०५ अध्ययनविधिः

Thus has been described the Initiatory Ceremony of twice-born men,—that which sanctifies them and marks their (real) birth. Learn now the duties to which they should apply themselves.—(68)

एतावद् उपनयनप्रकरणम् । अत्र यद् उक्तं तत् सर्वम् उपनयनार्थम् । ननु केशान्तो ऽप्य् एवं प्राप्नोति । न, अनिर्वृत्ते उपनयने स्वकाले तस्य विधानात् । प्रकरणे ऽपि पठितस्य वाक्याद् अन्यार्थता भवति । तथा च केशान्तः समावृत्तस्यापि कैश्चिद् इष्यते ।

• उपनयने भव औपनायनिकः । उत्तरपदस्य दीर्घत्वम् पूर्ववत् । उत्पत्तिः, मातापित्रोः¹ सकाशाज् जन्म । तां व्यनक्ति प्रकाशयति सगुणतां करोतीत्य् उत्पत्तिव्यञ्जकः । जातो ऽप्य् अजातसमो ऽनुपनीतो ऽधिकाराभावात् । अतो ऽयं विधिर् उत्पत्तिव्यञ्जकः । पुण्य इत्य् उक्तार्थः² । उपनीतस्य येन कर्मणा योगः संबन्धो ऽधिकारः, यत् तेनोपनीतेन कर्तव्यम्, तद् इदानीं वक्षयाणं निबोधत ॥ २.६८ ॥

So far we had the section dealing with the Initiatory Ceremony. All that has been said here pertains to that ceremony.

“Well, if so, then the Keśānta (spoken of in 65) would also pertain to the Initiation.”

Not so, as that sacrament has been laid down as to be performed at its own time, which comes long after the

Initiatory Ceremony has been finished. So that, even though it is mentioned in the same context, it becomes connected with other rites by virtue of the force of syntactical connection. Thus it is that some people regard the Keśānta as to be done after the Final Bath (to say nothing of the Initiation).

The term ‘aupanāyanika’ means pertaining to the Upa nayana, the initial vowel being prolonged, as in other cases explained before.

‘Birth’—being born from their parents; this is what is ‘marked’—manifested, perfected—by the said ceremony; even though born, the boy, before Initiation, is as good as not born; as till then he is not entitled to any religious acts. Hence the ceremony is what ‘marks’ his birth.

‘Sanctifies’—this has been already explained.

The duties with which the initiated boy becomes connected—to which he becomes entitled,—those that should be performed by the initiated bov—all these are going to be expounded;—these ‘now learn’—(68)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.26.9-17.—‘Those who are not Śūdras, whose acts are not defective, for them, Upanayana, Vedic study, Fire-laying are all effective;—the Upanayana is a Vedic sacrament for purposes of study: it is the best birth.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.10.—‘The Upanayana is the second birth for the Brāhmaṇa.’

068 Thus has been described the rule for the initiation of the twice-born, which indicates a (new) birth, and sanctifies; learn (now) to what duties they must afterwards apply themselves.

Having initiated the pupil, the Teacher should, first of all, teach him cleanliness, right behaviour, firetending and also the twilight-devotions.—(69)

शिक्षयेद् व्युत्पादयेच् छौचम् आदितः । आदित इति वचनेनाचारादिभ्यः प्राग् उपदेशः शौचस्य नेष्यते³ । किं तर्हि, अनियतक्रमकाः परस्परम् एते । केवलम् उपनयनानन्तरं व्रतादेशनं वक्ष्यति । आदिष्टवेदव्रतस्य च वेदाध्ययनम् । अतो ऽग्नीन्धनसंध्योपासनयोः समन्त्रकत्वाद् अकृते व्रतादेशे मन्त्रोच्चारणम् अप्राप्तं विधीयते । शौचं चानियतकालम्, तद् अवश्यं⁴ तदहर् एवोपदेष्टव्यम् । एवम् आचारो ऽपि । अत इदम् आदित इति वचनम् आदरार्थं न प्रथमोपदेश्यतां शौचस्य विधत्ते । शौचम् “एका लिङ्गे” इत्याद्याचमनान्तम् (म्ध् ५.१३६–१४५) । आचारो गुर्वादीनां प्रत्युत्थानासनदानाभिवादनादिः⁵ । अग्निकार्यम् अग्न्याधानकार्यं समित्समिन्धनम् । संध्यायाम् आदित्यस्योपासनं तत्स्वरूपभावनं संध्याया उपासनम् । एवं वा “पूर्वां संध्याम्” (य्ध् १.१०१) इत्यादि । एष व्रतधर्मः ॥ २.६९ ॥

अध्ययनधर्मान् इदानीम् आह ।

‘Should teach’—should make him learn.

‘First of all’;—this does not mean that Cleanliness should be taught before Right Behaviour and the rest; in fact, there is no order of sequence intended among those mentioned here; all that the text is going to lay down is that after the Initiation there should he the teaching of the observances; and after the pupil has been instructed regarding the observances, he should proceed with the study of the Veda. Hence if the text meant that the boy should be taught Fire-kindling and the Twilight-Devotions before being taught the observances, it would be laying down for him the reciting of mantras not prescribed anywhere else,—because each of the two acts mentioned is performed with mantras. As for ‘cleanliness,’ there can be no fixed time for it; and it must be taught on the very day on which the boy has been initiated. So also ‘Right Behaviour.’ For these reasons it is clear that the phrase ‘first of all’ is meant to denote importance, and it does not mean that it is to be taught before everything else.

‘Cleanliness’—stands for all those acts that begin with the washing of the private parts, once, &c., &c. (5. 136) and ending with the sipping of water.

‘Right Behaviour’—rising to receive the Teacher and other superiors, offering them seat and saluting them.

‘Fire-tending’—the kindling of fire, and supplying of fuel.

The devotion offered at twiligh, to the Sun, consists in meditating upon the form of the Sun. This is what is meant by the ‘Twilight-Devotions.’ Or, it may refer to what is going to be prescribed below, in verse 101.

This is what constitutes the ‘Duty relating to Observances.’—(69)

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 491).

Yājñavalkya, 1.15.—‘The Teacher, having initiated the pupil, should teach him the Mahāvyāhṛtis and the Veda, and then instruct him regarding cleanliness and practices.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra, 22.1.—‘Having tied the girdle-zone and handed over the staff, he should instruct him regarding the duties of studentship, addressing him thus;—“Thou art a religious student, sip water, do your duty, sleep not during the day, under the guidance of your teacher study the Veda.”

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.12; 3.5.—‘He is a Teacher, because he expounds the Veda;—the student should remain under the Teacher.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.1.9, 12, 14.—‘Upanayana is the Vedic sacrament, for one who is seeking after knowledge; for that purpose one should seek an initiator who would belong to a noble family and be endowed with learning and self-control,—and under him one should remain till the completion of his study;—he is called Ācarya because be contributes to the accumulation (ācinoti) of Dharma.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 30).—‘For the student, Vedic study, Fire-feeding, Bathing, Living on alms, Attending on the Teacher till death, and in his absence, on his son or on a fellow-student.’

069 Having performed the (rite of) initiation, the teacher must first instruct the (pupil) in (the rules of) personal purification, of conduct, of the fire-worship, and of the twilight devotions.

When about to study, he shall be taught with his face to the north, when he has sipped water according to law, has formed the Brahmāñjali (with his hands), wears light clothing and has the organs under full control.—(70)

प्रत्यासन्ने भविष्यति ऌडयं द्रष्टव्यः । अध्ययने प्रवर्तमानः, अध्ययनम् आरभमाणः, अध्येतुम् इच्छन्न् इति यावत् । उदङ्मुखो ऽध्याप्यः । गौतमीये तु प्राङ्मुखो वा शिष्यः प्रत्यङ्मुख आचार्यः इति (ग्ध् १.५४) । आचान्तो यथाशास्त्रम् इति । प्रागुक्तम् आचमनविधिं स्मारयति । ब्रह्माञ्जलिः कृतो येनेति । आहिताग्न्यादेर् आकृतिगणत्वान् निष्ठान्तस्य परनिपातः । “ब्रह्माञ्जलिकृद्” इति वा पाठः । लघुवासा धौतवासाः । प्रक्षालनेन लघुनी वाससी भवतः । अतो लघुत्वेन वाससः शुद्धिर् लक्ष्यते । अथ वायं रोमादिस्थूलवसनः चित्तव्याक्षेपे ताड्यमानो न प्रहारं वेदयेत् ततश् च न युक्तः पठेत् । अपनीयमाने तु वाससि गुरोः खेदः स्यात् । निरावरणे च काये रज्ज्वादिना ताड्यमानो महतीं बालो वेदनाम् अनुभवेत् । अतो दृष्टार्थं लघुवासस्त्वम् । जितानि नियमितानीन्द्रियाण्य् उभयान्य् अपि येन स जितेन्द्रियः । न इतस् ततो वीक्षेत, यत् किंचिन् न शृणुयात्, अध्ययने ऽवहितो भवेत्, इत्य् उक्तं भवति ॥ २.७० ॥

The Future ending (in ‘adhyīṣyamāṇaḥ’) denotes the immediate future; and means ‘when engaging in study,’ ‘when beginning to study,’ ‘when desiring to proceed with his study.’

‘He shall be taught, with hist face to the north.’—Gautama (1.65) has laid down that ‘the pupil should face the east, while the Teacher faces the west.’

‘When he has sipped water according to law’—refers to the rules prescribed above regarding the sipping of water.

The compound ‘brahmāñjalikṛtaḥ’ is to be expounded as ‘he by whom Brahmāñjali has been formed.’ the past participal adjective (‘kṛtaḥ’)being placed at the end, according to Pāṇini 2.2.37;—the present compound being analogous to such compounds as ‘āhitāgni’ and the like. Or, we may read ‘brahmāñjalikṛt.’

‘Wears light clothing’;—i.e., with clothes thoroughly washed; a thorough washing always makes the cloth ‘light’; hence ‘lightness’ indicates cleanliness. Or, ‘light clothing’ may be taken in its literal sense, the lightness of the clothing being meant to serve a visible purpose: if the boy were

Heavily clad in thick woolen clothes, he would not feel the strokes of the rope with which he would be struck when found to be inattentive, and not feeling the stroke, he would not study in the proper manner; and if the teacher, on this account, found it necessary to remove the cloth from the back (each time that the rope would be laid on the back), this would tire the teacher himself; and further, if the boy were struck with the rope on the naked body, he, would feel great pain.

‘One who has his organs under full control’;—i.e., one who has fully subdued all bis organs, both external and internal. The sense is that he should not turn his eyes this way and that, should not listen to anything and everything that may be talked of, he should devote all his attention to his own study.—(70)

‘Laghuvāsāḥ’—Lightly cothed,—clothed with washed, and hence light, dress’ (Medhātithi);—‘with clean clothes (Kullūka);—‘clothed in dress which is not gorgeous, i. e. which is less valuable than the Teacher’s’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta, (p. 521); in Madanapārijāta (p. 99);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 523), which having adopted the reading prā?listu kṛtāpośo for ???likṛto’dhvāpyo explains that the presence of the two words ‘āchāntaḥ’ and ‘kṛtāpośo’—both of which denote ācamana—makes it clear that the ācamana is to be done twice.

Burnell refers to Ch. XV of Prātiśākhya of the Ṛgveda.

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 136), which notes that this ‘ācamana’ forms part of the act of Reading;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 50) which has the same note;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 315);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 47a).

Kāmandaka (2. 22-23).—‘The duties of the Religious Student are—to live in the house of his preceptor, to tend the sacred fires, to study the Veda and its auxiliaries, to observe vows, to perform ablutions three times, to beg alms, and live with the teacher all his life In the absence of the preceptor, he may live with the preceptor’s son, or with one of his fellow-students;—or if he likes, he may adopt another mode of life.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1. 52, 54, 60.—‘Touching the organs with Kuśa-grass;—permitted by the teacher, he should sit to the right of the teacher, facing the East or the North; touching the teacher’s left foot, with his hand, be should address the request to the teacher, saving “Please sir, teach.”

Śaṅkha-Smṛti, 3. 5.—‘Being permitted by the teacher, one should begin reading, adopting the Brahmāñjali attitude, respectfully looking on the teacher’s face.’

Laghu-Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 524).—‘He who reads a verse, or a half or a quarter of it, without the teacher’s permission, is a stealer of Veda, and falls into hell.’

070 But (a student) who is about to begin the Study (of the Veda), shall receive instruction, after he has sipped water in accordance with the Institutes (of the sacred law), has made the Brahmangali, (has put on) a clean dress, and has brought his organs under due control.

At the beginning and at the end op the (study of) the Veda, the feet of the Teacher should always be clasped; and the veda should me studied with joined palms; this is what has been called the ‘Brahmāñjali.’—(71)

ब्रह्मशब्दो ऽयम् अनेकार्थो ऽप्य् अध्ययनाधिकाराद् अत्र वेदवचनः प्रतीयते । तस्य्आरम्भे । निमित्तसप्तम्य् एषा । अध्ययनाधिकाराद् एव च तद्विषयाध्ययनक्रिया, तस्यायम् आरम्भः, प्रथमावृत्तिः पुरुषस्य । तत्रेदं पादग्रहणम् । वेदस्य तु यान्य् आद्यक्षराणि “अग्निम् ईऌए” (र्व् १.१.१), “इषे त्वा” (त्स् १.१.१.१), “अग्न आयाहि” (स्व् १.१) इति, न सो ऽत्रारम्भ उच्यते । न हि तस्य निमित्तभावः संभावितः, नित्यत्वात् । कादाचित्कं हि निमित्तं भवति । तेनैतद् उक्तं भवति- वेदाध्ययनम् आरिप्समानो गुरोः पादसंग्रहणं कुर्यात्, कृत्वा ततः स्वाध्यायाक्षरान्य् उच्चारयेत्, न पुनः प्रवृत्ताध्ययनक्रियः पादौ गृह्णीयात् ।

• ननु चाद्यक्रियाक्षण आरम्भः, स च निमित्तम् । विद्यमानस्य च निमित्तत्वं युक्तं जीवनस्येव । अत्र गेहदाहाद्यतीतम् अपि निमित्तं तत्र तथैव श्रवणम् । तस्मात् सहप्रयोग एवाध्ययनपादोपसंग्रहणयोर् युक्तः ।

• उच्यते । अध्यापनाध्यवसाय आरम्भ उच्यते, नाद्यः क्रियाक्षणः । यदैव गुरुर् अधीष्येत्य् आह तदैवाध्यवस्यति मानवकः । अतस् तदनन्तरं पादोपग्रहः । उपकारप्रवृत्तस्य गुरोश् चित्तप्रसादनम् एतत् । यथा लोके कश्चिद् उपकारप्रवृत्तं सभाजयति वाचा “ननु त्वया वयम् अस्मात् पापान् मोचिताः” इति । अनक्षरा चेयम् अध्येषणा “उपसन्नो ऽस्म्य् अध्ययनाय⁶” इति । न हि गुरुर् उपरोध्यो ऽध्यापयेति । केवलम् उपसदनम् अस्य कर्तव्यं संबोधार्थम् अवसरो ऽध्ययनस्येति । अतः कृतोपसदनस्य वेदाक्षरोच्चरणम् । अपि च संहत्य हस्ताव् अधेतव्यम् इत्य् उच्यते । तत्राधीयानः पादोपसंग्रहणविधिम् अतिक्रमेत ।

