Verse 2.208

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

बालः समानजन्मा वा शिष्यो वा यज्ञकर्मणि ।
अध्यापयन् गुरुसुतो गुरुवत्मानमर्हति ॥ २०८ ॥

bālaḥ samānajanmā vā śiṣyo vā yajñakarmaṇi |
adhyāpayan gurusuto guruvatmānamarhati || 208 ||

Whether he be younger, or of equal age, or a student of sacrificial ritual,—the Teacher’s son, imparting instruction, dfserves the same honour as the Teacher.—(208)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For those persons who do not adopt, the reading whereby the term ‘ācārya’ (teacher) is made the qualification of the ‘Teacher’s son’ in the preceding verse,—it would follow that the entire treatment of the Teacher is to he accorded to the Teacher’s son who is qualified and belongs to the same caste, even though he may not have done any teaching. And it is this wide rule that is restricted by the present verse.—It is only the Teacher’s son imparting instruction that deserves the same honour as the Teacher,—and not he who does not impart instruction.

“That the Teacher’s son who imparts instruction should be honoured like the teacher follows from the mere fact of instruction having been received from him; and from what we read in connection with the story relating to the infant (vide 151 above) the propriety of similar treatment of the junior is already known; so that even for the mention of the ‘younger or of equal age’ the present verse would not be required.”

True; what has been said before is the treatment to be accorded to one who teaches the Veda, or even a portion of the Veda,—even though he be not the regular preceptor; while the person referred to here is not one who has made one get up the Veda; it is only one who teaches for a few days or even for a part of the day. And since such a person would not be either a ‘Preceptor’ or a ‘sub-teacher,’ his honouring would not be included under what has gone before; so it becomes necessary to enjoin it in the present connection.

It is from this verse that we understand that the entire treatment of the Teacher is not to be accorded to one who teaches only broken parts of a manṭra.

For those however who read ‘ācārya,’ ‘who does the work of teaching’ in the preceding verse,—the present verse would be a mere reference to what has been enjoined before, for the purpose of adding the injunction occurring in the next verse.

‘Or a student of sacrificial ritual’;—the mention of ‘sacrificial ritual’ is only by way of illustration; the meaning is that even though he be a mere student of a subsidiary science, or of a portion of the Veda—Mantra portion or the Brāhamaṇa portion,—yet he deserves to be honoured like the teacher; only if he happens to be the teacher’s son and imparts instruction in some science, he should be honoured like the teacher. Though this has been already said (in the preceding verse) yet that does not matter, as the present verse is meant to be merely re-iterative.

Some people offer the following explanation:—“The phrase ‘imparting instruction’ stands for the capacity of teaching; the sense being that if the teacher’s son has learnt the Vedas and is capable of teaching it, he should be honoured like the teacher;—whether he actually docs the work of teaching or not.”

This explanation is verbally quite correct. The Present Participal affix (in ‘adhyāpayan,’ ‘imparting instruction’) has the sense of characterisation; and this characterisation is that of an act; so that the use is in accordance with Pāṇini 3.2.128; and the act is directly mentioned as that ‘deserving the same honour as the teacher.’—(208)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Yajñakarmaṇi’—Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa construe this with ‘śiṣyaḥ’, and explain the phrase ‘Yajñakarmaṇi śiṣyaḥ’ as ‘student of sacrificial ritual (and other Vedic subsidiaries)’;—Nandana construes it with ‘adhyāpayan’, explaining the phrase as ‘who imparts instruction in sacrificial ritual—Kullūka and Rāghavānanda take it by itself, explaining it as ‘who happens to be present at a sacrificial performance’.

‘Adhyāpayan’—‘Teaching’ (Medhātithi); ‘Having the capacity to teach’ (Kullūka, also Vīramitrodaya).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 462) where ‘adhyāpayan’ is explained as ‘capable of teaching’; and the construction is explained as yajñakarmaṇi guruvanmānamarhati’—i.e., ‘at a sacrificial performance, he deserves to be honoured like the Teacher’;—thus agreeing on all points with the explanation given by Kullūka.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 208-209)

Viṣṇu (28.31-33).—‘One should behave towards the teacher’s son who imparts instruction to him just as he would towards the teacher himself,—whether he be younger than him or of the same age;—he should not wash his feet;—nor should he eat his leavings.’

Gautama (2.38,39).—‘He should behave similarly towards ṭhe teacher’s wife and his sons;—but should not eat his leavings, or bathe him, or dress his hair, or wash his feet, or rub his body, or clasp his feet.’

Baudhāyana (1.2.37).—‘Towards the teacher’s son, or towards the expounder of the Veda, one should behave similarly, with the exception of eating his leavings.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (1.7.30).—‘I he behaviour towards the teacher’s son should be like that towards the teacher himself,—with the exception of eating the leavings.’