०५

The sages, having heard the duties of the Accomplished Student as just described, said this to the high-souled Bhṛgu, who sprang from fire.—(1)

ब्रह्मचारिगृहस्थ्योर् अध्यायत्रयेण ये धर्मा विहितास् ताञ् छ्रुत्वा ऋषयो मरीच्यादयो भृगुम् आचार्यम् इदं वक्ष्यमाणं वस्त्व् अब्रुवन् पृष्टवन्तः ।

• ननु चात्र स्नातकस्येति श्रूयते । तत्र ब्रह्मचारिग्रहणं किम् अर्थम् ।

• उच्यते । वृत्तसंकीर्तनम् एतत् । ब्रह्मचारिणो धर्मा उक्ता एव ।

• महात्मानम् अनलप्रभवम् इति च भृगुविशेषणम् । अनलाद् अग्नेः प्रभव उत्पत्तिस् यस्य तम्¹ ।

• ननु प्रथमे ऽध्याये “अहं प्रजाः सिसृक्षुः” (म्ध् १.३४) इत्य् अत्र मनोर् अपत्यं भृगुर् उक्तः ।

• सत्यम् । अर्थवादः । अमुत्र अग्नेः सकाशाद् भृगोर् जन्म श्रुतं तद्दर्शनेनैवम् उक्तम् । तथा च नाम निर्वचनम् । “भृष्टाद् रेतसः प्रथमम् उददीप्यत तद् असाव् आदित्यो ऽभवत् यद् द्वितीयम् आसीत् तद् भृगुः” इति । उपचारतो वैतद् उच्यते । तेजस्वितासामान्याद् अग्नेर् इव प्रसव इति । न चात्राभिनिवेष्टव्यं कतरः पक्षो युक्त इति । अनिदंपरत्वाद् अस्य शास्त्रस्य । सर्व एवायं प्रश्नप्रतिवचनसंदर्भो वक्ष्यमाणस्यान्नदोषस्य गौरवज्ञापनार्थः² । परिग्रहदुष्टाद् अन्नस्वभावदुष्टं गुरुतरम् इति । संबन्धिदोषात् स्वरूपदोषो बलवान् अन्तरङ्गत्वात् ।

• ननु च पूर्वं बहुतरं प्रायश्चित्तं श्रूयते “अमत्या क्षपणं त्र्यहम्” (म्ध् ४.२२३) इति । इदं तु “शेषेषूपवसेद् अहः” (म्ध् ५.२०) इति । तत् कथम् अस्य गुरुतरत्वम् ।

• उच्यते । लशुनाद्यपक्षम् एतत् । तेषु हि “मत्या जग्ध्वा पतेत्” (म्ध् ५.१९) इति पतितप्रायश्चित्तं भवति ॥ ५.१॥

Having heard the duties of the Student and the Householder as expounded in the foregoing three Discourses, the great Sages, Marīci and others, ‘said to’—asked the following question of—Bhṛgu, their teacher.

“In the text we find the expression of the Accomplished Student—‘snātakasya’; why then do you bring in the Student?”

Our answer to this is that the present verse is meant to be descriptive of what has gone before; and as a matter of fact, the duties of the Student also have been described.

‘High-souled’ and ‘who sprang from the fire’ are the epithets of Bhṛgu;—‘He whose origination was from the fire.’

“But in discourse I, verse 34, Bhṛgu has been spoken of as the son of Manu”.

True; but what was stated there was an imaginary commendation, while what is said here is in accordance with the account found in the Vedas of Bhṛgu having been born out of fire. The name ‘Bhṛgu’ has been thus explained—‘What rose out first out of the fallen semen was the Sun, and what rose as the second was Bhṛgu’. Or, what is asserted here may be only figurative; the origin of Bhṛgu being described as ‘Fire’, on the basis of similarity, as regards effulgence.

In any case, it is not necessary to lay stress upon either of the two explanations as being the more reasonable of the two; because this is not what forms the main subject-matter of the treatise.

The whole of the text, describing the question and the answer, is meant to indicate the importance of the subject of the evils attaching to food; the moaning being that the evils attaching to the food itself are more serious than those attaching to the nature of its gift and acceptance; and this on the ground that the defects attaching to the thing itself are more intimate, and hence more serious, than those arising from contact.

“In connection with the defects of contact, the Expiatory Rite that is laid down is a three days’ fast; while that in connection with the thing itself, is a single day’s fast (5. 20). How then can this latter be said to be more serious?”

Our answer is as follows:—The greater seriousness here spoken of refers to garlic and such things, in connection with which it is stated that—‘by eating these intentionally the man becomes an outcast’ (5.19); so that the expiation necessary would be that which has been prescribed for outcasts (which is very serious).—(1)

001 The sages, having heard the duties of a Snataka thus declared, spoke to great-souled Bhrigu, who sprang from fire:

“How is it, O Lord, that Death overpowers the Brāhmaṇas who are learned in the Vedic lore, and who perform their duty exactly as it has been thus described?”—(2)

यन् महर्षिभिः पृष्टं तद् इदानीं दर्शयति । एवम् इति शास्त्रव्यापारपरामर्शः । यथोक्तम् इति शास्त्रार्थं परामृशति । एतेन शास्त्रसंदर्भेण यादृशो धर्म उक्तस् तत्पुनस् तम् अनुतिष्ठतां द्विजातीनाम् । विप्रग्रहणस्य दर्शनार्थत्वाद् वक्ष्यति- “एतद् उक्तं द्विजातीनाम्” (म्ध् ५.२६) इति । कथं मृत्युः प्रभवति, स्नातकावस्थायां ब्रह्मचर्यावस्थायां वा । यतः परिपूर्णायुर्भिस् तैर् भवितुं युक्तं पुरुषायुषजीविभिः । शतवर्षं पुरुषाणाम् आयुस् ततः पुरापमृत्युना³ मरणम् एषां न युक्तम् । यत उक्तम् “आचाराल् लभते ह्य् आयुः” (म्ध् ४.१५६), “जपतां जुह्वताम्” (म्ध् ४.१४६) इति ॥ ५.२ ॥

The Text now shows what the great Sages asked.

‘Thus’—refers to the manner in which the Treatise has propounded the subject; and ‘exactly as described’—refers to the subject-matter of the Treatise.

Those Twice-born men who perform the duty exactly in the form in which it has been described in the present Treatise:—that all twice born men are indicated by the terms ‘vipra’ ‘brahmana’, in the Text will be clear from what is going to be said in verse 26 below, where ‘twice-born’ is the term used;—‘how is it that Death orerpotrers them’—while still in the state of the ‘Student,’ or in that of the^(;) Accomplished Student’? How is this, when, in reality, they should live the full spun of humun life? The span of a man’s life is a hundred years; so that the death of Brāhmaṇas before that is not proper; specially as it has been declared that ‘from right conduct one attains longevity’ (4.156), and ‘no calamity befalls persons who recite the Veda and. offer oblations’ (4.146). (2).

002 ‘How can Death have power over Brahmanas who know the sacred science, the Veda, (and) who fulfil their duties as they have been explained (by thee), O Lord? '

स तान् उवाच धर्मात्मा
महर्षीन् मानवो भृगुः ।
श्रूयतां येन दोषेण
मृत्युर् विप्रान् जिघांसति ॥ ५.३ ॥

003 Righteous Bhrigu, the son of Manu, (thus) answered the great sages: ‘Hear, (in punishment) of what faults Death seeks to shorten the lives of Brahmanas!’

Bhṛgu, the righteous son of Manu, said to the great sages—“Listen, by what fault Death seeks to destroy the Brāhmaṇas.”—(3).

Death seeks to destroy the Brāhmaṇas on account of their omitting the study of the Vedas, on account of neglect of right conduct, on account of slothfulness and on account of the defects of food.—(4).

• उच्यते । अनभ्यासेनेत्यादिदृष्टान्तत्वेनोच्यते । यथा भवद्भिः प्रतिपन्ना वेदानभ्यासादयः पुरायुषो मरणहेतवः, एवं वक्ष्यमाणो ऽन्नदोषः । सत्स्व् अपि वेदाभ्यासादिषु न तावत् स्वधर्मो यः पूर्वत्र कथितः, किं त्व् अयम् अन्नदोषो गरीयस्तरः । पृथक् प्रकरणाच् चैतद् अभिधीयते⁴ ॥ ५.३–४ ॥

Objection—“When the question has been put forward in regard to Brāhmaṇas who perform their duties, it is not right to answer it by indicating the ‘fault’; nor can there be any connection with what follows (in verse 4) [as omission of Vedic Study &c. is not possible for those who perform their duties].”

The answer to the above is as follows:—‘Omission of Vedic Study’ and the rest have been put forward only by way of illustration; the sense being—‘just as the omission of Vedic Study and the rest are acknowledged by you all to be the causes of death, so also are the defects of food, going to be described below. Even when a man carries on Vedic Study &c., the fulfilment of his above-described duty is not complete, if it is beset with the very much more serious drawback of defective food. This is emphasised here in view of the fact that this is an entirely different section (dealing with defects of food). (3-4)

**(verse 5.4)
**

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 8) to the effect that laziness also is the source of a ‘force’ that brings about untimely death;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 510), which explains ‘ālasya’ as ‘not being disposed to perform one’s duty, even when he is able to do it’;—‘annadoṣa’ as standing for defective production and so forth;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 294.)

**(verse 5.4)
**

Yājñavalkya (Parāśaramādhava, Prāyaścitta, p. 6).—‘By omitting to do what is enjoined and by doing what is forbidden, and by not controlling the senses, doth a man fall into degradation.’

004 ‘Through neglect of the Veda-study, through deviation from the rule of conduct, through remissness (in the fulfilment of duties), and through faults (committed by eating forbidden) food, Death becomes eager to shorten the lives of Brahmanas.’

Garlic, leeks and onions, mushrooms and all that proceeds from impure things, are unfit to re eaten by twice-born men.—(5).

लशुनादयः पदार्था लोके प्रसिद्धा एव । कवकशब्दो जातिशब्दः । क्वचित् कृयाकुर् इति प्रसिद्धे ऽर्थे मन्यते । छत्राकानि कवकान्य् एव । तथा हि कवकशब्देन प्रतिषिद्धं छत्राकशब्देन प्रायश्चित्तं वक्ष्यति “छत्राकं विड्वराहं च” इति (म्ध् ५.१९) । न च छत्राकं नाम पदार्थान्तरं प्रसिद्धम् । न चाक्षरवर्णसामान्येन यो यच् छत्राकारस् तं तं छत्राकम् इति युक्तं प्रतिपत्तुम् । तथा सति सुवर्चलादीनां समाचारविरोधी प्रतिषेधः प्राप्नोति । तस्माद् यान्य् एव कवकानि तान्य् एव छत्राकाणि । तथा च निरुक्तकारः- “क्षुण्णम् अहिच्छत्रकं भवति यत् क्षुद्यते” (निर् ५.१६) इति । तेन⁵ यान्य् एतानि भूमाव् अकृष्टायाम् अनुपूर्वजायां च सितवर्णानि जायन्ते तानि च कवकानि । वक्ष्यति च “भौमानि कवकानि” (म्ध् ६.१४) इति । दर्शितं च “पदा क्षुण्णम् इव” इति । पादप्रहारेण यानि क्षुद्यन्ते । यतो यानि वृक्षाद् गुल्माज् जायन्ते तेषां तदाकाराणाम् प्रतिषेधः । कुकुण्डानि कवकानि वैद्यके व्याख्यातानि । एतच् च व्याख्यानं न गवादिशब्दवत् । शाके⁶ कवकशब्दो लोके च प्रयुज्यते । अतो ऽस्य समाचाराद् वैद्यकादिशास्त्रार्थे निश्चयः । प्रदर्शितश् चासौ । लशुनादीनां तु समानवर्णगन्धा अपि विष्णुना प्रतिषिद्धाः (विध् ५१.३) । पाराशरिकायां तु शब्देनैव निषेधः प्रायश्चित्तविशेषार्थ उक्तः “चान्द्रायणम्” इति (च्ड़्। य्ध् १.१७५) । तेन लवतककर्णिकारादीनां प्रतिषेधः । अमेध्यप्रभवान्य् अमेध्यजातानि च संसर्गजातानि ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुर् मूलवास्तूकवत् केवलामेध्यप्रभवानां युक्तः प्रतिषेधः । ततश् च यान्य् अधिकपुष्ट्यर्थं धान्यशाकादीन्य् अमेध्यक्षेत्रजातानि संसृज्यन्ते तानि न दुष्यन्तीति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम्, श्रुतेः⁷ सर्वस्याप्य् अभक्ष्यत्वाद् । इहापि च यद्य् अमेध्यसंसर्गम् अन्तरेण न किंचिद् वस्तूत्पद्यते ततः स्याद् अपि । यतस् तु किंचिन् मेध्याज् जायते किंचित् संसृष्टात् ततो ऽयं प्रतिषेधः केवले ऽमेध्यप्रभवे, न संसृष्टे, अवतिष्ठते ।

• मांसस्य सत्य् अपि शुक्रशोणितामेध्यप्रभवत्वे नायं प्रतिषेधः, पृथक्प्रकरणारम्भात् तस्य ॥ ५.५ ॥

The terms ‘garlic’ &c. are well-known among men.

The term ‘karaka’ is the name of a genus, sometimes regarded as the same as the well-known thing ‘kryāku’ (?); mushrooms also are ‘kavaka’; as it is forbidden under the name of ‘kavaka’, while the expiatory rite in connection with its eating has been prescribed under the name of ‘chatrāka,’ in verse 19; and no other thing (except the mushroom) is known by the name ‘chatruka’; nor will it be right to regard, on the basis of verbal similarity alone (between ‘chatrāka’ and ‘chatrākāra’, umbrella-shaped), all those things as ‘chatrāka’ which resemble the umbrella, are ‘chatrākāra’; as in that case the prohibition (of ‘chatrāka’) would apply also to the suvarchala and other things (which also are umbrella-shaped); and this would be contrary to all usage. Hence we conclude tha ‘chatrāka’ and ‘kavaka’ are one and the same thing. Says the author of the Nirukta—‘The chatrāka is kṣuṇṇa, since it is smashed.’ From this it is clear that the name ‘kavaka’ applies to those white shoots that grow out of the earth that has been ploughed; this is also in keeping with what is going to be said in connection with^(‘)kavakas growing out of the earth’ (6.14); and it has also been just pointed out that the name applies to what is ‘smashed’ by a stroke of the foot. It is for this reason (of its being described as growing out of the earth, and of its being mashed by a stroke of the foot) that the prohibition (of ‘kavaka’) is not applicable to those vegetable growths that shoot out of the trunks of trees.

In medicinal treatises the kukuṇḍa has been described as ‘kavaka’; but this explanation (of the name on a purely conventional basis) cannot be accepted in the same manner as that in regard to the term ‘go’ and the rest. Further, as a matter of fact, in ordinary parlance the term ‘kavaka’ is always applied to a vegetable. Hence it is on the basis of usage that the exact signification of the term, wherever it occurs in a medical or other scientific treatise, should be ascertained, and we have already shown what that signification is.

Other things also, which resemble garlic and such things mentioned here, which resemble these latter in colour and smell, have been forbidden by Viṣṇu. In the Smṛti of Parāśara however the prohibition is by name, and this for the purpose of prescribing the special Expiatory Rite of ‘Candrāyaṇa’ in connection with it. From this it follows that ‘lavataka’, ^(‘)karnikāra’ and such other things are forbidden.

‘Things proceeding from impure substances’;—those that grow of impure things or are in contact with them.

Others have declared that it is not right to forbid those things that grow only out of impure things, these standing on the same footing as ‘mūlā’ (radish) ‘cāstuka’ (a kind of grass) and such other things (known to grow out of impure things);—so that the prohibition does not apply to those grains and vegetables growing in fields specially manured for the purpose of enriching the harvest.

This however is not right. Because from what the text says it is clear that all these things are equally unfit to be eaten. Further, what has been suggested might have been accepted, if it were absolutely impossible for anything to grow without the use of impure substances. There are some things however that grow directly out of impure substances, while there are some that grow out of mere connection with them; the right view to take therefore is that the prohibition applies to the former only, and not to the latter.

As regards meat, even though it grows out of semen and blood (both impure substances), yet the present prohibition does not apply to it; because it has been dealt with in a totally different context.—(5)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 510), which explains ‘amedhyaprabhavāni’ as ‘produced directly from human ordure, or in trees growing from seeds passed with human excreta’;—and in Smṛtitattva (p. 448), which reads ‘karakāṇi’ (for kavakāni) and explains it as ‘chatrāka,’ ‘mushroom;’ and explains ‘amedhyaprabhavāni’ as ‘produced from ordure and such things.’

Gautama (17.32).—‘Fresh leaves, mushrooms, garlic, and exudations (from trees).’

Āpastamba (1.17.26, 28).—‘Red garlic, white garlic, onion and mushroom, are not eatable; so says the Brāhmaṇa-text.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.33).—‘For eating garlic, onions, mushrooms, turnips, Śleśmātaka, exudations from trees, the red sap flowing from incisions, food pecked at by crows or worried by dogs, or the leavings of a Śūdra,—Atikṛcchra penance.’

Viṣṇu (51.3, 34, 36).—‘Garlic, onion, turnips, things having the same smell, village-pigs, village-cocks, monkey, beef,—on eating these also, the Cāndrāyaṇa is to be performed.—On eating mushrooms and Kavakas, the Sāntapana penance;—also exudations, products of unclean things, the red sap flowing from trees.’

Yājñavalkya (1.171).—‘Red or white exudations from trees, mushrooms flowing out of unclean things.’

Baudhāyana (Aparārka, p. 247).—‘Of trees planted on unclean ground, the flowers and fruits are not objectionable.’

Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 511).—‘Garlic, leeks, onions, mushrooms, brinjals, gourds—by eating these, one’s caste becomes defiled.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 511).—‘The circular-shaped Kuṅkuṇḍa, the Caitya-shaped and Umbrella-shaped mushrooms,—all these were born out of the body of the Daitya.’

Taittirīya-Śruti (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 512).—‘The red sap that flows from trees, or any sap that flows from incisions in trees—that is harmful.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 513).—‘Garlic, leek, Vilaya, Sumuhha, mushrooms, onion,—these the wise man should always avoid.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 511).—‘The mushroom, the village-hog, onion, garlic,—on eating these, the Brāhmaṇa, even though he be conversant with all the Vedas, becomes degraded.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 511).—‘Śleśmātaka, Vrajaphalī, Kausumbha, Nālamastaka, and leek,—among vegetables, these are not eatable.—Onion, garlic, śukta, exudations, kucuṇḍa, the white brinjal, and kumbhāṇḍa,—these one should not eat.’

005 Garlic, leeks and onions, mushrooms and (all plants), springing from impure (substances), are unfit to be eaten by twice-born men.

He shall carefully avoid the red exudation from trees, as also those flowing from incisions, the śelu berries, and ‘curdled milk’ of the cow.—(6)

वृक्षकोटरस्रावेण हेत्वन्तरेण वा बहिर् यन् मूलस्कन्धफलपलाशशाखाकुसुमव्यतिरिक्तं वृक्षलग्नं जायते स वृक्षनिर्यासः । लोहितग्रहणात् कर्पूरादीनाम् अप्रतिषेधः । व्रश्चनाच् छेदनाद् येषां प्रभवो जन्म । एवं वृक्षादेर् वल्कप्रदेशा ये तत्रैव⁸ जायन्ते तेषाम् अलोहितानाम् अप्रतिषेधः । शेलुः श्लेष्मातकः प्रसिद्धो वैद्यकादिशास्त्रेभ्यः । न तु सुतस्य क्षीरस्य सन्तानिका, अप्रसिद्धत्वात् । यत् तु “पीयूषसाहचर्यात्⁹ सन्तानिका युक्ता” इति, भवति साहचर्यं विशेषहेतुर् उभयत्र प्रयोगे सति, न पुनः साहचर्यम् अदृष्टप्रयोगाणां प्रयोगज्ञापकम् । गव्यं च । गव्यग्रहणान् माहिषादेर् अप्रतिषेधः । अनाद्यम्¹⁰ अग्निमात्रसंयोगात् पिण्डीभूतम् अनासक्तं च । सद्यःप्रसूताया गोः क्षीरं पीयूषशब्देनोच्यते ।

• ननु च क्षीरस्य सविकारस्य दशाहं चाभक्ष्यतां वक्ष्यति । त्रिचतुराणि वाहानि तादृशं क्षीरं भवति ।

• सत्यम् । यदि कथंचित् कस्यापि दशाहत् परेण भवति तद् इदम् अर्थवत् ।

• प्रयत्नेनेत्यादि पदद्वयं श्लोकपूरणार्थम् । अभक्ष्याणीत्य् अनुवर्तते ॥ ५.६ ॥

‘Exudation from trees’;—anything, apart from the constituent parts of the tree itself,—such as, the root, the trunk, the branches, the leaves, the fruits and the flowers,—which proceeds from the tree, either in the form of some liquid flowing from the cavity in the tree, or in some other form. The epithet ‘red’ excludes, from prohibition, such exudations as the camphor and the like.

Those that have their origin, source, in ‘incisions’; those that flow from the bark and such parts of the tree. These things, if not red, are not forbidden.

‘Śelu’—the śleṣmātaka fruit, to be known from medical and other treatises. It should not be taken to mean the cream of fresh milk; as it is never known to have that meaning. It has been argued that—“it is better to take the word as standing for cream, on account of its proximity to the term, ‘curdled milk’”. But proximity becomes a means of deciding in favour of one of the two possible meanings of a term, only when the term is actually found in usage to be used in both senses; but it can never be the authority for attributing an unheard of meaning to a word.

‘Of the cow’;—this shows that that of the buffalo etc. is not forbidden. The milk is unfit to be eaten if, by mere contact with fire, it becomes ‘curdled’,—i.e., thickened without adhesion; the term ‘pīyūṣa’ is used in the sense of the milk of the newly-calved cow.

“The text is going to declare, as until to be eaten, the milk, along with all its preparations, of the cow for the first ten days of its calving; and it is only during three or four days that the milk is of the nature described above (i.e., curdled by mere contact with fire) [so that no separate prohibition appears to be called for.]”

True; the thing is mentioned in the present verse with a view to those cases where the milk continues to be so ‘curdled’ even after the first ten days.

The two words—‘carefully’ and ‘avoid?—are added only for filling up the metre; since ‘unfit to be eaten’ (of verse 5) continues to be connected with all that is mentioned in the text.—(6)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 247);—in Mitākṣarā (on 1.171), which notes that the addition of the epithet ‘red’ makes it clear that the prohibition does not apply to such exudations as assafœtida, camphor and the like;—and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 711), which adds—‘the red exudations’ meant are the lac and the rest,—the epithet ‘red’ indicating that such exudations as are white, e.g., assafœtida, camphor and the like—are not forbidden,—‘śelu’ is śleṣmātaka,—‘peyūṣa’ is ‘new milk,’ i.e., the milk of the newly-delivered cow, whose blood-flow has not ceased; and in support it quotes verse 8 following.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 510), which adds the following notes—‘Vṛkṣaniryāsa’ is ‘the solidified exudation from trees’,—‘Vraścana’ is cutting, and the exudations from cuttings are to be avoided even when they are not red. The prohibition does not apply to such things as assafœtida, camphor and the like,—‘śelu’ is śleṣmātaka,—and ‘peyūṣa’ is the milk of the newly dilivered cow, which solidifies at the slightest contact with fire;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 567);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 287).

Gautama (17.32, 33).—(See above.)

Vaśiṣṭha (14.33).—(See above.)

Viṣṇu (51.36).—(See above.)

Yājñavalkya (1.171).—(See above.)

006 One should carefully avoid red exudations from trees and (juices) flowing from incisions, the Selu (fruit), and the thickened milk of a cow (which she gives after calving).

Needlessly cooked Rice-sesamum and Butter-sugar-sesamum, milk-rice and flour-cakes, unconsecrated meat, food of the gods and sacrificial viands;—(7)

अत्र कृसरसंयावम् इति समाहारे द्वन्द्वः । तिलैः सह सिद्ध ओदनः कृसरशब्देनोच्यते । संयावो भोज्यविशेषः सर्पिर्गुडतिलादिकृतः पुरेषु प्रसिद्धः ।

• ये तु यौतेर् मिश्रणार्थत्वाद् यानि मिश्रीकृत्यान्नानि साध्यन्ते मुद्गमकुष्ठकादिभिस्¹¹ तानि संयावशब्देनोच्यन्ते इति तेषां कृसरग्रहणम् अनर्थकम् । सो ऽपि ह्य् अनेन प्रकारेण संयाव एव । वृथाशब्दः सर्वत्रानुषज्यते । यद् आत्मार्थं क्रियते, न देवपित्रतिथ्यर्थम् । तदा कृसरादीनाम् उपदेश इति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम्¹² । न हि गृहस्था एकेनार्थेन¹³ पचन्ति¹⁴ । हविष इवावापात् प्रभृति तादर्थ्येनोद्देशः ।¹⁵ किं तर्हि अनुद्दिष्टविशेषस्य सामान्यतः कृतस्यान्नस्य पञ्चयज्ञानुष्ठानं विहितम् । तत्राकृतवैश्वदेवस्य भोजने विहितातिक्रमः, न पुनः प्रतिषेधः समस्ति । तथा हि द्वे प्रायश्चित्ते भवतः । विहितातिक्रमात् प्रतिषिद्धसेवनाच् च । कृसरादयस् तु देवताविसेषं वास्तुयज्ञादिविषयम् अनुद्दिश्य कृताश् चेद्¹⁶ आह्निकविधयो ऽपि प्रतिषिध्यन्ते ।

• यश् चापि “नात्मार्थं पचेत्” इति सो ऽप्य् अवश्यकर्तव्यत्वात् कृतातिक्रमस्य¹⁷ भोजनप्राप्त्यनुवादो न पुनः प्रतिषेधः । तथा सति द्विमूलकल्पनाप्रायश्चित्तं स्याद् इत्य् उक्तम् । न चान्यार्थत्वेनापि कृतस्यात्मार्थता पाकस्य निषेद्धुं शक्यते । पच्यमानार्थो हि पाकस् तस्य तद्द्वारिका न शक्या आत्मार्थता निषेद्धुम्, तेनैव वृत्तिविधानात् । न हि भृत्यादिशिष्टभोजनं¹⁸ गृहस्थस्य शेषसंस्कारो न चात्र संकल्पः श्रुतो येन मदर्थं पच्यताम् इति पाककाले संकल्पमात्रं निषिध्यते । आत्मार्थं चोत्तरकालम् अविचार्येत्य् उच्यते । मिथ्यासंकल्पदोषश् च स्यात् । देवतार्थतया संकल्पितस्यात्मार्थतया योग इति । तस्माद् अयम् अनुवादो यत् पचेन् नात्मार्थम् एवोपयोज्यं प्राग् विधेर् वैश्वदेविकाद् इति । तथा च अपक्वभोजने ऽपि विधिम् एतं स्मरन्ति । “यदन्नः पुरुषो राजंस् तदन्नास् तस्य देवताः” (राम् २.९५.३१) इति । न च बुभुक्षमाणस्यैवाधिकारः, गार्हस्थ्यप्रतिपत्तिनिमित्तत्वात् । तेन यद् अहर् न भुञ्जीत तद् अहर् अप्य् अकुर्वन् प्रत्यवैति ।

• एतद् उक्तं भवति । स्वार्थं वा पचतु परार्थं¹⁹ वा पाक्षीद् इति सर्वथा कृतवैश्वदेवातिक्रमणव्रता अपि न प्रवर्तन्ते इति नित्यताम् अनुवदति । यच् चापि पठति ।

• लौकिके वैदिके वापि हुतोत्सृष्टे जले क्षितौ ।

• वैस्वदेवस् तु कर्तव्यः पञ्चसूनापनुत्तये ॥ इति ।

अनेनापि नित्यतैवोच्यते । न हि वैदिके वैश्वदेवसंभवः । न च स्मार्तवचने प्रमाणम् अस्ति ।

• पायसापूपम् इति । पयसा सिद्ध ओदनः पायस्ः, न दध्यादिपयोविकारः । अपूपाः पुरोडाशाः । देवान्नानि समाचारप्रमाणकानि । हवींषि श्रुतिविहितानि होतव्यानि — प्राग् ग्रहहोमाद् — यतो हविःशेषस्य भक्ष्यतां वक्ष्यति । अनुपाकृतस्य अयज्ञातस्य²⁰ पशोर् मांसानि । उपाकरणं पशोः संस्कारविशेषः । स पशुयागेषु विहितः । एतेन च यज्ञोपयुक्तशेषभक्ष्यता मांसस्य लक्ष्यते । वृथाशब्दाधिकारे ऽप्य् अनुपाकृतग्रहणम् अतिथ्यादिशिष्टस्यापि गोऽव्यजमांसस्य प्रतिषेधार्थम् । गोऽव्यजमांसम् एव वानुपाकृतशब्देन विवक्षितम् । गोऽव्यजस्यैव तत्रालम्भश् चोदितो यतः शिष्टं प्रोक्षितम् इत्य् उक्तम्²¹ ॥ ५.७ ॥

‘Kṛsarasaṃyāran’ is an aggregative copulative compound. Rice cooked with Sesamum is called ‘kṛsara’;—‘saṃyāva’ is a particular article of food, made up of butter, sugar, sesamum and such things, well-known in cities.

Some people, on the strength of the root ‘yu’ (from which the term ‘saṃyāva’ is derived) signifying the act of mixing, explain the term ‘saṃyāva’ as standing for all those articles of food that are prepared by-mixing together different kinds of grains,—such as the mudga, the kuṣṭhaka and the rest.

For these persons the separate mention of ‘kṛsara’ would be superfluous; as this would be included under ‘saṃyāva’, as just explained.

The term ‘needlessly cooked’ is to be construed with all the terms. It stands for what the householder cooks for himself, and not for the sake of Gods, Pitṛs or guests.

This however does not appear to be right. Because the ordinary cooking chat the Householder Hoes is not always for any such set purpose as that of inn king offerings out of it. What happens is that the cooking having been done, without reference to any particular purpose, and only in a general way, the Five Sacrifices have been laid down, as to be offered out of the food thus cooked. So that if the man eats the food without having made the offering to the Viśvedevas out of it, he transgresses a direct injunction; but no prohibition enters into the cuse. According to the present text however, as just explained, such eating would necessitate two expiatory rites,—one due to transgressing an injunction (by not making the offering to the Viśvedevas), and another due to the doing of a prohibited act (of cooking the Rice-sesamum needlessly). If however such articles of food as ‘Rice-sesamum’ and the rest, are cooked without reference to a particular God, or to a particular sacrificial rite,—this involves a transgression of the rules pertaining to one’s daily duties also.

As regards the text ‘one shall not cook for himself’,—this cannot be regarded as a prohibition (; because it being absolutely necessary to Ho the cooking, all that the sentence does is simply to make a reference to the act of eating done by one who has disobeyed the rules (regarding the daily ‘sacrifices’). For, as already pointed out above, if it were a prohibition, there would be a twofold expiatory rite involved. Then again, even when the cooking is done for some other purpose, it cannot be absolutely denied that it has been done by the man ‘for himself’ also. ‘Cooking’ means the act of cooking food, and the fact of its being done for one’s own self cannot be denied by means of the same word; as the man is directed to live upon the same food (i.e., what is left after the feeding of the guests &c). The eating of the remnant, of food, after the guests and others have been fed, (which has been laid down for the Householder) is not meant to be a mere ‘embellishment’ of the Remnant (and not an act necessary for the maintenance of the man himself). Nor has it been laid down anywhere that at the time of cooking the Householder is to make use of any such formula of determination as ‘cook food for me’, which would be regarded as forbidden (by the sentence ‘one shall not cook for himself’) In fact the cooking is said to be ‘for himself’ only in consideration of what happens subsequently. That is to say, if the food were cooked wjth the determination to make an offering to the Gods, and then subsequently the man were to eat it all himself, this would involve the wrong of being false to one’s own resolve also. From all this it is clear that the sentence in question is a mere reiterative reference, the sense being—‘what one cooks, he should not use for himself until he has made the offering to the Viśvedevas’.

It is in view of all this that this same rule has been held to be applicable also to the case of the man eating uncooked food; in accordance with the assertion—‘the Gods of a man have the same food as the man himselt’ (Vālmīkīya Rāmāyaṇa.)

Further, cooking is not to be done only by the hungry householder; in fact, the act of cooking every day forms an integral factor of Householder ship itself. So that even on the day on which the man himself does not eat, if he omits the act of cooking, he incurs sin.

The upshot of the whole is this:—The man may cook for himself, or for others; the words ‘shall not cook for himself’ can only mean that people should not undertake the act, if they do not intend to make the offering to the Viśvedevas. So that this only reiterates the obligatory character of the offering. Similarly also the text that—‘For the removal of the sin of the Five Slaughters, the Viśvedeva-offering shall be made in the ordinary fire, in the Vedic sacrificial fire, in the fire in which oblations have been already poured and the deity dismissed, in water or on the ground, only reiterates the obligatory character of the offering to the Viśvedevas. Because the said offering cannot be made into the Vedic sacrificial fire; specially as there is no authority attaching to a Smṛti text (as against a Śruti text) [so that the text just quoted cannot be taken in its literal sense].

‘Milk-rice and flour-cakes’.—‘Pāyasa’, ‘Milk-rice,’ stands for rice cooked in milk, and not for preparations of milk;—‘Puroḍāśa (?)’ is flour-cake.

‘Food of the Gods’:—what these are can only be ascertained from usage.

‘Sacrificial viands—the materials laid down in the Śruti as to be offered into the Fire.

These are ‘unlit to be eaten only before the Grahahomas; as the text is going to lay down the necessity of eating the remnants of the offerings.

The meat of an animal that has not been ‘consecrated,’—i.e. which has not been killed at a sacrifice.^(‘)Consecration’ is a peculiar form of purification of the animal, prescribed in connection with the ‘Animal-Sacrifice.’ The mention of this indicates that one should eat the remnant of the meat that has been offered at a sacrifice.

Though the Text has already used the qualification ‘needlessly prepared’, yet the epithet ‘unconsecrated’ has been added with a view to forbid the merit of the cow, the sheep and the goa (goat?) that may have been left by the guest and other persons to whom they may have been offered. Or, the term unconsecrated may be taken as refering specially to the meat of the cow, the sheep and the goat; since it is the killing of these animals only that has been enjoined in connection with sacrifices; the other animals being described as already ‘prokṣita’, ‘washed clean’ (fit for cating).

Cf. The Mahābhārata 13.104.41.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 448), which explains ‘vṛthā’ as ‘what is cooked for oneself, and not for being offered to gods or pitṛs’,—and quotes the Chandogapariśiṣṭa as defining ‘kṛsara’ to be ‘rice and sesamum cooked together,’—‘saṃyāva’ is a preparation of ‘butter, milk, molasses, and the flour of wheat and other grains,’—‘anupākṛtomāṃsa’ is ‘meat not consecrated by mantras,’—‘devānna’ is ‘food prepared for offering to gods,’—‘haviṣ’ is the ‘sacrificial cake’ and such things;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 610.)

Gautama (17.31).—‘Flesh of animals with teeth not fallen out, flesh of diseased animals, and flesh got without any religious purpose.’

Viṣṇu (51.37).—‘Śālūka, needlessly cooked rice-sesamum and butter, sugar-wheat, rice-milk, cakes, breads fried in butter, food of the gods and sacrificial viands.’

Yājñavalkya (1.171, 173).—‘Offerings meant for gods… unconsecrated meat, rice-sesamum or butter-sugar-wheat, or milk-rice or flour-cakes or wheaten bread fried in butter,—needlessly cooked.’

007 Rice boiled with sesamum, wheat mixed with butter, milk and sugar, milk-rice and flour-cakes which are not prepared for a sacrifice, meat which has not been sprinkled with water while sacred texts were recited, food offered to the gods and sacrificial viands,

The milk of the cow that has not passed its ten days, as also that of the camel and of one-hoofed animals and of sheep; the milk of the irregular cow, as also the milk of the cow without her calf.—(8)

यदीह “अनिर्दशाहं गोः क्षीरम्” इति पाठः उष्ट्रादीनाम् अपि दाशाहादिकः प्रतिषेध आशङ्क्यते । अनिर्दशाग्रहणानुवृत्त्या तत्र समाचार आत्यन्तिकप्रतिषेधार्थ आश्रयणीयः । अनिर्दशाया इति तु स्त्रीलिङ्गपाठे आशङ्कैव नास्ति । न हि तद्धितान्तैर् अनिर्दशाया उष्ट्रम् इत्यादिभिः संबन्धोपत्तिः । उत्तरत्र च पुनः क्षीरग्रहणात् समाचाराच् च उष्ट्रैकशफाविकानिर्दशगवीक्षीराणि सविकाराणि प्रतिषिध्यन्ते । संधिनीविवत्सयोस् तु क्षीरम् एव ।

• अनिर्दशा च गौर् उच्यते यस्याः प्रसूताया दशाहान्य् अनतिक्रान्तानि । संधिनी या उभयोः प्राप्तदोहा कथंचिद् अन्यतरस्मिन् दुह्यते । प्रातरदुग्धा²² सायं दुह्यते । सा तु स्वल्पक्षीरत्वाद् एकस्मिन्न् एव काले, सासौ संधिनी ।

• कश्चिद् आह या मृतस्ववत्सा परकीयं वत्सं संचार्य दुह्यते सा संधिनी । विवत्सा तु या सत्य् एव वत्से विनाकृतवत्सा वत्सप्रस्रवणम् अनपेक्ष्य कुष्ठकयवशालितुषादिना भोजनविशेषेण दुह्यात् ।

• विवत्साया इति । तेनैव वत्सग्रहणेनावत्सा धेनुर् आनीयताम् इतिवद् गोर् इति लब्धे गोग्रहणम् अजामहिष्योर् अप्रतिषेधार्थम् । न पुनर् अनिर्दशाया इत्य् अत्र । अतश् च गोग्रहणं तत्राजाद्युपलक्षणार्थम् । तथा च गौतमः- “गोश् च क्षीरम् अनिर्दशायाह् सूतके । अजामहिष्योश् च " (ग्ध् १७.२२–२३) इत्य् आह । पयोग्रहणं संधिनीक्षीरम् इति समासान्तवर्तिनः क्षीरपदस्य नातिसुकरः संबन्धो यतः ॥ ५.८ ॥

If we read the opening words as ‘anirdaśāham goḥ kṣīram,’ then the prohibition regarding the milk of the camel and other animals also would be understood as limited to the ten days from calving; so that the qualification ‘that has not passed its ten days’ being taken with every one of the animals, it would become necessary to depend entirely upon usage in support of the absolute prohibition of the milk of the camel and other animals. If however we rend ‘anirdaśāyāḥ’ in the feminine form, then there would be no possibility of the above misunderstanding. Because it would not be possible to interpret the nominal affixes (attached to filenames of the other animals) as, in any way, connecting these animals with the epithet ‘anirdaśāyāḥ’)

In as much as the word ‘milk’ is repeated in the second half of the verse, this implies that what are forbidden by the former half are the milk of the camel, of the one-hoofed animals, of the sheep, of the goat and of the cow within ten days of its calving,—along with all its preparations; while in the case of the ‘irregular’ cow and the cow ‘deprived of its calf’, it is the milk only that is forbidden. Such is the usage also.

That cow is called ‘anirdaśāha,’ ‘not passed its ten days’, in whose case ten days have not passed since her calving.

‘Irregular cow’;—the cow that is expected to give milk both morning and evening, but gives it only at one time; giving milk in the evening only if not milked in the morning; and on account of the supply of milk being scanty, she is milked once only.

Some people explain ‘Sandhini’ as standing for that cow which, on having lost her own calf, is made to yield milk by bringing to her the calf of another cow; and in this case the cow ‘without her calf’ would be one whose calf is alive, but is separated from it, and is milked, independently of the calf, through presenting before her such special articles of food as the husks of barley, rice etc., so that the cow would be called ‘without her calf’ by the calf being held aside; just as people say—‘bring the cow without her calf’.

The ‘cow’ having been already mentioned in the first half, the term is repeated in the second half, with a view to show that similar milk of the goat and the buffalo is not forbidden. The same does not hold good regarding the epithet ‘anirdaśāyāh,’ ‘that has not passed its ten days;’ so that in this connection the ‘cow’ includes the front and the buffalo also. So says Gautama (17.22-23)—‘The milk of the cow that has not passed its ten days, during the period of impurity; also of the goat and the buffalo.’

The term ‘payaḥ’ ‘milk,’ has been added because it is not easy to construe the term ‘of the cow,’ with the term ‘kṣīram,’ ‘milk’ as contained in the compound ‘sandhinīkṣīram.’—(8)

‘Sandhinī’—‘a cow that gives milk only once a day’ (Medhātithi, and Govindarāja);—‘a cow in heat’ (Kullūka, who quotes Hārita in support, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘a cow big with calf’ (Nandana);—‘a cow whose own calf being dead, is milked with the help of another’s calf’ (‘some one’ mentioned in Medhātithi.)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290), where it is said that the unintentional drinking of these milks, if done once only, makes one liable to the penance of a single day’s fast, while if done intentionally, or if repeated, it entails a three days’ fast.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 712), where the ‘Sandhinī’ is described as ‘the cow that approaches the bull i.e., the cow in heat’,—and the ‘anirdaśā’ as ‘the one that has not passed more than ten days since delivery.’

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 448), which adds the following:—‘anirdaśā’ is that which has not passed ten days since its delivery;—the ‘cow’ stands for the goat and the buffallo also;—‘ekaśapha’ are the horse and other one-hoofed animals;—the ‘sandhinī’ is the cow that seeks for the bull; the avoiding of the second ‘goḥ’ in the second line indicates that it is the milk of the cow only that has lost its calf, and not that of the goat or the buffalo.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 525), which adds the following:—‘nirdaśā’ is the cow that has passed ten days since delivery;—‘ekaśapha’ are the horse and other one-hoofed animals—‘āvika’ is ‘the milk of the ewe’;—‘sandhinī’ is the cow in heat;—‘vivatsā’ is one devoid of her calf.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 929), which contains the same remarks as Mitākṣarā;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha p. 13a)—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 567);—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 328), which explains ‘ekaśapha’ as standing for the Horse and the like, and ‘Sandhinī’ as the cow ‘which has been covered by the bull’;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 335).

Gautama (17.22-26).—‘The milk of the cow until ten days have elapsed since its calving, which is its period of impurity;—also of the she-goat and the she-buffalo;—the milk of sheep and of the camel is never to be drunk, as also that of one-hoofed animals; also the milk of the cow that is constantly dripping milk, or which gives birth to twins or of the irregular cow; also of the cow that has lost its calf.’

Baudhāyana (1.12.9-11).—‘The milk of an animal until its calf is ten days old, and of one that gives milk while pregnant should not be drunk;—nor that of a cow which has no calf, or which is milked with a strange calf; the milk of sheep, camels or one-hoofed animals.’

Āpastamba (1.17.22-24).—‘The milk of sheep,—also the milk of the camel, the deer, the milk of the irregular cow and of the cow that gives birth to twins,—also of the cow within ten days of its calving.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.34-85).—‘Let him not drink the milk of the cow in heat, nor of one whose calf has died;—nor that given by cows, buffalos and goats within ten days of calving.’

Viṣṇu (51.28-40).—‘All milks, except that of the cow, the goat and the buffalo;—the milk of even these within ten days of calving;—also the milk of those which are irregular in milk, or which constantly drip milk, or which has lost its calf.’

Yājñavalkya (1.170).—‘Milk of the cow in heat, of the cow within ten days of its calving, of the cow that has lost its calf,—one should avoid; also the milk of camels, of one-hoofed animals, of women, of wild animals and of sheep.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 216).—‘The milk of all animals with two teats should be avoided, except that of the goat.’

Āpastamba (Parāśaramādhava, p. 712).—‘The well-behaved Kṣatriya, or Vaiśya or Śūdra should not drink the milk of the Kapilā cow.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, pp. 525, 526).—‘One shall not drink the milk of the cow in heat;—nor of the cow whose calf is absent or dead, of the cow that has been milked dry, nor of one just calved, till seven days have elapsed, according to some,—ten days, according to others,—while according to some, milk becomes drinkable after a month;—they say that for two months, all the milk should he given to the calf; during the third month, one shall milk only two teats, during the fourth three teats.’

008 The milk of a cow (or other female animal) within ten days after her calving, that of camels, of one-hoofed animals, of sheep, of a cow in heat, or of one that has no calf with her,

That of all wild animals, except the buffalo; the milk of females (women) and all soured substances should be avoided.—(9)

आरण्या गोहस्तिमर्कटादयः । पुंसां क्षीराभावः । सर्वेषां मृगाणाम् इति जातिमात्रविवक्षायां पुंलिङ्गनिर्देशसामर्थ्यात् स्त्रीभिः संबन्धः । मृगक्षीरं कुक्कुटाण्डम् इतिवत् । दर्शितं चैतत् पुंभावविधौ महाभाष्यकारेण (पत् इइइ- १५७ ओन् पाण् ८.३.४२) । माहिषं विना पयोऽपेक्षया नपुंसकनिर्देशः । स्त्री मानुषी । यद्य् अपि “स्त्री गौः सोमक्रयणी” इत्यादौ सास्नादिमत्यर्थे प्रयोगदर्शनम्, तथापि जात्यन्तरस्याप्रकृतत्वात् प्रसिद्धतरत्वात् तत्र प्रयोगः स्यात् । “स्त्रियो मधुरम् इच्छन्ति स्त्रियो रत्नम् अनुत्तमम्” इति नार्य् एव प्रतीयते । एवकारम् अञ्जनादिप्रतिषेधे व्याचक्षते । न केवलं स्त्रीक्षीरं भक्षणे वर्ज्यम्, किं तर्ह्य् अन्यास्व् अप्य् एवंविधासु क्रियासु । एष तु स्मृत्यन्तरसमाचारसापेक्ष एव शब्दः सूचको युक्तः, न त्व् अस्यार्थस्य वाचकः ॥ ५.९ ॥

‘Wild animals’—cows, elephants, monkeys and so forth.

There can be no milk of males; hence the masculine gender used in connection with the words ‘sarvī(?)ṣām mṛgāṇam’ is to be taken as standing for the genus, and the connection is with the female members of that genus: the term ‘mṛgakṣīram’ thus being similar to^(‘)kukkuṭāṇḍam’. This has been made clear by the author of the Mahābhāṣyu in connection with the rules relating to the change of the feminine form into the masculine, (when occurring within a compound).

‘Māhiṣam vinā’;—the neuter form has been used, in view of the neuter form ‘payaḥ’^(‘)milk’.

‘Females,’—hum in females, women. Though in such passages as^(‘)strī gauḥ somakrayiṇī’,^(‘)the female cow is the price of the soma’,—the term ‘strī’, ‘female’, is found to be used in connection with the animal with the dew(?)lap also,—yet it is to be understood here in the sense of the^(‘)woman’, in as much as in the present context the term cannot apply to any other species of animals, and as it is better known as standing for the^(‘)human female’ only. In all such assertions as—‘females desire sweets’, ‘females are the best jewels’—the word is understood as standing for the woman.

The term^(‘)eva’ in the text has been explained as indicating the prohibition of applying the woman’s milk to the eye and such other uses of it: the it caning being that the milk of the woman is to be avoided, not only in eating, but also in all similar uses. The word can be taken as indicative of all this only on the strength of usage and other Smṛti texts; and it cannot be regarded as directly expressive of it.—(9).

“Cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 1.2.3.9, for an early list of animals whose flesh is forbidden”—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290);—and in Smṛtitattva (p. 448), which adds that the term ‘mṛga’ here stands for animals, and not for the deer only; since the ‘buffalo’ is cited as an exception;—‘śukta’ is the name of those things that, by themselves sweet, become soured by keeping.

The first half is quoted in Aparārka (p. 246), which adds that the phrase ‘payovarjyam’ has to be supplied.

The verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika p. 525), which takes ‘āraṅyānām mṛgāṇām’ together, and explains it as standing for the Ruru, Mahiṣa, Pṛṣata and the rest;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Śrāddha p. 13a);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 567);—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 335);—and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 323).

Gautama (17.14).—‘All soured substances by themselves with the exception of curds.’

Baudhāyana (1.12-15).—‘Nor soured substances nor molasses turned sour.’

Āpastamba (1.17.15).—‘Also soured substances.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.37-38).—‘Let him avoid wheat-cakes, fried grain, porridge, barley-meal, pulse-cakes, oil, milk-rice and vegetables that have turned sour; like other kinds of sour food prepared with milk and barley-flour.’

Viṣṇu (51.1-42).—‘Also soured substances by themselves, with the exception of curds.’

Yājñavalkya (1.167, 170),—‘Things turned sour, food cooked overnight, leavings, &c.’

Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 241).—‘That should be regarded as spoilt by time, which has been cooked on the preceding day; among such soured substances, curds may be eaten, but not molasses.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita.—‘Nor what has been cooked twice, nor what has been kept over-night, with the exception of rice cooked in sugar, curds, molasses, or preparations of wheat and barley-flour.’

009 (The milk) of all wild animals excepting buffalo-cows, that of women, and all (substances turned) sour must be avoided.

Among Soured Substances, the curd is fit to be eaten, and all that is prepared out of it; as also all that is distilled from pure flowers, roots and fruits;—(10)

अविशेषेण सर्वशुक्तेषु प्रतिषिद्धेषु केषुचिद् अयम् अपवादः²³ । शुक्तान्य् उच्यन्ते यानि प्राप्तसारस्यानि²⁴ कालात्ययेन द्रव्यान्तरसंसर्गेण वाम्लताम् अपद्यन्ते । यथाम्रातकादीनि मधुराणि चिरकालम् अतिरसत्वाच् छुक्तानि भवन्ति । निष्पीडितो मधुररसः कालतो ऽम्लताम् एतीत्यादिना एवंविधानि ।²⁵ यानि तु स्वभावतो ऽम्लानि दाडिमामलकजम्बीरादीनि तानि नैव शुक्तानि । यानि च प्राप्तकालोत्पत्त्यादीनि । न ह्य् अयम् आम्लपर्यायः शुक्तशब्दः । तत्र केवलानि पाकतः शुक्तानि प्रतिषिध्यन्ते । द्रव्यान्तरैश् च पुष्पमूलकादिभिर् योजितान्य् अत्र ज्ञायन्ते । तथा च गौतमः- “शुक्तं केवलम् अदधि” (ग्ध् १७.१४ ) ।

• अभिषूयन्ते । अभिषव उदकेन संसृज्य परिवासनम् ।

• यद्य् एवं काल एव तर्ह्य् अम्लताहेतुः ।

• सत्यम् । एतान्य् अपि द्रव्याणि । तृतीया च करणे सहयोगे वा । पुष्पादिभिर् उदकेन सह अभिषूयन्ते संधीयन्ते ।

• केचित् त्व् आहुः । यत्र पुष्पमूलाण्य् अम्लताम् जनयन्ति । यानि दाडिमामलकादीनि शुक्तानि तानि भक्ष्याणि, यानि द्राक्षादिभिर् मधुरैर् अभिषूयन्ते संधीयन्ते तानि न भक्ष्यन्ते । अभिषवो ह्य् उच्यते शुक्तताजननम् । यानि पुष्पादिभिः शुक्तीक्रियन्ते । न च द्राक्षादीनि शुक्ततापादकानि । किं तर्हि केवल एव कालः ।

• एतत् तु न सम्यक्, अशब्दार्थत्वात् । न हि सोमम् अभिषुणोतीति शुक्तं करोतीति प्रतिपत्तिः । किं तर्हि य एव प्राग् व्याख्यातो ऽर्थः ।

• दधिसंभवम् उदश्विन्मस्तुकिलाटकूर्चिकादि ॥ ५.१० ॥

All ‘soured substances’ having been forbidden in the foregoing verse, the present: text makes an exception in favour of a few of them.

‘Śukta’, ‘soured substance’, is the name of those substances which, being juicy in their constitution and having a distinct taste of their own, become soured either by the flux of time, or by the contact of some other substance. For instance, the Āmrātaka, which is sweet and full of juice, becomes^(‘)soured’ after the lapse of some time; cane-juice becomes ‘soured’ after sometime. Things that are sour by their very nature—e. g., the Pomegranate, the Āmalaka, the Lemon &c.—are not called^(‘)soured substances’; nor those that are still unripe. Because the term^(‘)śukta’,^(‘)soured’, is not synonymous with^(‘)sour’. What are directly forbidden here are only those soured substances that have become sour by fermentation; and those that turn sour by the contact of flowers and roots &c. are only indirectly indicated; according to what Gautama has said (17.14)—^(‘)All soured substances except Curd only’.

^(‘)Distilled’.—Distillation consists in allowing the thing to remain soaked in water over-night.

“In that case the sourness would be due to the length of time (so that all these would be included among^(‘)Soured Substances’).”

True; these also are ‘soured substances’; and the Instrumental ending may signify either instrumentality or association. The meaning thus is—‘what are distilled—e.g. made out of—flowers etc. along with water’.

Some people offer the fallowing explanation:—“The roots of trees are directly productive of sourness. Such ‘sour substances’ as the Pomegranate, the Āmalaka and the rest are ‘fit to be eaten’, while those that are distilled from grapes and other sweet things are not eaten. ‘Distillation’ means producing acidity; hence ‘distilled from flowers’ means soured by flowers and such things. Grapes and such other things however are not themselves productive of acidity; in their case it is time alone that is the acidulating agent.”

This however i not right; simply because such is not the meaning of the term (‘distillation’). When one says ‘he is distilling Soma’—this is not understood to mean that he is making it sour; what is understood is as we have explained above.

‘Prepared out of curd’;—e.g. Udaśvit, Maṣṭu (whey), Kilāṭa (Coagulated milk), Kūrcika (Inspissated milk) and so forth.—(10)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 448), which explains ‘dadhisambhavam’ as standing for the takra and other similar preparations;—and again on p. 182;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 616).

Gautama (17.14).—(See above.)

Baudhāyana (1.12.14).—‘Stale food should not be eaten, except pot-herbs, broths, meat, clarified butter, cooked grain, molasses, curds and barley-meal.’

Āpastamba (1.17.19).—‘Excepting raw sugar, fried grain, curd-rice, fried barley, barley-meal, vegetables, meat, wheat-cake, preparations of milk, herbs, tree-roots and fruits (stale food shall not be eaten).’

Viṣṇu (51.42).—(See above.)

Yājñavalkya (1.169).—‘Food cooked overnight may be eaten, if it is smeared with fatty oils, or if it has been kept for a long time; preparations of wheat, barley and milk may be eaten even when not mixed with fatty oils.’

Yama (Aparārka, 7.245).—‘Soured foods one should Dover eat; but in times of distress they may be eaten after being washed; preparations of lentil and māṣa, even though cooked overnight, one may eat after washing them and mixing butter with them. Even though one may avoid soured substances, one may eat such things cooked overnight as wheat-cakes, rice-curd, fried grains, small cakes, barley-meal, vegetables, meat, broths, rice-gruel, barley-flour and things mixed with fatty oils. Curds and food mixed with molasses, when stale, should be avoided; so also drinks prepared with honey and butter.’

Devala (Do.).—‘Even though soured, curd may be eaten, also preparations of curd; drinks made of fruits and roots and flowers may be eaten, if they are not intoxicating.’

010 Among (things turned) sour, sour milk, and all (food) prepared of it may be eaten, likewise what is extracted from pure flowers, roots, and fruit.

He shall avoid all carnivorous birds, and also those living in villages, the one-hoofed animals not specified, and also the Ṭiṭṭibha.—(11)

क्रव्याद आममांसभक्षकाः कङ्कगृध्रादयः । अभक्ष्यवत् केवलाममांसभक्षका गृह्यन्ते । न तूभयरक्ता²⁶ मयूरादयः । ग्रामनिवासिनः अक्रव्यादा अपि । एकशफा अश्वाश्वतरगर्दभादयः । अनिर्दिष्टास् तु न भक्ष्यत्वेनोक्तास्²⁷ ते न भक्ष्या इति । ये तूक्तास् तत्रैव भक्ष्याः । ये तूष्ट्रवडवऋक्षगौरगर्दभाः²⁸ प्रजाकामस् तेषां च मांसम् अश्नीयाद् इति ।

• ननु च श्रुतित एव तत्र भक्ष्यावाप्तिः । प्रत्युत निर्दिष्टग्रहणे सति श्रुतौ चोदितानाम् अन्यत्र भक्ष्याशङ्का, अनिदिष्टान् वर्जयेन् न निर्दिष्टान् इति वाक्यार्थप्रतिपत्तेः । न च स्मृतौ केचिद् भक्ष्यत्वेन निर्दिष्टाः, येन तद्व्यतिरिक्तविषयम् अनिर्दिष्टग्रहणं व्याख्यायेत । अतः श्रुतौ ये निर्दिष्टास् ते न भक्ष्या इति प्राप्नोति ।

• उच्यते । आचाराविरोधी स स्मृत्यर्थः । अनिर्दिष्टग्रहणम् अनुवादः ।

• टिट्टिभः शकुनिर् एव, टिटीति यो वाशते । प्रायेण शब्दानुकरणनिमित्तं शकुनीनां नामधेयप्रतिलम्भः । तदुक्तं निरुक्तकारेण- “काक इति शब्दानुकृतिस् तद् इदं शकुनिषु बहुलम्” (निर् ३.१८) इति ॥ ५.११ ॥

‘Carnivorous’;—those that eat raw flesh; such as the Heron, the Vulture &c. What are meant are those that eat raw flesh only; and not those that eat both (raw and cooked flesh), such as the Peacock and the rest.

‘Living in villages’—even though they be not carnivorous.

‘One-hoofed animals;’—e.g., the Horse, the Mule, the Ass and so forth.

‘Not specified’;—i.e. those that have not been specified as fit to be eaten should not be eaten: those that have been so specified are lit to be eaten. For instance, it has been declared that ‘one who desires to obtain offspring shall eat the meat of the camel, the horse, the bear and the white ass’. [and here the one-hoofed animals, horse and white ass, are specified as fit to be eaten].

“The eatability of these animals is known only from this Śruti passage. And the presence of the term ‘specified’ in the verse would he understood to mean that the animals thus specified in the Vedic passage may be eaten even elsewhere (apart from Vedic sacrifices also); the meaning of the text being ‘one shall avoid those nut specified, but not those specified.’ As a matter of fact however, nowhere in the Smṛti have any one-hoofed animals been specified as fit to be eaten, with reference to which the term ‘not specified’ (of the text) could be explained. Hence it comes to this that ‘those not specified in the śruti are unfit to be eaten”.’

Our answer to the above is that such a sense of the Smṛti would be contrary to all usage. The term ‘not specified’ is a mere re-iterative reference.

‘Ṭiṭṭibha’—is a bird which is always screaming ‘ṭiṭ’, ‘ṭiṭ’. In most cases the names of birds are in imitation of their sounds: as says the Nirukta—‘The name Kāka is in imitation of the sound; such is the case with most bird-names.’—(11).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika p. 540), which adds the following notes:—‘Kravyādaḥ’ are the vulture and other birds that eat raw flesh only, and also the peacock and others that eat both raw and cooked flesh;—‘grāmanivāsinaḥ’ stands for such village-birds as the pigeon and the like, which do not eat flesh;—the term Śakunīn is to be construed with both ‘kravyādaḥ’ and ‘grāmanivāsinaḥ’;—ekaśapha’ are the horse and other one-hoofed animals,—‘anirdiṣṭaḥ’ means ‘those that are not mentioned in the Śruti as fit for eating’; those that are mentioned as such should certainly be eaten; this refers to such sacrificial animals as are mentioned in the Vedic texts like the following:—‘One should sacrifice the horse to Tvaṣṭṛ’; which implies that the flesh of the horse so sacrificed must be eaten;—‘Ṭiṭṭibha’ is the name of the bird that makes the ‘ṭī ṭī’ sound.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 582);—and in Smṛtisāroddhārā (p. 298).