• अवसानं समाप्तिर् अध्ययनाद् उपरमः । यद्य् अपि ब्रह्मशब्द आरम्भे गुणभूतस् तथाप्य् अवसानस्य सापेक्षत्वात् संनिहितत्वाद् ब्रह्मपदेनैव संबन्धः प्रतीयते, अन्यस्याश्रुतत्वात् । सदाग्रहणम् अन्वहं भाविप्रयोगारम्भावसानयोर् एष विधिर् यथा स्याद् इतरथा य एव व्रतादेशानन्तरो मुख्यप्रारम्भः तत्रैव स्यात् । अथान्वारम्भणीया दर्शपूर्णमासारम्भे चोदिता य एवाधानानन्तरभावी दर्शपूर्णमासप्रयोगारम्भः तत्रैव भवति, न मासिकप्रयोगारम्भे । ⁷प्रातर् आरभ्य यावद् आह्निकं न निवृत्तं प्रपाठकद्वयमात्रपरिमाणम्, तावद् एकैव साध्ययनक्रियेति । अन्तरा कथंचिद् विच्छेदे ऽपि पुनः प्रवृत्तौ नारम्भशब्दवाच्यतास्तीति न पुनः पादोपसदनं क्रियते । स्मृत्यन्तरे च पठ्यते- “पादोपग्रहणं गुरोः प्रातर् अन्वहम्” इति ।

• संहत्य संलग्नौ संश्लिष्टौ परस्परं कृत्वा अध्येयम् । कच्छप⁸ इति यः संनिवेशो हस्तयोः प्रसिद्धस् तथा कर्तव्यः । स हि ब्रह्माञ्जलिः । पदार्थकथनम् एतत् ॥ २.७१ ॥

Though the term ‘brahma’ has many meanings, yet, in view of the fact of the present context bearing on ‘study,’ it is taken here as standing for the Veda.

‘At the beginning of the Veda’;—the Locative ending denotes occasion; and since the context bears upon ‘study,’ the beginning meant is that of the action of study; and the ‘beginning’ stands for the very first recitation by the person concerned. And it is at this first recitation that the Teacher’s feet are to be clasped. The term ‘beginning’ here cannot stand for the first letters of the Vedas—‘agnimīle’ (Ṛgveda), ‘ikhe tvorje’ (Yajurveda), ‘agna āyāhi’ (Sāmaveda); because these opening words could never form the occasion (for the clasping of the feet); for the simple reason that (being parts of the eternal Veda) they are ever present; while it is only what is itself occasional (occurring only at certain times) that can be the occasion for anything. Hence what is meant is that—‘when one is going to begin the study of the Veda, he should clasp the Teacher’s feet, and having done that he should recite the words of the Veda and it does not mean that he should clasp the Teacher’s feet every time that he may study the Veda.

“The first moment of the act is what is called its ‘beginning’; and it is this beginning that is spoken of as the occasion. Now it is only what is existent that can form the occasion for anything; e.g., when living existence is regarded as the occasion for the performance of Agnihotra, it is the existence that is present. It is true that in some cases, the burning of the house and such other past events also are spoken of as the occasion for certain acts; but in these cases we accept them as such because that is what is actually prescribed. In the present instance however, the ‘beginning of study’ and ‘clasping of the feet’ should be regarded as simultaneous.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—What is called ‘beginning’ here is the making up of one’s mind to study, and not the first moment of the act. The Boy makes up his mind to study as soon as the Teacher addresses to him the words ‘now read’; so that it is after this that the feet are to be clasped. This is intended to be the propitiation of the Teacher who is going to bestow a favour. Just as in the ordinary world, when a person is going to bestow a favour upon another, the latte? welcomes him with the words—‘it is through you that I have been saved from this sin.’

This clasping of the feet is meant to embody the speechless request—‘we are ready to proceed with our study’; for the Teacher is never to be directed with the words ‘now teach us.’ All that is to be done is that the Boy should approach him (and clasp his feet), with a view to remind him that it is time for study, and it is only after this approaching has been done, that the words of the Veda should begin to he recited.

Further, in view of the rule that ‘one should study the Veda with joined palms,’ if the boy were to study (with joined palms), he would he transgressing the rule regarding the damping of feet (if the study and the were meant to he simultaneous) [for one who would have his hands joined could not clasp the feet].

‘find’—Ceasing, desisting from study.

Though the term ‘brahma’ is the subordinate factor in the compound (‘brahmārambhe’) yet, in as much as the term ‘end’ is a relative term, it is taken as correlated to the term ‘brahma’; specially because there is no other word in the text with which it could be connected.

‘Always’—implies that this rule regarding the clasping of feet should he observed at the beginning and end of all future study, every day. If this word were not present, the rule would be taken as applying to only that ‘beginning of study’ which comes immediately after the Initiatory Ceremony; on the analogy of the Ārambhaṇīyā Iṣṭi, which is performed only at the beginning of the first sacrifice performed by the Agnihotrin, after he has done the ‘Fire-kindling,’ and not at that of each succeeding pūrnamāsa, which is performed every month.

From morning till such time as the daily routine of reciting two Chapters has not been finished, the whole is regarded as a single act of ‘study’; so that if at intervals, there is some obstruction, the resuming of study on the same day is not regarded as ‘beginning’; and at each resumption, the feet are not clasped. In another Smṛti we read—‘The clasping of the Teacher’s feet should be done every day in the morning.’ Gautama, 2.53).

‘Having joined’—making them touch one another.

‘Should be studied’;—what is meant is that the hands should he placed in that posture which resembles the tortoise.

‘This is Brahmāñjali’;—this explains the meaning of the term ‘brahmāñjali’—(71)

The first half of this verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (.Saṃskāra, p. 532) where Sadā is explained as everyday at the time of study, and ‘pāda-grahaṇam’ as saluting-—and the second half is quoted on p. 524, as containing the definition of the ‘Brahmāñjali’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 136).

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.3.10.—‘The teacher’s fee? should be clasped at both times,—at the time when one is going to read and also when he has read.’

Viṣṇu-Smrti, 30, 32.—‘At the beginning and at the end of the reading of Veda, the clasping of the teacher’s feet should be done.’

Yājñavalkya. 1. 26.—‘Then declaring himself—here I am—he should approach the teacher for purposes of study.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1. 52, 59.—‘Clasping the left feet with his hand, he should address the teacher “Please sir teach me”; and he should clasp his feet at the beginning and at the end of the expounding of the Veda.’

Aṅgiras (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, pp. 523-524).—‘At the approach of the Vedic lecture, and also at its close, the teacher’s feet should be clasped, as also when one returns from a journey.’ Āśvalāyana-Smṛti (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 9. 524).—‘The left hand with palm upwards, and the right with the palm downwards, the backs of the hands being firmly attached, the thumbs being firmly steady,—this attitude of the hands is called Brahmāñjali, because of its having been adopted first of all by Brahmā. This has to be adopted at the beginning of Vedic study, also at its completion, during the Brahmayajña, and also during the time that the Sāvitrī is being taught.’

Saṃvarta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 9. 524).—‘Then he should road the Veda, looking at the teacher’s face, keeping the hands in control, placed over the knees.’

071 At the beginning and at the end of (a lesson in the) Veda he must always clasp both the feet of his teacher, (and) he must study, joining his hands; that is called the Brahmangali (joining the palms for the sake of the Veda).

The clasping op the teacher’s feet should be done with crossed hands: the left should be touched with the left and the right with the right.—(72)

यद् उपसंग्रहणं पूर्वश्लोके गुरोर् उक्तं तद् व्यत्यस्तपाणिना कार्यम् । कीदृशः पुनः पाण्योर् व्यत्यासः कर्तव्य इत्य् अत आह । सव्येन हस्तेन सव्यः पादः स्प्रष्टव्यः स्पर्शः कर्तव्यः, न तु चिरं निपीड्यासितव्यम् । एष च व्यत्यासो युगपद् इतरेतरदिक्संचारेण हस्तयोर् भवति । अग्रतः स्थितेन संमुखेन गुरोर् उपसंग्रहणं कर्तव्यम् । तत्र वामो दक्षिणमार्गं नीयते, दक्षिणो वामम् इत्य् एवं सव्येन सव्यः स्पृष्टो भवति, दक्षिणेन च दक्षिण इत्य् एष पाणिव्यत्यासः ।

• अन्ये तु “विन्यस्तपाणिना” इति पठन्ति । स्पर्शाद् एव च विन्यासे सिद्धे नाग्नितप्तायःपिण्डस्पर्शनवद् दाहभयाद् अङ्गुल्यग्रमात्रेण स्पर्शनं न⁹ कर्तव्यम्, अपि तु हस्तौ विन्यसितव्यौ निधातव्यौ । पीडनं तु पीडाकरं निषिद्धम् इति वर्णयन्ति ॥ २.७२ ॥

The ‘clasping of the Teacher’s feet’ mentioned in the preceding verse ‘should be done with crossed hands.’

In answer to the question as to what sort of the ‘crossing’ of hands should be done, the Author adds—‘the left’ foot ‘should be touched with the left’ hand; it is mere touching that should be done, the Teacher should not be troubled by the foot being held for a long time. This ‘crossing’ is obtained by the two hands being simultaneously moved towards one another. That is, the feet having to be clasped by the pupil standing in front of the Teacher; the left hand is moved towards the right and the right towards the left; it is thus that the left foot becomes touched by the left hand and the right foot by the right hand. This is the ‘crossing of the hands.’

Others read the text as ‘vinyastapāṇinā,’ ‘with well-placed hands.’ The ‘placing’ being implied by the touching, what the addition of the epithet would imply is that the feet should not be touched merely with the finger tips,—in the way in which a red-hot piece of iron is touched, for fear of burning,—but the hands should be ‘well-plaed,’ actually held upon the feet. Pressing of the feet would cause pain to the Teacher, and is as such prohibited. Such is the explanation provided of this version of the text.—(72)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 455), where it is explained that the ‘left’ and ‘right’ of the second half stand for the left and right feet; so that the meaning is that the left foot of the teacher should be touched by the left hand and the right one by the right hand; and it quotes Baudhāyann laying down that the pupil should pass his hands from the knee downwards to the foot.

A similar explanation is given also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 300).

The verse is quoted also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 52.1);—in Aparārka (p. 55), as laying down the ‘feet clasping’ of the teacher;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 40), which says that ‘spraṣṭavyaḥ’ goes with ‘gurucaraṇaḥ’ understood;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 103), which explains the meaning to be that the left and right feet of the teacher are to be touched with the left and right hands respectively.

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1. 58.—‘The clasping of the teacher’s feet.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 6. 1.—‘Every day on meeting, the feet of the teacher should be clasped.’

Gautama-Dharmasūtra (Aparārka, p. 55).—‘Also daily in the morning, as well as at the beginning and end of Vedic lectures.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.2.5.21-22.—‘With the right hand clasping the right foot, he should touch it both up and down, along with the ankle;—according to others, the two feet should he clasped with the two hands.’

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 55).—‘At sunrise, he shall meet the teacher and clasp his feet.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 1. 2. 26.—‘Clasping the right foot with the right, and the left with the left hand, one obtains long life and goes to heaven.’

Paithīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 455).—‘With the palms of the two hands turned upwards, he should clasp the two feet of the teacher, the right with the right and the left with the left.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. V56).—‘The clasping of the teacher’s feet should be done.’

Baudhāyana (Parāśaramādhava, p. 300).—‘Touching his ears, concentrating his mind, he shall touch the teacher below his knees down to his feet, this is feet-clasping.’

Atri (Aparārka, p. 55).—‘Ordinarily one should salute by raising the right band; hands should be joined in saluting a Vedic scholar; in the case of the teacher, the feet should he clasped.’

072 With crossed hands he must clasp (the feet) of the teacher, and touch the left (foot) with his left (hand), the right (foot) with his right (hand).

When the pupil is going to study, the Teacher, ever free from indolence, should say—‘ho, read!’ and he should cease when he says ‘let there be a stop!’—(73).

अध्येष्यमाणम् इत्यादीनि प्राग्व्याख्यातानि पदानि । गुरोर् अयं नियोगः । गुरोर् यदा माणवको ऽध्यापयितुम् अभिलषितस् तदा अधीष्व भो इत्य् आमन्त्रयितव्यः । अनामन्त्रितेन न गुरुः खेदयितव्यः “उपदिशानुवाकम्” इति । उक्तं च । “आहूतश् चाप्य् अधीयीत” (य्ध् १.२७) इति । विरामो ऽस्त्व् इत्य् एतं शब्दं समुच्चार्य्आरमेत् निवर्तेत । कः । गुरुर् एव, प्रथमान्तनिर्देशात् । अथ वा गुरुणोत्सृष्टो निवर्तेत, न स्वेच्छया । एवं चैतद् व्याख्यायते-¹⁰ “यदा गुरुर् विरामो ऽस्त्व् इति ब्रूयात्, तदा विरमेद् ब्रह्मचारी” ।

• अन्ये त्व् अध्येतृमात्रस्य शिष्याणाम् उपाध्यायस्य च उपरमणकाले धर्मम् इमम् इच्छन्ति । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम्- “स्वाध्यायम् अधीत्य विरमणकाले प्रदेशिन्या पृथिवीम् आलभ्य स्वस्तीति यजुःषु¹¹ ब्रूयात्, विस्पष्टम्¹² इति सामसु, विरामः परमास्व् ऋक्षु, आरमस् त्व् अथर्वसु” ।

अतन्द्रित अनलसः । तन्द्रालस्यम् । तद्योगात् पुरुषस् तन्द्रित इत्य् उच्यते । त्यक्त्वालस्यम् अतन्द्रितः । अनुवादश् चायम् । नात्र तन्द्रा श्रमः । न त्व् इयम् आशङ्का कर्तव्या- “य अतन्द्रितस् तस्यायं विधिः, आलस्यवतस् त्व् अन्यः” ॥ २.७३ ॥

‘When going to study’ and the other expressions have already been explained before. The present verse adds a direction for the Teacher. When a boy is desirous to read the Veda from a Teacher, he should be invited with the words ‘ho, read!’ Until he is so invited, the Boy should not press the Teacher with such importunate requests as—‘please teach us this chapter!’ Another Smṛti has declared—‘One should study on being invited to do so’. (Yājñavalkya, Ācāra, 27).

