Manava Dharmashastra 2.41

2.41

kṛṣṇaśabdo yadyapi kṛṣṇaguṇayuktavastumātre vartate "kṛṣṇā gauḥ, kṛṣṇaḥ kambalaḥ ” iti tathāpīha smṛtyantarādrauravasāhacaryācca mṛga eva pratīyate | rurumṛgajātiviśeṣaḥ | bastaḥ chāgaḥ | sarvatravikāre'vayave vā taddhitaḥ | kṛṣṇājinaṃ brāhmaṇo, rurucarma kṣatriyo, vaiśyaśchāgacarma vasīrannācchādayeyuḥ | śaṇakṣumorṇāstatra kṛtāni ca vastrāṇi | ca śabdaḥ samuccaye | vastrānuttarīyāṇi śāṇādīni | carmāpyuttarīyāṇyocityāt kaupīnācchādanāni ca vastrāṇi | str="ānupūrvyeṇa naikaikasya sarvai ramisambandho nāpi vyutkrameṇa | prathamasya brahmacāriṇaḥ prathamena carmaṇā vastreṇa ca sambandho dvitīyasya dvitīyasthānasthena | tathā ca darśitam | nanu cāntareṇāpi vacanaṃ lokata evaitatsiddhaṃ, “cūrṇitākṣiptadagdhānāṃ vajrānilahutāśanairiti” yathākramaṃ sambandhapratipattiḥ, cūrṇitā vajreṇākṣiptāḥ anilena dagdhā agnineti | ucyate | bhavedetadevaṃ yadi bhedena nirdeśaḥ syātsamasaṅkhyātvaṃ ca | iha tu 'brahmacāriṇa' ityekaśabdopādānānna kramo'vagamyate | trayaśca brahmacāriṇaḥ | ṣaḍanudeśinaḥ trīṇi carmāṇi trīṇi vastrāṇi | ānupūrvyagrahaṇe tu sati vākyāntaropāttaḥ krama āśrīyate | tathā ca carmabhiḥ sambadhya punabrahmacāripadamāvartya vāsobhiḥ sambadhyate | tataḥ saṅkhyāsāmyasiddhiḥ | īdṛśa eva viṣaye bhagavatā pāṇininā yatnaḥ kṛto “yathāsaṅkhyamanudeśaḥ samānāmiti” (pā. sū. 1|

Brahmacāris should wear the skin of the black (deer), of the Ruru deer and of the goat respectively; and also the cloth of hemp, flax and wool.’—(41)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Though the term ‘Kṛṣna,’ ‘black,’ is applied to everything that may be endowed with the quality of blackness,—as we find in the expressions ‘the black cow,’ ‘the black blanket,’ and so forth,—yet, in the present context, it is clearly recognised as standing for the ‘black deer’; firstly because of its occurring along with the ‘skin of the Ruru deer,’ and secondly because of the directions contained in other Smṛtis (which clearly mention the black deer).

‘Ruru’—is a particular species of the deer.

‘Basta’—is the goat.

In all the three words (‘kārṣṇa’—‘raurava’—‘vāsta’) the nominal affix (aṇ) denotes either formation or constitution (i.e., either ‘formed out of’ or ‘consisting of’).

‘Should wear’;—the Brāhmaṇa should cover his body with the skin of the black antelope, the Kṣatriya with the skin of the Ruru deer and the Vaiśya with the skin of the goat.

And also cloth made of śaṇa (hemp), kṣumā (flax), and ūrṇā (wool).

The particle ‘ca’ (‘and also’) has the cumulative force.

The cloth made of hemp and the rest are not to be used as upper garments; and the skins are to be used as upper garments; as such is the proper course. For Kaupīna (loin-slip) and wrapping, the cloth is to be used.

‘Respecting’ each of the three castes is not related to all the clothing that is mentioned; nor are they to be connected in the reverse order; in fact the first Brahmacārī is connected with the first skin and first cloth, the second with the second and so forth, as we have shown.

An objection is raised—“Even without the express mention (of the respective order), it would be understood through usage; for instance, such expressions as ‘shattered, scattered an d burnt by thunder, wind and fire’ are always understood to mean ‘shattered by thunder,’ ‘scattered by the wind’ and ‘burnt by fire’ (even though respectivity is not expressly mentioned).”

Answer.—This could be so understood if the three Brahma-charts bad been mentioned separately, and if the number (of Brahmacāris and the clothings) were the same. In the present instance, however, we have the single term ‘Brahmacāris,’ and the three Brahmacāris are not specifically named in any order. Further, the number of Brahmacāris is three, while that of the correlatives is six—three skins and three cloths. When however the text expressly mentions ‘respectivity,’ the order of the Brāhmacāris is deduced from that in which they are found to be spoken of in other texts. And after the ‘three Brahmacharis’ have been construed with the three skins, they are again repeated and construed with the cloths. And in.this manner the compatibility of numbers is maintained. It is primarily with reference to such cases that the revered Pāṇini has taken the trouble of laying down that ‘when an equal number of things are mentioned they are to be taken in their respective order.’ (1.3.10).—(41)