Gautamā (17.28-29)—‘Animals with two rows of teeth, hair-covered animals, hairless animals, one-hoofed animals, house-sparrow, Cakravāka and Haṃsa;—also crows, herons, vultures, kites, such water-fowls as have red feet or beaks, village-hens and village hogs.’

Baudhāyana (1.12.1-2).—‘Tame animals should not be eaten; nor carnivorous and tame birds.’

Āpastamba (1.17.29, 34).—‘One-hoofed animals, camels, gavaya, village-hog, śarabha and cows;—also carnivorous animals (are not to be eaten).

Vaśiṣṭha (14.48).—‘Among birds, those who seek food by scratching with feet, the web-footed ones, the Kalaviṅka, the water-hen, the flamingo… a vulture,… those feeding on flesh and those living about villages,’

Viṣṇu (51.28-30).—‘On eating the flesh of carnivorous animals and birds one should perform the Tapta-Kṛcchra; on eating the Kalaviṅka… one should fast for three nights;—also on eating one-footed animals and those with two rows of teeth.’

Yājñavalkya (1.172).—‘Carnivorous birds… one-hoofed animals, animals living about villages, etc., etc.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Aparārka, p. 248).—‘Cow, sheep, goat, horse, mule, ass and man—these seven are the gramya-paśus (grāmya-paśus?), animals living about villages.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘They eat animals of the village and of the forest, sheep, goat, buffalo, deer, rhinoceros, etc., etc.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 541).—‘Cranes, flamingoes, owls, crows, vultures, cocks, pigeons are birds that should not be eaten.’

Yama (Do, pp. 542 and 543).—‘Mushrooms. village-hogs, web-footed birds,—by eating these the twice-born becomes degraded; also by eating cows, horses, asses, camels, dogs, jackals, scratching birds, and pecking birds.’

Āpastamba (Do.).—‘Among scratching birds, the cock should not he eaten; among pecking birds, the Plava; also carnivorous birds and the flamingo, the Bhāsa, etc., etc.’

Parāśara (2.11).—‘On intentionally eating the flesh of the frog or the mouse, the twice-born becomes purified by living on barley-meal for one day.’

011 Let him avoid all carnivorous birds and those living in villages, and one-hoofed animals which are not specially permitted (to be eaten), and the Tittibha (Parra Jacana),

The Sparrow, the Plava, the Haṃsa, the Cakravāka; the village-cock, the Crane, the Rajjudāla, the Dātyūha, the Parrot and the Starling.—(12).

कलविङ्को ग्रामचटको निगमेषूक्तः । ग्रामवासित्वात् तस्य सिद्धे प्रतिषेधे पुनः प्रतिषेधः स्त्रियाश् चटकाया अब्यनुज्ञानार्थः । पुंशब्दो ह्य् अयं वृषबवत् ।

• अन्ये त्व् आरण्यस्य निवृत्त्यर्थं मन्यन्ते । ते हि वर्षासु वनवासिनो भवन्ति । बाहुलयव्यपदेशाच् च ग्रामचटका उच्यन्ते । यथा महिषा आरण्याः ।

• प्लवहंसचक्रवाकानां वक्ष्यमाणजालपादप्रतिषेधात् सिद्धे प्रतिषेधे नित्यार्थं ग्रहणम् । अत आट्यादीनां विकल्पेन भक्षणं गम्यते । ग्रामकुक्कुटम् । ग्रामग्रहणाद् आरण्याभ्यनुज्ञानम् ।

• कुतः पुनर् आरण्यस्याभक्ष्यताशङ्का ।

• स्मृत्यन्तरे हि “कुक्कुटो विकिराणाम्” (आप्ध् १.१७.३२) इति पठ्यते । अतश् चाविशेषेणाभक्ष्यता प्राप्ता, वचनेन तस्य सामान्यप्रतिषेधस्य विशिष्टविषयता प्रज्ञायते ।

• ननु विकल्पः कस्मान् न भवत्य्²⁹ अनेन शास्त्रेणास्याभ्यनुज्ञानाच् छास्त्रान्तरेण चाविशेषेण तस्यापि प्रतिषेधात् ।

• नायं विकल्पस्य विषयः । विरोधे हि तुल्यबलानां विकल्पो न चात्र विरोधो ऽस्ति । न ह्य् अनयोः स्मृत्योः शास्त्रभेदो ऽपि, सामान्यस्य विशेष उपसंहर्तुं न्याय्यत्वात्, शाखान्तरतस् तृतीयस्याप्य् एकशास्त्रस्य दर्शितत्वात् ।

• यद्य् एवं जालपादप्रतिषेधस्यापि हंसादिविशेष एवोपसंहारो युक्तो नाविशेषेण काकजालपादानां सर्वेषां प्रतिषेधः ।

• भवेद् एवं यद्य् अपौरुषेयो ऽयं ग्रन्थः स्यात् । भिन्नकर्तृके त्व् अपौरुषेयत्वे न सामान्यस्य³⁰ किंचित् प्रयोजनं हंसादिविशेषमात्रपर्यवसाने । भिन्नकर्तृकत्वे तु³¹ पौरुषेयत्वे सति सामान्यदर्शिनो विशेषविषयम् अज्ञानं संभवति, विशेषदर्शिनो ऽपि सामान्यविषयम्³² । उभयोश् च मूलकल्पनायाम् एकस्य सामान्यवेदनं वचनमूलं कल्प्यते, अन्यस्य विशेषवचनम् । तयोश् च वैदिकयोर् भिन्नशाखादीतयोर् असति शास्त्रभेदे, एकवाक्यतैव न्याय्या । न च वेदे पर्यनुयोगो ऽस्ति, किं सामान्येन यदि विशेषनिष्ठता, तस्य कर्तुर् अभावात् । श्रुताद् धि तत्र प्रतिपत्तिः केवलशब्दशक्तिसमाश्रिता । न प्रयोजनवशेनार्थान्तरकल्पनम् ।

( रज्जुदालादयः शाकुनिकेभ्य उपलब्धव्याः ॥ ५.१२ ॥)

‘Sparrow’, ‘Kalabiṅka’ (‘Kalaviṅka’), is the name of a village-bird described in the scriptures. Its prohibition being already got at by the general prohibition of all ‘village-birds’, the separate mention of the sparrow implies the catability of the female sparrow;—the term ‘kalabiṅka’ being a masculine just like the term ‘bull.’

Others have explained that this name has been added for the purpose of excluding (from the prohibition) the wild sparrow, which retires to the forest during the rains. They are called ‘village-birds’ because of their living in the villages during the greater part of the year; just as is the case with the ‘wild buffalo.’

The prohibition of the plava, the haṃsa, and the cakravāka being already got at from the general prohibition of all ‘web-footed birds’, the separate mention of these is for the purpose of emphasising the obligatory character of their exclusion.—the eating of the ‘Ātya’ and other ‘web-footed’ birds being regarded as optional.

‘Village-cock’—the specification of the ‘village -cock’ permits the eating of the wild cock.

“But why should there have been any suspicion regarding the non-eatability of the wild cock at all?”

Because another Smṛti text says simply—‘Among birds, the cock’, which indicates that all kinds of cock are equally ‘unfit to be eaten’; it is for this reason that this general statement line been sought by the present text, to be limited in its scope.

“But why cannot this he regarded as a case of option, since the present text permits the eating of the wild crick, which the other text forbids?”

This cannot he a case of option: it is a case of option only when there are two contradictory texts of equal authority hearing upon the same subject; in the present case however, there is no contradiction: there is no difference in the actual teaching of the two Smṛti-texts concerned: because it is quite reasonable to regard the general statement as restricted in its scope; specially as a third independent text has already been quoted above.

“If this be so, then the general prohibition regarding the web-footed birds may be taken as restricted in its scope to the Haṃsa and other specified birds: so that the prohibition does not extend to all crows and web-footed birds.”

This would have been the case if the Smṛti-treatises were not the work of a human author. In the case of works of non-human origin, if they proceed from different sources, there would be no useful purpose by making the general statement restricted to the particular case of the Haṃsa and other birds; while in the case of the work of human authors, if they proceed from different persons, it is quite possible that the person who knows the truth in its general form is ignorant of it in the restricted form, or the person who know it in the limited form is ignorant of it in the wider form; so that when we come to consider the source of the two statements, we assume the existence (in the Veda) of a general statement as the source of one, and a particular statement as the source of the other: and these two Vedic statements occurring in two different recensional texts, the only reasonable course is to construe them together, unless there are distinct injunctions bearing upon the two statements. Specially as no such complaint can be raised against the Vedas as—‘What is the use of the general statement if it is to be taken in its restricted sense?’ There is no room for such a complaint, because there is no author in the case against whom such a complaint could be raised. Specially as in the case of a Vedic statement, the only idea that is obtained is front the actual words of the text, only that which can be derived from the words themselves; and there can be no justification for the assuming of any other meaning, for any purpose whatsoever.

What the ‘Rajjudāla’ and other birds are is to be learnt from persons versed in the science of birds.—(12)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 540), which adds the following notes:—‘Kalaviṅka’ is the caṭaka, the sparrow; these being already included under ‘grāmanivāsinaḥ’, their separate mention is meant to indicate that they are always to be avoided; which implies that the ‘cāṣa’ and other ‘grāmanivāsi’ birds may be eaten. [All this hitter note is attributed to Medhātithi by the writer; but no words to this effect are found in Medhātithi; see Translation ].—The epithet ‘grāma’ in ‘grāmakukkuṭaḥ’ indicates that wild kukkuṭa is not forbidden; ‘sārasa’ in the bird called ‘puṣkara,’ which has a long neck, long feet and is of blue colour;—‘Rajjudāla’ is the wood-pecker;—‘dātyūha’ the black-necked bird;—‘Śuka’ is parrot;—‘sārikā’ is well known by its own name.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 583).ted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 583).

Gautama (17.28-29).—(See above under 11.)

Baudhāyana (1.12.143).—‘Nor tame cocks and pigs.’

Āpastamba (1.17.32-33, 35).—‘Among scratching birds, the tame cock shall not be eaten; among pecking birds, the Plava shall not be eaten; nor the swan, the Bhāsa, the Brahmani duck, or the falcon.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14-48).—‘Among birds, the scratchers, the peckers, the web-footed, the Kalaviṅka, the water-hen, the flamingo, the Brahmani duck, th e Bhāsa, the crow, the blue pigeon, the osprey, the Cātaka, the dove, the crane, the black partridge, the grey heron, the vulture, the falcon, the white egret, the ibis, the cormorant, the peewit, the flying-fox, the night-flying birds, the wood-pecker, the sparrow, the Railātaka, the green pigeon, the wag-tail, the village-cock, the parrot, the starling, the cuckoo, the carnivorous birds and those living about villages (should not be; eaten).’

Viṣṇu (51.3.29).—‘Village-hog, village-hen, monkey, cow—on eating these one shall perform the Cāndrāyaṇa;…one shall fast for three nights if he eat the Kalaviṅka, Plava, etc.,etc.’

Yājñavalkya (1.172-174). (See under 11, 7 also.)—‘Kalaviṅka, Black crow, Kurara, wood-pecker, web-footed birds, Khañjarīṭa, and strange animals and birds—these one should avoid.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 541).—‘The following birds should not be eaten: Crane, Swan, Dātyūha, etc., etc.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 542)__‘The mushroom, the village-hog, the web-footed birds, cocks,—by eating these the twice-born becomes degraded.’

Śaṅkha (Do).—‘The partridge, the peacock, the pheasant, the white partridge, the Vārdhrīṇasa bird and the duck, these Yama has himself declared to be fit for eating.’

012 The sparrow, the Plava, the Hamsa, the Brahmani duck, the village-cock, the Sarasa crane, the Raggudala, the woodpecker, the parrot, and the starling,

Those birds that feed by striking with their beaks, those that are web-footed, the koyaṣṭi, those that scratch with their nails, those that dive and eat fish, slaughter-house meat, and dried meat.—(13)

प्रतुद्य प्रहृत्य चञ्च्वा ये भक्षयन्ति । स्वभाव एष एषां पक्षिणाम् । प्रतुदाः शतपत्रादयः । जालपादा आट्यादयः । तेषां विकल्प उक्तः ।

• ननु च यत्र विकल्प अन्यतरत्रेच्छातः³³ प्रवृत्तिः । सा चाप्रतिषिद्धेष्व् अपि स्थितैव । लौकिकं हि भक्षणम्, तत् सत्य् एवार्थित्वे । न शास्त्रीयम्, येन नियमतः स्यात् । तत्र विकल्पितस्य प्रतिषेधस्य न किंचित् प्रयोजनं पश्यामः ।

• उच्यते । दत्तोत्तरम् एतत् ।

• यत्राबुद्धिपूर्वप्रयोगाच् छब्दाद् एवार्थावगतिः । पौरुषेयस् त्व् अयं ग्रन्थः समाहितचेतसा प्रयत्नवता शतसाहस्रिकं संक्षेप्तुम् आचार्येण प्रणीतः, यत्राशक्यम् अनर्थकं प्रयोक्तुम् । अत आचार्याभिधानम् उन्नीयते । न तु³⁴ जालपादप्रतिषेधे ऽसति तद्विशेषं³⁵ हंसं स्वशब्देन निषेधयति । यत एतद् अपि स्मरणम् एव ।

• अन्ये त्व् अन्येन जालपादस् त्व् इति प्रमादपाठः स्यात् ।

• उक्तं चैतद् इङ्गितेन चेष्टितेन महता वा सूत्रप्रणयनेनाचार्याणाम् अभिप्राया लक्ष्यन्ते । विशेषश् चात्रानुमीयते । “जालपादादि³⁶ न भक्षयेत्"इत् विवक्षते सामान्यप्रतिषेध उभयोर् अर्थवत्त्वाय ।

• यत्र मांसविक्रयार्थाः पशवो हन्यन्ते सा सूना । आपणो मांसस्येत्य् एके । वल्लूरं मांसं संशोष्य चिरस्थापितम् । नखैर् विकीर्य भक्षयन्ति ते नखविष्किराः । मयूरबलाकादयः । “आपत्सु” (म्ध् ११.२८) इति वचनात् तु तेषां पाक्षिकी भक्ष्याप्य् अस्ति । स हि पठति “कुक्कुटो विकिराणाम्” (आप्ध् १.१७.३२) इति । न चास्य मानवस्य वचनस्य कुक्कुटोपसंहारः शक्यो वक्तुं कुक्कुटनामग्रहणस्यानर्थकप्रसङ्गात् ॥ ५.१३ ॥

Those that feed by ‘striking’—piercing—^(‘)with their beaks.’ Such is the nature of these birds. The Śatapatra and other birds belong to this class.

‘Web-footed’—The Āti and the rest. That there is an option in regard to this has already been pointed out above (Bhāṣya on 12.)

“Wherever there is an option, it depends upon the man’s wish which of the two options he will adopt: and as a matter of fact, it is only an unforbidden course that can be so adopted. The act of eating is an ordinary temporal act, possible only when there is a desire on the part of the man (to do it); it is not a spiritual act, which would have to be done in any case. So that we do not see any useful purpose that could be secured by an optional prohibition.”

Our answer to this is that this has already been answered.

“But what has been said may be all right in regard to cases where (as in the Veda) the comprehension of the meaning depends entirely upon the words of the text, and there is no intention (of any author) behind them (to indicate their true purport). The present treatise however is the work of a human author, having been composed by him with great care and labour. for the purpose of supplying in brief all the information that was contained in another voluminous work containing a hundred thousand verses; so that no needless word can be used in it. In fact it is for this reason (of his not using a single superfluous word) that the author comes to be regarded as a ‘Teacher’. It is not that there is no prohibition of all web-footed birds in general, in which case alone the prohibition of a particular web-footed bird, the Haṃsa, could be justified. Since the present verse also is a Smṛti-text (and it forbids all web-footed birds in general). Some people have held that the term ‘jālapāda’ (web-footed bird) in the present verse is a wrong reading”.

We have already explained that the intention of the Teacher is undersood with the help of gestures, actions and the spinning out of long explanations; and in the present case particular details are also inferred. What was meant to be said was that ‘one shall not eat web-footed birds in normal times’; but the author has propounded the prohibition in the wider form, with it view to justifying both prohibitions (of web-footed birds in general, and of the Haṃsa in particular).

‘Sūnā’ ‘Slaughter house’, is that place where animals are killed for the purpose of selling their flesh. Others explain it as ‘meat-market’.

‘Dried meat’, ‘Vallura’, is Mesh dried and kept for several days.

‘Nakhuviṣkira’ are those birds that scratch with their nails;—e.g. the Peacock, the Cock &c.

These birds are partly ‘fit to be eaten’ also, in view of the assertion that these may be eaten ‘in abnormal times;’ specially in view of what another Smṛti-writer has said regarding ‘the Cock among birds’ (being eatable). But the present text of Manu cannot be regarded as referring to the Cock; as in that case the separate mention of the ‘Cock’ would be useless.—(13)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 540), which adds the following notes:—‘pratudāḥ’ are the birds that strike with the peak and then eat;—‘jālapāda’ is the web-footed bird, e.g. the cāṣa and the like;—‘koyaṣṭi’ is a species of wild birds;—‘nakhaviṣkira’ is the bird that scratches out food with its nails;—‘nimajjya matsyādān’ are those birds that catch fish by diving under water; e.g. the aquatic crow and the like;—‘sūnā’ is the slaughter-house, and ‘sauna’ is that which is got from there;—‘vallūra’ is dry fish.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 583).

Gautama. (17.35).—‘The peckers, the scratchers and birds that are not web-footed may be eaten.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.18).—(See above.)

Viṣṇu (51.27).—‘On eating unrecognised meat, or meat from the slaughter-house or dry flesh, one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa.

Yājñavalkya (1.172, 174, 175).—(See above,—and also) ‘Chāṣas, red-footed birds, meat from the slaughter-house and dry flesh,—on eating these; intentionally one should go without food for three days.’

013 Those which feed striking with their beaks, web-footed birds, the Koyashti, those which scratch with their toes, those which dive and live on fish, meat from a slaughter-house and dried meat,

The Baka, the Balākā, the Kākola, the Khañjarīṭa, the fish-eaters, and village pigs; as also fish always.—(14)

बकबलाकाकाकोलादीनां³⁷ मत्स्यादग्रणात् सिद्धे प्रतिषेधे तदन्येषां विकल्पार्थं पुनर्वचनम् । मत्स्यादा अपक्षिणो ऽपि मत्स्यादग्रहणाद् अभक्ष्या विज्ञेयाः नक्रादयः, क्रियानिमित्तत्वान् मत्स्यादशब्दस्य । काकोलश् च श्येनो देशान्तरप्रसिद्धेः, अयं बाह्लीकेष्व् एवम् उच्यत इति प्रसिद्धम् । विड्वराहप्रतिषेधाच् चारण्याभ्यनुज्ञा³⁸ ग्रामवासिप्रतिषेधश् च³⁹ पूर्वसूत्रे प्रकरणाच् छकुनिविशेषणार्थो विज्ञेयः । एवं हि चेह विड्वराहग्रहणम् अर्थवद् भवति । ग्रामवासी शूकरो विड्वराहः ।

• ननु च यदि तत्र प्रकरणाद् ग्रामवासिनः⁴⁰ पक्षिणो गृह्यन्ते, इहापि मत्स्यादाः पक्षिण एव ग्रहीतुं न्याय्याः ।

• नैवम् । न चात्र शकुनीनां प्रकरणम् अस्ति विड्वराहमत्स्यानाम् अपक्षिणाम्⁴¹ अपि निर्देशार्थम् ।

• सर्वशः सर्वदा । उत्सर्गो ऽयम् । अस्यापवादं वक्ष्यामः ॥ ५.१४ ॥

The prohibition of the ‘Baku, Balākā and Kākola’ being already included under that of ‘fish-eaters’, these have been mentioned separately in order to indicate that the eating of the other fish-eating birds is optional.

‘Fish-eaters’.—Animals other than birds also, which eat fish, are to be regarded as ‘unfit to be eaten’; such animals, for instance, as the alligator and the like; that this is what is meant, is clear from the fact that the name ‘fish-eater’ is to be applied in its literal sense.

Kākola is the same as the Kite, such being its name in foreign lands; for instance, it is known by this name in the Bāhlīka country.

The prohibition of the ‘village-pig’ implies the permission to eat the wild pig. The prohibition of those ‘living in villages’ in the preceding verse (11) should be taken, on the strength of the context, us referring to birds only. It is only thus that there would be any point in the mention of the ‘village-pig’ in the present verse. The pig that lives in villages is called ‘viḍvarāha’, ‘village-pig.’

“If in verse 11, ‘those living in villages’ are to be taken, on the strength of the context, as birds only, then the term ‘fish-eaters’ in the present verse also should be taken as referring to birds only.”

Not so; because the present context is not restricted to birds only; since it mentions also non-birds, such as the ‘village pig’ and‘fish.’

‘Sarvaśaḥ,’— always.

This is a general rule; its exceptions we shall explain later on.—(14).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 343), which adds the following notes:—The ‘vaka’ and the ‘balākā are well known birds ;—kākola is the Droṇakāka;—‘khānjarīṭa’ is the khañjana;—‘matsyādāḥ’ are the alligator and the like;—the prohibition of the ‘viḍvarāha’ implies the sanction of the wild boar.—‘ṣarvaśaḥ’ means in every way’;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 583).

Gautama (17.29, 34). (See under 12, and).—‘Carnivorous birds (should be avoided).’

Baudhāyana (1.12-3, 8).—‘Nor tame cocks and pigs;—five kinds of scratching birds—partridge, blue rock-pigeon, francoline partridge, Vārdhrīṇasa crane, the peacock (may be eaten).’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.48(?)).—(See above, under 12.)

Viṣṇu (51.21.29). (See under 11, and)—‘On eating fish other than the Pāṭhīna, the Rohita, the Rājīva, Siṃhatuṇḍa and Śakula, one should fast for three davs.’

Yājñavalkya (1.173-175).—(See above under 12 and 13.)

014 The Baka and the Balaka crane, the raven, the Khangaritaka, (animals) that eat fish, village-pigs, and all kinds of fishes.

He who eats the flesh of an animal, is called the ‘eater of its flesh’; he who eats fish is the ‘eater of all kinds of flesh’; hence one shall avoid fish.—(15).

पूर्वस्य मत्स्यप्रतिषेधविधेर् अर्थवादो ऽयम् । यत्संबन्धिमांसं यो ऽश्नाति स तन्मांससंबन्धिन्याशनक्रियया व्यपदिश्यते । यथा सर्पादो नकुलः, मार्जारो मूषकाद इत्यादि । यस् तु मत्स्यादः स सर्वमांसाशी भवति । गोमांसाद⁴² इत्य् अपि व्यपदेष्टुं युक्तः । अतो निन्दातिशयान् मत्स्यान् विवर्जयेत् ॥ ५.१५ ॥

This is a commendatory supplement to the foregoing prohibition of fish.

When one eats the flesh of an animal, he comes to be described as connected with the act of eating that animal; e.g., the mungoose is called ‘serpent-eater’, the cat ‘rat-eater’ and so forth. He who eats fish eats all kinds of flesh; it would be right to speak of him as a ‘beef-eater’ also.

Hence, by reason of the possibility of this calumny, one should avoid fish.—(15).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 546), which adds that this is an arthavāda to the prohibition of eating fish that has gone before in the preceding verse;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 448);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 299).

**(verses 5.15-16)
**

Āpastamba (1.17.38-39).—‘Among fish, the Ceṭa should not be eaten;—nor the snake-headed fish or the alligator, or those that live on flesh only, nor those mis-shaped like the Mermen.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 546).—(Same as Manu, and also)—‘The following arc unfit for eating—the alligator, serpent,

leech, Madgu, peacock-shaped aquatic animal, small snake-like fish, crocodile, water-hen, and those fish that have ears like the horses, or without scales, or having mouths at both ends.—The student of Veda should avoid all scaleless fish.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 546).—‘The Kulīra, Vārtāka, Pattana, Jalānarta and Kṣipraga are unfit for eating. Fish with scales are eatable; others are uneatable, so also the snakeheaded fish and fish with mis-shaped mouth.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.41, 42).—‘Among fish, the long-nosed crocodile, the Gavaya, the porpoise, the alligator, the crab, should not he eaten, nor those that are mis-shaped or snakeheaded.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 547).—‘Among aquatic animals, Shambu, Śukti, Nakhaśukti, alligator, flying-fish and misshaped fish should not be eaten.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘Fish that are not mis-shaped (may be eaten).’

Yājñavalkya (1.177-178).—‘Among fish the following may be eaten by the twice-born,—Siṃhatuṇḍa, Rohita, Pāṭhīna and those with scales.’

Gautama (17.36-37).—‘Fish that are not mis-shaped and animals that are slain for the fulfilment of the sacred law.’

Bodhāyana. (1.12-8).—(See under 14)

Viṣṇu (51-21).—(See under 14.)

015 He who eats the flesh of any (animal) is called the eater of the flesh of that (particular creature), he who eats fish is an eater of every (kind of) flesh; let him therefore avoid fish.

The ‘Pāṭhīna’ and the ‘Rohita’ are fit to be eaten when used as offerings to gods or Pitṛs; the ‘Rājīva’, the ‘Siṃhatuṇḍa’ and the ‘Saśalka,’ (one may eaṭ) on all occasions—(16)

पाठीनरोहितौ मत्स्यजातिविशेषौ तयोर् हव्यकव्यनियोगेन श्राद्धादौ भक्ष्यताभ्यनुज्ञायते, नान्वाहिके भोजने । राजीवसिंहतुण्डसशल्कानां सर्वशः हव्यकव्याभ्याम् अन्यत्राप्य् अनिवृत्तिर् भोजने । राजीवाः पद्मवर्णाः कैश्चिद् इष्यन्ते । अपरैस् तु राजयो रेखा⁴³ येषां सन्ति । सिंहतुण्डाह् सिंहकृतिमुखाः । सशल्काः शकलिनः ॥ ५.१६ ॥

‘Pāṭhīna’ and ‘Rohita’—two particulars kinds of fish-having been mentioned as fit to be offered to Gods and to Pitṛs, the eating of these is permitted on the occasion of the performance of Śrāddha and other rites; and not in the course of ordinary daily food. As for the Rājīva, the ‘Siṃhatuṇḍa’ and the ‘Saśalka’ fish on the other hand, these are to be eaten ‘on all occasions’; i.e. they may be eaten also on occasions other than the offerings to Gods and to Pitṛs.

‘Rājīva’ some people regard this as standing for lotus-coloured fish. Others explain it as standing for those fish that are marked by lines.

‘Siṃhatuṇḍa,’—those having a lion-like face.

‘Saśalka’—is the same as the fish called ‘Shakalin.’—(16).

Medhātithi and Govindarāja explain the meaning to be that “The Pāṭhīna and the Rohita are to be eaten only when offered to the gods or Pitṛs, and not ordinarily, while those enumerated in the second half are to be eaten ‘sarvasaḥ’ at all times.”—Kullūka objects to this explanation on the following grounds:—There is no authority for the view that the two kinds of fish are to be offered at Śrāddhas, eaten only by the person invited at it, not by the performer of the Śrāddha or other persons, while the other kinds are to be eaten by others also;—in fact all other authorities have placed all those mentioned here on the same footing. Kullūka’s own explanation is as follows:—‘The Pāṭhīna and the Rohita should be eaten, as also the Rājīva and the rest’;—and the phrase ‘niyuktau havyakavyoḥ’ he takes as standing by itself, in the sense that ‘all things that are forbidden may be eaten, when one is threatened with starvation, after they have been offered to the gods and Pitṛs.’

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.178), which goes one farther than Medhātithi, and adds that those enumerated in the second line also are to be eaten only when offered at Śrāddhas and sacrifices;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 547), which adds the following notes:—‘ādyau’ means ‘are to be eaten’—when they are ‘niyuktau’—i.e., used for the purpose of Śrāddha and other offerings;—‘Pāṭhīna’ is that which is also called ‘Chandraka,’ ‘Rājīva’ is red-coloured, ‘Siṃhatuṇḍa,’ is that which has its mouth like the lion’s, ‘Saśalka’ are fish covered with shell-like skin.

It is quoted in Smṛtattva (p. 449);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 577);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 300), which explains ‘niyuktau,’ as employed for Śrāddha and other purposes, and ‘ādyau’ as ‘may be eaten,’ ‘rājīva’ as red-coloured.

**(verses 5.15-16)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.15].

016 (But the fish called) Pathina and (that called) Rohita may be eaten, if used for offerings to the gods or to the manes; (one may eat) likewise Ragivas, Simhatundas, and Sasalkas on all (occasions).

He shall not eat solitary animals, nor unknown beasts and birds, even though indicated among those fit to be eaten; nor any five-nailed animals.—(17).

एकचराः सर्पोलूकादय एकाकिनश् चरन्ति । अज्ञातान् नामतो जातिविशेषतश् च । मृगद्विजान् । मृगाः पक्षिणश् च न भक्ष्याः । भक्ष्येष्व् अपि समुद्दिष्टान् । ये प्रतिषिद्धास् ते ताद्रूप्ये असति भक्ष्यतां प्राप्ताः समुद्दिष्टा इव भवन्ति । न तु भक्ष्याणां समुद्देशो ऽस्ति । परिहर्तव्यतया विशेषतो ऽविज्ञाता भक्ष्य्पक्षपतिता⁴⁴ भक्ष्येष्व् अपि समुद्दिष्टा इत्य् एवम् उच्यन्ते । पञ्चनखाश् च वानरशृगालादयः । सर्वग्रहणं पादपूरणार्थम् ॥ ५.१७ ॥

‘Solitary’—those animals that move about singly (not in herds); such as serpents, owls and the like.

‘Unknown’—as regards name and kind.

‘Beasts and birds;’—neither beasts nor birds are fit to be taken.

‘Even though indicated among those fit to be eaten’—Those that are not actually forbidden are, to that extent, regarded as fit to be eaten; and hence indirectly ‘indicated’ as such. In reality, there is no direct indication of those fit to be eaten. Those that are not specially recognised as to be avoided come to be regarded as fit to be eaten; and these are spoken of as ‘indicated as fit to be eaten’.

‘Fire-nailed animals:’—e.g. the Monkey, the Jackal and the like.

‘Any’—has been added for filling up the metre.—(17)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 544), which adds the following notes:—‘Ekacara’ are those animals which, as a rule, roam about alone, such for instance as serpents;—‘ajñātāḥ’—whose name and species are unknown, i.e., one should not eat unknown animals which, though not falling under any species either generally or specifically prohibited, are understood by implication to be included under those that are permitted;—nor should one eat any five-nailed animals, with the exception of the śaśaka and the rest (enumerated in the next verse).

**(verses 5.17-18)
**

Gautama (17-27).—‘Five-nailed animals should not be eaten, excepting the hedge-hog, the hare, the porcupine, the iguana, the rhinoceros and the tortoise.’

Baudhāyana (1.12-5).—‘Five five-nailed animals may be eaten—viz., the porcupine, the iguana, the hare, the hedge-hog, the tortoise and the rhinoceros, except (perhaps) the rhinoceros.’

Āpastamba (1.17-37).—‘Five-nailed animals should not be eaten, excepting the iguana, the tortoise, the porcupine, the rhinoceros, the hare and the Putīkaśa.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.39, 40, 44, 47).—‘Among five-nailed animals, the porcupine, the hedge-hog, the hare, the tortoise and the iguana may he eaten; among domestic animals, those having only one row of teeth, except the camel; those not mentioned as fit for eating should not be eaten; regarding the wild boar and the rhinoceros, there are conflicting opinions.’

Viṣṇu (51.6, 26, 27).—‘On eating the flesh of five-nailed animals,—except the hare, the porcupine, the hedge-hog, the rhinoceros and the tortoise,—one should fast seven days; on eating the flesh of the ass, the camel and the crow, one should perform the Cāndrāyana,—also on eating unknown flesh, or flesh from the slaughter-house, or dried flesh.’

Yājñavalkya (1.174, 177).—‘Unknown animals and birds, flesh from the slaughter-house and dried flesh (should not be eaten). Among five-nailed animals, the following may be eaten: the porcupine, the hedge-hog, the alligator, the tortoise and the have.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 543).—‘Among animals, the following should not be eaten: the cow, the camel, the ass, the horse, the elephant, the lion, the leopard, the bear, the Śarubha, serpents and boa constrictors, the rat, the mouse, the cat, the mongoose, the village-hog, the dog, the jackal, the tiger, the black-faced monkey, the man and the monkey.’

017 Let him not eat solitary or unknown beasts and birds, though they may fall under (the categories of) eatable (creatures), nor any five-toed (animals).

Among five-nailed animals they declare the porcupine, the hedge-hog, the alligator, the rhinoceros, the tortoise and the hare, as fit to be eaten; as also all animals having one line of teeth. except the camel.—(18)

पञ्चनखानां मध्याच् छ्वाविधादयो⁴⁵ भक्ष्याः । स्मृत्यन्तरे तु खड्गे विकल्पः । तथा च वसिष्ठः- “खड्गे तु विवदन्ते” इति (वध् १४.४७) । उष्ट्रवर्जिता एकतोदतो गोऽव्यजमृगा भक्ष्याः ।

• ननु च श्वावित्प्रभृतीनां पञ्चनखानां भक्ष्यत्ववचनाद् अन्येषाम् अभक्ष्यतासिद्धेः “सर्वान् पञ्चनखान्” (म्ध् ५.१७) इति प्रतिषेधवचनम् अनर्थकम् ।

• नैष दोषः । सर्वशब्देन प्रतिषेधे स्पष्टा प्रतिपत्तिर् भवति । भक्ष्यविशेषनिर्देशेन तदन्येषां या अभक्ष्यताप्रतिपत्तिः सा आनुमानिकी प्रतिपत्तिः । गौरवं हि तथा स्यात् ॥ ५.१८ ॥

Among five-nailed animals, the Porcupine and the rest are fit to be eaten.

In another Smṛti, there is option regarding the Rhinoceros. Says Vaśiṣṭha (14-4?)—‘They dispute about the rhinoceros.’

With the exception of the camel, all those animals are fit to be eaten which have only one line of teeth: for instance, the cow, the gout and the deer.

“In as much as the present verse specifies the porcupine &c. as alone fit to be eaten, among five-nailed animals,—it follows that all the other five-nailed animals are unfit to be eaten; so that the prohibition of ‘all five-nailed animals’ becomes entirely superfluous.”

There is nothing wrong in this. When the prohibition is stated in so many words, our comprehension of it is direct; if on the other hand, we were to derive our knowledge of what should not be eaten from the specification of what should be eaten, our comprehension of the prohibition would be only inferential, indirect; and this would he a complicated process.—(18).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.177);—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 545), which explains ‘ekatodataḥ’ as ‘those that have only one line of teeth’;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 299).

**(verses 5.17-18)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.17].

018 The porcupine, the hedgehog, the iguana, the rhinoceros, the tortoise, and the hare they declare to be eatable; likewise those (domestic animals) that have teeth in one jaw only, excepting camels.

The mushroom, the village-pig, garlic, the village-cock, onions and leeks,—the twice-born man eating these intentionally would become an ou tcast.—(19).

छत्राकं कवकानि । विड्वराहः ग्रामशूकरः स्वतन्त्रविहरः । एतानि भक्षयित्वा पतितो भवेत् । पतितप्रायश्चित्तं कुर्यात् । वक्ष्यति च “गर्हितान्नाद्ययोर् जग्धिः सुरापानसमानि षट्” (म्ध् ११.५५) ॥ ५.१९ ॥

‘Chatraka’ is the same as karaka, the mushroom.

‘Viḍvarāha’ is the village-pig, which wanders about unchecked.

By eating these the man becomes an outcast. That is, he should perform the Expiatory Rites prescribed for outcasts. It will be asserted later on (11.56)—‘The eating of forbidden food is like the drinking of wine.’—(19)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1157), which notes that the intentional eating of these things make the twice-born person an ‘outcast,’ i.e., disqualifies him from all that is done by twice-born persons, and the expiation for this would be the same as that prescribed for wine-drinking.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.176), which says that this refers to intentional and repeated eating of the things; also on 3.229;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 317), as referring to intentional eating;—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 825) to the effect that the intentional eating of forbidden things is equal to wine-drinking; and again on p. 927, to the effect that it is intentional and repeated eating that is equal to wine-drinking and hence makes one outcast, while by intentionally eating these only once, one only becomes liable to the performance of the Cāndrāyaṇa.

Gautama (23.5).—‘(Expiation is to be performed) for the eating of tame cocks or tame pigs.’

Viṣṇu (51.3-4).—‘If the twice-born eat of the following—garlic, onion, tame pig, tame cock,—he should perform expiations and should go through the sacraments over again.’

Yājñavalkya (1.176).—‘Onion, tame pig, mushroom, tame cock, garlic, and leeks,—on eating these one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa.’

Parāśara (2.9-10).—‘Milk of newly calved cow, white garlic, brinjals, leeks, onion, exudation from trees, the property of gods, mushrooms, milk of the camel, milk of sheep,—if the twice-born eats these unintentionally, he becomes purified by fasting for three days and eating Pañcagavya.’

019 A twice-born man who knowingly eats mushrooms, a village-pig, garlic, a village-cock, onions, or leeks, will become an outcast.

Having eaten these unintentionally, he should perform the ‘Kṛcchra Sāntapana’, or the ‘Yati-Cāndrāyaṇa’; and in the case of the rest one should fast for a day.—(20)

अमत्या अबुद्धिपूर्वं षट् जग्ध्वा षण्णाम् अन्यतमम् अपि । भक्षणस्य अविधेयत्वनिमित्ततया साहित्यस्याविवक्षा । शेषेषु अभक्ष्येषु भक्षणे लोहितवृक्षनिर्यासादिषु एकम् अहोरात्रं न भुञ्जीत । अहःशब्दो रात्राव् अपि दृष्टप्रयोगः । “अहश् च कृष्णम् अहर् अर्जुनं च” (र्व् ६.९.१) इति । येषु चात्र प्रकरणे प्रतिषिद्धेषु प्रायश्चित्ताधिकारे प्रतिपदं प्रायश्चित्तम् अन्यद् वक्ष्यते “क्रव्यादसूकर” (म्ध् ११.१५५) इत्यादि तत्र तद् एव द्रष्टव्यं प्रतिपदविहितत्वात्, अस्य चोपवासस्यान्यत्र चरितार्थत्वात् ॥ ५.२० ॥

‘Unintentionally’—unwillingly,—^(‘)having eaten these’—any one of the six just mentioned that it is any one that is meant, and not all together, is indicated by the fact that the act of eating in this case is nor. what is actually enjoined.

^(‘)In the case of the rest’—i.e. in the case of eating the other things—‘red exudations from trees’ and other things forbidden above,—one should desist from eating ‘for a day’;—the term^(‘)day’ is used as including the night also; e.g. in such passages as^(‘)the day is dark, the day is bright’ —(Ṛgveda 6.9.1.)

In connection with the eating of some of the things here forbidden, the text is going to prescribe in the section on Expiatory

Rites (Discourse 11) distinct expiatory rites:—e.g., in connection with^(‘)carnivorous animals, pig etc.’ (11.156); and in this case those are the Rites to be performed; since they have been directly enjoined in so man words; specially as the single ‘day’s fast’ here prescribed will have its application only in cases other than those especially provided for.—(20)

Cf. 11.155, 213 and 219.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (pp. 927 and 825) as laying down the expiation for the unintentional eating of the things;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 317) to the same effect, with the additional note that the ‘Sāntapana’ meant here must he that which extends over seven days.—The last quarter is quoted twice in Mitākṣarā on 3.290, to the effect that if one eats forbidden things other than those here mentioned only once, and that unintentionally, he has got only to fast for the day;—under 1.175 to the effect that the eating of the forbidden birds unintentionally makes one liable to fasting for the day;—and the first three quarters on 1.176, where it is pointed out that it refers to unintentional and repeated eating of the things;—also on 3.229 as laying down the expiation for unintentional eating.

It is also quoted in Aparārka (p. 1157), to the effect that by unintentionally eating the things enumerated repeatedly one becomes liable to the Yati-cāndrāyaṇa, and by eating other forbidden things to fasting during the day.

**(verses 5.20-21)
**

Yajñavalkya (1.176).—(See-above.)

Parāśara (2.9-10).—(See above.)

Śātātapa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 318).—‘Garlic, leek, onion, black brinjal, mushroom, tame pig, fame; cock, milk of camel, woman or ass,- on eating these one should undergo the Upanayana again and perform the ‘taptakṛcchra repeatedly.’

Viṣṇu (Parāśaramādhava, p. 319).—‘On eating the flesh of dogs, and on eating mushrooms, one should perform the Sāntapana; on eating substances cooked overnight,—except preparations of barley or wheat or milk, or what is smeared with oils, or dry sugar-candy—one should fast. Substances growing out of incisions or unclean things, the red exudation from trees, needlessly cooked rice-sesamum,… on eating these one should fast for three days and should stand in water for one day.’

020 He who unwittingly partakes of (any of) these six, shall perform a Samtapana (Krikkhra) or the lunar penance (Kandrayana) of ascetics; in case (he who has eaten) any other (kind of forbidden food) he shall fast for one day (and a night ).

Once a year the Brāhmaṇa shall perform the ‘Kṛcchra’ penance, in order to atone for unintentional eating; but for intentional eating, special ones.—(21).

भोज्यशूद्रगृहभोजिनो ब्राह्मणस्येदम् उच्यते । यस्य शूद्रस्य गृहे यानि ब्राह्मणानाम् अभोज्यान्य् अन्नानि संभवन्ति, न दूरतः परिह्रियन्ते, तादृशस्य गृहे यो ब्राह्मणो ऽन्नं भुङ्क्ते तस्य प्रतिषिद्धान्नभोजनाशङ्कायां प्राजापत्यकृच्छ्रचरणम् उपदिश्यते । अविशेषनोदनायां प्राजापत्यं कृच्छ्रं प्रतीयत इति वक्ष्यामः ।

• अज्ञातभुक्तशुद्ध्यर्थम् अज्ञातदोषशङ्कायाम् आह । दोषो यदि भुङ्क्ते तस्य शुद्ध्यर्थम् ।

• ननु च ईदृशस्य शुद्धिं वक्ष्यति- “अदृष्टम् अद्भिर् निर्णिक्तम्” इति (म्ध् ५.१२५) । तस्य विषयं तत्रैव दर्शयिष्यामः ।

• ज्ञातस्य तु दोषस्य विशेषतः वैशेषिकं प्रायश्चित्तं कर्तव्यम्, यस्य यद् विहितं प्रतिपदम् ॥ ५.२१ ॥

This refers to the Brāhmaṇa who is in the habit of eating at the house of those Śūdra whose food he is permitted to eat.

It is possible that at the house of a Śūdra, there may he some articles of food that are not fit to be eaten by the Brāhmaṇa, which can not always be avoided; if the Brāhmaṇa eats at the house of such a Śūdra, there is always a fear of his having partaken of some forbidden food; hence for him it is laid down that he should perforin the ‘Prājāpatya Kṛcchra’. In all bases where the precise form of the ‘kṛcchra’ is not laid down, it should be understood to be the^(‘)Prājāpatya’ kṛcchra as we shall explain later on.

^(‘)In order to atone for unintentional eating’:—i.e., in the event of there being suspicion of his having unwillingly partaken of forbidden food; that is, for the expiating of the sin incurred, in the event of his having eaten forbidden food.

“But the expiation for this is going to be prescribed later on, under 5.I27.”

What that means and refers to we shall explain in connection with that verse.

For the art committed intentionally, special rites should be performed; i.e. that expiatory rite which has been prescribed in many words in connection with a particular case—(21).

Cf. 11. 212.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.290) as laying down the expiation for cases of suspected eating of forbidden things;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 340).

**(verses 5.20-21)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.20].

021 Once a year a Brahmana must perform a Krikkhra penance, in order to atone for unintentionally eating (forbidden food) but for intentionally (eating forbidden food he must perform the penances prescribed) specially.

The commended beasts and birds may be killed by Brāhmaṇas for the purpose of sacrifice, and for the purpose of feeding their dependents; as Agastya did this of old.—(22).

भक्ष्यप्रसङ्गेन हिंसाभ्यनुज्ञायते । अत्यर्थं क्षुत्पीषायां भृत्यादेर् भोजनान्तरासंभवे भक्ष्यमृगपक्षिवधः कर्तव्यः । भृत्याः प्राग् व्याख्याताः । अगस्त्यस् तथाकृतवान् इत्य् अगस्त्यग्रहणं प्रशंसार्थम् । यज्ञार्थम् इत्याद्यो ऽर्धश्लोको ऽर्थवाद एव । तत्र हि वधः प्रत्यक्षश्रुतिविहितत्वाद् एव सिद्धः । प्रशस्ता ये भक्ष्यतयानुज्ञाताः । एष एवार्थ उत्तरश्लोके विस्तरतः कर्मार्थवादतया कथ्यते ॥ ५.२२ ॥

In connection with food fit to be eaten, the Text proceeds to sanction the act of killing.

If one’s dependents are very much pressed by hunger, and no other food can be found, then one may kill such birds and beasts as are fit to be eaten. The exact meaning of the term ‘dependent’ has been explained before (as standing for parents, wife etc.)

The mention of Agastya—that Agastya did the act—is only by way of recommendation.

The first half of the verse is purely commendatory; because the act of killing in connection with sarcifices is directly enjoined by the Vedic injunctions themselves (and as such does not stand in need of any sanction from the present text).

‘Commanded’—i.e., permitted as lit to be eaten.

This same thing is slated in the next verse in greater detail, as bearing upon the recommendation of certain acts.—(22).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.179) to the effect that just as there is nothing wrong in the eating of meat which is the remnant of sacrificial and Śrāddha offerings, so also there is none in eating that which is left after the dependents have been fed.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 537), which adds that animals are to he killed for feeding one’s dependents, only when there is no other means of feeding them; and this implies also that there is no harm in one’s eating the meat himself that is left after the feeding of dependents;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 301).

**(verses 5.22-23)
**

Vaśiṣṭha (4.5-8).—‘The Mānava text states:—“Only when he worships Pitṛs and gods or honours guests, he may certainly slay animals: on offering the honey-mixture to guests, and at rites in honour of Pitṛs and gods and at a sacrifice,—on these occasions only may an animal be slain.” The slaughter of animals at sacrifices is no slaughter. One may cook a big ox or a big goat for a Brāhmaṇa or Kṣatriya guest.’

Vaśiṣṭha (14.15).—‘It is declared in the Veda:—“At a sacrificial session which lasted one thousand years, Agastya went out to hunt; he had sacrificial cakes prepared with the meat of beasts and fowls good to eat.”’

Yājñavalkya (Do.).—‘One who kills animals against the law, dwells in terrible hell for as many years as there are hairs on the body of the animal.’

Yama and Paiṭhānaṣi (Do.).—‘One should not kill any animal for his own sake; if he cooks it for the sake of gods and Brāhmaṇas, he incurs no sin,’

022 Beasts and birds recommended (for consumption) may be slain by Brahmanas for sacrifices, and in order to feed those whom they are bound to maintain; for Agastya did this of old.

In ancient times, at sacrifices performed by the sages, as also at sacrifices performed by Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas, the sacrificial cakes were made of eatable beasts and birds.—(23)

षट्विंशत्संवत्सरं नाम सत्रम् । तत्र मृगपक्षिवध आम्नातः । सो ऽनेनानूद्यते । इदं तत्र ब्राह्मणम्- “संस्थिते ऽहनि गृहपतिर् मृगयां याति स तत्र यान् यान् मृगान् हन्ति तेषां तरसाः पुरोषाशा भवन्ति” (आप्श् २३.११.१२–१३) । अर्थवादत्वाद् बभूवुर् इति भूतप्रत्यये न विवक्षा । तेनाद्यत्वे ऽपि भवन्ति । एवं पुराणेष्व् अपि । न केवलं कश्चिद् अद्यत्वे सत्राणां व्यवहार इति दर्शनाभिप्रायम् एतत् पुराणेष्व् इति । न पुनर् अद्यत्वे यदि केचित् सर्वाण्य् एव हरेयुः।⁴⁶ तेषाम् एष विधिर् न भवतीति मन्तव्यम् । अथ वा यः स्वयं शास्त्रार्थं वेदितुम् असमर्थः केवलं परप्रसिद्ध्या “महाजनो येन गतः स पन्थाः” (म्भ् ३. अप्प्। ३२.६८) इति न्यायेन प्रवर्तते, तत्र त्व् एतद् उच्यते- पुराणेष्व् इति । नायम् इदंप्रथमको धर्मः । किं तर्हि, अनादिः । पुराणा⁴⁷ ऋषयो ब्राह्मणाः केचन तपःसिद्धाः, जात्यन्तरं वा । यथा महाभारतादौ वर्णितम् । न चात्र निर्बन्धः कर्तव्यः- “ऋषीणां जात्यन्तरत्वे गन्धर्वादिवत् कथं यागेष्व् अधिकारः” इति । यतो ऽयम् अर्थवादो येन केनचिद् आलम्बनेन प्रतीयते । ब्रह्मक्षत्रसवाः ब्रह्मक्षत्रिययज्ञाः ॥ ५.२३ ॥

The killing of beasts and birds has been prescribed in connection with the sacrifice named ‘Ṣaḍviṃśat-saṃvatsara’ (Twenty-six Years). This is what is referred to in the present verse. The Brāhmaṇa-passage bearing upon the subject is as follows:—‘At the end of the day the master of the house goes out hunting, and out of the flesh of the animals that he kills sacrificial cakes are made’.

In as much as the present verse is purely commendatory, no significance is meant to be attached to the past tense in the term ‘babhūva’, ‘were made’; hence the same thing is done now-a-days also.

The same holds good regarding the term ‘purāṇeṣu’, ‘in ancient times’. This also means that people should not consider that the said sacrificial practice has come into force in recent times only.—Or, the term may be taken to mean that ‘it should not be understood that there is nothing to sanction the practice of killing animals at sacrifices’.—Or, the term may be regarded as added for the benefit of those persons who are incapable of comprehending the meaning of the scriptures themselves, and who regulate their conduct entirely in accordance with the practices of other people, on the principle that ‘the right path is that whereby great men have gone’. The meaning is that ‘this practice is not of recent origin, it is without beginning’.

The ‘ancient sages’ are certain Brāhmaṇas, well-known for their austerities. Or, it may stand for a distinct species of beings; as described in the Mahābhārata and other works. In this connection it is not necessary to press the objection that—“If these sages belong to a distinct species of beings, they are like Gandhar vas and others, and as such, not entitled to the performance of sacrifices.”;—since the passage is a purely commendatory one, and as such, may be understood in any way one chooses.

‘Brahmakṣatriyasava’,—sacrifices performed by Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas.—(23)

Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 537) quotes this verse as Arthavāda to the preceding verse, the meaning being as follows:—‘Inasmuch as in ancient sacrifices performed by sages, edible sacrificial cakes used to be made of animals and birds killed for the purpose, these may be killed by men of the present day also.’ That the sacrificial cake is to be made of the flesh of animals has been laid down in connection with the ‘Thirty-six-year Sacrificial Session’, about which we read that “on the closing day of which, the master of the house goes out a—hunting, and out of the flesh of the animals killed there the Savanīya sacrificial cakes are prepared.”

**(verses 5.22-23)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.22].

023 For in ancient (times) the sacrificial cakes were (made of the flesh) of eatable beasts and birds at the sacrifices offered by Brahmanas and Kshatriyas.

Such Food and eatables as are mixed with oils may be eaten though stale, if unspoilt; so also what may be the remnant of a sacrificial offering.—(24)

भक्ष्यं यत् किंचित् स्नेहसंयुक्तम् । भोज्यम् ओदनादि । भुक्तिभुज्योर् एकार्थत्वे ऽपि पृथगुपादानाद् विषयभेदो ऽयं प्रतीयते । अगर्हितं शुक्तताम् अनापन्नम् । तत् पर्युषितम् अप्य् आद्यम् । रात्र्यन्तरे पर्युषितम् उच्यते । पूर्वेद्युः सिद्धम् अप्य् अपरेद्युः पर्युषितं भवति । स्नेहसंयुक्तम् इति । एवं संदिह्यते । किं यत् स्नेहसंयुक्तं सत् पर्युषितं रसमिश्रशाकादि तत् पर्युषितम् अशितव्यम्, उत शुष्कस्यापि⁴⁸ पर्युषितस्य भक्षणकाले⁴⁹ स्नेहसंयोगः कर्तव्यः । भक्षापूपाद्य् अपि पर्युषितं भोजनकाले स्नेहेन संयोज्य भक्षयितव्यम् इति ।

• अत्र संदिह्यते-⁵⁰ स्नेहयुक्तानां भक्ष्यतोच्यते तत् पर्युषितम् आद्यम् इति । उद्दिश्यमानं स्नेहसंयुक्तम्⁵¹ निपतनं न पुनर् विधेयार्थे । न हि तच्छब्दसंबन्धो ऽस्य श्रुतो यत् पर्युषितं तत्⁵² स्नेहसंयुक्तम् आद्यम् इति ।

• उच्यते । हविःशेषाणां पर्युषितानाम् अस्नेहसंयुक्तानां तेषां वचनम् अनर्थम् । न च तेषां स्नेहसंयुक्तानां परिवासः संभवति । एवं च तेषां वचनम् अर्थवद् भवति यदि भोजनकाले तेषां स्नेहसंयोगो नापेक्ष्यते । अतस् तेषां तावद् भोजनकाल एव स्नेहसंयोगनिरपेक्षतया वचनस्यार्थवत्त्वम् ।

• यद्य् एवं तथापि न संदेहः । अर्थवत्त्वाद् विशेषपदस्य विधेयर्थता स्नेहसंयुक्तशब्दस्य⁵³ न्याय्या ।

• उच्यते । एतावद् अत्र संदेहे बीजम् । यथाश्रुतसंबन्धस्य बलीयस्त्वात् किं हविःशेषपदम् अनुवादो ऽस्तु उतानर्थनकत्वं मा प्रापद् इति यत् पर्युषितं तेन स्नेहसंबन्धः क्रियताम् । तत्रानर्थक्याद् व्यवहितकल्पना ज्यायसी । समाचारान् निर्णयः ।

• सर्पिस्तैलवसामज्जाः स्नेहाः ॥ ५.२४ ॥

‘Whatever food is mixed with oils.’—‘Food’ stands for Rice etc. Though the roots to ‘eat’ and to ‘feed’ are synonymous, yet the two terms ‘food’ and ‘eatables’ have been used with a view to the various articles of food.

‘Unspoilt’—here stands for what has not become sour by keeping.

Such food ‘may b e eaten, though stale’. That is called ‘stale’ which has been kept over night. What is cooked on one day also becomes ‘stale’ the next day.

‘Mixed with oils.’—In regard to this the following question is raised:—

“Does this mean that whatever in the shape of vegetable-juice etc. has been cooked with oils should be eaten even when stale?—Or, that oils are to be mixed up with dry articles of food, at the time that they are going to be eaten stale? According to the latter view stale cakes and sweets also would have to be eaten only after having been mixed with oils.”

There is, it is argued, no room for any such doubt; since what is asserted by the words ‘may be eaten though stale’ is only the eatability of food mixed with oils; so that the epithet ‘mixed with oils’ is part of the Subject, and not of the Predicate. Nor do we find it referred to by the pronoun ‘tat’, ‘that’, by any such form of expression as ‘what is stale, that may be eaten mixed with oils’ (which would make the epithet part of the Predicate).

The answer to this is that there is still some ground for doubt; as (according to the explanation just suggested) there would be no point in the separate mention of the ‘remnants of sacrificial offering’, which are stale and not mixed with oils (the latter being implied by their being mentioned apart from ‘food mixed with oils;’ because there is no chance of these remnants being ‘mixed with oils’ and becoming ‘stale’. Consequently the separate mention of these can have some sense only if in their case it were not considered necessary to mix oils at the time of eating. So that the separate mention of these becomes justified only if, in the case of these Remnants, it be not necessary to mix oils at the time of eating (which is considered necessary in the case of the other articles of food.)

But, even so, there need not be any doubt. For in that case, it would be only right to take the epithet ‘mixed with oils’ as part of the Predicate, for the purpose of justifying the separate mention of the ‘Remnants of sacrificial offerings’. [So that thus also, the meaning would be quite clear, though different from what we had explained before.]

In answer to this it is argued that there is only this ground for doubt that in view of the fact that the direct construction of the words as they stand is always to be preferred to any other roundabout constructions,—would it be right to regard the mention of the ‘sacrificial remnants’ as merely reiterative (and not injunctive) [ in which case it may well be left pointless]? Or that, inorder to guard against the mention being pointless, the words should be construed to mean that whatever is stale should be mixed with oils at the time of eating?

On this point there is no doubt; rather than allow the words of the text to be regarded us pointless, it is far more reasonable to have recourse to the indirect method of construction. The real decision however depends entirely upon usage.

‘Oils.’—This term stands for butter, oil, fat and bone-marrow—(24).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 523);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 452);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 616);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 291).

**(verses 5.24-25)
**

Viṣṇu (51.35).—‘Preparations of barley and wheat mixed with oils, soured substances and sugar-candy—barring these, if one eats anything kept overnight, he should fast.’

Yājñavalkya (1.169).—‘Food kept: overnight, or kept for a long time, may he eaten if mixed with oils: as also preparations of wheat, barley and milk, even without, oils.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 523).—‘Cakes, gruel, fried grains, fried-barley flour, vegetables, meat, curries, rice-sesamum, barley-meal, milk-vice, and things mixed with oils,—all this may he eaten, even though kept overnight; hut substances soured by keeping should he avoided.’

024 All lawful hard or soft food may be eaten, though stale, (after having been) mixed with fatty (substances), and so may the remains of sacrificial viands.

All that is made of barley and wheat, as also all preparations of milk, may be eaten by twice-born men, without being mixed with oils, even though they may have been kept long—(25).

चिरस्थितं द्विरात्राद्यन्तरितम् । अपिशब्दाद् आक्तम् इत्य् अत्रापि संबन्धयितव्यम् । स्नेहाक्तम् अपि यवगोधूमजं सक्त्वपूपादि । पयसो विक्रिया विकारा दहिमथितादयः ॥ ५.२५ ॥

‘Kept long’—i.e., kept for two nights.

The term ‘even though’ implies that those ‘mixed with oils’ are also meant to be included.

Even though unmixed with oils, such things as fried flour and cakes, etc. as are made of barley and wheat.

Also ‘preparations of milk.’—such as curd, skimmed milk and the like.—(25).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 452);—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 523);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 616);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 291).

**(verses 5.24-25)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.24].

025 But all preparations of barley and wheat, as well as preparations of milk, may be eaten by twice-born men without being mixed with fatty (substances), though they may have stood for a long time.

