०४ यज्ञाः

To the rest of his power, he shall never omit the sacrifice to the sages, the sacrifice to the gods, the sacrifice to elementals, the sacrifice to men and the sacrifice to the Pitṛs.—(21)

तृतीयाध्याये विहितानां महायज्ञानाम् अनुवादो विशेषाभिधानार्थः । स च विशेष उत्तरत्र वक्ष्यते “अनीहमाहः” इति (म्ध् ४.२२) ।

• अन्ये तु मन्यन्ते । व्रताधिकारे पुनर्वचनं नियमसिद्ध्यर्थम् । तेनेदृशः संकल्पः कर्तव्यः- “यावद् गार्हस्थ्यं मया महायज्ञा न हापयितव्याः” ।

• न त्व् इयम् आशङ्का कर्तव्या “द्विर्वचनं द्विर्विधानार्थम्” । न ह्य् अत्र विधिः श्रूयते । केवलं न हापयेद् इत्य् उच्यते । नित्यत्वाच् च हानिः प्राप्तैव । न¹ विहितप्रत्यभिज्ञानतः कश्चित् कर्मभेदे हेतुर्² अस्ति । यथाशक्ति पक्वान्नेन आमेन³ वा मूलफलैर् वा ॥ ४.२१ ॥

The sacrifices prescribed in Discourse IV are reiterated here for the purpose of laying down details in connection with them; these details shall be described in the next verse.

Others think that the reiteration of these sacrifices under the ‘observances’ is for the purpose of establishing their obligatory character; so that the man shall form the determination that ‘so long as I continue to be a householder, I shall not omit the Five Great Sacrifices.’

In any case, we should not entertain the idea that these have been mentioned twice for the purpose of enjoining them twice over. Because, in the present verse, we do not find any injunctive word; all that is said is that ‘he shall not omit;’ and, as a matter of fact, this ‘non-omission’ is already implied by the obligatory character of the sacrifices. And since we recognise in these sacrifices the same that have been enjoined, before, there is no reason why they should be regarded as distinct acts.

‘To the beet of his power’—i.e., with cooked food, or with uncooked food, or with fruits and roots.—(21)

Gautama (5.3).—‘He shall be the worshipper of Gods, Pitṛs, Men, Sages and Elementals.’

Viṣṇu (59.20).—‘For the expiation of that sin, he shall perform the sacrifices to Brahman (Veda), Gods, Elementals, Pitṛs and Men.’

Baudhāyana (2. 6.1).—‘These are the five great sacrifices, these the five great Sattras—the sacrifice to Gods, the sacrifice to Pitṛs, the sacrifice to Elementals, the sacrifice to Men and the sacrifice to Brahman (Veda).’

Mahābhārata (12. 241. 15).—‘Living upon remnants, he shall constantly perform the five sacrifices.’

021 Let him never, if he is able (to perform them), neglect the sacrifices to the sages, to the gods, to the Bhutas, to men, and to the manes.

Some persons, conversant with the ordinances relating to sacrifices, who do not cherish ant desires, regularly offer these great sacrifices into the sense-organs.—(22)

एतान् महायज्ञान् एके यज्ञशास्त्राविदो गृहस्था इन्द्रियेष्व् एव जुह्वति संपादयन्ति । कतमे पुनस् ते । अनीहमाना । ये नेच्छन्ति⁴ धनं त्यक्तगृहव्यापारा देहसांन्यासिकादयः ।

• शिलोञ्छवृत्तेर् अप्य् एवं विधिम् इच्छन्ति, पङ्ग्वादीनां च । तेषां हि दारकरणं वक्ष्यति “यद्य् अर्थिता तु दारैः स्यात्” इति (म्ध् ९.२०) । न चैतेषाम् पञ्चयज्ञाधिकारः । अद्रव्यत्वाद् भरणमात्रं ते लभन्ते, नाधिकं कर्मानुष्ठानार्थम् अपि ।

• जुहोतिः करोत्यर्थनिर्वर्त्यतां लक्ष्यति । न हि क्रियाविशेषो यागः क्रियाविशेषस्य होमस्य कर्मतां प्रतिपद्येत । न हि भवति “पचति पाकम्” इति । भवति तु “पाकं करोति,” “यागं करोति” इति । सामान्यविषयाकांक्षास् तु क्रिया द्रव्यकर्माणि साधनीकुर्वन्ति । “इच्छति भोक्तुम्,” “शक्नोति भोक्तुम्,” “जानाति भोक्तुम्” । दृष्टश् च विशेषः सामान्यलक्षणार्थः- “अयं गौः पदा द्रष्टव्यः” इति ।

• एवं च होमं केचिद् इन्द्रियेषु तत्संयमम्⁵ एव व्याचक्षते ।

• अपरेषां प्राणसंवादोपनिषदि “यद् यद् भक्तं प्रथमम् आगच्छेत् तद् धोमीयं स यां⁶ प्रथमाहुतिं जुहुयात् प्राणाय स्वाहा” इत्यादिना (छु ५.१९) ।

• अन्ये तु- य एवोत्तरश्लोके उपासनाविधिर् उक्तः स एवायं होमः । तथा च तयोर् एकवाक्यता प्रतीयते ।

• ननु चोत्तरत्र वाचि प्राणं नेन्द्रियम् ।

• नैष दोषः । आध्यात्मिकत्वोपलक्षणार्थम् इन्द्रियग्रहणम् । बाह्यसाधनसाध्यता नास्तीत्य् एतद् अत्र विवक्षितम् ॥ ४.२२ ॥

‘Some persons’—Householders—‘Conversant with the ordinances relating to sacrifices, offer these great sacrifices into the sense-organs;’ i.e., they accomplish their performance in this manner.

