Manava Dharmashastra 5.1

5.1

brahmacārigṛhasthayoradhyāyatrayeṇa ye dharmā vihitāstāñchrutvā ṛṣayo marīcyādayo bhṛgumācāryamidaṃ vakṣyamāṇaṃ vastubruvan pṛṣṭavantaḥ | "nanu cātra snātakasyeti śrūyate | tatra brahmacārigrahaṇaṃ kimartham ?" | ucyate | vṛttasaṃkīrtanametat | brahmacāriṇo dharmā uktā eva | mahātmānamanalaprabhavamiti ca bhṛguviśeṣaṇam | analādagneḥ prabhava utpattiryasya tam | "nanu prathame'dhyāye 'ahaṃ prajāḥ sisṛkṣuḥ' ityatra manorapatyaṃ bhṛguruktaḥ" | satyam | arthavādaḥ | amutra agneḥ sakāśādbhūgorjanma śrutaṃ taddarśanenaivamuktam | tathā ca nāmanirvacanam | "aśadretasaḥ prathamamudadīṣyata tadasāvādityo'bhavat yaddvitīyamāsīttadbhūguriti" | upacārato vaitaducyate | tejasvitāsāmānyādagneriva prasava iti | na cātrābhiniveṣṭavyaṃ kataraḥ pakṣo yukta iti | anirdaṃparatvādasya śāstrasya | sarva evāyaṃ praśnaprativacanasandarbhoṃ vakṣyamāṇasyānnadoṣasya gauravajñāpanārthaḥ | parigrahaduṣṭādannasvabhāvaduṣṭaṃ gurutaramiti | sambandhadoṣātsvarūpadoṣo balavānantaraṅgatvāt | "nanu ca pūrvaṃ bahutaraṃ prāyaścittaṃ śrūyate 'amatyā cāpagaṃ tryahamiti' | iha tu 'śeṣeṣūpavasedahariti' | tatkathamasya gurutaratvam ?" | ucyate | laśunādyapekṣametat | teṣu hi 'matyā jagdhvā pate'diti patitaprāyaścittaṃ bhavati | |

The sages, having heard the duties of the Accomplished Student as just described, said this to the high-souled Bhṛgu, who sprang from fire.—(1)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Having heard the duties of the Student and the Householder as expounded in the foregoing three Discourses, the great Sages, Marīci and others, ‘said to’—asked the following question of—Bhṛgu, their teacher.

“In the text we find the expression of the Accomplished Student—‘snātakasya’; why then do you bring in the Student?”

Our answer to this is that the present verse is meant to be descriptive of what has gone before; and as a matter of fact, the duties of the Student also have been described.

‘High-souled’ and ‘who sprang from the fire’ are the epithets of Bhṛgu;—‘He whose origination was from the fire.’

“But in discourse I, verse 34, Bhṛgu has been spoken of as the son of Manu”.

True; but what was stated there was an imaginary commendation, while what is said here is in accordance with the account found in the Vedas of Bhṛgu having been born out of fire. The name ‘Bhṛgu’ has been thus explained—‘What rose out first out of the fallen semen was the Sun, and what rose as the second was Bhṛgu’. Or, what is asserted here may be only figurative; the origin of Bhṛgu being described as ‘Fire’, on the basis of similarity, as regards effulgence.

In any case, it is not necessary to lay stress upon either of the two explanations as being the more reasonable of the two; because this is not what forms the main subject-matter of the treatise.

The whole of the text, describing the question and the answer, is meant to indicate the importance of the subject of the evils attaching to food; the moaning being that the evils attaching to the food itself are more serious than those attaching to the nature of its gift and acceptance; and this on the ground that the defects attaching to the thing itself are more intimate, and hence more serious, than those arising from contact.

“In connection with the defects of contact, the Expiatory Rite that is laid down is a three days’ fast; while that in connection with the thing itself, is a single day’s fast (5. 20). How then can this latter be said to be more serious?”

Our answer is as follows:—The greater seriousness here spoken of refers to garlic and such things, in connection with which it is stated that—‘by eating these intentionally the man becomes an outcast’ (5.19); so that the expiation necessary would be that which has been prescribed for outcasts (which is very serious).—(1)