१२ मधुपर्कः

He should receive, with the “honey-mixture,” the king, the priest, the accomplished Student, the Teacher, the Son-in-law, the Father-in-law and the Maternal uncle,—coming again after a year.—(119)

अतिथिपूजाप्रसङ्गेनान्येषाम् अपि केषांचित् पूज्यानां गृहागतानां पूजाविशेषो विधीयते । राजा अभिषिक्तो न क्षत्रियमात्रम् । अतिमहती ह्य् एषा पूजा, न तां सर्वः क्षत्रियो ऽर्हति । न हि स्नातकगुरुभ्यां तस्य सहोपदेशो युक्तः । पूजासाम्यं गुरुणा न तस्य युक्तम्, लिङ्गदर्शनाच् च । “तद् यथैवादो¹ मनुष्यराज आगते” (ऐत्ब् १.१५) इत्य् आतिथ्येष्टिब्राह्मणम्, गोवधो मधुपर्कविधाव् उक्तो गोघ्नो ऽतिथिर् इति पुरुषराजविषयं दर्शयति । तेन क्षत्रिये ऽक्षत्रिये वा जनपदेश्वरे पूजेयं प्रयोक्तव्या । शूद्रे तु नास्ति मन्त्रवत्त्वम् ।

• ननु च शूद्रस्य मन्त्रोच्चारणं निषिद्धम् । न पुनः शूद्रसंप्रदानके कर्मणि ब्राह्मणादीनाम् ।

• नैष दोषः । अर्घाणाम् अपि “भूतेभ्यस् त्वा” इत्यादिमन्तोच्चारणम् अस्ति ।

• ननु च महाभारते शूद्रकर्तृकम् अपि मधुपर्ककर्म श्रूयते ।

• तद् अर्हम् आसनं चैव यथावत् प्रत्यवेदयत् ।

• मधुपर्कं च गां चैव तस्मै भगवते स्वयम् ॥ (च्ड़्। म्भ् २.५.५)

भगवते वासुदेवाय विदुर इति । तत्साधने दधनि भक्त्या मधुपर्कशब्दः प्रयुक्तः । तादर्थ्यात् तच्छब्दो भवति, आयुर् वै घृतम् इतिवत्² । राजशब्दस् तावज् जानपदेश्वरवचनो न क्षत्रियमात्रे वर्तते । प्रियो जामातेय् आहुः । स्नातको विद्याव्रताभ्याम् उभाभ्याम् । अन्यथार्त्विग्गुरवः सर्वे स्नातका एव । आश्रमान्त्रस्थानां भैक्षचर्या विहिता, न त्व् अतिथिधर्मेण भोजनम् । अथ वाचिरनिर्वृत्तवेदाध्ययनः स्नातको गृह्यते । एतान् अर्हयेत् पूजयेत् । मधुपर्कशब्दः कर्मनामधेयम् । गृह्यात् तस्य स्वरूपावगमः । परिसंवत्सरान् इति राजादिपूज्यविशेषणम् । परिगतो ऽतिक्रान्तः संवत्सरो येषां तान् । यदि संवत्सरे ऽतीते आगच्छन्ति तदा मधुपर्कार्हा अर्वाङ् न³ ।

• केचिद् एवं व्याचक्षते । यदि संवत्सराद् अर्वाग् आगच्छन्ति तदानतीते ऽपि संवत्सरे प्रथमपूजायाः पुनर् लभते पूजाम् ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुः । सांवत्सरिकी तेषां पूजा, न यावद् आगमनम् । अस्मिन् पक्षे ऽर्वाग् आगमनं न पूजाप्रतिबन्धकम् ।

• पाठान्तरं “परिसंवत्सराद्” इति । यावद् एव संवत्सरं तावत् परिसंवत्सरात् तत ऊर्ध्वं पुनः पूज्या इत्य् अर्थः ॥ ३.१०९ ॥

In course of the entertaining of guests, the Text proceeds to lay down the special form of honouring of a few other respected persons also.

