Manava Dharmashastra 3.238.2

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—