०६ गृह्ययज्ञाः

In the marriage-fire the householder should perform the ‘gṛhya’ rites; as also the rite of the ‘five sacrifices’ and the daily cooking.—(67)

अतिक्रान्तं विवाहप्रकरणम् । कृतो विवाहो यस्मिन्न् अग्नौ तत्र कुर्वीत गृह्यं कर्म, अग्निसाध्यम् अष्टकापार्वणश्राद्धहोमादि गृह्यस्मृतिकारैर् उक्तम् । पञ्चयज्ञा वक्ष्यमाणास् तेषां विधानम् अनुष्ठानम्, तस्मिन्न् एवाग्नौ ।

• यद्य् अप्य् अविशेषेण पञ्चयज्ञविधानम् इत्य् उक्तं तथापि वैश्वदेवहोमो ऽग्निसाध्यः, उदकतर्पणादौ तु न किंचिद् अग्निना कार्यम् । कथं तर्हि निर्देशो ऽग्नौ पञ्चयज्ञविधानं कार्यम् इति ।

• केचिद् आहुर् एकापि सप्तमी विषयभेदाद् भिद्यते । तस्मात् पञ्चयज्ञैकदेशे पञ्चयज्ञशब्दः प्रयुक्तः ।

• अथ वा पञ्चयज्ञविधानम् इत्य् अत्र अग्नाउ इति न संबध्यते, वैश्वदेवहोमस्य पूर्वेणैवाग्न्यधिकरणस्य सिद्धत्वात् । एवं संबन्धः क्रियते- गृही तु पञ्चयज्ञविधानं कुर्यात् । अग्नौ तु वैवाहिके गृह्यकर्मपक्तिं¹ चान्वाहिकीम् अग्नाव् इत्य् अपेक्ष्यते ।

• गृहशब्दो दारवचनः । गृही तु स कृतदारपरिग्रहो² भार्याद्वितीय इदम् इदं कुर्याद् इति । विवाहे चाग्निः कैश्चिद् गृह्यकारैर् अरणिनिर्मन्थनाद् आधातव्य इत्य् उक्तम् । अपरैर् यतः कुतश्चिद् दीप्यमानम् आनीय होतव्यम् इति । अनेन तस्मिन् गृह्यम् इति वचनेन धारणम् अग्नेर् अर्थाद् उक्तं भवति ।

• अत्र केचिद् आहुः । शूद्रस्यापि वैवाहिकाग्निधारणम् अस्ति, तस्यापि पाकयज्ञाधिकारात् । न चात्र जातिविशेष उपात्तः, केवलं “गृही” इति श्रुतम् । शूद्रो ऽपि गृही, तस्यापि दारपरिग्रहस्योक्तत्वात् । एतद् एवान्यत्र पठितम् ।

• कर्म स्मार्थं विवाहाग्नौ कुर्वीत प्रयहं गृही । इति । (य्ध् १.९६)

• अत्रोच्यते । गृह्यं कर्म वैवाहिके ऽग्नाव् इति श्रुतम् । न च गृह्यं नाम किंचित् कर्मास्ति । तत्र गृह्यस्मृतिकारोक्तं गृह्यम् इति लक्षणया मन्तव्यम् । गृह्यकारैश् च त्रैवर्णिकानां एव कर्माम्नातम्, न शूद्रस्य- “उक्तानि वैतानिकानि गृह्याणि वक्ष्यामः” (आश्ग् १.१.१) इति । उक्तानुकीर्तनस्य एतद् एव प्रयोजनं येषाम् एव वैतानिकेष्व् अधिकारस् तेषाम् एव गृह्येष्व् इति, न पुनर् यथान्यैर् व्याख्यातं तद् धर्मप्रात्यर्थम् । तादर्थ्ये हि विवक्षिते “तस्याग्निहोत्रेण प्रादुष्करणहोमकालौ व्याख्यातौ” (आश्ग् १.९.४) इति नावक्ष्यत् । न च गृहे भवं गृह्यम् इति युक्तम् । शालावचनो गृहशब्दो दारवचनो वा । न तावत् कस्यचित् कर्मणः शालाधिकरणत्वेन विशेषतः समाम्नाता यद् गृहम् इत्य् अनूद्य गृहिणो विधीयते । यद् अपि गृहसंस्कारकं वास्तुपरीक्षादि तद् अपि त्रैवर्णिकानाम् एव, न शूद्रस्य । अथ दारवचनस् तत्रापि गृहीत्य् अनेनैव गतत्वान् न किंचित् ।

• यद् अपि³ स्मृत्यन्तरम्-

• कर्म स्मार्तं विवाहाग्नौ कुर्वीत प्रत्यहं गृही ।

• दायकालाह्र्ते वापि श्रौतं वैतानिकाग्निषु ॥ (य्ध् १.९७)

इति, अत्रापि किंचित् स्मार्तम् इति विशेषानुपादानाद् अन्यसापेक्षतैव । न हि सर्वम् अग्नौ स्मार्तं कर्म संभवति । न च होमविषयत्वे प्रमाणम् अस्ति । न ह्य् अवश्यम् अग्न्यधिकरण एव होमः ।

• तस्माद् गृह्यकारोक्तं गृह्यम् इति वक्तव्यम् । एते हि स्मृती गृह्यकारविहितं कर्मानुवदतः । तथा च कुतः शूद्रस्याग्निपरिग्रहः । किं च “श्रौतं वैतानिकाग्निषु” इति अपरं तत्राम्नायते, तत्र अवश्यम् अयं त्रैवर्णिकविषय एषितव्यः । स एव पूर्वत्र चातुर्वर्ण्यपर उत्तरत्र त्रैवर्णिकपर इत्य् एकस्य शब्दस्य तात्पर्यभेदो ऽभ्युपगतः स्यात् । न चाभेदे संभवति भेदो न्याय्यः । अन्वहं भव्आन्वाहिक्ई । प्रतिदिवसं यः पाको भुक्त्यर्थः स तस्मिन्न् एवाग्नौ कर्तव्यः ॥ ३.५७ ॥

The section on Marriage is finished.

In the fire in which the marriage-rites have been performed, one should perform the ‘Gṛhya rites,’—i.e., rites that have been prescribed by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras as to be performed with the help of fire; e.g., the Aṣṭakā śrāddha, the Pārvaṇaśrāddha, Libations, and so forth.

‘Five sacrifices’—to be described later on;—‘the rite,’ the performance of these—(should be done) in that same fire.

“Though the text speaks of the ‘five sacrifices’ without any specification, yet (among them) the Vaiśvadeva-offering alone is to be made in the fire; in the offering of the water-libations, etc., there is no need for the fire. Why then should the text speak of the ‘rite of five sacrfices’ as to be performed in the fire?”

Some people explain that, though the locative ending is one only, yet it may be regarded as diverse in reference to the diversity in the objects; hence, in the present context, the term ‘five sacrifices’ has been used in the sense of a part only of the five sacrifices.’

Or (another explanation is that), the phrase, ‘in the f ire,’ is not to be construed with the ‘rite of the five sacrifices,’—the Vaiśvadeva-offering, which is made into fire, being already included in the preceding phrase (‘gṛhya rite ’). The construction in this case would be—‘the Householder should perform the rite of the five sacrifices, and in the Marriage-fire he should perform the gṛhya or domestic rites, as also the daily cooking.’

The term ‘gṛha,’ house,’ denotes wife; hence what is meant is that the ‘householder,’ i.e., one, who has married a wife, should perform the rites, in association with one’s wife.

Some writers on the Gṛhyasūtras have declared that at marriage, fire should be produced by the friction of two sticks; while, according to others, one may bring burning fire from anywhere he likes and make his offerings into that.

The injunction that the domestic rites shall be performed in the marriage-fire implies that the fire kindled at marriage shall be kept up.

On this point some people make the following observations:—The maintaining of the marriage-fire should be necessary for the Śūdra also; as for him. also the performance of the ‘Pākayajña’ has been ordained; nor does the present text specify any particular caste; all that is found is the general term ‘householder,’ and the Śūdra also is a ‘householder,’ the marrying of a wife being prescribed for him also. This is what has beeu declared elsewhere (in Yājñavalkya, Ācāra, 97)—‘The householder should everyday perform the smārta rites in the marriage-tire.’”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—What has been declared is that ‘Gṛhya rites are to be performed in the marriage-fire;’ but there is no special rite named ‘gṛhya;’ hence the name ‘gṛhya’ should be taken as indirectly indicating the rites prescribed by writers on Gṛhyasūtras; and these writers have prescribed the rites for the three higher castes only, and not for the Śūdra. In fact, in the Gṛhyasūtras we find a summing up in the words—‘The sacrificial rites have been described, we are now going to describe the Gṛhya rites;’ and the purpose for which these words have beeu added is to imply that ‘those persons only are entitled to the performance of the Gṛhya rites who are entitled to that of the sacrificial ones;’ and it is not meant, as it has been explained by others, that the latter constitute the duty of others also. If this had been meant, then it would not have been asserted that—‘the times for Prāduṣkaraṇa and Homa are analogous to those of the Agnihotra.’ Nor, again, is it right to take the term ‘gṛhya’ to mean ‘pertaining to the home’ (domestic); for the term ‘home’ (gṛha) could only mean either ‘house’ or ‘wife;’ now, as a matter of fact, for no rite has the ‘house’ been specifically prescribed as the location, in view of which the rite could be prescribed for the householder in terms of the ‘house,’ Then, again, such rites also as are performed for the sanctification of one’s house—such for instance, as the testing of the building-site, and so forth—have been prescribed for the three higher castes only, and not for the Śūdra. If, on the other hand, the term ‘home’ means the ‘wife,’ then the act meant having been already implied by the term ‘householder,’ the name ‘gṛhya’ would be superfluous.