Saying the words ‘let there be a stop,’ ‘he should cease’—desist,—‘who is to cease?’—The Teacher; as is clear from the nominative case-ending used. Or, it may be taken to mean that the pupil should cease only when dismissed by the Teacher, and not according to his own wish; the construction of the passage in this case being—‘when the Teacher says let there be a stop, then the pupil should cease.’

Other people have explained this rule regarding the time of ceasing as applying to all readers—the pupil as well as the Teacher. And this is in accordance with another Smṛti, which says—“Having recited the Veda, at the time of ceasing, one should touch the ground with the fore-finger and pronounce ‘svasti’ in the case of the Yajurveda, ‘vispaṣṭām’ in the case of the Sāman, ‘virāmaḥ’ in the case of the Ṛgveda and ‘āramasva’ in the case of the Atharva.”

‘Free from indolence’—without sloth; ‘indolence’ is sloth;—the man beset with sloth is called ‘indolent’; and when he has given it up he is called ‘from indolence.’ This is meant to be merely descriptive. ‘Indolence’ here does not mean fatigue. The present text should never be taken to mean that what is here laid down is for only one who is free from indolence, while for those beset with indolence there is some other rule.—(73)

Nārāyaṇa and Nandana read ‘adhyeṣyamāṇastu gurum etc,’ which means—‘the pupil, proceeding to study, shall say to his Teacher etc., etc.’

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 136), where the verse is explained to mean that—‘each day at the beginning of the teaching, the Teacher should begin the work with the word ‘Ho! read;’ and at the end, should finish with the words ‘Let there he a stop;’ and it adds that all this is to be done for the purpose of ‘pleasing God.’

The verse is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 100);—in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 521);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 514);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 52);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 142), which explains ārame as ‘should desist from teaching.’

Gautama- Dharmasūtra, 1. 52.—‘Clasping the left, foot with his hand, he should address the request to him—pray read.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra, 1.3.10,13,15.—‘When one desirous of learning meets a learned man, he should obtain his permission and then proceed to read; and having approached near the teacher, he should read after having requested the teacher to please read.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 514).—‘Regularly rising in the morning, he should cleanse his teeth, bathe, pour libations into fire; then the man should carry on teaching.’

Āpastamba (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra).—‘One should avoid teaching on the bed; he should never teach on the bed whereupon he sleeps.’

073 But to him who is about to begin studying, the teacher always unwearied, must say: Ho, recite! He shall leave off (when the teacher says): Let a stoppage take place!

One should always pronounce the Praṇava in the beginning and at the end of the Veda. if it is not accompanied by the syllable ‘oṃ’ in the beginning, it trickles away; and (if it is not accompanied by it) at the end, it becomes shattered.—(74)

अत्रापि पूर्वोक्तेन न्यायेन ब्रह्मण आदाव् अन्ते च प्रणवं कुर्यात् । ब्रह्मविषयाया अध्ययनक्रियाया इति द्रष्टव्यम् । प्रणवशब्द ॐकारवचनः । तथा च वक्ष्यति- स्रवत्य् अन्ॐकृतम् इति । सर्वदाग्रहणम् अध्ययनविधिमात्रधर्मो यथा स्याद् इतरथा प्रकरणाद् ग्रहणार्थ एव ब्रह्मचारिणः स्यात् । अस्मिंस् तु सति यो ऽप्य् अविस्मरणार्थो यच् च “अहर् अहः स्वाध्यायम् अधीयीत” इति गृहस्थादीनाम्, तत्र सर्वत्र सिद्धं भवति । संध्याजपादौ तु स्वशब्देन विधास्यति- “एतद् अक्षरम् एतां च” (म्ध् २.७८) इति । न चायं वेदधर्मो येन यत्र कुत्रचिद् वैदिकवाक्योच्चारणम् आरभेत, तत्र प्राप्नुयात् । अतो होममन्त्रजपशास्त्रानुवचनयाज्यादीनाम् आरम्भे नास्ति प्रणवः, अन्यत्राप्य् उदाहरणार्थे वैदिकवाक्यव्याहारे । तस्मात् स्थितं प्राकरणिकस्वाध्यायाध्ययनविधिधर्मार्थं सर्वदाग्रहणम् । प्रणवप्रयोगस्यान्वाहिकारम्भार्थता तु नित्यकालग्रहणानुवृत्त्यैव सिद्धा ।

• अस्यार्थवादः स्रवत्य् अन्ॐकृतम् । पूर्वं प्रारम्भे अन्ॐकृतं ब्रह्म स्रवति । ओमा कृतं¹³ ॐशब्देन संस्कृतम् । साधनं कृतेति समासः । अथ वा ॐकृत¹⁴ उच्चारितो यस्मिन् ब्रह्मणि तद् ॐकृतं सुखादित्वात् परनिपातः । परस्ताच् च समाप्तौ । चकारेणान्ॐकृतम् इति संबध्यते । स्रवति विशीर्यति इत्य् उभाभ्याम् अपि नैष्फल्यम् अध्ययनस्य प्रतिपाद्यते । अधीतं ब्रह्म यस्मिन् कर्मणि विनियुज्येत तन् निष्फलं भवतीति निन्दार्थवादश् च । पाकार्थं निषिक्तस्याप्राप्तपाकक्षीरादेर् अवच्छिद्रिते भाजने य इतस् ततो विक्षेपः प्रक्षरणं तत् स्रवतीत्य् उच्यते । लब्धपाकस्य¹⁵ पिण्डीभूतस्य भोग्यतां प्राप्तस्य यो विनाशः स विशरणम् ॥ २.७४ ॥

Here also, in accordance with what has gone before (under 71), ‘one should pronounce the Praṇava in the beginning and at the end of the Veda’;—which means that the syllable is to be pronounced in the beginning and at the end of the action of reading the Veda.

The term ‘praṇava’ stands for the syllabic ‘oṃ’; as is clear from what the text adds later on—‘not accompanied by the syllable oṃ.’

‘Always’—has been added in order to show that the rule applies to every act of study. Without this term it would appear, from the context, that it applies to only that first study by the Religious Student which is done for the getting up of the text. When the adverb ‘always’ has been added, it becomes clear that the rule applies to all forms of studying,—that which is done for the purpose of keeping the memory of the text fresh, or that which is done by the Householder and other people in obedience to the injunction that ‘the Veda should be studied every day.’ As regards the reciting of Vedic mantras during the Twilight Prayer, etc., the use of the syllable ‘oṃ’ the author is going to enjoin directly (in Verse 78). What is laid down here is not meant to be a necessary accompaniment of the Veda,—which would mean that the rule is to be followed whenever one pronounces any Vedic passage; thus it is that the Praṇava is not used with Vedic mantras on the following occasions: at oblations poured into fire, or during the japa of mantras, or in course of the teaching of scriptures, or at the recitation of the ‘Yājyā’ and other hymns, or when Vedic passages are quoted only by way of illustration. From all this it follows that the adverb ‘always’ is meant to show only that the rule laid down applies to that study of the Veda which forms the subject-matter of the context. As for the necessity of using the Praṇava at the beginning of one’s daily study, this is secured by the construing of the term ‘always’ of the preceding verse with the present one.

In praise of what has been enjoined the text adds—‘If it is not accompanied by the syllable oṁ, etc.’ If, in the beginning, the Veda is not accompanied by the syllable ‘oṃ,’ it trickles off. The compound ‘anoṅkṛtam’ is to be expounded as ‘that which is not accompanied,—i.e., sanctified—by the syllable oṃ’ according to Pāṇini, 2. 1. 32; or, it may be expounded as ‘that Veda in which the syllable oṁ is not uttered,’—the order of the terms in this case being in accordance with the rule laid down in connection with the ‘Sukhādi’ group, according to Pāṇini, 6. 2. 170.

‘At the end’—at the close. The particle ‘and’ indicates that the term ‘not accompanied by the syllable om’ is to be construed here also.

‘Trickles off-—becomes shattered.’—Both these terms are meant to indicate the futility of the study. The sense being that that religious act, in which the Veda studied in the said defective fashion is used, absolutely fails to accomplish its purpose. This is an Arthavāda meant to be deprecatory of the said method of study. When milk is placed in a pot, the milks passes off all round; and this is what is called ‘trickling off’; and if the milk becomes destroyed after it has been boiled and become solidified, this is what is called ‘becoming shattered.’—(74)

‘Viśīryati ’—avasthitim na labhate, ‘does not obtain any standing’ (Kullūka);—‘becomes absolutely useless’ (Medhātithi);—‘is not understood’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa),

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 99);—in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 521);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 136) in support of the view that the Praṇava should he pronounced at the close of the reading also.

Apastamba-Dharmasūtra, 4. 13. 16.—‘The syllable Om is the gate of Heaven; therefore when going to read the Veda, one should begin with it.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 30,33.—‘The Praṇava should be pronounced.’

074 Let him always pronounce the syllable Om at the beginning and at the end of (a lesson in) the Veda; (for) unless the syllable Om precede (the lesson) will slip away (from him), and unless it follow it will fade away.

Seated upon Kuśa-blades pointing eastwards and sanctified by Kuśa-blades, when one has purified himself by means of three ‘breath-suspensions,’—then alone he becomes entitled to the syllable ‘oṃ.’—(76)

कूलशब्दो दर्भाग्रवचनः । तान् पर्युपासीनः तेषु प्रागग्रेषु दर्भेषूपविष्ट इत्य् अर्थः । “अधिशीङ्स्थासाम्” (पाण् १.४.४६) स्था आ आसाम् इत्य् आङा प्रश्लेषात् कर्मत्वम् । परि उप आ आसीन इति इहाप्य् आङा श्लिष्टनिर्दिष्टो द्रष्टव्यः । पर्युपशब्दाव् अनर्थकौ ।

• पवित्रैर् दर्भैर् एव पावितः¹⁶ शुचित्वम् आपादितः । अघमर्षणादिस् तु¹⁷ मन्त्रो नेह पवित्रशब्देनोच्यते, ब्रह्मचारिणस् तदानीम् अनधीतत्वात् तेषाम् । न च दर्भाः स्वसत्तामात्रेण कांचित् क्रियाम् अकुर्वतः पावने करणं भवन्तीति । अवान्तरव्यापारापेक्षया स्मृत्यन्तरे प्राणोपस्पर्शनं प्रतीयते । आह च गौतमः- “प्राणोपस्पर्शनं दर्भैः । प्राक्कूलेष्व् आसनं च” (ग्ध् १.४८, ५०) ।

• प्राणायामैस् त्रिभिः पूतः । मुखनासिकासंचारी वायुः प्राणस् तस्यायामो निरोधः शरीरे धारणंम्,बहिर् निष्क्रमणनिषेधः, तस्य स्मृत्यन्तरे धरणकालस्य मानं समाम्नातम् । मन्त्रानुस्मरणं च ।

• प्रतिप्रणवसंयुक्तां गायत्रीं शिरसा सह ।

• त्रिर् जपेद् आयतप्राणः प्राणायामः स उच्यते ॥ (च्ड़्। वध् २५.१३)

वसिष्ठेन भगवता महाव्याहृतयो ऽप्य् उक्ताः । मन्त्रावसान एव निरोधावधिर् अन्यस्यानाम्नातत्वात् सर्वस्मृतीनां चासति विरोध एकार्थत्वाद् इहाप्य् एवम् एवानुष्ठानम् ।

• ननु एवम् इतरेतराश्रयः स्याद् अकृतेषु¹⁸ प्राणायामेषु ॐकारो न कर्तव्यः, न च्ॐकारेण विना प्राणायामो निवर्तते । नैष दोषः । “त्रिर् जपेत्” इति प्राणायामेषु मानसव्यापारेण्ॐकारस्य स्मरणम् उच्यते । न हि निरुद्धप्राणस्य शब्दोच्चरणं संभवति । यद्य् अपि जपः कश्चिद् वाग्व्यापारसाध्यो भवति । स्वाध्यायाध्ययने तु पुनर् उच्चारणं विवक्षितम् । अध्ययनक्रियाया एवंरूपत्वाच् छब्दक्रियायां ह्य् अयं¹⁹ धातुः, श्रोत्रग्राह्यश् च शब्दो न केवलेन मनसा गृह्यते ।

• न चायम् ॐकारधर्मो येनान्यत्रापि तस्मिन्न् उच्चार्यमाणे ऽपि प्रसज्येत । उक्तं च “स्वाध्यायारम्भे कर्तव्यः” इति । ॐकारधर्मत्वे हि लौकिकेषु वाक्येष्व् ओम् इति ब्रूम इत्यादिषु प्रसज्येत । गौतमेन तु पठितम्- “प्राणायामास् त्रयः पञ्चदश मात्राः” इति (ग्ध् १.४९) । मात्राशब्देन चाविकृतस्य स्वरस्याकारादेर् यावान् कालः स उच्यते । तत्र विरोधात् स्मृत्यन्तरोक्तः कालो नास्ति, न च मन्त्रस्मरणं तत्रान्ॐकारा अपि प्राणायामाः सन्तीति नेतरेतराश्रयदोषापत्तिः । तत ॐकारम् अर्हति कर्तुम् इति शेषः । यदायं समुदाय एव रूढिरूपेण प्रणववचनः । यदा तु करणं कारः । ओम् इत्य् एतस्य कार उच्चारणम् ॐकारस् तदा नास्ति पदान्तरापेक्षा । प्रणवशब्देन कर्तव्यताम् उक्त्वात्र्ॐकारम् इत्य् अनुवदत्य् अत एताव् एकार्थौ । तथा च दर्शितम् ॥ २.७५ ॥

The term ‘kūṭa’ means ‘kuśa-blade’;—‘Seated upon’ them,—i.e., seated upon kuśa-blades pointing eastwards. The accusative ending in ‘kūṭān’ being in accordance with Pāniṇi 1. 4. 46, ‘adhisthīnsthāsām karma,’ where the latter part consists of the factors ‘athā’—‘ā’—‘āsām.’ In the word ‘paryupāsīnaḥ’ also we have an ‘ā’, the word containing the factors ‘pari’—‘upa’—‘ā’—‘āsīnaḥ’; the prefixes ‘pari’ and ‘upa’ having no significance at all.

‘Sanctified by kuśa-blades’;—i.e., having been made pure. The term ‘pavitra’ cannot stand for the Aghamarṣaṇa and other mantras; for the simple reason that at the time that the text is being dealt with, the student has not read those mantras. Nor are kuśa-blades capable, by their mere presence, to bring about purification for one who does no (purificatory) act; thus then, the necessity of some intervening act being essential, we are led to conclude, on the basis of another Smṛti, that this act is in the form of touching the sense-organs; Gautama (1.48-50) having prescribed ‘the touching of the organs with Kuśa-blades and seating upon Kuśa-blades pointing eastwards.’

