१३ मासिकश्राद्धम्

Month after Month, on the moonless day, the Brāhmaṇa with the Fire shall, after having performed the Pitṛyajña, offer the “Piṇḍānvāhāryaka.”—(122)

वैश्वदेविकाद् वैकल्पिकाच् छ्राद्धान् नित्यम् इदं श्राद्धान्तरम् उच्यते । चन्द्रक्षये ऽमावास्यायाम् । तत्रापि न यस्यां कस्यांचन वेलायां किं तर्हि पितृयज्ञं निर्वर्त्य । श्रौतो यः पिण्डपितृयज्ञस् तं कृत्वा । एवं च यस् तस्य कालः स एवास्यापि लभ्यते । तद् उक्तम् अमावास्यायाम् अपराह्णे पिण्डपितृयज्ञ इति । अनाहिताग्नेर् अप्य् औपासनयोगो ऽस्त्य् एव । तथा चाह । “एवम् अनाहिताग्निर् नित्ये श्रपयित्वा” इत्यादि । अग्निमान् वैवाहिकेनाग्निना तद्वान्, दायकालाहृतेन वा । विप्रग्रहणम् अविवक्षितम् । क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् अपीष्यते । एवं स्मृत्यन्तरेषु ह्य् अविसेषणोक्तम् । पिण्डान्वाहार्यकम् इति । नामधेयम् इदम् अस्य श्राद्धस्य । पिण्डानाम् अनु पश्चाद् आह्रियते ऽनुष्ठीयते । तत् पिण्डान्वाहार्यकं भवति । मासश् चानुमासश् च, तयोर् भवं मासानुमासिकम् । मासानुमासशब्दसमुदायो मासगतां वीप्साम् आचष्टे । मासि मासि कर्तव्यम् इत्य् उक्तं भवति । अतश् च नित्यतासिद्धिः । यद्य् अप्य् अनुमासशब्दाद् वीप्सावगतिर् भवति, मासशब्दो ऽतिरिच्यते, तथापि पद्यग्रन्थे गौर्वं नाद्रियते । श्राद्धम् इत्य् एतद् अपि नामैव । कुर्याद् इति विधिः ॥ ३.११२ ॥

The śrāddha described here is the compulsory one, as distinct from the Vaiśvadeva-śrāddha, which is optional.

‘On the moon-leas day’— on the Amāvāsya day. There also not at any and every time, but only ‘after having performed the Pitṛyajña.’ That is, after having performed that Ptṛyajña which has been prescribed in the Śruti. Thus the time for the Śrāddha in question comes to be the same as that for this latter; and in connection with this it has been laid down that the Piṇḍapitṛyajña is to be performed on the Amāvāsya day, in the afternoon.’

Even for one who has not set up the fire, the performance of such offerings is essential; as it is declared—‘the person who has not set up the fire having made the accessary offerings &c.’

‘The Brāhmaṇa with the fire’—i.e., he who is keeping up the marriage-fire, or who has set up the fire since succession to his property. No significance is meant to be attached to the mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ since the śrāddha in question is meant to be performed by the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also; hence it is that other smṛtis have prescribed this śrāddha without special reference to any particular caste.

‘Piṇḍānvāhārya kam;’—this is the proper name of this śrāddha; the etymological explanation is that ‘that which is offered along with balls of food, Piṇḍas, is piṇḍānvāhāryaka.’

‘Month after month,’—in one month, and also in another month. The compound word connotes monthly repetition; thus the meaning is that the śrāddha is to be performed every month. Thus it is that its compulsory character becomes established. Though the term ‘anumāsa’ alone dignities repetition, and the second term ‘māsa’ is superfluous, yet prolixity (anti redundance) is not minded in a metrical treatise.—(122)

“The sacrifice identified by the term Pitṛyajña is the so-called Piṇḍapitṛyajña, a Śrauta rite (Āśvalāyana, Śrauta-sūtra 2.6-7); and Piṇḍānvāhāryaka is another name for the monthly Śrāddha.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (p. 165), where it is explained as laying down the order of sequence between Piṇḍapitṛyajña and Piṇḍānvāhāryaka, as performed by the man with the consecrated fire;—the particle ‘anu’ denotes repetition;—‘candrakṣaye’ means ‘on the Amāvasyā day.’

It is quoted in Kālaviveka (p. 354) as laying down Śrāddha to be performed on the Amāvasyā day.

Madanapārijāta (p. 321) quotes it in support of the view that all those texts that lay down the Vaiśvadeva offering as to be done before the Śrāddha, are to be taken as applying only to the man who has set up the Śrauta Fire (which is what is meant by the term ‘agnimān’ in the present verse);—again on p. 495, where it adds that ‘māsānumāsikam’ means ‘every month’; and goes on to explain that Piṇḍapitṛyajña is to be performed also by the man who has not set up the Śrauta Fire; so that for the man with the ‘Śrauta Fire,’ as well as for the man with the ‘Domestic Fire,’ it is necessary to perform Anvādhāna, Piṇḍapitṛyajña and Amāvasyā-Śrāddha,—all on the same day.

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 40) quotes this verse as permitting the performance of Śrāddha on a day on which there is Caturdaśī in the morning but Amāvasyā for the rest of the day.

This is quoted in Aparārka (p. 418), which remarks that the repetitive form of the term ‘māsānumāsikam’ is meant to imply that the Śrāddha on the Amāvasyā day is compulsory;—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 609) to the effect that ‘Pitṛyajña’ should be performed before the ‘Śrāddha’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 72,171,321 and 1064);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (pp. 956 and 989) to the effect that the Amāvasyā-Śrāddha should be performed after Piṇḍapitṛyajña; it explains ‘Piṇḍānvāhāryakam’ as Piṇḍānām piṇḍapitṛyajñārthānām anu paścāt āhṛyate kṛyate iti,’ and calls it a name for the Amāvasyā

Śrāddha;—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 185), which explains ‘Piṇḍānvāhāryakam’ as Pārvaṇaśrāddha, and expounds the same as ‘piṇḍāḥ anu brāhmaṇabhojanānantaram āhriyante asmin’;—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 6) as laying down Amāvasyā-Śrāddha;—and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, pp. 431 and 492).

Sumantu (Aparārka, p. 418).—‘The man with the fire shall offer Śrāddha to those to whom his father offers it.’

Maitrāyaṇīya-pariśiṣṭa (Do.).—‘Marriage, the birth of a son, the Pitrya Iṣṭi, Soma-sacrifice, sacred places, and the arrival of the right Brāhmaṇa,—these are occasions for the performance of Śrāddha by one whose father is living.’

Viṣṇu (Do.).—‘If the man with his father living performs Śrāddha, he should offer it to those to whom his father offers it; if his grandfather is alive, to those to whom the grandfather offers it; if his father, grandfather and greatgrandfather are all alive, he shall not offer it at all.’

Gautama (15.2).—‘During the later fortnight, from the fifth day onwards, Śrāddha shall be performed.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 217).—‘The Moonless day, the Aṣṭakās, the Auspicious ceremonies, the darker fortnight, the two solstices…… (these are the occasions for Śrāddha).’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 417).—‘The Moonless day on which the moon sets after appearing is called Sinīvālī; on that day should Śrāddha be offered by Agnihotrins; and that day on which the moon is entirely invisible (called Kuhū), on that it should be offered by Brāhmaṇas without fire and by others.’

Laugākṣi (Do., p. 418).—‘The man whose father is dead should offer Śrāddha every day, also every month on the moonless day, on auspicious occasions and also every year.’

Uśanas (Aparārka, p. 418).—‘The twice-born man whose father has died shall offer Śrāddha every day—be he with Fire or without Fire; also every month and every year.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘While one’s father is living, one should avoid all Śrāddhas; but according to some people, he should offer it to those Pitṛs to whom his father offers it.’

122 After performing the Pitriyagna, a Brahmana who keeps a sacred fire shall offer, month by month, on the new-moon day, the funeral sacrifice (Sraddha, called) Pindanvaharyaka.

The monthly śrāddha to the Pitṛs the wise call “anvāhārya;” and it should be carefully performed with such meat as has been commended.—(123)

अन्वाहार्यं दर्शपौर्णमासयोः श्रौतयोर् दक्षिणर्त्विजाम् । यद् एतन् मासिकं श्राद्धम् अमावास्यायाम् एतत् पितॄणाम् अन्वाहार्यम् । यथान्वाहार्येणर्त्विजः प्रीयन्ते तद्वत् पितरः श्राद्धेन । एतेन पित्रर्थतां श्राद्धस्याह । यथाग्न्यादिदेवतार्थो दर्शादियाग एवं न श्राद्धे पितरः, किं तर्हि तदुपकारार्थम् एव श्राद्धम् । तथा च पितॄणाम् इति षष्ठी । केवले हि देवतात्वे चतुर्थ्याविरहायोगः ।

• पक्षे पाठान्तरम् अर्थान्तरं च “पिण्डानां मासिकम्” इति ।

• अन्वाहार्यं विदुर् बुधाः । अनेनापि पितृयज्ञवद् अवश्यकर्तव्यतोच्यते । न त्व् इदम् अङ्गम् । तद् एतद् आमिषेण मांसेन कर्तव्यम् । प्रशस्तेन अप्रतिषिद्धेन विसेषविहितेन वा । “द्वौ मासौ मत्स्यमांसेन” (म्ध् ३.२५८) इति यद् वक्ष्यति । अयं च मुख्यः कल्पः । तदभावे दहिघृतपयोऽपूपादि विधायिष्यते । मांसं च व्यञ्जनम्, भक्तादिभोज्यस्य । न पुनर् एतद् एव केवलं भोज्यम्, येन वक्ष्यति “गुणांश् च सूपशाकाद्यान्” (म्ध् ३.२१६), तथा “यावन्तश् चैव यैश् चान्नैः” (म्ध् ३.११४) इति ।

• किं पुनः श्राद्धे होमब्राह्मणभोजनपिण्डनिर्वपणादीनि कर्माणि सर्वाण्य् एव समप्रधानानि श्राद्धशब्दवाच्यानि, उत किंचिद् अङ्गम् अत्र किंचित् प्रधानम् ।

• उच्यते । “श्राद्धं भोजयेत्” (म्ध् ३.१३७), “श्राद्धं भुक्तम् अनेन” (पाण् ५.२.८५), इति सामानाधिकरण्याद् ब्राह्मणभोजनं मुख्यं प्रतीयते ॥ ३.११३ ॥

तथा चाह ।

‘Anvāhārya’ is the name of the fee paid to the priests officiating at the Darṣa-Pūrṇamāsa sacrifices; and the monthly śrāddha offered to the Pitṛs is the ‘Anvāhārya fee’ for the Ancestors; and the sense of the metaphor is that the Pitṛs are as much pleased on receiving the śrāddha-ofterings as the Priests are on receiving the fee. This name serves to indicate that the śrāddha is performed for the Pitṛs. But the relation in which the Ancestors stand to the śrāddha is not the same in which the Deities stand to the Darśa and other sacrifices; as the śrāddha is performed for their benefit; and it is in this sense that we have the genitive case in ‘pitṛṛṇām (pitṝṇām?)’; if the Pitṛs were the ‘deities,’ then there would be no reason for the omitting of the Dative affix.

Another reading giving a totally different sense is ‘piṇḍānām māsikam.’

‘The wise call Anvāhārya’— This also indicates the obligatory character of the Pitṛ-yajña (which is as necessary as the sacrificial gift); but with this difference that it is not a mere subordinate factor (as the sacrificial fee is).

‘It should be performed with such meat as has been comended’—i.e., not prohibited, or particularly recommended; as in 268, where it is said ‘with the meat of fish the Ancestors remain satisfied for two months, etc., etc.’

This is the principal method; in the absence of meat, curds, butter, milk, cakes, etc., shall be offered, as is going to be prescribed later on.

The meat, however, is only the sauce for the seasoning of such food as cooked rice and the like; it does not consti-tute a food by itself, since the text is going to describe ‘such subsidiaries us soup and vegetables, etc.’ (226), and also ‘on what kinds of food, etc.’ (next verse).—(123)

The question that arises now is that the śrāddha consisting of the several acts of (a) oblations in fire, (b) feeding of Brāhmaṇas, (c) offering of hulls of food, and so forth,—are they all equally principal and expressible by the name ‘śrāddha?’ Or, some are principal and some secondary? The answer is that, in view of suoh expressions as—‘one should feed Brāhmaṇas in śrāddha,’ ‘this man has eaten at the śrāddha,’ and so forth, where ‘feeding’ and ‘śrāddha’ are spoken of as synonyms,—the ‘feeding of Brāhmaṇas appears to be the principal factor.’ To the same end our Author says—

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 573);—and in Godādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 431), which expounds the name ‘anvāhāryam’ as ‘anu, paścāt, āhāryam kāryam,’ and says that this the learned call ‘Dārśa-Śrāddha.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.16).—‘Śrāddha should be performed month by month.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.19).—‘The first alternative is that at these Śrāddhas the offering should consist of butter and meat.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (70.24).—[The Pitṛs are represented as saying]—‘Kālaśāka, Mahāśalka, the meat of the Vārdhrīṇasa goat, and the meat of the rhinoceros whose horn has not come out,—these we partake of.’

Laugākṣi (quoted in Parāśaramādhava, p. 308)—‘The twice-born person whose father is dead must perform Śrāddha on the moonless day every month.’

123 The wise call the monthly funeral offering to the manes Anvaharya (to be offered after the cakes), and that must be carefully performed with the approved (sorts of) flesh (mentioned below).

I am now going to describe fully which and how many Brāhmaṇas should be fed at it, and on what food,—as also those that should be avoided.—(124)

तत्र तस्मिञ् छ्राद्धे ये द्विजोत्तमा ब्राह्मणा भोजनीया ये च परिहर्तव्याः, यावन्तो यत्संख्याका “द्वौ दैवे” (म्ध् ३.११५) इत्यादि, यैश् चान्नैः “तिलैर् व्रीहियवैः” (म्ध् ३.२५७) इत्यादि, तद् एतत् सर्वम् इदानीं वक्ष्यामि । तच् छृणुत ।

• एतद् अत्र प्राधान्येन संपाद्यम् । एतेन विना श्राद्धं न कृतं भवति । अन्यच् च यच् चाङ्गजातम् आराद् उपकारकं संनिपत्योपकारकं वा तस्मिन्न् असंपन्ने श्राद्धं न कृतं भवति, सगुणं तन् न स्यात् । अत एतेषां प्राधान्यख्यापनार्थं पुनर् उपन्यासः ॥ ३.११४ ॥

‘At it’—at the śrāddha;—those Brāhmaṇas that should be fed,—as also those that should be avoided;—‘how many’—what number; as is going to be pointed out that ‘two should be fed at the offering to the gods, and so forth’ (125);—‘on what food,’—‘on sesamum, barley, etc.’ (267) all this ‘I am now going to describe’— listen-to it.

This (feeding of Brāhmaṇas) is the chief thing to be accomplished; for without this the śrāddha is as good as not done. As for the subsidiary factors,—those that help in the performance directly, as well as those that help indirectly,—even if these are not duly accomplished, the śrāddha is done,—only it is not quite complete in its details. Hence it is that the subjects have been propounded again, for the purpose of indicating their predominant character.—(124.)

Medhātithi (p. 241, l. 25)—‘Yaccāṅgajātam etc.’—The Mīmāṃsakas, specially those belonging to the ‘Prābhākara’ school, classify ‘subsidiaries to an act’ under four heads:—(1) class-character, (2) quality, (3) substance, and (4) such things as are denoted by verbs, i.e., actions. The last of these is grouped under two heads—(1) Those directly helpful, called Sannipatyopakāraka, and (2) those indirectly helpful, called ‘Ārādupakāraka’. That which produces its direct effects in certain things conducive to the fulfilment of the sacrificial act, is its Sannipatyopakāraka; e.g., the sitting of the sacrifìcer, the threshing of the corn and so forth. The Sannipatyopakāraka is of four kinds—(1) that which brings into existence a certain substance; i.e., the kneading of the flour, which brings into existence the dough;—(2) that which leads to the acquisition of a certain substance; e.g., the act of milking the cow;—(3) that which produces some change in an already existing substance; e.g., the boiling of clarified butter;—(4) that which is purely purificatory, e.g., the sprinkling of water over the corn. The subsidiaries that belong to this class do not produce any transcendental result—

Apūrva—of their own; they are related to the result produced by the sacrificial act to which they are subsidiary……… The

Ārāpudakāraka—or indirectly helpful subsidiaries—are of two kinds—(1) those that fulfil only a transcendental purpose and do not produce any visible effects in any material substance; e.g., the small offerings made during the Darśapūrṇamāsa, such as the Samid-yāga and the rest;—and (2) those that produce both transcendental and visible effects; e.g., the Payovrata, the act of the Sacrificer and his wife living, during the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma, purely on milk. These latter, from their very nature, are such acts as have their own minor resultant Apūrvas, which go to help in the fulfilment of the Apūrva of the main sacrificial act itself. [For a discussion on this subject, the reader is referred to the Prābhakara School of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, pp. 180-185.]

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 377).

124 I will fully declare what and how many (Brahmanas) must be fed on that (occasion), who must be avoided, and on what kinds of food (they shall dine).

Even though wealthy, one should feed two at the rite performed in honour of the gods, and three at that in honour of the Pitṛs; or one only at each of the two rites he should not indulge in large company.—(125)

यद्य् अपि प्रतिज्ञातस्य वस्तुनस् तेनैव क्रमेण विशेषकथनं युक्तम्, तथापीह स्वल्पवक्तव्यत्वाद् “भोजनीया” (म्ध् ३.११४) इति प्राप्तं परित्यज्य संख्यानिर्देशो ऽनेन क्रियते ।

• देवान् उद्दिश्य द्वौ ब्राह्मणौ भोजयेत् । पितॄणां कृत्ये त्रीन् । उभयत्र वा दैव एकं पित्र्ये चैकम् । यद्य् अपि “पित्र्ये” इत्य् अत्र पितुर् इदम् इति पितृशब्देन देवताचोदना, तथापि पितृपितामहप्रपितामहा उद्देश्याः । तत्रैकैकस्यैकैअं भोजयेत्, न त्व् एवैकं सर्वेभ्यः, पृथक्पृथग् देवतात्वात् । उक्तं च गृह्यकरेण “न त्व् एवैकं सर्वेषाम्” (आश्ग् ४.७.४), “पिण्डैर् व्याख्यातम्” (आश्ग् ४.७.६) इति । यथैकः पिण्डः सर्वेभ्यो न निरुप्यते तथैव ब्राह्मणो ऽपि न भोज्यत इत्य् अर्थः । इहापि वक्ष्यति- “निमन्त्रयेत त्र्यवरान्” (म्ध् ३.१७७) इति । भोजनार्थम् एव तन्निमन्त्रणम्, नादृष्टार्थम् । अतश् च पितृकृत्ये त्रींस् त्रीन् इति द्रष्टव्यम् । तथा चाह- “न चावरान् भोजयेत्” इति (च्ड़्। ग्ध् १५.७) । एवं च कृत्वा “एकैकम् अपि विद्वांसम्” (म्ध् ३.११९) इत्य् एतद् अप्य् एवम् एव द्रष्टव्यम्-¹ एकैकस्यैकैकम् इति । अपि च नैवात्रैकैकम् उभयत्रेत्य् एतद् विधीयते, विस्तरप्रतिषेधर्थो ऽयम् अनुवादः । यथा “विषं भक्षय, मा चास्य गृहे भुङ्क्ष्व” इति ।

• यद्य् एवं “द्वौ दैवे” इत्य् एषो ऽपि विधिर् न स्याद् अस्याप्य् अन्यार्थतयोपपत्तेः । अथायं विधिर् अप्राप्तत्वाद् एकैकम् इत्य् एषो ऽपि कस्मान् न भवति ।

• अत्राह । मा भूद् द्वयोर् एको ऽपि विधिः ।

• कुतस् तर्हि संख्यावगमः ।

• “निमन्त्रयेत त्र्यवरान्” इति (म्ध् ३.१७७) ।

• ननु तत्र दैवग्रहणं नास्ति ।

• स्मृत्यन्तरात् तर्हि संख्यावगमः- “अयुजो वा यथोत्साहम्” (ग्ध् १५.७–८) इति, “युग्मान् दैवे” (य्ध् १.२२६) इति ।

• यदि वायं संख्याविधिः स्याद् विस्तरप्राप्त्यभावात् प्रतिषेधो ऽनर्थकः । तस्माद् यावद्भिर् ब्राह्मणैर् भोजितैर् विस्तरे ये दोषास् ते न भवन्ति ताद्वन्तो² भोजनीयाः ।³ पित्र्ये ऽयुग्माः दैवे तु द्वाव् एव । अतिसमृद्धो ऽप्य् अत्यर्थम् आढ्यो ऽपि । न प्रवर्तेत विस्तरे । न चायम् अदृष्टार्थो विस्तरप्रतिषेधः ॥ ३.११५ ॥

किं तर्हि ।

Though as a rule each subject should be propounded in the same order in which it has been mentioned before,—and according to this the persons to be fed should have been described first,—yet the present verse describes their number first; because there is very little to be said on this point.

With reference to the gods, one should feed two Brāhmaṇas, and at the rite performed in honour of the Pitṛs he should feed three; ‘or one at each of the two’—i.e., one at the rite in honour of the Gods and one at that in honour of the Pitṛs.

Though the word used in the Text is ‘pitṛ,’ which shows that the entity to whom the offering is to be made is the Father, yet, as a matter of fact, the offering is to be made to the Father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Hence, at the śrāddha, one should food one Brāhmaṇa for each of these three,—and not one only for all three; because each of them constitutes a distinct ‘recipient of offering.’ Says the author of the Gṛhyasūtra (Āśvnlāyana, 4. 7.2-4)—‘Not only one for all; it has been explained by means of the balls;’ that is, just as only one ball is not offered to all, so only one Brāhmaṇa should not be fed for all. Here also the author will say later on—‘he should invite at least three;’ and the invitation there spoken of is for the purpose of feeding them, and not for the purpose of any merely transcendental result. It is for this reason that at the rite in honour of ancestors one should feed three,—that is, three times three, specially as it has been declared that ‘one should not feed the least number.’ This same explanation applies also to what is said below (in 129) regarding the feeding ‘even one learned person at each;’ which means that one for each of the three ancestors.

Further, the words ‘or only one at each of the two’ does not contain an injunction; it is only a reiteration made for the propose of introducing the prohibition of ‘large company;’ just as we have in the statement—‘eat poison, do not eat in his house.’

“If that be so, then the assertion ‘he should feed two at the rite in honour of the gods’ also may not be an injunction; as this also could be explained as subservient to something else. If, however, this be regarded as an Injunction, on the ground that what it says is not knowable from any other source,—then, why cannot the statement ‘one at each’ also be an Injunction?”

The answer to this is that neither of the two statements may be regarded as an Injunction.

“Whence, then, could we know the number (to be fed)?”

From the assertion—‘he should invite at least three.’

“But in that passage there is no mention of the rite in honour of the gods.”

Well, in that case, we can learn the number from another Smṛti:—‘an odd number, according to one’s enthusiasm,’ ‘an even number at the rite in honour of the gods’ (Yājñavalkya, ācāra, 227).

Further, if the present verse contained an Injunction of the number to be fed, then, since there would be no possibility of any idea arising regarding the ‘large company,’ the prohibition of it would be absolutely uncalled for.

From all this it follows that only so many Brāhmaṇas should be fed, by feeding whom one would not fall into those difficulties that might arise from the feeding of too many men. That is, at the rite in honour of the ancestors, an odd number, and at that in honour of the gods, only two.

Even when the man is extremely wealthy,—very rich,—‘he should, not indulge in large company.’—(125)

This prohibition of feeding a very large number is not with a view to any transcendental result. In fact—

Buhler is not quite fair to Medhātithi when he says that he takes the first part of the verse in a peculiar manner, “one must feed two Brāhmaṇas at the offering to the gods and three for each ancestor (or nine in all) at the offering to the manes”. This is not quite what Medhātithi takes the text to mean; what he mentions is what ought to be done, in consideration of the other texts that he quotes.

This verse is quoted in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 511);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 24b);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 159 and 114);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 94), which explains ‘ubhayatra’ as ‘one in Devakṛtya and one in Pitṛkṛtya.’

The first quarter of this verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 698) as laying down the proportion of Brāhmaṇas to be fed at the two sorts of rites. If five Brāhmaṇas are to be fed, two should be fed in connection with the offering to the Gods and three in connection with that to the Pitṛs.

Madanapārijāta (p. 592) quotes the verse, and explains that the forbidding of the feeding of a large company is based on the fear that if a large number of people are invited at a time or place not quite suited for the purpose, there may be many defects that, would go to vitiate the entire rite.

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 287) quotes this verse;—also Aparārka (p. 430), which adds that the term ‘Pitṛ’ here includes the maternal grandfather and all those who have been declared to be ‘deities’ (for the Śrāddha);—again on p. 463, where it adds that it is meant to eulogise the lesser number, and not to prohibit large numbers; if it meant the latter, it would be wrong to feed a large number of men, which is actually enjoined by other Smṛtis.

Vaśiṣṭha (11.24).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Gautama (15.8, 21).—‘At least nine; or an odd number; or any number, in accordance with his zeal; (the man invited) should be possessed of excellent qualities.’

Viṣṇu (73, 3-4).—‘In connection with the offering to the gods one should feed two men, who should be facing the east; and in connection with the offering to Pitṛs, three men, who should he facing the north; or one in connection with each of the two offerings.’

Yājñavalkya (1.227-229).—‘At the offering to gods, an even number, and at that to Pitṛs, an odd number of Brāhmaṇas should be invited, to the best of one’s capacity. Two men facing the east, in connection with the offering to the gods; three facing the north, in connection with the offering to Pitṛs; or one in connection with each of the two offerings; so also in the case of the offering to the maternal grand-fathers.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (4.2).—‘Brāhmaṇas endowed with learning and character and good conduct, invited in time, bathed and purified, should be made to face the north, as if they were Pitṛs, either one or two or three for each one of the Pitṛs; but never only one for all.’

Baudhāyana (2.9.21).—[The same as Manu.]

Paiṭhīnasi (Parāśaramādhava, p. 698).—‘One shall invite seven or five or two Brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda.’

Śaunaka (Do.).—‘Two for each Pitṛ; one for each; or three for each.’

Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa (Do., p. 699).—‘Even though he has the capacity, he should feed less than nine, never more; so say those who perceive difficulties in feeding a large number,’

Vṛddha-Bṛhaspati (Do.).—‘At the rite in honour of Pitṛs and gods, one shall feed one or two or three on behalf of each; due honour and observance of right time and place cannot be fulfilled if there is an excess.’

Śaṅkha (Do.).—‘Or one may feed a single Brāhmaṇa, who is the sanctifier of company.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 461).—‘Or, one may feed a single Brāhmaṇa, thoroughly versed in the Veda.’

125 One must feed two (Brahmanas) at the offering to the gods, and three at the offering to the manes, or one only on either occasion; even a very wealthy man shall not be anxious (to entertain) a large company.

Respectful treatment, place and time, purity and the qualities of Brāhmaṇas,—a large company hampers these five; therefore one shall not seek a large company.—(126)

एतान् दोषान् आपादयति । विस्तरो ऽतो नेष्यते । यदि तु शक्यन्ते सत्क्रियादय उपपादयितुं तदा यथोत्साहम् । सत्क्रिया अन्नसंस्कारविशेषः । देशो दक्षिणप्रवणादिः “अवकाशेषु चोक्षेषु” (म्ध् ३.१९७) इति वक्ष्यमाणः । कालः अपराह्णः “मध्याह्नाच् चलिते सूर्ये” इति । शौचम् आत्मब्राह्मणप्रेष्यगतम् । ब्राह्मणानां संपत् गुणवद्ब्राह्मणलाभः । एते गुणा अवश्यं संपाद्याः । ते च विस्तरेण नश्यन्ति । विस्तारो वैगुण्यम् । ब्राह्मणबहुत्वे चासौ प्रसज्जति । तस्मान् नेहेत न कुर्यात् ॥ ३.११६ ॥

Since ‘large company’ entails all these defects, therefore ‘large company’ is not considered desirable. When, however, respectful treatment and the rest are found feasible, then one might net according to one’s enthusiasm.

‘Respectful treatment’—careful preparation of the food.

‘Place’—ground sloping to the south, and so forth (which has been recommended for Śrāddhas), as one going to be described below (in 207).

‘Time’—the afternoon; laid dowu in such texts as ‘when the sun has just passed the meridian, &c.’

‘Purity’—of oneself, of the Brāhmaṇas invited, and of his own servants.

‘Qualities of Brāhmaṇas’—the obtaining of qualified Brāhmaṇas.

All these advantages are such as must be secured; and these are hampered by having a large company; hence large company becomes a drawback; and this is involved in inviting too many Brāhmaṇas. Hence ‘one should not seek’—bring together—‘a large company.’— (126)

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 287);—also in Aparārka (p. 463);—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 511);—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 94).

Baudhāyana (2.8.22).—[Same as Manu.]

Vaśiṣṭha (11.26).—[Same as Manu.]

126 A large company destroys these five (advantages) the respectful treatment (of the invited, the propriety of) place and time, purity and (the selection of) virtuous Brahmana (guests); he therefore shall not seek (to entertain) a large company.

This rite named “Pitrya,” performed on the Moonless Day is known as beneficial to the dead. To him who is intent on performing it, there always accrues benefit after death, offered according to human ordinances.—(127)

न यथा दैवानि कर्माण्य् अदेवतार्थान्य् एवं पित्र्यं नाम तत्कर्मैतत् ।⁴ किं तर्हि, प्रथिता ख्याता वेदविदाम् प्रेतकृत्या प्रेतोपक्रिया । विधुक्षये । विधुश् चन्द्रस् तस्य क्षय अमावास्या । “तिथिक्षये” इति पाठान्तरम् । “विधिक्षये”⁵ इति तु पाठो निर्दुष्टः । एवं हि तत्र योजनम् । पित्र्यं नाम विधिचोदितं कर्म, क्षये गृहे । तस्मिन् कर्मणि पित्र्ये । युक्तस्य तत्परस्य । नित्यं कर्तुर् उपतिष्ठते । प्रेतकृत्यैव । तस्यापि प्रेतस्य कृत्या उपकारः श्राद्धादि पुत्रैः क्रियते । पुत्रपौत्रादिसंतत्यविच्छेदः श्राद्धफलम् अनेन प्रकारेण प्रतिपाद्यते । न च तत्फलकामस्यायम् अधिकारः, नित्यत्वस्य प्रतिपादितत्वात् ।

• अन्ये त्व् अधिकारान्तरम् इदं संतत्यविच्छेदकामस्येच्छन्ति ।

• लौकिकी इयं कर्तव्यता, स्मार्तेत्य् अर्थः ॥ ३.११७ ॥

‘Rites performed for the gods’ are not regarded as conferring any benefit on the gods; such, however, is not the case with this rite which is named ‘Pitrya.’ “What then?” It is ‘known,’ among people learned in the Vedas as ‘beneficial to the dead’—as conferring a benefit on the dead.

‘On the moonless night’—on the day on which there is no moon; i.e., the amārasyā day. Another residing is ‘vidhikṣaye.’ But the most faultless reading is ‘vidhuhṣaye.’ The meaning of the former would be that the rile named Pitryā is one that has been prescribed as to be done in the house.

‘Upon this’—upon this rite,—‘he who is intent’—he who is busy with its performance. To him there ‘always accrues,’ ‘benefit after death;’ i.e., for him also benefit after death is conferred by his sons performing the śrāddha and other rites for him.

What this means is that the continuity of the lines of one’s descendants—sons and grandsons—is the reward of performing śrāddhas. But this reward is not the incentive to its performance; as the rite has already been described as an obligatory one.

Others, however, have regarded this as indicating another incentive, for one desiring continuity of his line.

‘Offered according to human ordinances’:—i.e., this rite is performed according to rules laid down in the Smṛtis.—(127)

‘Vidhukṣaye’—‘On the moonless day’.—Govindarāja reads ‘vidhiḥ kṣaye’, which Medhātithi notes with approval, and explains as—the ‘vidhi’, rite, named—‘nāma’—‘Pitrya,’ is to be performed in the house, ‘kṣaye, gṛhe.’

Gautama (15.1).—‘One shall offer Śrāddha to Pitṛs on the moonless day.’

Viṣṇu (76.1-2).—‘The moonless day, the three Aṣṭakās, the three Anvaṣṭakās, the full-moon days of the month of Māgha, the thirteenth day of the darker fortnight following after the full-moon day of the month of Bhādra;—these are the occasions for obligatory Śrāddha, laid down by Prajāpati; one not offering Śrāddha on these days falls into hell.’

Baudhāyana (2.8.1).—‘Offerings to Pitṛs are praiseworthy and conducive to longevity, heaven and prosperity.’

Prajāpati-Smṛti (21).—‘If one performs Śrāddha on the moonless day, with the help of Brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda, his Pitṛs become satisfied and reward him with what he desires.’

127 Famed is this rite for the dead, called (the sacrifice sacred to the manes (and performed) on the new-moon day; if a man is diligent in (performing) that, (the reward of) the rite for the dead, which is performed according to Smarta rules, reaches him constantly.

Food offered to the gods and that offered in the Pitṛs are to be given to the most deserving; Brāhmaṇa learned in the Vedas. What is given to him is conducive to great results.—(128)

श्रोत्रियः छान्दसः कृत्स्नमन्त्रब्राह्मणिकां शाखाम् अधीते यस् तस्मै हव्यानि श्राद्धाङ्गभोजनानि विश्वान् देवान् उद्दिश्य यानि विहितानि तानि देयानि । कव्यानि पितृभ्य उद्दिश्य यानि भोजनानि । अर्हत्तमाय । अर्हता पूज्यता योग्यता च । महाकुलीनः पूज्यते, महाकुले जातो विद्यावृत्तसंपन्नश् च । तस्मै दत्तं श्राद्धाद् अन्यद् अपि महाफलम् । एवं वा⁶ — अश्रोत्रियाय दानं निष्फलम्, श्रोत्रियाय⁷ अभिजनविद्यादिगुणरहिताय स्वल्पफलम्, अर्हत्तमाय महाफलम् ॥ ३.१२८ ॥

‘Learned in the Veda’—he who recites the entire Vedic text, Mantras as well as Brāhmaṇas: to him;—‘the food offered to the gods’—i.e., those articles of food that are offered, in connection with Śrāddhas to the Visve-devas:—‘should be given;’—as also ‘the food offered to the Pitṛs,’

‘Most deserving;’—‘desert (deserve?)’ here stands for respectability and ability. It is a person born of a noble family that is respected; and a person born of a noble family is generally equipped with learning and character.

‘What is given to him,’—even things other than the Śrāddha- offerings,—‘is conducive to great results.’ The meaning is that—‘gift made to the unlearned is fruitless; that made to a person learned in the Veda, but devoid of nobility and other good qualities, is conducive to some slight results; and that to the most deserving is conducive to great results.’—(128)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 350) as laying down that the learned man alone is entitled to be fed at religious rites;—and again on page 679 to the same effect;—in Aparārka (p. 437);—also in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 377);—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 34); and. in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 6b).

Vaśiṣṭha (3.9).—‘Offerings made to Gods and Pitṛs should be presented to the Vedic scholars; that which is presented to one ignorant of the Veda reaches neither the Pitṛs nor the Gods.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (4.2).—(See under 125.)

Gautama (15.9).—‘Vedic scholars, endowed with eloquence, beauty, age and character.’

Prajāpati-Smṛti (70, 71, 74).—‘Those engaged in Vedic rites, calm, sinless, maintainers of Fire, devoted to their duties, austerities, conversant with the meaning of the Veda, born in noble families, devoted to parents, maintaining themselves by means of livelihood recommended for Brāhmaṇas, teachers knowing Brahman,—such are the Brāhmaṇas that are helpful in the success of Śrāddhas.

Smṛtyantara (Parāśaramādhava, p. 350).—‘If food is offered to a Brāhmaṇa who is devoid of cleanliness, fallen from his vows, and ignorant of the Veda, it weeps and says —what sin have I committed!’

Mahābhārata-Āśvamedhika (Do.).—‘Food should be offered to one who arrives at the right time and place, suffering from hunger, thirst and fatigue.’

128 Oblations to the gods and manes must be presented by the givers to a Srotriya alone; what is given to such a most worthy Brahmana yields great reward.

By feeding at least one learned brāhmaṇa each at the rite performed in honour of the gods and that performed in honour of the ancestors,—one obtains a full reward; and not by feeding even many men ignorant of the Veda.’—(129)

यद् उक्तम् “अर्हत्तमाय” इति तद् दर्शयति । विद्वांसम् एकम् अपि भोजयन्⁸ पुष्कलं फलम् आप्नोति । विद्वत्ता च व्याख्याता वेदार्थवेदनम् । यत आह नामन्त्रज्ञान् बहून् अपि । मन्त्रग्रहणं वेदोपलक्षणार्थम् । असंभवे पञ्चानां वेदविदुषाम् एकैकम् अपि विद्वांसं भोजयेद् इति विध्यर्थः । पुष्कलं पुष्टं विपुलम् ॥ ३.११९ ॥

What has been said above in regard to the ‘most deserving Brāhmaṇa’ is further explained.

‘By feeding at least one learned Brāhmaṇa, one obtains a full reward;—what is meant by ‘learning’ has already been explained; it consists in knowing the Veda and its meaning; that this is so, is also shown by what follows in the text: ‘not by feeding even many men ignorant of the Veda;’ the term ‘mantra’ here stands for the Veda.

In the absence of five Brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda, one should feed at least one;—such is the meaning of the present injunction.

‘Full’—great, large.—(129)

This verse is quoted without any comment in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 679);—and in Aparārka, (p. 437).

Gautama (15.21).—‘One duly qualified.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11.26).—‘Or, one may feed even a single Brāhmaṇa who is fully conversant with the Veda, and endowed with learning and character, and free from all bad qualities.’

Yājñavalkya (1.219-221).—‘The following Brāhmaṇas are conducive to the perfection of the Śrāddha: learned in all Vedas, learned in one Veda, conversant with Brahman, young, knowing the meaning of the Veda, the Jyeṣṭhasāman, Trimadhu, Trisuparṇaka, sister’s son, officiating priest, son-in-law, one for whom the performer officiates at sacrifices, father-in-law, maternal uncle, Triṇāciketas, daughter’s son, pupil. marriage-relations, relations, perfect in knowledge, perfect in austerities, maintainor of five Fires, religious student, those devoted to their parents.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 439).—‘One shall feed ascetics, well-behaved householders, old men, persons devoted to good acts, those learned in the Veda, pupils not residing with the teacher; life-long resident students also may be fed if exceptionally qualified.’

129 Let him feed even one learned man at (the sacrifice) to the gods, and one at (the sacrifice) to the manes; (thus) he will gain a rich reward, not (if he entertains) many who are unacquainted with the Veda.

From far off one should examine the Brāhmaṇa thoroughly versed in the Veda; such a one is the proper channel for offerings to gods and Pitṛ and in the matter of gifts he has been declared to be the guest.—(130)

न वेदपरग इत्य् एव भोजयितव्यः । किं तर्हि दूरात् परीक्षेत निपुणतो मातापितृवंशद्वयपरिशुद्धिज्ञानम् । यथोक्तम् “ये मातृतः पितृतश् च दशपूरुषम् समनुष्ठितविद्यातपोभ्यां पुण्यैश् च कर्मभिः येषाम् उभयतो ब्राह्मण्यं निर्णयेयुः” इत्य् एषा दूरात् परीक्षा । तथा तत्त्वतो ऽध्ययनविज्ञानकर्मानुष्ठानवेदनं च । वेदस्य पारः समाप्तिः तं गतो⁹ वेदपरगः । न वेदसंहितां ब्राह्मणमात्रं वा पठन्न् अर्हो भवति । अस्माद् एव दर्शनात् श्रोत्रियशब्देन वेदैकदेशम् अप्य् अधीयान उच्यत इति गम्यते । तीर्थं तद् धव्यकव्यानाम् । तीर्थम् इव तीर्थं येनोदकं ग्रहीतुम् अवतरन्ति तत् तीर्थम् । तेन यथा मार्गेणोदकार्थिनो गच्छन्त उदकं लभन्ते एवं तादृशेन ब्राह्मणेन हव्यकव्यानि पितॄन् गच्चन्तीति प्रशंसा । अन्यस्मिन्न् अपि इष्टापूर्तदानेन ब्राह्मणो ऽतिथिः-¹⁰ यथातिथये स्वयम् उपस्थिताय निर्विचिक्त्सं दीयते, दत्तं महाफलम्, एवम् ईदृशाय ब्राह्मणाय हव्यकव्ये निर्विचिकित्सं दातव्ये, महाफले भवतः ॥ ३.१२० ॥

One is not to be fed simply because he is thoroughly versed in the Veda; in fact, he should be examined ‘from far off;’ i.e., one should carefully ascertain the purity of his father’s and mother’s families. It has been declared that persons should be regarded as real Brāhmaṇaa on both sides, only when it is found that everyone of their ancestors on the father’s and on the mother’s side up to ten degrees were accomplished in learning and austerities and their acts were virtuous; this is what constitutes ‘examination from far off;’ similarly, the man’s own learning and knowledge of practical details should be ascertained.

‘Vedapāragaḥ’—he who has gone to the end of the Veda; i.e., one does not become respected by reading the Saṃhitā only, or the Brāhmaṇa only. Because we find this term used here, we conclude that the term ‘śrotriya’ is applied to one who may have learnt only a portion of the Veda.

‘Such a one is the channel for offerings to gods and Pitṛs;’—‘channel’ means like a channel. The ‘channel’ is that whereby people descend to the water; hence what is meant by the metaphor is the eulogium that ‘just as people seeking water get it only if they go to it by the right channel, similarly, the offerings reach the gods and ancestors only through the aforesaid Brāhmaṇa.’

In connection with gifts and charities also the Brāhmaṇa is the ‘guest.’ To the guest that arrives by himself, gifts are offered freely, and thus given, they bring about great results; and, in the same manner, to the said Brāhmaṇa the offerings to gods and ancestors should be given freely; and when thus given, they become conducive to great results.—(130)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 356), which explains ‘dūrāt parīkṣā’ as ‘investigation regarding his ancestors and character’; and ‘pradāne’ as ‘in the matter of other gifts also’ he should be honoured like a guest;—in Aparārka, (p. 437), which explains ‘dūrāt parīkṣā’ as ‘investigation regarding his father and several degrees of ancestors,’—‘tīrtham’ as ‘the way for the running of water,’ the implication being ‘just as water runs smoothly along its path, so do the offerings easily reach the Pitṛs, through the qualified Brāhmaṇas’;—the man is called ‘atithi’ in the sense that he is of immense help to the Householder;—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 34), which explains ‘dūrāt’ as ‘in regard to their remote ancestry,’ and ‘tīrtha’ as ‘fit recipient.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (72.2).—‘At the offering to Pitṛs one should examine the Brāhmaṇas with care.’

Atri-saṃhitā (357).—‘The Brāhmaṇa should be carefully examined, specially at the time of the Śrāddha.’

130 Let him make inquiries even regarding the remote (ancestors of) a Brahmana who has studied an entire (recension of the) Veda; (if descended from a virtuous race) such a man is a worthy recipient of gifts (consisting) of food offered to the gods or to the manes, he is declared (to procure as great rewards as) a guest (atithi).

Where one thousand persons ignorant of the Veda eat, all those a single man learned in the Veda, on being satisfied, absorbs, in point of merit.—(131)

अनृचां अनृगर्थविदाम् । उपलक्षणम्- यतो¹¹ ऽनृचानां प्राप्तिर् एव नास्ति, श्रोत्रियायैवेति नियमात् । समासान्तः छान्दसत्वान् न कृतः, वृत्तानुरोधाच् च । एवं हि पठन्ति ।

• अपि माषं मषं कुर्यान् न तु छन्दो विचालयेत् । इति ।

अथ वा अनृचा इति प्रथमाबहुवचनम् । “अनृचाः सहस्रं यथा भुञ्जते” इति संबन्धः । यथा सहस्रं गाव इति । एकः प्रीतस् तर्पितो भोजितो मन्त्रविद् वेदार्थवित् सर्वांस् तान् अनृचान् अर्हति स्वीकरोति, आत्मसात् करोति,¹² तैर् अभेदम् आपद्यते । अभेदे च यत् तेषु सहस्रेषु भोजितेषु फलं तद् एकस्मिन्न् अवाप्यते इत्य् अवगतिर् उत्पद्यते ।

• निन्देयम् अविदुषो विद्वद्विध्यर्था । न पुनः सहस्रसंख्यातानाम् एकस्य च समफलत्वम् उच्यते । विदुषां विधानाद् अविदुषां प्राप्तिर् एव नास्ति । अथाप्य् असति विदुषि श्रोत्रियायैवेत्य् अनेन पाक्षिकी अविदुषो ऽपि प्राप्तिर् आशङ्क्यते, तथापि विस्तरस्य प्रतिषेधो मा भूद् इत्य् अतो यथाश्रुतार्थसंभवः ॥ ३.१२१ ॥

‘Anṛcām (Anṛcām?)’, ‘ignorant of the Veda,’—those who do not know the meaning of the Vedic verses.

This is only by way of illustration; since there is no possibility of persons ignorant of the Veda being fed; because of the restriction that the food shall be offered only to one learned in the Veda. The affix at the end of this compound has been dropped because of the term being Vedic, and also because of the exigencies of metre. They say—‘one had better read maṣa in place of māṣa rather than distort the metre.’

Or, we may read ‘anṛcā’ in the Nominative Plural; the construction being ‘thousand persons ignorant, &c.’ just as we have the phrase ‘thousand bulls.’

‘A single man learned in the Veda’—knowing the meaning of the Veda—‘on being satisfied’—i.e., fed—‘absorbs all those’ ignorant persons; i.e., becomes identified with them; and in face of this identity, the result that might accrue from the feeding of those thousands would be obtained by the feeding of a single learned man; this is the sense got at. from the text.

This deprecation of the ignorant person is meant to be a praise of the learned man; and it does not really mean that the feeding of a single man produces results equal to those produced by feeding a thousand. Further, inasmuch as the scriptures lay down the feeding of the learned only, there is no possibility of the ignorant ever being fed. It may be that people might think that, in the absence of the fully learned man (thoroughly versed in the Veda), the feeding of the man⁽learned in the Veda’ (who is comparatively ignorant) laid down in verse 128 above permits, under certain conditions, the feeding of ignorant persons also; and in view of this, for the purpose of preventing the prohibition of feeding a ‘large company’ from applying to the case of ignorant persons also, the present text may be taken in its direct sense (whereby the feeding of thousands of ignorant persons is permitted).—(131)

In place of ‘prītaḥ,’ Nārāyaṇa reads ‘yuktaḥ’ which he connects with ‘dharmataḥ’;—Nandana reads ‘vipraḥ.’

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 556) without comment;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 377).

Bṛhad-Yama (3.40-42).—‘The excellent Brāhmaṇa, free from jealousy, of pure character, learned in the Veda, knowing Brahman, youthful, endowed with learning and humility,—is the proper recipient; one who is learned in Vedanta, superior in Sāman, free from avarice, devoted to the Veda, should be employed in rites sacred to Pitṛs and Gods; whatever is offered to such a one is imperishable without doubt.’

131 Though a million of men, unaquainted with the Rikas, were to dine at a (funeral sacrifice), yet a single man, learned in the Veda, who is satisfied (with his entertainment), is worth them all as far as the (production of) spiritual merit (is concerned).

Offerings for gods and Pitṛs should be given to one who is distinguished by knowledge; for hands smeared with blood are not cleansed by blood.—(132)

ज्ञानेन विद्यया उत्कृष्टः अधिकः तस्मै¹³ देयानि कव्यानि ।¹⁴ अयम् असौ हस्तरुधिरदिग्धोपमार्थः । रुधिरदिग्धौ हस्तौ¹⁵ रुधिरेणोपमृज्यमानाव् अधिकतरं रज्येते, न निर्मलौ भवतः, एवम् अविद्वान् ब्राह्मणः भोज्यमानः पितॄन् अधो नयतितराम्¹⁶ ॥ ३.१२२ ॥

One who is ‘distinguished’—who excels—‘by knowledge’—in learning; to such a one ‘should be given’ ‘the offerings for gods and Pitṛs.’

The sense of the metaphor of the ‘hand smeared with bloo’ is as follows:—‘Hands smeared with blood when washed with blood only become all the more reddened, and they are not cleansed; similarly, the ignorant Brāhmaṇa, when, fed, only carries the ancestors to still worse hells,’—(132)

This verse is quoted without comment in Madanapārijāta (p. 556).

Āśvalāyana (1.50).—‘The good man who constantly offers food into the mouth of one learned in the Veda, becomes freed from heinous sins and attains union with Brahman.’

Āśvalāyana (14.15).—‘At the Śrāddha one shall invite such Brāhmaṇas as are fully learned in the Rig Veda; in the absence of these, he may invite persons learned in other recensions of the Veda.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.9-13).—‘The offerings made to Gods and Pitṛs should be presented to the person learned in the Veda; what is presented to one who is not learned in the Veda reaches neither the Pitṛs nor the Gods;—that man who has an illiterate person in his bouse and the learned man at a distance, should present the offering to the learned man; this would not be a supersession of the illiterate man; there can be no wrongful supersession of the Brāhmaṇa who is devoid of the Veda; no one pours oblations into ashes and neglects the burning fire; those regions where illiterate persons enjoy what should he enjoyed by the learned are struck by famine and other dangers.’

Atri-saṃhitā (152).—‘What is given to an unqualified recipient destroys the family up to the seventh generation; neither the Gods nor the Pitṛs accept such offerings.’

Bṛhaspati (59).—‘If an illiterate person accepts the gift of the cow or gold or clothing or land or sesamum, he becomes burnt like fuel; if a man has an illiterate person at home and the learned man at a distance, the present should he made to the learned; the supersession of the illiterate is not wrong.’

132 Food sacred to the manes or to the gods must be given to a man distinguished by sacred knowledge; for hands, smeared with blood, cannot be cleansed with blood.