Who are these people?

‘Those who do not cherish any desires;’—i.e., those who have no desire for acquiring wealth, who have renounced the Vedic rituals.

Some people regard this verse as enjoining what is to be done by the person living on ‘pickings and gleanings,’ as also by the lame and the maimed,- That such persons also may marry wives is going to be declared later on in 9-20. Such persons are not entitled to the regular performance of the Five Sacrifices; for the simple reason that they can never possess wealth sufficient for the performance of the sacrifices; since they are to earn only enough for subsistence, and not any more than that, which could be used in the performance of sacrifices.

The root ‘hu’ (in ‘juhvati,’ ‘offer,’) indicates the act of doing in general. For the ‘sacrifice,’ which is a particular act, can never be the object of ‘homa,’ which is another act; there can be no such expression as ‘cooks the cooking;’ we have such expressions as ‘does the cooking,’ ‘does the sacrifice.’ It is only when verbs stand in need of objects in general that they get, for their auxiliaries, substances and their operations; e.g., we have such expressions as ‘desires to eat,’ ‘he is able to eat,’ ‘know to eat;’ and the particular (the part) is often found to be used as indicative of the general (the whole), when, for instance, one speaks of ‘the ox’ as to be examined ‘by its foot.’

Some people explain the ‘offering into the sense-organs’ to mean their restraining.

Others, again, have explained it to mean what has been described in the Upaniṣad (Chāndogya), where it is said that the first mouthful that one eats in the morning and in the evening, should be put into the mouth as an ‘oblation,’ with the formula ‘prāṇāya svāhā,’ and so forth.

Others, again, explain that the ‘offering’ here spoken of is the same as what is enjoined in the next verse as a form of ‘worship;’ and it is thus that the two verses become construed together.

“But, in the next verse, the life-breath is laid down as to be offered into speech, and not into the sense-organ (as in the present verse).”

There is no force in the objection. The mention of the ‘sense-organs’ simply indicates the spiritual character of the offering; what is meant is that this offering does not require any external accessories.—(22)

Baudhāyana (2.7.1).—‘Now we arc going to describe the offerings to the Prāṇas, to be made by the Śālīna, the Yāyāvara and the Ātmayājin.’

022 Some men who know the ordinances for sacrificial rites, always offer these great sacrifices in their organs (of sensation), without any (external) effort.

Some people constantly offer their life-breath into speech, and their speech into the life-breath,—knowing that in speech and in life-breath rests the imperishable fulfilment of sacrifices.—(23)

यदायं पुरुष उच्छ्वसिति तदैवम् अनेन ध्यातव्यम्- “वाचं प्राणे जुहोमि” इति । भाषमाणेन च “वाचि प्राणं जुहोमि” इति । एतावतैव पञ्चयज्ञा निर्वृत्ता भवन्ति । यदि नित्याः फलाय न वक्तव्याः । आत्मज्ञयाश् चात्राधिक्रियन्ते । विहितो ह्य् अयम् अर्थः पञ्चाग्न्युपासनायाम् उपनिषत्सु कौषीतकी ब्राह्मणे विस्तरेण (कौषु २.५) । अक्षयं फलतः अपुनरावृत्तिफलत्वात् ॥ ४.२३ ॥

Whenever a man breathes, he should think—‘I am offering speech into Life-breath;’ and when he speaks, he should think—‘I am offering Life-breath into Speech.’ By this alone the Five Sacrifices become accomplished.

“If these are obligatory, they should not be spoken of as leading to any results.”

As a matter of fact, only such persons are entitled to this form of sacrifice as are cognisant of the real nature of the Soul.

This same fact has been laid down in the Upṇniṣads, in connection with ‘the worship of the Five Fires,’ and in great detail in the Kauṣitaki Brāhmaṇa.

‘Imperishable’—in their results; their results consisting in non-return to the cycle of birth and rebirth.—(23)

**(verses 4.23-24)
**

Kauṣītaki-Brāhmaṇa.—‘While the man breathes, he does not speak; at that time he offers speech unto breath; while he speaks, he does not breathe; then ho offers breath unto speech; these two arc the endless oblations, offered during sleep as also during waking hours;—other oblations are an end; those that consist of acts. In this manner have the Ancient Sages offered the Agnihotra-oblations.’

