkāryānupraveśaḥ | na tatra pradhānavidhayo jyotiṣṭomādīnāṃ, nāṅgavidhayaḥ | śyenādiṣvabhicārayajñeṣu ta evartvijaḥ saivānyā'pītikartavyatā | viśeṣo'pi yaḥ so'pi trayyāmevopadiṣṭaḥ |

Thus, then, even though the Injunction in question be one of sanctification, yet it may have its result indicated indirectly (as explained before), or stated directly (as now explained); and neither of this involves any incongruity.

Others, again, argue that since it is an Injunction of sanctification, it is better to take it as not related to any result at all. For the result is sought after only for endowing the act with a certain peculiarity; and this peculiarity in the present case is obtained by noting the thing to be sanctified. It is true that Injunctions of sanctification stand in need of the mention of purposes served by them; but all that is sought to be accomplished by an injunction is the result of the act enjoined; and such result, in the present case, is actually found to consist in the ‘getting up’ of the text; and there is nothing incongruous in this.

The present verse not specifying the period for the learning of each Veda, we derive the knowledge of the specific period from other Smṛti-texts, which lay down that the studentship relating to each Veda is to extend over twelve years.

The next question that arises is—which are the ‘three Vedas’ that are meant here?

They are the Ṛgveda, the Yajurveda and the Sāmaveda.

“Then, is the Atharvan not a Veda at all?”

Who says so? All that is meant by the present context is a certain sanctification; and when the sanctification in question is found to be one that can be accomplished by taking the words of the present verse in their literal sense, the Injunction in question has its performance secured by being extended up to the comprehension of meaning; and this for the simple reason that the said comprehension is of use in all performances. As for the Atharvan Veda, it deals for the most part with magical spells, and hence neither the Jyotiṣṭoma and other such acts, nor any details pertaining to these, are prescribed in it; in fact, all the duties relative to the Hotṛ the Adhvaryu and the Udgātṛ are completely laid down in the Three Vedas; the duties of the Brahman-priest also are laid down in the Three Vedas. Then, again, the term ‘three’ denotes a special number, and whenever a particular numeral is used, it is always with reference to a particular character (in which the things included under that number are found to agree). So that, in the case in question, those alone can be taken as included under the number ‘three’ which are found to possess the common character of containing Injunctions regarding what ought to be done. And the Atharvan does not fall within this category; as it does not contain any injunctions of such, primary acts as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest, not of any of their subsidiaries. As regards the Śyena and other malevolent sacrifices, these also are performed by the same priests (as the Jyotiṣṭoma, &c.), and their procedure also is the same, with a few additional details; but even those peculiar details are such as have been prescribed in the Three Vedas. Thus, theu, since the Atharvan Veda is|not found, in the performance of any act, to be grouped either With Ṛk and Yajus, or with Ṛk and Sāman, it cannot be included under the appellation of ‘Three Vedas and this is the reason why it has not been mentioned in the present context But, since it is included under the term ‘svādhyāya,’ ‘veda,’ there is nothing incongruous in its being included under the wider Injunction of ‘Vedic Study.’

Others have held that in the text—‘that the Veda with its six subsidiary sciences should be learnt is what should be done by the Brāhmaṇa without any other motive,’—the phrase ‘without any other motive’ explains the nature of the act as regards the person to perform it; the term ‘without any motive’ means ‘without having any other end in view;’ so that what is meant is that the act should be done as a compulsory one. Unless we take this term as indicating the nature of the person to perform it, it cannot be construed with the rest of the sentence either in the form of an act, or in that of an agency contributing towards the act, or in that of a qualification of the act, and so forth.

