Manava Dharmashastra 4

4.1

saṃkṣepeṇātikrāntasyādhyāyadvayasyārthaṃ kathayatyanusmaraṇāya | gārhasthyadharmasyāyaṃ vṛttividhiriti dvitīyaṃ ślokaprayojanam | aniyataparimāṇatvādāyuṣaścaturthabhāgavyavasthāvidhānamāśramiṇāmanupapannamataḥ śloko'yaṃ vihitāśramakālānuvādārthaḥ | yadyapi ca "śatāyurvai puruṣa" ityetadapekṣayā kathaṃcidupapadyetāpi, tathāpi svaprakaraṇe 'grahyāntikamiti' avadhyantarasya brahmacaryavihitatvāt, "gṛhasthastu yadā paśyeta" iti gārhasthye'pi kālāntarapratipatteranuvādaitvānumīyate | caturthamādyamāyuṣo bhāgam | janmāpekṣamādyatvam | gurau uṣitvā brahmacaryaṃ kṛtvā tato dvitīyaṃ caturthamāyuṣo bhāgaṃ kṛtavivāho gṛhe vaset | gṛhasthāśramamanutiṣṭhet |
tatra vasan
55 ) yathā | dharmāntaranindā vedajapastutyarthā, na tanniṣedhārthā |
30 ) yogavibhāgātsamāsaḥ | cāpalaṃ ca hastenānupayujyamānasyāpi vastuno grahaṇāpasāraṇe | parastrīprekṣaṇacitrasaṃdarśanodi netracāpalam | paradrohārthaṃ karmabuddhiśca na kartavyā |
60 ) | sa natrā pratiṣidhyate |
136) iti kaḥ | tataḥ svārthe kaḥ | sarveṣāmabhisaṃdhaka iti ṣaṣṭhīsamāsaḥ | kecidatra ślokaṃ paṭhanti | “yasya dharmadhvajo nityaṃ suradhvaja ivocchritaḥ | pracchannāni ca pāpāni baḍālaṃ nāma tadvratamiti” || 185 a || eṣa evārthaḥ saṃkṣepeṇa kathyate | ekaikaguṇasambandhe baiḍālavratiko jñeyaḥ | asmādeva ślokādevamanumīyate | ‘pracchannāni ca pāpānīti’ viśeṣāśravaṇāt sarveṣāṃ caiṣāṃ pāpatvādyubhayathā''cāryeṇa śiṣyāḥ pratipāditāḥ | kecidimaṃ ślokamadhyāpitāḥ kecitpūrvam | ubhayaṃ ca pramāṇam | tena yadyapi‘aṅgadī kuṇḍalī pīnaskandhaḥ pṛthuvakṣā devadatta’ iti samuditānāṃ lakṣaṇatvaṃ pratīyatetathāpīha pratyekametāni lakṣaṇāni |

Having dwelt, during the first quarter of his life, with the Teacher, the Brāhmaṇa shall, during the second quarter of his life, live in his house, after having taken a wife.—(1)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The first verse sums up in brief what has gone in the last two discourses, for the purpose of recalling it to the mind; and the second verse serves to indicate that among the Duties of the Householder this prescribes the means of livelihood.

Inasmuch as the extent of ‘life’ of man is uncertain, any rule regarding the ‘quarter’ of life becomes incompatible; hence the present verse is to be taken as stating only the period of life that has been allocated to the various stages of life. Though the rule might somehow be justified on the basis of the assertion that ‘man lives for a hundred years,’ yet our Author has himself laid down other kinds of limit; e.g., with regard to studentship he has said that ‘it may extend till the Veda has been got up’ (3. 1); and in connection with the limit of the stage of the Householder also, it has been said (6. 2)—‘when the Householder finds etc.;’ and from all this it follows that the present verse is to be taken simply as the reiteration of the said limits.

‘The first quarter of his life.’—This is regarded as ‘first,’ counting from the man’s birth.

‘Having dwelt with his Teacher,’—i.e., having accomplished his studentship;—‘during the second quarter of his life,’—he shall marry, and ‘live in his house’;—i.e., lead the life of the Householder.—(1)

4.2

'dehi dehīti' yācyamānasya yaḥ parasya cittavikāraḥ khedātmako jāyate sa 'droho''bhipretaḥ, na punarhiṃsaiva | tasyāḥ sarvasāmānyenaiva pratiṣedhāt | alpadroheṇeti | yācyā vinā yadi na vartyate tadā svalpaṃ yācitavyam, eṣo''lpadrohaḥ' | yā vṛttirjīvanopāyaḥ, kṛṣisevādi | yasyāṃ vṛttau parasya pīḍā na bhavati sā āśrayitavyā | sāmānyopadeśo'yam | samāsthāya āśritya jīvet | āpadi daśame vidhirbhaviṣyati | asmāccopadeśādvakṣyamāṇābhya anyāpi vṛttirbhavatīti gamyate | anyathā vakṣyamāṇaviśeṣaniṣṭhatve sāmānyasyopadeśasyānarthakyameva syāt | tena ca yājanādhyāpane kusīdam amṛtādimadhye apaṭhitamapi labhyate | alpīyasī yā uñchavṛttirgṛhītā asau hi 'alpadrohaḥ' | tathā ca gautamaḥ (a0 10 sū0 5, 6) "kṛṣivāṇijye cāsvayaṃ kṛte | kusīdaṃ ca" | jīvanamātro'yaṃ vidhirdhanasañcayastu vakṣyamāṇaireva niyataiḥ karmabhiḥ |
1104 ) kartavyaḥ | parveṣṭdirśapūrṇamāsau, ayanāṃte ca yajña āgrayaṇākhyaḥ |

[While living in the house], The Brāhmaṇa shall, in normal times, subsist by taking to that means of livelihood which involves no trouble—or very little trouble—to living beings.—(2)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
By ‘trouble’ here is meant, not only harm, but the unpleasant feeling or displeasure that is produced in the mind of one who is constantly begged with the words ‘give me this,’ ‘give me that;’—the harming of others being already generally prohibited.

‘Little trouble;’—If he cannot manage to live without begging, he should beg very little. This is what.is meant by ‘little trouble.’

That ‘means of livelihood’—means of subsistence, such as agriculture, service, and the like—which means does not cause trouble to other persons,—such a means of subsistence should be taken to.

This is a general advice.

‘By taking to that means...he should subsist.’

What is to be done in abnormal times of distress shall be laid down in Discourse X.

From what is said here it follows that there are also other means of living than those that are going to be described. Otherwise, if the present text referred to those only that are going to be described, there would be no point in the general injunction here put forward. Thus it is that we get at such means of living as ‘officiating at sacrifices,’ ‘teaching,’ ‘money-lending,’ and so forth,—even though these are not mentioned among ‘amṛta’ and the rest enumerated here.

‘Living on gleanings,’ which has been accepted as a very small means of subsistence, is what is meant by ‘involving little trouble.’ Says Gautama (10.6)—‘Agriculture and Trade, done through others, as also money-lending.’