Mahābhārata (Bhagavadgītā, 6.25-333).—‘The Yogins have recourse to a different sacrifice, the Daiva sacrifice; other Yogins have recourse to another sacrifice offered into the fire of Brahman. Others again offer the auditory and other organs into the fire of Restraint; others offer sound and the other objects into the fire of the sense-organs. Others offer all sense-functions and breath-functions into the fire of the Yoga of self-restraint, enkindled by wisdom. Sages fixed in their observances offer the sacrifice of substances, the sacrifice of austerities, the sacrifice of Yoga, the sacrifice of Vedic Study and the sacrifice of Knowledge. They offer the Prāṇa unto the Apāṇa, and the Apāṇa unto Prāṇa; and restraining the function of Prāṇa and Apāṇa, devoted to breath-control, restrained in their food, they offer Prāṇa unto the Prāṇas. All these are persons well-versed in sacrifices and have their sins destroyed by sacrifices. O Suppressor of enemies, the sacrifice of knowledge is superior to the sacrifice of substances; all action, O Pārtha, culminates in knowledge.’

023 Knowing that the (performance of the) sacrifice in their speech and their breath yields imperishable (rewards), some always offer their breath in their speech, and their speech in their breath.

Other Brāhmaṇas, looking, with the eye of knowledge, upon this act as having its root in knowledge, always sacrifice with these sacrifices, by means of knowledge.—(24)

तैर् मखैः प्रकृतैर् महायज्ञैर् यजन्ते ,तद्विषयम् अधिकारं निष्पादयन्ति । अतो ऽर्थभेदाद् यजन्ते यज्ञैर् इति साध्यसाधकभावोपपत्तिः । यथाग्निष्टोमयाजीति ।

• कथं पुनर् ज्ञानेन यागनिर्वृत्तिः । देवतोद्देशेन द्रव्यत्यागात्मको यागः । न च ज्ञानम् एवंरूपम् ।

• उच्यते । यजन्त इति यागकार्यनिर्वृत्तिर् अत्राभिप्रेता ।

• यदि ज्ञानात् कार्यनिर्वृत्तिः किमर्थं तर्हि कर्मणाम् अनुष्ठानम् । न ह्य् अविषयः कर्मानुष्ठानसंभवः । अथेयं बुद्धिः “य उ चैनम् एवं वेद” (त्ब् ३.११.८.६) इति ज्ञानस्यापि फलसाधनत्वेन श्रवणात्⁷ कृतं⁸ कर्मानुष्ठानेनेति । तद् असत्, अन्यशेषतया तस्यार्थवादत्वात् ।

• अत्रोच्यते । उक्तम् अस्माभिर् अनीहमाना आत्मज्ञा अधिक्रियन्ते । त एव ज्ञानिनो ऽभिप्रेताः, न कर्मानुष्ठानवेदिनः । तेषां वेदसंन्यासिकतया गृहे अवतिष्ठमानानां महायज्ञानां भावनेयम् उच्यते । द्रव्यसाध्यानां च महायज्ञानाम् आत्मज्ञानसंपादनम् एवम् उच्यते । स्वाध्यायोदकतर्पणयोस् तु कर्मसाध्यताम् एव षष्ठे वक्ष्यति ।

• अत्र कारणरूपम् अर्थवादम् आह- ज्ञानमूलाम् । ज्ञानं मूलम् अस्याः क्रियायाः । सर्वस्य कर्मानुष्ठानस्य ज्ञानं मूलम् । न ह्य् अविद्वान् किंचिद् अनुष्ठातुं शक्नोति । तद् उक्तम् “विद्वान् यजेत” इति । पश्यन्तो ज्ञानचक्षुषा । ज्ञानं चक्षुर् इव । यथा चक्षुषा रूपं गृह्यते एवं ज्ञानात् ज्ञायते । न तत् ज्ञानं वेद एवाभिप्रेतः ॥ ४.२४ ॥

‘By these sacrifices,’—by the Five great sacrifices under treatment—‘they sacrifice,’—i.e., accomplish their duty in relation to them. It is in this sense that there is difference in the denotations of the two terms, ‘sacrifice’ and ‘sacrifices,’—between which the text speaks of the relation of cause and effect; just as we have in the expression, ‘he who sacrifices with the Agniṣṭoma sacrifice.’

Question:—“ How can the sacrifice be accomplished by means of knowledge? Sacrifice consists in the act of offering a certain material for the benefit of a deity; and certainly knowledge is not of the nature of such au act.”

Our answer is as follows s—By the term ‘sacrifice’ in the present verse what is meant is the accomplishment of the act of sacrificing.

“If such accomplishment were brought about by knowledge alone, for what purpose would there be the performance of the act itself? The performance of an act cannot be entirely objectless. If your idea be that—‘since the Veda speaks of the reward of an act accruing also to the man having knowledge of it, there is no need of the actual performance at all,’—this cannot be right; as the passage referred to is only a commendatory description subserving the purposes of some other passage.”

To this we make the following reply:—We have already pointed out that the persons entitled to the performance of the sacrifices in question are those that have realised the true nature of the Soul and are entirely free from desires. And it is these persons that are spoken of as ‘possessing knowledge,’ and not those who have the knowledge of the act. What the present text means is that such persons, having given up the Veda, but continuing in the house, should accomplish the great sacrifices in this manner. That is to say, it is only by means of knowledge of the Soul that such persons can accomplish such sacrifices as can be performed only with the help of wealth (which these men have renounced); but, as regards the two duties of Teaching and offering water-libations, it is going to be declared in Discourse VI, that these can be accomplished only by the actual performance of the acts (and not by knowledge of the Soul).

