Verse 4.5

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

ऋतमुञ्छशिलं ज्ञेयममृतं स्यादयाचितम् ।
मृतं तु याचितं भैक्षं प्रमृतं कर्षणं स्मृतम् ॥ ५ ॥

ṛtamuñchaśilaṃ jñeyamamṛtaṃ syādayācitam |
mṛtaṃ tu yācitaṃ bhaikṣaṃ pramṛtaṃ karṣaṇaṃ smṛtam || 5 ||

Gleaning and picking is to be known as “Truth;” and what is obtained unasked, “Nectar”; alms obtained by begging is “Death,” and cultivation is declared to be “Super- death.”—(5)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The corn that is gleaned is to be known as ‘Truth;’ living by this means being regarded as equal to the strict observance of truth. When after harvesting, corn is being carried either home or to the granary, if certain ears of corn fall down on the ground, and are left by the owner’—the picking up of these is what is called “gleaning;” and this is called ‘Truth;’ and in regard to this, one need not entertain any such idea as ‘this belongs to another person, so I shall not take it.’

Similarly, when one takes away what has fallen off from the sheaf—either before or after harvesting,—and what forms part of several offshoots,—this is ‘picking.’

‘What is obtained unasked is Nectar’—so called, because it is a source of great pleasure.

‘The alms obtained by begging is Death.’— The term ‘begging’ itself signifying the fact of what is obtained being ‘alms,’ the addition of this latter term—which is formed by the adding of a Nominal Affix denoting a group or collection,—is meant to imply that several persons shall be begged, and no single person shall be constantly troubled, as is shown by what has been said above regarding ‘what involves very little trouble to living beings.’ Then again, as a rule, the term ‘bhaikṣa,’ ‘alms,’ is found to be used in the sense of cooked food; as we find in the case of such passages as—‘for the purpose of cleansing oneself from alms;’ hence the adding of the term ‘begging’ serves to indicate that ‘alms’ stands here for food in general; hence what is meant here is not cooked food only; specially as for one who has set up the Fire, it would be wrong to make the Vaiśvadeva and other offerings with food cooked in any other fire.

The begging of alms here spoken of is not meant to be that only which is got for eating; it stands for what enables the man to maintain himself; and the maintenance of the householder is not accomplished merely by eating; in fact, it requires all such things as are necessary for house-keeping; hence it is that water-vessels and other such articles should also be begged; as also such household-requisites as dishes and covers, etc. So far as the Student is concerned, since for him it is impossible that just at the time of his eating, cooking should be done in the proper manner;—it follows that in his case ‘alms’ must mean cooked food only.

The term ‘bhikṣā,’ ‘alms,’ also indicates the quantity of the article obtained by begging; this quantity being a mere handful. But when a man is begged, he does not give mere alms, a mere handful; so that the begging of the cow, gold and such other things could not be regarded as sanctioned by the mere ‘handful.’ In fact, begging is always done for the purpose of receiving all kinds of gifts.

“The receiving of alms also would be a receiving of gifts.”

No; mere acceptance does not constitute the ‘receiving of gifts;’ the root ‘graha,’ with the preposition ‘prati,’—i.e., the term ‘pratigraha,’ ‘receiving of gifts’—is applied to a particular form of ‘acceptance,’ and not to any and every acceptance. Wherever the term ‘pratigraha,’ ‘gift,’ is used—e. g., under 4.186 and 10.100—it is used in the sense of such gift as is offered with a view to some transcendental result, and is received with due mantras. In the receiving of mere ‘alms,’ however, there is no reciting of any such mantra as ‘devasya tvā, etc.’ Nor again, is the term applied to the accepting of friendly and other presents; in the sense of this latter, the term is never used.

From all this it follows that the terms ‘Truth’ and ‘Nectar’ are used in the sense of things other than ‘gifts.’ Hence, in this case, the man who gives, whether begged or un-begged, is a high-souled person, and, hence, in his mind there does not arise any desire for any form of return (for the gift he makes); so that there would be no grounds for any restriction as to the caste, etc., of the recipient or giver. When a present is made entirely through sympathy for the receiver, it does not become a ‘gift’ (which always connotes the presence of desire for some transcendental result).

“But what is given through sympathy or pity is also conducive to transcendental results.”

We say—no; because it does not fulfil the conditions of ‘dāna,’ ‘giving’ (formal); it being prompted either by pity or by the desire to do good to others. Hence, just as in offering advice, through sympathy, considerations of caste do not come in; so in the case of giving through pity also. It is for this reason that in the case of such giving, cultured people do not observe any such restrictions as ‘gifts should be offered to the Brāhmaṇa who knows the real meaning of the Veda,’ and so forth. It is for this same reason, again, that even non-Brāhmaṇas, on becoming poor, accept gifts offered by others, but are not, on that account, regarded as having ‘received gifts,’ and thus transgressed upon the Brāhmaṇas ‘livelihood.’

The conclusion, therefore, is as follows:—Though in the regular ‘gift,’ considerations of its being asked or unasked do come in, yet it does not, merely on that account, become either ‘Truth’ or ‘Nectar;’ because it has been shown that these terms have a different connotation.

This same connotation is applicable to ‘officiating at sacrifices’ and ‘teaching’ (the other two means of livelihood for the Brāhmaṇa): Some one obtains the post of officiating at a sacrifice after having begged for it from some one. Similarly with the work of Teaching also.

Any such means of living as is obtained by begging, involves humiliation; and hence, resembling death, it is called ‘death.’

Cultivating is worse even than Death; specially as the act of ploughing and carrying of burdens is the work of lower people.—(5)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 309), which explains the difference between ‘uñcha’ and ‘śila’ by taking ṭhe former to mean the picking up of single grains, of corn and the latter that of ears of com fallen on the ground;—and in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 246).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 4.5-6)

Kūrmapurāṇa (1.2.25.23).—‘He may live either by Nectar or by Death; Nectar is that which is obtained unasked, and Death is the alms obtained by begging.’

Bṛhad-Yama (60, 62).—‘The Brāhmaṇa is ruined by serving the king. Those Brāhmaṇas who serve such masters as should not be served, and who officiate at sacrifices for those for whom it should not be done, are to be regarded as impure and beyond the pale of all Dharma.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.27).—‘When unable to maintain himself by means of his own occupations, he shall never have recourse to a sinful occupation.’

Yājñavalkya (3.25).—‘In abnormal times of distress, the Brāhmaṇa may maintain himself by the occupation of the Kṣatriya, or by that of the Vaiśya.’

Viṣṇu (2.15).—‘In times of distress, the occupation of the next (caste).’

Baudhāyana (2.2.69, 72).—‘Being unable to maintain himself by teaching, officiating at sacrifices, and receiving of gifts, he shall live by the occupation of the Kṣatriya; this being the next best for him;—he may also have recourse to the occupation of the Vaiśya; this being the next best.’

Gautama (7.6-7).—‘In the absence of the aforesaid, the occupation of the Kṣatriya; in the absence of this latter also, the occupation of the Vaiśya.’