Thus has been described is full what is fit and what unfit to be eaten by twice-born men. Next I am going to explain the rule regarding the eating and avoiding of meat.—(26)

आद्येन श्लोकार्धेन पूर्वप्रकरणम् अवच्छिनत्ति । तद् एतद् अनन्तरम् अनुक्रान्तं प्रकरणम् एतत्⁵⁴ द्विजातीनां न शूद्राणाम् इति, उत्तरं तु यद् वक्ष्यते तच् छूद्राणाम् अपीति प्रकरणव्यवच्छेदप्रयोजनम् ।

• अतश् च मांसभक्षणे प्रकारो वक्ष्यते । यच् च तद्वर्जनेन फलं तच् छूद्रस्यापि भवतीति । अन्यथा “अभक्ष्याणि द्विजातीनाम्” (म्ध् ५.५) इत्य् अधिकाराल् लशुनादिष्व् इव⁵⁵ शूद्रस्य मांसभक्षणे ऽपि कामचारः स्यात् ।

• यद्य् एवं देवाद्यर्चने शिष्टस्य मांसस्य भक्ष्यता वक्ष्यते- “देवान् पितॄंश् चार्चयित्वा खादन् मांसं न दुष्यति” (म्ध् ५.३२) इति । देवाद्यर्चनं मेध्येन मांसेन । ये च द्विजातीनां प्रतिषिद्धा मृगशकुन्तास् ते ऽमेध्याः । अतश् च तेषां मांसेन देवार्चनासंभवाद् अतच्छेषस्याभक्ष्यत्वाद्⁵⁶ अन्ये ऽपि प्रकरणभेदाः, यथा ब्राह्मणादीनां मृगपक्षिणः प्रतिषिद्धाः, ते शूद्रस्यापि प्रकारान्तरेण प्रतिषिद्धा भवन्ति । तत्र प्रकरणभेदेन न किंचिद्⁵⁷ उच्यते । लशुनादिप्रतिषेधः शूद्रस्य न भवति ।

• अस्ति तावत् प्रकरणभेदेन प्रयोजनं लशुनादिप्रतिषेधे शूद्रस्याधिकारो मा भूद् इति । मांसे ऽपि देवाद्यर्चने गृहस्थस्याधिकाराद् अगृहस्थस्य शूद्रस्य यथाकाम्यम् ।

• ननु च पाकयज्ञे शूद्रस्याधिकारतः स्थित एव⁵⁸ । भोजनं गृहस्थानां च विहितम् । न च लशुनादिभिः पाकयज्ञाः क्रियन्ते । ततश् च नापि शूद्रस्य यथाकाम्यं लशुनादयो भक्ष्याः स्युः ।

• को दोषः ।

• द्विजातिग्रहणम् अनर्थकम् ।

• परिहृतम् एतद् अगृहस्थस्य प्रोषितस्य वा कामचारः । न च गृहस्थेन यद् अहुतं तन् न भोक्तव्यम् । “शेषभुग् भवेत्” (म्ध् ३.१०७) इत्य् अस्यायम् अर्थः- अकृतवैश्वदेवक्रियेण न भोक्तव्यम् । तत्र यस्यैव यागसाधनता द्रव्यस्य तद् एव मेध्यं होतव्यम् । अन्ये तु भोजनकाले कुतश्चिद् आहृत्य मध्यगेहे वा भुज्यते । तच् चाहुतशेषम्⁵⁹ अपि न प्रतिषिद्धम् । मांसे तु पुनर्वचनान् नियमः- न कदाचिद् देवानुपयुक्तं भोज्यम् इति ।

• यदि चातुर्वर्ण्यस्यात्राधिकारस् तदा यद् वक्ष्यति परस्तात्⁶⁰ शुद्धविधौ “चतुर्णाम् अपि वर्णानाम्” (म्ध् ५.५७) इति तद् अनर्थकम् ।

• तत्रैव तस्य प्रयोजनं वक्ष्यामः ।

• अथ श्वमांसाद्य् अप्य् शूद्रस्य भक्ष्यं प्राप्नोति द्विजातिग्रहणात् पूर्वत्र ।

• किं त्व् एकादशे “विड्वराहखरोष्ट्राणाम्” इत्यादिश्लोकत्रयनिर्दिष्टाः (म्ध् ११.१५३–५५) शूद्रस्यापि न भक्ष्या इति ज्ञापकं दर्शयिष्यामः ॥ ५.२६ ॥

The first half of the verse cuts off the preceding section; and what is implied by this cutting off of the section is that the section that has gone before pertains to the twice-born castes only, not to Śūdras, while what follows applies to Śūdras also. It is for this reason that several methods of eating meat shall be described, and the reward resulting from the giving up of meat-eating shall accrue to the Śūdra also. If this were not so, then, in the matter of eating meat also, the Śūdra would be free to do what he likes; just as he is in regard to the eating of garlic and other things that has been forbidden for ‘twice-born persons’ only, in verses 5 ete. etc. above.

“If it is as you say, then there is the following difficulty:—In verse 32 below, the Text is going to declare the eatability of the meat left from the worship of the Gods:—viz. ‘One does not become contaminated by sin if he eats meat after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitṛs’;—now the ‘worship of the gods’ etc. can be done only with such meaf as is sacred; and those beasts and birds that have been forbidden for twice-born people (in the next section) are not sacred; hence, the worshipping of Gods etc. with the meat of these beasts and birds being impossible,—and what does not form the ‘remnant of worship’ being unfit to be eaten,—these other beasts and birds also, mentioned in a different context, become forbidden for the twice-born people; and the prohibition of these could be made to apply to the Śūdra also by some such other method (of reasoning). So that there is no point in the dividing of the sections (simply for making the prohibitions of the next section applicable to Śūdras also). And as for the prohibition of garlic and such things (that have been forbidden specially for twice-born persons), it is not applicable to Śūdras at all.”

There is this useful purpose served by the dividing of the two sections, that the prohibition of garlic and other things ceases to be applicable to the Śūdra. As regards meat also, in as much as the Householder only is entitled to do the worshipping of Gods, it is a matter purely optional for such Śūdras as are not ‘householders’.

“As a matter of fact, Śūdras also are entitled to the performance of sacrifices with cooked food; the eating of food has also been prescribed for Householders; but no ‘sacrifices with cooked food’ are ever offered with garlic and such other things. So that these things may be eaten, or not, by Śūdras, entirely according to their option.—‘Why’? What would be the harm? In that case the mention of ‘twiceborn persons’ (in connection with the forbidding of garlic, etc.) would have no point at all.’

This has been already answered by the explanation that one who is not a Householder, or who is travelling away from home, may do what he likes. Nor is it necessary that the Householder shall not eat what has not been offered in oblations; the meaning of the declaration ‘one shall live on remnants’ being that ‘he shall not eat until he has made the offering to the Vishedevas.’ Now, that substance alone is ‘sacred’, and can be offered as oblation, which has been prescribed as to be offered at, and thus helping the fulfilment of, a sacrifice. Some people fetch food from somewhere, at the time of eating, and eat it in their own house; and in this case even though the food may not be the ‘remnant of a sacrifice’, it would not be forbidden. As regards meat however, we have the restriction directly imposed, that ‘it shall never be eaten unless it has been offered to the Gods.’

“If this is applicable to all the four castes, then there is no point in what is going to be said (under 5.57) in connection with purifications.”

The use of that we shall explain at that place.

“In view of the mention of twice-born people in the foregoing section, it follows that day’s meat and such things also are fit to be eaten by Śūdras.”

Under Discourse XI we shall show that there are indications to the effect that ‘the village-pig’, the ass, the camel, and other animals mentioned in the three verses (157 etc.) are ‘unfit to be eaten’ for the Śūdra also.—(26).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 526), which adds the following notes:—The rules regarding eating that have gone before are meant for the ‘twice-born’, not for the Śūdra; hence for the latter there is no harm in eating garlic and other things. But, according to Kalpataru, the eating of the crow and such like animals and birds—even though included among those mentioned,—must be considered wrong, even for the Śūdra;—being as they are entirely condemned by all cultured men.—The mention of the ‘twice-born’ in this verse implies that the forthcoming prohibition regarding meat is meant for all the four castes.

**(verses 5.26-27)
**

Yājñavalkya (1.179).—‘When one’s life is in danger, at Śrāddhas, when it has been prepared for Brāhmaṇas, and when it has been offered in the worshipping cf gods and Pitṛs, if one eats meat, one incurs no sin.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 251).—‘Invited at a Śrāddha, if one abandons the meat that is offered, one remains in hell, etc., etc.’

Mahābhārata (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 528).—‘Now listen to the law relating to Kṣatriyas. He incurs no sin if he eats meat obtained by his own valour; all wild animals are such as have been already offered to the gods by Agastya; that is why hunting is an honoured practice; it is for this reason that all royal sages go about hunting, and thereby they incur no sin.’

Viśvāmitra (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 528).—(Same as Yājñavalkya, above.)

Devala (Do.).—‘Eating meat in course of eating the remnants of offerings, one incurs no sin; similarly, if one eats as a medicine, or for saving his life, or by invitation, or at sacrifices.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 529).—‘One may eat consecrated meat once, for the sake of a Brāhmaṇa; also when invited at a rite in honour of gods or Pitṛs.’

Bṛhaspati (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 529).—‘Under the following four circumstances alone should one eat meat—(a) when suffering from an otherwise incurable disease, (b) when duly invited, (a) when the meat has been offered as a libation, and (d) when invited by a Brāhmaṇa. Apart from these one shall never eat meat.’

Hārīta (Do. 530).—‘If one eat needlessly-prepared meat, one should perforin the Kṛcchra. But for the sake of the Brāhmaṇas, he may eat as much as he likes.’

Visṇu (Do.).—(Same as Manu 36.)

026 Thus has the food, allowed and forbidden to twice-born men, been fully described; I will now propound the rules for eating and avoiding meat.

He may eat meat that has been consecrated; also at the wish of Brāhmaṇas; and when invited according to law; and when his life is in danger.—(27)

अग्नीषोमीये पशौ हुतशिष्टं मांसं लक्षणया प्रोक्षितम् उच्यते ।

• ननु प्रोक्षितशब्दो यौगिक उक्षसेचन इत्य् अस्य धातोः प्रक्षालनक्रियानिमित्तकः । तथा च “प्रोक्षणीर् आसादय,” “घृतं प्रोक्षणीयम्” इति, “प्रोक्षणीभिर् उद्वेजिताः स्थ” इति सर्वत्र क्रियायोगात् प्रयुज्यते । यद्य् आसेचनसाधनम्, तत्र कुतो वैदिकसंस्कारनिमित्तकानां स्वसंबन्धे पशुलक्षणाद्वारेण मांसे प्रवर्तते । मुख्यं च शब्दार्थम् अतिक्रम्य किम् इति लक्षणाश्रीयते । अतः प्रक्षालितम् उदकादिना⁶¹ युक्तम् ।

• सत्यम्, यद्य् अत्र वाक्यान्तराण्य् अर्थवादाश् च शेषभूता⁶² न स्युः- “अनुपाकृतमांसानि” (य्ध् १.१७०), “असंस्कृतान् पशून् मन्त्रैः” (म्ध् ५.३६) इति । अतस् तत्पर्यालोचनयायम् एवार्थो ऽवतिष्ठते ।

• यद्य् एवं तत एव सिद्धत्वात् किम् अनेन ।

• केचिद् आहुः अनुवदो ऽयम् । मांसेच्छया भक्षणस्य विधिस् तावद् अयं न भवति क्षुत्प्रतिघातार्थिनो लिप्सया प्रवृत्त्युपपत्तेः । स हि विधिर् उच्यते यः पुरुषस्य दृष्टेन प्रयोजनेन प्रवृत्ताव् असत्यां प्रवृत्त्यवबोधकः- “याविज्जीवम् अग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात्” इति । शास्त्रम् एवात्र प्रमाणम् । यत्र “अस्मिन् कृते इदम् अभिमतम् अभिनिर्वर्तते⁶³, अकृते वायम् अनर्थ आपतति” एवम् अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्याम् अवगम्यते तत्र शास्त्रम् एव मृग्यते । यत्र तु नायम् अन्यतो ऽवगमः⁶⁴ केवलागमैकगोचरः⁶⁵ स विधिर् इति चोच्यते । इह तु भोजने कृते पुष्टिर् उपजायते, यद् दुःखं तन् निवर्तत इति, बाला अपि स्तनपायिनो ऽनुपदिष्टम् अवयन्ति । नियमो ऽपि भवति, तद्रूपानवधारणात् । यदि तावत् प्रोक्षितं च भक्षयेद् एवेति नियमस् तदा कालविशेषावच्छेदाभावाद् आहारविहारकाला अप्य् अवसीदेयुर् अनवरतम् अश्नन्न् एवासीत, अशक्यश् चार्थ उपदिष्टः स्यात् । यथोक्तम् “अश्राद्धभोजी” इति, “यद् अहर् एव प्रत्यवेयात्” इति । महाभाष्यकारेण विधिविशेष एव च नियम उक्तः । असंभवति च विधौ कुतो नियमः । न चान्येन प्रोक्षितम् अन्येन लभ्येत । तस्माद् अयम् अनर्थः । अथ प्रोक्षितम् एवेति अप्रोक्षितं नेति परिसंख्या । न हि प्रोक्षिताप्रोक्षितोभयभक्षणस्य त्यागाद् अशनाया निवृत्तौ युगपत् पर्यायेण वा प्रवृत्त्या परिसंख्यालक्षणस्य विद्यमानत्वात् । तथाप्य् “अनुपाकृतमांसानि” (य्ध् १.१७०) इत्य् एव सिद्धम् ।

• अन्ये त्व् अस्य पक्षस्यैवं दोषम् उपपादयन्ते । अविशेषेण⁶⁶ सर्वाप्रोक्षीतप्रतिषेधे⁶⁷ शकुनीनाम् अपि प्रतिषेधः प्राप्नोति । न च येषाम् एव प्रोक्षणं विहितं तेषां तु प्रतिविधानाद्यभावाद् इति न विशेषपरिग्रहे प्रमाणम् अस्ति ।

• तद् अयुक्तं मन्यन्ते । एवं सति भेदेन शकुनीनां प्रतिषेधानुक्रमेण, गमकत्वात् ।

• तस्माच् छ्रुतकर्माङ्गत्वेन⁶⁸ नियमस्य प्रोक्षितमांसभक्षणस्यायम् अनुवाद इति युक्तं दृष्टान्ततया । यथा यज्ञे ऽवश्यं भक्षणम्, अभक्षणाच् छास्त्रातिक्रमः, एवम् उत्तरेष्व् अपि निमित्तेषु । अनुवादश् चेत् परिसंख्यापेक्षाप्य् अस्तु । गोऽव्यजमांसम् अप्रोक्षितं न⁶⁹ भक्षयेद् इत्य् अननैतद् अनुपाकृतानाम् एवासद्रूपम् अनूद्यते, अप्रोक्षितस्यापि ब्राह्मणकाम्यादिनिमित्तेष्व् अनुज्ञापनार्थः ।

• अन्यच् च “अनर्चितं वृथामांसम् अपि” (म्ध् ४.२१३) चातुर्थिकेन वृथामांसशब्देन एतद् अनुपरिज्ञानार्थम् इतरथा न⁷⁰ विज्ञायेत किं तद् वृथामांसम् इति । अथ वा एकत्र भोक्तुर् उपदेशो ऽन्यत्र कल्पयित्वा येन देवाद्यर्चनं न⁷¹ कृतं तदीयं मांसम् अन्येनाप्य् अतिथ्यादिना न भोक्तव्यम् । अनधिकृतेनापि देवाद्यर्चनेन ह्य् अतिथ्यादयः परगृहे तदीयेन मांसेन देवार्चने ऽधिक्रियते । अथ कल्पयित्वा यदि कृतं तदार्हत्य् अशितुम् । द्वितीयस् तु प्रषेधो “देवान् पितॄन्” (म्ध् ५.३२) इति स्वगृहे ऽधिकृतानाम् अकृतवतां भक्षणाय । यस् तर्हि⁷² “असंस्कृतान् पशून् मन्त्रैः” (म्ध् ५.३६) इति स⁷³ उक्तः प्रोक्षणशब्दार्थः । एवं पञ्चापि निषेधवाक्यानि पृथगर्थानि दर्शितानि ।

• ब्राह्मणानां च काम्यया । काम्या⁷⁴ कामना इच्छा । काम्याशब्दः छान्दसः ।

• यदा ब्राह्मणादीनाम् अप्रोक्षितानाम् इदम् अनुज्ञानम्, तदा किं पुनर् अयं नियमः । अभक्षणे शास्त्रातिक्रमः । उत प्रतिप्रसवमात्रम् । प्रतिप्रसवे भोक्तव्यं विवाहे पुनर् भोक्तव्यम् इति वचनाद् अपि प्रतिषेधाप्रवृत्तिर्⁷⁵ विवाहे गम्यते ।

• न भोजनार्थम् आवश्यकं किं तु ब्राह्मणा यदि गरीयांसस् तदा तद्वचनातिक्रमो न युक्तः ।

• अन्ये तु “क्रीत्वादि"श्लोके (म्ध् ५.३२) ब्राह्मणानाम् इत्य् अनुवर्त्य शशादिमांसस्यापि विधिम् इच्छन्ति । यज्ञविवाहयोर् अन्यत्र च गोष्ठीभोजनादौ यदि ब्राह्मणा अर्थयन्ते तदा तेषां मांसं स्वरूपेण देवौद्देशिकया न प्रतिषिद्धम्, अवस्थाविशेषेण प्रोक्षणम् देवार्चनादीनि कर्तव्यानि । विशेषः प्रतिषिद्धः । तस्य ब्राह्मणकामनानिमित्तत अभ्यनुज्ञाता⁷⁶, न तु⁷⁷ “क्रव्यादान् शकुनान्” इत्यादेः प्रतिषेधस्य⁷⁸ “निवृत्तिस् तु महाफला” (म्ध् ५.११) इति कृतसंकल्पस् तस्याप्य् अनुज्ञानम् इष्यते, प्रोक्षिते ऽप्रोक्षिते च कृतार्चने ऽकृतार्चने वा ।

• यथाविधिनियुक्त तु प्राणानाम् एव चात्यये । मधुपर्के च श्राद्धे च नियुक्तो ऽप्रोक्षणेनापि भक्षयेत् । एष हि यथाशास्त्रं नियोगस् तत्र श्राद्धे नियमा उक्ता एव । “केतितस् तु यथान्यायम्”, “कथंचिद् अप्य् अतिक्रामन्” (म्ध् ३.१८०) इति । श्राद्धं भोक्ष्य इत्य् अभ्युपत्येदम् अहं नाश्नामीति न लभ्यते वक्तुम्, अभक्ष्यम् अशुचिकरं व्याधिजननं च वर्जयित्वा, हविष्यविधानान् न भक्ष्यं यद् यद् रोचते तत् तन् नाप्रीतिकरं दीयते । अत इदं वचनं मधुपर्क एव ।

• ननु मधुपर्के नास्ति नियोगः ।

• अशितव्यं मधुपर्कार्हेणेति⁷⁹ नियमः, नासौ मधुपर्कस्य विधिः । स हि तत्राधिकृतो न धन्यो राजादिः । यथैव “नास्यानश्नन् गृहे वसेत्” (म्ध् ३.९५) इति गृहस्थस्य नियमो दृश्यते । एतेनावगम्यते अमतिके न दातव्यम् इति । यैस् तु कामचार एवं पूजितसमादानेन पूज्यस्याशनेन, न हि तत् तदर्थं कर्म ।

• ननु चातिथ्यम् एवानित्यम् ।

• सत्यम् । दृष्टं प्रीत्युत्पादनेन⁸⁰ धर्मार्थम् अनुष्ठानम् । तस्य नियमोक्तधर्मार्थम् एव दातुस् तस्य हि गोर् उत्सर्गपक्षे विहितो “नामांसो मधुपर्कः स्यात्” इति ।

• नन्व् आर्त्विज्ये⁸¹ वचनस्यापि विषय इति चेत् ।

• अस्त्व् अयम् अपि पूर्ववद् अनुवादः श्राद्धे आर्त्विज्ये च ।

• ननु चार्त्विज्ये उक्तम् एव इडादिभक्षणं यजमानस्य तत्र शास्त्रनिबन्धनो नियमः, नर्त्विजाम् ।

• सत्यम् । किं तु ऋत्विजो यदि न भक्षयन्ति ते प्रवाद्यन्ते । अविदितेन अदृष्टेनापि दोषेण युज्यन्ते ।

• ननु तेषां भक्षणम् अधिकृतानाम् आस्ताम्⁸² । न हि ते कर्मफलेन युज्यन्ते । भृत्यादिर् हि परिक्रीतो विहितान्⁸³ पदार्थान् अनुतिष्ठति । विहितश् च “यजमानपञ्चमा इडां⁸⁴ भक्षयन्ति” इति । तेषां भकषणतो ऽस्याभ्युपगतार्त्विज्यानां नियतं भक्षणं तदा तेनानूद्यत इति युक्तम् । न हि श्राद्धभुजाम् ऋत्विजां च भक्षणे शास्त्रीययोगः । यजमानस्यैवानुवादः किमर्थ इति चेन्, नानुवादः प्रयोजनम् अपेक्षते । किं तर्हि प्राप्तम् अस्ति चात्रोच्यते । अत्रापि यदा गोपेन गोवधपूजाभ्युपगता तदावश्यम् अशितव्यम् । तदनुग्रहार्थम् असौ मधुपर्कपूजां प्रतीक्षति⁸⁵ । अतः पूर्वा तेन क्रिया संपादनीया । अन्यथा प्राक्रमिकस्याभावाद् अपर्पूर्णेन⁸⁶ मधुपरेण तदनुग्रहासम्पत्तेस् तस्मिन् प्रतिषिद्धमांसाशने मधुपर्कपूजार्त्विज्यं च प्रथमम् एवाभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । ब्राह्मणभोजने च । ब्रह्मचारिणस् तु व्रतवद् इत्य् अनुज्ञानाद् अनशनम् एव⁸⁷ ग्राह्यं मांसस्य ।

• प्राणानाम् एव चात्यये । प्रकृतत्वाद् देवाद्यर्चनम् अन्तरेण अभक्ष्यमाणे व्याधिना क्षुधा भोजनान्तरासंभवे जीवनाशशङ्कायां गोऽजावि भक्षयितव्यम् । “सर्वत एवात्मानं गोपायेत्” (ग्ध् ९.३४) इत्य् एतच्छ्रुतिमूलो ऽयं नियमः । अतश् चेदृशे निमित्ते मांसम् अनश्नन्न्⁸⁸ आत्महा संपद्यते । आत्मवधश् च “सर्वत एवात्मानं गोपायेत्” (ग्ध् ९.३४)। “तस्माद् उ ह न पुरायुषः स्वःकामी प्रेयाद् अलोक्यं ह्य् एतद् भवति” (श्ब् १०.२.६.७) इत्यादिश्रुतिभिर् मन्त्रार्थवादैश् च तैर् दोषवान् नेति ज्ञापितः । तथाहि मन्त्रः-

• असुर्या नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसावृताः ।

• तांस् ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः ॥ इति । (ईशु ३)

• ब्रह्मचारिणो ऽपि प्राणात्यये भक्षणम् इष्यते । तस्यैव बाल्याद्यवस्थानिमित्तं वाचनिकं प्रायश्चित्तं भविष्यतीति- “ब्रह्मचारी तु यो ऽश्नीयान् मधु मांसं कदाचन” (म्ध् ११.१५७) इति । क्षुधा तु प्राणात्ययाशङ्कायां प्रतिषिद्धमांसाशनम् अपीति व्यासः (वेसू ३.४.२८) । जाघनीनिदर्शनेनैकाहिकं चेष्यते । एतावता⁸⁹ अतीतव्याधौ तु न शक्यम् एतत् ज्ञातुम् अवश्यम् अशितेनानेन जीवतीति । तत्र न प्रतिषिद्धग्राम्यकुक्कुटादिमांसभक्षणम् इष्यते । प्रोक्षणदेवाभ्यर्चनरहितस्य⁹⁰ तु प्रकृतत्वाद् अस्त्य् अनुज्ञानम् । व्याधेश् च न केवलम् उत्पन्नस्य निवृत्त्यर्थं यावत् कृशक्षय्यातुरदुर्बालादीनां सर्वकालं मांसाशनं नियमत इष्यते ।

• स्त्रीमद्यनित्याः क्षयिणः श्रमव्याध्या च कर्शिताः ।

• नित्यमांसरसाहारा आतुराश् चापि दुर्बलाः ॥

अप्रोक्षितस्यापि छागमांसस्य देवताद्यर्चनं तु तैर् अवश्यं कर्तव्यम् । असंभवे तु कस्मिंश्चिद् अहनि न दोषः ॥ ५.२७ ॥

The remnant of the meat of the animal sacrificed at the Agniṣṭoma is figuratively called ‘consecrated’.

“The term ‘prokṣita’ literally means sprinkled with water, being derived from the root ‘ukṣa,’ ‘to sprinkle’; and it is in this sense that the word has been used in all such expressions as ‘bring the prokṣaṇī water-vessels,’ ‘butter is th e prokṣaṇa, the sprinkling-material,’ ‘prokṣaṇībhiḥ udvejitāḥ,’ ‘bothered by sprinkings (sprinklings?),’ and so forth. Thus then, if the word literally means ‘what is done by sprinkling,’ then why should such terms us are expressive of certain consecrations prescribed in the Veda, (such as sprinkling with water and the like), be taken as indirectly indicating the animal (sacrificed) and its meat? Why should the direct signification of the word be abandoned in favour of an indirect indication? For these reasons it is better to take the text to mean ‘meat sprinkled with water and such liquids’.”

What is urged would be quite true, if there were no other texts and commendatory passages bearing upon the matter; such as we have in the shape of such texts as ‘Unconsecrated meat etc.’ (Verse), ‘Animnls not consecrated with sacred texts etc.’ (36). A careful examination of all these texts leads to the conclusion that the meaning of the word is as we have explained it.

“If so, then what is said here being already mentioned in the texts quoted, what would be the use of the present text?”

Some people say that the present verse is purely re-iterative. It cannot be an injunction of eating meat when one wishes to do so. Because the man who is hungry and wishes to cat meat can take to it through his desire to relieve his hunger (and he does not need an injunction for that). That is called an ‘Injunction’ which points to such activity of the agent as would not be possible under the influence of any ordinary visible motive; such injunctions, for instance, as ‘one shall perform the Agnihotra through out his life;’ and on such a matter, the scripture is the sole source of knowledge (and authority) available. We need not seek for scriptural authority in the case of the acts in connection with which we have the positive and negative notions to the affect that—‘if it is done, such and such a reward shall follow—,and if it is not done, such and such an evil shall befall us.’ And it is only when there is no such source of knowledge available, and the matter is knowable by means of scriptures alone, that it becomes a case of ‘Injunction.’ As regards the case in question, even infants at the breast know, without being told, that eating brings strength and removes pain. [So that the present text cannot be regarded as an Injunction]. Nor again can it be taken as a Restrictive Injunction, for the simple reason that no such sense of restriction is recognised (as conveyed by the words), (a) For instance, if the restriction were in the form ‘one must eat what has been consecrated,’—then, since no time is specified the due observance of this injunction would disturb the entire routine of food and rest, and the man may have to be eating constantly; so that an impossible act will have been enjoined in this case. It has been said that—‘one who eats not at Śrāddhas etc.’,—and again ‘the day on which he is remiss etc.’ Then again, the author of the Mahābhāṣya has declared that a Restriction is always supplementary to an Injunction; so that when there is no Injunction, how can there be any Restriction? What has been ‘consecrated’ by one man cannot be obtained by another man; so that every man will have to eat all the meat that he consecrates, and this would entail a great calamity, (b) If. on the other hand, the restriction be taken to be in the form of preclusion—‘one shall eat only what is consecrated, and not what is not consecrated,’—on the ground of its fulfilling the condition of ‘Preclusion’, that hunger cannot be alleviated except by the eating of both consecrated and unconsecrated food, either simultaneously or one after the other;—even so this would be already implied by what has been said above regarding ‘consecrated meat’ (in verse 7). (So that in this case also there would be no point in taking the present text as an Injunction.)

Others however find the following fault in the above view:—if all unconsecrated meat were forbidden, birds would fall in the category of ‘forbidden food’; specially us there is no authority for any such restricted view that those alone are forbidden in their unconsecrated form, in connection with which consecration has been enjoined (and no consecration has been enjoined regarding birds).

Some people regard this view as improper. Because even so, the text cannot but be regarded as implying (if not directly asserting) the prohibition of (unconsecrated) birds also.

For these reasons, in as much as every Restriction is subservient to some enjoined act, it appears better to regard the present text as purely re-iterative of the eatability of consecrated meat. Just as at sacrifices, one must eat the consecrated meat, and omitting to eat it involves disobedience of the scriptural Injunction, so would it be in connection with all other occasions (on which meat is consecrated). And when the text is purely reiterative, it may also imply a preclusion (as shown above). The rule that ‘one shall not eat the unconsecrated meat of the cow, the sheep and the goat’ would only be a reiteration of the uneatability of ‘unconsecrated meat’ (mentioned in verse 7);—this reiteration in the present verse serving the purpose of permitting the eating of unconsecrated meat also, ‘at the wish of Brāhmaṇas’, and under certain other circumstances (specified in the present verse).

Others again have taken the following view.—Under 4.213 we have the mention of ‘needlessly prepared meat,’ and the present verse serves the purpose of explaining what the ‘needlessly prepared meat’ is; as in the absence of this it could not be known what is ‘needlessly prepared meat’.

Or, it may be that in one verse we have the rule for the enter (who does the consecration himself), while what the other means is that other persons, guests and others, shall not eat the meat belonging to (and offered by) a person who has not performed the worship of the Gods, etc. (and consecrated the meat at it). In the event of the householder being somehow not entitled to worship the Gods, his guests and other persons would be justified in doing that worship for him; and if the meat has been consecrated at such a worship, then they may eat it. The second prohibition (of unconsecrated meat)—‘one incurs no sin by eating meat after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitṛs’ (Verse 32)—is meant for those persons who are capable of performing the worship at their own house and have not performed it. What is stated in verse 36—‘animals not consecrated by sacred texts etc.’—is meant to be explanatory of what is meant by the term ‘consecration.’

Thus we have shown that all the five prohibitive passages have five distinct meanings and serve distinctly useful purposes.

‘At the wish of the Brāhmaṇas’—‘Brāhmaṇañca kāmyayā’—‘kāmyā’ is kāmanā, ‘wish’; the form ‘kāmyā’ being a Vedic anachronism.

“If this text permits the eating of unconscrated meat at the wish of the Brāhmaṇas, then what is the sense of this restriction? Does it mean that if one omits to eat at their wish, he incurs the sin of disobeying the scriptures? Or, does the present section set forth only a counter-exception? If it is a mere counter-exception, then such counter-exception, setting aside the force of the prohibition, would be available also in the shape of such assertions as ‘meat may be eaten at marriages’.”

The text does not mean that one must eat meat under the circumstances; all that is meant is that if the Brāhmaṇas are very superior persons, then the disobeying of their wish would not be right.

Others again construe the term ‘of Brāhmaṇas’ with verse 32 also, and take the present text as an Injunction for the eating of meat of the hare and other animals also; the sense being that—‘at sacrifices and marriages, or at other large dinner-parties, if the Brāhmaṇas request one to eat meat, then the meat of such animals should not be regarded as forbidden, as they ane, by their very nature, consecrated to the Gods’; and it is only under special circumstances that consecration and worship of the Gods etc. may be performed. In fact it is only those kinds of meat that have been forbidden under certain circumstances whose eating is sanctioned, at the wish of Brāhmaṇas; and the sanction does not apply to the eating of ‘carnivorous birds’ and the rest, or to the case of a man who has resolved to give up meat in view of ‘ceasing to eat meat being conducive to highest results,’—irrespective of the fact of the meat being either ‘consecrated’ or ‘unconsecrated,’ or ‘offered’ or ‘not offered.’

All that is meant by the present text is that the man who is entitled to receive the Madhuparka offering shall eat the unconsecrated meat that may be offered to him; and it does not contain an Injunction of offering the Madhuparka. The person meant here as the recipient of the Madhuparka is the Guest, and not the king and other honoured persons; just as we find it laid down for the Householder that ‘the guest shall not dwell in his house without eating.’ From this it would follow that nothing shall be offered to the guest against his desire. As for the notion that one may do what he likes in the matter of receiving an honoured guest and in feeding him,—if this idea were acted up to, then those acts would not have been done ‘for the sake of the guest.’

“But the position of the guest. also is uncertain.”

True; but it has been found that the performance of the act brings spiritual merit by producing pleasure in the recipient’s mind. Hence it is that by way of a rule it has been laid down for the giver, in accordance with the practice by which the calf is offered, that ‘there can be no Madhuparka without meat.’

“What is herein laid down may be regarded as pertaining to the case of priests officiating at one’s sacrifice.”

In that case, this also, like the preceding clause, may be only reiterative of what pertains to the officiating priest and to Śrāddhas.

“But in connection with the work of the priests, the eating of the Iḍū and such other materials has been prescribed; and the restrictions bearing upon that pertains to the Sacrifice, and not to the priests.”

True; but if the priests do not eat, they are censured, and also become beset with transcendental evil. Even if they eat, they do not become related to the result following from the act. Servants employed on wages (such as the priests are) perform the details prescribed in the scriptures; and it has been prescribed that ‘the priests along with the sacrificer as the fifth eat the Iḍā cake,;’ so that it is incumbent upon those who have accepted the priestly office to do that eating. And in that case it is only right that this eating should be reiterated. There is however nothing^(‘)scriptual’ in the eating done by persons eating at Śrāddhas or by the priests. So that the reiteration is of the eating done by the sacrifices—It may be asked—“For what purpose is this reiteration?”—But reiteration does not always need a purpose. All that is done is that it reiterates what has been enjoined elsewhere. Similarly in the case in question also, if the owner of the cow has promised to honour the guest with the killing of the cow, then the guest must eat it; for he accepts the offering of Madhuparka as a favour to the offerer; so that it is necessary that he should accomplish the act preceding the offering. Otherwise, in the event of the Madhuparka not being accepted, the said favour would not be bestowed; consequently in the matter of the eating of forbidden meat, it is necessary for the man at the very outset to accept the Madhuparka and the duties of the priest:—similarly in the matter of feeding the Brāhmaṇas. As regards the Student, since certain strict observances have been prescribed for him, meat should be regarded as altogether ‘unfit to be eaten.’

^(‘)When his life in in danger’.—From the context it follows that what is meant is that—‘in the event of his not eating meat without worshipping the gods, and no other food being available, if there be a fear of his losing his life, either though disease of through hunger, one may eat the cow, the sheep and the goat.’ This rule is based upon the Vedic declaration that ‘one shall protect himself from everything.’ So that under the circumstances, if one omits to eat meat, he becomes his own murderer; and suicide has been forbidden by such text as—(a) ‘One shall protect himself from everything’; (b) ‘Hence the man, expecting to live to the fullest extent of human life, shall never kill himself with a desire to proceed to heaven; as such an act would make him unfit for heaven’;—all which shows that by eating even forbidden meat to save his life, one does not incur sin. Says the Mantra also (Iśopaniṣad 3)—‘Those who kill themselves go, after death, to those regions that are covered by blind darkness and are fit only for demons.”

When there is danger to life, even the Student may eat meat; and for him his young age would necessitate the performance of the expiatory rite as prescribed in the text—‘If the Student ever eats meat and honey, etc.’ (1?.158). Vyāsa has declared that when there is tear of losing one’s life through hanger, one may eat even forbidden meat; and by the instance of the ‘dog’s thigh’ (eaten by Viśvāmitra) it is indicated that such meat may be eaten, but once only.

From this it follows that in the case of serious developments of diseases, where one cannot be sure that the man will certainly recover by eating meat, one shall not eat forbidden meat, such as that of the village-cock and the like; though it is permitted to eat such meat as has been consecrated or offered to the gods.

In the case of disease also one shall not eat meat for the purpose of recovering from a disease that may have just set in; but in the case of men who have become enfeebled and emaciated through disease, the eating of meat is always permitted: as asserted in the verse—‘Persons daily addicted to wine and women, consumptives, those emaciated through fatigue and disease, as also enfeebled patients, live upon the juices of meat.’ It is necessary for these persons to worship the gods in the case of the meat of unconsecrated goat: there would however be no harm, if on some day this be not found possible.—(27).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 527), which adds the following notes:—‘Prokṣita’ is that which has been sanctified by means of mantras for being offered at a sacrifice;—‘brāhmaṇānañca kāmyayā’—when one is pressed by a Brāhmaṇa to eat meat, if he eats it but once, then there is no harm; that this is justifiable once only is clearly stated by Yama; if the same Brāhmaṇa should press him again, then he is not to accede to this; nor is he to eat it, even though the second time he may be pressed by another Brāhmaṇa; that he is to eat it once does not mean that he is to take a single morsel; what is meant is that he may eat at a single meal;—‘Yathāvidhiniyuktaḥ’—this, means that when invited to the Madhuparka-offering or to a Śrāddha, one may eat even unconsecrated meat;—‘prāṇānāmeva cātyaye’—meat may be eaten if during an illness, or during food-scarcity, one’s life would be in danger if meat were not taken.

The verse is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (p. 449), which explains ‘prokṣitam’ as which has been duly consecrated by means of mantras, being obtained from an animal killed in connection with a sacrificial performance;—‘brāhmaṇānām kāmya’—at the wish of a Brāhmaṇa one may eat once;—‘yathāvidhiniyuktaḥ’—i. e., at a Śrāddha;—in the Prāyścittaviveka (p. 280), which notes that ‘prāṇānāmeva cātyaye’ is meant to refer to Religious Students and to such House-holders as have renounced meat;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 300).

**(verses 5.26-27)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.26].

027 One may eat meat when it has been sprinkled with water, while Mantras were recited, when Brahmanas desire (one’s doing it), when one is engaged (in the performance of a rite) according to the law, and when one’s life is in danger.

Prajāpati created all this as food for the vital spirit; and all that is movable or immovable is the food of the vital spirit (28).

प्राणः कौष्ठ्यो वायुः जीवबीजभूतः । पञ्चवृत्तस्योदानादिकस्य शरीरस्थित्यर्थम् इदं सर्वं जगत् प्रजापतिर् अन्नत्वेनाकल्पयत्⁹¹ । इदम् इति सामान्यतो निर्दिश्य विशेषणं निर्दिशति स्थावरं जङ्गमम् इति । अतो हेतोः सर्वं प्राणस्य भोजनम् । तिर्यक्प्रक्षिमनुष्यसरीसृपावस्थहेतुमद्भेदनिर्देशात् द्वितीयं सर्वग्रहणम् अपुनरुक्तम् । यतः प्रजापतिना सर्वम् आपदि प्राणस्य कल्पितम् । अतः सर्वम् एतस्य भोजनम् । तथा च प्राणसंवदोपनिषदि श्रूयते “स होवाच किं मे ऽन्नं भविष्यतीति । यद् इदं किंचित् आश्वभ्य आ कीटपतङ्गभ्यः” (छु ५.२.१) इति ॥ ५.२८ ॥

‘Vital spirit,’—‘the breath within the body, the very seed of life. For the sustenance of this breath, as functioning in the fivefold form of ‘Udāna’ and the rest,—and for its maintenance in the body,—‘Prajāpati created all this’—world—as food.

Having indicated the world in a general way, by means of the pronoun ‘this’, the author proceeds to specify it in details—‘all that is movable or immovable’. All this, on account of what is said in the first half, is the ‘food of the vital- spirit’. The second ‘all’ is not redundant, since it is added with a view to indicate the various kinds of beings,—beasts, birds, men, reptiles, etc.

Since Prajāpati has ordained all this to be ‘food’ in times of distress, all of it is the food of the vital spirit. This is also what we read in the dialogue of the Vital Breath contained in the Upaniṣads—‘He asked—what shall be my food?—Whatever exists, down to the dogs and down to the insects and worms’—(28).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 527), as reiterative of what has gone before;—and in Smṛtitattva (p. 449).

Mahābhārata (12.10.6).—(Same as Manu, reading iti vai kavayo viduḥ’ for ‘Prajāpatirakalpayat.’)

028 The Lord of creatures (Pragapati) created this whole (world to be) the sustenance of the vital spirit; both the immovable and the movable (creation is) the food of the vital spirit.

The immobile is the food of the mobile; those devoid of fangs are the food of those endowed with fangs; those without hands are the food of those with hands; and cowards are the food of the brave.—(29).

चराश् चरण्पतनरणोत्साहयोगिनः श्येननकुलादयः । तेषाम् अचराः सर्पकपोतादयः अन्नम् । एवं दंष्ट्रिणां सिंहव्याघ्रादीनां अदंष्ट्रिणः रुरुपृषतादयो मृगाः । अहस्ताः सर्पमत्स्यादयः सहस्तानां नकुलनिषादादीनाम् । शूराणां महोत्साहयुक्तानां जीवितनिरपेक्षाणां भीरवः प्रियजीविताः । अल्पसत्त्वा अन्नत्वेन हन्यन्ते ॥ ५.२९ ॥

‘Mobile’,—those that are capable of walking and flying and are courageous and active; e.g. the kite, the mongoose and the rest.—Of those the ‘immobile’—lethargic animals, such as the pigeon, the serpent and the like—are ‘the food.’

Similarly ‘of those endowed with fangs,’—i.e. of the lion, the tiger, etc.,—‘those devoid of fangs’—the Ruru, the Pṛṣat and the other kinds of deer—arc the ‘food.’

‘Those without hands, serpents, fish and the like—are the food of ‘those with hands,’—of the mongoose and the fisherman, etc.

‘Of the brave’—of those that are endowed with great courage—‘cowards’—those who are over-fond of life—are the food.

The meaning is that those possessed of inferior strength are killed for food—(29).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 527), which adds—the ‘cara’ are the deer and the rest,—the ‘acara’ grasses etc.,—‘damṣṭṛn’, the tiger and others, ‘adamṣṭṛn,’ the deer and the like,—‘sahasta’ are men and the like,—and ‘ahasta’ fish etc., ‘śūra’ are brave persons—and ‘bhīru’ are the timid.

Mahābhārata (12.99.15).—(Reproduces the first half of Manu.)

029 What is destitute of motion is the food of those endowed with locomotion; (animals) without fangs (are the food) of those with fangs, those without hands of those who possess hands, and the timid of the bold.

The eater incurs no sin by eating, even daily, such animals as are eatable: since the eater as well as the eaten animals have been created by the creator himself—(30).

अत्ता भक्षयिता । आद्यान् प्राणिनः अत्तुं शक्यान् । प्रतिदिवसं भक्षयन् न दुष्यति । धात्रैव प्रजापतिना अत्तार आद्या उभये ऽपि **सृष्टाः **। तस्मात् प्राणात्यये मांसम् अवश्यं भक्षणीयम् इति त्रिश्लोकी विधेर् अस्यार्थवादः ॥ ५.३० ॥

‘Eater’—one who eats.

‘Eatable’—which are capable of being eaten. He incurs no sin even by eating them daily.

By the ‘Creator’—Prajāpati—himself— have been created both the enter and the eaten.

For this reason when there is danger to life, meat must be eaten. This is the sense of the three verses, which are purely comemendstory—(30).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Ālinika, p. 527).

Viṣṇu (51.61).—‘Animals have been created for purposes of the sacrifice… hence killing at sacrifice is no killing.’

030 The eater who daily even devours those destined to be his food, commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten (for those special purposes).

यज्ञार्थं मांसस्य पिण्डप्राशित्रादिजग्धिर् अशनम् । एष दैवो विधिः, देवैर् एतद् विहितम् । अन्यथा तु मांसाशिनः⁹² सरीरपुष्ट्यर्थकमांसाशने प्रवृत्तिः स राक्षसो विधिः । पिशाचानां मांसभक्षणे स्थितिर् इति निन्दा ॥ ५.३१ ॥

‘The eating of meat—in the form of offerings and oblations —‘for sacrifices.’

‘This is the div ine law’;—this is what has been ordained by the Gods.

‘Behaviour contrary to this,’—i.e. eating meat for the fattening of the body—is ‘the demonical pract ice’; it is only demons that eat meat in this fashion. This is said in deprecation of the practice.—(31)

“Cf. this with the Mahābhārata, 13.114-116. In ib 116, 15, this is quoted as Śruti, but in 115, 53, its gist is ascribed to Manu”—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 527), which adds the following notes:—‘yajñāya’ means ‘for purposes of sacrifice’,—‘yagdhi’ means ‘eating’,—‘atonyathā’ means ‘elsewhere than at a sacrifice’;—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 582).

031 ‘The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.

मृगपक्षिमांसविषयम् इदं शास्त्रम् । रुरुपृषतादीनां शशकपिञ्जलादीनां मांसं देवानां पितॄणां चार्चनं कृत्वा खादतो न दोषः । यथा गृहे वैश्वदेवाद्यर्थे कृते⁹³ संविधानं विनापि वैश्वदेवेनोदनादिभोजनम् अस्ति, न तथा मांसस्य । एवमर्थम् एतत् पुनर्वचनं देवान् पितॄंश् चार्चयित्वेति । अन्यथा गृहस्थस्य पूर्वम् एव भोजनम् एवं रूपम् । देवेभ्य इति तेन शब्देनोद्दिश्य शुचौ देशे मांसस्य प्रक्षेपः । यदि वा अग्नये वायवे सूर्याय जातवेदस इति देवार्चनं कर्तव्यम् । अग्नौ एवंरूपा आहुतयः कृता⁹⁴ अग्निमतो ऽन्यत्र न भवन्ति । न चागौ होमेन विना बलिहरणं⁹⁵ कर्तव्यम्, कर्मान्तरस्य प्रयोगान्तरस्य च प्रतिपादितत्वात् । आस्तां तावद् एतत् ।

• अन्ये तु श्राद्धं पितॄणाम् अर्चनम् आहुः । दृष्टश् च श्राद्धे ऽर्चनप्रयोगः । पितॄंश् चैव देवान्⁹⁶ वदन्ति । ततश् च सर्वस्मृतिकारैः श्राद्धम् एव विहितम्, न पुनर् अन्या काचिद् एव क्रिया ।

• कथं पुनर् मांसस्य क्रयसंभवः, यावता आपणभूमेर् मांसं क्रीयमाणं सौनम् आपद्यते ।⁹⁷ सौनिकैर् अहतस्य स्वयं मृतस्य पशोर् माम्सम् अभक्ष्यम् अनारोग्यकरत्वात् ।

• उच्यते । व्याधशाकुनिकादिभिर् आहृतं क्रेष्यते । न च ते सौनिका इति प्रसिद्धास् तैश् च विक्रयार्थं भ्राम्यद्भिर् गृह आनीतं भवति । तदा संभवति क्रयः । न हि तत् सौनम् उच्यते ।

• स्वयं वाप्य् उत्पाद्य । ब्राह्मणो याच्ञया, क्षत्रियो मृगयाकर्मणा ॥ ५.३२ ॥

The law here laid down refers to the meat of deer and birds. The meaning is that there is no sin incurred in eating the meat of the Ruru, the Pṛṣat and other kinds of deer, or the partridge and other birds, if it is done after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitṛs.

In the case of the offering to the Viśvedevas, when there is no preparation for it in the house, one may eat rice and other things, even without making the offering; but not so meat; it is with a view to emphasise this that the text repeats—‘having worshipped the Gods and the Pitṛs etc.’ If mere sanction to eat after worship were meant, this has already been accorded before.

What is meant by the ‘worshipping of the Gods’ here is the offering of the meat on a clean spot with the words ‘this is for the Gods’; or that ‘the worship of the Gods’ should be done in such terms as—‘this to Agni, to Vāyu, to Surya, to Jātavedas.’ That this must be the meaning of the ‘worship’ is proved by the fact that ‘offering of oblations into the fire’ (which could he the other meaning ‘worshipping the Gods’) is not possible for persons other than Agnihotrins; nor can there be any offering made to the Gods without oblations having been poured into the fire; specially as it has been already shown that the two are distinct actions and involve distinct methods of procedure. This mutter may rest here for the present.

Others have explained the ‘worship of the Pitṛs’ to mean Śrāddha; and in Śrāddhas we do find worshipping being done. It is the Pitṛs again that are spoken of as the ‘deities’ of the Śrāddha. Hence it is that in connection with the Pitṛs, all writers on Smṛti have prescribed the Śrāddha only, and no other act.

“How can the buying of meat be permissible? The meat obtained from the market becomes ‘Sa?na’, ‘butcher’s meat’ (which has been forbidden); and as for the meat of animals dying of themselves, and not killed by the butcher, this is ‘unfit for eating’, on the ground of its causing disease.”

Our answer to the above is that one can always ‘buy’ the meat brought by fowlers and bird-catchers; and these are known us ‘butchers’; and they wander about from house to house, carrying meat for sale, when it is possible to buy it; and it does not become ‘butcher’s meat.’

‘Having obtained it himself,’—the Brāhmaṇa by begging it’ and the Kṣatriya by hunting.—(32)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 527), which adds that ‘svayamutpādya’ refers to the Kṣatriya alone;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 449);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 582);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 276).

032 He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others.

पूर्वोक्ताद् देवाद्यर्चनशिष्टात् ब्राह्मणकामनादिनिमित्तात् अन्तरं⁹⁸ यद् भक्षणं सो ऽविधिस्⁹⁹ तेन नाश्नीयात् मांसम् । उक्तानुवादो ऽयम् । आपदि प्राणात्यये देवाद्यर्चनम् अपि नापेक्ष्यम् ।

• ननु चैतद् अपि निमित्ततयोक्तम् एव । ततश् च विधिर् एवायं नाविधिः ।

• सत्यम् । प्रोक्षितसंबन्धाद् गोऽव्यजस्यैव तत्र संनिधानाशङ्कायां¹⁰⁰ शशादिविषये ऽभ्यनुज्ञानार्थम् अनापदीत्य् उच्यते ।

• ¹⁰¹विध्यर्थानुष्ठानपरो विधिज्ञ उच्यते । तथा लौकिकानुष्ठाने ऽपि जानातिर् उपचारात् प्रयुज्यते । एष स तज्जानातीति अनुष्ठानपरे प्रयुञ्जते ।

• अत्र फलकथायाम् — जग्ध्वा अशास्त्रीयेण निमित्तेन । प्रेतो मृतस् तैः प्राणिभिर् अवशो ऽद्यते । येन विषयेण यो येषां मांसम् अश्नाति तस्य विविधा पीडा भवति, एतावन्मात्रपरम् एतत् । अन्यथा प्रायेण छागादिमांसम् अश्नाति लोकाः, न च छागादयो मांसाशिनः । अथ वा तत्क्ष्तेन पापेन क्रव्याद्भिर् अप्य् अद्यमानस् तैर् अद्यत इत्य् उच्यते ॥ ५.३३ ॥

That is called ‘unlawful’ which is done apart from the above-sanctioned occasions—of the worshipping of the Gods, the wish of the Brāhmaṇas and so forth; and in this ‘unlawful’ manner one shall not eat meat.

This is only a reiteration of what has been said before.

‘In normal times’.—In abnormal times of distress, when one’s life is in danger, he need not wait for the worship of the Gods etc.

“Danger to life has already been sanctioned as one of the occasions on which meat may be eaten; so that such eating would be quite lawful, not unlawful.”

True; but what has been said on the previous occasion was in connection with the consecrated meat of the cow, the sheep and the goat; and in the present text the phrase ‘in normal times’ has been added with a view to extend the sanction to the meat of the hare and other animals also.

It is not the mere knower of the law that is called ‘conversant with the late’ but one who, in practice acts up to the law. In connection with ordinary worldly acts also the term ‘know,’ ‘be conversant with,’ is used in this sense; when it is said of a man ‘he knows this’, what is meant is that ‘he acts up to it’.

When the question arises regarding the effect of the act in question, the text says —‘Having eaten meat unlawfully,’—i.e. in a manner not prescribed in the scriptures—‘he shall, on death, he devoured’, by those animals. All that is meant—is that when a man eats meat in an unlawful manner, he suffers various kinds of pain. If these were not meant by the passage (and if it were taken in its literal sense),—then, in as much us it is the meat of the goat that is commonly eaten by people, and the goat is a not carnivorous animal [how could it ‘devour’ its eater?]

Or, the meaning may be that the eater, by virtue of the sin of that act, comes to be devoured by carnivorous animals; and as this would be the result of his having eaten the goat, he would be described as being devoured by the goat.—(33)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 531);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 449);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 301).

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, pp. 5-30).—‘One should not eat needlessly-prepared meat.’

Āpastamba (1.16.16).—‘He shall not eat meat which has been cut with a knife used for killing.’

Viṣṇu (51.59).—‘The Brāhmaṇa shall never eat meat that has not been consecrated with mantras; that however which has been duly consecrated he shall eat, following the eternal law.’

033 A twice-born man who knows the law, must not eat meat except in conformity with the law; for if he has eaten it unlawfully, he will, unable to save himself, be eaten after death by his (victims).

The sin of the man who kills animals for gain is not so great, after death, as that of the man who eats needlessly-prepared meat.—(34)

प्रसिद्धार्थः श्लोकः ॥ ५.३४ ॥

The meaning of this verse is well known—(34).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya, (Āhnika, p. 531).

Vi ṣ ṇ u (51.62).—(Same as Manu.)

034 After death the guilt of one who slays deer for gain is not as (great) as that of him who eats meat for no (sacred) purpose.

But when invited according to law, if a man does not e at meat, he becomes, after death, a beast, during twenty- one births.—(35)

संभवान्¹⁰² जन्मानि । अवश्यं प्राणात्ययसंभवे देवार्चनं यो न करोति अथ च मांसम् अश्नाति स दुष्यत्य् एव ॥ ५.३५ ॥

‘Sambhava’ stands for janma, birth.

Except when there is danger to life through hunger, if a man does not worship the Gods, and yet eats meat, he certainly incurs sin.—(35)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 251), which explains ‘niyuktaḥ’ as ‘invited, at a sacrifice to the gods or at a Śrāddha’;—in Mitākṣarā (on 1.179) to the effect that one must eat meat when iṅvited to a Śrāddha;—in

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 294) as setting forth the sinfulness of not eating the meat duly offered;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 530), which explains ‘sambhavān’ as ‘births’;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 449);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 577);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 279), which remarks that this refers to such meat as is not forbidden.

Vaśiṣṭha (11.34).—‘An ascetic who, invited to dine at a sacrifice to Pitṛs or to gods, refuses meat, shall go to hell.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 251).—‘The man who, invited to a Śrāddha or to a sacrifice to the gods, refuses meat, shall go to hell, etc.’

Hārita and Śātātapa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 530).—‘If one, invited to a Śrāddha, does not eat meat, one goes to hell…’

035 But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences.

The Brāhmaṇa shall never eat animals that have not been consecrated with sacred texts; but those that have been consecrated with sacred texts, he shall eat, taking, his stand upon the eternal law.—(36)

प्रोक्षणादयः पशुबन्धे मन्त्रवन्तः संस्कारा विहितास् ते येषां क्रियन्ते पशूनां वैदिकयागशेषाणां मांसम् अद्यात् । शाश्वतम् । शाश्वतो नित्यो वैदिक इत्य् अर्थः । आश्थित आश्रितः ॥ ५.३६ ॥

In connection with animals-sacrifice, ‘sprinkling with water’ and other consecrations have been laid down as to be done with sacred texts; and one shall eat the meat of those animals for whom all these have been performed, and which (thus) are the ‘remnants of sacrifices’ prescribed in the Vedas. But in the case of the and other sacrifices that are performed solely on the strength of usage (and for which there is no injunction in the Veda),—even though the meat would he the ‘remnant of sacrifice’, yet, since there would be no ‘consecration with sacred texts’, it would be ‘unfit for eating’.

‘Eternal’—Vedic.

‘Taking his stand’—dependent.—(36)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 580).

Viṣṇu (51.59).—(Same as Manu.)

036 A Brahmana must never eat (the flesh of animals unhallowed by Mantras; but, obedient to the primeval law, he may eat it, consecrated with Vedic texts.

If there is occasion, he shall make an animal of clarified butter, or an animal of flour; but he shall never seek to kill an animal needlessly.—(37)

यद्य् एषां बुद्धिः स्यात्- “सीतायज्ञखण्डियज्ञचण्डिकायागादिषु¹⁰³ समाचारप्रमाणेषु पशुवधः फलकामस्य न्याय्यः,¹⁰⁴ दृष्टा हि पशुवधोपयाचितकेनातिशयवती सस्यसंपत्तिः” इति, तन्निषेधार्थम् आह-¹⁰⁵ सङ्गे प्रस्तावात् पशुवधप्रसङ्गे घृतपशुं कुर्यात्,¹⁰⁶ घृतपशुम् एव कुर्यात् । पशुना यष्टव्ये तत्स्थाने घृतेन यजेत देवताः । तद् धि सामान्येन यागद्रव्यम् । अथ वा पिष्टपशुं पिष्टमयपशुप्रतिकृतिं कृत्वा देवताभ्य उपहरेत्, पिष्टेन वा पुरोडाशादि कृत्वा ।

• कथम् अयं वृथा पशुबन्धः ।

• उच्यते । शिष्टानां¹⁰⁷ समाचारः प्रमाणम्, न तु¹⁰⁸ स्त्रीशूद्रजनानाम्, अवैद्यत्वात् । नात्र वेदमूलता शक्या कल्पयितुम् । देवताराधनार्थं तदा ह्य् एतद्¹⁰⁹ आचरन्ति । न च देवताराधनार्थानि वैदिकानि कर्माणि, गुणत्वेन देवताश्रुतेः । अन्वयव्यतिरेकमूलतां चात्रेच्छन्ति, “दृश्यते पशुवधोपयाचितकेन फलसंपत्ति” इति मन्यमानाः । अतो न वेदमूलता । अन्वयव्यतिरेकाव् अपि भ्रान्तिमात्रम्, असकृद्व्यभिचारात् ।

• अतो ऽयं श्लोको न्यायप्राप्तार्थानुवाद एव सौहार्दाद् आचार्येण पठितः ॥ ५.३७ ॥

People are likely to entertain such ideas as the following—“at the Sītā - yajña the Khañjikā-yāga, the Caṇḍikā-yāga and the like, which are performed on the authority of usage only, it is right for the man desiring a certain result to kill animals; for it has been found that one obtains a rich harvest by offering sacrifices at which animals are killed.”

With a view to set aside such notions the text says—‘It there is occasion,’—if necessity arises for the offering of an animal in sacrifice,—‘he shall make an animal of clarified butter’; i.e., he shall make clarified butter the sacrificial animal: that is, it being necessary to otter an animal to the Gods, he shall offer, in its place, clarified butter: which is as good a ‘sacrificial material’.

‘Or, he shall make an animal of flour’; i.e. he shall make the figure of an animal with flour, and offer that figure to the Gods; or, it may be taken to mean that ‘instead of the animal he shall offer cakes and other things made of flour’.

“Why is this called needless animal-slaughter, when it is sanctioned by the usage of cultured people?”

Since women, and Śūdras are ignorant of the Veda, such sacrifices as those mentioned cannot be assumed to have any sanction in the Veda: specially as people have reconrse (recourse?) to these sacrifices for the purpose of propitiating the Gods, and no Vedic act is done for the propitiating of Gods; for the simple reason that in connection with Vedic rites, Gods have been mentioned as subordinate factors. In fact, what they urge in support of the performance of the sacrifices in question is the argument based upon negative and positive induction, from the experience that there is rich harvest when Gods are propitiated with the sacrifice of animals. For these reasons, these sacrifices cannot be regarded as having the sanction of the Veda. As for the positive and negative induction that also is entirely mistaken.

From all this it is clear that the present verse only reiterates what is already indicated as the right course by al (all?) kinds of reasons: and it has been put forward by the author through feelings of friendly kindliness.—(37)

‘Saṅge’—‘On an occasion arising for the killing of an animal (at a rite other than those laid down in the Veda)’ (Medhātithi);—‘if one has a strong desire to eat meat’ (Kullūka and Nārāyanā). [It is difficult to see how a strong desire for meat could be appeased by eating animal made of butter or flour];—‘in the event of one being attacked by evil spirits’ (Govindarāja);—‘on the occasion of social gatherings’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538), which quotes Kalpataru as offering the following explanation:—In such ceremonies as the Sītāyajña and the like, which are not prescribed in the Veda, and the killing of animals at which, therefore, cannot have the sanction of the Veda,—if, in view of the prevalent custom, it is found necessary to sacrifice an animal, one should offer an animal made either of butter or of flour;—it then quotes Kullūka’s explanation,—and then the one given by Medhātithi, remarking that this last is in agreement with Kalpataru,—It then goes on to describe another explanation, by which ‘Saṅge’ means ‘at a sacrifice’ and this is explained as laying down an alternative to the killing of animals at the well-known sacrifices, Agnīṣṭomīya and the rest.—This last explanation, the author rejects, on the ground (1) that there is no authority for taking the word ‘saṅge’ in the sense of sacrifice, and (2) that it would not be right for a Smṛti to lay down an alternative to a detail that has been laid down in the original Vedic injunction of the sacrifices.

