Manava Dharmashastra 2.84

2.84

yāvantaḥ kecana vaidikā 'homā' agnihotrādayo, ye ca 'yāgā' jyotiṣṭomādyaḥ, te sarve kṣaranti na paripūrṇaphalā bhavanti, phalaṃ vā tadīyaṃ kṣavatyāśu vinaśyati | akṣaraṃ tvetadoṅkārākhyamakṣaraṃ jñeyamakṣayaphalam | brahmībhūtasya na punaḥ saṃsārāpattiḥ | ato'kṣayaphalatvādakṣaramucyate | eko'kṣaraśabda uddeśyaḥ saṃjñāśabdo dvitīyo yaugikaḥ kriyāśabdaḥ | brahma ca tadeva | prajāpatiścoṅkāra eva | stutireṣā | juhottiyajatīti dhātunirdeśastayoḥ kriyāḥpratipādyārthā yāgahomāḥ | vyaktyapekṣaṃ bahutvam | athavā dhātvarthanirdeśa evāyaṃ juhottiyajatīti | 'kriyā'staddvyatiriktā dānādyāḥ | dvandvaścāyam, 'juhottiyajatīti ca kriyāśca' | homayāgau prādhānyātpṛthagupādīyete | atroktā oṃkārasya stutiḥ kevalasyāpi japavidhānārtheti kecit | na hi prakṛtavidhiśeṣataivātra, punaḥ parāmarśābhāvāt | vaiśvānare hyaṣṭatvādīnāṃ "yadaṣṭākapālo bhavati, gāyanyā cainaṃ brahmavarcasena punāti, yannavakapālastrivṛtaivā'smiṃstejo dadhāti" iti | sarvatra vaiśvānarapadāpekṣayā tadekavākyatve sambhavati na vākyabhedakalpanayā vidhyantarasambhavaḥ | iha tvakṣaraṃ jñeyamiti na pūrvāpekṣā, nāpi sāvitryādīnāṃ punaḥ parāmarśo'sti | ataḥ svapadārthaireva vākyārthaparisamāpternānyaśeṣatā | jñeyamityatra kṛtyo vidhāyakaḥ | brahmapadena ca sambandhādbrahmarūpatayā jñeyamupāsyaṃ bhāvanīyam | bhāvyamāne ca tasminmānasajapa ukto bhavati |

All vedic acts of oblation and sacrifice pass away; while this syllable (om) is to be regarded as imperishable; and it is Brahman, and also Prajāpati—(84)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
All acts laid down in the Veda—‘oblations’ in the form of Agnihotra and the rest,—as also ‘sacrifices’ in the form of Jyotiṣṭoma and the rest,—‘pass away’; i.e., either they never bring about their results in their entirety, or even when brought about, those results perish quickly.

‘This syllable’—‘om’—is to be known as ‘imperishable,’ i.e., bringing about imperishable results; since for one who has become merged into Brahman, there is no return to worldly existence. Thus leading to an imperishable result, the syllable is itself called ‘imperishable.’ One of the two terms ‘akṣara,’ one is a noun, which forms the subject of the sentence, while the other, is the predicate, and is taken in its literal sense.

That same syllable is also Brahman, and Prajāpati.

This also is purely valedictory.

The expression ‘juhoti-yajati’ mentions two verbal roots; and the term ‘kriyā’ stands for the actions of (oblation) and Yāga (sacrifice)—as denoted by the two roots. The plural number is due to the multiplicity of the acts. Or, the two verbal roots may be taken as standing for the acts of Homa and Yāga themselves, while ' kriyā’ stands for the other acts of charity and the like. The whole is a copulative compound—made up of the three terms ‘juhoti,’ and ‘kriyā’—the acts of H oma and Yāga being separately mentioned by reason of their importance.

Some people have held that this praise of the syllable ‘om’ by itself (as apart from the and the verse) is meant to enjoin the repetition of the syllable; and they argue that this cannot be taken as merely supplementary to the foregoing injunction of the reciting of the Sāvitrî along with ‘om,’ etc., as no reference to this latter is made in the present verse; as there is in the case of the sacrifice, in connection with which we find two passages—(a) ‘Yadaṣṭākapalo bhavati gāyat chainam brahmavarchasena punāti,’ and (b) ‘Yannavakapalastṛvṝtaivāsmimstejo daḍhāii,’—where reference is distinctly made to a foregoing injunction; so that so long as it is found possible (on the basis of this reference) to connect the injunctions syntactically (and treat them as a single injunction), there can be no justification for splitting them up into two distinct injunctions. In the present instance, on the other hand, when it is said that ‘this should be regarded as imperishable,’ there is no reference to any thing that has gone before; nor is there any reference made to the Sāvitrī, etc. Por these reasons, the present text is to be taken as a self-contained injunction, and not as supplementary to something else. Further, the verbal affix in ‘jñeyaḥ’ ‘(should be regarded)’ is purely injunctive. And this, taken along with the word ‘brahma,’ gives the sense that ‘this should he regarded—i.e., meditated upon—as Brahman’; and this ‘meditation’ stands for the mental process of repeating the syllable.—(84)

‘Kṣaranti’—‘Pass away—do not bring about their complete results, or their results disappear quickly’—(Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa);—‘Perish—as far as their form and results are concerned’—(Nandana).

‘Brahma’—The neuter form is accepted by Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda. Nārāyaṇa and Nandana read the masculine form ‘brahmā’, and explain the phrase as ‘just like Brahmā, the Prajāpati.’

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Ācāra, p. 321), where it is explained that—‘akṣaram’ stands for the syllable ‘om’,—and this is ‘akṣara’ in the sense that its effect in the form Final Release ‘never perishes’ (na-kṣarati);—and that the syllable ‘om’ is to be regarded as ‘Prajāpati’ on the ground of its being expressive of that deity. Here again this same verse is attributed to Yama also.

Medhātithi’s remarks on p. 115,11. 1-8 are based upon Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra 1. 4. 17-22.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 79), which reads ‘Akṣaram śreṣṭham’ for ‘duṣkaram jñeyam’ and explains it as ‘Brahma-praṇava.’

Comparative notes by various authors
Viṣṇu-smṛti, 55.18—[reproduces Manu].

Vasiṣṭhasmṛti, 25.11.—‘The one syllable winch is the highest Brahman, lias been declared to be the best purifier.’

Baudhāyana-Dharmasūtra, 7. 2. 13.—‘One should equip himself with the syllable.’

Yama [see preceding verse].