3.1.7

ata ṛgyajurbhyāmṛksāmabhyāṃ caikatra karmaṇi samāveśābhāvāttrivedyupadeśānupapatternātharvaṇasyeha grahaṇaṃ svādhyāyaśabdavācyatvāttadvadhyayanavidhestadviṣayatvamaviruddham | tadadhikam | ṣaṭtriṃśatsaṃkhyā pratyavamṛśyate | tato'rdhamaṣṭādaśavarṣāṇi | atrāpi vibhāgakalpanā ṣaḍvarṣāṇi | atrāpi pādikam | pādaścaturbhāgabhāginī saiva saṃkhyā | nava varṣāṇi | teṣāṃ caturtho bhāgaḥ | prativedaṃ trīṇi | "kathaṃ punarvibhirvarṣairvedaḥ śakyo grahītum" | bhavati kaścinmedhāvitamaḥ | apara āha | na grahaṇasvarūpaprayuktā dharmāḥ, kiṃ tarhi tadviṣayeṇa vidhinā prayujyante | tatrānivṛtte grahaṇe yadi kānicidahāni niyamānupālanamadhyayanakāle kriyate tāvatsampādyata eva śāstrārthaḥ | bhavetsvādhyāyavidhyarthaṃ tāvataivāṅgakalāpānuṣṭhānam | asamāptagrahaṇasya tadddrutanivṛttau vratasnātakavyapadeśaḥ | ataḥ kālaviśeṣavidhānaṃ yuktam | tribhirvarṣaiḥ vinā na vratasnātako bhavati | tadyadyapi "snānaṃ vedasamāptāviti" kecitsmaranti, tathāpi tadarthavratasamāptāvapi prayoga upacārādyukta eva | tadayuktam | satyapi vidhiprayukte yāvadadhyayanabhāvitaiva vratānāṃ yuktā | adhyayanasaṃyogena hi tāni codyante | yāvadadhyayanaṃ bhavitumarhanti | vacanādeva hi trisaṃvatsarī vratacaryā prāgapi grahaṇādyadye tatpṛthagvākyam | atha tu grahaṇāntikamevetyekaṃ vākyaṃ, tato nāstyagṛhīte vede vratanivṛttiḥ | evakāreṇaivameva pakṣamanumanyate | "yadi nāstyagṛhīte vede tannivṛttiḥ kathaṃ tarhi 'vratasnātako' 'vedasnātaka' iti bhedena vyapadeśaḥ" | caturthe vakṣyāmaḥ |

‘For half that period’—‘that period’ refers to ‘thirty six years;’ the ‘half’ of which is eighteen years. Here also the division of time would be six years for each Veda.

‘Or for a quarter;’—‘Quarter’ is the fourth part of the said number, i.e., nine years, that is, three years for each of the three Vedas.

“But how can the Veda be got up in three years.”

It is quite possible that a certain pupil may be exceptionally intelligent (and he could get up the Veda in three years).

Other people offer the following explanation:—The duties prescribed in the verse are not made conditional upon the character of the ‘learning they are conditioned by the injunction bearing upon the duties themselves. So that if, before the learning has been accomplished, the rules are duly observed for a few days during the course of learning, the purpose of the Injunction becomes duly fulfilled; as the observance of the details even to that extent would go to fulfil the conditions of the Injunction of Vedic Study. If one puts an end to his observances before he has got up the text, then he comes to be called a ‘Vratasnātaka’ ‘renouncer of observances.’ Thus, inasmuch as both these contingencies are possible, it is only right that a definite period of time should have been prescribed; and the meaning is that one does not become entitled tō the title of ‘Vratasnātaka’ unless he has put in three years’ work (at least). Though some Smṛtis lay down that ‘there is Final Bath only on the completion of Vedic Study,’ yet it is quite reasonable to apply the name ‘Bath’ (snāna) figuratively to the completion of the observances relative to Vedic Study.

This, however, is not right. Though the observances are objects of independent Injunctions, yet the right course to be adopted is that they should be kept up as long as the ‘study’ continues. In fact, the observances having been actually enjoined in connection with Study, they must continue throughout the study. If the first part of the present verse (consisting of the first three feet) were taken separately, then the words of the text themselves would make the observances abandoned after three years only, even before the ‘study’ has been finished. If, on the other hand, the whole verse—including the last quarter—is taken as a single sentence, then the observances cannot cease until the Veda has been wholly learnt. In fact, the particle ‘eva,’ ‘precisely,’ clearly indicates that this last view is the correct one.

“If there is no cessation of the observances until the Vedas have been learnt, how is it that three are two distinct titles (l) ‘Vratasnātaka’, ‘who has completed the observances.’ and (2) Vedasnātaka,’ ‘who has completed the Veda’?”

We shall explain this under Discourse IV.

