Manava Dharmashastra 2.29.3

2.29.3

tadeva sa yadadhīte tadarthaḥ śakyo'nuṣṭhātum | tena yaḥ svādhītāṃ śākhāmatikramya pitrādyadhītaśākhayā karmāṇi kuryāttadgṛhyaṃ ca samāśrayet tasya śākhātyāgadoṣaḥ | pitrādīnāṃ vā śākhātyāgaḥ yairmāṇavakaḥ kramādhītāṃ śākhāṃ nādhyāpitaḥ | māṇavakasyātra doṣo nāsti | yadā mṛtapitṛko jāvālāvadayaṃ bālaḥ svayamācāryamāśrayettadā 'yenāsya pitaro yātāḥ' ityanena śāstreṇa saivādhyetuṃ yuktā syāt | athātmaśākhādhyayanaṃ na sambhavati, tadā svaśākhātyāgaḥ | ataḥ sthitamidaṃ—sarvaṃ sarvāsu smṛtiṣu jātakamādyupadiśyate | tatra bhinnārthamaṅgajātaṃ samuccīyate, viruddhaṃ vikalpyate samānārthaṃ ca | puṃsa iti strīnapuṃsakavyāvṛttyartham | anye tvavivakṣitaṃ pumarthaṃ manyante | dvijanmanāmiti sāmānyena traivarṇikānāṃ saṃskāryatvena prakṛtatvāt | saṃskāryaśca pradhānamuddeśo na ca pradhāne liṅgasaṅkhyādiviśeṣaṇaṃ vivakṣyate | 'grahaṃ sammārṣṭīti' satyapyekavacane sarve grahāḥ sammṛjyante | 'jvaritaṃ jvaramuktaṃ ca divānte bhojayennaram' iti nāryā api jvaritāyā eṣa eva bhojanakālaḥ | tathā ca prāptapratiṣedhaḥ | strīṇāṃ 'amantrikā tu kāryeyaṃ strīṇāmāvṛd' iti (a. 2 ślo. 66) | napuṃsakānāṃ ca pāṇigrahaṇadarśanaṃ 'yadyarthitā tu dāraiḥ syātkkībādīnāmiti' (a. 6 ślo. 203)| tatrocyate---nāyaṃ puṃśabdo manuṣyajātivacano naraśabdavadyena vibhaktivācyaṃ liṅgaṃ na vivakṣyeta | eṣa hi sarvatra sthāvaramūrtāmūrtagataṃ liṅgaviśeṣaṃ prasava rūpamācaṣṭe | prātipadikārtho hyatra liṅgam | vibhaktivācyasya hyarthasya vivakṣāvivakṣe yujyete |

From all this we deduce the following conclusion:—All the sacraments—‘Jātakarma’ and the rest—have been prescribed in all the Smṛtis; and where they lay down different details pertaining to diverse purposes, they should all be employed; but when any such details pertain to the same end and are mutually inconsistent, then there should be an option as to the particular detail to be employed.

‘Of the male child’—is added with a view to exclude the female and the sexless child.

Others however have held that there is no special significance attaching to the masculine gender of the word; because the context refers to all ‘twice-born’ persons in general as to undergo the sacramental rites. That which is meant to be ‘consecrated’ forms the principal factor; and it has been decided that no significance attaches to any such qualifications gender, number and the like, when applied to the principal factor; e.g., even though the washing of the cups is laid down in the words—‘one should wash the cup’ (in the singular),—yet all the cups are washed. Similarly when it is laid down, that ‘the man who is feverish, or just free from fever, should be fed at the close of the day,’—the feverish woman also is fed at that same time; and it is because the present verse affords the idea of the sacrament being performed for females also that the Author has added the interdict (in 2.66) that ‘the whole of this is to be done for women without Mantras’ [otherwise, if the present verse itself had excluded the women, there would be no point in this further interdict]. Then again, marriage (which is also a sacrament) is actually spoken of (in 9. 203) in connection with Eunuchs.

Our answer to the above is as follows:—The word ‘male’ does not denote the ‘human’ genus in general, in the way that the word ‘man’ does; and it is only if it did have that denotation that there might he some ground for not attaching any significance to the gender expressed by the particular case-ending. What the word ‘male’ denotes in all cases is a particular gender in the form of masculinity, as pertaining to all things, moving and unmoving, corporeal and incorporeal. In the present case the gender is denoted by the basic noun (‘pumān’ in ‘puruṣaḥ’) itself; and it is only in connection with what is denoted by the case-ending, that the question of significance or non-significance can arise; and the reason for this lies in the fact that the denotation of number (or gender) is not the only function of the case-ending,—it may have its use simply in the denoting of any one of several such factors as the ‘accusative character’ and so forth [so that if no significance is attached to any one of these several factors, it does not matter]. In the present case however (where the gender is denoted by the basic noun itself), if no significance were attached to the gender, then the word ‘pumān’ would become absolutely meaningless. As in the very instance cited above, full significance is actually attached to the denotation of the basic noun ‘Cup’; and this is done simply because the sentence would, otherwise, become absolutely meaningless.