What is here laid down is the means of mere subsistence; the amassing of wealth is to be done by the few specialised means going to be enumerated.—(2)

4.3

pūrveṇānvāhnikajīvanavidhāvupāya ukto'nena dhanasañcaye niyama upadiśyate | svaiḥ karmabhiḥ dhanasañcayaṃ kuryāt | tāni ca karmāṇyuttaratra vakṣyante | sañcayaprayojanamāha | yātrāmātraprasiddhayartham | na bhogāya dhanasañcayakleśaḥ kartavyaḥ, kiṃ tarhi yātrāmātraprasiddhyartham | ātmakuṭumbasthitiḥ 'yātrā', tatparimāṇaṃ 'yātrāmātraṃ', tasya 'prasiddhiḥ' niṣpattiḥ, tadarthastatprayojanam | nityakarmanivṛttirātmasthitāvevāntarbhūtāni tāni hyakurvata na ātmasthitiḥ | āha ca (a. 3 ślo. 62) "na nirvapati pañcānāmucchrasan na sa jīvati" | athavā satyapi śālīnyatve yatra loko garhate tadvarjyameva | yathā narasya mahākulīnasya bhuktavibhavasya nikṛṣṭakulātprāptaśrokāt samānajātīyādapi pratigrahādinā kenacidupāyena jīvanam | akleśena śarīrasya | sevāvāṇijye mahākleśo, dūrādhvagamanādinā | tādṛśe na kartavye | sañcayo rāśīkṛtaparirakṣaṇam |

For the accomplishment of bare maintenance, one shall accumulate wealth by means of one’s own irreproachable occupations, without causing trouble to the body.—(3)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The preceding verse has described the means of daily subsistence; the present verse is going to mention rules regarding the accumulating of wealth.

‘One shall accumulate wealth by means of one’s own occupations.’—These occupations shall be described later on.

The author states the purpose for which wealth is to be accumulated: ‘For the accomplishment of bare maintenance’—Wealth shall be accumulated, not for the purposes of pleasure, but simply for the sake of maintenance. ‘Maintenance’ stands for the subsisting of oneself and one’s family; and what just suffices for that is called ‘bare maintenance;’—‘the accomplishment,’ or bringing about of this, is the ‘purpose’ of the accumulation. The performance of obligatory duties is included under one’s ‘own subsistence;’ for, until one performs these, one’s own subsistence is not accomplished. It has been said above (3.72)—‘he who does not make the five offerings, is not alive, even though he may be breathing.’

Or, what is meant is that, even though a certain means of accumulating wealth may be sanctioned by the scriptures, if it happen to be such as is considered reproachable in the eyes of men, it shall be avoided. For instance, when a man of noble family has spent all his belongings, he shall avoid living by such means as the receiving of gifts from a person of his own caste, but of a low family, who may have acquired wealth.

‘Without causing trouble to the body’—Service and Trade are sources of great suffering to the body, involving as they do long journeys and other troubles: so that these should be avoided.

‘Accumulation.’—Collecting and keeping.—(3).

4.4

tānīdānīṃ karmāṇi nāmatastāvadāha | nāmnaiva keṣāñcit stutiḥ pratīyate | prayojanaṃ ca praśastābhāve ninditeṣu pravṛttiḥ | tatra 'mṛtapramṛte' atyantanindite | tato'pi satyānṛtam | yata āha 'tenaiva vā jīvitavyam' iti | apiśabda arucisūcanārthaḥ |
nāmataḥ nirdiśya svarūpato vyācaṣṭe |

He shall live in “Truth” and “Nectar,” or by “Death” and “Super-death;” or, even by “Truth and Falsehood;” but never by the “living of the dog.”—(4)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The author now mentions the “occupations” by name; and their mere names imply the excellence of some of them; and from this it follows that one should have recourse to the deprecated ones only when the commended ones are not possible.

Of these, the “Death” and the “Super-Death” are the most deprecated; and worse than these is the “Truth and Falsehood,” as is clear from the fact that the Text says that one may live ‘even by these;’ where the term ‘even’ clearly indicates undesirability.—(4)

4.5

uñchaśca śilaśca uñchaśilam | taddvṛttaṃ jñeyam | satyavratatulyam | kṣetrāllūnasya vrīhyādergṛhaṃ khalaṃ vā nīyamānasya yaḥ pulākaḥ patitaḥ svāmino'napekṣitastasyoccayanamuñchaḥ, 'tattvamṛtam' | na tatreyaṃ buddhirādheyā 'parakīyametanna gṛhāmīti' | evaṃ ca khalātpariśraṣṭasya lūnasyālūnasya vā'nekaprarohavato grahaṇaṃ 'śilaḥ' | amṛtaṃ syādayācitam | atyantaprītikaratvāt | mṛtamiva yācitaṃ bhaikṣamivi | 'yācita'mityeva siddhe 'bhaikṣa'śabdena sāmūhikataddhitāntena bahavo yācitavyā ityucyate, naikaḥ kadardhanīyaḥ | taduktam "alpadroheṇeti" | prāyeṇa ca bhaikṣaśabdasya 'bhaikṣyasyātmaviśuddhyartha' mityevamādau siddhānnaviṣaye prayogasiddheḥ, sāmānyaviṣayārthaṃ 'yācita' śabdopādānam | tena nedaṃ siddhānnabhakṣyāmeva, agnisataḥ parānnapakvena vaiśvadevādivirodhāt | na cedaṃ bhojanārthameva bhikṣeṇam, kiṃ tarhi sthityartham | sthitiśca na bhojanamātrasādhyā gṛhasthasya, kiṃ tarhi yāvatkiñcid gṛhopayogi | ata evodakaparidhānādyapi bhikṣitavyam, gṛhopakaraṇaṃ ca sthālyapidhānādi | brahmacāriṇastu bhojanakāle vidhinā pākāsambhavānniyamataḥ siddhānnaviṣayaṃ bhaikṣyaṃ pratīyate | bhikṣāśabdaścāyaṃ bhikṣyamāṇadravyagataṃ parimāṇamapyācaṣṭe | bhikṣāmātraṃ na dadāti yācitaḥ | prasutimātraṃ bhikṣeti | tena gohiraṇyādibhikṣāṃ na prasūtaśabdenābhyanujñāyate | pratigrahārthaṃ yācateti | "nanu bhaikṣagrahaṇamapi pratigraha eva" | naiva grahaṇamātraṃ pratigrahaḥ | viśiṣṭa eva svīkāre pratipūrvo gṛhṇātirvartate | tena na svīkāramātre | "pratigrahasamartho'pi" (a0 4 ślo0 186) "pratigrahaḥ pratyavaraḥ" iti ( a0 10 ślo0 106 ) adṛṣṭabuddhyā dīyamānaṃ mantrapūrvaṃ gṛhṇataḥ 'pratigraho' bhavati | na ca bhaikṣe 'devasya tvādi' mantroccāraṇamasti | na ca prītyādinā dānagrahaṇe | na ca tatra pratigrahavyavahāraḥ | ataḥ pratigrahādarthāntaramevedamamṛtāmṛtaśabdābhidheyam | ataśca nātra yācyamānasya ayācyamānasya vā mahāsattvatayā upakārāntarāpekṣā jāyate | yena vā dadato jātyādyapekṣā yuktimatī | pratigrāhyasyaiva karuṇayā ca pradīyamānaṃ gṛhṇato na pratigrahaḥ | "nanu ca karuṇayā dānamadṛṣṭāyaiva" | neti brūmaḥ | na ca tatra dānadharmaḥ | kiṃ tarhi karuṇābhyāsātparopakārādvā | tatra yathā hitopadeśādāvanugrāhyasya vidhirjātyādi- nāpekṣate tadvatkaruṇayā dāne | tathā ca śiṣṭā naivaṃvidhe dāne ‘vedatattvārthaviduṣe brāhmaṇāye’tyetadanurudhyante | ata evabrāhmaṇā api dainyamāpannāḥ pareṇa dattaṃ gṛhānā na brāhmaṇavṛttiṃ pratigrahamāśritā bhavanti |
sthitametat | pratigrahe yadyapi yācitāyācitapūrvakatvaṃ vidyate tathāpi na tenaiva mṛtāmṛtaśabdārthaḥ | viṣayāntarasya darśitatvāt | yājanādhyāpanayorapyetadrūpamasti | kaścidyācitvā yājakatvaṃ labhate, kaścitprārthyate | evamadhyāpane yojyam |
ato yāvatā kācidvṛttiryācñayā sā dainyāvahatvāt maraṇamiveti mṛtaśabdenābhidhīyate |
karṣaṇaṃ tu maraṇādapi pāpīyaḥ | lāṅgalākarṣaṇaṃ hi bhāravāhitvaṃ tacca khalajanapadakarma |