‘King’—stands here for the annointed king of men, and not for the mere Kṣatriya in general. The honour here prescribed is a very great one, and every Kṣatriya does not deserve it. Nor would it be right to speak of an ordinary Kṣatriya along with the ‘accomplished student’ and the ‘teacher;’ for there can be no similarity between the honour accorded to the Teacher and to an ordinary Kṣatriya. There are Vedic texts also indicative of the same conclusion. For instance, in the Ātithyeṣṭi-Brāhmaṇa we read—‘the guest is like a king of men arrived;’ and in connection with the rule of killing a cow for the offering of ‘Honey-mixture,’ we find the guest spoken of as ‘the killer of cows;’ all which goes to show that the said offering is meant for the king of men. Hence the honour here mentioned is to be paid to a king of men, irrespective of his being a Kṣatriya or not. But so far as the Śūdra king of men is concerned, no honours are to be paid to him which are accompanied by the recitation of Vedic Mantras.

“All that is prohibited is the uttering of mantras by the Śūdra; there is no prohibition of the reciting of mantras by the Brāhmaṇa and others at an offering made to the Śūdra.”

This does not affect our position; as the persons honoured have also got to recite certain mantras, such as ‘bhūtebhyastvā, &c.’

“But in the Mahābhārata we read of the Honey-mixture offered by the Śūdra also: ‘He himself offered to the Blessed Lord a seat fit for him, as also the Honey-mixture and the cow,’—where Vidura is described as offering it to Vāsudeva.”

In such cases, the term ‘honey-mixture’ is used figuratively in the sense of curd, which is one of the ingredients of that mixture; and, in common usage, the name of a thing is applied to another when the latter helps in the bringing into existence of the former; when, for instance, Butter is spoken of as ‘longevity’ itself.

From all this it is clear that the term ‘king’ here denotes the king of men, and not the mere Kṣatriya.

The term ‘priya’ has been declared to mean the son-in-law.

‘Accomplished student’—i.e., accomplished, not in learning ail’d observances both (but only in learniug, still keeping up the observances). If it had stood for one who has accomplished and finished both, then, since the ‘Teacher’ and the ‘Priest’ also would be such ‘accomplished students’ (there would be no point in mentioning these separately). As for people in the other states (of the Recluse, etc.), for these feeding on alms has been prescribed, and not eating in the manner of ‘guests.’ Or, the term ‘snātaka,’ ‘accomplished student’ may stand for one who has only recently completed his course of Vedic Study.

‘He should receive’—honour—all these.

The term ‘honey-mixture’ is the name of a rite; and the exact form of this rite is to be learnt from the Gṛhyasūtras.

‘Parisamvatsarān,’ ‘cominy after a year,’—qualifies the King and other persons to be honoured. The term means ‘over whom one year has passed.’ The meaning is that they are entitled to the honour of the ‘honey-mixture,’ if they come after a year, not before that.

Some people explain the verse to mean that if they, happen to come before the year, then, even though the full year may not have elapsed since the last offering was made, yet they are to receive the offering. Hut others hold that the honouring here prescribed is an annual function; and not as often as they may come; and under this view, the mere fact of their coming before the year is entirely out cannot be an obstacle to the honour being offered.

Another reading is ‘parisamvatsarāt;’ which means that the honour is to be held in abeyance for a year; after that they should be honoured.—(119)

‘Priyaḥ’—‘Son-in-law’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘Friend’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

‘Parisaṃvatsarān’—Kullūka reads ‘parisaṃvatsarāt.’

“The Mahābhārata has here parisaṃvatsaroṣitān, ‘gone a year on a journey.’”—(Hopkins).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 454) as laying down the ‘Madhuparka’ offering for the King and some others.

Medhātithi (Footnote, p. 237.)—The printed editions have wrongly treated the verse ‘yadyadiṣṭatamam &c.’ as Manu’s text. It is only a part of Medhātithi’s comment, quoted by him as the ‘Smṛtyantara’ referred to by him in line 16.

**(verses 3.119-120)
**

Gautama (5.28-30).—‘The Priest, the Teacher, the Father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle,—when these arrive the Honey-mixture is to be offered; again on the lapse of a year; and also before the marriage and the sacrifice.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.8.5-9).—‘The Vedic Scholar deserves the cow and the honey-mixture; as also the Teacher, the Priest, the Accomplished Student, and the King, if he be righteous; to the Teacher, the Priest, the Father-in-law and the King, the cow and the Honey-mixture shall be offered when they come after the lapse of one year; the Honey-mixture consists of curd mixed with honey, or water mixed with honey, or, in the absence of other things, water only.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11.1).—‘Six persons deserve to be honoured: the Priest, the bridegroom, the king, the paternal uncle, the Accomplished Student and the maternal uncle.’

