History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c39.26

v3.c39.26

If after some guests have been fed another guest or a batch of guests arrives, then the householder should have food cooked again, but in such a case no fresh vaiśvadeva and baliharaṇa are necessary. Vide Manu III. 105 and 108. It has been already shown from the Śatapatha that the householder is not to partake of meals before the guests, but rather after the guests. The Āp. Dh. S. II. 3. 7. 3 states ¹⁸⁰⁴ 'he who eats before his guest eats (destroys) food, prosperity, progeny, cattle and merit of his own house'. Manu III. 114 (= Viṣṇu Dh. S. 67. 39) allows the householder to feed newly married girls (his daughters or sisters), unmarried girls, persons who are ill, and pregnant women even before guests; while Gautama V. 23 says that these should be fed at the same time as the guests. Manu III. 113, 116-118, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 67. 38-43, Yāj. I. 105, 108, Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 10,¹⁸⁰⁵ Baud. Dh. S. II. 3. 19 say that one should feed one's friends, relatives and one's servants and then the householder and his wife should dine, that one should not stint one's servants and slaves (who are to be fed daily with food) in order to be able to feed guests, that he who eats before these (guests, relatives, young women of the house, servants) will have his soul harassed by vultures after death, that he who cooks food for himself only swallows merely sin and that when he eats what remains after offering yajña to gods, beings, pitṛs and guests, he really eats. Manu III. 285 (= Vanaparva II. 60) says that ' *vighasa* is what is left after brāhmaṇas and guests have partaken and *amṛta* is what is left after being offered in sacrifice and one should always eat these.' Baud. Dh. S. (II. 3. 68 and 21-22) says¹⁸⁰⁶ "all beings subsist on food, the Veda declares 'food is life'; therefore food should be given, as food is the highest offering. One should not take food without giving it to others" and quotes two verses said to have been sung by food itself. It is on account of these sentiments that are ingrained even to-day in the minds of all Hindus that no Poor Law and no work-houses were required in India. This sentiment undoubtedly leads to abuses, but what system is not without abuses? The Poor Law and work-houses have their own abuses and the general tax-payer has probably to pay more for relief to the poor, the destitute and unemployed in England than under the Indian system of feeding the poor voluntarily.