Manava Dharmashastra 3.1.4

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.