Manava Dharmashastra 3.238

3.238.1

yadā tu sapiṇḍīkaraṇaṃ kṛtaṃ bhavati tadā anayaivāvṛtā pārvaṇaśrāddhavidhinā tribhyo dadyāt | āvṛttiritikartavyatā | sapiṇḍīkaraṇaśrāddhaṃ daivapūrvaṃ niyojayet | pitṝnevāśayèt tatra punaḥ pretanna nirdiśet || pitaraścātra prāksapiṇḍīkṛtāḥ pitṛvargamanupraveśitāḥ pitāmahādaya ucyante | tānāśayeta | ‘tatra punaḥ’ śabdasteṣveva brāhmaṇeṣu preta āvāhayitavyaḥ, tatra hi sarvaistaiḥ saha saṃsargastasya saṃsṛjanāya tatkarma | yapi viṣṇunā paṭhitaṃ “pretāya brāhmaṇān bhojayet pretapitre pretapitāmahāya ca pretaprapitāmahāyèti”, atrāpi naivaṃ śrūyate pṛthak bhojayediti | tatra yathā bahudaivatyaṃ havirbahvīrdevatā uddiśya sakṛdekaṃ hūyate, evaṃ brāhmaṇo'pi bahūnuddiśya bhojyeteti na kiñcidanupapannam | tathāhi sahavacanamanugṛhītaṃ bhavati, pitrye ca na yugmā bhojitā bhavanti | yathā ‘ekaikamubhayatra’ ceti yeṣāṃ vidhistanmate ekaḥ sarvoddeśena bhojyate | evametaddraṣṭavyam | ‘‘nanvevaṃ sati pitṛkṛtye trīniti sarvadaiva sahoddeśaḥ prāpnoti | ekaikasmin brāhmaṇe sarve uddeśtheran tatrāpi na pṛthakgrahaṇamasti’’ | kathaṃ nāsti | gṛhye hi paṭhyate “na tvevaikam | sarveṣāṃ piṇḍairvyākhyātam”| kiṃca ‘pretapātraṃ pitṛpātreṣu secayedarghārtha’mityāha | tatra kṛtāsannapātrābhāve pretapātrodakasya kutaḥ pātrādarghadānaṃ ? yadi tāvatsammīlitāt, tadyuktaṃ, pitāmahādestatkalpitaṃ, na pituḥ | na cānyārthaṃ kalpitādityanyārthatā yuktā | atha kṛtvā'rghadānaṃ paścātsaṃnayanaṃ kuryāt, tadā kṛtvā'rghadānaṃ tadarthaṃ saṃnayanasya svataṃtrārghārtha prasecayediti virudhyed vacanam |

What the guest eats with his head wound up, what he eats with his face towards the south, what he eats with shoes on, all this verily the demons eat.—(238)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Wound up’—with turban and such other things. The Northerners cover their heads with cloth.

Some people explain that this refers also to persons who cover their heads with their hairs Arranged in the form of a top-knot. Rut what they say is not reasonable; as, in this case, it is the hair that is ‘wound up,’ not the head; and the hairs do not form the head; in fact, they are on the head. The prohibition does not apply to threads and such things; as such things are not regarded as ‘covering’ the head.

What is meant by indicating the facing of the south as defective is that, when there is want of space, eating with face towards all directions except the south is permissible. If this were not meant, where would there be any possibility of anyone eating with face to the south, when it has been distinctly enjoined that one should eat facing the north?

‘Shoes’—foot-guards made of leather. Some people explain this as sandals of leather.

‘The demons eat,’—and not the Pitṛs.

This is deprecatory of the conditions described.—(238)

This verse is quoted in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (p. 169);—and in Hemādri (Śrāddha, p. 1021), which explains ‘veṣṭitam’ as wrapped up by turban etc.;—the specific prohibition of facing the south implies that when there is scarcity of room one may eat facing any other quarter but the south,—‘upānahau’ are foot-covers of leather (shoes).

“The same verse in the Mahābhārata ends: Sarvam vidyāt tadāsuram (13.90.19), ‘belonging to the Asuras’.”—Hopkins.

Comparative notes by various authors
Viṣṇu (81.12-13).—‘Not people with covered heads; nor those with shoes on.’