3.1.8

ṣaṭtriṃśadabdāḥ samāhṛtāḥ 'ṣaṭtriṃśadabdaṃ,' tatrabhavaṃ ṣāṭtriṃśadābdikam | evaṃ traivedikam | tadardhaparimāṇaṃ tadardhikam | evaṃ pādikaṃ grahaṇāntikamiti | sarvatra "ata ini ṭhanāviti" (pā0 sū0 5 | 30) yogavibhāgātsamāsaḥ | pītaḥ pheno vā'neneti vigrahe vṛṣalyā iti ṣaṣṭhīsamāsaḥ ( pā0 sū0 2 | 134), svārthe kaḥ | kṛṣijīvī svayaṃkṛtayā kṛṣyā jīvati, sati copāyāntare asvaya̍ṃkṛtayā'pi | ślīpadī ekaḥ pādo mahān yasya | sadbhininditaḥ durbhagaḥ, vinā'pi doṣeṇa satāṃ dveṣyaḥ |

From all this it becomes established that one should not marry immediately after learning the Veda, until he has learnt what is contained in the Veda; and the words of the text have to be construed thus—‘Having learnt—i.e., after learning has been finished—one should continue to be firm in the vows of studentship (i.e., ‘of continence’). The cessation of continence having become permissible (after the Veda has been learnt), its maintenance is reiterated with a view to indicate that the other vows and restraints—such as the avoidance of honey, meat and the rest—may be withdrawn. The conclusion thus comes to be that, so long as the Veda is being learnt, the Boy should keep all his vows of studentship,—but when the learning of the Veda has been completed, and he continues his studies further for under standing what is contained in the Veda, he should abstain only from intercourse with women.