As for the statement in the other Smṛti (Yājavalkya, Ācāra 97)—‘The householder should every-day perform Smārta rites in the Marriage-fire, or in the fire set up at the time of partition, and the Śrauta rites in the sacrificial fires,’—here also, since it has not been specifically stated what the ‘smārta rites’ are, the statement must be taken as qualified by some other statement; specially because, as a matter of fact, all smārta rites cannot be performed in fire; nor is there anything to indicate that the term refers to Homa (offerings into fire) only; nor, again, is it necessary that all Homa -offerings shall be made into fire.

From all this the term ‘gṛhya’ has to be explained as standing for the rites prescribed by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras. Both these smṛti- texts (the present one, and Yājñavalkya I, 97) only refer to what has been prescribed by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras. So that how could there be any setting up of the fire by a Śūdra?

Further, Yājñavalkya’s text lays down the additional fact that ‘Śrauta rites are to be performed in the sacrificial fire;’ and this must be taken as pertaining to the three higher castes only. Under the circumstances, if the former statement (regarding smārta rites) were taken as pertaining to all the four castes, and the latter (regarding the śrauta rites) to three castes only, then this would involve the incongruity of one and the same set of words having two different imports. And, so long as a uniform import can be found, there can be no justification for admitting such a diversity.

‘Daily’—that which is done day after day; e.g., the cooking that is done every day for one’s own food;—this also is to be done in the same fire.—(67)

Medhātithi (P. 217, l. 27)—‘Etadevānyatra paṭhitam’.—The verse is quoted from Yājñavalkya (1.97), where Mitākṣarā explains the phrase ‘smārtam karma’ as ‘the Vaiśvadeva and other religious rites prescribed in the Smṛtis’, as also ‘the ordinary worldly acts of cooking and the like’, while Aparārka explains it simply as ‘acts laid down in the Smṛtis’.

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 301);—and in Śāntimayūkha (p. 4).

Gautama (5.7-9).—‘The installation of Fire begins either with marriage or with succession to property; in that are the Gṛhya-rites to be performed; as also the sacrifices to Gods, Pitṛs and Men, and also Vedic Study.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 97).—‘The Householder should every day perform the Smārta-rites in the marriage-tire, or in the fire installed at the time of succession to property; and the Śrauta rites are to he performed in the Śrauta Fire.’

Viṣṇu (59.1-3).—‘The Householder shall perform the Pākayajñas in the Marriage-Fire; also the Agnihotra, both morning and evening; he shall also pour libations to the Gods.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.75).—‘The installation of Fire begins with marriage; in that should the rites be performed till such time as the regular Laying of the Fire.’

Śātātapa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 393).—‘The Vaiśvadeva offering may be made either in the ordinary fire or in the Vedic fire.’

Aṅgiras (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 393).—‘Homa is prescribed as to be done in that fire in which one cooks his food.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 393).—‘All the Pākayajñas are to he offered in the Marriage Fire.’

Kāmandaka (2.25-26).—‘The duties of a Householder are to perform the Agnihotra, to live by the prescribed professions and to avoid sexual intercourse on the Parvas. The duties of those who have married and settled down are—to worship gods, pitṛs and guests, to show mercy to the poor and the distressed and to live according to Śruti and Smṛti.’

067 With the sacred fire, kindled at the wedding, a householder shall perform according to the law the domestic ceremonies and the five (great) sacrifices, and (with that) he shall daily cook his food.

For the householder there are five slaughter-houses: the hearth, the grinding-stone, household implements, mortar and pestle and water-jar;—by using which he becomes stricken.—(68)

पञ्चयज्ञविधेर् अधिकारनिर्देशो ऽयम् । सूना इव सूनाः । मांसविक्रयार्थपशुवधस्थानम् आपणदयो वा मांसस्योत्पादकतयानुष्ठीयमानाः पापहेतवः । एवं चुल्ल्यादयो ऽपि पापहेतुत्वाद् अध्यारोपेण सूनासमाः । न हि तेषां शास्त्रप्रतिषेधः साक्षात् । नापि सामान्यः कश्चित् प्रतिषेधो ऽस्ति । न हि तापघाताय कस्यचिन् न स्पृहा स्यात् । न काचित् तत्साध्यक्रिया दृश्यते या वचनान्तरेण निषिद्धा । न चास्माद् एव वचनात् प्रतिषेधानुमानम्, उत्तरेणैकवाक्यतावगमात् । प्रतिषेधपरत्वे वाक्यभेदः स्यात् । किं चैतत्पदार्थसाध्याम् अर्थक्रियां पदार्थान्तरेण साधयेत् तस्याः प्राप्तिं पञ्चयज्ञानाम् । न च लक्षणान्य् उक्तानि । येन तत्समानकार्यस्यान्यस्यापि प्रतिषेध उच्यते । यो वा परकीयम् अन्नम् अध्यान् नद्यादाव् उदकार्थं कुर्यात्⁴ तस्यैते यज्ञाः स्युः । यदि च चुल्ल्यादीनां निषेधो ऽभिप्रेतः स्यात् तदा प्रतिषेधार्थीयम् एव पदम् अधीयीत, किम् अनुमानेन । स्वशब्दाद् बलीयसी प्रतिपत्तिः । प्रायश्चित्तार्थत्वे त्व् एकादशे ऽभिधानं युक्तम्⁵ । निषेधैर् एवाननुष्ठानम् एव स्यात् । अपरिहार्यत्वाच् च चुल्ल्यादीनाम् अशक्यो निषेधः । असति च निषेधे कुतः प्रायश्चित्तम् ।

• तस्मान् न दोषविघातार्थं पञ्चमहायज्ञाः । किं तर्हि नित्यसंबन्धेषु चुल्ल्यादिष्व् आरोपितासद्दोषनिष्कृत्यर्थतया⁶ नित्यार्थतया नित्यत्वं यज्ञानाम् आह ।

• वध्यते । आदिवर्णं वेत्य् एतद् दन्तोष्ठ्यं पठ्यते । हन्यते दुष्कृतेन, शरीरधनादिना नाश्यते । संबध्यते वा पापेन- परतन्त्रीकरणं वा बध्नातेर् अर्थः ।

• वाहयन् । स्वकार्ये व्यापरणं वाहनम् । यस्य चुल्ल्यादेर् यदौचित्यप्राप्तं स्वसाध्यं कार्यं तत् ताभिः कुर्वन् वाहयन्न् इत्य् उच्यते ।

• चुल्ली पाकस्थानं भ्राष्ट्रादि । पेषणी दृषदुपलो वा । उपस्करो गृहोपयोगि भाण्डं कुण्डकटाहादि । कण्डनी यया व्रीह्यादि कण्ड्यते । कुम्भो जलाधारः ॥ ३.५८ ॥

This verse serves to indicate the occasion for the prescribing of the ‘five sacrifices.’

‘Slaughter-houses’—i.e., it is as if they were slaughterhouses. Places where animals are killed for the purpose of their flesh being sold, or those where meat is sold, become sources of sin, by being used for the purpose of obtaining meat; similarly, the hearth and other things also, being sources of sin, come to resemble the ‘slaughter-house.’

As a matter of fact, there is no direct scriptural prohibition bearing specifically upon the ‘hearth’ and other things; nor is there any general prohibition regarding them. It is not impossible for men to have a desire for the heat (provided by the hearth). We do not find any such acts as are accomplished by means of the hearth, etc., which could be prohibited by other texts. Nor can the prohibition be inferred from what is stated in the present text itself; for the simple reason that it is clearly understood as to be construed along with the next verse (which is an injunction, not a prohibition); so that, if the present text were taken as a prohibition, this would involve a syntactical split; and further (the use of the Hearth, etc., being prohibited by this verse) the occasion for the performance of the ‘Five Sacrifices’ would be afforded only when the acts that are done by means of the Hearth, etc., would be done by means of other things. Nor, again, have the peculiar characteristics (of such acts) have been described anywhere, the presence whereof would indicate the similarity of certain acts (to the acts accomplished by means of Hearth, etc.) and their consequent prohibition. And a further result of this being taken as the prohibition of the Hearth, etc., and as such having no connection with the injunction of the sacrifices, would be that the sacrifices would be performed by such men as would eat food cooked by others (and thus avoid the use of the Hearth), or would use water directly from the river and other reservoirs (thus avoiding the use of the water-jar). Then, again, if a prohibition of the Hearth, etc., were intended, then directly prohibitive words would have been used in the text; why should it have been left to be inferred? Direct assertion is always more forcible, if the prohibitive implication were admitted for the purpose of indicating the expiatory rites to be performed in connection with the acts,—then the right thing would have been to include it under Discourse XI (where expiatory rites are dealt with). Further, such a prohibition might lead to the abandoning of the particular acts; but the use of the Hearth cannot be avoided; hence there can be no prohibition of them; and there being no prohibition, wherefore would there be any expiatory rite?

From all this it follows that the ‘Five Great Sacrifices’ are not to be performed for the destroying of sins; bub what is meant by saying that they serve to expiate,—destroy—the sin involved in the using of the Hearth, etc., which cannot be avoided for a single day—is that the daily performance of the sacrifices is absolutely essential and compulsory.

‘Becomes stricken’—the first consonant is v; and the meaning is that ‘he is stricken by sin, and is ruined in regard to his body and belongings, etc.;—or, (if we read ba) the meaning may be that ‘be becomes connected with (tainted with) sin the root (in ‘badhyate’) denoting overpowering.

‘Using’—i.e., employing for one’s purpose. When a man employs the hearth and other things for such purposes as present themselves, he is said to ‘use’ them.

Hearth.—place of cooking; the oven, etc.

‘Grinding-stone’—the stone-slab, and the grinding piece.

‘Household implement’—such things as the pot, kettle and such other household requisites.

‘Pestle and mortar’—by which corn is thumped.