Mahābhārata (13.237, 19).—[Reproduces Manu, but reading ‘sarvam vidyāt tadāsuram’ for ‘tadvai rakṣāṃsi bhuñjaṭe.’]

3.238.2

uktenātra prakāreṇa na kaścana virodhaḥ | “atha ko'yaṃ preto nāma | prapitāmahāya piṇḍaḥ sapiṇḍīkaraṇādūrdhvaṃ na dīyate yatasteṣvevānupraviṣṭaḥ | tathā ca smṛtiḥ-“yaḥ sapiṇḍīkṛtaṃ pretaṃ pṛthak piṇḍena yojayet | vidhighnastena bhavati pitṛhā copajāyate” || iti || pṛthageva hi tasmai nirupyate | na tvekaḥ sarvebhya iti | mantrāśca etamevārthamabhivadanti ‘ye samānā’ ityādayaḥ | atrocyate | nāyaṃ pretaśabdo'yateḥ kriyāyogena vartate | rūḍhiriyaṃ mṛtaḥ preta ‘idānīṃ preta’ ucyate | na hi dūramadhvānaṃ gataḥ preta ucyate | asti ca kriyāyogaḥ aviśeṣeṇa pūrvapreta idānīṃ prete ca | tathā ca śrutiḥ “prayannevāsmāllokādye samānā” iti aciramaraṇe pretaprayogaṃ darśayati ‘pretāyānnaṃ dinatrayamiti’ sadyaḥsaṃsthitamadhikṛtya | yattu ‘pṛthakpiṇḍeneti’ asyāyamarthaḥ | sapiṇḍīkaraṇādūrdhvamekoddiṣṭaṃ na kartavyam | yadā yadā śrāddhaṃ tadā tadā tribhyaḥ, mṛtāhani pitṛbhyastribhya eva kartavyam | naikasmā eva pitre | tathā ‘anayaivāvṛtā kāryamitiye’ pārvaṇaśrāddhetikartavyatā vā'tidiśyate | “nanu cānayaiveti prakṛtaparāmarśāḥ pratīyante, sannihitavacanatvātsarvanāmnāṃ, sannihitaścaikoddiṣṭavidhiḥ” | naivam | yadi hi kṛte'pi sapiṇḍīkaraṇe ekasyaiva kriyeta, tadā bhedanirdeśa eva nopapadyate | tuśabdaśca prakṛtāyāmitikartavyatāyāṃ bhedaṃ sūcayati, ‘asapiṇḍakriyāyāmeṣa vidhiḥ, sahapiṇḍakriyāyāṃ punaḥ kṛtāyāṃ nāyaṃ mantavya’ iti | ato vyavahitā'pi buddhisthatvātpārvaṇatā'tidiśyate | kiṃca kṛte sapiṇḍīkaraṇe yadyekoddiṣṭaṃ syātkartavyaṃ, tadā tribhyo dānamiti amāvāsyāyāmiti cet ko viśeṣaḥ |

The next question that arises is—Who is it that is called ‘Preta,’ ‘departed,’ ‘deceased’ (mentioned by Viṣṇu above as one in whose honour Brāhmaṇas should be fed)? [The word meaning ‘dead’ should apply to all ancestors.]. As a matter of fact, however, no ball is offered to the great-grandfather after the Amalgamating Bite has been performed, since he has become united with the previous ancestors. Says the Smṛti,—

‘One who offers a separate hall to the united deceased, becomes by that act, the murderer of injunctions, as also of his father.’ And yet the ball is offered to the ‘deceased’ separately; and one and the same ball is not offered in common to all. In fact, the mantras that are recited at the rite also express the same idea —‘ye samānāḥ, &c.’

