Verse 4.33 [Duties of the Accomplished Student: Sources of Wealth]

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

राजतो धनमन्विच्छेत् संसीदन् स्नातकः क्षुधा ।
याज्यान्तेवासिनोर्वाऽपि न त्वन्यत इति स्थितिः ॥ ३३ ॥

rājato dhanamanvicchet saṃsīdan snātakaḥ kṣudhā |
yājyāntevāsinorvā'pi na tvanyata iti sthitiḥ || 33 ||

Suffering from hunger, the accomplished student should seek for wealth from the king, or from one at whose sacrificial rites he officiates, or from his pupil; and not from others; such is the rule.—(33)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘king’ here stands for all wealthy castes; as the author is going to declare later on (10-113)—‘The king should be begged by persons suffering from want and seeking for wealth and metals.’ Thus the term ‘rājan,’ ‘king,’ in its primary denotation signifies the Kṣatriya caste; but on the strength of what we see in other treatises, we take it to mean here the ‘king of men,’ specially, as kings of men are wealthy. Thus, what the text means is that—‘gifts’ should be received from such persons as are extremely rich in the possession of cows and bulls, goat and sheep, cash and grains. In doing this, the man shall he also observing the rule that ‘he should live without causing pain to any one;’ as such people do not feel any pain in making gifts; while if one were to beg from men with small wealth, it would be open to objection.

If the term ‘rājan’ were taken in its primary sense of the Kṣatriya caste, the receiving of gifts from Brāhmaṇas and others would become forbidden; and this would be against the teaching of all Smṛtis. In another Smṛti, we read—‘One shall receive gifts from commended twice-born people, and uncooked food also from a Śūdra who is submissive,’ In prohibitions also, we find the term ‘rājan’ used in the sense of ‘king of men;’ e,g., in such passages as—‘One shall not accept gifts from the Rājā,’ where the prohibition cannot apply to the Kṣatriya caste, since the text subsequently adds—^‘or from one not born of Kṣatriya parents’ (4-84). It is for this reason that this latter verse cannot be taken as forbidding the acceptance of gifts from the Kṣatriya, because, if that were meant, the text could not add ‘from one not born of Kṣatriya parents;’ for those ‘not born of Kṣatriya parents’ can never be ‘Kṣatriyas,’ For these reasons, the conclusion on this point is as follows:—‘gifts shall be accepted from such Kṣatriya kings as behave according to the scriptures, and not from others,’

‘From one at whose sacrificial rites he officiates, or from his pupil.’— The Genitive ending is used in reference to the ‘wealth.’ Or, we may read the phrase as ending with the ‘Tasi affix’—yājyāntevāsitaḥ.’ Since both these names are based upon the doing of certain acts, the meaning is that—‘he shall live by the occupations of Teaching and Officiating at Sacrifices.’

Others explain as follows:—The receiving of gifts from others would constitute a minor sin, and other means of acquiring wealth, such as theft and the like, are distinctly forbidden. The upshot is that he shall worship God and live upon gifts made through love, and also by pronouncing ‘svasti’ (at sacrificial performances); but in no case shall he do service; as that means of livelihood has been already forbidden. Thus he may accept gifts from such of his sacrificial clients as have received benefit at his hands, even though he may not be officiating at their sacrifices at the time; for even though the actual relationship (of priest and client) may have ceased, their duty towards each other remains.

‘Suffering.’—This means that gifts shall not be sought, if the man has inherited some property; as it has been declared (in verse 15 above) that—‘nor when wealth is already there.’

What is said here is not something to be done in abnormal times of distress; as mere ‘suffering’ does not constitute ‘distress;’ all that it means is ‘absence of earned wealth;’ and it would be a case of ‘distress,’ only if the adopting of any of the sanctioned means of living were impossible, or if all one’s property were destroyed. Even though he may be possessed of much cash and grains, his grain-supply may become exhausted in times of famine; and, in such cases, if entertainment as a guest would be impossible, and the man would be suffering from hunger, this would constitute ‘distress;’ while, if the man were not pining from hunger, this would be simple ‘suffering.’ Such is the difference between the two (distress and suffering).

‘Not from others.’—That is, he shall receive no gifts from persons with little wealth, or from one who receives no benefit from the person (begging).—(33)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 33), which adds that where the text says ‘not from others’, what it means is that ‘in the event of those named here being available, one should not seek for it from others’;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 402), which explains ‘rājan’ as standing for ‘the just king of the Kṣatriya caste’.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (9.6 3, 64).—‘For the sake of his own maintenance and welfare he shall approach none except those who may he dutiful towards gods and elders.’

Vaśiṣṭha (12.2),—‘He shall beg from any one except the king and his own pupils.’

Yājñavalkya (1.130).—‘Suffering from hunger, he may seek for wealth from the king, from his own pupils and from one at whose sacrifices he officiates; and he shall avoid the hypocrite, the sceptic, the impostor and the heron-like.’

Viṣṇu (63.1).—‘For the sake of his maintenance and welfare he shall approach the king.’