3.2

145) matvarthīyaḥ | na tu yasya yatparimāṇaṃ tattasyāstīti śakyate'padeṣṭum |
traivedikamadhyayanamuktam | ekadviveśādhyayanamaprāptaṃ vikalpyate | vedaśabdaḥ śākhāvacano vyākhyātaḥ | tisraḥ śākhā adhīyīta dve ekāṃ vaukaikasmādvedānna tvekasmādeva | trayī trividyeti paṭhyate | adhītya, gṛhītvā, vedoktayā vratacaryayā | gṛhasthāśramamāvaset | gṛhasthāśramasya svarūpaṃ vakṣyati "udvaheta dvijo bhāryām" ityādi | āvasedanutiṣṭheta | anekārthā dhātavaḥ | āṅ maryādāyāṃ vartate | kṛtadāraparigraho rūḍhyā gṛhastha ucyate | ‘gṛha’śabdo dāravacanastatra tiṣṭhati | tasya yo vihitaḥ padārthasamūho vidhiniṣedhātmakaḥ sa āśramaśabdenocyate | yathopanītasya brahmacaryāśrama ā samāvartanāt, kṛtavivāhasya gārhasthyamiti |
aviplutaṃmakhaṇḍitaṃ brahmacaryaṃ strīsaṃprayoganivṛttiryasya sa evamucyate | vākyabhedaścātra draṣṭavyaḥ | ākhyānavyavahāreṇa- aviplutabrahmacaryo bhavedgṛhasthāśramaṃ ca pratipadyeta | ekavākyatāyāṃ kadācana viplave gārhasthyādhikāra eva hīyeta | atha punaḥ puruṣārthatayā vidhānena tadatikrame prāyaścittena yujyate na tvadhikārī na bhavati |
adhītyāvasediti ca paurvāparyamātraṃ vivakṣitam, nādhyayanasamanaṃtarabhāvitā vivāhasya lyapkāryātpaurvāparyavidhānādānantaryaṃ na śabdārthaḥ| ataśca svādhyāyādhyayanavivāhayorantarāle vyākaraṇādiśāstraśravaṇaṃ vedārthajñānārthaṃ labhyate | vidvānaiva hi gārhasthye'dhikriyate, na yathā'dhyayanavidhau mūrkhaḥ | yadyapi bālyāvasthāyāṃ tiryaksamānadharmā svamadhikāraṃ pratipattumasamarthastathāpi pitrā''cāryeṇa vā'nuṣṭhāpyate | vastutastayorevādhikāraḥ | apatyānuśāsane pituradhikāro'patyotpattividhestāvatā'bhinirvartyatvāt | anuśāsanaṃ ca vidhiniṣedhādhikāradvayapratipādanam | tatra yatpratipādyamāno'pi nāvabudhyate, tadandha iva hastagrāhikayākāryate | yathā'gnisaṃsparśakūpādipātādgāḍhahastāvaṣṭambhādinā dhāryate evamadṛṣṭādapi madyapānādeḥ | yathā vā'nicchannauṣadhapānādau pravartyate evaṃ śāstrīyeṣvapi padārtheṣu | yadā tvīṣadvyutpannastadaivaṃ niyujyeta ‘ihamidaṃ kartumarhasīti’| evaṃ satyadhītavedo māṇavakaḥ pitrācāryeṇaivaivaṃ pratibodhayitavyo “gṛhītavānasi vedaṃ tvamidānīṃ tadarthajijñāsāyāmadhikriyase tatastadaṅgāni śrotumarhasīti”| etāvatā piturapatyotpādanādhikāranivṛttiḥ | taduktaṃ ‘kiyatā punarutpādito bhavati yāvatā svayamadhigatakṛtyo bhavatīti’|
ataḥ sthitametat—nādhītyaiva vivāho yāvadvedārtho nādhigataḥ | evaṃ ca padayojanā kartavyā | adhītya adhyayane nivṛtte'pi aviplutabrahmacaryaḥ syāt |
prāptāyāṃ ca nivṛttau punarvacanaṃ niyamāntarāṇāṃ madhumāṃsavarjanādīnāṃ nivṛttiparam | tena yāvadadhyayanaṃ tāvatsarve niyamā anuṣṭhātavyāḥ, samāpte tvadhyayane'rthāvabodhakāle strīnivṛttireva karaṇīyā, strī-sevā na vidhātavyā | brahmacaryaśabdo yadyapi brahmagrahaṇārthaṃ yadvratagrahaṇaṃ tatra vyutpādyate tathāpi strīnivṛttipara evāsya tatra prayoga iti darśayiṣyāmaḥ |
yathākramam | ya evādhyetṛṇāṃ pāṭhakramaḥ prasiddhastenaiva, prathamaṃ catuḥṣaṣṭiratato brāhmayaṃ pitṛpitāmahādyabhijanaprabandhopakramaṃ bhavati | na hīdṛśe'rthe vaktāro na kulena na śīlena na krameṇeti | etena caitatpratipāditaṃ bhavati—yā eva pitrādibhiḥ śākhā'dhītā sā na tyājyeti |
8 ) | arthastu sarvavṛttiṣveka eva | saṃprayujyamānayoradharaparicumbanādyavaśyaṃbhāvi tena ca sahacāriṇā dharmeṇa maithunasambandho lakṣyate |
20) yathā sthaṇḍilaśāyī aśrāddhabhojīti syāt bhavedityarthaḥ | yadyapyastiparā vidhivibhaktistathāpyupagamavyāpāraṃ vidadhāti, abhigāmī syādabhigacchedityarthaḥ | na hyanupagacchannabhigāmī bhavati |
58) bahuvacanaṃ prāṇina iti | brāhmaṇyādivyapadeśamavajānate ‘prāṇina’ ityevaṃ vyapadeśārhā, na vyapadeśāntaramarhanti | ataste nāśayanti havyakavyāni niṣphalīkurvanti pradāyināṃ dātṝṇām | parivettrādīnāṃ loke nātiprasiddhatvāt śabdaiścāmṛtatvādvayavasthārthaṃ lakṣaṇapraṇayanam |

Though the term ‘brahmacharya,’ ‘vows of studentship,’ is ordinarily explained as standing for those observances and restraints that are kept up for the proper learning of the Veda,—yet in the present context it has been used in the sense of ‘avoiding intercourse with women,’—as we shall show later on.

