Manava Dharmashastra 2.136.2

2.136.2

yenocyate‘yo'gnihotravākyasyārthaṃ vetti vākyāntarārthamavidvānapyadhikriyata’ iti |’’ atrocyate | ekaśākhādhyayanaṃ tāvadavaśyaṃ kartavyam | tatra yenaikaśākhā'dhītā tasyāścārtho'vadhṛtaḥ so'navadhṛtaśākhāntarārtho'dhikriyate | ‘‘nanu ca sarvatraika eva śāstrārthaḥ | yadi nāma padavarṇānupūrvībhedaḥ, śāstrarūpaṃ tvabhinnam | padārthanyāyavyutpattyā cā'vabodhaḥ | na ca pratiśāstraṃ padārthā bhidyante | nā'pi nyāyaḥ | tatra yenaiva hetunaikasyāḥ śākhāyā artho'vadhāryate śākhāntare'pyasāvasti, na vyutpattyantaramapekṣyate | tatra yadyekā śākhā'vagatā, sarvā evāvagatā bhavanti |’’ satyam | yānyekasyāmagnihotrādīnyupadiṣṭāni teṣāṃ śākhāntare'pyupadiśyamānānāṃ mā bhūd bhedaḥ | kintu kasyāñcicchākhāyāṃ kānicitkarmāṇi naivopapadiśyante | yathā bāhvṛce āśvalāyanake darśapūrṇamāsau śyenādirābhicārikaḥ, anye ca somayāgavājapeyabṛhaspatisavādayaḥ | tatra yattacchākhādhīna magnihotrajyotiṣṭomādi tatrādhikriyate | śākhāntaraṃ tvanadhītamaśrutaṃ kathaṃ tadvihitāni karmāṇyatacchākhādhyāyī vettu | na caite somayāgā nityā, yenānanuṣṭhānapratyavāyabhayātparijñānāya śākhāntaramanviṣyeta | ādhānaṃ tu yadyapi tatra na paṭhitaṃ tatrā‘pyuddharāhavanīyami’tyāhavanīyasya vidhānam | lokāttadarthamanavabudhyamānaḥ ko'yamāhavanīyo yasyādhānamiti śākhāntaramanviṣyati | tataḥ śākhāntare paṭhyamānamādhānaprakaraṇaṃ sarvaṃ paryālocayati | evamāmāvāsyena vā haviṣeṣṭvā paurṇamāsena veti śrutvā kīdṛśa-

Our answer to the above is as follows:—It is the study of one Vedic Recension that is necessary; and what we mean is that he who has studied one Recension and has fully understood its meaning, becomes entitled to the performance of Vedic acts, even without studying the other Recensions.

“The purpose of the Scripture is the same in all cases; even though there may be some difference in the order of a few words and syllables, yet the main feature of the Scripture remains the same. Then again, as for the understanding of the meaning, this is obtained by the due comprehension of the meanings of words and reasonings; now, neither the meanings of words, nor the reasonings, differ in the different Recensions. So that the means by which one learns the meaning of one Recension serves the same purpose in regard to the other Recensions also; and one does not stand in need of any other learning; so that if One Recension has been learnt, all become learnt.”

True. Such Agnihotra, etc., as are enjoined in one Recension may not differ from the same acts as enjoined in other Recensions; but there are certain actions which are not enjoined at all in certain Recensions. E.g., the Śyena and other malevolent rites in connection with the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa are not found in the Aśvalāyana Recension of the Ṛgveda; nor the Somayāga, the Vājapeva, the Bṛhaspatisava and so forth. So that when a man has learnt one Recension, he becomes entitled to that Agnihotra and that Jyotiṣṭoma, etc., which are enjoined iu that Recension; and if one who has not studied another Recension, and has neither read nor heard of it, how can he know anything about the acts enjoined in that other Recension? Nor ore the Soma-sacrifices compulsory; so that, through fear of incurring the sin of omitting a compulsory act, one might be forced to seek for the knowledge of them from other Recensions. As for the ‘Kindling of Fire,’ even though this also is not found enjoined in the said Āśvalāyana recension of the Ṛgveda, yet it does contain the injunction of preparing the ‘Āhavanīya’ fire; as is clear from such passages as ‘bring up the Āhavanīya’; so that, not understanding the meaning of this passage with the help of ordinary people, the student naturally seeks, from other Recensions, for the knowledge of what this ‘Āhavanīya’ is; and thus he comes to look over the entire section of the other Recension dealing with the ‘Kindling of Fire.’ Similarly having heard the passage—‘Having offered either the Amāvāsyā or the Paurṇamāsa libations, etc.,’ one seeks from other Recensions for the knowledge of the exact form of the two acts (of Amāvāsyā and Paurṇamāsa offerings). Similarly in the case of other compulsory and optional acts that have to be performed, when it is found that some of their details arc not laid down in a certain Recension,—-such details, for instance, as pertain to the Adhvaryu (and are mentioned in the Yajurveda) or to the Udgātṛ (and are mentioned in the Sāma-Veda),—the requisite knowledge is sought for from those other texts. It is not possible for one to know the act that is laid down in Recensions other than the one studied by him. To the student who learns several Recensions, and studies their meanings, all this becomes quite clear. But even in the absence of such knowledge as this last, the performance of acts is quite possible. Or, such performance could be possible even on a slight understanding (of the Vedic texts).