037 If he has a strong desire (for meat) he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour, (and eat that); but let him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason.

As many hairs there are on the body of the animal, so m any times after dying does its needless killer suffer violent death, birth after birth.—(38.)

तावतीर् जन्मनाम् आवृत्तीर् मारणं प्राप्नोति । वृथापशुघ्नः श्रुतिस्मृत्योर् अचोदितं पशुवधं यः करोति । तच् च प्रकरणान् महानवम्यादिषु लौकिकैर् यत् क्रियते । पशुघ्न इति कप्रत्यये छान्दसं रूपम् ॥ ५.३८ ॥

For so many lives does he suffer violent death.

‘Needless killer of the animal’,—one who kills the animal in a way not prescribed in the Śruti or the Smṛti: from the context it is clear that this refers to that animal-sacrifice which ordinary people perforin on the Mahānavamī.

The term ‘paśaghna (?)’ is a Vedic form formed with the affix ‘ka’—(38).

Cf. The Mahābhārata 13.93.121.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).

Viṣṇu (51.60).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (1.180).—‘The wicked man who kills animals unlawfully dwells in hell for as many days as there are hairs on the animal’s body.’

Mahābhārata (13.93.121).—(Same as Manu.)

038 As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births.

Animals have been created by the Self-born God himself for the purpose of sacrifice: sacrifice is conducive to the well-being of all this would; hence killing at a sacrifice is no ‘killing’ at all—(39).

नायम् अनन्तरोक्तो दोषः श्रुतिस्मृतिचोदिते वधे । यो वधो यज्ञाङ्गभूतस्¹¹⁰ तन्निर्वृत्त्यर्थम् एव स्वयंभुवा प्रजापतिना पशवः सृष्टाः उत्पादिताः । स्वयम् एवेत्य् अर्थवादः । अस्य जगतो विश्वस्य । यज्ञः ज्योतिष्टोमादिः । भूत्यै, भूतिर् विभवः पुष्टिः स्फीतिः । तस्मात् तत्र यो वधः सो ऽवधो विज्ञेयः । हिंसाजन्यस्य पापस्य निवृत्तेर् एवम् उच्यते ॥ ५.३९ ॥

The evil just described does not pertain to the killing of animals at the rites prescribed by Śruti and S mṛti.

That ‘killing’ which forms part of sacrifices,—for the due fulfilment of that were animals ‘created’—produced, brought into existence,—‘by the self-born God’—Prajāpati ‘himself.’

This is a purely commendatory passage.

‘Sacrifice’—in the form of the Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest—‘is conducive to the well-being’—prosperity, development, advancement —‘of all this’— world.

For this reason the killing that is done at a sacrifice should be regarded as no killing at all. What this means is that it does not involve the sin of ‘killing’ animals.—(39)

“Ityapi śrūyate śrutiḥ is the end of this verse instead of svayameva svayambhuvā as found in the Mahābhārata, 13.116.14. Quite a number of Manu’s verses are cited as Śruti in the Epic.”—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).

Viṣṇu (51.61).—(Same as Manu.)

039 Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).

Herbs, animals, trees, beasts and birds, reaching death for the sake of sacrifices, attain advancements.—(40)

• उच्यते । हिंसा हिंस्यमानस्य महान् अपकारः, प्राणवियोगेन पुत्रदारधनविभवादिवियोगेन सर्वानर्थोत्पत्तेर् दुष्कृतस्य च समनन्तरं नरकादिफलविपाकस्य प्रत्यासत्तेः । यज्ञे तु हतानाम् उपकारः, नापकारः, नरकादिफलानुत्पत्तेः । यतो यज्ञे निधनं विनाशं गता उच्छ्रितीर् उत्कर्षं जातितो देवगन्धर्वयोनित्वं द्वीपान्तरेषूत्तरकुरुप्रभृतिषु वर्षान्तरे वा जन्म प्राप्नुवन्ति ।

• अर्थवादश् चायम् । न ह्य् अत्र विधिः श्रूयते, प्राप्नुवन्ति इति वर्तमानोपदेशात्¹¹¹ । न चार्थवादात् “प्रतितिष्ठन्ति” इतिवद् विधिप्रतिपत्तिर् युक्ता, विध्यन्तरस्याभावाद् असंभवाच् च ।

• सर्वो ऽयम् अविधिमांसभक्षणप्रतिषेधशेषः । ऐहलोकसंपाद्यतयाप्य् अयं प्रतिषेधः- “न त्व् एव तु वृथा हन्तुं पशुम् इच्छेत्” (म्ध् ५.३७) इति । यच् चाभ्यनुज्ञानम् “यज्ञार्थं पसवः सृष्टाः” (म्ध् ५.३९) इति, तत् सर्वं भषणप्रतिषेधतया प्रतीयते । तथा च वक्ष्यति “नाकृत्वा प्राणिनां हिंसाम्” (म्ध् ५.४८) इत्यादि ।

• न चात्र विधेर् अस्ति संभवः । न तिरश्चाम् अधिकारः संभवति, विशेषविज्ञानाभावात् । न चानधिकृतस्य कर्तृत्वम् । नाप्य् अकर्तृत्वे शास्त्रीयात् कर्मणः फलोत्पत्तिः । न ह्य् अत्र दृष्टा वस्तुस्वाभाव्येन¹¹² फलोत्पत्तिः । यथा विषम् अविदुषो ऽपि पीतवतो जनयत्य् एव स्वफलम् । नैवं वैदिकार्थाः ।

• अचैतन्याच् चौषध्यादीनाम्¹¹³ ऋत्विङ्न्यायो ऽपि नास्ति । दृष्टं किल कुतश्चन कर्मणः परप्रयुक्ताद् अप्य् ऋत्विजां फलम्- “यः कामयेत¹¹⁴ पापीयान् स्यात्” (च्ड़्। गोब् २.३.३) इत्यादि । तत्र विध्यन्तरशेषत्वाभावात् स्पष्टत्वाच्¹¹⁵ च विधिप्रतिपत्तेर् मनुष्याधिकारत्वाच् च शास्त्रस्य युक्तो ऽङ्गव्यापारसमाश्रितो¹¹⁶ वाचनिकस् तावन्मात्रो ऽधिकारः । यथा परकीयाश्वमेधावभृथे ब्राह्मणस्य प्रायश्चित्तम् उक्तम् । इह त्व् अधिकार एव नास्तीत्य् उक्तम् ।

• ओषध्यो दर्भादयः । पशवश् छागादयः । वृक्षाः पूज्याः । तिर्यञ्चः अपशवो ऽपि पशवो येषां हविष्ट्वेन¹¹⁷ चोदना “कपिञ्जलान् आलभते” (व्स् २४.२०) इति । भारप्रवहणाद्¹¹⁸ अनड्वाहस् तिर्यञ्चो वाजपेयादौ तिर्यञ्च इति व्यपदिश्यन्ते । यद्य् अपि तेषां तत्र निधनं नास्ति तथापि यावती च पीडा विद्यत इति सा निधनशब्देन लक्ष्यते । पक्षिणः कपिञ्जलादयः । यद्य् अपि ते पशुत्वेन चोच्यन्ते,¹¹⁹ अप्रसिद्धतरप्रयोगास् तु “सप्त ग्राम्याः पशवः सप्तारण्याः” (श्ब् ९.५.२.८) इति । गवादयो ऽपक्षिणः । चतुष्पाज्जातिवचनः पशुशब्दः । गोबलीवर्दवद् वा भेदो द्रष्टव्यः ॥ ५.४० ॥

यावत्यः काश्चिच् छास्त्रचोदितहिंसास् ताः संक्ष्प्य दर्शयति ।

“How is it known that killing at sacrifices involves no sin?”

The answer is as follows:—‘killing’ is the greatest injury that can befall the being killed; because it involves such great evil as the loss of life, involving separation from wife, children and riches, and all the attendant evil consequences; and also because it carries the entities nearer to the fruition of their sins in the form of hell and the like. But when an animal is killed at a sacrifice, this killing becomes a great benefit conferred upon it, and it is not an injury; because it does not lead it to hell nr any such undesirable conditions. That this is so follows from the fact that those ‘reaching death’— destruction—at a sacrifice —‘attain advancements’—higher positions, in regard to caste and so forth;—being born as a God or a Gandharva, or as men born in better countries or continents—such as the Uttarakuru and the like.

The whole of this is a purely commendatory description. We do not find here any Injunction: the verb ‘attain’ being in the simple Present tense. Nor is there any justification for deducing an Injunction from the commendatory description,—as is done in the case of the passage ‘Pratitiṣṭhanti etc.’ (v ide, Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, 4.3.17. et seq); because in the present case neither there is, nor is there any possibility of, any other Injunction (apart from those already set forth in the text).

The whole of this descriptive section is supplementary to the prohibition of the eating of unlawful meat; and the upshot of the prohibition contained in these verses is that ‘one should never seek to kill animals needlessly.’ (verse 37) As for the sanction (of killing) implied in the statement—‘animals have been created for the purpose of sacrifices’ (39),—all this is understood as involving the prohibition of eating which is going to be distinctly emphasised below in verse 48.

Nor can any Injunction (such as ‘desiring advancement, the animal shall die at a sacrifice’) be deduced from the text. Because such an Injunction could not be intended for the animals; for the simple reason that they would not understand it. And those for whom the Injunction is not intended cannot be the agent; and unless one is an agent, he cannot obtain any reward declared in the scriptures. Specially as in the present case, the result spoken of does not proceed in any perceptible manner from the nature of the thing involved; as there is, for instance, in the case of the poison, which produces its results even on ignorant persons who take it. There is no such thing in the case of things spoken of in the Veda.

Further, since the herbs and other things spoken of here ore unconscious beings, the ‘principle of the priests’ cannot apply to their case. That is to say, it is found that in the case of sacrificial performances, results are spoken of as accruing to one person (the sacrificer) from the acts that are actually done by others,—i. e., the priests officiating for him; e.g., in the case of the passage—‘he desires one to become worse etc,’ In the case of such passages we admit of an Injunction, because what is there stated is not capable of being taken as supplementary to any other Injunction, and secondly because the indication of the Injunction, is quite clear, and lastly, because the Injunction indicated is found to be one that pertains to human beings.

In the case of all scriptural statements, we are entitled to deduce just as much us may be reasonably deduced from the actual words of the text. For instance, it has been declared that the Brāhmaṇa joining in the sacrificial bath of other people should have to perform an expiatory rite [and we have to accent this, even though we fail to see any reason for it]. In the present case, however, there is no possibility of any Injunction being addressed to the beings concerned (all of which are inanimate).

‘Herbs,’—grass and the like.

‘Animate,’—the goat and other beasts (which are mentioned as fit for being offered at sacrifices).

‘Trees,’—such as are objects of worship.

‘Beasts,’—those which, though not ordinarily regarded as fit for sacrificing, happen to be mentioned, in some passages, as to be offered; e.g., ‘one shall kill partridges.’ Though at the Vājapeya and similar sacrifices, the calves are used only for the purpose of carrying loads, yet they are called ‘beasts;’ and even though these do not suffer actual death, yet the term ‘death’ in their case stands for all the sufferings that they undergo.

‘Bird.”—the Kapiñjala and the rest; even though these are sometimes spoken of as ‘animals’, yet, as a rule, they are not known by that name: for in such passages as there are seven tame animals and seven wild animals’, the animals meant are the cow and the rest, which are not birds; in fact the term ‘paśu’, ‘animals, denotes quadrupods; or the difference between ‘animals’ and ‘birds’ may be regarded as similar to that between the ‘go’ and the^(‘)balvarda’ (the former term being wider than the latter) (40).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538), which explains ‘ucchṛtiḥ’ as ‘advancement’.

Medhātithi (P. 403, l. 22)—Pratitiṣṭhantītivat’—This refers to Mīmāṃsā Sūtṛa 4.3.17 et. seq., which embodies what has been called the ‘Rātrisattra-nyāya’. In connection with the ‘Rātri’ offerings, it is said that ‘he who offers these obtains respectability &c.’ and in regard to this the question arises whether this latter passage is a mere arthavāda, or it describes the result that really follows from the offerings; and the conclusion is that, inasmuch as no other mention of the result of the offerings is found anywhere, the passage in question must be taken as describing the results actually following from them.

Viṣṇu (51.63).—(Same as Manu.)

040 Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences.

एष्व् अर्थेषु पशून् हिंसन् वेदतत्त्वार्थविद् द्विजः ।

041 On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed.

At the Madhuparka offering, at sacrifices, and at the rites in honour of the Pitṛs,—at these alone should animals be killed, and nowhere else: thus has Manu declared—(41)

The twice-born person, knowing the real import of the Veda, killing animals on these occasions, carries himself and the animal to the most excellent state.—(42).

मधुपर्को व्याख्यातः । तत्र गोवधो विहितः । यज्ञः ज्योतिष्टोमादिः । तत्र संस्थैकादशिन्यादिपशुवधो निरूढपशुवधादिः स्वतन्त्र एव च¹²⁰ । पितृदैवतं पितरो देवता यस्मिन् कर्मण्य् अष्टकादौ, न तु श्राद्धम् । तद् धि सिद्धेन मांसेन विहितम्, न च पशुवधश् चोदितः । न चेदम् एव विधायकं युक्तम्, उत्पत्तौ श्राद्धस्य हिंसाया अचोदितत्वात्, अस्य च विस्पष्टविधानाद् अष्टकापशुवधेनापि नेतुं शक्यत्वात्, विधित्वे चास्य मूलकल्पनाप्रसङ्गात्, विध्यन्तरशेषतायाश् च वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् । येषां¹²¹ तु मतं पितॄणां देवतानां च कर्म महायञ्जादि । “ब्राह्मणैर् वध्याः । । । भृत्यानां चैव वृत्त्यर्थम्”¹²² (म्ध् ५.२२) आपदि पशुहिंसनम् अप्राप्तं प्राणात्यये ऽभ्यनुज्ञायते ॥ ५.४१–४२ ॥

The present text sums up in brief those occasions on which the killing of animals is sanctioned by the scriptures.

‘Madhuparka’— has been already described. At this the killing of the calf has been enjoined.

‘Sacrifice’—such as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the like; the eleventh stage of which consists of the animal-sacrifice; as also the Paśubandha, at which the sacrificing of the animal forms a sacrifice by itself.

‘Rites in honour of the Pitṛs,’—i.e., those of which the Pitṛs are the ‘deities’; what are meant are the Aṣṭaka and other offerings of the kind, and not Śrāddhas; because these latter are laid down as to be performed with cooked meat, (for which the meat could be obtained otherwise than by actually killing the animal at the rite itself): and in connection with this the killing of animals has not been enjoined; nor will it be right to regard this (injunction regarding the offering of cooked meat) as implying the killing of animals: because the original injunction of the Śrāddha does not lay clown such killing. Further, the present verse also does not clearly enjoin it: specially as what is here mentioned is capable of being taken as pertaining to the Aṣṭaka offerings. If the present verse were an injunction, it would involve the necessity of seeking for its basis (in some Vedic text): while, as we shall explain later on, it is capable of being construed as supplementary to another Injunction.

Some people explain the term ‘pitṛdaivatakarma’ as standing for the rites performed in honour of the gods and the Pitṛs i.e., the Great Sacrifices (daily).

Animals are to be killed by Brāhmaṇas for the ‘support of their dependents,’ and the killing of animals is also permitted at times of distress, when life may be in danger—(41-42).

(verse 5.41)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 154), as setting aside the view that ‘the offering of Madhuparka does not necessarily involve the killing of the animal’;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).

(verse 5.42)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 531).

**(verse 5.41)
**

Viṣṇu (51.64).—(Same as Manu.)

Vaśiṣṭha (4.6).—(Same as Manu.)

Śāṅkhāyuna-Gṛhyusūtra (2.16.1).—(Same as Manu.)

**(verse 5.42-46)
**

Viṣṇu (51.65-69).—(Same as Manu.)

042 A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.

अवेदविहितहिंसाप्रतिषेधो ऽयम् । न च वेदविहिताभ्यनुज्ञायते । न च गुरौ वसतो ब्रह्मचारिणो ऽरण्ये च तपस्यतो ऽन्या काचिद् धिंसास्ति । अवकीर्णिनो ब्रह्मचारिणः स्याद् अपि । वानप्रस्थस्य तु नैवास्ति । ब्रह्मचारिणो ऽप्य् आत्मोपेक्षणं नैवेष्यते । अतो ऽयं विधिर् एव श्राद्धे । गृह इत्य् अनुवाद एव ।

• यदि चायं विधिः स्याद् — “अरण्ये” “आपद्य् अपि” इति किम् आलम्बनम् एतत् स्यात् । न च वानप्रस्थस्य साग्निकस्यापि पशुयागो ऽस्ति । “पुरोडाशाश् चरूंश् चैव” (म्ध् ६.११) इत्य् अत्र दर्शयिष्याम इति केचित् ।

• उपाध्यायस् त्व् आह । युक्तं ब्रह्मचारिणः । वानप्रस्थस्य तु “अपराजितां वास्थाय” (म्ध् ६.३१) इत्यादिनात्मत्यागागो ऽपि विहितस् तस्य नास्ति जीवितार्था हिंसेति स्फुटतरं तत्रैव निरूपयिष्यते ।

• ननु चापद्य् अयं प्रतिषेध उच्यते । तत् कुतस्¹²³ तत्रैवानुज्ञानं व्याख्यायते ।

• सत्यम् । अन्यथा न किंचिद् अनेन कृतं स्यात् । अर्थवादार्थम् इति चेद् अर्थवादस्याप्य् आलम्बनम् अन्वेषणीयम् । अतो नापद्य् अयं प्रतिषेधो विधिश् चाप्द्य् अविरुद्धः । बहुभेदाद् आपदाम्, अल्पीयस्याम् आपदि मासिकम् अर्धमासिकं वा भोजनं भविष्यतीति बुद्ध्या प्रवृत्तिर् निषिध्यते । यदा त्व् एषा बुद्धिर् अधुनैवानश्नन् न जीवामि यदा वाभिमुखागत उद्यतशस्त्र आततायी तदापद्य् अनुज्ञा । एवं “सर्वत एवात्मानं गोपायेत्” (ग्ध् ९.३४) इति श्रुतिर् अनुगृहीता भवति ॥ ५.४२–४३ ॥

This verse forbids such killing as is not sanctioned by the Veda, it is not meant, to sanction that which is already sanctioned by it.

As a matter of fact, no other killing (save what is sanctioned) is possible in the case of the Student ‘living with his teacher,’ or of the man performing austerities ‘in the forest;’ even though some sort of killing may be possible for the incontinent Student, yet for the Hermit in the forest it is not possible in any case. Even for the Student, an absolute indifference to life (and livelihood) is not considered desirable. Hence the present verse should he treated as the Injunction of killing at Śrāddhas; and the mention of the ‘house’ is a mere reiteration (Śrāddhas being performed only by the Householder).

Some people argue here as follows:—“if this were such an Injunction, what would be the meaning of the terms ‘in the forest’ and ‘in times of distress’? For the Recluse in the forest, even though keeping up his Fire, there are no animul-sacrifices: as we shall show under 6.11.”

Our Teacher however gives the following explanation;—What is urged may be true of the Student: as regards the Recluse, even ‘self-abandonment’ has been enjoined by such texts as ‘having recourse to the Aparājitā, etc. etc.’ So that for him there can be no killing for saving his life; all this we shall clearly explain under 6.31.

“The present verse puts forward the prohibition of killing even in times of distress; how then is it that you take it to mean the permission of it at such times?”

True; but otherwise (if the text were not taken as permitting killing as sanctioned by the Veda), it would be useless. It might be argued that it could serve the purposes of a commendatory text. But even for a commendatory text, some sort of basis (some injunctive text to which it is supplementary) will have to be sought out. Hence we conclude that the prohibition contained in the verse relates to normal times—other than those of distress; and there is nothing incongruous in its being sanctioned in connection with abnormal times of distress. Further, there are various degrees of ‘distress’; and under the lesser forms of it, if one would take to ‘killing’ animals for food under the consideration that his food-supply was sufficient only for a month or a fortnight (after which he will have nothing to eat),—then such killing (even though at an abnormal time of distress) would be what is forbidden by the present text; on the other hand, if the man fears that he would die now if he did not kill for food,—or if a desperado with uplifted weapon were attacking him,—then the killing has to be done; and it is this killing in abnormal times of distress that is permitted by the text.

In this manner the Vedic text ‘one should protect himself from all things’ also becomes reconciled. (43).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).

**(verse 5.42-46)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.42].

043 A twice-born man of virtuous disposition, whether he dwells in (his own) house, with a teacher, or in the forest, must never, even in times of distress, cause an injury (to any creature) which is not sanctioned by the Veda.

वेदविहितो यः प्राणिवधः सो ऽस्मिञ् जगति चराचरे स्थावरजङ्गमे नित्यो ऽनादिः । यस् तु तन्त्रादिः सो ऽन्वयव्यतिरेकभ्रान्त्या इदानींतनः । अतो वैदिकीम् हिंसाम्¹²⁴ अहिंसाम् एव विद्यात्, अमुत्र प्रत्यवायाभावात् । अहिंसेति कार्यत उच्यते न स्वरूपतः ।

• ननु च सैव हिंसारूपा । अभेदात् कथं कार्यो भेदः ।

• उच्यते । वेदाद् धर्मो हि निर्बभौ । धर्मस्याधर्मस्य च यत् कथनं¹²⁵ तद् वेदाद् एव, पौरुषेयाणाम् अप्रामाण्यात् । वेदश् च तस्या एवाभ्युदयहेतुत्वं क्वचित् ज्ञापयति । स्वरूपाभेदो ऽपि नास्ति, क्रत्वर्थपुरुषार्थत्वेन भेदाद् आशयबेदेन प्रवृत्तेः । लौकिक्यां मांसीयतो द्विषाणस्य वा प्रवृत्तिः, वैदिक्यां तु शास्त्रेण चोदितम् इदं क्रतुवर्थम् इति ।

• निर्बभौ निःशेषेण भातः, प्रकाशतां गत इति यावत् ॥ ५.४४ ॥

The killing of creatures which has been prescribed in the Veda, ‘has been eternal’— without beginning—‘in this world of mobile and immobile beings;’ on the other hand, that which is laid down in the Tantra and other works is modern, and based upon mistaken induction. Hence it is only the former that is to be regarded as ‘no killing at all’; and this for the reason that it does not involve any sin in reference to the other world. When this killing is called ‘no killing,’ it is only in view of its effects, and not in view of its form (which of course is that of killing ).

“Since both acts would be equally killing; how can there be any difference in their effects ?”

The answer to this is—‘because it was out of the Veda that the Law shone forth’;—the promulgation of what is lawful (right) and what is unlawful (wrong) proceeded from the Veda; human authorities not being at all trustworthy. And as a matter of fact, the Veda is found to declare that in certain cases, killing is conducive to welfare. Nor is there an absolute identity of form (between the two kinds of killing); because firstly there is the difference that, while one is done for the sake of accomplishing a sacrifice, the other is done for entirely personal motives; and secondly there is difference in the intention also, that is, ordinary killing is done either by one who desires to eat meat, or by one who hates the creature (killed), while the Vedic killing is done because the man thinks that ‘it is enjoined by the scriptures’.

‘Shone forth’— Shone fully; i.e., became manifested.—(44).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).

**(verse 5.42-46)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.42].

044 Know that the injury to moving creatures and to those destitute of motion, which the Veda has prescribed for certain occasions, is no injury at all; for the sacred law shone forth from the Veda.

अकारो ऽत्र प्रतिषेधार्थीयः प्रश्लिष्टो द्रष्टव्यः । अहिंसकानां च प्रतिषेधात् सर्पव्याघ्रादीनाम् अप्रतिषेधः ॥ ५.४५ ॥

A half-syllable—‘a’—should be understood to be present (between ‘go’ and ‘hiṃsakam’). The prohibition regarding ‘harmless creatures’ indicates that there is no prohibition regarding dangerous animals, such as serpents, tigers and the like.—(45).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).

**(verse 5.42-46)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.42].

045 He who injures innoxious beings from a wish to (give) himself pleasure, never finds happiness, neither living nor dead.

बन्धनवधा एव क्लेशाः । अथ वा विशसनादयः¹²⁶ । तान् यो न कर्तुम् इच्छति, विशसनम्¹²⁷ एव येन न कृतम्, तद्विषयेच्छैव यस्य निवृत्ता । न केवलं पीडां न करोति, यावद् धितं प्रेप्सितुम् इच्छति सर्वस्य स सुखम् अत्यन्तम् अश्नुते ॥ ५.४६ ॥

“Capture” and ‘death’ are the ‘sufferings’ meant; or ‘sufferings’ may be taken separately, as standing for ‘doing pecuniary harm’ etc.

He who seeks to do all this ,—i.e., who not only desists from such acts, but who never has any desire to do it;—such a person does not merely cense, to do harm to others, he actually becomes their ‘well-wisher’,—he is anxious to do good to them; and ‘he obtains perfect happiness’— (46).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 539).

**(verse 5.42-46)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.42].

046 He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss.

यच् चिन्तयति शुल्कम् अर्हणादि । यत्र च रतिम् अभिलाषं बध्नात्य् अभिप्रेत्य वस्तुनि । तद् अयत्नेन स्वल्पेनैव कालेन्आवाप्नोति । यत् तु कुरुते कर्मणा तत् कर्मनिष्पत्तिसमन्तरम् एवाविघ्नेन प्राप्नोति ॥ ५.४७ ॥

‘What he thinks of’,—in the shape of profit and honour, &c.

‘What he fixes his heart upon’,—whatever desirable thing he has longing for;—all this ‘he obtains without effort.’

‘What he undertakes’—whatever art he does, the reward of that he obtains, without and difficulty, immediately after the accomplishment of that act.—(47)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.181) as laying down the indirect result of avoiding the killing of animals.

Viṣṇu (51.70).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (l.181).—‘The self-controlled Brāhmaṇa, even though living in the house, obtains all desires and also the reward of Aśvamedha sacrifice, if he gives up meat.’

Bṛhaspati (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 536).—‘If the non-greedy man cats not meat, even though he is ill or has been invited, he obtains, without effort, the reward of the Aśvamedha sacrifice.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika).—‘The approver, the cutter, the killer, the buyer, the seller, and the cooker—all these are slayers……the eater is the seventh and the worst of all.’

047 He who does not injure any (creature), attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.

सर्वस्य हिंसाप्रतिषेधश्लोकसंघातस्य मांसभक्षणसेषतां दर्शयति । यावत् प्राणिनो न हतास् तावन् मांसं नोत्पद्यते । हिंसा चातिशयेन दुःखावहा । तस्मान् मांसं विवर्जयेत् ।

• ननु च स्वयं मृतानां भवत्य् एव मांसम्, किम् इदम् उच्यते “नाकृत्वा” इति ।

• अर्थवादो ऽयम् । स्वयं मृतानां च मांसं रोगहेतुत्वाद् अप्राप्तम् एव । न ह्य् अदत्वा मांसं भक्ष्यते । न च रोगहेतोर् दानम् अस्ति ।

• उत्पद्यत इति मांसस्य हिंसानिमित्तत्वात् कर्तृव्यपदेशे¹²⁸ समानकर्तृकत्वं भवत्य् एवाविरुद्धम् । अथ वा उत्पद्यत इति न च स्वर्ग्य इति । न स्वर्गानुत्पत्तिहेतुमात्रम् अभिप्रेतम् अपि तु नरकादिदुःखहेतुत्वम्¹²⁹ ॥ ५.४८ ॥

This verse show’s that all the verses forbidding the killing of animals are auxiliary to the prohibition of meat-eating.

As a matter of fact, until animals have been killed, meat cannot be obtained; and killing is very painful. Hence one should avoid meat.

“Meat can be obtained from animals that die of themselves; how is it then that it is said that it cannot be obtained without encompassing the death of animals?”

The verse is a purely commendatory exaggeration. Further, there can be no idea of any one eating the meat of animals dying of themselves, for the simple reason that such meat is the source of disease. Meat is never eaten without being offered, and what is a source of disease can never be offered as gift.

‘Utpadyate’;—the meat is brought about by killing; hence the nominative of hilling and of obtaining may be regarded as one and the same; so that there is nothing incongruous in the expression ‘nākṛtvā utpadyate’. Or, ‘utpadyate’ may be construed along with ‘does not lead to Heaven.’ What is meant is, not only that it does not lead to heaven, but also that it leads to hell and other evils.—(48)

**(verses 5.48-49)
**

These verses are quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 719), which adds that the prohibition contained here pertains to the eating of meat obtained by such killing of animals as is prohibited,—and not to that of meat obtained by purchase; and this on the ground that it is prefaced by the deprecating of the act of killing.

Verse 48 only is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 279).

048 Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.

अशुचिस्थाने कुक्षौ गर्भवृद्धिः, शुक्रशोणिताभ्यां वाशुचिभ्यां प्रभावः । तथा वधबन्धौ शरीरवतां तत्कृतौ । एतत् सर्वं प्रसमीक्ष्य निपुणबुद्ध्या तत्वतो निरूप्य । निवर्तेत सर्वमांसस्य भक्षणात् सर्वस्याप्रतिषिद्धस्यापि, किं पुनः प्रतिषिद्धस्य ।

• अर्थवादो ऽयम् । न पुनस् तत्वतः अशुच्य् एव मांसं ज्ञेयम् । न हि तदशुचित्वविधिपरं वाक्यम् ॥ ५.४९ ॥

The foetus grows in the womb, which is an unclean place: and it is produced from semen and ovule, both unclean things.

‘Fettering and killing’—involved in the obtaining of meat.

‘Having duly pondered over’—carefully considered with an alert mind;—‘all this,—one shall abstain from the eating of all meat’—i.e., also of that which is not forbidden; what to say of what is actually forbidden?

The present text is a commendatory exaggeration: it is not meant that meat should be always regarded as unclean; the sentence does not mean to lay down that all meat is actually unclean.—(49)

**(verses 5.48-49)
**

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 5.48].

049 Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

विधिर् देवार्चनं तद् धित्वा यो न भक्षयति, किं तर्हि विधिना भक्षयति । स लोकस्य प्रियतां प्राप्नोति । प्रियः सर्वस्य भवति । व्याधिभिश् च । कृशदुर्बलादेर् मांसम् अश्नतो व्याधिर् उपजायते । तेनापि विधिनैवाशितव्यम् । तथा भक्षयन् व्याधिभिश् च न पीड्यते । अन्यथा अश्नन्न् अपि मांसं पीड्यत एव व्याधिभिः । पिशाचवद् इति । पिशाचास् तिर्यग्जातिविशेषास् ते विधिम् अनपेक्ष्य मांसम् अश्नन्ति । ततो ऽन्यो ऽपि तथा भक्षयन् पिशाचसदृशो भवतीति निन्द्यते ॥ ५.५० ॥

^(‘)Proper method’—i.e., of worshipping the Gods and so forth; if one does not eat meat, regardless of this manner, but eats it only in the right manner,—^(‘)he b ecomes popular’—loved by the people: he becomes dear to all.

‘He is not afflicted by disease.’—Diseases are produced if a man eats the flesh of lean and enfeebled animals. For this reason also one should eat meat only in the right manner; and by eating it thus, he ‘is not afflicted by disease.’ By eating meat in any other way, he is always afflicted by disease.

‘Like a fiend.’—The term ‘fiend’ stands for a species of lower animals, which eat flesh always in the wrong manner; hence every one who eats it in the wrong manner becomes like a fiend;—this is the sense of the deprecatory simile.—(50).

Cf. The Mahābhārata 13.114.12.

050 He who, disregarding the rule (given above), does not eat meat like a Pisaka, becomes dear to men, and will not be tormented by diseases.

अन्येन हन्यमानं स्वप्रयोजनतो यद्य् अन्यो ऽनुमोदते साध्व् अयं हन्ता करोतीत्य् अनुमन्ता । विशसिता हतस्याङ्गविभागकारः । उपहर्ता परिवेषकः । खादक इत्य् एते सर्वे घातकाः ।

• अघातकेषु खादनसंस्कारविक्रयादिकर्तृषु घातकत्वे ऽध्यारोपिते निन्दा, न पुनस् तत्वत एते घातका एव । लौकिकी हि वधक्रिया प्राणत्यागफला । तस्य कर्ता घातकः स्मृतितो गम्यते । स्वतन्त्रः कर्तेति विशेषशास्त्रादिना यः प्राणवियोजनं प्राणिनां क्रोति स हन्तोच्यते । क्रयविक्रयाद्याश् च किर्यास् ततो ऽन्या एव ।

• ननु चेयम् अपि स्मृतिर् एव, एते अनुमन्तृप्रभृतयो घातका इति ।

• नेदं शब्दार्थसंबन्धे प्रमाणम्, किं तर्हि धर्माधर्मयोः । अभियुक्ततरो हि तत्र भवान् पाणिनिः । मन्वादयश् च लोकप्रसिद्धैः पदार्थैर् व्यवहरन्ति, न शब्दार्थसंबन्धविधिं स्मरन्ति । प्रयोक्तारो ह्य् एते न स्मर्तारः ।

• ननु च “तम् आचार्यं प्रक्षते” (म्ध् २.१४०) इत्यादेः स्मरन्त्य् एते ।

• सत्यम् । न तत्र शास्त्रस्मृतिविरोधः । न च तेषां वाक्यानाम् अन्यत् प्रयोजनम् अस्ति । इह तु गौणेनापि प्रयोजनेनार्थवादतयाप्य् उपपत्तेर् न घातकत्वं शक्यम् अवसातुम् ।

• ये ऽप्य् आहुर् “भक्षकश् चेन् न विद्यते वधको ऽपि न विद्यत इति भक्षणप्रयुक्त एव वधः, प्रयोजकश् च कर्ता स्मर्यते । ततो मुख्यम् एव घातकत्वम् । अतो घातकप्रायश्चित्तम् एव खादकस्य युक्तम्” इति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् इति¹³⁰ ब्रूमः । पृथक्प्रायश्चित्तं हतानां रसास्वादकस्य “जग्ध्वा मांसम् अभक्ष्यं च” इति (म्ध् ११.१५१ ) ।

• यद् अपि¹³¹ प्रयोजकत्वेन कर्तृत्वम् उक्तं तद् अपि नैवास्ति । इदं हि तस्य लक्षणम्-

• प्रेषणाध्येषणाभ्यां तु यः स्वतन्त्रस्य चोदकः ।

• स कर्ता चैव¹³² हेतुश् च मुख्यो नोपचरन् परः ॥ इति ।

वधको हि जीवनप्रयुक्त्या प्रवर्तते मांसविक्रयेण जीविष्यामीति, न तु खादकेन विनियुज्यते ।

• अथ तत्समर्थाचरणं प्रयोजकत्वम् । यो ऽयं क्रियां कर्तुम् अध्यवसितस् तत्रानुकूल्येन यः संविधित्सुः स प्रयोजक इति । एतद् अप्य् अत्र नैवास्ति । साधनोपनिधानं त्रसतः पशोर् अस्वतन्त्रीकरणं¹³³ खड्गोपनयनम् इत्य् एवं संविधानशब्दवाच्यं युक्तम् । तेन विना क्रिया न निष्पद्यते ।

• अथ यदर्थः क्रियारम्भः स प्रयोजकश् चेति चेत्, माणवकम् अध्यापयतीत्य् अध्यापनहेतुकर्तृसंज्ञाप्रतिलम्भः,¹³⁴ न ह्य् अध्ययनम् अध्यापयत्यर्थः¹³⁵ ।

• न चासौ कंचिद्¹³⁶ उद्दिश्य हनने प्रवर्तते । येनास्य तदर्थनिरूपणाय भक्षणे ऽनर्था प्रवृत्तिः स्यात् । सर्व इमे स्वभूत्यै यतन्ते । न केन कश्च्त् परो ऽनुग्रहीतव्य इति मुहूर्तम् अप्य् अवतिष्ठते इत्य् अपि पूर्णकामः ।

• अथ स्वार्थं प्रवृत्तस्य भक्षयितारम् अन्तरेण प्रवृत्तिर् अनर्थिका । तस्मिंस् तु सति फलवती । फलं च प्रयोजकम् । तच् च खादकाधीनम् इति पारंपर्येण खादकः प्रयोजक इति ।

• एवं तर्हि यो द्वेषाद् वध्यते स हन्तुः प्रयोजकः स्यात् । ततश् च हन्यमान एव हन्ता संपद्यते । न हि द्वेषेण विना हन्तृत्वोपपत्तिर् इति । तथा ब्रह्महत्यायाम् अपि सर्वस्वदानं¹³⁷ पातकसंप्रयोजकम् । न हि प्रतिग्राहयितारम् अन्तरेण प्रतिग्रहोपपत्तिस् ततश् च प्रतिग्राही न केवलं प्रत्यवेयाद् अपि तु दातापि । रूपवती च स्त्री स्मरशरदह्यमानहृदयेन रागिणा दर्शितस्पृहातिशयेन शीलं रक्षन्ती प्रत्यवेयात् ।

• तस्मान् नेदं प्रयोजकलक्षणम् ।

• तौ हि वधकखादकौ स्वार्थप्रवृत्तौ नष्टाश्वदग्धरथवद् इतरेतरोपकारम् अनुभवन्तौ, न पुनर् अन्यतरप्रयोजकौ¹³⁸ । “शूद्रविट्क्षत्रविप्राणाम्” (म्ध् ८.१०४) इत्य् अत्र श्लोके निपुणम् एतन् निर्णीतम्¹³⁹ ॥ ५.५१ ॥

When some one is killing an animal, if another person should come, and for his own selfish purposes show his approbation, by such words as ‘he is doing well in thus killing the animal,’—this latter man is called the, ‘approver’.

‘He who cuts.’—he who quarters the dead body.

‘He who serves’—places it before persons eating.

‘He who eats it’.

All these are ‘slayers’.

What is meant by attributing the character of the ‘slayer’ to those who do not actually slay, but do the other acts of eating, preparing, selling, &c.,—is the deprecation of all these acts; all these persons do not actually become ‘slayers.’ The ordinary act of ‘slaying’ is that which results in loss of life: so that it is only one who does this act that is the ‘slayer.’ In accordance with the rule that ‘the nominative agent of an act is one who does it independently by himself,’ that person alone is called the ‘slayer’ who deprives living beings of their life; those who do the acts of buying, selling, etc., are other than that person.

“But the statement that the approver and the rest also are slayers also emanates from the Smṛti (and as such must be accepted as true).”

The authority of this Smṛti does not extend to the subject of words and their denotations; it is confined to the subject of right and wrong,—what is lawful and what unlawful. More authoritative on the subject of words and their meanings is the revered Pāṇini. In fact Manu and otther writers on Smṛti only make use of words in accordance with ordinary usage, and they do not lay down rules bearing upon words and their meanings; they use the words, they do not regulate them.

“But as a matter of fact, we do find these writers making such assertions as ‘such and such a person is called a Preceptor’ and so forth (which lay down the denotation of words).”

True; bat in such cases there is no inconsistency between what the Smṛti says and what we learn from the treatises bearing upon the subject. Nor again is there any other useful purpose found to be served by those passages that explain the meaning of the term ‘preceptor’ (for instance). In the present case, however the passage is capable of serving an. auxiliary purpose by bring taken as a commendatory statement; so that it is not possible, on the strength of the present text alone, to regard all. these persons as ‘slayers.’

Some people argue as follows:—“If there is no one to eat, there would be no one to kill; so that the killing is really prompted by the eating; and the prompter of an act also has been regarded as its doer; so that the eater is the slayer, even in the direct sense of this term; and it is only right that the eater should have to perform the same Expiatory Rite as the slayer.”

This, we say, is not right; because as a matter of fact, a different expiatory rite has been prescribed, under Discourse XI for the taster of the meat of the animals killed (by others).

What has been stated above regarding the prompter bring the doer, that also is not true. The prompting agent has been thus defined—‘He who by means of direction and request, prompts the independent agent, is also an auxiliary agent, the other bring the principal one.’ And as a matter of fact when the slayer kills the animal, hie is not ordered to do so by the eater; be does it as u means of living, with the motive that he shall live by selling the flesh.

If prompting means abetting,—i.e., if it be held that when a man proceeds to do a certain act, if another person abets him and co-operates with him, the latter is to be regarded as the prompter—then, this definition also is not applicable to the present case, in the act of killing, the ‘abetting’ would consist in such acts as—(a) collecting the weapons, etc. (b) the sharpening of the blunted axe, (c) the bringing up of the sword, and so forth; as without these the act of killing could not be accomplished, [and none of these acts is done by the eater ].

If, however, the prompter be defined as ‘that person for whose take the. work is done,’—then, in the case of the ‘teaching of the boy,’ the boy would have to be regarded as the prompting agent in the act of ‘teaching’; and yet ‘teaching’ does not mean ‘reading’ (which is what the boy actually does).

Then again, when the slayer does the killing, he does not do so for the benefit of any particular person, by virtue of which the latter’s action of eating could be regarded as sinful. In fact, all these persons undertake these acts for their own benefit; and not one of them is troubled by the idea of benefiting any other person.

“Even when the man undertakes the killing for his own benefit, such action would be absolutely useless if there were no eater: it is only when there is an eater, that the man’s action is fruitful; and the fruit of an act is the motive, the ‘prompting force; and as this depends upon the enter, the eater also is an indirect prompter.”

If this be so, then, when a person is murdered on account of enmity, since the enemy would be the prompter of the act of killing, the murdered man could become the murderer! For without enmity, the act of murder would not be possible. Similarly when in the case of Brāhmaṇa-murdcr, the murderer (in course of the Expiatory Rite) gives away his entire property, the act of giving will have been prompted by the murder: and as there could be no recipient without the giver, it is not only the re-chastity, but the giver also that would beecome tainted with the sin. Similarly a beautiful woman would incur sin by guarding her chastity against the lover who has his heart burning with the arrows of love and who has expressed his longing for her.

From all this it follows that what has been suggested cannot be the definition of the prompter.

As a matter of fact, both the slayer and the eater do their respective acts for their own special benefit: but they become helpful to one another in the manner of two persons one of whom has lost his horse and another his cart; and there can be no question of one being the prompter of the other.

This has been fully discussed under 8.104.—(51).

“In the Mahābhārata (13.114.36-49) this is ‘as told of old by Mārkaṇḍeya’.”—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 251)—in Mitākṣarā (on 1.181), as describing the eight kinds of ‘killer’;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 301), which has the following notes:—‘ghātakāḥ’, partakers in the sin,—‘anumantā’, who acquiesces in the act,—‘viśasitā’, who cuts the limbs,—‘nihantā’, who actually does the act that deprives the animal of the life,—‘saṃskartā,’ who cooks the meat,—‘upahartā’, who serves the meat.

051 He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

अधिकपुष्ट्यर्थं यो मांसम् अश्नाति तस्येयं निन्दा । न तु रोगोत्पत्तिभयाशङ्कया । यत आह । यो वर्धयितुम् इच्छन्तीति । तस्याप्य् अनभ्यर्च्य पितॄन् देवान् । न तु रोगहेतोत्स् त्व् अर्चनम् अकुर्वतो ऽपि कथंचिद् असंभवान् न दोषः ॥ ५.५२ ॥

This deprecates the man who eats meat for the purposc of fattening himself, and not one who does it for averting disease. That this is so is clear from the words of the text ‘he who seeks to increase.’ In him also, only if he does it ‘without worshipping the Gods and Pitṛs.’ But if the man is ill, and recovery is not possible without eating meat, then there would be no harm, even if the said worshipping were not done.—(52).

“In the Mahābhārata (13.114.14) this verse is ascribed to Nārada.”—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 531);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 301).

Mahābhārata (13.115.14, 36) (116.11).—(Reproduces Manu, the second line reading as ‘Nāradaḥ prāha dharmātmā niyatam sovasīdati under 14; and under 36, the second line reading as ‘udvignavāso vasati yatra yatrābhijāyate’ and under 116.16, the second line reading as ‘nāsti kṣudratarastasmāt sa nṛśaṃsataro naraḥ.’)

Viṣṇu (51.76).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (1.181).—(See above, under 47.)

052 There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

If a man performs the Aśvamedha Sacrifice every year, for a hundred tears,—and another does not eat meat,—the merit and reward of both these are the same.—(53.)

phalānāmalpamahatām karmaṇāṃ ca svagocare | vibhāgaḥ snānasāmānyādaviśeṣeṇa codite |

देवाद्यर्चनशिष्टस्य शशादिमांसस्य भक्षणम् अनुज्ञातम् । ततो निवर्तमानो ऽश्वमेधफलम् अश्नुते । अश्वमेधस्य फलम् “सर्वान् कामान् अवश्यं सर्वाविजितीः” इत्यादि ।

• न चात्र चोदनीयम्- कथं महाप्रयासेन बहुधनव्ययेन च तुल्यफलता मांसनिवृत्तेः स्यात् । यत एषो ऽपि संयमो ऽतिदुष्करः । किं च लोकवत् परिमाणतः फलविशेषः स्याद् इत्य् अयं न्यायो जृम्भत एव । अतः फलविधौ न दोषः ।

• वयं तु ब्रूमः । अर्थवाद एवायम् । यतो वर्षे शतं समा इति चार्थवादपक्षे¹⁴⁰ सुघटम् । न हि प्रतिवर्षम् अश्वमेधस्य विधेयत्वसंभवः । नापि वर्षे शतम्, तावतः कालस्याधिकारिणो जीवनाद्यसंभवात् ।

• पुण्यं च फलं च पुण्यफलम् । समाहारद्वन्द्वः । षष्ठीसमासे ह्य् असामर्थ्यम् ॥ ५.५३॥

The eating of the meat of the Hare and other animals,—in the form of remnants of the worship of Gods and Pitṛs—has been sanctioned. If one abstains from this eating, he obtains the fruits of the Aśvamedha sacrifice; and the fruits of this sacrifice have been described in the words ‘he obtains all desires, etc., etc.’

In this connection it would not be right to urge the following objection:—“How can mere abstaining from meat be equal to a sacrifice involving tremendous labour and much expense?”—Because the said abstention also is extremely difficult. Further, the principle enunciated in the Sūtra.—‘The particular result would follow from development as in the ordinary world’—is operative here also. Hence there can be no objection against the asserting of results or fruits of actions.

Our answer however is us follows:—What is said in the text is a purely commendatory exaggeration; socially because the statement of the sacrifice being performed ‘every year for one hundred years’ can be regarded only us such an exaggeration; for it is not possible for the Aśvamedha to be performed every year; nor can it be performed ‘for a hundred years,’ as no performer would live so long,

‘Puṇyaphalam’ is a copulative compound, it being impossible to take it us a Genitive Tatpuruṣa.—(53).

In the Mahābhārata (13.114.15) this occurs as writer’s ‘matam mama,’ but it has ‘māse’ for ‘varṣe’—says Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.181), to the effect that the merit of the performance of Aśvamedha accrues to one who renounces meat for a full year;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 533), which adds that according to Medhātithi, this is mere Arthavāda, and not the declaration of a result that actually follows from the act,—this being based upon the principle laid down by Jaimini under 4.3.1. It goes on to add that this view is not right; as this case is not analogous to that of Jaimini 4.3.1,

A ‘declaration of rewards’ is regarded as an ‘Arthavāda’ only when there is some other passage mentioning another reward in connection with the same act; in the present case, however, we do not find any other passage speaking of any other rewards accruing from the renouncing of meat for one year; so that this comes under the Rātrisattranyāya (Jaimini 4.3.17 et. seq.; see note under verse 40). It concludes with the remark that the reward accruing from the renouncing of meat for one year,—even though of the same kind as that following from the Aśvamedha—is of a much lower degree;—and quotes the following Kārikā of ‘Bhaṭṭapāda’—

phalānāmalpamahatām karmaṇāṃ ca svagocare |
vibhāgaḥ snānasāmānyādaviśeṣeṇa codite |

Mahābhārata (13.115.10, 16).—‘If one performs the Aśvamedha month after month, and if one eats not. meat, the two are equal. If one were to perform difficult austerities for full one hundred years, and one were to omit meat-eating, the two might or might not be equal.’

Viṣṇu (51.76).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (1.181).—(See above, under 47.)

053 He who during a hundred years annually offers a horse-sacrifice, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct).

By subsisting upon sacred fruits and roots, and by eating the food of hermits, one does not obtain that reward which he does by abstaining from meat—(54).

मेध्यैर् देवार्हैः । मुन्यन्नानि नीवाराद्यन्नान्य् अकृष्टपच्यजनितानि । अयम् अर्थवाद एव ॥ ५.५४ ॥

‘Sacred’—fit for Gods.

‘Food of hermits’—i.e., such grains as are got without cultivation; e.g., the Nirāra and the like.

This verse also is a purely commendatory exaggeration—(54)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 719), which adds that the renouncing of meat here spoken of refers to meat other than the ‘consecrated’ and the rest that have been spoken of before.

**(verses 5.54-55)
**

Viṣṇu (51.77.78).—(Same as Manu.)

054 By subsisting on pure fruit and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics (in the forest), one does not gain (so great) a reward as by entirely avoiding (the use of) flesh.

‘Me he (māṃ-sa) will devour in the next world, whose meat I eat in this’—this is the ‘meatness’ (māṃsatva) of the ‘meat’ (māṃsa), as the wise ones declare.—(55).

नामधेयनिर्वचनम् अर्थवादः । मां स भक्षयिता । स इति सर्वनाम सामान्यापेक्षं योग्येनार्थेन निराकाङ्क्षीकरोति¹⁴¹ यस्य मांसम् अश्नाति ॥ ५.५५ ॥

This explanation of the name is a commendatory description.

‘Māṃ sa bhakṣayitā’,—‘He will eat me.’—‘The general pronoun ‘saḥ,’ ‘he,’ has its particular character pointed out by what follows—‘whose meat I eat here.’—(55).

Cf. The Mahābhārata 13.116.35.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 531);—and in Sṛmtisāroddhāra (p. 301).

**(verses 5.54-55)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.54].

055 ‘Me he (mam sah)’ will devour in the next (world), whose flesh I eat in this (life); the wise declare this (to be) the real meaning of the word ‘flesh’ (mamsah).

There is no sin in the eating of meat, nor in wine, nor in sexual intercourse. Such is the natural way of living beings; but abstention is conducive to great rewards.—(56).

“प्राणस्यान्नम्” (म्ध् ५.२८) इत्य् अत आरभ्य यावद् अयं श्लोको ऽर्थवादसंघात एव । द्वित्राः श्लोका विधेयार्थाः¹⁴² ।

• न मांसभक्षणे दोषो यथा “क्रीत्वा स्वयं वाप्य् उत्पाद्य” (म्ध् ५.३२) इति तथायम् अपि श्लोकः । निवृत्तिस् तु महाफलेत्य् एतद् अत्र श्रूयते । बहुभिर् निन्दार्थाकरैर् ईदृशः संस्कारो जातो यन् न किंचिन् मांसम् अशितव्यम् । भूतानां वृत्त्यर्थम् आह- न मांसभक्षणे दोष इति । देवार्चनशिष्टे ब्राह्मणकाम्यादिषु निमित्तेषु प्रागुक्तेषु न दोषः । किं तु यद्य् अशितुम्¹⁴³ इच्छन्ति । निवृत्तिर् न भक्षयामीति संकपपूर्विका महाफला । फलविशेषाश्रुतेः स्वर्गः फलम् इति मीमांसकाः ।

• एवं मद्ये क्षत्रियादीनाम्, मैथुने तु सर्ववर्णानाम्, दिवोदक्यापर्वकालाद् अन्यत्र । अल्पस्व् अल्पा प्रवृत्तिर् एषा शास्त्रीया । भूतानां शरीरस्थितिहेत्वर्था प्रवृत्तिः । तथा चायुर्वेदकृत् ।

• आहारो ब्रह्मचर्यं च निद्रा चेति त्रयं मतम् ।

• मादकं च स्त्रियश् चैव ह्य् उपस्तम्भनम् आयुषः ॥ इति ।

• यस् तु तेन विनापि शक्नोति जीवितुं तस्य निवृत्तिर् महाफला । प्रदर्शनार्थं चैतत् । अशिष्टाप्रतिषिद्धविषयाणाम् अन्यासाम् अपि निवृत्तीनाम् एवम् एव । यत्र विधानं पुरुषस्य प्रवर्तमानस्य प्रीत्यतिशयोत्पत्तिप्रयोजनम् अनिन्द्यम्, गर्हेत वा यतो निवृत्तिः फलाय, यथा मध्वशनं संपन्नभोजनं राङ्कवं परिधानम् इत्य् एवमादि । तथा च शिष्टसमाचारः । व्यासश् च भगवान् एवम् आह । ये तु संसक्तितो ऽशिष्टाप्रतिषिद्धा अपि यथा हसितकण्डूयनादयस् ततो निवृत्तिर् धर्माय ॥ ५.५६ ॥

From verse 28 to this we have a series of purely commendatory texts; there are only two or three verses that are injunctive in their character.

‘There is no sin in the eating of meat.’ This assertion stands on the same footing as verse 32 above. What we learn from the present verse (in addition to what we know already) is that ‘abstention is conductive to great rewards.’ By various deprecatory texts the impression has been produced that ‘no meat should be eaten.’ But by way of providing a means of living for living beings it has been asserted that ‘there is no sin in the eating of meat’; which means that there is no sin if one eats such meat as is the remnant of the worship of Gods, etc., or what is eaten at the wish of Brāhmaṇas, and under such similar circumstances specified above; but this only if he wish to eat it.

‘Abstention’—taking the resolve not to eat meat and then to abstain from it—this is ‘conducive, to great reward.’ In the absence of the mention of any particular reward, Heaven is to be regarded as the reward. So say the Mīmāṃsakas.

Similarly in regard, to ‘wine’, for the Kṣatriyas,—and to ‘sexual intercourse’, for all castes; but apart from that which may be alone (a) ‘during the day’ or (b) ‘with women in their courses’, or ‘on sacred days’, (in connection with all of which sexual intercourse has been forbidden).

The three things mentioned, here, in their very restricted forms, constitute the ‘natural way of living beings’, sanctioned by the scriptures with a view to the maintenance of the body. Says the author of the Science of Medicine (Āyurveda)—‘Food, continence and sleep—these three, intoxicants and women, tend to prolong life.’

If, however, one can manage to live without these, for him ‘abstention is conucive to great rewards.’ This is said merely by way of illustration: same being the case with all ‘abstentions’ from such things as are neither prescribed nor forbidden. Where however a certain act is definitely prescribed, there is nothing reprehensible in the man’s doing it, even if it be done only for the Bake of the pleasure that it affords him; in fact abstention from such an act would itself be reprehensible, as done with a view to ‘great rewards’; e.g. the eating of honey, having a full meal, wearing a woolen garment and so forth. Such also is the practice of cultured people; the revered Vyāsa also says the same. Those acts, on the other hand, to which people have recourse only through desire,—even though these be neither permitted nor forbidden,—e.g. laughing, scratching of the body and so forth,—abstention born these would be conducive to great rewards,—(56)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 719) in support of the view that it is only the eating of prohibited meat that is sinful;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 537), which adds the following notes:—‘māṃse’—i.e., such meat as is not forbidden;—‘madye’—for the Kṣatriya and other lower castes ;—‘maithune’—i.e., such sexual intercourse as is not prohibited;—‘nivṛttiḥ’—i.e., the determination to renounce;—‘mahāphalā’—i.e., conducive to the attainment of Heaven and such other results as have been mentioned in the foregoing arthavāda passages. Medhātithi has remarked that the determination to renounce meat and other things must be regarded as conducive to Heaven only, on the basis of the principle of the Viśvajit (Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 4.3.15-16). But this is not right, as it is very much simpler to accept the rewards mentioned in the arthavāda passages as the rewards meant here, rather than assume one on the basis of the said principle.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 277), which remarks that this refers, to such meat as is left, after the offerings to the gods and Pitṛs have been made;—as regards wine, the abandoning of it is ‘conducive to great rewards’ only for those for whom wine is not forbidden,—and as regards ‘sexual intercourse,’ the abandoning that leads to great rewards is that of the intercourse which is sanctioned ‘on all except the sacred days,’ and ‘that for the sake of pleasure.’

056 There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards.

I am going to describe, in due order, purification on death, as also purification of substances, as prescribed for all the four castes.—(57)

चतुर्णाम् अपीतिवचनं सामान्यविहिता धर्माः शूद्रस्य नेदृशं यत्नम् अन्तरेण भवन्तीति ज्ञापनार्थम् । प्रेतेषु जीवतां शुद्धिः । सुप्सुपेति समासः । प्रापणं चाप्रेतवन् निमित्ता शुद्धिर् इयं विशेषस्य । अतश् च यद्य् अपि शुद्धिवचनं प्रतिज्ञायते, तथाप्य् अशुद्धिसापेक्षत्वाच् छुद्धेः शास्त्रप्रत्ययकारकत्वाद् उभयोः, अप्रतिज्ञातापि प्रथमम् अशुद्धिर् उच्यते ॥ ५.५७ ॥

‘For all the four castes’.—This is meant to imply that the duties of the Śūdra, generally laid down only in a vague form, could not be known without special effort.

‘Pretaśuddhi’,—the purification of the living after the death of other persons. This compound is according to the general rule ‘A noun with a declensional ending is compounded with anther noun with a declensional ending’.

Though the author announces that he is going to describe the purification, yet, in as much ‘purification is dependent upon, and relative to, ‘impurity’, and us it is the function of the treatise to provide information regarding both, the author is going to describe first the occasions of ‘Impurity’.—(57).

Mahābhārata (13.115.14, 36) (116.11).—(Reproduces Manu, the second line reading as ‘Nāradaḥ prāha dharmātmā niyatam sovasīdati under 14; and under 36, the second line reading as ‘udvignavāso vasati yatra yatrābhijāyate’ and under 116.16, the second line reading as ‘nāsti kṣudratarastasmāt sa nṛśaṃsataro naraḥ.’)

Viṣṇu (51.76).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (1.181).—(See above, under 47.)

057 I will now in due order explain the purification for the dead and the purification of things as they are prescribed for the four castes (varna).

When a child dies that has teethed, or one younger than it when its tonsure has been performed, all its relatives are ‘impure’. The same is declared to be the case with births also.—(58).

