०४ संस्काराः

Thus has the source of Dharma been briefly explained to you, as also the origin of all this (world). Learn now the duties of the several castes.—(25).

अतिक्रान्तस्य सर्वस्य ग्रन्थार्थस्य पिण्डार्थकथनम् अविस्मरणार्थम् । योनिः कारणम् । समासेन संक्षेपेण । संभवश् चेति प्रथमाध्यायार्थावमर्शः । अस्य सर्वस्येति । जगन्निर्माणं बुद्ध्या प्रत्यक्षीकृत्य निर्दिशति । वर्णानुष्ठेया धर्मा वर्णधर्माः । तान् निबोधत । विस्तरेणेति विशेषः ।

• इह पञ्चप्रकारो धर्म इति स्मृतिविवरणकाराः प्रपञ्चयन्ति- वर्णधर्म आश्रमधर्मो वर्णाश्रमधर्मो नैमित्तिको¹ गुणधर्मश् चेति । तत्र यो जातिमात्रम् अपेक्ष्य प्रवृत्तो न वयोविभागाश्रमादिकम् आश्रयति स वर्णधर्मः । यथा “ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः,” ब्राह्मणेन सुरा न पेया" इति । जातिमात्रस्यान्त्याद् उच्छ्वासाद् एष धर्मः । आश्रमधर्मो यत्र जातिर् नापेक्ष्यते केवला, तदाश्रमप्रतिपत्तिर्² आश्रीयते । यथा “ब्रह्मचारिणो ऽग्नीन्धनभिक्षाचरणे” (ग्ध् २.८) । वर्णाश्रमधर्म उभ्यापेक्षः । यथा “मौर्वी ज्या क्षत्रियस्य” (म्ध् २.४२) इत्यादिः । नाश्रमान्तरे न च जात्यन्तरस्य धारणम् अस्या उदाहरणम् । प्रथमोपादानं तूपनयनधर्मो³ नाश्रमधर्मः । उपनयनं चाश्रमार्थं⁴ नाश्रमधर्मः । नैमित्तिको द्रवशुद्ध्यादिः । गुणम् आश्रितो गुणधर्मः, “षड्भिः परिहार्यश् च” (ग्ध् ८.१२) इत्यादिः । बाहुश्रुत्येन गुणेनैते धर्माः । एवम् अभिषिक्तस्य क्षत्रियस्य ये धर्माः ।

• तद् एतद् वर्णग्रहणेन सर्वं गृहीतम् इति दर्शितम् । अवान्तरभेदस् तु तत⁵ एवावतिष्ठते । पुरुषत्वमात्राश्रिता अवर्णधर्मा अपि सन्ति । ते ऽपि भेदेन वाच्याः स्युः । एवम् अन्यो ऽपि भेदो ऽभ्यूह्यः । वर्णग्रहणं चात्र प्रदर्शनार्थम्, नान्तरप्रभवव्युदासार्थम् । पूर्वं प्रतिज्ञातत्वात् तदनुवादिनी ह्य् एषा प्रतिज्ञा ॥ २.२५ ॥

Here we have the recapitulation of all that has gone before,—and this for the purpose of refreshing the memory.

‘Yoniḥ’—‘source,’ cause.

‘Samāśena’—‘briefly,’ in brief.

‘Sambhavaśca’—‘also the origin’—this refers to what has gone in Discourse I.

‘Of all this’—this refers to the ‘creation of the world,’ which is recalled in the form of a mental picture, and thus brought before the eye (which makes it capable of being referred to by the pronoun ‘this’).

‘The duties of the several castes’—The duties that should he performed by the various castes.

‘Learn’—i.e. in detail.

In this connection, the author of the Smṛtivivaraṇa describes five kinds of Dharma or Duty:—

1. ‘Varṇa-dharma,’ ‘duties pertaining to caste;’
2. ‘Āśrama-dharma,’ ‘Duties pertaining to Life-stages,’
3. ‘Varṇāśrama-dharma,’ ‘duties pertaining to caste and life-stage’;
4. ‘Naimittika-Dharma,’ ‘Occasional Duties,’
5. and ‘Guṇa-Dharma’ ‘Duties pertaining to qualification.’—

(1) Of these, that which proceeds entirely on the basis of caste, and takes no account of age, life-stage or any such circumstances, is called ‘duty pertaining to castes;’ e.g., what is laid down in such rules as—‘the Brāhmaṇa should not be killed,’ ‘wine shall not be drank by the Brāhmaṇa’—refers to a particular caste only, and is meant to apply to every person of that caste till his very last breath.

(2) ‘Duty pertaining to life-stage’ is that which does not depend upon caste only, but takes account of a particular life-stage also; e.g., ‘Fire-kindling and alms-begging are the duties of the Vedic student’ (Gautama 2.8).

(3) ‘Duty pertaining to caste and life-stage’ is that which is related to both; e g., when it is prescribed that ‘the bow-string made of grass is the girdle for the Kṣatriya student,’ it means that what is mentioned does not apply to any other life-stage (than that of the student), nor to any other caste (except the Kṣatriya);—what is meant to he the example here is the wearing of the girdle during student-life, not the first taking of it, which forms part of the Upanayana-rites, and does not pertaiṇ to the particular life-stage; and the Upanayana itself is what ushers in a particular life-stage, and it is not a ‘duty pertaining to the life-stage.’

(4) The ‘Occasional Duty’ consists of such acts as the purifying of things and so forth.

(5) ‘Duty pertaining to qualifications’ is that which is presented in connection with special qualifications; e.g., what is laid down in such rules as ‘he should be absolved from six’ is with reference to the qualification of ‘vast learning;’ to this same category belong also all those duties that are laid down for the ‘annointed’ Kṣatriya.

All these are meant to be included under the ‘of the castes’ (mentioned in the text); and hence the text mentions those only; and it does not make mention of the sub-divisions, because in the first place there are endless subdivisions, and secondly, (if the text went about mentioning all possible kinds of duties) it would have to mention those many duties also which are laid down for men in general, without reference to any particular caste. Similarly with other varieties of ‘Duty.’ In fact the ‘Duties pertaining to castes’ have been mentioned only as an indication; it does not mean that the duties of the mixed castes are excluded from consideration; because this latter has also been promised (in 1.2) as the subject to lie expounded; and the present statement is only meant to be the reiteration of that promise.—(25)

‘Dharmasya’—Govindarāja alone takes this to mean ‘spiritual merit others agree in taking it as ‘duties

Medhātithi (p. 78,1.28)—‘Iha pañcaprakāro dharmoḥ’—This view is here attributed to the author of the Smṛtivivaraṇa. Kullūka quotes the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa to the same effect.

Modern writers and lecturers on what they call ‘Varṇā-śramadharma’ should note the exact connotation of this name, as here explained by Medhātithi.

025 Thus has the origin of the sacred law been succinctly described to you and the origin of this universe; learn (now) the duties of the castes (varna).

For the twice-born persons corporeal consecration, beginning with ‘Conception,’ should be performed with auspicious Vedic rites; it purifies in this world and also after death.—(26)

वैदिकैः कर्मभिः पुण्यैर्
निषेकादिर् द्विजन्मनाम् ।
कार्यः शरीरसंस्कारः
पावनः प्रेत्य चेह च ॥ २.२६ ॥

The ‘Vedic rites’ spoken of here are mantra-recitations. ‘Veda’ here stands for mantras; and what ‘arises out of them’ (which is what is expressed by the affix in ‘Vaidikaiḥ’) is the ‘reciting’; hence the nominal affix ‘ṭhañ’ comes under the provisions of the Vārtika on Pāṇini, 4. 3. 60.

Or, the word ‘vaidika’ (Vedic) may he taken as figuratively applied to the rites, on the ground of their source lying in the Veda. ‘Karma,’ ‘Rites,’ would, in this case, stand for the act constituting the procedure; and hence becomes possible the differentiation and the relation of cause and effect (between the Karma and the Saṁskāra which is expressed in the assertion—‘the consecration, saṁskāra, should he performed by means of the Rites?

‘Conception’—is the depositing of the semen in the womb, and ‘niṣekādiḥ’ stands for that body of sacraments to he described below, which liegins with the said ‘Conception’ and ends with ‘Initiation’ ( Upanayana). The singular number in ‘Śarīrasaṁskāraḥ,’ ‘corporeal consecration,’ is due to the whole body of sacraments being taken collectively. ‘Consecration’ means the preparation of a qualified body; and the Eeveral sacraments serve to produce in the body special qualifications.

This is what is meant by the term ‘pāvanaḥ,’ ‘it nurifies,’ removes impurities.

‘In this world and also after death’.—This means that the person duly consecrated becomes entitled to the performance of all those acts that, like the Kārīri and other sacrifices, lead to material results, -as also those that, like the Jyotiṣṭoma etc., bring spiritual rewards; and hence the consecrations are of use in both worlds.

‘Puṇyaiḥ’—‘auspicious,’ ie., propitious; i.e., they bring good luck and remove bad luck. Thus there is a clear difference between the word ‘puṇy a’ and ‘pāvana’ here.

‘For the twice-born persons,’—this serves to exclude the Śūdras. This word serves to point out who are the persons to be consecrated; and it is only by indirect indication that the three higher castes arc understood to be meant; for before consecration, they are not yet ‘twice-born’ (the ‘second birth’ consisting of the consecration).—(26)

‘Vaidikaiḥ karmabhiḥ’.—The term ‘vaidika-karma’ here stands for Vedic mantras;—or for rites prescribed in the Veda. Both explanations are found in Medhātithi and Govindarāja; Kullūka notes only the latter explanation.

This verse has been quoted in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 132) as laying down the necessity of performing the Saṃskāras. Here also both the above explanations are noted.—It explains the term ‘śarīra’ in the compound ‘Śarīrasaṃskāraḥ’ to stand for the constituents of the body.—‘In this world and also after death’—has been explained as implying that the Saṃskāras help ‘after death’ by enabling the man to perform such sacrifices as lead him to heaven, and they help ‘in this world’ by enabling him to perform such sacrifices as the Kārīrī and the like, which bring desirable results in the world, in the shape of rain, children and so forth.—It is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 36), to the effect that sacramental rites are performed with Vedic Mantras in the ease of the Twice-bom persons only; it adds that these sacraments are called ‘pāvana’, ‘purificatory’ of the person, because, performed with Vedic Mantras, they serve to destroy sins.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 7.7.—‘Sanctified by means of the forty sacraments.’

Gautama-Dharmnsūtra, 7.14.—‘Four are the Vedic observances.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.10.—‘From Conception till Death, the rites of the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya are performed with Mantras.’

Yama (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 132).—‘The Śūdra also should be sanctified; hut without Mantras,’

Baijavapa (Ibid).—‘For the Śūdra also, the following sacraments have been ordained—Niṣeka, Puṃsavana, Sīmantonnayana, Jātakarma, Nāmakaraṇa, Annaprāśana, and Chaula,—as to he done without Mantras.’

Jātūkarṇya (Ibid, p. 134)—‘For the Śūdra, there is Marriage as also the Final (Death) Rites.’

026 With holy rites, prescribed by the Veda, must the ceremony on conception and other sacraments be performed for twice-born men, which sanctify the body and purify (from sin) in this (life) and after death.

Of twice-born men the taint of seed and womb is removed by the ‘Libations in connection with Pregnancy’ and by ‘Jātakarman’ (Rites attendant upon birth), ‘Chauḍa’ (Tonsure) and ‘Mauñjībandhana’ (Tying of the grass-girdle). (27)

“How can these sacraments be regarded as subserving the purposes of actions? As regards the ‘sprinkling of butter,’ it is only natural that through the butter it should subserve the purposes of the sacrificial act, in Connection with which it has been prescribed. These sacraments however lie entirely, outside the pale of any action;—their injunction not occurring in the context of any sacrificial act. So it is difficult to say that they help in the sacrifice through the man (in the way in which the does through the butter). And unless it subserves the purposes of an act, consecration cannot be performed for its own sake; as in that case it should cease to be a ‘consecration’ (which is always subsidiary to something else), and become a primary act itself, and (when it ceases to be a consecration) this would mean the nullification of the statement ‘corporeal consecration should be performed’ (verse 26), and also of the Accusative ending in the statement ‘when, the boy is born, before he is touched by any other person, the father should etc.’ (which refers to the Birth-rites); and in that case, the sense of the injunction will have to be altered, as is done in the case of the injunction ‘Saktūñjuhoti’ [where the incompatibility of the Accusative ending leads us to alter it into the Instrumental ],—a particular result (as arising out of the consecration, as a primary act by itself) will have to be assumed; and so forth, a number of absurd assumptions will have to be made.”

(1) Ādhāna, (2) Puṃsavana, (3) Sīmanta, (4) Jāta, (5) Nāma, (6) Anna, (7) Chaula, (8) Mauñjī, (9-12) the four Vratas, (13) Godāna, (14) Samāvartana, (15) Vivāha, and (16) Antya.’

(1) Garbhādhāna, (2) Puṃsavana, (3) Sīmanta, (4) Bali, (5) Jātakṛtya, (6) Nāmakaraṇa, (7) Niṣkrama, (8) Annaprāśana, (9) Chaulakarma, (10) Upanayana, (11-14) the Four Veda-vratas, (15) Snāna, (16) Udvāha, (17) Āgrayaṇa, (18) Aṣṭakā, (19) Śrāvaṇī, (20) Āśvayujī, (21) Mārgaśīrṣī, (22) Pārvaṇa, (23) Utsarga, (24) Upākaraṇa, (25) Mahāyajñas;

(1) Garbhādhāna, (2) Puṃsavana, (3) Sīmantonnayana, (4) Jātakarma, (5) Nāmakaraṇa, (6) Annaprāśana, (7) Chaula, (8) Upanayana, (9-12) the four Veda-vratas, (13) Snāna, (14) Sahadharmacāriṇīsaṃyoga, (15-19) the five mahāyajñas, (20-26) the seven Pākayajñas—Aṣṭakā, Pārvaṇa-Śrāddba, Śrāvanī, Āgrahāyaṇī, Caitrī and Āśvayujī, (27-33) the seven Haviryajñas—Agnyādheya, Agnihotra, Darśapūrṇamāsa, Cāturmāsya, Āgrayaṇeṣṭi, Nirūdhapaśubandha, and Sautrāmaṇi, (33-40) the seven Somayajñas—Agniṣṭoma, Atyagniṣṭoma, Ukthya, Ṣoḍasbī, Vājapeya, Atirātra and Āptoryamā’

उक्तं संस्कारप्रयोजनं पावनः शरीरसंस्कारः पुण्यश् च । तत्र पावनत्वम् उच्यते- दुष्टस्य दोषापकर्षणम् ।

• कुतः पुनः शरीरस्य दुष्टतेत्य् आशङ्कायाम् आह । बैजिकं गार्भिकं चैन इति । बीजे भवं बीजनिमित्तं वा बैजिकम् । एवं गार्भिकम् । एनः पापम् अदृष्टं दुःखकारणम् । तस्य बीजगर्भयोर् निमित्तभावाद् शुचित्वमात्रम् इहोच्यते । शुक्रशोणिते पुरुषस्य बीजम् । ते च स्वभावाद् अशुचिनी । गर्भाधान्य् अपि दोषसंक्रान्त्या दुष्टैव । अतस् तन्निमित्तम् अशुचित्वं पुरुषस्य संस्कारैर् अपमृज्यते ऽपनुद्यते ।

• तान् इदानीं⁶ कांश्चिन् नामधेयेन, कांश्चित् संस्कार्यविशेषोपलक्षितान् कृत्वा निर्दिशति । गार्भैर् होमैः । गर्भे संभ्हुते नार्याः क्रियन्ते । गर्भं वा ग्रहीतुम् गर्भप्रयोजनकत्वाद् गार्भाः । नारी तत्र द्वारमात्रम् । प्रयोजकस् तु गर्भ एव । अतस् तत्प्रयुक्तत्वाच् च तदर्था होमाः पुंसवनसीमन्तोन्नयनगर्भाधानानि । होमशब्द उपलक्षणार्थः कर्ममात्रस्य । न हि गर्भाधानं होमः । एतेषां च कर्मणां दर्व्यदेवतादिरूपं गृह्यस्मृतिभ्यो ऽवसातव्यम् । यथैव गार्भैर् होमैर् एवं जातकर्माख्येन संस्कारेण । एवं चौडेन । चूडार्थः चौडः । मौञ्जीनिबन्धनम् उपनयनम् । तत्र हि मुञ्जविकारो मेखला बध्यते । अतस् तेनोपनयनकर्मोपलक्ष्यते । बन्धनम् एव निबन्धनम् । निः वृत्तपूरणः । जातकर्मादीनि संस्कारनामधेयानि कृतद्वन्द्वानि करणविभक्त्या एनोपमार्जनस्य निर्दिश्यन्ते ।

• संस्कारश् च सर्वः संस्कार्ये कार्यान्तरशेषभूते कृतार्थे करिष्यमाणार्थे वा कंचिद् दृष्टम् अदृष्टं वा विशेषम् आदधाति । “व्रीहीन् अवहन्ति” (आप्श्१.२१.७) इति, “व्रीहिभिर् यजेत” (श्ब् ११.३.१.३) इति यागं निर्वर्तयिष्यतां तुषकणविप्रमोक्षो दृष्टो विशेष आदधाति⁷ । “शिरसो ऽवतार्य स्रजं शुचौ देशे निदधाति” इति उपभुक्ताया आकीर्णाकारायाः प्रतिपत्तिनियमाद् अदृष्टः स्रजो विशेषः । तत्रेमे संस्काराः श्रीरशुद्ध्यर्थाः श्रुताः । न च गन्धाध्यपकर्षणं मृद्वारिसंबन्धाद् इव शरीरे दृश्यते । तेनेयं जन्मादिकालशुद्धिवद् अदृष्टविशेषा शुद्धिर् वेदितव्या । एतया च शुद्ध्या पूतः श्रौतस्मार्तेषु कर्मस्व् अधिक्रियते । यथा मन्त्रपूतम् आज्यं होमे । लौकिके तु कार्ये द्रव्यशुद्ध्यैव शुद्धिर् यथाज्यस्य भोजनादौ । स्पृष्यता हि कुमारस्य “अद्भिर् गात्राणि शुद्ध्यन्ति” (म्ध् ५.१०८) इत्य् एतावतैव भवति । तथा चाह- “न तदुपस्पर्शनाद् अशौचम्” (ग्ध् २.३) इति ।

• कथं पुनः कर्मार्थत्वम् एतेषाम् । युक्तम् उत्पवनस्याज्यद्वारकं प्रकरणेन विनियोगात् । अमी तु बाह्या न कस्यचित् कर्मणः प्रकरणे श्रुताः । अतः पुरुषद्वारिका कर्मार्थता दुर्भणा । न चासति कार्योपयोगे स्वरूपतः संस्कार एव निर्वर्त्यः । तथा सति संस्कार्तैव हीयेत प्रधानकर्मता स्यात् । अतश् च “कार्यः शरीरसंस्कार” इति, “कुमारे जाते पुरान्यैर् आलम्भात्” (आश्ग् १.१३.१) इति च द्वितीया श्रुतिर् बाध्येत, “शत्रूञ् जुहोति” इतिवद् विनियोगभङ्गः स्यात् । तत्र चाधिकारकल्पनेत्यादिबह्वसमञ्जसं प्राप्नोति ।

• उच्यते । न वयं श्रुत्यादिप्रामाण्यापेक्षं⁸ तादर्थ्यम् अङ्गलक्षणं ब्रूमः, अपि तूपकारकत्वम् । तच् चानङ्गत्वे ऽप्य् उपपद्यते । यथाधानविधिः स्वाध्यायाध्ययनविधिश् च । न ह्य् अत्र श्रुत्यादयः सन्ति । यदाहवनीये जुहोतीत्याहवनीयादयो विनियुक्ताः । अलौकिकत्वाच् च तत्स्वरूपस्याधानविधिनैव सिद्धिः “वसन्ते ब्राह्मणो ऽग्नीन् आदधीत” इति (त्ब् १.१.२.६) । अत आहवनीयादिनिर्वृत्तिद्वारेणाधानं क्रतुषूपयुज्यते । न चाङ्गम् । अध्ययनविधिर् अप्य् अर्थावबोधद्वारेण क्रतूपकारकः । एवम् अमी संस्काराः । एतत्संकृतस्याध्ययनविधिः, निष्पादिताध्ययनविध्यर्थस्य⁹ विवाहः, कृतविवाहस्याधानम्, आहिताग्नेर् अधिकार इत्य् अस्ति संस्कारकार्योपयोगिता बाह्यपुरुषसंस्काराणाम् ।

• निषेकग्रहाच् च सर्वत्रापि पितुर् अधिकारः । तथा च जातकर्मणि मन्त्रः “आत्मा वै पुत्रनामासि” (श्ब् १४.९.४.२६) इति । तस्य ह्य् अपत्योत्पादनम् अपत्यानुशासनं च विहितम् । “ऋणानि त्रीण्य् अपाकृत्य” (म्ध् ६.३५) इति । “तस्माद् अनुशिष्टं पुत्रं लोक्यम् आहुः” (बाउ १.५.१७) इति । अनुशासनं च स्वाधिकारप्रतिपादनम्, तच् च वेदाध्यापनेनार्थावबोधपर्यन्तेन भवतीति वक्ष्यामः । अत एवोभयोपकारकाः संस्काराः, अपत्योत्पत्तिविधौ पितुर् माणवकस्य च संस्कृतसाध्यासु क्रियासु । तस्मात् पितुर् अधिकारस् तदभावे तत्स्थानापन्नस्य । तथा चाह “असंस्कृतास् तु संस्कार्या भ्रातृभिः पूर्वसंस्कृतैः” (य्ध् २.१२८) इति ॥ २.२७ ॥

येषु कर्मसु माणवकस्य संस्कारा उपकारकास् तान् इदानीम् उदाहरणमात्रेण दर्शयति ।

The statement that ‘corporeal consecration is purifying and auspicious’ has pointed out the use of the Sacraments Now, ‘purification’ consists in removing the impurities of the impure thing; and the question arises—“whence the impurity of the Body?”

It is in answer to this that the text speaks of ‘the taint of seed and womb,’;—‘of the seed,’ is that which arises from, or is due to, the seed;—similarly ‘of the womb’ (is that which arises from, or is due to, the womb). ‘Taint’ is evil, an unseen source of pain. All that is meant by this is that the Body is impure, owing its birth to the seed and the womb. The ‘seed’ of man consists of semen and ovule; and these by their very nature, are impure. Similarly the womb, is impure by contamination. And the ‘taint’ of the man thus caused is ‘removed? wiped away, by the sacraments.

These sacrameuts are now mentioned ; some are actually named, while others are left to be indicated by the peculiar circumstances of what is sanctified.

‘Libations in connection with pregnancy,’—thoso that are offered when the pregnancy of the woman has come about,—or those that are offered for the purpose of bringing about pregnancy; in either case the libations are said to be ‘in connection with pregnancy.’ What prompts the offering is the pregnancy, the woman being only a means to it; so that the libations, being prompted by pregnancy, are said to be in connection with it; and these are the rites of ‘Pumsavana,’ ‘Sīmantonnayana’ and ‘Garbhādhāna.’ The word ‘libation’ here stands for the whole rite; as the ‘Garbhādhāna’ (‘Conception’) is certainly not a ‘Libation.’ The exact details of the rites, regarding the substances to be offered, the duties and so forth—arc to be found out from the Gṛhyasūtras.

Just as by the ‘libations in connection with pregnancy’. so also by the sacrament known as ‘Jātakarman’ (Rites attendant upon birth). Similarly by ‘Tonsure’;—‘Chauḍa,’ ‘Tonsure,’ is meant that which is performed for the purpose of the ‘cūḍā’ (the- lock of hair left to grow on the crown of the head). ‘Tying of the gross-girdle’ is Upanayana; as it is at this ceremony that the girdle of muñja-grass is tied, this indicates that rite. ‘Nibandhana’ is the same as ‘bandhana’; and the prefix ‘ni’ has been added for filling up the metre.

‘Jātakarman’ and the rest—which are the names of the sacraments—have been made into a copulative compound, and then have the instrumental ending added to show that they are instrumental in the removal of taint.

Every ‘consecration’ brings about some peculiarity, either seen (material) or unseen (spiritual), in the thing consecrated, which is subservient to something else to be brought about, and has either already subserved, or is going to subserve, the purposes of this latter thing. For instance, in the case of the ‘threshing of the corn’ and ‘offering sacrifices with the corn,’ the ‘threshing’ (which is the ‘consecration’ or ‘purification’ in this case) produces in the corns, that are going to help in the accomplishment of the sacrifice, the visible peculiarity, in the shape of the removal of the chaff. [So that in this case the thing consecrated is going to subserve some useful purpose]. When again it is said that ‘removing the garland from the head one should keep it in a clean place,’ the garland is something that has been used (and served its purpose) and has become mangled in shape; so that the special method of its disposal (after use) only produces an invisible effect. Now all the sacraments mentioned in the text are prescribed for the purpose of the purification of the body; but they are not found to bring about in the body any such effects as the removal of bad odour, etc., which is done by washing with clay and water. Hence the ‘purification’ in this case should be understood to consist in some unseen effect; just as has been held to result from the particular time at which the birth of the individual takes place. And when the man has become purified by such purification, he becomes fit for the performance of acts prescribed in the Smṛtis and in the Vedas; just as the Butter sanctified by mantras is fit for use in libations. In connection with ordinary (non-religious) acts, all necessary purity is attained by the (external) purification of things; as in the case of the Butter required for eating. As for that ‘purity’ of the boy which consists in his touchabien?ss, this is brought about by the ‘washing with water’ mentioned as the means of purifying the body (in 5.109). Hence has it been declared that ‘there is no impurity arising from his touch.’

Objection.—

“How can these sacraments be regarded as subserving the purposes of actions? As regards the ‘sprinkling of butter,’ it is only natural that through the butter it should subserve the purposes of the sacrificial act, in Connection with which it has been prescribed. These sacraments however lie entirely, outside the pale of any action;—their injunction not occurring in the context of any sacrificial act. So it is difficult to say that they help in the sacrifice through the man (in the way in which the does through the butter). And unless it subserves the purposes of an act, consecration cannot be performed for its own sake; as in that case it should cease to be a ‘consecration’ (which is always subsidiary to something else), and become a primary act itself, and (when it ceases to be a consecration) this would mean the nullification of the statement ‘corporeal consecration should be performed’ (verse 26), and also of the Accusative ending in the statement ‘when, the boy is born, before he is touched by any other person, the father should etc.’ (which refers to the Birth-rites); and in that case, the sense of the injunction will have to be altered, as is done in the case of the injunction ‘Saktūñjuhoti’ [where the incompatibility of the Accusative ending leads us to alter it into the Instrumental ],—a particular result (as arising out of the consecration, as a primary act by itself) will have to be assumed; and so forth, a number of absurd assumptions will have to be made.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—What we mean by the consecration subserving the purposes of sacrifices is-not that it is a subsidiary integral part of these,—which character is indicated by Direct Vedic Declaration and certain other means; all that we mean is that it is helpful to it; and this helpfulness is possible even without the one forming an integral part of the other. For instance, we have the injunction regarding the ‘laying of fire’ and that relating to ‘Vedic study’; but there is no Direct Injunction or any other indication (of these forming part of any sacrifice); all that we find is the Vedic text ‘offerings are made into the which lays down the ‘Āhavanīya’ (as the receptacle of the offerings); and as the precise nature of the ‘Āhavanīya’ is superphysical, the only way in which it can be brought into existence is by means of the prescribed ‘laying of fire,’ which is contained in the text ‘the Brāhmaṇa should lay the fires during spring’; so that the ‘laying of fire’ helps in the sacrificial performance through the bringing into existence of the Āhavanīya, and yet it does not form an integral part of the performance. ‘Vedic study’ also helps in the sacrificial performance, through the knowledge of the meaning of Vedic texts (acquired by the study).

Analogous to these two is the case of the sacraments:

1. the act of Vedic study can be done only by one who has had these sacraments performed,
2. it is only when one has carried out the injunction of Vedic study that he can marry,
3. it is only when one has married that he can ‘lay the fire,’
4. and it is only one who has ‘laid the fire’ that is entitled (to the performance of sacrifices).

It is in this way that even though the sacraments are laid down apart from the sacrificial injunctions, yet their due performance is helpful towards the sacrificial acts.

Since the text speaks of ‘Niṣeka’ (conception, depositing of the semen) as the first of the sacraments, it follows that all the sacraments for the child are to be performed by the father. Thus the mantra for the ‘Rites on Birth’ reads—‘You are my very soul, bearing the name of son’ (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 14. 9. 4. 8.) [which clearly shows that it is recited by the father]. It is for the father again that the begetting and instructing of children has been prescribed as a duty in the verse—‘Having paid off the three debts etc.,’ (6.35); and the passage. It is for this reason that the duly instructed son is called the real son,’ speaks of ‘instruction,’ which consists in teaching the boy his duties; and we shall show later on that this ‘instruction’ is accomplished only by teaching hi m the Veda up to the point where the boy comprehends its full meaning. It is thus that the sacraments are of use to both: they help the father in the begetting of the right sort of child, and they help the boy in the performance of those acts that can be done only by one who has been duly consecrated. Thus it is the father on whom devolves the task of having the sacraments properly performed; and on his death, for hi m who takes his place; for instance, it is said ‘he who h as not been consecrated should be consecrated by his brothers who have had their consecration already done.’ (Yājñavalkya, 2.124).—(27)

The author next indicates, by way of illustration, those acts in which the sacraments of the Boy are helpful:—

Medhātithi (p. 80, 1. 8)—Gṛhyasmṛtibhyo—vasātavyam—see Āśvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra 1-13-14.

Medhātithi (p. 80, 1. 10) ‘Mekhalā badhyate’—see Gautama, 1-15.

This verse has been quoted by the Mitākṣarā on 3.253 (p. 1285), where it has been taken to mean that the sacrament of the Upanayaṇa wipes off all the sins committed by the boy prior to it.

It is also quoted in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 134) and has been taken to mean that the Sacramental Rites are meant only for the ‘Twice-bom—and in the Aparārka (p. 25), as indicating that the sacraments are meant for the Twice-born only, on the ground that they have been mentioned after the injunction of Upanayaṇa which pertains to the Twice-born only. It is quoted in the Smṛtikaumudī (p. 48), which notes that the term ‘Saṃskāra’ (Sacrament) connotes destruction of sin or impurity.

It is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 36), which adds the following notes:—‘Bīja’ stands for semen-ovule, the impurity due to defects in that is called ‘baijika’—that due to residence in the womb is called, ‘gārbhika’;—‘homaiḥ’ includes the Garbhādhāna and other rites that are accompanied by libations into fire;—and in the Saṃskāra

• ratnamālā (p. 5) to the effect that Homa is to be performed by the Twice-bom only;—‘baijika’ is such impurity relating to the semen-ovule as is due to the intercourse having taken place at a forbidden time,—‘Gārbhika’ is the impurity due to residence in a womb that is not quite clean;—it quotes Medhātithi to the effect that as.the ‘semen-ovule’ and the ‘womb’ cannot be the effects of any sins of the child, the ‘enaḥ’ mentioned in the text must be taken as standing not for actual sin, but for the impurity or uncleanliness due to the child’s physical connection with them.

**(Verses 27 and 28)
**

Sumantu (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 131).—‘The sacraments common to the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, are the following—Garbhādhāna, Sīmantonnayana, Jātakarma, Nāmakaraṇa, Annaprāśana, Cūḍā, Upanayana, Vratacaryā, Adhyayana, Samāvartana, Vivāha, Yajña and Dāna.’

Hārīta (Ibid, p. 135).—‘There are two kinds of Sacraments—Brāhma and Daiva; the Garbhādhāna and the rest ending with Snāna, which are proscribed in the Smṛtis, are “brāhma”; the Pākayajñas, the Haviryajñas and the Somayajñas are “daiva”.’

Jātūkarṇya (Ibid, p. 135).—‘The sixteen sacramental rites are the following—

(1) Ādhāna,
(2) Puṃsavana,
(3) Sīmanta,
(4) Jāta,
(5) Nāma,
(6) Anna,
(7) Chaula,
(8) Mauñjī,
(9-12) the four Vratas,
(13) Godāna,
(14) Samāvartana,
(15) Vivāha,
and (16) Antya.’

Āṅgiras (Ibid).—‘

(1) Garbhādhāna,
(2) Puṃsavana,
(3) Sīmanta,
(4) Bali,
(5) Jātakṛtya,
(6) Nāmakaraṇa,
(7) Niṣkrama,
(8) Annaprāśana,
(9) Chaulakarma,
(10) Upanayana,
(11-14) the Four Veda-vratas,
(15) Snāna,
(16) Udvāha,
(17) Āgrayaṇa,
(18) Aṣṭakā,
(19) Śrāvaṇī,
(20) Āśvayujī,
(21) Mārgaśīrṣī,
(22) Pārvaṇa,
(23) Utsarga,
(24) Upākaraṇa,
(25) Mahāyajñas;

these are the obligatory sacraments, specially for the Brāhmaṇa. It is by means of the sacraments that Brāhmaṇahood comes to be gradually manifested.’

Āśvalāyana (Ibid, p. 136).—‘The five mahāyajñas are to be performed daily; the sixteen cuding with Marriage are naimittīka, to be done on prescribed occasions; the Pārvaṇa is to be done every month, or if this be not possible, then every year; the seven sacrifices beginning with Āgrayaṇa are to be performed once in the year.’

Gautama (Ibid, p. 137).—‘The following are the 10 Sacraments—

(1) Garbhādhāna,
(2) Puṃsavana,
(3) Sīmantonnayana,
(4) Jātakarma,
(5) Nāmakaraṇa,
(6) Annaprāśana,
(7) Chaula,
(8) Upanayana,
(9-12) the four Veda-vratas,
(13) Snāna,
(14) Sahadharmacāriṇīsaṃyoga,
(15-19) the five mahāyajñas,
(20-26) the seven Pākayajñas—Aṣṭakā, Pārvaṇa-Śrāddba, Śrāvanī, Āgrahāyaṇī, Caitrī and Āśvayujī,
(27-33) the seven Haviryajñas—Agnyādheya, Agnihotra, Darśapūrṇamāsa, Cāturmāsya, Āgrayaṇeṣṭi, Nirūdhapaśubandha, and Sautrāmaṇi,
(33-40) the seven Somayajñas—Agniṣṭoma, Atyagniṣṭoma, Ukthya, Ṣoḍasbī, Vājapeya, Atirātra and Āptoryamā’

…‘He who has not had these forty sacraments, nor is endowed with the eight qualities of the soul (sympathy for all beings, forgiveness, freedom from jealousy, purity, equanimity, good character, non-miserliness) is never united to Brahman, nor does he attain the regions of Brahman.’

Hārita (Ibid, p. 130).—‘He who has been sanctified by the Brāhma Sacraments becomes equal to the sages and becomes united with them and attains their regions; and he who is sanctified by the Daiva sacraments becomes equal to the gods, is united with them and reaches their regions.’

Do. (Aparārka, p. 25).—‘When the women of the twice-born castes are sanctified by the performance of a single sacrament, every child that they bear thereafter becomes sanctified thereby.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Ibid, p. 110).—‘The Brāhmaṇa who is endowed with the two sets of sacraments and is equipped with the eight qualities (of the soul) attains the regions of Brahman.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 25).—‘Just as a picture becomes manifested through the gradual appearance of the several limbs, in the same manner Brāhmaṇahood becomes manifested through the lawful performance of the sacraments.’

027 By burnt oblations during (the mother’s) pregnancy, by the Gatakarman (the ceremony after birth), the Kauda (tonsure), and the Maungibandhana (the tying of the sacred girdle of Munga grass) is the taint, derived from both parents, removed from twice-born men.

This body is made godly,—by a thorough study of the three Vedas, by Observances, by libations, by offerings, by children, by the Great Sacrifices and by the Sacrifices. (28)

“Nowhere in the Veda is the attaining of Brahman declared to be the reward of the actions here enumerated. For instance, (A) as for the compulsory acts, they are prescribed as being without rewards. If we.were to assume rewards, such an assumption would be purely human in its source (and as such not authoritative). And since the Veda has declared them to be compulsory by means of such phrases ‘throughout one’s life’ and the like, there can be no justification for applying the principle.of the V sacrifice (and assume the reward to consist in the attaining of heaven). If it were argued that—‘from the present verse of Manu itself we learn that the said Acts bring the mentioned rewards,’—then it would come to this that only such persons are entitled to these acts as long for Final Release; which would deprive them of their compulsory character; and this would be contrary to what has been declared in the Veda. It may be argued that—‘inasmuch as no one ever undertakes a fruitless act, (if no rewards were mentioned) the laying down of the acts would be futile.’ ‘But there may be no performance at all; that does not matter; the use of a ‘source of knowledge’ lies in making things known; if it has succeeded in doing this, its purpose has been served; and the present verse does clearly indicate some acts as to be done; and if this indication is accomplished (the purpose of the scriptural injunction has been served); if people do not perform those acts, they transgress the behests of the scripture, and thereby incur sin. All old writers have explained the sense of the Injunctive etc., on these lines. If a servant does not perform his duty, as he is ordered to doby his master, cither he does not obtain his wages, or he incurs sin. Now as regards the compulsory acts, since no rewards are mentioned (in the form of wages), the evil that follows is not in the form of losing the reward, but in the form of suffering pain. It is only in this manner that we can explain the fact of, all men being required to perform the compulsory acts. From all this it follows that in the case of compulsory acts there is no reward. (B) As regards the optional acts, other results have boen declared as following from them, and not Fin l Release (the one mentioned here). How then could this Final Release be such an end of man as is accomplished by the mere performance of acts?”

“How is it then that Gautama (8. 8) has spoken of ‘forty sacraments’? There the Soma-sacrifice also has been mentioned as a sacrament; and certainly a primary sacrifice (as the Soma-sacrifice undoubtedly is) can never have the character of a mere consecratory sacrament. Nor is it possible to take this part of Gautama’s Sutra as an arthavāda; as all the forty sacraments are spoken of as being on the same footing.”

अध्ययनक्रिया स्वाध्यायशब्देनात्राभिप्रेता । तस्या एष विषयनिर्देशस् त्रैविद्येनेति । व्यवधाने ऽप्य् अर्थलक्षणः संबन्धो “यस्य येनार्थसंबन्धः” इति न्यायेन । अत एव सामानाधिकरण्ये ऽपि श्रुतेर्¹⁰ विषयविषयिभावो विभक्तिविपरिणामेन, त्रयाणां वेदानाम् अध्ययनेनेत्य् अर्थः । त्रय एव वेदाः त्रैविद्यं । चातुर्वर्ण्यादिवद् रूपसिद्धिः । अथ वा स्वाध्यायेन इति वेदाध्ययनम्, त्रैविद्येन इति तदर्थावबोधः । व्रतैः सावित्रादिभिर् ब्रह्मचारिकर्तृकैः¹¹ । होमैर् व्रतादेशनकाले ये क्रियन्ते । यदि वा सायंप्रतः समिद्भिर् अगीन्धनं ब्रह्मचारिणो होमशब्देनाग्न्याधारसंबन्धसामान्याद् उच्यते । अथ किं समिदाधानं न होमो येनैवम् उच्यते संबन्धसामान्याद् इति । न भवतीति ब्रुवन्ति अदनीयद्रव्यसाध्यत्वाद् यागहोमयोः । कथं तर्हि,

• सायं प्रातश् च जुहुयात् ताभिर् अग्निम् अतन्द्रितः । (म्ध् २.१८६)

इत्य् उक्तम् । लक्षणया समिदाधानं होमशब्देनोच्यते । यथैव हूयमानं द्रव्यम् अग्नौ प्रक्षिप्यते एवं समिन्धनार्थाः समिधो ऽपि । अत एतेन सामान्येन समिन्दनम् एव होम इत्य् उच्यते । उत्पत्तिवाक्ये हि “समिधम् आदध्यात्” इति श्रुतम् । “जुहुयात् ताभिर् अग्निम्” इत्य् अग्निम् इत्य् अनुवादो ऽयम् अन्यार्थ इति परस्ताद् वक्ष्यामः । न चानुवादे लक्षणादोषः ।

• इदं तु युक्तं यन् मेध्यमात्रद्रव्यसाध्यौ यागहोमौ । तथा च सति बह्व्यश् चोदना यथार्था भवन्ति । यथा “सूक्तवाकेन प्रस्तरं प्रहरति” (आप्श् ३.६.६) इति । तत्र हि प्रस्तरं द्रव्यम् आहुर् हरतिं च यजतिं । अथ वचनाद् असौ तादृश एव यागः । दर्भाश् चाप्य् अदनीयाः केषांचित् । कथं शाकलहोमे । तत्रापि हि “शकलान्य् अभ्यादधाति” इत्य् उत्पत्तिर् इति चेद् ग्रहयज्ञे का गतिः । ग्रहेभ्य एकैकस्यै समिधो जुहुयाद् अर्कादीनाम् । अतो यत्र जुहुयाद् इति देवतासंबन्धश् च काष्ठादेर् अपि श्रुत उत्पत्तिवाक्ये सो ऽपि होम एव ।

• इज्यया देवर्षितर्पणेन । एष तावद् उपनीतस्य ब्रह्मचर्ये किर्याकलापः ।

• इदानीं गृहस्थधर्माः । सुतैर् अपत्योत्पत्तिविधिना । महायज्ञैः पञ्चभिर् ब्रह्मयज्ञादिभिः । यज्ञैः श्रौतैर् ज्योतिष्टोमादिभिः ।

• ननु यद्य् एषां कर्मणां किंचित् प्रयोजनं स्यात् तदा तदधिकारयोग्यतोत्पत्त्यर्था बाह्याः संस्कारा अर्थवन्तः स्युः । अत आह- ब्राह्मीयं क्रियते तनुः । ब्रह्म परमात्मा कारणपुरुषः, तस्येयं संबन्धिनी तनुः शरीरम्, एतैः श्रौतस्मार्तैः सर्वैः कर्मभिः क्रियते । ब्रह्मसंबन्धिता च तद्भावापत्तिलक्षणा । स हि परः पुरुषार्थः । संबन्धान्तराणि सर्वस्य कस्यचित् कारणत्वेन सिद्धत्वान् नाभिलषितव्यानि । ततो मोक्षप्राप्तिर् उक्ता भवति । ब्राह्मीत्य् अनेन तनुशब्देन च तदधिष्ठाता पुरुषो लक्ष्यते । तस्य ह्य् एते शरीरद्वारकाः संस्काराः । तस्यैव च मोक्षप्राप्तिः, शरीरस्य पञ्चतापत्तेः ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुर् ब्रह्मत्त्वप्राप्तौ योग्या क्रियते । न हि कर्मभिर् एव केवलैर् ब्रह्मत्वप्राप्तिः, प्रज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयात् किल मोक्षः । एतैस् तु संस्कृत आत्मोपासनास्व् अधिक्रियते । तथा च श्रुतिः- “य एतद् अक्षरं गार्ग्य् अविदित्वा यजते जुहोति तपस् तप्यते अधीते ददात्य् अन्तवद् एवास्य तद् भवति” (बाउ ३.८.१०) इति ।

• ननु च नैतेषां कर्मणां ब्रह्मप्राप्तिः फलं श्रुतम् । तथा हि नित्यानि तावद् अश्रुतफलान्य् एव । कल्पनायां च पौरुषेयत्वम् । यावज्जीवादिपदैश् च नित्यताया अवगमितत्वाद् विश्वजिन्न्यायो ऽपि नास्ति । अथास्माद् एव वचनाद् एतत्पलत्वम् इति यद् उच्येत, मोक्षार्थिनः तदाधिकारः स्यात् तथा च नित्यत्वहानिस् ततश् च श्रुतिविरोधः । निष्फलं न काश्चिद् अनुतिष्ठति तत्रानर्थक्यम् इति चेत् कामम् अनानुष्ठानम्¹² ।

• प्रमाणस्य प्रमेयावगतिर् अर्थः । सा चेत् कृता जातम् अर्थवत्त्वम् । अस्ति चात्र कर्तव्यतावगतिः । सत्यां च तस्याम् अकरणे शास्त्रार्थातिक्रमस् ततश् च प्रत्यवायः । ईदृश एवर्थे लिङादीनां वृद्धव्यवहारे व्युत्पत्तिः । यो हि भृत्यादिः कर्तव्यं न करोति कस्यचिद् आज्ञातुः स वेतनार्थी वेतनं न लभते, यदि वा प्रयवायेन योज्यते । तत्र फलस्याश्रुतत्वान् न फलानुत्पत्तिः प्रत्यवायः, अपि तु दुःखेन योजनं नित्येषु । एवं सर्वपुरुषाधिकारो नित्यः समर्थितो भवति । तस्मान् न नित्यानां किंचित् फलम् । काम्यानां त्व् अन्यद् एव फलम्, न मोक्षः, श्रुतत्वात् । तत्र कथम् एतत् सर्वकर्मानुष्ठानसाध्यः परः पुरुषार्थ इति ।

• अत एव कैश्चिद् अर्थवादो ऽयम् इति व्याख्यायते । संस्कारविधिः स्तुत्यर्थः । अत्र च ब्राह्मीयम् इति यत्किंचिद् आलम्बनम् आश्रित्य गुणवादेन नीयते । ब्रह्म वेदस् तदुच्चारणार्था तत्कर्माधिकारिणी च । यत् तर्हि गौतमेनोक्तम्- “चत्वारिंशत् संस्काराः” (ग्ध् ८.८) इति, तत् कथम् । तत्र हि सोमसंस्थापि संस्कारत्वेनोक्ता । न च प्रधानकर्मणां संस्कारत्वोपपत्तिः । नाप्य् एतद् अर्थवादतया शक्यं व्याख्यातुम् अविशेषत्वात् ।

• तत्राप्य् आत्मगुणशेषसंस्कारत्वाध्यारोपेण स्तुतिः । एवम् इहापि संस्कारैः संस्कारान् समानीकृत्य तुल्यफलताध्यारोपेण संस्काराणाम् अवश्यकर्तव्यताम् आचष्टे । तथा च संस्कारप्रकरणान् नोत्कृष्यते । स्तुतिः क्रियते इति च वर्तमानापदेशः । न विधिविभक्तिः । तत्र कुतो ब्रह्मप्राप्तेः फलत्वावगमः । न चात्र कर्माणि विधीयन्ते, येनाधिकाराकाङ्क्ष्यायां सत्य् अपि वर्तमाननिर्देशे रात्रिसत्रे प्रतिष्ठावत् फलनिर्देशः स्यात् । तस्मात् संस्कारस्तुत्यर्थम् एव सर्वम् एतद् उच्यते ।

• ये ऽपि विभागेन वर्णयन्ति नित्यानां ब्रह्मप्राप्तिफलं काम्यानां तु यथाश्रुतम् एव तद् अप्य् अप्रमाणम्, सर्वस्यास्यार्थवादत्वात् । अन्तरेण च फलं नित्येष्व् अनुष्ठानसिद्धेः प्रतिपादितत्वात् । तद् उक्तम् “कामात्मता न प्रशस्ता” इति (म्ध् २.२) ॥ २.२८ ॥

The term ‘svādhyāya’ here stands for the act of studying (in general; and not for Vedic study, which is what it ordinarily means); and the subject-matter of the study is therefore indicated by the term ‘of theThree Vedas,’ ‘traividyena.’ Even though the two terms (‘svādhyāyena’ and ‘traividyena’) do not stand in close proximity, yet they are construed together on account of their denotations being correlated, in accordance with the law that ‘when the denotation of one term is connected with that of another, they should be taken as correlated.’ Hence, even though both the terms are in the same (Instrumental) case, yet one (traividyena) may be taken as denoting the object of the other (svādhyāyena) by altering the signification of the case-ending; the phrase ‘traividyena svādhyāyena’ thus being construed as ‘trayāṇām Vedānām (traividyasya) adhyayanena (svādhyāyena),’ ‘by a thorough study of the three Vedas’

‘Traividya’ is the compounded form of ‘trayo’; the formation of the term being similar to that of such terms as ‘chaturvarṇya’ and the rest.