Yājñavalkya (1.109-110).—‘One shall offer either a big bull or a big goat to the Vedic scholar, as also honour, attendance, delicious food and sweet words; once every year are to be entertained the Accomplished Student, the Teacher, the King; as also the friend and the bridegroom, and the Priests when going to officiate at a sacrifice.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1.24.1-4).—‘After having appointed the Priest, he shall offer to him the Honey-mixture; also to an Accomplished Student that may happen to arrive; also to the King, the Teacher, the Father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle.’

Pāraskara (1.3. 1-3).—‘Six persons deserve to be honoured: the Teacher, the Bridegroom, the King, the dear friend, and the Accomplished Student; these shall be entertained once every year; also the Priests that are going to officiate at a sacrifice.’

Gobhila (4.10.23-26).—‘Six persons are deserving of the honour of entertainment: the Teacher, the Priest, the Accomplished Student, the Bridegroom, the dear friend and the guest; these should be entertained after the lapse of one year; and also at marriage and at a sacrifice.’

119 Let him honour with the honey-mixture a king, an officiating priest, a Snataka, the teacher, a son-in-law, a father-in-law, and a maternal uncle, (if they come) again after a full year (has elapsed since their last visit).

The king and the Learned Man should be honoured with the Honey-mixture, at the approach of a sacrificial performance,—not if there is no sacrifice (going to be performed).—(120)

यज्ञे निमित्ते⁴ ऽर्वाग् अपि संवत्सरात् प्राप्त्यर्थो ऽयम् इति केचित् ।

• अन्ये तु पूर्वस्यैव राजश्रोत्रिययोर् उपसंहारम् आहुः । अनुपसंहारे हि न त्व् अयज्ञ इति नोपपद्यते । अत्र श्रोत्रियो यः स्नातकः प्राग् उक्तः, यदि वा ऋत्वग् एव । तस्य हि यज्ञकर्मणि प्रारिप्स्यमाने मधुपर्कदानं⁵ विहितम् । यद्य् अप्य् असकृत् संवत्सरस्य सोमेन यजेत, कृतार्घ्या एवैनं याजयेयुः । एवं कॢप्तमूलैषा स्मृतिर् भविष्यति । इतरथा कल्प्येत मूलम् ।

• अन्ये तु सर्वान् ऋत्विगादीञ् छ्रोत्रियशब्देन निर्दिष्टान् मन्यन्ते । तथा चाविशेषेण गौतमेन पठितम्- “ऋत्विगाचार्यश्वशुरपितृव्यमातुलानाम् उपस्थाने मधुपर्कः”⁶ इत्य् उक्त्वा “यज्ञविवाहयोर् अर्वाक्” इति पठितवान् (ग्ध् ५.२७, २९) । अतश् च सर्वेषाम् एवार्घ्याणां यज्ञे निमित्ते⁷ ऽर्वाग् अपि संवत्सराद् अर्घार्हता स्यात् । न त्व् अयज्ञ इति च प्रतिषेधो ऽर्वाक् संवत्सरान् नोर्ध्वम् इत्य् एवं ज्ञेयः ।

• इह द्वितीये पादे ऽनेकधा पाठप्रतिपत्तिः । केचित् पठन्ति । “तते यज्ञ उपस्थितौ” इति । तेषां अयम् अर्थः । “तते” प्रारब्धे यज्ञे यदि प्राप्तौ भवतो निमन्त्र्यानीतौ,⁸ तदेयं मधुपर्कक्रिया तयोः । न पुनः प्रारभ्यमाणे ।

• एष पक्षः कैश्चिद् दूष्यते । दीक्षितो न ददातीति दीक्षितस्य सर्वदानप्रतिषेधान् मधुपर्कदानम् अनुज्ञायमानं तद्विरुद्धं स्यात् । न च शक्यं वक्तुम्- “दानम् एतन् न भवति, अर्हयेद् इति नोदनात् पूजैषा विधीयते” । यतो ऽस्ति मधुपर्के दधिदानं मांसभोजनादिदानं च । अथोच्यते । “स्वयम् एव तत्परकीयं भुज्यते” इति । एवं सति स्तेयदोषः स्यात् । “वचनान् न” इति चेद् अस्त्य् एव तर्हि ददात्यर्थः । चोदितं च ददातिः,⁹ मधुपर्कं च दद्याद् इति । तस्माद् विरुद्धम् । दीक्षितो न ददातीत्य् अनेन स्याद् विरोधः यदि यज्ञशब्दः सोमयागेष्व् एव वर्तते । दर्शपूर्णमासादयो ऽपि यागाः, तद्विषयो ऽयं विधिर् भविष्यति ।