As many mouthfuls as the person ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs, so many flaming spikes, spears and iron-balls does the man swallow after death.—(133)

सत्य् अपि श्राद्धप्रकरणे वाक्याद् भोक्तुर् अयं दोषानुवादः । तथा चोक्तम्-

• तस्माद् अविद्वान् बिभियाद् यस्मात् तस्मात् प्रतिग्रहात् । इति । (म्ध् ४.१९१)

शूलर्ष्ट्ययो आयुधविशेषाः¹⁷, अयोगुडः¹⁸ आयसः पिण्डः । यदर्थं श्राद्दम् आरब्धं स दीप्तान् तप्तायःपिण्डान् यमपुरुषैर् आश्यते¹⁹ ।

• व्यासदर्शनात् तु भोजयितुर् अयं दोषो न भोक्तुः । न पितॄणां न तावन् मृतानाम् अन्यकृतेन प्रतिषेधातिक्रमेण दोषसंबन्धो युक्तः, कृताभ्यागमादिदोषापत्तेः । यदि हि पुत्रेण तादृशो ब्राह्मणो भोजितः को ऽपराधो मृतानाम् ।

• ननु चोपकारो ऽपि पुत्रकृतः पितॄणाम् अनेन न्यायेन न प्राप्नोति । न²⁰ प्राप्नुयाद् यदि तादर्थ्येन श्राद्धादि नोदितं स्यात् । इह तु नास्ति चोदना, पितुर् उपकारकामेनैवं कर्तव्यम्²¹, श्येनवत् । यत् तु तावतो ग्रसते प्रेतः इति तद् भोजयितृसंबन्धे ऽप्य् उपपद्यते । “यस्य ब्राह्मण ईदृशः श्राद्धं भुङ्क्ते स इदं फलम् आप्नोति” इति युक्तः संबन्धः । प्राकरणिकश् चायम् अविद्वद्भोजनप्रतिषेधः । तदतिक्रमणे कर्मवैगुण्यम्, तद्वैगुण्ये च श्राद्धाधिकारान् निवृत्तिर् एव दोषः । पितॄणां श्राद्धोपकाराल् लाभः । ततो ऽपि विध्यतिक्रमे पुत्रस्य युक्तः प्रत्यवायः । किं तर्हि तद् भगवतो व्यासस्य वचनम्-

• ग्रसते यावतः पिण्डान् यस्य वै हविषो ऽविदः ।

• ग्रसते तावतः शूलान् गत्वा वैवस्वतक्षयम् ॥

पाठान्तरं “प्रेत्य” इति । भोक्तुर् एव प्रेत्यता । नाविदुषा दैवपित्र्ययोर् भोक्तव्यम्²² ॥ ३.१२३ ॥

Even though it is the śrāddha that forms the subject-matter of the present context, yet the present verse describes the evil results occurring to the eater; it is to this effect that it has been declared that ‘for this reason should the ignorant person fear the acceptance of gifts from this and that person.’

‘Spikes and spears’ are the names of particular weapons. Such a person is made by the attendants of the Lord of Death to eat red-hot iron-balls.

According to Vyāsa’s view, the evil result accrues to the person offering the focal, and not to the eater, nor to the ancestors. Because it cannot be right to connect the dead ancestors with the evil arising from the disobeying, by another person, of the prohibition (of the feeding ignorant persons); as in that case, there would be the absurdity of a man suffering what he has not earned. If an ignorant person has been fed by the son, what fault is there of his dead ancestors?

“But by this same reasoning the benefit also of the śrāddha should not accrue to the ancestors.”

It would certainly not accrue to them, if the śrāddha-offering had not been distinctly enjoined as being for their benefit. In the present case (of feeding Brāhmaṇas), however, there is no such injunction as that ‘this should be done by one who desires to confer a benefit on one’s son,’ as there is in the case of the Śyena sacrifice. Then, as regards the words of the present text, they can fit in also with the person ottering the food; the construction in this case being—‘that man, at whose performance of the śrāddha such a person eats, obtains such and such a result.’ What forms the subject-matter of the present context is the prohibition of the feeding of ignorant persons; and the disregarding of this prohibition would render the rite defective; and this defect in the Kite would lead to the evil result that the man would no longer be entitled to the performance of that rite [aud this would pertain to the giver, not eater, of the food]; and since the ancestors derive benefit from the śrāddha, for this reason also the transgressing of its injunction should involve guilt on the part of the son.

“What are the precise words of Vyāsa (on this subject)?”

[They are]—‘As many mouthfuls as an ignorant person swallows out of a man’s offerings, so many spikes does he swallow on going to the abode of Death.’

In place of ‘preto’ some people read ‘pretya;’ where also the term ‘having died’ pertains to the eater; and the sense of the text is that ‘the ignorant mail shall not eat of the offerings made to gods and ancestors.’—(133)

According to Nārāyaṇa the punishment here mentioned falls on the eater.—Medhātithi mentions both explanations.

For ‘guḍān’ Nandana reads ‘hulān’ and explains it as ‘double-edged sword.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 449), which explains ‘śūlam’ and ‘ṛṣti’ as particular weapons,—and ‘ayoguḍa’ as ‘an iron-ball’;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 401).

Yama (Aparārka, p. 449).—‘He in whose family there has been a cessation of the Veda and the sacrificial altar for three generations is a had Brāhmaṇa.’

Vyāsa.—‘As many morsels the man ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings made by a man so many darts does he swallow in the abode of Death.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 449).—‘Those countries where what should be eaten by the learned is eaten by the illiterate are beset by drought and great dangers beset them.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘Even those born of noble families and endowed with learning,—if they be of base conduct and addicted to wicked deeds,—they are even regarded as demons. Those addicted to the killing of birds, fish and deer, serpents and tortoise and other animals are all Bad Brāhmaṇas. Who serves a Śūdra, who is supported by the King, the village-sacrificer, those living by killing and capturing—these six are Low Brāhmaṇas.’

133 As many mouthfuls as an ignorant man swallows at a sacrifice to the gods or to the manes, so many red-hot spikes, spears, and iron balls must (the giver of the repast) swallow after death.

Some twice-born persons excel in learning; others excel in austerities; some others excel in austerities and Vedic study, and others again excel in rites.—(134)

सर्वगुणेभ्यो विद्यां प्रशंसितुं गुणविभागकथनम्, प्रशंसा च विदुषे दानार्था । ज्ञाने विद्यायां निष्ठा प्रकर्षो येषां ते ज्ञाननिष्ठाः ज्ञानाधिकारिणः । गमकत्वाद् व्यधिकरणानाम् अपि बहुव्रीहिः । भृशम् अभ्यस्तवेदार्थास् तत्परा एवम् उच्यन्ते । एवं सर्वत्र निष्ठान्तेषु द्रष्टव्यम् । तपश् च स्वाध्यायश् चेति द्वन्द्वगर्भो बहुव्रीहिः । तपांसि चान्द्रायणादीनि, स्वाध्यायो वेदाध्ययनम् । कर्माण्य् अग्निहोत्रादीनि । सर्व एते गुणाः सर्वेषु समुच्चिता इति द्रष्टव्याः । न हि एकगुणसद्भाव इतरगुणहीनस्य पात्रताम् आपादयति, किं तु कस्यचित् को ऽपि प्रकर्ष उच्यते । यथा च निष्ठाशब्दः समाप्तिवचनः प्रकर्षं लक्षयति । तन्निष्ठस्²³ तत्पर उच्यते । सर्वगुणसद्भावे ऽपि यदि एकत्र²⁴ प्रकर्षो ऽन्ये च गुणाः²⁵ मध्यमाः, तथा च भवत्य् एव पात्रम् । अप्रकृष्टे त्व् एकस्मिन् सर्वगुणसद्भावे ऽपि न पात्रतां लभन्ते ।

• समुच्चयश् च व्याख्यायते, येन²⁶ ज्ञानरहितस्य कर्मानुष्ठानसद्भाव इत्य् उक्तं द्वितीये ।

• अन्यैस् तु ज्ञाननिष्ठः परिव्राजको²⁷ व्याख्यायते । तस्य हि आत्मज्ञानाभ्यासः कर्मन्यासेन विशेषतो विहितः । तपोनिष्ठो वानप्रस्थः । स हि तापस इत्य् आख्यायते- “ग्रीष्मे पञ्चतपास् तु स्यात्” (म्ध् ६.२३) इति । तपःस्वाध्यायनिष्ठाः ब्रह्मचारिणः । कर्मनिष्ठा गृहस्थाः । अतश् चानाश्रमिणो²⁸ निषिध्यन्ते । तथा च पौराणिकाः “चातुराश्रम्यबाह्येभ्यः श्राद्धं नैव प्रयोजयेत्” ॥ ३.१२४ ॥

The text proceeds to divide the qualities of men, for the purpose of indicating the superiority of learning; and this also tor the purpose of pointing out the propriety of making gifts to the learned.

Persons possessing excellence in ‘learning’—knowledge—are said to ‘excel in learning,’—i.e., devoted to learning.

The sense desired to be conveyed justifies the Bahuvrīhi compound even between non-appositional terms. Persons, who have studied the Veda and its meaning and are always intent upon it, are said to ‘excel in learning.’

This same explanation applies to all the terms ending with the term ‘niṣṭhā.’

The compound ‘tapassvādhyāyaniṣṭhāḥ’ is Bahuvrīhi, containing within itself a copulative compound. ‘Austerities’—such as the Cāndrāyaṇa, and the rest;—‘vedic study,’ is learning of the Veda.

‘Rites’ —Agnihotra, and the rest.

It has to be borne in mind that all these qualities are meant to coexist together; the presence of any one of them only, in the absence of the others, does not make a man a fit recipient of the gift; all that the text describes is the fact of some men excelling in one and some in another. That such is the meaning is indicated by the fact that the term ‘niṣṭhā,’ which denotes finishing, is indirectly indicative of excelling; and when a person excels in, is intent upon, some one quality, he is said to ‘excel’ in that. When a man is possessed of all the good qualities, but one of those is possessed in a superior degree, and the others in lesser degree, then also the man is a fit recipient; but if he does not possess anyone quality in a superior degree, even though he may possess all the qualities, he is not a fit recipient.

That a combination of all the qualities is necessary, is shown by what has been said in the second discourse to the effect that ‘one who is devoid of learning cannot rightly perform any rites.’

Others have explained the term ‘jñānaniṣṭha’ to mean the Renunciate, on the ground that ‘devotion to self-knowledge’ has been specially prescribed for him after he has renounced the performance of all rites; (under this explanation) the term ‘taponiṣṭha’ would stand for the Recluse; he being called ‘tāpasa’ ( devoted to austerities); as in such assertions as ‘during the summer the Recluse should perform the five austerities’ (6. 23);—and the term ‘tapaḥsvādhyāyaniṣṭha’ would stand for the Student;—and ‘karmaniṣṭha’ for the Householder. According to this explanation, the persons whose feeding is prohibited are those that are outside the pale of the four ‘stages;’ say the Paurāṇikas—‘the Śrāddha should not be offered to persons outside the pale of the four stages.’—(134)

Vaśiṣṭha (6.24-25).—‘Some recipients excel in the Veda, some in austerities; the best of recipients is one who never has had in his stomach any food given by a Śūdra. That man is called a Recipient who is given to Vedic studies, born of a noble family, quiet, devoted to sacrificial performances, afraid of sin, fully learned, respectful towards women, virtuous, protector of the cow, and tolerant through austerities.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (73.9-13).—‘Purified by sacred places; purified by sacrifices; purified by austerities; purified by truth; purified by mantras.’

Yājñavalkya (1.121).—‘Celibates, maintaining the five fires, firm in the performance of their duties, devoted to austerities, and devoted to parents,—such Brāhmaṇas are con ducive to the success of the Śrāddha.’

Mahābharata (13.90.50).—[Mentions ‘Svādhyāyaniṣṭhāḥ-jñānaniṣṭhāḥ-taponiṣṭhāḥ-karmaniṣṭhāḥ.’]

134 Some Brahmanas are devoted to (the pursuit of) knowledge, and others to (the performance of) austerities; some to austerities and to the recitation of the Veda, and others to (the performance of) sacred rites.

The offerings to the pitṛs should be carefully presented to those excelling in learning; and the offerings to gods to all the four, according to law.—(135)

गुणविभागे प्रयोजनम् आह । कव्यानि पितॄन् उद्दिश्य यद् दीयते तत् कव्यम् । तानि ज्ञाननिष्ठेषु प्रतिष्ठाप्यानि प्रदेयानीत्य् अर्थः । यत्नवचनात् तदभावे चतुर्ष्व् अपि हव्यवत् । पित्र्ये ज्ञाननिष्ठाः पात्रतमाः । उक्तं हि “पात्राणाम् अपि तत् पात्रम्” (वध् ६.२६) इति । अन्नदानम् अविशेषेण चतुर्भ्यो ऽपि इति श्लोकार्थः । न्यायः शास्त्रीयो विधिः ॥ ३.१२५ ॥

The author now proceeds to show the purpose why he has provided a classification of the qualities.

Offerings made to the Pitṛs are called ‘Kavya;’ these should be ‘presented’—given—‘to those excelling in learning.’

‘Carefully’—implies that if one does not take special care, these also, like the offering to gods, should be given to all the four.

For the offerings to Pitṛs the best recipients are those excelling in learning,—it having been declared that ‘he is the recipient among recipients.’

What the verse means is that food in general should be given to all the four, without any distinction.

‘Law’— Rule laid down in the scriptures.—(135)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.7.4, 22).—‘One shall feed such Brāhmaṇas as are well versed in the Veda; also one who is studying the Veda, the son of an expounder of the Veda, and one learned in the Veda; when these eat at a Śrāddha, they purify the line of feeders.’

Gautama (15.9, 10).—‘Vedic scholars, endowed with beauty, age and character; the first offer should be made to the younger men.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 219).—‘One who is foremost in all the Vedas, one learned in the Veda, the young man knowing Brahman, one who knows the meaning of the Veda, the Jyeṣṭhasāman, the Trimadhu and the Trisuparṇaka.’

Viṣṇu-Smṛti (83, 19, 21).—‘Specially the Yogins. May such a one bo born in our family as may feed at the Śrāddha the Brāhmaṇa who is a Yogin! By that would we be fully satisfied.’

Mahābhārata (13. 90. 51).—[Reproduces the first half of Manu.]

135 Oblations to the manes ought to be carefully presented to those devoted to knowledge, but offerings to the gods, in accordance with the reason (of the sacred law), to (men of) all the four (above-mentioned classes).

If a father happen to be ignorant of the Veda, whose son is thoroughly versed in the Veda,—and if the son happen to be ignorant of the Veda and the father is t horoughly versed in the Veda;—(136)

संशयोपन्यासार्थः श्लोकः ॥ ३.१२६ ॥

This verse is intended to propound a doubt (as to which of the two is superior).—(136)

136 If there is a father ignorant of the sacred texts whose son has learned one whole recension of the Veda and the Angas, and a son ignorant of the sacred texts whose father knows an entire recension of the Veda and the Angas,

‘Of these two one should regard him as superior whose father is learned in the Veda; while the other deserves honour for the sake of the veneration due to the Veda.—(137)

यस्य पिता अपाठः स्वयं तु वेदपारगः साङ्गवेदाध्यायी, इतरस्य तु पिता वेदपारगः स्वयं तु मूर्खः, तयोः कः श्रेयान् इति संशयं कृत्वा सिद्धान्तम् आह ।

• अनयोः स्वयंश्रोत्रियपितृमूर्खस्वयंमूर्खपितृश्रोत्रिययोः स्वयंमूर्खपितृश्रोत्रियं ज्यायांसं प्रशस्यं श्राद्धे योग्यं जानीयात्, यद्य् अस्य श्रोत्रियः पिता । इतरो मन्त्रपूजनार्थं न ब्राह्मणबुद्ध्या, किं तु मन्त्रास् तेन ये ऽधीतास् ते तत्र पूज्यन्ते । न मन्त्राणां श्राद्धे पूजा विहिता, तस्मान् नासौ भोजयितव्यः ।

• श्लोकद्वयेन संशयसिद्धान्तरूपोपन्यासेनार्थवादभङ्ग्या पितृश्रोत्रियत्वम् आत्मश्रोत्रियत्वं च श्राद्धभोजने कारणम् इत्य् एतद् उच्यते, न केवलम् आत्मश्रोत्रियत्वम् । न तु स्वयम् अनधीयानस्य पितृश्रोत्रियत्वेन भोज्यता विधीयते । तद् उक्तम् “दूराद् एव परीक्षेत” (म्ध् ३.१२०) इति । अत्राध्ययनपरीक्षा पुरुषद्वयविषयानेन नियम्यते । जातिगुणपरीक्षा तु ततो ऽधिकपुरुषविषयापि यथा । अतस् तस्यैव विशेषाभिधानार्थत्वाद् अपौनरुक्त्यम् ॥ ३.१२७ ॥

Having raised the question as to which is superior of the two—one whose father is illiterate, but he himself is ‘thoroughly versed in the Veda,’ i.e., who has read the Veda along with the subsidiary sciences,—and the other whose father is thoroughly versed in the Veda, but he himself is illiterate,—the author now sets forth the established conclusion.

‘Of these two’—between one who is himself learned in the Veda, but his father is illiterate, and one who is himself illiterate, but his father is learned in the Veda—one should know him to be ‘superior’—more praiseworthy—who is himself illiterate, but his father is learned in the Veda.

‘The other…… for the sake of the veneration due to the Veda’—He is to be honoured, not because he is a Brāhmaṇa, but because he has learnt the Vedic Mantras, which have to be honoured; and since the honouring of the Veda has not been prescribed in connection with Śrāddhas, such a person does not deserve to be fed at these.

What the author does by means of these two verses, propounding us they do a question and its answer, is to indicate, through a laudatory description, that what entitles a man to eat at Śrāddhas is the fact of his father being learned in the Veda, and that of himself being learned in the Veda (the two combined). The mere fact of he himself being learned in the Veda, does not entitle him to the eating, nor the fact of his father being learned in the Veda, while he himself is illiterate.

It is with reference to this that it has been said above (in 130) that ‘one should examine the Brāhmaṇa from far off etc.;’ and the examination of ‘learning’ there mentioned refers to enquiries concerning the learning of both father and son; while those relating to caste and qualif ications, these have to be extended to higher ancestors also. And since it is this distinction that is sought to be brought out in this verse, it cannot be regarded as a needless repetition.—(137)

137 Know that he whose father knows the Veda, is the more venerable one (of the two); yet the other one is worthy of honour, because respect is due to the Veda (which he has learned).

At a Śrāddha one should not feed a friend; his acquisition shall be made by means of riches. At a Śrāddha one should feed him whom he regards neither as friend nor as foe.—(138)

सत्याम् एव श्रोत्रियत्वादिपूर्वगुणसंपदि मैत्र्यादिनिमित्तेन प्रतिषेधो ऽयम् । मित्रं समानसुखदुःखम् आत्मनिर्विशेषं न श्राद्धे भोजयेत् । धनैर् अन्यैर् अस्य मित्रस्य स्वीकारो मैत्रीकरणम् । अविच्छेदो वा मैत्र्यम्, उपकार इति यावत् । न केवलं न मित्रं भोजयेत्, यावद् अरिं शत्रुम् अपि । नारिं न मित्रं यं विद्यात् । यत्र न रागो न द्वेषो न चान्यः कश्चित् संबन्धो यत्र प्रीतिनिमित्ता कार्यार्थता शङ्क्यते, अरिमित्रयोः प्रदर्शनार्थत्वात् । तथा संबन्धाशङ्कयैव मातामहादयो ऽनुकल्पपक्षोक्ताः ।

• शत्राव् अपि मैत्रीकरणार्थदानसंभावना यदि, मैत्रीकरणम् इति संग्रहः, अरिसंग्रहणं न कर्तव्यम् ।

• विस्पष्टार्थं भविष्यति ॥ ३.१२८ ॥

Even when endowed with the aforesaid qualifications of ‘Vedic learning’ and the rest, the man shall not be fed on account of his being a friend; this is the prohibition contained in this verse.

‘A friend’—one whose happiness and unhappiness are the same as one’s own, and who is in no way different from himself,—‘one should not feed at a Śrāddha.’

‘By means of riches’— by means of other kinds of gifts—‘the acquisition’ of the friend should be made; his friendship obtained; or the benefit of ‘friendship’ may consist in non-separation.

It is not only the friend that one shall not feed; the enemy also should not be fed. ‘Him whom he regards neither as friend nor as foe,’— towards whom one eutertains feelings of neither affection, nor aversion: in regard to whom there could be no suspicion of any relationship due to affection or any other motive; the mention of the ‘friend or foe’ being only illustrative. It is on account of the suspicion of such relationship that the maternal grandfather and others have been mentioned (in 147, 148 below) as secondary alternatives.

“There is possibility of the enemy being fed only where one wishes make a friend of him; hence he also being included under ‘friend’ (should not have been mentioned separately).”

The separate mention is expected to make the matter dearer.—(138)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 559);—in Aparārka (p. 448);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 401);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 41), which explains ‘dhanaiḥ’ as ‘by presents of other kinds,’ and ‘saṅgraha’ as ‘affection.’

Gautama (15).—‘He should not behave towards him as towards a friend.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (17.4).—‘He shall feed such Brāhmaṇas… as are not related to him either through otra or through marriage or through Vedic learning or through discipleship.’

Baudhāyana (2.8.6).—‘Such as are not related to him through the Veda.’

Vaśiṣṭha. (11.14).—‘During the darker fortnight, after the fourth day, he shall make offerings to the Pitṛs; having, on the previous day, got together such Brāhmaṇas as are renunciates or hermits or are old, not engaged in any improper profession, learned in the Veda,—but who are not his own pupils or disciples. But he shall feed even his disciples, if they are endowed with exceptional qualities.’

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 137.44).—‘One who has offered the Śrāddha shall not receive a friend; for the purpose of making friends he shall make presents of riches; in connection with the offerings to gods and Pitṛs, he shall feed one who is neutral, whom he regards neither as a friend nor as a foe.’

Kaśyapa (Aparārka, p. 448).—‘Enemies…… should not be invited at Śrāddha.’

138 Let him not entertain a personal friend at a funeral sacrifice; he may gain his affection by (other) valuable gifts; let him feed at a Sraddha a Brahmana whom he considers neither as a foe nor as a friend.

He at whose Śrāddhas and sacrifices, the friend forms the principal factor,—for him, after death, there is no reward, either for Śrāddhas or for sacrifices.—(139)

पूर्वस्य प्रतिषेधस्यार्थवादो ऽयम् । मित्रशब्दो ऽयं भावप्रधानः, मित्रप्रधानानि मैत्रीप्रधानानि । तेनोभयोर्²⁹ मित्रयोः शेषः । देवतोद्देसेन दानम् अदृष्टार्थं वा केवलं ब्राह्मणभोजनं³⁰ हवींषि इति लक्ष्यते । प्रेत्य फलं नास्ति ।

• ननु चासमानकर्तृत्वात् कार्यानुत्पत्तिः । प्रेणः³¹ कर्ता पुरुषः श्राद्धकृत्, अस्तिताया³² नञर्थोपहितायाः फलम् ।

• केचिद् आहुः । प्रेत्येतिशब्दान्तरं परलोकवचनं निपातसंज्ञम्³³ ।

• अथ प्रेणो ऽपि³⁴ फलं कर्तृ, तस्य फलं प्रेत्य प्रकर्षेण निकटम् आगत्यापि³⁵ न भवति न भोग्यतां याति ॥ ३.१२९ ॥

This verse supplies the commendatory supplement to the foregoing prohibition.

The term ‘friend’ is used here in the abstract sense; hence the meaning is ‘in which friendship enters as the prime consideration.’ And this includes both friend and foe.

The term ‘sacrifice’ stands for (1) gifts given with reference to gods and (2) the feeding of Brāhmaṇas with a view to some transcendental result.

‘Pretya phalam nāsti’ (‘after death there is no reward’)—

“No construction is possible of this clause; since the nominative of the root ‘pra + iṇ’ (of the act of dying denoted by the word ‘pretya’) is the person performing the śrāddha, whereas of the verb ‘na + asti’ (‘is not’) the nominative is ‘phala,’ ‘reward’ [and as a rule, the nominative of the participle ‘pretya’ and the finite verb ‘nāsti’ should be one and the same].”

In answer to this, some people explain that the term ‘pretya’ is an independent word, an indeclinable noun, denoting the other world [and is not a participle at all]. Another explanation is that of the root pra + in also ‘reward’ is the nominative; the meaning of the participle in this case being ‘even though arriving near,’ ‘it does not come about,’—i.e., it fails to be enjoyed.—(139)

This verse is quoted in Śrāddkakriyākaumudī (p. 41).

**(verses 3.139-140)
**

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.8).—‘Offerings given to friends and relations reach neither the gods nor the Pitṛs.’ Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 90.42-43).—‘If at one’s offerings to gods and Pitṛs, his friends happen to form the predominant factor, then neither the gods nor the Pitṛs are satisfied; and he goes not to heaven. If one makes friends at the Śrāddha, he goes not by the path of the gods; collecting his friends at Śrāddha, ho falls off from heaven.’

139 He who performs funeral sacrifices and offerings to the gods chiefly for the sake of (gaining) friends, reaps after death no reward for Sraddhas and sacrifices.

The man who, through folly, makes friendships by means of Śrāddhas,—that meanest of twice-born men, having the Śrāddha for his friend, falls from the regions of heaven.—(140)

संगतानि मित्रभावान्³⁶ यः कुरुते श्राद्धेन मोहात् शास्त्रार्थम् अजानानः स स्वर्गाच् च्यवते । न प्राप्नोति स्वर्गम् इत्य् अर्थः । असंबन्धसामान्याच् च्यवत इत्य् उच्यते । यथा प्राप्तः स्वर्गं ततश् च्युतः स्वर्गेण न संबध्यते एवम् अयम् अपि । अनेन च स्राद्धफलाप्राप्तिर् एव कथ्यते । सर्वशेषता हि तथा भवति । श्राद्धमित्रः श्राद्धं मित्रम् अस्येति । मित्रलाभहेतुत्वात् श्राद्धम् एव मित्रम्, अतो बहुव्रीहिः । द्विजानाम् अधमः । द्विजग्रहणं प्रदर्शनार्थम् । शूद्रेणापि न मित्राणि भोजनीयानि ।

• ननु चाब्राह्मण्याद् एव शूद्रस्य मित्रत्वप्राप्तिर् नास्ति ।

• केनैषा परिभाषा कृता- शूद्रस्य ब्राह्मणैर् मित्रैर् न भवितव्यम् ।

• समानजातीयानाम् एव मित्रव्यवहारो नोत्तमजातीयानां हीनजातीयैः सह, इति चेत् ।

• एतद् अपि न । एवं ह्य् आह- “श्वेतकेतुर् ह वा आरुणेयः”, “अस्ति मे पञ्चालेषु क्षत्रियो मित्रम्” इति । किं च संबन्धोपलक्षणार्थं च मित्रप्रतिषेधो व्याख्यातः । भवन्ति च शूद्रस्य ब्राह्मणा अर्थसंबन्धिनः, पारशवस्य ज्ञातयो ऽपि ॥ ३.१३० ॥

‘Friendships’—friendly relations—he ‘who make’ ‘by means of Śrāddhas’ ‘through folly—i.e., being ignorant of what is contained in the scriptures,—falls from heaven,’—i.e., never reaches heaven; the root ‘fall’ being used in the sense of want of connection in general; the sense being ‘just as a man on reaching heaven and falling from there loses all connection with it, so this man also.’ What is meant is that the man does not obtain the reward for performing the śrāddha. in this sense alone can the passage have any connection with all that has gone in the present context.

‘Having the. śrāddha for his friend;’—the śrāddha is spoken of as his friend, on account of its being the means of his acquiring a friend, it is in this sense that we have the Bahuvrīhi compound in ‘śrāddhamitra.’

‘The meanest of twice-born men;’—the ‘twice-born men’ have been mentioned only by way of illustration; in reality, the Śūdra also should not feed friends at śrādḍhas.

“The mere fact of the Śūdra being a non-Brāhmaṇa makes it impossible for him to feed a friend at śrāddhas (where only Brāhmaṇas are fed).”

But who has laid down the rule that Brāhmaṇas cannot be the friends of Śūdras?

“As a matter of fact, it is only persons of the same caste that are regarded as friends; so that there could be no friendship between persons, one of whom belongs to the higher and the other to the lower caste.”

This also is not true; since Śvetaketu, the son of Aruṇi, is declared to have said—‘In the Pañcāla country, there is a Kṣatriya friend of mine.’

Then again, it has already been explained that the term ‘friend’ in the present context has been used as connoting relationship in general. And Brāhmaṇas also come to have pecuniary relations with Śūdras; and to the Pāraśavaśūdra (the Śūdra born of a Brāhmaṇa father and a Śūdra mother), Brāhmaṇas hear even blood-relationships.—(140)

**(verses 3.139-140)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.139].

140 That meanest among twice-born men who in his folly contracts friendships through a funeral sacrifice, loses heaven, because he performed a Sraddha for the sake of friendship.

This convivial dinner has been called by twice-born people the “gift of devils.” It remains in this world alone, like the blind cow tied in a single room.—(141)

संशब्दः सहार्थे वर्तते । सह भुज्यते यया सा संभोजनी । मैत्र्या हि सहभोजनं³⁷ प्रवर्तते । गोष्ठीभोजनं वा संभोजनम् इष्यते । पिशाचानाम् अयं धर्मो यत् श्राद्धे मित्रसंग्रहः । रथ्याः पुरुषाः पिशाचाः । सा दक्षिणा इहैव लोके आस्ते, नामुत्र फलं दातुं समर्था । गौर् यथान्धैकस्मिन्न् एव गृहे तिष्ठति, एवम् इयं दक्षिणा इहैवास्ते, मित्रजनार्थैव भवति । न पितृभ्य उपकारार्थाय प्रभवति । दानं दक्षिणा ॥ ३.१३१ ॥

The particle ‘sam’ (in ‘Sambhojanī) connotes convivility; and the term ‘sambhojanī’ means that at which men dine together; such convivial dinner is possible only among friends. Or, the word ‘sambhojamī’ may be taken as standing for a social dinner of several people.

The making of friendships by Śrāddhas is a custom with ‘devils,’—the term ‘devil’ here standing for highway robbers.

This gift ‘remains in this world alone’—i.e., it is not capable of bringing rewards in the other world; just as the blind cow, which remains tied in a single room, so this gift also remains in this world only,—i.e., the only result it brings about is the goodwill of friends,—and it does not bring any benefit to the ancestors.

The term ‘dakṣiṇā’ here stands for gift.—(141)

‘Paiśācī’—‘Gift of devils;—i.e., offered in the manner of devils’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, and Rāghavānanda);—‘offered to devils’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

Hopkins traces the origin of verses 138 to 141 to certain verses of the Mahābhārata: Verse 140 corresponds to 13.90.42 of the Mahābhārata; verse 138 to 13.90.43; verse 142 to 13.90.44; verse 141 to 13.90.46 of the Mahābhārata.

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 90.46).—‘A convivial dinner is the Devil’s Gift; it reaches neither the gods nor Pitṛs; devoid of virtue, it wanders about in this world.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.17.7).—[Reproduces the above with one slight verbal variation.]

141 A gift (of food) by twice-born men, consumed with (friends and relatives), is said to be offered to the Pisakas; it remains in this (world) alone like a blind cow in one stable.

Just as having sown the seed in barren soil, the sower reaps no harvest,—even so, having given the offerings to one ignorant of the Veda, the giver obtains no reward.—(142)

इरिणम् ऊषरम् । यस्मिन् क्षेत्रे भूमिदोषात् बीजम् उप्तं न चोद्गच्छति तद् इरिणम् । यत्र वप्ता कर्षको न³⁸ लभते फलम् । एवम् अनृचे वेदाध्ययनरहिते हविर् दैवं पित्र्यं च दत्वा न लभते फलम् । अनृच इति सप्तम्यन्तम् । ऋचो वेदोपलक्षणार्थम् ॥ ३.१३२ ॥

‘Barren soil’—Unproductive ground. that plot of land is called ‘barren’ on which if seed is sown, it does not sprout; there the ‘sower reaps no harvest.’

‘Even so,’ ‘to the person ignorant of die Veda’—‘having given the offerings made to gods and ancestors,—‘the giver obtains no reward.’

The term ‘anṛce’ is with the Locative ending; and the term ‘ṛk’ stands for the Veda in general.—(142)

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana, 90.45).—‘As seed sown in barren soil does not germinate and the sower does not reap even a part of the seed, so also the Śrāddha partaken of by undeserving persons confers no benefits either here or elsewhere.’

142 As a husbandman reaps no harvest when he has sown the seed in barren soil, even so the giver of sacrificial food gains no reward if he presented it to a man unacquainted with the Rikas.

The presenting of the gift, according to rule, to the learned makes the givers and receivers partakers of reward, here as well as after death.—(143)

• सत्यम् । प्रशंसैषा । ईदृशम् एतद् विदुषे दानं यत् प्रतिग्रहीताप्य् अदृष्टफलभाग् भवेत् । सत्य् अपि दृष्टे किं पुनर् दातेति ।

• प्रेत्य स्वर्ग इह कीर्तिः- यथाशास्त्रम् अनुतिष्ठतीति जनैः साधुवादो दीयते । विधिवद् इत्य् अनुवादो ददाति चैवं धर्म्येष्व्³⁹ इति ॥ ३.१३३ ॥

That the gift that is presented to the learned person makes the givers partakers of reward is only right: but what is the reward obtained by the receivers? If it be held that they obtain some transcendental result,—that, cannot be right: because the act of receiving gifts has not been so enjoined, and also because the receiver is prompted to accept the gift only with a view to the perceptible reward. If, on the other hand, the reward to the receiver be held to be something perceptible,—then such a reward is found to be obtained by the ignorant person also.”

True; but what is stated here is mere praise; the sense lasing that—‘the presenting of offerings to the learned man is so effective that the receiver also comes to partake of the imperceptible reward, in addition to the perceptible one,—what to say of the giver.’

‘Alter death’— in heaven.

‘Here’—the reward is in the form of fame; the man being praised by men as doing things in exact accordance with the scriptures,

‘According to rule;’—this is a mere reiterative reference to the injunction that ‘gifts should be made to persons posessing such and such qualifications.’—(143)

Yājñavalkya (1.270).—‘Men’s grandfathers, when pleased, bestow upon them, long life, offspring, wealth, learning, heaven, final deliverance and pleasures.’

143 But a present made in accordance with the rules to a learned man, makes the giver and the recipient partakers of rewards both in this (life) and after death.

One may entertain a friend at Śrāddhas, but never a foe, even though qualified. The offering eaten by the enemy becomes futile after death.—(144)

[Medhātithi takes no note of this verse].

Medhātithi omits this verse. It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 448) as permitting the feeding of the friend and others when no other Brāhmaṇa is available;—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 41), which explains ‘abhirūpam’ as ‘learned and ‘pretya’ as ‘in the other world.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.17.5-6).—‘When other men with proper qualifications are not available, one may feed even his own uterine brother; or even his own pupils.’

Baudhāyana (2.8.4).—‘One may feed even a Sapiṇḍa if he is equipped with the Ṛk, the Yajuṣ and the Sāman.’

144 (If no learned Brahmana be at hand), he may rather honour a (virtuous) friend than an enemy, though the latter may be qualified (by learning and so forth); for sacrificial food, eaten by a foe, bears no reward after death.

With great care one should feed at a Śrāddha the adherent of the Ṛgveda who is thoroughly versed in his Veda, or the adherent of the Yajurveda who has finished the entire recensional text, or the adherent of the Sāmaveda who has reached the end of it.—(145).

वेदपारगशाखान्तगसमाप्तिकाः शब्दा एकार्थाः समन्त्रब्राह्मनिकायाः कृत्स्नायाः शाखाया अध्येतॄन् आचक्षते । न मन्त्रसंहिताया नापि ब्राह्मणस्य, तदेकदेशस्य वा । वेदैकशाखाध्यायिनो ऽपि श्रोत्रिया उच्यन्ते । अतस् तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् उक्तं श्रोत्रियाय देयम् इति । श्रोत्रियश् च वेदाध्यायी । वेदशब्दश् च समन्त्रब्राह्मणिकां शाखाम् आचष्टे । तदेकदेशम् अपि या कृत्स्नशाखाध्यायी⁴⁰ कथं गृह्येतेत्य् एवमर्थम् इदम् ।

• ननु चाश्रमिणो भोजनीया इत्य् उक्तम् । तत्रानधीतसकलस्वाध्यायानां नैव गार्हस्थ्याद्याश्रमसंभवः । एवं ह्य् उक्तम् “वेदः कृत्स्नो ऽधिगन्तव्यः” (म्ध् २.१६५) इति ।

• ब्रह्मचारिणस् तर्हि प्रक्रान्तवेदाध्ययनस्य असमाप्तिगस्यापि स्यात् । वेदपारगशाखान्तगसमाप्तिकशब्दैर् एकार्थैः कार्त्स्न्यं सर्वैर् एव प्रतिपाद्यते ।

• एकेनैव सिद्धे वृत्तानुरोधान् नानारूपैकार्थानेकशब्दोच्चारणम् । वेदानां पारं गच्छति । शाखाया अन्तःसमाप्तिर् अस्यास्तीति समाप्तिकः । अध्वर्युर् यजुर्वेदशाखाध्यायी, नायम् ऋत्विग् विशेषवचनो ऽध्वर्युशब्दः । अध्वर्यवः प्रवचनम् उच्यते । तदध्ययनसंबन्धात् पुरुषो ऽध्वर्युः । छन्दोगः सामवेदाध्यायी । स्मृत्यन्तरे त्रिसाहस्रविद्यः समाप्तिक उक्तः । तत्र सहस्रशब्दः सहस्रगीतिसंबन्धात् सामवेदे वर्तते, तस्य इमाः साहस्र्यस् तिस्रः साहस्र्यः विद्या यस्य त्रिसाहस्रविद्यः । ताण्डवमौक्तिक्यं सामगानाम् इति सहस्रवर्त्मनः सामवेदस्य तस्य तिस्रो विद्याः । दशतयी चतुःषष्टि ब्राह्मणं च बाह्वृच्यम् ।

• अन्ये त्व् आथर्वणिकनिषेधार्थम् इदं श्लोकम् मन्यन्ते । कार्त्स्न्याद् विवक्षायाम् एतद् एवावक्ष्यत्-

• अधीते वेदशाखां यः कृत्स्नां तं भोजयेद् द्विजम् । इति ।

• ननु चाथर्वणिकनिषेधे ऽप्य् एतत्समानम् । तत्रापि शक्यम् एवं वक्तुं तन्निषेधे प्रायेण “न भोज्य आथर्वणिकः” इत्य् एवम् एवावक्ष्यत् । स्वशब्देन निषेधप्रतिपत्तिर् लाघवं च ।

• नैतद् एवम् । किम् अन्यविधानेनान्यनिषेधो ऽवगम्यते स्वशब्देन वा निषेधः । विचित्रा धर्मोपदेशस्य कृतिर् मनोः ॥ ३.१३५ ॥

The three terms—‘thoroughly versed in the Veda,’ ‘who has finished the entire recesional text’ and ‘who has reached the end of it’—are synonymous; everyone of them denotes persons who have learnt the whole recensional text, including the Mantra as well as the Brāhmaṇa; not those who have learnt either the Mantra-text alone or the Brāhmaṇa- text alone, or only a portion of these. The name ‘śrotriya,’ ‘learned in the Veda,’ is Applied, to even those who have learnt only a part of the Veda; hence the three terms in the present verse have been used for the purpose of excluding the mere ‘śrotriya.’ In regard to this latter, it has been said (in 128) that ‘the offering should be given to the śrotriya;’ the term ‘śrotriya’ means ‘one learned in the Veda;’ and the term ‘veda’ denotes the entire recensional text, including the Mantra and the Brāhmaṇa, as also a part of these. Consequently, for the purpose of referring to one who has learnt the entire ṛecensional text, the Text 1ms used the terms in question.

“It has been laid down above (134-135) that one shall feed only such persons as belong to one or the other stage; and until one has learnt the entire Vedic text, it is not possible for one to cuter upon the state of the Householder; as it has been asserted that ‘the entire Veda should be learnt’ (2.165).”

But even so, it would he open to one to feed the Student who has begun to learn the Veda,—even before he has finished it. Hence all the three synonymous terms—‘thoroughly versed in the Veda,’ ‘who has finished the entire recensional text,’ and ‘who has reached the end of it’—indicate that the whole Veda should have been learnt.

Though only one of these words would have sufficed for the purpose, yet the Author has made use of several forms of the same expression in view of metrical exigencies.

‘Vedapāragah,’ ‘Thoroughly versed in the Veda,’—who has gone through the entire Veda.

‘Śākhāntagaḥ’ ‘who has finished the entire recensional text’— the end of the recensional text.

‘Samāptikaḥ,’—‘who has reached the end of it.’

‘Adhvaryu,’ ‘adherent of the Yajurveda’—one who has studied the Yajurveda; this term is not used here as the name of one of the principal sacrificial priests. ‘Ādhvargava’ is the name given to the act of reciting; hence the person connected with this act is called ‘Adhvaryu.’

‘Chāndoga,’ ‘adherent of the Sāmaveda,’—one who studies the Sāmaveda.

In another Smṛti, it is the person who has learnt the ‘three thousands’ that has been called ‘samāptika;’ and the term ‘thousand’ here denotes the Sāmaveda, by reason of its being related to a thousand musical forms.; and one. whose learning consists of three of these ‘thousand’ is ‘one who has learnt the three thousands;’ the three forms being (I) the

‘Tāṇḍava’ (Texts relating to Dancing), (2) the ‘Aukthikya’ (Texts relating to the Ukthas) and (2) the ‘Sāmagāna’ (the singing of Sāmu verses); these are the three ‘sciences’ of the Sāmaveda, of which there are a thousand recensions.

The ‘Ṛgveda’ stands for the Saṃhitā text of ten Maṇḍalas divided into sixty-four adhyāyas and the Brāhmaṇa.

Others have explained this verse as excluding the adherents of the Atharva Veda from being fed. (They argue that) if the author had intended to include all the Vedas, he would have simply said—‘one should feed that Brāhmaṇa who has learnt the entire recensional text of the Veda.’

“The same argument might be urged against the verse being taken as excluding the adherent of the Atharva Veda: if this exclusion had been intended, the Author could have simply said—‘the adherent of the Atharva Veda shall not be fed.’ Such a statement would be very much simpler and a more direct way of laying down the exclusion.”

There is no force in this; as Munu’s way of teaching Dharma is diverse: sometimes he leaves the negation to be implied by means of an affirmation, and at others he puts the negation directly in its own words.—(145).

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 284);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 382).

Laghu-Śātātapa (99-100).—[After reproducing Manu 145, it adds the following.]—‘At the Śrāddha one shall feed the Sāmavedin; at the Vaiśvadeva offering, the Ṛgvedin; at the Pacificatory rite, the Yajurvedin; and at the Harder rites, the Atharvavedin.’

Laghvāśvalāyana (24.15).—‘At the Śrāddha, one should invite such Ṛgvedin Brāhmaṇas as are learned in the Veda; in the absence of them, those learned in the other Vedas.’

145 Let him (take) pains (to) feed at a Sraddha an adherent of the Rig-veda who has studied one entire (recension of that) Veda, or a follower of the Yagur-veda who has finished one Sakha, or a singer of Samans who (likewise) has completed (the study of an entire recension).

If any one of these should dine, duly honoured, at the Śrāddha performed by a certain person, there would be ever-lasting satisfaction for his ancestors, lasting till the seventh degree (of descendants).—(146)

कश्चिन् मन्येत “पितृकृत्ये त्रीन्” (म्ध् ३.११५) इत्य् उक्तम् । पूर्वश्लोके च नानाशाखाध्यायिन उपात्ताः । तत्र सब्रह्मचारिणां नास्ति प्राप्तिर् इति तदाशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थम् इदम् ।

• एषां त्रयाणां त्रैविद्यानाम् अन्यतमो भोजनीयः । एतद् उक्तं भवति । समानशाखाध्यायिनो नानाशाखाध्यायिनो वा भोजनीयाः । अर्चितः पूजितः प्रार्थित अर्घादिना । साप्तपौरुषी तृप्तिः । सप्तपुरुषान् व्याप्नोति । अनुशतिकादेर् आकृतिगणत्वाद् उभयपदवृद्धिः । कालमहत्वोपलक्षणार्थं चैतत् । दीर्घकाला पितॄणां तृप्तिर् भवति । यावत् सप्तपुरुषा आगामिनः पुत्रपौत्रादयो जाता जनिष्यन्ते वा तावत् तथाविधब्राह्मणदानात्⁴¹ पितरस् तृप्यन्ति । शाश्वती नान्तरा विच्छिद्य पुनर् उद्भवति । किं पुनः सर्वदा स्थितैव ॥ ३.१३६ ॥

Some people might argue as follows:—“It has been asserted that ‘at the rite performed in honour of ancestors one should feed three Brāhmaṇas;’ and in the preceding verse the learners of several recensional texts have been mentioned; so that there is no possibility of one’s own companions in study being fed.”

And it is with a view to set aside this notion that the author puts forward the present verse.

Of these three—the adherents of the three Vedas—anyone may be fed.

That is to say, one may feed either persons professing the same recensional text as oneself or those professing other several texts.

‘Duly honoured’—worshipped, approached, with offerings of water, etc.

‘Satisfaction to the seventh degree’—i.e., the satisfaction continues till the seventh degree of descendants. The prolonging of both vowels in the term ‘sāptapauruṣī’ is in accordance with Pāṇini 7.3.20. This epithet has been added for the purpose of indicating great length of time; the meaning being that ‘the satisfaction of the ancestors lasts for a long time.’ The meaning is that ‘by the feeding of the said Brāhmaṇa, the satisfaction secured to the ancestors is such as lasts till such time as his sons and grandsons to the seventh degree are born.’

‘Everlasting,’—i.e., it does not cease, and then appears again; it remains there always.—(146)

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 284);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 882);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 8a).

Bṛhaspati (Parāśaramādhava, p. 337).—‘If one feeds a single Sāmavedin at the Śrāddha, all the three Vedas, Ṛk, Sāman and Yajuṣ, are present in him. If, for the sake of his fathers, one secures one who has pondered over the texts of the Sāman, then he secures the entire earth along with hills and forests. The Ṛk satisfies the father, the Yajuṣ, the grandfather, and the Sāman, the great-grandfather;—and the Chandoga is superior even to that.’

Śātātapa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 337).—‘If one feeds an Atharvavedin at the offerings to Gods and Pitṛs, he attains endless and imperishable results;—says the Śruti.’

146 If one of these three dines, duly honoured, at a funeral sacrifice, the ancestors of him (who gives the feast), as far as the seventh person, will be satisfied for a very long time.

This is the first course to be adopted in the presenting of the offerings made to Gods and Pitṛs. This (following) is to be regarded as the secondary course always adopted by the good.’—(147)

“पितृयज्ञम्” (३.११२) इत्य् आरभ्य पञ्चविंशतिमात्राः⁴² श्लोका अतिक्रान्तास् तत्रैतावन् अर्थो ऽभिहितः । अमावास्यायां श्राद्धं कर्तव्यम् । श्रोत्रियो विद्वान् साधुचरणः प्रत्याख्याताभिजनः श्रोत्रियापत्यम् असंबन्धी भोजनीयः । परिशिष्टं सर्वम् अर्थवादार्थम् ।

• एषो ऽनन्तरोकतः प्रथमो मुख्यः कल्पो विधिः, श्राद्धे यद् असंबन्धिने दीयते । अयं तु वक्ष्यमाणो ऽनुकल्पो ज्ञेयः । मुख्याभावे यो ऽनुष्ठीयते प्रतिनिधिन्यायेन सो ऽनुकल्प उच्यते । सदेत्यादि स्तुत्यर्थः ॥ ३.१३७ ॥

Beginning with verse 122, twenty-five verses have gone before; and the upshot of them all is as follows: (a) Śrāddhas should be performed on the moon-less day;—(b) the person fed should be learned in the Veda, highly educated, of right behaviour, belonging to a known family, the sou of a person learned in the Veda and not bearing any relationship to the person offering the Śrāddha. The rest of it all is only commendatory.

‘This’—what has been just described,—is ‘the the first’— the primary—‘course’—procedure at Śrāddhas; viz., that, the food shall be presented to one who is not related to the performer.

‘This’—what is going to be described—‘should be regarded as ‘the secondary course’—which is to be adopted only in the event of the primary course being not possible This course is called ‘anukalpa,’ ‘secondary course,’ by the ‘law of substitutes’ (propounded in Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.6.37 et. seq.).

‘Always adopted’— this is purely commendatory.—(147)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.220, p. 146) in support of the view that the sister’s son and other similar relatives (mentioned in the next verse, and in Yājñavalkya, 1.220) are to be fed at the Śrāddha only if the above described ‘Brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda’ is not available;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 558), along with the next verse;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha; p. 447);—in Godādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 514), which remarks that this secondary method is put forward in view of the fact that very few Brāhmaṇas are really fit for being fed at Śrāddha;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 991).

Medhātithi (P. 250, l. 15)—‘Pratinidhinyāyenā.’—See Mīmāṃsā sūtra 3.6.37. The Yava having been laid down as a substitute at sacrifices for the Vrīhi, the question is raised as to the necessity or otherwise of performing all those acts in connection with the substitute which have been laid down in connection with the original; and the conclusion is that the substitute has to be treated exactly in the same manner as the original.

147 This is the chief rule (to be followed) in offering sacrifices to the gods and manes; know that the virtuous always observe the following subsidiary rule.

One may feed the maternal grandfather, the maternal uncle, the sister’s son, father-in-law, the teacher, the daughter’s son, the son-in-law, a relative, the priest and him at whose sacrifices the performer officiates.—(148)

स्वस्रीयो भगिन्याः पुत्रः । विट्पतिर् जामाता, प्रजावचनत्वात् विट्शब्दस्य । अतिथिर्⁴³ अन्ये । स हि सर्वविशांपतिः गृहाभ्यागतो लोके ऽपि विट्शब्देनोच्यते । बन्धुः शालः सगोत्रादिः ॥ ३.१३८ ॥

‘Svasrīyaḥ’—the sister’s son.

‘Viṭpatiḥ’—the son-in-law; the term ‘viṭ’ meaning child, According to others , ‘viṭpati’ is the guest, he being the ‘lord of all men;’ in ordinary parlance also, one who comes to one’s house is called ‘viṭ.’

‘Bandhuḥ’— the wife’s brother, the cognate kinsman, and so forth.—(148)

‘Bandhuḥ’—‘The brother-in-law, one belonging to the same gotra, or some such remote relation’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja);—‘cognate kinsman’ (Kullūkā and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 558), which explains ‘vitpati’ as ‘the son-in-law and ‘bandhu’ as ‘blood relations, as well as those related by friendship’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 447);—in Godādharapoddhati (Kāla, p. 574);—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 991).

Gautama (15.19.20).—‘According to some people, one may feed even his own pupils and also sagotras beyond the third grade.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.17.6).—‘This includes the pupils also.’

Yājñavalkya (1.220).—‘Sister’s son, priest, son-in-law, sacrificer, father-in-law, maternal uncle, the Triṇāciketas, daughter’s son, disciple, marriage-relations, paternal and maternal relations (may be fed).’

Viṣṇu (83.17.19).—‘The son-in-law, and the daughter’s son are fit recipients; specially the Yogins.’

