Manava Dharmashastra 2.23

2.23

kṛṣṇaśvetaḥ kṛṣṇapīto vā kṛṣṇasārākhyo mṛgo yatra carati nivasati | sambhava utpattiryatra deśe tasya svabhāvato, na punardeśāntarātprāśastyopāyanādinā nimittenānītasya kiyantamapi kālaṃ nivāsaḥ | sa deśo yajñiyo yāgārho boddhavyaḥ | ataḥ kṛṣṇamṛgacaraṇātparo'nyo mlecchadeśaḥ | mlecchāḥ prasiddhāḥ | cāturvarṇyajātyapetāḥ pratilomajātīyānadhikṛtā medāndhraśabarapulindādayaḥ |
na cānena yāgādhikaraṇatā'sya deśasya vidhīyate, ‘same yajeteti’vat | caratīti vartamānanirdeśāt | na hi yatraiva carituṃ pravṛttastadaiva tatra yāgaḥ śakyaḥ kartum | yāgasya hi deśo'dhikaraṇaṃ tatsādhanakartrādikārakāśritadravyādidhāraṇadvāreṇa | na ca dvayormūrttayorekakāle ekadeśe sthānasambhavaḥ--na ca kālāntaralakṣaṇā nyāyyā, vidhau lakṣaṇāyā anyāyyatvāt | yathoktaṃ śūrpādhikaraṇe--‘etaddhi kriyata ityucyata’ iti |
“nanu ca nābhivyāpaka evādheyo yena kṛtsnādhārābhivyāptyaivādhikaraṇārthanivṛttiḥ syāt, tileṣu tailamitivat | kiṃtarhi ekadeśasambandhinā'pyādheyena bhavati kṛtsnasyādhārabhāvaḥ, ‘prāsāda āste rathamadhitiṣṭhatīti’ | evamiha grāmanagarasamudāyasya nadīparvatāntāvadhikasya deśasya prakṛtatvādekadeśe'pi parvatāraṇyādau caransarvamādhārīkaroti | tenāyamadoṣaḥ mūrttayornaikadeśaḥ sambhavati” |
ucyate | naivātra yaṣṭavyamiti vidhirasti | jānāteḥ paro vidhāyakaḥ śruto na yajeḥ | yāgasya tatrārhatā śrutā, yāgārho'sau deśa iti | sā ca yāgārhatā'satyapi vidhau ghaṭate | eteṣu deśeṣu yāgāṅgāni darbhapalāśakhadirādīni prāyeṇa ca bhavanti | adhikāriṇaśca traivarṇikā traividyāśca teṣveva deśeṣu dṛśyante | ata etadavalambano yāgārhatānuvādaḥ | kṛtyo'pi ‘jñeya’ ityadhyāropitavidhyartho ‘jartilayavāgvā juhuyādi’ tivadvidhivannigadārthavāda eva |
yaccoktaṃ ‘mlecchadeśastvataḥ para’ ityeṣo'pi prāyiko'nuvāda eva | prāyeṇa hyeṣu deśeṣu mlecchā bhavanti | na tvanena deśasambandhena mlecchā lakṣyante, svatasteṣāṃ prasiddherbrāhmaṇādijātivat | athārthadvāreṇāyaṃ śabdaḥ pravṛtto mlecchānāṃ deśa iti | tatra yadi kathañcidbrahmāvartādideśamapi mlecchā ākrameyuḥ tatraivāvasthānaṃ kuryurbhavedevāsau ‘mlecchadeśaḥ’ | tathā yadi kaścitkṣatriyādijātīyo rājā sādhvācaraṇo mlecchānparājayet cāturvarṇyaṃ vāsayet mlecchāṃścāryāvarta iva cāṇḍālāṃnyavasthāpayetso'pi syādyajñiyaḥ | yato na bhūmiḥ svataḥ duṣṭā | saṃsargāddhi sā duṣyatyamedhyopahateva | ata uktadeśavyatirekeṇāpi sati sāmarthye traivarṇikenākṛṣṇamṛgacaraṇe'pi deśe yaṣṭavyameva | tasmādanuvādo'yam ‘sa jñeyo yajñiyo deśo mlecchadeśastvataḥ para’ ityuttaravidhiśeṣaḥ |

But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land op the Mlecchas.’ (23)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Where the deer known as ‘Kṛṣṇasāra’—that which is either black with white spots, or black with yellow spots—‘roams,’—lives—i.e., is found, born, —‘by nature,’—i.e., not that where it resides for a time only, having been imported as a present of rare value, and so forth;—‘that country is to be known’—regarded—‘as yajñīya’—‘fit for sacrificial acts.’