• नैतद् युक्तम् । एवं सति समाचारविरोधः । न हि शिष्टाः सोमयागेभ्यो ऽन्यत्र क्वचिद् अर्घ्याय मधुपर्कम् आहरन्ति । आचारो वेदादरः । अतो ऽयम् एव पाठो युक्तः- “यज्ञकर्मण्य् उपस्थिते” इति । प्रारभ्यमाणयज्ञ आगतं शिष्टा मधुपर्केण पूजयन्ति, न प्रवृत्तयज्ञाः । अतश् चैतद् अपि न विचारयामः । सामान्यतः प्राप्तस्य दानस्य भवतु निवृत्तिर् न पुनस् तद्विषयतयैव श्रुतस्य । यज्ञश् चासौ कर्म च तद् यज्ञकर्म तस्मिन्न् उपस्थिते प्राप्ते ॥ ३.११० ॥

Some people hold that this verse serves to prescribe the honouring even before the lapse of a year, if the persons happen to Arrive in connection with a sacrifical peformance. Others, however, take it as completing what has been said in the preceding verse; and if it be not taken in this sense, then the statement ‘not if there is no sacrifice’ remains inexplicable.

The term ‘learned man’ here may be taken as standing either for the person spoken of above as ‘accomplished student,’ or for the Priest; it is for the latter that the offering of ‘Honey-mixture,’ when the sacrifice is going to be performed, has been laid down. Though one would perform the Soma-sacrifice several times during the year, yet the Priests would help in the performance only if they have been duly honoured. Thus it is only if taken in this sense that the text comes to have a well-established basis (in the Veda). In any other sense, it will have to have its basis assumed.

Others, however, take the term ‘learned man’ as referring to the Priest and all the rest of them (mentioned in the preceding verse). In fact, Gautama has said this in a general way: Having said that ‘the honey-mixture is to be offered in the reception of the priest, the father-in-law, the paternal uncle and the maternal uncle, (5-25), he says ‘before the sacrifice and the marriage’ (5.27). And from this it is clear that at the time that a sacrifice is going to be performed, all those who deserve to be honoured should be honoured even before the lapse of the year.

‘Not if there is no sacrifice;’—this prohibition applies to the honouring before t he year is over, and not that which comes after it.

In connection with the second foot of the verse, there are several readings:

Some people read ‘tate yajñe upasthitau,’ ‘who arrive when a sacrifice has commenced;’ and they explain this to mean that ‘the honey-mixture’ is to be offered to them only if they come, by invitation, when the performance of the sacrifice has commenced, and not when it is only going to be commenced.

This view is objected to by some persous: In view of the general rule that ‘the person initiated for sacrifice should not offer anything,’ all offering is prohibited for the initiated sacrificer; so that, if the offering of honey-mixture were now permitted, this would be contrary to the said general rule. It will not be right to argue (in answer to this that—“this is not an offering, since the injunction is that he should honour them, so that it is honouring that is enjoined;” because in the rite of the ‘Honey-mixture, ‘there is an actual offering of curd, as also of meat and food. If it be said that “the man eats what belongs to another person (without the latter offering it),”—in that case, the act would involve the sin of theft. It may be argued that, “in view of the direct assertion permitting such an act, it could not be regarded as theft.” But in that case, the act of giving is there; in fact, th e giving or offering also is actually enjoined in such texts as ‘should offer the honey-mixture.’ Hence the act would be contrary to law. “The offering would be contrary to the law that ‘the Initiated Sacrificer should not offer anything,’ only if the term ‘Sacrifice’ always stood for the Soma-sacrifice (in connection with which we have the said prohibition); as a matter of fact, however, the terra stands for the Darśa- Pūrṇamāsa sacrifices also; and the present injunction may be taken as pertaining to these latter.” This also will not be right; as, in this case, it will be contrary to usage: as a matter of fact, cultured people do not offer the Honey-mixture to honoured persons at any other sacrifice except the Soma-sacrifice; and Usage always follows the Veda.

