History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c39.13

v3.c39.13

The honouring of guests comes after the offering of bali and Baud. gṛ. II. 9. 1-2, Vas. XI. 6, Viṣṇupurāṇa III. 11. 55 ordain that after *baliharaṇa* the householder should wait in front of the yard of his house for as much time as would be required for milking a cow or for a longer time at his desire for receiving guests. Others make it a definite time viz. one-eighth of a *muhūrta* (vide Mārk. purāṇa 29. 24-25 quoted in Sm. C. I., p. 217).¹⁷⁹⁵ The Āp. Dh. S. contains a very elaborate treatment of honouring guests (II. 3. 6. 3 to II. 4. 9. 6). Gaut. V. 36, Manu III. 102-103 and Yāj. I. 107 and 111 state that he is called an atithi who belonging to a different village and intending to stay one night only arrives in the evening, that one who has already been invited for dinner is not an atithi properly so called, that a person who belongs to the same village or who is a friend or fellow-student is not an atithi, that one has to honour guests according to one's ability, that guests are to be preferred according to the order of varṇas and that among the brāhmaṇas, the śrotriya and one who has completely mastered (at least one) recension of the Veda is to be preferred. Vas. Dh. S. XI. 6 says that the worthiest are to be honoured first. Gaut. V. 39-42 and Manu III. 110-112 say that a kṣatriya is not really an atithi to a brāhmaṇa nor are vaiśyas nor śūdras; but they add that,¹⁷⁹⁶ if a kṣatriya comes to a brāhmaṇa's house as a guest (i. e. as a traveller who has no food with him and about the time of taking food) he should be treated to a meal after brāhmaṇa guests take their food and vaiśya and śūdra guests should be given food by a brāhmaṇa householder along with his servants and thereby he should show his kindliness. Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 5 requires the householder to give food to all who come at the end of the Vaiśvadeva, even including cāṇḍālas, but it mentions the view of some that one need not give food to unworthy persons (vide note 1779 above). Commentators like Haradatta explain that, in the case of worthy guests, if the householder does not give food, though able, he incurs sin; but in the case of unworthy people he incurs no blemish by not giving, but if he gives to them also, he secures merit. Vṛddha-Gautama (pp. 535-536) calls upon a householder to treat even a cāṇḍāla with consideration. Parāśara (I. 40) and Śātātapa went so far¹⁷⁹⁷ as to say that even if a householder hates a visitor or the latter is a fool, the householder should give him food if he arrives at the time of meals. Śāntiparva 146. 5 says that even an enemy when he comes to one's house as a guest must be hospitably treated, as a tree does not remove its shade from one who approaches it to fell it. But Āp. Dh. S. II. 3. 6. 19, Manu IV. 213, Yāj. I. 162 are opposed to this and state that a guest who is at enmity with the host shall not eat his food, nor shall he eat the food of a host who accuses him or suspects him of a crime. Vṛddha-Hārīta (8. 239-240) states the humane rule 'if a traveller is a śūdra or belongs to a pratiloma caste (such as a cāṇḍāla) and comes to one's house tired and hungry, the householder should give him food; but if a heretic or a patita (one outcast for grave sins) comes in that condition, one should not give him cooked food, but only grain. Compare Manu IV. 30. Vṛddha-Gautama (chap. 6, p. 535 and chap. 12, p. 590, Jīvānanda part 2) says the same about a cāṇḍāla or śvapāka being given cooked food. Baud. gṛ. II. 9. 21 enjoins welcome to all travellers including cāṇḍālas.