‘Water-jar’—the pot containing water.—(68)

‘Upaskaraḥ’—‘The pot, the kettle and other household implements’ (Medhātithi);—‘a pot, a broom and the rest’ (Kullūka);—‘a broom and the rest’ (Rāghavānanda);—all these take the word in the collective sense, including all ‘household implements’;—Nārāyaṇa alone takes it in the purely singular sense of ‘the broom’ only.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 533) as laying down the sources of ‘the sin of the slaughter house’;—it adds the following explanations:—‘Sūnā’ means occasions for killing’;—‘cullī’ is the cooking place’;—‘Peṣaṇī’ ‘grinding stone’;—‘upaskaraḥ’ ‘the broom and the rest’;—‘Kaṇḍanī,’ ‘mortar and pestle’;—by making use of these the man incurs sin.

Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 389) quotes the verse and adds the following explanations:—‘Sūnā’ is ‘occasion for the killing of living beings’;—‘Upaskaraḥ’ is ‘the broom, the pot, the stick and the rest’; ‘bādhyate’ (which is its reading for ‘badhyate’) means ‘is stricken—i.e., by sin accruing from the killing of animals’;—‘vāhayan’ means ‘making use of,’ ‘operating.’

Viṣṇu (59.19).—‘Mortar and pestle, Grinding stone, Hearth, Water-jar, Household Implements;—these are the five slaughter-houses for the Householder.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 389).—‘We are going to describe the Sūnās or slaughterings—by which is meant that which destroys living beings; these are of five kinds: The first slaughtering is done by people hurriedly entering water, by swimming, splashing, throwing about of water, catching of impurities, and moving in water; (2) the second they do by hurriedly walking in darkness or in dim light, or by trampling (upon insects); (3) the third they do by striking, collecting, capturing, grinding, tearing and so forth; (4) the fourth they do by attacking, rubbing, pounding and so forth; (5) the fifth by tiring, heating, sweating, frying, cooking and so forth. These are the five slaughterings, t he source of sin, which people do day by day.’

068 A householder has five slaughter-houses (as it were, viz.) the hearth, the grinding-stone, the broom, the pestle and mortar, the water-vessel, by using which he is bound (with the fetters of sin).

For the purpose of expiating all these in their course, the five great sacrifices have been ordained by the great sages, for householders (to be performed) daily.—(69)

तासां चुल्ल्यादीनां सूनानां निष्कृत्यर्थं तदुत्पन्नदोषनिर्यातनार्थं क्रमेणाधिलेपनं चुल्ल्याश् तक्षणं पेषण्या इत्य् एवमादिक्रमः । महर्षिभिः कॢप्ताः कर्तव्यतया स्मृताः पञ्च महायज्ञाः । प्रत्यहं गृहमेधिनां गृहस्थानाम् । गृहमेधिशब्दो गृहस्थाश्रमे वर्तते । प्रत्यहम् इति । अनुपादानात् कालविशेषस्य, यावज्जीवम् इति प्रतीयते । अतश् च नित्यत्वसिद्धिः । महायज्ञा इति कर्मनामधेयम् एतत् ॥ ३.५९ ॥

‘Of these’— of the Hearth and the other ‘slaughter-houses.’

‘For the purpose of expiating’—i.e., for the purpose of removing the evils proceeding from them.

‘Course’—The ‘course’ meant are—smearing of the Hearth, scraping of the grinding-stone, and so forth.

‘Have been ordained by the great sages;’—have been declared as to be performed;—‘the live great sacrifices,’ ‘for householders’—i.e., for persons who have entered the householder’s state—the term ‘grhamedha’ stands for the Householder’s state.

‘Daily’—as no particular period has been specified, we gather that they are to be performed throughout life; and it is thus that their compulsory character becomes estsblished.

‘Great sacrifices’—this is the name of the rites to be performed.—(69)

Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 389) quotes this along with the preceding verse.

Viṣṇu (59.20).—‘For the expiation of these, one should offer the sacrifices to Veda, Gods, Bhūtas, Pitṛs and Men.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 389).—‘The Religious Students shake off the sins of three slaughterings by attending upon the Fire and upon the Teacher, and by Vedic Study; the Householders and the Recluses shake off the five by means of the five Pākayajñas; the Renunciates shake off two by pure knowledge and by Meditation; there, is no shaking off of the slaughtering caused by the teeth.’

Saṃvarta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 387).—‘During the fifth part of the day, he shall make offerings to Gods, Pitṛs, Men and Insects.’

Saṃvarta. (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 388).—‘Day after day the twice-born shall perform the five great sacrifices; he shall never omit them.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 388).—‘Even in times of dire distress, he shall not omit the Pākayajñas.’

Jābāli (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 388).—‘Daily he should perform the worshipping of Gods and Pitṛs, and offerings should be made to Men also.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 388).—‘Having set up the Fire, he shall honour Gods, Pitṛs, Sages, Guests and other strangers who come to him.’

069 In order to successively expiate (the offences committed by means) of all these (five) the great sages have prescribed for householders the daily (performance of the five) great sacrifices.

Teaching is the ‘offering to Brahma;’ the Tarpaṇa is the ‘offering to Pitṛs;’ the Homa is ‘offering to Gods;’ the Bali is ‘offering to elementals;’ and the honouring of Guests is ‘offering to men.’—(70)

एषाम् अयं स्वरूपविधिः । अध्यापनशब्देनाध्ययनम् अपि गृह्यते येन “जपो ऽहुतः” (म्ध् ३.६४) इत्य् अत्र वक्ष्यति । न च जपो ऽपि शिष्यान् अपेक्षते । सामान्येन च⁷ श्रुतं “स्वाध्यायेनर्षिभ्यः” इत्य् ऋणावेदनश्रुतौ (त्स् ६.३.१०.५) । अत उभे अध्यापनाध्ययने यथासंभवं ब्रह्मयज्ञः । तर्पणम् अन्नाद्येनोदकेन वेति वक्ष्यति (म्ध् ३.७२) । होमो वक्ष्यमाणाभ्यो देवताभ्यो ऽग्नौ । बलिः शिष्ट उलूखलादौ च । स भौतः । भूतादिदेवतास्येति भौतः । नामधेयम् एतत् कर्मविशेषस्य । दिवाचारिभ्यो भूतेभ्य इति हि तत्र बलिहरणं भूतशब्देन विहितम् । साहचर्यात् सर्व एष कर्मगणो भूतयज्ञशब्देनोच्यते । यथा चातुर्मास्येष्व् एकं हविर् वैश्वदेवम् आमिक्षा- कृत्स्नम् एव च पर्व वैश्वदेवेन यजेतेति । बलिशब्दो ऽनग्निहोमे वर्तते । देवेज्याबलिर् इति स्मरन्ति । अतिथीनां पूजनम् आराधनां नृयज्ञः ।

• ननु च स्वाध्यायः कथं यज्ञः । न हि तत्र देवता इज्यन्ते नापि श्रूयन्ते । केवलं वेदाक्षराण्य् अविवक्षितार्थान्य् उच्चार्यन्ते । उक्तं चाम्नायशब्दाभ्यासे केचिद् आहुर् अनर्थकानीति ।

• सत्यम् । स्तुत्यां यज्ञसब्दो भाक्तः महच्छब्दश् च । अतिथिपूजायाम् अपि भाक्तो⁸ यज्ञशब्दः । यद्य् अप्य् अतिथेर् देवतात्वं संभवति, तथाप्य् उत्पत्तौ भोजयेत् पूजयेद् इति च श्रुतं नातिथिभ्यो यजेतेति । यथा “पुरुषराजाय⁹ यत् कर्म वा” इति ।

• एते पञ्चयज्ञा न युगपत् प्रयोज्याः, एकाधिकारासंबन्धात् पृथग् अधिकारश्रवणात् । एकाधिकारसंबन्धत्वे त्रिषु चतुर्षु वा कृतेषु न किंचित् कृतं स्याद् यावत् कृतं च न क्र्तं । यथाग्नेयाग्नीषोमीयोपांशुयागानां दर्शपूर्णमासयागानाम् एकद्व्यनुष्ठाने नाधिकारसिद्धिः । यथात्रैव वैश्वदेवहोमे स्विष्टकृदन्तानां देवतानां कस्यांश्चिद् अन्तराये न होमाधिकारनिर्वृत्तिः । एकैकस्य चात्राधिकारः श्रुतः । “स्वाध्याये नित्ययुक्तः स्यात्” (म्ध् ३.६५), “दैवे च नित्ययुक्तः स्यात्” (म्ध् ३.६५) इति । अधिकारपदानुषङ्गेण पृथक्प्रयोगः । आतिथ्ये चाधिकारान्तरं श्रुतं “धन्यं यशस्यम्” (म्ध् ३.९६) इति ।

• तत्र चत्वारः स्वाधीनाः, आतिथ्यं तु संनिहिते ऽतिथौ । न चातिथिर् निमन्त्रयितव्यः, आतिथ्याभावात् । स्वयम् उपस्थितो ह्य् अतिथिर् भवतीति वक्ष्यामः । तस्मात् पञ्चानाम् अन्यतमानुष्ठाने इतरेषाम् अननुष्ठानाद् यदि नाम प्रत्यवेयान् न तु कृतं अकृतं भवति । अतो ऽनग्निकत्वाद् वैश्वदेवे ऽनधिकृतस्य स्वाध्यायोदकतर्पणादौ भवत्य् एवाधिकारः । अग्निपरिग्रहस्य च स्मृत्यन्तरे कालान्तरस्यापि श्रुतत्वान् नावश्यं विवाह एव परिग्रहः । एवं हि स्मृतिः “भार्यादिर् अग्निर् दायादिर् वा” (ग्ध् ५.७) इति ।