‘In due course,’—i.e., according to that order of reading which is well known among students; i.e. first of all one should read the sixty-four sections of the Saṃhitā (of the Ṛgveda), then the Brāhmaṇa, and so forth, in the same order of sequence in which they may have been studied by his forefathers. In matters like this, no one can rightly say that ‘one should not follow either family traditions, or the dictates of morality, or orderly sequence.’ The meaning of all this is that ‘one should not abandon that Recensional Text which may have been learnt by his father and other ancestors.’—(2)

3.3

taṃ brahmadāyaharaṃ prathamaṃ gavā'rhayet| brahma ca dāyaśca te ubhe harati svīkarotīti brahmadāyaharaḥ| dīyata iti 'dāyo' dhanaṃ, 'brahma' vedo, 'haraṇa'madhigamaḥ| gṛhītavedaḥ pitrā kṛtavibhāgo gārhasthyaṃ pratipadyate, nirdhanasyānadhikārāt| yadi tu pitā nirdhanastadā sāntānikatayā dhanamarjayitvā vivāhayet | anye tu brahmaiva dāyo 'brahmadāya' iti pūrvoktavidhyanuvādaṃ manyante pituriti | "nanu cācāryasya māṇavakādhyāpane'dhikāra uktaḥ kimidamucyate piturbrahmadāyaharamiti"| ucyate| yasya pitā vidyate tasya sa evācāryaḥ| abhāve pituraśaktau vā'nyasyādhikāraḥ| ācāryāntaropādānena pituradhikāro nivartata eva| svayaṃ vā'dhyāpayatvanyopādānena veti na viśeṣaḥ| yadapyāhuḥ-"varo dakṣiṇetyupanayane nityavaddakṣiṇāmnānātparakartṛkatvameveti"-tadasat| upanayane hyayaṃ vidhiḥ 'varo dakṣiṇeti'| upanetā ca pitā vā''cāryo vā, tau dvāvapi svādhikārapravṛttau nānyāntaramapekṣete| ānamanārthaṃ hi dakṣiṇādānam| na cādhikārāntarataḥ pravṛttasyānatirūpayujyate| tenāyaṃ dakṣiṇāśabda ānamanārthābhāvādarthāddhiraṇyadānavadadṛṣṭārthadāne|palakṣaṇārtho vijñeyaḥ| pitraiva cāsau tāvatā dhanena svāmī kartavyo yena varadānamasya saṃpadyate| athāyamāgrahaḥ-"nānatyarthadānādṛte dakṣiṇāśabdasyopapattiḥ| na vā mukhye sati lakṣaṇā nyāyyeti"| evaṃ tarhi yasya pitā na tatsthānīyo nācāryaḥ sa yadā''tmānamupanayet satyakāmavattadviṣayo dakṣiṇāvidhirbhaviṣyati| tasyāpi ceṣadpetaṃśaiśavasyātmasaṃskārāyāstyevādhikāra iti pratipāditam| tasmādubhayathā pituradhikāraḥ, svayamupanayamānasyāntyamācāryamupādadānasya vā| pratītam abhimukhībhūtaṃ gṛhāśramapratipattau| na tu naiṣṭhikaṃ, samāpta़ādhyayanaviṣyarthamapi grāmapratipattau| sragviṇam| yāvantaḥ kecana gṛhyakārairmadhuparkakarmaṇi dharmā āmnātāsteṣāṃ pradarśanārthametat| talpa āsīnaṃ mahārhaparyaṅkaśayanopaviṣṭam| pūjādhikārārhaṃ śayānam| gavā madhuparkeṇa| madhuparke'sau vidhiḥ pākṣika āmnātaḥ| ato gośabdena tatsādhanakarmaviśeṣo lakṣyate| arhayet pūjayet| adhikārātpitā''cāryo vā| prathamaṃ pūrvaṃ vivāhāt | pratītaṃ svadharmeṇetyanuvādaḥ | svadharmeṇa 'brahmādāyaharaṃ', 'svadharmeṇa cāhvayediti,' saṃbandhe na viśeṣaḥ |
56) “upādyamaḥ svakaraṇa’’ iti| ato vivāhaḥ kanyāsvīkārārthaḥ”|
63)| ‘‘nanu ca yadyannyūnaphalaṃ tattatpaścānnirdiṣṭam| tatrārṣasya prājāpatyātpaścādabhidhānaṃ yuktam’’| astyatra kāraṇaṃ yenādhikaphalasya prājāpatyasya paścānnirdeśaḥ| ‘‘pañcānāṃ tu trayo dharmyā’’ ityatra prājāpatyasya grahaṇamiṣyate, itarathā''rṣasya syāt|