Prajāpati (73).—‘Preceptor, son-in-law, daughter’s son, sister’s son,—these deserve to be offered the seat at the Śrāddha to the Pitṛs; the qualified maternal uncles also deserve to be honoured.’

148 One may also entertain (on such occasions) one’s maternal grandfather, a maternal uncle, a sister’s son, a father-in-law, one’s teacher, a daughter’s son, a daughter’s husband, a cognate kinsman, one’s own officiating priest or a man for whom one offers sacrifices.

At the rite in honour of the gods, the man knowing the law shall not examine the Brāhmaṇa. But when the rite in honour of the Pitṛs comes to be performed, he shall examine him carefullv.—(149)

नायं दैवे कर्मणि ब्राह्मणपरीक्षाप्रतिषेधः, किं तर्हि काणश्लीपद्यादीनां कदाचिद् दैवे ऽभ्यनुज्ञानार्थः । पित्र्ये कर्मणि श्राद्धकाले प्राप्ते परीक्षां यत्नेन कुर्यात्, न दैवे । कदाचिद् वक्ष्यमाणान् अपि भोजयेत् । येत् चाभ्यनुज्ञायन्ते तान् दर्शयिष्यामः । अन्ये⁴⁴ तु वक्ष्यमाणस्य प्रतिषेधप्रकरणस्य यत्नतो वर्जनार्थम्⁴⁵ उपक्रममात्रं श्लोकः, न तु काणादीनां दैवे ऽभ्यनुज्ञानार्थः ॥ ३.१३९ ॥

This verse is not meant to be prohibitive o? the examination of Brāhmaṇas (to be invited) at the rite performed in honour of the gods; what is meant by it is the permitting, at certain times, of the feeding, at rites in honour of gods, of such persons as are one-eyed, suffering from elephantiasis, and so forth.

‘At the rite in honour of the Pitṛs’—i,e., when the time for Śrāddha has arrived, one should do the examination with great care; not so at the rite performed in honour of the gods. At the latter, one may sometimes even feed those going to be mentioned. Who are those that are permitted to be fed, we shall show later on.

According to others, however, this verse has been introduced for the purpose of enjoining the strict exclusion of those going to be mentioned; and not for that of permitting the feeding of those at the rites in honour of gods.—(149)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 556), which explains ‘parīkṣeta’ as ‘make an investigation regarding their learning and conduct’;—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 287);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 6b);—in Hemādri, (Śrāddha, p. 510);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 34) as meaning that the testing in the case of Pitṛkṛtya is to be more thorough than in that of Devakṛtya.

Viṣṇu (82-1, 2).—‘At the rite in honour of the gods, one shall not examine the Brāhmaṇa; at that in honour of Pitṛs he shall examine him with care.’

149 For a rite sacred to the gods, he who knows the law will not make (too close) inquiries regarding an (invited) Brahmana; but when one performs a ceremony in honour of the manes, one must carefully examine (the qualities and parentage of the guest).

Manu has declared those Brāhmaṇas undeserving of (receiving) the offerings to gods and Pitṛs who are thieves, outcasts and eunuchs, as also those that have the behaviour of atheists.—(150)

स्तेनः चौरः । पतितः पञ्चानां महापातकानाम् अन्यतमस्य कर्ता । क्लीबो नपुंसकः उभयव्यञ्जनो वातरेताः षण्ढश् च । नास्तिका लोकायतिकादयः । नास्ति दत्तं नास्ति हुतं नास्ति परलोक इति ये स्थितप्रज्ञास् तेषां वृत्तिर् आचारः अश्रद्दधानता नास्तिकवृत्तिर् येषां ते नास्तिकवृत्तयः । उत्तरपदलोपीसमासः । नास्तिका इत्य् एव सिद्धे वृत्तिपदसमाश्रयणं⁴⁶ श्लोकपूरणार्थम् । अथ वा नास्तिकेभ्यो वृत्तिर् जीवनं येषां त एवम् उच्यन्ते । तान् हव्यकव्ययोर् दैवे पित्र्ये च अनर्हान् मनुर् अब्रवीत् । प्रतिषेधादरार्थं⁴⁷ मनुग्रहणम्, सर्वधर्माणां मनुनोक्तत्वात् ॥ ३.१४० ॥

‘Thieves’—stealers.

‘Outcast’—one who commits any one of the five ‘great sins.’

‘Eunuch’— emasculate, having the marks of both man and woman, unvirile, impotent.

‘Atheists’—Materialists and others; those whose firm conviction is that ‘gifts are nothing, oblations are nothing, there is no other world the behaviour of those is unbelief; ‘those whose behaviour is like the behaviour of atheists’ are called ‘having the behaviour of atheists,’—this being an instance of the compound that drops its last term. The word ‘atheist’ by itself would be sufficient; the term ‘behaviour’ has been introduced for the purpose of filling up the metre.

Or, the term ‘nāstikavṛttayaḥ’ may be taken to mean ‘those who derive their livelihood from atheists.’

These Manu has declared to be undeserving of the offerings made at the rites performed in honour of gods and Pitṛs.

The name of ‘Manu’ has been added for the purpose of lending force to the prohibition; as, in reality, all duties have been described by Manu.—(150)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687) among others, enumerating persons who should not be invited at Śrāddhas; it adds (on 688) the notes that—the ‘thief’ meant here is one who steals the belongings of others than the Brāhmaṇas, the stealer of the latter’s goods being included under ‘outcastes’,——‘nāstikavṛtti’ is one who derives his livelihood from one who denies that there are any rewards for acts in the other world;—and in Aparārka (p. 447), which explains the ‘nāstika’ as ‘one who holds the opinion that there is nothing that is divine,’ and the ‘nāstikavṛtti’ as ‘he who makes a living by expounding and writing on the works of such unbelievers.’

It is quoted also in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 480);—and in ‘Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

Gautama (15.15-18).—‘One shall not feed at Śrāddha one who is a thief, an eunuch, an out-cast, a heretic, or who behaves like a heretic, the murderer of the hero, one whose wife dallies with another person (or who makes love to his brother’s widow, or who has married a girl before the marriage of her elder sister), who officiates at sacrifices performed by women or by village communities, who keeps goats, who commits arson, who drinks wine, who is censorious, who has perjured himself, who is a conjuror, who permits his wife’s paramour to live in the house, who eats the food of an adulterer’s son, who sells Soma, who has burnt a house, who is a poisoner, who has broken the vows of continence, who is the servant of a company, who has intercourse with women with whom intercourse is prohibited, who is cruel, who has been superseded, in marriage, by his younger brother, who has superseded, in marriage, his elder brother, who is a pledgee or a pledger, who is bald-headed, or with deformed nails or black teeth, who suffers from leucoderma, who is the son of a remarried woman, who keeps a gambling house, who does not repeat mantras, who is the servant of the king, the Prātirūpika (whose profession is the assuming of disguises), who has married a Śūdra woman, who neglects the great sacrifices, who is leprous, who makes a living by money-lending, who trades, who makes a living by arts and crafts, or who is addicted to playing on musical instruments or to dancing and singing;—also those who have separated from their father against his wish.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11.15).—‘Avoiding the emaciated, one who is suffering from leucoderma, the eunuch, the blind, one who has black teeth, the leprous and one who has deformed nails.’

Yājñavalkya (1.222-224).—‘The following have been deprecated: the invalid, one deficient in his limbs, one with superfluous limbs, the one-eyed, the son of a re-married woman, one who has broken his vows of continence, one born of his unwidowed mother’s paramour, one born of his widowed mother’s paramour, who has deformed nails, or black teeth, who teaches for a stipulated fee, the eunuch, the defiler of virgins, who is accused of sins, who injures a friend, the traitor, the Soma-seller, who has superseded his elder brother in marriage, who has abandoned the mother or the father or the preceptor, one who eats the food of the adulterer’s son, the son of a Śūdra, the husband of a girl who had another husband, the thief, one whose conduct is wicked.’

Viṣṇu (82.4-29).—‘Those who offer sacrifices for many persons, or for village-communities, those who have abandoned the mother, the father, the preceptor, the Fires or Vedic Study, temple-attendants, healers, servants of the king, professional teachers, those taught by professional teachers, those associating with outcasts, those whose behaviour is cat-like (hypocritical), those who quarrel with their father, those in the habit of performing on other days those rites that should he performed on fixed days, informers, astrologers, those supported by food given by Śūdras, those engaged in evil professions.’

Mahābhārata (13.90, 6, etc.).—‘He who has married before his elder brother, who is suffering from skin-diseases, who violates his preceptor’s bed; the keeper of a gambling house, one who has helped in abortions, the consumptive, who tends cattle, who neglects the great sacrifices, who serves the village, the usurer, the singer, who sells all things, who has burnt houses, the poisoner, who eats the adulterer’s food, the seller of Soma, the palmist, the servant; of the king, who deals in oils, the forgerer, who has separated from his father, he who permits his wife’s paramour to live in the house, who is accused of crimes, the thief, who makes his living by arts and crafts; one who performs on stray days ceremonies laid down as to he performed on specified days, the back-biter, who injures his friend, the adulterer, who teaches persons not keeping the observances, one who makes a living by arms, who wanders about with dogs, and one who has been bitten by a dog.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.17.21).—‘Who is suffering from leucoderma, bald-headed, adulterer, the son of one who makes a living by arms, one born of a Brāhmaṇa mother and a Śūdra father;—if these are fed at the Śrāddha, they defile the line.’

Atri-Saṃhitā (347-348).—‘The servant, the tawny, the one-eyed, one suffering from leucoderma, the invalid, whose skin is diseased, one whose hair has fallen off, one suffering from jaundice, one who wears matted locks, who carries loads, who is cruel, who has two wives, who has a Śūdra wife, who foments quarrels and one who causes much suffering.’

Bṛhad- Yama-Smṛti (35, 38).—‘Possessed of evil features, the eunuch, a heretic, decrier of the Veda, one ever hankering after gifts, who is addicted to begging and is engrossed in objects of sense.’

Prajāpati-Smṛti (84, 90).—‘The husband of a girl who has had a husband before, the thief, whoso conduct is reprehensible,—these are to be avoided. One’s ancestors fly away if they see a buffalo-keeper at the Śrāddha.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 689).—‘The man who makes a living for three years by worshipping gods, is called the Devalaka, despised at all offerings to Gods and Pitṛs; he is to be regarded as unfit for company at all functions.’

Kaśyapa (Aparārka, p. 118).—‘Enemies, those who betray trusts, who are deficient in limbs, astrologers,—these Brāhmaṇas should be avoided at all functions; the one-eyed, the leprous, the eunuch, the skin-less, the hair-less,—these should never be mixed up at Śrāddha, with those versed in the Veda.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 119).—‘Perjuror, impotent, wife-controlled, dam-piercer, keeper of musical time, professional actor, teacher of false religion, professional beggar, who has incurred the liability of expiatory rites, roguish, foolhardy, fowler, gambler, atheist, back-biter, wicked, etc., etc.’

150 Manu has declared that those Brahmanas who are thieves, outcasts, eunuchs, or atheists are unworthy (to partake) of oblations to the gods and manes.

One should not feed, at a Śrāddha, one with braided hair, who is not learned, one who is hairless, the gambler, and those who sacrifice for hosts.—(151)

जटिलो ब्रह्मचारी, तस्य ह्य् अयं केशविशेषः पाक्षिको विहितो “मुण्डो वा जटिलो वा स्यात्” (म्ध् २.२१९) इति । उपलक्षणं च जटा ब्रह्मचारिणस् ततो मुण्डो ऽपि प्रतिषिध्यते । तस्य चानधीयानस्य प्रतिषेधः ।

• ननु “श्रोत्रियायैव देयानि” (म्ध् ३.११८) इति चानधीयानस्य प्राप्तिर् एव नास्ति ।

• प्रक्रान्ताध्ययनः अनधीतवेदः अगृहीतवेदश् चेत्⁴⁸ प्राप्नुयात् ।

• ननु च “वेदपारगः” (म्ध् ३.१३५) इति वचनात् कुतः प्रक्रान्ताध्ययनस्य प्राप्तिः ।

• एवं तर्हि अधीतवेदो ऽप्य् अस्वीकृतवेदो ऽनधीयानो ऽभिप्रेतः । “व्रतस्थम् अपि दौहित्रम्”⁴⁹ (म्ध् ३.२२४) इत्य् अनेन वा दौहित्रतैवात्र⁵⁰ नाध्ययनम् इति कश्चिन् मन्येत तदर्थम् इदम् । अनधीयानस्य प्रतिषेधाद् विदुषस् तस्याधिकारो ऽस्तीत्य् अवगम्यते ।

• दुर्वालः स्खलितलोहितकेशो विकलेन्द्रियो⁵¹ वा । तस्य हि⁵² निर्वचनं कुर्वन्ति । दूर्वया⁵³ शाद्वलेनाप्य् अलं तस्य वासो भवतीति । स हि दूर्वयैव प्राव्रियते लज्जया च वाससाम् अभावे तावन्मात्रेणाप्य् अपिदधाति⁵⁴ शेफम् । कितवो द्यूतकारः । याजयन्ति च ये पूगान् संघान् । व्रात्यस्तोमादिभिर् व्रात्यानां हि संहितानां यागो विहितः । प्रतिषिद्धं च तद् याजनं “व्रात्यानां याजनं कृत्वा” (म्ध् ११.१९६) इति । वयं ब्रूमः । यः क्रमशः प्रत्येकम् अपि बहून् याजयति बहुकृत्व आर्त्विज्यं करोति, सो ऽपि न भोज्यः । तथ् च वसिष्ठः- “यश् चापि बहुयाज्यः स्याद् यश् चोपनयते बहून्” (वध् १४.१७) इति ।

• केचिद् आहुः- श्राद्धग्रहणात् पित्र्य एवैषां प्रतिषेधो न तु दैवे।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । तद् अपि श्राद्धाङ्गम् एव श्राद्धशब्देन युक्तं वक्तुम् ॥ ३.१४१ ॥

‘One with braided hair’—i.e., the Student; this arrangement of the hair has been laid down as an optional alternative for him—‘he should either shave his head or wear his hair in braids’ (2-219); the ‘braided hair’ is mentioned here only as an indicative of the Student; hence the present verse includes also that student who may have shaved his head. And the student whose feeding is prohibited here is only one who is not studying.

“In view of what has been said above in regard to the propriety of feeding one who is learned in the Veda (128), there can be no possibility of anyone feeding a man who is not studying (why then should his feeding be specially prohibited?)”

The prohibition is necessary, as otherwise one might feed the student who began his study, but did not carry it on and did not learn the Veda.

“But it has been said above (145) that one should feed him who is ‘thoroughly versed in the Veda;’ where, then, could there be any possibility of the admission of one who had only made a beginning of study?”

In that case, we shall take the prohibition as applying to that student who may have read through the Veda, without having made it all his own.

Or, the phrase ‘who is not learned’ may be taken as added to guard against the contingency that, on the strength of what is said (in 3, 234) regarding the propriety of feeding the daughter’s son, even though he he still in the state of studentship, some people might be led to think the only necessary qualification consisted in the person invited being the ‘daughter’s son,’ and ‘learning’ was not an essential condition at all. And when the student¹ who is not studying’ becomes precluded, it naturally follows that the student who is studying is entitled to be fed.

‘Durrāla;’—this term may mean either one whose hair have fallen off, or one who is red-haired, or one who is without hair in his private parts. In this sense, they explain the etymology of the word as follows:—‘mere grass suffices for his clothing, he is covered by mere grass, having no clothing, ho hides his private parts with mere grass,’

^(‘)Gambler’— who is addicted to gambling.

^(‘)Who sacrifice for hosts’— for groups of men. The collective performance of the I Vrātyastoma for a number of Vrātyas has been prescribed: and officiating at such sacrifices has been prohibited under II. 197.

Our explanation, however, is that the phrase applies to one who may sacrifice, even by turns, for many persons:—i.e., who undertakes service as priest very frequently:—such a person also shall not be fed. Says Vaśiṣṭha—‘He who sacrifices for many men, and he who initiates many persons.’

Some people hold that, since the present verse specifies the^(‘)Śrāddha,’ the interdict herein contained pertains only to rites in honour of the Pitṛs, not to those in honour of the gods.

This, however, is not right. Because the rites in honour of the gods (Viśvedevas) are also a part of the ‘Śrāddha,’ which latter term therefore can be used in connection with these also.—(151)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which adds (on p. 688) the notes that—‘Jaṭila’ means the

Student, who is qualified by the adjective ‘anadhīyānaḥ’, so that the person precluded is the Student who is not reading,—one who is reading being regarded as fit to be invited, the unreading Student could not be included under the term ‘not learned in the Veda,’ as there is every likelihood of people falling into the mistake that even though not reading, the Student deserves to be invited;—the ‘Durvāla’ is one who is ‘bald’, or ‘tawny-haired’;—the ‘Kitava’ is ‘one addicted to gambling’;—the ‘Pūgayājaka’ is ‘one who sacrifices for hosts.’—It goes on to add that the addition of the term ‘Śrāddha’ indicates that the persons here enumerated are to be excluded from invitation only at Śrāddhas, and not from the rites performed in honour of the gods; otherwise the addition would be superfluous.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 450), which explains ‘jaṭilam’ as ‘the Brahmacārī,’ and ‘durbāla’ as ‘khalatiḥ;’—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 480);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

‘Jaṭilam ca anadhīyānam’—Medhātithi takes ‘anadhīyānam’ as qualifying ‘jaṭilam’, explaining the two together as ‘the Student who is not learned; i.e., who began the study, hut did not complete it’;—Kullūka also takes the two together; but explains ‘anadhīyānam’ as ‘one who has only had his Upanayana performed, but has not been taught the Veda’; and adds that ‘this implies that one may invite that Student who is still studying the Veda, though he may not have mastered it.’

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

151 Let him not entertain at a Sraddha one who wears his hair in braids (a student), one who has not studied (the Veda), one afflicted with a skin-disease, a gambler, nor those who sacrifice for a multitude (of sacrificers).

Healers, temple-attendants, meat-sellers and those living by trade,—these should be avoided at rites performed in honour of gods and Pitṛs.—(152)

भिषजः चिकित्सकाः । देवलकाः प्रतिमापरिचारकाः । आजीवनसंबन्धेनैतौ प्रतिषिध्येते । धर्मार्थत्वे तु चिकित्सकदेवकत्वयोर् अदोषः । मांसविक्रयिणः सौनिकाः । द्वितीयान्तपाठे पूर्वश्लोकाद् आख्यातानुषङ्गः । विपणेन जीवन्तः प्रतिषिद्धेन पणेन । प्रतिषिद्धाः पणा⁵⁵ दशमाध्याये वक्ष्यन्ते । तेन ये जीवन्ति ते वर्ज्याः उभयत्र । मांसविक्रयिणस् तु धर्मार्थम् अपि निषिध्यन्ते । यस्य केनचिन् मांसम् उपहृतम्, अन्यस्य च तेनार्थः, उपहृतमांसस्य घृतेन होमोपयोगिना, “स मांसं घृतेन विनिर्मिमीते,” भवत्य् असौ धर्मार्थो विनिमयः । विक्रयशब्दवाच्यता विनिमयस्यापि भवतीत्य् अत ईदृशा धर्मार्थमांसविकयिणो ऽपि प्रतिषिध्यन्ते ॥ ३.१४२ ॥

‘Healers physicians.

^(‘)Temple-attendants’—those who attend upon idols.

These two are prohibited only as means of living. Healing and serving idols, when done entirely with a righteous motive (and not as a means of living), are not reprehensible.

‘Meat-sellers’—Butchers.

If we read these words with the Accusative ending, then they have to be construed with the verb of the preceding verse.

‘Those living by trade’—i.e., by improper trade; improper merchandise shall be described under Discourse 10,—those who live by such trade.

‘Should be avoided’—at both kinds of rites.

Meat-selling is reprehensible, even when done with a righteous motive. For instance, when one man has got meat and another man has need for it;—the former man who has got the meat stands in need of butter for oblations; and he exchanges his meat with the other man’s butter; this exchange is done ‘with a righteous motive,’ and exchange also is called ‘selling;’ hence those also become excluded who do such meat-selling, even with a righteous motive.—(152)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which omits the second half of this and the whole of the next verse, though continuing with verse 154;—the whole verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 560);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 480).

Parāśaramādhava (on p. 689) adds the notes that the ‘chikitsaka’ is ‘one who administers medicine either gratuitously or by way of living,’—this work being specially forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa,—the ‘Devalaka’ is ‘one who, for three years, worships the gods as a means of making money,’ such being the definition provided by a text quoted from Devala,—the ‘Māṃsavikrayī’ intended to be excluded is one who sells meat, even in abnormal times of distress,—because as regards normal times, living by any kind of trade is forbidden by the next phrase, which prohibition does not apply to abnormal times, during which the ‘livelihood of the Vaiśya’ has been permitted for the Brāhmaṇa.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 450), which explains that the ‘Chikitsaka’ means one who makes a living by administering medicines, not one who does it by way of charity;—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

152 Physicians, temple-priests, sellers of meat, and those who subsist by shop-keeping must be avoided at sacrifices offered to the gods and to the manes.

The servant of a village and of the king, one with deformed nails, one with black teeth, the opposer of his superior, one who has forsaken the Fire and the usurer.—(153)

प्रेष्य आज्ञाकरः । ग्रामेण यो यत्र कुत्रचित् कार्येण प्रेष्यते । एवं राजप्रेष्यः । कुनखी श्यावदन्तकः । प्रतिरोद्धा गुरोर् वाग्व्यवहारे ऽन्यत्र च यो गुरोः प्रतिबन्धे प्रातिकूल्ये च वर्तते । त्यक्ताग्निस् त्रेतावसथ्ययोर् अन्यतरस्यापि । वार्धुषिः सत्य् अन्यस्मिन् जीविकोपाये वृद्धिजीविकः ।

• वृद्धिस् तु योक्ता धान्यानां वार्धुषित्वं तद् उच्यते ।

• इति यत् स्मरणं तत् स्वप्रक्रियायाम् एव । वैयाकरणा हि वृद्धिजीविनो धान्याद् अन्यत्रापि वार्धुषिकशब्दं स्मरन्ति । ते च शब्दार्थस्मरणे प्रमाणतरा अभियोगवशात् ॥ ३.१४३ ॥

‘Servant’—one who carries out orders: one who is sent by the village-people hither and thither, on business.

Similarly, ‘the servant of the king,’ ‘one who hew deformed nail,’ ‘one who has black teeth.’

‘Opposer of his teacher’— he who, in conversation and other things, remains against and in opposition to his superior.

‘One who has forsaken the Fire’—i.e., out of the Three Fires and the Domestic Fire, one who has given up even one,

‘Usurer’—one who, even though he has other menus of living available, lives upon interest. Though ‘Usury’ has been defined as ‘the accumulating of grains by interest,’ yet this definition can be accepted as authoritative only within the limited scope of the subject dealt with by the Smṛti in which it occurs; in fact, grammarians apply the term ‘usurer’ to persons making a living by interest, in connection with things other than grains also: and, in the matter of words and their meanings, grammarians are more authoritative than others; because they make these the subject of careful study.—(153)

It is interesting to note that this verse is omitted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 687) and Madanapārijāta (p. 560), though both quote the preceding and the following verses. But the former includes it in the explanations given later on (on p. 690), where the term ‘tyaktāgnim’ is explained as ‘one who abandons the Śrauta and Smārta fires without any reason for giving up the compulsory duties,’—‘vārdhuṣin’ is explained as ‘one who borrows money at a cheap rate and lends it at a higher rate of interest’

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha p. 9a);—and in Śrāddha-kriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘guroḥ pratiroddhā’ as ‘one who behaves disagreeably to the Teacher,’ and ‘vārdhuṣī’ as ‘one who lives by lending money on interest’

(verses 3.150-166)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

153 A paid servant of a village or of a king, man with deformed nails or black teeth, one who opposes his teacher, one who has forsaken the sacred fire, and a usurer;

The invalid, the cattle-tender, one who has superseded h is elder brother, he who neglects the Great Sacrifices, one who is inimical to Brāhmaṇas, he who has been superseded by his younger brother, and one who is member of a company.—(154)

यक्ष्मी व्याधितः । राजयक्ष्मगृहीत इत्य् अन्ये । पशुपालः यष्टिहस्तस् तद्वृत्तिजीवनः ।

• निराकृतिः सत्य् अधिकारे महायज्ञानुष्ठानरहितः । अद्यत्वे ऽप्य् अनुपजीव्यः अनद्धा निराकृतिर् उच्यते । एवं हि शतपथे- “यो न देवान् अर्चति न पितॄन् न मनुष्यान्” (श्ब् ६.३.१.२४) इति । यैस् तु पठ्यते- “अस्वाध्यायश्रुतधनैर् निराकृतिर् उदात्दृतः” इति, न ते शब्दार्थसंबन्धविदः । तस्येहाप्राप्तिर्⁵⁶ एव, श्रोत्रियनियमात् । निराकर्ता देवादीनां निराकृतिर् इति धात्वर्थानुगमो ऽस्ति । धर्मधर्मिणोश् चाभेदविवक्षायां क्तिनापि⁵⁷ प्रयोग उपपन्न इति । निपूर्वो ऽयं धातुर् अपवर्जने वर्तते । निराकृता अपवर्जिता उच्यन्ते- भोजनान् निराकृता, अधिकारान् निराकृता इति । अवर्जनं चाकृतिः सा निर्गतास्माद् इति निराकृतिः । संस्थानं चाकृतिस् तथा च कुत्सायां निर्द्रष्टव्यो दुराक्र्तिर् निषिध्यते । आह च “वाग्रूपवयःशीलसंपन्नः” (ग्ध् १५.९) । वाक्संपन्नो वाग्मी पटुवागिन्द्रियश् च । बहुजिह्वो न भोज्याः । रूपसंपन्नो मनोहरावयवसंनिवेशः । वयःसंपन्नः⁵⁸ । “युवभ्यो दानं प्रथमं प्रतिवयस इत्य् एके” (ग्ध् १५.१०–११) इति । संज्ञाशब्दो वायं क्तिजन्तः ।

• ब्रह्मद्विट् ब्राह्मणानां वेदस्य वा द्वेष्टा, ब्रह्मशब्दस्योभयार्थवाचित्वात्- “ब्रह्मज्ञो ब्राह्मणः स्मृतः” इति । गणः सङ्घः । सहैकया क्रियया जीवन्ति ये ते गणशब्दवाच्यास् तदर्तर्गताश् चातुर्विद्यब्राह्मणाः । परिवेत्तृपरिवित्ती वक्ष्यमाणस्वरूपौ ॥ ३.१४४ ॥

The term ‘yakṣmī’ stands here for the invalid in general. Some peope take it as standing for one suffering from consumption.

‘Cattle-tender’— he who, stick in hand, tends cattle as a profession.

‘Nirākṛti,’ ‘who neglects the Great Sacrifices,’—one who, though entitled to perform the Great Sacrifices, fails, to perform them. Even now-a-days, one who fails to perform the Great Sacrifices, and is, on that account, regarded as incapable of being served,’ is called ‘Nirākṛti.’ Thus we read in the Śatapatha—‘ one who worships neither gods, nor ancestors nor men.’

Some people quote the definition that—‘the man devoid of Vedic study, learning and wealth is called Nirākṛti;’ but these people are ignorant of the right meaning of words; because the person mentioned in this definition can have no connection with the present context, which deals exclusively with ‘persons learned in the Veda.’ If the term ‘Nirākṛti’ is taken iii the sense of ‘the derider, Nirākartā, of gods, etc.,’ then there is. some compatibility with the literal signification of the root; and even though the term ends with the abstract affix, ‘ktin,’ and as such is an abstract noun denoting a quality, yet its use in the sense of the person having that quality may be justified on the principle that there is no difference between the quality and one possessing the quality.

Then again, the root in the term ‘Nirākṛti,’ when preceded by ‘ni,’ signifies exclusion: people who are excluded are said to be ‘Nirākṛta;’ as we find in such expressions as ‘Nirākṛta, excluded, from dinner,’ ‘Nirākṛta, excluded, from title,’ and so forth. Thus non-exclusion would be ‘ākrti,’ ‘invitation;’ and one from whom this has been set aside, would be ‘Nirākṛti.’

Further, ‘ākṛti’ also means configuration; the prefix ‘ni’ having the sense of reprehensibilty, the term may be taken as excluding the ill-figured person. It has been declared that (one should feed) ‘one who is endowed with speech, beauty, age and diameter:’ here ‘endowed with speech’ means eloquent, of powerful speech; but the man who is garrulous should not be fed; ‘endowed with beauty’ means having a beautiful body and limbs; ‘endowed with age’ means what Gautama (15.10) has said in regard to ‘the feeding of older men before youths,’

Lastly, the term ‘Nirākṛti’ may be taken as ending in ‘ktich,’ and being a proper name,

‘One who is inimical to Brahman’—one who hates Brāhmaṇas, or the Veda; the term ‘Brahman’ denoting both (Brāhmaṇa and Veda); when, for instance, it is said that ‘the Brāhmaṇa also is called Brahman.’

‘Company’—corporation; those, who subsist conjointly upon one means of livelihood, are spoken of by the name ‘com pany;’ and those Brāhmaṇas who are members of such a company.

‘One who has superseded his elder brother’ and ‘one who has been superseded by his younger brother’—these are going to be described later on.—(154)

‘Yakṣmī’—‘Invalid in general, or (according to ‘others’) one suffering from consumption’ (Medhātithi, who has favoured the latter explanation on p. 159 of the text).

‘Nirākṛtiḥ’—‘One who omits the Great Sacrifices, even though entitled to their performance’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘one who forsakes the Vedas’ (Govindarāja);—‘one who does not recite the Veda, or has forgotten it’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

‘Gaṇābhyantaraḥ’—‘A member of a corporation of men subsisting conjointly upon one means of livelihood’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa);—‘the headman of a village, or leader of a caravan’ (added by Nārāyaṇa);—‘one who misappropriates the money of a corporation’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 560), which explains ‘paśupālaḥ’ as ‘one who tends cattle as a means of living’,—‘Nirākṛtiḥ’ as ‘atheist,’—and ‘gaṇābhyantaraḥ’ as ‘a Brāhmaṇa who is a member of a Maṭha, a religious corporation.’

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which adds (on p. 690) the following notes:—The ‘yakṣmī’ is the ‘consumptive’;—the ‘cattle-tender’ meant to be excluded is one who does the work even in normal times,—the ‘parivettā’ is the younger brother who takes a wife or sets up the fire, before his elder brother; and ‘Parivitti’ is the elder brother thus superseded,—the ‘elder brother’ here meant being the ‘uterine brother’, as there is nothing wrong in the ‘superseding’ of other kinds of brothers; though, under certain circumstances, the ‘superseding’ of the elder uterine brother also is not considered wrong; e. g., when the brother happens to be impotent, or away in foreign lands, or become an outcaste, or turn an ascetic, or entirely given to yogic practices, and as such has renounced the world, and so forth;—the ‘nirākṛti’ is one who, having read the Veda, has forgotten it’;—and the ‘gaṇābhyantara’ is ‘one who is a member of a group of men belonging to various castes and engaged in uncertain ways of living.’

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘yakṣmī’ as ‘one suffering from consumption’ and ‘nirākṛtiḥ’ as ‘one who does not perform the Five Daily Sacrifices,’—and ‘gaṇābhyantaraḥ’ as ‘one who makes a living by a temple dedicated to the public.’

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

154 One suffering from consumption, one who subsists by tending cattle, a younger brother who marries or kindles the sacred fire before the elder, one who neglects the five great sacrifices, an enemy of the Brahmana race, an elder brother who marries or kindles the sacred fire after the younger, and one who belongs to a company or corporation,

An actor, one who has broken the vows of continence, the husband of a Śūdra woman, the son of a re-married woman, one who has only one eye, and he in whose house lives the paramour.—(155)

चारणनटनर्तकगायनादयः कुशीलवाः । अवकीर्णी विप्लुतब्रह्मचर्यः । वृषली शूद्रा तस्याः पतिः । असत्याम् अन्यस्यां⁵⁹ च मन्यन्ते । वृषल्या एव च यः पतिः, यस्य द्विजातिभार्या नास्ति ।

• कुत एतत् ।

• प्रकरणान्तरे विगर्हिताचारसंग्रहं श्रूयते “एतान् विगर्हिताचारान्” (म्ध् ३.१५७) इति । शूद्राविवाहश् च सर्वेषाम् अनुज्ञातत्वात्, न गर्हितः । स च कृतसजातीयापरिणयनस्यानुज्ञातः । अतो ऽसत्यां सजातीयायां वृषल्या भर्ता प्रतिषिध्यते अत्र ।

• पौनर्भवः । पुनर्भूः पुनरूढा⁶⁰ । वक्ष्यति नवमे ऽध्याये “पत्या वा परित्यक्ता” (म्ध् ९.१७५) इति । काण एकेनाक्ष्णा विकलः । यस्य च उपपतिर् जायाजारो ऽवस्थितायां भार्यायाम् अस्ति । उपेक्षया निन्द्यते । तद् उक्तं “अन्नादे भ्रूणहा मार्ष्टि पत्यौ भार्यापचारिणी” (म्ध् ८.३१७) इति ॥ ३.१४५ ॥

Bards, dramatic performers, dancers and singers are called ‘actors.’

‘One who has broken the vows of continence’—necessary for the student.

The term ‘vṛṣalī’ stands for the śūdra woman; her ‘husband.’ People think that this refers to a case where there is no other wife; the meaning being ‘he who is the husband of the Śūdra woman alone, he who has no wife of any twice-born caste.’

“Whence is this sense got at?”

In another connection, we find a recapitulation of reprehensible practices, where we read—‘these are men addicted to reprehensible practices’ (167); the mere marrying of a Śūdra woman, which is sanctioned by all, is not ‘reprehensible;’ but it has been sanctioned only for one who has already married a wife of the same caste as himself. Hence, what is excluded here is that husband of the Śūdra woman who has no wife of the same caste as himself.

‘The son of a re-married woman;’—‘punarbhūḥ’ is the remarried woman; described under Discourse 9, in the verse ‘she who has been abandoned by her husband, etc.’ (9.175).

‘Who has only one eye’—whose one eye is maimed.

‘He in whose house lives the paramour,’—i.e., the paramour of his lawfully wedded wife. Such a man is despised by reason of his tolerating such a thing. It is said below (8.317)—‘The abortionist transmits bis guilt to him who feeds him, and the misbehaved wife transmits hers to her husband.’—(155)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which (on p. 693) adds the following notes:—‘Kuśīlava’ stands for ‘singers and others,’—‘Vṛṣalīpati’ is ‘the husband of a girl who attained puberty before marriage;’—that person also is to be excluded in whose house a paramour of his wife’s lives constantly;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘Kuśīlavaḥ’ as ‘dancer’.

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

155 An actor or singer, one who has broken the vow of studentship, one whose (only or first) wife is a Sudra female, the son of a remarried woman, a one-eyed man, and he in whose house a paramour of his wife (resides);

One who teaches for a stipulated fee, he who is taught by one who teaches for a stipulated fee, the pupil and also the teacher of a Śūdra, one who is reprehensible in speech, the son of an adulteress and the son of a widow.—(156)

भृतकाध्यापकः भृतकः सन् यो स्थितो ऽध्यापकः । भृतक इति “यदीयद् ददासि वेदम् अध्यापयामि” इति यः प्रवर्तते पणेन स भृतकाध्यापकः । एषा हि भृतिः प्रसिद्धा कायवाहादिषु । यस् त्व् “इयता धनेनेयद् अध्यापयामि “इति न निश्चित्य वचनव्यवस्थया, पूर्वम् अध्यापयति लभते चाध्यापनार्थम्, नासौ भृतकाध्यापकः । अनिरूपितपरिमाणपूर्वे चार्थदाने⁶¹ विहितम् अध्यापनम् ।

• एवं भृतकाध्यापितः । यो व्युत्पन्नबुद्धिः⁶² सत्यकामवत् स्वयं भृतिं दत्वाधीते स एवम् उच्यते । यस् तु पित्रादिना भृतिं दत्वा उपाध्यायान्तराभावे ऽध्याप्यते न तस्य विगर्हिताचारत्वम् । बालो हि पित्रा प्रतिषिद्धेभ्यो निवर्तनीयः । एतद् उक्तम् “गुरौ शिष्यश् च याज्यश् च” (म्ध् ८.३१७) इति ।

• शूद्रस्य शिष्यो व्याकरणादिविद्यासु गुरुश् च शूद्रस्यैव । उपसर्जनीभूतस्यापि संबन्धः, स्मृतिशास्त्रत्वात्, विगर्हिताचारत्वस्य सर्वशेषत्वात् । शूद्रगुरुत्वं च गर्हितं नान्यत् । वाचा दुष्टः परुषानृतभाषी । अभिशस्त इत्य् अन्ये । कुण्डगोलकौ वक्ष्यमाणौ ॥ ३.१४६ ॥

‘One who teaches for a stipulated fee’— one who teaches only while be is engaged on a fee; one who undertakes the work of teaching after having made the stipulation that ‘if you pay me so much, I shall teach you the Veda,’ is called ‘one who teaches for a stipulated fee.’ Such is the form of payment known among bearers and others. If, however, without having verbally stipulated that one would receive a certain amount of money, one does the work of teaching and receives payment afterwards, then such a teacher is not ‘one who teaches for a stipulated fee.’ In fact, teaching in return for payment of an amount not previously stipulated, has been actually sanctioned.

Similarly, ‘one who is taught by one who teaches for a stipulated fee;’ this is the name given to one who himself, like Satyakāma, pays a stipulated fee and then reads with the teacher. The boy, however, who, in the absence of any other teacher, is put by his father and others under the tuition of one who is paid a stipulated fee, is not regarded as ‘of reprehensible practice.’ Because it is for the father to save the boy from all that is prohibited. It has been declared (in 8.317)—‘The pupil and the sacrificer transmit their guilt to the Teacher.’

‘The pupil of a Śūdra’— in the learning of Grammar and other Sciences.

‘Teacher’—of the Śūdra, Though the term ‘śūdra,’ forms the subordinate factor in the compound ‘śūdraśiṣya,’ yet it is construed with the following word; such construction being permissible in works on Smṛti. Then again, the condition of being ‘reprehensible practice’ is a qualification that governs all that is said here, and it is only the teaching of the Śūdra. that is reprehensible, not the teaching of any other higher caste.

‘Reprehensible in speech’—i.e., rude and untruthful of speech. Others explain this to mean ‘one who is accused of a serious offence.’

‘The son of an adulteress and the son of a widow’—to be described later on (174),—(156).

‘Vāgduṣṭaḥ’—‘who speaks rudely and falsely’ (Medhātithi);—‘who speaks rudely’ (Kullūka);—‘one who is accused of a serious offence’ (‘others’ mentioned by Medhātithi, and Kullūka.)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which (on p. 693) adds that ‘vāgduṣṭa’ is ‘one of rude speech’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481);—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘guruḥ’ as ‘preceptor of the Śūdra,’ and ‘vāgduṣṭaḥ’ as ‘of harsh speech’;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

156 He who teaches for a stipulated fee and he who is taught on that condition, he who instructs Sudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Sudra, he who speaks rudely, the son of an adulteress, and the son of a widow,

The forsaker, without cause, of his mother, father and superior; and he who has formed a connection, through the relationship of either Veda or marriage, with outcasts.—(157)

असति कारणे यः परित्यजति मातरं पितरं आचार्यं च । गुरुशब्दः सामान्यशब्दत्वाद् उपाध्याये ऽपि प्रवर्तते ।

• यत् तु तथा सति मातापितृग्रहणं न कर्तव्यं स्यात्, गुरुत्वाद् एव सिद्धेर् अत आचार्य एवेह गुरुर् इति व्याचक्षते ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । असति मातापितृग्रहणे गुरुशब्दः पितर्य् एव कृत्रिमाकृत्रिमन्यायेन प्रवर्तते । पृथगुपादाने तु शास्त्रान्तरवद् आचार्यः श्रेष्ठो गुरूणाम् इति सामान्यशब्दता सिद्धा भवति ।

• परित्यागकारणं च “त्यजेत् पितरं राजघातकम्” (ग्ध् २०.१) इत्यादि । मातापित्रोः परित्यागस् तत्पादसेवादेः शुश्रूषायाः अकरणम्, तदाराधने अतत्परत्वम् । गुरोर् एवम् एव । अध्यापनसमर्थे ऽध्यापयितरि च तत्त्यागेनान्यत्राध्ययनम् ।

• पतितैः संयोगं गतः संबन्धं कृतवान् । ब्राह्मैर् याजनाध्यापनाधिभिर् यौनैः कन्यादादिभिः ।

• ननु च पतितत्वाद् एवासौ वर्यः ।

• केचिद् आहुः-“संवत्सरेण पतति पतितेन सहाचरन्” (म्ध् ११.१७९) नार्वाग् अयं प्रतिषेधः ।

• अथ केयं वाचो युक्तिः संबन्धसंयोगं गत इति ।

• नात्र संबन्धशब्दो वैशेषिकादिप्रसिद्ध्या संयोगादिवचनः, किं तर्हि क्रियैवात्र संबन्धहेतुत्वात् संबन्धशबेनोच्यते । याजनादिलक्षणे संयोगशब्दश् च संबन्धमात्रम् उपलक्षयति ॥ ३.१४७ ॥

He who, in the absence of any cause, forsakes his Mother, Father and Preceptor. The term ‘guru,’ ‘superior’ here being used in its general sense, includes the Teacher also.

Some people argue that—“in that case (if ‘guru ’ stands for the superior in general), the Father and the Mother need not have been mentioned, these also being included under the term ‘guru; for this reason, this term ‘guru’ should be taken as standing for the Preceptor only.”

This, however, is not right. If the ‘father’ and ‘mother’ wore not specifically mentioned, then the term ‘superior’ would stand for the father only, by the law of the ‘natural and artificial’ [i.e., where both are possible, the natural one is to be given the preference, and the Father is the natural superior, while the Teacher is only an artificial one]. When, however, these two are mentioned separately, then it becomes clear that the term ‘superior’ has been used in its most general sense; specially in view of what other scriptures have said regarding the Teacher being ‘the best of superiors.’

Reasons for forsaking these superiors are such as are mentioned in the text—‘one should forsake one’s father, if one has injured the king,’ and so forth.

The ‘forsaking’ of one’s parents means omitting to wash and shampoo their feet and to do such other services, i.e., being inattentive to their service. Similarly, with the Teacher, in whose case going for study to another teacher, while one’s teacher is capable of teaching one, also constitutes ‘forsaking.’

‘Who has formed connection with outcasts’—i.e., established relationship with them.

‘Through the Veda’—i.e., by officiating at their sacrifices, by teaching them, and so forth.

‘Through marriage,’—i.e., by giving his daughter in marriage to them, and so forth.

“The man who forms such connection, would himself become an outcast; and it would he as an outcast himself that he would be avoided at rites.”

In answer to this, some people say, in view of what is said below (290) regarding a man becoming an¹ outcast’ by associating with outcasts for one gear, that the present prohibition should be taken as pertaining to the time before the lapse of the twelve months.

“What is this peculiar form of expression—formed a connection through relationship?’”

As a matter of fact, the term ‘samyoga,’ ‘connection’ is not used here in the sense of ‘conjunction,’ according to the usage of the Vaiśeṣikas; it is the act itself that is called ‘connection,’ by reason of its being the cause of connection. In connection with the acts of ‘officiating at sacrifices’ and the like, the term ‘connection’ indicates and stands for mere relationship in general.—(157)

‘Guroḥ’—‘The Upādhyāya’, Sub-teacher (Medhātithi);—‘the Ācārya Teacher (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687), which (on p. 693) adds that the person meant to be excluded by the second half of the verse is the person who contracts the said alliances with one associating with a person who has committed a heinous crime,—and not with the latter person himself, as such a relation of the ‘heinous criminal’ would be an ‘outcaste’ himself, and hence liable to be excluded as such;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

157 He who forsakes his mother, his father, or a teacher without a (sufficient) reason, he who has contracted an alliance with outcasts either through the Veda or through a marriage,

The house-burner, the poisoner, one who eats the food of an adulteress’ son, the seller of Soma, the sea-voyager, the bard, the dealer in oils, and the perjuror.—(158)

अगारस्य गृहस्य दग्धा । गरं ददातीति । प्रदर्शनार्थं च गरग्रहणं विषादीनाम् अपि । कुण्डस्य अन्नम् अश्नाति । एवं गोलकस्य, प्रदर्शनार्थत्वात् कुण्डस्य । सोमं विक्रीणीते । ओषधिः सोमस् तं यो विक्रीणीते, यागार्थम् औषधार्थं वा । अन्ये तु सोमसाधनान् ज्योतिष्टोमादियागान् आहुः । तेषां च विक्रयो यद्य् अपि न संभवति, अमूर्तत्वात् क्रियायास्, तथाप्य् अविदुषाम् एवंविधस्याचारस्य दर्शणाद् अयं प्रतिषेधः । दृश्यन्ते ह्य् अविद्वांस एवं वदन्तो “यन् मया सुकृतं कृतं तत् ते ऽस्तु” इति । सुकृतं सुकृतैः साधितं धर्मम्⁶³ । तथा च “यां च रात्रीम् अजायेथा यां च प्रेतासि तद् उभयम् अन्तरेणेष्टापूर्तं ते लोकं सुकृतम् आयुः प्रजां वृञ्जियं यदि मे द्रुह्युः” इति । यथैव शपथा एवं दानविक्रयाव् अपि वाचा यः करोति स वर्ज्यते । अकार्यता चात एव ईदृशानां शपथदानविक्रयादीनां वाचा क्रियमाणानाम् अनुमीयते । समुद्र उदधिस् तं यो याति । बन्दी स्तुतिपाठकः । तैलिकः तिलादीनां बीजानां पेष्टा । कूटकारकः साक्ष्येष्व् अनृतवादी ॥ ३.१४८ ॥

The burner of houses.

‘Garada’—one who gives to others the gara-poison; the mention of ‘gara’ is merely indicative; it includes all kinds of poison.

He who eats the food of the adulteress’ son; similarly, he who eats the food of the widow’s son; the former being meant to be purely indicative.

He who sells Soma; ‘Soma’ is a particular kind of herb; he who sells this herb, for use either at sacrifices or for medicine.

Others have explained the term ‘Soma’ (in the expression ‘seller of Soma’) to mean the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices performed with the Soma. Though the actual ‘selling’of these sacrifices is not possible,—because an act is purely incorporeal,—yet, as a matter of fact, the practice of ‘selling’ sacrifices is found to be current among illiterate people; hence the present prohibition. Illiterate people are found making such assertions in oath as—(a) ‘whatever good I have done, may be yours’ (where they mean to transfer the merit acquired by their good deeds), and (b) ‘that night in which you were born and that in which you are dying, leaving these two, all your charities and performances, all your good deeds, your life and offspring I might destroy, if they injure me’ (An oath). And just as they make use of such oaths, so also they practice the Giving and Selling (of acts) by means of words; and he who does this, is avoided (at Śrāddha -feedings). It is from this that we infer the impropriety of uttering such oaths and the doing of such verbal givings and sellings.

‘Sea-voyager’—one who goes out to the sea.

‘Bard’—one who sings the eulogia of men.

‘Dealer in oils’—one who presses sesamum and other oilseeds.

‘Perjuror’—one who tells a lie when giving evidence.—(158).

‘Agāradāhī’—‘An incendiary; as also (according to Nandana) one who burns corpses for money’.

‘Kuṇḍāśī’—‘One who eats the food of the son of an adultress’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka) ‘the glutton who eats sixty palas of rice’ (Nārāyaṇa).

‘Kūtakārakaḥ’—‘The perjuring witness’ (Medhātithi, Rāghavānanda and also Kullūka, whose explanation does not differ from Medhātithi’s as noted by Buhler);—Medhātithi explains the word as ‘Sākṣyeṣvanṛtavādī,’ and Kullūka as ‘Sākṣivāde mṛṣāvādasya-kartā’;—‘any one who commits fraud, i.e. a forger, a falsifier of weights and measures’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 687) without any comment;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

158 An incendiary, a prisoner, he who eats the food given by the son of an adulteress, a seller of Soma, he who undertakes voyages by sea, a bard, an oil-man, a suborner to perjury,

One quarrelling with one’s father, the keeper of a gambling house, the drunkard, one afflicted with a foul disease, one accused of sins, the hypocrite, and the dealer in essence.—(159)

पित्रा यो विवदते परुषं भाषते, राजकुले व्यवहरतीति पूर्वपक्षोत्तरपक्षभङ्ग्या भागादिनिमित्तम् । तथा च गौतमः- “पित्राकामेन विरक्तान्” इति (ग्ध् १५.१९) ।

• प्रतिरोद्धा गुरोर् इत्य् अनेनैतत् कथं पुनरुक्तम् उच्यते ।

• अन्यः प्रतिरोधः अन्यश् च विवादः । यत् किंचित् गुरोर् अभिप्रेतं वस्तु “कथम् इदं सिध्येत्” इति तत्र संबन्धकथनम्⁶⁴ प्रतिरोधः⁶⁵ । न्याय्ये ऽपि वस्तुनि तदिच्छाप्रतिघातः प्रतिरोद्धृत्वम् । प्रतिराद्धेति तत्र पाठान्तरम् । आभिमुख्येन हिंसिता हस्तादिना गुरोः प्रतिरोद्धा चपेटादिदानेन । अस्मिन् पक्षे स्थितम् अन्यत्वं विवादस्य ।

• कितवो द्यूतस्य कारयिता सभिकः । यस् तु स्वयंवेदिता स प्राग् एव निषिद्धः । “केकरम्” अन्ये पठन्ति, केकरो मद्यप इति । स च वलितप्रेक्षी अध्यर्धदृष्टिः । कातरम् अन्ये । स च शुकपक्षतारकः ।

• मद्यपः । सुराया अन्यस्यारिष्टादेर् मद्यस्य पाता सुरापः, पतितत्वेनैव निरस्तः ।

• पापरोगी कुष्ठी । स हि लोके ऽत्यन्तनिन्द्यः, पापरोगीत्य् अभिधातुं युक्तः । अस्माद् एव च प्रतिषेधात् यक्ष्मीत्य् अत्र न सर्वो व्याधिगृहीतो गृह्यते, कस् तर्हि, क्षयी । यदि हि सर्वो गृह्येत तेनैव सिद्धत्वात् पापरोगीति नाकरिष्यत् ।

• अभिशस्तः पातकोपपातकयोः कर्तेति लोके प्रसिद्धः, असत्य् अपि तत्कर्तृकत्वनिश्चये ।

• दाम्भिकः छद्मना धर्मं चरति⁶⁶ लोकपक्त्यर्थम्, न कर्तव्यम् इति कृत्वा करोति ।

• रसविक्रयी विषस्य विक्रेता । तस्य ह्य् एतद् अभिधानम् । “उपांशुभेदी रसदः,” “रसदः सत्त्री”⁶⁷ इत्यादि विषदो रसद उच्यते ॥ ३.१४९ ॥

He who quarrels with his father; i.e., talks rudely to him; and goes to court against him as party to a suit instituted for partition. Says Gautama (15-19)—‘Those who separate from their Father, without reason.’

