Verse 2.168

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

योऽनधीत्य द्विजो वेदमन्यत्र कुरुते श्रमम् ।
स जीवन्नेव शूद्रत्वमाशु गच्छति सान्वयः ॥ १६८ ॥

yo'nadhītya dvijo vedamanyatra kurute śramam |
sa jīvanneva śūdratvamāśu gacchati sānvayaḥ || 168 ||

The twice-born man, who, not having learnt the veda, labours over other things, soon falls, along with his descendants, even while living, to the state of the śūdra.—(168)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Some persons (as noted above) have explained the term ‘entire’ (of the preceding verse) to include the Subsidiary Sciences; and according to this view, it might be thought that the study of these might be taken up in any order one might choose, without any restriction; hence the present verse proceeds to lay down a definite order,—viz., the Veda should be learnt first, then the Subsidiary Sciences. Others have however taken the term ‘entire’ to preclude the possibility of men being content with the learning of parts only of the Veda; and according to these, the ‘learning of the Veda’ naturally comes up first, after the completion of the ‘Traividya’ observances (of the Upanayana) so that (what the present verse means is that) until the Veda has been learnt, the learning. of the Sciences cannot be permitted.

‘The twice-born man’—Brāhmaṇa—‘who, not having learnt the Veda, labours’;—devotes attention—‘over other subjects,’ i.e.,—the Subsidiary Sciences, or treatises on Reasonings—‘falls, even while living, to the state of the Śūdra’—‘soon’—quickly,—‘along with his descendants’;—i.e., accompanied by his son, grandson and other descendants.

‘Labour’—is great effort. Since the absolute prohibition of labour over the study of the Sciences cannot be intended, all that is meant is that these latter are to be studied during the time available, after the Veda has been learnt.

The mention of ‘falling to the state of the Śūdra’ is meant to express excessive deprecation.

The use of the term ‘twice-born’ implies that the restriction herein laid down regarding the rules of study applies to only one who has gone through the Initiatory Rites; and before Initiation, the study of such Subsidiary Sciences as of Phonetics, Grammar, and the rest as are not interspersed with quotations from the Veda, is not prohibited.

“The study of the Subsidiary Sciences is implied by the Injunction of Vedic Study; and this injunction is acted up to by the boy prompted by his Teacher; so that before Initiation, there being no Teacher, how can there be a study of the Subsidiary Sciences?”

There is no force in this objection. According to the assertion—‘the child who is taught by his father they call efficient’—the Initiatory sanctification might be performed by the father; who, before the Initiation, will teach him the Science of Grammar and the rest.—(168)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 510) as declaring the omission of Vedic study to be sinful; and adds that this text lays down directly the compulsory character of the study, which has been already indirectly indicated by the injunction of the compulsory daily duties: and the effect of this direct declaration comes to be this that the omission of the study (as a compulsory duty) involves sin; specially as for this omission special expiatory rites have been prescribed.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 49) as declaring that there is sin in the omission of Vedic study, which is a duty duly enjoined. It is interesting to note however that this assertion has come from the Pūrvapakṣin, and the Siddhānta view put forward is that what this verse is pointing to is only that ante-natal sin which is the cause of the sloth to which the omission of the study and such other duties is due; and it is added that what the due performance of the obligatory duty does is either (1) to maintain the ‘absence of sin’ or (2) to destroy the said ante-natal sin.

The same work quotes the verse again, on page 140, in support of the view that Vedic study is an obligatory duty.

The same work quotes it again in its Prāyaścitta section (p. 15) as an instance of what is meant for the male only.

The Madanapārijāta (p. 102) simply quotes it among a number of other texts laying down the thorough study of the Veda.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 129) to the effect that Vedic study should be the very first care of the twice-born.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (28.36).—‘He who, without having studied the Veda, labours over other studies, becomes a Śūdra, along with his offspring.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3. 3)—(reproduces Viṣṇu’s words).

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 511).—‘A Brāhmaṇa without the Veda is not a Brāhmaṇa.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra).—‘Until one has studied the Veda, he should not study any other science, except the Vedic Subsidiaries.’