• ननु चाकृतविवाहस्य दायकालम् आधानं भविष्यति ।

• भवति ह्य् एतद् एवं यद्य् आधानविधिः¹⁰ स्वार्थः स्यात् । अग्न्यर्थं त्व् आधानम् । अग्निश् च कर्मार्थः । कर्माणि च भार्याद्वितीयस्य, न केवलस्य, श्रुतानि । यद् अपि¹¹ कैश्चिद् गृह्यकारैः परमेष्ठिप्राणाग्निम् आधाय श्राद्धं कुर्याद् इत्य् उक्तं भवति, तद् अपि सभार्यस्यैव । स एवास्य दायकालः । न चानग्निकस्य श्राद्धं नास्ति । अनुपनीतस्यापि ह्य् एतद् विहितम् “अन्यत्र स्वधानिनयनात्” (ग्ध् २.५) इति । न च तस्याधानम् अस्ति, विदुषो ऽधिकाराद् इदानीं चाविद्यत्वात् । श्राद्धं तु वचनान् निषादस्थपतिवद् यथाशक्ति कार्यम् इति । पितृव्यादिनाग्निपरिग्रहे तु विदुषां संभवान् नावैद्यस्याधिकारः । अथ श्राद्धप्रकरण एवाग्न्याधानं विहितं तदा तदङ्गत्वेनाधाय निष्पन्ने श्राद्धे परित्यागो भविष्यति ।

• केचित् तु स्मृत्यन्तरम् उदाहरन्ति- “लौकिके ऽप्य् अग्नौ वैश्वदेवहोमः कर्तव्यः” । शुष्कान्नैर् अपरे ॥ ३.६० ॥

This verse contains the injunction of the exact form of the Five Sacrifices.

The term ‘teaching’ here includes ‘learning’ also: as will be explained in verse 74 below. The mere act of ‘reciting’ does not require any pupils. In the Vedic text describing the ‘debts’ of man, it has been stated in general terms that ‘by means of Vedic study one pays off one’s debts to the sages.’ For these reasons, both ‘teaching’ and ‘learning,’ according to circumstances, constitute ‘the offering to Brahma.’

‘Tarpaṇa’—the offering of ‘food or water,’ as described below, in 82.

‘Homa’—the offering into fire made to the deities to be described later on.

‘Bali’—i.e., offering made into receptacles other than fire, such as the wooden mortar and the like. This is the ‘offering to elementals;’—i.e., the offering made in honour of the elementals. This is only the name of a particular rite.

The making of offerings has been prescribed under the name of ‘bhūta,’ ‘lemental,’ in the text—‘offerings made to elementals stalking during the day, etc., etc.;’ and through association, the whole set of rites is expressed by the term ‘offering to elementals.’ Just as among the ‘Cāturmāsya’ sacrifices, though the Āmikṣā is the only one substance that is offered to the Viśvedevas, yet the entire set of rites has been spoken of us ‘Vaiśvadeva’ in the injunction, ‘one should offer the Vaiśvadeva sacrifice.’ The term ‘bali’ is applied to such Homas as are offered into receptacles other than fire; and they explain that ‘bali is offering to the gods.’

The ‘honouring’—i.e., receiving—‘of guests’ constitutes the ‘offering to men.’

“How can Vedic study be a ‘sacrifice?’ In it there are no offerings made to gods; nor has any deity been mentioned in connection with it; all that is done in it is that the letters of the Veda, without any sense, are recited; and it has been said in connection with the repeating of Vedic texts that some people say the words have no meaning.”

True; the term ‘sacrifice,’ as also the term ‘great,’ are used (in this connection) only figuratively, and they are meant to indicate high praise. To the ‘honouring of guests,’ also the name ‘sacrifice’ is applied only figuratively. Though it is possible for the Guest to be regarded as a ‘deity,’ yet in the original injunction of the act, the injunctive verbs used are ‘should feed,’ ‘should honour,’ and not ‘should sacrifice’ to guests. Just as we find in the expression ‘puruṣarājāya karma vā’ (where the act done in honour of the king of men is also called ‘sacrifice.’)

These ‘Five Sacrifices’ are not to be performed simultaneously; because the occasion for all is not the same; in fact, a distinct occasion has been mentioned in relation to each. If the occasion for all were one and the same, then, even when three or four of them would be done, it would be as good as not done, till all the five were done. Just as in the case of the Darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice, (which?) consists of the three sacrifices of the Āgneya, the Agnīṣomīya and the Upāṃśu, the performance of only one or two of these does not discharge the complete liability; and just as among the Domestic Rites themselves, the ‘Vaiśvadeva offering,’ which extends up to the ‘Sviṣṭakṛt’ offering, is not regarded as complete, so long as there is a break in the offering to any single deity. In fact, each of the five sacrifices has a distinct occasion mentioned in relation to itself:—e.g. (1) ‘one should be constantly addicted to Vedic study’ (verse 75), (2) ‘one should be constantly addicted to making offerings to the gods’ (verse 75), and so forth; and the prescribed occasion being distinct for each, each is performed separately by itself; (3) as regards ‘honouring of the guest,’ the injunction for this appears quite distinctly (in 105), where the act is described as ‘conducive to prosperity and fame.’

Further, of these five ‘sacrifices,’ the performance of four depends upon the man himself; while that of ‘honouring the guest’ is conditional upon the arrival of the guest. The guest is not to be invited; as in that case he would not he a ‘guest’ (in the proper sense of the term); as we shall explain later on that a person is a ‘guest’ only when he comes of his own accord (unexpectedly). Thus, then, from among the five, if one performs any one only and omits the rest,—one might incur the sin of omitting to do what one should do; but what he has done does not become as good as not done. It is for this reason that when a man has not set up his own fire, though he is not, on that account, entitled to the Vaiśvadeva Homa, yet it is incumbent upon him to perform ‘Vedic Study,’ ‘Tarpaṇa’ and the rest. As for the setting up of one’s own fire, other Smṛtis permit of this being done at other times also; it is not necessary to set it up along with marriage itself. Says the Smṛti—‘the setting up of the Fire begins either with marriage or with succession.’

“The option of setting up the Fire at the time of succession may he regarded as applicable only to one who has not married at all.”

This would he so if the setting up of the Fire were an end in itself. As a matter of fact, however, the ‘setting up’ is for the purpose of obtaining the Fire, and the Fire is for the purpose of performing rites; rites, again, have been laid down as to be performed by one only when he is associated with his wife, and not alone by himself. It is true that some Gṛhya -writers have asserted that one should perform śrāddhas. after having kindled the Parameṣṭhiprāṇa Fire; but this also pertains to the man as associated with his wife; and this same also would be the time for his ‘succession’ also. Nor is the performance of śrāddhas impossible for one who has not set up the Fire; as it has been prescribed even for one who has not even been ‘initiated’, in whose case the use of the ‘sradhā’ alone has been excepted; and yet there is no setting up of the. fire for him; as it is only one who is ‘learned’ (in the Veda) that is entitled to it, and he is still without that learning (before Initiation). As for the performance of the Śrāddha (though this also presupposes knowledge of Vedic mantras), yet it has to be done by the uninitiated boy to the best of his ablity, in obedience to a direct injunction; this case being analogous to the performing of a sacrifice by the Niṣāda (Śūdra) in accordance with a direct injunction. Iu the event, however, of fire having been set up by his uncle or other relations, in view of a ‘learned’ performer being available, the uninitiated (and hence unlearned) boy is not entitled to the performance of śrāddhas. If the setting up of fire be found to be prescribed in the same context as śrāddhas, then one could set up the tire as an accessory to the śrādd ha, after the completion of which it would he abandoned.

Some people have quoted the Smṛti—“ The Vaiśvadêva Homa may be offered in the ordinary fire also.” Others, again, hold that it is to to performed by means of dry (uncooked) grains.—(70)

‘Adhyāpanam’—Nandana reads ‘adhyāyanam’ and explains that it is the same as ‘adhayanam.’

Burnell declares that what makes India ‘the land of vermin’ is this habit of the Hindus of offering food to all living beings!—To what lengths will the detractor of a religion not go!

This is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 392);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 533);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 305), which adds that ‘adhyāpana’ stands for ‘adhyayana’ ‘study,’ and ‘tarpaṇa’ for ‘Śrāddha’;—in Vidhānapārijāta ‘(II p. 306), which adds (like Medhātithi) that ‘adhyāpana’ includes ‘study’ also; and ‘tarpaṇa’ stands for the daily Śrāddha offering;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 918), which adds that this is only an enumeration of the rites and not an injunction of the order in which they are to be performed,—some people hold that the four ‘sacrifices’ here mentioned go under the name of ‘Vaiśvadeva,’ but according to Mādhava, that name applies to only three—the Devayajña, the Pitṛyajña and the Bhūtayajña.

Gautama (5.3,4,9).—‘He should be the worshipper of Gods, Pitṛs, Men, Sages and Elementals; he should study the Veda every day; sacrifice to Gods, sacrifice to Pitṛs, and sacrifice, to Men; and also Vedic Study.’

Baudhāyana (2.6. 1-6).—‘These are the Five Great Sacrifices, these also are the Great Sacrificial Sessions: Sacrifice to Gods, Sacrifice to Pitṛs, Sacrifice to Elementals, Sacrifice to Men, Sacrifice to the Veda; day after day, he shall offer Svāhā, ending with the supplying of fuel,—in this manner does he accomplish the sacrifice to gods; day after day, he shall offer Svadhā, ending with the water-offering,—in this manner he accomplishes the sacrifice to Pitṛs; day after day, he shall how down to the Elementals, ending with the offering of flowers,—in this manner he accomplishes the Sacrifice to the Elements; day after day, he shall offer food to Brāhmaṇas, ending with the offering of roots, fruits and vegetables,—in this manner he accomplishes the Sacrifice of Men; day after day he shall carry on Vedic Study, ending with the Praṇava,—in this manner he accomplishes the sacrifice to the Veda.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 388).—‘He shall honour the Gods, the Pitṛs and the Sages, respectively with the Kavya, the Kavya and the Svādhyāya; Havya standing for what is offered into the Fire, with Svāhā, which appeases the Gods,—Svadhā being what is offered to the Pitṛs, which pleases the Pitṛs,—Svādhyāya being the reading that starts with om, which sacrifices to the sages.’

