Manava Dharmashastra 2.79

2.79

bahirityanāvṛto deśa ucyate | tenaitaduktaṃ bhavati, grāmanagarābhyāṃ bahiraraṇyaṃ nadīpulinādau | sahasravārān abhyasya āvartya |
"nanu kṛtvasuco'pyāvṛttiḥ pratipādyate, abhyasyetyanenāpi | tatra paunaruktyam" |
sāmānyaviśeṣābhāvādadoṣaḥ | abhyasyetyanena sāmānyato'bhyāsa uktastatra viśeṣāpekṣāyāṃ sahasrakṛtveti | na ca kṛtvasujantādevābhyāsavagatistasya kriyāviśeṣāpekṣatvāt | na hi devadattaḥ pañcakṛtvo'ha ityukte-yāvadbhuṅkta iti nocyate-tāvadvākyārthaḥ samāpyate |
"nanu cābhyasyetyanenāpi na kācidviśiṣṭā kriyopāttā" |
satyam | japaḥ prakṛtastamabhyasyeti pratīyate | 'āvṛttiḥ' paunaḥpunyena sevā |
mahato'pyenasaḥ | mahatpāpaṃ ca brahmahatyādi, tato'pi mucyate, kiṃ punarupapātakebhyaḥ | apiḥ sambhāvane, na samuccaye | bhedopādānena samuccayāvagamo yathā devadattasyātra prabhutvaṃ yajñadattasyāpi | iha na tathā nirdeśaḥ |
"kebhyaḥ punarupapātakebhyo'yaṃ mokṣa ucyate | govadhādīnyupapātakāni | tāni ca pratipāpamāmnātaprāyaścittāni sarahasyāni | yāni vā saṃvetti na kṛtānyanuktaparihārāṇyavaśyambhāvitāyā ca jñāyate kṛtānīti, teṣāmapi nityāni saṃndhyopāsanādīnyapanodakāni | yadi caitatprāyaścittaṃsyāttadā tatraivāvakṣyat, "japedvai niyatāhāraḥ trivaiṃ vedasya saṃhiRegularmiti"vat | prāyaścitte cāsminprāyaścittaprakaraṇamevānarthakaṃ syāt | ko hi daivaśamo japamātrasādhyāṃ niṣkṛtiṃ hitvā kṛcchreṣu śarīraprāṇahareṣvadhyavasyet | uktaṃ ca-"arke cenmadhu vindeta kimarthaṃ parvataṃ vrajet | iṣṭasyārthasya saṃprāptau ko vidvānpratnamācaret" | tathā "paṇyalabhyaṃ hi na prājñaḥ krīṇāti daśabhiḥ paṇaiḥ" iti | na ca prakṛtenaikavākyatābījaṃ kiñcidvibhajyamānasāpekṣatvamasti yena taccheṣatayā'rthavāda ucyeta" |
atrocyate | vidhirevāyam | pāpapramocanārtha evāyaṃ prayogaḥ | yattūktaṃ "viṣamaśiṣṭaivikalpo na sidhyatīti”-japaprāyaścitta evāsminvikalapārtho bhaviṣyati | aghamarṣaṇādibhiḥ sarvapāpāpanodanamuktaṃ, tenāsya vikalpaḥ | aghamarṣaṇe hi tryahamupavāsa uktaḥ | ihābhranveva māsikena prayogeṇa śudhyati | tato na dūraviprakṛṣṭena tapasā samīyete, yena viṣamaśiṣṭatā syāt | athavā pūrvakṛtasyainasaḥ śuddhiraiṣā grahadausthityādisūcite daive doṣe | tasmānmokṣaḥ | aniṣṭam ‘ena’ ucyate | tasmānmucyate | tatphalena na sambadhyata ityarthaḥ | tvacevāhiḥ | jīrṇayā tvacā muktaḥ sarpo yathā bhavati | niravaśeṣeṇa pāpanāśa etena pratipādyate | yattu dauścarmādisūcitaṃ pūrvakṛtamaśubhaṃ tatra smṛtyantare prāyaścittamāmnātaṃ bahu | tatprāyaścitteṣveva nidarśayiṣyāmaḥ | etadevābhipretyoktam- “japatāṃ juhvatāṃ caiva vinipāto na dṛśyate” iti |

Repeating this Triad a thousand times in open air, the twice-born person becomes freed, in a month, from even great sin, as the snake from its slough.—(79)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The term ‘bahiḥ,’ ‘in open air,’ stands for uncovered spot; the sense being that it should be done outside towns and villages, on the bank of rivers and such places.

‘A thousand times, repeating’—reciting it again and again.

