1. ⌊1.⌋ Now in whosesoever house a thus-knowing Vrātya abides one night as guest, ⌊2.⌋ he thereby gains possession of those pure (púṇya) worlds that are on the earth.
Here again, and in the following verses through 4, the Anukr. fails to make any account of the first four words, tád yásyāi ’váṁ vidvā́n, omitted by the mss. on account of repetition (see note to 11. 1); they are restored in our text.
2. ⌊3.⌋ Now in whosesoever house a thus-knowing Vrātya abides a second night as guest, ⌊4.⌋ he thereby gains possession of those pure worlds that are in the atmosphere.
Part of the mss. (I.O.R.T.), ⌊with nine of SPP's authorities⌋, read yé ant- at beginning of b.
3. ⌊5.⌋ Now in whosesoever house a thus-knowing Vrātya abides a third night as guest, ⌊6.⌋ he thereby gains possession of those pure worlds that are in the sky.
4. ⌊7.⌋ Now in whosesoever house a thus-knowing Vrātya abides a fourth night as guest, ⌊8.⌋ he thereby gains possession of those worlds that are pure of the pure.
That is, doubtless, that are especially pure. In a, read vidvā́n (an accent-mark slipped out of place).
5. ⌊9.⌋ Now in whosesoever house a thus-knowing Vrātya abides unlimited nights as guest, ⌊10.⌋ he thereby gains possession of those pure worlds that are unlimited.
In a, read again vidvā́n (same error). ⌊Instead of the tripadā of our mss. of the Anukr. in the description of 5 a, SPP. prints dvipadā. Critical Notice, p. 2217.⌋
6. ⌊11.⌋ Now to whosesoever houses may come as guest a non-Vrātya, calling himself a Vrātya, bearing the name [only],—
Nāma॰bibhratī́ (so in p.) is so anomalous a formation that we can hardly regard it as otherwise than corrupt, perhaps for nā́ma bíbhrat or nāmabibhrát.
7. ⌊12.⌋ He may draw him, and he may not draw him.
That is, apparently, whether he invite him urgently or not. But the Pet. Lex. takes the verb as meaning 'treat with violence, punish'—which is unacceptable, as the entertainer is not supposed to be certain whether his guest is a real Vrātya or not. Aufrecht leaves the verse untranslated. There is ⌊with this interpretation⌋ no perceptible reason why the second kárṣet should be accented. Another interpretation, however, may be suggested as possible: that kárṣed enam is apodosis to the preceding verse: 'he may tousle (maltreat) him'; and the rest, protasis to vs. 8: 'if he do not tousle him' (because he is not sufficiently certain of his real character), then he may pay him honors under protest, as stated in vs. 8. But then we should expect vs. 7 to be divided into two pādas, which is done neither by the pada-mss. nor by the Anukr.
8. ⌊13.⌋ For this deity I ask water; this deity I cause to abide; this, this deity I wait upon—with this thought he should wait upon him.