Or, ‘svādhyāyena’ may be taken (as usual) in the sense of the study of the verbal text of the Vedas, and ‘traividyena’ in that of the study of their meaning.

‘By Observances’—by the ‘Sāvitra’ and other observances kept by the Religious Student.

‘By Libations’—i.e., those that are poured at the time of the Initiation,—or the kindling of fire with fuels, which the Religious Student has to do every morning and evening, may be spoken as ‘libation,’ on account of Fire being the receptacle of the act of kindling (just as it is of the act of pouring libations).

“Is not the putting of fuel on the fire really a ‘libation’—that you should call it so simply from the said analogy?”

People say that it is not really a ‘libation because ‘libations’ and ‘offerings’ consist only of eatable substances.

“How then does the author himself say (under 2.186) that ‘the Religious Student should, every morning and evening offer the libation (juhuyāt) of fuels into the Fire’?”

It is only in a figurative sense that the ‘laying of fuel’ is called ‘homa’, ‘libation’; the idea being that the fuel for the kindling of fire is thrown into it in the same manner as substances are poured as libations; and it is on the basis of this analogy that the kindling is called ‘libation’ In the original injunction (of fire-kindling) the words used are ‘sami dham-ādadhyat,’ ‘should lay the fuel’ [where the word ‘homa,’ ‘libation’ is not used]. As for the words (in Manu, 2.186) ‘agnim juhuyāt tābhih,’ (‘should offer the libation of fuels into fire’), we shall point out later on that they are purely explanatory (not mandatory), and mean something quite different; and in explanations, figurative expressions are not out of place.

[This is the view of some people]. The right view however is that the offering of any fit and proper substance constitutes the acts of ‘Yāga’ (Sacrifice) and ‘Homa’ (Libation). It is only in this sense that we can rightly comprehend several injunctions. For instance, we have the injunction ‘praitaram praharati,’ where ‘praharati,’ is taken to mean ‘offer in sacrifice’ and ‘prastaram’ (‘bed of Kuśa-grass’) is taken as the substance offered [and certainly the ‘Kuśa-bed’ is not an eatable substance],

“In this particular instance, we have to take the ‘sacrifice’ as consisting of the offering of the Grass-bed, simply because it is so directly enjoined. And further, Kuśa-grass also is eatable for some.”

Well, how is it then in the case of the ‘Śākala-homa’ (where pebbles are offered)?”

“In that case also it has to be done in that way, because of the direct injunction—‘one should offer the pebbles’.”

What explanation can there be of the case of the ‘Grahayāga,’ where fuels of the arka and other plants are offered to each of the Grahas?

From all this it is clear that wherever we have the term ‘juhuyāt’ (‘should offer libation’) and the connection of a Deity also is mentioned, in the original Injunction, the act is to be regarded as ‘Homa,’ ‘Libation.’

‘By offerings’—i.e., by offerings to the Gods and Ṛṣis.

Up to this point we had the duties of the Religious Student.

Next follow the duties of the Householder.

‘By children,’—i.e., by the act of begetting children.

‘By the great sacrifices’—i.e., by the five ‘sacrifices,’ consisting of Brahtnayajña and the rest.

‘By sacrifices,’—i.e., by the Jyotiṣṭoma and other Vedic Sacrifices.

The question being raised that—“if there were any useful purpose served by these acts, then alone could there be any use for the sacraments which fit a man for these acts,”—the Author says—‘this body is made godly,’ ‘tanuḥ.’—‘Brahma’ here stands for the Supreme God, the Creator; and this ‘tanu,’ body, is made ‘related to God,’ ‘godly,’—by all these acts, which are laid down in the Veda and in the Smṛtis. ‘Godliness’ meant here is that which consists in being transformed into the very essence of God; as this is the highest end of man; as for other forms of ‘relation to God,’ this is already an accomplished fact for all beings,—for the simple reason that God is the Creator of all things; and hence these other relations cannot be anything to be longed for. For this reason it is the attainment of ‘Final Release’ that must be meant here.

The term ‘brāhmī,’ ‘godly’—as also the term ‘tanu,’ ‘body’—refers to the personality ensouling the body; as it is the personality that is consecrated by the sacraments; and it is the personality that attains Final Release; as for the physical body, it entirely perishes.

Others have explained the phrase ‘it made godly’ to mean that ‘it is made capable of reaching Brahma as (they argue) the actual ‘becoming Brahman’ is not possible by means of acts alone; Final Release (which is what is meant by⁽becoming Brahman’) is’attainable only by means of Knowledge and Action conjointly. Hence what the text means is that the man, by the said acts, becomes entitled to meditate upon Ātman (Brahman). To this end we have the Vedic text—‘O Gārgi, when anyone, without knowing the Imperishable One, sacrifices, pours oblations, performs penances, studies the Veda or gives charities, all this becomes perishable’ (Bṛha dāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 3. 8. 10).

Objection.—

“Nowhere in the Veda is the attaining of Brahman declared to be the reward of the actions here enumerated. For instance, (A) as for the compulsory acts, they are prescribed as being without rewards. If we.were to assume rewards, such an assumption would be purely human in its source (and as such not authoritative). And since the Veda has declared them to be compulsory by means of such phrases ‘throughout one’s life’ and the like, there can be no justification for applying the principle.of the V sacrifice (and assume the reward to consist in the attaining of heaven). If it were argued that—‘from the present verse of Manu itself we learn that the said Acts bring the mentioned rewards,’—then it would come to this that only such persons are entitled to these acts as long for Final Release; which would deprive them of their compulsory character; and this would be contrary to what has been declared in the Veda. It may be argued that—‘inasmuch as no one ever undertakes a fruitless act, (if no rewards were mentioned) the laying down of the acts would be futile.’ ‘But there may be no performance at all; that does not matter; the use of a ‘source of knowledge’ lies in making things known; if it has succeeded in doing this, its purpose has been served; and the present verse does clearly indicate some acts as to be done; and if this indication is accomplished (the purpose of the scriptural injunction has been served); if people do not perform those acts, they transgress the behests of the scripture, and thereby incur sin. All old writers have explained the sense of the Injunctive etc., on these lines. If a servant does not perform his duty, as he is ordered to doby his master, cither he does not obtain his wages, or he incurs sin. Now as regards the compulsory acts, since no rewards are mentioned (in the form of wages), the evil that follows is not in the form of losing the reward, but in the form of suffering pain. It is only in this manner that we can explain the fact of, all men being required to perform the compulsory acts. From all this it follows that in the case of compulsory acts there is no reward. (B) As regards the optional acts, other results have boen declared as following from them, and not Fin l Release (the one mentioned here). How then could this Final Release be such an end of man as is accomplished by the mere performance of acts?”

It is just in view of these considerations that the text has been explained as a mere ‘arthavāda,’ meant to eulogise the injunction of the Sacraments.

Some people have taken the expression ‘godly’ figuratively—on some basis or other—to mean ‘capable of reciting the Veda and of performing the acts prescribed in the Veda’; ‘brahma’ being taken as equivalent to ‘Veda.’

“How is it then that Gautama (8. 8) has spoken of ‘forty sacraments’? There the Soma-sacrifice also has been mentioned as a sacrament; and certainly a primary sacrifice (as the Soma-sacrifice undoubtedly is) can never have the character of a mere consecratory sacrament. Nor is it possible to take this part of Gautama’s Sutra as an arthavāda; as all the forty sacraments are spoken of as being on the same footing.”

As a matter of fact, the statement of Gautama is purely commendatory, the Soma-sacrifice being spoken as a ‘sacrament’ in the sense that it brings about in the performer’s soul a peculiar aptitude.

Similarly in the present context real Sacraments have been mentioned along with non-sacraments with a view to indicate that both equally lead to the same result; and the purpose served by this is to show that the performance of all of them is necessary. It is thus not necesary to take the verse as apart from the section dealing with Sacraments.

Then again, the term ‘is made’ is meant to be commendatory, as is shown by the fact that we have the present tense, and not the injunctive affix. So that there is nothing to justify the idea that ‘the attaining of Brahman’ is the reward (of what is enjoined). In fact the present verse does not enjoin any actions; and hence there cannot arise any desire on our part to know their result, which could justify the assumption that the present tense has the force of the Injunctive; as has been done in the case of the Rātrīsatra, in connection with which even though we have the present tense in the term ‘pratit ṣṭhanṭi’ (‘obtain a standing’), yet it is taken as laying down the result following from the Bātrisatra.

From all this it follows that all that is said in the verse is for the eulogising of the Sacraments.

Some people interpret the verse by breaking it up into two parts—taking it to mean that ‘the attaining of Brahman is the reward of the compulsory acts, and of the optional acts the rewards are such as are actually mentioned in the Veda along with these acts.’

But there is no authority for this; because the entire verse is purely commendatory: specially as it has been already explained that the compulsory acts are performed without the idea of any rewards. It is in view of this that our Author has said (under 2.2) that ‘it is not right to be absorbed in desires.’—(28)

‘Vrataiḥ’—(a) ‘The particular observances kept by the student while studying particular portions of the Veda (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa);—‘the voluntary restraints, such as abstention from honey, meat and such things’—(Kullūka and Rāghavānanda)—‘such observances as the Prājāpatya penance’ (Nandana).

‘Traividyena’—‘By learning the meaning of the three Vedas’ (Medhātithi and Nandana);—‘By undertaking the vow to study the three Vedas in thirty-six years, as mentioned under 3.1 (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

‘Ijyayā’—‘Ijyā’ here stands for ‘the offering to the gods, sages and Pitṛs’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—or ‘the Pākayajñas’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

‘Brāhmīyam kṛyate tanuḥ.’—‘Related to Brahman;’ i. e. ‘united with the Supreme Spirit’—according to Medhātithi, who also notes that according to ‘others,’ the meaning is that ‘the body is made fit to attain Brahman.’ As the reference is to the ‘tanuḥ,’ ‘body,’ Burnell understands that ‘Brahman’ stands here for the ‘world-substance, not as a spiritual, but as a physical force’. This however is entirely off the mark.

This verse is quoted in the Mitākṣarā (on 1. 103, p. 76) as setting forth the desirable results acruing to the man who offers the Vaiśvadeva offerings, which latter, on this account, cannot be regarded as sanctificatory of the food that has been cooked.

This verse is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 140), where the words are thus explained:—‘Svādhyāya’ stands for the learning of the Veda;—‘Vrata’ for the Sāvitrī and other observances;—‘Traividyā’ for the knowledge of. the meaning of the three Vedas;—‘Ijyā’ for the worshipping of the gods and others;—‘Brahmā’ for related to Brahman, through the knowledge of that Supreme Being.

(Verses 27 and 28)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.27].

028 By the study of the Veda, by vows, by burnt oblations, by (the recitation of) sacred texts, by the (acquisition of the) threefold sacred science, by offering (to the gods, Rishis, and manes), by (the procreation of) sons, by the great sacrifices, and by (Srauta) rites this (human) body is made fit for (union with) Brahman.

For the male child, before the cutting of the umbilical cord the performance of the Jāta-karma (Birth-rite) has been ordained: (it consists of) the feeding of him with gold, honey and butter, to the accompaniment of Mantras.—(29).

वर्धनं छेदनम् । जातकर्मेति कर्मनामधेयम् एतत् । रूपं चास्य गृह्यस्मृतिभ्यो ज्ञातव्यम् । कस्य पुनः कर्मणो जातकर्मेति नाम । तदर्थम् उक्तं प्राशनं हिरण्यमधुसर्पिषाम् । अस्य इति दारकं व्यपदिशन्ति, कर्म वा- अस्य जातकर्मण इदं प्रधानं यन् मन्त्रवत् प्राशनम् इति । समन्त्रकं मन्त्रेण कर्तव्यम् इत्य् अर्थः । मन्त्रस्य चेहानुक्तत्वात्, स्मृतीनां चैकार्थ्याद् यद् अन्यत्रोक्तं तद् अत्रापि प्रतीयते । तेन गृह्यस्मृतिषु ये मन्त्रा उपात्तास्¹³ तैर् मन्त्रवद् इति द्रष्टव्यम् ।

• यदि गृह्यस्मृतयो ऽपेक्षन्ते द्रव्यनिर्देशो¹⁴ ऽपि न कर्तव्यः । एवं हि तत्र पठ्यते- “सर्पिर्मधुनी हिरण्यनिकाषं हिरण्येन प्राशयेत्, प्र ते ददामि मधुनो घृतस्य” इति (आश्ग् १.१३.१) । किं च बह्व्यो गृह्यस्मृतयः, भिन्नाश् च प्रतिगृह्यमन्त्राः, अन्यापि भिन्नेतिकर्तव्यता, तत्र काश्रीयताम् इति न विद्मः । अथ चरणसमाख्या नियामिका भविष्यति, व्यर्थस् तर्हि जातकर्माद्युपदेशस् तत एव सिद्धेः । कठानां गृह्यं बह्वृचां आश्वलायनानां च गृह्यम् इति यद् येन समाख्यायते स तद् उक्तम् अनुष्ठास्यतीति ।

• उच्यते । द्रव्यादिनिर्देशेन¹⁵ सुस्पष्टं कर्मैकत्वम् इति प्रतीयते । तथा हि प्रत्यबिज्ञासिद्धिः । तद् द्रव्यम् एवेदं¹⁶ तन्नामधेयकं¹⁷ चेदं कर्मातस् तद् एवेदम् इति, भूयसा दृष्टं तद्गुणयोगेन प्रत्यभिज्ञायते । सति चैकत्वे यद् अङ्गजातं क्वचिन् नोक्तं तद् अविरुद्धम्¹⁸ अन्यत आनेतव्यम् । यथा सर्वशाखाप्रत्ययम् एकं कर्म, एवं सर्वस्मृतिप्रत्ययम् अपि । यत् तु बहुत्वाद् गृह्यस्मृतीनां¹⁹ काश्रीयताम् इत्य् अनध्यवसायः । सर्वासां प्रामाण्याविशेषाद् एकार्थानां च विकल्पः भिन्नार्थानां समुच्चयः । चरणसमाख्या तु नैव नियामिका । यतो न समाख्यया पुरुषस्य नियतः संबन्धः गोत्रप्रवरवत् । यैव शाखा येनाधीता स एव तथा समाख्यायते “कठो बह्वृचः” इति । न चाध्ययने नियमो ऽस्त्य् अनेनेयं शखाध्येतव्येति । अनेकशाखाध्ययनम् अप्य् अस्ति, “वेदान् अधीत्य” (म्ध् ३.२) इति । तत्र त्रिवेदाध्यायिनः सर्वे व्यपदेशाः प्रवर्तन्ते ।

• के ऽप्य् ऊचुः कौथुमाः कठा²⁰ बह्वृच इति तत्रावश्यं विकल्प आस्थेयः । एकशाखाध्यायिनस् तु यद् गृह्यं यया शाखया समाख्यायते तदुक्तम् एव तस्य युक्तं कर्तुम् । एष हि तदुक्तम् एव शक्नोति कर्तुं तच्छाकामन्त्रा एव तेनाधीताः, शक्नोति तान् प्रयोक्तुम् । तम् एव वा वृतं वेद । वेदने च कर्मानुष्ठानार्थं वेदाध्ययनं येन तावतो मन्त्रान् कर्मोपयोगिनो ऽध्येष्यत इति ।

• उच्यते । स्वाध्यायविधिवशेन वेदाध्ययनम् । अनधीतवेदस्य नाधिकारः । न च कर्मप्रयुक्तम् अध्ययनम् । अत इयं समाख्या मन्त्रविशेषविनियोगनिमित्तैव “कठानां गृह्यम्” “वाजसनेयिनां गृह्यम्” इति । यस्यां शाखायां ये मन्त्रा अधीतास् ते यत्र बाहुल्येन विनियुक्तास् तद्गृह्यं तथा समाख्यायते । प्रमाणं गृह्यस्मृतिः । सा कठानाम् इयम् इति व्यपदिश्यमाना बह्वृचानाम् अपि स्वार्थावगमनं करोत्य् एव । कर्तव्यता वेदस्य स्वार्थे स्मृतीनां च । अवगतायां च कर्तव्यतायां कर्तृविशेषाश्रवणे स्वाधिकारो न स्याद् यथा च तनूनपाति प्रयाजे वसिष्ठानाम्, निषेधाद् वा पतितम् । न चेह द्वयम् अप्य् अस्ति । न च शक्यं कल्पयितुं न हि कठानां बाह्वृच्यं न प्रमाणम्, बह्वृचानां वा काठकम्, यतो य एव कत्ःअः स एवाकथो ऽसति तच्छाकाध्ययने । गोत्रं तु नियतम् इत्य् असमानः ।

• एष एवार्थः²¹ “स्वसूत्रं यः परित्यज्य परसूत्रेण वर्तते” इति । तद् एव स यद् अधीते तदर्थः शक्यो ऽनुष्ठातुम्²² । तेन यः²³ स्वाधीतां शाखाम् अतिक्रम्य पित्राद्यधीतशाखया कर्माणि कुर्यात्, तद्गृह्यं च समाश्रयेत्, तस्य²⁴ शाखात्यागदोषः । पित्रादीनां वा शाखात्यागः यैर् माणवकः क्रमाधीतां शाखां नाध्यापितः । मानवकस्यात्र दोषो नास्ति । यदा मृतपितृको जाबालवद् अयं बालः स्वयम् आचार्यम् आश्रयेत्, तदा “येनास्य पितरो याताः” (म्ध् ४.७८) इत्य् अनेन शास्त्रेण सैवाध्यतुं युक्ता स्यात् । अथात्मशाखाध्ययनं न संभवति, तदा स्वशाखात्यागः ।

• अतः स्थितम् इदम् । सर्वं सर्वासु स्मृतिषु जातकर्माद्य् उपदिश्यते । तत्र भिन्नार्थम् अङ्गजातं स्मुच्चीयते, विरुद्धं विकल्प्यते समानार्थं च च ।

• पुंस इति स्त्रीनपुंसकव्यावृत्त्यर्थम् ।

• अन्ये त्व् अविवक्षितं पुमर्थं मन्यन्ते, द्विजन्मनाम् इति सामान्येन त्रैवर्णिकानां संस्कार्यत्वेन प्रकृतत्वात् । संस्कार्यश् च प्रधानम् उद्देशो न च प्रधाने लिङ्गसंख्यादिविशेषणं विवक्ष्यते । “ग्रहं संमार्ष्टि” इति सत्य् अप्य् एकवचने सर्वे ग्रहाः संमृज्यन्ते ।

• ज्वरितं ज्वरम् उक्तं च दिनान्ते भोजयेन् नरम् ।

इति नार्या अपि ज्वरिताया एष एव भोजनकालः । तथा च प्राप्तप्रतिषेधः । स्त्रीणां “अमन्त्रिका तु कार्येयं स्त्रीणाम् आवृत्” इति (म्ध् २.६६) । नपुंसकानां च पाणिग्रहणदर्शनं “यद्य् अर्थिता तु दारैः स्यात् क्लीबादीनाम्” इति (म्ध् ९.२०३) ।

• तत्रोच्यते । नायं पुंशब्दो मनुष्यजातिवचनो नरशब्दवद् येन विभक्तिवाच्यं लिङ्गं न विवक्ष्येत । एष हि सर्वत्र²⁵ स्थावरमूर्तामूर्तगतं लिङ्गविशेषं प्रसवरूपम् आचष्टे । प्रातिपदिकार्थो ह्य् अत्र लिङ्गम् । विभक्तिवाच्यस्य ह्य् अर्थस्य विवक्षाविवक्षे युज्येते । यतो न विभक्तेर् वचनम् एवैकं प्रयोजनम्, कर्माद्यर्थान्तराभिधानेनाप्य् अर्थवत्त्वात् । इह त्व् अविवक्षायाम् आनर्थक्यम् एव प्राप्नोति पुंश्पदस्य । यथा तत्रैव ग्रहप्रातिपदिकार्थो विवक्ष्यते वाक्यानर्थक्यपरिहाराय ।

• अथोच्येत- न प्रत्ययार्थमात्रस्य विवक्षा । कृत्स्नो ऽपि पदार्थ उद्दिश्यमानविशेषणं²⁶ न विवक्ष्यते । यथा “यस्योभयं हविः” इति सत्य् अप्य् उभयपदश्रवणे दधिपयसोर् अन्यतरावृत्ताव् अपि तद् एव प्रायश्चित्तं । न विवक्षित उभयशब्दः ।

• अत्र केचित् परिहारम् आहुः । नैतत् तेन समानम् । न हि हविरर्थः पञ्चशरावः । हविर्विनाशे हि नैमित्तिको ऽधिकारः । इह तु माणवकार्था एव संस्काराः ।

• एष त्व् अप्रोयोजको विशेषः । वाक्यभेदभयाद् विशेषणविवक्षा नेष्यते । तादर्थ्ये ऽपि वाक्यभेदो नैवापैति । तस्माद् अयं परिहारः । एतद् एवोत्पत्तिवाक्यं जातकर्मणः । “वैदिकैः कर्मभिः” (म्ध् २.२६) इत्य् एतद् उपक्रमम् । तत्र पुमान् एव संस्कार्यतया निर्दिष्टः । तदविवक्षायां वाक्यानर्थक्यम्, यथा तत्रैव हविःपदं विवक्ष्यते ।

• यद्य् एवं शूद्रस्यापि प्राप्तिं जतिविशेषानिर्देशात् । न प्राप्स्यति, मन्त्रसाध्यत्वात् । अथ वा द्विजन्मनाम् इति वाक्यशेषको भविष्यति । न च तदानीं विधेयार्थविषयत्वेन निर्दिष्टो येन तत एव संस्कार्यावगतौ पुंस इत्य् एतद् उभयपदवद् अविवक्षितम् आशङ्क्येत ।

• स्त्रीणां त्व् अप्राप्ते ऽपि विधानम् उपपद्यते । क्लीबस्यापि दारदर्शनम् । वातरेता यः कॢइब उभयव्यञ्जनो ऽप्रवृत्तेन्द्रियो वा । बहुप्रकारव्यावृत्तिकरं जातकर्मादिसंस्कारकाले ऽपरिच्छेद्यत्वाच् छक्यप्रतीकारत्वाच् च । न च यो न नियतो धर्मः सो ऽधिकारं व्यावर्तयति, यथाद्रव्यत्वम्, न ह्य् अद्रव्यत्वं²⁷ नियतं जातिवत् । य एवाद्रव्यः सो ऽपि द्रव्यवान् भवति । चिरम् अधनो भूत्वा भवत्य् अह्ना महाधनः । ईदृशस्यैव षण्ढस्य वधे पलालभारकशुद्धिः । स ह्य् असंस्कृतो ऽनुपनीतः शान्त्यै न कस्यचित् तिष्ठति ।

• अतः स्थितं पुंशाम् एवैते संस्कारा एभिर् विधीयन्ते । विध्यन्तरेण स्त्रीणाम् अमन्त्रकाः । नपुंसकस्य नैव सन्तीति ॥ २.२९ ॥

‘Vardhana’ is cutting.

‘Jātakarma’ is the name of the particular rite. The exact form of this rite is to be learnt from the Gṛhya-sūtras, In answer to the question as to which is the act to which the name ‘Jāta-karma’ is applied, the author adds—‘the feeding with gold, honey and butter?.’ ‘Of him’ refers to the child; or, it may refer to the rite; the sense being that ‘of rite’ of Jāta-karma, the principal part consists in the feeding of the child to the accompaniment of mantras.

‘To the accompaniment of mantras’,—i.e., the act should be done along with the reciting of mantras. Though the present text does not specify the mantras, yet, since all Smṛtis have the same end in view, we must accept those same mantras that are prescribed in other Smṛtis. Hence it follows that the mantras that should be recited are those that have been mentioned in the Gṛhya-sūtras.

“If it is necessary to call in the aid of the Gṛhya-sūtras, the substances (Gold, Honey and Butter) also need not have been mentioned here; as in the Gṛhya-sūtra we find the following words (in Apastamba’s Gṛhya-sūtra, 1.15.1).—‘The child should be made to eat butter, honey and the essence of gold with a golden ladle, with the mantra, Prati dadāmi madhuno ghṛtaṣya etc.’ Further, there are many Gṛhya-sūtras; the mantras also that are prescribed in the various Gṛhyaṣūtras are different; the very procedure of the rite is variously prescribed; so that (if we were to seek for information from the Gṛhyas) we would fail to know which one of these we should adopt. It might he argued that the name of the particular Vedic Rescension (which the performer has studied and with which a particular Gṛhyasūtra is connected) would help to determine the exact procedure to be adopted. But in that case, there can be no use in Manu laying down the ‘Birth-rite’ and the other sacraments; as these also could be learnt from the Gṛhyasūtras themselves. Every sūtra is named after a particular Vedic Rescension,—e.g., ‘Gṛhya of the Kaṭhas,’ ‘Gṛyya of the Āśvalāyanas’ and so forth; so that a man would naturally adopt that procedure which is laid down in the Gṛhya that is named after the Rescension to which he belongs.”

To the above our answer is as follows:—The fact that the substances (Honey, etc.) mentioned in the text are just those prescribed in the Gṛhyas in connection with the ‘Jātakarma,’ shows that the rites mentioned (here and in the Gṛhya) are the same. This is what leads us to the recognition that—‘the rite ordained here having the same name and the same substances as those found in the Gṛhyas, this must be the same as that.’ In several cases we recognise a thing through its qualities. And when the rites are one and the same, if a certain detail is not mentioned in one text, it has to be brought in from the other text, specially when there is no inconsistency between the two. It has been decided that th e act (of Agnihotra) prescribed in the several rescensional Vedic texts is one and the same; and the analogy of this leads us to conclude that the act (of the sacrament) as prescribed in the several Smṛtis (of Manu and of the Gṛhya-sūtras) must be one and the same. As regards the uncertainty that has been urged by the objector as to the exact procedure to be adopted, in face of there being many, Gṛhyas laying down diverse procedures,—our answer to that is that all the Gṛhyas being equally authoritative, what one has got to do is that when the details varying in them are those relating to the end, he may adopt any one of them optionally, while if the details varying relate to different purposes, he should employ them all. The name of the Vedic Rescension can never form the determining factor. Because the name of the Vedic text in relation to a particular individual is not such an invariable factor as his ‘yotra and pravara’ are; for a man is called after that Vedic Rescension which he happens to study: if he has studied the ‘Kāthaka’ rescension he is called ‘Kāṭhaka,’ and if he has studied the Ṛgveda, he is called ‘Bahvṛca’; and in regard to studying there is no such hard and fast rule as that ‘such and such a man should study only such and such a rescensional text.’ Then again, a man very often studies several Vedic texts, as is ordained (by Manu, in 3.2)—‘Having studied the Vedas &c. &c. and one has studied all the three Vedas comes to be known by all such names—as ‘Ka?thuma’ (Sāmavedin) ‘Kāṭhāka’ (Yajurvedin) and Bahvṛca’ (Ṛgvedin); and in this case one must have recourse to option. For the man however who studies a single Vedic text, it is only right that he should adopt the procedure prescribed in the Gṛhya that is named after that Vedic text; in fact, he can follow only that procedure; as he has studied only the mantras occurring in that particular text; and these alone he can recite (properly). In fact the only knowledge that he possesses of the Rite is what is derived from that particular text.

“As for the man’s knowing the mantras, since the Veda is studied only for the performance of the rites, the man would read up just those mantras (also of the other texts) that might be used in a certain performance.”

Our answer to this is that the study of the Veda is undertaken in virtue of the Injunction of ‘Vedic study;’ and until one has studied the Veda, he is not entitled to perform any religious act; it is not (as the objector thinks) that the Veda is studied only for the performing of the acts. In fact, the name that has been applied to the various Gṛhyas—as ‘this is the Gṛhya of the Kaṭhas,’ ‘this is the Gṛhya of the Vājasaneyins’ and so forth—is simply for the purpose of indicating what particular mantras have to be employed by certain persons; and when the majority of mantras prescribed in a certain Gṛhya happen to be those that have been read in a particular Vedic text, that Gṛhya comes to be named after that text. Further, when Gṛhya Smṛti is a trustworthy source of knowledge, even though it may be named after the ‘Kaṭhas,’ it cannot fail to make its purport known to the Ṛgvedins also; and what forms the purport of the Vedas and the Smṛtis is that ‘such and such an act should be done.’ So that when one has come to know that ‘this should be done,’ there can be nothing to limit the performance of that act to any particular class of persons, unless there is a Vedic text specifying any particular performer;—as for instance, when the performance of the Tanūnapāt Prayāja is restricted to the ‘Vaśiṣṭha’ clan,—or a distinct prohibition sets aside the said ‘performability.’ Neither of these two circumstances is present in the case in question. Nor can it presumed that the Ṛgveda is not an authority for the Kaṭhas, or vice versa. Because until a particular Vedic text has been actually studied, there is no difference between the ‘Kaṭha’ and the ‘Non-Kaṭha.’ As regards the ‘Gotra’ (the Clan-name), this is fixed for each man (being determined by his birth). So that the ‘Gṛhya’ of a man does not stand on the same footing as his ‘Gotra.’

This [that the Gṛhya of the man is that connected with the Vedic text that he has studied] is what is meant by the assertion—‘He who renounces his won Gṛhyaṣūtra and acts according to another Gṛhyasūtra &c.’ In fact the man can carry into practice the precepts of that text only which he h as studied. Consequently if one were to give up the rules of his own Vedic text to perform a rite in accordance with the Vedic text studied by his forefathers, and adopt the procedure laid down in the Gṛhyas belonging to this latter, he would incur the sin of ‘renouncing his own Vedic text’; or in this case the sin of ‘renouncing the text’ will have been committed by the father who did not teach the boy that particular text which had been continually studied in his family; and no blame attaches, in this, to the boy himself. In a case where the boy has lost his father and betakes himself to the teacher, as Jābāla is described as having done, it would be right for the Teacher to teach him that Text which had been studied in the boy’s family,—in accordance with the law ‘one should proceed by the path by which his father and grandfather have proceeded’ (Manu, 4.178); ‘and the renouncing of the hereditary Vedic text’ would be justifiable only in the event of its study being absolutely impossible.

From all this we deduce the following conclusion:—All the sacraments—‘Jātakarma’ and the rest—have been prescribed in all the Smṛtis; and where they lay down different details pertaining to diverse purposes, they should all be employed; but when any such details pertain to the same end and are mutually inconsistent, then there should be an option as to the particular detail to be employed.

‘Of the male child’—is added with a view to exclude the female and the sexless child.

Others however have held that there is no special significance attaching to the masculine gender of the word; because the context refers to all ‘twice-born’ persons in general as to undergo the sacramental rites. That which is meant to be ‘consecrated’ forms the principal factor; and it has been decided that no significance attaches to any such qualifications gender, number and the like, when applied to the principal factor; e.g., even though the washing of the cups is laid down in the words—‘one should wash the cup’ (in the singular),—yet all the cups are washed. Similarly when it is laid down, that ‘the man who is feverish, or just free from fever, should be fed at the close of the day,’—the feverish woman also is fed at that same time; and it is because the present verse affords the idea of the sacrament being performed for females also that the Author has added the interdict (in 2.66) that ‘the whole of this is to be done for women without Mantras’ [otherwise, if the present verse itself had excluded the women, there would be no point in this further interdict]. Then again, marriage (which is also a sacrament) is actually spoken of (in 9. 203) in connection with Eunuchs.

Our answer to the above is as follows:—The word ‘male’ does not denote the ‘human’ genus in general, in the way that the word ‘man’ does; and it is only if it did have that denotation that there might he some ground for not attaching any significance to the gender expressed by the particular case-ending. What the word ‘male’ denotes in all cases is a particular gender in the form of masculinity, as pertaining to all things, moving and unmoving, corporeal and incorporeal. In the present case the gender is denoted by the basic noun (‘pumān’ in ‘puruṣaḥ’) itself; and it is only in connection with what is denoted by the case-ending, that the question of significance or non-significance can arise; and the reason for this lies in the fact that the denotation of number (or gender) is not the only function of the case-ending,—it may have its use simply in the denoting of any one of several such factors as the ‘accusative character’ and so forth [so that if no significance is attached to any one of these several factors, it does not matter]. In the present case however (where the gender is denoted by the basic noun itself), if no significance were attached to the gender, then the word ‘pumān’ would become absolutely meaningless. As in the very instance cited above, full significance is actually attached to the denotation of the basic noun ‘Cup’; and this is done simply because the sentence would, otherwise, become absolutely meaningless.

The following argument might be urged—“It is not only what is signified by the case-ending that may be non-significant; as a matter of fact, the denotation of the entire word, if it qualifies the subject, is regarded as non-significant. For instance, in the case of the text which lays down an expiatory rite in the case of one for whom ‘both offering materials have been spoilt.’—though we have the word ‘both,’ yet the expiatory rite is performed even on the spoiling of even one of the two materials, milk and curd; and no significance is attached to the denotation of the entire word ‘both’ (which qualifies the subject.)”

To this objection some people offer the following answer:—The present case is not analogous to the case just cited. In the latter, the ‘Pañcaśarāva rite’ (which is the expiatory rite referred to) is not done for the sake of the offering-material; all that is meant is that the spoiling of the materials provides the occasion for the performance of the rite;—while in the case in question, the sacraments are done for the sake of the Boy.

This difference (between the two cases) however is of no consequence at all. Because as a matter of fact, it is only with a view to avoid a syntactical split that significance is not attached to qualifications; and even though the Rite were for the sake of the material, that would not prevent the said syntactical split.

Hence the real answer to the objection is as follows:—The passage beginning with ‘vaidikaiḥ karmabhiḥ, etc.,’ (Verse 26) is what constitutes the original injunction of the ‘Jātakarma’ sacrament; and throughout this passage it is the male that is indicated as the person to be ‘consecrated.’ So that if no significance were attached to this male-character, the whole passage would become meaningless. It is this same consideration which leads us (in the case of the passage cited by the objection) to attach due significance to the denotation of the word ‘offering-material’ (even though none is attached to its qualification ‘both’).

“Well, then the sacraments would be performed for the Śūdra also; as the passage does not specify any particular caste.”

Certainly there is no possibility of the sacraments for Śūdras, because sacraments are performed to the accompaniment of Mantras. Or, we may take the term ‘of the twice-born persons,’ occurring in a supplementary passage, as providing the necessary restriction. Nor does the term ‘of the twice-born persons’ in the said passage pertain (as a qualification) only to what is therein enjoined; so that it cannot be urged that, “in as much as the necessity of their consecration has been mentioned in that passage, no significance can attach to the term ‘male’ in the present passage; just as none is attached to the term ‘both’ in the passage referred to above.”

As for the fact of a later text (Verse 66) speaking of the Rites for females being ‘without mantras,’ this could be taken as an independent injunction; without necessarily depending upon the fact of the ‘sacrament with mantras’ being possible for women also (under the present verse; of which the later verse has been regarded as an exception, by the objector above).

As for the ‘marriage of sexless persons’;—‘sexless’ persons are of various kinds—e.g., (a) those whose semen is ‘airy,’ (Impotent), (b) those who have the signs of both sexes (Hermaphrodite), and (c) those whose organs are inactive. All these people cannot be excluded from all the ‘sacraments’; because, in the first place their impotence, etc., cannot be detected at the time (during infancy) when the ‘Jātakarma’ and the other (earlier) sacraments are performed; and secondly (even when detected) the said impotence, etc., may be such as might be cured, and certainly a characteristic that is not of a permanent character can never serve as a disqualification. For instance, absence of wealth; this is not a permanent characteristic, like the caste of a person; for the man who has no wealth comes to acquire wealth; having remained poor for a long time, a man becomes very rich in a single day. It is on the killing of such a (confirmed and permanent) eunuch that one becomes purified (of the sin) by the giving of a load of dry grass; and the reason for this lies in the fact that he has had no ‘sacraments,’ he has not been ‘initiated,’ and his life is of no use to any person.

From all this it follows that the present text prescribes the sacraments for males only,—the later Verse (66) prescribes them for females as to be done ‘without mantras,’—and for eunuchs there are no sacraments at all.—(29)

‘Hiranya-madhu-sarpisām’—Though the text clearly says that the child is to be fed with gold, honey and butter, it appears from the Gṛhya Sūtras that the last two substances only are to be given to the child, after they have been touched with a piece of gold.’—Buhler.

‘Mantravat.’—The mantras are those used by his own sect or his gurus.

Hopkins has the following note here:—“This commentator’s (Medhātithi’s) use of ‘some think’, ‘some explain’ is such, as in this passage, to suggest that they are occasionally used hypothetically, a possible view being set up and overthrown rather than actual statement that other commentators explain the passage so and so; a modification of meaning that would somewhat affect the amount of criticism devoted to the text before Medhātithi’s day.”

Though this may be true, to a certain extent, regarding the references in the form of ‘kechit’, it cannot be so regarding those in the form ‘anye tu’ or ‘anyevya cakṣate’ and such other moṛe definite references to other explanations.

This verse has been quoted by Raghunandana in his Smṛtitattva (Jyotiṣ, p. 648)—dealing with the Jātakarma Sacrament;—also in the Madanapārijāta (p. 353).

This verse is quoted in the Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 433) as laying down the time for the ‘Birth-sacrament’;—in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 23) which adds the following notes—‘Vardhana’ is cutting; some people have held that no significance attaches to the masculine gender of ‘puruṣaḥ’; but Medhātithi has held that it is meant to be significant, there being no such rite in the case of the child without gender-signs, and for the woman it is performed without mantras in accordance with another text;—it is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 31 b);—in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 583), where‘Vardhana’ is explained as cutting; and again on p. 736, where the same is repeated;—in the same work (Śrāddha, p. 326);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 831) to the effect that the rite is to be performed before the cutting of the umbilical cord;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 49) to the same effect; it reads ‘puruṣam’ for ‘puruṣaḥ’

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 192) quotes it as laying down the exact time for the performance of the sacrament, in the first half,—and the form of the sacrament in the second half. It quotes it again (p. 403) in support of the view that Manu having prescribed the sacraments of Nāmakaraṇa, Niṣkramaṇa, Annaprāśana, Chuḍā, Upanayaṇa and Keśānta, for the male child,—adds a verse (2. 66) to the effect that ‘all this is to be done for the female child &c. &c.,—which makes it clear that the Upanayaṇa rite should be performed for the female child also; and the statement (in 2-67) that for women the ‘marriage’ constitutes the ‘upanayaṇa’ only provides a possible substitute for Upanayaṇa in the case of females.

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 171) as laying down the Jātakarma, and explains ‘vardhana’ as ‘cutting.’

Mahābhārata (Ājagara Parva., 3?).—(The first line of Manu repeated.)

Viṣṇu (Smṛti, 1.27.1).—‘On the birth of the child, the Jātakarma.’

Āśvalāyana (Gṛhyasūtrā, 15.1.3).—‘When the boy is born, before he has been touched by any other person, he should be made to eat, with a golden spoon, butter, honey and gold, with the mantra—‘Pra te dadhāmi, etc.’—‘The following mantra is to he recited into the ear of the child —medhānte devaḥ savitā, etc.’—‘The shoulders are touched with the mantra —Aśmā bhava’, etc.

Āṣhvalāyana (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 193).—‘The Jātakarma should be performed by the twice-born immediately on the birth of the child.’

Gobhila (Gṛhyasūtrā, 2.7.21).—‘Taking hold of the boy as soon as he is born, one should make an offering into his mouth, with the mantra Medhānte mitrāvaruṇau, etc.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 191).—‘When the boy is born, the Father should perform the Jātakarma sacrament after having performed the Nāndī-śrāddha.’

Jābāli (Ibid).—‘Before the umbilical cord has been cut, the Śrāddha consequent on child-birth should be performed.’

Garga (Ibid).—‘The Jātakarma is prescribed as to be performed, as soon as the boy is born, before he is put to the mother’s breast, or before the umbilical cord has been cut.’

Śaṅkha (Parāśaramādhava, p. 110).—‘To all members of his family he shall give quadrupeds, grains, gold and other things.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Ibid).—‘On. birth, there is Jātakarma; and feeding of the child with barley-dour, honey, butter, by means of a golden spoon.’

Baijavāpa (Ibid).—‘As soon as the boy is born, before the cutting of the cord, he should be fed with water touched with gold, and also with curd, honey, butter.’

Viṣṇudarmottara (Parāśaramādhava, p. 440).—‘On the birth of the son, the Śrāddha should be performed before the cutting of the umbilical cord; or after the expiry of the period of impurity.’

Vyāsa (Do.)—‘When the man is away from home, or when his wife is in her courses, when he has no materials nor Brāh-niaṇas at hand, lie shall perform the Birth-śrāddha with gold.’

