20. Or (the passage rather is) an injunction, as in the case of the carrying (of the firewood).
The case is analogous to that of the 'carrying.' There is a scriptural text (relating to the Agnihotra which forms part of the mahâpitriyagña), 'Let him approach carrying the firewood below (the ladle holding the offering); for above he carries it for the gods.' Now this passage may be conceived as an unbroken whole if we view it as referring to the carrying below only; nevertheless we determine that it enjoins the carrying above because that
Even if (to state an alternative conclusion) the passage contains references only to the other âsramas, it must be viewed as enjoining at any rate the condition of being grounded in Brahman, owing to the glorification of that condition. The question here arises whether that state belongs to any one comprised within the four âsramas, or only to the wandering mendicant. If now a reference to the mendicant also is contained within the references to the âsramas up to the Brahmakârin (i.e. the three âsramas the text refers to before the passage about the brahmasamstha); then, as all four âsramas are referred to equally and as somebody not belonging to any âsrama could not possibly be called brahmasamstha, it follows that the term 'brahmasamstha' denotes any one standing within one of the four âsramas. If, on the other hand, the mendicant is not comprised within the references to the three âsramas, he alone remains, and this establishes the conclusion that the brahmasamstha is the mendicant only. (We therefore have to inquire which of the two alternatives stated has to be adopted.)--Here some maintain that the term 'austerity' which denotes the hermit in the woods implies a reference to the mendicant also. But this is wrong. For as long as any other explanation is possible, we must not assume that a term which expresses a distinctive attribute of the hermits living in the forest comprises the wandering mendicants also. Both the Brahmakârin and the householder are
299:1 In the clause 'vidhyantarâdarsarnât' I can see nothing more than an explanation of--or reason for--the 'apûrvatvât.' If we viewed the passage as glorifying the brahmasamsthatâ compared to the three branches of the law through the statement of its super-sensuous results (so that it would constitute an arthavâda of the kind called gunavâda), we should indeed preserve the unity of the passage--which is destroyed if we view it as enjoining the different stages of life. But all the same the latter explanation is the true one; for a glorificatory passage presupposes an injunctive one, and as no such injunctive passage is met with elsewhere, it is simpler to assume that the present passage is itself injunctive than to construe (on the basis of it if viewed as a gunavâda) another injunctive passage. (In Ânanda Giri's gloss on this passage--Biblioth. Indica edition--read 'vihitatvopagamaprasaktyâ' and 'stutilakshanayaika°.')
300:1 The ekavâkyatâ is preserved if we take the clause from 'above' as an arthavâda meant to give the reason why in sacrifices offered to the Fathers the firewood has to be carried below. Nevertheless the clause must be taken as a vidhi enjoining the carrying above in all sacrifices offered to the gods, because this particular is not enjoined elsewhere.
303:1 Which has to be acquired in the regular proscribed way of Brahmanical studentship.