For all these reasons, the right reading is ‘yajñakarmaṇyupasthite’ (as we have explained already). As a matter of fact, it is only when an honoured person arrives when the sacrificial performance is going to commence that cultured persons receive him with the Honey-mixture; and not after the performance has commenced. For this reason we do not even stop to consider the point that the prohibition (of offering by the Initiated Person) pertains to the act of giving in general, and not to that act of offering or giving which has been enjoined in connection with the sacrifice itself.

The compound ‘yajñakarma’ is to be expounded as the Karmadhāraya compound: when this performance is approaching—going to be performed.—(120)

“According to one opinion, given by Medhātithi, and according to Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa, this rule is a limitation of verse 119, and means that the two persons mentioned shall not receive the ‘Honey-mixture,’ except when they come dining the performance of a sacrifice, however long a period may have elapsed since their last visit—According to another explanation, mentioned by Medhātithi, and according to Nandaṇa and Rāghavānanda, the verse means that a King and a Śrotriya, who come, after a year since their last visit on the occasion of a sacrifice, shall receive the Madhuparka.—The term ‘Śrotriya’ refers, according to Medhātithi, to a Snātaka or to an officiating priest;—according to ‘others’ quoted by him, to all the persons mentioned in the preceding verse;—according to Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, to a Snātaka.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 455) in support of the view that Madhuparka is to be offered to a King only if he is also a ‘Śrotriya,’ ‘learned in the Veda’, not otherwise;—‘Śrotriyaḥ’ being taken as qualifying ‘rājā.’—It is difficult to see how the writer will construe the term ‘Sampūjyau’ (in the dual number).

**(verses 3.119-120)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.119].

120 A king and a Srotriya, who come on the performance of a sacrifice, must be honoured with the honey-mixture, but not if no sacrifice is being performed; that is a settled rule.

Out of the food cooked in the evening the wife should offer the Bali-oblation, without sacred formulas. This is the “Vaiśvadeva” rite which has been enjoined for both Morning and evening.—(121)

उक्तः प्रथमः । इदानीं द्वितीयः पाक उच्यते । सायं दिनान्तः प्रदोषस् तत्र सिद्धस्यान्नस्य सर्वः पाकयज्ञिकविधिर्¹⁰ आवर्तनीयो ब्रह्मयज्ञपितृयज्ञवर्जम् ।

• ननु च बलिं हरेद् इत्य् एतावच् छ्रुतम् । बलिहरणं च प्रसिद्ध्या भूतयज्ञ एव । तत्र कुतो ऽग्नौ होमो ऽतिथ्यादिदानं च । अथ वैस्वदेवं हि नामैतद् इति वैश्वदेवशब्दः सर्वार्थतां प्रतिपादयति । विश्वेषां देवानाम् इदं विधीयते । सायंप्रातर् यादृशं प्रातस् तादृशम् एव सायम् एतदर्थम् एव प्रातःशब्दः । अन्यथा प्रातर्विहितम् एव, किम् अनेन सायंप्रातर् विधीयते । एवं तर्हि ब्रह्मयज्ञपितृयज्ञाव् अपि कर्तव्यौ ।

• उच्यते । अन्नस्य सिद्धस्येति वचनाद् यद् अन्नसाध्यं तद् एव कर्तव्यम् । न त्व् अध्ययनसाध्यो ब्रह्मयज्ञो नाप्य् उदकसाध्यं तर्पणम् । एवं च संबन्धः क्रियते । सिद्धस्यान्नस्य बलिं हरेत् । एतद् वैश्वदेवाख्यं कर्मान्नस्य सिद्धस्योभयोः कालयोर् विधीयते । अन्नशब्दाद् वैश्वदेवशब्दाच्¹¹ चैवं व्याख्यायते ।