Our answer to the above is as follows1The term ‘preta,’ ‘departed,’ does not denote the act connoted by the root ‘iṇ,’ ‘to go;’ in fact, it is used, not in its etymological, but conventional, sense of ‘one recently dead;’ certainly, one who has gone out on a long journey is not called a ‘preta’ (as he should he, if the term were used in its etymological sense). Further, the action of ‘going’ is present in the person who died long ago, as well as in one only just dead. It is for this reason that we have such expressions in the Śruti as—(a) ‘Prayannevāsmallokād-yesamānāḥ, etc.,’ and (b) ‘pretāyāmandinatrayam’—where the term ‘preta’ is applied to one recently dead. As for the text quoted above—‘he who would offer a separate ball to the deceased, etc.,’—the meaning of it is as follows: After the ‘Amalgamating Rite,’ the ‘Ekoddiṣṭa’ the ‘Unitary Rite,’ should not be performed,—whenever śrāddha is performed, it should he offered to all the three ancestors,—and on the date of death also, it should be offered to the three ancestors, and not to the Father only. It is thus that the method of the ‘Pārvaṇa-śrāddha’ has been mentioned in the present text,—by the words, ‘by this same method’—as to be adopted, in the Śrāddha in question also.

“The pronoun ‘this’ appears to stand for what forms the subject-matter of the present context; as pronouns, by their very nature, denote what is nearest to them; and in the present instance, what is nearest is the injunction regarding the ‘Unitary Rite.’”

Not so. If, even after the performance of the ‘Amalgamating Rite,’ the offering were made to one person only, then there would be no point in mentioning the two cases separately (as is done in 247 and 248). Further, the particle ‘tu,’ ‘but,’ clearly indicates deviation from the method of what forms the subject-matter of the context; the sense being—‘the rule that has been laid down pertains to the case where the Amalgamating Rite has not been performed; but this should not be applied to the case where the said Rite has been performed.’ From all this it follows that, even though the mention of the method of the ‘Pārvaṇa’ is more remote, yet it is that which is meant to be adopted, in the present connection. Further, if after the performance of the ‘Amalgamating Rite,’ whenever it would be necessary to perforin the ‘Unitary Rite,’ the offering to all three ancestors would be made on the Amāvasyā day,—then what would be the difference? For, in this case also, would not there be present the condition mentioned in the present text—‘after the Amalgamating Rite has been performed, etc., etc.’ Nor in the Institutes of Manu do we find any other time prescribed, such as ‘every year on the date of death etc.,’ to which the present text could be held to apply. So that (by the reasoning of the opponent), in all cases, it would be the ‘Unitary Rite’ that would have to be performed. And this would be contrary to the declaration of the Mahābhārata, where, in reference to the places of pilgrimage, it is said—

3.238.3

tatrāpi sahapiṇḍakriyāmityevamarthaḥ kiṃ nāsti | na ca mānavaśāstre kālāntaraṃ ‘mṛtāhne pratisaṃvatsaraṃ’ cetyādi pratītaṃ yena tadviṣayametad vyākhyāyate| ato'viśeṣātsarvatraikoddiṣṭāni prāpnuvanti| tatra mahābhāratavacanaṃ virudhyeta, tīrthāni prakṛtyoktaṃ “śrāddhena tarpayāmāsa sa vai pūrvaṃ pitāmahān” iti | yadapi smṛtyantaraṃ ‘pratisaṃvatsaraṃ caiva śrāddhaṃ vai māsikārthavat’—tatrāpi māsikaśabdenāmāvāsyāyāmeva śrāddhamucyate | sarvaśrāddhānāṃ tasya prakṛtitvāt | tatra hi dharmāḥ samāmnātāḥ | na tu “pratimāsaṃ tu vatsaramiti” etanmāsikaśabdenābhidhātuṃ yuktam | na hi tasya viśiṣṭāḥ keciddharmāḥ samāmnātā yairbhidyeta | ekoddiṣṭaṃ tvādyamekādaśe, kṣatriyasya trayodaśe ityādyatrāpi vidyate | ato naikoddiṣṭaṃ māsikaśabdenābhidhātuṃ yuktam | māsakālasambandhāddhi tanmāsikamucyate | na ca tasya māseneva sambandhaḥ | kālāntareṇāpi sambandhasya darśitatvāt | ‘śucirbhūtaḥ pitṛbhyo dadyāditi’ māsādūrdhvamapi karakhānmāse cākaraṇāccātra māsikaśabdena tasyābhidhānam | amāvāsyāyā utpattau paurṇamāsikaśabdaśravaṇāt ‘piṇḍānāṃ māsikaśrāddhamiti’ niyatatvātkālāntarasaṃyogasyābhāvādvarmavatvācca yuktastadīyadharmātideśaḥ | śrāmaśrāddhamapi pārvaṇaprakṛtikameva | tatprakṛtitve ca tribhyo dāne prāpte ekoddiṣṭatā vidhīyate |

‘He satisfied his forefathers by means of śrāddha.’