Samvārta (Paraśaramādhava, p. 439).—‘On the birth of the son, bathing with clothes on has been prescribed for the father.’

Ādityapurāṇa (Ibid, p. 410).—‘At the Birth-śrāddha one shall not offer cooked food to the Brāhmaṇas.’

Pāraskara (Ibid, p. 440).—‘When the boy is horn, before the cord is cut, one should perform rites tending to longevity and intelligence; uttering into his right ear, the word ‘Vāk’ and then his secret name.’

Brahmapurūṇa (Aparārka, p. 20) and Ādityapurāṇa, (Parāśaramādhava, p. 440).—‘Gods and Pitṛs come to the house of the twice-born whenever a son is born; therefore on that occasion, sacred rites should be performed; one should give away gold, land, cows and chariots, umbrellas, goats, garlands, sesamum, houses and much wealth, and after performing the śrāddha, he should offer cooked food to Brāhmaṇas.’

Hārīta (Do.)—‘On the birth of the son, the Pitṛs become delighted; hence that day is sacred; hence one should give away vessels full of sesamum, along with gold; and having invited Brāhmaṇas, one should make offerings to the Pitṛs; and prior to the cutting of the umbilical cord, they make

029 Before the navel-string is cut, the Gatakarman (birth-rite) must be performed for a male (child); and while sacred formulas are being recited, he must be fed with gold, honey, and butter.

One should have his ‘naming’ (Nāmadheya) done on the tenth or the twelfth (day), on an auspicious lunar date and at an auspicious moment. and under a propitious lunar asterism.—(30)

दशम्यां तिथौ द्वादश्यां वस्य दारकस्य नामधेयं कुर्वीत । णिजर्थो न विवक्षितः । तथा च गृह्यम्- “दशम्याम् उत्थाप्य पिता नाम करोति” (पार्ग् १.१७.१) इति । नामैव नामधेयम् । येन शब्देन कार्येष्व् आहूयते तन् नाम । “प्राङ् नाभिवर्धनात्” (म्ध् २.२९) इति जातकर्मणः प्रकृतत्वाज् जन्मनः प्रभृति दशमीद्वादश्यौ गृह्येते न चन्द्रतिथी ।

• इह केचिद् दशमीग्रहणम् आशौचनिवृत्तिर् इत्य् उपलक्षणार्थं वर्णयन्ति । अतीतायाम् इति चाध्याहारः दशम्याम् अतीतायां ब्राह्मणस्य द्वादश्यां क्षत्रियस्य पञ्चदश्यां वैश्यस्येति ।

• तद् अयुक्तं²⁸ । लक्षणायां प्रमाणाभावाज् जातकर्मवद् आशौचे ऽपि करिष्यते । यदि तु ब्राह्मणभोजनं विहितं क्वचित् तदा युक्ता लक्षणा । यदि दशमीद्वादश्यौ वक्ष्यमाणगुणयुक्ते भवतः तदा तयोः कर्तव्यम् । अथ न, तदान्यस्मिन्न् अपि पुण्ये ऽहनि । पुण्यान्य् अहानि द्वितीयापञ्चम्यादीनि । पुण्यं प्रशस्तम्, नवमीचतुर्दश्यादयो रिक्तास् तिथयः अपुण्याः । मुहूर्तो लग्नं कुम्भादि । तस्मिन् पुण्ये पापग्रहैर् अनधिष्ठिते गुरुभ्यां च दृश्यमाने । लग्नशुद्धिर् ज्योतिषाद् अवगम्यते । नक्षत्रे च गुणयुक्ते । नक्षत्रं श्रविष्ठादि, तद् यस्मिन्न् अहनि गुणयुक्तं भवति । नक्षत्रगुणाश् च क्रूरग्रहपापग्रहविष्टिव्यतीपातविवर्जितम्²⁹ । वाशब्दः समुच्चये । तेन प्रशस्तायां तिथौ नक्षत्रे च शुद्धे लग्न इत्य् उपदिष्टं भवति । समुच्चयश् च ज्योतिषावगम्यः । अयं च परमार्थः । दशमीद्वाधशमीभ्याम् अर्वाङ् न कर्तव्यम् । उत्तरकालं च यद् अहर् नक्षत्रं लग्नं परिशुद्धं तद् अहर् एव कर्तव्यम् ॥ २.३० ॥

इदानीं यादृशं नाम कर्तव्यं तन् नियमयति स्वरूपतो ऽर्थतश् च ।

One should perform the ‘naming,’ ‘Nāmadheya,’ of the child on the tenth or the twelfth day.

No significance is meant to be attached to the sense of the causative affix in ‘Kārayet,’ should have it done.’ For the Gṛhyasūtra simply says—‘On the tenth day the father should take up the child and perform his naming’ (without the causal form).

The term ‘Nāmadheya’ means simply ‘nāma,’ ‘name’; and it is that word by which a person is called during life.

In as much as the section has started with the mentiou of the ‘Jātakarma,’ as to be done ‘before the cutting of the umbilical cord,’ it follows that the ‘tenth’ and ‘twelfth’ (of the Text) refer to the day as counted from the day of birth; and they do not refer to the lunar dates.

On this point some people have held that the mention of the ‘tenth day’ is only meant to indicate the ‘passing of the days of impurity’; the past-participle epithet ‘atītāyām,’ ‘having passed,’ being understood. So that the meaning is that, ‘for the Brāhmaṇa the Naming should be done after the lapse of the tenth day, for the Kṣatriya after the lapse of the twelfth day, and for the Vaiśya after the lapse of the fifteenth day.’

This explanation, however, is not right. For there being no ground for taking the words in the indirect figurative sense suggested, the ceremony could very well be performed during the period of impurity, just like the ‘Birth-rite.’ If the feeding of the Brāhmaṇas were enjoined (as a necessary accompaniment of the Ṛte), then there might be some justification for the suggested figurative interpretation.

If the ‘tenth’ or the ‘twelfth’ day happen to fulfil the conditions mentioned in the second line of the verse, then the ceremony should be done on those days. Otherwise it should be performed on some other auspicious lunar date.

The ‘auspicious lunar dates’ are the, the fifth (day of the lunar month), and so forth.

‘Puṇya,’ ‘auspicious,’ means commended. The ninth, fourteenth and such other days (of the lunar month),—which are commonly called ‘Riktā,’—are ‘not commended,’ ‘inauspicious.’

‘Muhūrta,’ ‘moment,’ stands for what is called ‘lagna’ (the point of time indicated by the ‘contact with the Horizon,’ i.e., the ‘rising,’ of a particular Zodiacal Sign), Aquarius, and the rest. ‘At a moment that is auspicious,’—i.e., which is not possessed by any evil planet, which is looked upon by Jupiter and Venus. Such ‘auspiciousness’ of the moment can be ascertained with the help of the science of Astrology.

‘Under a propitious lunar asterism,’—the ‘are those beginning with Śraviṣṭhā; and that day on which these happen to be ‘propitious.’ The ‘propitiousness’ of the Lunar Asterism consists in its being free from the contact of ‘malignant’ and ‘evil’ planets, as also from the condition of ‘Vyatīpāta’ (a malignant aspect of the Sun and the Moon).

The particle ‘Vā’ in the Text has a collective sense (meaning ‘and’); hence the meaning is that ‘the ceremony should he performed on an auspicious day, and at an auspicious moment, and under a faultless lunar asterism.’ The due combination of all these conditions can be ascertained with the help of the Science of Astrology.

The final upshot of the whole comes to this:—The ceremony should never be performed before the tenth or twelfth day,—and after these days it may be performed only at the auspicious moment on that day which is found to be under a propitious lunar asterism.’—(30)

‘Daśamyām dvādaśyām’—‘The tenth of twelfth day of the month’—Medhātithi, who also notes and rejects the explanation—‘after the lapse of the tenth or twelfth day—i.e., ‘on the lapsing of the period of impurity’—which is accepted by Kullūka.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 233) where it notes the latter explanation and says that it has been rejected by Medhātithi and Aparārka. It is curious that having the work of Medhātithi before him, the author of Vīramitrodaya did not note his explanation that the ceremony is to be performed on the 10th or 12th day (tithi) of the month.

The verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 855) also, where however no explanation is given—and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 371), where it is added that what is meant is that the naming of the Brāhmaṇa should be done on the expiry of the tenth day, of the Kṣatriya on the expiry of the twelfth day, of the Vaiśya on the expiry of the sixteenth day and of the Shudra on the expiry of the twenty-first day;—and the second half of the verse lays down substitutes.

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 24), which adds that ‘daśamyām’ has been taken as ‘daśamyām añtāyam’, ‘after the lapse of the tenth day’,—that no significance attaches to the causal affix in ‘kārayet’;—in Saṃskāṛaratnamālā (p. 850), which adds that the causal affix in ‘kārayet’ has the reflexive sense;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 34a);—and in Sṛmticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 52), which explains meaning as ‘on the tenth day from the day of the birth, the father should do the naming’, it being the father’s business to do this.

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.5.—‘The naming should be done after the lapse of the period of impurity.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.12.—‘The naming on the eleventh day.’ Āśvalāyana (Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.4).—‘They should give him a name.’

Pāraskara (Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.17.11).—‘On the tenth day, the father should take him up, and after having fed the Brāhmaṇas, should perform the naming ceremony.’

Gobhila (Gṛhyasūtrā, 2.7.7).—‘On the expiry of ten days, or hundred days, or a year, after birth, the Naming.’

Jyotirvaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 231).—‘The naming of the boy should be done either on the day of birth, or on the twelfth day, or in special cases, on the tenth day.’

Maheśvara (Ibid).—‘The Jātakarma and the naming of the boy should he done either by the father or brothers at the time of birth; or on the twelfth day from birth, or on the first day.’

[The naming on the day of birth refers to the imparting of a secret name, which is done along with the Jātakarma; see above.]

Viṣṇu-purāṇa (Ibid).—‘The father should do the naming on the tenth day.’

Vyāsa (Ibid).—‘Some wise men hold that the naming is to be done on the tenth day; others mention the twelfth day; and yet others hold that it should be done after the lapse of one full month.’

Nārada (Do.)—‘From the birth, on the tenth day, or the twelfth day, is performed the naming of Brāhmaṇas; of the other two castes, it is on the expiry of the period of impurity;—so also for Śūdras; hut some people hold that the naming of the Śūdra should be done on the thirty-first day.’

Śaṅkha (Do.)—‘The naming has been prescribed as to be done on the lapse of the period of impurity.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.)—‘The naming is prescribed as to be done on the tenth or the twelfth dav.’

Bṛhaspati (Do.)—‘The naming should he done, for the Brāhmaṇa, on the tenth or tho twelfth day; for the Kṣatriya on the thirteenth day; for the Vaiśya on the sixteenth day; and for the Śūdra either on the nineteenth (v. l. twentieth) or the thirty-second (v. l. twenty-second) day.’

Mahābhārata (Do.)—‘The naming of the twice-born castes should be done on the twelfth, the sixteenth, the twentieth and the twenty-second day respectively; for the Brāhmaṇa it may be done on the tenth also.’

Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (Do.)—‘On the expiry of the twelfth night, or, according to others, on the expiry of one month, or, according to others, on the eighteenth day.’

[Thus we find that the choice lies among the following days—the day of birth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-second, thirty-first, hundred and first and the end of a year.]

As regards the ‘puṇya tithi, muhūrta and nakṣatra’ the reader is referred to the Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, pp. 234-237.

030 But let (the father perform or) cause to be performed the Namadheya (the rite of naming the child), on the tenth or twelfth (day after birth), or on a lucky lunar day, in a lucky muhurta, under an auspicious constellation.

The name of the Brāhmaṇa should be auspicious, that of the Kṣatriya connected with power, that of the Vaiśya associated with wealth; while that of the Śūdra contemptible.—(31)

तत्र स्वरूपम् अवधारयिष्यन्न् आह । मङ्गलाय हितं तत्र वा साधु माङ्गल्यम् इति व्युत्पत्तिः । “अभिमतस्यार्थस्य चिरजीवित्वबहुधनादेर् दृष्टादृष्टसुखफलस्य सिद्धिः” मङ्गलम् । तदभिधानम् एव शब्दस्य हितत्वं साधुत्वं चेति तद्धितसिद्धिः । साधुत्वं नाभिप्रेतार्थसिद्धिप्रतिपादनम् एव विवक्षितम् । किं तर्हि, य आशास्यते तद्वचनेनैव सिद्धिः । समासाद् आयुःसिद्धिः धनसिद्धिः पुत्रलाभ इत्यादेः प्रतीयते । तद्धिताद् वा हितनिमित्तप्रयोजनार्थीयात् । तत्र गृह्ये तद्धितान्तं प्रतिषिद्धम्- “कृतं कुर्यान् न तद्धितम्” (पार्ग् १.१७.२) इति । समासे ऽपि पदद्वयैकार्थीभावस् तत्र बह्वक्षरप्रयोगप्रसङ्गाः³⁰ । यतो वक्ष्यति “शर्मवद् ब्राह्मणस्य” (म्ध् २.३२) इत्य् उपपदनियमम् । तत्र चतुरक्षरे त्र्यक्षरे वा नाम्नि शर्मशब्दे चोपपदे पञ्चाक्षरं षडक्षरं नाम भवति । तच् च प्रतिषिद्धम् “द्व्यक्षरं चतुरक्षरं वा कुर्यात्” (पार्ग् १.१७.२) इति । तेन यद् यत् किंचित् प्रायेण सर्वस्याभिलषणीयम् अगर्हितं पुत्रपशुग्रामकन्याधनादि तद्वचनाः शब्दा नामधेयत्वेन³¹ विनियोक्त्व्याः शर्मान्ताः । तेन गोशर्मा धनशर्मा हिरण्यशर्मा कल्याणशर्मा मङ्गल्यशर्मेत्यादिशब्दपरिग्रहः सिद्धो भवति ।

• अथ वा मङ्गलं धर्मस् तत्साधनं मङ्गल्यं नाम । कतमत् पुनर् धर्मसाधनं नाम । य एते देवताशब्दाः इन्द्रो ऽग्निर् वायुः । तथा ऋषिशब्दाः । वसिष्ठो विश्वामित्रो मेधातिथिः । तेषाम् अपि धर्मसाधनम् अस्ति । ऋषींस् तर्पयेत् पुण्यकृतो मनसा ध्यायेद् इति ।

• देवतानाम् ऋषीणां च द्विजानां पुण्यकर्मणाम् ।

• प्रातः प्रबुद्धः श्रीकामो नरो नामानि कीर्तयेत् ॥ इति ।

मङ्गल्यग्रहणाच् च यद् अप्रशस्तं यमो मृत्युर् इत्यादि तन् निरस्यते, यच् चानर्थकं डित्थादि यदृच्छानिमित्तम् ।

• क्षत्रियस्य बलान्वितम् । बलसंयुक्तं बलवाचि । अन्वयः संबन्धह् । शब्दस्यार्थेन संबन्धः प्रतिपादकभाव एव । सामर्थ्यं बलं तद् येन येन³² प्रतिपाद्यते तादृशं नाम क्षत्रियस्य कर्तव्यम् । शत्रुंतपः दुर्योधनः प्रजापाल इत्यादि । येन³³ विभागेन च नामनिर्देशो जातिचिह्नम् ।

• एवं वैश्यस्य धनसंयुक्तम् । न चात्र पर्याया एव गृह्यन्ते “धनं वित्तं स्वापतेयम्” (अम्क् २.९.९०) इति । किं तर्हि, येन प्रकारेण प्रतिपत्तिः । यदि वा धनादिशब्दप्रयोगाद् अर्थसंबन्धाद्³⁴ वा, धनकर्मा महाधनः गोमान् धान्यग्रह इति ।

• एवं सर्वत्र द्रष्टव्यम् । तथा चान्वितादिशब्दप्रयोगो बलान्वितं धनसंयुक्तम् इति । इतरथा एवम् एवावक्ष्यद् “बलनामानि कुर्यात्” इति । स्वल्पत्वाद् बलाद्यर्थवाचिनाम्³⁵ आनन्त्याच् च पुरुषव्यक्तीनां दुरवधाने भेदे व्यवहारोच्छेद एव स्यात् ।

• शूद्रस्य जुगुप्सितम् । कृपणको दीनः शबरक इत्यादि ॥ २.३१ ॥

The Author now proceeds to determine the form of the name to be given to the child.

‘Maṅgalyam,’ ‘auspicious,’ means ‘maṅgalāya hitam,’ or ‘maṅgalāya sādhu,’ ‘conducive to welfare.’ The ‘welfare’ meant here is that which consists in the fulfilment of something desirable, in the shape of longevity, wealth and such other things as lead to physical and mental pleasure. And a term can be said to be ‘conducive,’—‘hita’ or ‘sādhu,’—to this welfare, only when it connotes it; and it is in this sense that we have the Nominal Affix (‘yat,’ in ‘maṅgalyam’). Further, by being ‘conducive’ it is not meant that it should always express the actual fulfilment of a desirable thing; but that it may also express the desirable thing itself.

This connotation of the desirable thing may be either (a) by means of compounds, such as ‘āyuḥsiddhi’ (accomplishment, of longevity), ‘dhanasiddhi’ (acquisition of wealth), ‘putralāhha’ (obtaining of a son), and so forth,—or (b) by a nominal affix connoting ‘conduciveness’ ‘effectiveness,’ or ‘purpose.’ But the Gṛhyasūtra has prohibited the use of a name ending in a Nominal affix—‘One should fix a name ending with a Verbal, not one with a nominal affix’—says Pāraskara. And as for compounds also, there is a combination of the denotations of two words; so that there is a chance of the name consisting of many letters; the lext is going to lay down certain appendages to the actual names, such as ‘the name of Brāhmaṇa should end in Śarman, and so forth’ (Manu, 2.32); so that if the name consists of three or four letters, along with the appendage ‘śarman,’ it would oome to consist of five or six letters; and this would go against the rule that ‘the name should consist of two or four letters.’ (Baudhāyana and Āpastamba). From all this it follows that such words should he employed as names as are connotative of things that are desired by most people,—e.g., son, cattle, landed property, daughter, wealth and so forth; and these should end with the term ‘**śarman.’ Thus it is that such names become possible as ‘Go-śarman.’ ‘Dhana-śarman,’ ‘Hiraṇya-śarman,’ ‘Kalyāṇa-śarman,’ ‘Maṅgala-śarman,’ and so on.

Or, the term ‘maṅgala’ may be taken as standing for ‘Dharma,’ ‘Merit’; and ‘maṅgalya’ in that case would mean that which is conducive to merit (meritorious).

“What is it that is conducive to merit?”

All those words that constitute the names of Deities; e.g., ‘Indra,’ ‘Agni,’ ‘Vāyū’; also the names of sages—e.g., ‘Vasiṣṭha,’ ‘Viśvāmiṭra,’ ‘Medhātithi’; these latter also are ‘conducive to merit’; as is clearly indicated by such directions as—(a) ‘one should make offerings to the sages,’ (b) ‘one should meditate upon the men of pious deeds,’ ‘one who desires prosperity should, on rising in the morning, repeat the names of Deities, sages and of the Brāhmaṇas of pious deeds.’

The epithet ‘mangalya,’ ‘auspicious’ (meritorious) serves to preclude all ‘inauspicious’ names, such as ‘Yama,’ ‘Mṛtyu’ and the like; and also those that are meaningless—such, as ‘Ḍittha’ and the like.

‘That of the Kṣatriya connected with power,’—i.e., expressive of power. The ‘anvaya’ (expressed by ‘anvita’ in the compound ‘balānvita’ means connection; and the only connection that a word can have with a thing is the relation, of being connotative of it.—‘Power’ is strength; and the word, that connotes this should be used as the name for the Kṣatriya,e.g., ‘Śatruntapa,’ ‘Duryodhana,’ ‘Prajāpāla.’ The several kinds of names have been mentioned (in the text), as indicative of the several castes.

Similarly, ‘that of the Vaiśya Associated with wealth.’ It is not meant that only synonyms of ‘dhana’ should be used,—such as ‘Dhana’ ‘Vitta,’ ‘Svāpateya,’—but that any word that may be in any way connotative of wealth should be used. Or, what is meant is that either such words as ‘dhana’ (‘wealth’) and the like should be used, or such as signify connection with wealth; such as ‘Dhanakarman,’ ‘Mahādhana,’ ‘Goman,’ ‘Dhānyag?aha.’

Throughout this verse, such is the meaning—of the term ‘connected with power’ and ‘associated with wealth.’ If this were not what is meant, the text would have said simply ‘the names of power should be used.’ And in that case, since the words actually denotative of power would be very few in number, while the number of individuals to be named would be endless,—all usage (based oh names) would come to an end.

‘That of the Śūdra contemptible,’—such as ‘Kṛpaṇaka,’ ‘Dīna,’ ‘Śavaraka,’ and so forth.—(31)

This verse is quoted in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 217);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 53) to the effect that the names of the four castes should consist of words expressive respectively, of welfare, strength, wealth and deprecation;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra p. 346);—and in Saṃskāra-mayūkha (p. 25).

Burnell—‘This is now obsolete. The names of the different castes are now usually epithets or titles of some favourite deity. The caste is known only by the suffixed title.’

This verse has been quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskā ra, p. 242), where we have the following explanations: ‘maṅgalyam’ means expressive of auspiciousness; e.g., the name ‘Lakṣmīdhara’;—‘Balānvitam’ means expressive of bravery, e.g., the name ‘Yudhiṣṭhira;’—‘dhanasamyuktam’, means containing terms expressive of wealth; e.g., the name ‘Mahādhana’;—‘jugupsitam’ means containing a term denoting depreciation; e.g., the name ‘Naradāsa’.

Madanapārijāta also quotes this verse (on p. 357), where it is explained to mean that ‘the names should be expressive of auspiciousness and the rest’

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 441) quotes it as also the four typical names as—‘Śrī Śarmā’ ‘Vikramapālo’, Māṇikyaśreṣṭhi and Hīnadāsa;—it is quoted in Aparārka (p. 27) as laying down rules regarding the first part of the name.

Śaṅkha (Smṛti, 2.3).—‘The name of all castes should consist of an even number of letters; an auspicious one for the Brāhmaṇa, one endowed with strength for the Kṣatriya.’

Viṣṇu (Smṛti, 1.27.6-9).—‘The Brāhmaṇa’s name should be expressive of auspiciousness—the Kṣatriya’s expressive of strength,—the Vaiśya’s expressive of wealth,—the Śūdra’s expressive of depreciation.’

Vīramitrodaya (Śaṃskāra, p. 237).—Names are of four kinds;

1. connected with family-deity,
2. connected with month,
3. connected with asterism,
4. and temporal.

(a) Says Śaṅkha.—‘The father should fix a name connected with the family-deity,’ i.e., a name consisting of words expressive of the Deity.

(b) Gārgya.—‘The father should impart to the hoy the name of the month and the name of the preceptor. The months have been declared to have the following names:—

1. Mārgaśīrṣa—Kṛṣṇa,
2. Pauṣa—Ananta,
3. Māgha—Achyuta,
4. Phālguna—Chakrī,
5. Caitra—Vaikuṇṭha,
6. Vaiśākha,—Janārdana,
7. Jyaiṣṭha,—Upendra,
8. Āṣāḍha—Yajñapuruṣa.
9. Śrāvaṇa—Vāsudeva.
10. Bhādra—Hari,
11. Āśvina—Yogīśa,
12. Kārttika—Puṇḍarīkākṣa.’

(c) Śaṅkha-Likhita.—‘Either the father or some other senior member of the family should fix a name connected with the asterism.’ This name has been held to be the one to be used when the person bearing the name accosts a superior.

Says Baudhāyana—‘This name in accordance with the asterism is the secret one, which is known only to the father and the mother and which the boy is to use in accosting.’

Also Āśvalāyana—‘The accosting name should be known only to the father and the mother; as it is under this name that the boy is initiated.’

Also Śaunaka, ‘That name under which he is to be initiated, and by which he will do the accosting of the teacher,—should also be fixed at the time of the naming ceremony. This accostive name should be pronounced by the father very silently, so that others may not know it. This initiative name the parents should bear in mind.’

Like the names attached to the months the names attached to the asterisms are as follows:—

1. Agni (Kṛttikā),
2. Prajāpati (Rohiṇī),
3. Soma (Mṛgaśiras),
4. Rudra (Ārdrā),
5. Diti (Punarvasū),
6. Bṛhaspati (Puṣvā),
7. Sarpa (Aśleṣā),
8. Pitṛ (Maghā),
9. Bhaga (Purvaphalgunī),
10. Aryamā (Uttaraphalgunī),
11. Savitṛ (Hastā),
12. Tvaṣtṛ (Chitrā),
13. Āyuṣ (Svātī),
14. Indra-Agni (Viśākhā),
15. Mitra (Anurādhā),
16. Indra (Jyeṣṭhā),
17. Nirṛti (Mūlā),
18. Apas (Pūrvāṣāḍhā),
19. Viśvedevas (Uttarāṣāḍhā),
20. Viṣṇu (Śravaṇā),
21. Vasu (Dhaniṣṭhā),
22. Varuṇa (Śatabhiṣa),
23. Ajaikapāt (Pūrvabhādra),
24. Ahirbudhnya (Uttarabhādra),
25. Pūṣan (Revatī),
26. Aśvins (Aśvinī),
27. Yama (Bharaṇī).

But according to Baudhāyana, the “name connected with the asterism” is in accordance with the names of the asterisms themselves—such as ‘Rohiṇī,’ ‘Bharaṇī,’ and the rest; and not in accordance with the name of the deity attached to each asterism. According to the astrologers however each asterism has four letters assigned to it (such as chū-che-cho-la, assigned to Aśvinī, and so forth, and “the name connected with the asterism of Aśvinī,” would be the name whose first letter consists of one of these four letters).

(d) The ‘temporal name’ has been described by Bṛhaspati as ‘conducive to all kinds of business.’ It is this name that has been laid down by Āśvalāyana as having for its first letter one of the ghoṣa-letters, in its middle one of the antastha letters; ending with the visarga, containing either two or four vowels; and in male names the number of letters should always be even.

But Baijavāpa—‘The father fixes the name, which consists of either two or three or four letters, or of unlimited number of letters.’

Vaśiṣṭha—‘The name should consist of either two or four vowels, but those ending in l or r should be avoided.’

The Mahābhāṣya—‘The first letter of the name should be ghoṣa-vat, the middle one of the antastha letters, it should not be similar to the names of the ancestors, or of the enemy; it should be one formed with a verbal affix, not with a nominal affix.’

Āśvalāyana—‘That name is best which consists of either four or two letters, which is in consonance with that of the grandfather’ (this last includes also the gods).

Kapila-Saṃhitā—‘On the eleventh day, in due form, the name should be given, which is in consonance with the family-custom, and resembles the name of the gods or of the parents.’

Baijavāpa (Aparārka, p. 27).—‘The father gives a name either of one letter or two letters or three letters or four letters, or of letters without limit; it should be one formed with a verbal, never with a nominal, affix.’

031 Let (the first part of) a Brahmana’s name (denote something) auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaisya’s with wealth, but a Sudra’s (express something) contemptible.

The name of the Brāhmaṇa should be expressive of ‘peace,’ that of the Kṣatriya, of ‘protection’; that ot the Vaiśya, of ‘prosperity,’ and that of the Śūdra, of ‘submissiveness.’—(32)

अत्र स्वरूपग्रहणं पाठानुक्रमश् चादौ मङ्गल्यम् अन्ते शर्मशब्दः³⁶ । तथा चोदाहृतम् । क्षत्रियादिनाम्नां तु नैतत् संभवति, रक्षाशब्दस्य स्त्रीलिङ्गस्य श्रवणात् पुंसां सामानाधिकरण्यानुपपत्तेः । तस्माद् एकोपक्रमत्वात् समाचाराच् च सर्वत्रार्थग्रहणं । वाक्यभेदाच् च समुच्चयः । यन् मङ्गल्यं तच् छर्मार्थवत् । शर्म³⁷ शरणम् आश्रयः सुखं च । अर्थग्रहणात् स्वामिदत्तभभूत्यादिशब्दपरिग्रहः । इन्द्रस्वामीन्द्राश्रयः इन्द्रदत्तः³⁸ । तदाश्रयता प्रतीयते । एवं सर्वत्रोन्नेयम् ।

• अथ को ऽयं हेतुर् वाक्यभेदात् समुच्चय इति । “व्रीहिभिर् यजेत,” “यवैर् यजेत” इति किं न समुच्चय इति ।

• उच्यते । लिङ्गदर्शनमात्रम् एतत् पौरुषेयत्वात् ग्रन्थस्य । विकल्पे ऽभिप्रेते मङ्गल्यं शर्मवद् वेति लाघवाद् अवक्ष्यत् । वाक्यभेदे हि द्विराख्यातोच्चारणम् । तद् गुरु भवति ।

• रक्षा परिपालनम्, पुष्टिर् वृद्धिर् गुप्तिश् च । गोवृद्धो धनगुप्त इति । प्रेष्यो दासः । ब्राह्मणदासो देवदासो ब्राह्मणाश्रितो देवताश्रित इति ॥ २.३२ ॥

[What appears to be the meaning is that] the actual term (‘śarman,’ etc.) should form part of the name,—and that the two terms (mentioned in the preceding and the present verse) should appear in the order stated, the ‘auspicious’ term coming at the beginning and the term ‘śarman’ at the end (of the name),—as illustrated above (‘Go-śarman,’ ‘Dhana-śarman’ and so forth).

But this would not be possible in regard to the names of the Kṣatriya and the rest; because the term ‘rakṣā.’ (‘security,’ which is mentioned in connection with the Kṣatriya) is of the feminine gender, and as such could not be co-ordinated with the names of males. Hence in view of conformity, and in view also of actual practice, and also in view of the two verses being syntactically distinct, we should take them as complementary to each other; the sense being that the ‘auspicious name’ (mentioned in the preceding verse) should he ‘expressive of śarman, Peace’—this term standing for refuge, shelter, happiness. It is only if we take the term ‘śarman’ of the text as standing for what is developed by it, that we have the possibility of names ending in ‘svāmū,’ ‘datta,’ ‘bhūti,’ and the rest; the name ‘Indrasvāmī’ meaning ‘he who has Indra for his shelter’; ‘Indra-datta’ also signifies the fact of Indra being the shelter.

Similarly with all the rest (the names of the Kṣatriya, etc.)

“What does this argument mean—that, in view of the two verses being syntactically distinct, we should take them as complementary to each other? Por the same reason, why are not the two sentences ‘one should sacrifice with Vrīhi’ and ‘one should sacrifice with Yava’ taken as complementary (and not as optional alternatives, as they have been taken)?”

What we have said is only what is indicated (by the words of the Text). The Text being the work of a human writer, if he had intended the statements to be optional alternatives, he should, for the sake of brevity, have said ‘the name should be either auspicious or expressive of peace’; when we have two distinct syntactical constructions, there are two verbs, and this becomes too prolix (and the prolixity cannot be justified except by taking the two as complementary). [All this reason ng, based upon intention and propriety of speech, cannot apply to the case of Vedic sentences, where there is no author.]

‘Rakṣā,’ is ‘protection,’ ‘preservation.’

‘Puṣṭi’ is ‘prosperity’ as well as ‘security.’ Such names as ‘Govṛddha’ ‘Dhanagupta.’

‘Preṣya’ is ‘submissive’; such names as ‘Brāhmaṇa-dāsa,’ and ‘Devadāsa,’ which means (respectively) ‘submissive to, dependent upon, the Brāhmaṇa’ and ‘submissive to and dependent upon a deity.’—(32)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 243) also; and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra. p. 55) as laying down the subsidiary titles of the four caste-names;—also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 309);—and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 178).

Parāśaramādḥava (Ācāra, p. 441) quoting the verse explains it to mean that ‘śarman’ must be the suffixed word to the Brāhmaṇa’s name.

Nārayaṇa and Rāghavānanda opine that the name of the Brāhmaṇa must always contain the word ‘śarman’ itself. But Medhātithi and several others hold that the name should connote what is connoted by the term ‘śarman.’

The present day practice, however, follows the former explanation—‘śarman’.being regarded now as the suffixed title to every Brāhmaṇa’s name.

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1. 17.4.—‘Śarma for the Brāhmaṇa, Varma for the Kṣatriya, Gupta for the Vaiśya.’

Vyāsa-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 213).—‘Śarma is the name commended for the Brāhmaṇa, Varma for the Kṣatriya, Gupta for the Vaiśya, and Dāsa for the Śūdra.’

Yama-Smṛti (Do.).—‘Śarma and Deva for the Brāhmaṇa, Rājā for the Kṣatriya, Gupta and Datta for the Vaiśya and Dāsa for the Śūdra.

These titles have been thus explained by Āśvalāyanāchārya:—‘The name of the Brāhmaṇa should end with Śarma because he imparts Śarma (happiness) to the world through his religious character, calmness and self-control; that of the Kṣatriya should end with Varmā, because like the Varma (armour), he protects the world from the three kinds of pain; that of the Vaiśya should end with Gupta, because he fosters (gopāyati) the people by giving them money at certain times; that of the Śūdra should end with Dāsa, because he keeps the twice-born people satisfied by constant service.’

032 (The second part of) a Brahmana’s (name) shall be (a word) implying happiness, of a Kshatriya’s (a word) implying protection, of a Vaisya’s (a term) expressive of thriving, and of a Sudra’s (an expression) denoting service.

That of women should be easily pronouncible, not harsh, of plain meaning, heart-captivating and auspicious; it should end in a long vowel and contain a benedictory term.—(33)

पुंस इत्य् अधिकृतत्वात् स्त्रीणाम् अप्राप्तौ नियम्यते । सुखेनोद्यते सुखोद्यम् । स्त्रीबालैर् अपि यत् सुखेनोच्चारयितुं शक्यते तत् स्त्रीणां नाम कर्तव्यम् । बाहुल्येन स्त्रीणां स्त्रीभिर् बालैश् च व्यवहारस् तेषां च स्वकरणसौष्टवाभावान्³⁹ न सर्वं संस्कृतं शब्दम् उच्चारयितुं शक्तिर् अस्ति । अतो विशेषेणोपदिश्यते । न तु⁴⁰ पुंसाम् असुखोद्यम् अभ्यनुज्ञायते । उदाहरणं मङ्गलदेवी चारुदती सुवनदेत्यादि । प्रत्युदाहरणं शर्मिष्ठा सुश्लिष्टाङ्गीति । अक्रूरम् अक्रूरार्थवाचि । क्रूरार्थवाचि क्रूरार्थं डाकिनी परुषेति । विस्पष्टार्थं यस्यार्थो व्याख्यानगम्यो न भवति, श्रुत एव विदुषाम् अविदुषां वार्थप्रतीतिं करोति । अविस्पष्टार्थं यथा- कामनिधा कारीषगन्ध्येति । कामस्य निधेव निधा तया कामस् तत्रैव तिष्ठतीति । एवं यावन् न व्याख्यातं तावन् नावगम्यते । एवं कारीषगन्धेर् दुहिता कारीषगन्ध्येति व्याख्यानम् अपक्ष्यते । मनोहरं चित्ताह्लादकरम्- आश्रेयसी । विपरीतं तु- कालाक्षी । शर्मवती रुद्रवतीति मङ्गल्यम् । विपरीतम्- अभागा मदभागेति । दीर्घो वर्णो ऽन्ते यस्य । विपरीतम्- शरत् । आशिषं वदतीत्य् आशीर्वादम् । अभिधानं शब्दः । तयोर् विशेषणसमासः । तद् यस्मिन्न् अस्ति विद्यते तद् आशीर्वादाभिधानवत्- सपुत्रा बहुपुत्रा कुलवाहिकेति । एते ह्य् अर्था आशीर्विषया । वपरीता- अप्रशस्ता अलक्षणेति । अथ मङ्गल्यस्याशीर्वादस्य च को विशेषः । न कश्चित् । वृत्तपूर्णार्थं तु भेदेनोपादानम् ॥ २.३३ ॥

Inasmuch as significance has been attached to the mention of the ‘male’ child (in verse 29), what has been said in the preceding verses is not applicable to women; and the present verse is going to lay down rules regarding the names of women.

‘Easily pronouncible’;—that which can be easily pronounced; the name of women should be such as can be uttered, with ease, even by women and children. It is mostly women and children that have got to deal with women; and the woman’s organ of speech being not very efficient, she cannot pronounce each and every Sanskrit word; hence the Text lays stress upon this pronouncibility in the case of feminine names. This however docs not mean that the masculine names may be unpronouncible. As examples of ‘pronouncible’ names wo have, ‘Maṅgala-devī,’ ‘Chārudati,’ ‘Suvadanā,’ etc., and as counter-examples (i.e., of unpronouncible names), ‘Śarmiṣṭhā,’ ‘Suśliṣṭāṅgī,’ and the like.

‘Not harsh,’—i.e., not denoting any thing harsh; names denoting harsh things are such as ‘Ḍākinī’ (Sorceress), ‘Paruṣā’ (Rough) and so forth.

‘Of plain meaning,’—whose moaning does not need to be explained before it is comprehended; which, as soon as it is heard, couveys its meaning to the learned and the unlearned alike. As examples of names with meanings not plain, we have, (a) ‘Kāmaniḍhā’ and (b) ‘Kāriṣagandhī’; the meaning of these terms is not comprehended until the following explanations have been provided:—(a) ‘who is, as if it were, the very receptacle of love, she in whom all love is contained,’ and (b) ‘Kārīṣagandhī’ is the ‘daughter of Kariṣagandhi.’

‘Heart-captivating,’—that which pleases the mind; e.g., ‘Śreyasī’; while of the contrary kind we have the name ‘Kālākṣī.’

‘Auspicious,’—such as ‘Śarmavatī’; of the contrary kind is the name ‘Abhāgā,’ ‘M andabhāgā.’ ‘Ending in a long vowel,’—that which has a long vowel at the end. Contrary to this is the name ‘Śarat.’

‘Āśīrvāda’ is that which denotes benediction; ‘abhidhāna’ is term; and when the two are compounded in tho dhāraya form, we get the meaning ‘benedictory term’; and the name that contains such a term is called ‘āśīrvādābhidhānavat,’ ‘containing a benedictory term.’ Examples of such names—‘Saputrā,’ ‘Bahuputrā,’ ‘Kulavāhikā’; these are benedictory names; of the contrary kind are such names as, ‘Apraśastā,’ ‘Alakṣaṇā.’

“What is the difference between ‘auspicious’ and ‘benedictory’?”

None whatsoever. The second epithet has been added only for the purpose of filling up the metre.—(33)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 441), which cites the typical female name ‘Śrīdāsī.’

This is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (p. 631).

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 243) quotes the verse, and having explained the words, cites as examples—‘Yaśodā’ (easily pronouncible) ‘Kulaghnī’ (harsh)—‘Indirā’ (not of plain meaning)—‘Kamahīyā’ (heart-captivating)—‘Subhadrā’ (auspicious)—and ‘Saubhāgyavatī’ (containing a benedictory term).

Vidhānapārijāta (p. 310) simply quotes the verse;—and Aparārka (p. 27) quotes it as laying down rules regarding the first part of female names.

This is quoted in Smṛti candrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 55), which adds the following notes—‘sukhodyam,’ easily pronouncible,—‘maṅgalyam’ denoting auspiciousness;—‘dīrghavarṇa, the long ī. or ā.

Laghuśātātapa, 35.—‘The girl should not be named after a river or an asterism or a tree; nor should she have a terrifying name.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.15.9.—‘The names of girls should consist of an odd number of letters.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtrā, 2.7.15.—‘The names of girls should be soft and consisting of an odd number of letters.’

Śaunaka (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 213).—‘The name of males should contain even, and of females odd, number of letters.’

Baijavāpa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 243).—‘The name of the woman should consist of three letters and should end in the long ī.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 243).—‘The name of males should contain an even number of letters, and of females odd number of letters.’

033 The names of women should be easy to pronounce, not imply anything dreadful, possess a plain meaning, be pleasing and auspicious, end in long vowels, and contain a word of benediction.

In the fourth month should be performed the ceremony of the child’s ‘Egress’ from the room; and in the sixth month the ceremony of ‘Feeding’; or, whatever might be regarded as auspicious in the family.—(34)

जन्मचतुर्थमासे गृहाद् बहिर् निष्क्रमणम् आदित्यदर्शनं शिशोर् बालस्य कर्तव्यम् । त्रीन् मासान् गर्भगृह एव वासयेत् । शिशुग्रहणं शूद्रस्यापि प्राप्त्यर्थम् । एवं षष्ठे माश्य् अप्य् अन्नप्राशनम् । पञ्चमासान् क्षीराहार एव । यद् वा कुले दारकस्य स्रेयस्यं मङ्गल्यं पूतना शकुनिकैकवृक्षोपहारादि प्रसिद्धम् । कालविशेषे वा तत् कर्तव्यम् । अयं च संस्कारशेषः । तेन नामधेयम् उक्तलक्षणव्यतिरेकेणापि यथाकुलधर्मं लभ्यते । इन्द्रस्वामी इन्द्रशर्मा इन्द्रभूमिः इन्द्रघोष इन्द्ररात इन्द्रविष्णुः इन्द्रदेव इन्द्रज्योतिः इन्द्रयशा इत्यादि कुलभेदेनोपपन्नं भवति ॥ २.३४ ॥

‘In the fourth month’—from birth—‘should be performed the ceremony of the child’s egress’—being taken out of the room and shown the sun. This implies that for three months the child should he kept in the lying-in room itself.

The common name ‘child’ is used, with a view to include the śūdra also.

Similarly ‘in the sixth month,’ the ceremony of First Feeding on grains. For five months the child should he kept purely on milk.

‘Or, whatever might be regarded as auspicious’—conducive to welfare—‘in the family’ of the child; such well-known rites, for instance, as making offerings to Pūṭanā, to Śakunika, to certain trees, etc., etc. This may he done at specified times.

This last clause is meant to apply to all ceremonies; so that the naming also may he done according to family custom, even though it be not in strict conformity with the rules laid down above. Hence with different families, such names become possible as—‘Indrasvāmī,’ ‘Indraśarman’ ‘Indrabhūti,’ ‘Indrarāta,’ Indraviṣṇu,’ ‘Indradeva,’ ‘Indrajyotiṣ,’ ‘Indrayaśaṣ,’ and so forth.—(34)

‘Yadveṣṭam maṅgalam kule’—Medhātithi, along with Govindarāja and Kullūka, takes this as applicable to all the sacraments.—‘Kula’ is family, not tribe.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 442), and the second half in Madanapārijāta (p. 360) and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 267), which latter remarks that this option regarding family-custom applies only to the sacrament of the First Feeding. The verse is quoted in

Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, pp. 55 and 57), which adds that the ‘Gṛha,’ ‘house,’ means the one in which birth has taken place;—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 218);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 366).

Viṣṇu, 1.1.5.—‘In the fourth month, showing of the Sun; and in the sixth the feeding on grains.’

Yājñavalkva, 1.12.—‘During the fourth month the Going Out; during the sixth the feeding on grains.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.16.1.—‘During the sixth month, feeding on grains.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.17.19-5.1.—‘The rite of Going Out during the fourth month, and the feeding on grains during the sixth month.’

Bhaviṣya-Burāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250).—‘On the twelfth day the taking out of the baby from the house.’

Bṛhaspati (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250).—‘The Going Out on the twelfth day, during the third month.’

Laugākṣi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250).—‘The showing of the Sun during the third fortnight; and the feeding on grains, during the sixth month, on the cutting of teeth’ (p. 267).

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250).—‘During the third month should be done the showing of the Sun, and the showing of the Moon during the fourth month; the Going Out during the fourth month.’

[The several texts prescribing the third and the fourth month for this Rite are to be reconciled as referring respectively to the showing of the Sun and the showing of the Moon.]

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 267).—‘The feeding on grains should be done during the sixth or eighth month.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250).—‘The Going Out of the baby should be performed during the fourth month, and during the sixth month it may be carried to the temples of gods.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 267).—‘The feeding on grains is to be done during the sixth month, or during the even months succeeding.’

Śaunaka (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 250).—‘During the fourth or the sixth month is to be performed the Going Out of the baby by the father or guardian.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 267).—‘The best time for the feeding on grains is during the sixth solar month; if it is not done during that month, it should be done during either the eighth or the ninth or the tenth or the twelfth month.’ [The ninth month is prescribed with special reference to girls.]