Viṣṇu (59.20-25).—‘For the expiation of the sins, he shall perform the Sacrifices to the Veda, the Gods, the Pitṛs, the Elementals and the Men; Vedic Study constitutes the Sacrifice to the Veda;—Homa is the Sacrifice to the Gods;—Water-libations to forefathers is the Sacrifice to the Pitṛs;—the making of Bali-offerings constitute the Sacrifice to the Elementals;—the honouring of guests constitutes the Sacrifice to Men.’

Yājñavalkya (1.102).—‘Bali, Svadhā, Homa, Svādhyāya and Atithī-satkāra are the great sacrifices to Elementals, Pitṛs, Gods, Veda and Men.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (3.1-2).—‘Now follow the Five Great Sacrifices:—Sacrifice to Gods, Sacrifice to Elementals, Sacrifice to Veda, Sacrifice to Pitṛs and Sacrifice to Men; the offerings made into the Fire constitute the Sacrifice to Gods, the bali-offerings constitute the Sacrifice to Elementals; the offerings made to Pitṛs constitutes the Sacrifice to Pitṛs; the studying of the Veda constitutes the Sacrifice to Veda; the offerings to Men constitute the Sacrifice to Men.’

Chandogapariśiṣṭa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 390).—‘The Great Sacrifices should be understood to be those sacrifices that are offered to Gods, Elementals, Pitṛs, Vedas and Men, in due order; the teaching of Veda is the Sacrifice to Vedas, the water-offerings to forefathers is the Sacrifice to Pitṛs, the offering of Homa is the Sacrifice to Gods, the offering of Bali is the Sacrifice to Elementals, the honouring of Guests is the Sacrifice to Men; or the Sacrifice to Pitṛs may consist of Śrāddha or of offerings made to forefathers.’

Śātātapa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 391).—‘He shall perform, in due order, the Sacrifice to Elementals, the daily Śrāddha and the honouring of guests, as also Vedic Study.’

Jābāla (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 393).—‘Of the Great Sacrifices, the first is accomplished by the water-libation; the Sacrifice to Gods is accomplished by making offerings into Fire with the Sāvitrī-mantra, and the Sacrifice to Elementals, by the Bali-offering; the Sacrifice to Veda, by repeating Vedic texts; and the Sacrifice to Men, by the honouring of guests.’

070 Teaching (and studying) is the sacrifice (offered) to Brahman, the (offerings of water and food called) Tarpana the sacrifice to the manes, the burnt oblation the sacrifice offered to the gods, the Bali offering that offered to the Bhutas, and the hospitable reception of guests the offering to men.

He who omits not these sacrifices, to the best of his capacity, on any day, does not become tainted by the sin of the ‘slaughter-house,’ even though living in the house.—(71)

नित्यत्वम् अत्र विधीयते । अन्यद् अनूद्यते । विगुणा अप्य् एते यथाशक्ति कर्तव्याः । एतद् अपि नित्यत्वात् प्राप्तम् एव । तस्माद् यथासंभवं शक्तित इति । आद्यादित्वात् तसिः । हापयतीति प्रकृत्यर्थ एव, णिजर्थस्याविवक्षितत्वात् । अथ वा हननं हा, संपदादित्वात् क्विप्, ताम् आपयतीति ण्यत्, आप्नोतेः कर्तरि क्विप्, तदन्तात् प्रातिपदिकाद् धात्वर्थे णिच् । न हापयति न त्यजेद् इत्य् अर्थः । स्वगृहे वसन्न् अवश्यभाविनीषु सूनासु न तत्पापेन संबध्यत इति प्रशंसा ॥ ३.६१ ॥

The necessity of performing the ‘sacrifices’ every day is what is enjoined here; the rest is all mere reiteration.

The meaning is that these sacrifices should be performed, even though in an imperfect manner,—to the best of one’s ability; this also follows from the compulsory character of the acts; hence the text has added the phrase ‘to the best of his capacity;’—the ‘tasi’ affix being added to the term ‘śakti,’ which is included in the ‘ādyādī’ group.

‘Hāpayati’—This has the sense of the simple root (‘hā,’ to abandon), no significance being meant to be attached to the causal affix. Or, the word may be etymologically explained as derived from the nona ‘hā’ (omission)—formed by the root ‘hā’ with the ‘kvip’ affix; ‘hāpayati’ being explained as ‘hām apayati’ ‘brings about omission;’ āp + kvip, and then the nominal root formed by the addition of the affix ‘nich.’ The meaning, in any case, is ‘omits not.’

Living in his own house—where the ‘slaughter-houses’ cannot be avoided—he does not become tainted with the sin resulting from them. This is said in praise of the sacrifices.—(71)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 392);—and in Smṛtitattva (p. 533).

**(verses 3.71-72)
**

Viṣṇu (9.26).—[After reproducing Manu 72]—‘Attending upon the three Purposes, constant giving of food, worship of the Gods and the Bāhmaṇas, studying of the, Veda, satisfying the Pitṛs,—by doing all these, the householder reaches the position of Indra.’

Śruti (Aparārka, p. 140).—‘He who eats alone is wholly sinful.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 105).—‘The couple should eat what is left after the feeding of children, young girls, old persons, the pregnant woman, the sick and the maidens, as also the guests and dependants.’

071 He who neglects not these five great sacrifices, while he is able (to perform them), is not tainted by the sins (committed) in the five places of slaughter, though he constantly lives in the (order of) house (-holders).

He who does not make offerings to the five—viz., gods, guests, dependents, Pitṛs and himself,—does not live, even though breathing.—(72)

अननुष्ठाननिन्दया प्रकृतविधिस्तुतिः । केचिच् चतुर्थ्या पठन्ति-

• देवतातिथिभृत्येभ्यः पितृभ्यश् चात्मने तथा ।

• न निर्वपति पञ्चभ्यः ॥ इति ।

निर्वापो ह्य् अत्र दानम्, न तादर्थ्योपकल्पनमात्रम् । तत्संबन्धेन प्रधानत्वाच् चतुर्थी युक्ता । एतेभ्यो यः प्रत्यहं न ददात्य् उच्छ्वसन्न् अपि प्राणन्न् अपि श्वासप्रश्वासवान् अपि न जीवति मृत एव, जीवितफलाभावात् । भृत्याश् चात्र “वृद्धौ तु मातापितरौ” (म्ध् ११.५ अद्देद् वेर्से) इति श्लोकनिर्दिष्टा वेदितव्याः, न दासाः, कर्मनिमित्तत्वात् तेभ्यो दानस्य । अथ वा गर्भदासादयो वार्द्धके कर्मस्व् अशक्ता अपि नियमतो लक्ष्यन्ते । भरणं जीर्णगवादीनाम् अवश्यम् इति विभागे वक्ष्यामः । उक्तं च गौतमेन “भर्तव्यस् तेन क्षीणवृत्तिः” (ग्ध् ६१) । देवताभ्यश् च निर्वापो ऽग्नौ होमः, स्थण्डिले च बलिहरणं तु वैश्वदेवेभ्यो दर्शपूर्णमासदेवताभ्य इति वा¹² “अग्नये त्वा जुष्टं निर्वपामि” इति संबन्धाद् अन्यः को वास्ति निर्वापः । अतो देवताग्रहणेन गृहीतत्वाद् भूतानां¹³ पृथग् उपादानम् । आत्मग्रहणं दृष्टान्तः । यथात्मनो भोजनेन विना नास्ति जीवितं तदर्थम् अन्नोपयोगो ऽवश्यंभावी जीवितस्येष्टविषयत्वात् “सर्वत एवात्मानं गोपायेत्” (ग्ध् ९.३४) इति विधेश् च, एवं देवतादिभ्यो ऽपीति ॥ ३.६२ ॥

This verse praises the original injunction by deprecating its omission. Some people read this verse with the Dative ending—‘devatātithibhṛtyebhyaḥ pitṛbhyaścātmane tathā na nirvapati panchabhyaḥ.’

‘Offering’ here stands for actual giving away, not merely assignment; hence, the Dative should be the right form.

He who does not make gifts to these,—even though he may be ‘breathing,’—carrying on the function of inhaling and exhaling air,—‘does not live;’ i.e., is as good as dead, his living being absolutely fruitless.

The term ‘dependents’ here should be taken as standing for ‘old parents’ and others mentioned below (in 11.10); it does not stand for servants; as gifts to these latter are made in return for services rendered. Or, it may be taken as indicating such born slaves as become incapable of rendering further service, on account of old age. We shall also explain later on that it is necessary to feed old bulls, etc. Gautama also has declared that ‘decrepit people, and those devoid of livelihood, should be supported by him’ (10. 61).

The ‘offering’ to the gods consists of (a) pouring libations into fire, (b) throwing ‘bali’-offerings on prepared altars; for what other ‘offering’ could there be, except these?—which is what is found in other cases also;—e.g., those of the offerings made to the Viśvedevas and other deities of the Darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifices, where the offerings are made with such mantras as ‘Agnaye tvā juṣṭam nirvapāmi;’ where also mere relationship (with the gods) is what is meant. It is for this reason that the ‘elementals’ (to whom the bali- offerings are made) become included under ‘gods,’ and hence not mentioned separately.

