[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Polity, Pleasure & Law](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti) › [Law and Social-Religious Duty](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma) › [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu) › [Manubhashya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi) › 3.1.6 # Manava Dharmashastra 3.1.6 Manubhāṣya 3.1.6 - **Language:** Sanskrit ### [3.1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.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. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > 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. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > 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. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > The next question that arises is—which are the ‘three Vedas’ that are meant here? > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > They are the Ṛgveda, the Yajurveda and the Sāmaveda. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > “Then, is the Atharvan not a Veda at all?” > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > 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.’ > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > 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. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi - [Previous: 3.1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.1.5) - [Next: 3.1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.1.7) - [Up: 3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.1) ## Translations (1) - [Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi~en-jha.3.1.p28) — Ganganatha Jha 1920, English ## Linked texts (1) - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.3.1) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.1.6) · Pramāṇa