Abstract
Medhātithi reduces Manu’s descriptions of the householder as support and source of the āśramas to his performance of the five great sacrifices. Patrick Olivelle characterizes Medhātithi’s interpretation as “radical,” but a strong preliminary case might be made in its favor. Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons to resist Medhātithi’s interpretation. The more plausible interpretation of these passages is also the most straightforward. The householder is the support of the other three āśramas because he is economically productive. He is the source of the āśramas because he has children. The householder is the best of the āśrama, in turn, because the broad benefits that he produces by these means, in particular, are so essentially important. Descriptions of the householder as source and support of the āśramas appear in a wide range of texts. In most of these contexts, they play a central role in justifying the status of the householder. At the same time, these claims often betray the same kind of ambiguity that Medhātithi notes. The fact that Manu counts these descriptions as distinct reasons for the householder’s superiority does not imply that other texts say the same thing. His precedent, however, is worth keeping in mind when interpreting parallel passages in other contexts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
yathā vāyuṃ samāśritya sarve jīvanti jantavaḥ / tathā gṛhastham āśritya vartanta itarāśramāḥ // yasmāt trayo 'py āśramiṇo jñānenānnena cānvaham / gṛhasthair eva dhāryante tasmāj jyeṣṭhāśramo gṛhī //
Olivelle subtitles the passage that consists of these four verses as “Superiority of the Householder” (2005, p. 153).
brahmacārī gṛhasthaś ca vānaprastho yatis tathā / ete gṛhasthaprabhavāś catvāraḥ pṛthagāśramāḥ // sarve 'pi kramaśas tvete yathāśāstraṃ niṣevitāḥ / yathoktakāriṇaṃ vipraṃ nayanti paramāṃ gatim / sarveṣām api caiteṣāṃ vedaśrutividhānataḥ / gṛhastha ucyate śreṣṭhaḥ sa trīn etān bibharti hi // yathā nadīnadāḥ sarve sāgare yānti saṃsthitim / tathaivāśramiṇaḥ sarve gṛhasthe yānti saṃsthitim //
Olivelle explains a parallel verse in Vasiṣṭha by noting that “in the rebirth process they [members of all four āśramas] end up as the semen of the householder, through whom they receive their new birth” (Olivelle 2003: 656, n. to VaDh 8.15).
See also MDh 3.70.
svādhyāyenārcayetarṣīn homair devāny athāvidhi / pitṝñ chrāddhena nṝnannair bhūtāni balikarmaṇā //
apareṇa prakāreṇa mahāyajñānām avaśyakartavyatāṃ darśayati /
gṛhasthānām avasthitir eṣām ity arthaḥ / gṛhasthaḥ prabhavaḥ sthitihetur eṣām iti vigrahaḥ // I reconsider this portion of Medhātithi's commentary in section four below. A preliminary translation, however, might read: “[The āśramas] have the support (avasthiti) of the householders. This is the meaning. The householder is the source (prabhava) on account of [being] the support (sthiti) of them. [This is] the analysis.”
saṃsthitir āśrayaḥ / The word āśraya, in turn, shares the root √śri with the gerunds samāśritya and āśritya at MDh 3.77. This might explain why Medhātithi uses the word āśraya, in particular, to make the point that Manu only means to cite the householder's support of the āśramas at MDh 6.90.
In his commentary to MDh 6.90, Rāghavānanda simply glosses saṃsthiti as bhṛti, in an apparent reference to bibharti at 6.89. This implies that he analyzes the ocean analogy in terms of the householder supporting the āśramas as well. Kane translates MDh 6.89-90 to read: “just as all big and small rivers find a resting place in the ocean, so men of all āśramas find support in the householder and the householder is declared to be the most excellent of all the āśramas by the precepts of the Veda and smṛtis, since he supports the other three” (1974, p. 640).
eṣa evārtho dṛṣṭāntena dṛḍhīkriyate nadyo gaṅgādayaḥ /
Robert Lingat seems to equate these claims in the context of the dharmasūtras. Rather than reducing the claim that the householder is the source of the āśramas to the claim that he is their support, however, he claims that the householder is the support of the āśramas in virtue of being their source.
