Manava Dharmashastra 3.60

3.60

eṣāmayaṃ svarūpavidhiḥ | adhyāpanaśabdenādhyayanamapi gṛhyate yena ‘japo'huta’ ityatra vakṣyati (ślo0 74) | na ca japo'pi śiṣyānapekṣate | sāmānyena ca śrutaṃ ‘svādhyāyenarṣibhya’ ityṛṇāvekṣanaśrutau | ata ubhe adhyāpanādhyayane yathāsaṃbhavaṃ brahmayajñaḥ | tarpaṇamannādyenodakena veti vakṣyati ( ślo0 82 ) | homo vakṣyamāṇābhyo devatābhyo'gnau | baliḥ śiṣṭa ulūkhalādau ca | sa bhautaḥ | bhūtādidevatā'syeti bhautaḥ | nāmadheyametatkarmaviśeṣasya | divācāribhyo bhūtebhya iti hi tatra baliharaṇaṃ bhūtaśabdena vihitam | sāhacaryātsarva eṣa karmagaṇo bhūtayajñaśabdenocyate | yathā cāturmāsyeṣvekaṃ havirvaiśvadevamāmittā-kṛtsnameva ca parva vaiśvadevena yajeteti | baliśabdo'nagnihome vartate | devejyābaliriti smaranti | atithīnāṃ pūjanamārādhanaṃ nṛyajñaḥ | "nanu ca svādhyāyaḥ kathaṃ ‘yajñaḥ’ | na hi tatra devatā ijyante nāpi śrūyante | kevalaṃ vedākṣarāṇayavivakṣitārthānyuccāryante | uktaṃ cāmnāyaśabdābhyāse kecidāhuranarthakānīti” | satyam | stutyāṃ yajñaśabdo bhaktaḥ mahacchabdaśca | atithipūjāyāmapi bhākto yajñaśabdaḥ | yadyapyatitherdevatātvaṃ saṃbhavati tathāpyutpattau bhojayetpūjayediti ca śrutaṃ nātithibhyo yajeteti | yathā ‘puruṣarājāya karma vā’ iti | ete pañcayajñā na yugapatprayojyāḥ, ekādhikārāsambandhātpṛthagadhikāraśravaṇāt | ekādhikārasambandhatve triṣu caturṣu vā kṛteṣu na kiṃcitkṛtaṃ syādyāvatkṛtaṃ ca na kṛtam | yathā''gneyāgnīṣomīyopāṃśuyājānāṃ darśapūrṇamāsayāgānāmekadvayanuṣṭhāne nādhikārasiddhiḥ | yathā'traiva vaiśvadevahome sviṣṭakṛdantānāṃ devatānāṃ kasyāścidantarāye na homādhikāranirvṛttiḥ | ekaikasya cātrādhikāraḥ śrutaḥ | ‘svādhyāye nityayuktaḥ syāt’ (ślo0 75) — ‘daive ca nityayuktaḥ syāditi’ | adhikārapaddānuṣaṅgeṇa pṛthakprayogaḥ | ātithye cādhikārāntaraṃ śrutaṃ ‘dhanyaṃ yaśasyamiti’ | tatra catvāraḥ svādhīnāḥ, ātithyaṃ tu saṃnihite'tithau | na cātithirnimantrayitavyaḥ, ātithyābhāvāt | svayamupasthito hyatithirbhavatīti vakṣyāmaḥ | tasmātpañcānāmanyatamānuṣṭhāne itareṣāmananuṣṭhānādyadi nāma pratyaveyānna tu kṛtamakṛtaṃ bhavati | ato'nagnikatvāddhaiśvadeve'nadhikṛtasya svādhyāyodakatarpaṇādau bhavatyevādhikāraḥ | agniparigrahasya ca smṛtyantare kālāntarasyāpi śrutatvānnāvaśyaṃ vivāhe eva parigrahaḥ | evaṃ hi smṛtiḥ "bhāryādiragnirdāyādirvā" iti | "nanu cākṛtavivāhasya dāyakālamādhānaṃ bhaviṣyati" | bhavati hyetadevaṃ yadyādhānavidhiḥ svārthaḥ syāt | agnyarthaṃ tvādhānam | agniśca karmārthaḥ | karmāṇi ca bhāryādvitīyasya, na kevalasya, śrutāni | yadapi kaiścidgṛhyakāraiḥ parameṣṭhiprāṇānnisamādhāya śrāddhaṃ kuryādityuktaṃ bhavati tadapi sabhāryasyaiva | sa evāsya dāyakālaḥ | na cānagnikasya śrāddhaṃ nāsti | anupanītasyāpi hyetadvihitamanyatra svadhāninayanāditi | na ca tasyādhānamasti, viduṣo'dhikārādidānīṃ cāvidyatvāt | śrāddhaṃ tu vacanānniṣādasthapativadyathāśakti kāryamiti | pitṛvyādināgniparigrahe tu viduṣāṃ saṃbhavānnāvaidyasyādhikāraḥ | atha śrāddhaprakaraṇa evānyādhānaṃ vihitaṃ tadā tadaṅgatvenādhāya niṣpanne śrāddhe parityāgo bhaviṣyati | kecittu smṛtyantaramudāharanti "laukike'pyagnau vaiśvadevahomaḥ kartavyaḥ" | śuṣkāṅgairapare |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
This verse contains the injunction of the exact form of the Five Sacrifices.