‘Purified by means of three Breath-suspensions’—The air passing through the mouth and the nostrils is called ‘prāṇa,’ ‘breath’; and the ‘āyāma’ of this is its suspension, holding within the body, preventing its going out. Another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya, Ācāra, 23) has laid down the measure of the time during which the breath is to be suspended—as also the mantra accompanying it,—“One, witholding his breath, should mutter three times the Gāyatrī along with the Praṇava and the Śiras,—this is what is called ‘Breath-suspension’.” The revered Vaśiṣṭha has added to these the Great Vyāhṛtis also. It is the end of the mantra that should mark the end of the suspension, no other limit for it being prescribed. In as much as all Smṛtis are meant to serve the same purpose, we must accept this same method of ‘Breath-suspension’ to be meant by the present text also, specially as there is no inconsistency with it.

Objection.—“What has been said here involves a mutual interdependence: until the Breath-suspensions have been performed one should not pronounce ‘Oṃ,’ while without this syllable ‘Oṃ’ there can be no ‘Breath-suspension’.”

There is nothing wrong in this. When Yājñavalkya lays down that ‘one should mutter three times; etc.,’ all that is meant is the mental act of remembering, thinking of, the syllable ‘Oṃ’; for when the breath is suspended, there can be no utterance of any syllable; though it is true that ‘Japa,’ ‘Reciting,’ is (in most cases) something that can be accomplished only by an operation of speech. In connection with the reading of the Veda however, what is intended is actual utterance of the syllable; and this for the simple reason that the act of reading consists of actual utterance—the root (in ‘adhyayana’) signify ing the waking of sound, and sound is that which is heard by the Ear, and not that which is cognised only by the mind.

What is prescribed here is not something applicable to the syllable ‘Oṃ’ itself,—whereby it could be made applicable to the uttering of the syllable on other occasions also. It has been said that the syllable should be pronounced at the beginning of Vedic study; but if the. rule here laid down were meant to be applicable to all utterances of the syllable, it would have to be observed in connection with such utterances of it in ordinary parlance as when one says ‘we say yes (oṃ).’

Then again, Gautama (l.49) has declared that. ‘the three Breath-suspensions extend over fifteen moments.’ The term ‘mātrā,’ ‘moment,’ stands for that point of time which is taken up in the pronouncing of a simple unmodified vowel; and in as much as this cannot be consistent with the time-limit prescribed by Yājñavalkya, this latter cannot be accepted as applicable to what is prescribed by Gautama; in which connection again no mantras are laid down. From this it is clear that there can be ‘Breath-suspensions’ even without the uttering of the syllable ‘oṃ.’ And thus there need be no mutual interdependence.

Then alone does the man ‘become entitled to the syllable oṃ’;—i.e., to the ‘pronouncing’ of the syllable,—the word ‘pronouncing’ having to be supplied if the entire term ‘oṅkāra’ is taken as standing for the Praṇava. If however we take the term ‘kār’ separately in the sense of making,—so that ‘oṁkāra’ means the making or uttering of the syllable ‘oṃ,’—then we do not need to supply any other word. The uttering of the syllable having been laid down (under 74), where it is called ‘praṇava’;—the term ‘oṅkāra’ in the present sense simply serves the purpose of explaining what that ‘praṇava’ is.

So that ‘praṇava’ and ‘oṅkāra’ are synonymous terms; as we have already pointed out (in the Bhāṣya on 74).—(75)

‘Pavitraiḥ’—‘Kuśa-blades—by which the seat of the vital airs is touched’—(Medhātithi);—‘The Aghamarṣaṇa’ and other Vedic texts (noted by Medhātithi, but rejected by him, though adopted by Nandana). Burnell has translated the term as ‘grass-rings on the third finger’;—this is in exact conformity with the present usage, where a blade of Kuśa, twisted into the form of a ring, is worn on the third finger on the occasion of all religious ceremonies.

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 521);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 522), which explains ‘prākkūlān’ as prāgagrān ‘pointing eastwards’,—and ‘pavitraiḥ’ simply as ‘pāranaiḥ’ ‘purificatories’;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 49), which explains ‘prākkūlān’ as ‘with tips pointing towards the east’;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 316) which has the same explanations and adds that it refers to Kuśa-blades;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 135) which has the same explanation and explains ‘pavitraiḥ’ as purificatory;—also in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 471).

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.51-56.—‘The sense-organs should be touched with Kuśa-blades;—there should be three Breath-suspensions, of fifteen units; and the seat should be on Kuśa-grass pointing eastwards.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2.4.5,7.—‘At the commencement of the performance of all acts, as also before the Twilight Prayers, one should sprinkle himself with the sanctifying blades and thereby prepare himself;—to this effect it is declared that seated on Kuśa-blades, holding Kuśa-blades in the hand, sprinkling himself with water, one should repeat the Gāyatrī a thousand times;—being purified with three Breath-suspensions.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 254).—‘Seated on Kuśa-blades pointing eastwards, with mind collected, he should perform throe Breath-suspensions and then the Twilight Prayers.’

075 Seated on (blades of Kusa grass) with their points to the east, purified by Pavitras (blades of Kusa grass), and sanctified by three suppressions of the breath (Pranayama), he is worthy (to pronounce) the syllable Om.

Out of the three Vedas, Prajāpati milked the letter ‘a,’ the letter ‘u’ and the letter ‘m’; as also the syllables ‘bhūḥ-bhuvaḥ-svaḥ.’—(76)

पूर्वस्य विधेर् अर्थवादः । अक्षरत्रयसमाहाररूप ॐकारस् तत्रैकैकस्य व्युत्पत्तिम् आह । वेदत्रयात् त्रिभ्यो वेदेभ्यः निरदुहद् उद्धृतवान् यथा दध्नो घृतम् उद्ध्रियते । न केवलम् अक्षरत्रयं यावद् इदम् अपरं भूर् भुवः स्वर् इति ॥ २.७६ ॥

This verse is a valedictory supplement to the foregoing injunction.

The syllable ‘oṁ’ is an aggregate of the three letters ‘a,’ ‘u’ and ‘m’; and the present verse describes the origin of each of these.

‘Out of the three Vedas’—from the three Vedas.

‘Milked’—churned out; just as butter is churned out of the curd.

Not only the three letters, but also something else, in the shape of the syllables ‘bhūḥ-bhuvaḥ-svaḥ.’—(76)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 33), as laying down the exact form of the Praṇava and of the three Mahāvyāhṛtis.

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 55.10.—[The same words as Manu.]

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2. 10. 69.—‘The Praṇava is the soul of the Veda.’

076 Pragapati (the lord of creatures) milked out (as it were) from the three Vedas the sounds A, U, and M, and (the Vyahritis) Bhuh, Bhuvah, Svah.

Out of the three Vedas again, the Supreme Prajāpati milked each foot of the Sāvitrī verse beginning with ‘tat.’—(77)

अयं “तत् सवितुर् वरेण्यम्” (र्व् ३.६२.१०) इत्य् एतस्याः गायत्र्याः उत्पत्त्यर्थ्वादो विधानार्थः । पूर्वश्लोके चार्थवादाद् एव व्याहृतीनाम् अपि विधानम् । क्रमस् तु पाठावगम्यः । वक्ष्यति च-

• एतद् अक्षरम् एतां च जपन् व्याहृतिपूर्विकाम् । इति । (म्ध् २.७८)

अदूदुहद् उद्धृतवान् इति । यद्य् अपि तद् इत्य् एतत् प्रतीकेन “तत् सवितुर् वृणीमहे” (र्व् ३.८२.१) इति वा शक्यते सक्षयितुम्, न तु सा त्रिपदेति । त्रिपदैव²⁰ ग्राह्या । त्रिपदा चैव सावित्रीति । कश्यपादयो ऽपि प्रजापतयः सन्ति । अतो विशिनष्टि परमेष्ठीति हिरण्यगर्भः । स हि परमे स्थाने ऽनावृत्तिलक्षणे स्थितः । आदरातिशयार्थं चैतत् सावित्र्याः । साक्षात् किलेयं सर्वमुख्येन प्रजापतिना वेदेभ्यः समुद्धृतेति ॥ २.७७ ॥

The present verse is a valedictory description of the origin of the Gāyatrī -verse beginning with the words ‘tat savitur vareṇyam,’ which serves the purpose of introducing the coming injunction. As for the injunction of the Vyāhṛtis, this is to be deduced from the valedictory description contained in the preceding verse. As for the actual order in which the several syllables have to be pronounced, that is ascertained from the order in which they are found mentioned in tho text. The author is also going to lay down in the next verse—‘They should pronounce this syllable (om), and this verse (‘tat savitur, etc.’), preceded by the Vyāhṛtis.’

‘Milked’—churned out.

“Beginning with ‘tat’;”—though this being all that the text says, it might refer to an altogether different verse—‘tat savitur vṛṇimahe, etc.’ (Ṛgveda, 5. 82. 1), which is not three-footed,—yet it is the three-footed verse that should he taken as referred to here; and it is the ‘Sāvitrī’ verse that is three-footed.

In as much as Kaśyapa and other sagos are also called ‘Prajāpati,’ the text has added the qualification ‘Supreme’; so that it is Hiraṇyagarbha that becomes specified; as it is He who dwells on, the highest spot, from where there is no reversion (to worldliness).

This has been added with a view to show the extreme importance of the Sāvitrī verse;—it was churned by the highest of all Prajāpatis, out of the Vedas.—(77)

Hopkins—“This verse is one of the most famous in literature, Whitney has discussed it in Vol. I., pp. 111-112 of the new edition of Colebrook’s Essays. His translation runs as follows—‘Of Savitar, the heavenly, that longed-for glory may we win, and may himself inspire our prayers.’

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 52), as supporting the view that the gāyatrīmantra, is ‘born of the Veda’ par excellence-,—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 338).

Viṣṇu-Smṛti, 50.11.—[Reproduces the words of Manu.]

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra, 1. 1. 1-10.—‘By all the Vedas, is the Sāvitrī expounded,—so says the Brāhmaṇa-text.’

077 Moreover from the three Vedas Pragapati, who dwells in the highest heaven (Parameshthin), milked out (as it were) that Rik-verse, sacred to Savitri (Savitri), which begins with the word tad, one foot from each.

Reciting, at the two twilights, this syllable and this verse, preceded by the Vyāhṛtis, the Brāhmaṇa, learned in the Veda, becomes endowed with Vedic merit.—(78)

prāpte karmaṇi nāneko vidhātuṃ śakyate guṇaḥ | aprāpte tu vidhīyante vahavo’pyekapatnataḥ |

सत्य् अपि स्वाध्यायविधिप्रकरण एकवाक्यात्²¹ संध्याजपविधिर् अयम् । तत्र गायत्र्या अनुवादः, प्रणवव्याहृतीनाम् अप्राप्तविधिः ।

• अत्र कश्चिद् आह । नायं संध्याविधिर् अप्रकरणात् । विधिर् हि भवन् ब्रह्मचारिणः स्यात्, तस्य प्रकृतत्वात् । न च तस्य संभवति । इह हि वेदविद् इत्य् उच्यते । न च तस्य प्रथमोपनीतस्य वेदवित्त्वम् अस्ति । अपि च फलम् अत्र श्रूयते- वेदपुण्येन युज्यते । नित्यस्य संध्योपासनविधिः न फलार्थः । न चैतद् विद्मः किम् इदं वेदपुण्यं नाम फलं येन योगो ऽयं जप उच्यते । यदि तावद् वेदाध्ययनत्वाद् यत्²² पुण्यम् अभिप्रेतं तदवाप्तिर् वेदपुण्येन योगो ऽभिप्रेतस् तत्र यः तावद् अयं प्रकृतः स्वाध्यायविधिस् तस्य नार्थावबोधाद् ऋते किंचित् पलम् अस्त्य् अश्रुतत्वाद् दृष्टत्वाच् चार्थावबोधस्य कल्पनापि नास्ति । यश् च गृहस्थादीनां विधिः “अहर् अहः स्वाध्यायम् अधीयीत” इति, सो ऽपि नित्य एव । यत् तत्र फलश्रवणं “पयो दधि घृतं मधु” इति, सो ऽर्थवाद एव । तस्मान् नायं विधिः । विधौ हि सर्वम् एतद् विवक्षितव्यम् । यदा त्व् अयम् अर्थवादस् तदा जपन् इति प्रकृतम् अध्ययनम् उच्यते, वेदपुण्येन इत्य् एतद् अपि यथाकथंचिन् नीयते ।

• अत्रोच्यते । वाक्येन प्रकरणं बाध्यत इत्य् उक्तम् एव । यत एव वेदवित्पदं संध्यापदं च न प्रकृतविषयतयान्वेति,²³ तत एवान्यत्रायम् विधिः । संध्ययोर् एतत् त्रयं जपेद् इत्य् एतावान् विधिः । वेदवित्पदम् अनुवदिष्यते । गृहस्थादीनां वेदवित्त्वस्य संभवात् ब्रह्मचारिणो वेदवित्त्वं न संभवतीति चेत्, किं तदीयेन संभवेन । यथा प्राप्तानुवादे हि सर्वाश्रमिणाम् अधिकारः । कर्तृविशेषणे हि वेदवित्पदे ब्रह्मचारिणो नाधिकारः स्यात् । कथं पुनर् अस्यानुवादः । वाक्यभेदप्रसङ्गात् । विधौ संध्याविधौ प्राप्ते प्रणवव्याहृतयस् तावद् अप्राप्तास् तत्र विधातव्याः । तत्र यद्य् अपरं वेदविद् इति²⁴ विधीयते तदा वाक्यभेदः स्यात् । प्राप्ते हि कर्मणि नानेकार्थविधानं संभवति । प्रणवव्याहृतीनां तु नानुवादः संभवति ।

• तेनायम् अत्र वाक्यार्थः । संध्ययोर् यत् सावित्रीं जपेद् इत्य् उक्तं तत्रायम् अपरो गुणः प्रणवव्याहृतिपूर्विकां ताम् जपेत् । विप्रग्रहणं च तदा प्रदर्शनार्थम् एव ।

• यद् अप्य् उक्तम्- फलम् अत्र श्रूयते, नित्यश् चायं विधिः संध्यायाः । को नामायं विरोधः । नित्य एव तस्मिन् गुणे कामो भविष्यति । प्रणवव्याहृतिगुणकात् तस्माद् इदं फलम् इति । यथा गोदोहनप्रणयनकाद् अग्निहोत्रात् पशवः फलम्- “गोदोहनेन पशुकामस्य प्रणयेत्” इति वाक्यसामर्थ्येन । अध्येतुश् चैतद् उक्तम्, न त्व् अयं काम्यो विधिः । स्मृत्यन्तरे हि नित्य एवायं विधिः स्पष्ट एवोक्तः-

• गायत्रीं शिरसा सार्धं जपेद् व्याहृतिपूर्विकाम् । इति । (य्ध् १.२३)