Gleaning and picking is to be known as “Truth;” and what is obtained unasked, “Nectar”; alms obtained by begging is “Death,” and cultivation is declared to be “Super- death.”—(5)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The corn that is gleaned is to be known as ‘Truth;’ living by this means being regarded as equal to the strict observance of truth. When after harvesting, corn is being carried either home or to the granary, if certain ears of corn fall down on the ground, and are left by the owner’—the picking up of these is what is called “gleaning;” and this is called ‘Truth;’ and in regard to this, one need not entertain any such idea as ‘this belongs to another person, so I shall not take it.’

Similarly, when one takes away what has fallen off from the sheaf—either before or after harvesting,—and what forms part of several offshoots,—this is ‘picking.’

‘What is obtained unasked is Nectar’—so called, because it is a source of great pleasure.

‘The alms obtained by begging is Death.’— The term ‘begging’ itself signifying the fact of what is obtained being ‘alms,’ the addition of this latter term—which is formed by the adding of a Nominal Affix denoting a group or collection,—is meant to imply that several persons shall be begged, and no single person shall be constantly troubled, as is shown by what has been said above regarding ‘what involves very little trouble to living beings.’ Then again, as a rule, the term ‘bhaikṣa,’ ‘alms,’ is found to be used in the sense of cooked food; as we find in the case of such passages as—‘for the purpose of cleansing oneself from alms;’ hence the adding of the term ‘begging’ serves to indicate that ‘alms’ stands here for food in general; hence what is meant here is not cooked food only; specially as for one who has set up the Fire, it would be wrong to make the Vaiśvadeva and other offerings with food cooked in any other fire.

The begging of alms here spoken of is not meant to be that only which is got for eating; it stands for what enables the man to maintain himself; and the maintenance of the householder is not accomplished merely by eating; in fact, it requires all such things as are necessary for house-keeping; hence it is that water-vessels and other such articles should also be begged; as also such household-requisites as dishes and covers, etc. So far as the Student is concerned, since for him it is impossible that just at the time of his eating, cooking should be done in the proper manner;—it follows that in his case ‘alms’ must mean cooked food only.

The term ‘bhikṣā,’ ‘alms,’ also indicates the quantity of the article obtained by begging; this quantity being a mere handful. But when a man is begged, he does not give mere alms, a mere handful; so that the begging of the cow, gold and such other things could not be regarded as sanctioned by the mere ‘handful.’ In fact, begging is always done for the purpose of receiving all kinds of gifts.

“The receiving of alms also would be a receiving of gifts.”

No; mere acceptance does not constitute the ‘receiving of gifts;’ the root ‘graha,’ with the preposition ‘prati,’—i.e., the term ‘pratigraha,’ ‘receiving of gifts’—is applied to a particular form of ‘acceptance,’ and not to any and every acceptance. Wherever the term ‘pratigraha,’ ‘gift,’ is used—e. g., under 4.186 and 10.100—it is used in the sense of such gift as is offered with a view to some transcendental result, and is received with due mantras. In the receiving of mere ‘alms,’ however, there is no reciting of any such mantra as ‘devasya tvā, etc.’ Nor again, is the term applied to the accepting of friendly and other presents; in the sense of this latter, the term is never used.

From all this it follows that the terms ‘Truth’ and ‘Nectar’ are used in the sense of things other than ‘gifts.’ Hence, in this case, the man who gives, whether begged or un-begged, is a high-souled person, and, hence, in his mind there does not arise any desire for any form of return (for the gift he makes); so that there would be no grounds for any restriction as to the caste, etc., of the recipient or giver. When a present is made entirely through sympathy for the receiver, it does not become a ‘gift’ (which always connotes the presence of desire for some transcendental result).

“But what is given through sympathy or pity is also conducive to transcendental results.”

We say—no; because it does not fulfil the conditions of ‘dāna,’ ‘giving’ (formal); it being prompted either by pity or by the desire to do good to others. Hence, just as in offering advice, through sympathy, considerations of caste do not come in; so in the case of giving through pity also. It is for this reason that in the case of such giving, cultured people do not observe any such restrictions as ‘gifts should be offered to the Brāhmaṇa who knows the real meaning of the Veda,’ and so forth. It is for this same reason, again, that even non-Brāhmaṇas, on becoming poor, accept gifts offered by others, but are not, on that account, regarded as having ‘received gifts,’ and thus transgressed upon the Brāhmaṇas ‘livelihood.’

The conclusion, therefore, is as follows:—Though in the regular ‘gift,’ considerations of its being asked or unasked do come in, yet it does not, merely on that account, become either ‘Truth’ or ‘Nectar;’ because it has been shown that these terms have a different connotation.

This same connotation is applicable to ‘officiating at sacrifices’ and ‘teaching’ (the other two means of livelihood for the Brāhmaṇa): Some one obtains the post of officiating at a sacrifice after having begged for it from some one. Similarly with the work of Teaching also.

Any such means of living as is obtained by begging, involves humiliation; and hence, resembling death, it is called ‘death.’

Cultivating is worse even than Death; specially as the act of ploughing and carrying of burdens is the work of lower people.—(5)

4.6

naivaṃ mantavyaṃ satyānṛtobhayarūpatā śāstreṇa vāṇijye'bhyanujñāyata iti | kiṃtarhi vastusvabhāvavādo'yam | lobhaprahaṇamevānṛtam |
jīvyata itivacanādvāṇijyā jīvanāyaiva, na dhanasañcayāya |
sevā śvavṛttiḥ yathā hi śvā preryate, kṛcchreṇa ca labhate, tathā ca sevakaḥ | ‘sevā’ preṣyatvam | yatrakutracitkarmaṇi preṣyate, ucite'nucite vā, sa sevakaḥ | ata utkṛṣṭenāyudhakarmādinā ye rājānamupasarpanti te na śvavṛttayaḥ |

Trade is “Truth and Falsehood;” even by that one may live. Service has been declared, to be the “living of dogs;” hence one should avoid it.—(6)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
It should not be understood that the scripture here lays down the fact of Trade being both ‘true’ and ‘false;’ it only describes the nature of the thing; and what constitutes the ‘falsehood’ of Trade is the element of avaricious grabbing involved in it.