As regards the text of the other Smṛti—‘livery year, the śrāddha shall be performed like the monthly performance,’—here also the ‘monthly śrāddha’ refers to the śrāddha on the Amāvasyā; as this latter is the archetype of all śrāddhas; and it is in connection with this that all the details have been prescribed. And it will not be right to take the term, ‘monthly performance,’ as standing for the Śrāddha performed every month during the year; because no specific details have been prescribed in connection with this latter, whereby it could be differentiated. As for the ‘Unitary Rite,’ the first of its kind is performed on the eleventh day (after death, (or the Brāhmaṇa), and on the thirteenth day (for the Kṣatriya), and so forth. Hence it cannot be right to refer to the ‘Unitary Rite’ by the term ‘monthly performance;’ the monthly performance is so called because of its connection with the ‘month’ as the time; but there is no connection between the Unitary Rite and any such time as the ‘month;’ it having been shown that it is connected with other points of time also. For instance, it having been declared that—‘becoming pure, one should make offerings to the Pitṛs,’ it follows that such offerings could be made before the end of the month, as well as after it; so that there is no reason for speaking of it by the name ‘monthly performance.’ As for the ‘Amāvasyā Śrāddha,’ on the other hand, its originative injunction containing the term ‘Pūrṇamāsa’ (the Full Moon Day, which literally means Full-Month),—the time being fixed by such texts as ‘the offering should be made monthly’—and no other time being mentioned in this connection,—and all the details of the Amāvasyā Śrāddha being found present in the Śrāddha in question also,—it is only right that this latter should be declared as having the details of the ‘Amāvasyā’ applicable to it.

The Śrāddha-offering with uncooked substances also has its archetype in the ‘Pārvaṇa-Śrāddha;’ and having this for its archetype, it would follow that the offering is to be made to three ancestors; and hence (in view of the possibility of this being accepted), the text enjoins the propriety of the ‘Unitary Offering’ only.

Not so. If, even after the performance of the ‘Amalgamating Rite,’ the offering were made to one person only, then there would be no point in mentioning the two cases separately (as is done in 247 and 248). Further, the particle ‘tu,’ ‘but,’ clearly indicates deviation from the method of what forms the subject-matter of the context; the sense being—‘the rule that has been laid down pertains to the case where the Amalgamating Rite has not been performed; but this should not be applied to the case where the said Rite has been performed.’ From all this it follows that, even though the mention of the method of the ‘Pārvaṇa’ is more remote, yet it is that which is meant to be adopted, in the present connection. Further, if after the performance of the ‘Amalgamating Rite,’ whenever it would be necessary to perforin the ‘Unitary Rite,’ the offering to all three ancestors would be made on the Amāvasyā day,—then what would be the difference? For, in this case also, would not there be present the condition mentioned in the present text—‘after the Amalgamating Rite has been performed, etc., etc.’ Nor in the Institutes of Manu do we find any other time prescribed, such as ‘every year on the date of death etc.,’ to which the present text could be held to apply. So that (by the reasoning of the opponent), in all cases, it would be the ‘Unitary Rite’ that would have to be performed. And this would be contrary to the declaration of the Mahābhārata, where, in reference to the places of pilgrimage, it is said—