‘Himself’ has been added by way of illustration; the sense being—“just as, without eating, one’s own living is not possible, and for that purpose the use of food is absolutely necessary, in view of one’s life being a very desirable thing,—specially according to the direct injunction that ‘one should guard oneself against all things’—so also is the feeding of gods and the rest absolutely essential.”—(72)

‘Bhṛtya’ stands for ‘aged parents and others’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka),—or ‘born slaves and others too old to work for them living,’ also aged cattle &c., which is the alternative explanation, suggested by Medhātithi, and not only ‘animals unfit for work,’ as noted by Buhler. Nārāyaṇa, and Nandana read ‘bhūtānām’ and explain it as ‘goblins or living beings.’

This verse is quoted in Viramītrodaya (Āhnika, p. 392), which reads ‘bhūtānām’ for ‘pāñcānām’;—and in Aparārka (p. 146), in support of the view that there is nothing wrong in doing the cooking for one’s own self along with the gods and Pitṛs; it is only when one cooks for himself alone that it is wrong.

**(verses 3.71-72)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.71].

072 But he who does not feed these five, the gods, his guests, those whom he is bound to maintain, the manes, and himself, lives not, though he breathes.

‘They also call these five sacrifices—(1) “Ahuta,” (2) “Huta,” (3) “Prahuta,” (4) “Brāhmya-huta,” and (5) “Prāśita.”’—(73)

एतैः शब्दैः कस्यांचिद् वेदशाखायाम् एतेषां विधानम् । अतः श्रुतिमूलतां पञ्चयज्ञविधानस्य दर्शयितुं तत्प्रसिद्ध्या पुनर् निर्दिशति । यश् चाहुतादिशब्दैर् उद्दिश्य तत्प्रकरणे वा कश्चिद् धर्मो विहित इति नोक्तः सो ऽपि ग्रहीतव्य इति संज्ञान्तरनिर्देशे द्वितीयं प्रयोजनम् । यथा ब्रह्मयज्ञश्राद्धोद्वाहपरिक्रियेत्यादि ॥ ३.६३ ॥

In certain Vedic texts, it is these sacrifices that have been enjoined under these names; hence the present verse mentions these names, with a view to show that the injunction of these is based upon the Veda itself.

What is meant also is that the rites that have been mentioned in the Veda by the names. ‘Ahuta’ and the rest, are also included here, though not mentioned by the same names. This is another purpose that the author had in view in mentioning these other names; just like the names ‘brahmayajña,’ ‘śrāddha,’ ‘udvāha,’ ‘parikriyā,’ and so forth.—(73)

Two of these technical terms occur in the beginning of Baudhāyana’s Gṛhyasūtra, and four in Pāraskara’s Gṛhyasūtra 1.4.1, as well as in Śāṅkhāyana’s 1.5.1.

This verse is quoted, without comment, in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 392);—and in Aparārka (p. 142), which adds that these are the names for the ‘five sacrifices.’

**(verses 3.73-74)
**

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra (1.4.1).—‘There are four Pākayajñas—Huta, Ahuta, Prahuta, and Prāśita.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1.1.3).—‘The Huta are those offered into the fire; those not offered into the fire are thePrahuta; and the feeding of Brāhmaṇas constitutes the Brahmaṇi-huta.’

073 They call (these) five sacrifices also, Ahuta, Huta, Prahuta, Brahmya-huta, and Prasita.

(1) Japa is ‘Ahuta,’ (2) Offering into fire is ‘Huta,’ (3) Offering to elementals is ‘Prahuta,’ (4) The honouring of Brāhmaṇas is ‘Brāhmya-huta,’ and (5) Water-offering to Pitṛs is ‘Prāśita.’—(74)

यो ऽयम् अहुतो नाम यज्ञ उक्तः स जपो वेदितव्यः । “स्वाध्यायेनार्चयेद् ऋषीन्” (म्ध् ३.७१) इति श्रवणाद् वेदाध्ययनं जपार्थः । यद् वा मानसे व्यापारे स्मरणम् । उभयत्रापि जपतिः पठ्यते- व्यक्तायां वाचि मानसे चेति । अग्नौ होमो हुतम् । भूतबलिः प्रहुतम् । यद्य् अप्य् अयं¹⁴ होमस् तथाप्य् अग्नौ बाहुल्येन होमानां प्रसिद्धेर् भूतयज्ञो न होम इत्य् आशङ्कायां प्रहुत इत्य् उक्तम् । प्रकर्षेणासौ होम इति स्तुत्या । द्विजाग्र्यानां ब्राह्मणानाम् अर्चा ब्राह्म्यं हुतम् । आतिथ्यकर्म द्विजाग्र्यार्चा ॥ ३.६४ ॥

The sacrifice that has been described as ‘Ahuta’ is the same as ‘Japa.’ ‘Japa’ here should be taken as standing for Vedic study, in view of the assertion that ‘by Vedic study one should worship the sages.’ Or, it may be taken in the sense of the mental operation of ‘recalling to the mind’ (of Vedic texts). The root ‘japa’ has been held to be denotative of both acts—that of loudly reciting, as well as that of silently recalling to the mind.

The offering into fire is called ‘Huta.’

The offering to elementals is ‘Prahuta.’ Though this also is a kind of ‘Homa’ yet, in view of the fact that the terra ‘Homa’ is generally restricted to offerings made into fire, people might think that the offering to elementals is not ‘homa;’ hence (with a view to preclude this notion) it has been given the name of ‘Prahuta,’—the act being praised as an excellent (pra) homa (huta).’

‘The honouring of Brāhmaṇas is Brāhmya-huta.’—It is the receiving of guests that is spoken of here as ‘honouring of Brāhmaṇas.’—(74)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 392);—and in Aparārka (p. 142).

**(verses 3.73-74)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.73].

074 Ahuta (not offered in the fire) is the muttering (of Vedic texts), Huta the burnt oblation (offered to the gods), Prahuta (offered by scattering it on the ground) the Bali offering given to the Bhutas, Brahmya-huta (offered in the digestive fire of Brahmanas), the respectful reception of Brahmana (guests), and Prasita (eaten) the (daily oblation to the manes, called) Tarpana.

One should be constantly engaged in Vedic Study, as also in acts in honour of the gods; one who is engaged in acts in honour of the gods upholds the world, moveable as well as immoveable.—(75)

यद् उक्तं पञ्चसु महायज्ञेष्व् एकैकस्मिन् पृथगधिकारो न समुदाय एको ऽधिकार इति, तद् अनेन प्रकटीक्रोति । यदा दारिद्र्यादिदोषाद् अन्यतो वा कारणात् कथंचिद् असंपत्तौ नातिथ्यादिपूजा घटेत ततः स्वाध्याये नित्ययुक्तेन भवितव्यम् । दैवे कर्मणि¹⁵ । वैश्वदेवदेवताभ्यो ऽग्नौ होमो दैवं कर्म । भूतयज्ञपितृयज्ञयोः सत्य् अपि दैवत्वे प्रकरणाद् अग्नाव् एव होमो दैवम् उच्यते । अत्र अर्थवादम् आह । दैवे कर्मणि युक्तः तत्परो बिभर्ति धारयति चराचरं स्थावरं जङ्गमं च । सर्वस्य जगतः स्थितेर् हेतुर् भवतीत्य् अर्थः ॥ ३.६५ ॥

कथं पुनर् अग्न्याहुत्या सर्वस्य जगतः स्थितिर् भवतीत्य् अत आह ।

It has been said above that the occasion for each of the Five Sacrifices is distinct, and all of them do not form an aggregate; this same idea is made clear by this verse.

When, by reason of poverty or some other cause, the necessary supplies being not available, the honouring of guests and such other acts be not possible, then one should be constantly engaged in Vedic Study.

‘In acts in honour of the gods’—the offering made in fire to the Vaiśvadeva gods are ‘acts done in honour of the gods.’ Though the ‘sacrifice to elementals’ and ‘sacrifice to Pitṛs’ are all ‘in honour of gods,’ yet from the context it is clear that it is the offering in fire that is meant by the term ‘acts done in honour of gods.’

A commendatory exaggeration is added—‘He who is engaged in’—i.e., busy with—‘acts in honour of the gods, upholds’—i.e., supports—‘the moveable and immoveable;’—i.e., he becomes the means of sustenance of the entire world.—(75)

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (3.2.3).—‘Going out of the village, either towards the east or the north………… one should study the Veda.’

075 Let (every man) in this (second order, at least) daily apply himself to the private recitation of the Veda, and also to the performance of the offering to the gods; for he who is diligent in the performance of sacrifices, supports both the movable and the immovable creation.

An oblation duly thrown into the fire reaches the sun; from the sun proceeds rain from, rain food, and from food, the creatures.—(76)

अग्नौ यजमानेन प्रास्ता क्षिप्ता आहुतिर् हूयमानं चरुपुरोडाशाद्य् उच्यते । आदित्यम् अदृश्येन रूपेण प्राप्नोति । सर्वरसानाम् आहर्तादित्यो ऽत आहुतिरसस्यादित्यप्राप्तिर् उच्यते । अतः स रस आदित्यरश्मिषु कालेन परिपक्वो वृष्टिरूपेण जायते । ततो** ऽन्नं** व्रीह्यादि । ततः प्रजाः सर्वप्राणिनः । एवम् अग्नौ जुह्वत् सर्वजगदनुग्रहे वर्तते यजमानः । पूर्वस्य विधेः शेषो ऽयम्, न पुनर् यथाश्रुतार्थनिष्ठः । तत्त्वे हि वृष्टिकामस्याधिकारः स्यात् । न च तच्छ्रुतम्¹⁶ । प्रकृतशेषतयान्वयसंभवे न कल्पनाया अवसरः ॥ ३.६६ ॥

‘Into the fire being thrown’—by the sacrificer.

‘Oblation’—cooked rice, cakes and such other things, when thrown into the fire, are called ‘oblation.’