The term ‘teaching’ here includes ‘learning’ also: as will be explained in verse 74 below. The mere act of ‘reciting’ does not require any pupils. In the Vedic text describing the ‘debts’ of man, it has been stated in general terms that ‘by means of Vedic study one pays off one’s debts to the sages.’ For these reasons, both ‘teaching’ and ‘learning,’ according to circumstances, constitute ‘the offering to Brahma.’

‘Tarpaṇa’—the offering of ‘food or water,’ as described below, in 82.

‘Homa’—the offering into fire made to the deities to be described later on.

‘Bali’—i.e., offering made into receptacles other than fire, such as the wooden mortar and the like. This is the ‘offering to elementals;’—i.e., the offering made in honour of the elementals. This is only the name of a particular rite.

The making of offerings has been prescribed under the name of ‘bhūta,’ ‘lemental,’ in the text—‘offerings made to elementals stalking during the day, etc., etc.;’ and through association, the whole set of rites is expressed by the term ‘offering to elementals.’ Just as among the ‘Cāturmāsya’ sacrifices, though the Āmikṣā is the only one substance that is offered to the Viśvedevas, yet the entire set of rites has been spoken of us ‘Vaiśvadeva’ in the injunction, ‘one should offer the Vaiśvadeva sacrifice.’ The term ‘bali’ is applied to such Homas as are offered into receptacles other than fire; and they explain that ‘bali is offering to the gods.’

The ‘honouring’—i.e., receiving—‘of guests’ constitutes the ‘offering to men.’

“How can Vedic study be a ‘sacrifice?’ In it there are no offerings made to gods; nor has any deity been mentioned in connection with it; all that is done in it is that the letters of the Veda, without any sense, are recited; and it has been said in connection with the repeating of Vedic texts that some people say the words have no meaning.”

True; the term ‘sacrifice,’ as also the term ‘great,’ are used (in this connection) only figuratively, and they are meant to indicate high praise. To the ‘honouring of guests,’ also the name ‘sacrifice’ is applied only figuratively. Though it is possible for the Guest to be regarded as a ‘deity,’ yet in the original injunction of the act, the injunctive verbs used are ‘should feed,’ ‘should honour,’ and not ‘should sacrifice’ to guests. Just as we find in the expression ‘puruṣarājāya karma vā’ (where the act done in honour of the king of men is also called ‘sacrifice.’)

