Manava Dharmashastra 2.53

2.53

ācamanopaspṛśatiśabdau samānārthoṃ śuddhayarthasaṃskāraviśeṣavacanau śiṣṭavyavahārādavagamyete | yadyapi spṛśatirthāntare paṭhitaścakṣurapyadanamātre tathāpi viśeṣa eva sopasargayoḥ prayogadarśanāttadarthataiva pratīyate | spṛśeḥ sāmānyaviṣayatve'pi prayogo niyāmakaḥ | gaṇḍirvadanaikadeśe paṭhyate | sa ca kapola eva gaṇḍa iti prayujyate, naikadeśāntare | 'puṣyasiddhayau' (pā. sū. 3|
ukte'pyācamyeti bhojanārthatayā''camane punarvacanamānantaryārtham, anantarameva bhuñjīta, na vyāpārāntareṇa vyavadadhīta | tathā ca bhagavānvyāsaḥ--“pañcārdrā bhuñjate nityaṃ teṣu vatsyāmyahaṃ hare” || śrīḥ kilaivamāha | dvau hastau dvau ca pādāvāsyaṃ ca eṣā pañcā'rdratā | sā copasparśanānantaraṃ bhuñjānasya bhavati, na vilambamānasya | ihāpi vakṣyatyārdrapādastu bhuñjīteti' snātakabateṣu | tasyāpaunaruktyaṃ ca vakṣyāmaḥ |
nityagrahaṇaṃ prakaraṇādbrahmacārībhojanadharmo mā vijñāyi, bhojanamātradharmo yathā syādupadeśāta eva |
atra “dvijagrahaṇaṃ bhoktṛmātradharmārthaṃ cāhuḥ nityagrahaṇaṃ cānuvādam” |
na te samyagvanyante | yadi dvijaśabdaḥ prakṛte brahmacāriṇi na samāviśettadā syādapi | yadā tu tasyāpyetadabhidhānaṃ tadā nāntareṇa nityagrahaṇaṃ prakaraṇādhopalabhyate | samāhitaḥ | bhujyamānaṃ dravyaṃ svātmaśaktiṃ cāvekṣamāṇaḥ | anyacetaskasya hi guruviruddhavidāhivarjanaṃ sātmyabhojanaṃ ca na syāt |
bhuktvā copaspṛśet | snehādilepāpanayanaṃ dravyaśuddhāvuktam | kṛte tasminbhuktavata idamācamanaṃ vidhīyate |
atra kecinmanyante - "śuddhyarthamekamācamanam, 'suptvā kṣutvā ca bhuktvā ceti' anenādṛṣṭārthaṃ dvitīyaṃ kartavyam | evaṃ ca paṭhyate "ācāntaḥ punarācāmediti" |
etatpañcame sthāpayiṣyāmaḥ |
samyagiti vaidhatāmācamanapadārthasyānuvadati | 'yādṛśo vidhiruktastaṃ sarvamanutiṣṭhet' |
adbhiḥ khāni ca saṃspṛśet | khāni chidrāṇi śīrṣaṇyāni |
"nanu caitaduktameva, 'khāni caiva spṛśedadbhiriti' |"
ātmaśirasorvyāvṛttyarthamiti kecit | yadā śuciḥ sannabhojanārthatayaivācāmati | yeṣāṃ ca bhojanottarakālamekaṃ śuddhyarthamācamanamaparamadṛṣṭārthaṃ tatrādṛṣṭārthe ātmaśirasī na spṛśyete, śuddhyarthaṃ tu tādṛśamutpannam | tasya sampūrṇāṅgasya prayogo vakṣyate (61 ślo.) "śaucepsuḥ sarvadā''cāmediti" | yadvā vidhipratyabhijñānārthaṃ-śāstrīyametadācamanaṃ na laukikamiti | jñātāṅgaviśeṣasambandhasya tadaṅginirdeśe tadevedamiti pratyabhijñānasiddhiḥ | ataśca yatrācāmediti śrutaṃ tatra na yasya kasyaciddravyasya bhakṣaṇamātraṃ pratīyate, kiṃ tarhi śāstrīyasya saṃskārasya saparikarasyeti yaduktaṃ taddarśitaṃ bhavati |