“The affix ‘kṛtvasuch’ (in the term ‘Sahasrakṛtvaḥ’) also signifies repetition, which is again denoted by the word ‘abhyasya’ also; so there is needless repetition.”

The repetition is not objectionable, in view of a distinction between general and particular. That is to say, the word ‘abhyasya’ denotes repetition in general, and when the question arises as to the particular number of repetitions, we have the text adding ‘a thousand times.’ Both the general and the particular could not be regarded as signified by the single word ending with the ‘kṛtvasuch’ affix; because this latter word always stands in need of a particular act (that has to be done a thousand times). The mere expression ‘devadattaḥ pan chakritvo’haḥ,’ ‘Devadatta five times during the day’ does not signify anything until the word ‘bhuṅkte,’ ‘Eats,’ is added.

“But the term ‘repeating’ also does not signify any particular act.”

True; but the act of reciting forms the subject-matter of the context; so that the repeating is understood as pertaining to that act; ‘repetition’ standing for attending to it again and again.

‘Even from great sin’;—he becomes freed from even such heinous sins as ‘Brāhmaṇa-killing’ and the like; what to say of minor offences?

‘Api,’ ‘Even,’ denotes possibility, not cumulation; cumulation is expressed when more things than one are mentioned separately; as in the sentence—‘there is sovereignty of Devadatta, and of Yajñadatta also.’ There is no such separate mention in the text.

Question—“From what minor offences does the man become freed? Cow-killing and such acts have been regarded as ‘minor offences’; and for every one of these the scriptures have prescribed distinct expiatory rites along with all their details. While as regards those acts that are not done consciously, but which are regarded as must have been done,—though no definite expiation could be prescribed for them, yet they would be got rid of by means of the Twilight Prayers and such other compulsory rites prescribed for daily performance. Then again, if what is mentioned in the present verse were a real expiation, it should have come under the section on Expiatory Rites (Ch. XI); just as it is said (under 11. 77)—‘One may recite the text of the Veda while keeping due restraint over food.’ Further, if the present verse were meant to prescribe an expiatory rite, the whole section dealing with Expiatory Rites (Ch. XI) would he superfluous. For, what accused person would omit to do the expiation consisting of the mere reciting of mantras, and go in for the very difficult rites endangering the body and very life itself? Says an old saying—‘If honey were available in a place within easy reach, wherefore should one go to the hills? The desired end having been accomplished, which wise man could put forth further efforts?’—and again—‘What can he obtained for a single coin, no wise man purchases for ten coins.’ Nor can the verse be taken as a valedictory supplement to what forms the subject-matter of the context (i.e., Vedic Study), because there is no ground for connecting it syntactically with the context,—such grounds, for instance, as being found defective if taken apart from the context and so forth.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—The present verse is a direct Injunction; and the act laid down is done for the removing of sins. It has been argued that—“What is laid down here (being too easy) could not be regarded as optional with those rites that are prescribed in a different context and are very much more difficult.” But it can certainly be taken as optional with those expiations which consist in Mantra-recitations. For instance, the reciting of the Mantra has been declared as destroying all sins; and with this what is laid down in the present verse could be taken as optional. In connection with the Aghamarṣaṇa-Mantra, three days fasting is prescribed, while according to what is laid down in the present verse, the man becomes freed by doing th e reciting for a month, but taking two ordinary meals every day. Thus the difference between the two is not so great as to lead us to regard them as very diverse in character.

Or, what is mentioned here may be taken as purifying the man from such past sins as arc indicated by the evil position of planets, etc.; and it is from these sins that the man becomes free. ‘Sin’ is something undesirable; from this the man becomes freed,—i.e., is not affected by the results of those sins.

‘Just as the snake from the slough,’—just as the snake becomes freed from the cast-off skin. This means that the sin is completely removed.

For such past sins as are indicated by the discolouring of the skin and such other diseases, other Smṛtis have prescribed many expiatory rites. All this we shall explain under the section on Expiatory Rites.

It is in view of what, is said in the present verse that we have the saying—‘There is no fall for people who go on reciting mantras and pouring libations.’—(79)

‘Vahiḥ’—Burnell represents Medhātithi as explaining this term to be ‘on a river-island and the like.’ This is not right; the word used by Medhātithi is ‘nadīpulinādau’—which means ‘on the bank of rivers and such places’.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1220) where ‘vahiḥ’ is explained as ‘outside the village’—and ‘trikam’ as ‘the Sāvitrī along with the Vyāhṛtis’;—and in Gadādharapaddhai (Kālasāra, p. 30), which explains ‘trikam’ as (1) Praṇava. (2) Vyāhṛti and (3) Gāyatrī.

Comparative notes by various authors
(Verses 78-79)
See Comparative notes for Verse 2.78.