Verse 2.52

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

आयुष्यं प्राङ्मुखो भुङ्क्ते यशस्यं दक्षिणामुखः ।
श्रियं प्रत्यङ्मुखो भुङ्क्ते ऋतं भुङ्क्ते ह्युदङ्मुखः ॥ ५२ ॥

āyuṣyaṃ prāṅmukho bhuṅkte yaśasyaṃ dakṣiṇāmukhaḥ |
śriyaṃ pratyaṅmukho bhuṅkte ṛtaṃ bhuṅkte hyudaṅmukhaḥ || 52 ||

Eating with face to the East, he does what is conducive to longevity; eating with face to the South, he does what brings fame; eating with face to the West, he does what brings prosperity; and eating with face to the North, he does what leads to the true.—(52)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The preceding verse has laid down the general compulsory rule that the boy should eat with his face to the East, if he is not desirous of obtaining any peculiar results; the text is now laying down rules that are to he observed with a view to definite desired ends.

‘Āyuṣyam’—is that which is conducive to longevity; and ‘Eating with face to the East, one does what is coducive to longevity’; when the act of eating brings about longevity, it becomes ‘what is conducive to longevity ’; hence the meaning of the text comes to be that ‘if one desires longevity he should eat with face to the East.’ Thus then, in regard to the East, there are two directions—(a) one should always face the East, and (b) one should do so when desiring the said result; so that if a man desires longevity, he should actually have the particular desire in view; while in the other case he should not have any result in view. Just as, though the Agnihotra is an obligatory act, yet if the man seeks heaven, he repeats its performance; and by so doing he fulfills, incidentally, the obligations of the obligatory act also.

Similarly, when one desires fame, he should face the South. All these rules are optional.

Desiring prosperity—the form ‘Shriyan’ is formed by adding the present participial affix ‘śatṛ’ to the nominal root formed by adding ‘kyach’ to the noun ‘Śrī’ Or, we may read ‘Shriyam’ ending in m; the meaning being ‘what brings prosperity’; just as in the case of the other words ‘āyuṣyam’ and the rest.

The use of the root ‘bhuj,’ ‘to eat,’ in its literal sense becomes possible, if we regard ‘longevity’ and the rest as ‘parts of a living being’; the same explanation applies also to the next clause ‘he eats what leads to the true.’ The meaning thus comes to be that by‘eating with face to the west one obtains prosperity.’ In this case we have the reading ‘shriyam’ with the Accusative ending. Or, lastly we may read ‘shriyai,’ with the Dative ending, which would signify ‘for the sake of.’

‘True’ means the real, and also the sacrifice or Heaven as resulting from the sacrifice. The sense thus is that ‘if one seeks heaven he should eat with his face to the north.’

Even though we have no Injunctive affixes in the text, yet, since what is here laid down is something not already known, we take it in the sense of an Injunction, construing the Present Tense as denoting the fifth sense (Leṭ, which is expressive of Injunction).

Thus then we have this rule of eating with face to various directions, with a view to various results.

Eating with face towards the subsidiary quarters, which one might be tempted to do undor special circumstances, becomes precluded by the obligatory injunction of facing the East, etc.

The optional rule here laid down does not apply only to the Religious Student, nor to the eating of the food obtained by begging only, but to all forms of eating by the Householder and others also. That this is so is indicated by the fact that though in the context we have all along had the Injunctive word ‘aśnīyāt,’ the present veise has used a different word ‘bhuṅkte’; if the author had definitely intended the present rule to be as restricted in its application as those that have gone before, then he would have used the same word. When however we find him making use of a different word, ‘bhuṅkte,’ we begin to doubt if what is meant is the particular eating that has been hitherto dealt with in the context, or a general rule applying to all forms of eating; and the conclusion we are led to is that since a different verb is used, it must stand for a different act, and it cannot be regarded as the same that has been dealt with in the context.

Some people have argued that—“in as much as there is no injunctive word in the present verse, it must be taken as merely laudatory of what has gone before.” But this has been answered in Mīmāmsā Sūtra 3.5.21 (where it is asserted that sentences laying down things not already known are to be regarded as injunctive). Nor do we find in the present verse any such signs as would indicate that it is meant to be subsidiary to the preceding verse,—such signs, for instance, as the fact of its being wanting in some integral part, if taken apart from the preceding verse, and so forth. It is possible to take the present verse as referring primarily to the Religious Student only, and then to extend its application to all men,—on the ground that what is laid down here is not incompatible with the duties of ordinary men, as the other duties of the Student are; but in that case the results mentioned in the verse would not accrue to the ordinary man. For authoritative writers 8.1.23, etc.) do not admit of activity by mere implied extension, in cases of special results following from the use of special accessory details. If such rules as ‘for one desiring cattle, water should be fetched in the milking vessel,’ ‘the sacrificial post should be of khadira wood when the man desires vigour,’ are never applied to the case of those sacrifices which are mere ectypes (of the Darśapūrṇāmāsa); and to which the details of the Darśapūrṇamāsa become applicable by extended implication only.—(52)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Ṛtam’—‘Sacrifice,’ an alternative explanation suggested by, Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa.

Medhātithi (p. 97, L 20)—‘Guṇakāmanāyām hi, &c.’

This refers to Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 8.1.23 et. seq.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (p. 431) which remarks that the verse refers to cases where a man makes it a rule to always face a certain quarter at meals;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 34), which adḍs the explanation that śrīyam and ṛtam are objects to the present-participle ‘icchan’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 377) in support of the view that facing of the south is not interdicted when done with a special motive. Vidhānapārijāta (p. 324) also quotes the verse to show that what is here prescribed applies to that eating which is done with a special motive, the general law being that one should face the east or the north .—Aparārka (p. 61) quotes the verse, and adds the following explanation:—If one eats facing the east, it brings longevity; one who eats facing the west, obtains prosperity; who eats facing the north attains the truth or the sacrifice.—Thus eating with face towards the east is both compulsory (as laid down in the preceding verse) and optional, done with a special motive (as mentioned here).

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 115), which adds the following notes—‘āyuṣyam’ means ‘conducive to longevity’—one who eats facing the east obtains longevity; hence the meaning of the text is that ‘one who seeks for longevity should eat facing the east similarly ‘yaśasyam’ meaning conducive to fame’;—eating with face towards the south brings fame—and similarly one who seeks for wealth should eat facing the west, and he who seeks for ‘ṛtā’ i. e., the truth, should eat facing the north.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 67. 40-41.—‘He should eat facing the East, or the South.’

Gobhila (Parāśaramādhava, p. 377).—‘The Brāhmaṇa may sit facing the East, or the West; in connection with rites in honour of Pitṛs, even the North; but the South he must avoid.’

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 395).—‘One shall eat with wet feet, facing the East, with his two feet or even one touching the ground.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 309).—‘One should eat seated, facing the east, with speech in check, not decrying the food, nor scattering it, with mind concentrated on it: and having eaten he shall sip water.’