फलानाम् अवगमो²⁵ भवतैवोक्तः ।

• अयं ह्य् अर्थो वेदपुण्येन्एति । वेदे यत् संध्योपासनात् पुण्यम् उक्तं तेन त्रिकम् एतज् जपन् युज्यते, न केवलं गायत्रीम् । पुण्यं च धर्मः, वेदमूलत्वात् स्मृतीनां स्मृत्युक्तम् अपि वेदपुण्यतया व्यपदिश्यते, वेदस्य पुण्यं वेदपुण्यम् । किं च वेदस्य पुण्यम् । यत् तेन प्रतिपाद्यते । पठ्यमानद् वेदाद् यज् जायते, तद् अपि शक्यते तस्येति वक्तुम्, किं त्व् असाधारणत्वात् प्रतिपाद्यम् एव युक्तं व्यपदेष्टुं नोत्पाद्यम् । यागादयो धर्मम् उत्पादयन्ति, प्रतिपादकस् तु वेद एव ।

• ये ऽप्य् अन्त्यस्य पादस्य सामर्थ्यम् आहुः- यद् उक्तं “नित्यस्वाद्यायः” इति तत्र संध्यायां त्रिकजपाद् एव कृतार्था भवन्तीति । तद् अप्य् असत् । एवं सति तेन विधिना विकल्पेत । तत्र च पाक्षिको नित्यस्वाध्ययताया बाधः स्यात् । न चाबाधे संभवति बाधो ऽभ्युपगन्तव्यः ।

• एतद् अक्षरम् इत्य् ॐकारस्य प्रतिनिर्देशः ।

• ननु च नैतद् एकम् अक्षरम् । द्वे वा त्रीणि वा । उच्यते । अक्षरशब्देन केवलं स्वर उच्यते, व्यञ्जनसंयोगश् च । तत्रेह यादृशः प्रकृतः तादृशस्याभिधानम् ।

एतां च “तत् सवितुर् वरेण्यम्” इति सावित्रीम् । व्याहृतयः पूर्वा यस्यास् ताम् व्याहृतिपूर्विकां । तिस्रः प्रकृता एव ता व्याहृतयो गृह्यन्ते, प्रकृतपरत्वाद् अस्य, न सप्त सत्यान्ताः ॥ २.७८ ॥

Though this verse is syntactically connected with the section dealing with the Injunction of Vedic study, yet it is to be taken as embodying the injunction of recitation during the Twilight-Prayers; and as regards the ‘Gāyatrī’-verse itself, the mention of it (in the present verse) is merely for the purposes of reference (the injunction of its recitation having already gone before), while that of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis forms the direct injunction of the recitation of these, which has not been enjoined anywhere else.

To this some people make the following objection:—

“This cannot be regarded as an Injunction pertaining to the Twilight Prayers; as these do not form the subject-matter of the present context. Even if it was an injunction, it could only be one pertaining to the Religious Student; as it is the Student whose duties are being propounded in the present context. But this is not possible, since the text has added the qualification ‘learned in the Veda’; and certainly the student just initiated could never be ‘learned in the Veda.’ Further, the text also adds a particular fruit—‘becomes endowed with Vedic merit’; while the Injunction of the Twilight-Prayers is a compulsory one. Then again, we do not understand what is this fruit, called ‘Vedic merit’ which is described as proceeding from the recitation. If what is meant is the merit proceeding from the recitation of the Veda, and if the attaining of this merit is what is meant by being ‘endowed with Vedic merit’—then, in regard to this view it has to be noted that so far as the Injunction of Veda-reciting is concerned—which forms the subject-matter of the present context,—there can be no other result proceeding from it, except the understanding of the meaning of tho Vedic texts; for the simple reason that no such result has been anywhere mentioned. Further, in as much as there is a perceptible result in the shape of the comprehension of meaning, there can be no room for the assuming of any other results. The injunction of Veda-reciting that there is for the Householder and others,—in the words ‘day after day one should recite the Veda’—this also is a compulsory one; and the results mentioned in connection with it, in the shape of ‘milk, and honey, etc.,’ this is only a valedictory supplement. From all this it is clear that the present verse cannot be regarded as an Injunction (of recitation during the Twilight Prayers). Specially as, if it were taken as an Injunction, all the above difficulties will have to be explained. On the other band, if the verse be taken as a valedictory reference, then the term ‘reciting’ could be taken as referring to the Reciting of the Veda, which forms the subject-matter of the context; and in that case it would be possible to construe the term ‘Vedic merit’ also in some way or the other.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—

It has been already explained that the implications of context are always set aside by those of Syntactical Connection; and for the very reason that the terms ‘learned in the Veda’ and ‘Twilight prayers’ are not connected with the subject-matter of the context,—the present Injunction is to be taken as pertaining to something else. The Injunction is simply to the effect that during the two Twilight Prayers one should pronounce the three expressions (Om—Sāvitrī verse—Vyāhṛtis); and the term ‘learned in the Veda’ is merely descriptive?

“But as a matter of fact, it is possible only for persons in the Householder and other stages to be ‘learned in the Veda’; the Student can never be so.

What has this possibility got to do with the matter? If the term is taken as merely descriptive of what is already known from other sources, then the injunction contained in the verse becomes applicable to people in all stages of life. While if the term ‘learned in the Veda’ were taken as a significant epithet of the Nominative agent (of the act enjoined), then the student would not be entitled to the act.

“Why should the term be taken as merely descriptive?”

For the simple reason that there would (otherwise) be a syntactical split. The injunction pertaining to the Injunction of the Twilight Prayers, what has to be enjoined regarding it is the reciting of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis, which has not been enjoined anywhere else, Now, if in addition to these, something else were taken as enjoined,—in the form of ‘being learned in the Veda,’—then there would be a syntactical split [the sentence in question containing two injunctions, (a) ‘should recite the Praṇava, etc.,’ and (b) ‘should learn the Veda’]; and it is not legitimate to enjoin (by means of a single sentence) several details pertaining to an act already enjoined. Nor is it possible (as another alternative) to take the mention of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis as merely descriptive [because their injunction has not been met with anywhere else].

From all this it follows that what the Text means is as follows:—‘In connection with the reciting of the Gāyatrī that has been enjoined in relation to the Twilight Prayers, there is this further detail that the said recitation is to lie preceded by the uttering of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis.’

The mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ is only by way of illustration.

It has been argued above that—“the text speaks of a result, while the Injunction of the Twilight Prayers is a compulsory one.”

But what inconsistency is there in this? While what is enjoined is a compulsory act, the result mentioned may follow from the further detail mentioned in the text; the meaning being that ‘the said result follows from the previously enjoined Twilight Prayer, when it is accompanied by the recitation of the Praṇava and the Vyāhṛtis. Just as when the ordinary Agnihotra is performed with the water brought over in the milking vessel, there comes about the particular result in the shape of cattle; and this in (?) accordance with the injunction that ‘for one desiring cattle water should be brought in the milking vessel.’

It is on the strength of this last injunction that we have made bold to say what we have said above. In reality the injunction contained in the verse is not an optional one at all (meant only for those desiring the particular result mentioned). Specially as another Smṛti (Yājñavalkya,

1. 23. clearly lays it down as a compulsory injunction—‘One should recite the Gāyatrī along with the Śiras, preceded by the Vyāhṛtis.’

Further, you have yourself argued that the exact nature of the result (‘Vedic merit’) cannot be ascertained (which is an argument against the text being taken as laying down a result). As a matter of fact, what ‘Vedic merit’ means is as follows:—‘The merit that has been described in the Veda as resulting from the saying of the Twilight Prayers accrues to man only when he recites all the three expressions—and not by reciting the Gāyatrī only.’ ‘Puṇya,’ ‘merit,’ is excellence. Since Smṛtis are based upon the Veda, what is mentioned in the Smṛtis is also called ‘Veda-merit,’ which last expression stands for the ‘merit of the Veda.’

“What is the merit of the Veda?”

That (merit) which is expounded by the Veda. The merit that results from the Veda being recited may also be called ‘the merit of the Veda’; but by virtue of the specific relationship, it is what is expounded by the Veda,—and what is produced by it—that should be spoken of as ‘merit of the Veda.’ As for the producing of merit, this is done by other things also, such as sacrificial performances and the like; while the expounding of it is done by the Veda only.

Some people have taken the last foot of the Verse to mean as follows—“What has been enjoined as compulsory Vedic Study becomes fulfilled merely by reciting the three expressions during the Twilight Prayers.”

But this is not right. For if the present text meant this, then it would be providing an option to what has been laid down as the compulsory ‘Vedic Study’; and this would mean the partial rejection of this study. But so long as we can avoid it, it is not right to admit the rejection of any injunction.

‘This syllable’—refers to the syllable ‘oṃ.’

“But this is not a single letter, containing as it does, two or three syllables.”

Our answer is that the term ‘syllable’ here stands for ‘vowel-sound’ and ‘contact with consonants.’ Hence the term denotes that which forms the subject-matter of the context.

‘This Verse’—i.e., the Sāvitrī verse ‘tat saviturvareṇyam, etc.’

‘Preceded by the Vyāhṛtis;’—i.e., that before which the Vyāhṛtis have been uttered. Here only the three Vyāhṛtis are meant,—these alone having been mentioned in the present context (in verse 76),—and not the seven, ending with ‘Satyam.’

Medhātithi (P.111,1.11)—Prāpte hi karmaṇi, &c.’—This is a paraphrase of Kumārila’s dictum—

prāpte karmaṇi nāneko vidhātuṃ śakyate guṇaḥ |
aprāpte tu vidhīyante vahavo’pyekapatnataḥ |

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 50), which explains ‘etadakṣaram’ as the Praṇava;—and in Nityāchārapaddhati, (p. 189).

**(Verses 78-79)
**

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 1220).—‘The Brāhmaṇa stealing gold, or killing a Brāhmaṇa, or violating the teacher’s bed, or drinking wine, becomes absolved from the sin by repeating the Gāyatrī a lakh of times.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘The syllable om, the Vyāhṛtis and the Sāvitrī constitute the Sāvitra Pavitra, by which one becomes absolved from all sins; by repeating it a hundred times he becomes purified in a month; repeating it ten thousand times he has his soul entirely purified of all sins.’

Viṣṇusmṛti, 55.12—[reproduces the words of Manu].

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 4.6.—‘They declare that seated on kuśa-grass, holding kuśa-blades and water in the hand, he should repeat the Gāyatrī a thousand times.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2.29.—‘Breath-suspensions, accompanied by the Vyāhṛtis and the Praṇava, repeated sixteen times daily, purify even the embryo-murderer, in a month’s time.’

Vasiṣṭha-smṛti, 36-5 [reproduces the foregoing text of Baudhāyana].

Vasiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 1220).—‘On the commingling of all kinds of sin, the best purification consists in repeating the Gāyatrī ten thousand times.’

Nṛsiṃhapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, pp. 254-255).—‘Having offered the Evening Prayers, while the sun is still visible, he should go on repeating the Gāyatrī till the stars become visible.’

078 A Brahmana, learned in the Veda, who recites during both twilights that syllable and that (verse), preceded by the Vyahritis, gains the (whole) merit which (the recitation of) the Vedas confers.

Repeating this Triad a thousand times in open air, the twice-born person becomes freed, in a month, from even great sin, as the snake from its slough.—(79)

बहिर् इत्य् अनावृतो देश उच्यते । तेनैतद् उक्तं भवति । ग्रामनगराभ्यां बहिर् अरण्ये नदीपुलिनादौ । सहस्रवारान् अभ्यस्य आवर्त्य । ननु²⁶ कृत्वसुचो ऽप्य् आवृत्तिः प्रतिपाद्यते, अभ्यस्येत्य् अनेनापि । तत्र पौनरुक्त्यम् । सामान्यविशेषभावाद् अदोषः । अभ्यस्येत्य् अनेन सामान्यतो ऽभ्यास उक्तस् तत्र विशेषापेक्षायां सहस्रकृत्वेति । न च कृत्वसुजन्ताद् एवोभयावगतिस् तस्य क्रियाविशेषापेक्षत्वात् । न हि देवदत्तः पञ्चकृत्वो ऽह्न इत्य् उक्ते, यावद् भुङ्क्त इति नोच्यते तावाद् वाक्यार्थः समाप्यते ।

• ननु चाभ्यस्येत्य् अनेनापि न काचिद् विशिष्टा क्रियोपात्ता । सत्यम् । जपः प्रकृतस् तम् अभ्यस्येति प्रतीयते । आवृत्तिः पौनःपुण्येन सेवा ।

• महतो ऽप्य् एनसः । महत् पापं च ब्रह्महत्यादि । ततो ऽपि मुच्यते, किं पुनर् उपपातकेभ्यः । अपिः संभावने, न समुच्चये । भेदोपादानेन समुच्चयावगमो यथा देवदत्तस्यात्र प्रभुत्वं यज्ञदत्तस्यापि । इह न तथा निर्देशः ।

• केभ्यः पुनर् उपपातकेभ्यो ऽयं मोक्ष उच्यते । गोवधादीन्य् उपपातकानि । तानि च प्रतिपापम् आम्नातप्रायश्चित्तानि सरहस्यानि । यानि वा संवेत्ति न कृतान्य् अनुक्तपरिहाराण्य् अवश्यंभावितया च ज्ञायते कृतानीति । तेषाम् अपि नित्यानि संध्योपासनादीन्य् अपनोदकानि । यदि चैतत् प्रायश्चित्तं स्यात् तदा तत्रैवावक्ष्यत्- “जपेद् वै नियताहारः त्रिर् वै वेदस्य संहिताम्” (म्ध् ११.७६) इतिवत्²⁷ । प्रायश्चित्ते चास्मिन् प्रायश्चित्तप्रकणम् एवानर्थकं स्यात् । को हि दैवशप्तो²⁸ जपमात्रसाध्यां निष्कृतिं हित्वा कृच्छ्रेषु शरीरप्राणहरेष्व् अध्यवस्येत् । उक्तं च ।

• अर्के²⁹ चेन् मधु विन्देत किम् अर्थं पर्वतं व्रजेत् ।

• इष्टस्यार्थस्य संप्राप्तौ को विद्वान् यत्नम् आचरेत् ॥

तथा,

• पणलभ्यं हि न प्राज्ञः क्रीणाति दशभिः पणैः ॥ इति ।

न च प्रकृतेनैकवाक्यताबीजं किंचिद् विभज्यमानसापेक्षत्वाद्य् अस्ति येन तच्छेषतया ऽर्थवाद उच्यते ।

• अत्रोच्यते । विधिर् एवायम् । पापप्रमोचनार्थ एवायं प्रयोगः । यत् तूक्तं “विषमशिष्टैर् विकल्पो न सिध्यति” इति जपप्रायश्चित्त एवास्मिन् विकल्पार्थो भविष्यति । अघमर्षणादिभिः सर्वपापापनोदनम् उक्तम्, तेनास्य विकल्पः । अघमर्षणे हि त्र्यहम् उपवास उक्तः । इहाश्नन्न् एव मासिकेन प्रयोगेण शुध्यति । ततो न दूरविप्रकृष्टेन तपसा प्रमीयते, येन विषमशिष्टता स्यात् ।

• अथ वा पूर्वकृतस्यैनसः शुद्धिर् एषा ग्रहादौस्थित्यादिसूचिते दैवे दोषे । तस्मान् मोक्षः । अनिष्टम् एन उच्यते । तस्मान् मुच्यते । तत्फलेन न संबध्यत इत्य् अर्थः ।

• त्वचेवहिः । जीर्णया त्वचा मुक्तः सर्पो यथा भवति । निरवशेषेण पापनाश एतेन प्रतिपाद्यते । यत् तु दौश्चर्मादिसूचितं³⁰ पूर्वकृतम् अशुभं तत्र स्मृत्यन्तरे प्रायश्चित्तम् आम्नातं बहु । तत् प्रायश्चित्तेष्व् एव निदर्शयिष्यामः । एतद् एवाभिप्रेत्योक्तम् ।

• जपतां जुह्वतां चैव विनिपातो न दृश्यते । (म्ध् ४.१४६) इति ॥ २.७९॥

The term ‘bahiḥ,’ ‘in open air,’ stands for uncovered spot; the sense being that it should be done outside towns and villages, on the bank of rivers and such places.