3.238.4

yadapi yājñavalkyavacanaṃ ( ācāre 256 ślo0 ) ‘‘mṛtāhani tu kartavyaṃ pratimāsaṃ tu vatsaram | pratisaṃvatsaraṃ caivamādyamekādaśe'hani’’|| tatrāpyevametādṛśītikartavyatā ucyate | tatrāpi hyamāvāsyameva prakṛtatvenāvagatam | ato na māsakālayoro'pi ekoddiṣṭe tadīyadharmātideśo'nyatrayuktaḥ | na hi bhikṣuko bhikṣukādyācate | so'pi yato'nyasya vikāraḥ | kiṃca ekameva śrāddham | tasmānna māsikaśabdasya sāmānyasyaikoddiṣṭaviśeṣaviṣayatāyāṃ pramāṇamasti | yājñavalkye'pyevamiti | yadyananparāmarśaḥ tadā sapiṇḍīkaraṇetikartavyatātideśaḥ prāpnoti | tadanantaraṃ hyetacchrutam | etatsapiṇḍīkaraṇamiti (yājñava0 ācāra 254) paṭhitvā'‘rvāksapiṇḍīkaraṇāditi (yājña0 ā0 255)’, ca tato'nantaramuktam ‘‘mṛtāhanītyādi ( yājña0 ā0 256 )’’ | tasmātsannidhānamakāraṇīkṛtya dharmavatvenāmāvāsyasyaivamiti nirdeśaḥ | mantrāścāsmatpakṣameva sutarāmavadyotayanti | ‘‘saṃsṛjyadhvaṃ pūrvaiḥ pitṛbhiḥ saheti’’— ‘pūrvaiḥ pitṛbhiḥ saha’ vartamānā ucyante | ‘saṃsṛjyadhvamiti’ bahuvacanaṃ pūjāyām | tathā ca niruktakāraḥ ‘‘etā ( u tyā ) uṣasa iti | etāstā uṣasa ityekasyā eva pūjanārthe bahuvacanamiti’’ | atha ‘‘saṃsṛjyadhvamiti yeṣu piṇḍeṣu nikṣipyante ta ucyante | yaśca nikṣipyate sa bahuvacanena pūrvavatpūrvebhiḥ pitṛbhiriti | evaṃ ca pūrvebhirityevameva bahuvacanaṃ prāyogikaṃ bhaviṣyati | itarathā saṃsṛjyadhvamitinikṣipyamāṇapiṇḍābhidhāne ubhayatra bahuvacanamayathārthaṃ kalpyamiti’’ |

As for Yājñavalkya’s declaration (Ācāra, 256)—‘For one year, every month, on the date of death, the Śrāddha should be performed; similarly, at the end of each year; the first Śrāddha being performed on the eleventh day (after death);’—here also it is the same method that is prescribed. There also it is the ‘Amāvasyā Śrāddha,’ that has been recognised as the archetype. Even if the ‘Unitary

Rite’ were connected with the ‘month’ as the time, it would not be right to make it borrow its details from the Rite here mentioned; as a beggar does not beg from another beggar; so that, since this also would be as much of an ‘Ectypal Rite’ as the ‘Unitary Rite’ itself (there could be no borrowing between them).

Further, there is only one Śrāddha; and the term ‘monthly’ being a generic one, there is nothing to indicate that it stands for the ‘Unitary Rite’ only.

In Yājñavalkya also we find the same thing. If Yājñavalkya’s text were taken as referring to what has gone immediately before it, then the method of the ‘Amalgamating Rite’ should be applicable to it; as the Śrāddha in question is found mentioned after this latter. Having said—‘this is the Amalgamating Rite,’ and ‘before the Amalgamating Rite,’—it is said immediately after this ‘on the date of death, &c.’

From all this it follows that not taking any account of mere proximity, the details that are indicated as belonging to it are those of the ‘Amāvasyā Śrāddha.’

The Mantras also support our view. It says—‘Become united with the previous ancestors, &c., &c.;’ and it is the person recently dead who is thus addressed; the plural number in ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam; being purely honorific: as says the author of the Nirukta—‘In the expression etā utyā uṣasaḥ &c., the single Uṣas, Dawn, is spoken of in the plural, for the purpose of showing respect to it.”

“The term ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam,’ ‘become united,’ should refer to those balls into which the ball offered to the deceased is thrown in; and this latter ball also should be referred to by words in the plural, ‘pūrvebhiḥ pitṛbhiḥ etc.’ For in this case it is only this latter plural number that will have to be regarded as figurative. Otherwise, if the plural verb ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam’ also were taken as referring to the ball that is thrown in, the plural number in both would have to be regarded as figurative and unreal.”

