Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

Verse 2.140 [Meaning of the Title ‘Ācārya’]

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

उपनीय तु यः शिष्यं वेदमध्यापयेद् द्विजः ।
सकल्पं सरहस्यं च तमाचार्यं प्रचक्षते ॥ १४० ॥

upanīya tu yaḥ śiṣyaṃ vedamadhyāpayed dvijaḥ |
sakalpaṃ sarahasyaṃ ca tamācāryaṃ pracakṣate || 140 ||

The Brāhmana who, having initiated a pupil, teaches him the Veda along with the Ritualistic and esoteric treatises,—him they call, ‘Ācārya,’ ‘Preceptor’—(140)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present section is taken up for determining the exact signification of ‘Ācārya’ (Preceptor) and other terms. As a matter of fact, people make use of these names on the basis of certain qualifications; and this particular matter has not been dealt with by Pāṇini and other writers on the subject of the meanings of words. What the present text says regarding the meaning of the titles is based, like the Smṛti of Pāṇini and others, upon usage, not upon the Veda; as it does not prescribe anything to be done; that such and such a word means such and such a thing is a well-established fact, not something to be accomplished.

Having initiated,’—i.e., having performed the Initiatory Rite,—‘he who teaches’—makes him get up—‘the Veda’—is the ‘preceptor.’ The ‘getting up’ of the Veda here meant consists in the remembering of the exact words of the text, independently of other learners.

Kalpa,’ ‘Ritualistic Treatise,’—stands here for all the Subsidiary Sciences.—‘Esoteric Treatises’ are the Upaniṣads. Though these latter also are inoluded under the name ‘Veda,’ yet the text has mentioned them separately by the name ‘Esoteric Treatises,’ with a view to remove the misconception that these are not Veda,—a misconception that might arise from the fact that they have a second name ‘Vedānta,’ where the term ‘anta’ denotes ‘proximity’ (only, not identity).

Others have explained the term ‘rahasya,’ ‘Esoteric Treatises,’ to mean ‘the meaning of the Vedic texts’; and by this explanation, the teaching of the verbal text only would not make one a ‘Teacher,’ it would be necessary ‘for him to explain the meaning also.’ To this effect we have the following declaration in the Abhidhāna-Kośa;—‘He who expounds the meanings of mantras is called the Preceptor”;—here the term ‘mantra’ stands for all Vedic passages.

In accordance with this explanation, the learning of the meaning also, and not the mere getting up of the Text, would be prompted by the injunction of ‘becoming a Preceptor so that for every man the injunction of Vedic study would come to be carried out by other persons.

“That may be so; but even when the Injunction of Vedic study is carried out by other persons, the purpose of the student becomes accomplished all the same.”

In that case then, since ‘becoming a Preceptor’ is a purely voluntary act, if the Teacher does not have recourse to the necessary activity, then the carying out of the injunction of Vedic study would remain unaccomplished; so that this injunction of Vedic study would no longer be compulsory.

Then again, as a matter of fact, the term ‘rahasya,’ ‘esoteric treatise,’ is not ordinarily known as denoting the ‘explanation of the meaning of Vedic texts.’

From all this it is clear that the purpose of adding the term ‘rahasya’ is as explained before.

Or, the separate mention of the ‘Upaniṣads,’ may be explained as indicating the importance of that part of the Veda.

As regards the declaration quoted above—‘he is called Preceptor who explains the meaning of mantras,’—this is not a Smṛti (and hence not authoritative). Nor is there any ground for taking the term ‘mantra’ as standing for Vedic texts in general.

For all these reasons it is dear that the purpose of the present Injunction lies in the reading of the mere Text. So that when the boy has accomplished the getting up of the words of the Veda, this also means that he has carried out the injunction of ‘becoming a Teacher.’—(140)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Rahasyam’—‘The Upaniṣads, along with their explanations—(Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nandana, and Rāghavānanda);—‘the esoteric explanations of the Vedas and the subsidiary sciences,—not the Upaniṣads, these being included in the term ‘Veda’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse has supplied Prabhākara with his text on which to base the entire enquiry into the nature of Dharma. Kumārila has taken as his basic text the Vedic text ‘svādhyāyo’dhyetavyaḥ’ (), and has proceeded to explain that the ‘Svādhyāya,’ ‘Vedic Study,’ herein enjoined cannot be the mere reading up of the verbal text of the Veda, but also a due understanding of its meaning; and as this meaning could not be comprehended without careful investigation, it becomes necessary to undertake the investigation initiated by the Mīmāṃsā Śāstra,

The sentence ‘svādhyāyo’dhyetavyaḥ’ contains in reality the injunction of that Vedic recitation which is done daily, and not of the initial study and scrutiny of the sense etc. Hence Mādhava (in Parāśaramādhava, Ācāra, p. 1'40) has suggested that the basic text for Kumārila should have been that Vedic text which we assume on the basis of the Smṛti-rules relating to Upanayana.