‘A thousand times, repeating’—reciting it again and again.

“The affix ‘kṛtvasuch’ (in the term ‘Sahasrakṛtvaḥ’) also signifies repetition, which is again denoted by the word ‘abhyasya’ also; so there is needless repetition.”

The repetition is not objectionable, in view of a distinction between general and particular. That is to say, the word ‘abhyasya’ denotes repetition in general, and when the question arises as to the particular number of repetitions, we have the text adding ‘a thousand times.’ Both the general and the particular could not be regarded as signified by the single word ending with the ‘kṛtvasuch’ affix; because this latter word always stands in need of a particular act (that has to be done a thousand times). The mere expression ‘devadattaḥ pan chakritvo’haḥ,’ ‘Devadatta five times during the day’ does not signify anything until the word ‘bhuṅkte,’ ‘Eats,’ is added.

“But the term ‘repeating’ also does not signify any particular act.”

True; but the act of reciting forms the subject-matter of the context; so that the repeating is understood as pertaining to that act; ‘repetition’ standing for attending to it again and again.

‘Even from great sin’;—he becomes freed from even such heinous sins as ‘Brāhmaṇa-killing’ and the like; what to say of minor offences?

‘Api,’ ‘Even,’ denotes possibility, not cumulation; cumulation is expressed when more things than one are mentioned separately; as in the sentence—‘there is sovereignty of Devadatta, and of Yajñadatta also.’ There is no such separate mention in the text.

Question—“From what minor offences does the man become freed? Cow-killing and such acts have been regarded as ‘minor offences’; and for every one of these the scriptures have prescribed distinct expiatory rites along with all their details. While as regards those acts that are not done consciously, but which are regarded as must have been done,—though no definite expiation could be prescribed for them, yet they would be got rid of by means of the Twilight Prayers and such other compulsory rites prescribed for daily performance. Then again, if what is mentioned in the present verse were a real expiation, it should have come under the section on Expiatory Rites (Ch. XI); just as it is said (under 11. 77)—‘One may recite the text of the Veda while keeping due restraint over food.’ Further, if the present verse were meant to prescribe an expiatory rite, the whole section dealing with Expiatory Rites (Ch. XI) would he superfluous. For, what accused person would omit to do the expiation consisting of the mere reciting of mantras, and go in for the very difficult rites endangering the body and very life itself? Says an old saying—‘If honey were available in a place within easy reach, wherefore should one go to the hills? The desired end having been accomplished, which wise man could put forth further efforts?’—and again—‘What can he obtained for a single coin, no wise man purchases for ten coins.’ Nor can the verse be taken as a valedictory supplement to what forms the subject-matter of the context (i.e., Vedic Study), because there is no ground for connecting it syntactically with the context,—such grounds, for instance, as being found defective if taken apart from the context and so forth.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—The present verse is a direct Injunction; and the act laid down is done for the removing of sins. It has been argued that—“What is laid down here (being too easy) could not be regarded as optional with those rites that are prescribed in a different context and are very much more difficult.” But it can certainly be taken as optional with those expiations which consist in Mantra-recitations. For instance, the reciting of the Mantra has been declared as destroying all sins; and with this what is laid down in the present verse could be taken as optional. In connection with the Aghamarṣaṇa-Mantra, three days fasting is prescribed, while according to what is laid down in the present verse, the man becomes freed by doing th e reciting for a month, but taking two ordinary meals every day. Thus the difference between the two is not so great as to lead us to regard them as very diverse in character.

Or, what is mentioned here may be taken as purifying the man from such past sins as arc indicated by the evil position of planets, etc.; and it is from these sins that the man becomes free. ‘Sin’ is something undesirable; from this the man becomes freed,—i.e., is not affected by the results of those sins.

‘Just as the snake from the slough,’—just as the snake becomes freed from the cast-off skin. This means that the sin is completely removed.

For such past sins as are indicated by the discolouring of the skin and such other diseases, other Smṛtis have prescribed many expiatory rites. All this we shall explain under the section on Expiatory Rites.

It is in view of what, is said in the present verse that we have the saying—‘There is no fall for people who go on reciting mantras and pouring libations.’—(79)

‘Vahiḥ’—Burnell represents Medhātithi as explaining this term to be ‘on a river-island and the like.’ This is not right; the word used by Medhātithi is ‘nadīpulinādau’—which means ‘on the bank of rivers and such places’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1220) where ‘vahiḥ’ is explained as ‘outside the village’—and ‘trikam’ as ‘the Sāvitrī along with the Vyāhṛtis’;—and in Gadādharapaddhai (Kālasāra, p. 30), which explains ‘trikam’ as (1) Praṇava. (2) Vyāhṛti and (3) Gāyatrī.

**(Verses 78-79)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.78].

079 A twice-born man who (daily) repeats those three one thousand times outside (the village), will be freed after a month even from great guilt, as a snake from its slough.

Bereft of this verse, and of the timely performance of his own duty, a person of Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya birth incurs the odium of good men.—(80)

etayar??‘pi saṃyuktaḥ kāle?a kriyayā’mu?ā | ?ipra?triya?i?yonirprāha?ya?ṃ yāti prādhuṣu ||

एतया सावित्र्या । विसंयुक्तो हीनसंध्योपासनस् त्यक्तस्वाध्यायश् च । गर्हणां निन्दां साधुषु विशिष्टेषु याति प्राप्नोति । कीदृशीं गर्हणां प्राप्नोत्य् अत आह- काले च क्रियया स्वया । कालः “आ षोडशाद्” (म्ध् २.३८) इत्य् अस्मिन् वियुक्ते गते निन्द्यते । एवम् उपनीतो ऽपि स्वाध्यायारम्भयोग्यः सावित्रीवर्जितो व्रात्य एव भवति । त्रयाणां या साधारणी स्वक्रिया सेह निर्दिष्टा । सा चोपनयनम् एव । कालशब्दश् चैवमर्थवान् । अध्ययनादिस्वकर्मविवक्षायाम् एतावद् एव वाच्यं स्यात् यत् क्रियया स्वयेति । योनिशब्दो जन्मपर्यायो जात्यर्थं गमयति । विप्रादिजातीय इत्य् अर्थः । अर्थवादो ऽयं व्रात्यप्रायश्चित्तार्थः ॥ २.८० ॥

‘By this verse’—by the Sāvitrī.

‘Bereft’;—he who fails to observe the Twilight Prayers and neglects Vedic Study.

‘Odium’—Blame.

‘Among good men’—Among the highly cultured people.

‘Incurs’—becomes open to.

With a view to show what sort of odium he incurs, the Text adds—‘and of the timely performance of his own duty.’—‘Timely’—e.g., the sixteenth year for the Brāhmaṇa and so forth. When the man is bereft of these rites, he becomes despised.

From this it is clear that even though the boy may have been initiated, and as such become qualified for Vedic Study,—yet, if he is bereft of the Sāvitrī, he becomes a ‘Vrātya,’ apostate.

What is meant by ‘his own duty’ is just that duty which is common to the three castes; and this is the duty of Initiation. It is only when we interpret it thus that the qualification ‘timely’ comes to have any sense. If the ‘duty’ meant were the duties of Vedic Study and the rest, the text would have said simply ‘performance of his own duty’ (without the qualification ‘timely’).

The term ‘yoni’ being synonymous with ‘birth’ denotes caste. So what is meant is the person of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes.

The present verse is only a descriptive supplement, added for the purpose of making the Expiatory Rites prescribed for the Vrātya (apostate) applicable to the omissions mentioned here.—(80)

The text of this verse, and hence its meaning, is entirely changed in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 429); the words as quoted here are,

etayar??‘pi saṃyuktaḥ kāle?a kriyayā’mu?ā |
?ipra?triya?i?yonirprāha?ya?ṃ yāti prādhuṣu ||

it may be rendered thus—‘Equipped with this verse, and timely performance of this act, a person of Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya birth becomes acceptable among the good.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.14—[reproduces, with slight variations, the words of Manu].

Baudhāyana-Dhaṛmasūtra, 2. 4. 15.—‘Those who offer not the Morning-prayer before the advent of Dawn, nor the Evening-prayer before the lapse of Eve,—how can these be called Brāhmaṇas? Those Brāhmaṇas who offer? not the? Morning and Evening Prayers, them the king should employ in works fit for the Śūdra.

080 The Brahmana, the Kshatriya, and the Vaisya who neglect (the recitation of) that Rik-verse and the timely (performance of the) rites (prescribed for) them, will be blamed among virtuous men.

The three imperishable Mahāvyāhṛtis preceded by the syllable ‘oṃ,’ and the three-footed Sāvitrī,—these should be regarded as the ‘Mouth of Brahman.’—(81)

ॐकारः पूर्वो यासां ता ॐकारपूर्विकाः । महाव्याहृतयः प्रकृता एव भूर् भुवः स्वर् इत्य् एते शब्दा अभिधीयन्ते । अव्यया अविनाशिन्यः । फलस्य दीर्घकालत्वाद् एवम् उच्यते । अन्यथा “सर्व एव शब्दा नित्याः” इति विशेषणम् अनर्थकम् । त्रिपदा “तत् सवितुर्” इत्य् एषा सावित्री ब्रह्मणो मुखम् । आद्यत्वान् मुखव्यपदेशः अतश् चारम्भे अध्येयम् एतद् इत्य् अस्यैवार्थवादः । अथ वा मुखं द्वारम् उपायो ब्रह्मप्राप्तिर् अनेन भवतीत्य् एतद् एवाह ॥ २.८१ ॥

“Preceded by the syllable Oṃ”—in the beginning of which the syllable ‘Oṃ’ occurs.—‘Mahāvyāhṛtis’;—this refers to the three syllables ‘bhūḥ—bhuvaḥ—svaḥ,’ which form the subject-matter of the present context.

‘Imperishable’;—the syllables are so called in view of the fact that the results proceeding from their repetition are longstanding. If this were not meant, then the qualification would be superfluous, as all words are equally imperishable, eternal.

Three-footed Sāvitrī;—the verse ‘tat savituḥ, etc.’

‘The mouth of Brahman.’—These are called ‘mouth’ in the sense that they form its opening. Hence this verse is to be regarded as the valedictory supplement of the Injunction that these should be recited at the beginning of Vedic Study.

Or ‘mouth’ may mean portal, the means;—the sense being that union with Brahman is reached by this means. This is what is described in the next verse.—(81)

‘Brahmaṇo mukham—“Literally, the mouth of Brahman is meant to convey the double sense (of leading to, and leading to union with, Brahman). Both interpretations are given by Medhātithi, Kullūka. and Rāghavānanda; while Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana explain it merely as the beginning or portal of the Veda.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 71) as defining the ‘Brahmamukha’, which has been declared by Nārāyaṇa to be the formula for the Ācamana;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 522), as laying down the beginning of study;—in the same work again (Āhnika, p. 253), where it is explained as meaning that the name ‘sandhyā’ (Twilight Prayers) is applied to all those acts that are performed with the formula herein specified;—also on p. 321, along with the next three verses.

This first line of this verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 1290).

The verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 50), which explains ‘tisraḥ’ as ‘Bhūḥ-bhuvaḥ-svaḥ’ and ‘brahmaṇo mukham’ as ‘to be pronounced at the beginning of Vedic reading—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 135), which notes—‘om bhūrbhuvaḥsvaḥ’ are the three Vyāhṛtis,—tatsavituḥ &c., is the Sāvitrī; all this forms the ‘mukha’, i.e. beginning, of ‘Brahman’, i.e. the Veda.

**(verses 81-82)
**

Āpastamba (Parāśaramādhava, p. 284).—‘Seated upon kuśa, holding kuśa and water in his hand, facing the East, one shall repeat the Gāyatrī a thousand times, or a hundred times, or without any limit.’

Yogi- Yājñavalkya (Do., 283).—‘The Religious Student and the Agnihotrin should repeat the Gāyatrī 108 times: the Hermit and the Renunciate, more than 1,000 times,

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 286).—‘There is nothing superior to the Gāyatrī for purposes of Japa; there is no penance higher than the Gāyatrī; there is no meditation higher than the Gāyatrī; there is no Homa higher than the Viṣṇusmṛti, 55. 15-16—[reproduces the words of Manu].

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 429).—‘He who acquires the three Vyāhṛtis preceded by the syllable om, and the Sāvitrī, Brahmacharya and is called Śrotriya.’

Laugākṣi (Do.).—‘Having pronounced om bhūrbhuvaḥsvaḥ, he pronounces the Sāvitrī verse beginning with Tat savituḥ.’

‘Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 2. 4. 21.—‘The Brāhmaṇa who daily, at all junctures, meditates upon this, becomes purified to Brahmaṇa and merged in Brāhmaṇ; following the scriptures, he wins the Brahmic regions.’

Vyāsa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 285).—‘By repeating the Gāyatrī ten times one becomes absolved from all little sins committed during the day; repeated a hundred times, she destroys a host of sins; repeated a thousand times, she destroys all minor sins; by repeating it a lakh of times, all the most heinous sins are destroyed; by repeating it a crore of times, one obtains all that is desired.’

Saṃvarta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 522).—‘One should utter the Praṇava first: after that, the Vyāhṛtis; and then the Sāvitrī.’

Yogi-Yāmavalkya (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 258).—‘Gāvatrī is Brahmā and Sāvitrī is Rudra.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 321, also Parāśaramadhava, p. 284).—‘One should daily repeat the Gāyatrī, which is destructive of all sins, a thousand times, or a hundred times, or at least ten times; the Lord put the Gāyatrī in one pan and the Vedas along with the subsidiary sciences in the other pan of the scale; and the two were found equal.’