Soon after his return to the paternal hearth he must contract marriage and enters the second āśrama, that of the householder (gṛhastha). Marriage is a social and religious duty for every Ārya, bound as he is to continue the family and to secure the perpetuation of the domestic cult. Thus the dharma-sūtras consider the householder phase as the most important for it is the one upon which the three others depend (46).
karmasambandhād gṛhasthaḥ śreṣṭhaḥ / ata āśramasyaiva śraiṣṭhyam uktaṃ bhavati /
vaivāhike 'gnau kurvīta gṛhyaṃ karma yathāvidhi / pañcayajñavidhānaṃ ca paktiṃ cānvāhikīṃ gṛhī //
svādhyāye nityayuktaḥ syād daive caiveha karmaṇi / daive karmaṇi yukto hi bibhartīdaṃ carācaram //
agnau prāstāhutiḥ samyagādityam upatiṣṭhate / ādityāj jāyate vṛṣṭir vṛṣṭer annaṃ tataḥ prajāḥ //
itaragrahaṇād yady api gṛhasthād anya āśramiṇaḥ pratīyante tathāpi na gṛhasthapratiṣedhārtham etat / snātakasya hi viśeṣeṇātithyādidānaṃ vihitam /
The circularity of the argument might be more obvious in this (admittedly formal) schematization:
Premise One: The relevant support, in these passages, is the support that results from the five sacrifices.
Premise Two: If the relevant support, in these passages, is the support from the five sacrifices, then the support accrues to all four āśramas.
Premise Three: If the support accrues to all four āśramas, then the relevant support, in these passage, is just the support that results from the five sacrifices.
Conclusion: So the relevant support, in these passage, is just the support that results from the five sacrifices.
Here, the first premise and the conclusion are identical. The conclusion only follows, however, if the support of all four āśramas is established. The support of all four āśramas is established, however, only under the assumption that the relevant support is that which results from the performance of the five sacrifices.
agnihotraṃ samādāya gṛhyaṃ cāgniparicchadam /grāmād araṇyaṃ niḥsṛtya nivasen niyatendriyaḥ // munyannair vividhair medhyaiḥ śākamūlaphalena vā / etān eva mahāyajñān nirvaped vidhipūrvakam //
ṛṇāni trīṇy apākṛtya mano mokṣe niveśayet / anapākṛtya mokṣaṃ tu sevamāno vrajaty adhaḥ // adhītya vidhivad vedān putrāṃś cotpādya dharmataḥ / iṣṭvā ca śaktito yajñair mano mokṣe niveśayet // anadhītya dvijo vedān anutpādya tathātmajān / aniṣṭvā caiva yajñaiś ca mokṣam icchan vrajaty adhaḥ //
Manu says the son constitutes payment of the debt to ancestors (9.106), but never explicitly states to whom a person pays the debts of vedic study and sacrifice (Sayers 73). In his commentary to an earlier verse, Medhātithi explains that “with recitation, [a person becomes] without the debt of the great ṛṣis. With begetting an offspring, [a person becomes without the debt] of ancestors. [And] with sacrifices, [a person becomes without the debt] of gods” (maharṣīṇām ānṛṇyaṃ svādhyāyena pitṝṇām apatyotpādanena devānāṃ yajñair… /) (Me 4.257)
Only the householder can pay the three debts, since only the householder has a legitimate son, and only the married householder can perform the full range of relevant sacrifices (Olivelle 2011, pp. 34, 46).
Richard Burghart argues that the forest dweller and renouncer continue to pay the three debts after leaving the householder āśrama, by “interiorizing” them (639, Cf., Malamoud 106). The verse that he cites in support of this claim, however—MDh 6.38—only describes the internalization of the sacred fire that is central to the sacrifices that constitute payment of the debt to the gods.
As J. C. Heesterman says, “[o]bviously the other āśramas - those of the pupil, the hermit and, not in the last place, the renouncer - depend on the householder whose generosity provides them with their daily sustenance” (251).
yathā vāyuṃ samāśritya sarve jīvanti jantavaḥ / tathā gṛhastham āśritya vartanta itarāśramaḥ //
yathā mātaram āśritya sarve jīvanti jantavaḥ / evaṃ gṛhastham āśritya sarve jīvanti bhikṣukāḥ //
brahmacārī gṛhastho bhikṣur vaikhānasaḥ / teṣāṃ gṛhastho yonir aprajanatvād itareṣām //
Charles Malamoud notes that in many texts, “the debt owed to the Fathers gives rise… to a more extended and diversified treatment, with more interwoven narrative elements, than the other debts on the list” (103). This emphasis on payment of the debt to ancestors, however, does not entail that discussions of the householder having children are reducible to his payment of the three debts. Moreover, this emphasis is not universal. Gautama, for example, describes the householder as the source of the āśramas, but does not mention the three debts in his entire text.
