Manava Dharmashastra 3.184.1

3.184.1

hiraṇyagarbhaḥ prajāpatiḥ | tasya putro hairaṇyagarbho manuḥ | tathā coktaṃ prathamādhyāye—“evaṃ sarva sa sṛṣṭvedaṃ māṃ ceti”| tasya manorye marīcyādayaḥ putrāḥ atryaṅgirasāvityādayasteṣāmṛṣīṇāṃ ye putrāsta ete pitṛgaṇāḥ | “nanu ca pitrādayaḥ sarvasyātmīyāḥ pitaraḥ| evaṃ hi coditaṃ ‘pitre pitāmahāya prapitāmahāya piṇḍānnirvapet |’ tathā ‘ata ūrdhvaṃ putrāgnibhyo dadyuriti’ | tatra kimidamucyate— ‘ṛṣīṇāṃ putrāḥ pitaraḥ, somapā nāma viprāṇāmiti’ | na ca vikalpaḥ śakyaḥ pratipattuṃ— ‘somapebhyo dadyātpitṛpitāmahebhyo veti’ | yata utpattau ‘putreṇa kartavyamiti’ śrūyate | sambandhiśabdaśca putraśabdaḥ | tathā ‘pitā yasya tu vṛttataḥ syāditi’ | tasmādvaktavyo'sya prakaraṇasyārthaḥ” | ucyate | stutiriyaṃ pūrvavidhiśeṣabhūtā | nātra teṣāṃ sampradānatā śrutā | “nanu copacaryā iti vidhirasti” | nāyaṃ caratiḥ sāmānyakriyārūpo vidhiviṣayo bhavitumarhati | upacāro nāma kaściddānayāgādivadbhede na pratīyate | prāyeṇa hyayaṃ karoti-vat sannihitakriyāparatayā prayujyate | sannihitaṃ ca śrāddham | tacca viśiṣṭasampradānakaṃ vihitaṃ na śakyaṃ punarvidhātuṃ, vidheyatvena ca na sannidhirasti | asannihitasya caratirbādhakaḥ | yo'pi loke ‘gurava upacaryā' itiprayogastatrāpi śuśrūṣālakṣaṇārthaḥ pādadhāvanādiḥ pratīyate | so'pi yathoditānāṃ pitṝṇāṃ na sambhavati | prakṛtyaikavākyatayā cārthavattopapatternārthāntarakalpanā'pi sambhavati | yadi ca somapādayo yathārthaṃ śrāddhe devatātvenābhipretāḥ syustato'bhijanavarṇanamupayogi | stāvakatve tu sarvamupapadyate |

Of Manu, the son of Hiraṇyagarbha, Marīci and the rest were sons; and the sons of all these sages have been declared to constitute the “Body of Pitṛs.”—(194)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Hiraṇyagarbha’ is Prajāpati; his son is ‘Manu, the son of Hiraṇyagarbha;’ as has been declared under Discourse I—‘Having created all this and myself, &c., &c.;’—of this Manu, the sons were ‘Marīci and the rest’—i.e., Atri, Aṅgiras, and so forth; and these constitute the ‘Body of Pitṛs,’ ‘Pitṛgaṇa.’

An objection is raised—“For every person, his own Father, &c., are his ‘Pitṛs.’ The injunctions also are in the words—‘one should offer balls to his father, grandfather and great-grandfather;’ ‘after this, the sons should make offerings to three ancestors.’ What then is this that is being said now—that ‘the sons oft he sages are the Pitṛs,’—or that ‘the Somapās are the Pitṛs of Brāhmaṇas?’ We cannot accept any such option as that—‘one shall make an offering to the Somapā

Pitṛs,’ or ‘he shall make the offering to his father and grandfather;’ for the simple reason that in the original injunction we find the words ‘this should be done by the son;’ and ‘son’ is a relative term; and later on (verse 221) we read—‘he whose father may be dead &c., &c.’ It has, therefore, got to be explained what is the real meaning of the present context,”

The answer to the above is as follows:—What the present verse contains is merely a commendatory description supplementary to the foregoing injunctions; and we never hear of the ‘Somapa’ and other Pitṛs spoken as the recipients of offerings.

“But there is the injunction (in 193) that these have to be worshipped.”

The root ‘chara’ (in ‘upacaryāḥ’) is denotative of mere action in general; and as such, it cannot form the subject of any injunction. In the Veda, we do not find any such action spoken of as ‘upacāra,’ in the same manner as the acts of sacrificing, giving and the like. In most cases, the root ‘chara’ is used, like the root ‘kṛ’ as pertaining to some other act mentioned in close proximity to it; and in the present case, the act mentioned in close proximity is that of offering the śrāddha. This latter act having been already enjoined as to be offered to a definite set of recipients, could not be again enjoined as to be offered to other recipients. If it were again the enjoined itself, then it would not be regarded as being in proximity to another enjoined act; and the presence of the root ‘chara’ distinctly precludes the possibility of any other act being understood, which is not in proximity to another enjoined act. As for such usages in ordinary parlance as ‘the Teacher should be worshipped,’ ‘guravaḥ upacaryāh’ (where we have the same term ‘upacaryāḥ’), there also the act that is understood to be expressed is service, in the form of washing the feet, and the like; and no such act as these is possible in connection with the Pitṛs, And so long as a passage is capable of being construed in a certain sense along with the context in which it occurs, there can be no justification for assuming another meaning for it. If the ‘Somapa’ and the rest had been really intended as the recepients of the Śrāddha offered by the several castes, then alone would there have been any use for the description of their birth, &c. (as found in the present verse). When, however, the verse is taken as a mere commendatory description, then any description might come in useful.