Why should this be asserted here, which appears to be a repetition of what has been mentioned above (153) as the ‘opposer of his Teacher’?”

Opposing is one thing, and quarrelling is something different. When the superior wants a certain thing, if one were to say rudely, ‘How can this be got!,’—this is ‘opposing;’ so that one is an ‘opposer, by obstructing his acquisition of a thing that belongs to him. Further, under 153 ‘pratirāddhā’ is another reading (for ‘pratiroddhā’), which means ‘doing direct injury,’ i.e., striking the superior with slaps, &c. And with this reading what has gone before (in 153) is clearly different from the ‘quarrelling’ mentioned here.

‘Keeper of a gambling house’—the gamester who makes other people gamble; he who is himself a gambler has been already excluded before (in 151),

Some people read ‘Kekara’ (for ‘Kitava’), reading the text as ‘Kekaro madyapastathā;’ and ‘Kekara’ is the man with a squint.

Others, again, read ‘Kātara,’ which means ‘one, the pupils in whose eyes are like the parrot’s feather, green.’

‘Drunkard’—one who drinks wines of kinds other than the ‘Surā’ (wine distilled from grains); such, for instance, as the ‘Ariṣṭa,’ and the like;—the drinker of ‘Surā’ being already precluded as an ‘outcast.’

‘One afflicted with a fold disease’—i.e., the leper; he being very much despised among people, it is only right that he should be spoken of as ‘afflicted with a foul disease.’

It is on account of the present prohibition that the term yakṣmi (in 154) has been taken (by some people) not as the ‘invalid’ in general, but one who is suffering from consumption; if the ‘invalid’ in general were meant, then all invalids being included there, the author would not have mentioned ‘one afflicted with a foul disease’ in this verse.

‘Accused of sins.’—one who is known among people as having committed sins, great and small; even without its being known for a certain.

‘Hypocrite.’—one who deceitfully performs religious acts, with a view to gaining popularity, not because he thinks it his duty to do so.

‘Dealer in essence.’—i.e., the seller of poison; it is poison that is called ‘Essence.’ In several places, we find the poisoner spoken of as ‘rasadaḥ’ ‘giver of essence—(159)

‘Kitavaḥ’—‘The keeper of a gambling house’ (Medhātithi);—‘one who makes others play for himself’ (Govinda-

Medhātithi and Kullūka note the other reading ‘Keka raḥ’, explaining it as ‘squint-eyed’, and connecting it with the ‘drunkard.’

The translation on p. 183, ll. 1-3 should run as follows, and not as printed:—“Some people read ‘Kekaraḥ’ for ‘kitavaḥ’ and make it qualify ‘madyapaḥ’; the ‘kekara’ is ‘the man with a squint’.

‘Kātaraḥ’ is yet another reading noted by Medhātithi, who explains it as ‘one, the pupils in whose eyes are like the parrot’s feather, green’.

‘Rasavikrayī’—‘One who sells poison’ (Medhātithi);—‘one who sells substances used for flavouring food, e.g., sugarcane-juice and the like’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘the seller of molasses’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 087), which reads ‘Kekaraḥ’ and explains it as ‘squint-eyed’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha p. 9);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘kitavaḥ’ as ‘gambler’, and ‘rasavikrayī’ as ‘dealer in salt and such other articles’.

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

159 He who wrangles or goes to law with his father, the keeper of a gambling-house, a drunkard, he who is afflicted with a disease (in punishment of former) crimes, he who is accused of a mortal sin, a hypocrite, a seller of substances used for flavouring food,

The maker of bows and arrows, he whose wife dallies with another person and he who makes love to his brother’s widow, he who injures a friend, he who subsists by gambling and he who has his own son for his teacher.—(160)

धनुः शरांश् च यः शिल्पीव करोति । यश् चाग्रेदिधिषूपतिः । दिधिषूशब्दः काकाक्षिवद् उभयेन संबध्यते । स्मृतिशास्त्रत्वाच् चेदृशः संबन्धो लभ्यते । लेखालोष्ठादयो ऽपि स्मृत्यर्थं संकेत्यन्ते भवन्ति चार्थकराः । अत एतन् न वाच्यम् “कथम् एकशब्दः समासान्तर्गतो द्वाभ्यां भिन्नप्रस्थानाभ्याम् अभिसंबध्येत इति । गौतमेन हि द्वयं निषिद्धम् (ग्ध् १५.१६) । इहापि संबन्धभेदे लिङ्गम् । द्विपदः समासः । न ह्य् अग्रेदिधिषूपतिर् नाम कश्चिद् अस्ति । एतौ च वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणौ ।

• मित्रध्रुक् । मित्रं यो द्रुह्यति । मित्रस्य यः कार्योपघाते वर्तते ।⁶⁸ द्यूतवृत्तिर् द्यूतं⁶⁹ जीविका यस्य ।

• ननु च “कितवो मदयपः” इत्य् अत्रोक्तम् एव ।

• नावश्यं द्यूतवृत्तिर् एव द्यूतस्य प्रयोजकः, किं तर्हि यः स्वयं देवितुं न जानाति गुरुभयाद् वा न दीव्यति । व्यसनी तु देवैः शप्ततयान्यं देवयति । तदर्थो द्वितीयः कितवशब्दः । अथ वा अनृतश्तीका⁷⁰ द्यूतसभास्थाणवो द्यूतवृत्तयः ।

• पुत्र आचार्यो ऽध्यापको यस्य । मुख्यम् आचार्यत्वं न पुत्रे संभवति ॥ ३.१५० ॥

He who, as a professional artisan, makes bows and arrows.

‘Agredidhiṣūpatiḥ;’—the term ‘didhiṣū’ is connected both ways, like the single eye-ball of the crow operating in both sockets. Such a construction is permissible, because the text belongs to the category of a ‘snmṛti-śātra.’ Even (meaningless) lines and clods of earth are made to yield some meaning, in consideration of the requirements of Smṛtis; and they come out useful too. For this reason, the objection need not be raised as to how a single term occurring in the middle of a compound can be construed with two different terms. In fact. Gautama (15.16) has expressly prohibited both (The ‘agredidhiṣū’ and the ‘didhiṣūpati’), and this indicates the plausibility of the above construction; and the compound really contains two terms. Further, there is no such person as ‘agredidhiṣūpati.’ The definition of these two (‘agredidhiṣū and didhiṣūpatī’) will he supplied later on.

‘Who injures a friend’—who puts obstacles in a friend’s business.

‘Who subsists by gambling’—The man for whom gambling is the means of subsistence.

“Such a person has already been mentioned in the preceding verse.”

But the person who helps people to gamble (The ‘keeper of a gambling house, mentioned before) is not necessarily one who makes a living by it; in fact, it is one who himself does not know gambling, or who does not do it through fear of his elders; hut, being addicted to it as an amusement, he always makes others gamble; and it is for excluding this kind of man that we had the second ‘Kitava’ (in the preceding verse; the word ‘Kitava’ having been first included in verse 151).

Or, the term ‘dyūtavṛtti’ may stand for those who, without any money themselves, are constant dummy visitors at gambling places.

He whose son is his teacher; it is not possible for the son to be his father’s ‘ācārya’ in the real sense of this term.—(160)

‘Agredidhiṣūpatiḥ’—According to Medhātithi, this means (a) the ‘Didhiṣūpati’, i.e., one who makes love to his brother’s widow (according to 173 below)—and also (b) the ‘Agredidhisū’, i.e., the man whose wife dallies with another person (according to definition quoted by Medhātithi on 173). This interpretation is supported by Manu 3.173 (read with Prajāpati, quoted by Maskari Bhāṣya on Gautama sūtra 15.16), which adds to Manu 173, the further assertion saṃ caiva jīvato bhrātuḥ sa cāgredidhiṣūḥ samṛtaḥ, which would apply the name agredidhiṣū to that man whose wife dallies with his younger brother, during his own life-time. It may be remarked that Gautama (15.16) contains the compound agredidhiṣūpatididhiṣūpati; and it has been construed by the Maskari-bhāṣya to mean agredidhiṣū and didhiṣūpati (thus supporting Medhātithi); or (1) agredidhiṣūpati (husband of a girl who is married before her elder sister) and didhiṣūpati (husband of a girl whose younger sister is married before her).

Medhātithi does not resolve the compound, as Buhler puts it, into ‘agredidhiṣūpati’ and ‘didhiṣūpati’; in fact he actually denies that there is any such person as ‘agredidhiṣūpati’;—though it is difficult to see how this statement here by Medhātithi is to he reconciled with what he says under verse 173 below, that ‘the definition of Agredidhiṣūpati should be learnt from another Smṛti’,—and this definition is quoted as ‘if the brother is alive, the man is to be known as Agredidhiṣūpati; so that the Didhiṣūpati is the man making love to his dead brother’s wife’ (according to Manu 3.173), while Agredidhiṣūpati is one whose wife dallies with his younger brother during his own life-time.

Kullūka quotes Laugākṣi to the effect that ‘when the younger sister is married while the elder is still unmarried, the former is the Agredidhiṣū and the latter the didhiṣū’; and on the strength of this he would exclude ‘the husband of the younger sister marrying before her elder sister. But as rightly remarked by Buhler, this definition of Laugākṣi cannot be accepted in the interpretation of Manu who has himself (in verse 173) provided a totally different definition. It is interesting to note that the Maskaribhāṣya on Gautama (15.16) attributes to Manu the definition quoted by Kullūka as Laugākṣi’s.

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, which quotes this text of Manu on p. 688, and explains it on p. 693) cites the verse quoted by Kullūka (from Laugākṣi), but attributes it to Devala, and explains the term ‘agredidhiṣūpati’ in the same manner as Kullūka.

‘Dyūtavṛttiḥ’—‘He who makes a living by gambling’ (Medhātithi, who does not explain the term to mean ‘one who makes others play for his profit’; also Nārāyaṇa and Nandana);—‘the keeper of a gambling-house’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

‘Putrācāryaḥ’ is explained in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 694) as ‘akṣarapāṭhakaḥ’ the teacher of alphabets. So the status of the Primary School Teacher of ancient days was no better than that of their representatives at the present day!

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

160 A maker of bows and of arrows, he who lasciviously dallies with a brother’s widow, the betrayer of a friend, one who subsists by gambling, he who learns (the Veda) from his son,

An epileptic, one having a string of scrofulous swellings, one who suffers from leucoderma, the backbiter, the lunatic, the blind man, and the derider of the Veda—all these should be avoided.—(161)

व्याधिवेशेषवचा एते । भ्रामरी अपस्मारी । गण्डमाली कपोले कण्ठे पिटका मालाकारा जायन्ते । श्वित्री श्वेतकुष्ठः । पिशुनः परमर्मप्रकाशकः कर्णेजपः । उन्मत्तः अनवस्थितचित्तो धातुसंक्षोभेण⁷¹ पिशाचगृहीतः यत्किंचनवादी यत्किंचनकारी वा । अन्धः चक्षुर्विकलः । वेदनिन्दकः ।

• ननु च ब्रह्मद्विट्शब्देनैव ब्रह्मशब्दस्यानेकार्थकत्वात् वेदनिन्दको गृहीत एव ।

• नैवम् । अन्या निन्दा अन्यो द्विषः । चित्तधर्मो द्वेषः, तदुपर्यप्रीतिशब्देन कुत्सनं निन्दा ॥ ३.१५१ ॥

The words here used signify particular diseases.

‘Bhrāmarī’—is an epileptic.

‘Gaṇḍamāti’—on whose cheeks and throat there appear swellings in the form of a string.

‘Śvitra’—is white leprosy, leucoderma.

‘Piśuna,’ ‘backbiter,’ is one who betrays other people’s secrets, and accuses them on the sly.

‘Lunatic’—whose mind is unsettled, either when there is derangement of his humours or when he is obssessed by a ghost, and he says and does things at random.

‘Blind man’—who is without eyes.

‘Derider of the Veda’—“The derider of the Veda has been already mentioned before by the term ‘brahmadviṭ’ ‘who is inimical to Brahman,’ where the term ‘brahman’ has been explained as having several meanings (signifying the Brāhmaṇa as well as the Veda).”

Not so; deriding is something totally different from being inimical; being inimical is a property of the mind, while deriding is speaking ill, of one by words expressing disregard.—(161)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688), and on p. 694, the term ‘bhrāmarī’ is explained as ‘vṛttyarthameva bhramaravat arthārjakaḥ,’ ‘one who, for his living, picks up wealth from here, there and everywhere, like the black bee’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

161 An epileptic man, who suffers from scrofulous swellings of the glands, one afflicted with white leprosy, an informer, a madman, a blind man, and he who cavils at the Veda must (all) be avoided.

The tamer of elephants, bulls, horses or camels, one who subsists on stars, bird-keeper and the teacher of warfare.—(162)

हस्त्यादीनां विनेत दमकः,⁷² गतिशिक्षयिता । नक्षत्रैर् यश् च जीवति । नक्षत्रशब्देन ज्योतिःशास्त्रं लक्ष्यते, तेन जीवति ज्योतिषिकः । पक्षिणां श्येनादीनाम् आखेटार्थं पोषयिता । युद्धाचार्यो धनुर्वेदोपदेशकः ॥ ३.१५२ ॥

‘One who trains elephants,’ etc., is called their ‘tamer,’ he who trains them in various gaits.

‘One who subsists on stars,’—the term ‘stars’ stands for the science of Astrology; and he who lives by that is the astrologer.

The keeper of birds,—he who keeps them for the purposes of chase.

‘Teacher of warfare’—one who teaches the science of archery.—(162)

This verse is quoted without comment in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 481);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

162 A trainer of elephants, oxen, horses, or camels, he who subsists by astrology, a bird-fancier, and he who teaches the use of arms,

He who diverts water-courses, he who is addicted to obstructing them, the house-planner, the messenger and

स्रोतांसि उदकागमाः, तेषां भेदकः । सेतुं भित्त्वा देशान्तरे व्रीह्यादिसेकार्थं नयति । तेषां च स्रोतसाम् एव चावरणे⁷³ रतः । आवरणं आच्छादनम् । यतः प्रदेशाद् उदकम् उद्भवति तत् स्थगयति । गृहाणां संनिवेशोपदेशकः, वास्तुविद्याजीवी, स्थपतिः सूत्रधारादिः । न त्व् आत्मनो गृहाणां संनिवेशयिता । दूतो राज्ञः प्रेष्यो दासवद् विनियोज्यः । दूतस् तु संधिविग्रहादाव् एव प्रेष्यते । वृक्षान् रोपयति मूल्येन । धर्मार्थं तु न दोषः, अविगर्हिताचारत्वात् । विहितं वृक्षारोपणम् “दशाम्रवापी नरकं न याति” ॥ ३.१५३ ॥

‘Water-courses’—the sources of water;—‘he who diverts’ these; i.e., having cut the embankments, takes the water to irrigate his field, &c.

‘He who is addicted to obstructing them’—i.e, the water-courses.

‘Obstructing’ means covering up; hence the meaning is that^(‘)he who closes the source from which the water flows.’

The person who advises regarding the position of houses;—one who lives by the science of architecture; i.e., the architect, the mason, and so forth. One who plans his own houses is not meant here.

‘Messenger,’—the king’s servant; who is employed by him as a slave. He is one who is employed in business relating to peace and war.

He who plants trees for payment. Planting them as a righteous act is not reprehensible; because such an act would not be ‘reprehensible practice;’ in fact, the planting of trees has been actually enjoined, as we learn from such assertions as^(‘)he who has planted ten mango-trees goes not to hell.’—(163)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688), which explains (on p. 694) ‘gṛhasaṃveśakaḥ’ as ‘one who makes a living by carpentry’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 482);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 9a).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

163 He who diverts water-courses, and he who delights in obstructing them, an architect, a messenger, and he who plants trees (for money),

He who sports with dogs, the falconer, the defiler of virgins, the cruel man, he who derives his subsistence from Śūdras, and he who sacrifices to the Gaṇas.—(164)

श्वभिः क्रीडति श्वक्रीडी । क्रीडार्थं शुनो बिभर्ति । श्येनैर् जीवति क्रयविक्रयादिना । प्रागुक्तः⁷⁴ पक्षिणां पोषकः पञ्जरादिसंस्थितानां धारयिता । कन्याम् अकन्यां य करोति स कन्यादूषकः । हिंस्रः स्वभावक्रूरः वधरतः । वृषलवृत्तिः शूद्रेभ्यः सेवादिना यो जीवति । “वृषलपुत्रः” इति पाठान्तरम् । केवला एव वृषलाः पुत्रा यस्य । “शूद्रापत्यैश् च केवलैः” (म्ध् ३.६४) इति गर्हिताचारः । गणानां देवतायाजकः । गणयागाः प्रसिद्धाः ॥ ३.१५४ ॥

‘He who sports with dogs’—i.e., keeps dogs for sporting purposes.

‘Falconer’—he who lives on falcons,—i.e, by baying and selling them. The ‘bird-keeper’ mentioned before (162) is one who keeps them in cages.

He who makes a virgin cease to be a virgin is called ‘the defiler of virgins.’

The ‘cruel man’ is one who takes delight in killing animals.

He who derives subsistence from serving the Śūdras.

‘Vṛṣalaputraḥ’ is another reading (for ‘vṛṣalavṛttiḥ’), which means ‘he who has only Śūdra children;’ ‘having only Śūdra children’ being a ‘reprehensible act.’

He who sacrifices to the deities called ‘gaṇas.’ ‘Gaṇayāgas’ are well known.—(164)

‘Gaṇānām-yājakaḥ’—‘One who sacrifices to the gods; i.e., he who performs the well known Gaṇayāgas,’ (Medhātithi);—‘one who sacrifices for a group of men or friends’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Ācāra, p. 688) without comment;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 482).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

164 A breeder of sporting-dogs, a falconer, one who defiles maidens, he who delights in injuring living creatures, he who gains his subsistence from Sudras, and he who offers sacrifices to the Ganas,

One devoid of right conduct, the man without vigour, the constant beggar, he who lives by agriculture, one suffering from elephantiasis, and he who is spoken ill of by good men.—(165)

आचारो गृहाभ्यागतानां पूजादिप्रयुक्तेर् लौकिकसमाचारः, तेन वर्जितः । क्लीबो ऽल्पसत्वः, भग्नोत्साहः कर्तव्येषु । याचनकः सदैव यो याचते, यश् च याच्ञया परान् उद्वेजयति । वस्तुस्वभावो ऽयं याच्ञया याच्यमानोद्वेजनम् । “नन्द्यादिभ्यो युः”⁷⁵ (३.१.१३४) स्वार्थे कः । कृषिजीवी स्वयंकृतया कृष्या जीवति, सति चोपायान्तरे अस्वयंकृतयापि । श्लीपदी एकः पादो महान् यस्य । सद्भिर् निन्दितः दुर्भगः, विनापि दोषेण सतां द्वेष्यः ॥ ३.१५५ ॥

‘Right conduct’ stands here for the ordinary acts of courtesy, such as offering worship to persons coming to one’s house, and so forth;—he who is devoid of this.

^(‘)Without vigour’—i.e., with very little energy; who has lost all enthusiasm for doing his duties.

‘Constant beggar’—one who is always begging, he who teases people by his begging; it is in the very nature of things that begging should displease the person bagged from. The term ‘yācanakaḥ’ is formed with the ‘yu’ affix, according to Pāṇini 3.1.134, and then the reflexive ‘ka’ added to it.

‘He who lives by agriculture’—by doing the cultivating himself; or even by the cultivating done by others, if other means of living are available.

‘One suffering form elephantiasis’—whose one leg is thicker than the other,

‘He who is spoken ill of by good men’—the unfortunate man, who is despised by good men, even without doing anything wrong.—(165)

This verse is quoted without comment in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 482);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40).

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

165 He who does not follow the rule of conduct, a (man destitute of energy like a) eunuch, one who constantly asks (for favours), he who lives by agriculture, a club-footed man, and he who is censured by virtuous men,

The sheep-dealer, the buffalo-keeper, the husband of a woman who had another previous husband, the carrier of the dead—all these should be avoided with care.—(166)

उरभ्रा मेषास् तैश् चरति, क्रयविक्रयादिना व्यवहरति, तद्धनप्रधानो वा । एवं माहिषिकः । परः पूर्वो यस्याः, तस्याः पतिः भर्ता । या अन्यस्मै दत्ता अन्येन वा ऊढा तां पुनः यः संस्करोति, पुनर् भवति भर्ता पौनर्भवो नरो भर्त्तासाव् इति शास्त्रेण । प्रेतान् यो निर्यापयति वहति । एते यत्नतो वर्जनीयाः ॥ ३.१५६ ॥

‘Urabhra’ is sheep; one who ‘deals’ in these,—i.e., carries on the business of buying and selling them; it may also mean ‘one whose chief wealth consists in sheep.’

Similarly, the ‘buffalo-keeper.’

‘He who has had another man for her former husband;’—the husband of such a one; i.e., one who marries again the woman who has been previously given to—or married by—another man; he who ‘again’ (punaḥ) ‘becomes’ (bhavati) the husband; such a husband is called ‘paunarbhava’ by the scriptures.

He who carries the dead—i.e., carries the dead bodies.

These ‘should be avoided with care’— (166).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688), which (on p. 694) explains ‘Aurabhrikaḥ’ as ‘one who keeps sheep as a means of livelihood’,—and māhiṣikaḥ’ as meaning either (a) ‘one who keeps buffaloes’, or (b) ‘the son of an unchaste woman’,—this latter explanation being based upon a text quoted from Devala,—‘An unchaste wife is called Māhiṣī; the son born of her is called Māhiṣikaḥ,’—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 484);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 40), which explains ‘pretaniryātakaḥ’ as ‘one who carries dead bodies on payment of wages’.

**(verses 3.150-166)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.150].

166 A shepherd, a keeper of buffaloes, the husband of a remarried woman, and a carrier of dead bodies, (all these) must be carefully avoided.

The learned Brāhmaṇa should avoid at both (rites) these l owest of twice-born men, who are of reprehensible conduct and who are unworthy of company.—(167)

विगर्हितो निन्दितः आचारः कर्मानुष्ठानम् एषाम् इति । काणादयः पूर्वदोषलिङ्गेन । स्तेनादयो ऽनुभूयमानदोषाः प्रत्यक्षादिना । उभयत्र दैवे पित्र्ये च । वर्जयेत् परिहरेत् । अपाङ्क्तेयाः पङ्क्तिं नार्हन्ति । भवार्थे ढक् कर्तव्यः । अनर्हत्वम् एव पङ्क्तावभवनेन प्रतीयते । अन्यैर् ब्राह्मणैः सह भोजनं नार्हन्ति । अत एव पङ्क्तिदूषका उच्यन्ते । तैः सहोपविष्टा अन्ये ऽपि दूषिता भवन्ति ॥ ३.१५७ ॥

These men, whose ‘conduct’—line of action—is ‘reprehensible.’ The ‘blind’ and the rest having their previous misconduct indicated by these disabilities; while the ‘thief,’ etc., have their misconduct actually perceptible in the present.

‘At both’— rites for gods and pitṛs.

‘Should avoid’— should exclude.

‘Unworthy of company’—i.e., they do not deserve company. The ‘ḍhak’ affix denoting presence. Absence from company indicates unworthiness. That is, he does not deserve to eat in the company of other Brāhmaṇas. It is for this reason that such persons have been called ‘defilers of company;’ the meaning being that those who sit at dinner with them become defiled.—(167)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 688) and (on p. 694) explains ‘ubhayatrāpi varjayet’ as ‘a11 these men are to be excluded from both kinds of rites—those in honour of the Gods as well as those in honour of the Pitṛs’;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 482).

Bṛhad- Yama-Smṛti (37, 38).—‘These should be avoided at Śrāddhas and at gifts; these should be avoided with great care—so Yama has declared.’

Viṣṇu (82.30).—‘These have been declared to be low Brāhmaṇas, defilers of the line; the wise man should avoid them with great care at the performance of Śrāddha.’

167 A Brahmana who knows (the sacred law) should shun at (sacrifices) both (to the gods and to the manes) these lowest of twice-born men, whose conduct is reprehensible, and who are unworthy (to sit) in the company (at a repast).

The unlearned Brāhmaṇa becomes quenched in the same manner as the fire of dry grass. The sacrificial offering should not be presented to him; as no libation is poured upon ashes.—(168)

यथैते स्तेनादयः पङ्क्तिदूषकाः, एवम् अनधीयानस् तत्तुल्यदोष इत्य् एवमर्थं पुनर्वचनम् ।

• अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते । अधीयानानां काणादीनाम् असति वर्तमाने विगर्हिताचारत्वे दैवे कदाचित् प्राप्त्यर्थम् । अनधीयानो ब्राह्मणो वर्ज्यः, यस् तु अधीते तस्मै हव्यं कव्यम् इति न दीयते — एवमर्थम् एवात्र हव्यग्रहणम् । हव्ये अनधीयानः केवलो वर्ज्यः । ये च दृश्यमानगर्हिताचाराः । अतो ये च वचनेन उभ्यत्र प्रतिषिद्धास् ते दैवे पित्र्ये च वर्ज्याः, अन्ये तु पित्र्य एव । तथा च वसिष्ठः-

• अथ चेन् मन्त्रविद् युक्तः शारीरैः पङ्क्तिदूषणैः ।

• अदूष्यं तं यमः प्राह पङ्क्तिपावन एव सः ॥ इति । (वध् ११.२०)

तृणाग्निर् इव शाम्यतीति । तृणाग्निर् यथा न शक्नोति हवींषि पक्तुम्, हुतमात्रेण हविषा शाम्यति उद्वाति च । यस्मिन्न् अग्नौ हुतं न भस्मीभवति । न ततो होमात् फलम् । एवं हि श्रूयते- “असमिद्धे न होतव्यम् । अग्निर् वै सर्वा देवतः” इति । एवम् अनधीयानो ब्राह्मणस् तृणाग्नितुल्यः । एतद् एवाह- न हि भस्मनि हूयते इति । यथा तृणाग्निः प्राग् भस्मीभवति, न तत्र हूयते, एवं तादृशो ब्राह्मणो न भोज्यते ॥ ३.१५८ ॥

This is re-iterated in the present verse, in order to indicate that, just as the thief and the rest are ‘defilers of the company,’ so equally blameworthy is the unlearned Brāhmaṇa also.

Others offer the following explanation:—The present verse is intended to indicate the occasional admissibility, to the offerings for gods, of such blind and other disabled, but learned, Brāhmaṇas as happen, at some particular time, to be free from any reprehensible practice; the sense of the text being—‘The unlearned Brāhmaṇa should be avoided, but why should not the offering be not presented to one who is learned?’ It is for this reason that the text mentions the ‘offering for gods’ So that what is meant is that, at the offering to gods, it is only the unlearned Brāhmaṇa that should be excluded, while those whose practices are reprehensible, and are on that account distinctly debarred by a direct prohibition, should be excluded from both the offering to gods and that to pitṛs,—and only from that to ancestors. Vaśiṣṭha has said: ‘If a person learned in the Veda happen to be stigmatised by such bodily defects as are regarded as defiling the company, such a person Yama declares to be unblameworthy; in fact, such a person is a sanctifier of the company.’

‘Becomes quenched in the same manner as the fire of dry grass;’—The fire of dry grass cannot cook the sacrificial offerings, and it becomes quenched as soon as the offering is thrown into it, and also becomes extinguished; anything offered into it does not become burnt to ashes; and hence such an offering becomes futile; since it has been laid down that ‘one should not pour libations into fire that is not burning brightly, the fire embodies all deities;’—exactly of the same nature as the fire of dry grass is the unlearned Brāhmaṇa. This is what the text means by the words ‘As no libations are poured on ashes;’ just as the fire of dry gross becomes turned into ash before (burning the offerings), and people do not pour libations into such fire, similarly, the unlearned Brahman is not fed.—(168)

Medhātithi is misrepresented by Buhler, who says that “according to Medhātithi the object of this verse is to admit virtuous and learned men, afflicted with bodily defects, as guests at rites in honour of the gods.” As a matter of fact, this explanation is adduced by Medhātithi as given by ‘others’; its meaning, given by himself being that ‘just as the thief and the rest are defilers of company, so equally blameworthy is the unlearned Brāhmaṇa also’,—exactly as Kullūka explains the verse.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 465);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 41).

Mahābhārata (13.90.46).—[Reproduces Manu, reading ‘śrāddham’ for ‘havyam.’]

Mahābhārata (13.90.46).—‘Just as a butter-oblation that is poured in extinguished fire reaches neither the Gods nor the Pitṛs, so also what is given to the dancer or the singer.’

168 As a fire of dry grass is (unable to consume the offerings and is quickly) extinguished, even so (is it with) an unlearned Brahmana; sacrificial food must not be given to him, since it (would be) offered in ashes.

I am going to describe fully the results that afterwards accrue to the giver from giving, out of the offering to gods and to Pitṛs, to one who is unworthy of the line.—(169)

अस्य प्रतिषेधविधेः फलम् आह । पङ्क्तिम् अर्हन्तीति पङ्क्त्याः । न पङ्क्त्याः अपङ्क्त्याः । दण्ड्यादिदर्शनाद् रूपसिद्धिः । तेभ्यो दाने यः फलोदयः फलोत्पत्तिर् भवति दातुः, तं सर्वम् इदानीं ब्रवीम्य् अवहिता भवतेति ॥ ३.१५९ ॥

The author states the result of the prohibitive injunction just put forward.

‘Paṅktya’ means ‘those who are worthy of the line;—those who are not so, are ‘apaṅktya;’ the ‘yat’ affix being added by virtue of the term ‘paṅkti’ occurring in the ‘daṇḍādi’ group.

The results that accrue, from giving to such persons, to the giver,—all that I am going to describe; do listen with attention.—(169)

**(verses 3.169-170)
**

Mahābhārata (13.90, 11).—‘O Yudhiṣṭhira, that offering to the gods which is eaten by the twice-born men ‘unfit for company’ goes to the Rākṣasas; so say the teachers of the Veda.’

169 I will fully declare what result the giver obtains after death, if he gives food, destined for the gods or manes, to a man who is unworthy to sit in the company.

Demons indeed consume the food that is eaten by Brāhmaṇas deviod of self-restraint, by such as those who have superseded their elder brother and the like, or by others that are unworthy of company.—(170)

अव्रताः असंयताः शास्त्राचारवर्जिताः । परिवेत्तृप्रभृतयो यद्य् अपि शास्त्रबाह्यास् तथापि भेदेन स्मरणार्थं दोषगुरुत्वार्थं वा कथ्यन्ते । अन्ये चापङ्क्तेयाः काणश्लीपद्यादयः । तैर् यद् अन्नं⁷⁶ भुक्तं श्राद्धे भवति, तद् रक्षांसि देवद्विषो भुञ्जते, न च पितरः । अतो निष्फलं तच्छ्राद्धं भवतीत्य् उक्तं भवति । रक्षोग्रहणम् अर्थवादः ॥ ३.१६० ॥

‘Devoid of self-restraint’—uncontrolled; whose practices are not controlled by the scriptures.

‘Those who have superseded their elder brother,’ and the like, are, in fact, outside the pale of the scriptures; yet they have been mentioned here with a view to differentiate them from others, and also to indicate the gravity of their offence.

‘Others that are unworthy of company’—such as the blind man, the man affected with elephantiasis, and so forth.

The food that is eaten by those people, at a Śrāddha, is consumed by ‘demons’—the enemies of gods,—and not by one’s ancestors. That is to say, the Śrāddha becomes entirely useless.

The mention of ‘demons’ is a purely deprecatory exaggeration.—(1 7 0)

‘Avrataiḥ’—‘Devoid of self-restraint’ (Medhātithi);—‘who have not fulfilled the vows of studentship’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘who do not observe the rules laid down for the Accomplished Student’.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 471 and 493).

**(verses 3.169-170)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.170].

170 The Rakshasas, indeed, consume (the food) eaten by Brahmanas who have not fulfilled the vow of studentship, by a Parivettri and so forth, and by other men not admissible into the company.

He who unites himself with “wife” and “Agnihotra,” while his elder remains, is to be regarded as the “superseder of his elder;” and the elder is to be regarded as “one who is superseded.”’—(171)

agraje brahmacaryasthe yo’nujo dārasaṅgraham | kurute parivettā sa paricitto’grejo bhavet ||

अग्रे आदौ जातः अग्रजः सोदर्यो भ्रातोच्यते । एवम् हि पठ्यते-

• पितृव्यपुत्रान् सापत्नान् परनारीसुतांस् तथा ।

• दाराग्निहोत्रसंयोगे न दोषः परिवेदने ॥ इति । (प्स्म् ४.२८)

अत्र सोदर्यो ऽग्रजः । तस्मिन् स्थिते ऽकृतदाराग्निसंयोगे । तिष्ठति प्रकृतव्यापारनिवृत्तौ प्रयुक्तः । अग्निहोत्रशब्दः कर्मवचनो ऽपि तदर्थे ऽग्न्याधाने वर्तते । स्मृत्यन्तरे विशेषः पठ्यते-

• उन्मत्तः किल्बिषी कुष्ठी पतितः क्लीब एव च ।

• राजयक्ष्मामयावी च न योग्यः स्यात् प्रतीक्षितुम् ॥

एतद् अप्य् अनधिकारोपलक्षणार्थम् । अतश् चापाङ्क्तेयो ऽपि गृह्यते⁷⁷ । कालविशेषो ऽधिको व्यपेक्षते । तथा च स्मृतिः- “अष्टौ वर्षान्य् उदीक्षेत षड् इत्य् एके” (ग्ध् १८.१९) इति । एषा च वर्षसंख्या यदा कनीयान् प्राप्तविवाहकालः ततः प्रभृति द्रष्टव्यः⁷⁸ । विवाहकालश् च स्वाध्यायविधिनिवृत्तिः ।

• ननु च प्रोषिताधिकारे तत् पठितम् । भर्तरि प्रोषिते यः स्त्रीणां प्रवासकालस् तम् उपक्रम्य भ्रातरीत्यादि पठितम् ।

• सत्यम् । वाक्यान्तरे प्रोषितशब्दस्य प्रत्यक्षः संबन्धो ऽवगतः । वाक्यान्तरे तु संबन्धे प्रमाणं वक्तव्यम् । न च तद् अस्ति, यथा स्वरितेनाधिकार इति (च्ड़्। पाण् १.३.११) । न चात्र तच्छब्दो ऽस्ति । न च तदपेक्षया विनैव तस्य वाक्यस्यापरिपूर्णत्वम् । वसिष्ठेन चाविशेषेणाग्निशब्देन स्मार्तस्याप्य् अग्नेर् ग्रहणं कृतम्⁷⁹ ।

• केचित् पितर्य् अप्य् अकृताधाने विधिम् इच्छन्ति । अग्रजशब्दस्य यौगिकत्वात् पिताप्य् अग्रजो भवतीति ।

• यद्य् अप्य् एवम् अन्यो ऽपि यो ऽग्रजस् तत्राप्य् एवं प्राप्नोति । न चायम् अग्रजानुजव्यवहारः पितापुत्रयोर् विद्यते । स्मृत्यन्तरे ऽपि तु पठ्यते “भ्रातरि च ज्याससि” (ग्ध् १८.१८) इति ।

• परिवित्तिः पूर्वजो ज्येष्ठः ॥ ३.१६१ ॥

‘Agraja,’ ‘elder brother’—is the uterine brother born before one. Thus has it been asserted—‘There is no harm in the superseding of the uncle’s sons, the step-mother’s sons and the sons of other’s wives, by marriage and the setting up of fire;’ hence, in the present context, the term ‘elder brother’ stands for the uterine brother. While he ‘remains’—i.e., without marriage and without having set up the fire; the root ‘stkā’ (in the term ‘sthitê’) has been used in the sense of the absence of the act mentioned.

The term ‘agnihotra,’ though the name of the act of sacrifice, stands for the setting up of fire for purposes of that act.

In another smṛti, we find an exception—‘the lunatic, the sinner, the leper, the outcast, the eunuch and the consumptive need not be waited for.’ What is mentioned here is meant to be indicative of the condition in the form of the elder brother being in any way not entitled (to marry and set up the fire). Hence the ‘defiler of company’ is also included.

A special period has also been specified during which one is to wait for his elder brother to marry and set up the fire—‘one should wait for eight years,’—‘some say for six years’ (Gautama, 18.19). This period is to be reckoned from the time when the younger brother has reached the age of marriage; and the age of marriage is the time when one has duly fulfilled the injunction of Vedic Study.

“As a matter of fact, the period of time stated in the passage quoted refers to the man who has gone out travelling. The passage quoted above begins with the word ‘the elder brother being,’ which refers to the time during which the elder brother is out on travel. [So that it can have no bearing upon supersession by marriage].”

True; but the term ‘who has gone out on travel’ is distinctly found to be connected with one sentence [this sentence being ‘pravrajite nivṛttiḥ prasaṅgāt, Gautama, 18.16]; so that, for connecting the same word with another sentence [‘bhrātari chaivam jyāyasi yavīyān, 18.18], some special reasons should be stated. There is, however, no such reason; as there is in the case of such words as ‘there is connection between this and the term svarita;’ no such words, however, are found in the case of the sentences in question; nor is one sentence incomplete without the connection of the word in question.

Vaśiṣṭha has used the generic term ‘fire and has, therefore, meant the ‘Smārta’ Fire.

Some people have held this definition of ‘superseder’ to apply also to one whose father has not set up the Fire; the term ‘agraja,’ ‘elder,’ meaning simply ‘one born before one;’ so that the Father also is one’s ‘elder.’

In this manner, what is said here would apply to other ‘older’ persons also; as a matter of fact, however, the terms ‘younger’ and ‘elder’ are never used between father and son.

In another Smṛti we find—‘the elder brother being, etc., etc.’ (Gautama, 18.18. where the Brother is specifically mentioned).

The elder brother is called the ‘superseded’— (171)

Medhātithi—(P. 259, l.5)—‘Bhrātarītyādi paṭhitam’,—i.e., in Gautama ‘Pravrajite nivṛttiḥ prasaṅgāt’ (18.16)… ‘Bhrātari chaivam jyāyasi yavīyān kanyāgnyupayameṣu’ (18.18);—the latter Sūtra is referred to again in 1.11.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.223) in the sense that—‘the younger brother, who takes a wife or sets up the Fire, before his elder brother has done so, is called Parivettā, and the elder brother is called Parivitti.’

Aparārka deals with this subject in detail, under this same text of Yājñavalkya.

Madanapārijāta (p. 170) quotes this verse and explains that the ‘elder brother’ meant here is the uterine brother, not the step-brother.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 760), which also explains that the ‘elder brother’ meant is the uterine brother, as is clearly declared in a text quoted from Garga. It quotes another verse from ‘Manu’, which is not found in our texts:—

agraje brahmacaryasthe yo’nujo dārasaṅgraham |
kurute parivettā sa paricitto’grejo bhavet ||

It has a curious note regarding the exact signification of the term ‘ṣodarya’ (generally understood to mean uterine): It says—‘sodaryatva’ is of three kinds—(1) due to the father being the same; (2) due to the mother being the same, and (3) due to both being the same; the idea that ‘sodaryatva’ is based upon the sameness of the Father is derived from the Garbhopaniṣad text that ‘at first the fetus is born in the male’, as also from the Mahābhārata text—‘Having stayed in the father’s stomach, he entered the Mother through his semen’; and again in the same work, Kacha is representented as saying to Devayānī that she was his ‘sister’ because she had lived in the same father’s stomach as he himself had done.

The verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācara, p. 690), where also ‘elder brother’ is explained as the uterine brother;—also in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 723), where the construction of the phrase ‘agraje sthite’ is explained as ‘agraje anūḍhe akṛtāgnihotre ca sthite’. The untraced verse from ‘Manu’ quoted in Vīramitrodaya is quoted here also.

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 233) as forbidding the setting up of the Fire by the younger brother if it has been already set up by his elder;—and in Aparārka (p. 445, and again on p. 1050) as defining the Parivitti;—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 811), which notes that this refers to uterine brothers only, and that also not in cases where the elder brother is either an outcaste, or insane, or sexless, or blind, or deaf, or dumb, or idiot, or dwarf, or leper, or suffering from leucoderma, or consumptive, or suffering from dropsy, or from some incurable disease, or heretic, or renunciate, or gone away for a long time;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 371);—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 514).

Gobhila-Smṛti (1.70).—‘He who takes a wife or performs fire-laying before his elder brother should be regarded as the Superseder of the Elder, and the elder brother is to be regarded as the Superseded.’

Laghu-Śātātapa (40).—[Reproduces the words of Manu.]

Garga (Parāśaramādhava, p. 690).—‘While the uterine elder brother remains unmarried, if one takes a wife or lays the fire, he becomes an outcast.’

Śātātapa (Do.).—‘The sin of supersession is not involved if one marries before such brothers as are the sons of uncles or of step-mothers, or of other women.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 690).—(Do.)

171 He must be considered as a Parivettri who marries or begins the performance of the Agnihotra before his elder brother, but the latter as a Parivitti.

The superseded elder brother, the superseding younger brother, and she through whom the superseding is done,—all these go to hell, along with the giver and the officiating priest as the fifth.—(172)

प्रसङ्गात् परिवेदनसंबन्धिनाम् अन्येषाम् अपि दोषदर्शनद्वारेण निषेधं करोति । निषेधपरिवर्जितः⁸⁰ परिभूतो वा वेदनेन परिवित्तिः । परिवर्ज्यं ज्येष्ठं करोति परिवेदनं परीवेत्ता⁸¹ । यया कन्यया च परिविद्यते । सर्वे ते नरकं यान्ति । दाता याजकश् च येषां नरकगामिनां पञ्चमः । दाता कन्याया एवं प्रकृतत्वात् पित्रादिः । याजको विवाहे यः करोति होमं यो वा तत्रोपदेष्टा । अथ वा तेषाम् एव परिवेत्तृपरिवित्तितत्कन्यादातॄणां ज्योतिष्टोमादीनाम् अपि यज्ञानाम् ऋत्विक् । तस्माज् ज्येष्ठेन तथा कर्तव्यं यथास्य कनीयसो भ्रातुर् विवाहे विघनकतृत्वं न भवति । कनीयसापि कालप्रतीक्षा द्वादशाष्टषड्वार्षादिविषया कर्तव्या । कन्ययापि तादृशाय⁸² दातुं न देयम् । दातृयाजकौ पञ्चमौ येषाम् इति द्वन्द्वगर्भो बहुव्रीहिः ॥ ३.१६२ ॥

While he is dealing with the subject of ‘supersession,’ the author proceeds to state its prohibition by showing the evil that befalls all persons connected with it.

He who is passed over, insulted, by the marriage is the ‘superseded elder brother;’ and he who does the passing over of the elder brother is ‘the superseding younger brother;’—that girl through whom the superseding is done;—‘all these go to hell.’

The ‘giver’ and the officiating priest form the fifth of those that go to hell. The ‘giver’ meant here must be that of the girl, her father and other guardians; that such is the meaning is clear from the context.

The ‘officiating priest’ is one who performs the Homa in marriage, or he who guides the ceremony. Or, it may mean ‘one who officiates as priest at the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices by the aforesaid four persons—the superseded elder brother, the superseding younger brother, the girl that is married, and he who gives her away.’

For this reason, the elder brother should act in such a manner that he does not form an obstacle in the marriage of his younger brother; and the younger brother also should wait for twelve, eight or six years; and the girl also should not allow herself to be given away to such a person;

The compound ‘dātṛyājakapañcamāḥ’ is to be expounded as a Bahuvrīhi, containing Dvandva: a ‘Dātṛyājakau (Dvandva) pañcamau yeṣām’ (Bahuvrīhi).—(172)

This verse is quoted in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 723) without comment;—also in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 760);—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 514) which adds the following notes—That girl also goes to hell, by marrying whom the younger brother ‘supersedes’ the elder; ‘dātṛyājakapañcamāḥ’, i.e. (1) the bridegroom, (2) the bride, (3) the superseded elder brother, (4) the giver away of the bride, (5) and the priests officiating at the ceremony.

Laghu-Śātātapa (40).—[Reproduces the words of Manu.]

Gobhila-Smṛti (1.71).—‘The Superseder and the Superseded both assuredly go to hell; if they have performed the expiatory rite, even so they participate in the effects reduced only by a quarter.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.39).—[Same as Manu, except that for ‘Yāyā ca parividyate’ the reading is Yā chainam parivindati.’

Mahābhārata (12.165-68).—(The first line is the same as Manu.)—‘He who marries illegally—all these are outcasts.’

172 The elder brother who marries after the younger, the younger brother who marries before the elder, the female with whom such a marriage is contracted, he who gives her away, and the sacrificing priest, as the fifth, all fall into hell.

He who would lasciviously make love to the wife of his dead brother, even though she may have been appointed according to law (to bear a child by him), should be known as the “didhiṣūpati.”—(173)

नियोगधर्मेण प्रवृत्तो भ्रातुर् मृतस्य तद्भार्यागमने यो ऽनुरज्येत प्रीतिं भावयेत् । कामतः । नियोगधर्मातिक्रमेण “सकृत् सकृद् ऋतौ” (म्ध् ९.७०) इत्येवं विधिं हित्वा इच्छानुरागं गाढालिङ्गनपरिचुम्बनादि कुर्याद् असकृद् वा प्रवर्तेत, चेतसा वा विक्रियेत, कामिनीप्रेमदृष्टिबन्धवचनादिलिङ्गेनानुरागित्वेन विभावितो दिधिषूपतिर् वेद्यः । अग्रेदिधिषूपतिलक्षणं तु स्मृत्यन्तरात् ज्ञेयम्- “जीवत्य् अग्रेदिधिषूपतिः” इति ।

• केचित् तु नैवायं समाम्नाये श्लोको ऽस्तीत्य् आहुः । अपरिपूर्णं च लिङ्गं ब्रुवते । द्वयस्य लक्षणे कर्तव्ये, न कर्तव्यकरिणाम्⁸³ एकस्योपपद्यते । स्मृत्यन्तरे चैतद् उभयं लक्ष्यते-

• परपूर्वापतिं धीरा वदन्ति दिधिषूपतिम् ।

• यस् त्व् अग्रेदिधिषूर् विप्रः सैव यस्य कुटुम्बिनी ॥

न त्व् इह संभवति, परपूर्वापतेः पृथग् एव निषिद्धत्वात् । तस्माद् अन्यो दिधिषूपतिः ॥ ३.१६३ ॥

He who, acting in accordance with the law of ‘Niyoga,’ should happen to make love to—take delight in intercourse with—the wife of his dead brother;—‘lasciviously’—i.e., in transgression of the exact form of ‘Niyoga,’—i.e., renouncing the injunction that ‘one should have intercourse with his brother’s wife only once during her periods,’—if he should have recourse, at will, to such advances as cousist in firm embrace, kissing, and so forth,—or if he should have intercourse with her more than once,—or even allow his mind to be inclined that way,—then, such a person, impressed with the mark of passion by such signs, as casting longing glances upon the woman, and so forth, is to be known as the ‘didhiṣūpati.’

The exact definition of the ‘agredidhiṣūpati’ is to be learnt from another Smṛti, which says—‘when the brother is alive, the man is to be known as the agredidhiṣūpati.’

Some people have held that the present verse does not form part of the text at all; and as a reason for this, they urge the fact of its being incomplete. It being necessary to provide definitions of both (the didhiṣūpati and the agredidhiṣūpati), it is not possible for authors who know their business to provide the definition of only one of them; specially, as another Smṛti has provided the definitions of both:—(a) ‘the wise men regard him as didhiṣūpati, who is the husband of a woman who has had a previous husband; and (b) that Brāhmaṇa is to be regarded as the agredidhiṣūpati of whom that woman was the wife;’—and

these definitions are not applicable to the present context (which might have justified the omission by our author); as (the husband of a woman who has had a previous husband’ has been excluded already before (in verse 160). Hence the ‘didhiṣūpati’ must be different from the one defined as such in the passage just quoted (from another Smṛti).—(173)

It is interesting to note that Medhātithi states that “some people have held that the present verse does not form part of the text at all.” (Trans, p. 194).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 452) as providing a definition of ‘didhiṣūpati’ as distinct from that provided by Devala, according to whom he is the husband of the girl whose younger sister is married before her;—and it adds that the implication of the definition itself is that such a person is to be excluded.

Vyāghrī Smṛti (quoted in the Gautama-sūtravṛtti).—‘One who is the husband of a woman who has had a previous husband,—the wise called Didhiṣūpati.’

Prajāpati (quoted in do.).—[Reproduces Manu.]

173 He who lasciviously dallies with the widow of a deceased brother, though she be appointed (to bear a child by him) in accordance with the sacred law, must be known to be a Didhishupati.

By the wives of other men two kinds of sons are born: the “Kuṇḍa” and the “Golaka;” he who is born while the husband is alive is the “Kuṇḍa,” and one born after the death of the husband is the “Golaka.”—(174)

पत्यौ जीवति तद्गृहे स्थितायां तद्भार्यायां यो गूढोत्पन्नः भङ्ग्या उपपतित्वेन वा पत्युः क्षमया जायते सो ऽन्यजातः कुण्ड उच्यते । मृते तु गोलकः ।

• एताव् अनियुक्तासुताव् इति केचित् ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । तयोर् अब्राह्मण्याद् एवाप्राप्तिः । तस्मान् नियोगोत्पन्नौ कुण्डगोलकौ ।

• कथं पुनर् अनियुक्तासुतयोर् अब्राह्मण्यम् इतरयोस् तु ब्राह्मण्यम् ।

• जातिलक्षणे पत्नीग्रहणात्, “सर्ववर्णेषु तुल्यासु पत्नीषु” (म्ध् १०.५) इति । संबन्धिशब्दश् च पत्नीशब्दो भर्तृशब्दवत् । यज्ञसंयोगे च पत्नीशब्दो व्युत्पाद्यते⁸⁴ न चान्यदीयया भार्यया सहान्यस्य यज्ञाधिकारः ।

• यद्य् एवं नियोगोत्पन्नयोर् अपि समानन्यायत्वान् नैव ब्राह्मण्यम् ।

• दशम एतन् निर्णेष्यामः ।

• मा भूद् वा नियुक्तानियुकासुतयोः कस्यचिद् अपि ब्राह्मण्यम् ।

• ननूक्तम् असति ब्राह्मण्ये प्राप्त्यभावात् प्रतिषेधानुपपत्तिः । पतितप्रतिषेधाद् एव एतद् भविष्यति । द्विजातिकर्मभ्यो हानिः पतनम् । द्विजतिकर्मत्वे सति श्राद्धभोजनस्य कुतः पतिते प्राप्तिः । आम्नायते च प्रतिषेधो “ये स्तेनपतिताः” (म्ध् ३.१४०) ॥ ३.१६४ ॥

While the husband is alive, if a son is born to his wife living in his house, from a paramour tolerated by the forgiving nature of the husband,—this son born of a stranger is called ‘Kuṇḍa.’