‘May live.’—This implies that Trade may be had recourse to, only for the purposes of livelihood, never for that of accumulating wealth.

‘Service is the living of the dog.’—The dog is made to work hard, and gets little and with difficulty; so also the servant. ‘Service’ here connotes being ordered about; the servant is always commanded to do this and that work, right as well as wrong. Hence, when people serve kings with such superior kind of work as the carrying of arms and the like, these are not regarded ‘as the living of dogs,’—(6)

4.7

uktamātmakuṭumbasthityai dhanasañcayaḥ kāryoṃ, na bhogāya kleśa āśrayaṇīyaḥ | tattu kimānvahamarjanīyaṃ, utaikadaiva cirakālaparyāptamiti, noktam | tatra kālavilambārthamidamārabhyate |
kusūle dhānyamasyeti gamakatvādvyadhikaraṇe bahuvrīhiḥ | pāṭhāntaraṃ ‘kuśūladhānyaka’ iti | kusūlaparimitaṃ dhānyaṃ kusūladhānyaṃ, tadasyāstīti matvarthīya ik śabdaḥ | dhānyādhikaraṇamiṣṭakādikṛtam ‘kusūlaḥ’ ‘koṣṭha’ iti cocyate | tena cātra parimāṇaṃ lakṣyate | tatra yāvanmāti tāvatsaṃceetavyam | na punarādhāraniyamosti | kusūlena ca mahāparigrahasyāsyāpi bahubhṛtyabandhudāradāsaputragavāśvādimato'pi yāvatā sāṃvatsarī sthitirbhavati tāvadanujñāyate | yato vakṣyati (a0 11 ślo0 7) “yasya traivārṣikaṃ bhaktamiti” |
dhānyagrahaṇamapyavivakṣitam | suvarṇarūpyādyapi tāvatyāḥ sthiteḥ paryāptamarjayato na doṣaḥ | sarvathā'dhikaṃ tato nārjanīyamiti vākyārthaḥ | kumbhī uṣṭrikā | ṣaṇmāsiko nicaya etena pratipādyata iti smaranti |
tryahamaihikamasyeti tryahaihikaḥ | kuṭumbasya nityakarmārthaṃ ca bhaktacayaṃ karoti yaḥ sa 'tryahaihikaḥ' |
śvo bhavaṃ 'śvastanaṃ' bhaktaṃ, tadasyāstīti pūrvavat matvarthīyaṃ kṛtvā nañ samāsaḥ kartavyaḥ | sadyastātkāliko bhavettadahararjitaṃ vyayokartavyam |
asya vikalpasya vyavasthāmāha

‘Agriculture and Trade, not carried on by oneself, and money-lending’ as permissible in normal times. But even when one carries on trade and agriculture, not by oneself, but through others,—there is something improper in this also; though the impropriety may be a small one.

4.8

yo yaḥ svalpakālasañcayaḥ sa sa dharmejjyāyānadhikaḥ |
dharmādhikyācca phalādhikyaṃ bhavati lokajittamaḥ | lokāṃñjayatyādhipatyenāvatiṣṭhate, bhogyatayā svīkaroti | prakarṣavivakṣāyāṃ tamaḥ | aviśeṣopādānā'llokaḥ' svargaḥ pratīyate |
teneyamatra vyavasthā | mahāparigraho yo bahupatyā'saṃvibhaktaputraḥ akṛtakanyāvivāhaśca sa 'kusūladhānyakaḥ' | yastu pariṇatavayāḥ aprāptaputraḥ kṛtakaraṇaḥ sa yāvadyāvacchaknometi tāvattāvaditarānkalpānāśrayet |

4.9

eṣāṃ kusūladhānyakādīnāṃ gṛhasthānāmekaḥ ṣaṭkarmā bhavati | yo mahāparigrahaḥ prāguktastasya ṣaḍvṛttikarmāṇi bhavanti | kāni punastāni | prakṛtāni-uñchaśilāyācitayācitalābhakṛṣivāṇijyīni | adhyāpanayājanapratigrahāḥ 'yācitāyācita'grahaṇādantarbhavanti | bahukuṭumbako nityakarmasampattyarthaṃ ca sarvā vṛttoḥ samucitāḥ kuryātkṛṣivāṇijye api |
ye'pyadhyāpanamadhyayanamityādīni prathamādhyāyapaṭhitāni ṣaṭkarmāṇi vyācakṣate teṣāṃ prakaraṇavirodho niṣprayojanaṃ vā'dhyayanādīnāmupādānam-anyatraiva teṣāṃ vihitatvāt |
anyo dvitīyaḥ kumbhīdhānyastribhiḥ pravartate | pro'narthako yāvadvartate tāvatpravartata iti | vartanaṃ ca sthitisampattiḥ | prakṛtānāṃ ca yāni kānicit kvacit, kṛṣivāṇijye vihāya |
praśastataro hi pūrvasmātkumbhīdhānyakaḥ | yato vakṣyati 'sā vṛttiḥ sadbhigarhitā' | “gorakṣakānvāṇijikāniti” | yadapyuktaṃ gautamena ( a0 10 sū0 5-6 ) "kṛṣivāṇijye cāsvayaṃ kṛte kusīdaṃ cetyanāpadyeva | tatrāpyasvayaṃkaraṇapakṣe doṣo'styeva, laghīyāṃstu bhaviṣyati |
dvābhyāmekaḥ | atrāpi yācitalābhaṃ varjayitvā trayāṇāṃ yathāsambhavaṃ dve gṛhyete | ayācitamapi tāvadgṛhyate yāvattryahaparyāptam |
caturthastu brahmasatreṇa jīvati | ‘brahmasatraṃ’ śiloñchayoranyatarā vṛttiḥ | satatabhavatvātsatramiva na taddahaḥparisamāpanīyā vṛttirataḥ satramityucyate, aharaharnityamanuṣṭhānāt | brahmaśabdo brāhmaṇaparyāyasteṣāmidaṃ satram |
asmādbrahmaśabdātpūrvo'yaṃ vṛttiprapañco brāhmaṇaviṣaya eva vijñeyaḥ | kṣatriyādīnāṃ tu tatra tatra vakṣyati |
“kathaṃ punaḥ śiloñchavṛttyā jīvanaṃ saṃbhavati ? yāvatā śaradgrīṣmayoreva kṣetre khale vā śilapulākapātsambhavaḥ| athocyate| ‘graiṣmebhyo graiṣmāṇi śāradāni śāradebhyo'rjayiṣyatīti’ ṣāṇmāsikavṛttireva syānnāśvastanikaḥ | atha ‘anyathā'pi saṃbhavati yāvatastāvato vrīhyādeḥ kathañcitpatitasyopādānam |’ satyam | na tadbhojanāya paryāptam | ‘sañcinvāno yadā paryāptaṃ prāpsyati tadā'śiṣyati pañcāhādyasambhavāt | tathā ca mahābhārate, śiloñchavṛttiḥ pañcāntāśano varṇyate | so'yamasyāmavasthāyāṃ gṛhasthastāpasaḥ saṃvṛtta’ iti cet | kintvevamapyaśvastanikatvaṃ virudhyate | yathopapādasthitikastadā syānnāśvastanikaḥ| aśvastaniko hyucyate ya ahnyahnyarjayati yātrikaṃ tadahareva ca vyayīkaroti, na dvitīye'hni sthāpayati | yadi ca na pratyahaṃ śiloñchavṛtterbhojanaṃ nivartate, kuto'śvastaniko bhavet, kathaṃ ca tathāvidhasya jīvanaṃ putradārabharaṇaṃ ca |”
ata eva kecittribhiranyaḥ pravarteta ityata ārabhyānyathā vyācakṣate |
‘ tribhi ’ryājanādhyāpanapratigrahairdvābhyāṃ “pratigrahaḥ pratyavara” iti pratigrahavyudāsena yājanādhyāpane pratigṛhyete | brahmasatra madhyāpanam | taddhi vṛttaye paryāptam | yattu ‘vartayaṃśca śiloñchābhyāmiti” sa catuṣṭayavyatirikto'nya eva |
atrocyate | yaḥ śilaparimārtāndaśadvādaśānyavānvrīhīnvā bahubhya ādatte yāvadekāhayātrikaṃ sa ‘śilavṛttiḥ’ | yastvekaikaṃ yātrārthamāharati sa ‘uñchavṛttiḥ’ | smṛtyantare cāyaṃ ‘yāyāvara’vṛttiruktaḥ | ataśca sārvakālikamapyupapadyate | na ca vaiśvadevādikriyāvirodhaḥ, na ca putradārāṇāmabharaṇadoṣaśca, yācitabhaikṣādatyantālpagrahaṇāt |