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 269).—‘The first feeding on grains should be for males during the sixth month and for females, during the fifth or seventh month; or during the eighth, ninth or tenth month.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 268).—‘The feeding on grains on the lapse of a year.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 268).—‘Feeding on grains after one year; or after half-year, say some.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 26S).—‘The feeding on grains is to be done after the 150th and before the 180th day.’

[Of the various alternatives laid down, one should adopt that which is in accordance with the practice in his family.]

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 268).—‘The feeding on grains of male babies should be done during the even months, and that of female babies during the odd months.’

As regards the food to be given, says Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 276).—‘During the sixth month one should feed the baby with grains mixed with goat-meat, or partridge-meat, or rice mixed with butter, or rice mixed with curd, or rice mixed with honey, or grains mixed with curd and butter.’

Śāṅkhāyaua-Gṛhyasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 277).—‘The first feeding during the sixth month, with goat-meat or partridge-meat or fish or butter-rice or rice mixed with curd, honey and butter.’

Mārkaṇḍeya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 275).—‘The child should be fed on rice cooked in milk.’

Purāṇa (Aparārka, p. 25).—‘During the fourth month, the child shall be shown the moon; O King, the taking out of the house should be done on the twelfth day; such is the opinion of some people.’

Lokāksi (? Laugākṣi; Parāśaramādhava, p. 442).—‘Showing of the sun during the third fortnight.’

034 In the fourth month the Nishkramana (the first leaving of the house) of the child should be performed, in the sixth month the Annaprasana (first feeding with rice), and optionally (any other) auspicious ceremony required by (the custom of) the family.

In view or the injunctions or the Veda, the Tonsure-ceremony of all twice-born children should be performed, according to law, in the first year or the third.—(35)

चूडा शिखा । तदर्थं कर्म चूडाकर्म । केषुचिन् मूर्द्धदेशेषु केशानां स्थापनां रचनाविशेषश् चैतच् चूडाकर्मोच्यते । प्रथमवर्षे तृतीये वा । ग्रहसौस्थित्या⁴¹ विकल्पः । श्रुतिनोदनाद् इत्य् अनुवादस् तन्मूलतयैव प्रामाण्यस्योक्तत्वात् । अथ वा श्रुतिशब्देन न विधायकान्य् एव वाक्यान्य् उच्यन्ते । किं तर्हि, मन्त्राः । ते च चूडाकर्म “याञ् जनाः”⁴² (पार्ग् ३.२.२) इतिवद् अदृष्टं प्रकाशयन्ति- “यत् क्षुरेण मार्जयेत” (पार्ग् २.१.१९) इत्यादि तेन समन्त्रकम् एतत् कर्मेत्य् उक्तं भवति । विशेषापेक्षायां गार्ह्यो विधिर् अङ्गीक्रियते । अतः शूद्रस्य नायं संस्कारः, द्विजातिग्रहणाच् च । अनियतकालं तु केशवपनं शूद्रस्यार्थप्राप्तं न निवार्यते ॥ २.३५ ॥

‘Cūḍā’ is the tuft of hair on the crown of the bead’; and the ceremony for the purpose of this is called ‘**Cūḍākarman,’ ‘Tonsure’; this name ‘Tonsure’ is given to that ceremony which consists in the cutting of the hair in such a manner as to leave well-arranged tufts of hair on certain parts of the head.

This may be done ‘in the first year or the third’;—this option being due to considerations of the good and evil aspects of planets.

‘In view of the injunctions of the Veda’:—this is merely explanatory: the fact of the entire contents of the work being based upon the Veda having been already stated before. Or, the term may he taken here as not necessarily standing for the injunctive texts, but including the Mantras also; and as a matter of fact, we have the mantra, ‘yatkṣureṇa mārjayet, etc.,’ (Pāraskara-gṛhyasūtra, 2.1.1), which is indicative of the Tonsure-ceremony, in the same manner as the Mantra ‘yāñjanā pratinandanti, etc.,’ (Pāraskara,—3.2.2) indicates the Aṣṭakā-rites. So that what the phrase means is that the ceremony should be performed with mantras. As to the particular details (regarding the mantras, etc.), these are learnt from the Gṛyhasūtra.

From this it follows that this sacrament is not to he done for the Śūdra; which is also clear from the mention of the ‘twice-born.’ As for the shaving of hair without any restriction as to time, this is done for special purposes, and may he done for the Śūdra also: this is not interdicted.—(35)

‘Dharmataḥ’—‘according to Law’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana);—‘for the sake of spiritual merit’ (Kullūka).

This verse has been quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Saṃskāra, p. 605) for the purpose of showing that even a boy who has not cut his teeth can be ‘one who has had Ids Tonsure performed.’

It is quoted in Smṛti-tattva (p. 653)—which points out that the time most suited for the ceremony is the third, not the first year and it bases this on the distinct declaration by Śaṅkha that—‘for the rite of Tonsure, the third year is what has been accepted by all the Gṛhyasūtras.’ It also quotes it on p. 922, with a view to show that the time for the ceremony is not fixed, there being an option as to its being done in the first, third, or even the fifth year.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 296), where it is explained that the presence of the particle ‘vā,’ ‘or’, implies that the rite may be performed in the second year also; this latter is also sanctioned by a text from Yama.

Madanapārijāta (p. 34) also quotes it without adding any explanatory notes.—It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 58);—in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 742);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (pp. 29 and 128), which quotes Medhātithi to the effect that the term ‘dvijātīnām’ indicates that this rite is not to be performed for the Shudra.;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 36c); and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 219).

Medhātithi has described this ceremony as that ‘which consists in the cutting of the hair in such a manner as to leave well-arranged tufts of hair on certain parts of the head.’

Further details have heen supplied in Madanapārijāta (p. 361), which quotes Lokākṣi (called Laugākṣi in Smṛtitattva, p. 653) describing the ‘**Cūḍā’as ‘a line of hair, towards the right among the Vaśiṣṭhas, on both sides among the Airis and Kāśyapas, and in five places among the Āṅgirasas; some people keep a single line; others only the top-tuft, shaped like the leaf of the banyan tree—and adds that the exact form is to be determined by the Gṛhyasūtra, of the man concerned.

Viṣṇu, 27.12.—‘Tonsure is performed in the third year.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.12.—‘Tonsure is to be performed according to family-custom.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.17.1.—‘Tonsure in the third year; or in accordance with the custom of the family.’

Pāraskara- Gṛhyasūtrā, 2.1.2.—‘The performance of Ton-sure for the one-year-old child: or during the third year.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.9.1.—‘The performance of Tonsure in the third year.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 296).—‘The performance of Tonsure has been prescribed for all castes; by Tonsure is the life-span enhanced, by Tonsure is it reduced. It should be performed during the third or the fifth year, or according to the practice obtaining in the family. It may be performed also during the seventh year from either birth or the taking of the Fires.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 996).—‘Before the completion of the year, Tonsure should be performed; or during the second or the third year.’

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 297).—‘Tonsure is recommended during the third or the fifth year; or even earlier, but during the odd year, or during the sixth year; or along with the Upanayana.’

Bṛhaspati (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 296).—‘Counting either from conception or from Birth,—during the fifth or the seventh year should be performed for the male as well as the female child.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 996).—‘The learned recommend the third vear from Birth as the best; the fifth and the seventh years from Birth are to be regarded as mediocre and the worst time would he the tenth or the eleventh year from Birth.—The Tonsure of children should he performed either, before the end of the first year, or in the third or fifth year, or according to the family-custom.’

Atri (Do., p. 298).—‘Tonsure during the third year is conducive to the fulfilment of all desires; that during the first year is conducive to longevity and Brāhmic glory; that during the fifth year leads to the acquisition of cattle; during the even years, it is to be deprecated.’

Nṛsiṃha (Do.).—‘Tonsure is to be performed during either the first or the third or the fifth year; after the lapse of the third part of the year.’

Laugākṣi (Do., p. 299).—‘Tonsure should be performed during the third year, after the lapse of its third part.’

[The upshot of the whole is that Tonsure may he performed during any of the following years—1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th, 11th,—or on the Upanayana-day;—or according to the custom prevailing in the family.]

[The form in which the Tonsure is to be performed, the shape that is to be given to the hair on the head, the keeping of the Śikhā,—all this is described in detail in the Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 315.]

Baijavāpa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 413).—‘Tonsure during the third year.’

Śaṅkha (Do.).—‘Tonsure during the third or the fifth vear.’

Śaunaka (Do.).—‘Tonsure during the third year, or according to the family-custom.’

Lokākṣi (Do.).—‘For those belonging to the Vaśiṣṭha Gotra, the tuft is towards the right, for those of Atri or Kāś-yapa, on both sides; for those of Bhṛgu, it should be all shaven; for those of Aṅgiras, there are five tufts; others have the tuft in the form of a semi-circle.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka, p. 29).—‘Tonsure during the third or the fifth year.’

Vyāsa (Do.).—[Lays down the auspicious days, etc.]

035 According to the teaching of the revealed texts, the Kudakarman (tonsure) must be performed, for the sake of spiritual merit, by all twice-born men in the first or third year.

In the eighth year from conception one should perform the initiation of the Brāhmaṇa; of the king in the eleventh year from conception; and of the Vaiśya in the twelfth.—(36)

गर्भस्थस्य यः संवत्सरस् तत आरभ्यते यो ऽष्टमो ऽब्दः । गर्भशब्देन⁴³ साहचर्यात् संवत्सरो लक्ष्यते । न हि मुख्यया वृत्त्या गर्भस्य संवत्सरो ऽष्टम इति व्यपदेशं लभते । तस्मिन्न् औपनायनं ब्राह्मणस्य कुर्वीत । उपनयनम् एवौपनायनं स्वार्थिको ऽण् । “अन्येषाम् अपि दृश्यते” (पाण् ६.३.१८७) इत्य् उत्तर्पदस्य दीर्घः । छान्दसत्वाद् वोभयपदवृद्धिः । उपनयनम् इति हि एष संस्कारो वेदविदां गृह्यस्मृतिषु प्रसिद्धो माउज्ञीबन्धनापरपर्यायः । उपनीयते समीपं प्राप्यते येनाचार्यस्य स्वाध्यायाध्ययनार्थं कुड्यं कटं वा कर्तुं तद् उपनयनम् । विशिष्टस्य संस्कारकर्मणो नामधेयम् एतत् ।

• गर्भाद् एकादशे राज्ञः । गर्भात् प्रभृति गर्भाद् वा परो य एकादशो ऽब्दस् तत्र क्षत्रियस्य कर्तव्यम् । राजशब्दो ऽयं क्षत्रियजातिवचनो नाभिषेकादिगुणयोगम् अपेक्षते ग्रन्थेषु तथा प्रयोगदर्शनात्, ब्राह्मणादिजातिशब्दसाहचर्याच् च । गुणविधिषु च क्षत्रियशब्ददर्शनात् “क्षत्रियस्य तु मौर्वी” (म्ध् २.४२) इति । यस् तु राजशब्दस्य क्षत्रियाद् अन्यत्र जनपदेश्वरे वैश्यादौ प्रयोगः स गौण इति वक्ष्यामः । मुख्ये चासति गौणस्य ग्रहणम् । तथा च गृह्यकारः- “अष्टमे वर्षे ब्राह्मणम् उपनयेद् एकादशे क्षत्रियं द्वादशे वैश्यम्” (आश्ग् १.१७.१–४) इति । भगवांश् च पाणिनिः एवम् एव प्रतिपन्नो राज्ञः कर्म राज्यम् इति राज्यशब्दस्य राजशब्दं प्रति प्रकृतित्वं ब्रुवन्न् एव जनपदैश्वर्येण राजशब्दार्थप्रसिद्धिम् आह । एवं गर्भात् तु द्वादशे ऽब्दे विशः वैश्यस्य ॥ २.३६ ॥

Counting from the year that one spends in the mother’s womb, when the child reaches the eighth year;—the term ‘garbha’ stands for the year spent in the womb; this indication being due to the presence of the term ‘year,’ ‘abda’; certainly the ‘year’ could never be the ‘eighth’ from ‘garbha,’ if this latter were taken in its direct sense;—in this year one should perform the Initiation of the Brāhmaṇa.

The term ‘aupanāyanam’ stands for ‘upamyanam,’ the ‘aṇ’ affix having the reflexive sense; and the lengthening of the vowel in the latter term (‘nayanam’) being in accordance with (Pāṇini 6.3.198); or the lengthening of the vowels of both terms (‘upa’ and ‘nayanam’) may be regarded as a Vedic anomaly.

‘Upanayana,’ ‘Initiation,’ is the name of a sacrament described in the Gṛhyasūtras and well-known to Vedic scholars, its other name is ‘Mauñjī-bandha,’ ‘Girdle-Investiture.’ That ceremony in which the child is taken over to—made over to—(upanīyate)—the teacher, for the purposes of teaching—and not for any such other purpose as the building of a Avail, or the making of a mat—is what is called ‘Upanayana.’ It is the name of a particular sacramental rite.

‘Of the King in the eleventh year from conception’;—for the Kṣatṭriya the ceremony should be performed in the eleventh year ‘from conception,’—i.e., ‘beginning from conception,’ or ‘after conception.’

The term ‘king’ ‘rājan’ (in ‘rājñaḥ’) should he taken as standing for the Kṣatriya caste; and does not necessarily mean one who is a duly anointed king; firstly because such is the sense in which the word is generally used in books; secondly because in the present context it occurs along with the terms ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and the rest (which are all denotative of castes); and thirdly because we find the term ‘Kṣatriya’ used in the rules that follow regarding the details of the ceremony; e.g., it is raid that ‘the girdle of the Kṣatriya should consist of the bow-string’ (below, Verse 12). It is true that the term ‘king’ is sometimes used in the sense of the ‘rulers’ of ‘countries,’ and as such applied to Vaiśyas and other castes also; but such usage is purely figurative and indirect. And the figurative meaning of a word can be accepted only when the original direct meaning is found inapplicable. That the term ‘king’ in the text stands for the Kṣatriya is shown by the following words of the author of the Gṛhya-sutra—‘One should initiate the Brāhmaṇa in the eighth year, the Kṣatriya in the eleventh and the Vaiśya in the twefth.’ It is on this understanding that the revered Pāṇini derives the word ‘rājya’ (‘Kingship’) from the word ‘rājan’ (King), explaining it as ‘the function the King,’ and hence used in the ordinary sense of ‘lord of country’ [ i.e., the ‘function of ruling a country’ really belongs to the Kṣatriya caste, and when persons of other castes arc called ‘King’ their title is based upon their doing ‘the work of the King’].

Of the Vaiśya, the ceremony should be performed in the twelfth year from conception.—(86)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 745);—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 220), which explains that “Upanayana is to be derived as ‘Nayanam evanāyanam’ and then the prefix ‘Upa’ added;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 32);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 68), which adds that in the case of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also the years are to be counted from the one spent in the womb.

It has been quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 17); and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446).

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 344) explains the reason for the eighth, eleventh and twelfth years being regarded as the best for the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya respectively. The Gāyatrī mantra is sacred for the Brāhmaṇa and its foot contains eight syllables; the Triṣtup for the Kṣatriya contains a foot of eleven syllables, and the Jagati for the Vaiśya has a foot of twelve syllables.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1-7, 8, 13.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the Upanayana daring the eighth year;—for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, during the eleventh and twelfth years, respectively.’

Gautama (Aparārka, p. 32).—‘Initiation during the eighth, fifth or ninth year; the eighth year from conception is the time fixed for all, the ninth or the fifth only for those with distinct motives.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2.8-10.—‘The years in this connection being computed from conception,—the Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be performed during the eighth year;—three years after the eighth, of the Kṣatriya;—and after one more year, of the Vaiśya.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.44.—‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be done during the eighth year from conception, of the Kṣatriya during the eleventh year from conception, and of the Vaiśya during the twelfth year from conception.’ Viṣṇu, 27.15-17.—‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa during the eighth year from conception; of the Kṣatriya during the eleventh year from conception; of the Vaiśnava during the twelfth year from conception.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.14.—‘The Brāhmaṇa’s Upanayana?s?? be performed either during the eighth year from conception, or during the eighth year (from birth); the Kṣatriya’s during the eleventh year; the Vaiśya’s during the twelfth year; according to some, it is to be done in accordance with the practice prevailing in the family.’

Āśvalāyana - Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.19.1-4.—‘The Brāhmaṇa’s, Upanayana should be done during the eighth year, or during the eighth year from conception; the Kṣatriya’s during the eleventh year; the Vaiśya’s during the twelfth year.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1-2.1-3.—‘The Brāhmaṇa’s Upanayana should be performed during the eighth vear, or during the eighth year from conception; the Kṣatriya’s during the eleventh year; the Vaiśya’s during the twelfth year.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtrā, 1.10.1-3.—‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be done during the eighth year from conception; of the Kṣatriya, during the eleventh year; of the Vaiśya, during the twelfth year.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.19.—‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be done during the spring, of the Kṣatriya during the summer, and of the Vaiśya, during the autumn. Of the Brāhmaṇa during the eighth year from conception, of the Kṣatriya, during the twelfth year from conception.’

Śruti (Vīramitrodaya, Saṃskāra, p. 339).—‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should he performed when he is eight years old.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Do., p. 340).—‘The Brāhmaṇa should acquire the ‘twice-born’ state during the eighth year from conception, or during the eighth, or the tenth year; the Kṣatriya during the eleventh year: and the Vaiśya during the twelfth year.

Nārada (Do., p. 31-1).—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the Upanayana should be performed during the eighth year, either from conception or from birth; for Kṣatriyas, during the eleventh year, and for Vaiśyas during the twelfth year.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do., p. 310).—‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should he performed during the fifth year from conception or during the eighth year from conception; of the Kṣatriya during the eleventh year from conception; of the Vaiśya, during the twelfth year.’

Laugākṣi (Do., p. 311’.—‘The Brāhmaṇa’s Upanayana during the seventh year; of the Kṣatriya during the ninth year, and of the Vaiśya, during the eleventh year.’

Budha (Aparārka, p. 31).—‘The Brāhmaṇa should get himself initiated in his eighth year from conception, during the spring.’

Shannaka (Do.).—‘One should initiate the Brāhmaṇa in his eighth year, or in his eighth year from conception; the Kṣattnya in the eleventh and the Vaiśya in the twelfth year.’

036 In the eighth year after conception, one should perform the initiation (upanayana) of a Brahmana, in the eleventh after conception (that) of a Kshatriya, but in the twelfth that of a Vaisya.

For the Brāhmaṇa desirous of Brahmic glory, it should be done in the fifth year; for the ‘King’ desirous of power, in the sixth; and for the Vaiśya desirous of business, in the eighth.—(37)

पितृधर्मेणापत्यं व्यादिशति “ब्रह्मवर्चसी मे पुत्रः स्यात्” इति पितृकामनया पुत्रो व्यपदिष्टस् तत्कामस्येति । पुत्रस्य बालत्वान् नैवंविधा कामना संभवति ।

• ननु चैवम् अन्यकृतात् कर्मण अन्यस्य फले ऽभ्युपगम्यमाने ऽकृताभ्यागमदोषापत्तिः । अकाम्यमानं च फलं भवत्य् एतद् अप्य् उत्क्रान्तशब्दप्रमाणन्यायमर्यादयोच्यते ।

• नैष दोषः । स्येनवद् एतद् भविष्यति । श्येनम् अभिचरन् करोत्य् अभिचर्यमाणश् च म्रियते । अथोच्यते कामिन एवैतत् फलम् । शत्रुमरणं हि यजमानः कामयते । तद् एव प्राप्नोतीति नाकर्तृगामिता फलस्य । अत्रापि विशिष्टपुत्रवत्तालक्षणम् उपनेतुर् एव फलम् । यथा पुत्रस्यारोग्येण पितुः प्रीतिः, एवं ब्रह्मवर्चसेनाप्य् अतो ऽधिकृतस्य कर्तुश् च तत्फलम् अन्वयानुसारी हि शास्त्रार्थावसायः । इह च पुत्रस्य फलकामेनैवं कर्तव्यम् इत्य् अन्वयः प्रतीयते । न च यथाश्रुतान्वयत्यागे⁴⁴ किंचन प्रमाणम् अस्ति । एतेन पितुर् और्धव्देहिकः पुत्रकृत उपकारो व्याख्यातः । तत्रापि हि पुत्रः कर्ता पितृतृप्तिश् च फलम् । तथा च लिङ्गं “अत्मा वै पुत्रनामासि” (पार्ग् १.१६.१८) इति । पित्रैव हि तावच् छ्राद्धम् आत्मसंप्रदानकं वस्तुतः कृतम् एव येनापत्योत्पादनम् एवमर्थम् एव कृतम् । यथा सर्वस्वारे मृतस्यार्भकावमानात् ये पराञ्चः पदार्थास् तेष्व् अपि यजमानस्यैव कर्तृत्वम् । “ब्राह्मणाह् संस्थापयत यज्ञम्” इत् प्रैषेण, दक्षिणाभिर् वरणेन वा प्रयोगसमाप्ताव् ऋत्विजां विनियोक्तृत्वात्, एवम् इहापि तादर्थ्येन पुत्रस्योत्पादनात्, यच् छ्राद्धादिकं पित्रर्थं क्रियते पित्रैव तत्कृतं भवति । अध्ययनविज्ञानसंपन्नं ब्रह्मवर्चसम् ।

• बलं सामर्थ्यम् आभ्यन्तरं ब्राह्मं च । उत्साहशक्तिर् महाप्राणता चेत्य् एतद्⁴⁵ आभ्यन्तरम्, बाह्यं च हस्त्यश्वरथपदातिकोशसंपत् । तद् उक्तम्- “स्वाङ्गाभ्युच्चयं सांयौगिकानां चार्थानाम्” (निर् १.२) इति ।

• ईहा चेष्टा । बहुना धनेन कृषिवाणिज्यादिव्यवहारः ।

• सर्वत्र गर्भादिसंख्या च⁴⁶ वर्षाणाम्, गर्भाद् इति ह्य् अनुवर्तते ॥ २.३७ ॥

What belongs to the father is here attributed to the child; the desire—‘May my sou attain Brahmic glory!’—resides in the father; and this desire being attributed to the child, the latter is spoken of as ‘desirous of Brahmic glory.’ The child itself is too youug to have the said desire.

“In that case the action done by one person would have its result accruing to a totally different person; and this would involve the absurdity of a man acquiring what he has not earned. And the assertion that the result accrues to the child without his desiring it is one that is contrary to all reason and scriptural authority.”

There is no force in the objection. The case in question is analogous to that of the Śyena sacrifice: the Śyena is performed by a man seekiug to encompass death, and this death falls upon the person against whom the performance is aimed (and not on the performer himself). It might be argued that—“in this case the result actually accrues to the person seekiug for it; it is the sacrificer who desires the death of his enemy; and it is he who obtains this result; so that the result of the act does not accrue to a person that did not perform it.”—But in the present case also, the result, in the shape of ‘having a child with the particular qualification,’ accrues to the performer of the Initiation (the father); just as the good health of the child brings pleasure to the father, so also the Brahmic glory of the son would be a source of pleasure to the father; so that the result here also would accrue to the performer, who had sought for it. Further, it is only from the construction of the actual words used that we can ascertain the meaning of the scriptural texts; and in the present context, the only construction found possible is that the father should perform the ceremony with the desire of a certain result to accrue to his son; and there are no grounds for abandoning this natural construction of the words.

This same explanation applies also to the case of the benefits of the after-death rites accruing to the father (even though performed by the son); as in that case also the performer is the son, and the result is the satisfaction of the father. Further, we have the text—‘Thou art my very self called the. non’—which shows that when the after-death rites are performed by the son, it is the father himself (iṇ the shape of the son) that makes the offerings to himself; specially as it was with a view to this alone that the father begot the son.

Then again, in the Sarvasvāra sacrifice (which is performed by one who wishes to bring about his own death and translation to heaven),—even after the sacrificer himself has died, the subsequent details have got to he performed: and in this performance also the same sacrificer is regarded as the ‘performer,’ in view of the direction that he has given fo the Brāhmaṇas—‘O brāhmaṇas, please complete this sacrifice,’—as also of the sacrificial gifts and appointments made by him; by virtue of which the said sacrificer is regarded as the actual instigator or employer of the officiating priests. In the same manner, in the case in question also, in as much as the son was begotten for the purpose of performing the funeral rites, these rites, though performed (by the son) for the sake of the father, are regarded as performed by the father himself.

Medhātithi (p. 90, 1. 15)—‘Sarvasvāre’—See Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 10.2.56-57. At the Sarvasvāra sacrifice the sacrificer recites the Ārbhaya hymn just before he enters the fire for self-immolation,

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 27) as laying down the time for the performance of the Upanayaṇa with special ends in view.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446), which quotes Āpastamba as connecting The seventh year with ‘Brāhmic glory,’ the eighth with ‘longevity,’ the ninth with ‘splendour,’ the tenth with ‘food’, the eleventh with ‘efficiency of organs,’ and the twelfth with ‘cattle’.

Madanapārijāta (p. 17) quotes it mentioning the said assertions.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 748);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 12), as mentioning special results to be achieved;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 41 b); and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 68).

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 345) quotes it as describing the Kāmya options.

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 184) quotes it without comment.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.7-8.—‘When special results are desired, during the ninth or the fifth year.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.21-26.—‘During the seventh year, if Brāhmic glory is desired for the boy; during the eighth year, if longevity is desired; during the ninth year, if brilliance is desired; during the tenth year, if possession of much food is desired; during the eleventh year, if efficiency of sense-organs is desired; during the twelfth year, if possession of cattle is desired.’

Uśanas (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 315).—‘The Upanayana of the Brāhmaṇa should be done during the fifth year from birth, of the Kṣatriya during the sixth, and of the Vaiśya during the seventh year,—if strength is desired.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīra-Saṃskara, p. 345).—‘For the Brāhmaṇa if Brāhmic glory is desired, his Upanayana should be performed during the eighth year (either from conception or from birth); if food is desired, during the ninth year; if intelligence is desired, during the tenth year: if possession of jewels is desired, during the eleventh year; if bodily stoutness is desired, during the twelfth year.’

Aṅgiras (Do., p. 346).—‘For the Kṣatriya desiring prosperity or strength, it should be performed during the sixth or the twelfth year, respectively; for the Vaiśya desiring success in agriculture or longevity, it should be performed during the eighth or fourth year, respectively.’

Baudhāyana (Do., p. 346).—‘During the seventh year, if Brāhmic glory is desired; during the eighth, if longevity is desired; during the ninth, if brilliance is desired; during the tenth, if food is desired; during the eleventh, if efficient sense-organs are desired; during the twelfth, if cattle is desired; during the thirteenth, if intelligence is desired; during the fourteenth, if stoutness is desired; during the fifteenth, if the birth of a brother’s son is desired; and during the sixteenth, if all desirable things are desired.’

037 (The initiation) of a Brahmana who desires proficiency in sacred learning should take place in the fifth (year after conception), (that) of a Kshatriya who wishes to become powerful in the sixth, (and that) of a Vaisya who longs for (success in his) business in the eighth.

For the Brāhmaṇa the Sāvitrī does not lapse till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya till the twenty-second year; and for the Vaiśya till the twenty-fourth year.—(38)

एवं तावन् मुख्यकाम्याव् उपनयनकालाव् उक्तौ । इदानीं पितुर् अभावे व्याध्यादिना वा कथंचिद् अनुपनीते माणवके कालातिपत्ताव् अनुपनेयता प्राप्ता, सत्य् अपि कालस्याङ्गत्वे तदभावे ऽधिकारनिवृत्तेः,⁴⁷ यथा सायंप्रातःकालातिपत्ताव् अग्निहोत्रस्याकरणे । अतो विहितकालव्यतिरेकेण प्रतिप्रसवार्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते । यावत् ष्ōडशं वर्षं गर्भाद् आरभ्य तावद् ब्राह्मणस्योपनयनर्हता न निवर्तते । सावित्रीशब्देन तदनुवचनसाधनम् उपनयनाख्यं कर्म लक्ष्यते । नातिवर्तते नातिक्रान्तकालं भवतीत्य् अर्थः ।

• एवम् आ द्वाविंशात् क्षत्रबन्धोः क्षत्रियजातीयस्येत्य् अर्थः । बन्धुशब्दो ऽयं क्वचित् कुत्सायां प्रवर्तते । यत् स्वं कथं वेत्स⁴⁸ ब्रह्मबन्ध⁴⁹ इति । ज्ञातिवचनः यथा,

• ग्रामता जनता चैव बन्धुता च सहायता ।

• महेन्द्रस्याप्य् अगम्यासौ भूमिभागभुजां कुतः ॥

द्रव्यवचनो “जात्यन्ताच्छ बन्धुनि” इति (पान् ५.४.९) । तत्र पूर्वयोर् अर्थयोर् असंभवात् तृतीयो ऽर्थो गृह्यते । द्वाविंशतेः पूरणो द्वाविंशो ऽब्दः तद्धितार्थः ।

• आ चतुर्विंशतेर् विशः । प्राप्तो ऽप्य् अत्र पूरणप्रत्ययो वृत्तानुरोधान् न कृतः, प्रतीयते तु तदर्थः । न हि सुमुदायविषयायाश् चतुर्विंशतिसंख्याया अवधित्वेन संभवः । तदवयवस् तु चतुर्विंशो भवति संवत्सरो ऽवधिः । आङम् अभिविधौ व्याचक्षते ।

• लिङ्गदर्शनं चोदाहरन्ति । “गायत्र्या ब्राह्मणम् उपनयीत, त्रिष्टुभा राजन्यम्, जगत्या वैश्यम्” इति । एतेषां च छंदसाम् इयता कालेन द्वौ पादौ पूर्येते । तावन्तं कालं बलवन्ति न त्यजन्ति स्वाश्रयभूतान् वर्णान् । तृतीये तु पादे ऽपक्रान्ते गतरसान्य् अतिवयांसि न्यूनसामर्थ्यानि भवन्ति समाप्तिम् उपयान्ति । यथा “पञ्चशता स्थविरो मनुष्यः” इति । अतश् च नैतेन वयम् उपासितानीति त्यजन्ति तं वर्णम् । ततो “न गायत्रो ब्राह्मणो, न त्रैष्टुभो राजन्यो, न जागतो वैश्यः” इति । सविता देवता यस्या ऋचः सा सवित्रीः; सा च गायत्री द्रष्टव्या प्रदर्शिता, गृह्याच् च । एवं क्षत्रियस्य त्रिष्टुप् सावित्री “आकृष्णेन” (र्व् १.३५.२) इति । वैश्यस्य जगती “विश्वा रूपाणि” (र्व् ५.८१.२) इति ॥ २.३८ ॥

For the Initiatory Rite, the principal as well as the optional time have been prescribed. From this it would seem that if, on account of the death of the father, or by reason of illness and such other causes, the boy remains uninitiated and the prescribed time has gone by,—he becomes unfit, for initiation; this idea being countenanced by the faot that, even though the prescribed time is a secondary factor in the rite, yet on the lapse of that time, the performer’s title to the performance ceases; just as we find in the case of omission of the Agnihotra -offerings after the prescribed morning and evening have gone by. It is with a view to this that the present verse propounds an exception to the general rule, and lays down the necessity of performing the rite even after the passing off of the prescribed time.

Till the end of the sixteenth year after conception, the Brāhmaṇa’s title to the Initiatory Bite does not cease. The term ‘Sāvitrī’ in the text stands for the ‘Rite of Initiation,’ which is the means whereby the teaching of the is accomplished. ‘Does not lapse,’ i.e., does not become out of date.

Similarly ‘for the Kṣatriya till the twenty-second year,’—i.e., for the person belonging to the Kṣatriya caste. Tho term ‘bandhu’ is used (a) sometimes in a deprecatory sense; e.g., in such passages as—‘how doth thou know this. O Brahma-bandhu! (wretched Brāhmaṇa)?’;—(b) sometimes it is used in the sense of ‘family’; e.g., in the passage—‘the possession of a number of villages, the presence of a large following, extensive family-connections (), and alliances,—these are not to be trifled with even by Indra himself; what to say of persons possessing only parts of the earth!’;—(c) in some cases it also means ‘substance’; e.g., in Pāṇiṇi’s Sutra (5.4.9)—‘a word ending with the term jāṭi takes the affix ca, when it denotes bandhu (i.e., a substance belonging to a particular class).’ In the present context the first two meanings of the term ‘bandhu’ being inapplicable, we take it in the third sense.

The nominal affix (ḍaṭ) in the term ‘dvāviṃśaḥ’ means that which completes the number twenty-two, i.e., the twenty-second.

‘For the Vaiśya till the twenty-fourth year’.—Here also though the presence of the ‘ḍaṭ’-affix implying completion was necessary, yet it has not been used in view of metrical contingencies; but the sense is there all the same. That this must be so is proved by the fact that the number ‘twenty-four,’ which denotes the entire lot of twenty-four years, could never form the limit of anything; while tine ‘twenty-fourth year’ which is one part of the ‘twenty-four,’ can very well form the limit.

People explain the particle ‘ā’ as denoting inclusion.

In support of what is said in this verse people cite the Vedic text—‘The Brāhmaṇa should be initiated with the Gāyatrī, the Kṣatriya with the and the Vaiśya with the Jagatī’ [the Gāyatrī metre containing 24, three times eight, the Tṛṣtup 33, three times eleven, and the Jagatī, 48, four times twelve, syllables]; the ages spoken of in the text (16, 22 and 24) suffice to complete two quarters of each of the three metres; up till then the metres retain their force and do ṇot abandon the castes that form their receptacles; when however the third quarter has passed, they lose their essence, become aged and having their force reduced, they disappaer, just as the man becomes old at 50 (which represents two quarters of his life of 100 years). It is for this reason that the said metres abandon their respective castes, when they find that they have not been studied by them; and it is thus that (after the said ages) the Brāhmaṇa ceases to be ‘related to the Gāyatrī,’ the Kṣatriya ceases to be ‘related to the Triṣṭup’ and the Vaiśya ceases to be ‘related to the Jagatī.’

‘Sāvitrī’—is the name of that verse which has for its deity; and that such a verse is the Gāyatrī has been shown above, on the strength of the Gṛhyasūtras.

For the Kṣatriya, the ‘Sāvitrī’ is the verse ‘Ākṛṣṇena, etc.’ (Ṛgveda, 1.35-2; Vājasaneya, 33.43), which is in the Triṣṭup metre; and for the Vaiśya, it is the verse ‘Viśvā rūpāṇi, etc.’ Ṛgveda, 5.81.2; Vājasaneya, 12.3).—(38)

Burnell, in applying the name ‘vrātya’ to ‘Aryans not Brāhmanised,’ should have quoted his authorities.

Kullūka notes that some people have taken the particle ‘ā,’ ‘till,’ in the sense of ‘until the beginning of’.

This verse has been quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 342), where it is pointed out that the ‘sixteenth’ and other years mentioned here should be counted ‘from conception,’ as in the case of the eighth and others in verse 36. It points out that this verse lays down the many secondary occasions for the performance of the ceremony.

This same work on p. 344, refers to the passage in Medhātithi, where a Vedic text is quoted, which connects. the Gāyatrī Triṣṭup and Jagati metres with the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya respectively; and as under 36, so here also, it explains that the limits fixed in this verse too are determined by the number of syllables in a foot of each of the three metres mentioned. A foot of the gāyatrī has eight syllables; so till the bṇy is sixteen years old, the Gāyatrī retains more than a third of its force; and it is only when the boy has passed his sixteenth year (corresponding to the sixteen syllables of the two feet of the Gāyatrī) that the force of the mantra becomes weakened. Similarly twenty two years correspond to the twenty-two syllables of the two feet of the Triṣṭup, sacred for the Kṣatriya, and twenty four years correspond to the twenty four syllables of the first two feet of the Jagati metre, sacred for the Vaiśya.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446); and in Madanapārijāta (p. 36) as the outside age-limit for Upanayana;—in Hemādri (Pariśeṣa, p. 751), which adds that ‘ā’ here denotes limit;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra. p. 41b);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 72), as Laying down the secondary times for the initiation.

Vidhānapārijāta, (p. 471) has quoted the verse as laying down the secondary occasion for Upanayana;—so also Nirṇayasindhu (p. 184).

**(Verse 38-39)
**

Viṣṇu, 1.27.26.—(Exactly the same words as in Manu.)

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.14.16.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the Sāvitrī does not lapse till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya, till the twenty-second year; for the Vaiśya till two years longer.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.13.—‘There is no lapse for these till the sixteenth, the twentv-second and the twenty-fourth year, respectively.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.1.27.—‘Till the sixteenth year there is no lapse for the Brāhmaṇa; till the twenty-second, for the Kṣatriya; and till the twenty-fourth, for the Vaiśya; till then they would be fit for keeping the observances that we are going to describe.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.51.53.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the time does not lapse till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya, till the twenty-second year; for the Vaiśya, till the twenty-fourth year.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.19.5-6.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the time does not lapse till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya, till the twenty-second year; for the Vaiśya, till the twenty-fourth year; after this, they become lapsed from the Sāvitrī.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.36-38.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the time does not become lapsed till the sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya, till the twenty-second and for the Vaiśya till the twenty-fourth year.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 3-12).—‘The twelfth, the sixteenth and the twentieth years are the times not deprecated.’

Yājñavalkya (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 342).—‘The time for Upanayana extends up to the sixteenth, the twenty-second and the twenty-fourth year, for the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, respectively.

Yājñavalkya 1.38 (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347).—‘After these years all the three become fallen, excluded from all religious rites; and become apostates, deprived of the Sāvitrī, until they perform the Vrātyastoma.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 343).—‘Sixteen years, twenty-two years and twenty-four years constitute the time for Upanayana.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 343).—‘Sixteen years have been prescribed for the Brāhmaṇa, twenty-two years for the Kṣatriya and twenty-four years for the Vaiśya.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saihskāra, p. 343).—‘He who has dropped the Sāvitrī for fifteen years, should keep the observance after having shaven his head along with the Śikhā.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347).—‘The apostates, fallen from Sāvitrī, should be studiously shunned.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 343).—‘Sixteenth is the limit for Brāhmaṇas for securing the status of the twice-born; twenty-second for Kṣatriyas; and twenty-fourth for Vaiśyas.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347).—‘After this, not having acquired the status of the twice-born, they fall and become apostates, excluded from Vedic rites.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 345).—The Brāhmaṇa who has passed his sixteenth year, should not have his Upanayana performed; the Kṣatriya after the twentieth year: and the Vaiśya after the twenty-fifth year.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347).—(Has the same defìni-tion of the ‘Apostate’ as Yājñavalkya.)

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 347).—(Same as Manu, 39.)

038 The (time for the) Savitri (initiation) of a Brahmana does not pass until the completion of the sixteenth year (after conception), of a Kshatriya until the completion of the twenty-second, and of a Vaisya until the completion of the twenty-fourth.

Beyond this, all these three, not having received the sacrament at the proper time, become excluded from Sāvitrī (initiation), and thereby come to be known as ‘Vrātyas’ (apostates), despised by all good men.—(39)

अस्मात् कालाद् ऊर्ध्वं परेण त्रयो ऽप्य् एते वर्णाः ब्राह्मणादयो यथाकालं यस्योपनयनकालः तत्रानुकल्पिके ऽप्य् असंस्कृता अकृतोपनयनाः सावित्रीपतिता उपनयनभ्रष्टा भवन्ति । व्रात्याश् च संज्ञया । आर्यैः शिष्टैः विगर्हिताः निन्दिताः । व्रात्यसंज्ञाव्यवहारप्रसिद्ध्यर्थो ऽयं श्लोकः । अनुपनेयत्वं तु पूर्वेणैव⁵⁰ सिद्धम् ॥ २.३९ ॥

उक्तम् “आर्यैर् निन्दितः” इति । का पुनर् एषां निन्देत्य् आह ।

‘Beyond’—after—the said time, ‘all these three’ castes—the Brāhmaṇa and the rest;—‘at the proper time’—at the exact time prescribed for each caste, or even at the secondary period permitted;—‘not having received the sacrament’—not having their Upanayana- ceremony performed;—‘excluded from Sāvitrī’—become fallen off from Initiation; and also ‘come to he known as Vrātyas’—‘despised,’ looked down upon, ‘by all good men’ by respectable and cultured people.

This verse is intended to explain the signification of the well known name ‘Vrātya’ That they become excluded from Initiation has already been implied in the preceding verse.

It has been said that they ‘are despised by good men’; the next verse explains the nature of contempt in which they are held.—(39)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Ācāra, p. 446), and in Madanapārijāta (p. 36), where it is explained that on the expiry of the limit mentioned in verse 38, the boy becomes a ‘Vrātya,’ ‘apostate’, and can be invested only after having become sanctified by the performance of the Vrātyastoma rite.

Madanapārijāta (p. 36) goes on to add that the dumb and the insane, as never fit for the sacraments, are not to be regarded as ‘apostates’ by reason of the omission of the sacraments; so that in the event of their having children these latter do not lose their Brāhmaṇa-hood or their right to the sacraments.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 347) quotes this verse as from Manu and Yama both.

**(Verse 38-39)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.38].

039 After those (periods men of) these three (castes) who have not received the sacrament at the proper time, become Vratyas (outcasts), excluded from the Savitri (initiation) and despised by the Aryans.

The Brāhmaṇa should not in ant case, even in times of distress, establish spiritual or uterine relationship with these persons, until they have been duly purified.—(40)

एतैर् व्रात्यैर् अपूतैर् अकृतप्रायश्चित्तैर् विधिवद् यादृशो विधिः प्रायश्चित्ते⁵¹ शास्त्रेणोपदिष्टः तांश् चारयित्वा “त्रीन् कृच्छान्” इत्य् आपद्य् अपि हि कर्हिचित् कस्यांचिद् अप्य् आपदि न संबन्धान् आचरेत् कुर्यात् तैः सह ।

• किं सर्वसंबन्धनिषेधः । नेत्य् आह- ब्राह्मान् यौनांश् च । ब्रह्म वेदः । तन्निमित्ताः संबन्धा याजनाध्यापनप्रतिग्रहाः⁵² । न ते याज्याः न याजकाः कर्तव्याः । एवं नाध्याप्या नैतेभ्यो ऽध्येतव्यम् । वेदार्थं विदुषः प्रतिग्रहाधिकाराद् एषो ऽपि ब्राह्मसंबन्धो भवति । यौनः संबन्धः कन्याया दानादाने । ब्राह्मणग्रहणं प्रदर्शनार्थम् । अस्माच् च दोषदर्शनाद् व्रात्यतापरिहारार्थे पितुर् अभावे ऽपि व्युत्पन्नबुद्धिना माणवकेनाप्य् आत्मनात्मोपनाययितव्य इति प्रतीयते । काम्यो ह्य् अयम् आचार्यस्य विधिः । तत्राचार्यत्वम् अकामयमानो यदि कश्चिन् न पर्वर्तते तदा माणवकेन प्रार्थयितव्यो दक्षिणादिना⁵³ । तथा च श्रुतिः- “सत्यकामो जाबालः हारिद्रुमतं⁵⁴ गौतमम् इयाय ब्रह्मचर्यं भवति वक्ष्यामि” (छु ४.४.३) इति, स्वयम् आचार्यम् अभ्यर्थितवान् उपनयनार्थम् ॥ २.४० ॥

‘With these’—Vrātyas;—‘until purified’—by expiatory rites;—‘duly,’ i.e., according to rules laid down in the scriptures laying down expiatory rites; e.g., ‘making them undergo three Kṛcchras, etc., etc.;’—‘even in times of distress’—i.e., under no circumstances however distressful;—‘should not establish,’ enter into, ‘relationship’ with them.

The question arising as to whether or not this prohibits all kinds of relationship, the text supplies the answer in the negative—‘spiritual or uterine .’

The term ‘brāhma,’ ‘spirit,’ here stands for the Veda; and it is relationships through the Veda that are prohibited; such relationships as officiating at sacrifices, teaching and accepting gifts; the meaning being that one should neither officiate at their sacrificial performances, nor appoint them to officiate at sacrifices, they should not be taught, nor should one read with them. Since it is only one who knows the meaning of the Veda that is entitled to accept gifts, the accepting of gifts also becomes a ‘Vedic’ or ‘spiritual’ relationship.

‘Uterine relationship,’—the giving and taking of daughters in marriage.

The specification of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ is intended to be illustrative only.

