Manava Dharmashastra 3.150

3.150

dhanuḥ śarāṃcca yaḥ śilpīva karoti | yaścāgre didhiṣūpatiḥ | didhiṣūśabdaḥ kākākṣivadubhayena saṃmbadhyate | smṛtiśāstratvāccehaśaḥ sambandho labhyate | lekhāpaloṣṭhādayo'pi smṛtyarthaṃ saṃketyante bhavanti cārthakarāḥ | ata etanna vācyaṃ "kathamekaśabdaḥ samāsāntargato dvābhyāṃ bhinnaprasthānābhyāṃ abhisambadhyeta" iti | gautamena hi dvayaṃ niṣiddham | ihāpi sambandhabhede liṅkam | dvipadaḥ samāsaḥ | na hyagredidhiṣūpatirnāma kaścidasti | etau ca vakṣyamāṇalakṣaṇau | mitradhruk | mitraṃ yo druhyati | mitrasya yaḥ kāryopaghāte pravarttate | dyū tavṛttiḥ dyūtaṃ vṛttirjīvikā yasya | "nanu ca 'kitavo madyapa' ityatroktameva" | nāvaśyaṃ dyūtavṛttireva dyūtasya prayojakaḥ, kiṃrtāha yaḥ svayaṃ devituṃ na jānāti gurubhayādvā na dīvyati | vyasanī sa tu devaiḥ śaptatayā'nyaṃ devayati | tadartho dvitīyaḥ kitavaśandaḥ | athavā akṛtaśrokā dyūtasabhāthāṇavo dyūtavṛttayaḥ | putra ācāryo'dhyāpako yasya | mukhyamācāryatvaṃ na putre sambhavati |

The maker of bows and arrows, he whose wife dallies with another person and he who makes love to his brother’s widow, he who injures a friend, he who subsists by gambling and he who has his own son for his teacher.—(160)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
He who, as a professional artisan, makes bows and arrows.

‘Agredidhiṣūpatiḥ;’—the term ‘didhiṣū’ is connected both ways, like the single eye-ball of the crow operating in both sockets. Such a construction is permissible, because the text belongs to the category of a ‘snmṛti-śātra.’ Even (meaningless) lines and clods of earth are made to yield some meaning, in consideration of the requirements of Smṛtis; and they come out useful too. For this reason, the objection need not be raised as to how a single term occurring in the middle of a compound can be construed with two different terms. In fact. Gautama (15.16) has expressly prohibited both (The ‘agredidhiṣū’ and the ‘didhiṣūpati’), and this indicates the plausibility of the above construction; and the compound really contains two terms. Further, there is no such person as ‘agredidhiṣūpati.’ The definition of these two (‘agredidhiṣū and didhiṣūpatī’) will he supplied later on.

‘Who injures a friend’—who puts obstacles in a friend’s business.

‘Who subsists by gambling’—The man for whom gambling is the means of subsistence.

“Such a person has already been mentioned in the preceding verse.”

But the person who helps people to gamble (The ‘keeper of a gambling house, mentioned before) is not necessarily one who makes a living by it; in fact, it is one who himself does not know gambling, or who does not do it through fear of his elders; hut, being addicted to it as an amusement, he always makes others gamble; and it is for excluding this kind of man that we had the second ‘Kitava’ (in the preceding verse; the word ‘Kitava’ having been first included in verse 151).

Or, the term ‘dyūtavṛtti’ may stand for those who, without any money themselves, are constant dummy visitors at gambling places.

He whose son is his teacher; it is not possible for the son to be his father’s ‘ācārya’ in the real sense of this term.—(160)