‘One lives with two.’—Here also, leaving off ‘earning by begging,’ any two of the six may be adopted. The acquiring of wealth without begging also is permissible only to the extent of what may suffice for three days.

‘The fourth lives by Brahmasattra.’—‘Brahmasattra’ stands for either one of the two, ‘picking’ and ‘gleaning.’ These means of living are called ‘sattra’ (Sacrificial Session), because they are carried on continuously and are not to be finished on any one day. For this reason they are called ‘sattra,’ specially as they have to be carried on every day. The term ‘brahma’ is synonymous with ‘Brāhmaṇas;’ the meaning being that this is a sacrifical session for Brāhmaṇas. From the use of this term ‘brahma’ here, it follows that all that has been said before this regarding the means of living, pertains to ‘Brāhmaṇas;’ those pertaining to the Kṣatriya and others will be described on various occasions.

Question—“How can any living be possible by pickings and gleanings alone? since it is only during the autumn and the summer that it is possible for ears of corns to fall either in fields or in harvest-yards, it might be said that ‘the man would earn summer-grains from the summer-harvests, and the autumnal grains from the autumnal harvests.’ But in this way the man would have to collect grains lasting for six months; and he could never be ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow.’ It might be argued that—‘it would be possible for the man to pick and glean grains that may have fallen here and there (even apart from harvesting).’ This is true; but the grain collected in this fashion could never suffice for feeding.—‘When the man is picking and gleaning, just as he will have collected enough, he will eat; it being impossible for him to make a collection for five or more days. In the Mahābhārata, the person who eats at the end of a fortnight has been called ‘one who lives by pickings and gleanings which means that, under such circumstances, the Householder has become the Hermit.’—But even so, this would be incompatible with the character of ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow;’ as, under the circumstances mentioned, the man would be ‘one who lives upon whatever he obtains,’ and not‘ one who does not possess enough for the morrow.’ That man is called ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow,’ who earns everyday just enough for the day, and spends it all on the same day, and does not keep anything for the next day. If the daily ‘picking and gleaning’ does not suffice for his daily feeding, how could he be ‘one who does not possess enough for the morrow?’ How could such a person live and maintain his wife and children?”

It is in view of these difficulties that some people offer another explanation of the Text beginning with the words ‘another lives by three’:—‘By three’—i.e., by officiating at sacrifices, by teaching and by receiving gifts.—‘By two’—i.e., by officiating at sacrifices and by teaching; the ‘receiving of gifts’ being precluded in view of what is said (in 10.109) regarding ‘the receiving of gifts being demeaning.’—‘Brahma - sattra’ is teaching; and this would be enough for a living. The person described (in 4.10) as ‘one who lives by picking and gleaning, etc.,’ must be different from the four described in the present text.

On this point, we offer the following explanation:—‘The person living by picking’ is one who obtains from several persons—taking ten or twelve barley grains from each—just enough to serve for the day; while one who obtains from each person enough for the day is called ‘one living by gleanings.’ In another Smṛti text, this means of living has been called ‘Yāyāvara.’ in view of this, such livelihood may pertain to all time. Nor would there be any incompatibility between the performance of the Vaiśvadeva and other rites and the maintaining of wife and children; as for purposes of the former, a very small quantity would be taken out of the alms obtained.—(9)

4.10

parva cāyanāntaśca tayorbhāvāḥ pārvaṇāyanāntīyāḥ | svārthikamaṇaṃ kṛtvā vṛddhācchaḥ ( pā0 sū0 4 |
'kevala'grahaṇātkāmyā iṣṭayo niṣidhyante | vaiśvadevahomabaliharaṇe'pi tasya nānvahaṃ bhavataḥ | na hi tasya sarvadā tāvaddhanaṃ bhavati | ataḥ kevalagrahṇānmahāyajñanivṛttiḥ |
"nanu cāgnihotramapi tattasya naiva bhavati | tadapi dravyāsādhyameva" |
pañcahomāndroṣyati |
"bhāryābharaṇaṃ kathamiti" cetsā'pi tāṃ vṛttimāśrayiṣyati | yadā ca bhāryā vratametaddhārayitumaśaktā tadā bharturapi nāstyadhikāraḥ |
atha "cāndrāyaṇādiṣu pravṛttasya kathaṃ bhāryāyā jīvanamiti" cet | acodyametadvidyamānatvāt- 'atithyādidiṣṭamaśiṣyata' iti |
nanu "vaiśvadevahomābhāvāt vidyamāne'pi strīdhane na bhojanaṃ yuktam,ubhayorvighasāśitvavidhānāt | ataḥ strīdhanena vaiśvadevaṃ kariṣyati, dharmakārye'nujñānātstrīdhanagrahaṇasya" |
naivam | tasyāmavasthāyāmagnihotramātraṃ dharmaḥ, na vaiśvadevahomaḥ | bhavatu vā | yasyāstarhi dhanaṃ nāsti kathaṃ jīvatu |
tasmādyasyāsamarthā bhāryā nāsau śiloñchavṛttāvadhikriyate |
vartayannātmānaṃ jīvayan |

‘Living by gleanings and pickings, intent upon the performance of Agnihotra, one should constantly offer only those Iṣṭi-sacrificer that pertain to the moonless and full-moon days and to the solstices.—(10);

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The term ‘pārvāyaṇāntīyāḥ’ is to be expound as ‘those pertaining to the Parvas and the Ayanāntas;’—the term being formed with the reflexive ‘aṇ’ and the correlative ‘cha’ (according to Pāṇini, 4.2.114).

