Manava Dharmashastra 2.136.3

2.136.3

manayoḥ karmaṇo rūpamiti tathaiva śākhāntaraṃ gaveṣayate | evamanyadapi yatkāmyaṃ nityaṃ cānuṣṭheyaṃ tasya yatkiñcidaṅgajālaṃ tatra nājñātamādhvaryavamaudgātraṃ vā tatparijñāya tathaiva śākhāntarādhigamaḥ | yattu śākhāntarādhītamanuṣṭheyaṃ tasya na vedanasambhavaḥ | anekaśākhādhyāyinastu tadarthaparasya sarvametatpratyakṣamivi | astīdṛśīṃ vidyāmantareṇāpi karmānuṣṭhānam | athavā īṣadvyutpannasyā'pi sambhavatyanuṣṭhānam | yasya tu nirmalā vidyā, vyākhyeyāni vidyāsthānāni, tasya vidyā mānyatāsthānam | ‘garīya’ iti dvayordvayoḥ sampradhāraṇe'yamīyasunpratyayaḥ | caturdaśavidyāsthānajñaḥ paṅgvandhanirdhanādiranadhikṛto'pi vidyayaiva pūjyate | teṣāṃ virodhe valābalamāha | garīyo yadyaduttaram | ekasya vittamanyasya bahubandhutā, tatra vittavato bandhumānmānyaḥ | yasmācca yatparaṃ tattasmād gurutaram | tathā bandhorvayaḥ tataḥ pūrvaṃsmādapi vittāttadguru siddham | ata upapannam “śrutaṃ tu sarvebhyo garīyastanmūlatvāddharmasyeti” gautamavacanam ( a.6 sū 19-20) | “garīya iti kathaṃ prakarṣapratyayo yāvatā naiva pūrvasya gurutvam | yadi hi dve gurūṇī tatrottarasya garīyastvamasti | tarhi pūrvāpekṣayā vittasya nāstīti” cet | samudāye sāmānyena gurutve'pekṣite aparasya prakarṣavivakṣāyāṃ yujyata īyasun | mānaḥ pūjā tasya sthānaṃ kāraṇam | ‘mānyasthānānīti’ vā pāṭhe'ntarbhūtabhāvārtho draṣṭavyaḥ, ‘mānyatvasthānāni, mānyatvakāraṇāni | ekaikaguṇasambandhe parasya jyāyastvamuktam | yatredānīṃ dvau pūrvāvekasya bhavato'parasyaikaḥ para iti tatra kathamityata āha |

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).