3.238.5

tadetadapi na kiṃcit | yata ekaikena piṇḍena piṇḍāṃśaḥ saṃsṛjyate | ‘caturthaṃ piṇḍamutsṛjya traidhaṃ kṛtvā piṇḍeṣu nidadhyāditi’ | ato naivātra yugapadadhikaraṇavacanatā'sti yena bahuvacanamavakalpeta | ‘‘ekaikābhidhānena kuta ānvayikaṃ saṃsṛjyadhvamiti bahuvacanaṃ parokṣavattvābhidhānaṃ na kalpyate | pūrvebhiriti nikṣipyamāṇapiṇḍavacanācca na ebhiriti nirdeśo yuktaḥ syāt |’’ na cāyaṃ mantro vidhāyako yena tadarthanirṇaye prayatāmahe | abhidhāyako'yam | abhidhānaguṇaṃ ca viniyogataḥ | viniyogaśca saṃsargaḥ tañca prakāśayati | saṃkhyā'tra na viniyuktā na prakāśānnā, saṃbhavamātreṇānvīyate | tasya ca mantrātpūrvaṃ pratipattiḥ | ye'pyāhuḥ- "caturthaśabdaḥ pūrvatara upapadyate | pitā hi prathamaḥ tadapekṣayā prapitāmahaḥ pūrvaścaturtha" iti | etadapi na samyak | pūrveṣāṃ piṇḍānnidhāya caturṇāṃ pūrṇaścaturthaḥ pretapiṇḍa eva bhavati | pitṛpakramaṃ cedaṃ śrāddhaṃ na pretopakramam | evaṃ hyucyate "pitṝnevāśayetpunaḥ pretaṃ na nirdiśediti" | yasyāyaṃ pretāya prathamaḥ piṇḍastatastatpitre ityādikramaḥ, tasyāpi kuto'yaniyamaḥ, ya evāsau caturthastasyaivedaṃ traidhaṃ karaṇaṃ piṇḍeṣu nidhānaṃ vidhīyate | etāvaddhi tadvākyam - caturthaṃ piṇḍamutsṛjettraidhaṃ kṛtveti | tatrānantaryādutsṛjatinā sambandha 'ścaturtha' 'piṇḍa'mityanayoḥ pratīyate | traidhaṃ kṛtvetyatra tu kasyedaṃ traidhaṃ karaṇamityapekṣāyāṃ sannihitaḥ piṇḍaḥ sambadhyate | tāvattaiva nirākāṃkṣīkṛte vākye caturthamityasya sambandhe na kiñcitpramāṇamasti |

There is no force in this also. Because as a matter of fact, what becomes united with each one of the balls is only a portion of the ball that is thrown in; as is clear from the direction—‘having offered the fourth ball, one should divide it into three parts and put it into the balls so that the three balls do not all become the container, at one and the same time; and it is only if this were the case that the plural number in ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam’ could be applicable literally.

“If each of the three is referred to separately, even so, why could not the plural in ‘Saṃsṛjyadhvam’ and the indirect address be taken as referring to the balls into which the one ball is thrown in? Specially as the word ‘pitrvebhiḥ’ referring to the ball that is thrown in, it would not be right to refer to it by the pronoun ‘ebhiḥ,’ ‘these.”’

Well, the Mantra in question—‘Saṃsṛjyaḍhvam etc.’ not being an injunctive one, we need not trouble ourselves over its interpretation; it is, as a matter of fact, purely descriptive; and the description applies to what is enjoined; and in the present connection what has been enjoined is the uniting of the balls; so that this uniting is all that is indicated by the Mantra. As for the number (singular or plural), this is not directly enjoined (by any text), and hence also not obtained by implication; it becomes connected with the passage by mere probability, and this probability is recognised prior to the Mantra (which therefore could have no bearing upon it).

Some people have said that—“the term ‘fourth’ (in the text just quoted) may mean simply predecessor; so that the deceased (father) being the first, in relation to him the great-grandfather would be the ‘fourth’ predecessor.”