Aṅgiras (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 322)—‘One who is intent upon the Praṇava, the seven Vyāhṛtis, and the three-footed Gāyatrī has no fear anywhere.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 323).—‘The Praṇava, the Vyāhṛtis the Sāvitrī verse,—these constitute the Sāvitra, whereby one becomes absolved from sins; by hundred repetitions, from sins of thought; by thousand repetitions, from sins of word; and by ten thousand repetitions, from all sins, and has his soul perfectly pure.’

081 Know that the three imperishable Mahavyahritis, preceded by the syllable Om, and (followed) by the three-footed Savitri are the portal of the Veda and the gate leading (to union with) Brahman.

He who, untired, recites this, day after day, for three years, turns into air, and becoming transfigured into Ākāśa, reaches the supreme brahman.—(82)

आकाश इव सर्वव्यापी विभुः संपद्यते, खमूर्तिः खस्वभाववान् भवति । न तु मूर्तिः शरीरम्, आकाशस्य शरीराभावात् । अथ किम् इदं ब्रह्म, यद् रूपापत्तिर् उच्यते । परमात्मानन्दरूपः, यस्येमे क्षेत्रज्ञाः पवनजवोद्धतस्य वारिराशेर् इवोर्मयः । ते यथा प्रशान्तावस्थे तस्मिंस् तद्रूपा भवन्ति । एवम् अमी तद्रूपा आत्मानः संपद्यन्ते । विशेषतश् च सर्वम् एतद् द्वादशे वक्ष्यते । अध्ययनम् इदं गायत्र्याश् चोदितं न जपो, न चावृत्तिगणनास्ति । अतन्द्रित इतिवचनाद् बहुकृत्वः करणं प्रतीयते । सकृत्प्रयोगे हि नास्ति तन्द्राशङ्का । मोक्षार्थिनो ऽयं विधिः ॥ २.८२ ॥

He becomes omnipresent, all-pervading, like Ākāśa.

‘Transfigured into Ākāśa’—means that he acquires the nature of Ākāśa. ‘Mūrti,’ ‘Figure,’ does not stand here for the Body; as Ākāśa has no ‘body’ at all.

“What is this ‘Brahman’ into whose form the man is said to become merged?”

It is the Supreme Soul, of the nature of Bliss; He of whom all these embodied souls are mere inodes, just as waves are of the ocean perturbed by the force of wind. And just as when the ocean becomes calm, the waves become merged into it, in the same manner the embodied souls become transformed and merged into the Supreme Soul. All this is going to be described in detail in Discourse 12.

What is enjoined in the present context is the mere reciting and study of the Gāyatrī verse, not its Japa, repetition; this is shown by the fact that the number of repetitions is not stated.

‘Untired’;—this denotes that the recitation is to be carried out again and again; as a single recitation can never tire a person.

What is enjoined here pertains to persons seeking for Final Release.—(82)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āḥnika, p. 321), which supplies the following explanatory notes:—

‘Vāyubhūtaḥ’—as quick- moving as the wind, or ‘encased in the Subtle Body’—as explained in Kalpataru;—‘Khamūrtimān’—becoming as all-pervading as the Ākāśa, becomes the Supreme Self.,

It is quoted also in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 286) as eulogising the japa of the Gāyatrī mantra;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 236).

**(verses 81-82)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.81].

082 He who daily recites that (verse), untired, during three years, will enter (after death) the highest Brahman, move as free as air, and assume an ethereal form.

The mono-syllable is the highest Brahman; Breath-suspensions are the highest austerity; nothing is higher than the Sāvitrī verse; truth is better than Silence.—(83)

loke ca bhūtikarmasvetadīnyeca vākyāni syuryathā pupyāhaṃ svassyṛddhimiti

ॐकार एकाक्षरम् । तत् परं ब्रह्म, ब्रह्मप्राप्तिहुत्वात् । “तज्जपस् तदर्थभावनम्³¹” (य्सू १.२८) तया³² ब्रह्मप्राप्तेर् एवम् उच्यते । ओम् इति ब्रह्माभिधानम् । एवं ह्य् आहुः- “तस्य वाचकः प्रणवः” इति (य्सू १.२७) । तत्परं प्रकृष्टं कुतः । अन्याभ्यः ब्रह्मोपासनाभ्यः । “अन्नं ब्रह्मेत्य् उपासीत” (तु २.२.१), “आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्य् आदेशः” (छु ३.१९.१) इति एवमाद्याभ्य उपासनाभ्यः ॐकारोपासना प्रकृष्यते, अध्ययनाद् एव तत्प्राप्त्यभिधानात्, शब्दस्यैव च ब्रह्मत्वेन श्रवणात् । “शब्दब्रह्मणि निष्णातः परं ब्रह्माधिगच्छति” इति (मैतु ६.२२) । सर्वो ह्य् अर्थो वाग्व्यवहारानतीतः, वाचश् च सर्वस्या ॐकारो मूलम् । तथा च श्रुतिः- “तद् यथा शंकुना सर्वाणि पत्राणि संतृण्णान्य् एवम् ॐकारेण सर्वा वाक् संतृण्णा । ॐकार एवेदं सर्वम्” इति (छु २.२३.३) । संतर्दनम् अनुसृतिः³³ आश्रयभावापत्तिर् वा । कथं पुनः सर्वा वाग् ॐकारेण संतृण्णा । वैदिक्यास् तावद् ॐकारपूर्वकत्वम् उक्तम् । लौकिक्या अपि- “तदादीनि वाक्यानि स्युः” इत्य् आपस्तम्बवचनात् (आप्ध् १.१३.९) । उपनिषद्भाष्ये चैतद् अन्यथा व्याख्यातम् । तत् त्व् इहानुपयोगान् न प्रदर्शितम् । प्राणायामशब्द आचमनवद् विशिष्टेतिकर्तव्यताके प्राणनिरोधे वर्तते । परं तपः चान्द्रायणादिभ्यः । किं पुनस् तस्य श्रैष्ठ्यम् । भक्तिर् एषा । सावित्र्याः परं मन्त्रज्ञानं नास्ति । एषाम् इति प्रशंसा । मौनात् सत्यं विशिष्यते । मौनं वाङ्नियम उच्यते । तस्य च³⁴ यत् फलं ततो ऽधिकं सत्यवचनात् प्राप्यते । सत्यवचने विध्यर्थो ऽपि तथानुष्ठितो भवति । मौने तु केवलम् अनृतप्रतिषेधानुष्ठानम् एव । अर्थवादो ऽयं श्लोकः ॥ २.८३ ॥

The ‘monosyllable’ is the syllable ‘om.’—It is the ‘Supreme Brahman,’ in the sense that it is the means of reaching Brahman. This assertion is based upon the fact that Brahman is attained by the ‘repeating,’ and ‘the meditation upon the signification,’ of the syllable (as mentioned in Yogasūtra 1.28). ‘Om’ is a name of Brahman; as says the Yogasūtra (1.23)—‘The Praṇava is expressive of Him (God).’

“In comparison with what is this the highest?”

It is higher than all other forms of Brahman-meditation. The meditation upon the syllable ‘om’ as Brahman is superior to all the several forms of meditation mentioned in such texts as ‘One should meditate upon food as Brahman’ (Taittirīya Upaniṣad, 2.2.1), ‘The teaching is that the Sun is Brahman’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 3.19.1); and this for the simple reason that the attainment of Brahman has been described as proceeding from the mere recitation of that syllable; and also because the word itself has been described as ‘Brahman,’ in such passages as—‘One who is well versed in Brahman in the form of Word attains the supreme Brahman.’ (Maitry upaniṣad, 6.22). Nothing is beyond the reach of words, and of’ all words the syllable ‘om’ is the very source: as says the Śruti—‘Just as the needle pierces through all the leaves, so in the same manner is all speech pierced by om, all this is om itself’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 2.23.4). The ‘piercing’ spoken of in this passage means ‘pervasion,’ ‘becoming the receptacle.’ “But in what manner is all speech pierced by om?”

Well, as regards the word of the Veda, it has already been pointed out (in verse 74) that its source lies in the syllable ‘om’ As regards the words of secular speech, it has been declared by Āpastamba (1.4.13.9) that ‘All sentences should be preceded by om.’

The above passage (from the Chāndogya) has been explained differently in the Upaniṣad-bhāṣya; we are not reproducing that explanation here, as it has no bearing on the present context.

The term ‘breath-suspension’ here stands for the act of suspending the breath along with the entire procedure beginning with the sipping of water.

‘Highest austerity—i.e., an austerity higher than the Cāndrāvaṇa and the rest.

“What is the superiority here (meant by the epithet ‘highest’)?”

It is purely figurative.

‘There is nothing higher than the Sāvitrī’;—i.e., no other mantra.

In praise of all this we have the next expression—‘Truth is better than silence’ ‘Silence’ is control of speech. And the result accruing from the telling of truth is superior to that resulting from the control of speech. Since the telling of truth implies the acting up to a positive injunction, while in silence there is observance of the mere prohibition of telling lies.

This verse is purely valedictory.—(83)

Medhātithi (P. 114, 1. 12)—‘Āpastamba vacanāt’—This refers to Āpastamba’s Dharmasūtra 1.4.13.9, the whole of which reads as follows—

loke ca bhūtikarmasvetadīnyeca vākyāni syuryathā pupyāhaṃ svassyṛddhimiti

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 321), where the same verse is attributed to Yama also.

Vasiṣṭha-smṛti, 5-6.—‘The one syllable is Brahman Supreme; Breath-suspension is the highest penance; alms-begging is superior to fasting; and compassion is superior to charity.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55 17—[reproduces the words of Manu].

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 321).—‘The syllable om is the highest Brahman; Breath-suspension is the highest penance; there is nothing superior to the Sāvitrī; Truth is superior to silence;—all Vedic acts may dwindle away, but the syllable should be recognised as never dwindling;—the highest Brahman in the shape of the single syllable has been declared

to be the best purifier; there is nothing superior to the Gāyatri; Truth is superior to silence. Daily one should repeat the Gāyatrī, 1,000 or 100 or at least 10 times, as destructive of all sins.’

083 The monosyllable (Om) is the highest Brahman, (three) suppressions of the breath are the best (form of) austerity, but nothing surpasses the Savitri truthfulness is better than silence.

All vedic acts of oblation and sacrifice pass away; while this syllable (om) is to be regarded as imperishable; and it is Brahman, and also Prajāpati—(84)

यावन्तः केचन वैदिका होमा अग्निहोत्रादयः, ये च यागा ज्योतिष्ठोमादयः, ते सर्वे क्षरन्ति न परिपूर्णा भवन्ति । फलं वा तदीयं स्रवत्य् आशु विनश्यति । अक्षरं त्व् एतद् ॐकाराख्यम् अक्षरं ज्ञेयम् अक्षयफलम् । ब्रह्मीभूतस्य न पुनः संसारापत्तिः । अतो ऽक्षयफलत्वाद् अक्षरम् उच्यते । एको ऽक्षरशब्द उद्देश्यः संज्ञाशब्दो द्वितीयो यौगिकः क्रियाशब्दः । ब्रह्म च तद् एव । प्रजापतिश् च्ॐकार एव । स्तुतिर् एषा । जुहोतियजतीति धातुनिर्देशस् तयोः क्रियाप्रतिपाद्यार्था यागहोमाः । व्यक्त्यपेक्षं बहुत्वम् । अथ वा धात्वर्थनिर्देश एवायं जुहोतियजतीति । क्रियास् तद्व्यतिरिक्ता दानाद्याः । द्वन्द्वश् चायम्- जुहोतियजतीति च क्रियाश् च । होमयागौ प्राधान्यात् पृथग् उपादीयेते ।

• अत्रोक्ता³⁵ ॐकारस्य स्तुतिः केवलस्यापि जपविधानार्थेति केचित् । न हि प्रकृतविधिशेषतैवात्र, पुनः परामर्शाभावात् । वैश्वानरे ह्य् अष्टत्वादीनाम् “यद् अष्टाकपालो भवति, गायत्र्या चैनं ब्रह्मवर्चसेन पुनाति, यन् नवकपालस् त्रिवृतैवास्मिंस् तेजो दधाति” इति । सर्वत्र वैश्वानरपदापेक्षया तदेकवाक्यत्वे संभवति न वाक्यभेदकल्पनया विध्यन्तरसंभवः । इह त्व् अक्षरं ज्ञेयम् इति न पूर्वापेक्षा, नापि सावित्र्यादीनां पुनः परामर्शो ऽस्ति । अतः स्वपदार्थैर् एव वाक्यार्थपरिसमाप्तेर् नान्यशेषता । ज्ञेयम् इत्य् अत्र कृत्वो विधायकः । ब्रह्मपदेन च संबन्धाद् ब्रह्मरूपतया ज्ञेयम् उपास्यं भावनीयम् । भाव्यमाने च तस्मिन् मानसजप उक्तो भवति ॥ २.८४ ॥

All acts laid down in the Veda—‘oblations’ in the form of Agnihotra and the rest,—as also ‘sacrifices’ in the form of Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest,—‘pass away’; i.e., either they never bring about their results in their entirety, or even when brought about, those results perish quickly.

‘This syllable’—‘om’—is to be known as ‘imperishable,’ i.e., bringing about imperishable results; since for one who has become merged into Brahman, there is no return to worldly existence. Thus leading to an imperishable result, the syllable is itself called ‘imperishable.’ One of the two terms ‘akṣara,’ one is a noun, which forms the subject of the sentence, while the other, is the predicate, and is taken in its literal sense.

That same syllable is also Brahman, and Prajāpati.

This also is purely valedictory.

The expression ‘juhoti-yajati’ mentions two verbal roots; and the term ‘kriyā’ stands for the actions of (oblation) and Yāga (sacrifice)—as denoted by the two roots. The plural number is due to the multiplicity of the acts. Or, the two verbal roots may be taken as standing for the acts of Homa and Yāga themselves, while ’ kriyā’ stands for the other acts of charity and the like. The whole is a copulative compound—made up of the three terms ‘juhoti,’ and ‘kriyā’—the acts of H oma and Yāga being separately mentioned by reason of their importance.

Some people have held that this praise of the syllable ‘om’ by itself (as apart from the and the verse) is meant to enjoin the repetition of the syllable; and they argue that this cannot be taken as merely supplementary to the foregoing injunction of the reciting of the Sāvitrî along with ‘om,’ etc., as no reference to this latter is made in the present verse; as there is in the case of the sacrifice, in connection with which we find two passages—(a) ‘Yadaṣṭākapalo bhavati gāyat chainam brahmavarchasena punāti,’ and (b) ‘Yannavakapalastṛvṝtaivāsmimstejo daḍhāii,’—where reference is distinctly made to a foregoing injunction; so that so long as it is found possible (on the basis of this reference) to connect the injunctions syntactically (and treat them as a single injunction), there can be no justification for splitting them up into two distinct injunctions. In the present instance, on the other hand, when it is said that ‘this should be regarded as imperishable,’ there is no reference to any thing that has gone before; nor is there any reference made to the Sāvitrī, etc. Por these reasons, the present text is to be taken as a self-contained injunction, and not as supplementary to something else. Further, the verbal affix in ‘jñeyaḥ’ ‘(should be regarded)’ is purely injunctive. And this, taken along with the word ‘brahma,’ gives the sense that ‘this should he regarded—i.e., meditated upon—as Brahman’; and this ‘meditation’ stands for the mental process of repeating the syllable.—(84)

‘Kṣaranti’—‘Pass away—do not bring about their complete results, or their results disappear quickly’—(Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa);—‘Perish—as far as their form and results are concerned’—(Nandana).

