Verse 2.1 [Dharma defined]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

विद्वद्भिः सेवितः सद्भिर्नित्यमद्वेषरागिभिः ।
हृदयेनाभ्यनुज्ञातो यो धर्मस्तं निबोधत ॥ १ ॥

vidvadbhiḥ sevitaḥ sadbhirnityamadveṣarāgibhiḥ |
hṛdayenābhyanujñāto yo dharmastaṃ nibodhata || 1 ||

Learn that Dharma, which has been ever followed by, and sanctioned by the heart of, the learned and the good, who are free from love and hate.—(1)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The First Discourse was undertaken for the purpose of showing the real character of the subject-matter dealt with by the Treatise; the description of the creation of the World and such other subjects have also been explained as supplementary to the said delineation of the subject-matter of the Treatise. It is now that the Treatise actually begins. As the promised subject of the Discourse, interrupted by the description of world-creation and such other subjects, may have been lost sight of,—the Teacher again addresses his pupils with a view to recall the subject to their minds.

That ‘Dharma,’ which you desired to learn is now being expounded by me,—please now ‘learn,’—i.e., be attentive and listen.

In Discourse I, five or six verses (85—91) were meant to point out the purpose of the Treatise; the rest of it is mere ‘declamatory description’ (Arthavāda). So that, if all that has not been carefully learnt, there is not much harm; in the present Discourse however ‘Dharma’ itself is being directly expounded; hence this subject should be carefully learnt. This is the meaning of the re-iteration (in this verse, of Dharma being the subject-matter of the Treatise).

The term ‘dharma,’ as already explained, denotes the performance of the Aṣṭakā and such other prescribed acts. External philosophers regard as ‘dharma’ also such acts as the wearing of ashes, the carrying of begging-bowls, and so forth;—and it is with a view to exclude these from the category of ‘Dharma’ that the author adds the qualifications—‘followed by the learned,’and so forth.

The ‘learned’ are those whose minds have been cultured by the study of the sciences; those that are capable of discerning the real character of the means of knowledge and the objects of knowledge. The ‘learned’ (meant here) are those who know the real meaning of the Veda, and not others. In fact those persons that admit sources other than the Veda to be the ‘means of knowledge’ in regard to Dharma are ‘unlearned,’ ‘ignorant’; in as much as their notions of the means and objects of knowledge are wrong. That this is so, we learn thoroughly from Mīmāmsā (Sūtra, Adhyāya I).

The ‘Good,’—i.e., righteous men; those who translate into action what is known from authoritative sources, and who always try to obtain what is wholesome and avoid what is not wholesome;—what is ‘wholesome’ and ‘not wholesome’ among visible things is well known; among the ‘Unseen,’ that which forms the subject of ‘Injunction’ is ‘wholesome,’ while that which forms the subject of ‘prohibition’ is ‘not wholesome.’ Those who are outside the said pale of acting in accordance with the said authoritative sources of knowledge are called ‘not good’ (unrighteous). It is for these reasons that both knowledge and acting have been mentioned here (by means of the two epithets, ‘learned’ and ‘good’).

It is not possible for the term ‘saṭ' (in ‘sadbhiḥ’) to be taken in the sense of existing at the present time; because in this sense the epithet would be entirely superfluous: when a certain thing is ‘followed’ by one, it is only when this latter exists at the time [so that existence would be already implied by the other epithet.]

By ‘following’ in the present context is meant capability of acting (in conformity with). The Past-participial affix (in ‘sevitaḥ,’ ‘followed’) indicates the fact of the Dharma having been in force from times without beginning. As a matter of fact, such Dharma as consists of the Aṣṭakā and other rites are not, like ordinary Dharmas or Duties, set up by any person during the present time. This same fact is also indicated by the term ‘ever.’ (The sense is that) this Dharma has continued ever since the world-process has been going on. All other extraneous Dharmas, being set up by ignorant and wicked persons, though they may obtain currency for some time, drop out in course of time; no mere delusion can continue for thousands of ages. True knowledge on the other hand, even though it may for a time be shrouded by ignorance, shines forth in all its brilliance, upon the destruction of that ignorance. Being by its very nature, pure and brilliant, it can never undergo entire destruction.

