Sahitya in Manubhasya 2.165

[Full title: Mimamsa technical terms (25) Sahitya (1) References in Manubhasya verse 2.165]

REFERENCE Manu Smriti II-165. 994 Passage- | "nanu yo vedah sa krtsna " ityetadatra pratiyate | na cani vedasabdavacyani | tatra kuto 'de sahityam ? ya tvesa smrtih 'baddo vedo'dhyeyah ' iti tatra svasabdenanyupanani | iha tu bedavisesanatvat krtsnasabdasya kathamivangani grdhyeran ? " | svadhyayo'dhyetavya ' iti mulaivaisa smrtih | sa cavabodhaparyanta vyavasthapita | avabodhasca nantarenanka ni kalpata ityartha siddhamanganamupadanam | ucyate CMedhatithi ns IT-165) Translation All that the present verse says is that what is called 'Veda' should be learnt entire and certainly the subsidiary sciences are not called by the name 'Veda'. What then is there which signifies that the 'Veda' should be learnt along with the sciences? As far the lauz 'the Veda with its six subsidiaries should be learnt', here we find the subsidiary sciences mentioned by their own name; while in the present verse the adjective 'entire' qualifying the 'Veda' how could the subsidiaries be included? Our answer is as follows:- As a matter of fact the present verse is based upon the Sruti - the 'Veda' shall be learnt', and it has been established that this 'learning' is meant to extend upto the full comprehension of the meaning. This comprehention is not possible witout the help of subsidiary sciences. It is thus that these sciences become included by implication and thus the learning of Elucidations, Etymologies, Grammar and Exigeties also become implied by the same injunction. For

995 these reasons the inclusion of the subsidiary sciences being admitted, it is only right that the term 'entire' be taken as indicating the same fact. Explanation - 1 While discussing the duties of a Brahmacari Manu Smriti II-165 tells that - "An Aryan must study the whole Veda together with the Rahasyas performing at the same time various kinds of austerities and the vows prescribed by the rules (of the Veda). While commenting on the expression Veda 'Krtsnadi gantavyaha" the question arises whether the expression Krtsna Veda' means entire Veda alongwith its six angas or only the four Vedas. The oponent points that, here in the text there is no reference to six angas. Hence this cannot be a case of Sahitya. To support this view he quotes the other text "Sadanga Vedodheyaha(R) which lays down the angas by the expression Sva and says that in the point at issue there is no reference to the word 'Sadanga'. To this view, Medhatithi gives his reply that this can be treated as a case of Sahitya, as the study of a Veda cannot be completed unless one studies the angas like Siksa, Vyakarna, Nirukta Kalpana etc. Hence this is a fit case of Sahitya, What Medhatithi means to say is that by 1.e. the expression Krtsna Veda/the entire Veda along with its, six angas is to be studied. It thus becomes a case of Sahitya. In conclusion Medhatithi disagrees with those who think that in the present text under discussion, no Sahitya is intended. He, in facts holds that this is a case of Sahitya. (Other commentators of Manu are silent on this point). 1. tapovisesairvividhairbrataisca vidhicoditaih | vedah krtsno'dhigantavyah sarahasyo dvijanmana || 2 .1655 Manu Smriti Vol I P 385