‘Reaches the sun’—in an invisible form. The sun absorbs the essence of all things; hence the essence of the oblation is described as reaching the sun. This essence, evolving in the sun’s rays, becomes in time developed into rain. From that proceeds ‘food’—in the shape of Vrīhi and other grains. From that proceed ‘creatures,’—all living beings.

Thus, by throwing an oblation into the fire, the sacrificer continues to help on the world-process.

What is stated here is only a commendatory supplement to the foregoing injunction, and it is not meant to be literally true. If it were literally true, then only one who desires rain would he entitled to the performation of the act referred to; but no such thing has been asserted anywhere. Nor is there any occasion for assuming such an assertion, when it is possible to take the verse as supplementary to the principal subject-matter of the context.—(76)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 994).

076 An oblation duly thrown into the fire, reaches the sun; from the sun comes rain, from rain food, therefrom the living creatures (derive their subsistence).

Just as all Creatures subsist by deriving support from air, so do the other states subsist by deriving support from the Housohelder.—(77)

अपरेण प्रकारेण महायज्ञानाम् अवश्यकर्तव्यतां दर्शयति । वायुः प्राणस् तम् आश्रित्य सर्वे जीवन्ति । न ह्य् अप्राणस्य जीवितम् अस्ति, प्राणधारणम् एव जीवनम् । जन्तुशब्दः प्राणिमात्रवचनः । सर्वग्रहणं देवर्षीणाम् अप्य् अतिशययुक्तानां वाय्वायत्तम् एव जीवनम् । एवं गृहस्थः प्राणतुल्यः सर्वाश्रमिणाम् । अतः सर्वोपजीवनीयेन भवितव्यम् इति विध्यर्थः । इतरग्रहणाद् यद्य् अपि गृहस्थाद् अन्य आश्रमिणः प्रतीयन्ते, तथापि न गृहस्थप्रतिषेधार्थम् एतत् । स्नातकस्य हि विशेषेणातिथ्यादिदानं विहितम् । तस्माद् इतरग्रहणं गृहस्थाश्रमतुल्यतार्थम् । न च श्रूयते नात्मनात्मनि वर्तन्ते शरीरकुटुम्बस्थितिं प्राप्नुवन्ति । इतरे च त आश्रमा इतराश्रमा इति समासः ॥ ३.६७ ॥

The present verse proceeds to indicate, in another way, the necessity of performing the Great Sacrifices.

All creatures subsist by desiring support from ‘Air’—i.e., from life-breath; no one can live without the life-breath; in fact, the act of ‘living’ consists in the bearing of the life-breath.

The term ‘creatures’ stands for all living beings.

The epithet ‘all’ has been added with a view to the fact that the subsistence of even gods and sages, who are endowed with superior powers, is dependent upon Air.

Similarly, the Householder is like Air for persons in all other states. Hence, what the Injunction means is that the Householder should act in such a manner that all others may derive their subsistence from him.

Though the presence of the term ‘other’ would indicate that persons other than householders were meant, yet the text is not meant to exclude the householder from the said support, specially because the making of gifts to guests and others has been specially prescribed for the Snātaka. Hence the term ‘other’ is meant to indicate that the other states are on the same footing as the state of the Householder. Nor has it been declared anywhere that the Householder should not support himself, or should not take steps for the supporting of the members of his family [and all this would excluded from his support if ‘other states’ stood for states other than that of the Householder.]

The compound ‘itarāśramāḥ’ is to be expounded as a Karmadhāraya compound.—(77)

077 As all living creatures subsist by receiving support from air, even so (the members of) all orders subsist by receiving support from the householder.

Because men in all the three states are sustained by householders only, with knowledge and food, therefore the householder’s is the highest state.—(78)

samo bhūteṣu hiṃsānugrahayoḥ | anārambhī |

यस्मात् त्रयो ऽप्य् आश्रमिणो ज्ञानेन वेदार्थव्याख्यानजन्येन अन्नेन च धार्यन्त उपक्रियन्ते¹⁷ गृहस्थेन तस्माज् ज्येष्ठः श्रेष्ठ आश्रमो गृहम् । गृहीति पाठे बहुव्रीहिः, गृहम् इति पाठे विशेषणसमासो ज्येष्ठाश्रम इति । अत्रापि गृहस्थैर् एवेत्य् औचित्यानुवादः, न वानप्रस्थादीनाम् अध्यापनादिप्रतिषेधः । वानप्रस्थस्य तावद् विहितम् एतत् “एतान्¹⁸ एव महायज्ञान् निर्वपेत्” (म्ध् ६.५) इति । प्रव्रजितस्य यद्य् अपि “समो भूतेषु हिंसानुग्रहयोः अनारम्भी” (ग्ध् ३.२४–२५) इत्य् अनुग्रहः प्रतिषिद्धस् तथापि वेदार्थव्याख्यानं भिक्षुशात्रे विहितम् । ज्ञानवैराग्यभावनाभ्यासातिशयविधानाच् च तयोर् नातिप्रयत्नो वेदार्थव्याख्याने । ब्रह्मचारिणस् स्वार्थलोपान्¹⁹ नाध्यापकत्वम्, भैक्षवृत्त्युपदेशाच् च कुतो ऽन्नदानम् । अतो गृहस्थानाम् एव प्रायेण तत्संभवाद् एवम् उक्तं गृहस्थैर् एव ॥ ३.६८ ॥

‘Because men in all the three states are sustained’—i.e., helped—‘with knowledge’—i.e., knowledge brought about by the expounding of the meaning of the Veda—‘and food,’ by the Householder,—therefore, ‘the Householder’s state is the highest’—best.

If we read ‘gṛhī’ for ‘gṛham,’ the compound ‘jyeṣṭhāśramaḥ’ should be expounded as a Bahuvrīhi; while with reading ‘gṛham’ it is Karmadhāraya.

Here also the specification ‘by Householders only’ serves only to re-iterate what is right and proper, and it does not mean that persons in the state of the Recluse and others are not to do the work of teaching. In fact, for the Recluse the work of teaching has been specially enjoined in the verse—‘he should perforin these great sacrifices, etc.’ (below, 6. 5). As for the Renunciate, it is true that the according of any help to anybody has been prohibited by the rule—‘he should take no part in injuring or helping’ (Gautama 3. 24-25); but the expounding of the meaning of the Veda has been actually enjoined among the duties of the Mendicant. Further, for the Recluse and the Renunciate, much effort would not be needed in the expounding of the Veda, as they are required to cultivate a high degree of knowledge, dispassion, thought-power and practice. As for the Religious Student, the work of teaching would interfere with his own proper work (of study); and as for the gift of food, how could this be possible for him, when he himself has been advised to live on alms?

Thus, since it is for the Housholder alone that the two are generally possible, the text has used the phrase ‘by Householders only.’— (78)

Medhātithi (P. 223, l.15) ‘Hiṃsānugrahayoḥ’—This refers to Gautama 3.24-25, where we read—

samo bhūteṣu hiṃsānugrahayoḥ | anārambhī |

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 457).

Dakṣa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 456).—‘Because gods, men and animals are supported by the householder, therefore is the householder the best of all. The householder has been described as the source of the other three stages; whenever he suffers, the other three suffer with him;…… for this reason, the householder is to be guarded with due effort, and should be honoured and worshipped by the king, as also by the other three.’

Bṛhaspati (Do., p. 457).—‘In as much as it is from the householder that proceed the birth, growth and maintenance of all the life-stages,—he has been declared to be superior.’

Vaśiṣṭha (8.14.16).—‘It is the householder alone who offers sacrifices; it is he alone who performs austerities; among all the life-stages, that of the householder is the best; just as all rivers and rivulets find their final rest in the ocean, so do persons in the various stages of life find their haven in the householder; just as all living beings keep alive under the protection of their mother, so do they also live under the protection of the householder.’

Viṣṇu (59.27.29).—‘The religious student, the renunciate and the recluse, all these derive their living from the householders……… It is the householder alone who performs sacrifices; he alone performs austerities; he alone makes gifts; hence is the householder the highest of all. Sages, Pitṛs and Gods (,?) Elementals and Guests have expectations from householders; hence alone is the householder the highest of all.’

Gautama (3.1).—‘Of these, the householder is the source; the others being unproductive.’

Baudhāyana (2.6.29).—‘The teachers have held to a single life-stage; the others being unproductive.’

078 Because men of the three (other) orders are daily supported by the householder with (gifts of) sacred knowledge and food, therefore (the order of) householders is the most excellent order.

That state, which cannot be maintained by men with weak organs, should be kept up with care by one desiring imperishable heaven and also undying happiness in this world.—(79)

स गृहाश्रमः । प्रयत्नेन संधार्यो ऽनुष्ठेयो ऽक्षयस्वर्गकामेन्एह च सुखम् इच्छता । अत्यन्तं यस्य सुखस्यान्तो नास्ति²⁰ । अत्यन्तशब्दो नित्यतां गमयति । य आश्रमो ऽधार्यो ऽशक्यो²¹ धारयितुं दुर्बलेन्द्रियैः ।

• एतद् उक्तं भवति । यतः स्त्रीसंभोगसुसंस्कृतभोजनादि गृहस्थस्यावश्यंभावि ततश् चेन्द्रियाणां विषयसक्तौ दोषः, अत उच्यते-²² प्रयत्नेन आश्रमान्तरेभ्यो धारयितव्यः । अत्रापि महान् इन्द्रियसंयमः । अनृतौ न गन्तव्यम्, परदारा न गन्तव्याः, शेषान्नं भोक्तव्यम् । विषयसंनिधाने यो नियमः स दुष्करः ।

• स्वर्गम् अक्षयम् इति । नानेन सर्वेषां गृहस्थकर्मणां स्वर्गफलतोच्यते, केषांचिन् नित्यत्वात् केषांचित् फलान्तरश्रवणात् । ये ऽप्य् अश्रुतफलाः स्वर्गफलतया कल्प्यन्ते तेषाम् अपि केवलानाम् अनुवादे न कश्चिद् विशेषणे हेतुः । तस्माद् विहिताभिप्रेतफलानुवादो ऽयम् । न चाधिकारान्तरम् इदम् । तेषाम् एव यावज्जीविकं स्वर्गकामस्येति च शक्यं वक्तुम् । सुखं चेहेच्छता इत्यविधेयेन तुल्यत्वावगमात् । न हीह सुखकामेनेत्य् एतच्²³ छक्यं कर्मफलतया ज्ञातुम्, विशेषस्यानिर्देशात् । सर्वा हि प्रीतिर् ग्रामपुत्रादिलाभैर् विशेषैर् अवच्छिन्ना प्रतीयते । अनवच्छेदेन प्रीतिमात्रं चेत् स्वर्ग एव । न च तस्यैहिकत्वम् । तस्माद् दृष्टसुखाप्तिकामानुवादो ऽयम् । अनिकेता ह्य् अन्य आश्रमिणो वृक्षमूलनिकेतनाः परगृहवासिनो दुःखम् आसते । तस्माद् अयं तावद् अनुवादः ॥ ३.६९ ॥

तत्तुल्यतयायम् अप्य् अनुवाद एव ।

‘That state’—i.e., the Householder’s.

