Manava Dharmashastra 3.3

3.3

taṃ brahmadāyaharaṃ prathamaṃ gavā'rhayet| brahma ca dāyaśca te ubhe harati svīkarotīti brahmadāyaharaḥ| dīyata iti 'dāyo' dhanaṃ, 'brahma' vedo, 'haraṇa'madhigamaḥ| gṛhītavedaḥ pitrā kṛtavibhāgo gārhasthyaṃ pratipadyate, nirdhanasyānadhikārāt| yadi tu pitā nirdhanastadā sāntānikatayā dhanamarjayitvā vivāhayet | anye tu brahmaiva dāyo 'brahmadāya' iti pūrvoktavidhyanuvādaṃ manyante pituriti | "nanu cācāryasya māṇavakādhyāpane'dhikāra uktaḥ kimidamucyate piturbrahmadāyaharamiti"| ucyate| yasya pitā vidyate tasya sa evācāryaḥ| abhāve pituraśaktau vā'nyasyādhikāraḥ| ācāryāntaropādānena pituradhikāro nivartata eva| svayaṃ vā'dhyāpayatvanyopādānena veti na viśeṣaḥ| yadapyāhuḥ-"varo dakṣiṇetyupanayane nityavaddakṣiṇāmnānātparakartṛkatvameveti"-tadasat| upanayane hyayaṃ vidhiḥ 'varo dakṣiṇeti'| upanetā ca pitā vā''cāryo vā, tau dvāvapi svādhikārapravṛttau nānyāntaramapekṣete| ānamanārthaṃ hi dakṣiṇādānam| na cādhikārāntarataḥ pravṛttasyānatirūpayujyate| tenāyaṃ dakṣiṇāśabda ānamanārthābhāvādarthāddhiraṇyadānavadadṛṣṭārthadāne|palakṣaṇārtho vijñeyaḥ| pitraiva cāsau tāvatā dhanena svāmī kartavyo yena varadānamasya saṃpadyate| athāyamāgrahaḥ-"nānatyarthadānādṛte dakṣiṇāśabdasyopapattiḥ| na vā mukhye sati lakṣaṇā nyāyyeti"| evaṃ tarhi yasya pitā na tatsthānīyo nācāryaḥ sa yadā''tmānamupanayet satyakāmavattadviṣayo dakṣiṇāvidhirbhaviṣyati| tasyāpi ceṣadpetaṃśaiśavasyātmasaṃskārāyāstyevādhikāra iti pratipāditam| tasmādubhayathā pituradhikāraḥ, svayamupanayamānasyāntyamācāryamupādadānasya vā| pratītam abhimukhībhūtaṃ gṛhāśramapratipattau| na tu naiṣṭhikaṃ, samāpta़ādhyayanaviṣyarthamapi grāmapratipattau| sragviṇam| yāvantaḥ kecana gṛhyakārairmadhuparkakarmaṇi dharmā āmnātāsteṣāṃ pradarśanārthametat| talpa āsīnaṃ mahārhaparyaṅkaśayanopaviṣṭam| pūjādhikārārhaṃ śayānam| gavā madhuparkeṇa| madhuparke'sau vidhiḥ pākṣika āmnātaḥ| ato gośabdena tatsādhanakarmaviśeṣo lakṣyate| arhayet pūjayet| adhikārātpitā''cāryo vā| prathamaṃ pūrvaṃ vivāhāt | pratītaṃ svadharmeṇetyanuvādaḥ | svadharmeṇa 'brahmādāyaharaṃ', 'svadharmeṇa cāhvayediti,' saṃbandhe na viśeṣaḥ |
56) “upādyamaḥ svakaraṇa’’ iti| ato vivāhaḥ kanyāsvīkārārthaḥ”|
63)| ‘‘nanu ca yadyannyūnaphalaṃ tattatpaścānnirdiṣṭam| tatrārṣasya prājāpatyātpaścādabhidhānaṃ yuktam’’| astyatra kāraṇaṃ yenādhikaphalasya prājāpatyasya paścānnirdeśaḥ| ‘‘pañcānāṃ tu trayo dharmyā’’ ityatra prājāpatyasya grahaṇamiṣyate, itarathā''rṣasya syāt|