That born after the husband has died, is ‘Golaka.’

Some people have held that these names are given to sons born to the woman not ‘appointed’ by her husband (to bear children).

This, however, is not right; as in that case their exclusion would be secured by the more fact of their being non-Brāhmaṇas. Hence we conclude that the ‘Kuṇḍa’ and the ‘Golaka’ are sons born to the woman ‘appointed’ by her husband.

“But how is it that the eons born to the unappointed woman are non-Brāhmaṇas, while those born to the appointed woman are Brāhmaṇas?”

This follows from the fact that, in the definition of castes, the term ‘wife’ is mentioned: ‘In the case of all castes, one born of the wife of the same caste, etc., etc.’ (10.5). This term ‘wife,’ like the term ‘husband,’ is a relative one; the term ‘wife,’ ‘patnī,’ again, has been explained (etymologically) as associated with one at sacrificial performances; and no man is entitled to perform.sacrifices in association with another man’s wife.

“If that be so, then no Brāhmaṇa-hood should belong to the sons born to the appointed woman, in whose case also the same reason is applicable.”

This question we shall determine under Discourse 10 (verse 5).

Or, both—the sons of the appointed as well as those of the unappointed woman—may be regarded as ‘non-Brāhmaṇas;’ but the difficulty is that, as has been already pointed out above, if these persons are not Brāhmaṇas, then, there being no possibility of these being admitted to dinners, any prohibition of them would be altogether uncalled for. Specially, as their exclusion would be secured by the exclusion of the ‘out-cast.’ Being an ‘out-cast’ consists in falling off from the duties of the Brāhmaṇa; and as eating at śrāddhas is a duty of the Brāhmaṇa, such feeding may- not be possible for the out-cast. And yet we find his exclusion asserted in verse 150 above,—(174)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.222) as providing the definition of the ‘Kuṇḍa’ and the ‘Golaka’, who have been declared by Yājñavalkya, (1.222) to be unfit to be invited at Śrāddhas;—in Aparārka (p. 445), which adds that this refers to the Kṣetraja son, the other being excluded on the ground of his being a non-Brāhmaṇa;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 362);—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 39);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 422.)

**(verses 3.174-175)
**

Laghu-Śātātapa (105).—[Reproduces Manu, with slight variations.]

Mahābhārata (13.7.13).—[Do.].

174 Two (kinds of) sons, a Kunda and a Golaka, are born by wives of other men; (he who is born) while the husband lives, will be a Kunda, and (he who is begotten) after the husband’s death, a Golaka.

These creatures, born of other men’s wives, cause, for the giver, the destruction, in this life as well as after death, of their offerings to gods and pitṛs that have been presented to them.—(175)

“जात्याख्यायाम्” (पाण् १.२.५८) इति बहुवचनं प्राणिन इति । ब्राह्मण्यादिव्यपदेशम् अवजानते प्राणिन इत्य् एवं व्यपदेशार्हा, न व्यपदेशान्तरम् अर्हन्ति । अतस् ते नाशयन्ति हव्यकव्यानि निष्फलीकुर्वन्ति प्रदायिनां दातॄणाम् । परिवेत्त्रादीनां लोके नातिप्रसिद्धत्वात् शब्दैश् चास्मृतत्वाद् व्यवस्थार्थं लक्षणप्रणयनम् ॥ ३.१६५ ॥

The plural number in ‘prāṇinaḥ,’ ‘creatures,’ is according to Pāṇini 1.2,58.

These people do not deserve the names of ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ and the rest; and they only deserve to be called ‘creatures;’ they are not worthy of any other name. For this reason, they ‘cause the destruction of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs;’—i.e.,. they render them fruitless—‘for the givers’—those who give it to them.

The terms ‘parivettṛ’ (superseder) and the rest are not sufficiently well known in ordinary usage; nor are they capable of being etymologically analysed. Hence, the author has provided the definition of these.—(175)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 362).

**(verses 3.174-175)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.175].

175 But those two creatures, who are born of wives of other men, cause to the giver the loss (of the rewards), both in this life and after death, for the food sacred to gods or manes which has been given (to them).

If one who is unworthy of company happen to look upon a number of those that are worthy of company, while those are eating, then the foolish giver (of food) does not obtain the reward of feeding so many men.—(176).

पङ्क्तिम् अर्हन्तीति पङ्क्त्याः । सद्भिर् एकत्रासनभोजनाद्यर्हता पङ्क्त्यता, तदभावाद् अपङ्क्त्यः । स यावतः पङ्क्त्यान् विद्वत्तपस्विश्रोत्रियान् भुञ्जानान् अनुपश्यति, तावतां न तत्र पितृतृप्त्याख्यं फलं भवति । अतः स्तेनादयः श्राद्धं कुर्वता ततः प्रदेशाद् अपसारणीयाः । बालिशो मूर्खः ॥ ३.१६६ ॥

‘Pāṅktya’ are those that deserve the paṅkti, line. One is called ‘pāṅktya’ when one is deserving of sitting on the same seat as, and eating in the company of, good men. He who is not so deserving, is ‘a-pāṅktya.’

As many worthy people—learned men, ascetics and persons learned in the Veda—the unworthy man happens to look upon while the former are eating,—the reward of feeding so many men,—in the shape of the satisfaction of his ancestors—fails to be accomplished.

For this reason, when one is performing śrāddhas, one should send away from that place all thieves and others.

‘Foolish’—ignorant.—(176)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 498.)

Mahābhārafa (13.137.17).—‘The one-eyed person defiles sixty; the eunuch, a hundred; the man suffering from leucoderma, as much as he sees _(;)—in the line of invitees seated in a line.’

176 The foolish giver (of a funeral repast) does not reap the reward for as many worthy guests as a man, inadmissible into company, can look on while they are feeding.

The blind man, by looking, destroys the feeder’s reward for feeding ninety men, the one-eyed man of sixty, the leper of one hundred, and the man afflicted with a foul disease of a thousand.—(177)

• सत्यम् । तत्प्रदेशसंनिधानम् अनेन लक्ष्यते । यावान् देशश् चक्षुष्मतो दृष्टिगोचरस् तावतो देशाद् अनावृताद् अन्धो विवासनीयः । काणः षष्टेः । नात्रायम् अर्थो ऽत ऊर्ध्वं भोज्या इति । केवलं संख्यापचयेन दोषलाघवं प्रायश्चित्तविशेषार्थं ज्ञाप्यते । श्वित्री कुष्ठी भण्यते । पापरोगी प्रसिद्धः ॥ ३.१६७ ॥

“How can there be any looking by the blind man;—by virtue of which the text says ‘the blind man by looking, etc.’?”

True; what is meant is only his proximity to the place. The meaning is that, in an uncovered place, the blind man should be removed away from such distance from which the man with eyes could see.

‘The one-eyed man of sixty;’—this does not mean that if the number is more than these, they may be fed (even in the presence of the blind, etc.). All that the reducing of the number means is that the delinquency would be less serious, and hence the expiatory rite to be performed would be on a smaller scale.

It is the leper that is called ‘śvitrī.’

‘The man suffering from a foul disease’—is well known,—(177)

“Regarding the diseases which are punishments for sins committed in a former life, see below, 11.49 et. seq.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 454), which adds that what is meant is that ‘if a blind man remains in a place from where a man with eyes could see the Brāhmaṇas eating,—then he destroys the merit that would result from the feeding of ninety men’;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 499).

177 A blind man by his presence causes to the giver (of the feast) the loss of the reward for ninety (guests), a one-eyed man for sixty, one who suffers from white leprosy for a hundred, and one punished by a (terrible) disease for a thousand.

As many Brāhmaṇas the officiator at the sacrifices performed by Śūdras may happen to touch with his limbs,—the reward relating to charity in connection with the gift to so many Brāhmaṇas fails to accrue to the giver.—(178)

यावतो ब्राह्मणान् स्पृशत्य् अङ्गैः पङ्क्तिगतः⁸⁵ । अत्राप्य् अङ्गस्य स्पर्शनं न विवक्षितम्, किं तर्हि, पूर्ववत् तद्देशसंनिधिः । पौर्तिकं फलम् । पूर्ते भवं पौर्तिकम् । बहिर्वेदिदानाद् यत् फलं तत् पौर्तिकम् ॥ ३.१६८ ॥

As many Brāhmaṇas he may happen to touch with his limbs,—when he happens to enter the same line with them;—here also the actual touching of the body is not meant; mere presence at the place is meant.

‘Reward relating to charity’—i.e., the rewards that follow from gifts made outside the ‘sacrificial altar.—(178)

‘Paurtikam’—‘Rewards that follow from gifts made outside the sacrificial altar’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja);—‘the gift of food at a Śrāddha’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 454);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 498).

Viṣṇu (82.14).—‘Those who sacrifice for the Śūdra (should be avoided).’

Bṛhad-Yama-Smṛti (35, 37, 38).—‘The ill-visaged, the eunuch, the heretic, the decrier of the Veda, the sophist, the sacrificer for the Śūdra, and those who sacrifice for improper persons,—these should be avoided with great care at the Śrāddha.’

178 The giver (of a Sraddha) loses the reward, due for such a non-sacrificial gift, for as many Brahmanas as a (guest) who sacrifices for Sudras may touch (during the meal) with his limbs.

If a Brāhmaṇa, though learned in the Veda, should, through covetousness, accept a gift from him,—he quickly perishes; just like the unbaked vessel in water.—(170)

प्रसङ्गाच् छूद्रयाजकस्याप्रतिग्राह्यतानेन कथ्यते । वेदविद् अपि यदि तस्य शूद्रयाजकस्य संबन्धिनो द्रव्यस्य प्रतिग्रहं करोति, लोभाद् इत्य् अनुवादः, सो ऽपि विनाशं व्रजति, अभिलषितेनार्थेन वियुज्यते धनपुत्रपशुशरीरादिना । किं पुनर् अवेदवित् । वेदविदः किल प्रतिग्रहे नातीव दोष इति वक्ष्यति । आमपात्रम् अपक्वं शरावादिभाजनम् । अम्भसि जले क्षिप्तम् ॥ ३.१६९ ॥

In connection with the present subject, the author points out the impropriety of receiving gifts from one who officiates at sacrifices performed by Śūdras.

‘Though learned in the Veda;’—if he accepts the gift of something belonging to one who officiates at sacrifices performed by Śūdras,

‘Through covetousness’—is a mere reiterative reference.

He also perishes quickly—i.e., he is deprived of what he desires,—in the shape of wealth, children, cattle, body, and the like.

When such is the fate of one learned in the Veda—what is to be said of one who is ignorant of the Veda?

The author will point out later on that there is not much harm in the learned man’s receiving gifts.

‘Āma’—unbaked—‘pātra’—vessels, such as saucer, and the like.

‘In water’—i.e., when thrown into water.—(179)

Atri-Smṛti (2, 5).—‘One shall not be addicted to sinful acts, on the strength of the Veda; for an intentional sin is not destroyed by the Veda.’

Atri-Saṃhitā (145).—‘By accepting gifts they perish, as fire perishes by water.’

179 And if a Brahmana, though learned in the Veda, accepts through covetousness a gift from such (a man), he will quickly perish, like a vessel of unburnt clay in water.

What is given to the Soma-seller becomes ordure; to the physician, pus and blood; that to the temple-attendant becomes lost; and that to the usurer has no place.—(180)

तस्यां जातौ जायते यत्र विष्ठास्य भोजनं भवति । एवं भिषजे । नष्टं निष्फलम् उद्वेगकरं वा । नष्टं हि द्रव्यं उद्वेगं जनयति । अविद्यमाना प्रतिष्ठा स्थितिर् यस्य तद् अप्रतिष्ठम् । नानारूपैः शब्दैर् एवंविधस्य दानस्य नैष्फल्यम् कर्तुश् च दोषसंबन्धः प्रतिपाद्यते । नष्टम् अप्रतिष्ठम् इति नानयोर् अर्थाभेदशङ्का कार्या, कार्यविभेदात् ॥ ३.१७० ॥

The sense is that the man becomes born in that species of creatures where ordure is eaten.

Similarly, with the physician.

‘Becomes lost’—i.e., fruitless; or source of anxiety; anything that is ‘lost’ becomes a source of anxiety.

That which has no place, no existence at all, is called ‘apratiṣṭham.’

Various forms of expression have been used here to show the fruitlessness of the gift and also the evils attaching to the giver. The terms ‘lost’ and ‘without place’ should not be regarded as synonymous, as there is a distinct difference in their effects.—(180)

What is meant is that ‘the man will be born as an animal feeding upon the things specified’ (according to Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—that ‘the food will be rejected by the Pitṛs and Gods, as impure’ (according to Nārāyaṇa).

‘Apratiṣṭham’—‘Has no place’ (Medātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghvānanda);—‘secures no fame to the giver’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 454).

Mahābhārata (13.90, 13, 14).—‘What is given to the Soma-seller and to the physician becomes pus and blood; what is given to the temple-servant perishes; it is neither here nor there.’

180 (Food) given to a seller of Soma becomes ordure, (that given) to a physician pus and blood, but (that presented) to a temple-priest is lost, and (that given) to a usurer finds no place (in the world of the gods).

That which is given to the trader is neither here nor there. Similarly, what is given to the Brāhmaṇa born of a remarried woman is like a libation poured on ashes.—(181)

अयम् अपि पूर्ववद् व्याख्येयः । वाणिजकस्य भोजनं निषिद्धम् । न तद्देशसंनिधिः । न हि यथा पूर्वत्र वीक्ष्येति दृष्टिगोचरे देशे लक्षणया संनिधिस् तद्वद् इह तादृशं किंचिन् निबन्धनम् अस्ति । पौनर्भवो नवमे वक्ष्यते (म्ध् ९.१७५) ॥ ३.१७१ ॥

This also is to be explained as the preceding verse.

It is the feeding of the Trader that is prohibited, not his proximity to the place; because there is no ground for taking the words of the present verse as conveying this latter sense, as there was in the case of a previous verse (177), where the term, ‘by looking,’ was taken as indirectly indicating ‘visible place,’ and hence prohibiting the man’s proximity to the place.

The man ‘born of the a remarried woman’ shall be described later on, under discourse 9 (verse 175)—(181)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 454).

Mahābhārata (13. 90, 14).—[Reproduces Manu.]

181 What has been given to a Brahmana who lives by trade that is not (useful) in this world and the next, and (a present) to a Brahmana born of a remarried woman (resembles) an oblation thrown into ashes.

The wise ones declare that food given to the other unfit persons unworthy of company, described above, becomes fat, blood, flesh, marrow and bone.—(182)

ये ऽस्मिन्न्⁸⁶ अपङ्क्त्यदानफलप्रदर्शनप्रकरणे पठिताः अन्धादयस्, तेभ्यो ऽन्ये स्तेनादयः प्रतिकाण्डोद्दिष्टास्, तेषु यथोद्दिष्टेषु भोजितेषु दातुर् इमान्य् उपतिष्ठन्ते, मेदोऽसृङ्मांसादीनि । तादृशजातौ जायते यत्रैतदाहारो भवति, कृमिक्रव्याद्गृध्रादिजाताव् इति । मनीषिणो वेदविदो वदन्ति ।

• सर्वस्यायम् अर्थः । अपङ्क्तेषु⁸⁷ भोजितेषु श्राद्धाधिकारो न कृतो भवत्य् अकरणे च विध्यतिक्रमदोषो ऽवश्यंभावी, नित्यत्वाद् अस्य विधेः ॥ ३.१७२ ॥

A few unfit persons,—such as the blind, and the rest—have been specifically mentioned in the foregoing verses, describing the evil results of giving food to those unworthy of company; apart from these, there are others, the ‘thief,’ and the rest, mentioned in the several contexts; when these are fed, the following things accrue to the giver: viz., fat, blood, flesh, &c. That is, he becomes born as creatures who feed on these things; i.e., such creatures us insects and such carnivorous animals as vultures, and the like.

“The wise”—those learned in the Veda say this.

The upshot of the whole is as follows:—If one feeds such persons as are unworthy of company, the duty of performing the Śrāddha is not accomplished; and its nonperformance leads inevitably to the sin of disobeying an injunction;—specially, as the injunction of Śrāddha is absolutely obligatory.—(182)

Cf. 4.220-221.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 454).

Mahābhārata (13. 90, 239).—‘Those unfit for the line should be avoided: those fit for the line alone should be invited; if one feeds the sinful man, he goes to hell.’

182 But the wise declare that the food which (is offered) to other unholy, inadmissible men, enumerated above, (is turned into) adipose secretions, blood, flesh, marrow, and bone.

Now listen to the full description of those chief of twice-born men, the sanctifiers of company, by which best of the twice-born a company defiled by men unworthy of company becomes purified.—(183)

अपङ्क्त्यैः पूर्वोक्तैर् उपहता दूषिता पङ्क्तिः परिषद् यैर् ब्राह्मणैः पाव्यते निर्दोषा क्रियते । तान् वक्ष्यमाणैः श्लोकैः शृणुत । कार्त्स्न्येन निःशेषेण ब्रवीमि । अर्थवादरूपाण्य् अन्यानि पदानि । यथैवैकत्र भुञ्जानो दुष्टो दूषयति अदुष्टान् एवं पङ्क्तिपावनः स्वगुणातिशयाद् अन्येषाम् अपि दोषान् अपनुदतीत्य् अस्यार्थः । न चानेनापङ्क्त्यानां भोजनम् अनुज्ञाप्यते, किं तर्हि पङ्क्तिपावनो ऽवश्यम् अन्वेषितव्यः । तस्मिंश् च लब्धे यद्य् अन्ये नातिनिपुणतः परीक्षिताः त्रिपुरुषं यावत् तथापि, तथापि न चेद्⁸⁸ उपलभ्यमानदोषाः, वृथापि भोजयितव्या इत्य् एवमर्थः पङ्क्तिपावनोपदेशः ॥ ३.१७३ ॥

‘By men unworthy of company’—as described above—‘defiled’—rendered defective,—‘company’—assembly—by which Brāhmaṇas ‘become purified’—rendered free from defilement,—to those ‘listen’— as described in the coming verses;—‘full’—the description that is being given by me fully.

The remaining words are purely laudatory reiterations. What is meant is that the ‘sanctifier of company,’ by reason of the excellence of his qualities, removes the defects of other persons also by dining with them; just as the impure man, dining with others, makes even faultless men defective.

This verse does not sanction the feeding of men unworthy of company. All that it means is, that one should always seek for the ‘sanctifier of company;’ and that if one such person has been found, one might feed,—even though it he futile to do so,—those who have not been carefully examined to three degrees of ancestors, if they are not found to be marked by any perceptible disqualifications. It is with this end in view that the author provides the description of the ‘sanctifier of company.’—(183)

Mahābhārata (13. 90, 24).—‘O chief of the Bharatas, these should be regarded as sanctifiers of company; these I am going to describe with reasons for the same; do please examine such Brāhmaṇas.’

Mahābhārata (37).—‘These sanctify the company so far as they see them; that is why they are called the sanctifiers of company.’

183 Now hear by what chief of twice-born men a company defiled by (the presence of) unworthy (guests) is purified, and the full (description of) the Brahmanas who sanctify a company.

Those persons should be known as “sanctifiers of company” who are foremost in all the vedas and in all the explanatory sciences, and who are born in the family of men learned in the veda.—(184)

अग्र्याः उत्तमाः सर्वसंशयव्युदासेन निपुणतः स्वीकृतवेदाः । सर्वेषु च प्रवचनेषु अग्र्याः इत्य् एवम् । प्रोच्यते व्याख्यायते यैर् तानि⁸⁹ वेदार्थः प्रवचनान्य् अङ्गानि । षडङ्गो वेदो यैर् अभ्यस्तो ऽभ्यस्यते च । श्रोत्रियान्वये जाताः पितृपितामहादयो येषां तादृशा एव ।

• ननु चेदृशा एव भोज्यतया विहितास् तत्र को ऽतिशयो येनेदानीं⁹⁰ पङ्क्तिपावनत्वम् उच्यते ।

• किंचिद्विद्वद्भ्यो दानम्, सति श्रोत्रियत्वे विहितम् । न चेह विद्वत्तोपात्ता । न च तया पङ्क्तिपावनत्वोपपत्तिः । गुणविशेषापेक्षं हि पङ्क्तिपावनत्वं न गुणापचये युक्तम् । तस्माद् विद्वदभावे केवलश्रोत्रियाय दानार्थम् एतत् । असति विदुषे श्रोत्रियाय दानं मुख्यम् एव न गौणम् इत्य् उक्तं भवति ।

• बहुवचनं व्यक्त्यपेक्षम् ।⁹¹ चकारः समुच्चये ॥ ३.१७४ ॥

‘Foremost’—most excellent; who have carefully made the Vedas their own by having all doubts regarding them set aside.

‘Foremost also in all the explanatory sciences’—i.e., the subsidiary sciences which serve to explain what is contained in the Veda. That is, those persons, who have learnt, and are learning, the Veda along with the six subsidiary sciences.

‘Those who are born in the family of men learned in the Veda’—i.e., those whose father and grandfather, etc., are also equally learned in the Veda and the subsidiary sciences.

“It is persons such as these that have been mentioned as fit for being fed; what further excellence is here mentioned, by virtue of which these men are described as ‘sanctifiers of company?’”

It has been laid down above that food should be given to one possessed of even slight knowledge, only if he happens to be learned in the Veda. In the present instance, however, mere learning is not mentioned as the only condition of being a ‘Sanctifier of Company.’ In fact, this latter character of being a ‘Sanctifier of Company’ is dependent upon the presence of special qualifications; and hence it cannot be right to accept it in cases of lower qualifications. Thus the present verse is meant to sanction the giving of food to one who is simply learning the Veda, in the absence of fully learned persons. So that, in the absence of the fully learned man, the giving of food to one who is learning the Veda is the first course to be adopted, and not merely a secondary one.

The plural number is used, in view of the individual men.

The particle ‘ca’ has the cumulative sense.—(184)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 557), which adds the following explanations:—‘Sarvavedeṣu’ means ‘of all the Vedas,—or even of a single Veda’;—‘agryāḥ’—‘foremost among the teachers’;—‘Sarvopravacaneṣu’—‘in the expounding of the meaning of the Veda’;—‘Śrotriyānvayajāḥ,—‘born in the family of men devoted to the study of the Veda’;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 8a).

**(verses 3.184-186)
**

Mahābhārata (13.90, 26, 27, 37).—‘The Triṇāciketa, the tender of the five fires, the Trisuparṇa, the man versed in the six subsidiary sciences, the man born of the Brāhma form of marriage, the Chandoga, the singer of the Jyeṣṭha-Sāma; those foremost in all the Vedas and in all the expositions.’

Gautama (15.9, 28).—‘Vedic scholars, endowed with beauty, age and character; the knower of the six subsidiary sciences, the singer of the Jyeṣṭha-sāma, the Triṇāciketa, the Trimadhu, the Trisuparṇa, the tender of the five fires, the Accomplished Student, one versed in Mantras and Brāhmaṇas, one who is conversant with Dharma, one born of the Brāhma form of marriage:—these are the sanctifiers of company.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2, 17, 22).—‘The Trimadhu, the Trisuparṇa, the Triṇāciketa, the Chaturmadhu, the tender of the five fires, the singer of the Jyeṣṭha-sāma, the reader of the Veda, the son of a Vedic expounder, the Vedic scholar;—these are the sanctifiers of company.’

Viṣṇu (8.3.2, 5, 11).—‘The Triṇāciketa, the singer of the Jyeṣṭha-sāma, the son born of the Brāhma form of marriage, the Trisuparṇa; one who has read through the Veda, one purified by austerities; specially the Yogins.’

Yājñavalkya (1, 219.221).—‘Those foremost in all the Vedas, the Vedic Scholar, the youthful Knower of Brahman, one who knows the meaning of the Veda, the singer of the Jyeṣṭhasāman, the Trimadhu, the Trīṣuparṇa; those firm in their duties, those firm in austerities, the tender of the five fires, Religious Students, those devoted to their father and mother; such Brāhmaṇas constitute the glory of the Śrāddha.’

Baudhāyana (2, 8).—‘The Trimadhu, the Triṇāciketa, the Trisuparṇa, the tender of the five fires, one who knows the six subsidiary sciences, the Śīrṣaka, one who sings the Jyeṣṭhasāman, the Accomplished Student; these are the sanctifiers of company.’

Bṛhad-Yama (3, 43).—‘One conversant with the Vedanta, one who sings the Jyeṣṭhasāman, one who is free from avarice, one who is devoted to the Veda;—such a Brāhmaṇa should be employed at the rites in honour of Gods and Pitṛs.’

184 Those men must be considered as the sanctifiers of a company who are most learned in all the Vedas and in all the Angas, and who are the descendants of Srotriyas.

One who has learnt the “Triṇāciketa,” one who knows the science of the five fires, one who has learnt the “Trisuparṇa,” one who knows the six-limbed science, one who is born of a woman married in the “Brahma (Brāhma)” form, one who sings the Jyeṣṭha-sāmas.—(185)

त्रिणाचिकेताख्यो वेदविभागो ऽध्वर्यूणाम्- “पीतोदका जग्धतृणाः” (च्ड़्। काटु १.३) इत्यादिः । तदध्ययनसंबन्धात् पुरुषो ऽत्र त्रिणाचिकेत उच्यते । अन्ये च त्रिणाचिकेतम् अधीयानानां व्रतम् आम्नातम् । तत् येन चरितं स त्रिणाचिकेतः⁹² । अत्रापि लक्षणयैव पुरुष उच्यते ।[^३१६]

• न चैवं मन्तव्यं तावन्मात्रेण पङ्क्तिपावनत्वम्, किं तर्हि सति श्रोत्रियत्वादिगुणयोगे ऽधिको ऽयं गुणो द्रष्टव्यः पङ्क्तिपावनहेतुतया ।

• पञ्चाग्निविद्या नाम छान्दोग्योपनिषदि (छु ५.३–१०) विद्याम्नायते, “स्तेनो हिरण्यस्य” इत्यादि (छु ५.१०.९) यस्याः फलम् । तदध्ययनसंबन्धात् पुरुषो ऽपि पञ्चाग्निः पूर्ववत् ।

• अन्ये तु पञ्चाग्नयो यस्य, त्रयस् त्रेताग्नयः सभ्यावसथ्यौ च द्वौ, पञ्चाग्निः । तत्र सभ्यो नाम यो महासाधनस्य शीतापनोदार्थम् एव बहुषु देशेषु व्यवह्रियते ।

• त्रिसुपर्णो नाम मन्त्रस् तैत्तिरीयके बाह्वृच्ये च- “ये ब्राह्मणास् त्रिसुपर्णं पठन्ति” इत्यादिः । षडङ्गो वेदस् तं वेत्तीति षडङ्गवित् । ब्राह्मधर्मेण आहूय दानेन या दत्ता तस्यानुसन्तानस् ततो जातः । ज्येष्ठसामगश् च । ज्येष्ठदोहानि आरण्यके सामानि, तानि गायति स एवम् उच्यते । अत्रापि सामगानेन तद्व्रताचरणेन वा पुरुष इत्य् उच्यते ॥ ३.१७५ ॥

‘Triṇāciketa’ is the name of a portion of the Yajurveda, beginning with the words ‘pītodakā jagdhatṛṇā; and the man is called ‘triṇāciketa’ by the circumstance of his having learnt that portion. Others, however, explain that there are certain observances prescribed for those who are learning the Tṛṇāciketa Mantras; and the person who has kept these observances is called ‘Triṇāciketa.’ Here also the term is applied to the man only figuratively.

It should not be thought that merely this (fact of having learnt a certain portion of the Veda) makes one a ‘Sanctifier of Company;’ what is meant is, that when the other qualifications of being learned in the Veda and the like are present, the circumstance here mentioned forms an additional qualification as indicating the character of being a ‘Sanctifier of Company.’

‘Five fires,’ ‘Pañcāgnividyā,’ is the name of a certain teaching occurring in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (5.10.9), the reward whereof has been described in the words ‘stenohiraṇyasya, etc.’ The man is also so called by the circumstance of his having learnt the said teaching, as in the case of the previous word.

Others have explained the term ‘Pañcāgni’ as ‘one maintains the five fires,’—i.e., the three sacrificial fires, the social fire and the domestic fire. Of these, the ‘social fire’ is that which is lighted in many countries with large quantities of fuel, for the purpose of relieving cold.

‘Trisuparṇa’ is the name of a mantra occurring in the Taittirīya Veda, and also in the Ṛgveda, beginning with the words ‘ye brāhmaṇās trisuparṇam paṭhanti; etc.’

The ‘six-limbed science’ is the Veda; one who has learnt this.

One who is born of a woman who has been married in the “Brāhma” form,—i.e., who has been given to a bridegroom brought home by invitation.

‘One who sings the Jyeṣṭha Sāmas;’—The ‘Jyeṣṭhadohas’ are Sāman-mantras found in the Āraṇyaka; one who sings these is called ‘Jyeṣṭhasāmaga.’ Here also the man is so called by reason of his singing the Sāman and keeping the observances in relation to it.—(185)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 557), which supplies the following explanations:—‘Triṇāciketaḥ’—‘one who studies that portion of the Yajurveda which is

called the Triṇāciketas, and who keeps the observances connected therewith’;—‘Pañcāgniḥ’—‘one who maintains the five Fires—(1) Gārhopatya, (2) Dakṣiṇāgni, (3) Āhavanīya, (4) Sabhya and (5) Āvasatha’;—‘Trisuparṇa’—is the name of a portion of the Yajurveda (Medhātithi says it is a mantra found in the Taittirīya and the Ṛgveda); and he who knows that text and its meaning is also called by the same name;—‘ṣaḍaṅgavit’—‘one who knows the texts.and meanings of the six subsidiary sciences, Śikṣā, Kalpa and the rest’;—‘Brāhmadeyānusantānaḥ’—‘one who is born of a mother married in the Brāhma form’;—‘Jyeṣṭhasāmagaḥ’—‘one who is constantly singing Sāma hymns,’ or ‘he who keeps the observance known as Jyeṣṭha-sāma, and knows the Sāma texts known under that name’.

‘Triṇāciketaḥ’—see Āpastamba, 2.17.22.

‘Pañcāgniḥ’—‘Knowing the Pañcāgnividyā, taught in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.10 et. seq.’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa);—‘who keeps the five Fires’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

‘Trisuparṇa’.—‘One who knows the text of Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 10.38-40’ (Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana);—‘one who knows Ṛgveda 10.114.3-5’

**(verses 3.184-186)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.184].

185 A Trinakiketa, one who keeps five sacred fires, a Trisuparna, one who is versed in the six Angas, the son of a woman married according to the Brahma rite, one who sings the Gyeshthasaman,

He who understands the meaning of the Veda, he who expounds it, the Student, the giver of a thousand, the centenarian;—these Brāhmaṇas should be known as “Sanctifiers of Company.”—(186)

वेदस्यार्थं जानाति ।

• ननु च षडङ्गविद् उक्त एव ।

• सत्यम् । अङ्गैर् विना स्वयम् अप्य् ऊहति प्रज्ञया⁹³ यः स इह वेदार्थविद् अभिप्रेतः । अथ वा तस्यैवायम् अनुवादः पुनः पुनः क्रियते । न वेदार्थज्ञानेन विना सत्य् अप्य् अन्यगुणयोगे श्राद्धार्हाः ।

• प्रवक्ता व्याख्याता वेदार्थस्यैव । ब्रह्मचारी । सहस्रदः । अविशेषोपादानेन गवां सहस्रं यो दत्तवान् । इदं च युक्तम् । सहस्रशब्दस्य बहुनामत्वात्, बहु यो ददाति, उदारो वेत्य् अर्थः । न हि गवां संख्येयत्वे प्रमाणम् अस्ति । वेदे ऽप्य् उक्तम् “गावो वै यज्ञस्य मातरः” इति । अविशेषचोदनायां गावः प्रतीयन्ते । शतायुर् वृद्धवयाः । स हि परिपक्वकषायतया⁹⁴ पावनत्वम् अश्नुते । शतम् आयुर् अस्येति शतायुः । वर्षाणि संख्येयानि, प्रसिद्धेः । अथ वा शतशब्दो बह्वर्थः, बह्वायुः । वृद्धवयस्त्वं चात्राभिप्रेतम् । उक्तं तु गौतमीये- “युवभ्यो दानं प्रथमम् एके पितृवत्” इति (ग्ध् १५.१०–११) । एवमर्थम् एव च ब्रह्मचारिग्रहणम् इह व्याचक्षते । स हि पूर्ववया भवति ॥ ३.१७६ ॥

‘He who understands the meaning of the Veda.’

“The knower of the ‘six-limbed science’ has already been mentioned.”

True; but the man meant here is one who himself, even without the help of the Subsidiary Sciences, finds out the meaning of the Veda, by his own intelligence. Or, the same person spoken of before may be taken as referred to again and again; the meaning being that in the absence of the knowledge of the meaning of the Veda, people are not deserving of being fed at Śrāddhas, even though they may have other qualifications.

‘One who expounds it’—i.e., the meaning of the Veda.

‘The, Student.’

‘The giver of a thousand;’—in the absence of mention of any particular thing, this should be taken to mean ‘one who has given away a thousand cows.’ But the right view appears to be that the term, ‘thousand,’ standing for much, the person meant is one who gives much, i.e., the extremely generous person; specially, as there is nothing definite to indicate that the number refers to cows. But the Veda having asserted that^(‘)cows are the mothers of sacrifice,’—where no particular thing is mentioned—cows should be understood to be meant.

‘The centenarian’—i.e., one who is of advanced age; such a person, having all his impurities cleared off, acquires the sanctifying character. The ‘centenarian’ is one whose life extends over a hundred years; the number being taken, on the basis of usage, as referring to years. Or, the term ‘hundred’ may be taken as standing for many, so that the word means ‘long-lived,’ ‘of advanced age.’

Gautama (15.10-11) has declared that ‘gifts should first be made to young men;—others say it is like the Father;’ and people have taken the term ‘Student’ of the present verse as conveying this same idea; the student being the person of ‘early age.’—(186)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 557), which explains ‘pravaktā’ as ‘the expounder of the meaning of the Veda’;—and ‘Sahasradaḥ’ as ‘one who gives a thousand cows’ (quoting Medhātithi as the propounder of this explanation),—and ‘śatāyuḥ’ as ‘one who has completed a full hundred years’.

‘Brahmacāri’ is explained by Nandana as ‘the chaste man’.

**(verses 3.184-186)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.184].

186 One who knows the meaning of the Veda, and he who expounds it, a student, one who has given a thousand (cows), and a centenarian must be considered as Brahmanas who sanctify a company.

When the śrāddha-performance has approaohed, one should invite, either on the preceding day or the next day, in the proper manner, at least three brāhmaṇas, such as have been described.—(187)

उक्ता यादृशा ब्राह्मणा भोजनीयाः । इदानीम् अन्येतिकर्तव्यतोच्यते । पूर्वेद्युर् यद् अहः श्राद्धं कर्तव्यम् अमावास्यायां त्रयोदश्यां वा, ततः पूर्वस्मिन्न् अहनि चतुर्दश्यां द्वादश्यां वा, श्वः श्राद्धे कर्तव्ये ब्राह्मणान् निमन्त्रयेत् । अपरेद्युस् तदहर् एव वा । विकल्पश् चात्र नियमापेक्षः । यः शक्नोति नियमान् पालयितुं स पूर्वेद्युः, अशक्तस् तदहर् एव । अधिकनियमानुपालनाच् च महाफलम् । निमन्त्रणे कर्तव्ये अध्येषणपूर्वकम् व्यापारणम् अभ्युपगमनं च । त्रयो ऽवरा येषां ते त्र्यवराः । यद्य् अत्यन्तं न्यूनास् तदा त्रयः । शक्तौ त्व् अयुजो यथोत्साहम् इत्य् उक्तम् । अवशिष्टः पदसंघातः श्लोकपूरणार्थः । उपस्थिते प्राप्ते । यथोदितान् यथोक्तान् ॥ ३.१७७ ॥

It has been explained what sort of Brāhmaṇas should be fed; now the author proceeds to describe other details of procedure.

‘On the preceding day’—on the day preceding the one on which the śrāddha is to be performed; i.e., if the performance falls on the Amāvāsyā or the Trayodaśī, then on Caturdaśī or Dvādaśī, respectively;—i.e., when one is going to perform the Śrāddha to-morrow, one should invite the Brāhmaṇas to-day.

‘On the next day’—i.e., on the same day as the performance.

The option here laid down is in consideration of the rules: if one is able to follow the rules closely, then one should do the inviting on the previous day; but if one is unable to do so, then one may do it on the same day. There is no doubt, however, that a strict observance of the rules would bring great rewards.

When the invitation is made, the inviter is to be approached and urged with entreaties.

Those of whom three is the least number,—this is what is meant by ‘at least three.’ That is, the least number that should be fed is three; in the event of his being able to feed more, ‘he should feed an odd number, according to his enthusiasm,’—as has already been prescribed above.

The rest of the words are meant only to fill up the verse.

‘Approached,’— arrived.

‘Such as has been described,’—i.e., mentioned above—(187)

This verse is quoted in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 83);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 697) as laying down certain details regarding the inviting of Brāhmaṇas at Śrāddhas;—in Mitākṣarā (on 1.225), as justifying the option of inviting the Brāhmaṇas on ‘the day following’ (the ‘previous day’ i.e., on the day of the performance itself);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 1133 and 1146), which adds the following notes—‘Pūrvedyuḥ’, ‘on the previous day,’ i.e., on the Caturdaśī day if the Śrāddha is to be performed on Amāvasyā;—‘aparedyuḥ’, ‘on the same day as the Śrāddha itself is performed.’ We have an option here; he who can observe the rules of the invitation for two days may do the inviting on the preceding day, others who are not able to do so should do it on the Śrāddha day; the former would be more meritorious as involving greater amount of self-denial; others hold that the invitation is to be made on the previous day, if the performer remembers the Śrāddha to be performed on the coming day; and if one does not remember it, then he may invite the Brāhmaṇas on the same day as the Śrāddha; others again hold that the invitation is to be made on the Śrāddha day only when, for some reason, it cannot be made on the preceding day; another view is that Householders are to be invited on the previous day and Renunciates and Students on the same day. It explains ‘tryavarān’ as ‘at least three,’ i.e., three, five or seven; and adds that ‘samyak’ qualifies ‘nimantrayet’.

Baudhāyana (2.8, 6).—‘Either on the previous day, or early in the morning on the same day, he shall invite persons, whose number shall not be an even one and which shall be at least three, who are well-versed expounders of the Veda, who are not related to him either by birth or gotra or mantra, who are pure and equipped with mantras; and shall seat them on seats prepared of kuśa grass, facing either the east or the north.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2, 17, 11-15).—‘The invitation shall be on the previous day;—on the next day, the second one;—and the third is the request;—some people teach that the Śrāddha should consist of about three as the first, so the second and the third.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11, 14).—‘During the dark fortnight, after the fourth day, he shall make an offering to the Pitṛs: having got them together on the previous day, either Brāhmaṇas or renunciates or hermits,—such as are advanced in age, have not deviated from their duties, are learned in the Veda, are not the invitor’s own disciples or pupils; but he may feed even his disciples, if they are possessed of special qualifications.’

Viṣṇu (73.1).—‘Going to perform the Śrāddha, he shall, on the previous day, invite the Brāhmaṇas.’

Yājñavalkya (1, 225).—‘The man, himself pure and self-controlled, shall, on the previous day, invite the Brāhmaṇas.’

Hārīta (Parāśaramādhava, p. 696).—‘Going to perform the Śrāddha the next day, he should invite the Brāhmaṇas on the previous day.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 696).—‘He shall approach the Brāhmaṇa saying—I shall perform Śrāddha to-morrow—on the previous day; if that be not possible, then on the same day.’

Devala (Do.).—‘Having made up his mind that he shall perform Śrāddha on the coming day, he shall invite the Brāhmaṇas;… if that be not possible, then the next day.’

Varāhapurāṇa (Do., p. 697).—‘Knowing that he would be performing Śrāddha on the next day, he shall clean the ground and invite the Brāhmaṇas.’

Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa (Do.).—‘On the previous day, at night, he shall approach the Brāhmaṇas after they have taken their evening meal and invite them, on behalf of his father.’

187 On the day before the Sraddha-rite is performed, or on the day when it takes place, let him invite with due respect at least three Brahmanas, such as have been mentioned above.

The brāhmaṇa invited at a rite in honor of Pitṛs shall remain self-controlled and shall not recite the Veda; so also the man who performs the śrāddha.—(188)

पित्र्ये श्राद्धे निमन्त्रितो नियतात्मा⁹⁵ भवेत् । संयतात्मा ब्रह्मचर्यं परिरक्षेत्,⁹⁶ अन्यांश् च यमनियमान् अनुतिष्ठेत स्नातकव्रतादीन् । पुरुषव्रतानां नृत्यगीतादिप्रतिषेधानां कर्माङ्गता विधीयते । तथा कर्तव्यं श्राद्धकृता यथासौ ब्राह्मणो निमन्त्रणात् प्रभृति संयतेन्द्रियो भवति, अन्यथा श्राद्धं दुष्येत् । न च छन्दांसि वेदान् अधीयीत⁹⁷ । यच् च वेदाक्षरोच्चारणम् अध्ययनं तन् निषिध्यते । जपस् तु संध्योपासनादाव् अप्रतिषिद्धः । यस्य तत्कर्तव्यं स्राद्धं भवेत् । पित्र्ये श्राद्धे निमन्त्रितवन् नियतात्मा भवेत् । संयतात्मा च सो ऽपि नियतात्मा भवेद् इति पदयोजना । अतो भोक्तुः कर्तुश् च निमन्त्रणात् प्रभृति तुल्यो नियमो ऽनध्ययनं च ॥ ३.१७८ ॥

One invited ‘at a rite in honour of Pitṛs’—i.e., a t a śrāddha—‘shall remain self controlled;’ i.e., with his mind under control, he shall maintain continence and keep up also the other restraints and observances—such as the observances of the ‘Snātaka,’ and so forth. The avoidance of dancing, music, etc., which are the observances to be kept up by men, has been prescribed as part and parcel of religions rites; hence the performer of the śrāddha shall so arrange things that the invited Brāhamaṇa, from the moment he has been invited, shall keep control over his sense-organs; otherwise the śrāddha would become defective.

‘He shall not recite the Veda;’—what is prohibited is the reciting of the texts of the Veda; the mere repeating of mantras during the evening and morning prayers is not prohibited.

‘Also the man who performs the Śrāddha’—i.e., at the rite that one performs in honour of the Pitṛs, one should, like the invitee, remain self-controlled; the construction is—‘So the man also…… shall remain self-controlled.’ The meaning is, that the rule regarding self-control and avoiding of Veda-reciting applies alike to the inviter and the invitee, from the moment of invitation onwards.—(188)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 456);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1014), which adds the following notes:—The Brāhmaṇa invited at Śrāddha should keep himself self-controlled, i.e., should keep himself free from sexual intercourse and also keep the other restrictions; Medhātithi

says that the obeservances laid down for the Accomplished Student, the avoidance of dancing and music, &c. are all meant to be kept; the meaning is that the inviter should see to it that the invited keeps these restrictions:—‘Chandāṃsi’ Vedas;—‘adhīyīta’, ‘utter the words of the Veda’; the Japa of texts is not prohibited:—the performer of the Śrāddha himself also is to observe these restrictions; the role is meant for both the inviter and the invited.

Gautama (15.23).—‘Therefore on that day, he shall live like a religious student,’

Yājñavalkya (1.225).—‘They shall remain under self-restraint, with mind, speech and acts duly controlled.’

Prajāpati (93).—‘The Brāhmaṇa invited at the Śrāddha should avoid association with women on the previous day and on the next day; as also the second meal.’

Likhita (60).—‘One who has eaten at the Śrāddha shall avoid eight things: the second meal, journeying, carrying loads, study, sexual intercourse, making and receiving gifts, and offering of oblations into fire.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 457).—‘Having been previously invited, if the Brāhmaṇa accept a gift, or if he eat at the Śrāddha after having taken his food, then all his merit becomes destroyed.’

188 A Brahmana who has been invited to a (rite) in honour of the manes shall always control himself and not recite the Veda, and he who performs the Sraddha (must act in the same manner).

The Pitṛs attend upon those invited Brāhmaṇas; like the wind, they follow them and sit down when they are seated.—(189)

निमन्त्रितेन नियतात्मना भवितव्यम् इत्य् अस्य विधेर् अर्थवादो ऽयम् । यस्मान् निमन्त्रितान् ब्राह्मणान् अदृश्येन रूपेण पितर उपतिष्ठन्ति तच्छरीरम् अन्प्रविशन्ति, यथा भूतग्रहाविष्टम् । वायुवद् अनुगच्छन्ति⁹⁸ । यथा वायुः प्राणः पुरुषं गच्छन्तम् अनुगच्छति,⁹⁹ न गच्छन्तं प्राणो जहति, एवं पितरो वायुभूता भवन्ति । तथासीनान् ब्राह्मणान् उपासते । गच्छत्स्व् अनुगच्छन्ति, उपविष्टेषूपविशन्ति । निमन्त्रिता द्विजा पितृरूपापन्ना भवन्तीत्य् अर्थः । तस्मान् न स्वतन्त्रैर् निमन्त्रितैर् भवितव्यम् ॥ ३.१७९ ॥

The present verse supplies a recommendation in support of the injunction that the invited person should remain self-controlled.

Because ‘the Pitṛs,’—in their invisible forms —‘attend upon’—enter into the body of—‘the invited Brāhmaṇas;’ just in the same manner in which people are obsessed by evil spirits.

‘Like the wind they follow him;’—when a man moves along, the ‘wind’—in the form of his breath—follows him; and it does not leave him while he is moving; and the Pitṛs also are in the form of air.

‘So when they ’—the Brāhmaṇas—‘are seated,’ “they sit down;’ i.e., they move when the Brāhmaṇas move and sit down when they are seated. The meaning is that the invited Brāhmaṇas take the form of the Pitṛs; hence those invited shall not be unrestrained in their behaviour.—(189)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1005), which adds that the Fathers ‘upatiṣṭhanti,’ enter the bodies of the invited Brāhmaṇas; i. e., the Brāhmaṇas represent the Fathers; for this reason they should keep pure.

189 For the manes attend the invited Brahmanas, follow them (when they walk) like the wind, and sit near them when they are seated.

The rest of Brāhmaṇas, who, when duly invited at the rite in honour of Gods and Pitṛs, happens, somehow, to neglect it, incurs sin and becomes a hog.’—(190)

केतित उपनिमन्त्रितः । हव्ये कव्ये दैवे पित्र्ये च । अङ्गीकृत्य निमन्त्रणम् अभ्युपगम्य श्राद्धभोजनम्, यदि कथंचिद् अतिक्रामति, भोजनकाले न संविधीयते, ब्रह्मचर्यं च न रक्षति, तदा सूकरतां गच्छति स ब्राह्मणः । कथंचित् कामाद् विस्मृत्य वा । यथान्यायम् इति वृत्तपूरणम् ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुः । प्रार्थ्यमानस्यानभ्युपगम एवातिक्रमः । तथा च स्राद्धकल्पे उक्तम्- “अनिन्दितेनामन्त्रितो नातिक्रामेत्” इति ।

• एतच् चायुक्तम् । लिप्सया प्रवृत्तिः श्राद्धे, न पुनः शास्त्रतः । तत्रासत्यां¹⁰⁰ लिप्सायां यदि नाङ्गीकरोति तदा को दोषः ॥ ३.१८० ॥

‘Ketitaḥ’ means invited.

‘Havye kavye’—at the rite in honour of Gods, and at the rite in honour of the Pitṛs. Having accepted the invitation and promised to eat,—if ‘somehow he neglects it,’—i.e., does not present himself at the time of eating, or, if he does not maintain continence,—then such a Brāhmaṇa ‘becomes a hog.’

‘Somehow’—i.e., either intentionally, or through lapse of memory.

‘Duly’—this has been added for the purpose of filling up the verse.

Others have held that the ‘neglect’ here stands for non-acceptance of the invitation; according to what has been said in the Śrāddhakalpa—‘one should not fail to accept the invitation of a man free from all blame.’

This, however, is not right; it is through desire to eat that men become prone to go to śrāddhas; and if a man happens to have no such desire, and hence refuses the invitation, what sin could there be in this?—(190.)

‘Atikrāman’—‘Does not present himself at the time of eating, and does not maintain continence’ (Medhātithi, who is slightly misrepresented by Buhler, who attributes to him only the latter part of the explanation);—‘breaks the appointment’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘who does not accept the invitation’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, who rejects this explanation).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 701) in support of the view that the man ‘who having accepted the invitation, subsequently refuses it, even though quite fit to respond to it, incurs a sin.’ It explains ‘ketitaḥ’ as ‘being invited.’

Madanapārijāta (p. 565) quotes the verse;—also Aparārka, (p. 457), which adds that this refers to the person who has accepted the invitation;—and Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1002), which adds the following notes;—‘Ketitaḥ,’ invited;—the meaning is that if, on an invitation, the invited fails to keep the restrictions, he becomes a pig;—‘Kathañcit,’ intentionally or through forgetfulness; others hold that ‘atikrāman’ means ‘not accepting the invitation,’ but this view has been criticised and rejected by Medhātithi.

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 701).—‘Having been invited, if the Brāhmaṇa goes elsewhere to take his food, he goes to a hundred hells and is born among Cāṇḍālas.’

Ādipurāṇa (Do.).—‘Being invited, the Brāhmaṇa should not be late; one who is late… falls into hell.’

190 But a Brahmana who, being duly invited to a rite in honour of the gods or of the manes, in any way breaks (the appointment), becomes guilty (of a crime), and (in his next birth) a hog.

If the man invited at the śrāddha dallies with a woman, he takes upon himself all the sin that there may be in the giver.—(191)

वृषलीशब्दः स्त्रीमात्रोपलक्षणार्थः, सामान्येन ब्रह्मचर्यस्य विधानात् । अतो ब्राह्मण्य् अपि वृषल्य् एव । वृषस्यति चालयति भर्तारम् इति यौगिकत्वं दर्शयति । अतो ऽयम् अर्थः । भोजनम् अङ्गीकृत्य तदहः यः स्त्रिया सह मोदते रमते, तया सह सुरतसंभोगेच्छया संलापालिङ्गनाद्य् अपि यो जनयति, तस्यायं दोषः । दातुः श्राद्धस्य कर्तुः, यद् दुष्कृतं पापं किंचित् तत् सर्वं तस्मिन् संक्रामति । अनिष्टफलयोगमात्रम् अनेन निर्दिश्यते । अन्यथा यत्र दाता पुण्यकृत् तत्र न कश्चिद् दोषः स्यात् । मोदनं हर्षोत्पत्तिः । तेन संलापालिङ्गनाद्य् अपि न कर्तव्यम् ॥ ३.१८१ ॥

The term ‘vṛṣalī’ here stands for woman in general; this is indicated by the fact that the invitee has been advised to observe strict continence (and not only avoidance of improper intercourse). Hence, in the present context, the Brāhmaṇa woman also is a ‘vṛṣalī;’ the term (in this sense) being etymologically explained as ‘she who tempts her husband’ (bhartāram vṛṣasyati). Tims, what the passage means is as follows:—Having accepted invitation, if the man dallies with a woman,—i.e., with a view to having sexual intercourse with her, engages in such nets as conversation, embracing, and so forth,—then he incurs the following evil: whatever sin there might be in the ‘giver,’ i.e., the performer of the Śrāddha—passes on to him. What this indicates is the coming about of undesirable results; if this were not what is meant, then it would mean that there is nothing wrong in doing this, in a case where the giver is a sinless person.