The text adds a commendatory declaration, by way of pointing out the reason for what has been said above.

‘Having its root in Knowledge,’—i.e., that act which has its root in Knowledge. Knowledge stands at the root of all acts; an ignorant person cannot perform any act at all. This is what has been said in such passages—as—‘the learned man sacrifices.’

‘Looking with the eye of Knowledge.’—The Knowledge being as if it were the Eye; just as colour is perceived bymeans of the eye, so is the matter known by means of knowledge.

‘Knowledge’ here does not stand for the Veda alone—(24).

**(verses 4.23-24)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 4.23].

024 Other Brahmanas, seeing with the eye of knowledge that the performance of those rites has knowledge for its root, always perform them through knowledge alone.

He shall always offer the Agnihotra, either at the beginning, or, at the end, of day and night, as also the “Darśa” and the “Paurṇamāsa” at the end of each half-month.—(25).

अग्निहोत्रादयः शब्दाः श्रुतौ गृह्यस्मृतिषु च कर्मविशेषवचनतया प्रसिद्धाः । सेतिकर्तव्यताकाः तत्र विहिताः । तेषाम् अयम् अनुवादो न त्व् अत्रापूर्वविधिः, रूपवचनात् । केवलं होमविषया कर्तव्यता श्रुता, न द्रव्यं न देवता । अग्निहोत्रादि नामधेयं च विशेषाकाङ्क्ष्यम् । अतः शास्त्रान्तरावगतविशेषवचनतैव प्रतीयते ।

• यद्य् एवं तत एव कर्तव्यतावगमाद् अनर्थकम् इदम् ।

• वेदसंन्यासिकायां प्रकृतोपासनासंवादनार्थम् । यथैव “वाच्य् एके जुह्वति प्राणम्” (म्ध् ४.२३) ज्ञानेनैवेति च पञ्चमहायज्ञाः संपाद्यन्ते । तद्वद् एतद् अपीति । कश् चायम् उपालम्भः “किम् अर्थं पुनर्वचनम्” इति, सर्वश्रुतीनां स्मृतीनाम् च यद् एकदेशे ऽभिहितं तस्यैवान्यत्र पुनर्वचनस्य चोद्यापत्तेः । उक्तश् च सामान्यतः परिहारः प्रतिपत्तृभेदान्⁹ न पौनरुक्त्यम् इति । यथा प्रतिपत्तृभेदाद्¹⁰ इन्द्रियभेदो, नैकेन चक्षुषा सर्वे द्रष्टुं शक्नुवन्ति बहूनीन्द्रियाणि प्रयोजनवन्ति, एवं शाखाभेदः स्मृतिभेदश् च ।

• अथोच्यते- कस्माद् रुपावचनम्¹¹ इति ।

• एषो ऽपि न दोषः । प्रतिशाखम् इतिकर्तव्यताया भेदः, कस्याभिधानं क्रियताम् । सर्वाभिधाने गौरवम् । एकतराभिधाने अन्यतरपरित्यागः ।

• तद् अपि चोद्यम् एव ।

• उक्तं चानुवादो ऽयं न विधिः । विधौ हि चोद्यम् एतत् स्यात् । अन्यत्र विहितं किम् अर्थं पुनर् विधानम् इति ।

• आद्यन्ते द्युनिशोः । नात्र यथासंख्यम्, किं तर्हि दिव आदौ निशायाश् चादौ, एवं दिवो ऽन्ते निशायाश् चान्त इति । सायंप्रातः कालाव् एतेन परिगृह्येते । तत्रोदितहोमिनाम् अहरादौ अनुदितहोमिनां निशान्ते । द्युशब्दो¹² दिवसपर्यायः । सदा । यावज्जीवं सायंप्रातर् होमः कर्तव्यः । दर्शेन यजेतेत्य् अत्राध्याहर्तव्यम् ।¹³ न हि तत्रोत्पत्तौ जुहुयाद् इत्य् अस्ति, किं तर्हि दर्शेन यजेतेति । तदनुवादश् चायम् । अत एवाध्याहारः क्रियते । अत एव अविशेषश्रवणे ऽपि अर्धमासान्त इति कृष्णपक्षान्ते दर्शः शुक्लान्ते पौर्णमासः । तथा च स्रुतिः- “दर्शे च दर्शेन यजेत पूर्णमास्यां पूर्णमासेन यजेत” इति ॥ ४.२५ ॥

The terms ‘agnihotra’ and the rest are found used in the Veda and in the Gṛhyasūtra texts, in the sense of particular rites; and these rites, along with their procedure, are prescribed in these texts. And it is to these rites that the present verse makes a reference; it does not contain the original injunction of the rites; specially, as it speaks of their form only; i.e, all that the present verse mentions is the necessity of performing the act of offering only,—and it does not mention either the material to be offered, or the deity to whom it is to be offered. And yet the names ‘Agnihotra’ and the rest, stand in need of the mention of detailed particulars; hence it follows that what is implied is that the detailed particulars of these rites are to be learnt from other treatises.