When, by the due observance of his duties, he has acquired the Veda and his heritage from his father, and is so inclined,—his father shall first honour him, adorned with garlands and seated upon a couch, with the “Cow.”—(3)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘When he has acquired the Veda and his heritage, the father shall honour him first with the cow,’ He who has acquired both, the Veda (‘Brahman’) and the heritage (‘dāya’) is called ‘brahmadāyādāharaḥ.’ ‘Dāya’ (Heritage) is what is given, i.e., property;—‘Brahman’ is ‘Veda’;—‘haraṇa’ is acquiring. It is only when the boy has learnt the Veda and received his share of the ancestral property from his father that he takes to the Householder’s state; a man without any property not being entitled to enter upon that stage. If the father happens to have no property, he should earn wealth by begging for the avowed purpose of marrying his son (and thereby maintaining his line), and then marry him.

Others explain the Veda itself as being the ‘heritage;’ and regard the present verse as a reiteration of the foregoing Injunction! for the purpose of indicating that it is to be learnt from the Father.

“It having been declared before that it is the Preceptor whose function it is to teach the Veda, why is it that the boy is now spoken of as acquiring the Veda and ‘heritage’ from his father?”

The answer to this is as follows:—For him whose Father is living, the Father himself is the ‘Preceptor.’ It is only when the Father is not living, or when he is somehow incapacitated, that another person may act as the ‘Preceptor.’ By the appointing of another man as the ‘Preceptor,’ the Father’s title to act as one ceases. But, whether the Father himself teaches his son or some one else teaches him, it makes no difference.

Some people have urged the following argument—“In connection with the Upanayana, it has been laid down, as a compulsory duty that the ‘gift should consist of some very superior thing’ (Gautama, 25.6); from which it is dear that the function is to be performed by some one else (and not by the Father himself).”

This is not right. That the Fee should consist of a very superior thing is an Injunction in connection with the Upanayana, the Initiatory Rite; and whether the Initiator is the Father or some other Preceptor, neither of these persons requires any incentive to perform this function; and fees are paid only as incentives to service; nor is any incentive necessary in a case where the person engages in the work under the influence of some other form of prompting. For these reasons, the term ‘Fee’ in the context in question, being found incapable of conveying the sense of an incentive to work, must be taken as standing for some such gift as is made for the purpose of some transcendental results, just like the giving of gold. And it is the Father who should make the Boy the owner of enough wealth to enable him to make a gift of the ‘superior thing.’

If one were to insist upon the following argument—“it is not possible for the term fee to be used in any sense other than what is paid as an incentive to serve, and so long as a word can be taken in its primary sense, it cannot be right to have recourse to any secondary signification,”—then, in that case, the said Injunction of the Fee will have to be regarded as applying to such cases where, as in the case of Satyakāma Jābāla, neither the Father is alive, nor is there any other Preceptor appointed as the Father’s substitute, and where the Boy presents himself (to a Teacher) for Initiation. And it has been already explained that such a boy, having passed his childhood, is fully entitled to have his sacraments performed for himself.

Thus, in both cases, it is the Father’s function; he may do the initiating himself or get it done by another Preceptor.

‘Inclined’—i.e., who is inclined towards entering the life of the Householder,—and not him who is going to be a lifelong student, even though the latter may be returning home simply for the sake of obeying the rule regarding the completion of study.

‘Adorned with garland’—this is meant to include all the details that have been laid down by the authors of the Gṛhyasūtras in connection with the ‘Madhuparka’ offering.

‘Seated upon a couch’—seated upon a valuable sofa.

‘With the cow’—i.e., with the ‘Madhuparka’ offering. The offering of the cow in the ‘Madhuparka’ has been prescribed as an optional alternative; hence the term ‘cow’ here stands for that particular act (of offering) which is done by means of the cow.

‘Shall honour’—this is the duty of the Father or the Preceptor.

‘First’—i.e., before marriage.

‘Inclined’—i.e., lying down upon the couch for the purpose of receiving the offering.

‘By the strict observance of his duties’—this is a super-fluous reiteration; and it makes no difference whether it is construed with ‘acquiring the Veda and his heritage,’ or with ‘shall honour.’—(3).