अनुजातो दन्तजाताद् बालतर इति स्मरन्ति । तथाविभागेनोद्देशमात्रम् इदं यतस् तदपेक्ष आशौचकालभेदो भविष्यति । तद् यथा स्मृत्यन्तरे “आ दन्तजन्मनः”,¹⁴⁴ तथा “बाले देशान्तरस्थे च” (म्ध् ५.७७) इत्यादिना सद्यःशौचं श्रुतम् । बाल अजातदन्तो विज्ञेयः । एवं च “नृणाम् अकृतचूडानाम्” (म्ध् ५.६६) इत्य् एतद् एकरात्रिकम् आशौचं दन्तजाते ऽप्य् अवस्थाप्यते । एवम् एते स्मृती¹⁴⁵ विषयव्यवस्थया अविरोधिन्यौ बालविषये भवतः । नैशिकी च शुद्धिर् आ चूडाकरणात् । यतो निवृत्तमुण्डकानां त्रिरात्रं वक्ष्यति । तच् च त्रिरात्रं प्राग् उपनयनात् परतः “शुद्ध्येद् विप्रः” (म्ध् ५.८२) इत्यादि ।

• ये तु “दशाहं शावम् आशौचम्” (म्ध् ५.५९) इत्य् एतान् पक्षान् वयोविभागेन वर्णयन्ति, स्मृत्यन्तरात् समाचाराच् च व्युत्क्रमेण संबन्धयन्ति, दशाहम् उपनीतस्य अनुपनीतस्य चतुरहं कृतमुण्डस्य त्र्यहं जातदन्तस्यैकाहम् अनुजातस्य सद्यःशौचिकादयस् तु विकल्पाः । एवं त्र्यहचतुरहयोः कृतचूडस्य ।

• तेषां मते स्मृत्यन्तरप्रसिद्धो वृत्तस्वाध्यायापेक्षो न विकल्पः प्रतिपादितः स्यात् । तच्चोत्तरत्र दर्शयिष्यामः ।

• सर्वव्यापारनिवृत्त्या मृत उच्यते, संपूर्वस्य तिष्ठतेर् व्यापारोपरमदर्शनात् । बान्धवाः सपिण्डाः समानोदकाश् च । सूतके च पुत्रजन्मादौ । तथोच्यते अशुद्धा बान्धवाः सर्व इत्य् एतेनास्य संबन्धः ।

• कथं पुनर् अत्र वयोभेदप्रतिपत्तिर् यावता कृतमुण्ड इति संस्कारसंबन्धो गम्यते । कृतोपनयने चेत्य् अत्र श्रुतम् एव । अत एव कृतचौडः कियन्तं कालम् उच्यत इति नैव श्रूयते ।

• उच्यते । दन्तजातानुजातसाहचर्यात्¹⁴⁶ कृतमुण्डः काललक्षणार्थो विज्ञायते । स च कालो ऽत्र प्रथमतृतीयवर्षः¹⁴⁷ ।

• यद्य् अपि प्रथमे वर्षे वैकल्पिकं मुण्डीकरणं तस्मिन्त् समाश्रीयमाणे “आ दन्तजन्मनः सद्यः”¹⁴⁸ इत्य् एतद् बाधितं भवति ।

• तद् अप्य् अयुक्तम् । कियान् अवधिः कृतमुण्ड इति । चशब्दात् कृतमुण्डे चेति कृतोपनयने चेति लब्यते, संस्कारान्तरप्राप्तौ व्यपदेशान्तरप्रवृत्तेः । एवं चैतया स्मृत्या एकवाक्यता भविष्यति “आ दन्तजन्मनः सद्यः”¹⁴⁹ इत्य् अत्रापि । “त्रिरात्रम् आ व्रतादेशात्”¹⁵⁰ इति व्रतादेशग्रहणं कालोपलक्षणार्थम् एव । न च ब्राह्मणस्यानित्यो ऽष्टमवर्षे एवं क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् यश् च कालः, तदा शूद्रस्य न कश्चित् काल उक्तः स्यात् । तत्राप्य् अतीतशैशवस्य “परिपूर्णं सर्वेषाम्” इतिवचनात् । अतश् च आ अष्टमाद् वर्षाद् ऊर्ध्वं चतुर्णाम् अपि वर्णानां सर्वाशौचम्, शूद्रस्यापि तस्य कालस्य सद्भावात् । यस्मिंस् तु पक्षे एकादशे वर्षे क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् उपनयनं लक्ष्यते तदा शूद्रस्य न कश्चित् काल उक्तः स्यात् । तत्राप्य् अतीतशैशवस्य परिपूर्णम्, अर्वाक् त्रिरात्रम् । शैशवस्य निवृत्तिश् च स्मृत्यन्तरे “प्राग् अष्टमाच् शिशुः प्रोक्तः”, अन्यैस् तु " आ ष्ōडशाद् भवेद् बालः” इति । ये ऽपि षोडशाद् बाल्यनिवृत्तिम् आहुस् तेषाम् अप्य् अष्टमाद् ऊर्ध्वं मासिक्य् एव शुद्धिः । एवं पठ्यते “ऊर्ध्वं तु षड्भ्यो वर्षेभ्यः शुद्धिः शूद्रस्य मासिकी” । अन्यत्र पठितम् अष्टवर्षस्य मास इति ।

• ननु वक्ष्यमाणेभ्य एव वाक्येभ्य एषा वयोभेदव्यवस्था लभ्यते । किम् अनेन दन्तजात इत्य् उद्देशेन ।

• सत्यम् । सुखावबोधार्थम् ॥ ५.५८ ॥

‘Anujāta’—is taken to mean younger than the child that has teethed.

The present verse mentions the several stages only by way of illustration, and much emphasis is not meant to be laid on them; since the exact period of ‘impurity’ in regard to the various stages is going to be prescribed later on; e .g., in another Smṛti-text we read—(a) Till the appearance of teeth etc.’—(b) ‘When a child dies in a foreign country, etc., etc.’ (5.77),—there is^(‘)immediate impurity’;—where the term ‘child’ is to be understood as standing for one that has not teethed. Thus too it. is that what the text (5.67) says regarding the ‘one night’s impurity’ in connection with the death of ‘persons whose tonsure has not been performed etc.’ is taken to be applicable also to one who has teethed. It is in this way that the rules laid down by the two Smṛti-texts in connection with the ‘child’ become reconciled. In fact the ‘one night’s impurity’ pertains only to children till the performance of the Tonsure; since in connection with those whose Tonsure has been performed, the period of impurity is going to be prescribed as to last for three days; and this applies to the case of hoys before their Initiatory Ceremony; after which the period would be ten days and so forth, as laid down in the text—‘The Brāhmaṇa is purified in ten days, etc.’ (5.83).

Some people interpret the several alternative rules laid dowu in verses 5.59 et seq—‘Impurity due to death lasts for ten days’ etc., etc.,—as pertaining to the different ages (of the dying person), and construe them differently from their natural order—on the strength of usage and of other Smṛti.texts; by which (a) the impurity in connection with the Initiated child lasts for ten days, (b) in connection with the uninitiated for four days, (c) in connection with one whose Tonsure has been performed, three days, (d) in connection with one who has teethed, one day, and (e) in connection with younger children, it is to be only ‘immediate’; and so forth. In this way there would be an option between ‘three’ and ‘four’ days, in connection with one whose Tonsure has been performed.

But in accordance with these views, there would be no notice taken of the rule that has been prescribed in another Smṛti- text, in connection with the death of the boy ‘who has completed his Vedic Study’. All this we shall explain later on.

A person is called ‘dead’ when all his functions have ceased, and the root ‘sthā’ with the prepositiou ‘sam,’ denotes cessation of functions, [Hence ‘saṃsthita’ means de?a ].

‘Relations’,—i.e., Sapiṇḍas (sharers in the ball-offering) and Samānodakas (‘Sharers in the water-offering’).

‘Jātaka’ is the birth of a son, etc.

‘The same is declared to be the case’; i.e., all relations are impure.

Question: “Whence is any notion of age obtained, by which the text is interpreted as applying to one whose Tonsure has been performed, and thus refering to a particular sacramental rite? In a later text, the connection of the Initiatory Rite has been directly mentioned. But we do not find it any where stated upto what age a child may be called tonsured.”

Our answer to the above is as follows: By reason of its having been mentioned along with ‘one who has teethed,’ the term ‘tonsure’ is understood as indicating a definite age; and this age is to be taken as extending upto the third or the fourth year.

It has been argued that—“Since there is the option of performing the Tonsure during the first year, if one adopts this option, the present rule (which extends the ‘impurity’ in the case of the^(‘)tonsured’ child to one day) would be contrary to the rule that ‘upto the period of teething, the impurity is only immediate’.”

This is not right. As a matter of fact, what is the extent of the ‘tonsured’ age we learn from the juxtaposition of the epithets ‘tonsure’ and ‘initiated’, which indicates that the new name becomes applicable only upon the performance of the next sacramental rite [so that the boy could be regarded as ‘tonsured’ only till the performance of the Initiatory Rite]. In this way, the present text would become reconciled with such texts as ‘Till teething, impurity is to be immediate.’ Similarly in the Smṛti- text—‘Till the ceremony of initiation it is to be for three days’—the Initiatory ceremony is mentioned only as indicative of a particular age. It might be argued that—“there would, in this case be no age specified for the Śūdra, in the way in which it is for the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, in connection with whom, the Initiation has been more or less strictly prescribed, as being the eighth year and so forth.”—But in this case also, the age would be understood as when the period of ‘childhood’ is passed; in accordance with the law that ‘for all there is a full period of impurity.’ Thus then, after the eighth gear, in case of all the four castes, the period of impurity would be the full term’, and this age is applicable to the case of the Śūdra also. In accordance with the view by which the ‘Initiation’ in the present context is taken as indicating the eleventh (and twelfth) year in the case of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya,—there would be no age mentioned in connection with the Śūdra. Though in his case also the period of impurity extends to the full time, in the case of one who has passed his childhood; before which the period extends to three days only: and the passing of childhood has been defined in another Smṛti-text, which says—‘Upto the eighth year one is called a child’, while others declare that ‘one is a child till his sixteenth year.’ Those who hold that ‘childhood’ ceases after the sixteenth year,—according to those also purification takes place only after a month (the full term). It has also been declared that ‘after six years, the purification of the Śūdra comes after a month’; and in another text—‘one month in the case of the eight-year-old child’.

Objection—“The rules regarding the several ages are obtained from the verses that follow; why then should the ‘teething’, etc., have been specified in the present verse?”

Answer— True; but it bus been answered here also for the purpose of making the rules more intelligible.—(58)

‘Anujāte’—‘Younger than one that has teethed’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa, Rāghavānanda; and Kullūka also, who is not rightly represented by Buhler).

‘Ca’—This includes ‘one whose Upanayana has been performed’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 239), which adds that according to this the impurity attaches, not only to the Sapiṇḍas, but also to Sagotras, Samānodakas, paternal relations, maternal relations and so forth;—‘anujāta,’ literally meaning ‘bora after,’ means ‘one born after the dantajāta,’ this latter being the noun immediately preceding the word;—the presence of ‘ca,’ implies the ‘initiated’ also; ‘saṃsthīte’ means ‘dead.’

It is quoted in Hāralatā (p. 1), which adds the following notes:—‘anujāta’ is the child born after the child that has cut its teeth, i.e., a ehilçl that has not cut its teeth,—‘kṛtacūḍe ca,’ the ‘ca’ is meant to include one whose Upanayana has been performed,—‘saṃsthite’ on his dying,—‘sūtaka’ stands here for the impurity due to birth, that duo to death having been separately mentioned.

Parāśara (3.21).—(Same as Manu.)

Āpastamba (2.15.3.4).—‘On account of the death of children who have not completed their first year, the parents alone shall bathe—and those who bury them.’

Viṣṇu (22.26-31).—In the case of the child dying immediately after birth, or one who is still-born, the impurity of the family ceases immediately; for such a child there is no cremation, nor water-oblations; in that of a child that has teethed hut whose tonsure has not been performed, the impurity lasts for a day and night; in that of one whose tonsure has been done, hut no other sacrament, three days.’

Yājñavalkya (3.18.23).—‘Impurity due to death lasts for three or ten days; if the dead is a child less than two years old, the impurity attaches to the parents only; and that due to the birth attaches to the mother only. In the case of the death of children before teething, the impurity is only for the moment; in that of those after teething but before tonsure, it lasts for one night; in that of those after tonsure, hut before Upanayana, for three days;—after that, for ten days.’

058 When (a child) dies that has teethed, or that before teething has received (the sacrament of) the tonsure (Kudakarana) or (of the initiation), all relatives (become) impure, and on the birth (of a child) the same (rule) is prescribed.

Among ‘Sapiṇḍas’. the period of impurity due to death is ordained to last for ten days; or till the collecting of the bones, or for three days, or for one day only—(59).

सापिण्ड्यलक्षणं वक्ष्यते । अर्वाक् संचयनाद् इति चतुरहोपलक्षणं वक्ष्यति । “आहिताग्नेः संचयनं चतुर्थ्याम्” इति वचनम् अस्ति । अयं च विकल्पो वृत्तस्वाध्यायापेक्षो वृत्तापेक्षो वा । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम् ।

• एकाहाद् ब्राह्मणः शुद्धो यस् तु ब्रह्माग्निसंयुतः ।

• त्र्यहात् केवलवेदस् तु निर्गुणो दशभिर् दिनैः ॥

तत्र त्रिवेदस्याग्निमत एकाहः । द्विवेदस्य तु त्र्यहम् । निर्गुणस्य दशाहम् । गौतमेन (ग्ध् १४.४४) पठितं सद्यः शौचम् । तच् च विशेष एव ब्राह्मणस्य स्वाध्यायानिवृत्त्यर्थम् । तत्र क्रियान्तराणि-

• उभयत्र दशाहानि कुलस्यान्नं न भुज्यते ।

• दानं प्रतिग्रहो होमः स्वाध्यायश् च निवर्तते ॥

इत्याद्याः क्रिया निवर्तन्ते । केवलं बहुवेदस्यागुण्यमानं प्रणश्यतीति स्वाध्यायो न निवर्तते ।

• तथा वृत्त्यपेक्षो युक्तो विकल्पः । षट्कर्मजीविनो दशाहः, त्रिबिर् अन्य इत्य् अस्य चतुरहः, द्वाभ्याम् एक इत्य् अस्य त्र्यहः । दाशाहिक आशौचे प्रतिग्रहादाव् अनधिकारात् प्राणयात्रैव दुर्लभा ।

• ये तु “वयांसि चत्वारि, चत्वारश् चाशौचकालाः, अतो यथावयो यथासंख्येन संबन्धः,” तेषां दन्तजाते दशाहः प्राप्नोति, उपनीते तु मृते एकाह एव ।

• तत्र स्मृत्यन्तरसमाचारविरोधः ।

• अथ विरोधपरिहारार्थं प्रातिलोम्येन संबन्धः क्रियते । “उपनीते दशाहः कृतमुण्डे चतुरहः त्र्यहो दन्तजाते एकाहो ऽनुजात” इति ।

• अत्रापि “निवृत्तचौडकानां त्रिरात्रात्” इति विरोधेन विकल्पो युक्तः, स्वशब्देन त्रिरात्रस्यानुविधानात्, चतुरहस्य वृत्तिभेदेन संचयभेदेन विषयत्वसिद्धेः । स्मृत्यन्त्रेणैवम् एकवाक्यता भवति एकाहाद् इत्यनेन । अन्यथा वयोभेदेन विकल्पे व्याख्यायमाने वृत्तस्वाध्यायापेक्षो मानवे शास्त्रे केन विकल्पो लभ्यते ।

• अतो गौतमवचनाद् यस्य प्रात्यहिकेन प्रतिग्रहेण विनापि वृत्तिर् अस्ति कुसूलधान्यादेस् तस्य बहुस्वाध्यायस्य स्वाध्यायाध्ययनमात्रे सद्यःशुद्धिः । ये ऽपि त्र्यहदयः कल्पास् तत्रापि त्र्यहैहिकादीनां तावन्मात्र एव विशुद्धिर् वृत्त्यर्थे प्रतिग्रहे ऽनेनैव गौतमदर्शनेन । अन्यथा ब्राह्मणस्य स्वाध्यायिन इत्य् एवावक्ष्यत् न स्वाध्यायानिवृत्त्यर्थम् इति ।

• अतो यद्य् अप्य् अविशेषेणैकाहाच् छुद्धिर् इत्यादि श्रुतम्, तथापि नियतक्रियाविषयं विज्ञ्ēयम् । येन नित्यवद् ब्राह्मणस्य दशाहम् आह “शुद्ध्येद् विप्रो दशाहेन” इति (म्ध् ५.८२) । न ह्य् अन्यत् पुनर्वचने प्रयोजनम् अस्ति । तस्माद् विकल्पो ऽयं युक्तेन मार्गेण व्याख्येयः । यत्र पुनर् बालादौ सद्यःशौचम्, निवृत्तमुण्डकादौ त्रिरात्रम्, तत्र विकल्पाभावात् सर्वक्रियासु शुचित्वम् ॥ ५.५९ ॥

The qualifications of the^(‘)Sapiṇḍa’ shall be described later on.

‘Till the collecting of the bones’;—this is meant to indicate the period of four days;—since there is the text—‘The bone-collecting of one who has set up the fire shall be done on the fourth day’.

The alternatives here laid down are in consideration of the man’s character and Vedic learning, or of his character only; as says another Smṛti -text,—‘The Brāhmaṇa who is equipped with the Veda only, in three days, and he who has no qualifications, in ten days.’ The period of ‘one day’ is meant for the man who knows three Vedas and has set up the Fire; that of ‘three days’ far one who knows one Veda only; and that of ten days for one who has no such qualifications.

Gautama (14.44) has spoken of ‘immediate purity.’ But this is for a special purpose; all that is meant it that Vedic Study shall not cease. During the period of Impurity, several acts are discontinued,—e.g. for ten days, the food of the two families is not eaten; the making of gifts, the receiving of them, the offering af (of?) oblations and Vedic Study are discontinued; so that ordinarily all these acts would cease during the period; but so far as the Student of several Vedas is concerned, if he were not to repeat them regularly, he would forget them; hence in his case Vedic Study shall not cease.

Similarly it is only right that an alternative should be provided, in consideration of the mourner’s livelihood. For instance, for the man who lives by the ‘six acts’ (of giving and receiving gifts, of sacrificing and officiating at sacrifices, and Reading and Teaching), the impurity lasts for ten days; for him who lives by the ‘three acts’ (of receiving gifts, officiating at Sacrifices and Teaching), it lasts for four days, and for him who lives by’two acts,’ it lasts for three days. If, for all these, the Impurity were to last for ten days, then, as the man would not be entitled to receive gifts and officiate at sacrifices, his living would become extremely difficult for him.

Some people hold that—“there are four age-stages, and four periods of Impurity; so that each of the latter is to be taken along with each of the former.”

But according to this view, there would be ten days impurity in the case of the child that has teethed; while in the case of the death of the initiated boy, it would be for a single day only; and this would be contrary to usage and other Smṛti-texts.

In order to avoid this incongruity, the connection may be made in the reverse order; i.e., the death of the initiated boy entailing ten days, and that of the tonsured child four days, the teething child three days, and a still younger child only one day.

Even so in view of the incompatibility (of this view) with the Smṛti-text, that—‘in the case of the tonsured child, the impurity lasts for three days’,—it would be necessary to regard the two (three and four days) as optional alternatives; specially as the term ‘sva’ refers to ‘three days,’ and the period of^(‘)four days’ would apply to the particular livelihood of the mourner, or to the particular day on which the bones are collected. In this manner all this becomes reconciled with the other Smṛti-texts, which, speaks of^(‘)one day, &c,’ If, on the other hand, the option were explained as based upon the diversity of age,—then, with what would Menu’s declaration regarding^(‘)conduct’ and^(‘)study’ be taken as optional?

From all this it follows that on the strength of Gautama’s assertion, there is to be^(‘)immediate purification,’ only so far as Vedic Study is concerned—for the man who, like the person possessing a ^(‘)granary’, has other means of living than the receiving of gifts, and who is very much learned in the Vedas. In the case of the other alternatives, of ‘three days’ and the rest, the purification in meant simply to qualify the man for the receiving of gifts for purposes of a living. This is according to the view of Gautama. If this were not his meaning, then, he would have said simply—‘for the Brāhmaṇa learning the Veda,’—and not ‘for the purpose of avoiding discontinuance of study.’

Thus, though purification has been laid down in a general way, as to be accomplished in a single day,—yet it should be understood as pertaining to certain special acts only. So that the ordinary period for the Brāhmaṇa being^(‘)ten days’ (according to 5.83), there is no need for saying anything else; from which it is clear that the option should be admitted in the manner described above. In the case however of ‘purity’ being immediate, in the case of new born infants, and the period of impurity lasting for ‘three days’ in the case of tonsured children,—sinece there is no option, the purity must pertain to all acts.—(59).

“The commentators are of the opinion that the length of the period of the impurity depends on the status of the mourner; and that a man who knows the mantras only of one Śākhā shall be impure during four days, one who knows a whole Śākhā (or two Vedas) during three days, one who knows the Veda (or three Vedas) and keeps three or five sacred fires, during one day. Medhātithi however mentions another interpretation, according to which the four periods correspond to the four ages of the deceased, which have been mentioned in the preceding verse. According to this view, the Sapiṇḍas shall mourn for an initiated person for ten days,—for one who had received the tonsure, four days, and so forth.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 893), which explains the first half to mean that the Sapiṇḍas are impure for ten days, and the second half as laying down three other alternatives;—‘Arvāk (or as it reads ā vā) sañcayanāt asthnām’ it explains as indicating the period of four days, the fourth day being prescribed for the collecting of the bones of the dead. Thus the four alternative periods are—ten days, four days, three days and one day; and the rule regarding the restriction of one or the other is thus laid down by Parāśara—‘The Brāhmaṇa equipped with both the Veda and the Fire becomes pure in one day, one equipped with the Veda only in three days, and one without qualifications in ten days.’

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.29), which remarks that the four periods here specified are meant respectively for the ‘Kusūladhānyaka,’ the ‘Kumbhīdhānyaka,’ the Tryahaihika’ and the ‘Aśvastanika’ (described in 4.7 above). It quotes Parāśara’s rule (just quoted), but rejects it as unacceptable.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 391), and again on p. 426;—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (pp. 226 and 229);—in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 116);—in Hāralatā (p. 3) which reads ‘āsthi’ and explains it as meaning ‘four days’;—and in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 37).

Gautama (14.1).—‘The Sapiṇḍas become impure by death during ten days,—except those who officiate as priests, who have performed the initiatory sacrifice and religious students.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.1).—‘Referring to deaths and births, they declare that the impurity of Sapiṇḍas lasts for ten days, except for the officiating priest, or one who has performed the initiatory sacrifice, or the religious student.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.16).—‘It is ordained that impurity caused by a death shall last ten days in the case of Sapiṇḍa relations.’

Viṣṇu (22.1).—‘Impurity due to death and birth shall last for ten days for the Brāhmaṇa, among Sapiṇḍas.’ Yājñavalkya (3.18).—(See above, under 58.)

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.4.18).—‘For ten days after the death of a Sapiṇḍa (study and gifts are to be avoided).’

Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.7.6).—‘If a death or birth has occurred, for ten days (shall study be discontinued).’

Parāśara (Aparārka, p. 894).—‘The Brāhmaṇa equipped with fire and Veda becomes purified in a single day; one endowed with the Veda only, in three days; one devoid of special qualifications, in ten days.’

Dakṣa (Do.).—‘There are options in regard to impurity due to birth—for the moment, for one, three, four, six, ten, twelve or fifteen days, for a month, and till death. No such impurity attaches to the persons who know the text and the meaning of the Veda, along with the subsidiary sciences, rituals and esoteric doctrines, and are also devoted to the performance of religious rites.’

Bṛhaspati (Do.).—‘There is no impurity when Vedic Study is carried on, when Homa is offered at both times and when the Vaiśvadeva-offerings are constantly made. The Brāhmaṇa equipped with Fire and Veda becomes purified in one day; those with lesser qualifications, in three and four days. One without the Fire, in three days; the common Brāhmaṇa, in ten days; one who lives upon pickings and gleanings is immediately purified; for one whose sole possession is the Gāyatrī and who duly offers the three twilight-prayers, and who does not live the life of the dog, the impurity lasts for six days.’

Parāśara (Do.).—(Same as above; but ‘Mahābhārata is read’ in place ‘Homa is offered at both times).’

Dakṣa (Do. p. 895).—‘The twice-born man who takes his food without bathing or making oblations, is always impure; also one who is an invalid, a miser, one in debt, one devoid of religious acts, and illiterate, one who is controlled by his wife and so forth.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 895).—‘The man who has a second wife is beset with permanent impurity.’

Śātātapa (Do.).—‘One who is degraded in birth and death, who is devoid of twilight-prayers, and who only bears the name of the Brāhmaṇa, becomes pure in ten days.’

Parāśara (l.3.6.).—(Same as above.)

(Do.) (1.3.7, etc.).—‘Those who arc of the same Piṇḍa are affected by impurity. Up to the fourth grade, the impurity lasts ten days; at the fifth grade, six days; at the sixth, four days; at the seventh, three days.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 583).—‘On the death of the Brāhmaṇa, the Śūdra, the Vaiśya and the Kṣatriya are purified in ten days.’

Devala (Do.).—‘On the death of the Brāhmaṇa, all his Sapiṇḍa relations are impure for ten days.’

059 It is ordained (that) among Sapindas the impurity on account of a death (shall last) ten days, (or) until the bones have been collected, (or) three days or one day only.

The ‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship’ ceases with the person in the seventh-degree and the ‘Samānodaka-relationship,’ when the origin and the name become unrecognisable—(60).

अन्वयसंज्ञाविज्ञानाद् बान्धवग्रहणानुवृत्तेश् चान्वयजाः सप्तमपुरुषावधयः सपिण्डा उच्यन्ते । “येभ्यः स्वस्य¹⁵¹ पिता दद्यात् तेभ्यः पुत्रः” इति जीवत्पूर्वपित्रादेर् विधानात् षट् तावद् योग्यतया सपिण्डा भवन्ति । यद्य् अपि पितृभ्यो दीयते आत्मना सप्तम अतः पितामहप्रपितामहाद्याः पूर्वान्वयजातास्¹⁵² ते सपिण्डा इति व्यपदिश्यन्ते । पूर्वे षट् सपिण्डाः । अपरे पुत्रादयः षड् एव । यत एकस्याः पिण्डदानक्रियायाः सहभावात् सपिण्डाद्युपदेशो लभ्यते, पुत्रादेर् अपि सहभावः पौत्रादिना क्रियमाणो ऽयम्, तेन येभ्यो दीयते यैश् च सह संप्रदानवान् भविष्यति सर्वे ते सपिण्डा व्यपदिश्यन्ते । यतो न तत्र पिण्डदानम् अवध्युपलक्षणत्वाच्¹⁵³ छङ्ख¹⁵⁴ इव शङ्खवेलायाम्¹⁵⁵ आगन्तव्यम् इति । तेन यावद् उक्तं स्यात् “प्रपितामहस्य यः प्रपितामहस् तदन्वयजा ये यावत् सप्तमास् ते सपिण्डा,” एवं¹⁵⁶ स्वसंततौ पित्रादिसंततौ द्रष्टव्यम् । यत एव भेदस् तम् उपादाय गणना कर्तव्या यावत् सप्तमावधि । यथा पितामहो येषाम् एकस् ते तत आरभ्य सप्तमावधयः सपिण्डा इत्य् एव सर्वत्र ।

• तदन्वयजत्वे चोपलक्षणे जातेर् अनाश्रयणाद् विजातीया अपि क्षत्रियादयो ब्राह्मणादीनां सपिण्डा भवन्ति । अत एव तज्जननाद्याशौचे ब्राह्मणस्य दशाह एव, तेषां तु स्वकाल एव द्वादशाहादिः । अतः सर्वस्य विजातीयनिमित्ते विजातीयसपिण्डनिमित्ते वा जन्मादौ स्वकाल एव शुद्धिः ।

• क्षत्रियादीनां ब्राह्मणापेक्षया त्रिपुरुषं सापिण्ड्यम् । तथा च शङ्खः-

यद्य् एकजाता बहवः
पृथक्क्षेत्राः पृथग्जनाः ।
एकपिण्डाः पृथक्शौचाः
पिण्डस् त्व् आवर्तते त्रिषु ॥

“पृथक्क्षेत्राः” भिन्नजातीयासु स्त्रीष्व् इत्य् अर्थः । “पृथग्जनाः” पृथक्क्षेत्रसमानजातीया अप्य् अनेकमातृका भवन्ति, तदर्थम् उभयोर् उपादानम् । “एकपिण्डाः” सपिण्डा भवन्ति । किं तु “पृथक्शौचाः” स्वजातिनिमित्त एव तेषां शुद्धिकालः । ब्राह्मणस्य क्षत्रियादेः सूतकादौ दशाहः, ब्राह्मणस्य सूतके तेषां द्वादशाहश् च । तथा चान्यो ऽपि विशेषः- “पिण्डस् त्रिष्व् आवर्तते” । त्रिष्व् एव भवति पुरुषेषु ।

• समानजातीयापेक्षया क्षत्रियादीनां ब्राह्मणवत् षट् पुरुषस्य सापिण्ड्यम् “एकजाताः पृथक्क्षेत्राः” इत्यादिविशेषणोपादानात् । असमानजातीयापेक्षं त्रिपुरुषत्वम् अनेन वाक्येन शक्यते प्रतिपादयितुम् । एष एवार्थो ऽनया स्मृत्या स्पष्टीक्रियते-

क्षत्रविट्शूद्रदायादा ये सुयुर् विप्रस्य बाण्धवाः ।
तेषाम् आशौचे विप्रस्य दशाहाच् छुद्धिर् इष्यते ॥

“षड्भिस् त्रिभिर् अथैकेन” इत्यादि च ।

• स्त्रीणां तु विजातीयानां भर्तृकालेन जीवति भर्तरि शुद्धिः । आह च-

सूतौ मृते तु दासानां¹⁵⁷ पत्नीनां चानुलोमतः ।
स्वामितुल्यं भवेच् छौचं मृते स्वामिनि पैत्रकम् ॥

अन्ये पठन्ति “असवर्णासुतानाम्” इति प्रथमं पादम् । यद्य् अयम् अस्ति पाठस् तदा पुत्राणाम् अपि शूद्राणां पितृगृहे व्यवस्थितानां तत्परतन्त्राणां पितृजात्यपेक्षया दशाहादिर् एव शुद्धिकालः ।

• दासाश् चात्र वैतनिका गृह्यन्ते । ये तु गर्भदासास् तेषां विध्यन्तरं श्रूयते-

कारवः शिल्पिनो वैद्या दासीदासं तथैव च ।
राजानो¹⁵⁸ राजभृत्याश् च सद्यःशौचाः प्रकीर्तिताः ॥ इति ।

स्पर्शने चैवम् एतेषां शुचित्वं विज्ञेयम्, न पुनर् दानभोजनादिक्रियासु । यतः कर्मनिमित्ता एते शब्दाः, अतः किं विपर्यये शुद्धिः किं सर्वाः क्रियाः प्रतिप्रसवा उत काश्चिद् एवाभ्यनुज्ञायन्ते । यतो “राज्ञश् च कार्याविधातार्थम्” इत्य् आकाङ्क्षायां यान्य् एव कर्माणि तान्य् एव हृदयम् आगच्छन्ति । तथैव च समाचारः ।

• ननु च नात्र स्पर्शप्रतिषेधः श्रुतः ।

• यावता स्मृत्यन्तरे पठ्यते-

• अस्थिसंचयनाद् ऊर्ध्वम् अङ्गस्पर्शो विधीयते ।

तथान्यच् च-

त्रिभिश् चतुर्भिर् वाहोभिर्
ब्राह्मणः स्पृश्यताम् इयात् ।
एकादशेन शुद्धिः स्यान्
मृतके सूतके तथा ॥

“राज्ञः षष्ठे सप्तमे वा स्पर्शः, द्वादशाहेनान्नशूद्धिः । वैश्यस्य स्पर्शनम् अष्टमे नवमे वा, पक्षेणान्नशुद्धिः । शूद्रस्य स्पर्शनम् एकादशे द्वादशे वा, मासेनान्नशुद्धिः " इति¹⁵⁹ हारितः । तथा वाक्यन्तरम् अपि-

स्पर्शे क्रमेण वर्णानां त्रिचतुःपञ्चषैर् दिनैः । भोज्यान्नो दशभिर् विप्रः शेषा¹⁶⁰ द्वित्रिषडुत्तरैः ॥

• एते च विकल्पाः प्रयोजनापेक्षया गुणवद् अगुणापेक्षया व्यवस्थापनीयाः । सर्वेषां तावद् ब्राह्मणस्य भक्तदासास् त्रिचतुरैर् अहोभिः स्पर्शनेन दूषयन्ति । गर्भदासास् तु सद्यः । एवम् इतरेषाम् अपि वर्णाना ।

• यत्रेदं सद्यःशौचं तत्र सर्वत्र स्नानं वाससा च । द्रव्यस्य शुद्धिर् या यस्य विहिता इति ज्ञापयिष्यते (म्ध् ५.१०९) ।

• कन्यानाम् अपि त्रिपौरुषेयि सपिण्डता । “सपुत्राणां तु स्त्रीणां त्रिपुरुषं विज्ञायते” (वध् ४.१८) इति वसिष्ठः । आशौच एवैतत् । विवाहे तु विधिर् दर्शितः ।

• स्थितम् एतत्- सप्तमपुरुषो मर्यादा, षट्पुरुषाः सपिण्डा इति । सप्तमे प्राप्ते विनिवर्तते ।

समानोदकभावः समानोदकव्यपदेशः । जन्मनाम्नोर् अवेदने । जन्म च “अयम् अस्मत्कुले जातः”, नाम अमुष्माद् इदं नामकात् पितृपितामहादेः । उभयोर् अवेदने निवृत्तिर् । अतश् चान्यतरे ज्ञाते¹⁶¹ ऽप्य् अनिष्टोदकं ज्ञेयम् । “अवतीर्य नदीम् अन्यद् वा जलाशयं नाभिदघ्नभुग्नो¹⁶² दक्षिणाभिमुखः सव्योत्तराभ्यां पाणिभ्याम् उदकं कृत्वानवेक्षमाणाः प्रत्याव्रजेयुः” इति ॥ ५.६० ॥

Inasmuch as the present context is meant to provide information regarding the exact signification of the term ‘anvaya’, ‘family’,—and as the term ‘bāndhava’, ‘relation’ (of the proceeding verses) is meant to be construed with the present text also,—the meaning of the present verse is that persons born of the same family are called ‘Sapiṇḍas’ upto the person in the seventh grade. In view of the assertion—‘the son shall make offerings to those to whom his fathers make them’.—which lays down offerings to be made also by a person whose father is living; six persons become recognised as ‘Sapiṇḍas’ (the seventh being the offeror himself).

Further, according to the statement’—‘offerings are made to forefathers, counting one’s own self as the seventh’—the grandfather, the great-grand-father and other ancestors are called ‘Sapiṇḍas’; and yet, while the six ancestors are called ‘Sapiṇḍas,’ the six descendants, beginning with the son, are also called ‘Sapiṇḍas,’ Because the ‘offering of the ball’ is a single act, upon which, and in connection with which, the title ‘Sapiṇḍa’ becomes applicable,—the ‘son’ and other descendants also become associated with this ‘act as performed by the grandson, and other descendants respectively; consequently the person to whom one makes the offering, and along with whom he becomes the recipient of the offering—all these come to be called ‘Sapiṇḍa;’ and the reason for this lies in the fact that the ‘ball-offering’ is the only indicative in the present case; just as in the case of the assertion ‘you should come at conch-time (gun-time)’ the ‘conch’ is the only indicative of the time that is meant. Thus it comes to this that all descendants upto the seventh grade of the greatgrandfather of one’s great-grandfather are his ‘Sapiṇḍas’; and similarly the descending line of one’s descendants, and the descendants of his father, grand-father and the rest. The degrees are to be counted from that person from whom the two lines bifurcate. For instance, among persons who have a common grandfather, the seven degrees should be counted from that grandfather, and persons falling within those seven degrees would be the ‘Sapiṇḍa’. Similarly in all cases.

In dealing with the question of ‘Sapiṇḍa’, all that the text speaks of is ‘person born of the same family,’ and no mention of the caste is made; consequently persons belonging to the Kṣatriya and other castes also become ‘Sapiṇḍa’ of the Brāhmaṇa. It is for this reason that on the birth of such persons also the Brāhmaṇa remains ‘impure’ for ten days; while in their own case the period lasts for twelve days (for the Kṣatriya), thirteen for the Vaiśya and so forth. Thus then, in the case of the birth or death of the person of a different caste, or in that of the Sapiṇḍa of a different caste, the purification is governed by the period prescribed for the caste of the person concerned.

In the case of the Kṣatriya and other castes, their ‘Sapiṇḍa’-relationship to the Brāhmaṇa extends to three degrees only; as says Śaṅkha—“If of one person there are born several persons, of different mothers and diverse castes, these are ‘Sapiṇḍas’, with varying periods of purification; but the ball-offering extends over three degrees only.” In this passage the term ‘of different mothers’ means ‘born of mothers of different castes’; the term ‘of diverse castes’ has also been added in view of the fact that persons born of mothers of the same caste also are ‘born of different mothers’.—These are ‘Ekapiṇḍa’, i.e., Sapiṇḍa; but ‘with varying periods of purification’; i.e., the purification of each person is in accordance with his own caste; for instance, for the Brāhmaṇa in the case of the birth, etc, of his Sapiṇḍa of the Kṣatriya and other castes, the purification takes ten days; while for the Kṣatriya, in the case of the birth, &c. of his Brāhmaṇa Sapiṇḍa, it takes twelve days;—there is the further peculiarity in this case that ‘the ball-offering extends over three degrees only’; i.e., it is offered to persons within three degrees only.

Within the pale of their own castes however, for the Kṣatriya and other castes also the ‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship’ extends over seven degrees, exactly as for Brāhmaṇas; specially as in the words of Śaṅkha justed quoted, we find the qualifying terms ‘born of one person from different mothers’—it is only in relation to other castes that their ‘Sapiṇḍa-relstionship can be understood to extend over three degrees only. This same fact is still more clearly stated in the following Smṛti—text—‘In the case of impurity due to the death of those relations of the Brāhmaṇa who are descendants from the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, the purification of the Brāhmaṇa comes after ten days, upto six, three and one stage respectively.’

In the case of the wives of different castes, if the husband is alive, the purification is determined by the time laid down for the husband. To this end it is said—‘In the case of birth and death among slaves, and among one’s wives of lower castes, the purification would be similar to that of the master or husband, but if the husband is not living, it shall be similar to that of their fathers.’

In place of the fist quarter of the text (instead of the words ‘sūte mṛte tu dāsānām—‘in the case of birth and death among slaves’) some people read ‘asavarṇāsutānām’ (‘of sons born of other castes’). If such be the reading, then such Śūdra-sons as live in the house of the Brāhmaṇa-father would be controlled entirely by the ways of the father, and hence their time of purification would be ten days in consideration of their father’s caste.

The term ‘dāsa,’ ‘slave’, in the text just quoted are meant to be those that have been hired; because for born slaves we have another rule,—viz:—‘Artisans, mechanics, female and male slaves, and king’s officers have been declared to be capable of immediate purification’. Bat this ‘purification’ should be understood to consist only in their touchability, and not as entitling them to the acts of offering gifts, feeding Brāhmaṇas and so forth; and the reason for this lies in the fact that all the names here mentioned are such as are based upon professions; which gives rise to the following questions—(a) Is the purification here laid down subversive of all the rules that have been laid down before?—Or (b) does it entitle the man to all acts?—Or (c) does it entitle him to a few of these only? And the conclusion that suggests itself is that the man is entitled to just those acts that may be necessary for the proper carrying out of the King’s business. Such also is the usage.

Objection.—“in the present context we do not find any prohibition of touching [how then can the text just quoted be taken as pertaining to touchability alone]?”

But in another Smṛti-text we read—‘The touching of the body is permitted after the bones have been collected;’ and also elsewhere—‘The Brāhmaṇas become touchable in three or four days; while at birth or death, purification comes in eleven days; in the case of the Kṣatriya there is touchability on the sixth or seventh day, and their food becomes pure in twelve days; in the case of the Vaiśya, touchability comes on the eighth or ninth day, but their food is pure in a fortnight; the Śūdra becomes touchable on the eleventh or twelfth day and the purification of his food comes about in a month.’ So says Hārīta; and yet another text also—‘The touchability of the different castes comes about in three, four, five and six days respectively; the food of the Brāhmaṇa becomes eatable in ten days, and that of the other castes two, three and six days later’.

The several alternatives mentioned in the above texts are he taken as based upon the exigencies of individual cases, as also upon the higher or lower qualifications of the persons concerned; e.g. the hired slaves of the Brāhmaṇa remain untouchable for time or four days, while-their born slaves become touchable immediately. Similarly, in the case of the other cutes also.

Wherever ‘immediate purification’ is mentioned, them should be bathing with all the clothes on.

As regards the purification of material substances,—all details are going to be explained later on.

Among girls also, the ‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship’ extends to three degrees. As says Vaśiṣṭha—‘For women who have got sons it is known to extend to three degrees.’ This limited ‘sapiṇḍa- relationship’ in the case of women however refers only to Impurity; as regards marriage what its extent should be has been already indicated before.

The final conclusion thus is that the seventh degree is the limit, and the persona up to and including the sixth degree are ‘Sapiṇḍas’. This is what is meant by the words—‘it ceases with the person in the seventh deree (decree?).’

‘The Samānodaka’ relationship—i.e. the name ^(‘)Samānodaka’—‘when the origin and the name become unrecognisable.’—‘Origin’—‘such a person is born in my own family’;—‘name’—‘he is descended from the father named so and so, and the grandfather named so &; so’;—when both these are ‘unrecognisable.’ That is, when either of these happens to be unknown, then also, the name in question is not applicable.

In the case of persons within the limits of ‘Samānodaka-relationship,’ all that people should do is to enter a river or some other water-reservoir, till the water reaches up to the navel,—they should face the south and, having offered water with the right hand upward, without looking back, should return home.—(60)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 893), as providing the definition of the ‘Samānodaka’ relationship, and explains the meaning to be that this relationship subsists among all those people who clearly recognise a common ancestor;—in Mitākṣarā (on 1.253);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 590);—in Vyāvahāramayūkha (p. 63) which, construes ‘Saptame’ as ‘Saptame atīte,’ so that the seventh also becomes included in ‘Sapiṇḍa’ relationship;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 427);—in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 37), which says that ‘vinivartate’ is to be construed with the second line also;—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 230), which says that from the point where ‘Samānodaka’ relationship ceases, ‘Sagotra’ relationship alone remains;—in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 104), which quotes Medhātithi to the effect that all those who are descended from the great-grandfather of one’s own great-grandfather are his ‘Sapiṇḍas’;—in Hāralatā (p. 96), which has the following note:—Six ancestors beginning from one’s father are his ‘Sapiṇḍa,’ the seventh ancestor is not ‘Sapiṇḍa’; and the reason for this lies in the fact that one’s three immediate ancestors—father, grandfather and great-grandfather—are entitled to receive the ‘piṇḍa’ from him, and the next three ancestors—i. e., the father, grandfather and great-grandfather of the great-grandfather,—are entitled to the ‘smearings of his piṇḍa;’ while the seventh ancestor is not entitled to any share of Piṇḍa; it adds that the man himself is ‘Sapiṇḍa’ of his own six ancestors;—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 52), which explains that the ‘Sapiṇḍā’ relationship ceases in one’s seventh ancestor, and ‘Samānodaka’ relationship extends upto that person who is known to be descended from ‘my such and such ancestor,’ and from the point where no such descent can be specifically pointed out, that relationship ceases and beyond that all are ‘gotraja’ only;—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 256), which reproduces Medhātithi’s remark quoted above;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 181);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 209b).

Gautama (14.13).—‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship ceases with the fifth or the seventh degree.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.2).—‘Amongst Sapiṇḍas, Sapiṇḍa-relationship extends to the seventh degree.’

Āpastamba (2.15.2).—‘On account of the blood-relations of his mother, and of his father, within six degrees,—or as far as the relation is traceable (he shall bathe, if they die).’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.17-18).—‘It has been declared in the Veda that Sapiṇḍa-relationship extends to the seventh degree; that for married females, it extends to the third degree.’

Viṣṇu (22.5).—‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship ceases at the seventh degree.’

Parāśara (1.3.8).—‘In the case of descendants of a different caste, the Sapiṇḍa-relationship (and the consequent impurity) ceases with the fourth degree; one’s descendant in the fifth degree, becomes excluded from the Sapiṇḍa-relationship.’

Matsyapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 589).—‘Those beginning with the fourth ancestor, are Partakers of the Smearing; those beginning with the father, are Partakers of the Balls; the offerer of the hall himself is the seventh; thus does Sapiṇḍa-relationship extend over seven degrees.’

Paiṭhīnasī (Do., p. 590).—‘The Sapiṇḍa-relationship ceases beyond three from the mother and five from the father.’

Vṛddha-Parāśara (Do., p. 589).—‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship ceases with the seventh degree, in the case of their being all of the same caste; in the ease of their being of different castes, it ceases with the fourth degree.’

060 But the Sapinda-relationship ceases with the seventh person (in the ascending and descending lines), the Samanodaka-relationship when the (common) origin and the (existence of a common family)-name are no (longer) known.

(न विद्यते मेधातिथिपाठे।)

061 As this impurity on account of a death is prescribed for (all) Sapindas, even so it shall be (held) on a birth by those who desire to be absolutely pure.

Thus also should it be at a birth; but the parturient disability attaches to the parents only; or, the parturient disability would attach to the mother alone, and the father would become purified by bathing.—(61)

एवम् एतत् सपिण्डानां जनने । यथैव दशाहादयः कल्पाः षट्कर्मादिवृत्त्यपेक्षया स्वाध्यायाल्पमहत्वापेक्षया च व्यवस्थिता मरणे, तथैव जनने ऽप्य् आशौचमात्रम् अतिदिश्यते कालानवच्छिन्नम् । सामर्थ्याच् चागृह्यमाणविशेषतया तत्संबन्धसकललाभः । कालावच्छिन्नातिदेशे तु एकेनैव मुख्यत्वाद् दशाहेन संबन्धः स्वाध्यायादिष्व् स्यात् । यदि वा पाठप्रत्यासत्त्या¹⁶³ दशाहाद्यपेक्षया एकाहेन एकेनैव¹⁶⁴ च निराकांक्षीकृतत्वाद् अन्यैस् त्र्यहादिभिर् न संबन्धः स्यात् । तत्रेयं स्मृतिर् अविशेषेण वृत्तस्वाध्यायापेक्षायां व्यवस्थायां मृतसूतकयोर् विदधती, जनने गुणाद्यनपेक्षया जातिमात्रे स्थाप्यमाना, विरुध्येत¹⁶⁵ । समाचारश् च बाधितः स्यात् ।

• ननु एवं स्त्रीणाम् अपि त्र्यहैकाहादयः कल्पाः सूतिकानां प्राप्नुवन्ति समाचारविरोधिनः ।

• अत्रोच्यते । यद्य् अयं विकल्पः स्यात् तद् एवम्¹⁶⁶ । व्यवस्थित एवासीत् कल्पः । तथा हि तुशब्द उपपन्नतरो भवति ।

• सूतकशब्दश् च नाशौचे वर्तते । लक्षणया सूतकसंबन्ध्य् अशौचं लक्षयेत् । लक्षणायाः साहचर्याद् अस्पृश्यतैव लक्षयितुं युक्ता । यदि च सर्वम् आशौचम् अभिप्रेतं स्याद् आशौचग्रहणम् एवाकरिष्यत् “अशौचं मातुर् एव” इति । अतश् च स्मृत्यन्तरे त्रिरात्रम् अस्पृश्यतोक्त्या इह तदभावस् तयोर् विकल्पः सूतकं मातुर् एव । मातापित्रोर् मातुर् एवेति पितुर् विकल्पः । उपस्पृश्य स्नात्वा शुचिर् भवतीति । उपक्रममात्रम् इदं वक्ष्यमाणेन श्लोकेन पितुर् अपि त्र्यहम् एव ॥ ५.६१ ॥

The same rule holds good regarding ‘birth’ among Sapiṇḍas. Just as in connection with death several alternative periods of impurity have been laid doom, in consideration of one’s livelihood depending upon the six acts (of giving and receiving gifts and so forth), and also upon the vastness or purity of one’s Vedic learning,—exactly the same holds good regarding cases of birth also; all that is meant to be applicable to the case of birth is impurity pure and simple, without any qualification of time; so that no specifications being found to be indicated here, the case of birth, through its own inherent aptitude, becomes connected with all that has been said (in the way of qualifications and limitations) in connection with death. On the other hand, if the words of the text were taken to indicate the application, to the case of birth, of impurity as specially limited by a particular period of time, then it would be connected only with the period of ten days, which is the principal alternative laid down; and in that case this same period would apply to the case of Vedic Study &c. also. Or, by the closer proximity of the mention of the alternative of the single-day-period, the case of birth would become connected with this latter period only; and thus having its wants supplied by this, it would have no connection with the other alternative periods of ‘three days’ and the rest. And in that case, even in the face of the limitations and restrictions due to livelihood and study, the present text would lay down the same single alternative in connection with both death and birth, and would, irrespective of all qualifications of the persons concerned, become conditioned by their caste only, and thus become incongruous and opposed to usage.

“Under this explanation, the alternative periods of three days and the rest would become applicable also to the women that have been delivered; and this would be contrary to all usage.”

The answer to this is as follows:—This would be the case only if what is laid down in the present verse (regarding the delivered woman) were an optional alternative. As a matter of fact however, the rule laid down is absolutely fixed. It is only thus that the use of the term tu “but” becomes justified.

Then again, the term ‘sūtaka’ used in the text does not directly denote impurity; it could only indirectly indicate the impurity as related to parturition (which is what is directly express sed by the word). But through indirect indication it would be far more reasonable to make it express untouchability, which is more nearly related to parturition. If all kinds of impurity were meant, then the author would have used the word ‘āśauca’ ‘impurity’, itself; and the line would have read ‘āśaucam mātureva syāt.’ From all this it follows that another Smṛti-text having laid down three days (for both parents), and the present text making no mention of any such period, what is here said regarding the ‘parturient disabiliy’ attaching ‘to the mother only’ is an optional alternative. So that between the father and the mother the option applies to the father only.

The father becomes pure after having bathed. This is only by way of a piefatory (prefatory?) statement; from what follows in the next verse the father also remains untouchable for three days. (61).

Medhātithi and Govindarāja omit the first line of 61 and the first line of 62; so that in the place of 61 and 62, they read only one verse made up of the second lines of both 61 and 62.

This verse is quoted in Hāralāta, (p. 15), which explains ‘evameva’ as standing for ‘ten days’ and other periods;—and in Śuddhimayūkha, (p. 37).

Gautama (14.14).—‘The rules regarding impurity caused by death of a relation are applicable to that caused by the birth of a child also;—in this case, the impurity falls on the parents,—or on the mother alone.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.1).—‘Referring to births and deaths, they declare that the impurity of Sapiṇḍas lasts ten days.’

Do. (1.11. 19-23).—‘On a birth indeed, the parents become impure for ten days; some declare that the mother alone becomes impure, because people avoid only lying-inwomen; others say that the father alone becomes impure, because the semen is the chief cause, the Veda speaking of sons born without mothers. Hut the correct opinion is that both the parents become impure, because they are equally connected with the event.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.20-22).—‘The rule regarding impurity should bo exactly the same on the birth of a child, for those men who desire complete purity,—or for the mother and the father alone; according to some for the mother only; they quote the following text:—“On the birth of a child, the male does not become impure, if he does not touch the female.”’

Parāśara (3.31).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.10).—‘The impurity (on birth) attaches to the parents; but most certainly and completely to the mother. On the day of the birth however there is no impurity; since on that day the ancestors are born.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 896).—There is no impurity for the male, if he has no contact with the female.’

062 (Or while) the impurity on account of a death is common to all (Sapindas), that caused by a birth (falls) on the parents alone; (or) it shall fall on the mother alone, and the father shall become pure by bathing;

The man, having emitted semen becomes pure by bathing; hence, on account of seminal filiation he should observe impurity for these days.—(62)

सहेतुकं त्र्यहम् उपदिशन्न् अपस्पर्शनशुद्धिं पूर्वोक्ताम् अनुमन्यते । किम् अर्थम् उच्यत इति चेत्, सरूपविधितयार्थवादार्थम्, न विधेयतया “जर्तिलयवाग्वा वा जुहुयात्” (त्स् ५.४.३.२) इतिवत्¹⁶⁷ ।

• निरस्य तु शुक्रं मैथुनधर्मेण संप्रयुज्य शुक्रोत्सर्गाद् अनन्तरं उपस्पृश्य स्नात्वा शुचिर् भवति । अतो बैजिकाद् अभिसंबन्धात् । बीजनिमित्तो बैहिकः । अभिसंबन्धः अपत्योत्पत्तिः । अतस् तत्र कथं नानुरुन्ध्यान् नानुवर्तेत । अघम् आशौचं त्र्यहम् । यादृशं च शुक्रनिरसनेन अकृतस्नानस्याशुचित्वम्, न तादृशम् एव प्रसवे, अपि तु त्र्यहम् । पूर्वश्लोकार्धत्र्यहशेषतयानूद्यते । अत एवोपस्पृश्येति स्नानम् उच्यते, “स्नानं मैथुनिनः स्मृतम्” इति वचनान् नाचमनम् ।

• पुत्रे तु जाते तदहः स्पृश्यतैवेति केचित् । तथा च शंख आह- “कुमारप्रसवे नाड्याम् अच्छिन्नयां गुडतिलहिरण्यवस्त्रप्रावरणगोधान्यप्रतिग्रहेष्व् अदोषस् तदहर् इत्य् एके” ।

• तस्मात् स दिवसः पुण्यः पितॄणां प्रीतिवर्धनः ।

• स्मरणाच् चैव पूर्वेषां तदहर् न प्रदुष्यति ॥ इति ।

तथा श्राद्धम् अप्य् एके कुर्वन्तीति च । अनेन पितुः सर्वथाशौचाभाव एव ।

• तत्रैते स्मृती पूर्ववद् वृत्तिसदसद्भावापेक्षया विकल्प्येते¹⁶⁸ ॥ ५.६२ ॥

While laying down purification after three days, the author permits the purification by bathing, which has been spoken of above. If it be asked—“why should this be stated?”—the answer is that it is stated in the form an injunction; by way of a commendatory assertion, and not a regular injunction, just as in the case of the Vedic passage ‘jartilayavāgvā va juhuyāt

‘Having thrown out semen’,—after emission daring the act of sexual intercourse,—the man becomes pure by bathing.

‘Hence, on account of seminal filiation’;—‘Seminal’ means pertaining to the semen;—fitiliation means begetting of the child; and in the event of this, why should he not ‘observe’— keep up—‘the impurity for three days.’ The impurity due to child-birth is not of the same kind as that which attaches to the man who has emitted semen and has not taken a bath; in fact it lasts for three days. The period of ‘three days’ mentioned here is a reiteration of the same as occurring in the preceding verse. For this same reason the ‘upaspṛśya’ in the present verse is taken to mean bathing and not merely water-sipping; specially in view of the assertion that ‘s??na, ‘birthing,’ has been enjoined for the man who has had sexual intercourse.

Some people hold that when a son is born to a man, he becomes touchable on that same day. As says Śaṅkha—At the birth of a boy, before the placenta has been severed, there is nothing wrong in the man receiving, on that same day, the gift of sugar, sesamum, gold, cloth, clothes, cows and grain,—so say some: and again—‘for this reason that day is sacred, enhancing as it does the pleasure of the forefathers: and because it reminds one of his ancestors, there is no impurity attaching to that day.’ In fact some people-even go to the length of performing śrāddhas on that day. From this it follows that in such cases there is no impurity attaching to the father at all.

In fact the two Smṛti- texts just quoted are to be taken as providing optional alternatives, in consideration of the man having, or not having, means of living (other than the receiving of gifts).—(62).

(Verse 63 of other commentators.)

According to the interpretation of Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda, the two halves of this verse are distinct, the first half laying down that the man who emits semen is purified by bathing, and the second half that he who begets a child is purified after three days. According to Medhātithi however, the first half supplies the reason for what is asserted in the second half. (See Translation).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 606), which explains ‘baijika-sambandha’ as ‘janyajanakabhāva,’ ‘the parental relationship.’

The Hāralatā, which has both lines of (62) explains the meaning as—‘The untouchability due to death pertains to all sapiṇḍas, and that due to birth pertains to the parents of the child only, but the full period (ten days) of ‘impurity’ attaches to the mother only, that attaching to the father disappears immediately on bathing.

063 But a man, having spent his strength, is purified merely by bathing; after begetting a child (on a remarried female), he shall retain the impurity during three days.

Those who touch this corpse become pure after one day and one day along with three three-day periods; those who offer water, after three days.—(63).

त्रयस् त्रिरात्रा नवाहानि । एकेन च अह्ना एकया च रात्र्या अहोरात्रः । एवं दशाहो वृत्तानुरोधाद् एवम् उपदिष्टः । शवस्पृशः शवस्य स्नानालंकारादिकारिणः । अन्येषां स्नानमात्रं वक्ष्यति तन्निर्यापकानां च । तथा च प्रकटीकरिष्यति “प्रेताहारैः समम्” (म्ध् ५.६४) इत्य् अत्र । एतच् च समानोदकानाम्, मूल्येन वा निर्हरताम् । अनाथनिर्हरणे तु स्मृत्यन्तरे ।

• न तेषाम् अशुभं किंचिन् नाशौचं शुभकर्मणाम् ।

• जलावगाहनात् तेषां सद्यः शौचं विधीयते ॥

यत् तु “असपिण्डं द्विजम्” (म्ध् ५.१००) इति तत्र वै वक्ष्यामः । उदकदायिनः समानोदकाः । तेषां च “पृथक्पिण्डे च संस्थिते” (म्ध् ५.७७) इति सद्यःशौचम् अपि वक्ष्यते । तत्र विकल्पः । सपिण्डेष्व् एतद् अस्वाध्यायाद्यपेक्षम् ॥ ५.६३ ॥

‘Three three-day periods’— i.e., nine days;—along with one day and one night,—make up ten days. The period has been mentioned in this fashion in view of metrical exigencies.

‘Those who touch the corpse’—i.e., those who wash and adorn the dead body. Mere bathing is going to be laid down later on, for the other persons touching the body, as also for those who carry it; as will be made dear from the next verse.

All this refers to the Samānodaka relations as also to those who carry the body for wages received. In regard to the carrying of the dead of helpless and forlorn persons, we have another Smṛti—text, which says—‘For such persons who do the excellent deed (of carrying the dead body of a helpless man), there is nothing wrong, nor is there any impurity involved, for them it has been ordained that they are immediately purified by bathing in water.’ As regards the assertion of the text under 5.100—‘He who carries the dead body of a Brāhmaṇa, who is not his Sapiṇḍa-relation, becomes purified in three days’—what this means we shall explain under that verse.

‘Those who offer water’— i.e., the ‘Samānodaka’ relations. In connection with these, ‘immediate purification’ also is going to be laid down under verse 77. Hence the two should be regarded as optional alternatives.

What is said here is in connection with ‘sapiṇḍa’ relations and refers to persons not engaged in Vedic study.—(63)

(Verse 64 of other commentators.)

“According to Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa, the rule refers to such Brāhmaṇas who for money carry a dead body to the cemetery according to Kullūka and Rāghavānanda, to Sapiṇḍas who in any way touch a corpse out of affection;—Medhātithi thinks that it applies to all who touch or cany out a dead body, be it for love or for money. Rāghavānanda thinks that the text mentions three alternative periods of impurity, one day, three days and ten days.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 883), which explains it as laying down the period of impurity of ten days for those who touch a dead body; it explains ‘ahnā chaikena rātryā’ as meaning ‘one day and night,’ and ‘tribhiḥ trirātraiḥ’ as ‘nine days’;—thus ten days is the period of impurity (for the Brāhmaṇa) touching the dead body of the Brāhmaṇa; for the Brāhmaṇa carrying for money the dead body of other castes, the period extends to that which has been prescribed for that caste—says the Viṣṇupurāṇa;—Aparārka quotes the verse again on p. 893 to the effect that the period of impurity, for Samānodakas is only three days.

It is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 382), which also explains it as laying down a period of ten days.

Gautama (14.23.10, 27).—‘On touching a corpse from an interested motive, the impurity lasts for ten days. The duration of the impurity of a Vaiśya and of a Śūdra (in the same case), twelve days, or half a month, or a whole month, or as many days as there are seasons in the year: The same rule applies to the higher castes. Or the impurity-lasts three days.’