‘Dallying’ stands for obtaining pleasure; hence it follows that one should not do even such acts as conversation, embracing, and the like.—(191)

‘Vṛṣalī’—‘Woman in general’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nandana and Rāghavānanda);—‘a Śūdra woman’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 702), where it apparently takes the term ‘vṛṣalī’ as standing for the Śūdra woman;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1006), which adds the following notes—‘vṛṣalī’ stands here for woman in general,—the Brāhmaṇī also is a ‘vṛṣalī’ in the sense that she ‘hankers after the male’ (vṛṣasyati bhartāram); hence the meaning is that ‘if after having accepted the invitation, one enjoys the company of his wife he incurs sin,’—‘modate’ means enjoying, hence conversing and embracing also are to be avoided,—‘dātuḥ,’ of the performer of the Śrāddha,—‘duṣkṛtam’ sin,—becomes transferred to the said transgressor, i.e., some disagreeable results accrue to him. If the words were to be taken in the literal sense then there could be nothing wrong in eases where the inviter is a pure, sinless man.

Gautama (15.22).—‘He who has just taken part in a Śrāddha,—if he takes to his bed a Śūdra woman, he throws his forefathers into her ordure for three months.’

191 But he who, being invited to a Sraddha, dallies with a Sudra woman, takes upon himself all the sins which the giver (of the feast) committed.

The Pitṛs are the foremost gods, free from anger, ever intent on purity, chaste, rid of all means of offence, and supremely blessed.—(192)

अक्रोधनाः क्रोधवर्जिताः । शौचपराः । शौचं शुद्धता मृद्वारिभ्यां प्रायश्चित्तेनान्तःशुद्ध्या वा । सततं शुद्धेर् विशेषनम् । तेन निष्ठीवनादाव् आचमनादि तत्क्षणम् एव कर्तव्यम् । ब्रह्मचारिणः स्त्रीसंभोगं परिहरति । न्यस्तशस्त्राः । न्यस्तं त्यक्तं शस्त्रं यैः । शस्त्रग्रहणं दण्डपारुष्योपलक्षणार्थम् । महाभागाः । औदार्यधनित्वादिगुणयोगो महाभागता । यत¹⁰¹ एवंविधं पितॄणां रूपम्, ते च¹⁰² ब्राह्मणान् आविशन्ति, अतस् तैस् तद्रूपधारिभिर् भवितव्यम् इत्य् अर्थवादेनायम् अर्थो विधीयते ।¹⁰³ पूर्वदेवताः पितरो नाम, कल्पान्तरे ऽप्य् एते¹⁰⁴ देवता एवेति स्तुतिः । पूर्वकालं पितॄणाम् अर्चनीयत्वात् पूर्वग्रहणम् ॥ ३.१८२ ॥

‘Free from anger’—without wrath.

‘Intent on purity,’—‘purity’ standing either for external purity obtained by means of clay and water, or internal purity obtained by means of expiatory rites.

‘Ever’—qualifies ‘purity.’ Hence the meaning is that, whenever one happens to spit or do any such unclean act, one should rinse one’s mouth immediately.

‘Chaste’—avoiding all intercourse with women.

‘Rid of all means of offence—those by whom the means of offence have been laid aside. ‘Offence’ stands for roughness and strife of all kinds.

‘Supremely blessed;’—‘blessedness’ consists in the presence of such qualities as nobility, prosperity, and so forth.

Since it is in all this form that the Pitṛs enter into the body of the Brāhmaṇas,—therefore, the Brāhmaṇas also should assume these same forms;—this is what is enjoined by means of the commendatory description contained in the verse.

‘Foremost gods.’—That in another time-cycle the ancestors were gods, is an eulogium bestowed on the ancestors. They are called ‘foremost’ because they are worshipped before the gods.—(192)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, pp. 61 and 1005), which adds the following notes ‘Akrodhanāḥ,’ free from anger,—‘śaucaparāḥ’ is qualified by ‘satatam’, ‘always pure,’—hence the invited should sip water immediatly on sneezing or spitting,—‘brahmacāriṇaḥ,’ avoiding intercourse with women,—‘nyastaśastrāḥ’, who have renounced cruelty,—‘mahābhāgāḥ’, endowed with mercy, generosity and other such qualities; ‘since Fathers are such the invited who take their form, should also be so.’

Viṣṇu (9.14,17, 24).—‘He should offer metallic vessels;—specially those of silver;—whatever is offered with a vessel—howsoever small—made of gold or silver or rhinoceros-horn or Udumbara wood,—becomes imperishable.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 237).—‘The remnant of the oblations one should carefully offer into vessels, such as may be available; but specially in those of silver.’

192 The manes are primeval deities, free from anger, careful of purity, ever chaste, averse from strife, and endowed with great virtues.

Now fully learn from whom all these have their origin and who are to be worshipped, by whom and by what roles.—(193)

य एतेषां प्तॄणाम् उत्पत्तिर् ये च पितरो यैर् उपचर्याः । ब्राह्मणेन सोमपाः, क्षत्रियेण हविष्मन्तः इत्यादि । तत् सर्वम् अप्य् अशेषत इदानीम् उच्यमानं निबोधत बुध्यध्वम् । नियमैर् इत्य् अनुवादः, पूर्वम् एव विहितत्वात् “नियतात्मा भवेत्” इति (म्ध् ३.१७८) । बहुवचनं बहुत्वान् नियमानाम् ॥ ३.१८३ ॥

He from whom these—Pitṛs—‘have their origin,’ and ‘who’—which Pitṛs—‘have to be worshipped by whom,’ i.e., the ‘Somapa’ Manes by Brāhmaṇas, the ‘Haviṣmat’ Pitṛs by Kṣatriyas, and so forth;—all this ‘learn fully,’ as described now.

‘Rules;’—this is a mere reiterative reference; the rules having been already laid down in the words, ‘one should remain self-controlled, &c., &c.’ The plural number is due to there being a large number of rules.—(193)

193 Now learn fully from whom all these (manes derive) their origin, and with what ceremonies they ought to be worshipped.

Of Manu, the son of Hiraṇyagarbha, Marīci and the rest were sons; and the sons of all these sages have been declared to constitute the “Body of Pitṛs.”—(194)

हिरण्यगर्भः प्रजापतिः । तस्य पुत्रो हैरण्यगर्भो मनुः । तथा चोक्तं प्रथमाध्याये- “एवं सर्वं स सृष्ट्वेदं मां च” इति (म्ध् १.५१) । तस्य मनोर् ये मरीच्यादयः पुत्राः अत्र्यङ्गिरसाव् इत्यादयस् तेषाम् ऋषीणां ये पुत्रास् त एते पितृगणाः ।

• ननु च पित्रादयः सर्वस्यात्मीयाः पितरः¹⁰⁵ । एवं हि चोदितम्-¹⁰⁶ “पित्रे पितामहाय प्रपितामहाय पिण्डान् निर्वपेत्” । तथा “अत ऊर्ध्वं पुत्रास् त्रिभ्यो दद्युः” इति । तत्र किम् इदम् उच्यते “ऋषीणां पुत्राः पितरः सोमपा नाम विप्राणाम्” इति । न च विकल्पः शक्यः प्रतिपत्तुम्- “सोमपेभ्यो दद्यात् पितृपितामहेभ्यो वा” इति । अत उत्पत्तौ “पुत्रेण कर्तव्यम्” इति श्रूयते । संबन्धिशब्दश् च पुत्रशब्दः । तथा “पिता यस्य तु वृत्तः स्यात्” इति (म्ध् ३.२११) । तस्माद् वक्तव्यो ऽस्य प्रकरणस्यार्थः ।

• उच्यते । स्तुतिर् इयं पूर्वविधिशेषभूता । नात्र तेषां संप्रदानता श्रुता ।

• ननु च “उपचर्याः” (म्ध् ३.१८३) इति विधिर् अस्ति ।

• नायं चरतिः सामान्यक्रियारूपो विधिविषयो भवितुम् अर्हति । उपचारो नाम कश्चिद् दानयागादिवद् वेदे न प्रतीयते । प्रायेण ह्य् अयं करोतिवत् संनिहितक्रियापरतया प्रयुज्यते । संनिहितं च श्राद्धम् । तत्र विशिष्ठसंप्रदानकं¹⁰⁷ विहितं न शक्यं पुनर् विधातुम्, विधेयत्वेन¹⁰⁸ च न संनिधिर् अस्ति । संनिहितस्य चरतिर् बाधकः । यो ऽपि लोके “गुरव उपचर्याः” इतिप्रयोगस् तत्रापि शुश्रूषालक्षणार्थः पादधावनादिः प्रतीयते । सो ऽपि यथोदितानां पितॄणां न संभवति । प्रकृत्यैकवाक्यतया चार्थवत्तोपपत्तेर् नार्थान्तरकल्पनापि संभवति । यदि च सोमपादयो यथावर्णं श्राद्धे¹⁰⁹ देवतात्वेनाभिप्रेताः स्युस् ततो ऽभिजनवर्णनम् उपयोगि । स्तावकत्वे¹¹⁰ तु सर्वम् उपपद्यते ।

• यः कश्चित् पितृद्वेषात् पित्र्ये कर्मण्य् उपहतबुद्धिर् अनादरवान्त् स्यात् तस्य प्रवृत्त्यर्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते । मैवं मंस्थाः “मृतमनुष्यरूपाः पितरः, ये न¹¹¹ तर्पिताः, श्राद्धे किं दोषं करिष्यन्ति, तर्पिता वा किं गुणम्” इति । यत एते महाप्रभावाः । सर्वस्य जगतः प्रभुर् हिरण्यगर्भस् तस्य पुत्रो मनुः तस्यैते पौत्राः । अत एव ऋषीणां चेत्य् उच्यते । न मनोर् ये केचिद् अन्ये पुत्राः, किं तर्हि ऋषयस् ते च¹¹² प्रथितप्रभावा मरीच्यादयः । तेषां पुत्राः पितरः । बहुविधाश् च प्रतिपत्तारो य एतादृशेभ्यो ऽर्थवादवाक्येभ्यः प्रवर्तन्तेतराम् ।

• ये च व्याचक्षते, “सोमपादिदृष्टिः पितृषु कर्तव्या” इति, ते प्रमाणाभावाद् उपेक्षणीयाः । न हि यथादित्ये ब्रह्मदृष्टिः उपदिश्यते एवम् इह तादृशं किंचन वचनम् अस्ति ।

• ये ऽप्य् आहुः “गृहीत्वा गोत्रनामनी पितृभ्यो दद्यात्” इति, तच् चैतद्गोत्रं सोमपाः इत्यादिवर्णभेदेन । तद् अप्य् अयुक्तम् । नामनिर्देशो ऽयं न गोत्रनिर्देशः, सोमपानाम् इति श्रवणात् । गोत्रनामधेयत्वे ऽपि नामशब्द उपपद्यत एवेति चेत्, एवं तर्हि गोत्रनिर्देशे¹¹³ वैयधिकरण्यं स्यात्, “पितॄणां सोमपा गोत्रम्” इति, न तु पितरः सोमपा इति ।

• अथाभेदोपचारेण गोत्रेण संतानव्यपदेशो दृष्ट इत्य् उच्यते, यथा बभ्रुर् मन्दुर् इति ।

• अत्रोच्यते । इदम् इह निरूप्यं किम् एतद् गोत्रं नाम । आदिपुरुषः संज्ञाकारी विद्यावित्तशौर्यौदार्यादिगुणयोगेन ख्याततमो येन कुलं व्यपदिश्यते¹¹⁴ । एवं तर्हि सर्वेषाम् एव ब्राह्मणादीनाम् अवान्तरगोत्रभेदाः सन्तीति । स्मरन्ति च यादृशं पुरुषं तत्संतानजाः पुरुषा “वयम् अमुष्यकुले जाताः” इत्य् अतस् तेनैव व्यपदेशो युक्तः । न हि “सोमपा वयम्” इति कश्चिद् गोत्रत्वेन सोमपान् स्मरति, यथा भृगुगर्गगालावान् । ब्राह्मणानां च तैर् एव गोत्रव्यपेदेशो युक्तः । तानि हि मुख्यानि गोत्राणि । रूढिरूपेण न तत्र गोत्रशब्दः प्रवर्तते । न हि तेषां गोत्रत्वे एतल्लक्षणम् अस्ति “आदिपुरुषः संज्ञाकारी गोत्रम्” इति, अनादित्वाद् एतद्गोत्राणाम्, ब्राह्मणादिजातिवत् । न हि पराशरजन्मत ऊर्ध्वं पाराशरव्यपदेशः केषांचिद् ब्राह्मणानाम् । एवं सति आदिमत्ता वेदस्य प्रसज्येत¹¹⁵ । अतो नित्यत्वाद् एतस्य¹¹⁶ गोत्रव्यपदेशस्योदकतर्पणादौ तद् एव गोत्रं श्रयितव्यम् । ये तु संज्ञाकारिणस् ते न नित्याः, इदानींतनाः । न च नित्ये संबवत्य् अनित्यसोमपादानं वैदिके कर्मणि युक्तम् । अतो ब्राह्मणैर् यथागोत्रं गार्ग्याय गर्गगोत्राय वा स्वधा इदम् उदकम् अस्त्व् इति एवमादिशब्देनोद्देशं कृत्वा ततो नामोच्चार्य उदकदानादि कर्तव्यम् ।

• क्षत्रियादीनां नैतादृशो गोत्रव्यवहारो विद्यते । न हि यथा ब्राह्मणो गोत्रं नियतं स्मरति, एवं क्षत्रियादयः । तस्मात् तेषां लौकिकम् एव गोत्रम्, आदिपुरुषः संज्ञाकारी ख्याततम इति । अतस् तेन गोत्रेण श्राद्धादौ व्यपदिश्यन्ते आदिमतापि नामधेयेनैव । न तु तेषां क्षत्रियाणां हविर्भुगित्यादिगोत्रतया श्राद्धादौ व्यपदेशम् अर्हन्ति ।

• ये ऽप्य् आहुर् अज्ञातपित्रादिनामका ये तेषाम्¹¹⁷ एतैः शब्दैः श्राद्धादि चोद्यते “सोमपान् आह्वयामि सोमपेभ्यः स्वधा” इति ।

• एतद् अपि न सम्यक् । उक्तं हि “नामान्य् अविद्वांस् ततः पितामहप्रपितामहेति” । यदि चार्थवादतया न प्रकृतशेषत्वेनार्थ्वत्ता लभ्येत, तत एव कल्पा आश्रियेरन् । न त्व् एकवाक्यतयान्वये संभवति वाक्यभेदकल्पनेनार्थो न्याय्यः ॥ ३.१८४ ॥

‘Hiraṇyagarbha’ is Prajāpati; his son is ‘Manu, the son of Hiraṇyagarbha;’ as has been declared under Discourse I—‘Having created all this and myself, &c., &c.’—of this Manu, the sons were ‘Marīci and the rest’—i.e., Atri, Aṅgiras, and so forth; and these constitute the ‘Body of Pitṛs,’ ‘Pitṛgaṇa.’

An objection is raised—“For every person, his own Father, &c., are his ‘Pitṛs.’ The injunctions also are in the words—‘one should offer balls to his father, grandfather and great-grandfather;’ ‘after this, the sons should make offerings to three ancestors.’ What then is this that is being said now—that ‘the sons oft he sages are the Pitṛs,’—or that ‘the Somapās are the Pitṛs of Brāhmaṇas?’ We cannot accept any such option as that—‘one shall make an offering to the Somapā

Pitṛs,’ or ‘he shall make the offering to his father and grandfather;’ for the simple reason that in the original injunction we find the words ‘this should be done by the son;’ and ‘son’ is a relative term; and later on (verse 221) we read—‘he whose father may be dead &c., &c.’ It has, therefore, got to be explained what is the real meaning of the present context,”

The answer to the above is as follows:—What the present verse contains is merely a commendatory description supplementary to the foregoing injunctions; and we never hear of the ‘Somapa’ and other Pitṛs spoken as the recipients of offerings.

“But there is the injunction (in 193) that these have to be worshipped.”

The root ‘chara’ (in ‘upacaryāḥ’) is denotative of mere action in general; and as such, it cannot form the subject of any injunction. In the Veda, we do not find any such action spoken of as ‘upacāra,’ in the same manner as the acts of sacrificing, giving and the like. In most cases, the root ‘chara’ is used, like the root ‘kṛ’ as pertaining to some other act mentioned in close proximity to it; and in the present case, the act mentioned in close proximity is that of offering the śrāddha. This latter act having been already enjoined as to be offered to a definite set of recipients, could not be again enjoined as to be offered to other recipients. If it were again the enjoined itself, then it would not be regarded as being in proximity to another enjoined act; and the presence of the root ‘chara’ distinctly precludes the possibility of any other act being understood, which is not in proximity to another enjoined act. As for such usages in ordinary parlance as ‘the Teacher should be worshipped,’ ‘guravaḥ upacaryāh’ (where we have the same term ‘upacaryāḥ’), there also the act that is understood to be expressed is service, in the form of washing the feet, and the like; and no such act as these is possible in connection with the Pitṛs, And so long as a passage is capable of being construed in a certain sense along with the context in which it occurs, there can be no justification for assuming another meaning for it. If the ‘Somapa’ and the rest had been really intended as the recepients of the Śrāddha offered by the several castes, then alone would there have been any use for the description of their birth, &c. (as found in the present verse). When, however, the verse is taken as a mere commendatory description, then any description might come in useful.

Hence, the conclusion is, that the present verse proceeds with a view to make those people undertake the performance of Śrāddha who may happen to have no regard for their ancestors, and hence having no inclination for doing any act on their behalf;—the purport being—‘do not you think that the Pitṛs being dead men, what harm could they do if they were not satisfied at the Śrāddha, or what good they could do by being satisfied?—because they are, in reality, beings of tremendous power, being the grandsons of Manu; who is the son of Hiraṇyagarbha, the lord of the whole universe.’ It is for conveying this sense that the text has used the term, ‘of the sages;’ which means that they are not ordinary sons of Manu; it is those great sages, Marīci and the rest, who are known as possessed of great powers; and it is of such sages that the Pitṛs are the sons.

There are many people who would be led to the performance of Śrāddhas, just by means of such laudatory descriptions.

Some people explain the verse to mean that “one should look upon the Pitṛs as Somapa and the rest.

These, however, have to be disregarded; as there is no authority for any such notion. We have no such assertion to this effect, as we have in connection with the propriety of looking at the sun as Brahman.

Others, again, have offered the explanation that, what is meant is, that the rule being that ‘offerings to the Pitṛs should be made after pronouncing their gotra and name,’ and ‘Somapā,’ &c., are just the names that have to be pronounced in connection with the several castes.

This also is not right; since the expression used is “somapā nāma,” ‘by name Somapā,’ these must be names, not gotras.

“But the term ‘name’ would be applicable also when these were names of gotras only.”

If these were the names of gotras, then the two could not be in apposition; the proper form would be, ‘Somapā is the gotra of the Pitṛs,’ and not that ‘the Pitṛs are Somapa.’

“It is often found that the descendant is identified with his gotra, and the name of the latter is applied to the former; e.g, in such expressions as ‘Babhru is Mandu.’”

Our answer to this is as follows:—It has to be considered here what is it that is called ‘gotra,’ As a matter of fact, the ‘gotra’ of a family is its first progenitor who imparts his name to it, being the most renowned person by virtue of his possessing such qualities as learning, opulence, bravery, nobility and the like; and it is after him that the family becomes named. Thus it is that among Brāhmaṇas and others, there are sub-divisious of gotras. The personage whom his descendants remember with such feelings as ‘we are the descendants of such and such a person,’ would thus be the one after which that particular family should be named. As a matter of fact, however, no men are found to think of themselves as being ‘Somapā’ and thus regarding

‘Somapā’ as the name of their gotra;—in the manner in which people regard the names of ‘Bhṛgu’, ‘Garga’ and

‘Gālaya.’ It is by these latter names that the gotras of Brāhmaṇas should be known; as these are the principal gotras; the name ‘gotra’ applying to them by convention, and not by virtue of their fulfilling the condition mentioned in the above-mentioned definition that ‘the first progenitor, imparting his name to the family, is its gotra;’ in fact, ‘Bhṛgu,’ &c., have been known as ‘gotra’ from beginningless time, and their use in this sense is as much without beginning as the use of the caste-names, ‘Brāhmaṇa,’ and the rest. Prior to Parāśara’s birth, no Brāhmaṇas could have been named after him; hence, if the ‘gotra’ consisted in the first progenitor, &c., then the Veda (which makes mention of Parāśara as gotra) would have a beginning in time. Thus, then, since the use of the name ‘gotra’ is beginningless, it is this ‘gotra’ that is to be used in the pouring of water-libations. The persons imparting their names to families are not beginningless; they are modern; and at a Vedic rite, so long as one can make use of eternal names, there can be no justification for pronouncing names that have had a beginning in time. For these reasons, what the Brāhmaṇa should do when offering the libation of water, &c„ is to pronounce the appropriate ‘gotra- name’—such as ‘may this offering go to the Gargya,’ or ‘to one belonging to the Garga-gotra’—and then pronounce the name of the person.

Among the Kṣatriya and the other castes, however, there is no such usage regarding gotra. These latter do not retain the memory of their ‘gotra’ in the same manner as the Brāhmaṇas do. Hence, for them, the ‘gotra’ must be something pertaining to this world; and it is for these that the ‘gotra’ consists of the ‘first progenitor, the most renowned, who imparts his name to the family:’ hence it is that they are referred to in Śrāddha, etc., by this gotra-name, even though it is one that has had a beginning in time. These, Kṣatriya, etc., are not worthy of being called by such titles as ‘Havirbhuk,’ and the like.

Some people have held that—“the offerings enjoined as to be made with such expressions as ‘I am inviting the Somapās,’ ‘may this reach the Somapās,’ and the like, are by those persons, the names of whose father and other ancestors are unknown.”

This also is not right; as it has been distinctly laid down that ‘one not knowing the names of one’s ancestors should make the offerings simply with the words to the father, to the grandfather, and so forth.’

Further, there might be some justification for having recourse to the several explanations of this verse, only if it were absolutely impossible to construe it as serving the purposes of a commendatory description supplementary to the foregoing injunction. But so long as it is possible to construe the verse along with what has gone before, it cannot be right to take it as an isolated assertion by itself.—(194)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 43).

194 The (various) classes of the manes are declared to be the sons of all those sages, Mariki and the rest, who are children of Manu, the son of Hiranyagarbha.

The Somasads, the sons of Virāj, have been declared to be the Pitṛs of the Sādhyas; and the Agnisvāttas, the sons of Marīci, are famed in the world as the Pitṛs of the Gods.—(195)

श्राद्धार्थवादा अमी श्लोकाः, अशेषेणैकवाक्यत्वात् । न हि साध्यानां पितरः श्राद्धसंप्रदानं शिष्यन्ते, देवतात्वात् साध्यानाम्¹¹⁸ । देवतानां च न¹¹⁹ कर्मस्व् अधिकारः¹²⁰, नियोज्यत्वाभावात् । न हि देवता नियोक्तुं शक्यते, देवतात्वहानिप्रसङ्गात् । अधिकारे सति प्रतिपत्तव्यं कर्तृत्वम् । कर्तृत्वे च कुतः संप्रदानभावः । न चान्यद् देवतारूपम् । विराजः सुताः विराट्सुताः सोमसदो नाम, ते साध्यानां पितरः । ईदृशम् एव नित्यं कर्मावश्यं कर्तव्यम्, यत् साध्याः पूर्वदेवाः कृतकरणीया¹²¹ अपि पितॄन् अर्चयन्ति । अग्नौ पक्वं चरुपुरोडाशादिकं स्वदन्ते अग्निष्वात्ताः देवानाम् इन्द्राग्न्यादीनां पितरः । मरीचेर् जाता मारीचाः । लोकविश्रुताः प्रसिद्धाः ॥ ३.१८५ ॥

All these verses are laudatory descriptions relating to Śrāddhas; as they are all construable together. The ‘Pitṛs of the Sādhyas’ have not been laid down as the recipients of Śrāddhas; specially because they are gods, and also because the Sādhyas also, who are themselves gods, are not entitled to the performance of Śrāddhas; for the simple reason that they are not such as. can be directed to do an act. Gods cannot be directed to do an act; for, if they were, this would deprive them of their god-like character. If gods were entitled to the performance of an act, they would be regarded as the ‘ doer;’ and the ‘doer’ or ‘agent’ could never be the ‘recipient;’ while, in reality, the very nature of the gods consists in their being ‘recipients’ (of sacrifices).

The sous of Virāj are the Somasads; and these are the ‘Pitṛs of the Sādhyas.’

[The sense of all this laudatory description is as follows]—This rite in honour of the Pitṛs must always be performed; since, even the Sādhyas, who are gods, and as such, have accomplished all that they had to do, worship their Pitṛs.

The Agniṣvāttas, who are the Pitṛs of Agni and other Gods, relish the cake and milk and rice cooked on fire.

‘Mārīcāḥ’—sons of Marīci.

‘Lokaviśrutāḥ’—famed in the world.—(195)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 55).

195 The Somasads, the sons of Virag, are stated to be the manes of the Sadhyas, and the Agnishvattas, the children of Mariki, are famous in the world (as the manes) of the gods.

The Barhisads, the sons of Atri, are declared to be the Pitṛs of Daityas, Dānavas, Yakṣas, Gandharvas, Uragas, Rākṣasas, Suparṇas and Kinnaras.—(196)

सर्व एते दैत्यादयह् शास्त्रानधिकृताः अर्थवादार्थं संकीर्त्यन्ते । तेषां च स्वरूपम् इतिहासप्रसिद्धम् । सुपर्णा पक्षिविशेषाः । किन्नरा अश्वमुखास् तिर्यञ्चः । एवंविधम् एतत् पित्र्यं¹²² कर्म यद् दैत्यदानवरक्षांसि यज्ञविध्वंसकराण्य् अपि नातिवर्तन्ते तथा तिर्यञ्चो ऽप्य् असंज्ञास्मृतिकाः । अत्रेर् जाता बर्हिषदो नाम ॥ ३.१८६ ॥

All these, Daityas, &c., though not worthy of being mentioned in scriptures, have been mentioned here for purposes of the laudatory description. The forms and character of these beings are as described in the Itihāsas.

‘Suparṇas’—are a particular kind of birds.

‘Kinnaras’—are horse-faced beings.

The purport of this laudatory description is that—so essential is the performance of Śrāddhas that even Daityas, Dānavas and Rākṣasas, who generally interfere with sacrificial performances, cannot avoid it; nor even animals, who have no intelligence and no memory.

The sons of Atri are called ‘Barhiṣads.’— (196)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 55).

196 The Barhishads, born of Atri, are recorded to be (the manes) of the Daityas, Danavas, Yakshas, Gandharvas, Snake-deities, Rakshasas, Suparnas, and a Kimnaras,

Those by name Somapās are the Pitṛs of Brāhmaṇas; the Havirbhujs are the Pitṛs of Kṣatriyas; those by name Ājyapas, of Vaiśyas; and of Śūdras, Sukālins.—(197)

उक्तार्थः प्राग् एवायं स्लोकः । सोमं पिबन्ति ज्योतिष्टोमादिदेवता¹²³ इन्द्रादयः¹²⁴ । हविर्भुजश् चरुपुरोषाशादिदेवताः । आज्यपा आघारावाज्यभागप्रयाजादिदेवताः । सुकालिनः । कालयन्ति अपवर्जयन्ति कर्मेति सुकालिनः । कर्मापवर्गहोमदेवता “अयाश् चाग्नेस्यनभिशस्तीश् च” (म्स् १.४.३) इत्यादिविहिताः ॥ ३.१८७ ॥

What this verse means has been explained before.

The ‘Somapās’ are those that drink Soma; i.e., Indra and other deities of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices.

‘Havirbhujs’—are the deities for cooked rice, cake, &c.

‘Ājyapas’—are the deities for the libations called ‘Āghāra,’ ‘Ājyabhāga,’ ‘Pragāju,’ and so forth.

‘Sukālins’—are those who complete, accomplish, sacrificial rites. The deities conducive to the accomplishment of sacrificial rites are those prescribed in such Mantras as ‘Ayāścāgnesyanabhiśasti, &c., &e.’—(197)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 55); — and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 281.)

197 The Somapas those of the Brahmanas, the Havirbhugs those of the Kshatriyas, the Agyapas those of the Vaisyas, but the Sukalins those of the Sudras.

Somapas are the sons of Kavi; Haviṣmats are the sons of Aṅgiras; Ājyapās are the sons of Pulastya, and Sukālins, of Vaśiṣṭha.—(198)

हविर्भुज एव हविष्मन्तः । कविर् भृगुः । “काव्यं वदन्त्य् उशनसम्” इति स्मरन्ति भार्गवं च । यथैता देवता ऋषीणां पुत्रा एवं त्वदीयाश् चापि पितरो देवतारूपा एवेति मावमंस्थाः ॥ ३.१८८ ॥

The Havirbhujs are here spoken of as ‘Haviṣmats.’

‘Kavi’ is Bhrgu. They say that ‘Uśanas is called Kāvya, as also Bhārgava.’

‘Just as these gods are the sons of sages, so your Pitṛs also are god-like in their nature; hence you should not disregard them,’—[such is the purport of these verses].—(198)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 55).

198 The Somapas are the sons of Kavi (Bhrigu), the Havishmats the children of Angiras, the Agyapas the offspring of Pulastya, but the Sukalins (the issue) of Vasishtha.

‘The Anagnidagdhas, the Agnidagdhas, the Kāvyas, the Barhiṣads, the Agniṣvāttas, and the Saumyas,—these one should regard as the Pitṛs of Brāhmaṇas.—(199)

अनग्निदग्धः सोमः । न ह्य् अग्निना तस्य पाको ऽस्ति । तेन या देवता इज्यन्ते ता अप्य् अनगिदग्दाः समृद्धास् तद्गुणत उच्यन्ते । एवम् अग्निदग्धानि चरुपुरोडाशादीनि हवींषि अग्निना पच्यन्ते । तैर् या देवता इज्यन्ते ता अग्निदग्धाः । पूर्ववद् एवम् अभिसंबन्धः क्रियते । ये अग्निदग्धा उच्यन्ते तान् अग्निदग्धान् निर्दिशेत् । ये अनग्निदग्धास् तान्त् सोमपान् एव निर्दिशेत् । एवं काव्यान् बर्हिषद इति । कवेः पुत्राः काव्यास् ते च “सोमपास् तु कवेः पुत्राः” (म्ध् ३.१८८) इत्य् उक्ताः । बर्हिषदो ऽत्रिजा उक्ताः । नायम् एवकारो यथादेशम् द्रष्टव्यः । तथा ह्य् अयम् अर्थः स्यात् । विप्राणाम् एवेति पितरो न क्षत्रियादीनाम् । तच् च प्रागुक्तेन विरुध्यते । न चैते वर्णभेदेन पितृत्वेनोक्ताः, येन तस्माद् आच्छिद्य ब्राह्मणादिसंबन्धिता एषाम् उच्यते । तस्माद् अपकृष्य एवकारो ऽग्निष्वात्तन् एव सौम्यान् एव निर्दिशेद् इत्य् एवं संबन्धनीयः । विप्रग्रहणम् अनुवादत्वात् क्षत्रियादिप्रदर्शनार्थम् । एवंनामानश् चैते पितरो वेदे श्रूयन्ते “अग्निष्वात्ताः पितरो ये ऽग्निदग्धा ये अनग्दग्धाः” इति तान् मन्त्रान् उदाहृत्य विवृणोति ।

• अथ वैवं¹²⁵ संबन्धः क्रियते । य एतैः शब्दैः पितर उच्यन्ते तान् विप्राणाम् एव निर्दिशेत् स्वपितॄन् । न च शब्दभेदेनार्थभेदशङ्का कर्तव्या । विप्रग्रहणम् अधिकार्युपलक्षणार्थं प्राधान्यात् । प्रधानेन ह्य् उपलक्षणं भवति “राजा गच्छति” इति ॥ ३.१८९ ॥

Soma (the Soma plant) is what is called ‘anagnidagdha’ (‘not burnt by fire’); because it is not cooked on fire; and the gods to whom sacrifices are offered with Soma, also come to be called ‘Anagnidagdha;’ which connotes the quality of prosperity.

Similarly, ‘agnidagdha’ (‘burnt by fire’) stands for such substances as cooked rice, cake, and the like, which are all prepared on fire; and the gods to whom sacrifices are offered with these are called ‘Agnidagdha.’

As before, we construe the verse to mean as follows:—‘Those that are called Agnidagdha should be mentioned as agnidagdha, and those that are called Anagnidagdha should be mentioned as Somapā.’

Similarly with ‘Kāvyas’ and ‘Barhiṣuds the ‘Kāvyas’ have been described (in 198) as ‘Somapā;’ and ‘Barhiṣads’ as ‘the sons of Atri.’

The particle ‘eva’ is not to be construed where it occurs; as, in that case, the meaning would be that all those mentioned are the Pitṛs of Brāhmaṇas only, not of Kṣatriyas and others; and this would be contrary to what has gone before. Nor have the beings in question been mentioned as the Pitṛs of various castes, which alone could justify a few of them being selected and marked as belonging specifically to Brāhmaṇas only. Hence the ‘eva’ should be construed along with the ‘Agniṣvāttas,’ the ‘Saumyas,’ and the rest.

The mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ being purely reiterative, stands for the Kṣatriya, &c. also.

The Pitṛs bearing the names here mentioned are found mentioned in the Veda also:—‘The Pitṛs, named Agniṣvātta, Agnidagdha, Anagnidagdha.’ And it is out of those mentioned in this mantra that our author has selected some and described them here.

Or, the verse may be construed in the following manner:—‘The Pitṛs that are spoken of by these names, all these one should mention as the Brāhmaṇa’s Pitṛs:’ the mere difference in the names should not lead one to think of the named beings being different.’ In this case, the term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ would stand for ‘persons entitled to the performance of Śrāddha;’ the Brāhmaṇa being so, above all others; and it is always the predominant factor that serves as the indicative; as we find in the case of such expressions as ‘the king is passing by.’

[ This latter interpretation, being much the simpler of the two, has been adopted in the Text.]—(199)

“This verse probably contains a second classification of the Manes, which differs from the preceding, because it is based on a different tradition.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 55).

199 One should know that (other classes), the Agnidagdhas, the Anagnidagdhas, the Kavyas, the Barhishads, the Agnishvattas, and the Saumyas, are (the manes) of the Brahmanas alone.

Of the principal bodies of Pitṛs that have been described, know that there are endless sons and grandsons in this world.—(200)

एते तु मुख्या गणाः सोमपादयः पितॄणाम् । तेषाम् अपि पुत्रपौत्राः अनन्ता विद्यन्ते । ते ऽपि पितर एव । अस्माद् वानियमवचनाद्¹²⁶ एतद् गम्यते । न सोमपादय उद्देश्याः । यदि हि तेषाम् अपि पुत्रपौत्राः पितरस् ते ह्य् उद्देश्याः स्युः, न च तेषां किंचिन् नामधेयम् आम्नातम् । तस्माद् अर्थवादतैवावसीयते । गवाश्वप्रभृतित्वात् पुत्रपौत्रम् इत्य् एकवद्भावः । अनन्तकम् अपरिमितम् । स्वार्थे कः ॥ ३.१९० ॥

The ‘Somapā,’ and the rest, are the ‘principal bodies of Pitṛs.’ Of these there are endless sons and grandsons; and these latter also are Pitṛs.

The mention;of this indefinite number indicates that the offerings are not to be made in reference to the Somapa andothers; for, if the sons and grandsons of these were ‘Pitṛs’ then, as Pitṛs, these sons and grandsons also may have the offerings made in reference to them; and yet no names of these have been mentioned; whence it is clear that all this is merely laudatory description.

The singular number in ‘putrapautrakam’ is in accordance with Pāṇini 2.4.10.

‘Endless’—unlimited; the ‘ka’ having the reflexive sense.—(200)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri, (Śrāddha, p. 48).

200 But know also that there exist in this (world) countless sons and grandsons of those chief classes of manes which have been enumerated.

From the sages were born the Pitṛs, Gods and Men; and from the gods the entire world, moveable and immoveable, in due order.—(201)

न पित्र्यं कर्म दैवात् कर्मणो न्यूनं द्रष्टव्यम् । अपि तु तद् एव प्रधानतमम् । यतो जन्मज्येष्ठाः पितरो देवानाम् । तथा हि ऋषिभ्यः पितर उत्पन्नाः पितृभ्यो देवा इत्य् एष सृष्टिक्रमः । देवेभ्यो ऽन्यत् सर्वं जगत् चरं जङ्गमं स्थाणु स्थावरम् अनुपूर्वशः, प्रथमे ऽध्याये उक्तः क्रमः । अतिक्रान्तो ऽर्थवादसंपातः ॥ ३.१९१ ॥

The rite in honour of the Pitṛs should not be looked upon as inferior to that in honour of the gods; in fact, the former is the more important of the two; because by birth, the Pitṛs are elder than the gods. For, the order of creation is that the Pitṛs were born from the sages, and the gods were born from the Pitṛs, and from the gods, the whole of the rest of the world—‘moveable’—animate—as well as ‘immoveable’—inanimate.

‘In due order’—the order having been already described under Discourse I.

The entire series of purely laudatory descriptions has now come to an end.—(201)

201 From the sages sprang the manes, from the manes the gods and the Danavas, but from the gods the whole world, both the movable and the immovable in due order.

Even water offered to these with faith, in vessels, either made of silver or connected with silver, is conducive to imperishability.—(202)

राजतानि च भाजनानि रूप्यमयानि पात्राणि । तदभावे रजतान्वितैः दारुमयानि ताम्रमयानि सौवर्णानि¹²⁷ वा रौप्येणैकदेशयुक्तानि कर्तव्यानि । एतच् च पात्रं देयं घृतमध्वादिव्यञ्जनसौहित्याक्षिप्तं पात्रम्, तत्रेयं रूप्यमयता विधीयते पात्रे । यच् च पिण्डनिर्वपणादि तद्धस्ताभ्याम् एव कर्तव्यम् । यद् अप्य् उदकनिनयनं पिण्डेष्व् अवनेजनादि च तद् अपि हस्ताभ्याम् एव, “अपसव्येन हस्तेन” (म्ध् ३.२०४) इति वचनात् । यत् तूदकतर्पणम् आन्वहिकं तद् अपि हस्तेनापसव्येन सव्येन वा कर्तव्यम् ।

• इदं हि श्राद्धप्रकरणे पठितम् ।

• तन् न । अप्राकरणिकस्य कर्मणो ऽङ्गम् अप्य् अनारभ्याधीतम् ।

• तत्रैव वचनम् अस्ति ।

• भवतु, अनुवादः¹²⁸ स्यात् ।¹²⁹

• वार्य् अपि । अपिशब्दः पात्रप्रशंसां सूचयति । तिष्ठतु तावत् संस्कृतभोजनदानं वारिमात्रम् अपि यदि रूप्यपात्रेण दीयते तद्रूप्यगुणसंबन्धाद् अक्षयं भवति । अक्षयायोपकल्पते । अक्षयायास् तृप्तेर् हेतुर् भवतीत्य् अर्थः । श्रद्धयेति सर्वदानेषु विहितत्वाद् अनुवादः ॥ ३.१९२ ॥

‘Vessels made of silver’—those built entirely of silver. In the absence of these ‘those, connected with silver’—i.e., vessels of wood, or of copper, or of gold, should have one part touched with silver. The vessels referred to here are those in which large quantities of butter, honey and vegetables and other things are kept for being offered; and in connection with these, it is enjoined that they should be of silver. As for the actual offering of the ball and other things, this has to be done with the hands; the libations of water—such as those poured over the balls, etc.—these also should be offered, with the hands; in view of the clear injunction that these offerings should be made ‘with hand, the thread passing over the right shoulder.’ The daily libations of water also are to be offered with the hands—the thread passing over the left or the right shoulder.

“But all this has been laid down in connection with śrāddhas, and, as such, cannot be connected with another act.”

Even such subsidiary details are admissible in an act as are not mentioned in the same context with itself.

“But such details are already mentioned in connection with the act itself.”

That may be so; and in that case, the present right may be only a reiteration of the same.

‘Even water’—the term ‘even’ indicates high praise; the sense being that—‘to say nothing of the offering of richly cooked food, even water alone, if offered in a silver-vessel, becomes, by reason of its connection with silver, ‘conducive to imperishability’—i.e., it becomes the source of ever-lasting satisfaction (to the Pitṛs).

‘With faith;’—being already enjoined in connection with all givings, its mention here is purely reiterative.—(202)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 290), which notes that this is meant to apply only to the offering of water;—in Aparārka, (p. 488);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 675);—in Gadādharapaddhati, (Kāla, p. 549);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra, (p. 277).

Viṣṇu (9.14, 17, 24).—‘He should offer metallic vessels;—specially those of silver;—whatever is offered with a vessel—howsoever small—made of gold or silver or rhinoceros-horn or Udumbara wood,—becomes imperishable.’

Yājñavalkya (1.237).—‘The remnant of the oblations one should carefully offer into vessels, such as may be available; but specially in those of silver.’

202 Even water offered with faith (to the manes) in vessels made of silver or adorned with silver, produces endless (bliss).

For twice-born men, the rite in honour of the Pitṛs excels that in honour of the gods; the rite in honour of the gods has been declared to be the previous sustainer of the rite in honour of the Pitṛs.—(203)

देवान् उद्दिश्य यत् क्रियते तद् दैवं कार्यम् । ततः पितृकार्यं विशिष्यते, विशेषेण कर्तव्यम् उद्दिश्यते । अनेन पित्र्यस्य प्राधान्यम् आह । दैवं तत्राङ्गं कर्मेत्य् उक्तं भवति । अङ्गकर्मताम् एव स्पष्टयति । दैवं हि यद् ब्राह्मणभोजनं तत् पितृकार्यस्याप्यायनं वृद्धिकरम् । न स्वतःप्रधानं पित्र्यस्यैव पोषकम् ॥ ३.१९३ ॥

The rite done in honour of the gods is excelled by that done in honour of the Pitṛs; i.e., the latter has been more emphatically enjoined.

This only indicates the predominance of the rite in honour of the Pitṛs; the meaning being that the rite in honour of the gods is subsidiary to that in honour of the Pitṛs.

This same subsidiary character is more clearly stated,—‘The rite’—i.e., the feeding of Brāhmaṇas—‘that is done in honour of the gods’ is the, ‘sustainer’—helper—‘of the rite done in honour of the Pitṛs;’ so that it is not by itself an important act, being only an aid of that in honour of the Pitṛs.—(203)

This verse is quoted in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 526), which explains ‘āpyāyanam’ as ‘helping’, ‘subsidiary’.

Āśvalāyana (24.1).—‘Without offering the sacrifice to the Pitṛs, or the annual Śrāddha to individual ancestors,—if one performs other five sacrifices, he surely goes to hell.’

203 For twice-born men the rite in honour of the manes is more important than the rite in honour of the gods; for the offering to the gods which precedes (the Sraddhas), has been declared to be a means of fortifying (the latter).

One should first engage the Brāhmaṇa in honour of the gods, as a protection to these (offerings to) Pitṛs; for the Rākṣasas take away the śrāddha that is devoid of protection.—(204)

रक्षैव आरक्षं तत् प्राप्तं आरक्षभूतं आरक्षार्थम् इत्य् उक्तं भवति । उपमायां वा भूतशब्दः, रक्षार्थम् इव¹³⁰ । यदा तु रक्षार्थम् अतः पूर्वं दैवं ब्राह्मणं नियोजयेत् निमन्त्रयेत्¹³¹ आसने चोपवेशयेत् । अपरो ऽर्थवादः । रक्षांसि अदृश्यानि कानिचित् सत्वात्नि इतिहासे । क्रिया विप्रलुम्पन्ति आच्छिद्यन्ति पितृभ्यः श्राद्धम् । के पुनर् देवा उद्देश्याः । गृह्ये तावत् “विश्वान् देवान् हवामहे” इति मन्त्रस्य विनियोगाद् विश्वेदेवाः प्रतीयन्ते । पुराणे ऽप्य् उक्तम्- “विश्वेदेवा इति श्रुतिः” इति ॥ ३.१९४ ॥

‘Ārakṣa’ is the same as ‘rakṣā;’ and that which has reached that is called ‘ārakṣabhūtam;’ i.e., that which serves the purpose of protecting.

Or, the term ‘bhūtam’ may be taken as connoting similitude; in which case, the meaning is—‘which is, as it were, a protection.’

Because it is so, therefore ‘one should first engage’—invite—‘the Brāhmaṇa in honour of the gods’— and make him sit upon a proper seat.

The rest of the verse is a purely laudatory description.

‘Rākṣasas;’—certain invisible beings, described in Itihāsas—‘take away’—the Śrāddha—from the Pitṛs.

“Who are the gods, in honour of whom the Brāhmaṇa is to be invited?”

In the Gṛhyasūtra, we find the mantra—‘We invite the Viśvedevas, &c.’—as the one to be used; from which it follows that the Viśvedevas are the gods. In the Purāṇas also it is said—‘The Śruti says that it is Viśvedevas.’—(204)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 476), which explains ‘ārakṣa’ as equivalent to ‘rakṣaṇa’;—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 426), which explains ‘ārakṣabhūtam,’ as some little (not complete) safeguard;—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 54) as indicating the importance of Daiva Śrāddha.

Laghu-Āśvalāyana (23.27).—‘Having, in the prescribed manner, worshipped the gods, he shall, with their permission, perform the worship of the Pitṛs, in the Apasavya form.’

Dharma (Aparārka, p. 476).—‘Having seated the Gods, and then the Pitṛs.’

204 Let him first invite a (Brahmana) in honour of the gods as a protection for the (offering to the manes); for the Rakshasas destroy a funeral sacrifice which is left without such a protection.

One should first engage the Brāhmaṇa in honour of the gods, as a protection to these (offerings to) Pitṛs; for the Rākṣasas take away the śrāddha that is devoid of protection.—(204)

आदिश् च अन्तश् च आद्यन्तौ । दैवं आद्यन्ताव् अस्येति दैवाद्यन्तम् । दैवेन कर्मणा आदिर् उपक्रमः श्राद्धस्य कर्तव्यः । अतश् च निमन्त्रणं देवानां पूर्वं कर्तव्यम् । अन्तः समाप्तिः । विसर्जितेषु पित्र्येषु ब्राह्मणेषु पश्चाद् देवानां विसर्जनं कर्तव्यम् ।

• गन्धादिदाने ऽपि दैवोपक्रमतां मन्यन्ते ।

• न तु तेषां पदार्थानां दैवेनोपक्रमसमाप्ती संभवतः, आवृत्तिप्रसङ्गात् । प्रयोगधर्मश् चायं दैवाद्यन्तता, न प्रतिपदार्थधर्मः । पदार्थानां तु गन्धमाल्यादीनां दैवोपक्रमताविशेषेण¹³² कर्तव्यम् उद्दिश्यते । तावत् प्रवृत्तिकेनैव¹³³ क्रमेण सिद्ध्यति । निमन्त्रणं तावद् दैवपूर्वं कर्तव्यम् । यत एव प्रथमः पदार्थ आरब्धस् तत एवान्येषाम् आरम्भो युक्तः । पदार्थः पदार्थान्तरारम्भं नियच्छति यतः । तद् उक्तम्- “प्रकृत्या कृतकालानां गुणानां तदुपक्रमात्” इति¹³⁴ ।

• तच् छ्राद्धकर्म ईहेत कुर्यात् । परिशिष्टो ऽर्थवादः । पित्र्याद्यन्तं न तद् भवेत् । दैवाद्यन्तत्वस्य विहितत्वात् पित्र्याद्यन्तप्रेतिषेधो ऽर्थवादतया लौकिकवाक्यवन् नेयः । लोके हि किंचिद् विधाय तद्विपरीतम् अप्राप्तम् अपि निषेधति । क्रिया हि द्र्वयं विनयति नाद्रव्यम् इति । क्षिप्रं नश्यति सान्वयः । संतानाफलप्रदर्शनरूपो ऽयं निन्दार्थवादः । अतश् च सर्वं परिवेषणादि दैवपूर्वकं कर्तव्यम् ।

• यत् त्व् अन्तरा भक्ताद्युपनयनं पिपासतां च पानादिदानं तद् यस्यैवेच्छा प्रथमम् उपजाता तस्मा एवोपनेतव्यम् । अनर्थिनस् तदनुरोधेनोपनीयमाने प्रधानविधिबाधः स्यात् “हर्षयेत् ब्राह्मणान्” इति । तथा कश्चिन् मधुररसप्रियो ऽपरो ऽम्लरससात्म्यस् तत्र, “भक्ष्यं भोज्यं च विविधं पानानि सुरभीणि च” (म्ध् ३.२१७) इति बहुषु पानकेषु सत्सु यद्य् अन्यानुरोधेन न अन्यत्र रससात्म्यम् आपादयेत् ततो व्याधिर् अस्य जनितः स्यात् । तस्माद् उपक्रमसमापने एव दैवादिना¹³⁵ ॥ ३.१९५ ॥

That in whose beginning and at whose end a rite in honour of the gods is performed is said to ‘begin and end with a rite in honour of the gods.’ The beginning of the Śrāddha rite should be made with a rite performed in honour of the gods; it is for this reason that the invitation of the Brāhmaṇas in honour of the gods should be done first. ‘End’ is completion. The meaning is that the Brāhmaṇas fed in honour of the gods.should be dismissed after those fed in honour of the Pitṛs have been sent away.

Some people hold that in the offering of sandal-paste, &c. also, beginning should be made with what is done in honour of the gods.

But, in regard to these details, it is not possible to make either the beginning or the end with what is done in honour of the gods; as this would lead to repe???on (repetition?). Further, that it should begin and end with what is done in honour of the gods has been laid down here as pertaining to the entire procedure, and not to each of the intervening details. That the performance of the details shall begin with what is done in honour of the gods would follow from the natural course of the action; it having been fixed that the inviting is to begin with those invited in honour of the gods, it would be only natural that the other details shall also start with the same with which that first step had started; since one detail controls the starting of another detail, as laid down in the assertion that—‘the starting of the details is determined by the time fixed for them in connection with the Primary Act.’