The sense of all this is that, in view of the disqualification here described, the boy whose father is no more should, if he is intelligent, try to avoid the disqualification, by presenting himself (at the proper time) for Initiation. To this end we have the Śruti—“Satyakāma Jābāla went to Gautama Hāridrumata and said—‘I shall, sir, live with you as a religious student”; where the boy himself requested the teacher to inflate him. The initiating of boys is however entirely optional; so that if the teacher should be found unwilling to take up the initiation, be should be appealed to by the boy by means of presents, etc.—(40)

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 144);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 73), which explains ‘brahma-sambandha’ as ‘teaching and so forth,’ and ‘apūtaiḥ’ as those who have not performed the prescribed expiatory rites.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446);—and also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 349), which explains the term ‘apūtaiḥ’ as ‘those who have not performed the prescribed expiatory rites;’ and the ‘relationships’ referred are explained as standing for Initiation, Reading, Teaching, Sacrificing and Receiving gifts.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 68) in support of the view that dealings are permitted with such men as may have performed the expiatory rites laid down for the omission of the sacraments;—it adds that this is made clear by the epithet ‘Apūtaiḥ’.

Āpastamba-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.1.33; 1.2.6.—‘With these (apostates) one should avoid association, dining and marriage; in the event of their being desirous of expiating (the omission and the consequent apostacy), they should keep, for twelve years, the observances relating to Vedic studies, and then undergo the Upanayana, and be sprinkled with water with Pāvamānī and other mantras.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.55.—‘They should not perform their Upanayana, nor teach them, nor sacrifice for them, nor marry them.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasütra, 1.19.7.—‘They should not perform their Upanayana, nor teach them, nor sacrifice for them, nor have any dealings with them.’ [The Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 349, explains ‘dealings’ to mean ‘marriage-connection.’]

Pāraskara - Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.40.—[Exactly the same as above.]

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.6.—‘They should not perform their Upanayana, nor teach them, nor sacrifice for them, nor have marriage-relations with them.’

Baudhāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 348).—‘There are no rites for the apostate until he passes through the Upanayana; so long as he is not born in the Veda, he remains like a Śūdra.’

Āśvalāyana-Smrti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 349).—‘No dealings—either Vedic (tutorial), or marital or commercial,—should he ever held with them by any cultured person who is true to his dharma.’

040 With such men, if they have not been purified according to the rule, let no Brahmana ever, even in times of distress, form a connexion either through the Veda or by marriage.

Brahmacāris should wear the skin of the black (deer), of the Ruru deer and of the goat respectively; and also the cloth of hemp, flax and wool.’—(41)

कृष्णशब्दो यद्य् अपि कृष्णगुणयुक्तवस्तुमात्रे वर्तते “कृष्णा गौः, कृष्णः कम्बलः” इति, तथापीह स्मृत्यन्तराद् रौरवसाहचर्याच् च मृग एव प्रतीयते । रुरुर् मृगजातिविशेषः । बस्तः छागः । सर्वत्र विकारे ऽवयवे वा तद्धितः । कृष्णाजिनं ब्राह्मणो, रुरुचर्म क्षत्रियो, वैश्यश् छागचर्म वसीरन्न् आच्छादयेयुः । शणक्षुमोर्णास् तत्र कृतानि च वस्त्राणि । चशब्दः समुच्चये । तत्रानुत्तरीयाणि शाणादीनि । चर्माण्य् उत्तरीयान्य् औचित्यात् कौपीनाच्छादनानि च वस्त्राण्य् । आनुपूर्व्येण नैकैकस्य सर्वैर् अभिसंबन्धो नापि व्युत्क्रमेण । प्रथमस्य ब्रह्मचारिणः प्रथमेन चर्मणा वस्त्रेण च संबन्धो द्वितीयस्य द्वितीयस्थानस्थेन । तथा च दर्शितम् ।

• ननु चान्तरेणापि वचनं लोकत एवैतत् सिद्धम् “चूर्णिताक्षिप्तदग्धानां वज्रानिलहुताशनैः” (म्भ् ७.६६.१८) इति यथाक्रमं संबन्धप्रतिपत्तिः, चूर्णिता वज्रेणाक्षिप्ताः अनिलेन दग्धा अग्निनेति । उच्यते । भवेद् एतद् एवं यदि भेदेन निर्देशः स्यात् समसंख्यात्वं च । इह तु ब्रह्मचारिण इत्य् एकशब्दोपादानान् न क्रमो ऽवगम्यते । त्रयश् च ब्रह्मचारिणः । षड् अनुदेशिनः त्रीणि चर्माणि त्रीणि⁵⁵ वस्त्राणि । आनुपूर्व्यग्रहणे⁵⁶ तु सति वाक्यान्तरोपात्तः क्रम आश्रीयते । तथा च चर्मभिः संबध्य पुनर् ब्रह्मचारिपदम् आवर्त्य वासोभिः संबध्यते । ततः संख्यासाम्यसिद्धिः । ईदृश एव विषये भगवता पाणिनिना यत्नः कृतः “यथासंख्यम् अनुदेशः समानाम्” इति (पाण् १.३.१०) ॥ २.४१ ॥

Though the term ‘Kṛṣna,’ ‘black,’ is applied to everything that may be endowed with the quality of blackness,—as we find in the expressions ‘the black cow,’ ‘the black blanket,’ and so forth,—yet, in the present context, it is clearly recognised as standing for the ‘black deer’; firstly because of its occurring along with the ‘skin of the Ruru deer,’ and secondly because of the directions contained in other Smṛtis (which clearly mention the black deer).

‘Ruru’—is a particular species of the deer.

‘Basta’—is the goat.

In all the three words (‘kārṣṇa’—‘raurava’—‘vāsta’) the nominal affix (aṇ) denotes either formation or constitution (i.e., either ‘formed out of’ or ‘consisting of’).

‘Should wear’;—the Brāhmaṇa should cover his body with the skin of the black antelope, the Kṣatriya with the skin of the Ruru deer and the Vaiśya with the skin of the goat.

And also cloth made of śaṇa (hemp), kṣumā (flax), and ūrṇā (wool).

The particle ‘ca’ (‘and also’) has the cumulative force.

The cloth made of hemp and the rest are not to be used as upper garments; and the skins are to be used as upper garments; as such is the proper course. For Kaupīna (loin-slip) and wrapping, the cloth is to be used.

‘Respecting’ each of the three castes is not related to all the clothing that is mentioned; nor are they to be connected in the reverse order; in fact the first Brahmacārī is connected with the first skin and first cloth, the second with the second and so forth, as we have shown.

An objection is raised—“Even without the express mention (of the respective order), it would be understood through usage; for instance, such expressions as ‘shattered, scattered an d burnt by thunder, wind and fire’ are always understood to mean ‘shattered by thunder,’ ‘scattered by the wind’ and ‘burnt by fire’ (even though respectivity is not expressly mentioned).”

Answer.—This could be so understood if the three Brahma-charts bad been mentioned separately, and if the number (of Brahmacāris and the clothings) were the same. In the present instance, however, we have the single term ‘Brahmacāris,’ and the three Brahmacāris are not specifically named in any order. Further, the number of Brahmacāris is three, while that of the correlatives is six—three skins and three cloths. When however the text expressly mentions ‘respectivity,’ the order of the Brāhmacāris is deduced from that in which they are found to be spoken of in other texts. And after the ‘three Brahmacharis’ have been construed with the three skins, they are again repeated and construed with the cloths. And in.this manner the compatibility of numbers is maintained. It is primarily with reference to such cases that the revered Pāṇini has taken the trouble of laying down that ‘when an equal number of things are mentioned they are to be taken in their respective order.’ (1.3.10).—(41)

‘Ruru’—has been described by Rāghavānanda as ‘tiger.’

Medhātithi (p. 92,1. 11)—‘Smṛtyantara—This refers to Baudhāyana, Gṛhyasūtra, 2. 5. 16.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p.„ 57) as laying down that the skin of the Kṛṣṇamṛga, Ruru and Chāga should be worn as the ‘upper garment,’ respectively, by the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya,

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 446), where it is explained that the skins mentioned are to be used as the upper garment, and the hempen and other cloths as the lower garment

Madanapārijāta (p. 20) quotes the second half as prescribing the cloths to be used by the three castes respectively;—and the first half (on p. 22) as laying down the skins.

The second half is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskā ra, p. 411) and the first half also (p. 413).

The verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 36), which adds that the skins of the Black Antelope, the Ruru deer and the goat are to be used as the upper garment:—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 430);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 75).

Burnell is again inaccurate in saying that cotton and silk (with the well to do) are alone used now for outer garments.”

Medhātithi rightly remarks that the triplication cannot apply to the Kṣatriya’s girdle; as on triplication the bowstring would cease to be a ‘bowstring. Govindarāja agrees with him. So also Madanapārijāta (p. 20) and Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra; p. 432), Rāghavānanda explains that as the bow-string itself is a triplicated cord, no further triplication would be necessary.

The ‘Muñja’ grass, in Northern India called muṃja, is, as Burnell notes, the Saccarum Sara of the botanists.

Madanapārijāta (p. 20) explains that the Muñja has ‘tejanī’ as its other name; and a foot-note adds that it is what is called muragā.

This verge is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 447);—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 432), which explains ‘trivṛt’ not as twisted three-fold, but as ‘going round the waist three times’;—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 189);—in

Aparārka (p. 58); in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 70), which explains ‘trivṛt’ as threefold;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 37), which quotes Medhātithi to the effect that since bowstrings are made sometimes of leather, the author has added the epithet ‘Maurvī’, ‘Murvā grass’; in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 192), which reproduces the above remark of Medhātithi, as also his further remark that the string is to be removed from the bow and then tied round the waist: it adds the following notes: the ‘Samā’, not uneven, thin in one place and thick in another; it should be of uniform thickness all through;—the three-fold twist applies to the hempen cord and not to the bow-string, which would cease to be a bowstring when so twisted;—it is quoted also in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 43 b).

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.18.23.—‘Skins of the black deer, the spotted deer and the goat; cloths of hemp, flax, tree-bark and kuśa grass,—for all; also of cotton, pure white; according to some, also red-coloured, for the Brāhmaṇa, dyed in tree-bark, for the other two castes, dyed in mañjiṣṭhā and haridrā.’

Gautama (Aparārka, p. 58).—‘For all, the cotton cloth in its natural colour.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.15.—‘The skins of the black deer, the spotted deer and the goat are the skins.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.39-41.—‘For clothing—hempen, flaxen and skin—some people advice the reddish-brown cloth.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.3.1-9.—‘For the Kṣatriya, dyed in Mañjiṣṭhā; for the Vaiśya, dyed in Haridrā; for the Brāhmaṇa, the skin of the white or black deer; for the Kṣatriya, the skin of the spotted deer; for the Vaiśya, the skin of the goat; the sheep-skin for all castes; as also the woolen cloth; if the student is desirous of Brāhmic glory, he should wear the skins alone; if desirous of Kṣattric glory, he should wear the cloths alone; if desirous of both kinds of glory, he should wear both.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.47.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the upper garment consists of the skin of the black deer; for the Kṣatriya, of the skin of the spotted deer; for the Vaiśya, of the skin of the cow or of the goat.’ [Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 413, reads for ‘Gavyam,’ ‘āvyam,’ which means ‘of sheep.’ ]

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.49.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the doth new and white; for the Kṣatriya, dyed in Mañjiṣṭhā; for the Vaiśya, dyed in Haridrā, or silken; for all, woven cloth, undyed; the new white cotton cloth, as also the hempen.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.19-20.—‘The upper garment should he of cotton, hemp and wool; and the skins of the deer, the tiger and the goat.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.19.7.—‘The hoy should be adorned and having his head shaven according to family-custom, clothed in new cloth or in skin; the Brāhmaṇa in the skin of the black deer, the Kṣatriya in that of the spotted deer, and the Vaiśya in that of the goat.’ [The ‘ahata,’ ‘new,’ cloth has been thus defined by Pracetas:—‘slightly washed, fresh-white, with ends intact, never worn before’—Vira-Saṃskāra, p. 411.]

Āśvalāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 411).—‘If they wear cloth, then the Brāhmaṇa should wear the reddish-brown, the Kṣatṭriya that dyed in Mañjiṣṭhā, and the Vaiśya that dyed in Haridrā.’

Pāraskara- Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.16-19.—‘Cloths, hempen, flaxen and woolen; for the Brahmaṇa, the upper garment is the skin of the black deer; for the Kṣatriya, that of the spotted deer; and for the Vaiśya, either that of the cow or the goat; or that of the cow for all.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyaṣūtra, 2.10.7-8.—‘The cloths for these are flaxen, hempen, cotton, and woolen; and the skins, those of the black deer, the spotted deer and the goat.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.10.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa the cloth should be of flax or of hemp; for the Kṣatriya of cotton; for the Vaiśya of wool.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 412).—‘The clothing to be worn should be always white, whether it consists of flax, or cotton, or grass, or skin, or tree-bark, or wool.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 412).—‘The water-pot, the sacrificial thread and the reddish-brown cloth—these are common.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskara, p. 413).—‘The skins of the Kṛṣṇa, the Ruru and the Pṛṣat deer.’

Hīraṇyakeśin (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 413).—‘For the Brāhmaṇa the skin of the black deer; for the Kṣatriya, that of the spotted deer; for the Vaiśya, that of the goat.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 413).—‘The upper garment should consist of the skins of the black deer, the spotted deer and the goat.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 413).—‘The Brāhmaṇa, the skin of the black deer; the Kṣatriya, that of the spotted deer; and the Vaiśya, the skin of the goat; or the skin of the spotted deer, for all.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 58).—‘For all, the skin of the Rum, the hempen cloth and the woolen cloth, according to their circumstances, should form the lower garment.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 414).—‘The skin for the Brāhmaṇa is of the black deer; for the Kṣatriya, of the spotted deer; for the Vaiśya of the goat; and the cloths are hempen, flaxen and woolen.’

[The idea is that the lower garment should consist of cloth and the upper garment of skin.]

The size of the ‘skin’ to be worn has been prescribed by Śākala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 414)—as ‘48 aṅgulas long and 4 aṅgulas broad.’

041 Let students, according to the order (of their castes), wear (as upper dresses) the skins of black antelopes, spotted deer, and he-goats, and (lower garments) made of hemp, flax or wool.

For, the Brāhmaṇa the girdle should be threefold, of even thickness, soft and smooth, made of muñja grass; for the Kṣatriya it should be the bow-string made of murvā grass; and for the Vaiśya the cord made of hempen fibres.”—(42)

मुञ्जस् तृणजातिस् तद्विकारो मौञ्जी । सा ब्राह्मणस्य मेखला रशना कर्तव्या मध्यबन्धनी । त्रिवृत् त्रिगुणा । समा न क्वचित् सूक्ष्मा न क्वचित् सूक्ष्मतरा । किं तर्हि सर्वत एव समा । श्लक्ष्णा तनुत्वगुणयुक्ता परिघृष्टा च ।

• क्षत्रियस्य पुनर् ज्या धनुर्गुणः । सा कदाचिच् चर्ममयी भवति, कदाचित् तृणमयी, भङ्गोमादिरज्जुर् वा । तदर्थम् आह मौर्वीति । तया धनुषो ऽवतारितया श्रोणीबन्धः कर्तव्यः । यद्य् अपि त्रिवृत्तादिर् गुणो मेखलामात्राश्रितो मौञ्ज्या एव, तथापि ज्यायाः स्वरूपनाशप्रसङ्गान् न भवति ।

शणतन्तुविकारः शणतान्तवी । छान्दसत्वाद् उत्तरपदवृद्धिः । अथ वा केवलात् तन्तुशब्दात् तद्धिते कृते तदन्तस्य शणैः संबन्धः- शणानां तान्तवीति । प्रकृतेर्[^१८२] विकारः शणतान्तवी प्रकृतिसंबन्धितया व्यपदिश्यते । “गव्यं घृतम्” “देवदत्तस्य पौत्रः” इति । तन्तुः सूत्रं शणमौञ्जीवत् कर्तव्या । गृह्यकारैर् वैश्यमेखलायाः त्रिवृत्तादिधर्मः सुस्पष्ट एवोक्तः ॥ २.४२ ॥

The muñja is a particular kind of grass; the cord made of that grass is called ‘Mauñjī.’ This cord should form the ‘girdle,’ hraid, waist-band. ‘Threefold’—triple-corded;—‘of even thickness’—not such as is thin in one part and thinner in another; but such as is even throughout;—‘soft and smooth,’ of soft texture, well-rubbed.

‘For the Kṣatriya the bow-string’;—the string of the bow. The bow-string is made sometimes of leathern thong, sometimes of grass or of fibres of hemp or flax; hence the text specifies it as that ‘made of murvā grass’; this string should be taken down from the bow and made into the waist-band.

Even though the qualifications of triplicity and the rest apply literally to all kinds of ‘girdle,’ and not only to that of muñja grass, yet they cannot be applied to the ‘bow-string,’ as with such qualifications it would entirely lose its character of ‘bow-string.’

‘Made of hempen fibres’;—the lengthening of the vowel in the second number of the compound is an archaism. Or, we may take the term ‘tāntavī’ by itself formed with the nominal affix added to the term ‘tantu’ only, and then compound the term ‘tāntavī’ with the term ‘śaṇa’; since the ‘tāntavī,’ the fibre, is a product of the ‘śaṇa,’ hemp, it is naturally spoken of as related to its source (the hemp) [hence the compound śaṇānām tāntavī—‘śaṇatāntavī’; as we find in such expressions as ‘the cow’s butter,’ ‘Deva-datta’s grand son’ and so forth]. This hempen cord should be made like that of the Muñja cord; as the author of the Gṛhyasūtras have clearly laid down that the Vaiśya’s girdle should have the qualities of triplicity and the rest.—(42)

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.17.—‘The girdles are of Muñja grass, of bowstring and made of Murvā grass, and of fibres respectively.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.14.—‘The girdles are of Muñja, bowstring and hempen.’

Āpastamba- Dharmasūtra, 1.1.2.33-37.—‘For the Brahmaṇa, the girdle consists of Muñja-string three-fold; for the Kṣatriya, of bowstring; or of Muñja-string mixed with iron; for the Vaiśya, of woolen yarn; or according to some, of fibres of the Āsana tree, or of those of the Tamāla tree.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.46.—‘The girdle for the Brāhmaṇa consists of the Muñja-string; for the Kṣatriya, of the bowstring; for the Vaiśya, of hempen fibre.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.18.—‘For these the girdles are of Muñja, of bowstring and of Balvaja fibres.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasütra, 1.19.11.—‘The girdle for the Brāhmaṇa is of Muñja grass, for the Kṣatriya, of the bowstring; for the Vaiśya, of wool.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.21-23.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the girdle is of Muñja grass; for the Kṣatriya, of the bowstring; for the Vaiśya, of Murvā grass.’

Gobhilā- Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.10.—‘The girdles are of Muñja, Kāśa and Kambala.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Aparārka, p. 55).—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the girdle of Muñja and Aśmāntaka.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 433).—‘The girdle of the Brāhmaṇa is of Muñja grass; of the Kṣatriya of the bowstring made of Murvā grass; and that of the Vaiśyas, of hempen fibre.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 434).—‘Or, for all, of Muñja grass.’

042 The girdle of a Brahmana shall consist of a of a triple cord of Munga grass, smooth and soft; (that) of a Kshatriya, of a bowstring, made of Murva fibres; (that) of a Vaisya, of hempen threads.

In the event of Muñja (and thb rest) being not available, they should be made of Kuśa, Ashmantaka and Balvaja,—triplicated with one, three or four knots.—(43)

आदिशब्दलोपम् अत्र स्मरन्ति । मुञ्जाद्यलाभ इति । कर्तव्या इति च बहुवचनम् उपपन्नतरम् । भिन्नजातिसंबन्धितया सुव्यक्तो मेखलाभेदः । एकजातिसंबन्धित्वे तु केवलव्यक्तिभेदालम्बनं बहुवचनं स्यात् । विप्रस्येति च प्रकृतस्य बहुवचनेन परिणामः कर्तव्यः । विकल्पश् चैकविषयत्वे स्यात् । न च संभवत्यां गतौ विकल्पो युक्तः ।

• तेन मुञ्जाभावे कौशी । ज्याया अभावे ऽश्मन्तकेन । शाणानां बल्वजैः। तृणौषधिवचनात् कुशादयः । प्रतिनिधिनियमश् चायम् । कुशाद्यभावे ऽप्य् अन्यन् मुञ्जादिसदृशम् उपादेयम् ।

• त्रिवृत्ता ग्रन्थिनैकेन । नायं ग्रन्थिसंख्याभेदो वर्णभेदेन । अपि तु प्रत्येकं विकल्पः । कुशादिमेखलास्व् अप्य् अयं ग्रन्थिभेदो धर्मभेदश् चोद्यमानः स्मृत्यन्तरसमाचारस्यानित्यत्वे ऽपि द्रष्टव्यः ॥ २.४३ ॥

Writers declare that the phrase ‘and the rest’ is understood, the sense being ‘in the event of Muñja and the rest being not available.’ And the reason for this is that it is only thus that the plural number ‘should be made,’ becomes more appropriate; specially as the diversity of the girdle has been clearly prescribed in accordance with the diversity of castes. If the girdle spoken of in the present verse were meant for that of any one caste only, then the plural number could be justified only by taking it as referring to the girdle worn by the endless individual members of that one caste; and further, it would be necessary in this case to alter the singular number in ‘viprasya’ (of the preceding verse) into the plural number (to bring it into conformity with the present verse); and lastly, in this case all the three alternatives herein mentioned would have to be taken as pertaining to the one girdle (of the Brāhmaṇa only). And no such multiplicity of option should be allowed so long as there is any other way of taking the text.

Thus then the sense of the present verse is as follows—(a) if Muñja is not available, the girdle should be made of Kuśa; if the bow-string is not available, it should be made of Ashmantaka; and (c) if the hempen fibre is not available it should be made of Balvaja.

The terms ‘kuśa,’ etc., denote grasses and herbs.

This verse is meant to restrict the choice of substitutes; so that in the absence of kuśa, etc., one would not be justified in using any other similar substances.

Triplicated by one knot. The various numbers (of knots) are not meant to be restricted to the three castes respectively; they are intended to be optional alternatives for every one of them. This difference in the number of knots in the girdle made of kuśa, etc., as well as the other details laid down in connection with it are to be regarded as regular injunctions, even though the customs laid down in other Smṛtis are not necessarily binding.—(43)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 447),—and also in Madanapārijāta (p. 20), which latter agrees with Medhātithi in taking the Kuśa-Aśmāntaka-Balvaja as pertaining to the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya respectively.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 433) explains that the term ‘Muñja’ in the present verse stands for all its variants mentioned in the preceding verse, and proceeds to quote the view that what is meant is that—(a) for the Brāhmaṇa in the absence of Muñja, Kuśa should be used,—(b) for the Kśatriya in the absence of Murvā, Aśmāntaka, and (c) for the Vaiśya in the absence of Śaṇa, Balvaja; but dissents from it, stating it as its own opinion, that all the three substitutes mentioned are meant for each of the primary substances enjoined before. It cites another view, according to which, since the present verse mentions the Muñja only, the meaning must be that the three substitutes are meant for the Brāhmaṇa only; so that for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, if the substance primarily prescribed under the preceding verse be not available, they should make use of some other suitable material resembling the primary. But this view also is not approved as being in conflict with the text of Yama, which says that—“in the absence, of these i.e. the three, Muñja, Murvā and Śaṇa, the girdle should be made of Kuśa, Aśmāntaka and Balvaja.”

The second half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra) on page 432, where it adds that the options mentioned do not depend entirely on the wish of the wearer,—the number of knots being, in fact, determined by the number of Pravaras of the Gotra to which the boy belongs.

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 189) also quotes this verse;—and Aparārka (p. 58), which explains that the knots are to be made in accordance with one’s ‘Gotra-ṛṣis’;—also Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 37), which quotes Kullūka’s explanation;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 193) as setting forth substitutes for the girdle-zone; it adds the following notes:—The term ‘ādi’ is understood here, the construction being ‘Muñjādyabhāve’, ‘in the absence of Muñja and other substances’; the number of knots is to be the same as that of the wearer’s Pravara;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 43b);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 80), which adds the note that ‘trivṛt’ means ‘threefold’; and that ‘Muñja’ here stands for the Murvā and other substances specified in the preceding verse.

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.24.—‘In the absence of Muñja, it should consist of Kuśa, Ashman taka and Balvaja.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Sarhskāra, p. 433).—‘In the absence of these (Muñja, Murvā and Hemp), it should consist of Kuśa, Ashmantaka and Balvaja; and girdles should be made threefold with either one or three knots.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 432).—‘The girdle should be made triplicated; turned round three times; its knots should he three or five or seven.’

043 If Munga grass (and so forth) be not procurable, (the girdles) may be made of Kusa, Asmantaka, and Balbaga (fibres), with a single threefold knot, or with three or five (knots according to the custom of the family).

The Sacrificial Thread worn over the shoulder,—which is triple and twisted upwards,—should be hade op cotton for the Brāhmaṇa, of hempen fibres for the Kṣatriya, and op woolen fibres for the Vaiśya.—(44)

उपवीतशब्देन वासो विन्यासविशेष उच्यते । वक्ष्यति “उद्धृते दक्षिणे पाणौ” (म्ध् २.६३) इति । तच् च धर्ममात्रम् । तस्य न कार्पासता संभवत्य् अतो धर्मेण धर्मी लक्ष्यते, यस्यासौ विन्यासस् तत् कार्पासम् उच्यते । अर्श आदित्वाद् वा मत्वर्थीयो ऽकारः कर्तव्यः, उपवीतवद् उपवीतम् इति ।

• ऊर्ध्ववृत्तम् ऊर्ध्वां दिशं दिशं प्रतिवर्त्यते वेष्ट्यते । त्रिवृत् त्रिगुणम् । कर्तनिकाभ्यो लब्धसूत्रभावस्य त्रिगुणीकृतस्येदम् ऊर्ध्वनिवर्तनं⁵⁷ विधीयते । संहत्य तन्तुत्रयम् ऊर्ध्ववेष्टनेन रज्ज्वाकारं कृत्वा तेनोपवीतं कुर्यात् । सा च रज्जुर् एकैव धारयितव्या, तिस्रः पञ्च सप्त वा । यज्ञसंबन्धाद् धि तद् यज्ञोपवीताख्यां⁵⁸ लभते । यज्ञार्थो ऽयम् उद्यते इति भक्त्योपचर्यते । तत्रेष्टिपशुसोमानां यज्ञरूपतयैकत्वाद् एकतन्तुकं क्रियते । अग्नित्रयसाध्यत्वाद् अहीनैकाहसत्रभेदाद् वा त्रितन्तुकम् । सोमसंस्थानां सप्तसङ्ख्यत्वात् सप्त वा तन्तवः । “त्रीणि सवनानि त्रिसंध्येन” इति पञ्च । सूत्राभावे⁵⁹ पटादिनापि कर्तव्यम् । स्मृत्यन्तर एवम् उक्तम् ।

• अविः मेषस् तस्य सूत्रं तेन कृतं आविकसूत्रिकम् । अध्यात्मादित्वाट् ठञ् कर्तव्यः । “अविकसूत्रिकम्” इति वा पठितव्यम् । तत्र च मत्वर्थीयेन ठना रूपसिद्धिः ॥ २.४४ ॥

The term ‘upavīta’ stands for the peculiar manner in which cloth is worn; as will be explained later in Verse 63; as such, it is only a quality; and since this quality cannot be made of cotton, the quality is taken as standing for the thing to which the quality belongs; the meaning being that the thing that is to be worn in the particular way should be made of cotton; the term ‘upavītam’ being regarded as formed with the ‘ach’ affix, according to Pāṇini 5.2.127, ‘upavītam’ being equivalent to ‘upavītavat.’

‘Twisted upwards’—i.e., turned round, coiled upwards.

‘Triple’—consisting of three yarns.

This ‘twisting upwards’ is laid down for that article which, on coming out of the spinning wheel, has acquired the properties of the ‘yarn’ and has then been folded three times. That is to say, three yarns should be brought together and by upward twisting made into a cord, and then used as the ‘sacred thread.’ Of this cord, either only one or three or five or seven should be worn. It comes to be known as the ‘sacrificial thread’ by reason of its being connected with sacrificial performances; in as much as it is worn for the purposes of sacrificial performances, it is so called figuratively.

Now, of the three kinds of sacrifice, the Iṣṭi, the Paśu and the Soma sacrifices, it may be worn single at all these, when they are all looked upon as ‘sacrifices’ in general (and hence, uniform); or it may be worn three-fold, when they are looked upon either as performed with the help of three fires, or as being divided into the three classes of ‘Ahīna,’

‘Ekāha’ and ‘Satra’; or again, it may be worn seven-fold, in view of the number of stages in the Soma sacrifice being seven; or lastly, it may be worn five-fold, in view of there being three ‘Savanas’ (extractions of Soma-juice) and two ‘Sandhyās’ (twilights).

[In the absence of Cotton], the ‘Thread’ may be made of silk and other fibres also; such is the direction given ill other Smṛtis.

‘Avi’ is sheep; the yarn made of wool is ‘woolen fibre’; the term ‘ārik?sūtrikam’ being formed with the ‘ṭhañ’ affix, according to the Vārtika on Paṇini 4.3.60. Or, we may read ‘avikasūtrikam’ this word being formed with the ‘ṭhan’ affix having the sense of the possessive.—(14)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtichandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 80), Which says that ‘trivṛt’ means ‘made of nine yarns’;—and in Nityāchārapradīpa (p. 31).

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 448); in Madanapārijāta (p. 21),—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 414);—also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 190);—in Aparārka (p. 58);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 43a);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 38), which has the following notes:—‘ūrdhvavṛtam’ and ‘trivṛt’ are to be construed with ‘śaṇasūtramayam’; also,—‘āvikam’ means ‘of sheep- wool.’

‘Urdhvavṛtam’—This is thus defined by ‘Saṅgrahākāra.’ a writer quoted in Parāśaramādhava and Madanapārijāta—‘That which is twisted threefold by the right hand moving upward’—i.e. twisted towards the right.

‘Trivṛt’—has been explained in Vīramitrodaya as standing for ‘consisting of nine threads’; and thus on the basis of a Śruti text which defines ‘Trivṛt’ as nine. The same explanation is given in Aparārka also;—so also Smṛtikaumudī (p. 6.)

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 5.5.—‘The Sacred Garment consists of the silken thread triplicated, hanging down to the navel and passing under the right arm.’ [‘Kauśa’ has been taken to mean ‘silken’ by the Kalpataru, but ‘made of kuśa’ by the Vīramitrodaya- Saṃskāra, p. 415.]

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.19.—‘The sacred garment and the cloths are to be of cotton, hempen fibre and wool.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīra-Saṃskāra, p. 415).—‘Cotton thread is for all.’

Gobhila (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 415).—‘The sacred garment is made of cotton, cloth or Kuśa -string.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Sarhskāra,p. 415).—‘The Twice-born should wear the sacred garment made of cotton or flax or cow-hair or hemp or tree-bark or grass.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 449).—‘The sacred thread should be made of nine-yarned thread.’

Ṛṣyaśṛṅga (Parāśaramādhava, p. 449).—‘The purposes of the sacred garment should be served by means of the cloth, and in the absence of cloth, by means of the Triplicated Thread.’

Ādityapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 449).—‘The sacred garment to be worn should consist of either flax or cotton or hemp.’

Bhṛgu and Kātyāyana (Do., p. 416).—‘The Upavīta should consist of three threads twisted upwards, then twisted downwards, then twisted upwards again.

Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa (Do.).—‘One thread should be folded thrice and then twisted three times.’

Devala (Do.).—‘The sacred garment should consist of nine threads, with a single knot.’

Paiṭhinasi (Do.).—‘The sacred garment should be of cotton for the Brāhmaṇa consisting of six triplicated threads; for the Kṣatriya, of flax, and for the Vaiśya, of wool.’

Bhṛgu (Do., p. 421).—‘For the Student there should be only one Upavīta, for the Householder and the Recluse, two; and for the Renunciate also only one.’

Bhṛgu (Aparārka, p. 58).—‘Three threads should he twisted upwards in three folds; the Upavīta shall be triplicated; and it should have a single knot.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.).—‘For the Accomplished Student there should he two Upavītas.’

Kaśyapa (Do.).—‘For the Householder, they may he three, four, five, eight or ten; for the Student only one; so also for the Recluse.’

Kātyāyana (Do., p. 422).—‘One should always wear the Upavīta.’

Kātyāyana (Parāśaramādhava, p. 449).—‘It should he of three threads three-fold, twisted upward and turned downwards. It has one knot.’

Pariśiṣṭa (Do., p. 423).—‘During acts in honour of Gods, the garment should be worn on the left shoulder (technically called Upavīta); during those in honour of Pitṛs, on the right shoulder (technically called Prāchīnāvīta); during malevolent rites, on both shoulders, hanging over the chest down to the navel; and during the vulgar act, hanging on the hack (technically called nivīta).’

Śruti (Darśapūrṇamāsa section—quoted by Śabara, 3.4.1).—‘Nivīta for men, Prachīnāvīta for Pitṛs and Upavīta for Gods.’

044 The sacrificial string of a Brahmana shall be made of cotton, (shall be) twisted to the right, (and consist) of three threads, that of a Kshatriya of hempen threads, (and) that of a Vaisya of woollen threads.

The Brāhmaṇa should, by law, have staves of Bilva and Palāśa wood; the Kṣatriya those of Vaṭa and Khadira; and the Vaiśya those of Pīlu and Udumbara.—(45).

सत्य् अपि द्वन्द्वनिर्देशे गुणविधिष्व् एकत्वश्रवणात् “केशान्तकः” (म्ध् २.४६) इति “प्रतिगृह्येप्सितं दण्डम्” (म्ध् २.४८) इति च विकल्पितम् एकदण्डधारं प्रतीयते । “बैल्वः पालाशो ब्राह्मणस्य दण्डः” (च्ड़्। पार्ग् २.५.२५) इति गृह्ये । गौतमीये चैकदण्डग्रहणम् एवोक्तम् (च्ड़्। ग्ध् १.२२) । इह केवला दण्डसत्ता श्रूयते- दण्डान् अर्हन्ति । दण्डा एते ब्रह्मचारिणां योज्याः । कस्यां क्रियायाम् इत्य् एतद् अत्र चोक्तम् उत्तरत्र भविष्यति “प्रतिगृह्येप्सितम्” (म्ध् २.४८) इति । तस्मिंश् च ग्रहणे दण्डस्योपायत्वाद् विवक्षितम् एकत्वम् अत इह द्विवचननिर्देशः । देवश् चेद् वर्षेद् बहवः कृषिं कुर्युर् इति यथा प्राप्तानुवादः । बिल्वपलाशवटखदिरपीलूदुम्बरा⁶⁰ वृक्षजातिविशेषनामधेयानि । बिल्वस्य विकारो ऽवयवो वा बैल्वः । एवं सर्वत्र । प्रदर्शनार्थाश् चैते । “यज्ञिया वा सर्वेषाम्” (ग्ध् १.२४) इति वचनात् । एतान् दण्डान् वक्ष्यमाणे कार्ये अर्हन्ति । धर्मतः शास्त्रतः ॥ २.४५ ॥

Even though the text uses the Copulative Compound (which implies that two staves have to be carried), yet, in as much as in connection with the detailed qualifications of the staff laid down in the text, we find the singular number used,—e.g., in the next verse, and in Verse 18 below,—it is understood that only one staff is to be carried; specially as in the Gṛhya-sūtra we read—‘the Brāhmaṇa’s staff’ is of Bilva or Palāśa’; and the Gautama-sūtra speaks of the carrying of one staff only. In the present context all that is done is to lay down the mere possibility of the staff; the expression ‘should have staves’ meaning that the said staves are fit for Brahmacārīs. As regards the question as to the act during which the staff is to be held, we shall have the answer in Verse 48 below; so that the staff being only an auxiliary to that act, the singular number used in that verse must be regarded as significant. For these reasons the

Dual number used in the present verse must be taken merely as referring to all possible staves; just like the plural number in the assertion—‘if God were to give rain many persons would take to cultivation.’

‘Bilva,’ ‘Palāśa,’ ‘Vaṭa,’ ‘Khadira’ Pīlu’ and ‘bara’ are names of particular species of trees.

‘Bailva’ means ‘made of Bilva’; and so with the rest.

The naming of the woods is meant to be merely illustrative; as the general rule is that ‘staves made of sacred woods are fit for all castes’ (Gautama 1.1.24).

These staves the Brahmacārīs ‘should have’ during the act to be described below (in 48);—‘by law’—i.e., in accordance with scriptural injunctions.—(45)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 447);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 22),—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 436);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 930), which last points out that the copulative compound ‘bailvapālaśau’ should not be taken to imply that two staves have to be taken up; because later on, in verse 48, we have the singular form ‘daṇḍam’;—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 189), and Aparārka (p. 57);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra p. 43b);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 77), which adds that the text lays down optional alternatives;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 37), which adds that a combination of all the staves is not meant, only one staff being held, as is clear from the singular number in the next verse; they are to be taken as optional alternatives;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 193), which, along with Mayūkha reads ‘paippala’ or ‘pailava,’ and adds that option is clearly meant.

Bodhāyana-Dhannasūtra, 1.2.16.—‘The staves are to be of a sacrificial tree.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.21.26.—‘The staff of the Brāhmaṇa is of Bilva and Palāśa; for the rest, of Aśvattha and Pīlu; or for all, of some sacrificial wood.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.37.—‘The staff for tho Brāhmaṇa is of Palāśa; for the Kṣatriya, of the trunk or of the lower ends of the Nyagrodha tree; for the Vaiśya, of Badara or Udumbara; some people prescribe simply that the staff should be of some tree, without reference to particular castes.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.45.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the staff is of Palāśa or Bilva; for the Kṣatriya of Nyagrodha; for the Vaiśya, of Udumbara.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.21.—‘Staves are of Palāśa, Khadira and Udumbara.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 19.12-13.—‘The staff for the Brāhmaṇa is of Palāśa; for the Kṣatriya, of Udumbara; for the Vaiśva, of Bilva.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.25-28.—‘The staff for the Brāhmaṇa is of Palāśa; for the Kṣatriya, of Bilva; for the Vaiśya, of Udumbara; or all for all.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.11.—‘Staves are of Palāśa, Bilva and Aśvattha.’

Hīraṇyakeśin (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 134).—‘The staff for the Brāhmaṇa is of Bilva or Palāśa; for the Kṣatriya, of Nyagrodha; for the Vaiśya, of Udumbara.’

Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (Do., p. 434).—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, the staff is of Bilva, Palāśa and Plakṣa; for the Kṣatriya, of Nyagrodha, Khadira and Vetasa; for tho Vaiśya, of Pīlu, Udumbara and Aśvattha.’

Śaṅkha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskara, p. 435).—‘The staves are of Palāśa, Pippala and Bilva, respectively.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p.437).—‘Staves of Bilva, Palāśa, Khadira, Aśvattha, Pīlu and Udumbara.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do., 435).—‘For the Vaiśya, of Udumbara or Badara and Varaṇa.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 57).—‘In the absence of those enumerated, any sacrificial wood may be used by any caste.’

The ‘sacrificial trees have been enumerated in Brahma-purāṇa, as follows:—‘Śamī, Palāśa, Nyagrodha, Plakṣa, Vikaṅkata, Aśvattha, Udumbara, Bilva, Chandana, Sarala, Sālva, Devadāru and Khadira.’ (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskara, p. 435).

045 A Brahmana shall (carry), according to the sacred law, a staff of Bilva or Palasa; a Kshatriya, of Vata or Khadira; (and) a Vaisya, of Pilu or Udumbara.

For the Brāhmaṇa the staff should be made in size reaching up to the end of his hair, for the Kṣatriya it should reach up to the forehead, and for the Vaiśya to the nose;—(46)

आकारविशेषवचनो दण्डशब्दः । दीर्घं काष्ठं⁶¹ संमितायामं दण्ड इत्य् उच्यते । कियत् तस्य दैर्घ्यम् इत्य् अपेक्षायाम् आह । केशान्तं गच्छति प्राप्नोति केशान्तगो मूर्द्धप्रमाणः । पादाग्राद् आरभ्य मूर्द्धावधिः केशान्तगः । केशा वान्तो ऽस्येति केशान्तकः । समासान्तः ककारः । प्रमाणतः प्रमाणेनानेन युक्तो दण्डः कार्यः कारयितव्यः ब्राह्मणस्याचार्येण । ललाटसंमितः ललाटान्तम् इतः ललाटन्तप्रमाणः । ललाटमात्रे चतुरङ्गुलेन मीयमानस्य दण्डशब्दवाच्यत्वाभावाद् एवं व्याख्यायते- पादाग्राद् आरभ्य यावल् ललाटान्तं प्राप्तः । एवं विशो वैश्यस्य नासान्तग इति ॥ २.४६ ॥

The term ‘staff’ denotes the particular shape (of the wood carried);—a long piece of wood of a well-defined size is called ‘staff.’

The question arising as to what its length should be, the Text answers it. That which reaches up to the end of the hair is called ‘Keśāntika,’ i.e., reaching up to the head; i.e., in size it should reach from the tip of the foot up to the head. Or, the compound ‘Keśānta.’ may be expounded as ‘that of which the hair forms the end,’ the ka coming in as an additional affix at the end of the compound.

‘In size,’—the staff—‘should be made’ of the said size,—‘for the Brāhmaṇa,’—i.e., by the Teacher.

‘Reaching to the forehead’—i.e., of the size reaching up to the forehead. The ‘forehead’ itself is only four inches in width; and as a piece of wood of that size could never be spoken of as ‘staff,’ we have to explain the term ‘lalāṭasamnitaḥ’ (which, as it stands, means ‘of the size of the forehead’) as meaning ‘that which reaches from the tip of the foot up to the forehead.’

Similarly for the Vaiśya, it should reach up to the tip of the nose.—(46)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 930), which adds that in the event of the specified wood not being available any one of the woods recommended for the three castes may be used for any one of these three;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 22);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 436), which last explains ‘Keśāntikaḥ’ as ‘Mūrdhāpramāṇaḥ’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 448);—in Aparārka (p. 57);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p.43b);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 78), which explains ‘Keśāntikaḥ’ as reaching up to the head.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.27.—‘They are of the size reaching up to the head, the forehead and the nose-tip.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra.—‘The staves are of a sacrificial wood, reaching up to the head, the forehead and the nose-ṭip.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.46.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, it should reach up to the hair; for the Kṣatriya, up to the forehead; for the Vaiśya, up to tho nose.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 19.13.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa, reaching up to the hair; for the Kṣatriya, reaching up to the forehead; for the Vaiśya, reaching up to ṭhe Breath (Nose-tip).’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 436).—‘The staff of the Brāhmaṇa should reach to his hair; of the Kṣatriya, to his forehead; of the Vaiśya, to the Breath.’

Vyāsa (Do.).—‘Reaching up to the head, the forehead and the nose-tip.’

Śaṅkha (Do., p. 437).—‘They have been described as ranging between the Hair and the Forehead.’

Viṣṇu (Vīra-Saṃskara, p. 437).—‘They should reach the Hair, the Forehead and the Nose.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.).—‘They should reach the Hair, the Forehead and the Mouth.

046 The staff of a Brahmana shall be made of such length as to reach the end of his hair; that of a Kshatriya, to reach his forehead; (and) that of a Vaisya, to reach (the tip of his) nose.

All these should be straight, unimpaired, handsome-looking, not frightening to men, with dark and unspoilt by fire—(47)

ऋजवः अवक्राः । सर्वे इत्य् अनुवादः, प्रकृतत्वाविशेषात् । अव्रणा अच्छिद्राः । सौम्यं प्रियकरं⁶² दर्शनम् एषां ते सौम्यदर्शनाः वर्णपरिशुद्धाः, अकण्टकिताश् च । अनुद्वेगकराः । नैतैः कश्चिद् उद्वेजयितव्यः स्वा वा मनुष्यो वा । नृणाम् इति प्रदर्शनार्थम् । सत्वच अतष्टाः । अनग्निदूषिताः वैद्युतेन दावोत्थेन वास्पृष्टाः ॥ २.४७ ॥

‘Straight’—not crooked.

‘All’—refers to those mentioned above; all those mentioned being equally the things under consideration.

