Verse 11.65

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

अनाहिताग्निता स्तेयं ऋणानामनपक्रिया ।
असत्शास्त्राधिगमनं कौशीलव्यस्य च क्रिया ॥ ६५ ॥

anāhitāgnitā steyaṃ ṛṇānāmanapakriyā |
asatśāstrādhigamanaṃ kauśīlavyasya ca kriyā || 65 ||

Omission of fire-laying, theft, non-payment of debts, studying bad books, and the practising of the histrionic art.—(65)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Omission of Fire-laying’—is an offence in the case of a man who has been married and has got a son, and is possessed of the requisite means. The author of the Smṛti thinks that since the Vedic texts laying down Fire-laying do not contain any conditions, they clearly indicate the compulsory character of that rite.

“How can the act of laying of the fire be regarded as enjoined by Vedic texts? If what is mentioned in one context were to be taken as enjoined in connection with another, this would lead to a great confusion regarding the true meaning of the scriptures. What the texts are actually found to prescribe are the Fires; how can that be taken as prescribing the act of laying?”

It is true that the Fires have been prescribed by such texts as—‘Libations are to be offered into the Āhavavīya Fire,’ and so forth; but, as a matter of fact, these Fires cannot be obtained without laying (or kindling); it is for this reason that when the Fires are prescribed, it is understood that the act of laying them is also prescribed.

“If the laying be meant simply for the obtaining of the Fires, then the injunction would apply to only those persons who perform the rite of Fire-laying; and not to one who has no fires at all. Nor is the act of laying compulsory, in the way in which the life-long rites are compulsory. How then win the omission of Fire-laying be an offence?”

The passage—‘by not doing what is enjoined, etc., etc.,’—has clearly laid down that one is liable to expiation if he omits to do what is enjoined; and the act of Fire-laying has been enjoined by such texts as ‘one shall lay the Fires.’

“It is true that the act has been enjoined; but it is so neither with a view to the obtaining of heaven, nor for any other purpose; it has been enjoined only for the purpose of obtaining the Fires. As for the Fires, their use is well known; so that the man who needs them shall obtain them by the means thus enjoined,—and others will not obtain them. What possibility would be there for the omitting of what has been enjoined,—which would render the person liable to Expiation? How can a man be regarded as an offender if he fails to obtain gold, for instance?”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—From the present text itself it is understood that if a man is entitled to Firelaying, he must obtain the Fires by means of the rites prescribed.

Theft—of articles other than those specifically named in this connection.

^‘Debts.’—This refers to the non-performance of those acts that have been laid down as paying off the ‘four debts’ (to the Gods, the Pitṛs, to Men and to the Fires).

‘Bad books’—e.g., those written by Cārvākas and Nirgranthas; those that are not trustworthy, and have no connection with Vedic rites or their effects.

‘Histrionic art’—acting, dancing and singing.—(65)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 538);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes—‘anāhitāgnitā’, omitting to kindle the fires by Śrauta or Smārta rites, when one has the capacity to lay them,—‘steyam,’ appropriating of articles other than gold, slaves, horses, silver, land and deposits,—‘ṛṇānām anapakriyā,’ the non-payment of debts due to Gods, Ṛsis (Ṛṣis) and Piṭṛs,—‘asacchāstrādhigamanam,’ the study of heterodox literature.—‘Kauśīlavasya krīyā,’ constant addiction to dancing, singing and music.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.58-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.58.