- But in either case (such men) stand outside; on account of Smr̥ti and custom.
Whether the point under discussion constitutes a minor or a major offence, in any case those who have lapsed stand outside the category of those qualified for the knowledge of Brahman. For Smr̥ti, i.e. the text quoted above, ‘I see no expiatory performance by which he, a slayer of Brahman as he is, could become pure again,’ declares that expiations are powerless to restore purity. And custom confirms the same conclusion; for good men shun those Naishṭḥikas who have lapsed, even after they have performed prāyascittas, and do not impart to them the knowledge of Brahman, The conclusion, therefore, is that such men are not qualified for knowing Brahman.–Here terminates the adhikaraṇa of ‘him who has become that.’
- By the Lord (of the sacrifice), since Scripture declares a fruit–thus Ātreya thinks.
A doubt arises whether the meditations on such constituent elements of the sacrifice as the Udgītha, and so on, are to be performed by the sacrificer (for whose benefit the sacrifice is offered), or by the officiating priests. Ātreya advocates the former view; on the ground of Scripture showing that in the case of such meditations as the one on the small ether within the heart, fruit and meditation belong to the same person, and that in the case of such meditations as the one on the Udgītha the fruit belongs to the sacrificer (whence we conclude that the meditation also is his). Nor can it be said that the sacrificer is not competent for such meditation, for the reason that like the godohana vessel it is connected with an element of the sacrifice (which latter the priests only can perform). For the godohana vessel serves to bring water, and this of course none else can do but the Adhvaryu; while a meditation on the Udgītha as being the essence of all essences can very well be performed by the Sacrificer–true though
it be that the Udgītha itself can be performed by the Udgātr̥ priest only.–Against this view the next Sūtra declares itself.