Manava Dharmashastra 3.210

3.210

uktaṃ "pitṛbhyaḥ piṇḍānnirvapet" iti | ka ete pitaro nāma | anekārtho hi pitṛśabdo janayitari vartate | janakaḥ piteti sambandhiśabde dṛśyate | pūrvapramītāḥ pitrādayo'nye ca sambandhinaḥ pretāḥ pitara ucyante | tathā ca "namo vaḥ pitaraḥ" ityādimantrā bahuvacanāntāḥ samarthā nigadā bhavanti | ata eva strīśrāddhe nohyante | namaste mātarnamaste pitāmahī ityādi na kriyate | ata ekoddiṣṭe saṃkhyohaḥ kriyate, na prātipadikohaḥ | tathā ca sūtrakāraḥ “ekavanmantrānūheta” ityādi | ‘namaste pitari'tyevamūhaḥ kriyate | yo bhrātuḥ pitāmahādervā ekoddiṣṭaṃ karoti sa caivamūhati— 'namaste bhrātaḥ' namaste pitāmaha 'namaste pitṛvya'ityādi | pitṛvyādīnāmapatyānāṃ śrāddhaṃ vihitam | ‘yo yata ādadīta sa tasmai dadyāditi’ | devatāviśeṣavacano'pyasti pitṛśabdaḥ kūṭasthanitye'rthe vartate | niruktakārā hi daivate madhyasthān pitṝn samāmananti "marutaḥ rudrāñśvasataḥ pitara" iti | evamanekārthe pitṛśabde viśeṣāvadhāraṇārthamāha | dhriyamāṇe jīvati pitari sati pūrveṣāṃ pitāmahaprapitāmahapratpitṝṇāṃ nivapet, trayāṇāṃ, bahuvacananirdeśāt | tathā ca gṛhye “yebhyaḥ pitā dadyāttebhyaḥ putro dadyātpitāputrau cedāhitāgnī syātāmiti” | “nanu ca na caturtha piṇḍo gacchatītyāhuḥ”| satyam | naivātra caturthaḥ piṇḍo dīyate | pakṣāntaramāha vibhavadvā | yathā brāhmaṇā nimantraṇāpūrvakaṃ brahmacāriṇo niyamavantaśca pūjyante, tathaiva jīvatpitṛkeṇa pitā bhojanīyaḥ | śrāddhaṃ śrāddhārthamannaṃ śrāddham | atra ca pitṛtvameva bhojyatve kāraṇaṃ na jātiguṇāvapekṣyau | evaṃ hyāhuḥ--“pitṛprītyarthaṃ śrāddhaṃ, tatra mṛtasya prītau kartavyāyāṃ ko jīvati pitari paribhavo yenāsau na bhojayet |’ svakabhityanuvādaḥ, sambandhiśabdatvādeva siddheḥ | bhojanamatra pituścoditaṃ hitaṃ, piṇḍanirvapaṇaṃ tu darbheṣu pitṝṇāṃ kartavyametatta iti virodhāt | yadi hi pātrasthānīyā darbhāstadā jīvataḥ pituḥ svāmye dvānotpattau alpikāṃ mātrāmāśayediti na yujyate| jīvato hi svamicchāviniyojyam| na ca tasminpiṇḍe 'ñjanādidānamupapadyate 'rdhajaratīyaprasaṅgāt| na hyatrāñjanādisaṃskṛtena pituḥ kiñcitprayojanamasti| tasmāddṛṣṭārthamañjanādidānam| añjanādirahitaṃ tu kadācidātmanaḥ pituḥ parasya vā bhojanayogyaṃ bhavatītyevamardhajaratīyam|
tasmādasminpakṣe piṇḍanirvapaṇaṃ dvayoḥ pitāmahaprapitāmahayoḥ|
gṛhyakārāstu smaranti "jīvatpitṛkasya na piṇḍapitṛyajño na śrāddham", kiṃ tarhi "anārambha eva tasya karmaṇo, homāntatā vā" |