‘Who are free from love and hate’—What is referred to here is another cause that leads men to take to heterodox dharmas. ‘Delusion’ having been already described (as leading to the same end), the present phrase serves to indicate greed and the rest; the direct mention of ‘love and hate’ being meant to be only illustrative; e.g., it is by reason of Greed that people have recourse to magical incantations and rites. Or ‘Greed’ may he regarded as included (not merely indicated) by ‘Love and Hate.’ People who are too much addicted to what brings pleasure to themselves, on finding themselves unable to carry on their living by other means, are found to have recourse to such means of livelihood as the assuming of hypocritical guises and so forth. This has been thus described—‘The wearing of ashes and carrying of begging bowls, being naked, wearing of discoloured clothes—these form the means of living for people devoid of intelligence and energy.’

‘Hate,’—leads to the performance of acts contrary to those prescribed. People filled with hate are not quite capable of comprehending the truth; and hence they come to regard the wrong act (adharma) as the right one (dharma).

Or, both ‘Love’ and ‘Hate’ may be regarded as obstacles to the discernment of truth. As a matter of fact, even when some slight knowledge of the scriptures has been acquired, and the man has acquired the name of being ‘learned,’—there is every possibility of his acting otherwise (than in strict accordance with the scriptures), if he happens to be under the influence of love or hate. For instance, people, though fully conversant with the scriptures, do commit such wrong acts as the giving of false evidence, with a view either to do harm to some one whom he hates, or to do good to some one whom he loves, and certainly one cannot be sure that such acting of these people is based upon the Veda; for the simple reason that there are present other forces (controlling his action), in the shape of Love and Hate. It is for this reason that these are prohibited.

The following objection is hero put forward:—“In the word ‘sadbhiḥ,’ the term ‘saṭ’ has been explained as denoting righteousness; but what sort of righteousness could belong to the man for whom it is considered possible to do wrong under the influence of Love and Hate? Consequently, it is not necessary to add the epithet ‘free from love and hate’ (this being already implied by the word ‘good’).”

[Our answer to the above is as follows]—As a matter of fact, the epithet in question (‘free from love and hate’) is mentioned as the reason or ground (of the aforementioned ‘goodness’ or ‘righteousness’); the sense being that ‘it is because they are free from Love and Hate that they are good.’

What is really meant is the absence of undue predominance of Love and Hate (and not absolute absence); because no man, even though there be forces at work tending to make him free from Love and Hate, can get rid of these entirely, as declared by Śruti (Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 8-12-1)—‘So long as one has a body, there can be no cessation of the agreeable and the disagreeable.’

‘Love’ here stands for hankering after the enjoyment of things; and ‘Hate’ is that which leads one to avoid or escape from a certain thing. ‘Greed’ is the jealous hankering after the sole possession of an object; the feeling being in the form ‘may all this prosperity, fame and the like not belong to any other person.’ All these are functions of the Mind. Or, ‘Love’ may be taken as standing for the affection one feels towards sentient beings, like one’s wife, son, relations and so forth; and ‘greed’ for the longing that one has for riches and such insentient things.

‘By the heart.’—‘Heart’ here stands for the Mind;—‘sanction’ is satisfaction of mind. The real condition of things is this: Buḍḍhi and other principles are located inside the Heart; and even though deluded persons have recourse to such unrighteous acts as the killing of animals apart from sacrifices, the eating of prohibited food and so forth,—thinking them to be right ‘Dharma,’—yet they have compunctions in their hearts; in the case of the performance of actions prescribed in the Veda, on the other hand, the Mind feels satisfied.

The sense of all this is as follows:—‘The Dharma that I am going to expound is not one beset with the said defects;—it is one that is actually followed by high-souled persons and towards which the Mind itself urges us. For these reasons it is only right that great regard should be paid to the Dharmas that are going to be propounded.’

Or, ‘Heart’ may be taken as standing for the Veda; the Veda, duly studied and borne within the heart in the form of ideas and conceptions, is called ‘heart.’