‘Beyond that’—i.e., the region other than the one where the Kṛṣṇasāra is indigenous—‘is the land of the Mlecchas.’ The Mlecchas are the people who are known as lying beyond the pale of the four castes,—not included even among the Pratiloma castes; such as the Medas, the Andhras, the Śabaras and the Pulindas.

It is not meant that the sacrifices are to be performed on the very spot where the deer roams,—in the way in which they are performed ‘on level ground,’ according to the injunction that ‘one should perform sacrifices on level ground’; as we h ave ‘rooms’ in the present tense, and certainly one could not perform a sacrifice on the very spot, and at the very time, at which the deer may have started to roam. Further, a certain place is the ‘locus’ of the sacrifice only in the sense that it holds a all those things that are operative towards its performance, either as instruments or agents and the like, and certainly two material substances (i.e., the Roaming Deer and the Sacrificial Accessories) could never occupy the same spot. Nor can the condition mentioned (the roaming of the deer) be taken as indirectly indicating some, other time (than the one at which the roaming is being done); as no such indirect indication is admissible in the case of Injunctions; as has been shown under the Adhikaraṇa dealing with the ‘winnowing basket’ (Mīmāmsā-Sūtra, 1.2.26 el. Seq.), by Śabara (on 1.2.26), who says—‘what is meant by is done is that it is capable of being done’ [and the present time is not what is meant to be emphasised].

“As a matter of fact, when one thing is spoken of as located (contained) in another, it does not mean that it occupies the whole of it; so that it is not necessary for the Locus to be occupied in its entirety, as it is in the case of the oil contained in the seasamum-seed. In fact, even when only a portion of one tiling is occupied by another, the whole of the former becomes its locus or container; e.g. when a man is spoken of as ‘sitting in the house,’ or ‘occupying the chariot.’ So that in the case in question what is described here is the entire country, consisting of villages and towns, and bounded by hills and rivers; and when the deer roams even in some part of it, the whole country becomes its locus. Hence there is no force in the argument that ‘two material substances cannot occupy the same spot.’”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—In the present instance there is no direct injunction, such as ‘one should perform sacrifices here (in this country)’; as the injunctive affix is found added to the root ‘to know’ (in the word ‘jñeyaḥ’), and not to the root ‘to sacrifice.’ All that is meant is that the country spoken of is ‘fit for sacrifices’; the meaning being that ‘this country is fit for sacrificial performances’; and this ‘fitness for sacrifices’ is possible even without a direct injunction (of the actual performance). The fact of the matter is that it is only in the countries mentioned that the several sacrificial accessories, in the shape of the kuśa -grass, the Palāśa, the Khadira and other trees, are mostly found; and sacrificial performers also, in the shape of persons belonging to the three higher castes and learned in the three Vedas, are found only in these countries; and it is on the basis of these facts that the countries have been described as ‘fit for sacrifices.’ The verb ‘jñeyah’ ending in the verbal affix (‘yat’) also has the sense of the injunctive only imposed upon it, and in reality it is only an Arthavāda resembling an injunction; just like the passage ‘jartilayavāgvā vā juhuyāt,’ (‘one should offer either the wild seasamum or the wild wheat’) [which, even though cotaining the injunctive word ‘juhuyāt,’ has been regarded as an Arthavāda resembling an injunction],

When again it is said that ‘beyond this is the land the mlecchas,’ this also is purely descriptive of the usual state of things; the sense being that in these other lands it is mostly mlecchas that are born; it does not mean that people inhabiting them are all (on that account) ‘mlecchas’; because what is a ‘mleccha’ is well known, just like the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and other well known castes. In fact, the name ‘mlecchadeśa’ is to be taken literally, in the sense that it is ‘the country of mlecchas’; so that if mlecchas happen to conquer a part of Āryāvarta itself and take their habitation there, that also would become ‘mlecchadeśa.’ Similarly if a certain well-behaved king of the Kṣatriya-caste should happen to defeat the mlecchas and make that land inhabited by people of the four castes, relegating the indigenous, mlecchas to the category of ‘Chāṇḍāla,’ as they are in Āryāvarta, then that which was a ‘country of the mlecchas’ would become a ‘land fit for sacrifices.’ And this for the simple reason that no laud is by itself defective; it is only by association that it becomes defective, just as it is when soiled by impure things. Hence, even apart from the countries designated here as ‘fit for sacrifices,’ if, in a certain place, all the necessary conditions are available, one should perform his sacrifices, even though it be a place where the spotted deer does not roam.

From all this it follows that the statement—‘this should, be known as the country fit for sacrifices, and beyond is the land of the mlecchas’ is purely descriptive, being meant to be supplementary to the injunction that follows in the next verse.—(23).