‘Unimpaired’—without holes.

‘Handsome looking’;—whose appearance is pleasing. That is, of pure colour and without thorns.

‘Not frightening’;—they should not be used to frighten anyone, dog or man; ‘to men’ being only indicative (of animals in general).

‘With bark’—uncut, unpeeled.

‘Unspoilt by fire,’—not affected by fire either of lightning or of the forest.—(47)

‘Anudvegakarāḥ’—‘not frightening’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja);—Kullūka does not explain the term;—‘not displeasing to the wearer’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 448);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 930)—in Madanapārijāta (p. 22);—‘in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 436);—in Aparārka (p. 57);—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 193), which adds the following notes:—‘Ṛjavaḥ,’ straight,—‘avraṇāḥ,’ free from holes,—‘Saumyadarśanāḥ,’ free from thorns, etc.,—‘Agnidūṣitaḥ,’ burnt by fire.

Gautama- Dharmasūtra, 1.27.—‘They should he uninjured, tapering towards the top, and with bark.’

Visṇu-Smṛti, 27.24.—‘They should be not crooked, and with bark.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Sarhskāra, p. 436).—‘They should be tapering like the sacrificial post.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.).—(The same words as Gautama’s.)

047 Let all the staves be straight, without a blemish, handsome to look at, not likely to terrify men, with their bark perfect, unhurt by fire.

Taking up the staff of his liking, having worshipped the sun and walked round the fire to his right, he should beg for alms according to the prescribed rule.—(48)

प्रावृतेषु चर्मसु मेखलाबन्धनं कर्तव्यम् । आबध्य मेखलाम् उपनयनं कर्तव्यम् । कृते चोपवीते दण्डग्रहणम् । दण्डं गृहीत्वा भास्कर आदित्य उपस्थेयः । अभिमुखं स्थित्वादित्यदैवतैर् मन्त्रैर्⁶³ उपस्थानम्⁶⁴ आदित्यस्य कर्तव्यम् । गृह्यान् मन्त्रावगमः । अन्या चेतिकर्तव्यता तत एव । यत् सर्वसाधारणं तद् इहोच्यते ।

• प्रदक्षिणं परीत्य सर्वतो गत्व्आग्निम् । चरेत् कुर्यात् । **भैक्षम् । **भिक्षाणाम् समूहो भैक्षम् । तच् चरेद् याचेत । यथाविधीति वक्ष्यमाणविध्यनुवादः । भिक्षाशब्देन स्वल्पपरिमाणं भक्ताद्य् उच्यते ॥ २.४८ ॥

After the skins have been put on, the tying of the girdle should be done; and after having tied the girdle, the Initiation should be performed; the staff is taken up after the ‘sacred thread’ ceremony has been performed. After the staff has been taken up, the Sun should be worshipped; i.e., one should stand facing the sun and worship Him with those Mantras of which the sun is the presiding deity; what are the particular Mantras to be employed can be ascertained from the Gṛhyasūtras; as also the other details of procedure.

The present verse describes only what is common to all persons.

‘Having walked round the fire to his right,’—having passed all round it.

‘Gharet’—(lit.) should accomplish;—‘alms’ is a collective term, stauding for collection of fool;—this he ‘should beg.’

‘According to prescribed rule’—refers to the rules going to be laid down below. The term ‘bhikṣū’ (food) stands for small quantities of cooked rice, etc.—(18)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 451), where it is explained that the Sun is to be worshiped as the sum total of the connotation of the Gāyatrī-mantra;—and that one is to realise that he is one with that deity. According to this authority the ‘parītyāgnim’means, not that the boy is to ‘walk round the fire’ (as explained by Kullūka and Medhātithi), but that he should tend the fire; and it proceeds to point out that the ‘tending of the fire’ is to be done according to what has been laid down by Manu himself under 2. 186.

It is difficult to see how this writer would construe the adverb ‘pradakṣiṇam.’

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 935) in support of the view that the particle ‘atha’ in the Gṛhya-sūtra: ‘aiha bhaikṣyañcarati’ stands for the Upasthāna of the Sun and ‘pradakṣiṇa’ of the Fire;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 32); the latter explaining ‘īpsitam’ by ‘as prescribed for each individual, and not any other’, adds that the Sun is to be worshipped with mantras sacred to that deity. It accepts Medhātithi’s explanation of the phrase ‘parityāgnim’; and points out that the three acts mentioned here all form part of the procedure of ‘begging.’

It is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 481), according to which also, ‘īpsitam’ means ‘what is prescribed for each particular caste’;—and the phrase ‘bhāskaram upasthāya’ (though it quotes the latter term as ‘abhi-vādya’) as ‘facing the sun’ (which is the explanation, it adds, suggested by Kalpataru);—and ‘Yathāvidhi’ as ‘according to the rule laid down in the next verse.’ It adds that all the three acts are subsidiary to the act of begging.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 60);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 60);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 108), which explains ‘Yathāvidhi’ as ‘according to the ordinances—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyāvahāra, p. 124 a).

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.12.—‘Fire-kindling and alms-begging.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.3.25.—‘Morning and evening, he should beg alms, from proper persons.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 22.5.—‘He should beg alms, morning and evening.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.6.1.—‘Alms-begging.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.42.—‘After this he goes about begging alms.’

048 Having taken a staff according to his choice, having worshipped the sun and walked round the fire, turning his right hand towards it, (the student) should beg alms according to the prescribed rule.

The Brāhmaṇa, having undergone Initiation, should beg for food with words of which ‘bhavat’ (‘Lady’) forms the beginning; the Kṣatriya with words of which ‘bhavat’ forms the middle; and the Vaiśya with words of which ‘bhavat’ forms the end.—(49)

भिक्षाप्रार्थनावाक्यम् अत्र भैक्षशब्देनोच्यते । तस्य हि भवच्छब्दपूर्वता संभवति, न भक्तादेर् अर्थस्य । स्त्रीणां च प्रथमं भिक्ष्यमाणतयोपदेशात् प्रार्थनायां च प्रार्थ्यमानस्य संबोध्यत्वात् संबुद्धिविभक्त्यन्तः स्त्रीलिङ्गो भवच्छब्दः प्रयोक्तव्यः । क्रम एव चात्रादृष्टार्थो नियम्यते । यथार्थं तु शब्दप्रोयोगो “भवति भिक्षां देहि” इति ।

• कुतः पुनः संस्कृतशब्दार्थलाभः यावता स्त्रियः संबोध्यन्ते । ताश् च संस्कृतं नावबुद्ध्यन्ते । नित्यम् उपनयनम् । तस्य च शब्दोच्चारणम् अङ्गत्वेनोक्तम् इति । अनित्याश् चापभ्रंशाः । न तैर् नित्यस्य संयोग उपपद्यते । तथैव च शिष्टा असाधून् उपश्रुत्यैकदेशसादृश्येन साधून् संस्मृत्यार्थं प्रतियन्त्य् असाधुर् अनुमानेन वाचक इति दर्शनेन गाशब्दो हि सादृश्याद् गोशब्दम् अनुमापयति । ततो ऽर्थप्रतिपत्तेः, एवं स्त्रियः सादृश्यात् साधुभ्यः असाधून् उत्पन्नसंबन्धात् स्मृत्वा तेभ्यो ऽर्थं प्रत्येष्यन्ति । स्वल्पाक्षरं चैतत् पदत्रयं सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धं स्त्रीभिर् अपि सुज्ञानम् । एवं भवन्मध्यं क्षत्रियः “भिक्षां भवति देहि” इति । तथा वैश्यो भवच्छब्द उत्तरम् अस्येति, भवदुत्तरं वाक्यं समासार्थः⁶⁵ ।

• उपनीत इति भूतप्रत्ययनिर्देशाद् आन्वहिके ऽपि वृत्त्यर्थे भैक्ष्यचरणे ऽयम् एव विधिर् इति दर्शयति । “एष प्रोक्तो हि द्विजातीनाम् औपनायनिकः” (म्ध् २.६८) इत्य् अत्रोपनयनप्रकरणम् उपसंहरन्न् उपनयनाङ्गस्यापि भैक्ष्यस्यायम् एव विधिर् इत्य् आह । अन्यथाकरणाद् उपनयनाङ्गम् एवैतत् स्याद् यदि वा भूतप्रत्ययसामर्थ्यात्⁶⁶ प्रकरणं बाधित्वा वृत्त्यर्थ एव भैक्ष्ये । उपनीयमानस्य तदङ्गं यद्भैक्षं यच् चाहर् अहर् वृत्त्यर्थं तत्र सर्वत्रायं धर्मः ॥ २.४९ ॥

The word ‘bhaikṣam’ here stands for the words with which the request for alms is preferred; as it is only the words that can have ‘bhavat’ as the ‘beginning’; the food itself could not have any such beginning.

In as much as it is laid down that ladies are the first to be begged from first, and in the request made it is the person begged from that is addressed, it is the feminine vocative form of the term ‘bhavat’ that should be used.

All that the present text does is to lay down the order of the words to he used, there being some transcendental purpose served by the order. The actual words used should be—‘bhavati bhikṣām dehi,’ ‘O Lady, give me food.’

Question,—“ Wherefore could there be any possibility of

Sanskrit words being used, since they are addressed to women, and they do not understand Sanskrit

Answer.—The Initiatory ceremony, being compulsory, is of an eternal character; and it is in connection with this ceremony that the use of the words is laid down. The vernaculars (corrupt languages) are not eternal; so that there could be no connection between these and an eternal ceremony. Then again, just as when educated people hear corrupt forms of words used, they are reminded, by the resemblance, of the corresponding correct forms and thereby come to comprehend the meaning;—for instance, the (incorrect) word ‘?ā’ leads to the inference (remembrance of) of the (correct) word ‘go’ through similarity, according to the theory that ‘the incorrect word is expressive only by inference, and the meaning is comprehended from the inferred correct word’; in the same manner when correct words are addressed to women, they remember, through similarity, the corresponding incorrect words whoso meaning they know, and thus they come to comprehend the; meaning of the words used. Further, the expression in question is a short, one consisting of three words only, and these being well-known words, they would be easily comprehensible by ladies also.

Similarly the Kṣatriya should use words of which the ‘bhavat’ forms the middle; the actual form being ‘bhikṣām bhavati dehi,’ ‘Give me, O Lady, food.’ So the Vaiśya should use words of which ‘bhavat’ forms the end. The word ‘bhavaduttaram’ means ‘that of which bhavat forms the end’;—the compound thus standing for the sentence (give me food, O Lady’).

‘Having undergone Initiation’;—the past-participial ending implies that the rule laid down here is to be observed also in connection with the begging for food for daily living (even after the first day of the initiation); and further, what is said in verse 68 below—‘such is the procedure of initiation for the twice-born’—is a summing up of the whole section on ‘Initiation’; and hence shows that the rule laid down in the present verse applies also to that begging for alms whicḥ forms part of the ceremony of Initiation. If we do not take it thus, then what is laid down here would only he taken either as a part of the Initiation-rites (as shown by the context), or as applying to the ordinary begging for food;—in this latter case the implication of the context would be rejected and stress would be laid only upon the sense of the past-participial ending (‘having undergone Initiation’) As a matter of fact, what is here prescribed is applicable to that ‘begging for food’ which forms part of the Initiatory Rites, as also to that which is done for the purposes of livelihood.—(49)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 936); in Madanapārijāta (p. 32), which latter adds, the following notes:—

In the phrase ‘bhaikṣam charet’ the verb indicates begging, as is shown by the objective term ‘bhaikṣam’; it is in view of this that the expression to be used in the begging is—‘bhikṣām dehi’ (‘give alms’);—and as the words have to be addressed with proper respect, the term ‘bhavat’ with the vocative ending (‘Madam’ or ‘Sir’) has to be added at the beginning, middle or end, according to the caste of the begging boy;—then, inasmuch as in the house, it is, as a rule, the women-folk that give alms, it follows that the feminine-(vocative) form of the term ‘bhavat’ should be used;—thus then the precise form of the expression comes to be this—(a) The Brāhamaṇa boy should say ‘bhavati bhikṣām dehi’, (b) the Kṣatriya, ‘bhikṣām bhavati dehi,’ and (c) the Vaiśya, ‘bhikṣām dehi bhavati’. There is no such hard and fast rule as that ‘alms should be begged from women only.’

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 481) also quotes the verse, and supplies the formula as noted in Madanapārijāta;—Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 60) quotes it, and lays down the formula for the three castes as—(a) ‘bhavati bhikṣām dadātu’, (b) ‘bhikṣām bhavatī dadātu,’ and (c) ‘bhikṣām dadātu bhavati—Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 108), which mentions the formula as given in Madanapārijāta;—and also Vīramitrodaya (Vyāvahāra, p. 124).

Gautama-Dharmaṣūtra, 2.43.—‘The term bhavat shall be used in the beginning, middle or end, respectively, according to the caste.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.17-18.—‘In the formula used, the term bhavat should come in the beginning and the term bhikṣām in the middle. In begging, the Brāhmaṇa should use the term bhavat in the beginning; the Kṣatriya, in the middle; the Vaiśya, in the end.’

Āpastamba-Dharmaṣūtra, 1,3.28-30.—‘The Brāhmaṇa should beg alms with words beginning with bhavat, the Kṣatriya with words having bhavat in the middle, and the Vaiśya with words having bhavat in the end.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 11.50.—‘The Brāhmaṇa should beg alms with words beginning with bhavat, the Kṣatriya, with bhavat in the middle, and the Vaiśya, with bhavat in the end.’

Viṣṇu-Smrti, 27.25.—‘Alms-begging is accompanied by the term bhavat in the beginning, in the middle and in the end.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.30.—‘The alms-begging of the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣattnya and the Vaiśya, should be accompanied by the term bhavat in the beginning, middle and end, respectively.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 22.8.—‘The formula used should be bhavat bhikṣām dadātu.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 5.2.2-4).—‘The Brāhmaṇa should beg alms with the term bhavat in the beginning; the Kṣatriya, with the term bhavat in the middle; the Vaiśya, with the term bhavat in the end.’

Śaunaka (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 439).—‘In begging from males, he should say bhikṣām bhavat dadātu, and in begging from females bhikṣām bhavatī dadātu.’

049 An initiated Brahmana should beg, beginning (his request with the word) lady (bhavati); a Kshatriya, placing (the word) lady in the middle, but a Vaisya, placing it at the end (of the formula).

First of all he should beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his mother’s own sister, or of such another lady as may not insult him.—(50)

मात्रादयः शब्दाः प्रसिद्धार्थाः । निजा सोदर्या । या चैनं न विमानयेत् । विमानना अवज्ञानम्, न दीयत इति प्रत्याख्यानम् । तथा च गृह्यम्- “अप्रत्याख्यायिनम् अग्रे भिक्षेताप्रत्याख्यायिनीं वा” (आश्ग् १.२२.६–७) इति । तद् एव हि मुख्यं प्राथम्यं यद् उपनीयमानस्य । अहर् अहस् तु न विमाननाभयम् आश्रयणीयम् ॥ २.५० ॥

The words ‘mother,’ etc., have their meanings well known;—‘own’ uterine.

‘As may not insult him’—‘insulting’ here means disregard; i.e., refusal—‘I shall give nothing.’ Says the Gṛhya sūtra—‘He should beg from such man or woman as may not refuse him.’

What is meant here by ‘first’ is the begging that is done by the boy during Initiation. In the course of the subsequent daily bogging, he should not fear refusal.—(50)

Burnell remarks that ‘this begging of alms is now obsolete But so far as the formality is concerned, it is still gone through at the close of the Upanayaṇa ceremony.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 59) as laying down the rule relating to that alms-begging which is done as part of the Upanayaṇa-ceremony.

It is quoted in Smṛtitittva (p. 936), which adds that these ladies are to be approached only if they happen to be on the spot, and the boy is not to go to their houses;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 34), which latter quotes it only with a view to explain that there is no inconsistency between this injunction and the later prohibition (2. 184) of begging from one’s relations; because the former refers to the begging as part of the Upanayana ceremony, whereas the prohibition applies to the usual begging of food during the entire period of studentship.

It is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 61), which adds that this rule refers to the ‘alms-begging’ which forms part of the Upanayaṇa rite;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 109), which adds the same note;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 288), which has the same remarks, and notes that the first ‘vā’ is meant to be emphatic—‘nija’ means uterine,—‘avamāna’ means disregard, refusal to give alms.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 483) also explains that this refers to the first ‘begging’ (at the Upanayaṇa),

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.22.7.—‘First of all, he should beg alms from a man or woman who would not refuse him.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.5-7.—‘Three ladies who would not refuse should be begged from,—or six, or twelve, or numberless. Some people hold that the Mother should be the first.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.43.—‘The Mother first of all, then two other sympathising ladies, or as many as may be near at hand.’

Āslvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 438).—‘He should beg from such a lady or gentleman as would not refuse him.’

Śaunaka (Do.).—‘For the purpose of cooking the Brahmaudana for the feeding of Brāhmaṇas, the Student should beg the materials from his relations,—such men and women as would not refuse him,—carrying a bowl in his hand and approaching each person severally; first of all, he should beg from his mother, then from such another lady as could not refuse him; then his father and such other relatives as may be present.’

Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (Aparārka, p. 60).—[Same as Manu, adding ‘She should throw into his begging vessel, gold, silver and gems.’]

050 Let him first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his own maternal aunt, or of (some other) female who will not disgrace him (by a refusal).

Having collected as much food as may be needed, and having offered it, without guile, to his Teacher, he should eat it, with his face to the east, after having sipped water and become pure.—(51)

समाहृत्य्एति शब्दो बह्वीभ्य आहरणं दर्शयति । नैकस्याः सकाशात् बह्व्यो ग्रहीतव्याः । तद् इति यस्यानन्तरं शब्दसंनिधिर् वृत्त्यर्थस्य, न प्राकरणिकस्योपनयनाङ्गस्य । तस्य हि गृह्यकारैः- “अनुप्रवचनीयं श्रपयेत्” (आश्ग् १.२२.१२) इति विहितम्, न भोजनम् । “तिष्ठेद् अहःशेषम्” (आश्ग् १.२२.१) इति च कृतप्रातराशस्य चोपनयनम् । अतो नोपनयनाङ्गं भैक्षभोजनम् ।

• यावदर्थं यावता बैक्ष्येण तृप्ताख्यप्रयोजननिर्वृत्तिः । न बहु भिक्षितव्यम् । अमायया निवेद गुरवे न कदन्नेन संस्कृतम् अन्नं प्रच्छाद्य कदन्नं गुरोः प्रकाशयेत् । कदन्नं⁶⁷ किल एष न ग्रहीष्यतीत्य् अनया बुद्ध्या । निवेदनम् “इदं प्राप्तम्” इति प्रकटीकरणम् । अगृहीते गुरुणा अनुज्ञातो अश्नीयात् । कथं पुनर् निवेदनम् अदृष्टसंस्कारार्थम् एव न भवति, इतिहासप्रामाण्यात् । तथा च भगवान् व्यासः त्रितकूपाख्याने “गुरुणा गृहीतम्” इति दर्शितवान् । “अनुज्ञातो भुञ्जीत” (ग्ध् २.३९) इति यत् क्वचिच् छ्रूयते । आचम्य प्राङ्मुखः । आचमने प्राङ्मुखतेयम् आनन्तर्याद् इति केचित् । तद् अयुक्तम् । “प्रागुदङ्मुखः” (म्ध् २.६१) इत्य् आचमने दिङ्नियमो भविष्यति । तस्माद् भोजनेनैव संबन्धः । शुचिः । चाण्डालादिदर्शनम् अशुचि देशाक्रमनिष्ठीवनादि कृताचमनस्य भोजनकाले ऽनेन निषिध्यते ॥ २.५१ ॥

The term ‘having collected’ shows that the food should be obtained from several ladies, and a large quantity should not be obtained from a single lady.

‘It’—refers to that which has gone immediately before this, i.e., the food begged for ordinary eating, and not that which is done as part of the Initiation-rites, with which the context deals; specially as with regard to the latter all that the Gṛḥya-Sūtra prescribes is that the food should be ‘cooked,’ and nothing is said regarding ‘eating.’ Further, the injunction that ‘the boy should fast for the rest of the day’ shows that the boy undergoes the Initiatory rite after breakfast; so that the actual eating of the food cannot be part of that rite.

‘As much os way he needed’;—i.e., just as much food as may be necessary for the satisfaction of hunger; large quantities of food should not be begged.

‘Having offered it without guile to the Teacher;’—i.e., he should not show the teacher only the inferior articles of food, hiding with these the superior ones, with the view that the Teacher would not take any thing out of the inferior articles. The ‘offering’ consists of presenting it to him, saying ‘this is what I have obtained.’

What the teacher does not take, ‘he should eat,’ after having been permitted by the teacher to do so.

“Why should not the offering be regarded merely as an act producing in the food some transcendental effect (and not as a real offering meant to be accepted by the teacher)?”

That it is not so is proved by historical evidence: says the revered Vyāsa in the story of Hṛtakūpa, where it is distinctly stated that the teacher actually took what was offered.

That the boy should eat only after being permitted to do so, is laid down in several Gṛhyasūtras.

‘With his face to the east, after having sipped tenter.’—Some people have asserted that the facing of the east is meant to be connected with the sipping of water,—the two being in close proximity. But this is not right; as the rule regarding sipping—that it should be done with the face towards the east or north,—will come later on. Hence what is mentioned here is connected with the eating.

‘Pure.’—This means that after rinsing the mouth he should avoid, during meals, such tilings as looking at the Cāṇḍāla going to unclean places, spitting and so forth.—(51)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 936);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 454), which latter adds that in the event of the Teacher not being near at hand, the food is to be offered to the Teacher’s wife or son, or to his own companions,—in Aparārka (p. 60);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 61), which explains ‘Amāyayā’ as that he should not conceal the better quality of food obtained - out of fear that the Teacher will take it for himself;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 113).

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.46-47.—‘Having offered it to the Teacher, he should eat it when permitted; in the absence of the Teacher, he should offer it to his wife or to his son or to his own fellow-students.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (Parāśaramādhava, p. 454).—‘Morning and evening, he shall eat food which is respected, never decried.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasutra, 1.3.31-35.—‘Having collected it, he should describe it to the Teacher; he should eat it on being permitted by him; during the Teacher’s absence, he should offer it to the Teacher’s family; during the absence of these also, to other Vedic scholars; he should never beg alms for himself alone.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 11.37.1.—‘Food should be eaten, with face towards the East.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.9.—‘Alms should be begged from qualified persons, never from the Teacher’s family; the food obtained should be eaten only with his permission.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.31.—‘Having done his duty to the Fires, he should eat his food silently, with the Teacher’s permission, after having sipped water.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.22.9.—‘he should offer it to the Teacher and then rest during the rest of the day.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5.8.—‘He offers the alms obtained to the Teacher; and then he should rest (luring the rest of the day, with speech controlled,—‘so say some.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.10.11.—‘He offers the food to the Teacher.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 20.2.0.—‘He should cat seated, facing the East, not disparaging the food, with attention fixed thereon; and after having eaten, he should touch fire.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 154).—‘He shall never receive more alms than what would suffice for his meal; if he accepts more, he incurs the sin of theft.’

Gautama-Smṛti (Do.).—‘In the absence of the Teacher, he shall seek the permission (to eat) from the Teacher’s wife, or his son, or from his fellow-students.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘The alms, examined, taken round the fire, shown to the sun, offered to the Teacher and granted by him, is called Nectar.’

051 Having collected as much food as is required (from several persons), and having announced it without guile to his teacher, let him eat, turning his face towards the east, and having purified himself by sipping water.

Eating with face to the East, he does what is conducive to longevity; eating with face to the South, he does what brings fame; eating with face to the West, he does what brings prosperity; and eating with face to the North, he does what leads to the true.—(52)

निष्कामस्य प्राङ्मुखस्य भोजनं विहितं नित्यतया । इदानीं काम्या विधय उच्यन्ते । आयुषे हितं आयुष्यं प्राङ्मुखो भुङ्क्त इति । यदि तद्भोजनाद् आयुः प्राप्यते तत आयुष्यं तद् भवति, तेनायम् अर्थः संपद्यते- आयुष्कामः प्राङ्मुखो भुञ्जीत⁶⁸ । अधिकारद्वयं प्राच्याम्, नित्यं काम्यं च । आयुष्कामः फलम् अभिसंदधीत । इतरस् तु न तथेति । यथा नित्यम् अग्निहोत्रम्, स्वर्गकामस्य चासकृत्प्रयोगात् तन्त्रेण फलकामस्य नित्यो ऽप्य् अधिकारो निर्वर्तते । एवं यशःकामो दक्षिणामुखः । इमे काम्या एव विधयः । श्रियम् इच्छन् । श्रियन् क्यजन्ताच्छता कृतः । श्रियै हितं वा श्रियम् इति मकारान्तः पाठः, आयुष्यादिवत् । प्राण्यङ्गत्वात् स्वार्थे भुजिर् वर्तते । तथा⁶⁹ ऋतं⁷⁰** भुङ्क्त** इति । श्रियं भोजनात् प्राप्नोतीति । तथा च द्वितीयान्तः पाठः श्रियम् इति । तादर्थ्ये वा चतुर्थी “श्रियै प्रत्यग्” इति । ऋतं सत्यं यज्ञश् च, तत्फलं वा स्वर्गः । स्वर्गकाम उदङ्मुखो भुञ्जीत । अन्तरेणापि विधिप्रत्ययम् अप्राप्तत्वाद् विध्यर्थावगतिः पञ्चमलकारादिकल्पनया । एवम् एतद् दिग्विभागेन भोजनं फलविशेषार्थम् ।

• विदिग्भोजनं त्व् अर्थप्राप्तं नित्येन प्राङ्मुखतानियमेनापोद्यते । अयं च काम्यो विधिर् न ब्रह्मचारिण एव भैक्ष्यभोजनविषयः, अपि तु गृहस्थादीनाम् अपि भोजनमात्राश्रितः । तथा चाश्नीयाद् इति प्रकृते भुङ्क्त इत्य् आख्यातान्तरनिर्देशो लिङ्गम् । इतरथाश्नीयाद् इति यतो निःसंदिग्धा प्रकृतविषयता प्रतीयते तद् एव निरदैक्ष्यत् । भुङ्क्त इति तु निर्देशे किं प्रकृत एवार्थः शब्दान्तरेण निर्दिष्टः, उत शब्दार्थतया भोजनमात्रम् इति संदेहे आख्यातावृत्ताव् अर्थान्तरावगतिर् न प्रकृतप्रत्यभिज्ञानम् एव ।

• यत् तु विधिप्रत्ययाभावाद् अर्थवाद एवायं पूर्वशेष इति चोक्तः परिहारः वचनानि त्व् अपूर्वत्वाद् इति । न च पूर्वैकवाक्यताहेतुर् विभज्यमानसाकाङ्क्षत्वादिर् अस्ति । यद्य् अप्य् उत्तरेषां चैतद् अवरोधीत्य् अनेनातिदेशेन ब्रह्मचारिधर्मो ऽपि पुरुषमात्रविषयः स्यात् फलं तु न स्यात् । गुणकामनायां हि नातिदेशात् प्रवृत्तिम् अनुमन्यन्ते । “गोदोहनेन पशुकामस्य प्रणयेत्” (आश्श् १.१६.२), “खादिरं वीर्यकामस्य” (षड्ब् ४.४) इति विकृतेषु नेष्यते कैश्चित् ॥ २.५२ ॥

The preceding verse has laid down the general compulsory rule that the boy should eat with his face to the East, if he is not desirous of obtaining any peculiar results; the text is now laying down rules that are to he observed with a view to definite desired ends.

‘Āyuṣyam’—is that which is conducive to longevity; and ‘Eating with face to the East, one does what is coducive to longevity’; when the act of eating brings about longevity, it becomes ‘what is conducive to longevity ’; hence the meaning of the text comes to be that ‘if one desires longevity he should eat with face to the East.’ Thus then, in regard to the East, there are two directions—(a) one should always face the East, and (b) one should do so when desiring the said result; so that if a man desires longevity, he should actually have the particular desire in view; while in the other case he should not have any result in view. Just as, though the Agnihotra is an obligatory act, yet if the man seeks heaven, he repeats its performance; and by so doing he fulfills, incidentally, the obligations of the obligatory act also.

Similarly, when one desires fame, he should face the South. All these rules are optional.

Desiring prosperity—the form ‘Shriyan’ is formed by adding the present participial affix ‘śatṛ’ to the nominal root formed by adding ‘kyach’ to the noun ‘Śrī’ Or, we may read ‘Shriyam’ ending in m; the meaning being ‘what brings prosperity’; just as in the case of the other words ‘āyuṣyam’ and the rest.

The use of the root ‘bhuj,’ ‘to eat,’ in its literal sense becomes possible, if we regard ‘longevity’ and the rest as ‘parts of a living being’; the same explanation applies also to the next clause ‘he eats what leads to the true.’ The meaning thus comes to be that by‘eating with face to the west one obtains prosperity.’ In this case we have the reading ‘shriyam’ with the Accusative ending. Or, lastly we may read ‘shriyai,’ with the Dative ending, which would signify ‘for the sake of.’

‘True’ means the real, and also the sacrifice or Heaven as resulting from the sacrifice. The sense thus is that ‘if one seeks heaven he should eat with his face to the north.’

Even though we have no Injunctive affixes in the text, yet, since what is here laid down is something not already known, we take it in the sense of an Injunction, construing the Present Tense as denoting the fifth sense (Leṭ, which is expressive of Injunction).

Thus then we have this rule of eating with face to various directions, with a view to various results.

Eating with face towards the subsidiary quarters, which one might be tempted to do undor special circumstances, becomes precluded by the obligatory injunction of facing the East, etc.

The optional rule here laid down does not apply only to the Religious Student, nor to the eating of the food obtained by begging only, but to all forms of eating by the Householder and others also. That this is so is indicated by the fact that though in the context we have all along had the Injunctive word ‘aśnīyāt,’ the present veise has used a different word ‘bhuṅkte’; if the author had definitely intended the present rule to be as restricted in its application as those that have gone before, then he would have used the same word. When however we find him making use of a different word, ‘bhuṅkte,’ we begin to doubt if what is meant is the particular eating that has been hitherto dealt with in the context, or a general rule applying to all forms of eating; and the conclusion we are led to is that since a different verb is used, it must stand for a different act, and it cannot be regarded as the same that has been dealt with in the context.

Some people have argued that—“in as much as there is no injunctive word in the present verse, it must be taken as merely laudatory of what has gone before.” But this has been answered in Mīmāmsā Sūtra 3.5.21 (where it is asserted that sentences laying down things not already known are to be regarded as injunctive). Nor do we find in the present verse any such signs as would indicate that it is meant to be subsidiary to the preceding verse,—such signs, for instance, as the fact of its being wanting in some integral part, if taken apart from the preceding verse, and so forth. It is possible to take the present verse as referring primarily to the Religious Student only, and then to extend its application to all men,—on the ground that what is laid down here is not incompatible with the duties of ordinary men, as the other duties of the Student are; but in that case the results mentioned in the verse would not accrue to the ordinary man. For authoritative writers 8.1.23, etc.) do not admit of activity by mere implied extension, in cases of special results following from the use of special accessory details. If such rules as ‘for one desiring cattle, water should be fetched in the milking vessel,’ ‘the sacrificial post should be of khadira wood when the man desires vigour,’ are never applied to the case of those sacrifices which are mere ectypes (of the Darśapūrṇāmāsa); and to which the details of the Darśapūrṇamāsa become applicable by extended implication only.—(52)

‘Ṛtam’—‘Sacrifice,’ an alternative explanation suggested by, Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa.

Medhātithi (p. 97, L 20)—‘Guṇakāmanāyām hi, &c.’

This refers to Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 8.1.23 et. seq.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (p. 431) which remarks that the verse refers to cases where a man makes it a rule to always face a certain quarter at meals;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 34), which adḍs the explanation that śrīyam and ṛtam are objects to the present-participle ‘icchan’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 377) in support of the view that facing of the south is not interdicted when done with a special motive. Vidhānapārijāta (p. 324) also quotes the verse to show that what is here prescribed applies to that eating which is done with a special motive, the general law being that one should face the east or the north .—Aparārka (p. 61) quotes the verse, and adds the following explanation:—If one eats facing the east, it brings longevity; one who eats facing the west, obtains prosperity; who eats facing the north attains the truth or the sacrifice.—Thus eating with face towards the east is both compulsory (as laid down in the preceding verse) and optional, done with a special motive (as mentioned here).

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 115), which adds the following notes—‘āyuṣyam’ means ‘conducive to longevity’—one who eats facing the east obtains longevity; hence the meaning of the text is that ‘one who seeks for longevity should eat facing the east similarly ‘yaśasyam’ meaning conducive to fame’;—eating with face towards the south brings fame—and similarly one who seeks for wealth should eat facing the west, and he who seeks for ‘ṛtā’ i. e., the truth, should eat facing the north.

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 67. 40-41.—‘He should eat facing the East, or the South.’

Gobhila (Parāśaramādhava, p. 377).—‘The Brāhmaṇa may sit facing the East, or the West; in connection with rites in honour of Pitṛs, even the North; but the South he must avoid.’

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 395).—‘One shall eat with wet feet, facing the East, with his two feet or even one touching the ground.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 309).—‘One should eat seated, facing the east, with speech in check, not decrying the food, nor scattering it, with mind concentrated on it: and having eaten he shall sip water.’

052 (His meal will procure) long life, if he eats facing the east; fame, if he turns to the south; prosperity, if he turns to the west; truthfulness, if he faces the east.

The twice-b orn person should always take his food after having sipped water and with due care; and after having eaten, he should rinse his mouth in the proper manner and touch the cavities with water.—(53).

आचमनोपस्पृशतिशब्दौ समानार्थौ शुद्ध्यर्थसंस्कारविशेषवचनौ शिष्टव्यवहाराद् अवगम्येते । यद्य् उपस्पृशतिर् अर्थान्तरे पठितश् चमुर् अप्य् अदनमात्रे तथापि विशेष एव सोपसर्गयोः प्रयोगदर्शनात् तदर्थतैव प्रतीयते । स्पृशेः सामान्यविषयत्वे ऽपि प्रयोगो नियामकः । गडिर् वदनैकदेशे पठ्यते । स च कपोल एव गण्ड इति प्रयुज्यते, नैकदेशान्तरे । “पुष्यसिद्ध्यौ” (पाण् ३.१.११६) नक्षत्रमात्रे पठ्येते, विशेषे च वर्तेते । धाय्याशब्दः सामिधेनीमात्रे पठ्यते, आवापिकीषु च वर्तते । अतो ऽप एवाचम्येत्य् अर्थः । स एवोपस्पृश्येत्य् अस्यापि⁷¹ । स च परस्ताद् विधायिष्यते । सामानाधिकरण्यं चानयोर् दृश्यते नित्यकालम् उपस्पृशेद् इत्य् अभिधाय त्रिर् आचामेद् इत्य् आह । अतः समारार्थः ।

• उक्ते ऽप्य् आचम्येति भोजनार्थतयाचमने पुनर्वचनम् आनन्तर्यार्थम्, अनन्तरम् एव भुञ्जीत, न व्यापारान्तरेण व्यवदधीत । तथा च भगवान् व्यासः-

• पञ्चार्द्रा भुञ्जते नित्यं तेषु वत्स्याम्य् अहं हरे ।

श्रीः किलैवम् आह । द्वौ हस्तौ द्वौ च पादाव् आस्यं च एषा पञ्चार्द्रता । सा⁷² चोपस्पर्शनान्तरं भुञ्जानस्य भवति, न विलम्बमानस्य । इहापि वक्ष्यत्य् “आर्द्रपादस् तु भुञ्जीत” (म्ध् ४.७६) इति स्नातकव्रतेषु । तस्यापौनरुक्त्यं च वक्ष्यामः । नित्यग्रहणं प्रकरणाद् ब्रह्मचारीभोजनधर्मो⁷³ मा विज्ञायि, भोजनमात्रधर्मो यथा स्याद् उपदेशत एव ।

• अत्र द्विजग्रहणं भोक्तृमात्रधर्मार्थं चाहुः नित्यग्रहणं चानुवादम् । न ते सम्यङ् मन्यन्ते । यदि द्विजशब्दः प्रकृते ब्रह्मचारिणि न समाविशेत् तदा स्याद् अपि । यदा तु तस्याप्य् एतद् अभिधानं तदा नान्तरेण नित्यग्रहणं प्रकरणबाधोपलभ्यते ।

• समाहितः । भुज्यमानं द्रव्यं स्वात्मशक्तिं चावेक्षमाणः । अन्यचेतस्कस्य हि गुरुविरुद्धविदाहिवर्जनं⁷⁴ सात्म्यभोजनं च न स्यात् । भुक्त्वा चोपस्पृशेत् । स्नेहादिलेपापनयनं द्रव्यशुद्धाव् उक्तम् । कृते तस्मिन् भुक्तवत इदम् आचमनं विधीयते ।

• अत्र केचिन् मन्यन्ते शुद्ध्यर्थम् एकम् आचमनम्, “सुप्त्वा क्षुत्वा च भुक्त्वा च” (म्ध् ५.१४५) इति अनेनादृष्टार्थं द्वितीयं कर्तव्यम् । एवं च पठ्यते " आचान्तः पुनर् आचामेत्" (य्ध् १.१९६) इति । एतत् पञ्चमे स्थापयिष्यामः ।

• सम्यग् इति वैधताम् आचमनपदार्थस्यानुवदति । “यादृशो विधिर् उक्तस् तं सर्वम् अनुतिष्ठेत्” । अद्भिः खानि च संस्पृशेत् । खानि छिद्राणि शीर्षण्यानि । ननु चैतद् उक्तम् एव “खानि चैव स्पृशेद् अद्भिः” (म्ध् २.६०) इति । आत्मशिरसोर् व्यावृत्त्यर्थम् इति केचित् । यदा शुचिः सन्न् अभोजनार्थतयैवाचामति । येषां च भोजनोत्तरकालम् एकं शुद्ध्यर्थम् आचमनम् अपरम् अदृष्टार्थं तत्रादृष्टार्थ आत्मशिरसी न स्पृश्येते, शुद्ध्यर्थं तु तादृशम् उत्पन्नम् । तस्य संपूर्णाङ्गस्य प्रयोगो वक्ष्यते “शौचेप्सुः सर्वदाचामेत्” इति (म्ध् २.६१) । यद्⁷⁵ वा विधिप्रत्यभिज्ञानार्थं शास्त्रीयम् एतद् आचमनं न लौकिकम् इति । ज्ञाताङ्गविशेषसंबन्धस्य तदङ्गिनिर्देशे तद् एवेदम् इति प्रत्यभिज्ञानसिद्धिः । अतश् च यत्राचामेद् इति श्रुतं तत्र न यस्य कस्यचिद् द्रव्यस्य भक्षणमात्रं प्रतीयते, किं तर्हि शास्त्रीयस्य संस्कारस्य सपरिकरस्येति यद् उक्तं तद् दर्शितं भवति ॥ २.५३ ॥

The terms ‘ācamana’ and ‘spṛśa’ are both synonymous, being found from the usage of cultured people, to signify a particular purificatory act. Though it is true that the root ‘spraha’ has been declared to have an entirely different meaning, and the root ‘chamu’ (from which the word ‘ācamana’ is derived) also has been declared to signify the act of eating,—yet in actual usage we find that with the particular prefixes (upa and a) they are used in a much restricted sense and hence they are taken in that (restricted) sense. So that even though the root ‘spṛśa’ has a very wide denotation, yet actual usage limits its significance. Just as though the root ‘gaḍi’ denotes only part of the face in general, the term ‘gaṇḍa’ (derived from that root) is used in the sense of tho cheek only, and it is not applied to any other part of the face; similarly the root ‘puṣya’ means to accomplish, and the term ‘puṣya’ is laid down as denoting ‘lunar, asterism’ in general, yet in actual usage this latter name is applied to one particular asterism only; similarly again the term ‘dhāyyā,’ though laid down as denoting Sāmidhenī verses in general, is actually used in the sense of the Āvāpikī verses only. Hence the term ‘upaspṛśya’ means exactly what is meant by the term ‘ācamya’; the actual injunction of this act of ‘ācamana’ will come later on. Further, the text itself uses the two terms as synonymous. Having laid down that ‘one should always do the shana,’ it goes on to say that ‘this ācamana’ should be done three times; from which it is clear that the two are synonymous.

Though the ‘rinsing of the mouth’ has been already laid down in verse 51, it is re-iterated again in order to show immediate sequence: the sense being that one should take his food immediately after rinsing the mouth, and no other act should be allowed to intervene. To this end we have the following declaration of the revered Vyāsa—‘Oh Lord, I shall remain with such people as take their food with five limbs wet’—this being said by Lakṣmī; the ‘five limbs’ being the two hands, two feet, and month; and these five limbs can remain wet only if one cats immediately after the rinsing, and not if he makes any delay. Manu himself (in 4. 76) is going to declare under the duties of the Snātaka that ‘one should eat with the feet still wet’; and there we shall show that there is no needless repetition involved in this.

‘Always’—this is added in order to guard against the notion that being laid down in the section dealing with the duties of the Student, what is here prescribed applies to him alone; and to show directly that it is applicable to every form of eating.

Some people have held that “the term ‘twice-born’ is what is meant to make the rule applicable to every form of eating, and that the ‘always’ is merely an explanatory reiteration.”

This however is not right. This would have been the right explanation if the qualification ‘twice-bom’ were incompatible with the ‘student’; as a matter of fact however, the said qualification is quite applicable to the ‘student’; hence with the exception of the adverb ‘always’ there is nothing to indicate that what is here laid down is to be taken as going beyond the particular context.

‘With due care’—That is, with due consideration of the character of the food and his own (digestive) powers. If one happens to be absent-minded, he cannot avoid indigestible, unwholesome and hot food, nor can he eat only what is wholesome.

‘After having eaten, he should rinse his mouth.’—That one should remove all traces of oil, etc., has been already prescribed under the section on the ‘purification of substances.’ The ‘rinsing’ here laid down is that which one should do after he has eaten and removed all traces of oil, etc.

In this connection some people have held that one ‘rinsing’ (after food) having been already laid down under 5. 145—where it is said that ‘one should rinse his mouth after sleep, sneezing and eating,’—the present verse must be taken as laying down a second ‘rinsing,’ for the purposes of some transcendental result; there being such a general injunction as ‘having rinsed the mouth, one should rinse it again.’

This aspect of the question wo shall deal with under Discourse V.

In the proper manner.—This only re-iterates the injunctive and obligatory character of the ‘rinsing’; the meaning being that ‘one should follow all the details of the Binning that have been enjoined.’

‘Should touch with water the cavities.’—‘Cavities,’ i.e., holes in the head.

Objection.—“It is already laid down (under 60, below) that the cavities should be touched with water.”

To this some people reply that the repetition in the present verse is meant to exclude the ‘self’ and ‘head’ (which also are mentioned along with the ‘cavities’ in 60),—and refers to that rinsing which one already clean, does, without reference to Eating. So that according to those who take the first ‘rinsing’ after food as meant for cleanliness and a second ‘rinsing’ as lending to some transcendental result,—the ‘self’ and the ‘head’ are not ‘touched with water’ for the purpose of bringing about a transcendental result; this being done for cleanliness alone. The actual process of this rinsing is going to he laid down in 61.—‘One desirous of cleanliness should always rinse his mouth, etc., etc..’

Another answer to the aforesaid objection is that what the present verse does is to emphasise the fact of the being recognised as something enjoined by the scriptures; the sense being that this Rinsing is the scriptural (prescribed in the Śāstras), not the ordinary, rinsing. As a matter of fact, where a certain primary act has become known as equipped with particular accessories, wherever that same act is subsequently spoken of, it is at once recognised as being the same as the former one. So that when the text says ‘should rinse his mouth,’ it does not mean merely that a certain substance (water) should be sipped; what is meant is to indicate all that has been prescribed in connection with the scriptural purification, along with its appurtenent details.—(53)

‘Nityam’—This, according to Govindarāja, Kullūka Nārāyaṇa and Nandana indicates that the rule refers to householders also. The first half of this verse has been quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 327).

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 6 7.34-35.—‘One should cat without wetted feet or without wetted hands and mouth.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtṛa, 2.48.—‘While eating, he should keep silent, contented, not greedy; and he should keep water near him; he should touch with water the holes in his head.’