Yājñavalkya (3.11).—‘For those who have touched a corpse as a duty, and who desire immediate purification, such purification is accomplished by Bathing and Breath-control.’

Parāśara (Mitākṣara, 3, 14).—‘Those twice-born persons who carry the dead body of a Brāhmaṇa become purified immediately by bathing.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 883).—‘If a man, on payment, burns the dead body of a person of a different caste from himself, the period of his impurity will be the same as that prescribed for the caste of the dead.’

Parāśara (Aparārka, p. 883).—‘The Brāhmaṇa is not defiled by touching or cremating a dead body: if he carries it and applies fire to it, he becomes purified immediately by bathing.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘Those who have touched the corpse shall not enter the village till the stars become visible; and at night, till the appearance of the sun.’

064 Those who have touched a corpse are purified after one day and night (added to) three periods of three days; those who give libations of water, after three days.

The pupil performing the ‘Pitṛmedha’ for his dead Teacher becomes purified in ten days; just as those who carry the dead body.—(64)

पितृमेधः चरमेष्टिः । अन्ये तु सर्वं कर्मैव लक्ष्यत इति प्राहुः । तत् कुर्वन् शिष्यो दशरात्रेण शुध्यति । ब्रह्मचारिणो ऽप्य् अयं विधिर् अस्त्य् एव । प्रेताहारैः समः । प्रेतं हरन्ति निर्यापयन्ति तथा तेषां दशाहः । एवं शिष्यस्यापीत्य् अर्थः ॥ ५.४६ ॥

‘Pitṛmedha’— i.e., the final sacrificial offering; others hold that the term stands for the entire procedure (of the Śrāddha);—performing this, the pupil becomes purified in ten days. This same rule applies to the Student also.

‘Just as those who carry the dead body’;—for those who take out the dead body, the period is ten days; and so it is for the pupil also.—(64).

(Verse 65 of other commentators.)

‘Pitṛmedha’—The Antyeṣṭi (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘the entire Śrāddha ceremony’ (‘others’ noted by Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 912), which says that the ‘guru’ meant here is Ācārya, and that ‘Pitṛmedha’ is Antyeṣṭi;—in Mitākṣarā (on 3.24), to the effect that if the pupil performs Antyeṣṭi of his guru, then he is to be impure for ten days;—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 381) as reiterating the ‘ten-day’ period for all carriers of the dead body, the ‘pupil’ being mentioned only by way of illustration.

Viṣṇu (22.85).—(Same as Manu.)

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.4.19).—‘Ten days after the death of a Guru who is nut a Sapiṇḍa.’

Yājñavalkya (3.24).—‘In the case of the Guru, the disciple, the Expounder of the Veda, the maternal uncle and the Vedic Scholar,—there is purification in a single day.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 913).—‘For three days one remains impure, on the death of the maternal grandfather, the Ācārya and the Vedic Scholar.’

Uśanas (Aparārka, p. 913).—‘On the death of the maternal uncle, the Father-in-law, the friend, the Guru and the Guru’s wife, and the maternal grandmother, one is impure for a night along with the clay preceding and following it.’

065 A pupil who performs the Pitrimedha for his deceased teacher, becomes also pure after ten days, just like those who carry the corpse out (to the burial-ground).

In the case of miscarriage, the woman becomes pure in so mamy days as there have been months; and the woman in her courses becomes fit by bathing after the ceasing of the menstrual flow.—(65)

गर्भस्रावे गर्भमाससमा रात्रीः स्त्रिया एव शुद्धिर् युक्ता, इह वाक्ये तस्याः श्रुतत्वात् । सपिण्डानां तु स्मृत्यन्तरसमाचाराव् अन्वेषणीयौ । वसिष्ठेन तु सपिण्डानां त्र्यहः समाम्नातः- “ऊनदिवर्षे प्रेते गर्भपतने सपिण्डानां त्रिरात्रम् अशौचम्” (वध् ४.३४) । स्रावस् तु गर्भस्य मासत्रयाद् ऊर्ध्वं प्राग् दशमान् मासात् । केचित् तु प्राङ् नवमाद् इत्य् आहुः । अप्राप्तकालस्य पातः स्राव उच्यते । न पुनर् द्रवरूपस्यैव । तथा गौतमेन गर्भस्रंसने “गर्भमाससमा रात्रीः” इति पठितम् (ग्ध् १४.१७) । सप्तमास्याश् च जीवन्ति । अतः सप्तमे मासे पूर्णम् आशौचम् । एतत् तु जीवतो जातस्य युक्तम् अन्यथा तु गर्भमाससमा इत्य् एव ।

• इह रजस्वलाया रजस्य् उपरते स्नानेन शुद्धिर् आम्नाता । स्मृत्यन्तरे त्र्यहाद् ऊर्ध्वम् । तत्रैवं व्यवस्था । प्राक् त्र्यहाद् रजोनिवृत्ताव् अपि नास्ति शुद्धिर् ऊर्ध्वम् अनुपरते ऽपि भवति । किं तु विशुद्ध्यतीति । प्रकृते पुनः साध्वीति वचनाद् अनिवृत्ते रजसि वैदिककर्माधिकारानुप्रवेशो नास्ति, न पुनः स्पर्शादिनिषेधः । उत्क्तम् “आद्याश् चतस्रो निन्दिताः” (म्ध् ३.४७) इति । रजस्वला स्त्री रजस्य् उपरते स्नानेन साध्वी भवति शुद्धा कर्मयोग्येत्य् एवं पदयोजना । स्त्रीग्रहणं वर्णमात्रस्त्र्यर्थम् । पूर्वे तु श्लोका ब्राह्मणविषया व्याख्यातास् तदाशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थं स्त्रीग्रहणम् । उत्तरत्रापि यत्र विशेषप्रमाणं नास्ति तत्रापि वर्णमात्रविषयतयैव, यथा “नृणाम् अकृतमुण्डानाम्” (म्ध् ५.६६) इति ॥ ५.६५ ॥

In the case of miscarriage, the purification, that comes after as many days as the months of pregnancy, can pertain only to the woman: us it is the woman that is directly spoken of in the verse. The rule for the purification, in this case, of her Sapiṇḍa-relation has to be sought from other Smṛtis and from usage. Vaśiṣṭha (4. 34) however has laid down the period of three days for all Sapiṇḍas—‘In the case of the death of a child less than two years old, and also in the case of miscarriage, the impurity lasts for three days.’

It is regarded as a case of ‘miscarriage,’ when it happens after three months and before the tenth month; others hold that it is to be so regarded when it happens before the ninth month. What is called ‘srāva’ (lit. flowing out) here is discharge before the right time, and not necessarily the flowing out of a liquid substance.

In connection with miscarriage, Gautama also has declared that ‘the period lasts for as many days as there have been months’ (14-15).

As a matter of fact, children born in the seventh month live; hence if miscarriage takes place in the seventh month, the period of impurity is full (ten days). But this is so only if the child is born alive; otherwise it is to be as many days as there have been months.

For the woman in her courses it has been ordained that she is purified by bathing after the flow has ceased; while another Smṛti text says that she becomes pure in three days. On this point the final conclusion is as follows: ‘Before three days, even though the flow may cease, she is not pure; while after three days she becomes pure even though the flow may not have ceased.’ In the text however, though the term used first is ‘becomes pure’, we find word ‘fit’ (sādhvī) used in connection with the menstruating woman; and this means that so long as the flow has not ceased, she is not fit for participating in the Vedic rites; and it does not mean that she is untouchable; as it has been declared that ‘the first four days have been condemned.’ The construction thus is—‘The woman in her courses, on the ceasing of the flow, by bathing, becomes fit’—i.e., fit for participating in religious rites.

The term ‘woman’ has been used with a view to include women of all castes; the foregoing verses having been explained as applying to the Brāhmaṇa. The text has used the term ‘woman’ in this verse with a view to guard against the idea that what is here laid down also applies to the Brāhmaṇa only. In the following verses also, where there is nothing to indicate the restriction of a rule to any particular caste, it is to be understood as applying to all castes; as for instance, the next verse which speaks of ‘persons whose tonsure has not been performed.’—(65).

(Verse 66 of other commentators.)

“Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda think that this rule refers to miscarriages which happen during the first six months of pregnancy; and that from the seventh month, whether the child lives or not, the full period of impurity must he kept. Nārāyaṇa moreover asserts that in the first and second months the impurity shall last three days”.—Buhler.—‘Sādhvī’.—‘Becomes pure’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka);—‘chaste’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.20), which explains the second half to mean as follows:—‘The woman in her courses becomes pure—i.e., fit for religious functions—on bathing after the cessation of the menstrual flow; but as regards touchability, she becomes fit for it by bathing on the fourth day, even though the flow may not have ceased entirely.

The verse is quoted also in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 369);—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 3);—in Hāralatā (p. 68), which says that, the plural number in ‘rātribhiḥ’ indicates that miscarriage is a source of purity only when it occurs in the third and subsequent months of the pregnancy, and that the mention of the ‘woman’ in the second line makes it clear that the impurity due to miscarriage also attaches to the wife only, and not to the husband;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 25a).

Gautama (14.17-18).—‘For miscarriage the impurity lasts for a number of days, equal to the number of months from conception;—or for three days.’

Baudhāyana, (1.11.31).—‘On miscarriage, the female remains impure for as many days as months that may have elapsed since conception.’

Viṣṇu (22.72).—‘The woman in her courses becomes pure by bathing, on the fourth day.’

Yājñavalkya (3.20).—‘On miscarriage, purification is brought about by the lapse of as many nights as the months (that may have elapsed since conception).’

Ādipurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 901).—‘If there is miscarriage within six months of conception, then purification is brought about by the lapse of days equal in number to that of the months; after six months the purification follows the ordinary rule of the caste. For the Sapiṇḍas, the purification is immediate.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 901).—‘On the death of a child less than two years old and on miscarriage, the Sapiṇḍas are impure for three days.’

Marīci (Aparārka, p. 901).—‘On miscarriage, for the Brāhmaṇa, the impurity lasts three days; for the Kṣatriya, four days; for the Vaiśya, five days, and for the Śūdra eight days. On miscarriage, the mother herself remains impure in accordance with the number of months, while the father and others remain impure for three days.’

Vṛddha-Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 901).—‘On miscarriage, the woman herself is impure for as many days as the number of months; the man is purified by simple bathing; but after three days if the pregnancy had advanced.’

Smṛtyantara (Aparārka, p. 901).—‘Till the fourth month the miscarriage is called “Srāva,” Flowing out; during the fifth and sixth months, it is called “Pāta” Falling out; after that it is “Prasūti,” child-birth; and the impurity due to this last lasts for four days.’

066 (A woman) is purified on a miscarriage in as many (days and) nights as months (elapsed after conception), and a menstruating female becomes pure by bathing after the menstrual secretion has ceased (to flow).

In the case of persons whose tonsure has not been performed purification has been declared to come after a night; but in the case of those whose tonsure has been performed, purification is held to come after three days.—(66).

इमाः षष्ठीः “कर्तृकर्मणोः कृति” (पाण् २.३.६५) इति कर्तृलक्षणाः केचिद् व्याचक्षते । अकृतचूड एकाहेन शुद्ध्यति । तथा वयोऽवस्थापेक्षो ऽपि विकल्प इत्य् एकीयमतम् उक्तम् । तस्यैव श्लोकस्य व्यवस्थावाक्ये इमे ।

• अन्ये त्व् अध्याहारेण संबन्धलक्षणा आहुः- अकृतमुण्डानां मृतानां ये सपिण्डाः ।

• तत्रोत्तरपक्षः समाचाराभिप्रेतः ।

• स्मृत्यन्तरे सद्यःशौचम् अप्य् आम्नातम् । विषयस् तत्रैव दर्शितः- “आ दन्तजन्मनः सद्यः आ चूडान् नैशिकी निर्वृत्तचूडकानां त्रिरात्रम्” इति ॥ ५.६६ ॥

The genetive endings in this verse some people explain as having the sense of the Nominative, according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra 3,3,83; and in that case the meaning would be—‘the person whose tonsure has not been performed is purified in one day;’ and it has already been explained that some options in this connection are also based upon the age and condition of the person observing the impurity; and the present verse lays down specific rules in accordance with the general principle there enunciated.

Others, however, explain the genetive ending as denoting relationship; and in this case they have to supply some words; the meaning being—^(‘)the Sapiṇḍa relation of persons whose tonsure has not been performed etc;, etc.?’

This latter view is what is in keeping with usage.

Another Smṛti text has declared immediate purification; and the same text has laid down the exact scope of that rule—^(‘)Till the appearance of teeth, it is immediate: till the performance of the Tonsure, it comes after one day; and in the case of those whose Tonsure has been performed, it lasts for three days.’—(66)

(Verse 67 of other commentators.)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.23), where it is explained that all that this means is that in the case of all before initiation, the impurity lasts for three days;—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 373);—and in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 271), which remarks that the second half of the verse makes it clear to what case the following two verses refer.

Medhātithi offers two constructions:—(1) By one the verse is made to provide a rule for the impurity of the untonsured child on the death of others;—(2) by the other, for the impurity of others on the death of the untonsured children.

Viṣṇu (22-29-30).—‘On the death of a child after teething, hut before tonsure, the impurity lasts for a day and night; after tonsure, but before initiation, for three days.’

Yājñavalkya (3.23).—‘Before teething, the impurity is for the moment only; till tonsure, for one night; till initiation, three nights; after that, ten days.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 909).—‘If the child dies within ten days, the impurity ceases at once; in fact, in this case there is neither death nor impurity.’

Vṛddha-Manu (Aparārka, p. 910).—‘If the child happen to die within ten days, one need not observe anything due to death.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 910).—‘If the child is born dead, or if it dies immediately on birth, the Sapiṇḍas remain impure for ten days.’

Bṛhat-Mann (Aparārka, p. 910).—‘If the child dies immediately after birth, or if it is still-born, then for the mother there is impurity for the entire period; for the father and others, for three days.’

Bṛhat-Pracetas (Aparārka, p. 910).—‘If the child dies after living for just one moment, the mother is purified in ten days, and the Sagotras at the same moment.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, 910).—‘If the child dies before the lapse of ten days, the mother is affected by the entire impurity due to child-birth; but the father becomes purified by bathing. In the case of the child dying before teething, the purification is immediate; after tonsure, in one day; before initiation, its relations become purified in three days. Before the naming ceremony, it is immediate.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Aparārka, p. 910).—‘In the case of children dying before teething, the impurity due to their death lasts three days.’

Kaśyapa (Aparārka, p. 910).—‘In the case of children dying before teething, purification comes in throe days.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 911).—‘On the death of a child before teething, as also on miscarriage, all the Sapiṇḍas become pure after a day.’

Aṅgiras (Aparārka, p. 911).—‘When a child dies before tonsure, and after teething, one should remain impure for three days after cremating it On the death of a Brāhmaṇa child before it is throe years old, the impurity lasts one night; on that of a Kṣatriya, three days; of a Vaiśya, three days.

……In the case of the Brāhmaṇa dying after tonsure, the impurity lasts for three days; of the Kṣattnya, six days; of the Vaiśya, nine days. If a Śūdra child dies before three years, the impurity lasts five days.’

Ṛṣyaśṛṅga (Aparārka, p. 911).—‘Where the impurity for the Brāhmaṇa lasts three days, that for the Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra, lasts for six, nine and twelve days respectively.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 911.).—‘Before the Upanayana, for all castes, the impurity lasts for three days in the case of the death of the boy, and for one day in that of a girl.’

Pāraskara (Aparārka, p. 911).—‘On the death of a child less than two years old, the impurity attaches to the parents only.’

067 (On the death) of children whose tonsure (Kudakarman) has not been performed, the (Sapindas) are declared to become pure in one (day and) night; (on the death) of those who have received the tonsure (but not the initiation, the law) ordains (that) the purification (takes place) after three days.

The child that dies while less than two years old, the relations should, after having decked it, place outside, under the ground that is clean and not defiled by heaps of bones.—(67)

ऊने असंस्कृतस्य द्वे वर्षे यस्य जातस्य गते, स उच्यते ऊनद्विवार्षिकः । तं प्रेतं बान्धवा बहिर् ग्रामं निदध्युर् भूमौ निखातायां स्थापयेयुः । स्मृत्यन्तरे “निखनेत्” (य्ध् ३.१) इति पठ्यते । अलंकृत्य प्रेतालंकारैः । ऊनद्विवर्षे ऽपि श्रूयमाणो ऽलंकारः समाचारात् कृतोपनयनादाव् अपि विज्ञेयः । शुचौ यत्रास्थीनि भूप्रदेशे न सन्ति । अस्थिसंचयरहितत्वेन या शुद्धा तत्र निखाय स्थाप्यः । स्मशाने किलास्थीनि संचितानि भवन्ति । अत एतेन¹⁶⁹ वचनेन ततो ऽन्यत्र निधानम् उच्यते । न पुनस् तादृशस्यास्थिसंचयो न कर्तव्य इत्य् एव वाक्यार्थः । अग्निसंस्काराभावाद् एव तदप्राप्तेः ॥ ५.६७॥

The child whose sacramental rites have not been performed, and since whose birth less than two years have elapsed, is called ‘less than two years old’. Such a child, when it dies, ‘the relations should place outside’—the village —‘under the ground,’ that has been dug out.

Another Smṛti -text contains the word ‘nikhavet (?)’. should bury’.

‘Having decked’—with ornaments befitting the dead. The ‘decking’, mentioned here in connection with the child ‘few than two years old’, should be understood, on the strength of usage, to apply to those also whose sacramental rites have been performed.

‘Clean’—where there are no bones. That is, the ground that is clean by reason of the absence of heaps of bones,—under such a ground should the child he placed. As a rule, the crematorium abounds in heaps of bones; hence what the present text means is that the child should be buried in a place other than the crematorium; and it does not mean that in this case the rite of ‘bone-collecting’ shall not be performed: because this later fact is already implied by the absence of burning in the case.—(67)

(Verse 68 of other commentators.)

‘Asthisañcayanādṛte’—‘Place free from bones’ (Medhātithi, also Mitākṣarā);—‘without the rite of bonecollecting’ (Kullūka, who quotes Viśvarupa’s explanation which agrees with Medhātithi’s).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 271), which says that this refers to the case of the death of a child who has had his tonsure performed during the first year;—in Mitākṣarā (on 3.2) which explains the meaning to be that ‘the child should be decked with garlands and sandal-paint and should be buried in a clean place, away from the burning grounds, hut outside the village,—which should he free from bones.

It is quoted in Hāralatā (p. 121), which has the following notes:—‘ūnadvivārṣikam’, one whose tonsure has not been performed ,—‘alaṅkṛtya’, having endowed the dead body with rings, clothes, flowers, garlands and so forth, they should bury it in some pure spot outside the village; and even though the body would soon become decomposed and hence the rite of picking of the, bones might he possible, it should not be done.

Bodhāyana (1.11.4).—‘In the case of a child that dies before the completion of the third year, or before teething, offerings of halls and water are not proscribed, and one should not burn its body.’

Yājñavalkya (3.1)—‘The child less than two years old one should bury; nor should any water-offerings be made.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 870).—‘If the dead child is less than two years old, one should smear the body with butter and bury it in the ground.’

068 A child that has died before the completion of its second year, the relatives shall carry out (of the village), decked (with flowers, and bury it) in pure ground, without collecting the bones (afterwards).

For this child no sanctification by fire shall be performed; nor shall water-offering he made to it; having left it like a log of wood, in the forest, one shall keep aloof for three days.—(68)

काष्ठवद् इति निरपेक्षताम् आह । श्राद्धम् अपि न कर्तव्यं न चोदकम् । उदकक्रियानिषेधेन श्राद्धनिषेधः सिद्धः अङ्गाङ्गिभावात् । अतः समाचारप्रसिद्धः श्राद्धनिषेधो लिङ्गेन साधयितव्यः ।

• अन्ये तु स्मृत्यन्तरदृष्टनिखननप्रतिषेधार्थं वर्णयन्ति । ततश् च विकल्पः । क्षपेत उदास्येत । शास्त्रचोदितं व्यापारं न कुर्यात् ॥ ५.६८ ॥

‘Like a log of wood;’—this signifies absence of attachment, indifference.

The morning is that in thin case no Śrāddha, nor any water, is to be offered; the prohibition of ‘water-offering’ implying that of the Śrāddha also, through the relation of whole and part. It is thus that we have to get at the omission of Śrāddha, which is in accordance with usage.

Others explain this to mean the prohibition of burial laid down in other Smṛti -texts. And in this case there would be option.

‘Keep aloof’—abstain from all religious acts prescribed in the scriptures.—(68)

(Verse 69 of other commentators).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.2), which explains ‘araṇye kāṣṭhavat tyaktvā’ as follows:—‘Just as on throwing a log of wood in the forest, people take no notice of it, so having buried the child, they should take no further notice of him, in the way of performing his Śrāddha and other after-death rites.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 870), which explains the meaning to he that, the child less than two years old, which has not had its Tonsure, should be either buried or thrown into the water, without any after-death rites;—and again on p. 911, where it is said that the digging &c. are meant for the child who has had his Tonsure done during the first year. It is difficult to reconcile the two statements.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 271), which also says that, these two verses refer to the case of the child who has had his Tonsure performed during the first year;—and in Hāralatā (p. 122), which explains ‘araṇye,’ ‘in forest,’ as meaning in ‘uncultivated ground,’ and ‘Kāṣṭhavat’ as implying that they should not grieve over it;—and in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 6).

**(verses 68-69)
**

Bodhāyana (1.11.4).—(See above.)

Āpastamba (2.15.3-4).—‘On account of the death of the child that has not completed its first year, the parents alone shall bathe,—and those who bury it.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.33-34).—‘On the death of a child less than two years old the impurity of the Sapiṇḍas lasts three days;—Gautama declares that they become pure at once.’

Viṣṇu (22.27-28).—‘On the death of a child before teething, the impurity ceases at once; there should be no cremation for it, nor any water-offerings.’

Yājñavalkya (31.1).—(See above.)

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.4.24).—‘On the death of a child without teeth (impurity lasts three days).’

Pāraskara (3.10.2-7).—‘When a child that is less than two years in age dies, its parents become impure; the impurity lasts for one or three days. They bury the body without burning it. In this case there are no water-libations.’

069 Such (a child) shall not be burnt with fire, and no libations of water shall be offered to it; leaving it like a (log of) wood in the forest, (the relatives) shall remain impure during three days only.

For the child up to three years of age, the relations shall not make water-offerings; but for one whose teeth had appeared, or whose naming had been done, it may be done optionally.—(69)

**आ त्रिवर्षस्येति **आ तृतीयाद् वर्षात् प्रतिषेधः । न पुनश् चतुर्वर्षादौ । एवमर्थम् एवादिशब्दं केचित् पठन्ति- नात्रिवर्षस्य कर्तव्या त्रिवर्षादेर् इति । समाचारश् चैवम् एव । जातदन्तस्य वा कुर्युः । उदकक्रियासाहचर्याद् अग्निसंस्कारो ऽभ्यनुज्ञायते ।

• ननु च विकल्पे कामचारः । तत्र कः प्रयाससाध्यं वित्तक्षयकरम् अनुष्ठानपक्षम् आश्रयेत । व्यर्थस् तद्दुपदेशः ।

• उच्यते । सर्वविलक्षणो ऽयं पित्रोर् अधिकारः । प्रेतोपकारार्थम् एतत् क्रियते । नैमित्तिकत्वाद् अवश्यकर्तव्यम् इत्य् एतत् प्राग् एवोक्तम् । तत्रावश्यकर्तव्यताप्रतिषेधो ऽस्तीतीह निश्चीयते । प्रेतोपकारार्थत्वम् अस्तीत्य् अभ्यनुज्ञानेन ज्ञाप्यते । तत्राकरणे नास्ति विध्यतिक्रमः । प्रेतोपकारस् त्व् अनुष्ठानाद् भवतीति विधिप्रतिषेधयोर् नासामञ्जस्यम् ॥ ५.६९ ॥

‘Like a log of wood;’—this signifies absence of attachment, indifference.

The morning is that in thin case no Śrāddha, nor any water, is to be offered; the prohibition of ‘water-offering’ implying that of the Śrāddha also, through the relation of whole and part. It is thus that we have to get at the omission of Śrāddha, which is in accordance with usage.

Others explain this to mean the prohibition of burial laid down in other Smṛti -texts. And in this case there would be option.

‘Keep aloof’—abstain from all religious acts prescribed in the scriptures.—(68)

‘Upto three years of age’;—this prohibition applies till the end of the third year; and not from the fourth year upwards. It is in this sense that some people read an ‘ādi’, the line being read as—‘trivarṣādeva kartavyā’. Such also is the ordinary usage.

‘For one whose teeth had appeared it may be done optionally.’—By association with the ‘water-offering’, burning by fire also becomes permitted.

Objection—“When there is option, one may do what he likes; under the circumstances, who would ever have recourse to that alternative which involves much effort and expenditure of wealth? Thus then, the laying down of such a course of action is absolutely useless.”

The answer to this is as follows:—What is mentioned here is for the parents, as distinguished from all other persons; the offerings that are made are for the benefit of the deceased; and bring of the nature of an ‘occasional duty,’ it is one that must be done, as we have explained before. So that the option mentioned in the present verse is dearly understood as containing, on the one hand, the prohibition of a necessary duty; while, on the other, it permits its performance on the ground of its being beneficial to the deceased. So that if one omits the act, it does not involve the transgression of an injunction: while by performing it, one confers a benefit upon the deceased; so that there is no incompatibility between the Injunction and the Prohibition.—(69)

**(verses 68-69)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.68].

070 The relatives shall not offer libations to (a child) that has not reached the third year; but if it had teeth, or the ceremony of naming it (Namakarman) had been performed, (the offering of water is) optional.

On the death of a fellow-student, the impurity has been declared to last for one day. In the case of a birth, the purity of the ‘Samānopaka’ relations is held to come after three pays.—(70)

सब्रह्मचारी समानचर्णो ऽत एकोदका रूढ्या आसपिण्डेभ्यः¹⁷⁰ परिगृह्यन्ते । तेषाम् इतरेतरं जन्मनि सूतके त्रिरात्रम् । सद्यःशौचम् अपि स्मृत्यन्तराद् उदकदायिनां विकल्पितं द्रष्टव्यम् ॥ ५.७० ॥

‘Fellow-student’—professing the same Vedic Rescension.

‘Samānodaka relations;’—those meant here are to be counted from the point where the ‘Sapiṇḍa-relationship’ censes Among these, when then is a birth, the impurity lasts for three days.

The option of ‘immediate purity’ is also laid down in another Smṛti-text, for ‘Samānodaka’ relations.—(70)

(Verse 71 of other commentators.)

This verse is quoted in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 131);—in Hāralatā (p. 76), which explains ‘ekodaka’ as samānodaka;—and in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 37).

Gautama (14.20).—‘The impurity lasts for one night together with the preceding and following days, in the case of the death of a fellow-student.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.30).—‘Let him keep, on account of a pupil, for one who has the same spiritual guide, for a fellow-student,—three days, one day and a night, one day and so forth.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.4.26).—‘One day after the death of a fellow-pupil.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2.11.8).—‘If a fellow-pupil has died, then for three days.’

Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra (3.3.24).—‘Study is interrupted for one day, if a fellow-pupil has died.’

071 If a fellow-student has died, the Smriti prescribes an impurity of one day; on a birth the purification of the Samanodakas is declared (to take place) after three (days and) nights.

In the case of women whose sacramentary rite has not been performed, the marital relations become pure after three days; and their paternal relations also become pure according to the rule prescribed before—(71).

असंस्कृता या वाङ्मात्रेण प्रतिगृहीता न च विवाहितास् तासां मरणे बान्धवाः पतिपक्षास् त्रिरात्रेण । सनाभयस् तु सपिण्डाः स्वपितृपक्षा यथोक्तेन कल्पेन “निर्वृत्तचौडकानाम्”¹⁷¹ (च्ड़्। म्ध् ५.६६) इति जातेर् अधिकारात् त्रिरात्रेण ।

• अन्यैस् तूकम् “सोदर्या दशरात्रेण” इति । तेषां चाभिप्रायः । अष्टवर्षायाः कन्याया दानं विहितम् । अदत्तायाश् च निर्वृत्तचौडकव्यपदेशाभावात्¹⁷² पुंस इवोपनीतस्य, तदानीं कल्पान्तरस्यानाम्नानाद् दशाह एव युक्तः ।

• अन्यैस् तु पठितम् “अहस् त्व् अदत्तकन्यासु बालेषु च विशोधनम्” इति । तत्र व्याख्यातारः पञ्चदशाब्ददेशीयापि या ह्य् अदत्ता कन्या तिष्ठेत् तदहर् एवाशौचम् ।¹⁷³ मुख्यम् आम्नानम् अतिक्रम्य कालक्षपणे प्रमाणाभावात् ।

• तत्रोच्यते । “बालेषु च” इति को ऽस्यार्थः । यावता उक्तम् एव योगविभागे “आ दन्तजन्मनः सद्यः” इति । न चैतेन तद् बाधितुं युक्तम्, सामान्यरूपत्वाद् अस्य, तस्य च विशेषव्यवस्थापनरूपत्वात् । अतो ऽयम् एकाहः पृथग् उक्तो ऽपि आ चूडाद् एव व्यवतिष्ठते, सामान्यस्य विशेषापेक्षत्वात् । तस्माद् अनार्ष एवायम् अर्धश्लोकः प्रतिपद्यते- स्पर्शविषयतया नेयः । स्पर्शप्रतिषेधो हि मृतकसूतकयोर् बालस्यापि पुंवत् प्राप्तः । तदर्थम् एतद् उक्तं स्यात् “अहस् त्व् अदत्तकन्यासु बालेषु च विशोधनम्” इति । एवं च विषयसप्तम्याश्रिता भवति । सा च युक्ता कारकविभक्तित्वात् । इतरथा अध्याहृत्य भावलक्षणा सप्तमी व्याख्यायेत, “बालेषु मृतेषु जीवतां शुद्धिः” इति । न च तदुपस्पर्शनाद् आशौचम् एतेनैतत् सिद्ध्यतीति । विषयान्तरे तस्य च चरितार्थत्वात्, भूमौ परिवृतत्वात्, भूमौ परिवृतस्य च स्पर्शनसंभवात् ।

• अविशेषोक्तौ कुतो विशेषप्रतिपत्तिर् इति चेत् ।

• तस्याचमनकल्पो विद्यत इत्य् एतत् संनिधौ तादृशस्यैव¹⁷⁴ स्पर्शस्य प्रतीयमानत्वात् । तथा च रजस्वलास्पृष्टिनो बालस्य स्पर्शनं नेच्छन्ति । अथास्य विशेषणं स्यात् । तथा गौतमेन तद् उक्तं स्वस्यां स्मृतौ (च्ड़्। ग्ध् १४.४४) । युक्तम् एवाधातुम् एतस्य । तस्माद् युक्तैवाधानकाललक्षणा ॥ ५.७१ ॥

‘Whose sacramentary rite has been performed;’—i.e, those who have been accepted verbally, but have not been actually married; at the death of such women, their^(‘)marital relations’—on her husband’s side, &c., &c.

‘Their paternal relations’—on the father’s side—are purified^(‘)according to the rule prescribed before’—in verse 66; i.e., in three days; this rule being laid down with reference to a particular caste.

Others have explained the second half as referring to the rule that ‘uterine brothers and sisters are purified in ten days’ (the word ‘sanābhi’ being taken to mean ‘uterine’). The view of these persons is as follows:—It has been laid down that a girl should be given away in her eighth year: so that one who has teen given away is not. spoken of as ‘one whose tonsure has teen performed’,—just as the ‘initiated boy’ is not so spoken of; and in as much as no other rule has been laid down, the only right course to adopt is to observe the impurity tor ten days.

Others again have read (the second half) as—^(‘)ahastvadatta-kanyāsu bālāsu ca vishodhanam’; and people have explained this to mean that, even in the case of a girl that remains unmarried till she is nearly fifteen years old, the impurity shall last for one day only; and this on the ground that there is no justification for rejecting the direct injunction and observing a longer period of impurity.

Our answer to this is as follows:—What is the use of the expression ‘bālāsu ca’, when it has been already asserted that^(‘)upto the appearance of teeth, the purity is immediate’? It is not right to have this assertion set aside by the present later declaration: because the present declaration is a general one, while the former is more specialised. Hence the ‘one day’ rule, even though laid down, can only be taken as referring to children till the performance of their Tonsure; specially as a general statement is always dependent upon (and controlled by) particular ones. For these reasons the suggested reading of the second half of the verse must be rejected as not. emanating from the sage. But it may be taken as refering to touchability. There is un-touchability due to the birth or death of a child, exactly as in the case of grown up men; and it is only with reference to this that there could be the assertion that—^(‘)there is purity (i.e., touch-ability) after one day in the case of unmarried girls and young children, (i.e., these become touchable in one day)’; and it is in this sense that the Locative ending (in ‘bālāsu’ and ‘kanyāsu’) be comes justified as being the correct one: since it is a regular case-ending. If the words were taken in any other sense (e.g., as meaning^(‘)at the death of girls and hoys, &c.’), it would be necessary to have elliptical construction and to take the Locative ending in the^(‘)absolute’ sense:—‘girls and hoys having died, the purity of those living comes about after one day’; and we could not get at the sense that the impurity spoken of results from the touching of the dead; specially as the former (the seme obtained by construing the line as Locative Absolute) has its sphere of application elsewhere, in the ease of burial under-ground; and no touching is possible in the case of the body being placed under the ground.

“Since the assertion is a general one, wherefore is it restricted to a particular case.’”?.

As a matter of fact, we find a rule regarding the sipping of water in the same connection; and in connection with this, it is only the said kind of hatch that is possible. It is for this reason that people do not consider it desirable to touch the child that has touched a menstruating woman; and this may be regarded as the qualifying factor in the present case; is has been declared by Gautama in his Smṛti; it is only right for such a person to set up the fire; hence it is only right that it should be taken as pointing to the time of setting up the fire.—(71).

(Verse 72 of other commentators.)

‘Yathoktena kalpena’—‘According to the rule declared in verse 67’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nandana);—‘just like the husband’s relatives, i.e., after three days’ (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 907), which supplies the following explanation:—In the case of ‘asaṃskṛta’—i.e., unmarried—women, the ‘bāndhavas’—i.e., their relations on the husband’s side—become pure in three days; but their sanābhayaḥ—i.e., relations on the father’s side—become pure according to the aforesaid rule. It is because the relations on the father’s side are separately mentioned by means of the word ‘sanābhayaḥ’ that the generic term ‘bāndhavāḥ’ is taken in the special sense of ‘relations on the husband’s side’. But there can be no such relations in the case of unmarried women; hence the women meant here must be those that have been verbally betrothed, but not yet formally married.—‘Sanābhayaḥ,’ the relations on the father’s side, are purified according to the rule that has been laid down in connection with the death of a boy before Upanayana,—i.e., the impurity ceases after three days. The analogy between the two cases is based upon the principle that for women ‘marriage’ takes the place of the Upanayana; so that the unmarried girl stands on the same footing as the uninitiated boy.

The verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.24), to the effect that in the case of girls who have been betrothed, but not married, the relations on the father’s side are purified in three days. Here also ‘bāndhava’ and ‘sanābhi’ are explained as in Aparārka; and it is added that the ‘ten-days’ rule could not be rightly applied before marriage.’

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 608), in the same sense, and ‘bāndhavāḥ’ is explained as patisapiṇḍāḥ, and ‘sanābhayaḥ’ as ‘pitṛsapiṇḍāḥ’,—and yathoktena kalpena as the ‘three days’ rule’.

It is also quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 264) in the sense that in the case of girls that have been betrothed, but whose marriage-rites have not been. performed, the sapiṇḍas of her husband are purified in three days, while the sapiṇḍas of her father are purified by the said rule, i.e., by the rule declared in the first half of the verse. It adds that ‘betrothal’ must be a necessary condition, as before that the unmarried girl win have no relations ‘on the husband’s side’; and that her father’s sapiṇḍas to only three degrees are meant, because of the express declaration of Vaśiṣṭha that ‘for unmarried girls the sapiṇḍa-relationship extends to only three degrees.’

This is quoted in Hāralatā (p. 49), whieh adds the following notes:—‘Asaṃskṛtānām,’ unmarried,—‘bāndhavāḥ’ relations on the husband’s side—‘yathoktena,’ as described in the first line of the verse, i.e., they are purified in three days;—the first half refers to the girl dying after betrothal, as before betrothal, the girl can have no ‘relations on the husband’s side’; her ‘sanābhayaḥ,’ i.e., relations on her father’s side, also become pure in three days.

Baudhāyana (1.11.8).—(Same as Manu.)

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.4.23).—‘Three days after the death of married female relations.’

Yājñavalkya (3.23).—‘On the death of girls not given away, purification is attained in one day.’

Vṛddha-Manu (Aparārka, p. 908).—‘On the death of girls not given away, purification is attained in one day; on that of those given away, in three days.’

Marīci (Do.).—‘In the case of the death of girls,—prior to tonsure, the purification is immediate; before betrothal, it is obtained in one day; after betrothal, before marriage, in three days.’

Pulastya (Aparārka, p. 908).—‘In the case of girls not grown up, one becomes pure in one day; in that of one betrothed, in one night along with the preceding and following days; and in that of one altogether given away, in three days.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do.).—‘If a girl who has been given away dies in her father’s house, her relations become purified in one day, but her father in three days; if a girl dies after birth and before her tonsure, the purification is immediate for all castes; if she dies after tonsure and before betrothal, it is attained in one day; after betrothal, in three days.’

Marīci (Parāśaramādhava, p. 608).—‘The girl that has been offered without, water, and not actually given away, is to he regarded as unmarried; and in the event of her death, the impurity lasts for three days for her relations on both sides. In the case of girls, betrothed or not betrothed, married or not married, the impurity for parents lasts three days, and for others according to rule.’

072 (On the death) of females (betrothed but) not married (the bridegroom and his) relatives are purified after three days, and the paternal relatives become pure according to the same rule.

For three days they should eat food free from salines and salts, should bathe, should not eat meat-food and should sleep apart on the ground.—(72).

क्षारलवणम्¹⁷⁵ । यवक्षारादि क्षारम् । लवणं सैन्धवादि । तन् न भुञ्जीरन् । लवनविसेषणं वा क्षारग्रहणं तेन सैन्धवस्य प्रतिषेधः । निमज्जनं च नदीतडागादाव् अतीर्थस्नानम्¹⁷⁶ अङ्गपरिघर्षणादिवर्जनम् । मांसाशनं च यावद् आशौचं स्मृत्यन्तरात् प्रतिषिध्यते । एवं पठ्यते “न स्त्रियम् उपेयुर् न मार्जयेयुर् न मांसम् अश्नीयुः” । गृह्यकारस् तु “त्र्यहम् अनश्नन्त आसीरन् क्रीतोत्पन्नेन वा वर्तेरन्” (च्ड़्। आश्ग् ४.४.१५) इत्य् आह । शयीरंश् च स्थण्डिले परसङ्गवर्जम् । सूतके ऽपि ब्रह्मचर्यं स्मृत्यन्तरे प्रदर्शितम् ॥ ५.७२ ॥

‘Salines and salts.’—The term^(‘)salines’ stands for nitrate of potash and such substances, and^(‘)salts’ for rock-salt and other salts. These they should not eat.

Or, the term ‘saline’, ‘kṣāra’, may be taken as qualifying, ‘lavaṇa’, ‘salt.’ In that case the prohibition (applying to only saline salts) would not apply to rock-salt.

The ‘bathing’ laid down is to be done in a river or a tank or such other reservoirs of water as are not regarded as specially ‘sacred’; and it is to be done without scrubbing the body.

‘Meat-food’—is prohibited during the period of impurity, on the basis of other Smṛti texts; where we read—‘They shall not have recourse to women, they shall not scrub their body and they shall not eat meat.’ The Gṛhyasūtra however says—‘For three days they shall remain without food, or still live upon food obtained by purchase.’

‘Should sleep’—upon the bare platform, without company.

Another Smṛti-text has prescribed abstention from sexual intercourse during impurity due to births also.—(72).

(Verse 73 of other commentators.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 885);—in Mitākṣarā (on 3.16);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 415);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 224) as laying down restrictions for the sapiṇḍas of the dead;—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 142), which has the following notes:—‘Tryaham,’ on the third, seventh and ninth days they should all bathe together, for the benefit of the dead; all the sapiṇḍas should not eat meat during the period of impurity,—‘Kṣitau’, this forbids sleeping on beds;—and in Hāralatā (p. 157), whieh explains ‘Kṣāralavaṇa’ as ‘all salts with the exception of saindhava and sāmbhari,’—‘they should all bathe together on the third, seventh and ninth days.’

Gautama (14.37-39).—‘During the period of impurity, they shall sleep and sit on the ground and remain chaste; they shall not clean themselves; nor shall they eat moat until the offerings have been made’

Baudhāyana (1.11.21).—When a death has occurred, they shall………… sit during four days on mats, eating food that does not contain condiments or salt.’

Āpastamba (2.15.7-9).—‘Diśevelling their hair and covering themselves with dust,…stopping into the river, they throw up water for the dead once and then, ascending the bank, sit down; this they repeat thrice. They pour out water……… return to the village without looking back, and perform those rites for the dead which women declare to he necessary.’

Yājñavalkya (3.16).—‘Eating food got by purchase or got without asking, they shall sleep separately on the ground; and shall offer to the dead food, according to the Piṇḍayajña rites, for three days.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.4.14).—‘Let them not cook food during that night; let them subsist on bought or readymade food; let them eat no saline food for three days,’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.11-15).—‘After having burnt the body, the relations enter the water without looking back. Facing the south, they shall pour out water with both hands on those days that are marked by odd numbers. After they have gone home they shall sit during the other days, on mats, fasting. If they are unable to do this, they shall subsist on food bought in the market or given unasked.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Aparārka, p. 885).—‘For one day there should he fasting, or they should eat what is obtained unasked.’

Mārkaṇḍeya (Do.).—‘They shall eat what is bought or obtained unasked, and remain calm; they shall eat no meat; nor have recourse to women.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do.).—‘Having bathed, they offer water to the dead for three days.’

073 Let (mourners) eat food without factitious salt, bathe during three days, abstain from meat, and sleep separate on the ground.

This rule regarding Impurity due to death has been described in reference to cases where the parties are near one another. In reference to cases where they are not near, Kinsmen and relations should observe the following rule.—(73).

संनिधौ यत्रासौ मृतस् तत्र तत् संनिधीयते । अन्ये तु प्रयाणकाले ये संनिहितास् तेषाम् एवायं विधिर् इत्य् आहुः । संबन्धिनः समानोदकाः । बान्धवाः सपिण्डाः ।

• अन्ये तु ग्रामान्तरे नगरान्तरे ऽवस्थानम् असंनिधानं मन्यन्ते, ॥ ५.७३ ॥

तेषां च,

‘Near’—i.e., when the relations are close by the place where their kinsman has died.

Others have explained the text to mean that the rule applies to those who were near the man at the time of his death.

‘Kinsmen’—i e., Samānodakas:—‘bāndhara’—Sapiṇḍas.

Others have explained this ‘non-nearness’ to stand for men who may be living in another village or town.

In the case of these, we have the following rules (73).

**(verses 5.73-74)
**

Viṣṇu (23.39-41).—‘Living in a foreign land, if one hears of a birth or a death, his impurity lasts dining those days that may remain of the prescribed period of impurity; if he hears of it just after the lapse of the prescribed period of impurity, and before the lapse of one year, he becomes pure in one night;—after that by bathing.’

Yājñavalkya (3.21).—‘In the ease of one dying in a foreign land, the impurity lasts during the remaining days of the period; if no days remain, then during three days; if one year has elapsed, one becomes pure by offering water to the dead.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (3, 10.44-45).—‘If one dies while absent on a journey, his relations shall sit on the ground from the time that they have heard of the death, offering water until the period of impurity has elapsed. If that period has already elapsed, then through one night, or three nights.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.35).—‘If a person dies in a foreign country, and his Sapiṇḍas hear of his death after ten days, the impurity lasts for one day and night.’

Devala (Aparārka, p. 904).—‘If the death of a relative in foreign lands is heard of within three fortnights, the impurity lasts three days; up to six months, for one night and the days preceding and following it; up to a year, for one day; after that one becomes pure by bathing.’

Viṣṇu (Do.).—‘If it is heard of before the lapse of three fortnights, the impurity lasts three days; before six months, for a day and night; before one year, one day,—in the case of a man dying in foreign lands.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.).—‘The son, even though he be living in distant lands, on hearing of the death of his parents, shall remain impure for ten days beginning from the day on which he hears of it.’

Gautama (14.44).—‘If infants living in a distant country, or a renunciate, or a n on- Sapiṇḍa die, the purification is instantaneous.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.36).—‘Gautama declares that if a person who has kindled the sacred fires dies on a journey, his Sapiṇḍas shall again celebrate his obsequies and remain impure for ten days.’

Parāśara (3.10).—‘If one hears of the death of a Sagotra in a foreign land, he is not impure either for one day or for three days; he becomes purified immediately by bathing.’

074 The above rule regarding impurity on account of a death has been prescribed (for cases where the kinsmen live) near (the deceased); (Sapinda) kinsmen and (Samanodaka) relatives must know the following rule (to refer to cases where deceased lived) at a distance (from them).

He who hears, within ten days, of a relation resident in a foreign land having died, shall, remain impure for the remainder of the period of ten days.—(74).

विदेशो¹⁷⁷ ग्रामान्तरादिः पूर्ववत् । विगतं मृतम् । अनिर्दशम् । उपलक्षणम् एतत् । यस्य य आशौचकालस् तच्छेषं तस्याशौचम् । पुनर् दशरात्रग्रहणं श्लोकपूरणार्थम् । उत्पत्त्यपेक्षया जन्ममरणयोर् आशौचकालविकल्पेनावश्यम् अपेक्ष्यम्¹⁷⁸ । यदा सूतकाद्युत्पन्नं तदा प्रभृति दशाहादि कल्पः, न यदा¹⁷⁹ सपिण्डैर् ज्ञातम् इति । अतश् च यदातिथिना ज्ञातं सूतकादि न तु गृहस्थेन तदाप्य् अभोज्यम् अन्नम् । तथैवोत्पत्तिनिमित्तमात्रम् इदम् उभयत्रेति । दशाहम् आशौचिनां तत ऊर्ध्वम्, त्रिरात्रैकाहाशौचिना तु सचैलस्नानजा सद्यः शुचिः ॥ ५.७४ ॥

‘Foreign country,’—means another village, &c., as before.

‘Vigatam’—dead.

‘Within ten days’.—This is only by way of illustration: what is meant is the period of impurity that has been prescribed in each case;—the remainder of that period would be the period to be observed in the special case mentioned. The repeated mention of ‘ten days’ is for the purpose of filling up the metre.

The period of impurity due to birth and death is determined by their origin; so that the periods of ‘ten days’ and the rest are to be counted from the day on which the birth or the death may have taken place, and not from the day on which it may become known to the relations. As a result of this, if the guest happen to know of the birth, &c., having occurred in the house, he should not take his food in that house, even though the master of that house himself may still be ignorant of it. Thus in both cases (of death and birth) the counting is to be done from the day of origination.

Thus those who are subject to impurity for ‘ten days’ shall remain impure for the remainder of that period; and for those who are subject to a period of ‘three days’, purification is obtained immediately, by bathing along with all the clothing that may be on them.—(74).

(Verse 75 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 385), in support of the view that if one cause of impurity should happen during the period of impurity due to another cause, then the former should be regarded as over by the end of the latter.

Videśa or Deśāntara is thus defined by ‘Vṛddha-Manu’ quoted in Aparārka (p. 905):—‘That which is interposed by a great river (a river falling directly into the sea) or by a mountain, or where the language is different.’

It is quoted in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 70);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 232), which explains ‘vigatam’ as ‘dead’ and adds that this rule applies to cases of birth also, and that ‘ten days’ stands for the full period of impurity under normal conditions;—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 36);—and in Hāralatā (p. 32) which has the following notes:—‘videśastham’ in another country, i.e., from where the news of death cannot come quickly,—‘anirdaśam,’ before the end of ten days.

In regard to ‘videśa’, Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 71) quotes Rudradhara as saying that even though there be no intervening mountains or rivers, if the distance between two countries is more than 60 yojanas—e.g., Tirhut and Prayāga,—they are ‘videśa’ to each other, but not so between Tirhut and Kaśi, the distance between which is only 30 yojanas.

**(verses 5.73-74)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.73].

075 He who may hear that (a relative) residing in a distant country has died, before ten (days after his death have elapsed), shall be impure for the remainder of the period of ten (days and) nights only.

If the period of ten days has elapsed, he shall remain impure for three days; but when a year has elapsed, he becomes pure by merely touching water.—(75).

यस्य यः कृत आशौचकालो दशाहादिस् तस्य तदूर्ध्वं त्रिरात्रम् । यस्य तु त्र्यहैकाहादिस् तस्य तत ऊर्ध्वं सवाससः स्नानमात्रम् एव । तथा चोत्तरत्र वक्ष्यति “सवासाः” (म्ध् ५.७६) इत्यादि । संवत्सरे अतीते अतिक्रान्ते स्पृष्ट्वैवापः स्नात्वा शुध्येद् इत्य् अर्थः । “हस्तेन च सपादेन” इत्यादिवचनात्, सर्वाङ्गस्पर्शनं प्रतीयते, तच् च स्नानम् एव ॥ ५.७५ ॥

In cases where the period of impurity ordained lasts for ten days or more,—if this period has elapsed, the impurity shall last for three days. But in cases where the period ordained lasts for three days, or one day, or less,—if this period has elapsed, one has simply to bathe along with his clothes: as is going to be laid down later—(Verse 77.)

‘When a year has elapsed’—one becomes pure ‘by touching water’,—i.e., by bathing. From what has been said elsewhere regarding ‘touching water with the hands and feet &c.’, it is clear that the whole body is to touch water: and this is what constitutes ‘bathing’.—(75).

(Verse 76 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.21) in support of the view that in the case of one hearing of the death of a relative in other countries, after one year of the death, he becomes purified by bathing and making the water-offering;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 428), where ‘āpaḥ

spṛṣtvā’ is explained as ‘bathing’; and it adds that this refers to cases of the death of relatives other than the Father or the Mother;—in Nirṇaysindhu (p. 385);—in Hāralatā (p. 32), which explains the meaning to be that ‘after the lapse of ten days and upto one year, the Sapiṇḍas are impure for three days, and after one year, the Sapiṇḍas become pure by mere bathing, but not so the parents of the dead’;—in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 70);—in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 126);—and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 34 and 73), which adds that ‘daśāha’ stands for the full period of impurity.

076 If the ten days have passed, he shall be impure during three (days and) nights; but if a year has elapsed (since the occurrence of the death), he becomes pure merely by bathing.

Hearing of the death of a kinsman, or of the birth of a son, after the ten days have elapsed, the man becomes pure by plunging into water with his clothes—(76).

समानोदकानाम् अयं विधिः । त्र्यहैकाहपक्षे च सपिण्डानाम् अपि । सवासा वाससा सहितः । जलम् आप्लुत्य स्नात्वेत्य् अर्थः ॥ ५.७६ ॥

This rule refers to Samānodaka relations; and also to Sapiṇḍa ones, but only when the option of three or one day is accepted.

‘With clothes’—along with his garments.

‘Plunging into water’—bathing.—(76).

(Verse 77 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 904), which explains ‘nirdaśam’ as ‘from which ten days have elapsed;’—in Mitākṣarā (on 3.21);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 385), in support of the view that for the Father, there is impurity even on hearing of the birth of a son after ten days have elapsed, though there is none for other relations;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 188);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 427) to the same effect as Nirṇayasindhu;—in Parāśramādhāva (Ācāra, p. 600), to the same effect;—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 275) to the same effect;—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 232), which adds that the mention of ‘putra,’ son, makes it clear that the purification applies to the Father only;—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 34) which says that ‘nirdaśam jñātimaraṇam’ stands for ‘the lapsing of the period of impurity’;—and in Hāralatā (p. 32), which adds this explanation:—‘If one hears of the death of a Sapiṇḍa after the lapse of ten days, he becomes purified by bathing with clothes on,’ and ‘on hearing of the birth of his son, after ten days, one becomes pure by mere bathing it adds that the ‘purification meant here is only the cessation of untouchability’.

Yājñavalkya (3.21).—(See under 73-75.)

Śaṅkha (Parāśaramādhava, p. 598).—‘On the expiry of ten days, one remains impure for three days.’

Devala (Do., p. 599).—‘After the lapse of the days of impurity, there is to he no impurity, due to birth.’

077 A man who hears of a (Sapinda) relative’s death, or of the birth of a son after the ten days (of impurity have passed), becomes pure by bathing, dressed in his garments.

In the event of a child, resident in a foreign country, who is a non-sapiṇḍa relation, dying,—one becomes pure immediately, by plunging into water wth his clothes on.—(77).

बाले ऽदन्तजाते सूनौ । देशान्तरस्थे पृथक्पिण्डे च संस्थिते, इत्य् एकार्थानि पदानि । पृथक्पिण्डः समानोदक इति यावत् । तस्मिन् देशान्तरस्थे संस्थिते सद्यः शुद्धिः । संनिधौ “त्र्यहात् तूदकदायिनः” (म्ध् ५.६३) इत्य् उक्तम् ॥ ५.७७ ॥

‘Child’—i.e., a son that has not yet teethed;—‘resident in a foreign country’—who is a non-sapiṇḍa relation’—‘dying’,—all these terms are in apposition.

‘Non-Sapiṇḍa’—i.e., Samānodaka.

When such a person dies while residing in a foreign country, the purification is ‘immediate.’

When such a person dies near at hand, then the purification comes sifter ‘three days’—as declared in verse 63 above—(77).

VERSE LXXVII

(Verse 78 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 905), which notes that ‘deśāntarastha,’ ‘in a distant country,’ qualifies both the ‘bāla’ and the ‘asapiṇḍa’;—again on p. 909, where the ‘pṛthakpiṇḍa’ is explained as the ‘non-sapiṇḍa and the ‘bāla’ as ‘one whose naming has not been done’;—in Hāralatā (p. 33), which explains ‘deśāntarastha’ etc., to mean that ‘on hearing of the death of a Sapiṇḍa after the lapse of ten days, those for whom the normal period of impurity is one day only, becomes purified immediately, by bathing only;—and in Dānakriyākaumudī (p. 25).

The verse is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 274).

Gautama (14.20).—‘When a relative who is not a Sapiṇḍa or a relative by marriage, or a fellow-student, has died, the impurity lasts for one night along with the preceding and following days.’

Gautama (14.14).—‘If infants, relations living in a distant country, those who have renounced domestic life, and those who are not Sapiṇḍas, die, the purification is immediate.’

078 If an infant (that has not teethed), or a (grownup relative who is) not a Sapinda, die in a distant country, one becomes at once pure after bathing in one’s clothes.

If, within ten days, another birth or death happen to befall, the Brāhmaṇa shall remain impure until that period of ten days shall have elapsed.—(78).

अत्रापि दशाहग्रणम् आशौचकालोपलक्षणार्थम् । यस्य य आशौचकालस् तस्मिन्न् अनिवृत्ते यदि पुनर् अन्यद् आशौचनिमित्तम् उत्पद्यते तदा पूर्वशेषेणैव शुद्धिर् न त्व् अन्तरा निपतितं यत् तदीयाद् अह्नः प्रभृति दशाहादिगणना कर्तव्या । तथा च गौतमः- “तच् चेद् अन्तः पुनर् आपतेत् तच्छेषेण शुद्ध्येयुः” इति (ग्ध् १४.६) । मरणजन्मनी इति समासे यत्नम् अन्तरेण क्रमाप्रतिपत्तेर् व्यन्तरेणाप्य् उपनिपातप्राप्तौ¹⁸⁰ समाचारात् समानजातीय एवेति द्रष्टव्यम् । पुनःशब्दश् च समानजातीयापेक्षया समर्थतरो भवति । विप्रग्रहणम् अप्य् आशौचिनाम् उपलक्षणार्थम् । स्मृत्यन्तरे तु विहितम्- “रात्रिशेषे द्वाभ्याम्, प्रभाते तिसृभिः” (ग्ध् १४.७–८) इति । “एतस्य ब्राह्मणस्य प्रेतस्पर्शे दशरात्रम् आशौचम्” इति प्रकृत्य “न चेद् अन्तरा म्रियेत जायेत वा शिष्टैर् एव दिवसैः शुद्ध्येत” इतीयं स्मृतिः समानजातीयासमानजातीयभेदं नानुमन्यते ॥ ५.७८ ॥

Here also the mention of ‘ten days’ is meant to stand for the period of impurity ordained in each individual case. The meaning thus is that—‘before the expiry of the period of impurity ordained for a particular ease, if another cause of impurity should come about, then purification comes with the lapse of the remainder of that period; and the second period of impurity is not to be counted from the day on which the cause shall have arisen.’ Says Gautama (14.5)—‘If an impurity should occur again during the interval, the purification comes with the remainder of the former.’

‘Birth and Death’ being mentioned in a compound,—and it being not easy to find out in which order of sequence these are to be taken,—and intervention being possible by unlike causes of impurity also,—it is to be understood, on the authority of usage, that what is meant is intervention by a like cause of impurity (i.e. of impurity due to death by another due to death and so forth). It is in this sense that the use of the term ‘another’ becomes more justifiably significant.

The term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ also is meant to stand for persons observing the impurity.

In another Smṛti-text it has been laid down that—‘if it happens at the close of the night, then it is in two days; and if it happens at dawn, then three days’; and having begun with the statement—‘when the Brāhmaṇa dies, the impurity lasts for ten days’,—it goes on to say—‘if no one dies or is born in the interval, he becomes pure after the remaining days.’ And this takes no account of any distinction between like and unlike sources of impurity.—(78).

(Verse 79 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 386), which notes that the period of ‘ten days’ here mentioned stands for all periods of impurity as laid down in the several cases,—and not for that of ‘ten days’ only;—and again on p. 388.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 622);—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 237), in the sense that when there is a commingling of two causes of impurity, the later one lapses with the earlier;—again on p. 244 to the same effect—i. e., the period of impurity due to a later cause becomes contracted within the limits of that due to a previous cause;—and again on p. 247 to the same effect;—and in Hāralatā (p. 61), which says that the qualification ‘punaḥ’, ‘again’ applies to death only, and draws the following conclusion:—‘If during the ten days of impurity duetto a death, another death or a birth should occur, then the impurity ceases after the end of the said ten days due to the former death;’ it goes on to say. that such is not. the case if death occur during the period of impurity due to a birth, as the impurity due to death is more serious than that due to birth, and hence cannot merge into the latter.

Gautama (14.6).—‘If during a period of impurity, another death occurs, the relatives shall he pure after the lapse of the remainder of the former period.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.17-18).—‘If a birth and a death occur together, one and the same period of ten days shall serve for both. If other births or deaths happen before the completion of the ten days of the first impurity, that first period will suffice; provided the new course of impurity occurs before the end of the ninth day.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.23-25).—‘If during a period of impurity, another death or birth occurs, the relatives shall be pure after the expiry of the remainder of that first period. But if one night only of the first period of impurity remain, they shall be pure after two days and nights. If the second death or birth occurs on the morning of the day on which the first period expires, they shall he pure after three days and nights.’

Viṣṇu (22.35-38).—‘If during the period of impurity due to birth, another birth occurs, then purification comes after the expiry of the first period of impurity. If the second occurs when only one night remains of the first period, then purification comes after two days. If it occurs on the morning of the last day of the first period, then after three days. Similarly on the death of a relative during the period of impurity due to death.

Yājñavalkya (3.20).—‘If another birth or death happen during a period of impurity, one becomes purified on the lapse of the remaining daws.’

