Manava Dharmashastra 3.238.3

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—