‘Iṣṭi-sacritices pertaining to the Parvas (the moonless and the full-moon days) are the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa sacrifices; and that ‘pertaining to the solstices’ is the sacrifice called the ‘Agrayaṇa.’

The adding of ‘only’ precludes the voluntary sacrifices that are performed with special ends in view. For the man here referred to, the offering of the Vaiśvadeva oblations and the making of Bali -offerings are not necessary every day; because he does not possess the requisite amount of wealth. Hence the term ‘only’ precludes all the more elaborate sacrifices.

“For that same reason, the Agnihotra also would not be possible for the man; as wealth is needed for that also.”

Yes; but he could offer the fortnightly oblations.

“How would such a man maintain his wife?”

She also will have recourse to the same means of living (i.e., picking and gleaning). In the event of the wife being disabled and unable to carry on this method of livelihood, the husband would not be entitled to the performance of the Agnihotra (or to the livelihood by pickings and gleanings).

“How would the wife, in such cases, manage to live, when the man would be keeping the Cāndrāyaṇa and such other fasts and observances?”

There is no room for this question, in face of the direction that ‘the wife shall eat what is left by the guest and others.’

“In the event of the man not being able to offer the Vaiśvadeva -offerings, the wife could not live upon her own private property; as it has been laid down that both husband and wife shall live upon ‘remnants,’ Hence, the man shall make the Vaiśvadeva -offerings with the help of his wife’s property; specially, as the use of the wife’s property for religious purposes has been sanctioned by the scriptures.”

It is not so; under the circumstances mentioned, it is the Agnihotra, and not the Vaiśvadeva -offering, that is religiously binding.

Or, even granting what you say. How would that woman live who has no private property of her own?

From all this it follows that the man, whose wife is disabled, is not entitled to have recourse to the ‘picking and gleaning’ method of livelihood.

‘Living’—maintaining himself.—(10)

4.11

lokavṛttaṃ nāmocyate yena prākṛtajano'lpasattvo vartate, dambhenāsatpriyākhyānena ca 'tvaṃ viṣṇustvaṃ brahmā jaya jīveti' | tathā vicitraparihāsakathābhiḥ |
vṛttihetorjīvikārthatayā na kartavyametat | yastu narmaśīlastasya na doṣaḥ |
ajihmām | yasyānyacca hṛdaye'nyacca bahiḥ sa 'jihma' ucyate | dveṣamatsarātmā darśayatyapriyaṃ vadatām |
aśaṭhām | agnihotrakarmānuṣṭhānaṃ, lokārjanena pratigrahādilābhārthaṃ, na śāstrārthaśraddadhānatayā kuryātsa 'śaṭhaḥ' |
ātmadharmatve'pi jaihmyaśāṭhyayoḥ, jīvikā'pyabhedāpacārādvanapadiśyate |
ajihmāmaśaṭhāṃ śuddhāmiti | śuddhivṛtyantareṇāmiśrīkaraṇaṃ pūrvaśeṣadvayena ca | ekapadlabhyo'pyayamartho vṛttānurodhādgobalīvardavadbahupadaiḥ pratipādyate | "atha kathaṃ brāhmaṇajīvikāṃ jīvediti dvitīyā ? yāvatā jīvatirakarmakaḥ | kathaṃ caikasyaiva dhātorekatra dviprayogaḥ ? na hi bhavati gamanaṃ gacchediti sādhyasādhanabhāvaḥ"| ucyate | sāmānyaviśeṣabhāvātsādhyasādhanabhāvo na viruddhaḥ | yathā'śvapoṣaṃ puṣṭa iti | anuṣṭhānāṅge ca vartanārthe jīvatirvartate | tena sakarmakatvamiti na doṣaḥ |

He shall never follow the worldly way, for the sake of subsistence; he shall live the straightforward, sincere and pure life of the Brāhmaṇa.—(11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
That is called the ‘worldly way’ which is followed by ordinary people wanting in moral strength;—such methods, for instance, as those of hypocrisy and flattery—(describing the man from whom something is to be gained as) ‘you are Viṣṇu, you are Brahmā! May you conquer and live long!’ and so forth,—and also of reciting pleasing and jocular stories.

‘For the sake of subsistence.’—What is mentioned here should not be done for the purpose of making a living; there is no harm in its being done by way of politeness.

‘Straightforward.’—The man whose exterior is different from the interior, is called ‘dishonest,’ ‘not straightforward;’ such a person.is of a jealous temperament and shows it to persons who speak disagreeable words to him.

‘Sincere.’—That man is called ‘insincere,’ ‘hypocritical,’ who performs the Agnihotra, for obtaining popularity and thereby receiving presents and gifts, and not with a view to carrying out the scriptural injunctions regarding it.

Though ‘straightforwardness’ and the rest are qualities belonging to the soul, yet they are here figuratively attributed to the ‘Life.’

‘Straightforward, sincere and pure’— The ‘purity’ here meant consists in its not being mixed up with the two methods of livelihood described above, and also in its being free from the aforesaid defects.

Though what was meant could be conveyed by means of only one of the three words, yet, in view of metrical exigencies, the author has made use of three words; such, use being analogous to such expressions as ‘go-balīvarda’ (where the go is the same as the balīvarda).

How can there be any such expression as ‘live the life of the Brāhmaṇa,’ ‘Brāhmaṇajīvikām jīvet, ‘when the root to live is intransitive? Why, too, should the same root (to live, jīva) be used twice (once in ‘jīvet’ and again in ‘jīvikām’)? Certainly, the relation of cause and effect is never found to be expressed by such expressions, as ‘gamanam gacchet,’ ‘should go the going.’”

Our answer is as follows:—The relation of cause and effect is based upon the relation of general and particular, and hence there is nothing incongruous in this. We have such usage in expressions like ‘aśvapoṣam puṣṭaḥ,’ ‘fattened like the fattening of the horse,’ Further, the root ‘jīva,’ ‘to live,’ also denotes the act of living as part of the act of acting up to the performance; and in this sense it is transitive also. So that there is nothing objectionable in the expression used; the term ‘jīvet,’ ‘should live,’ being explained as should act up to,’ for the sake of subsistence.—(11)

4.12

tryahaihikāśvastanavṛttidārthyai prasaṃkhyānamidamāha | santoṣa āśrayitavyaḥ, na bahūnāmupajīvyaḥ syāmiti yācñākleśa āstheyaḥ | sukhārthī saṃyato bhavet | ‘saṃyamaḥ’ yātrikācchānādadhike nābhilāṣaḥ | santoṣo manasvināṃ sukhamūlam | duḥkhasya mūlaṃ viparyayaḥ asantoṣaḥ | mahadviduṣāṃ dainyaṃ, abhilaṣite vastunyasampattiḥ | tasmātsantoṣamāśrayet |

He who wants happiness should adopt perfect contentment and remain self-controlled. Happiness has its root in contentment, and its opposite is the root of unhappiness.—(12)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
With a view to laying stress upon the importance of the two means of living—‘to collect grains for three days’ and ‘not to possess grains enough for the morrow,’—the author adds this verse by way of reflection.

One should have recourse to contentment; that is, one should not make an effort to go about begging on a large scale, with a view to becoming dependent upon several persons.

