Manava Dharmashastra 3.238.5

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.