‘Brahma’—The neuter form is accepted by Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda. Nārāyaṇa and Nandana read the masculine form ‘brahmā’, and explain the phrase as ‘just like Brahmā, the Prajāpati.’

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Ācāra, p. 321), where it is explained that—‘akṣaram’ stands for the syllable ‘om’,—and this is ‘akṣara’ in the sense that its effect in the form Final Release ‘never perishes’ (na-kṣarati);—and that the syllable ‘om’ is to be regarded as ‘Prajāpati’ on the ground of its being expressive of that deity. Here again this same verse is attributed to Yama also.

Medhātithi’s remarks on p. 115,11. 1-8 are based upon Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1. 4. 17-22.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 79), which reads ‘Akṣaram śreṣṭham’ for ‘duṣkaram jñeyam’ and explains it as ‘Brahma-praṇava.’

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.18—[reproduces Manu].

Vasiṣṭhasmṛti, 25.11.—‘The one syllable winch is the highest Brahman, lias been declared to be the best purifier.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 7. 2. 13.—‘One should equip himself with the syllable.’

Yama [see preceding verse].

084 All rites ordained in the Veda, burnt oblations and (other) sacrifices, pass away; but know that the syllable (Om) is imperishable, and (it is) Brahman, (and) the Lord of creatures (Pragapati).

The offering that consists in the repeating of mantras excels the enjoined (ritualistic) offering ten times; the inaudible (repeating) excels this latter a hundred times; and the Mental (repeating) excels it a thousandfold.—(85)

विधिविषयो यज्ञो विधियज्ञो ज्योतिष्टोमादिः । यत् कर्म यजेतेति चोदितम्, बाह्येन³⁶ व्यापारेण ऋत्विगादिसर्वाङ्गसंपत्त्या क्रियते स विधियज्ञ इहोच्यते । जपस् तु न यज्ञः । प्रशंसया यज्ञ उपचारेणोच्यते । अतो नासौ विधियज्ञः । स विशिष्टः प्रकृष्टः श्रेष्ठो यज्ञो ज्योतिष्टोमादेर् दशभिर् गुणैः । महाफलत्वम् एतेन जपस्योच्यते । यद् एव यागात् फलं तद् एव बहुतरं जपात्³⁷ पाप्यते । न च यागेभ्यः श्रौतेभ्यो जपस्याधिकफलत्वं युक्तम् । तथा हि सति कः शरीरधनपरिक्षयरूपेषु यागेष्व् अध्यवस्येत् । तस्मात् प्रशंसैषा । पूर्णाहुत्या सर्वान् कामान् अवाप्नोतीतिवत् । एतावद् अस्यार्थः, तद् एव स्वर्गादिफलम् अवाप्यते, किं तु लोकवत् प्रयत्नविशेषात् । फलपरिमाणविशेषो ऽविशेषित्वात् यज्ञस्य, स्वर्गग्रामपुत्रपश्वादि यस्य यज्ञस्य यत् फलं तत् तज्जपात् प्राप्यते । उपांशुः शतगुणः, यद् अन्यो न शृणोति समीपस्थो ऽपि । सहस्र गुणः साहस्रो मानसः मनोव्यापारमात्रेण³⁸ यश् चिन्त्यते । जपमात्रविषय उपांशुत्वादिगुणः, प्रकृतस्य यो ऽधीतेत्य् अनेन विच्छेदात्, तेन य प्रायश्चित्तादौ जपो यः शान्तिको यश् चाभ्युदयिकः सर्वत्रैते गुणाः । सहस्रम् अस्यास्तीति साहस्रः । गुणानां प्रकृतत्वात् सहस्रगुणसद्भावः प्रतीयते । गुणशब्दश् चावयववचनः । फलभूमा च संबन्धाद् अवगम्यते ॥ २.८५ ॥

The ‘enjoined offering’ is that which forms the subject of injunctions; such as Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest; such acts are called ‘enjoined offering,’ as they have been enjoined by words like ‘should offer’ and the rest, and are performed by means of external acts, and with the full accompaniment of priests and other innumerable details.

The Japa, ‘ Repeating of Mantras’ is not an ‘offering’; but with a view to eulogise it, it has been spoken as an ‘offering’ only figuratively; consequently this cannot be included under the term ‘enjoined offering.’

This latter ‘excels,’—is a better, superior, offering than the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest,—‘ten times’.

What is meant here is that the Repeating of Mantras is highly efficacious; the meaning being that the results proceeding from the Repetition are the same, but larger, as those proceeding from the Ritualistic Offerings. It is not meant that the Repeating of Mantras actually brings about results larger than those brought about by the ritualistic sacrifices; for if it were really so, who ‘would ever undertake the performance of the latter, which involve much physical hardship and the expenditure of much wealth? For these reasons it is clear that what is said here is a mere praise (of the Repeating of Mantras); just like the assertion that ‘One attains all desirable ends by the

Final Oblation.’ All that is meant is that from this act also the same results follow, in the shape of Heaven and the rest; but the difference iu the amount of human effort involved leads to the difference in the degree of the result. And as the text does not specify any particular result, it should be taken to mean that by the Repeating of Mantras one obtains the same results—in the shape of heaven, landed property, children and cattle—as those proceeding from sacrificial performances.

‘The Inaudible, a hundred times’—That repeating of Mantras is called Inaudible which is not heard by any other person, however near he may be.

‘A thousand times—the Mental.’—That in which the Mantra in meditated upon by a mere mental operation.

The ‘Inaudible’ and other qualifications pertain to all kinds of Repeating Mantras (and not only to the repeating of the Gāyatrī, etc.); the continuity of the context, starting from verse 82, having been broken. Hence, whenever there is repetition of Mantras—in the course of either Expiatory Rites, or the rites performed for the allaying of portents, or those intended to bring about prosperity,—the said qualifications become applicable.

The term ‘sāhasra’ literally means that which has a thousand; and since the noun spoken of is ‘guṇa,’ ‘times,’ ‘fold,’ the term means ‘thousand-fold’; the term ‘fold’ standing for part. That this refers to the excess of results is clear from the connection of the entire sentence.—(85)

Medhātithi (P. 115,1. 16)—‘Pūrṇahutyā &c.’—See in this connection Sāyaṇa-Ṛgvedhbhāṣya—Upodghāta (Introduction).

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.19.—[reproduces Manu’s words.]

Vasiṣṭha-smṛti, 26.10—[the same as Manu, with the exception that for ‘vidhi’ it reads ‘ārambha’].

085 An offering, consisting of muttered prayers, is ten times more efficacious than a sacrifice performed according to the rules (of the Veda); a (prayer) which is inaudible (to others) surpasses it a hundred times, and the mental (recitation of sacred texts) a thousand times.

The four cooked offerings, along with the enjoined sacrifices,—all these are not worth the sixteenth part of the offering that consists in the repeating of mantras.—(86)

महायज्ञाः पाकयज्ञा उच्यन्ते, ब्रह्मयज्ञं वर्जयित्वा चत्वारो यज्ञा भवन्ति । विधियज्ञा उक्तास् तैः समन्विताः सहिताः । कलाम् अंशं षोडशीं नार्हन्ति । षोडशेन भागेन न समा भवन्ति । अथ वार्हतिः प्राप्त्यङ्गे मूल्यपणने वर्तते । अर्हशब्दात् तिपं कृत्वा अर्हन्ति रूपम् ॥ २.८६ ॥

The five ‘great sacrifices,’ leaving off the are what are meant by the ‘four cooked offerings.’

‘Enjoined sacrifices’—those already described (under the preceding verse); along with these latter, the former (four) ‘are not worth the sixteenth part’—i.e., are not equal to the sixteenth part.

Or, the root ‘arha’ may be taken in the sense of the price paid for the obtaining of a certain thing. The root ‘arha’ with the Present-Tense-ending ‘tip’ gives the form ‘arhanti.’—(86)

‘Pākayajñāḥ’—This term stands for the last four of the five ‘Mahāyajña’—

1. Brahmayajña (Vedic study),
2. Devayajña (the Vaiśvadeva offerings),
3. Pitṛyajña (daily Śrāddha offerings),
4. Bhūtayajña (Bali offerings)
5. and Manuṣyayajña (Feeding of guests),

according to Medhātithi, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana.

According to Govindarāja and Rāghvānanda, it stands for all Śrauta and Smārta offerings.

The main classification of sacrifices is based upon the difference in the substances offered. On this basis they have been classified as under:—

(l) Haviryajñas, also called ‘Iṣti’, consisting in the offering of such substances as milk, butter, rice, barley and other grains;—the principal representatives of this class are (a) the Darśapūrṇamāsa, which is described in detail in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (I and II); and its six ectypes—(b) the Agnyādhāna, (c) the Agnihotra (d) the Āgrahāyaṇeṣṭi (e) the Cāturmāsya, (f) the Paśubandha and (g) the Sautrāmaṇi; all these are offered into fire specially consecrated by the Agnyādhāna rite, which serving as it does only the purpose of preparing the fire for other sacrifices, is not a sacrifice in the strict sense of the term,—as has been remarked by Karka in his commentary on Kātyāyana’s Śrautasūtra.

(2) Pākayajñas consisting of the offering of cooked substances, not in the consecrated fire, but in the domestic fire and other receptacles. The seven principal sacrifices included under this category are—the five ‘great sacrifices’ (described in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 10-5.7 and in Manu, 3.70), the Aṣṭakās, the Pārvaṇa offerings, the Śrāvaṇī, the Āgrahāyaṇī, the Caitrī and the Āśvāyujī. These are described in the Gṛhya—not Śrauta—Sūtras. Though the substances offered in these are not very different from those in the Iṣṭis on Haviryajñas, yet they are classed separately, on the ground that the receptacle of the offerings in their case is not the consecrated fire.

(3) Somayajñas in which the substance offered is the Soma-juice; it includes the following seven sacrifices—(a) Agniṣṭoma, (b) Atyagniṣṭoma, (c) Ukthya, (d) Śoḍaśin (e) Vājapeya, (f) Atirātra and (g) Āptoryamā. Almost all Somayajñas involve the killing of an animal, hence the Animal-sacrifices, Paśuyāgas, have been included by older writers under this category; though later writers have drawn a distinction between the Somayāga and the Paśuyāga. The very elaborate sacrifices, such as the Aśvamedha, the Rājasūya, the Pauṇḍarīka and the Gosava (according to Devala)—are generally classed apart, under the generic name of Mahāyajñakratu’.

(See in this connection, Prābhākara-Mīmāṃsā, pp. 251-253).

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.20 and Vasiṣṭha, 26.11—[reproduce the Words of Manu].

Bhagavadgītā.—‘Among sacrifices, I am the Japa-offering.’

086 The four Pakayagnas and those sacrifices which are enjoined by the rules (of the Veda) are all together not equal in value to a sixteenth part of the sacrifice consisting of muttered prayers.

It is by means of repeating mantras that the Brāhmaṇa succeeds;—there is no doubt in this. he may, or may not, do anything else, one comes to be called a Brāhmaṇa if he is of a friendly disposition.—(87)

जप्येनैव सिद्धिं काम्यफलावाप्तिं ब्रह्मप्राप्तिं वा प्राप्नुयात् । नात्र हृदि सङ्का कर्तव्या । यज् ज्योतिष्टोमादिभ्यो महाप्रयासेभ्यो भावनाभ्यश् च यल् लब्धव्यं यज् जपेन कथं सिध्यतीति । सिध्यत्य् एव ।

• कुर्याद् अन्यद् अनित्यं³⁹ ज्योतिष्टोमादि । अथ वा तद् अपि न कुर्याद् यतो मैत्रो ब्राह्मण उच्यते । मित्रम् एव मैत्रम् । सर्वभूतमैत्रीरतेन ब्राह्मणेन भवितव्यम् । अग्निष्ॐइयपशुहिंसायां च कुतो मैत्री । अयम् अर्थवाद् एव, न पुनः पश्वङ्गकर्मप्रतिषेधः, पूर्वशेषत्वावगतेः । प्रत्यक्षश्रुतिविहितत्वाच् च तेषाम् । अतिक्रान्तो जपविधिः ॥ २.८८ ॥

By means of repeating Mantras alone the Brāhmaṇa succeeds;—i.e., acquires all desirable results,and also attains Brahman.

No such doubt on this point should be entertained in the mind, as—“How can one acquire, by means of Mantra-repetition alone, such results as are obtained only by means of such elaborate acts as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest, which cost much effort, or from deep and prolonged meditations?”—Because as a matter of fact, such success does actually follow.

‘He may do anything else.’—In the shape of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other non-com pulsory acts, —‘or not do it.’—For ‘one comes to be called a Brahmaṇa if lie is of a friendly disposition.’ ‘Maitra’ is the same as ‘mitra.’ The Brahmaṇa should be friendly to all living beings; and how can there be any friendliness (benevolence) in such acts as the killing of animals during the Agnīṣomīya offerings?

This passage is purely valedictory; it is not a prohibition of the killing of animals during sacrifices; because it is only supplementary to what has gone before (and as such it cannot be taken as an independent prohibition), and because such killing is directly enjoined in the Veda itself.

Thus ends the process of Repeating Mantras.—(87)

‘Maitraḥ’—‘of friendly disposition (towards all living beings)’—Medhātithi;—‘worshipper of Mitra, Sun’ (suggested by Rāghavāṇanda).

‘Brāhmaṇaḥ’—‘one who will be absorbed in Brahman’ (Kullūka);—‘the best of Brāhmaṇas’ (Rāghavānanda);—

Buhler remarks—“Medhātithi and Govindarāja take the last clause differently: it is declared (in the Veda that) a Brāhmaṇa (shall be) a friend (of all creatures).” But in Medhātithi we find no mention of the Veda here.

The verse is clearly meant to be deprecatory of Animal-sacrifices, which involve the killing of animals, whereas the Brāhmaṇa should be friendly to all creatures.

This verse is quoted in Yatidharmasaṃgraha (p. 127).

Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.21 and Vasiṣṭha, 26.12—[reproduce the words of Manu].

087 But, undoubtedly, a Brahmana reaches the highest goal by muttering prayers only; (whether) he perform other (rites) or neglect them, he who befriends (all creatures) is declared (to be) a (true) Brahmana.