“If that be so, then, since the necessity of performing the rites also could be learnt from those same treatises, there is no use for the present text at all.”

The use of the present text lies in adjusting the necessity of performing these acts, in the case of persons who have renounced Vedic rituals, with the form of worship laid down in the present context; the sense being that just as, according to what has been said regarding some people offering ‘the life-breath into speech,’ and so forth, the Five Great Sacrifices are performed by such men, by means of Knowledge alone,—so are the sacrificial rites mentioned in the present verse also. Then again, what sort of objection is this that you urge, when you ask—‘Why should there he a repeated mention?’ As a matter of fact, in the case of the Vedic and Smṛti texts, it is found that what is said in one part of it is said again in another part; and all this would be open to objection (according to you). Lastly, we have already provided the general answer to such objections;—viz., that since the persons meant to be enlightened are many, the texts cannot be regarded as needless repetitions at all. Just as, by reason of the perceiv-ers being many, there are many organs of perception, and all men cannot see with one eye only, and there is need of several such organs,—so also is the case with the diverse Vedic and Smṛti texts.

The question might be raised—“Why should the mere name of the rites be mentioned?”

There is nothing objectionable in this also. Since the procedures as laid down in the several Vedic texts are divergent, which particular procedure could the verse mention? If it were to mention all, there would be prolexity; and if it were to mention any one only, this would involve the abandoning of the others.

“Even so, the omission is open to objection.”

But we have already pointed out that the present verse contains only a reference, and not an Injunction. It is only an Injunction, against which the objection can be urged that—‘the act being already enjoined elsewhere, why should it be enjoined again?’

‘At the beginning and end of dag and night;’—this is not meant to be construed respectively. What is meant is—‘at the beginning of day and beginning of night,’ and ‘at the end of day and end of night;’ and by this, morning and evening are meant. For those who follow the practice of making the offerings after sunrise, the offering shall be made ‘at the beginning of day;’ while for those who follow the practice of making the offerings before sunrise, it shall be made ‘at the end of night.’

The term ‘dyu’ here is synonymous with ‘Divasa,’ ‘day.’

‘Always,’—i.e., throughout one’s life, one should offer these morning and evening libations.

In connection with ‘darśena,’ it is necessary to supply the root ‘yajeta’; as the original injunction of the Darśa-sacrifice does not contain the verb, ‘juhuyāt,’—the injunction being in the form ‘darśena yajeta;’ and the prfesent verse makes only a reiterative reference to what is prescribed in that injunction; and thus (it being impossible to construe ‘darśena’ with the verb ‘juhuyāt’ in the verse) it becomes necessary to supply the verb ‘yajeta.’ For this same reason, though the text does not make any specification, the phrase, ‘at the end of half-month’ should be understood to mean that the Darśa is to be performed at the end of the darker fortnight, and the Paurṇamāsa (Pūrṇamāsa) at the end of the brighter fortnight. Says the Śruti—‘One should perform the Darśa sacrifice on the Moonless Day and the Paurṇamāsa on the Full Moon Day.’—(25)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 217), which makes the following observations:—The ‘ends of night and day’ being laid down as the times fit for the making of the two Agnihotra offerings,—the points of time really meant are also those immediately preceding and following the said ‘ends’; it is on this understanding that the evening-offering is commenced in the afternoon and finished after the evening; and for those who adopt the alternative of making the offering ‘after sunrise,’ it is done after the sun has actually risen, (which would naturally be after the end of the night). Similarly as the exact point of time denoted by the term ‘Darśa’ would be too minute for any act, it stands for such length of time as may be necessary for the entire offering. Then follows a long disquisition regarding ‘Paurṇamāsa’ and ‘Amāvasyā’

Yājñavalkya (1.124).—‘That Brāhmaṇa who may have grains enough for three years shall drink Soma; and he who has enough for the year shall perform the rites previous to the Soma.’

Viṣṇu (59. 2-4).—‘The Agnihotra in the morning and in the evening;—oblations should be poured to the gods;—one shall offer sacrifices on the moonless and full-moon days, by reason of the proximity and remoteness of the moon and the sun.’