Such a Śrāddha -rite one shall ‘endeavour’ to perform.

The rest of the verse is a purely laudatory description.

‘It should never be one beginning and ending with a rite in honour of the Pitṛs’—Inasmuch as it has been already enjoined that the act should begin and end with what is done in honour of the gods, the further prohibition of beginning and ending with what is done in honour. of the Pitṛs has to be taken, in the manner of ordinary assertions, as a purely descriptive reiteration. In ordinary parlance, having laid down one thing, one often negatives its contrary, even though there be no possibility of this latter being adopted. As a matter of fact, an action controls the substance, not what is not a substance.

‘Quickly perishes, along with his progeny;’—this deprecatoy description is meant to indicate that the man fails to obtain the reward in the form of offsprings.

From this it follows that all the acts, of serving the food and the like, should begin with what is done in honour of the gods. As for what is done during the process—the serving of more rice, &c., at intervals, the supplying of water to those that may happen to want water for drinking, and so forth,—all this should be done first to one who may happen to express his desire first. If one were to offer these things to one who does not want them, simply because of his being invited in honour of the gods, then one would be trans- greasing the principal injunction that—‘one should make the Brāhmaṇas happy.’

Some one may happen to be fond of sweets, another may be one who finds adds more wholesome; so that, having provided “various edibles and fragrant drinks” (Manu, 3. 227), if, by other considerations, one were to give to one what suits his taste and constitution, the invitee would contract disease.

From all this it follows that in the feeding it is only the beginning and end that should be done with those invited in honour of the gods.—(205)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 456) as meaning that the Brāhmaṇa to be fed in honour of the Viśvedevas should be invited before that to be fed in honour of the Pitṛs; and concludes that the matter is purely optional, in view of the contrary rule laid down by Pracetas;—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī, (p. 54);—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 526), which explains ‘daivādyantam’ as ‘beginning and ending with the offering to the Devas’, which means that the invitation is to be made afresh in connection with the Devakṛtya, and the concluding rites should be performed last of all for the Devas;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1045), which says that the other rites shall begin with the Devas, but the Visarjana is to be done last for the Devas.

Laghu-Hārīta (96).—‘If one, through ignorance, makes offerings to the Pitṛs and neglects the Gods, his Pitṛs abandon that Śrāddha as if it were something unclean.’

Devala.—‘Whatever rite is performed in honour of Pitṛs should be preceded by the offering to the Viśvedevas.’

205 Let him make (the Sraddha) begin and end with (a rite) in honour of the gods; it shall not begin and end with a (rite) to the manes; for he who makes it begin and end with a (rite) in honour of the manes, soon perishes together with his progeny.

One should prepare with care a clean and secluded place Sloping towards the south, and smear it with cowdung.—(206)

शुचिर् भस्मास्थिकपालकाद्यनुपहतः । विविक्तो विस्तीर्णो बहुभिर् जनैर् अनाकीर्णः । दक्षिणाप्रवणो दक्षिणस्यां दिश्य् अवनतः । तादृशं देशं यत्नेन संपादयेत् । स्वभावतश् चेत् तादृशो न लभ्यते तथा कर्तव्यं यथा स्वव्यापारेण संपाद्यते । तं च गोशकृतोपलेपयेत् । मृदादयो निवर्तन्ते, गोमयेनोपलेपनियमात् ॥ ३.१९६ ॥

^(‘)Clean’— not defiled by the presence of ashes, bones, skulls, and such things.

‘Secluded’—large and unoccupied by many men.

‘Sloping towards the south’—that which is of lower level on the southern side. Such he should make the place, ‘with care.’ That is, if one fails to find a spot that is not naturally so, one should make it so, by one’s own effort.

This place he should smear with cowdung. This precludes the use of clay and such things, the rule being that the smearing should be done with cowdung.—(206)

This verse is quoted in ‘Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 652) in support of the view that ‘even though it may not be possible for the performer to find a spot sloping towards the south from himself, he should try and make it slope southwards;’—in Smṛtitattva (page 107) in the sense that the performer should sit on a place that has been previously smeared with cowdung;—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 483), which adds the following explanations:—‘shuchim’—i.e., a sacred place, which is by itself clean; or a place in his own house, which should be free from all foreign sources of uncleanliness;—‘viviktam’ i.e., free from hairs and other unclean things;—and the place should be beaten into a slope towards the south—i.e., capable of allowing the performer to pour offerings towards the south.

This is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 268);—in Aparārka, (p. 471), which explains ‘vivikta’ as ‘vijana,’ ‘not crowded by men;’ and adds that even though the place be clean, it should be smeared over with cowdung for the purpose of imparting to it special sanctity;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 160);—and in Śraddhakriyākaumudī (p. 102).

Gautama (15.25).—‘He should make the offerings in a secluded place.’

Yājñavalkya (1.227).—‘In a place that is secluded, clean and sloping southwards.’

Viṣṇu (85.63).—‘In houses smeared with cow-dung.’

Viṣṇu-dharmottara (2.244.23).—‘In a place that slopes southwards, or in a sacred place of pilgrimage, or in his own house duly sanctified, he shall offer the Śrāddha with care.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 652).—‘For the purposes of Śrāddha, one should avoid a place which is very dry, full of insects, damp, evil-smelling, where disagreeable sounds are heard.’

Mārkaṇḍeya (Do.).—‘For purposes of Śrāddha, one should avoid a place which is full of living beings, very dry, burnt by fire, where disagreeable and harsh sounds are heard and which is evil-smelling.’

206 Let him smear a pure and secluded place with cowdung, and carefully make it sloping towards the south.

The Pitṛs are always pleased with what is offered in clean places, on water-banks and in secluded places.—(207)

अवकाशो देशः । चोक्षाः स्वभावशुचयो मनःप्रसादजनका अरण्यादयः । जलतीराणि सरित्समीपपुलिनादीनि । विविक्तेषु विजनेषु तीर्थेषु च । विध्यन्तरम् इदम् । अतश् च गोमयोपलेपननियमो नास्ति, उपपादयेद् इति वचनात् । यत्र संपाद्यं शुचित्वं तत्रासौ नियमः । स्वभावतः शुचिषु “दृष्टम् अद्भिर् निर्णिक्तम्” (म्ध् ५.१२५) इत्य् एतावतैव योग्यता । एतेषु देशेषु दत्तेन कृतेन श्राद्धेनात्यन्ततुष्टाः¹³⁶ पितरो भवन्तीति ॥ ३.१९७ ॥

‘Avakāśa,’ is place, spot.

‘Cokṣa’—naturally clean and tending to mental calm; such as forests, etc.

‘Water-banks’— sand-banks, near rivers.

‘Secluded places’—uncrowded sacred places.

This verse contains a totally different injunction. Hence, in the case of such places, the rule regarding smearing with cowdung does not apply; because the rule (in the preceding verse) distinctly says that ‘one should make it so;’ which means that the rule applies to a place where cleanness has to be brought about. In regard to places that are naturally clean, their fitness is secured by ‘being examined and sprinkled with water.’

By the Śrāddha ‘offered’— performed—in such places, the Pitṛs become greatly pleased.—(207)

‘Cokṣesu’—‘ Naturally clean’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa);—and ‘pleasing’ (Nandana and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 471), which explains ‘cokṣa’ as a ‘place that is naturally clean’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 160);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumndī (p. 102).

Viṣṇu (85.54-61).—‘On large rivers, on all natural spots, on river-banks, on streams, on hills, in groves, in forests, in parks.’

Yama (Aparārka p. 471).—‘Śrāddhas should be offered in sacred buildings, on river-banks, in Tīrthas, and on one’s own land, in groves near hills, and on mountain-tops.’

207 The manes are always pleased with offerings made in open, naturally pure places, on the banks of rivers, and in secluded spots.

Seats with kuśa grass having been separately placed, he should seat the said Brāhmaṇas who have performed their ablutions.—(208)

उपकॢप्तेषु कल्पितेषु विन्यस्तेषु पृथक् पृथक् विभागेन । नैकम् आसनं दीर्घधौतफलकादि सर्वेभ्यो दद्यात् । परस्परं यथा न स्पृशन्ति तथोपवेशनीया इति पृथग्ग्रहणम् । बर्हिष्मत्सु दर्भविष्टरास्तीर्णेषु । उपस्पृष्टोदकान् स्नातान् कृताचमनविधींश् च । तान् पूर्वनिमन्त्रितान् उपवेशयेत् ॥ ३.१९८ ॥

‘Placed’—i.e., prepared and duly arranged.

‘Separately’—with proper partition. He shall not provide for all a single seat, in the form of a long piece of cloth or wooden plank. They shall be seated in such a manner that they should not touch one another. It is in this sense that ‘separately’ has been added.

‘With kuśa grass’— with bundles of Kuśa spread over them.

‘Who have performed their ablutions’—i.e., who have bathed and rinsed their mouth in the prescribed manner.

‘The said’—those previously invited—‘he should seat.’—(208)

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha, p. 24b).

Viṣṇu (73.2).—‘On the second day, in the forenoon during the brighter fortnight,—and in the afternoon during the darker fortnight,—he shall seat on seats covered with kuśa-grass, the Brāhmaṇas who have bathed and rinsed their mouths, in the order of their learning.’

Yājñavalkya (1.226).—‘During the afternoon, having respectfully welcomed the Brāhmaṇas that have come and have rinsed their mouth, he, with clean hands, shall seat them on seats.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (4.7.2).—‘The Brāhmaṇas equipped with learning, character, and excellent conduct, who may have arrived at the same time and have washed their feet and rinsed their mouths,—these he shall seat, as if they were his forefathers, with faces turned towards the north.’

208 The (sacrificer) shall make the (invited) Brahmanas, who have duly performed their ablutions, sit down on separate, prepared seats, on which blades of Kusa grass have been placed.

Having seated those unreproached Brāhmaṇas on those seats, he should worship them with sweet-smelling perfumes and Garlands, beginning with those invited in honour of the gods.—(209)

उपवेशनानन्तरं गन्धमाल्यैर् अर्चयेत् । गन्धान् कुकुङ्कुमकर्पूरादीन् दद्यात् । माल्यानि कुसुमस्रजः । सुरभिग्रहणं माल्यविशेषणम् । निर्गन्धानि पुष्पाणि न दद्यात् । गन्धेष्व् अपि युक्तं विशेषणम्, सन्ति गन्धा असुरभयस् तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् । अथ वा सुरभिभिर् धूपैः । स्वतन्त्रं सुरभिग्रहणम् । दैवेभ्यो ब्राह्मणेभ्यः पूर्वं दत्त्वा ततः पित्र्येभ्यो दात्वयम् ।

• इदं तु दैवपूर्वग्रहणं प्राग्भोजनप्रवृत्तेः पदार्थानां तदादिनियमार्थम् । प्रवृत्तभोजनानां तु पानव्यञ्जनादिषु न नियम इत्य् एवमर्थं आहुः । अन्यथा को ऽर्थः पुनर् अभिधाने स्यात् ।

• अजुगुप्सितान् अनिन्दितान् विप्रान् । अनुवादो ऽयम् । तादृशानाम् एव विधानम् । अथ वा सत्य् अपि भूतप्रत्ययनिर्देशे प्रकृत्यर्थकर्तव्यतानिषेध एवायम् । उपरिष्टान् न जुगुप्सेत न निन्देतेत्य् उक्तं भवति । प्रत्ययार्थमात्रत्यागो वरं न सर्वपदार्थत्याग इति मन्यन्ते । अनुवादे हि कृत्स्नम् एव पदम् अनर्थकम् ॥ ३.१९९ ॥

After having seated them, he should worship them with perfumes and garlands: ‘Perfumes’—in the form of saffron, camphor, and such things—he should offer them; and so also ‘garlands’—strings of flowers. The eptihet ‘sweet-smelling’ qualifies ‘garlands;’ the sense being that one should not offer flowers devoid of sweet smell. The epithet is proper as qualifying ‘perfumes’ also, as there are evil-smelling perfumes also, which have to be excluded.

Or, the term may stand for ‘surabhi’ incense, in which case, this term would stand by itself.

Having first given these things to the Brāhmaṇas invited in honour of the gods, he should give them to those invited in honour of the Pitṛs.

This rule, that these things shall be given first to those invited in honour of the gods, is meant to imply that before the Brāhmaṇas have commenced eating, things should be given to them in that order. When once they have begun to eat, there can be no restriction regarding the serving of the several vegetables, etc. This is the explanation that is offered; as otherwise, why should this have been laid down over and over again.

‘Unreproached’—blameless—‘Brāhmaṇas.’ This is a mere reiteration; as it is only such Brāhmaṇas as have been specified for being invited. Or, the use of the past-participal affix nifty be taken as prohibiting the act denoted by the verbal root; the sense being—that ‘he should not reproach, or find fault with them, after (they have been invited and seated).’ People who favour this explanation argue that it is better to abandon the denotation of the affix than give up that of the entire word; and if it is taken as a mere reiteration, the whole word becomes redundaut and meaningless.—(209)

Medhātithi (P. 278, l. 1)—see Bhā. on 205 above.

Baudhāyana (2.8.7).—‘To these he shall offer water mixed with sesamum, adorn them with sandal-paint and garlands; and having obtained their permission to ‘offer in the fire,’ he shall kindle the fire and spreading kuśa-grass, pour into it three oblations of butter to Soma-Pitṛpīta, Yama-Aṅgirasvan and Agni-Kavyavāhana.’

Viṣṇu (73.12).—‘With the mantra Eta pitaraḥ, etc., he shall offer the invitation with water mixed with kuśa and sesamum; with the mantra Yāstiṣṭhanti, etc., he shall offer for the feet water mixed with sandal-paste;—he shall then worship the Brāhmaṇas with kuśa, sesamum, clothes, flowers, ornaments, burning incense and lamp;—and taking up food poured over with butter, and with the mantra Yārudrā, etc., having looked at the food, he shall say I shall offer this into the fire, and on the Brāhmaṇas saying Do it, he shall offer the oblation.’

Yājñavalkya (1.231).—‘Having offered water, sandal-paste and garlands, incense and lamp, he shall offer clothes and also water for washing.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (4.8.1).—‘At this same time there should be offering of sandal-paste, garlands, incense, lamp, and clothes.’

209 Having placed those blameless Brahmanas on their seats, he shall honour them with fragrant garlands and perfumes, beginning with (those who are invited in honour of) the gods.

Having presented to them water, and also sesamum along with kuśa-blade, the Brāhmaṇa, permitted by the Brāhmaṇas collectively, should make an offering into fire.—(210)

अनुलिप्तेषु स्रग्विषु सुरभिधूपाञ् जिघ्रत्सु अर्घोदकम् उपनेतव्यम् । तेनैव सपवित्रांस्¹³⁷ तिलान् अपि । पवित्रशब्दो दर्भेषु वर्तते । तेषां ब्राह्मणानाम् उदकम् आनीय दत्वा तैर् अनुज्ञातो ऽग्नौ होमं कुर्यात् । ब्राह्मणैर् अनुज्ञातः कुर्याद् इति संबन्धः । सह सर्वे युगपद् अनुज्ञां दद्युः ।

• अनुज्ञापनवाक्यम् अपि सामर्थ्यप्राप्तम् । न हि ते ऽप्रार्थिता¹³⁸ अनुजानीरन् । ततश् च “अग्नौ कर्वाणि, करिष्ये” इत्य् एवमादीनि प्रश्नवाक्यानि लभ्यन्ते । अनुज्ञावाक्यम् अपि सामर्थ्यात् प्राप्तम् । सर्वं चैतत् साधुभिः शब्दैः कर्तव्यम् । प्रदर्शितं चैतत् गृह्यकारैः “अग्नौ करवाणि करिष्ये इति चानुज्ञापयेद् ॐकुर्व् इत्य् एवं ब्रूह्युः” ॥ ३.२०० ॥

When the Brāhmaṇas have been smeared with perfumes, adorned with garlands and have smelt the incense, the water-offering should be presented; and, along with this, also sesamum along with Kuśa-blade;—the term ‘pavitra’ being used in the sense of Kuśa grass.

‘Having presented,’— offered—water to the Brāhmaṇas, and being permitted by them, one should offer libations into fire. The construction is—‘brāhmaṇaiḥ anujñātaḥ kuryāt.’

‘Collectively’—i.e., all the Brāhmaṇas should give the permission together.

This necessity of obtaining permission implies also the use of some words to be addressed in seeking the permission; they could not grant the permission without being asked for it. From this it follows that the words to be used should be such as—‘May I make the offering into fire,’ ‘I shall make it,’ and so forth. The use of words for according the permission is also hereby implied. All this should be done by means of correct forms, of words; this has been shown by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras—‘He should seek their permission with such words as, May I make the offering into fire—may I do it; and they should say, Yes do it.’— (210).

“Water-bringing is a Northern-custom according to Āpastamba 2.17.17.”—Hopkins.

Viṣṇu (73.12).—(See above.)

Baudhāyana (2.8.7).—(See above.)

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.17.17-9).—‘When they have taken their seats, the water-vessels should be placed in their hands; then he asks them—may this be taken up and offered into the fire;—on being permitted by them with the words—you are at liberty to take it up and offer into the fire,—he shall take it up and pour the oblation into the fire.’

Yājñavalkya (1.235).—‘Having offered to them the Arghya and taking the droppings (from their hands) into the vessels, in the prescribed form, he shall over-turn them on the ground, with the mantra Pitṛbhyaḥ sthānamasi.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.7.5-7).—‘Having offered the water, and having offered the seat in the form of kuśa-blades twisted twice,—he shall offer water.’

210 Having presented to them water, sesamum grains, and blades of Kusa grass, the Brahmana (sacrificer) shall offer (oblations) in the sacred fire, after having received permission (to do so) from (all) the Brahmana (guests) conjointly.

Having at fir st brought about the satisfaction of Agni and Soma-Yama by the offering of sacrificial food, he should afterwards satisfy, according to rule, the Pitṛs.—(211).

यद् अग्नौ कर्तव्यं तद् उच्यते । अग्नेः चतुर्थ्यर्थे षष्ठी । अग्निर् एका देवता । सोमयमाभ्याम् इति द्वन्द्वस्य देवतात्वम् अग्नीषोमवत् । अनयोर् देवतयोर् आदित आप्यायनं हविर्दानेन कृत्वा पश्चात् संतर्पयेत् पितॄन् । पिण्डनिर्वपणं ब्राह्मणभोजनं च कुर्याद् इत्य् अर्थः । गृह्ये त्व् अन्या देवताः समाम्नाताः । येषां गृह्यं नास्ति तेषाम् इदं देवतावचनम् । आप्यायनं पोषणम् । “हविषा देवताः पुष्यन्ति” इत्य् अर्थवादः ॥ ३.२०१ ॥

It is now described what is to be done in the Fire.

The Genitive in ‘agneḥ’ has the sense of the Dative;

Agni is one deity, and Soma-Yama conjointly form one conjunct deity; just like Agni-Soma.

Of these two deities, ‘having brought about at first, the satisfaction, by the offering of sacrificial food, he should afterwards satisfy the Pitṛs.’ That is, he should offer balls of food and feed the Brāhmaṇas.

In the Gṛhyasūtra, other deities have been prescribed; so that the deities mentioned in the present text are for those who have no Gṛhyasūtra of their own.

‘Satisfaction’ stands for sustenance. That gods are sustained by sacrificial food, is a laudatory exaggertion.—(211).

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1353), which adds the following notes:—The meaning is that ‘after having made offerings to (1) Agni, (2) Soma and (3) Yama, one should satisfy the Fathers who are present in the person of the invited Brāhmaṇas’;—according to the explanation given by Medhātithi and Harihara, we have only two deities here—(1) Agni and (2) the joint deity Soma-Yama; and the genitive ending in ‘agneḥ’ has the sense of the Dative, and this conjoint deity is to be accepted only by those in whose Gṛhya such a joint deity is mentioned. Our view is that the two, Soma and Yama, are to be treated separately, not jointly, as is clear from the reading ‘agnisomayamānāñca’ adopted by some Nibandhas.

Baudhāyana (2.8.7).—(See under 209.)

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.8.4).—‘Then he pours the oblation into fire, as declared before.’

211 Having first, according to the rule, performed, as a means of protecting (the Sraddha), oblations to Agni, to Soma, and to Yama, let him afterwards satisfy the manes by a gift of sacrificial food.

In the absence of Fire, he shall make the offering into the Brāhmaṇa’s hand; for it has been declared by the Brāhmaṇa seers of Vedic texts that what the Fire is, that same is the Brāhmaṇa.—(212).

स्मार्तस्य वैवाहिकस्य दायादेर् वा अग्नेर् अभावे विधिर् अयम् उच्यते । लौकिकस्य तु पितृयज्ञनिषेधात् भावाभावाव् अचिन्त्यौ । “न पैतृयज्ञिको होमो लौकिके ऽग्नौ” इति वक्ष्यति (म्ध् ३.२७२) ।

• कथं पुनस् तस्याग्नेर् अभावः ।

• प्रोषितस्याग्निना विना द्रव्यब्राह्मणदेशसंपत्तौ च श्राद्धकाल उक्तः, नामावस्यैव । तत्र¹³⁹ प्रोषितेन यदि पङ्क्तिपावनः प्राप्तो द्रव्यं वा कालशाकादि तत्रायं विधिर् उच्यते ।

• ननु च प्रोषितस्य कथं श्राद्धाधिकारः । यदि तावद् भार्या प्रवसति अग्निनापि तत्रैव संनिधातव्यम् । यतो नोभाभ्याम् अग्नेर् विरह इष्यते, भार्यया¹⁴⁰ यजमानेन च । एवं हि श्रूयते- “नाग्निर् अन्तरितव्यः प्रवस्ताम्” इति । अथ केवल एव गृहस्थः प्रवसेत् तदा भवेद् अग्न्यभावः । किं तु मध्यकत्वाद् एतस्य सहाधिकाराच् च, भार्यायाम् असंनिहितायाम्, तदिच्छाया अभावात् कथं साधारणस्य श्राद्धे विनियोगः । साधारणे हि द्रव्ये अन्यतरानिच्छायां त्याग एव न संवर्तते ।

• अथोच्यते । तीर्थेष्व् अपि श्राद्धकरणम् अनेन न्यायेन न¹⁴¹ प्राप्नोति । तत्रेमानि वचनानि विरुध्यन्ते-

• पुष्करेष्व् अक्षयं श्राद्धं तपश् चैव महाफलम् ।

• महोदधौ प्रभासे च तद्वद् एव विनिर्दिशेत् ॥ इति ।

• नैष दोषः । भार्यया सह तीर्थयात्रां गच्छतः साग्निकस्योपपत्स्यते । इह तु भार्यया सह प्रवासः, तदा नास्त्य् अग्नेर् अभावः । अथ केवलस्य, तदा भार्येच्छाया अपरिज्ञानाद् अनधिकारः ।

• उच्यते¹⁴² । प्रवसन् भार्याम् अनुज्ञापयति “धर्माय विनियोगं द्रव्यस्य करिष्यामि” इति । तत्प्राप्तानुज्ञो ऽधिकरिष्यते ।

• प्राक् चोपनयनाद्¹⁴³ असत्य् अग्निपरिग्रहे विधिर् अयं भविष्यति । अस्ति चानुपनीतस्य श्राद्धाधिकारः । “स्वधानिनयणाद्” (म्ध् २.१७२) इति दर्शितम् । स्नातस्य च प्राग् विवाहात् पितृमरणादाव् अग्न्यभावः ।

• ननु च परमेष्ठिमरणे ऽग्निपरिग्रहः काठके पठ्यते ।

• कृतदारस्यासौ द्रष्टव्यो न स्नातकमात्रस्य । द्वौ हि कालौ स्मार्तकस्याग्नेर् विहितौ- “भार्यादिर् दायादिर् वा”¹⁴⁴ (ग्ध् ५.७) । तत्र येन विवाहकाले न परिगृहीतो ऽग्निः, पित्राविभक्तत्वात्, ज्येष्ठेन वा सह वसता “भ्रातॄणाम् अविभक्तानाम् एको धर्मः प्रवर्तते” (न्स्म् १३.३७) इति अनेन, तस्यासौ द्वितीयः कालः “दायकालाद् ऋते वा” इति । एष एव दायकालो यदा पिता म्रियते । तदपेक्षम् एवैतत् । “शुचिर् भूतः पितृभ्यो दद्यात्”, “भ्राष्ट्र्यो हाग्निम् आनीय प्रतिजागृयात्” इति । न चेद् अग्न्याधानं श्राद्धाङ्गम् । तथा¹⁴⁵ सति न¹⁴⁶ तदर्वाग् यस्योत्पत्तिः श्राद्धं वा वर्तते । न चाप्य् अत्यागो ऽस्ति । “एष औपसदो ऽग्निस् तस्मिन् पाकयज्ञः” इति पठ्यते । न च पाकयज्ञे ऽप्य् अभार्यस्याधिकारः । “पत्न्यवेक्षितम् आज्यं भवति” । “व्रतं च पत्न्य् उपेयात्” इति दर्शपूर्णमासयोः श्रूयते । न च यदा पत्नी तदैतत् व्रतोपायनाज्यावेक्षणे पत्नीकर्तृके भविष्यत इति शक्यम् अवकल्पयितुम्, नित्यवद् आम्नानात् । विधिर् होतव्यः प्राप्नोति ।

• ननु च न पितृमरणम् एव दायकालः । एवं हि पठ्यते- “सपिण्डीकरणं कृत्वा विभजेरन् ततः सुताः” इति ।

• विभागस्यायं कालो न दायस्य । विभागे ऽपि नायं नियमः, यतो “धर्म्या¹⁴⁷ पृथक्क्रिया” (म्ध् ९.१११) इति पठ्यते । तस्याश् च धर्मत्वं विभक्तानां पृथक् पृथक् श्राद्धकरणेनातिथ्यादिपूजया च ।

• न च¹⁴⁸ “नव श्राद्धं सह दद्युः” इत्यादीनि वाक्यानि समाप्तविद्याविषयाणि । ईषद्विद्यो रागोद्रेकात् स्वदारनियमं मातिक्रमिषम् इति कृतविवाहः प्रक्रान्तवेदार्थप्रवणस् तस्य संवत्सरमात्रेण विद्यासमाप्ताव् इदम् उच्यते- “सपिण्डीकरणं कृत्वा विभजेरन्” इति । तदा मृतभार्यस्य पुनर् दारांश् चिकीर्षत आ दारप्राप्तेर् भवत्य् अग्नेर् अभावः । सर्वथा पत्न्या सह यष्टव्यम् इत्य् अस्तित्ववचने सति नाकृतविवाहस्याग्निपरिग्रहः ।

• एवं स्थिते ऽग्नेर् अभावे आहुती ब्राह्मणस्य हस्ते प्रक्षिपेत् । कस्य ब्राह्मणस्य । य एव निमन्त्रितास् तेषाम् अन्यतमस्य दैव उपवेशितस्यान्यस्य वा निमन्त्रितस्य । अर्थवादो यो ह्य् अग्निः इति । मन्त्रदर्शिभिः संमतश् चेदम्¹⁴⁹ अर्थविद्भिः ॥ ३.२०२ ॥

The present text lays down an injunction in connection with those cases where there is no fire, i.e., neither one set up according to ‘smārta’ rites, nor that kindled at marriage, nor that set up after succession. As for the ordinary fire, since sacrificing to the Pitṛs in such fire has been prohibited, there need be no consideration of the presence or absence of such fire. It is going to be said later on (verse 282) that—‘oblations in connection with the offering to the Pitṛs should not be offered in the ordinary fire.’

Question—“How can there be any possibility of the said Fire being absent?”

Answer—It has been laid down that when a man is away from home and without his Fire, if he happen to come by a desirable place, the proper materials and the right type of Brāhmaṇas, he shall regard this as a suitable opportunity for offering Śrāddha; and it is not that the moonless day is the only one on which Śrāddha is to be performed. Hence the present rule is meant for the man who, when out on a journey, comes by a ‘sanctifier of company,’ or finds such suitable materials as the ‘Kālaśāka,’ and the like.

“How can one away from home be entitled to the performance of Śrāddhas? If the wife is also with him, away from home, then the Fire also should be with them; since it is not considered desirable for the Fire to be separated from both the sacrificer and his wife. It has been declared that—‘for people away from home, the Fire shall not be separated.’ If the Householder should happen to go out alone, then there may be ‘absence of Fire;’ but the man is entitled to make offerings only when associated with his wife; so that, when the wife is not near him, her acquiescence being not available, how could there be any possibility of the man making use of materials belonging to both? In the case of a material belonging to both, there can be no giving away, in the absence of the desire of either party. Against this it might be argued that—‘by the line of reasoning just put forward, it would be impossible to perform Śrāddhas in sacred places (during pilgrimages); and such non-performance would be contrary to such declarations as—‘at Puṣkara the Śrāddha is inexhaustible, austerity is highly meritorious; the same is to be held regarding the Ocean and Prabhāsa.’ There is no force in this; as such performance would be quite possible for the man who has set up the Fire, when he goes out on pilgrimage along with his wife. In the case in question, however, since the man would be journeying with his wife, the Fire could not be absent. If, however, the man he journeying alone, then, since he would be ignorant of his wife’s wishes in the matter, he could not be entitled to the performance.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—When a man is proceeding on a journey, he seeks his wife’s permission in the following words—‘I shall be spending our belongings over religious performances;’ and having obtained this permission, he could be entitled to the performance of Śrāddhas.

Or, the rule laid down in the present text might pertain to boys before their initiation, at which time the Fire has not been set up; and the uninitiated boy also is entitled to the performance of Śrāddha, as has been shown under the text where it has been declared that the boy is not entitled to any rite, except the offering of Śrāddhas. Further, for the Accomplished Student also, if his father happens to die before his marriage, there would be ‘absence of fire.’

“In the Kāṭhaka, it is found stated that, on the death of the master of the house, fire should be set up (by his successor),”

This should be taken as applying to one who has married, and not to one who has merely just completed his studies. Two points of time have been laid down for the setting up of the ‘Smārta’ Fire—on marriage and on succession. So that, if one has not set up the Fire on marriage,—either because he does not set up a separate household apart from his father, or because he continues to live with his elder brother, according to the law that ‘for brothers that have not separated there is a common religious rite,’—for such a person, there is the other point of time, on succession, according to the injunction—‘or, from the time of succession;’ and the ‘time of succession’ is just the time when the Father dies. And it is to such cases that the following declarations apply,—‘having become pure, one should make offerings to the Pitṛs,’ ‘one should bring fire from the fryer’s pan and then keep vigil,’ and so forth. The setting up of the Fire mentioned in these texts (referring to the Fire kindled for the day only) could not be regarded as an essential factor in Śrāddha; for, if it were so, then, before the kindling of this Fire, since the Fire would not be there, no Śrāddha could be performed. Nor, again, is it possible that such a fire (set up for a temporary purpose) should not be abandoned. It has been declared that ‘this is the Aupasada Fire, in which the culinary offerings have to be made;’ and to the culinary offerings also a man without a wife is not entitled; because of such injunctions as ‘the butter is examined by the wife,’ ‘the wife should keep the observances,’ and so forth. It will not be right to argue that—“this keeping of observances and the examining of the butter are meant to apply to cases where the wife is present;”—because both these acts have been enjoined as entirely obligatory. Hence the meaning comes to be that libations are to be poured into the ‘Aupasada’ fire.

“The father’s death is not the precise time of succession; since it has been declared that the sons shall divide the property, after having performed the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa Śrāddha (which is done one year after death).”

The time herein mentioned is that for division, nut succession. In fact, for division also there is no such absolute rule that it must be done after the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa; as it has been declared that ‘separation among brothers is in view of religious rites;’ and the act of separation becomes ‘religious,’ when the members separating severally perform Śrāddhas and entertain guests, and so forth. Nor will it be right to argue that such assertions as ‘the sons shall offer the nine Śrāddhas conjointly’—refers to persons who have finished their studies. Because it may be that a man, having acquired only a little learning, marries a wife with a view to guard himself against transgressing the rule of having intercourse with one’s own wife, to which he would be prone by excess of sexual desire; but having married, be might devote greater attention to the studies he had begun, and thus complete his studies within a year, And it is with reference to such cases that we have the rule regarding the sons dividing their property after having performed the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa.

Then again, when a man has lost a wife and is going to marry another, till he has married again, there would be ‘absence of fire.’ Specially because, in view of the general law that ‘one should make sacrificial offerings in the company of his wife,’ which shows that there can be no setting up of fire for one who has not married.

Such being the case, when Fire is absent, one should place the oblations in the hands of the Brāhmaṇa—“Of which Brāhmaṇa?”—Of one of those that have been invited; either of one who has been invited in honour of the gods, or of some other invited Brāhmaṇa.

As a laudatory description, we have the words—‘what the Fire is, &c.’

This is the opinion of those ‘seers of mantras’ who know their meanings.—(212).

Medhātithi (P. 274, l. 19)—‘Dvau hi kālau etc.’—See Gautama 5. 7—‘Bhāryādiragnirdāyādirvā.’

The first half of this verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 581) as laying down the offering of Homa into the hand of the Brāhmaṇa. In this connection it enters into a long discussion. The text speaks of the ‘absence of fire the ‘fire’ meant here must be the Śrauta and Gṛhya fires. Absence again is of three kinds: ‘previous absence,’ ‘destruction,’ and ‘absolute absence there is ‘previous absence’ of fire prior to one’s entering the ‘Household’;—after the man has entered the Household, if the fire goes out, either through carelessness, or through the break up of the Household, there is ‘destruction’ of fire, which can be resusciated by being set up again, or by the resumption of the Household;—there is ‘absolute absence’ of fire in the case of the Life-long Student, who never marries, and therefore never sets up either the Śrauta (Sacrificial) or the Gṛhya (Domestic) fire. It is only in the case of the first two kinds of ‘absence’ of the

Sacrificial and Domestic fires, that it being impossible to set up the Fire at the time of offering the Śrāddha, the Homa should be offered into the hands and such other receptacles as have been prescribed.—Some people have held that Homa can be offered into the ordinary fire also; but according to this view there could be no ‘absence of fire,’ as the ordinary fire can always be set up without difficulty; so that there would be no occasion for advantage being taken of the permission to offer the Homa into the hand or other receptacles; and this would render the present text, and others similar to it, entirely futile. All this points to the conclusion that the Homa at Śrāddha should never be offered into the ordinary fire.

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 739) quotes this half of the verse, and remarks that it refers only to the case of the Homas offered by a Student

It is quoted also in Mitākṣarā (on 1.237) in support of the view that the offering of Homa into the hand is meant to apply only to the Case—(1) of the Śrāddhas prescribed for the purpose of attaining a definite end, such as the one laid down to be performed under such lunar asterisms as Kṛttikā and the rest, for the purpose of attaining heaven,—(2) of the Ābhyudayika Śrāddha laid down to be performed on the occasion of the son’s marriage and such other ceremonies,—(3) of the Aṣṭakā Śrāddha, laid down to be performed on the eighth day of the month,—and (4) of the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa Śrāddha.

The first half of the verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 316).

The whole verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1337), which has the following ṅotes:—The second line is a Hetuvannigada Arthavāda, the Brāhanaṇa being eulogised as serving the same purposes as the fire into which libations are poured,—‘mantradarśibhiḥ’, ‘by those learned in the Veda.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.8.5-6).—‘If permitted, then, it may be offered into the hands; Agni being the mouth of the Gods and the hand being the mouth of the Pitṛs,—so says the Brāhmaṇa-text.’

Jātūkarṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 739).—‘In the absence of the fire, it should be offered into the right hand of the Brāhmaṇa. That is regarded as the period of absence of fire while one has not taken to a wife,’

Gṛhyakāra (Parāśaramādhava, p. 739).—‘The Anvaṣṭakā, the monthly Pārvaṇa, the Śrāddha for obtaining specific reward, the auspicious Iṣṭi, and the unitary Śrāddha; at the first four of these, the man with the fire shall offer oblations into the fire; and at the latter four, in the hands of the Brāhmaṇas invited for the sake of the Pitṛs.’

212 But if no (sacred) fire (is available), he shall place (the offerings) into the hand of a Brahmana; for Brahmanas who know the sacred texts declare, ‘What fire is, even such is a Brahmana.’

The ancients describe these good Brāhmaṇas as the “Gods of Śrāddha,” free from anger, easily satisfied, intent upon sustaining the universe.—(213).

अयम् अर्थवाद एव । ब्राह्मणानां देवतारूपत्वं संपादयति । अग्निर् देवता । तत्र हुतं तन्मुखेन देवता अश्नन्ति । ब्राह्मणो ऽप्य् एवंरूपः । तद्धस्ते ऽपि क्षिप्तं देवता अश्नन्त्य् एव ।

• किं पुनर् देवतानां रूपं येन ब्राह्मणो ऽपि देवतारुप उच्यते ।

• अत आह अक्रोधनान् इति । कथं¹⁵⁰ ब्रुवते । तदर्थं दर्शयति । य एवंस्वभावा ब्राह्मणास् तेषां हस्ते आज्याहुती प्रक्षेप्तव्ये ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुः । पूर्वत्राक्रोधना इत्यादिना पितॄन् उद्दिश्य निमन्त्रितानां स्तुत्यानाम् अक्रोधनादिधर्मो विहितः । अनेन देवनिमन्त्रितानाम् इति विशेषः ।

• तथा चाह- श्राद्धे देवान् इति । पुरातना मुनय¹⁵¹ एवं वदन्ति । द्वितीयान्तो वा पठितव्यः । पुरातनान् एतान् देवान्त् साध्यदेवान् अस्मिन् कल्पे समुत्पन्नान् । लोकस्याप्यायने युक्तान् । एवं श्राद्धं भुञ्जते । तत्र नैवं मन्तव्यम्- दृष्टसुखार्थ्नो लोभात् स्वार्थे प्रवर्तन्ते ऽतश् च किम् इत्य् एषां पूजा क्रियते । यत आप्याययन्ति लोकं पृथिवीम् अन्तरिक्षं दिवं चातो नैषाम् अवज्ञा कर्तव्या ॥ ३.२०३ ॥

This is a purely laudatory declaration; and it makes the Brāhmaṇas attain the dignity of gods. [The sense being]—Agni (Fire) is a god, and when a libation is poured into the Fire, the gods eat it, through the Fire as their mouth; the Brāhmaṇas also have the same character; and whatever is placed in their hands, that also the gods eat.

“What is that character of the gods, by virtue of which the Brāhmaṇas are spoken of as having the same character?”

It is in answer to this that the text adds—‘free from anger &c.’ As regards the question why they are so described, the explanation is that what is meant is that the libations of butter should be offered into the hands of such Brāhmaṇas as are endowed with the character here described.

Others have explained that in a foregoing verse (192),

‘freedom from anger’ and the rest have been laid down as the qualities to be sought for those invited in honour of the Pitṛs and who were meant to be eulogised,—while the present text lays down these as to be sought for in those, invited in honour of the gods. This is the difference between the two texts. It is in this sense that they have been described as ‘the gods of śrāddha.’

‘Ancients’—i.e., the sages.

Or, we may read the term ‘purātana’ with the accusative ending; ‘ancient’ (in this case) qualifying ‘gods;’—the ‘ancient gods’ standing for those deities born in this cycle who are called ‘sādhyas.’

‘Intent upon sustaining the universe,’—i.e., it is with a view to gratifying people that they eat at śrāddhas; hence one should not think that ‘these men are eating through greediness, and for the purpose of obtaining the perceptible pleasure (of eating tasty food), and hence why should any honour be rendered to them?’ Because these men sustain the universe,—i.e., the Earth, the Sky and the Heaven; therefore, they should not be treated with disrespect.—(213)

Burnell is not right in saying that “Medhātithi omits verses 213-14.”

‘Purātanān’—‘Those deities born in this cycle who are called Sādhyas’ (Medhātithi, who adopts this reading only as an alternative, his own reading being ‘purātanāḥ’ explained as ‘the ancient sages’ and construed as nominative to the verb ‘vadanti’);—‘Those whose succession has been uninterrupted since immemorial times’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘Those who were produced before all other castes’ (Nārāyaṇa)

Mahābhārata (13.237.31).—‘At the Śrāddha, one should invite such persons as are free from anger, not fickle, tolerant, self-controlled, with senses suppressed, and benevolent towards all beings.’

213 They (also) call those first of twice-born men the ancient deities of the funeral sacrifice, free from anger, easily pleased, employed in making men prosper.

Having done the entire serial performance in Fire, in the “Apasavya” form, he should offer water on the ground with the hand in the “Apasavya” position.—(214)

अग्नौ यत् कर्तव्यम् “अग्नये स्वधा नमः” इति आहुतिप्रक्षेपलक्षणं कार्यं तद् अपसव्यम् । दक्षिणेन हस्तेन कर्तव्यम्, न सव्येन, नोभाभ्याम्, “उभयोर् हस्तयोर् मुक्तम्” (म्ध् ३.२१५) इति निषेधात् ।

• हस्तद्वयसंयोगेन कर्तव्यताशङ्कायाम् अपसव्येनेत्य् उक्तम् इति केचित् ।

• इदं त्व् अयुक्तम् । या अग्नाव् आहुतयो हूयन्ते तासां च या आवृत् परिक्रमस् तस्यापसव्यता विधीयते । दक्षिणासंस्था आहुतीः कुर्यात् नोदक्संस्थाः, यथा दैवे । दर्व्या वा हविर्भिस् तु कारयितव्यं नोदीच्यां किं तर्हि दक्षिणाभिमुखं यथोदकं पित्र्येण तीर्थेन कार्यते ।

• सर्वग्रहणाद् अन्यद् अपि परिवेषणाद्य् अपसव्यम् एव कर्तव्यम् । अपसव्येन हस्तेनोदकं निर्वपेत् । “शनैः” इति वा पाठः । अत्रार्थः । अन्यथा “राजतैर् भाजनैः” (म्ध् ३.१९२) इत्य् अनेन राजतभाजनप्राप्तये सव्यहस्तविधिः । आवृत् तिरावृत् ॥ ३.२०४ ॥

What is done in fire, in the form of pouring the libation, with the words, ‘agnaye svadhā namaḥ’ (‘this is an offering for Agni,’) should be done in the ‘apasavya’ form.

Some people explain the term ‘apasavya’ to mean that the act should be done with the right hand, not with the left, nor by both; in view of the prohibition contained in verse 225 below. This, according to these people, has been added, in view of it being thought possible to do the act with both hands.

This, however, is not right. Because the ‘apasavya form’ here enjoined is in reference to the ‘serial performance’ of those libations that are poured into Fire; hence, what is meant is that the libations should be poured in such a manner that they tend towards the South, not towards the North;—this latter being what is right in the case of offerings to the gods. That is to say, when the sacrificial material is being poured with the ladle, one should be facing the South, and not the North—this rule standing on the same footing as that which prescribes the pouring of water-libations to the Pitṛs in such a manner that it flows between the thumb and the index-finger.

The epithet ‘entire’ indicates that all such acts as the placing of the material in the dish, and so forth, should be done in the ‘apasavya’ form.

‘He should offer water with the hand in the apasavya position,’

‘Śanaiḥ’ (for ‘bhuvi’) is another reading.

The purpose of this rule is that it has been emphasised with a view to preclude the use of silver implements (according to 202).

‘Āvṛt’ stands for ‘Āvṛtti,’ ‘repetition.’—(214)

‘Apasavyam’—‘In such a manner that they tend towards the South’ (Medhātithi);—‘Passing the sacrificial thread over the right shoulder under the left arm’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘with the right hand’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, which he rejects).

‘Āpasavyena hastena’—‘With the right hand’ (Kullūka). This explanation, which Buhler wrongly attributes to ‘others’ (in Medhātithi), is really put forth by Medhātithi in connection with the former term ‘Apasavyam’, and not the second expression ‘Āpasavyena hastena.’ Nor is it right to say that according to Medhātithi this second expression means ‘out of the Tīrtha of the right hand which is sacred to the Manes’; because, as a matter of fact, Medhātithi has given no explanation of this expression at all. Buhler seems to have got an imperfect copy of Medhātithi; or did he not pay careful attention to reading it?

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 601) without any comment;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1321) as distinctly laying down the ‘Prācīnāvīta’.

Laghu-Āśvalāyana Smṛti (13.73-74).—‘On the spot which is sloping towards the south-east, he shall draw a line with the mantra Apahata, etc.; he shall spread kuśa over it and then adopting the Apasavya form, he shall sprinkle water over it with the mantra Śundhantām, etc.; and then upon the kuśa he shall offer the balls.’

214 After he has performed (the oblations) in the fire, (and) the whole series of ceremonies in such a manner that they end in the south, let him sprinkle water with his right hand on the spot (where the cakes are to be placed).

Having made these balls out of the remnant of the said sacrificial material, he should, with collected mind and facing the South, offer them in the manner of the water-libations.—(215)

यत् तद्धोमार्थं पात्रे गृहीतम् अन्नं तस्माद् धुतशिष्टात् त्रीन् पिण्डान् कृत्वा दक्षिणस्यां दिशि मुखं कृत्वा निर्वपेत् । दर्भेषु पितॄन् उद्दिश्य प्रक्षिपेत् । संहतं द्रव्यं पिण्डशब्देनोच्यते । तेन विशदम् अन्नं न दातव्यम् । औदकेन । औदको विधिर् यः समनन्तरम् एवोक्तः “अपसव्येन” इत्यादि (म्ध् ३.२०४) ।

• अत्रेदं संदिह्यते । किं यत् तदन्नं ब्राह्मणभोजनार्थं साधितं ततो ऽप्य् उद्धृत्य हविःसंस्कारः कर्तव्यः, उत¹⁵² पृथक् चरुः साधनीय¹⁵³ इति । किंपरिमाणं च तद् धविर् इति । न ह्य् अत्र “चतुरो मुष्टीन्” इत्यादिपरिमाणसंभवः ।

• विचारितम् एतत् । विशेषाश्रवणात् कामचारः । परिमाणं यावता अर्थसिद्धिर् भवति । औदकविध्यतिदेशाच् च स्वहस्तेनापसव्येन पिण्डनिर्वपणम्, न राजतैः पात्रैः । समाहितग्रहणं वृत्तपूरणार्थम् ॥ ३.२०५ ॥

From out of the material that had been held in the vessel, and out of which the fire-oblations have been offered,—‘having made three bails,’ turning bis face towards the South, he should ‘offer them’—i.e., throw them on the kuśa-grass, with reference to the Pitṛs.

The term ‘piṇḍa,’ ‘ball,’ stands for something solid; hence, one should not, in this connection, offer disintegrated articles of food.

‘In the manner of the water-libations’—i.e., the manner of offering water-libations, which has been just pointed out (in the preceding verse).

In this connection, the following question arises:—“Should the purificatory rites necessary for the sacrificial material be performed over the substance taken out of the food that has been cooked for feeding the Brāhmaṇas?—or, should separate rice be cooked?—and also what should be the quantity of that sacrificial material? The rule laying down ‘four handfulls’ cannot apply to this case.”

This question has been already discussed; in the absence of any specific rules on the subject, one is free to do what one likes; and the quantity should be just what may be necessary for the purpose in view.

Inasmuch as ‘the manner of the water-libations’ is laid down as applicable to the offering of balls, it follows that this latter offering is to be done with ‘hands in the apasavya position,’ and not with silver implements.

‘With collected mind’—this has been added for the purpose of filling up the metre.—(215)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 601), without any comment;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1427), which adds the following notes:—‘Tasmāt haviḥśeṣāt’, out of the remnant of the substance offered into the Fire,—‘audakavidhi’ stands for the method by which an offering of water is made with hands in the Apasavya form, as laid down in the preceding verse.

Viṣṇu (73.17-19).—‘Near the food-remnant, upon kuśa-blades pointing southwards, he shall deposit one ball for his father, with the mantra Pṛthivī darvirakṣitā, etc.;—the second to the grand-father, with the mantra Antarikṣam darvirakṣitā, etc.; the third to the great-grand-father, with the mantra Dyaurdarviraksiṭā, etc.’

Yājñavalkya (1.241-242).—‘Taking up all the food and mixing it up with sesamum, he shall offer the balls near the food-remnant, in the manner of the Pitṛyajña.’

Laghu-Āśvalāyana (13.74).—(See above.)

215 But having made three cakes out of the remainder of that sacrificial food, he must, concentrating his mind and turning towards the south, place them on (Kusa grass) exactly in the same manner in which (he poured out the libations of) water.

Self-controlled, he should, after having offered those balls on Kuśa-blades, according to rule, wipe that hand on those same (Kuśa-blades), for the sake of the “Partakers of Smearings.”—(216)

न्युप्य दत्त्वा दर्भेषु तान् पिण्डान् तं हस्तं निर्मृज्याद् दर्भेषु तेषु येष्व् एव पिण्डनिर्वपणं कृतम् । स्मृत्यन्तरदर्शनात्, दर्भमूलेषु मार्जनम् ।

• अपरे च न हस्तसंलग्नस्यान्नस्योदकस्यैव¹⁵⁴ दर्भेषु संश्लेषणम् । यदि न किंचिद् अपि हस्ते संश्लिष्येत् तथापि हस्तं दर्भेषु निमृज्याद् एव । न ह्य् एतत् प्रतिपत्तिकर्मैव । येनासति वचनप्रयोजने न क्रियेत¹⁵⁵ । नेह श्रूयते “हस्तलग्नं निर्मृज्यात्” किं तर्हि हस्तम् एव ।

• ननु च लेपभागिनाम् इति स्रूयते । तत्रासति लेपे न प्राप्नोति । अतः किम् उच्यते “यदि न किंचिद् अपि हस्ते संश्लिष्येत् तथापि कर्तव्यम्” इति ।

• उच्यते । साक्षात् मूर्तम् अन्नं कदाचिन् न श्लिष्यति । पिण्डेष्व् अनुवर्त्यमानेषु अन्नरस उष्मावसंपर्कात् संक्रामति¹⁵⁶ हस्ते । स एव लेप उच्यते ।

• लेपभागिनाम् इति षष्ठी निर्मार्जनस्य तत्संबन्धिताम् आह । न च लेपभागिनः प्रत्यक्षदृश्याः सन्ति येषां स्वस्वाम्यादिसंबन्धो लेपस्य क्रियेत । तस्माऌ लेपभागिनाम् अयं भागो ऽस्त्व् इति मनसा ध्यायेत । शब्देन वोद्दिशेत् ।

• अन्ये तु प्रपितामहात् पूर्वे ये पितरस् तान् लेपभागिन आहुः । अस्मिन् दर्शने प्रपितामहपित्रे प्रपितामहपितामहायेत्यादिभिः शब्दैर् उद्देशः कर्तव्यो ऽसति तन्नामनिवेदने ।

• हस्तम् इत्य् एकवचननिर्देशाद् एकेनापसव्येन हस्तेन पिण्डनिर्वपणं दर्शयति । प्रयत इत्य् अनुवादह्, विहितत्वात् । विधिपूर्वकम् इति शास्त्रान्तरदृष्टं विधिं परिगृह्णाति । “गन्धमाल्यधूपाच्छादनसिद्धोपहारैः पिण्डं निर्वपेत्” इति शङ्खः । यस् त्व् इह विधिः श्रुतः स स्वमतेनैवोक इति विधिपूर्वकम् इत्य् एतद् अनर्थकम् । तस्माच् छास्त्रान्तरविध्युपसंहारार्थं विधिपूर्वकम् इति वचनम् ॥ ३.२०६ ॥

‘Nyupya’—‘having offered,’—‘on kuśa-blades’—he should wipe that hand on those same kuśa-blades,—those same on which the balls have been offered.