While his father holds, one should make the offering to the previous ancestors; or, he may feed his own father at the Śrāddha as a Brāhmana.—(220).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
It has been said that ‘one shall offer balls to the Pitṛs.’ Now the question arises—Who are these ‘Pitṛs?’ The term ‘pitṛ’ has several meanings, and denotes ‘progenitor’; (A) it is used in the sense of the relative term, ‘father’; (B) it is also used in the sense of one’s father and other relations that have died before. It is in this latter sense that we have the term used in the plural in all such Nigada-mantras as ‘namo vaḥ pitaraḥ, &c.’. It is for the same reason, again, that at the Śrāddha offered to females, these mantras do not undergo transmutation into the form ‘namo vo mātaraḥ, &c.;’ on the same grounds, again, at the the Śrāddha offered to a single person, it is only the number that is changed, not the basic noun (pitṛ). Says the author of the Sutra also—‘Mantras should be transformed only in regard to the singular number;’ the transformed words being—‘namaste pitaḥ.’ Similarly, he who performs the unitary Śrāddha of his brother or grandfather, uses the mantra in the form ‘namaste bhrātaḥ,’ ‘namaste pitāmaha,’ ‘namaste pitṛvya,’ and so forth. The offering of Śrāddha to one’s childless uncle has been enjoined as necessary, in such passages as—‘what one receives from another that he shall give unto him.’ (C) Further, the term ‘pitṛ’ also denotes a particular Deity; and in this sense, it would stand for an unchanging eternal being. In fact, the author of the Nirukta, in the Daivata Section of the work, gives the name ‘Pitṛ,’ to the divine Beings occupying the Middle Regions, describing them as ‘Pitṛs, the Maruts bearing the rosary of beads.’

The term ‘pitṛ,’ thus having several meanings, the Text proceeds to specify what is meant by it in the present context.

‘While his father holds,’—is alive—‘one should make the offering to the previous ancestors,’—‘i.e., to the three, the grandfather, the great-grandfather and the father of the latter; that these three are meant is indicated by the plural number. Says the Gṛhyasūtra—‘The son should offer to those to whom the father offers, if both father and son are persons who have set up the fire.’

“But they say that the ball does not reach the fourth ancestor.”

True; but, in the case in question, no fourth ball is offered.

The text provides another alternative course to be adopted—‘As a Brāhmaṇa, etc.’ That is, Brāhmaṇas, Religious Students and Ascetics are invited and honoured and worship-pod and fed; and exactly in the same manner should the father be honoured and fed by one whose father is still alive ‘at the Śrāddha,’—i.e., the food cooked for the Śrāddha offerings.

In this case, the fact of the man being his father, is the sole ground for his being fed; hence it is not necessary to look into his caste and qualifications. To this end they declare thus:—‘The Śrāddha is for the purpose of giving pleasure to one’s ancestors’;—hence the bringing about of the pleasure of the dead father being necessary, what harm would there be in feeding the living father, in view of which he could not be fed?

‘Own’—Is merely reiterative; what is denoted by this being already connoted by the relative term, ‘father,’ itself.

What is laid down here is the actual feeding of the Father; but the Balls are placed for the Pitṛs on Kuśa blades; as otherwise, there would be an incompatibility with the formula ‘this ball is for you.’ If the Kusba-blades be regarded as substitutes for the Dish, then, in the event of the living Father’s possession being brought about (by the act of offering), it would not be right to make him eat ‘a very small portion;’ because, for the living person, the eating is to be in accordance with the eater’s desire. Further, in this case, there would be no need of pouring water and other things over the ball offered; as such a process would lead to the undesirable contingency of a ‘hybrid performance;’ any effect produced by the pouring of water, in this case, would serve no useful purpose, cither for the man himself or for his father; so that it could only serve an imperceptible transcendental purpose; on the other hand, if water were not poured over the ball, it might be fit for being eaten either by the father, or by the offerer himself, or by some one else. It is in this way that the act may turn out to be of a ‘hybrid’ character.

For these reasons, it follows that, in this alternative, the ball is to be offered to only two persons, the grandfather and the great-grandfather.

The authors of the Gṛhyasūtras, however, declare that—‘for one whose father is alive there is neiher Piṇḍapitṛyajña, nor Śrāddha;—there is either non-performance of these rites, or their performance only up to the stage of pouring libations into fire.’—(220)