Manava Dharmashastra 3.1.5

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.