Aṅgiras (Aparārka, p. 898).—If during a period of impurity due to birth, a death occurs,—or during a period of impurity due to death, a birth occurs,—then, the impurity is to he observed in accordance with the death, not with the birth.’

Ṣaṭtṛṃśan-mata (Do.).—‘If during an impurity due to death, a birth occurs, then purification from the impurity duo to the birth comes after the lapse of the period of impurity due to death; the birth is not purificatory of the impurity due to death.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 899).—‘When two equal causes of impurity coalesce, the impurity should cease with the former; if they are not equal, then with the second; such is the declaration of Dharmarāja.’

Śaṅkha (Do., p. 900).—‘If after the mother’s death the father dies, then purification comes after the lapse of the impurity due to the father’s death.’

Yama (Do.).—‘If a cause happens lengthening the period of an impurity, the impurity should cease with what happens later. If during a three-day period of impurity, a ten-day impurity should occur, then purification comes with the end of this latter.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 900).—‘If an impurity due to death occurs during an impurity due to death, purification comes with the lapse of the previous impurity. A shorter impurity can remove another only when the latter is a short one.’

Prajāpati (Do.).—‘If a son happen to be born during an impurity due to another birth, then the father’s purification is immediate; he being purified by the lapse of the previous impurity. When several impurities coalesce, purification comes on the lapse of that which is the more serious; when there is coalescence of impurity due to birth and another due to death, that due to death is the more serious.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do.).—‘There are two parts to every period of impurity; if a fresh cause of impurity happen within the first part of a previous impurity, then the purification comes on the lapse of the previous impurity; if however it happen after that, then it comes on the lapse of the second impurity. Similarly when during the impurity duo to one death, another death happens. If during the impurity due to death, a birth occurs,—or during the impurity due to birth, a death occurs,—then purification comes on the lapse of the impurity duo to death.’

Uśanas (Parāśaramādhava, p. 622).—‘If during a shorter impurity, a longer one happens, the purification cannot come with the lapse of the former; it must take its own time.’

Devala (Do.).—‘When circumstances prolonging the impurity occur, purification comes on the lapse of the succeeding one; but if the second impurity occurs before the fifth day of the first one, then purification comes on the lapse of the first one.’

Parāśara (3.28-29).—‘If during the ten days of impurity, another birth or death should occur, the Brāhmaṇa shall remain impure till the expiry of those ten days.’

079 If within the ten days (of impurity) another birth or death happens, a Brahmana shall remain impure only until the (first) period of ten days has expired.

On the death of the Teacher, they declare the impurity to last for three days; on the death of his son or wife, it lasts for one day and night; such is the law.—(79).

आचार्य उपनेता । तस्मिन् संस्थिते त्रिरात्रं शिष्यस्य । तस्य आचार्यस्य पुत्रे पत्न्यां च संस्थितायाम् अहोरात्रम् ॥ ५.७९ ॥

‘Teacher’, ‘Ācārya’, here stands for the Initiator:—on his death—the impurity of the pupil lasts for three days.

On the death of the Teacher’s son or wife,—it lasts for one day and night.—(79).

(Verse 80 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 187), and again on p. 912, where it is added that the rule herein laid down, is meant for the case where the pupil does not perform the antyeṣṭi for the Teacher; in a case where he does perform it, it involves an impurity extending over full ten days, as declared above, under verse 64.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.24), which also makes ṭhe same remark as Aparārka;—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 380);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 431);—in Hāralatā (p. 76), which explains the second half as—‘on the death of the Teacher’s son, from whom one has not read anything, the impurity lasts for one day and night, and so also on the death of the Teacher’s wife, other than the one for whom Gautama has prescribed an impurity of three days’;—in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 37);—and in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 63).

Gautama (14.28).—‘If the Teacher, his son or wife, or a person for whom one sacrifices, or a pupil (has died, or been carried), the impurity lasts three days.’

Baudhāyana (1.11-28).—‘For a Teacher, a Sub-teacher and their sons, three days and nights.’

Viṣṇu (22.42).—‘On the death of the Teacher or the maternal grand-father, in three days.’

Viṣṇu (22.44).—‘On the death of the Teacher’s wife, the Teacher’s son, the Sub-teacher, the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the wife’s brother, fellow-student and pupil,—purification comes after one day and night.’

Yājñavalkya (3.21).—‘On the death of the Teacher, the pupil, the Exponent of Veda, the maternal uncle and the Vedic scholar, purification comes after one day.’

Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.4.19, 21).—‘Ten days after the death of a Guru who is no Sapiṇḍa three nights after the death of the Teachers.’

Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhyasūtra (4.7.9-10).—‘When the Teacher has died, for ten days (the Veda shall not be read);—when he has heard of it, for three days.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (2.11.7).—‘If his Guru has died, let him go down into water and interrupt study for ten nights.’

Gobhila G ṛhyasūtra (3.3.26).—‘Three days, if his Teacher has died.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 913).—‘One shall remain impure for three nights, on the death of the maternal grand-father, the Teacher and the Vedic scholar.’

Uśanas (Aparārka, p. 913).—‘On the death of the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the friend, the guru, the guru’s wives,—the impurity lasts for one night along with the preceding and following days.’

080 They declare that, when the teacher (akarya) has died, the impurity (lasts) three days; if the (teacher’s) son or wife (is dead, it lasts) a day and a night; that is a settled (rule).

In the case of a learned companion, one shall remain impure for three days; in the case of a maternal uncle, a pupil, an officiating priest and relation, for a night along with the two days (preceding and following it).—(80).

वेदशाखाध्यायी श्रोत्रियः । उपसंपन्नः मैत्र्या प्रयोजनेन वा केनचित् संगतः शीलेन युक्तो वा । पूर्वं तु सब्रह्मचारिण्य् एकाहम् अगृहीतवेदे दृष्टम् (म्ध् ५.७०) । अभिधानकोशे तु उपसंपन्नो मृतपर्यायः । बहुकालत्वाद् आशौचस्य पूर्वैव व्याख्या ज्यायसी ।

• अन्ये तु “श्रोत्रिये मातुले त्रिरात्रम्” इत्य् एव संबन्धन्ति, पक्षिणीं रात्रिम् इति शिष्यादिभिः ।

• बान्धवाः श्यालकमातृष्वस्रेयादयः¹⁸¹ । यदा तु “मातुले पक्षिणीम्” इति संबन्धस्, तदा मातुले¹⁸² बान्धवत्वाद् एव सिद्धा पक्षिणी । पुनर्वचनं नित्यार्थम् । तेनान्येषु बान्धवेषु यथाकामम् ॥ ५.८० ॥

‘Learned’—Who has studied the Vedic text.

‘Companion’—who, through friendship, has been living with one. Or ‘upasampanna’ may mean endowed with good character.

What has been said before (Verse 70) regarding the case of ‘fellow-students’ pertains to those who have not yet got up the entire Veda.

In lexicons the term ‘upasampanna’ appears as a synonym for ‘dead’; but in view of the long period of impurity laid down (which would not be compatible with the case of a stranger), the former explanation is the better of the two.

Others construe the text otherwise—explaining it to mean that ‘the impurity lasts for three clays in the case of the learned maternal uncle’ and ‘for a night along with the two days in the case of the pupil, etc.’

The term ‘relation’ stands for the wife’s brother, the son of the maternal aunt and so forth.

When we connect the ‘maternal uncle’ with^(‘)the night along with the two days’,—then, since this period would be already applicable to the case of the maternal uncle by reason of his being a ‘relation’, the separate mention of him should he taken as making the rule compulsory in his case; and this would mean that in the case of other relations, it would be discretionary.—(80)

(Verse 81 of others.)

‘Upasampanne’—(a) ‘who lives with one out of friendship or on business’ or (b) ‘endowed with good character’ (Medhātithi);—(c) ‘neighbour’ (Nārāyaṇa);—(d) ‘dead’ (suggested but rejected by Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.24), which adds the following notes:—‘Upasampanna’ means either ‘related by friendship or neighbourliness’ or ‘possessed of good character’;—the ‘mātula’ includes the maternal cousin and other relations of that kind, and the ‘bāndhava’ stands for one’s own ‘bāndhava’ as also those of his father and mother;—in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 129), which explains ‘npasampanna’ as ‘living in one’s own house’, i.e., if a Vedic scholar living in one’s house happens to die etc.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 610), which explains ‘Śrotriya’ as standing for one who has learnt the same rescensional text as the person himself,—‘Upasampanna’ as one who is endowed with friendliness or neighbourliness;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 431), as laying down the rule relating to the case of the highly qualified Śrotriya, or such near relations as the maternal uncle and the like; it explains ‘upasampanna’ as one endowed with friendliness or with good qualities;—and in Hāralatā (p. 76), which adds the explanation:—‘on the death of a Vedic Scholar belonging to another family in one’s own house,—or on that of a Vedic Scholar who is a near neighbour (‘upasampanna’) etc.’—and in the case of the mother’s uterine brother, if the death takes place in another place, the impurity lasts for two days and one night,—‘Śiṣya’, one who, though initiated by some one else, has learnt, from one a portion of the Veda, or the subsidiary sciences—in this case also the impurity lasts for two days and one night,—‘ṛtvik’ one who has officiated at one’s sacrifices,—‘bāndhava’, blood relation.

Gautama (14.20, 22).—‘The impurity lasts for a night along with the preceding and following days, on the death of a relative who is not a Sapiṇḍa, or a relative by marriage, or a fellow-student; for one day, on the death of a Śrotriya dwelling in the same house.’

Baudhāyana (1.11-29, 30).—‘For three days, on the death of an officiating priest; of a pupil, of one who has the same spiritual guide, of a fellow-student, three days, one day and night, one day and so forth.’

Viṣṇu (22.44).—‘he becomes pure in one day, on the death of the wife or son of his Teacher, or on that of his Subteacher, or his maternal uncle, or his father-in-law, or a brother-in-law, or a fellow-student, or a pupil.’

Yājñavalkya (3.24).—‘For one day, on the death of the guru, a pupil, an Exponent, a maternal uncle, or a Vedic scholar.’

Pracetas (Parāśaramādhava, p. 610).—‘On the death of the mother’s sister, the maternal uncle, the father-in-law, the mother-in-law, the guru, the officiating priest and the person for whom one officiates,—purification is obtained in three days.’

081 For a Srotriya who resides with (him out of affection), a man shall be impure for three days; for a maternal uncle, a pupil, an officiating priest, or a maternal relative, for one night together with the preceding and following days.

On the death of the King in whose realm he lives, it lasts till the light; in the case of a non-learned teacher, for the whole day; as also in the case of the (ordinary) teacher.—(81).

राजशब्दो ऽयम् अभिषेकादिगुणयोगिनि वर्णमात्रे लक्षणया वर्तते । यत आह यस्य स्याद् विषये स्थितः । जातिविशेषावच्छिन्नविषयेश्वरवचनत्वे लक्षणा, न च शब्दार्थः । सज्योतिः । सह ज्योतिषा वर्तते । दिवा प्रेते दिवैव, रात्रौ तु तन् नास्ति । एवं रात्रौ रात्रिर् एव नाहः । इदम् एव ज्ञापकम् अन्यत्र रात्रिग्रहणे ऽहर्ग्रहणे ऽप्य् अहोरात्रप्रतिपत्तेः¹⁸³ । यथा “रात्रिभिर् मासतुल्याभिः” (म्ध् ५.६५), “त्र्यहम् एकाहम्” (म्ध् ५.५९) इति । “अह्ना चैकेन” (म्ध् ५.६३) इत्य् अत्र तु रात्रिग्रहणं पादपूरणार्थम् । रात्राव् अग्निर् ज्योतिः । एवं ह्य् अग्निहोत्रब्राह्मणे “अग्निना वै तेजसा तेजस्विन्य् आदित्येन तेजसा न¹⁸⁴ भवति” (च्ड़्। ऐत्ब् २५.४) ।

• अश्रोत्रिये अवेदाध्यायिनि, अनूचाने कृत्स्नम् अहः । रात्रौ न भवत्य् एव, उत्पन्ने ऽपि रात्रौ निमित्ते ।

• कथं पुनर् अश्रोत्रिये ऽनूचाने । एवं हि स्मर्यते “प्रवचने साङ्गे ऽधीतीति” ।

• सत्यं प्रवक्ताप्य् अनूचान उच्यते । तेनैवं कथंचिद् अङ्गादिग्रन्थार्थान्यः प्रवक्ति तस्मिन्न् अयम् अहर् विधिः । उपसंपन्ने च¹⁸⁵ गुरौ पूज्यत्वेन मुख्ये, आचार्ये वा विध्यन्तरभावात् ।

• केचित् तु अश्रोत्रिये त्व् इत्य् अत्र नञं संबध्नन्ति । इह नञः प्रश्लेषेण यो ऽन्येषाम् उपाध्यायस् तस्य च न कश्चित् तत्रेमं विधिम् आचक्षते ॥ ५.८१ ॥

The name ‘rājan’ is really applied indirectly to the man of a particular caste as endowed with the qualifications of anointment and the rest; that it is so is clear from the clause^(‘)in whose realm he lives.’ In fact when the word signifies the lord of a country belonging to a particular caste, it does so only by indirect indication, and not by direct denotation.

‘Till the light’—i.e., it continues along with the light. That is, if the death occurs during the day, the impurity lasts during the day only, and it does not go on into the night; similarly if the death occurs at night, it lasts during the night only, and does not extend to the day. The fact that the text has used this peculiar expression—‘sajyotiḥ’, ‘till the light’—in the present context (when only day, and only night are meant),—is indicative of the fact that whenever the term ‘day’ or ‘night’ is used, it means both day and night; e.g., in verses 5.66 and 5.59. in 5.64 also, where the term ‘night’ is used in addition to the term ‘day’, it is added only for the purpose of filling up the metre.

At night, the ‘light’ is that of fire, as we rend in the Brāhmaṇa-text bearing upon the Agnihotra—‘The night becomes resplendent with the light of fire, not with the light of the Sun.’

In the case of the ‘non-learned’—who does not study the Veda—‘teacher’—it lasts during the whole day; it does not extend to the night, even when the cause of impurity happens during the night.

“How can a ‘non-learned’ man be a ‘teacher’? In fact it is only one who has learnt the Veda along with its subsidiary sciences that is entitled to do the work of teaching.”

True; but a mere expounder is also called a ‘teacher.’ Hence what is meant is that ‘in the case of the person who has, somehow, learnt the subsidiary sciences (without learning the Veda) and expounds them, the impurity lasts during the day.’ That this must be the meaning is indicated by the fact that there is a distinct rule reference to the Teacher who is properly qualified, or to the Initiating Preceptor, who is the principal object of reverence.

Some people connect the negative prefix in ‘non-learned’ with the term ‘teacher’; and explain the rule laid down as referring to ‘the learned man who is the teacher of other persons, and bears no relation to the person concerned’.—(81).

(Verse 82 of others.)

‘Anūcāne tathā gurau’—‘A guru who expounds the Veda along with the subsidiary sciences’ (Govindarājā, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘the guru and the person capable of expounding the Veda’ (Nārāyaṇa);—Medhātithi construes ‘anūcāne’ with ‘aśrotriye’, and explains it to mean ‘one who, though not learned in the Veda, is yet conversant with the subsidiary sciences’;—Nandana (and also ‘others’ in Medhātithi) read ‘agurau’, and explains ‘anūcāne agurau’ ‘one who is learned in the Vedas and its subsidiaries, but is not one’s guru’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 215), which explains ‘Sajyotiḥ’ as that impurity which lasts ‘as long as the light’, of the sun, or of the stars;—in Mitākṣarā, which also explains the meaning to be that the impurity lasts as long as the light; i. e., if death has occurred during the day, then it lasts till sunset, while if it has occurred during the night, then as long as the stars are visible;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 613), which offers the same explanation, and in the same words, as Mitākṣarā;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 435), which explains the term ‘Sajyotiḥ’ as ‘lasting as long as the light’, and adds—‘during the day, it lasts till sunset, and during the night, till sunrise’;—and in Hāralatā (p. 76), which adds the following explanation:—That Kṣatriya king in whose territories one lives, if such a king, who is not a Vedic Scholar, dies, then the impurity is ‘Sajyotiṣ’, i.e., if the death occurs during the day, it lasts as long as the sun is visible, and if it occurs during the night, then as long as the stars are visible,—if the said king is an expounder of the Veda, the impurity lasts the whole day and night,—‘anūcāna’ is one who has studied the Veda and is capable of expounding it,—similarly if the ‘guru’ dies, the impurity lasts the whole day and night, ‘guru’ is one who has taught a little of the subsidiary sciences.

Viṣṇu (22-45, 46).—‘The impurity lasts for one day, when the king of that country in which one lives has died; likewise if a man not his Sapiṇḍa has died at his house.’

Yājñavalkya (3.25).—‘Purity is attained on the same day, in the case of the death of the king in whose realm one lives.’

082 If the king in whose realm he resides is dead, (he shall be impure) as long as the light (of the sun or stars shines), but for (an intimate friend) who is not a Srotriya (the impurity lasts) for a whole day, likewise for a Guru who knows the Veda and the Angas.

The Brāhmaṇa becomes pure in the days, the Kṣatriya in twelve days, the Vaiśya in fifteen days and the Śūdra in a month.—(82).

क्षत्रियादीनां प्रागुक्तवृत्ताद्यपेक्षस् त्र्यहचतुरहादिकल्पव्यावृत्त्यर्थम् इदम् । ब्राह्मणे दशाहस् त्व् अनूद्यत एव ।

• अत्र त्व् इदं वाच्यम्-¹⁸⁶ केन क्षत्रियादीनां द्वादशाहेन नियतकालाप्राप्तिर् येन कल्पान्तरव्यावृत्त्यर्थतावगम्यते ।

• इयम् एव ह्य् एषाम् इयत्कालस्य प्रापकम् । सत्य् अस्मिंस् तत्र दशाहो ऽयम् आशौचकालस् तदुपलक्षणार्थो विज्ञायते ।

• न¹⁸⁷ च सत्य् अप्य् अस्मिंस् तस्योपलक्षणार्थता । सत्य् अपि चातुर्वर्ण्याधिकारे यस्यैव दशाह उक्तस् तस्यैवेतरे कल्पा इति । स्मृत्यन्तरे च ब्राह्मणविवक्षयैवोक्तम्- “एकाहाद् ब्राह्मणस्य स्यात् स्वाध्यायः” इत्यादि । तेषां तु स्मृत्यन्तरे यानि कल्पान्तराण्य् आम्नातानि तानि¹⁸⁸ विकल्प्यन्ते¹⁸⁹ । एकादशे आशौचकालः कश्चिद् विवरणकार आह- “शुद्ध्येद् विप्रो दशाहेन” इति । अत्राहर्ग्रहणं विवक्षितम्, तेन दशम्यां रात्रौ नास्त्य् आशौचम् । ततः पूर्वेद्युर् निमन्त्रणादि युक्तम् । अग्निं चाधास्यतः पौर्वाह्णिकजागरणादिनाशौच उपक्रान्तो¹⁹⁰ भविष्यति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । अहर्विवक्षायाम् आद्यास्व् अपि रात्रिषु न स्याद् आशौचम् । अथ “दशाहं शावम्” (म्ध् ५.५९) इति एतस्मात् तत्र भविष्यति । अत्राविवक्षायां किं प्रमाणम् । तस्माद् अहःशब्दो ऽयम् अहोरात्रवचन इति प्रदर्शितम् । तथा च पूर्वश्लोके “अहः कृत्स्नम्” (म्ध् ५.८१) इति रात्रिनिवृत्त्यर्थं कृत्स्नग्रहणम् ॥ ५.८२ ॥

The alternative rales—limiting the period of impurity to ‘three days’, ‘four days’ &c.,—have been laid down above, in consideration of the character and learning of the persons concerned; and the present verse is added with a view to preclude those alternatives from the Kṣatriya and other castes. The mention of ‘ten days’ in regard to the Brāhmaṇa however is a mere reiteration.

In this connection the following question is likely to arise—“What is the text that restricts the period of impurity for the Kṣatriya to twelve days (or of the Vaiśya to fifteen days, and so forth) compulsorily, on the strength whereof the present verse is taken as precluding the other alternatives from them?”

This present text itself serves to indicate the time mentioned as applying to those castes. And in the face of this text, the other periods of ‘ten’ days and so forth, wherever mentioned, are understood to be merely indicative of the period specified for each caste. As a matter of fact, however, even in the presence of the present verse, the mention of ‘ten days’ need not be taken to be indicative (as just stated). For even though the section as a whole may pertain to all four castes, yet the alternatives mentioned can pertain only to that caste for whom the period of ‘ten days’ has been laid down. In another Smṛti-text it is with special reference to the Brāhmaṇa that it has been asserted that—‘the Brāhmaṇa may resume Vedic study after one day’; and it is to this that all the other alternatives mentioned in other Smṛti texts have to be taken as optional. In any case, on the eleventh day there is no impurity at all.

The author of the Vivaraṇa says that in the present verse special significance is meant to be attached to the use of the term ‘day’ (and it is the day that is meant, as distinguished from the night); so that there is no impurity on the tenth night; and hence it is only right and proper that invitations to the śrāddha on the eleventh day should be issued on the previous day. When a person is going to set up the Fire, the impurity shall be wiped off by the vigil kept daring the previous night.

This however is not right. If the term ‘day’ meant the day only, then on the other days also there would be no imparity daring the nights. It might be argued that those intervening nights would (all within the period of impurity by virtue of the general rule that ‘impurity due to death lasts for ten days’ (5.59). But what is the authority for denying a similar significant to the term ‘day’ in this context also?

Is is for these reasons that we have explained that throughout this context the word ‘day’ stands for the day and night. It is for this reason that in the preceding verse, where the day only is meant, we have the epithet ‘whole’, ‘kṛtsnam’ added to it.—(82).

(Verse 83 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 245) as laying down the period of impurity for each several caste;—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p.288);—in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 64);—in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 115);—in Dānakriyākaumudī (p. 21);—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 6), which says that the meaning is that on the death of a Sapiṇḍa who is over six years and two months of age,—for the survivor who is ignorant of the Veda and has not set up the fires, but has passed through all the sacramental rites, the impurity in the case of the Brāhmaṇa lasts for ten days;—it adds that if death occurs before sunrise, then the preceding day is to be counted among the ten,—if the survivor is an Agnihotri or Vedic scholar, it is over in a single day;—and in Hāralatā (pp. 4 and 9).

Gautama (14.2-5).—‘The impurity of the Kṣatriya lasts for eleven days; of a Vaiśya, twelve days, or according to some, half-a-month; and that of a Śūdra, a whole month,’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.26-29).—‘A Brāhmaṇa is freed from impurity, after ten days; a Kṣatriya, after fifteen days; a Vaiśya, after twenty days, a Śūdra, after a mouth.’

Viṣṇu (22.1-1).—‘The impurity of a Brāhmaṇa caused by the birth or death of Sapiṇḍas lasts ten days; of a Kṣatriya, twelve days;—of a Vaiśya, fifteen days, of a Śūdra, a month.’

Yājñavalkya (3.22-23).—‘The impurity lasts for twelve days for the Kṣatriya, fifteen days for the Vaiśya, thirty days for the Śūdra; but only half the time, if the person affected is one who remains firm in law.’

Aṅgiras (Aparārka, p. 911).—‘On the death of a Brāhmaṇa after tonsure, his relations are purified in three days; on that of a Kṣatriya, in six days; on that of a Vaiśya, in nine days; on that of a Śūdra less than three years old, in five days; on that of one three years old, in twelve days; on that of a Śūdra more than six years old, in a month.’

Ṛṣyaśṛṅga (Aparārka, p. 912).—‘In eases where the impurity of the Brāhmaṇa lasts three days, that of the Śūdra lasts twelve days; and that of the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, for six and nine days respectively.’

083 A Brahmana shall be pure after ten days, a Kshatriya after twelve, a Vaisya after fifteen, and a Sudra is purified after a month.

One should not prolong the days of impurity; nor should he interrupt the rites performed in the fires; because he who performs those rites, even if he be a Sapiṇḍa, would never he impure.—(83).

यस्यैषा बुद्धिः- “य उक्तास् त्र्यहादयः कल्पास् तुल्यं दशाहेन विकल्प्यन्ते, न वृत्तादिव्यवस्थयेति, ततश् चिरतरकालम् अन्यस्य संभवे किम् इत्य् एकाहपक्षं नित्यस्वाध्यायाक्लेशकरं¹⁹¹ प्रतिपत्स्ये, दशाहम् अपाश्रयामि निष्कर्मसुखम् आसिष्ये” इति — तं प्रति सौहार्द्देन सा व्यवस्था स्पष्टीक्रियते । नैते तुल्या अपि तु व्यवस्थिता एव । व्यवस्था च प्राग् दर्शिता । अन्यथा यस्याशौचकालो विहितस् तस्य ततः कालावधिकस्य कुतो वृद्धिप्राप्तिः, येनैवम् अर्थ्वत् स्यात् । विस्पष्टार्थत्वे को दोषः ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुर् अतीतेष्व् अप्य् अहःसु यावत् स्नानादिक्रिया न कृता तावन् नैव शुद्धिः । “विप्रः शुध्यत्य् अपः” (म्ध् ५.९८) इत्यादि वक्ष्यति । तत्राशुचित्वाद् अननुष्ठानेन न दुष्यामीति¹⁹² स्नानादिषु शुद्धये न प्रवर्तते । तत्रैवम् उच्यते “न वर्धयेत्” नातीतेष्व् अहःसु बाह्याशौचे विलम्बितव्यम् ।

• ये त्व् अहःशब्दो दशमस्याह्नो या रात्रिस् तस्याम् आशौचं न भवतीति, ते न सम्यङ् मन्यत इत्य् उक्तम् । तथा च गौतमः आशौचमध्य आशौचान्तर उत्पन्ने तच्छेषेण शुद्धिः इत्य् उक्त्वा (ग्ध् १४.६), एकस्यां रात्रौ शेषायां तयैव शुद्धिं मन्यमान आह “रात्रिशेषे द्वाभ्याम्” (ग्ध् १४.७) इति ।

• प्रत्यूहेन् नाग्निषू क्रियाः । अशुचित्वात् सर्वश्रौतस्मार्तक्रियानिवृत्तौ प्राप्तायाम् इदम् उच्यते । अग्निषु याः क्रियाः सायंहोमाद्यास् ता न प्रत्यूहेन् न प्रत्यस्येत् । प्रत्यूहो निर्हास अननुष्ठानम् । न च स्वयं कुर्याद् यत आह न च तत्कर्म कुर्वाणः सनाभ्यो ऽपीति । सनाभ्यो ऽपि नाशुचिः स्यात् किं पुनर् अन्यः । तथा गृह्यम्- “नित्यानि निवर्तेरन् वैतानवर्जं शालाग्नौ चैके” इत्य् उक्त्वा आह “अन्य एतानि कुर्युः” (पार्ग् ३.१०३२–३४) इति । न च यद् अग्न्याधानं होममात्रम् एव क्रियते, किं तर्हि साङ्गप्रयोगः, तत्रैव कर्तुर् नरस्य संभवात् प्रधानहोमस्य तु द्रव्यत्यागरूपत्वात् स्वयंकर्तृतैव । अतो होमवैश्वदेवदर्शपूर्णमासाद्या निवर्तन्ते । अन्येषां तु जपसंध्योपासनादीनां निवृत्तिर् न दर्शिता । तानि च नित्यानि । अतो अन्येषाम् एवाभ्यनुज्ञानं यतः स्मृत्यन्तरे प्रतिषिद्धम्- “होमः स्वाध्यायश् च निवर्तते” (विपु ३.१३.१८) इति । अतो नित्यकांयभेदेन व्यवस्था । काम्यं तु नैव कर्तव्यम् अशुचित्वाद् अधिकारापगमात् ।

• ननु च नित्येष्व् अपि नैवाशुचेर् अधिकारः ।

• न च शौचम् अङ्गम् । यदि विगुणं नित्यम् अनुष्ठीयते, न काम्यम् इत्य् उच्यते ।

• अथास्माद् वचनाद् भवति ।

• मैवम् । इह यद् अपि मानं तद् अस्यान्य एतानि कुर्युर् इति परकर्तृत्वम् अभ्यनुज्ञायते । तच् च विगुणत्वान् नित्येषूपपद्यते न काम्येषु ।

• वैश्वदेवे तु विवदन्ते । स्मृत्यन्तरं चोदाहरन्ति ।

• होमं तत्र न कुर्वीत शुष्कधान्यफलैर् अपि ।

• एवं यज्ञविधानं तु न कुर्यान् मृत्युजन्मनोः ॥

अतः संध्याहोमौ दर्शपूर्णमासौ सांवत्सरिकं चाश्वयुज्यादि कर्तव्यम् । उपाकरणं तु नक्षत्राश्रयम् एव, न पौर्णमास्याश्रयम् ॥ ५.८३ ॥

Some people may entertain the following notion:—“The various alternatives that have been laid down regarding the period of impurity extending to three days, &c., all stand on an equal footing with the alternative of ‘ten days,’ and their adoption is not regulated by considerations of character and study, etc.; so that the observing of the longer period being open to me, why should I have recourse to the alternative of ‘one day’, which would entail the trouble of resuming my studies sooner? I shall have recourse to the alternative of ‘ten days’, and shall enjoy the pleasure of having nothing to do for a longer period.”

It is for the benefit of such a person that the author, moved by sympathy, makes it clear that the optional alternatives are regulated by other considerations; and that they do not all stand on the same footing. In what way they are regulated has been already shown by us.

If this be not the meaning of the present advice, and if it mean something else,—what possibility would there be of any prolongation of the period that has been specifically fixed for each individual? And it is only with such a possibility that there could be room for the advice contained in the present verse. What harm could there be in the author making still clearer what he has already said before (regarding the regulation of the optional alternatives)?

Some people hold that—even after the prescribed number of days have elapsed, purification is not accomplished until bathing and other rites have been performed; as it is going to be asserted that ‘the Brāhmaṇa becomes pure after touching water, etc.’ (Verse 98); and some one may think that so long as he remains impure he would not incur any sin by the omission of religious duties, and hence he may not proceed to take the bath or other rites;—and it is in view of such cases that we have the injunction that ‘one should not prolong the days of impurity,’—the meaning being that the stipulated days having elapsed, one should not delay the external purifications.

As regards the assertion that—“the use of the term day implies that there is no impurity on the night of the tenth day,”—it has already been pointed out that this view is not correct. Says Gautama (14.6)—‘If during one impurity another source of impurity should arise, there is purification after the remainder of the former’; and having said this, he thought that people might be led to think that if the second impurity should arise about the end of the last night, there would be purification after that night, and in order to guard against this he has added—‘if it happens about the end of the night, then after two nights’ (14.7) [From which it is dear that the lost night also falls within the period of impurity].

‘Nor should he interrupt the rites performed in the fires.’—This is said in view of the fact by reason of impurity all the rites prescribed in the Śruti and the Smṛti become precluded. The meaning is that the rites that are performed in the fires,—such as the Evening-libation and the rest—should not be interrupted,—i.e., shall not be omitted. ‘Interruption’ means omission, non-per formance.

But this does not mean that the impure man should himself perform the rites; since it is added—‘he who performs the rites, even if he be a Sapiṇḍa, would never be impure’; which means that ‘even a Sapiṇḍa-relation would not be impure, to say nothing of other persons’; says the Gṛhyasūtra also—‘They should perform in the house-fire the obligatory rites, with the exception of the Vaitāna -rite’; and then—‘others would perform these.’ This does not refer to the mere offering of libations that is done in connection with the setting up of the fires, but to the performance of the rite in all its details; since it is only for these that the employment of other agents is possible, since the principal libation itself, which consists in offering certain substances, can be offered by the householder himself. Hence the rites that are precluded (daring impurity) are those of the Vaiśvadeva-offering and the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices. Of other nets, such as the telling of beads, the saying of Twilight Prayers and so forth,—the preclusion of these has nowhere been indicated; and all these are obligatory. Hence what the present taxt does is to permit the performance of other acts; specially as another Smṛti text has prohibited such acts as ‘the offering of libations and Vedic study.’ Thus then, the distinction (as to what acts are precluded and what not) is based upon the obligatory or voluntary character of the acts themselves; specially as the voluntary act tending to the accomplishment of desired ends should never be done, since impurity deprives the man of the title to perform all such acts.

“But the impure man cannot be entitled to the performance of the obligatory acts either.”

As a matter of fact, purity does not constitute an essential factor in the rites; and though an obligatory act may be done even in a slightly deficient form (due to the lack of purity, for instance), such is not permissible in the case of voluntary acts done with a view to definite ends. It might be argued that they also might be performed, on the strength of the present text itself. But this would not be right; for all that the present text permits is getting certain rites performed by proxy; and as this in itself would be a deficiency, it would be admissible in the case of the obligatory rites only, and not in that of voluntary ones.

With regard to the Vaiśvadeva offering however, there is a difference of opinion. Some people quote the following Smṛti -text—‘At a birth or a death, one shall not pour libations into fire, even with dry grains or fruits, nor should he perform any sacrificial rites.’

From all this it follows that one should offer the following the Twilight-libations, the Dūrśa-Purṇamāsa sacrifices, the Annual Śrāddha, the Śrāddha offered in the month of Āśvina and so forth. As for the Upākarma, its performance depends upon the lunar asterism and it need not be done on the full-moon-day.—(83.)

(Verse 84 of others.)

‘Pratyūhenṅāgniṣu kriyāḥ’—Medhātithi has been misrepresented here, not only by Buhler, but by Kullūka also. There is nothing in Medhātithi to show that Sandhyopāsana should be omitted for ten days. Nor is there any difference in the interpretation of Medhātithi and that of Kullūka and others. (See Translation.)

‘Sanābhayaḥ’—‘Sapiṇḍa’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘Sahodara’, ‘uterine brother’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 891), which adds the following notes:—With a view to remaining idle, without having to perform his religious duties, one should not prolong the days of impurity; nor should he abandon those necessary acts that are prescribed to be performed in the śrauta fires,—e.g., the Agnihotra offerings; the meaning is that all those should be done even during the days of impurity;—the second half is added in anticipation of the objection that “in view of the rule whereby impure men are not entitled to the performance of religious acts, it would be right to abandon the acts during the period of impurity.” What is meant is that it is quite true that the impure m an should not perform religious acts; but on the strength of the special texts (like the present one) hearing upon certain Well defined acts, one would be justified in concluding that he is not ‘impure’, so far as the performance of these acts is concerned.—The use of Atmanepada form ‘kurvāṇaḥ’ makes it clear that the actual performer of the religions acts is not impure—even though the person dead or born be a very near relation of his,—in fact he is quite pure. Inasmuch as this absence of impurity refers to the performer himself, it follows that so far as officiating at the performance of other persons is concerned, the near relations of the dead or the born must be regarded as impure and unqualified.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.17), in support of the view that there is no impurity regarding the performance of those religious acts that are compulsory, the voluntary ones, however, which are done for the purpose of gaining reward, should not be performed during impurity;—and it adds that since the text specifically mentions the acts done ‘in the fires’, it follows that the ‘five great sacrifices,’ which are not done in fire, should cease during impurity.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 254) as affording justification for the coalescing of ‘impurities’ due to more than one cause;—in Hāralatā (pp. 7 and 25), which notes that the expression ‘tat karma’ implies that the impurity means incapacity to perform such acts as Fire-kindling, gifts, Homa and so forth, and adds the following notes:—‘aghāhāni’, days of impurity, those should not be prolonged by the Agnihotrin, for whom its curtailment is justified by distinct texts; and he should never observe the full period of ten days,—even dining the curtailed period, he should not entirely stop the offerings into the Fires, he should have this done through Brāhmaṇas belonging to other gotras and hence not suffering from the same disabilities,—and the reason for this lies in the fact that in the performance of the said acts of disablity does not attach even to the Sapiṇḍa,—what to say of persons of other gotras?

It is quoted also in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 278), which explains ‘sanābhayaḥ’ as Sapiṇḍa,—‘tatkarma’ as officiating as a priest,—the disability due to impurity does hot attach to him, if no person of other gotras is available for the work,—such is the implication of the particle ‘api’.

Yājñavalkya (3.17).—‘One should continue to perform all the fire-worship, as also all those acts that are enjoined in the Veda.’

Vyāghrapāt (Aparārka, p. 892).—‘During the period of impurity one should stop all smārta rites; but for the purpose of śrauta rites, one becomes pure immediately, by bathing.’

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra (3.13.31-34).—‘During the period of impurity, one should not carry on Vedic study one should intermit the daily rites, with the exception of those performed with the help of the śrauta fire, or with that of the domestic fire, according to some:—others should perform those for him.’

Jābāla (Aparārka, p. 892).—‘During the impurity due to birth and death, there is no intermission of rites performed in the śrauta fire; as regards the domestic fire, libations into it should be poured by persons belonging to another gotra.’

Bṛhaspati (Do.).—‘During impurity due to birth or to death, one shall not abandon the fire-offerings, he shall have them offered by others.’

Jātūkarṇya (Do.).—‘During an impurity, Piṇḍayajña, Caru-Yajña, and Homa, should be got done by a person not belonging to the same gotra.’

Saṃvarta, (Do.).—‘The Homa-offerings should, during impurity, be made with dry grains or fruits; but the performance of the five Great Sacrifices should be intermitted. For ten days, the Brāhmaṇa shall desist from the Vaiśvadeva offering.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Do.).—‘O king, the offering of the twilight-prayers should he done at all times, except during impurity.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.).—‘During impurity, one shall only offer water with the Sāvitrī and meditating upon the sun, offer his obeisance.’

Pulastya (Do. p. 893).—‘The twilight-prayers, the Iṣṭi, the Caru and Homa one should perform all through life; even during impurity one shall not omit these During impurity due to death or birth, one should not omit the twilight prayers; the Brāhmaṇa shall repeat the mantras only mentally—even so omitting the Breath-suspension.’

084 Let him not (unnecessarily) lengthen the period of impurity, nor interrupt the rites to be performed with the sacred fires; for he who performs that (Agnihotra) rite will not be impure, though (he be) a (Sapinda) relative.

After having touched the Cāndāla, the menstruating woman, the outcast, the woman in child-bed, the dead body, or toucher thereof—one becomes pure by bathing.—(84).

दिवाकीर्तिश् चाण्डालः, अत्यन्ताशुचिसाहचर्याद् भारते च प्रयोगदर्शनान् मार्जारमूषिकसंवादे ।

• तस्मिन्न् अपि च काले ऽभूद् दिवाकीर्तिर् भयार्दितः । इति । (म्भ् १२.१३६.१०६)

न नापितः, तस्य स्पृश्यत्वात् भोज्यान्नत्वाच् च । यत् तु श्मश्रुकर्मणि तस्येदं स्नानम् इत्य् आहुस् तद् अपि सिद्धत्वाद् अवाच्यम् । अवश्यं¹⁹³ श्मश्रुकर्माणि कारयतो रोमाणि गात्राणि स्पृशन्ति, तानि शरीराच् च्युतान्य् अशुद्धानीति सिद्धं स्नानम् । तत्स्पृष्टिनं तस्य स्पृष्टं तत्स्पृतम्, तद् अस्यास्तीति तत्स्पृष्टी । येनैते स्पृष्टास् तद् अपि स्नानम् एव ।

• इह सर्वस्याप्रत्यासत्तेः तत्स्पृष्टिनम् इत्य् अनेन संबन्धः शवस्यैव केचिद् आहुर् न दिवाकिर्त्यादीनाम् ।

• अन्ये तु एकवाक्योपनिपाताद् अन्ते श्रुतत्वात् सर्वेषां बुद्धौ संनिधानात् तच्छब्देन¹⁹⁴ सर्वनाम्ना परामर्श इति । अत्र हि शवपर्यन्तानां द्वन्द्वं कृत्वा स्पृष्टीत्य् अनेन संबन्धः । तत्र तत्स्पृष्टीति समासार्थस्य बुद्धौ संनिहितत्वात् तच्छब्देनावमर्शः । न हि केवलस्य शवस्य स्पृष्टिपदेन¹⁹⁵ संबन्धो लक्ष्यते, पतितादिभिर् इतरेतरयुक्तत्वात्¹⁹⁶ । किं तु केवलस्य पदान्तसंबन्धः । द्वन्द्वे ह्य् एकैकः शब्दः सर्वार्थाभिधायी । ततः सर्वे प्रत्यासन्नः । अथापि शवस्पृष्टिशब्दस्य तत्स्पृष्टिपदेन संबन्धं कृत्वा ततो ऽन्यैर् अभिसंबन्धः । तथा सति पतितादीनां स्पृष्टिपदेन संबन्धो न स्यात् । तस्मात् समाचारत एव निर्णयः ॥ ५.८४ ॥

The ‘divākīrti’ is the cāṇḍāla; that it is so is clear from the fact that he is mentioned along with the worst untouchables, and also from the use of the name in the Mahābhārata, in course of a conversation between the Cat and the Mouse—‘at that time the Divākīrti became oppressed with fear’ (where it is the cāṇḍāla that is clearly meant). It cannot stand for the barber here; for the barber is among the touchables, and also because he is one whose food may be eaten (by the Brāhmaṇa). As for the rule laying down the necessity of bathing after a shave, this cannot be put forward in the present context, as the bathing in this case is necessitated by the consideration that, while one is shaving hairs are bound to fall on the body, and as, on falling from the body, they are unclean, it is necessary that one should bathe.

‘Tatspṛṣṭinam’, ‘the toucher thereof.’—This compound is to be expounded as—‘tasya spṛṣṭam, tadasyāsti’. The men who touch those mentioned above have also got to bathe.

Some people argue that, as the persons mentioned are not all in equal proximity to the term ‘tatspṛṣṭinam,’ ‘the toucher thereof,’ this refers to the ‘dead body’ only, and not to the ‘Cāṇḍāla’ and the rest. But others hold that since all are mentioned in the same sentence, and since the term occurs at the end of all the other persons mentioned, all these are present before the mind, and hence referred to by the pronoun ‘thereof‘; so that the construction intended is that all the terms up to ‘śaram’, ‘the dead body’, form one copulative compound, and then compounded with ‘spṛṣṭinam’, ‘toucher’; and hence when the term ‘the toucher thereof’ comes up, all the things spoken of by all the members of the copulative compound come to the mind. There is, on the other band, nothing to indicate that the term ‘toucher’ is to be connected with the ‘dead body’ only; for the simple reason that it is equally connected with the ‘outcast’ and the rest also. In fact, all that is clearly indicated is that the term ‘toucher’ is connected with some other term that has gone before; in a copulative compound however, each term is regarded as denoting all the things spoken of; and hence all these latter are equally closely related to the term ‘toucher’. Another construction that might be suggested is to construe the term ‘toucher thereof’ with the term ‘dead body’, and then with the other terms. But in this case, there would be nothing to justify the connection of the term ‘toucher’ with the ‘outcast’ and the rest.

From all this it follows that it is only on the strength of usage that a right conclusion can be arrived at.—(84)

(Verse 85 of others.)

‘Tatspṛṣṭinam’—‘One who has touched these, i.e., the Divākīrti and the rest’ (Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana); ‘one who has touched a corpse’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is.quoted in Aparārka (p. 921), which adds the following:—Even though through its proximity to the term ‘śava’, ‘tatspṛṣṭinam’ would appear to mean ‘one who has touched a śava’, yet inasmuch as the ‘Divākīrti’ and others mentioned before also belong, like the corpse, to the category of ‘unclean things’, it is only right that one who touches the person that has touched all those should bathe. This agrees with Medhātithi.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3. 30) to the effect that even when between the man and an unclean thing, there interposes a living thing (like the man who has touched the unclean things) the man has to bathe.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 258) to the effect that the man who touches one who has touched the Divākīrti and the rest, should bathe; i.e., the touch of an unclean thing defiles also when it is indirect, being interposed by a living object (like the man touching the Divākīrti &c.).

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 202), which explains Divākīrti as ‘Chaṇḍāla’;—and in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 54), which reproduces the note made by Madanapārijāta is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 257), which explains ‘divākīrti’ as ‘Chaṇḍāla’;—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 796);—in Śuddhikaumudī. (p. 327), which explains ‘divākīrti’ as ‘chaṇḍāla’;—in Ācāramayūkha (p. 42);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 159 and 468), which explains ‘tatspṛṣṭin’ as ‘one who has touched a dead body’.

Gautama (14.30).—‘On touching an outcast, a Caṇḍāla, a woman impure on account of confinement, a woman in her courses, or a corpse,—and on touching persons who have touched them,—he shall purify himself by bathing in his clothes.’

Baudhāyana (1.9.5).—‘On touching a tree standing on a sacred spot, a funeral pyre, a sacrificial post, a Caṇḍāla, or a person who sells the Veda,—a Brāhmaṇa shall bathe in his clothes.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.36).—‘On touching one who sells the Veda, a sacrificial post, an outcast, a funeral pyre, a dog or a Caṇḍāla, he shall bathe.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.37).—‘When he has touched a sacrificial post, a pyre, a burial ground, a menstruating woman, a woman lately confined, impure men, or Cāṇḍalas and so forth,—he shall bathe, submerging both bis body and his head.’

Viṣṇu (22.69).—‘After having touched one who has touched a corpse, or a woman in her courses, or a Caṇḍāla or a sacrificial post,—bathing is ordained.’

Yājñavalkya (3.29).—‘On touching a woman in her courses or persons suffering from impurity due to birth and death, one should bathe; on touching persons who have touched them he shall rinse his mouth.’

Saṃvarta (Aparārka, p. 921).—‘For one who touches one who has touched these, bathing has been enjoined.’

Viṣṇu (Do.).—‘On touching a woman in her courses, a corpse, a Caṇḍāla, human bone with fat, one should bathe with his clothes on.’

Chyavana (Do., p. 922).—‘One shall bathe with clothes on on touching an outcast, a Caṇḍāla, one who lives upon property belonging to gods, the village-priest, the Soma-vendor, the sacrilìcial post, a funeral pyre, a wood of the pyre, wine, wine-vessel, human bone with fat, one who has touched a corpse, a woman in her courses, one who has committed a heinous crime, or a corpse; after bathing, he should touch fire, repeat the Gāyatrī a hundred and eight times, bathe again and then rinse his mouth thrice.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 922).—‘An outcast, a woman lately confined, a Caṇḍāla,— on touching these intentionally one becomes purified by bathing with clothes on, touching fire and eating butter. On touching a person who has touched a corpse, a Caṇḍāla, a funeral pyre, a sacrificial post, a woman in her courses, intentionally, the Brāhmaṇa shall become purified by bathing.’

Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa (Aparārka, p. 923).—‘One whose food should not be eaten, a woman lately confined, a eunuch, a cat, a Caṇḍāla, a dog, a cock, an outcast, an excommunicated person, a corpse-carrier, a woman in her courses, a pig,—on touching these one becomes purified by bathing.’

Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya (Do.).—‘On touching a Caṇḍāla, a Pukkasa, a Mleccha, a Bhilla, a Pārasīka, one who has committed a heinous crime,—one should bathe with clothes on.’

Parāśara (Do.).—‘On touching a tree growing in a crematorium, a funeral pyre, a sacrificial post, a Caṇḍāla, a Soma-vendor,—the Brāhmaṇa should enter water with clothes on.’

Devala (Do.).—‘A Caṇḍāla, an outcast, a corpse-carrier, a woman lately confined, a woman in her courses,—on touching these one becomes purified by bathing.’

Vāyupurāṇa (Do.).—‘The woman in her courses, the woman lately confined, the dog, the Antyāvasāyin, the corpse-carrier,—on touching these there is impurity, from which one becomes purified by bathing with clay and with clothes on.’

Parāśara (Do., p. 926).—‘If one happens to touch a Caṇḍāla and the corpse and other things after sunset, he becomes purified by touching fire and gold.’

Aṅgiras (Parāśaramādhava, p. 257).—‘On touching a person who has touched a corpse, a woman in her courses and a woman lately confined or one outcast—one becomes purified on bathing with clothes on.’

Kūrmapurāṇa (Do., p. 258).—‘If one touches by chance a person who has been touched by a Caṇḍāla, a woman lately confined, or a corpse,—he shall sip water and do japa; if one intentionally touches the said person, he should sip water for the purpose of purifying himself.’

085 When he has touched a Kandala, a menstruating woman, an outcast, a woman in childbed, a corpse, or one who has touched a (corpse), he becomes pure by bathing.

On seeing unclean things, the man, after having sipped water, shall always attentively recite the Solar Mantras according to his inclination, as also the Pāvamānī verses, according to his capacity.—(85).

अशुचयः संनिधानात् पूर्वोक्ता एव । सूर्यदैवत्या मन्त्राः सौराः “उद् उ त्यं जातवेदसम्” (र्व् १.५०.१) इत्यादयः । पावमाण्यः दाशतयीषु नवमे मण्डले ऽधीताः “स्वादिष्टया” इत्याद्याः (र्व् ९.१.१) । यथोत्साहं शक्तित इति च एक एवार्थः । वृत्तवशाच् छब्दद्वयं पठितम् । बहुवचननिर्देशात् त्रित्वसंख्यावश्यं कर्तव्या । परतस् तु यदि गुरुतरकार्यात्ययो न भवति तदा कर्तव्य एव जपः । मन्त्रग्रहणात् पावमानीर् इति च ऋचाम् उपादानाद् असमाप्ते ऽपि सूक्ते त्रिभ्य ऊर्ध्वं भवत्य् एव शुद्धिः । श्वाप्य् अत्र प्रक्षेप्तव्यः । सो ऽप्य् अशुचिर् एव । पठितं च गौतमीये ऽस्मिन्न् एव वर्गे- “शुनश् च । यद् उपहन्याद् इत्य् एके” इति (ग्ध् १४.३२–३३) । प्रयतः अनन्यमना मन्त्रदेवतादिध्यानपरः । अथ वा प्रयतो देवतादिपूजाप्रवृत्तो यदा पश्येत् तदैव कुर्यान् नान्यदेति ॥ ५.८५ ॥

‘Unclean things’.— Those just mentioned are to be understood as meant here, because of their proximity.

Those mantras that are addressed to the Sun are called ‘Solar’ and the mantras meant are ‘udutyam jātavedasam, &c. &c.’

The Pāvamānī verses.—The verses ‘svādiṣṭaye, &c. &c.’ occurring in the ninth maṇḍala of the Ṛgveda.

‘According to his inclination’ and ‘according to his capacity’ mean the same thing; two words have been used for the purposes of metre.

In as much as the ‘mantras’ and ‘verses’ are mentioned in the plural, at least three verses should be recited; and as regards more, they may be recited only if other and more important duties do not suffer thereby. Then again, since the text speaks of ‘mantras and the term ‘Pāramānī’ also refers to verses, purification is brought about as soon as one has gone beyond three verses, even though the hymn may not be completed.

The dog also has to be included among the ‘unclean things’; as it also is unclean. In the present context Gautama has declared—‘Of the dog also; whatever it might pollute, say some’ (14.29-30).

‘Attentively’;—without allowing his mind to wander about; he should fix it upon contemplating the deity. Or, ‘Prayataḥ’ may mean that ‘at a time when one is busy with worshipping deities, if he should happen to touch an unclean thing, he should do what is here laid down,—and not otherwise’.—(85).

(Verse 86 of others.)

Kullūka and others take the verse as referring to the case where a man happens to see an unclean thing after having done ācamana (preparatory to some religious act).—Medhātithi and Govindarāja take it as referring to the case already noted in the foregoing verse,—i.e., the meaning being that ‘whenever one happens to see any of the unclean things just enumerated, he shall do ācamana and then recite the verses prescribed.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1198);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 796).

Baudhāyana (1.15.31).—‘If he has looked at any unclean substance, he mutters the verse—“Unrestrained is the internal organ, wretched the eye-sight, the sun is the chief of the lights; O Dīkṣā, do not forsake me!”’

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 1197).—‘On seeing in the evening a Caṇḍāla or an outcast, a woman in her courses or unclean things, he should look at the rising sun.’

Bodhāyana (Aparārka, p. 1200).—‘On seeing the Caṇḍāla, one should look at the stars; on talking to him, one should converse with the Brāhmaṇa; on touching him, he shall bathe.’

086 He who has purified himself by sipping water shall, on seeing any impure (thing or person), always mutter the sacred texts, addressed to Surya, and the Pavamani (verses).

Having touched a fatty human bone, the Brāhmaṇa becomes pure by bathing, but if it be free from fat, then by sipping water and touching a cow, or looking at the sun—(86).

नरो मनुष्यस् तस्येदम् नारम् । सस्नेहं मांसमज्जादिग्धम् । गोर् आलंभनं स्पर्शः । अर्कदर्शनगवालम्बौ विकल्प्येते¹⁹⁷ ॥ ५.८६ ॥

‘Nāra,’ ‘human,’—belonging to man.

‘Fatty’—i.e. Besmeared with flesh, marrow &c.

‘Ālabhya’ means touching.

The touching of the cow and looking at the sun are meant to be optional alternatives.—(86).

(Verse 87 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 924), which notes that what is meant is the combination of all the three—(1) ācamana, (2) touching of the cow, and (3) looking at the sun; and that this pertains to the case of touching the bone unintentionally; for intentional touching, there is impurity for three days (when fat is adhering to the bone), and one day (when the bone is dry).

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.30), which remarks that this refers to the bone of a twice-born person;—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 293), which, explains ‘ālabhya’ as ‘having touched,’ and adds that this refers to the unintentional touching of the bone;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 257), which adds that ‘this refers to twice-born persons’;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 214);—in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 796);—in Śuddhikaumudī, (p. 329), which explains ‘ālabhya’ as ‘having touched’;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, p. 16b);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 485), which says that this refers to cases of unintentional touching

Viṣṇu (Aparārka, p. 925).—‘On touching a fatty human bone, there is impurity lasting for three days; when it is not fatty, for one day and night.’

Devala (Do.).—‘Human bone, human fat, ordure, menstrual blood, wine, semen, marrow, blood,—on touching these one should bathe.’

Chyavana—(See under 84.)

Saṃvarta (Viramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 214)—‘Indigo, indigo-products, human bone, or the shadow cast by the Caṇḍāla and the outcast,—on touching these, the twice-born person shall bathe.’

087 A Brahmana who has touched a human bone to which fat adheres, becomes pure by bathing; if it be free from fat, by sipping water and by touching (afterwards) a cow or looking at the sun.

The person under instruction shall not make water-offerings till the completion of his pupilage; at its completion, he becomes pure in three days, after having made the water-offerings.

आदेश आदिष्टम् । व्रतादेशनसंबन्धाद् रूढिरूपेण ब्रह्मचार्य् उच्यते । तस्य ब्रह्मचर्याश्रमस्थस्य सतो ये सपिण्डाः प्रमीयन्ते तेषाम् अयम् अनिष्टोदकदानप्रतिषेधः¹⁹⁸ । प्राक्प्रमीतानां तु विहितम् अन्वाहिकं कुर्याद् देवपितृतर्पणम् इति । आ व्रतस्येति आ समावर्तनाद् इत्य् अर्थः । न पुनर् आन्तरालिकसाहसिकाद् इत्य् अर्थः । व्रतचरणसमाप्तेः समावृत्तः स सर्वेषाम् एकैकस्योदकं कृत्वैकस्मिन्न् अहनि, त्रिरात्रम् आशौचं कुर्यात् । मातुस् तूदकदानं व्रतिनो ऽपीष्यते । न च व्रतलोपः । स्मृत्यन्तरम् उदाहरन्ति- अपराध्य आदिष्टी नोदक इति ॥ ५.८७ ॥

‘Ādiṣṭa’ means ‘ādeśa’, ‘instruction’; and the term ‘person under instruction’ denotes the Student, by reason of his connection with the instruction that he receives regarding his observances. The present text prohibits the making of water-offerings by one who is still in the state of the Student, to such Sapiṇḍa relations as may happen to die during that period. As for those that have died before, the offering of water to the forefathers and Gods has already been prescribed for the Student also.

‘Till the completion of his pupilage;—i.e. till the performance of the ‘Samāvartana’ ceremony; and it does not mean any forced completion of the stage in the interval.

On returning after having finished his observances, he shall make a water-offering to each of the dead relations on one day; and he should observe ‘impurity’ for three days.

As regards the making of water-offering to his mother, this is necessary for the Student also; and such an offering does not interfere with the proper fulfilment of his observances. In support of this they quote another Smṛti -text—viz. ‘The person undergoing instruction does not commit a wrong in making a water-offering.’—(87).

(Verse 88 of others).

This rule does not apply to the case of the mother (Medhātithi),—father and mother (Govindarāja),—father, mother and ācārya (Kulluka).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 876), which adds the following notes:—‘ādiṣṭī’ is the ‘Religious Student,’—‘āvratasya samāpanāt’ means ‘till the Samāvartana ceremony has been performed’;—in Mitākṣarā (on 3.5) which adds that the Religious Student is called ‘ādiṣṭī’ by reason of his receiving such ādiṣṭa, ādeśa, injunction, as ‘Thou art a Religious Student, drink water, do your duty’ and so forth;—that this refers to the death of persons other than the Father and others.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta, (p. 405) as pertaining to cases other than the death of the ‘mother and others—it explains ‘ādiṣṭī’ as ‘Religious Student,’ but adds that some people explain the term as ‘one who is undergoing expiatory penance.’ The second half means that on the expiration of the ‘vrata,’ he shall make the water-offering and remain impure for three days.

It is quoted in Nirṇayansindhu (pp. 195 and 392) to the effect that after the Samāvartana ceremony has been performed, the Religious Student shall observe an ‘impurity’ for three days, for the death of persons that may have occurred during his studentship;—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 313), which explains ‘ādiṣṭī’ as the Religious Student;—in Hāralatā (p. 201), which has the following note:—‘ādiṣṭa’ stands for the observances prescribed in connection with Vedic study, and ‘ādiṣṭī’ stands for the Religious Student, as also for other persons that may be keeping certain observances; so long as the course of the observance has not been finished, the man should not offer

the death-oblations even to his Preceptor;—in Saṃskāraratnamālā, (p. 295), which says that Mitākṣarā has explained ‘ādiṣṭī’ as the Religious Student;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 216).

Viṣṇu (22.87).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.5).—‘The religious student shall not make water-offerings.’

088 He who has undertaken the performance of a vow shall not pour out libations (to the dead) until the vow has been completed; but when he has offered water after its completion, he becomes pure in three days only.

The water-offering is withdrawn from those born in vain and from intermixture, from those who are addicted to asceticism and from those who have abandoned themselves.—(88)

(A) Well, Gautama (14.12) has said—‘In the case of those dying from hunger, by a weapon, by fire, by poison, in water, in prison, or from a precipice,—it is only when it is unintentional.’ While in the verse just quoted it is said simply, without any qualification ‘Those dying at the hands of the Cāṇḍāla &c.’ And on account of the necessity of reconciling this with what has been said in the other Smṛti text regarding the case of ‘dying in water’ &c., it must be ‘intentional death’ that is meant. And the idea arises that by reason of ‘association,’ the same should be the case with the others also.

(B) On the other hand, the verse quoted uses the term ‘sinful’; and all sinful act has been prohibited; he who does what is prohibited is called ‘sinful’. And a man becomes the ‘doer’ of an act through his own initiative, as also through the urging of another person. Now, death ‘from lightning, and the fanged and horned animals’ could never belong to the former category (i.e. this could never be intentional); and no one is ever urged by others to such death; nor are these means of dying employed by suicides, as holes, water and sword etc., are, and it is only if these were so, and the man were to kill himself by having recourse to these, that he could be the ‘self-sufficient agett (agent?),’ of the act of ‘dying.’ The truth therefore is that the man who comes by such death is understood to have been sinful in his previous life,—as is learnt from the scriptures; just as the possession of ‘black teeth’ and the rest. If it be asked—‘what is the use of this fact of the man’s having been sinful in the past being indicated?’ But in the case of persons with deficient limbs etc.,; their previous connection with sin is clearly indicated; and the expiatory rite to be performed in the case has been laid down by Vaśiṣṭha, as consisting, in the case of some men, of the performance of two Kṛcchras, and in that of others, of something more.

(C) In reality however, the suicide having died, can have nothing to do with the performance of any rites. Or, if he be regarded as having commited a grievous sin, then, any person who may have entered into any kind of relationship with him—marital, or friendly, or sacrificial,—would also have to be regarded as sinful. But such is not the usage of cultured men. For as a matter of fact, people having relationship with suicides are not looked down upon in any way; nor do they perform any expiatory rites.

(D) Some people, having read, in another Smṛti text, the words—‘those killed by cows and Brāhmaṇas etc.’—read the words ‘those who have abandoned themselves’ apart by themselves, and seem to take up an entirely different position.

The right view is that intentional suicides are what are meant;—why?—because of their being spoken of as ‘sinful.’ The man who intentionally proceeds to set into activity the causes leading to his own death, wilfully disobeys the law that ‘no man shall by his own desire, cut off his life-span and it is only right that such a transgressor should be spoken of as ‘sinful.’

जातशब्दः प्रत्यकेम् अभिसंबध्यते । वृथजातो यो न देवान् अर्चयति न पितॄन् न मनुष्यान् इति । सत्य् अधिकारे ऽनाश्रमी, हुताहुतपरित्यक्तः, “संवत्सरम् अनाश्रमी भूत्वा” इत्यादि चिरकालावस्थाने महादोषश्रवणात् । ब्रह्मचारिपरिव्राजकाभ्याम् अन्यस्य परपाकरतित्वम् । आत्मार्थस् तु पाको निषिद्धः । संकरजाता इतरेतरजातिव्यतिकरेण प्रतिलोमा आयोगवादयः । निन्दितत्वाद् वृथाजातसाहचर्येण । अनुलोमास् तु सत्य् अपि संकीर्णयोनित्वे मातृजातीयत्वाद् अधिकारित्वाच् च नेह गृह्यन्ते । न चानुलोमेषु संकीर्णयोनिव्यवहारः । “संकीर्णयोनयस् त्व् एताः प्रतिलोमानुलोमजाः” (म्ध् १०.२५) इति । अनियुक्ता सुतादययश् चानेकपुरुषसंसर्गजाः, वेश्याजाताश् च । पारस्त्रैणेयास् तु असत्यनेकपुरुषसंसर्गेण संकरजाताः ।

• अयं च सपिण्डानां निषेधः, न तत्पुत्राणाम् इति केचित् । आत्मत्यागिनां तु पुत्राणाम् अपि ।

• तद् अयुक्तम्¹⁹⁹ अविशेषश्रवणात् ।

• प्रव्रज्यासु बाह्यासु भगालवरक्तपटाद्यास्व् अनधिकाराद् बहुवचननिर्देशात्,²⁰⁰ व्रतादिदर्शनभेदेन बाह्याः । आत्मनस् त्यागिनां पुरुषाणाम् आयुषो ऽक्षये स्वेच्छया शरीरं त्यजन्ति । वृद्धानाम् अचिकित्स्यमहाव्याधीनां च भिषक्प्रत्यखातानाम् इष्यत एव । यथोक्तम् ।

• वृद्धः शौचस्मृतेर् लुप्तस्य प्रत्याख्यातभिषक्क्रियः ।

• आत्मानं घातयेद् यस् तु भृग्वग्न्यनशनाम्बुभिः ॥

• तस्य त्रिरात्रम् आशौचं द्वितीये त्व् अस्तिसंचयः ।

• तृतीये तूदकं कृत्वा चतुर्थे श्राद्धम् आचरेत् ॥ इति ।

कुष्ट्यादेस् तु व्याधिगृहीतस्य इष्यत एव । यथोक्तं “लुप्तचेष्टस्य” । गृहस्थावस्थायाम् अपि,

• महाप्रस्थानगमना वृथा नेच्छन्ति जीवितुम् ।

लुप्तचेष्टश् चोच्यते यः शौचादिष्व् असमर्थः संध्योपासनादिषु च । “अपरिक्षीणशरीरो वा सादयेद् यस् त्व् आत्मानम् अलुप्तचेष्टो वा” । अतस् तद्विपरीतस्यानुज्ञानं भवति । स्मृत्यन्तरेष्व् अन्येषाम् अप्य् उदकक्रियानिषेधो विहितः । यथोक्तम् ।

• राजभिर् निहतानां च शृङ्गिदंष्ट्रिसरीसृपैः ।

• आत्मनस् त्यागिनां चैव श्राद्धम् एषां न कल्पयेत् ॥

• उदकं पिण्डदानं च प्रेतेभ्यो यच् च दीयते ।

• नोपतिष्ठन्ति तत् सर्वम् अन्तरिक्षे विनश्यति ॥

• नारायणबलिः कार्यो लोकगर्हाभयान् नरैः ।

• तस्माद् एभ्यो ऽपि दातव्यम् अन्नम् एव सदक्षिणम् ॥

तथान्यत्र ।

• चण्डालाद् उदकात् सर्पाद् ब्राह्मणाद् वैद्युताद् अपि ।

• दंष्ट्रिभ्यश् च पशुभ्यश् च मरणम् पाककर्मणाम् ॥

तथा चोक्तम् ।

• नृणां चैवाग्निदानां च स्नानालंकारकारिणाम् ।

• तप्तकृच्छ्रद्वये शुद्धिर् अश्रुपाते ऽनुयायिनाम् ॥

• तेनोद्दिष्टं न चैवन्यैः कार्यम् अस्यौर्ध्वदेहिकम् ।

• न च नामापि कर्तव्यं तद्वंशस्य तदीयकम् ॥

• अत्यन्तनरकस्थस्य तस्य पापीयसो ऽधिकम् ।

• कारणं कीर्तनं नाम सर्वं चैव भयावहम् ॥

• संवर्तेन आस्व् एव क्रियासु सान्तपनम् आम्नातम्, पराशरेण तप्तकृच्छ्रम्, वसिष्ठेन तप्तकृच्छरसहितं चान्द्रायणम् । तत्रापूर्वादिविशेषा उपेक्ष्याः ।

• यद् उक्तम् “चण्डालद् उदकात्” इत्याद्य् उपक्रम्य “मरणं पापकर्मणाम्” इति, तत्रेदं संदिह्यते । किं यश् चाण्डालदिर् बुद्धिपूर्वम् आत्मानं घातयति तस्यायं विधिर् और्ध्वदेहिकाकरणम्, तत्करणे च प्रायश्चित्तम्, उत प्रमादहस्तस्यानिच्छत इति । कुतः संदेहः । इह गौतमेन “प्रायानाशकशस्त्राग्निविषोदकोद्बन्धनप्रपतनैश् चेच्छताम्²⁰¹” इत्य् उक्तम् (ग्ध् १४.१२) । इह चाविशेषेण श्रुतम् “चण्डालाद् उदकात्” इति । तत्र स्मृत्यन्तरेणैकशास्त्रत्वाद् “उदकाद्” इत्य् अत्र तावद् अवश्यम् “इच्छताम्” इति संबध्यते । साहचर्याद् अन्यत्रापि तथैवेत्य् आशङ्का जायते । किं च “पापकर्मणाम्” इति श्रूयते । पापं च कर्म प्रतिषिद्धम् । अत्र प्रतिषिद्धं यो ऽनुतिष्ठति स पापकर्मेत्य् उपपद्यते । अनुष्ठातृत्वं च स्वव्यापारेण परप्रयोक्तृतया च । तत्र न वैद्युतदंष्ट्रिशृङ्ग्यादयः । ते च न प्रयुज्यन्ते । नापि ते श्वभ्रोदकखड्गादिस्थानीयाः । येन तदुपादानेनात्मानं घ्नन् स्वतन्त्रः कर्ता स्यात् । किं तर्हि यस्येदृशं मरणम् उपनतं स पूर्वजन्मनि कृतपापक इति शास्त्रेण ज्ञाप्यते । यथा श्यावदन्तप्रभृतयः । तत्रापि किम् एतेन ज्ञापितेन । अङ्गहीनादीनां पूर्वपापसंबन्धित्वं ज्ञाप्यते । प्रायश्चित्तम् अनुष्ठेयं यथा वसिष्ठेनोक्तम् । कस्यचित् कृच्छ्रद्वयचरणं कस्यचिद् अभ्यधिकम् अपि । इह मृत्युना संबन्धिकारस्यापहृतत्वान् नार्थो ऽनेन । यदि वासौ कृतपातक इत्य् अवसीयते । तेन सह येन केनचित्²⁰² यौनमौखस्रौवाः संबन्धाः कृताः सो ऽपि पापकारी स्यात् । न चैवं शिष्टानाम् आचारः । न हि तादृशेन संबन्धं कृतवन्तः केनचिद् विचिकित्स्यन्ते । प्रायश्चित्तं नाचरन्ति । अत इच्छताम् अनुमीयते ।

• ये तु “गोब्राह्मणहतानाम्” इति स्मृत्यन्तरे पठित्वा “आत्मनस् त्यागिनाम्” इति पृथक् पठन्ति तेन विशेषपक्षः प्रतिभाति ।

• अतः संशयः किं पुनर् अत्र युक्तम् ।

• इच्छताम् इति । कुतः । पापकर्मवचनात् । स्वेच्छया यश् चात्मव्यापत्तिहेतौ व्यापारे प्रवर्तते तेन “तस्माद् उ ह न पुरायुषः स्वः कामी प्रेयात्” (श्ब् १०.२.६.७) इति शास्त्रम् अतिक्रान्तं भवति । स च युक्तः पापकर्मेति व्यपदेष्टुम् ।

• ननु चोक्तं न हि ते खड्गादिस्थानीयाः, येनेच्छया वधोपपत्तिः ।

• उच्यते । यः प्रमादं न रक्षति तेन तत् कृतम् एवेति । तेन यश् चाण्डालदस्युभूयिष्ठे ऽरण्य एकाकी गच्छति, तस्य यद्य् अपि चण्डाला मां घ्नन्त्व् इतीच्छा न भवति, तथापि तत्समर्थाचरेणेन प्रमादस्यापरिहृतत्वाद् भवत्य् एव शास्त्रातिक्रमः । एवं यो बाहुभ्यां नदीं तरति संदिग्धां वा नावम् अधिरोहत्य् अकुशलकर्णधाराधिष्ठिताम्, एवं तस्य व्यापद्यमानस्य वेगक्षयेण नौपरिवर्तनादिना वा युक्तैव पापकारिता । तथा चागाधतां दण्डादिना ग्राहमकरसंगं चाज्ञात्वा²⁰³ स्नातारो यद्य् अपह्रियेरन् न दुष्येयुः । एवं यस् तु दृढबन्धनां तन्वरित्रां तरिं तीव्राम्भसि कुशलावहितसमर्थप्रेरकप्रेर्यमाणाम् अधिरूढः सहसोत्पतिते जविनि पवने चक्रवातेन पिच्छलम् अवाप्तवान् प्लवव्याप्त्या म्रियेत न²⁰⁴ शास्त्रम् अतिक्रमेत् । एवं सर्पोपहतं देशं च अपरिहरन् दष्टो व्यापद्येत प्रत्यवेयाद् एव, नान्यथा । एवं तीक्ष्णशृङ्गां गां हस्तिनं वा दृष्ट्वा दूरम् अनपक्रामतो हन्यमानस्य युक्तो ऽत्रिक्रमः । एवम् अरण्ये वर्षासूच्चरन्तीषु विद्युत्सु ग्रामनगर्योर् अप्रवेशे दुष्टतैव । ग्रामस्थस्योपरि कथंचिद् विद्युत्पातः स्यात् तदा न किंचिद् अपराध्यति । अतो युक्तम् इदृशं यथाविहितक्रियाकरणम् ।

• तत्र चोदकक्रियानिषेधः सर्वौर्ध्वदेहिकप्रदर्शनार्थः, स्मृत्यन्तरे ऽस्योदाहृतत्वात् ॥ ५.८८ ॥

The term ‘born’ is to be construed separately with each of the two terms with which it is compounded. He is said to be ^(‘)born in vain’ who does not worship Gods, Pitṛs or Men; i. e. he who does not lead the life proper for uny of the four stages of life, even though he is capable of doing so; one who is excluded from all offerings and invitations. Having referred to the man ‘who for one year does not lead the life proper for any stage,’ the scriptures speak of a great sin attaching to persons doing this for any length of time. This is so because with the exception of the Student and the Renunciate, all the others have to cook food for other people; and it is only cooking for one’s own self alone that has been prohibited.

‘Born of intermixture;’—i.e., the Āyogara’ and other persons born of an improper and inverse mixture of the several castes; that the issue of improper mixtures is meant is indicated by its association with those ‘born in vain,’ which implies lowness of birth. As regards the issue of legal mixtures, even though these also are ‘born of intermixtures,’ yet these are not meant here, because they belong definitely to their mother’s caste and are entitled to all that pertains thereto. Further, in ordinary usage children of legal mixtures are not spoken of as being of ‘mixed origin’; e.g. in 10.25, where the issues of ‘mixed origin’ are described. The term also includes (a) the children of such widows as have not been ‘permitted’ to beget children, born of the intercourse of several men, and (b) the children of prostitutes; the children of women begotten by a person other than their husbands are not included in this category, if there has not been intercourse with several men.

Some people hold that this prohibition refers to Sapiṇḍa relations who are as described, and not to their sons; while in the case of those who have ‘abandoned themselves,’ it applies to their sons also.

This however is not right; as the text makes no distinction among those mentioned.

Asceticisms; i.e., of heretics, such as the ‘Bhagala,’ the ‘Raktapaṭa’ and the rest. That these are meant is indicated by the plural number and by the fact that it is the heterodox heretic alone that is excluded. These are regarded as ‘heterodox’ by reason of their observances &c., being different from those of the orthodox ascetics.

‘Those who have abandoned themselves;’—i.e ., those who, even before their life’s span has been run out, give up their bodies (by committing suicide). [It is only such suicide that is reprehensible]. It is considered quite desirable in the case of old men suffering from incurable diseases given up by the physicians; as has been thus declared:—‘If an old man,—incapable of purification and memory, who has passed beyond the reach of the physician’s art,—kills himself by falling down from a precipice, or entering into fire, or by fasting, or by drowning in water,—in his case there is impurity for three days; his bones being collected on the second day, on the third day the water offering-should be made, and on the fourth day the Śrāddha should be performed’. Suicide is regarded as desirable also in the case of persons suffering from leprosy and such other diseases; as has been said in connection with men who, though still in the Householder’s state, have lost all energy,—‘Bent upon entering the Great Path, they do not wish to live on uselessly.’ That man is called ‘devoid of energy’ who is incapable of doing purificatory acts, as also saying the Twilight Prayers &c. Then again, in texts deprecating suicide, the words used are—‘if one whose body has not been emaciated, or who has not lost all energy, should kill himself &c. &c.’; which implies that it is permitted for those who are not such as here described.

Other Smṛti-texts prohibit the water-offering for other persons also. It has been thus declared—‘Those killed by kings, those killed by horned or fanged animals, or by serpents, and those who have abandoned themselves,—to these no Śrāddha is to be offered; and water, ball-offerings and other offerings that are made to the dead, all this does not reach them, it becomes lost in the intervening regions. Through fear of popular blame, one should make the Nārāyaṇa offering; and for the sake of these also food-grains, along with the additional fee, shall be given.’

Elsewhere again—

‘Sinful men meet death from the Cāṇḍāla, from water, from serpents, from Brāhmaṇas, from lightning and from fanged animals.’

It is also laid down that—

‘For incendiaries, for keepers of baths and makers of ornaments and for professional mourners, there is purification after the performance of two Taptakṛcchra penances. Hence for these no after-death rites shall be performed by others; even the name of such persons, or of their family, should not be pronounced. For truly fearful is the uttering of the name of such a great sinner, who has gone to the worst hells.’

It is in connection with the acts mentioned here that Saṃvartn has prescribed the ‘Sāntapana’ penance; and Parāśara has laid down the ‘Taptakṛcchra’; and Vaśiṣṭha has prescribed the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ along with the ^(‘)Taptakṛcchra’. But these differences may be ignored.

With reference to what has been said above regarding ‘the death of sinners’ resulting from ‘the Cāṇḍāla, from water &c. &c.,’ there arises the following question—“Does this rule, regarding the non-performance of the Śrāddha and the performance of penance, pertain to the Cāṇḍāla who kills himself intentionally?—or to one who is killed through carelessness, without intention?”

Why should this question arise?

(A) Well, Gautama (14.12) has said—‘In the case of those dying from hunger, by a weapon, by fire, by poison, in water, in prison, or from a precipice,—it is only when it is unintentional.’ While in the verse just quoted it is said simply, without any qualification ‘Those dying at the hands of the Cāṇḍāla &c.’ And on account of the necessity of reconciling this with what has been said in the other Smṛti text regarding the case of ‘dying in water’ &c., it must be ‘intentional death’ that is meant. And the idea arises that by reason of ‘association,’ the same should be the case with the others also.

(B) On the other hand, the verse quoted uses the term ‘sinful’; and all sinful act has been prohibited; he who does what is prohibited is called ‘sinful’. And a man becomes the ‘doer’ of an act through his own initiative, as also through the urging of another person. Now, death ‘from lightning, and the fanged and horned animals’ could never belong to the former category (i.e. this could never be intentional); and no one is ever urged by others to such death; nor are these means of dying employed by suicides, as holes, water and sword etc., are, and it is only if these were so, and the man were to kill himself by having recourse to these, that he could be the ‘self-sufficient agett (agent?),’ of the act of ‘dying.’ The truth therefore is that the man who comes by such death is understood to have been sinful in his previous life,—as is learnt from the scriptures; just as the possession of ‘black teeth’ and the rest. If it be asked—‘what is the use of this fact of the man’s having been sinful in the past being indicated?’ But in the case of persons with deficient limbs etc.,; their previous connection with sin is clearly indicated; and the expiatory rite to be performed in the case has been laid down by Vaśiṣṭha, as consisting, in the case of some men, of the performance of two Kṛcchras, and in that of others, of something more.

(C) In reality however, the suicide having died, can have nothing to do with the performance of any rites. Or, if he be regarded as having commited a grievous sin, then, any person who may have entered into any kind of relationship with him—marital, or friendly, or sacrificial,—would also have to be regarded as sinful. But such is not the usage of cultured men. For as a matter of fact, people having relationship with suicides are not looked down upon in any way; nor do they perform any expiatory rites.

From this it follows that what is meant is intentional death.

(D) Some people, having read, in another Smṛti text, the words—‘those killed by cows and Brāhmaṇas etc.’—read the words ‘those who have abandoned themselves’ apart by themselves, and seem to take up an entirely different position.

From all this (A, B, C and D) there arises the above-mentioned doubt—as to what is the right view.

The right view is that intentional suicides are what are meant;—why?—because of their being spoken of as ‘sinful.’ The man who intentionally proceeds to set into activity the causes leading to his own death, wilfully disobeys the law that ‘no man shall by his own desire, cut off his life-span and it is only right that such a transgressor should be spoken of as ‘sinful.’

“But it has been said and pointed out above that the causes of death spoken of do not resemble the sword and other things used by suicides; so that the intentional killing of oneself could not be meant.”

Our answer to this is as follows:—If a man does not guard himself against a danger, he is regarded to be as good as having brought it upon himself. So that if a man wanders about alone in a forest infested with cāṇḍālas and robbers,—even though he may not have the wish that they should kill him, yet—there is disobedience of scriptures on his part, since he acts in a way that invites danger, and he does nothing to avert that danger. Similarly with the man who goes to swim in the river, or enters a boat of doubtful capacity rowed by incompetent boatsmen. Under such circumstances, if by the loss of vigour, or by the turning over of the boat, the man should happen to die, it would be only right to regard him as having committed a sin. On the contrary, if persons were to bathe in water, whose depth they have duly ascertained by means of sticks etc., and of the presence wherein of alligators and other animals they, are ignorant,—and were to be carried away by any such animals, no blame would attach to them. Similarly if one gets into a boat, which is well-fastened, and rowed by capable rowers, and proceeds to cross a swift stream,—if, on the sudden rising of a strong wind, the boat happen to be tossed on a whril (whirl?)-pool and capsize, and the man become drowned,—he would not have transgressed the scriptures at all. Similarly again, if one did not carefully avoid places known to be infested with snakes, and being bitten by a snake were to die, he would have acted sinfully; not otherwise. Similarly if one does not run to a safe distance, on seeing a sharp-horned cow or an elephant, and become killed, he is rightly regarded as sinful. Similarly again if, when it is raining heavily and lightning is flashing, if one wanders about in desolate places and does not take shelter in a village or town,—his action is reprehensible. While if the lightning should, by chance, happen to fall upon a man who is in the village, there would be nothing sinful on the part of the man. For these reasons it is always right and proper that the man should do all that has been laid down (for his safety).

The prohibiting of ‘water-offerings’ should be taken as applicable to all kinds of after-death rites; for such is the view propounded in another Smṛti -text.—(88)

(Verse 89 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 877);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 406), which adds the following notes:—‘Vṛthājātāḥ’ are those who do not perform the ‘Five Great Sacrifices’;—‘Saṅkarajātāḥ’ are those born of castes mixed in the reverse order;—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 217), which reads ‘nivāpo na vidhīyate’ for the last foot and explains ‘nivāpaḥ’ as Śrāddha-Tarpaṇa’,—in Śuddhikaumudī, (p. 80), which explains ‘Vṛthāsaṅkarajāta’ as born of a lower caste father and higher caste mother;—and in Hāralatā (p. 202), which has the same explanation and adds that such persons are precluded from all religious acts; it adds the following remarks—Those born of higher caste father and lower caste mothers are not called ‘Vṛthāsaṅkarajāta’, as these persons are permitted to perform all religious acts to which their mother’s caste is entitled,—‘ātmatyāgin’ are those who have committed suicide by hanging or poison or some such means, or those who have renounced the duties of their caste.

(verses 5.88-89)

Viṣṇu (22.56).—‘Suicides and outcasts do not cause impurity or receive offerings of water.’

Yājñavalkya (3.6).—‘Those who have recourse to heretics, thieves, women who have killed their husbands, loose women, and women drinking wine, and women killing themselves, do not partake of impurity or of water-offerings.’

Vṛddha-Manu (Aparārka, p. 876).—‘Eunuchs and others should not make water-offerings, nor thieves and apostates, nor women who injure their embryo and husband, or drink wine.’

Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya (Do.).—‘Persons killed by lightning, bulls, kings, Brāhmaṇas, water, horned animals, tusked animals or fire, persons born in vain, the eunuch, and the religious student are not deserving of water-offerings.’

Āpastamba (Do., p. 877).—‘One who kills himself by means of fire, water and such things,—for him there is no impurity; nor should water be offered to him.’

Gautama (Do.).—‘For those who intentionally kill themselves by starvation, or weapons, or fire or poison, or water (there shall be no offering).’

Aṅgiras (Do.).—‘If one is killed, through carelessness, by fire, water and such things, for him impurity shall be observed and water-offerings made.’

089 Libations of water shall not be offered to those who (neglect the prescribed rites and may be said to) have been born in vain, to those born in consequence of an illegal mixture of the castes, to those who are ascetics (of heretical sects), and to those who have committed suicide,

Also from women, who have joined a heretic, who behave too freely, who have injured a child in their womb or their husband, and those who drink wine—(89).

शास्त्रपरित्यागेन बाह्यदर्शनाश्रयं नरशिरःकपालरक्ताम्बरादिधारणं पाषण्डम्, तदाश्रिताः कृततल्लिङ्ग्परिग्रहाः तद्दर्शनवशवर्तिन्यः । चरन्तीनां च कामतः । तदाचारकुलस्थितित्यागेनेच्छामात्रानुवृत्त्यैकानेकपरपुरुषसंप्रयोगः²⁰⁵ कामचारः । भर्तुर् विषगरादिदानेन गर्भस्य च पातनं द्रोहः । सुराप्यः यथाप्रतिषेधं प्रतिषिद्धायाः पातेन ।

• अत्र कश्चिद् आह- “ब्राह्मणो न पिबेत् सुराम्” इति सत्य् अपि जात्यर्थाविशेषे लिङ्गात् पुंस एव ब्राह्मणस्य प्रतिषेधो न स्त्रिया इति । यद्य् अपि स्त्रीपुंसयोर् एका जातिस् तथापि स्त्रीत्वपुंस्त्वलिङ्गे भिद्येते । इह च ब्राह्मण इति पुंल्लिङ्गस्य शब्दस्य श्रवणाद् अश्रुतायाः कः प्रसङ्गः । यथा “ब्राह्मणी पाययेत् पुत्रार्थम्” इति न पुंसः पाययेद् इति, तद्वत् पुंल्लिगश्रुतौ न स्त्रिय उपादीयन्ते । यत्र²⁰⁶ क्वचिल् लिङ्गं न विवक्ष्यते, यथ “ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः” इति स्त्रिया अपि प्रतिषेधो विज्ञायते, तत्र द्वितीयया श्रुत्या ब्राह्मणस्येप्सिततमत्वात् प्राधान्यम् । न च प्रधाने प्रातिपदिकार्थव्यतिरेकेणान्यलिङ्गसंख्यादि विवक्ष्यते । यथा “ग्रहं संमार्ष्टि” इति नैकस्य संमार्गः । इह पुनर् “ब्राह्मणेन सुरा न पेया” इति कर्तृतया साधनभावेन क्रियां प्रति निर्देशात् “ब्राह्मणो न पिबेत् सुराम्” इत्य् आख्याताभिहिते ऽपि तदर्थानाम्²⁰⁷ अपि वृत्तेः प्रातिपदिकार्थोपपत्त्या प्रथमापि तृतीयानुगुण्येति गुणीभावः,²⁰⁸ गुणे च सर्वं श्रुतं विवक्ष्यते । यथा “पशुना यजेत” इति पुमान् पशुर् आलभ्यते एकश् च ।

• अत्रोच्यते । नात्र द्वितीयातृतीये गुणप्रधानभावेनाविवक्षाविवक्षयोः कारणम्, किं तर्हि प्राप्त्यप्राप्ती । यद् अप्राप्तं विधिविषयतयोपपद्यते²⁰⁹ तद् विवक्ष्यते, अनन्यपरशब्दावगम्यत्वात् । यत् त्व् अन्यतो ऽवगतम् अर्थान्तरं विध्यर्थम् उपादीयते, तद् यादृशम् एव प्रमाणान्तरावगतं तादृशम् एव विधेयकार्यान्तरसंबन्धितया शब्देन प्रतिपाद्यते । “ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः” इत्य् अत्र वाक्ये विधिः प्रतिषेध एव पर्यवस्यति, यद् अन्यत् तद् अन्यतो ऽवगतम् । प्रातिपदिकार्थविवक्षा तु श्रुत्यानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात् । लिङ्गसंख्यादेस् तु प्रत्ययार्थस्य नान्तरीयकत्वेनाप्य् उपादानसंभवाद् विवक्षाविवक्षे उच्येते । तत्रेह न ब्राह्मणादिभिः पुरुषो विधिना प्रवर्त्यः, तद्द्वेषात्²¹⁰ स्वतः प्रवृत्तेः, तत् सर्वस्य चात्र स्वयं प्रसङ्गात् । न ह्य् अविधीयमानः प्रतिषेधः कथंचिद् अन्वेतुम् अलम् । अन्यतः प्राप्त्यभावात्, अकारकत्वाद् अकारकविशेषणत्वात् स्वभावानुप्रवेशेनापि संबन्धं न²¹¹ लभ्यते । तस्माद् अस्यान्वयसिद्ध्यर्थं विषयभाव एषितव्यः । तस्मिंश् च विधिना विषयीकृतेन भावार्थो विषयतयापेक्ष्यते । भावार्थश् च प्रतिषेधेन विषयांशस्य गृहीतत्वात् ततः प्रच्युतो लौकिक्या²¹² च प्रवृत्त्या सिद्धानुष्ठान आत्मविधिसिद्ध्यर्थम् अनुप्रेवेशम् अप्य् अकांक्षन्न् अधिकारमात्रसापेक्षविधौ प्रमाणान्तरतः प्रतिपन्नहननकर्तृभावस्य पुंसो ऽधिकारतां प्रतिपादयंस् तद्विशेषणद्वारेणान्वयं प्रतिपद्यत इत्य् उपपन्नम् अन्विताभिधानम् । तेन भावार्थस्य सविशेषणस्याविधेयत्वाल् लौकिकी प्रवृत्तिर् अभ्युपेतव्या । अस्ति च रागलक्षणा प्रवृत्तिर् न तस्या लिङ्गसंख्यानियमो ऽस्ति, द्वेषाद् वा । तस्माद् अविधेयार्थशब्दो ऽवगतार्थपरत्वाद् अभिधानशक्तिम्²¹³ उत्सृज्य प्रमाणान्तरतो यथावधृतस्वरूपम् अर्थं लक्षयति । तत्र लिङ्गसंख्ययोस् तात्पर्यतः शब्देनानभिधानात् कुतो विवक्षा । केवलं प्रातिपदिकनिर्देशार्थं येन केनचिद् वचनेन निर्देशः कर्तव्यः, न केवला प्रकृतिः प्रयोक्तव्येति तदर्थं लिङ्गसंख्ययोर् उपादानम् ।

• अत इयम् अत्रावगतिः । हनने ऽध्यवसितकर्तृभावः स नञर्थे नियुज्यते । अतः प्रतिषेधवाक्ये द्वितीयाश्रुतिर् अविवक्षायाम् अतन्त्रम्²¹⁴ । यत्रापि²¹⁵ हि तृतीया श्रूयते प्रथमा वा, “ब्राह्मणेन न पातव्या,” “ब्राह्मणो न पिबेत्” इति तत्रापि तदर्थश् चान्यतः प्राप्तेर् अविधेयत्वाद् अनूद्यते । याधिकारविशेषणत्वेनैव संबद्धा तत्र ते²¹⁶ द्वितीयाविशिष्टे प्रथमातृतीये । सत्याम् अपि च द्वितीयाश्रुतौ यद् अप्राप्तं तद्विधेयत्वाद् विवक्ष्यते यथा “भार्याम् उपगच्छेत्” “अपत्यम् उत्पादयेत्” इति । न हि लौकिको भार्यार्थः, उपयमनेनैव तत्सिद्धेः ।

• नापि वाक्यान्तरे विधिना क्वचिद् उपात्तो येन यथावगमम् उद्दिश्येत यथा “आश्विनं गृह्णाति” (त्ब् २.६.१.५), “मैत्रावरुणं गृह्णाति” (त्स् ६.४.८), “दशैतान् अध्वर्युर् गृह्णाति” (शाङ्ब् १४.२) इति संख्याविशिष्टा एव ग्रहा उपादीयन्ते । अतो निर्ज्ञातसंख्यत्वात् संमार्गविधौ यथासंख्यावगमं निर्दिश्यते । अत्र पुनर् वाक्यान्तराभावाद् अस्यैवोत्पत्तिवाक्यत्वाच् छ्रुतसंख्यापरित्यागे प्रमाणाभावान् निरपेक्षाभिधानशक्तिसमर्पितस्यैकस्य परित्यागः पुरुषबुद्धिप्रभव एव स्यात् । एवं “पशुना यजेत” (क्स् ८.१) इति यागविषयत्वाद् विधेस् तस्य च साध्यस्वभावत्वात् साधनाकांक्षायां समर्पितसविशेषणकारितसहितस्य विधेयत्वे यद्य् अर्थमात्रे विधिव्यापारापरिसमाप्तेः स्वार्थपरशब्दाभिहितापेक्षितस्वार्थाः किम् इति नयन्ति ।

• प्रमणाशास्त्रविदस् तु स्वयं विधिं वदन्ति²¹⁷ अन्योक्तम् अवगाहन्ते । यत् त्व् अस्माभिर् उक्तं तत् सुखोपायग्राह्यम् । नातिमहती व्युत्पत्तिर् अत्रोपयुज्यते । इयद् एव च तत्सारम् । इयती सा विद्यानुष्ठानोपयोगिनी यदधिकम् आहोपुरुषिकामात्रं तदर्थवाद एव । तत्र ह्य् अर्थवादाद् विशेषावगतिर् भवति यत्राकांक्षा विधेर् अनिवृत्तेति²¹⁸ । यथोकम् उपदधातीति बहुषु भोजनसाधनेषु सर्पिस्तैललवणादिषु सत्सु केनेत्य् अनवसाये घृतेनेति गम्यते । यथा तु रात्रिष्व् अनुष्ठानाश्रवणाद् आकांक्षायां प्रतितिष्ठन्तीत्य् अर्थवादः । अतः प्रतिष्ठाकामस्येति गम्यते । इह पुनर् ब्राह्मणा इति परिसमाप्तत्वात् पदार्थस्य निवृत्ताकाक्षेति²¹⁹ स्तुतिमात्रापेक्षयार्थवादः । अथ लिङ्गदर्शनमात्रतयोपन्यस्यते “देवानाम् अश्नता हविः” (म्ध् ११.९४) इति । तस्माच् छ्रेयः संपन्नं पापीयान् अन्वेतीतिवत् तद् अपि पुंसः प्रतिषिद्धत्वात् पाक्षिकेनानुवादेन सालम्बनम् इति न किंचित् । स्त्रीणाम् अपि देवान्नशेषम् आज्यादिप्राशनम् अस्त्य् एव । वेदोदाहरश् च दर्शपूर्णमासादिषु “विदेयकर्मासि” (आश्श् १.११.१) इति । न च श्राद्दस्य कर्तुः सुरां पाययेद् इति चोदनया तासां पानम् अनुमीयते । ब्रह्महत्यादानेनैव ग्रहः ।

• तस्माज् जातिमात्रस्य प्रतिषेध इत्य् एष एतस्यां विप्रतिपत्तौ निर्णयः ॥ ५.८९ ॥

One who has renounced the scriptures and has taken to wearing such things as the human skull, red garments and so forth, on the bans of heterodox theories of life and morals, is a ‘heretic.’ Those women who have ‘joined’, Such a person,—i.e. who have adopted his distinguishing murks and are under his control.

‘Those who behave too freely.’—When a woman renounces the customs and usages of her family, and ullowing free scope to her desires, has recourse to one as well as several men,—her behaviour is called ‘free.’

The ‘injury’ to the husband consists in giving him poison etc.; and that to the child in the womb consists in abortion.

‘Those who drink wine;’—i.e. those who drink what is prohibited.

On this subject some one makes the following observations:—

“The prohibition of wine-drinking is found in the words ‘brāhmaṇo na pibet surām’, (‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not drink wine’); and though the words apply to all members of the caste, yet the particular gender used is indicative of the fact that the prohibition applies to males only, and not to females. Though both the male and the female belong to the same caste, yet there is a distinct difference between the masculine and feminine genders. So that when the text uses the masculine form ‘brāhmaṇaḥ’, what possibility is there of the prohibition applying to the female, who is not mentioned at all? For instance, when it is said that ‘for the sake of a son one should make the Brāhmaṇī drink’ a certain substance, it is not understood to mean that the male Brāhmaṇa should be made to drink it. In the same manner when a text makes use of the masculine form, what it asserts cannot be predicated of females. It is true that in some cases, significance is not meant to be attached to the particular gender used;—e.g., in the text ‘the Brāhmaṇa should not be killed’, where the prohibition is understood to apply to the killing of the female Brāhmaṇa also. But what happens in this latter case is that the direct signification of the Accusative case-ending marks out the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ to be the predominant factor by reason of his being what is most intended to be ‘got at’ by the preadicate; and as a rule in the case of the predominant factor no significance is attached to the gender, or the number or any other factor, except what is expressed by the basic noun itself. E.g. the injunction ‘wash the cup’ is not taken to mean the washing of only one cup. In the case under discussion, however, the prohibitive text is in the form ‘Brāhmaṇena surā nu peyā’ (‘wine shall not be drunk by the Brāhmaṇa’,) where the ‘Brāhmaṇa appears as the Nominative, and as such, an accessory in the fulfilment of the act denoted; so that in the case of the prohibition in the form—‘The Brāhmaṇa shall not drink wine’—also, the nominative being denoted by the verb (with its conjugational ending), is expressed by the basic noun (‘brāhmaṇa’) and comes to be taken as something conducive to the fulfilment of the act denoted by the verb; so that the nominative ending in this text is to be construed on the same lines as the Instrumental in the preceding text; and it has to be taken as a subordinate factor. And in connection with a subordinate factor, all that is expressed by the word has to be taken as significant; for instance, in the case of the text ‘paśunā yajeta’, (‘sacrifice with an animal’), it is the male animal that is always sacrificed (and this on account of the Instrumental ending marking out the animal as the subordinate factor).”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—In such cases as the one under consideration whether a certain thing form the predominant or the subordinate factor is not determined by the Accusative or Instrumental case-ending, but upon its being or not being already known. That is to say, what is not already known, that alone can form the subject of the Injunction, and this is to which due significance is meant to be attached; and this for the simple reason that it is denoted by a word which can have no other denotation; while what is already known from other sources, and is mentioned for the sake of the In junction, has to be taken as subserving the purposes of the Injunction in exactly the same form in which it has been denoted by the previous word. In the sentence ‘the Brāhmaṇa should not be killed’, all that the Injunction directly signifies is the prohibition of the act of killing, and everything else (mentioned in the sentence) is such as is already known from other sources. Even so however, due significance has to be attached to what is expressed by the basic nouns (in the sentence), as otherwise, their very use would come to be meaningless. But the gender, the number and other elements, which are denoted by the case-endings,—it is just possible that these are used simply because they are invariable concomitants of basic nouns (which cannot be used by themselves without a case-ending); and hence sometimes these latter are meant to be significant, sometimes not. As regards the killing of the Brāhmaṇa, no man requires to be urged to do it by an Injunction; as he is urged to it by his own hatred of the man he kills; and all men are, by their very nature, prone to do this act But as regards the prohibition of it, unless it were directly enjoined, it could not be got at by any means; specially as it could not be obtained from any other source. So that, since it is not in any way conducive to the fulfilment of an act, nor is it the qualification of anything so conducive, hence, even though it were to be included under the nature of man, it could not be connected with the context. Consequently, for the purpose of connecting it with the context it is necessary to attribute to it the character of the topic; and when the prohibition in question has been made the topic of the Injunction, it is no longer necessary to make the denotation of the verb the topic. Thus then, the topical character having been wrested by the Prohibition, what is denoted by the verb naturally loses that character. The performance of the act (denoted by the verb) is such that its performance is secured through ordinary tendencies (of men); so that for its own accomplishment it does not stand in need of being embraced by any Injunction; and all that it needs is the capacity (and desire) of the man to do the act; and this, act of killing, being got at by other means of knowledge, establishes the man’s capacity for doing the act; so that it is through a qualification of the man that it becomes correlated with the sentence. Thus it is quite in keeping with the theory of words denoting only correlated entities. The act, along with its qualification, thus not forming the topic of this Injunction, man’s tendency to it has to be explained as being due to ordinary wordly causes. As a matter of fact, in the case of killing, such tendency and motive power is present, in the form of the man’s passion; and certainly no restrictions of gender or number pertain to passion; or the activity might be due to the man’s hatred.

From all this it follows that the word, whose denotation does not form the topic of the Injunction, on the ground that it is already known, renounces its denotative power and indicates a sense that is determined by other means of knowledge. And in as much as gender and number are not, even by import, signified by the word, how can any significance be attached to them? It being necessary to speak of what is denoted by the basic noun, it has to be spoken of with the help of some number and it cannot be used entirely by itself; and it is for this reason that gender and number are added.

On the point at issue thus the conclusion is as follows:

The man, who has determined to take upon himself the character of the agent of the act of killing, is urged (by the prohibition) to what is signified by the negative word. So that in a prohibitive sentence, no significance need attach to the use of the Accusative ending, which therefore may be ignored. Even sentences where we find the Instrumental Ending, or even the Nominative—e.g., ‘wine shall not be drunk by the Brāhmaṇa’, or ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not drink wine’,—what is denoted by them being already got at from other sources, they do not form topics of the Injunction; and hence they are taken as spoken of only by way of reference. In the case where the Accusative comes in as a qualification of the motive, the Nominative and the Instrumental endings are always taken along with the Accusative. Even when the Accusative is directly used, that which is not already known from other sources forms part of the enjoined (predicate), and, as such, is regarded as duly significant; for example in the case of such texts, as ‘bhāryām upagacchet’ (‘one should have recourse to his wife’), ‘apatayam utpādayet’ (‘one should beget a child’) [where due significance attaches to the singular number in ‘wife’ and ‘child’]. The ‘wife’ is not a a thing acquired in the ordinary worldly manner; as she can be acquired only by means of the marriage-rites. Nor is it a thing that has been definitively described in an Injunction, which would strictly restrict it to what is enjoined therein; as there is in the case of such texts as —‘āśvinam grahṇāti’ (‘holds the cup dedicated to the Aśvins’), ‘maitrāvaruṇam grāhṇāti (‘holds the cup dedicated to Mitra-Varuṇa’), and ‘daśaitānadhvaryurgṛhṇāti’ (‘the Adhvaryu holds these then’) [where the exact character of the cups has been prescribed by the texts laying down the dedication], and the cups taken up are of the precise number mentioned in the texts; consequently, their number being known, they become connected with the in junction of the washing, in sequential accordance with that number. Now in this case, there being no other sentence, and the sentence in question itself being the originative injunction, there are no grounds for rejecting the directly expressed number; so that any rejection of what is expressed by the self-sufficient denotative power of words could proceed only from the mind of man. Similarly in the case of the text ‘paśunā yajeta’ (‘one should sacrifice with an animal’), the Injunction pertains to the sacrifice, which is of the nature of something to be accomplished; so that when we proceed to seek for the means by which it could be accomplished, all that is mentioned in the injunctive text, qualification and all, comes to be regarded as the object of the Injunction; specially because the function of the Injunction cannot be regarded as having been fully fulfilled only by the laying down of what is signified by the root ‘yaji’, ‘to sacrifice’; why, then, should not the words be taken in the sense that is indicated by their own denotation as helped by the denotation of other words connected with them?

Persons versed in the science of “Pramāṇas” however regard the text as a self-sufficient Injunction; and in this they only repeat what has been said by other people. What we have said is easily understandable; and it does not demand any very keen acumen to grasp it. It is the very essence of things. The science is useful only so far as the Injunction is concerned; anything more than that is a mere show of learning, a purely exaggerated description. Such description is of use only in a case where the Injunction does not supply all the information needed; as for instance, in the case of the injunction regarding the ‘laying of pebbles’, there being several articles such as butter, oil, salt and the like, that are helpful towards wetting,—it being doubtful as to which of these is to be used in the wetting of the ‘pebbles’, it is the description (of Butter as ‘longevity itself’) which leads to the conclusion that Butter should be used. Or again, in the case of the ‘Ratri-sattra’, the performance of sacrificial rites during the night being unheard of anywhere else, the subsequent description of the ‘men obtaining honour’ helps to indicate the propriety of such performance by one who is desirous of acquiring honour or fame. In the case in question however the sentence (which in Adh. 11, verses 92 etc. prohibit wine for the Brāhmaṇa) is complete in all respects, at the mention of ‘Brāhmaṇas’; so that all needs having been fulfilled, the only purpose served by the description is ‘commendation.’ It might be argued that what is said under 11.96 is treated on the same footing as the assertion that ‘the sinful man comes by accomplished happiness’,—so that the prohibition of wine-drinking comes to have a footing, though a partial one, as referring to the male only. But there would be no force in this; because females also are entitled to partake of the butter and other substances, which have been left after the offerings to the Gods have been made; and they are permitted to recite Vedic texts also at the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices; such texts, for instance, as ‘videyakarmāsi, &c., &c.’ Even such Injunctions as ‘one should make the performer of Śrāddhas drink wine’ indicate that wine is permitted for women.

Nor is any such distinction (between male and female) made in the case of ‘Brāhmaṇa-killing.’ So that upon the question here raised, the final conclusion is that the prohibition of winedrinking pertains to the whole caste—(89).

(Verse 90 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Hāralatā, which has the following notes:—‘Pāṣaṇḍamāśṛtāḥ’ applies to both men and women Kāmataścarantyaḥ’ are those who have had intercourse with numberless men,—for all those there are no after-death offerings;—and in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 80).

(verses 5.88-89)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 5.88].

090 To women who have joined a heretical sect, who through lust live (with many men), who have caused an abortion, have killed their husbands, or drink spirituous liquor.

The student, carrying his own dead Teacher, or tutor, or father, or mother, or monitor,—does not suffer in his observances.—(90).

स्वग्रहणम् आचार्यविशेषणं मन्यते, “गुरोर् गुरौ संनिहिते” (म्ध् २.२०५) इत्य् अतिदेशात् तदाचार्ये ऽपि प्राप्ते प्रतिषेधः ।

• अन्ये तु स्वशब्दं बान्धववचनं व्याचक्षते ।

• अत्र तु पितरं मातरम् इति न वक्तव्यम् । नित्यार्थं त्व् अभिधानम् इति ।

• गुरुः “अल्पं वा बहु वापि” (म्ध् २.१४९) इत्य् अनेन य उक्तः ।

• एतान् निर्हरतो व्रतवियोगो नास्तीति श्रुतसामर्थ्याद् दर्शयति । अन्यान् निर्हृत्यानेन वियुज्यत इति पदार्थसिद्धिः ॥ ५.९० ॥

Some people think that the term ‘his own’ qualifies the ‘Teacher’ only; and it serves to exclude the Teacher’s Teacher, would be thought of as deserving the same treatment, according to what has been said above under 2.205.

Others again explain ‘his own’ as standing for one’s relations.

But in this latter case, it would seem unnecessary to mention the ‘father’ and the ‘mother.’ But it may be explained as emphasising the obligatory character of the rule as regards these particular relations.

‘Monitor’, ‘Guru’,—is one who has been described in 2.149.

There is no harm done to his observances by carrying the dead body of these persons; and what the text means by this specification is that there is interference in the observances by the carrying of the dead bodies of persons other than these—(90).

(Verse 91 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācarā, p. 633) to the effect that there is nothing wrong in the Religious Student carrying the dead body of the persons named here;—and in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 391);—in Hāralatā (p. 201) to the effect that when there are no other persons available for carrying the dead body of the Teacher and the rest and perform their cremation, then the person who has undertaken vows and observances may do the needful, and this does not interfere with his observances,—it explains ‘ācārya’ as the person who has done the initiation and taught the entire Veda, the ‘upādhyāya’ is one who has taught a portion of the Veda or the Subsidiary Sciences, and ‘guru’ is the person who expounds the Veda and the Sciences;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 294).

Viṣṇu (22.86).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.15).—‘The religious student retains his character of religious student even after carrying the dead body of the teacher, the father and the sub-teacher.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 884).—‘The religious students incur the necessity of re-initiation, by the carrying of a dead body, except that of their parents.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 884).—‘The religious student, even while keeping the vows, does not deviate therefrom, if he burns the dead body of his teacher, sub-teacher, preceptor, father or mother.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 633).—‘Tho religious student shall not perform such acts as the burning of the dead body; if he does do it, he shall perform the kṛohchra penance and go through the initiation again.’

091 A student does not break his vow by carrying out (to the place of cremation) his own dead teacher (akarya), sub-teacher (upadhyaya), father, mother, or Guru.

One should carry the dead śūdra by the southern gate of the city; but the twice-born persons by the western, northern and eastern gates respectively—(91).

पुरद्वारेणेति पुरग्रहणं ग्रामादीनाम् अप्य् उपलक्षणार्थम् । यत्रानेकद्वारसंभवस् तत्रायं नियमः । यो यत्रेष्टे तस्यायम् उपदेशः । अमङ्गल्यत्वाच् च शूद्राद् आरभ्य कर्मेणोपदिष्टम् । अतश् च यथायोगम् इति वैश्यक्षत्रियब्राह्मणाः पश्चिमादिभिर् यथासंख्यं संबन्धनीयाः ॥ ५.९१ ॥

The term ‘City’ stands for the village &c. also.

This rule applies to those places where there are several gates; the advice pertaining to such persons as may be capable of following it.

The Śūdra has been mentioned first, because it is an inauspicious subject. And this reversal of the order indicates that the term ‘respectively’ indicates that the Vaiśya should be carried by the western, the Kṣatriya by the northern and the Brāhmaṇa by the Eastern gate.—(91)

(Verse 92 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 870), which adds that the word ‘Nirharaṇīyāḥ’ is to be supplied after ‘dvijātayaḥ’;—and that ‘Yathāyogam’ (for which it reads ‘Yathāvarṇam’) means that the castes are to be taken in the reverse order; i.e., Brāhmaṇa through the eastern the Kṣatriya through the northern and the Vaiśya through the western gate,—this on the strength of a text quoted from the Adityapurāṇa.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 634);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 414);—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 111);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 216),—and in Hāralatā (p. 119), which notes that the castes are mentioned in the reverse order because the subject spoken of is an extremely inauspicious one, and by adopting this order the writer avoids the use of the epithet ‘dead’ directly in

connection with the higher castes;—it explains ‘Yathāyogam’ as ‘in the inverse order, i.e., the Vaiśya, the Kṣatriya and the Brāhmaṇa respectively’.

Hārīta (Parāśaramādhava, p. 634)—‘The dead body should not he carried towards the village.’

092 Let him carry out a dead Sudra by the southern gate of the town, but (the corpses of) twice-born men, as is proper, by the western, northern, or eastern (gates).

This taint of uncleanliness does not attach to Kings, or to those keeping a vow, or to the performers of sacrificial sessions; because they occupy the position of sovereigns and are ever of the nature of Brahman.—(92).

राजशब्दो यद्य् अपि क्षत्रियजातौ वर्तते, तथापीह ऐन्द्रं स्थानम् उपासीनाः इति कारणस्योपादानाज् जनपदेश्वरवचनो लक्षणया विज्ञायते । उत्तरश्लोके निपुणं वक्ष्यामः । व्रतिन्ः व्रतचारिणः चान्द्रायणादिस्थाश् च । सत्रिणः गवामयनिका अन्यस्मिन् वा यज्ञे दीक्षिताः । तथा च गौतमः- “अनृत्विग्दीक्षितब्रह्मचारिणाम्”²²⁰ (ग्ध् १४.१) इति । अत्रार्थवादः- ऐन्द्रं स्थानम् आधिपत्यं पदं प्रजैश्वर्यम् उपासीनाः कुर्वाणा राजानः ब्रह्मत्वं प्राप्ता व्रतिनः सत्रिणश् च । अघदोषम् आशौचम् ।

• अन्ये तु सततदानप्रवृत्तान् सत्रिणो मन्यन्ते ।

• मुख्ययानुवृत्त्या²²¹ क्रतुविशेषे वर्तते ॥ ५.९२ ॥

Though the terra ‘rājan’, ‘king’, is denotative of the Kṣatriya-caste, yet, on account of the reason being stated in the words that ‘they occupy the position of sovereigns’, it follows that it indicates the ruler of countries. This we shall explain fully under the next verse.

‘Those who are keeping a vow;’—i.e., those who are observing a vow, and undergoing such penances as those of the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ and the like.

‘Performers of sacrificial sessions;’—i.e., those who are performing the ‘Gavāmayana’ sacrifice, or those who have been initiated for the other sacrifices also. Says Gautama (14.1)—‘For sacrificial priests, for one who has been initiated and for the Student.’

In support of this we have the laudatory statement (in the second line). ‘Position of Sovereigns;’—i.e., the kings—‘occupy,’—maintain,—The ‘position’—place—‘of sovereigns’—of rulers of men; and the other two—the keepers of vows and performers of sacrificial sessions—have attained the character of Brahman.

‘Taint of uncleanliness’— i.e., impurity.

Others have explained the term ‘Sattriṇaḥ’ to mean persons who are constantly making gifts. But in its primary denotation, the term refers to a particular form of sacrifice.—(92).

(Verse 93 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 616).

Vaśiṣṭha (19.48).—(Same as Manu.)

Gautama (14.1.45-46).—‘The Sapiṇḍas become impure by the death of a relative during ton days, except those who are officiating as priests, who have performed the initiatory sacrifice and the religious student. Kings remain always pure, lest their business be impeded,—also the Brāhmaṇa, lest his daily study of the Veda be interrupted.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.1).—‘Referring to deaths and births, they declare that the impurity of Sapiṇḍas lasts ten days; except for officiating priests, men who have performed the initiatory ceremony of the Soma-Sacrifice, and students of the Veda.’

Viṣṇu (22.48-55).—‘Nor do kings become impure, while engaged in the discharge of their duties, nor devotees fulfilling a vow; nor sacrifices engaged in a sacrificial performance; nor workmen while engaged in their work; nor those who perform the king’s orders, if the king desires them to be pure; nor can impurity arise during the installation of the monument of a deity, nor during a marriage ceremony, if those ceremonies have already begun; nor when the whole country is afflicted with a calamity; nor in times of public distress.’

Yājñavalkya (3.27.28).—‘For officiating priests, for those initiated for a sacrifice, for those engaged in sacrificial work, for those engaged in a sacrificial session, for the religious student, for the person engaged in charities, for the knower of Brahman,—also during a marriage, during the giving of charities, during a sacrifice, during war, in times of public distress, and in times of great trouble,—purification is instantaneous.’

Parāśara (3.20-22).—‘Mechanics, artists, physicians, slaves and slave-girls, barbers, kings and Vedic scholars have been declared to be such as are purified instantaneously; so also the man keeping a penance, one engaged in a sacrificial session and the twice-born person who has taken the Fires. There is no impurity for the king, or for the person for whom the king desires it to cease, or one who is going to engage in battle, or in a charity, or one who is in distress, or the Brāhmaṇa who has been invited.’

Ādipurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 615).—‘The work done by the painter and other artists is such as is not known to others; hence in the doing of their own work, they are always pure. The work that is done by the cook is such as is not known to others; hence the cook is always pure. What is done by the physician cannot be done by any one else; hence for purposes of touching, the physician is always pure. The work that the male and the female slaves do with ease, no one else can do; hence they are always pure. The work that the king does—how can any one even dream of doing? Such being the case the king is always pure, in the matter of births and deaths. The driving of elephants and such other works as are done by the royal servants cannot be done by others; hence these are always pure.’

Pracetas (Do.).—‘Mechanics, artists, physicians, male and female slaves, kings and royal servants are declared to be such as become purified instantaneously.’

Vṛddha-Parāśara (Parāśaramādhava, p. 616).—‘There is no impurity for kings, or for religious students, persons engaged in sacrificial sessions, persons initiated for a sacrifice, and all those for whom the king wishes it There is no impurity due to birth or death, for those engaged in penance or charity.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 617.).—‘The Kṣatriya engaged in battle, the Vaiśya seated among cows, the Brāhmaṇa engaged in a sacrificial session and the religious student are always pure.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Do.).—‘There is no impurity during marriage or sacrifice or trouble or journey or pilgrimage.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do.).—‘In the installation of a god’s image, in the performance of a communal sacrifice, during Śrāddha and such rites, or during Pitṛyajña, or in the giving away of the daughter,—there is no impurity.’

Aṅgiras (Do.).—‘There is no impurity due to birth or death on three occasions—during a sacrificial performance, during marriage and during a sacrifice to gods.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 919).—‘After the Initiatory Ceremony at a sacrifice, and during the performance of the Kṛcchra and other penances, there is no impurity, even on the death of the father. The impurity comes after the completion of the performance and lasts for three days. So also for religious students.’

Jābāla (Do., p. 920).—‘For the religious student, the king, the ascetic, the artist, the initiated person, during a sacrifice or marriage or a sacrificial session,—there is no impurity,’

Brahmapurāṇa (Do.).—‘For the priest who has accepted the Honey-mixture in connection with a sacrificial performance, if a cause for impurity arises, it dues not apply to him. So also for the person who has been initiated for a sacrifice, till the Final Bath. Nor is there any impurity for the calm ascetic firm in Vedānta, etc., etc.’

093 The taint of impurity does not fall on kings, and those engaged in the performance of a vow, or of a Sattra; for the (first are) seated on the throne of Indra, and the (last two are) ever pure like Brahman.

Immediate purification has been ordained for the king on the majestic throne; and the reason for this lies in his occupying that position for the protection of the people.—(93).

महान् आत्मा यस्य स्थानस्य तन् माहात्मकम् । यस्मिं स्थाने स्थितस्य पुंसः प्रजानां परिरक्षा । माहात्म्यं तद् एवोच्यते । तच् च प्रजैश्वर्यम् । यद् आह- आसनं चात्र कारणम् इति । तद् उक्तम्- नात्र जातिमात्रम्, किं तु प्रजापालनाधिकारः । आसनशब्दो ऽपीह नासनशय्यादिवचनः, अपि तु तत्पदं प्राप्तवतो यत् कर्तव्यं तद् आह । अतः अक्षत्रियो ऽपि यदि प्रजापालने समर्थः तस्याप्य् आशौचाभाव एव पूर्वैर् व्याख्यातः । प्रजानां परिरक्षार्थम् इति । न सर्वेण सर्वाशौचनिवृत्तिः, किं तर्हि, प्रजापालनविरोधि यदाशौचधारणं तन् निवर्तते । यथा दुर्भिक्षादौ स्वकोशाद् अन्नदानेन प्रजाभरणम्, तथा दिव्यान्तरिक्षभौमेषूत्पातेषु²²² शान्तिः । अकस्मात् सभ्यैः कर्तव्येन राज्ञा, अथ वा आश्रमेषु²²³ द्विजातीनां धर्मसंशयसत्त्वेन, प्रथमेज्यादाव् अप्य् अस्ति प्रवक्तृत्वम्, तद् अपि प्रयोजनम् ॥ ५.९३ ॥

‘Majestic’—i.e., that seat whose character is grand, glorious; this ‘majesty’ consists in the fact that it is seated upon this throne that the man is enable to carry on the work of protecting the people; and herein lies his sovereignty over men. This is what is meant by the clause—‘and the reason for this lies in his occupying that position’; and what this means is that mere caste does not entitle the man to the consideration that the rule implies; what entitles him to it is his work of protecting the people. The term ‘āsana’, ‘position,’ also does not mean here a seat or a couch; it stands for the duties incumbent upon one who takes his seat upon it. It is for this reason that the older writers have explained the present rule to mean that there is no impurity in the case of any person who is capable of protecting the people, even if he be a non-Kṣatriya by caste.

‘For the purpose of protecting the people.’—The meaning of this is that all the observances relating to impurity are not to cease, but only those that would be incompatible with the proper fulfilment of his duty of protecting the people; for example, the giving of food-grains out of his granary during times of scarcity, and so forth, the performance of rites for the allaying of celestial, atmospheric and terrestrial portents. Further, it becomes incumbent upon the king to attend to such business as may be brought up suddenly by gentlemen; or, when it becomes necessary for him to speak out for the purpose of settling disputes and religious doubts that may arise among twice-born persons in the higher stages of life.—(93).

(Verse 94 of others.)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.27), in support of the view, that the rule that ‘no impurity attaches to the king’ holds only with regard to such acts of making gifts, receiving and honouring people and hearing suits as are essential for the safety of the people; and it does not apply to the performance of the ‘Five Great Sacrifices’ and other religious acts.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 616);—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 70), which explains ‘māhātmika sthāna’ as the seat of judgement, in connection with which there can be no impurity;—and in Hāralatā (p. 110) which explains the meaning to be ‘for the king who is occupying the position of God, the Lord of all things’, ‘māhātmikasthāna’, there is immediate purification,—not so for one who has lost his kingdom; as the ground for the immediate cessation of impurity lies in the fact that he occupies the judgment seat when he comes to the work of administering justice and protecting the people.’

Vaśiṣṭha (19.47).—(Same as Manu.)

(See above for other texts.)

094 For a king, on the throne of magnanimity, immediate purification is prescribed, and the reason for that is that he is seated (there) for the protection of (his) subjects.