Verse 4.173

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

यदि नात्मनि पुत्रेषु न चेत् पुत्रेषु नप्तृषु ।
न त्वेव तु कृतोऽधर्मः कर्तुर्भवति निष्फलः ॥ १७३ ॥

yadi nātmani putreṣu na cet putreṣu naptṛṣu |
na tveva tu kṛto'dharmaḥ karturbhavati niṣphalaḥ || 173 ||

If not on himself, then on his sons,—if not on his sons, then on his grandsons (falls the punishment); an unrighteousness, once committed, never fails to bring its consequences to the perpetrator.—(173)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“It is not right that the consequences of acts done by one person should be described as falling on others. As a matter of fact, all Vedic acts bring their fruits to the person who performs them. The principle of the Vaiśvānara sacrifice (whereby the fruits of the sacrifice accrue to the son of the performer) cannot be held to be applicable to the present case, as there is no direct assertion to that effect. In connection with the acts dealt with in the present context, there is no assertion to the effect that their consequences accrue to the performer’s son.”

True; but when the son suffers pain, it causes the father still greater pain; so that, in that case also, the resultant suffering would fall upon the perpetrator himsef (himself?). As regards the son also, the said suffering may be said to come to him by virtue of some past misdeed of his son; and there would be nothing incongruous in this.

The same holds good regarding ‘grandsons’ also.

‘Kṛto-dharmaḥ.’—Whether the component words be read as ‘Kṛtaḥ-dharmaḥ’ or ‘Kṛtaḥ-adharmaḥ,’ the resultant conjunct form would be the same—‘Kṛto-dharmaḥ;’ hence both dharma (righteousness) and adharma (unrighteousness) are meant to be spoken of (as not failing in bringing up their consequences)—(173).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Medhātithi (P. 356, l. 20)—‘Vaiśvānaranyāyaḥ’—This refers to Mīmāṃsā-sūtra, 4.38 et. seq, where it is stated that though the Vaiśvānara sacrifice is performed by the Father, yet its results accrue to the Son.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 68)—which adds ‘Kṛtodharmaḥ’ should be construed as ‘Kṛtaḥ adharma’, as the context deals with Adharma,—‘na niṣphalaḥ,’ i.e., unless it is expiated.