Prabhākara does not accept Kumārila’s view. He argues that, according to the view of Kumārila, any and every man—twice-born or otherwise—would be entitled to Vedic study, only if he fulfils the condition of desiring to know Dharma. Prabhākara bases his enquiry into Dharma and Vedic study on the rule ‘aṣṭavarṣam brāhmaṇam upanayīta’, where the Ātmanepada standing in ‘upanayīta’ clearly implies that the Upanayana, Initiation of the Pupil, is meant to serve some purpose for the Initiator himself; this purpose is no other than the acquiring of the title of ‘Ācārya—how this title can be acquired is explained in the present text of Manu, according to which that man alone is to be called Ācārya. who (a) initiates the pupil, and (b) teaches him the Veda along with the Ritualistic and Esoteric Treatises. The motive-desire thus, for all this study and investigation is on the part of the teacher, and not on that of the pupil; it is the Teacher who desires to acquire for himself the title of Ācārya and as this cannot be done without teaching, the pupil comes in only as the person to be taught; and as the latter cannot be a pupil until he studies, this studying by the pupil is implied by the above texts. This explanation avoids the difficulty of a non-dvija undertaking. Vedic study; the prospective Teacher being a learned man, conversant with the law, would never admit a non - dvija pupil. Though the injunction of Vedic study is thus implied in the above-quoted texts, yet they do not supply the motive for the pupil; the Teacher’s desire for obtaining a title and honor cannot serve as a motive for the pupil; hence, it is explained, the motive purpose of the pupil lies in his desire to learn the meaning of the Veda; this is what leads him to proceed with the investigation into Dharma.

This view of Prabhākara has been combated, in its turn, by Mādhava (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, pp. 138-139), who argues that Teaching having been laid down as means of livelihood, it is clearly a Kāmya-karma—an act prompted by physical motives—and hence anitya, non-obligatory; as such it cannot be accepted as the sole prompter of the act of Vedic Study, which is nitya, obligatory; the latter must have an independent injunction for itself.

It is in connection with the above discussion in course of its presentation of Prabhākara’s view, that the present verse has been quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 137); and again on p. 304, where it is put forward as setting forth the definition of the ‘Ācārya’ as distinguished from the ‘Upādhyāya.’

The verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 477), as defining the ‘Ācārya’—where ‘Kalpa’ is explained as a particular treatise which lays down, on the basis of clearly perceptible Vedic texts, the practical details of ritual; and as including the other subsidiary sciences also;—and ‘rahasya’ as Upaniṣads,—these being mentioned separately (from the Veda) by reason of their importance;—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 45) which explains ‘rahasyam’ as standing for the Upaniṣads.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 30);—in Aparārka (p. 65), which adds that the term ‘Kalpa’ includes Grammar and the other subsidiary sciences, as also Mīmāṃsā and Nyāya,—the etymological meaning of the term being ‘that which determines (kalpayati) the meaning of the Veda;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 90) to the effect that the Ācārya is to teach not only the Veda, but the Upaniṣads, and the Ritualistic Manuals &c., also.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.10-11.—‘The Upanayana is the second birth.... He from whom this is received is the Ācārya.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.24-27.—‘He from whom one gathers (learns, ācinoti) his duties is the Ācārya; he brings about the essence of knowledge; this constitutes the highest birth.’

Vaśiṣṭha-smṛti, 3. 24.—‘He who having initiated him, teaches him the entire Veda is the Ācārya.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 29.1.—‘He who having initiated the pupil and taught him the observances, teaches him the Veda, should be known as the Ācārya.’

Yājñavalkya-smṛti, 1.34.—‘He who, after initiating, teaches the Veda is called the Ācārya.’

Tama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 478).—‘He is called Ācārya who is truthful in speech, steady, expert, kind to all beings, orthodox, devoted to the Veda and pure.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: