[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Polity, Pleasure & Law](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti) › [Law and Social-Religious Duty](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma) › [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu) › [Manubhashya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi) › 3.57 # Manava Dharmashastra 3.57 Manubhāṣya 3.57 - **Language:** Sanskrit ### [3.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.57) atikrāntaṃ vivāhaprakaraṇam | kṛto vivāho yasminnagnau tatra kurvīta gṛhyaṃ karma, agnisāmyamaṣṭakāpārvaṇaśrāddhahomādi gṛhyasmṛtikārairuktam | pañcayajñā vakṣyamāṇāsteṣāṃ vidhānamanuṣṭhānam, tasminnevāgnau | "yadyapyaviśeṣeṇa pañcayajñavidhānamityuktaṃ tathāpi vaiśvadevahomo'gnisāmyaḥ, udakatarpaṇādau tu na kiṃcidagninā kāryam | kathaṃ tarhi nirdeśo'gnau pañcayajñavidhānaṃ kāryamiti |" kecidāhurekā'pi saptamī viṣayabhedādbhidyate | tasmātpañcayajñaikadeśe pañcayajñaśabdaḥ prayuktaḥ | athavā pañcayajñavidhānamityatrāgnāviti na saṃbadhyate | vaiśvadevahomasya pūrveṇāvāgnyadhikaraṇasya siddhatvāt | evaṃ sambandhaḥ kriyate- 'gṛhī tu pañcayajñavidhānaṃ kuryāt' | agnau tu vaivāhike gṛhyakarmapakti cānvāhikaumagnāvityepedyate | gṛhaśabdo dāravacanaḥ | gṛhī tu sa kṛtadāraparigraho bhāryādvitīya idamidaṃ kuryāditi | vivāhe cāgniḥ kaiścidgṛhyakārairaraṇimanthanyādādhātavya ityuktam | aparairgataḥ kutaściddīpyamānamānīya hotavyamiti | anena tasmingṛhyamiti vacanena dhāraṇamagnerarthāduktaṃ bhavati | atra kecidāhuḥ | “śūdrasyāpi vaivāhikāgnidhāraṇamasti, tasyāpi pākayajñādhikārāt | na cātra jātiviśeṣa upāttaḥ, kevalaṃ ‘gṛhīti’ śrutam | śūdro'pi gṛhī, tasyāpi dāraparigrahasyoktatvāt | etadevānyatra paṭhitaṃ ‘karma smārtaṃ vivāhāgnau kurvīta pratyahaṃ gṛhī’ iti” ( yājña0 1. 67 ) | atrocyate | ‘gṛhyaṃ karma vaivāhike'gnāviti’ śrutam | na ca ‘gṛhyaṃ nāma kiṃcitkarmāsti | tatra gṛhyasmṛtikāroktaṃ ‘gṛhyamiti’ lakṣṇayā mantavyam | gṛhyakāraiśca traivarṇikānāmeva karmāmnātaṃ, na śūdrasya | “uktāni vaitānikāni gṛhyāṇi vakṣyāma” iti | uktānukīrtanasya etadeva prayojanaṃ ‘yeṣāmeva vaitānikeṣvadhikārasteṣāmeva gṛhyeṣviti’, na punaryathā'nyairvyākhyātaṃ taddharmaprāptyartham | tādarthye hi vivakṣite ‘tasyāgnihotreṇa prāduṣkaraṇahomakālau vyākhyātāviti’ nāvakṣyat | na ca gṛhe bhavaṃ gṛhyamiti yuktam | śālāvacano gṛhaśabdo dāravacano vā | na tāvatkasyacitkarmaṇaḥ śālā'dhikaraṇatvena viśeṣataḥ samāmnātā yadgṛhyamityanūdya gṛhiṇo vidhīyeta | yadapi gṛhasaṃskārakaṃ vāstuparīkṣādi tadapi traivarṇikānāmeva na śūdrasya | atha dāravacanastatrāpi gṛhītyanenaiva gatatvānna kiṃcit | yadapi smṛtyantaraṃ ( yā0 1. 67 ) “karma smārtaṃ vivāhāgnau kurvīta pratyahaṃ gṛhī dāyakālāhṛte vā'pi śrautaṃ vaitānikāgniṣu” iti, atrāpi kiṃcitsmārtamiti viśeṣānupādānādanyasāpekṣataiva | na hi sarvamagnau smārtaṃ karma saṃbhavati | na ca homaviṣayatve pramāṇamasti | na hyavaśyamagnyadhikaraṇa eva homaḥ | tasmādgṛhyakāroktaṃ gṛhyamiti vaktavyam | ete hi smṛtī gṛhyakāravihitaṃ karmānuvadataḥ | tathā ca kutaḥ śūdrasyāgniparigrahaḥ | kiṃ ca “śrautaṃ vaitānikāgniṣu” iti aparaṃ tatrāmnāyate, tatra avaśyamayaṃ traivarṇikaviṣaya eṣitavyaḥ | sa eva pūrvatra cāturvarṇyapara uttaratra traivarṇikapara ityekasya śabdasya tātparyabhedo'bhyupagataḥ syāt | na cābhede saṃbhavati bhedo nyāyyaḥ | anvahaṃ bhavā'nvāhikī | pratidivasaṃ yaḥ pāko bhuktyarthaḥ sa tasminnevāgnau kartavyaḥ | > Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya): > The section on Marriage is finished. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > In the fire in which the marriage-rites have been performed, one should perform the ‘Gṛhya rites,’—i.e., rites that have been prescribed by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras as to be performed with the help of fire; e.g., the Aṣṭakā śrāddha, the Pārvaṇaśrāddha, Libations, and so forth. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > ‘Five sacrifices’—to be described later on;—‘the rite,’ the performance of these—(should be done) in that same fire. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > “Though the text speaks of the ‘five sacrifices’ without any specification, yet (among them) the Vaiśvadeva-offering alone is to be made in the fire; in the offering of the water-libations, etc., there is no need for the fire. Why then should the text speak of the ‘rite of five sacrfices’ as to be performed in the fire?” > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > Some people explain that, though the locative ending is one only, yet it may be regarded as diverse in reference to the diversity in the objects; hence, in the present context, the term ‘five sacrifices’ has been used in the sense of a part only of the five sacrifices.’ > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > Or (another explanation is that), the phrase, ‘in the f ire,’ is not to be construed with the ‘rite of the five sacrifices,’—the Vaiśvadeva-offering, which is made into fire, being already included in the preceding phrase (‘gṛhya rite ’). The construction in this case would be—‘the Householder should perform the rite of the five sacrifices, and in the Marriage-fire he should perform the gṛhya or domestic rites, as also the daily cooking.’ > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > The term ‘gṛha,’ house,’ denotes wife; hence what is meant is that the ‘householder,’ i.e., one, who has married a wife, should perform the rites, in association with one’s wife. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > Some writers on the Gṛhyasūtras have declared that at marriage, fire should be produced by the friction of two sticks; while, according to others, one may bring burning fire from anywhere he likes and make his offerings into that. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > The injunction that the domestic rites shall be performed in the marriage-fire implies that the fire kindled at marriage shall be kept up. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > On this point some people make the following observations:—The maintaining of the marriage-fire should be necessary for the Śūdra also; as for him. also the performance of the ‘Pākayajña’ has been ordained; nor does the present text specify any particular caste; all that is found is the general term ‘householder,’ and the Śūdra also is a ‘householder,’ the marrying of a wife being prescribed for him also. This is what has beeu declared elsewhere (in Yājñavalkya, Ācāra, 97)—‘The householder should everyday perform the smārta rites in the marriage-tire.’” > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > Our answer to the above is as follows:—What has been declared is that ‘Gṛhya rites are to be performed in the marriage-fire;’ but there is no special rite named ‘gṛhya;’ hence the name ‘gṛhya’ should be taken as indirectly indicating the rites prescribed by writers on Gṛhyasūtras; and these writers have prescribed the rites for the three higher castes only, and not for the Śūdra. In fact, in the Gṛhyasūtras we find a summing up in the words—‘The sacrificial rites have been described, we are now going to describe the Gṛhya rites;’ and the purpose for which these words have beeu added is to imply that ‘those persons only are entitled to the performance of the Gṛhya rites who are entitled to that of the sacrificial ones;’ and it is not meant, as it has been explained by others, that the latter constitute the duty of others also. If this had been meant, then it would not have been asserted that—‘the times for Prāduṣkaraṇa and Homa are analogous to those of the Agnihotra.’ Nor, again, is it right to take the term ‘gṛhya’ to mean ‘pertaining to the home’ (domestic); for the term ‘home’ (gṛha) could only mean either ‘house’ or ‘wife;’ now, as a matter of fact, for no rite has the ‘house’ been specifically prescribed as the location, in view of which the rite could be prescribed for the householder in terms of the ‘house,’ Then, again, such rites also as are performed for the sanctification of one’s house—such for instance, as the testing of the building-site, and so forth—have been prescribed for the three higher castes only, and not for the Śūdra. If, on the other hand, the term ‘home’ means the ‘wife,’ then the act meant having been already implied by the term ‘householder,’ the name ‘gṛhya’ would be superfluous. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > As for the statement in the other Smṛti (Yājavalkya, Ācāra 97)—‘The householder should every-day perform Smārta rites in the Marriage-fire, or in the fire set up at the time of partition, and the Śrauta rites in the sacrificial fires,’—here also, since it has not been specifically stated what the ‘smārta rites’ are, the statement must be taken as qualified by some other statement; specially because, as a matter of fact, all smārta rites cannot be performed in fire; nor is there anything to indicate that the term refers to Homa (offerings into fire) only; nor, again, is it necessary that all Homa -offerings shall be made into fire. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > From all this the term ‘gṛhya’ has to be explained as standing for the rites prescribed by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras. Both these smṛti- texts (the present one, and Yājñavalkya I, 97) only refer to what has been prescribed by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras. So that how could there be any setting up of the fire by a Śūdra? > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > Further, Yājñavalkya’s text lays down the additional fact that ‘Śrauta rites are to be performed in the sacrificial fire;’ and this must be taken as pertaining to the three higher castes only. Under the circumstances, if the former statement (regarding smārta rites) were taken as pertaining to all the four castes, and the latter (regarding the śrauta rites) to three castes only, then this would involve the incongruity of one and the same set of words having two different imports. And, so long as a uniform import can be found, there can be no justification for admitting such a diversity. > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi > ‘Daily’—that which is done day after day; e.g., the cooking that is done every day for one’s own food;—this also is to be done in the same fire.—(67) > — Ganganatha Jha 1920, Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi - [Previous: 3.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.56) - [Next: 3.59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.59) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3) ## Translations (1) - [Manu-Smṛti: The Laws of Manu with the Bhāṣya of Medhātithi](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi~en-jha.3.67.p2) — Ganganatha Jha 1920, English ## Linked texts (1) - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.3.57) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu!medhatithi.3.57) · Pramāṇa