The twice-b orn person should always take his food after having sipped water and with due care; and after having eaten, he should rinse his mouth in the proper manner and touch the cavities with water.—(53).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The terms ‘ācamana’ and ‘spṛśa’ are both synonymous, being found from the usage of cultured people, to signify a particular purificatory act. Though it is true that the root ‘spraha’ has been declared to have an entirely different meaning, and the root ‘chamu’ (from which the word ‘ācamana’ is derived) also has been declared to signify the act of eating,—yet in actual usage we find that with the particular prefixes (upa and a) they are used in a much restricted sense and hence they are taken in that (restricted) sense. So that even though the root ‘spṛśa’ has a very wide denotation, yet actual usage limits its significance. Just as though the root ‘gaḍi’ denotes only part of the face in general, the term ‘gaṇḍa’ (derived from that root) is used in the sense of tho cheek only, and it is not applied to any other part of the face; similarly the root ‘puṣya’ means to accomplish, and the term ‘puṣya’ is laid down as denoting ‘lunar, asterism’ in general, yet in actual usage this latter name is applied to one particular asterism only; similarly again the term ‘dhāyyā,’ though laid down as denoting Sāmidhenī verses in general, is actually used in the sense of the Āvāpikī verses only. Hence the term ‘upaspṛśya’ means exactly what is meant by the term ‘ācamya’; the actual injunction of this act of ‘ācamana’ will come later on. Further, the text itself uses the two terms as synonymous. Having laid down that ‘one should always do the shana,’ it goes on to say that ‘this ācamana’ should be done three times; from which it is clear that the two are synonymous.

Though the ‘rinsing of the mouth’ has been already laid down in verse 51, it is re-iterated again in order to show immediate sequence: the sense being that one should take his food immediately after rinsing the mouth, and no other act should be allowed to intervene. To this end we have the following declaration of the revered Vyāsa—‘Oh Lord, I shall remain with such people as take their food with five limbs wet’—this being said by Lakṣmī; the ‘five limbs’ being the two hands, two feet, and month; and these five limbs can remain wet only if one cats immediately after the rinsing, and not if he makes any delay. Manu himself (in 4. 76) is going to declare under the duties of the Snātaka that ‘one should eat with the feet still wet’; and there we shall show that there is no needless repetition involved in this.

‘Always’—this is added in order to guard against the notion that being laid down in the section dealing with the duties of the Student, what is here prescribed applies to him alone; and to show directly that it is applicable to every form of eating.

Some people have held that “the term ‘twice-born’ is what is meant to make the rule applicable to every form of eating, and that the ‘always’ is merely an explanatory reiteration.”

This however is not right. This would have been the right explanation if the qualification ‘twice-bom’ were incompatible with the ‘student’; as a matter of fact however, the said qualification is quite applicable to the ‘student’; hence with the exception of the adverb ‘always’ there is nothing to indicate that what is here laid down is to be taken as going beyond the particular context.

‘With due care’—That is, with due consideration of the character of the food and his own (digestive) powers. If one happens to be absent-minded, he cannot avoid indigestible, unwholesome and hot food, nor can he eat only what is wholesome.

‘After having eaten, he should rinse his mouth.’—That one should remove all traces of oil, etc., has been already prescribed under the section on the ‘purification of substances.’ The ‘rinsing’ here laid down is that which one should do after he has eaten and removed all traces of oil, etc.

In this connection some people have held that one ‘rinsing’ (after food) having been already laid down under 5. 145—where it is said that ‘one should rinse his mouth after sleep, sneezing and eating,’—the present verse must be taken as laying down a second ‘rinsing,’ for the purposes of some transcendental result; there being such a general injunction as ‘having rinsed the mouth, one should rinse it again.’

This aspect of the question wo shall deal with under Discourse V.

In the proper manner.—This only re-iterates the injunctive and obligatory character of the ‘rinsing’; the meaning being that ‘one should follow all the details of the Binning that have been enjoined.’

‘Should touch with water the cavities.’—‘Cavities,’ i.e., holes in the head.

Objection.—“It is already laid down (under 60, below) that the cavities should be touched with water.”

To this some people reply that the repetition in the present verse is meant to exclude the ‘self’ and ‘head’ (which also are mentioned along with the ‘cavities’ in 60),—and refers to that rinsing which one already clean, does, without reference to Eating. So that according to those who take the first ‘rinsing’ after food as meant for cleanliness and a second ‘rinsing’ as lending to some transcendental result,—the ‘self’ and the ‘head’ are not ‘touched with water’ for the purpose of bringing about a transcendental result; this being done for cleanliness alone. The actual process of this rinsing is going to he laid down in 61.—‘One desirous of cleanliness should always rinse his mouth, etc., etc..’

Another answer to the aforesaid objection is that what the present verse does is to emphasise the fact of the being recognised as something enjoined by the scriptures; the sense being that this Rinsing is the scriptural (prescribed in the Śāstras), not the ordinary, rinsing. As a matter of fact, where a certain primary act has become known as equipped with particular accessories, wherever that same act is subsequently spoken of, it is at once recognised as being the same as the former one. So that when the text says ‘should rinse his mouth,’ it does not mean merely that a certain substance (water) should be sipped; what is meant is to indicate all that has been prescribed in connection with the scriptural purification, along with its appurtenent details.—(53)