saṃnyasya sarvakarmāṇi karmadoṣān apānudan / niyato vedam abhyasyan putraiśvarye sukhaṃ vaset //
pitā rakṣati kaumāre bhartā rakṣati yauvane / rakṣyanti sthavire putrā… //
saṃtyajya grāmyam āhāraṃ sarvaṃ caiva paricchadam / putreṣu bhāryāṃ nikṣipya vanaṃ gacchet… //
…mṛte bhartari putras tu yāpyo mātur arakṣitā //
Jamison notes that the householder having children is essential for the continuity of the family both economically and ritually (2018, p. 125).
T. N. Madan seems to equate the debts and sacrifices when he says,
[t]he scope of sacrifice was vast with cosmo-moral significance and included the three (or five) daily obligations of the householder in redemption of the “debts” mentioned in vedic literature. These number three in some texts and five in others: the debts to goods, seers, and fathers, and additionally to all men and nonhuman creatures (292).
Also see Timothy Lubin (2018b, p. 185).
In two other passages, the Mahābhārata cites five debts (12.281.9-11, 13.37.18). In neither passage, however, do the debts align precisely with the five sacrifices. The first passage lists gods, guests, servants, ancestors, and the self. The second lists gods, ṛṣis, ancestors, brāhmaṇas, and guests.
This might be true even if the most basic reason to have a son is the continuation of the śrāddha ceremony after the death of the father.
pañca sūnā gṛhasthasya cullī peṣaṇy upaskaraḥ / kaṇḍanī codakumbhaś ca badhyate yāstu vāhayan // tāsāṃ krameṇa sarvāsāṃ niṣkṛty arthaṃ maharṣibhiḥ / pañca kḷptā mahāyajñāḥ pratyahaṃ gṛhamedhinām //
Manu outlines a practice that accomplishes the same goal for the ascetic, and elaborates some of the unintentional harms caused simply by drinking, walking, and breathing (6.68-72).
vedābhyāso 'nvahaṃ śaktyā mahāyajñakriyā kṣamā / nāśayanty āśu pāpāni mahāpātakajāny api //
The claim from the Taittirīya Saṃhitā that “just being born, a brāhmaṇa is born with three debts (jāyamāno vai brāhmaṇas tribhir ṛṇavā jāyate brahmacaryeṇarṣibhyo yajñena devebhyaḥ prajayā pitṛbhya /)” (6.3.10.5) is repeated at Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra 2.11.33, Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra 11.48, and elsewhere. Davis Jr. (2010, p. 71) and Lubin (2018a, p. 110), following Malamoud (1996, p. 100), refer to these debts as “congenital debts” (2018a, p. 110).
For the sake of brevity in what follows, I will focus on only a few of these texts.
See above, line 491 in p. 14.
ekāśramyaṃ tvācāryā aprajanatvād itareṣām //
The two verses are identical except for the substitution of evam (in the MBh) for tathaiva.
See above, lines 435–438 in p. 13.
yathā mātaram āśritya sarve jīvanti jantavaḥ / evaṃ gṛhastham āśritya vartanta itare āśramaḥ //
tasmād gārhasthyam udvoḍhuṃ duṣkaraṃ prabravīmi vaḥ // tapaḥ śreṣṭhaṃ prajānāṃ hi mūlam etan na saṃśayaḥ / kuṭumbavidhinānena yasmin sarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitam //
śāstradṛṣṭaḥ paro dharmaḥ smṛto gārhasthya āśramaḥ // …gṛhasthaṃ hi sadā devāḥ pitara ṛṣayas tathā / bhṛtyāś caivupajīvanti tān bhajasva mahīpate // vayāṃsi paśavaś caiva bhūtāni ca mahīpate / gṛhasthair eva dhāryante tasmāj jyeṣṭhāśramo gṛhī //
Indeed, Yudhiṣṭhira notes the importance of the householder supporting all living beings when he first considers renunciation (MBh 3.2.49-59).
brahmacārī yatir bhikṣur jīvanty ete gṛhāśramāt /
See below for more on these subsequent verses.
