Manava Dharmashastra 2.37

2.37

pitṛdharmeṇāpatyaṃ vyādiśati 'brahmavarcasī me putraḥ syāditi' pitṛkāmanayā putro vyapadiṣṭastatkāmasyeti | putrasya bālatvānnauvaṃvividhā kāmanā sambhavati | "nanu caivamanyakṛtātkarmaṇa anyasya phale'bhyupagamyamāne'kṛtābhyāgamadoṣāpattiḥ | akāmyamānaṃ ca phalaṃ bhavartyetadapyutkrāntaśabdapramāṇanyāyamaryādayocyate" | naiṣa doṣaḥ | śyenavadetadbhaviṣyati | śyenamabhicarankarotyabhicaryamāṇaśca mriyate | athocyate "kāmina evaitatphalam | śatrumaraṇaṃ hi yajamānaḥ kāmayate | tadeva prāpnotīti, nākartṛgāmitā phalasya"- atrāpi viśiṣṭaputravattālakṣaṇamupanetureva phalam | yathā putrasyārogyeṇa pituḥ prītiḥ evaṃ brahmavarcasenāpyato'dhikṛtasya kartuśca tatphalamanvayānusārī hi śāstrārthaniścayaḥ | iha ca putrasya phalakāmenavai kartavyamityanvayaḥ pratīyate | na ca yathāśrutānvayatyāge kiñcana pramāṇamasti | etena pituraurdhvadaihikaḥ putrakṛta upakāro vyākhyātaḥ | tatrāpi hi putraḥ kartā pitṛtṛptiśca phalam | tathā ca liṅgaṃ "ātmā vai putranāmāsīti" | pitraiva hi tāvacchāddhamātmasampradānakaṃ vastutaḥ kṛtameva yenāpatyotpādanamevamarthameva kṛtam | yathā 'sarvasvāre mṛtasyārbhavepavamānāt ye parāñcaḥ padārthāsteṣvapi yajamānasyaiva kartṛtvam | 'brāhmaṇāḥ saṃsthāpayata yajñamiti' praiṣeṇa, dakṣiṇābhivaraṇena vā prayogasamāptāvṛtvijāṃ viniyoktṛtvāt - evamihāpi tārthyena putrasyotpādanādyacchāddhādikaṃ pitrarthaṃ kriyate pitraiva tatkṛtaṃ bhavati | adhyayanavijñānasampannaṃ 'brahmavarcasam' | balaṃ sāmarthyam, ābhyantaraṃ bāhyaṃ ca | utsāhaśaktirmahāprāṇatā cetyetadābhyantaram | bāhyaṃ ca hastyaśvarathapadātikośasampat | taduktaṃ 'svāṅgābhyuccayaṃ sāṃyaugikānāṃ kāryāṇāmiti' | īhā ceṣṭā, bahunā dhanena kṛṣivaṇijyādivyavahāraḥ | sarvatra garbhādisaṅkhyā varṣāṇām | garbhāditi hyanuvarttate |

For the Brāhmaṇa desirous of Brahmic glory, it should be done in the fifth year; for the ‘King’ desirous of power, in the sixth; and for the Vaiśya desirous of business, in the eighth.—(37)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
What belongs to the father is here attributed to the child; the desire—‘May my sou attain Brahmic glory!’—resides in the father; and this desire being attributed to the child, the latter is spoken of as ‘desirous of Brahmic glory.’ The child itself is too youug to have the said desire.

“In that case the action done by one person would have its result accruing to a totally different person; and this would involve the absurdity of a man acquiring what he has not earned. And the assertion that the result accrues to the child without his desiring it is one that is contrary to all reason and scriptural authority.”

There is no force in the objection. The case in question is analogous to that of the Śyena sacrifice: the Śyena is performed by a man seekiug to encompass death, and this death falls upon the person against whom the performance is aimed (and not on the performer himself). It might be argued that—“in this case the result actually accrues to the person seekiug for it; it is the sacrificer who desires the death of his enemy; and it is he who obtains this result; so that the result of the act does not accrue to a person that did not perform it.”—But in the present case also, the result, in the shape of ‘having a child with the particular qualification,’ accrues to the performer of the Initiation (the father); just as the good health of the child brings pleasure to the father, so also the Brahmic glory of the son would be a source of pleasure to the father; so that the result here also would accrue to the performer, who had sought for it. Further, it is only from the construction of the actual words used that we can ascertain the meaning of the scriptural texts; and in the present context, the only construction found possible is that the father should perform the ceremony with the desire of a certain result to accrue to his son; and there are no grounds for abandoning this natural construction of the words.

This same explanation applies also to the case of the benefits of the after-death rites accruing to the father (even though performed by the son); as in that case also the performer is the son, and the result is the satisfaction of the father. Further, we have the text—‘Thou art my very self called the. non’—which shows that when the after-death rites are performed by the son, it is the father himself (iṇ the shape of the son) that makes the offerings to himself; specially as it was with a view to this alone that the father begot the son.

Then again, in the Sarvasvāra sacrifice (which is performed by one who wishes to bring about his own death and translation to heaven),—even after the sacrificer himself has died, the subsequent details have got to he performed: and in this performance also the same sacrificer is regarded as the ‘performer,’ in view of the direction that he has given fo the Brāhmaṇas—‘O brāhmaṇas, please complete this sacrifice,’—as also of the sacrificial gifts and appointments made by him; by virtue of which the said sacrificer is regarded as the actual instigator or employer of the officiating priests. In the same manner, in the case in question also, in as much as the son was begotten for the purpose of performing the funeral rites, these rites, though performed (by the son) for the sake of the father, are regarded as performed by the father himself.