This also is not right. In fact, it is the ball offered to the deceased which is called the fourth,—this being the one which completes the number four, after the balls to his ancestors have been deposited. Further, the Śrāddha in question begins with the Pitṛs, and not with the deceased; since it has been declared that—‘one shall invite the Pitṛs, not mentioning the deceased.’ So that the order to be adopted would be that the first ball offered is to the father (of the deceased); and in regard to this also the following rule has been laid down; The dividing into three parts and the placing upon the balls to the Pitṛs are to be done of that same ball which is the fourth. All that is meant there is that ‘one should giveaway the fourth ball after having divided it into three parts;’ the connection of the ‘ball’ with the act of ‘giving away’ being clearly implied. When the question arises as to what is that which is to be divided into three parts,—it is the ball that is mentioned in close proximity which becomes connected with it. All doubts being set at rest by this, there is apparently no ground for connecting the term ‘fourth’ also with it.

3.238.6

tatra yasya kasya vibhāge prāpte smṛtyantaraśannirṇayaḥ | "nirupya caturaḥ piṇḍānpiṇḍadaḥ pratināmataḥ | ye samānā iti dvābhyāmārthaṃ tu vibhajettridhā' iti || ādyatvaṃ dānābhiprāyeṇa, na punarādipuruṣasambandhāt | tathāhi prapitāmahādiḥ syātpitāmahātpūrvaḥ, pitāmaho'pi pituḥ pūrva ityanavasthānādapratipattiḥ | dāne tu niyatakramato vyavasthitamāditvam | evaṃ ca caturthamitipadena viśiṣṭe piṇḍe kriyātraye'pi smṛtyantaravaśāddānakrameṇaivādyasya vibhāgo yuktaḥ | ato yaduktaṃ kāṭhake "pūrvapretasyeṣṭo vibhāgaḥ pratīyate" iti kāśāvasyeṣṭatā | yaccoktam- 'ata eva tasmai adānaṃ yata eva vā'sāvantarbhāvitaḥ' tanna kiṃcit | vacanānna dīyate- 'na caturthaṃ piṇḍo gacchatīti' | tathā 'triṣu piṇḍaḥ pravarttate' iti | yatsvayaṃ svakṛtaḥ pāṭhaḥ 'punaḥ pretaṃ na nirdiśediti' vyākhyātaṃ ca "antarbhāvite pūrvaprete punardānaṃ niṣedhati"naivāyaṃ pāṭho'sti pratiṣedhārthī yo 'na' paṭhyate, samuccayārthīyaścakāraḥ paṭhyate | satyapi vā tatra pāṭhe 'yaḥ sapiṇḍīkṛta' mityatra pṛthakpiṇḍapratiṣedhasya yā gatiruktā saivātra veditavyā | yāni tu vākyāni"sapiṇḍīkaraṇādūrdhvaṃ pratisaṃvatsaraṃ sutaḥ | ekoddiṣṭaṃ tu kurvīta pitroranyatra pārvaṇam |" ityādīni-yadyetāni vākyāni santi tadā kimamāvāsyāyā nāmaghoṣayikayā | na caitāni vākyāni śiṣṭaparigṛhītāsu prasiddhāsu smṛtiṣu kāsucidupalabhyante |

3.238.7

tasmānna kiñcidviśeṣe liṅgamasti yena pūrvapretapiṇḍānnidhīyata iti pratipadyemahi | tasmātsamācāro na tyājyaḥ | ayameva pakṣo yuktiyukta iti darśitaḥ | tasmānmatabhedenāpakṣchedataḥ pūrvapretanidhānapakṣopanyāsaḥ keṣāṃcit | "arāpiṇḍakriyākarma dvijāteḥ saṃsthitasya ca | advaivaṃ bhojayecchrāddhaṃ piṇḍamekaṃ ca nirvapet|" atra sapiṇḍīkaraṇaṃ mṛte pitari jīvati pitāmahe pākṣikaṃ jñeyam | yadā 'na jīvantamatikramya dadātī'tyevaṃ nāśrīyate | yadā tu sa evāgratā syāditi pakṣastadā pitāmahamatikramya pūrvaiḥ saṃsarjanīyaḥ | evaṃ tu putrasyāpi mṛtasya pitrā vikalpenaiva kartavyamevamanapatyabhāryāmaraṇe jīvanmātṛkasyaiva eva vidhiḥ | "pramattānāmitvare kurvīraṃstāśca teṣāmiti" | sutairapatyairityarthaḥ | yadyapi sutagrahaṇaṃ tatsthānāpannānāmanyeṣāmapi grahaṇaṃ, yadi svaśabdena nāsti niṣedhaḥ |