alms nobody is left out, not even dogs, those who have fallen, “Dog-cookers,”
those whose evil deeds have made them ill, birds, and worms (Manu 3.92).
Guests come in for detailed mention, and even a deserving Vais ́ya or S ́u ̄dra,
approaching a Brahman’s house in the proper manner, must be given food,
although only alongside the servants (Manu 3.112). Not everyone qualifies to
be a guest, however; certainly not Brahman householders in their own village,
who can only be called foolish, for they run the risk of being reborn as “the live-
stock of those who have given them food” (Manu 3.104). It is only after one and
all have been fed that the pious householder shall himself eat. “The householder
should eat the leftovers only after he has revered the goods, the sages, humans,
ancestors, and the household deities. The person who cooks only for himself eats
nothing but error [sin], for the food left over from the sacrifice is the food
intended for good men” (Manu 3.117–18).
A large part of the third book ofMa ̄nava Dharmas ́a ̄stra(122–286) has s ́ra ̄ddha,
the sacrifice to the ancestors, for its theme. The central rites consist of offering
rice balls (pin.d.a) to specified deceased ancestors and feeding invited Brahmans
who represent them.
The fourth book attends to the issue of the means of subsistence of the house-
holders. An interesting classification is presented. Subsistence by gleaning corn
and gathering grains is “lawful”; unsolicited gifts are “immortal” and acceptable;
farming, although the “deadly” mode of life, is legitimate; trade is “simultane-
ously good and unlawful” and yet permissible. But servility must be avoided for
it is “the dog’s way of life” (Manu 4.5–6). Detailed rules of behavior not only in
respect of diet but the whole range of natural and legitimate activities are listed.
Altogether, a view of the householder’s life is presented in which a great deal
is permitted including profit and pleasure, so long as it is lawful, prudent, gen-
erally acceptable to good people, and in conformity with tradition (see e.g.
175–80). What is more, the conception of the householder’s life presented in
theManusmr.tiis inclusive and incorporates through subtle devices “the values
of other a ̄s ́ramas without abandoning home and family” (Olivelle 1993:140).
The conflict between the two views ofga ̄rhasthya– as a permanent alterna-
tive to other ways of life, notably that of the renouncer, or as a temporary stage
in the life of a twice-born man – was apparently never completely resolved in
the textual tradition of the Dharmas ́a ̄stras and subsequently. What is clear,
however, is that, even when the idea ofa ̄s ́ramas as stages of life prevailed, the
virtues of the householder’s way of life were uniformly eulogized. Thus the
Maha ̄bha ̄rata, which is a truly oceanic source of the precepts and practice
of dharma, endorses “the superiority of the householder” and promotes the
idea that renunciation of the householder’s life is appropriate only in old age
(Olivelle 1993: 148–51).
Although Olivelle argues persuasively that the notion of choice in the origin-
ala ̄s ́ramadid not completely disappear from subsequent formulations, contem-
porary Indological literature has generally favored the idea of an ordered
sequence of stages. This is true of both earlier works and the more recent ones,
but Olivelle’s seminal work is bound to generate rethinking on the subject. The
294 t. n. madan