Verse 4.224

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

श्रोत्रियस्य कदर्यस्य वदान्यस्य च वार्धुषेः ।
मीमांसित्वोभयं देवाः सममन्नमकल्पयन् ॥ २२४ ॥

śrotriyasya kadaryasya vadānyasya ca vārdhuṣeḥ |
mīmāṃsitvobhayaṃ devāḥ samamannamakalpayan || 224 ||

The gods having compared the food of the miserly Vedic Scholar and that of the liberal usurer, ordained the food of both to be equal.—(224)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What is meant is the Brāhmaṇa endowed with all necessary qualifications,—the term ‘Vedic Scholar’ being meant to be purely illustrative. ‘Vedic Scholar’ means the learned man who performs all the duties that have been laid down for him. If such a person happens to be ‘miserly’—who does not take delight in receiving friends, relations and guests, and who does not wish to give anything to any person.

The other person is the ‘usurer,’ living on usury, and thus engaged in objectional business. If he happens to be ‘liberal,’ noble-minded, endowed with faith, is delighted at the arrival of people at his house, and duly honors them with food and other things.

The food belonging to these two persons the gods have ordained to be ‘equal.’

Even though one of them (the former) is possessed of all good qualities, yet he is condemned by reason of his niggardliness. It has been declared that ‘covetousness spoils all good qualities.’ The other person, even though endowed with due faith, is censured by reason of his objectionable business. Hence, ‘having examined’—duly pondered over the matter—the gods have ordained that the food belonging to the two persons stands on the same footing.—(224)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

(verses 4.224-225)

Cf. 10.73.

These verses are quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 508);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 768).

They are referred to also in the Mahābhārata (12.264.11) as ‘Brahmagītā gāthā’.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 4.224-225)

Baudhāyana (1.5.63).—‘Having compared the food offered by a man pure but devoid of faith, and that by one impure, but endowed with faith,—the gods declared them to he equal. Prajāpati told them that the two were not equal, hut unequal; what is offered by the faithless being damned, that which is purified by faith is distinctly superior.’

Mahābhārata (Śānti., 270.10).—‘People learned in the ancient lore recite certain verses sung by Brāhmaṇas:—In connection with the sacrificial performance the gods regarded as similar the food offered by the pure hut faithless man and that offered by the impure but faithful; similarly also that offered by the miserly Vedic scholar and by the generous woman,—having compared these two, they regarded them as equal. Prajāpati however told them that they had committed a mistake; that offered by the generous is purified by faith, while the other is damned through want of faith.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.14).—‘One should eat the food offered even by the thief, if he is endowed with faith; but never of that man who sacrifices for, or initiates, many people.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 508).—‘Even food offered by one’s teacher should not be eaten, if it is not offered with respect.’