In accordance with the opinion of other Smṛtis, the wiping is to be done on the root-end of the kuśa-blades.

Others have held that this rule does not mean simply that the food and water attaching to the hand should be so wiped; in fact, even though nothing may be attached to the hand, yet even the hand itself should be wiped on the blades. The reason for this is that the act here prescribed is not in the nature of the ‘disposal of remnants,’ in which case alone it could he held to be done only when the stated conditions would be present. Specially as what is prescribed is, not that ‘one should wipe what is attaching to the hand,’ but that ‘he should wipe the hand.’

Against this it might be argued that—“we find it stated that the act is ‘for the sake of the Partakers of Smearings,’ which shows that it cannot be done when there is no ‘smearing’ at all. Why, then, should it be said that, even when there is nothing sticking to the hand, the act should be done?”

The answer to this is as follows:—It is possible that solid food may not stick to the hand; but when the ball of food is being rolled up, the juices of the food are sure to stick to the hand, by reason of the contact with heat; and it is this that is called the ‘smearing.’

The genitive ending in ‘lepabhāginām’ connotes the connection of the act of wiping with the particular class of Pitṛs. Any such beings as ‘Partakers of Smearings’ are not visible to the eye; hence it is not possible to bring about their ‘possession’ in connection with the ‘smearing.’ Hence, all that is meant is that ‘one should think in his mind that the smearing is meant to be the share of the ‘Partakers of Smearings;’ or, he may even say this in so many words.

Others have held that ancestors above the great grandfather are spoken of as ‘Partakers of Smearings.’ According to this view, if the names of those ancestors are not pronounced, they may be referred to by means of such expressions as ‘this to the father of my great-grandfather,’ ‘this to the grandfather of my great-grandfather,’ and so forth.

The singular number in ‘hand’ shows that the ball is to be offered with a single hand in the ‘apasavya’ form.

‘Self-controlled’—this is a mere reiteration: such control having been already prescribed above.

‘According to rule’—refers to the rules of procedure laid down in other scriptures; e.g., Śaṅkha says—‘One should offer the ball along with sandal-paint, garlands, incense, doth and dressings.’ The ‘rule’ that has been prescribed in the text by Manu himself has been stated in his own words; hence the phrase, ‘according to rule,’ would be meaningless (if it referred to that rule itself). It is for this reason that this phrase should be taken as summing up the details prescribed in other scriptures.—(216).

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 601), without comment;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 754) as laying down what should be done after the offering of the Balls has been made;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 177), which explains that the ‘Lepabhāginaḥ,’ ‘Partakers of smearings’ are the ancestors, the great-great-grandfather, his father and his grandfather;—one’s own father, grandfather and great-grandfather being called ‘pīṇḍabhāginaḥ’;—the same explanation is repeated by the same work on p. 239.

It is evidently a misprint in Buhler’s note where he includes the ‘great-grandfather’ under the ‘lepabhāginaḥ’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 507);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1449), which has the following notes:—‘Nyupya’, having deposited on the kuśa-grass,—‘prayataḥ’ with proper care,—such care as implies concentration of mind, freedom from forgetfulness and so forth; in fact it stands for the entire procedure,—‘vidhipūrvakam’ refers to rules prescribed in ordinances other than those of Manu himself,—‘teṣu darbheṣu’, those kuśa-blades upon which the Balls have been deposited,—‘tam’, that hand by which the Ball has been offered—‘lepabhāginaḥ’ i.e., intended for those Pitṛs who are entitled to the ‘smearings’ i. e., the four ancestors, above the great-grandfather;—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 190).

Viṣṇu (73.22).—‘The hand should be rubbed over the root-end of the kuśa-blades, with the mantra atra pitaro mādayadhvam

Vyāghra (Aparārka, p. 507).—‘The smearing of the hand one should wipe at the root-end of the kuśa.’

216 Having offered those cakes according to the (prescribed) rule, being pure, let him wipe the same hand with (the roots of) those blades of Kusa grass for the sake of the (three ancestors) who partake of the wipings (lepa).

Turning to the north, having sipped water and having gently suppressed his breath three times, he shall salute, with proper formulas, the six seasons and also the Pitṛs.—(217)

दर्भेषु पिण्डान् दत्त्वोदीचीं दिशं परावर्तेत । सव्येन मार्गेण । स्मृत्यन्तरे हि “सव्यावृद् उदक् परावृत्त्य” इति पठ्यते । उत्तराभिमुखः स्थित्वा आचामेत् । आचम्य त्रीन् प्राणायामान् कुर्यात् । असून् प्राणान् आयम्य संनिरुध्य इत्य् एव । अत्र च “गायत्रीं शिरसा” (य्ध् १.२३) इत्यादिविधिर् नास्ति । शनैर् यथा नातिपीडा भवति । तथा चाह । यथावाक्यं प्राणान् आसित्वा । तद् अभिमुख एव सकृण् नमस्कुर्यात् । वसन्ताय नम इत्यादि । पितॄंश् च नमस्कुर्यात् । मन्त्रवत् । “नमो वः पितरः” इत्यादिना मन्त्रेण । पितॄणां नमस्कारः पिण्डाभिमुखेन कर्तव्यः । “अभिपर्यायवृत्त्या” इति हि स्मृत्यन्तरम् ॥ ३.२०७ ॥

Having placed the balls on the kuśa-grass, he should turn towards the North, leftwards; since we read in another Smṛti—‘turning to the left, towards the north.’

Seated with his face towards the North, he should sip water. ‘Having sipped water’— he should perform ‘breath-suppression’ three times; e.g., simply supressing the breath three times—only this much;—the rule relating to the repeating of the Gāyatrī verse along with the ‘Śiras’ formula (Yājña. Ācāra 23) not applying to the present case.

‘Gently’—so that there may not he much pain. This is what has been asserted (elsewhere) in the words—‘having suppressed the breathing as much as one can.’

Still facing the North, he should salute, &c., &c.—saying, ‘Salutation to the spring!’ and so forth.

He should also salute the Pitṛs; ‘with proper formulas with the mantra, ‘Na mo vaḥ pitaraḥ, &c., &c.’ This saluting of the Pitṛs should be done with face turned towards the Balls; for another Smṛti says that this is to be done by ‘turning round.’—(217).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 241), which explains the word ‘mantravat’ (the reading adopted by it, along with Medhātithi, in place of ‘mantravit’), as referring to the Yajurveda-text—‘namo vaḥ pitaro rasāya—namo vaḥ pitaraḥ śoṣāya—namo vaḥ pitaro jīvāya—namo vaḥ pitaraḥ svadhāyai—namo vaḥ pitaro ghorāya—namo vaḥ pitaro manyave,’ where, according to Halāyudha, the six names—‘Rasa—Śoṣa—Jīva—Svadhā—Ghora—and Manyu’—stand respectively for the six seasons—Spring, Summer, Rains, Autumn, Pre-winter and Mid-winter; and what is meant is that these should be thought of as ‘Pitṛs’ and then saluted.—It further adds that as no such ‘salutation to the Seasons’ is spoken of in Gobhila’s Gṛhyasūtra, what Manu says should be taken as applying to Brāhmaṇas other than those who belong to the Sāmaveda.

Madanapārijāta (p. 601) also quotes this verse, and adds that the salutation to the Seasons is to be made with the mantra—‘namo vaḥ pitaraḥ &c., &c.’

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 328) quotes this verse, and adds that Medhātithi has explained the phrase ‘trirāyamya asūn’ as ‘triḥ prāṇāyāmam kṛtvā.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 507);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1451) to the effect that the sipping of water should be done after the washing of the hand;—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 193), which adds that the mantra for bowing to the seasons begins with ‘vasantāya’ and that for saluting the Pitṛs, with ‘amīmadanta.’

Laghu-Āśvalāyana (13.75).—‘Having taken leave with the mantra, Atra, etc., he shall turn towards the north and restrain his breath.’

217 Having (next) sipped water, turned round (towards the north), and thrice slowly suppressed his breath, (the sacrificer) who knows the sacred texts shall worship (the guardian deities of) the six seasons and the manes.

The remaining water he should gently pour near the balls; and with collected mind he should smell those halls in the order in which they were offered.—(218).

यत एव पात्राद् उदकेन प्राक् पिण्डदानाद् दर्भेषूदकनिनयनं कृतं तत एव पुनर् निनयनं पिण्डान्तिके पिण्डसमीपे कर्तव्यम् इति । शेषग्रहणं प्रतिपत्त्यर्थं तस्योदकस्य । तथा हि शेषशब्द उपपन्नो भवति । अतश् च कथंचित् तस्याभावे नास्ति पुनर् निनयनम् । गृह्ये तु “नित्यं निनयनम्” इत्य् उक्तम् । अवजिघ्रेच् च तान् पिण्डान् । अवघ्राणं गन्धोपलब्धिः । गृह्ये तु “चरोः प्राणभक्षं भक्षयेत्” इत्य् उक्तम् । यथान्युप्तान् येन क्रमेण निरुप्तान् पित्रे पितामहाय प्रपितामहायेति । समाहित इति श्लोकपूरणम् ॥ ३.२०८ ॥

Water should be poured again near the balls, out of the same vessel from which it had been poured upon the kuśa-blades, before the offering or the balls.

‘Remaining’;—this is meant to show that, the net mentioned is to be regarded as the ‘disposal of remnants;’ it is only in this sense that the term ‘remaining’ becomes justifiable. From this it follows that, in the event of there being no ‘remnant,’ there shall be no ‘pouring.’ But in the Gṛhyasūtra, it has been declared that this ‘pouring of water’ is obligatory.

‘He should smell these balls;’—‘smelling,’ consists of eeling the odour; but in the Gṛhyasūtra it is said that ‘he should eat it with his breath.’

‘in the order in which they were offered,’—the order in which they were offered being, first to the father, second to the grandfather, and third to the great-grandfather;—‘with collected mind’—this is for filling up the metre.—(218.)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 601), without comment—The first half is quoted in Nirṇaya sindhu (p. 328);—and the second half in Aparārka (p. 508);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 201), which adds that the ‘smelling’ is to begin with the Ball offered to the Father.

Viṣṇu (73.23-24).—‘With the mantra ūrjam vahantīḥ, etc., he shall pour water over the balls and then offer washing-water, flowers, sandal-paste and articles of food, as also the cup of water mixed with honey, butter and sesamum.’

Laghu-Āsvalāyana (13.76-77).—‘With the mantra

Amimadanta, etc., he shall turn back and then eat the remnant of the cooked food; or, according to some, only smell it;—he shall then sprinkle water over the balls, as before, with the mantra Śundhantām, etc.

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 508).—‘Having worshipped the water-pot with sandal, flowers, garlands, incense, lamp, cloth and unguents, he should pour ṭhe water on the balls.’

218 Let him gently pour out the remainder of the water near the cakes, and, with fixed attention, smell those cakes, in the order in which they were placed (on the ground).

Having, in due order of sequence, taken very small portions out of the halls, he shall first feed those same seated Brāhmaṇas with them, in accordance with role.—(219).

अत्यन्त्आल्पिका मात्रा अवयवो भागस् तम् एव । यो ब्राह्मणो ऽयं पितरम् उद्दिश्य उपवेशितः, तदीयात् पिण्डात् किंचिन्मात्रं स एवाशयितव्यः । अनुपूर्वश इत्य् उक्तार्थम् । इह तच्छब्दात् प्रकृतपरामर्शकाद् अग्न्यभाव इत्य् अत्र न प्रकृतवचनम् । पूर्वम्¹⁵⁷ अन्यस्माद् अदनीयात् ॥ ३.२०९ ॥

Extremely small portions—parts of the ball offered to the Father should be made to be eaten by the Brāhmaṇa who has been previously seated in honour of the Father.

‘In due order of sequence’;—the meaning of this has been already explained.

The pronoun ‘those’ refers to those mentiond in the present context; and, it is in view of this that, in 212, our author has not thought it necessary to specify the Brāhmaṇa as the one thus mentioned.

‘Frst’—i.e., before every other kind of food.—(219).

‘Vidhivat’—‘Giving to the Brāhmaṇa invited in honour of the Father a piece out of the Ball offered to the Father, and so forth’ (Kullūka);—‘after they have sipped water, and so forth’ (Nārāyaṇa).

“Nandana inserts here verse 223 and states that it is explanatory of the term ‘according to rule.’”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 326);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1476).

Matsya-Purāṇa (quoted in *Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi-*Śrāddha, p. 24-76).—‘Having taken, in due order, portions out of the balls, the man shall, with due care, have them eaten by those same Brāhmaṇas. Having at first placed in their hands the pavitra-kuśa along with water and sesamum, he shall offer the portions of the balls, saying svadhaiṣāmastu.’

219 But taking successively very small portions from the cakes, he shall make those seated Brahmana eat them, in accordance with the rule, before (their dinner).

While his father holds, one should make the offering to the previous ancestors; or, he may feed his own father at the Śrāddha as a Brāhmana.—(220).

उक्तं “पितृभ्यः पिण्डान् निर्वपेत्” इति । क एते पितरो नाम । अनेकार्थो हि पितृशब्दो जनयितरि वर्तते । जनकः पितेति संबन्धिशब्दो दृश्यते । पूर्वप्रमीताः पित्रादयो ऽन्ये च संबन्धिनः प्रेताः पितर उच्यन्ते । तथा च “नमो वः पितरः” इत्यादिमन्त्रा बहुवचनान्ताः समर्था निगदा भवन्ति । अत एव स्त्रीश्राद्धे नोह्यन्ते । नमस् ते मातर् नमस् ते पतामही इत्यादि न क्रियते । अत एकोद्दिष्टे संख्योहः क्रियते, न प्रातिपदिकोहः । तथा च सूत्रकारः- “एकवन् मन्त्रान् ऊहेत” इत्यादि । “नमस् ते पितर्” इत्य् एवम् ऊहः क्रियते । यो भ्रातुः पितामहादेर् वा एकोद्दिष्टं करोति स चैवम् ऊहति- नमस् ते भ्रातः,¹⁵⁸ नमस् ते पितामह, नमस् ते पितृव्येत्यादि । पितृव्यादीनाम् अनपत्यानां श्राद्धं विहितम् । “यो यत आददीत स तस्मै दद्यात्” इति । देवताविशेषवचनो ऽप्य् अस्ति पितृशब्दः कूटस्थनित्ये ऽर्थे वर्तते । निरुक्तकारा हि दैवते मध्यस्थान् पितॄन् समामनन्ति “मरुतः रुद्राक्षभृतः पितरः” इति ।

• एवम् अनेकार्थे पितृशब्दे विशेषावधारणार्थम् आह । ध्रियमाणे जीवति पितरि सति पूर्वेषां पितामहप्रपितामहतत्पितॄणां निर्वपेत्, त्रयाणां, बहुवचननिर्देशात् । तथा च गृह्ये- “येभ्यः पिता दद्यात् तेभ्यः पुत्रो दद्यात् पितापुत्रौ चेद् आहिताग्नी स्याताम्” इति ।

• ननु च न चतुर्थं पिण्डो गच्छतीयाहुः ।

• सत्यम् । नैवात्र चतुर्थः पिण्डो दीयते ।

• पक्षान्तरम् आह विप्रवद् वा । यथा ब्राह्मणा¹⁵⁹ निमन्त्रणापूर्वकं ब्रह्मचारिणो नियमवण्तश् च पूज्यन्ते, तथैव जीवत्पितृकेण पिता भोजनीयः । श्राद्धं स्राद्धर्थम् अन्नं स्राद्धम् ।

• अत्र च पितृत्वम् एव भोज्यत्वे करणं न जातिगुणाव् अपेक्ष्यौ । एवं ह्य् आहुः- पितृप्रीत्यर्थं श्राद्धम्, तत्र मृतस्य प्रीतौ कर्तव्यायां को जीवति पितरि परिभवो येनासौ न भोजयेत्¹⁶⁰ ।

• स्वकम् इत्य् अनुवादः, संबन्धिशब्दत्वाद् एव सिद्धेः ।

• भोजनम् अत्र पितुश् चोदितं हितम्¹⁶¹, पिण्डनिर्वपणं तु दर्भेषु पितॄणां कर्तव्यम् एतत् त इति विरोधात् । यदि हि पात्रस्थानीया दर्भास् तदा जीवतः पितुः स्वाम्ये दानोत्पत्तौ अल्पिकां मात्राम् आशयेद् इति न युज्यते । जीवतो हि स्वम् इच्छाविनियोज्यम् । न च तस्मिन् पिण्डे ऽञ्जनादिदानम्¹⁶² उपपद्यते अर्धजरतीयप्रसङ्गात् । न ह्य् अत्राञ्जनादिसंस्कृतेन पितुः किंचित् प्रयोजनम् अस्ति । तस्माद् अदृष्टार्थम्¹⁶³ अञ्जनादिदानम् । अञ्जनादिरहितं तु कदाचिद् आत्मनः पितुः परस्य वा भोजनयोग्यं भवतीत्य् एवम् अर्धजरतीयम् । तस्माद् अस्मिन् पक्षे पिण्डनिर्वपणं द्वयोः पितामहप्रपितामहयोः । गृह्यकारास् तु स्मरन्ति- “जीवत्पितृकस्य न पिण्डपितृयज्ञो न श्राद्धम्”, किं तर्हि “अनारम्भ एव तस्य कर्मणो होमान्तता वा” ॥ ३.२१० ॥

It has been said that ‘one shall offer balls to the Pitṛs.’ Now the question arises—Who are these ‘Pitṛs?’ The term ‘pitṛ’ has several meanings, and denotes ‘progenitor’; (A) it is used in the sense of the relative term, ‘father’; (B) it is also used in the sense of one’s father and other relations that have died before. It is in this latter sense that we have the term used in the plural in all such Nigada-mantras as ‘namo vaḥ pitaraḥ, &c.’. It is for the same reason, again, that at the Śrāddha offered to females, these mantras do not undergo transmutation into the form ‘namo vo mātaraḥ, &c.’ on the same grounds, again, at the the Śrāddha offered to a single person, it is only the number that is changed, not the basic noun (pitṛ). Says the author of the Sutra also—‘Mantras should be transformed only in regard to the singular number;’ the transformed words being—‘namaste pitaḥ.’ Similarly, he who performs the unitary Śrāddha of his brother or grandfather, uses the mantra in the form ‘namaste bhrātaḥ,’ ‘namaste pitāmaha,’ ‘namaste pitṛvya,’ and so forth. The offering of Śrāddha to one’s childless uncle has been enjoined as necessary, in such passages as—‘what one receives from another that he shall give unto him.’ (C) Further, the term ‘pitṛ’ also denotes a particular Deity; and in this sense, it would stand for an unchanging eternal being. In fact, the author of the Nirukta, in the Daivata Section of the work, gives the name ‘Pitṛ,’ to the divine Beings occupying the Middle Regions, describing them as ‘Pitṛs, the Maruts bearing the rosary of beads.’

The term ‘pitṛ,’ thus having several meanings, the Text proceeds to specify what is meant by it in the present context.

‘While his father holds,’—is alive—‘one should make the offering to the previous ancestors,’—‘i.e., to the three, the grandfather, the great-grandfather and the father of the latter; that these three are meant is indicated by the plural number. Says the Gṛhyasūtra—‘The son should offer to those to whom the father offers, if both father and son are persons who have set up the fire.’

“But they say that the ball does not reach the fourth ancestor.”

True; but, in the case in question, no fourth ball is offered.

The text provides another alternative course to be adopted—‘As a Brāhmaṇa, etc.’ That is, Brāhmaṇas, Religious Students and Ascetics are invited and honoured and worship-pod and fed; and exactly in the same manner should the father be honoured and fed by one whose father is still alive ‘at the Śrāddha,’—i.e., the food cooked for the Śrāddha offerings.

In this case, the fact of the man being his father, is the sole ground for his being fed; hence it is not necessary to look into his caste and qualifications. To this end they declare thus:—‘The Śrāddha is for the purpose of giving pleasure to one’s ancestors’;—hence the bringing about of the pleasure of the dead father being necessary, what harm would there be in feeding the living father, in view of which he could not be fed?

‘Own’—Is merely reiterative; what is denoted by this being already connoted by the relative term, ‘father,’ itself.

What is laid down here is the actual feeding of the Father; but the Balls are placed for the Pitṛs on Kuśa blades; as otherwise, there would be an incompatibility with the formula ‘this ball is for you.’ If the Kusba-blades be regarded as substitutes for the Dish, then, in the event of the living Father’s possession being brought about (by the act of offering), it would not be right to make him eat ‘a very small portion;’ because, for the living person, the eating is to be in accordance with the eater’s desire. Further, in this case, there would be no need of pouring water and other things over the ball offered; as such a process would lead to the undesirable contingency of a ‘hybrid performance;’ any effect produced by the pouring of water, in this case, would serve no useful purpose, cither for the man himself or for his father; so that it could only serve an imperceptible transcendental purpose; on the other hand, if water were not poured over the ball, it might be fit for being eaten either by the father, or by the offerer himself, or by some one else. It is in this way that the act may turn out to be of a ‘hybrid’ character.

For these reasons, it follows that, in this alternative, the ball is to be offered to only two persons, the grandfather and the great-grandfather.

The authors of the Gṛhyasūtras, however, declare that—‘for one whose father is alive there is neiher Piṇḍapitṛyajña, nor Śrāddha;—there is either non-performance of these rites, or their performance only up to the stage of pouring libations into fire.’—(220)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 542), which explains ‘pūrveṣām’ as ‘the three beginning with the grandfather’. Hopkins is not right when he says that “in this case he offers of course only two Balls.”

The first half is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 361), in support of the view that the Ball should be offered to the Father’s father, grandfather and great-grandfather.

The verse is quoted in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 553), which has the following notes;—‘Pūrveṣām,’ the father’s forefathers; another alternative is that the living Father should be respectfully fed and then Śrāddha offered to the next two ancestors, i.e., the grandfather and the greatgrandfather.

Viṣṇu (75.1).—‘If one performs the Śrāddha while his father is alive, he shall offer it to those whom his father offers it.’

220 But if the (sacrificer’s) father is living, he must offer (the cakes) to three remoter (ancestors); or he may also feed his father at the funeral sacrifice as (one of the) Brahmana (guests).

He whose father is dead, but grandfather is living, should mention the great-grandfather after having pronounced the name of the father.—(221)

पितुर् नामसंकीर्तनेन तदीयावाहनपिण्डदानब्राह्मण्भोजनानि लक्ष्यन्ते । कीर्तयेत् प्रपितामहम् । जीवते पितामहाय न दद्यात् । किं तर्हि ततः पूर्वाभ्यां “पितुः पितृभ्यो निपृणीयात्” इति स्मरन्ति ॥ ३.२११ ॥

The pronouncing of the Father’s name stands here for his invitation, offering of the ball and the feeding of Brāhmaṇas.

‘Should mention the great-grandfather;’—i.e., he should not make any offering to the living grandfather; it should be made to his previous ancestors; as it has been declared that ‘one should make offerings to his father’s ancestors.’—(221)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 542), which, in explaining the phrase ‘pituḥ svanāma saṅkīrtya,’ says that in offering the Ball—to his own great-grandfather, e.g., he should refer to him as ‘the grandfather of my father, so aṇd so’;—also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 362) in support of the view that if the grandfather be living, the offerings; should be made to the Father, the great-grandfather and the great-great-grandfather;—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 553), which notes that ‘nāmakīrtaṇa,’ ‘mentioning of the name’ stands for ‘offering the Śrāddha’ and ‘prapitāmaha,’ ‘great-grandfather’ means the ‘great-great-grandfather’ also.

Viṣṇu (75.4).—‘He whose father is dead shall offer the ball to his father and then to the two ancestors above the grand-father.’

Laghu-Ā svalāyana (20.38).—‘If the father dies while the grand-father is alive, three balls shall be offered beginning with the great-grand-father.’

221 But he whose father is dead, while his grandfather lives, shall, after pronouncing his father’s name, mention (that of) his great-grandfather.

Manu has declared that either the grandfather may eat at that Śrāddha, or the man himself may, according to his will, perform it, after being permitted by him.—(222)

यथा जीवत्पिता भोज्यते तद्वत् पितामहो ऽपि । अनुज्ञां पितामहात् प्राप्य¹⁶⁴ समाचरेत् स्वयम् । परतो द्वयोर् दद्यात्, प्रपितामहाय एकस्मा एव वा । एष कामं¹⁶⁵ स्वयम् इत्य् अनयोर् अर्थः ॥ ३.२१२ ॥

Just as the living father is fed, so is the grandfather also.

Having sought permission from the grandfather, the man himself may perform the śrāddha; i.e., he should make the offering to the two remoter ancestors, or to the great-grandfather only. This is what is implied by the terms ‘may’ and ‘according to his will.’—(222)

The first half of this verse is quoted without comment in Madanapārijāta (p. 542);—also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 362);—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 554), which notes that ‘Śrāddham’ stands for the ‘Śrāddha-oflferings,’ the things offered; as the ‘Śrāddha’ itself cannot be eaten, the meaning is that the living grandfather should be fed on the substances offered at the Śrāddhas, and then the offerings made to the dead Father and Great-grandfather.

Viṣṇu (quoted by Kullūka).—‘Or, he shall perform two Śrāddhas—to the father and to the grand-father.’

222 Manu has declared that either the grandfather may eat at that Sraddha (as a guest), or (the grandson) having received permission, may perform it, as he desires.

Having poured into their hands water and sesamum along with kuśa blades, he should offer the top portion of the ball, saying “May this be svadhā to these.”—(223)

यद् उक्तं “पिण्डेभ्यः स्वल्पिकां मात्राम् आशयेत्” (म्ध् ३.२०९) इति, तस्यायं कालविधिर् देशविधिश् च । अग्रदेशात् पिण्डस्य मात्रा आदातव्या । दर्भांस् तिलोदकं च दत्त्वा तदनन्तरं पिण्डभागं प्रयच्छेत् । स्वधैषाम् अस्त्व् इति ब्रुवन् । एषाम् इति सर्वनाम्ना विशेषनामानि गृह्यन्ते । एवं संबन्धः क्रियते- येषां यानि नामानि तान्य् उच्चार्य स्वधास्त्व् इति ब्रूयात् । अतः स्वधाशब्दयोगे चतुर्थ्या निर्देशः कर्तव्यः- स्वधा देवदत्तायास्तु, स्वधा यज्ञदत्तायास्त्व् इति । एवं व्याख्याने शास्त्रान्तरविरोधो न भवति ॥ ३.२१३ ॥

It has been said above (219) that—‘he shall make them eat very small portions of the balls;’ and the present text lays down the time for this feeding—and the place (from which the portion is to be drawn). The portion is to be taken from the top of the ball; and this portion of the ball should be offered after the Kuśa-blades and water and sesamum have been offered.

‘Saying—May this be svadhā to these.’ The pronoun ‘these’ stands for the individual names; the construction being—‘having pronounced the names of the particular ancestor, he should say, May this be svadhā to him.’ In this sense, the Dative should be used in connection with the term ‘svadhā,’—the right form being—‘svadhā Devadattaya astu,’ ‘svadhā Yajñadattāya astu,’ ‘may this be svadhā to Devadatta,’ ‘may this be svadhā to Yajñadatta,’ and so forth.

By explaining our text thus, we do not run counter to other scriptural injunctions.—(223)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1476).

Matsya-purāṇa—(Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi-Śrāddha, p. 2476).—(Reproduces Manu.)

223 Having poured water mixed with sesamum, in which a blade of Kusa grass has been placed, into the hands of the (guests), he shall give (to each) that (above-mentioned) portion of the cake, saying, ‘To those, Svadha!’

Taking up with his hands the supply of food, he shall himself gently place it near the Brāhmaṇas, thinking of his Pitṛs (all the time).—(224)

उभाभ्यां हस्ताभ्यां स्वयं गृहीत्वा अन्नस्य वर्धितम् अन्नेन पूर्णं भाजनं विप्रान्तिके रसवत्यगारादीनाम्, यत्र ब्राह्मणा भोज्यन्ते, तस्मिन् देशे उपनिक्षिपेत् ब्राह्मणानां समीपे स्थापयेत् ।

• अन्ये तु व्यचक्षते । वर्धितं परिवर्तुलम् अन्नम् उच्यते । तद् विप्रान्तिके पितॄन् ध्यायन् “तुभ्यम् इदम्” इति ध्यात्वा निक्षिपेत्, यथा विकिरम् ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । “उपनीय सर्वं परिवेषयेत्” इति वक्ष्यति (म्ध् ३.२१८) । अतः परिवेषणार्थं प्रदेशान्तराद् आनीय तस्योपनिक्षेपो ऽयम् ॥ ३.२१४ ॥

With both hands he should himself take up ‘the supply of food,’—i.e., the dish supplied with food,—from the kitchen-house, to the place where the Brāhmaṇas are being fed, and—‘place it near the Brāhmaṇas.’

Others explain the verse as follows:—The term ‘vardhitam,’ ‘supply,’ stands for the massed food; this he should place before the Brāhmaṇas, ‘thinking of his Pitṛs’—i.e., in his mind saying, ‘this is for you’—he should scatter the food.

This is not right. Later on (228), our author is going to declare that ‘having brought up the food, he should serve it all;’ hence the ‘placing’ mentioned in the present verse must simply mean the bringing of the food from another place and depositing it near the Brāhmaṇas.—(224)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1368), which has the following notes:—‘Annasya vardhitam’, ‘pot filled with food’, should be brought from the kitchen, with both hands, and placed before the Brāhmaṇa, in a clean place,—‘śanakaiḥ’ gently, so that the pot does not break or make any sound,—‘Svayam’, himself,—this is the best course; other Smṛti texts permit of the cooking etc. being done by the wife;—in ‘Śrādhakriyākaumudī (p. 158), which explains ‘vardhitam’ a s ‘filled’;—it adds that the man should himself place the vessel near the Brāhmaṇa on the square platform made for that purpose and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 545), which explains ‘annasya’ as ‘annena’ and ‘vardhitam’ as ‘filled’.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 229), which adds the following notes:—The genitive ending in ‘annasya’ has the sense of the instrumental;—‘vardhitam’ means ‘filled’, which qualifies the ‘pātra, receptacle’ understood;—‘upanikṣipet’—keep near, for serving; i. e., the food should not be served into the dish directly from the cooking-pot; the cooking pot should be brought near the dish, and placed on the ground; the food should be served on the dish with the two hands, with which another vessel is held.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 492), which adds the explanation that ‘the man should carry with his own hands the vessel which has been filled with food in a place other than the one where the Brāhmaṇas are to be fed, to a place near the Brāhmaṇas and keep it there gently, all the time thinking of his Pitṛs’;—‘annasya vardhitam’ meaning that quantity of food which has been set aside as the share of one feeder.

Kālikāpurāṇa (Do. p. 1369).—‘Self-controlled, and with speech suppressed, he shall, with his two hands, place the dish before the Brāhmaṇa and then serve out the articles of food.’

Yama (Do.).—‘Bringing up the food, he shall feed the Brāhmaṇas with care,—serving to them cooked rice, soup, butter, vegetables, meat, curds, milk and honey.’

Śaunaka.—‘ Bringing up all the food that has been cooked, he shall begin to serve each article separately.’

Paiṭhīnasi.—‘Having dressed up the Brāhmaṇas, he shall serve to them meat, cakes, curds, butter, milk-pudding, mixed rice, and preparations of fruits.’

224 But carrying (the vessel) filled with food with both hands, the (sacrificer) himself shall gently place it before the Brahmanas, meditating on the manes.

The wicked-minded demons forcibly destroy that food which is abandoned by both hands.—(225)

द्वाभ्यां हस्ताभ्यां अन्नम् उपनेतव्यं परिवेष्टव्यम्, न चैकेनेति । पर्वेषणम् उपनयनम् एव । ततस् तत्राप्य् अयम् एव धर्मः पूर्वोक्तः । तस्यार्थवादः ।

• उभाभ्यां हस्ताभ्यां मुक्तं वर्जितम् अपरिगृहीतं यद् अन्नम् उपनीयते परिवेषणार्थं तद् विप्रलुम्पन्ति विनाशयन्त्य् असुराः । सहसा बलेन । दुष्टचेतसः पापात्मानः । असुरा देवद्विषः । उभयोर् इत्य् अधिकरणे सप्तमी । मुक्तम् अकृष्टम् अस्थितम् । भवन्ति च प्रतिषेधोपसंनिधाने ऽपि कारकविभक्तयः- ग्रामान् नागच्छत्य् आसने नोपविशति त्रिरत्रं नोपवसति¹⁶⁶ ॥ ३.२१५ ॥

The food should be fetched and served with both hands, not with one hand, serving also being a kind of fetching; hence, the rule laid down in connection with the latter is applicable to the former also. In support of this, the present verse supplies a commendatory supplement.

That which is ‘abandoned’—not held—‘by both hands,’ such food, when brought up for serving,—the ‘demons destroy’ ‘forcibly,’—‘wicked-minded’—of malevolent nature;—‘demons’ i.e., the enemies of gods.

In ‘ubhayoḥ,’ ‘both,’ the Locative ending denotes location; and ‘abandoned’ means not held. As a matter of fact, case-endings are used even when what is spoken of is the negation of what is denoted by the ending; e.g., we have such expressions as ‘he does not come from the village,’ ‘he does not sit on the seat,’ ‘he does not fast for three dags.’ [Similarly, in the text though negation of holding is mentioned, yet we have the Locative ending denoting location].—(225)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 439);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1368), which explains the meaning as ‘the food that is not brought by both hands is taken away by force’ (‘sahasā’) by the wicked (duṣṭacetasaḥ) ‘Asuras’;—in ‘Śrāddhakriyākaumudī’ (p. 158), which explains ‘ubhayorhastayormuktam’ as ‘(brought) with only one hand’;—and in ‘Gadādharapaddhati’ (Kāla, p. 545).

Vaśiṣṭha (11.22).—‘One shall offer food to the Pitṛs, with both hands; wicked-minded Asuras keep in waiting for the interval between the two hands.’

Maṭysapurāṇa (quoted in Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi-Śrāddha, p. 2370).—‘He shall bring up the food, with both hands, then serve it, with a calm mind, keeping in his hand water and kuśa.’

Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa (quoted in Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi-Śrāddha, p. 2370).—‘Serving shall not be done at the Śrāddha with any article made of iron, nor by one who is without the Pavitra and the kuśa, nor with one hand.’

225 The malevolent Asuras forcibly snatch away that food which is brought without being held with both hands.

Pure and with collected mind, he shall first place on the ground the accessories, such as soups and vegetaui.es, &c., milk, curd, butter and honey.—(226)

गुणा व्यञ्जनानि । एषाम् एव¹⁶⁷ प्रदर्शनार्थम् उत्तरः प्रपञ्चः । सूपशाकाद्यान् विन्यसेद् भूवाव् एव उपयच्छेत, न दारुमये फलकादौ ॥ ३.२१५ ॥

‘Accessories’—the seasonings. The subsequent words are meant to describe the details of those—‘soups and vegetables, etc.,

‘He should place’—deposit—‘on the ground,’—not upon the wooden board and such other things.—(226)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 229), which explains ‘guṇān’ as ‘accessories’,—and ‘bhūmāveva’ as meaning that the dish containing the curries should be put on the ground, and the curries should not be served on the dish out of which the food is eaten; but the curry may be served on this latter in the absence of a second dish.

This is quoted in Aparārka (p. 493), which explains ‘guṇān’ as ‘vegetable and other accessories,’ which are further specified as ‘sūpa-śāka’ and the rest; these should be served in vessels placed on the ground, and in those placed in another vessel;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1372), which adds the following notes—‘Bhūmau’, in vessels placed on the ground,—‘guṇān’, things called ‘guṇa’, ‘accessory’,—viz., ‘sūpa-śāka &c.’; ‘sūpa’ is a special preparation of Mudga and other grains cooked with rice, and culled ‘barānna’, and ‘śāka’ for cooked roots, fruits, leaves etc.; the particle ‘ca’ includes other rich kinds of food, milk-rice, cakes, and so forth;—in Śrāddhakaumudī (p. 158), which explains ‘guṇān’ as subsidiary articles of food,—‘bhūmau’ as ‘not on the feeding-dish itself i. e., in other dishes placed near the feeding dish;—and in Gadādharapaddhali (Kāla, p. 545).

**(verses 3.226-228)
**

Śaunaka.—(See under 224.)

Kalikāpurāṇa.—(Do.)

Yama.—(Do.)

226 Let him, being pure and attentive, carefully place on the ground the seasoning (for the rice), such as broths and pot herbs, sweet and sour milk, and honey,

Also hard food and soft food of various kinds, roots, fruits, savoury meat and sweet-smelling drinks.—(227)

धानाशष्कुल्यादयो भक्ष्याः । खरविशदम् अभ्यवहरणीयं हि भक्ष्यम् इत्य् उच्यते । भोज्यं घृतपूरादिः¹⁶⁸ ॥ ३.२१७ ॥

‘Hard food’—parched grains and pastries; what is tough, distinct, and requires to be masticated, is called ‘hard food, bhakṣya.’

‘Soft food’—butter-pudding, &c.—(227)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 229) without comment;—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 546);—in Śrāddhakaumudī (pp. 20 and 158), which explains ‘bhakṣyam’ as standing for the śaṣkulī, butter-baked bread and such things,—and ‘bhojyam’ as for ‘milk-rice’ and the like;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1368), which explains ‘bhakṣyam’ as standing for śaṣkulī, sweet cakes and so forth, and ‘bhojyam’ for ghṛtapūra and such preparations.

**(verses 3.226-228)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.226].

227 (As well as) various (kinds of) hard food which require mastication, and of soft food, roots, fruits, savoury meat, and fragrant drinks.

Having gently brought up all this, he shall, with collected mind and pure, serve it,—describing all its qualities.—(228)

उपनीय विप्रान्तिके सर्वम् एतड् ढौकयित्वा । ततः परिवेषयेत् । भुज्यधिकरणोपादानम् आवर्जनम् । भुञ्जानस्य परिवेषणं यद्य् अप्य् अन्तिकदेश अपेक्षितं तथापि तेषाम् अन्तिके निधातव्यं यथा भुञ्जानानाम् उच्छेषणेन न संसृज्यते । गुणान् भक्ष्यभोज्यादेर् द्रव्यस्य ये गुणा अम्लत्वादयस् तान् प्रणोदयमान इदं अम्लम् इदं मधुरम् इदं खाण्डवम् इत्य् एवम् आवेदिते तेषां यद् रोचते तत् तद् दद्याद् इति वक्ष्यमाणेन संबन्धः । शनकैर् इत्याद्य् अनुवादः श्लोकपूरणार्थः ॥ ३.२१८ ॥

‘Having brought up’—having presented before the Brāhmaṇas,—‘he shall serve it’—which means the placing of it in the dish in which the person eats. Though all that is meant by ‘serving’ is the placing of the food within reach of the diner,—yet this placing should be done in such a way that among the several persons dining, the articles of food shall not flow from one man’s dish into another’s.

‘Qualities,’—i.e., those qualities of the Hard and Soft food, which consist of acidity, etc.,—these he should describe, saying—‘this is acid—this is sweet,—this is a pastry’ and so forth. When they have been thus apprised, ‘he should give them whatever they relish most’—this has to be construed from what follows later on (in verse 231).

‘Gently’—this is a reiteration for filling up the metre.—(228)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 230) without comment;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1308);—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 546), which explains ‘guṇān’ as ‘sweetness and the rest’;—and in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī, (pp. 158 and 164), which explains ‘śanakaiḥ’ as ‘one after the other’, ‘guṇān prachodayan’ as ‘mentioning that this is sweet, this is acid, and so forth.’

**(verses 3.226-228)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.226].

228 All this he shall present (to his guests), being pure and attentive, successively invite them to partake of each (dish), proclaiming its qualities.

Never should he shed tears; nor should he become angry; nor tell a lie. He should not touch the food with his foot, nob shake it.—(229)

अस्रं अश्रुरोदनम् । तन् न पातयेन् न कुर्यात् । प्रायेण प्रेतश्राद्धादाव् इष्टवियोगजेन दुःखानुस्मरणेनाश्रुपातो जायते । तस्य निषेधः । आनन्दाश्रुणस् त्व् अकस्मात् पततो न दोषः । न जातु कदाचिद् अप्य् अश्रुविमोचनं कुर्यात् । न कुप्येत् क्रोधं न गृह्णीयात् । अनृतवचनस्य पुरुषार्थतया निषिद्धस्य कर्मार्थो ऽयं प्रतिषेधः । न पादेन स्पृशेद् अन्नम् उच्छिष्टम् अनुच्छिष्टं च । न चैतद् अन्नम् अवधूनयेद् अवकम्पयेत् । हस्तादिनोत्क्षिप्य पुनर् न विक्षिपेत् ।

• अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते- वाससा धूल्याद्यपनयनार्थं यद् अवधूननं न तद् अन्नस्योपरि कर्तव्यम् ॥ ३.२१९ ॥

‘Asra’ is tear; this he should not ‘shed’—drop. As a rule, during the performance of Śrāddha in honour of the dead, one is apt to recall the grief caused by the loss of the loved person, which leads to the shedding of tears; and this is what is prohibited here; there is no harm in the sudden dropping of the tears of joy.

‘Never’—on no account—shall he shed tears.

‘He should not become angry,’—should not take up an angry attitude.

The telling of a lie having been already prohibited with a view to the fulfilment of man’s purpose in general, it is again prohibited here, with a view to the due fulfilment of the act of śrāddha.

‘He should not touch the food with his foot’—any food, either in the form of leavings or otherwise.

‘He should not shake it’—i.e., he shall not throw it by hand and then again take it in.

Others have explained this verse to mean that he shall not shake a piece of cloth over the food, as is often done for the removing of dust, etc., from it.—(229)

‘Avadhūnayet’—‘Shake; i.e., throw it by the hand and then take it in’ (Medhātithi);—‘Shake a piece of cloth over the food, as is often done for the removing of dust etc.’ (‘Others’ mentioned in Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1029), which explains the meaning to be that ‘there should be no weeping’, and goes on to add—what is forbidden is not the tear of joy (at the offering), but the tears that may come to the eyes by reason of the death of the beloved relative,—the telling of lies which has already been prohibited elsewhere from moral considerations, is here forbidden as affecting the performance of the offering;—one should not touch with his feet any kind of food, whether, clean or unclean,—nor should cloth be shaken over the food;—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 161), which explains ‘asram’ as tears of grief, and in regard to the ‘shaking of cloth’, it says that some people explain it as dusting the doth over the food, while according to others, what is forbidden is the fanning of the food with a piece of cloth;—and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 549).

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2.17, 3).—‘[He shall avoid] non-haviṣya food, untruth, anger and also that which would make others angry.’

Viṣṇu (79.19-20).—‘He shall avoid anger;—he shall not shed tears.’

Viṣṇu (81.1).—‘He shall not place the food on the seat; nor shall he touch it with the foot.’

Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa (Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi-Śrāddha, p. 1029).—‘He shall not shed tears at the Śrāddha; nor shall he utter words of grief; he shall not hear ill-will towards those eating nor be jealous of them.’

Devala (Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi-Śrāddha, p. 1029).—‘At the Śrāddha, people should not shed tears, nor converse, nor laugh among themselves, nor wander about, nor be angry, nor be worried; even though there be sufficient cause, one shall not utter words of anger; near the Pitṛs one shall not sit either supported or perspiring.’

229 Let him on no account drop a tear, become angry or utter an untruth, nor let him touch the food with his foot nor violently shake it.

Tears make the food go to ghosts, anger to enemies, lie to dogs, touching with the foot to demons, and shaking to sinners.—(230)

अस्यार्थवादः । अश्रुविमोचनं क्रियमाणं प्रेतान् गमयति प्रापयति श्राद्धम् । न पितॄणाम् उपकारकं भवति । प्रेताश् चात्र पिशाचवद् भूतविशेषा विवक्षिताः, न त्व् असपिण्डीकृताः संप्रतिमृताः । रक्षांसि भूतप्रेतवद् अवगन्तव्यानि । अरयः प्रसिद्धाः । तथा दुष्कृतीन् दुष्कृताचरणान् पातकिनः ॥ ३.२२० ॥

This verse is supplementary to what has gone before in the preceding verse.

The shedding of tears, when done, makes the Śrāddha-offering go—i.e., sends it—to ‘ghosts’; and it does not become helpful to the Pitṛs. The term ‘preta,’ ‘ghost,’ here stands for a particular class of beings, of the same kind as Piśācas; and not. for persons recently dead and not yet joined to their ancestors.

‘Demons’—also should be understood in the same manner as ‘ghosts.’

‘Enemies’—well-known.

‘Sinners’—People addicted to sinful deeds.—(230)

This verse is quoted in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 550), which explains ‘duṣkṛtān’ as ‘sinners’.

Devala (Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi-Śrāddha, p. 1030).—‘If there is some flaw in cleanliness, Rākṣasas take away all that is sacrificed or offered or given away or eaten, all japa, all austerities and all learning;—similarly also what is given in anger, or what is eaten in hurry, the Rākṣasas take away both these;—having invited the Pitṛs, one shall do nothing that may be improper; therefore one shall perform the Śrāddha with speech and anger under control;—one shall not be angry with any one, even though there be cause for it; what pleases the Pitṛs is the Śrāddha that is free from anger.’

230 A tear sends the (food) to the Pretas, anger to his enemies, a falsehood to the dogs, contact with his foot to the Rakshasas, a shaking to the sinners.

Whatever may be agreeable to the Brāhmaṇas, that he shall give ungrudgingly. He shall relate stories told in the Veda; as this is liked by the Pitṛs.—(231)

यद् यद् अन्नं व्यञ्जनं पानं चाभिलषेयुस् तत् तद् अमत्सरः अलुब्धो दद्यात् । मत्सर इति लोभनाम । रोचेत प्रीतिं जनयेत् । ब्रह्मोद्याः । ब्रह्मणि वेदे या उद्यन्ते कथ्यन्ते ता ब्रह्मोद्याः देवासुरयुद्धं वृत्रवधः सरमाकृत्यम्¹⁶⁹ इत्याद्याः । अथ वा “कः स्विद् एकाकी चरति” (व्स् २३.९) इत्यादि । “ब्रह्माद्याश्¹⁷⁰ च कथाः” इति पाठः । तत्प्रधानमन्त्रार्थनिरूपणाद्याः कथाः संलापा लौकिकैः शब्दैः । पितॄणाम् एतद् ईप्सितम् अभिलषितम् इत्य् अर्थवादः ॥ ३.२२१ ॥

Whatever food, vegetable or drink they may ask for,—all this he shall give ‘ungrudgingly’—without the least hesitation or covetousness. The term ‘matsara’ stands here for avarice.

‘Be agreeable to’—i.e., cause pleasure to.

‘Told in the Veda’—those that are related in the Veda; such, e.g., as the story of the war between the gods and demons, that of the death of Vṛttra, the doings of Saramā, and so forth. Or, it may stand for such stories as ‘Kaḥ svidekākī charati,’ etc. (Vājasaneya Saṃhitā, 23.9).

Another reading is ‘brahmādyāśca kathāḥ’—i.e., discourses, in ordinary language, upon the meaning of mantras bearing upon Brahman.

‘This is liked by the Pitṛs;’—this is a commendatory supplement.—(231)

‘Brahmodyāḥ kathāḥ’—Buhler does not represent Medhātithi quite rightly: The explanation that he attributes to him, ‘riddles from the Veda’, is not found in Medhātithi at all. Medhātithi’s first explanation is—‘stories related in the Veda’;—the second alternative proposed is ‘such Vedic texts as the one contained in 23.9 of the Vājasaneya Saṃhitā’;—and the third explanation, ‘discourses, inordinary language, on the meaning of Mantras bearing upon Brāhmaṇ’, is offered as that of the reading ‘Brahmodyāḥ kathāḥ’. It will thus be seen that ‘riddles from the Veda’ are not found in Medhātithi at all. It is the third explanation apparently that has misled Buhler. Hopkins has quoted Medhātithi correctly.

This verse is quoted in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 546);—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 158);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1027), which adds the following notes:—‘Brahmodyāḥ’, stories that are related by the Brāhmaṇa, such as accounts of the war between the Gods and the Asuras, of the killing of Vṛttra, of Saramā and so forth,—or it may refer to such texts as ‘Kaścidekāki charati etc.’; ‘Brahmādyāḥ’ is another reading, which means—‘Those mantras and Arthavāda texts which deal with Brahman’; ‘Kathāḥ’, conversations in the ordinary language should be carried on, in connection with the said subjects;—‘this is liked by the Pitṛs’—this is Arthavāda.

Yājñavalkya (1.240).—‘Free from anger and without hurry, one shall offer such food as may be desired and pure—reciting the Pavitra mantras till complete satisfaction.’

Laghu-Āśvalāyana (23.68).—‘After the Brāhmaṇas have eaten to their heart’s content, he shall pronounce the Gāyatrī.’

Varūha-purāṇa (Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi-Śrāddha, p. 1388).—‘The offerer having offered food, clean, profuse and carefully prepared,—he should politely say —please fall to.’

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 423).—‘So long as the food is pure, so long as what is desired is offered, and so long as the offerer does not say I give,—so long do the Pitṛs partake of the food.’

Sumantu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 424).—‘Without anger, he shall offer to each such dishes as he may relish; they should be fed till they are fully satisfied; and he shall not selfishly keep back any food.’

231 Whatever may please the Brahmanas, let him give without grudging it; let him give riddles from the Veda, for that is agreeable to the manes.

At the rite in honour of the Pitṛs, one should recite the Vedic text, Legal Institutes, Stories, Histories, Legends and supplementary Texts.—(232)

स्वाध्यायो वेदः । मन्वादिग्रन्था धर्मशास्त्राणि । आख्यानानि सौपर्णमैत्रावरुणादीनि बाह्वृच्ये पठ्यन्ते । इतिहासा महाभारतादयः । पुराणानि व्यासादिप्रणीतानि सृष्ट्यादिवर्णनरूपाणि । खिलानि श्रीसूक्तमहानाम्निकादीनि ॥ ३.२२२ ॥