The present statement refers to the following three cases:—(1) when a person, without much thought, undertakes an action, through sheer impulse,—it must be right; this is what is meant by ‘sanctioned by the heart’;—(2) the same expression also includes the case when one acts according to custom, depending upon the dictum ‘that is the right path by which great men have gone’;—(3) when ‘learned’ persons, without any ulterior motives, are found to act in a certain manner they are never blamed for it, and even when people do not find their action authorised (by the Veda), they accept the fact that it must be based upon the Veda. In every way the present verse makes men have recourse to activity.

Other people explain this verse as serving the purpose of providing a general definition of ‘Dharma’; the sense being—‘that which is done by such persons should be regarded as Dharma’; this definition is applicable to all forms of Dharma,—that which is directly prescribed by the Veda, that which is laid down in the Smṛti and also that which is got at from Right Usage. In accordance with this explanation, however, the right reading would be—‘yaḥ elaih sevyate tam dharmam nibodhata.’

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Hṛdayenābhyanujñātaḥ’—The term ‘hṛdaya’ stands for the heart—conscience. The phrase stands for what is spoken of later on, in verse 6 below, as ‘ātmanastuṣṭih’ Medhātithi has suggested that ‘hṛdaya’ may stand for the Veda.

Medhātithi (p. 48. l. 15). ‘Mīmāṃsātaḥ’—This refers to Mīmāṃsāta Sūtra I. i—2 ‘Chodanālakṣaṇo'artho dharmaḥ.’

This verse has been quoted in the Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 80), in corroboration of the definition of Dharma provided by Viśvāmitra, that ‘Dharma is that which when done is praised by good men learned in the scriptures.’ From this it follows that according to this writer ‘hṛdayenāvhyanujñātaḥ’ means the samething as ‘Yam āryāḥ praśaṃsanti’ in Viśvāmitra’s definition.—It is quoted in Hemādri (Vrata, p. 10), which explains hṛdayenābhyanujñātaḥ as ‘which is definitely known in the mind, for certain,’ find ‘adveṣarāgibhiḥ’ as ‘persons free from improper love and hate—in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 80), which adds the following notes—This verse supplies a definition of Dharma in general. ‘Vidvadbhiḥ’ those conversant with what is contained in the Veda;—‘Sadbhiḥ,’ those who have the right knowledge of things;—these two qualifications are meant to indicate that ‘Dharma’ is rightly known by means of the Veda;—‘adveṣarāgibhiḥ,’ free from such love and hate as are conducive to evil this is meant to indicate that Dharma is that which is not conducive to any undesirable effects; —‘ hṛdayenabhyanujñātaḥ indicates that Dharma is conducive to all that is good; as it is only the good to which men’s minds are attracted:—thus then the complete definition of Dharma, as indicated by the text, is that it is that which, not being conducive to any evil effects, is known through the Veda as conducive to good. The three qualifications serve the purpose of excluding such acts as the performance of the Śyena sacrifice.—This definition of ‘Dharma,’ ‘Right,’ also implies that of ‘Adharma,’ ‘Wrong,’ as that which is known through the Veda as conducive to evil.’

This is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 13); and in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 156).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Vaśiṣṭha, Dharmaśāstra—‘Dharma is that which is enjoined in Śruti and Smṛti.’

Jaimini, Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, 1.1.2.—‘Dharma is that which is described in the Veda as conducive to good.’

Kaṇāda, Vaiśeṣika-Sūtra, 1.2.2.—‘That is Dharma which brings about prosperity and the highest good.’

Āpastamba, Dharma-Sūtra, 1.20.7.—‘That the doing whereof gentlemen praise is Dharma, and that which they deprecate is Adharma.’

Kumārila, Ślokavārtika, 2.14.—‘The fact of these acts being conducive to good is, in every case, learnt from the Veda; and in this sense are they regarded as Dharma; and for this reason Dharma is not perceptible by the senses.’

Viśvāmitra (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 80).—‘That the doing of which men learned in the scriptures praise is Dharma; that which they deprecate is called Adharma.’

Under all these definitions ‘Dharma’ is the name of the ‘meritorious act’; but the term has also been used in the sense of the merit acquired by the doing of the act.

Nyāya view (quoted in Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, p.29).—‘Dharma is that quality of man which is brought about by the performance of the enjoined act: Adharma is that quality of man which is brought about by the performance of the forbidden act.’