‘He who wants happiness should remain self-controlled.’—‘Self-control’ consists in not wanting more wealth than what would suffice for bare subsistence.

‘Contentment’ is the root of happiness for all high-minded persons; and its opposite—i.e., Discontent—is the root of unhappiness; the non-accomplishment of what is desired being a source of great humiliation for the learned. For these reasons, one should have recourse to contentment.—(12)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 170), which remarks that in connection with all these ‘vratas’, it has to be borne in mind that what is exactly meant by the term ‘vrata’ is the mental determination that ‘I shall do this—I shall not do that’,—and that all these have to be taken up immediately after the Final Bath.

Comparative notes by various authors
Yājñavalkya (1.129).—‘He shall ever remain contented.’

4.13

vṛttiviṣayo vidhirvṛttiśabdenoktaḥ | tenānyatamayeti na tadapekṣamekajīvitam anyatamena vṛttividhānāt | ato vṛttisamuccayajīvinaḥ pitṛdhanaṃ prāptavataśca vratādhikāro na lupyate | anyathā ekavṛttijīvana eva syāt | vratānīmāni | mānasaḥ saṅkalpo ‘vrata’mucyate--‘śāstravihitamidaṃ mayā kartavyamidaṃ vā na kartavya’mityevam | svargyāyuṣyayaśasyāni vratadhāraṇaphalāni kecidāhuḥ | ataścaitatphalārthino vrateṣvadhikāraḥ | tadayuktam | anityatvameva sati prasajyeta | tatrottaraśloke nityagrahaṇaṃ bādhyaṃta | śrutau caiṣāṃ nityatā jñāpitā ‘yāvat hi enasā yukto bhavatīti’ | svargādīnāṃ kāmyatvenānvaye nādhikṛtaviśeṣaṇatvaṃ pratipadyeran |

The twice-born Accomplished Student, living by any one of these means of livelihood, should keep these (following) observances, which are conducive to heaven, longevity and fame.—(13)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The term ‘means of livelihood’ stands for the rule regarding subsistence. Hence, ‘by any one’ does not imply that the man’s life should be entirely dependent upon that one; because the rules do not say that he who has recourse to one living should not have recourse to another. It is for this reason,too, that the mail subsisting by a number of means of living, or the man who has inherited his father’s property (and hence does not stand in need of the modes of living just described), does not cease to be entitled to the keeping of the observances. If this were not so, then it would be absolutely necessary for the man to adopt only one mode of living.

‘These observances.’—‘Observance’ means mental determination, in the form—‘such and such an act is enjoined by the scriptures,—I should do this—or I should not do that.’

‘Conducive to heaven, longevity and fame.’— Some people have held that this mentions the results actually following from the keeping of the observances; and hence it is only persons desiring these results, that have to keep the observances.

This, however, is not right. As if this were so, then the observances would cease to be obligatory; and this would be incompatible with the term ‘nitya,’ ‘daily,’ ‘always,’ occurring in the next verse. Further, the Veda has indicated the obligatory character of these observances:—‘By not keeping these, one becomes beset with sin,’ Further, if Heaven and the rest were construed as something desired, they could not attain the position of being qualifications of the persons entitled to the observances.—(13)

Comparative notes by various authors
Mahābhārata (12.249.25-28).—‘The man who carries on, without complaint, the functions of the householder, purifies ten ancestors and ten descendants.... For householders whose self is under control a place in heaven is effectively secured.’

4.14

vedamūlatvāt smṛtīnāṃ vedoditamiti śrūyate | svarkaṃ karma vakṣyamāṇo vratasamūhaḥ | vihitatvāt svakamityucyate | nityaṃ kuryāt yāvajjīvama | atandrito'nalasaḥ | etadvratadhāraṇaṃ kurvanyathāśakti | anena satyāṃ śaktau yathāsambhavamanuṣṭhānamāha | taduktaṃ “manasā vā tatsamagramācāramanupālayan” | paramāṃ gatiṃ brahmatvaprāptirūpām |

He shall, without sloth, always perform his own duty as prescribed in the Veda. Performing that, to the best of his ability, he attains the highest state.—(14)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Prescribed in the Veda.’—This is said in view of the fact that the Smṛtis are all based upon the Veda.

‘His own duty.’—Consisting of the host of observances going to be described. Being prescribed for him, they are called ‘his own.’

‘Should always perform.’—i e., as long as he lives.

‘Without sloth’—i.e., free from laziness.

By doing this—i.e., by keeping the observances,—‘to the best of his ability;’—this implies that one is to perform just what he has the strength to perform. It is in view of this that it has been declared that—‘one may also observe all this mentally only.’

‘Highest state’—i.e., attainment of Brahman.—(14)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 217), which adds the following notes:—‘Nitya’ here stands for all that is done without any desire for personal gain’;—‘paramā gatiḥ’ means ‘deliverance’;—what is meant is that what leads to Deliverance is the performance of duty along with the true knowledge of the Supreme Self.

The verse is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 52),—and in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 48).

Comparative notes by various authors
Vaśiṣṭha (27.8).—[Reproduces Manu.]

4.15

prasajyeta yatra puruṣaḥ sa hi prasaṅgo'bhipreto gītavāditrādiḥ | tatra hi rāgiṇaḥ sajjantīva | ato gītavāditrādibhirarthāndhanāni neheta nārjayet | ‘viruddhaṃ karma’ pratiṣiddhaṃ śāstreṇa akulocitaṃ ca | na ca pitrādyāgateṣu dhaneṣu kalpamāneṣu sthitisamartheṣu | anyāni neccheta | nārtyāṃ āpadyapi yatastataḥ | prasahya saṃpratigraheṇa pravartitavyamekasyāpadyenamapyanujñāsyati |

He shall not seek wealth by clinging pursuits, or by contrary acts; nor when wealth is already there; nor from here and there, even in times of distress.—(15)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Clinging pursuits’ are those to which people become addicted; just as singing and music; to these passionate persons cling, as it were. Hence one shall not ‘seek’ —i.e., earn wealth by means of singing and music.

‘Contrary act’—i.e., that which is forbidden by the scriptures, or iś not in accordance with the usages of one’s family.

‘Nor when wealth’—enough for subsistence—‘is already there’—having been inherited from father and others;—one shall not seek for more,

‘Even in times of distress, not from here and there.’—As a rule, one should subsist on presents received from proper persons; but, in rare cases, the scripture shall permit a contrary course also, in times of distress.—(15)

‘Prasaṅgena’—‘Music, singing and such other things to which man becomes addicted’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka Rāghavānanda and Nandana);—‘with too great eagerness’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 59).

Comparative notes by various authors
Yājñavalkya (1.129).—‘He shall not seek for such wealth as may be incompatible with Vedic Study; nor from here and there; nor by recourse to what is improper; and he shall remain ever contented.’

Gautama (9.49).—‘Among Dharma, Artha and Kāma, he shall attach the greatest importance to Dharma.’

