Verse 4.11

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

न लोकवृत्तं वर्तेत वृत्तिहेतोः कथं चन ।
अजिह्मामशथां शुद्धां जीवेद् ब्राह्मणजीविकाम् ॥ ११ ॥

na lokavṛttaṃ varteta vṛttihetoḥ kathaṃ cana |
ajihmāmaśathāṃ śuddhāṃ jīved brāhmaṇajīvikām || 11 ||

He shall never follow the worldly way, for the sake of subsistence; he shall live the straightforward, sincere and pure life of the Brāhmaṇa.—(11)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

That is called the ‘worldly way’ which is followed by ordinary people wanting in moral strength;—such methods, for instance, as those of hypocrisy and flattery—(describing the man from whom something is to be gained as) ‘you are Viṣṇu, you are Brahmā! May you conquer and live long!’ and so forth,—and also of reciting pleasing and jocular stories.

‘For the sake of subsistence.’—What is mentioned here should not be done for the purpose of making a living; there is no harm in its being done by way of politeness.

‘Straightforward.’—The man whose exterior is different from the interior, is called ‘dishonest,’ ‘not straightforward;’ such a person.is of a jealous temperament and shows it to persons who speak disagreeable words to him.

‘Sincere.’—That man is called ‘insincere,’ ‘hypocritical,’ who performs the Agnihotra, for obtaining popularity and thereby receiving presents and gifts, and not with a view to carrying out the scriptural injunctions regarding it.

Though ‘straightforwardness’ and the rest are qualities belonging to the soul, yet they are here figuratively attributed to the ‘Life.’

‘Straightforward, sincere and pure’— The ‘purity’ here meant consists in its not being mixed up with the two methods of livelihood described above, and also in its being free from the aforesaid defects.

Though what was meant could be conveyed by means of only one of the three words, yet, in view of metrical exigencies, the author has made use of three words; such, use being analogous to such expressions as ‘go-balīvarda’ (where the go is the same as the balīvarda).

How can there be any such expression as ‘live the life of the Brāhmaṇa,’ ‘Brāhmaṇajīvikām jīvet, ‘when the root to live is intransitive? Why, too, should the same root (to live, jīva) be used twice (once in ‘jīvet’ and again in ‘jīvikām’)? Certainly, the relation of cause and effect is never found to be expressed by such expressions, as ‘gamanam gacchet,’ ‘should go the going.’”

Our answer is as follows:—The relation of cause and effect is based upon the relation of general and particular, and hence there is nothing incongruous in this. We have such usage in expressions like ‘aśvapoṣam puṣṭaḥ,’ ‘fattened like the fattening of the horse,’ Further, the root ‘jīva,’ ‘to live,’ also denotes the act of living as part of the act of acting up to the performance; and in this sense it is transitive also. So that there is nothing objectionable in the expression used; the term ‘jīvet,’ ‘should live,’ being explained as should act up to,’ for the sake of subsistence.—(11)

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Mahābhārata (12.249.22).—‘Not with any worldly motives shall he perform any acts or any religious duty.’

Yājñavalkya (1.123).—‘He shall lead a straightforward and sincere life, in due accordance with his age, intelligence, wealth, dress, learning and occupation.’