• अमन्त्रम् । मन्त्रशब्देन देवतोद्देशेन शब्दवान् स्वाहाकारान्तो ऽग्नये स्वाहेत्य् एवमादिर् निषिध्यते । न ह्य् अन्ये मन्त्रा वैश्वदेवेषु विनियुक्ताः । तेषु च मन्त्रत्वं प्रशंसयोच्यते । न तु¹² स्वाध्याये ऽपठितानां मन्त्रत्वम् अस्ति । स्वाध्यायैकदेशः कश्चिद् ऋग्यजुःसामाद्यात्मको वेदाध्यायिभिर् मन्त्र इति व्यवह्रियते । व्यवहारतश् च पदार्थावगमनम् । न च¹³ यैः शब्दैर् बलिहरणादि क्रियते ते कुत्रचित् पठ्यन्ते । “केवलम् अग्न्यादिभ्यो देवेभ्यो होमं कुर्यात्” इति श्रुतेः, “स्वाहाकारेण वा वषट्कारेण वा देवेभ्यो हविः संप्रदीयते” इति वाक्यान्तरेण सर्वहोमेषु स्वाहाकारो विहितः, याज्यान्ते वषट्कारो नियमितः- “याज्यायां वषट्करोति” इति । स्वाहाकारशब्दयोगे चतुर्थी स्मर्यते । अतो यागो देवताया उद्देश्यत्वात्, उद्देश्यत्वं च देवतायाः शब्दावगम्यरूपत्वात्, शब्देनैवोचितत्वात्, इयं घटना क्रियते “अग्नये स्वाहा” इत्यादि ।

• यद्य् एवं तेषां निषेधः, कथं तर्हि यागनिर्वृत्तिः । न हि “तुभ्यम् इदं न मदीयम्” इति यावद् उद्देशो न कृतस् तावद् यागस्वरूपनिर्वृत्तिः । न हि त्यागः केवलो याग उद्देशशून्यः ।

• सत्यम् । शब्दे¹⁴ निषिद्धे मनसोद्देशं देवतायाः पत्नी करिष्यति । यथा शूद्रो नमस्कारम् उच्चारयति । “अनुज्ञातो ऽस्य नमस्कारो ऽमन्त्रः”¹⁵ (ग्ध् १०.६४) नमस्कारेण प्रत्याम्नातः शूद्रस्य मन्त्र इति नमस्कारो ऽनुज्ञातो ऽस्य, न देवतापदम् । तत्र च¹⁶ देवताया विनियोगात् सिद्धिर्¹⁷ इत्य् उक्तम् । इह भवन्तस् त्व् आहुः- स्वाहाकारो नमस्कारेण प्रत्याम्नातः शूद्रस्य, देवतापदं त्व् अनिषिद्धम् ।

• अथ सायंवैश्वदेवहोमे कः कर्ता ।

• उक्तं पत्न्य् एव संनिधानाद् बलिहरणवद् अमन्त्रकं करिष्यतीति ॥ ३.१११ ॥

The first cooking has been described: the second rooking is now described.

‘Evening’—end of day, the advent of night; out(?) of the food cooked at that time all the rites pertaining to the ‘Fire Sacrifices’ have to be repeated, with the exception of the ‘Brahmayajña’ (Vedic Study) and the ‘Pitṛyajña’ (Śrāddha).

“All that the text says is that she should offer the ‘Bali-oblation;’ and in ordinary usage it is only the⁴ Bhūtayajña’ (the offering to elementals) that is called ‘bali.’ So that, whence do we get (out of the words of the Text) either the pouring of libations into fire, or the offering of food to guests &c.? in answer to this the following might be urged—‘The offering prescribed in the verse is spoken of by the name Vaiśvadeva, and the term, Vaiśradeva, denotes that the offering is meant for all, being prescribed for all gods (viśve devāḥ). In fact the term, both morning and evening, clearly indicates that the offering in the evening is to be precisely similar to that in the morning; it is for the purpose of conveying this sense that the term morning has been used. If it were not so, then, since the morning -offering has been already prescribed before, why should it have been necessary to say here that it has been enjoined for both morning and evening?” But in that case, the Brahmayajña and the Pitṛyajña also should have to be performed (in the evening also),”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—The phrase ‘out of the food cooked’ clearly indicates the doing of that alone which can be done with the food,— and not of the Brahmayajña, which is done by means of Vedic Study, nor of ‘Tarpaṇa’ (), which is done with water. We construe the words of the Text as follows ‘out of the food cooked, the Bali-oblation should be offered, and this rite, called Vaiśvadeva, is prescribed as to be done out of the food cooked, both morning and evening.’ That such is the meaning we deduce from the use of the term ‘food’ and that of the term ‘vaiśvadeva