025 A Brahmana shall always offer the Agnihotra at the beginning or at the end of the day and of the night, and the Darsa and Paurnamasa (Ishtis) at the end of each half-month,

At the end of the grains, the Brāhmaṇa shall perform the “New-Harvest sacrifice;” at the end of the seasons, the “Adhvara-sacrifices;” at the end of the solstices the “Animal-sacrifice;” and at the end of the year the “Soma-sacrifices.”—(26)

सस्यशब्दो व्रीह्यादिधान्यवचनः । तस्य्आन्तः क्षयः । पूर्वसस्येषु क्षीणेषु नवसस्येष्ट्या यजेत, आग्रयणेनेत्य् अर्थः ।

• न चात्र पूर्वसस्यक्षय आग्रयणनिमित्तम्, नापि नवसस्यागमः, किं तर्हि अकृताग्रयणस्य नवान्नाशनं प्रतिषिद्धम् । येनाह- “नानिष्ट्वा । । । नवान्नम् अद्यात्” (म्ध् ४.२७) इति । अतो नवसस्यभक्षणम् आग्रयणेनेत्य् अर्थः । तेन यजेतेति व्याचक्षते ।

• अस्मिंस् तु पक्षे पूर्वसस्याभावात् नवसस्यस्य भावाद् अन्यतो वा, असत्यां चाशिशिक्षायां न नियमतया आग्रयणं प्राप्नोति । अथेदं सस्यान्त इति नवोत्पत्त्युपलक्षणम्, तदानिष्ट्वा भकषं प्राप्नोति ।

• तस्माद् द्वे एते वाक्ये । “नानिष्ट्वाश्नीयात्” इत्य् एकम्, “सस्यान्ते” इति द्वितीयम् । सस्यान्तग्रहणेन च सस्योत्पत्तिर् एवाभिप्रेता, नियतत्वात् तस्या निमित्तस्योपपत्तिः । क्षयस् त्व् अनियतः, धनिनां हि त्रैवार्षिकान्य् अपि धान्यान्य् अत्र प्रवर्तन्ते । अत एव सूत्रकारः “सस्यं नाश्नीयाद् अग्निहोत्रम् अहुत्वा” इति; तथा “यदा वर्षस्य तृप्तः स्याद् अथाग्रयणेन यजेत” इति । तथेदम् अपरम् “शरदि नवान्नम्” इति कालविशेषविधायकम् । तत्र यस्य पूर्वसस्यक्षयो नास्ति, स शरदम् आद्रियते, इतरस् तु न । एवम् उभयोर् अर्थवत्ता च भवति । इतरथा एवम् एवावक्ष्यत- “नवसस्योत्पत्तौ नवसस्येष्ट्या यजेत” इति । यस् त्व् आह “नानिष्ट्वा नवसस्येष्ट्या न चान्नम् अश्नीयात्” इति, तेन उत्पन्नेष्व् अपि नवसस्येषु विद्यमानस्य अस्ति शरत्प्रतिपालनम् । नवसस्योत्पत्तिनिमित्तत्वाच् च असत्याम् अपि नवान्नाशनेच्छायां नियमतः आग्रयणम् ।

• ऋत्वन्ते । “ऋतुः संवत्सरः” इतिदर्शनेन चातुर्मास्यानाम् एतत् करणम् उच्यते । अध्वरशब्देन तान्य् एवाभिप्रेतानि ।

• अयनयोर् आदी अयनान्ते । ते च द्वे अयने दक्षिणम् उत्तरं च । तत्र पशुयागः कर्तव्यो द्विः संवत्सरस्य । सूत्रकारस् त्व् आह “षाण्मास्यः सांवत्सरो वा” इति ।

• समान्ते । समाशब्दः संवत्सरपर्यायस् तस्य चान्तः समाप्तिः शिशिरे । न च तत्रेदं सौमिकयागविधानम्, किं तर्हि गते तस्मिन् वसन्त आगते । तथा च श्रुतिः “वसन्ते वसन्ते ज्योतिषा यजेत” (आप्श् १०.२.५) इति । एतावन्ति नित्यानि कर्माणि । तानि यथा कथंचिद् वेदसंन्यासिकेनापि संपाद्यानीति सर्वस्य तात्पर्यम् ॥ ४.२६ ॥

The term ‘sasya,’ ‘grains,’ stands for the Vrīhi and other grains;—‘end’ means exhaustion. The meaning is that when the previous supply of grains has become exhausted, he shall perform the ‘New-Harvest Sacrifice,’ i.e., the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice.

This does not mean that either the exhaustion of the previous supply of grain, or the coming in of the new harvest, is the reason or occasion for the performance of the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi; what is meant is that the eating of new grain is prohibited, until one has performed the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi. This is what has been said in the following text—‘Without having offered the sacrifice, one should not eat new grain.’ On these grounds, some people explain the verse to mean that ‘since one cannot eat new grains without having performed the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice, one shall perform this sacrifice.’

But, according to this explanation, it would mean that—if there has been no previous grain-supply, or, if there is no fresh grain-supply, or, if one has no desire to eat new grains, it would not he necessary to perform the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice. If the ‘end of previous supply’ be taken to be indicative of the coming in of the new supply [and there were nothing to prohibit the eating of new grains before performing the sacrifice], then it becomes possible to eat the new grain without having performed the sacrifice.