When, by the due observance of his duties, he has acquired the Veda and his heritage from his father, and is so inclined,—his father shall first honour him, adorned with garlands and seated upon a couch, with the “Cow.”—(3)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘When he has acquired the Veda and his heritage, the father shall honour him first with the cow,’ He who has acquired both, the Veda (‘Brahman’) and the heritage (‘dāya’) is called ‘brahmadāyādāharaḥ.’ ‘Dāya’ (Heritage) is what is given, i.e., property;—‘Brahman’ is ‘Veda’;—‘haraṇa’ is acquiring. It is only when the boy has learnt the Veda and received his share of the ancestral property from his father that he takes to the Householder’s state; a man without any property not being entitled to enter upon that stage. If the father happens to have no property, he should earn wealth by begging for the avowed purpose of marrying his son (and thereby maintaining his line), and then marry him.

Others explain the Veda itself as being the ‘heritage;’ and regard the present verse as a reiteration of the foregoing Injunction! for the purpose of indicating that it is to be learnt from the Father.

“It having been declared before that it is the Preceptor whose function it is to teach the Veda, why is it that the boy is now spoken of as acquiring the Veda and ‘heritage’ from his father?”

The answer to this is as follows:—For him whose Father is living, the Father himself is the ‘Preceptor.’ It is only when the Father is not living, or when he is somehow incapacitated, that another person may act as the ‘Preceptor.’ By the appointing of another man as the ‘Preceptor,’ the Father’s title to act as one ceases. But, whether the Father himself teaches his son or some one else teaches him, it makes no difference.

Some people have urged the following argument—“In connection with the Upanayana, it has been laid down, as a compulsory duty that the ‘gift should consist of some very superior thing’ (Gautama, 25.6); from which it is dear that the function is to be performed by some one else (and not by the Father himself).”

This is not right. That the Fee should consist of a very superior thing is an Injunction in connection with the Upanayana, the Initiatory Rite; and whether the Initiator is the Father or some other Preceptor, neither of these persons requires any incentive to perform this function; and fees are paid only as incentives to service; nor is any incentive necessary in a case where the person engages in the work under the influence of some other form of prompting. For these reasons, the term ‘Fee’ in the context in question, being found incapable of conveying the sense of an incentive to work, must be taken as standing for some such gift as is made for the purpose of some transcendental results, just like the giving of gold. And it is the Father who should make the Boy the owner of enough wealth to enable him to make a gift of the ‘superior thing.’

If one were to insist upon the following argument—“it is not possible for the term fee to be used in any sense other than what is paid as an incentive to serve, and so long as a word can be taken in its primary sense, it cannot be right to have recourse to any secondary signification,”—then, in that case, the said Injunction of the Fee will have to be regarded as applying to such cases where, as in the case of Satyakāma Jābāla, neither the Father is alive, nor is there any other Preceptor appointed as the Father’s substitute, and where the Boy presents himself (to a Teacher) for Initiation. And it has been already explained that such a boy, having passed his childhood, is fully entitled to have his sacraments performed for himself.

Thus, in both cases, it is the Father’s function; he may do the initiating himself or get it done by another Preceptor.

‘Inclined’—i.e., who is inclined towards entering the life of the Householder,—and not him who is going to be a lifelong student, even though the latter may be returning home simply for the sake of obeying the rule regarding the completion of study.

‘Adorned with garland’—this is meant to include all the details that have been laid down by the authors of the Gṛhyasūtras in connection with the ‘Madhuparka’ offering.

‘Seated upon a couch’—seated upon a valuable sofa.

‘With the cow’—i.e., with the ‘Madhuparka’ offering. The offering of the cow in the ‘Madhuparka’ has been prescribed as an optional alternative; hence the term ‘cow’ here stands for that particular act (of offering) which is done by means of the cow.

‘Shall honour’—this is the duty of the Father or the Preceptor.

‘First’—i.e., before marriage.

‘Inclined’—i.e., lying down upon the couch for the purpose of receiving the offering.

‘By the strict observance of his duties’—this is a super-fluous reiteration; and it makes no difference whether it is construed with ‘acquiring the Veda and his heritage,’ or with ‘shall honour.’—(3).