Verse 7.85

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

सममब्राह्मणे दानं द्विगुणं ब्राह्मणब्रुवे ।
प्राधीते शतसाहस्रमनन्तं वेदपारगे ॥ ८५ ॥

samamabrāhmaṇe dānaṃ dviguṇaṃ brāhmaṇabruve |
prādhīte śatasāhasramanantaṃ vedapārage || 85 ||

The gift to a non-Brāhmaṇa is equable; that to a nominal Brāhmaṇa is twofold; that to the Teacher, a hundred-thousand-fold and that to a person thoroughly learned in the Veda, endless.—(85)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Objection:—“As a matter of fact, it has been laid down in the present context that gifts should be made to Brāhmaṇas (82); and before this also (under 3.96) it has been declared that gifts should be made ‘to a Brāhmaṇa who knows the real meaning of the Veda.’ Then again, it cannot be reasonable to accept the words of the text in the literal sense—that the various kinds of gifts actually bring about the rewards in the manner stated. For instance, of what sort is the equableness (between the gift and the reward accruing thence, to the giver)? Is it in (a) kind, or (b) quantity, or (c) utility? If it be held to be in kind, then, in a case where, on the occasion of drinking a medicinal drug, the patient makes a gift of those drags (?) to temple-worshippers, the gift would be conducive to pain. Because medicinal drugs as a rule are bitter, hot and pungent and tend to move the bowels. If, again the ‘equableness’ meant were in regard to quantity,—and there also the equality were only in quantity, irrespective of the character of the substance,—then a gift of gold might bring, as its reward, an equal quantity of copper, or some such things as a clod of earth or a piece of wood and the like. If again, the ‘equableness’ meant were both in regard to kind and quantity, then also there would be the same difficulties as those just pointed out. If lastly, the ‘equableness’ meant were in regard to utility,—then also, if the use also were of the same kind, in that case, the use of the medicinal drugs consisting in the curing a certain disease,—if the reward were to be of the same kind, then it would be as good as nonexistent, if the man did not happen to suffer from the same disease; so that the gift of those drugs would have to make the giver subject to that disease again, or some other disease of the same degree of seriousness. For these reasons, the declarations contained in the present verse should not be regarded as distinct sentences standing by themselves. Just as in the case of the Vedic declarations—‘The Nivīta form is for human beings end the Upavīta for divine beings; so that when the man adopts the Upavīta form, he takes upon himself a mark of the gods’,—what is said in regard to the Nivīta and the rest is not taken as distinct from what is said regarding the adopting of the Upavīta form.”

The answer to the above is as follows:—In the present text we do not. find any verb in any of the sentences, every one of which, therefore, stands on the same footing. If it is a commendatory description, then this can apply only to the statement ‘that to the man learned in the Veda, endless.’ If again, it is an Injunction, then all the sentences should be regarded as equally injunctive; there is nothing to indicate that any one of them is subservient to any other. In the case of the passage regarding the ‘Nivīta’ &c; on the other hand, we find a verb in the term ‘upavyayate’ (‘adopts the upavīta form’); so that the sentence containing it fulfilling the conditions of an Injunctive sentence, it is only right that the others should be taken as subservient to it.

As for the argument that no gifts to a Non-Brāhmaṇa can be possible,—this must be due to the objector having forgotten that gifts to the poor and helpless of all castes have been enjoined. In fact it is only in regard to gifts to be made by Kings to Brāhmaṇas that we have the sentences in the present verse.

As regards the argument that “there is no possibility of rewards accruing in the manner stated in the text, on account of all the various methods indicated bring, open to objection,”—our answer is as follows;—The mode of expression adopted here is that of ordinary parlance. In ordinary parlance, what is not very good is called ‘equable’; e. g. in such expressions as ‘the Saktu contains an equable supply of salt.’ As for the reward being ‘two-fold?, the two-foldness meant is in regard to utility; the meaning bring that the reward is doubly as useful as the original gift. It is not meant either that the same kind of substance is obtained in return, or that the utility is of the same kind; all that is meant is that the degree of happiness produced is twice as much. Further, as a matter of fact, the verse is not meant to be an ‘injunction of rewards’; so that there is no room for the raising of any such questions as to whether it is the same substance, or another substance, that is obtained in reward. Specially as in cases where no rewards ore mentioned, the attainment of Heaven is always regarded as the reward. Then again, in connection with the giving of sesamum, the obtaining of children has been declared to be the reward; and certainly in such a case there can be no possibility of the reward being of the same kind as the gift. Thus all that is meant here, and also in the subsequent passages, is that the excellence of the recipient adds to the excellence of the gift. This is exactly what is emphasised in the next verse.

In the term ‘brāhmaṇa—bruva’ (‘nominal Brāhmaṇa’)—the particle ‘bruva’ has a derogatory sense; it staṇḍs for one who is Brāhmaṇa by caste only, and is wholly devoid of learning and other qualities.

‘Teacher’—the Initiator.

‘A person thoroughly learned in the Veda,’—one who has, by learning and study, got to the end of the Veda.—(85)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Samam’—‘Middling’ (Medhātithi);—‘neither more nor less than what is described in the scriptures’ (Kullūka and Govindarāja);—‘equal to the kindness shown’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 286).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 7.85-86)

Gautama (5.20).—‘The reward of a gift to a non-Brāhmaṇa is equal to the value of the gift; that of what is given to a Brāhmaṇa is twofold; that of what is given to a Vedic scholar, thousandfold; and that of what is given to one thoroughly versed in the Veda, endless.’

Viṣṇu (93.1-4).—‘What is given to a non-Brāhmaṇa produces the same fruit in the world to come;—what is given to one who calls himself a Brāhmaṇa produces twice the same fruit;—what is given to one who has studied the main portions of the Veda produces a thousand times the same fruits;—what is given to one who has mastered the whole Veda, produces infinite fruit.’

Yājñavalkya (1.201).—‘Cows, land, gold and other things are to be offered, with respect, to proper recipients; a man desiring his own welfare shall give nothing to an improper person.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 286).—‘The cow, the horse, the gold and the land, on seeing the hands of a Brāhmaṇa ignorant of the Veda, decries the giver.’