Verse 6.97

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

एष वोऽभिहितो धर्मो ब्राह्मणस्य चतुर्विधः ।
पुण्योऽक्षयफलः प्रेत्य राज्ञां धर्मं निबोधत ॥ ९७ ॥

eṣa vo'bhihito dharmo brāhmaṇasya caturvidhaḥ |
puṇyo'kṣayaphalaḥ pretya rājñāṃ dharmaṃ nibodhata || 97 ||

Thus has the fourfold duty of the Brāhmaṇa been expounded to you, which is conducive to imperishable rewards after death. Now listen to the duty of Kings.—(97.)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Fourfold Duty’—pertaining to the four life-stages; all this has been expounded for the Brāhmaṇa.

“At the outset the text has spoken of the twice-born person, in the opening verse—‘Having thus lived the life of the. Householder, the accomplished twice-born person &c. &c.’, and it has been decided that the term stands for all the three castes, as there is no sort of incongruity involved in this. Under the circumstances, the term ‘brāhmaṇa’ of the present verse should also be taken as standing for all the three castes. There would be a justification for denying this only if the entire Discourse did not form one organic whole, beginning from the opening verse and ending with the present verse. As a matter of fact, the opening verse is perfectly amenable to being construed with this last verse (the whole discourse thus forming one organic whole); so that it is quite open to us to take this verse as referring to what has been mentioned in the opening verse.”

As a matter of fact, the sentence is regarded as having that meaning which is found to be expressed by it, after a thorough consideration of the sentence as a whole. And in this way, it is distinctly more reasonable to take the term ‘twice-born person’ (of the opening verse) us standing for the Brāhmaṇa (rather than the other wav). Because every ‘Brāhmaṇa’ also is ‘twice-born’, but every ‘twice-born person’ is not a ‘Brāhmaṇa’. So that the term ‘twice-born’ being capable of being directly applied to the Brāhmaṇa, it cannot be right to take the term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ as indirectly indicating the wider circle of twice-born persons.

“But in the Mahābhārata we find three life-stages laid down for the Śūdra also;—having started with the words ‘for the Śūdra who has accomplished all his work, there is attendance, it goes on to say ‘all the life-stages have been prescribed for him, except the Nirāmiṣa’—that is Renunciation.”

This is not right. Such is not the meaning of the text quoted; what it means is as follows—‘the Śūdra should not have recourse to the four stages, he obtains the reward of all the stages by means of service and the begetting of children’;—which means that—‘during Householdership he obtains, by means of serving the twice-born men, the rewards of all stages, with the sole exception of Liberation, which is the reward of Renunciation.’

From this it follows that the Four Life-stages are meant for the Brāhmaṇa only.—(97)

 

Thus ends the Bhāṣya on Discourse VI.

Printed by Rameshwar Pathak at the Tara Printing Works, Benares.

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Buhler is not right in asserting that “according to Medhātithi the word ‘brāhmaṇā’ is not intended to exclude other Aryans (dvijas)”.—He has evidently been misled by the words in which Medhātithi has set forth an objection to the text using the word ‘Brāhmaṇa’. See Translation.

The first half of this verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.57) in support of the view that the Brāhmaṇa alone is entitled to enter the fourth stage of the Renunciate;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 564) to the same effect;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 176),—which says that ‘brāhmaṇa’ here stands for all the twice-born persons;—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 65) which quotes ‘my grand-father’ to the effect that ‘brāhmaṇa’ stands for all twice-born men,—while it itself favours the view that it stands for the Brāhmaṇa only.