ṛṣayaḥ pitaro devā bhūtāny atithayas tathā / āśāsate kuṭumbibhyas tasmācchreṣṭho gṛhāśramī /
gṛhasthebhyo ‘bhinirvṛttā gṛhasthān eva saṃśritāḥ / prabhavaṃ ca pratiṣṭhāṃ ca dāntā nindanta āsate //
References
Primary Sanskrit Texts
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. Albrecht Weber, (Ed). (1997). The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa in the Mādhyandina-Śākhā, with extracts from the commentaries of Sāyana, Harisvāmin and Dvivedaganga. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series.
DHARMASŪTRA, Āpastamba. Patrick Olivelle (Ed). (2000a). Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
DHARMASŪTRA, Baudhāyana. Patrick Olivelle (Ed). (2000b). Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
DHARMASŪTRA, Gautama. Patrick Olivelle (Ed). (2000c). Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
DHARMASŪTRA, Vasiṭḥa. PatrickOlivelle (Ed). (2000d). Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
DHARMAŚĀSTRA, Mānava. Patrick Olivelle (Ed). (2005). Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: OUP.
Mahābhārata. V. S. Sukthankar, et. al. (eds). (1927–1959). Mahābhārata (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute).
Manubhāṣya, Medhātithi. Jayantakrishna H. Dave (ed.). (1972–1985). Manu-smṛti with Nine Commentaries by Medhātithi, Sarvajñanārāyaṇa, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda, Nandana, Rāmachandra, Manirāma, Govindarāja and Bhāruci, volume II (Adhyāyas 3-4) (Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).
Manvarthacandrikā, Rāghavānanda. Jayantakrishna H. Dave (ed.). (1972–1985). Manu-smṛti with Nine Commentaries by Medhātithi, Sarvajñanārāyaṇa, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda, Nandana, Rāmachandra, Manirāma, Govindarāja and Bhāruci, volume II (Adhyāyas 3-4) (Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).
Taittirīya Saṃhitā. Bhaṭṭabhāskaramiśra, et. al. (eds.) (1986). Taittirīyasaṃhitā (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).
Secondary Texts and Translations
Burghart, R. (1983). Renunciation in the religious traditions of South Asia. Man, 18(4), 635–653.
Davis, D. R., Jr. (2010). The spirit of Hindu law. Cambridge: CUP.
Ghose, A. M. (1988). An analysis of Manu on man and society. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16(3), 247–276.
Heesterman, J. C. (1982). Householder and wanderer. In T. N. Madan (Ed.), Way of life: King, householder, renouncer—Essays in honour of Louis Dumont. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing.
Jamison, S. W. (2018). Marriage and the householder: vivāha, gṛhastha. In P. Olivelle (Ed.), The Oxford history of hinduism: Hindu law: A new history of Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: OUP.
Jha, G. (trans.) (1999). Manusmṛti with the “Manubhasya” of Medhātithi: Text, translation, and notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Kane, P. V. History of Dharmaśāstra, Volume II, Part I. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Lingat, R. (1973). The classical law of India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Lubin, T. (2018a). The Vedic student. In P. Olivelle (Ed.), The Oxford history of hinduism: Hindu law: A new history of Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: OUP.
Lubin, T. (2018b). Daily duties: āhnika. In P. Olivelle (Ed.), The Oxford history of hinduism: Hindu law: A new history of Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: OUP.
Madan, T. N. (2003). The householder tradition in Hindu society. In Gavin Flood (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to Hinduism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Malamoud, C. (1996). The theology of debt in Brahmanism. In: D. White (trans.) (Ed.), Cooking the world: Ritual and thought in ancient India. Delhi: OUP.
Olivelle, P. (2011). Ascetics and Brahmins: Studies in ideologies and institutions. London: Anthem Press.
Olivelle, P. (1993). The Āśrama system: The history and hermeneutics of a religious institution. Oxford: OUP.
Rukmani, T. S. Value ethics in the early Upaniṣads: A hermeneutic approach. In R. D. Sherma & A. Sharma (Eds.), Hermeneutics and hindu thought: Toward a fusion of horizons. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sayers, M. (2008). Feeding the ancestors: Ancestor worship in ancient Hinduism and Buddhism. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Framarin, C.G. The Householder as Support and Source of the Āśramas in the Mānava Dharmaśāstra. J Indian Philos 49, 1–22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09457-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09457-8