For these reasons, we conclude that here we have two declarations—(a) ‘he shall not eat without having performed the sacrifice’ (next verse) and (b) ‘at the end of the grains, &c.’ (present verse). The ‘end of grains’ is meant to stand for the coining of the new grain; since the coming in is certain, and as such can serve as the occasion for the sacrifice. The ‘end’ or ‘exhaustion’ (of the former supply), on the other hand, is uncertain; since, in the case of rich men, there are supplies that may last for three years. It is for these reasons that the author of the Sūtra has declared—

‘Without having performed the Agnihotra, one shall not eat out of the harvest,’ and ‘When one is satisfied for the year, one shall perform the Āgrayaṇa,’—and, further, ‘The new-grain sacrifice is to be doue in the autumn this last laying down the time for the sacrifice. So that the man, for whom there is no ‘end of the former supply,’ will observe the rule regarding autumn being the time for the sacrifice; which will not be done by another person (for whom there is ‘end of former supply’). In this way, both the declarations are found to have their use. If this were not the meaning, then the author would have said simply—‘On the coming of the new harvest, he shall perforin the New-Harvest Sacrifice.’ Since, however, the author says—‘without having performed the New-Harvest Sacrifice, one shall not eat of the new grains,’ it follows that even when the new harvest has come iu, if the man happen to have old corn left, he may wait-till the autumn (for the performance of the sacrifice); and, since the coming in of the new harvest forms the occasion for the sacrifice, the performance of the Āgrayaṇa is obligatory, even when the man has no desire to eat new grains.

‘At the end of the seasons’—According to the theory that ‘the season constitutes the year,’ what this portion of the text lays down is the performance of the Cāturmāsya sacrifices; in fact, it is these sacrifices that are referred to by the term ‘adhvara,’

‘End of the solstices’ means ‘beginning of the two solstices’;—the two solstices being the ‘northern’ and the ‘southern.’ At these, one shall perform the ‘Animal-Sacrifice,’ twice during the year. The author of the Sutra has said—‘This sacrifice is either six monthly or yearly.’

‘At the end of the year.’—The term ‘samā’ is synonymous with ‘year;’ and the ‘end’ of this is the śiśira, the later winter season. The present verse does not mean that the Soma-sacrifice shall be performed during the winter; what is meant is that—‘when the winter has passed and the spring has arrived, the Soma-sacrifice shall be performed.’ Says the Śruti—‘At each spring-season, one shall perform the Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice.’

What the whole text means is that these constitute the obligatory rites, and, as such, shall be performed, somehow or the other, by even those who have renounced Vedic rituals.—(26).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 217).

Viṣṇu (59.5-9).—‘At each solstice, with the Paśuyāga;—during the autumn and the summer, with the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice;—also on the ripening of the Vrīhi and the Yava;—he who possesses grains more than what would be needed for three years,—each year, with Soma-sacrifice.’

Vaśiṣṭha (11.41).—‘The Brāhmaṇa must necessarily lay the Fires;—he shall perform the sacrifices of Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa, Āgrayaṇeṣṭi, Cāturmāsya, Paśu and Soma.’

Yājñavalkya (1.126).—‘Each year, the Soma,—at each solstice the Paśu,—and the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi and the Cāturmāsya also shall be performed.’

026 When the old grain has been consumed the (Agrayana) Ishti with new grain, at the end of the (three) seasons the (Katurmasya-) sacrifices, at the solstices an animal (sacrifice), at the end of the year Soma-offerings.

Without having performed the New-Harvest sacrifice, and the animal Sacrifice, the Brāhmaṇa, who has set up the fire, shall not eat new grain or meat,—if he desires to live a long life.—(27)

अग्निमान् आहिताग्निर् अत्राभिप्रेतः, व्रताधिकारात् । तस्य होमस्य याजुर्वेदिकं व्रतम् । नानिष्ट्वा पशुना मांसं समश्नीयान् नाग्रयणेन नवान्नम् इति ।

• नियमानुपालने फलम् आह । दीर्घम् आयुर् जिजीविषुः । आयुःशब्देन प्रबन्धवत्यः प्राणापानवृत्तय उच्यन्ते । द्वितीया च सत्य् अपि जीवतेर् अकर्मकत्वे ऽपि इषिक्रियापेक्षया । सन्नन्तो ऽपि धातुर् इच्छायां वर्तते । अत्रापि¹⁴ दर्शने इषेः कर्म प्रकृत्यर्थो न बाह्यम्, इच्छा वेक्ष्यमाणं प्रति गुणभूता, प्रकृतिप्रत्ययौ प्रययार्थं सह ब्रुवत इति सन्नन्ताद् अन्यत्रापि । अस्मिन्न् अपि दर्शने आयुःशब्देन कालो लक्षयिष्यते, दीर्घकालं जीवनम् इच्छन् । तत्र “कालता वावगन्तव्या कर्मसंज्ञा ह्य् अकर्मणाम्” इति कर्मत्वम् ।

• एष चाहिताग्नेः पशुबन्धे नियमः, आग्रयणे ऽपि । गृह्याग्निमतो ऽपि गृह्यस्मृतिषु नियमतया आग्रयणं विहितम् ।

• यच् चेदं “शरदि नवन्नम्” इति, तत् व्रीहिश्यामाकयोर्¹⁵ न यवानाम् । न च सस्यमात्रेण सस्येष्टियागः, न च माषम् उद्गादिना । यत इदं शास्त्रान्तरसापेक्षम्, न स्वतो विधायकम् इत्य् उक्तम् । शास्त्रान्तरेषु च व्रीहिश्यामाकयवैर् आग्रयणेष्टिर् विहिता ।