Baudhāyana-Dhaṛmasūtra, 5.1.21—‘Touching the holes with water, as also the feet, the head and the left hand.’

Āpastamba-Dhaṛmasūtra, 1.5.2.—‘When going to eat, he should carefully sip water twice, he should wash twice and should sprinkle water once.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 309).—(See above.) Gadya-Vyāsa (Do., p. 378).—‘Being satisfied, he shall sip water with the mantra amṛtāpidhānamasi, and moving a little from that place, he shall rinse his mouth in due form.’

Devala (Do.).—‘Having eaten, he shall wash in due form, cleansing his mouth and hands by rubbing with clay.’

Gautama (Do.).—‘At the time of rinsing the mouth, if one rubs it with the forefinger, the foolish man falls into the Raurava hell.’

Vyāsa (Do.). ‘Having washed his hand, if the foolish man drinks the water taken for rinsing, he degrades the gods, his Pitṛs and himself. One shall not wash in the vessel in which he has eaten. If he rises from his seat before, washing, he should bathe at once.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 379).—‘He shall sip water with the mantra amṛtāpidhānamasi; having sipped water, he shall wash again, with the mantra Āyaṅgauḥ, etc

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 61).—‘Having eaten, he shall wash himself, without any mantra.’

053 Let a twice-born man always eat his food with concentrated mind, after performing an ablution; and after he has eaten, let him duly cleanse himself with water and sprinkle the cavities (of his head).

He should always worship the food and eat it without disparaging it. When he sees it, he should rejoice and peel gratified, and he should always welcome it.—(54)

अश्यत इत्य् अशनं भक्तसक्त्वपूपाद्य्⁷⁶ उच्यते । तद् अशनार्थम् आनीतं देवतारूपेण पश्येत्- “एषा वै परमा देवता यद् अन्नम्” । तस्य सर्वेषां भूतानां स्रष्टृत्वेन स्थितिहेतुतया च यद्दर्शनं सास्य पूजा । अथ वा प्राणार्थत्वेन भावनं ध्यायन्-⁷⁷ “यजन् मम यद् अर्थत्वं संपूजयति मां सदा” इति । नमस्कारादिना वा प्रणम्य ग्रहणं पूजा ।

• अद्याच् चैतद् अकुत्सयन् । कदन्नतया दुःसंस्कारोपग्रहणेन वा कुत्साहेतुसंभवे नान्नं कुत्सयेत् । “किम् इदम् अश्यते, अरुचिकरं धातुवैषम्यजनकम्” इत्य् एवमादिनाभिधानेन नाक्षिपेत् । यदि तु तद्रूपं भवति तदा नाद्यान् न कुत्सयन्न् अद्यात् ।

दृष्ट्वैव हृष्येत् । पुत्रस्त्र्यादिसंदर्शनेन चिरप्रवासप्रत्यगत इव् तुष्येत प्रीयेत । प्रसीदेच् च । निमित्तान्तरजम् अपि कालुष्यम् अन्नदर्शनेन हित्वा मनःप्रसादम् आश्रयेत् । प्रतिनन्देच् च । समृद्ध्या शंसनं प्रतिनन्दनम् । “नित्ययुक्ता एतेन स्याम” इत्य् आदरोपदर्शनम् अभिनन्दनम् । सर्वशः सर्वदा । “अन्यतरस्याम्” इति व्यवस्थितविभाषाविज्ञानात् सप्तम्यर्थे शम् कर्तव्यः । सर्वदेति वा पठितव्यम् ॥ २.५४ ॥

‘Food,’ ‘aśana,’ is that which in eaten (aśyate), i.e., rice and curry, etc. When the food is brought to him, he should look upon it as a ‘deity’; i.e., he should have the notion—‘this food is my highest deity.’ (a) The ‘worshipping’ of the food may consist in regarding it as the source of the birth and sustenance of all living beings; or (b) in regarding it as the means of sustaining his life; as the food is declared to have said—‘he worships me regarding me as sustaining life’; or (c) in receiving it with due obeisance, etc.

‘He should eat it without disparaging it’;—even when there is any such source of disparagement as that the article of food is of bad quality, or it is badly cooked, he should not disparage the food; i.e., he should not make any such disparaging remarks as—‘this is most disagreeable,’ or ‘it is likely to upset the constitution of the body,’ and so forth. If the food happens to be really defective, he should simply not eat it; he should not eat it and yet find fault with it.

‘When he sees it he should rejoice’—he should rejoice just as he does when, on returning from a long journey, he sees his wife and children.

‘He should feel gratified’;—on seeing the food, he should remove from his mind even such displeasure as may have been produced by other causes.

‘He should welcome it’;—‘welcoming’ consists in acclaiming it as a boon; i.e., receiving it with honour, with such words as ‘may we have such food every day.’

‘Always,’—at all times. The affix ‘shas’ has the sense of the locative, according to the option involved in Pāṇini’s Sūtra 5. 4. 42. Or, wo may read ‘sarvadā’ (instead of ‘sarvaśaḥ’).—(54)

Pūjayet—‘worship’ (Govindarāja and Nandana.);—Medhātithi offers three explanations as to what is meant by the ‘worshipping’ of the food;—Nārāyaṇa takes it to mean that the mantra (Ṛgveda, 1. 187.1) should be addressed to it Kullūka explains it as ‘meditate upon it as sustaining life’.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 486), which explains the pūjā as standing for saṃskāra, due preparation.

It is quoted again in the Āhnika section of the same work (p. 382), where, on the strength of a statement attributed to Śātātapa, it is said that in the case of food, ‘worship’ can only mean being regarded as a deity.

The verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 433);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 114), which explains ‘akutsayan’ as ‘not decrying.’

**(Verses 54-55)
**

Yājñavalkya, 1. 31,—‘He should eat the food, paying due regard to it, not disparaging it.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 7.2.6.—‘Seated—he should eat the food, intent upon it, without disparaging the food,—not dropping it on the ground; and after earing, he should touch Fire.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 67.42-43.—‘Worshipping the food, with contented mind, wearing a garland and smeared with sandal-paste.’

Baudhāyana Dhaṛmasūtra, 2.3.17.—‘[Says the Food]—He who eats me, without having made offerings to Pitṛs, Gods, dependents, guests, and to friends, eats, through foolishness, poison; and him I devour; for him I am death. He who eats me after having made the Agnihotra-ofFerings and the Vaiśvadeva-offerings and after having honoured the guests and fed his dependents,—content, clean and reverential,—for him I am nectar; he alone eats me.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 7.59.—‘He should eat the food, morning and evening, after worshipping it, never disparaging it.’

Old Saying (Parāśaramādhava, p. 369).—(See under 52.)

Vṛddha-Manu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 375).—‘One should always welcome the food while eating it, with speech in check, not decrying the food.’

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 375).—‘Silent or not silent, he shall be happy while eating.’

054 Let him always worship his food, and eat it without contempt; when he sees it, let him rejoice, show a pleased face, and pray that he may always obtain it.

The food, thus worshipped always, imparts strength and vigour. If eaten irreverently, it destroys them both.—(55)

पूर्वविधिशेषो ऽयम् अर्थवादः, न तु फलविधिः । फलविधौ⁷⁸ हि काम्यो ऽयं विधिः स्याद् ऊर्जकामस्य बलकामस्य च । ततश् च नित्यशब्दो नोपपद्येत पूजितं ह्य् अशनं नित्यम् इति । अतो ऽयं यावज्जीविकः प्राङ्मुखता नियमः । अपूजितं भुक्तं ह्य् उभयं नाशयेद् बलम् ऊर्जं च । बलं सामर्थ्यम् अनायासेन भारोद्यमनादिशक्तता । कृशस्याप्य् ऊर्जं महाप्राणता । अङ्गोपचयः महाकायो महाबलश् च भवति ॥ २.५५ ॥

This verse is only a valedictory supplement to the rule prescribed above; it is not meant to be the statement of definite results following from the observance of that rule. If it were a statement of results, the rule would be an optional one, to be observed only by one who desires vigour and strength; and in that case the adverb ‘always’ would have no sense;—as we have in the expression, ‘the food thus worshipped always, etc.’ For these reasons the rule must be regarded as one to be observed throughout life, just like the rule regarding facing of the east (during meal).

‘If eaten irreverently, it destroys them both,’—i.e., vigour and strength.

‘Strength’ is power, the capacity to lift heavy loads without effort; while ‘vigour’stands for energy and courage, which is found even in a man who is lean (and physically weak): while great strength is found only when the limbs of the body are well-developed and the body has attained huge proportions.—(55)

‘Ūrjam’.—Buhler wrongly attributes to Medhātithi the explanation that this term means ‘bulk’. The term used by him is ‘mahāprāṇatā’ which means the same as ‘vīrya’ of Kullūka or ‘energy’ of Nārāyaṇa. Buhler has apparently been misled by a mis-reading of Medhātithi.

This verse has been quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 486) where ‘pūjitam’ has been explained as, ‘samskṛtam’, well prepared;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 114).

(Verses 54-55)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.54].

055 Food, that is always worshipped, gives strength and manly vigour; but eaten irreverently, it destroys them both.

He should not give the leavings to anyone; he should not eat in between; he should not do over-rating; and he should not go any-where with particles of food still on him.—(56)

पात्रीस्थम् अन्नम् आस्यस्पर्शदूषितम् उच्छिष्टम् उच्यते । तन् न कस्यचिद् दद्याद् अनेनैव सिद्धे स्नातकव्रतेषु यः शूद्रविषयः प्रतिषेधः स तत्रैव निरूपयिष्यते । चतुर्थ्यां प्राप्तायां षष्ठी संबन्धमात्रनिषेधार्था । ये ऽपि दत्तम् इदम् अस्मभ्यम् इति न विदुस् तेषाम् अपि भोजनाय न⁷⁹ प्रकल्प्यं⁸⁰ श्वबिडालादीनाम् । न ह्य् अत्र ददात्यर्थः परिपूर्णः⁸¹ स्वत्वनिवृत्तिमात्रं दातुः, परस्य स्वत्वापत्तिर्⁸² नास्ति ।

• अन्तराशब्दो मध्यवचनः । द्वौ भोजनकालौ सायं प्रातश् च । ततो ऽन्यस्मिन् काले न भुञ्जीत । अथ वा व्यवधाने अन्तराशब्दः । त्यक्तभोजनव्यापारः क्रियान्तरेण व्यवधाय पुनस् तद् एव प्राक्पात्रगृहीतं न भुञ्जीत । स्मृत्यन्तरे तु विशेषः पठ्यते- “उत्थानाचमनव्यापेतम्” इति (च्ड़्। ग्ध् १७.१९) । केचित् तु विच्छेदम् अन्तरम् आचक्षते । “सव्येन पाणिना पात्रम् अन्वालभ्य दक्षिणेनावदाय प्राणायास्ये जुहोति” इति श्रूयते । तत्र यः सव्येन पात्रस्यानुग्रहस् तदनन्तरम् ।

• न चैवात्यशनम् अतिमात्रम् अशनं कुर्यात् । एतच् चानारोग्यकारणं गुरुविरुद्धादीनां प्रदर्शनार्थम् । हेतूपदेशान् मात्राशितायाश् चायुर्वेदाद् अतिमात्रता बोद्धव्या । यावद् अशितम् अन्नम् उदरपूरं न करोति सम्यग् जीर्यति तावद् अशितव्यम् । त्रयः कुक्षेर् भागाः, अध्यर्धम् अन्नस्य भागार्धं पानस्य भागो दोषसंचाराय । अन्यथानारोग्यम् ।

• न चोच्छित्ष्टः क्वचिद् व्रजेत् । अतश् चोच्छिष्टम् अपनीय शुचित्वम् आपादिते तस्मिन्न् एव देश आचान्तव्यम् ॥ २.५६ ॥

The food left in the dish, and become unclean by being touched with the mouth, is called, ‘leavings;’—this he should not give to anyone. The prohibition of the offering of the leavings to any person being already contained in this verse, the necessity of having another prohibition of the offering of the leavings to a Śūdra,—which we find among the duties of the Snātakā—we shall explain in connection with the latter verse.

[In ‘Kasyachit’ ] though the dative would he the proper form, we have the genitive in the sense of ‘relationship in general,’ and what is meant is that it should not he given even to such living beings as do not understand that a certain thing has been given to them,—such for instance, as dogs and cats; in this latter case the act cannot he called ‘giving’ in its full sense; as it involves merely the cessation of the proprietary right of the giver, it does not involve the producing of the proprietary right in the recipient [that is why the Dative could not he rightly used: which could imply both giving and receiving ].

The phrase ‘antarā’ ‘in between,’ means middle. There are two times for meals—morning and evening; and one should not eat between these meals. Or, ‘in between’ may mean interruption; in which case the meaning is that ‘having once left off the act of eating, and having interrupted it by some other act, he should not eat the food left in the same dish.’ Another Smṛti lays down the specific rule that ‘one should avoid eating interrupted by rising and washing.’ Others again have explained the phrase ‘antarā,’ as meaning disconnection. The Śruti having declared that ‘holding the dish with the left hand, ono should take up the morsel with the right hand and then offer it to the Life-breath in the mouth,’—it is the omitting of the act of holding the dish with the left hand which is meant by the terms ‘antarā.’

‘Be should not do over-eating’;—one should not eat too much. This is with a view to health, and hence implies the avoidance of such food as may he either indigestible or unsuitable. Specially because the advice is based upon reason. What is ‘over-eating’ can he learnt from the Āyurveda. The sense is that one should eat only that quantity of food which does not quite fill the stomach, and which is properly digested. Of the three parts into which the stomach is divided, one part itself should bo filled with food, half a part with water, and one part should be left for the action of the bodily humours. If this is not done, health suffers.

‘He should not go anywhere teiṭh particles of food still on him’;—on the very spot where he has oaten, he should clean himself by removing all particles of food from the body and then wash his hands and mouth without rising from the place.—(50)

The second half of this verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 458); in Aparārka (p. 61) in support of the view that by avoiding over-eating one acquires health;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 115).

**(Verse 56-57)
**

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1. 3. 36-10.—‘After eating, he should himself wash the dish; he should not have any leavings; what he does not eat he should bury in the ground; or throw into water.’

Āpastamba, 1. 11- 31. 22.—‘He should not offer the leavings to a non-Brāhmaṇa.’

Āpastamba, 2.1.2-3.—‘He should eat twice; never satiating himself with food.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 61).—‘For the ascetic the meal should consist of eight morsels, for the hermit, sixteen, for the householder, thirty-two; for the student, there is no limit.’

[This same text is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 370, as from Āpastamba. ]

Vaśiṣṭha, 17.—‘Leavings or no leavings,—he should not offer the food to a Śūdra.’

Vaśiṣṭha, 11.17.—‘Leavings, except those of the Teacher, should never be eaten; nor one’s own leavings.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 2. 7. 17. 12.—‘He should not. offer the leavings to any one who does not possess the necessary qualifications.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 67. 36.—‘One should not eat clarified butter, with mouth unclean.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 2. 37.—‘Leavings should he avoided.’

Saṃvarta (Aparārka, p. 61).—‘Eating in the morning and in the evening has been prescribed for men, by the gods; one shall not eat in between these two meals; this practice is equal to the Agnihotra.’

Mahābhārata. (Aśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 370).—‘One should never overeat himself, nor eat too little.’

Pulastya (Do.). One shall never eat all that is served to him, except curd, butter, fruits, milk, honey, and sattu.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do., p. 372).—‘He shall not leave food needlessly; he shall not go anywhere with particles of food still on him.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 2.47.—‘[He should eat] contentedly. not greedily.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (Parāśaramādhava, p. 371).—‘Morning and evening, he shall eat food, which has been worshipped, without decrying it.’

056 Let him not give to any man what he leaves, and beware of eating between (the two meal-times); let him not over-eat himself, nor go anywhere without having purified himself (after his meal).

Over-eating destroys health, cuts off life and bars heaven; it is unrighteous and detested by people; for these reasons one should avoid it.—(57)

दृष्टमूलताम् अत्यशनप्रतिषेधस्याचष्टे⁸³ । अनारोग्यं व्याध्युत्पत्तिर् ज्वरोदरादिपीडा । विषूचिकादिना जीवितनाश अनायुष्यम् । “सर्वत एवात्मानं गोपायेत्” (ग्ध् ९.३४) इति शरीरपरिरक्षादिव्यतिक्रमाद् अस्वर्ग्यम् । नरकप्राप्तिः स्वर्गाभावेन प्रतिपद्यते । अपुण्यं दौर्भाग्यकरम् । लोकविद्विष्टं बहुभोजितया निन्द्यते । तस्मात् कारणाद् अत्यशनं परिवर्जयेत्, न कुर्यात् ॥ २.५७ ॥

The present verse proceeds to show that the prohibition of over-eating is based upon ordinary worldly considerations.

‘Destroys health,’—is productive of such diseases as fever, pain in the stomach and so forth.

‘Cuts off life,’—destroys life, bringing on such diseases as cholera and the like.

‘Bars heaven,’—because implying the neglect of one’s body, it involves the transgressing of such scriptural injunctions as ‘one should guard himself against all things.’ The ‘barring of heaven’ means going to hell.

‘Unrighteous’—productive of misfortune.

‘Detested by people’;—the man who eats too much is always looked down upon as a ‘glutton.’

For these reasons one ‘should avoid,’ — i.e., not do—over-eating.—(57)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 488); in Aparārka (p. 156);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 115).

**(Verse 56-57)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.56].

057 Excessive eating is prejudicial to health, to fame, and to (bliss in) heaven; it prevents (the acquisition of) spiritual merit, and is odious among men; one ought, for these reasons, to avoid it carefully.

Every time, the Brāhmana should sip water, either though the receptacle dedicated to Brahmā, or through that dedicated to Prajāpati, or through that dedicated to the ‘Thrice-ten’ (Gods); but never through that dedicated to the Pitṛs.—(58)

तीर्थशब्देन पवित्रम् उदकाधिकरणम् उच्यते । तारणाय पापप्रमोचनाय च तिष्ठतीति तीर्थम् । क्वचित् तु तरन्त्य् अनेनेति तीर्थम् उदकावतरणमार्गः । इह तूदकाधारकरतलैकदेश उच्यते । स्तुत्या वा तीर्थशब्दप्रयोगः । न हि तत्र नित्यस्था आपः । तेन उपस्पृशेद् आचामेत् । ब्राह्मेणेत्य् एतद् अपि स्तुत्यर्थम् एव । ब्रह्मा देवतास्येति । न हि तीर्थस्य देवता भवत्य् अयागरूपत्वाद् अमन्त्रत्वाच् च । यागरूपतां च केनचिद् धर्मेण शुद्धिहेतुत्वादिनाध्यारोप्य देवतातद्धितः । नित्यकालं शौचार्थे कर्माङ्गे च । कः प्रजापतिः, स देवतास्येति कायम् । एवं त्रिदशा देवता अस्येति त्रैदशिकम् । त्रिदशशब्दाद् देवताणिकृते स्वार्थे कः । देवतात्वं च पूर्ववत् । एभिस् तीर्थैर् उपस्पृशेत् । विप्रग्रहणम् अविवक्षितम् । यतः क्षत्रियादीनं विशेषं वक्ष्यति । न चासत्यां सामान्यतः प्राप्तौ विशेषविधानम् उपपद्यते, “कण्ठगाभिस् तु भूमिपः” (म्ध् २.६२) इत्यादि । न पित्र्येण पितृदैवत्येन कदाचिद् अपि । स्फोटपिटकादिना ब्राह्मादितीर्थेष्व् अयोग्यताम् आयातेष्व् अपि ।

• ननु चाविधानाद्⁸⁴ एव पित्र्यस्याप्राप्तिः । अस्त्य् अत्राशङ्का । पितृतीर्थज्ञापनार्थं तावत् पित्र्यं तयोर् अध⁸⁵ इत्य् अवश्यं वक्तव्यम् । न च तस्येह कार्यं निर्दिश्यते । कार्याकाङ्क्षायां⁸⁶ प्रकृतत्वात् तेन कार्येण संबन्ध आशङ्क्येत । अद्य पुनः प्रतिषेधे सति पित्र्यम् इति समाख्ययैव कार्यावगतिः, उदकतर्पणादि पितृकर्म एतेन तीर्थेन कर्तव्यम् । एवं स्तुतिर् अन्वयिनी भवति । श्रुतिनोदितत्वाच् च ब्राह्मादीनां तदभावे प्राप्ताशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थं युक्तम् अस्याभिधानम् ॥ २.५८ ॥

The term ‘tīrtha,’ ‘Receptacle,’ means a clean vessel containing water; ‘tīrtha’ (literally) is that which exists for the purpose of saving people, i.e., freeing them from their sins. In some places ‘tīrtha’ is explained as ‘that by which people descend into water.’ In the present context however it stands for that part of the palm of the hand which contains water; and we must take the word ‘tīrtha’ as applied to the hand, with a view to eulogise it, only figuratively; for water does not remain in the hand always (and as such it cannot be called tīrtha in its literal sense).

Through the said receptacle, he should sip water.

‘Dedicated to Brahmā’;—this also is a figurative eulogy. The term means ‘that of which Brahmā is the deity’; and certainly the said ‘Receptacle,’ not being of the nature of a ‘sacrifice,’ or of a ‘Mantra,’ could not be said to be ‘dedicated to a deity.’ The special nominal affix in the word ‘brāhma,’ which denotes ‘dedication to a deity,’ may however be justified on the assumption that the said receptacle resembles a ‘sacrifice’ in certain characteristics, such as being the means of sanctification and so forth.

‘Every time’—i.e., for the purposes of cleanliness, as also as part of religious performances.

‘Kāya’—‘Ka’ stands for Prajāpati: hence ‘kāya’ is that which is dedicated to Prajāpati.

Similarly that which is dedicated to the ‘thrice-ten’—i.e., the Gods—is called the ‘traidaśikam.’ The word ‘traidaśikam’ is derived from ‘tridaśa’ with the deifìc affix ‘aṇ,’ and then the reflexive ‘ka.’ And the deific character in this case also is of the same kind as before (in the term ‘brāhma’).

Through these receptacles one should sip water. The mention of the Brāhmaṇa (Vipra) is not meant to be significant here. For special rules for the Kṣatriya, etc., are going to be added later on (in verse 62, et seq.); and unless we had a general rule, there could he no room for specifications [and it is the present verse alone that could be taken as formulating that general rule, and hence it could not be taken as restricted to. the Brāhmaṇa only.]

‘Not through that dedicated to the Pitṛs’—i.e., never through that of which the Pitṛs are the deity; even in cases where the aforesaid parts of the hand are disabled by the presence of boils and pimples.

Objection.—“The mere fact of what is sacred to Pitṛs not having been enjoined makes it impossible to be used (why should the negation be re-iterated)?”

Answer.—There is one danger in that: The next verse supplies the description of ‘the receptacle dedicated to Pitṛs’; while there is no use for it laid down in the present context; so that when one would proceed to seek for the use to which this particular receptacle could lie put, he might form the idea that it is to be used in connection with the act (of sipping water) that forms the subject-matter of the context. When, h owever, wc have the direct prohibition (of this receptacle, in connection with water-sipping), we gather the use for it from its very name, and conclude that the offering of water and such other rites for the Pitṛs are to be performed with ‘the receptacle dedicated to Pitṛs.’ In this manner the eulogy also becomes consistent. The ‘receptacles’ dedicated to Brahmā and the rest being directly enjoined as those to be used, people might be led into the mistake that in the absence of these the other may be used; hence with a view to prevent this it was only right to mention the Pitrya-tīrtha also (as that which should never be used).—(58)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 76), where it is noted that according to Hemādri, the term ‘vipra’ stands for all the three twice-born castes, on the ground that Yājñavalkya’s text bearing on the subject uses the generic term ‘dvija—but this view is controverted on the ground that it is more reasonable to take, on the strength of Manu’s use of the particular term ‘vipra,’ the term ‘dvija’ of Yājñavalkya’s text as standing for the Brāhmaṇa only, rather than the other way about; as in this there is no stretching of the term ‘dvija’ which is often used for the Brāhmaṇa only; while in the other case the natural meaning of the term ‘vipra’ is unduly extended to other than Brāhmaṇas. The writer goes on to quote Medhātithi’s words (p. 100, 11.20-21)—“The mention of the Vipra is not meant to be significant here. For special rules for the Kṣatriya etc., are going to be added later on (in verse 62, et seq), and unless we had a general rule there could be no room for specifications; [and it is the present verse alone that could be taken as formulating that general rule, and hence it could not be taken as restricted to the Brāhmaṇa only.”] (Translation pp. 306-307);—and traverses this argument, on the ground that the present text is not injunctive of Ācamana, and hence the special rule that follows in verse 62 regarding ācamana can have no bearing upon this verse; the real injunction of Ācamana is contained in verse 61. Verse 58, therefore, it is concluded, must be taken only as enjoining a particular ‘tīrtha’ for the Brāhmaṇa.

Proceeding with the explanation of the verse, Vīramitrodaya adds—‘nityakālam’ meaning always; so that whenever ācamana has got to be done, it should be done by the Brāhmaṇa by anyone of the thfee methods herein described; and it adds that such is the ‘svarasa,’ ‘inclination,’ of Medhātithi also, which clearly refers to Medhātithi, p. 100, 1. 22. It goes on to point out, however, that the view of many Digests is that as far as possible the Brāhmatīrtha should be used.,—such being the implication of the qualification ‘nityakālam,’ which is more nearly related to the first option; and the other alternatives are to be taken up only when the Brahma tīrtha is disabled.—‘Kāya’ means ‘dedicated to Prajāpati,’ and ‘Traidaśika,’ ‘dedicated to the gods.’

It goes on to add that, though there was no possibility for the ‘Pitrya tīrtha’ to be employed,—it not being mentioned among those sanctioned,—yet it has been specially interdicted with a view to indicate that the Pitryatīrtha is never to be used, not even when every one of the three tīrthas permitted is impossible, through pimples and sores: so that in such emergencies, the tīrtha to be employed would be the Āgneya and others.

This verse is quoted in Nityāchārapradīpa (p. 64 and p. 253), which notes that ‘Kāyatraidaśikabhyām’ is the secondary alternative mentioned in view of the contingency of there being a wound or some incapacity in the ‘Brāhmatīrtha;—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 339), which has the following note—‘Kāya’ is Prājāpatya; ‘Traidaśika’ is Daiva; ‘nityakālam’ indicates that the second and third alternatives are to be resorted to only in the event of the using of the first being impossible;—in Ācāramayūkha (p. 20), which explains traidaśikam’ as daivam;—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 311), which connects the negative particle ‘na’ with the whole of the second line, and explains ‘brāhma’ as the base of the aṅguṣṭha, ‘kāya’ as prājāpatya, the base of the little finger, ‘traidaśika’ as daiva, the tip of the fingers, and ‘pitrya’ the base of the index finger;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā. p. 77), which quotes ‘Medhātithis’ explanation of the derivation of the term ‘traidaśikam’.

**(Verses 58-59)
**

Vaśiṣṭha-Sṃṛti, 3. 29.—‘The line beyond the base of the thumb is the Brāhma-tīrtha; through that one should sip water thrice and then wash with water.’

Viṣṇu-Sṃṛti, 62. 6.—‘He should sip water through the Brahma-tīrtha.’

Yajñavalkya, 1.18.—‘With hands between his knees, seated on a pure spot, facing the north or the east, the twice-born should sip water.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 5. 11.—‘One should sip water through the Brāhma-tīrtha.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 5. 1. 12-13.—‘The base of the thumb is the Brāhma-tīrtha; the tip of the thumb is the Pitrya-tīrtha; the tips of the fingers, the Daiva-tīrtha; the base of the fingers, the Ārṣa-tīrtha; the Pitrya-tīrtha is also that between the thumb and the forefinger.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 62.1-4.—‘For the twice born, the base of the little finger is the**Prājāpatya*-tīrtha*; at the base of the thumb, the Brāhma-tīrtha; at the tip of the fingers, the Daiva; at the base of the forefinger, the Pitrya.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.19.—‘The base of the little finger, the base of the forefinger, the base of the thumb, and the tip of the fingers of the hand constitute the Prājāpatya, Pitrya, Brahma and Daiva tīrthas respectively.’

Śaṅkha (quoted in Medhātithi).—‘The Kāya is at the base of the little finger; the Prājāpatya at the base of the thumb, the Daiva, at the tips of the fingers; the Pitrya, at the base of the index-finger.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Parāśaramādhava, p. 221).—‘The Brahmatīrtha is situated to the left of the thumb, on the line pointing upwards; the Pitrya between the thumb and the index finger; the Prājāpatya between the palm and the little index: on the top of the finger tips, the Daiva.’

058 Let a Brahmana always sip water out of the part of the hand (tirtha) sacred to Brahman, or out of that sacred to Ka (Pragapati), or out of (that) sacred to the gods, never out of that sacred to the manes.

The part of the palm at the root of the thumb they call ‘the receptacle dedicated to Brahmā’; that which is at the root of the finger ‘Sacred to Prajāpati’; that on the finger-tops ‘dedicated to the Gods’; and that which is below these two ‘dedicated to the Pitṛs.’—(59)

kāyaṃ kaviṣṭakāmūle tīrthamūktammanīṣibhiḥ aṅguṣṭhamūle ca tathā prājāpatyaṃ vica?ṇai | aṅgus?yagre sthitaṃ daivaṃ piś?yaṃ tarjanimūlake |

अङ्गुष्ठस्य मूलम् अधोभागः । तस्य तलप्रदेशो ब्राह्मं तीर्थम् । हस्ताभ्यन्तरं तलम् आह । महारेखान्तम् अभिमुखम् आत्मनो ब्राह्मं हस्तमध्ये । अङ्गुलीनां मूले दण्डरेखाया ऊर्ध्वं कायम् । अग्रे अङ्गुलीनां दैवम्⁸⁷ । उपसर्जनीभूतो ऽपि मूले अङ्गुलिशब्दः सापेक्षत्वाद् अग्रशब्दस्य⁸⁸ संबध्यते । पित्र्यं तयोर् अधः । अत्रापि गुणीभूतस्याङ्गुलीशब्दस्याङ्गुष्टस्य च संबन्धः । प्रदेशिनी चात्राङ्गुलिर् विवक्षिता । तयोर् अध अन्तरं पित्र्यम् । स्मृत्यन्तरशिष्टप्रसिद्धिसामर्थ्याद् एवं व्याख्यायते, यथाश्रुतान्वयासंभवात् । यथा च शङ्खः- “अङ्गुष्ठस्याधरतः प्राग् अग्रायाश् च रेखाया ब्राह्मं तीर्थम्, प्रदेशिन्यङ्गुष्ठयोर् अन्तरा पित्र्यम्, कनिष्ठातलयोः⁸⁹ पूर्वेणा पर्वण् कायम्, अग्रम्⁹⁰ अङ्गुलीनां दैविकम्” इति ॥ २.५९ ॥

The ‘root’ of the thumb is its lower part; and the part, of the hand just below that root is the ‘receptacle dedicated to Brahmā.’—The term ‘tala’ stands for the inner part (the palm). That inner portion of the hand which extends up to the long palm-line and faces one’s own eyes is the part ‘dedicated to Brahmā.’

That at the root of the fingers, above the horizontal palmline is ‘dedicated to Prajāpati.’

‘That on the tip of the fingers is dedicated to the Gods’—Even though the term ‘aṅguli’ forms the subordinate factor in the compound (‘aṅguli-mule’), yet it is construed with the term ‘agre,’ for the simple reason that this latter is a relative term (and hence stands in need of a correlative).

‘That below these two is dedicated to the Pitṛs.’—This also is to be construed with the terms ‘aṅguli’ and ‘aṅguṣṭha,’ though both of these form subordinate factors in the two compounds. The ‘finger’ meant here is the index-finger. Hence it is the part below the thumb and the index-finger which is ‘dedicated to the Pitṛs.’

We interpret the text in this manner on the strength of what is prescribed in other Smṛtis, and also upon that of the practices of cultured people; specially as no sense could be got out of the words as they stand. Says Śaṅkha—‘Below the thumb and behind the first palm-line is the receptacle dedicated to Brahmā; that between the thumb and the index-finger is dedicated to the Pitṛs; that below the little finger is dedicated to Prajāpati, that at the tip of the fingers is dedicated to the Gods.’—(59)

‘Aṅgulimūle’—‘at the base of the little finger’ (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘at the base of the fingers’ (Medhātithi and Nandana)

Medhātithi (p. 101,1. 8)—‘Tathā ca Śaṅkhaḥ’—Though Medhātithi appears to be quoting the very words of Śaṅkha, the actual passage from Śaṅkha reads as follows:—

kāyaṃ kaviṣṭakāmūle tīrthamūktammanīṣibhiḥ
aṅguṣṭhamūle ca tathā prājāpatyaṃ vica?ṇai |
aṅgus?yagre sthitaṃ daivaṃ piś?yaṃ tarjanimūlake |

Here ‘Kāya’ is distinguished from ‘Prājāpatya’ Vīramitrodaya also cites Medhātithi as quoting Śaṅkha’s text.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 77), which offers the following explanation—‘anguṣṭhamūla’ means the lower part of the thumb; and on the palm-side of this is the ‘Brāhma-tīrtha.’ ‘Tala’ is the palm; and that part of the palm which extends from the base of the thumb to the first long line in it constitutes the ‘Brāhma-tīrtha’; and the part which lies between the base of the fingers and the long line parallel to them is the ‘Kāya-tīrtha’;—and at the tip of the fingers lies the ‘Daiva-tīrtha.’—The term ‘agre’ is to be construed with ‘aṅguli,’ which is the predominant factor in the compound ‘aṅgulimūle.’—‘Pitryam tayoradhaḥ.’—Here also ‘tayoḥ’ stands for the two terms ‘aṅguli’ and ‘aṅguṣṭha’; and the particular ‘aṅguli’ or ‘finger’ meant here is the ‘fore-finger; so that the ‘Pitrya-tīrtha’ would be ‘below’ the thumb and the forefinger.—The words of the text as they stand, if taken literally, do not yield any sense; that is why recourse has been taken to the more or less indirect construction, as explained above.

**(Verses 58-59)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.58].

059 They call (the part) at the root of the thumb the tirtha sacred to Brahman, that at the root of the (little) finger (the tirtha) sacred to Ka (Pragapati), (that) at the tips (of the fingers, the tirtha) sacred to the gods, and that below (between the index and the thumb, the tirtha) sacred to the manes.

First of all he should sip water thrice; then he should wipe his mouth twice, and touch with water the cavities, the soul and also the head.—(60)

अन्यतमेन तीर्थेन त्रिर् अप उदकम् आचामेद् आस्येन जठरं प्रवेशयेत् । तत उदकभक्षणान्तरं द्विर् अभ्यासेन मुखम् ओष्ठद्वयं परिमृज्यात् । ओष्ठश्लिष्टानाम् उदकावयवानां सोदकेन हस्तेनापनयनं प्रमार्जनम् अत्र । कुतः पुनर् हस्तेनेति । समाचारात् तीर्थाधिकाराद् वा । तीर्थेनैवाद्भिर् इति चोत्तरत्र श्रुतम् अत्राप्य् अपकृष्यते । दृष्टर्थत्वाच् च प्रमार्जनस्य मुखशब्द एकदेशे यथोक्ते वर्तते । खानि छिद्राणि चोपस्पृशेद् अद्भिर् हस्तगृहीताभिः स्पर्शनम् एवोपस्पर्शनम् । मुखस्य च प्रकृतत्वान् मुख्यानाम् एव खानाम् एष स्पर्शनविधिः । गौतमश् चाह- “खानि चोपस्पृशेच् छीर्षण्यानि” (ग्ध् १.३६) । आत्मानम् इति हृदयं नाभिं वा निर्दिशति । उपनिषत्सु हि “अन्तर्हृदयम् आत्मानं पश्येत्” इति कथ्यते । अतो हृदयस्यायं स्पर्शः क्षेत्रज्ञस्यात्मनो विभोः । अमूर्तस्य न स्पर्शसंभवः । “नाभिम् आलभेत” (आश्श् १.१३.१) इति क्वचित् स्मर्यते, तेन नाभिं मन्यामहे । शिरः प्रसिद्धम् । स्मृतीनां चैकार्थ्यात् “आ मणिबन्धात् पाणी प्रक्षाल्य” (ग्ध् १.३६) इत्य् एवमादि लभ्यते । तथा अशब्दकरणं वाङ्नियमः पादाभ्युक्षणम् । महाभारते प्रक्षालनम् अपि पादयोर् दर्शितम् ॥ २.६० ॥

Through any one of the aforesaid ‘receptacles’ he should three times ‘sip water,’—i.e., he should let water enter his stomach through the mouth.

‘Then’—i.e., after the sipping of water,—he should ‘twice’—i.e., by repeating the act—‘wipe the mouth,’—i.e., the two lips. This ‘wiping’ consists of removing with a wet hand the drops of water attaching to the lips.

Question.—“Whence do you get the idea that this wiping is to be done with the hand?”

Answer.—We learn this from actual usage, and also deduce it from the fact of the context dealing with ‘receptacles’ (which have been described as parts of the band);—the terms ‘through the receptacle’ and ‘with vrater,’ though occurring elsewhere, being brought in here also.

Further, inasmuch as the wiping is meant only to serve a visible purpose, the term ‘mouth’ is taken to stand for a part of the mouth (i.e., the lips).

‘Cavities’—holes;—‘he should touch with water’—hold in the hand. ‘Upasparśana’ (of the text) is the same as ‘sparśana.’ Since the text has been speaking of the ‘mouth,’ the ‘cavities’ meant to be touched are those pertaining to the mouth (i.e., located in the bead). Says Gautama (1.36)—‘He should touch the cavities in the head.’

‘The Soul’—stands for the Heart and the Navel. In the Upaniṣads we read that ‘one should And the Soul in the heart.’ Hence the ‘touching of the heart’ becomes the ‘touching of the Soul,’ the all-pervading entity ensouling the body. (We have to take it in this sense, because) there can be no touching of the Soul itself, which is something incorporeal. In some law-books it is laid down that ‘one should touch the navel’; hence we have included ‘navel’ also (as indicated by the term ‘Soul’ of the text).

‘Head’—this is well known.

Since all Smṛtis arc meant to serve the same purpose, ‘the washing of hands up to the wrists’ and such other acts (as are laid down in Gauṭama 1.36, for instance) also hare to be done along with those mentioned in the text; such acts, for instance, as not making noise, keeping silent, sprinkling of water on the feet,—or even washing the feet, as laid down in the Mahābhārata.—(60)

Medhātithi (p. 101, l, 21)—‘Kvachit smaryate’—Hopkins refers in this connection to Mahābhārata 13.104.39.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 178);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 992), which adds the following notes:—‘Mukham,’ the two lips,—the whole for the part,—the ‘holes’ to be touched also are those connected with the face, mukha;—‘ātmānam,’ heart or navel,—the Upaniṣads describing the ‘ātman’ as ‘to be seen within the heart,’—hence the ‘touching’ is to be of the heart, as the ‘Soul,’ being all-pervading, cannot be touched;—the touching of the navel also is laid down in other texts—[Hence ‘ātmānam may stand for either the heart or the navel. ]

Bodhāyava-Dharmasūtra, 1.5.15-10.—‘Thrice he should sip water, reaching to the heart,—not laughing, not talking, not standing, not looking this way and that, not stooping, not bowing down, not having his śikhā untied, with throat not covered, nor with head covered, not in a hurry, not without the sacred thread, not spreading out his feet, with the end of his lower garment not tucked into the waist-band, with arms not outside the knees, without making any sound; and he should wash thrice; twice, according to some.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1.5.21.—‘Touching the holes with water, he should touch the feet, navel, head, and lastly, the left hand.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, l.38-42.—‘Seated on a clean spot, placing his right arm between his knees, wearing the sacred thread, washing his hands up to the wrist, with speech in check, he should sip water, touching the heart, thrice or four times; he should wash twice; the feet also; should touch the holes in the head; should sprinkle water on the heart also.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.5.10. 2-9.—‘Seated, he should sip water twice, reaching his heart; should wash the lips thrice—twice, say some; once he should rinse his mouth,—twice, say some; washing the left hand with the right, he should touch with water, the feet, the head, the sense-organs, the eyes, the nostrils and the ears; then he should touch water; when going to take food, he should, even though clean, sip water twice, twice wash his lips and once rinse the mouth; he should sip water alter having washed the lips to the ends.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 3.29-30.—‘With the Brahma-tīrtha, he should thrice sip water and twice wash the lips with water; should touch the holes with water; should sprinkle water on the head.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 62,6-8.—‘With the Brahma-tīrtha, he should sip water thrice; twice wash; touch with water the holes, the head and the chest.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.5-8.—‘Going to the north of the Fire, washing his hands, seated, he should sip water thrice, and wash twice; having sprinkled water over the feet, he should sprinkle it over the head; touch the organs with water; the eyes, the nostrils and the ears.’

Yājñavalkya, 1-20.—‘Having sipped water thrice and washed twice, he should touch the holes with water in its natural condition.’

060 Let him first sip water thrice; next twice wipe his mouth; and, lastly, touch with water the cavities (of the head), (the seat of) the soul and the head.

One who knows his duties, when desiring cleanliness, should always sip, through the proper receptacle, water which is neither hot nor frothy,—in solitude, with his face towards the North or the East.—(61)

उष्णशब्दः क्वाथोपलक्षणार्थः । तथा हि पट्ःयते- “अशृताभिर् अद्भिः” इति । एवं च ग्रीष्मोष्मतप्ताः स्वभावोष्णाश् च न प्रतिषिध्यन्ते । फेनग्रहणं बुद्बुदानाम् अपि प्रदर्शनार्थम् । पठितं च “हीनाभिः फेनबुद्बुदैः” (य्ध् १.२०) इति । तीर्थेन धर्मविद् इति वृत्तपूरणम् एव । शौचम् आप्तुम् इच्छुः शौचेप्सुः । शुद्धिकाम इत्य् अर्थः । नान्यथा शुद्धो भवति । सर्वदा । न प्रकरणाद् भोजन एव । किं तर्हि, न रेतोविण्मूत्रादिशुद्धिष्व्⁹¹ अपि । अपां भक्षणे कर्मत्वात् तृतीयानिर्देशः, न भक्षमाणानाम् एवायं धर्मः, अपि तु कारणभूतानाम् अपि पादाभ्युक्षणादौ । वयं तु ब्रूमो भक्षणे ऽपि करणम् एवापो न हि तासाम् आचमनं संस्कारः । एकान्ते शुचौ देशे । एकान्तो हि जनैर् अनाकीर्णः प्रायेण शुचिर् भवति ।

• प्रगुदङ्मुखः । मुखशब्दः प्रत्येकम् अभिसंबध्यते । “प्राङ्मुख उदङ्मुखो वा " एवं हि गौतमेन पठितम् (ग्ध् १.३५) । विग्रहश् चैवं कर्तव्यः प्रागुदङ्मुखम् अस्येति । नायं द्वंद्वगर्भो बहुव्रीहिः, अपि तु बहुव्रीहिर् एव । द्वंद्वगर्भतायां समाहारे समासान्तेनाकारेण भवितव्यम् । इतरेतरयोगो ऽपि नैव । न हि युगपद् उभयदिङ्मुखता संभवति । तत्र कश्चिद् आचमनभागः प्राङ्मुखेन कर्तव्यः कश्चिद् उदङ्मुखेनेत्य् आपतति, न चैकदेश आचमनम् । न च दिगर्थ उपादेयो येन परस्परापेक्षे संबध्येयाताम् । नापि दक्षिणपूर्वादिवत् प्रागुदक्शब्दो ऽपराजिताया दिशो वाचकत्वेन् प्रसिद्धो येन दिक्समासबहुव्रीहिर् ज्ञायते । तस्मान् नायं वृत्त्यन्तरगर्भो बहुव्रीहिः । अतो विकल्पः । उदाहृतं च स्मृत्यन्तरे- “प्राङ्मुख उदङ्मुखो वा शौचम् आरभेत” इति (ग्ध् १.३५) । यथा “बृहद्रथन्तरसाम षडहे” इति केषुचिद् अहःसु⁹² बृहत् केषुचिद् रथन्तरम्, न त्व् एकस्मिन्न् अहनि समस्तोभयसामत्वम् । २.६१ ॥

उक्तम् आचमनं तीर्थेनापां भक्षणम् । परिमाणं तु नोक्तम् । अतस् तद् अवधारणार्थम् आह ।

‘Hot’ hero stands for boiled; elsewhere we read that the sipping should be done ‘with unboiled water.’ So that the prohibition docs not apply to such water as is naturally hot, or has imbibed the beat of the hot atmosphere.

