Verse 11.59

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

गोवधोऽयाज्यसंयाज्यं पारदार्यात्मविक्रयः ।
गुरुमातृपितृत्यागः स्वाध्यायाग्न्योः सुतस्य च ॥ ५९ ॥

govadho'yājyasaṃyājyaṃ pāradāryātmavikrayaḥ |
gurumātṛpitṛtyāgaḥ svādhyāyāgnyoḥ sutasya ca || 59 ||

Killing a cow, sacrificing for one unworthy to sacrifice, adultery, selling oneself, abandoning one’s father, mother, teacher, or son, or of Vedic study or Fire;—(59)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author now proceeds to describe the ‘Minor offences.’

‘Those unworthy to sacrifice,’—i.e., the outcast, the Śūdra and so forth,—‘sacrificing’ f or these. The use of the affix ‘ṇya’ in the nominal sense is a Vedic anomaly.

‘Selling oneself’— Making oneself a slave, subservient to another man, and thus putting himself on the same footing as the cow and such other properties as are sold.

Others read—‘pāradāryamavikrayam’—‘adultery and selling what should not be sold.’

What is meant by ‘selling oneself’ is taking service under an unrighteous master, when there is only slight trouble, in the shape of want of livelihood and the like.

The ‘abandoning of the teacher’—means the neglect of attention due to him; e.g., having recourse to another teacher, while the former teacher is quite competent to teach.

Similarly with the ‘abandoning of one’s father and mother.’

What is reprehensible is the abandoning of these when they are not outcasts. If they have become outcasts, their abandoning would be only right and proper.

The Construction is—‘the abandoning of Vedic study and the Fire’ The ‘abandoning of Vedic study’ means not carrying out in practice the injunction that ‘one should recite the Veda everyday.’

“Would the omission of this study for a single day, or for one year, Constitute this offence?”

Since the text contains no qualification, it would seem that omission for even one day would constitute the offence.

This, however, is not right. Because the injunction of daily study is a compulsory one; and a distinct expiation is going to be set forth later on for the omission of a compulsory duty. Hence what is meant here is such neglect as leads to the Veda being entirely forgotten.

This neglect having been declared (under 56) to be equal to ‘wine-drinking,’ the present text is meant to indicate an alternative expiation; the exact alternative to be employed should be determined by the comparative seriousness or otherwise of the neglect in any particular case. For instance, if the neglect of Vedic study is due to the man being engaged on another Vedic rite, his offence would be a minor one; while if it is due to the man giving himself up to luxury, or to moneymaking, or to quarrels,—his offence would be equal to ‘wine-drinking.’

As the ‘fire’ is spoken of in the singular, it should be understood to mean the domestic fire;—the Śrauta Fires having been all along spoken of in the plural.

“In connection with the offences of abandoning the Śrauta Fires, the Cāndrāyaṇa penance has been declared to be the expiatory rite. In the present context also, since the act would be of the nature of a minor offence, the expiation would consist of the same penance.”

There is no force in this objection; since in connection with minor offences also, diverse expiatory rites have been laid down;—the comparative seriousness or otherwise of the offence and the heaviness or lightness of the expiation being determined in each case by considerations of the capacity of the man concerned. And when the Cāndrāyaṇa penance has been mentioned as the expiation for minor offences, what is meant is that that penance represents the lowest limit ‘Abandoning of the son’— means omitting to support him, or turning him out of the house—when he is no longer an infant and is duly qualified. In the abandoning of a son who has become an outcast, there would be no wrong.—(59)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittavivekā (p. 192), which has the following notes—‘Ayājya-saṃyājya’, includes improper gifts and teaching also,—‘tyāga’ of parents, i.e. neglecting to take care of them,—‘Svādhyāya-tyāga’, forgetting the Veda that has been learnt,—‘agnityāga’, through slothfulness,—‘sutatyāga’, neglecting his feeding and education,—‘ca’ is meant to include the ‘abandoning of the wife’ also.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.58-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.58.