These ‘Five Sacrifices’ are not to be performed simultaneously; because the occasion for all is not the same; in fact, a distinct occasion has been mentioned in relation to each. If the occasion for all were one and the same, then, even when three or four of them would be done, it would be as good as not done, till all the five were done. Just as in the case of the Darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice, (which?) consists of the three sacrifices of the Āgneya, the Agnīṣomīya and the Upāṃśu, the performance of only one or two of these does not discharge the complete liability; and just as among the Domestic Rites themselves, the ‘Vaiśvadeva offering,’ which extends up to the ‘Sviṣṭakṛt’ offering, is not regarded as complete, so long as there is a break in the offering to any single deity. In fact, each of the five sacrifices has a distinct occasion mentioned in relation to itself:—e.g. (1) ‘one should be constantly addicted to Vedic study’ (verse 75), (2) ‘one should be constantly addicted to making offerings to the gods’ (verse 75), and so forth; and the prescribed occasion being distinct for each, each is performed separately by itself; (3) as regards ‘honouring of the guest,’ the injunction for this appears quite distinctly (in 105), where the act is described as ‘conducive to prosperity and fame.’

Further, of these five ‘sacrifices,’ the performance of four depends upon the man himself; while that of ‘honouring the guest’ is conditional upon the arrival of the guest. The guest is not to be invited; as in that case he would not he a ‘guest’ (in the proper sense of the term); as we shall explain later on that a person is a ‘guest’ only when he comes of his own accord (unexpectedly). Thus, then, from among the five, if one performs any one only and omits the rest,—one might incur the sin of omitting to do what one should do; but what he has done does not become as good as not done. It is for this reason that when a man has not set up his own fire, though he is not, on that account, entitled to the Vaiśvadeva Homa, yet it is incumbent upon him to perform ‘Vedic Study,’ ‘Tarpaṇa’ and the rest. As for the setting up of one’s own fire, other Smṛtis permit of this being done at other times also; it is not necessary to set it up along with marriage itself. Says the Smṛti—‘the setting up of the Fire begins either with marriage or with succession.’

“The option of setting up the Fire at the time of succession may he regarded as applicable only to one who has not married at all.”

This would he so if the setting up of the Fire were an end in itself. As a matter of fact, however, the ‘setting up’ is for the purpose of obtaining the Fire, and the Fire is for the purpose of performing rites; rites, again, have been laid down as to be performed by one only when he is associated with his wife, and not alone by himself. It is true that some Gṛhya -writers have asserted that one should perform śrāddhas. after having kindled the Parameṣṭhiprāṇa Fire; but this also pertains to the man as associated with his wife; and this same also would be the time for his ‘succession’ also. Nor is the performance of śrāddhas impossible for one who has not set up the Fire; as it has been prescribed even for one who has not even been ‘initiated’, in whose case the use of the ‘sradhā’ alone has been excepted; and yet there is no setting up of the. fire for him; as it is only one who is ‘learned’ (in the Veda) that is entitled to it, and he is still without that learning (before Initiation). As for the performance of the Śrāddha (though this also presupposes knowledge of Vedic mantras), yet it has to be done by the uninitiated boy to the best of his ablity, in obedience to a direct injunction; this case being analogous to the performing of a sacrifice by the Niṣāda (Śūdra) in accordance with a direct injunction. Iu the event, however, of fire having been set up by his uncle or other relations, in view of a ‘learned’ performer being available, the uninitiated (and hence unlearned) boy is not entitled to the performance of śrāddhas. If the setting up of fire be found to be prescribed in the same context as śrāddhas, then one could set up the tire as an accessory to the śrādd ha, after the completion of which it would he abandoned.

Some people have quoted the Smṛti—“ The Vaiśvadêva Homa may be offered in the ordinary fire also.” Others, again, hold that it is to to performed by means of dry (uncooked) grains.—(70)