• किं त्व् अन्यद् अपि सस्यं नाशितव्यम् अकृतायाम् आग्रयणेष्टौ । यद् उक्तम् अविशेषेण “सस्यं नाश्नीयात्” इति । तन्निषेधे ह्य् अभिप्रेते इयद् एवावक्ष्यत्- “आग्रयणं व्रीहिश्यामाकयवानाम्, सस्यं¹⁶ नाश्नीयाद् अग्निहोत्रम् अहुत्वा” इति । एवं सूत्रकारेण पठितम्- “आग्रयणं व्रीहिस्यामाकयवानाम्, सस्यं नाश्नीयाद् अग्निहोत्रम् अहुत्वा” इति । अतो ऽयं सस्यशब्दो न प्रतिनियतविषय एव ॥ ४.२७ ॥

The term ‘Agnimān’ must stand here for one who has set up the Fire; because ‘observances’ form the subject matter of the context; and it is in connection with the Agnihotra-homa that we have ‘observances’ laid down in the Yajur-veda.

Without having performed the Animal Sacrifice, he shall not eat meat, nor shall be eat new grain without having performed the New-Harvest Sacrifice.

The text next describes the reward accruing from the observing of this rule—‘if he desires to live a long life.’ The term, ‘āyu,’ ‘life,’ denotes the function of the out-and-in-breathings operating continuously. Even though the verb, to live,’ is intransitive, yet we have the accusative ending, in view of the action of ‘desiring,’—this act of desiring being expressed by the verb (‘to live) as ending in the desiderative affix ‘san.’ Though, as a matter of fact, the object of the act of ‘desiring’ is what is denoted by the root to which the desiderative is affixed (i.e., living), and not anything outside the desiderative term itself,—and the desire is subordinate to what is desired,—yet there need be nothing incongruous in the suggested construction, in view of the dictum that ‘the basic term and the affix jointly denote what is expressed by the affix’; so that the accusative ending may be attributed to what is expressed by the desiderative word as a whole. According to this view also, the term ‘āyti’ ‘life,’ would he indicative of a period of time, the meaning being ‘if he desires a life lasting for a long time.’ So that the accusative would he due to the dictum that ‘in the case of intransitive verbs, the time-period may be regarded as an object.’

This rule, relating to the man with the Fire performing the Animal Sacrifice, applies to the case of the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice also. Because the Gṛhya texts have prescribed the Āgrayaṇa as an obligatory rite for one who has only the domestic fire.

As for the rule that ‘the New-Harvest Sacrifice is to be performed in the autumn,’ this refers to the Vrīhi and the Śyāmāka grains, not to the Yava. Nor is it necessary to perform the Harvest-Sacrifice at each and every harvest; nor is it performed with such grains as the Māṣa, the Mudga, and the like. That all this is so follows from the fact that the present text is dependent upon other scriptural injunctions, and it is not itself a self-sufficient injunction, as we have already explained. And in other scriptural injunctions it has been laid down that the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi is to be performed with the Vrīhi, the Śyāmāka and the Yam.

Though this is so, yet other. grains also should not be eaten, until the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi has been performed; since it has been stated in general terms that ‘he shall eat no new grains and if the author had meant to prohibit the eating of only those grains with which the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi is performed, then he should have said—‘He shall not eat the Vrīhi, the Śyāmāka and the Yava, until he has made the offering;’ while what the author of the Sūtra has said is—‘The Āgrayaṇa is to be performed with the Vrīhi, the Śyāmāka and the Vara; one shall eat no new grains until one has made the offering;’ so that the term ‘grain’ cannot stand for any particular grains only.—(27).

Gobhila-Smṛti (3.94).—‘The man who eats new grains without having offered it in sacrifice, for him the expiation consists in making the Vaiśvānara offering.’

027 A Brahmana, who keeps sacred fires, shall, if he desires to live long, not eat new grain or meat, without having offered the (Agrayana) Ishti with new grain and an animal-(sacrifice).

For his Fires, greedy or n ew grains and meat, seek to devour his very life, if they are not worshipped with new grains and with meat.—(28)

नित्यताम् एव समर्थयते अकरणदोषदर्शनेन । नवेन सस्येन अनर्चिता अकृतहोमा अग्नयो ऽस्याहिताग्नेः प्राणान् एवात्तुम् इच्छन्ति भक्षयितुम् । गर्धिनः गर्धं अभिलाषातिशयः, तद् अस्यास्तीति मत्वर्थीय इनिः ॥ ४.२८ ॥

By pointing out the evils arising from the omission of the said rites, the text indicates their obligatory character.

‘Not worshipped with new grains’—not having the oblations offered into them,—‘the fires’—of the man who has set up the fire,—‘seek to devour’—eat—‘his very life.’

‘Greed.’— ‘Greed’ is excessive longing; and one who has this, is called ‘greedy.’ The affix ‘ini’ has the force of the possessive.—(28)

028 For his fires, not being worshipped by offerings of new grain and of an animal, seek to devour his vital spirits, (because they are) greedy for new grain and flesh.