‘Should be kept up with care’— should be maintained by one who desires Heaven and one who is desirous of obtaining happiness in this world.

‘Atyantam,’ meaning ‘that of which there is no end,’ implies permanence.

‘This state, which cannot be maintained by men with weak organs.’

The sense is as follows:—For the Householder, intercourse with women, eating of rich food and such other luxuries are inevitable; but if one were to become unduly addicted to such sensuous objects, one would be incurring sin; hence it is said that ‘this has to be kept with greater care than the other states;’ specially as in the Householder’s state great restraint of the organs is called for; such for instance, as one should not have intercourse with one’s wife, except during ‘season,’ he should not have recourse to other people’s wives, he should eat only such food as has been left (after the offering to the gods and the feeding of guests). And Restraint, when the objects of enjoyment are within reach, is extremely difficult.

‘Imperishable heaven;’—by this it is not meant that the attainment of Heaven is the result of performing all the duties of the Householder; because, as a matter of fact, among the duties of the Householder some are compulsory (and as such not leading to any results), and for others other rewards have been mentioned. It is true that those acts in connection with which no rewards are mentioned are assumed to have their reward in the attainment of Heaven; but in the present context these duties only form subjects of reference; and hence, there would be no point in the specifying of any rewards in connection with them. Hence the phrase in question has to be taken merely as a reference to such desirable results as follow from the prescribed acts. Nor can the present text be taken as stating the desire for a definite result as constituting the occasion for the performance of certain fresh duties; because the same duties that have been prescribed as necessary throughout life might very well be spoken of as to be performed by one who is desirous of obtaining Heaven; specially as the mention of Heaven is clearly found to be on the same footing as ‘desiring happiness in this world,’ which is a reward that can have no connection with anything that is enjoined; for ‘happiness in this world’ can never be recognised as the reward of any religious act, specially as no particular form of happiness is specified; we do not find the happiness in any way specified as that proceeding from the acquisition of landed property, or of a son, and so forth. And if the happiness is not specified, it means the same thing as ‘Heaven.’ But Heaven cannot be said to beloug to ‘this world.’ Hence this phrase should be taken as referring to the experiencing of perceptible (physical) pleasures. Men in the other ‘states’ are without homes, living either under trees or in the house of other people; and as such they live uncomfortably. Hence the phrase ‘desiring happiness’ has to be taken as a mere reiterative reference. And, consequently, the former phrase, ‘desiring Heaven,’ also, standing on the same footing, has to be taken as a re-iterative reference.—(79)

‘Durbalendriyaiḥ’—‘Of uncontrolled organs’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka; not Medhātithi, to whom this explanation is wrongly attributed by Buhler and Burnell).

079 (The duties of) this order, which cannot be practised by men with weak organs, must be carefully observed by him who desires imperishable (bliss in) heaven, and constant happiness in this (life).

Sages, Pitṛs, gods, elementals and guests have expectations from family-men; one who knows should fulfil (one’s duty) towards them.’—(80)

एते कुटुम्बिभ्यो गृहिभ्यः सकाशाद् अर्थयन्ते आदित्सन्ति²⁴ । आत्मोपकारलिप्साशासनम् आकाङ्क्षा । अतस् तेभ्यो देवादिभ्यः कार्यं कर्तव्यं विहितहोमादि विजानता शास्त्रस्थितम् । कुटुम्बं दाराः । प्राकृतपुरुषेणापि या महायासोपनिबद्धा सा न युक्ता विफलीकर्तुं किं पुनर् देवतास्तुतिः ॥ ३.७० ॥

These ‘have expectations from family-men,’—i.e., seek to obtain presents from them. ‘Expectation’ means wishing for help and benefits.

For this reason, one should fulfil towards them—the gods, &c.—all that is enjoined, in the shape of offerings, &c. ‘One who knows’—the ordinances of the scriptures.

‘Family’ stands for wife.

It is not right to disappoint the hopes cherished by even an ordinary man, what to say of the gods, etc.? This is a praise of the ‘sacrifices.’—(80)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 392).

Baudhāyana (2.6.35).—‘When he is horn, the Brāhmaṇa is beset with three debts; he repays that to the sages, by means of religious studentship, that to the gods, by means of sacrifice, that to the Pitṛs, by means of offspring. There are innumerable debt-contracts; the three Vedas, religious studentship, begetting of children, śrāddha, austerity, and sacrifices,—one who performs all this, from him passes off all impurity.’

Viṣṇu (59.29).—[Reproduces Manu.]

080 The sages, the manes, the gods, the Bhutas, and guests ask the householders (for offerings and gifts); hence he who knows (the law), must give to them (what is due to each).

One should worship, according to law, the Sages by Vedic Study, the Gods by Homa-offerings, the Pitṛs by Śrāddha offerings, the Men by food and the Elementals by the offering of Bali.’—(81)

“स्वाध्यायम् अधीयीत” (आश्ग् १.१.४) इति य एवार्थः स एव स्वाध्यायेनार्चयेद् ऋषीन् इति । यद्²⁵ भवति श्राद्धादरेण पाद्यार्घमाल्यानुलेपनेन तद् अर्चोच्यते²⁶ । स्तुतिवचनं चेदम् । न चोभयोर् अपि स्वाध्यायऋषिपूजयोः करणम् । अग्न्यादिदेवतास् तावका मन्त्रा ऋषीन् अभिष्टुवन्ति । तस्मात् प्रशंसामात्रम् ऋषीन् स्वाध्यायेनार्चयेद् इति ।

• अथ वा नेह मरीच्यादय ऋषयो ऽभिप्रेताः, किं तर्हि वेदा एव । स्वाध्यायशब्दश् च क्रियाशब्दो नात्र वेदवचनो यथा “स्वाध्याहो ऽध्येतव्यः” (ता २.१५) इति । तेनैतद्²⁷ उक्तं भवति “अध्ययनेन वेदान् पूजयेत्” यथाविध्य् अभ्यसेत्,²⁸ अन्यथा पूजाया असंभवात् । अत्राप्य् अर्चा भाक्त²⁹ एव³⁰ । न हि होमे³¹ देवता प्रधाना, कारकं हि देवतेति ।

• पितिॠन् श्राद्धेन । अत्र यथाश्रुत एव नियोगः । स च श्राद्धविधौ निर्णेष्यते । नॄन् अतिथिभिक्षुप्रभृतीन् अर्चयेत्³² । अर्चापूर्वकम् अन्नं तेभ्यो दद्याद् इत्य् अर्थः ॥ ३.७१ ॥

What is meant by the words ‘svādhyāyamadhīyīta’ (‘one should study the Veda’) is exactly what is meant by the words, ‘one should worship the sages by Vedic Study.’

As a matter of fact, what is called worship is done either (a) by means of faith and devotion, or (b) by means of offering water for the feet, garlands and sandal-paint. But the present verse is purely eulogistic; ‘Vedic Study’ cannot be the means of either of these two forms of ‘worship’ of the sages. As for the mantras of the Veda, those also contain praises of Agni and other gods (and not the sages). For all these reasons the statement that ‘one should worship sages by Vedic Study’ is purely eulogistic.

Or, the term ‘sages’ may be taken as standing, not for Marīci and other persons (generally known as ‘sages’), but for the Vedas themselves. The term ‘svādhyāya’ (Vedic Study) here denotes an action; it does not stand for the Veda, as it does in the sentence, ‘svādhyāyo dhyetavyaḥ’ (‘the Veda should be studied’). Hence what the passage means is that ‘one should worship the Vedas by the act of study;’ i.e., one should study them in the proper manner; no other form of ‘worship’ being possible.

‘The gods by Homa-offerings’—here also the ‘worship’ is figurative; for in a Homa, the deity is not the most predominant factor,—being only a subordinate factor, tending to the fulfilment of the act.

‘The Pitṛs by Śrāddha offerings’—here the Injunction is to be taken in its direct sense; and this shall be explained under the section on ‘Śrāddha.’

‘The men’—i.e., guests, beggars, and so forth—‘one should worship’—i.e., give them food with due respect.—(81)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 392);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 305); and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 330).

Yājñavalkya (1.103).—‘Out of the remnant of what has been offered to the gods, one should make offerings to the Elementals, and also offer food on the ground for Caṇḍālas and birds.’

081 Let him worship, according to the rule, the sages by the private recitation of the Veda, the gods by burnt oblations, the manes by funeral offerings (Sraddha), men by (gifts of) food, and the Bhutas by the Bali offering.