Manava Dharmashastra 6.88

6.88

“nanu ca saṃnyāsikakarmāṇi vakṣyāmīti pratijñāya''śramānukramaṇamaprakṛtam ”| kecidāhurna saṃnyāsa āśramantaramatraivāntarbhāvo'syeti darśayitum | sa ca kasmin | gṛhasthe'ntarbhāvitaḥ | gṛhe hi vāsastasya | anyaistu pravrajyāyām | saṃgatyāgasāmānyāt | ato nāsyāntarbhāve prayojanaṃ, puruṣadharmairyatidharmaiśca na yāgādāvadhikariṣyati | vaiśeṣikaiśca svaśabdavidhānāt | anāśramitvāt | “saṃvatsaramanāśramīti, prāyaścittaprasaṅgāditi” cet vacanenaivāsyā vyavasthāyā vihitatvātkutaḥ prāyaścittaprāptiḥ | tasmādgṛhasthāditulyatayā saṃnyāsikaṃ praśaṃsitumāśramāntarasaṃkīrtanam | tacca samuccayaṃ draḍhayitum | gṛhasthānāmavasthitireṣāmityarthaḥ | gṛhasthaḥ prabhavaḥ sthitihetureṣāmiti vigrahaḥ || 87-88 ||

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
(verses 6.87-88)
Objection:—“Inasmuch as the author has promised that he is going to expound the duties of the Renouncer of the Veda, the assertion of the sequence of the life-stages is entirely irrelevant.”

In answer to this some people have explained that the four life-stages have been mentioned in the present context with a view to show that ‘Renunciation (of the Veda)’ is not a distinct stage, being included among these same four; and the question arising as regards the particular stage in which it is included, the present verse points out that it is included in the state of the ‘Householder’; since the man has to dwell in the ‘house.’

Others however point out that the said ‘Renunciation of the Veda’ is to be included under the fourth stage of ‘going forth as a mendicant’, since it resembles this latter on this point that in both there is ‘renouncing of attachments’; nor is any need for including it under any one stage; because by virtue of the qualities of the man and of the Renunciate, the man would no longer have anything to do with sacrifices and other acts; specially as these have been enjoined by means of such specific words and expressions as restrict them to a definite lifestage.

“But if the man belongs to no life-stage, he would be liable to the penalty of the expiatory rite that has been prescribed for one who, for one year, remains outside the pale of all orders.”

Since such a state of things would have been brought about by the strict observance of the words of the text, how could there be any liability to an expiatory penance?