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.

梅德哈蒂（Medhātithi）减少了马努（Manu）对家庭主妇的描述，因为他对五位大祭司的奉献是他对礼拜的支持和来源。帕特里克·奥利维尔（Patrick Olivelle）将Medhātithi的解释描述为“激进”，但可能会提出一个有力的初步理由。尽管如此，仍有许多理由抵制梅哈蒂蒂的解释。对这些段落的更合理的解释也是最直接的。户主是其他三个宗教的支持者，因为他在经济上有生产能力。他是茹阿玛斯的源头，因为他有孩子。户主是āśrama中的佼佼者反过来，因为他通过这些方式产生的广泛利益尤其如此重要。关于家庭主妇作为茹阿玛斯的来源和支持的描述出现在各种各样的文本中。在大多数情况下，它们在证明住户身份合理性方面发挥着核心作用。同时，这些主张常常背叛了Medhātithi所指出的那种歧义。Manu认为这些描述是住户优越的独特原因，但这并不意味着其他文献在说同样的话。但是，在其他情况下解释平行段落时，应牢记他的先例。