4.16

‘indriyāṇāmarthā’ viṣayā rūparasādayaḥ, teṣu na prasajyeta na saktimatyaṃtāṃ sevāṃ kuryāt | manoharā yuvatayaḥ vaṃśagītaṃ svādvannarasaḥ karpūrādigandhaḥ rāgavatsparśaḥ-ete viṣayāḥ | tānnātyantaṃ seveta | kāmataḥ kāmapradhānatayā | sarveṣu ayācitopana teṣvapi nityasevī syāt | atiprasaktiścaivaiṣām | nivṛttyupāyo'nena kathyate | na hi vastuprasaktirnivartituṃ śakyā--manasā tu pratipakṣabhāvanayā nivarthya | ādau tāvaddurupapādakatvam | upasthiteṣvapi bhuktapūrveṣu kṣaṇavirasatāsvabhāvaśca vināśitvaṃ śāstraniṣedhācca saṅgasya narakāpāta ityevamādi cintayet | yathoktaṃ (a0 2 ślo0 96) “na tathaitāni śakyaṃta” iti |

He shall not, through desires, become addicted to any sensual objects; excessive addiction to these, he shall avoid by mental reflection.—(10)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Sensual objects.’— Objects of sense, colour, taste, and the rest; — ‘to these he shall not become addicted,’—i.e., he shall not attend to them too much. Lovely young girls, sounds of flute and music, sweet taste, perfumes of camphor and other things, loving touch,—all these one shall not enjoy over much.

‘Through desire’—i.e., by reason of the predominating influence of desire.

In regard to all these, one should keep one’s own enjoyment under proper check; just in the same manner as one keeps one’s desire for wealth under check, by. restricting one’s earning? only to what one gets without begging.

‘Excessive addiction to these.’—This points out the method of restraining one’s desires. Attachment to objects cannot be checked by the mind; it can be checked by reflecting upon them as inimical to one’s best interests. At first, one should not seek to obtain them; and when they do come to one, and one has enjoyed them once, one should reflect upon the following facts relating to them:—These are such that in a moment they cease to be agreeable,—they are transient,—they are forbidden by the scriptures,—attachment to them leads to hell, and so forth. This is what has been already said under 2.96 above.—(16)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 217);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 10).

Comparative notes by various authors
Gautama (9.50).—‘He shall not give much scope to the sexual organs, the stomach, the hand, the feet, the speech and the eye.’

Āpastamba (2.5).—‘By controlling the activities of the mind, the speech, the breath, the eye, the ear, the tactile organ, the sexual organ,—he attains immortality.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.1).—‘Always using water, always wearing the sacred thread, daily studying the Veda, avoiding the Śūdra’s food, approaching his wife only during the season, offering oblations according to rule,—the Brāhmaṇa falls not from the region of Brahman.’

Yājñavalkya (1.122).—‘......Control of the senses......these are conducive to the accomplishment of Dharma, for all men.’

4.17

ye vedābhyāsavirodhino'rthāste sarve tyaktavyāḥ, rājāmātyagṛhopasthānādyayaḥ| ye'pyanayā lokayātrayā saktasya kṛṣikusīdādyadhikalābho bhavati tena ca poṣayiṣyate, tadā kuṭumbavibhavavataśca dāsīdāsaṃ bahu bhaviṣyatīti | sā hyasya snātakasya kṛtakṛtyatā kṛtārthatā yaṃ nityasvādhyāyī yathākathaṃcitkuṭumbakaṃ jīvayatīti |

He shall relinquish all things impeding study, maintaining himself somehow. This is what constitutes the accomplish ment of his aims.—(17)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Those things that are likely to obstruct Vedic study should all be relinquished; such acts, for instance, as attending upon the palaces of kings and ministers; as also the act of being overmuch addicted to worldly Affairs, constantly thinking of earning more and more wealth by means of money-lending and such other means, and thereby maintaining his family, and obtaining a prosperous household teeming with male and female slaves.

‘This constitutes the accomplishment of his aims’—i.e., of the Accomplished Student. The fact that, carrying on his daily study of the Veda, he maintains his family by some means or other, constitutes his highest success in life,—(17)

Comparative notes by various authors
Viṣṇu (71.4).—‘He shall not do any act that may obstruct Vedic Study.’

Yājñavalkya (1.121).—[See under 15.]

4.18

vayasa iti sārūpyāpekṣā ṣaṣṭhī | veṣavāgbuddhīti samāhāre dvandvaḥ | sārūpyamiti svārthe ṣyañ | tenāyamartho bhavati-vayādyucitā veṣādayaḥ kartavyāḥ | sārūpyamaucityam, anyasyākṛtyādeḥ sādṛśyāsambhavāt | veṣaḥ keśābharaṇādivinyāsaḥ | tatra prathame vayasi śikhaṇḍakaḥ, yauvane kauntalādidhāraṇaṃ, vārdhake jaṭāmuṇḍanādi | vayo'nurūpā vāk | evaṃ buddhiḥtrivargānuṣṭhānadhāraṇaṃ prathamaṃ, jīryataḥ kevalaṃ dharmapradhānam | karmānurūpo veṣaḥ arthānurūpaśca | tena hi bhāvitavyaṃ-kulānurūpeṇa daśanarāgadhammillādi uddhatamapi nauddhatyamāvahati | taduktaṃ "asya lokavyavahāro viṣaya" iti | etaduktaṃ bhavati | nāyaṃ vidhyarthaḥ, aparairniścitārthatvāt | lokavyavahāramūlastvayamanvādaḥ-'evaṃ vartamāno lokavṛttānuvartī bhavati, na lokadveṣyatāmeti' |

He should wander about in this world, keeping his dress, speech and thoughts in conformity with his age, occupation, wealth, learning and family.—(18)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Vayasaḥ,’ ‘with age,’— the genitive ending denotes relationship to‘conformity.’

‘Veṣavāgbuddhi.’—this is a copulative compound.

‘Sārūpyam.’—the affix ‘ṣyan’ has the reflexive force.

Thus the meaning comes to be as follows:—

Dress and the rest should be kept in due conformity with age and other things.

‘Sārūpya,’ means here conformity, compatibility; any other kind of ‘Sārūpya,’ ‘similarity,’—such as that of figure and the like—being impossible in this case.

‘Dress’ stands for the disposition of the hair, of ornaments, and so forth. Fop instance, during boy-hood, hair is to be worn in tufts; during youth, it shall be worn in curls and such other shapes; while in old age it shall be either worn clotted, or shall be clean shaven.

‘Speech’ also should be in conformity with age. Similarly, ‘thoughts’ also; that is, during early life the man should think of the triad (of wealth, pleasure and religious merit); but as he grows old, his thoughts should rest mainly on Religious Merit.

Dress should also be in conformity with one’s occupation, as also with one’s wealth; it should be in conformity with one’s family also. So that such things as painting of the teeth and dressing of the hair, etc., even though otherwise flagrant, cease to be so when they are in keeping with one’s occupation etc.

It has been said that the present verse deals with ordinary worldly activity. That is to say, it does not lay down an Injunction;—the injunctive portion of it having been already got out from other sources. All that the verse does is to describe the ordinary usage of the world; the sense being that if one behaves in accordance with this, one follows the ways of the world, and hence does not become unpopular among men.—(18)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 36);—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 71).

Comparative notes by various authors
Viṣṇu (1.5-6).—‘He shall dress in accordance with his age;—also in conformity with his learning, his family, his circumstances and his country.’

Yājñavalkya (1.123).—‘He shall behave in a straightforward and sincere manner, in conformity with his age, intelligence, wealth, speech, dress, learning, family and duties.’