Manava Dharmashastra 3.1.2

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.