Manava Dharmashastra 2.28.1

2.28.1

adhyayanakriyā svādhyāyaśabdenātrābhipretā | tasyā eṣa viṣayanirdeśastraividyeneti | vyavadhāne'pyarthalakṣaṇaḥ sambandho, 'yasya yenārthasambandha' iti nyāyena | ata eva sāmānādhikaraṇye'pi śrutervi ṣayaviṣayibhāvo vibhaktivipariṇāmena, 'trayāṇāṃ vedānāmadhyayanene'tyarthaḥ| traya eva vedāḥ traividyam | cāturvaṇyādivadrūpasiddhiḥ | athavā 'svādhyāyeneti' vedādhyayanaṃ 'traividyeneti' tadarthāvabodhaḥ | vrataiḥ sāvitrādibhirbrahmacārikartṛkaiḥ | homairtratādeśanakāle ye kriyante | yadi vā sāyamprātaḥ samidbhiragnīndhanaṃ brahmacāriṇo homaśabdenāgnyādhārasambandhasāmānyāducyate | "atha kiṃ samidādhānaṃ na homo yenaivamucyate sambandhasāmānyāditi" | na bhavatīti bruvanti, adanīyadravyasādhyatvādyāgahomayoḥ | "kathaṃ tarhi 'sāyaṃ prātaśca juhuyāttābhiragnimatandritaḥ' ityuktam" | lakṣaṇayā samidādhānaṃ homaśabdenocyate | yathaiva hūyamānaṃ dravyamagnau prakṣipyate evaṃ samindhanārthāḥ samidho'pi | ata etena sāmānyena samindhanameva homa ityucyate | utpattivākye hi 'samidhamādadhyād' iti śrutam | juhuyāttābhiragnimityanuvādo'yamanyārtha iti parastādvakṣyāmaḥ | na cānuvāde lakṣaṇādoṣaḥ | idaṃ tu yuktaṃ yanmedhyamātradravyasādhyau yāgahomau | tathā ca sati bahvyaścodanā yathārthā bhavanti | yathā 'sūktavākena prastaraṃ praharatīti'| tatra hi prastaraṃ dravyamāhurharatiṃ ca yajatim| "atha vacanādasau tādṛśa eva yāgaḥ | darbhāścāpyadanīyāḥ keṣāñcit" | kathaṃ śākalahome |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The term ‘svādhyāya’ here stands for the act of studying (in general; and not for Vedic study, which is what it ordinarily means); and the subject-matter of the study is therefore indicated by the term ‘of theThree Vedas,’ ‘traividyena.’ Even though the two terms (‘svādhyāyena’ and ‘traividyena’) do not stand in close proximity, yet they are construed together on account of their denotations being correlated, in accordance with the law that ‘when the denotation of one term is connected with that of another, they should be taken as correlated.’ Hence, even though both the terms are in the same (Instrumental) case, yet one (traividyena) may be taken as denoting the object of the other (svādhyāyena) by altering the signification of the case-ending; the phrase ‘traividyena svādhyāyena’ thus being construed as ‘trayāṇām Vedānām (traividyasya) adhyayanena (svādhyāyena),’ ‘by a thorough study of the three Vedas’

‘Traividya’ is the compounded form of ‘trayo’; the formation of the term being similar to that of such terms as ‘chaturvarṇya’ and the rest.

Or, ‘svādhyāyena' may be taken (as usual) in the sense of the study of the verbal text of the Vedas, and ‘traividyena' in that of the study of their meaning.

‘By Observances’—by the ‘Sāvitra’ and other observances kept by the Religious Student.

‘By Libations’—i.e., those that are poured at the time of the Initiation,—or the kindling of fire with fuels, which the Religious Student has to do every morning and evening, may be spoken as ‘libation,’ on account of Fire being the receptacle of the act of kindling (just as it is of the act of pouring libations).

“Is not the putting of fuel on the fire really a ‘libation’—that you should call it so simply from the said analogy?”

People say that it is not really a ‘libation because ‘libations’ and ‘offerings’ consist only of eatable substances.

“How then does the author himself say (under 2.186) that ‘the Religious Student should, every morning and evening offer the libation (juhuyāt) of fuels into the Fire’?”

It is only in a figurative sense that the ‘laying of fuel’ is called ‘homa’, ‘libation’; the idea being that the fuel for the kindling of fire is thrown into it in the same manner as substances are poured as libations; and it is on the basis of this analogy that the kindling is called ‘libation’ In the original injunction (of fire-kindling) the words used are ‘sami dham-ādadhyat,’ ‘should lay the fuel’ [where the word ‘homa,’ ‘libation’ is not used]. As for the words (in Manu, 2.186) ‘agnim juhuyāt tābhih,’ (‘should offer the libation of fuels into fire’), we shall point out later on that they are purely explanatory (not mandatory), and mean something quite different; and in explanations, figurative expressions are not out of place.

[This is the view of some people]. The right view however is that the offering of any fit and proper substance constitutes the acts of ‘Yāga’ (Sacrifice) and ‘Homa’ (Libation). It is only in this sense that we can rightly comprehend several injunctions. For instance, we have the injunction ‘praitaram praharati,’ where ‘praharati,’ is taken to mean ‘offer in sacrifice’ and ‘prastaram’ (‘bed of Kuśa-grass’) is taken as the substance offered [and certainly the ‘Kuśa-bed’ is not an eatable substance],

“In this particular instance, we have to take the ‘sacrifice’ as consisting of the offering of the Grass-bed, simply because it is so directly enjoined. And further, Kuśa-grass also is eatable for some.”

Well, how is it then in the case of the ‘Śākala-homa’ (where pebbles are offered)?”