‘Froth’ is meant to include ‘bubbles’ also, as elsewhere we read that ‘the water should be free from froth and bubbles.’

The terms ‘through the proper receptacle’ and ‘one who knows his duties’ have been added only for the purpose of filling up the metre.

‘Desiring cleanliness’—seeking to attain cleanliness, i.e., purity. The sense is that without the sipping of water he can never be clean.

‘Always’—i.e., not only at the timo of eating, as would seem implied by the fact of the rule occurring in the section on ‘eating,’—but also at other times, when, for instance, one seeks cleanliness after passing urine or stool, etc.

Though ‘water’ is the object of the act of sipping, yet it is put in the Instrumental Case, with a view to indicate that what is prescribed is meant to be applicable not only to the water that is sipped but also to that which forms the instrument in such acts as the washing of the feet and the like. What we hold is that in the act of sipping also the water is only the ‘instrument’; specially as the sipping does not constitute the sanctification of the water (in which case alone the water could be the ‘object’).

‘In solitude’—i.e., in a clean place; a solitary place, being uncrowded by people, is generally clean.

‘With his face towards the North or the East’;—the term ‘face’ is to be construed along with each of the two terms (‘East’ and ‘North’); as Gauṭama (1.35) says that ‘the man should face either the North or the East.’ The compound should be expounded as ‘he who has his face towards the North, East’; the compound being a pure Bahuvrīhi, not a Bahuvrīhi containing another copulative compound [i.e., we cannot expound the compound as ‘North and East,’ and then compound this with the term ‘mukha,’ the sense in this case being ‘one having his face towards the North and the East’]. If wo made tho Bahuvrīhi contain a copulative compound, then if the compound ‘prāṅudak’ were taken as an aggregative copulative, it should have an additional ‘a’ at the end; nor could it be taken as a segregative copulative. Further, it is not possible for the man to face both the North and the East at one and the same time; for in that case, the rule would mean that one part of the sipping should be done with face towards the North, and another part of it with face towards the East; and this would mean that the sipping is not done at one place. Then again, the directions mentioned do not form the principal factor in the predicate of the sentence, which alone could justify their being taken reciprocally; nor does the term ‘prāṅudak’ from a well-known name of the North-East quarter, in the manner in which ‘dakṣina- pūrva’ does of the South-East quarter; hence there can be no justification for the compound being taken as a containing another compound name of a particular quarter, [i.e., we cannot take ‘prāṅudak’ as the name of the North-East quarter and then compound it with ‘mukha’]. For these reasons the. compound cannot be taken as a ‘Bahuvrīhi’ containing within itself another compound. From all this it follows that option, is meant; as is clearly laid down in another Smṛti—‘Acts of cleanliness should be begun with

face towards the North or the East’ (Gauṭama 1.35). This option is just like the option that we have in the case of the Sāman to be sung at the Ṣaḍoha sacrifice, where the injunction being in the form that ‘the Bṛhadrathantara Sāman should be sung,’ what is actually done is that on some days of the sacrifice (which lasts for six days) they sing the ‘Bṛhat’ while on other the ‘Rathantara’ Sāman; and never on any one day do they ever sing both the Sāmans.—(61)

The ‘sipping,’ as consisting of the drinking of water, has been prescribed; but the exact quantity of the water to be sipped has not yet been laid down. Hence the Text now proceeds to define the precise measure (of the water to be sipped):—

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 66), where it is explained that what the epithet ‘anuṣṇabhiḥ’ means is that the water should not be heated by fire, as is distinctly stated by Viṣṇu;—again on page 77, where it is stated to be the injunction of ācamana in general, for all the three castes;—also on page 79, where it is added that ‘ekānte’ means not crowded,—where alone the mind can be calm and collected,—as is laid down by Viṣṇu.

On the tern ‘prāgudaṅmukhaḥ,’ this work has the following note, criticising Medhātithi’s explanation:—“The term prāgudaṅmukhaḥ must mean the north-east quarter, on the strength of the declaration of Hārīta; and in the Śruti also we see the term used in the sense of the north-east—e. g. in the passage referring to the branch of the Palāśa tree—

‘Prāchīmāharati, udīchīmāharati, prāgudīchīmāharati’ and also in Kātyāyanasūtra, where it is said—‘prāgudakpravaṇam devayajanam,’ where the term ‘prāgudak’ stands for the north-east. For these reasons the assertion of Medhātithi—that ‘the term prāgudak being never found used in the sense of north-east, it should not be explained as such,’—must be disregarded. Medhātithi has explained the compound prāguduṅmukhaḥ as a Bahuvrīhi compound composed of three terms, whereby the meaning comes to be that the man must face the East or the North.”

The writer has conveniently ignored Medhātithi’s reference to Gautama 1.35, in support of his interpretation.

The second half of the verse is quoted in Śuddhi-kaumudī (p. 339);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 983), which notes that ‘anuṣṇābhiḥ’ is meant to prohibit the water heated by fire.

Bodhāyanā-Dharmasūtra, 1. 5. 14.—‘Water-sipping should never be done with the lingers, nor with such water as has hubbies or foam, is brackish or saltish, or muddy, or discoloured, or foul-smelling.’

Baudhāyana (Vīra-Āhnika, p. 71).—‘Sipping should not be done with water left over after washing the feet; or if this has to be done, it should be done after pouring out some of the water on the ground.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 5. 15. 4-7.—‘Water should not bo sipped out of rain-showers; nor out of cavities in the Earth; nor with warm water, without reason.’ [‘Reason’ such as sickness.] [Hut according to Vaśiṣṭha, if the cavity contained water enough for satisfying the cow, which is not unclean, then, it may be used.]

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 3. 36.—‘Sipping should not be done with water with bad colour, bad smell or bad taste, or that proceeding from an unclean source.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 62. 5.—‘Seated in a clean place, with arms between the knees, facing the East or the North, with happy and concentrated mind, he should sip water, which is not fire-heated, which is free from foam, which has not been brought by the Śūdra, and which is not brackish.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.20.—‘With water in its natural condition, free from bubbles and foam.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.2.22-23.—‘With water, not hot, nor with bubbles.’

Śaṅkha (Vīra-Āhnika, p. 66).—‘With water pulled out, which is free from bubbles and foam, not heated by fire, nor brackish.’

Gautama and Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 67).—‘Not with water fetched by a Śūdra or an unclean person or by one hand.’ Kūrmapurāṇa (Do.).—‘With water which is not brackish and which has not been fetched by a Śūdra or by an unclean person; nor with water brought with one hand.’

Saṃvarta (Do.).—‘Never with water offered by a Śūdra or an unclean person, or with one hand.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 68).—‘With water pulled out, purified, examined, not brackish, nor heated, nor with foam and bubbles.’

Pracetas (Do., p. 69).—‘One should twice, thrice or four times sip water, without making any sound, which is not hot, nor with foam, which has been purified by cloth and by the eve,—reaching the heart.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 70).—‘Nor with water which has not been looked into, which is hot or unclean; discoloured or foul-smelling or foamy.’

Parāśara (Do., p. 71).—‘Sipping should not be done with water fetched by a Śūdra, or with one hand, or by one who has not kept the observances, or by an unknown person.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 222).—‘It has been declared that at night, the wise men may be purified by even such water as has not been looked into; as also for sick men.’

061 He who knows the sacred law and seeks purity shall always perform the rite of sipping with water neither hot nor frothy, with the (prescribed) tirtha, in a lonely place, and turning to the east or to the north.

The Brāhmaṇa is purified by the water reaching the heart; the Kṣatriya by that reaching the throat; the Vaiśya by water that is just sipped, and the Śūdra by what is touched with the end.—(62)

हृदयं गच्छन्ति प्राप्नुवन्ति हृद्गाः । “अन्येष्व् अपि दृश्यते” (पाण् ३.२.१०१) इति गभेर् डः । “हृदयस्य हृद्” (पाण् ६.३.५०) इति योगविभागाद् धृदादेशः । पूयते पवित्रतां प्राप्नोत्य् अशुचित्वं व्यावर्तते । आप⁹³ ईषदूनचुलुकमात्रप्रमाणः, कण्ठगाभिस् ताभिः कण्ठमात्रव्यापिनीभिः भूमिपः क्षत्रियः । भूमेर् आधिपत्यं क्षत्रियस्य विहितम् । तेन प्रसिद्धेन कर्मणा क्षत्रियजातिर् लक्ष्यते । आधिपत्यविवक्षायां राजधर्मेष्व् एवावक्ष्यत् । वैश्यः प्राशिताभिर् अन्तरास्यप्रवेशिताभिः । कण्ठम् अप्राप्ता अपि शुद्धिहेतवो वैश्यस्य । शूद्रः स्पृष्टाभिर् अन्तत अन्तेनेति । आद्यादित्वात् तृतीयार्थे तसिः । अन्तशब्दो ऽयं समीपवचनो ऽस्ति । उदकान्तं गत उदकसमीपम् इति गम्यते । अस्त्य् अवयववचनः । वस्त्रान्तो वसनान्त इत्य् उभयत्रापि वर्तमानः संबन्ध्यन्तरम् अपेक्ष्यते, कस्य⁹⁴ समीपं कस्य वावयव इति । तत्रेह येन स्थानेन वर्णान्तराणाम् आचमनं विहितम्, तीर्थैर् जिह्वोष्ठेन च तदन्तेनेति प्रतीयते । समीपवचनस् तु न संभाव्यः विधीयमानस्याचमनस्य तत्साध्यत्वासंभवात् । स्पर्शे ऽपि प्राशनम् अस्ति । जिह्वौष्ठेन हि स्पृश्यमानस्य रसास्वादनम् अवश्यंभावि । तत्र वैश्यपरिमाणात् किंचिन्न्यूनतात्र विवक्षिता । जिह्वामूलं यावद् वैश्यस्य, जिह्वाग्रं शूद्रस्य । द्रवत्वाद् उदकस्यापरिहार्यो ऽवध्यतिक्रमः, अवश्यप्राप्तौ त्व् अशुद्धिः । सर्वश् चायं तीर्थविभागो दक्षिणहस्तस्योपस्पर्शने हस्तस्यौचित्याद् दक्षिणाचारतायाश् च पुरुषधर्मतया विहितत्वात् । एवमर्थम् एव चास्मिन्न् अवधाव् इदम् उच्यते ॥ २.६२ ॥

‘Reaching the heart’—that which reaches down to the regions of the heart; the word being derived from the root ‘gam’ with the ‘ḍa’ affix, according to Pāṇini, 6. 2.101; the term ‘hṛdaya’ being changed into ‘hṛd’ according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra, 6.3.50.

‘Is purified’—Reaches sanctity; that is, gets rid of impurity. The water (reaching the heart) would, in quantity, be just a little less than a handful.

‘The Kṣatriya by that reaching the throat’—i.e., by that which reaches only down to the throat. The term ‘bhūmipaḥ’ in the text stands for the Kṣatriya; as the ‘lordship of land’ is laid down for the Kṣatriya only; and hence this well-known function (of ruling the land) indicates here the Kṣatriya caste. If actual ‘lordship’ of the land were meant, then what is laid down here would have been prescribed among the ‘duties of tho king.’

‘The Vaiśya by the water that is just sipped,’—i.e., which is just taken into the mouth; even without reaching the throat, the water thus sipped serves to purify the Vaiśya.

‘The Śūdra by what is touched with the end;’—‘anṭataḥ’ stands for ‘antena’; the ‘tasil’ affix having the force of the instrumental, according to the Vārtika on Pāṇini, 5. 4. 44. The term ‘end’ (anta) means proximity; e.g., the phrase ‘udakānta’ means ‘near water’. It also means a part; e.g., in such expressions as ‘vastrānta,’ ‘vasanānta’ and the like. With both these significations the term ‘end’ (being a relative term) stands in need of a correlative; whenever it is used, one always wants to know—‘near what ’ or ‘part of what.’ Now in the present case, the water-sipping has been laid down for the other castes as to he done with certain parts of the hand and the lips and the tongue; and it is the ‘end’ of these that is meant. It cannot mean mere ‘proxi mity’; because the ‘water-sipping’ prescribed cannot he accomplished by mere proximity. Then again, the ‘touch’ (of the water with the tongue and lips) would involve sipping (which has been laid down for the Vaiśya); for one is sure to feel the taste of that which is touched with the tongue and lips. Hence the conclusion appears to he that the quantity of water sufficient for the Śūdra is just a little less in quantity than that for the Vaiśya; e.g., while for the Vaiśya the water should touch the root of the tongue, for the Śūdra it should touch only its tip.

Water being a fluid substance, its going beyond the limits prescribed would be unavoidable; hence all that is meant is that if the water sipped fails to reach the prescribed limits, it fails to purify the man.

The description of the ‘receptacles’ (parts of the hand) refers to the right hand; as it is this hand that should be used in all washings; specially as it has been laid down that men should perform (religious) acts with the right hand. It is for this reason that we reiterate this fact in the present connection.—(62)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 221);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 335), which points out that for the Śūdra, there is no ācamana, as the verse stops short at the Vaiśya; so in the place of ācamana, the Śūdra should wash his hands and feet;—this is clear from a text of the Brahmapurāṇa;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 74), where it is explained that ‘antataḥ’ means inside of the mouth; and hence what is meant is that there should be no drinking of the water, which should only touch the inner part of the mouth;—such being the opinion of Kalpataru. It is curious that Kalpataru, as quoted in Vīramitrodaya, has quoted Manu 5.13 9, where ‘antataḥ’ does not occur at all, and missed the present verse, which, as Vīramitrodaya rightly remarks, is the text that really supports the explanation provided by Kalpataru. Vīramitrodaya notes Medhātithi’s explanation with approval on p. 75.

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 46);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 985), which adds the following notes:—‘Hṛdgābhiḥ,’ reaching the regions of the heart,—‘Pūyate’ acquires purity;—‘Kaṇthayābhiḥ,’ just touching the throat only,—‘bhūmipoḥ,’ the Kṣatriya;—‘prāśitāḥhiḥ’, just taken into the mouth, and not reaching the throat,—‘antataḥ,’ the affix ‘tasi’ has the force of the Instrumental,—the term ‘anta’ meaning near requires a correlative, that to which nearness is meant,—so that the meaning is that the Śūdra is purified by water reaching that point which is in close proximity to that which the water should reach for purifying the Vaiśya;—and as the tongue is the point for the Vaiśya, for the Śūdra it must be the teeth; though the water that reaches the teeth must touch the tongue also, yet all that is meant is that the quantity for the Śūdra should be just a little less than that for the Vaiśya.

It is quoted also in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 221).

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 5. 17.—‘The Brāhmaṇa becomes pure by water reaching the heart, the Kṣatriya by its reaching the throat and the Vaiśya by water actually drunk off; the woman and the Śūdra by merely touching it.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 62. 9.—‘The three twice-born castes become pure by water reaching the heart, the throat and the palate respectively, the woman and the Śūdra by touching it once.’

Gautama Dharmasūtra, 1.37.—‘He should thrice or four times sip water reaching the heart.’

Vaśiṣṭha-Smṛti, 3.33-34.—‘The Brāhmaṇa is purified by bubble-free and foamless water reaching his heart; the Kṣatriya by it reaching the throat, the Vaiśya by water actually drunk; the woman and the Śūdra by merely touching it.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.21.—[The same words as Viṣṇu, above.]

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.2.29.—‘He should sip water reaching the heart.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 74).—‘The woman and the Śūdra are purified by the washing of the hands and lips.’

Uśanas (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 75).—‘That quantity of water is to be taken as reaching the heart in which a bean sinks; this quantity, less by its fourth part is taken as reaching the throat’, less by half, as reaching the palate; and less by three-fourths, as reaching the teeth.’

Pracetas—(See above.)

062 A Brahmana is purified by water that reaches his heart, a Kshatriya by water reaching his throat, a Vaisya by water taken into his mouth, (and) a Sudra by water touched with the extremity (of his lips).

When the right hand is held above (the sacred thread etc.), the twice-born person is described as ‘Upavītin’; when the left hand is held above, ‘Prāchīnāvītin,’ and on its hanging by the neck, ‘Nivītin.’—(63)

• कथं पुनः केवलस्योपवीतस्यैवाचमनाङ्गता यावतान्यद् अप्य् अत्र निर्दिष्टं प्राचीनावीति च । उच्यते । प्राचीनावीतं स्वशब्देनैव पित्र्ये कर्मणि विहितम्, तत्रार्थवत्तायाम् उपयातायां नाकृतार्थेनोपवीतेन विकल्पितुम् अर्हति । निवीतम् अप्य् अभिचारे ऽर्थवत् । यद्य् अप्य् अत्र निवीतस्य विनियोगो नास्ति, तथापि स्मृतीनां चैकार्थ्याद् अन्यत्र यो विनियोगस् तेनेहाप्य् अर्थवत्ता भवत्य् एव । पाणिग्रहणं बाहूपलक्षणार्थम् उद्धृतबाहुर् यतो लोक उपवीतीत्य् उच्यते । सार्वकालिकं चोपवीतं वक्ष्यामः । न च केवलपाणाव् उद्धृत उपवीती । सव्ये उद्धृते प्राचीनावीती । समासपदान् नामधेयम् । असमासस् तु वृत्तानुरोधितया । कण्ठसज्जने । कण्ठे सज्जनं सङ्गः⁹⁵ स्थापनम् । यदा वस्त्रस्य सूत्रस्य वान्यतरो ऽपि बाहुर् उद्ध्रियते तदा निवीती भवति ॥ २.६३ ॥

An objection is raised—“As a matter of fact, in treatises dealing with Dharma, the meanings of words are accepted to be exactly as they are known in ordinary usage; and the works of Manu and others should not make it their business to explain the meanings of words, in the way in which it is done by grammatical and lexicographical works.”

Ānswer.—We have already answered this before; if treatises on Dharma should be found to supply the explanation of such words as are not ordinarily known, are they to be blamed for doing so? Then again, in the present instance, there is another purpose also in view. The term ‘upavītin’ is explained in the course of the explanation of the act of ‘water-sipping,’ with a view to indicate that the method (of wearing the sacred thread, etc.) is auxiliary to that act. Though it is true that the wearing of the sacred thread,—either as part of a religious observance, or as accomplishing certain desirable results for man,—is known as to be done at all times, yet if the ‘water-sipping’ were done without it, it would remain incomplete. So that, if we did not have the present text (as indicating the necessity of wearing the sacred thread during water-sipping), there would be some deficiency in the religious act, as also some defect in the agent. If the sipping were done without the sacred thread, it would be as good as not done, and there would be the additional wrong done, in the shape of sipping the water while unclean.

Question.—“How is it that the Upavīta-method alone is regarded as auxiliary to the ‘water-sipping,’ when as a matter of fact, the present text has spoken of another method, the ‘Prāchīnāvīta,’ also?”

Our answer is as follows:—As for the ‘Prāchīnāvīta’ method, this has been directly prescribed, in so many words, as pertaining to acts of offering to the Pitṛs; so that when its use has been found in connection with these, it could not be taken as an alternative to the ‘Upavīta’ method, whose use has not yet been found. Similarly the ‘Nivīṭa’ method also has its use in connection with acts of sorcery. Though the use of the ‘Nivīṭa’ has not been laid down in the itself, yet since all Smṛtis have the same end in view, the use prescribed in other Smṛtis could be regarded as accepted in the present context also.

The term ‘hand’ stands here for the arm; it is only when the man raises his arm that he is called ‘Upavīṭi’; further, we are going to point out later on that the ‘Upavīṭa’ is the method (of wearing the thread) to be employed at all times (not during religious acts only); and no one is called ‘Upavīṭin’ by merely lifting his hand.

‘When the left hand is held above,’ he is called ‘Prāchīnāvīṭī’; it is the compounded form (‘prāchīnāvīṭī’) that constitutes the name; the text puts it iu the uncompounded form on account of the exigencies of metre.

‘On its hanging by the neck’;—‘Sajjana,’ ‘hanging’ means being worn, when the sacred thread, or the piece of cloth, is worn over the neck, and neither arm is held over it, then the man becomes ‘nivītī.’—(63)

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 39), which notes that the non-compounding (in ‘prāchīna-āvīti’ is a Vedic anomaly;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 188).

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 5.1.5-8.—‘The Sacred Thread worn at sacrifices to gods (upavīta) consists of the silk or the cotton thread folded three times three: it should reach down to the navel; the right arm being held above;—the reverse (prāchīnāvita) at offerings to Pitṛs; hanging by the neck, it is nivīta; hanging downwards it is adhovīta.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.6.18-19.—‘He who is wearing the Sacred Thread in the upavīta form is to be regarded as wearing two pieces of cloth;—while he who is wearing it in the Adhovīta form, is to be regarded as wearing only one piece of cloth.’

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra, 1.2.2-3.—‘Holding aloft the right arm, passing over the head, resting the thread on the left shoulder, hanging down the right arm-pit,—thus does he become the wearer of the Yajñopavīta; lifting the left arm, passing over the head, resting the thread on the right shoulder, hanging down the left arm-pit,—thus does he become the wearer of the Prāchīnāvīta.’

063 A twice-born man is called upavitin when his right arm is raised (and the sacrificial string or the dress, passed under it, rests on the left shoulder); (when his) left (arm) is raised (and the string, or the dress, passed under it, rests on the right shoulder, he is called) prakinavitin; and nivitin when it hangs down (straight) from the neck.

When the girdle, the skin, the staff, the sacred thread or the water-pot becomes damaged, he should throw it into the water and take up another with the proper formulas.—(64)

विनष्टानाम् अप्सु प्रासनम् अन्येषां च ग्रहणम् अत्र विधीयते । प्रासनग्रहणयोः पौर्वापर्यं यथाश्रुतम् एव । अस्माच् च पुनर् उपादानान् नैषाम् उपनयनाङ्गतैव । तदङ्गत्वे हि तत्प्रयोगापवर्गितैव स्यात् । किं तर्हि, यावद् ब्रह्मचर्यं धारणम् ।

• अथ किम् उपनयनकाल एव प्राक् कर्मनिष्पत्तेः दैवान् मानुषाद् वा प्रतिबलाद् विनष्टानां प्रतिपत्तिर् न संभवति । प्रयोगसमाप्त्यर्थं च पुनरुपादानम्, यथा कपालस्य, येनैवम् उच्यत अस्मात् पुनरुपादानाद् धारणम् अनुमीयते ।

• उच्यते । ग्रहणं तावद् दण्डस्य चोदितम्, मेखलाया बन्धनम् । तत्र सूत्रस्य⁹⁶ विन्यासस् तावद् उपनयनाङ्गत्वेनावश्यं कर्तव्यम् । कृते तस्मिन् कृतः शास्त्रार्थः । उत्तरकालं किं तैर् नष्टैर् अनष्टैर् वा । अङ्गनाशे च प्रतिपत्तिविशेषः कर्मोपकारको भवति । न च तेषां किंचन कार्यम् आम्नातं येन तत्सिद्ध्यर्थं विशिष्टे काले वाचनिकम् उपादानम् । अकृतत्वाच् च कार्यस्य तत्प्रयुक्तं पुनरुपादानम् अर्थसिद्धम् उच्यते । तस्मात् प्रतिपत्तिविधानाद् उपादानवचनाच् च धारणम् अङ्गम्, न च प्रयोगापवर्गि । यतः कमण्डलुनोपनयनोत्तरकालानुवर्तिना तुल्यवन् निर्देशात् तेषाम् अप्य् उत्तरत्रानुवृत्तिः प्रतीयते । सा च व्रताङ्गम् । अत उभयार्था मेखलादयः- प्रकरणाद् उपनयनार्थाः, निवृत्ते चोपनयने दर्शनाद् यावद् ब्रह्मचर्यभाविनः । कमण्डलुश्⁹⁷ चोदकार्थः कर्तव्यो ऽस्माद् एव प्रतिपत्तिविधानात् । अन्यथा यदा कमण्डलुस् तदेयं प्रतिपत्तिर् इति पाक्षिकत्वं स्यात् ।

• तत्र दण्डधारणं प्रतिगृह्य दण्डं भिक्षां चरेद् इति क्रमाद् भैक्ष्यचर्याङ्गत्वम् एव प्राप्तं समाचाराद् अभैक्षे ऽर्थे ऽपि भ्रमणे भवत्य् एव । न तु सर्वदैव करतलधृतदण्डस्य स्थानासनशयनभोजनादीनि । तथा च स्वाध्याये ब्रह्माञ्जलिं वक्ष्यति ।

• मन्त्रवद् इत्य् उपनयनविधिना ग्रहणम् अनुवदति । तत्र च मेखलाया मन्त्रः, न दण्डस्य ॥ २.६४ ॥

The present verse enjoins that when these things are damaged, they should be thrown into water and others should be taken up; and the sequence of the ‘throwing’ and the ‘taking up’ is to be just as it is found in the text. In as much as one has got to take up these things again, they cannot be regarded as forming part of the Initiatory Ceremony itself; if it were part of this ceremony, then all their purpose would have been fulfilled by the completion of the ceremony. The right view therefore is that these should continue to be taken up throughout the ‘student-stage.’

“But is it not possible to regard the throwing into water here laid down as the disposal of the things mentioned, if they happen, during the Initiatory Ceremony—and before its completion,—to be damaged by divine or human adverse forces? The taking up of fresh ones, would, in this case, be necessary for the completion of the ceremony; just as there is of the begging-bowl. Is it absolutely impossible for the text to be taken in this manner, that the mere fact of the re-taking being laid down should be made the basis of assuming that the things should continue to be held throughout the student-stage?”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—As for mere ‘holding,’ this has been laid down in connection with the staff only (during the Initiatory Rite); as for the girdle what is to be done during the ceremony is only its tying (round the waist); so that what should be done as part of the Initiatory Ceremony is the peculiar arrangement of strings (which constitutes the act of tying); this being done, the purpose of the Injunction will have been fulfilled; so that if, at some future time, any thing becomes damaged or not, what effect could that have upon the ceremony (which will have been long completed)? As for the particular form of ‘disposal,’ this helps the Rite only when what has become damaged forms an integral part of the Rite itself. Nor again have the scriptures laid down any purpose for which the girdle, etc., are worn, for the fulfilment of which purpose, the re-taking of them (during the ceremony) would be enjoined (in the present text); it is only when the purpose of a certain object has not been fulfilled, that we take it for granted that that object should be taken up again. For these reasons, because the text lays down (a) a particular form of Disposal, and (b) the re-taking of the things, we conclude that, even though the holding of these may form an integral part of the Initiatory Ceremony, the necessity of this holding does not end with the completion of the ceremony. Then again, the girdle, etc., are mentioned in the same category as the ‘water-pot,’ which continues to be held after the ceremony also; and this shows that the other articles also are to continue to be held, and all this ‘holding’ forms part of the observances (of the Religious Student). From all this it follows that the girdle and other things are subservient to both: by the force of ‘context,’ they form part of the Initiatory Ceremony, and since they are found to be held after the completion of that ceremony, they are to continue as long as the ‘student-stage’ lasts. That the ‘water-pot’ has to be carried (always) for the purpose of carrying water is also implied by (the binding and universal character of) the injunction of the ‘Disposal’; otherwise (if the pot were not meant to be carried always), the meaning of the injunction would be that the disposal is to be carried out only when the water-pot may be held; and this would make the Injunction partial and limited in its application.

As regards the ‘holding of the staff,’ this comes to be regarded as part of the ‘begging of food,’ on the basis of sequence enjoined in the rule ‘one should beg for food after taking up the staff’, but on the basis of actual practice, it comes to be done in connection with such ordinary talking also as is not done for the purpose of ‘food-begging.’ But it does not mean that the staff should be held always; for the boy who may be holding the stick would be unable to do such acts as standing, sitting, sleeping, eating and so forth; similarly in Verse 2.70 it is laid down that the boy, when proceeding to read the Veda, should sit with joined palms (and this would not be possible if he held the staff in his hand).

‘With the proper formulas’—this means that the retaking of the articles should be in the same manner in which they are taken up during the Initiatory Ceremony; and in that connection formulas are laid down in regard to the wearing of the Girdle, and not in regard to the holding of the staff.—(64)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 451), which says that it lays down the method of disposing of the sacred thread and other things whenever they happen to break;—also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 190).

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 934) which says that, as the use of mantras is essential, if a certain Gṛhyasūtra does not mention the mantra, it has to be borrowed from another Gṛhyasūtra;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 423), where also the verse is explained as laying down the ‘disposal’ of the tilings mentioned. The latter quotes the verse again on p. 887, where it is explained that in a case where an injunction lays down a certain act as to be done ‘with the proper mantras’—as is done in the present verse—and no particular mantra is prescribed? one has to use the mantra that may be found mentioned in a particular Gṛhyasūtra. This is what ‘mantravat’ has beeif explained to mean, in Madanapārijāta (p. 37 also.)

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra,, p. 85) as laying down the disposal of the sacred thread that has been worn out;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 39), which notes that the meaning of the term ‘mantravat’ is that they have to be worn with those same mantras that were used for wearing them at the Upanayana;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 72) as an example of the principle that where the text laying down a certain act as to be done ‘with mantras’ does not specify the particular mantras to be used, these have to be taken as laid down in other Gṛhyasūtras.

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.29.—[Reproduces the exact words of Manu.]

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 4.5-7.—‘When these articles become spoilt by urine, excreta, blood or semen, they should be thrown away; when the water-pot breaks, one should offer a hundred libations with the Vyāhrti mantras; the pieces he should throw into the water, and repeating the Sāvitrī ten times, he should take up another pot.’

Bhṛgu (Vīra-Samskāra, p. 423).—‘When the sacred thread is torn or broken, the Brāhmaṇa should bathe and then wear a new one.’

064 His girdle, the skin (which serves as his upper garment), his staff, his sacrificial thread, (and) his water-pot he must throw into water, when they have been damaged, and take others, reciting sacred formulas.

The sacrament of Keśānta is ordained for the Brāhmaṇa in his sixteenth year; for the Kṣatriya in his twenty-second year, and for the Vaiśya two years later.—(65)

केशान्तो नाम संस्करः । स गर्भ**षोडशे वर्षे ब्राह्मणस्य **कर्तव्यः । तस्य च स्वरूपपरिज्ञाने गृह्यम् एव शरणम् । द्वे वर्षे ऽधिके यस्य द्वाविंशस्य तस्मिन् द्व्यधिके द्वाविंशे । अथ वा कालमात्रम् अन्यपदार्थः । ततो द्वाविंशाद् वर्षाद् द्व्यधिके काले । वैश्यस्येति । द्विशब्दस्य च वर्षाण्य् एव संख्येयानि प्रकृतानि हि तानि ॥ २.६५ ॥

‘Keśānta—Hair-clipping. is—the name of a particular sacrament. This sacrament should be done, for the Brāhmaṇa, in his sixteenth year, from conception. For a knowledge of the exact form of this sacrament our only source is the Gṛhyasūtra.

‘Two years later’—i.e., in the year, which is two years later than the twenty-second. Or, the compound may be taken as qualifying ‘time,’ so that the meaning is—‘at the time which comes two years later than the twenty-second,’—‘for the Vaiśya.’ The numeral adjective ‘two’ must be taken as qualifying years; as the whole verse refers to years.—(65)

This verse is quoted in Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 444);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 778);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 107);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 637), which explains Dvyadhike as in the twenty-fourth year;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 353), which explains rājānyabandhuḥ as Kṣatriya and Dvyadhike as twenty-fourth.

Another name for the Keśānta sacrament mentioned in Saṃskāramayūkha is ‘Godāna,’ which has been etymologically explained as —gāvaḥ keśāḥ-dīyante chidyante yasmin.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 457), where it is said that this rite is what is called ‘godāna’;—and in Aparārka (p. 67), which adds that the numbers here mentioned are to be counted from birth and not from conception, for if the latter were meant, the word used would have been ‘garbhaṣoḍaśa’ like ‘garbhaṣṭama.’

Yājñavalkya, 1 36.—‘The keśānta is to be done in the sixteenth year.’

Āpastamba- Gṛhyasūtra, 1.17.1-2.—‘The Godāna (Hair-cutting) in the sixteenth year.’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra, 2.3.—‘When the boy is sixteen years old, comes the keśānta.’

Gobhila- Gṛhyasūtra, 3.1.—‘Now, the Godāna in the sixteenth year; the keśānta ceremony is described by the description of the Cūḍākaraṇa

065 (The ceremony called) Kesanta (clipping the hair) is ordained for a Brahmana in the sixteenth year (from conception); for a Kshatriya, in the twenty-second; and for a Vaisya, two (years) later than that.

For females, this whole series should be performed at the right time and in the proper order, for the purpose of sanctifying the body; but without the Vedic formulas—(66)

इयम् आवृद् अशेषतः स्त्रीणाम् अमन्त्रिका कार्या । जातकर्मण आरभ्य इयं संस्काराणाम् आवृत् परिपाठी । सेतिकर्तव्यताकः संस्कारकलाप इति यावत् । संस्कारार्थं शुद्ध्यर्थं शरीरस्य पुंसाम् इव⁹⁸ स्त्रीणाम् अपि प्रयोजनम् आह । यथाकालम् । यस्मिन् काले यः संस्कार उक्तस् तं कालम् अनतिक्रम्य । पदार्थानतिवृत्तौ “यथासादृश्ये” (पाण् २.१.७) अव्ययीभावः । एवं क्रमे ऽपि द्रष्टव्यम् । मन्त्रमात्ररहिताया आवृतो विहितत्वाद् अयथाकालक्रमप्राप्तिर् एव नास्तीत्य् अतो⁹⁹ निषेधो नित्यानुवादो वृत्तपूरणार्थः । एतावद् विवक्षितं स्त्रीणां चैते अमन्त्रका इति ॥ २.६६ ॥

पूर्वेणावृद्वचनेन जातकर्मादिवद् उपनयने ऽप्य् अमन्त्रके प्राप्ते¹⁰⁰_ तन्निवृत्त्यर्त्यम् आरभ्यते ।_

‘This whole series’ should be done for females, without the recitation of Vedic formulas.—‘Series’ stands for the entire body of sacraments, beginning with the ‘Birth-rites,’ along with all the acts that constitute their procedure.

‘For the purpose of sanctifying’—i.e., purifying This means that the purpose of the sacraments in the case of females that is the same as that in that of males.

‘At the proper time,’—i.e., without letting that time pass which has been prescribed for the several sacraments. The term ‘yathā’ here signifies non-transgression, and hence, not signifying ‘similarity,’ it is compounded according to Pāṇini 2.1.7.

The same explanation applies to the compound ‘yathā-kramam’ also.

In as much as the text has distinctly asserted that it is only the reciting of Vedic formulas that may be omitted, there could be no idea of the sacraments (for females) being performed at a time, or in an order, other than the prescribed ones; so that the prohibition of other times and another order should be taken as merely describing what is already known, and as added only for the purpose of filling up the metre. All that is really meant by the text is that for females the sacraments should be performed without the Vedic formulas.

The ‘series’ spoken of above would imply that like the ‘Birth-rite’ and the other ceremonies, the ‘Initiatory ceremony’ also should be performed for females; with a view to preclude this idea, the Text adds—

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 926);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 362), where āvṛt is explained as jātakarmādikriyā; and yathākramam is to taken to mean that there should ho no deviation from the exact order of sequence—such deviation necessitating expiation;—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 188);—and in Aparārka (p. 30), which explains āvṛt as ‘kriyā’, act, rite;—‘aśeṣtaḥ’ as along with all details’, and ‘yathākramam’ as meaning that the order of the sacraments should not be disturbed or else the Sarvaprāyaścitta has to be performed.’

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, at several places, on pages 194, 255, 278, 317 and 403). On p. 194, ‘āvṛt’ is explained as jātakarmādikriyā; and on the term ‘amantrikā’ it is added that what this interdicts is the use of only those mantras that pertain to the primary acts of eating butter, honey and the rest, and not the use of the subsidiary mantras; and this conclusion is in accordance with the principle enunciated in Mīmāṃsā Sutra 3.8. 34-35, where it is declared that the qualification of upāṃśutva (silence) pertains to only the primary rite of the ‘Ātharvaṇa Iṣṭis’ and not to the subsidiary ones.—On p. 255 the verse is quoted in support of the view that the rite of Niṣkramaṇa, is to be performed in the case of the female baby also.—Similarly on p. 278, it is quoted to show that the rite of ‘Annprāśana’ should be performed for the female baby.—On p. 317, it is made to justify performance of the rite of ‘Tonsure’ for girls.—On page 403, it is quoted as laying down the performance of all the sacraments—beginning from the Jātakarma and ending with the Keśānta; whereby it is concluded that the Upanayaṇa also, for girls is to be done ‘without mantras’; another view is noted, whereby the pronoun ‘this ‘iyam in Manu’s text is taken as standing only for the first five sacraments, ending with Tonsure, so that Upanayaṇa and Keśānta become excluded from the category. But this view is rejected; and in answer to the argument that “in view of the declaration in the following verse that for women Marriage constitutes Upanayaṇa, the pronoun ‘iyam’ in the present verse must exclude Upanayaṇa—it is pointed out that all that the next verse means is that in the case of a person following the opinion of another Smṛti and not performing the Upanayana for his girl,—Marriage should be regarded as constituting her Upanayana; and not that in all cases Marriage should take the place of Upanayana. The conclusion is stated thus:—There are two kinds of girls—‘Brahmavādinī’ and ‘Sodyovodhū’;—for the former there is Upanayana, in the eighth year, vedic study, and ‘return’ (completion of Vedic study) before puberty,—and marriage also before puberty; while for the Sodyovodhū, there is Upanayana at the time of marriage, followed by immediate ‘completion of study,’ which is followed immediately by Marriage. But from the assertion in certain Smṛtis that there used to be Upanayana for women in a ‘previous cycle,’ it seems that in the present cycle, it is not to be performed. (Bee note on the next verse).

The above note regarding the two kinds of women is based on a passage in Hārīta Smṛti (quoted in Madanapārijātā, p. 37), which adds that all this refers to another cycle. The exact words of Hārīta mean as follows:—“There are two kinds of women—Brahmavādinī and Sadyovadhū; for the former, there are Upanayana, fire-laying, vedic study in the house itself and also alms-begging; while for the latter, when the time of marriage arrives, Upanayana should be performed somehow and then marriage.”

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 400);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 00) which explains ‘āvṛt’ as meaning the Jātakarma and other rites, and adds that this implies that none of the rites is to be omitted for the women.

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 27.13.—‘The same rites for women are done without mantras.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.13.—‘These rites for women are to be performed silently, but Marriage is to be with manteras.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 15 (16.7)—1.2.—‘For the girl, the Āvṛta only’ [‘āvṛta’ standing for the Jātakarma and other rites],

Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra (Vīramitrodaya-Samskāra, p. 191).—‘For women, these rites are to be performed silently, but the Homa is to be done with mantras.’

Śaunaka (Do., p. 278).—‘All this rite is to be performed for the girl, without mantras.’

Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Do., p. 278).—‘The rites beginning with the Jātakarma and ending with Tonsure are to be done for women, without mantras; but even in Tonsure, the Homa is to be done with mantras.’

066 This whole series (of ceremonies) must be performed for females (also), in order to sanctify the body, at the proper time and in the proper order, but without (the recitation of) sacred texts.

For females the Rites of marriage have been ordained to be their ‘Vedic Sacrament,’ the serving of the husbands their ‘residence with the Teacher,’ and the household-duties their ‘tending of fire.’—(67)

वैवाहिको विधिः स्त्रीणां
संस्कारो वैदिकः स्मृतः ।
पतिसेवा गुरौ वासो
गृहार्थो ऽग्नि-परिक्रिया ॥ २.६७ ॥+++(5)+++

The ceremony called ‘Upanaya,’ ‘Initiation,’ has been called ‘Vedic,’ because it is gone through for the purpose of studying the Veda. This ceremony, in the case of females, consists of the ‘Rites of marriage,’—i.e., those rites that are accomplished by means of marriage. Thus, since ‘marriage’ has been prescribed for them in place of the ‘Initiation,’ the former has been described here as becoming the latter; and this can preclude the necessity of ‘Initiation’ only if the purposes of this latter were taken as served by the ‘marriage.’

Objection.—“Well, the Initiation may be excluded from women, but the study of the Veda and the keeping of the observances have still got to be performed.”

With a view to preclude these two also, the Text adds—

‘The serving of husband is their residence with the Teacher.’ When the woman serves—attends upon and reveres her husband, she does what is meant to bo accomplished by ‘Residence with the Teacher.’ The study of the Veda could be done by the woman only if she resided with the Teacher; and as there is no ‘Residence with the Teacher’ in her case, how can there be any studying of the Veda? ‘Household duties’;—all that she does in the course of her household work,—e.g., cooking, getting together of articles for household use, general supervision, and so forth, which are going to be described in discourse IX, ‘the husband should employ her in saving wealth &c., &c.’ (9.11). These household duties are for the woman what the ‘bringing of fuel’ in the morning and evening is for the Religious Student (male). The term ‘tending of fire’ stands for all the observances and vows that the student keeps.

By reason of the ‘Marriage’ having taken the place of the ‘Initiatory Ceremony’ (for women), it follows that, just as in the case of men, all the ordinances of Śruti and Smṛti and custom become binding upon him after the Initiatory Ceremony, before which they are free to do what they like, and are unfit for any religious duties,—so for women, there is freedom of action before Marriage, after which they become subject to the ordinances of Śrutis and Smṛtis.

Or, we may interpret the text as follows:—Marriage constitutes the Vedic Sacrament—i.e., TJpanayana—for females; even though marriage is not really the Upanayana, yet it is spoken of as such attributively. The question arising as to whence lies the similarity by virtue of which Marriage is spoken of as Upanayana, the text adds—‘the serving of the husband &c., &c.’—(67)

The next verse sums up the contents of the section—

‘Vaivāhikovidhiḥ’—‘Sacrament performed with Vedic texts’ (Nandana and Rāghavānanda);—‘Sacrament for the purpose of learning the Veda’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse has been quotçd in Gadādharapaddhati (Kālasāra, p. 220) to the effect that for women Marriage itself is Upanayana;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 61), which notes that for women, ‘attending’ on husband takes the place of ‘service of the teacher,’ and ‘household duties’ take the place of ‘tending the fire,’ and that for girls also, before marriage, there are no restrictions regarding food and other tilings;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, pp. 403-4), where it is discussed along with the preceding verse (see note on 66). This verse has been taken as excluding women from Upanayana, entirely. But the author points out that this is not right; and he sets forth his well-considered opinion at the end (see note on 66); and the present verse he takes only as laying down a substitute for the Upanayana in the case of those women who are not Brahmavādinīs.

Vīramitrodaya proceeds to explain the verse to mean that ‘vaidikaḥ saṃskāraḥ’—‘the sacrament which is gone through for the purpose of studying the Veda,’—i. e., Upanayana—consists, in the case of women, in the ‘rites of marriage’; i. e., consecration brought about by the marriage-rites, as has been “declared’ by the ancients. It points out that such is the meaning of the verse with the words ‘Saṃskāro vaidikaḥ smṛtaḥ’ as read by Medhātithi; but Mitākṣarā and other works adopt the reading ‘aupanāyanikaḥ smṛtaḥ’ instead of ‘saṃskāro vaidikaḥ smṛtaḥ’, which means that marriage rites serve the purpose of Upanayana rite; so that marriage would be for women what Upanayana is for men.

This verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 37), which also adopts the reading ‘aupanāyanikaḥ smṛtaḥ.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 22.32.—‘For women Marriage is the sacrament.’

Vìsmt-Smṛti, 27-15.—‘The Marriage of women is with mantras.’

Yājñavalkya, 1.13.—‘For women, Marriage is with mantras.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 402).—‘In former times, for girls also there was Upanayana, also the teaching of the Veda and the pronouncing of the Sāvitrī. But she should be taught by her father, uncle or brother, none else. For the girl, alms-begging is to be done in her own home; and she should avoid the skin, the rags and also matted locks.’

067 The nuptial ceremony is stated to be the Vedic sacrament for women (and to be equal to the initiation), serving the husband (equivalent to) the residence in (the house of the) teacher, and the household duties (the same) as the (daily) worship of the sacred fire.