‘Without sacred formulas;’—what is interdicted is the use of expressions containing the names of the deity and ending with the syllable ‘svāhā;’ such expressions, for instance, as ‘agnaye svāhā,’ and the like; no other sacred formulas have been prescribed in connection with the Vaiśvadeva offerings; the said expressions are called ‘sacred formulas’ (mantra) only with a view to eulogise them; the real character of ‘mantra’ cannot belong to any expressions not occurring in the Veda; all students of Veda accept that only as ‘mantra’ which forms part of the Veda, either in the form of Ṛk, Yajuṣ or Sāman; and the meaning of words is ascertained from usage only. Those expressions with which the Bali and other oblations are made are not found in the text of any Veda; all that the Śruti says is that ‘oblations should be offered to Agni and other deities;’ the use of the syllable ‘svāhā’ also in the offering of all oblations is enjoined in another text, which says that ‘oblations are offered to gods either with the syllable svāhā or vaṣaṭ;’ but the use of the syllable ‘vaṣiṭ’ has been restricted to the end of the ‘yājyā’ mantras only by the declaration ‘one should pronounce vaṣaṭ at the end of the yājyā.’ In connection with the syllable ‘svāhā,’ the grammatical rules lay down the use of the Dative affix. Thus it is that it becomes necessary to use such verbal expressions as ‘agnaye svāhā,’ and the like, because every secrificial offering is aimed for a deity, and it is only by means of words that we know for which deity it is aimed.

“Under the circumstances, as the use of these expressions is prohibited, how can the sacrifice he regarded as accomplished? For so long as the gift is not completed by the assertion ‘this is for you, it is no longer mine,’ the sacrifice cannot be regarded as accomplished. Merely giving up a thing, without special reference to a recipient, cannot be called a ‘sacrifice’.”

This is true: the verbal reference to the gods being prohibited, the wife shall make the reference mentally.Just as when the Śūdra pronounces the syllable ‘namḥ,’ the use of the Mantra being replaced in his case by that syllable—as declared by Gautama, who says ‘For the Śūdra the syllable namaḥ has been ordained as the mantra’ (10.64); and the utterance of the name of the deity is not permitted for him. And yet it has been declared that even in this case the offering to the Deity becomes duly accomplished. The revered teachers, however, have declared that it is only the syllabic ‘svāhā’ that is to be replaced by the syllable ‘namaḥ,’ and that the utterance of the name of the Deity has not been prohibited.

Question:—“ Who is the real performer of the Vaiśvadeva offering in the evening?”

Answer:—It has been already asserted that it is the wife, who will make the offering without mantras; and this because she will be near by.—(121)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 315), which adds the following notes:—The first sentence here extends upto ‘nāmaitat’; ‘sāyamprātarvidhīyate’ being a totally distinct sentence; the latter serves to enjoin the necessity of making the Vaiśvadeva-offering both morning and evening. The meaning thus comes to be that it is only in the evening that the wife is entitled to perform the ‘Vaiśvadeva rite’ in the form of the Bali-offering. Some people hold that the ‘Bali-offering’ herein laid down as to be done by the wife indicates the Vaiśvadeva offering also, and is not meant to be a substitute for the latter.

It is quoted also in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 929), which 1ms the following notes:—One sentence runs up to ‘nāmaitat’, and ‘sāyamprātarvidhīyate’ is another sentence, laying down the two times for Vaiśvadeva offering. It is to this offering in the evening alone that the wife is entitled; and it is not right, as some people have held, that the name ‘Vaiśvadeva’ here stands for the entire rite of that name, including the Homa also; because Homa has been expressly forbidden for women. Others again have held that the singular number in ‘balim’ indicates that the only offering that the wife is to make is that which is made in the sky, i.e., the ‘Vaihāyasa-bali’. But this also is not right; because in the same context as the present, another text uses the plural form, ‘balīn haret’. Thus the conclusion is that the entire offering is to be made in the evening either by the man or his wife.

The verse is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 403), which adds the following explanation:—Bali-offering without mantras, with food cooked in the evening, is to be done by the wife only in the absence of the House-holder and his sons;—‘Homa’ by women being generally interdicted by several texts.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 145) which explains it to mean that—‘in the absence of males, the wife should offer Vaiśvadeva-bali without mantras.’

Gobhila (1. 4.19).—‘The Bali is to be offered by the woman in the evening, and by the man in the morning.’

Gautama (Aparārka, p. 145).—‘The Vaiśvadeva-offering and the Bali-offering should be made both morning and evening, even though the man himself may not take any food.’

121 But the wife shall offer in the evening (a portion) of the dressed food as a Bali-oblation, without (the recitation of) sacred formulas; for that (rite which is called the) Vaisvadeva is prescribed both for the morning and the evening.