Verse 11.26

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

देवस्वं ब्राह्मणस्वं वा लोभेनोपहिनस्ति यः ।
स पापात्मा परे लोके गृध्रौच्छिष्टेन जीवति ॥ २६ ॥

devasvaṃ brāhmaṇasvaṃ vā lobhenopahinasti yaḥ |
sa pāpātmā pare loke gṛdhraucchiṣṭena jīvati || 26 ||

The sinful man who, through covetousness, seizes the property of the gods, or the property of Brāhmaṇas, lives, in the other world, upon the leavings of vultures.—(26)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Property o f the gods’ is the name given to all that belongs to such men of the three higher castes as are disposed to perform sacrifices. ‘Property of the Brāhmaṇa’ is the name that is applied to the belongings of even such Brāhmaṇas as are not disposed to perform sacrifices.

It is in this sense that the verse may be construed:

As a matter of fact however Verse 20 above, which says—The property of those disposed to perform sacrifices the wise call the ‘property of the gods, etc.’—is purely declamatory, and not meant to provide the definition of technical terms; like such terms as ‘theft’ and the like. For this reason we proceed to explain it differently.

That wealth which has been set apart as to be spent for the gods, in the performance of sacrifices and other such acts, is ‘the property of the gods’; as direct ownership is not possible for the gods. In fact the gods never make use of any property, by their own wish; nor are they found to be actually taking care of any property; and it is where all this is found that property is said in ordinary life to belong to a person. Hence the name ‘property of the gods’ must apply to that which has been set apart as to be used on behalf of the gods,—with such formula as ‘this is no longer mine, it is the god’s.’ And this can refer to only what has been enjoined as to be offered to Agni and other deities at the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices; and it is merely on the basis of the custom of cultured people that it can be applied, only figuratively, to what is offered at sacrifices to Durgā and other deities (which latter are not enjoined in the Veda).

“In the ordinary world, it is property dedicated to the four-armed and other images in temples that is called ‘the property of the gods;’ and it is only right that in the interpretation of scriptures we should accept that meaning of a word in which it is used in ordinary parlance.”

This would be so, if the term ‘devasvam,’ ‘property of the gods,’ were recognised as a non-composite, word (whose denotation is not affected by that of its component parts). As a matter of fact, however, the term ‘devasvam’ is composite, and its best denotation therefore is that which is provided by its component parts (‘deva,’ ‘gods,’ and ‘svam,’ ‘property’); and there is no authority for the assuming of any other denotation. That the true deific character does not belong to the four-armed image is shown by the simple fact that it is regarded as an ‘image’ (and not as the reality)’, nor is there any definition of ‘god’ which can apply directly to the image. According to usage, the property of such images may be called ‘property of the gods.’ But even there, there can be no ownership. And yet actual business may be carried on in accordance with the explanation given above. All this has been explained in Discourse II (Verse 189).—(26)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha p. 1035).